The History of Persecution, from the Patriarchal Age, to the Reign of George II

CONCLUSION.

SECT. I.
The Clergy the great promoters of persecution.

It is a truth too evident to be denied, that the clergy in general, throughout almost all the several ages of the christian church; have been deep and warm in the measures of persecution; as though it had been a doctrine expressly inculcated in the sacred writings, and recommended by the practice of our Saviour and his apostles. Indeed, could such a charge as this have been justly fixed on the great author of our religion, or the messengers he sent into the world to propagate it; I think it would have been such an evidence of its having been dictated by weak or wicked, or worldly-minded men, as nothing could possibly have disproved.

But that christianity might be free from every imputation of this kind, God was pleased to send his son into the world, without any of the advantages of worldly riches and grandeur, and absolutely to disclaim all the prerogatives of an earthly kingdom. His distinguishing character was that of “meek and lowly;” and the methods by which he conquered and triumphed over his enemies, and drew all men to him, was “patience and constancy, even to the death.” And when he sent out his own apostles, he sent them out but poorly furnished, to all human appearance, for their journey;^[373] “without staves, or scrip, or bread, or money,” to let them know that he had but little of this world to give them; and that their whole dependence was on Providence.

One thing however he assured them of, that they should be “^[374]delivered up to the councils, and scourged in the synagogues, and be hated of all men for his sake.” So far was he from giving them a power to persecute, that he foretold them they must suffer persecution for his name. This the event abundantly justified: And how amiable was their behaviour under it? How greatly did they recommend the religion they taught, by the methods they took to propagate it? “The arms of their warfare were not carnal, but spiritual.” The argument they used to convince those they preached to, was the “demonstration of the spirit, and of power.” They “approved themselves as the ministers of God, by much patience, by afflictions, necessities, distresses, stripes, imprisonments, tumults, labours, watchings, fastings, pureness, knowledge, long-suffering, kindness; by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, by the word of truth, by the power of God, and by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left.” Oh how unlike were their pretended successors to them in these respects! How different their methods to convince gainsayers! Excommunications, suspensions, fines, banishments, imprisonments, bonds, scourges, tortures and death, were the powerful arguments introduced into the church; and recommended, practised, and sanctified by many of the pretended fathers of it.

Even those whom superstition hath dignified by the name of saints, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Gregory, Cyril, and others, grew wanton with power, cruelly oppressed those who differed from them, and stained most of their characters with the guilt of rapine and murder. Their religious quarrels were managed with such an unrelenting, furious zeal, as disturbed the imperial government, threw kingdoms and nations into confusion, and turned the church itself into an aceldama, or field of blood. Some few there have been who were of a different spirit; who not only abstained from persecuting counsels and measures themselves, but with great justice and freedom censured them in others. But as to your saints and fathers, your patriarchs and bishops, your councils and synods, together with the rabble of monks, they were most of them the advisers, abettors, and practisers of persecution. They knew not how to brook opposition to their own opinions and power, branded all doctrines different from their own with the odious name of heresy, and used all their arts and influence to oppress and destroy those who presumed to maintain them. And this they did with such unanimity and constancy, through a long succession of many ages, as would tempt a stander-by to think that a bishop or clergyman, and a persecutor, were the same thing, or meant the self-same individual character and office in the christian church.

I am far from writing these things with any design to depreciate and blacken the episcopal order in general. It is an office of great dignity and use, according to the original design of its institution. But when that design is forgotten, or wholly perverted; when, instead of becoming “Overseers” of the flock of Christ, the bishops “tear and devour” it, and proudly usurp “Dominion over the Consciences of” Christians, when they ought to be content with being “helpers of their joy.” I know no reason why the name should be complimented, or the character held sacred, when it is abused to insolence, oppression and tyranny; or why the venerable names of fathers and saints should screen the vices of the bishops of former ages, who, notwithstanding their writing in behalf of christianity and orthodoxy, brought some of them the greatest disgrace on the christian religion, by their wicked practices, and exposed it to the severest satire of its professed enemies: and for the truth of this, I appeal to the foregoing history.

If any observations on their conduct should affect the temper and principles of any now living, they themselves only are answerable for it, and welcome to make what use and application of them they please. Sure I am that the representing them in their true light, reflects an honour upon those reverend and worthy prelates, who maintain that moderation and humility which is essential to the true dignity of the episcopal character, and who use no other methods of conviction and persuasion but those truly apostolical ones, of sound reasoning and exemplary piety. May God grant a great increase, and a continual succession of them in the christian church!

SECT. II.
The Things for which Christians have persecuted one another generally of small importance.

But as the truth of history is not to be concealed; and as it can do no service to the christian cause to palliate the faults of any set of christians whatsoever, especially when all parties have been more or less involved in the same guilt; I must observe farther, as an aggravation of this guilt, that the things for which christians have persecuted each other, have been generally “matters of no importance in religion,” and oftentimes such as have been “directly contrary” to the nature of it. If my reader would know upon what accounts the church hath been filled with divisions and schisms; why excommunications and anathemas have been so dreadfully tossed about; what hath given occasion to such a multitude of suspensions, depositions and expulsions; what hath excited the clergy to such numberless violencies, rapines, cruelties, and murders, he will probably be surprised to be informed that it is nothing of any consequence or real importance, nothing relating to the substance and life of pure and undefiled religion; little besides hard words, technical terms, and inexplicable phrases, points of mere speculation, abstruse questions, and metaphysical notions; rites and ceremonies, forms of human invention, and certain institutions, that have had their rise and foundation only in superstition: these have been the great engines of division; these the sad occasions of persecution.

Would it not excite sometimes laughter, and sometimes indignation, to read of a proud and imperious prelate excommunicating the whole christian church, and sending, by wholesale, to the devil, all who did not agree with him in the precise day of observing Easter? Especially when there is so far from being any direction given by Christ or his apostles about the day, that there is not a single word about the festival itself. And is it not an amazing instance of stupidity and superstition, that such a paltry and whimsical controversy should actually engage, for many years, the whole christian world, and be debated with as much warmth and eagerness, as if all the interests of the present and future state had been at stake; as if Christ himself had been to be crucified afresh, and his whole gospel to be subverted and destroyed.

The Arian controversy, that made such havoc in the christian church, was, if I may be allowed to speak it without offence, in the beginning only about words; though probably some of Arius’ party went farther afterwards, than Arius himself did at first. Arius, as hath been shewn, expressly allowed the son to be “before all times and ages, perfect God, unchangeable,” and begotten after the most perfect likeness of the unbegotten father.

This, to me, appears to bid very fair for orthodoxy; and was, I think, enough to have reconciled the bishop and his presbyter, if there had not been some other reasons of the animosity between them. But when other terms were invented, that were hard to be understood, and difficult to be explained, the original controversy ceased; and the dispute then was about the meaning of those terms, and the fitness of their use in explaining the divinity of the Son of God.

Arius knew not how to reconcile the bishop’s words, “ever begotten,” with the assertion, that the Son, co-exists “unbegottenly with God;” and thought it little less than a contradiction to affirm, that he was “unbegottenly begotten.” And as to the word “consubstantial,” Arius seems to have thought that it destroyed the personal subsistence of the Son, and brought in the doctrine of Sabellius; or else that it implied that the Son was “a part of the Father;” and for this reason declined the use of it. And, indeed, it doth not appear to me that the council of Nice had themselves any determinate and fixed meaning to the word, as I think may be fairly inferred from the debates of that council with Eusebius, bishop of CÆsarea, about that term; which, though put into their creed, in opposition to the Arians, was yet explained by them in such a sense, as almost any Arian could have, bona fide, subscribed.

On the other hand, the bishop of Alexandria seems to have thought, that when Arius asserted that the son existed “by the will and counsel of the Father;” it implied the mutability of his nature; and that, when he taught concerning the Son, “that there was a time when he was not,” it inferred his being a temporary, and not an eternal being; though Arius expressly denied both these consequences. In short, it was a controversy upon this metaphysical question, “^[375]whether or no God could generate or produce a being, in strictness of speech, as eternal as himself? Or, whether God’s generating the Son doth not necessarily imply the pre-existence of the Father, either in conception, or some small imaginable point of time;” as Arius imagined, and the bishop denied.

This was, in fact, the state of this controversy. And did not the emperor Constantine give a just character of this debate, when he declared the occasion of the difference to be very trifling; and that their quarrels arose from an idle itch of disputation, since they did not contend about any essential doctrine of the gospel? could these hard words and inexplicable points justify the clergy in their intemperate zeal, and in their treating each other with the rancour and bitterness of the most implacable enemies? What hath the doctrine of real godliness, what hath the church of God to do with these debates? Hath the salvation of men’s souls, and the practice of virtue, any dependance upon men’s receiving unscriptural words, in which they cannot believe, because they cannot understand them; and which, those who first introduced them, were not able to explain?

If I know my own heart, I would be far from giving up any plain and important doctrine of the gospel. But will any man coolly and soberly affirm, that nice and intricate questions, that depend upon metaphysical distinctions, and run so high as the most minute supposeable atom or point of time, can be either plain or important doctrines of the gospel? Oh Jesus! if thou be “the Son of the everlasting God, the brightness of thy Father’s glory, and the express image of his person;” if thou art the most perfect resemblance of his all-perfect goodness, that kind benefactor, that God-like friend to the human race, which the faithful records of thy life declare thee to be; how can I believe the essential doctrines of thy gospel to be thus wrapped up in darkness? or, that the salvation of that church, “which thou hast purchased with thy blood,” depends on such mysterious and inexplicable conditions? If thy gospel represents thee right, surely thou must be better pleased with the humble, peaceable christian, who when honestly searching into the glories of thy nature, and willing to give thee all the adoration thy great Father hath ordered him to pay thee, falls into some errors, as the consequence of human weakness; than with that imperious and tyrannical disciple, who divides thy members, tears the bowels of thy church, and spreads confusion and strife throughout thy followers and friends, even for the sake of truths that lie remote from men’s understanding, and in which thou hast not thought proper to make the full, the plain decision. If truth is not to be given up for the sake of peace, I am sure peace is not to be sacrificed for the sake of such truths; and if the gospel is a rule worthy our regard, the clergy of those times can never be excused for the contentions they raised, and the miseries they occasioned in the christian world, upon account of them.

The third and fourth general councils seem to have met upon an occasion of much the like importance. The first council of Nice determined the Son to be a distinct hypostasis, or person from, but of the same nature with the Father. The second at Constantinople, added the Holy Ghost to the same substance of the Father, and made the same individual nature to belong equally and wholly to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; thus making them three distinct persons in one undivided essence. But as they determined the Son to be truly man, as well as truly God, the bishops brought a new controversy into the church, and fell into furious debates and quarrels about his personality.

Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, with his followers, maintained two distinct persons in Christ, agreeable to his two distinct natures. But St. Cyril, the implacable enemy of Nestorius, got a council to decree, that the two natures of God and man being united together in our Lord, made one person or Christ; and to curse all who should affirm that there were two distinct persons or subsistencies in him.

It is evident, that either Cyril and his council must have been in the wrong in this decree, or the two former councils of Nice and Constantinople wrong in theirs; because it is certain, that they decreed the word PERSON to be used in two infinitely different senses. According to those of Nice and Constantinople, one individual nature or essence contained three distinct persons; according to Cyril’s council, two natures or essences infinitely different, and as distinct as those of God and man, constituted but one person. Now how “one nature should be three persons, and yet two natures one person,” will require the skill even of infallibility itself to explain; and as these decrees are evidently contradictory to one another, I am afraid we must allow that the Holy Ghost had no hand in one or other of them.

This some of the clergy very easily observed; and therefore, to maintain the unity of the person of Christ, Eutyches and Dioscorus maintained, that though Christ consisted of two natures before his incarnation, yet after that he had but one nature only. But this was condemned by the council of Chalcedon, and the contradictions of the former councils declared all to be true, and rendered sacred with the stamp of orthodoxy. This was also ratified by the fifth council under Justinian, who also piously and charitably raked into the dust of poor Origen, and damned him for an heretic.

But still there was a difficultydifficulty yet remaining, about the person of Christ: for as Christ’s being one person did not destroy the distinction of his two natures, it became a very important and warm controversy, whether Christ had any more than one will, as he was but one person in two natures? or, whether he had not two wills, agreeable to his two distinct natures, united in one person? This occasioned the calling the sixth general council, who determined it for the two wills; in which, according to my poor judgment, they were very wrong. And had I had the honour to have been of this venerable assembly, I would have completed the mystery, by decreeing, that as Christ had but one person, he could have but one personal will; but however, that as he had two natures, he must also have two natural wills.

I beg my reader’s pardon for thus presuming to offer my own judgment, in opposition to the decree of the holy fathers; but at the same time I cannot help smiling at the thought of two or three hundred venerable bishops and fathers thus trifling in council, and solemnly playing at questions and commands, to puzzle others, and divert themselves. Were it not for the fatal consequences that attended their decisions, I should look on them as “Bishops in masquerade,” met together only to ridicule the order, or to set the people a laughing at so awkward a mixture of gravity and folly. Surely the reverend clergy of those days had but little to do amongst their flocks, or but little regard to the nature and end of their office. Had they been faithful to their character instead of “doting“doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof came envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness, “they would have” consented to, and taught wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness.

But this was not the temper of the times. It would have been indeed more tolerable, had the clergy confined their quarrels to themselves, and quarrelled only about speculative doctrines and harmless contradictions. But to interest the whole christian world in these contentions, and to excite furious persecutions for the support of doctrines and practices, even opposite to the nature, and destructive of the very end of christianity, is equally monstrous and astonishing. And yet this is the case of the seventh general council, who decreed the adoration of the Virgin Mary, of angels and of saints, of relicts, of images and pictures, and who thereby obscured the dignity, and corrupted the simplicity of the christian worship and doctrine. This the venerable fathers of that council did, and pronounced anathemas against all who would not come into their idolatrous practices, and excited the civil power to oppress and destroy them.

SECT. III.
Pride, ambition, and covetousness, the grand sources of persecution.

Surely it could not be zeal for God and Christ, and the truth and honour of christianity; no real love to piety and virtue, that prompted and led the bishops and their clergy on to these acts of injustice and cruelty. Without any breach of charity, it may be asserted of most, if not all of them, that it was their pride, and their immoderate love of dominion, grandeur and riches, that influenced them to these unworthy and wicked measures. The interest of religion and truth, the honour of God and the church, is I know the stale pretence; but a pretence, I am afraid, that hath but little probability or truth to support it.

For what hath religion to do with the observation of days? or, what could excite Victor to excommunicate so many churches about Easter, but the pride of his heart, and to let the world see how large a power he had to send souls to the devil? How is the honour of God promoted, by speculations that have no tendency to godliness? Will any man seriously affirm, that the ancient disputes about “Hypostasis, Consubstantial, &c.” and the rest of the hard words that were invented, did any honour to the name of Christ, or were of any advantage to the religion of his gospel? Or, can he believe that Alexander, Arius, Athanasius, Macedonius, and others, were influenced in all their contentions and quarrels, in all the confusions they were the authors of, and the murders they occasioned, purely by religious motives? Surely the honour of religion must be promoted by other means; and genuine christianity may flourish, and, indeed, would have flourished much better, had these disputes never been introduced into the church; or had they been managed with moderation and forbearance. But such was the haughtiness of the clergy, such their thirst of dominion over the consciences of others, such their impatience of contradiction, that nothing would content them but implicit faith to their creeds, absolute subjection to their decrees, and subscription to their articles without examination or conviction of their truth; or for want of thesethese, anathemas, depositions, banishments, and death.

The history of all the councils, and of almost all the bishops, that is left us, is a demonstration of this sad truth. What council can be named, that did not assume a power to explain, amend, settle, and determine the faith? That did not anathematize and depose those who could not agree to their decisions, and that did not excite the emperors to oppress and destroy them? Was this the humility and condescension of servants and ministers? Was not this lording it over the heritage of God, seating themselves in the throne of the Son of God, and making themselves owned as “fathers and masters,“ in opposition to the express command of Christ to the contrary?

^[376]Clemens Romanus, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, cap. 44. tells us, That “the apostles knew, by the Lord Jesus Christ, that the episcopal name and office would be the occasion of contention in the christian church; a noble instance,” says the learned Fell, in his remarks on the place, “of the prophetic spirit of the apostolic age. Formerly,“ he adds, that, “men’s ambition and evil practices to obtain this dignity, produced schisms and heresies.” And it was indeed no wonder that such disorders and confusions should be occasioned, when the bishoprics were certain steps, not only to power and dominion, but to the emoluments and advantages of riches and honours.

Even long before the time of Constantine, the clergy had got a very great ascendant over the laity, and grew, many of them, rich, by the voluntary oblations of the people: But the grants of that emperor confirmed them in a worldly spirit, and the dignities and vast revenues that were annexed to many o£ the sees, gave rise to infinite evils and disturbances. So they could but get possession of them, they cared not by what means; whether by clandestine ordinations, scandalous symony, the expulsion of the possessors, or through the blood of their enemies. How many lives were lost at Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, by the furious contentions of the bishops of those sees; deposing one another, and forcibly entering upon possession? Would Athanasius, and Macedonius, Damasus, and others, have given occasion to such tumults and murders, merely for words and creeds, had there not been somewhat more substantial to have been got by their bishoprics? Would Cyril have persecuted the Novations, had it not been for the sake of their riches, of which he plundered them, soon after his advancement to the see of Alexandria? No. The character given by the historian of Theodocius, bishop of Synada, may be too truly applied to almost all the rest of them; who persecuted the followers of Macedonius, not from a principle of zeal for the faith, but through a covetous temper, and the love of money. This St. Jerome observed with grief, in the passage cited page 86, of this history; Ammianus Marcellinus, an heathen writer, reproached them with, in the passage cited page 102.

SECT. IV.
The decrees of councils and synods of no authority in matters of faith.

I think it will evidently follow from this account, that the determinations of councils, and the decrees of synods, as to matters of faith, are of no manner of authority, and can carry no obligation upon any christian whatsoever. I will not mention here one reason, which would be itself sufficient, if all others were wanting, viz. That they have no power given them, in any part of the gospel revelation, to make these decisions in controverted points, and to oblige others to subscribe them; and that therefore the pretence to it is an usurpation of what belongs to the great God, who only hath, and can have a right to prescribe to the consciences of men.

But to let this pass; what one council can be fixed upon, that will appear to be composed of such persons, as, upon an impartial examination, can be allowed to be fit for the work of settling the faith, and determining all controversies relating to it? I mean, in which the majority of the members may, in charity, be supposed to be disinterested, wise, learned, peaceable and pious men? Will any man undertake to affirm this of the council of Nice? Can any thing be more evident, than that the members of that venerable assembly came, many of them, full of passion and resentment; that others of them were crafty and wicked, and others ignorant and weak? Did their meeting together in a synod immediately cure them of their desire of revenge, make the wicked virtuous, or the ignorant wise? If not, their joint decree, as a synod, could really be of no more weight than their private opinions; nor perhaps of so much; because, it is well known, that the great transactions of such assemblies are generally managed and conducted by a few; and that authority, persuasion, prospect of interest, and other temporal motives, are commonly made use of to secure a majority. The orthodox have taken care to destroy all the accounts given of this council by those of the opposite party; and Eusebius, bishop of CÆsarea, hath passed it over in silence; and only dropped two or three hints, that are very far from being favourable to those reverend fathers. In a word, nothing can be collected from friends or enemies, to induce one to believe that they had any of those qualifications which were necessary to fit them for the province they had undertaken, of settling the peace of the church by a fair, candid and impartial determination of the controversy that divided it: So that the emperor Constantine, and Socrates the historian, took the most effectual method to vindicate their honour, by pronouncing them inspired by the Holy Ghost; which they had great need of, to make up the want of all other qualifications.

The second general council were plainly the creatures of the emperor Theodosius, all of his own party, and convened to do as he bid them; which they did, by confirming the Nicene faith, and condemning all heresies: ^[377]A council of “geese and cranes, and chattering jackdaws;” noisy and tumultuous, endlessly contending for episcopal sees and thrones. The third general council were the creatures of Cyril, who was their president, and the inveterate enemy of Nestorius, whom he condemned for heresy, and was himself condemned for his rashness in this affair, and excommunicated by the bishop of Antioch. The fourth met under the awes of the emperor Marcian; managed their debates with noise and tumult, were formed into a majority by the intrigues of the legates of Rome, and settled the faith by the opinions of Athanasius, Cyril, and and others. I need not mention more; the farther we go, the worse they will appear.

Now may it not be asked, how came the few bishops, who met by command of Theodosius, this council of wasps, to be stiled an oecumenical or general council? As they came to decree, as he decreed they should, what authority, with any wise man, can their decisions have? As they were all of one side, except thirty-six of the Macedonian party who were afterwards added, what less could be expected, but that they would decree themselves orthodox, establish their own creed, and anathematize all others for heretics? And as to the next council, I confess I can pay no respect or reverence to a set of clergy met under the direction and influence of a man of Cyril’s principles and morals; especially as the main transaction of that council was hurried on by a desire of revenge, and done before the arrival of the bishop of Antioch, with his suffragan brethren, and condemned by him as soon as he was informed of it; till at length the power and influence of the emperor reconciled the two haughty prelates, made them reverse their mutual excommunications, decree the same doctrine, and join in pronouncing the same Anathemas. Cannot any one discern more of resentment and pride in their first quarrel, than of a regard to truth and peace; and more of complaisance to the emperor, than of concern for the honour of Christ, in their after reconciliation? And as to the next council, let any one but read over the account given of it by Evagrius; what horrible confusions there were amongst them; how they threw about anathemas and curses; how they fathered their violences on Christ; how they settled the faith by the doctrines of Athanasius, Cyril, and other fathers; and if he can bring himself to pay any reverence to their decrees, I envy him not the submission he pays them, nor the rule by which he guides and determines his belief.

I confess I cannot read the account of these transactions, their ascribing their anathemas and curses to Christ and the Holy Trinity, and their decisions as to the faith, to the Holy Ghost, without indignation at the horrid abuse of those sacred names. Their very meeting to pronounce damnation on their adversaries, and to form creeds for the consciences of others, is no less than a demonstration that they had no concurrence of the Son of God, no influence of the Holy Spirit of God. The faith was already settled for them, and for all other christians, in the sacred writings, and needed no decision of councils to explain and amend it. The very attempt was insolence and usurpation. Infallibility is a necessary qualification for an office of such importance. But what promise is there made to councils of this divine gift? or, if there should be any such promise made to them; yet the method of their debates, their scandalous arts to defame their adversaries, and the contradictions they decreed for truth and gospel, prove, to the fullest conviction, that they forfeited the grace of it. And indeed, if the fruits of the spirit are love, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness and meekness, there appeared few or no signs of them in any of the councils. The soil was too rank and hot to produce them.

I wish, for the honour of the former times, I could give a better account of these assemblies of the clergy, and see reason to believe myself that they were, generally speaking, men of integrity, wisdom, candour, moderation and virtue. The debates of such men would have deserved regard, and their opinions would have challenged a proper reverence. But even had this been the case, their opinions, could have been no rule to others; and how great a veneration soever we might have had for their characters, we ought, as men and christians, to have examined their principles. There is one rule superior to them and us, by which christians are to try all doctrines and spirits; the decision of which is more sacred than that of all human wisdom and authority, and every where, and in all ages, obligatory. But as the ancient councils consisted of men of quite other dispositions; and as their decisions in matters of faith were arbitrary and unwarranted; and as those decisions themselves were generally owing to court practices, intriguing statesmen, the thirst of revenge the management of a few crafty interested bishops to noise and tumult, the prospects and hopes of promotions and translations, and other the like causes, the reverence paid them by many christians is truly surprising; and I cannot account for it any way but one, viz. that those who thus cry up their authority, are in hopes of succeeding them in their power; and therefore would fain persuade others that their decrees are sacred and binding, to make way for the imposing of their own.

It would be well worth the while of some of these council-mongers to lay down some proper rules and distinctions, by which we may judge what councils are to be received, and which to be rejected; and particularly why the four first general councils should be submitted to, in preference to all others. Councils have often decreed contrary to councils, and the same bishops have decreed different things in different councils; and even the third and fourth general councils determined the use of the word PERSON in an infinitely different sense from what the two first did. Heretical councils, as they are called, have been more in number than some orthodox general ones, called by the same imperial authority, have claimed the same powers, pretended to the same influence of the Holy Ghost, and pronounced the same anathemas against principles and persons. By what criteria or certain marks then must we judge, which of these councils are thieving, general, particular, orthodox, heretical, and which not? The councils themselves must not be judges in their own cause; for then we must receive, or reject them all. The characters of the bishops that composed them will not do, for their characters seem equally amiable and christian on each side. The nature of the doctrine, “as decreed by them,” is far from being a safe rule; because, if human authority, or church power makes truth in any case, it makes it in every case; and therefore, upon this foot, the decrees at Tyre and Ephesus are as truly binding, as those at Nice and Chalcedon. Or, if we must judge of the councils by the nature of the doctrine, abstracted from all human authority, those councils can have no authority at all. Every man must sit in judgment over them, and try them by reason and scripture, and reject and receive them, just as he would do the opinions of any other persons whatsoeverwhatsoever. And, I humbly conceive, they should have no better treatment, because they deserve none.

SECT. V.
The imposing Subscriptions to Human Creeds unreasonable and pernicious.

If then the decrees of fathers and councils, if the decisions of human authority in matters of religion are of no avail, and carry with them no obligation; it follows, that the imposing subscriptions to creeds and articles of faith, as tests of orthodoxy, is a thing unreasonable in itself, as it hath proved of infinite ill consequence in the church of God.

I call it an “unreasonable custom,” not only because where there is no power to make creeds for others, there can be no right to impose them; but because no one good reason can be assigned for the use and continuance of this practice. For, as my Lord Bishop of London admirably well explains this matter^[378], “As long as men are men, and have different degrees of understanding, and every one a partiality to his own conceptions, it is not to be expected that they should agree in any one entire scheme, and every part of it, in the circumstances as well as the substance, in the manner of things, as well as in the things themselves. The question therefore is not in general about a difference in opinion, which, in our present state, is unavoidable; but about the weight and importance of the things wherein christians differ, and the things wherein they agree. And it will appear, that the several denominations of christians agree both in the substance of religion, and in the necessary inforcements of the practice of it. That the world and all things in it, were created by God, and are under the direction and government of his all-powerful hand, and all-seeing eye; that there is an essential difference between good and evil, virtue and vice; that there will be a state of future rewards and punishments, according to our behaviour in this life; that Christ was a teacher sent from God, and that his apostles were divinely inspired; that all christians are bound to declare and profess themselves to be his disciples; that not only the exercise of the several virtues, but also a belief in Christ is necessary, in order to their obtaining the pardon of sin, the favour of God, and eternal life; that the worship of God is to be performed chiefly by the heart, in prayers, praises, and thanksgivings; and, as to all other points, that they are bound to live by the rules which Christ and his apostles have left them in the holy scriptures.” Here then, adds the learned bishop, “is a fixed, certain, and uniform rule of faith and practice, containing all the most necessary points of religion, established by a divine sanction, embraced as such by all denominations of christians, and in itself abundantly sufficient to preserve the knowledge and practice of religion in the world. As to points of greater intricacy, and which require uncommon degrees of penetration and knowledge; such indeed have been subjects of dispute, amongst persons of study and learning, in the several ages of the christian church; but the people are not obliged to enter into them, so long as they do not touch the foundations of christianity, nor have an influence upon practice. In other points it is sufficient that they believe the doctrines, so far as they find, upon due enquiry and examination, according to their several abilities and opportunities, that God hath revealed them.”

This incomparable passage of this reverend and truly charitable prelate, I have transcribed intire; because it will undoubtedly give a sanction to my own principles of universal benevolence and charity. His lordship affirms, that “all denominations of christians agree in the substance of religion, and in the necessary enforcement of the practice of it;” inasmuch as they do all believe firmly and sincerely those principles which his lordship calls, with great reason and truth, “a fixed, certain, and uniform rule of faith and practice, as containing all the most necessary points of religion, and in itself abundantly sufficient to preserve the knowledge and practice of religion in the world.”

My inference from this noble concession, for which all the friends to liberty, in church and state, throughout Great Britain, will thank his lordship, is this; that since all denominations of christians do, in his lordship’s judgment, receive his fixed, certain, and uniform rule of faith, and embrace all the most necessary points of religion; to impose subscriptions to articles of faith and human creeds, must be a very unreasonable and needless thing: for either such articles and creeds contain nothing more than this same rule of faith and practice, and then all subscription to them is impertinent, because this is already received by all denominations of christians, and is abundantly sufficient, by the bishop’s own allowance, to preserve the knowledge and practice of religion in the world; or such articles and creeds contain something more than his lordship’s fixed rule of faith and practice, something more than all the most necessary points of religion, something more than is sufficient to preserve the knowledge and practice of religion in the world, h. e. some very unnecessary points of religion, something on which the preservation of religion doth not depend; and of consequence, subscriptions to unnecessary articles of faith, on which religion doth not depend, can never be necessary to qualify any person for a minister of the church of Christ, and therefore not for the church of England, if that be part of the church of Christ. And this is the more unnecessaryunnecessary, because, as his lordship farther well observes, “the people are not obliged to enter into them, so long as they do not touch the foundations of christianity,” i. e. so far as his lordship’s certain, fixed and uniform rule, which contains all necessary points of religion, is not affected by them. And if the people are not obliged to enter into points of great intricacy and dispute, I humbly conceive the clergy cannot be obliged to preach them; and that of consequence it is as absurd to impose upon them subscriptions to such things, as to oblige them to subscribe what they need not preach, nor any of their people believe.

Upon his lordship’s principles, the imposing subscriptions to the hard, unscriptural expressions of the Athanasians and Arians, by each party in their turns, and to the thirty-nine articles of the church of England, must be a very unreasonable and unchristian thing; because, the peculiarities to be subscribed, do not one of them enter into his specified points of religion, and of consequence are not necessary to preserve religion in the world; and after so public a declaration of charity towards all denominations of christians, and the safety of religion and the church, upon the general principles he hath laid down, there is no reason to doubt but his lordship will use that power and influence which God hath entrusted him with, to remove the wall of separation in the established church, in order to the uniting all differing sects, all denominations of christians, in one visible communion; and that he will join in that most christian and catholic prayer and benediction of one of his own brethren; though disapproved of by another of narrower principles, “^[379]blessed be they who have contributed to so good a work.”

Subscriptions have ever been a grievance in the church of God; and the first introduction of them was owing to pride, and the claim of an unrighteous and ungodly power. Neither the warrant of scripture, nor the interest of truth, made them necessary. It is, I think, but by few, if any, pretended that the sacred writings countenance this practice. They do indeed abound with directions and exhortations to “adhere stedfastly to the faith, not to be moved from the faith, nor tossed about with every wind of doctrine.” But what is the faith which we are to adhere to? What the faith established and stamped for orthodox by the bishops and councils? Ridiculous! If this was the case, our faith must be as various as their creeds, and as absurd and contradictory as their decisions. No: The Faith we are to be grounded and settled in, is that “which was at once delivered to the saints,” that which was preached by the apostles to Gentiles as well as Jews; “the wholesome words we are to consent to are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to godliness.” This all genuine christians receive, out of regard to a much higher authority than belongs to any set of men in the world; and therefore the sanction of fathers and councils in this case, is as impertinent as a man’s pretending to give a sanction to the constitutions of the great God. And as to all other articles of faith, neither they, nor any others, have any commission to impose them on the consciences of men; and the moment they attempt to do it, they cease to be servants in the house of God, and act as the true and proper lords of the heritage.

But it may be said, that “the church hath power to determine in controversies of faith; so as not to decree any thing against scripture, nor to enforce any thing to be believed as necessary to salvation besides it;” i. e. I suppose the church hath power to guard the truths of scripture; and in any controversies about doctrines, to determine what is or is not agreeable to scripture, and to enforce the reception of what they thus decree, by obliging others to subscribe to their decisions. If this be the case, then it necessarily follows, that their determinations must be ever right, and constantly agreeable to the doctrine of holy writ; and that they ought never to determine but when they are in the right; and are sure they are in the right; because, if the matter be difficult in its nature, or the clergy have any doubts and scruples concerning it, or are liable to make false decisions, they cannot, with any reason, make a final decision; because it is possible they may decide on the wrong side of the question, and thus decree falsehood instead of truth.

I presume there are but few who will claim, in words so extraordinary a power as that of establishing falsehood in the room of truth and scripture. But even supposing their decisions to be right, how will it follow that they have a power to oblige others to submit to and subscribe them? If by sound reason and argument they can convince the consciences of others, they are sure of the agreement of all such with them in principle; and, upon this foot, subscriptions are wholly useless: If they cannot convince them, it is a very unrighteous thing to impose subscriptions on them; and a shameful prevarication with God and man for any to submit to them without it.

Decisions made in controversies of faith, by the clergy, carry in them no force nor evidence of truth. Let their office be ever so sacred, it doth not exempt them from human frailties and imperfections. They are as liable to error and mistake, to prejudice and passion, as any of the laity whatsoever can be. How then can the clergy have any authority in controversies of faith, which the laity have not? That they have erred in their decisions, and decreed light to be darkness, and darkness light; that they have perplexed the consciences of men, and corrupted the simplicity of the faith in Christ, all their councils and synods are a notorious proof. With what justice or modesty then can they pretend to a power of obliging others to believe their articles, or subscribe them? If I was to speak the real truth, it will be found that those numerous opinions which have been anathematized as heretical, and which have broken the christian world into parties, have been generally invented, and broached, and propagated by the clergy. Witness Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, and others; and therefore if we may judge, by any observations made on the rise of heresy, what is a proper method to put a stop to the progress of it, it cannot be the clergy’s forming articles of faith, and forcing others to subscribe them; because this is the very method by which they have established and propagated it.

The truth is, this method of preventing error will suit all religions, and all sorts of principles whatsoever; and is that by which error maintains its ground, and is indeed rendered impregnable. All the different sorts of christians, papists, and protestants, Greeks, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminians, cannot certainly be right in their discriminating principles. And yet where shall we find any clergy that do not pretend a right to impose subscriptions, and who do not maintain the truth of the articles to which they make such subscription necessary? Upon this foot the doctrines of the council of Trent, the thirty-nine articles of the church of England, and the assemblies confession of faith, are all of them equally true, christian and sacred; for they are in different places embraced as standards of orthodoxy, and their sacredness and authority secured and maintained by the subscriptions of the clergy to them: and therefore I think it as little agreeable to prudence, as it is to justice, for christians to keep up a practice that may be so easily, and hath been so often turned into a security for heresy, superstition and idolatry; and especially for protestants to wear any longer these marks of slavery, which their enemies, whenever they have power, will not fail to make use of, either to fetter their consciences, or distinguish them for the burning.

But it may be said, that the abuse of subscriptions is no argument against the use of them; and that as they are proper to discover what men’s sentiments are, they may be so far sometimes a guard and security to the truth. But as all parties, who use them, will urge this reason for them, that they are in possession of the truth, and therefore willing to do all they can to secure and promote it; of consequence, subscriptions to articles of faith can never be looked on properly as guards to real truth, but as guards to certain prevailing principles, whether true or false. And even in this case they are wholly ineffectual.

The clergy of the church of England are bound to subscribe the thirty-nine articles, i. e. to the truth of Athanasian and Calvinistic principles. But hath this subscription answered its end? Do not the clergy, who are all subscribers, and who often repeat their subscriptions, differ about these heads as much as if they had never subscribed at all? Men that have no principles of religion and virtue, but enter the church only with a view to the benefices and preferments of it, will subscribe ten thousand times over, and to any articles that can be given them, whether true or false. Thus the Asiatic bishops subscribed to the condemnation of the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, and inform Basiliscus the emperor that their subscriptions were voluntary. And yet when Basiliscus was deposed, they immediatelyimmediately subscribed to the truth of those decrees, and swore their first subscription was involuntary. So that subscriptions cannot keep out any atheists, infidels, or profligate persons. And as to others, daily experience teaches us, that they either disbelieve the articles they subscribe, subscribing them only as articles of peace: or else, that after they have subscribed them, they see reason, upon a more mature deliberation, to alter their minds, and change their original opinions. So that till men can be brought always to act upon conscience, never to subscribe what they do not believe, nor ever to alter their judgment, as to the articles they have subscribed; subscriptions are as impertinent and useless as they are unreasonable, and can never answer the purposes of those who impose them.

But I apprehend farther, that this imposing of subscriptions is “not only an unreasonable custom,” but attended with many very pernicious consequences. It is a great hindrance to that freedom and impartiality of inquiry which is the unalterable duty of every man, and necessary to render his religion reasonable and acceptable. For why should any person make any inquiries for his own information, when his betters have drawn up a religion for him, and thus kindly saved him the labour and pains? And as his worldly interest may greatly depend on his doing as he is bid, and subscribing as he is ordered; is it not reasonable to think that the generality will contentedly take every thing upon trust, and prudently refrain from creating to themselves scruples and doubts, by nicely examining what they are to set their hands to, lest they should miss of promotion for not being able to comply with the condition of it, or enjoy their promotions with a dissatisfied and uneasy conscience?

Subscriptions will, I own, sometimes prove marks of distinction, and as walls of separation: For though men of integrity and conscience may, and oftentimes undoubtedly do submit to them; yet men of no principles, or very loose ones, worldly and ambitious men, the thoughtless and ignorant, will most certainly do it, when they find it for their interest. The church that encloses herself with these fences, leaves abundant room for the entrance of all persons of such characters. To whom then doth she refuse admittance? Why, if to any, it must be to men who cannot bend their consciences to their interest; who cannot believe without examination, nor subscribe any articles of faith as true, without understanding and believing them. It is in the very nature of subscriptions to exclude none but these, and to distinguish such only for shame and punishment. Now how is this consistent with any thing that is called reason or religion?

If there could be found out any wise and reasonable methods to throw out of the christian church and ministry, men who are in their hearts unbelievers, who abide in the church only for the revenues she yields to them, who shift their religious and political principles according to their interest, who propagate doctrines inconsistent with the liberties of mankind, and are scandalous and immoral in their lives; if subscriptions could be made to answer these ends, and these only, and to throw infamy upon such men, and upon such men only, no one would have any thing to alledge against the use of them. Whereas, in truth, subscriptions are the great securities of such profligate wretches, who by complying with them, enter into the church, and thereby share in all the temporal advantages of it; whilst the scrupulous, conscientious christian, is the only one she excludes; who thinks the word of God a more sure rule of faith than the dictates of men; and that subscriptions are things much too sacred to be trifled with, or lightly submitted to.

They are indeed very great snares to many persons, and temptations to them too often to trespass upon the rules of strict honesty and virtue. For when men’s subsistence and advantages in the world depend on their subscribing to certain articles of faith, it is one of the most powerful arguments that can be, to engage them to comply with it. It is possible indeed they may have their objections against the reasonableness and truth of what they are to subscribe: But will not interest often lead them to overlook their difficulties, to explain away the natural meaning of words, to put a different sense upon the articles than what they will fairly bear, to take them in any sense, and to subscribe them in no sense, only as articles of peace?

It must be by some such evasions that Arians subscribe to Athanasian creeds, and Arminians to principles of rigid Calvinism. This the clergy have been again and again reproached with, even by the enemies of christianity: and I am sorry to say it, they have not been able to wipe off the scandal from themselves. I am far from saying or believing that all the clergy make these evasive subscriptions: those only that do so give this offence; and if they are, in other cases, men of integrity and conscience, they are objects of great compassion.

As far as my own judgment is concerned, I think this manner of subscribing to creeds and articles of faith, is infamous in its nature, and vindicable upon no principles of conscience and honour. It tends to render the clergy contemptible in the eyes of the people, who will be apt to think that they have but little reason to regard the sermons of men, who have prevaricated in their subscriptions, and that they preach for the same reason only that they subscribed, viz. their worldly interest. It is of very pernicious influence and example, and in its consequences leads to the breach of all faith amongst mankind, and tends to the subversion of civil society. For if the clergy are known to prevaricate in subscribing to religious tests of orthodoxy, is it not to be feared that others may learn from them to prevaricate in their subscriptions to civil tests of loyalty? and, indeed, there is a great deal of reason to imagine, that if men can tutor and twist their consciences so as to subscribe articles of faith, contrary to their own persuasion, and only as articles of peace, or a qualification for a living, they would subscribe for the same reason to Popery or Mahometanism: For if this be a good reason for subscribing any articles which I do not believe, it is a reason for subscribing all; and therefore I humbly apprehend that a practice, which gives so much occasion to such scandalous prevarications with God and man, should be cast off as an insufferable grievance, and as a yoke upon the necks of the clergy, too heavy for them to bear.

Let me add farther, that this practice of imposing subscriptions, hath been the occasion of innumerable mischiefs in the church of God. It was the common cry of the orthodox and Arians, and all other heretics, in their turns of power, “either subscribe, or depart from your churches.” This enflamed the clergy against each other, and filled them with hatred, malice and revenge. For as by imposing these subscriptions, inquisition was made into the consciences of others; the refusal to submit to them was a certain mark of heresy and reprobation; and the consequence of this was the infliction of all spiritual and temporal punishments. It was impossible but that such procedures should perpetuate the schisms and divisions of the church, since the wrath of man cannot work the righteousness of God; and since civil punishments have no tendency to convince the conscience, but only to enflame the passions against the advisers and inflicters of them. And as ecclesiastical history gives us so dreadful an account of the melancholy and tragical effects of this practice, one would think that no nation who knew the worth of liberty, no christian, protestant, church, that hath any regard for the peace of the flock of Christ, should ever be found to authorize and continue it.

What security then shall we have left us for truth and orthodox, when our subscriptions are gone? Why, the sacred scriptures, those oracles of the great God, and freedom and liberty to interpret and understand them as we can; the consequence of this would be great integrity and peace of conscience, in the enjoyment of our religious principles, union and friendship amongst christians, notwithstanding all their differences in judgment, and great respect and honour to those faithful pastors, that carefully feed the flock of God, and lead them into pastures of righteousness and peace. We shall lose only the incumbrances of religion, our bones of contention, the shackles of our consciences, and the snares to honesty and virtue; whilst all that is substantially good and valuable, all that is truly divine and heavenly, would remain to enrich and bless us.

The clergy would indeed lose their power to do mischief; but would they not be happy in that loss, especially as they would be infinitely more likely to do good? They would be no longer looked on as fathers and dictators in the faith; but still they might remain “ambassadors for Christ, beseeching men in Christ’s stead, to become reconciled to God.” And was all human authority, in matters of faith, thus wholly laid aside, would not the word of God have a freer course, and be much more abundantly glorified? All christians would look upon scripture as the only rule of their faith and practice, and therefore search it with greater diligence and care, and be much more likely to understand the mind of God therein. The main things of christianity would, unquestionably, be generally agreed to by all; and as to other things, points of speculation and difficult questions, if christians differed about them, their differences would be of no great importance, and might be maintained consistent with charity and peace.

Indeed, a strict and constant adherence to scripture, as the only judge in controversies of the christian faith, would be the most likely method to introduce into the church a real uniformity of opinion, as well as practice. For if this was the case, many disputes would be wholly at an end, as having nothing to give occasion to them in the sacred writings; and all others would be greatly shortened, as hereby all foreign terms, and human phrases of speech, by which the questions that have been controverted amongst christians have been darkened and perplexed, would be immediately laid aside, and the only inquiry would be, what is the sense of scripture? What the doctrine of Christ and his apostles? This is a much more short and effectual way of determining controversies, than sending men to Nice and Chalcedon, to councils and synods, to Athanasius, or Arius, to Calvin or Arminius, or any other persons whatsoever that can be mentioned, who at best deliver but their own sense of scripture, and are not to be regarded any farther than they agree with it.

It was the departure from this, as the great standard of faith, and corrupting the simplicity of the gospel-doctrine by hard, unscriptural words, that gave occasion to the innumerable controversies that formerly troubled the christian church. Human creeds were substituted in the room of scripture; and according as circumstances differed, or new opinions were broached, so were the creeds corrected, amended and enlarged, till they became so full of subtleties, contradictions, and nonsense, as must make every thoughtful man read many of them with contempt. The controversy was not about scripture expressions, but about the words of men; not about the sense of scripture, but the decrees of councils, and the opinions of Athanasius, Leo, Cyril, and the venerable fathers. And upon this foot it was no wonder their disputes should be endless; since the writings of all fallible men must certainly be more obscure and intricate than the writings of the infallible spirit of truth, who could be at no loss about the doctrines he dictated, nor for proper words suitably to express them.

It is infinite, it is endless labour, to consult all that the fathers have written; and when we have consulted them, what one controversy have they rationally decided? What one christian doctrine have they clearly and solidly explained? How few texts of scripture have they critically settled the sense and meaning of? How often do they differ from one another, and in how many instances from themselves? Those who read them, greatly differ in their interpretation of them; and men of the most contrary sentiments, all claim them for their own. Athanasians and Arians appeal to the fathers, and support their principles by quotations from them. And are these the venerable gentlemen, whose writings are to be set up in opposition to the scripture, or set up as authoritative judges of the sense of scripture? Are creeds of their dictating to be submitted to as the only criterion of orthodoxy, or esteemed as standards to distinguish between truth and error? Away with this folly and superstition!superstition! The creeds of the fathers and councils are but human creeds, that have all the marks in them of human frailty and ignorance.ignorance. The creeds which are to be found in the gospel are the infallible dictates of the spirit of the God of truth, and as such claim our reverence and submission; and as the forming our principles according to them, as far as we are able to understand them, makes us christians in the sight of God, it should be sufficient to every one’s being owned as a christian by others, without their using any inquisitory forms of trial, till they can produce their commission from heaven for the use of them. This, as it is highly reasonable in itself, would do the highest honour to the christian clergy; who, instead of being reproached for haughtiness and pride, as the incendiaries and plagues of mankind, as the sowers of contention and strife, and disturbers of the peace of the church of God, would be honoured for their work’s sake, esteemed for their characters, loved as blessings to the world, heard with pleasure, and become succesful in their endeavours to recommend the knowledge and practice of christianity.

SECT. VII.
The Christian Religion absolutely condemns Persecution for conscience sake.

Were the doctrines of the gospel regarded as they should be, and the precepts of the christian religion submitted to by all who profess to believe it, universal benevolence would be the certain effect, and eternal peace and union would reign amongst the members of the christian church. For if there are any commands of certain clearness, any precepts of evident obligation in the gospel, they are such as refer to the exercise of love, and the maintaining universal charity. In our Saviour’s admirable discourse on the mount, this was the excellent doctrine he taught: ^[380]“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of God.” And in another place, describing the nature of religion in general, he tells us, that ^[381]“the love of God is the first commandment; and that the second is like unto it—thou shalt love thy neighbourneighbour as thyself.” This he enjoins upon his disciples as his peculiar command: ^[382]“This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you;” and recommends it to them as that whereby they were to be distinguished from all other persons. ^[383]“A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. ^[384]By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”

This was the more needful for them, considering that our Lord foreknew the grievous persecutions that would befal them for his sake; to encourage them under which, he pronounces them blessed: ^[385]“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness-sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven;” whilst, at the same time, he leaves a brand of infamy on persecutors, and marks them out for the vengeance of God: ^[386]“Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you. ^[387]Woe unto you, for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them; therefore, saith the wisdom of God, I will send you prophets and apostles, and they will slay and persecute them, that the blood of all the prophets—may be required of this generation.”

And indeed, so far was our Lord from encouraging any persecuting methods, that he rebuked and put a stop to all the appearances of them. Thus when his disciples would have called down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans, who refused to receive him, he rebuked them, and said, ^[388]“Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them;” and when one of those who were with Christ cut off the ear of one of the high priest’s servants, upon his laying hands on him, he severely reproved him: ^[389]“Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” And, in order to cure his apostles of their ambition and pride, and to prevent their claiming an undue power, he gave them an example of great humility and condescension, in washing and wiping their feet, and forbid them imitating the ^[390]“gentiles, by exercising dominion and authority; but whoever will be great amongst you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief amongst you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” And as the Jewish teachers took on them the name of Rabbi, to denote their power over the consciences of those they instructed, he commanded his disciples, ^[391]“Be ye not called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren; and call no man father upon earth, for one is your father, which is in heaven. But he that is greatest amongst you, shall be your servant.” From these, and other passages of like nature, it is very evident, that there is nothing in the life of Jesus Christ that gives any countenance to these wicked methods of propagating and supporting religion, that some of his pretended followers have made use of, but the strongest directions to the contrary.

^[392]It is indeed objected, that Christ says, “compel them to come in, that my house may be full:” but that this compulsion means nothing more than invitation and persuasion, is evident from the parallel place of scripture, where what St. Luke calls, ^[393]“compel them to come in,” is expressed by, “bid them to the marriage,” i. e. endeavour, not by force of arms, but by argument and reason, by importunity and earnestness, and by setting before men the promises and threatnings of the gospel, and thus addressing yourselves to their hopes and fears, to persuade and compel them to embrace my religion, and become the subjects of my kingdom; and in this moral sense of compulsion, the original word is often used.

^[394]But farther, it is, by a late writer, reckoned very surprising, that Christ should say, ^[395]“Think not I am come to send peace, I came not to send peace, but a sword; for I am come to set a man at variance with his father, and the daughter against her mother, &c.” But how is this so very surprising? or what man of common sense can mistake the meaning of the words, who reads the whole discourse? In the former part of it, it is expressly declared, that the most grievous persecutions should befal his disciples for his sake; that “brother should deliver up brother to death, and the father the child; and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” Can any man understand this of an intention in Christ to set people at variance? when it is a prediction only of what should be the consequence of publishing his gospel, through the malice and cruelty of its opposers; a prediction of what his disciples were to suffer, and not of what they were to make others suffer.

And as to that passage in Luke, ^[396]“I am come to send fire on the earth: and what will I, if it be already kindled? Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you nay, but rather division.” How is it explained by Christ himself? Why, in the very next words: “For from henceforth,” i. e. upon the publication of my religion and gospel, “there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three, &c.” Can any man need paraphrase and criticism to explain these passages of any thing, but of that persecution which should befal the preachers and believers of the gospel? or imagine it to be a prophetic description of a fire to be blown up by Christ to consume others, when the whole connection evidently refers it to a fire, that the opposers of his religion should blow up, to consume himself and followers? Jesus knew it was such a fire as would first consume himself. “I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?” or, as the words should be translated, “How do I wish it was already kindled? How do I wish it to break out on my own person, that I might glorify God by my sufferings and death?”death?” For as it follows, “I have a baptism to be baptised with,” a baptism with my own blood: “and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” After this account of his own sufferings, he foretels the same should befal his followers: “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you nay, but rather division;” i. e. as I myself must suffer to bear witness to the truth, so after my decease, such shall be the unreasonable and furious opposition to my gospel, as shall occasion divisions amongst the nearest relations, some of whom shall hate and persecute the other for their embracing my religion. And of consequence ^[397]“Christ did not declare, in the most express terms,” as the fore-mentioned writer asserts, “that he came to do that which we must suppose he came to hinder.” He did only declare, that he came to do what he was resolved not to hinder, i. e. to publish such a religion as his enemies would put him to death for, and as would occasion divisions amongst the nearest relations, through the unreasonable hatred and opposition that some would shew to others upon account of it. This matter is elsewhere clearly expressed by Christ: ^[398]“These things have I spoken to you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues; yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the father nor me,” i. e. have not understood either natural religion, or the religion of my gospel.

There is therefore nothing in the conduct or doctrines of Jesus Christ to countenance or encourage persecution. His temper was benevolent, his conduct merciful; and one governing design of all he said, was to promote meekness and condescension, universal charity and love. And in this all his apostles were careful imitators of his example: ^[399]“Let love,” saith St. Paul, “be without dissimulation; be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love, in honour preferring one another. ^[400]If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” And the love he recommended was such, ^[401]“as worketh no ill to his neighbour;” and which therefore he declares “to be the fulfilling of the law.”

And, lest different sentiments in lesser matters should cause divisions amongst christians, he commands, ^[402]“to receive him that is weak in the faith, not to doubtful disputations,” not to debates, or contentions about disputations, or disputable things. Upon account of such matters, he orders that none should ^[403]“despise or judge others, because God had received them;” ^[403]and because every man ought to be “fully persuaded in his own mind,” and because ^[404]“the kingdom of God was not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the holy ghost;” and because every one was to ^[405]“give an account of himself to God,” to whom alone, as his only master, he was to stand or fall. From these substantial reasons he infers, ^[406]“We then that are strong,” who have the most perfect understanding of the nature of christianity, and our christian liberty, ^[407]“ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves;” and having prayed for them, that the God of patience and consolation would grant them to “be like-minded one towards another,” according to, or after the example of Christ, that, notwithstanding the strength of some, and the weakness of others, they might, ^[408]“with one mind, and with one mouth, glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;” he adds, as the conclusion of his argument, ^[409]“Wherefore“Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.”

In his letters to the ^[410]Corinthians, he discovers the same divine and amiable spirit. In his first epistle he beseeches them, “by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that they would all speak the same thing, and that there should be no schism amongst them, but that they should be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment;” i. e. that they should all own and submit to Christ, as their only lord and head, and not rank themselves under different leaders, as he had been informed they had done; for that they were ^[411]“the body of Christ,” and all of them his members, and ought therefore to maintain that charity to one another, “which suffereth long, and is kind; which envieth not, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things; which is greater and more excellent than faith and hope, which fails not in heaven itself,” where faith and hope shall be at an end; and without which, though we could ^[412]“speak with the tongue of men and angels, should have the gift of prophesy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, and could remove mountains; yea, though we should bestow all our goods to feed the poor, and give our bodies to be burned, we should be only as sounding brass, and as a tinkling cymbal;” nothing in the account of God, nothing as to any real profit and advantage that will accrue to us. And, in his second epistle, he takes his leave of them, with this divine exhortation, and glorious encouragement: ^[413]“Finally brethren, farewell; be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind,” be affectionate, and kindly disposed to one another, as though you were influenced by one common mind: “Live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you.”

In his epistle to the Galatians,^[414] he gives us a catalogue of those works of the flesh which exclude men from the kingdom of God; such as “adultery, fornication,—hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings,” and the like; and then assures us, that “the fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance, against which there is no law:”law:” and, after having laid down this as an essential principle of christianity, that ^[415]“neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature;” as it is expressed in another place, “Faith which worketh by love;” he pronounces this truly apostolic benediction, ^[416]“As many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

The same divine and excellent strain runs through his letter to the Ephesians: ^[417]“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace;” and the term of this union, which he lays down, is the acknowledgment of one catholic church, one spirit, one Lord and Mediator, and “One God, even the Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in all.” The contrary vices, of ^[418]“bitterness and wrath, and anger and clamour, and evil-speaking and malice, are to be put away,” as things that “grieve the Holy Spirit of God?”^[419] and we must “be kind one to another, forgiving one another even as God, for Christ’s sake, hath forgiven us;^[420] and be followers of God, by walking in love, even as Christ hath also loved us, and hath given himself for us.”

His exhortation to the Philippians,^[421] is in the most moving terms: “If there be any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy; that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vain glory, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.”

In his exhortation to the Colossians, he warmly presses our cultivating the same disposition, and abounding in the same practice: ^[422]“Put“Put off all these, anger, wrath, malice;—put on as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, even as Christ forgave us. And above all these things, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness: and let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also ye are called in one body.”

In his directions to Timothy, he gives him this summary of all practical religion: ^[423]“The end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned;” and he ascribes men’s turning aside to vain jangling, to their having swerved from this great principle.

And, to mention no more passages on this head, I shall conclude this whole account with that amiable description of the wisdom that is from above, given by St. James: ^[424]“The“The wisdom that is from above is pure, and peaceable, and gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. But if we have bitter envying and strife in our hearts, we have nothing to glory in, but we lye against the truth,” i. e. belie our christian profession; for whatever false judgment we may pass upon ourselves, this “wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish; for where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.”

I have thrown all these excellent passages of the sacred writings together, that it may appear, in the most convincing light, that the scriptures have nothing in them to countenance the spirit, or any of the methods of persecution; and to confront the melancholy account I have given before of the progress and ravages caused by this accursed evil. Good God, how have the practices of christians differed from the precepts of christianity! Would one imagine that the authors of those dreadful mischiefs and confusions were the bishops and ministers of the christian church? That they had ever read the records of the christian religion? Or if they had, that they ever believed them?

But it may be objected, that whatever may be the precepts of the christian religion, yet the conduct even of the apostles themselves gives some countenance to the spirit and practice of persecution, and particularly the conduct of St. Paul; and that such powers are given to the guides and bishops of the christian church, as do either expressly or virtually include in them a right to persecute. Let us briefly examine each of these pretensions.

As to the practice of the apostles,^[425] Beza mentions two instances to vindicate the punishment of heretics. The first is that of Ananias and Sapphira, struck dead by Peter; and the other that of Elymas the sorcerer, struck blind by Paul. But how impertinently are both these instances alledged? Heresy was not the thing punished in either of them. Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for hypocrisy and lying; and for conspiring, if it were possible, to deceive God. Elymas was a jewish sorcerer, and false prophet; a subtle, mischievous fellow, an enemy to righteousness and virtue, who withstood the apostolic authority, and endeavoured, by his frauds, to prevent the conversion of the deputy to the christian faith. The two first of these persons were punished with death. By whom? What, by Peter? No: by the immediate hand of God. Peter gave them a reproof suitable to their wickedness; but as to the punishment, he was only the mouth of God in declaring it, even of that God who knew the hypocrisy of their hearts, and gave this signal instance of his abhorrence of it in the infancy of the christian church, greatly to discourage, and, if possible, for the future to prevent men thus dealing fraudulently and insincerely with him. And, I presume, if God hath a righta right to punish frauds and cheats in another world, he hath a right to do so in this; especially in the instance before us, which seems to have something very peculiar in it.

Peter expressly says to Sapphira, ^[426]“How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord?”Lord?” What can this tempting of the spirit of the Lord be, but an agreement between Ananias and his wife, to put this fraud on the apostle, to see whether or no he could discover it by the spirit he pretended to? This was a proper challenge to the spirit of God, which the apostles were endued with, and a combination to put the apostolic character to the trial. Had not the cheat been discovered, the apostle’s inspiration and mission would have been deservedly questioned; and as the state of christianity required that this divine mission should be abundantly established, Peter lets them know that their hypocrisy was discovered; and, to create the greater regard and attention to their persons and message, God saw fit to punish that hypocrisy with death.

As to Elymas the sorcerer,^[427] this instance is as foreign and impertinent as the other. Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus, had entertained at Paphos one Barjesus, a jew, a sorcerer; and hearing also that Paul and Barnabas were in the city, he sent for them to hear the doctrine they preached. Accordingly they endeavoured to instruct the deputy in the christian faith, but were withstood by Elymas, who by his subtleties and tricks, endeavoured to hinder his conversion. St. Paul therefore, in order to confirm his own divine mission, and to prevent the deputy’s being deceived by the frauds and sorceries of Elymas, after severely rebuking him for his sin, and opposition to christianity, tells him, not that the Proconsul ought to put him in jail, and punish him with the civil sword, but that God himself would decide the controversy, by striking the sorcerer himself immediately blind; which accordingly came to pass, to the full conviction of the Proconsul.

Now what is there in all this to vindicate persecution? God punishes wicked men for fraud and sorcery, who knew their hearts, and had a right to punish the iniquity of them. Therefore men may punish others for opinions they think to be true, and are conscientious in embracing, without knowing the heart, or being capable of discovering any insincerity in it. Or God may vindicate the character and mission of his own messengers, when wickedly opposed and denied, by immediate judgments inflicted by himself on their opposers. Therefore the magistrate may punish and put to death, without any warrant from God, such who believe their mission, and are ready to submit to it, as far as they understand the nature and design of it. Are these consequences just and rational? or would any man have brought these instances as precedents for persecution, that was not resolved, at all hazards, to defend and practise it?

But doth not St. Paul command to ^[428]“deliver persons to satan for the destruction of the flesh?” Doth he not ^[429]“wish that they were even cut off who trouble christians, and enjoin us to mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to his doctrine, and to avoid them, and not to eat with them?” Undoubtedly he doth. But what can be reasonably inferred from hence in favour of persecution, merely for the sake of opinions and principles? In all these instances, the things censured are immoralities and vices. The person who was delivered by St. Paul to satan, was guilty of a crime not so much as named by the gentiles themselves, the incestuous marriage of his father’s wife; and the persons we are, as christians, commanded not to keep company and eat with, are men of scandalous lives; such as fornicators, or covetous, or idolaters, or railers, or drunkards, or extortioners, making a profession of the christian religion, or, in St. Paul’s phrase, “called brethren;” a wise and prudent exhortation in those days especially, to prevent others from being corrupted by such examples, and any infamy thrown on the christian name and character. As to those whom the apostle “wishes cut off,” they were the persecuting Jews, who spread contention amongst christians, and taught them to bite and devour one another, upon account of circumcision, and such like trifles; men that were the plagues and corrupters of the society they belonged to. Men who caused such divisions, and who caused them out of a love to their own belly, deserved to have a mark set upon them, and to be avoided by all who regarded their own interest, or the peace of others.

What the apostle means by delivering to satan, I am not able certainly to determine. It was not, I am sure, the putting the person in jail, or torturing his body by an executioner, nor sending him to the devil by the sword or the faggot. One thing included in it, undoubtedly was his separation from the christian church; ^[430]“put away from amongst yourselves that wicked person:” which probably was attended with some bodily distemper, which, as it came from God, had a tendency to bring the person to consideration and reflection. The immediate design of it was the destruction of the flesh, to cure him of his incest, that, by repentance and reformation, his “spirit might be saved in the day of Christ;” and the power by which the apostle inflicted this punishment, was peculiar to himself, which God gave him ^[431]“for edification, and not for destruction:” So that whatever is precisely meant by delivering to satan, it was the punishment of a notorious sin: a punishment that carried the marks of God’s hand, and was designed for the person’s good, and was actually instrumental to recover and save him. 2 Cor. ii.

But what resemblance is there in all this to persecution, in which there is no appearance of the hand of God, nor any marks but those of the cruelty and vengeance of men; no immorality punished, and generally speaking, nothing that in its nature deserves punishment, or but what deserves encouragement and applause. And it is very probable that this is what St. Paul means by his “wishing those cut off” who disturbed the peace of the Galatian christians, by spreading divisions amongst them, and exciting persecutions against them; though I confess, if St. Paul meant more, and prayed to God that those obstinate and incorrigible enemies to christianity, who, for private views of worldly interest, raised perpetual disturbances and persecutions wherever they came, might receive the just punishment of their sins, and be hereby prevented from doing farther mischief, I do not see how this would have been inconsistent with charity, or his own character as an inspired apostle.

It may possibly be urged, that though the things censured in these places are immoralities, yet that there are other passages which refer only to principles; and that the apostle Paul speaks against them with great severity: as particularly, ^[432]“If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” And again, ^[433]“A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.” As to the first of these, nothing can be more evident, than that the apostle pronounces an anathema only against those who subverted the christian religion; such who taught that it was insufficient to salvation, without circumcision, and submission to the Jewish law. As the gospel he taught was what he had received from Christ, he had, as an apostle, a right to warn the churches he wrote to against corrupting the simplicity of it: and to pronounce an anathema, i. e. to declare in the name of his great Master, that all such false teachers should be condemned who continued to do so: And this is the utmost that can be made of the expression; and therefore this place is as impertinently alledged in favour of persecution, as it would be to alledge those words of Christ, “He that believeth not shall be condemned.” The anathema pronounced was the divine vengeance; it was Anathema Maranatha, to take place only when the Lord should come to judgment, and not to be executed by human vengeance.

As to heresy, against which such dreadful outcries have been raised, it is taken indifferently in a good or a bad sense in the scripture. In the bad sense, it signifies, not an involuntary error, or mistake of judgment, into which serious and honest minds may fall, after a careful inquiry into the will of God; but a wilful, criminal, corruption of the truth for worldly ends and purposes. Thus it is reckoned by ^[434]St. Paul himself amongst the works of the flesh, such as adultery, fornication, variance, strifes, and the like; because heresy is embraced for the sake of fleshly lusts, and always ministers to the serving them. Thus St. Peter: ^[435]“There were false prophets also amongst the people, even as there shall be false teachers amongst you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction; and many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of; and through covetousness shall they, with feigned words, make merchandize of you; whom he farther describes as walking after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness,” and as given to almost all manner of vices. This is heresy, and “denying the Lord that bought us,” and the only meaning of the expression, as used by the apostle; though it hath been applied by weak or designing men to denote all such as do not believe their metaphysical notion of the Trinity, or the Athanasian creed. Hence it is that St. Paul gives it, as the general character of an heretic, that ^[436]“he is subverted,” viz. from the christian faith; “sinneth,” viz. by voluntarily embracing errors, subversive of the gospel, in favour of his lusts, on which account he is “self-condemned,” viz. by his own conscience, both in the principles he teaches, and the vile uses to which he makes them serve. So that though sincere and honest inquirers after truth, persons who fear God, and practise righteousness, may be heretics in the esteem of men, for not understanding and believing their peculiarities in religion; yet they are not and cannot be heretics, according to the scripture description of heresy, in the notion of which there is always supposed a wicked heart, causing men wilfully to embrace and propagate such principles as are subversive of the gospel, in order to serve the purposes of their avarice, ambition, and lust.

Such heresy as this is unquestionably one of the worst of crimes, and heretics of this kind are worthy to be rejected. It must be confessed, that heresy hath been generally taken in another sense, and to mean opinions that differ from the established orthodoxy, or from the creeds of the clergy, that are uppermost in power: who have not only taken on them to reject such as have differed from them, from their communion and church, but to deprive them of fortune, liberty, and life. But as St. Paul’s notion of heresy entirely differs from what the clergy have generally taught about it, theirs may be allowed to be a very irrational and absurd doctrine, and the apostle’s remain a very wise and good one; and though they have gone into all the lengths of wickedness to punish what they have stigmatized with the name of heresy, they have had no apostolic example or precept to countenance them; scripture heretics being only to be rejected from the church, according to St. Paul; and, as to any farther punishment, it is deferred till the Lord shall come.

As to the powers given to the guides, or overseers, or bishops of the church, I allow their claims have been exceeding great. They have assumed to themselves the name of the church and clergy, hereby to distinguish themselves from the flock of Christ. They have taken on them, as we have seen, to determine, mend, and alter the faith; to make creeds for others, and oblige them to subscribe them; and to act as though our Savior had divested himself of his own rights, and given unto them “all power in heaven and earth.” But these claims have as little foundation in the gospel as in reason.

The words clergy and church, are never once used in scripture to denote the bishops, or other officers, but the christian people. St. Peter advises the presbyterers ^[437]“to feed the flock of God, and to exercise the episcopal office willingly, not as lording it over the heritages,” or clergy of God. And St. Paul, writing to his Ephesians, and speaking of their privileges as christians, says, that “by Christ they were made God’s peculiar lot,” or heritage, or clergy. In like manner the body of christians in general, and particular congregations in particular places, are called the church, but the ministers of the gospel never in contra-distinction to them. It is of all believers that St. Peter gives that noble description, that they are “a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices; a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, and a peculiar people,” or a people for his peculiar heritage, or “purchased possession,” as the word is rendered. Eph. i. 14. So that to be the church, the clergy, and the sacred priests of God, is an honour common to all christians in general by the gospel charter. These are not the titles of a few only, who love to exalt themselves above others.

Undoubtedly, the order of the christian worship requires that there should be proper persons to guide and regulate the affairs of it. And accordingly St. Paul tells us, ^[438]“that Christ gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers;” different officers, according to the different state and condition of his church. To the apostles extraordinary powers were given, to fit them for the service to which they were called; and, to enable them to manage these powers in a right manner, they were under the peculiar conduct of the spirit of God, Thus our Saviour, after his resurrection, breathed on his disciples the Holy Ghost, and said, ^[439]“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained;” a commission of the same import with that which he gave them before, Matt. xviii. 18. “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” To “bind, is to retain men’s sins; and to loose, is to remit their sins.” And this power the apostles had; and it was absolutely necessary they should have it, or they could never have spread his religion in the world.

But wherein did this binding and loosing, this retaining and remitting sins, consist? What, in their saying to this man, I absolve you from your sins; and, to the other, I put you under the sentence of damnation? would any considerate man in the world have ever credited their pretensions to such an extravagant power? or can one single instance be produced of the apostles pretending to exercise it? No: their power of binding and loosing, of retaining and remitting sins, consisted in this, and in this principally, viz. their fixing the great conditions of men’s future salvation, and denouncing the wrath of Almighty God against all, who, through wilful obstinacy, would not believe and obey the gospel. And the commission was given them in the most general terms, “whose soever sins ye retain, &c.” not because they were to go to particular persons, and peremptorilyperemptorily say, “you shall be saved, and you shall be damned;” butbut because they were to preach the gospel to gentiles as well as jews, and to fix those conditions of future happiness and misery that should include all the nations of the earth, to whom the gospel should be preached.

This was their proper office and work, as apostles; and, in order to this, they had the spirit given them, to bring all things that Christ had said to their remembrance, and to instruct them fully in the nature and doctrines of the gospel. And as they have declared the whole counsel of God to the world, they have loosed and bound all mankind, “even the very bishops and pastors of the church, as well as others,” as they have fixed those conditions of pardon and mercy, of future happiness and misery for all men, from which God will not recede, to the end of time. This was a power fit to be entrusted with men under the conduct of an unerring spirit, and with them only; whereas the common notion of sacerdotal or priestly absolution, as it hath no foundation in this commission to the apostles, nor in any passage of the sacred writings, is irrational and absurd, and which the priests have no more power to give, than any other common christian whatsoever; no, nor than they have to make a new gospel.

I would add, that as the apostles received this commission from Christ, they were bound to confine themselves wholly to it and not to exceed the limits of it. They were his servants who sent them; and the message they received from him, that, and that only, were they to deliver to the world. Thus St. Paul says of himself, that ^[440]“God had committed to him the world of reconciliation,” and that he was “an ambassador for Christ;” that he ^[441]“preached not himself, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and himself the servant of others for Jesus’ sake;” that he had ^[442]“no dominion over others faith,” no power to impose upon them arbitrary things, or articles of faith, which he had not received from Christ; and that accordingly he ^[443]“determined to know nothing but Christ, and him crucified,”crucified,” i. e. to preach nothing but the pure and uncorrupted doctrines of his gospel; and that this was his great comfort, that he had “not shunned to declare the counsel of God.”

If then the inspired apostles were to confine themselves to what they received from God, and had no power to make articles of faith, and fix terms of communion and salvation, other than what they were immediately ordered to do by Christ, it is absolutely impossible that the clergy can have that power now; who have, as I apprehend, no immediate commission from Christ, nor any direct inspiration from his Holy Spirit. Nor is there any thing in the circumstances of the world to render such a power desirable; because the apostles have shewn us all things that we need believe or practise as christians, and commanded the preachers of the gospel to teach no other doctrines but what they received from them. Hence St. Peter’s advice to the elders, that they, ^[444]“should feed the flock of God, not as lording it over the heritage.” And St. Paul, in his epistles to Timothy, instructing him in the nature of the gospel doctrines and duties, tells him, that ^[445]“by putting the brethren in remembrance of these things, he would approve himself a good minister of Jesus Christ;” and commands him to ^[446]“take heed to himself, and to the doctrines” he had taught him, “and to continue in them;” charging him, ^[447]“in the sight of God, and before Christ Jesus, to keep the commandment given him, that which was committed to his trust, without spot, unrebukeable, till the appearance of Christ Jesus.” These were the things to which Timothy was to confine himself, and to commit to others, that they might be continually preached in the christian church; and, of consequence, it is the same apostolic doctrine that the bishops, or elders, or ministers of the church, are to instruct their hearers in now, as far as they understand it, without mixing any thing of their own with it, or of any other persons whatsoever.

The great end and design of the ministerial office, is for the ^[448]“perfecting of the saints, and the edifying of the body of Christ.” Hence the elders are commanded “to take heed to themselves, and to the flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them bishops, to feed the church of God.” They are likewise exhorted to “hold fast the faithful word, as they had been taught, that by sound doctrine they may be able to exhort and convince others.” They are to “give attendance to reading, exhortation, and doctrine,” and to put others in remembrance of the great truths of the gospel: charging them, before the Lord, not to strive about unprofitable words, but to “be gentle to all men,” and “in meekness to instruct even those who oppose.” They are to “contend earnestly for the faith,” as well as other christians, but then it is for “that faith which was once delivered to the saints,” and, even for this, ^[449]“the servant of the Lord is not to fight.” He is not to use carnal but spiritual weapons; nor to put on any armour but that of righteousness on the right hand, and on the left. They are to ^[450]“speak the truth,” but it must be ^[451]“in love.” They should be “zealously affected,” but it should be always “in a good thing.” They must “stop the mouths of unruly and vain talkers,” but it must be by “uncorruptness of doctrine, gravity, sincerity, and sound speech, that cannot be condemned.”

Upon these, and the like accounts, they are said to be “over us in the Lord”Lord”, “to rule us,” and to be “our guides;” words that do not imply any dominion that they have over the consciences of others, nor any right in them to prescribe articles of faith and terms of communion for others. This they are expressly forbidden, and commanded to preach the word of God only, and pronounced accursed if they preach any other gospel than that which they have received from the apostles. And, of consequence, when we are bid “to obey” and “submit ourselves“ to them, it is meant then, and then only, when they “rule us in the Lord;“ when they speak to us the word of God, and “labour in the word and doctrine.” In all other cases, they have no power, nor is there any obedience due to them. They are to be respected, and to “be had in double honour for their work sake,”sake,” i. e. when they “preach not themselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord,” and when their faith and conversation is such, as to become worthy our imitation. But if “they teach otherwise, and consent not to the words of our Lord Jesus; if they doat about words whereof come envy, strife, and railing, supposing that gain is godliness, from such we are commanded to withdraw ourselves.” The episcopal character, however otherwise greatly venerable, then forfeits the reverence due to it, and becomes contemptible.

So that there are no powers or privileges annexed to the episcopal or ministerial character, in the sacred writings, that are in the least favourable to the cause of persecution, or that countenance so vile and detestable a practice. As to the affair of excommunication, by which the clergy have set the world so often in a flame, there is nothing in the sacred records that confines the right of exercising it to them, nor any command ever to exercise it, but towards notorious and scandalous offenders. The incestuous Corinthian was delivered over to satan by the church in full assembly, on which account his punishment or censure is said to be ^[452]“by many.” And though St. Paul bids Titus to “reject an heretic,” he also bids the Corinthians to ^[453]“put away that wicked person from amongst them,” which had brought such a scandal upon their church; and the “Thessalonians, to withdraw themselves from every brother that should walk disorderly.” So that as the clergy have no right, from the new testament, to determine in controversies of faith, nor to create any new species of heresy, so neither have they any exclusive right to cut off any persons from the body of the church, much less to cut them off from it for not submitting to their creeds and canons; and, of consequence, no power to mark them out by this act to the civil magistrate, as objects of his indignation and vengeance.

I have been the longer on this head, that I might fully vindicate the christian revelation from every suspicion of being favourable to persecution. Notwithstanding some late insinuations of this kind that have been thrown out against it, by its professed adversaries, let but the expressions of scripture be interpreted with the same candour as any other writings are, and there will not be found a single sentence to countenance this doctrine and practice. And therefore though men of corrupt minds, or weak judgments, have, for the sake of worldly advantages, or through strong prejudices, entered into the measures of persecution under pretence of vindicating the christian religion; yet, as they have no support and foundation in the gospel of Christ, the gospel ought not to be reproached for this, or any other faults of those who profess to believe it. Let persecution be represented as a most detestable and impious practice, and let persecutors of every denomination and degree bear all the reproaches they deserve, and be esteemed, as they ought to be, the disturbers, plagues, and curses of mankind, and the church of God; but let not the religion of Jesus Christ suffer for their crimes, nor share any part of that scandal, which is due only to those who have dishonoured their character and profession, and abused the most beneficent and kind institution that ever appeared in the world.

It is in order to expose this shameful practice, and render it the abhorrence of all mankind, that I have drawn up the foregoing sheets; and, I presume, that no one who hath not put off humanity itself, can read them without becoming sentiments of indignation. The true use to be made of that history, is, not to think dishonourably of Christ and his religion; not to contemn and despise his faithful ministers, who, by preaching and practice, by reason and argument, endeavour to propagate knowledge, piety, righteousness, charity, and all the virtues of private and social life. The blessing of the Almighty God be with them. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ succeed and prosper them. I say therefore, the use of the foregoing history is to teach men to adhere closely to the doctrines and words of Christ and his apostles, to argue for the doctrines of the gospel with meekness and charity, to introduce no new terms of salvation and christian communion; not to trouble the christian church with metaphysical subtleties and abstruse questions, that minister to quarrelling and strife; not to pronounce censures, judgments, and anathemas, upon such as may differ from us in speculative truths; not to exclude men from the rights of civil society, nor lay them under any negative or positive discouragements for conscience-sake, or for their different usages and rites in the externals of christian worship; but to remove those which are already laid, and which are as much a scandal to the authors and continuers of them, as they are a burden to those who labour under them. These were the sole views that influenced me to lay before my reader the foregoing melancholy account; not any design to reflect on the clergy in general, whose office and character I greatly reverence; and who, by acting according to the original design of their institution, would prove the most useful set of men in every nation and kingdom, and thereby secure to themselves all the esteem they could reasonably desire in the present world; and, what is infinitely more valuable, the approbation of their great Lord and Master in another.

The following Appendix by the Editor, contains hints on the recent persecutions in this country; a brief statement of the circumstances relating to Lord Sidmouth’s Bill; a circumstantial detail of the steps taken to obtain the new Toleration Act, with the Act itself, and other important matter.

Clyx.com

SECT. I. The Clergy the great promoters of persecution.

SECT. II. The Things for which Christians have persecuted one another generally of small importance.

SECT. III. Pride, ambition, and covetousness, the grand sources of persecution.

SECT. IV. The decrees of councils and synods of no authority in matters of faith.