Chapter V (4)

Part of this I own to be very true, _viz._ that they are men, and have the wants of human nature which must be supplied; and for proof of this, the Doctor might have appealed to St. _Paul_, who, tho’ miraculously called to be an apostle, and separated from the world to be merely a messenger and apostle of Jesus Christ; yet, after this high apostleship, worked at his trade, and often spent part of the day and the night in making tents: therefore, if all those whom I have exhorted to consider themselves as set apart for the sole service of God, should shew such a degree of worldly care as St. _Paul_ did, when he worked at his trade, they might yet justly be said to act suitably to their station, as the ministers of God, that are wholly devoted to his service; for who can say that St. _Paul_ departed from his character, as a minister of God, when he laboured with his own hands, that he might gloriously and freely preach the gospel? For it was for the sake of the gospel, to promote and recommend the gospel, to make his preaching the more successful; it was to shew that he had fully renounced the world, and desired nothing from it, but for the glory of God. And thus have all the ministers of the gospel an example in St. _Paul_, how they may make their care of a livelihood a part of their service to God.

But when the Doctor says, that clergymen are husbands and parents, I must object a little; because no scripture or antiquity shews me, that these characters _must_ belong to a preacher of the gospel; and therefore, when a clergyman excuses himself from any heights of the ministerial service, by saying, _he has married a wife_ and _therefore cannot come_ up to them; it seems to be no better an excuse, than if he had said, _he had hired a farm_, or _bought five yoke of oxen_.

I know very well, that the _reformation_ has allowed priests and bishops not only to look out for wives, but to have as many as they please, one after another: but this is only to be considered as a bare allowance, and perhaps granted upon such a motive, as _Moses_ of old made one to the _Jews_, for _the hardness of their hearts_, tho’ _from the beginning it was not so_; and therefore when eulogiums are sometimes made from the pulpit on this matter, I think they had better have been spared; an allowance granted to weakness is but an indifferent subject to be made a matter of glory.

The Doctor should also have observed that my address was made to the young clergy, and such as are only upon entering into holy orders, nine in ten of whom may be supposed to be neither husbands nor fathers. He should also have remembered that our universities are full of clergy, who are obliged to live unmarried, that they may have proper leisure and freedom to attend their studies without impediment from worldly cares. And therefore, if I pointed at such a dedication of the clergy to the service of God, as _husbands_ and _fathers_ cannot enter into, yet the matter is not blameable, because here are so many that have not yet entered into this state, but are at liberty to devote themselves wholly to the service of the gospel. And therefore if to such as these, I can so represent the weight, the duties, the heavenly nature of the priesthood, as to prevent or extinguish in them all thoughts and desires of being thus married to the world, what hurt have I done them, or the married clergy, or the gospel of Jesus Christ?

* _Celibacy_, when entered into from a principle of divine love, from a heart burning with the desire of living wholly to God, is a state that gives wings to all our endeavours, and fits the soul for the highest growth of every virtue: and if he that is consecrated to the service of the altar, feels not such an ascent of his soul towards heaven, as to have no wish, but that his _whole body_, _soul_, and _spirit_, may be presented to God in its utmost degree of purity, he has his lamp much less kindled, than many of the laity, both men and women have had, in all ages of the church. Custom has too great a power over our judgments, and reconciles us to any thing; but if a Christian, who lived when Christianity was in its glory, when the first apologists for it, appealed to the numbers of both sexes, devoted to a single life, as an invincible proof of the power and divinity of the gospel; if a Christian of those days was now to come into the world, he would be more shocked at Reverend Doctors making love to women, than at seeing a monk in his cell, kissing a wooden crucifix.

* The knowledge and love of the virgin state began with Christianity, when the nature of our corruption, and the nature of our redemption were so fully discovered by the gospel. Then it was, that a new degree of heavenly love was kindled in the human nature, and brought forth a state of life that had not been desired, till the son of the virgin came into the world. _John_ the _Baptist_ was the beginner of the gospel dispensation; this _burning and shining light_ was in his person, the figure of _Judaism_ ending in Christianity. In his outward state he was a _Jew_, in his inward spirit and character he belonged to the gospel. He came out of the wilderness burning and shining, to preach the kingdom of heaven _at hand_. This may shew us that heat and light from above, kindled in a state of great self-denial, are necessary to make us able ministers of the gospel; and that if we pretend to the ministry, without these qualifications, and come only burning and shining with the spirit of this world, we are as well fitted to hinder, as the Baptist was to prepare the way to the kingdom of heaven. Look at this great saint, all ye that desire to preach the gospel. He came forth in the highest degrees of mortification and chastity of life. But why did he so come? It was to shew the world that these virtues must form the spirit of every preacher of the gospel. His character does not call you to a wilderness beyond _Jordan_, or to be cloathed with camel’s hair. Such circumstances are particular to himself; but it calls you to his inward spirit of self-denial, to his death to the world, and all carnal love, if you would not only preach, but prove the perfection of the gospel: For if the _Baptist_ was to be thus dead to the flesh and the world, that he might preach thus much, _the kingdom of heaven is at hand_; can less self-denial be required of those, who are to preach that which is much more, namely, that _the kingdom of heaven is come_?

* Now if this holy _Baptist_, when he had preached awhile upon penitence, and the kingdom of heaven _at hand_, had made an offering of his heart to some fine _young lady of great accomplishments_, had not this put an end to all that was burning and shining in his character? And if those clergy who date their mission from Jesus Christ himself, sent by him as he was by his Father, to stand as his representatives, applying the means and mysteries of salvation to all that desire to be _born again_; if they, whether they be vicars, rectors, arch-deacons, deans, or bishops, should look upon their office to be as sacred, and their station as high in the kingdom of God, as the _Baptist_’s was; if they should look upon love addresses to the sex, as unbecoming, as foreign, to their character, as to the _Baptist_’s, could any one say, that they took too much upon them, or paid too great a reverence to the holiness of the priesthood, which they derived from the very person and office of Jesus Christ?

* Our blessed Lord improved upon these two articles of mortification and chastity, and sets them before every preacher of the gospel in a yet fuller light. It is needless to shew how much he speaks of the nature and necessity of a total self-denial; but what he says of the virgin life, as to be chosen by those who are able to chuse it, for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, _Matthew_ xix. 12. is more than a volume of human eloquence in praise of it. What wonder is it, if after this, great numbers both of men and women were found in the first ages of the church, that chose to know no love, but that of God in a single life?

* St. _Paul_ has done every thing to hinder a minister of Jesus Christ from entering into marriage, except calling it a sinful state, when he says, _He that is married careth for the things of the world, how he may please his wife_; and how could he more powerfully press the virgin life upon the clergy, than when he says, _He that is unmarried, careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord_.

* I shall conclude this matter with a passage taken from the _Serious Call to a devout and Holy Life_; it is a quotation from _Eusebius_, who lived at the time of the first general council, when the faith of our _Nicene Creed_ was established: his words are these, “There have been, saith he, instituted in the church of Christ, two ways or manners of living; the one raised above the ordinary state of nature, and common ways of living, rejects wedlock, possessions, and worldly goods, and being wholly separated and removed from the ordinary conversation of common life, is appropriated and devoted solely to the worship and service of God, through an _exceeding degree_ of _heavenly love_: they who are of this order of people, seem dead to the life of this world, and having their bodies only upon earth, are in their minds and contemplations dwelling in heaven; from whence, like so many heavenly inhabitants, they look down upon human life, making _intercessions_ and _oblations_ for the whole race of mankind; and this, not with the blood of beasts, or the fat, or smoak and burning of bodies, but with the highest exercises of true piety, with cleansed and purified hearts, and with a whole form of life strictly devoted to virtue: these are their sacrifices, which they are continually offering unto God, and implore his mercy and favour for themselves and their fellow-creatures. Christianity receives this as the perfect manner of life.

“The other is of a lower form, and suiting itself more to the condition of human nature, admits of chaste wedlock, the care of children and families, of trade and business, and goes through all the employments of life, under a sense of piety and fear of God: now, they who have chosen this manner of life, have their set times for retirement and spiritual exercise, and particular days are set apart for their hearing and learning the word of God: and this order of people are considered as in the second state of piety.”¹ Here you see the perfection of the Christian life plainly set out, and how it was, what numbers of private persons, men and women, who had no share in the ecclesiastical office, yet, by their perfection of life, were _holy and heavenly intercessors_ for the whole race of mankind. * Now, may we not suppose, that the clergy were in this number of people that were thus heavenly in the whole form of their life, thus devoted to God and the edification of the church, by embracing the perfect life of Christianity? If they were not, do they not stand plainly condemned, since _Christianity held this to be the perfect manner of life_? I shall only add, that till such a degree of heavenly love, such a sense of the holiness and heavenly nature of the sacred calling, till such a desire of perfection is awakened in the clergy, as shuts out all carnal love and worldly tempers from their hearts, they cannot be such priests and intercessors with God, such patterns of holiness, such kindlers of divine love and heavenly desires amongst men, as the nature of their office both intends and requires of them.

¹ Serious Call, &c. p. 134.

* If a candidate for holy orders dares not make this total donation of himself to God, to be an instrument of his good pleasure only in the service of the gospel, if it is not his real state, to wish nothing in this world but the most perfect purification of his nature, if he desires any thing in and by his office, but a concurrence with Jesus Christ in the salvation of souls; if he has any reserves of self-seeking, or self-advancement in the world, and fleshly passions which he hopes to make consistent with the duties of his profession: if he is not separated in will and desire from all that is not God, and the service of God, he must be said to want the best proofs of his being called by the Holy Ghost.

But the Doctor has a _second reply, Whether you consider the |divinity|, or the |sense| of this, could |George Fox| himself have outdone it_? p. 48. This reply, considered in itself, might have its place amongst those _algebraic quantities_, that are some degrees less than nothing; but with regard to the Doctor’s purpose it has something in it, for it is an appeal to that which is very powerful, which has suppressed many a good truth: it is an appeal to vulgar prejudice; and shews that the Doctor is not without his expectations from that quarter. And thus it is, that the Catholic artist in his country plays a _Martin Luther_, when he wants to reproach that which he knows not how to confute. What degree of sense, or divinity _George Fox_ was possessed of, I cannot pretend to say, having never read any of his writings; but if he has said any divine truths, I should be as well pleased in seeing them in his books, as in any of the fathers of the primitive church. For as the gospel requires me to be as glad to see piety, equity, strict sobriety, and extensive charity in a _Jew_ or a _Gentile_, as in a Christian; as it obliges me to look with pleasure upon their virtues, and be thankful to God, that such persons have so much of true and sound Christianity; so it cannot be an unchristian spirit to be as glad to see truths in one party of Christians as in another; and to look with pleasure upon any good doctrines that are held by any sect of Christian people, and be thankful to God, that they have so much of the genuine truths of the gospel. * For if we have no complaint against those that are divided from us, but what proceeds from a Christian fear, that what they hold and practise will not be so beneficial to them, as our religion will be to us, must we not have the utmost readiness and willingness to find, own, and rejoice in those good doctrines and practices which they still retain? If a poor pilgrim, under a necessity of travelling a dangerous and difficult road, had, through his own perverseness lost the use of a leg, and the sight of one eye, could we be said, to have any charitable concern for his perverseness and misfortune, unless we were glad to see that he had one good leg, and one good eye still left, and unless we hoped and desired they might bring him at last to his journey’s end? Now let every part of the church which takes itself to be sound and good, and is only angry at every other part, because they have _lessened the means_ of their own salvation; let her but have thus much charity in her anger, and then she will be glad to see, in every perverse division, something like the one good leg, and the one good eye of the pilgrim, and which she will hope and wish may do them the same good.

* _Selfishness_ and _partiality_ are very base qualities, even in the things of this world; but in the doctrines of religion they are of a baser nature. Now this is the _greatest evil_ that the division of the church has brought forth; it raises in every communion a selfish, partial orthodoxy, which consists in courageously defending all that it has, and condemning all that it has not. And thus all champions are trained up in defence of their own truth, their own learning, and their own church; and he has the most merit, who likes every thing, defends every thing among themselves, and leaves nothing uncensured in those that are of a different communion. Now how can truth, and goodness, and religion be more struck at, than by such defenders of it? If you ask why the great bishop of _Meaux_ wrote so many learned books against all parts of the _reformation_, it is because he was born in _France_, and bred up in the bosom of _mother church_. Had he been born in _England_, had _Oxford_, or _Cambridge_ been his _alma mater_, he might have rivaled our great bishop _Stillingfleet_, and would have wrote as many learned folios against the church of _Rome_ as he has done. And yet I will venture to say, that if each church could produce but one man a-piece that had the piety of an apostle, and the impartial love of the first Christians, in the first church at _Jerusalem_, a Protestant and a Papist of this stamp, would not want half a sheet of paper to hold their articles of union, nor be half an hour before they were of one religion. If therefore it should be said, that churches are divided, and made unfriendly to one another, by learning, a logic, a history, a criticism in the hands of partiality, it would be saying that which every particular church too much proves to be true. Ask why even the best amongst the Catholics are very shy of owning the validity of the orders of our church; it is because they are afraid of removing any odium from the reformation. Ask why no Protestants touch upon the benefit of celibacy in those who are separated from worldly business to preach the gospel, ’tis because that would be seeming to lessen the Roman error of not suffering marriage in her clergy. Ask why even the most pious amongst the clergy of the established church, are afraid to assert, the necessity of seeking only to the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit; ’tis because the _Quakers_, who have broken off from the church, have made this doctrine their corner stone.

If we loved truth as such; if we sought it for its own sake; if we loved our neighbour as ourselves; if we desired nothing by our religion but to be acceptable to God; if we equally desired the salvation of all men; then nothing of this spirit could have any place in us.

* There is therefore a _Catholic_ spirit, a _communion of saints_ in the love of God and all goodness, which no one can learn from that which is called orthodoxy in particular churches. It is only to be had by a total dying to all worldly views, by a pure love of God, and by such an unction from above, as delivers the mind from all selfishness, and makes it love truth and goodness with an equality of affection in every man, whether he be _Christian_, _Jew_, or _Gentile_. He that would obtain this divine spirit in this disordered state of things, and live in a divided part of the church, without partaking of its division, must have these three truths deeply fixed in his mind: _first_, that universal love, which gives the whole strength of the heart to God, and makes us love every man as we love ourselves, is the noblest, the most God-like state of the soul, and the utmost perfection to which the most perfect religion can raise us; and that no religion does any man any good, but so far as it brings this love into him. This will shew us, that true orthodoxy can no where be found, but in a pure disinterested love of God and our neighbour. _Secondly_, That in the present divided state of the church, truth itself is torn and divided asunder; and that therefore he is the only true Catholic, who has more of truth, and less of error, than is hedged in by any divided part. This truth will enable us to live in a divided part, _unhurt_ by its division, and keep us in a true liberty and fitness to be assisted by all the good that we hear or see in any other part of the church. And thus uniting in heart and spirit with all that is holy and good in all churches, we enter into the true _communion of saints_, and become real members of the holy Catholic church, tho’ we use the outward worship of only one part of it. It is thus, that the angels, as ministring spirits, assist, unite and co-operate with every thing that is holy and good, in every division of mankind. _Thirdly_, he must always have in mind this great truth, that it is the glory of the divine justice to have no respect of parties or persons, but to stand equally disposed to that which is right and wrong, in _Jew_ and _Gentile_. He therefore that would like as God likes, and condemn as God condemns, must have neither the eyes of the Papist nor the Protestant; he must like no truth the less because _Ignatius Loyola_ or _John Bunyan_ were very zealous for it; nor have the less aversion to any error, because Dr. _♦Trapp_ or _George Fox_ had brought it forth. Now if this impartial justice, is the spirit which will judge the world at the last day, how can this spirit be too soon or too much in us? Or what can do us more hurt than that which is an hindrance of it? When I was a young scholar of the university, I heard a great religionist say, that if he could believe the late _king of France_ was in heaven, he could not wish to go thither himself. This was exceeding shocking: yet something of this temper must be more or less in those, who have, as a point of orthodoxy, worked themselves up into a hearty contempt and hatred of those that are divided from them. He that has been all his life long used to look with great abhorrence upon those whom he called _superstitious bigots_, _dreaming visionaries_, _false saints_, _canting enthusiasts_, must naturally expect they will be treated by God as they have been by him; and if he had the keys of the kingdom of heaven, such people would find it hard to get a place in it. But it stands us greatly in hand to get rid of this temper before we die: since nothing but universal love can enter into the kingdom of God.

♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

We often hear of people of great zeal and orthodoxy, declaring on their death-beds their strict attachment to the church of _England_, and making solemn protestations against all other churches: but how much better would it be, if such a person was to say, “In this divided state of Christendom, I must conform to some divided part of it, and therefore I live and die in communion with the church of _England_; fully believing, that if I worship God in _spirit and in truth_ in this divided part of the church, I shall be as acceptable to him, as if I had been a faithful member of the one whole church, before it was broken into separate parts. But as I am now going out of this disordered division, into a more universal state of things, as I am now falling into the hands of the great Creator and lover of all souls; as I am going to the God of all churches, to a kingdom of universal love, which must have its inhabitants from all people, nations, and languages of the earth; so in this spirit of universal love, I desire to perform my last act of communion in this divided church, uniting in heart with all that is holy, good, and acceptable to God in all other churches; praying, from the bottom of my soul, that every church may have its saints; that God’s kingdom may come, his will be done in every division of Christians and men, and that _every thing that hath breath may praise the Lord_.”

We have often seen learned Protestants very zealous in pulling to pieces the lives of the saints of the _Romish_ church, and casting all the reproach and ridicule they can, upon their wondrous spirit; tho’ the lives of the saints of the primitive church may be exposed in the same manner. Now, whence does this proceed? Why, from a secret touch of that spirit which could not bear to have the late king of _France_ in heaven; it proceeds from a partial, selfish orthodoxy, which cannot bear to hear, or own, that the spirit and blessing of God are so visible in a church from which it is divided. But if a person be of this spirit, what does it signify where he has his outward church? If a _Romish priest_ in the north of _England_ could not bear the splendor of a life so devoted to God, so fruitful in all good works, as was that of the lady _Elizabeth Hastings_, if he should want to sully the brightness of her Christian graces, and prove her to have been no saint, lest it should appear, that the Spirit of God was not confined to the _Romish_ church, would not such a zeal shew a worse spirit, than that of superstition, a greater depravity of heart, than the saying now and then an _Ave Mary_?

* The more we know of the corruptions and hindrances of piety in the church of _Rome_, the more we should rejoice, that in every age so many eminent saints, have appeared in it, whom we should thankfully behold as so many great lights hung out by God, to shew the true way to heaven, as so many joyful proofs that Christ is still present, even in that church, and that the gates of hell have not quite prevailed against it. Who that has the least spark of heaven in his soul, can help rejoicing in this manner at the appearance of St. _Bernard_, a _Teresa_, a _Francis_ de _Sales_, in that church? Who can help praising God, that her invented devotions, superstitious use of images, and invocation of saints, have not so suppressed the graces of an evangelical life, but that amongst _cardinals_, _jesuits_, _priests_, _friars_, _monks_ and _nuns_, some have been found, who seemed to live for no other end, but to give glory to God and edification to men, and whose writings have every thing in them, that can guide the soul out of the corruption of this life into union with God? And he who through a partial orthodoxy is diverted from feeding in these green pastures of life, whose abhorrence of jesuitical craft, keeps him from reading the works of an _Alvares du Pas_, a _Rodrigues_, a _Pere Surin_, and such like jesuits, has a greater loss than he can easily imagine: and if any clergyman can read the life of _Bartholomeus_ a _Martyribus_ a _Spanish_ archbishop, who sat with great influence at the very council of _Trent_, without being edified by it, and desiring to read it again and again, I know not why he should like the lives of the apostolical fathers: and if any Protestant bishop should read the _Stimulus Pastorum_ wrote by this Popish prelate, he must confess it to be a book, that would have done honour to the best archbishop, that the reformation has to boast of. O my God, how shall I unlock this mystery? In the land of darkness, over-run with superstition, where divine worship seems to be all shew and ceremony, thou hast those, who are fired with the pure love of thee, who renounce every thing for thee, who are devoted wholly to thee, who think of nothing, write of nothing, desire nothing but the honour, and praise, and adoration that is due to thee, and who call all the world to the maxims of the gospel, the perfection of the life of Christ. But in the regions where light is sprung up, whence superstition is fled, where all that is outward in religion seems to be pruned, dressed, and put in its true order; there a cleansed shell, a whited sepulchre, seems too generally to cover a dead Christianity.

The error of all errors, and that which makes the blackest charge against the _Romish_ church, is persecution, a religious sword drawn against the liberty of serving God according to our best light. Now, tho’ this is the frightful monster of that church, yet, even here, who, except it be the church of _England_, can throw the first stone at her? Where must we look for a church that has so renounced this persecuting beast, as they have renounced the use of incense, the sprinklings of holy water, or extreme unction? What part of the reformation abroad has not practised and defended persecution? What sect of dissenters at home have not, in their day of power dreadfully condemned toleration?

When it shall please God to dispose the hearts of all Christian princes, entirely to destroy this anti-christian beast, and leave all their subjects in that religious freedom which they have from God; then the light of the gospel, the power of its ministers, the usefulness of its rites, the benediction of its sacraments will have proper time and place to shew themselves; and that religion which has the most of a divine power in it, whose offices and services do most good to the heart, whose ministers are most devoted to God, and have the most proof of the presence of Christ with them, will become, as it ought, the most universal. All that I have said on this matter, has been occasioned by the Doctor’s appeal to vulgar prejudice; and is only to intimate, that the greatest evil which the division of the church brings forth, is a sectarian, selfish spirit, which with the orthodoxy of the _old Jews_, would have God to be only their God, and themselves only, his chosen people. If therefore we would be true Christians of the Catholic church, we must put off this partiality of the carnal _Jew_; we must enter into a Catholic affection for all men, love the spirit of the gospel wherever we see it; not work ourselves up into an abhorrence of a _George Fox_, or an _Ignatius Loyola_; but be equally glad of the light of the gospel wherever it shines, or from whatever quarter it comes; and give the same praise to God for an eminent example of piety, wherever it appears, either in Papist or Protestant.

To return. Dr. _♦Trapp_ supposing the world running into a charity that would ruin wife and family, asks his charitable _half-thinker_, “Did you never hear that _charity begins_ at home? Did you never read that of St. _Paul_, If any provide not for his own, and especially those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an Infidel?” The Doctor’s proverb I meddled not with, but the text of St. _Paul_ I rescued from his gross misapplication. That text has no more relation to an excessive charity, than to an excessive fasting. The apostle neither thought of this sin in this place, nor in any other part of his writings; nor does he ever give the smallest hint of the danger of falling into it. The only question was, whether poor widows, who had near relations, that could supply their wants, should be maintained by the church? The apostle determines the matter thus; that if such persons, who were thus able, did not thus provide for, that is, supply the wants of their poor kindred, they were so far from having the faith of Christians, that they wanted a goodness that was to be found amongst Infidels: this is the whole of the apostle’s doctrine in this text. He speaks of providing for those of our own house or family, in no other sense, than as it signifies our charity to them, when they fall into distress; but the Doctor, trusting to the sound of the _English_ word _provide_, grafts all these errors upon this plain text. When it is said, a person has provided well for his family, every one supposes that he has _laid up well in store_, or got an _estate_ to be divided amongst them for their future subsistance. From this use of the _English_ word, _provide_; the Doctor would have it believed, that the apostle teaches every head of a family to be carefully and continually laying up in store for his kindred. But the apostle is as infinitely distant from this thought, as from teaching them to get their cellars filled with strong liquors: when he here says, _provide_, he says only this, shut not your eyes to the wants of your poor kindred, but provide them with what they have need of, and don’t let them fall to the charge of the church. The Doctor’s second error is this; according to this text, a Christian ought not to hinder himself from thus laying up in store for his family, or leave them to live by their labour and industry, thro’ an excess of charity to his poor neighbours. But the apostle has not one single syllable about this; and is as far from saying any thing like it, as from saying, that a Christian, when he makes a feast, should only invite his rich kindred and acquaintance. The one has as much of the apostle and the gospel for it, as the other. The Doctor’s third error is this; that, according to this text, he, who by a daily, continual charity, has incapacitated himself to lay up in store, a fixed provision for the future maintenance of his family, is condemned by the apostle as _denying the faith_, and _worse than an Infidel_: tho’ the apostle speaks no more here against such a person, than he speaks in the praise of _Ananias_ and _Sapphira_.

♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

The person here condemned, is not he who thro’ a continual charity, is hindered from laying up in store; not he, who, thro’ a Christian love of relieving the distressed members of Christ, is content with helping his own family to food and raiment; but it is that Christian, who being able, is yet unwilling to support his near relations, that are fallen into poverty, and leaves them to be maintained by the church: this is the only Christian the apostle here condemns, as having put off the piety of the gospel, and wanting even the virtue of good-natured Infidels.

I said further, Had the apostle known a parent in his days, who, thro’ his great charity for others, had reduced his own family to want of relief, he would have been so far from rebuking him as an half-thinking fool, or exposing him to others, as guilty of madness, that he would have told them, such a one had consecrated himself and family to the church, as the proper objects of their care. To which the Doctor gives this answer, “This he affirms, and this I deny; and as he produces no other proof, so I give no other answer,” p. 69. What I said, has its proof from the common voice of Christianity in the apostles days; as may sufficiently appear from the following passage of St. _Clement_, fellow-labourer of the apostle, and bishop of no less a church than that of _Rome_. “We have known many amongst us, who have delivered themselves into bonds and slavery, that they might restore others to their liberty; many who have hired out themselves servants unto others, that by their wages they might feed and sustain them that wanted.”¹

¹ 1 Epistle to the Corinthians

Will the Doctor now say, that this is no proof of that which I affirmed of the apostle, that he would have had a love for those who were become sufferers by their own charity to others? Does not this apostolical bishop make it his boast, and the glory of Christianity; not that they had some, but many such among them?

It was not only in the first church at _Jerusalem_, that the Christians had all things common. For St. _Barnabas_ writing to some converted _Jews_, teaches them to call nothing their own in this world, because they were called to the common enjoyment of the things of eternity. _Communicabis in omnibus rebus proximo tuo; nihil dices quicquam tibi proprium; si enim communicatis invicem, in bonis, incorruptibilibus, quanto magis in corruptibilibus._¹

¹ Epistle to Barnabas. No. 10.

* An age after this, _Justin Martyr_ thus glories of the power of the gospel-faith; “We, says he, who before we became Christians, loved our wealth and possession above all things, now give up all property in them, that they may be in common for all that want them. _Qui pecuniarum & possessionum fructus ac proventus præ rebus omnibus adamabamus, nunc etiam quæ habemus in commune conferimus, & cum indigentibus quibuscunque communicamus._”¹ What a lean, heathenish figure must the Doctor’s proverb of charity _beginning at home_, have made in the days of St. _Barnabas_, _Clement_, or _Justin Martyr_? Or who durst then have made such an use of the text of St. _Paul_, as the Doctor has done, or coupled it with such a proverb? Were any of these first saints to judge of this matter, the Doctor might, for ought I know, have a worse reprimand from them for so doing, than if he had only coupled Cardinals with Pluralists.

¹ 2 Apology

In order to shew the Doctor that he was very unseasonably preaching against the sin and folly of an excessive charity, when yet every part of the church wanted to be shewn how they were fallen from the gospel degree of it, I set before him an imaginary Bishop of _Winchester_, yet drawn according to the model of the holy Bishops of the first ages. I supposed this Bishop so filled with the Spirit of Christ, that he looked upon all the revenues of his see, with no other eyes, than as our Saviour looked at that bag that was carried along with him by his disciples, as so much for his own necessities and the necessities of others. I supposed that in this spirit, he so expended his yearly income, that he chose to bring up his children strangers to all worldly figure, and in as low a state of labour as that to which our Lord and his apostles had been used. I supposed, that by a piety of life and conversation, equal to this exalted charity, he had instilled such an heavenly spirit into his wife and children, as made them highly thankful for their condition, and full of praise to God for the blessing of such a relation. Dr. _♦Trapp_, tho’ an antient divine, seems to start back with fright, at the sight of this apostolical bishop, and supposes, that if such a monster of a man was now to get into a bishoprick, he must needs make his children extraordinary wicked, fill them with abhorrence of his memory, and spread infidelity in the world, by making Christianity a jest to Infidels, p. 71.

♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

I say, says the Doctor, _very clearly and plainly_, that _such a bishop must be a mad man_, p. 70. Now, if the Doctor will prove from the scriptures this bishop to be a mad man, it must be for the following reasons: _First_, because he had so mean a spirit, as to suffer the son of a bishop to work under a carpenter, as the Redeemer of mankind had done. _Secondly_, because he taught himself and his family to believe that which St. _Paul_ believed, that _having food and raiment, we ought to be therewith content_. _Thirdly_, because he came up to the very letter of the great commandment, of _loving our neighbour as ourselves_. _Fourthly_, because he imitated the spirit of the first Christians at _Jerusalem_, who accounted nothing to be their own that they possessed. _Fifthly_, because he had turned himself and family from all the vanity of this world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. _Sixthly_, because he seemed to have this of the apostle fixed in his mind, “He that saith, he abideth in Christ, ought so to walk, as he walked.” _Seventhly_, because his life was fashioned according to this doctrine of the Holy Jesus, “Learn of me, for I am meek, and lowly of heart: I am among you, as he that serveth: whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; even as the Son of man came not to be ministred unto, but to minister.” For it may be said with the greatest certainty, that if the Doctor will have any proof from the scripture of the madness of this bishop, it must be as absurd as the reasons here alledged.

Come we now to consider this bishop according to the spirit, practice and laws of the church in all ages. Any one versed ever so little in the history of the church, must see at the first sight, that this supposed bishop is a true copy of the first apostolical fathers. And if this bishop was to be accounted a madman, because of the manner of his life, we must come down several ages after _Constantine_, to the _mitre_ and triple crown, before we could find a bishop in his senses. The _Clements_, the _Polycarps_, the _Ignatius’s_, the _Irenæus’s_, the _Cyprian’s_, the _Basils_, the _Ambrose’s_, and a number that have long graced our calenders, as saints, must take their place among bedlamites: for they were all of them to a tittle, the very man I have supposed at _Winchester_. They considered every penny that was brought in by the gospel, as a provision for the poor, and themselves as only entitled to their common share out of it. They durst no more raise any of their relations to a splendor of life, or give them any figure from the revenues of the church, than commit sacrilege. They gloried as much in their own strict poverty and want of worldly figure, as in their having totally renounced idols.

But we have much more than primitive example for our bishop of _Winchester_: the doctrine and laws of the church have unanimously from age to age, to the very council of _Trent_, required every bishop to be of the same spirit of which we have supposed him. The church, both by the doctrine of fathers, and the canons of councils, constantly maintains; _First_, that the clergy are not proprietors, but barely stewards of the benefices they enjoy: having them for no other end, but for their own necessary, frugal subsistence, and the relief of the poor.¹ _Secondly_, that a clergyman using his benefice for his _own indulgence_, or the enriching his _own family_, is guilty of sacrilege, and is a robber and murderer of the poor.² _Thirdly_, that if a clergyman has a reasonable subsistence of his own, and is not in the state of the poor, then let his benefice be what it will, he has no right to use any part of it for himself, nor for his kindred, unless they be fit to be considered among those poor that are to be relieved by the church.³ _Fourthly_, that every bishop and clergyman is to live in an humble, frugal, outward state of life, seeking for no honour or dignity in the world, but that which arises from the distinction and lustre of his virtues.⁴ _Fifthly_, that a beneficed clergyman using the goods of the church for his own indulgence, or raising fortunes for his children, or their expensive education, is sacrilegious, and a robber of the poor.⁵ _Sixthly_, that every clergyman is to die out of the church as poor as he entered into it.⁶ _Seventhly_, that a clergyman dying, cannot leave or bequeath any thing to his children or friends, but barely that which he had independently of the church.⁷

¹ Nihil ecclesia nisi Fidem possidet.――Possessio ecclesiæ est
Egenorum sumptus, _Ambrose, Epistle 31_.

² Si Pauperum Compauperes sumus, & _nostra_ sunt, & _illorum_.
Si autem privatim quæ nobis sufficiunt, possidemus, non
sunt illa _nostrum_, sed Pauperum _Procurationem_ gerimus,
non Proprietatem nobis Usurpatione damnabili vindicamus,
_Augustine Epistle 50 to Boniface._

³ Quoniam quicquid habent Clerici, Pauperum est――Qui bonis
Parentum & opibus sustentari possent, si quod Pauperum
est, accipiunt, _Sacrilegium profecto_ committunt, & per
Abusionem Talium, Judicium sibi manducant, & bibunt,
_Hieronymus, Epistle to Pope Damasus_.

⁴ Episcopus vilem _Suppellectilem_, & _Mensam_, ac _Victum
Pauperem_, habeat, & Dignitatis, sua Authoritatum Fide &
Vitæ meritis quærat, _Council of Carthage_, 4.

⁵ Memento quod _Pauperem Vitam_ Sacerdos gerere debet, & ideo
si superbiam habet, si magno gaudet Beneficio, præter victum
& vestitum _quod sperest_, Pauperibus dare non differat,
quia omnia _pauperum_ sunt. _Augustine, Sermon 37 to the
Brethren_.

⁶ Hujus tu e vicino sectare Vestigia, & cæterorum, qui Virtutum
illius similes sunt, quos Sacerdotium & _humiliores_ facit &
_pauperes_. _Hieronymus Epistle 4. to Rufinus._

⁷ Præcipimus ut in potestate sua Episcopus Ecclesiæ Res
habeat――ex iis autem quibus indiget, (si tamen indiget)
ad suas necessitates percipiat. _Canons of the Apostles_,
40.――――eas veluti Deo contemplante dispenset; nec ei liceat
ex iis aliquid contingere, aut Parentibus propriis (quæ dei
sunt) condonare. Quod si Pauperes sunt, tanquam Pauperibus
subministret, ne eorum occasione Ecclesiæ Res depredantur,
_Canons of the Apostles_, 39. Manifesta sint quæ pertinere
videntur ad Ecclesiam cum Notitia Presbiterorum & Diaconorum,
ut si contigerit Episcopo migare de Seculo, nec _Res
Ecclesiæ_ depereant, nec quæ _propria_ probantur Episcopi,
sub occasione Rerum Ecclesiæ pervadantur: justem enim est ut
sua Episcopus quibus voluerit, derelinquat, & quæ Ecclesiæ
sunt, eidem conservantur Ecclesiæ. _Council of Antioch_,
chapter 24. Quicunque Clerici, qui nihil habentes ordinantur,
& _tempore Episcopatus_, vel _Clericatus sui_, agros,
vel quæcunque predia nomine suo comparant, tanquam Rerum
dominiearum _Invisionis Crimini_ teneantur obnoxii, nisi
admoniti, Ecclesia eadem ipsa contulerint. (_N. B._)
Si autem ipsis proprie aliquid _liberalitate_ alicujus,
vel _Successione_ Cognationis obvenerit, faciant, inde
quod ipsorum Proposito congruit. Sacerdotes ipsis quoque
Filiis suis, quibus paterna debetur Hæreditas, nihil debent
derelinquere, nisi quod sibi a Parentibus derelictum est:
_Ergo_ qui _ditior est_ Sacerdos, quam venit ad Sacerdotium,
quicquid plus habuerit, _non filiis debet dare_, sed
Pauperibus, & Sanctis fratribus, ut reddat ea quæ Domini
sunt, Domino suo. _Hieronymus on Ezekiel_, chapter 46.

* May it not therefore well be wondered what could provoke Dr. _♦Trapp_ to censure our bishop as a madman, whose whole form of life, and use of his bishoprick, is not only after the model of the first and greatest saints that ever were bishops, but also such as the whole church from the beginning, both in council and out of council, from age to age, hath absolutely required of every beneficed clergyman, who would not be condemned by her, as sacrilegious, and a robber of the poor? They who would see the whole matter set in a clear light, may read an excellent treatise of the learned _Dupin_, wrote near the end of his life, where this truth is by him asserted and incontestably proved, _viz._ That whatever changes have been made in the nature and tenure of the goods and revenues of the church, or however they have been variously divided amongst ecclesiasticks, yet this has remained _always unchangeable and undeniable_, That a clergyman was no proprietor of his benefice; that he could only take so much of it to his own use, as was necessary to his subsistance, and then the remainder, be it what it would, belonged to the poor. This, says he, is strictly maintained by the canons of councils, both before and after the division of ecclesiastical revenues.

♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

* But if this be the case, if this be an incontestable doctrine, supported by every authority that can be brought for any one doctrine of the gospel, have we not here an utter condemnation of pluralities? Is it not an affront to the gospel, to the plainest maxims of right and wrong, the whole authority of the church, to offer one single word in defence of them? Logical, scholastic distinctions and definitions of the nature of parishes and residence, can signify no more here, where the whole nature of the thing is to be avoided, than the same art of words, when used by _Jesuitical Casuists_, can justify the violation of moral duties. And if Dr. _♦Trapp_ was only to look at this one doctrine, he would have no reason to think it so sad a thing, to see _Pluralists_ coupled with _Cardinals_. “_See_, says the learned _Dupin_, rules which will appear hard to many of the beneficed clergy, but yet, they are true, conformable to natural equity, the laws, custom, and tradition of the church, and the practice of the most holy bishops; and woe be to those that observe them not! _Malheur a Ceux qui ne les suivent pas._”¹ And therefore he concludes thus, “There may be many amongst the beneficed clergy who err in this matter, thro’ an ignorance of that which is required of them; therefore what I have said ought to be taken in good part, as proceeding from charity, and a sincere love of truth.”

♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”

¹ Ibid. p. 442.

SHORT but SUFFICIENT
CONFUTATION

Of Bp. WARBURTON’s projected defence (_as he calls it_) of
Christianity, in his _divine legation of_ Moses, in a letter
to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London.

_My LORD_,

THE reason of my presuming to write to your lordship on the following subject is, because it is a matter on which your lordship has employed your excellent pen, greatly to the benefit of the world.

And the reason of my writing at all, is owing to a book newly published¹ in defence of bishop _Warburton_, in which your lordship, is charged with a multitude of contradictions, and inconsistencies relating to this point.

¹ Free and candid examination of the bishop of London’s
sermons, &c.

It is not my design to enter here as an assistant to your lordship. For this is quite needless.

My intention is, as mentioned in the title page. And because bishop _Warburton_ has owned this writer, as a most able defender of his scheme. I have taken occasion to shew, that it is a scheme so contrary to scripture, and the truth of things, as no art of words, or stretch of genius, however powerful in paradox, can ever be able to support.

The author of this book, as bishop _Warburton_ assures us,¹ is too modest to make his name known to the world; a quality, which from the reading of his book, one would not suspect to be so predominate in him.――But though modesty has forced him to conceal his name, yet he has given us some information of his character. He begins; “I, who am a bare looker-on, and absolutely disengaged from all that biass of affection, which is so wont to warp the followers of an old system, or the inventers of a new, have done my best to examine this question with all impartiality.”²

¹ Preface to critical enquiry, &c.

² Examination p. 2.

Had one of the antient writers of _Greece_ said this of himself, how positive, might a modern critic have been, from the decisive words, a _bare looker-on_, that he had never wrote upon the same subject before? And that therefore, any book of that kind ascribed to him, must infallibly be false and spurious. And yet, to the confusion of criticism, this author, who unasked, and of his own free motion, declares, that he begins this work as a bare looker-on, has for more than ten years before he made this declaration, been sweating in the thickest dust, and heat of Doctor _Warburton_’s most ardent contention for novelties.¹

¹ Critical enquiry, &c. published 1746.

I have the Doctor’s own words for this, both for the novelties, and this gentleman’s wonderful zeal, and skill shewn in the defence of them, so many years ago.