religion. For here, I fay, before we defcend to the Scripture, we are poffeffed of a fyftem founded in the unchangeable nature of things; from which, whatsoever the Bible may seem to reveal, we are never to depart. Let us then fuppofe, that our Chriftian baptifm teaches us to believe in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft: What have we to do? Natural religion hath already determined, from the "unchangeable nature of things, that God is but one perfon*." Therefore we must interpret the form of baptism to such a sense, as will still leave this doctrine of nature in poffeffion; either by teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are in reality but one Perfon, or that Jefus Chrift is no perfon in the Godhead, but a mere man, like ourselves; or, that Christianity is not true, &c. So in like manner, by another anticipation, natural religion makes every man his own prieft and his own temple: therefore it cannot poffibly admit the true and proper priesthood of Jefus Chrift, but must reject the whole doctrine of atonement, and the corruption of man's nature; for this is incompatible with the idea of a natural religion, inasmuch as corrupt nature muft produce a corrupt religion. If we fay that nature is not corrupt, we overturn the foundations of the Gofpel; which teaches us, that "the natural man receiveth not the things "of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them."-Man, it feems, is fo far from knowing the spiritual things revealed to him in the Scripture, that, as he now is by nature, he is not in a condition to receive them (they will be foolishness to him) till he is enabled fo to do by a new faculty of difcernment, which is fupernatural and spiritual. It is therefore easy to foresee what must be the confequence, when Dr. Taylor's rule is admitted; and the younger clergy of this church, prefented (as I hear fome of them are) with a copy of his lordship's collection, ftudy divinity upon this ground. They will take the doctrines of nature, and work them up with the doctrines of the Scripture: that is, they will throw natural religion into the Scripture, as Aaron threw the gold of Egypt into the fire: and what will come out? Not the Chrif tian religion, but the philofophical calf of Socinus.

Mr. Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity may be read with fafety by thofe who are already well learned in the Scripture: but

This, (fays Dr. Clarke) is the first principle of natural religion," See Mr. Jones's Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity; p. 15, of the fixth edition; where this is confidered more at large.

if I had been of his lordship's counfel, I fhould have thought it my duty to remonftrate against the admiffion of it into such a collection. For what a perilous fituation must that poor young man be in, who, perhaps, when he can but just construe the Greek Teftament, or before, is turned over to be handled and tutored by this renowned veteran; who, with a fhew of reafonableness, and fome occafional fneers at orthodoxy, and affecting the piety and power of infpiration itself, has partly overlooked, and partly explained away, the first and greatest principles of Christianity, and reduced it to a fingle propofition, consistent with Herefy, Schifm, Calvinifm, Arianism, Socinianism, and Quakerism.

His lordship hath introduced many other tracts of the Dif fenters, befides the lectures of Dr. Taylor, for the use of the clergy of the church of England; and gives such a reason for it, as hath a very fair and liberal appearance. But in order to make a right estimate of this measure, and prove it in the balance of truth and equity, let us change the fcales. Let us suppose, that fome Doctor in a Diffenting, or peradventure (for fuch it may be in this age) a Socinian academy, had compiled a miscellaneous book for the ufe of the ftudents, and had opened his collection with a course of inftitution by fome true and zealous divine of the church of England; I rather think the party would confider him as a fufpicious character; who, under the mafk of candour and 'liberality, was flyly endeavouring to bring them all round about to orthodoxy and uniformity.

T

CHA P. IV.

ON THE ABUSE OF THE REFORMATION, &c.

O the doctrines which are pleaded in defence of feparation, I might have added the ufe which has been made of the hiftorical event of our reformation from the errors of the church of Rome. Here the Diffenters are in confederacy with the Papists against us. The Papifts object, that by the fact of our feparation from their church, the principle of feparation is admitted; and being once admitted, it will multiply fects and divi

5

sions amongst us, and justify them all, as much as it justifies us. This is the very argument which the Diffenters have repeated an hundred times; and they borrowed it originally from Rome, whose emiffaries were detected among the Puritans in the days of Elizabeth, feeding them with reafons and objections for the multiplying of fchifm, and the weakening of the epifcopal church of England and God knows, they fucceeded but too well. However, the link which unites these two parties, may easily be broken. They both agree, that the reformation of the church of England was a separation from the church of Rome, of the fame kind, and on the fame principles, with the feparation of our Diffenters. But to say this, is to affert that the Pope had a legal authority over the church of England, when in fact it was an ufurped authority; and the church of England reformed itself, as a national epifcopal church, on the ground of its original independence on the fee of Rome. Therefore, till our fectaries have given up this point to the Papifts, and made the church of EngJand legally dependent on the authority of Rome, the cafe of our reformation affords no precedent to their feparation. This Bishop Hoadley knew; therefore he allowed the authority of the church of Rome, and made the reformation of this church a forcible feparation, or fchifm, that all the fectaries might be justified by our example. But he goes to a greater length; he maintains that we did not reform, because the doctrines of the church of Rome were actually corrupt, but because we thought them fo; putting our reformation on the foot of opinion, not of reasonable right, and actual knowledge: and opinion being once admitted as a rule of reformation, will hold as good against us, as against the Papifts: nay, it will stop no where, till it make every man a church to himself, with fuch doctrines as he likes, and without any one Chriftian ordinance whatsoever. When we defcend to reafon and authority, a weak cause may foon be overthrown; but if opinion. is to juftify, the Quakers may ftand their ground; and fo may Socinians, Mahometans, Jews, and Heathens; because the opinions of men, from the force of custom and habit, will go with the perfuafion in which they have been educated. The Papists wish to put all reformation from their church on fuch a foot, that the principle may be ruined by its own abfurdity: and in this our fectaries, with Bifhop Hoadley for their advocate, have given them all the advantage they can defire.

NEW JERSEY

COLLEGE LIBRARY
Effay on the Church.

43

Popular power is another engine which hath been turned against the church; that is, against the authority of God and his minifters; and if this is admitted, then must that be right which the people fet up, whatever it may be. All unlawful authority affects to ride in upon the backs of the people: and the patriots of Pagan Rome, while they trampled upon captive kings, and looked upon all nations as made to be their flaves, were always flattering the people of their own commonwealth, with the conceit of their own majefty. The Geneva difcipline went upon this principle; and they were followed therein by our Puritans and Independents. But the Scripture is fo exprefsly against it, that its friends were tempted to corrupt the text of the New Teftament, to give it countenance. In the hiftory of the ordaining the feven deacons, in the fixth chapter of the Acts, the text fays-" whom we may "appoint over this bufinefs"-giving the appointment to the Apoftles. But the words were altered into-" whom YE may "appoint"—giving the appointment to the people. One of the largest and the most numerous folio editions of the Bible ever printed in this country, which is that of Field, 1660, several copies of which are still to be seen upon the reading-desks in our churches, has this corruption; as many others had from the years 1640 to 1660. Field's edition was worked off in the time of the ufurpation, and was to have been published under the authority of the parliament; but not coming forth till after the restoration, the title page was changed, and it made its appearance cum privilegio. From this falfification of the apoftolical history, it is easy to forcfee (and every young reader fhould be aware of it) how the English history, particularly that of the last century, must have fuffered under the hands of the fame party; what falfities and forgeries must have been propagated, to conceal the truth, to defame and blacken the best characters, and to juftify the worst. Sometimes these bold experiments brought the authors of them into great embarraffment. Mr. Baxter, in two editions of his Saint's Everlasting Rest, printed before the year 1660, instead of the " kingdom of heaven," as it is in the Scripture, calls it the "parliament of heaven" (and, if like their own, it must have been a parliament without a king) and into this parliament he puts fome of the regicides, and other like faints, who were then dead. But in the editions after the reftoration, he drops them all out of heaven again, and restores the kingdom of God to its place

Lord Brook was one of the faints whom Baxter thus difcanonized : of whose remarkable end Lord Clarendon gives an account; Vol. II. chap. VI. p. 114.

But to return to the fubject of popular election. I have an author before me, a declaimer against prieftcraft, who finds the right of the people in the hiftory of the election of Matthias to the apostleship. "Matthias is elected," fays he "to testify that ordination might be valid by the votes of the people only, without the immediate interpofition of heaven." He calls the affembly of Apoftles and Difciples, who were an hundred and twenty in number, "the people;" of whom we know that eleven were Apofiles; that feventy more were ordained minifters; and nothing appears, but that (the women excepted) all the reft of the affembly were of the miniftry likewife. But fuppofing them to be the people, how does it appear, that ordination was valid by their votes? Where is the account of this voting? The election is referred to God in the determination of a lot." Thou, Lord, fhew whether of these two thou haft chofen." Here the immediate interpofition of heaven is applied for; but our orator fays, this ordination was from the votes of the people only, without any fuch interpofition of heaven*. These two examples may be fufficient to fhew the wretched fhifts, and bold experiments, to which men are driven in the handling of the Scripture, to uphold the anti-chriftian doctrine of a church derived from the authority of the people.

See the Axe laid to the Root of Prieftcraft, in four Difcourfes. See Disc. iv. p. 5.