The Project Gutenberg EBook of Coleridge's Literary Remains, olume !

"
by #amuel Taylor Coleridge
This eBook is for the use of anyone any$here at no cost and $ith
almost no restrictions $hatsoe%er" &ou may co'y it, gi%e it a$ay or
re(use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
$ith this eBook or online at $$$"gutenberg"net
Title) Coleridge's Literary Remains, olume !"
*uthor) #amuel Taylor Coleridge
Release +ate) ,anuary -., -//! 0EBook 12/3/24
Language) English
Character set encoding) 5#6(3378(2
999 #T*RT 6: T;5# PR6,ECT G<TE=BERG EB66> L5TER*R& RE?*5=# 999
Produced by ,onathon 5ngram, Clytie #iddall and the 6nline +istributed
Proofreading Team@
Coleridge's Literary
Remains
volume 4
collected and edited by
Henry Nelson Coleridge
1839
Table of Contents
Advertisement
Notes on:
Luther's Table Talk
The Life of St. Theresa
Burnet's Life of Bishop Bedell
Bater's Life o! himsel!
Leighton
"herloc#'s Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity
$aterland's Vindication of Christ's Divinity
$aterland's Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity
"#elton's orks
Andre% &uller's Clavinistic and Socinian Systems !"amined
and Compared
$hita#er's #ri$in of %rianism Disclosed
'lee on The Trinity and Incarnation
% Barrister's Hints on !van$elical &reachin$
(avison's Disco'rses on &rophecy
)rving's Ben(!)ra
Noble's %ppeal
*ssay on &aith
Extended Contents, or Index
Advertisement
Notes on:
Luther's Table Talk
+he *,istle (edicatory
Cha,- )- ,- 1. /. 0. 9. 1/. /1. /1. 3/
Cha,- ))- ,- 32. 10. 10 cont-. 31. 3/
Cha,- 4)- ,- 153-
Cha,- 4))- ,- 113-. 1/5
Cha,- 4))- ,- 1/5 cont-. 1/1
Cha,- 4))- ,- 1/1 cont-. 1//
Cha,- 4)))- ,- 102-
Cha,- )6- ,- 135-. 131. 133. 133 cont-. ,- 131-
Cha,- 6- ,- 138. 9. 120-
Cha,- 6))- ,- 182. 189-. 195. 195 cont-. 192. 192
cont-. /55. /53. /51. /51 cont-. /51 cont- again-. /53. /52-
Cha,- 6)))- ,- /58-. /15711. /11. /13. /10-. /197/5. //3. //2
Cha,- 6)4- ,- /35. /317/
Cha,- 64- ,- /3370-
Cha,- 64)- ,- /02-. /02 cont-. /08
Cha,- 64))- ,- /09. /09 cont-. /15
Cha,- 66)- ,- /23-
Cha,- 66))- ,- /95-. /91. /91 cont-. /92
Cha,- 664))- ,- 331-. 332
Cha,- 664)))- ,- 302-
Cha,- 66)6- ,- 309. 311. 311 cont-. 31/
Cha,- 666))- ,- 33/-. 330. 331. 331 cont-
Cha,- 666)))- ,- 332-
Cha,- 666)4- ,- 339. 325. 321
Cha,- 6664- ,- 388-. 389. 389 cont-
Cha,- 6664)- ,- 389-. 395
Cha,- 6664))- ,- 398-. 398 cont-. 399. 053. 050
Cha,- 6L)4- ,- 031-. 03/
Cha,- 6L4)))- ,- 00/-. 00/ cont-
Cha,- 6L)6- ,- 003-
Cha,- L- ,- 003. 002. 015
Cha,- L)6- ,- 081-
Cha,- L6- ,- 083-
Cha,- L66- ,- 153-
The Life of St. Theresa
8re!- 8art )- ,- 11- Letter o! &ather Avila to 9other
+eresa de :esu-
Li!e. 8art )- Cha,- )4- ,- 11-
Li!e. 8art )- Cha,- 4- ,- /0-. 03
Li!e. 8art )- Cha,- 4)))- ,- 00-. 01
In fine
Burnet's Life of Bishop Bedell
,- 1/710
,- /3
,- 118
,- 131
,- 130
Bater's Life o! himsel!
Boo# )- 8art )- ,- /-. 1. 3. //. // cont-. /3. /3
cont-. /0. /1. /2. /2 cont-. /2 cont-
again. 30. 05. 01. 02. 19. 3/. 33. 21. 21. 23. 22. 22 cont-. 22
cont- again.29. 85. 8/. 80. 82. 1/8. 1/9. 131. 131. 133
Boo# )- 8art ))-
,-139-. 101. 10/. 103. 122. 129. 181. 188. 189. 190. 198. /51. /
53. ///. /// cont-. //0. //1. //3. /03. /08. /09. /09
cont-. /15. /10./10
cont-. /12. /39. /2/. /23. 358. 332 301. 303. 338. 338
cont-. 339. 339 cont-. 339 cont-
again. 325. 323. 320. 321. 398. 051. 051. 01/. 031
8art )))- ,- 19-. 35. 31. 32. 39. 39
cont-. 100. 113. 111. 185. 181. 183. 191
A,,endi ))- ,- 32. 32 cont-. 01
A,,endi- )))- ,- 11-
In fine.
Leighton
Comment 4ol- )- ,- /-. 13711. 3370. 38. 21. 23. 1507
1. 1/1. 1//. 1/0. 138. 118. 133. 125. 12071. 190. /55. /11. /13.
//9
4ol- ))- ,- /0/-. /93
4ol- )))- ,- /5- "erm- )-. ,- 33- "erm- 4-. ,- 38. 23. ,- 22- "erm-
4)-. ,- 150- "erm- 4))-. ,- 152- "erm- 4)))-. "erm- )6- ,- 1/-. ,-
1/ cont-. ,- 1/ cont- again."erm- 64- ,- 193-. "erm- 64)- ,- /50-
Lecture )6- vol- )4- ,- 93-. 151. Lect- 6)- ,- 113-. Lect- 64- ,-
11/-. Lect- 6)6- ,- /51. Lect- 66)- ,- //1-. Lect- 66)4- ,-
/01-. *hortation to the "tudents. ,- /1/-
"herloc#'s Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity
"ect- )- ,- 3-. 0. 0 cont-. 3
"ect- ))- ,- 13-. 10-. 18
"ect- )))- ,- /3-. /3. /2. /8
"ect- )4- ,- 15-. 30. 38. 2/. 2/ cont-. 81. 88. 92. 98. 9879
"ect- 4- ,- 15/-. 115713. 111713. 112. 1/5. 1/5 cont-. 1/1. 1/1
cont-. 1/0. 1/3. 1/2. 133
"ect- 4)- ,,- 1027 8-. 109. 115. 113. 110. 113. 119. 135. 1317
3. 130. 138. 121. 122. 122 cont-. 122 cont- again. 183. ///
$aterland's Vindication of Christ's Divinity
In Initio
;uery )- ,- 1-. /. 3
;uery ))- ,- 03-
;uery 64- ,- //173-. //3. //3 cont-. //278
;uery 64)- ,- /30-. /31. /32. /39. /11
;uery 64))-
;uery 64)))- ,- /39. /20
;uery 6)6- ,- /29-
;uery 66- ,- 35/-
;uery 66)- ,- 353-. 31372
;uery 66)))- ,- 311-. 310. 312. 319
;uery 66)4- ,- 321-
;uery 664)- ,- 01/-. 01/ cont-. 010. 011. 0/1
;uery 664))- ,- 0/2-. 03/. 033
$aterland's Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity
Cha,- )- ,- 18-
Cha,- )4- ,- 111-. 110. 110 cont-. 1/3. 1/3. 1/2. 1/8. 1/9. 135
Cha,- 4- ,- 105-. 182
Cha,- 4)- ,- /35-. /33. /33. /38. /15. /12. /12
cont-. /19. /33. /38. /2/. /83. /88. /9/. 338. 305
Cha,- 4))- ,- 389-. 017/ etc-
"#elton's orks
Burdy's Li!e o! "#elton. ,- //-. 32. 153
4ol- )- ,- 1227185-. 18/. 181. 183. /10-< *nd o! (iscourse
))-. /30. /11. /31. /32. /38. /23. /23
cont-. /29. /85. /81. /82. 318. 3/2. (isc- 4)))-. 32078.(isc-
6)4- ,,- 155715/-
4ol- )))-. 393. 390. 003. 028
4ol- )4- ,- /8- (eism =evealed-. 31. 32. /03. /09. /38. /81
Andre% &uller's Clavinistic and Socinian Systems !"amined
and Compared
Letter )))- ,- 38-
Letter 4- ,- 2/-. 22
Letter 4)- ,- 95-. 91
$hita#er's #ri$in of %rianism Disclosed
Cha,- )- 0- ,- 35-
Cha,- ))- 1- ,- 30-. 31. 33. /- ,- 08-. 9- ,- 152-
Cha,- )))- 1- ,- 1317/-. 13/ cont-. /- ,- 191-
Cha,- )4- 1- ,- /33-. /32. /- ,- /25-
'lee on The Trinity and Incarnation
)ntroduction. ,- 0-
8ro,- )- ch- i- ,- 13-. ch- iii- ,- /3-. /372
8ro,- ))- ch- ii- ,- 33-. 39705. 0571. ch- )))- ,- 18-. 31. 31. 33
% Barrister's Hints on !van$elical &reachin$
In Initio
8art )- ,- 09-. 11. . 13. 35. 35 cont-. 38. 38 cont-. 21. 2/. 217
9. 80. 83. 90. 91. 92. 92 cont-. 15/. 151. 110. 11173. 118. 133
8art ))- ,- 10-. /3. /9. 35. 35
cont-. 31. 3/. 33. 30. 32. 39. 05-. 05
cont-. 01. 0/. 03. 03. 02. 15. 1/. 13. 10
8art )))- ,- 1-. 1/. 13. 12. /0. /2. 3571. 3173. 0173. 1173. 117
3. 3370. 21. 28. 8/. 83. 88. 89. 92. 98. 15/73. 153. 152. 158. 11
5. 113
8art )4- ,- 1-. 2. 15. 1370. 11. /9. 13. 3571
(avison's Disco'rses on &rophecy
(isc- )4- 8t- )- ,- 105-. 135. 13/. 130. 138
(isc- )4- 8t- ))- ,- 185-
(isc- 4- 8t- ))- ,- /30-
(isc- 4)- 8t- )- ,- /83-. 8t- ))- ,- /89-. 8t- )4- ,-
3/1-. 333. 325. 323
(isc- 4))- ,- 321-. 39/
(isc- 4)))- ,- 013-. 031
(isc- )6- ,- 013. 0-
(isc- 6))- ,- 119-. 1/1. 1//73. 133
)rving's Ben(!)ra
8reliminary (iscourse. ,- l-
Ben7*>ra- 8art )- c- v- ,- 32-. 2370. 81. c- vi- ,- 158-. 115. ch- vii-
,- 118-. ch- i- ,- 1/2-. 8art ))- ,- 101-. 113. /13. /10. /92
Noble's %ppeal
"ect- )4- ,- /15-
"ect- 4- ,- /83-. 311. 3/1. 3/3. 30372. 315
"ect- 4)- ,,- 328. 9< 385. 1-. 030
*ssay on &aith
Advertisement
&or some remar#s on the character o! this ,ublication. the *ditor begs to
re!er the =eader to the 8re!ace to the third volume o! these =emains- +hat
volume and the ,resent are e,ressly connected together as one %or#-
+he various materials arranged in the !ollo%ing ,ages %ere ,reserved. and
#indly ,laced in the *ditor's hands. by 9r- "outhey. 9r- ?reen. 9r-
?illman. 9r- Al!red *l%yn o! 8hiladel,hia. @nited "tates. 9r- 9oney. 9r-
Hartley Coleridge. and the =ev- *d%ard Coleridge< and to those gentlemen
the *ditor's best ac#no%ledgments are due-
Lincoln's )nn.
9th 9ay. 1839-
Contents A )nde
Notes on Luther's Table Talk
1
) cannot meditate too o!ten. too dee,ly. or too devotionally on the
,ersoneity o! ?od. and his ,ersonality in the $ord.
and thence on the individuity o! the res,onsible creature<Bthat it is a
,er!ection %hich. not indeed in my intellect. but yet in my habit o! !eeling.
) have too much con!ounded %ith that comple"'s o! visual images. cycles
or customs o! sensations. and !ello%7travelling circumstances Cas the shi,
to the marinerD. %hich ma#e u, our em,irical sel!: thence to bring mysel!
to a,,rehend livelily the eceeding merci!ulness and love o! the act o! the
"on o! ?od. in descending to see# a!ter the ,rodigal children. and to house
%ith them in the sty- Li#e%ise by the relation o! my o%n understanding to
the light o! reason. and Cthe most im,ortant o! all the truths that have been
vouchsa!ed to meED to the %ill %hich is the reason.B %ill in the !orm o!
reasonB) can !orm a su!!icient gleam o! the ,ossibility o! the subsistence
o! the human soul in :esus to the *ternal $ord. and ho% it might ,er!ect
itsel! so as to merit glori!ication and abiding union %ith the (ivinity< and
ho% this gave a humanity to our Lord's righteousness no less than to his
su!!erings- (oubtless. as ?od. as the absolute Alterity o! the Absolute. he
could not su!!er< but that he could not lay aside the absolute. and by union
%ith the creaturely become a!!ectible. and a second. but s,iritual Adam.
and so as a!ter%ards to be ,arta#er o! the absolute in the Absolute. even as
the Absolute had ,arta#en o! ,assion and in!irmity in it.
that is. the !inite and !allen creature< Bthis can be asserted only by one
%ho Cunconsciously ,erha,sD. has accustomed himsel! to thin# o! ?od as a
thing.Bhaving a necessity o! constitution. that %ills. or rather tends and
inclines to this or that. because it is this or that. not as being that. %hich is
that %hich it %ills to be- "uch a necessity is truly com,ulsion< nor is it in
the least altered in its nature by being assumed to be eternal. in virtue o! an
endless remotion or retrusion o! the constituent cause. %hich being
mani!ested by the understanding becomes a !oreseen des,air o! a cause-
"unday 11th &ebruary. 18/3-
'ne argument stri#es me in !avour o! the tenet o! A,ostolic succession. in
the ordination o! Bisho,s and 8resbyters. as taught by the Church o! =ome.
and by the larger ,art o! the earlier divines o! the Church o! *ngland.
%hich ) have not seen in any o! the boo#s on this subFect< namely. that in
strict analogy %ith other ,arts o! Christian history. the miracle itsel!
contained a chec# u,on the inconvenient conseGuences necessarily attached
to all miracles. as miracles. narro%ing the ,ossible claims to any rights not
,roveable at the bar o! universal reason and e,erience- *very man among
the "ectaries. ho%ever ignorant. may Fusti!y himsel! in scattering stones
and !ire sGuibs by an alleged unction o! the ",irit- +he miracle becomes
,er,etual. still beginning. never ending- No% on the Church doctrine. the
original miracle ,rovides !or the !uture recurrence to the ordinary and
calculable la%s o! the human understanding and moral sense< instead o!
leaving every man a Fudge o! his o%n gi!ts. and o! his right to act ,ublicly
on that Fudgment- +he initiative alone is su,ernatural< but all beginning is
necessarily miraculous. that is. hath either no antecedent. or
one %hich there!ore is not its. but merely an. antecedent.
Bor an incausative alien co7incident in time< as i!. !or instance. :ac#'s
shout %ere !ollo%ed by a !lash o! lightning. %hich should stri#e and
,reci,itate the ball on "t- 8aul's cathedral- +his %ould be a miracle as long
as no causative ne"'s %as conceivable bet%een the antecedent. the noise o!
the shout. and the conseGuent. the atmos,heric discharge-
The Epistle edi!ator"
But this %ill be your glory and ine,ugnable. i! you cleave in truth and
,ractice to ?od's holy service. %orshi, and religion: that religion and !aith
o! the Lord :esus Christ. %hich is ,ure and unde!iled be!ore ?od even the
&ather. %hich is to visit the !atherless and %ido%s in their a!!liction. and to
#ee, yourselves uns,otted !rom the %orld-
*ames i- /2-
&e% mistranslations Cunless indeed the %ord used by the translator o! "t-
:ames meant di!!erently !rom its ,resent meaningD. have led astray more
than this rendering o! Cout%ard or ceremonial %orshi,. c'lt's.
divine service.D by the *nglish reli$ion- "t- :ames sublimely says: $hat
the ceremonies o! the la% %ere to morality. thatmorality itsel! is to the !aith
in Christ. that is. its out%ard symbol. not the substance itsel!-
Chap# I# p# 1, $#
+hat the Bible is the %ord o! ?od Csaid LutherD the same ) ,rove as
!ollo%eth: All things that have been and no% are in the %orld< also ho% it
no% goeth and standeth in the %orld. the same %as %ritten altogether
,articularly at the beginning. in the !irst boo# o! 9oses concerning the
creation- And even as ?od made and created it. even so it %as. even so it is.
and even so doth it stand to this ,resent day- And although Hing Aleander
the ?reat. the #ingdom o! *gy,t. the *m,ire o! Babel. the 8ersian. ?recian
and =oman monarchs< the *m,erors :ulius and Augustus most !iercely did
rage and s%ell against this Boo#. utterly to su,,ress and destroy the same<
yet not%ithstanding they could ,revail nothing. they are all gone and
vanished< but this Boo# !rom time to time hath remained. and %ill remain
unremoved in !ull and am,le manner as it %as %ritten at the !irst-
A ,roo! %orthy o! the manly mind o! Luther. and com,ared %ith %hich the
?rotian ,retended demonstrations. !rom ?rotius himsel! to 8aley. are
mischievous underminings o! the &aith. ,leadings !itter !or an 'ld Bailey
thieves' counsellor than !or a Christian divine- +he true evidence o! the
Bible is the Bible.B o! Christianity the living !act o! Christianity itsel!. as
the mani!est arche's or ,redominant o! the li!e o! the ,lanet-
Ib. p# 4#
+he art o! the "chool divines Csaid LutherD %ith their s,eculations in the
Holy "cri,tures. are merely vain and human cogitations. s,un out o! their
o%n natural %it and understanding- +hey tal# much o! the union o! the %ill
and understanding. but all is mere !antasy and !ondness- +he right and true
s,eculation Csaid LutherD is this. Believe in Christ< do %hat thou oughtest to
do in thy vocation. Ic- +his is the only ,ractice in divinity- Also. +ystica
Theolo$ia Dionysii is a mere !able. and a lie. li#e to 8lato's !ables- #mnia
s'nt non ens, et omnia s'nt ens< all is something. and all is nothing. and so
he leaveth all hanging in !rivolous and idle sort-
"till. ho%ever. d' the're +ann -ottes, mein verehrter L'therE reason. %ill.
understanding are %ords. to %hich real entities corres,ond< and %e may in
a sound and good sense say that reason is the ray. the ,roFected dis# or
image. !rom the "un o! =ighteousness. an echo !rom the *ternal $ordB
the li$ht that li$hteth every man that cometh into the .orld< and that %hen
the %ill ,laceth itsel! in a right line %ith the reason. there ariseth the s,irit.
through %hich the %ill o! ?od !lo%eth into and actuates the %ill o! man. so
that it %illeth the things o! ?od. and the understanding is enlivened. and
thence!or%ard useth the materials su,,lied to it by the senses symbolically<
that is. %ith an insight into the true substance thereo!-
Ib. p# %#
+he 8o,e usur,eth and ta#eth to himsel! the ,o%er to e,ound and to
construe the "cri,tures according to his ,leasure- $hat he saith. must stand
and be s,o#en as !rom heaven- +here!ore let us love and ,reciously value
the divine %ord. that thereby %e may be able to resist the (evil and his
s%arm-
As o!ten as ) use in ,rayer the 13th verse o! the 21st 8salm. Cin our 8rayer7
boo# versionD. my thoughts es,ecially revert to the subFect o! the right
a,,reciation o! the "cri,tures. and in %hat sense the Bible may be called
the %ord o! ?od. and ho% and under %hat conditions the unity o! the ",irit
is translucent through the letter. %hich. read as the letter merely. is the %ord
o! this and that ,ious but !allible and im,er!ect man- Alas !or the
su,erstition. %here the %ords themselves are made to be the ",iritE '
might ) live but to utter all my meditations on this most concerning ,ointE
Ib. p# 1$#
Bullinger said once in my hearing Csaid LutherD that he %as earnest against
the Anaba,tists. as contemners o! ?od's %ord. and also against those %hich
attributed too much to the literal %ord. !or Csaid heD such do sin against
?od and his almighty ,o%er< as the :e%s did in naming the ar#. ?od- But.
Csaid heD %hoso holdeth a mean bet%een both. the same is taught %hat is
the right use o! the %ord and sacraments-
$hereu,on Csaid LutherD ) ans%ered him and said< Bullinger. you err. you
#no% neither yoursel!. nor %hat you hold< ) mar# %ell your tric#s and
!allacies: Juinglius and Kcolam,adius li#e%ise ,roceeded too !ar in the
ungodly meaning: but %hen Brentius %ithstood them. they then lessened
their o,inions. alleging. they did not reFect the literal %ord. but only
condemned certain gross abuses- By this your error you cut in sunder and
se,arate the %ord and the s,irit. Ic-
)n my ,resent state o! mind. and %ith %hat light ) no% enFoy.BCmay ?od
increase it. and cleanse it !rom the dar# mist into the l'men sicc'm o!
sincere #no%ledgeEDB) cannot ,ersuade mysel! that this vehemence o! our
dear man o! ?od against Bullinger. Juinglius and Kcolam,adius on this
,oint could have had other origin. than his misconce,tion o! %hat they
intended- But Luther s,o#e o!ten C) li#e him and love him all the better
there!or.D in his moods and according to the mood- $as not that a di!!erent
mood. in %hich he called "t- :ames's *,istle a ':ac#7"tra% ,o,,et'< and
even in this %or# selects one verse as the best in the %hole letter.B
evidently meaning. the only verse o! any great valueL Besides he
accustomed himsel! to use the term. 'the %ord.' in a very %ide sense %hen
the narro%er %ould have cram,ed him- $hen he %as on the ,oint o!
reFecting the A,ocaly,se. then 'the %ord' meant the s,irit o! the "cri,tures
collectively-
Ib. p# $1#
). Csaid LutherD. do not hold that children are %ithout !aith %hen they are
ba,ti>ed< !or inasmuch as they are brought to Christ by his command. and
that the Church ,rayeth !or them< there!ore. %ithout all doubt. !aith is given
unto them. although %ith our natural sense and reason %e neither see nor
understand it-
Nay. but dear honoured LutherE is this !airL )! Christ or "cri,ture had said
in one ,lace. Believe, and tho' mayest be bapti)ed< and in another
,lace. Bapti)e infants< then %e might ,erha,s be allo%ed to reconcile the
t%o seemingly Farring tets. by such %ords as M!aith is given to them.
although. Ic-M But %hen no such tet. as the latter. is to be !ound. nor any
one instance as a substitute. then your conclusion seems arbitrary-
Ib. p# $&#
+his argument Csaid LutherD. concludeth so much as nothing< !or. although
they had been angels !rom heaven. yet that troubleth me nothing at all< %e
are no% dealing about ?od's %ord. and %ith the truth o! the ?os,el. that is
a matter o! !ar greater %eight to have the same #e,t and ,reserved ,ure and
clear< there!ore %e Csaid LutherD. neither care nor trouble ourselves !or. and
about. the greatness o! "aint 8eter and the other A,ostles. or ho% many and
great miracles they %rought: the thing %hich %e strive !or is. that the truth
o! the Holy ?os,el may stand< !or ?od regardeth not men's re,utations nor
,ersons-
'h. that the dear man Luther had but told us here %hat he meant by the
term. ?os,elE +hat "t- 8aul had seen even "t- Lu#e's. is but a conFecture.
grounded on a conFectural inter,retation o! a single tet. doubly eGuivocal<
namely. that the Lu#e mentioned %as the same %ith the *vangelist Lu#e<
and that the evan$eli'm signi!ied a boo#< the latter. o! itsel! im,robable.
derives its ,robability !rom the undoubtedly very strong ,robability o! the
!ormer- )! then not any boo#. much less the !our boo#s. no% called the !our
?os,els. %ere meant by 8aul. but the contents o! those boo#s. as !ar as they
are veracious. and %hatever else %as #no%n on eGual authority at that time.
though not contained in those boo#s< i!. in short. the %hole sum o! Christ's
acts and discourses be %hat 8aul meant by the ?os,el< then the argument is
circuitous. and returns to the !irst ,oint.B$hat is the ?os,elL "hall %e
believe you. and not rather the com,anions o! Christ. the eye and ear
%itnesses o! his doings and sayingsL No% ) should reGuire strong
inducements to ma#e me believe that "t- 8aul had been guilty o! such
,al,ably !alse logic< and ) there!ore !eel mysel! com,elled to in!er. that by
the ?os,el 8aul intended the eternal truths #no%n ideally !rom the
beginning. and historically reali>ed in the mani!estation o! the $ord in
Christ :esus< and that he used the ideal immutable truth as the canon and
criterion o! the oral traditions- &or eam,le. a ?ree# mathematician.
standing in the same relation o! time and country to *uclid as that in %hich
"t- 8aul stood to :esus Christ. might have eclaimed in the same s,irit:
M$hat do you tal# to me o! this. that. and the other intimate acGuaintance
o! *uclid'sL 9y obFect is to convey the sublime system o! geometry %hich
he reali>ed. and by that must ) decide-M M).M says "t- 8aul. Mhave been taught
by the s,irit o! Christ. a teaching susce,tible o! no addition. and !or %hich
no ,ersonal anecdotes. ho%ever reverendly attested. can be a substitute-M
But dearest Luther %as a translator< he could not. must not. see this-
Ib. p# '$#
+hat ?od's %ord. and the Christian Church. is ,reserved against the raging
o! the %orld-
+he 8a,ists have lost the cause< %ith ?od's %ord they are not able to resist
or %ithstand us- N N N The kin$s of the earth stand 'p, and the r'lers take
co'nsel to$ether, /c- ?od %ill deal %ell enough %ith these angry
gentlemen. and %ill give them but small than#s !or their labor. in going
about to su,,ress his %ord and servants< he hath sat in counsel above these
!ive thousand !ive hundred years. hath ruled and made la%s- ?ood "irsE be
not so choleric< go !urther !rom the %all. lest you #noc# your ,ates against
it- 0iss the Son lest he be an$ry, /c- +hat is. ta#e hold on Christ. or the
(evil %ill ta#e hold on you. Ic-
+he second 8salm Csaid LutherD. is a ,roud 8salm against those !ello%s- )t
begins mild and sim,ly. but it endeth stately and rattling- N N N ) have no%
angered the 8o,e about his images o! idolatry- 'E ho% the so% raiseth her
bristlesE N N +he Lord saith: !$o s'scitabo vos in novissimo die: and then
he %ill call and say: hoE 9artin Luther. 8hili, 9elancthon. :ustus :onas.
:ohn Calvin. Ic- Arise. come u,. N N N $ell on. Csaid LutherD. let us be o!
good com!ort-
A delicious ,aragra,h- Ho% our !ine ,reachers %ould turn u, their +om7tit
bea#s and !lirt %ith their tails at itE But this is the %ay in %hich the man o!
li!e. the man o! ,o%er. sets the dry bones in motion-
Chap# II# p# '(#
+his is the than#s that ?od hath !or his grace. !or creating. !or redeeming.
sancti!ying. nourishing. and !or ,reserving us: such a seed. !ruit. and godly
child is the %orld- '. %oe be to itE
+oo true-
Ib. p# &4#
+hat out o! the best comes the %orst- 'ut o! the 8atriarchs and holy &athers
came the :e%s that cruci!ied Christ< out o! the A,ostles came :udas the
traitor< out o! the city Aleandria C%here a !air illustrious and !amous
school %as. and !rom %hence ,roceeded many u,right and godly learned
menD. came Arius and 'rigenes-
8oor 'rigenE "urely Luther %as ,ut to it !or an instance. and had never
read the %or#s o! that very best o! the old &athers. and eminently u,right
and godly learned man-
Ib.
+he s,arro%s are the least birds. and yet they are very hurt!ul. and have the
best nourishment-
!r$o di$ni s'nt omni persec'tione- 8oor little 8hili, ",arro%sE Luther did
not #no% that they more than earn their good %ages by destroying grubs
and other small vermin-
Ib. p# )1#
He that %ithout danger %ill #no% ?od. and %ill s,eculate o! him. let him
loo# !irst into the manger. that is. let him begin belo%. and let him !irst
learn to #no% the "on o! the 4irgin 9ary. born at Bethlehem. that lies and
suc#s in his mother's bosom< or let one loo# u,on him hanging on the
Cross- NN But ta#e good heed in any case o! high climbing cogitations. to
clamber u, to heaven %ithout this ladder. namely. the Lord Christ in his
humanity-
+o #no% ?od as ?od C the living ?odD %e must assume his
,ersonality: other%ise %hat %ere it but an ether. a gravitationLBbut to
assume his ,ersonality. %e must begin %ith his humanity. and this is
im,ossible but in history< !or man is an historicalBnot an eternal
being- !r$o- Christianity is o! necessity historical and not ,hiloso,hical
only-
Ib. p# )$#
hat is that to theeL said Christ to 8eter- 1ollo. tho' meBme. !ollo% me.
and not thy Guestions. or cogitations-
LordE #ee, us loo#ing to. and humbly !ollo%ing. theeE
Chap# *I# p# 1+'#
+he ,hiloso,hers and learned heathen Csaid LutherD have described ?od.
that he is as a circle. the ,oint %hereo! in the midst is every %here< but the
circum!erence. %hich on the outside goeth round about. is no %here:
here%ith they %ould she% that ?od is all. and yet is nothing-
$hat a huge di!!erence the absence o! a blan# s,ace. %hich is nothing. or
net to nothing. may ma#eE +he %ords here should have been ,rinted.
M?od is all. and yet is no thing<M &or %hat does 'thing' meanL )tsel!. that is.
the in$. or inclosure. that %hich is contained %ithin an outline. or
circumscribed- "o li#e%ise to think is to inclose. to determine. con!ine and
de!ine- +o thin# an in!inite is a contradiction in terms eGual to a boundless
bound- "o in ?erman Din$, denken< in Latin res, reor-
Chap# *II# p# 11'#
Helvidius alleged the mother o! Christ %as not a virgin< so that according
to his %ic#ed allegation. Christ %as born in original sin-
'. %hat a tangle o! im,ure %himsies has this notion o! an immaculate
conce,tion. an *bionite tradition. as ) thin#. brought into the Christian
ChurchE ) have sometimes sus,ected that the A,ostle :ohn had a ,articular
vie% to this ,oint. in the !irst hal! o! the !irst cha,ter o! his ?os,el- Not that
) su,,ose our ,resent 9atthe% then in eistence. or that. i! :ohn had seen
the ?os,el according to Lu#e. the Christop2dia had been already ,re!ied
to it- But the rumor might have been %his,ered about. and as the ,ur,ort
%as to give a ,silanthro,ic e,lanation and solution o! the ,hrases. "on o!
?od and "on o! 9an.Bso "aint :ohn met it by the true solution. namely.
the eternal &iliation o! the $ord-
Ib. p# 1$+# ,f Christ's riding into -erusalem#
But ) hold Csaid LutherD that Christ himsel! did not mention that ,ro,hecy
o! Jechariah. but rather. that the A,ostles and *vangelists did use it !or a
%itness-
$orth remembering !or the ,ur,ose o! a,,lying it to the tet in %hich our
Lord is re,resented in the !irst Cor 9atthe%'sD ?os,el. and by that alone. as
citing (aniel by name- )t %as this tet that so sorely. but ) thin# very
unnecessarily. ,er,leed and gravelled Bentley. %ho %as too ,ro!ound a
scholar and too acute a critic to admit the genuineness o! the %hole o! that
boo#-
Ib.
+he 8ro,hets Csaid LutherD did set. s,ea#. and ,reach o! the second coming
o! Christ in manner as %e no% do-
) regret that 9r- )rving should have blended such etravagancies and
,resum,tuous ,ro,hesyings %ith his su,,ort and vindication o! the
9illennium. and the return o! :esus in his cor,oreal individuality. B
because these have !urnished divines in general. both Churchmen and
(issenting. %ith a ,retet !or treating his doctrine %ith silent contem,t-
Had he !ollo%ed the eam,le o! his o%n Ben *>ra. and argued tem,erately
and learnedly. the controversy must have !orced the momentous Guestion
on our Clergy:BAre Christians bound to believe %hatever an A,ostle
believed.Band in the same %ay and senseL ) thin# "aint 8aul himsel! lived
to doubt the solidity o! his o%n literal inter,retation o! our Lord's %ords-
+he %hole ,assage in %hich our Lord describes his coming is so evidently.
and so intentionally e,ressed in the diction and images o! the 8ro,hets.
that nothing but the carnal literality common to the :e%s at that time and
most strongly mar#ed in the disci,les. %ho %ere among the least educated
o! their countrymen. could have ,revented the symbolic im,ort and
character o! the %ords !rom being seen- +he %hole ?os,el and the *,istles
o! :ohn. are a virtual con!utation o! this reigning errorBand no less is the
A,ocaly,se %hether %ritten by. or under the authority o!. the *vangelist-
+he unha,,y e!!ect %hich "t- 8aul's Cmay ) not sayD incautious language
res,ecting Christ's return ,roduced on the +hessalonians. led him to re!lect
on the subFect. and he instantly in the second e,istle to them Guali!ied the
doctrine. and never a!ter%ards resumed it< but on the contrary. in the !irst
*,istle to the Corinthians. c- 11. substitutes the doctrine o! immortality in a
celestial state and a s,iritual body- 'n the nature o! our Lord's !uture
e,i,hany or ,henomenal ,erson. ) am not ashamed to ac#no%ledge. that
my vie%s a,,roach very nearly to those o! *manuel "%edenborg-
Ib. p# 1$1#
(octor :acob "chenc# never ,reacheth out o! his boo#. but ) do. Csaid
LutherD. though not o! necessity. but ) do it !or eam,le's sa#e to others-
As many notes. memoranda. cues o! connection and transition as the
,reacher may !ind e,edient or serviceable to him< %ell and good- But to
read in a manuscri,t boo#. as our Clergy no% do. is not to ,reach at all-
8reach out o! a boo#. i! you must< but do not read in it. or even !rom it- A
read sermon o! t%enty minutes %ill seem longer to the hearers than a !ree
discourse o! an hour-
Ib.
9y sim,le o,inion is Csaid LutherD and ) do believe that Christ !or us
descended into hell. to the end he might brea# and destroy the same. as in
8salm vi. and Acts ii. is she%ed and ,roved-
Could Luther have been ignorant. that this clause %as not inserted into the
A,ostle's Creed till the sith century a!ter ChristL ) believe the original
intention o! the clause %as no more than vere mort''s estBin contradiction
to the hy,othesis o! a trance or state o! sus,ended animation-
Chap# *II# p# 1$$#
$hen Christ Csaid LutherD !orbiddeth to s,read abroad or to ma#e #no%n
his %or#s o! %onder< there he s,ea#eth as being sent !rom the &ather. and
doth %ell and right therein in !orbidding them. to the end that thereby he
might leave us an eam,le. not to see# our o%n ,raise and honor in that
%herein %e do good< but %e ought to see# only and alone the honor o!
?od-
Not satis!actory- (oubtless. the command %as in connection %ith the
silence enFoined res,ecting his 9essiahshi,-
Chap# *III# p# 14(#
(octor Hennage said to Luther. "ir. %here you say that the Holy ",irit is
the certainty in the %ord to%ards ?od. that is. that a man is certain o! his
o%n mind and o,inion< then it must needs !ollo% that all sects have the
Holy ?host. !or they %ill needs be most certain o! their doctrine and
religion-
Luther might have ans%ered. M,ositive. you mean. not certain-M
Chap# I.# p# 1)+#
But %ho hath ,o%er to !orgive or to detain sinsL Ans%er< the A,ostles and
all Church servants. and Cin case o! necessityD every Christian- Christ
giveth them not ,o%er over money. %ealth. #ingdoms. Ic< but over sins
and the consciences o! human creatures. over the ,o%er o! the (evil. and
the throat o! Hell-
&e% ,assages in the "acred $ritings have occasioned so much mischie!.
abFect slavishness. bloated ,ride. tyrannous usur,ation. bloody ,ersecution.
%ith #ings even against their %ill the drudges. !alse soul7destroying Guiet
o! conscience. as this tet. *ohn - /3- misinter,reted- )t is really a
tremendous ,roo! o! %hat the misunderstanding o! a !e% %ords can do-
+hat even Luther ,artoo# o! the delusion. this ,aragra,h gives ,roo!- But
that a delusion it is< that the commission given to the "eventy %hom Christ
sent out to ,roclaim and o!!er the #ingdom o! ?od. and a!ter%ards to the
A,ostles. re!ers either to the ,o%er o! ma#ing rules and ordinances in the
Church. or other%ise to the gi!ts o! miraculous healing. %hich our Lord at
that time con!erred on them< and that per fi$'ram ca'sce pro effecto. 'sins'
here mean diseases. seems to me more than ,robable- At all events. the tet
surely does not mean that the salvation o! a re,entant and believing
Christian de,ends u,on the %ill o! a ,riest in absolution-
Ib. p# 1)1#
And again. they are able to absolve and ma#e a human creature !ree and
loose !rom all his sins. i! in case he re,enteth and believeth in Christ< and
on the contrary. they are able to detain all his sina. i! he doth not re,ent and
believeth not in Christ-
)n li#e manner i! he sincerely re,ent and believe. his sins are !orgiven.
%hether the minister absolve him or not- No% i! 9 O 1 P1. and 179 P 1. 9
P '- )! he be im,enitent and unbelieving. his sins are detained. no doubt.
%hether the minister do or do not detain them-
Ib. p# 1)'#
Adam %as created o! ?od in such sort righteous. as that he became o! a
righteous an unrighteous ,erson< as 8aul himsel! argueth. and %ithall
instructeth himsel!. %here he saith. +he la% is not given !or a righteous
man. but !or the la%less and disobedient-
+his !ollo%s !rom the very de!inition or idea o! righteousness<7it is itsel!
the la%<B
Ib.
+he "cri,ture saith. ?od ma#eth the ungodly righteous< there he calleth us
all. one %ith another. des,airing and %ic#ed %retches< !or %hat %ill an
ungodly creature not dare to accom,lish. i! he may but have occasion.
,lace. and o,,ortunityL
+hat is %ith a lust %ithin corres,ondent to the tem,tation !rom %ithout-
A Christian's conscience. methin#s. ought to be a *an's bifrons.Ba
?os,el7!ace retros,ective. and smiling through ,enitent tears on the sins o!
the ,ast. and a 9oses7!ace loo#ing !or%ard in !ro%n and menace.
!rightening the harlot %ill into a holy abortion o! sins conceived but not yet
born. ,erchance not yet Guic#ened- +he !anatic Antinomian reverses this<
!or the ,ast he reGuires all the horrors o! remorse and des,air. till the
moment o! assurance< thence!or%ard. he may do %hat he li#es. !or he
cannot sin-
Ib. p# 1)&#
All natural inclinations Csaid LutherD are either against or %ithout ?od<
there!ore none are good- $e see that no man is so honest as to marry a
%i!e. only thereby to have children. to love and to bring them u, in the !ear
o! ?od-
+his is a very %ea# instance- )! a man had been commanded to marry by
?od. being so !ormed as that no sensual delight accom,anied. and re!used
to do so. unless this a,,etite and grati!ication %ere added.Bthen indeedE
Chap# .# p# 1)/, %#
Ah Lord ?od Csaid LutherD. %hy should %e any %ay boast o! our !ree7%ill.
as i! it %ere able to do anything in divine and s,iritual matters %ere they
never so smallL N N N ) con!ess that man#ind hath a !ree7%ill. but it is to
mil# #ine. to build houses. Ic-. and no !urther: !or so long as a man sitteth
%ell and in sa!ety. and stic#eth in no %ant. so long he thin#eth he hath a
!ree7%ill %hich is able to do something< but. %hen %ant and need
a,,eareth. that there is neither to eat nor to drin#. neither money nor
,rovision. %here is then the !ree %illL )t is utterly lost. and cannot stand
%hen it cometh to the ,inch- But !aith only standeth !ast and sure. and
see#eth Christ-
Luther con!ounds !ree7%ill %ith e!!icient ,o%er. %hich neither does nor can
eist save %here the !inite %ill is one %ith the absolute $ill- +hat Luther
%as ,ractically on the right side in this !amous controversy. and that he %as
driving at the truth. ) see abundant reason to believe- But it is no less
evident that he sa% it in a mist. or rather as a mist %ith dissolving outline<
and as he sa% the thing as a mist. so he ever and anon mista#es a mist !or
the thing- But *rasmus and "aavedra %ere eGually indistinct< and shallo%
and unsubstantial to boot- )n !act. till the a,,earance o! Hant's 0riti3'es o!
the ,ure and o! the ,ractical =eason the ,roblem had never been accurately
or adeGuately stated. much less solved-
/3 :une. 18/3-
Ib. p# 1(4#
Loving !riends. Csaid LutherD our doctrine that !ree7%ill is dead and nothing
at all is grounded ,o%er!ully in Holy "cri,ture-
)t is o! vital im,ortance !or a theological student to understand clearly the
utter diversity o! the Lutheran. %hich is li#e%ise the Calvinistic. denial o!
!ree7%ill in the unregenerate. and the doctrine o! the modern Necessitarians
and Cproh p'dor4D o! the later Calvinists. %hich denies the ,ro,er eistence
o! %ill altogether- +he !ormer is sound. "cri,tural. com,atible %ith the
divine Fustice. a ne%. yea. a mighty motive to morality. and. !inally. the
dictate o! common sense grounded on common e,erience- +he latter the
very contrary o! all these-
Chap# .II# p# 1/(#
+his is no% Csaid LutherD. the !irst instruction concerning the la%< namely.
that the same must be used to hinder the ungodly !rom their %ic#ed and
mischievous intentions- &or the (evil. %ho is an Abbot and a 8rince o! this
%orld. driveth and allureth ,eo,le to %or# all manner o! sin and
%ic#edness< !or %hich cause ?od hath ordained magistrates. elders.
schoolmasters. la%s. and statutes. to the end. i! they cannot do more. yet at
least that they may bind the cla%s o! the (evil. and to hinder him !rom
raging and s%elling so ,o%er!ully Cin those %hich are hisD according to his
%ill and ,leasure-
And Csaid LutherD. although thou hadst not committed this or that sin. yet
nevertheless. thou art an ungodly creature. Ic- but %hat is done cannot he
undone. he that hath stolen. let him hence!or%ard steal no more-
"econdly. %e use the la% s,iritually. %hich is done in this manner< that it
ma#eth the transgressions greater. as "aint 8aul saith< that is. that it may
reveal and discover to ,eo,le their sins. blindness. misery. and ungodly
doings %herein they %ere conceived and born< namely. that they are
ignorant o! ?od. and are his enemies. and there!ore have Fustly deserved
death. hell. ?od's Fudgments. his everlasting %rath and indignation- "aint
8aul. Csaid LutherD. e,oundeth such s,iritual o!!ices and %or#s o! the la%
%ith many %ords-
5om- vii-
Nothing can be more sound or more ,hiloso,hic than the contents o! these
t%o ,aragra,hs- +hey a!!ord a su!!icient ans%er to the ,retence o! the
=omanists and Arminians. that by the la% "t- 8aul meant only the
ceremonial la%-
Ib. p# 1/%#
And i! 9oses had not cashiered and ,ut himsel! out o! his o!!ice. and had
not ta#en it a%ay %ith these %ords. C%here he saith. The Lord thy -od .ill
raise 'p 'nto thee another prophet o't of thy brethren6 Him shall tho'
hear- C(eut- viii-DD %ho then at any time %ould or could have believed the
?os,el. and !orsa#en 9osesL
)! ) could be ,ersuaded that this ,assage CDe't- viii- 11719-D ,rimarily
re!erred to Christ. and that Christ. not :oshua and his successors. %as the
,ro,het here ,romised< ) must either become a @nitarian ,silanthro,hist.
and Foin 8riestley and Belsham.Bor abandon to the :e%s their o%n
9essiah as yet to come. and cling to the religion o! :ohn and 8aul. %ithout
!urther re!erence to 9oses than to Lycurgus. "olon and Numa< all o! %hom
in their di!!erent s,heres no less ,re,ared the %ay !or the coming o! the
Lord. the desire of the nations-
Ib. p# 1%+#
)t is there!ore most evident Csaid LutherD. that the la% can but only hel, us
to #no% our sins. and to ma#e us a!raid o! death- No% sins and death are
such things as belong to the %orld. and %hich are therein-
Both in 8aul and Luther. Cnames %hich ) can never se,arateD.Bnot indeed
,eculiar to these. !or it is the same in the 8salms. *>e#iel. and throughout
the "cri,tures. but %hich ) !eel most in 8aul and Luther. Bthere is one
!ear!ul blan#. the %isdom or necessity o! %hich ) do not doubt. yet cannot
hel, gro,ing and straining a!ter li#e one that stares in the dar#< and this is
(eath- +he la% ma#es us a!raid o! death- $hat is deathLBan unha,,y li!eL
$ho does not !eel the insu!!iciency o! this ans%erL $hat analogy does
immortal su!!ering bear to the only death %hich is #no%n to usL
"ince ) %rote the above. ?od has. ) humbly trust. given me a clearer light
as to the true nature o! the death so o!ten mentioned in the "cri,tures-
Ib.
)t is Csaid LutherD. a very hard matter: yea. an im,ossible thing !or thy
human strength. %hosoever thou art C%ithout ?od's assistanceD that Cat such
a time %hen 9oses setteth u,on thee %ith his la%. and !ear!ully a!!righteth
thee. accuseth and condemneth thee. threateneth thee %ith ?od's %rath and
deathD thou shouldest as then be o! such a mind< namely. as i! no la% nor
sin had ever been at any time:B) say. it is in a manner a thing im,ossible.
that a human creature should carry himsel! in such a sort. %hen he is and
!eeleth himsel! assaulted %ith trials and tem,tations. and %hen the
conscience hath to do %ith ?od. as then to thin# no other%ise. than that
!rom everlasting nothing hath been. but only and alone Christ. altogether
grace and deliverance-
Qea. verily. Amen and AmenE &or this short heroic ,aragra,h contains the
sum and substance. the heighth and the de,th o! all true ,hiloso,hy- 9ost
assuredly right di!!icult it is !or us. %hile %e are yet in the narro% chamber
o! death. %ith our !aces to the dus#y !alsi!ying loo#ing7glass that covers the
scant end7side o! the blind ,assage !rom !loor to ceiling.Bright di!!icult !or
us. so %edged bet%een its %alls that %e cannot turn round. nor have other
esca,e ,ossible but by %al#ing bac#%ard. to understand that all %e behold
or have any memory o! having ever beholden. yea. our very selves as seen
by us. are but shado%s. and %hen the !orms that %e loved vanish.
im,ossible not to !eel as i! they %ere real-
Ib. p# 1%(#
Nothing that is good ,roceedeth out o! the %or#s o! the la%. ece,t grace
be ,resent< !or %hat %e are !orced to do. the same goeth not !rom the heart.
neither is acce,table-
A la% su,,oses a la%7giver. and im,lies an actuator and eecutor. and
conseGuently re%ards and ,unishments ,ublicly announced. and distinctly
assigned to the deeds enFoined or !orbidden< and correlatively in the
subFects o! the la%. there are su,,osed. !irst. assurance o! the being. the
,o%er. the veracity and seeingness o! the la%7giver. in %hom ) here
com,rise the legislative. Fudicial and eecutive !unctions< and secondly.
sel!7interest. desire. ho,e and !ear- No% !rom this vie%. it is evident that the
deeds or %or#s o! the La% are themselves null and dead. deriving their
%hole signi!icance !rom their attachment or alligation to the re%ards and
,unishments. even as this diversely sha,ed and in# colored ,a,er has its
value %holly !rom the %ords or meanings. %hich have been arbitrarily
connected there%ith< or as a ladder. or !light o! stairs. o! a ,rovision7lo!t. or
treasury- )! the architect or master o! the house had chosen to ,lace the
store7room or treasury on the ground !loor. the ladder or ste,s %ould have
been useless- +he li!e is divided bet%een the re%ards and ,unishments on
the one hand. and the ho,e and !ear on the other: namely. the active li!e or
ecitancy belongs to the !ormer. the ,assive li!e or ecitability to the latter-
Call the !ormer the a!!icients. the latter the a!!ections. the deeds being
merely the signs or im,resses o! the !ormer. as the seal. on the latter as the
%a- *Gually evident is it. that the a!!ections are %holly !ormed by the
deeds. %hich are themselves but the li!eless unsubstantial sha,es o! the
actual !orms Cform2 formantesD. namely. the re%ards and ,unishments-
No% contrast %ith this the ,rocess o! the ?os,el- +here the a!!ections are
!ormed in the !irst instance. not by any re!erence to %or#s or deeds. but by
an unmerited rescue !rom death. liberation !rom slavish tas#7%or#< by !aith.
gratitude. love. and a!!ectionate contem,lation o! the eceeding goodness
and loveliness o! the "aviour. =edeemer. Bene!actor: !rom the a!!ections
!lo% the deeds. or rather the a!!ections over!lo% in the deeds. and the
re%ards are but a continuance and continued increase o! the !ree grace in
the state o! the soul and in the gro%th and gradual ,er!ecting o! that state.
%hich are themselves gi!ts o! the same !ree grace. and one %ith the
re%ards< !or in the #ingdom o! Christ %hich is the realm o! love and inter7
community. the Foy and grace o! each regenerated s,irit becomes double.
and thereby augments the Foys and the graces o! the others. and the Foys
and graces o! all unite in each<BChrist. the head. and by his ",irit the
bond. or unitive cop'la o! all. being the s,iritual sun %hose entire image is
re!lected in every individual o! the myriads o! de%7dro,s- $hile under the
La%. the all %as but an aggregate o! subFects. each striving a!ter a re%ard
!or himsel!. Bnot as included in and resulting !rom the state.Bbut as the
sti,ulated %ages o! the tas#7%or#. as a loa! o! bread may be the ,ay or
bounty ,romised !or the he%ing o! %ood or the brea#ing o! stonesE
Ib.
He Csaid LutherD. that %ill dis,ute %ith the (evil. Ic-
;ueries-
)-Abstractedly !rom. and inde,endently o!. all sensible substances.
and the bodies. %ills. !aculties. and a!!ections o! men. has the (evil.
or %ould the (evil have. a ,ersonal sel!7subsistenceL (oes he. or can
he. eist as a conscious individual agent or ,ersonL "hould the
ans%er to this Guery be in the negative: thenB
))-(o there eist !inite and ,ersonal beings. %hether %ith com,osite
and decom,onible bodies. that is. embodied. or %ith sim,le and
indecom,onible bodies. C%hich is all that can be meant by
disembodied as a,,lied to !inite creaturesD. so eminently %ic#ed. or
%ic#ed and mischievous in so ,eculiar a #ind. as to constitute a
distinct $en's o! beings under the name o! devilsL
)))-)s this second hypothesis com,atible %ith the acts and !unctions
attributed to the (evil in "cri,tureL 'E to have had these three
Guestions ,ut by 9elancthon to Luther. and to have heard his re,lyE
Ib. p# $++#
)! Csaid LutherD ?od should give unto us a strong and an un%avering !aith.
then %e should he ,roud. yea also. %e should at last contemn Him- Again.
i! he should give us the right #no%ledge o! the la%. then %e should be
dismayed and !ainthearted. %e should not #no% %hich %ay to %ind
ourselves-
+he main reason is. because in this instance. the change in the relation
constitutes the di!!erence o! the things- A- considered as acting ab e"tra on
the sel!ish !ears and desires o! men is the La%: the same A: acting ab
intra as a ne% nature in!used by grace. as the mind o! Christ ,rom,ting to
all obedience. is the ?os,el- Qet %hat Luther says is li#e%ise very true-
Could %e reduce the great s,iritual truths or ideas o! our !aith to
com,rehensible conce,tions. or C!or the thing itsel! is im,ossibleD !ancy %e
had done so. %e should inevitably be ',roud vain asses-'
Ib. p# $+'#
And as to #no% his %or#s and actions. is not yet rightly to #no% the
?os,el. C!or thereby %e #no% not as yet that he hath overcome sin death
and the (evilD< even so li#e%ise. it is not as yet to #no% the ?os,el. %hen
%e #no% such doctrine and commandments. but %hen the voice soundeth.
%hich saith. Christ is thine o%n %ith li!e. %ith doctrine. %ith %or#s. death.
resurrection. and %ith all that he hath. doth and may do-
9ost true-
Ib. p# $+&#
+he ancient &athers said: Distin$'e tempora et concordabis Script'ras<
distinguish the times< then may %e easily reconcile the "cri,tures together-
QeaE and not only so. but %e shall reconcile truths. that seem to re,eal this
or that ,assage o! "cri,ture. %ith the "cri,tures- &or Christ is %ith his
Church even to the end-
Ib.
) verily believe. Csaid LutherD it Cthe abolition o! the La%D veed to the
heart the beloved "t- 8aul himsel! be!ore his conversion-
Ho% dearly 9artin Luther loved "t- 8aulE Ho% dearly %ould "t- 8aul have
loved 9artin LutherE And ho% im,ossible. that either should not have done
soE
Ib.
)n this case. touching the distinguishing the La% !rom the ?os,el. %e must
utterly e,el all human and natural %isdom. reason. and understanding-
All reason is above nature- +here!ore by reason in Luther. or rather in his
translator. you must understand the reasoning !aculty:B that is. the logical
intellect. or the intellectual understanding- &or the understanding is in all
res,ects a medial and mediate !aculty. and has there!ore t%o etremities or
,oles. the sensual. in %hich !orm it is "t- 8aul's < and
the intellectual ,ole. or the hemis,here Cas it %ereD turned to%ards the
reason- No% the reason Cl'" idealis se' spirit'alisD shines do%n into the
understanding. %hich recogni>es the light. id est, l'men a l'ce spirit'ali
3'asi alieni$en'm ali3'id. %hich it can only com,rehend or describe to
itsel! by attributes o,,osite to its o%n essential ,ro,erties- No% these latter
being contingency. and C!or though the immediate obFects o! the
understanding are $enera et species. still they are ,articular $enera et
speciesD ,articularity. it distinguishes the !ormal light Cl'menD Cnot the
substantial light. l'"D o! reason by the attributes o! the necessary and the
universal< and by irradiation o! thisl'men or shine the understanding
becomes a conclusive or logical !aculty- As such it is
Ib. $+)#
$hen "atan saith in thy heart. ?od %ill not ,ardon thy sins. nor be
gracious unto thee. ) ,ray Csaid LutherD ho% %ilt thou then. as a ,oor
sinner. raise u, and com!ort thysel!. es,ecially %hen other signs o! ?od's
%rath besides do beat u,on thee. as sic#ness. ,overty. Ic- And that thy
heart beginneth to ,reach and say. Behold. here thou livest in sic#ness. thou
art ,oor and !orsa#en o! every one. Ic-
'hE ho% true. ho% a!!ectingly true is thisE And %hen too "atan. the
tem,ter. becomes "atan the accuser. saying in thy heart:BM+his sic#ness is
the conseGuence o! sin. or sin!ul in!irmity. and thou hast brought thysel!
into a !ear!ul dilemma< thou canst not ho,e !or salvation as long as thou
continuest in any sin!ul ,ractice. and yet thou canst not abandon thy daily
dose o! this or that ,oison %ithout suicide- &or the sin o! thy soul has
become the necessity o! thy body. daily tormenting thee. %ithout yielding
thee any the least ,leasurable sensation. but goading thee on by terror
%ithout ho,e- @nder such evidence o! ?od's %rath ho% canst thou e,ect
to be savedLM $ell may the heart cry out. M$ho shall deliver me !rom
the body of this death.B!rom this death that lives and tyranni>es in my
bodyLM But the ?os,el ans%ersBM+here is a redem,tion !rom the body
,romised< only cling to Christ- Call on him continually %ith all thy heart.
and all thy soul. to give thee strength. and be strong in thy %ea#ness< and
%hat Christ doth not see good to relieve thee !rom. su!!er in ho,e- )t may
be better !or thee to be #e,t humble and in sel!7abasement- +he thorn in the
!lesh may remain and yet the grace o! ?od through Christ ,rove su!!icient
!or thee- 'nly cling to Christ. and do thy best- )n all love and %ell7doing
gird thysel! u, to im,rove and use aright %hat remains !ree in thee. and i!
thou doest ought aright. say and than#!ully believe that Christ hath done it
!or thee-M ' %hat a miserable des,airing %retch should ) become. i! )
believed the doctrines o! Bisho, :eremy +aylor in his +reatise on
=e,entance. or those ) heard ,reached by (r-BB< i! ) gave u, the !aith.
that the li!e o! Christ %ould ,reci,itate the remaining dregs o! sin in the
crisis o! death. and that ) shall rise in ,urer ca,acity o! Christ< blind to be
irradiated by his light. em,ty to be ,ossessed by his !ullness. na#ed o! merit
to be clothed %ith his righteousnessE
Ib. p# $+(#
+he nobility. the gentry. citi>ens. and !armers. Ic- are no% become so
haughty and ungodly. that they regard no ministers nor ,reachers< and Csaid
LutherD i! %e %ere not hol,en some%hat by great ,rinces and ,ersons. %e
could not long subsist: there!ore )saiah saith %ell. %nd kin$s shall be their
n'rses. Ic-
Cor,ulent nurses too o!ten. that overlay the babe< distem,ered nurses. that
convey ,oison in their mil#E
Chap# .III# p# $+/#
8hili, 9elancthon said to Luther. +he o,inion o! "t- Austin o! Fusti!ication
Cas it seemethD %as more ,ertinent. !it and convenient %hen he dis,uted
not. than it %as %hen he used to s,ea# and dis,ute< !or thus he saith. $e
ought to censure and hold that %e are Fusti!ied by !aith. that is by our
regeneration. or by being made ne% creatures- No% i! it be so. then %e are
not Fusti!ied only by !aith. but by all the gi!ts and virtues o! ?od given unto
us- No% %hat is your o,inion "irL (o you hold that a man is Fusti!ied by
this regeneration. as is "t- Austin's o,inionL
Luther ans%ered and said. ) hold this. and am certain. that the true meaning
o! the ?os,el and o! the A,ostle is. that %e are Fusti!ied be!ore ?od $ratis.
!or nothing. only by ?od's mere mercy. %here%ith and by reason %hereo!.
he im,uteth righteousness unto us in Christ-
+rue< but is it more than a dis,ute about %ordsL )s not the regeneration
li#e%ise $ratis. only by ?od's mere mercyL $e. according to the necessity
o! our im,er!ect understandings. must divide and distinguish- But surely
Fusti!ication and sancti!ication are one act o! ?od. and only di!!erent
,ers,ectives o! redem,tion by and through and !or Christ- +hey are one and
the same ,lant. Fusti!ication the root. sancti!ication the !lo%er< and Cmay )
not venture to addLD transubstantiation into Christ the celestial !ruit-
Ib. p# $1+011# 9elancthon's sith re,ly-
"irE you say 8aul %as Fusti!ied. that is. %as received to everlasting li!e. only
!or mercy's sa#e- Against %hich. ) say. i! the ,iece7meal or ,artial cause.
namely our obedience. !ollo%eth not< then %e are not saved. according to
these %ords. oe is me if I preach not the -ospel- 1- Cor- i-
Luther's ans%er-
No ,iecing or ,artial cause Csaid LutherD a,,roacheth thereu,to: !or !aith is
,o%er!ul continually %ithout ceasing< other%ise. it is no !aith- +here!ore
%hat the %or#s are. or o! %hat value. the same they are through the honor
and ,o%er o! !aith. %hich undeniably is the sun or sun7beam o! this
shining-
+his is indeed a di!!icult Guestion< and one. ) am dis,osed to thin#. %hich
can receive its solution only by the idea. or the act and !act o! Fusti!ication
by !aith sel!7re!lected- But. humanly considered. this ,osition o! Luther's
,rovo#es the mind to as#. is there no rece,tivity o! !aith. considered as a
!ree gi!t o! ?od. ,rereGuisite in the individualL (oes !aith commence by
generating the rece,tivity o! itsel!L )! so. there is no di!!erence either in
#ind or in degree bet%een the receivers and the reFectors o! the %ord. at the
moment ,receeding this rece,tion or reFection< and a stone is a subFect as
ca,able o! !aith as a man- Ho% can obedience eist. %here disobedience
%as not ,ossibleL "urely t%o or three tets !rom "t- 8aul. detached !rom
the total or$anism's o! his reasoning. ought not to out7%eigh the ,lain !act.
that the contrary ,osition is im,lied in. or is an immediate conseGuent o!.
our Lord's o%n invitations and assurances- *very %here a something is
attributed to the %ill
/
-
Chap# .III# p# $11#
+o conclude. a !aith!ul ,erson is a ne% creature. a ne% tree- +here!ore all
these s,eeches. %hich in the la% are usual. belong not to this case< as to
say % faithf'l,erson must do good %or#s- Neither %ere it rightly s,o#en. to
say the sun shall shine: a good tree shall bring !orth good !ruit. Ic- &or the
sun shall not shine. but it doth shine by nature unbidden. it is thereunto
created-
+his im,ortant ,aragra,h is obscure by the translator's ignorance o! the true
im,ort o! the ?erman soll. %hich does not ans%er to our shall6 but rather to
our o'$ht. that is. sho'lddo this or that.Bis under an obligation to do it-
Ib. p# $1'#
And ). my loving Brentius. to the end ) may better understand this case. do
use to thin# in this manner. namely. as i! in my heart %ere no Guality or
virtue at all. %hich is called !aith. and love. Cas the "o,hists do s,ea# and
dream thereo!D. but ) set all on Christ. and say. my formalis 7'stitia. that is.
my sure. my constant and com,lete righteousness Cin %hich is no %ant nor
!ailing. but is. as be!ore ?od it ought to beD is Christ my Lord and "aviour-
AyeE this. this is indeed to the ,ur,ose- )n this doctrine my soul can !ind
rest- ) ho,e to be saved by !aith. not by my !aith. but by the !aith o! Christ
in me-
Ib. p# $14#
+he "cri,ture nameth the !aith!ul a ,eo,le o! ?od's saints- But here one
may say< the sins %hich daily %e commit. do o!!end and anger ?od< ho%
then can %e be holyL
%ns.er- A mother's love to her child is much stronger than are the
ecrements and scur! thereo!- *ven so ?od's love to%ards us is !ar stronger
than our !ilthiness and uncleanness-
Qea. one may say again. %e sin %ithout ceasing. and %here sin is. there the
holy ",irit is not: there!ore %e are not holy. because the holy ",irit is not in
us. %ho ma#eth holy-
%ns.er- C:ohn vi- 10-D No% %here Christ is. there is the holy ",irit- +he
tet saith ,lainly. The holy -host shall $lorify me, /c. No% Christ is in the
!aith!ul Calthough they have and !eel sins. do con!ess the same. and %ith
sorro% o! heart do com,lain thereoverD< there!ore sins do not se,arate
Christ !rom those that believe-
All in this ,age is true. and necessary to be ,reached- But 'E %hat need is
there o! holy ,rudence to ,reach it aright. that is. at right times to the right
earsE No% this is %hen the doctrine is necessary and thence com!ortable<
but %here it is not necessary. but only very com!ortable. in such cases it
%ould be a narcotic ,oison. #illing the soul by in!using a stu,or or
counter!eit ,eace o! conscience- $here there are no sin#ings o! sel!7
abasement. no gri,ing sense o! sin and %orthlessness. but ,erha,s the
contrary. rec#less con!idence and sel!7valuing !or good Gualities su,,osed
an overbalance !or the sins.Bthere it is not necessary- )n short. these are
not the truths. that can be ,reached in season and o't
of season- )n declining li!e. or at any time in the hour o! sincere
humiliation. these truths may be a,,lied in re!erence to ,ast sins
collectively< but a Christian must not. a true ho%ever in!irm Christian %ill
not. cannot. administer them to himsel! immediately a!ter sinning< least o!
all immediately be!ore- $e ought !ervently to ,ray thus:BM9ost holy and
most merci!ul ?odE by the grace o! thy holy ",irit ma#e these ,romises
,ro!itable to me. to ,reserve me !rom des,airing o! thy !orgiveness through
Christ my "aviourE But 'E save me !rom ,resum,tuously ,erverting them
into a ,illo% !or a stu,i!ied conscienceE ?ive me grace so to contrast my
sin %ith thy transcendant goodness and long7su!!ering love. as to hate it
%ith an un!eigned hatred !or its o%n eceeding sin!ulness-M
Ib. p# $1%0$+#
&aith is. and consisteth in. a ,erson's understanding. but ho,e consisteth in
the %ill- N N &aith inditeth. distinguisheth and teacheth. and it is the
#no%ledge and ac#no%ledgment- N N &aith !ighteth against error and
heresies. it ,roveth. censureth and Fudgeth the s,irits and doctrines- N N
&aith in divinity is the %isdom and ,rovidence. and belongeth to the
doctrine- N N &aith is the dialectica. !or it is altogether %it and %isdom-
Luther in his 8ostills discourseth !ar better and more genially o! !aith than
in these ,aragra,hs- @n!ortunately. the ?ermans have but one %ord !or
!aith and belie!B-la'be. and %hat Luther here says. is s,o#en o! belie!-
'! !aith he s,ea#s in the net article but one-
Ib. p# $$)#
M+hat regeneration only ma#eth ?od's children-
+he article o! our Fusti!ication be!ore ?od Csaid LutherD is. as it useth to be
%ith a son %hich is born an heir o! all his !ather's goods. and cometh not
thereunto by deserts-M
) %ill here record my e,erience- *ver %hen ) meet %ith the doctrine o!
regeneration and !aith and !ree grace sim,ly announcedB M"o it isEMBthen
) believe< my heart lea,s !orth to %elcome it- But as soon as an e,lanation
nation or reason is added. such e,lanations. namely. and reasonings as )
have any %here met %ith. then my heart lea,s bac# again. recoils. and )
eclaim. NayE NayE but not so-
/1th o! "e,tember. 1819-
Ib. p# $$(#
M(octor Carlestad Csaid LutherD argueth thus: +rue it is that !aith Fusti!ieth.
but !aith is a %or# o! the !irst commandment< there!ore it Fusti!ieth as a
%or#- 9oreover all that the La% commandeth. the same is a %or# o! the
La%- No% !aith is commanded. there!ore !aith is a %or# o! the La%- Again.
%hat ?od %ill have the same is commanded: ?od %ill have !aith. there!ore
!aith is commanded-M
M"t- 8aul Csaid LutherD s,ea#eth in such sort o! the la%. that he se,arateth it
!rom the ,romise. %hich is !ar another thing than the la%- +he la% is
terrestrial. but the ,romise is celestial-
M?od giveth the la% to the end %e may thereby be roused u, and made
,liant< !or the commandments do go and ,roceed against the ,roud and
haughty. %hich contemn ?od's gi!ts< no% a gi!t or ,resent cannot be a
commandment-M
M+here!ore %e must ans%er according to this rule. Verba s'nt accipienda
sec'nd'm s'b7ectam materiam. N N "t- 8aul calleth that the %or# o! the
la%. %hich is done and acted through the #no%ledge o! the la% by a
constrained %ill %ithout the holy ",irit< so that the same is a %or# o! the
la%. %hich the la% earnestly reGuireth and strictly %ill have done< it is not a
voluntary %or#. but a !orced %or# o! the rod-M
And %herein did Carlestad and Luther di!!erL Not at all. or essentially and
irreconcilably. according as the !eeling o! Carlestad %as- )! he meant the
,articular deed. the latter< i! the total act. the agent included. then the
!ormer-
Chap# .I*# p# $'+#
M+he love to%ards the neighbour Csaid LutherD must be li#e a ,ure chaste
love bet%een bride and bridegroom. %here all !aults are connived at.
covered and borne %ith. and only the virtues regarded-M
)n ho% many little esca,es and corner7holes does the sensibility. the
!ineness. Cthat o! %hich re!inement is but a counter!eit. at best but a re!le.D
the geniality o! nature a,,ear in thisson of th'nder4 ' !or a Luther in the
,resent ageE $hy. Charles
3
E %ith the very handcu!!s o! his ,reFudices he
%ould #noc# out the brains Cnay. that is im,ossible. but.D he %ould s,lit the
s#ulls o! our Cristo($alli. translate the %ord as you li#e:B&rench
Christians. or cocombsE
Ib. p# $'10$#
MLet $it>ell #no%. Csaid LutherD that (avid's %ars and battles. %hich he
!ought. %ere more ,leasing to ?od than the !astings and ,rayings o! the
best. o! the honestest. and o! the holiest mon#s and !riars< much more than
the %or#s o! our ne% ridiculous and su,erstitious !riars-M
A cordial. rich and Fuicy s,eech. such as sha,ed itsel! into. and lived ane%
in. the ?ustavus Adol,huses-
Chap# .*# p# $''04#
M?od most certainly heareth them that ,ray in !aith. and granteth %hen and
ho% he ,leaseth. and #no%eth most ,ro!itable !or them- $e must also
#no%. that %hen our ,rayers tend to the sancti!ying o! his name. and to the
increase and honor o! his #ingdom Calso that %e ,ray according to his %illD
then most certainly he heareth- But %hen %e ,ray contrary to these ,oints.
then %e are not heard< !or ?od doth nothing against his Name. his
#ingdom. and his %ill-M
+hen Csaith the understanding. D %hat doth ,rayer
e!!ectL )! AB,rayer P B-. and A O ,rayer P B. ,rayer P '- +he attem,t to
ans%er this argument by admitting its invalidity relatively to ?od. but
asserting the e!!icacy o! ,rayer relatively to the ,ray7er or ,recant himsel!.
is merely staving o!! the obFection a single ste,- &or this e!!ect on the
devout soul is ,roduced by an act o! ?od- +he true ans%er is. ,rayer is an
idea. and ens spirit'ale. out o! the cogni>ance o! the understanding-
+he s,iritual mind receives the ans%er in the contem,lation o! the idea. li!e
as deitas diff'sa- $e can set the li!e in e!!icient motion. but not contrary to
the !orm or ty,e- +he errors and !alse theories o! great men sometimes.
,erha,s most o!ten. arise out o! true ideas !alsi!ied by degenerating into
conce,tions< or the mind ecited to action by an in%or#ing idea. the
understanding %or#s in the same direction according to its #ind. and
,roduces a counter!eit. in %hich the mind rests-
+his ) believe to be the case %ith the scheme o! emanation in 8lotinus- ?od
is made a !irst and conseGuently a com,arative intensity. and matter the
last< the %hole thence !inite< and thence its conceivability- But %e must
admit a gradation o! intensities in reality-
Chap# .*I# p# $4(#
M$hen governors and rulers are enemies to ?od's %ord. then our duty is to
de,art. to sell and !orsa#e all %e have. to !ly !rom one ,lace to another. as
Christ commandeth< %e must ma#e and ,re,are no u,roars nor tumults by
reason o! the ?os,el. but %e must su!!er all things-M
=ight- But then it must be the la%!ul rulers< those in %hom the sovereign or
su,reme ,o%er is lodged by the #no%n la%s and constitution o! the
country- $here the la%s and constitutional liberties o! the nation are
tram,led on. the subFects do not lose. and are not in conscience bound to
!orego. their right o! resistance. because they are Christians. or because it
ha,,ens to be a matter o! religion. in %hich their rights are violated- And
this %as Luther's o,inion- $hether. i! a 8o,ish C>ar shall act as our :ames
))- acted. the =ussian ?ree#ists %ould be Fusti!ied in doing %ith him %hat
the *nglish 8rotestants Fusti!iably did %ith regard to :ames. is a #not %hich
) shall not attem,t to cut< though ) guess the =ussians %ould. by cutting
their C>ar's throat-
Ib.
'But no man %ill do this. ece,t he be so sure o! his doctrine and religion.
as that. although ) mysel! should ,lay the !ool. and should recant and deny
this my doctrine and religion C%hich ?od !orbidD. he not%ithstanding
there!ore %ould not yield. but say. M)! Luther. or an angel !rom heaven.
should teach other%ise. Let him be acc'rsed-M'
$ell and nobly said. thou rare blac# s%anE +his. this is the Church- $here
this is !ound. there is the Church o! Christ. though but t%enty in the %hole
o! the congregation< and %ere t%enty such in t%o hundred di!!erent ,laces.
the Church %ould be entire in each- $ithout this no Church-
Ib. p# $4/#
MAnd he sent !or one o! his chie!est ,rivy councillors. named Lord
:ohn Von +ink.it). and said unto him< 'Qou have heard my !ather say.
Crunning %ith him at tiltD that to sit u,right on horsebac# ma#eth a good
tilter- )! there!ore it be good and laudable in tem,oral tilting to sit u,right<
ho% much more is it no% ,raise%orthy in ?od's cause to sit. to stand. and
to go u,rightly and FustE'M
8rincely- "o "ha#s,eare %ould have made a 8rince *lector tal#- +he
meta,hor is so grandly in character-
Chap# .*II# p# $4%#
MSi$na s'nt s'binde facta, minora6 res a'tem et facta s'binde crever'nt-M
A valuable remar#- As the substance %aed. that is. became more evident.
the ceremonial sign %aned. till at length in the *ucharist the si$n'm united
itsel! %ith the si$nificat'm. and became consubstantial- +he ceremonial
sign. namely. the eating the bread and drin#ing the %ine. became a symbol.
that is. a solemn instance and eem,li!ication o! the class o! mysterious
acts. %hich %e are. or as Christians should be. ,er!orming daily and hourly
in every social duty and recreation- +his is indeed to re7create the man in
and by Christ- "ublimely did the &athers call the *ucharist the etension o!
the )ncarnation: only ) should have ,re!erred the ,er,etuation and
a,,lication o! the )ncarnation-
Ib.
A bare %riting %ithout a seal is o! no !orce-
9eta,hors are sorry logic. es,ecially meta,hors !rom human and those too
conventional usages to the ordinances o! eternal %isdom-
Ib. p# $&+#
Luther said. MNo- A Christian is %holly and altogether sancti!ied- N N $e
must ta#e sure hold on Ba,tism by !aith. as then %e shall be. yea. already
are. sancti!ied- )n this sort (avid nameth himsel! holy-M
A dee, thought- "trong meat !or men- )t must not be o!!ered !or mil#-
Chap# xxi# p# $()#
+hen ) %ill declare him o,enly to the Church. and in this manner ) %ill say:
MLoving !riends. ) declare unto you. ho% that N- N- hath been admonished:
!irst. by mysel! in ,rivate. a!ter%ards also by t%o cha,lains. thirdly. by t%o
aldermen and church%ardens. and those o! the assembly: yet
not%ithstanding he %ill not desist !rom his sin!ul #ind o! li!e- $here!ore )
earnestly desire you to assist and aid me. to #neel do%n %ith me. and let us
,ray against him. and deliver him over to the (evil-M
Luther did not mean that this should be done all at once< but that a day
should be a,,ointed !or the congregation to meet !or Foint consultation. and
according to the resolutions ,assed to choose and commission such and
such ,ersons to %ait on the o!!ender. and to ehort. ,ersuade and threaten
him in the name o! the congregation: then. i! a!ter due time allo%ed. this
,roved !ruitless. to #neel do%n %ith the minister. Ic- "urely. %ere it only
!easible. nothing could be more desirable- But alasE it is not com,atible
%ith a Church national. the congregations o! %hich are there!ore not
gathered nor elected. or %ith a Church established by la%< !or la% and
disci,line are mutually destructive o! each other. being the same as
involuntary and voluntary ,enance-
Chap# xxii# p# $%+#
$icli!!e and Huss o,,osed and assaulted the manner o! li!e and
conversation in 8o,edom- But ) chie!ly do o,,ose and resist their doctrine<
) a!!irm roundly and ,lainly that they teach not aright- +hereto am ) called-
) ta#e the goose by the nec#. and set the #ni!e to the throat- $hen ) can
maintain that the 8o,e's doctrine is !alse. C%hich ) have ,roved and
maintainedD. then ) %ill easily ,rove and maintain that their manner o! li!e
is evil-
+his is a remar# o! dee, insight: ver'm vere L'theran'm-
Ib. p# $%1#
Ambition and ,ride Csaid LutherD. are the ran#est ,oison in the Church
%hen they are ,ossessed by ,reachers- Juinglius thereby %as misled. %ho
did %hat ,leased himsel! N N N He %rote. MQe honorable and good ,rinces
must ,ardon me. in that ) give you not your titles< !or the glass %indo%s are
as %ell illustrious as ye-M
'ne might !ancy. in the 4ision7o!79ir>a style. that all the angry.
contem,tuous. haughty e,ressions o! good and >ealous men. gallant sta!!7
o!!icers in the army o! Christ. !ormed a ric# o! stra% and stubble. %hich at
the last day is to be divided into more or !e%er haycoc#s. according to the
number o! #ind and un!eignedly humble and charitable thoughts and
s,eeches that had intervened. and that these %ere ,laced in a ,ile. lea,7!rog
!ashion. in the narro% road to the gate o! 8aradise< and burst into !lame as
the >eal o! the individual a,,roached.Bso that he must lea, over and
through them- No% ) cannot hel, thin#ing. that this dear man o! ?od.
heroic Luther. %ill !ind more o,,ortunities o! sho%ing his agility. and reach
the gate in a greater s%eat and %ith more blisters a parte post than his
brother hero. Juinglius- ) guess that the comments o! the latter on the
8ro,hets %ill be !ound almost sterile in these tiger7lilies and brimstone
!lo%ers o! ,olemic rhetoric. com,ared %ith the controversy o! the !ormer
%ith our Henry 4)))-. his re,lies to the 8o,e's Bulls. and the li#e-
By the by. the Fo#e o! the 'glass %indo%s' is lost in the translation- +he
?erman !or illustrious is d'rchla'chti$. that is. trans,arent or translucent-
Ib.
$hen %e leave to ?od his name. his #ingdom and %ill. then %ill he also
give unto us our daily bread. and %ill remit our sins. and deliver us !rom
the devil and all evil- 'nly his honor he %ill have to himsel!-
A brie! but most ecellent comment on the Lord's 8rayer-
Ib. p# $%(#
+here %as never any that understood the 'ld +estament so %ell as "t- 8aul.
ece,t only :ohn the Ba,tist-
) cannot conFecture %hat Luther had in his mind %hen he made this
ece,tion-
Chap# ..*II# p# ''&#
) could %ish Csaid LutherD that the 8rinces and "tates o! the *m,ire %ould
ma#e an assembly. and hold a council and a union both in doctrine and
ceremonies. so that every one might not brea# in and run on %ith such
insolency and ,resum,tion according to his o%n brains. as already is
begun. %hereby many good hearts are o!!ended-
"trange heart o! manE $ould Luther have given u, the doctrine o!
Fusti!ication by !aith alone. had the maFority o! the Council decided in !avor
o! the Arminian schemeL )! not. by %hat right could he e,ect
Kcolam,adius or Juinglius to recant their convictions res,ecting the
*ucharist. or the Ba,tists theirs on )n!ant Ba,tism. to the same authorityL
)n !act. the %ish e,ressed in this ,assage must be considered as a mere
!lying thought shot out by the mood and !eeling o! the moment. a sort o!
conversational !lying7!ish that dro,,ed as soon as the moisture o! the !ins
had eva,orated- +he ,aragra,h in ,- 333. o! %hat Councils ought to order.
should be considered Luther's genuine o,inion-
Ib. p# ''(#
+he council o! Nice. held a!ter the A,ostles' time. Csaid LutherD %as the
very best and ,urest< but soon a!ter in the time o! the *m,eror Constantine.
it %as %ea#ened by the Arians-
$hat Arius himsel! meant. ) do not #no%: %hat the modern Arians teach. )
utterly condemn< but that the great council o! Ariminum %as either Arian or
heretical ) could never discover. or descry any essential di!!erence bet%een
its decisions and the Nicene< though ) seem to !ind a serious di!!erence o!
the ,seudo7Athanasian Creed !rom both- )! there be a di!!erence bet%een
the Councils o! Nicea and Ariminum. it ,erha,s consists in this< Bthat the
Nicene %as the more anious to assert the eGual (ivinity in the &ilial
subordination< the Ariminian to maintain the &ilial subordination in the
eGual (ivinity- )n both there are three sel!7subsistent and only one sel!7
originated: B%hich is the substance o! the idea o! the +rinity. as !aith!ully
%orded as is com,atible %ith the necessary inadeGuacy o! %ords to the
e,ression o! ideas. that is. s,iritual truths that can only be s,iritually
discerned
0
-
18th August. 18/3-
Chap# ..*III# p# '4(#
?od's %ord a Lord o! all Lords-
Luther every %here identi!ies the living $ord o! ?od %ith the %ritten
%ord. and rages against Bullinger. %ho contended that the latter is the %ord
o! ?od only as !ar as and !or %hom it is the vehicle o! the !ormer- +o this
Luther re,lies: M9y voice. the vehicle o! my %ords. does not cease to be
my voice. because it is ignorantly or maliciously misunderstood-M QeaE
Cmight Bullinger have reFoinedD the instance %ere a,,licable and the
argument valid. i! %e %ere ,reviously assured that all and every ,art o! the
'ld and Ne% +estament is the voice o! the divine $ord- But. ece,t by the
",irit. %hence are %e to ascertain thisL Not !rom the boo#s themselves< !or
not one o! them ma#es the ,retension !or itsel!. and the t%o or three tets.
%hich seem to assert it. re!er only to the La% and the 8ro,hets. and no
%here enumerate the boo#s that %ere given by ins,iration: and ho%
obscure the history o! the !ormation o! the Canon. and ho% great the
di!!erence o! o,inion res,ecting its di!!erent ,arts. %hat scholar is
ignorantL
Chap# ..I.# p# '4%#
&atres, 3'am3'am s2pe errant, tamen venerandi propter testimoni'm
fidei.
Although ) learn !rom all this cha,ter. that Luther %as no great 8atrician.
Cindeed he %as better em,loyedD. yet ) am nearly. i! not %holly o! his mind
res,ecting the %or#s o! the &athers- +hose %hich a,,ear to me o! any great
value are valuable chie!ly !or those articles o! Christian &aith %hich are. as
it %ere. ante Christ'm :*"@9. namely. the +rinity. and the ,rimal
)ncarnation s,o#en o! by :ohn i. 15- But in the main ) should ,erha,s go
even !arther than Luther< !or ) cannot conceive any thing more li#ely than
that a young man o! strong and active intellect. %ho has no !ears. or su!!ers
no !ears o! %orldly ,rudence to cry. HaltE to him in his career o!
conseGuential logic. and %ho has been inn'trit's et 7'rat's in the ?rotio7
8aleyan scheme o! Christian evidence. and %ho has been taught by the men
and boo#s. %hich he has been bred u, to regard as authority. to consider all
in%ard e,eriences as !anatical delusions<B) say. ) can scarcely conceive
such a young man to ma#e a serious study o! the &athers o! the !irst !our or
!ive centuries %ithout becoming either a =omanist or a (eist- Let him only
read 8etavius and the di!!erent 8atristic and *cclesiastico7historical tracts
o! "emler. and have no better ,hiloso,hy than that o! Loc#e. no better
theology than that o! Arminius and Bisho, :eremy +aylor. and ) should
tremble !or his belie!- Qet %hy tremble !or a belie! %hich is the very
anti,ode o! !aithL Better !or such a man to ,reci,itate himsel! on to the
utmost goal: !or then ,erha,s he may in the re,ose o! intellectual activity
!eel the nothingness o! his ,ri>e. or the %retchedness o! it< and then
,erha,s the in%ard yearning a!ter a religion may ma#e him as#<BMHave )
not mista#en the road at the outsetL Am ) sure that the =e!ormers. Luther
and the rest collectively. %ere !anaticsLM
Ib. p# '&1#
Take no care .hat ye shall eat- As though that commandment did not
hinder the car,ing and caring !or the daily bread-
&or 'caring.' read. 'anietyE' Sit tibi c'r2, non a'tem solicit'dini, panis
3'otidian's-
Ib.
*ven so it %as %ith Ambrose: he %rote indeed %ell and ,urely. %as more
serious in %riting than Austin. %ho %as amiable and mild- N N N &ulgentius
is the best ,oet. and !ar above Horace both %ith sentences. !air s,eeches
and good actions< he is %ell %orthy to be ran#ed and numbered %ith and
among the ,oets-
Der Te'felE "urely the e,ithets should be reversed- Austin's mildnessB
the d'r's pater infant'mE And the s'per7Horatian e!!ulgence o! 9aster
&oolgentiusE ' "%anE thy critical cygnets are but goslings-
N-B- ) have. ho%ever. since ) %rote the above. heard 9r- :- Hoo#ham &rere
s,ea# highly o! &ulgentius-
Ib. p# '&$#
&or the &athers %ere but men. and to s,ea# the truth. their re,utes and
authorities did undervalue and su,,ress the boo#s and %ritings o! the
sacred A,ostles o! Christ-
$e doubtless !ind in the %ritings o! the &athers o! the second century. and
still more strongly in those o! the third. ,assages concerning the "cri,tures
that seem to say the same as %e 8rotestants no% do- But then %e !ind the
very same ,hrases used o! %ritings not A,ostolic. or %ith no other
di!!erence than %hat the greater name o! the authors %ould naturally
,roduce< Fust as a 8latonist %ould s,ea# o! ",eusi,,us's boo#s. %ere they
etant. com,ared %ith those o! later teachers o! 8latonism<B'He %as
8lato's ne,he%7had seen 8latoB%as his a,,ointed successor. Ic-' But in
ins,iration the early Christians. as !ar as ) can Fudge. made no generic
di!!erence. let Lardner say %hat he %ill- Can he dis,rove that it %as
declared heretical by the Church in the second century to believe the
%ritten %ords o! a dead A,ostle in o,,osition to the %ords o! a living
Bisho,. seeing that the same s,irit %hich guided the A,ostles d%ells in and
guides the Bisho,s o! the ChurchL +his at least is certain. that the later the
age o! the %riter. the stronger the e,ression o! com,arative su,eriority o!
the "cri,tures< the earlier. on the other hand. the more %e hear o!
the Symbol'm. the 5e$'la 1idei. the Creed-
Chap# ...II# p# ')$#
+he history o! the 8ro,het :onas is so great that it is almost incredible< yea.
it soundeth more strange than any o! the ,oets' !ables. and Csaid LutherD i! it
stood not in the Bible. ) should ta#e it !or a lie-
)t is Guite %onder!ul that Luther. %ho could see so ,lainly that the boo# o!
:udith %as an allegoric ,oem. should have been blind to the boo# o! :onas
being an a,ologue. in %hich :onah means the )sraelitish nation-
Ib. p# ')4#
&or they entered into the garden about the hour at noon day. and having
a,,etites to eat. she too# delight in the a,,le< then about t%o o! the cloc#.
according to our account. %as the !all-
9ilton has ado,ted this notion in the 8aradise LostBnot im,robably !rom
this boo#-
Ib. p# ')&#
(avid made a 8salm o! t%o and t%enty ,arts. in each o! %hich are eight
verses. and yet in all is but one #ind o! meaning. namely. he %ill only say.
+hy la% or %ord is good-
) have conFectured that the 119th 8salm might have been a !orm o!
ordination. in %hich a series o! candidates made their ,rayers and
,ro!ession in the o,en +em,le be!ore they %ent to the several synagogues
in the country-
Ib.
But Csaid LutherD ) say. he did %ell and right thereon: !or the o!!ice o! a
magistrate is to ,unish the guilty and %ic#ed male!actors- He made a vo%.
indeed. not to ,unish him. but that is to be understood. so long as (avid
lived-
' LutherE LutherE as# your o%n heart i! this is not :esuit morality-
Chap# ...III# v# ')(#
) believe Csaid LutherD the %ords o! our Christian belie! %ere in such sort
ordained by the A,ostles. %ho %ere together. and made this
s%eet Symbol'm so brie!ly and com!ortable-
)t is di!!icult not to regret that Luther had so su,er!icial a #no%ledge o!
*cclesiastical antiGuities: !or eam,le. his belie! in this !able o! the Creed
having been a picnic contribution o! the t%elve A,ostles. each giving a
sentence- $hereas nothing is more certain than that it %as the gradual
,roduct o! three or !our centuries-
Chap# ...I*# p# ')%#
An angel Csaid LutherD is a s,iritual creature created by ?od %ithout a body
!or the service o! Christendom. es,ecially in the o!!ice o! the Church-
$hat did Luther mean by a bodyL &or to me the %ord seemeth ca,able o!
t%o senses. universal and s,ecial:B!irst. a !orm indicating to A- B- C- Ic-.
the eistence and !initeness o! some one other being demonstrative as hic.
and dis7'nctive as hic et non ille< and in this sense ?od alone can be
%ithout body: secondly. that %hich is not merely hic distinctive.
but divisive< yea. a ,roduct divisible !rom the ,roducent as a sna#e !rom its
s#in. a ,reci,itate and death o! living ,o%er< and in this sense the body is
,ro,er to mortality. and to be denied o! s,irits made ,er!ect as %ell as o!
the s,irits that never !ell !rom ,er!ection. and ,erha,s o! those %ho !ell
belo% mortality. namely. the devils-
But ) am inclined to hold that the (evil has no one body. nay. no body o!
his o%n< but ceaselessly usur,s or counter!eits bodies< !or he is an
everlasting liar. yea. the lie %hich is the colored shado% o! the substance
that interce,ts the truth-
Ib. p# '(+#
+he devils are in %oods. in %aters. in %ildernesses. and in dar# ,ooly
,laces. ready to hurt and ,reFudice ,eo,le. Ic-
M+he angel's li#e a !lea.
+he devil is a bore<BM
No matter !or thatE Guoth "-+-C-
) love him the better there!ore-
QesE heroic "%an. ) love thee even %hen thou gabbiest li#e a goose< !or thy
geese hel,ed to save the Ca,itol-
Ib. p# '(1#
) do verily believe Csaid LutherD that the day o! Fudgment dra%eth near. and
that the angels ,re,are themselves !or the !ight and combat. and that %ithin
the s,ace o! a !e% hundred years they %ill stri#e do%n both +ur# and 8o,e
into the bottomless ,it o! hell-
QeaE t%o or three more such angels as thysel!. 9artin Luther. and thy
,rediction %ould be. or ,erha,s %ould no% have been. accom,lished-
Chap# ...*# p# '//#
Cogitations o! the understanding do ,roduce no melancholy. but the
cogitations o! the %ill cause sadness< as. %hen one is grieved at a thing. or
%hen one doth sigh and com,lain. there are melancholy and sad
cogitations. but the understanding is not melancholy-
*ven in Luther's lo%est imbecilities %hat gleams o! vigorous good senseE
Had he understood the nature and sym,toms o! indigestion together %ith
the detail o! subFective seeing and hearing. and the eistence o! mid7states
o! the brain bet%een slee,ing and %a#ing. Luther %ould have been a
greater ,hiloso,her< but %ould he have been so great a heroL ) doubt it-
8raised be ?od %hose mercy is over all his %or#s< %ho bringeth good out
o! evil. and mani!esteth his %isdom even in the !ollies o! his servants. his
strength in their %ea#nessE
Ib. p# '/%#
$hoso ,rayeth a 8salm shall be made thoroughly %arm-
!"pert's credo-
19th Aug- 18/3-
) have learnt to inter,ret !or mysel! the im,recating verses o! the 8salms o!
my in%ard and s,iritual enemies. the old Adam and all his corru,t menials<
and thus ) am no longer. as ) used to be. sto,,ed or scandali>ed by such
,assages as vindictive and anti7Christian-
Ib.
+he (evil Csaid LutherD o!tentimes obFected and argued against me the
%hole cause %hich. through ?od's grace. ) lead- He obFecteth also against
Christ- But better it %ere that the +em,le bra#e in ,ieces than that Christ
should therein remain obscure and hid-
"ublimeE
Ib.
)n :ob are t%o cha,ters concerning Behemoth the %hale. that by reason o!
him no man is in sa!ety- N N +hese are colored %ords and !igures %hereby
the (evil is signi!ied and sho%ed-
A slight mista#e o! brother 9artin's- +he Behemoth o! :ob is beyond a
doubt neither %hale nor devil. but. ) thin#. the hi,,o,otamus< %ho is
indeed as ugly as the devil. and %ill occasionally ,lay the devil among the
rice7grounds< but though in this res,ect a devil o! a !ello%. yet on the %hole
he is too honest a monster to be a !ello% o! devils- Vindici2 Behemotic2-
Chap# ...*I# p# '%+#
#f itchcraft-
)t o!ten ,resses on my mind as a %eighty argument in ,roo! o! at least a
negative ins,iration. an es,ecial restraining grace. in the com,osition o! the
Canonical boo#s. that though the %riters individually did Cthe greater
number at leastD most ,robably believe in the obFective reality o!
%itchcra!t. yet no such direct assertions as these o! Luther's. %hich %ould
%ith the vast maFority o! Christians have raised it into an article o! !aith. are
to be !ound in either +estament- +hat the #b and #both o! 9oses are no
authorities !or this absurd su,erstition. has been unans%erably she%n by
$ebster
1
-
Chap# ...*II# p# '%/#
+o conclude. Csaid LutherD. ) never yet #ne% a troubled and ,er,leed man.
that %as right in his o%n %its-
A sound observation o! great ,ractical utility- *d%ard )rving should be
a%are o! this in dealing %ith conscience7troubled Cbut in !act !ancy7veedD
%omen-
Ib.
)t %as not a thorn in the !lesh touching the unchaste love he bore to%ards
+ecla. as the 8a,ists dream-
) should li#e to #no% ho% high this strange legend can be traced- +he other
tradition that "t- 8aul %as subFect to e,ile,tic !its. has a less legendary
character- +he ,hrase thorn in the flesh is scarcely reconcilable %ith
Luther's hy,othesis. other%ise than as doubts o! the obFectivity o! his
vision. and o! his a!ter revelations may have been conseGuences o! the
disease. %hatever that might be-
Ib. p# '%%#
'ur Lord ?od doth li#e a ,rinter. %ho setteth the letters bac#%ards< %e see
and !eel %ell his setting. but %e shall see the ,rint yonder in the li!e to
come-
A beauti!ul simile- Add that even in this %orld the lives. es,ecially the
autobiogra,hies. o! eminent servants o! Christ. are li#e the loo#ing7glass or
mirror. %hich. reversing the ty,es. renders them legible to us-
Ib. p# 4+'#
Indi$n's s'm, sed di$n's f'i8creari a Deo. Ic- Although ) am un%orthy.
yet nevertheless I have been %orthy. in that I am created o! ?od. Ic-
+he translation does not give the true sense o! the Latin- )t should
be .as and to be- +he di$n's f'i has here the sense o! di$n'm me hab'it
De's- "ee Herbert's little ,oem in the +em,le:
"%eetest "aviour. i! my soul
$ere but %orth the having.
;uic#ly should ) then control
Any thought o! %aving<
But %hen all my care and ,ains
Cannot give the name o! gains
+o thy %retch so !ull o! stains.
$hat delight or ho,e remainsL
Ib. p# 4+4#
+he chie!est ,hysic !or that disease Cbut very hard and di!!icult it is to be
doneD is. that they !irmly hold such cogitations not to be theirs. but that
most sure and certain they come o! the (evil-
9ore and more ) understand the immense di!!erence bet%een the &aith7
article o! the Devil and the su,erstitious !ancy o!
devils: anim's ob7ectiv's dominationem in
affectans< -
Chap# .LI*# p# 4'1#
) truly advise all those Csaid LutherD %ho earnestly do a!!ect the honor o!
Christ and the ?os,el. that they %ould be enemies to *rasmus
=oterodamus. !or he is a devaster o! religion- (o but read only his
dialogue De &ere$rinatione. %here you %ill see ho% he derideth and
!louteth the %hole religion. and at last concludeth out o! single
abominations. that he reFecteth religion. Ic-
=eligion here means the vo%s and habits o! the religious or those bound to
a ,articular li!e<Bthe mon#s. !riars. nuns. in short. the regulars in
contradistinction !rom the laity and the secular Clergy-
Ib. p# 4'$#
*rasmus can do nothing but cavil and !lout. he cannot con!ute- )! Csaid
LutherD ) %ere a 8a,ist. so could ) easily overcome and beat him- &or
although he !louteth the 8o,e %ith his ceremonies. yet he neither hath
con!uted nor overcome him< no enemy is beaten nor overcome %ith
moc#ing. Feering. and !louting-
9ost true< but it is an ecellent ,ioneer and an ecellent corps de reserve.
cavalry !or ,ursuit. and !or clearing the !ield o! battle. and in the !irst use
Luther %as greatly obliged to *rasmus- But such utter unli#es cannot but
end in disli#es. and so it ,roved bet%een *rasmus and Luther- *rasmus.
might the 8rotestants say. %ished no good to the Church o! =ome. and still
less to our ,arty: it %as %ith him 5ot her and Dam 'sE
Chap# .L*III# p# 44$#
(avid's eam,le is !ull o! o!!ences. that so holy a man. chosen o! ?od.
should !all into such great abominable sins and blas,hemies< %hen as
be!ore he %as very !ortunate and ha,,y. o! %hom all the bordering
#ingdoms %ere a!raid. !or ?od %as %ith him-
)! any ,art o! the 'ld +estament be ty,ical. the %hole li!e and character o!
(avid. !rom his birth to his death. are eminently so- And accordingly the
history o! (avid and his 8salms. %hich !orm a most interesting ,art o! his
history. occu,ies as large a ,ortion o! the 'ld +estament as all the others-
+he ty,e is t%o7!old7no% o! the 9essiah. no% o! the Church. and o! the
Church in all its relations. ,ersecuted. victorious. bac#sliding. ,enitent-
N-B- ) do not !ind (avid charged %ith any vices. though %ith heavy crimes-
"o it is %ith the Church- 4ices destroy its essence-
Ib.
+he same %as a strange #ind o! o!!ence Csaid LutherD that the %orld %as
o!!ended at him %ho raised the dead. %ho made the blind to see. and the
dea! to hear. Ic-
'ur Lord alluded to the verse that immediately !ollo%s and com,letes his
Guotations !rom )saiah
3
- ). :ehovah. %ill come and do this- +hat he
im,licitly declared himsel! the :ehovah. the $ord.Bthis %as the o!!ence-
Chap# .LI.# p# 44'#
?od %ills. may one say. that %e should serve him !ree%illingly. but he that
serveth ?od out o! !ear o! ,unishment o! hell. or out o! a ho,e and love o!
recom,ence. the same serveth and honoreth ?od not !reely< there!ore such
a one serveth ?od not u,rightly nor truly-
%ns.er- +his argument Csaid LutherD is "toical. Ic-
A truly %ise ,aragra,h- 8ity it %as not e,ounded- ?od %ill acce,t our
im,er!ections. %here their !ace is turned to%ard him. on the road to the
glorious liberty o! the ?os,el-
Chap# L# p# 44)#
)t is the highest grace and gi!t o! ?od to have an honest. a ?od7!earing.
house%i!ely consort. Ic- But ?od thrusteth many into the state o!
matrimony be!ore they be a%are and rightly bethin# themselves-
+he state o! matrimony Csaid LutherD is the chie!est state in the %orld a!ter
religion. Ic-
AlasE alasE this is the misery o! it. that so many %ed and so !e% are
Christianly marriedE But even in this the analogy o! matrimony to the
religion o! Christ holds good: !or even such is the ,ro,ortion o! nominal to
actual Christians<Ball christened. ho% !e% ba,ti>edE But in true
matrimony it is beauti!ul to consider. ho% ,eculiarly the marriage state
harmoni>es %ith the doctrine o! Fusti!ication by !ree grace through !aith
alone- +he little Guarrels. the im,er!ections on both sides. the occasional
!railties. yield to the one thought.B there is love at the bottom- )! sic#ness
or other sorer calamity visit me. ho% %ould the love then bla>e !orthE +he
!aults are there. but they are not im,rinted- +he ,ric#les. the acrid rind. the
bitterness or sourness. are trans!ormed into the ri,e !ruit. and the
!ore#no%ledge o! this gives the name and virtue o! the ri,e !ruit to the !ruit
yet green on the bough-
Ib. p# 44(#
+he causers and !ounders o! matrimony are chie!ly ?od's commandments.
Ic- )t is a state instituted by ?od himsel!. visited by Christ in ,erson. and
,resented %ith a glorious ,resent< !or ?od said. It is not $ood that the man
sho'ld be alone: there!ore the %i!e should be a hel, to the husband. to the
end that human generations may be increased. and children nurtured to
?od's honour. and to the ,ro!it o! ,eo,le and countries< also to #ee, our
bodies in sancti!ication-
CAddD and in mutual reverence. our s,irits in a state o! love and tenderness<
and our imaginations ,ure and tranGuil-
)n a %ord. matrimony not only ,reserveth human generations so that the
same remain continually. but it ,reserveth the generations human-
Ib. p# 4&+#
)n the synod at Lei,>ig the la%yers concluded that secret contractors should
be ,unished %ith banishment and be disinherited- $hereu,on Csaid LutherD
) sent them %ord that ) %ould not allo% thereo!. it %ere too gross a
,roceeding. Ic- But nevertheless ) hold it !itting. that those %hich in such
sort do secretly contract themselves. ought shar,ly to be re,roved. yea. also
in some measure severely ,unished-
$hat a s%eet union o! ,rudence and #ind natureE "cold them shar,ly. and
,erha,s let them smart a %hile !or their indiscretion and disobedience< and
then #iss and ma#e it u,. remembering that young !ol#s %ill be young
!ol#s. and that love has its o%n la% and logic-
Chap# LI.# p# 4/1#
+he ,resum,tion and boldness o! the so,hists and "chool7divines is a very
ungodly thing. %hich some o! the &athers also a,,roved o! and etolled<
namely o! s,iritual signi!ications in the Holy "cri,ture. %hereby she is
,iti!ully tattered and torn in ,ieces- )t is an a,ish %or# in such sort to Fuggle
%ith Holy "cri,ture: it is no other%ise than i! ) should discourse o! ,hysic
in this manner: the !ever is a sic#ness. rhubarb is the ,hysic- +he !ever
signi!iedE the sins Brhubarb is :esus Christ. Ic-
$ho seeth not here Csaid LutherD that such signi!ications are mere Fuggling
tric#sL !ven so and a!ter the same manner are they deceived that say.
Children ought to be ba,ti>ed again. because they had not !aith-
&or the li!e o! me. ) cannot !ind the 'even so' in this sentence- +he
%atchman cries. 'hal!7,ast three o'cloc#-' *ven so. and a!ter the same
manner. the great Cham o! +artary has a carbuncle on his nose-
Chap# L.# p# 4/'#
?eorge in the ?ree# tongue. is called a b'ilder. that buildeth countries and
,eo,le %ith Fustice and righteousness. Ic-
A mista#e !or a tiller or boor. !rom Ba'er. ba'en- +he latter hath t%o
senses. to build and to bring into cultivation-
Chap# L..# p# &+'#
) am no% advertised Csaid LutherD that a ne% astrologer is risen. %ho
,resumeth to ,rove that the earth moveth and goeth about. not the
!irmament. the sun and moon. nor the stars< li#e as %hen one %ho sitteth in
a coach or in a shi, and is moved. thin#eth he sitteth still and resteth. but
the earth and the trees go. run. and move themselves- +here!ore thus it
goeth. %hen %e give u, ourselves to our o%n !oolish !ancies and conceits-
+his !ool %ill turn the %hole art o! astronomy u,side7do%n. but the
"cri,ture she%eth and teacheth him another lesson. %hen :oshua
commanded the sun to stand still. and not the earth-
+here is a similar. but still more intolerant and contem,tuous anathema o!
the Co,ernican system in "ir +homas Bro%n. almost t%o centuries later
than Luther-
+hough the ,roblem is o! no di!!icult solution !or re!lecting minds. yet !or
the reading many it %ould be a serviceable %or#. to bring together and
eem,li!y the causes o! the etreme and universal credulity that
characteri>es sundry ,eriods o! history C!or eam,le. !rom A-(- 1055 to
A-(- 1315D: and credulity involves lying and delusionB!or by a seeming
,arado liars are al%ays credulous. though credulous ,ersons are not
al%ays liars< although they most o!ten are-
)t %ould be %orth %hile to ma#e a collection o! the Fudgments o! eminent
men in their generation res,ecting the Co,ernican or 8ythagorean scheme-
'ne %riter C) !orget the nameD inveighs against it as 8o,ery. and a 8o,ish
stratagem to reconcile the minds o! men to +ransubstantiation and the
9ass- &or i! %e may contradict the evidence o! our senses in a matter o!
natural ,hiloso,hy. a fortiori. or much more. may %e be e,ected to do so
in a matter o! !aith-
)n my Noetic. or (octrine and (isci,line o! )deas P lo$ice, #r$anonB)
,ur,ose to select some !our. !ive or more instances o! the sad e!!ects o! the
absence o! ideas in the use o! %ords and in the understanding o! truths. in
the di!!erent de,artments o! li!e< !or eam,le. the %ord body. in connection
%ith resurrection7men. Ic-Band the last instances. %ill C,lease ?odED be
the sad e!!ects on the %hole system o! Christian divinity- ) must remember
Asgill's boo#
2
-
=eligion necessarily. as to its main and ,ro,er doctrines. consists o! ideas.
that is. s,iritual truths that can only be s,iritually discerned. and to the
e,ression o! %hich %ords are necessarily inadeGuate. and must be used by
accommodation- Hence the absolute indis,ensability o! a Christian li!e.
%ith its con!licts and in%ard e,eriences. %hich alone can ma#e a man to
ans%er to an o,,onent. %ho charges one doctrine as contradictory to
another.BMQesE it is a contradiction in terms< but nevertheless so it is. and
both are true. nay. ,arts o! the same truth-MBBut alasE besides other evils
there is this.Bthat the ?os,el is ,reached in !ragments. and %hat the hearer
can recollect o! the sum total o! these is to be his Christian #no%ledge and
belie!- +his is a grievous error- &irst. labour to enlighten the hearer as to the
essence o! the Christian dis,ensation. the grounding and ,ervading idea.
and then set it !orth in its mani!old ,ers,ective. its various stages and
modes o! mani!estation- )n this as in almost all other Gualities o! a ,reacher
o! Christ. Luther a!ter 8aul and :ohn is the great master- None sa% more
clearly than he. that the same ,ro,osition. %hich. addressed to a Christian
in his !irst a%a#ening out o! the death o! sin %as a most %holesome. nay. a
necessary. truth. %ould be a most condemnable Antinomian !alsehood. i!
addressed to a secure Christian boasting and trusting in his !aithByes.
in his o%n !aith. instead o! the !aith o! Christ communicated to him-
) cannot utter ho% dear and ,recious to me are the contents o! ,ages 1927
199. to line 12. o! this %or#. more ,articularly the section headed:
Ho% %e ought to carry ourselves to%ards the La%'s accusations-
Add to these the last t%o sections o! ,- /51
8
- the last touching
"t- Austin's o,inion
9
es,ecially- Li#e%ise. the !irst hal! o! ,- /5/
15
- But
indeed the %hole o! the 1/th cha,ter ''! the La% and the ?os,el' is o!
inestimable value to a serious and earnest minister o! the ?os,el- Here he
may learn both the orthodo !aith. and a holy ,rudence in the time and
manner o! ,reaching the same- :uly. 18/9-
&ootnote 1: Doctoris +artini L'theri Collo3'ia +ensalia9 or (r- 9artin
Luther's (ivine (iscourses at his +able. Ic- Collected !irst together by (r-
Antonius Lauterbach. and a!ter%ards dis,osed into certain common7,laces
by :ohn Auri!aber. (octor in (ivinity- +ranslated by Ca,t- Henry
Bell- 1olio London. 131/-
return to !ootnote mar#
&ootnote /: :. B. ) should not have %ritten the above note in my ,resent
state o! light<Bnot that ) !ind it !alse. but that it may have the e!!ect o!
!alsehood by not going dee, enough- :uly. 18/9-
return
&ootnote 3: Charles Lamb-B!d-
return
&ootnote 0:
M'ut o! the number o! 055. there %ere but 85 Arians at the utmost- +he
other 3/5 and more %ere really orthodo men. induced by arti!ices to
subscribe a Creed %hich they understood in a good sense. but %hich. being
%orded in general terms. %as ca,able o! being ,erverted to a bad one-M
aterland, Vindication. Ic-. c- vi-B!d-
return
&ootnote 1: +he (is,laying o! su,,osed $itchcra!t. Ic- London- folio-
1322- !d-
return
&ootnote 3: )saiah v- 0- li 1- !d- Lu#e iv- 18. 19-
return
&ootnote 2:
MAn argument ,roving that. according to the covenant o! eternal li!e.
revealed in the "cri,tures. man may be translated !rom hence. %ithout
,assing through death. although the human nature o! Christ himsel! could
not be thus translated. till he had ,assed through death-M
"ee Table Talk. ;nd !dit- ,- 1/2- !d-
return
&ootnote 8: $e must ,reach the La% Csaid LutherD !or the sa#es o! the evil
and %ic#ed. Ic-
return
&ootnote 9: +he o,inion o! "t- Austin is Csaid LutherD that the La% %hich
through human strength. natural understanding and %isdom is !ul!illed.
Fusti!ieth not. Ic-
return
&ootnote 15: $hether %e should ,reach only o! ?od's grace and mercy or
not- &rom M8hili, 9elancthon demanded o! LutherMBto Myet %e must ,ress
through. and not su!!er ourselves to recoil-M
return
Contents A )nde
Notes on The Life of St. Theresa
1
1ref# 1art I# p# &1# Letter of 2ather Avila to 3other Teresa de -esu#
8ersons ought to beseech our Lord not to conduct them by the %ay o!
seeing< but that the ha,,y sight o! him and o! his saints be reserved !or
heaven< and that. here he %ould conduct them in the ,lain. beaten road. Ic-
N N But i!. doing all this. the visions continue. and the soul rea,s ,ro!it
thereby. Ic-
)n %hat other language could a young %oman chec# %hile she soothed her
es,oused lover. in his too eager demonstrations o! his ,assionL And yet the
art o! the =oman ,riests.Bto #ee, u, the delusion as serviceable. yet #ee,
o!! those !orms o! it most liable to detection. by medical commentaryE
Life, 1art I# Chap# I*# p# 1&#
But our Lord began to regale me so much by this %ay. that he vouchsa!ed
me the !avor to give me Guiet ,rayer< and sometimes it came so !ar as to
arrive at union< though ) understood neither the one nor the other. nor ho%
much they both deserve to be ,ri>ed- But ) believe it %ould have been a
great deal o! ha,,iness !or me to have understood them- +rue it is. that this
union rested %ith me !or so short a time. that ,erha,s it might arrive to be
but as o! an %ve +aria< yet ) remained %ith so very great e!!ects thereo!.
that %ith not being then so much as t%enty years old. methought ) !ound
the %hole %orld under my !eet-
(reams. the soul hersel! !orsa#ing<
&ear!ul ra,tures< childli#e mirth-
"ilent adorations. ma#ing
A blessed shado% o! this earthE
Ib. Chap# *# p# $4#
) received also the blessed "acrament %ith many tears< though yet. in my
o,inion. they %ere not shed %ith that sense and grie!. !or only my having
o!!ended ?od. %hich might have served to save my soul< i! the error into
%hich ) %as brought by them %ho told me that some things %ere not mortal
sins. C%hich a!ter%ard ) sa% ,lainly that they %ereD might not some%hat
bestead me- NNN 9ethin#s. that %ithout doubt my soul might have run a
ha>ard o! not being saved. i! ) had died then-
Can %e %onder that some ,oor hy,ochondriasts and e,ile,tics have
believed themselves ,ossessed by. or rather to be the (evil himsel!. and so
s,o#e in this imagined character. %hen this ,oor a!!licted s,otless innocent
could be so ,ierced through %ith !anatic ,re7conce,tions. as to tal# in this
manner o! her mortal sins. and their ,robable eternal ,unishment<Band this
too. under the most !ervent sense o! ?od's love and mercyE
Ib. p# 4'#
+rue it is. that ) am both the most %ea#. and the most %ic#ed o! any living-
$hat is the meaning o! these %ords. that occur so o!ten in the %or#s o!
great saintsL (o they believe them literallyL 'r is it a s,eci!ic sus,ension
o! the com,aring ,o%er and the memory. vouchsa!ed them as a gi!t o!
graceLBa gi!t o! telling a lie %ithout breach o! veracityBa gi!t o! humility
indemni!ying ,ride-
Ib. Chap# *III# p# 44#
) have not %ithout cause been considering and re!lecting u,on this li!e o!
mine so long. !or ) discern %ell enough that nobody %ill have gust to loo#
u,on a thing so very %ic#ed-
AgainE Can this !irst sentence be other than madness or a lieL &or observe.
the Guestion is not. %hether +eresa %as or %as not ,ositively very %ic#ed<
but %hether according to her o%n scale o! virtue she %as most and very
%ic#ed com,aratively- "ee ,ost Cha,- 6- ,- 1278-
+hat relatively to the command Be ye perfect even as yo'r 1ather in
Heaven is perfect. and be!ore the eye o! his o%n ,ure reason. the best o!
men may deem himsel! mere !olly and im,er!ection. ) can easily conceive<
but this is not the case in Guestion- )t is here a com,arison o! one man %ith
all others o! %hom he has #no%n or heard<Ber$o. a matter o! e,erience<
and in this sense it is im,ossible. %ithout loss o! memory and Fudgment on
the one hand. or o! veracity and sim,licity on the other- Besides. o! %hat
use is itL +o dra% o!! our conscience !rom the relation bet%een ourselves
and the ,er!ect ideal a,,ointed !or our imitation. to the vain com,arison o!
one individual sel! %ith other menE $ill their sins lessen mine. though they
%ere greaterL (oes not every man stand or !all to his o%n 9a#er according
to his o%n beingL
Ib. p# 4&#
) see not %hat one thing there is o! so many as are to be !ound in the %hole
%orld. %herein there is need o! a greater courage than to treat o!
committing treason against a #ing. and to #no% that he #no%s it %ell. and
yet never to go out o! his ,resence- &or ho%soever it be very true that %e
are al%ays in the ,resence o! ?od< yet methin#s that they %ho converse
%ith him in ,rayer are in his ,resence a!ter a more ,articular manner< !or
they are seeing then that he sees them< %hereas others may. ,erha,s.
remain some days in his ,resence. yet %ithout remembering that he loo#s
u,on them-
A very ,retty and s%eet remar#: truth in ne% !eminine beautyE
In fine-
Ho% incom,arably educated %as +eresa !or a mystic saint. a mother o!
trans,orts and !usions o! s,iritE
1-A %oman<
/-'! ran#. and reared delicately<
3-A ",anish lady<
0-$ith very ,ious ,arents and sisters<
1-Accustomed in early childhood to read M%ith most believing heartM
all the legends o! saints. martyrs. ",anish martyrs. %ho !ought
against the 9oors<
3-)n the habit o! ,rivately C%ithout the #no%ledge o! the su,erstitious
&atherD reading boo#s o! chivalry to her mother. and then all night to
hersel!-
2-+hen her ",anish s%eet7hearting. doubtless in the true 'roondates
styleBand %ith ,er!ect innocence. as !ar as a,,ears< and this giving
o! audience to a dying s%ain through a grated %indo%. on having
received a lover's messages o! !lames and des,air. %ith her aversion
at !i!teen or siteen years o! age to shut hersel! u, !or ever in a strict
nunnery. a,,ear to have been those mortal sins. o! %hich she accuses
hersel!. added. ,erha,s to a !e% %arm !ancies o! earthly love<
8-A !rame o! eGuisite sensibility by nature. rendered more so by a
burning !ever. %hich no doubt had some e!!ect u,on her brain. as she
%as !rom that time subFect to !reGuent !ainting !its and deli3'ia:
9-&rightened at her @ncle's. by reading to him (ante's boo#s o! Hell
and :udgment. she con!esses that she at length resolved on nunhood
because she thought it could not be much %orse than 8urgatoryB
and that ,urgatory here %as a chea, e,iation !or Hell !or ever<
15-Combine these Cand ) have ,roceeded no !urther than the eleventh
,age o! her li!eD and thin#. ho% im,ossible it %as. but that such a
creature. so innocent. and o! an imagination so heated. and so %ell
,eo,led should o!ten mista#e the !irst not ,ain!ul. and in such a
!rame. o!ten ,leasurable a,,roaches to deli3'i'm !or divine ra,tures<
and Foin the instincts o! nature acting in the body o! a mind
unconscious o! them. in the #eenly sensitive body o! a mind so
loving and so innocent. and %hat remains to be solved %hich the
stu,idity o! most and the roguery o! a !e% %ould not sim,ly e,lainL
11-'ne source it is almost criminal to have !orgotten. and %hich ,-
1/- o! the !irst 8art brought bac# to my recollection< ) mean. the
e!!ectsBso su,er7sensual that they may easily and most venially ,ass
!or su,ernatural. so very glorious to human nature that. though in
truth they are humanity itsel! in the contradistinguishing sense o! that
a%!ul %ord. it is yet no %onder that. conscious o! the sore
%ea#nesses united in one ,erson %ith this one nobler nature %e
attribute them to a divinity out o! us. Ca mista#e o! the sensuous
imagination in its misa,,lication o! s,ace and ,lace. rather than a
misnomer o! the thing itsel!. !or it is
verily .D the e!!ects. ) mean. o!
the moral !orce a!ter conGuest. the state o! the %hole being a!ter the
victorious struggle. in %hich the %ill has ,reserved its ,er!ect
!reedom by a vehement energy o! ,er!ect obedience to the ,ure or
,ractical reason. or conscience- +hence !lo%s in u,on and !ills the
soul that peace .hich passeth 'nderstandin$. a state a!!ronted and
degraded by the name o! ,leasure. inFured and mis7re,resented even
by that o! ha,,iness. the very corner stone o! that morality %hich
cannot even in thought be distinguished !rom religion. and %hich
seems to mean religion as long as the instinctive craving. dim and
dar# though it may be. o! the moral sense a!ter this un#no%n state
C#no%n only by the bitterness %here it is notD shall remain in human
natureE @nder all !orms o! ,ositive or ,hiloso,hic religion. it has
develo,ed itsel!. too glorious an attribute o! man to be con!ined to
any name or sect< but %hich. it is but truth and historical !act to say.
is more es,ecially !ostered and !avoured by Christianity< and its
!reGuent a,,earance even under the most sel!ish and unchristian
!orms o! Christianity is a stronger evidence o! the divinity o! that
religion. than all the miracles o! Brahma and 4eeshnou could a!!ord.
even though they %ere su,,orted %ith ten!old the Fudicial evidence
o! the ?os,el miracles
/
-
&ootnote 1: +he %or#s o! the Holy 9other "t- +eresa o! :esus &oundress
o! the =e!ormation o! the (iscalced Carmelites- (ivided into t%o ,arts-
+ranslated into *nglish- 9(CL664- !d-
return to !ootnote mar#
&ootnote /: London 1381-
return
Contents A )nde
Notes on 4urnet's Life of Bishop Bedell
1
1815-
p# 1$014#
Here ) must add a ,assage. concerning %hich ) am in doubt %hether it
re!lected more on the sincerity. or on the understanding o! the *nglish
Ambassador- +he breach bet%een the 8o,e and the =e,ublic %as brought
very near a crisis. Ic-
+hese ,ages contain a %ea# and unhandsome attac# on $otton. %ho
doubtless had discovered that the ,resentation o! the 8remonition
,reviously to the reconciliation as ,ublicly com,leted. but a!ter it had been
,rivately agreed on. bet%een the Court o! =ome and the "enate o! 4enice.
%ould embarrass the latter: %hereas. delivered as it %as. it she%ed the
Hing's and his minister's >eal !or 8rotestantism. and yet su,,lied the
4enetians %ith an ans%er not disres,ect!ul to the #ing- Besides. %hat is
there in $otton's %hole li!e Ca man so disinterested. and %ho retired !rom
all his embassies so ,oorD to Fusti!y the remotest sus,icion o! his
insincerityL $hat can this %ord mean less or other than that "ir H- $- %as
either a cry,t78a,ist. or had received a bribe !rom the =omish ,artyL
Horrid accusationsEBBurnet %as notoriously rash and credulous< but )
remember no other instance in %hich his >eal !or the =e!ormation Foined
%ith his credulity has misled him into so gross a calumny- )t is not to be
believed. that Bedell gave any authority to such an as,ersion o! his old and
!aith!ul !riend and ,atron. !urther than that he had related the !act. and that
he and the minister di!!ered in o,inion as to the ,rudence o! the measure
recommended- Ho% laly too the story is narratedE +he eact date o! the
recommendation by &ather 8aul and the divines should have been given<B
then the date o! the ,ublic annunciation o! the reconciliation bet%een the
8o,e and 4enetian =e,ublic< and lastly the day on %hich $otton did
,resent the boo#<B!or even this Burnet leaves uncertain-
p# $)
)t is true he never returned and changed his religion himsel!. but his son
came !rom ",ain into )reland. %hen Bedell %as ,romoted to the Bisho,ric
o! Hilmore there. and told him. that his !ather commanded him to than#
him !or the ,ains he %as at in %riting it- He said. it %as almost al%ays
lying o,en be!ore him. and that he had heard him say. MHe %as resolved to
save one-M And it seems he instructed his son in the true religion. !or he
declared himsel! a 8rotestant on his coming over-
"outhey has given me a bad character o! this son o! the unha,,y convert to
the =omish Church- He became. it seems. a s,y on the =oman Catholics.
availing himsel! o! his !ather's character among them. a crime %hich %ould
indeed render his testimony null and more than null< it %ould be a
,resum,tion o! the contrary- )t is clear !rom his letters to Bedell that the
convert %as a very %ea# man- ) o%e to him. ho%ever. a com,lete
con!irmation o! my old ,ersuasion concerning Bisho, Hall. %hom !rom my
!irst ,erusal o! his %or#s ) have al%ays considered as one o! the blots CalasE
there are too manyD o! the biogra,hy o! the Church o! *ngland< a sel!7
conceited. coarse7minded. ,ersecuting. vulgar ,riest. and Cby %ay o! anti(
clima"D one o! the !irst corru,ters o! and e,igrammati>ers o! our *nglish
,rose style- )t is not true. that "ir +homas Bro%n %as the ,rototy,e o! (r-
:ohnson. %ho imitated him only as !ar as "ir +- B- resembles the maFority
o! his ,redecessors< that is. in the ,edantic ,re!erence o! Latin derivations
to "aon %ords o! the very same !orce- )n the balance and construction o!
his ,eriods (r- :ohnson has !ollo%ed Hall. as any intelligent reader %ill
discover by an attentive com,arison-
p# 1&/
Qea. %ill some man say. MBut that %hich marreth all is the o,inion o! merit
and satis!action-M )ndeed that is the "chool doctrine. but the conscience
enlightened to #no% itsel!. %ill easily act that ,art o! the 8ublican. .ho
smote his breast, and said, -od be mercif'l to me a sinner-
AlasE so !ar !rom this being the case %ith ninety nine out o! one hundred in
",ain. )taly. "icily. and =oman Catholic ?ermany. it is the ?os,el tenets
that are the true "chool doctrine. that is con!ined to boo#s and closets o! the
learned among them-
p# 1)1
And the li#e may be conceived here. since. es,ecially. the idolatry ,ractised
under the obedience o! mystical Babylon is rather in !alse and %ill7%orshi,
o! the true ?od. and rather commended as ,ro!itable than enFoined as
absolutely necessary. and the corru,tions there maintained are rather in a
su,er!luous addition than retraction in any thing necessary to salvation-
+his good man's charity Farring %ith his love and tender recollections o!
&ather 8aul. &ulgentio. and the 4enetian divines. has led him to a !ar. !ar
too ,alliative statement o! =oman idolatry- Not %hat the 8o,e has yet
ventured to thunder !orth !rom his Anti7"inai. but %hat he and his satellites.
the =egulars. en!orce to the ,reclusion o! all true %orshi,. in the actual
,ractice. li!e7long. o! an immense maFority in ",ain. )taly. Bavaria. Austria.
Ic- Ic-Bthis must determine the ,oint- $hat they are themselves.Bnot
%hat they %ould ,ersuade 8rotestants is their essentials or &aith.Bthis is
the main thing-
p#1)4
) ans%er. under correction o! better Fudgments. they have the ministry o!
reconciliation by the communion %hich is given at their 'rdination. being
the same %hich our "aviour le!t in his Church:B.hose sins ye remit, they
are remitted, .hose sins ye retain, they are retained-
Could Bisho, Bedell believe that the mere %ill o! a ,riest could have any
e!!ect on the everlasting %eal or %oe o! a ChristianE *ven to the immediate
disci,les and A,ostles could the tet Ci! indeed it have re!erence to sins in
our sense at all.D mean more than this.B$henever you discover. by the
s,irit o! #no%ledge %hich ) %ill send unto you. re,entance and !aith. you
shall declare remission o! sins< and the sins shall be remitted<7and %here
the contrary eists. your declaration o! eclusion !rom bliss shall be
!ul!illedL (id Christ say. that true re,entance and actual !aith %ould not
save a soul. unless the ,riest's verbal remission %as su,eraddedL
In fine
)! it %ere in my ,o%er ) %ould have this boo# ,rinted in a convenient !orm.
and distributed through every house. at least. through every village and
,arish throughout the #ingdom- A volume o! thought and o! moral !eelings.
the o!!s,ring o! thought. cro%d u,on me. as ) revie% the di!!erent ,arts o!
this admirable man's li!e and creed- 'nly com,are his conduct to :ames
$ads%orth C,robably some ancestral relative o! my honoured !riend.
$illiam $ords%orth: !or the same name in Qor#shire. !rom %hence his
!ather came. is ,ronounced $ads%orthD %ith that o! the !ar. !ar too highly
rated. Bisho, Hall< his letter to Hall tenderly blaming his CHall'sD bitterness
to an old !riend mista#en. and then his letter to that !riend de!ending HallE
$hat a ,icture o! goodnessE ) con!ess. in all *cclesiastical History ) have
read o! no man so s,otless. though o! hundreds in %hich the biogra,hers
have ,ainted them as masters o! ,er!ection: but the moral tact soon !eels
the truth-
&ootnote 1: )n one o! the volumes o! this %or# used by the *ditor !or
ascertaining the re!erences. the !ollo%ing note is %ritten by a !ormer o%ner-
M'ctober 1/. 1288- Begged o! the 9ost Blessed 4irgin 9ary to ta#e my
salvation on hersel!. and obtain it !or "aint Hyacinthe's sa#e< to %hom she
has ,romised to grant any thing. or never to re!use any thing begged !or his
sa#e-M
)t %ould be very interesting to #no% ho% !ar the !eeling e,ressed in this
artless e!!usion coeisted %ith a !aith in the atonement and mediation o! the
one Lord :esus Christ-B!d-
return to !ootnote mar#
Contents A )nde
Notes on 4axter's Life of himself
1
18/5-
Among the grounds !or recommending the ,erusal o! our elder %riters.
Hoo#erB+aylorBBaterBin short almost any o! the !olios com,osed
!rom *d%ard 4)- to Charles ))- ) note:
1-+he overcoming the habit o! deriving your %hole ,leasure
,assively !rom the boo# itsel!. %hich can only be e!!ected by
ecitement o! curiosity or o! some ,assion- &orce yoursel! to re!lect
on %hat you read ,aragra,h by ,aragra,h. and in a short time you
%ill derive your ,leasure. an am,le ,ortion o! it. at least. !rom the
activity o! your o%n mind- All else is ,icture sunshine-
/-+he conGuest o! ,arty and sectarian ,reFudices. %hen you have on
the same table be!ore you the %or#s o! a Hammond and a Bater.
and re!lect ho% many and momentous their ,oints o! agreement. ho%
!e% and almost childish the di!!erences. %hich estranged and irritated
these good men- Let us but imagine %hat their blessed s,irits no%
!eel at the retros,ect o! their earthly !railties. and can %e do other
than strive to !eel as they no% !eel. not as they once !eltL "o %ill it
be %ith the dis,utes bet%een good men o! the ,resent day< and i! you
have no other reason to doubt your o,,onent's goodness than the
,oint in dis,ute. thin# o! Bater and Hammond. o! 9ilton and
+aylor. and let it be no reason at all-
3-)t %ill secure you !rom the idolatry o! the ,resent times and
!ashions. and create the noblest #ind o! imaginative ,o%er in your
soul. that o! living in ,ast ages< %holly devoid o! %hich ,o%er. a
man can neither antici,ate the !uture. nor even live a truly human
li!e. a li!e o! reason in the ,resent-
0-)n this ,articular %or# %e may derive a most instructive lesson.
that in certain ,oints. as o! religion in relation to la%. the medio
t'tissim's ibis is ina,,licable- +here is nomedi'm ,ossible< and all
the attem,ts. as those o! Bater. though no more reGuired than M)
believe in ?od through Christ.M ,rove only the mildness o! the
,ro,oser's tem,er. but as a rule %ould be eGual to nothing. at least
eclude only the t%o or three in a century that ma#e it a matter o!
religion to declare themselves Atheists. or else be Fust as !ruit!ul a
rule !or a ,ersecutor as the most com,lete set o! articles that could be
!ramed by a ",anish )nGuisition-
&or to 'believe.' must mean to believe aright Band '?od' must mean
the true ?odBand 'Christ' the Christ in the sense and %ith the
attributes understood by Christians %ho are truly Christians- An
established Church %ith a Liturgy is a su!!icient solution o! the
,roblem de 7're ma$istrat's- Articles o! !aith are in this ,oint o!
vie% su,er!luous< !or is it not too absurd !or a man to hesitate at
subscribing his name to doctrines %hich yet in the more a%!ul duty
o! ,rayer and ,ro!ession he dares a!!irm be!ore his 9a#erE +hey are
there!ore in this sense merely su,er!luous<Bnot %orth re7enacting.
had they ever been done a%ay %ith<B not %orth removing no% that
they eist-
1-+he characteristic contradistinction bet%een the s,eculative
reasoners o! the age be!ore the =evolution. and those since. is this:
Bthe !ormer cultivated meta,hysics. %ithout. or neglecting.
em,irical ,sychology< the latter cultivate a mechanical ,sychology to
the neglect and contem,t o! meta,hysics- Both there!ore are almost
eGui7distant !rom ,ure ,hiloso,hy- Hence the belie! in ghosts.
%itches. sensible re,lies to ,rayer. and the li#e. in Bater and in a
hundred others- "ee also Luther's +able +al#-
3-+he earlier ,art o! this volume is interesting as materials !or
medical history- +he state o! medical science in the reign o! Charles
)- %as almost incredibly lo%-
+he saddest error o! the theologians o! this age is. . the
dis,osition to urge the histories o! the miraculous actions and incidents. in
and by %hich Christ attested his 9essiahshi, to the :e%ish eye7%itnesses.
in !ul!ilment o! ,ro,hecies. %hich the :e%ish Church had ,reviously
understood and inter,reted as mar#s o! the 9essiah. be!ore they have
she%n %hat and ho% ecellent the religion itsel! is including the miracles
as !or us an harmonious ,art o! the internal or sel!7evidence o! the religion-
AlasE and even %hen our divines do ,roceed to the religion itsel! as to a
something %hich no man could be e,ected to receive ece,t by a
com,ulsion o! the senses. %hich by !orce o! logic only is ,ro,agated !rom
the eye %itnesses to the readers o! the narratives in 18/5BC%hich logic.
namely. that the evidence o! a miracle is not diminished by la,se o! ages.
though this includes loss o! documents and the li#e< %hich logic. ) say.
%hether it be legitimate or not. ?od !orbid that the truth o! Christianity
should de,end on the decisionEDBeven %hen our divines do ,roceed to the
religion itsel!. on %hat do they chie!ly d%ellL 'n the doctrines ,eculiar to
the religionL NoE these on the contrary are either evaded or e,lained a%ay
into meta,hors. or resigned in des,air to the net %orld %here !aith is to be
s%allo%ed u, in certainty-
But the %orst ,roduct o! this e,idemic error is. the !ashion o! either
denying or undervaluing the evidence o! a !uture state and the survival o!
individual consciousness. derived !rom the conscience. and the holy
instinct o! the %hole human race- (read!ul is this:B!or the main !orce o!
the reasoning by %hich this sce,ticism is vindicated consists in reducing all
legitimate conviction to obFective ,roo!: %hereas in the very essence o!
religion and even o! morality the evidence. and the ,re,aration !or its
rece,tion. must be subFective<BBlessed are they that have not seen and yet
believe- And dread!ul it a,,ears to me es,ecially. %ho in the im,ossibility
o! not loo#ing !or%ard to consciousness a!ter the dissolution o! the body
Ccorp's phoenomenon.D have through li!e !ound it Cnet to divine grace-D
the strongest and indeed only e!!icient su,,ort against the still recurring
tem,tation o! ado,ting. nay. %ishing the truth o! ",ino>a's notion. that the
survival o! consciousness is the highest ,ri>e and conseGuence o! the
highest virtue. and that o! all belo% this mar# the lot a!ter death is sel!7
oblivion and the cessation o! individual being- )ndeed. ho% a "e,aratist or
one o! any other sect o! Calvinists. %ho con!ines =edem,tion to the
com,aratively small number o! the elect. can reFect this o,inion. and yet
not run mad at the horrid thought o! an innumerable multitude o!
im,erishable sel!7conscious s,irits everlastingly ecluded !rom ?od. is to
me inconceivable-
(ee,ly am ) ,ersuaded o! Luther's ,osition. that no man can %orthily
estimate. or !eel in the de,th o! his being. the )ncarnation and Cruci!iion
o! the "on o! ?od %ho is a stranger to the terror o! immortality as
ingenerate in man. %hile it is yet unGuelled by the !aith in ?od as the
Almighty &ather-
4oo5 I# 1art I# p# $#
But though my conscience %ould trouble me %hen ) sinned. yet divers sins
) %as addicted to. and o!t committed against my conscience< %hich !or the
%arning o! others ) %ill con!ess here to my shame-
1- ) %as much addicted %hen ) !eared correction to lie. that )
might sca,e-
/- ) %as much addicted to the ecessive gluttonous eating o!
a,,les and ,ears. Ic-
3- +o this end. and to concur %ith naughty boys that gloried
in evil. ) have o!t gone into other men's orchards. and
stolen their !ruit. %hen ) had enough at home. Ic-
+here is a childli#e sim,licity in this account o! his sins o! his childhood
%hich is very ,leasing-
Ib. p# &, )#
And the use that ?od made o! boo#s. above ministers. to the bene!it o! my
soul made me some%hat ecessively in love %ith good boo#s< so that )
thought ) had never enough. but scra,ed u, as great a treasure o! them as )
could- N N N )t made the %orld seem to me as a carcase that had neither li!e
nor loveliness< and it destroyed those ambitious desires a!ter literate !ame
%hich %ere the sin o! my childhood- N N N And !or the mathematics. ) %as
an utter stranger to them. and never could !ind in my heart to divert any
studies that %ay- But in order to the #no%ledge o! divinity. my inclination
%as most to logic and meta,hysics. %ith that ,art o! ,hysics %hich treateth
o! the soul. contenting mysel! at !irst %ith a slighter study o! the rest: and
there had my labour and delight-
$hat a ,icture o! mysel!E
Ib. p# $$#
)n the storm o! this tem,tation ) Guestioned a%hile %hether ) %ere indeed a
Christian or an )n!idel. and %hether !aith could consist %ith such doubts as
) %as conscious o!-
'ne o! the instances o! the evils arising !rom the eGuivoGue bet%een !aith
and intellectual satis!action or insight- +he root o! !aith is in the %ill- &aith
is an oa# that may be a ,ollard. and yet live-
Ib.
+he being and attributes o! ?od %ere so clear to me. that he %as to my
intellect %hat the sun is to my eye. by %hich ) see itsel! and all things-
*ven so %ith me<Bbut. %hether ?od %as eistentially as %ell as
essentially intelligent. this %as !or a long time a sore combat bet%een the
s,eculative and the moral man-
Ib. p# $'#
9ere (eism. %hich is the most ,lausible com,etitor %ith Christianity. is so
turned out o! almost all the %hole %orld. as i! Nature made its o%n
con!ession. that %ithout a 9ediator it cannot come to ?od-
*cellent-
Ib.
All these assistances %ere at hand be!ore ) came to the immediate
evidences o! credibility in the sacred oracles themselves-
+his is as it should be< that is. the evidence a priori. securing the rational
,robability< and then the historical ,roo!s o! its reality- 8ity that Bater's
cha,ters in The Saints' 5estshould have been one and the earliest occasion
o! the inversion o! this ,rocess. the !ruit o! %hich is the ?rotio78aleyan
religion. or minim'm o! !aith< the maim being. 3'anto min's tanto meli's-
Ib. p# $4#
And once all the ignorant rout %ere raging mad against me !or ,reaching
the doctrine o! 'riginal "in to them. and telling them that in!ants. be!ore
regeneration. had so much guilt and corru,tion as made them loathsome in
the eyes o! ?od-
No %onder<Bbecause the babe %ould ,erish %ithout the mother's mil#. is
it there!ore loathsome to the motherL "urely the little ones that Christ
embraced had not been ba,ti>ed- And yet of s'ch is the 0in$dom of
Heaven-
Ib. p# $&#
"ome thought that the Hing should not at all be dis,leased and ,rovo#ed.
and that they %ere not bound to do any other Fustice. or attem,t any other
re!ormation but %hat they could ,rocure the Hing to be %illing to- And
these said. %hen you have dis,leased and ,rovo#ed him to the utmost. he
%ill be your Hing still- N N N +he more you o!!end him. the less you can
trust him< and %hen mutual con!idence is gone. a %ar is beginning- N N N
And i! you conGuer him. %hat the better are youL He %ill still be Hing- Qou
can but !orce him to an agreement< and ho% Guic#ly %ill he have ,o%er
and advantage to violate that %hich he is !orced to. and to be avenged on
you all !or the dis,leasure you have done himE He is ignorant o! the
advantages o! a Hing that cannot !oresee this-
+his ,aragra,h goes to ma#e out a case in Fusti!ication o! the =egicides
%hich Bater %ould have !ound it di!!icult to ans%er- Certainly a more
com,lete e,osure o! the inconsistency o! Bater's o%n ,arty cannot be-
&or observe. that in case o! an agreement %ith Charles all those classes.
%hich a!ter%ards !ormed the main strength o! the 8arliament and
ultimately decided the contest in its !avour. %ould have been ,olitically
inert. %ith little in!luence and no actual ,o%er.B) mean the Qeomanry. and
the Citi>ens o! London: %hile a vast maFority o! the Nobles and landed
?entry. %ho sooner or later must have become the maFority in 8arliament.
%ent over to the Hing at once- Add to these the %hole systemati>ed !orce o!
the High Church Clergy and all the rude ignorant vulgar in high and lo%
li!e. %ho detested every attem,t at moral re!orm.Band it is obvious that
the Hing could not %ant o,,ortunities to retract and undo all that he had
conceded under com,ulsion- But that neither the %ill %as %anting. nor his
conscience at all in the %ay. his o%n advocate Clarendon and others have
su,,lied damning ,roo!s-
Ib. p# $(#
And though 8arliaments may dra% u, Bills !or re,ealing la%s. yet hath the
Hing his negative voice. and %ithout his consent they cannot do it< %hich
though they ac#no%ledge. yet did they too easily admit o! ,etitions against
the *,isco,acy and Liturgy. and connived at all the clamors and ,a,ers
%hich %ere against them-
Ho% soL )! they admitted the Hing's right to deny. they must admit the
subFect's right to entreat-
Ib.
Had they endeavoured the eFection o! lay7chancellors. and the reducing o!
the dioceses to a narro%er com,ass. or the setting u, o! a subordinate
disci,line. and only the correcting and re!orming o! the Liturgy. ,erha,s it
might have been borne more ,atiently-
(id Bater !ind it so himsel!Band %hen too he had the !ormal and
recorded ,romise o! Charles ))- !or itL
Ib.
But %hen the same men C@ssher. $illiams. 9orton. Ic-D sa% that greater
things %ere aimed at. and e,isco,acy itsel! in danger. or their $rande'r
and riches at least. most o! them turned against the 8arliament-
+his. and in this ,lace. is un%orthy o! Bater- *ven he. good man. could
not %holly esca,e the Faundice o! ,arty-
Ib. p# '4#
+hey said to this<Bthat as all the courts o! Fustice do eecute their
sentences in the Hing's name. and this by his o%n la%. and there!ore by his
authority. so much more might his 8arliament do-
A very sound argument is here disguised in a !alse analogy. an ina,,licable
,recedent. and a so,histical !orm- Courts o! Fustice administer the total o!
the su,reme ,o%er retros,ectively. involved in the name o! the most
digni!ied ,art- But here a ,art. as a ,art. acts as the %hole. %here the %hole
is absolutely reGuisite.Bthat is. in ,assing la%s< and again as B- and C-
usur, a ,o%er belonging to A- by the determination o! A- B- and C- +he
only valid argument is. that Charles had by acts o! his o%n ceased to be a
la%!ul Hing-
Ib. p# 4+#
And that the authority and ,erson o! the Hing %ere inviolable. out o! the
reach o! Fust accusation. Fudgment. or eecution by la%< as having no
su,erior. and so no Fudge-
But according to ?rotius. a #ing %aging %ar against the la%!ul co,artners
o! the s'mma potestas ceases to be their #ing. and i! conGuered !or!eits to
them his !ormer share- And surely i! Charles had been victor. he %ould
have ta#en the 8arliament's share to himsel!- )! it had been the 8arliament.
and not a mere !action %ith the army. that tried and beheaded Charles. ) do
not see ho% any one could doubt the la%!ulness o! the act. ece,t u,on
very technical grounds-
Ib. p# 41#
&or i! once legislation. the chie! act o! government. be denied to any ,art o!
government at all. and a!!irmed to belong to the ,eo,le as such. %ho are no
governors. all government %ill hereby be overthro%n-
Here Bater !alls short o! the subFect. and does not see the !ull conseGuents
o! his o%n ,rior. most Fudicious. ,ositions- Legislation in its high and most
,ro,er sense belongs to ?od only- A ,eo,le declares that such and such
they hold to be la%s. that is. ?od's %ill-
Ib. p# 4(#
)n Corn%all "ir =ichard ?renvill. having ta#en many soldiers o! the *arl o!
*sse's army. sentenced about a do>en to be hanged- $hen they had
hanged t%o or three. the ro,e bro#e %hich should have hanged the net-
And they sent !or ne% ro,es so o!t to hang him. and all o! them still bro#e.
that they durst go no !urther. but saved all the rest-
+he soldiers. doubtless. contrived this !rom the aversion natural to
*nglishmen o! #illing an enemy in cold blood< and because they !oresa%
that there %ould be +it !or +at-
Ib. p# &%#
)t is easy to see !rom Bater's o%n account. that his ,arty ruined their o%n
cause and that o! the #ingdom by their tenets concerning the right and duty
o! the civil magistrate to use the s%ord against such as %ere not o! the same
religion %ith themselves-
Ib. p# )$#
+hey seem not to me to have ans%ered satis!actorily to the main argument
!etched !rom the A,ostle's o%n government. %ith %hich "aravia had
inclined me to some *,isco,acy be!ore: though miracles and in!allibility
%ere A,ostolical tem,orary ,rivileges. yet Church government is an
ordinary thing to be continued- And there!ore as the A,ostles had
successors as they %ere ,reachers. ) see not but that they must have
successors as Church governors-
$as not 8eter's sentence against Ananias an act o! Church governmentL
+here!ore though Church government is an ordinary thing in some !orm or
other. it does not !ollo% that one ,articular !orm is an ordinary thing- &or
the time being the A,ostles. as heads o! the Church. did %hat they thought
best< but %hatever %as binding on the Church universal and in all times
they delivered as commands !rom Christ- No% no other command %as
delivered but that all things should conduce to order and edi!ication-
Ib. p# ))#
And there!ore ho% they could re!use to receive the Hing. till he consented
to ta#e the Covenant. ) #no% not. unless the ta#ing o! the Covenant had
been a condition on %hich he %as to receive his cro%n by the la%s or
!undamental constitutions o! the #ingdom. %hich none ,retendeth- Nor
#no% ) by %hat ,o%er they can add anything to the Coronation 'ath or
Covenant. %hich by his ancestors %as to be ta#en. %ithout his o%n consent-
And ,ray. ho% and by %hom %ere the Coronation 'aths !irst im,osedL +he
"cottish nation in 1315 had the same right to ma#e a bargain %ith the
claimant o! their throne as their ancestors had- )t is strange that Bater
should not have seen that his obFections %ould a,,ly to our +a$na Charta-
"o he tal#s o! the M!undamental constitutions.M Fust as i! these had been
aboriginal or rather sans origin. and not as indeed they %ere etorted and
bargained !or by the ,eo,le- But throughout it is ,lain that Bater re,eated.
but never a,,ro,riated. the distinction bet%een the Hing as the eecutive
,o%er. and as the individual !unctionary- $hat obligation lay on the
"cottish 8arliament and Church to consult the man Charles "tuart's
,ersonal li#es and disli#esL +he 'ath %as to be ta#en by him as their Hing-
(oubtless. he eGually disli#ed the %hole 8rotestant interest< and i! the
+ories and Church o! *ngland :acobites o! a later day had recalled :ames
))-. %ould Bater have thought them cul,able !or im,osing on him an 'ath
to ,reserve the 8rotestant Church o! *ngland and to in!lict severe ,enalties
on his o%n Church7!ello%sL
Ib. p# (1#
And some men thought it a very hard Guestion. %hether they should rather
%ish the continuance o! a usur,er that %ill do good. or the restoration o! a
right!ul governor %hose !ollo%ers %ill do hurt-
And %ho shall dare unconditionally condemn those %ho Fudged the !ormer
to be the better alternativeL *s,ecially those %ho did not ado,t Bater's
notion o! a 7's divin'm,ersonal and hereditary in the individual. %hose
!ather had bro#en the com,act on %hich the claim rested-
Ib. p# (&#
'ne 9rs- (yer. a chie! ,erson o! the "ect. did !irst bring !orth a monster.
%hich had the ,arts o! almost all sorts o! living creatures. some ,arts li#e
man. but most ugly and mis,laced. and some li#e beasts. birds and !ishes.
having horns. !ins and cla%s< and at the birth o! it the bed shoo#. and the
%omen ,resent !ell a vomiting. and %ere !ain to go !orth o! the room-
+his babe o! 9rs- (yer's is no bad emblem o! =ichard Bater's o%n
credulity- )t is almost an argument on his side. that nothing he believed is
more strange and ine,licable than his o%n belie! o! them-
Ib. p# ()#
+he third sect %ere the =anters- +hese also made it their business. as the
!ormer. to set u, the light o! nature under the name o! Christ in men. and to
dishonour and cry do%n the Church. Ic-
But %hy does Bater every %here assert the identity o! the ne% light %ith
the light o! natureL 'r %hat does he mean eclusively by the latterL +he
source must be the same in all lights as !ar as it is light-
Ib. p# ((#
And that %as the !ourth sect. the ;ua#ers< %ho %ere but the =anters turned
!rom horrid ,ro!aneness and blas,hemy to a li!e o! etreme austerity on the
other side-
'bserve the b't-
Ib.
+heir doctrine is to be seen in :acob Behmen's boo#s by him that hath
nothing else to do. than to besto% a great deal o! time to understand him
that %as not %illing to be easily understood. and to #no% that his
bombasted %ords do signi!y nothing more than be!ore %as easily #no%n by
common !amiliar terms-
+his is not in all its ,arts true- )t is true that the !irst ,rinci,les o! Behmen
are to be !ound in the %ritings o! the Neo78latonists a!ter 8lotinus. and Cbut
mied %ith gross im,ietiesD in 8aracelsus<Bbut it is not true that they are
easily #no%n. and still less so that they are communicable in common
!amiliar terms- But least o! all is it true that there is nothing original in
Behmen-
Ib.
+he chie!est o! these in *ngland are (r- 8ordage and his !amily-
)t is curious that Lessing in the =evie%. %hich he. Nicolai. and
9endelssohn conducted under the !orm o! Letters to a %ounded '!!icer.
Foins the name o! 8ordage %ith that o! Behmen- $as 8ordage's %or#
translated into ?ermanL
Ib. p# (%#
Also the "ocinians made some increase by the ministry o! one 9r- Biddle.
sometimes schoolmaster in ?loucester< %ho %rote against the ?odhead o!
the Holy ?host. and a!ter%ards o! Christ< %hose !ollo%ers inclined much
to mere (eism-
&or the "ocinians till Biddle retained much o! the Christian religion. !or
eam,le. =edem,tion by the Cross. and the omni,resence o! Christ as to
this ,lanet even as the =omanists %ith their "aints- Luther's obstinate
adherence to the ubiGuity o! the Body o! Christ and his or rather its real
,resence in and %ith the bread %as a sad !urtherance to the advocates o!
8o,ish idolatry and hierolatry-
Ib. p# /+#
9any a time have ) been brought very lo%. and received the sentence o!
death in mysel!. %hen my ,oor. honest. ,raying neighbours have met. and
u,on their !asting and earnest ,rayers ) have been recovered- 'nce %hen )
had continued %ea# three %ee#s. and %as unable to go abroad. the very day
that they ,rayed !or me. being ?ood &riday. ) recovered. and %as able to
,reach. and administer the "acrament the net Lord's (ay. and %as better
a!ter it. Ic-
"trange that the common manuals o! school logic should not have secured
Bater !rom the re,eated blunder o! C'm hoc, er$o, propter hoc< but still
more strange that his ,iety should not have revolted against degrading
,rayer into medical Guac#ery-
Be!ore the =evolution o! 1388. meta,hysics ruled %ithout e,erimental
,sychology. and in these curious ,aragra,hs o! Bater %e see the e!!ect:
since the =evolution e,erimental ,sychology %ithout meta,hysics has in
li#e manner ,revailed. and %e no% !eel the result- )n li#e manner !rom
8lotinus to 8roclus. that is. !rom A- (- /15 to A- (- 015. ,hiloso,hy %as set
u, as a substitute !or religion: during the dar# ages religion su,erseded
,hiloso,hy. and the conseGuences are eGually instructive- +he great maim
o! legislation. intellectual or ,olitical. is S'bordinate, not e"cl'de- Nature
in her ascent leaves nothing behind. but at each ste, subordinates and
glori!ies:Bmass. crystal. organ. sensation. sentience. re!lection-
Ib. p# /$#
Another time. as ) sat in my study. the %eight o! my greatest !olio boo#s
bra#e do%n three or !our o! the highest shelves. %hen ) sat close under
them. and they !ell do%n every side me. and not one o! them hit me. save
one u,on the arm< %hereas the ,lace. the %eight. the greatness o! the boo#s
%as such. and my head Fust under them. that it %as a %onder they had not
beaten out my brains. Ic-
Ib. p# /4#
&or all the ,ains that my in!irmities ever brought u,on me %ere never hal!
so grievous an a!!liction to me. as the unavoidable loss o! my time. %hich
they occasioned- ) could not bear. through the %ea#ness o! my stomach. to
rise be!ore seven o'cloc# in the morning. Ic-
AlasE in ho% many res,ects does my lot resemble Bater's< but ho% much
less have my bodily evils been< and yet ho% very much greater an
im,ediment have ) su!!ered them to beE But verily Bater's labours seem
miracles o! su,,orting grace- 'ught ) not there!ore to retract the note ,- 85L
) %aver-
Ib. p# /(#
&or my ,art. ) bless ?od. %ho gave me even under a @sur,er. %hom )
o,,osed. such liberty and advantage to ,reach his ?os,el %ith success.
%hich ) cannot have under a Hing to %hom ) have s%orn and ,er!ormed
true subFection and obedience< yea. %hich no age since the ?os,el came
into this land did be!ore ,ossess. as !ar as ) can learn !rom history- "ure )
am that %hen it became a matter o! re,utation and honour to be godly. it
abundantly !urthered the successes o! the ministry- Qea. and ) shall add this
much more !or the sa#e o! ,osterity. that as much as ) have said and %ritten
against licentiousness in religion. and !or the magistrate's ,o%er in it. and
though ) thin# that land most ha,,y. %hose rulers use their authority !or
Christ as %ell as !or the civil ,eace< yet in com,arison o! the rest o! the
%orld. ) shall thin# that land ha,,y that hath but bare liberty to be as good
as they are %illing to be< and i! countenance and maintenance be but added
to liberty. and tolerated errors and sects be but !orced to #ee, the ,eace. and
not to o,,ose the substantials o! Christianity. ) shall not herea!ter much !ear
such toleration. nor des,air that truth %ill bear do%n adversaries-
$hat a valuable and citable ,aragra,hE Li#e%ise it is a ha,,y instance o!
the !orce o! a cherished ,reFudice in an honest mindB,ractically yielding
to the truth. but yet %ith a s,eculative. M+hough ) still thin#. Ic-M
Ib. p# 1$/#
Among truths certain in themselves. all are not eGually certain unto me< and
even o! the mysteries o! the ?os,el ) must needs say. %ith 9r- =ichard
Hoo#er. that %hatever some may ,retend. the subFective certainty cannot
go beyond the obFective evidence- N N N +here!ore ) do more o! late than
ever discern the necessity o! a methodical ,rocedure in maintaining the
doctrine o! Christianity- N N N 9y certainty that ) am a man is be!ore my
certainty that there is a ?od- N N N 9y certainty that there is a ?od is
greater than my certainty that he reGuireth love and holiness o! his creature.
Ic-
+here is a con!usion in this ,aragra,h. %hich as#s more than a marginal
note to disentangle- Brie!ly. the ,rocess o! acGuirement is con!ounded %ith
the order o! the truths %hen acGuired- A tinder s,ar# gives light to an
Argand's lam,: is it there!ore more luminousL
Ib. p# 1$%#
And %hen ) have studied hard to understand some abstruse admired boo#.
as de Scientia Dei, de &rovidentia circa mal'm, de Decretis, de
&r2determinatione, de Libertate creat'r2. Ic- ) have but attained the
#no%ledge o! human im,er!ection. and to see that the author is but a man
as %ell as )-
'n these ,oints ) have come to a resting ,lace- Let such articles. as are
either to be recogni>ed as !acts. !or eam,le. sin or evil having its
origination in a %ill< and the reality o! a res,onsible and Cin %hatever sense
!reedom is ,resu,,osed in res,onsibility.D o! a !ree %ill in man<Bor
ac#no%ledged as la%s. !or eam,le. the unconditional bindingness o! the
,ractical reason<Bor to be !reely a!!irmed as necessary through their moral
interest. their indis,ensableness to our s,iritual humanity. !or eam,le. the
,ersoneity. holiness. and moral government and ,rovidence o! ?od<Blet
these be vindicated !rom absurdity. !rom sel!7contradiction. and
contradiction to the ,ure reason. and restored to sim,le
incom,rehensibility- He %ho see#s !or more. #no%s not %hat he is tal#ing
o!< he %ho %ill not see# even this is either indi!!erent to the truth o! %hat
he ,ro!esses to believe. or he mista#es a general determination not to
disbelieve !or a ,ositive and es,ecial !aith. %hich is only our !aith as !ar as
%e can assign a reason !or it- 'E ho% im,ossible it is to move an inch to the
right or the le!t in any ,oint o! s,iritual and moral concernment. %ithout
seeing the damage caused by the con!usion o! reason %ith the
understanding-
Ib. p# 1'1#
9y soul is much more a!!licted %ith the thoughts o! the miserable %orld.
and more dra%n out in desire o! their conversion than hereto!ore- ) %as
%ont to loo# but little !urther than *ngland in my ,rayers. as not
considering the state o! the rest o! the %orld<Bor i! ) ,rayed !or the
conversion o! the :e%s. that %as almost all- But no% as ) better understand
the care o! the %orld. and the method o! the Lord's 8rayer. so there is
nothing in the %orld that lieth so heavy u,on my heart. as the thought o!
the miserable nations o! the earth-
) dare not not condemn mysel! !or the languid or dormant state o! my
!eelings res,ecting the 9ohammedan and Heathen nations< yet #no% not in
%hat degree to condemn- +he less cul,able grounds o! this languor are.
!irst. my utter ignorance o! ?od's ,ur,oses %ith res,ect to the Heathens<
and second. the strong conviction. ) have that the conversion o! a single
,rovince o! Christendom to true ,ractical Christianity %ould do more
to%ard the conversion o! Heathendom than an army o! 9issionaries-
=omanism and des,otic government in the larger ,art o! Christendom. and
the ,revalence o! *,icurean ,rinci,les in the remainder<Bthese do indeed
lie heavy on my heart-
Ib. p# 1'&#
+here!ore ) con!ess ) give but halting credit to most histories that are
%ritten. not only against the Albigenses and $aldenses. but against most o!
the ancient heretics. %ho have le!t us none o! their o%n %ritings. in %hich
they s,ea# !or themselves< and ) heartily lament that the historical %ritings
o! the ancient schismatics and heretics. as they %ere called. ,erished. and
that ,artiality su!!ered them not to survive. that %e might have had more
light in the Church a!!airs o! those times. and been better able to Fudge
bet%een the &athers and them-
)t is greatly to the credit o! Bater that he has here antici,ated those merits
%hich so long a!ter gave deserved celebrity to the name and %ritings o!
Beausobre and Lardner. and still more recently in this res,ect o! *ichhorn.
8aulus and other Neologists-
Ib. p# 1')#
And there!ore having mysel! no% %ritten this history o! mysel!.
not%ithstanding my ,rotestation that ) have not in anything %il!ully gone
against the truth. ) e,ect no more credit !rom the reader than the sel!7
evidencing light o! the matter. %ith concurrent rational advantages !rom
,ersons. and things. and other %itnesses. shall constrain him to-
) may not un!reGuently doubt Bater's memory. or even his com,etence. in
conseGuence o! his ,articular modes o! thin#ing< but ) could almost as soon
doubt the ?os,el verity as his veracity-
4oo5 I# 1art II# p#1'%#
+he !ollo%ing Boo# o! this $or# is interesting and most instructive as an
instance o! "yncretism. and its *,icurean clinamen. even %hen it has been
underta#en !rom the ,urest and most laudable motives. and !rom im,ulses
the most Christian. and yet its utter !ailure in its obFect. that o! tending to a
common centre- +he e,erience o! eighteen centuries seems to ,rove that
there is no ,racticable medi'm bet%een a Church com,rehensive C%hich is
the only meaning o! a Catholic Church visibleD in %hich A- in the North or
*ast is allo%ed to advance o!!icially no doctrine di!!erent !rom %hat is
allo%ed to B- in the "outh or $est<Band a co7eistence o! inde,endent
Churches. in none o! %hich any !urther unity is reGuired but that bet%een
the minister and his congregation. %hile this again is secured by the
election and continuance o! the !ormer de,ending %holly on the %ill o! the
latter-
8erha,s the best state ,ossible. though not the best ,ossible state. is %here
both are !ound. the one established by maintenance. the other by
,ermission< in short that %hich %e no% enFoy- )n such a state no minister o!
the !ormer can have a right to com,lain. !or it %as at his o%n o,tion to
have ta#en the latter< et volenti n'lla fit in7'ria- &or an individual to
demand the !reedom o! the inde,endent single Church %hen he receives
R155 a year !or submitting to the necessary restrictions o! the Church
?eneral. is im,udence and 9ammonolatry to boot-
Ib. p# 141#
+hey Cthe *rastiansD misunderstood and inFured their brethren. su,,osing
and a!!irming them to claim as !rom ?od a coercive ,o%er over the bodies
or ,urses o! men. and so setting u, imperi'm in imperio< %hereas all
tem,erate Christians Cat least ece,t 8a,istsD con!ess that the Church hath
no ,o%er o! !orce. but only to manage ?od's %ord unto men's consciences-
But are not the receivers as bad as the thie!L )s it not a ,oor evasion to say:
BM)t is true ) send you to a dungeon there to rot. because you do not thin#
as ) do concerning some ,oint o! !aith<Bbut this only as a civil o!!icer- As a
divine ) only tenderly entreat and ,ersuade youEM Can there be !ouler
hy,ocrisy in the ",anish )nGuisition than thisL
Ib. p# 14$#
+hat hereby they Cthe (iocesan ,artyD altered the ancient s,ecies o!
8resbyters. to %hose o!!ice the s,iritual government o! their ,ro,er !ol#s as
truly belonged. as the ,o%er o! ,reaching and %orshi,ing ?od did-
) could never rightly understand this obFection o! =ichard Bater's- $hat
,o%er not ,ossessed by the =ector o! a ,arish. %ould he have %ished a
,arochial Bisho, to have eertedL $hat could have been given by the
Legislature to the latter %hich might not be given to the !ormerL )n short
Bater's ,lan seems to do a%ay Archbisho,sB Bbut
!or the rest to name our ,resent =ectors and 4icars Bisho,s- ) cannot see
%hat is gained by his ,lan- +he true di!!iculty is that Church disci,line is
attached to an *stablishment by this %orld's la%. not to the !orm itsel!
established: and his obFections !rom ,aragra,h 1 to ,aragra,h 15 relate to
,articular abuses. not to *,isco,acy itsel!-
Ib. p# 14'#
But above all ) disli#ed that most o! them Cthe )nde,endentsD made the
,eo,le by maFority o! votes to be Church governors in ecommunications.
absolutions. Ic-. %hich Christ hath made an act o! o!!ice< and so they
governed their governors and themselves-
)s not this the case %ith the Houses o! LegislatureL +he members ta#en
individually are subFects< collectively governors-
Ib. p# 1((#
+he etraordinary gi!ts o! the A,ostles. and the ,rivilege o! being eye and
ear %itnesses to Christ. %ere abilities %hich they had !or the in!allible
discharge o! their !unction. but they %ere not the ground o! their ,o%er and
authority to govern the Church- N N N &otestas clavi'm %as committed to
them only. not to the "eventy-
) %ish !or a ,roo!. that all the A,ostles had any etraordinary gi!ts %hich
none o! the L66- had- Nay as an *,isco,alian o! the Church o! *ngland. )
hold it an unsa!e and im,rudent concession. tending to %ea#en the
governing right o! the Bisho,s- But ) !ear that as the la% and right o!
,atronage in *ngland no% are. the Guestion had better not be stirred< lest it
should be !ound that the true ,o%er o! the #eys is not. as %ith the 8a,ists.
in hands to %hich it is doubt!ul %hether Christ committed them
eclusively< but in hands to %hich it is certain that Christ did not commit
them at all-
Ib. p# 1(%#
)t !ollo%eth not a mere Bisho, may have a multitude o! Churches. because
an Archbisho, may. %ho hath many Bisho,s under him-
$hat then does Bater Guarrel aboutL +hat our Bisho,s ta#e a humbler title
than they have a right to claim<Bthat being in !act Archbisho,s. they are
!or the most ,art content to be styled as one o! the brethrenE
Ib. p# 1/&#
) say again. No Church. no Christ< !or no body. no head< and i! no Christ
then. there is no Christ no%-
Bater here !orgets his o%n mystical regenerated Church- )! he mean this. it
is nothing to the argument in Guestion< i! not. then he must assert the
monstrous absurdity o!. No unregenerate Church. no Christ-
Ib. p# 1//#
'r i! they %ould not yield to this at all. %e might have communion %ith
them as Christians. %ithout ac#no%ledging them !or 8astors-
'bserve the inconsistency o! Bater- No 8astor. no Church< no Church. no
Christ< and yet he %ill receive them as Christians: much to his honor as a
Christian. but not much to his credit as a logician-
Ib. p# 1/%#
$e are agreed that as some discovery o! consent on both ,arts Cthe ,astors
and ,eo,leD is necessary to the being o! the members o! a ,olitical
,articular Church: so that the most e,ress declaration o! that consent is the
most ,lain and satis!actory dealing. and most obliging. and li#est to attain
the ends-
)n our Churches. es,ecially in good livings. there is such an over!lo%ing
!ullness o! consent on the ,art o! the 8astor as su,,lies that o! the ,eo,le
altogether< nay. to nulli!y their declared dissent-
Ib. p# 1%4#
By the establishment o! %hat is contained in these t%elve ,ro,ositions or
articles !ollo%ing. the Churches in these nations may have a holy
communion. ,eace and concord. %ithout any %rong to the consciences or
liberties o! 8resbyterians. Congregational. *,isco,al. or any other
Christians-
8ain!ully instructive are these ,ro,osals !rom so %ise and ,eaceable a
divine as Bater- Ho% mighty must be the !orce o! an old ,reFudice %hen
so generally acute a logician %as blinded by it to such ,al,able
inconsistenciesE 'n %hat ground o! right could a magistrate in!lict a
,enalty. %hereby to com,el a man to hear %hat he might believe dangerous
to his soul. on %hich the right o! burning the re!ractory individual might
not be de!ended as %ellL
Ib. p# 1%/#
+o %hich ends N N ) thin# that this is all that should be reGuired o! any
Church or member ordinarily to be ,ro!essed: )n general ) do believe all
that is contained in the sacred canonical "cri,tures. and ,articularly )
believe all e,licitly contained in the ancient Creed. Ic-
+o a man o! sense. but unstudied in the contet o! human nature. and !rom
having con!ined his reading to the %riters o! the ,resent and the last
generation unused to live in !ormer ages. it must seem strange that Bater
should not have seen that this test is either all or nothing- And the CreedE )s
it certain that the so called A,ostles' Creed %as more than the mere
catechism o! the CatechumensL $as it the Ba,tismal Creed o! the *astern
or $estern Church. es,ecially the !ormerL +he only test really necessary. in
my o,inion. is an established Liturgy-
Ib. p# $+1#
As reverend Bisho, @ssher hath mani!ested that the $estern Creed. no%
called the A,ostles' C%anting t%o or three clauses that no% are in itD %as
not only be!ore the Nicene Creed. but o! much !urther antiGuity. that no
beginning o! it belo% the A,ostles' days can be !ound-
=emove these t%o or three clauses. and doubtless the substance o! the
remainder must have been little short o! the A,ostolic age- But so is one at
least o! the %ritings o! Clement-+he great Guestion is: $as this the
Ba,tismal "ymbol. the 5e$'la 1idei. %hich it %as !orbidden to ,ut in
%riting<Bor %as it not the Christian A- B- C- o! the Catech'meni,reviously
to their Ba,tismal initiation into the higher mysteries. to the stron$
meat %hich %as not !or babes
/
L
Ib. p# $+'#
Not so much !or my o%n sa#e as others< lest it should o!!end the
8arliament. and o,en the mouths o! our adversaries. that %e cannot
ourselves agree in !undamentals< and lest it ,rove an occasion !or others to
sue !or a universal toleration-
+hat this a,,rehension so constantly haunted. so ,o%er!ully actuated. even
the mild and really tolerant Bater. is a strong ,roo! o! my old o,inion.B
that the dogma o! the right and duty o! the civil magistrate to restrain and
,unish religious avo%als by him deemed heretical. universal among the
8resbyterians and 8arliamentary Churchmen. Foined %ith the ,ersecuting
s,irit o! the 8resbyterians.B%as the main cause o! Crom%ell's des,air and
conseGuent un!aith!ulness concerning a 8arliamentary Common%ealth-
Ib. p# $$$#
) tried. %hen ) %as last %ith you. to revive your reason by ,ro,osing to you
the in!allibility o! the common senses o! all the %orld< and ) could not
,revail though you had nothing to ans%er that %as not against common
sense- And it is im,ossible any thing controverted can be brought nearer
you. or made ,lainer than to be brought to your eyes and taste and !eeling<
and not yours only. but all men's else- "ense goes be!ore !aith- &aith is no
!aith but u,on su,,osition o! sense and understanding: i! there!ore common
sense be !allible. !aith must needs be so-
+his is one o! those t%o7edged arguments. %hich not indeed began. but
began to be !ashionable. Fust be!ore and a!ter the =estoration- ) %as hal!
converted to +ransubstantiation by +illotson's common senses against it<
seeing clearly that the same grounds totidem verbis et syllabis %ould serve
the "ocinian against all the mysteries o! Christianity- )! the =oman
Catholics had ,retended that the ,henomenal bread and %ine %ere changed
into the ,henomenal !lesh and blood. this obFection %ould have been
legitimate and irresistible< but as it is. it is mere sensual babble- +he %hole
o! 8o,ery lies in the assum,tion o! a Church. as a numerical unit. in!allible
in the highest degree. inasmuch as both %hich is "cri,ture. and %hat
"cri,ture teaches. is in!allible by derivation only !rom an in!allible decision
o! the Church- &airly undermine or blo% u, this: and all the remaining
,eculiar tenets o! =omanism !all %ith it. or stand by their o%n right as
o,inions o! individual (octors-
An antagonist o! a com,le bad system.Ba system. ho%ever.
not%ithstandingBand such is 8o,ery.Bshould ta#e heed above all things
not to dis,erse himsel!- Let him #ee, to the stic#ing ,lace- But the maFority
o! our 8rotestant ,olemics seem to have ta#en !or granted that they could
not attac# =omanism in too many ,laces. or on too many ,oints<B
!orgetting that in some they %ill be less strong than in others. and that i! in
any one or t%o they are re,elled !rom the assault. the !eeling o! this %ill
etend itsel! over the %hole- Besides. %hat is the use o! alleging thirteen
reasons !or a %itness's not a,,earing in Court. %hen the !irst is that the man
had died since his s'bpoenaL )t is as i! a ,arty em,loyed to root u, a tree
%ere to set one or t%o at that %or#. %hile others %ere hac#ing the
branches. and others sa%ing the trun# at di!!erent heights !rom the ground-
N- B- +he ,oint o! attac# suggested above in dis,utes %ith the =omanists is
o! s,ecial e,ediency in the ,resent day: because a number o! ,ious and
reasonable =oman Catholics are not a%are o! the de,endency o! their other
tenets on this o! the in!allibility o! their Church decisions. as they call
them. but are themselves sha#en and dis,osed to e,lain it a%ay- +his once
!ied. the "cri,tures rise u,,ermost. and the man is already a 8rotestant.
rather a genuine Catholic. though his o,inions should remain nearer to the
=oman than the =e!ormed Church-
Ib.
B't methinks yet I sho'ld have hope of revivin$ yo'r charity. <o' cannot be
a &apist indeed, b't yo' m'st believe that o't of their Ch'rch =that is o't of
the &ope's dominions> there is no salvation6 and conse3'ently no
7'stification and charity, or savin$ $race. %nd is it possible yo' can so
easily believe yo'r reli$io's father to be in hell6 yo'r pr'dent, pio's
mother to be void of the love of -od, and in a state of damnation, /c.
+his argument ad affect'm is beauti!ully and !orcibly stated< but yet
de!ective by the omission o! the ,oint<Bnot !or unbelie! or misbelie! o!
any article o! !aith. but sim,ly !or not being a member o! this ,articular
,art o! the Church o! Christ- &or it is ,ossible that a Christian might agree
in all the articles o! !aith %ith the =oman doctors against those o! the
=e!ormation. and yet i! he did not ac#no%ledge the 8o,e as Christ's vicar.
and held salvation ,ossible in any other Church. he is himsel! ecluded
!rom salvationE $ithout this great distinction Lady Ann Lindsey might
have re,lied to Bater:BM"o might a 8agan orator have said to a convert
!rom 8aganism in the !irst ages o! Christianity< so indeed the advocates o!
the old religion did argue- $hatE can you bear to believe that Numa.
Camillus. &abricius. the "ci,ios. the Catos. that Cicero. "eneca. that +itus
and the Antonini. are in the !lames o! Hell. the accursed obFects o! the
divine hatredL No% %hatever you dare ho,e o! these as heathens. %e dare
ho,e o! you as heretics-M
Ib. p# $$4#
B't this is not the .orst. <o' conse3'ently anathemati)e all 8a,ists by your
sentence: !or heresies by your o%n sentence cut o!! men !rom heaven: but
8o,ery is a bundle o! heresies: there!ore it cuts o!! men !rom heaven- +he
minor ) ,rove. Ic-
+his introduction o! syllogistic !orm in a letter to a young Lady is
%himsically characteristic-
Ib. p# $$&#
Qou say. the "cri,ture admits o! no ,rivate inter,retation- But you abuse
yoursel! and the tet %ith a !alse inter,retation o! it in these %ords- An
inter,retation is called ,rivate either as to the subFect ,erson. or as to the
inter,reter- Qou ta#e the tet to s,ea# o! the latter. %hen the contet ,lainly
she%eth you that it s,ea#s o! the !ormer- +he A,ostle directing them to
understand the ,ro,hecies o! the 'ld +estament. gives them this caution<B
that none o! these "cri,tures that are s,o#en o! Christ the ,ublic ,erson
must be inter,reted as s,o#en o! (avid or other ,rivate ,erson only. o!
%hom they %ere mentioned but as ty,es o! Christ. Ic-
)t is strange that this sound and irre!ragable argument has not been en!orced
by the Church divines in their controversies %ith the modern @nitarians. as
Ca,,. Belsham and others. %ho re!er all the ,ro,hetic tets o! the 'ld
+estament to historical ,ersonages o! their time. eclusively o! all double
sense-
Ib. p# $$)#
As to %hat you say o! A,ostles still ,laced in the Church:B%hen any she%
us an immediate mission by their communion. and by miracles. ton$'es.
and a s,irit o! revelation and in!allibility ,rove themselves A,ostles. %e
shall believe them-
+his is another o! those t%o7edged arguments %hich Bater and :eremy
+aylor im,orted !rom ?rotius. and %hich have since become the universal
!ashion among 8rotestants- ) !ear. ho%ever. that it %ill do us more hurt by
e,osing a %ea# ,art to the learned )n!idels than service in our combat %ith
the =omanists- ) venture to assert most uneGuivocally that the Ne%
+estament contains not the least ,roo! o! the lin$'ipotence o! the A,ostles.
but the clearest ,roo!s o! the contrary: and ) doubt %hether %e have even as
decisive a victory over the =omanists in our 9iddletonian. &armerian. and
(ouglasian dis,ute concerning the miracles o! the !irst t%o centuries and
their assumed contrast in $enere %ith those o! the A,ostles and the
A,ostolic age. as %e have in most other o! our 8rotestant controversies-
N- B- +hese o,inions o! 9iddleton and his more cautious !ollo%ers are no
,art o! our real Church doctrine- +his ,assion !or la% Court evidence began
%ith ?rotius-
Ib. p# $4)#
$e conceived there needs no more to be said !or Fusti!ying the im,osition
o! the ceremonies by la% established than %hat is contained in the
beginningBo! this "ection---- )nasmuch as la%!ul authority hath already
determined the ceremonies in Guestion to be decent and orderly. and to
serve to edi!ication: and conseGuently to be agreeable to the general rules
o! the $ord-
+o a sel!7convinced and disinterested lover o! the Church o! *ngland. it
gives an indescribable horror to observe the !reGuency. %ith %hich the
8relatic ,arty a!ter the =estoration a,,eal to the la%s as o! eGual authority
%ith the e,ress %ords o! "cri,ture<Bas i! the la%s. by them a,,ealed to.
%ere other than the vindictive determinations o! their o%n !urious
,arti>ans<Bas i! the same a,,eals might not have been made by Bonner
and ?ardiner under 8hili, and 9aryE $hy should ) s,ea# o! the inhuman
so,hism that. because it is silly in my neighbour to brea# his egg at the
broad end %hen the "Guire and the 4icar have declared their ,redilection
!or the narro% end. there!ore it is right !or the "Guire and the 4icar to hang
and Guarter him !or his silliness:B!or it comes to that-
Ib. p# $4/#
+o you it is indi!!erent be!ore your im,osition: and there!ore you may
%ithout any regret o! your o%n consciences !orbear the im,osition. or
,ersuade the la% ma#ers to !orbear it- But to many o! those that dissent
!rom you. they are sin!ul. Ic-
But %hat is all this. good %orthy Bater. but saying and unsayingL )! they
are not indi!!erent. %hy did you ,reviously concede them to be suchL )n
short nothing can be more ,itiably %ea# than the conduct o! the
8resbyterian ,arty !rom the !irst ca,ture o! Charles )- Common sense
reGuired. either a bold denial that the Church had ,o%er in ceremonies
more than in doctrines. or that the 8arliament %as the Church. since it is the
8arliament that enacts all these things<Bor i! they admitted the authority
la%!ul and the ceremonies only. in their mind. ine,edient. good ?odE can
sel!7%ill more ,lainly ,ut on the crac#ed mas# o! tender conscience than by
re!usal o! obedienceL $hat intolerable ,resum,tion. to disGuali!y as
ungodly and reduce to null the maFority o! the country. %ho ,re!erred the
Liturgy. in order to !orce the long %inded vanities o! bustling ?od7orators
on those %ho %ould !ain hear ,rayers. not s,outingE
Ib. p# $4%#
+he great controversies bet%een the hy,ocrite and the true Christian.
%hether %e should be serious in the ,ractice o! the religion %hich %e
commonly ,ro!ess. hath troubled *ngland more than any other<Bnone
being more hated and divided as 8uritans than those that %ill ma#e religion
their business. Ic-
Had not the ?overnors had bitter ,roo!s that there are other and more cruel
vices than s%earing and careless living<Band that these %ere ,redominant
chie!ly among such as made their religion their businessL
Ib.
And %hereas you s,ea# o! o,ening a ga, to "ectaries !or ,rivate
conventicles. and the evil conseGuents to the state. %e only desire you to
avoid also the cherishing o! ignorance and ,ro!aneness. and s'ppress all
Sectaries. and s,are not. in a %ay that %ill not su,,ress the means o!
#no%ledge and godliness-
+he ,resent com,any. that is. our o%n dear selves. al%ays ece,ted-
Ib. p# $&+#
'ther%ise the ,oor undone Churches o! Christ %ill no more believe you in
such ,ro!essions than %e believed that those men intended the Hing's Fust
,o%er and greatness. %ho too# a%ay his li!e-
'r %ho. li#e Bater. Foined the armies that %ere sho%ering cannon balls
and bullets around his inviolable ,ersonE $henever by reading the
8relatical %ritings and histories. ) have had an over dose o! anti78relatism
in my !eelings. ) then correct it by di,,ing into the %or#s o! the
8resbyterians. and their !ello%s. and so bring mysel! to more charitable
thoughts res,ecting the 8relatists. and !ully subscribe to 9ilton's assertion.
that M8resbyter %as but 'ld 8riest %rit large-M
Ib. p# $&4#
+he a,ocry,hal matter o! your lessons in +obit. :udith. Bel and the (ragon.
Ic-. is scarce agreeable to the %ord o! ?od-
(oes not :ude re!er to an a,ocry,hal boo#L
Ib.
'ur e,erience unresistibly convinceth us that a continued ,rayer doth
more to hel, most o! the ,eo,le. and carry on their desires. than turning
almost every ,etition into a distinct ,rayer< and ma#ing ,re!aces and
conclusions to be near hal! the ,rayers-
+his no% is the very ,oint ) most admire in our ecellent Liturgy- +o any
,articular ,etition o!!ered to the 'mniscient. there may be a sin#ing o!
!aith. a sense o! its su,er!luity< but to the li!ting u, o! the soul to the
)nvisible and there !iing it on his attributes. there can be no scru,le-
Ib. p# $&(#
+he not abating o! the im,ositions is the carting o!! o! many hundreds o!
your brethren out o! the ministry. and o! many thousand Christians out o!
your communion< but the abating o! the im,ositions %ill so o!!end you as
to silence or ecommunicate none o! you at all- &or eam,le. %e thin# it a
sin to subscribe. or s%ear canonical obedience. or use the transient image
o! the Cross in Ba,tism. and there!ore these must cast us out. Ic-
As long as inde,endent single Churches. or voluntarily synodical %ere
!orbidden and ,unishable by ,enal la%. this argument remained
irre!ragable- +he im,osition o! such tri!les under such !ear!ul threats %as
the very bitterness o! s,iritual ,ride and vindictiveness<Ba!ter the la%
,assed by %hich things became as they no% are. it %as a mere Guestion o!
e,ediency !or the National Church to determine in relation to its o%n
com,arative interests- )! the Church chose unluc#ily. the inFury has been to
itsel! alone-
)t seems strange that such men as Bater should not see that the use o! the
ring. the sur,lice and the li#e. are indi!!erent according to his o%n
con!ession. yea. mere tri!les. in com,arison %ith the ,eace o! the Church<
but that it is no tri!le. that men should re!use obedience to la%!ul authority
in matters indi!!erent. and ,re!er the sin o! schism to o!!ending their taste
and !ancy- +he Church did not. u,on the %hole. contend !or a tri!le. nor !or
an indi!!erent matter. but !or a ,rinci,le on %hich all order in society must
de,end- "till this is true only. ,rovided the Church enacts no ordinances
that are not necessary or at least ,lainly conducive to order or CgenerallyD to
the ends !or %hich it is a Church- Besides. the ,oint %hich the Hing had
reGuired them to consider %as not %hat ordinances it %as right to obey. but
%hat it %as e,edient to enact or not to enact-
Ib. p# $)%#
+hat the 8astors o! the res,ective ,arishes may be allo%ed not only
,ublicly to ,reach. but ,ersonally to catechi>e or other%ise instruct the
several !amilies. admitting none to the Lord's +able that have not ,ersonally
o%ned their Ba,tismal covenant by a credible ,ro!ession o! !aith and
obedience< and to admonish and ehort the scandalous. in order to their
re,entance: to hear the %itnesses and the accused ,arty. and to a,,oint !it
times and ,laces !or these things. and to deny such ,ersons the communion
o! the Church in the holy *ucharist. that remain im,enitent. or that %il!ully
re!use to come to their 8astors to be instructed. or to ans%er such ,robable
accusations< and to continue such eclusion o! them till they have made a
credible ,ro!ession o! re,entance. and then to receive them again to the
communion o! the Church<B,rovided there be ,lace !or due a,,eals to
su,erior ,o%er-
"u,,ose only such men 8astors as are no% most im,ro,erly. %hether as
boast or as sneer. called *vangelical. %hat an insu!!erable tyranny %ould
this introduceE $ho %ould not rather live in AlgiersL +his alone %ould
ma#e this minute history o! the ecclesiastic !actions invaluable. that it must
convince all sober lovers o! inde,endence and moral sel!7government. ho%
dearly %e ought to ,ri>e our ,resent Church *stablishment %ith all its
!aults-
Ib. p# $($#
+here!ore %e humbly crave that your 9aFesty %ill here declare. that it is
your 9aFesty's ,leasure that none be ,unished or troubled !or not using the
Boo# o! Common 8rayer. till it be e!!ectually re!ormed by divines o! both
,ersuasions eGually de,uted thereunto-
+he dis,ensing ,o%er o! the Cro%n not only ac#no%ledged. but earnestly
invo#edE Cruel as the conduct o! Laud and that o! "heldon to the
(issentients %as. yet ?od's Fustice stands clear to%ards them< !or they
demanded that !rom others. %hich they themselves %ould not grant- +hey
%ere to be allo%ed at their o%n !ancies to denounce the ring in marriage.
and yet im,o%ered to endungeon. through the magistrate. the honest and
,eaceable ;ua#er !or reFecting the out%ard ceremony o! %ater in Ba,tism.
as seducing men to ta#e it as a substitute !or the s,iritual reality<Bthough
the ;ua#ers. no less than themselves. a,,ealed to "cri,ture authorityBthe
Ba,tist's o%n contrast o! Christ's %ith the %ater Ba,tism-
Ib. p# $('#
$e are sure that #neeling in any adoration at all. in any %orshi,. on any
Lord's (ay in the year. or any %ee# day bet%een *aster and 8entecost. %as
not only disused. but !orbidden by ?eneral Councils. Ic-Band there!ore
that #neeling in the act o! receiving is a novelty contrary to the decrees and
,ractice o! the Church !or many hundred years a!ter the A,ostles-
$as not this because #neeling %as the agreed sign o! sorro% and ,ersonal
contrition. %hich %as not to be introduced into the ,ublic %orshi, on the
great day and the solemn seasons o! the Church's Foy and than#sgivingL )!
so. Bater's a,,eal to this usage is a gross so,hism. a mere ,un-
Ib. p# '+/#
Bater's *ce,tions to the Common 8rayer Boo#-
1- 'rder reGuireth that %e begin %ith reverent ,rayer to ?od
!or his acce,tance and assistance. %hich is not done-
*nunciation o! ?od's invitations. and ,romises in ?od's o%n %ords. as in
the Common 8rayer Boo#. much better-
/- +hat the Creed and (ecalogue containing the !aith. in %hich %e
,ro!ess to assemble !or ?od's %orshi,. and the la% %hich %e have
bro#en by our sins. should go be!ore the con!ession and Absolution<
or at least be!ore the ,raises o! the Church< %hich they do not-
9ight have deserved consideration. i! the ,eo,le or the larger number
consisted o! uninstructed catech'meni. or mere candidates !or Church7
membershi,- But the obFect being. not the !irst teaching o! the Creed and
(ecalogue. but the lively reim,ressing o! the same. it is much better as it is-
3- +he Con!ession omitteth not only original sin. but all actual sin as
s,eci!ied by the ,articular commandments violated. and almost all
the aggravations o! those sins---- $hereas con!ession. being the
e,ression o! re,entance. should be more ,articular. as re,entance
itsel! should be-
?rounded. on one o! the grand errors o! the %hole (issenting ,arty.
namely. the con!usion o! ,ublic common ,rayer. ,raise. and instruction.
%ith domestic and even %ith ,rivate devotion- 'ur Con!ession is a ,er!ect
model !or Christian communities-
0- $hen %e have craved hel, !or ?od's ,rayers. be!ore %e come to
them. %e abru,tly ,ut in the ,etition !or s,eedy deliveranceBC#
-od, make speed to save 's9 # Lord make haste to help 's.D %ithout
any intimation o! the danger that %e desire deliverance !rom. and
%ithout any other ,etition conFoined-
1- )t is disorderly in the manner. to sing the "cri,ture in a
,lain tune a!ter the manner o! reading-
3- CThe Lord be .ith yo'. %nd .ith thy spirit.D being ,etitions
!or divine assistance. come in abru,tly in the midst or near
the end o! morning ,rayer: And CLet 's pray-D is adFoined
%hen %e %ere be!ore in ,rayer-
9ouse7li#e sGuea# and nibble-
2- CLord have mercy 'pon 's9 Christ have mercy 'pon 's9 Lord have
mercy 'pon 's-D seemeth an a!!ected tautology %ithout any s,ecial
cause or order here< and the Lord's 8rayer is anneed that %as be!ore
recited. and yet the net %ords are again but a re,etition o! the
a!oresaid o!t re,eated general C# Lord, she. thy mercy 'pon 's-D
"till %orse- +he s,irit in %hich this and similar com,laints originated has
turned the ,rayers o! (issenting ministers into irreverent ,reachments.
!orgetting that tautology in %ords and thoughts im,lies no tautology in the
music o! the heart to %hich the %ords are. as it %ere. set. and that it is the
heart that li!ts itsel! u, to ?od- 'ur %ords and thoughts are but ,arts o! the
enginery %hich remains %ith ourselves< and logic. the rustling dry leaves o!
the li!eless re!le !aculty. does not merit even the name o! a ,ulley or lever
o! devotion-
8- +he ,rayer !or the Hing C# Lord, save the 0in$-D is %ithout any order
,ut bet%een the !oresaid ,etition and another general reGuest only !or
audience- C%nd mercif'lly hear 's .hen .e call 'pon theeD-
A tri!le. but Fust-
9- +he second Collect is intituled C1or &eace-D and hath not a %ord in it
o! ,etition !or ,eace. but only for defence in assa'lts of enemies. and
that %e may not fear their po.er- And the ,re!aces Cin kno.led$e of
.hom standeth. Ic- and .hose service. Ic-D have no more evident
res,ect to a ,etition !or ,eace than to any other- And the ,rayer itsel!
comes in disorderly. %hile many ,rayers or ,etitions are omitted.
%hich according both to the method o! the Lord's 8rayer. and the
nature o! the things. should go be!ore-
15-+he third Collect intituled S1or -race-D is disorderly.
Ic---- And thus the main ,arts o! ,rayer. according to the
rule o! the Lord's 8rayer and our common necessities. are
omitted-
Not %holly un!ounded: but the obFection ,roceeds on an arbitrary and C)
thin#D !alse assum,tion. that the Lord's 8rayer %as universally ,rescri,tive
in !orm and arrangement-
1/-+he Litany --- omitteth very many ,articulars. --- and it is eceeding
disorderly. !ollo%ing no Fust rules o! method- Having begged ,ardon
o! our sins. and de,recated vengeance. it ,roceedeth to evil in
general. and some !e% sins in ,articular. and thence to a more
,articular enumeration o! Fudgments< and thence to a recitation o! the
,arts o! that %or# o! our redem,tion. and thence to the de,recation
o! Fudgments again. and thence to ,rayers !or the Hing and
magistrates. and then !or all nations. and then !or love and obedience.
Ic-
+he very ,oints here obFected to as !aults ) should have selected as
ecellencies- &or do not the duties and tem,tations occur in real li!e even
so intermingledL +he im,er!ection o! thought much more o! language. so
singly successive. allo%s no better re,resentation o! the close
neighbourhood. nay the co7inherence o! duty in duty. desire in desire-
*very %ant o! the heart ,ointing ?od%ard is a chili agon that touches at a
thousand ,oints- &rom these remar#s ) ece,t the last ,aragra,h o! s- 1/:
CAs to the ,rayer !or Bisho,s and Curates and the ,osition o! the ?eneral
+han#sgiving. Ic-D
%hich are de!ects so ,al,able and so easily removed. that nothing but
anti,athy to the obFectors could have retained them-
13-+he li#e de!ectiveness and disorder is in the Communion Collects
!or the day---- +here is no more reason %hy it should be a,,ro,riate
to that day than another. or rather be a common ,etition !or all days.
Ic-
) do not see ho% these su,,osed im,ro,rieties. !or %ant o! a,,ro,riateness
to the day. could be avoided %ithout ris# o! the !ar greater evil o! too great
a,,ro,riation to ,articular "aints and days as in 8o,ery- ) am so !ar a
8uritan that ) thin# nothing %ould have been lost. i! Christmas day and
?ood &riday had been the only %ee# days made holy days. and *aster the
only Lord's day es,ecially distinguished- ) should also have added
$hitsunday< but that it has become unmeaning since our Clergy have. as )
grieve to thin#. become generally Arminian. and inter,reting the descent o!
the ",irit as the gi!t o! miracles and o! miraculous in!allibility by
ins,iration have rendered it o! course o! little or no a,,lication to
Christians at ,resent- Qet ho% can Arminians ,ray our Church ,rayers
collectively on any dayL Ans%er- "ee a boa constrictor %ith an o or deer-
$hat they do s%allo%. ,roves so astounding a dilatability o! gullet. that it
%ould be unconscionable strictness to com,lain o! the horns. antlers. or
other indigestible non7essentials being su!!ered to rot o!! at the
con!ines. - But to %rite seriously on so serious a subFect.
it is mourn!ul to re!lect that the in!luence o! the systematic theology then in
!ashion %ith the anti78relatic divines. %hether *,isco,alians or
8resbyterians. had Guenched all !ineness o! mind. all !lo% o! heart. all
grandeur o! imagination in them< %hile the victorious ,arty. the 8relatic
Arminians. enriched as they %ere %ith all learning and highly gi!ted %ith
taste and Fudgment. had em,tied revelation o! all the doctrines that can
,ro,erly be said to have been revealed. and thus eGually caused the
etinction o! the imagination. and Guenched the li!e in the light by
%ithholding the a,,ro,riate !uel and the su,,orters o! the sacred !lame- "o
that. bet%een both ,arties. our transcendant Liturgy remains li#e an ancient
?ree# tem,le. a monumental ,roo! o! the architectural genius o! an age
long de,arted. %hen there %ere giants in the land-
Ib. p# ''(#
As ) %as ,roceeding. Bisho, 9orley interru,ted me according to his
manner. %ith vehemency crying out N N +he Bisho, interru,ted me again N
N ) attem,ted to s,ea#. and still he interru,ted me N N Bisho, 9orley %ent
on. tal#ing louder than ). Ic-
+he Bisho,s a,,ear to have behaved insolently enough- "a!e in their
#no%ledge o! Charles's inclinations. they laughed in their sleeves at his
commission- +heir best ans%er %ould have been to have ,ressed the anti7
im,ositionists %ith their utter !orget!ulness o! the ,ossible. nay. very
,robable di!!erences o! o,inion bet%een the ministers and their
congregations- A vain minister might disgust a sober congregation %ith
his e"tempore ,rayers. or his o,en contem,t o! their #neeling at the
"acrament. and the li#e- Qet by %hat right i! he acts only as an individualL
And then %hat an endless source o! dis,utes and ,re!erences o! this
minister or o! thatE
Ib. p# '41#
+he ,a,er o!!ered by Bisho, Cosins-
1- +hat the Guestion may be ,ut to the managers o! the
division. $hether there be anything in the doctrine. or
disci,line. or the Common 8rayer. or ceremonies. contrary
to the %ord o! ?od< and i! they can ma#e any such a,,ear<
let them be satis!ied-
/- )! not. let them ,ro,ose %hat they desire in ,oint o!
e,ediency. and ac#no%ledge it to be no more-
+his %as ,ro,osed. doubtless. by one o! your sensible men< it is so ,lain. so
,lausible. shallo%. nihili, na'ci, pili, flocci(cal- $hy. the very ,hrase
Mcontrary to the %ord o! ?odM %ould ta#e a month to de!ine. and neither
,arty agree at last- 'ne ,arty says:
+he Church has ,o%er !rom ?od's %ord to order all matters o! order so as
shall a,,ear to them to conduce to decency and edi!ication: but ceremonies
res,ect the orderly ,er!ormance o! divine service: ergo. the Church has
,o%er to ordain ceremonies: but the Cross in ba,ti>ing is a ceremony< ergo.
the Church has ,o%er to ,rescribe the crossing in Ba,tism- $hat is
right!ully ordered cannot be right!ully %ithstood:Bbut the crossing. Ic-. is
right!ully ordered:Ber$o. the crossing cannot be right!ully omitted-
+o this. ho% easily %ould the other ,arty re,ly<
1-+hat a small number o! Bisho,s could not be called the Church:
/-+hat no one Church had ,o%er or ,retence !rom ?od's %ord to
,rescribe concerning mere matters o! out%ard decency and
convenience to other Churches or assemblies o! Christian ,eo,le:
3-+hat the blending an unnecessary and sus,icious. i! not
su,erstitious. motion o! the hand %ith a necessary and essential act
doth in no %ise res,ect order or ,ro,riety:
Lastly. that to !orbid a man to obey a direct command o! ?od because he
%ill not Foin %ith it an admitted mere tradition o! men. is contrary to
common sense. no less than to ?od's %ord. e,ressly and by breach o!
charity. %hich is the great end and ,ur,ose o! ?od's %ord- Besides< might
not the 8o,e and his shavelings have made the same ,ro,osition to the
=e!ormers in the reign o! *d%ard 4)-. in res,ect to the greater ,art o! the
idle su,er!luities %hich %ere reFected by the =e!ormers. only as idle and
su,er!luous. and !or that reason contrary to the s,irit o! the ?os,el. though
!e%. i! any. %ere in the direct teeth o! a ,ositive ,rohibitionL Above all. an
honest ,olicy dictates that the end in vie% being !ully determined. as here
!or instance. the ,reclusion o! disturbance and indecorum in Christian
assemblies. every addition to means. already adeGuate to the securing o!
that end. tends to !rustrate the end. and is there!ore evidently ecluded !rom
the ,rerogatives o! the Church. Cho%ever that %ord may be inter,retedD
inasmuch as its ,o%er is con!ined to such ceremonies and regulations as
conduce to order and general edi!ication- )n short it grieves me to thin# that
the Heads o! the most A,ostolical Church in Christendom should have
insisted on three or !our tri!les. the abolition o! %hich could have given
o!!ence to none but such as !rom the bale!ul su,erstition that alone could
attach im,ortance to them e!!ectually. it %as charity to o!!end<7%hen all the
rest o! Bater's obFections might have been ans%ered so trium,hantly-
Ib. p# '4'#
Ans%er to the !oresaid ,a,er-
8- +hat none may be a ,reacher. that dare not subscribe that
there is nothing in the Common 8rayer Boo#. the Boo# o!
'rdination. and the 39 Articles. that is contrary to the %ord
o! ?od-
) thin# this might have been le!t out as %ell as the other t%o articles
mentioned by Bater- &or as by the %ords Mcontrary to the %ord o! ?odM in
Cosins's ,a,er. it %as not meant to declare the Common 8rayer Boo# !ree
!rom all error. the sense must have been. that there is not anything in it in
such a %ay or degree contrary to ?od's %ord. as to oblige us to assign sin
to those %ho have overloo#ed it. or %ho thin# the same com,atible %ith
?od's %ord. or %ho. though individually disa,,roving the ,articular thing.
yet regard that acGuiescence as an allo%ed sacri!ice o! individual o,inion to
modesty. charity. and >eal !or the ,eace o! the Church- &or observe that this
eighth instance is additional to. and there!ore not inclusive o!. the
,receding seven: other%ise it must have been ,laced as the !irst. or rather
as the %hole. the seven !ollo%ing being motives and instances in su,,ort
and e,lanation o! the ,oint-
Ib. p# ')/#
Let me mediate here bet%een Bater and the Bisho,s: Bater had ta#en !or
granted that the Hing had a right to ,romise a revision o! the Liturgy.
Canons and regiment o! the Church. and that the Bisho,s ought to have met
him and his !riends as di,lomatists on even ground- +he Bisho,s could not
%ith discretion o,enly avo% all they meant< and it %ould be bigotry to deny
that the s,irit o! com,romise had no ind%elling in their !eelings or intents-
But nevertheless it is true that they thought more in the s,irit o! the *nglish
Constitution than Bater and his !riends-BM+his.M thought they. Mis the la%
o! the land. 3'am nol'm's m'tari< and it must be the Hing %ith and by the
advice o! his 8arliament. that can authori>e any ,art o! his subFects to ta#e
the Guestion o! its re,eal into consideration- @nder other circumstances a
Hing might bring the Bisho,s and the Heads o! the =omish ,arty together
to ,lot against the la% o! the land- NoE %e %ould have no other secret
Committees but o! 8arliamentary a,,ointment- $e are but so many
individuals- )t is in the Legislature that the congregations. the ,arty most
interested in this cause. meet collectively by their re,resentatives-MBLastly.
let it not be overloo#ed. that the root o! the bitterness %as common to both
,arties.Bnamely. the conviction o! the vital im,ortance o! uni!ormity<B
and this admitted. surely an undoubted maFority in !avor o! %hat is already
la% must decide %hose uni!ormity it is to be-
Ib. p# ')/#
$e must needs believe that %hen your 9aFesty too# our consent to a
Liturgy to be a !oundation that %ould in!er our concord. you meant not that
%e should have no concord but by consenting to this Liturgy %ithout any
considerable alteration-
+his is !orcible reasoning. but %hich the Bisho,s could !airly leave !or the
Hing to ans%er<Bthe contract tacit or e,ressed. being bet%een him and
the anti78relatic 8resbytero7*,isco,alian ,arty. to %hich neither the
Bisho,s nor the Legislature had acceded or assented- )! Bater and Calamy
%ere so little imbued %ith the s,irit o! the Constitution as to consider
Charles ))- as the breath o! their nostrils. and this dread sovereign Breath in
its ,assage gave a snort or a snu!!le. or having led them to e,ect a snu!!le
sur,rised them %ith a snort. let the re,roach be shared bet%een the Breath's
!etid conscience and the nostrils' nasoductility- +he traitors to the liberty o!
their country %ho %ere s%arming and intriguing !or !avor at Breda %hen
they should have been at their ,ost in 8arliament or in the Lobby ,re,aring
terms and conditionsEBHad all the ministers that %ere a!ter%ards eFected
and the 8resbyterian ,arty generally eerted themselves. heart and soul.
%ith 9on#'s soldiers. and in collecting those %hom 9on# had dis,laced.
and. instead o! carrying on treasons against the ?overnment de facto by
mendicant negociations %ith Charles. had ta#en o,en measures to con!er
the sce,tre on him as the "cotch did.B%hose stern and truly loyal conduct
has been most unFustly condemned.Bthe schism in the Church might have
been ,revented and the =evolution o! 1388 su,erseded-
N- B- )n the above ) s,ea# o! the Bisho,s as men interested in a litigated
estate- ?od !orbid. ) should see# to Fusti!y them as Christians-
Ib. p# ')%#
?'2re- $hether in the /5th Article these %ords are not inserted<BHabet
!cclesia a'ctoritatem in controversiis fidei-
"trange. that the evident antithesis bet%een ,o%er in res,ect o! ceremonies.
and authority in ,oints o! !aith. should have been overloo#edE
Ib.
"ome have ,ublished. +hat there is a ,ro,er sacri!ice in the Lord's "u,,er.
to ehibit Christ's death in the post(fact. as there %as a sacri!ice to
,re!igure it in the 'ld La% in the ante(fact. and there!ore that %e have a
true altar. and not only meta,horically so called-
(oubtless a gross error. yet ,ardonable. !or to errors nearly as gross it %as
o,,osed-
Ib.
"ome have maintained that the Lord's (ay is #e,t merely by ecclesiastical
constitution. and that the day is changeable-
$here shall %e !ind the ,roo! o! the contraryLBat least. i! the ,osition had
been %orded thus: +he moral and s,iritual obligation o! #ee,ing the Lord's
(ay is grounded on its mani!est necessity. and the evidence o! its benignant
e!!ects in connection %ith those conditions o! the %orld o! %hich even in
Christiani>ed countries there is no reason to e,ect a change. and is
there!ore commanded by im,lication in the Ne% +estament. so clearly and
by so immediate a conseGuence. as to be no less binding on the conscience
than an e,licit command- A-. having la%!ul authority. e,ressly
commands me to go to London !rom Bristol- +here is at ,resent but one
sa!e road: this there!ore is commanded by A-< and %ould be so. even
though A- had s,o#en o! another road %hich at that time %as o,en-
Ib. p# '(+#
"ome have broached out o! "ocinus a most uncom!ortable and des,erate
doctrine. that late re,entance. that is. u,on the last bed o! sic#ness. is
un!ruit!ul. at least to reconcile the ,enitent to ?od-
+his no doubt re!ers to :eremy +aylor's %or# on =e,entance. and is but too
!aith!ul a descri,tion o! its character-
Ib. p# '('#
A little a!ter the Hing %as beheaded. 9r- At#ins met this ,riest in London.
and going into a tavern %ith him. said to him in his !amiliar %ay. M$hat
business have you hereL ) %arrant you come about some roguery or other-M
$hereu,on the ,riest told it him as a great secret. that there %ere thirty o!
them here in London. %ho by instructions !rom Cardinal 9a>arine. did ta#e
care o! such a!!airs. and had sat in council. and debated the Guestion.
%hether the Hing should be ,ut to death or not<Band that it %as carried in
the a!!irmative. and there %ere but t%o voices !or the negative. %hich %as
his o%n and another's< and that !or his ,art. he could not concur %ith them.
as !oreseeing %hat misery this %ould bring u,on his country- 9r- At#ins
stood to the truth o! this. but thought it a violation o! the la%s o! !riendshi,
to name the man-
=ichard Bater %as too thoroughly good !or any e,erience to ma#e him
%orldly %ise< else. ho% could he have been sim,le enough to su,,ose. that
9a>arine %ould leave such a Guestion to be voted pro and con. and decided
by thirty emissaries in LondonE And. ho% could he have reconciled
9a>arine's having any share in Charles's death %ith his o%n masterly
account. ,,- 98. 99. 155L *ven Crom%ell. though he might have ,revented.
could not have e!!ected. the sentence- +he regicidal Fudges %ere not his
creatures- Consult the Li!e o! Colonel Hutchinson u,on this-
Ib. p# '(4#
"ince this. (r- 8eter 9oulin hath. in his Ans%er to &hilana" %n$lic's.
declared that he is ready to ,rove. %hen authority %ill Call him to it. that
the Hing's death. and the change o! the government. %as !irst ,ro,osed
both to the "orbonne. and to the 8o,e %ith his Conclave. and consented to
and concluded !or by both-
+he 8o,e in his Conclave had about the same in!luence in Charles's !ate as
the 8o,e's eye in a leg o! mutton- +he letter interce,ted by Crom%ell %as
Charles's death7%arrant- Charles #ne% his ,o%er< and Crom%ell and )reton
#ne% it li#e%ise. and #ne% that it %as the ,o%er o! a man %ho %as %ithin
a yard's length o! a talisman. only not %ithin an arm's length. but %hich in
that state o! the ,ublic mind. could he but have once gras,ed it. %ould have
enabled him to blo% u, 8resbyterian and )nde,endent both- )! ever a
la%less act %as de!ensible on the ,rinci,le o! sel!7,reservation. the murder
o! Charles might be de!ended- ) sus,ect that the !atal delay in the
,ublication o! the Icon Basilike is susce,tible o! no other satis!actory
e,lanation- )n short it is absurd to burthen this act on Crom%ell and his
,arty. in any s,ecial sense- +he guilt. i! guilt it %as. %as consummated at
the gates o! Hull< that is. the !irst moment that Charles %as treated as an
individual. man against man- $hatever right Ham,den had to de!end his
li!e against the Hing in battle. Crom%ell and )reton had in yet more
imminent danger against the Hing's ,lotting- 9ilton's reasoning on this
,oint is unans%erable: and %hat a %retched hand does Bater ma#e o! itE
Ib. p# '(&#
But i! the la%s o! the land a,,oint the nobles. as net the Hing. to assist
him in doing right. and %ithhold him !rom doing %rong. then be they
licensed by man's la%. and so not ,rohibited by ?od's. to inter,ose
themselves !or the sa!ety o! eGuity and innocency. and by all la%!ul and
need!ul means to ,rocure the 8rince to be re!ormed. but in no case
de,rived. %here the sce,tre is inheritedE "o !ar Bisho, Bilson-
*cellentE '. by all means ,reserve !or him the bene!it o! his right!ul heir7
loom. the regal sce,tre< only lay it about his shoulders. till he ,romises to
handle it. as he oughtE But %hat i! he brea#s his ,romise and your headL or
%hat i! he %ill not ,romiseL Ho% much honester %ould it be to say. that
etreme cases are ipso nomine not generali>able.Bthere!ore not the
subFects o! a la%. %hich is the conclusion per $en's sin$'li in $enere
incl'si- *very etreme case must be Fudged by and !or itsel! under all the
,eculiar circumstances- No% as these are not !ore#no%able. the case itsel!
cannot be ,redeterminable- Harmodius and Aristogiton did not Fusti!y
Brutus and Cassius: but neither do Brutus and Cassius criminate
Harmodius and Aristogiton- +he rule a,,lies till an etreme case occurs<
and ho% can this be ,rovedL ) ans%er. the only ,roo! is success and good
event< !or these a!!ord the best ,resum,tion. !irst. o! the etremity. and
secondly. o! its remediable natureBthe t%o elements o! its Fusti!ication- +o
every individual it is !orbidden- He %ho attem,ts it. there!ore. must do so
on the ,resum,tion that the %ill o! the nation is in his %ill: %hether he is
mad or in his senses. the event can alone determine-
Ib. p# '%/#
+he governing ,o%er and obligation over the !loc# is essential to the o!!ice
o! a 8astor or 8resbyter as instituted by Christ-
+here is. . one !la% in Bater's ,lea !or his
8resbyterian !orm o! Church government. that he uses a meta,hor. %hich.
inasmuch as it is but a meta,hor. agrees %ith the thing meant in some
,oints only. as i! it %ere commensurate in toto. and virtually identical-
+hus. the 8resbyter is a she,herd as !ar as the %atch!ulness. tenderness. and
care. are to be the same in both< but it does not !ollo% that the 8resbyter has
the same sole ,o%er and eclusive right o! guidance< and !or this reason.B
that his !loc# are not shee,. but men< not o! a natural. generic. or even
constant in!eriority o! Fudgment< but Christians. co7heirs o! the ,romises.
and therein o! the gi!ts o! the Holy ",irit. and o! the inter,retation o! the
Holy "cri,tures- Ho% then can they be ecluded !rom a share in Church
?overnmentL +he %ords o! Christ. i! they may be trans!erred !rom their
immediate a,,lication to the :e%ish "ynagogue. su,,ose the contrary<B
and that highest act o! government. the election o! the o!!icers and
ministers o! the Church. %as con!essedly eercised by the congregations
including the 8resbyters and Arch7,resbyter or Bisho,. in the ,rimitive
Church- +he Guestion. there!ore. is:B)s a national Church. established by
la%. com,atible %ith ChristianityL )! so. as Bater held. the re,resentatives
CHing. Lords. and Commons.D are or may be re,resentatives o! the %hole
,eo,le as Christians as %ell as civil subFects<Band their voice %ill then be
the voice o! the Church. %hich every individual. as an individual.
themselves as individuals. and. a fortiori. the o!!icers and administrators
a,,ointed by them. are bound to obey at the ris# o! ecommunication.
against %hich there %ould be no a,,eal. but to the heavenly CTsar. the
Lord and Head o! the universal Church- But %hether as the accredited
re,resentatives and ,leni,otentiaries o! the national Church. they can avail
themselves o! their conFoint but distinct character. as tem,oral legislators.
to su,eradd cor,oral or civil ,enalties to the s,iritual sentence in ,oints
,eculiar to Christianity. as heretical o,inions. Church ceremonies. and the
li#e. thus destroyingdiscipline. even as %ood is destroyed by combination
%ith !ire<Bthis is a ne% and di!!icult Guestion. %hich yet Bater and the
8resbyterian divines. and the 8uritans o! that age in general. not only
ans%ered a!!irmatively. but most >ealously. not to say !uriously. a!!irmed
%ith anathemas to the assertors o! the negative. and s,iritual threats to the
magistrates neglecting to inter,ose the tem,oral s%ord- )n this res,ect the
,resent (issenters have the advantage over their earlier ,redecessors< but
on the other hand they utterly evacuate the "cri,tural commands against
schism< ta#e a%ay all sense and signi!icance !rom the article res,ecting the
Catholic Church< and in conseGuence degrade the disci,line itsel! into mere
club7regulations or the by7la%s o! di!!erent lodges<Bthat very disci,line.
the ca,ability o! eercising %hich in its o%n s,eci!ic nature %ithout
su,erinduction o! a destructive and transmutual o,,osite. is the !airest and
!irmest su,,ort o! their cause-
/5th 'ctober. 18/9-
Ib. p# 4+1#
+hat sententially it must be done by the 8astor or ?overnor o! that
,articular Church. %hich the ,erson is to be admitted into. or cast out o!-
+his most arbitrary a,,ro,riation o! the %ords o! Christ. and o! the
a,ostles. :ohn and 8aul. by the Clergy to themselves eclusively. is
the . the !atal error %hich has ,ractically ecluded
Church disci,line !rom among 8rotestants in all !ree countries- +hat it is
retained. and an e!!icient ,o%er. among the ;ua#ers. and only in that "ect.
%ho act collectively as a Church.B%ho not only have no ,ro,er Clergy.
but %ill not allo% a division o! maFority and minority. nor a tem,orary
,resident.Bseems to su,,ly an unans%erable con!irmation o! this my
assertion. and a strong ,resum,tion !or the validity o! my argument- +he
$esleyan 9ethodists have. ) #no%. a disci,line. and the ,o%er is in their
consistory.Ba general conclave o! ,riests cardinal since the death o! 8o,e
$esley- But %hat divisions and secessions this has given rise to< %hat
discontents and heart7burnings it still occasions in their labouring in!erior
ministers. and in the classes. is no less notorious. and may authori>e a
belie! that as the "ect increases. it %ill be less and less e!!ective< nay. that it
has decreased< and a!ter all. %hat is it com,ared %ith the disci,line o! the
;ua#ersLBBater's inconsistency on this subFect %ould be ine,licable.
did %e not #no% his >ealotry against Harrington. the (eists and the
9ystics<Bso that. li#e an electri!ied ,ith7ball. he is !or ever attracted
to%ards their tenets concerning the ,retended ,er!ecting o! s,iritual
sentences by the civil magistrate. but he touches only to !ly o!! again-
M+olerationE dainty %ord !or soul7murderE ?od grant that my eye may
never see a tolerationEM he eclaims in his boo# against Harrington's
'ceana-
Ib. p# 4+&#
As !or the democratical conceit o! them that say that the 8arliament hath
their governing ,o%er. as they are the ,eo,le's re,resentatives. and so have
the members o! the convocation. though those re,resented have no
governing ,o%er themselves. it is so ,al,ably sel!7contradicting. that ) need
not con!ute it-
"el!7contradicting according to Bater's sense o! the %ords Mre,resentM and
Mgovern-M But every rational adult has a governing ,o%er: namely. that o!
governing himsel!-
Ib. p# 41$#
+hat though a subFect ought to ta#e an oath in the sense o! his rulers %ho
im,ose it. as !ar as he can understand it< yet a man that ta#eth an oath !rom
a robber to save his li!e is not al%ays bound to ta#e it in the im,oser's
sense. i! he ta#e it not against the ,ro,er sense o! the %ords-
+his is a ,oint. on %hich ) have never been able to satis!y mysel!-B+he
only sa!e conclusion ) have been able to dra%. being the !olly. mischie!. and
immorality o! all oaths but Fudicial ones.Band those no !arther ece,ted
than as they are means o! securing a deliberate consciousness o! the
,resence o! the 'mniscient :udge- +he inclination o! my mind is at this
moment. to the ,rinci,le that an oath may dee,en the guilt o! an act sin!ul
in itsel!. but cannot be detached !rom the act< it being understood that a
,er!ectly voluntary and sel!7im,osed oath is itsel! a sin- +he man %ho
com,els me to ta#e an oath by ,utting a ,istol to my ear has in my mind
clearly !or!eited all his right to be treated as a moral agent- Nay. it seems to
be a sin to act so as to induce him to su,,ose himsel! such- Contingent
conseGuences must be ecluded< but %ould. ) am ,ersuaded. %eigh in
!avour o! annulling on ,rinci,le an oath sin!ully etorted- But ) hate
casuistry so utterly. that ) could not %ithout great violence to my !eelings
,ut the case in all its bearings- &or eam,le:Bit is sin!ul to enlarge the
,o%er o! %ic#ed agents< but to allo% them to have the ,o%er o! binding the
conscience o! those. %hom they have inFured. is to enlarge the ,o%er. Ic-
Again: no oath can bind to the ,er,etration o! a sin< but to trans!er a sum o!
money !rom its right!ul o%ner to a villain is a sin. Ic- and t%enty other
such- But the robber may #ill the net manE 8ossibly: but still more
,robably. many. %ho %ould be robbers i! they could obtain their ends
%ithout murder. %ould resist the tem,tation i! no etenuations o! guilt %ere
contem,lated<Band one murder is more e!!ective in rousing the ,ublic
mind to ,reventive measures. and by the horror it stri#es. is made more
directly ,reventive o! the tendency. than !i!ty civil robberies by contract-
Ib. p# 4'&#
+hat the minister be not bound to read the Liturgy himsel!. i! another. by
%homsoever. be ,rocured to do it< so be it he ,reach not against it-
$onder!ul. that so good and %ise a man as Bater should not have seen
that in this the Church %ould have given u, the best. ,erha,s the only
e!!icient. ,reservative o! her &aith- But !or our blessed and truly A,ostolic
and "cri,tural Liturgy. our churches' ,e%s %ould long ago have been !illed
by Arians and "ocinians. as too many o! their des#s and ,ul,its already are-
1art III# p# &%#
As also to ma#e us ta#e such a ,oor su!!ering as this !or a sign o! true
grace. instead o! !aith. ho,e. love. morti!ication. and a heavenly mind< and
that the loss o! one grain o! love %as %orse than a long im,risonment-
Here Bater con!ounds his o%n ,articular case. %hich very many %ould
have coveted. %ith the su!!erings o! other ,risoners on the same score<B
su!!erings nominally the same. but %ith !e%. i! any. o! Bater's almost
!lattering su,,orts-
Ib. p# )+#
)t %ould trouble the reader !or me to rec#on u, the many diseases and
dangers !or these ten years ,ast. in or !rom %hich ?od hath delivered me<
though it be my duty not to !orget to be than#!ul- "even months together )
%as lame %ith a strange ,ain in one !oot. t%ice delivered !rom a bloody
!lu< a s,urious cataract in my eye. %ith incessant %ebs and net%or#s
be!ore it. hath continued these eight years. N N N so that ) have rarely one
hour's or Guarter o! an hour's ease- Qet through ?od's mercy ) %as never
one hour melancholy. Ic-
+he ,o%er o! the soul. by its o%n act o! %ill. is. ) admit. great !or any one
occasion or !or a de!inite time. yea. it is marvellous- But o! such eertions
and such an even !rame o! s,irit. as Bater's %ere. under such unremitting
and almost unheard7o! bodily derangements and ,ains as his. and during so
long a li!e. 1 do not believe a human soul ca,able. unless substantiated and
successively ,otentiated by an es,ecial divine grace-
Ib. p# )&#
+he reasons %hy ) ma#e no larger a ,ro!ession necessary than the Creed
and "cri,tures. are. because i! %e de,art !rom this old su!!icient Catholic
rule. %e narro% the Church. and de,art !rom the old Catholicism-
$hy then any CreedL +his is the di!!iculty- )! you ,ut the Creed as in !act.
and not by courtesy. A,ostolic. and on a ,arity %ith "cri,ture. having.
namely. its authority in itsel!. and a direct ins,iration o! the !ramers.
ins,ired ad id temp's et ad eam rem. on %hat ground is this to be done.
%ithout admitting the binding ,o%er o! tradition in the very sense o! the
term in %hich the Church o! =ome uses it. and the 8rotestant Churches
reFect itL +hat it is the sum total made by A,ostolic contributions. each
A,ostle casting. as into a helmet. a several article as his . is the
tradition< and this is holden as a mere legendary tale by the great maFority
o! learned divines- +hat it is sim,ly the Creed o! the $estern Church is
a!!irmed by many 8rotestant divines. and some o! these divines o! our
Church- )ts com,arative sim,licity these divines e,lain by the !reedom
!rom heresies enFoyed by the $estern Church. %hen the *astern Church
had been long troubled there%ith- 'thers. again. and not un,lausibly.
contend that it %as the Creed o! the Catechumens ,re,aratory to the
Ba,tismal ,ro!ession o! !aith. %hich other %as a !uller comment on the
union o! the &ather. the "on. and the Holy ?host. into %hose name Cor
,o%erD they %ere ba,tised- +hat the A,ostles' Creed received additions
a!ter the A,ostolic age. seems almost certain< not to mention the ,er,leing
circumstance that so many o! the Latin &athers. %ho give almost the %ords
o! the A,ostolic Creed. declare it !orbidden absolutely to %rite or by any
material !orm to transmit the Canon 1idei. or Symbol'm or 5e$'la 1idei.
the Creed . by analogy o! %hich the Guestion %hether such a
boo# %as "cri,ture or not. %as to be tried- $ith such doubts ho% can the
A,ostles' Creed be ,re!erred to the Nicene by a consistent member o! the
=e!ormed Catholic ChurchL
Ib. p# )(#
+hey thin# %hile you Cthe )nde,endentsD seem to be !or a stricter disci,line
than others. that your %ay or usual ,ractice tendeth to etir,ate godliness
out o! the land. by ta#ing a very !e% that can tal# more than the rest. and
ma#ing them the Church. Ic-
Had Bater had as Fudicious advisers among his theological. as he had
among his legal. !riends< and had he allo%ed them eGual in!luence %ith
him< he %ould not. ) sus,ect. have %ritten this irritating and too egometical
,aragra,h- But Bater %ould have disbelieved a ,ro,het %ho had !oretold
that almost the %hole orthodoy o! the Non7con!ormists %ould he retained
and ,reserved by the )nde,endent congregations in *ngland. a!ter the
8resbyterian had almost %ithout ece,tion become. !irst. Arian. then
"ocinian. and !inally @nitarian: that is. the demi(semi(3'aver o!
Christianity. Arminianism being ta#en !or the semi(breve-
Ib. p# )%#
A!ter this ) %aited on him C(r- :ohn '%enD at London again. and he came
once to me to my lodgings. %hen ) %as in to%n near him- And he told me
that he received my chiding letter and ,erceived that ) sus,ected his reality
in the business< but he %as so hearty in it that ) should see that he really
meant as he s,o#e. concluding in these %ords. MQou shall see it. and my
,ractice shall re,roach your di!!idenceM N N N- About a month a!ter ) %ent
to him again. and he had done nothing. but %as still hearty !or the %or#-
And to be short. ) thus %aited on him time a!ter time. till my ,a,ers had
been near a year and a Guarter in his hand. and then ) advised him to return
them to me. %hich he did. %ith these %ords. M) am still a %ell7%isher to
those mathematics<MB%ithout any other %ords about them. or ever giving
me any more ece,tion against them- And this %as the issue o! my third
attem,t !or union %ith the )nde,endents-
(r- '%en %as a man o! no ordinary intellect- )t %ould be interesting to
have his conduct in this ,oint. seemingly so strange. in some measure
e,lained: +he %ords Mthose mathematicsM loo# li#e an innuendo. that
Bater's scheme o! union. by %hich all the ,arties o,,osed to the 8relatic
Church %ere to !orm a rival Church. %as. li#e the mathematics. true
indeed. but true only in the idea. that is. abstracted !rom the subFect matter-
"till there a,,ears a very chilling %ant o! o,en7heartedness on the ,art o!
'%en. ,roduced ,erha,s by the some%hat overly and certainly most
ungracious resentments o! Bater- )t %as odd at least to ,ro,ose concord in
the tone and on the alleged ground o! an old grudge-
Ib.
) have been t%enty7si years convinced that dichotomi>ing %ill not do it.
but that the divine +rinity in @nity hath e,ressed itsel! in the %hole !rame
o! nature and morality N N N- But he. 9r- ?eorge La%son. had not hit on the
true method o! the vesti$ia Trinitatis. Ic-
Among Bater's ,hiloso,hical merits. %e ought not to overloo#. that the
substitution o! +richotomy !or the old and still general ,lan o! (ichotomy
in the method and dis,osition o! Logic. %hich !orms so ,rominent and
substantial an ecellence in Hant's CritiGue o! the 8ure =eason. o! the
:udgment. and the rest o! his %or#s. belongs originally to =ichard Bater. a
century be!ore Hant<Band this not as a hint. but as a !ully evolved and
systematically a,,lied ,rinci,le- Nay. more than this:BBater grounded it
on an absolute idea ,resu,,osed in all intelligential acts: %hereas Hant
ta#es it only as a !act in %hich he seems to antici,ate or sus,ect some yet
dee,er truth latent. and herea!ter to be discovered-
'n recollection. ho%ever. ) am dis,osed to consider this alone as Bater's
,eculiar claim. ) have not indeed any distinct memory o! ?iordano
Bruno's Lo$ice Venatri" Veritatis< but doubtless the ,rinci,le o! +richotomy
is necessarily involved in the 8olar Logic. %hich again is the same %ith the
8ythagorean Tetractys. that is. the eternal !ountain or source o! nature< and
this being sacred to contem,lations o! identity. and ,rior in order o! thought
to all division. is so !ar !rom inter!ering %ith +richotomy as the universal
!orm o! division Cmore correctly o! distinctive distribution in logicD that it
im,lies it- &rothesis being by the very term anterior to Thesis can be no ,art
o! it- +hus in
&rothesi
s
Thesi
s
%ntithesi
s
Synthesi
s
%e have the +etrad indeed in the intellectual and intuitive contem,lation.
but a +riad in discursive arrangement. and a +ri7unity in result
3
-
Ib. p# 144#
"eeing the great di!!iculties that lie in the %ay o! increasing charities so as
to meet the increase o! ,o,ulation. or even so as to !ollo% it. and the
mani!old desirableness o! ,arish Churches. %ith the material dignity that in
a right state o! Christian order %ould attach to them. as com,ared %ith
meeting7houses. cha,els. and the li#eBall more or less privati 7'ris. ) have
o!ten !elt dis,osed to %ish that the large maFestic Church. central to each
given ,arish. might have been a,,ro,riated to 8ublic 8rayer. to the
mysteries o! Ba,tism and the Lord's "u,,er. and to the 3'asi sacramenta.
9arriage. 8enance. Con!irmation. 'rdination. and to the continued reading
aloud. or occasional chanting. o! the "cri,tures during the intervals o! the
di!!erent "ervices. %hich ought to be so o!ten ,er!ormed as to su!!ice
successively !or the %hole ,o,ulation< and that on the other hand the
cha,els and the li#e should be entirely devoted to teaching and e,ounding-
Ib. p# 1&'#
And ) ,roved to him that Christianity %as ,roved true many years be!ore
any o! the Ne% +estament %as %ritten. and that so it may be still ,roved by
one that doubted o! some %ords o! the "cri,ture< and there!ore the true
order is. to try the truth o! the Christian religion !irst. and the ,er!ect verity
o! the "cri,tures a!ter%ards-
$ith more than (ominican virulence did ?oe>e. Head 8astor o! the
Lutheran Church at Hamburg. assail the celebrated Lessing !or ma#ing and
su,,orting the same ,osition as the ,ious Bater here advances-
+his controversy %ith ?oe>e %as in 1228. nearly a hundred years a!ter
Bater's %riting this-
Ib. p# 1&&#
And %ithin a !e% days 9r- Barnett riding the circuit %as cast by his horse.
and died in the very !all- And "ir :ohn 9edlicote and his brother. a !e%
%ee#s a!ter. lay both dead in his house together-
+his inter,reting o! accidents and coincidences into Fudgments is a breach
o! charity and humility. only not universal among all sects and ,arties o!
this ,eriod. and common to the best and gentlest men in all< %e should not
there!ore bring it in charge against any one in ,articular- But %hat ecuse
shall be made !or the revival o! this ,resum,tuous encroachment on the
divine ,rerogative in our daysL
Ib. p# 1/+#
Near this time my boo# called A Hey !or Catholics. %as to be re,rinted- )n
the ,re!ace to the !irst im,ression ) had mentioned %ith ,raise the *arl o!
Lauderdale- N N N ) thought best to ,re!i an e,istle to the (u#e. in %hich )
said not a %ord o! him but truth- N N N But the indignation that men had
against the (u#e made some blame me. as #ee,ing u, the re,utation o! one
%hom multitudes thought very ill o!< %hereas ) o%ned none o! his !aults.
and did nothing that ) could %ell avoid !or the a!oresaid reasons- Long a!ter
this he ,ro!essed his #indness to me. and told me ) should never %ant %hile
he %as able. and humbly entreated me to acce,t t%enty guineas !rom him.
%hich ) did-
+his %ould be a curious ,roo! o! the slo% and im,er!ect intercourse o!
communication bet%een "cotland and London. i! Bater had not been
,articularly in!ormed o! Lauderdale's horrible cruelties to the "cotch
Covenanters:Band i! Bater did #no% them. he surely ran into a greater
inconsistency to avoid the a,,earance o! a less- And the t%enty guineasE
they must have smelt. ) should thin#. o! more than the earthly brimstone
that might naturally enough have been e,ected in gold or silver. !rom his
,alm- ) %ould as soon have ,luc#ed an ingot !rom the cle!t o! the (evil's
hoo!-
Ib. p# 1/1#
About that time ) had !inished a boo# called Catholic +houghts< in %hich )
underta#e to ,rove that besides things unrevealed. #no%n to none. and
ambiguous %ords. there is no considerable di!!erence bet%een the
Arminians and Calvinists. ece,t some very tolerable di!!erence in the
,oint o! ,erseverance-
$hat ArminiansL %hat CalvinistsLB)t is ,ossible that the guarded
language and ,ositions o! Arminius himsel! may be inter,reted into a Mvery
tolerableM com,atibility %ith the ,rinci,les o! the milder Calvinists. such as
Archbisho, Leighton. that true &ather o! the Church o! Christ- But ) more
than doubt the ,ossibility o! even a,,roimating the ,rinci,les o! Bisho,
:eremy +aylor to the !undamental doctrines o! Leighton. much more to
those o! Cart%right. +%iss. or '%en-
Ib. p# 1/)#
Bisho, Barlo% told my !riend that got my ,a,ers !or him. that he could
hear o! nothing that %e Fudged to be sin. but mere inconveniences- $hen as
above seventeen years ago. %e ,ublicly endeavoured to ,rove the
sin!ulness even o! many o! the old im,ositions-
Clearly an undeterminable controversy< inasmuch as there is no centra7
de!inition ,ossible o! sin and inconvenience in religion: %hile the eact
,oint. at %hich an inconvenience. becoming intolerable. ,asses into sin.
must de,end on the state and the degree o! light. o! the individual
consciences to %hich it a,,ears or becomes intolerable- Besides. a thing
may not be only indi!!erent in itsel!. but may be declared such by "cri,ture.
and on this indi!!erence the "cri,ture may have rested a ,rohibition to
Christians to Fudge each other on the ,oint- )! yet a 8o,e or Archbisho,
should !orce this on the consciences o! others. !or eam,le. to eat or not to
eat animal !ood. %ould he not sin in so doingL And does "cri,ture ,ermit
me to subscribe to an ordinance made in direct contem,t o! a command o!
"cri,tureL
)! it %ere said.B)n all matters indi!!erent and so not sin!ul you must
com,ly %ith la%!ul authority:Bmust ) not re,ly. But you have yoursel!
removed the indi!!erency by your inFunctionL Loo# in 8o,ish countries !or
the hideous conseGuences o! the unnatural doctrineBthat the 8riest may go
to Hell !or sin!ully commanding. and his ,arishioners go %ith him !or not
obeying that command-
Ib. p# 1%1#
About this time died my dear !riend 9r- +homas ?ouge. o! %hose li!e you
may see a little in 9r- Clar#'s last boo# o! Lives:Ba %onder o! sincere
industry in %or#s o! charity- )t %ould ma#e a volume to recite at large the
charity he used to his ,oor ,arishioners at "e,ulchre's. be!ore he %as
eFected and silenced !or non7con!ormity. Ic-
) cannot e,ress ho% much it grieves me. that our Clergy should still thin#
it !it and e,edient to de!end the measures o! the High Churchmen !rom
Laud to "heldon. and to s,ea# o! the eFected ministers. Calamy. Bater.
?ouge. Ho%e. and others. as schismatics. !actionists. !anatics. or 8harisees:
Bthus to !latter some hal!7do>en dead Bisho,s. %antonly de,riving our
,resent Church o! the authority o! ,erha,s the largest collective number o!
learned and >ealous. discreet and holy. ministers that one age and one
Church %as ever blest %ith< and %hose authority in every considerable
,oint is in !avor o! our Church. and against the ,resent (issenters !rom it-
And this seems the more im,olitic. %hen it must be clear to every student
o! the history o! these times. that the unmanly cruelties in!licted on Bater
and others %ere. as Bisho,s $ard. "tilling!leet. and others sa% at the time.
,art o! the 8o,ish scheme o! the Cabal. to tric# the Bisho,s and digni!ied
Clergy into rendering themselves and the established Church odious to the
,ublic by la%s. the eecution o! %hich the Hing. the (u#e. Arlington. and
the 8o,ish ,riests directed to%ards the very last man that the Bisho,s
themselves Cthe great maFority at leastD %ould have molested-
Appendix II# p# '(#
)! ) can ,rove that it hath been the universal ,ractice o! the Church in
n'd'm apert'm cap't man's imponere. doth it !ollo% that this is essential.
and the contrary nullL
Ho% li#e%ise can it be ,roved that the im,osition o! hands in 'rdination
did not stand on the same ground as the im,osition o! hands in sic#ness<
that is. the miraculous gi!ts o! the !irst ,reachers o! the ?os,elL All
8rotestants admit that the Church retained several !orms so originated. a!ter
the cessation o! the originating ,o%ers. %hich %ere the substance o! these
!orms-
Ib.
)! you thin# not only im,osition to be essential. but also that nothing else is
essential. or that all are true ministers that are ordained by a la%!ul Bisho,
,er man''m impositionem. then do you egregiously tibi ipsi imponere-
Bater. li#e most scholastic logicians. had a snea#ing a!!ection !or ,uns-
+he cause is.Bthe necessity o! attending to the ,rimary sense o! %ords.
that is. the visual image or general relation e,ressed. and %hich remains
common to all the a!ter senses. ho%ever %idely or even incongruously
di!!ering !rom each other in other res,ects- &or the same reason.
schoolmasters are commonly ,unsters- M) have indorsed your Bill. "ir.M said
a ,edagogue to a merchant. meaning he had !logged his son $illiam-B9y
old master the =ev- :ames Bo%yer. the Herc'les f'rens o! the ,hlogistic
sect. but else an incom,arable teacher.Bused to translate. :ihil in
intellect' 3'od non pri's in sens'.B!irst reciting the Latin %ords. and
observing that they %ere the !undamental article o! the 8eri,atetic school.
BMQou must !log a boy. be!ore you can ma#e him understand<MBor. MQou
must lay it in at the tail be!ore you can get it into the head-M
Ib. p# 4&#
+hen. that the %ill must !ollo% the ,ractical intellect %hether right or
%rong.Bthat is no ,rece,t. but the nature o! the soul in its acting. because
that the %ill is potentia c2ca, non nata ad intelli$end'm, sed ad volend'm
vel nolend'm intellect'm-
+his is the main !ault in Bater's meta,hysics. that he so o!ten substantiates
distinctions into dividuous sel!7subsistents- As here<B!or a %ill not
intelligent is no %ill-
Appendix# III# p# &&#
And !or many ages no other ordinarily ba,tised but in!ants- )! Christ had no
Church then. %here %as his %isdom. his love. and his ,o%erL $hat %as
become o! the glory o! his redem,tion. and his Catholic Church. that %as to
continue to the endL
But the Anti,Udo7Ba,tists %ould deny any such conseGuences as
a,,licable to them. %ho are to act according to the circumstances. in %hich
?od. %ho ordains his successive mani!estations in due corres,ondence
%ith other lights and states o! things. has ,laced them- He does not eclude
!rom the Church o! Christ Csay theyD those %hom %e do not acce,t into the
communion o! our ,articular "ociety. any more than the House o! Lords
ecludes Commoners !rom being 9embers o! 8arliament- And %e do this
becauseB%e thin# that such ,romiscuous admission %ould ,rolong an
error %hich %ould be deadly to us. though not to you %ho inter,ret the
"cri,tures other%ise-
In fine.
+here are t%o senses in %hich the %ords. 'Church o! *ngland.' may be
used<B!irst. %ith re!erence to the idea o! the Church as an estate o! this
Christian =ealm. ,rotesting against the 8a,al usur,ation. com,rising. !irst.
the interests o! a ,ermanent learned class. that is. the Clergy<Bsecondly.
those o! the ,ro,er. that is. the in!irm ,oor. !rom age or sic#ness<Band
thirdly. the adeGuate ,ro,ortional instruction o! all in all classes by ,ublic
,rayer. recitation o! the "cri,tures. by e,ounding. ,reaching. catechi>ing.
and schooling. and last. not least. by the eam,le and in!luence o! a ,astor
and a schoolmaster ,laced as a germ o! civili>ation and cultivation in every
,arish throughout the land- +o this idea. the =e!ormed Church o! *ngland
%ith its marriable and married Clergy %ould have a,,roimated. i! the
revenues o! the Church. as they eisted at the death o! Henry 4))-. had been
rightly trans!erred by his successor<Btrans!erred. ) mean. !rom reservoirs.
%hich had by degeneracy on the one hand. and ,rogressive im,rovement
on the other. !allen into ruin. and in %hich those revenues had stagnated
into contagion or uselessness.Btrans!erred !rom %hat had become ,ublic
evils to their original and inherent ,ur,ose o! ,ublic bene!its. instead o!
being sacrilegiously alienated by a trans!er to ,rivate ,ro,rietors- +hat this
%as im,racticable. is historically true< but no less true is it ,hiloso,hically.
that this im,racticability. arising %holly !rom moral causes. Cnamely. the
loose manners and corru,t ,rinci,les o! a great maFority in all classes
during the dynasty o! the +udors.D does not ,revent this %holesale
sacrilege. !rom deserving the character o! the M!irst and deadliest %ound
in!licted on the Constitution o! the #ingdom< %hich term. in the body
,olitic. as in bodies natural. e,resses not only %hat is and has been
evolved. but li#e%ise %hatever is ,otentially contained in the seminal
,rinci,le o! the ,articular body. and %hich %ould in its due time have
a,,eared but !or emasculation in its in!ancy- +his. ho%ever. is the !irst
sense o! the %ords. Church o! *ngland
0
-
+he second is the Church o! *ngland as no% by la% established. and by
,ractice o! the la% actually eisting- +hat in the !irst sense it is the obFect o!
my admiration and the earthlyne pl's 'ltra o! my religious as,irations. it
%ere su,er!luous to say: but ) may be allo%ed to e,ress iny conviction.
that on our recurring to the same ends and obFects. Cthe restoration o! a
national and circulating ,ro,erty in counter,oise o! individual ,ossession.
dis,osable and heritableD though in other !orms and by other means
,erha,s. the decline or ,rogress o! this country de,ends- )n the second
sense o! the %ords ) can sincerely ,ro!ess. that ) love and honour the
Church o! *ngland. com,aratively. beyond any other Church established or
unestablished no% eisting in Christendom< and it is %holly in
conseGuence o! this deliberate and most a!!ectionate !ilial ,re!erence. that )
have read this %or#. and Calamy's historical %ritings. %ith so dee, and so
melancholy an interest- And ) dare avo% that ) cannot but regard as an
ignorant bigot every man %ho Ces,ecially since the ,ublicity and
authentication o! the contents o! the "tuart 8a,ers. 9emoirs and Li!e o!
:ames ))- Ic-D can ,lace the !ar later !urious High Church com,ilations and
stories o! $al#er and others in com,etition %ith the veracity and general
verity o! Bater and Calamy< or can !orget that the great body o! Non7
con!ormists to %hom these great and good men belonged. %ere not
dissenters !rom the established Church %illingly. but an orthodo and
numerous ,ortion o! the Church- 'mitting then the %ound received by
religion generally under Henry 4)))-. and the shameless seculari>ations
clandestinely e!!ected during the reigns o! *li>abeth and the !irst :ames. )
am dis,osed to consider the three !ollo%ing as the grand evil e,ochs o! our
,resent Church- &irst. +he introduction and a!ter7,redominance o!
Latitudinarianism under the name o! Arminianism. and the s,irit o! a
conFoint =omanism and "ocinianism at the latter hal! or to%ards the close
o! the reign o! :ames )- in the ,ersons o! 9ontague. Laud. and their
con!ederates- "econd. +he eFection o! the t%o thousand ministers a!ter the
=estoration. %ith the other violences in %hich the Churchmen made
themselves the du,es o! Charles. :ames. the :esuits. and the &rench Court-
C"ee the "tuart 8a,ers passimD- )t %as this that gave consistence and
enduring strength to "chism in this country. ,revented the ,acation o!
)reland. and ,re,ared !or the se,aration o! America at a !ar too early ,eriod
!or the true interest o! either country- +hird. +he surrender by the Clergy o!
the right o! taing themselves. and the :acobitical !ollies that combined
%ith the !ormer to ,ut it in the ,o%er o! the $hig ,arty to de,rive the
Church o! her Convocation.Ba bitter disgrace and %rong. to %hich most
unha,,ily the ,eo,le %ere rendered indi!!erent by the increasing contrast o!
the sermons o! the Clergy %ith the Articles and Homilies o! the Church
itsel!.Bbut a %rong nevertheless %hich already has avenged. and %ill
sooner or later be seen to avenge. itsel! on the "tate and the governing
classes that continue this boast o! a short7sighted ,olicy< the same ,olicy
%hich in our o%n days %ould have !unded the ,ro,erty o! the Church. and.
by converting the Clergy into salaried de,endents on the ?overnment pro
tempore. have de,rived the *stablishment o! its !airest honor. that o! being
neither enslaved to the court. nor to the congregations< the same ,olicy.
alasE %hich even no% ,ays and ,atroni>es a Board o! Agriculture to
undermine all landed ,ro,erty by a succession o! !alse. shallo%. and
in!lammatory libels against tithes-
+hese are my %eighed sentiments: and !ervently desiring. as ) do. the
,er,etuity and ,ros,erity o! the established Church. >ealous !or its rights
and dignity. ,re!erring its !orms. believing its Articles o! &aith. and holding
its Boo# o! Common 8rayer and its translation o! the "cri,tures among my
highest ,rivileges as a Christian and an *nglishman. ) trust that ) may both
entertain and avo% these sentiments %ithout !or!eiting any ,art o! my claim
to the name o! a !aith!ul member o! the Church o! *ngland-
:une 18/5-
N- B- As to $arburton's Alliance o! the Church and "tate. ) obFect to the
title CAllianceD. and to the matter and mode o! the reasoning- But the inter7
de,endence o! the Church and the "tate a,,ears to me a truth o! the highest
,ractical im,ortance- Let but the tem,oral ,o%ers ,rotect the subFects in
their Fust rights as subFects merely: and ) do not #no% o! any one ,oint in
%hich the Church has the right or the necessity to call in the tem,oral
,o%er as its ally !or any ,ur,ose eclusively ecclesiastic- +he right o! a
!irm to dissolve its ,artnershi, %ith any one ,artner. breach o! contract
having been ,roved. and ,ublicly to announce the same. is common to all
men as social beings-
) s,o#e above o! M=omanism-M But call it. i! you li#e. Laudism. or
Lambethism in tem,oralities and ceremonials. and o! "ocinianism in
doctrine. that is. a retaining o! the %ord but a reFecting or inter,reting a%ay
o! the sense and substance o! the "cri,tural 9ysteries- +his s,irit has not
indeed mani!ested itsel! in the article o! the +rinity. since $aterland gave
the deathblo% to Arianism. and so le!t no alternative to the Clergy. but the
actual divinity or mere humanity o! our Lord< and the latter %ould be too
im,udent an avo%al !or a ,ublic reader o! our Church Liturgy: but in the
articles o! original sin. the necessity o! regeneration. the necessity o!
redem,tion in order to the ,ossibility o! regeneration. o! Fusti!ication by
!aith. and o! ,revenient and auiliary grace.Ball ) can say %ith sincerity is.
that our orthodoy seems so !ar in an im,roving state. that ) can ho,e !or
the time %hen Churchmen %ill use the term Arminianism to e,ress a habit
o! belie! o,,osed not to Calvinism. or the %or#s o! Calvin. but to the
Articles o! our o%n Church. and to the doctrine in %hich all the !irst
=e!ormers agreed-
NoteBthat by Latitudinarianism. ) do not mean the ,articular tenets o! the
divines so called. such as (r- H- 9ore. Cud%orth and their com,eers.
relative to toleration. com,rehension. and the general belie! that in the
greater number o! ,oints then most controverted. the ,ious o! all ,arties
%ere !ar more nearly o! the same mind than their o%n im,er!ections. and
the im,er!ection o! language allo%ed them to see: ) mean the dis,osition to
e,lain a%ay the articles o! the Church on the ,retet o! their inconsistency
%ith right reason<B%hen in !act it %as only an incongruity %ith a %rong
understanding. the !aculty %hich "t- 8aul calls . the
rules o! %hich having been all abstracted !rom obFects o! sense. C!inite in
time and s,ace.D are logically a,,licable to obFects o! the sense alone- +his
) have else%here called the s,irit o! "ocinianism. %hich may %or# in many
%hose tenets are anti7"ocinian-
La% isBconcl'sio per re$'lam $eneris sin$'lor'm in $enere isto
incl'sor'm- No% the etremes et incl'sa are contradictory terms- +here!ore
etreme cases are not ca,able subFects o! la% a priori. but must ,roceed on
#no%ledge o! the ,ast. and antici,ation o! the !uture. and the !ul!ilment o!
the antici,ation is the ,roo!. because the only ,ossible determination. o! the
accuracy o! the #no%ledge- )n other %ords the agents may be condemned
or honored according to their intentions. and the a,,arent source o! their
motives< so %e honor Brutus. but the etreme case itsel! is tried by the
event-
&ootnote 1: 5elli3'i2 Ba"terian2: or 9r- =ichard Bater's Narrative o!
the most memorable ,assages o! his li!e and times- 8ublished !rom his
manuscri,t. by 9atthe% "ylvester-BLondon. folio- 1399-
return to !ootnote mar#
&ootnote /: "ee Hoo#er *- 8- 4- viii- 3- 4ol- ))- ,- 85- Heble- !d-
return
&ootnote 3: "ee Table Talk. ,- 13/- /nd edit- !d.
return
&ootnote 0: "ee the Ch'rch and State. ,- 23. 3rd edit-B!d.
return
Contents A )nde
Notes on Leighton
1
"urely i! ever %or# not in the sacred Canon might suggest a belie! o!
ins,iration.Bo! something more than human.Bthis it is- $hen 9r- *l%yn
made this assertion. ) too# it as the hy,erbole o! a!!ection: but no% )
subscribe to it seriously. and bless the hour that introduced me to the
#no%ledge o! the evangelical. a,ostolical Archbisho, Leighton-
A,ril 1810-
Net to the ins,ired "cri,turesByea. and as the vibration o! that once
struc# hour remaining on the air. stands Leighton's Commentary on the 1st
*,istle o! "t- 8eter-
Comment *ol# I# p# $#
Btheir redem,tion and salvation by Christ :esus< that inheritance o!
immortality bought by his blood !or them. and the evidence and stability o!
their right and title to it-
By the blood o! Christ ) mean this- ) contem,late the Christ.
1-As Christ's a$ens. the :ehovah Christ. the $ord:
/-As Christ's patiens. +he ?od )ncarnate-
)n the !ormer he is relative ad intellect'm h'man'm, l'" l'cifica, sol
intelli$ibilis9 relative ad e"istentiam h'manam, anima animans, calor
fovens- )n the latter he is vita vivificans, principi'm spirit'alis, id est, ver2
reprod'ctionis in vitam veram- No% this ,rinci,le. or vis vit2 vitam
vivificans. considered in forma passiva, assimilationem patiens. at the same
time that it ecites the soul to the vital act o! assimilatingBthis is the
Blood o! Christ. really ,resent through !aith to. and actually ,arta#en by.
the !aith!ul- '! this the body is the continual ,roduct. that is. a good li!e7the
merits o! Christ acting on the soul. redem,tive-
Ib. pp# 1'01&#
'! their sancti!ication: elect 'nto obedience. Ic-
+hat the doctrines asserted in this and the t%o or three !ollo%ing ,ages
cannot be denied or e,lained a%ay. %ithout removing Cas the modern
@nitariansD. or Cas the ArminiansD unsettling and undermining. the
!oundations o! the &aith. ) am !ully convinced< and eGually so. that nothing
is gained by the change. the very same logical conseGuences being
deducible !rom the tenets o! the Church Arminians<Bscarcely more so.
indeed. !rom those %hich they still hold in common %ith Luther. Juinglius.
Calvin. Hno. and Cranmer and the other &athers o! the =e!ormation in
*ngland. and %hich are there!ore most un!airly entitled CalvinismBthan
!rom those %hich they have attem,ted to substitute in their ,lace- Nay. the
shoc# given to the moral sense by these conseGuences is. to my !eelings.
aggravated in the Arminian doctrine by the thin yet dishonest disguise-
9eantime the conseGuences a,,ear to me. in ,oint o! logic. legitimately
concluded !rom the terms o! the ,remisses- $hat shall %e say thenL $here
lies the !aultL )n the original doctrines e,ressed in the ,remissesL ?od
!orbid- )n the ,articular deductions. logically consideredL But these %e
have !ound legitimate- $here thenL ) ans%er in deducing any conseGuences
by such a ,rocess. and according to such rules- +he rules are alien and
ina,,licable< the ,rocess ,resum,tuous. yea. ,re,osterous- +he
error. . lies in the !alse assum,tion o! a logical
deducibility at all. in this instance-
&irst:Bbecause the terms !rom %hich the conclusion must be dra%n7
Ctermini in ma7ore pr2missi, a 3'ib's scientialiter et scientifice
demonstrand'm eratD are accommodations and not scienti!icBthat is.
,ro,er and adeGuate. not per idem. but per 3'am ma"ime simile. or
rather 3'am ma"ime dissimile:
"econdly<Bbecause the truths in Guestion are transcendant. and have their
evidence. i! any. in the ideas themselves. and !or the reason< and do not and
cannot derive it !rom the conce,tions o! the understanding. %hich cannot
com,rehend the truths. but is to be com,rehended in and by them. C*ohn i-
1-D:
Lastly. and chie!ly<Bbecause these truths. as they do not originate in the
intellective !aculty o! man. so neither are they addressed ,rimarily to our
intellect< but are substantiated !or us by their corres,ondence to the %ants.
cravings. and interests o! the moral being. !or %hich they %ere given. and
%ithout %hich they %ould be devoid o! all meaning.Bvo" et pr2terea
nihil- +he only conclusions. there!ore. that can be dra%n !rom them. must
be such as are im,lied in the origin and ,ur,ose o! their revelation< and the
legitimacy o! all conclusions must be tried by their consistency %ith those
moral interests. those s,iritual necessities. %hich are the ,ro,er !inal cause
o! the truths and o! our !aith therein- &or some o! the !aith!ul these truths
have. ) doubt not. an evidence o! reason< but !or the %hole household o!
!aith their certainty is in their %or#ing- No% it is this. by %hich. in all
cases. %e #no% and determine eistence in the !irst instance- +hat %hich
%or#s in us or on us eists !or us- +he sha,es and !orms that !ollo% the
%or#ing as its results or ,roducts. %hether the sha,es cogni>able by sense
or the !orms distinguished by the intellect. are a!ter all but the
,articulari>ations o! this %or#ing< its ,ro,er names. as it %ere. as :ohn.
:ames. 8eter. in res,ect o! human nature- +hey are all derived !rom the
relations in %hich !inite beings stand to each other< and are there!ore
heterogeneous and. ece,t by accommodation. devoid o! meaning and
,ur,ose %hen a,,lied to the %or#ing in and by %hich ?od ma#es his
eistence #no%n to us. and C%e may ,resume to sayD es,ecially eists !or
the soul in %hom he thus %or#s- 'n these grounds. there!ore. ) hold the
doctrines o! original sin. the redem,tion there!rom by the Cross o! Christ.
and change o! heart as the conseGuent< %ithout ado,ting the additions to
the doctrines in!erred by one set o! divines. the modern Calvinists. or
ac#no%ledging the conseGuences burdened on the doctrines by their
antagonists- Nor is this my !aith !airly liable to any inconvenience. i! only it
be remembered that it is a s,iritual %or#ing. o! %hich ) s,ea#. and a
s,iritual #no%ledge.Bnot through the medi'm o! image. the see#ing a!ter
%hich is su,erstition< nor yet by any sensation. the %atching !or %hich is
enthusiasm. and the conceit o! its ,resence !anatical distem,erature- M(o
the %ill o! the &ather. and ye shall kno. it-M
$e must distinguish the li!e and the soul< though there is a certain sense in
%hich the li!e may be called the soul< that is. the li!e is the soul o! the body-
But the soul is the li!e o! the man. and Christ is the li!e o! the soul- No% the
s,irit o! man. the s,irit subsistent. is dee,er than both. not only dee,er than
the body and its li!e. but dee,er than the soul< and the ",irit descendent and
su,ersistent is higher than both- )n the regenerated man the height and the
de,th become oneBthe ",irit communeth %ith the s,iritBand the soul is
the inter(ens. or ens inter(medi'm bet%een the li!e and the s,irit<B
the participi'm. not as a com,ound. ho%ever. but as a medi'm indifferens
Bin the same sense in %hich heat may be designated as the indi!!erence
bet%een light and gravity- And %hat is the =easonLB+he s,irit in its
,resence to the understanding abstractedly !rom its ,resence in the %ill.B
nay. in many. during the negation o! the latter- +he s,irit ,resent to man.
but not a,,ro,riated by him. is the reason o! man:Bthe reason in the
,rocess o! its identi!ication %ith the %ill is the s,irit-
Ib. pp# )'04#
Can %e deny that it is unbelie! o! those things that causeth this neglect and
!orgetting o! themL +he discourse. the tongue o! men and angels cannot
beget divine belie! o! the ha,,iness to come< only He that gives it. gives
!aith li#e%ise to a,,rehend it. and lay hold u,on it. and u,on our believing
to be !illed %ith Foy in the ho,es o! it-
9ost true. most trueE
Ib. p# )/#
)n s,iritual trials that are the shar,est and most !iery o! all. %hen the
!urnace is %ithin a man. %hen ?od doth not only shut u, his loving7
#indness !rom its !eeling. but seems to shut it u, in hot dis,leasure. %hen
he %rites bitter things against it< yet then to de,end u,on him. and %ait !or
his salvation. this is not only a true. but a strong and very re!ined !aith
indeed. and the more he smites. the more to cleave to him- N N N +hough )
sa%. as it %ere. his hand li!ted u, to destroy me. yet !rom that same hand
%ould ) e,ect salvation-
Bless ?od. ' my soul. !or this s%eet and strong com!orterE )t is the honey
in the lion-
Ib. p# (&#
+his natural men may discourse o!. and that very #no%ingly. and give a
#ind o! natural credit to it as to a history that may be true< but !irmly to
believe that there is divine truth in all these things. and to have a ,ersuasion
o! it stronger than o! the very things %e see %ith our eyes< such an assent as
this is the ,eculiar %or# o! the ",irit o! ?od. and is certainly saving !aith-
Lord I believe9 help tho' my 'nbelief4 9y reason acGuiesces. and ) believe
enough to !ear- '. grant me the belie! that brings s%eet ho,eE
Ib. p# ()#
&aith N N causes the soul to !ind all that is s,o#en o! him in the %ord. and
his beauty there re,resented. to be abundantly true. ma#es it really taste o!
his s%eetness. and by that ,ossesses the heart more strongly %ith his love.
,ersuading it o! the truth o! those things. not by reasons and arguments. but
by an ine,ressible #ind o! evidence. that they only #no% that have it-
*ither this is true. or religion is not religion< that is. it adds nothing to our
human reason< non reli$at- ?rant it. grant it me. ' LordE
Ib. pp# 1+40&#
+his s%eet stream o! their doctrine did. as the rivers. ma#e its o%n ban#s
!ertile and ,leasant as it ran by. and !lo%ed still !or%ard to a!ter ages. and
by the con!luence o! more such ,ro,hecies gre% greater as it %ent. till it
!ell in %ith the main current o! the ?os,el in the Ne% +estament. both
acted and ,reached by the great 8ro,het himsel!. %hom they !oretold to
come. and recorded by his A,ostles and *vangelists. and thus united into
one river. clear as crystal- +his doctrine o! salvation in the "cri,tures hath
still re!reshed the city o! ?od. his Church under the ?os,el. and still shall
do so. till it em,ty itsel! into the ocean o! eternity-
)n the %hole course o! my studies ) do not remember to have read so
beauti!ul an allegory as this< so various and detailed. and yet so Fust and
natural-
Ib. p# 1$1#
+here is a truth in it. that all sin arises !rom some #ind o! ignorance N N N-
&or %ere the true visage o! sin seen at a !ull light. undressed and un,ainted.
it %ere im,ossible. %hile it so a,,eared. that any one soul could be in love
%ith it. but %ould rather !lee !rom it as hideous and abominable-
+his is the only Cde!ect. shall ) sayL No. but the onlyD omission ) have !elt
in this divine $riterB!or him %e understand by !eeling. e,erimentallyB
that he doth not notice the horrible tyranny o! habit- $hat the Archbisho,
says. is most true o! beginners in sin< but this is the !oretaste o! hell. to see
and loathe the de!ormity o! the %edded vice. and yet still to embrace and
nourish it-
Ib. p# 1$$#
He calls those times %herein Christ %as un#no%n to them. the times of
their i$norance- +hough the stars shine never so bright. and the moon %ith
them in its !ull. yet they do not. altogether. ma#e it day: still it is night till
the sun a,,ear-
Ho% beauti!ul. and yet ho% sim,le. and as it %ere unconscious o! its o%n
beautyE
Ib. p# 1$4#
Qou %ere running to destruction in the %ay o! sin. and there %as a voice.
together %ith the ?os,el ,reaching to your ear. that s,a#e into your heart.
and called you bac# !rom that ,ath o! death to the %ay o! holiness. %hich is
the only %ay o! li!e- He hath severed you !rom the mass o! the ,ro!ane
%orld. and ,ic#ed you out to be Fe%els !or himsel!-
'. ho% divineE "urely. nothing less than the ",irit o! Christ could have
ins,ired such thoughts in such language- 'ther divines.B(onne and
:eremy +aylor !or instance.Bhave converted their %orldly gi!ts. and
a,,lied them to holy ends< but here the gi!ts themselves seem unearthly-
Ib. p# 1'/#
As in religion. so in the course and ,ractice o! men's lives. the stream o! sin
runs !rom one age to another. and every age ma#es it greater. adding
some%hat to %hat it receives. as rivers gro% in their course by the
accession o! broo#s that !all into them< and every man %hen he is born.
!alls li#e a dro, into this main current o! corru,tion. and so is carried do%n
it. and this by reason o! its strength. and his o%n nature. %hich %illingly
dissolves into it. and runs along %ith it-
)n this single ,eriod %e have religion. the s,irit.B,hiloso,hy. the soul.B
and ,oetry. the body and dra,ery united<B8lato glori!ied by "t- 8aul< and
yet coming as unostentatiously as any s,eech !rom an innocent girl o!
!i!teen-
Ib. p# 1&/#
+he chie! ,oint o! obedience is believing< the ,ro,er obedience to truth is
to give credit to it-
+his is not Guite so ,ers,icuous and single7sensed as Archbisho, Leighton's
sentences in general are- +his e!!ect is occasioned by the omission o! the
%ord Mthis.M or Mdivine.M or the truth Min Christ-M &or truth in the ordinary
and scienti!ic sense is received by a s,ontaneous. rather than chosen by a
voluntary. act< and the a,,rehension o! the same Cbelie!D su,,oses a
,osition o! congruity rather than an act o! obedience- &ar other%ise is it
%ith the truth that is the obFect o! Christian !aith: and it is this truth o!
%hich Leighton is s,ea#ing- Belie! indeed is a living ,art o! this !aith< but
only as long as it is a living ,art- )n other %ords. belie! is im,lied in !aith<
but !aith is not necessarily im,lied in belie!- The devils believe.
Ib. p# 1))#
Hence learn that true conversion is not so slight a %or# as %e commonly
account it- )t is not the out%ard change o! some bad customs. %hich gains
the name o! a re!ormed man in the ordinary dialect< it is ne% birth and
being. and else%here called a ne. creation. Tho'$h it be b't a chan$e in
3'alities. yet it is such a one. and the Gualities so !ar distant !rom %hat they
be!ore %ere. Ic-
) dare not a!!irm that this is erroneously said< but it is one o! the
com,aratively !e% ,assages that are o! service as reminding me that it is
not the "cri,ture that ) am reading- Not the Gualities merely. but the root o!
the Gualities is trans7created- Ho% else could it be a birth.Ba creationL
Ib. p# 1(+#
+his natural li!e is com,ared. even by natural men. to the vainest things.
and scarce !ind they things light enough to e,ress it vain< and as it is here
called grass. so they com,are the generations o! men to the leaves o! trees-
N N N +an that is born of a .oman is of fe. days, and f'll of tro'ble. He
cometh forth like a flo.er and is c't do.n. *ob iv- 1. /- 8salm c- 1/<
i- 0-
)t is the !ashion to decry scholastic distinctions as useless subtleties. or
mere ,hantomsBentia lo$ica, vel etiam verbalia sol'm- And yet in order to
secure a sa!e and Christian inter,retation to these and numerous other
,assages o! li#e ,hrase and im,ort in the 'ld +estament. it is o! highest
concernment that %e should distinguish the ,ersoneity or s,irit. as the
source and ,rinci,le o! ,ersonality. !rom the ,erson itsel! as the ,articular
,roduct at any one ,eriod. and as that %hich cannot be evolved or sustained
but by the co7agency o! the system and circumstances in %hich the
individuals are ,laced- )n this latter sense it is that man is used in the
8salms. in :ob. and else%hereBand the term made synonymous %ith !lesh-
+hat %hich constitutes the s,irit in man. both !or others and itsel!. is the
real man< and to this the elements and elementary ,o%ers contribute its
bul# C videri et tan$iD %holly. and its ,henomenal !orm in ,art. both as
co7e!!icients. and as conditions- No% as these are under a la% o! vanity and
incessant change. Bso must all be.
to the ,roduction and continuance o! %hich they are indis,ensable- 'n this
hangs the doctrine o! the resurrection o! the body. as an essential ,art o! the
doctrine o! immortality<Bon this the "cri,tural Cand only true and
,hiloso,hicalD sense o! the soul. psyche or li!e. as resulting !rom the
continual assurgency o! the s,irit through the body<Band on this the
begetting o! a ne% li!e. a regenerate soul. by the descent o! the divine ",irit
on the s,irit o! man- $hen the s,irit by sancti!ication is !itted !or an
incorru,tible body. then shall it be raised into a %orld o! incorru,tion. and a
celestial body shall burgeon !orth thereto. the germ o! %hich had been
im,lanted by the redeeming and creative $ord in this %orld- +ruly hath it
been said o! the elect:B+hey !all aslee, in earth. but a%a#e in heaven- "o
"t- 8aul e,ressly teaches: and as the ,assage C1- Cor- v- 31B10.D %as
%ritten !or the e,ress ,ur,ose o! recti!ying the notions o! the converts
concerning the =esurrection. all other ,assages in the Ne% +estament must
be inter,reted in harmony %ith it- But :ohn. li#e%ise.Bdescribing the same
great event. as subseGuent to. and contra7distinguished !rom. the ,artial or
millennary =esurrectionB%hich C%hether %e are to understand the A,ostle
symbolically or literallyD is to ta#e ,lace in the ,resent %orld.Bbeholds a
ne. earth and a ne. heaven as antecedent to. or coincident %ith. the
a,,earance o! the Ne% :erusalem.Bthat is. the state o! glory. and the
resurrection to li!e everlasting- +he old earth and its heaven had ,assed
a%ay !rom the !ace o! Him on the throne. at the moment that it gave u, the
dead- 5ev- -7i-
Ib. pp# 1(40&#
B't the .ord of the Lord end'reth for ever.
And %ith res,ect to those learned men that a,,ly the tet to ?od. )
remember not that this abidin$ for ever is used to e,ress ?od's eternity in
himsel!-
No< nor is it here used !or that ,ur,ose< but yet ) cannot doubt but that
either the $ord. . or the (ivine ,romises in and
through the incarnate $ord. %ith the gracious in!luences ,roceeding !rom
him. are here meantBand not the %ritten or "cri,tures-
Ib. p# 1%4#
)! any one's head or tongue should gro% a,ace. and all the rest stand at a
stay. it %ould certainly ma#e him a monster< and they are no other that are
#no%ing and discovering Christians. and gro% daily in that. but not at all in
holiness o! heart and li!e. %hich is the ,ro,er gro%th o! the children o!
?od-
&ather in heaven. have mercy on meE Christ. Lamb o! ?od. have mercy on
meE "ave me. Lord. or ) ,erishE AlasE ) am ,erishing-
Ib. p# $++#
A %ell7!urnished table may ,lease a man. %hile he hath health and a,,etite<
but o!!er it to him in the height o! a !ever. ho% un,leasant it %ould be thenE
+hough never so richly dec#ed. it is then not only useless. but hate!ul to
him- But the #indness and love o! ?od is then as seasonable and re!reshing
to him. as in health. and ,ossibly more-
+o the regenerate<Bbut to the conscious sinner a source o! terrors
insu,,ortable-
Ib. p# $11#
+hese things hold li#e%ise in the other stones o! this building. chosen
be!ore time: all that should be o! this building are !ore7ordained in ?od's
,ur,ose. all %ritten in that boo# be!orehand. and then in due time they are
chosen. by actual calling. according to that ,ur,ose. he%ed out and severed
by ?od's o%n hand !rom the Guarry o! corru,t nature<Bdead stones in
themselves. as the rest. but made living by his bringing them to Christ. and
so made truly precio's. and accounted ,recious by him that hath made
them so-
+hough this is not only true. but a most im,ortant truth. it %ould yet have
been %ell to have obviated the a,,arent carnal conseGuences-
Ib. p# $1)#
All sacri!ice is not ta#en a%ay< but it is changed !rom the o!!ering o! those
things !ormerly in use. to s,iritual sacri!ices- No% these are every %ay
,re!erable< they are easier and chea,er to us. and yet more ,recious and
acce,table to ?od-
"till understand.Bto the regenerate- +o others. they are not only not easy
and chea,. but un,urchaseable and im,ossible too- ' ?od have mercy
u,on meE
Ib. p# $$%#
+hough ) be beset on all hands. be accused by the La%. and mine o%n
conscience. and by "atan. and have nothing to ans%er !or mysel!< yet here )
%ill stay. !or ) am sure in him there is salvation. and no %here else-
MHere ) .ill stay-M But alasE the ,oor sinner has !or!eited the ,o%ers o!
%illing< miserable %ishing is all he can command- '. the dread!ul inFury o!
an irreligious educationE +o be taught our ,rayers. and the a%!ul truths o!
religion. in the same tone in %hich %e are taught the Latin ?rammar.Band
too o!ten ins,iring the same sensations o! %eariness and disgustE
*ol# II# p# $4$#
And thus are re,roaches mentioned amongst the su!!erings o! Christ in the
?os,el. and not as the least< the railings and moc#ings that %ere darted at
him. and !ied to the Cross. are mentioned more than the very nails that
!ied him- And CHeb- ii- /.D the shame o! the Cross. though he %as above
it. and des,ised it. yet that shame added much to the burden o! it-
) understand Leighton thus: that though our Lord !elt it not as shame. nor
%as %ounded by the revilings o! the ,eo,le in the %ay o! any
corres,ondent resentment or sting. %hich yet %e may be %ithout blame. yet
he su!!ered !rom the same as sin. and as an addition to the guilt o! his
,ersecutors. %hich could not but aggravate the burden %hich he had ta#en
on himsel!. as being sin in its most devilish !orm-
Ib. p# $%'#
+his there!ore is mainly to be studied. that the seat o! humility be the heart-
Although it %ill be seen in the carriage yet as little as it can N N N- And this
) %ould recommend as a sa!e %ay: ever let thy thoughts concerning thysel!
be belo% %hat thou utterest< and %hat thou seest need!ul or !itting to say to
thy o%n abasement. be not only content C%hich most are notD to be ta#en at
thy %ord. and believed to be such by them that hear thee. but be desirous o!
it< and let that be the end o! thy s,eech. to ,ersuade them. and gain it o!
them. that they really ta#e thee !or as %orthless a man as thou dost e,ress
thysel!-
AlasE this is a most delicate and di!!icult subFect: and the sa!est %ay. and
the only sa!e general rule is the silence that accom,anies the in%ard act o!
loo#ing at the contrast in all that is o! our o%n doing and im,ulseE "o may
,raises be made their o%n antidote-
*ol# III# p# $+# 6erm# I#
They shall see -od- $hat this is %e cannot tell you. nor can you conceive
it: but %al# heaven%ards in ,urity. and long to be there. %here you shall
#no% %hat it means: for yo' shall kno. him as he is-
$e say< MNo% ) see the !ull meaning. !orce and beauty o! a ,assage.B%e
see them through the %ords-M )s not Christ the $ordBthe substantial.
consubstantial $ord. Bnot as our
%ords. arbitrary< nor even as the %ords o! Nature ,henomenal merelyL )!
even through the %ords a ,o%er!ul and ,ers,icuous authorBCas in the net
to ins,ired Commentary o! Archbisho, Leighton.B!or %hom ?od be
,raisedEDB) identi!y mysel! %ith the ecellent %riter. and his thoughts
become my thoughts: %hat must not the blessing be to be thus identi!ied
!irst %ith the &ilial $ord. and then %ith the &ather in and through HimL
Ib. p# )'# 6erm# *#
)n this elementary %orld. light being Cas %e hear.D the !irst visible. all
things are seen by it. and it by itsel!- +hus is Christ. among s,iritual things.
in the elect %orld o! his Church< all things are made manifest by the li$ht.
says the A,ostle. !ph- v- 13. s,ea#ing o! Christ as the !ollo%ing verse doth
evidently testi!y- )t is in his %ord that he shines. and ma#es it a directing
and convincing light. to discover all things that concern his Church and
himsel!. to be #no%n by its o%n brightness- Ho% im,ertinent then is that
Guestion so much tossed by the =omish Church. MHo% #no% you the
"cri,tures Csay theyD to be the %ord o! ?od. %ithout the testimony o! the
ChurchLM ) %ould as# one o! them again. Ho% they can #no% that it is
daylight. ece,t some light a candle to let them see itL +hey are little
versed in "cri,ture that #no% not that it is !reGuently called light< and they
are senseless that #no% not that light is seen and #no%n by itsel!- If o'r
-ospel be hid. says the A,ostle. it is hid to them that perish: the god o! this
%orld having blinded their minds against the light o! the glorious ?os,el.
no %onder i! such stand in need o! a testimony- A blind man #no%s not that
it is light at noon7day. but by re,ort: but to those that have eyes. light is
seen by itsel!-
'n the true test o! the "cri,tures- 'hE %ere it not !or my mani!old
in!irmities. %hereby ) am so all unli#e the %hite7robed Leighton. ) could
almost conceit that my soul had been an emanation !rom hisE "o many and
so remar#able are the coincidences. and these in ,arts o! his %or#s that )
could not have seenBand so uni!orm the congruity o! the %hole- As ) read.
) seem to mysel! to be only thin#ing my o%n thoughts over again. no% in
the same and no% in a di!!erent order-
Ib. p# )/#
+he Author o! the *,istle to the Hebre%s calls him CChristD
. the bri$htness of his 1ather's $lory, and the character of his person. Ci- 3-D
And under these e,ressions lies that remar#able mystery o! the "on's
eternal relation to the &ather. %hich is rather humbly to be adored. than
boldly to be e,lained. either by ?od's ,er!ect understanding o! his o%n
essence. or by any other notion-
Certainly not by a trans!er o! a notion. and this too a notion o! a !aculty
itsel! but notional and limitary. to the "u,reme =eality- But there are ideas
%hich are o! higher origin than the notions o! the understanding. and by the
irradiation o! %hich the understanding itsel! becomes a human
understanding- '! such veritates verific2 Leighton himsel! in other %ords
s,ea#s o!ten- "urely. there must have been an intelligible ,ro,riety in the
terms. Lo$os. $ord. Be$otten before all creation.Ban adeGuate idea
or icon. or the *vangelists and A,ostolic ,enmen %ould not have ado,ted
them- +hey did not invent the terms< but too# them and used them as they
%ere ta#en and a,,lied by 8hilo and both the ?ree# and 'riental sages-
Nay. the ,recise and orthodo. yet !reGuent. use o! these terms by 8hilo.
and by the :e%ish authors o! that traditionalT %isdom.Bdegraded in a!ter
times. but %hich in its ,urest ,arts eisted long be!ore the Christian Tra.B
is the strongest etrinsic argument against the Arians. "ocinians. and
@nitarians. in ,roo! that "t- :ohn must have meant to deceive his readers. i!
he did not use them in the #no%n and received sense- +o a 9aterialist
indeed. or to those %ho deny all #no%ledges not resolvable into notices
!rom the !ive senses. these terms as a,,lied to s,iritual beings must a,,ear
ine,licable or senseless- But so must s,irit- +o me. C%hy do ) say to meLD
to Bull. to $aterland. to ?regory Na>ian>en. Basil. Athanasius. Augustine.
the terms. $ord and generation. have a,,eared admirably. yea. most
a%!ully ,regnant and a,,ro,riate<Bbut still as the language o! those %ho
#no% that they are ,laced %ith their bac#s to substancesBand %hich
there!ore they can name only !rom the corres,ondent shado%sByet not
C?od !orbidED as i! the substances %ere the same as the shado%s<B%hich
yet Leighton su,,osed in this his censure.B!or i! he did not. he then
censures himsel! and a number o! his most beauti!ul ,assages- +hese. and
t%o or three other sentences.Bsli,s o! human in!irmity.Bare use!ul in
reminding me that Leighton's %or#s are not ins,ired "cri,ture-
&ostscript
'n a second consideration o! this ,assage. and a revisal o! my marginal
animadversionB yet ho% dare ) a,,ly such a %ord to a ,assage %ritten by
a minister o! Christ so clearly under the es,ecial light o! the divine grace as
%as Archbisho, LeightonLB) am inclined to thin# that Leighton con!ined
his censure to the attem,ts to Me,lainM the +rinity.Band this by
Mnotions.MBand not to the assertion o! the adorable acts im,lied in the
terms both o! the *vangelists and A,ostles. and o! the Church be!ore as
%ell as a!ter Christ's ascension< nor to the assent o! the ,ure reason to the
truths. and more than assent to. the a!!irmation o! the ideas-
Ib. p# ('#
+his !i!th "ermon. ecellent in ,arts. is yet on the %hole the least ecellent
o! Leighton's %or#s.Band breathes less o! either his o%n character as a
man. or the character o! his religious ,hiloso,hy- +he style too is in many
,laces belo% Leighton's ordinary styleBin some ,laces even turbid.
o,erose. and catechrestic<B!or eam,le.BMto tram,le on smilings %ith
one !oot and on !ro%nings %ith the other-M
Ib. p# ((# 6erm# *I#
Leighton. ) ,resume. %as acGuainted %ith the Hebre% Language. but he
does not a,,ear to have studied it much- His observation on the heart. as
used in the 'ld +estament. she%s that he did not #no% that the ancient
Hebre%s su,,osed the heart to be the seat o! intellect. and there!ore used it
eactly as %e use the head-
Ib. p# 1+4# 6erm# *II#
+his seventh "ermon is admirable throughout. Leighton throughout- '
%hat a contrast might be ,resented by ,ublishing some discourse o! some
Court divine. C"outh !or instance.D ,reached under the same state o! a!!airs.
and ,rinting the t%o in columnsE
Ib. p# 1+(# 6erm# *III#
)n all love three things are necessary< some goodness in the obFect. either
true and real. or a,,arent and seeming to be so< !or the soul. be it ever so
evil. can a!!ect nothing but %hich it ta#es in some %ay to be good-
+his assertion in these %ords has been so o!ten made. !rom 8lato's times to
ours. that even %ise men re,eat it %ithout ,erha,s much eamination
%hether it be not eGuivocalBor rather C) sus,ectD true only in that sense in
%hich it %ould amount to nothingBnothing to the ,ur,ose at least- +his is
to be regrettedB!or it is a mischievous eGuivoGue. to ma#e 'good' a
synonyme o! ',leasant.' or even the $en's o! %hich ,leasure is a species- )t
is a grievous mista#e to say. that bad men see# ,leasure because it is good-
NoE li#e children they call it good because it is ,leasant- *ven the use!ul
must derive its meaning !rom the good. not vice versa-
&ostscript.
+he lines in ,- 152. noted by me. are one o! a myriad instances to ,rove
ho% rash it is to Guote single sentences or assertions !rom the correctest
%riters. %ithout collating them %ith the #no%n system or e,ress
convictions o! the author- )t %ould be easy to cite !i!ty ,assages !rom
Archbisho, Leighton's %or#s in direct contradiction to the sentence in
GuestionB%hich he had learnt in the schools %hen a lad. and a!ter%ards
had heard and met %ith so o!ten that he %as not a%are that he had never
si!ted its real ,ur,ort- +his eighth "ermon is another most admirable
discourse-
Ib. 6erm# I.# p# 1$#
+he reasonable creature. it is true. hath more liberty in its actions. !reely
choosing one thing and reFecting another< yet it cannot be denied. that in
acting o! that liberty. their choice and re!usal !ollo%
A
the s%ay o! their
nature and condition-
A: ) %ould !ain substitute !or '!ollo%.' the %ords. 'are most o!ten
determined. and al%ays a!!ected. by-' ) do not deny that the %ill !ollo%s the
nature< but then the nature itsel! is a %ill-
Ib.
As the angels and glori!ied souls. Ctheir nature being ,er!ectly holy and
unalterably such.D they cannot sin< they can delight in nothing but obeying
and ,raising that ?od. in the enFoyment o! %hom their ha,,iness
consisteth-
)! angels be other than s,irits made ,er!ect. or. as Leighton %rites.
Mglori!ied souls.MBthe Munalterable by natureM seems to me rashly asserted-
Ib.
+he mind. - "ome render it the ,rudence or %isdom o! the !lesh-
Here you have it. the carnal mind< but the %ord signi!ies. indeed. an act o!
the mind. rather than either the !aculty itsel!. or the habit o! ,rudence in it.
so as it discovers %hat is the !rame o! both those-
) doubt- - signi!ies an act: and so !ar ) agree %ith Leighton-
But is the flesh Cthat is. the natural man.D in the act or
habitude o! mindingBbut those acts. ta#en collectively. are the !acultyB
the understanding-
Ho% o!ten have ) !ound reason to regret. that Leighton had not clearly
made out to himsel! the diversity o! reason and the understandingE
Ib. 6erm# .*# p# 1%)#
A narro% enthralled heart. !ettered %ith the love o! lo%er things. and
cleaving to some ,articular sins. or but some one. and that secret. may #ee,
!oot a %hile in the %ay o! ?od's commandments. in some ste,s o! them<
but it must give u, Guic#ly. is not able to run on to the end o! the goal-
'ne o! the blessed ,rivileges o! the s,iritual man Cand such Leighton %as.D
is a ,iercing insight into the diseases o! %hich he himsel! is
clear-
Ib. 6erm# .*I# p# $+4#
Hno% you not that the redeemed o! Christ and He are oneL +hey live one
li!e. Christ lives in them. and i! any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is
none of his. as the A,ostle declares in this cha,ter- "o then this %e are
,lainly to tell you. and consider it< you that %ill not let go your sins to lay
hold on Christ. have as yet no share in him-
But on the other side: the truth is. that %hen souls are once set u,on this
search. they commonly %ind the notion too high. and subtili>e too much in
the dis,ute. and so entangle and ,er,le themselves. and drive themselves
!urther o!! !rom that com!ort that they are see#ing a!ter< such measures and
mar#s they set to themselves !or their rule and standard< and unless they
!ind those %ithout all controversy in themselves. they %ill not believe that
they have an interest in Christ. and this blessed and sa!e estate in him-
+o such ) %ould only say. Are you in a %illing league %ith any #no%n sinL
Ic-
An admirable antidote !or such as. too sober and sincere to ,ass o!!
!everous sensations !or s,iritualities. have been ,er,leed by $esley's
assertionsBthat a certainty o! having been elected is an indis,ensable mar#
o! election- $hit!ield's ultra7Calvinism is ?os,el gentleness and 8auline
sobriety com,ared %ith $esley's Arminianism in the outset o! his career-
But the main and most noticeable di!!erence bet%een Leighton and the
modern 9ethodists is to be !ound in the uni!orm sel!ishness o! the latter-
Not M(o you %ish to love ?odLM M(o you love your neighbourLM M(o you
thin#. '' ho% dear and lovely must Christ beE'MB butBMAre you certain
that Christ has saved yo'< that he died !or yo'8yo'8yo'8yo'rselfLM on to
the end o! the cha,ter- +his is $esley's doctrine-
Le!ture I.# vol# I*# p# %)#
&or that this %as his !ied ,ur,ose. Lucretius not only vo%s. but also boasts
o! it. and loads him C*,icurusD %ith ill7advised ,raises. !or endeavouring
through the %hole course o! his ,hiloso,hy to !ree the minds o! men !rom
all the bonds and ties o! religion-
But surely in this ,assage reli$io must be rendered su,erstition. the most
e!!ectual means !or the removal o! %hich *,icurus su,,osed himsel! to
have !ound in the eclusion o! the$ods many and lords many. !rom their
imagined agency in all the ph@nomena o! nature and the events o! history.
substituting !or these the belie! in !ied la%s. having in themselves their
evidence and necessity- 'n this account. in this ,assage at least. Lucretius
,raises his master-
Ib. p# 1+&#
+hey al%ays seemed to me to act a very ridiculous ,art. %ho contend. that
the e!!ect o! the divine decree is absolutely irreconcilable %ith human
liberty< because the natural and necessary liberty o! a rational creature is to
act or choose !rom a rational motive. or s,ontaneously. and o! ,ur,ose: but
%ho sees not. that. on the su,,osition o! the most absolute decree. this
liberty is not ta#en a%ay. but rather established and con!irmedL &or the
decree is. that s'ch an one shall make choice of, or do some partic'lar
thin$ freely. %nd .hoever pretends to deny, that .hatever is done or
chosen, .hether $ood or indifferent, is so done or chosen, or, at least, may
be so, espo'ses an abs'rdity.
) !ear. ) !ear. that this is a so,hism not %orthy o! Archbisho, Leighton- )t
seems to me tantamount to sayingBM) !orce that man to do so or so %ithout
my !orcing him-M But ho%ever that may be. the !ollo%ing sentences are
more ,recious than diamonds- +hey are divine-
Ib. Le!t# .I# p# 11'#
&or that this %orld. com,ounded o! so many and such heterogeneous ,arts.
should ,roceed. by %ay o! natural and necessary emanation. !rom that one
!irst. ,resent. and most sim,le nature. nobody. ) imagine. could believe. or
in the least sus,ect N N N- But i! he ,roduced all these things !reely. N N ho%
much more consistent is it to believe. that this %as done in time. than to
imagine it %as !rom eternityE
)t is inconceivable ho% any thing can be created in time< and ,roduction is
incom,atible %ith inters,ace-
Ib. Le!t# .*# p# 1&$#
+he 8latonists divide the %orld into t%o. the sensible and intellectual %orld
N N N- According to this hy,othesis. those ,arables and meta,hors. %hich
are o!ten ta#en !rom natural things to illustrate such as are divine. %ill not
be similitudes ta#en entirely at ,leasure< but are o!ten. in a great measure.
!ounded in nature. and the things themselves-
) have asserted the same thing. and more !ully sho%n %herein the
di!!erence consists o! symbolic and meta,horical. in my !irst Lay "ermon<
and the substantial corres,ondence o! the genuine 8latonic doctrine and
logic %ith those o! Lord Bacon. in my *ssays on 9ethod. in the &riend
/
-
Ib. Le!t# .I.# p# $+1#
*ven the ,hiloso,hers give their testimony to this truth. and their
sentiments on the subFect are not altogether to be reFected< !or they almost
unanimously are agreed. that !elicity. so !ar as it can be enFoyed in this li!e.
consists solely. or at least ,rinci,ally. in virtue: but as to their assertion. that
this virtue is ,er!ect in a ,er!ect li!e. it is rather e,ressing %hat %ere to be
%ished. than describing things as they are-
And %hy are the ,hiloso,hers to be Fudged according to a di!!erent ruleL
'n %hat ground can it be asserted that the "toics believed in the actual
eistence o! their ?od7li#e ,er!ection in any individualL or that they meant
more than thisBM+o no man can the name o! the $ise be given in its
absolute sense. %ho is not ,er!ect even as his &ather in heaven is ,er!ectEM
Ib. Le!t# ..I# p# $$&#
)n li#e manner. i! %e su,,ose ?od to be the !irst o! all beings. %e must.
unavoidably. there!rom conclude his unity- As to the ine!!able +rinity
subsisting in this @nity. a mystery discovered only by the "acred
"cri,tures. es,ecially in the Ne% +estament. %here it is more clearly
revealed than in the 'ld. let others boldly ,ry into it. i! they ,lease. %hile
%e receive it %ith our humble !aith. and thin# it su!!icient !or us to admire
and adore-
But surely it having been revealed to us. %e may venture to say.Bthat a
,ositive unity. so !ar !rom ecluding. im,lies ,lurality. and that the
?odhead is a !ulness.
Ib. Le!t# ..I*# p# $4&#
As# yourselves. there!ore. .hat yo' .o'ld be at. and %ith %hat
dis,ositions you come to this most sacred tableL
)n an age o! colloGuial idioms. %hen to %rite in a loose slang had become a
mar# o! loyalty. this is the only L'*strange vulgarism ) have met %ith in
Leighton-
Ib. Exhortation to the 6tudents, p# $&$#
"tudy to acGuire such a ,hiloso,hy as is not barren and babbling. but solid
and true< not such a one as !loats u,on the sur!ace o! endless verbal
controversies. but one that enters into the nature o! things< !or he s,o#e
good sense that said. M+he ,hiloso,hy o! the ?ree#s %as a mere Fargon. and
noise o! %ords-M
)! so. then so is all ,hiloso,hy: !or %hat system is there. the elements and
outlines o! %hich are not to be !ound in the ?ree# schoolsL Here Leighton
!ollo%ed too incautiously the &athers-
&ootnote 1: $or#s o! Leighton. 0 vols- 8vo- London 1819- !d.
return to !ootnote mar#
&ootnote /: Statesman's +an'al. ,- /35- /nd edit- 1riend. )))- 3d edit- !d-
return
Contents A )nde
Notes on 6herlo!5's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity
1
6e!t# I# p# '#
"ome ne% ,hiloso,hers %ill tell you that the notion o! a s,irit or an
immaterial substance is a contradiction< !or by substance they understand
nothing but matter. and then an immaterial substance is immaterial matter.
that is. matter and no matter. %hich is a contradiction< but yet this does not
,rove an immaterial substance to be a contradiction. unless they could !irst
,rove that there is no substance but matter< and that they cannot conceive
any other substance but matter. does not ,rove that there is no other-
Certainly not: but i! not only they. but (r- "herloc# himsel! and all
man#ind. are inca,able o! attaching any sense to the term substance. but
that o! matter.Bthen !or us it %ould be a contradiction. or a groundless
assertion- +hus: By 'substance' ) do not mean the only notion %e can attach
to the %ord< but a some%hat. ) #no% not %hat. may. !or aught ) #no%. not
be contradictory to s,iritE $hy should %e use the eGuivocal %ord.
'substance' Ca!ter all but an ens lo$ic'mD. instead o! the de!inite term 'sel!7
subsistentL' $e are eGually conscious o! mind. and o! that %hich %e call
'body<' and the only ,ossible ,hiloso,hical Guestions are these three:
1-Are they co7ordinate as agent and re7agent<
/-'r is the one subordinate to the other. as e!!ect to cause. and %hich
is the cause or ground. %hich the e!!ect or ,roduct<
3-'r are they co7ordinate. but not inter7de,endent. that is. per
harmoni'm pr2stabilitam-
Ib. p# 4#
No% so !ar as %e understand the nature o! any being. %e can certainly tell
%hat is contrary and contradictious to its nature< as that accidents should
subsist %ithouttheir s'b7ect. Ic-
+hat accidents should subsist Crather. eistD %ithout a subFect. may be a
contradiction. but not that they eist %ithout this or that subFect- +he %ords
'their subFect' are a petitio principii-
Ib.
+hese and such li#e are the mani!est absurdities and contradictions o!
+ransubstantiation< and %e #no% that they are so. because %e #no% the
nature o! a body. Ic-
)ndeedE $ere ) either =omanist or @nitarian. ) should desire no better than
the admission o! body having an esse not in the percipi. and really
subsisting. as tne su,,orter o! its accidents- At all
events. the =omanist. declaring the accidents to be those ordinarily
im,ressed on the senses by bread and
%ine. does at the same time declare the !lesh and blood not to be
the so called. but the
- +here is there!ore no contradiction in the terms.
ho%ever reasonless the doctrine may be. and ho%ever unnecessary the
inter,retation on %hich it is ,retended- ) con!ess. had ) been in Luther's
,lace. ) %ould not have rested so much o! my Guarrel %ith the 8a,ists on
this ,oint< nor can ) agree %ith our Arminian divines in their ridicule o!
+ransubstantiation- +he most rational doctrine is ,erha,s. !or some
,ur,oses. at least. the rem credim's, mod'm nescim's< net to that. the
doctrine o! the "acramentaries. that it is si$n'm s'b rei nomine. as %hen
%e call a ,ortrait o! Caius. Caius- But o! all the remainder. )m,anation.
Consubstantiation. and the li#e. ) con!ess that ) should ,re!er the
+ransubstantiation o! the 8onti!ical doctors-
Ib. p# )#
+he ,roo! o! this comes to this one ,oint. that %e may have su!!icient
evidence o! the being o! a thing %hose nature %e cannot conceive and
com,rehend: he %ho %ill not o%n this. contradicts the sense and
e,erience o! man#ind< and he %ho con!esses this. and yet reFects the belie!
o! that %hich he has good evidence !or. merely because he cannot conceive
it. is a very absurd and senseless in!idel-
Here again. though a >ealous believer o! the truth asserted. ) must obFect to
the Bisho,'s logic- None but the %ea#est men have obFected to the +ri7unity
merely because the mod'sis above their com,rehension: !or so is the
in!luence o! thought on muscular motion< so is li!e itsel!< so in short is
every !irst truth o! necessity< !or to com,rehend a thing. is to #no% its
antecedent and conseGuent- But they a!!irm that it is against their reason-
Besides. there seems an eGuivocation in the use o! 'com,rehend' and
'conceive' in the same meaning- $hen a man tells me. that his %ill can li!t
his arm. ) conceive his meaning< though ) do not com,rehend the !act. )
understand him- But the "ocinians say<BM$e do not understandyo'- $e
cannot attach to the %ord '?od.' more than three ,ossible meanings< either.
1-A ,erson. or sel!7conscious being<
/-'r a thing<
3-'r a Guality. ,ro,erty. or attribute-
)! you ta#e the !irst. then you admit the contradiction< i! either o! the latter
t%o. you have not three 8ersons and one ?od. but three 8ersons having
eGual shares in one thing. or three %ith the same attributes. that is. three
?ods- "herloc# does not meet this-
Let me re,eat the di!!iculty. i! ,ossible. more clearly- +he argument o! the
,hiloso,hic @nitarians. as $isso%atius. %ho. mista#en as they %ere. are
not to be con!ounded %ith their degenerate successors. the 8riestleyans and
Belshamites. may be thus e,ressed- MBy the term. ?od. %e can only
conceive you to su,,ose one or other o! three meanings-
1-*ither you understand by it a ,erson. in the common sense o! an
intelligent or sel!7conscious being< Bor.
/-a thing %ith its Gualities and ,ro,erties< Bor.
3-certain ,o%ers and attributes. com,rised under the %ord nature-
)! %e su,,ose the !irst. the contradiction is mani!est. and you yourselves
admit it. and there!ore !orbid us so to inter,ret your %ords- &or i! by ?od
you mean 8erson. then three 8ersons and one ?od. %ould be the same as
three 8ersons and one 8erson- )! %e ta#e the second as your meaning. as an
in!inite thing is an absurdity. %e have three !inite ?ods. li#e :u,iter.
Ne,tune. and 8luto. %ho shared the universe bet%een them- )! the latter. %e
have three 8ersons %ith the same attributes<Band i! a 8erson %ith in!inite
attributes be %hat %e mean by ?od. then %e have either three ?ods. or
involve the contradiction above mentioned- )t is un,hiloso,hic. by
admission o! all ,hiloso,hers. they add. to multi,ly causes beyond the
necessity- No% i! there are three 8ersons o! in!inite and the same attributes.
dismiss t%o. and you lose nothing but a numerical ,hantom-M
+he ans%er to this must commence by a denial o! the ,remisses in toto: and
this both Bull and $aterland have done most success!ully- But ) very much
doubt. %hether "herloc# on his ,rinci,les could have evaded the @nitarian
logic- )n !act it is scarcely ,ossible to acGuit him altogether o! a 3'asi(
Tritheism-
6e!t# II# p# 1'#
1or like as .e are compelled by the Christian verity to ackno.led$e every
&erson by himself to be -od and Lord<B
C+hat is. by es,ecial revelation-D
So are .e forbidden by the Catholic reli$ion to say, There are three -ods,
or three Lords.
+hat is. by the religion contained in. and given in accom,animent %ith. the
universal reason. the li$ht that li$hteth every man that cometh into the
.orld-
Ib. p# 14#
+his Creed CAthanasianD does not ,retend to e,lain ho% there are three
8ersons. each o! %hich is ?od. and yet but 'ne ?od. Co! %hich more
herea!ter.D but only asserts the thing. that thus it is. and thus it must be i! %e
believe a +rinity in @nity< %hich should ma#e all men. %ho %ould be
thought neither Arians nor "ocinians. more cautious ho% they e,ress the
least disli#e o! the Athanasian Creed. %hich must either argue. that they
condemn it. be!ore they understand it. or that they have some secret disli#e
to the doctrine o! the +rinity-
+he disli#e commonly !elt is not o! the doctrine o! the +rinity. but o! the
,ositive anathematic assertion o! the everlasting ,erdition o! all and o! each
%ho doubt the same<Ban assertion deduced !rom "cri,ture only by a train
o! ca,tious conseGuences. and eGuivocations- +hus. A-: M) honour and
admire Caius !or his great learning-M B-: M+he #no%ledge o! the "anscrit is
an im,ortant article in Caius's learning-M A-: M) have been o!ten in his
com,any. and have !ound no reason !or believing this-M B-: M'E then you
deny his learning. are envious. and Caius's enemy-M A-: M?od !orbidE ) love
and admire him- ) #no% him !or a transcendant linguist in the Hebre%.
?ree#. Latin. and modern *uro,ean languages<Band %ith or %ithout the
"anscrit. ) loo# u, to him. and rely on his erudition in all cases. in %hich )
am concerned- And it is this ,er!ect trust. this un!eigned res,ect. that is the
a,,ointed criterion o! Caius's !riends and disci,les. and not their !ull
acGuaintance %ith each and all ,articulars o! his su,eriority-M +hus %ithout
Christ. or in any other ,o%er but that o! Christ. and CsubFectivelyD o! !aith
in Christ. no man can be saved< but does it !ollo%. that no man can have
Christian !aith %ho is ignorant or erroneous as to any one ,oint o! Christian
theologyL $ill a soul be condemned to everlasting ,erdition !or %ant o!
logical ac'men in the ,erce,tion o! conseGuencesL B)! he verily embrace
Christ as his =edeemer. and un!eignedly !eel in himsel! the necessity o!
=edem,tion. he im,licitly holds the (ivinity o! Christ. %hatever !rom %ant
or de!ect o! logic may be his notion e"plicite-
Ib. p# 1/#
B't the .hole three &ersons are co(eternal, and co(e3'al- And yet this %e
must ac#no%ledge to be true. i! %e ac#no%ledge all three 8ersons to be
eternal. !or in eternity there can be no afore, or after other-
)t must. ho%ever. be considered as a serious de!ect in a Creed. i! ecluding
subordination. %ithout mentioning any ,articular !orm. it gives no hint o!
any other !orm in %hich it admits it- +he only min's admitted by the
Athanasian Creed is the in!eriority o! Christ's Humanity to the (ivinity
generally< but both "cri,ture and the Nicene Creed teach a subordination o!
the "on to the &ather. inde,endent o! the )ncarnation o! the "on- No% this
is not inserted. and there!ore the denial in the assertion none is $reater or
less than another. is universal. and a ,lain contradiction o! Christ s,ea#ing
o! Himsel! as the co7eternal "on< +y 1ather is $reater than I- ",ea#ing o!
himsel! as the co7eternal "on. ) say<B!or ho% su,er!luous %ould it have
been. a truism ho% un%orthy o! our Lord. to have said in e!!ect. that Ma
creature is less than ?odEM And a!ter all. Creeds assuredly are not to be
im,osed ad libit'mBa ne% Creed. or at least a ne% !orm and choice o!
articles and e,ressions. at the ,leasure o! individuals- No% %here is the
authority o! the Athanasian CreedL )n %hat consists its necessityL )! it be
the same as the Nicene. %hy not be content %ith the NiceneL )! it di!!ers.
ho% dare %e retain both
/
L )! the Athanasian does not say more or di!!erent.
but only di!!ers by omission o! a necessary article. then to im,ose it. is as
absurd as to !orce a mutilated co,y on one %ho has already the ,er!ect
original- Lastly. it is not enough that an abstract contains nothing %hich
may not by a chain o! conseGuences be deduced !rom the boo#s o! the
*vangelists and A,ostles. in order !or it to be a Creed !or the %hole
Christian Church- &or a Creed is or ought to be a syllepsis o! those ,rimary
!undamental truths that are. as it %ere. the starting7,ost. !rom %hich the
Christian must commence his ,rogression- +he !ull7gro%n Christian needs
no other Creed than the "cri,tures themselves- Highly valuable is the
Nicene Creed< but it has its chie! value as an historical document. ,roving
that the same tets in "cri,ture received the same inter,retation. %hile the
?ree# %as a living language. as no%-
6e!t# III# p# $'#
)! %hat he says is true: He that errs in a 3'estion of faith, after havin$ 'sed
reasonable dili$ence to be ri$htly informed, is in no fa'lt at all< ho% comes
an atheist. or an in!idel. a +ur#. or a :e%. to be in any !aultL (oes our
author thin# that no atheist or in!idel. no unbelieving :e% or heathen. ever
used reasonable diligence to be rightly in!ormedL N N N )! you say. he
con!ines this to such ,oints as have al%ays been controverted in the
churches o! ?od. ) desire to #no% a reason %hy he thus con!ines itL &or
does not his reason eGually etend to the Christian &aith itsel!. as to those
,oints %hich have been controverted in Christian ChurchesL
And the Notary might as# in his turn: M(o you believe that the Christians
either o! the ?ree# or o! the $estern Church %ill be damned. according as
the truth may be res,ecting the ,rocession o! the Holy ?hostL or that either
the "acramentary or the LutheranL or again. the Consubstantiationist. or the
+ransubstantiationistL )! not. %hy do you sto, hereL $hence this sudden
,alsy in the limbs o! your charityL Again. does this eternal damnation o!
the individual de,end on the su,,osed im,ortance o! the article deniedL 'r
on the moral state o! the individual. on the in%ard source o! this denialL
And lastly. %ho authori>ed either you. or the ,seudo7Athanasius. to
inter,ret Catholic !aith by belie!. arising out o! the a,,arent ,redominance
o! the grounds !or. over those against. the truth o! the ,ositions asserted<
much more. by belie! as a mere ,assive acGuiescence o! the understandingL
$ere all damned %ho died during the ,eriod %hen tot's fere m'nd's fact's
est %rian's. as one o! the &athers admitsL AlasE alasE ho% long %ill it be
ere Christians ta#e the ,lain middle road bet%een intolerance and
indi!!erence. by ado,ting the literal sense and "cri,tural im,ort o! heresy.
that is. %il!ul error. or belie! originating in some ,erversion o! the %ill< and
o! heretics. C!or such there are. nay. even orthodo hereticsD. that is. men
%il!ully unconscious o! their o%n %il!ulness. in their lim,et7li#e adhesion
to a !avourite tenetLM
Ib. p# $)#
All Christians must con!ess. that there is no other name given under heaven
%hereby men can be saved. but only the name o! Christ-
No% this is a most a%!ul Guestion. on %hich de,ends %hether Christ %as
more than "ocrates< !or to bring ?od !rom heaven to re,roclaim the +en
Commandments. is too tooridiculous- Need ) say ) incline to "herloc#L But
yet ) cannot give to !aith the meaning he does. though ) give it all. and
more than all. the ,o%er- But i! that Name. as ,o%er. saved the :e%ish
Church be!ore they #ne% the Name. as name. ho% much more no%. i! only
the %ill be not guiltily averseL Any miracle does in #ind as truly bring ?od
!rom heaven as the )ncarnation. %hich the "ocinians %holly !orget. as in
other ,oints- +hey receive %ithout scru,le %hat they have learned %ithout
eamination. and then trans!er to the !irst article %hich they do loo# into.
all the di!!iculties that belong eGually to the !ormer: as the "imonidean
doubts concerning ?od to the +rinity. and the li#e-
Ib. p# $(#
+he *clectic Neo78latonists C"allustius and others.D Fusti!ied their
8olytheism on much the same ,retet as is in !act involved in the language
o! this ,age< +his indeed seems to me
decisive in !avour o! $aterland's scheme against this o! "herloc#'s<B
namely. that in the latter %e !ind no su!!icient reason %hy in the nature o!
things this intermutual consciousness might not be ,ossessed by thirty
instead o! three- )t seems a strange con!ounding to
ans%er. M+rue< but the latter only ha,,ens to be the !actEMBFust as i! %e
%ere s,ea#ing o! the number o! ,ersons in the 8rivy Council-
Ib. p# $/#
:otes- By #ee,ing this !aith .hole and 'ndefiled. must be meant that a man
should believe and ,ro!ess it %ithout adding to it or ta#ing !rom it- N N N
&irst. !or adding- $hat i! an honest ,lain man. because he is a Christian and
a 8rotestant. should thin# it necessary to add this article to the Athanasian
Creed<BI believe the Holy Script'res of the #ld and :e. Testament to be
a divine, infallible and complete r'le both for faith and manners- ) ho,e no
8rotestant %ould thin# a man damned !or such addition< and i! so. then this
Creed o! Athanasius is at least an unnecessary rule o! !aith-
%ns.er- +hat is to say. it is an addition to the Catholic &aith to o%n the
"cri,tures to be the rule o! !aith< as i! it %ere an addition to the la%s o!
*ngland to o%n the original records o! them in the +o%er-
+his Notary manages his cause most %ea#ly. and "herloc# fibs him li#e a
scienti!ic ,ugilist- But he himsel! e,oses %ea# ,arts. as in ,- /2- +he
obFection to the Athanasian Creed urged by better men than the Notary. yea.
by divines not less orthodo than "herloc# himsel!. is this: not that this
Creed adds to the "cri,tures. but that it adds to the originalSymbol'm 1idei.
the 5e$'la. the Canon. by %hich. according to the greater number o!
the ante7Nicene &athers. the boo#s o! the Ne% +estament %ere themselves
tried and determined to be "cri,ture- No% this Symbol'm %as to bring
together all that must be believed. even by the babes in !aith. or to %hat
,ur,ose %as it madeL No%. say they. the Nicene Creed is really nothing
more than a verbal e,lication o! the common Creed. but the clause in the
Athanasian C.hich faith. Ic-D. ho%ever !airly deduced !rom "cri,ture. is
not contained in the Creed. or selection o! certain articles o! &aith !rom the
"cri,tures. or not at least !rom those ,reachings and narrations. o! %hich
the Ne% +estament "cri,tures are the re,ository- 9ight not a 8a,ist ,lead
eGually in su,,ort o! the Creed o! 8o,e 8ius: M+he ne% articles are deduced
!rom "cri,ture< that is. in our o,inion. and that most e,ressly in our Lord's
several and solemn addresses to "t- 8eter-M "o again "herloc#'s ans%er to
this ,aragra,h !rom the Notes is evasive.B!or it is very ,ossible. nay. it is.
and has been the case. that a man may believe in the !acts and doctrines
contained in the Ne% +estament. and yet not believe the Holy "cri,ture to
be either divine. in!allible. or com,lete-
6e!t# I*# p# &+#
$e #no% not %hat the substance o! an in!inite mind is. nor ho% such
substances as have no ,arts or etension can touch each other. or be thus
eternally united< but %e #no% the unity o! a mind or s,irit reaches as !ar
as its sel!7consciousness does. !or that is one s,irit. %hich #no%s and !eels
itsel!. and its o%n thoughts and motions. and i! %e mean this by circ'm(
incession. three ,ersons thus intimate to each other are numerically one-
+he Guestion still returns< have these three in!inite minds. at once sel!7
conscious and conscious o! each other's consciousness. al%ays the very
same thoughtsL )! so. this mutual consciousness is unmeaning. or
derivative< and the three do not cease to be three because they are three
sames- )! not. then there is +ritheism evidently-
Ib. p# )4#
"t- 8aul tells us. 1 Cor- ii- 15- That the Spirit searcheth all thin$s, yea the
deep thin$s of -od- "o that the Holy ",irit #no%s all that is in ?od. even
his most dee, and secret counsels. %hich is an argument that he is very
intimate %ith him< but this is not all: it is the manner o! #no%ing. %hich
must ,rove this consciousness o! %hich ) s,ea#: and that the A,ostle adds
in the net verse. that the ",irit o! ?od #no%s all that is in ?od. Fust as the
s,irit o! a man #no%s all that is in man: that is. not by eternal revelation or
communication o! this #no%ledge. but by sel!7consciousness. by an internal
sensation. %hich is o%ing to an essential unity- 1or .hat man kno.eth the
thin$s of a man, save the spirit of a man .hich is in him6 even so the thin$s
of -od kno.eth no man b't the Spirit of -od.
)t %ould be interesting. i! it %ere !easible. to ,oint out the e,och at %hich
the tet mode o! arguing in ,olemic controversy became ,redominant< )
mean by single tets %ithout any modi!ication by the contet- ) sus,ect that
it commenced. or rather that it !irst became the !ashion. under the (ort or
systematic theologians. and during the so called ;uinGuarticular
Controversy- +his Guotation !rom "t- 8aul is a stri#ing instance:B!or "t-
8aul is s,ea#ing o! the holy s,irit o! %hich true s,iritual Christians are
,arta#ers. and by %hich or in %hich those Christians are enabled to search
all things. even the dee, things o! ?od- No ,erson is here s,o#en o!. but
re!erence is made to the ,hiloso,hic ,rinci,le. that can only act
immediately. that is. inter,enetratively. as t%o globules o! Guic#silver. and
co7adunatively- No%. ,erceiving and #no%ing %ere considered as
immediate acts relatively to the obFects ,erceived and #no%n:Ber$o.
the principi'm sciendi must be one Cthat is. homogeneous or
consubstantialD %ith the principi'm essendi 3'oad ob7ect'm co$nit'm- )n
order there!ore !or a man to understand. or even to #no% o!. ?od. he must
have a god7li#e s,irit communicated to him. %here%ith. as %ith an in%ard
eye. %hich is both eye and light. he sees the s,iritual truths- No% ) have no
obFection to his calling this s,irit a ',erson.' i! only the term ',erson' be so
understood as to ,ermit o! its being ,arta#en o! by all s,iritual creatures. as
light and the ,o%er o! vision are ,arta#en o! by all seeing ones- But it is too
evident that "herloc# su,,oses the &ather. as &ather. to ,ossess a s,irit. that
is. an intellective !aculty. by %hich he #no%s the ",irit. that is. the third co7
eGual 8erson< and that this ",irit. the 8erson. has a s,irit. that is. an
intellective !aculty. by %hich he #no%s the &ather< and the Lo$os in li#e
manner relatively to both- "o too. the &ather has a lo$os %ith %hich he
distinguishes the Lo$os<Band the Lo$os has a lo$os. and so on: that is to
say. there are three several though not severed triune ?ods. each being the
same ,osition three times realiter posit'm. as three guineas !rom the same
mint. su,,osing them to di!!er no more than they a,,ear to us to di!!er<B
but %hether a di!!erence %holly and eclusively numerical is a conceivable
notion. ece,t under the ,redicament o! s,ace and time< %hether it be not
absurd to a!!irm it. %here inters,ace and interval cannot be a!!irmed
%ithout absurdityBthis is the Guestion< or rather it is no Guestion-
Ib. p# )/#
Nor do %e divide the substance. but unite these three 8ersons in one
numerical essence: !or %e #no% nothing o! the unity o! the mind. but sel!7
consciousness. as ) sho%ed be!ore< and there!ore as the sel!7consciousness
o! every 8erson to itsel! ma#es them distinct 8ersons. so the mutual
consciousness o! all three divine 8ersons to each other ma#es them all but
one in!inite ?od: as !ar as consciousness reaches. so !ar the unity o! a s,irit
etends. !or %e #no% no other unity o! a mind or s,irit. but consciousness-
But this contradicts the ,receding ,aragra,h. in %hich the &ather is sel!7
conscious that he is the &ather and not the "on. and the "on that he is not
the &ather. and that the &ather is not he- No% ho% can the "on's being
conscious that the &ather is conscious that he is not the "on. constitute a
numerical unityL And %herein can such a consciousness as that attributed
to the "on di!!er !rom absolute certaintyL )s not ?od conscious o! every
thought o! man<Band %ould "herloc# allo% me to deduce the unity o! the
divine consciousness %ith the humanL "herloc#'s is doubtless a very ,lain
and intelligible account o! three ?ods in the most absolute intimacy %ith
each other. so that they are all as one< but by no means o! three ,ersons that
are one ?od- ) do not %onder that $aterland and the other !ollo%ers o! Bull
%ere alarmed-
Ib. p# ($#
*ven among men it is only #no%ledge that is ,o%er- Human ,o%er. and
human #no%ledge. as that signi!ies a #no%ledge ho% to do anything. are
commensurate< %hatever human s#ill etends to. human ,o%er can e!!ect:
nay. every man can do %hat he #no%s ho% to do. i! he has ,ro,er
instruments and materials to do it %ith-
+his ,roves that ,er!ect #no%ledge su,,oses ,er!ect ,o%er: and that they
are one and the same- M)! he have ,ro,er instruments:MB does not this
sho% that the means are su,,osed co7,resent %ith the #no%ledge. not the
same %ith itL
Ib.
&or it is nothing but thought %hich moves our bodies. and all the members
o! them. %hich are the immediate instruments o! all human !orce and
,o%er: ece,ting mechanical motions %hich do not de,end u,on our %ills.
such as the motion o! the heart. the circulation o! the blood. the concoction
o! our meat and the li#e- All voluntary motions are not only directed but
caused by thought: and so indeed it must be. or there could be no motion in
the %orld< !or matter cannot move itsel!. and there!ore some mind must be
the !irst mover. %hich ma#es it very ,lain. that in!inite truth and %isdom is
in!inite and almighty ,o%er-
*ven this. though not ill7conceived. is inaccurately e,ressed-
Ib. p# /1#
+here is no contradiction that three in!inite minds should be absolutely
,er!ect in %isdom. goodness. Fustice and ,o%er< !or these are ,er!ections
%hich may be in more than one. as three men may all #no% the same
things. and be eGually Fust and good: but three such minds cannot be
absolutely ,er!ect %ithout being mutually conscious to each other. as they
are to themselves-
$ill any man in his senses a!!irm. that my #no%ledge is increased by
saying MallM three times !ollo%ingL )s it not mere re,etition in timeL )! the
"on has thoughts %hich the &ather. as the &ather. could not have but !or his
inter,enetration o! the "on's consciousness. then ) can understand it< but
then these are not three Absolutes. but three modes o! ,er!ection
constituting one Absolute< and by %hat right "herloc# could call the one
&ather. more than the other. ) cannot see-
Ib. p# //#
And yet i! %e consider these three divine 8ersons as containing each other
in themselves. and essentially one by a mutual consciousness. this
,retended contradiction vanishes: !or then the &ather is the one true ?od.
because the &ather has the "on and the Holy ",irit in himsel!: and the "on
may he called the one true ?od. because the "on has the &ather and the
Holy ?host in himsel!. Ic-
Nay. this is to my understanding three ?ods. and "herloc# seems to have
brought in the material ,hantom o! a thing or substance-
Ib. p# %(#
But i! these three distinct 8ersons are not se,arated. but essentially united
unto one. each o! them may be ?od. and all three but one ?od: !or i! these
three 8ersons.Beach o! %hom . as it is in the Creed. singly by
himsel!. not se,arately !rom the other divine 8ersons. is ?od and Lord. are
essentially united into one. there can be but one ?od and one Lord< and
ho% each o! these ,ersons is ?od. and all o! them but one ?od. by their
mutual consciousness. ) have already e,lained-
BM+hat is.Bi! the three 8ersons are not three<MBso might the Arian
ans%er. unless "herloc# had sho%n the di!!erence o! se,arate and distinct
relatively to mind- M&or %hat other se,aration can be conceived in mind but
distinctionL (istinction may be Foined %ith im,er!ection. as ignorance. or
!orget!ulness< and so it is in men:Band i! this be called se,aration by a
meta,hor !rom bodies. then the conclusion %ould be that in the "u,reme
9ind there is distinction %ithout im,er!ection< and then the Guestion is.
%hence comes ,lurality o! 8ersonsL Can it be conceived other than as the
result o! im,er!ection. that is. !initenessL
Ib. p# %/#
+hus each (ivine 8erson is ?od. and all o! them but the same one ?od< as )
e,lained it be!ore-
' noE asserted it-
Ib. p# %/0%#
+his one su,reme ?od is &ather. "on. and Holy ?host. a +rinity in @nity.
three 8ersons and one ?od- No% &ather. "on. and Holy ?host. %ith all
their divine attributes and ,er!ections Cece,ting their ,ersonal ,ro,erties.
%hich the "chools call the modi s'bsistendi. that one is the &ather. the other
the "on. and the other the Holy ?host. %hich cannot be communicated to
each otherD are %hole and entire in each 8erson by a mutual consciousness<
each !eels the other 8ersons in himsel!. all their essential %isdom. ,o%er.
goodness. Fustice. as he !eels himsel!. and this ma#es them essentially one.
as ) have ,roved at large-
$ill not the Arian obFect. MQou admit the mod's s'bsistendi to be a divine
,er!ection. and you a!!irm that it is incommunicable- (oes it not !ollo%
there!ore. that there are ,er!ections %hich the All7,er!ect does not
,ossessLM +his %ould not a,,ly to Bisho, Bull or $aterland-
6e!t# *# p# 1+$#
"t- Austin in his sith boo# o! the +rinity ta#es notice o! a common
argument used by the orthodo !athers against the Arians. to ,rove the co7
eternity o! the "on %ith the &ather. that i! the "on be the $isdom and
8o%er o! ?od. as "t- 8aul teaches C1 Cor- i-D and ?od %as never %ithout
his $isdom and 8o%er. the "on must he co7eternal %ith the &ather- N N N
But this acute &ather discovers a great inconvenience in this argument. !or
it !orces us to say that the &ather is not %ise. but by that $isdom %hich he
begot. not being himsel! $isdom as the &ather: and then %e must consider
%hether the "on himsel!. as he is ?od o! ?od. and Light o! Light. may be
said to be $isdom o! $isdom. i! ?od the &ather be not $isdom. but only
begets $isdom-
+he ,ro,er ans%er to Augustine is. that the "on and Holy ?host are
necessary and essential. not contingent: and that his argument has a still
greater inconvenience. as she%n in note ,- 98-
Ib. pp# 11+011'#
But %hat ma#es "t- ?regory dis,ute thus nicely. and o,,ose the common
and ordinary !orms o! s,eechL (id he in good earnest believe that there is
but one man in the %orldL No. noE he ac#no%ledged as many men as %e
do< a great multitude %ho had the same human nature. and that every one
%ho had a human nature %as an individual man. distinguished and divided
!rom all other individuals o! the same nature- $hat ma#es him so >ealous
then against saying. that 8eter. :ames and :ohn are three menL 'nly this<
that he says man is the name o! nature. and there!ore to say there are three
men is the same as to say. there are three human natures o! a di!!erent #ind<
!or i! there are three human natures. they must di!!er !rom each other. or
they cannot be three< and so you deny 8eter. :ames. and :ohn to
be or o! the same nature< and !or the same reason %e must say
that though the &ather be ?od. the "on ?od. and the Holy ?host ?od. yet
there are not three ?ods. but one ?odhead and (ivinity-
"herloc# struggles in vain. in my o,inion at least. to clear these &athers o!
egregious logomachy. %hatever may have been the soundness o! their !aith.
s,ite o! the Guibbles by %hich they endeavoured to evince its rationality-
+he very change o! the terms is sus,icious- MQesE %e might say three ?odsM
Cit %ould be ans%ered.D Mas %e say and ought to say three men: !or man and
humanity. and are not the same terms<B so i!
the &ather be ?od. the "on ?od. and the Holy ?host ?od. there %ould be
three ?ods. though not Bthat is. three ?odheads-M
Ib. p# 11&01)#
?regory Nyssen tells us that is and . the ins,ector and
governor o! the %orld. that is. it is a name o! energy. o,eration and ,o%er<
and i! this virtue. energy. and o,eration be the very same in all the 8ersons
o! the +rinity. &ather. "on. and Holy ?host. then they are but one ?od. but
one ,o%er and energy- N N N +he &ather does nothing by himsel!. nor the
"on by himsel!. nor the Holy ?host by himsel!< but the %hole energy and
o,eration o! the (eity relating to creatures begins %ith the &ather. ,asses to
the "on. and !rom &ather and "on to the Holy ",irit< the Holy ",irit does
not act anything se,arately< there are not three distinct o,erations. as there
are three 8ersons.
Bbut one motion and
dis,osition o! the good %ill. %hich ,asses through the %hole +rinity !rom
&ather to "on. and to the Holy ?host. and this is
done %ithout any distance o! time. or
,ro,agating the motion !rom one to the other. but by one thought. as it is in
one numerical mind and s,irit. and there!ore. though they are three
8ersons. they are but one numerical ,o%er and energy-
But this is either +ritheism or "abellianism< it is hard to say %hich- *ither
the subsists in the "on. and in the Holy ?host. and not merely
,asses through them. and then there %ould be three
numerical . as %ell as three numerical
8ersons: er$o. Caccording to ?regory Nyssen's
shallo% and dis,rovable etymologyD. %hich %ould be +ritheism:
or . and then the "on and Holy ?host are but terms
o! relation. %hich is "abellianism- But in !act this ?regory and the others
%ere +ritheists in the mode o! their conce,tion. though they did not %ish to
be so. and re!used even to believe themselves such-
?regory Nyssen. Cyril o! Aleandria. 9aimus and (amascen %ere
charged %ith Ma #ind o! +ritheismM by 8etavius and (r- Cud%orth. %ho.
according to "herloc#. have Mmista#en their meaning-M "ee ,,- 15379. o!
this M4indication-M
Ib. p# 11(#
&or ) leave any man to Fudge. %hether this . this
one single motion o! %ill. %hich is in the same instant in &ather. "on. and
Holy ?host. can signi!y anything else but a mutual consciousness. %hich
ma#es them numerically one. and as intimate to each other. as every man is
to himsel!. as ) have already e,lained it-
)s not ?od conscious to all my thoughts. though ) am not conscious o!
?od'sL $ould "herloc# endure that ) should in!er: er$o. ?od is numerically
one %ith me. though ) am not numerically one %ith ?odL ) have never
seen. but greatly %ish to see. $aterland's controversial tracts against
"herloc#- Again: according to "herloc#'s conce,tion. it %ould seem to
!ollo% that %e ought to ma#e a triad o! triads. or an ennead-
1-&atherB"onBHoly ?host-
/-"onB&atherBHoly ?host-
3-Holy ?hostB"onB&ather-
*lse there is an " in the &ather %hich is not in the "on. a y in the "on %hich
is not in the &ather. and a ) in the Holy ?host %hich is in neither: that is.
each by himsel! is not total ?od-
Ib. p# 1$+#
But ho%ever he might be mista#en in his ,hiloso,hy. he %as not in his
divinity< !or he asserts a numerical unity o! the divine nature. not a mere
s,eci!ic unity. %hich is nothing but a logical notion. nor a collective unity.
%hich is nothing but a com,any %ho are naturally many: but a true
subsisting numerical unity o! nature< and i! the di!!iculty o! e,laining this.
and his >eal to de!end it. !orced him u,on some unintelligible niceties. to
,rove that the same numerical human nature too is but one in all men. it is
hard to charge him %ith teaching. that there are three inde,endent and co7
ordinate ?ods. because %e thin# he has not ,roved that 8eter. :ames. and
:ohn. are but one man- +his %ill ma#e very !oul %or# %ith the &athers. i!
%e charge them %ith all those erroneous conceits about the +rinity. %hich
%e can !ancy in their inconvenient %ays o! e,laining that venerable
mystery. es,ecially %hen they com,are that mysterious unity %ith any
natural unions-
"o that a!ter all this obscuration o! the obscure. "herloc# ends by !airly
thro%ing u, his brie!s. and yet calls out. MNot guiltyE VictoriaEM And %hat
is this but to say: +hese &athers did indeed involve +ritheism in their mode
o! de!ending the +ri7,ersonality< but they %ere not +ritheists:Bthough it
%ould be !ar more accurate to say. that they %ere +ritheists. but not so as to
ma#e any ,ractical breach o! the @nity<Bas i!. !or instance. 8eter. :ames.
and :ohn had three silver tic#ets. by she%ing one o! %hich either or all
three %ould have the same thing as i! they had she%n all three tic#ets.
and vice versa. all three tic#ets could ,roduce no more than each one< each
corres,onding to the %hole-
Ib.
) am sure "t- ?regory %as so !ar !rom sus,ecting that he should be charged
%ith +ritheism u,on this account. that he !ences against another charge o!
miing and con!ounding the Hypostases or 8ersons. by denying any
di!!erence or diversity o! nature.
%hich
argues that he thought he had so !ully asserted the unity o! the divine
essence. that some might sus,ect he had le!t but one 8erson. as %ell as one
nature in ?od-
+his is Fust %hat ) have said. ,- 113- $hether "abellianism or +ritheism. )
observed is hard to determine- *tremes meet-
Ib. p# 1$1#
"econdly. to this homo(o'siotes the &athers added a numerical unity o! the
divine essence- +his 8etavius has ,roved at large by numerous testimonies.
even !rom those very &athers. %hom he be!ore accused !or ma#ing ?od
only collectively one. as three men are one man< such as ?regory Nyssen.
"t- Cyril. 9aimus. (amascen< %hich is a demonstration. that ho%ever he
mi$ht mistake their e,lication o! it. !rom the unity o! human nature. they
%ere !ar enough !rom +ritheism. or one collective ?od-
+his is most uncandid- "herloc#. even to be consistent %ith his o%n
con!ession. V 1- ,- 1/5. ought to have said. MHo%ever he might mista#e
their intention. in conseGuence o! their inconvenient and un,hiloso,hical
e,lication<M %hich mista#e. in !act. consisted in ta#ing them at their %ord-
Ib.
8etavius greatly commends Boethius's e,lication o! this mystery. %hich is
the very same he had be!ore condemned in ?regory Nyssen. and those
other &athers-B+hat &ather. "on. and Holy ?host are one ?od. not three
?ods: h'7's con7'nctionis ratio est indifferentia: that is. such a sameness o!
nature as admits o! no di!!erence or variety. or an eact homo(o'siotes. as
he e,lains it- N N +hose ma#e a di!!erence. %ho augment and diminish. as
the Arians do< %ho distinguish the +rinity into di!!erent natures. as %ell as
8ersons. o! di!!erent %orth and ecellency. and thus divide and multi,ly the
+rinity into a ,lurality o! ?ods- &rincipi'm enim pl'ralitatis alteritas est.
&r2ter alteritatem enim nec pl'ralitas 3'id sit intelli$i potest-
+hen i! so. %hat becomes o! the 8ersonsL Have the 8ersons attributes
distinct !rom their nature<Bor does not their common nature constitute
their common attributesL &rincipi'm enim, /c.
Ib. p# 1$4#
+hat the &athers universally ac#no%ledged that the o,eration o! the %hole
+rinity. ad e"tra. is but one. 8etavius has ,roved beyond all contradiction<
and hence they conclude the unity o! the divine nature and essence< !or
every nature has a virtue and energy o! its o%n< !or nature is a ,rinci,le o!
action. and i! the energy and o,eration be but one. there can be but one
nature< and i! there be t%o distinct and divided o,erations. i! either o! them
can act alone %ithout the other. there must be t%o divided natures-
+hen it %as not the "on but the %hole +rinity that %as cruci!ied: !or surely
this %as an o,eration ad e"tra-
Ib. p# 1$)#
But to do "t- Austin right. though he do not name this consciousness. yet he
e,lains this +rinity in @nity by eam,les o! mutual consciousness- )
named one o! his similitudes be!ore. o! the unity o! our understanding.
memory. and %ill. .hich are all conscious to each other< that %e remember
%hat %e understand and %ill< %e understand %hat %e remember and %ill<
and %hat %e %ill %e remember and understand< and there!ore all these
three !aculties do ,enetrate and com,rehend each other-
hichE +he man is sel!7conscious ali#e %hen he remembers. %ills. and
understands< but in %hat sense is the generic term MmemoryM conscious to
the generic %ord M%illLM +his is mere nonsense- Are memory.
understanding. and volition ,ersons.Bsel!7subsistentsL )! not. %hat are
they to the ,ur,oseL $ho doubts that :ehovah is consciously ,o%er!ul.
consciously %ise. consciously good< and that it is the same :ehovah. %ho in
being omni,otent. is good and %ise< in being %ise. omni,otent and good<
in being good. is %ise and omni,otentL But %hat has all this to do %ith a
distinction o! 8ersonsL )nstead o! one +ri7unity %e might have a mille7
unity- +he !act is. that "herloc#. and C!or aught ) #no%D ?regory Nyssen.
had not the clear idea o! the +rinity. ,ositively< but only a negative
Arianism-
Ib. p# 1$(#
He ,roceeds to she% that this unity is %ithout all manner o! con!usion and
miture. N N !or the mind that loves. is in the love- N N N And the #no%ledge
o! the mind %hich #no%s and loves itsel!. is in the mind. and in its love.
because it loves itsel!. #no%ing. and #no%s itsel! loving: and thus also t%o
are in each. !or the mind %hich #no%s and loves itsel!. %ith its #no%ledge
is in love. and %ith its love is in #no%ledge-
+hen %hy do %e ma#e tri7,ersonality in unity ,eculiar to ?odL
+he doctrine o! the +rinity Cthe !oundation o! all rational theology. no less
than the ,recondition and ground o! the rational ,ossibility o! the Christian
&aith. that is. the )ncarnation and =edem,tionD. rests securely on the
,osition.Bthat in man omni actioni pr2it s'a propria passio6 De's a'tem
est act's p'rissim's sine 'lla potentialitate- As the tune ,roduced bet%een
the bree>e and *olian har, is not a sel!7subsistent. so neither memory. nor
understanding. nor even love in man: !or he is a ,assive as %ell as active
being: he is a ,atible agent- But in ?od this is not so- $hatever is
necessarily o! him. C?od o! ?od. Light o! LightD. is necessarily all act<
there!ore necessarily sel!7subsistent. though not necessarily sel!7originated-
+his then is the true mystery. because the true uniGue< that the "on o! ?od
has origination %ithout ,assion. that is. %ithout ceasing to be a ,ure act:
%hile a created entity is. as !ar as it is merely creaturely and distinguishable
!rom the Creator. a mere passio or reci,ient- +his unicity %e strive. not
to e"press. !or that is im,ossible< but to designate. by the nearest. though
inadeGuate. analogy.B Be$otten-
Ib. p# 1''#
As !or the Holy ?host. %hose nature is re,resented to be love. ) do not
indeed !ind in "cri,ture that it is any %here said. that the Holy ?host is that
mutual love. %here%ith &ather and "on love each other: but this %e #no%.
that there is a mutual love bet%een &ather and "on: the 1ather loveth the
Son, and hath $iven all thin$s into his hands-B:ohn iii- 31- %nd the 1ather
loveth the Son, and she.eth him all thin$s that himself doeth-7:ohn v- /5<
and our "aviour himsel! tells us. I love the 1ather-B:ohn iv- 31- And )
she%ed be!ore. that love is a distinct act. and therefore in -od m'st be a
person9 for there are no accidents nor fac'lties in -od.
+his most im,ortant. nay. !undamental truth. so !amiliar to the elder
,hiloso,hy. and so strongly and distinctly enunciated by 8hilo :udTus. the
senior and contem,orary o! the *vangelists. is to our modern divines
dar#ness and a sound-
6e!t# *I# pp# 14(0/#
Qes< you'll say. that there should be three 8ersons. each o! %hich is ?od.
and yet but one ?od. is a contradiction: but %hat ,rinci,le o! natural reason
does it contradictL
"urely never did argument vertiginate moreE ) had Fust acceded to
"herloc#'s e,osition o! the +rinity. as the "u,reme Being. his re!le act o!
sel!7consciousness and his love. all !orming one su,reme mind< and no% he
tells me. that each is the %hole "u,reme 9ind. and denies that three.
each per se the %hole ?od. are not the same as three ?odsE ) grant that
division and se,aration are terms ina,,licable. yet surely three distinct
though undivided ?ods. are three ?ods- +hat the &ather. "on. and Holy
?host. are the one true ?od. ) !ully believe< but not "herloc#'s e,osition
o! the doctrine- Nay. ) thin# it %ould have been !ar better to have %orded
the mystery thus:B +he &ather together %ith his "on and ",irit. is the one
true ?od-
M*ach per se ?od-M +his is the o! "herloc#'s
scheme- *ach o! the three is %hole ?od. because neither is. or can be per
se< the &ather himsel! beinga se. but not per se-
Ib. p# 14%#
&or it is demonstrable that i! there be three 8ersons and one ?od. each
8erson must be ?od. and yet there cannot be three distinct ?ods. but one-
&or i! each 8erson be not ?od. all three cannot be ?od. unless the ?odhead
have 8ersons in it %hich are not ?od-
+hree ,ersons having the same nature are three ,ersons<Band i! to ,ossess
%ithout limitation the divine nature. as o,,osed to the human. is %hat %e
mean by ?od. %hy then three such ,ersons are three ?ods. and %ill
bethought so. till ?regory Nyssen can ,ersuade us that :ohn. :ames. and
8eter. each ,ossessing the human nature. are not three men- :ohn is a man.
:ames is a man. and 8eter is a man: but they are not three men. but one
manE
Ib. p# 1&+#
) a!!irm. that natural reason is not the rule and measure o! e,ounding
"cri,ture. no more than it is o! e,ounding any other %riting- +he true and
only %ay to inter,ret any %riting. even the "cri,tures themselves. is to
eamine the use and ,ro,riety o! %ords and ,hrases. the conneion. sco,e.
and design o! the tet. its allusion to ancient customs and usages. or
dis,utes- &or there is no other good reason to be given !or any e,osition.
but that the %ords signi!y so. and the circumstances o! the ,lace. and the
a,,arent sco,e o! the %riter reGuire it-
+his and the !ollo%ing ,aragra,h are ecellent- # si sic omniaE
Ib. p# 1&'#
=econcile men to the doctrine Co! the +rinityD. and the "cri,ture is ,lain
%ithout any !arther comment- +his ) have no% endeavoured< and ) believe
our adversaries %ill tal# more s,aringly o! absurdities and contradictions
!or the !uture. and they %ill lose the best argument they have against the
orthodo e,ositions o! "cri,ture-
?ood doctorE you sadly over7rated both your o%n ,o%ers. and the docility
o! your adversaries- )! so clear a head and so >ealous a +rinitarian as (r-
$aterland could not digest your e,osition. or acGuit it o! +ritheism. little
ho,e is there o! !inding the @nitarians more ,ersuadable-
Ib. p# 1&4#
+hough Christ be ?od himsel!. yet i! there be three 8ersons in the
?odhead. the eGuality and sameness o! nature does not destroy the
subordination o! 8ersons: a "on is eGual to his &ather by nature. but in!erior
to him as his "on: i! the &ather. as ) have e,lained it. be original mind and
%isdom. the "on a ,ersonal. subsisting. but re!le image o! his &ather's
%isdom. though their eternal %isdom be eGual and the same. yet the
original is su,erior to the image. the &ather to the "on-
But %hyL $e men deem it so. because the image is but a shado%. and not
eGual to the original< but i! it %ere the same in all ,er!ections. ho% could
that. %hich is eactly the same. be lessL Again. ?od is all Being:B
conseGuently there can nothing be added to the idea. ece,t %hat im,lies a
negation or diminution o! it- )! one and the same Being is eGual to the
&ather. as touching his ?odhead. but in!erior as man< then it is O m(".
%hich is not P O m- But o! t%o men ) may say. that they are eGual to each
other- A- P O courage7%isdom- B- P O %isdom7courage- Both %ise and
courageous< but A- in!erior in %isdom. B- in courage- But ?od is all7
,er!ect-
Ib. p# 1&)#
"o born be!ore all creatures. as also signi!ies. that by him .ere
all thin$s created- %ll thin$s .ere created by him, and for him, and he is
before all thin$s. C%hich is the e,lication o!
be$otten before the .hole creation. and there!ore no ,art o! the creation
himsel!-D
+his is Guite right- 'ur version should here be corrected-
or is here an intense com,arative.Binfinitely before-
Ib. p# 1&%#
+hat he bein$ in the form of -od, tho'$ht it not robbery to be e3'al .ith
-od. Ic-B8hil- ii- 8. 9-
) should be inclined to ado,t an inter,retation o! the unusual
,hrase some%hat di!!erent both !rom the "ocinian and the
Church version:BM%ho being in the !orm o! ?od did not think e3'ality
.ith -od a thin$ to be sei)ed .ith violence. but made. Ic-M
Ib. p# 1)+#
)s a mere creature a !it lieutenant or re,resentative o! ?od in ,ersonal or
,rerogative acts o! government and ,o%erL 9ust not every being be
re,resented by one o! his o%n #ind. a man by a man. an angel by an angel.
in such acts as are ,ro,er to their naturesL and must not ?od then be
re,resented by one %ho is ?odL )s any creature ca,able o! the government
o! the %orldL (oes not this reGuire in!inite %isdom and in!inite ,o%erL
And can ?od communicate in!inite %isdom and in!inite ,o%er to a creature
or a !inite natureL +hat is. can a creature be made a true and essential ?odL
+his is sound reasoning- )t is to be regretted that "herloc# had not con!ined
himsel! to logical comments on the "cri,ture. instead o! attem,ting
meta,hysical solutions-
Ib. pp# 1)10'#
) !ind little or nothing to ob7ect to in this e,osition. !rom ,,- 1317133
inclusively. o! &hil- ii- 8. 9- And yet ) seem to !eel. as i! a something that
should have been ,re!ied. and to %hich all these considerations %ould
have been ecellent seconds. %ere missing- +o e,lain the Cross by the
necessity o! sacri!icial blood. and the sacri!icial blood as a ty,e andante7
delegate or ,re7substitute o! the Cross. is too li#e an ar$'ment'm in
circ'lo-
Ib. p# 1)4#
And though Christ be the eternal "on o! ?od. and the natural Lord and heir
o! all things. yet -od hath in this hi$hly e"alted him and given him a name
.hich is above every name, that at Cor in D the name of *es's every knee
sho'ld bo., of thin$s in heaven. Ic-B8hil- ii- 9. 15. 11-
Never %as a sublime ,assage more debased than by this rendering o!
by at. instead o! in<Bat the phenomenon. instead o! in the no'menon- &or
such is the !orce o! nomen. name. in this and similar ,assages. namely. in
vera et s'bstantiali potestate *es': that is.
the true no'menon or ens intelli$ibile o! Christ- +o bo% at hearing
the co$nomen may become a universal. but it is still only a non7essential.
conseGuence o! the !ormer- But the debasement o! the idea is not the %orst
evil o! this !alse rendering<Bit has a!!orded the ,retet and authority !or
un7Christian intolerance-
Ib. p# 1)/#
The 1ather 7'd$eth no man, b't hath committed all 7'd$ment to the Son-B
:ohn v- //- "hould the &ather Fudge the %orld he m'st Fudge as the ma#er
and sovereign o! the %orld. by the strict rules o! righteousness and Fustice.
and then ho% could any sinner be savedL
C$hyL )s mercy incom,atible %ith righteousnessL Ho% then can the "on be
righteousLD
But he has committed Fudgment to the "on. as a mediatory #ing. %ho
Fudges by the eGuity and chancery o! the ?os,el-
+his article reGuired e,osition incom,arably more than the sim,le
doctrine o! the +rinity. ,lain and evident simplici int'it'. and rendered
obscure only by diverting the mental vision by terms dra%n !rom matter
and multitude- )n the +rinity all the Ho.sL may and should be ans%ered
by LookE Fust as a %ise tutor %ould do in stating the !act o! a double or
treble motion. as o! a ball rolling north %ard on the dec# o! a shi, sailing
south. %hile the earth is turning !rom %est to east- And in li#e manner. that
is. per int'it'm intellect'alem. must all the mysteries o! !aith be
contem,lated< Bthey are intelligible per se. not discursively and per
analo$iam- &or the truths are uniGue. and may have shado%s and ty,es. but
no analogies- At this moment ) have no intuition. no intellectual diagram. o!
this article o! the commission o! all Fudgment to the "on. and there!ore a
multitude o! ,lausible obFections ,resent themselves. %hich ) cannot solve
Bnor do ) e,ect to solve them till by !aith ) see the thing itsel!-B)s not
mercy an attribute o! the (eity. as (eity. and not eclusively o! the 8erson
o! the "onL And is not the authori>ing another to Fudge by eGuity and
mercy the same as Fudging so ourselvesL )! the &ather can do the !ormer.
%hy not the latterL
Ib. p# 1(1#
And there!ore no% it is given him to have li!e in himsel!. as the &ather hath
li!e in himsel!. as the original !ountain o! all li!e. by %hom the "on himsel!
lives: all li!e is derived !rom ?od. either by eternal generation. or
,rocession. or creation< and thus Christ hath li!e in himsel! also< to the ne%
creation he is the !ountain o! li!e: he 3'ickeneth .hom he .ill-
+he truths %hich hitherto had been meta,hysical. then began to be
historical- +he *ternal %as to be mani!ested in time- Hence Christ came
%ith signs and %onders< that is. the absolute. or the anterior to cause and
e!!ect. mani!ested itsel! as a phenomenon in time. but %ith the ,redicates o!
eternity<Band this is the only ,ossible de!inition o! a miracle in re ipsa.
and not merely ad hominem. or ad i$norantiam-
Ib. p# 1((#
His net argument consists in a,,lying such things to the divinity o! our
"aviour as belong to his humanity< that he increased in .isdom, /c.98that
he kno.s not the day of 7'd$ment<B%hich he evidently s,ea#s o! himsel!
as man: as all the ancient &athers con!ess- )n "t- 9ar# it is said. B't of that
day and that ho'r kno.eth no man, no, not the an$els that are in heaven,
neither the Son, b't the 1ather- "t- 9atthe% does not mention the "on: #f
that day and ho'r kno.eth no man, not the an$els of heaven, b't my
1ather only-
Ho% much more ,olitic. as %ell as ingenuous. it had been to have
ac#no%ledged the di!!iculty o! this tet- "o !ar !rom its being evident. the
evidence %ould be on the Arian side. %ere it not that so many e,ress tets
determine us to the contrary-
Ib.
$hich sho%s that the "on in "t- 9atthe% is included in the none. or
no man. and there!ore concerns him only as a man: !or the &ather incl'des
the .hole Trinity. and there!ore includes the "on. %ho seeth %hatever his
&ather doth-
+his is an ar$'ment'm in circ'lo. and petitio rei s'b lite- $hy is he called
the "on in antithesis to the &ather. i! it meant. Mno not the Christ. ece,t in
his character o! the co7eternal "on. included in the &atherLM )! it Mconcerned
him only as a man.M %hy is he ,laced a!ter the angelsL $hy called
the Son sim,ly. instead o! the "on o! 9an. or the 9essiahL
Ib.
is not . but. no one: as in :ohn i- 18- :o one hath
seen -od at any time< that is. he is by essence invisible-
+his most di!!icult tet ) have not seen e,lained satis!actorily- ) have
thought that the must here be ta#en in the ,rimary sense o! the
%ord. namely. as messengers. or missionary 8ro,hets: '! this day #no%eth
no one. not the messengers or revealers o! ?od's ,ur,oses no% in heaven.
no. not the "on. the greatest o! 8ro,hets.Bthat is. he in that character
,romised to declare all that in that character it %as given to him to #no%-
Ib. p# 1/)#
$hen "t- 8aul calls the &ather the 'ne ?od. he e,ressly o,,oses it to the
many gods o! the heathens- 1or tho'$h there be that are called $ods, /c.
b't to 's, there is b't one -od, the 1ather, of .hom are all thin$s6 and one
Lord *es's Christ, by .hom are all thin$s, and .e by him: %here the one
-od and one Lord and +ediator is o,,osed to the many gods and many
lords or mediators %hich %ere %orshi,,ed by the heathens-
But surely the one Lord is as much distinguished !rom the one -od. as both
are contradistinguished !rom the $ods many and lords many o! the
heathens- Besides the 1ather is not the term used in that age in distinction
!rom the gods that are no gods< but
Ib. p# $$$#
The ord .as .ith -od< that is. it %as not yet in the %orld. or not yet made
!lesh< but %ith ?od-B*ohn i- 1- "o that to be .ith -od. signi!ies nothing
but not to be in the %orld-
The Word was with God.
?rotius does say. that this %as o,,osed to the $ord's being made !lesh. and
a,,earing in the %orld: but he %as !ar enough !rom thin#ing that these
%ords have only a negative sense: N N N !or he tells us %hat the ,ositive
sense is. that %ith ?od is . %ith the &ather. N N and
e,lains it by %hat $isdom says.&rov- vii- 35- Then I .as by him,
/c. %hich he does not thin# a prosopopoeia. but s,o#en o! a subsisting
,erson-
But even this is scarcely tenable even as ?ree#- Had this been "t- :ohn's
meaning. surely he %ould have said. not in
the nearest ,roimity that is not con!usion- But it is strange. that "herloc#
should not have seen that ?rotius had a han#ering to%ard "ocinianism. but.
li#e a shy cock. and a man o! the %orld. %as al%ays ready to unsay %hat he
had said-
&ootnote 1: A 4indication o! the (octrine o! the Holy and ever Blessed
+rinity and the )ncarnation o! the "on o! ?od. occasioned by the Brie!
Notes on the Creed o! "t Athanasius. and the Brie! History o! the
@nitarians. or "ocinians- and containing an ans%er to both- By $m-
"herloc#. London- 8vo- 1395-
return to !ootnote mar#
&ootnote /: +he third ?eneral Council. that at *,hesus in 031. decreed
Mthat it should not be la%!ul !or any man to ,ublish or com,ose another
&aith or Creed than that %hich %as de!ined by the Nicene Council-M
!d-
return
Contents A )nde
Notes on 7aterland's Vindication of hrist!s Di"inity
1
In initio-
)t %ould be no easy matter to !ind a tolerably com,etent individual %ho
more venerates the %ritings o! $aterland than ) do. and long have done-
But still in ho% many ,ages do ) not see reason to regret. that the total idea
o! the 0P3P1.Bo! the adorable +etractys. eternally sel!7mani!ested in the
+riad. &ather. "on. and ",irit.B%as never in its cloudless unity ,resent to
him- Hence both he and Bisho, Bull too o!ten treat it as a ,eculiarity o!
,ositive religion. %hich is to be cleared o! all contradiction to reason. and
then. thus negatively Guali!ied. to be actually received by an act o! the mere
%ill< sit pro ratione vol'ntas- No%. on the other hand. ) a!!irm. that the
article o! the +rinity is religion. is reason. and its universal form'la< and
that there neither is. nor can be. any religion. any reason. but %hat is. or is
an e,ansion o! the truth o! the +rinity< in short. that all other ,retended
religions. ,agan or pse'do7Christian C!or eam,le. "abellian. Arian.
"ocinianD. are in themselves Atheism< though ?od !orbid. that ) should call
or even thin# the men so denominated Atheists- ) a!!irm a heresy o!ten. but
never dare denounce the holder a heretic-
'n this ground only can it be made com,rehensible. ho% any honest and
commonly intelligent man can %ithstand the ,roo!s and sound logic o! Bull
and $aterland. that they !ailed in the !irst ,lace to ,resent the idea itsel! o!
the great doctrine %hich they so ably advocated- +a#e my sel!. "-+-C- as a
humble instance- ) %as never so be!ooled as to thin# that the author o! the
!ourth ?os,el. or that "t- 8aul. ever taught the 8riestleyan 8silanthro,ism.
or that @nitarianisn C,resum,tuously. nay. absurdly so calledD. %as the
doctrine o! the Ne% +estament generally- But during the siteen months o!
my aberration !rom the Catholic &aith. ) ,resumed that the tenets o! the
divinity o! Christ. the =edem,tion. and the li#e. %ere irrational. and that
%hat %as contradictory to reason could not have been revealed by the
"u,reme =eason- As soon as ) discovered that these doctrines %ere not
only consistent %ith reason. but themselves very reason. ) returned at once
to the literal inter,retation o! the "cri,tures. and to the &aith-
As to (r- "amuel Clar#e. the !act is. every generation has its one or more
over7rated men- Clar#e %as such in the reign o! ?eorge )-< (r- :ohnson
eminently so in that o! ?eorge )))-< Lord Byron being the star no% in the
ascendant-
)n every religious and moral use o! the %ord. ?od. ta#en absolutely. that is.
not as a ?od. or the ?od. but as ?od. a relativity. a distinction in #ind ab
omni 3'od non est De's. is so essentially im,lied. that it is a matter o!
,er!ect indi!!erence. %hether %e assert a %orld %ithout ?od. or ma#e ?od
the %orld- +he one is as truly Atheism as the other- )n !act. !or all moral and
,ractical ,ur,oses they are the same ,osition di!!erently e,ressed< !or
%hether ) say. ?od is the %orld. or the %orld is ?od. the inevitable
conclusion. the sense and im,ort is. that there is no other ?od than the
%orld. that is. there is no other meaning to the term ?od- $hatever you
may mean by. or choose to believe o!. the %orld. that and that alone you
mean by. and believe o!. ?od- No% ) very much Guestion %hether in any
other sense Atheism. that is. s,eculative Atheism. is ,ossible- &or even in
the Lucretian. the coarsest and crudest scheme o! the *,icurean doctrine. a
hylo>ism. a ,otential li!e. is clearly im,lied. as also in the celebrated lene
clinamen becoming actual- (es,eradoes articulating breath into a
blas,hemy o! nonsense. to %hich they themselves attach no connected
meaning. and the %ic#edness o! %hich is alone intelligible. there may be<
but a La 8lace. or a La ?rand. %ould. and %ith Fustice. resent and re,el the
im,utation o! a belie! in chance. or o! a denial o! la%. order. and sel!7
balancing li!e and ,o%er in the %orld- +heir error is. that they ma#e them
the ,ro,er and underived attributes o! the %orld- )t !ollo%s then. that
8antheism is eGuivalent to Atheism. and that there is no other Atheism
actually eisting. or s,eculatively conceivable. but 8antheism- No% ) hold
it demonstrable that a consistent "ocinianism. !ollo%ing its o%n
conseGuences. must come to 8antheism. and in ungodding the "aviour must
dei!y cats and dogs. !leas and !rogs- +here is. there can be.
no medi'm bet%een the Catholic &aith o! +rinal @nity. and Atheism
disguised in the sel!7contradicting term. 8antheism<B!or every thing ?od.
and no ?od. are identical ,ositions-
8uer" I# p# 1#
The ord .as -od-B:ohn i- 1- I am the Lord, and there is none else6 there
is no -od besides me-B)s- iv- 1. Ic-
)n all these tets the .as. or is. ought to be rendered ,ositively. or
obFectively. and not as a mere connective: The ord Is -od. and saith. I %m
the Lord6 there is no -od besides me. the "u,reme Being. Deitas ob7ectiva-
+he &ather saith. I %m in that I am,8Deitas s'b7ectiva-
Ib. p# $#
$hether all other beings. besides the one "u,reme ?od. be not ecluded by
the tets o! )saiah Cto %hich many more might be addedD. and conseGuently.
%hether Christ can be ?od at all. unless He be the same %ith the "u,reme
?odL
+he sum o! your ans%er to this Guery is. that the tets cited !rom )saiah. are
s,o#en o! one 8erson only. the 8erson o! the &ather. Ic-
' most unha,,y mistranslation o! Hypostasis by 8ersonE +he $ord is
,ro,erly the only 8erson-
Ib. p# '#
No%. u,on your hy,othesis. %e must add< that even the "on o! ?od
himsel!. ho%ever divine he may be thought. is really no ?od at all in any
Fust and ,ro,er sense- He is no more than a nominal ?od. and stands
ecluded %ith the rest- All %orshi, o! him. and reliance u,on him. %ill be
idolatry. as much as the %orshi, o! angels. or men. or o! the gods o! the
heathen %ould be- ?od the &ather he is ?od. and he only. and him only
shall tho' serve- +his ) ta#e to be a clear conseGuence !rom your ,rinci,les.
and unavoidable-
$aterland's argument is absolutely unans%erable by a %orshi,,er o!
Christ- +he modern 'ltra7"ocinian cuts the #not-
8uer" II# p# 4'#
And there!ore he might as Fustly bear the style and title o! Lord -od, -od
of %braham. Ic- %hile he acted in that ca,acity. as he did that o! +ediator,
+essiah, Son of the 1ather. Ic- a!ter that he condescended to act in
another. and to discover his ,ersonal relation-
And %hy. then. did not (r- $aterland.B %hy did not his great ,redecessor
in this glorious controversy. Bisho, Bull.Bcontend !or a revisal o! our
established version o! the Bible. but es,ecially o! the Ne% +estamentL
*ither the unanimous belie! and testimony o! the !irst !ive or si centuries.
grounded on the reiterated declarations o! :ohn and 8aul. and the %riter o!
the *,istle to the Hebre%s. %ere erroneous. or at best doubt!ul<Band then
%hy not %i,e them o!!< %hy these re!erences to themLBor else they %ere.
as ) believe. and both Bull and $aterland believed. the very truth< and then
%hy continue the translation o! the Hebre% into *nglish at second7hand
through the medi'm o! the "e,tuagintL Have %e not ado,ted the Hebre%
%ord. :ehovah.L )s not the . or Lord. o! the L66- a ?ree#
substitute. in countless instances. !or the Hebre% :ehovahL $hy not then
restore the original %ord. and in the 'ld +estament religiously render
:ehovah by :ehovah. and every tet o! the Ne% +estament. re!erring to the
'ld. by the Hebre% %ord in the tet re!erred toL Had this been done.
"ocinianism %ould have been scarcely ,ossible in *ngland-
$hy %as not this doneLB) %ill tell you %hy- Because that great truth. in
%hich are contained all treasures o! all ,ossible #no%ledge. %as still
o,aGue even to Bull and $aterland< Bbecause the )dea itsel!Bthat Idea
Idear'm. the one substrative truth %hich is the !orm. manner. and involvent
o! all truths.B %as never ,resent to either o! them in its entireness. unity.
and trans,arency- +hey most ably vindicated the doctrine o! the +rinity.
negatively. against the charge o! ,ositive irrationality- $ith eGual ability
they she%ed the contradictions. nay. the absurdities. involved in the
reFection o! the same by a ,ro!essed Christian- +hey demonstrated the
utterly un7"cri,tural and contra7"cri,tural nature o! Arianism. and
"abellianism. and "ocinianism- But the sel!7evidence o! the great +ruth. as
a universal o! the reason.Bas the reason itsel!Bas a light %hich revealed
itsel! by its o%n essence as lightBthis they had not had vouchsa!ed to
them-
8uer" .*# p# $$&0)#
+he ,retence is. that %e eGuivocate in tal#ing o! eternal generation-
All generation is necessarily %ithout dividuous beginning.
and herein contradistinguished !rom creation-
Ib. p# $$)#
+rue. it is not the same %ith human generation-
Not the same eodem modo. certainly< but it is so essentially the same that
the generation o! the "on o! ?od is the transcendent. %hich gives to human
generation its right to be so called- )t is in the most ,ro,er. that is. the
!ontal. sense o! the term. generation-
Ib.
Qou have not ,roved that all generation im,lies beginning< and %hat is
more. cannot-
)t %ould be di!!icult to dis,rove the contrary- ?eneration %ith a beginning
is not generation. but creation- Hence %e may see ho% necessary it is that
in all im,ortant controversies %e should ,rede!ine the terms negatively.
that is. eclude and ,reclude all that is not meant by them< and then the
,ositive meaning. that is. %hat is meant by them. %ill be the easy result.B
the ,ost7de!inition. %hich is at once the real de!inition and im,letion. the
circum!erence and the area-
Ib. p# $$(0/#
)t is a usual thing %ith many. Cmoralists may account !or itD. %hen they
meet %ith a di!!iculty %hich they cannot readily ans%er. immediately to
conclude that the doctrine is !alse. and to run directly into the o,,osite
,ersuasion<Bnot considering that they may meet %ith much more %eighty
obFections there than be!ore< or that they may have reason su!!icient to
maintain and believe many things in ,hiloso,hy and divinity. though they
cannot ans%er every Guestion %hich may be started. or every di!!iculty
%hich may be raised against them-
'. i! Bull and $aterland had been !irst ,hiloso,hers. and then divines.
instead o! being !irst. manacled. or say articled cler#s o! a guild<Bi! the
clear !ree intuition o! the truth had led them to the Article. and not the
Article to the de!ence o! it as not having been ,roved to be !alse.Bho%
di!!erent %ould have been the resultE No% %e !eel only the inconsistency o!
Arianism. not the truth o! the doctrine attac#ed- Arianism is con!uted. and
in such a manner. that ) %ill not reFect the Catholic &aith u,on the Arian's
grounds- )t may. ) allo%. be still true- But that it is true. because the Arians
have hitherto !ailed to ,rove its !alsehood. is no logical conclusion- +he
@nitarian may have better luc#< or i! he !ail. the (eist-
8uer" .*I# p# $'4#
But ?od's tho'$hts are not o'r tho'$hts-
+hat is. as ) %ould inter,ret the tet<Bthe ideas in and by %hich ?od
reveals himsel! to man are not the same %ith. and are not to be Fudged by.
the conce,tions %hich the human understanding generali>es !rom the
notices o! the senses. common to man and to irrational animals. dogs.
ele,hants. beavers. and the li#e. endo%ed %ith the same senses- +here!ore )
regard this ,aragra,h. ,- //370. as a s,ecimen o! admirable s,ecial
,leading ad hominem in the Court o! eristic Logic< but ) condemn it as a
%il!ul resignation or tem,orary sel!7de,osition o! the reason- ) %ill not
su,,ose %hat my reason declares to be no ,osition at all. and there!ore an
im,ossible sub7,osition-
Ib. p# $'&#
Let us #ee, to the terms %e began %ith< lest by the changing o! %ords %e
ma#e a change o! ideas. and alter the very state o! the Guestion-
+his misuse. or rather this omni'm($ather'm e,ansion and conseGuent
etenuation o! the %ord. )dea and )deas. may be regarded as a calamity
in!licted by 9r- Loc#e on the reigns o! $illiam )))- ;ueen Anne. and the
!irst t%o ?eorges-
Ib. p# $'(#
"acri!ice %as one instance o! %orshi, reGuired under the La%< and it is
said<BHe that sacrificeth 'nto any -od, save 'nto the Lord only, he shall
be 'tterly destroyed C*od- ii- /5-D No% su,,ose any ,erson. considering
%ith himsel! that only absolute and sovereign sacri!ice %as a,,ro,riated to
?od by this la%. should have gone and sacri!iced to other ?ods. and have
been convicted o! it be!ore the Fudges- +he a,ology he must have made !or
it. ) su,,ose. must have run thus: M?entlemen. though ) have sacri!iced to
other ?ods. yet ) ho,e you'll observe. that ) did it not absolutely: ) meant
not any absolute or su,reme sacri!ice C%hich is all that the La% !orbidsD.
but relative and in!erior only- ) regulated my intentions %ith all imaginable
care. and my esteem %ith the most critical eactness- ) considered the other
?ods. %hom ) sacri!iced to. as in!erior only and in!initely so< reserving all
sovereign sacri!ice to the su,reme ?od o! )srael-M +his. or the li#e a,ology
must. ) ,resume. have brought o!! the criminal %ith some a,,lause !or his
acuteness. i! your ,rinci,les be true- *ither you must allo% this. or you
must be content to say. that not only absolute su,reme sacri!ice Ci! there be
any sense in that ,hraseD. but all sacri!ice %as by the La% a,,ro,riate to
?od only. Ic- Ic-
Ho% %as it ,ossible !or an Arian to ans%er thisL But it %as im,ossible< and
Arianism %as etinguished by $aterland. but in order to the increase o!
"ocinianism< and this. ) doubt not. $aterland !oresa%- He %as too %ise a
man to su,,ose that the e,osure o! the !olly and !alsehood o! one !orm o!
)n!idelism %ould cure or ,revent )n!idelity- *nough. that he made it more
bare7!acedB) might say. bare7breeched< !or modern @nitarianism is verily
the sans(c'lotterie o! religion-
Ib. p# $'%#
Qou imagine that acts o! religious %orshi, are to derive their signi!ication
and Guality !rom the intention and meaning o! the %orshi,,ers: %hereas the
very reverse o! it is the truth-
+ruly ecellent- Let the Church o! *ngland ,raise ?od !or her "aintsBa
more glorious Halendar than =ome can sho%E
Ib. p# $&1#
+he sum then o! the case is this: )! the "on could be included as being
uncreated. and very ?od< as Creator. "ustainer. 8reserver o! all things. and
one %ith the &ather< then he might be %orshi,,ed u,on their Cthe Ante7
Nicene &athers'D ,rinci,les. but other%ise could not-
*very %here in this invaluable %riter ) have to regret the absence o! all
distinct idea o! the ) Am as the ,ro,er attribute o! the &ather< and hence. the
ignorance o! the ,ro,er :ehovaism o! the "on< and hence. that %hile %e
%orshi, the "on together %ith the &ather. %e nevertheless ,ray to the
&ather only through the "on-
8uer" .*II#
And %e may never be able ,er!ectly to com,rehend the relations o! the
three ,ersons. ad intra. amongst themselves< the ine!!able order and
economy o! the ever7blessed co7eternal +rinity-
MCom,rehendEM No- &or ho% can any s,iritual truth be com,rehendedL
$ho can com,rehend his o%n %ill< or his o%n ,ersoneity. that is. his )7shi,
CIchheitD< or his o%n mind. that is. his ,erson< or his o%n li!eL But %e can
distinctly a,,rehend them- )n strictness. the )dea. ?od. li#e all other ideas
rightly so called. and as contradistinguished !rom conce,tion. is not so
,ro,erly above. as alien !rom. com,rehension- )t is li#e smelling a sound-
8uer" .*III# p# $)%#
&rom %hat hath been observed. it may a,,ear su!!iciently that the
divine %as our Hing and our ?od long be!ore< that he had the same
claim and title to religious %orshi, that the &ather himsel! hadBonly not
so distinctly revealed-
Here ) di!!er toto orbe !rom $aterland. and say %ith Luther and
Jin>endor!. that be!ore the Ba,tism o! :ohn the Lo$os alone had been
distinctly revealed. and that !irst in Christ he declared himsel! a "on.
namely. the co7eternal only7begotten "on. and thus revealed the &ather-
)ndeed the %ant o! the )dea o! the 1P3 could alone have ,revented
$aterland !rom in!erring this !rom his o%n Guery ))- and the tets cited by
him ,,- /8738- +he &ather cannot be revealed ece,t in and through the
"on. his eternal e"e$esis- +he contrary ,osition is an absurdity- +he
"u,reme $ill. indeed. the Absolute ?ood. #no%eth himsel! as the &ather:
but the act o! sel!7a!!irmation. the ) Am in that ) Am. is not a
mani!estation ad e"tra. not an e"e$esis-
Ib. p# $(4#
+his ,oint being settled. ) might allo% you that. in some sense. distinct
%orshi, commenced %ith the distinct title o! "on or =edeemer: that is. our
blessed Lord %as then !irst %orshi,,ed. or commanded to be %orshi,,ed
by us. under that distinct title or character< having be!ore had no other title
or character ,eculiar and ,ro,er to himsel!. but only %hat %as common to
the &ather and him too-
=ather shall ) say that the "on and the ",irit. the $ord and the $isdom.
%ere alone %orshi,,ed. because alone revealed under the La%- "ee
8roverbs. i- ii-
+he ,assage Guoted !rom Bisho, Bull is very ,lausible and very eloGuent<
but only c'm m'ltis $ranis salis s'mend-
8uer" .I.# p# $(%#
+hat the &ather. %hose honour had been su!!iciently secured under the
:e%ish dis,ensation. and could not but be so under the Christian also. Ic-
Here againE +his contradiction o! $aterland to his o%n ,rinci,les is
continually recurring<B yea. and in one ,lace he involves the very
+ritheism. o! %hich he %as so victorious an antagonist. namely. that the
&ather is :ehovah. the "on :ehovah. and the ",irit :ehovah<Bthus ma#ing
:ehovah either a mere synonyme o! ?odB%hereas he himsel! rightly
renders it %hich "t- :ohn every %here. and "t- 8aul no less.
ma#es the ,eculiar name o! the
"on. B< or he
a!!irms the same absurdity. as i! had said: +he &ather is the "on. and the
"on is the "on. and the Holy ?host is the "on. and yet there are not three
"ons but one "on- N- B- is the verbal noun o! not
o! )t is strange ho% little use has been made o! that ,ro!ound
and most ,regnant tet. *ohn i- 18E
8uer" ..# p# '+$#
+he itsel! might have been s,ared. at least out o! the Creeds.
had not a !raudulent abuse o! good %ords brought matters to that ,ass. that
the Catholic &aith %as in danger o! being lost even under Catholic
language-
9ost assuredly the very 'dis,utable' rendering o! by
consubstantial. or o! one substance %ith. not only might have been s,ared.
but should have been su,erseded- $hy notBas is !elt to be !or the interest
o! science in all the ,hysical sciencesBretain the same term in all
languagesL $hy not 'sia and homoWsial. as %ell as hypostasis. hy,ostatic.
homogeneous. heterogeneous. and the li#e<Bor as Ba,tism. *ucharist.
Liturgy. *,i,hany and the restL
8uer" ..I# p# '+'#
+he (octor's insinuating !rom the 355 tets. %hich style the &ather ?od
absolutely. or the one ?od. that the "on is not strictly and essentially ?od.
not one ?od %ith the &ather. is a strained and remote in!erence o! his o%n-
$aterland has %ea#ened his argument by seeming to admit that in all these
355 tets the &ather. distinctive. is meant-
Ib. p# '1)01(#
+he sim,licity o! ?od is another mystery- N N $hen %e come to inGuire
%hether all etension. or all ,lurality. diversity. com,osition o! substance
and accident. and the li#e. be consistent %ith it. then it is %e discover ho%
con!used and inadeGuate our ideas are- N N +o this head belongs that
,er,leing Guestion Cbeset %ith di!!iculties on all sidesD. %hether the divine
substance be etended or no-
"urely. the !ar larger ,art o! these assumed di!!iculties rests on a
misa,,lication either o! the senses to the sense. or o! the sense to the
understanding. or o! the understanding to the reason<Bin short. on an
as#ing !or images %here only theorems can be. or reGuiring theorems !or
thoughts. that is. conce,tions or notions. or lastly. conce,tions !or ideas-
8uer" ..III# p# '&1#
But ta#ing advantage o! the ambiguity o! the %ord hypostasis. sometimes
used to signi!y substance. and sometimes ,erson. you contrive a !allacy-
And %hy did not $aterland li!t u, his voice against this mischievous abuse
o! the term hypostasis. and the ,erversion o! its Latin
rendering. s'bstantia as being eGuivalent to L $hy should
not have been rendered by essentia. ) cannot conceive- !st seems a
contraction o! esset. and ens o! essens: P essens,
essentis, essentia-
Ib. p# '&4#
Let me desire you not to give so great a loose to your !ancy in divine
things: you seem to consider every thing under the notion o! etension and
sensible images-
4ery true- +he %hole delusion o! the Anti7+rinitarians arises out o! this.
that they a,,ly the ,ro,erty o! imaginable matterBin %hich A- is. that is.
can only be imagined. by eclusion o! B- as the universal ,redicate o! all
substantial being-
Ib. p# '&(#
And our *nglish @nitarians N N have been still re!ining u,on the "ocinian
scheme. N N and have brought it still nearer to "abellianism-
+he "abellian and the @nitarian seem to di!!er only in this<Bthat %hat the
"abellian calls union %ith. the @nitarian calls !ull ins,iration by. the
(ivinity-
Ib. p# '&%#
)t is obvious. at !irst sight. that the true Arian or "emi7Arian scheme C%hich
you %ould be thought to come u, to at leastD can never tolerably su,,ort
itsel! %ithout ta#ing in the Catholic ,rinci,le o! a human soul to Foin %ith
the $ord-
Here comes one o! the conseGuences o! the Cartesian (ualism: as i!
the living body. could be or eist %ithout a soul. or a human living body
%ithout a human soulE is not ?ree# !or carrion. nor !or
carcase-
8uer" ..I*# p# '(1#
Necessary eistence is an essential character. and belongs eGually to &ather
and "on-
"ubsistent in themselves are &ather. "on and ",irit: the &ather only has
origin in himsel!-
8uer" ..*I# p# 41$#
+he %ords he construes thus: Mnot as eternally
generated.M as i! he had read . su,,lying by
imagination- +he sense and meaning o! the %ord . signi!ying
made. or created. is so !ied and certain in this author. Ic-
+his is but one o! !i!ty instances in %hich the true *nglishing
o! Ic- %ould have ,revented all mista#e- )t is
not made. but became- +hus here:Bbegotten eternally. and not as one that
became< that is. as not having been be!ore- +he only7begotten "on
never became< but all things became through him-
Ib. 41$#
!t nos etiam Sermoni at3'e 5ationi, item3'e Virt'ti, per 3'2 omnia
molit'm De'm edi"im's, propriam s'bstantiam Spirit'm inscribim's6 c'i
et Sermo insit pr2n'ntianti, et 5atio adsit disponenti, et Virt's perficienti.
H'nc e" Deo prolat'm didicim's, et prolatione $enerat'm, et idcirco
1ili'm Dei et De'm dict'm e" 'nitate s'bstanti2-
+ertull- A,ol- c- /1-
Ho% strange and crude the realism o! the Christian &aith a,,ears in
+ertullian's rugged LatinE
Ib. p# 414#
He re,resents +ertullian as ma#ing the "on. in his highest ca,acity.
ignorant o! the day o! Fudgment-
'! the true sense o! the tet. +ark iii- 3/-. ) still remain in doubt< but.
though as >ealous and sted!ast a HomoWsian as Bull and $aterland
themselves. ) am inclined to understand it o! the "on in his highest
ca,acity< but ) %ould avoid the in!eriori>ing conseGuences by a stricter
rendering o! the - +he o! "t- 9atthe% iv- 33-
is here omitted- ) thin# $aterland's a very unsatis!ying solution o! this tet-
Ib. p# 41&#
!"clamans 3'od se De's reli3'isset, /c. Habes ips'm e"clamantem in
passione, De's me's, De's me's, 't 3'id me dereli3'istiA Sed h2c vo"
carnis et anim2, id est, hominis6 nec Sermonis, nec Spirit's. Ic-B+ertull-
Adv- 8ra- c- /3- c- 35-
+he ignorance o! the &athers. and. 'rigen ece,ted. o! the Ante7Nicene
&athers in ,articular. in all that res,ects Hebre% learning and the Ne%
+estament re!erences to the 'ld +estament. is sho%n in this so early
!antastic misinter,retation grounded on the !act o! our Lord's reminding.
and as it %ere giving out aloud to :ohn and 9ary the t%enty7second 8salm.
the ,rediction o! his ,resent su!!erings and a!ter glory- But the entire
,assage in +ertullian. though no ,roo! o! his Arianism. is !ull o! ,roo!s o!
his %ant o! insight into the true sense o! the "cri,ture tets- )ndeed %ithout
detracting !rom the inestimable services o! the &athers !rom +ertullian to
Augustine res,ecting the !undamental article o! the Christian &aith. yet
commencing !rom the !i!th century. ) dare claim !or the =e!ormed Church
o! *ngland the honorable name o! o! +rinitarianism. and
the !oremost ran# among the Churches. =oman or 8rotestant: the learned
=omanist divines themselves admit this. and ma#e a merit o! the reluctance
%ith %hich they nevertheless admit it. in res,ect o! Bisho, Bull
/
-
Ib. p# 4$1#
)t seems to me that i! there be not reasons o! conscience obliging a good
man to s,ea# out. there are al%ays reasons o! ,rudence %hich should ma#e
a %ise man hold his tongue-
+rue. and as ha,,ily e,ressed- +o this. ho%ever. the honest Anti7
+rinitarian must come at last: M$ell. %ell. ) admit that :ohn and 8aul
thought di!!erently< but this remains my o,inion-M
8uer" ..*II# p# 4$(#
B
Athanas- Cont- ?ent-
+he Fust and literal rendering o! the ,assage is this: '+he true ?od %ho in
reality is such. namely. the &ather o! Christ-'
+he ,assage admits o! a some%hat di!!erent inter,retation !rom this o!
$aterland's. and o! eGual. i! not greater. !orce against the Arian notion:
namely. ta#ing distinctively !rom Bthe !ns
omnis entitatis, etiam s'2. that is. the ) Am the &ather. in distinction !rom
the !ns S'prem'm. the "on- )t cannot. ho%ever. be denied that in changing
the form'la o! the Tetractys into the Trias. by merging the &rothesis in
the Thesis. the )dentity in the ),seity. the Christian &athers subFected their
e,osition to many inconveniences-
Ib. p# 4'$#
B
:ustin 9art- (ial- ,- 185-
+he meaning is. that that divine 8erson. %ho called himsel! ?od. and %as
?od. %as not the 8erson o! the &ather. %hose ordinary character is that o!
ma#er o! all things. but another divine 8erson. namely. ?od the "on- N N )t
%as :ustin's business to she% that there %as a divine 8erson. one %ho %as
?od o! Abraham. )saac. and :acob. and %as not the &ather< and there!ore
there %ere t%o divine 8ersons-
At all events. it %as a very incautious e,ression on the ,art o! :ustin.
though his meaning %as. doubtless. that %hich $aterland gives- +he same
most im,ro,er. or at best. most inconvenient because eGuivocal ,hrase. has
been. as ) thin#. inter,olated into our A,ostles' Creed-
Ib. p# 4')#
B
?reg- Na>- 'rat- /9-
$e may. as ) conceive. ,reserve Cthe doctrine o!D one ?od. by re!erring
both the "on and Holy ?host to one cause. Ic-
Another instance o! the inconvenience o! the +rias com,ared %ith the
+etractys-
&ootnote 1: A 4indication o! Christ's (ivinity: being a de!ence o! some
Gueries relating to (r- Clar#e's scheme o! the Holy +rinity. Ic- By (aniel
$aterland- /nd edit- Cambridge. 1219- !d-
return to !ootnote mar#
&ootnote /:
< sino ahB estC el Doctor *or$e B'll &rofesor de Teolo$Ba, y &resbitero de
la I$lesia %n$licana, 3'e m'riD #bispo de San David el aEo de FGFH,
c'yas obras teolo$ico8escolasticas, en folio, nada deben C las mas
alambicadas 3'e se han estampado en Salamanca y en Coimbra6 y como
los p'ntos 3'e por la mayor parte tratD en ellas son sobre los misterios
capitales de n'estra Santa 1I, conviene C saber, sobre el misterio de la
Trinidad, y sobre el de la Divinidad de Cristo, en los c'ales s'
&se'dai$lesia %n$licana no se desvia de la Catolica, en verdad, 3'e los
mane7D con tanto nervio y con tanta delicade)a, 3'e los teolo$os ortodo7os
mas escolasti)ados, como si di7Iramos electri)ados, hacen $rande
estimacion de dichas obras. < a'n en los dos Tratados 3'e escribiD acerca
de la *'stification, 3'e es p'nto mas resvaladi)o, en los principios 3'e
abra)D, no se separD de los teolo$os Catolicos6 pero en al$'nas
consec'encias 3'e infirio, ya diD bastantemente C entender la mala leche
3'e habia mamado.
&ray- ?erundio- ii- 2- !d.
return
Contents A )nde
Notes on 7aterland's Importance of the Doctrine of the #oly Trinity
1
Chap# I# p# 1/#
)t is the ,ro,erty o! the (ivine Being to be unsearchable< and i! he %ere not
so. he %ould not be divine- 9ust %e there!ore reFect the most certain truths
concerning the (eity. only because they are incom,rehensible. Ic-L
)t is strange that so sound. so admirable a logician as $aterland. should
have thought 'nsearchable and incomprehensible synonymous. or at least
eGuivalent terms:Band this. though "t- 8aul hath made it the ,rivilege o!
the !ull7gro%n Christian. to search o't the deep thin$s of -od himself-
Chap# I*# p# 111#
The deliverin$ over 'nto Satan seems to have been a !orm o!
ecommunication. declaring the ,erson reduced to the state o! a heathen<
and in the A,ostolical age it %as accom,anied %ith su,ernatural or
miraculous e!!ects u,on the bodies o! the ,ersons so delivered-
@nless the ,assage. C%cts v- 1711-D be an authority. ) must doubt the truth o!
this assertion. as tending to destroy the essential s,irituality o! Christian
motives. and. in my Fudgment. as irreconcilable %ith our Lord's declaration.
that his #ingdom %as not of this .orld- Let me be once convinced that "t-
8aul. %ith the elders o! an A,ostolic Church. #no%ingly and intentionally
a,,ended a ,alsy or a consum,tion to the sentence o! ecommunication.
and ) shall be obliged to reconsider my old o,inion as to the anti7Christian
,rinci,le o! the =omish )nGuisition-
Ib. p# 114#
'A man that is a heretic. a!ter the !irst and second admonition. reFect<
#no%ing that he that is such. is subverted. and sinneth. being condemned o!
himsel!'-B+it- iii- 15. 11-
+his tet %ould be among my minor arguments !or doubting the 8aulinity
o! the *,istle to +itus- )t seems to me to breathe the s,irit o! a later age. and
a more established Church ,o%er-
Ib.
Not every one that mista#es in Fudgment. though in matters o! great
im,ortance. in ,oints !undamental. but he that o,enly es,ouses such
!undamental error- N N (r- $hitby adds to the de!inition. the es,ousing it
out o! disgust. ,ride. envy. or some %orldly ,rinci,le. and against his
conscience-
$hitby %ent too !ar< $aterland not !ar enough- *very schismatic is not
necessarily a heretic< but every heretic is virtually a schismatic- As to the
meaning o! $aterland surely ma#es too much o! a very
,lain matter- $hat %as the sentence ,assed on a hereticL A ,ublic
declaration that he %as no longer a member o!Bthat is. o! one !aith %ithB
the Church- +his the man himsel!. a!ter t%o ,ublic notices. admits and
involves in the very act o! ,ersisting- Ho%ever con!ident as to the truth o!
the doctrine he has set u,. he cannot. a!ter t%o ,ublic admonitions. be
ignorant that it is a doctrine contrary to the articles o! his communion %ith
the Church that has admitted him< and in regard o! his alienation !rom that
communion. he is necessarily Bthough in his ,ride o!
heart he might say %ith the man o! old. MAnd ) banish you-M
Ib. p# 1$'#
Bas soon as the miraculous gi!ts. or gi!t o! discerning s,irits. ceased-
No one ,oint in the Ne% +estament ,er,lees me so much as these Cso
calledD miraculous gi!ts- ) !eel a moral re,ugnance to the reduction o! them
to natural and acGuired talents. ennobled and made energic by the li!e and
convergency o! !aith<Band yet on no other scheme can ) reconcile them
%ith the idea o! Christianity. or the ,articular su,,osed. %ith the general
#no%n. !acts- But. than# ?odE it is a Guestion %hich does not in the least
degree a!!ect our !aith or ,ractice- ) mean. i! ?od ,ermit. to go through the
9iddletonian controversy. as soon as ) can ,rocure the loan o! the boo#s. or
have health enough to become a reader in the British 9useum-
Ib. p# 1$)#
And %hat i!. a!ter all. s,iritual censures C!or o! such only ) am s,ea#ing.D
should ha,,en to !all u,on such a ,erson. he may be in some measure hurt
in his re,utation by it. and that is all- And ,ossibly hereu,on his errors.
be!ore invincible through ignorance. may be removed by %holesome
instruction and admonition. and so he is be!riended in it. Ic-
$aterland is Guite in the right so !ar<Bbut the ,enal la%s. the tem,oral
in!lictionsB%ould he have called !or the re,eal o! theseL 9ilton sa% this
subFect %ith a mastering eye.Bsa% that the a%!ul ,o%er o!
ecommunication %as degraded and %ea#ened even to im,otence by any
the least connection %ith the la% o! the "tate-
Ib. p# 1$(#
B%ho are hereby !orbidden to receive such heretics into their houses. or to
,ay them so much as common civilities- +his ,rece,t o! the A,ostle may he
!urther illustrated by his o%n ,ractice. recorded by )renaeus. %ho had the
in!ormation at second7hand !rom 8olycar,. a disci,le o! "t- :ohn's. that "t-
:ohn. once meeting %ith Cerinthus at the bath. retired instantly %ithout
bathing. !or !ear lest the bath should !all by reason o! Cerinthus being there.
the enemy to truth-
8shaE +he 'bidding him ?od s,eed'.B BC/ ':ohn'.
11.D is a s,irituality. not a mere civility- )! "t- :ohn #ne% or sus,ected that
Cerinthus had a cutaneous disease. there %ould have been some sense in
the re!usal. or rather. as ) correct mysel!. some ,robability o! truth in this
gossi, o! )renTus-
Ib. p# 1$/#
+hey corru,ted the !aith o! Christ. and in e!!ect subverted the ?os,el- +hat
%as enough to render them detestable in the eyes o! all men %ho sincerely
loved and valued sound !aith-
'. no. no. not themE !rror 3'idem, non tamen homo errans, abominand's:
or. to ,un a little. abhominand's- Be bold in denouncing the heresy. but
slo% and timorous in denouncing the erring brother as a heretic- +he
unmista#able ,assions o! a !actionary and a schismatic. the ostentatious
dis,lay. the ambition and dishonest arts o! a sect7!ounder. must be
su,erinduced on the !alse doctrine. be!ore the heresy ma#es the man a
heretic-
Ib. p# 1$%#
Bthe doctrine o! the Nicolaitans-
$ere the Nicolaitans a sect. ,ro,erly so calledL +he %ord is the ?ree#
rendering o! 'the children o! Balaam<' that is. men o! grossly immoral and
disorderly lives-
Ib. p# 1'+#
&or i! he %ho shall break one of the least moral commandments, and shall
teach men so, shall be called least in the kin$dom of heaven. C9at- v- 19.D it
must be a very dangerous e,eriment. Ic-
A sad misinter,retation o! our Lord's %ords. %hich !rom the contet most
evidently had no re!erence to any moral. that is. universal commandment as
such. but to the national institutions o! the :e%ish state. as long as that state
should be in eistence< that is to say. until the Heaven or the ?overnment.
and the !arth or the 8eo,le or the ?overned. as onecorp's politic'm. or
nation. had ',assed a%ay'- +ill that time.B%hich %as !ul!illed under +itus.
and more thoroughly under Hadrian.B no :e% %as relieved !rom his duties
as a citi>en and subFect by his having become a Christian- +he tet.
together %ith the command im,lied in the miracle o! the tribute7money in
the !ish's mouth. might be !airly and ,o%er!ully adduced against the
;ua#ers. in res,ect o! their re!usal to ,ay their tithes. or %hatever ta they
,lease to consider as having an un7Christian destination- But are they
ecluded !rom the #ingdom o! heaven. that is. the Christian ChurchL No<
Bbut they must be regarded as %ea# and inFudicious members o! it-
Chap# *# p# 14+#
Accordingly it may be observed. ho% the unbelievers caress and
com,liment those com,lying gentlemen %ho meet them hal! %ay. %hile
they are ,er,etually inveighing against the sti!! divines. as they call them.
%hom they can ma#e no advantage o!-
Accordingly it may be observed. ho% the unbelievers caress and
com,liment those com,lying gentlemen %ho meet them hal! %ay. %hile
they are ,er,etually inveighing against the sti!! divines. as they call them.
%hom they can ma#e no advantage o!-
Ib. p# 1/(#
And there!ore it is in!allibly certain. as 9r- Chilling%orth %ell argues %ith
res,ect to Christianity in general. that %e ought !irmly to believe it<
because %isdom and reason reGuire that %e should believe those things
%hich are by many degrees more credible and ,robable than the contrary-
Qes. %here there are but t%o ,ositions. one o! %hich must be true- $hen A-
is ,resented to my mind %ith ,robabilityP1. and B- %ith ,robabilityP11. )
must thin# that B- is three times more ,robable than A- And yet it is very
,ossible that a C- may be !ound %hich %ill su,ersede both-
Chap# *I# p# $'+#
+he Creed o! :erusalem. ,reserved by Cyril. Cthe most ancient ,erha,s o!
any no% etant.D is very e,ress !or the divinity o! ?od the "on. in these
%ords: MAnd in our Lord :esus Christ. the only begotten "on o! ?od< true
?od. begotten o! the &ather be!ore all ages. by %hom all things %ere madeM
N N-
) regard this. both !rom its antiGuity and !rom the ,eculiar character o! the
Church o! :erusalem. so !ar removed !rom the in!luence o! the 8ythagoreo7
8latonic sects o! 8aganism. as the most im,ortant and convincing mere !act
o! evidence in the +rinitarian controversy-
Ib. p# $''#
Btrue "on o! the &ather. 'invisible' o! invisible. Ic-
Ho% is this reconcilable %ith *ohn i- 18BCno one hath seen -od at any
time9 the only be$otten Son, .hich is in the bosom of the 1ather, he hath
declared him.BD or %ith the e"press ima$e. asserted above- Invisible. )
su,,ose. must be ta#en in the narro%est sense. that is. to bodily eyes- But
then the one invisible %ould not mean the same as the other-
Ib. p# $')#
Symbola certe !cclesi2 e" ipso !cclesi2 sens', non e" h2reticor'm
cerebello, e"ponenda s'nt-BBull- :udic- *ccl- v-
+he truth o! a Creed must be tried by the Holy "cri,tures< but the sense o!
the Creed by the #no%n sentiments and in!erred intention o! its com,ilers-
Ib. p# $'/#
+he very name o! &ather. a,,lied in the Creed to the !irst 8erson. intimates
the relation he bears to a "on. Ic-
No doubt: but the most ,robable solution o! the a,,arent %ant o!
distinctness o! e,lication on this article. in my humble Fudgment. isBthat
the so7called A,ostles' Creed %as at !irst the ,re,aratory con!ession o! the
catechumens. the admission7tic#et. as it %ere Csymbol'm ad Baptism'mD. at
the gate o! the Church. and gradually augmented as heresies started u,- +he
latest o! these seems to have consisted in the doubt res,ecting the entire
death o! :esus on the Cross. as distinguished !rom sus,ended animation-
Hence in the !i!th or sith century the clauseBMand he descended into
Hades.M %as inserted<Bthat is. the indissoluble ,rinci,le o! the man :esus.
%as se,arated !rom. and le!t. the dissoluble. and subsisted a,art
in Scheol or the abode o! se,arated souls<Bbut really meaning no more
than vere mort''s est-- :esus %as ta#en !rom the Cross dead in the very
same sense in %hich the Ba,tist %as dead a!ter his beheading-
Nevertheless. %ell ada,ted as this Creed %as to its ,ur,oses. ) cannot but
regret the high ,lace and ,recedence %hich by means o! its title. and the
!able to %hich that title gave rise. it has usur,ed- )t has. as it a,,ears to me.
indirectly !avoured Arianism and "ocinianism-
Ib. p# $&+#
+hat "t- :ohn %rote his ?os,el %ith a vie% to con!ute Cerinthus. among
other !alse teachers. is attested !irst by )renTus. %ho %as a disci,le o!
8olycar,. and %ho !lourished %ithin less than a century o! "t- :ohn's time-
) have little trust and no !aith in the gossi, and hearsay7anecdotes o! the
early &athers. )renTus not ece,ted- M$ithin less than a century o! "t-
:ohn's time-M AlasE a century in the ,aucity o! %riters and o! men o!
education in the age succeeding the A,ostolic. must be rec#oned more than
eGual to !ive centuries since the use o! ,rinting- "u,,ose. ho%ever. the
truth o! the )renTan tradition<Bthat the Creed o! Cerinthus %as %hat
)renTus states it to have been< and that :ohn. at the instance o! the Asiatic
Bisho,s. %rote his ?os,el as an antidote to the Cerinthian heresy<Bdoes
there not thence arise. in his utter silence. an almost over%helming
argument against the A,ostolicity o! the 'Christo,Tdia'. both that ,re!ied
to Lu#e. and that concor,orated %ith 9atthe%L
Ib. p# $&(#
In him .as life, and the life .as the li$ht of men- +he same $ord %as li!e.
the and both one- +here %as no occasion there!ore !or
subtilly distinguishing the $ord and Li!e into t%o "ons. as some did-
) %ill not deny the ,ossibility o! this inter,retation- )t may be.Bnay. it is.B
!airly deducible !rom the %ords o! the great *vangelist: but ) cannot hel,
thin#ing that. ta#en as the ,rimary intention. it degrades this most divine
cha,ter. %hich unites in itsel! the three characters o! sublime. ,ro!ound.
and ,regnant. and alloys its universality by a miture o! time and accident-
Ib.
%nd the li$ht shineth in darkness, and the darkness cometh not 'pon it. "o )
render the verse. con!ormable to the rendering o! the same ?ree#
verb. . by our translators in another ,lace o! this same
?os,el- +he A,ostle. as ) conceive. in this 1th verse o! his 1st cha,ter.
alludes to the ,revailing error o! the ?entiles. Ic-
' sad. sadE Ho% must the ,hiloso,her have been ecli,sed by the shado% o!
antiGuarian erudition. in order that a mind li#e $aterland's could have
sacri!iced the ,ro!ound universal im,ort o! comprehend to an allusion to a
%orthless dream o! heretical nonsense. the mushroom o! the dayE Had
$aterland ever thought o! the relation o! his o%n understanding to his
reasonL But alasE the identi!ication o! these t%o diversitiesBo! ho% many
errors has it been ground and occasionE
Ib. p# $&%#
%nd the ord .as made fleshBbecame ,ersonally united %ith the man
:esus< and d.elt amon$ 's.Bresided constantly in the human nature so
assumed-
$aterland himsel! did but dimly see the a%!ul im,ort o! B
the mystery o! the alien groundBand the truth. that as the ground such
must be the li!e- He caused himsel! to 'become !lesh'. and therein assumed
a mortal li!e into his o%n ,erson and unity. in order himsel! to
transubstantiate the corru,tible into the incorru,tible-
$aterland's aniety to sho% the anti7heretical !orce o! "t- :ohn's ?os,el
and *,istles. has caused him to overloo# their CatholicityBtheir
a,,licability to all countries and all timesBtheir truth. inde,endently o! all
tem,orary accidents and errors<B%hich Catholicity alone it is that
constitutes their claim to Canonicity. that is. to be Canonical ins,ired
%ritings-
Ib. p# $))#
Hereu,on there!ore the A,ostle. in de!ence o! Christ's real humanity.
says. This is he that came by .ater and blood-
ater and blood, that is ser'm and crassament'm. mean sim,ly blood. the
blood o! the animal or carnal li!e. %hich. saith 9oses. is the life-
Hence flesh is o!ten ta#en as. and indeed is a !orm o!. the blood.Bblood
!ormed or organi>ed- +hus blood o!ten includes flesh.
and flesh includes blood- 1lesh and blood is eGuivalent to blood in its
t%o!old !orm. or rather as !ormed and !ormless- ater and blood has.
there!ore. t%o meanings in "t- :ohn. but %hich in idem coincid'nt:
1-true animal human blood. and no celestial ichor or ,hantom:
/-the %hole sentiently vital body. !ied or !lo%ing. the ,i,e and the
stream-
&or the ancients. and es,ecially the :e%s. had no distinct a,,rehension o!
the use or action o! the nerves: in the 'ld +estament heart is used as %e
use head- The fool hath said in his heartBis in *nglish: Mthe %orthless
!ello% Cva'rienD hath ta#en it into his head.M Ic-
Ib. p# $)/#
+he A,ostle having said that the ",irit is truth. or essential truth. C%hich
%as giving him a title common to ?od the &ather and to Christ.D Ic-
)s it clear that the distinct hypostasis o! the Holy ",irit. in the same sense as
the only7begotten "on is hy,ostatically distinguished !rom the &ather. %as
a truth that !ormed an immediate obFect or intention o! "t- :ohnL +hat it is a
truth im,lied in. and !airly deducible !rom. many tets. both in his ?os,el
and *,istles. ) do not. indeed ) cannot. doubt<Bbut only %hether this
article o! our !aith he %as commissioned to declare e,licitlyL
)t grieves me to thin# that such giant archaspist2 o! the Catholic &aith. as
Bull and $aterland. should have clung to the intruded gloss C1 *ohn v- 2D.
%hich. in the o,ulence and continuity o! the evidences. as dis,layed by
their o%n master7minds. %ould have been su,er!luous. had it not been
%orse than su,er!luous. that is. senseless in itsel!. and interru,tive o! the
,ro!ound sense o! the A,ostle-
Ib. p# $($#
He is come. come in the !lesh. and not merely to reside !or a time. or
occasionally. and to !ly o!! again. but to abide and d%ell %ith man. clothed
%ith humanity-
)ncautiously %orded at best- Com,are our Lord's o%n declaration to his
disci,les. that he had d%elt a brie! %hile .ith or amon$ them. in order to
d%ell in them ,ermanently-
Ib. p# $/)#
)t is very observable. that the *bionites reFected three o! the ?os,els.
receiving only "t- 9atthe%'s Cor %hat they called soD. and that curtailed-
+hey reFected li#e%ise all "t- 8aul's %ritings. re,roaching him as an
a,ostate- Ho% unli#ely is it that :ustin should o%n such re,robates as those
%ere !or !ello%7ChristiansE
) dare avo% my belie!Bor rather ) dare not %ithhold my avo%alBthat both
Bull and $aterland are here hunting on the trail o! an old blunder or
!igment. concocted by the gross ignorance o! the ?entile Christians and
their &athers in all that res,ected Hebre% literature and the 8alestine
Christians- ) ,ersist in the belie! that. though a re!use o! the ,ersecuted and
!rom neglect degenerating :e%7Christians may have sun# into the mean and
carnal notions o! their unconverted brethren res,ecting the 9essiah. no
,ro,er sect o! *bionites ever eisted. but those to %hom "t- 8aul travelled
%ith the contributions o! the churches. nor any such man as *bion< unless
indeed it %as "t- Barnabas. %ho in his humility may have so named
himsel!. %hile soliciting relie! !or the distressed 8alestine Christians<BM)
am Barnabas the beggar-M But ) %ill go !urther. and con!ess my belie! that
the Cso7calledD *bionites o! the !irst and second centuries. %ho reFected the
'Christo,Tdia'. and %hose ?os,el commenced %ith the ba,tism by :ohn.
%ere orthodo A,ostolic Christians. %ho received Christ as the Lord. that
is. as :ehovah 'mani!ested in the !lesh'- As to their reFection o! the other
?os,els and o! 8aul's %ritings. ) might as#:BMCould they read themLM But
the %hole notion seems to rest on an anachronical misconce,tion o! the
'*vangelia'- *very great mother Church. at !irst. had its o%n ?os,el-
Ib. p# $//#
+o say nothing here o! the truer reading CMmen o! your nationMD. there is no
conseGuence in the argument- +he *bionites %ere Christians in a large
sense. men o! Christian ,ro!ession. nominal Christians. as :ustin allo%ed
the %orst o! heretics to be- And this is all he could mean by allo%ing the
*bionites to be Christians-
) agree %ith Bull in holding the most
,robable reading in the ,assage cited !rom :ustin. and am by no means
convinced that the celebrated ,assage in :ose,hus is an inter,olation- But )
do not believe that such men. as are here described. ever ,ro!essed
themselves Christians. or %ere. or could have been. ba,ti>ed-
Ib. p# $%$#
Le Clerc %ould a,,ear to doubt. %hether the ,ersons ,ointed to in :ustin
really denied Christ's divine nature or no- )t is as ,lain as ,ossible that they
did-
Le Clerc is no !avourite o! mine. and $aterland is a ,rime !avourite-
Nevertheless. in this instance. ) too doubt %ith Le Clerc. and more than
doubt-
Ib. p# ''/#
B
:ust- 9-
Here :ustin asserts that it %as necessary !or essential li!e. or li!e by nature.
to be united %ith human nature. in order to save it-
$aterland has not mastered the !ull !orce o! )!
indeed he had ta#en in the !ull !orce o! the %hole o! this invaluable
!ragment. he %ould never have com,limented the !ollo%ing etract !rom
)renTus. as saying the same thing Min !uller and stronger %ords-M Com,ared
%ith the !ragment !rom :ustin. it is but the !lat common7,lace logic o!
analogy. so common in the early &athers-
Ib. p# '4+#
?'i n'de tant'm hominem e'm dic'nt e" *oseph $enerat'm J J mori'nt'r.
:on n'de hominemBnot a mere man do ) hold :esus to have been and to
be< but a ,er!ect man and. by ,ersonal union %ith the Logos. ,er!ect ?od-
+hat his having an earthly !ather might be reGuisite to his being a ,er!ect
man ) can readily su,,ose< but %hy the having an earthly !ather should be
more incom,atible %ith his ,er!ect divinity. than his having an earthly
mother. ) cannot com,rehend- All that :ohn and 8aul believed. ?od !orbid
that ) should notE
Chap# *II# p# '/%#
)t is a su!!icient reason !or not receiving either them C%rian doctrinesD. or
the inter,retations brought to su,,ort them. that the ancients. in the best
and ,urest times. either #ne% nothing o! them. or i! they did. condemned
them-
As ecellent means o! raising a ,resum,tion in the mind o! the !alsehood o!
Arianism and "ocinianism. and thus o! ,re,aring the mind !or a docile
rece,tion o! the great idea itsel!B) admit and value the testimonies !rom
the %ritings o! the early &athers- But alasE the increasing dimness. ending
in the !inal %ant o! the idea o! this all7truths7including truth o! the +etractys
eternally mani!ested in the +riad<Bthis. this is the ground and cause o! all
the main heresies !rom "emi7Arianism. recalled by (r- "amuel Clar#e. to
the last setting ray o! de,arting !aith in the necessitarian 8silanthro,ism o!
(r- 8riestley-
Ib. p# 410$, 9!#
) cannot but thin# that $aterland's de!ence o! the &athers in these ,ages
against Barbeyrac. is belo% his great ,o%ers and characteristic vigour o!
Fudgment- )t is enough that they. the &athers o! the !irst three centuries.
%ere the lights o! their age. and %orthy o! all reverence !or their good gi!ts-
But it a,,ears to me im,ossible to deny their credulity< their ignorance.
%ith one or t%o ece,tions. in the inter,retation o! the 'ld +estament< or
their hardihood in asserting the truth o! %hatever they thought it !or the
interest o! the Church. and !or the good o! souls. to have believed as true- A
%hale s%allo%ed :onah< but a believer in all the assertions and narrations
o! +ertullian and )renTus %ould be more %onder7%or#ing than :onah< !or
such a one must have s%allo%ed %hales-
&ootnote 1: +he )m,ortance o! the (octrine o! the Holy +rinity asserted.
in re,ly to some late ,am,hlets- /nd edit- Lond- 1230-
return to !ootnote mar#
Contents A )nde
Notes on 65elton's Works
1
18/1-
4urd"'s Life of 65elton, p# $$#
"he lived until she %as a hundred and !ive- +he omission o! his ,rayers on
the morning it ha,,ened. he su,,osed ever a!ter to be the cause o! this
unha,,y accident- "o early %as his mind im,ressed %ith a lively sense o!
religious duty-
)n anecdotes o! this #ind. and in the instances o! eminently good men. it is
that my head and heart have their most obstinate !alls out- +he Guestion is:
B+o %hat etent the undoubted subFective truth may legitimately in!luence
our Fudgment as to the ,ossibility o! the obFective-
Ib. p# )(#
+he Bisho, then gave him the living o! 8ettigo in a %ild ,art o! the county
o! (onegal. having made many removals on ,ur,ose to ,ut him in that
savage ,lace. among mountains. roc#s. and heath. N N N- $hen he got this
living he had been eighteen years curate o! 9onaghan. and t%o o!
Ne%to%n7Butler. during %hich time he sa%. as he told me. many illiterate
boys ,ut over his head. and highly ,re!erred in the Church %ithout having
served a cure-
+hough ) have heard o! one or t%o ece,tions stated in ,roo! that ne,otism
is not yet etinct among our 8relates. yet it is im,ossible to com,are the
,resent condition o! the Church. and the dis,osal o! its dignities and
emoluments %ith the !acts recorded in this Li!e. %ithout an honest
eultation-
Ib. p# 1+)#
He once declared to me that he %ould resign his living. i! the Athanasian
Creed %ere removed !rom the 8rayer Boo#< and ) am sure he %ould have
done so-
"urely there %as more >eal than %isdom in this declaration- (oes the
Athanasian or rather the pse'do7Athanasian Creed di!!er !rom the Nicene.
or notL )! not. it must be dis,ensable at least. i! not su,er!luous- )! it does
di!!er. %hich o! the t%o am ) to !ollo%<Bthe ,ro!ession o! an anonymous
individual. or the solemn decision o! u,%ards o! three hundred Bisho,s
convened !rom all ,arts o! the Christian %orldL
*ol# I# p# 1((01/+#
No ,roblem more di!!icult or o! more delicate treatment than the criteria o!
miracles< yet none on %hich young divines are !onder o! dis,laying their
gi!ts- Nor is this the %orst- +heir charity too o!ten goes to %rec# !rom the
error o! identi!ying the !aith in Christ %ith the arguments by %hich they
thin# it is to be su,,orted- But surely i! t%o believers meet at the same goal
o! !aith. it is a very secondary Guestion %hether they travelled thither by the
same road o! argument- )n this and other ,assages o! "#elton. ) recogni>e
and reverence a vigorous and robust intellect< but ) com,lain o! a
turbidness in his reasoning. a huddle in his seGuence. and here and there a
semblance o! arguing in a circleB!rom the miracle to the doctrine. and
!rom the doctrine to the miracle- Add to this a too little advertency to the
distinction bet%een the evidence o! a miracle !or A. an eye7%itness. and !or
B. !or %hom it is the relation o! a miracle by an asserted eye7%itness< and
again bet%een B. and 6. Q. J. !or %hom it is a !act o! history- +he result o!
my o%n meditations is. that the evidence o! the ?os,el. ta#en as a total. is
as great !or the Christians o! the nineteenth century. as !or those o! the
A,ostolic age- ) should not be startled i! ) %ere told it %as greater- But it
does not !ollo%. that this eGually holds good o! each com,onent ,art- An
evidence o! the most cogent clearness. un#no%n to the ,rimitive Christians.
may com,ensate !or the evanescence o! some evidence. %hich they
enFoyed- *vidences com,aratively dim have %aed into noon7day
s,lendour< and the com,arative %ane o! others. once e!!ulgent. is more
than indemni!ied by the synopsis %hich %e enFoy. and by
the standing miracle o! a Christendom commensurate and almost
synonymous %ith the civili>ed %orld- ) ma#e this remar# !or the ,ur,ose o!
%arning the divinity student against the dis,osition to overstrain ,articular
,roo!s. or rest the credibility o! the ?os,el too eclusively on some one
!avourite ,oint- ) con!ess. that ) cannot ,eruse ,age 129 %ithout !ancying
that ) am reading some =omish (octor's %or#. dated !rom a community
%here miracles are the ordinary ne%s o! the day-
&. S. By the by. the =ev- 8hili, "#elton is o! the true )rish breed< that is. a
brave !ello%. but a bit o! a bully- MArrah. by "t- 8athric#E but ) shall ma#e
cold mutton o! you. 9isther Arian-M
Ib. p# 1/$#
)! in this he a,,ears to deal !airly by us. ,roving such things as admit o! it.
by reason< and such as do not. by the authority o! his miracles. Ic-
Are .e li#ely to have miracles ,er!ormed or ,retended be!ore our eyesL )!
not. %hat may all this meanL )! "#elton ta#es !or granted the veracity o! the
*vangelists. and the ,recise verity o! the ?os,els. the truth and
genuineness o! the miracles is included:Band i! not. %hat does he ,roveL
+he eact accordance o! the miracles related %ith the ideal o! a true miracle
in the reason. does indeed !urnish an argument !or the ,robable truth o! the
relation- But this does not seem to be "#elton's intention-
Ib. p# 1/&#
But to remedy this evil. as !ar as the nature o! the thing %ill ,ermit. a
genuine record o! the true religion must be #e,t u,. that its articles may not
be in danger o! total corru,tion in such a sin# o! o,inions-
Anything rather than see# a remedy in that %hich "cri,ture itsel! declares
the only one- AlasE these be%ilderments Cthe =omanists urgeD have ta#en
,lace es,ecially through and by the misuse o! the "cri,tures- $hatever ?od
has given. %e ought to thin# necessary<B the "cri,tures. the Church. the
",irit- $hy disFoin themL
Ib. p# 1/)#
No% a ,er,etual miracle. considered as the evidence o! any thing. is
nonsense< because %ere it at !irst ever so a,,arently contrary to the #no%n
course o! nature. it must in time be ta#en !or the natural e!!ect o! some
un#no%n cause. as all ,hysical ph2nomena. i! !ar enough traced. al%ays
are< and conseGuently must !all into a level. as to a ca,acity o! ,roving any
thing. %ith the most ordinary a,,earances o! nature. %hich. though all o!
them miracles. as to the ,rimary cause o! their ,roduction. can never be
a,,lied to the ,roo! o! an ins,iration. because ordinary and common-
) doubt this. though ) have no doubt that it %ould be ,ernicious- +he yearly
blossoming o! Aaron's rod is against "#elton. %ho con!ounds single !acts
%ith classes o! ph2nomena. and he dra%s his conclusion !rom an arbitrary
and. as seems to me. senseless de!inition o! a miracle-
Ib. p# $14# End of is!ourse II#
"#elton a,,ears to have con!ounded t%o errors very di!!erent in #ind and in
magnitude<Bthat o! the )n!idel. against %hom his arguments are %ith !e%
ece,tions irre!ragable< and that o! the Christian. %ho. sincerely believing
the La%. the 8ro,hecies. the miracles and the doctrines. all in short %hich
in the "cri,tures themselves is declared to have been revealed. does not
attribute the same immediate divinity to all and every ,art o! the remainder-
)t %ould doubtless be more Christian7li#e to substitute the vie%s e,ressed
in the net (iscourse C)))-D< but still the latter error is not as the !ormer-
Ib. p# $'4#
But %hy should not the conclusion be given u,. since it is ,ossible Christ
may have had t%o natures in him. so as to have been less than the &ather in
res,ect to the one. and eGual to him in res,ect to the other-
) understand these %ords C+y 1ather is $reater than ID o! the divinityBand
o! the &ilial subordination. %hich does not in the least encroach on the
eGuality necessary to the unity o! &ather. "on. and ",irit- Bisho, Bull does
the same- "ee too "#elton's o%n remar#s in (iscourse 4- ,- /31-
Ib. p# $&1#
+his %as necessary. because their La% %as ordained by angels-
No% this is an instance o! %hat ) cannot hel, regarding as a su,erstitious
ecess o! reverence !or single tets- $e #no% that long be!ore the *,istle
to the Hebre%s %as %ritten. the Aleandrian Church. %hich by its
intercourse %ith ?ree# ,hiloso,hers. chie!ly 8latonists. had become
ashamed o! the humanities o! the Hebre% "cri,tures. in de!iance o! those
"cri,tures had ,retended. that it %as not the "u,reme Being %ho gave the
La% in ,erson to 9oses. but some o! his angels- +he author o! the *,istle
to the Hebre%s. arguing ad homines. avails himsel! o! this. in order to
,rove that on their o%n grounds the 9osaic %as o! dignity in!erior to the
Christian dis,ensation- +o get rid o! this no7di!!iculty in a single verse or
t%o in the *,istles. "#elton thro%s an insurmountable di!!iculty on the
%hole 9osaic history-
Ib. p# $)&#
+here!ore. he saith. I Cas a manD can of myself do nothin$-
*ven o! this tet ) do not see the necessity o! "#elton's ,arenthesis Cas a
manD- Nay it a,,ears to me C) con!essD to turn a sublime and most
instructive truth into a truism- MBut i! not as the "on o! ?od. there!ore a
fortiori not as the "on o! man. and more es,ecially. as such. in all that
re!ers to the redem,tion o! man#ind-M
Ib. p# $)(#
+o this glory Christ. as ?od. %as entitled !rom all eternity< but did not
acGuire a right to it as man. till he had ,aid the ,urchase by his blood-
) too hold this !or a most im,ortant truth< but yet could %ish it to have been
some%hat di!!erently e,ressed< as thus:BMbut did not acGuire it as man
till the means had been ,rovided and ,er!ected by his blood-M
Ib. p# $)/#
)! Christ in one ,lace. C*ohn iv- /8.D says. +y 1ather is $reater than I< he
must be understood o! his relation to the &ather as his "on. born o! a
%oman-
) do not see the necessity o! this: does not Christ say. +y 1ather and I .ill
come and .e .ill d.ell in yo'A Nay. ) dare con!idently a!!irm that in no
one ,assage o! "t- :ohn's ?os,el is our Lord declared in any s,ecial sense
the "on o! the &irst 8erson o! the +rinity in re!erence to his birth !rom a
%oman- And remember it is !rom "t- :ohn's ?os,el that the %ords are cited-
"o too the ans%er to 8hili, ought to be inter,reted by ch- i- 18- o! the same
?os,el-
Ib. p# $()#
) con!ess ) do not agree %ith "#elton's inter,retation o! any o! these tets
entirely- Because ) hold the Nicene &aith. and revere the doctrine o! the
+rinity as the !undamental article o! Christianity. ) a,,ly to Christ as the
"econd 8erson. almost all the tets %hich "#elton e,lains o! his humanity-
At all events 1 consider the first(born of every creat're as a !alse version o!
the %ords. %hich Cas the argument and !ollo%ing verse ,roveD should be
rendered be$otten before. Cor rather s'perlatively beforeD. all that .as
created or made6 for by him they %ere made-
Ib.
#f that day, and that ho'r kno.eth no man, no not the an$els .hich are in
heaven, neither the Son, b't the 1ather.
) cannot e,lain mysel! here< but ) have long thought that our "aviour
meant in these %ords Band that li#e the
,roblem ,ro,osed by him to the "cribes. they %ere intended to ,re,are the
minds o! the disci,les !or this a%!ul mysteryB BMunless.
or i! not. as the &ather #no%s it<M %hile in "t- 9atthe% the eGuivalent sense
is given by the omission o! the and its inclusion in the
&ather- %s the 1ather kno.eth me, so kno. I the 1ather-
)t %ould have been against the general rule o! "cri,ture ,ro,hecies. and the
intention o! the revelation in Christ. that the !irst Christians should have
been so in!luenced in their measures and ,articular actions. as they could
not but have been by a ,articular !ore#no%ledge o! the e,ress and ,recise
time at %hich :erusalem %as to be destroyed- +o reconcile them to this
uncertainty. our Lord !irst teaches them to consider this destruction the
close o! one great e,och. or as the ty,e o! the !inal close o! the
%hole %orld o! time. that is. o! all tem,oral things< and then reasons %ith
them thus:BM$onder not that ) should leave you ignorant o! the !ormer.
%hen even the highest order o! heavenly intelligences #no% not the
latter. < nor should ) mysel!. but that the
&ather #no%s it. all %hose %ill is essentially #no%n to me as the *ternal
"on- But even to me it is not revealably communicated-M "uch seems to me
the true sense o! this controverted ,assage in 9ar#. and that it is borne out
by many ,arallel tets in "t- :ohn. and that the corres,ondent tet in
9atthe%. %hich omits the conveys the same sense in
eGuivalent terms. the %ord including the "on in the
- &or to his only7begotten "on be!ore all time the &ather sho%eth all things-
Ib. p# $(%#
But %hether %e can reconcile these %ords to our belie! o! Christ's
,rescience and divinity. or not. matters little to the debate about his divinity
itsel!< since %e can so !ully ,rove it by innumerable ,assages o! "cri,ture.
too direct. e,ress. and ,ositive. to be balanced by one obscure ,assage.
!rom .hence the %rian is to dra. the conse3'ence himself, .hich may
possibly be .ron$-
4ery good-
Ib. p# $/+#
e kno. that the Son of -od is come, and hath $iven 's an 'nderstandin$
that .e may kno. him that is tr'e6 and .e are in him that is tr'e, even in
his Son *es's Christ. This is the tr'e -od, and eternal life.Bl :ohn v- /5-
+he %hole connection evidently sho%s the %ords to be s,o#en o! Christ-
+hat the %ords com,rehend Christ is most evident- All that can be !airly
concluded !rom 1 Cor- viii- 3. is this:Bthat the A,ostles. 8aul and :ohn.
s,ea# o! the &ather as including and com,rehending the "on and the Holy
?host. as his $ord and his ",irit< but o! these as in!erring or su,,osing the
&ather. not com,rehending him- $henever. there!ore. res,ecting the
?odhead itsel!. containing both deity and dominion. the term ?od is
distinctively used. it is a,,lied to the &ather. and Lord to the "on-
Ib. p# $/1#
But. !arther. it is obFected that Christ cannot be ?od. since ?od calls
him his servant more than once. ,articularly ')saiah' lii- 1-
+he 8ro,hets o!ten s,ea# o! the anti7ty,e. or ,erson ty,i!ied. in language
a,,ro,riate to. and suggested by. the ty,e itsel!- "o. ,erha,s. in this
,assage. i!. as ) su,,ose. He>e#iah %as the ty,e immediately ,resent to
)saiah's imagination- Ho%ever. "#elton's ans%er is Guite su!!icient-
Ib. p# $/(#
Hence it a,,ears. that in the ,assage obFected. C1 'Cor'- v- /0. Ic-D Christ
is s,o#en o! ,urely as that 9an %hom -od had hi$hly e"alted, and to
.hom he had $iven a name .hich is above every name, that at the name of
*es's every knee sho'ld bo.. C8hil- ii- 9. 15-D
) must con!ess that this e,osition does not Guite satis!y me- ) cannot hel,
thin#ing that something more and dee,er %as meant by the A,ostle< and
this must be sought !or in the mystery o! the +rinity itsel!. in
.hich CmysteryD all treas'res of kno.led$e are hidden-
Ib. p# '1/#
Hence. ,erha,s. may be best e,lained %hat "t- 8eter says in the second
*,istle. a!ter ,leading a miracle- e have also a more s're .ord of
prophecy, .here'nto yo' do .ell that yo' take heed.
) believe that "t- 8eter neither said it. nor meant this< but
that !ollo%s the prophetic .ord- $e have also the %ord o!
,ro,hecy more !irm<Bthat is< %e have. in addition to the evidence o! the
miracles themselves. this !urther con!irmation. that they are the !ul!ilment
o! #no%n ,ro,hecies-
Ib. p# '$(#
Agreeable to these ,assages o! the 8ro,het. "t- 8eter tells us C%cts -
38D. -od anointed *es's of :a)areth .ith the Holy -host and po.er-
) have o!ten to com,lain that too little attention is ,aid by commentators to
the history and ,articular ,eriod in %hich certain s,eeches %ere delivered.
or %ords %ritten- Could "t- 8eter %ith ,ro,riety have introduced the truth
to a ,reFudiced audience %ith its dee,est mysteriesL 9ust he not have
begun %ith the most evident !actsL
Ib. is!# *III#
+he (octrine o! the Holy +rinity vindicated-
$ere ) a Clergyman. the ,aragra,hs !rom ,- 333 to ,- 325. both inclusive.
o! this (iscourse should !orm the conclusion o! my "ermon on +rinity
"unday.B%hether ) ,reached at "t- :ames's. or in a country village-
Ib. pp# '(40'(/#
As a reason %hy %e should doubt our o%n Fudgment. it is Guite !air to
remind the obFector. that the same di!!iculty occurs in the scheme o! ?od's
ordinary ,rovidence- But that a di!!iculty in a su,,osed article o! revealed
truth is solved by the occurrence o! the same or o! an eGuivalent di!!iculty
in the common course o! human a!!airsBthis ) !ind it hard to conceive-
Ho% %as the religious. as distinguished !rom the moral. sense !irst
a%a#enedL $hat made the human soul !eel the necessity o! a !aith in ?od.
but the a,,arent incongruity o! certain dis,ensations in this %orld %ith the
idea o! ?od. %ith the la% %ritten in the heartL )s not the reconciling o!
these !acts or ph2nomena %ith the divine attributes. one o! the ,ur,oses o!
a revealed religionL But even this is not a !ull statement o! the de!ect
com,lained o! in this solution- A di!!iculty %hich may be only a,,arent
Cli#e that other o! the ,ros,erity o! the %ic#edD is solved by the declaration
o! its realityE A di!!iculty grounded on the !act o! tem,oral and out%ard
,rivations and su!!erings. is solved by being in!initely increased. that is. by
the assertion o! the same ,rinci,le on the determination o! our in%ard and
everlasting %eal and %oe- +hat there is nothing in the Christian &aith or in
the Canonical "cri,tures. %hen rightly inter,reted. that reGuires such an
argument. or sanctions the recourse to it. ) believe mysel! to have ,roved in
the %ids to 5eflection- &or observe that Mto solveM has a scienti!ic. and again
a religious sense. and that in the latter. a di!!iculty is satis!actorily solved.
as soon as its insolvibility !or the human mind is ,roved and accounted !or-
Ib. :is!# .I*# pp# &++0&+$#;
Christianity ,roved by 9iracles-
) cannot see and never could. the ,ur,ose. or c'i bono. o! this reasoning- +o
%hom is it addressedL +o a man %ho denies a ?od. or that ?od can reveal
his %ill to man#indL )! such a man be not belo% tal#ing to. he must !irst be
convinced o! his miserable blindness res,ecting these truths< !or these are
clearly ,resu,,osed in every ,roo! o! miracles generally-
Again. does he admit the authenticity o! the ?os,els. and the veracity o!
the *vangelistsL (oes he credit the !acts there related. and as relatedL )!
not. these ,oints must be ,roved< !or these are clearly ,resu,,osed in all
reasoning on the ,articular miracles o! the Christian dis,ensation- )! he
does. can he deny that many acts o! Christ %ere %onder!ul<Bthat
reanimating a dead body in %hich ,utre!action had already commenced.B
and !eeding !our thousand men %ith a !e% loaves and !ishes. so that the
!ragments le!t greatly eceeded the original total Guantity.B%ere
%onder!ul eventsL "hould such a man. 'com,os mentis'. eist. C%hich )
more than doubt.D %hat could a %ise man do but stareBand leave himL
Christ %rought many %onder!ul %or#s. im,lying admirable ,o%er. and
directed to the most merci!ul and bene!icent ends< and these acts %ere such
signs o! his divine mission. as rendered inattention or obstinate averseness
to the truths and doctrines %hich he ,romulgated. inecusable. and indeed
on any hy,othesis but that o! immoral dis,ositions and ,reFudices. utterly
inconceivable- )n %hat res,ect. ) ,ray. can this statement be strengthened
by any reasoning about the nature and distinctive essence o! miracles 'in
abstracto'L $hat ,ur,ose can be ans%ered by any ,retended de!inition o! a
miracleL )! ) met %ith a dis,utatious %ord7catcher. or logomachist. %ho
sought to Fusti!y his unbelie! on this ground. ) should not hesitate to say
BMNever mind %hether it is a miracle or no- Call it %hat you %ill<Bbut do
you believe the !actL (o you believe that Christ did by !orce o! his %ill and
%ord multi,ly instantaneously t%elve loaves and a !e% small !ishes. into
su!!icient !ood !or a hungering multitude o! !our thousand men and
%omenLM $hen ) meet %ith. or !rom credible authority hear o!. a man %ho
believes this !act. and yet thin#s it no sign o! Christ's mission< %hen ) can
even conceive o! a man in his right senses %ho. believing all the !acts and
events related in the Ne% +estament. and as there related. does yet remain a
(eist. ) may thin# it time to enter into a disGuisition res,ecting the right
de!inition o! a miracle< and meantime. ) humbly trust that believing %ith
my %hole heart and soul in the %onder!ul %or#s o! our Lord and "aviour
:esus Christ. ) shall not !or!eit my title o! Christian. though ) should not
subscribe to this or that divine's right de!inition o! his idea o! a miracle<
%hich %ord is %ith me no idea at all. but a general term< the common
surname. as it %ere. o! the %onder!ul %or#s %rought by the messengers o!
?od to man in the 8atriarchal. 9osaic. and Christian dis,ensations-
)t is to these notions and general de!initions. !ar more than to the !acts
themselves. that the arguments o! )n!idels a,,ly< and !rom %hich they
derive their ,lausibility- Nor is this all- +he )n!idel imitates the divine. and
ado,ts the same mode o! arguing. namely. by this substantiation o! mere
general or collective terms- &or instance. Hume's argument Cstated. by the
by. be!ore he %as born. and !ar more !orcibly. by (r- "outh. %ho ,laces it
in the mouth o! +homas.D
/
Breduce it to the ,articular !acts in Guestion. and
its %hole s,eciousness vanishes- ) am s,ea#ing o! the ,articular !acts and
actions o! the ?os,el< o! those. and those only- No% that ) should be
deceived. or the eye7%itnesses have been deceived. under all the
circumstances o! those miracles. %ith all antecedents. accom,animents. and
conseGuents. is Guite as contrary to. that is. un,aralleled in my e,erience.
as the return to li!e o! a dead man-
"o again in the second ,aragra,h o! ,age 15/
3
. the ,osition is true or !alse
according to the de!inition o! a miracle- )n the narro%er sense o! the term.
miracle.Bthat is. a conseGuent ,resented to the out%ard senses %ithout an
adeGuate antecedent. e7'sdem $eneris.Bit is not only !alse but detractory
!rom the Christian religion- )t is a main. nay. an indis,ensable evidence< but
it is not the only. no. nor i! com,arison be at all allo%able. the highest and
most e!!icient< unless. indeed. the term evidence is itsel! con!ined to
grounds o! conviction o!!ered to the senses. but then the ,osition is a mere
truism-
+here is yet another %ay o! reasoning. %hich ) utterly disli#e< namely. by
,utting imaginary cases o! imaginary miracles. as 8aley has done- M)! a
do>en di!!erent individuals. all men o! #no%n sense and integrity. should
each inde,endently o! the other ,ledge their everlasting %eal on the truth.
that they sa% a man beheaded and Guartered. and that on a certain ,erson's
,rayer or bidding. the Guarters reunited. and then a ne% head gre% on and
!rom out o! the stum, o! the nec#: and should the man himsel! assure you
o! the same. she% you the Functures. and identi!y himsel! to you by some
indelible mar#. %ith %hich you had been ,reviously acGuainted.Bcould
you %ithstand this evidenceLM $hat could a Fudicious man re,ly but
BM$hen such an event ta#es ,lace. ) %ill tell you< but %hat has this to do
%ith the reasons !or our belie! in the truth o! the %ritten records o! the 'ld
and Ne% +estamentL $hy do you !ly o!! !rom the !acts to a gigantic
!iction.B%hen the ,ossibility o! the If %ith res,ect to a much less startling
narration is the ,oint in dis,ute bet%een usLM
"uch and so ,eculiar. and to an honest mind so unmista#eable. is the
character o! veracity and sim,licity on the very countenance. as it %ere. o!
the ?os,el. that every remove o! the inGuirer's attention !rom the !acts
themselves is a remove o! his conversion- )t is your business to #ee, him
!rom %andering. not to set him the eam,le-
Never. surely. %as there a more uneGual %riter than "#elton<Bin the
discourses on the +rinity. the com,eer o! Bull and $aterland< and yet the
%riter o! these ,ages. 1557151E Natural magicE a stro#e o! artE !or eam,le.
converting the Nile into bloodE And then his de!inition o! a miracle-
"us,ension o! the la%s o! natureE sus,ensionBla%sBnatureE Bless meE a
cha,ter %ould be reGuired !or the e,lanation o! each several %ord o! this
de!inition. and little less than omniscience !or its a,,lication in any one
instance- An e!!ect ,resented to the senses %ithout any adeGuate
antecedent. e7'sdem $eneris. is a miracle in the ,hiloso,hic sense- +hus:
the cor,oreal ,onderable hand and arm raised %ith no other #no%n
causative antecedent. but a thought. a ,ure act o! an immaterial essentially
invisible im,onderable %ill. is a miracle !or a re!lecting mind- Add the
%ords. pr2ter e"perientiam: and %e have the de!inition o! a miracle in the
,o,ular. ,ractical. and a,,ro,riated sense-
*ol# III#
+hat all our thoughts and vie%s res,ecting our &aith should be consistent
%ith each other. and %ith the attributes o! ?od. is most highly desirable:
but %hen the great diversities o! men's understandings. and the unavoidable
in!luence o! circumstances on the mind. are considered. %e may ho,e !rom
the (ivine mercy. that the agreement in the result %ill su!!ice< and that he
%ho sincerely and e!!iciently believes that Christ le!t the glory %hich he
had %ith the &ather be!ore all %orlds. to become man and die !or our
salvation.Bthat by him %e may. and by him alone %e can. be saved.B%ill
be held a true believer.B%hether he inter,rets the %ords sacrifice,
p'rchase, bar$ain, satisfaction. o! the creditor by !ull ,ayment o! the debt.
and the li#e as ,ro,er and literal e,ressions o! the redeeming act and the
cause o! our salvation. as "#elton seems to have done<Bor Cas ) doD as
!igurative language truly designating the e!!ects and conseGuences o! this
adorable act and ,rocess-
Ib. p# '%'#
But %ere the ,ros,ect o! a better ,arish. in case o! greater diligence. set
be!ore him by his Bisho,. on the music o! such a ,romise. li#e one bit by
a tarant'la. %e should ,robably soon see him in motion. and serving ?od.
C' shame!ulED !or the sa#e o! 9ammon. as i! his tor,id body had been
animated ane% by a returning soul-
$ithout any high7!lying in Christian morality. ) cannot #ee, shrin#ing !rom
the %ish here e,ressed< at all events. ) cannot sym,athi>e %ith. or
,artici,ate in. the e,ectation o! Man in!inite advancementM !rom men so
motived-
Ib. p# '%4#
Qet ecommunication. the inherent disci,line o! the Church. %hich it
eercised under ,ersecution. %hich it is still ,ermitted to eercise under the
,resent establishment-
=arely ) sus,ect. %ithout e,osing the Clergyman to the ris# o! an action
!or damages. or some abuse- +here are !e% subFects that more need
investigation. yet reGuire more vigour and soundness o! Fudgment to be
rightly handled. than this o! Christian disci,line in a Church established by
la%- )t is indeed a most di!!icult and delicate ,roblem. and su,,lied Bater
%ith a most ,lausible and to me the only ,er,leing o! his numerous
obFections to our *cclesiastical Constitution- 'n the other hand. ) sa%
clearly that he %as reGuiring an im,ossibility< and that his argument carried
on to its ,ro,er conseGuences concluded against all Church *stablishment.
not more against the National Church o! %hich he com,lained. than the one
o! his o%n cli,,ing and sha,ing %hich he %ould have substituted<
conseGuently. every ,roo! Cand ) sa% many and satis!actory ,roo!sD o! the
moral and ,olitical necessity o! an *stablished Church. %as at the same
time a ,ledge that a dee,er insight %ould detect some !la% in the reasoning
o! the (isci,linarians- &or i! A- be right and reGuisite. B-. %hich is
incom,atible %ith A-. cannot be rightly reGuired- And this it %as. that !irst
led me to the distinction bet%een the !cclesia and an !nclesia. concerning
%hich see my *ssay on *stablishment and (issent. in %hich ) have met the
obFection to my ,osition. that Christian disci,line is incom,atible %ith a
Church established by la%. !rom the !act o! the disci,line o! the Church o!
"cotland
0
- $ho denies that it is in the ,o%er o! a legislature to ,unish
certain o!!ences by ignominy. and to ma#e the clergy magistrates in
re!erence to theseL +he Guestion is. %hether it is %ise or e,edient. %hich it
may be. or rather may have been. in "cotland. and the contrary in *nglandL
$ise or un%ise. this is not disci,line. not Christian disci,line. en!orced
only by s,iritual motives. enacted by s,iritual authority. and submitted to
!or conscience' sa#e-
Ib. p# 44)#
Be this as it may. the !ore#no%ledge and the decree %ere both eternal- Here
no% it is a clear ,oint that the moral actions o! all accountable agents %ere.
%ith certainty. !ore7#no%n. and their doom unalterably !ied. long be!ore
any one o! them eisted-
"trange that so great a man as "#elton should !irst a!!irm eternity o! both.
yet in the net sentence tal# o! Mlong be!ore-M +hese =e!lections
1
are
ecellent. but here "#elton o!!ends against his o%n canons- ) should !eel no
reluctance. moral or s,eculative. in acce,ting the a,,arent necessity o! both
,ro,ositions. as a su!!icient reason !or believing both< and the
transcendancy o! the subFect as a su!!icient solution o! their a,,arent
incom,atibility- But yet ) thin# that another vie% o! the subFect. not less
congruous %ith universal reason and more agreeable to the light o! reason
in the human understanding. might be de!ended. %ithout detracting !rom
any ,er!ection o! the (ivine Being- Nay. ) thin# that "#elton needed but
one ste, more to have seen it-
Ib. p# 4(/#
In fine.
+o %hat ,ur,ose %ere these =e!lections. ta#en as a %hole. %rittenL ) cannot
ans%er- +o dissuade men !rom reasoning on a subFect beyond our !acultiesL
+hen %hy all this reasoningL
*ol# I*# p# $/# eism <evealed#
Shepherd $ere you ever at Constantino,le. "irL
Dechaine Never-
Shepherd Qet ) believe you have no more doubt there is such a city. than that the
three angles o! a triangle are eGual to t%o right ones-
Temp. ) am sure 1 have not-
Dechaine Nor )< but %hat thenL
Shepherd 8ray. 9r- (echaine. did you see :ulius CTsar assassinated in the
Ca,itolL
Dechaine A ,retty GuestionE No indeed. "ir-
Shepherd Have you any doubts about the truth o! %hat is told us by the historians
concerning that memorable transactionL
Dechaine Not the least-
Shepherd 8ray. is it either sel!7evident or demonstrable to you. at this time and
,lace. that there is any such city as Constantino,le. or that there ever
%as such a man as CTsarL
Dechaine By no means-
Shepherd And you have all you #no% concerning the being o! either the city. or
the man. merely !rom the re,ort o! others. %ho had it !rom others. and
so on. through many lin#s o! traditionL
Dechaine ) have-
Shepherd Qou see then. that there are certain cases. in %hich the evidence o!
things not seen nor either sensibly or demonstrably ,erceived. can Fustly
challenge so entire an assent. that he %ho should ,retend to re!use it in
the !ullest measure o! acGuiescence. %ould be deservedly esteemed the
most stu,id or ,erverse o! man#ind-
+hat there is a so,hism here. every one must !eel in the very !act o! being
'non7,lus'd' %ithout being convinced- +he so,hism consists in the instance
being 'haud eFusdem generis'
< and %hat the allogeneity is bet%een
the assurance o! the being o! 9adrid or Constantino,le. and the belie! o!
the !act o! the resurrection o! Christ. ) have sho%n else%here- +he universal
belie! o! the 'tyrannicidium' o! :ulius CTsar is doubtless a !airer instance.
but the %hole mode o! argument is unsound and unsatis!ying- $hy run o!!
!rom the !act in Guestion. or the class at least to %hich it belongsL +he
victory can be but accidentalBa victory obtained by the unguarded logic.
or %ant o! logical !oresight o! the antagonist. %ho needs only narro% his
,ositions to narrations o! !acts and events. in our Fudgment o! %hich %e are
not aided by the analogy o! ,revious and succeeding e,erience. to de,rive
you o! the o,,ortunity o! s#irmishing thus on No 9an's land- But this is
"#elton's ruling ,assion. sometimes his strengthBtoo o!ten his %ea#ness-
He must !orce the reader to believe: or rather he has an antagonist. a %il!ul
in!idel or heretic al%ays and eclusively be!ore his imagination< or i! he
thin#s o! the reader at all. it is as o! a ,arti>an enFoying every hard thum,.
and smashing '!ister' he gives the adversary. %hom "#elton hates too
cordially to endure to obtain any thing !rom him %ith his o%n li#ing- NoE )t
must be against his %ill. and in s,ite o! it- No than#s to himBthe dog could
not hel, himsel!E Ho% much more e!!ectual %ould he have !ound it to have
commenced by ,lacing himsel! in a state o! sym,athy %ith the su,,osed
sce,tic or unbeliever<Bto have stated to him his o%n !eelings. and the real
grounds on %hich they rested<Bto have sho%n himsel! the di!!erence
bet%een the historical !acts %hich the sce,tic ta#es !or granted and believes
s,ontaneously. as it %ere.Band those. %hich are to be the subFect o!
discussion< and this brings the Guestion at once to the ,roo!- And here. a!ter
all. lies the strength o! "#elton's reasoning. %hich %ould have %or#ed !ar
more ,o%er!ully. had it come !irst and single. and %ith the %hole attention
directed to%ards it-
Ib. p# '&#
Templeton "urely the resurrection o! Christ. or any other man. cannot be a thing
im,ossible %ith ?od- )t is neither above his ,o%er. nor. %hen
em,loyed !or a su!!icient ,ur,ose. inconsistent %ith his maFesty.
%isdom. and goodness-
+his is the ever o,en and vulnerable ,art o! (eism- +he (eist. as a (eist.
believes. implicite at least. so many and stu,endous miracles as to render
his disbelie! o! lesser miracles. sim,ly because they are miraculous. gross
inconsistencies- +o have the battle !airly !ought out. ",ino>a. or a Bhuddist.
or a Burmese ?ymnoso,h. should be challenged- +hen. ) am dee,ly
,ersuaded. %ould the truth a,,ear in !ull evidence. that no Christ. no ?od.
Band. conversely. i! the &ather. then the "on- ) can never too o!ten re,eat.
that revealed religion is a ,leonasm-B=eligion is revelation. and revelation
the only religion-
Ib. p# '(#
Shepherd +hose believers. %hose !aith is to rely on the truth o! the Christian
history. rest their assent on a %ritten re,ort made by eye7%itnesses<
%hich re,ort the various Churches and sects. Fealous o! one another.
too# care to ,reserve genuine and uncorru,ted. at least in all material
,oints. and all the religious %riters in every age since have am,ly
attested-
A divine o! the ,resent day %ho shall underta#e the demonstration o! the
truth o! Christianity by eternal evidences. or historically. must not content
himsel! %ith assuming or asserting this- He must either ,rove it< or ,rove
that such ,roo! is not necessary- ) mysel! should be Guite satis!ied i! )
,roved the !ormer ,osition in res,ect to the !ourth ?os,el. and sho%ed that
the evidence o! the other three %as eGuivalent to a record by an eye7
%itness: %hich %ould not be at all inconsistent %ith my contending at the
same time !or the authenticity o! the !irst ?os,el. or rather !or the Catholic
inter,retation o! the title7%ords as the more ,robable
o,inion. %hich a sound divine %ill neither abandon nor overload. neither
,lace it in the !oundation. nor on the other hand su!!er it to be etruded
!rom the %all- Believe me. there is great. very great. danger in these broad
unGuali!ied assertions that "#elton deals in- *ven though the balance o!
evidence should be on his side. yet the inGuirer %ill be un!avourably
a!!ected by the numerous doubts and di!!iculties %hich an acGuaintance
%ith the more modern %or#s o! Biblical criticism %ill ,our u,on him. and
!or %hich his mind is %holly un,re,ared- +o meet %ith a !ar %ea#er
evidence than %e had ta#en it !or granted %e %ere to !ind. gives the same
sha#e to the mind. that missing a stair gives to the body-
Ib. p# $4'#
Temp. ou. 9r- (echaine. seem to !orget that ?od is Fust< and you. 9r-
"he,herd. that he is merci!ul
Dechaine ) insist. that. as ?od is merci!ul. he %ill !orgive-
Shepherd And ) insist. that. as he is Fust. he %ill ,unish-
Temp. 8ray 9r- (echaine. are you able. u,on the (eistical scheme to rid
yoursel! o! this di!!icultyL
Dechaine ) see no di!!iculty in it at all- ?od gives us la%s only !or our good. and
%ill never su!!er those la%s to become a snare to us. and the occasion o!
our eternal misery-
Here is the cardoE +he man o! sense asserts that it is necessary !or the good
o! all. that a code o! la%s should eist. %hile yet it is im,ossible that all
should at all times be obeyed by each ,erson: but %hat is im,ossible cannot
be reGuired- Nevertheless. it may be reGuired that no iota o! any one o!
these la%s should be %il!ully and deliberately transgressed. nor is there any
one !or the transgression o! %hich the transgressor must not hold himsel!
,unishable- MAnd yetM Csays our man o! sense.D M%hat may not be said o!
any one ,oint. or any one moment. cannot be denied o! the collective
agency o! a %hole li!e. or any considerable section o! it- Here %e !ind
ourselves constrained by our best !eelings to ,raise or condemn. to re%ard
or ,unish. according as a great ,redominance o! acts o! obedience or
disobedience. and a continued love o! the better. or the lusting a!ter the
%orst. mani!ests the maim Cre$'la ma"imaD. the radical %ill and ,ro,er
character o! the individual- "o ,arents Fudge o! their children< so
schoolmasters o! their scholars< so !riends o! !riends. and even so %ill ?od
Fudge his creatures. i! %e are to trust in our common sense. or believe the
re,eated declarations in the 'ld +estament-M And no% ) should be glad to
hear any satis!actory sensible re,ly to this. or any ans%er that does not !ly
higher than 'sense' can !ollo%. and ,ierce into Mthe thic# cloudsM o! decried
meta,hysicsE &or no !air re,ly can be imagined. but one %hich %ould !ind
the root o! the moral evil. the true in this very im,ossibility-
Ib. p# $4%#
C'nnin$ham But ho% does all this discourse about sacri!ices and the natural light
sho% that your !aith does not ascribe inFustice to ?od in ,utting an
innocent ,erson to death !or the transgressions o! the guiltyL
Shepherd $as Christ innocentL
C'nnin$ham He .as .itho't sin.
Shepherd And he %as ,ut to death by the a,,ointment and ,redetermination o!
?odL
C'nnin$ham +he :e%s ,ut him to death-
Shepherd (o not evade the Guestion- $as he not the Lamb slain from the
fo'ndation of the .orldA $as he not so delivered by the determinate
co'nsel and forekno.led$e of -od, that the *e.s, havin$ taken him,
by .icked hands cr'cified and sle. himA
C'nnin$ham And %hat thenL
Shepherd Nothing< but that you are to ans%er. as %ell as ). !or saying that ?od
,redetermined the death o! this only innocent ,erson-
) am less ,leased %ith this volume than %ith any o! the ,receding- As# your
o%n heart and conscience %hether C!or instance.D they are satis!ied %ith
this de!ence d'ri per d'ri's: or %hether !rightening a modest Guery into
silence by ,erverting it into an accusation o! the Almighty. by virtue o! a
conclusion borro%ed !rom the Calvinistic theory o! 8redestination. is not
more in the s,irit o! :ob's com!orters. than becomes a minister o! the
A,ostolic Church o! *ngland and )relandL "uch arguments are but edge7
tools at the sa!est. but more o!ten they may rather be li#ened to the t%o7
edged blade o! 8arysatis's #ni!e. the one o! %hich %as ,oisoned- Leave
them to Calvin. or those %ho dare a,,ro,riate Calvin's %ords. that M?od's
absolute %ill is the only rule o! his Fustice<MBthus dividing the divine
attributes- Qet Calvin himsel! distinguishes the hidden !rom the revealed
?od. even as the ?ree# &athers distinguished the the
absolute ground o! all being. !rom the as the cause
and dis,osing ,rovidence o! all eistence-
But ) disa,,rove o! the ,lan and s,irit o! this %or#. C(eism =evealed-D +he
cold7hearted. %orldly7minded. cunning (eist. or the coarse sensual )n!idel.
is o! all men the least li#ely to be converted< and the conscientious.
inGuiring. though misled and ,er,leed. "ce,tic %ill thro% aside a boo# at
once. as not a,,licable to his case. %hich treats every doubt as a crime. and
su,,oses that there is no doubt at all ,ossible but in a bad heart and !rom
%ic#ed %ishes- Com,are this %ith "t- 8aul's language concerning the :e%s-
"o again. ,,- //1. Ic- o! this volume- (o not the ,lainest intuitions o! our
moral and rational being con!irm the ,ositions here attributed to the (eist.
(echaineL Are they not the same by %hich 9elancthon de7Calvini>ed. at
least de7Augustini>ed. the heroic Luther<B those %hich constitute one o!
the only t%o essential di!!erences bet%een the Augsburg Con!ession and
the Calvinistic Articles o! &aithL And can anything be more !littery and
s,ecial7,leading than "#elton's obFectionsL And again. ,- 152. Mand that
,rayer %hich he C+indalD is re,orted to have used a little be!ore his death.
')! there is a ?od. ) desire he may have mercy on me<'MB%as it Christian7
li#e to ,ublish and circulate a blind re,ortBso im,robable and disgusting.
as to demand the strongest and most unsus,icious testimony !or its
rece,tionL
Ib. p# $)/#
Shepherd 8ray. 9r- (echaine. i! a ,erson. %hom you #ne% to be an honest and
clear7sighted man. should solemnly assure you he sa% a dead man
restored to li!e. %hat %ould you thin# o! his testimonyL
Dechaine As ) could not ,ossibly have as strong an assurance o! his honesty.
clear7sightedness. and ,enetration. as o! the great im,robability o! the
!act. ) should not believe him-
Shepherd $ell< it is true he might be deceived himsel!. or intend to im,ose on
you- But in case ten such ,ersons should all. at di!!erent times. con!irm
the same re,ort. ho% %ould this a!!ect youL
+here is one inconvenience. not to say danger. in this argument o! 9r-
"he,herd's< namely. that o! its not standing in the same !orce. %hen it
comes to be re,eated in the ,articular miraculous !acts in su,,ort o! %hich
it is adduced-
Ib. p# $/1#
No other ancient boo# can be so %ell ,roved to have been the %or# o! the
author it is no% ascribed to. as every boo# o! the Ne% +estament can be
,roved to have been %ritten by him %hose name it hath all along borne-
+his is true to the !ull etent that the de!ence o! the divinity o! our religion
needs. or ,erha,s ,ermits. and ) see no advantage gained by asserting more-
) must lose all ,o%er o! distinction. be!ore ) can a!!irm that the genuineness
o! the !irst ?os,el.Bthat in its ,resent !orm it %as %ritten by 9atthe%. or
is a literal translation o! a ?os,el %ritten by him.Brests on as strong
eternal evidence as Lu#e's. or on as strong internal evidence as "t- :ohn's-
"u!!icient that the evidence greatly ,re,onderates in its !avor-
&ootnote 1: +he com,lete $or#s o! the late =ev- 8hili, "#elton. =ector o!
&intona- 3- vols- 8vo- London. 18/0- !d.
return to !ootnote mar#
&ootnote /: "ee "outh's $or#s. vol- iii- ,- 155- Clarendon edit- 18/3 B
!d.
return
&ootnote 3: But it %ill be ,ro,er to observe. that it stri#es directly at the
very root o! =evelation. %hich cannot ,ossibly give any other evidence o!
itsel!. as the dictate o! ?od. but %hat must be dra%n !rom miracles.
%rought to ,rove the divine mission o! those %ho ,ublish it to the %orld-
return
&ootnote 0: +he *ditor is not a%are o! the eistence o! the *ssay here
mentioned- But see !or the distinction o! the !cclesia and !nclesia. the
Church and "tate. 3rd edit-B!d.
return
&ootnote 1: 'n 8redestination. as !ar as ,- 001-
return
Contents A )nde
Notes on Andre= 2uller's la"inistic and Socinian Systems $%amined
and ompared
1
1852-
Letter III# p# '/#
+hey Cthe :e%sD did not deny that to be ?od's o%n "on %as to be eGual
%ith the &ather. nor did they allege that such an eGuality %ould destroy the
divine unity: a thought o! this #ind never seems to have occurred to their
minds-
)n so truly ecellent a boo# as this is. ) regret that this ,osition should rest
on an assertion- +he eGuality o! Christ %ould not. indeed. destroy the unity
o! ?od the &ather. considered as one 8erson: but. unless %e ,resume the
:e%s in Guestion acGuainted %ith the great truth o! the +ri7unity. %e must
admit that it %ould be considered as im,lying (itheism- No% that some
among the :e%s had made very near a,,roaches. though blended %ith
errors. to the doctrine taught in :ohn. c- i-. %e can ,rove !rom the %ritings
o! 8hilo<Band the "ocinians can never ,rove that these :e%s did not #no%
at least o! the doctrine o! their schools concerning the only7begotten $ord
B B not as an attribute. much less as an abstraction
or ,ersoni!icationBbut as a distinct Hypostasis :7and hence it
might be sho%n that their o!!ence %as that the car,enter's son. the ?alilean.
should call himsel! the +his might have been rendered
more than ,robable by the concluding sentence o! Christ's ans%er to the
disci,les o! :ohn<Band blessed is he, .hosoever shall not be offended in
me CLu#e vii- /3-D< %hich a,,ears to have no adeGuate or even tolerable
meaning. unless in re!erence to the ,assage in )saiah. Cli- 1. /-D
,ro,hesying that :ehovah himsel! %ould come among them. and do the
things %hich our "aviour states himsel! to have done- +hus. too. ) regret
that the ans%er o! our Lord. C:ohn - 30733-D being one o! the imagined
strong7holds o! the "ocinians. should not have been more !ully cleared u,- )
doubt not that &uller's is a true inter,retation< and that no other is consistent
%ith our Lord's various other declarations- But the %ords in and by
themselves admit a more ,lausible misinter,retation than is else%here the
case o! "ocinian dis,lanations- )n short. ) thin# both ,assages %ould have
been better de!erred to a !urther ,art o! the %or#-
Let me add that a mighty and com,aratively ne% argument against the
"ocinians may be most unans%erably deduced !rom this re,ly o! our
Lord's. even %ere it considered as a mere ar$'ment'm ad homines:B
namely. that it %as not his 9essiahshi, that so o!!ended the :e%s. but his
"onshi,< other%ise. our "aviour's language %ould have neither !orce.
motive. or obFect- M*ven %ere ) no more than the 9essiah. in your meanest
conce,tions o! that character. yet a!ter %hat ) have done be!ore your eyes.
nothing but malignant hearts could have ,revented you !rom ado,ting a
milder inter,retation o! my %ords. %hen in your o%n "cri,tures there
eists a ,recedent that so much more than merely Fusti!ies me-M And this )
believe to be the meaning o! the %ords as intended to be understood by the
:e%s in Guestion< though. doubtless. &uller's sense eists implicite- No
candid ,erson %ould ever call it an evasion. to ,rove the inFustice and
malignity o! an accuser even !rom his o%n grounds:BMQou charge me
!alsely< but even %ere your charge true. namely. that ) am a mere man. and
yet call mysel! the "on o! ?od. still it %ould not !ollo% that ) have been
guilty o! blas,hemy-M But as understood by the modern @nicists. it %ould
verily. verily. be an evasive ambiguity. most un%orthy o! Christian belie!
concerning his "aviour- Common charity %ould have demanded o! him to
have said:B M) am a mere man: ) do not ,retend to be more< but ) used the
%ords in analogy to the %ords. <e are as -ods< and ) have a right to do so:
!or though a mere man. ) am the great 8ro,het and 9essenger %hich 9oses
,romised you-M
Letter *# p# ($#
)! (r- 8riestley had !ormed his estimate o! human virtue by that great
standard %hich reGuires love to ?od %ith all the heart. soul. mind. and
strength. and our neighbour as ourselves.Binstead o! re,resenting men by
nature as having Mmore virtue than vice.MBhe must have ac#no%ledged
%ith the "cri,ture. that the .hole .orld lieth in .ickedness8that every
tho'$ht and ima$ination of their heart is only evil contin'allyBand
that there is none of them that doeth $ood, no not one-
+o this the @nicists %ould ans%er. that by the .hole .orld is meant all the
%orldly7minded<Bno matter in ho% direct o,,osition to hal! a score other
tetsE M'ne tet at a timeEM su!!icient !or the day is the evil thereo!EBand in
this %ay they go on ,ulling out hair by hair !rom the horse's tail. Csay
rather. dreaming that they do so.D and then conclude %ith a shout that the
horse never had a tailE &or %hyL +his hair is not a tail. nor that. nor the
third. and so on to the very last< and ho% can all do %hat none o! all doesL
B=idiculous as this is. it is a !air image o! "ocinian logic- +han# ?od.
their ,luc#ing out is a mere !ancy<Band the sole miserable reality is the
bare rum, %hich they call their religion<B but that is the a,e's o%n gro%th-
Ib. p# ((#
&irst. that all ,unishments are designed !or the good o! the %hole. and less
or corrective ,unishments !or the good o! the o!!ender. is admitted- N N ?od
never in!licts ,unishment !or the sa#e o! ,unishing-
+his is not. su!!iciently guarded- +hat all ,unishments
%or# !or the good o! the %hole. and that the good o! the %hole is included
in ?od's design. ) admit: but that this is the sole cause. and the sole
Fusti!ication o! divine ,unishment. ) cannot. ) dare not. concede<B because
) should thus deny the essential evil o! guilt. and its inherent
incom,atibility %ith the ,resence o! a Being o! in!inite holiness- No%.
eclusion !rom ?od im,lies the sum and utmost o! ,unishment< and this
%ould !ollo% !rom the very essence o! guilt and holiness. inde,endently o!
eam,le. conseGuence. or circumstance-
Letter *I# p# %+#
C+he systems com,ared as to their tendency to ,romote morality in
general-D
) have hitherto made no obFection to. no remar# on. any one ,art o! this
Letter< !or ) obFect to the %holeBnot as Calvinism. butBas %hat Calvin
%ould have recoiled !rom- Ho% %as it that so good and shre%d a man as
Andre% &uller should not have seen. that the di!!erence bet%een a Calvinist
and a 8riestleyan 9aterialist7Necessitarian consists in this:B+he !ormer
not only believes a %ill. but that it is eGuivalent to the e$o ipse. to the
actual sel!. in every moral agent< though he believes that in human nature it
is an enslaved. because a corru,t. %ill- )n denying !ree %ill to the
unregenerated he no more denies %ill. than in asserting the ,oor negroes in
the $est )ndies to be slaves ) deny them to be men- No% the latter. the
8riestleyan. uses the %ord %ill.Bnot !or any real. distinct. corres,ondent
,o%er. but.B!or the mere result and aggregate o! !ibres. motions. and
sensations< in short. it is a mere generic term %ith him. Fust as %hen %e say.
the main current in a river-
No% by not adverting to this. and alasE misled by :onathan *d%ards's boo#.
&uller has hidden !rom himsel! and his readers the damnable nature o! the
doctrineBnot o! necessity C!or that in its highest sense is identical %ith
,er!ect !reedom< they are de!initions each o! the otherD< butBo! etraneous
com,ulsion- 'E even this is not adeGuate to the monstrosity o! the thought-
A denial o! all agency<Bor an assertion o! a %orld o! agents that never act.
but are al%ays acted u,on. and yet %ithout any one being that acts<Bthis is
the hybrid o! (eath and "in. %hich throughout this letter is treated so
amicablyE Another !ear!ul mista#e. and %hich is the ground o! the !ormer.
lies in conceding to the 9aterialist. e"plicite et implicite. that
the the intelli$ibile. the ipseitas s'per sensibilis. o! guilt is in
time. and o! time. and. conseGuently. a mechanism o! cause and e!!ect<Bin
other %ords. in con!ounding
the Ball %hich belong to
time. and cannot be even thought o! ece,t as e!!ects necessarily
,redetermined by the ,recedent causes. Cthemselves in their turn e!!ects o!
other causesD.B %ith the transsensual ground or actual ,o%er-
A!ter such admissions. no other ,ossible de!ence can be made !or
Calvinism or any other ism than the %retched recrimination: M$hy. yours.
(r- 8riestley. is Fust as badEMBQea. and no %onder:B!or in essentials both
are the same- But there %as no reason !or &uller's meddling %ith the subFect
at all.Bmeta,hysically. ) mean-
Ib. p# %&#
)! the unconditionality o! election render it un!riendly to virtue. it must be
u,on the su,,osition o! that vie% o! things. M%hich attributes more to ?od.
and less to man.M having such ascendancy< %hich is the very reverse o!
%hat (r- 8riestley else%here teaches. and that in the same ,er!ormance-
But in both systems. as &uller has erroneously stated his o%n. man is
annihilated- +here is neither more nor less< it is all ?od< all. all are
but De's infinite modificat's:Bin brie!. both systems are not ",inosism.
!or no other reason than that the logic and logical conseGuency o! 15
&ullers O 15 6 15 (r- 8riestleys. ,iled on each other. %ould not reach the
cal! o! ",ino>a's leg- Both systems o! necessity lead to ",inosism. nay. to
all the horrible conseGuences attributed to it by ",ino>a's enemies- '. %hy
did Andre% &uller Guit the high vantage ground o! notorious !acts. ,lain
durable common sense. and e,ress "cri,ture. to delve in the dar# in order
to countermine mines under a s,ot. on %hich he had no business to have
%all. tent. tem,le. or even standing7groundE
&ootnote 1: +he Calvinistic and "ocinian "ystems eamined and
com,ared. as to their moral tendency< in a series o! Letters addressed to the
!riends o! vital and ,ractical religion< es,ecially those amongst 8rotestant
(issenters- By Andre% &uller- 9ar#et Harborough- 1293-
return to !ootnote mar#
Contents A )nde
Notes on 7hita5er's &ri'in of (rianism Disclosed
1
1815-
Chap# I# 4# p# '+#
+akin$ himself e3'al .ith -od-
$hoever reads the !our verses C:ohn v- 13719.D attentively. Fudging o! the
meaning o! each ,art by the contet. must needs. ) thin#. see that
the C18D re!ers.Bnot to
the C18D or the C12D. but
Bto the C12D- +he 19th verse. %hich is
directly called :esus' re,ly. ta#es no notice %hatever o!
the C12D. but consists %holly o! a Fusti!ication o!
the -
1853-
+he above %as %ritten many years ago- ) still thin# the remar# ,lausible.
though ) should not no% e,ress mysel! so ,ositively- ) imagined the :e%s
to mean: Mhe has evidently used the %ords Bnot in the
sense in %hich all good men may use them. butBin a literal sense. because
by the %ords that !ollo%ed. he ma#es
himsel! eGual to ?od-M +o Fusti!y these %ords seemed to me to be the
,ur,ort o! Christ's re,ly-
Chap# II# 1# p# '4#
8hilo's acGuaintance %ith the doctrines o! the heathens %as #no%n only by
historical re,ort to *usebius< %hile the %ritings o! 8hilo dis,layed his
#no%ledge in the religion o! the :e%s-
"trange comment- 9ight ) not. a!ter having s,o#en o! (un "cotus's %or#s.
say<BMhe is re,orted to have sur,assed all his contem,oraries in subtlety
o! logic:MByet still mean no other %or#s than those be!ore mentionedL Are
not 8hilo's %or#s !ull o!. cro%ded %ith. 8latonic and 8ythagorean
,hiloso,hyL *usebius #ne% !rom his %or#s that he %as a great 8latonic
scholar< but that he %as greater than any other man o! his age. he could
only learn !rom re,ort or history- +hat 4irgil is a great ,oet ) #no% !rom his
,oems< but that he %as the greatest o! the Augustan age. ) must learn !rom
;uinctilian and others-
Ib. p# '&#
8hilo and the author o! the $isdom o! "olomon.BCor rather. ,erha,s.
authors< !or the !irst ten cha,ters !orm a com,lete %or# o! themselves.DB
%ere both Cabalistico78latoni>ing :e%s o! Aleandria- As !ar as. being
such. they must agree. so !ar they do agree< and as %idely as such men
could di!!er. do they di!!er- Not only the style o! the $isdom o! "olomon is
generically di!!erent !rom 8hilo's.Bso much so that ) should deem it a !ree
translation !rom a Hebre% original.Bbut also in all the min'ti2 o!
traditional history and dogma it contradicts 8hilo- 8hilo attributes the
creation o! man to angels< and they in!used the evil ,rinci,le through their
o%n im,er!ections- )n the Boo# o! $isdom. ?od created man s,otless. and
the (evil tem,ting him occasioned the &all- "o the %hole account o! the
,lagues o! *gy,t di!!ers as %idely as ,ossible. even to absolute
contradiction- +he origin o! idolatry is e,lained altogether di!!erently by
8hilo. and by the Boo# o! $isdom- )n short. so unsu,,orted is the tradition
that many have su,,osed an elder 8hilo as the author- +hat the second and
third cha,ters allude to Christ is a groundless hy,othesis- +he 7'st man is
called the son of -od. :ehovah. <Bbut Christ's s,eci!ic title
%hich %as deemed blas,hemous by the :e%s. %as Ben
!lohim. <Band the !ancy that 8hilo %as a Christian in
heart. but dared not o,enly ,ro!ess himsel! such. is too absurd- $hy no
traces in his latest %or#. or those o! his middle ageL $hy not the least
variation in his religious or ,hiloso,hical creeds in his latter %or#s. %ritten
long a!ter the resurrection. !rom those com,osed by him be!ore. or a !e%
years a!ter. Christ's birthL "ome o! 8hilo's earlier %or#s must have been
%ritten %hen our Lord %as in his in!ancy. or at least boyhood-
)n short. Fust ta#e all those ,assages o! 8hilo %hich most closely resemble
others in the $isdom o! "olomon. and contain the same or nearly the same
thoughts. and %rite them in o,,osite columns. and no doubt %ill remain
that 8hilo %as not the com,oser o! the Boo# o! $isdom- 8hilo subtle. and
%ith long involved ,eriods #nit together by logical connectives: the Boo#
o! $isdom sententious. !ull o! ,arallelisms. assertory and Hebraistic
throughout- )t %as either com,osed by a man %ho tried to Hebrai>e the
?ree#. or. i! a translator. by one %ho tried to ?reecise the Hebraisms o! his
originalBnot to disguise or hide themBbut only so as to ,revent them
!rom re,elling or misleading the ?ree# reader- +he di!!erent use o! the
?ree# ,articles in the $isdom o! "olomon. and in the %or#s o! 8hilo. is
su!!icient to con!ute the hy,othesis o! 8hilo being the author- As little could
it have been %ritten by a Christian- &or it could not have been a Christian
o! 8alestine. !rom the over!lo%ing Aleandrine 8latonism<Bnor a Christian
at all< !or it contradicts the doctrine o! the resurrection o! the body. and in
no %ise connects any redem,tory or sacri!icial virtue %ith the death o!
his 7'st man<Bdenies original sin in the Christian sense. and e,lains the
vice and virtue o! man#ind by the actions o! the souls o! men in a state o!
,re7eistence- No signs or miracles are re!erred to in the account o! the 7'st
man< and that it %as intended as a generali>ation is evident !rom the change
o! the singular into the ,lural number in the third cha,ter-
+he result is. in my Fudgment. that this Boo# %as com,osed by an
un#no%n :e% o! Aleandria. either sometime be!ore. or at the same time
%ith. Christ- ) do not thin# "t- 8aul's ,arallel ,assages amount to any ,roo!
o! Guotation or allusion<Bthey contain the common doctrine o! the
s,irituali>ed :udaism in the Cabala<Band yet the %or# could scarcely have
been %ritten long be!ore Christ. or it %ould certainly have been Guoted or
mentioned by 8hilo. and most ,robably by :ose,hus- And this. too. is an
ans%er to the s,lendid and %ell7su,,orted hy,othesis o! its being a
translation !rom a Chaldaic original. com,osed by :erubbabel- +he
variations o! the "yriac translation.B %hich are so easily e,lained by
translating the ,assage into the Chaldaic. %hen the cause o! the mista#e in
the ?ree# or o! the variation in the "yriac. is seen at once.Bare certainly
startling< but they are too !ree< and ho% could the &athers. :erome !or
eam,le. remain ignorant o! the eistence o! this Chaldaic originalL 9y
o%n o,inion is. as ) said be!ore. that the Boo# %as %ritten in ?ree# by an
Aleandrian :e%. %ho had !ormed his style on that o! the L66-. and %as
led still !urther to an imitation o! the 'ld +estament manner by the nature
o! his !iction. and as a dramatic ,ro,riety. and yet deviated !rom it ,artly on
account o! the very remoteness o! his 8latonic conce,tions !rom the
sim,licity and ,overty o! the Hebre%< and ,artly because o! the %ordy
rhetoric e,idemic in Aleandria: and that it %as %ritten be!ore the death. i!
not the birth. o! Christ. ) am induced to believe. because ) do not thin# it
,robable that a boo# com,osed by a :e%. %ho had con!essed Christ a!ter
the resurrection. %ould so soon have been received by the Christians. and
so early ,laced in the very net ran# to %or#s o! !ull ins,iration-
+a#en. there!ore. as a %or# ante. or at least e"tra, Christ'm. it is most
valuable as ascertaining the o,inions o! the learned :e%s on many subFects.
and the general belie! concerning immortality. and a day o! Fudgment- 'n
this ground $hita#er might have erected a most !ormidable battery. that
%ould have ,layed on the very cam, and battle7array o! the "ocinians. that
is. o! those %ho consider Christ only as a teacher o! im,ortant truths-
)n re!erring to the Cabala. ) am not ignorant o! the date o! the oldest
=abbinical %ritings %hich contain or re!er to this ,hiloso,hy. but ) coincide
%ith *ichorn. and very many be!ore *ichorn. that the !oundations o! the
Cabala %ere laid and %ell #no%n long be!ore Christ. though not all the
!anci!ul su,erstructure- ) am ,ersuaded that ne% light might be thro%n on
the A,ocaly,se by a care!ul study o! the Boo# "ohar. and o! %hatever else
there may be o! that #ind- +he introduction Ci- 0.D is clearly Cabala:B
the P 3. and the seven spiritsP
15 Sephiroth. constituting together the %dam 0admon. the second Adam o!
"t- 8aul. the incarnate one in the 9essiah-
$ere it not !or the silence o! 8hilo and :ose,hus. %hich ) am unable to
e,lain i! the $isdom o! "olomon %as %ritten so long be!ore Christ. )
might ,erha,s incline to believe it com,osed shortly a!ter. i! not during. the
,ersecution o! the :e%s in *gy,t under 8tolemy 8hilo,ator- +his hy,othesis
%ould give a ,articular ,oint to the bitter e,osure o! idolatry. to the
com,arison bet%een the su!!erings o! the :e%s. and those o! idolatrous
nations. to the long rehearsal and rhetorical declaration o! the ,lagues o!
*gy,t. and to the re%ard o! 'the Fust man' a!ter a death o! martyrdom< and
%ould besides hel, to e,lain the ,utting together o! the !irst ten cha,ters.
and the !ragment contained in the remaining cha,ters- +hey %ere %or#s
%ritten at the same time. and by the same author: nay. ) do not thin# it
absurd to su,,ose. that the cha,ters a!ter the tenth %ere anneed by the
%riter himsel!. as a long e,lanatory a,,endi< or. ,ossibly. i! they %ere
once a se,arate %or#. these nine concluding cha,ters %ere ,arts o! a boo#
com,osed during the ,ersecution in *gy,t. the introduction and termination
o! %hich. being ,ersonal and o! local a,,lication. %ere a!ter%ards omitted
or e,unged in order not to give o!!ence to the other *gy,tians.B,erha,s.
to s,are the shame o! such :e%s as had a,ostati>ed through !ear. and in
general not to revive heart7burnings- )n modern language ) should call these
cha,ters in their ,resent state a Note on c- - 11719-
'n a re,erusal o! this Boo#. ) rather believe that these latter cha,ters never
!ormed ,art o! any other %or#. but %ere com,osed as a sort o! long
e,lanatory 8ostscri,t. %ith ,articular bearing on certain eisting
circumstances. to %hich this ,art o! the :e%ish history %as es,ecially
a,,licable- Nay. ) begin to !ind the silence o! 8hilo and :ose,hus less
ine,licable. and to imagine that ) discover the solution o! this ,roblem in
the very title o! the Boo#- No one e,ects to !ind any but %or#s o!
authenticity enumerated in these %riters< but to this a %or#. calling itsel!
the $isdom o! "olomon. both being a !iction and never meant to ,ass !or
anything else. could ma#e no ,retensions- +o have a,,roimated it to the
Holy Boo#s o! the nation %ould have inFured the dignity o! the :e%ish
Canon. and brought sus,icion on the genuine %or#s o! "olomon. %hile it
%ould have e,osed to a charge o! !orgery a com,osition %hich %as in
itsel! only an innocent dramatic monologue- :. B. +his hy,othesis
,ossesses all the advantages. and involves none o! the absurdity o! that
%hich %ould attribute the '*cclesiasticus' to the in!amous :ason. the High
8riest- 9ore than one commentator. ) !ind. has sus,ected that the $isdom
o! "olomon and the second boo# o! 9accabees %ere by the same author- )
thin# this nothing-
Ib. p# ')#
8hilo thro%s out a number o! declarations. that she% his o%n and the
:e%ish belie! in a secondary sort o! ?od. a ?od subordinate in origin to the
&ather o! all. yet most intimately united %ith him. and sharing his most
unGuestionable honours-
+he belie! o! the Aleandrian :e%s %ho had acGuired ?ree# ,hiloso,hy. no
doubt<Bbut o! the 8alestine :e%sL
Ib. $# p# 4/#
"t- :ohn also is %itnessed by a heathen CAmelius.D and by one %ho ,ut him
do%n !or a barbarian. to have re,resented the Logos as Mthe 9a#er o! all
things.M as M%ith '?od'.M and as M?od-M And "t- :ohn is attested to have
declared this. Mnot even as shaded over. but on the contrary as ,laced in !ull
vie%-M
"tranger still- $hita#er could scarcely have read the ?ree#- Amelius says.
that these truths. i! stri,,ed o! their allegorical
dress.
%ould be ,lain<Bthat is. that :ohn in an allegory. as o! one ,articular man.
had shado%ed out the creation o! all things by the Logos. and the a!ter
union o! the Logos %ith human nature.Bthat is. %ith all men- +hat this is
his meaning. consult 8lotinus-
Ib. %# p# 1+(#
M"eest thou not.M adds 8hilo. in the same s,irit o! subtili>ing being into
,o%er. and dividing the Logos into t%o-
$ho that had even rested but in the ,orch o! the Aleandrian ,hiloso,hy.
%ould not rather say. of s'bstantiatin$ po.ers and attrib'tes into
bein$A $hat is the %hole system !rom 8hilo to 8lotinus. and thence to
8roclus inclusively. but one !anci!ul ,rocess o! hy,ostasi>ing logical
conce,tions and generic termsL )n 8roclus it is Logolatry run mad-
Chap# III# 1# p# 1'10$#
"uch %ould be the evidence !or that divinity. to accom,any the Boo# o!
$isdom. i! %e considered it to be as old as "olomon. or only as the "on o!
"irach- But ) consider it to be much later than either. and actually a %or# o!
8hilo's- N N +he language is very similar to 8hilo's< !lo%ing. lively and
ha,,y-
Ho% is it ,ossible to have read the short Hebraistic sentences o! the Boo#
o! $isdom. and the long involved ,eriods that characteri>e the style o! all
8hilo's #no%n %ritings. and yet attribute both to one %riterL But indeed )
#no% no instance o! assertions made so audaciously. or o! ,assages
misre,resented and even mistranslated so grossly. as in this %or# o!
$hita#er- His system is absolute na#ed +ritheism-
Ib.
+he righteous man is shado%ed out by the author %ith a ,lain re!erence to
our "aviour himsel!- M'Let us lie in %ait !or the righteous'.M Ic-
Ho% then could 8hilo have remained a :e%L
Ib. $# p# 1%&#
)n all e!!ects that are voluntary. the cause must be ,rior to the e!!ect. as the
!ather is to the son in human generation- But in all that are necessary. the
e!!ect must be coeval %ith the cause< as the stream is %ith the !ountain. and
light %ith the sun- Had the sun been eternal in its duration. light %ould
have been co7eternal %ith it-
A Fust remar#< but it cuts t%o %ays- &or these necessary e!!ects are not
really but only logically di!!erent or distinct !rom the cause:Bthe rays o!
the sun are only the sun di!!used. and the %hole rests on the sensitive !orm
o! material s,ace- +a#e a%ay the notion o! material s,ace. and the %hole
distinction ,erishes-
Chap# I*# 1# p# $))#
:ustin accordingly sets himsel! to she%. that in the beginning. be!ore all
creatures. ?od generated a certain rational ,o%er out o! himsel!-
)s it not monstrous that the :e%s having. according to $hita#er. !ully
believed a +rinity. one and all. but hal! a century or less be!ore +ry,ho.
:ustin should never re!er to this general !aith. never re,roach +ry,ho %ith
the ,resent o,,osition to it as a heresy !rom their o%n !ore!athers. even
those %ho reFected Christ. or rather :esus as ChristLBBut noEB not a
single obFection ever stri#es 9r- $hita#er. or a,,ears %orthy o! an ans%er-
+he stu,idest become authenticBthe most !antastic abstractions o! the
Aleandrine dreamers substantial realitiesE ) con!ess this boo# has satis!ied
me ho% little erudition %ill gain a man no%7a7days the re,utation o! vast
learning. i! it be only accom,anied %ith dash and insolence- )t seems to me
im,ossible. that $hita#er can have %ritten %ell on the subFect o! 9ary.
;ueen o! "cots. his ,o%ers o! Fudgment being a,,arently so abFect- &or
instance. he says that the grossest moral im,robability is s%e,t a%ay by
,ositive evidence:Bas i! ,ositive evidence Cthat is. the belie! ) am to yield
to A- or B-D %ere not itsel! grounded on moral ,robabilities- @,on my %ord
$hita#er %ould have been a choice Fudge !or Charles ))- and +itus 'ates-
Ib. p# $)(#
:ustin there!ore ,roceeds to demonstrate it. Cthe ,re7eistence o! Christ.D
asserting :oshua to have given only a tem,orary inheritance to the :e%s.
Ic-
A ,recious beginning o! a ,recious demonstrationE )t is %ell !or me that my
!aith in the +rinity is already %ell grounded by the "cri,tures. by Bisho,
Bull. and the best ,arts o! 8lotinus. or this man %ould certainly have made
me either a "ocinian or a (eist-
Ib. $# p# $(+#
+he general mode o! commencing and concluding the *,istles o! "t- 8aul.
is a ,rayer o! su,,lication !or the ,arties. to %hom they %ere addressed< in
%hich he says.-race to yo' and peace from -od o'r 1ather, andB!rom
%hom besidesLBthe Lord *es's Christ< in %hich our "aviour is at times
invo#ed alone. as the -race of o'r Lord *es's Christ be .ith yo' all< and is
even invoked the !irst at times as. the -race of the Lord *es's Christ, and
the love of -od, and the comm'nion of the Holy -host, be .ith yo' all<
she%s us ,lainly. Ic-
)nvo#edE "urely a ,ious %ish is not an invocation- M9ay good angels attend
youEM is no invocation or %orshi, o! angels- +he essence o! religions
adoration consists in the attributing. by an act o! ,rayer or ,raise. a
necessary ,resence to an obFectB%hich not being distinguishable. i! the
obFect be sensuously ,resent. %e may sa!ely de!ine adoration as an
ac#no%ledgement o! the actual and necessary ,resence o! an intelligent
being not ,resent to our senses- M9ay luc#y stars shoot in!luence on youEM
%ould be a very !oolish su,erstition.Bbut to say in earnestE M' ye stars. )
,ray to you. shoot in!luences on me.M %ould be idolatry- Christ %as
visually ,resent to "te,hen< his invocation there!ore %as not ,er!orce an act
o! religious adoration. an ac#no%ledgment o! Christ's deity-
&ootnote 1: +he 'rigin o! Arianism (isclosed- By :ohn $hita#er. B-(-
London. 1291-
return to !ootnote mar#
Contents A )nde
Notes on ,xlee on The Trinity and Incarnation
1
18/2-
"trangeByet !rom the date o! the boo# o! the Celestial Hierarchies o! the
,retended (ionysius the Areo,agite to that o! its translation by :oannes
"cotus *rigena. the contem,orary o! Al!red. and !rom "cotus to the =ev-
:ohn 'lee in 1811. not un!reGuentBdelusion o! mista#ing 8antheism.
disguised in a !ancy dress o! ,ious ,hrases. !or a more s,iritual and
,hiloso,hic !orm o! Christian &aithE Nay. stranger still:Bto imagine %ith
"cotus and 9r- 'lee that in a scheme %hich more directly than even the
grosser s,ecies o! Atheism. ,recludes all moral res,onsibility and subverts
all essential di!!erence o! right and %rong. they have !ound the means o!
,roving and e,laining. Mthe Christian doctrines o! the +rinity and
)ncarnation.M that is. the great and only su!!icient antidotes o! the right !aith
against this insidious ,oison- &or 8antheismBtric# it u, as you %illBis but
a ,ainted Atheism- A mas# o! ,erverted "cri,tures may hide its ugly !ace.
but cannot change a single !eature-
Introdu!tion, p# 4#
)n the in!ancy o! the Christian Church. and immediately a!ter the general
dis,ersion %hich necessarily !ollo%ed the sac#ing o! :erusalem and Bither.
the ?ree# and Latin &athers had the !airest o,,ortunity o! dis,uting %ith
the :e%s. and o! evincing the truth o! the ?os,el dis,ensation< but
un!ortunately !or the success o! so noble a design. they %ere totally
ignorant o! the Hebre% "cri,tures. and so %anted in every argument that
stam, o! authority. %hich %as eGually necessary to sanction the ,rinci,les
o! Christianity. and to command the res,ect o! their :e%ish antagonists- &or
the con!irmation o! this remar# ) may a,,eal to the &athers themselves. but
es,ecially to Barnabas. :ustin. and )renTus. %ho in their several attem,ts at
Hebre% learning betray such ,ortentous signs o! ignorance and stu,idity.
that %e are covered %ith shame at the sight o! their criticisms-
9r- 'lee %ould be delighted in reading :acob =hen!erd's (isGuisition on
the *bionites and other su,,osed heretics among the :e%ish Christians-
And ) cannot hel, thin#ing that =hen!erd. %ho has so ably antici,ated 9r-
'lee on this ,oint. and in :ortin's best manner dis,layed the gross
ignorance o! the ?entile &athers in all matters relating to Hebre% learning.
and the ludicrous yet mischievous results thereo!. has !ormed a Fuster
though very much lo%er o,inion o! these &athers. %ith a !e% ece,tions.
than 9r- 'lee- ) con!ess that till the light o! the t%o!oldness o! the
Christian Church da%ned on my mind. the study o! the history and
literature o! the Church during the !irst three or !our centuries in!ected me
%ith a s,irit o! doubt and disgust %hich reGuired a !reGuent recurrence to
the %ritings o! :ohn and 8aul to ,reserve me %hole in the &aith-
1rop# I# !h# i# p# 1)#
+he truth o! the doctrine is vehemently insisted on. in a variety o! ,laces.
by the great =- 9oses ben 9aimon< %ho !ounds u,on it the unity o! the
?odhead. and ran#s it among the !undamental articles o! the :e%ish
religion- +hus in his celebrated Letter to the :e%s o! 9arseilles he
observes. Ic-
But %hat is obtained by Guotations !rom 9aimonides more than !rom
Aleander Hales. or any other "choolman o! the same ageL +he
meta,hysics o! the learned :e% are derived !rom the same source. namely.
Aristotle< and his obFect %as the same. as that o! the Christian "choolmen.
namely. to systemati>e the religion he ,ro!essed on the !orm and in the
,rinci,les o! the Aristotelian ,hiloso,hy-
By the by. it is a serious de!ect in 9r- 'lee's %or#. that he does not give
the age o! the %riters %hom he cites- He cannot have e,ected all his
readers to be as learned as himsel!-
Ib. !h# iii# p# $)#
9r- 'lee seems too much inclined to identi!y the =abbinical
inter,retations o! "cri,ture tets %ith their true sense< %hen in reality the
=abbis themselves not seldom used those inter,retations as a convenient
and ,o,ular mode o! conveying their o%n ,hiloso,hic o,inions- Neither
have ) been able to admire the logic so general among the divines o! both
Churches. according to %hich i! one. t%o. or ,erha,s three sentences in any
one o! the Canonical boo#s a,,ear to declare a given doctrine. all
assertions o! a di!!erent character must have been meant to be ta#en
meta,horically-
Ib. p# $)0(#
+he 8ro,het )saiah. too. clearly inculcates the s,irituality o! the ?odhead in
the !ollo%ing declaration: B't !$ypt is man, and not -od9 and their horses
flesh, and not spirit- Cc- i- 3-D N N N- )n the !ormer member the 8ro,het
declares that *gy,t %as man. and not ?od< and then in terms o! strict
o,,osition en!orces the sentiment by adding. that their cavalry %as !lesh.
and not s,irit< %hich is Fust as i! he had said: B't !$ypt, .hich has horses
in .ar, is only a man, that is, flesh, and not -od, .ho is spirit-
Assuredly this is a !alse inter,retation. and utterly un,oetical- )t is even
doubt!ul %hether Cr'achD in this ,lace means spirit in
contradistinction to matter at all. and not rather air or %ind- At all events.
the ,oetic decorum. the ,ro,ortion. and the antithetic ,arallelism. demand a
some%hat as much belo% ?od. as the horse is belo% man- +he o,,osition
o! flesh and spirit in the ?os,el o! "t- :ohn. %ho thought in Hebre%. though
he %rote in ?ree#. !avours our common version.B flesh and not spirit: but
the ,lace in %hich this ,assage stands. namely. in one o! the !irst !orty
cha,ters o! )saiah. and there!ore %ritten long be!ore the Ca,tivity. together
%ith the maFestic sim,licity characteristic o! )saiah's name gives ,erha,s a
greater ,robability to the other: !$ypt is man, and not -od6 and her horses
flesh, and not .ind- )! 9r- 'lee renders the !ourth verse o! 8salm civ-B
He maketh spirits his messen$ers. C!or our versionBHe maketh his an$els
spiritsBis %ithout a violent inversion senselessD. this is a case in ,oint !or
the use o! the %ord.spirits. in the sense o! incor,oreal beings- C9r- 'lee
%ill hardly. ) a,,rehend. attribute the o,inion o! some later =abbis. that
?od alone and eclusively is a ",irit. to the "acred $riters. easy as it
%ould be to Guote a score o! tets in ,roo! o! the contrary-D ). ho%ever.
cannot doubt that the true rendering o! the above7mentioned verse in the
8salms is<BHe maketh the .inds his an$els or messen$ers, and the
li$htnin$s his ministrant servants-
As to 9r- 'lee's abstract intelli$ences, ) cannot but
thin# abstract !or p're. and even ,ure intelligences !or incor,oreal. a la
use o! terms- $ith regard to the ,oint in Guestion. the truth seems to be this-
+he ancient Hebre%s certainly distinguished the ,rinci,le or ground o! li!e.
understanding. and %ill !rom ,onderable. visible. matter- +he !ormer they
considered and called spirit. and believed it to be an emission !rom the
Almighty &ather o! ",irits: the latter they called body< and in this sense
they doubtless believed in the eistence o! incor,oreal beings- But that they
had any notion o! immaterial beings in the sense o! (es Cartes. is contrary
to all %e #no% o! them. and o! every other ,eo,le in the same degree o!
cultivation- Air. !ire. light. e,ress the degrees o! ascending re!inement- )n
the in!ancy o! thought the li!e. soul. mind. are su,,osed to be airBanima,
anim's. that is. s,iritus. )n the childhood. they are
!ire. mens i$nea, i$nic'la. and ?od
himsel! Lastly. in the youth o! thought.
they are re!ined into light< and that light is ca,able o! subsisting in a latent
state. the e,erience o! the stric#en !lint. o! lightning !rom the clouds. and
the li#e. served to ,rove. or at least. it su,,lied a ,o,ular ans%er to the
obFection<BM)! the soul be light. %hy is it not visibleLM +hat the ,urest light
is invisible to our gross sense. and that visible light is a com,ound o! light
and shado%. %ere ans%ers o! a later and more re!ined ,eriod- 'bserve.
ho%ever. that the Hebre% Legislator ,recluded all un!it a,,lications o! the
materiali>ing !ancy by !orbidding the ,eo,le to ima$ine at all concerning
?od- &or the ear alone. to the eclusion o! all other bodily sense. %as he to
be designated. that is. by the Name- All else %as !or the mindBby ,o%er.
truth. %isdom. holiness. mercy-
1rop# II# !h# ii# p# ')#
) !ear ) must surrender my ho,e that 9r- 'lee %as an ece,tion to the
rule. that the study o! =abbinical literature either !inds a man .himmy. or
ma#es him so- )! neither the demands o! ,oetic taste. nor the ,eculiar
character o! oracles. %ere o! avail. yet morality and ,iety might seem
enough to convince any one that this vision o! 9icaiah. C/ Chron- c- viii-
18. Ic-D %as the ,oetic !orm. the veil. o! the 8ro,het's meaning- And a
most sublime meaning it %as- 9r- 'lee should recollect that the !orms and
,ersonages o! visions are all and al%ays symbolical-
Ib. pp# '%04+#
)t %ill not avail us much. ho%ever. to have established their incor,oreity or
s,irituality. i! %hat =- 9oses a!!irms be true N N N- +his im,ious ,arado N
N- "%ayed. ho%ever. by the authority o! so great a man. even =- (avid
Himchi has dila,sed into the same error. Ic-
+o %hat ,ur,ose then are the crude meta,hysics o! these later =abbis
brought !or%ard. di!!ering as they do in no other res,ect !rom the
theological dicta o! the "choolmen. but that they are %ritten in a sort o!
Hebre%- ) am !ar !rom denying that an inter,reter o! the "cri,tures may
derive im,ortant aids !rom the :e%ish commentators: Aben *>ra. Cabout
1115D es,ecially. %as a truly great man- But o! this ) am certain. that he
only %ill be bene!ited %ho can loo# do%n u,on their %or#s. %hilst
studying them<Bthat is. he must thoroughly understand their %ea#nesses.
su,erstitions. and rabid a,,etite !or the marvellous and the monstrous< and
then read them as an enlightened chemist o! the ,resent day %ould read the
%ritings o! the old alchemists. or as a LinnTus might ,eruse the %or#s o!
8liny and Aldrovandus- )! he can do this. %ell<B i! not. he %ill line his
s#ull %ith cob%ebs-
Ib. pp# 4+, 41#
But ho%. ) %ould as#. is this ,osition to be de!endedL "urely not by
contradicting almost every ,art o! the ins,ired volumes. in %hich such
!reGuent mention occurs o! di!!erent and distinct angels a,,earing to the
8atriarchs and 8ro,hets. sometimes in grou,s. and sometimes in limited
numbers N N- )t is. indeed. so %holly re,ugnant to the general tenor o! the
"acred $ritings. and so abhorrent !rom the ,iety o! both :e% and Christian.
that the learned author himsel!. either !orgetting %hat he had be!ore
advanced. or else ,ost,oning his ,hiloso,hy to his religion. has absolutely
maintained the contrary in his e,lication o! the Cherubim. Ic-
) am so !ar !rom agreeing %ith 9r- 'lee on these ,oints. that ) not only
doubt %hether be!ore the Ca,tivity any !air ,roo! o! the eistence o!
Angels. in the ,resent sense. can be ,roduced !rom the ins,ired "cri,tures.
Bbut thin# also that a strong argument !or the divinity o! Christ. and !or
his ,resence to the 8atriarchs and under the La%. rests on the contrary.
namely. that the "era,him %ere images no less symbolical than the
Cherubim- "urely it is not ,resuming too much o! a Clergyman o! the
Church o! *ngland to e,ect that he %ould measure the im,ortance o! a
theological tenet by its bearings on our moral and s,iritual duties. by its
,ractical tendencies- $hat is it to us %hether Angels are the s,irits o! Fust
men made ,er!ect. or a distinct class o! moral and rational creaturesL
Augustine has %ell and %isely observed that reason recogni>es only three
essential #inds<B?od. man. beast- +ry as long as you %ill. you can never
ma#e an Angel anything but a man %ith %ings on his shoulders-
Ib. !h# III# p# &/#
But this de!iciency in the 9osaic account o! the creation is am,ly su,,lied
by early tradition. %hich inculcates not only that the angels %ere created.
but that they %ere created. either on the second day. according to =-
:ochanan. or on the !i!th. according to =- Chanania-
)ns,ired "cri,ture am,ly su,,lied by the +almudic and =abbinical
traditionsEB+his !rom a Clergyman o! the Church o! *nglandE
) am. ) con!ess. greatly disa,,ointed- ) had e,ected. ) scarce #no% %hy. to
have had some light thro%n on the eistence o! the Cabala in its ,resent
!orm. !rom *>e#iel to 8aul and :ohn- But 9r- 'lee ta#es it as he !inds it.
and gravely ascribes this ,atch7%or# o! corru,t 8latonism or 8lotinism.
%ith Chaldean. 8ersian. and :udaic !ables and !ancies. to the :e%ish
(octors. as an original. ,ro!ound. and ,ious ,hiloso,hy in its !ountain7
headE +he indis,ensable reGuisite not only to a ,ro!itable but even to a sa!e
study o! the Cabala is a !amiliar #no%ledge o! the docimastic ,hiloso,hy.
that is. a ,hiloso,hy. %hich has !or its obFect the trial and testing o! the
%eights and measures themselves. the !irst ,rinci,les. de!initions.
,ostulates. aioms o! logic and meta,hysics- But this is in no other %ay
,ossible but by our enumeration o! the mental !aculties. and an
investigation o! the constitution. !unction. limits. and a,,licability ad 3'as
res. o! each- +he a,,lication to this subFect o! the rules and !orms o! the
understanding. or discursive logic. or even o! the intuitions o! the reason
itsel!. i! reason be assumed as the !irst and highest. has 8antheism !or its
necessary result- But this the Cabalists did: and conseGuently the Cabalistic
theoso,hy is 8antheistic. and 8antheism. in %hatever dra,ery o! ,ious
,hrases disguised. is C%here it !orms the %hole o! a systemD Atheism. and
,recludes moral res,onsibility. and the essential di!!erence o! right and
%rong- 'ne o! the t%o contra7distinctions o! the Hebre% =evelation is the
doctrine o! ,ositive creation- +his. i! not the only. is the easiest and surest
criterion bet%een the idea o! ?od and the notion o! a mens a$itans molem-
But this the Cabalists evaded by their double meaning o! the term.
'nothing'. namely as nought P 5. and as no thin$< and by their use o! the
term. as designating ?od- +hus in %ords and to the ear they taught that the
%orld %as made out o! nothing< but in !act they meant and inculcated. that
the %orld %as ?od himsel! e,anded- )t is not. there!ore. hal! a do>en
,assages res,ecting the !irst three proprietates
/
in the "e,hiroth. that %ill
lead a %ise man to e,ect the true doctrine o! the +rinity in the Cabalistic
scheme: !or he #no%s that the scholastic value. the theological necessity. o!
this doctrine consists in its ehibiting an idea o! ?od. %hich rescues our
!aith !rom both etremes. Cabalo78antheism. and Anthro,omor,hism- )t is.
) say. to ,revent the necessity o! the Cabalistic in!erences that the !ull and
distinct develo,ement o! the doctrine o! the +rinity becomes necessary in
every scheme o! dogmatic theology- )! the !irst three proprietates are ?od.
so are the net seven. and so are all ten- ?od according to the Cabalists is
all in each and one in all- ) do not say that there is not a great deal o! truth
in this< but ) say that it is not. as the Cabalists re,resent it. the %hole truth-
",ino>a himsel! describes his o%n ,hiloso,hy as in substance the same
%ith that o! the ancient Hebre% (octors. the CabalistsBonly uns%athed
!rom the Biblical dress-
Ib. p# )1#
"imilar to this is the declaration o! =- 9oses ben 9aimon- M&or that
in!luence. %hich !lo%s !rom the (eity to the actual ,roduction o! abstract
intelligences !lo%s also !rom the intelligences to their ,roduction !rom each
other in succession.M Ic-
Ho% much trouble %ould 9r- 'lee have saved himsel!. had he in sober
earnest as#ed his o%n mind. %hat he meant by emanation< and %hether he
could attach any intelligible meaning to the term at all as a,,lied to s,irit-
Ib. p# )&#
+hus having. by variety o! ,roo!s. demonstrated the !ecundity o! the
?odhead. in that all s,iritualities. o! %hatever gradation. have originated
essentially and substantially !rom it. li#e streams !rom their !ountain< )
avail mysel! o! this as another sound argument. that in the sameness o! the
divine essence subsists a ,lurality o! 8ersons-
A ,lurality %ith a vengeanceE $hy. this is the very sco!! o! a late @nitarian
%riter.Bonly that he inverts the order- 9r- 'lee ,roves ten trillions o!
trillions in the (eity. in order to deduce a fortiori the rationality o! three:
the @nitarian !rom the +hree ,retends to deduce the eGual rationality o! as
many thousands-
Ib. p# ))#
"o. i! %ithout detriment to ,iety great things may be com,ared %ith small.
) %ould contend. that every intelligency. descending by %ay o! emanation
or im,artition !rom the ?odhead. must needs be a ,ersonality o! that
?odhead. !rom %hich it has descended. only so vastly uneGual to it in
,ersonal ,er!ection. that it can !orm no ,art o! its ,ro,er eistency-
)s not this to all intents and ,ur,oses ascribing ,artibility to ?odL )ndeed it
is the necessary conseGuence o! the emanation schemeLB@neGualEBAye.
various .icked ,ersonalities o! the ?odheadLBHo% does this rhymeLB
*ven as a meta,hor. emanation is an ill7chosen term< !or it a,,lies only to
!luids- 5amenta. unravellings. threads. %ould be more germane-
&ootnote 1: +he Christian (octrines o! the +rinity and )ncarnation
considered and maintained on the ,rinci,les o! :udaism- By the =ev- :ohn
'lee- London. 1811-
return to !ootnote mar#
&ootnote /: +hat is. )ntelligence or the Cro%n. Hno%ledge. $isdom- !d.
return
Contents A )nde
Notes on ( Barrister!s #ints on $"an'elical )reachin'
1
1815-
&or only that man understands in deed
$ho %ell remembers %hat he %ell can do<
+he !aith lives only %here the !aith doth breed
'bedience to the %or#s it binds us to-
And as the Li!e o! $isdom hath e,restB
')! this ye #no%. then do it and be blest'-
L'=( B=''H-
In Initio
+here is one misconce,tion running through the %hole o! this 8am,hlet.
the roc# on %hich. and the Guarry out o! %hich. the %hole reasoning. is
built<Ban error there!ore %hich %ill not indeed destroy its e!!icacy as
a or anti7,hiltre to in!lame the scorn o! the enemies o!
9ethodism. but %hich must utterly inca,acitate it !or the better ,ur,ose o!
convincing the consciences or allaying the !anaticism o! the 9ethodists
themselves< this is the uni!orm and gross mis7statement o! the one great
,oint in dis,ute. by %hich the 9ethodists are re,resented as holding the
com,atibility o! an im,ure li!e %ith a saving !aith: %hereas they only assert
that the %or#s o! righteousness are the conseGuence. not the ,rice. o!
=edem,tion. a gi!t included in the great gi!t o! salvation<Band there!ore
not o! merit but o! im,utation through the !ree love o! the "aviour-
1art I# p# 4%#
)t is enough. it seems. that all the disorderly classes o! man#ind. ,rom,ted
as they are by their %orst ,assions to tram,le on the ,ublic %el!are.
should kno. that they are. %hat every one else is convinced they are. the
,ests o! society. and the evil is remedied- +hey are not to be ehorted to
honesty. sobriety. or the observance o! any la%s. human or divineBthey
must not even be entreated to do their best- M:ust as abs'rd %ould it be.M %e
are told. Min a ,hysician to send a%ay his ,atient. %hen labouring under
some des,erate disease. %ith a recommendation to do his utmost to%ards
his o%n cure. and then to come to him to !inish it. as it is in the minister o!
the -ospel to ,ro,ose to the sinner to do his best. by %ay o! healing the
disease o! the soulBand then to come to the Lord :esus to ,er!ect his
recovery- +he only,revious Guali!ication is to kno. our misery. and the
remedy is ,re,ared-M "ee (r- Ha%#er's $or#s. vol- vi- ,- 112-
&or M#no%.M let the Barrister substitute M!eel<M that is. %e #no% it as %e
#no% our li!e< and then as# himsel! %hether the ,roduction o! such a state
o! mind in a sinner %ould or %ould not be o! greater ,romise as to his
re!ormation than the re,etition o! the +en Commandments %ith ,ara,hrases
on the same-BBut %hy not bothL +he Barrister is at least as %rong in the
undervaluing o! the one as the ,seudo7*vangelists in the eclusion o! the
other-
Ib. p# &1#
$hatever these ne% *vangelists may teach to the contrary. the ,resent state
o! ,ublic morals and o! ,ublic ha,,iness %ould assume a very di!!erent
a,,earance i! the thieves. s%indlers. and high%ay robbers. %ould do their
best to%ards maintaining themselves by honest labour. instead o!
,er,etually ,lanning ne% systems o! !raud. and ne% schemes o!
de,redation-
+hat is. i! these thieves had a di!!erent %illBnot a mere %ish. ho%ever
anious:B!or this %ish Mthe libertineM doubtless has. as described in ,- 15.
Bbut an e!!ective %ill- $ell. and %ho doubts thisL +he ,oint in dis,ute is.
as to the means o! ,roducing this re!ormation in the %ill< %hich. %hatever
the Barrister may thin#. Christ at least thought so di!!icult as to s,ea# o! it.
not once or t%ice. but uni!ormly. as little less than miraculous. as
tantamount to a re7creation- +his Barrister may be li#ened to an ignorant
but %ell7meaning ?alenist. %ho %riting against some in!amous Guac#. %ho
lived by ,u!!ing and vending ,ills o! mercurial sublimate !or all cases o! a
certain descri,tion. should have no stronger argument than to
etol sarsaparilla. and li$n'm vit2. or senna in contem,t o! all mercurial
,re,arations-
Ib. p# &)#
Not !or the revenues o! an Archbisho, %ould he ehort them to a
duty 'nkno.n in Script're. o! adding their !ive talents to the !ive they have
received. Ic-
All this is mere calumny and %il!ul misstatement o! the tenets o! $esley.
%ho never doubted that %e are bound to im,rove our talents. or. on the
other hand. that %e are eGually bound. having done so. to be eGually
than#!ul to the ?iver o! all things !or the ,o%er and the %ill by %hich %e
im,roved the talents. as !or the original ca,ital %hich is the obFect o! the
im,rovement- +he Guestion is not %hether Christ %ill say. ell done tho'
$ood and faithf'l servant. Ic-<Bbut %hether the servant is to say it o!
himsel!- No% Christ has delivered as ,ositive a ,rece,t against our doing
this as the ,romise can be that he %ill im,ute it to us. i! %e do not im,ute it
to our o%n merits-
Ib. p# )+#
+he com,laints o! the ,ro!ligacy o! servants o! every class. and o! the
de,ravity o! the times are in every body's hearing:Band these *vangelical
tutorsBthe dear 9r- Lovegoods o! the dayBdeserve the best attention o!
the ,ublic !or thus instructing the ignorant multitude. %ho are al%ays ready
enough to neglect their moral duties. to des,ise and insult those by %hom
they are taught-
All this is no better than in!amous slander. unless the Barrister can ,rove
that these de,raved servants and thieves are 9ethodists. or have been
%ic#ed in ,ro,ortion as they %ere ,roselyted to 9ethodism- ' !ollyE +his
is indeed to secure the trium,h o! these enthusiasts-
Ib.
)t must a!!ord him C=o%land HillD great consolation. amidst the increasing
immorality N N N that %hen their village Curate ehorts them. i! they
have faith in the doctrine o! a %orld to come. to add to it those $ood
.orks in %hich the sum and substance o! religion consist. he has led them
to ridicule him. as choppin$ a ne.(fashionedlogic-
+hat this is either !alse or nugatory. see ,roved in The 1riend-
Ib. p# )/#
+om 8ayne himsel! never laboured harder to root all virtue out o! society-
B9andeville nor 4oltaire never even laboured so much-
)ndeedE
Ib.
+hey %ere content %ith declaring their disbelie! o! a !uture state-
)n %hat ,art o! their %or#sL Can any %ise man read 9andeville's 1able of
the Bees. and not see that it is a #een satire on the inconsistency o!
Christians. and so intended-
Ib. p# (1#
$hen the ,o,ulace shall be once brought to a conviction that the ?os,el.
as they are told. has neither terms nor conditions N N N. that no sins can be
too great. no li!e too im,ure. no offences too many or too a$$ravated. to
disGuali!y the ,er,etrators o! them !orBsalvation. Ic-
9erely insert the %ords Msincere re,entance and amendment o! heart and
li!e. and there!ore !orM salvation.Band is not this truth. and ?os,el truthL
And is it not the meaning o! the ,reacherL (id any 9ethodist ever teach
that salvation may be attained %ithout sancti!icationL +his Barrister !or
ever !orgets that the %hole ,oint in dis,ute is not concerning the ,ossibility
o! an immoral Christian being saved. %hich the 9ethodist %ould deny as
strenuously as himsel!. and ,erha,s give an austerer sense to the %ord
immoral< but %hether morality. or as the 9ethodists %ould call it.
sancti!ication. be the ,rice %hich %e ,ay !or the ,urchase o! our salvation
%ith our o%n money. or a ,art o! the same !ree gi!t- ?od #no%s. ) am no
advocate !or 9ethodism< but !or !air statement ) am. and most >ealouslyB
even !or the love o! logic. ,utting honesty out o! sight-
Ib. p# ($#
M)n every age.M says the moral divine CBlairD. Mthe ,ractice has ,revailed o!
substituting certain a,,earances o! ,iety in the ,lace o! the great d'ties o!
humanity and mercy.M Ic-
$ill the Barrister rest the decision o! the controversy on a com,arison o!
the lives o! the 9ethodists and non79ethodistsL @nless he #no%s that their
Mmorality has declined. as their ,iety has become more ardent.M is not his
Guotation mere labouringBnay. absolute ,ioneeringB!or the trium,hal
chariot o! his enemiesL
Ib. pp# (&0(%#
He %ill ,re!ace it %ith the solemn and %o!ul communication o! the
*vangelist :ohn. in order to sho% ho% eactly they accord. ho% clearly the
doctrines o! the one are deduced !rom the =evelation o! the other. and ho%
Fustly. there!ore. it assumes the eclusive title o! evangelical- %nd I sa. the
dead J J J and the dead .ere 7'd$ed o't of those thin$s .hich .ere .ritten
in the books, accordin$ to their .orks. %nd the sea $ave 'p the dead J J
and they .ere 7'd$ed every man accordin$ to his .orks- =ev- - 1/. 13-
Let us recall to mind the urgent caution conveyed in the %ritings o! 8aul N
N Be not deceived6 -od is not mocked6 for .hatsoever a man so.eth, that
shall he also reap- And let us !urther add N N the con!irmation N N o! the
"aviour himsel!:Bhen the Son of +an shall come in his $lory, J J J b't
the ri$hteo's into life eternal- 9att- v- 31. ad finem- Let us no% attend to
the *vangelical ,reacher. C+o,ladyD- M+he =eligion o! :esus Christ stands
eminently distinguished. and essentially di!!erenced. !rom every other
religion that %as ever ,ro,osed to human rece,tion. by this remar#able
,eculiarity< that. loo# abroad in the %orld. and you %ill !ind that every
religion. e"cept one. ,uts you u,on doin$ somethin$. in order to
recommend yoursel! to ?od- A 9ahometan N N A 8a,ist N N N )t is only the
religion o! :esus Christ that runs counter to all the rest. by a!!irmingBthat
%e are 'saved' and called %ith a holy calling. not according to our %or#s.
but according to the &ather's o%n ,ur,ose and grace. %hich %as not sold to
us on certain conditions to be f'lfilled by o'rselves. but %as given us in
Christ be!ore the %orld began-M +o,lady's $or#s: "ermon on :ames ii- 18-
Si sic omnia4 All this is Fust and !orcible< and surely nothing can be easier
than to con!ute the 9ethodist by she%ing that his very 'no7doing'. %hen he
comes to e,lain it. is not only an act. a %or#. but even a very severe and
,erseverant energy o! the %ill- He is there!ore to be arraigned o! nonsense
and abuse o! %ords rather than o! immoral doctrines-
Ib. p# /4#
+he sacred volume o! Holy $rit declares that tr'e C,ureLD reli$ion and
'ndefiled before -od and the 1ather is this, to visit the fatherless and
.ido. in their affliction, and to keep himself 'nspotted from the .orld-
:ames i- /2
+his is no% at least. %hatever might have been the meaning o! the
%ord reli$ion in the time o! the +ranslators. a !alse version- "t- :ames is
s,ea#ing o! ,ersons eminently >ealous in those ,ublic or ,rivate acts o!
%orshi,. %hich %e call divine service. )t should be
rendered. Tr'e .orship. Ic- +he ,assage is a !ine burst o! rhetoric. and not
a mere truism< Fust as %hen %e say<BMA cheer!ul heart is a ,er,etual
than#sgiving. and a state o! love and resignation the truest utterance o! the
Lord's 8rayer-M "t- :ames o,,oses Christianity to the out%ard signs and
ceremonial observances o! the :e%ish and 8agan religions- But these are
the only sure signs. these are the most signi!icant ceremonial observances
by %hich your Christianity is to be made #no%n.Bto visit the fatherless.
Ic- +rue religion does not consist 3'oad essentiam in these acts. but in that
habitual state o! the %hole moral being. %hich mani!ests itsel! by these acts
Band %hich acts are to the religion o! Christ that %hich ablutions.
sacri!ices and +em,le7going %ere to the 9osaic religion. namely. its
genuine +hat %hich %as the religion o! 9oses is the
ceremonial or cult o! the religion o! Christ- 9oses commanded all good
%or#s. even those stated by "t- :ames. as the means o! tem,oral !elicity<
and this %as the 9osaic religion< and to these he added a multitude o!
symbolical observances< and these !ormed the 9osaic cult. Cc'lt's
reli$ionis. D Christ commands holiness out o! ,er!ect love. that
is. Christian religion< and adds to this no other ceremony or symbol than a
,ure li!e and active bene!icence< %hich Csays "t- :amesD are the tr'e c'lt
/
-
Ib. p# /)#
+here is no one %hose %ritings are better calculated to do good. Cthan those
o! 8aleyD by inculcating the essential duties o! common li!e. and the sound
truths o! ,ractical Christianity-
)ndeedE 8aley's %hole system is reducible to this one ,rece,t:BM'bey
?od. and bene!it your neighbour. because you love yoursel! above all-M
Christ has himsel! com,rised his system inBMLove your neighbour as
yoursel!. and ?od above all-M +hese Msound truths o! ,ractical ChristianityM
consist in a total subversion. not only o! Christianity. but o! all morality<B
the very %ords virtue and vice being but la>y synonymes o! ,rudence and
miscalculation.Band %hich ought to be e,unged !rom our vocabularies.
together %ith Abraas and Abracadabra. as charms abused by su,erstitious
or mystic enthusiasts-
Ib. p# %4#
*ventually the %hole direction o! the ,o,ular mind. in the a!!airs o!
religion. %ill be gained into the hands o! a set o! ignorant !anatics o! such
lo% origin and vulgar habits as can only serve to degrade religion in the
eyes o! those to %hom its in!luence is most %anted- $ill such ,ersons
venerate or res,ect it in the hands o! a sect com,osed in the !ar greater ,art
o! bigotted. coarse. illiterate. and lo%7bred enthusiastsL 9en %ho have
abandoned their la%!ul callings. in %hich by industry they might have been
use!ul members o! society. to ta#e u,on themselves concerns the most
sacred. %ith %hich nothing but their vanity and their ignorance could have
ecited them to meddle-
)t is not the bu!!oonery o! the reverend Fo#er o! the *dinburgh =evie%< not
the convulsed grin o! morti!ication %hich. s,ra%ling ,rostrate in the dirt
!rom Mthe %hi!! and %indM o! the masterly disGuisition in the ;uarterly
=evie%. the itinerant ,reacher %ould ,ass o!t' !or the broad grin o! trium,h<
no. nor even the over7valued distinction o! miracles.B%hich %ill ,revent
him !rom seeing and she%ing the eGual a,,licability o! all this to the
A,ostles and ,rimitive Christians- $e #no% that +raFan. 8liny. +acitus. the
Antonines. Celsus. Lucian and the li#e.Bmuch more the ten thousand
,hiloso,hers and Fo#e7smiths o! =ome.Bdid both !eel and a,,ly all this to
the ?alilean "ect< and yetBVicisti, # -alil2e4
Ib. p# %&#
+hey never !ail to re!er to the ,roud 8harisee. %hom they term sel!7
ri$hteo's< and thus. having greatly misre,resented his character. they
,roceed to declaim on the arrogance o! !ounding any e,ectation o! re%ard
!rom the ,er!ormance o! our moral d'ties:B%hereas the ,lain truth is that
the 8harisee %as not ri$hteo's. but merely arrogated to himsel! that
character< he had neglected all the moral d'ties o! li!e-
$ho told the Barrister thisL Not the ?os,el. ) am sure- +he *vangelical has
only to translate these sentences into the true statement o! his o,inions. in
order to ba!!le this angry and im,otent attac#< the sel!7righteousness o! all
%ho e,ect to claim salvation on the ,lea o! their o%n ,ersonal merit- M8ay
to A- B- at sightB value received by me-MB+o 9essrs- "tone and Co-
Ban#ers. Heaven7?ate- )t is a short ste, !rom this to the 8o,ish- M8ay to A-
B- or order-M 'nce assume merits. and ) de!y you to #ee, out
su,ererogation and the old +onte di &ietK-
Ib. p# %(#
Band !rom thence occasion is ta#en to de!ame all those %ho strive to
,re,are themselves. during this their state o! trial. !or that Fudgment %hich
they must undergo at that day. %hen they %ill receive either re%ard or
,unishment. according as they shall be !ound to have merited the one.
or deserved the other-
Can the Barrister have read the Ne% +estamentL 'r does he #no% it only
by GuotationsL
Ib.
Ba s%arm o! ne% *vangelists %ho are every %here teaching the ,eo,le
that no reliance is to be ,laced on holiness o! li!e as a ground o! !uture
acce,tance-
) am %eary o! re,eating that this is !alse- )t is only denied that mere acts.
not ,roceeding !rom !aith. are or can be holiness- As surely C%ould the
9ethodist sayD as the Holy ?host ,roceeds !rom the "on. so surely does
sancti!ication !rom redem,tion. and not vice versa.Bmuch less !rom sel!7
sancti!iedness. that ostrich %ith its head in the sand. and the ,luc#ed rum,
o! its merits staring on the divine venatri"E
Ib. p# 1+$#
He that doeth ri$hteo'sness is ri$hteo's- "ince then it is ,lain that each
must himself be righteous. i! he be so at all. %hat do they mean %ho thus
inveigh againstself7righteousness. since Christ himsel! declares there is no
otherL
Here again the %hole dis,ute lies in the %ord Mhimsel!-M )n the out%ard and
visible sense both ,arties agree< but the 9ethodist calls it Mthe %ill in us.M
given by grace< the Barrister calls it Mour o%n %ill.M or M%e ourselves-M But
%hy does not the Barrister reserve a ,art o! his %rath !or (r- 8riestley.
according to %hom a villain has su,erior claims on the divine Fustice as an
innocent martyr to the grand machinery o! 8rovidence<B!or (r- 8riestley.
%ho turns the %hole dictionary o! human nature into verbs im,ersonal %ith
a ,er,etuals'ba'dit'r o! De's !or their common nominative case<B%hich
said De's. ho%ever. is but another a'tomaton. sel!7%or#ed indeed. but yet
%or#ed. not ,ro,erly %or#ing. !or he admits no more !reedom or %ill to
?od than to manL +he Lutheran leaves the !ree %ill %hining %ith a bro#en
bac# in the ditch< and (r- 8riestley ,uts the ,oor animal out o! his miseryE
BBut seriously. is it !air or even decent to a,,eal to the Legislature against
the 9ethodists !or holding the doctrine o! the AtonementL (o %e not ,ray
by Act o! 8arliament t%enty times every "unday thro'$h the only merits of
*es's ChristL )s it not the very nose %hich Co! !lesh or %aD this very
Legislature insists on as an indis,ensable Guali!ication !or every Christian
!aceL )s not the lac# thereo! a !elonious de!ormity. yea. the grimmest
!eature o! the l'es confirmata o! statute heresyL $hat says the reverend
critic to thisL $illhe not rise in %rath against the Barrister.Bhe the
8am,hagus o! Homilitic. Liturgic. and Articular orthodoy.Bthe
?aragantua. %hose ravenous ma% leaves not a single %ord. syllable. letter.
no. not one iota uns%allo%ed. i! %e are to believe his o%n recent and
voluntary mani!esto
3
L $hat says he to this Barrister. and his Hints to the
LegislatureL
Ib. p# 1+&#
)! the ne% !aith be the only true one. let us embrace it< but let not those %ho
vend these ne. articles e,ect that %e should choose them %ith our eyes
shut-
Let any man read the Homilies o! the Church o! *ngland. and i! he does
not call this either blunt im,udence or blan# ignorance. ) %ill ,lead guilty
to bothE Ne% articlesEE $ould to Heaven some o! them at least %ereE $hy.
$esley himsel! %as scandali>ed at Luther's Commentary on the *,istle to
the ?alatians. and cried o!! !rom the 9oravians Cthe strictest LutheransD on
that account-
Ib. p# 114#
+he catalogue o! authors. %hich this =ev- ?entleman has ,leased to s,eci!y
and recommend. begins %ith Homer. Hesiod. the Argonautics. Xschylus.
"o,hocles. *uri,ides. 8indar. +heognis. Herodotus. +hucydides.
6eno,hon. 8olybius. (iodorus "iculus- N N N- This catalo$'e, says
he. mi$ht be considerably e"tended, b't I st'dy brevity. It is only necessary
for me to add that the recommendation of these books is not to be
considered as e"pressive of my approbation of every partic'lar sentiment
they contain. )t %ould indeed be grievous inFustice i! this %riter's re,utation
should be inFured by the occasional unsoundness o! o,inion in %riters
%hom it is more than ,robable he may never have read. and !or %hose
sentiments he ought no more to be made ans%erable than the com,iler o!
Lac#ington's Catalogue. !rom %hich it is not unli#ely that his o%n %as
abridged-
4ery good-
Ib. p# 11&01)#
+hese high7strained ,retenders to godliness. %ho deny the ,o%er o! the
sinner to hel, himsel!. ta#e good care al%ays to attribute his savin$
chan$e to the blessed e!!ect o! some sermon ,reached by some one or other
o! their *vangelical !raternity- +hey al%ays hold themselves u, to the
multitude as the instruments ,roducing all those marvellous conversions
%hich they relate- No instance is recorded in their "aints' Calendar o! any
sinner resolving. in conseGuence o! a re!lective and serious ,erusal o! the
"cri,tures. to lead a ne% li!e- No instance o! a daily ,erusal o! the Bible
,roducing a daily ,rogress in virtuous habits- No. the -ospel has no such
e!!ect- B)t is al%ays the -ospel &reacher %ho %or#s the miracle. Ic-
*cellent and Fust- )n this %ay are the 9ethodists to be attac#ed:Beven as
the 8a,ists %ere by Bater. not !rom their doctrines. but !rom their
,ractices. and the s,irit o! their "ect- +here is a !ine ,assage in Lord Bacon
concerning a heresy o! manner being not less ,ernicious than heresy o!
matter-
Ib. p# 11/#
But their "aints. %ho %ould sto, their ears i! you should mention %ith
admiration the name o! a ?arric# or a "iddons<B%ho thin# it a sin to
su,,ort such an infamo's profession as that through the medium o! %hich a
9ilton. a :ohnson. an Addison. and a Qoung have laboured to mend the
heart. Ic-
$hooE "ee 9ilton's 8re!ace to the Samson %$onistes-
Ib. p# 1''#
)n the *vangelical 9aga>ine is the !ollo%ing article: MAt BB in Qor#shire.
a!ter a handsome collection C!or the 9issionary "ocietyD a ,oor man.
%hose %ages are about /8s- ,er %ee#. brought a donation o! /5 guineas-
'ur !riends hesitated to receive it N N %hen he ans%ered N NBBefore I
kne. the $race of o'r Lord I .as a poor dr'nkard9 I never co'ld save a
shillin$. +y family .ere in be$$ary and ra$s6 b't since it has pleased -od
to rene. me by his $race, .e have been ind'strio's and fr'$al9 .e have
not spent many idle shillin$s6 and .e have been enabled to p't somethin$
into the Bank6 and this I freely offer to the blessed ca'se of o'r Lord and
Savio'r. +his is the second donation o! this same ,oor man to the same
amountEM $hatever these *vangelists may thin# o! such conduct. they
ought to be ashamed o! thus basely ta#ing advantage o! this ,oor ignorant
enthusiast. Ic-
)s it ,ossible to read this a!!ecting story %ithout !inding in it a com,lete
ans%er to the charge o! demorali>ing the lo%er classesL (oes the Barrister
really thin#. that this generous and grate!ul enthusiast is as li#ely to be
un,rovided and ,overty7stric#en in his old age. as he %as ,rior to his
conversionL *ce,t indeed that at that time his old age %as as im,robable
as his distresses %ere certain i! he did live so long- +his is singing Io
&2an4 !or the enemy %ith a vengeance-
1art II# p# 14#
)t behoved him C(r- Ha%#er in his Letter to the BarristerD to sho% in %hat
manner a covenant can eist %ithout terms or conditions-
According to the 9ethodists there is a condition.Bthat o! !aith in the
,o%er and ,romise o! Christ. and the virtue o! the Cross- And %ere it
other%ise. the obFection is scarcely a,,ro,riate ece,t at the 'ld Bailey. or
in the Court o! Hing's Bench- +he Barrister might have !ramed a second
la%7syllogism. as acute as his !ormer- +he la%s o! *ngland allo% no
binding covenant in a trans!er o! goods or chattels %ithout value received-
But there can be no value received by ?od:B!r$o. there can be no
covenant bet%een ?od and man- And i! :ehovah should be as courteous as
the House o! Commons. and ac#no%ledge the Furisdiction o! the Courts at
$estminster. the ,leading might hold ,erha,s. and the 8entateuch be
Guashed a!ter an argument be!ore the Fudges- Besides. ho% childish to ,u!!
u, the em,ty bladder o! an old meta,hysical !oot7ball on the 'modus
o,erandi interior' o! :usti!ication into a she% o! ,ractical substance< as i! it
%ere no less solid than a cannon ballE $hy. drive it %ith all the vehemence
that !ive toes can eert. it %ould not #ill a louse on the head o! 9ethodism-
=e,entance. godly sorro%. abhorrence o! sin as sin. and not merely dread
!rom !orecast o! the conseGuences. these the Arminian %ould call means o!
obtaining salvation. %hile the 9ethodist Cmore ,hiloso,hically ,erha,sD
names them signs o! the %or# o! !ree grace commencing and the da%ning
o! the sun o! redem,tion- And ,ray %here is the ,ractical di!!erenceL
Ib. p# $)#
:esus ans%ered him thusBVerily, I say 'nto yo', 'nless a man be born of
.ater and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kin$dom of -od-B+he true
sense o! %hich is obviously this:B*ce,t a man be initiated into my
religion by Ba,tism. C%hich at that time %as al%ays preceded by a
confession of faithD and unless he mani!est his sincere rece,tion o! it. by
leading that u,right and spirit'al li!e %hich it enFoins. he cannot enter the
kin$dom of heaven. or be a ,arta#er o! that ha,,iness %hich it belongs to
me to con!er on those %ho believe in my name and #ee, my sayings-
@,on my !aith as a Christian. i! no more is meant by being born again than
this. the s,ea#er must have had the strongest taste in meta,hors o! any
teacher in verse or ,rose on record. :acob Behmen himsel! not ece,ted-
+he very Alchemists lag behind- 8ity. ho%ever. that our Barrister has not
sho%n us ho% this ,lain and obvious business o! Ba,tism agrees %ith ver-
8- o! the same cha,ter: The .ind blo.eth .here it listeth. Ic- No% i! this
does not e,ress a visitation o! the mind by a some%hat not in the o%n
,o%er or !ore7thought o! the mind itsel!. %hat are %ords meant !orL
Ib. p# $%#
+he true meaning o! being born a$ain. in the sense in %hich our "aviour
uses the ,hrase. im,lies nothing more or less. in ,lain terms. than this:Bto
re,ent< to lead !or the !uture a religious li!e instead o! a li!e o!
disobedience< to believe the Holy "cri,tures. and to ,ray !or grace and
assistance to ,ersevere in our obedience to the end- All this any man o!
common sense might e,lain in a !e% %ords-
8ray. then. C!or ) %ill ta#e the Barrister's o%n commentary.D %hat does the
man o! common sense mean by graceL )! he %ill e,lain grace in any other
%ay than as the circumstances ab e"tra C%hich %ould be mere moc#ery and
in direct contradiction to a score o! tetsD. and yet %ithout mystery. ) %ill
underta#e !or (r- Ha%#er and Co- to ma#e the ne% birth itsel! as ,lain as a
,i#esta!!. or a %hale's !oal. or "arah =obarts's rabbits-
Ib. p# '+#
"o that they go on in their sin %aiting !or a ne% birth. Ic-
M"o that they go on in their sinEMB$ho %ould not su,,ose it notorious that
every 9ethodist meeting7house %as a cage o! Ne%gate lar#s ma#ing u,
their minds to die gameL
Ib.
+he !ollo%ing account is etracted !rom the 9ethodist 9aga>ine !or 1298:
M+he Lord astonished '"arah =oberts' %ith his mercy. by settin$ her at
liberty, .hile employed in the necessary business o! .ashin$ !or her !amily.
Ic-
:. B. Not the !amous rabbit7%oman-B"he %as =obarts-
Ib. p# '1#
A %asher%oman has all her sins blotted o't in the t%in#ling o! an eye. and
%hile ree#ing %ith suds is received in the !amily o! the =edeemer's
#ingdom- "urely this is a most abominable ,ro!anation o! all that is serious.
Ic-
And %here ,ray is the absurdity o! thisL Has Christ declared any anti,athy
to %asher%omen. or the Holy ?host to %arm sudsL $hy does not the
Barrister try his hand at the Mabominable ,ro!anation.M in a story o! a
certain %oman %ith an issue o! blood %ho %as made !ree by touching the
hem o! a garment. %ithout the ,revious #no%ledge o! the %earerL
5ode, caper, vitem9 tamen hinc c'm stabis ad aras, In t'a 3'od f'ndi
corn'a possit, erit.
Ib. p# '$#
+he leading design o! :ohn the Ba,tist N N %as N this:Bto ,re,are the
minds o! men !or the rece,tion o! that ,ure system o! moral truth %hich the
"aviour. by divine authority. %as s,eedily to inculcate. and o! those
sublime doctrines o! a resurrection and a !uture Fudgment. %hich. as
,o%er!ul motives to the ,ractice o! holiness. he %as soon to reveal-
$hat thenL (id not :ohn the Ba,tist himsel! teach a ,ure system o! moral
truthL $as :ohn so much more ignorant than 8aul be!ore his conversion.
and the %hole :e%ish nation. ece,t a !e% rich !reethin#ers. as to be
ignorant o! the Msublime doctrines o! a resurrection and a !uture FudgmentLM
+his. ) %ell #no%. is the strong7hold o! "ocinianism< but surely one single
un,reFudiced ,erusal o! the Ne% +estament.Bnot to su,,ose an
acGuaintance %ith Hidder or Light!ootB%ould blo% it do%n. li#e a house
o! cardsE
Ib. p# ''#
Btheir !aiths in the e!!icacy o! their o%n rites. and creeds. and ceremonies.
and their %hole train o! s'bstit'tions !or moral d'ty. %as so entire. and in
their o,inion %as such a savin$ faith. that they could not at all inter,ret any
language that seemed to dis,ute their value. or deny their im,ortance-
8oor strange :e%sE +hey had. doubtless. %hat (ar%in %ould call a
s,eci!ic paralysis o! the auditory nerves to the %ritings o! their o%n
8ro,hets. %hich yet %ere read "abbath a!ter "abbath in their ,ublic
"ynagogues- &or neither :ohn nor Christ himsel! ever did. or indeed could.
s,ea# in language more contem,tuous o! the !olly o! considering rites as
substitutions !or moral duty. or in severer %ords denounce the blas,hemy
o! such an o,inion- $hy need ) re!er to )saiah or 9icahL
Ib. p# '4#
+hus it %as that this moral ,reacher e,lained and en!orced the duty o!
re,entance. and thus it %as that he ,re,ared the %ay !or the greatest and
best o! teachers. Ic-
$ell then. i! all this %as but a ,re,aration !or the doctrines o! Christ. those
doctrines themselves must surely have been something di!!erent. and more
di!!icultL 'h noE :ohn's ,re,aration consisted in a com,lete rehearsal o!
the Drama didactic'm. %hich Christ and the A,ostles %ere to ehibit to a
!ull audienceEBNay. ,rithee. good BarristerE do not be too rash in charging
the 9ethodists %ith a monstrous burlesGue o! the ?os,elE
Ib. p# '(#
Bthe logic o! the ne% *vangelists %ill convince him that it is a
contradiction in terms even to s'ppose himsel! capable of doin$ any
thin$ to hel, or brin$in$ any thin$ to recommend himself to the Divine
favo'r-
No%. su,,ose the %isdom o! these endless attac#s on an old abstruse
meta,hysical notion to be allo%ed. yet %hy in the name o! common
candour does not the Barrister ring the same tocsin against his !riend (r-
8riestley's scheme o! Necessity<Bor against his idoli>ed 8aley. %ho
e,lained the %ill as a sensation. ,roduced by the action o! the intellect on
the muscles. and the intellect itsel! as a catenation o! ideas. and ideas as
con!igurations o! the organi>ed brainL $ould not every syllable a,,ly. yea.
and more strongly. more indis,utablyL And %ould his !ello%7sectaries
than# him. or admit the conseGuencesL 'r has any late "ocinian divine
discovered. that Do as ye .o'ld be done 'nto. is an inter,olated ,rece,tL
Ib. p# '%#
M*ven re,entance and !aith.M Csays (r- Ha%#er.D Mthose most essential
Guali!ications o! the mind. !or the ,artici,ation and enFoyment o! the
blessings o! the ?os,el. Cand %hich all real disci,les o! the Lord :esus
cannot but ,ossess.D are never s'pposed as a condition .hich the sinner
performs to entitle him to mercy. but merely as evidences that he is brought
and has obtained mercy- They cannot be the conditions o! obtaining
salvation-M
'ught not this single Guotation to have satis!ied the Barrister. that no
,ractical di!!erence is deducible !rom these doctrinesL M*ssential
Guali!ications.M says the 9ethodist:BMterms and conditions.M says the
s,iritual higgler- But i! a man begins to re!lect on his ,ast li!e. is he to
%ithstand the inclinationL ?od !orbidE eclaim both- )! he !eels a
commencing shame and sorro%. is he to chec# the !eelingL ?od !orbidE cry
both in one breathE But should not remembrancers be thro%n in the %ay o!
sinners. and the voice o! %arning sound through every street and every
%ildernessL (oubtless. Guoth the =ationalist- $e do it. %e do it. shout the
9ethodists- )n every corner o! every lane. in the high road. and in the
%aste. %e send !orth the voiceBCome to Christ. and re,ent. and be
cleansedE Aye. Guoth the =ationalist. but ) say =e,ent. and become clean.
and go to ChristB No% is not 9r- =ationalist as great a bigot as the
9ethodists. as he is. me 7'dice. a %orse ,sychologistL
1art II# p# 4+#
+he !ormer authorities on this subFect ) had Guoted !rom the ?os,el
according to "t- Lu#e: that ?os,el most ,ositively and most solemnly
declares the repentance o! sinners to be the condition on
%hich alone salvation can be obtained- But the doctors o! the ne%
divinity deny this: they tell us distinctly it cannot be- &or the !uture. the
?os,el according to Calvin must be received as the truth- "inners %ill
certainly ,re!er it as the more com!ortable o! the t%o beyond all
com,arison-
9ercyE but only to read Calvin's account o! that re,entance. %ithout %hich
there is no sign o! election. and to call it Mthe more com!ortable o! the
t%oLM +he very term by %hich the ?erman Ne%7Birthites e,ress it is
enough to give one goose7!leshBdas Her)knirschenBthe very heart
crashed bet%een the teeth o! a loc#7Fa%'d agonyE
Ib.
$hat is faithL )s it not a conviction ,roduced in the mind by adeGuate
testimonyL
NoE that is not the meaning o! !aith in the ?os,el. nor indeed any%here
else- $ere it so. the stronger the testimony. the more adeGuate the !aith- Qet
%ho says. ) have !aith in the eistence o! ?eorge ))-. as his ,resent
9aFesty's antecessor and grand!atherLB)! testimony. then evidence too<B
and %ho has !aith that the t%o sides o! all triangles are greater than the
thirdL )n truth. !aith. even in common language. al%ays im,lies some
e!!ort. something o! evidence %hich is not universally adeGuate or
communicable at %ill to others- M$ellE to be sure he has behaved badly
hitherto. but ) have !aith in him-M )! it %ere other%ise. ho% could it be
im,uted as righteousnessL Can morality eist %ithout choice<Bnay.
strengthen in ,ro,ortion as it becomes more inde,endent o! the %illL MA
very meritorious manE he has !aith in every ,ro,osition o! *uclid. %hich he
understands-M
Ib. p# 41#
M) could as easily create a %orld Csays (r- Ha%#erD as create either !aith or
re,entance in my o%n heart-M "urely this is a most monstrous con!ession-
$hatE is not the Christian religion a revealed religion. and have %e not the
most miraculous attestation o! its truthL
:ust loo# at the ans%er o! Christ himsel! to Nicodemus. *ohn iii- /. 3-
Nicodemus ,ro!essed a !ull belie! in Christ's divine mission- $hyL )t %as
attested by his miracles- $hat ans%ered ChristL M$ell said. ' believerLM
No. not a %ord o! this< but the ,roo! o! the !olly o! such a
su,,osition- Verily, verily, I say 'nto thee6 e"cept a man be born a$ain, he
cannot see the kin$dom of -od.Bthat is. he cannot have !aith in me-
Ib. p# 4$#
Ho% can this evangelical ,reacher declaim on the necessity o! seriously
searching into the truth o! revelation. !or the ,ur,ose either o! ,roducing or
con!irming our belie! o! it. %hen he has already ,ronounced it to be Fust as
,ossible to arrive at conviction as to create a %orldL
(id (r- Ha%#er say that it %as im,ossible to ,roduce an assent to the
historic credibility o! the !acts related in the ?os,elL (id he say that it %as
im,ossible to become a "ocinian by the %eighing o! out%ard evidencesL
NoE but (r- Ha%#er says.Band ) say.Bthat this is not. cannot be. %hat
Christ means by !aith. %hich. to the mis!ortune o! the "ocinians. he al%ays
demands as the condition o! a miracle. instead o! loo#ing !or%ard to it as
the natural e!!ect o! a miracle- Ho% came it that 8eter sa% miracles
countless. and yet %as %ithout !aith till the Holy ?host descended on himL
Besides. miracles may or may not be adeGuate evidence !or "ocinianism<
but ho% could miracles ,rove the doctrine o! =edem,tion. or the divinity o!
ChristL But this is the creed o! the Church o! *ngland-
)t is %earisome to be under the necessity. or at least the constant
tem,tation. o! attac#ing "ocinianism. in revie%ing a %or# ,ro!essedly
%ritten against 9ethodism- "urely such a %or# ought to treat o! those
,oints o! doctrine and ,ractice. %hich are ,eculiar to 9ethodism- But to
,ublish a diatribe against the substance o! the Articles and Catechism o! the
*nglish Church. nay. o! the %hole Christian %orld. ece,ting the
"ocinians. and to call it MHints concerning the dangerous and abominable
absurdities o! 9ethodism.M is too bad-
Ib. p# 4'#
But this Calvinistic *vangelist tells us. by %ay o! accounting !or the utter
im,ossibility o! ,roducing in himsel! either !aith or re,entance. that both
are o! divine origin. and li#e the light. and the rain. and the de% o! heaven.
%hich tarrieth not !or man. neither %aiteth !or the sons o! men. are !rom
above. and come do%n !rom the &ather o! lights. !rom %hom alone cometh
every good and ,er!ect gi!tE
)s the BarristerBare the "ocinian divinesBins,ired. or in!allibly sure that
it is a crime !or a Christian to understand the %ords o! Christ in their ,lain
and literal sense. %hen a "ocinian chooses to give his ,ara,hrase.Bo!ten.
too. as strongly remote !rom the %ords. as the old s,iritual ,ara,hrases on
the "ong o! "olomonL
Ib. p# 4)#
According to that ?os,el %hich hath hitherto been the ,illar o! the
Christian %orld. %e are taught that %hosoever endeavours to the best o! his
ability to re!orm his manners. and amend his li!e. %ill have ,ardon and
acce,tance-
As inter,reted by %homL By the "ocini. or the BarristerLB'r by 'rigen.
Chrysostom. :erome. the ?regories. *usebius. AthanasiusLBBy +homas
AGuinas. Bernard. +homas7a7Hem,isLBBy Luther. 9elancthon. Juinglius.
CalvinLBBy the =e!ormers and martyrs o! the *nglish ChurchLBBy
Cart%right and the learned 8uritansLBBy HnoLBBy ?eorge &oLB$ith
regard to this ,oint. that mere eternal evidence is inadeGuate to the
,roduction o! a saving !aith. and in the maFority o! other o,inions. all these
agree %ith $esley- "o they all understood the ?os,el- But it is not
soE !r$o. the Barrister is in!allible-
Ib. p# 4(#
hen the .icked man t'rneth a.ay from the .ickedness .hich he hath
committed, and doeth that .hich is la.f'l and ri$ht, he shall save his so'l
alive- +his gracious declaration the old moral divines o! our Church have
,laced in the !ront o! its Liturgy-
)n the name o! ,atience. over and over again. %ho has ever denied thisL
+he Guestion is. by %hat ,o%er. his o%n. or by the !ree grace o! ?od
through Christ. the %ic#ed man is enabled to turn !rom his %ic#edness-
And again and again ) as#:B$ere not these Mold moral divinesM the authors
and com,ilers o! the HomiliesL )! the Barrister does not #no% this. he is an
ignorant man< i! #no%ing it. he has yet never eamined the Homilies. he is
an unFust man< but i! he have. he is a slanderer and a syco,hant-
)s it not intolerable to ta#e u, three bul#y ,am,hlets against a recent "ect.
denounced as most dangerous. and %hich %e all #no% to be most ,o%er!ul
and o! ra,id increase. and to !ind little more than a %ea# declamatory abuse
o! certain meta,hysical dogmas concerning !ree %ill. or !ree %ill !or!eited.
'de libero vel servo arbitrio'Bo! grace. ,redestination. and the li#e<B
dogmas on %hich. according to 9ilton. ?od and the Logos conversed. as
soon as man %as in eistence. they in heaven. and Adam in ,aradise. and
the devils in hell<Bdogmas common to all religions. and to all ages and
sects o! the Christian religion<Bconcerning %hich Brahmin dis,utes %ith
Brahmin. 9ahometan %ith 9ahometan. and 8riestley %ith 8rice<Band all
this to be laid on the shoulders o! the 9ethodists collectively: though it is a
notorious !act. that a radical di!!erence on this abstruse subFect is the
ground o! the schism bet%een the $hit!ieldite and $esleyan 9ethodists<
and that the latter coincide in o,inion %ith *rasmus and Arminius. by
%hich latter name they distinguish themselves< and the !ormer %ith Luther.
Calvin. and their great guide. "t- AugustineL +his ) say is intolerable.Byea.
a crime against sense. candour. and %hite ,a,er-
Ib. p# &+#
M&or so very ,eculiarly directed to the sinner. and to him only Csays the
evangelical ,reacherD is the blessed ?os,el o! the Lord :esus. that unless
you are a sinner. you are not interested in its saving truths-M
(oes not Christ himsel! say the same in the ,lainest and most unmista#able
%ordsL I come not to call the ri$hteo's, b't sinners to repentance. They
that be .hole need not a physician, b't they that are sick, Can he. %ho has
no share in the danger. be interested in the savingL 8leased !rom
benevolence he may be< but interested he cannot be- !stne ali3'id inter
salv'm et sal'tem6 inter liber'm et libertatemA Sal's est pere'ntis, vel
saltem periditantis9 redemptio, 3'asi pons divin's, inter serv'm et
libertatem,8amissam, ideo3'e optatam-
Ib. p# &$#
)t %as reserved !or these days o! ne. discovery to announce to man#ind
that. unless they are sinners. they are ecluded !rom the ,romised blessings
o! the ?os,el-
9erely read that 'nless they are sick they are precl'ded from the offered
remedies of the -ospel< and is not this the dictate o! common sense. as %ell
as o! 9ethodismL But does not 9ethodism cry aloud that all men are sic#
Bsic# to the very heartL If .e say .e are .itho't sin, .e deceive
o'rselves, and the tr'th is not in 's. +his shallo%7,ated Barrister ma#es me
do%nright ,iggish. and %ithout the stratagem o! that !amed ,hiloso,her in
,ig7nature almost drives me into the Charon's hoy o! 9ethodism by his
rude and stu,id tail7hauling me bac# !rom it-
Ib. p# &'#
) can assure these gentlemen that ) regard %ith a reverence as ,ure and
a%!ul as can enter into the human mind. that blood %hich %as shed u,on
the Cross-
+hat is. in the Barrister's creed. that mysterious !lint. %hich %ith the
subordinate aids o! mutton. barley. salt. turni,s. and ,otherbs. ma#es most
%onder!ul !ine !lint broth- "u,,ose Christ had never shed his blood. yet i!
he had %or#ed his miracles. raised La>arus. and taught the same doctrines.
%ould not the result have been the sameLB'r i! Christ had never a,,eared
on earth. yet did not (aniel %or# miracles as stu,endous. %hich surely
must give all the authority to his doctrines that miracles can giveL And did
he not announce by the Holy ",irit the resurrection to Fudgment. o! glory or
o! ,unishmentL
Ib. p# &4#
Let them not attem,t to esca,e it by Guoting a !e% disconnected ,hrases in
the *,istles. but let them adhere solely and stead!astly to that ?os,el o!
%hich they a!!ect to be the eclusive ,reachers-
And %hence has the Barrister learnt that the *,istles are not eGually
binding on Christians as the !our ?os,elsL "urely. o! "t- 8aul's at least. the
authenticity is incom,arably clearer than that o! the !irst three ?os,els< and
i! he give u,. as doubtless he does. the ,lenary ins,iration o! the ?os,els.
the ,ersonal authority o! the %riters o! all the *,istles is greater than t%o at
least o! the !our *vangelists- "econdly. the ?os,el o! :ohn and all the
*,istles %ere ,ur,osely %ritten to teach the Christian &aith< %hereas the
!irst three ?os,els are as evidently intended only as memorabilia o! the
history o! the Christian =evelation. as !ar as the ,rocess o! =edem,tion %as
carried on in the li!e. death. and resurrection o! the divine &ounder- +his is
the blan#. bra>en. blushless. or only brass7blushing. im,udence o! an 'ld
Bailey Barrister. attem,ting to bro%beat out o! Court the better and more
authentic hal! o! the %itnesses against him- )! ) %ished to understand the
la%s o! *ngland. shall ) consult Hume or Blac#stoneBhim %ho has %ritten
his volumes e,ressly as comments on those la%s. or the historian %ho
mentions them only as !ar as the la%s %ere connected %ith the events and
characters %hich he relates or describesL Nay. it is !ar %orse than this< !ar
Christ himsel! re,eatedly de!ers the ,ublication o! his doctrines till a!ter his
death. and gives the reason too. that till he had sent the Holy ?host. his
disci,les %ere not ca,able o! com,rehending them- (oes he not attribute to
an immediate in!luence o! es,ecial ins,iration even 8eter's
ac#no%ledgment o! his &iliation to ?od. or 9essiahshi,LB$as it !rom the
?os,els that 8aul learned to #no% ChristLB $as the Church sity years
%ithout the a%!ul truths taught eclusively in :ohn's ?os,elL
1art III# p# &#
+he 'nostrum' o! the mounteban# %ill he ,re!erred to the ,rescri,tion o! the
regular ,ractitioner- $hy is thisL Because there is something in the
authoritative arrogance o! the ,retender. by %hich ignorance is overa%ed-
+his is something< and true as !ar as it goes< that is. ho%ever. but a very
little %ay- +he great ,o%er o! both s,iritual and ,hysical mounteban#s rests
on that irremovable ,ro,erty o! human nature. in !orce o! %hich inde!inite
instincts and su!!erings !ind no echo. no resting7,lace. in the de!inite and
com,rehensible- )gnorance unnecessarily enlarges the s,here o! these: but a
s,here there is.B!acts o! mind and cravings o! the soul there are.Bin
%hich the %isest man see#s hel, !rom the inde!inite. because it is nearer
and more li#e the in!inite. o! %hich he is made the image:B!or even %e are
in!inite. even in our !initeness in!inite. as the &ather in his in!inity- )n many
cater,illars there is a large em,ty s,ace in the head. the destined room !or
the ,ushing !orth o! the antenn2 o! its net state o! being-
Ib. p# 1$#
But the anti7moralists aver N N that they are Guoted un!airly< Bthat
although they disavo%. it is true. the necessity. and deny the value. o!
,ractical morality and ,ersonal holiness. and declare them to be totally
irrelevant to our !uture salvation. yet that N N ) might have !ound occasional
recommendations o! moral duty %hich ) have neglected to notice-
+he same crambe bis decies cocta o! one sel!7same charge grounded on
one gross and stu,id misconce,tion and mis7statement: and to %hich there
needs no other ans%er than this sim,le !act- Let the Barrister name any one
gross o!!ence against the moral la%. !or %hich he %ould shun a man's
acGuaintance. and !or that same vice the 9ethodist %ould inevitably be
ecluded ,ublicly !rom their society< and ) am inclined to thin# that a !air
list o! the Barrister's !riends and acGuaintances %ould ,rove that the
Calvinistic 9ethodists are the austerer and more %atch!ul censors o! the
t%o- )! this be the truth. as it notoriously is. %hat but the cataract o!
stu,idity uncouched. or the thic#est !ilm o! bigot7slime. can ,revent a man
!rom seeing that this tenet o! Fusti!ication by !aith alone is eclusively a
matter bet%een the Calvinist's o%n heart and his 9a#er. %ho alone #no%s
the true source o! his %ords and actions< but that to his neighbours and
!ello%7creedsmen. his s,otless li!e and good %or#s are demanded. not.
indeed. as the ,rime e!!icient causes o! his salvation. but as the necessary
and only ,ossible signs o! that !aith. %hich is the means o! that salvation o!
%hich Christ's !ree grace is the cause. and the sancti!ying ",irit the
,er!ecter- But ) !all into the same !ault ) am arraigning. by so o!ten
e,osing and con!uting the same blunder. %hich has no claim even at its
!irst enunciation to the com,liment o! a ,hiloso,hical ans%er- But %hy. in
the name o! common sense. all this endless %hoo, and hubbub against the
Calvinistic 9ethodistsL ) had understood that the Arminian 9ethodists. or
$esleyans. are the more numerous body by !ar- Has there been any union
latelyL Have the !ollo%ers o! $esley abFured the doctrines o! their !ounder
on this headL
Ib. p# 1)#
$e are told by our ne% s,iritual teachers. that reason is not to be a,,lied to
the inGuiry into the truth or !alsehood o! their doctrines< they are s,iritually
discerned. and carnal reason has no concern %ith them-
*ven under this aversion to reason. as a,,lied to religious grounds. a very
im,ortant truth lur#s: and the mista#e Ca very dangerous one ) admit.D lies
in the con!ounding t%o very di!!erent !aculties o! the mind under one and
the same name<Bthe ,ure reason or vis scientifica< and the discourse. or
,rudential ,o%er. the ,ro,er obFects o! %hich are theph2nomena o!
sensuous e,erience- +he greatest loss %hich modern ,hiloso,hy has
through %il!ul scorn sustained. is the grand distinction o! the ancient
,hiloso,hers bet%een the and +his gives the true
sense o! 8linyBvenerare Deos Cthat is. their statues. and the li#e.D et
n'mina Deor'm. that is. those s,iritual in!luences %hich are re,resented by
the images and ,ersons o! A,ollo. 9inerva. and the rest-
Ib. p# 1(#
=eligion has !or its obFect the moral care and the moral cultivation o! man-
)ts beauty is not to be sought in the regions o! mystery. or in the !lights o!
abstraction-
$hat ignoranceE )s there a single moral ,rece,t o! the ?os,els not to be
!ound in the 'ld +estamentL Not one- A ne% edition o!
$hite's Diatessaron. %ith a running comment the Hebre%. ?ree#. and
=oman %riters be!ore Christ. and those a!ter him %ho. it is morally certain.
dre% no aids !rom the Ne% +estament. is a grand desiderat'm< and i!
anything could o,en the eyes o! "ocinians. this %ould do it-
Ib. p# $4#
+he masculine strength and moral !irmness %hich once distinguished the
great mass o! the British ,eo,le is daily !ading a%ay- 9ethodism %ith all
its cant. Ic-
$ellE but in ?od's name can 9ethodism be at once the e!!ect and the cause
o! this loss o! masculine strength and moral !irmnessLB(id $hit!ield and
$esley blo% them out at the !irst ,u!!Bthese grand virtues o! masculine
strength and moral !irmnessL Admire. ) ,ray you. the ha,,y antithesis- Qet
M!eminineM %ould be an im,rovement. as then the sense too %ould be
antithetic- Ho%ever. the sound is su!!icient. and modern rhetoric ,ossesses
the virtue o! economy-
Ib. p# $(#
"o %ith the +in#er< ) %ould give him the care o! #ettles. but ) %ould not
give him the c're of so'ls- "o long as he attended to the management and
mending o! his ,ots and ,ans. ) %ould %ish success to his ministry: but
%hen he came to declare 'himsel!' a Mchosen vessel.M and demand
,ermission to ta#e the souls o! the ,eo,le into his holy #ee,ing. ) should
thin# that. instead o! a 'licence'. it %ould be more humane and more
,rudent to give him a ,ass,ort to "t- Lu#e's- (e,end u,on it. such men
%ere never sent by 8rovidence to rule or to regulate man#ind-
$hooE Bounteous 8rovidence that al%ays loo#s at the body clothes and the
,arents' eGui,age be!ore it ,ic#s out the ,ro,er soul !or the babyE HoE the
(uchess o! 9anchester is in labour:BGuic#. =a,hael. or @riel. bring a soul
out o! the Numa bin. a young Lycurgus- 'r the Archbisho,'s lady:BhoE a
soul !rom the Chrysostom or Athanasian loc#er-BBut ,oor 9oll Cris,in is
in the throes %ith t%ins: B%ellE there are ,lenty o! cobblers' and tin#ers'
souls in the holdB:ohn BunyanEE $hy. thou miserable Barrister. it %ould
ta#e an angel an eternity to tin#er thee into a s#ull o! hal! his ca,acityE
Ib. p# '+, '1#
MA tr'ly a%a#ened conscience.M Cthese anti7moral editors o! the 8ilgrim's
8rogress assure us.D Mcan never !ind relie! !rom the la%: Cthat is. the moral
la.-D +he more he loo#s !or ,eace this .ay, his $'ilt. li#e a heavy burden.
becomes more intolerable< %hen he becomes dead to the la..Bas to any
dependence 'pon it for salvation.Bby the body o! Christ. and married to
him. %ho %as raised !rom the dead. then. and not till then. his heart is set at
liberty. to run the %ay o! ?od's commandments-M
Here %e are taught that the conscience can never !ind relie! !rom obedience
to the la% o! the ?os,el-
&alse- $e are told by Bunyan and his editors that the conscience can never
!ind relie! !or its disobedience to the La% in the La% itsel!<Band this is as
true o! the moral as o! the 9osaic La%- ) am not de!ending Calvinism or
Bunyan's theology< but i! victory. not truth. %ere my obFect. ) could desire
no easier tas# than to de!end it against our doughty Barrister- $ell. but )
re,entBthat is. regret itEBQesE and so you doubtless regret the loss o! an
eye or arm:B%ill that ma#e it gro% againLB+hin# you this nonsense as
a,,lied to moralityL Be it soE But yet nonsense most tremendously suited to
human nature it is. as the Barrister may !ind in the arguments o! the 8agan
,hiloso,hers against Christianity. %ho attributed a large ,ortion o! its
success to its holding out an e,iation. %hich no other religion
did- =ead but that most a!!ecting and instructive anecdote selected !rom the
Hindostan 9issionary Account by the ;uarterly =evie%
0
- Again let me say
) am not giving my o%n o,inion on this very di!!icult ,oint< but o! one
thing ) am convinced. that the ') am sorry !or it. that's enough'Bmen mean
nothing but regret %hen they tal# o! re,entance. and have consciences
either so ,ure or so callous. as not to #no% %hat a dire!ul and strange thing
remorse is. and ho% absolutely a !act s'i $eneris4 ) have o!ten remar#ed.
and it cannot be too o!ten remar#ed Cvain as this may soundD. that this
essential heterogeneity o! regret and remorse is o! itsel! a su!!icient and the
best ,roo! o! !ree %ill and reason. the co7eistence o! %hich in man %e call
conscience. and on this rests the %hole su,erstructure o! human religionB
?od. immortality. guilt. Fudgment. redem,tion- $hether another and
di!!erent su,erstructure may be raised on the same !oundation. or %hether
the same edi!ice is susce,tible o! im,ortant alteration. is another Guestion-
But such is the edi!ice at ,resent. and this its !oundation: and the Barrister
might as rationally e,ect to blo% u, $indsor Castle by discharging a
,o,gun in one o! its cellars. as ho,e to demolish Calvinism by such
arguments as his-
Ib. p# '&, ')#
MAnd behold a certain la%yer stood u, and tem,ted him. saying. 9aster.
%hat shall ) do to inherit eternal lifeLM
MHe said unto him. hat is .ritten in the la.A Ho. readest tho'AM
MAnd he ans%ering said. +hou shalt love the Lord thy ?od %ith all thy
heart. %ith all thy soul. and %ith all thy stren$th. and %ith all thy mind< and
thy neighbour as thysel!-M
MAnd he said unto him. +hou hast ans.ered ri$ht. This do, and tho' shall
live.M
Lu#e - /17/8-
"o %ould Bunyan. and so %ould Calvin have ,reached<B%ould both o!
them in the name o! Christ have made this assurance to the BarristerBThis
do, and tho' shalt live. But %hat i! he has not done it. but the very
contraryL And %hat i! the ;uerist should be a staunch disci,le o! (r- 8aley:
and hold himsel! Mmorally obligedM not to hate or inFure his !ello%7man. not
because he is com,elled by conscience to see the eceeding sin!ulness o!
sin. and to abhor sin as sin. even as he esche%s ,ain as ,ain.Bno. not even
because ?od has !orbidden it<Bbut ultimately because the great Legislator
is able and has threatened to ,ut him to uns,ea#able torture i! he disobeys.
and to give him all #ind o! ,leasure i! he does not
1
L $hy. verily. in this
case. ) do !oresee that both the +in#er and the (ivine %ould %a %arm. and
rebu#e the said ;uerist !or vile hy,ocrisy. and a most ne!arious abuse o!
?od's good gi!t. intelligible language- $hatE do you call this 'ovin$ the
Lord yo'r -od .ith all yo'r heart, .ith all yo'r so'l, .ith all yo'r
stren$th, and all yo'r mind,8and yo'r nei$hbo'r as yo'rselfA $hereas in
truth you love nothing. not even your o%n soul< but only set a su,erlative
value on %hatever %ill grati!y your sel!ish lust o! enFoyment. and insure
you !rom hell7!ire at a thousand times the true value o! the dirty ,ro,erty- )!
you have the im,udence to ,ersevere in mis7naming this Mlove.M su,,ly any
one instance in %hich you use the %ord in this senseL )! your son did not
s,it in your !ace. because he believed that you %ould disinherit him i! he
did. and this %ere his main moral obligation. %ould you allo% that your son
loved youBand %ith all his heart. and mind. and strength. and soulLB
"hameE "hameE
No% the ,o%er o! loving ?od. o! %illing good as good. Cnot o! desiring the
agreeable. and o! ,re!erring a larger though distant delight to an in!initely
smaller immediate Guali!ication. %hich is mere sel!ish ,rudence.D Bunyan
considers su,ernatural. and see#s its source in the !ree grace o! the Creator
through Christ the =edeemer:Bthis the Hantean also avers to be
su,ersensual indeed. but not su,ernatural. but in the original and essence o!
human nature. and !orming its grand and a%!ul characteristic- Hence he
calls it die +enschheitBthe ,rinci,le o! humanity<Bbut yet no less than
Calvin or the +in#er declares it a ,rinci,le most mysterious. the undoubted
obFect o! religious a%e. a ,er,etual %itness o! that ?od. %hose
image it is< a ,rinci,le utterly incom,rehensible by the discursive
intellect<Band moreover teaches us. that the surest ,lan !or sti!ling and
,araly>ing this divine birth in the soul Ca ,hrase o! 8lato's as %ell as o! the
+in#er'sD is by attem,ting to evo#e it by. or to substitute !or it. the ho,es
and !ears. the motives and calculations. o! ,rudence< %hich is an ecellent
and in truth indis,ensable servant. but considered as master and ,rimate o!
the moral diocese ,recludes the ,ossibility o! virtue Cin Bunyan's ,hrase.
holiness o! s,iritD by introducing legality< %hich is no cant ,hrase o!
9ethodism. but o! authenticated standing in the ethics o! the ,ro!oundest
,hiloso,hersBeven those %ho reFected Christianity. as a miraculous event.
and revelation itsel! as !ar as anything su,ernatural is im,lied in it- ) must
not mention 8lato. ) su,,ose.Bhe %as a mystic< nor Jeno.Bhe and his
%ere visionaries:Bbut Aristotle. the cold and dry Aristotle. has in a very
remar#able ,assage in his lesser tract o! *thics asserted the same thing< and
called it Ma divine ,rinci,le. lying dee,er than those things %hich can be
e,lained or enunciated discursively-M
Ib. p# 4&, 4)#
"ure ) am that no !ather o! a !amily that can at all estimate the im,ortance
o! #ee,ing !rom the in!ant mind %hatever might raise im,ure ideas or
ecite im,ro,er inGuiries %ill ever commend the 8ilgrim's 8rogress to their
,erusal-
And in the same s,irit and !or the same cogent reasons that the holy mon#
Le%is ,rohibited the Bible in all decent !amilies<Bor i! they must have
something o! that #ind. %ould ,ro,ose in ,re!erence +irante the $hiteE '
ho% ) abhor this abominable heart7haunting im,urity in the envelo,e o!
modestyE 9erci!ul HeavenE is it not a direct conseGuence !rom this system.
that %e all ,urchase our eistence at the ,rice o! our mother's ,urity o!
mindL "ee %hat 9ilton has %ritten on this subFect in the ,assage Guoted in
the &riend in the essays on the communication o! truth
3
-
Ib. p# 4(
Let us as# %hether the !emale mind is li#ely to be trained to ,urity by
studying this manual o! ,iety. and by e,ressing its devotional desires a!ter
the !ollo%ing eam,le- M9ercy being
a yo'n$ and breedin$ %oman lon$ed !or something.M Ic-
'ut u,on the !ello%E ) could !ind it in my heart to sus,ect him o! any vice
that the %orst o! men could commitE
Ib. pp# &&, &)#
%s by one man's disobedience many .ere made sinners, so by the
obedience of one shall many be made ri$hteo's. +he inter,retation o! this
tet is sim,ly this:BAs by !ollo%ing the !atal eam,le o! one man's
disobedience many %ere made sinners< so by that ,attern o! ,er!ect
obedience %hich Christ has set be!ore us shall many be made righteous-
$hat may not be e,lained thusL And into %hat may not any thing be thus
e,lainedL )t comes out little better than nonsense in any other than the
literal sense- &or let any man o! sincere mind and %ithout any system to
su,,ort loo# round on all his Christian neighbours. and %ill he say or %ill
they say that the origin o! their %ell7doing %as an attem,t to imitate %hat
they all believe to be inimitable. Christ's ,er!ection in virtue. his absolute
sinlessnessL NoBbut yet ,erha,s some ,articular virtues< !or instance. his
,atriotism in %ee,ing over :erusalem. his active benevolence in curing the
sic# and ,reaching to the ,oor. his divine !orgiveness in ,raying !or his
enemiesLB) grant all this- But then ho% is this ,eculiar to ChristL )s it not
the e!!ect o! all illustrious eam,les. o! those ,robably most %hich %e last
read o!. or %hich made the dee,est im,ression on our !eelingsL $ere there
no good men be!ore Christ. as there %ere no bad men be!ore AdamL )s it
not a notorious !act that those %ho most !reGuently re!er to Christ's conduct
!or their o%n actions. are those %ho believe him the incarnate (eityB
conseGuently. the best ,ossible guide. but in no strict sense an eam,le<B
%hile those %ho regard him as a mere man. the chie! o! the :e%ish
8ro,hets. both in the ,ul,it and !rom the ,ress ground their moral
,ersuasions chie!ly on arguments dra%n !rom the ,ro,riety and seemliness
Bor the contraryBo! the action itsel!. or !rom the %ill o! ?od #no%n by
the light o! reasonL +o ma#e "t- 8aul ,ro,hesy that all Christians %ill o%e
their holiness to their eclusive and conscious imitation o! Christ's actions.
is to ma#e "t- 8aul a !alse ,ro,het<Band %hat in such case becomes o! the
boasted in!luence o! miraclesL *ven as !alse %ould it be to ascribe the vices
o! the Chinese. or even our o%n. to the in!luence o! Adam's bad eam,le-
As %ell might %e say o! a ,oor scro!ulous innocent: M"ee the e!!ect o! the
bad eam,le o! his !ather on himEM ) blame no man !or disbelieving. or !or
o,,osing %ith might and main. the dogma o! 'riginal "in< but ) con!ess
that ) neither res,ect the understanding nor have con!idence in the sincerity
o! him. %ho declares that he has care!ully read the %ritings o! "t- 8aul. and
!inds in them no conseGuence attributed to the !all o! Adam but that o! his
bad eam,le. and none to the Cross o! Christ but the good eam,le o!
dying a martyr to a good cause- ) %ould underta#e !rom the %ritings o! the
later *nglish "ocinians to collect ,ara,hrases on the Ne% +estament tets
that could only be ,aralleled by the s,iritual ,ara,hrase on "olomon's "ong
to be !ound in the recent volume o! MA (ictionary o! the Holy Bible. by
:ohn Bro%n. 9inister o! the ?os,el at Haddington:M third edition. in the
Article. "ong-
Ib. p# )', )4#
Call !orth the robber !rom his cavern. and the midnight murderer !rom his
den< summon the seducer !rom his couch. and bec#on the adulterer !rom
his embrace< cite the s%indler to a,,ear< assemble !rom every Guarter all
the various miscreants %hose vices de,rave. and %hose villainies distress.
man#ind< and %hen they are thus thronged round in a circle. assure themB
not that there is a ?od that Fudgeth the earthBnot that ,unishment in the
great day o! retribution %ill a%ait their crimes. Ic- Ic-BLet every sinner
in the throng be told that they %ill stand 7'stified be!ore ?od< that
the ri$hteo'sness o! Christ %ill be im,uted to them. Ic-
$ell. do so-BNay. nayE it has been done< the e!!ect has been tried< and
slander itsel! cannot deny that the e!!ect has been the conversion o!
thousands o! those very sinners %hom the Barrister's !ancy thus convo#es-
' shallo% manE not to see that here lies the main strength o! the cause he is
attac#ing< that. to re,eat my !ormer illustration. he dra%s the attention to
,atients in that %orst state o! disease %hich ,erha,s alone reGuires and
Fusti!ies the use o! the %hite ,ill. as a mode o! e,osing the !rantic Guac#
%ho vends it ,romiscuouslyE He !ies on the em,iric's cures to ,rove his
murdersEBnot to !orget %hat ought to conclude every ,aragra,h in ans%er
to the Barrister's Hints< Mand %ere the case as alleged. %hat does this ,rove
against the ,resent 9ethodists as 9ethodistsLM )s not the tenet o! im,uted
righteousness the !aith o! all the "cotch Clergy. %ho are not !alse to their
declarations at their ,ublic assum,tion o! the ministryL +ill %ithin the last
sity or seventy years. %as not the tenet ,reached "unday a!ter "unday in
every noo# o! "cotland< and has the Barrister heard that the morals o! the
"cotch ,easants and arti>ans have been im,roved %ithin the last thirty or
!orty years. since the ece,tions have become more and more commonLB
$as it by %ant o! strict morals that the 8uritans %ere distinguished to their
disadvantage !rom the rest o! *nglishmen during the reigns o! *li>abeth.
:ames )- Charles )- and ))-L And that very ,eriod. %hich the Barrister
a!!irms to have been distinguished by the moral vigor o! the great mass o!
Britons.B%as it not li#e%ise the ,eriod %hen this very doctrine %as
,reached by the Clergy !i!ty times !or once that it is heard !rom the same
,ul,its in the ,resent and ,receding generationL Never. never can the
9ethodists be success!ully assailed. i! not honestly. and never honestly or
%ith any chance o! success. ece,t as 9ethodists<B!or their ,ractices.
their alarming theocracy. their stu,id. mad. and mad7driving su,erstitions-
+hese are their ,ro,erty in pec'lio< their doctrines are those o! the Church
o! *ngland. %ith no other di!!erence than that in the Church Liturgy. and
Articles. and Homilies. Calvinism and Lutheranism are Foined li#e the t%o
hands o! the @nion &ire '!!ice:7the 9ethodists have unclas,ed them. and
one is $hit!ield and the other $esley-
Ib. p# (&#
M&or the same reason that a boo# %ritten in bad language should never be
,ut into the hands o! a child that s,ea#s correctly. a boo# ehibiting
instances o! vice should never be given to a child that thin#s and acts
,ro,erly-M C8ractical *ducation- By 9aria and =-L- *dge%orth-D
Ho% morti!ying that one is never luc#y enough to meet %ith any o! these
'virtuosissimos'. !i!teen or t%enty years o! age- But ,erha,s they are such
rare Fe%els. that they are al%ays #e,t in cottonE +he Hilcro,sE ) %ould not
echange the heart. %hich ) mysel! had %hen a boy. %hile reading the li!e
o! Colonel :ac#. or the Ne%gate Calendar. !or a %aggon7load o! these
brilliants-
Ib. p# (/#
M$hen a man turns his bac# on this %orld. and is in good earnest resolved
!or everlasting li!e. his carnal !riends. and ungodly neighbours. %ill ,ursue
him %ith hue and cry< but death is at his heels. and he cannot sto, short o!
the city o! =e!uge-M CNotes to the 8ilgrim's 8rogress by Ha%#er. Burder.
Ic-D +his re,resentation o! the state o! real Christians is as mischievous as
it is !alse-
Qet Christ's assertion on this head is ,ositive. and universal< and ) believe it
!rom my inmost soul. and am convinced that it is Fust as true A-(- 1815. as
A-(- 33-
Ib. p# /$#
+he s,irit %ith %hich all their merciless treatment is to be borne is net
,ointed out- N N M&atient bearin$ of in7'ries is true Christian !ortitude. and
%ill al%ays be more e!!ectual to disarm o'r enemies. and to bring others to
the #no%ledge o! the truth. than all ar$'ments %hatever-M
)s this Barrister a Christian o! any sort or sect. and is he not ashamed. i! not
a!raid. to ridicule such ,assages as theseL )! they are not true. the !our
?os,els are !alse-
Ib. p# /)#
)t is im,ossible to give them credit !or integrity %hen %e behold the
obstinacy and the arti!ice %ith %hich they de!end their system against the
strongest argument. and against the clearest evidence-
9odest gentlemanE ) %onder he !inds time to %rite bul#y ,am,hlets: !or
surely modesty. li#e his. must secure success and clientage at the bar-
(oubtless he means his o%n arguments. the evidence he himsel! has
adduced:B) say doubtless. !or %hat are these ,am,hlets but a long series
o! attac#s on the doctrines o! the strict Lutherans and Calvinists. C!or the
doctrines he attac#s are common to both.D and i! he #ne% stronger
arguments. clearer evidence. he %ould certainly have given them<Band
then %hat obstinate rogues must our Bisho,s be. to have su!!ered these
Hints to ,ass into a third edition. and yet not have brought a bill into
8arliament !or a ne% set o! ArticlesL ) have not heard that they have even
the grace to intend it-
Ib. p# //#
'n this subFect ) %ill Guote the Fust and stri#ing observations o! an
ecellent modern %riter- M)n %hatever village.M says he. Mthe !anatics get a
!ooting. drun#enness and s%earing.Bsins %hich. being more e,osed to
the eye o! the %orld. %ould be ruinous to their great ,retensions to su,erior
sanctityB%ill. ,erha,s. be !ound to decline< but ) am convinced. !rom
,ersonal observation. that every s,ecies o! !raud and !alsehoodBsins
%hich are not so readily detected. but %hich seem more closely connected
%ith %orldly advantageB%ill be !ound invariably to increase-M C=eligion
%ithout Cant< by =- &ello%es. A-9- o! "t- 9ary's Hall. '!ord-D
)n ans%er to this let me ma#e a Mvery Fust observation.M by some other man
o! my o,inion. to be herea!ter Guoted M!rom an ecellent modern %riter<MB
and it is this. that !rom the birth o! Christ to the ,resent hour. no sect or
body o! men %ere >ealous in the re!ormation o! manners in society. %ithout
having been charged %ith the same vices in the same %ords- $hen ) hate a
man. and see nothing bad in him. %hat remains ,ossible but to accuse him
o! crimes %hich ) cannot see. and %hich cannot be dis,roved. because they
cannot be ,rovedL "urely. i! Christian charity did not ,reclude these
charges. the shame o! convicted ,arrotry ought to ,revent a man !rom
re,eating and re,ublishing them- +he very same thoughts. almost the
%ords. are to be !ound o! the early Christians< o! the ,oor ;ua#ers< o! the
=e,ublicans< o! the !irst =e!ormers-B$hy need ) say thisL (oes not every
one #no%. that a Fovial ,ot7com,anion can never believe a %ater7drin#er
not to be a snea#ing cheating #nave %ho is a!raid o! his thoughts< that
every libertine s%ears that those %ho ,retend to be chaste. either have their
mistress in secret. or !ar %orse. and so onL
Ib. p# /%#
+he same religious abstinence !rom all a,,earance o! recreation on the
Lord's day< and the same neglect o! the %eightier matters o! the moral la%.
in the course o! the %ee#. Ic-
+his sentence thus smuggled in at the bottom o! the chest ought not to ,ass
unnoticed< !or the %hole !orce o! the !ormer de,ends on it- )t is a true tric#.
and deserves re,robation-
Ib. p# %(#
Note- )t %as ,rocured. 9r- Collyer in!orms us. by the merit o! his MLectures
on "cri,ture !acts-M )t should have been MLectures on Script'ral &acts-M
$hat should %e thin# o! the grammarian. %ho. instead o! Historical.
should ,resent us %ith MLectures on History &actsLM
But La% +ractsL And is not Script're as o!ten used semi7adFectivelyL
Ib. p# %/#
M(o you really believe.M says (r- Ha%#er. Mthat. because man by his
a,ostacy hath lost his ,o%er and ability to obey. ?od hath lost his right to
commandL 8ut the case that you %ere called u,on. as a barrister. to recover
a debt due !rom one man to another. and you #ne% the debtor had not the
ability to ,ay the 'creditor'. %ould you tell your client that his debtor %as
under no legal or moral obligation to ,ay %hat he had no ,o%er to doL And
%ould you tell him that the very e,ectation o! his Fust right .as as foolish
as it .as tyrannicalLM N N N ) %ill give my re,ly to these Guestions
distinctly and %ithout hesitation- N N N "u,,ose A- to have lent B- a
thousand ,ounds. as a ca,ital to commence trade. and that. %hen he
,urchased his stoc# to this amount. and lodged it in his %arehouse. a !ire
%ere to brea# out in the net d%elling. and. etending itsel! to 'his'
%arehouse. %ere to consume the %hole o! his ,ro,erty. and reduce him to a
state o! utter ruin- )! A-. my client. %ere to as# my o,inion as to his right to
recover !rom B-. ) should tell him that this his right %ould eist should B-
ever be in a condition to re,ay the sum borro%ed< N N N but that to attem,t
to recover a thousand ,ounds !rom a man thus reduced by accident to utter
ruin. and %ho had not a shilling le!t in the %orld. %ould be as foolish as it
.as tyrannical-
But this is ran# so,histry- +he Guestion is: B(oes a thie! Cand a !raudulent
debtor is no betterD acGuire a claim to im,unity by not ,ossessing the ,o%er
o! restoring the goodsL *very moral act derives its character Csays a
"choolman %ith an unusual combination o! ,ro!undity %ith GuaintnessD a't
vol'ntate ori$inis a't ori$ine vol'ntatis. No% the very essence o! guilt. its
dire and incommunicable character. consists in its tendency to destroy the
!ree %ill<Bbut %hen thus destroyed. are the habits o! vice thence!or%ard
innocentL (oes the la% ecuse the murder because the ,er,etrator %as
drun#L (r- Ha%#er ,ut his obFection laly and %ea#ly enough< but a manly
o,,onent %ould have been ashamed to sei>e an hour's victory !rom %hat a
move o! the ,en %ould render im,regnable-
Ib. p# 1+$, '#
$hen at this solemn tribunal the sinner shall be called u,on to ans%er !or
the transgression o! those moral la%s. on obedience to %hich salvation %as
made to de,end. %ill it be su!!icient that he declares himsel! to have been
taught to believe that the ?os,el had neither terms nor conditions, and that
his salvation %as secured by a covenant %hich ,rocured him ,ardon and
,eace. from all eternity: a covenant. the e!!ects o! %hich no !olly or after(
act .hatever could ,ossibly destroyLB$ho could antici,ate the sentence
o! condemnation. and not %ee, in agony over the deluded victim o!
ignorance and mis!ortune %ho %as thus taught a doctrine so !atally !alseL
$hat thenE ?od is re,resented as a tyrant %hen he claims the ,enalty o!
disobedience !rom the servant. %ho has %il!ully inca,acitated himsel! !or
obeying.Band yet Fust and merci!ul in condemning to inde!inite misery a
,oor Mdeluded victim o! ignorance and im,osture.M even though the
Barrister. s,ite o! his anti,athy to 9ethodists. %ould M%ee, in agonyM over
himE But be!ore the Barrister dra%s bills o! imagination on his tender
!eelings. %ould it not have been as %ell to adduce some last dying s,eech
and con!ession. in %hich the cul,rit attributed his crimesBnot to "abbath7
brea#ing and loose com,any.Bbut to sermon7hearing on the 'modus
o,erandi' o! the divine goodness in the %or# o! redem,tionL Ho% the
*bene>erites %ould stare to !ind the "ocinians and themselves in one !loc#
on the shee,7side o! the Fudgment7seat.Band their cousins. and !ello%
9ethodists. the +abernaclers. all ca,ri!ledBgoats every man:Band %hyL
+hey held. that re,entance is in the ,o%er o! every man. %ith the aid o!
grace< %hile the goats held that %ithout grace no man is able even to
re,ent- A- ma#es grace the cause. and B- ma#es it only a necessary
auiliary- And does the "ocinian etricate himsel! a %hit more clearlyL
$ithout a due concurrence o! circumstances no mind can im,rove itsel!
into a state susce,tible o! s,iritual ha,,iness: and is not the dis,osition and
,re7arrangement o! circumstances as de,endent on the divine %ill as those
s,iritual in!luences %hich the 9ethodist holds to be meant by the %ord
graceL $ill not the "ocinian !ind it as di!!icult to reconcile %ith mercy and
Fustice the condemnation to hell7!ire o! ,oor %retches born and bred in the
thieves' nests o! "t- ?iles. as the 9ethodists the condemnation o! those %ho
have been less !avoured by graceL ) have one other Guestion to as#. though
it should have been as#ed be!ore- "u,,ose Christ taught nothing more than
a !uture state o! retribution and the necessity and su!!iciency o! good
morals. ho% are %e to e,lain his !orbidding these truths to be taught to
any but :e%s till a!ter his resurrectionL (id the :e%s reFect those doctrinesL
*ce,t ,erha,s a hand!ul o! rich men. called "adducees. they all believed
them. and %ould have died a thousand deaths rather than have renounced
their !aith- Besides. %hat is there in doctrines common to the creed o! all
religions. and en!orced by all the schools o! ,hiloso,hy. ece,t the
*,icurean. %hich should have ,revented their being taught to all at the
same timeL ) ,erceive. that this di!!iculty does not ,ress on "ocinians
eclusively: but yet it ,resses on them %ith !ar greater !orce than on others-
&or they ma#e Christianity a mere ,hiloso,hy. the same in substance %ith
the "toical. only ,urer !rom errors and accom,anied %ith clearer evidence:
B%hile others thin# o! it as ,art o! a covenant made u, %ith Abraham. the
!ul!ilment o! %hich %as in good !aith to be !irst o!!ered to his ,osterity- )
as# this only because the Barrister ,ro!esses to !ind every thing in the !our
?os,els so ,lain and easy-
Ib. p# 1+)#
+he =e!ormers by %hom those articles %ere !ramed %ere educated in the
Church o! =ome. and o,,osed themselves rather to the ,erversion o! its
,o%er than the errors o! its doctrine-
An outrageous blunder-
Ib. p# 1+(#
Lord Bacon %as the !irst %ho dedicated his ,ro!ound and ,enetrating
genius to the cultivation o! sound ,hiloso,hy. Ic-
+his very same Lord Bacon has given us his Confessio 1idei at great
length. %ith !ull ,articularity- No% ) %ill ans%er !or the 9ethodists'
unhesitating assent and consent to it< but %ould the Barrister subscribe itL
Ib. p# 1+/#
$e loo# bac# to that era o! our history %hen su,erstition thre% her victim
on the ,ile. and bigotry tied the martyr to his sta#e:Bbut %e ta#e our eyes
!rom the retros,ect and turn them in than#!ul admiration to that Being %ho
has o,ened the minds o! many. and is daily o,ening the minds o! more
amongst us to the rece,tion o! these most im,ortant o! all truths. that there
is no true !aith but in ,ractical goodness. and that the %orst o! errors is the
error o! the life-
"uch is the conviction o! the most enlightened o! our Clergy: the
conviction. ) trust. o! the !ar greater ,art N N N- +hey deem it better to
inculcate the moral duties o! Christianity in the ,ure sim,licity and
clearness %ith %hich they are revealed. than to go aside in search
o! doctrinal mysteries- &or as mysteries cannot be made mani!est. they. o!
course. cannot be understood< and that %hich cannot be understood cannot
be believed. and can. conseGuently. ma#e no ,art o! any system o! !aith:
since no one. till he understands a doctrine. can tell %hether it be true or
!alse< till then. there!ore. he can have no !aith in it. !or no one can rationally
a!!irm that he believes that doctrine to be true %hich he does not #no% to
be so< and he cannot #no% it to be true i! he does not understand it- )n the
religion o! a true Christian. there!ore. there can be nothing unintelligible<
and i! the ,reachers o! that religion do not ma#e mysteries. they %ill never
!ind any-
$hoL the Bisho,s. or the digni!ied ClergyL Have they at length e,loded
all Mdoctrinal mysteriesLM $as Horsley Mthe one red lea!. the last o! its
clan.M that held the doctrines o! the +rinity. the corru,tion o! the human
$ill. and the =edem,tion by the Cross o! ChristL 4erily. this is the most
im,udent attem,t to im,ose a na#ed "ocinianism on the ,ublic. as the
general religion o! the nation. admitted by all but a dunghill o! mushroom
!anatics. that ever insulted common sense or common modestyE And %ill
Mthe !ar greater ,artM o! the *nglish Clergy remain silent under so atrocious
a libel as is contained in this ,ageL (o they indeed solemnly ,ray to their
9a#er %ee#ly. be!ore ?od and man. in the %ords o! a Liturgy. %hich. they
#no%. Mcannot be believedLM &or heaven's sa#e. my dear "outhey. do Guote
this ,age and com,are it %ith the introduction to and ,etitions o! the
Liturgy. and %ith the Collects on the Advent. Ic-
Ib. p# 11+#
$e shall discover u,on an attentive eamination o! the subFect. that all
those la%s %hich lay the basis o! our constitutional liberties. are no other
than the rules o! religion transcribed into the Fudicial system. and en!orced
by the sanction o! civil authority-
$hatE Com,are these la%s. !irst. %ith +acitus's account o! the
constitutional la%s o! our ?erman ancestors. 8agans< and then %ith the
8andects and :ovell2 o! the most Christian :ustinian. aided by all his
Bisho,s- 'bserve. the Barrister is asserting a !act o! the historical
origination o! our la%s.Band not %hat no man %ould deny. that as !ar as
they are humane and Fust. they coincide %ith the ,rece,ts o! the ?os,el-
No. they %ere Mtranscribed-M
Ib. p# 11'#
$here a man holds a certain system o! doctrines. the "tate is bound to
tolerate. though it may not a,,rove. them< but %hen he demands a license
to teach this system to the rest o! the community. he demands that %hich
ought not to be granted incautiously and %ithout grave consideration- +his
discretionary ,o%er is delegated in trust !or the common good. Ic-
All this. dear "outhey. ) leave to the lash o! your indignation- )t %ould be
o,,ression to doB%hat the Legislature could not do i! it %ouldB,revent a
man's thoughts< but i! he s,ea#s them aloud. and as#s either !or instruction
and con!utation. i! he be in error. or assent and honor. i! he be in the right.
then it is no o,,ression to thro% him into a dungeonE But the Barrister
%ould only %ithhold a licenseE Nonsense- $hat i! he ,reaches and
,ublishes %ithout it. %ill the Legislature dungeon him or notL )! not. %hat
use is either the granting or the %ithholdingL And this too !rom a "ocinian.
%ho by this very boo# has. ) believe. made himsel! obnoious to
im,risonment and the ,illoryBand against men. %hose o,inions are
authori>ed by the most solemn acts o! 8arliament. and recorded in a Boo#.
o! %hich there must be one. by la%. in every ,arish. and o! %hich there is in
!act one in almost every house and hovelE
1art I*# p# 1#
+he religion o! genuine Christianity is a revelation so distinct and s,eci!ic
in its design. and so clear and intelligible in its rules. that a man o!
,hiloso,hic and retired thought is a,t to %onder by %hat means the endless
systems o! error and hostility %hich divide the %orld %ere ever introduced
into it-
$hat means this hollo% cantBthis !i!ty times %armed7u, bubble and
sGuea#L +hat such ,arts are intelligible as the Barrister understandsL +hat
such ,arts as it ,ossesses in common %ith all systems o! religion and
morality are ,lain and obviousL )n other %ords that ABC are so legible that
they are legible to every one that has learnt to readL )! the Barrister mean
other or more than this. i! he really mean the %hole religion and revelation
o! Christ. even as it is !ound in the original records. the ?os,els and
*,istles. he esca,es !rom the silliness o! a truism by thro%ing himsel! into
the arms o! a broad bra>en!aced untruth- $hatE )s the sith cha,ter o! "t-
:ohn's ?os,el so distinct and s,eci!ic in its design. that any modest man
can %onder that the best and most learned men o! every age since Christ
have deemed it mysteriousL Are the many ,assages concerning the (evil
and demoniacs so very easyL Has this %riter himsel! thro%n the least light
on. or himsel! received one ray o! light !rom. the meaning o! the %ord
&aith<Bor the reason o! Christ's ,aramount declarations res,ecting its
omni!ic ,o%er. its absolutely indis,ensable necessityL )! the %ord mean
only %hat the Barrister su,,oses. a ,ersuasion that in the ,resent state o!
our #no%ledge the evidences !or the historical truth o! the miracles o! the
?os,el out%eigh the arguments o! the "ce,tics. %ill he condescend to give
us such a comment on the assertion. that had %e but a grain o! mustard
seed o! it. %e might control all material nature. %ithout ma#ing Christ
himsel! the most etravagant hy,erbolist that ever mis7used languageL But
it is im,ossible to ma#e that man blush. %ho can seriously call the %ords o!
Christ as recorded by "t- :ohn. ,lain. easy. common sense. out o! %hich
,reFudice. arti!ice. and sel!ish interest alone can com,ose any di!!iculty-
+he Barrister has Fust as much right to call his religion Christianity. as to
call !lour and %ater ,lum ,udding:Byet %e all admit that in ,lum ,udding
both !lour and %ater do eist-
Ib. p# (#
"ocinus can have no claim u,on my veneration: ) have never concerned
mysel! %ith %hat he believed nor %ith %hat he taught Ic-
+he "cri,ture is my authority. and on no other authority %ill ) ever.
#no%ingly. lay the !oundation o! my !aith-
@tterly untrue- )t is not the "cri,ture. but such ,assages o! "cri,ture as
a,,ear to him to accord %ith his 8rocrustean bed o! so called reason. and a
!orcing o! the blan#est contradictions into the same meaning. by
e,lanations to %hich ) de!y him to !urnish one single analogy as allo%ed
by man#ind %ith regard to any other %ritings but the 'ld and Ne%
+estament- )t is a gross and im,udent delusion to call a Boo# his authority.
%hich he receives only so !ar as it is an echo o! his o%n convictions- ) de!y
him to adduce one single article o! his %hole !aith. Ccreed ratherD %hich he
really derives !rom the "cri,ture- *ven the arguments !or the =esurrection
are and must be etraneous: !or the very ,roo!s o! the !acts are Cas
every tyro in theology must #no%D the ,roo!s o! the authenticity o! the
Boo#s in %hich they are contained- +his Guestion ) %ould ,ress u,on him:
B"u,,ose %e ,ossessed the &athers only %ith the *cclesiastical and 8agan
historians. and that not a ,age remained o! the Ne% +estament.B%hat
article o! his creed %ould it alterL
Ib. p# 1+#
)! the creed o! Calvinistic 9ethodism is really more ,roductive o!
conversions than the religion o! Christianity. let them o,enly and at once
say so-
But Calvinistic 9ethodismL $hy Calvinistic 9ethodismL Not one in a
hundred o! the 9ethodists are Calvinists- Not to mention the im,udence o!
this cro% in his abuse o! blac# !eathersE )s it %orse in a 9ethodist to
o,,ose "ocinianism to Christianity. that is. to the doctrines o! $esley or
even $hit!ield. %hich are the same as those o! all the =e!ormed Churches
o! Christendom. and di!!er only %herein the most celebrated divines o! the
same churches have di!!ered %ith each other.Bthan !or the Barrister to
o,,ose 9ethodism to Christianity Chis ChristianityDBthat is. to
"ocinianism. %hich in every ,eculiar doctrine o! Christianity di!!ers !rom
all divines o! all Churches o! all agesL &or the one tenet in %hich the
Calvinist di!!ers !rom the maFority o! Christians. are there not ten in %hich
the "ocinian di!!ers !rom allL +o %hat ,ur,ose then this %indy declamation
about :ohn CalvinL Ho% many 9ethodists. does the Barrister thin#. ever
sa%. much less read. a %or# o! Calvin'sL )! he scorns the name o! "ocinus
as his authority. and a,,eals to "cri,ture. do not the 9ethodists the sameL
$hen do they re!er to CalvinL )n %hat %or# do they Guote himL +his ,age
is there!ore mere dust in the eyes o! the ,ublic- And his abuse o! Calvin
dis,lays only his o%n vulgar ignorance both o! the man. and o! his
%ritings- &or he seems not to #no% that the humane 9elancthon. and not
only he. but almost every Church. Lutheran or =e!ormed. throughout
*uro,e. sent letters to ?eneva. etolling the eecution o! "ervetus. and
returning their than#s- Qet it %as a murder not the less: QesE a damned
murder: but the guilt o! it is not ,eculiar to Calvin. but common to all the
theologians o! that age< and. 'Nota bene.' 9r- Barrister. the "ocini not
ece,ted. %ho %ere ,re,ared to in!lict the very same ,unishment on &-
(avidi !or denying the adorability o! Christ- )! to %ish. %ill. resolve. and
attem,t to reali>e. be morally to commit. an action. then must "ocinus and
Calvin hunt in the same collar- But. ' mercyE i! every human being %ere to
be held u, to detestation. %ho in that age %ould have thought it his duty to
have ,assed sentence 'de comburendo heretico' on a man. %ho had ,ublicly
styled the +rinity Ma Cerberus.M and Ma three7headed monster o! hell.M %hat
%ould the history o! the =e!ormation be but a list o! criminalsL $ith %hat
!ace indeed can %e congratulate ourselves on being born in a more
enlightened age. i! %e so bitterly abuse not the ,ractice but the agentsL (o
%e not admit by this very ,hrase Menlightened.M that %e o%e our eem,tion
to our intellectual advantages. not ,rimarily to our moral su,eriorityL )t %ill
be time enough to boast. %hen to our o%n tolerance %e have added their
>eal. learning. and inde!atigable industry
2
-
Ib. p# 1', 14#
)! religion consists in listening to long ,rayers. and attending long sermons.
in #ee,ing u, an outside a,,earance o! devotion. and interlarding the most
common discourse %ith ,hrases o! ?os,el usage:Bi! this is religion. then
are the disci,les o! 9ethodism ,ious beyond com,are- But in real humility
o! heart. in mildness o! tem,er. in liberality o! mind. in ,urity o! thought. in
o,enness and u,rightness o! conduct in ,rivate li!e. in those ,ractical
virtues %hich are the vital substance o! Christianity.Bin these are they
su,eriorL No- 8ublic observation is against the !act. and the conclusion to
%hich such observation leads is rarely incorrect- N N +he very name o! the
sect carries %ith it an im,ression o! meanness and hy,ocrisy- "carce an
individual that has had any dealings %ith those belonging to it. but has
good cause to remember it !rom some circumstance o! lo% dece,tion or o!
shu!!ling !raud- )ts very members trust each other %ith caution and
reluctance- +he more %ealthy among them are drained and dried by the
leeches that ,er,etually !asten u,on them- +he leaders. ignorant and
bigotedB) s,ea# o! them collectivelyB,resent us %ith no counter7Gualities
that can conciliate res,ect- +hey have all the cra!t o! mon#s %ithout their
courtesy. and all the subtlety o! :esuits %ithout their learning-
)n the %hole Bibliotlieca theolo$ica ) remember no instance o! calumny so
gross. so im,udent. so unchristian- *ven as a single robber. ) mean he %ho
robs one man. gets hanged. %hile the robber o! a million is a great man. so
it seems to be %ith calumny- +his %orthy Barrister %ill be etolled !or this
audacious slander o! thousands. !or %hich. i! a,,lied to any one individual.
he %ould be in danger o! the ,illory- +his ,aragra,h should be Guoted: !or
%ere the charge true. it is nevertheless im,ossible that the Barrister should
#no% it to be true- He ,ositively asserts as a truth #no%n to him %hat it is
im,ossible he should #no%:Bhe is there!ore doubly a slanderer< !or !irst.
the charge is a gross calumny< and %ere it other%ise. he %ould still be a
slanderer. !or he could have no ,roo!. no ground !or such a charge-
Ib. p# 1&#
Amidst all this s,irit o! research %e !ind nothingBcom,aratively nothing
Bo! im,rovement in that science o! all others the most im,ortant in its
in!luence N N N- =eligion. ece,t !rom the emanci,ating energy o! a !e%
su,erior minds. %hich have dared to sna, asunder the cords %hich bound
them to the roc# o! error N N N has been su!!ered to remain in its ,rinci,les
and in its doctrines. Fust %hat it %as %hen the cra!t o! Catholic su,erstition
!irst corru,ted its sim,licity- "o. so- Here it comes out at lastE )t is not the
9ethodists< no< it is all and each o! all *uro,e. )n!idels and "ocinians
ece,tedE ' im,udenceE And then the eGuisite sel!7conceit o! the
blundererE
Ib. p# $%#
B)! o! different denominations. ho% %ere they thus conciliated to a society
o! this ominous nature. !rom %hich they must themselves o! necessity be
ecluded by that indis,ensable condition o! admittance. Ma 'nion o!
religious sentiment in the $reat doctrines:M %hich very %ant o! union it is
that creates these different denominationsL
No. BarristerE they mean that men o! di!!erent denominations may yet all
believe in the corru,tion o! the human %ill. the redem,tion by Christ. the
divinity o! Christ as consubstantial %ith the &ather. the necessity o! the
Holy ",irit. or grace Cmeaning more than the dis,osition o! circumstancesD.
and the necessity o! !aith in Christ su,eradded to a belie! o! his actions and
doctrines.Band yet di!!er in many other ,oints- +he ,oints enumerated are
called the great ,oints. because all Christians agree in them ece,ting the
Arians and "ocinians. %ho !or that reason are not deemed Christians by the
rest- +he =oman Catholic. the Lutheran. the Calvinist. the Arminian. the
?ree#. %ith all their sub7divisions. do yet all accord in these articles:Bthe
boo#sellers might have said. all %ho re,eat the Nicene Creed- :. B. ) do not
a,,rove. or de!end. nay. ) disli#e. these M@nited +heological Boo#sellersM:
but this utter Barrister is their best !riend by attac#ing them so as to secure
to them victory. and all the advantages o! being #no%n to have been
%ic#edly slandered<Bthe best shield a !aulty cause can ,rotend against the
Favelin o! !air o,,osition-
Ib. p# &)#
'ur "aviour never in any single instance re,robated the eercise o! reason:
on the contrary. he re,rehends severely those %ho did not eercise it-
Carnal reason is not a ,hrase to be !ound in his ?os,el< he a,,ealed to the
understanding in all he said. and in all he taught- He never reGuired faith in
his disci,les. %ithout !irst !urnishing su!!icient evidence to Fusti!y it- He
reasoned thus: )! ) have done %hat no h'man po.er could do. you must
admit that my ,o%er is from above. Ic-
?ood heavensE did he not uni!ormly reGuire !aith as the condition o!
obtaining the Mevidence.M as this Barrister calls itBthat is. the miracleL
$hat a shameless ,erversion o! the !actE He never did reason thus- )n one
instance only. and then u,braiding the base sensuality o! the :e%s. he said:
M)! ye are so base as not to believe %hat ) say !rom the moral evidence in
your o%n consciences. yet ,ay some attention to it even !or my %or#s'
sa#e-M And this. an ar$'ment'm ad hominem, a bitter re,roach CFust as i! a
great chemist should say<B+hough you do not care !or my science. or the
im,ortant truths it ,resents. yet. even as an amusement su,erior to that o!
your Fugglers to %hom you %illingly cro%d. ,ay some attention to meDB
this is to be set u, against t%enty ,lain tets and the %hole s,irit o! the
%hole ?os,elE Besides. Christ could not reason so< !or he #ne% that the
:e%s admitted both natural and demoniacal miracles. and their !aith in the
latter he never attac#ed< though by an ar$'ment'm ad hominem C!or it is no
argument in itsel!D he denied its a,,licability to his o%n %or#s- )! Christ
had reasoned so. %hy did not the Barrister Guote his %ords. instead o!
,utting imaginary %ords in his mouthL
Ib. )+, )1#
=eligion is a system o! revealed truth< and to a!!irm o! any revealed truth.
that %e cannot 'nderstand it. is. in e!!ect. either to deny that it has been
revealed. orB%hich is the same thingBto admit that it has been revealed
in vain-
)t is too %orthlessE ) cannot go on- 9erci!ul ?odE hast thou not revealed to
us the being o! a conscience. and o! reason. and o! %ill<Band does this
Barrister tell us. that he MunderstandsM themL Let him #no% that he does not
even understand the very %ord understanding- He does not seem to be
a%are o! the school7boy distinction bet%een the and the L
But to all these silly obFections religion must !or ever remain e,osed as
long as the %ord =evelation is a,,lied to any thing that can be 'bona !ide'
given to the mind ab e"tra. through the senses o! eye. ear. or touch- NoE all
revelation is and must be ab intra< the eternal ph2nomena can only
a%a#e. recall evidence. but never reveal- +his is ca,able o! strict
demonstration-
A!ter%ards the Barrister Guotes !rom +homas $atson res,ecting things
above com,rehension in the study o! nature: Min these cases. the fact is
evident. the cause lies in obscurity. dee,ly removed !rom all the #no%ledge
and ,enetration o! man-M +hen %hat can %e believe res,ecting these
causesL And i! %e can believe nothing res,ecting them. %hat becomes o!
them as arguments in su,,ort o! the ,ro,osition that %e ought. in religion.
to believe %hat %e cannot understandL
Are there not !acts in religion. the causes and constitution o! %hich are
mysteriesL
&ootnote 1: Hints to the 8ublic and the Legislature on the nature and e!!ect
o! *vangelical 8reaching- By a Barrister- &ourth *dition. 1858-
return to !ootnote mar#
&ootnote /: "ee %ids to 5eflection. ,- 10. 0th edition-B!d.
return
&ootnote 3: ?'art. 5evie.. vol- ii- ,- 182-B!d.
return
&ootnote 0: "ee vol- i-. ,- /12-B!d.
return
&ootnote 1:
MAnd !rom this account o! obligation it !ollo%s. that %e can he obliged to
nothing but %hat %e ourselves are to gain or lose something by< !or nothing
else can be a violent motive to us- As %e should not be obliged to obey the
la%s. or the magistrate. unless re%ards or ,unishments. ,leasure or ,ain.
someho% or other de,ended u,on our obedience< so neither should %e.
%ithout the same reason. be obliged to do %hat is right. to ,ractise virtue.
or to obey the commands o! ?od-M
&aley's +oral and &olit. &hilosophy. B- ))- c- /-
M+he di!!erence. and the only di!!erence. C'bet%een ,rudence and duty'.D is
this< that in the one case %e consider %hat %e shall gain or lose in the
,resent %orld< in the other case. %e consider also %hat %e shall gain or lose
in the %orld to come-M
Ib. c- 3-B!d.
return
&ootnote 3: 1riend. 4ol- )- *ssays 6- and 6)- 3rd editionB!d.
return
&ootnote 2: "ee Table Talk. ,,- /8/ and 350- /d edit-B!d.
return
Contents A )nde
Notes on avison's Disco*rses on )rophecy
1
18/1-
is!# I*# 1t# I# p# 14+#
As to systems o! religion alien !rom Christianity. i! any o! them have taught
the doctrine o! eternal li!e. the re%ard o! obedience. as a dogma o! belie!.
that doctrine is not their boast. but their burden and di!!iculty< inasmuch as
they could never de!end it- +hey could never Fusti!y it on inde,endent
grounds o! deduction. nor ,roduce their %arrant and authority to teach it- )n
such ,recarious and unauthenticated ,rinci,les it may ,ass !or a conFecture.
or ,ious !raud. or a s,lendid ,hantom: it cannot %ear the dignity o! truth-
Ah. %hy did not 9r- (avison adhere to the manly. the glorious. strain o!
thin#ing !rom ,- 130 CSince &rophecy. Ic-D to ,- 139- Cthat mercyD o! this
discourseL A !act is no subFect o! scienti!ic demonstration s,eculatively: %e
can only bring analogies. and these Heraclitus. "ocrates. 8lato. and others
did bring< but their main argument remains to this day the main argumentB
namely. that none but a %ic#ed man dares doubt it- $hen it is not in the
light o! ,romise. it is in the la% o! !ear. at all times a ,art o! the conscience.
and ,resu,,osed in all s,iritual conviction-
Ib. p# 1)+#
"ome indeed have sought the star and the sceptre o! Balaam's ,ro,hecy.
%here they cannot %ell be !ound. in the reign o! (avid< !or though a
sce,tre might be there. the star ,ro,erly is not-
"urely this is a very %ea# reason- A !ar better is. ) thin#. suggested by the
%ords. I shall see him8I shall behold him<B%hich in no intelligible sense
could be true o! Balaam relatively to (avid-
Ib. p# 1)$#
+he )sraelites could not endure the voice and !ire o! 9ount "inai- +hey
as#ed an intermediate messenger bet%een ?od and them. %ho should
tem,er the a%!ulness o! his voice. and im,art to them his %ill in a milder
%ay-
De't- viii- 11- )s the !ollo%ing argument %orthy our considerationL )!. as
the learned *ichhorn. 8aulus o! :ena. and others o! their school. have
asserted. 9oses %aited !orty days !or a tem,est. and then. by the assistance
o! the natural magic he had learned in the tem,le o! )sis. initiated the la%.
all our e,erience and #no%ledge o! the %ay in %hich large bodies o! men
are a!!ected %ould lead us to su,,ose that the Hebre% ,eo,le %ould have
been #eenly ecited. interested. and elevated by a s,ectacle so grand and so
!lattering to their national ,ride- But i! the voices and a,,earances %ere
indeed divine and su,ernatural. %ell must %e assume that there %as a
distinctive. though verbally ine,ressible. terror and dis,ro,ortion to the
mind. the senses. the %hole or$anism's o! the human beholders and
hearers. %hich might both account !or. and even in the sight o! ?od Fusti!y.
the trembling ,rayer %hich de,recated a re,etition-
Ib. p# 1)4#
+o Fusti!y its a,,lication to Christ. the resemblance bet%een him and
9oses has o!ten been deduced at large. and dra%n into a variety o!
,articulars. among %hich several ,oints have been ta#en minute and
,recarious. or having so little o! dignity or clearness o! re,resentation in
them. that it %ould be %ise to discard them !rom the ,ro,hetic evidence-
$ith our ,resent #no%ledge %e are both enabled and dis,osed thus to
evolve the !ull contents o! the %ord like< but ) cannot hel, thin#ing that the
contem,oraries o! 9oses Ci! not other%ise orally instructed.D must have
understood it in the !irst and historical sense. at least. o! :oshua-
Ib. p# 1)/#
A distinguished commentator on the la%s o! 9oses. 9ichaelis. vindicates
their tem,oral sanctions on the ground o! the 9osaic Code being o! the
nature o! a civil system. to the statutes o! %hich the re%ards o! a !uture
state %ould be incongruous and unsuitable-
) never read either o! 9ichaelis's $or#s. but the same vie% came be!ore me
%henever ) re!lected on the 9osaic Code- $ho e,ects in realities o! any
#ind the shar, outline and eclusive character o! scienti!ic classi!icationL )t
is the ,redominance o! the characteri>ing constituent that gives the name
and class- (o not even our o%n statute la%s. though co7eisting %ith a
se,arate religious Code. contain many '!ormulae' o! %ords %hich have no
sense but !or the conscienceL (avison's stress on the %ord covet. in the
tenth commandment. is. ) thin#. beyond %hat so ancient a Code %arrants<
Band !or the other instances. 9ichaelis %ould remind him that the 9osaic
constitution %as a strict theocracy. and that :ehovah. the ?od o! all. %as
their kin$- ) do not #no% the ,articular mode in %hich 9ichaelis ,ro,ounds
and su,,orts this ,osition< but the ,osition itsel!. as ) have ,resented it to
my o%n mind. seems to me among the strongest ,roo!s o! the divine origin
o! the La%. and an essential in the harmony o! the total scheme o!
=evelation-
is!# I*# 1t# II# p# 1/+#
But the !irst la% meets him on his o%n terms< it stood u,on a ,resent
retribution< the eecution o! its sentence is matter o! history. and the
argument resulting !rom it is to be ans%ered. be!ore the Guestion is carried
to another %orld-
+his is rendered a very ,o%er!ul argument by the consideration. that
though so vast a mind as that o! 9oses. though ,erha,s even a Lycurgus.
might have distinctly !oreseen the ruin and ca,tivity o! the Hebre% ,eo,le
as a necessary result o! the loss o! nationality. and the abandonment o! the
la% and religion %hich %ere their only ,oint o! union. their centre o!
gravity.Byet no human intellect could have !oreseen the ,er,etuity o! such
a ,eo,le as a distinct race under all the aggravated curses o! the la%
%eighing on them< or that the obstinacy o! their adherence to their
dividuating institutes in ,ersecution. dis,ersion. and shame. should be in
direct ,ro,ortion to the %antonness o! their a,ostasy !rom the same in
union and ,ros,erity-
is!# *# 1t# II# p# $'4#
*ce,t under the dictate o! a constraining ins,iration. it is not easy to
conceive ho% the master o! such a %or#. at the time %hen he had brought it
to ,er!ection. and beheld it in its lustre. the labour o! so much o,ulent
magni!icence and curious art. and designed to be e"ceedin$ ma$nifical, of
fame, and of $lory thro'$ho't all co'ntries. should be occu,ied %ith the
,ros,ect o! its utter ruin and dila,idation. and that too under
the opprobri'm o! ?od's vindictive Fudgment u,on it. nor to imagine ho%
that strain o! sinister ,ro,hecy. that !orebodes o! malediction. should be
ascribed to him. i! he had no such vision revealed-
Here ) thin# 9r- (avison should have crushed the obFection o! the )n!idel
grounded on "olomon's subseGuent idolatrous im,ieties- +he )n!idel argues.
that these are not conceivable o! a man distinctly conscious o! a ,rior and
su,ernatural ins,iration. accom,anied %ith su,ernatural mani!estations o!
the divine ,resence-
is!# *I# 1t# I# p# $/'#
)n order to evade this conclusion. nothing is le!t but to deny that )saiah. or
any ,erson o! his age. %rote the boo# ascribed to him-
+his too is my conclusion. but Ci! ) do not delude mysel!D !rom more
evident. though not ,erha,s more certain. ,remisses- +he age o! the Cyrus
,ro,hecies is the great obFect o! attac# by *ichhorn and his com,ilers< and
) dare not say. that in a controversy %ith these men (avison's arguments
%ould a,,ear su!!icient- But this %as not the intended subFect o! these
(iscourses-
is!# *I# 1t# II# p# $/%#
But ho% does he e,ress that ,romiseL )n the images o! the resurrection
and an immortal state- ConseGuently. there is im,lied in the delineation o!
the lo%er subFect the truth o! the greater-
+his reminds me o! a remar#. ) have else%here made res,ecting the
e,ediency o! se,arating the arguments addressed to. and valid !or. a
believer. !rom the ,roo!s and vindications o! "cri,ture intended to !orm the
belie!. or to convict the )n!idel-
is!# *I# 1t# I*# p# '$&#
$hen Cyrus became master o! Babylon. the ,ro,hecies o! )saiah %ere
she%n or communicated to him. %herein %ere described his victory. and
the use he %as a,,ointed to ma#e o! it in the restoration o! the Hebre%
,eo,le- C!)ra i- 1. /-D
+his ) had been taught to regard as one o! :ose,hus's legends< but u,on this
,assage %ho %ould not in!er that it had *>ra !or its authority.B%ho yet
does not e,ressly say that even the ,ro,hecy o! the !ar later :eremiah %as
#no%n or made #no%n to Cyrus. %ho C*>ra tells usD !ul!illed itL )! *>ra had
meant the ,rediction o! )saiah by the %ords. 'he hath charged me'. Ic-. %hy
should he not have re!erred to it together %ith. or even instead o!.
:eremiahL )s it not more ,robable that a living ,ro,het had delivered the
charge to CyrusL "ee !)ra vi- 10-BAgain. (avison ma#es Cyrus s,ea# li#e
a Christian. by omitting the a!!i 'o! Heaven to the Lord ?od' in the
original- Cyrus s,ea#s as a Cyrus might be su,,osed to do.Bnamely. o! a
most ,o%er!ul but yet national deity. o! a ?od. not o! ?od- ) have seen in
so many instances the inFurious e!!ect o! %ea# or overstrained arguments in
de!ence o! religion. that ) am ,erha,s more Fealous than ) need be in the
choice o! evidences- ) can never thin# mysel! the %orse Christian !or any
o,inion ) may have !ormed. res,ecting the ,rice o! this or that argument. o!
this or that divine. in su,,ort o! the truth- &or every one that ) reFect. )
could su,,ly t%o. and these
Ib. p# '')#
9ean%hile this long re,ose and obscurity o! Jerubbabel's !amily. and o!
the %hole house o! (avid. during so many generations ,rior to the ?os,el.
%as one o! the ,re,arations made %hereby to mani!est more distinctly the
,ro,er glory o! it. in the birth o! the 9essiah-
)n %hichever %ay ) ta#e this. %hether addressed to a believer !or the
,ur,ose o! enlightening. or to an inGuirer !or the ,ur,ose o! establishing.
his !aith in ,ro,hecy. this argument a,,ears to me eGually ,er,leing and
obscure- )t seems. prima facie. almost tantamount to a right o! in!erring the
!ul!ilment o! a ,ro,hecy in B-. %hich it does not mention. !rom its entire
!ailure and !alsi!ication in A-. %hich. and %hich alone. it does mention-
Ib. p# '(+#
Behold I .ill send yo' !li7ah the prophet before the $reat and dreadf'l day
of the Lord.
Almost every ,age o! this volume ma#es me !eel my o%n ignorance
res,ecting the inter,retation o! the language o! the Hebre% 8ro,hets. and
the %ant o! the one idea %hich %ould su,,ly the #ey- "u,,ose an )n!idel to
as# me. ho% the :e%s %ere to ascertain that :ohn the Ba,tist %as *liFah the
8ro,het<Bam ) to assert the ,re7eistence o! :ohn's ,ersonal identity as
*liFahL )! not. %hy *liFah rather than any other 8ro,hetL 'ne ans%er is
obvious enough. that the contem,oraries o! :ohn held *liFah as the
common re,resentative o! the 8ro,hets< but did 9alachi do soL
Ib. p# '('#
) cannot conceive a more beauti!ul syno,sis o! a %or# on the 8ro,hecies o!
the 'ld +estament. than is given in this =eca,itulation- $ould that its truth
had been eGually %ell substantiatedE +hat it can be. that it %ill be. ) have
the liveliest !aith<Band that 9r- (avison has contributed as much as %e
ought to e,ect. and more than any contem,orary divine. ) ac#no%ledge.
and honor him accordingly- But much. very much. remains to be done.
be!ore these three ,ages merit the name o! a =eca,itulation-
is!# *II# p# '(&#
)! ) needed ,roo! o! the immense im,ortance o! the doctrine o! )deas. and
ho% little it is understood. the !ollo%ing discourse %ould su,,ly it-
+he %hole discussion on 8rescience and &ree%ill. %ith ece,tion o! the
,age or t%o borro%ed !rom "#elton. dis,lays an unacGuaintance %ith the
dee,er ,hiloso,hy. and a hel,lessness in the management o! the ,articular
Guestion. %hich ) #no% not ho% to reconcile %ith the steadiness and
clearness o! insight evinced in the earlier (iscourses- ) neither do nor ever
could see any other di!!iculty on the subFect. than %hat is contained and
antici,ated in the idea o! eternity-
By )deas ) mean intuitions not sensuous. %hich can be e,ressed only by
contradictory conce,tions. or. to s,ea# more accurately. are in themselves
necessarily both ine,ressible and inconceivable. but are suggested by t%o
contradictory ,ositions- +his is the essential character o! all ideas.
conseGuently o! eternity. in %hich the attributes o! omniscience and
omni,otence are included- No% ,rescience and !ree%ill are in !act nothing
more than the t%o contradictory ,ositions by %hich the human
understanding struggles to e,ress successively the idea o! eternity- Not
eternity in the negative sense as the mere absence o! succession. much less
eternity in the senseless sense o! an in!inite time< but eternity.Bthe *ternal<
as (eity. as ?od- 'ur theologians !orget that the obFection a,,lies eGually
to the ,ossibility o! the divine %ill< but i! they re,ly that ,rescience a,,lied
to an eternal. !ntis absol'ti tota et sim'ltanea fr'itio. is but an
anthro,omor,hism. or term o! accommodation. the same ans%er serves in
res,ect o! the human %ill< !or the e,ithet human does not enter into the
syllogism- As to contingency. %hence did 9r- (avison learn that it is a
necessary accom,animent o! !reedom. or o! !ree actionL 9y ,hiloso,hy
teaches me the very contrary-
Ib. p# '%$#
He contends. %ithout reserve. that the !ree actions o! men are not %ithin the
divine ,rescience< resting his doctrine ,artly on the assum,tion that there
are no strict and absolute ,redictions in "cri,ture o! those actions in %hich
men are re,resented as !ree and res,onsible< and ,artly on the abstract
reason. that such actions are in their nature im,ossible to be certainly
!ore#no%n-
) utterly deny contingency ece,t in relation to the limited and im,er!ect
#no%ledge o! man- But the misery is. that men %rite about !ree%ill %ithout
a single meditation on %ill absolutely< on the idea %ithout
any idea< and so be%ilder themselves in the Fungle o! alien conce,tions<
and to understand the truth they overlay their reason-
is!# *III# p# 41)#
)t %ould not be easy to calculate the good %hich a man li#e 9r- (avison
might e!!ect. under ?od. by a %or# on the 9essianic 8ro,hecies. s,ecially
intended !or and addressed to the ,resent race o! :e%s.Bi! only he %ould
ma#e himsel! acGuainted %ith their obFections and %ays o! understanding
"cri,ture- &or instance. a learned :e% %ould ,erha,s contend that this
,ro,hecy o! )saiah Cc- ii- /70.D cannot !airly be inter,reted o! a mere local
origination o! a religion historically< as the drama might be described as
going !orth !rom Athens. and ,hiloso,hy !rom Academus and the 8ainted
8orch. but must re!er to an established and continuing seat o! %orshi,. a
ho'se of the -od of *acob- +he ans%er to this is ,rovided in the ,receding
verse. in the top of the mo'ntains< %hich irre!ragably ,roves the !igurative
character o! the %hole ,rediction-
Ib. p# 4'1#
'ne ,oint. ho%ever. is certain and eGually im,ortant. namely. that the
Christian Church. %hen it comes to recogni>e more truly the obligation
im,osed u,on it by the original command o! its &ounder. -o teach all
nations. Ic-
+hat the duty here recommended is deducible !rom this tet is Guite clear to
my mind< but %hether it is the direct sense and ,rimary intention o! the
%ords< %hether the !irst meaning is not negative.BCHave no respect to
.hat nation a man is of, b't teach it to all indifferently .hom yo' have an
opport'nity of addressin$.DBthis is not so clear- +he larger sense is not
%ithout its di!!iculties. nor is this narro%er sense %ithout its ,ractical
advantages-
is!# I.# p# 4&', 4#
+he stri#ing in!eriority o! several o! these latter (iscourses in ,oint o!
style. as com,ared %ith the !irst 115 ,ages o! this volume. ,er,lees me- )t
seems more than mere carelessness. or the occasional infa'sta tempora
scribendi. can account !or- ) Guestion %hether !rom any modern %or# o! a
tenth ,art o! the merit o! these (iscourses. either in matter or in !orce and
!elicity o! diction and com,osition. as many uncouth and a%#%ard
sentences could be etracted- +he ,aragra,h in ,age 013 and 010. is not a
s,ecimen o! the %orst- )n a volume %hich ought to be. and %hich ,robably
%ill be. in every young Clergyman's library. these mac'l2 are subFects o!
Fust regret- +he utility o! the %or#. no less than its great com,arative
ecellence. render its revision a duty on the ,art o! the author< s,ec#s are
no tri!les in diamonds-
is!# .II# p# &1%#
&our such ruling #ingdoms did arise- +he !irst. the Babylonian. %as in
being %hen the ,ro,hecy is re,resented to have been given- )t %as !ollo%ed
by the 8ersian< the 8ersian gave %ay to the ?recian< the =oman closed the
series-
+his is stoutly denied by *ichhorn. %ho contends that the 9ede or 9edo7
8ersian is the secondBi! ) recollect aright- But it al%ays struc# me that
*ichhorn. li#e other learned )n!idels. is caught in his o%n snares- &or i! the
,ro,hecies are o! the age o! the !irst *m,ire. and actually delivered by
(aniel. there is no reason %hy the =oman *m,ire should not have been
,redicted<B!or su,erhuman ,redictions. the last t%o at least must have
been- But i! the boo# %as a !orgery. or a ,olitical ,oem li#e ?ray's Bard or
Lyco,hron's Cassandra. and later than Antiochus *,i,hanes. it is strange
and most im,robable that the =oman should have esca,ed notice- )n both
cases the omission o! the last and most im,ortant *m,ire is ine,licable-
Ib. p# &$1#
Qet %e have it on authority o! :ose,hus. that (aniel's ,ro,hecies %ere read
,ublicly among the :e%s in their %orshi,. as %ell as their other received
"cri,tures-
)t is but !air. ho%ever. to remember that the :e%ish Church ran#ed the boo#
o! (aniel in the third class only. among the Hagiogra,hicB,assionately
almost as the :e%s be!ore and at the time o! our "aviour %ere attached to it-
Ib. p# &$$0'#
But to a :e%ish eye. or to any eye ,laced in the same ,osition o! vie% in
the age o! Antiochus *,i,hanes. it is utterly im,ossible to admit that this
su,erior strength o! the =oman ,o%er to reduce and destroy. this heavier
arm o! subFugation. could have revealed itsel! so ,lainly. as to %arrant the
e,ress deliberate descri,tion o! it-
?'2re- "ee 8olybius-
Ib.
$e shall yet have to inGuire ho% it could be !oreseen that this !ourth. this
yet unestablished em,ire. should be the last in the line-
+his is a sound and %eighty argument. %hich the ,receding does not. )
con!ess. stri#e me as being- 'n the contrary. the admission that by a %riter
o! the 9accabaic Tra the =oman ,o%er could scarcely have been
overloo#ed. greatly strengthens this second argument. as naturally
suggesting e,ectations o! change. and %ave7li#e succession o! em,ires.
rather than the idea o! a last- )n the age o! Augustus this might ,ossibly
have occurred to a ,ro!ound thin#er< but the age o! Antiochus %as too late
to ,ermit the =oman ,o%er to esca,e notice< and not late enough to suggest
its eclusive establishment so as to leave no source o! succession-
&ootnote 1: (iscourses on 8ro,hecy. in %hich are considered its structure.
use and ins,iration. being the substance o! t%elve "ermons ,reached in the
Cha,el o! Lincoln's )nn in the Lecture !ounded by the =ight =ev- $illiam
$arburton. Bisho, o! ?loucester- By :ohn (avison. B-(- /nd edit- London.
18/1-
return to !ootnote mar#
Contents A )nde
Notes on Irving's Ben+$,ra
1
18/2-
Christ
the Word
The Script'res The Spirit The Ch'rch
The &reacher
"uch seemeth to me to be the scheme o! the &aith in Christ- +he %ritten
$ord. the ",irit and the Church. are co7ordinate. the indis,ensable
conditions and the %or#ing causes o! the ,er,etuity and continued re7
nascence and s,iritual li!e o! Christ still militant- +he *ternal $ord. Christ
!rom everlasting. is the prothesis or identity<Bthe "cri,tures and the
Church are the t%o ,oles. or the thesis and antithesis< the 8reacher in direct
line under the ",irit. but li#e%ise the ,oint o! Function o! the %ritten $ord
and the Church. being thesynthesis- And here is another ,roo! o! a ,rinci,le
else%here by me asserted and eem,li!ied. that divine truths are ever
a tetractys. or a triad eGual to a tetractys: 0P1 or 3P0P1- But the entire
scheme is a ,entadB?od's hand in the %orld
/
-
)t may be not amiss that ) should leave a record in my o%n hand. ho% !ar.
in %hat sense. and under %hat conditions. ) agree %ith my !riend. *d%ard
)rving. res,ecting the second coming o! the "on o! 9an-
)-Ho% !arL &irst. instead o! the !ull and entire conviction. the ,ositive
assurance. %hich 9r- )rving entertains. )Beven in those ,oints in
%hich my Fudgment most coincides %ith his.B,ro!ess only to regard
them as ,robable. and to vindicate them as no%ise inconsistent %ith
orthodoy- +hey may be believed. and they may be doubted. salva
Catholica fide- &urther. !rom these ,oints ) eclude all
,rognostications o! time and event< the mode. the ,ersons. the ,laces.
o! the accom,lishment< and ) decisively ,rotest against all ,arts o!
9r- )rving's and o! Lacun>a's scheme grounded on the boo#s o!
(aniel or the A,ocaly,se. inter,reted as either o! the t%o. )rving or
Lacun>a. understands them- Again. ) ,rotest against all identi!ication
o! the coming %ith the A,ocaly,tic 9illennium. %hich in my belie!
began under Constantine-
))-)n %hat senseL )n this and no other. that the obFects o! the Christian
=edem,tion %ill be ,er!ected on this earth<Bthat the #ingdom o!
?od and his $ord. the latter as the "on o! 9an. in %hich the divine
%ill shall be done on earth as it is in heaven. %ill come<Band that
the %hole march o! nature and history. !rom the !irst im,regnation o!
Chaos by the ",irit. converges to%ard this #ingdom as the !inal
cause o! the %orld- Li!e begins in detachment !rom Nature. and ends
in union %ith ?od-
)))-@nder %hat conditionsL +hat ) retain my !ormer convictions
res,ecting "t- 9ichael. and the e7saint Luci!er. and the ?enie 8rince
o! 8ersia. and the re7institution o! bestial sacri!ices in the +em,le at
:erusalem. and the rest o! this class- All these a,,ear to me so many
,im,les on the !ace o! my !riend's !aith !rom in%ard heats. leaving it
indeed a !ine handsome intelligent !ace. but certainly not adding to
its comeliness-
"uch are the convictions o! "- +- Coleridge. 9ay. 18/2-
&. S. ) !ully agree %ith 9r- )rving as to the literal !ul!ilment o! all the
,ro,hecies %hich res,ect the restoration o! the :e%s- CDe'teron- v- 178-D
)t may be long be!ore *d%ard )rving sees %hat ) seem at least to see so
clearly.Band yet. ) doubt not. the time %ill come %hen he too %ill see %ith
the same evidentness.Bho% much grander a !ront his system %ould have
,resented to Fudicious beholders< on ho% much more de!ensible a ,osition
he %ould have ,laced it.Band the remar# a,,lies eGually to Ben *>ra Cthat
is. *manuel Lacun>aDBhad he trusted the ,roo! to "cri,tures o! undis,uted
catholicity. to the s,irit o! the %hole Bible. to the consonance o! the
doctrine %ith the reason. its !itness to the needs and ca,acities o! man#ind.
and its harmony %ith the general ,lan o! the divine dealings %ith the %orld.
Band had le!t the A,ocaly,se in the bac# ground- But alasE instead o! this
he has given it such ,rominence. such ,rosiliency o! relie!. that he has
made the main strength o! his ho,e a,,ear to rest on a vision. so obscure
that his o%n author and !aith's7mate claims a meaning !or its contents only
on the su,,osition that the meaning is yet to comeE
1reliminar" is!ourse, p# lxxx#
No% o! these three. the o!!ice o! Christ. as our ,ro,het. is the means used
by the Holy ",irit !or %or#ing the redem,tion o! the understanding o! men<
that !aculty by %hich %e acGuire the #no%ledge on %hich ,roceed both our
in%ard ,rinci,les o! conduct and our out%ard acts o! ,o%er-
) cannot !orbear e,ressing my regret that 9r- )rving has not adhered to the
clear and distinct e,osition o! the understanding. $enere et $rad'. given in
the %ids to 5eflection
3
-
$hat can be ,lainer than to say: the understanding is the medial !aculty or
!aculty o! means. as reason on the other hand is the source o! ideas or
ultimate ends- By reason %e determine the ultimate end: by the
understanding %e are enabled to select and ada,t the a,,ro,riate means !or
the attainment o!. or a,,roimation to. this end. according to
circumstances- But an ultimate end must o! necessity be an idea. that is.
that %hich is not re,resentable by the sense. and has no entire
corres,ondent in nature. or the %orld o! the senses- &or in nature there can
be neither a !irst nor a last:Ball that %e can see. smell. taste. touch. are
means. and only in a Guali!ied sense. and by the de!ect o! our language.
entitled ends- +hey are only relatively ends in a chain o! motives- B- is the
end to A-< but it is itsel! a mean to C-. and in li#e manner C- is a mean to
(-. and so on- +hus %ords are the means by %hich %e reduce a,,earances.
or things ,resented through the senses. to their several #inds. or $enera<
that is. %e generali>e. and thus thin# and Fudge- Hence the understanding.
considered s,ecially as an intellective ,o%er. is the source and !aculty o!
%ords<Band on this account the understanding is Fustly de!ined. both by
Archbisho, Leighton. and by )mmanuel Hant. the !aculty that Fudges by. or
according to. sense- Ho%ever. ,ractical or intellectual. it is one and the
same understanding. and the de!inition. the medial !aculty. e,resses its
true character in both directions ali#e- ) am urgent on this ,oint. because on
the right conce,tion o! the same. namely. that understanding and sense Cto
%hich the sensibility su,,lies the material o! outness. materiam
ob7ectivam.D constitute the natural mind o! man. de,ends the
com,rehension o! "t- 8aul's %hole theological system- And this natural
mind. %hich is named the mind o! the !lesh. . as
li#e%ise . the intellectual ,o%er o! the living or animal
soul. "t- 8aul every%here contradistinguishes !rom the s,irit. that is. the
,o%er resulting !rom the union and co7inherence o! the %ill and the reason<
Band this s,irit both the Christian and elder :e%ish Church named. sophia.
or %isdom-
4en0E>ra# 1art I# !# v# p# )(#
*usebius and "t- *,i,hanius name Cerinthusas the inventor o! many
corru,tions- +hat heresiarch being given u, to the belly and the ,alate.
,laced therein the ha,,iness o! man- And so taught his disci,les. that a!ter
the =esurrection. N N N- And %hat a,,eared most im,ortant. each %ould be
master o! an entire seraglio. li#e a "ultan. Ic-
) !ind very great di!!iculty in crediting these blac# charges on Cerinthus.
and #no% not ho% to reconcile them %ith the !act that the A,ocaly,se itsel!
%as by many attributed to Cerinthus- But 9r- Hunt is not more !amous !or
blac#ing than some o! the &athers-
Ib. pp# (', 4#
Against %hom a very eloGuent man. (ionysius Aleandrinus. a &ather o!
the Church. %rote an elegant %or#. to ridicule the 9illennarian !able. the
golden and gemmed :erusalem on the earth. the rene%al o! the +em,le. the
blood o! victims- )! the boo# o! "t- (ionysius had contained nothing but the
derision and con!utation o! all %e have Fust read. it is certain that he doth in
no %ay concern himsel! %ith the harmless 9illennarians. but %ith the :e%s
and :udai>ers- )t is to be clearly seen that (ionysius had nothing in his eye.
but the ridiculous ecesses o! Ne,os. and his ,eculiar tenets u,on
circumcision. Ic-
Lacun>a. ) sus,ect. %as ignorant o! ?ree#: and seems not to have #no%n
that the obFect o! (ionysius %as to demonstrate that the A,ocaly,se %as
neither authentic nor a canonical boo#-
Ib. p# /&#
+he ruin o! Antichrist. %ith all that is com,rehended under that name.
being entirely consummated. and the Hing o! #ings remaining master o! the
!ield. "t- :ohn immediately continues in the /5th cha,ter. %hich thus
commenceth: %nd I sa. an an$el come do.n from heaven, /c. %nd I sa.
thrones, /c. %nd .hen a tho'sand years are e"pired, Satan shall be loosed
o't of his prison.
)t is only necessary to #no% that the %hole boo# !rom the !irst verse to the
last is %ritten in symbols. to be satis!ied that the true meaning o! this
,assage is sim,ly. that only the great Con!essors and 9artyrs %ill be had in
remembrance and honour in the Church a!ter the establishment o!
Christianity throughout the =oman *m,ire- And observe. it is the souls that
the "eer beholds:Bthere is not a %ord o! the resurrection o! the body<B!or
this %ould indeed have been the a,,ro,riate symbol o! a resurrection in a
real and ,ersonal sense-
Ib. !# vi# p# 1+/#
No% this very thing "t- :ohn li#e%ise declareth N N to %it. that they .ho
have been beheaded for the testimony of *es's, and for the .ord of -od,
and they .ho have not .orshipped the beast. these shall live. or be
raised at the coming o! the Lord. .hich is the first res'rrection.
AyeE but by %hat authority is this synonimi>ing MorM assertedL +he "eer not
only does not s,ea# o! any resurrection. but by the %ord souls.
e,ressly asserts the contrary- )n no sense o! the %ord can souls. %hich
descended in Christ's train Cchor's sacer animar'm et Christi comitat'sD
!rom Heaven. be said res'r$ere- =esurrection is al%ays and eclusively
resurrection in the body<Bnot indeed a rising o!
the corp's that is. the !e% ounces o! carbon. nitrogen.
oygen. hydrogen. and ,hos,hate o! lime. the cop'la o! %hich that gave
the !orm no longer eists.Band o! %hich 8aul eclaims<BTho' fool4 not
this. Ic-Bbut the corp's
But there is yet another and %orse %resting o! the tet- $ho that reads
Lacun>a. ,- 158. last line but t%elve. %ould not understand that the
A,ocaly,t had asserted this enthronement o! the souls o! the ?entile and
:udTo7Christian 9artyrs %hich he beheld in the train or suite o! the
descending 9essiah< and that he had !irst seen them in the descent. and
a!ter%ard sa% thrones assigned to themL $hereas the sentence ,recedes.
and has ,ositively no connection %ith these souls- +he literal inter,retation
o! the symbols c- - v- 0. is. M) then beheld the Christian religion the
established religion o! the state throughout the =oman em,ire<Bem,erors.
#ings. magistrates. and the li#e. all Christians. and administering la%s in
the name o! Christ. that is. receiving the "cri,tures as the su,reme and
,aramount la%- +hen in all the tem,les the name o! :esus %as invo#ed as
the Hing o! glory. and together %ith him the old a!!licted and tormented
!ello%7laborers %ith Christ %ere revived in high and reverential
commemoration.M Ic- But that the %hole 4ision !rom !irst to last. in every
sentence. yea. every %ord. is symbolical. and in the boldest. largest style o!
symbolic language< and secondly. that it is a %or# o! dis,uted canonicity.
and at no #no%n ,eriod o! the Church could truly lay claim to catholicity<
Bbut !or this. ) thin# this verse %ould be %orth a cartload o! the tets
%hich the =omanist divines and catechists ordinarily cite as sanctioning the
invocation o! "aints-
Ib. p# 11+#
Qou %ill say nevertheless. that even the %ic#ed %ill be raised incorru,tible
to inherit incorru,tion. because being once raised. their bodies %ill no more
change or be dissolved. but must continue entire. !or ever united %ith their
sad and miserable souls- $ell. and %ould you call this corru,tion or
incorru,tibilityL Certainly this is not the sense o! the A,ostle. %hen he
!ormally assures us. yea. even threatens us. that corru,tion cannot inherit
incorru,tion- :either doth corr'ption inherit incorr'ption- $hat then may
this singular e,ression meanL +his is %hat it mani!estly means<Bthat no
,erson. %hoever he may be. %ithout any ece,tion. %ho ,ossesseth a
corru,t heart and corru,t actions. and therein ,ersevereth unto death. shall
have reason to e,ect in the resurrection a ,ure. subtile. active and
im,assible body-
+his is actually dangerous tam,ering %ith the %ritten letter-
$ithout touching on the Guestion %hether "t- 8aul in this celebrated
cha,ter C1 Cor- v-D s,ea#s o! a ,artial or o! the general resurrection. or
even conceding to Lacun>a that the !ormer o,inion is the more ,robable< )
must still vehemently obFect to this :esuitical inter,retation o! corru,tion.
as used in a moral sense. and distinctive o! the %ic#ed souls- "t- 8aul
no%here s,ea#s dogmatically or ,rece,tively Cnot ,o,ularly and
incidentally.D o! a soul as the ,ro,er I- )t is al%ays '%e'. or the man- Ho%
could a regenerate saint ,ut o!! corru,tion at the sound o! the trum,. i! u,
to that hour it did not in some sense or other a,,ertain to himL But %hat
need o! many %ordsL )t !lashes on every reader %hose imagination su,,lies
an un,reoccu,ied. unre!racting. medi'm to the A,ostolic assertion. that
corru,tion in this ,assage is a descri,tive synonyme o! the material
sensuous organism common to saint and sinner.Bstanding in ,recisely the
same relation to the man that the testaceous o!!ensive and de!ensive armour
does to the crab and tortoise- +hese slightly combined and easily
decom,onible stu!!s are as inca,able o! subsisting under the altered
conditions o! the earth as an hydatid in the bla>e o! a tro,ical sun- +hey
%ould be no longermedia o! communion bet%een the man and his
circumstances-
A heavy di!!iculty ,resses. as it a,,ears to me. on Lacun>a's system. as
soon as %e come to consider the general resurrection- 'ur Lord Cin boo#s
o! indubitable and never doubted catholicityD s,ea#s o! some %ho rise to
bliss and glory. others %ho at the same time rise to shame and
condemnation- No% i! the !ormer class live not during the %hole interval
!rom their death to the general resurrection. including the 9illennium.
or Dies +essi2.Bho% should they. %hose im,er!ect or insu!!icient merits
ecluded them !rom the #ingdom o! the 9essiah on earth. be all at once
!itted !or the #ingdom o! heavenL
Ib. !h# vii# p# 11/#
)t a,,ears to me that this sentence. being loo#ed to attentively. means in
good language this only. that the %ord 3'ick. %hich the A,ostles. !ull o! the
Holy ",irit. set do%n. is a %ord altogether useless. %hich might %ithout
loss have been omitted. and that it %ere enough to have set do%n the
%ord dead: !or by that %ord alone is the %hole e,ressed. and %ith much
more clearness and brevity-
+he narro% outline %ithin %hich the :esuits con!ined the theological
reading o! their al'mni is strongly mar#ed in this Cin so many res,ectsD
ecellent %or#: !or eam,le. the Mmost believing mind.M %ith %hich
Lacun>a ta#es !or granted the e,loded !able o! the Catechumens'
Cv'l$o A,ostles'D Creed having been the Guotient o! an A,ostolic pic(nic. to
%hich each o! the t%elve contributed his several symbol'm-
Ib. !h# ix# p# 1$(#
+he A,ostle. "t- 8eter. s,ea#ing o! the day o! the Lord. says. that that day
%ill come suddenly. Ic- C/ 8et- iii- 15-D
+here are serious di!!iculties besetting the authenticity o! the Catholic
*,istles under the name o! 8eter< though there eist no grounds !or
doubting that they are o! the A,ostolic age- A large ,ortion too o! the
di!!iculties %ould be removed by the easy and no%ise im,robable
su,,osition. that 8eter. no great scholar or grammarian. had dictated the
substance. the matter. and le!t the diction and style to his aman'ensis. %ho
had been an auditor o! "t- 8aul- +he tradition %hich connects. not only
9ar#. but Lu#e the *vangelist. the !riend and biogra,her o! 8aul. %ith
8eter. as a secretary. is in !avour o! this hy,othesis- But %hat is o! much
greater im,ortance. es,ecially !or the ,oint in discussion. is the character o!
these and other similar descri,tions o! the Dies +essi2. the Dies 'ltima.
and the li#e- Are %e bound to receive them as articles o! !aithL )s there
su!!icient reason to assert them to have been direct revelations immediately
vouchsa!ed to the sacred %ritersL ) cannot satis!y my Fudgment that there
is<B!irst. because ) !ind no account o! any such events having been
revealed to the 8atriarchs. or to 9oses. or to the 8ro,hets< and because ) do
!ind these events asserted. and C!or aught ) have been able to discover.D !or
the !irst time. in the :e%ish Church by unins,ired =abbis. in nearly or
altogether the same %ords as those o! the A,ostles. and #no% that be!ore
and in the A,ostolic age. these antici,ations had become ,o,ular. and
generally received notions< and lastly. because they %ere borro%ed by the
:e%s !rom the ?ree# ,hiloso,hy. and li#e several other notions. ta#en !rom
less res,ectable Guarters. ada,ted to their ancient and national religious
belie!- No% ) #no% o! no revealed truth that did not originate in =evelation.
and !ind it hard to reconcile my mind to the belie! that any Christian truth.
any essential article o! !aith. should have been !irst made #no%n by the
!ather o! lies. or the guess7%or# o! the human understanding blinded by
8aganism. or at best %ithout the #no%ledge o! the true ?od- '! course )
%ould not a,,ly this to any assertion o! any Ne% +estament %riter. %hich
%as the !inal aim and ,rimary intention o! the %hole ,assage< but only to
sentences in ordine ad some other doctrine or ,rece,t. ill'strandi ca'sa.
or ad hominem. or more s'asorio sive ad ornat'ram, et rhetorice-
Ib. 1art II# p# 14&#
"econd characteristic- The kin$dom shall be divided.B+hird
characteristic- The kin$dom shall be partly stron$ and partly brittle.B
&ourth characteristic- They shall min$le themselves .ith the seed of men9
b't they shall not cleave one to another.
Ho% eactly do these characters a,,ly to the ?ree# *m,ire under the
successors o! Aleander.B%hen the ?ree#s %ere dis,ersed over the
civili>ed %orld. as artists. rhetoricians.$rammatici. secretaries. ,rivate
tutors. ,arasites. ,hysicians. and the li#eE
Ib. p# 1&'#
1or to them he th's speaketh in the -ospel9 %nd then shall they see the Son
of man comin$ in a clo'd .ith po.er and $reat $lory. %nd .hen these
thin$s be$in to come to pass, then look 'p, and lift 'p yo'r heads6 for yo'r
redemption dra.eth ni$h.
) cannot deny that there is great !orce and an im,osing verisimilitude in this
and the ,receding cha,ter. and much that demands silent thought and
res,ect!ul attention- But still the great Guestion ,resses on me:Bcomin$ in
a clo'dE $hat is the true im,ort o! this ,hraseL Has not ?od himsel!
e,ounded itL +o the "on o! 9an. the great A,ostle assures us. all ,o%er is
given in heaven and on earth- He became 8rovidence.Bthat is. a (ivine
8o%er behind the cloudy veil o! human agency and %orldly events and
incidents. controlling. dis,osing. and directing acts and events to the
gradual un!olding and !inal consummation o! the great scheme o!
=edem,tion< the casting !orth o! the evil and alien nature !rom man. and
thus e!!ecting the union o! the creature %ith the Creator. o! man %ith ?od.
in and through the "on o! 9an. even the "on o! ?od made mani!est- No%
can it be doubted by the attentive and un,reFudiced reader o! "t- 9atthe%.
c- iv. that the "on o! 9an. in !act. came in the utter destruction and
devastation o! the :e%ish +em,le and "tate. during the ,eriod !rom
4es,asian to Hadrian. both included< and is it a su!!icient reason !or our
reFecting the teaching o! Christ himsel!. o! Christ glori!ied and in his #ingly
character. that his A,ostles. %ho disclaim all certain #no%ledge o! the
a%!ul event. had understood his %ords other%ise. and in a sense more
commensurate %ith their ,revious notions and the ,reFudices o! their
educationL +hey communicated their conFectures. but as conFectures. and
these too guarded by the avo%al. that they had no revelation. no revealed
commentary on their 9aster's %ords. u,on this occasion. the great
a,ocaly,se o! :esus Christ %hile yet in the !lesh- &or by this title %as this
great ,ro,hecy #no%n among the Christians o! the A,ostolic age-
Ib. p# $&'#
Never. 'hE our LadyE never. 'hE our 9otherE shalt thou !all again into the
crime o! idolatry-
$as ever blindness li#e unto this blindnessL ) can imagine but one %ay o!
ma#ing it seem ,ossible. namely. that this round sGuare or rectilineal curve
Bthis honest :esuit. ) meanBhad con!ined his conce,tion o! idolatry to the
%orshi, o! !alse gods<B%hereas his saints are genuine godlings. and
his +a$na +ater a goddess in her o%n right<Band that thus he overloo#ed
the meaning o! the %ord-
Ib. p# $&4#
+he entire tet o! the A,ostle is as !ollo%s:B:o. .e beseech yo',
brethren, by the comin$ of o'r Lord *es's Christ, and by o'r $atherin$
to$ether 'nto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind. Ic- C/ +hess- ii- 17
15-D
' *d%ard )rvingE *d%ard )rvingE by %hat !ascination could your s,irit be
dra%n a%ay !rom ,assages li#e this. to guess and dream over the
rha,sodies o! the A,ocaly,seL &or rha,sody. according to your
inter,retation. the 8oem undeniably is<Bthough. rightly e,ounded. it is a
%ell #nit and highly ,oetical evolution o! a ,art o! this and our Lord's more
com,rehensive ,rediction. L'ke vii-
Ib. p# $%(#
'n the ordinary ideas o! the coming o! Christ in glory and maFesty. it %ill
doubtless a,,ear an etravagance to name the :e%s. or to ta#e them into
consideration< !or. according to those ideas. they should hardly have the
least ,article o! our attention-
)n com,aring this %ith the ,receding cha,ter ) could not hel, eclaiming<
$hat an ecellent boo# %ould this :esuit have %ritten. i! (aniel and the
A,ocaly,se had not eisted. or had been un#no%n to. or reFected by. himE
Qou may divide Lacun>a's ,oints o! belie! into t%o ,arallel columns<Bthe
!irst %ould be !ound to contain much that is demanded by. much that is
consonant to. and nothing that is not com,atible %ith. reason. the harmony
o! Holy $rit. and the idea o! Christian !aith- +he second %ould consist o!
,uerilities and anilities. some im,ossible. most incredible< and all so silly.
so sensual. as to be!it a dreaming +almudist. not a "cri,tural Christian- And
this latter column %ould be !ound grounded on (aniel and the A,ocaly,seE
&ootnote 1: +he Coming o! 9essiah in ?lory and 9aFesty- By :uan
:osa!at Ben7*>ra. a converted :e%- +ranslated !rom the ",anish. %ith a
,reliminary (iscourse- By the =ev- *d%ard )rving. A-9- London. 18/2-
return to !ootnote mar#
&ootnote /: "ee s'pra. vol- iii- ,- 93-B!d.
return
&ootnote 3: 8- 112. 0th edit-B!d.
return
Contents A )nde
Notes on Noble's (ppeal
1
18/2-
Ho% natural it is to mista#e the %ea#ness o! an adversary's arguments !or
the strength o! our o%n causeE +his is es,ecially a,,licable to 9r- Noble's
A,,eal- Assuredly as !ar as 9r- Beaumont's Notes are concerned. his
victory is com,lete-
6e!t# I*# p# $1+#
+he intellectual s,irit is moving u,on the chaos o! minds. %hich ignorance
and necessity have thro%n into collision and con!usion< and the result %ill
be a ne% creation- MNatureM Cto use the nervous language o! an7old %riter.D
M%ill be melted do%n and recoined< and all %ill be bright and beauti!ul-M
AlasE i! this be ,ossible no%. or at any time hence!or%ard. %hence came
the drossL )! nature be bullion that can be melted and thus ,uri!ied by the
conFoint action o! heat and elective attraction. ) ,ray 9r- Noble to tell me to
%hat name or $en's he re!ers the drossL $ill he tell me. to the (evilL
$hence came the (evilL And ho% %as the ,ure bullion so thoughtlessly
made as to have an elective a!!inity !or this (evilL
6e!t# *# p# $/)#
+he net anecdote that ) shall adduce is similar in its nature to the last N N
N- +he relater is (r- "tilling. Counsellor at the Court o! the (u#e o! Baden.
in a %or# entitledDie Theorie der -eister(0'nde. ,rinted in 1858-
9r- Noble is a man o! too much *nglish good sense to have relied on
"ung's Calias (r- "tilling'sD testimony. had he ever read the %or# in %hich
this ,assage is !ound- ) ha,,en to ,ossess the %or#< and a more anile.
credulous. solemn !o, never eisted since the days o! old Audley- )t is
strange that 9r- Noble should not have heard. that these three anecdotes
%ere !irst related by )mmanuel Hant. and still eist in his miscellaneous
%ritings-
Ib. p# '1&#
MCan he be a sane man %ho records the subseGuent reverie as matter o!
!actL +he Baron in!orms us. that on a certain night a man a,,eared to him
in the midst o! a strong shining light. and said. I am -od the Lord, the
Creator and 5edeemer6 I have chosen thee to e"plain to men the interior
and spirit'al sense of the Sacred ritin$s9 I .ill dictate to thee .hat tho'
o'$htest to .riteA &rom this ,eriod. the Baron relates he %as so illumined.
as to behold. in the clearest manner. %hat ,assed in the s,iritual %orld. and
that he could converse %ith angels and s,irits as %ith men.M Ic-
) remember no such ,assage as this in "%edenborg's %or#s- )ndeed it is
virtually contradicted by their %hole tenor- "%edenborg asserts himsel! to
relate visa et a'dita.Bhis o%n e,erience. as a traveller and visitor o! the
s,iritual %orld.Bnot the %ords o! another as a mere aman'ensis- But
altogether this ?ulielmus must be a silly Billy-
Ib. p# '$1#
+he A,ostolic canon in such cases is. 'Believe not every s,irit. but try the
s,irits %hether they be o! ?od'- C1 :ohn iv- 1-D And the touchstone to %hich
they are to be brought is ,ointed out by the 8ro,het: To the la. and to the
testimony9 if they speak not accordin$ to this .ord, it is beca'se there is no
tr'th in them. C)s- viii- /5-D But instead o! this canon you o!!er another N N
N- )t is sim,ly this: $hoever ,ro!esses to be the bearer o! divine
communications. is insane- +o bring "%edenborg %ithin the o,eration o!
this rule. you Guote. as i! !rom his o%n %or#s. a ,assage %hich is no%here
to be !ound in them. but %hich you seem to have ta#en !rom some
biogra,hical dictionary or cyclo,Tdia< !e% or none o! %hich give anything
li#e a !air account o! the matter-
AyeE my memory did not !ail me. ) !ind- As to insanity in the sense
intended by ?ulielmus. namely. as mania.B) should as little thin# o!
charging "%edenborg %ith it. as o! calling a !riend mad %ho laboured
under an acyanoblepsia-
Ib. p# '$'#
(id you never read o! one %ho says. in %ords very li#e your version o! the
Baron's reverie: It came to pass, that, as I took my 7o'rney, and .as come
ni$h 'nto Damasc's, abo't noon, s'ddenly there shone from heaven a
$reat li$ht ro'nd abo't me9 and I fell on the $ro'nd, and heard a voice
sayin$ 'nto me, Sa'l, Sa'l, .hy persec'test tho' meA
)n the short s,ace o! !our years the ne%s,a,ers contained three several
cases. t%o o! %hich ) cut out. and still have among my ocean o! ,a,ers. and
%hich. as stated. %ere as nearly ,arallel. in eternal accom,animents. to "t-
8aul's as cases can %ell be:Bstruc# %ith lightning.Bheard the thunder as
an articulate voice.Bblind !or a !e% days. and suddenly recovered their
sight- But then there %as no Ananias. no con!irming revelation to another-
+his it %as that Fusti!ied "t- 8aul as a %ise man in regarding the incident as
su,ernatural. or as more than a ,rovidential omen- :.B. Not every
revelation reGuires a sensible miracle as the credential< but every revelation
o! a ne% series o! credenda- +he ,ro,hets a,,ealed to records o!
ac#no%ledged authority. and to their obvious sense literally inter,reted-
+he Ba,tist needed no miracle to attest his right o! calling sinners to
re,entance- "ee !"od'siv- 15-
Ib. pp# '4), (#
+his sentiment. that miracles are not the ,ro,er evidences o! doctrinal truth.
is. assuredly. the decision o! the +ruth itsel!< as is obvious !rom many
,assages in "cri,ture- $e have seen that the design o! the miracles o!
9oses. as eternal ,er!ormances. %as not to instruct the )sraelites in
s,iritual subFects. but to ma#e them obedient subFects o! a ,eculiar s,ecies
o! ,olitical state- And though the miracles o! :esus Christ collaterally
served as testimonies to his character. he re,eatedly intimates that this %as
not their main design- N N N At another time more ,lainly still. he says. that
it is a .icked and ad'ltero's $eneration CthatD seeketh after a si$n< on
%hich occasion. according to 9ar#. he si$hed deeply in his spirit- Ho%
characteristic is that touch o! the A,ostle. The *e.s re3'ire a si$n, and the
-reeks seek after .isdom4 C%here by %isdom he means the elegance and
re!inement o! ?recian literature-D
Agreeing. as in the main ) do. %ith the sentiments here e,ressed by this
eloGuent %riter. ) must notice that he has. ho%ever. mista#en the sense o!
the %hich the :e%s %ould have tem,ted our "aviour to she%.B
namely. the signal !or revolt by o,enly declaring himsel! their #ing. and
leading them against the =omans- +he !ore#no%ledge that this su,erstition
%ould shortly hurry them into utter ruin caused the dee, sigh.Bas on
another occasion. the bitter tears- Again. by the o! the ?ree#s their
dis,utatious is meant- +he so,hists ,retended to teach %isdom
as an art: and sophist2 may be literally rendered. %isdom7mongers. as %e
say. iron7mongers-
Ib. p# '&+#
"ome ,robably %ill say. M$hat argument can induce us to believe a man in
a concern o! this nature %ho gives no visible credentials to his authorityLM
N N N But let us as# in return. M)s it %orthy o! a being %earing the !igure o!
a man to reGuire such ,roo!s as these to determine his FudgmentLM N N N
M+he beasts act !rom the im,ulse o! their bodily senses. but are utterly
inca,able o! seeing !rom reason %hy they should so act: and it might easily
be she%n. that %hile a man thin#s and acts under the in!luence o! a miracle.
he is as much inca,able o! ,erceiving !rom any rational ground %hy he
should thus thin# and act. as a beast is-M M$hatEM our o,,onents %ill
,erha,s re,ly. N N N M$as it not by miracles that the ,ro,hets Csome o!
themD testi!ied their authorityL (o you not believe these !actsLM Qes. my
!riends. ) do most entirely believe them. Ic-
+here is so much o! truth in all this reasoning on miracles. that ) !eel ,ain
in the thought that the result is !alse.Bbecause it %as not the %hole truth-
But this is the grounding. and at the same time ,ervading. error o! the
"%edenborgians<Bthat they overloo# the distinction bet%een congruity
%ith reason. truth o! consistency. or internal ,ossibility o! this or that being
obFectively real. and the obFective reality as !act- 9iracles. 'Guoad' miracles.
can never su,,ly the ,lace o! subFective evidence. that is. o! insight- But
neither can subFective insight su,,ly the ,lace o! obFective sight- +he
certainty o! the truth o! a mathematical arch can never ,rove the !act o! its
eistence- ) antici,ate the ans%ers< but #no% that they li#e%ise ,roceed
!rom the %ant o! distinguishing bet%een ideas. such as ?od. *ternity. the
res,onsible $ill. the ?ood. and the li#e.Bthe actuality o! %hich is
absolutely subFective. and includes both the relatively subFective and the
relatively obFective as higher or transcendant realities. %hich alone are the
,ro,er obFects o! !aith. the great ,ostulates o! reason in order to its o%n
admission o! its o%n being.Bthe not distinguishing. ) say. bet%een these.
and those ,ositions %hich must be either matters o! !act or !ictions- &or
such latter ,ositions it is that miracles are reGuired in lieu o! e,erience-
A-'s testimony o! e,erience su,,lies the %ant o! the same e,erience !or
B- C- (-. Ic- &or eam,le. ho% many thousands believe the eistence o!
red sno% on the testimony o! Ca,tain 8arryE But %ho can e,ect more than
hints in a marginal noteL
6e!t# *I# pp# '(/, %? '/+, 1#
)n the general vie%s. then. %hich are ,resented in the %ritings o!
"%edenborg on the subFect o! Heaven and Hell. as the abodes. res,ectively.
o! ha,,iness and o! misery. %hile there certainly is not anything %hich is
not in the highest degree agreeable both to reason and "cri,ture. there also
seems nothing %hich could be deemed inconsistent %ith the usual
conce,tions o! the Christian %orld-
$hat tends to render thin#ing readers a little sce,tical. is the %ant o! a
distinct boundary bet%een the deductions !rom reason. and the articles. the
truth o! %hich is to rest on the Baron's ,ersonal testimony. his visa et
a'dita- Nor is the Baron himsel! Cas it a,,ears to meD Guite consistent on
this ,oint-
Ib. p# 4'4#
$itness. again. the ,oet 9ilton. %ho introduces active s,orts among the
recreations %hich he deemed %orthy o! angels. and Cstrange indeed !or a
8uritanED included even dancing among the number-
Ho% could a man o! Noble's sense and sensibility bring himsel! thus to
,ro!ane the a%!ul name o! 9ilton. by associating it %ith the e,ithet
M8uritanLM
) have o!ten thought o! %riting a %or# to be entitled Vindici2 Heterodo"2,
sive celebri'm viror'm defensio< that is.
4indication o! ?reat 9en unFustly branded< and at such times the names
,rominent to my mind's eye have been ?iordano Bruno. :acob Behmen.
Benedict ",ino>a. and *manuel "%edenborg- ?rant. that the origin o! the
"%edenborgian theology is a ,roblem< yet on %hich ever o! the three
,ossible hy,othesesBC,ossible ) mean !or gentlemen. scholars and
ChristiansDBit may be solvedB7namely:
1-"%edenborg's o%n assertion and constant belie! in the hy,othesis
o! a su,ernatural illumination< or.
/-that the great and ecellent man %as led into this belie! by
becoming the subFect o! a very rare. but not Cit is saidD altogether
uniGue. conFunction o! the somniative !aculty Cby %hich the ,roducts
o! the understanding. that is to say. %ords. conce,tions and the li#e.
are rendered instantaneously into !orms o! senseD %ith the voluntary
and other ,o%ers o! the %a#ing state< or.
3-the modest suggestion that the !irst and second may not be so
incom,atible as they a,,earBstill it ought never to be !orgotten that
the merit and value o! "%edenborg's system do only in a very
secondary degree de,end on any one o! the three- &or even though
the !irst %ere ado,ted. the conviction and conversion o! such a
believer must. according to a !undamental ,rinci,le o! the Ne%
Church. have been %rought by an insight into the intrinsic truth and
goodness o! the doctrines. severally and collectively. and their entire
consonance %ith the light o! the %ritten and o! the eternal %ord. that
is. %ith the "cri,tures and %ith the sciential and the ,ractical reason-
'r say that the second hy,othesis %ere ,re!erred. and that by some
hitherto une,lained a!!ections o! "%edenborg's brain and nervous
system. he !rom the year 1203. thought and reasoned through the
'medium' and instrumentality o! a series o! a,,ro,riate and symbolic
visual and auditual images. s,ontaneously rising be!ore him. and
these so clear and so distinct. as at length to over,o%er ,erha,s his
!irst sus,icions o! their subFective nature. and to become obFective
!or him. that is. in his o%n belie! o! their #ind and origin.Bstill the
thoughts. the reasonings. the grounds. the deductions. the !acts
illustrative. or in ,roo!. and the conclusions. remain the same< and
the reader might derive the same bene!it !rom them as !rom the
sublime and im,ressive truths conveyed in the 4ision o! 9ir>a or the
+ablet o! Cebes- "o much even !rom a very ,artial acGuaintance %ith
the %or#s o! "%edenborg. ) can venture to assert< that as a moralist
"%edenborg is above all ,raise< and that as a naturalist. ,sychologist.
and theologian. he has strong and varied claims on the gratitude and
admiration o! the ,ro!essional and ,hiloso,hical student-BA,ril
18/2-
&. S. Not%ithstanding all that 9r- Noble says in Fusti!ication o! his
arrangement. it is greatly to be regretted that the contents o! this %or# are
so con!usedly tossed together- )t is. ho%ever. a %or# o! great merit-
&ootnote 1: An A,,eal in behal! o! the vie%s o! the eternal %orld and
state. and the doctrines o! !aith and li!e. held by the body o! Christians %ho
believe that a Ne% Church is signi!ied Cin the =evelation. c- i-D by the
Ne% :erusalem. including Ans%ers to obFections. ,articularly those o! the
=ev- ?- Beaumont. in his %or# entitled M+he Anti7"%edenborg-M Addressed
to the re!lecting o! all denominations- By "amuel Noble. 9inister o!
Hanover "treet Cha,el. London- London. 18/3- !d.
return to !ootnote mar#
Contents A )nde
Essa" on 2aith
&aith may be de!ined. as !idelity to our o%n beingBso !ar as such being is
not and cannot become an obFect o! the senses< and hence. by clear
in!erence or im,lication. to being generally. as !ar as the same is not the
obFect o! the senses: and again to %hatever is a!!irmed or understood as the
condition. or concomitant. or conseGuence o! the same- +his %ill be best
e,lained by an instance or eam,le- +hat ) am conscious o! something
%ithin me ,erem,torily commanding me to do unto others as ) %ould they
should do unto me<Bin other %ords. a categorical Cthat is. ,rimary and
unconditionalD im,erative<Bthat the maim Cre$'la ma"ima or su,reme
ruleD o! my actions. both in%ard and out%ard. should be such as ) could.
%ithout any contradiction arising there!rom. %ill to be the la% o! all moral
and rational beings<Bthis. ) say. is a !act o! %hich ) am no less conscious
Cthough in a di!!erent %ayD. nor less assured. than ) am o! any a,,earance
,resented by my out%ard senses- Nor is this all< but in the very act o! being
conscious o! this in my o%n nature. ) #no% that it is a !act o! %hich all men
either are or ought to be conscious<Ba !act. the ignorance o! %hich
constitutes either the non7,ersonality o! the ignorant. or the guilt. in %hich
latter case the ignorance is eGuivalent to #no%ledge %il!ully dar#ened- )
#no% that ) ,ossess this consciousness as a man. and not as "amuel +aylor
Coleridge< hence #no%ing that consciousness o! this !act is the root o! all
other consciousness. and the only ,ractical contradistinction o! man !rom
the brutes. %e name it the conscience< by the natural absence or ,resumed
,resence o! %hich. the la%. both divine and human. determines %hether 6
Q J be a thing or a ,erson:Bthe conscience being that %hich never to have
had ,laces the obFects in the same order o! things as the brutes. !or
eam,le. idiots< and to have lost %hich im,lies either insanity or a,ostasy-
$ellBthis %e have a!!irmed is a !act o! %hich every honest man is as !ully
assured as o! his seeing. hearing or smelling- But though the !ormer
assurance does not di!!er !rom the latter in the degree. it is altogether
diverse in the #ind< the senses being morally ,assive. %hile the conscience
is essentially connected %ith the %ill. though not al%ays. nor indeed in any
case. ece,t a!ter !reGuent attem,ts and aversions o! %ill. de,endent on the
choice- +hence %e call the ,resentations o! the senses im,ressions. those o!
the conscience commands or dictates- )n the senses %e !ind our rece,tivity.
and as !ar as our ,ersonal being is concerned. %e are ,assive<Bbut in the
!act o! the conscience %e are not only agents. but it is by this alone. that %e
#no% ourselves to be such< nay. that our very ,assiveness in this latter is an
act o! ,assiveness. and that %e are ,atient CpatientesDBnot. as in the other
case. 'sim,ly' ,assive- +he result is. the consciousness o! res,onsibility< and
the ,roo! is a!!orded by the in%ard e,erience o! the diversity bet%een
regret and remorse-
)! ) have sound ears. and my com,anion s,ea#s to me %ith a due ,ro,ortion
o! voice. ) may ,ersuade him that ) did not hear. but cannot deceive mysel!-
But %hen my conscience s,ea#s to me. ) can. by re,eated e!!orts. render
mysel! !inally insensible< to %hich add this other di!!erence in the case o!
conscience. namely. that to ma#e mysel! dea! is one and the same thing
%ith ma#ing my conscience dumb. till at length ) become unconscious o!
my conscience- &reGuent are the instances in %hich it is sus,ended. and as
it %ere dro%ned. in the inundation o! the a,,etites. ,assions and
imaginations. to %hich ) have resigned mysel!. ma#ing use o! my %ill in
order to abandon my !ree7%ill< and there are not. ) !ear. eam,les %anting
o! the conscience being utterly destroyed. or o! the ,assage o! %ic#edness
into madness<Bthat s,ecies o! madness. namely. in %hich the reason is
lost- &or so long as the reason continues. so long must the conscience eist
either as a good conscience. or as a bad conscience-
)t a,,ears then. that even the very !irst ste,. that the initiation o! the
,rocess. the becoming conscious o! a conscience. ,arta#es o! the nature o!
an act- )t is an act. in and by %hich %e ta#e u,on ourselves an allegiance.
and conseGuently the obligation o! !ealty< and this !ealty or !idelity
im,lying the ,o%er o! being un!aith!ul. it is the !irst and !undamental sense
o! &aith- )t is li#e%ise the commencement o! e,erience. and the result o!
all other e,erience- )n other %ords. conscience. in this its sim,lest !orm.
must be su,,osed in order to consciousness. that is. to human
consciousness- Brutes may be. and are scions. but those beings only. %ho
have an ). scire poss'nt hoc vel ill'd 'na c'm seipsis< that is. conscire vel
scire ali3'id mec'm. or to #no% a thing in relation to mysel!. and in the act
o! #no%ing mysel! as acted u,on by that something-
No% the third ,erson could never have been distinguished !rom the !irst but
by means o! the second- +here can be no He %ithout a ,revious +hou-
9uch less could an ) eist !or us. ece,t as it eists during the sus,ension
o! the %ill. as in dreams< and the nature o! brutes may be best understood.
by conceiving them as somnambulists- +his is a dee, meditation. though
the ,osition is ca,able o! the strictest ,roo!.Bnamely. that there can be no )
%ithout a +hou. and that a +hou is only ,ossible by an eGuation in %hich )
is ta#en as eGual to +hou. and yet not the same- And this again is only
,ossible by ,utting them in o,,osition as corres,ondent o,,osites. or
correlatives- )n order to this. a something must be a!!irmed in the one.
%hich is reFected in the other. and this something is the %ill- ) do not %ill to
consider mysel! as eGual to mysel!. !or in the very act o! constituting
mysel! I. ) ta#e it as the same. and there!ore as inca,able o! com,arison.
that is. o! any a,,lication o! the %ill- )! then. ) min's the %ill be the thesis
/
<
+hou pl's %ill must be the antithesis. but the eGuation o! +hou %ith ). by
means o! a !ree act. negativing the sameness in order to establish the
eGuality. is the true de!inition o! conscience- But as %ithout a +hou there
can be no Qou. so %ithout a Qou no +hey. +hese or +hose< and as all these
conFointly !orm the materials and subFects o! consciousness. and the
conditions o! e,erience. it is evident that the con7science is the root o! all
consciousness.Ba fortiori. the ,recondition o! all e,erience.Band that
the conscience cannot have been in its !irst revelation deduced !rom
e,erience- "oon. ho%ever. e,erience comes into ,lay- $e learn that there
are other im,ulses beside the dictates o! conscience< that there are ,o%ers
%ithin us and %ithout us ready to usur, the throne o! conscience. and busy
in tem,ting us to trans!er our allegiance- $e learn that there are many
things contrary to conscience. and there!ore to be reFected. and utterly
ecluded. and many that can coeist %ith its su,remacy only by being
subFugated. as beasts o! burthen< and others again. as. !or instance. the
social tendernesses and a!!ections. and the !aculties and ecitations o! the
intellect. %hich must be at least subordinated- +he ,reservation o! our
loyalty and !ealty under these trials and against these rivals constitutes the
second sense o! &aith< and %e shall need but one more ,oint o! vie% to
com,lete its !ull im,ort- +his is the consideration o! %hat is ,resu,,osed in
the human conscience- +he ans%er is ready- As in the eGuation o! the
correlative ) and +hou. one o! the t%in constituents is to be ta#en
as pl's %ill. the other as min's %ill. so is it here: and it is obvious that the
reason or s'per7individual o! each man. %hereby he is man. is the !actor %e
are to ta#e as min's %ill< and that the individual %ill or ,ersonali>ing
,rinci,le o! !ree agency Carbitrement is 9ilton's %ordD is the !actor
mar#ed pl's %ill<Band again. that as the identity or coinherence o! the
absolute %ill and the reason. is the ,eculiar character o! ?od< so is
the synthesis o! the individual %ill and the common reason. by the
subordination o! the !ormer to the latter. the only ,ossible li#eness or image
o! the prothesis. or identity. and there!ore the reGuired ,ro,er character o!
man- Conscience. then. is a %itness res,ecting the identity o! the %ill and
the reason e!!ected by the sel!7subordination o! the %ill. or sel!. to the
reason. as eGual to. or re,resenting. the %ill o! ?od- But the ,ersonal %ill is
a !actor in other moral syntheses< !or eam,le. a,,etite pl's ,ersonal
%illPsensuality< lust o! ,o%er. pl's ,ersonal %ill.Pambition. and so on.
eGually as in the synthesis. on %hich the conscience is grounded- Not this
there!ore. but the other synthesis. must su,,ly the s,eci!ic character o! the
conscience< and %e must enter into an analysis o! reason- "uch as the
nature and obFects o! the reason are. such must be the !unctions and obFects
o! the conscience- And the !ormer %e shall best learn by reca,itulating
those constituents o! the total man %hich are either contrary to. or dis,arate
!rom. the reason-
)-=eason. and the ,ro,er obFects o! reason. are %holly alien !rom
sensation- =eason is su,ersensual. and its antagonist is a,,etite. and
the obFects o! a,,etite the lust o! the !lesh-
))-=eason and its obFects do not a,,ertain to the %orld o! the senses
in%ard or out%ard< that is. they ,arta#e not o! sense or !ancy- =eason
is su,er7sensuous. and here its antagonist is the lust o! the eye-
)))-=eason and its obFects are not things o! re!lection. association.
discursion. discourse in the old sense o! the %ord as o,,osed to
intuition< Mdiscursive or intuitive.M as 9ilton has it- =eason does not
indeed necessarily eclude the !inite. either in time or in s,ace. but it
includes them eminenter- +hus the ,rime mover o! the material
universe is a!!irmed to contain all motion as its cause. but not to be.
or to su!!er. motion in itsel!-
=eason is not the !aculty o! the !inite- But here ) must ,remise the
!ollo%ing- +he !aculty o! the !inite is that %hich reduces the con!used
im,ressions o! sense to their essential !orms.BGuantity. Guality. relation.
and in these action and reaction. cause and e!!ect. and the li#e< thus raises
the materials !urnished by the senses and sensations into obFects o!
re!lection. and so ma#es e,erience ,ossible- $ithout it. man's
re,resentative ,o%ers %ould be a delirium. a chaos. a scudding cloudage o!
sha,es< and it is there!ore most a,,ro,riately called the understanding. or
substantiative !aculty- 'ur elder meta,hysicians. do%n to Hobbes
inclusively. called this li#e%ise discourse. disc'rs's, disc'rsio, !rom its
mode o! action as not staying at any one obFect. but running as it %ere to
and !ro to abstract. generali>e. and classi!y- No% %hen this !aculty is
em,loyed in the service o! the ,ure reason. it brings out the necessary and
universal truths contained in the in!inite into distinct contem,lation by the
,ure act o! the sensuous imagination. that is. in the ,roduction o! the !orms
o! s,ace and time abstracted !rom all cor,oreity. and li#e%ise o! the
inherent !orms o! the understanding itsel! abstractedly !rom the
consideration o! ,articulars. as in the case o! geometry. numeral
mathematics. universal logic. and ,ure meta,hysics- +he discursive !aculty
then becomes %hat our "ha#s,eare %ith ha,,y ,recision calls Mdiscourse o!
reason-M
$e %ill no% ta#e u, our reasoning again !rom the %ords Mmotion in itsel!-M
)t is evident then. that the reason. as the irradiative ,o%er. and the
re,resentative o! the in!inite. Fudges the understanding as the !aculty o! the
!inite. and cannot %ithout error be Fudged by it- $hen this is attem,ted. or
%hen the understanding in its synthesis %ith the ,ersonal %ill. usur,s the
su,remacy o! the reason. or a!!ects to su,ersede the reason. it is then %hat
"t- 8aul calls the mind o! the !lesh C D or the %isdom o!
this %orld- +he result is. that the reason is su,er7!inite< and in this relation.
its antagonist is the insubordinate understanding. or mind o! the !lesh-
)4-=eason. as one %ith the absolute %ill. CIn the be$innin$ .as the
Lo$os, and the Lo$os .as .ith -od, and the Lo$os .as -od.D and
there!ore !or man the certain re,resentative o! the %ill o! ?od. is
above the %ill o! man as an individual %ill- $e have seen in )))- that
it stands in antagonism to all mere ,articulars< but here it stands in
antagonism to all mere individual interests as so many selves. to the
,ersonal %ill as see#ing its obFects in the mani!estation o! itsel! !or
itsel!Bsit pro ratione vol'ntas<B%hether this be reali>ed %ith
adFuncts. as in the lust o! the !lesh. and in the lust o! the eye< or
%ithout adFuncts. as in the thirst and ,ride o! ,o%er. des,otism.
egoistic ambition- +he !ourth antagonist. then. o! reason is the lust o!
the %ill-
Corollar"- @nli#e a million o! tigers. a million o! men is very di!!erent
!rom a million times one man- *ach man in a numerous society is not only
coeistent %ith. but virtually organi>ed into. the multitude o! %hich he is an
integral ,art- His idem is modi!ied by the alter- And there arise im,ulses
and obFects !rom this synthesis o! the alter et idem. mysel! and my
neighbour- +his. again. is strictly analogous to %hat ta#es ,lace in the vital
organi>ation o! the individual man- +he cerebral system o! nerves has its
corres,ondent antithesisin the abdominal system: but hence arises
a synthesis o! the t%o in the ,ectoral system as the intermediate. and. li#e a
dra%bridge. at once conductor and boundary- )n the latter as obFecti>ed by
the !ormer arise the emotions. a!!ections. and in one %ord. the ,assions. as
distinguished !rom the cognitions and a,,etites- No% the reason has been
sho%n to be su,er7individual. generally. and there!ore not less so %hen the
!orm o! an individuali>ation subsists in the alter. than %hen it is con!ined
to the idem< not less %hen the emotions have their conscious or believed
obFect in another. than %hen their subFect is the individual ,ersonal sel!-
&or though these emotions. a!!ections. attachments. and the li#e. are the
,re,ared ladder by %hich the lo%er nature is ta#en u, into. and made to
,arta#e o!. the highest room.Bas %e are taught to give a !eeling o! reality
to the higher per medi'm comm'ne %ith the lo%er. and thus gradually to
see the reality o! the higher Cnamely. the obFects o! reasonD and !inally to
#no% that the latter are indeed and ,re7eminently real. as i! you love your
earthly ,arents %hom you see. by these means you %ill learn to love your
Heavenly &ather %ho is invisible<Byet this holds good only so !ar as the
reason is the ,resident. and its obFects the ultimate aim< and cases may arise
in %hich the Christ as the Logos or =edem,tive =eason declares. He that
loves father or mother more than me, is not .orthy of me< nay. he that can
,ermit his emotions to rise to an eGuality %ith the universal reason. is in
enmity %ith that reason- Here then reason a,,ears as the love o! ?od< and
its antagonist is the attachment to individuals %herever it eists in
diminution o!. or in com,etition %ith. the love %hich is reason-
)n these !ive ,aragra,hs ) have enumerated and e,lained the several
,o%ers or !orces belonging or incidental to human nature. %hich in all
matters o! reason the man is bound either to subFugate or subordinate to
reason- +he a,,lication to &aith !ollo%s o! its o%n accord- +he !irst or most
inde!inite sense o! !aith is !idelity: then !idelity under ,revious contract or
,articular moral obligation- )n this sense !aith is !ealty to a right!ul
su,erior: !aith is the duty o! a !aith!ul subFect to a right!ul governor- +hen it
is allegiance in active service< !idelity to the liege lord under
circumstances. and amid the tem,tations. o! usur,ation. rebellion. and
intestine discord- Net %e see# !or that right!ul su,erior on our duties to
%hom all our duties to all other su,eriors. on our !aith!ulness to %hom all
our bounden relations to all other obFects o! !idelity. are !ounded- $e must
inGuire a!ter that duty in %hich all others !ind their several degrees and
dignities. and !rom %hich they derive their obligative !orce- $e are to !ind
a su,erior. %hose rights. including our duties. are ,resented to the mind in
the very idea o! that "u,reme Being. %hose sovereign ,rerogatives are
,redicates im,lied in the subFects. as the essential ,ro,erties o! a circle are
co7assumed in the !irst assum,tion o! a circle. conseGuently underived.
unconditional. and as rationally insusce,tible. so ,robably ,rohibitive. o!
all !urther Guestion- )n this sense then !aith is !idelity. !ealty. allegiance o!
the moral nature to ?od. in o,,osition to all usur,ation. and in resistance to
all tem,tation to the ,lacing any other claim above or eGual %ith our
!idelity to ?od-
+he %ill o! ?od is the last ground and !inal aim o! all our duties. and to that
the %hole man is to be harmoni>ed by subordination. subFugation. or
su,,ression ali#e in commission and omission- But the %ill o! ?od. %hich
is one %ith the su,reme intelligence. is revealed to man through the
conscience- But the conscience. %hich consists in an ina,,ellable bearing7
%itness to the truth and reality o! our reason. may legitimately be construed
%ith the term reason. so !ar as the conscience is ,rescri,tive< %hile as
a,,roving or condemning. it is the consciousness o! the subordination or
insubordination. the harmony or discord. o! the ,ersonal %ill o! man to and
%ith the re,resentative o! the %ill o! ?od- +his brings me to the last and
!ullest sense o! &aith. that is. as the obedience o! the individual %ill to the
reason. in the lust o! the !lesh as o,,osed to the su,ersensual< in the lust o!
the eye as o,,osed to the su,ersensuous< in the ,ride o! the understanding
as o,,osed to the in!inite. in the in contrariety to the
s,iritual truth< in the lust o! the ,ersonal %ill as o,,osed to the absolute and
universal< and in the love o! the creature. as !ar as it is o,,osed to the love
%hich is one %ith the reason. namely. the love o! ?od-
+hus then to conclude- &aith subsists in the 'synthesis' o! the reason and the
individual %ill- By virtue o! the latter there!ore it must be an energy. and
inasmuch as it relates to the %hole moral man. it must be eerted in each
and all o! his constituents or incidents. !aculties and tendencies<Bit must
be a total. not a ,artial< a continuous. not a desultory or occasional energy-
And by virtue o! the !ormer. that is. reason. !aith must be a light. a !orm o!
#no%ing. a beholding o! truth- )n the incom,arable %ords o! the
*vangelist. there!oreB'!aith must be a light originating in the Logos. or the
substantial reason. %hich is coeternal and one %ith the Holy $ill. and
%hich light is at the same time the li!e o! men'- No% as li!e is here the sum
or collective o! all moral and s,iritual acts. in su!!ering. doing. and being.
so is !aith the source and the sum. the energy and the ,rinci,le o! the
!idelity o! man to ?od. by the subordination o! his human %ill. in all
,rovinces o! his nature to his reason. as the sum o! s,iritual truth.
re,resenting and mani!esting the %ill (ivine-
Contents A )nde
end of "ol*me fo*r- the final "ol*me.
This pa$e prepared by Clytie Siddall, a vol'nteer member of (istributed
8roo!readers.
I en7oy vol'nteer proofreadin$, and yo' mi$ht, too4
%nybody, from any.here, from any lan$'a$e back$ro'nd, can contrib'te to
p'ttin$ thousands more !ree boo#s online, by checkin$ 7'st one pa$e at a time.
InterestedA Check o't (istributed 8roo!readers, a non(profit, vol'nteer site
.here h'ndreds of people like yo' and me add 'p to a $reat team,
helpin$ 8roFect ?utenberg make a h'ndred tho'sand books of all kinds
available free, any.here in the .orld, .*st one pa'e at a time---
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Coleridge's Literary Remains,
olume !"
by #amuel Taylor Coleridge
999 E=+ 6: T;5# PR6,ECT G<TE=BERG EB66> L5TER*R& RE?*5=# 999
99999 This file should be named 2/3/2(h"htm or 2/3/2(h"Ai' 99999
This and all associated files of %arious formats $ill be found in)
htt')BB$$$"gutenberg"netB2B/B3B/B2/3/2B
Produced by ,onathon 5ngram, Clytie #iddall and the 6nline +istributed
Proofreading Team@
<'dated editions $ill re'lace the 're%ious one((the old editions
$ill be renamed"
Creating the $orks from 'ublic domain 'rint editions means that no
one o$ns a <nited #tates co'yright in these $orks, so the :oundation
Cand you@D can co'y and distribute it in the <nited #tates $ithout
'ermission and $ithout 'aying co'yright royalties" #'ecial rules,
set forth in the General Terms of <se 'art of this license, a''ly to
co'ying and distributing Project Gutenberg(tm electronic $orks to
'rotect the PR6,ECT G<TE=BERG(tm conce't and trademark" Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you recei%e s'ecific 'ermission" 5f you
do not charge anything for co'ies of this eBook, com'lying $ith the
rules is %ery easy" &ou may use this eBook for nearly any 'ur'ose
such as creation of deri%ati%e $orks, re'orts, 'erformances and
research" They may be modified and 'rinted and gi%en a$ay((you may do
'ractically *=&T;5=G $ith 'ublic domain eBooks" Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, es'ecially commercial
redistribution"
999 #T*RT) :<LL L5CE=#E 999
T;E :<LL PR6,ECT G<TE=BERG L5CE=#E
PLE*#E RE*+ T;5# BE:6RE &6< +5#TR5B<TE 6R <#E T;5# E6R>
To 'rotect the Project Gutenberg(tm mission of 'romoting the free
distribution of electronic $orks, by using or distributing this $ork
Cor any other $ork associated in any $ay $ith the 'hrase FProject
GutenbergFD, you agree to com'ly $ith all the terms of the :ull
Project
Gutenberg(tm License Ca%ailable $ith this file or online at
htt')BBgutenberg"netBlicenseD"
#ection 2" General Terms of <se and Redistributing Project Gutenberg(
tm
electronic $orks
2"*" By reading or using any 'art of this Project Gutenberg(tm
electronic $ork, you indicate that you ha%e read, understand, agree to
and acce't all the terms of this license and intellectual 'ro'erty
CtrademarkBco'yrightD agreement" 5f you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy
all co'ies of Project Gutenberg(tm electronic $orks in your
'ossession"
5f you 'aid a fee for obtaining a co'y of or access to a Project
Gutenberg(tm electronic $ork and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the 'erson or
entity to $hom you 'aid the fee as set forth in 'aragra'h 2"E"3"
2"B" FProject GutenbergF is a registered trademark" 5t may only be
used on or associated in any $ay $ith an electronic $ork by 'eo'le $ho
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement" There are a fe$
things that you can do $ith most Project Gutenberg(tm electronic $orks
e%en $ithout com'lying $ith the full terms of this agreement" #ee
'aragra'h 2"C belo$" There are a lot of things you can do $ith
Project
Gutenberg(tm electronic $orks if you follo$ the terms of this
agreement
and hel' 'reser%e free future access to Project Gutenberg(tm
electronic
$orks" #ee 'aragra'h 2"E belo$"
2"C" The Project Gutenberg Literary *rchi%e :oundation CFthe
:oundationF
or PGL*:D, o$ns a com'ilation co'yright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg(tm electronic $orks" =early all the indi%idual $orks in the
collection are in the 'ublic domain in the <nited #tates" 5f an
indi%idual $ork is in the 'ublic domain in the <nited #tates and you
are
located in the <nited #tates, $e do not claim a right to 're%ent you
from
co'ying, distributing, 'erforming, dis'laying or creating deri%ati%e
$orks based on the $ork as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are remo%ed" 6f course, $e ho'e that you $ill su''ort the Project
Gutenberg(tm mission of 'romoting free access to electronic $orks by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg(tm $orks in com'liance $ith the terms
of
this agreement for kee'ing the Project Gutenberg(tm name associated
$ith
the $ork" &ou can easily com'ly $ith the terms of this agreement by
kee'ing this $ork in the same format $ith its attached full Project
Gutenberg(tm License $hen you share it $ithout charge $ith others"
2"+" The co'yright la$s of the 'lace $here you are located also
go%ern
$hat you can do $ith this $ork" Co'yright la$s in most countries are
in
a constant state of change" 5f you are outside the <nited #tates,
check
the la$s of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before do$nloading, co'ying, dis'laying, 'erforming, distributing or
creating deri%ati%e $orks based on this $ork or any other Project
Gutenberg(tm $ork" The :oundation makes no re'resentations concerning
the co'yright status of any $ork in any country outside the <nited
#tates"
2"E" <nless you ha%e remo%ed all references to Project Gutenberg)
2"E"2" The follo$ing sentence, $ith acti%e links to, or other
immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg(tm License must a''ear
'rominently
$hene%er any co'y of a Project Gutenberg(tm $ork Cany $ork on $hich
the
'hrase FProject GutenbergF a''ears, or $ith $hich the 'hrase FProject
GutenbergF is associatedD is accessed, dis'layed, 'erformed, %ie$ed,
co'ied or distributed)
This eBook is for the use of anyone any$here at no cost and $ith
almost no restrictions $hatsoe%er" &ou may co'y it, gi%e it a$ay or
re(use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
$ith this eBook or online at $$$"gutenberg"net
2"E"-" 5f an indi%idual Project Gutenberg(tm electronic $ork is
deri%ed
from the 'ublic domain Cdoes not contain a notice indicating that it
is
'osted $ith 'ermission of the co'yright holderD, the $ork can be
co'ied
and distributed to anyone in the <nited #tates $ithout 'aying any fees
or charges" 5f you are redistributing or 'ro%iding access to a $ork
$ith the 'hrase FProject GutenbergF associated $ith or a''earing on
the
$ork, you must com'ly either $ith the reGuirements of 'aragra'hs 2"E"2
through 2"E"H or obtain 'ermission for the use of the $ork and the
Project Gutenberg(tm trademark as set forth in 'aragra'hs 2"E"3 or
2"E"8"
2"E"." 5f an indi%idual Project Gutenberg(tm electronic $ork is
'osted
$ith the 'ermission of the co'yright holder, your use and distribution
must com'ly $ith both 'aragra'hs 2"E"2 through 2"E"H and any
additional
terms im'osed by the co'yright holder" *dditional terms $ill be
linked
to the Project Gutenberg(tm License for all $orks 'osted $ith the
'ermission of the co'yright holder found at the beginning of this
$ork"
2"E"!" +o not unlink or detach or remo%e the full Project Gutenberg(
tm
License terms from this $ork, or any files containing a 'art of this
$ork or any other $ork associated $ith Project Gutenberg(tm"
2"E"7" +o not co'y, dis'lay, 'erform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic $ork, or any 'art of this electronic $ork, $ithout
'rominently dis'laying the sentence set forth in 'aragra'h 2"E"2 $ith
acti%e links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg(tm License"
2"E"I" &ou may con%ert to and distribute this $ork in any binary,
com'ressed, marked u', non'ro'rietary or 'ro'rietary form, including
any
$ord 'rocessing or hy'erteJt form" ;o$e%er, if you 'ro%ide access to
or
distribute co'ies of a Project Gutenberg(tm $ork in a format other
than
FPlain anilla *#C55F or other format used in the official %ersion
'osted on the official Project Gutenberg(tm $eb site
C$$$"gutenberg"netD,
you must, at no additional cost, fee or eJ'ense to the user, 'ro%ide a
co'y, a means of eJ'orting a co'y, or a means of obtaining a co'y u'on
reGuest, of the $ork in its original FPlain anilla *#C55F or other
form" *ny alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg(tm
License as s'ecified in 'aragra'h 2"E"2"
2"E"H" +o not charge a fee for access to, %ie$ing, dis'laying,
'erforming, co'ying or distributing any Project Gutenberg(tm $orks
unless you com'ly $ith 'aragra'h 2"E"3 or 2"E"8"
2"E"3" &ou may charge a reasonable fee for co'ies of or 'ro%iding
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg(tm electronic $orks
'ro%ided
that
( &ou 'ay a royalty fee of -/K of the gross 'rofits you deri%e from
the use of Project Gutenberg(tm $orks calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your a''licable taJes" The fee is
o$ed to the o$ner of the Project Gutenberg(tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this 'aragra'h to the
Project Gutenberg Literary *rchi%e :oundation" Royalty 'ayments
must be 'aid $ithin I/ days follo$ing each date on $hich you
're'are Cor are legally reGuired to 're'areD your 'eriodic taJ
returns" Royalty 'ayments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary *rchi%e :oundation at the
address s'ecified in #ection !, F5nformation about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary *rchi%e :oundation"F
( &ou 'ro%ide a full refund of any money 'aid by a user $ho notifies
you in $riting Cor by e(mailD $ithin ./ days of recei't that sBhe
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg(tm
License" &ou must reGuire such a user to return or
destroy all co'ies of the $orks 'ossessed in a 'hysical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other co'ies of
Project Gutenberg(tm $orks"
( &ou 'ro%ide, in accordance $ith 'aragra'h 2":"., a full refund of
any
money 'aid for a $ork or a re'lacement co'y, if a defect in the
electronic $ork is disco%ered and re'orted to you $ithin 8/ days
of recei't of the $ork"
( &ou com'ly $ith all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg(tm $orks"
2"E"8" 5f you $ish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg(
tm
electronic $ork or grou' of $orks on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain 'ermission in $riting from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary *rchi%e :oundation and ?ichael
;art, the o$ner of the Project Gutenberg(tm trademark" Contact the
:oundation as set forth in #ection . belo$"
2":"
2":"2" Project Gutenberg %olunteers and em'loyees eJ'end considerable
effort to identify, do co'yright research on, transcribe and 'roofread
'ublic domain $orks in creating the Project Gutenberg(tm
collection" +es'ite these efforts, Project Gutenberg(tm electronic
$orks, and the medium on $hich they may be stored, may contain
F+efects,F such as, but not limited to, incom'lete, inaccurate or
corru't data, transcri'tion errors, a co'yright or other intellectual
'ro'erty infringement, a defecti%e or damaged disk or other medium, a
com'uter %irus, or com'uter codes that damage or cannot be read by
your eGui'ment"
2":"-" L5?5TE+ E*RR*=T&, +5#CL*5?ER 6: +*?*GE# ( EJce't for the
FRight
of Re'lacement or RefundF described in 'aragra'h 2":"., the Project
Gutenberg Literary *rchi%e :oundation, the o$ner of the Project
Gutenberg(tm trademark, and any other 'arty distributing a Project
Gutenberg(tm electronic $ork under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and eJ'enses, including legal
fees" &6< *GREE T;*T &6< ;*E =6 RE?E+5E# :6R =EGL5GE=CE, #TR5CT
L5*B5L5T&, BRE*C; 6: E*RR*=T& 6R BRE*C; 6: C6=TR*CT ELCEPT T;6#E
PR65+E+ 5= P*R*GR*P; :." &6< *GREE T;*T T;E :6<=+*T56=, T;E
TR*+E?*R> 6E=ER, *=+ *=& +5#TR5B<T6R <=+ER T;5# *GREE?E=T E5LL =6T BE
L5*BLE T6 &6< :6R *CT<*L, +5RECT, 5=+5RECT, C6=#EM<E=T5*L, P<=5T5E 6R
5=C5+E=T*L +*?*GE# EE= 5: &6< G5E =6T5CE 6: T;E P6##5B5L5T& 6: #<C;
+*?*GE"
2":"." L5?5TE+ R5G;T 6: REPL*CE?E=T 6R RE:<=+ ( 5f you disco%er a
defect in this electronic $ork $ithin 8/ days of recei%ing it, you can
recei%e a refund of the money Cif anyD you 'aid for it by sending a
$ritten eJ'lanation to the 'erson you recei%ed the $ork from" 5f you
recei%ed the $ork on a 'hysical medium, you must return the medium
$ith
your $ritten eJ'lanation" The 'erson or entity that 'ro%ided you $ith
the defecti%e $ork may elect to 'ro%ide a re'lacement co'y in lieu of
a
refund" 5f you recei%ed the $ork electronically, the 'erson or entity
'ro%iding it to you may choose to gi%e you a second o''ortunity to
recei%e the $ork electronically in lieu of a refund" 5f the second
co'y
is also defecti%e, you may demand a refund in $riting $ithout further
o''ortunities to fiJ the 'roblem"
2":"!" EJce't for the limited right of re'lacement or refund set
forth
in 'aragra'h 2":"., this $ork is 'ro%ided to you '*#(5#' E5T; =6 6T;ER
E*RR*=T5E# 6: *=& >5=+, ELPRE## 6R 5?PL5E+, 5=CL<+5=G B<T =6T L5?5TE+
T6
E*RR*=T5E# 6: ?ERC;*=T5B5L5T& 6R :5T=E## :6R *=& P<RP6#E"
2":"7" #ome states do not allo$ disclaimers of certain im'lied
$arranties or the eJclusion or limitation of certain ty'es of damages"
5f any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement %iolates
the
la$ of the state a''licable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
inter'reted to make the maJimum disclaimer or limitation 'ermitted by
the a''licable state la$" The in%alidity or unenforceability of any
'ro%ision of this agreement shall not %oid the remaining 'ro%isions"
2":"I" 5=+E?=5T& ( &ou agree to indemnify and hold the :oundation,
the
trademark o$ner, any agent or em'loyee of the :oundation, anyone
'ro%iding co'ies of Project Gutenberg(tm electronic $orks in
accordance
$ith this agreement, and any %olunteers associated $ith the
'roduction,
'romotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg(tm electronic $orks,
harmless from all liability, costs and eJ'enses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the follo$ing $hich you
do
or cause to occur) CaD distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg(
tm
$ork, CbD alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg(tm $ork, and CcD any +efect you cause"
#ection -" 5nformation about the ?ission of Project Gutenberg(tm
Project Gutenberg(tm is synonymous $ith the free distribution of
electronic $orks in formats readable by the $idest %ariety of
com'uters
including obsolete, old, middle(aged and ne$ com'uters" 5t eJists
because of the efforts of hundreds of %olunteers and donations from
'eo'le in all $alks of life"
olunteers and financial su''ort to 'ro%ide %olunteers $ith the
assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg(tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg(tm collection $ill
remain freely a%ailable for generations to come" 5n -//2, the Project
Gutenberg Literary *rchi%e :oundation $as created to 'ro%ide a secure
and 'ermanent future for Project Gutenberg(tm and future generations"
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary *rchi%e :oundation
and ho$ your efforts and donations can hel', see #ections . and !
and the :oundation $eb 'age at htt')BB$$$"'glaf"org"
#ection ." 5nformation about the Project Gutenberg Literary *rchi%e
:oundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary *rchi%e :oundation is a non 'rofit
7/2CcDC.D educational cor'oration organiAed under the la$s of the
state of ?ississi''i and granted taJ eJem't status by the 5nternal
Re%enue #er%ice" The :oundation's E5= or federal taJ identification
number is I!(I--27!2" 5ts 7/2CcDC.D letter is 'osted at
htt')BB'glaf"orgBfundraising" Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary *rchi%e :oundation are taJ deductible to the full eJtent
'ermitted by <"#" federal la$s and your state's la$s"
The :oundation's 'rinci'al office is located at !77H ?elan +r" #"
:airbanks, *>, 88H2-", but its %olunteers and em'loyees are scattered
throughout numerous locations" 5ts business office is located at
3/8 =orth 27// Eest, #alt Lake City, <T 3!22I, C3/2D 78I(233H, email
businessN'glaf"org" Email contact links and u' to date contact
information can be found at the :oundation's $eb site and official
'age at htt')BB'glaf"org
:or additional contact information)
+r" Gregory B" =e$by
Chief EJecuti%e and +irector
gbne$byN'glaf"org
#ection !" 5nformation about +onations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary *rchi%e :oundation
Project Gutenberg(tm de'ends u'on and cannot sur%i%e $ithout $ide
s'read 'ublic su''ort and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of 'ublic domain and licensed $orks that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the $idest
array of eGui'ment including outdated eGui'ment" ?any small donations
CO2 to O7,///D are 'articularly im'ortant to maintaining taJ eJem't
status $ith the 5R#"
The :oundation is committed to com'lying $ith the la$s regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 7/ states of the <nited
#tates" Com'liance reGuirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much 'a'er$ork and many fees to meet and kee' u'
$ith these reGuirements" Ee do not solicit donations in locations
$here $e ha%e not recei%ed $ritten confirmation of com'liance" To
#E=+ +6=*T56=# or determine the status of com'liance for any
'articular state %isit htt')BB'glaf"org
Ehile $e cannot and do not solicit contributions from states $here $e
ha%e not met the solicitation reGuirements, $e kno$ of no 'rohibition
against acce'ting unsolicited donations from donors in such states $ho
a''roach us $ith offers to donate"
5nternational donations are gratefully acce'ted, but $e cannot make
any statements concerning taJ treatment of donations recei%ed from
outside the <nited #tates" <"#" la$s alone s$am' our small staff"
Please check the Project Gutenberg Eeb 'ages for current donation
methods and addresses" +onations are acce'ted in a number of other
$ays including including checks, online 'ayments and credit card
donations" To donate, 'lease %isit) htt')BB'glaf"orgBdonate
#ection 7" General 5nformation *bout Project Gutenberg(tm electronic
$orks"
Professor ?ichael #" ;art is the originator of the Project Gutenberg(
tm
conce't of a library of electronic $orks that could be freely shared
$ith anyone" :or thirty years, he 'roduced and distributed Project
Gutenberg(tm eBooks $ith only a loose net$ork of %olunteer su''ort"
Project Gutenberg(tm eBooks are often created from se%eral 'rinted
editions, all of $hich are confirmed as Public +omain in the <"#"
unless a co'yright notice is included" Thus, $e do not necessarily
kee' eBooks in com'liance $ith any 'articular 'a'er edition"
Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's
eBook number, often in se%eral formats including 'lain %anilla *#C55,
com'ressed CAi''edD, ;T?L and others"
Corrected E+5T56=# of our eBooks re'lace the old file and take o%er
the old filename and eteJt number" The re'laced older file is
renamed"
ER#56=# based on se'arate sources are treated as ne$ eBooks recei%ing
ne$ filenames and eteJt numbers"
?ost 'eo'le start at our Eeb site $hich has the main PG search
facility)
htt')BB$$$"gutenberg"net
This Eeb site includes information about Project Gutenberg(tm,
including ho$ to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
*rchi%e :oundation, ho$ to hel' 'roduce our ne$ eBooks, and ho$ to
subscribe to our email ne$sletter to hear about ne$ eBooks"
EBooks 'osted 'rior to =o%ember -//., $ith eBook numbers BEL6E 12////,
are filed in directories based on their release date" 5f you $ant to
do$nload any of these eBooks directly, rather than using the regular
search system you may utiliAe the follo$ing addresses and just
do$nload by the eteJt year"
htt')BB$$$"gutenberg"netBeteJt/I
C6r BeteJt /7, /!, /., /-, /2, //, 88,
83, 8H, 8I, 87, 8!, 8., 8-, 8-, 82 or 8/D
EBooks 'osted since =o%ember -//., $ith eteJt numbers 6ER 12////, are
filed in a different $ay" The year of a release date is no longer
'art
of the directory 'ath" The 'ath is based on the eteJt number C$hich
is
identical to the filenameD" The 'ath to the file is made u' of single
digits corres'onding to all but the last digit in the filename" :or
eJam'le an eBook of filename 2/-.! $ould be found at)
htt')BB$$$"gutenberg"netB2B/B-B.B2/-.!
or filename -!I38 $ould be found at)
htt')BB$$$"gutenberg"netB-B!BIB3B-!I38
*n alternati%e method of locating eBooks)
htt')BB$$$"gutenberg"netBG<T5=+EL"*LL