the chriftian profeffion; (6) thofe, who have cru The question is, in fuch a cafe what ought the oppreffed to do? Let us take an article of faith, and a rule of practice, and fee. "When a heathen child is baptized, he is changed within. He is brought to the font full of fin through Adam's disobedience but he is washed from all his fins inwardly. The power of the holy Ghoft by the priest's bleffing comes upon the corruptible water of the holy font, and after that it can wash both body and foul from all fins by fpiritual power." This is part of an Eafter-homily, which was read annually in the church about 800 years ago. This I call an article of faith. Ab. Whelock. Beda Hift. Eccl. Cantab. 1644. p. 471. Here follows a rule of practice. At the elevation of the hoft, the ritualifts require the worshippers of it to fay"Soul of Chrift, fanctify me -Body of Chrift, fave meBlood of Chrift, inebriate me -Water of Chrift's fide, wash me." This is part of a form for adoring the holy facrament, published in the bours of Salisbury. This I call a rule of practice. cified faith and practice, the holy fcriptures. I, therefore, thank him for his friendly regard to my spiritual welfare, and we part civilly. I can fuppofe them laid before me by Pope John XXII, along with a parchment grant duly executed of three thousand days pardon for deadly fins, on condition of my complying. Again, I thank his holinefs for an offer fo generous: but I must beg leave to decline accepting it, and we part. I can fuppofe them laid before me with all the religious inducements to accept them, that arife from an intereft in the papal community, fuch as, on one fide, the benefits of pardons, fupererogations, indulgencies, jubilees, canonization, and fo on: and, on the other, the terrors of annual excommunication, denial of extreme unction, desertion in purgatory, and damnation in hell. I can conceive myself unawed by all thefe, and acting rightly to perfift in judging for my felf." I can go a step farther, and fuppofe my worthy friend the pope, finding me inconI can fuppofe this article, vertible by motives taken and this rule, to be fimply from his principles, changpropofed to me by a clergy- ing his mode of perfuafion, man of the church of Rome. and pretending to convert me The first I do not understand, by motives taken according the laft I do not approve, to my own principles from both deviate from my rule of fcripture. He fays, Jefus Chrift cified your Saviour, and every day strive to destroy his gospel. Chrift has put the government of my confcience into his hand, and required me to believe what he affirms to be true, and to perform what he commands to be done. He reads, and I reafon, till, at length, refenting his ufurpation of Chrift's authority, I fet my S. Paul's epiftles against his S. Peter's keys, and conform to the apoftle by diffenting from the pope. If any man teach otherwise than the apoftles taught, and confent not to the wholesome words of our Lord Jefus Chrift, from fuch WITHDRAW thy Jelf. 1 Tim. vi. 3, 5. If there be two or three of us in the fame circumftances, we congregate in Chrift's name, and, wherever be the place of our affembling, we expect to have him by his word and fpirit in the midst of us. All this is an affair of religion, confcience, reason, argument, on both fides purely ecclefiaftical. But fhould my brother John turn politician, intrigue at court, delude my king and perfuade him to confifcate my goods, to confine myperfon, and to condemn me to death for my nonconformity to his noftrums, in fuch a cafe the doctrines of paffive obedience, and non-refiftance in matters of religion would come under confideration. The ftate of the question concerning my believing what I do not understand, and my performing what I do not approve, would not be altered by being put into new hands, it would remain exactly as before, and what was my duty before would be my duty ftill. But what fhould I do with these new doctrines of paffive obedience and non-refiftance? I would open my eyes, fee the artifice of my opponent, affirm that they are, and they are not theological queftions. As theological queftions, they are reprobated by every ar ticle of chriftianity; for in matters of faith and obedience we owe belief to none but revealed propofitions, and obedience to none but divine commands. But thefe doctrines, as they regard life, civil liberty, and property, are not theological, but political questions, they belong to fyftems of civil polity, and they have no place in that fyftem of government, under which I live, for that confiders the people as the origin of power, and civil governors as the executors of a trust, fo I reject them. In fuch a free ftate I choofe to live, agreeably to my notions of civil government, the genius of my liberal religion, and the examples of the best of politicians, I will walk at liberty, for I feek thy precepts. I will Speak of thy teftimonies before kings, and will not be ashamed. Pfal. cxix. 45, 46. XII. CONSIDER THE PRINCIPLES OF A WORD OR ACTION. (8) For example. John v. 14. Behold! thou art made whole, fin no more, left a worst thing come unto thee. This was the language of Jefus Chrift to The doc the (8) Confider the principles of Atruction." That is to fay, words and actions. we must follow fcripture, trine of principles is extreme- and not force it. Tetrachorly important to a chriftian don, p. 23. minifter, particularly in five cafes. I must mention only five here for want of room. 1. In ftudying the letter of fcripture, that is the nature, and principles of contructing, and compofing, which prevailed with each writer in each compofition. Nothing is more common among divines than arbitrary diftributions of texts, chapters, and whole books, according to their own fcholaftical notions of compofition. These always imply, that the writers of thefe books, chapters, and verfes compofed on the principles of their expofitors. Nothing can be leis true. Our Milton has rightly faid, "It is not for the majefty of fcripture to humble herself (Milton was a poet remember.) in artificial theorems, and definitions, and corollaries, like a profeffor in the schools: but looks to be analyfed into thofe fciential rules, which are the implements of inVOL. II. For example. A certain expofitor of Ecclefiaftes prefixes what he calls Diagramma doctrinæ, and lays Sole mon out in fcholaftick form. "His defign is to treat of the chief good-In order to this he fhews in the firft place negatively what felicity is not. It. does not confift in human science, in fenfual pleasure, in moral virtue, &c."-to this part our expofitor affigns the first four chapters." Secondly, He fhews pofitively wherein felicity does confift. Chap. v. 6. xii. 13.-Thirdly, The afe of the doctrine, from the ninth verfe of the fifth chapter to the twelfth verfe of the fixth-and from the ninth verfe of the seventh chapter to the end." Jean. Serrani in Ecclef. Sol. Commentarii Præf. We do not deny the doctrine of this expofitor: we only affirm, Solomon did not compofe the book of Ecclefiaftes in this fcholaftick me S the man, whom he had juft before healed of an infirmity of thirty-eight years ftanding. Him Jefus now found in the temple. It is not imaginable, thod. The expofitor, indeed, brings detached verfes together, and fo makes up his method: but this difplays his own genius, not that of the author. This book, it is plain, is a dialogue between a libertine and a moral philofopher, and this notion of the compofition of the book half expounds it. Grammarians, Rhetoricians, and Poets, as well as Logicians, have ferved fcripture thus. 2. The doctrine of principles is important in regard to the fenfe of fcriptare. Creeds, and articles lay down the principles of their compilers, of which, perhaps, the biblical writers never heard; yet these are the principles, which teachers are fworn to find, or to profefs to find in all the writings of infpired men, and NO OTHER, under pain of our displeasure! This is the crime of whole communities, and individuals frequently imitate them. Thus a certain writer against pre-exiftence, in anfwer to the argument, that the pre-existence of human fouls was not incompatible with the goodness of God: but highly agr eable to our notions of it, affirms, "God does not always do what is beft; for his goodness is fub ordinate to his will, his a&ions are not neceffary: but arbitrary. It would have been beft for Chrift to have come into the world immediately after the fall. It would have been best for the world to have been created fooner. It would be best for the wicked not to go to hell. But all thefe events are as they are; becaufe God willed they should be." What a prefumptuous mafter of arts is this! To ufe his own words, "he confirms a va frous doctrine by fucous reafons, which, like fure fulciments, fhore up its ruent credit." According to this genius, it is beft for a wife man to believe what a fool thinks beft to affirm. See vol. I. p. 266, &c. note. No Pre-exiftence. By E. W. A. M. London, 1667. chap. 2. 3. The doctrine of principles is of great confequence in church-government. Civil government has for its object civil liberty, and a juft civil government takes no cognizance of mere principles. See vol. I. p. 247, note 7. Suppofe a man living under a monarchical government, and believing at the fame time, that a republican form of government is more perfect than that of a monarchy, this be. nable, that this meeting was fortuitous, and unforeseen to Jefus Chrift. His providence, no doubt, conducted the man that way, directed him to the temple, whither he went himfelf to feek him. Examine, then, upon what principles Jefus Chrift went to feek this miferable finner, and you will find, 1. He went in great love to the poor man. He went in that fame benevolence, which inclined him to do good to all, who had need, and in every place, that he honoured with his prefence. Jesus was, as it were, a publick source of benefits, lief would not render him guilty in the eye of the law. Indeed were he to perform any overt acts difturbing the peace of society, and tending to fubvert the monarchy, under which he lived, he would become guilty, and his doing fo from principles would aggravate his guilt. Milton thought,—that mutual affection was the effence of a matrimonial contractthat, where the effence was wanting, the form, the contract, was diffolved, and the parties might feparate and marry again." He did more, he published, and republished on this article, yet, as he did not reduce his principles to practice, he was not accounted reprehenfible in the eye of the law. Church-government runs on very erroneous principles in this point of light. In fome churches members are admitted in infancy without any religious principles, and his the promife of a fponfor, that the child fhall have principles in mature age, is accepted in lieu of them. In other church-governments metaphyfical principles concerning free-will, decrees, and fo on, are made terms of communion. communion. In the primitive church, profeffion of faith in Chrift, accredited by a holy life, was accounted a fufficient title to memberfhip. The ignorant and wicked, defiring to become wife and good, were admitted to a catechumen-ftate, from which, after they had been inftructed in the principles of chriftianity, they proceeded to baptifm and church-fellowship. Were this primitive practice revived, and put in the place of what is ufually called fpeaking an experience, or were it made.. preparatory to it, great good would probably follow. A congregation divided into three claffes, confifting the S 2 one |