Skip to main content

Full text of "The works of the eminent and most learned prelate Dr. Edw. Stillingfleet, late Lord Bishop of Worchester : together with his life and character"

See other formats 


^v* 


*.y-t 


<'\ 


V,:...      . 


1 


^  'i 


•SI 


1 


§ 


/ 


> 

^ 


(bc-^^^a/r/  O/a/A-  >■  /r^r^/'. 


ORIGINES  BRITANNIC/Ei 

OR,    THE 

ANTIQUITIES 

OF     THE 

Britifh  Churches. 

w  I  T  H    A 

PR  E  F  A  C  E 

Concerning fome  pretended  Antiquities 
Relating  to  BRITAIN: 

In  Vindication  of  the  Bishop  of  St.  Afapb. 


By  the  Right  Reverend  Father  in  G  o  d, 
Edward    Still  ingfleet,    D.  D. 

Late  Lord  Bilhop  of  Worcefier. 


%\)t  X!)irn  molume. 


LONDON, 

Printed  by  J.  Heptinfiall,  for  H  e  n  r  y  and  Geob.geMortlock, 
at  the  Vhzmx  in  St.  'Paul's  Church-yard,  MDCCX. 


!  i 


THE 

PREFACE 

THE  Dejign  of  the  foUotcwg  Booh  if  to  give  as  clear  and  dijiini$  a 
View  of  the  State  andCondition  efthe  Britilli  Churches,  from  their 
firjl  Plantation  to  the  Converfion  of  the  Saxons,  as  could  he  had  at 
fo great  a  diflame,  and  hy  fuch  a  degree  of  Light  as  is  left  us  concerning 
them.  When  Ifirji  undertook  this  Snbje^,  I  intended  no  more  than  an  Intro- 
duflion  to  fomething  elfe  5  but  being  entred  into  it,  and  laying  the  fever al 
parts  of  it  before  me,  I  found  fo  many  common  mijiakes  to  be  re^ified,  fo  ma- 
ny cofijiderable  parts  of  Church-Hi flory,  Tohich  tended  to  iUuflrate  it,  that 
either  I  mufigive  a  very  imperfe^  Account  of  it,  or  fo  much  exceed  the  pro- 
portions  of  a  Preface,  that  I  concluded  I  had  better  alter  my  defign,  and 
vpith  more  Pains  and  Materials  make  it  an  intire  Work  ofitfelf.  To  this 
end  I  laid  afide  vohatever  related  to  the  firjl  occafion  of  my  undertaking  it, 
referving  that  for  its  proper  Place  and  Seafon  5  and  then  I  refumed  the  conft- 
deration  ofthisprefent  Argument,  with  larger  and  freer  thoughts,  and  re', 
folved  to  attempt fomething  towards  the  refcuing  this  part  of  Church-Hi^ory, 
Tpherein  we  are  fo  much  concerned,  from  thofe  Fabulous  Antiquities  which 
had  fo  much  debafed  the  Value  and  eclipfed  the  Glory  of  it. 

This  I  knew  was  a  Work,  not  only  of  much  Labour  and  Indufiry  infearching 
and  comparing  good  and  bad  Authors  Printed  and  MS.  foreign  and  dome- 
flick :,  but  which  required  more  than  ordinary  care  and  judgnient  in  fepara- 
ting  the  Oar  from  the  Drofs  5  which  being  done  as  it  ought,  the  quejlion  might 
be,  whether  it  would  not  fall  out  here  as  in  fome  Mines,  that  the  quantity 
of  good  Oar  would  be  fo  fmaU  as  hardly  to  cempenfate  for  thePains  of  digging 
and  refining  it.  But  this  was  not  all  the  difficulty  to  be  forefeen  ;  for  fome 
Mens  Eyes  arefliUfo  tender  as  not  to  be  able  to  bear  the  firong  imprejfions  of 
Light  5  efpecially  in  what  relates  to  the  Antiquities  of  their  own  Countrey. 

For  whatever  the  reafon  be,  of  that  Love  Mankind  do  naturally  bear  to 
the  Countrey  they  are  born  in,  we  find  it  fo  univerfal,  that  even  the  Lap- 
landers and  Samoyeds  admire  no  Countrey  like  their  own  j  and  are  impati- 
ent of  any  contradi&ion  to  their  Fancies  of  the  Beauties  and  Conveniencies 
of  it.  And  it  is  pity  to  rob  Men  of  any  fuch  falfe  Idea's,  not  entrenching 
vpon  Religion  or  Morality,  which  tendfo  much  to  the  Eafe  and  Comfort  of 
their  Lives.  For,  if  Men  will  be  in  love  with  a  cold  Air  and  a  barren  Soil, 
with  Ice  and  Mountains,  with  living  in  Caves  and  Hutts,  nnd  travelling 
upon  the  hardned  Snow,  towhatpurpofefhould  any  go  about  to  confute  them, 
by  proving  that  the  Elyfian  Fields  are  more  pleafant  than  thofe  Northern 
Climares  ?  And  fo  firong  is  the  Inclination  that  is  rooted  in  Mankind  to 
the  Love  of  their  Countrey,  that  fome  learned  and  witty  Men,  who  have 
been  born  in  none  ofthemnfi  tempting  Climates  have  ufed great  Art  and  In- 
dujiry  to  reprefent  them  with  fuch  advantage  to  the  World,  as  though  Para- 
dife  were  but  another  Name  for  their  Native  Countrey.  Of  which  we  have  a 
remarkable  injiamein  the  I  ate  Work  of  an  ingenious  Perfon,  who  with  mighty 
pains  hath  endeavoured  to  p'ove  not  only  that  Plato'j  Atlantick  Ifland,  but 

the 


ii  The    Preface. 

P'^^'a    *^^  Klyfian  Fields  themfelves  are  to  be  found  in  one  of  the  remotejl  Northern 

lantic.c.7.  Countries. 

*3'  And  it  is  to  little  purpofe  to  go  about  to  alter  fuch  Mens  Opinions,    which 

are  not  fo  much  founded  on  Keafon,  as  on  an  over  bearing  Pajjionfor  their  na- 
tive Soil,  which  hurts  no  other  Part  of  the  World,  and  makes  their  own  feem 
more  pleafant  to  themfelvcs.  Some  will  be  apt  to  think,  the  greateft  Punijh- 
ment  to  fuch  Per  fans,  is  to  let  them  live  at  Home  and  enjoy  their  own  Opini- 
ons ;  but  I  rather  look  on  it  as  aneffeBofthe  Wifdom  of  Divine  Providence 
to  make  Men  contented  with  the  Places  of  their  Habitations  :  For  if  all  Man- 
kind Jhould  love  and  admire  one  and  the  fame  Countrey,  there  would  be  nothing 
but  dejiroying  one  another  in  hopes  to  enjoy  it  j  whereas  now,  fince  the  true 
Paradife  is  loji,  itfeems  to  he  mofi  convenient  for  the  World,  that  every  Na- 
tion Jhould  believe  they  have  it  at  Nome..~,j^^y  ai*.  •*;  t'- .'.VvVw 

If  therefore  any  of  our  Neighbour  Nations  pJouid  tbinh  their  own  the  richefiy 
thepleafanteji,  the  fruitfuUeft  Countrey  in  the  World,  I  fijould  by  no  meant 
think  it  fit  to  difpute  it  with  theaty  no  more  than  I  would  the  Wifdom  or 
Goodnefs  of  their  Parents.  For,  however  the  Truth  of  things  be^  it  is  befl. 
for  Children  to  believe  veell  of  them '^  and  it  maj  prove  of  very  ill  confequence 
to  alter  a  mijiakengood  Opinion  in  them  ^  for  it  makes  them  lefs  content ed, 
mdlefs  fit  to  be  governed  than  before  ;  and  living  under  fuch  a  mifperfuafion 
can  never  dot^emfo  much  hurt,  as  the  mifeafon able  difcovery  of  their  Error 
doth.  From  hence  I  look  on  all  National  parrels  as  very  foolijh  and  mif- 
chievoiu,  it  being  reafanable  that  all  Perfons  fijould  love  their  own  Countrey 
as  they  do  their  Parents.  5  and  t^o  Man  ought  tofuffer  in  his  efieem  far  that 
which  it  was  never  in  his  Pomerto  help.  But  wbofoever  fixes  an  ill  CharaBer 
Hpona  Perfon  on  the  account  of  his  Countrey,  makes  a  whole  Nation  ^s  Ene- 
mies^ which  no  wife  Man  will  ever  do  j  and  whoever  doth  it,  will  me^  time 
or  other feecaufe  to leepent  his  Follj/r  ,^.^ .  >, ,  \., ^  ,1, 

But  is  it  not  pojfible  for  learned  ana  ingettudui  Men  to  enquire  into  and 
debate  the  fever  al  Antiquities  of  their  Nations,  without  making  a  National 
Quarrel  a^out  them  .<*  In  matter  of  Self-defence  there  is  a  Mbderamen  in- 
cul.patJE  tutel^/«>  be  obferved-y  andfo  there  ought  certainly  to  he  in  the  D#- 
fince  of  our  Countrey  ;  efpesially  when  the  Difpute  relates  neither  to  the  Safe- 
ty, nor  Profit,  nor  the  true  Honour  or  Efieem  of  it,  but  only  to  a  mere  point 
^Antiquity  ;  wherein  wife  and  learned  Men  may  difier  from  each  other, 
that  are  Natives  of  the  fame  Countrey.  And  thefe  matters  are  not  to  he  de- 
cided in  the  Field;  nor  at  the  Bar,  nor  by  a  majority  of  Voices,  but  depend 
upon  the  comparing  of  ancient  Hifiories,  the  credibility  ofTefiimonies,  and 
afagacity  in  fearching,  and  skill  in  judging  concerning  them.  It  is  not  e- 
iiery  one  that  can  plead  eloquently  at  the  Bar,  or  quote  Authors  at  fecond 
Hand,  or  difpute  warmly  out  of  common  Places,  that  is  prefentlyfit  to  judge 
about  fitch  things  ;  fir  he  that  takes  upon  him  to  do  that  ought  not  Only  to 
have  a  general  skill  in  Antiquity  and  thebefi  Afithort,  but  to  compare  the 
Hifiories  and.  Annals,  the  Succefiions  and  the  Settlements  of  the  Neighbour 
Nations  together,  and  then  with  great  impartiality  to  deliver  his  Judg- 
ment.^ but  by  no  means  to  efpoufe  any  particular  Intereijt,  as  though  he 
were  retained  on  that  fide.  Which  he  plainly  difcovers  if  he  appear  re- 
fulved  to  maintain  one  fide  againfi  the  firongeji  evidence,  and  to  cry 
dawn  the  other  in  an  ignominious  and  reproachful  manner  5  as  though 
nothing  but  psiitkuhr  Piques  4»<a!  Aniraofities,  or  which  is  far  worfe,  ill 
Will  to  the  Government,  could  lead  Men  into  fuch  debates  5  nay 
as  though  it  were  a  degree  of  Lefe-Majefty,  (  as  it  is  termed )  to 
call  in  quefiionfome  very  remote  and  very  uncertain  Tractions  about  thefirji 

Sue* 


The    Preface.  in 


Succejjiort  of  the   Kings  of  a  Neighbour   Nation.     This  I  have   particu- 
lar reafon  to  take  notice  of   from   the  ufage    the  very  learned  and  judici' 
oxfBifhop  of  St.  Afaph  hath  lately  met  with  in  this  kind,   merely  hecaufe  in  Hiftorical 
his  late  excellent  Book  he  rejecls  the  long  SuccelTlon  of  Rings  from  Fergus  ^^^^^f 
the  Son  of  Ferquard^  and  from  the  time  of  Alexander's  taking  of  fi^z^jW  5  church 
iphich  he  doth  chiefly  on  thefe  trvo  Grounds^    I.  Becaufe  he  proves  fi-om good  Govern- 
Authorities  in  his  Book,  that  the  Scots  could  not  be  fo  early  fettled  in  Bri-  cr^Vfir;- 
tain.      2.  Becaitfe  thefe  ScotiQi  Hiftorians  who  have  ajferted  it  are  not  tam  and 
of  fufficieut   Authority  to  be  relied  upon  which  he  Jhews  at  large  in  his^"^'*'"^- 
Preface. 

Now  upon  this  occa/ion.    His  Majefly's  learned  Advocate  in  Scotland^ 
hath  beenpleafed  to  think  it  a  part  of  his  Duty  toanfrver  this  part  oftheBi- 
Jljops  Book,  not  without  fome  kind  of  fharpnefs  and  unhandfome  Reflexions 
on  a  Perfon  of  his  Chara^er  and  Merit  ^  but  none  like  this.  That  he  admires  Letter  to 
that  anyof  theSubjefts  ofGreat-Britain  did  not  think  it  a  degree  of  Lefe-  Lord 
Majefty  to  injure  and  (horten  the  Royal  Lin«  of  their  Kings.  But  there  ^£^*p"J',, 
More  Reafon  to  admire  at  the  firangenefs  of  this  Accufation,    unlefs  it  were 
intended  to  fl)ew  that  he  could  as  well  profecute  as  write  againft  the  Bifliop 
by  virtue  of  his  Office,  for  difputing  their  Antiquities.     As  though  the  fun- 
damental Coji^itxttion  of  the  liritifb  Monarchy  were  at  all  concerned  in  the 
Credit  o/Hcdtor  Boethius,   for  upon  it,  as  I/hall  prefentlyfkew,  the  main 
Jirefs  of  this  Matter  doth  reji. 

But  becaufe  thefe  are  dangerous  Infnuations,  and  may  as  well  be  urged  a- 
gainftfome  part  of  the  following  Book,    I  fhall  here  make  it  clear  how  very 
unjuft  and  unreafonable  they  are.  For  it  is  not  the  Antiquity  of  the  Royal 
Line  which  is  in  difpute,,  but  the  Succeflion  of  it  infuch  a  Place  3  the  Irifh 
Antiquaries  carrying  the  Succefllon  much  farther  back  than  Heftor  Boethi-  y  ^.^^^^^ 
us,  or  Lefly,  or  Buchanan  do.  And  therefore  they  charge  others  far  more  an.  Luci- 
with  (hortning  the  Royal  Line,  making  it  to  begin  with  Fergus  5    when  "™  '" 
ihey  derive  it  long  before  by  a  continued  Succejflon  from  Simon  Brek,  and  Eyerf.  p. 
Herimon,    and  Gathelos,    who  they  fay  was  but  fix  Defcentsfrom  Japhet.  »48.  249, 
But  if  there  be  any  degree  of  Lefe-Majefty   (^for  I  am  very  unwilling  to 
put  thefe  hard  Words  into  proper  Englifh  )    in  thofe  who  debate  any  thing 
wherein  the  Honour  of  the  Royal  Line  is  concerned,    let  them  clear  them- 
felvesofit,  who  lay  the  Foundation  of  the  Monarchy  in  the  Eledion  <?/ 
Fergus.     For  that  is  truly  thejiate  of  the  Cafe  5    thofe  who  contend  fo  ear- 
neflly  for  the  Succeffion  of  the  Royal  ]Jmefrom  Fergus  the  Son  of  Fer- 
quard,  placing  his  Title  to  r^e  Monarchy  in  the  Choice  of  the  Heads  of  the 
Tribes ;  which  will  appear  from  the  Words  of  Hedtor  Boethius,    who  is  in 
truth  the  main  fupport  of  all  this  Tradition. 

For,  although  Fordon  doth  mention  the  Succeffion  of  many  Kings  from 
Fergus  the  Son  <?/Ferquard  to  Fergus  IL  yet  he  profefles  he  could  find  no- 
thing particular  concerning  them '^    although  he  quotes  feveral  QhtonicXes, 

and  we  are  told  he  had  the  View  of  their  hnx\d^s,  fuch  as  .     .         j     .   •    „      -c- 

,  A-r>  n       c  j\l     m  U  A  pnmoquidemhujusRegniFer- 

they  were,  ofVaily,  bcoon  andother  Places,  nenames  giKiofiiioFerchardiadhuncRcgem 

indeed  45  Rings,    but  he  defires  to  be  excufed  as  to  FergufiumfiiiumErchinciufive,4y. 

thefeyeral  times  of  their  Reigns,   for  he  had  not  ^^1^'^:;^^^^^^:^ 

met  with  them  written  at  large,   but  from  the  time  rum  figiiiacim  diftinguere  tempora 

of  Ferpus  \\.  he  promifeth  to  be  very  diftinft  and  pnncip«uum  ad  pr^fens  omim- 

•      I  -v      ^^       f  TT   n.       r>      .L-  ^  mus,  nam  ad  plenum  Scnpta  non 

particular,     let  ajter  htm  comes  Hector  Boethius,  of  reperimus.  Fcrdon  scotkhr.  i.^-cz. 
mhom  the  learned  Advocate  tells  us  (hat  Erafmus  faid 

he  could  not  lye  (  wh/ch  comes  very  near  to  Infallibility  in  Matter  of  Defence 
Faft  )    and  he  is  as  diflinS  and  particular  in  the  firft  Succeffion  as  he  is  °^^^il^°' 

a  ift^c.f.3^. 


IV 


The    Preface. 


f.  10.  2. 


p.<. !.  19 


f.  10.  2. 


i»  f^e  fecond.  F/<j/«  whence  comes  thk  mghty  difference  .<?  Of  this  he  in- 
forms us  from  Heftor  Boethius  himfelf  (  and.  can  we  have  a  better  Authori- 
ty than  hk  that  could  not  lye  .«?  )  That  he  had  feveral  Books  from  Icolm- 
kill,  which  he  followed  in  writing  his  Hiftory.  /  cannot  now  enter  up- 
on the  conf deration  of  the  Authority  of  thefe  hooks,  (of  which  afer- 
wards  )  hftt^  as  far  as  yet  appears,  it  depends  upon  the  Credibility  of 
Heaor. 

But  that  which  lam  now  to  fiew  is,   that  //Hedor  Boethius  his  Au- 
thority be  allowed,  thofe  who  lengthen  the  Royal  Line  do  more  Injury  to 
the  Monarchy  than  thofe  who  jhorten  it.     For  thefir(1:  Account  he  gives  of 
!.  I.  f.  6.  it  is  this,    "  That  the  Scots  in  Britain  being  prejfed  by  the  Pids  and  Bri- 
'  tains,  they  fent  over  into  Ireland /»r  Ajjijiance  5    Ferquard  fint  his  Son 
'  Fergus  with  Supplies  5   who,  faith  he,  lefc  it  to  the  choice  of  the  Heads 
'  of  the  Tribes^  what  Government  they  would  have,  whether  a  Monarchy, 
'  Ariftocracy  or  a  Commonwealth ;  and  they  pitched  upon  a  Monarchy, 
*  and  madeYexgns  their  King:    which  he  faith,    was  Jujl  ^^o  Tears  be- 
'  fore  Chrift'j-  Nativity.     Afer  which  he  fets  down  Fergus  his  owning 
that  he  received  his  Authority  from  the  People  ;  and  their  Fundamen- 
tal Contraft  to  adhere  to  him  and  to  his  Line,  which  if  he  may  be  belie- 
ved,  was  ingraven  in  Marble  Tables,   and  then  the  Agrarian  Law  fol- 
low d.     And  (  which  is  very  obfervable  )    the  firji  Defign  we  find  laid 
for  altering  the  Succeffion  of  the  Crown,  and  excluding  the  next  Heir, 
is  in  Heftor  Boethius  hk  Account  of  the  immediate  Snccejfor  to  Fergus  the 
Son  tf/Ferquard.     For  nofwithfianding  the  binding  Oath  to  the  Pofterity 
o/Fergus,  yet  immediately  after  hk  Death,    he  faith,    Feritharis  was  cho- 
fen  King,  although  Fergus  left  Ferlegus  hk  Son  a>td  Heir  ^   and  not  only 
fo,  but  a  haw,  faith  he,  was  paji,  excluding  the  next  Heir  from  any  Right 
to  Government  till  he  attained  to  fuch  an  Jge.    The  effe^  whereof  was ^ 
#^<?*  Ferlegus  attempting  to  recover  his  Right  from  Feritharis  was  banifhed 
and  utterly  excluded.     Hector  himfelf  confeffes,    he  was  at  jaft  Age  when 
he  demanded  the  Crown,    but  he  was  put  by  and  feverely  rebuked, 
ijHod  injuffttPatrumpetiiffet  Regnum,  for  doing  it  without  the  Authority 
of  the  Senate  5  upon  which  they  imprifoned  him,    but  he  made  his  e- 
fcape  and  fled  firft  to  the  Picis,  then  to  the  Britains,  and  after  Feritha- 
ris his  Death  Main  was  chofen  to  fucceed.     This  is  the  jujl  and  true 
Account  of  this  Matter,    as  it  is  delivered  by  HecSor  Boethius,    and  after 
i  him  by  Lefly,  who  [peaks  more  plainly  o/Ferlegus  his  exclufion  ;    fed  Fer- 
legum  recufavit  Populus.     Buchanan yi/M,    that  he  was  condemned  in 
his  Abfence  ;   but  he  would  fain  reconcile  this  Pra&ice  to  their  former 
•  Oath^   (although  the  Advocate  himfelf  faith,   this  Oath  did  in  Law  and 
Reafon  bind  them  to  obey  the  Lineal  Succeflbr  according  to  the  proxi- 
mity of  Blood  )   but  Buchanan'/  pretence  is  becaufe  the  prefent  King 
during  the  Minority  of  the  Heir,  was  but  a  King  in  truft,   and  the  Heir 
at  fuch  an  Age  was  to  fucceed.      But  how  well  that  was  obferved  ap- 
pears by  this  firfi  Injiance,   and  in  truth,    Hedor  Boethius  and   the 
refl  after  him  do  put    the  whole   Power  as   to  thefe  Matters,    in   the 
Hands  of  the  People,    or  at  leaji  of  the  Heads  of  the  Clans -^     as  will 
appear  more  afterwards. 
Defence,        It  cannot  therefore  but  be  veryfurprizing  to  Uf  to  fee  his  Majefty's  Advo- 
<^''^'"°-cste  fo  zealoujly  defending  this  Hijiory  of  the  firft  Succeffion  of  their 
Kings,  and  refle&ing  upon  a  Bifliop  of  our  Church,  for  calling  it  in  qne- 
fiion.     And  yet  he  cannot  deny  that  this  Law  was  the  Occafion  of  many 
bloody  Civil  Wars  between  the  Uncfes  and  Nephews ;   and  he  calls  it 

the 


f.  15. 


Ltdi  I. 

}).'8i, 
Buch.  1. 
p.  29 

p.  Z45 


The  Preface. 


the  Difpute  betwixt  fuch  as  were  for  the  Crown  and  fuch  as  were  for 
Popular  Eleftions.  From  whence  it  follows^  That  Heftor  Boethius  his 
Hiftory  of  the  firft  Succejfiott  pom  Fergus  is  to  fet  up  the  popular  Claim. 
And  quite  throufih  that  firji  Race  Heftor  makes  the  fupreme  unaaountahle 
Voteer  in  all  Cafes  of  Male  Admimjiratidn  to  be  lodged  in  the  Heads  of  the 
People,  and  the  Mjnifterial  in  the  Monarch. 

And  therefore,  we  flrjnld  have  thought  it  had  better  become  his  Majefty's 
Advocate  to  have  overthrown  fuch  pernicious  Principles  to  Monarchy,  as 
are  contained  in  this  account  of  the  firft  Race  of  their  K-ingsfrom  Fergus 
the  Son  <7/Ferquard.     And  although  Buchanan  among  the  half-learned, 
bear  the  blame  ofthefe  Antimonarchical  Principles,  yet  it  is  evident  /A<e^jufi  Right 
he  only  built  on  the  Foundations  laid  by  thofe  who  fet  up  this  firJl  Race,  ^jy  of  Monar- 
the  Advocate  himfelf  confeffeth,    whofe  Words  are.    All  Buchanan's  Argu-  '^  ^'  ^'^  ' 
tnents  for  reftraining  Kings  being  founded  on  the  Authority  of  our  Hi- 
ftorians,  who^  as  he  faith,  aflert  that  King  Fergus  wdtS  firft  elefted  King 
by  the  People.     And  therefore  thofe  Hijiorians  who  fet  up  this  Succejflon  in  LejltM\(i. 
fuch  a  mamterhad  no  kindnefs  to  Monarchy,  as  appears  by  what  Lefly  him-  P'  ^^'  ^'' 
felffaith  about  KingVtxgus  and  his  Succejfors. 

It  is  true  that  the  learned  Advocate  hath,  according  to  his  duty,  publl- 
fhed  4  Juft  Defence  of  the  Monarchy  of  Scotland  5  hut  I  mufi  crave  leave 
to  fay ^  that  it  can  never  be  defended  upon  good  Grounds  unlefs  the  Account 
1^  Fergus  the  Son  <7/Ferqtiard,  and  the  Succejfion  of  Kings  from  him  as 
delivered  by  He^Jor  Boethius  and  Lefly  as  well  as  Buchanan  be  reje&ed. 
And  this  is  too  plain  from  the  Anfwers  he  gives  to  this  Confent  of  their 
Hiftorians. 

1.  He  faith.    That  Gathelos  was  not  at  all  Elefted  by  the  People. 
Whither  are  we  now  carried  ?     The  Slueflion   was  concerning  Fergus  in  „,  j,, 
Scotland,  the  Anfwer  is  concerning  one  who  is  fuppofed  to  have  lived  Iknote 

not  how  many  Ages  before  him,  and  we  know  not  where  :  And  it  had  been 
to  as  much  purpofe  to  have  faid,  Adam  was  not  chofen  by  the  People; 
But  who  was  this  Gathelos  }  In  very  truth,  he  was  no  other  (  according  to 
theft  Hiftorians)  than  a  Son  of  a  certain  King  of  Athens,  who  went  in- 
to Mgypt  and  married  Scota  the  Daughter  of  Pharaoh,  who  was  drown- 
ed in  the  Red  Sea,  and  att<;rvvards  fettled  in  Portugal,  from  him  called 
Portus  Gatheli,  (^  as  the  Advocate  obferves  )  from  whence  a  Colony  of  p.  ad. 
that  Race  tranfported  it  felf  into  Ireland,  and  another  into  Scotland. 
Now,  faith  he,  all  thofe  who  are  defcended  from  his  Colonies  were  by  p.  a8. 
Law  obliged  to  obey  the  eldeft  Son  and  Reprefentative  of  that  Royal 
Family.  What  I  by  the  Law  in  King  Fergus'/  time  ?  For  there  is  none 
fo  much  as  mentioned  before  that  fundamental  Contra(5^  5  and  was  it  not 
well  kept  after  FergusV  Death  .<?  But  if  there  had  been  any  Precedent 
the  other  had  been  needlefs.  However  the  queflion  is  not  concerning  Ga- 
thelos and  his  Pojierity  in  Ireland,  but  Fergus  and  hit  Succeffors  in  Scot- 
land. 

2.  He  anfwers.  That  the  Heads  of  their  Tribes  acknowledged  Fer-  p,  t-j. 
gus  for  their  King.     But  do  not  thefe  Hijiorians  fay  exprefly.    That  they 
chofehim,  and  that  he  left  it  to  them  to  chufe  what  Government  they 

plea  fed  >  And  the  Words  o/Fergus  in  Heftor  Boethius  are  thefe,  Veftrum  Hell,  bo- 
erh  in  hoc  Negotio,  quid  utilius  ad  veftram  Rempublicam  fit  difcernere,  [^*-  ^' J^ 
noftrum  veftra  capefTere  imperia.     Did  ever  Man  more  own  the  Supreme  '^' 
Authority  of  the  Feople  than  Hcftor  Boethius  makes  Fergus  to  do.  in  thefe 
Words  ?  Whether  thefe  very  Words  were  fpohen  by  him,  even  Heftor  dares 
not  fay ;    but  he  is  fure  they  were  fuch  like.     And  afterwards  he  faith, 

tandem 


vi  The  P 


R  EF.ACE. 


leji.  Hifi.  tandem  Fergufio  Regnum  decernant  5'  And 'to  the  fame  purpofe  Lefly, 
coc.p.77.  pgrgu(^o  Regnum  ah  omnibus  decernitur.    //  all  this  a  bare  Acknow- 
ledgment of  him  for  their  King?    What  more  emphatlcal  Words  coutd-be 
itfed  to  exprefs  a  free  Eleftion,    arid  that  the  People  gave  Fergus  the  Pomr, 
thafi  thefe  Hiftoriaijs  do  ufe  ? 

5.  He  goes  onto  give  a  farther  Ail fcoer,    which  is  very  remarliahh  iti  hh 
Majefty's  Advocate,  vi%.  that  we  read  nothing  at  all  of  the  Confent  of 
^"         the  People,  but  of  the  Heads  of  the  Tribes,   who  had  no  Commifllori 
from  the  People,    each  of  them  having  by  his  Birth-right  a  Power  io 
command  his  own  Tribe,   and  confequently  the  Royal  Power  was  noC 
derived  from  the  People.     What  is  the  meaning  of  all  this,    but  only  to 
fl)tw  that  the  Royal  Authority  was  not  derived  from  the  Rabble,  but  font 
^Ae  Nobility  or  Heads  of  the  feveral  Clans  5     and  confequently  the  Power 
of  calling  their  Rings  to  account  lay  only,  in  them  .<?     No,  faith  he,  Fergus 
fucceeded  in  the  Right  of  thofe  Chiefs  to  command  their  refpeftive  Fa- 
milies.    Then  ^tx^m  had  no  more  Power,  asy[or\zx<^,  than  the  WtzAioi 
the  feveral  Q\^x\%had  before.    But  did  they,  according  to  thefe-  Hiftorians, 
part  with  their  P\.ights  of  Government  to  Fergus  and  his  Pofterity  >     By 
(a)  he.n.  what  Authoritj  then  did  they  take  upon  them  to  imprifon  and  depofe  (a^ 
f"^'^;  ^  Euenus  III.  andfetup  Cadalanus  as  King  ?     By  what  Authority  did  they. 
1.40.      take  Arms  againji   (b)  D^rd?^nus  and  fet  up  Galdus,    who  took  away  his 
ft^''J,'^<f"  Life,  communi  omnium  Ordinum  confenfu,  faith  Lefly  ?     By  what  Aw 
Boeth.    '  thority  did  they  ajfemble  againfl  (c)  Lugtachus,  G^\Au%  his  Son,    andfent 
1.4.  f. 59.  Soldiers  to  d'lfpatch  him?     By  what  Authority   did  they  rfe  agaitifi  (d) 
p*"^^"       Mogallus  his  Succejfor,  with  a  defign  to  de(iroy  him,    m  Heftor  confjfetb', 
(c)  HeU.  which  they  did  eff equally,    as  Lefly  agrees  ?     How  came  they  to  take  upon 
fT.*f  7?  ^.^^'^^'^^^P^fon  (e)  Comrus  and  fet  up  Argadas  in  his  room  .^     And  to 
Leflx.'      difpofe  of  the  Government  in  the  time  of  (f)  Ethodius  II.  and  according 
P-  '°'-     to  Lefly  commit  him  toPrifon,  where  he  w  u  killed  ?     How  came  they,  not' 
Boerh.'  '  tvithflanding  the  Law  of  Regency  to  fet  up  Tgj  Athirco,  while  he  was  un- 
\.  5  f.  79.  capable  by-it  ?     I  meddle  not  with  thofe  Kings  who  were  killed  by  fecret 
p  lo-'.     Conspiracies,  nor  with  open  Vfurpers,  ffch  as  Natha\ocus  and  Donald  <?/ 
(e)  uh.  the  Ifles  ^    but  I  only  fet  down  what  thefe  liiftoriansi^e/zwr,  as  to  the  Right 
f^*' f  81  ^"'^  Authority  which  the  Nobles  ajfumed  to  themfelves  in  cafe  of  Male-ad- 
Lefli.       minifiration,    to  flnw  that  if  thefe  Mens  Accoitnts  muji  be  received,     the 
p.  10?.     Heads  of  the  C\dinsdid  not  part  with  their  (hare  in  the  Government  fo 
Balth  '  '  *^^'^^->  ^"^  ^^pon  occafion  they  did  refume  it.     And  therefore  I  have  been  apt 
1.  i.f.^o.tofufpeS    (from  the  Controverfie  about  Regency  at  the  time  when  Heftor 
p'^oo      ""^^ote  )  that  all  this  Hijiorj  ofthefirft  *  Race  of  Kings  was  framed  on  pur- 
(g)  ^f^-  P'^fi  "'^^  (?////  will  to  theMonBtchy,  and  with  a  de/ign  to  advance  the  Pow- 
\Tf'  o  ^^  tf//^e  Nobility.     And  now  let  any  true  friend  to  the  Monarchy  Judge, 
Lejln'     '  whether  thofe  whofljortentheKoyzl  Line,    or  thofe  who  fo  earnejlly  cotitend 
p.  1 10.     for  this  Story  <?/Fergus  and  his  Succejfor s,  be  more  liable  to  be  charged  with 
*^^jf  5g^;any  degree  of  Lefe-Majefty. 

/ir-  But  after  all,    the  Advocate  faith,    Tb?it  Fordon,    the  mofl:  antient 
scod^*     of  their  Hiftorians  affirms,  That  Fergus  made  himfelf  King.  IndeedFoV' 
cliron.l.i,  don  doth  fay.  That  Fergus  the  Son  of  Ferard,    (  as  he  calls  him  )  hear- 
'^•3^-       ing  there  weremany  &(?^j- in  the  Northern  Parts  of  ^//'/W,  livjng  with- 
out Order  and  Government,  and  hearing  a  good  Account  of  the  Coun- 
trey,  he  was  prompted  by  his  Ambition  to  go  over  to  them,  and  taking 
with  him  a  good  number  of  young  Men,  he  gathered  together  the  dif- 
perfed  Scots,   and  joining  them  all  together  in  the  Weftern  Parts,   he 
made  himfelf  King  over  them.-^  Which  is  no  improbable  Account,  but  For- 

don 


The    Preface.  vii 


10.  C,  3o 


don  faith  not  a  Word  of  all  the  former  Pajfages  in  the  other  H/Jioriavf, 
Af/d  //"Fordon  be  the  woji  attcient  of  their  H/Jior/ans,  what  btcomes  ofVe- 
remundus  and  Cornelius  Hibernicus,  the  two  great  Supporters  c/Hedor 
Boethius  his  Hificry  .<?  If  they  were  after  Fordon,  how  came  they  to  be  fa 
fyell  inftrtt&ed  in  fo  many  particulars  in  the  firft  Succeffion,  which  For- 
don, was  wholly  unacquainted  with  ? 

1  cannot  deny  that  Fordon,  fpeahing  of  the  Coronation  o/Alexander  III.  Scon- 
(^as  he  calls  him  )   mentions  an  old  Highlander,  who  in  the  Irifli  Tongue  {^'"^°"' 
repeated  the  Genealogy  of  their  Rings  backward  as  far  as  Fergus  the  Son  of 
Ferquard,     But  therein  he  comes  not  up  to  the  number,  either  /*»  Fordon  or 
Heftor  Boethius  5  and  hath  very  con ftder able  differences  from  the  Accounts 
either  in  him,  or  in  Lcdy  and  Buchanan.     For  after  Fergus  he  leaves  out 
Feritharis,  and  makes  Main  his  next  Succeffor  -^   the  next  he  calls  Arindal 
whom  they  call  Dornadilla  5  his  Son,  Roveyn,  ihey  Nothatus  ^   and  his 
Rether  is  the  fame  with  their  Reuther  5    but  here  they  interpofe  a  Reutha 
to  Make  their  Story  agree  with  Bede'/  Reuda.     But  this  Genealogifl  next 
tiamesThet,    whom  they  call  Thereus,  and  his  Son  Rofin  5    but  they  fay 
]oCinafucceeded  Thereus,  being  his  Brother.     After  this,  we  find  a  grea- 
ter difference,  for  infiead  of  Finnanus,   Durftus,  Euenus,  Gillus,  Eue- 
nus  II.  Ederus,  Euenus  III.  Metellanus,  Caratacus ;    we  find  there  only 
Dethach,  Jaw,  Aliela,  Euen,  Ederskeol,  Comernlore  5  Some  agreement 
there  is,  but  a  far  greater  diverfity,  and  HeftorV  famous  Caratacus  quite 
omitted.  Thenfucceeded  Corbre,  whom  they  call  Corbred,  after  him  Daradi- 
araore,  by  themjiiled  Dardanus;  /^e«  another  Corhre  infiead  of  their  Gsildas^ 
and  /^e»Luthach,  Lugtacus  inthem ;  then  Mogalama,  *Ae/rMogallus;  Go- 
ner their  Conarus;  Ethath  their  Ethodius ,  Fiachrath  their  Satrahel  5  then 
another  Ethath,  whom  they  call  Ethodius  II.  before  whom  they  place  King  Do^ 
iiald,  in  whofe  time,  they  fay,  Chriftianity  was  firft  received  in  Scotland, 
who  is  utterly  excluded  by  this  ancient  Genealogy.     For  after  this  Ethodius 
follows  in  it  Athirkiwr,    which  is  their  Athirco,  then  Findachar,    which 
is  their  Findocus,    and  fo  Nathalocus  isfliut  out  5    andfo  after  him  ar& 
the  two  Donalds,  for  the  next  that  follows  is  Thrinklind,  whom  they  call 
Crathlintus  5  then  Fencormach  their  Fincormacus,   after  him  RomaicH, 
*^«>Romachus ;    then  Eneguffa,   which  is  plainly  their  knguihnus,  and 
Fethelmech /Aejr  Fetelmachus  ^   then  Engufafich  and  Etheat,  infiead  of 
which  they  put  Eugenius  and  Ethodius  his  Brother  ;    whom  both  make 
Grand-father  to  Fergus  II.  whofe  Father  they  coil  Erthus,  but  the  ancient 
Genealogy  and  Fordon  Eirch. 

Now  by  comparing  this  Genealogy  and  Heftor  Boethius  together,  I  aift 
convinced  that  he  did  not  forge  all  the  Names  of  his  firft  Race  of  Ktngsi, 
between  the  /a?tf  Fergufles ;  but  yetfiom  hence  it  appears,  (i.)  That  He- 
dor  did  infert  many  things  contrary  to  this  ancient  Genealogy  5  and 
when  he  did  fo  he  had  fame  end  to  ferve  in  it.  As  when  he  puts  in  Regents 
which  the  Genealogy  never  owns:,  but  this  was  to  fupport  his  Law  of 
Incapacity  5  but  in  all  this  Genealogy  there  is  a  dire&  lineal  Defcent, 
and  when  he  puts  in  Reutha  it  is  to  anfwer  Bede'/  Reuda,  and  Galdus^r 
Tacitus  his  Galgacus,  and  Caratacus  for  the  famous  Britifh  Ring  of  that 
Name  5  and  King  Donald  to  anfwer  our  King  Lucius,  that  they  might 
have  a  Chriftian  Ring  in  the  time  of  the  Pope  next  fuccceeding  Eleutherius. 
2.  That  this  Genealogy  may  be  allow' d  without  any  advantage  to  the  Sue- 
cejfion  of  Kings  in  Scotland,  from  Fergus  I.  fo  long  before  the  Nativity  of 
Chrifi  5  for  it  is  very  obfervable,  that  this  ancient  Genealogifi  doth  very 
much  fkorten  the  Succeffion  between  Fergus  11.  and  this  Alexander.  For  he 

b  leaves 


viii  The    Preface. 


ledvet  out  Eugenius  II.  attd  makes  Dongard  to  fucceed  him ;    after  him 
Cobren,  and  then  Edanius,    whereas  here  they  itifert  Conflantius  I,  Con- 
gallus,  Conranus,  Eugenius  III.  Convallus,    Kinnatillus  between  Don- 
Scotichr.  gard<?W  Aidanus  :     After  him  he  names  his  Son  Occ2ihthmA,    whom  Yor~ 
i.  4.  c.  33.  (Jon  tv?//j  Eothodius-bind,  which  he  faith  is  thefawewirhEugen'ms:^  and 
fXv-^i-^^'"'^  A/w,  Heftor  Boethius,  ^j  Buchanan  ohferves,   contradicts  the  Book 
of  Patty,   for  this  faith,  he  lived  in  continual  Wars,  and  the  other  that 
he  enjoy 'd  a  conftant  Peace  ^  fo  that  Boethius  /lights  the  Authority  of 
^^e/V  ancient  Annals.     ISIext  after  hi m  they  p/^.e  Ferquard,   of  whom  the 
Scotichr.  Genealogy  p//^  nothing  at  all ;   Fordon  next  to  nothing.     In  cujus  nihil 
1.4.  c.^i.aftuineft  tempore,  faith  he  ^    hut  the  other  Hijiorians  tell  fad  Stories  of 
his  vicious  Life  and  tragical  End.     After  Eugenius  in  the  Genealogy  we 
'^•^J-    find  Donewald  breck,  Fordon/i;>4hedied  after  14  Years  Reign  z^  and 
to  him  fncceeded  Ferquard  hff  Brothers  Son,  not  mentioned  in  the  Genea- 
logy 5  nor  Malduinus  Son  to  Donald  ^  for  the  next  U  Ethac,  i.  e.  Euge- 
nius, and  here  they  put  in  an  other  Eugenius,  Ambirkelethus,  Eugenius  VM. 
^«^  Mordacus  ^e/jvee^  Ethac  and  Ethfin,  whereas  the  Genealogift  makes 
Ethafind  Son  to  Ethdre,    to  whom  fucceeded  Ethas,  i.  e.  Eugenius  VIlI. 
in  their  Account,    after  him  follows  Alphin  5    hut  between  thefe,    they  have 
inferted  Fergus  HI.   Solvathius,    Achaius,    Convallus  at/d  Dongallus. 
They  all  agree  with  the  Genealogifi:    that  Kenneth  immediately  fucceeded 
Alphin;  but  then  follows  a  wonderful  difference  5  for  here  they  put  in  no 
fewer  than  1 3  Kings  between  Kenneth  and  Malcolm  the  Son  of  Kenneth, 
vphom  the  Genealogift  places  next  after  him  ;  then  follows  Duncan  in  all  5 
between  whom  attd  Malcolm  Canmoir  they  put  in  Machabxus.    After  Mal*- 
Colm  he  takes  no  notice  of  four  Kings  they  infert  between  him  and  David, 
attd  where  they  put  another  Malcolm  he  placeth  Henry,  and  then  they  agree 
in  William,   Alexander  rf»6^  his  Son  Alexander  ;  in  whom  the  Genealogy 
begins,  and  fo  runs  backward  in  a  li/ieal  Afcent, 

Now  it  defervesvery  well  to  be  confidered,  that  this  ancient  Genealogi^ 
hath  fo  much  fijortned  the  Succeflion  us  will  bring  the  whole  into  a  much  left 
compafs  :  For  the  modern  Hiftorians  have  inferted  more  Kings  in  the 
fecond  Race  from  Fergus  the  Son  <?/Erk  than  are  contained  in  the  Genea- 
logy foom  Fergus  the  Son  o/Ferquard  to  Fergus  II.  and  fo  the  whole  Suc- 
cejjion  will  Jiaud  within  the  fame  time  that  it  now  doth,  from  Fergus  the 
Son  of  Erk. 

And  if  the  (hortening  the  Royal  Line   be  fuch  an  Injury  to  it,    as 
the  Advocate  fuppofeth,    it  is  well  for  thk  ancient  Genealogifi  that  he 
lived  fo  long  fince,   or  elfk  he  might  have  had  a  cafi  of  the  Advocate*/ 
Office. 
Defence        Neither  is  the  Authority  of  this  Genealogifi  to  be  flighted  by  the  teamed 
**'^  uit  ^of  ■^'^^''^'*'^»  7^-*^^  himfelf  giving  an  account  how  their  Tradition  might 
the"  Royai^ve  been,  and  was  preferved,  he  brings  this  very  infiance  a/ the  Gene- 
Line,       alogyof  King -^/exawfi^er  in  the  Year  1242.    before  F<7r<3/(?»*s  time,    and 
•P-  2o,  2t.  related  fo  by  him  that  his  Relation  cannot  but  be  credited  5  andfo  he 
repeats  the  beginniitg  of  it  as  it  is  in  Fordon.     But  if  he  had  taken  the  pans 
to  compare  it,  he  would  have  found  how  much  it  overthrew  the  Credit  of  their 
Hiflorians,     For  if  this  was  the  Way  their  Tradition  was  preferved,  then 
by  this  Way,  we  are  to  judge  of  the  Truth  of  their  ancient  Tradition  5    and 
confequently  we  mufl  rejeii  thofe  Kings  whofe  Names  are  not  preferved  in 
thfs  ancient  Genealogy. 

And  to  confirm  this  we  have  another  faid  to  be  more  ancient  in  Fordon, 
p.  22.    which  the  Advocate  attributes  to  Baldredus,    Abbat  of  Mdros,    (  other- 
wife 


The  Preface.  ix 


M?//e  called  Ealredus,    Abbat  of  Rbieval )   in  his  Lamntation  of  King 
David,  fooii  after  hh  death,  who  died  A.  D.  1 1  51.     But  1  confefs  I  do 
^otfiiid,  that  Fordon  attributes  thk  Genealogy  to  Baldredus,  foi^  he  faith, 
he  had  it  from  Waller  de  WardUiv,    Cardinal  and  the  Biftiop  of  G/<«/ scotich, 
gow,   who  lived  in  the  time  of  Robert  II.  faith  Lefly :   (  whith  helps  '^'^  5-^^5?- 
difcover  FordonV  ^^e. )    And  in  this  Geneahgy  the  firft part  froniDi- ^^/^^^ 
vid  to  Fergus  is  cut  off  with  an  &c,  hut  the  other  part  from  Fergus  II.  up 
to  Fergus  I.  is  preferved  entire,    and  except  in  the  fpellitjg  of  fame  few 
Names,    exa&ly  agrees  with  the  former  Genealogy,   leaving,  out  all  thofe 
Kings  n>hii  h  are  omitted  in  the  other.    But  the  latter  Genealogy  having 
been  corrupted  before   Fordon' j  time,   he  would  not  have   it  fiand  up' 
Oft  Record  againfi  him  j     which  caution  he  forgot  when  he  came  to  Ale- 
xander III. 

But  there  is  flill  a  third  Genealogy  in  Fordon,  which  fupplies  in  fome 
meafure  the  defeUs  in  that  of  King  David,  and  it  is  the  Succeflion  <>/Ren. 
netb,  //&e/r/?  Monarch  o/Scotland    (  the  Pifts  being  totally  fubdued  by 
him  )    and  then  he  makes  no  more  between  them  but  Alphin,    dnd  then  A- 
chai   (  which  feems  to  be  truer  than  the  other,  which  calls  AlphinV  Father 
Ethas  )  bfifore  him  he  places  Ethfin,  called  Ethafind  in  the  other  ;    next 
him  is  EugeniusV»  the  other  Ethodac  5  then  Dongard  the  Son  c/Donwald 
Breck  5  whereas  in  the  other  this  Dongard  is  omitted  ^    before  Donewald- 
brecjc  in  this  Genealogy,   is  Eugenius-bind  called  Occahebind  in  the  0- 
tkeri,  then  Aidanus,  in  the  other  Edanus  ^  then  Gouran  called  there  Co- 
hren,  /Ae»  Dongard,  andfowearec0metofex§,n%xhQGxQ2X'j   and  there 
is  hut  one  difference,  i.e.  about  X^ow^^X^,  in  the fe  Genealogies.     And  this 
makes  but  \o  Kings  between  Fergus  ajid  Kenneth,    whereas  the  common 
Hijioriavs  make  28.    which  is  a  very  unreafonable  Addition  to  their  own 
mofi  ancient  Genealogies.    But  if  this  were  not  done  there  would  appear  no 
probahiliiy,    that  the  firft  Ferguf  (hould  have  come  into  Scotland  530 
Years  before  Ghrift's  Nativity.     Which  the  learned  Advocate  affirms  in 
the  very  beginning  of  his  Defence,  that  all  their  Hiftoriansare  agreed  on. 
Jfld  yet  farther  to  confirm  thefe  Genealogies,   he  tells  us  he  had  feen  an 
cJd  Genealogy  of  the  Kin^  of  the  Albanian  Scots,   agreeing  with  that 
mentioned  at  the  Coronation  of  King  Alexander  II.  and  which  hasftill 
been  preferv'd  as  facred  there,  i.  e.  at  Icolmkill,  Ifuppofe,   or  the  Ifland 
Jona.     But  it  is  obfervable,  that  Hedior  mentioning  the  Coronation  ofthisjjeB.  Bo- 
Alexander,  takes  notice  of  the  Highlander's  repeating  the  Genealogy  by.^'*-  ""'*•  ^ 
heart,  and  he  carries  it  as  far  <jxGathelos,   butfets  dovon  nothing  at  all  of'^^  ^^  ' 
the  particulars,    which  he  knew  would  by  no  means  agree  with  his  Cata- 
logue of  Kings y^  long  before  Chrifi,     And  to  confirm  all  thefe  Genealogies,  Gratran. 
the  Iri(h  Genealogies  in  Gratianus  Lucius  agree  with  them  in  excluding  y^canibr. 
many  Kings,  which  H^Ctor  hath  inferted  to  make  the  account  oftimefeemzverf, 
probable.      Only  they   make  Fergus  the  Son  of  Erk  to  be  the  firji  who  P-  ^48. 
carried  the   Scots  from  Ireland   in  Albany  5    and  the  Ancefiors  before 
to  have  lived  in  Ireland,    and   to  have  been  derived  from  the  Mo- 
narchs  there. 

But  when  Heftor  Roethius  found  350  Tears  before  Chrifi  pitched  upon  by 
Fordon  for  the  Scots  coming  into  Scotland  with  fo  much  pun^uality,   that  Scotichr. 
he  faith  it  was  in  the  fixth  YediV  oi  Alexander,  wherein  he  killed  Danus  ' 
and  took  Babylon,  he  thought  it  by  m  means  fit  to  omit  it,  but  to  it  he  adds  ^^f-  ^'' 
the  very  Year  of  the  Worlds   and  of  the  building  of  Rome,   and  how  ^"'  '  ''^'' 
long  it  was  after  Brutus  his  firft  coming  to  Britain  ^   which  are  all  great 
Confirmations  of  theTruth  of  thij  AccoHnt.    But  YordLon  quotes  no  Author 

fot 


X  The  Preface. 


for  this  roild  Computation'^    Only  he  fuhjolfts  a   Pajfige  out   of  the   Legend 
fl/iS.Congall,  ■which  mentions  the  coming  of  Fergus  the  Son  (?/Ferquard 
out  of  Ireland  into  Britain,    and  after  he  mentions  Rether  ^r  one  of  his 
Succeflbrs,    the  fame,  he  faith,   rvith  I3ede*/  Keuda.     Supp  fe  all  this  be' 
granted,  yet  rvhatfjadowofProofis  theie,    that  FergUf  came  into  Srot- 
land  fo  long  before  Chrift's  Nativity  ?     Fordon  ronfijfes  he  knew  not 
how  long  any  of  thofe  Kings  after  Fergus  reigned  5    how  then  came  he 
.,Pe  know  fo  exai^j  the  time  of  their  coming  ?"     What  certain  Note  or  Chara- 
Uer  oftim^a/they  to  help  them  in  their  Calculation  ?     If  they  could  pro- 
duce any  futh,  and  be  able  to  adjufl  the  timefiof  the  Slicceffion  of  their  Je- 
veral  Kings  by  them,     there   might  be  a  great  deal  faid  for  this  pre- 
tended Antiquity  5    but  when   it   is  at  the  fame  time-  confeffed  they  had 
770  fuch  thing,     hore  could  they    fatisfie  any    reafonable    Enquirer  info 
thefe  Antiquities  .<? 

Things  fianding  thiu,  and  Hector  BoethiusrwV^  the  help  of  his  Phyfici- 
Hift.  Ec-  an  <?/Aberdeen,  C^ho,  as  Demp{^er faith,  vi>n  fi  very  ufeful to  him  in  i'ra.- 
clel.  1.  2.   uj}ng  his  Hiftory  )  fet  about  the  re&ifying  and  curing  the  Body  of  their  An- 
tiquities ;  and  endeavour  d  to  bring  it  tnto  better  form,  and  to  fill  up  the 
Vacuities  of  it,    and  render  it  more  agreeable  to  the  Palates  of  that  time^ 
which  had  more  faiattering  of  Learning  than  in  the  Ages  before.     And  fo  he 
begins  his  Hi  for  y  very  formally  in  imitation  of  the  beft  Roman  Authors^ 
with  deducing  their  Hiflory  from  Gathelos  and  Scots,    deriving  their  Suc- 
ceffion  from  the  Greeks  and  Egyptians,  as  the  Romans  did  theirs  from  the 
Trojans.     This  I  do  not  attribute  to  his  Invention,  for  it  is  at  large  in 
Scotichr.  Fofdon  ;  who  quotes  fome  old  Chronicles  and  Legends  for  it  5   efpecially 
l.i.c.  9.  tf}g  Legend  ofS.  Brendan  ^  an  admirable  and  authentick  Record.     But  tQ 
do  right  to  Heftor  in  this  matter,  he  faith  ingenuoufly  that  their  People  fol- 
chap.  5.  low'd  the  Cuftom  of  other  Nations  therein.     And  as  I  have  fjewd  in  the 
following  Book  at  large    (  where  I  treat  (?//Ae/e  Antiquities)    this  humour 
hadeveffpread  all  the  Northern  Nations,    as  foon  as  they  fhook  off  the  Ro- 
man Take,  and  began  not  only  to  he  diflinH  Kingdoms,    but  to  have  fome 
affe&ation  of  the  Roman  Learning,  and  to  have  Perfons  of  their  own  Nation 
Tvho  began  to  write  their  Hifiories -^    who  thought  they  did  nothing  for  the 
Honour  of  their  Count rey  unlefs  they  could,  fome  way  or  other,  derive  them- 
felvesfrom  the  Trojans,  or  Greeks,  or  Egyptians,    whom  they  met  with  fo 
often  in  the  Roman  Authors  ^  and  the  Romans  in  mofi  Provinces  mixing 
together  with  the  Northern  People,    excited  a  greater  Ambition  in  them^ 
either  to  be  like  the  Romans,  or  to  exceed  them  in  their  pretended  Antiqui- 
ties.    And  their  Inventions   not  being  extraordinary,    there  is  very  little 
variety  in  their  fever al  Accounts,  as  will  appear  by  comparing  them  in  their 
proper  Places. 

In  this  point  Heftor  Boethius  hath  acquitted  himfelfwell  enough  ;  but 
finding  the  Succeflion  of  their  Kings  very  (Ijort  and  meagre,  having  noflefh 
to  fill  it,  nor  nerves  to  fupport  it,  nor  colour  to  adorn  it  ^  therefore  he  fets 
himfelfto  make  up  what  he  found  defe&ive,  and  to  put  it  together  under 
the  Names  of  Veremundus  and  Cornelius  Hibernicus  or  others  ^  out  of 
thefe  he  pames  a  long  Series  or  Catalogue  of  Kings,  which  looked  big,  and 
raifed  Mens  ExpeHations,  and  feem'd  well  enough  contrived  to  ferve  the 
pretence  to  fo  great  Antiquity.  This  being  done,  he  fills  up  the  Story  of 
thefe  Kings,  not  out  of  their  old  Annals  (  as  far  as  yet  appears)  but  in  a 
great  meafure  out  of  his  own  Invention,  fo  as  to  mix  the  Commonwealth- 
Learning  (?//Ae  Greeks  ^w^i  Romans  with  the  Hifiory  of  their  ancient  Kings. 
Which  hath  done  great  prejudice  to  the  Rights  of  the  Monarchy  5  for 

He- 


The    Preface.  xi 


HedorV  Hijlory  tookfo  much  among  the  Nohility,    Qfor  very  good  Reafont 
to  them  )  that  all  that  have  written  fince  him,  have  depended  upon  his  Au- 
thority, as  appears  both  by  Buchanan  and  Lefly  5     ttnlefs  it  were  where  he 
grojly  contradided  the  Pvoman  Hiftory,    and  there  Buchanan /c<zz;e/  him, 
hut  for  the  main  of  his  Hifiory  he  relies  upon  him:^  and  Lefly  doth  nothing  Lefle.  pa- 
in effed  but  abridge  him,  whatever  he  pretends  as  to  Records  and  the  An-  ^^"^f^ 
nals  of  the  Monafteries  o/Pafley  and  Scoon  5  which  the  Advocate  ftp-  p.  22. 
pofeth  he  Caw  at  Rome,  whither /&ey^///6  they  were  carried.     Iff?,  it  had  ^^^^'^^^ 
been  r^orth  while  to  have  procured  well  attefted  Co^iQ%  from  thence'^    which  tiquJty  of 
had  not  been  hard  in  all  this  time,  fo  many  Gentlemen  of  that  Nation  the  Royal 
travelling  thither,   and  feeing  all  the  Curiojities  of  their  Libraries.     But  ^'"^.P  39- 
Letty  faith  nofuch  thing -^  for  he  appeals  to  the  Publick  Archives  of  the 
Kingdom,  and  not  to  any  MSS.  at  Rome  1  fo  that  if  they  were  any  where, 
they  were  then  in  Scotland. 

But  the  Advocate  feems  to  have  forgotten  what  he  had  faidbefore,\\7.  that  P-  S^- 
the  black  Book  of^yctfo// was  among  Prefidentiy/xj/^oo^'s  Books  5  Indeed, 
he  faith.  King  Charles  I.  ranfom'd  it  from  Rome  5    but  how  that  appears  I 
hnow  not  5  but  I  know  the  Circumjlances  he  mentions  about  Col.  Fairfax,  d>"c. 
relate  not  to  the  Book  oi Scoon,  but  to  a  Copy  tf/Fordon,  which  waspre- 
fented  by  him  to  King  Charles  If.     And  if  Buchanan  had  the  ufe  of  the 
i^ooks  of  Pajley,  and  the  famous  Book  of  P/«/Z-We»,    as  the  Advocate  be- 
lieves,   upon  LIuchanan'j  Word,    then  in  hk  time  they  were  not  carried   to 
Rome.     For  my  part,  I  do  not  queftion  that  there  were  MSS.  Chronicles /«    *  '  ' 
Scotland  before  Fordon  ^  for  I  find  him  frequently  citing  them  -^    but  by  the 
things  he  quotes  out  of  them  they  were  not  confiderable,  nor  done  by  any  Au- 
thority, as  the  Annals  of  the  Royal  Monafteries  of  this  Kingdom,  his  Con- 
tinuer  faith  were  and  afterwards  examined  and  compared.     /  am  forry  to 
find  Sir  R.  Sibbald  reckon  up  among  the  Books  he  had  never  feen,  (^having  prodrom. 
made  it  his  bufinefs  fo  many  Years  to  il/ujirate  his  Countrey  )  not  only  Cor-  Hift-  Na- 
nelius  Hibernicus  and  Veremundus,  but  the  Annals  of  Pafley  and  Scoon  ;  ^^^'j^^*' 
But  however,  we  are  glad  that  the  Advocate  ajfures  us  he  hath  a  very  old 
Abridgment  of  the  Book  of  Pajley  5    and  may  this  prefent  heat  againfi  the 
Bifliop  of  St.  Afaph  provoke   them  to  procure  and  publijh  their  ancient 
Annals,  fuch  as  they  are,  which  wittbe  the  great efl  advantage  to  the  World 
of  this  Contention  about  their  Antiquities.     And  1  am  fo  far  from  any 
Pique  or  Animofity  in  this  matter,  that  I  fhould  be  glad  to  fee  thofe  Anti- 
quities, which  yet  appear  dark  and  confufed,  clear  d  up  to  the  Sitisfadion 
of  all  learned  and  ingenuous  Men. 

But  Imuji  beg  pardon  of  his  Majejiy's  Advocate,  if  I  take  the  freedom  to 
fay^  he  hath  not  taken  the  right  method  to  do  it.  For  he  ought  firfi  to  have 
proved  the  matter  in  difpute  by  clear  and  indubitable  Tejlimonies,  before  he 
had  made  his  fever e  Reflexions  and  Inferences  ;  but  as  Cicero  faid  of  the 
Mufician  who  defined  the  Soul  to  be  Harmony,  ab  Arte  fua  non  receffit, 
fo  this  ingenious  Gentleman  hath  managed  this  whole  debate  in  a  way  more 
agreeing  to  the  Character  of  an  Advocate  than  of  an  Antiquary.  For  why 
fo  many  Lifinuations,  as  though  fame  Injury  were  intended  to  the  Royal 
Line,  which  I  dare  fay,  the  Biftiop  of  St.  Afaph  doth  really  honour  and  e- 
ficem  as  much  as  his  Ma  jefty's  Advocate  himfelf.  For,  doth  any  Man  of 
Underflanding  think  that  it  is  any  Injury  to  the  Royal  Line  of  Britain 
to  have  the  fabulous  Antiquities  tf/GeofFrey  of  Monmouth,  concerning 
the  Succeffion  <7/Bririfh  Kings  down  from  Brutus  confuted  ?  And  is  not 
this  done  by  Buchanan  >  And  the  Advocate  in  plain  EngUflo faith,  thofe 
tempt  Men  to  lye  who  endeavour  to  derive  themfelves  from  the  Tro-  ?•  ^y. 

c  jans. 


xii  The    P  r  e  f  a  c  e. 


jans.  But  why  not,  as  well  from  the  Greeks  and  Egyptians  ?  But  the  Bi- 
flibp  of  St.  Afaph  is  fa  JHJi  to  Truth,  a»d  fo  little  a  Friend  to  popnUf 
Fables,  that  he  fairly  gives  up  Geoffrey  before  he  attacks  Heftor  Boethius^ 
could  any  thing  be  more  fairly  and  impartially  done  ?  or  more  convincing, 
that  he  only  deftgned  to  find  out  Truth  in  thefe  Matters,  without  regard  to 
that  fondnefs  fome  Menflill  have  for  thefe  Britifti  Antiquities  >  For  there 
are  and  wiU  be  fome  (  dnd  thofe  not  wholly  unlearned  )  who  are  naturally 
inclined  to  believe  Fables  5  and  have  fo  pajfionate  a  Zeal  for  fitch  things^ 
ihat  they  cry  out  upon  all  D/fcoveries  of  this  kind,  as  Injuries  to  their  Coun* 
trey,  if  not  to  the  Royal  Line. 

But  may  it  notjuftly  feemjirange,    that  when  our  polite  and  learned 
Neighbours  have  endeavoured  with  fo  much  care  to  reform  their  Hiftories, 
and  to  purge  away  all  fabulous  Antiquities  out  of  them  5   we  ofthk  Ifland 
fhould  grow  angry  and  impatient  when  any  undertake  fo  generous  a  Deftgnf 
What  Injury  is  it  thought  to  he  to  the  Royal  Line  ofYx^nce,  that  Hufiibal- 
dus  his  Antiquities//;^/  no  longer  place  in  their  Hiftories  ?     And  yet  no- 
thing feems  more  glorious,  than  to  A<?r;e  their  Royal  Line  deduced  long  be- 
fore the  time  that  Alexander  f<7i»^  Babylon.     For  according  to  Hunibaldus 
his  Account,  which  he  took  he  faith  out  of  an  ancient  MS.  c/Vaftaldus  (^fuch 
<r»<?/Acr  Author  ^Veremundus  )   the  Franks  went  from  Troy  under  the 
Condu^  <>/Francio  towards  the  Pal  us  Moeotis  jujl  about  the  time  hat  SL- 
neas  went  )y/- Italy,    where  they  fixed,  ^^wisJ  ^«/// the  City  Sicambria,  and 
at  la^  removed  into  Germany  under  Marcomir  the  Son  of  Priamus,  and 
Sunno  the  Son  c/Antenor.     After  Francio,   Hunibaldus y^?/  down  a  for- 
mal Sttccejjton  of  Kings  of  two  fever  al  Races,  16  in  thefirfi,  and  51  in  the 
fecond.     All  which  he  gives  a  very  particular  account  of,   as  to  the  times  of 
their  Reign /tfj-^j^oz/e  41 3  Te^^r^  ^e/«»re  Chrift's  Nativity.     And  although 
this  ancient  Succeffion  of  Kings  was  a  long  time  received  and  magnified^ 
Scoticlir.  as  appears  by  Lazius  and  P.  ^milius,  and  Fordon  quotes  Sigebert  for  it  5. 
J.  3.  c.  19  ^g^  ^^jj,  f^^-j^  learned  Hijlorians  are  afhamed  to  mention  it^   much  more  to 
plead  fir  it,   and  to  charge  thofe  with  a  degree  of  Lefe-Majefty  who  call  it 
in  quejiion. 

Suffridus  Vettmhdth  written  the  Antiquities  o/Frifeland  much  in  the 
^^^^^fj^' way  that  Vi&dtor  hoethXm  hath  done  thofe  tf/ Scotland.     He  tells  a  very 
Prifmum,  grave  Storj  concerning  a  Province  in  the  Indies  called  Frefia,  from  whence  a 
!.  3.  C.2.  Colonj  wojfent  under  Frifo,  Saxo  and  Bruno,   who  went  into  Alexander'/ 
/  Army  :^  and  for  this  he  quotes  old  Yri^an  Kythms,  and  one  Pitrodes,   an 

old  Indian  Writer  5   and  befidet,    he  hath  all  the  Advocate's  Common 
c.  3-     Places  of  Tradition,  common  Fame,  the  Tejiimonies  of  their  own  Hiflo- 
rians,  and  he  names  Andreas  Cornelius,    (  it  feems  there  was  a  Cornelias 
Frifius  tu  well  as  Hibernicus)  Solco  Fortemannus,  Occo  Scherlenfis,  Job. 
Uleterpius,  and  feveral  others,  who  with  one  Consent  deliver  thefe  Anti- 
c,  4.    quities.     But,  faith  he,  ye  willobje^.  That  in  fo  long  a  time  and  amidft 
fo  many  Wars  fuch  Antiquities  could  hardly  be  preferved.    To  that  he 
anfwers,  "  That  Frifo  being  admirable  skilled  in  Greek  Learning  fet  up  a 
"  publick  School  at  Stauria  near  the  Temple  p/Stavo,    and  in  the  Temple 
a  Library  on  purpofe  for  Antiquities  (  like  that  ^/"Icolmkill  )  and  he- 
fides  a  Palace  was  built  by  Uffo,    wherein  was  contained  the  Effigies  of 
<2// the  Kings /-tf/w  Frifo,   (  who  came  to  FriCdand  Juji  313  Tears  be- 
"  fore  Chrifts  Nativity  )    to  the  time  of  Charlemagn,  jf&r  ii  13  Tears. 
And  are  not  thefe  Antiquities  very  well  attejied  ?    Tetfince  Ubbo  Emmi- 
us  hath  confuted  them,  no  learned  Advocate  hath  appeared  in  vindication 
of  them. 

Is 


The  Preface.  xiii 


Is  it  any  difparagemerit  to  the  Royal  Linetf/Spain  to  have  the  firflSnc- 
cefljon  fl/K.ings  there  difputed  5  viz.  from  Jubal  /oMelicola  the  i^th  Ki^g 
from  Afw,  who  is  fa'id  to  have  reigned  there,  the  very  Year  after  the 
deftruftion  of  Troy  .<?  So  very  funthial  are  the  Authors  0/ fabulous  Anti- 
quities. And  if  you  believe  them,  they  have  good  ancient  Authors  «z»i^  the 
Tradition  of  their  Conntrey  fr  them  5  bsc  noftri  Majores  multis  Libris 
tradiderunt,  faith  the  pretended  Berofus.  And  by  thefe  helps,  vce  have 
great  light  given  m  into  the  Antiquities  t/Europe  5  for  thereby  we  under- 
Jiand  that  ]anus,  (^  who  was  fomevehat  elder  than  G2itht\os,  ^ei«g  Noah 
himfelfr)  gave  Tuyfco  the  Countrey  from  the  Tanais  to  the  Rhyne,  Italy 
roGomer,  MeCeltick  Provinces  to  SzmothQS,  <2»(i  Celtiberia /o  Tubal. 
'And  this  wasjttfl  1 5 1  Years  after  the  Flood  ^  Gomer  went  into  Italy  the 
lothTear  f>/Saturn  the  Father  <?/ Jupiter  Belus ;  in  the  12th  Jubal  went 
into  Celtiberia,  and  not  long  after  Samothes,  called  Dis,  founded  the 
Celtick  Colonies  ^  among  which  were  the  Britains,  and  from  him  their 
Druids  were  called  Samothei :  After  Jubal  among  the  Celtiberians  reign- 
ed Iberus  his  Son,  from  whom  came  the  Name  of  Iberi  ^  and  among  the 
Gelrje,  Magus  the  Son  of  Samothes  in  the  5  ifl  Tear  c/Ninus,  who  fucceed- 
ed  Jupiter  Belus  :  This  Magus  in  the  Scythian  Language  is  Magog,  and 
from  him  came  fo  many  terminations  of  the  Names  <>/Towns,  as  Rhota- 
magum,  Noviomagum,  Juliomagum,  Cxfaromagura,  c^^-.  In  the 
54rhfl/Semiramis,  Jubelda  Son  of  Iher,  fucceeded  in  Cdt'iheris  -^  in  the 
time  o/Ninias,  Son  to  Semiramis,  reign  d  Sarron  among  the  Celtas,  from 
him  the  learned  Gauh  were  called  Sarronidx,  the  fame  I  fuppofe  with  our 
Advocate's  Sanachies.  In  the  20th  c/Arius,  Brigus  reigned  in  Celtibe-  p.  14. 
ria,  and  in  the  29th  Dryius  among  the  Celtx^  nothing  can  he  more  na- 
tural than  to  derive  the  Druids  from  him  :  Who  being  converted,  the 
Advocate  tells  «f,  became  their  firft  Monks,  and  in  the  /r//S  Verfion  of  p.  13. 
the  New  Teftament  the  Wife-men  are  tranflated  Druids ;  therefore  the 
Druids  were  originally  Irifli.  In  the  time  0/ Aralius,  the  feventh  King  of 
Babylon,  Bardusir^  iC/Ȥ' oz^er  the  Celtse;  and  he  was  the  Inventor  of 
Mufick  and  Verfes  5  and  from  him  came  the  Bards,  who  were  the  Poets 
of  their  Traditions,  as  the  Advocate  ftyles  them.  After  him  Succeeded  p.  14- 
Loiigo,  then  Bard  us  junior,  afrer  him  Lucus,  and  then  Celtes,  and  Ga- 
Jates,  Narbon,  Lugdus,  Beligius,  AUobrox,  Romus,  Paris,  Lemannus, 
Galatas  junior,  <?»^/ Francus. 

Mufk  we  allow  all  thefe  noble  Antiquities />r  fear  of  flwrtning  the  Royal  / 
Lines  of  the  Princes  <7/Europe  ?  And  yet  here  is  a  great  ^pearance  ofex- 
a&nefs,  a  pretence  to  ancient  Records,  and  to  the  common  Tradition  of  the 
feveral  Countries  5  for  Berofus  appeals  both  to  Tradition  and  Writing  5 
andfo  doth  Manetho  in  the  continuation  of  him,  qu«  ex  noftris  Hiftori- 
cis  vel  eorum  relationibus  confecuti  fumus ;  fo  that  here  we  have  the  two 
Supporters  of  Antiquities,  which  the  Mwocaite  builds  upon,  viz.  Tradi* 
tion  and  Records.  And  Metafthenes,  another  pretended  contintierofBe- 
Tofas  faith,  he  took  all  out  of  the  Royal  Library  at  Sufa,  where  the 
Perfian  Armah  were  preferved.  But  notwithjianding  all  thefe  fair  Jkews 
andfpecious  pretences,  there  is  not  a  Man  of  tolerable  judgment  in  Europe, 
rpho  would  venture  his  Reputation  to  plead  for  thefe  Antiquities. 

But  the  learned  Advocate  faith.    That  their  Antiquities  have  been  re-    p,  ,, 
ceived  with  great  Applaufe  for  many  hundreds  of  Years  by  all  Hiftori- 
ans.  Antiquaries  and  Criricks  of  other  Nations  who  had  any  occafion  to 
take  notice  of  their  Affairs.     Thefe  are  very  high  Exprefftons,    and  argue 
a  good  affurance  in  the  very  beginning  of  his  Book.     For  my  part^   I  do 

not 


xiv  ^      The  Preface. 


»ot  pretend  to  a  qua'ititattce  with  all  Hiftorians>  Antiquaries  and  Criticks 
for  many  hundreds  of  Years  ^  andfo  there  may  have  been  fame,  for  any 
thing  I  know,  who  have  app landed  their  Hiftories  fi-om  530  Tears  before 
Chriji  'j  but  upon  my  little  knowledge  iti  Books,  I  dare  venture  to  name 
him  ten  mho  have  applauded  the  Antiquities  tj/'Berofus  and  Manetho,  for 
one  who  hath  allowed  theirs.  But  fuch  hath  been  my  Misfortune  that  I 
,      '.  ,.  ,  „       have  met   with  Hiftorians,    Antiquaries  and  Cri- 

*  Hoclolumiudicamus,  quasdeSco-     .•   1  ,     ,         ,  j-      /?  ^^1      j-       ^l  f.,  L 

tis  &eorum  Regibusab  anno  sjo.ance    f^CKS,  T^ho  have  been  far  from  applauding  tbem^  Jucb 

caput  sers  Chrifliana»,  cum  Alexander  a  one  was  *  Ubbo  Emmius,  who  declares  his  Opini' 

S-d  FTuril'rReglS-:  ff  ^^t>    "That  he  cM  „,,  Mor,  any  Certainty 

quadragefimi'm,  cujus  inidum  conji-  in  them,  becaufe  they  depend  not  Upon  any  ancient 

citur  a  scotis  Scriptoribus  in  annum  «  Annals,  /»«/ Unwritten  Traditions  i    and  he  not 

Chrilti  404.  qui   ejeftos  e  Britannia    a         1      r      7       t  r     1       ^  n    o         ir  j:  IT- 

Scotos  dicirur  reduiiffe,  non  ex  an-        Only  fpeaks  thus  of  the  firjt  6uccejJzon  of  A.tngs 

nalibus  vetuflis  vccuftos  autores  lia-  "  from  Fergus-I.  to  the  fecond,  but  from  Fergus  If. 
"^^'^t^J^^fl^:^  ;;  to  the  depumon  of  the  ?\^S  by  ^enne±  which 
memorantur,  ea  nos  pro  certis  ha-  he  reckons  Anno  Dom.  829.  But  another  of  the 
bere  non  pofTe    scimus  enim  quam  fame  Char a&er,    ^^M  ^«  Hiftorian,    Antiquary  rf»^ 

lubrico  acque  mltabili    tundamento  V,..,         .      't,,r»        •       r.i          •       1      r        r 

nitantur.    Quinimo  ne   ifta  quidem  CritlCk,   VIZ.       f   M.  ZucriUS  BoxhomiUS  hath  paj- 

faiis  eerta  nobis  videntur  ,  qua;  i  fed  a  fevere  Cenfure  Upon  them,  for  he  faith,  With- 

Fergufii  2.  initio,  &  Scotorum  re-  ^    /     t  ^    ,     .-'    »     /      .•                i-'  u    1                     j 

ditu  in  Britanniam  in  rebus  Scoticis  o"^  doubt  their  Antiquities  are  Fabulous  5  and 
recitanrur  ad  A.  D.  819.  quo  Pifti   their  pretended  ancient  Annals  but  lately  made. 

Sinci;"anrre\hi??egt  '^^^fi  ^^y  firve  at  prefent,  to  fiew  that  all  Hiftori- 
hujus  gentis,  ut  Traditiones  habent  ans,  Antiqu'dnes  and  Cr'iticks  have  not  fo  much  ap- 
LX^ix.  vbb.  Em.  Rer.  ch.onoiog.  I.  j.  pUuded  their  Autiquitics. 

But  this  if  not  all,  for  the  Advocate  faith.  They 
fDe  primorum  gentis  regum  initiis   havc  done  it  for  many  hundreds  of  Years.     What  f 

multa  baud  dubiefabulofa  habent  Sco-     /„^       .r  j  ^    ^r     rr/    ;j  j       IT      tt^a.- 

torum.quemadmodum&aliarumgen-  ''^fi^^  *}^y  ^^J^^  '^"OWn  tO  the  World  .<?  tor  HedtOf 
tium  poftremis  demum  temporibus,  Bocthius  Wos  the  firfl  Perfon  who  pretended  to  give 
^  3o°t'~fe^n;;rf;^iX  /f  a  dear  Account  of  tkm  after  the  Difcovery  of 
tribuuntur,  faifl  arguunt,  miffa  faci-  Vcremundus  and  Cornelius  Hibemicus  at  Icolm- 
raus,  neque  pro  noRro  ea  fadunt  in-  fcij]  .  and  it  k  not  many  hundreds  of  Tears  ftnce  he 
iUiuto.  Boxhorit.  Hijl.  univerf.  p.  87S.  /     l-    n     7  1   •       ^a        •   ^   j  r        ^1    1      • 

wrote,  hK  Book  being  fir ji  printed  ftnce  the  beginning 

of  the  fixteenth  Century.     And  what  account  had  they  of  their fir^  Antiqui- 
ties before  .<?     Joh.  Major  indeed  was  printed  about  five  Tears  before  him, 
by  the  fame  Badius  Afcenfius,    and  he  was  no  great  Critick,    but  a  very 
Scholajtick  Hifiorian,  and  a.  Man  of  great  efleem  in  hk  time,  as  the  Advo- 
Defence,  cate  confeffeth  '^   but  he  is  fo  far  from  applauding  the  remote  Antiquities  of 
M^r^^'  ^^  ''^"  ^ountrey,  that  he  calls  the  Story  of  Gathelos  and  Scota  and  their 
Hifi,  Scot!  coming  out  of  Gree<:e  and  Egypt  a  mere  Figment,  and  invented  only  to 
1. 1,  f.  17.  match  the  Britains,  who  derived  themfelves  from  the  Trojans,    and  he 
*^'^'         condemns  their  Annals  about  Simon  Brek-^    which  fhews  what  a  regard  he 
^'  II'    had  to  their  Authority.    And  when  he  comes  to  Fergus  hefets  down  the  old 
Verfes  about  the  time  of  it  5    but  feems  to  give  very  little  credit  to  them  5 
for  he  firfl  mentions  Eede's  Account  about  Reuda,    and  then  relates  what 
their  Anna.\s  fay,  i.e.  their  old  Verfes  C  for  he  quotes  no  other)  and  then 
faith  thfs  doth  not  contradiB  Bede ;  for  faith  he,  Regni  debile  fundamen- 
turn  Fergufias  jecit ;    he  laid  a  very  flender  beginning  of  a  Monarchy, 
which  was  after  inlarged  by  Reuda,    whom  he  makes  to  be  Rether,    and 
therein  contradi&s   Hedor's  Veremundus   and  the  Catalogues  of  their 
Kings,  according  to  which  Reuda  fucceeds  him.     So  that  thefe  Antiqui- 
ties were  fo  far  from  being  univerfally  received  abroad  that  they  went  down 
very  hardly  at  home.     And  this  fame  Hiflorical  School-man  exprefly  faith, 
!.  i  c.  17.  that  Fergus  had  no  other  Right,  but  what  the  People  gave  him  ;  and 

that 


The    Preface.  xv 


that  it  is  in  their  Power  to  take  it  away  ^  which  he  not  only  aff^rts,  hut 
endeavours  to  prove  in  a  Scholaftick  manner  as  far  as  Septimo  8c  Finialiten 
And  is  not  this  a  degree  of  Lefe-Majefty  above  the  endeavouring  to  Jhor- 
ten  the  Royal  Line  ?  Surely  they  had  far  better  deny  any  fuch  Perfon  as 
Fergus,  than  to  make  him  a  King  upon  fnch  termsy  which  overthrow  the  % 
Monarchy. 

But  who  are  thefe  foreign  Hiflorians,  Antiquaries  and  Criticks,    who  at 
any  time  havefo  much  applauded  thefe  Antiquities  .<?     Jofeph  Scah'ger  did 
indeed  applaud  his  own  Wit  for  his  Criticifm  about  Scoto-Brigantes  in  Se- 
neca'/ Verfes.     But  what  is  this  to  Fergus  his  coming  fo  foon  into  Scotland  ? 
For  Scaliger  himfelf  there  grants,    that  thefe  Scoto-Brigantes  were  ftill  in  Scaitg.  \a 
Ireland'^    and  he  believes  that  Claudius  did  make  an  attempt  upon  them^'*""- 
there,  becaufe7«z/e»<«/ mentions  the  Coafts  of  jfawf»<«  as  brought  under  '  ^' 
the  Roman  Power.     Scoti  funt  in  Hibernia  adhuc,   non  in  Britannia, 
are  ScaligerV  own  Words.     And  1  wonder  to  fee  Buchanan  labour  fo  hard  a.-  Buch.  i.  s* 
hout  this  Pajfage,  'to  fo  little  purpofe.     But  the  Mvocatte  faith,    that  theP-  "•^** 
fame  Scaliger  in  his  Notes  on  Eufebius,    hath  a  moft  learned  and  full  of  the  An- 
Proof  of  their  Antiquity,  too  learned  to  be  anfwered  by  any  Adverfa- t'quicy, 
ry.    What  doth  he  mean  by  their  Antiquity  ?    That  of  the  Nation  >    No  ^\  p*  ^'' 
one  denies  it.     That  of  their  fettlement  in  Scotland  350  Years  before 
Chrift  ?    That  is  to  he  proved,  for  Scaligar  doth  it  not*   He  affirms,  *'  That  Scaiig.  \n  • 
"  the  BriganteS  were  a  People  <?/ Ireland,    and  that  during  th'eflouri/hing^^^^^-  "' 
**  of  the  Roman  Empire,  they  made  frequent  Incurjions  into  Britain,  and 
**  for  proof  he  brings  the  Tefiimony  <7/Paufanias  about  Antoninus  his  heat- 
**  ing the Brigantes/« Britain  5  and thfilnfcriptions in  Scotland,  wherein ^^"^"j' '** 

mention  is  made  of  the  Leg.  2*  which  fignifie  very  little  to  this  purpofi. 
For  why  could  not  the  fecond  Legion  7%A*  agaittfi  the  Brigantes,  fttppofing 
them  to  be  Britains,    ^  well  as  fuppofing  them  to  he  Irifh  ?     But  Scaliger'j 
Opinion  was  this,    *'  The  Brigantes  and  the  Britains  were  two  diflinB  Peo- 
*'  pie  5    while  thej  continued  at  home,    they  were  called  by  no  other  Name^ 
but  when  they  made  excurfions  abroad,  then  they  were  called  Scoto-bri- 
*'  gantestf«^  Scoto-britanni  ;    andfo  the  Word  Scot,    he  faith,    if  not  a 
**  proper  Name,    hut  Appellative  i^    and  not  Irifh  hut  Britifti,  for  thofe  who 
**  go  from  home  in  hopes  of  Booty,    as  the  Names  o/Bedwin  and  Saracen  5 
**  andfo  as  the  Arabs  wereafier  called  Saracens  5  fo  thefe  Brigantes,  wAe^ 
**  theyfo  much  infejled  Britain  in  ClaudianV  time,   and  after  were  called 
Scoti.     Now  what  there  is  in  all  this,  that  Jhould  fi  much  pleafe  the  Ad- 
vocate,   I  cannot  imagine.      He  is  very  angry  with  the  Bijhop  ofSt.ACaph 
for  reprefenting  their  Ancejiors  as  a  company  of  barbarous  Pilferers  and 
Robbers    (  although  he  only  produces  the  Tefiimony  o/Gildas  )    how  then  Defence," 
comes  he  to  be  fo  much  pleafed  with  Scaliger,   who  makes  the  Name  Scot  to  '^^^'\°^^ 
fignifie  fo  much  /     /  had  thought  he  Jhould  have  been  more  concerned  to      ' 
have  difproved  fuch  a  reproachful  Etymology  than  to  have  magnified  this 
Di/courfe  <>/Scaliger  fo  highly.     But  where  is  it  that  he  mentions  the  firft 
Succeflion  of  their  Kings  with  approbation,   or  Fergus  his  coming  into 
Scotland  before  Chrift's  Nativity  ?     All  that  he  faith  is.    That  the  Scots 
might  he  a  Nation  before  they  were  known  by  that  Name,  (^and  who  doubts 
it  )    "  as  the  Burgundians  and  Lombards  were  5    and  that  the  Bri- 
gantes out  ^Ireland  might  make  inroads  and  excurfions   into  Bri- 
*'  tain  in   the  flour ifljing  times  of  the  Empire.     And  I  fee  no  reafon  to 
deny  this,    although  it  he  not  fufficiently  proved.   But  the  queftion  is  about 
a  ftanding  Monarchy  in  Scotland  from  the  time  of  Fergus  I.   and  of 
this  Scaliger  faith  not  a  Word.    For  thefe  Brigantes  coming  out  of  Ire- 

d  land^ 


xvi  The    Preface. 


land,  might  fix  then  for  fom  tim,  and  return  again  to  Ireland,  as  Gil- 
das  'faith  they  did  afterwards,  or  they  might  fix  as  a  fiatterd  People 
■fiot  united  under -a  Uonarchy,  as  Fordon  faith,  they  did  befire  Fergus 
his  coming.  So  that  if  their  Antiquities  be  no  more  applauded  by  other  An- 
tiquaries and  Criticks^/&rt«  they  are  by  Scaliger,    this  Argument  will  come 

to  very  little.  t  t  r    t      c    i* 

Defence,       And  yet  Salraafius  and  the  rejl  he  mentions,  fay  much  lefs  than  bcali- 
<Srcp.i2^ger  •    Salraafius  only  ufeth  Scaliger's  Critic! fm  about  the  Scoto-Brigantes 
tvithout  adding  any  thing.  Lipfius  unhappily  calls  Galgacus  a  Scot  5  which 
was  an  improper  exprejfion,  as  I  have  proved  in  the  proper  pl/tce  ;  becaufe  it 
iffo  evident  fromT zciiMS,  that  the  Caledonians  were  not  Scots 5  ttnlefs  it 
he  /tf^e«/tfr  Scythians,   (of  which  afterwards  )  but  by  Scots  here  we  mean 
fuch  as  came  out  o/Ireland  to  fettle  in  Britain  5    and  fitch  Galgacus  and 
ff'fl-  </*    his  Soldiers  were  not.    And  the  like  impropriety  Bergier,   though  a  learned 
%tiif\.  Antiquary,  fell  into,  when  he  interprets  the  Caledonians  by  Scots  5  but  fuch 
c.  il'n.  9.  as  Dempfter  is  frequently  guilty  of,  when  he  calls  the  Britains  Englifli,  be- 
caufe the  EngliOi  dmlt  in  Britain  afterwards.     But  improper  Expreffionr, 
where  they  fall  fiom  learned  Men  by  chance,  ought  rather  to  be  pajfed  over 
mthfilence  than  madeufe  of  as  Arguments  ;  ^  unlefs  thofe  who  ufe  them  go 
aboutto  prove  what  is  implied  in  them.     Sigonius  his  Namefiands  among  the 
reji,  being  indeed  a  learned  Hiftorian,  Antiquary  and  Critick  ;    but  not 
one  Word  can  I  find  produced  out  of  him  in  his  whol?  Book.     What  Baroni- 
us  faith  relates  to  the  Converfion  of  the  Scotilh  Nation,  and  not  to  thefe 
Defence,  Antiquities  5  of  which  I  have  treated  at  large  in  the  following  Book.   Andr. 
«5rc.p.io7.  Favin  and  P.  iEmilius  fpeah  only  of  an  Alliance  between  Achaius  King 
"°^*      of  the  Scots  and  Charles  the  Great  5  and  what  is  this  to  Fergus  and  the 
Succeffion  of  Kings  for  330  Years  before  Cfarift's  Nativity  >    Which  he 
p.  1. 10.  faith  in  the  beginning  was  applauded  by  all  Hiftorians,   Antiquaries  and 
Criticks,   and  as  though  this  were  not  extravagant  enough,    he  faith  after- 
p.  i2tf.    xvards,  that  Baronius,  Scaliger,  Salmafius,  Lipfius,  Sigeniiu,  Favin  and 
others  of  the  firft  Rank    ( too  many  to  be  named  )    have  paffionately 
defended  their  Antiquity,  and  not  only  fuftained  but  praifed  their  Hi- 
ftories.     Whereas  not  one  of  thefe  produced  by  him  fpeaks  any  thing  to  the 
matter  in  queftion.     But  we  hope  to  fee  thefe  things  better  cleared  in  the 
third  Part  o/&>  R.  SibbaldV  Scotia  Antiqua,   where  he  has  promifed  to 
give  a  particular  account  of  the  State  of  the  Scots  in  Britain  before  they  had 
Kings,   then  under  Kings  from  Fergus  I.  /<?  Fergus  IF.  and  from  thence 
/o  Malcolm  Canmore.     If  he  doth  clear  thefe  Parts  of  their  Antiquities,  he 
will  do  a  great  thing  5  and  for  my  part,  I  fhall  be  as  willing  to  believe  Fer- 
gus to  have  come  into  Britain  in  the  time  of  Alexander  as  any  time  after ^ 
provided  there  befufiicient  Evidence  to  prove  it  ;    which  mufl  be  fomewhat 
more  convincing  than  his  MajeftyV  Advocate  hath  been  pleafed  to  make  nfe 
of'^  but  I  remember  Scaliger'j  Cenfure  ^/Claudian,  addit  de  ingenio  quan- 
tum deeft  materiae. 

Therefore  from  the  Tefiimony  of  Hiftorians,  Antiquaries  and  Cri- 
ticks,  /  proceed  to  examine  the  Argumentative  part  of  his  Book  5  dnd 
fetting  afide  all  common  Places  about  Hiftorical  Certainty,  Tradi- 
tion, common  Fame,  &c.  I  fliall  keep  clofe  to  the  Point  before  uf, 
and  examine  the  force  and  firength  of  his  Reafoning,  which  confifis 
in  thefe  things. 
P-<5.  ^j^  'j'jj^j,  yp^jj^  the  fame  Reafon  we  queftion  their  Antiquities,  we 
may  call  in  queftion  the  Roman,  Jewijh,  Greek,  French,  Spanifh  Anti- 
quities, all  which  depended  upon  Tradition  without  Records  for  a 
longtime.  This 


<( 


«( 


^ -  ■■  - 

The  Preface.  xvii 

This  is  indeed  a  material  Objection  5  for  we  ought  not  to  give  a  partial 
/Ijjent  to  fome  Antiquities,  and  deny  it  to  others,  if  there  he  the  fame 
p^ound  either  to  give  or  deny  Affent  to  all.     But  this  mnji  be  examined. 

f  I.)  As  to  */&e  Roman  Antiquities,  he  cites  afafptge  in  Livy,  in  which  he  ih.  i.  6, 
faith,  that  the  ufe  of  Letters  was  not  then  ordinary  ^   the  only  certain  in>r- 
preferver  of  the  memory  of  things  paft    CjfbLivy's  Words  are  to  be  utt' 
derftood,   rar«E  per  ea  tempora  Litera?,   una  cuftodia  fidelis  memoriae  re- 
rum  geftarum,  and  not  as  the  Advocate  with  too  much  art,  hath  tranflated 
them,  that  the  heft  Records  were  the  faithful  Remembrance  of  things 
ipafl".     For  if  this  were  Livy'j-  meaning  why  doth  he  complain  of  the  want  of 
the  common  ufe  of  Letters,   when  he  faith.  Tradition  is  the  beft  way  to 
preferve  the  memory  of  things  ?     Which  is  to  make  Livy  fpeak  inconfe- 
quently.  )    But  he  goes  on,  faying,  that  what  Memorials  were  left  by  thfe 
High  Priefts,   or  were  in  publick  or  private  hands  were  moft  part  de- 
ftroyed  in  the  burning  of  the  Town.  He  doth  not  fay  all  were  loft,  but 
the  moft  part.    This  Livy  aOedgeth  to  excufe  the  (hortnefs  and  obfiurity  df 
his  firfi  Boohs  for  want  offufficient  Records  5   and  hefpeaks  like  a  veryj^. 
■dicioui  Hifiorian  in  it.     And  when  he  gives  at»  Account  of  the  remote  Anti- 
quities of  Rome,    he  is  far  from  confident   afferting    them ;      bitt  he 
fteaks  with  great  Modefly  and   Difcretim  about  them^  fapng,    "  That 

he  would  neither  affirm  nor  deny  them  5  being  rather  built  on  Poetical 
*■  Fables  than  any  certain  Monuments  of  Affairs  at  that  time,  that  an  at- 
"  lowance  mufi  be  made  to  Antiquity  5    which  was  wont  confecrare^Ori- 

gines  (nas,  to  make  their  beginnings  asfacred  and  venerable  as  they  could. 

But  as  to  fitch  things  he  would  be  no  Advocate  either  for  or  againji 
them.    Then  he  proceeds  to  deliver  the  common  Tradition  about  Mmais 
his  coming  into  Italy,    and  Afcanius  fucceeding  him  5    but   he  cann&t 
tell  whether  Afcanius  the  Son  ^/Creufa,  or  another  the  Son  of  Lavinia  5 
fluis  enim  rem  tam  veterem  pro  certo  affirmet  >    Who  can  be  certain  in 
puh  remote  Antiquities?     And  yet  at  that  time  it  was  thought  a  great  dif- 
paragement  to  the  Royal  Line,    to  have  it  quefiion'd  whether  it  were  the 
elder  Afcanius,  becaufe  the  Julian  Family,    as  Livy  there  faith,   derived 
themfelves  from  him  who  was  called  lulus.     It  is  true,    Livy  after  thit, 
relates  the  Roman  Antiquities  down  to  the  burning  of  the  City,    when  fh 
many  Records  were  lofi  5  but  we  are  to  conjider,    that  the  Romans  had  cer- 
tain Annals  before  that  time,  and  that  fome  of  them  were  preferved,     That 
they  had  Annals  both  publick  and  private  appears  by  LivyV  own  Words, 
tobo  mentions  both  the  Commentarii  Pontificum  and  the  publica  &priva*  De  orat. 
ta  monumental  and  Cicsxo  affirms,  that  the  Romans  ^<?«»  the  beginning^' ^'^'^^' 
tad  Annals  made  up  by  the  Pontifex  Maximus  of  the  tranfaSions  of  every 
Tear  5    and  thefe  were  puhlickly  expofed  in  a  Table  in  his  Houfe  that  the 
People  might  befatisfied  about  them  ;  and  thefe  he  faith  were  called  Annales 
Maximi^  which  he  adds  were  continued  down  to  the  time  o/Mucius  Scaevo- 
la,  who  was  Pontifex  Maximus  about  A.  U.  C.  623.    Thefe,   as  Servius  serv.  in 
faithy  were  after  made  up  into  80  great  Books,  and  were  the  fianding  Mo-  p*^-  ^''• 
tmments  of  their  Antiquities.     And  it  is  obfervable  that  the  Author  of  the  '^'  ^^''^' 
B<7<?)^  de  origine  GcntisRomanae,  <^VoffiuS4«^  others  take  notice,  inferis 
feveral  things  as  taken  out  of  the  Pontifical  Annals  which  hapned  before  Voff.  de 
the  building  of  Komc  5  from  whence  they  do  Jujily  infer,    that  matters  of^'^-  ^"f- 
more  remote  Antiquity  were  put  into  them,  whether  by  the  firfi  Pontifex  "  ^'  *^'  '* 
Max,  in  Numa'x  time  or  after  it  is  impoffible  now  to  determine.     It  feems 
at  firfi  the  People  were  not  permitted  to  view  thefe  Annals,   as  Canuleius  in  ^'^-  •  t- 
Livy  complains  3  but  afterwards  they  were  expofed  to  all.     And  it  appears  ^'  ^' 

by 


XVlll 


The  Preface. 


c.  7. 


20. 


C.    23. 


In  Srtito, 
c.  i6. 


Vionyf  An 
tiq.  Rom. 
1.  I. 


1.  z. 

Fefl.  V. 
Roma. 

p.  7. 


p.  6. 


p.  9. 
p.  132. 


^)/  LiciniusMacer  in  Livy,  that  the  Libri  Lintei  (which  feem  to  have  bee'^ 
for  the  fame  purpofe  mth  the  Annales  Maximi,  but  compofed  by  the  Magi^ 
f  rates  )  were  preferved  in  ^de  Monetae,  and  in  them  the  Names  of  the 
Magi^rates  roere  inferted  :,  and  in  the  fame  place  Livy  takes  notice  of 
the  Annales  prifci,  and  the  Libri  Magiftratuum  for  determining  a  Point 
about  the  Confuls  of  a  Year  long  before  the  burning  ofKovae  5  which  jlievps 
that  Livy  did  not  think  all  their  Records  then  defiroyed.  And  afterwards 
he  faith  in  the  fame  Book,  difputing  about  another  Conful,  that  Auguftus  re- 
bnilding  the  Temple  of  Jupiter  Feretrius,  found  there  in  thorace  linteo 
the  name  of  that  Conful.  So  that  the  Romans  had  not  only  the  Pontifical 
Annals  but  Civil  too,  being  made  up  by  the  Magiflrates^  and  therefore  cal-^ 
led  Libri  Magiftratuum  by  Livy,  which  he  dijiingui/hes  from  the  Annales 
Prifci.  And  befides  thefe  Livy  mentions  private  Records  among  them  5  of 
which  Cicero  fpeaks,  which  belonged  to  particular'Families  :  and  there  is 
no  probability  thefe  Jhould  be  all  loji  in  the  burning  of  the  City  5  for  the  Ca- 
pitol was  not  burnt,  in  which  probably  after  the  R.omans  found  the  Gauls 
coming  upon  them,  they  preferved  their  ancient  Annals.  And  it  is  confi- 
derable,  that  Dionyfius  Halicarnalfeus  quotes  a  pajfage  o/Antiochus  Sy- 
racufanus,  (  who  lived  before  the  burning  of  Rome,  and  wrote  concerning 
the  affairs  of  Italy  )  wherein  he  faith,  that  he  took  his  Hiftory  out  of 
ancient  and  undoubted  Records  ^  which  (hews  that  there  were  certain 
written  Annals  both  at  Kovasand  in  other  Chits  of  ItaXy  very  early  5  and 
the  fame  Dionyfius  quotes  the  Domeftick  Annals  of  the  Sabins,  and  Fe- 
fius  the  Hiftory  of  Cuma.  So  that  the  Roman  Hiftories  were  built  on  bet- 
ter  foundation  than  the  very  uncertain  Tradition  of  the  Natives  5  which 
the  Advocate  is  pleafed  to  make  the  fureft  Foundation  of  all  Hiftories  5 
but  I  amfo  much  of  another  Opinion,  that  I  think  it  (fince  the  fhortening 
of  Mens  Lives  )  the  certain  foundation  of  none.  Let  now  the  Reader 
judge  whether  the  cafe  of  the  Antiquities  in  difpute  be  the  fame  with  that 
of  the  Romans ;  for  here  are  no  ancient  Annals  pretended  near  the  time 
o/Fergus  L  nor  in  the  time  of  any  King  ofthefirfi  Race:,  no  nor  from 
Fergus  If.  till  after  the  DefiruSion  of  the  Pi61:s  5  nor  any  Record  yet  pro- 
duced for  a  long  time  after  that ;  how  then  can  any  Verfons  pretend  that  if 
we  reje^  their  Antiquities  we  mufl  rejeH  the  Roman  > 

But  this  is  not  all,  for  he  goes  higher,  and  faith  the  fameObje&ions  will  lie^ 
(2.)  -<^^<«/»/2 //^ejewifti  Antiquities.  For  faith  he,  the  jfe»»/&  Hiftory 
had  no  hiftorical  Warrant  for  the  firft  2000  Years  but  Tradition,  and 
after  that  time  their  Tranfaftions  vi^ere  mentioned  in  very  few  foreign 
Hiftories  ;  and  Annals  of  their  own  Priefts  were  thought  good  Hifto- 
rical Foundations  in  the  Opinion  of  Jofephuf  even  for  the  Sacred  Hifto- 
ry. And  not  long  after  he  faith,  that  the  Jewijh  Hiftory  was  challenged 
by  Appion  upon  the  fame  ground  that  theirs  is  now  quarrell'd  by  the  Br- 
ftiop  of  St.  Afaph.  This  looks  fomewhat  firange  among  tts,  for  the  Anti- 
quities of  any  particular  Nation  fo  far  fhort  of  the  Jewiftl,  to  be  parallell'd 
with  them  in  point  (^/Credibility  5  fince  the  Records  of  Scripture  are  own'd 
to  be  divine  and  facred,  and  not  merely  built  on  the  authority  o/Tradition, 
or  the  Annals  of  the  Jewiftl  Priefts.  Whatever  Jofephus  or  other  Jews 
might  fay  in  defence  0/ their  Antiquities  4g<?j»/?  Me  Greeks,  we  that  own 
ourfelves  to  he  Chriftians  ought  to  look  on  Mofes  and  the  Prophets  «»c/er 
a  higher  Chara&er.  I  know  a  late  Critick  in  great  Vogue  among  fome,  hath 
endeavoured  to  reduce  the  Sacred  Hiftory  to  the  Authority  of  the  ancient 
Annals  of  the  Jews,  but  withall  adding  that  we  have  only  fome  imper- 
fea  Abridgments  of  them,  much  like  that  which  the  Reftor  of  Ranfrew 

made 


The    Preface.  xix 


made  of  the  Book  of  Pajley,  vphich  the  Advocate  fau>  in  Sir  R.  SibbaldV 
Library.     A  Doslrine  fo  ttnreafonahle  andmifchievotu  in  the  Confeqitences  of 
it,    that  I  vpotider  tt  hath  hitherto  pajfedfo  eafily  through  fo  marry   hands. 
But  this  is  not  my  prefent  bujtnefs.     I  am  now  only  to  JJjew  the  vaji  difparity 
<?/thefe  Antiquities  in  qttejtion^  and  thofe  of  the  Jews.     It's  very  true  that 
Appion  did  obje&  aga/nji  them,  hecaufe  the  Greek  Writers  took  fo  little' no' 
tice  of  them.    But  how    doth   Jofephus  anfwer  him  .<?  He  pews,    "  That 
"  the  Greeks  jyere^/erj'/^/e  Writers  of  Hiftory,  and  therefore'mcom^iQtQnt 
"  Judges  of  matters  of  fo  great  Antiquity  ;    and  he  proves  that  the  more  an"- 
"  cie>7t  Nations  as  the  Egyptians,   Chaldeans,   Phoenicians  had  a  moji 
"  lajiing  way  of  preferving  their  Hiftories,  for  they  had  publick  Annals 
"  made  by  their  w/feji  Men,    and  kept  in  facred  Places,   but  the  Greeks    , 
"  were  very  defiSlive  in  thofe  things  ;    having  no  publick  V/rititigs  in  their 
"  Temples  or  elfewhere :,    and  that  they  had  not  the  ufe  of  Letter  sin  the 
"  ti/^e  of  the  Trojan  War:^    and  their  firjl  Hijlorians  were  little  elder  than 
"  /Ae.Perfians  War  againji  the  Greeks.    And  this  reafon  he  gives  of  the 
*'  dijfonancy  of  the  Greek  Hijiorians,  becaufe  they  had  no  publick  AnnsLls, 
*'  which  would  have  prevented  Errors,  and  kept  Men  from  a  power  ofde- 
"  ceiving.     But  great  care,  he  faith,   from  the  mofl  ancient  times  was  ta- 
*'  ken  of  fuch  things  among  the  Egyptians  and  Babylonians.     Jnd  for- 
"  their  Anceftors,  he  faith  they  exceeded  all  others  in  their  exaBnefs  this 
*'  way,  committing  the  care  efthefe  things  to  their  High  Priefts  and  Pro- 
"  phets.     But  the  authority  of  Writing  was  not  allow  d  promifcuoufly  to 
all,  but  certain  Prophets  were  pitched  upon  who  wrote  the  mofl  remote 
"  Antiquities /•/  divine  Infpiration,    and  the  matters  in  their  own  times 
"  plainly  and  according  to  Truth  5    arid  therefore,  faith  he,    we  have  n(t 
**  fuch  multitude  of  Books  differing  from  each  other,    as  the  Greeks  ha,v^- 
"  but  only  2  2,  containing  on  Account  of  all  times  pafi,  viritten  with  great 
**  Fidelity  <«»;/  Authority.     Afterwards  their  Annals  Ji>ere  continued,  but 
*'  not  with  equal  Authority,  theSuccejfion  <7/th,eir  Prophets/i/7/»^.  And 
toj})ewofhowgreatcved\tthekhodk.s  (^ofthe  firji  fort^  are  among  us  ^ 
in  fo  long  time,  faith  he,  no  Man  hath  dared  either  to  add,  or  to  takea- 
way, or  to  tranfpofe  any  thing.  Which  is  utterly  inconfiflent  with  the  Prin- 
ciples tf/the  late  Critick  5  for  without  a  liberty  of  ah  ridging  and  tranfpofina, 
and  iiiferting  his  new  Inventions  come  to  nothing.     But  as  to  thefilence  ofo- 
ther  Nations  about  them,  hejloews,    "  That  they  were  a  People  who  lived 
in  a  great  Retirement^  that  the  Romans  themfelves  were  a  confiderabU 
People  before  the  Greeks  knew  them  ;    and  after  all  he  Jhews  they  were 
known  to  the  Egyptians,  Babylonians  and  Greeks,  which  he  proves  from- 
many  particular  Tefiimonies.     Now  what  is  there  parallel  to  thefe  things 
in  the  prefent  cafe  .<?     Have  they  produced  any  fuch  publick  and  facred 
Annals,    written  and  preferved  with  fo  much  care,    as  the  ancient  Jews 
had  ?     Have  they  had  a  Succejjlon  of  Prophets  among  them  whofc  Books 
are  preferved  to  this  day  with  great  Veneration  without  addition  or  dimi- 
Muetion  .<?     What  mean  then  fuch  Jirange  Comparifons  ?     Can  they  product 
any  one  Author  contemporary  with  Fergus  I.  and  his  Succejfors,    who  men- 
tion that  Succejfion  .<?  As  Jofephus  brings  the  Egyptian,  Phoenician,  Chal- 
dean Writers  to  atteji  the  Story  of  the  Scripture. 

(5.)  /^/ /tf  the  Greek  Antiquities,  he  faith,  the  Gree^j  could  have  no    p  y. 
Records  for  many  hundreds  of  Ye.irs  before  they  wrote.     Jnd  what 
follows,  but  that  therefore  there  is  great  uncertainty  in  the  Antiquities  of 
Greece  till  that  time  .<?     For  which  reafon  Varro,  that  great  and  judicious  cenfor.  de 
Antiquary  rejeUed  two  Parts  in  three,   of  the  Times  of  the  Greeks;    the  ^i^^^*^"''' 

e  one  ' 


XX  The    Preface. 


one  he  faid  was  wholly  in  the  dark  for  want  of  Pvccords,  and.  the  other 
Fabulous  i    becafife,  as]o(eplmsobferves,  they  had  no  publick  Annals, 
but  their  jirji  Writers  were  Poets,   who  minded  to  write  rather  things  en- 
Prefjceto  terta  fling  than  true.     But  we  are  of  late  told,    that  this  faying  of  Varro 
the  Pro-  might  hold  as  to  the  Gree^'  Antiquities  5    but  it  is  unjuftly  applied  by 
%Und     Camden  to  the  Antiquities  of  other  Nations ;  for  the  utmoft  Eaftern  Na- 
tions the  C/6i»e^/,  and  the  utmofl:  Weftern,     the  /r//&  have  preferved 
their  Antiquities  far  beyond  the  time  which  Varro  allows  for  true  Hi- 
ftory.     I  grant  Varro  intended  this  chiefly  for  the  Greeks,  who  made  the 
great ejl  noife  with  their  Antiquities  then  5    and  yet  Varro  himfelf    as  St, 
ch'it.De},  Auguftine  teUsiu,  began  hk  account  of  the  Roman  Antiquities,    wth  the 
!.  iS.  c.  2.  Succeffion  of  the  Sicyonian  and  Athenian  Kings ;   not  as  though  he  would 
deliver  it  pr  certain  Hijiorical  Truth,  but  as  the  moji  common  received  0- 
pinion.     And  in  the  Fabulous  Times,  he  might  endeavour  to  pick  out  what 
Antiquities  ^e  thought  came  neareji  toHifiory.     As  to  the  Chinefes,   they 
are  very  remote  from  us,    and  we  have  had  different  accounts  of  them,    as 
jMend  ^.t   appears  by  comparing  Gonfales  Mendoza  and  Martinius  together  :^    and  of 
c'hinlu.  ^^^/^  Antiquities  as  delivered  by  the  former,  a  learned  Alan  hath  fxid^  that 
c.  I  *      they  feem  to  him  like  Manetho's  Egyptian  Dynafties.     However  Scaliger 
Rer'ch"o  *^"&^*^  fi^  *o  ^"fi^*  *^^  Succejfion  of  their  Kings  in  hk  Chronological  Ca- 
«;/.  I  J.  nons,  and  makes  the  beginning  of  that  Emp.re  coincident  with  the  end  of 
V-  214      the  thirteen'h  Egyptian  Dynafty  5    hut  in  hk  Notes  ttpon  it,  he  complains 
nm  ifai->i.  ^f  ^^^  Want  of  farther  information  about  them.      Which  the  World  hath 
I.2.p.i58.^»fe  in  great  meafwe  received  by  Martinius,    both  in  hk  defcription  of  the 
Countrey,  and  the  firftDecad  of  the  Hiftory  from  the  beginning  of  the  Em- 
fire  to  the  Nativity  ofChrifi.     But  their  way  of  preferving  Antiquities  was 
peculiar  to  them/elves,   and  therefore  thefe  cannot  very  well  b&  made  a  Pa- 
mrttn.     raUel  for  the  Scotifti  or  Iri(h  Antiquities.     Martinius  hath  indeed  given  a. 
^^inif-fi'fi^  very  plaupble  account  of  the  remote  Antiquities  tf/China,    but  in  fmh  a 
,V   "      manner,  asfhewsthat  even  the  Chinefes  had  <?dark  and  fabulous  tirtie  as 
well  as  the  Greeks,  and  he  tells  us,  that  themfelves  acknowledge  that  be- 
fore the  Reign  of  Fohtus  they  have  no  certain  account  of  things  becaufe 
then  they  had  no  ufe  of  Letters  ^    but  afterwards,  they  look  upon  the  Suc- 
ceffion of  their  Kings  as  delivered  down  to  them  with  great  Fidelity.     But 
there  are  two  things  this  certainty  of  their  Hiflory  depended  upon.     ^l.)  A 
fixed  Rule  for  the  computation  of  Times,  without  wh'ch  it  k  impojjible  any 
Nation  fhould  have  an  exa^  account  of  the  ancient  Succejfion  of  their  Kings, 
And  herein  lay  the  great  accuracy  of  the  Chinefes   that  they  were  very 
early  given  to  the  finding  out  the  befi  methods  for  Calculation  ;    and  they 
nfed  a  Cycle  of  60  Tears,  26joTears  before  Chrifi's  Nativity :,   and  there- 
fore  Martinius  magnifies  the  Chinefes,   efpeciaSy  for  their  Skill  and  Ex- 
adnefs  in  the  Succeffion  of  their  Princes  ^  which  it  k  impoffible  to  give  a 
certain  account  of  without  a  fixed  meafure  of  time  ;   and  therefore  it  hath 
been  fo  often  faid,  that  the  Greeks  had  no  certain  Hiftory  before  the  O- 
lympiads.     (2.)  The  Chinefes  did  notfuffer  any  ^erfons  to  write  Hiftory 
that  would,    but  fome  of  great  RepHtation   were  appointed  after  the  Empe- 
ror's deceafe  to  write  his  Life  ^    which  being  approved,    was  allowed  as  the 
only  authentick  Hifiory  of  him,    and  thefe  being  put  together  made  up  theifr 
publick  Annals,    which  are  preferved  to  thk  day.     For,  notwithfianding 
s>f^rtiif.     the  Perfection  of  their  Hifiories  in  the  time  <?/ Chingus,    who  endeavoH- 
u'.'p.fii  ^'^^  ^'^  fm^4^  tf^em,   that  he  might  be  thought   the  Founder  of  the  Em^ 
pre  ^  yet  hk  Son  oppofing  his  defign,  and  many  learned  Men  being  bani- 
fbed  u^nn  it^  there  were  means  ufed  to  prefervo  their  AnnaU ; '  but  Semedd 

faith^ 


«« 


The  Preface.  xxi 


faith,    they  conld  never  recover  a  perfeti  Account  of  the  firji  heginning  ofSemedo 
that  fAttteus  Empire.  J^"/;^ 

l^uw  before  an)  other  Nation  can  prefunfe  to  hye  with  the  exaSimfs  of  the 
Chinefes  in  their  Antiquities,  they  muji  firji  p^ew  m  what  means  they  had. 
for  the  compHtation  of  times,  by  mhich  we  may  judge  of  their  Antiquity  and 
Succejfion  of  their  Kings  5  and  next  they  mttjl  give  an  eqnal  Account  of  the 
Care  taken  time  ef70ugh  to  preferve  their  Hijiory  of  publick  Annals,  as  the 
Eaftern  People  and  the  Romans  did. 

Forinfiance,  me  are  told  from  a  late  Irifti  Antiquary  Geoffrey  Keting,  Profpe^ 
that  the Pojferity  of  Gsithelos  and  Scota,    or  the  Milefian  Kace  fettled  in  f^p'^f 
Ireland,  A.M.  2736.  afier  the   Flood  1086.  afterMoiespaJjingthe Redp.  e! 
Seaig'z.  before  Chrift's  Nativity  1508.  from  whence  the  Antiquity  of  P*  ^*' 
the  irifl,  Nation,    is  faid  not  be  parallell'd,    unlefs  by  the  Chinefes 
only. 

Here  is  a  pretence  to  very  great  Antiquity,  and  an  appearance  ofexaU  Cal- 
culation 5  but  I  only  ash  by  what  Cycles  the  Irittl  proceeded  when  they  began  5 
how  they  could  adjuji  the  time  fo  well  to  the  Age  of  the  World  5  or  what  other 
certain  waj  they  had  which  might  be  reduced  to  it.  If  they  had  none,  all  this 
tfiight  be  only  Fancy  and  Opinion,  unlefs  there  were  fome  CharaUers  of  Time 
fixed ^  and  certain  by  Eclipjes  and  Afironomical Obfervations,  orcertainPeri- 
»ds  of  time,  or  coincident  paffages,  which  might  connect  the  Tear  of  their  de- 
fcent  into  Ireland,  withfuch  a  Tear  of  the  iVorld,  or  after  the  Flood.  If  no- 
thing of  this  kind  he  produced,  wemufl  be  excufedifwe  do  not  yet  thi/,k  the  I- 
rifh  Antiquities /'^r^Z^e/  to  thofe  o/China.  For  if  there  be  nofuch  Charafters 
of  Time  which  may  dire^  Ui  in  comparing  one  thing  with  ahother,  it  is  pdf- 
fible  that  there  may  be  one  or  two  thoufand  Tears  difference  in  the  Computa- 
tion, and  yet  neither  able  to  confute  the  other.  For  fuppofe  I  jljould  fay^ 
that  the  Pofterity  of  Gffthelos  came  into  Ireland  jujl  908  Tears  before 
Ghrift's  Nativity,  here  is  1000  Tears  difference.  That  is  a  fmall  matter, 
you  will  fay  ^  in  fo  great  Antiquity  5  hut  as  fmall  as  it  is,  fome  account 
ought  to  he  given  of  a  thoufand  Years.  Now  I  defire  to  have  fome  evident 
proof  brought  me  of  fome  Event  in  the  World  which  happened  1 308  Tears 
before  Chrift's  Nativity,  to  which  the  Irifh  defent  mufi  be  coincident.  To 
tnake  this  more  plain  by  Example,  fuppofe  the  ^eflion  be  in  what  Age  of 
the  World  the  Peloponnefian  War  began  ^  we  jtjould  by  no  means  think  it 
fuffident  for  any  Man  prefently  to  fet  down,  it  was  fuch  a  Tear  of  the  Worldy 
fuch  a  Tear  from  the  flood,  fo  long  before  Chriji  ;  but  we  demand  fome  cer- 
tain Charaiier  of  this  time,  i.  e.  fuch  wMch  agrees  to  that  and  to  no  other  ^ 
And  here,  whofoever  intends  to  give  fatisfatUon,  will  fearch  ThucydxAes, 
Diodorus  and  Vto\tmy  to  find  out  fome  undoubted  CharaSler  ;  as  that 
Thvcydides  faith,  that  Pythodorus  wdif  then  Arcbon  at  Athens,  and  it 
n'<«'/'/ie  re^ro///&c01ympick  Solemnities.  Diodorus  y^/M,  this  was  the 
87  Olympiad,  and  that  Apfeudes  was  Archon  the  Tear  before ;  Ptolemy 
faith  hewat  Archoa  in  the  Tear  of  Nabonaffar  316.  So  by  comparing 
the  Olympiads  and  the  Tears  <7/Nabonaffar  with  the  Tears  of  the  World, 
we  may  come  to  a  certainty  in  this  matter.  And  befides  Thucydides  men- 
tions a  great  Ecl'ipfe  the  fir fl  Tear  of  the  War,  which  the  Aftronomers  fay, 
was  ^ij  (jf  Nabonaffar,  when  Euthydemusfucceeded  Pythodorus  at  A- 
thens.  Such  a  method  of  proceeding  by  certain  Charafters  of  time,  is  A 
way  to  convince  reafonahle  Men  5  but  without  any  of  theft  to  think  to  impofe 
Upon  Mankind,  under  a  pretence  of  exa5l  Calculation,  argues  too  great  pre- 
fumption  upon  the  C'cdulity  of  Mankind.  Thus  as  to  the  coming  <?/Fergus  L 
into  Scotland >y2  330  Years  before  Chrift,  which  the  Advocate /rf»VA  all 

their 


XKU  The  Preface. 


their  Hiftorians  affirm  ;  let  themprodnie  any_  one  certain  CharaSer  of  that 
time  out  of  fuch  Annals  as  were  vpritten  within  the  compafs  of  knowing  the 
TiHth  of  it,  and  we  will  never  difpute  this  matter  more. 
But  to  proceed, 
p,  y.        (q.)  A /tf //&e  French  Antiquities  ^   which  the  Advocate  faith,  maybe 
more  juftly  queftionedon  thefe  Grounds  than  theirs,  we  only  defre  them 
to  be  as  ingenuous  as  the  late  l/arned  Writers  of  their  Antiquities  have 
heeny  who  reje^  all  before  the  Merovingian  Race,  as  either  Fabulous,   or 
fo  doubtful  and  uncertain,    that   they  make  no  Account  of  it,  unlefs  it  be 
what  they  find  in  the  Roman  Authors  concerning  the  Franks,    as  may 
^^;jl!^'.be  feen  in  Hadrianus  Valefius,    a.   learned  Hiftorian,    Antiquary  ^«<i 
Critick. 

(5.)  As  to  the  Spanifh,  which  are  joined  with  the  French  ;  what  relates 

^otheir  Antiquities  before  the  Romans  War  in  Spain,    we  grant  to  be  pa- 

strab       rallel  with  theirs.     For  although  Strzho  faith,    they  had  the  ufe  of  Let- 

Gfo^r.' 1.3.  ters,    and  had  fome  Records  of  ancient  times  among  them  ;  jet  they 

P-  9^-      are  utterly  loft.     And  although  Reinefius  de  Deo  Endovellico  feems  to 

think,     that    Annius   had    fome  Fragments  of  thofe  Antiquities   which 

he  mixed  with  his  own   Inventions,    yet  I  can  fee  no   reafon  for    it  ^ 

becaufe  he  would  then  have  alledged  the  tf/^^  Spanifh  Records,    and  not 

have  fathered  his  Antiquities  on  Pet  fans  fo  remote  as  Berofus  and  Mane- 

tho. 

But  if  they  had  the  ufe  of  Letters  and  Records  among  them,    might 
not  the  Irijh  and  ScotiJIi  derive  both  from  them  ?     /  anfwer.    That  the 
coming  of  the  Iri(h  immediately  from  Spain  and  not  from  Britain  is  not  fo 
Camd.      evidently  proved  that  any  thing  can  be  built  upon  it.     Camden  and  S/r 
^"'^        James  Ware  two  learned  Antiquaries  both  think  Ireland  j7r/?  peopled  front 
^Jiq.  HI-  Britain  ^   and  Camden  offers  good  Reafons  for  his  Ajfertion,    "  as  the  a- 
bern.c.2.  '*  greement  of  the  hritiih  and  Irifh  Languages  in  very  many  Words:,   the 
p.  1 1.      «  (jrnilitude  ofCuJioms  and  Manners  ;  it's  being  anciently  called  the  lefler 
"  Britain,  and  the  Inhabitants  Britains  5    the  conveniency  of  paffage  from 
"  Britain  thither  5  which  feem  to  be  of  far  greater  moment  than  any  thing 
brought  to  prove  the  Legend  of  Gathelos  and  Scota  and  their  Pofterity 
coming  out  (j/Spain.     But  becaufe  this  Opinion  doth  not  feem  to  give  any 
account  of  the  Scoti  in  Ireland    (^fiom  whence  they  certainly  "went  into 
Scotland,    as  is  now  confeffed  on  all  hands^    therefore  I  ffjall  endeavour  to 
clear  this  Matter,    by  propofing  what  feents  moft  probable  to  me  concerning 
the  firji  Peopling  of  theteldands. 
Arab.  ^'^  are  then  to  conpder,  that  the  mofl  ancient  Geographers,    as  Strabo 

Geogr.\.i.obferves  out  of  E^hoxm,  dividedthe  then  knovi^n  World  into  four  Parts, 
^'  ^^'      the  Eaftern  they  called  India,  the  Southern  A'thiopia,  the  Weftern  Celtia, 
and  the  Northern  Scythh.     And  in  the  Euro^pean  Parts  they  knew  but  of 
two  Nsitiom  befide  the  Greeks,   and  thofe  are  the  Celtse  and  the  Scythse. 
strab.  1. 1.  Thofe  that  inhabited  Northward,  faith  Strabo,  were  called  Scythe,  and 
P- "•      thofe  to  the  Weft  Ce//^ ;    ivho  were  likewife  called  Iheri  and  Cehiherl, 
as  he  affirms'^    and  thefe  peopled  Spain  and  Gaul,  and  from  thence  fpread 
into  the  Neighbour  Countries  5    and  among  the  reft  came  over  into  Bri- 
tain ;     Which  in  the  Book  de  Mundo  commonly  attributed  to  Ariftotle, 
butby^tUchzmntoTheo^hxsSiviS,  isfaid,  together  with  Ireland,  (which 
are  both  there  called  the  Britifh  Iflands  )    to  be  fituate  in  the  Ocean, 
not  far  from  the  Scyth^e  and  the  Celt  a.    But  the  latter  were  fo  much 
nearer  in  Gaul,    that  it  is  very  reafonable  to  believe  the  firft  Habitation 
Vit.  Agrk.  j;,ere  wck  by  the  Celts,  who  came  from  thence.    Aifd  Tacitus  truly  obferves, 

the 


The    Preface.  xxiii 


the  agreement  was  fo  very  great  between  the  Gauls  and  the  old  Bri- 
taws^th^t  although  he  furpc6l:edthe<S'/7»re/mightcomeimmediateIy  Irom 
Spain,  (^  or  rather  fiom  thelhtxi,    which  Stxaho  faith  was  a  more  general 
Name,  and  fome  ofthefe  went  />//<?  Ireland  )  yet  upon  the  whole  mattef, 
he  concluded  all  the  Southern  Parts  of  Britain  to  have  been  peopled  im- 
mediately from  Gaul.     But  at  to  the  Caledonians  he  affirms  them  to  have 
been  of  a  German  Extradion  :    i.  e.   taking  Germany  in  the  extent  he 
took  it  in,  which  went  as  far  as  Sarmatia,  and  took  /»  Scandinavia  5  fiom 
whence  in  probahility  the  Northern  Parts  ^/Britain,  were  frji  peopled.  It 
is  true  that  Tacitus  calls  them  Britains  ^(  well  as  the  CeUse  5  and  however 
they  were  united  in  Intereft  againji  the  Romans,   as  G a\gsicus  fljews  in  his 
excellent  Speech  to  them,  yet  Tacitus,  we  fee,  makes  them  of  a  different 
Extraftion.     And  thefe  were  originally  from  the  European  Scythx,  or  fom 
Scandinavia,  which  was  abundantly  peopled,  and  fu^plied  other  Countries, 
as  ]oxmnditS  faith  ;  and  that  they  were  provided  ofSh'ppingvery  early,  I  Jomand. 
have  proved  in  the  following  Book,    where  I  fpeak  of  the  Original  of  the 'i^  ^^^''^^ 
ViCts.     And  befides  what  k  there  faid  to  jhew  that  thofe  who  dwell  in  thofe  c.  4. 
Northern  Parts,  were  then  called  Scythhm,  ScymnusChiuS  lately  publi- 
shed out  of  Holftenius  his  Papers,    affirms,    that  the  Scythians  extended  f^ffl'p- 
from  the  Paliu  Maotis  to  Countries  wholly  unknow  to  the  Greeks.  For  sle'ph  de 
being  tempted  by  the  Rivers,    as  Olaus  Rudbeck  conjeBures,   having  no  Vrbtbus, 
Skill  in  Navigation  or  Aftronomy,  and  the  Woods  in  thefirft  Ages  of  the  ^^^J^ik. 
World  being  unpajfable,  the  People  fiill  went  farther  and  farther  by  the  Ri-  c.  3  §  10.' 
vers  fide,    till  at  lafl  finding  themfelves  bounded  by  the  vafl  Mountains  in 
thofe  Northern  Parts  and  the  Sea  beyond  them,  they  fat  down  there,  and 
in  time  fo   replenifhed    thofe  Parts,    that  they  were  willing  to  difharge 
them/elves  by  fending  Colonies  abroad.      To  which  end  they  accujiomed 
themfelves  to  the  Sea,    and  fo  from  thence  thefe  Scythians  came  into  the 
Northern  Parts  tf/Britain,  where  they  had  the  Name  of  Cakdonhnst^  and 
upon  new  Supplies  coming  after  the  Romans  had  fubdued  the  Southern 
Parts  <>/l5ritain,    were  then  called  PiSts.     But  of  thefe  things  afterwards. 
That  which  I  now  defign,    is  tofhew  that  fame  of  thefe  Scythae  being  encou- 
raged by  the  Adventures  of  others,    who  had  fettled  in  Britain,    pajfed  by 
the  Northern  Iflands  and  went  into  Ireland  ^    and  fo  the  Celtas  from  Bri- 
tain, who  were  called  Iberi  in  Strabo,    and  thefe  Scythx  met  there  as  they 
did  in  Britain.     But  Britain  jiill  retained  its  Name  ^   and  therefore  to 
diflinguifh  themfelves  f-om  thofe  who  remained  there,    their  Countrey  was 
called  Ibernia  from  the  Iberi,    and  Scotia  from  thefe  Scythas  5  for  faith 
Walfingham,    .^cythse,  Scythici,   Scoti,  Scotici  are  all  one '.^    which  he wdfingb. 
took  from  Radulphus  de  Diceto,  Imag.  Hiftor.  ad  A.  1185.    and  Nenni- '^ '^"'^^„. 
us  exprejly  calls  them  Scythse,    and  Gildas^^e  IriCh  Sea,  Vallem  Scythi-^rj«. 
cam ;   and  Alfred  in  the  Englifb  Tratiflation  of  Orofius  calls  the  Scots 
Scyttan  5    and  the  Germans  both  Scythians  and  Scots  Scutten,    and  the  ^'''^^"' 
old  Britains  Yfcot,    as  Cambden  hath  already  obferved.  ^' 

And  it  is  cjnfiderable  that  a  late  Iri(h  Antiquary  tells  us  that  a  part  ofpUberty 
their  Countrey  in  their  own  Language  is  called  Gxthluighe,    i.  e.  Goth-  ^^y^'^ 
hnd,  fom  the  Goths  or  Scythians  who  took  poffefjion  of  it.  He  rather  thinks  ^' 
the  Getuli  a  People  (?/ Africa  gave  the  Name  5  but  of  their  coming  into  Ire- 
land there  is  no  probability.     And  in  the  fame  place  he  faith,    that  Lamfin- 
ntft  was  the  firft  who  brought  a  Colony  thither  out  of  Scythia-^  which 
he  proves  out  of  one  of  their  mofk  ancient  Monuments.     And  Colganus  oh-  ASaSanlf, 
ferves  on  the  Life  of  St.  Cadroe,   that  whereas  they  are  faid  to  be  deri-  nib.ma.rt. 
ved  from  Scot  a  who  is  faid  to  be  Pharaoh\  Daughter,    the  true  Name,  „'  ^0*°^* 

f  ht 


xxiv  The    Preface. 

he  faith,  was  Scytha  ^  and  that  Name  was  given  her  becaufe  her  Hns- 

Oiyg.  p.    band  came  from  S.yihla.     And  the  fame  Antiquary  confejfes,  that  it  ap- 

350-        pears  by  all  their  ancient  Records,    that  they  had  their  original  from 

tht  Scythians,    and  Reting  himfelf  he  faith  at  laft  yields' it,    and  that  the 

Name  of  &^^^  was  givenbecaufe  the  Mz7e/rf«  Race  came  out  ofScythia. 

And  to  co'ifirm  the  Popl/ng  <?/ Ireland  from  Britain  and  Scandinavia, 

^  we  are  to  ohferve  that  the  Irifh  Antiquaries  from  their  be(i  Records  dofpeak 

i^f'.^i,^.  of  tr»o  great  Colonics  which  camethither  fr^**/ Britain,  the  one  of  the  Belg^, 

P"t  3-     of  which  Slangius  or  Slanius  rvas  the  Head,    who  was  the  fir  ft  Monarch  of 

Cambrenf.  Ireland  ;  wherein  Giraldus  Cambrenfis  if  confejjed  to  agree  with  their  own 

'^'"'^^-       Antiquities  ^  and  another  of  the  Dmmnxfrom  the  Northern  Parts  of  dri- 

07.".parc'.  tain  under  Nuadus.     But  befdes  both  thefe,  and  long  after  them  they  place 


c.  lo. 


Part  2 
P 


c.  I 


the  Djnajiy  of  the  Scots  or  Scythians  under  Herimon  ^   and  ^^e  Pfaltir 
r.  85!  86.  Na-rann,  a  Book  of  great  kuthont^  among  them,  faith,  that  Herimon  was 
War.  Anti- the  fitft  King  oi  the  Scots  in  Ireland.    And  in  his  time,   they  fay,    the 
lern  c'z.  ^'^^  follow'd  them  thither.     But  that  feems  to  be  too  foon.     However 
Bed'l.'u  that  they  came  from  the  fame  Parts  will  appear  r^ery  probable  from  w'hat  Bede 
yp^(?(^/ <?/ the  P/^  J- coming  from  S'ry/^'^  (i.e.  Sandinavia)  in  their  long 
Boats,  and  being  carried  by  Tempeft  to  the  Northern  Parts  of  Ireland^ 
he  faith,   they  there  found  gentem  Scotorkm,  i.  e.  their  Coun'reymen  the 
Scythians  5     and  they  would    fain    have  fettled   there   with  them. 
And  when  they  came  to  treat,     we  find  no   dijficulry  as  to  their  u?rder- 
ftanding  one  another,    which  there  would  have  been,    if  the  Scots  had  come 
out  <?/ Spain,  and  the  Pids  <>«f  <>/Scandinavia.     I  know  Bede  there  makes 
the  Pifts  and  Scots  Languages  to  he  different  ;  but  fo  they  might  be  in  con- 
tinuance of  time,  although  at  firfl  of  the  fame  Original'^    as  appears  by  the 
feveral  Languages  now  in  Europe,  derived  fom  the  Original  Gothick  or 
Scy  thick  Tongue,    which  is  Mother  to  moji  of  them  5    only  the  Celtick 
and  Latin  being  mixed  with  it.     But  to  return  to  Bede,  he  faith,  the  Scots 
perfuaded  the  Pi&s  to  go  to  Britain,    and  take  PofTefljon  of  the  Nor- 
thern Parts,  as  the  Britains  had  done  of  the  Southern,     ^fter  this  they 
obtained  Wives  from  the  Scots  in  Ireland  5  which  fhews  familiarity  and 
mutual  confidence  (  as  being  of  the  fame  extra^ion  )    and  the  Pifts  enga- 
ged that  in  a  difputable  Cafe,  the  Scotifli  Line  (hould  be  preferr'd  to  their 
own.    In  procefs  of  time,  faith  Bede,  fomc  of  the  S  ots  themfelves, 
hearing  of  the  Goodnefs  of  the  Weftern  ^axtsoi  Siotland,  went  thither 
under  the Conduft  of  Reuda,  and  either  by  Force  or  Friendfliip  took 
pofTeffion  of  them  ^    and  from  thence  they  were  called  Dalreudini, 
from  this  Reuda  and  Daal  which  fignifies  a  (hare  or  portion.     This  is 
all  the  Account  ^q^lQ  gives  of  this  mattet  t,    wherein  there  is  not  a  Word  of 
Gathelos  and  Scota,  or  <?/ Fergus  hit  coming  in  the  time  <?/ Alexander,    or 
any  time  after.     And  it  is  fumewhat  flrangc,  that  fuch  a  Man  as  Bede,  fo 
inqufitlve  into  thefe  matters,  fo  we!/  acquainted  with  the  Story  <7/'Icolmkill, 
(Tr  of  the  Monks  ofHy  or  ]ona,  fjovld  fay  nothing  of  all  this.   For  he  feems 
to  have  concealed  nothing  he  knew  or  had  heard  ofi,  and  fluffs  out  his  Books 
with  fume  not  very  probable  Relations.  And  therefore  it  is  not  likely  he  would 
have  omitted  the  f  rmer  Stories  if  he  had  heard  of  them. 
P-  '3-         (2.)  The  fecend  Argument  of  any  feeming  force  in  The  Advocate's  DiT^ 
courfe  is,   "  That  their  Hifiories  werefirjl  tranfmitted  to  Pofierity  by  the 
YytmdiS  in  Verfes  :,    and  it  is  probable  fome  of  thefe  l^rmdiS  being  con- 
"  verted,  became  their  firft  Monks,    and  fo  it  was  eafie  for  them  to  inform 
"  their  Monafteries,  and  that  the  Monks  at  Jona  or  Icolmkill  kept  the 
"  Rosords  there  from  the  foundation  of  the  Mo/iafiery  abrnt  A.  D.  560. 

"  where 


1  he    P  R  E  F  A  C  E.  XXV 


"  rohere  their  Ki//gs  were  huned  Hntil  ihe  Reign  <?/ Malcolm  Can  more  ^ 
"  that  they  had  Anhals  iji  other  Monajleries,    as  at  Scoon,    Paflay,    Plu- 
"  fcardin  and  Lindesfern,    Abercorn  and  Melrofs ,  and  that  they  had    v-  ^\- 
"  Hi({onam  who  con/piled  Hijior/es  from  thcKz 'j    Atfto^g  whom  he  reckons    p.  25. 
"  as  the  piofi  ancient  Yexcmimdm  a  ?)^2im2ixA,  A.  D.   1076.  who  dedica- 
"  ted  his  Hijiory  to  Malcolm  Can-more  •    and  Job.  Campbell,    Turgott 
"  and   Alredus  Rivalienfis,    who  wrote  of  their  Affairs  before  Fordon.    p.  -^9, 
*'  And  he  goes  about  to  prove  Veremundus  could  not  be  counterfeited  by 
*'  Heftor  lioethius,   becaufe  he  is  cited  by  Bal^eus,  Holin(hed,  Gefner, 
"  Chambers^  and  becaufe  Hedior gives  an  account  to  James  V.  that  he 
"  was  fent  him  from  Icolmhill.     Which  is  the  fnbfiance  of  what  he  faith 
about  iheir  old  Hfiories  before  Fordon. 
To  which  I  anfwer, 

(i.)  That  here  we  have  a  very  formal  Pedigree  of  Hiflorians,  which 
might  with  equal  probability  have  been  carried  bach  to  Gathelos  his  firjl 
coming  out  0/ Egypt.  For  it  is  very  hard  to  fuppofe  fo great  a  Pri/ice,  and 
Son  to  a  King  of  Athens,  fjould  be  without  his  Druids,  or  Sanachies,  or 
Bards,  who  wjidd  tranfmit  to  Pofierity  his  famous  Anions  5  and  therefore  I 
cannot  but  wonder,  that  the  learned  Advocate  ^}ould  feem  to  jiick  at  their 
-ancient  Origination  and  Defcent  ^  and  be  fo  unwilling  to  go  any  farther  p.  15. 
back  than  their  firft  Settlement  in  Scotland.  For  no  doubt  the  Hifiory  of 
Gathelos  andScota  were  tranfmitted  to  Pofterity  the  very  fame  way  that 
the  other  was  ;  and  the  fame  Arguments  will  indifferently  ferve  for  koth.. 
Nay,  why  (hould  the  Britifh  Hilary  be  qnefiioned  .<?  fince  no  doubt  the 
Britains  had  Druids,  SJinachies  and  Bards,  as  well  at  the  Scots  or  Irifh. 
And  yet  the  Advocate  will  by  no  means  allove  the  Briti(h  Antiquities,  al- 
though they  pretend  to  the  very  fame  Grounds  which  he  makes  ufe  oftofitp' 
port  the  Scotifti.  If  the  Druids  were  good  Hijiorians  in  Scotland,  why  not 
mych  rather  among  the  Britains ;  where  Csfar  faith  they  had  their  Origi- 
nal Inftitution  and  the  moft  facred  Authority.  But  Buchanan  abfolutely  Buchan. 
denies  that  the  Druids  ever  wrote  Hiftories  j  and  he  affirms  from  Csefar, '•  ^^ 
that  when  he  came  hither  they  had  no  Records  or  way  of  preferving 
the  memory  of  things  part ;  and  Tacitus  and  Gildas  could  meet  xoith  no 
certain  Account  from  Domefiick  Hijiories.  And  as  to  his  Sanachies  a»d 
Bards,  I  Jljall  only  give  ^/va  Buchanan'/  Anfwerin  his  own  Words.  Quod 
autem  ad  Bardos  ScSeneciones  veteris  memoriae  cuftodes  quidam  confu- 
giunt,  prorfus  perridicule  faciunt.  Which  he  proves,  "  becaufe  the 
Bards  were  an  ignorant  fort  of  People,  that  had  no  Monuments  of  Anti- 
quity ;  and  the  Sanachies  were  Men  wholly  without  Learning,  and  who 
lived  by  flattering  great  Men  ^  and  therefore  no  certain  Account  of 
'*  things  can  be  expe&edfrom  them.  And  withall,  faith  he,  fince  we  find 
Hijiorians  liable  to  fo  many  Mifiakes  after  all  the  pains  and  care  they 
'  take  to  fearch  after  the  Truth  of  things,  what  credit  can  he  given  to  thofe 
'^  who  pretend  to  deliver  Hiffory  merely  by  their  Memories  } 

But  the  Advocate  obje&s,  TThat  the  Laws  of  Lycurgiu  were  preferved   P-  "^• 
in  the  Memories  of  Men  for  600  Years,  as  Plutarch  obferves  ^  and  the 
Scots  and  other  Nations  have  preferved  Laws  for  much  longer  time, 
without  the  help  of  Letters. 

But  is  there  no  difference  between  Laws  of  daily  Practice,  and  Antiqui- 
ties, which  depend  merely  upon  Memory,  where  there  is  no  ufe  of  Letters  ? 
And  as  to  Laws  themfelves  I  fl^all  only  defire  the  learned  Advocate  to  give 
an  Account  oftheirMzcdA^^neLaws,  which  Fordon  faith,  were  compofed  j^*^"^"^* 
by  Kenneth,    who  fubdued  the  Pi3s.     I  know  that  Heftor  Boethius,  " '*' '^' ^' 

who 


XKvi  The  Preface. 

"th'^di    ^f^o  flands  out  at  noth'wg,    pretends  to  deliver  them  as  exaSly  as  if  he 
lio.i.icj.had  lived  at  that  time  ;    and  Lefly  who  follows  him  very  carefully,  fetti 
uflt.  de^    them  down  as  he  fund   them  in  hint.     But  what  amient  Copy  do  they  pro- 
I.T.pfy  i'.  '^«^^  for  thefe  Laws  ?     Not  one  Word  of  that.     But  was  it  not  fit  that  he 
who  bad  made  fo  many  Kings  /hould  make  a  Body  of  Laws  too  ?     Fordoa 
never  pretends  to  hiovp  them,  only  he  thinks  there  were  fotne  ot  them  ftill 
remaining.     Joh.  Major  takes  no  notice  of  them  ^    Buchanan  juft  menti- 
ons them,  and  faith,  they  continued  long  after  him,  hut  how  long  he  could 
not  tell.     But  it  is  ohfervable,  that  when  he  comes  to  mention  the  Laws  of 
Alexander  III.  fo  long  after  him  (  for  he  died  A.  D.  1285.  and  the  other, 
Such,  i-j.accordingto  him,  A.  D.  854.)  he  faith,  they  were  all  antiquated  by  the 
P  ''^'  ^'    negligence  of  the  People  and  the  length  of  Time.     Now  if  the  Laws  fa 
much  later  were  quite  forgotten,  hjw  come   the  Macalpin  Laws  to  be  fo  ex^ 
a&ly  preferved  .<?     But  it  may  be  there  was  another  Cheji  of  Laws  at  Icolm- 
kill,  be/ides  that  tf/MSS.  which  Heftor  Boethius  faith  Fergus  brought  from 
the  Sacking  of  KomQ  in  the   time  of  Alaric.     Tet  even  that  would  prove 
that  Records  are  the  hefl  prefervers  of  Laws  ^    and  one  would  think  no  Ad- 
\    vocate  in  the  World  could  be  of  another  Opinion. 

(2.)  From  the  Druids  I  proceed  to  thefrji  Monks  ^/Scotland,  who  are 
faid  to  have  left  Records  in  their  Monafteries  of  the  Hiftory  of  former 
times.    The  firfl  Monaflery  there,    is  confejfed  to  be  that  of  the  Kland 
p- 2?.     Jona,  or  Hy,  or  Icolmkill,  i.e.   Hy  the  CeW  of  Columba,  founded  about 
the  Year  560.  and  there,    the  Advocate  faith,    their  Records  were  kept 
from  the  Foundation   to  the  Reign  of  Malcolm  Can-more.    Now  we 
are  fallen  into  an  Age  offome  Light,  fuch  as  it  is,  but  whether  it,  will  be  to 
the  Advocate's  fatisfatlion  I  know  not.     For  Cumraeneus  Albus  and  A- 
damnanus,   both  Abbats  of  Hy  not  long  after  Columba,    have  given  an 
Account  <?^  Columba  the  Founder  of  that  Monajiery  5  and  both  wrote  before 
BedeV  time.     By  them  it  appears  that  Columba  came  out  <?/ Ireland  thi- 
ther ;   and  Adamnanus  faith,    he  was  the  Soa  of  Fedlimid  the  Son  of 
Oiyg.       Fergus,  which  Fergus,  fay  the  Iri(h  Antiquaries,    was  fecond  Husband  to 
P-  471-    Erica  Daughter  o/Loarn,  Brother  to  Fergus,   who  carried  thefirft  Colony 
into  Scotland  ^   and  that  Fergus,  Grand-father  to  Columba,  was  Son  to 
Co-nallus,    Grandchild  to  Niellus  Magnus  King  of  Ireland  about  A.  D. 
405.  in  whofe  time  St.  Patrick  was  carried  captive  into  Ireland.     And  fo 
from  the  time  c/ColumbaV  coming,    and  his  Relation  to  the  Kings  both  of 
Scotland  <?»i/ Ireland,  they  have  endeavoured  to  fix  the  time  <?/'Fergus  his 
Camhrer.f.  coming  with  the  firfl  Colony  /»/tf  Scotland.     The  account  they  give  in  ftoort 
p.^60.      "  ^^"i  ''^'^^  Carbre  Riada  w  n  one  of  the  Sons  <?/Conar  II.  King  of  Ire- 
land, about  A.  D.  165.  from  him  the  Family  and  Countrey  where  they  li- 
Oiyg.        ved  was  called  Dalrieda    (  and  they  while  in  Ireland  were  fryled  Rings  of 
p.  468.    Dalrieda)  from  him  defended  Eric  the  Father  of  Loam,     and  Fergus 
who  went  into  Scotland.     To  this  Fergus  fucceeded  Domangardus,  Com- 
gallus,    Gauranus  and  Conallus,    the  Son   (?/Comgallus,    in  whofe  time 
Columba  came  into  Sco\.\anA  5  for  Adamnanus/?r7^,  he  converfed  with 
Conallus  the  Son  of  Comgill ;   who  according  to  Tigemacus  and  the  Ulfter 
Bed.  t.  3.  ^v\r\^\s gave  the  Ifland  Hy  to  Columba.     But  Bedefdith,  it  was  given  by 
*^"  ^'        the  Pi&s  whom  Columba  converted  to  the  Chriftian  Faith.     Which  mnjl 


C.-4. 


feemfiiange,  if  the  Scots  then  had  the  Poffejjion  of  thofe  Parts  ;  and  there 
p."  03?''  fi''^  '^^^  learned  Primate  of  Armagh  inclines  to  the  former  Opinion.     The 

fame  Tigernacus  in  the  Irifli  Annals  makes  Fergus  the  Son  of  Eric  to  have 
cl'mTB'i  '^'^^'''^'^  over  the  Dalreidians  into  }irkz\n  fixTears  after  the  death  ofSt.Pa- 
/J/npjoy.fick,  and  the  old  Author  cited  by  Camden  confirms  the  Surcejjjon  of  Fer- 
gus 


I 


The   Preface.  xxvii 


gus  font  Conar,  and  his  being  the  firfl:  King  of  Albany  ;  which  agfees 
with  I  he  Irifh  Antiquaries,  faying^  that  Carbre  Riada  the  Anceftor  to  Fer- 
gus, tpii  the  Son  <?/Conar  Monarch  of  lxe\zi\di. 

"  But  ftppofe  all  this,  that  Columba  was  defcended  from  one  Fergus, 
"  and  related  to  the  other,  who  went  over  with  the^  Dalredians  into  Scot- 
"  land  5  and  that  he  was  there  in  the  time  ofQ.ox\'s\\\x%Sonto  Comgil!, 
*'  Grandchild  to  ^^/.r  Fergus,  how  doth  it  hence  appear  that  thire  was  not  a- 
"  not  her  Fergus  long  bepre,  and  a  Succejjion  of  Kings  in  Scotland  j^-^/ft 
"  him  .<? 

To  this  the  Irifl]  Antiquaries  reply,  that  their  ancient  Annals  do  give  a 
tlear  Account  of  this  Fergus  his   Race  and  Time  of  going  into  Scotland, 
but  although  they  have  the  Succejjten  of /he  Kings  <?/ Ireland  long  before,  and 
the  remarkable  things  done  in  their  time,    yet  there  is  no  mention  at  all  of 
any  Fergus  or  his  Sue  cejfors  going  to  fettle  in  Britain  before  this  time.     They 
do  believe  that'there  were  Exturfions  made  by  fome  of  the  Kings  ff  Ireland 
before  5  and  I  fee  no  reafon  to  quefiion  it^  even  before  the  times  mentioned  by  Ogyg. 
Gildas;  but  they  utterly  deny  anj  foundation  of  a  Monarchy  there  ^^  Scots  ^•'*  ^* 
going  out  <j/Ireland  before  the  time  <?/Fergus  the  Son  of  Eric,    and  that 
lOoYears  later  than  the  Scotifh  Antiquaries  do  place  his  coming  5  for  they  P-  47^* 
make  the  fi'- ft  coming  of  this  Colony  to  be  A.  D.   503.  jufi  the  time  which 
the  Bifljop  of  St.  Afaph  had  pitched  upon  ^   but  according  to  their  Anti- 
quities, Loam  the  elder  Brother  was  firji  King,  and  he  dy/ng  Fergus  fuc- 
ceeded  A.  D.  %l^.  and becaufe  his  Race  fucceeded in  that  Kingdom,  there- 
fore Fergus  is  fuppofed  to  have  been  founder  of  the  Monarchy. 

The M^efiion  now  comes  tothis^whether  the  Irifli  or  the  Scoti(h  Antiquaries 
go  upon  the  better  Grounds  ?  For,  here  the  hdvocatesCommon  Places  of  Hi- 
ftorical  Faifh,Common  Fame,Dom'v.ftick  Tradkion.d^c.can  determine  no- 
thing, fincethefe  are  equal  on  both  fides, and  yet  there  is  a  contradi&ion  to  each 
other  about  a  matter  ofTatl.  We  mujl  then  appeal  to  the  Records  on  both 
fides  5  and  thofe  who  can  produce  the  more  Authentick  Teftimonies  j7'<;«i« 
thence  are  to  be  believed.  The  Advocate  pleads  that  it  is  very  credible 
that  they  hadfuch,  becaufe  they  had  Druids  and  Sanachies  and  Monks 
as  well  as  thofe  in  Ireland  ;  and  that  Columba  founded  a  Monaftery 
at  Icolmkdl,  and  their  Rings  were  buried  there  for  a  long  time.  But 
where  are  the  Annals  of  that  Monajiery  .<?  Or  of  any  other  near  that 
time  .«*  To  what  purpofe  afe  we  to\d  of  the  Monafieries  that  were  at  Scoon, 
and  Padey,  /?»ij/ Plufcardin,  rf«^  Lindesfern,  and  Abercorn,  unlefs  their 
Books  be  produced  ?  It  is  by  no  meaus  fatisfaUory  to  fay,  they  bad  two  p.  zj. 
Books,  their  Regifter  or  Chartulary,  and  their  Black  Book  wherein 
their  Annals  were  kept,  fjr  we  defire  to  fee  them  of  what  colour  foever 
they  be,  and  to  be  convinced  by  Tefli monies  out  of  them,  if  they  appear  of 
fuffcient  authority.  But  if  thefe  cannot  be  produced,  let  them  print  the 
full  Account  of /r^/7J  Kings,  which  the  Advocate  in  hit  Adverrifement 
faith,  he  had  lately  feen  in  a  very  old  MS.  brought  from  IcolmklU, 
written  by  Ca'bre  Lifachair,  who  lived  fix  Generations  before  St.  Pa- 
trick, and  fo  about  our  Saviour's  time.  St.  Patrick  died  about  the  end 
of  the  fifth  Century^  being  above  lOO  Tears  old,  if  the  Irifh  Hifiorians  may 
be  believed  ^  but  how  fix  Generations  will  reach  from  his  birth  to  about 
our  Saviour  S  time,  is  not  eafie  to  underfiand.  For  although  the  ancients 
differ  d  mttch  in  computing  Generations  5  yet  Cen^ormm  faith,  they  gene-  . 
rally  called  25  or  30  Years  by  the  Name  of  3  Generations,  \ritrodo-dk  Natal. 
tus  indeed  extends  a  Generation  to  icoTears,  yet  even  that  will ttot  do^-  ^1' 
here.     But  who  was  this  Carbre  Lifachair,    who  wrote  fo  long  fince  .«'    / 


xxviii  The    I^reface. 


find  one  of  that  Nam  among  the  Kings  oflxdAndi.about  y^.D.284,  and  there- 
fore I  ant  apt  to  fufpe^  that  fome  body  not  very  well  ver fed  in  Melrifti  Lan- 
guage, finding  this  Name  among  the  Kings,  made  him  the  Author  of  the 
Booh.     And  the  Iriftl  Antiquaries  fpeak  rvith  fome  indignation  againji  shofe 
Scotifll  Writers,    who  pretended  to  debate  thefe  matters  of  Antiquity  re- 
lating to  the  Irifli  Nation,   vpithout  any  skill  in  the  Iri(h  Language,     for 
camd.      this  Debate  doth  not  concern  the  Saxons  in  Scotland  {as  all  the  Lo  w-Janders 
^''^''^'^'^- are  flill  called  by  theWxghAzndtxi)  and  many  of  the  beji  Families  of  their 
NobHity  fettled  there  in  the  time  <>/ Malcolm Canmoir,    after  he  had  mar- 
ried the  Sifter  to  Edgar  5    but   it  relating  wholly  to  thofe  who  came  out  of 
Ireland,  the  Irifh  Antiquaries  think  it  reafonable  it  ought  to  be  determined 
by  the  Iriili  Annals. 

""  But  will  not  the  fame  Objeclions  lie  againflthe  Irifti  Antiquities  which 
"•  have  been  hitherto  urged  againji  the  Scotifh  ?  For  why  fhould  we  believe 
"  that  the  Original  Iridi  were  more  funBual  and  exatl  in  their  Annals 
"  than  thofe  who  went  from  thence  into  Scotland  ? 

lanfwer,  that  a  difference  is  to  be  made  concerning  the  Irifh  Antiqui- 
ties.    For  they  either  relate  to  what  hapned  among  them  before  Chriftiani- 
ty  was  received  /»  Ireland  or  after.     As  to  their  remote  Antiquities,    they 
might  have  fome  general  Traditions   preferved  among  them,   as  that  they 
were  peopled  from  Britain  and  Scythia,  and  had  Succeffians  of  Kings  time 
out  of  mind  5   but  as  to  their  exaH  Chronology,    /  w«|?  beg  leave  as  yet 
An.'^ann.  tofufpend  my  Affent.   For  Bollandus  affirms  that  the  Iriflj  had  no  ufe  of 
M^rt.  17  Letters  till  St.  "Patrick  brought  it  among  them  5    at  which  their  prefent 
J  V        Antiquary  is  much  offended,  and  runs  back  to  the  Druids,  as  the  learned 
Advocate  doth.     But  neither  of  them  have  convinced  me  that  the  Druids 
o^g,  pare  ez^er  wrote  Annals.     All  that  Csefar  faith,  is,  that  in  Gaul  they  made 
3.  c.  30.    ufe  of  the  Greek  Letters,  which  they  might  eafily  borrow  from  the  Greeic 
P-  ^''^'     Colony  at  MarfeilleSi  but  how  doth  it  appear  that  they  ufed  thefe  Let- 
ters in  Ireland  or  Scotland  ?    Or  that  they  any  where  ufed  them   in  any 
Matters  of  Learning  5  which  feems  contrary  to  the  L.fiitution  of  the  Druids, 
who  were  all  for  Memory^  as  Cxlar  faith,  and  thought  Books  hurtful  to 
the  ufe  of  it.     So  that  nothing  could  be  more  repugnant  to  their  Difci- 
pline,  than  the  150  Tnfts  of  the  Druids,   which  St.  Patrick  is  faid  to 
p.  219.  have  caft  into  the  Fire.     But  I  do  not  deny  that  they  might  have  Ge- 
nealogies kept  up    among  them  by  thcr  Druids,  and  Sanachies,  and 
Bards,  who  made  it  their  Bufinefs  :^  aj;d  fo  it  was  in  Scotland,  as  appears 
by  the  High-landers  repeating  the  Genealogy  of  Alexander  III.   by  Heart. 
But  the  great  Error  lay  in  fixing  Times  and  Places,  and  particular  Ani- 
ons, according  to  the  Names  of  thofe  Genealogies.     And  this  was  the  true 
Reafon  of  the  Mlftake  as  to  the  Scotifh  Antiquities.     For  the  Genealogifls 
carrying  the  Pedigree  of  Fergus  the  Son  of  Ere  fo  much  further  ha<k,  fome 
afterwards  either   imagined  themfelves,  or  would  have  others  think,  that 
all  thofe  mentioned  before  him  were  Kings  in  Scotland,  as  Fergus  was  -^ 
which    by  degrees   was   improved  into   a    formal    Story  of   forty  Kings. 
And  I  am  very  much  confirmed   in  this  Conjetlure,  becaufe  I  find  in  the 
Genealogy  in  Fordon,  the  defcent  of  Fergus,  the  Son  of  Ere  from  Conar 
the  Irifh  Mwanh,  as  it  is  in  the  Irifh  Genealogies,  and  that  by  Rieda, 
called  by  them  Carbre  Riada,  by  the  other  Eochoid  Ried,  and  feveral 
other  Names  are  the  very  fame  we  now  find  in  the  Genealogy  of  the  Irilb 
Kings  i,    as  Eochoid,  Father  to  Ere ;  j^ngus,  Fedlira,  Conar,  the  Son 
of  Ederskeol  ;     and  fo  up    to  Fergus,    called  in  the  Irifh  Catalogue  of 
Kings,  Fergudus  Fortamalius,   (whom  the  Author  of  the  Synchronifm 

mtkes 


The  Preface.  xxix 

makes  contemporary  with  Ptolemy  Philometor. )  From  whence  I  conclude,  ^°>^- 
that  the  original  mifiake  lay  in  applying  the  Iriftl  Genealogy  to  the  Kings  ^  '^'** 
^/Scotland. 

But  ifive  go  beyond  thefe  Genealogies  in  Ireland,    and  come  to  examine 
the  matters  of  bad  relating  to  their  remo'e  Antiquities,    we  fl:  all  find  no 
more  certainty  there,  than  we  have  done  in  Scot] and.  And  it  is  ingenuoujly 
confijfed  by  Tigemacus  in  his  Annals,    that  all  their  Antiquities  to  the  ogyg. 
Reign  of  ICimbaithifs,  their  73d  JG'wg,  are  very  uncertain  5  hut  he  might  p- ^^^^ 
have  gone  farther,    and  done  no  injury  to  Truth.      However  we  cannot  but 
acknowledge  it  to  be  a  great  piece  of  Ingenuity  to  own  fo  much  in  thofe  times 
when  fabulous  Antiquities  were  fo  mmh  cried  up  and  believed.      But  what 
becomes  then  p/Caefarea,  Baronna  a>:d  Bnlba,    with  fifty  other  Women 
and  but  three  Men  coming  from  Ireland  juft  forty  Days  before  the  ogyg.  Do- 
Flood  i  and  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  Moon  >     What  becomes  of  Partho-'"^^^'  ^"^ 
//?»Asr  and  his  Company,   who  arrived  in  Ireland  the  ^  12th  Year  after  ^  '  ' 
the  Flood,  in  the  Month  of  M<?7,    14th  of  the  Moon,    and  upon  ^e^-  * 
nefday  .<?     //  not  this  wonderful  exaUnefs  at  fuch  a  dijlance  of  time  .<?     And 
the  late  Antiquary  confeffes  he  doth  not  know,   how  they  came  to  un- 
derftand  the  day  of  the  Week  and  the  Month  fo  well.     How  come  they 
to  underjiand,  that  the  fecond  Colony  under  Nemeth/^  came  to  Ireland,    c.  6. 
when  it  had  been  ^o  Years  defolate  ^    and  after  the  deftrudion  of  that 
Colony,    that  it  remained  fo  2cg  Years  ?    As  to  the  Milefian  Colony    *^*  ^* 
fromSpixn,  I  d  fcourfe  at  large  afterwards  of  it,  and  the  Authority  of  thofe 
Annals  thefe  Antiquities  depend  upon. 

But  then  as  to  later  times,  fince  Chridianity  was  among  them,  and 
fame  kind  of  Learnii-.g  did  fiounfi  in  \re\and  for  fome  time,  there  is  grea- 
ter reafon  to  have  a  regard  to  the  Tefiimony  of  their  moji  ancient  Annals* 
Such  are  thofe  of  Tigemacus,  who  died  A.  D.  1088.  <?»^ /^eSynchro- 
nifms^'/Flannus,  who  died  A.  U.  1056.  the  Hifiorical  Poems  of  Coeman- 
nus,  who  is  celebrated  as  their  chief  Antiqa'xry,  and  he  deduces  his  Hifiori' 
cal  Poem  of  the  Kings  of  Ireland  to  A.  D.  1072.  which  is  fuppofed  to  be 
the  time  he  lived  in:,  Modudius  ff«^//r8e/  the  Hifiory  of  their  Kings  front 
A.  D.  428,  to  A.  D.  1022.  and  he  lived  A.  D.  1145.  But  befides  thefe,(^&il- 
the  Irifli  Antiquaries  have  found  an  Irifh  Poem  of  the  Kings  of  Scotland/"  ^^^' 
in  the  time  of  Malcolm  Canmoir,  with  their  Names  and  the  time 
of  their  Reigns.  Whtch  Poem  begins  with  Loarn,  and  Fergus  the 
SonofETc  as  the  firft  King  of  Sotland,  but  takes  notice  of  Kings  a- 
mong  the  Pifts  before  ^  without  the  leafl  intimation  of  any  among  the  Scots  5 
which  being  join  d  with  the  Tefiimony  of  their  Genealogies  and  the  Annals 
o/Tigernacus,  and  o/Jocelin  in  the  Ads  of  St.  Patrick,  they  conclude  fuf- 
ficient  to  prove  that  there  was  no  Monarchy  in  Scothnd,  till  the  time  of 
this  Fergus  of  the  Dalrcdian  Famly.  And  it  is  not  improbable  that  Bede 
fhould  underjiand  this  Colony  under  the  ConduS  of  thefe  Brethren,  by  his  Duce 
Reuda  5  becaufe  they  being  equal,  the  Denomination  was  taken  from  the  Head 
of  the  Stocky  who  was  Rieda  or  Reuda;  and  Daal  the  Irifh  Antiquaries 
fay,  originally  fignifies  a  Stock,  and  only  by  confequence  a  Share  or  Portion. 
.  But  the  Advocate  jiill  infijls  upon  it,  that  in  their  chief  Monafteries 
they  had  ancient  Annals  kept;  which  muji  be  of  greater  Authority  thau 
thefe  Irifh  Hiftorical  Poems.  This  is  a  matter  ofFa&,  and  there  can  be  no 
Argument  drawn  from  the  bare  probability  that  there  were  fuch  Annals  5 
but  when  they  are  produced  and  compared  with  the  Irifh  Annals  tff  Tiger- 
r\acm, the  Annals  of  UXfier,  Y-nisfaIlin,Dungall  and  others  which  thelnOi 
Antiquaries  quote  fo  of  en,  befides  their  Hiftorical  Poems,  we  fiallthen  be 

able 


XXX  The  P 


R  E  F  A  C  E. 


able  to  judge  better  between  them  in  point  t// Antiquitiy  4»<a^  Credibility. 

Atprefent  it  doth  not  feem  fo  probable,    that  they  have  any  fitch  that  are 

con fider able,  fime  they  have  not  been  alledged  by  fo  learned  an  Advocate 

pr  their  Antiquities,    vpho  would  not  omit  fo  material  an   evidence  for  his 

Caufe.     And  there  is  a  pajfage  in  the  Conchfton  of  the  ContiftHation  of  Fop 

don  which  makes  it  more  than  probable,  they  had  no  ancient  amhentkkAn- 

scotich  I.  nals  in  the  Monafteries.      For  there  it  is  faid,    "  That  in  other  Coun- 

i6.  c.  39."  tries,  and  as  he  heard  in  England,    in  all  their  Monafteries  of  Royal 

"  Foundation,  there  was  a  certain  Perfon  appointed  to  write  the  paffages  of 

"  the  prefent  times,    and  after  the  King's  death,    at  the  next  great  Council 

"  all  thefe  Writers  were  to  meet  and  to  bring  in  their  Papers,   which  were 

"  to  be  compared  and  examined  by  skilful  Men  appointed  pr  that  purpofe, 

"  and  out  of  all  one  authentick  Chronicle  n?^  to  be  made,    which  was  to 

*'  be  laid  up  in  the  Archives  0/  the  Monajieries  as  fuch,  from  whence  the 

,    "  Truth  might  be  known  :  The  like  he  wipes  were  done  in  Scotland.  From 

whence  it  follows,  that  there  were  no  authentick  Annals  in  their  Mona- 

Buchan.    flerjes  before  that  time  to  his  knowledge.     Buchanan,  I  know,  doth  fever  at 

P?92-     times  quote  the  Book  <?/Pafley,  but  it  had  been  far  be:  ter  to  have  printed  the 

Dempfi.  ^'  Book  itfelf,  fince  Dempfter^//^,  it  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Earl  ofDum- 

^>ft-        ferlin,  that  others  might  have  been  better  able  to  judge  concerning  it.     But 

l^joi'i.^'Fordon  tells  us,  that  Monafierywoi  founded  A.  D.   1 168.  {or  aTear  af 

Scotich.     ter,  faith  the  Chronicle  of  Melros  }     now,    the  very  foundation  of  the 

•  8.  c.  13.  Mg„afrery  is  here  fo  late,    that  no  great  matter  can  be  expe&ed  as  to  remote 

1. 5. c. :?(?.  Antiquities.     That  at  Scone,   as  Fordon  faith,   was  founded  not  much 

Buch.  1 5'P(,0„ef.^  A.D.  1 107.     ^s  to  Abercorn,  though  mentioned  by  Bede,  yet  Bu- 

^'  '*°*  ■  chanan  faith  no  one  could  find  out  fo  much  as  the  Footfteps  of  it  ^  and 

fo  we  are  not  like  to  expect  much  light  front  thence.     It  is  very  Jirange  that 

Buchanan  only  fliould  fee  the  famous  Book  of  Plufardin  :     For  Books 

do  not  eajily  grow  famous  by  one  Man  s  feeing  them.     But  no  great  matter  of 

Antiquity  is  to  be  expetledfiom  thence,  fime  that  Monaftery  at  the  fooneji 

jUpparat.    ^^  founded  by  Alexander  II.  in  the  thirteenth  Century  ;    but  Dempfter 

ad  mft.    rather  thinks,  it  was  200  Years  <7//er.     I  never  heard  that  Aidan,  Finan 

"^^S  ''  ^"'^  Colman  left  any  Annals  at  Lindesfern  ,  nor  Columba  or  his  Succef- 

fors  at  Icolmkill.     If  any  fuch  be  ever  found,  it  will  be  a  great  favour  to  in' 

quiftive  Men  to  oblige  the  World  by  publi/king  them,   that  if  we  are  guilty 

ofmijiakes,  we  may  recipe  them  upon  fuch  great  Authorities  when  they  vouch- 

fafe  to  let  them  fee  the  light. 

As  to  the  Chronicle  <?/ Melros,  lately  publiped  at  Oxford,  we  find  no 
advantage  at  all  to  the  Advocate's  Caufe^jf  it.  But  here  is  an  odd  kind  of 
Reflexion  either  on  i^^e  MS.  or  the  worthy  Puhlifljer  of  it,  as  though  it 
^  were  very  unfaithful  in  the  things  relating  to  the  ScDtip  Nation.  Where- 
Its  I  have  frequently  perufed  the  Original  MS.  in  the  Cotton  Library, 
which  if  a  very  fair  and  am  ient  one.  And  thofe  Verfes  he  fpeaks  of,  which 
are  omitted,  are  not  there  in  the  fsmQ  hand,  but  added  in  the  Magin  by 
another,  and  feem  tranfribed  from  fame  other  Book  ^  fuch  Verfes  being  fre^ 
'  quent  in  Fordon,  and  it  may  be  are  thegreatefl  Monuments  (^/Antiquity  they 
have,  being  agreeable  to  the  Irifh  Hiftorical  Poems.  But  feeing  the  firfl 
produced  by  the  Advocate  go  no  farther  back  than  Alpin  the  Father  of 
Kenneth  who  fuhdued  the  Pidts,  they  can  afford  very  little  light  in  thefe 
matters.  And  it  had  been  but  a  reafonablepiece  ofjiijiice  in  the  Advocate, 
before  he  had  charged  fuch  unfaithfulnefs  upon  the  MS.  Copy  of  Mel- 
r.is,  as  if  appears  in  the  Oxford  Edition,  to  have  looked  either  on  the  Be- 
ginning or  the  End  of  the  Book  5     and  then  he  might  have  Spared  his  Cen- 

fure. 


The    Preface.  xxxi 


fnre.       For  in  the  Preface  an  Account  is  given  of  the   Verfes  relating 
to    the  Suci  ejfion   of  the    Kings  of   Scotland  :      And  in    the   end  the 
very  Verfes  themfelves  are  printed^    and  more  at  large  than   he  motes  - 
thent. 

From  the  Annals  of  their  Monafteries  I  proceed  to  /^cz>  Hiftorians  • 
and  the  firft  mentioned  by  ihQ  k<ivOC3itQ^\%Verev}undiu  2i  Spaniard,  Arch-  ^'  ^^' 
deacon  of  St.  Andreips,  A,  D.  1076.  who  dedicated  his  Hiftory  to 
Malcolm  Canmoir  5  and  in  his  Epiftle  appeals  to  the  Druids  and  Monks  p.  ks. 
and  the  Monuments  of  Antiquity  kept  by  them  in  the  Ifles  of  Afrf» 
and  Icolmkill.  Thk  is  an  Evidence  to  the  purpofe^  and  fpeaks  home  to 
the  point'  But  iheBifljop  of  St.  Afaph  hath  unhappily  queftioned,  whether 
there  ever  neere  fuh  a  Writer ;  and  I  do  not  think  the  Advocate  hath  cleared 
the  point.  There  may  be  tvoo  things  in  difpute,  with  refpe^  to  this  Vere- 
mundns  ^  Jirfl,  whether  there  ever  were  fuch  a  Hijiory  appearing  under  the 
name  (?/"Veremundus ;  And  then  fuppofing  there  were,  whether  if  were  ge- 
nuine, or  made  under  his  Name  by  Heftor  Boethius,  or  rather  by  his  Phy- 
fician  <;/ Aberdeen,  who  was  fo  helpful  to  him,  faith  Dempfter,  in  texenda 
Hiftoria,  i.  e,  in  weaving  the  Materials  fr  his  Hijiory  .«"  /  will  not  dif- 
puiefo  much  the  firmer,  and  the  Tefiimony  0/ Chambers,  a  Lord  of  Sejfion  p.  26, 
and  learned  Man,  as  the  Advocate  tel/s  us,  who  wrote  A.  D.  1 572.  goes 
tto  farther,  nr.r  any  other  produced  by  him.  But  as  la  the  fecond  poiht  lam 
very  much  unfatisfied,  for  thefe  Reafons. 

(I.)  It  is  very  well  known,  that  it  was  no  nnufual  thing  in  that  Age  to 
publifh  Books  Hhder  the  Names  of  ancient  Authors,  which  coji  the  Criticks 
a  great  deal  of  Pains  to  difcover  the  Impofiure,  as  is  apparent  in  the  fiero- 
fus,  Manetho,  Metafthenes  (tfrMegafthenes)  Philo,  Cato,  Xenophon, 
Archilochus,  Sempronius,  publijhedby  Arinius,  who  lived  in  the  fifteenth 
Century,  and  was  buried  during  the  Popedom  0/ Alexander  VI.  And  not 
only  Authors,  but  other  Monuments  <?/ Antiquity  were  then  counterfiited, 
en  appears  by  many  in  GruterV  Colle^ion  o/Infcriptions,  by  thofe  <j/An« 
nius  i» Italy;  and  by  the  Tufcan  Inrcriptions/»»W//7je(si  by  Inghiramius  un- 
der the  Name  <>/Profper  Fefulanus  ^  which  were  the  Invention  o/Thomas 
Foedrus,  who  lived  at  the  fame  time  with  Heftor  Boethius.  For,  in  that 
Age  Men  began  to  be  inqitifirive  into  Matters  <?/ Antiquity  ^  and  therefore 
fume  who  had  more  Learning  and  better  Inventions  than  others  fet  themfelves 
to  Work,  togralifie  the  Curiofiiy  of  fuch  who  longed  to  fee  fomething  of  the 
Antiquities  of  their  own  Coun'rey.  And  fuch  things  were  fo  greedily 
/wallowed  by  left  judicious  Perfons,  that  it  proved  no  eafie  matter  to 
convince  fuch  of  the  Impofture.  For  even  Annius  and  Profper  Fe- 
fulanus, oi  well  as  Veremundus  have  had  their  Advocates  to  plead  for 
them. 

(2.)  We  find  as  to  the  Scotifti  Antiquities  many  fuch  Authors  pretended  Demffier^ 
to,  who  never  wrote  concerning  them.     As  for  injiance,  three  Books  of  the  ^^j^'' 
Hiftory  of  Scotland  by  St.  Adam  Bifhop  of  Cathnes.     Auminus  of  then  z. 
Right  of  the  Culdees.    King  Achaius  his  Hiftory  of  his  PredecefTors.  "•  4J- 
Aldarus  his  Hiftory  <?/Scotland  and  Ireland.     St.  Convallanus  his  tiijlo-  a.  11. 
ry  of  the  Kings  o/ Scotland.    T/^e  Chronicle  <?/Dumfermlin.     Elvanus  n.  259, 
Avalonias  his  Hijicry  of  Scotland.  6"/.  Faftidius /&^  Chronicle  p/Scotland,.  „'  *'^' 
Fergus  the  Great,  his  Epiftles  to  the  Scots.    Fulgentius  his  Epiftle  to  Do-  a.  %l\ 
nald  King  of  Scotland  in  the  timeofSeveras.    St.  Glacianus  his  Hi/iorj  of  "•  ^3*- 
Scotland.     5"/.  Glodianus  his  Chronicle  of  the  Pifts,   cited  by  Veremun-  ";  ]fu 
dus,  faith  Dempfter.     Galdus  his  Epijiles  to  the  Britains.    Hunibertus  "•  ^^7* 
his  Scotifti  Chronicle.     KennethV  Epitome  of  his  Laws.     St.  Machorius  S'  1%'. 


xxxii  The    Preface. 


"■  V^'   oftheDeftru^ion  of  the  Pids.  St.  Minnanus  of  the  Vn'ion  of  the  Scots  and 

n!  81^9.'  Pi<^s.     Marcerius  of  the  comhtg  of  the  Scots  Into  Albion  :   He  is  faid  to  be 

n.  881.  their  frji  knthor,  a»d  out  of  him  Veremundus,  faith  DsmpOicr,  took  the 

Foundation  of  his  Hiftory  ^   hut  I  do  not  find  that  any  Man  bejides  ever 

a.  io5s.  fatP  him.    King  Reuther's  Scotifh  Hiflory.     Salifax  Bardus  his  Genealogy 

n.  2057'    of  their  Kings  in  King  ReutherV  time.     Here  we  have  no  lefs  than  ?o 

kuihon  relating  /<?  their  Antiquities,    everyone  mentioned  a-s  genuine  by 

Dempfter  ^    and  yet  as  far  as  roe  can  find,  not  one  of  the  whole  number  was 

fo.     Is  it  then  any  wonder,  that  Veremundusfimtld  be  reckon  d  among  the 

refl^ 

(5.)  Nofuch  Author  was  known  to  Fordon,  as  far  as  appears  by  his  Hi- 
flory ^  and  he  is  very  pun&ual  in  quoting  the  Authors  he  makes  ufe  of  and 
fometimes  tranfcribes  large  paffages  out  of  them  ^    as  out  i»/Baldredus,     as 
he  calls  him,   and  Turgot'/  Life  of  Malcolm,   &c.    Jocelin  de  Furnes, 
Vincentius,   Adamnanus,   and  any  old  Legends  or  Chronicles  he  could 
taeet  with,  as  Chronica  de  Abernethy,  &  var'ix  Chronicle  upon  many  oc- 
cafions.    1  do  not  therefore  deny  that  Fordon  doth  appeal  to  Chronicles 
before  him  i^  but  I  think  the  Argument  fo  much  Jironger  againji  VeremuTi' 
dus  ;  whe/t  one  who  gathered  all  he  could  meet  with  never  once  takes  notice 
of  him,  as  far  as  lean  find. 
jfijf.scot.      (4O  William  Elphinfton,   (Chancellor  0/ Scotland,    Bifiop  <?/Aber- 
I.  M.       deen,  and  Founder  of  the  Univerfity  there,    a  Man  highly  commended  by 
i.  254-    Heftor  Boethius)  did,  as  Uedior  himfelf  tells  us  in  his  Rpijtle  /<?  James  V. 
fearch  all  Scotland  for  Monuments  of  Antiquity,   and  gave  the  firft  inti- 
1. 7.  f.i  18.  mation  of  Veremundus  in  the  Ifland  "Jona,    and  followed  him  exadl y  in 
^-  Writing  his  Hiftory.     Novo  as  it  happily  falls  out,    this  very  Hiflory  of  El- 

phinftoun  is  in  being  among  uf,  and  1  have  at  this  time  by  me  Eight 
1. 1,  c.  8.  Books  of  it,  which  go  as  far  as  the  thirteenth  Century.  He  tells  the  Story 
o/Gathelos  and  Scota,  as  others  had  done  before  him  5  or  rather,  juji  as 
Fordon  had  fet  it  down.  For  there  is  very  little  variation  from  him  in  all 
the  firft  Book,  only  the  eighth  Chapter  in  Fordon  is  very  much  contra^- 
ed\  the  fifteenth  about  Gathelos  his  building  the  City  Brigantia  »»  Spain 
//  tranfpofed,  another  Chapter  being  fet  before  it.  In  the  feventeenth  he 
followsFordon  exa&ly  about  the  Poflerity  of Gsithelos com'ng  into  Ireland; 
and  whereas  Fordon  only  quotes  Groflum  Caput  for  faying,  that  Scetiahad 
its  Name  from  Scota,  the  moft  noble  Perfon  in  that  Colony  %  he  faith, 
it  was  in  fome  Chronica  5  hut  what  Chronica  was  ever  written  by  Groft- 
Stotichrm  head,  deferves  to  be  enquired.  For  it  is  certain  Fordon  quotes  him  in  y- 
.  I.  c,  14.  ^^^^  Places  about  Scota  and  the  Scots.  Which  makes  me  wonder  that  Derap- 
Aer  doth  not  put  him  in  among  his  Scotifh  Writers ;  hut  as  far  as  lean  per' 
ceive,  he  never  read  Fordon  5  nor  faw  Elphinfton.  In  Chap.  20.  where 
Fordon  quotes  an  old  Chronicle  which  affirms,  that  Gathelos  gave  the 
fame  Laws  to  his  People  which  Phoroneus  did  to  the  Greeks  ^  and  that 
the  Scots  to  this  day  glory  that  they  have  thofe  Laws  5  this  laft  Claufe 
Elphinftoun /e// w/^ ;  and  he  pajfes  over  Chap.  21.  where  the  miferable 
condition  of  the  Pofterity  of  Gathelos  in  Spain  for  7^oYears  is  fet  down. 
In  fome  following  Chapters  he  confutes  Geoffrey  t/Monmouth  in  the  very 
Words  of  Fordon,  and  ufes  his  very  Exprejjlons  about  the  firft  Peopling  of 
Scotland  from  Ireland,  the  coming  of  the  P/5?/,  and  the  hard  ufage  of 
the  Scots  by  them,  and  Fergus  his  going  over  out  of  Ireland  ^  in  all  which 
not  one  Authority  is  cited  which  is  not  in  Fordon,  and  not  the  leaft  inti- 
matroaofany  fitch  Author  as  Veremundas. 

If* 


The  Preface.  xxxiii 

,'    In  ihefecotfd  Book  he  follows  Fordon,    not  only  in  other  things  before^ 
hut  when  he  defnhes  the  KJands  o/Scotland,  and  partictdarly  Jona  ;    only 
^e  leaves  out  Fordon's  Hebrew  Etymo\ogY,    making  Jona  and  Colun^baf"^'"^'"''"^ 
the  fame  5  and  he  faith  not  one  Word  of  any  Library  <7r  Records  kept  there^  '  '  ' 
or  any  old  Hiftorics  and  Annals  to  be  there  found,   as  Heftor  Boethius  af- 
firms 5    all  that  he  faith  is,  that  there  was  a  Sand:uary  for  Tranfgreffors. 
^bout  Fergus  and  Rether  he  varies  not  a  tittle  from  Fordon,    and  never 
Mentions  any  other  Kings  of  that  Race,  which  he  would  never  have  omitted 
if  he  had  known  fui  h  an  Author  as  Veremundus.     And  he  doth  not  fup- 
pofe,  that  Kether  fucceeded  Fergus  in  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland,    but  that 
he  came  afefifom  Ireland  ;    andfo  makes  this  the  fecond  coming  of  the 
S  ots  out  oi  Ireland  :     Which  plainly  overthrows  the  confiant  Succejpon  of 
the  Monarchy  frjm  Fergus  in  Scotland  :     /Ind  he  names  no  one  King 
of  Scotland  from  Rether  to  Eugenius,   who  was  banifl^ed  with   all  the 
&ots. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  third  Book  he  gives  an  account  after  Fordon  of 
Fergus  the  Son  of  Ere  coming  into  Scotland,  and  he  reckons  45  Kings  be- 
tween the  two  Ferguffes,  jufi  as  Fordon  doth  ;  and  he  defires  to  be  excu- 
fed^  oihedid,  for  not  fetting  down  diftinftly  the  times  of  their  feveral 
Reigns,  becaufe  he  could',  not  then  find  any  Writings  about  them  5' 
his  Words  are,  ad  prsefens  non  in  Scriptis  reperimus.  Now  from  this 
Exprejfion  I  thus  argue  againji  UeGtor  Boethius  his  Veremundus ;  H^ 
faith,  that  Elphinfioun  gave  the  firft  intimation  of  him,  and  that  he 
followed  him  in  his  Hiftory  ^  either  therefore  Veremundus  gave  no  ac- 
count  of  this  fir fl  Succejpon,  which  Heftor  pretends  to  have  from  him  5  and 
fo  his  k\xx\\ox\iy  fignifies  nothing  at  all  in  this  matter  ;  or  Elphinfton  ne- 
ver faw  him  5  for  he  faith,  he  never  could  find  any  Hiftory  of  this  firft 
Succeffion.  And  therefore  if  ever  there  were  fuch  a  Book  under  the  Name 
tf/Veremundus,  it  was  after  ElphinftonV  days.  For  having  fearched  the 
whole  Nation  for  ancient  Writings,  and  partuularly  ]om,  as  Hedtor  tejii- 
fies,  and  finding  no  H'ifiory  of  the  Succeffion  from  Fergus,  as  himfelf  de- 
dares,  it  is  a  plain  Evidence,  that  Heftor  Boethius  hat^  given  a  falfe  ac' 
fo«»/<7/E!phinfton  in  relation  toVevQVsmniyjiS,  and  in  all  probability  of 
Veremundus  too.  But  this  is  not  all,  for  Elphinfton  doth  not  only  fay^ 
that  he  could  not  find  any  Books  relating  to  the  Succeffion  of  the  Kings 
from  Fergus,  but  he  refers  his  Readers  to  the  oldlrifti  Annals  5  his  Words 
are,  ad  antiquos  Hiberniae  Libros  referimus.  So  that  according  to  YX- 
'phm^on  s  Judgment,  the  moji  certain  account  o/^Ae/r  Antiquities /j  to 
be  taken  from  /^elrifti  Authors.  And  fo  we  may  obferve  both  in  him  and 
Fordon,  the  Irifti  Legends  ofS.  Brendan  and  others,  ferved  them  for  very 
good  Authorities. 

And  fo  much  for  the  Advocate'/  ancient  Hifrorian  Veremundus  the 
Spaniard.     For  I  fuppofe  the  mention  of  him  by  Bale,  Gefncr,  Hollinftied, 
&c.  after  he  was  fo  much  celebrated  by  HeS^or  Boethius,  deferves  no  far'     f.  u. 
ther  confideration.     But  Voffius  did  not  think  him   worth  mentioning  5  ^^f  ''* 
and  although  he  blames  LuMus  (^  the  Advocate  calls  him')  <Jr  Humphry  jf^'c^^j*; 
Lhuyd,  fir  being  toofevere  upon  Hedor  Boethius,  yet  it  is  evident  that  he 
looked  on  him  as  a  fabulous  Writer,  andfo  durfr  not  fet  him  down  on  his    f«  l'^' 
Authority.    The  Advocate  would  excufe  this  ten  fur  e  <7/Voffius,  as  though 
it  related  only  to  his  credulity  in  point  of  Miracles,    whereas  there  is 
not  the  leaft  intimation  that  way  5    and  Voffius  faith  that  Leland  on  the 
account  of  his  fabuloufnefs  wrote  ftiarp  Verfes  upon  him.     What  I  for 
his  having  believed  too  many  Miracles  •>    No  certainly,    but  for  his  fa- 

bulous 


xxxiv  The  Preface. 


bulous  Antiquities.     But  he  hopes  to  bring  Heftor  ^otth'ms  better  affront 
theCenfure  ofBi/hop  Gavin  Dowglas,  tphfch  the  Bfhop  of  St.  ACaph  takes 
P-30-    f/ot/ce  of  from  Polydore  Virgil,  becaitfe  Biftiop  Dovpglas  dizdi  A.  D.  1520. 
and  Boeth.m  his  Hiftory  was  not  publifbed  till  1526.  and  he  had  not 
his  Records  from  Icolwkill  till  1525.  To  which  I  anfwer,  that  thk  looks  like 
one  of  the  Miracles  the  Advocate  confeffs  that  Hedlor  d';d  too  eafily  report. 
For  if  he  had  the  Records  on  which  thh  Hijiory  was  built  but  in  1525.  how 
came  his  Hijiory  to  be  publijhed  the  joUowing  Tear  .<?     For  he  makes  ufe  of 
Hen.  Bo-   Veremundus  his  Authority  in  the  very  beginning  of  his  Hi/lory,  for  the  S:o- 
'uij}.  I  I.  ''/^  Antiquities  both  in  Spain,  Ireland  and  Jlbany.     In  his  fecond  Book 
f.  12.       he  faith,  whatever  he  had  written  of  the  ancient  Kings  of  iSitf/Z^wis/,   he 
{■^•^•"■*' had  taken  out  of  Veremundr^,   Campbell  and  Cornelius  Hibemiciw^    all 
i;  7.         which  he  pretended  to  have  had  from  Icolmkill.      In  his  third  Book  about 
i.  118. 2.  CxfarV  Expedition,    he  fiill pretends  to  follow  Veremundus.     And  in  his 
feventh  Bookie  declares  he  had  kept  clofe  to  him  in  the  whole  feries  of 
his  Hiftory.     Now  how  was  this  poffiblc  if  he  had  »ewryee»  Veremundus 
till  A.  D.  1525.  and  his  Hijiory  was  publijhed  by  Badius  Afcenfius  at  Pa- 
ris, A.  D  1526.     It  would  take  up  that  Tear  in  fending  it  t hi  her,  andre- 
vi/ing  and  correUing  and  publijhing  fo  large  a  Volume  as  his  Hijiory  makes. 
So  that  there  mujl  be  fome  great  mijiake,  as  to  the  Tear  of  his  rece  ving  thofe 
Records,  if  ever  he  did.     But  if  this  were  not  the  Hifiory  Bifhop  Dowglas 
cenfured,   what  other  was  there  at  that  time  which  could  deferve  it  .<?     If 
could  not  be  Job.  Major,  for  his  Book  was  printed  by  Badius  Afcenfius  after 
Lefts.  I.  9.  Dowglas  his  death  :    Q  if  he  died,  as  he  faith,  A.'^D.  1  520.  J    and  he  prC' 
ncOT  ff  r  *^"^^  '^  no  new  Difcoveries,  as  Boethius  doth.     But  why  Jhould  the  Advo- 
Aifl.  Ecci.  Cate  imagine  his  Hifiory  was  not  known  by  the  learned  Men  at  home^    fuch 
1.4.  n.nci.  as  Bifhop  Dowglas  w  .^f,  before  it  was  printed  } 

But  to  return  to  Voflius,    who  is  not  fparing  in  mentioning  any  of  our 
MSS.  Hiftorians  which  he  found  well  attejied :    and  particularly  Aelredus, 
Ahbat  ofKhxQVdX,   who  wrote  the  Life  of  Divid  King  of  Scots.     But  the 
p.  22.    Advocate  tells  us  fome  news  concerning  him,  viz.    That  he  was  Abbat  of 
Mailros,  which  was  called  Ryval  before  King  David's  time.     But  For- 
Scotkh.     don  exprefly  dijlinguijheth  the  two  MonaJieriesofKiQva}  and  Melros  5  the 
1.  5.c.43.Qj^g^  he  faith,  was  founded  by  King  David,  A.D.  1132.  and  the  latter 
four  Years  after.     And  in  ihe  Chronicle  of  Mdros  it  appears  that  Richard 
was  the frfi  Abbat  there:,    to  whom  Waltheoffucceeded,    ZJncle  to  King 
Malcolm,    A.  D.   1148.    (  who  fucceeded  King  David  A.D.  1153.  ) 
^)5er  Waltheof  William  was  Abbat  o/Mailros,  A.D.  11 59.   after  him 
Jocelin,  A.  D.   11 70.     In  the  mean  time  Aelredus  dizs  Abbat  of  Kieva], 
A.  D.   1 167.  and  Silvanus  was  chofen  in  his  place.     From  whence  it  iV 
plain  that  the  Abbies  ofMt\rosandK\Qva\  were  always  difiin^  from  their 
firji  foundation,  and  that  Aelredus  was  never  Abbat  tf/Melros-   This  Ael- 
redus may  be  called  a  Scotifh  Hiftorian,  for  his  Lamentation  of  King  Da- 
vid, extant  both  in  Fordon  and  Elphinfton  5  but  I  can  find  nothing  of  his 
vj xh'mg  relating  to  the  Scot\{h  Antiquities.     I  know  he  wro'e  a  Chronicon, 
whiih  Bofton  of  Bury  (who  calls  him  Adelredus  )  faith,   was  deduced 
from  Adam  to  Henry  I.  but  if  there  had  been  any  thing  in  it  to  their  pur- 
pofe,  thofe  Authors  who  cite  a  great  deal  out  of  it,    relating  to  our  Saxon 
Kings,    would  never  have  omitted  what  had  been  much  more  material  to 
their  Hijiory. 
^nfli  fat         Turgot  is  Hkewife  mentioned  i^  Voflius,  though  a  MS.  Hiftorian  ^    be- 
I.  2.  c^  48.  ''^tf^  ^f  y^"'  ^'^U  good  evidence  for  his  writing  fome  part  of  the  Scotifh  Hi- 
jiory.   He  lived  faith  the  Advocate  A.  D.  105^8,     /  grant  that  he  is  fre- 
quently 


The    Preface.  xxxv 


quently  cited  by  Fordon  and  FJphinfton,    for  the  Afts  oi  Malcolm  diXid 
Margaret  which  he  wrote  ;    l>»t  I  ca»  find  no  more- out  of  him  than  out  of 
Aelred  as  to  their  remote  Antiquities  -^  although  they.feem  to  have  left  out 
very  little  ofvphat  Turgott  wrote.     But  I  wonder  hoix)  the  Advocate  came 
to  difcoverTuTgon  to  have  been  Archbilhop  of  St.  Andrews  5  when  Demp-    p  -j. 
fter  could  have  informed  him  that  there  was  no  Archbifhop  of  St.  Andrews  ^^jPf'l- 
till  300  Years  after.     Arfd  he  might  have  found  i» Fordon,  that  there  was^cUf.  1  Ts. 
vo  Archbifhop  of  St.  Andrews  ////  after  James  Kennedy,   who  was  Bi/I?op  of^-  '143- 
St.  Andrews,  A.  D.  1440.  and  was  Nephew  to  }  awes  I.  but  aferhis  death\"'^''^'^^ 
Patrick  Graham  firji  obtained  the  Metropolitan  Right  to  the  See  of  St.  An-      " 
drews,  but  it  was  not  quietly  enjoyed  till  hisSucceJfor  Will.  Sheues  came  in-  ^^^f^^ ''  ^° 
to  pojfejfion  of  his  place.  305. 

But  there  is  in  Fordon  an  account  of  the,  Sttaejfion  of  the  Bijhops  of  St.  Dempjf. 
Andrews  from  the  time  of  the  expulfion  of  the  Pids  5    which   is  wholly  leftf^f*^'^ 
out  in  Elphinfton  5    and  there  Turgott  //  faid  to  Be  confecrated  Bi/l>op,  scoikhroii, 
A.  D.  1 109.  and  to  continue  there  feven  Tears.     St.. Ax\drews  was  before^- ^^•'^^' 
called  Kilremonr,    as  appears  by  Fordon,    who  calls  them  the  B]fhopsof 
•Jf.  Andrews  de  Rilremont  ^  Kil,  as  appears  by  the  ScodfhHiJiorians,  was 
a  place  of  Devotion:  ;    Kilruil  was  the  Church  o/Regulus  (  as  HeStor  faith 
St.  Andrews  was  called  in  the  time  of  the  Pifts)  and  Riliemont,  as  being 
the  Royal  Seat  and  the  principal  Church,  y»r  Remont  //  Mons  Regis  5 
andfi-om  hence  the  Clergy  of  this  Church  were  called  Kill  dees    (^from  which 
title  thefiUion  of  the  ancient  Guldfies  came,  as  the  BifJjop  of  St.  Afapli  hath 
truly  obferved.)     7"/6e/e  Killdees   had  the  ancient   Right  of  chufing  the  Bi- Sotkh. 
Jfjop,  and  were  firfl  excluded,  4/ Fordony^'/A  ^j"  William  Wifliart,  A.  D,'-^- <^-42- 
1273.  and  next  by  William  Frafer,    after  him  by  William  Lamberton  5    c.  43. 
upon  which  William  Cumyng,  Keldeorum  Prsepofitus,  i.  e.  Dean  of  the 
church,  appealed  to  Rome,  but  was  overruled  there.     But  the  learned  Pri-  VJJer.  Pri- 
tnate  of  Armagh  following  Dempi^er  too  much,    calls  him  Auminus :,   and"""^'^- 
fet  Derapfter  quotes  the  Scotichronicon/i)r  it,  where  it  is  plainly  William'^'    ^^' 
Cumyng.     But  that  ^AeKilldees  rvere  nothing  but  the  Dean  and  Chapter 
of  St.  Andrews,  not  only  appears  by  their  Right  of  EleBion  of  the  Etfiiop, 
hut  by  the  exercife  of  the  Jurifdi^ion  in  the  vacancy  of  the  See,    which 
Fordon  faith  was  in  them. 

I  fhould  not  fo  much  have  infifled  on  this  mijiake  of  the  Advocate  in  mw 
^/»j:  Turgott  Archbifhop  of  St.  Andrews,   if  he  had  not  fo  feverely  refle&ed 
en  the  Bifhop  of  St.  Afaphj^r  making  Fordon  a  Monk,  as  though  he  did  it    p-  34; 
merely  for  his  own  conveniency,  to  (hew  him  interefted  for  the  inde- 
pendency of  Monks  and  Culdees  from  the  Bijhops.     I  grant  it  was  a  mi- 
jiake,  but  not  dejigned,  and  a  very  pardonable  one,   fince  Dempftery^/V/Si,  Demp/?. 
feme  thought  him  a  Monk,  and  he  could  not  find  of  what  condition  he  ^ift-  £c- 
was^  and  yet  he  faith  he  read  him  5    and  VoQus  makes  Job.  de  Fordon  n'^^!"*^' 
a  Monk  in  King  JohnV  time.  Author  of  the  Scotichronicon.  i^'ofde 

This  Book  o/Fordon  the  Advocate  faith  was  fo  efteemed  that  there  were  ^'^-  ^''^' 
Copies  of  it  in  moft  of  their  Monafteries  5    and  he  faith  did  agree  with    %%l. ' 
their  ancient  Annals  5  which  I  think  will  appear  by  the  precedent  Difourfe, 
not  to  be  much  to  the  advantage  of  his  Caufe. 

^ndfo  much  for  the  Authority  of  their  Ar\T\a\s  and  Hiftorians,  fiont 
the  Original  Druids  and  Bards,  to  Fordon  and  Elphinfton. 

Having  thus  gone  through  the  mofr  material  points,  which  I  have  not  di- 
fiin3ly  anfwered  in  the  following  Book,  there  remain  only  fame  few  things 
tphichjiand  in  need  of  being  farther  cleared.     ASy 

i         '  (1.)  Thi 


xxxvi  The    Preface. 

II  "    ~r ~- ■ —  ■    '  - 

(i.)  TheTeftimony  <?/Eumgnius  in  his  Panegyrick  to  Conftantius,  frotfi 
whence  the  Advocate  proves  that  in  the  time  of  C^far  there  was  another 
p.  68.    Nation  beGdes  the  Vi&s  who  then  inhabited  Britain,  and  were  a  Colony 
of  the  Irifh-^  and  thefe  muft  certainly  have  been  Scots.     The  qtiejiiov  if 
not,  whether  there  were  not,  accordingto'E.nmQmus,  Pifts  and  Iri(h  which 
carm.-j.   the  ^ufiansfoHght  With  in  Cxfar'j-  time    { j ttft  as  S\6on\\:,s  Apollinaris 
T.  JO.      faiti),  that  Cafar  conquer'd  the  VSs  and  Saxons  in  Britain,  which  is  fuch 
dujther  Prolepfis^j  Sirmondus  obferves,    who  makes  the  coming  of  the 
Scots  into  Britain  after  the  Saxons  ;  and  he  was  a  judicious  Critick  and 
Antiquary)  bntthe  true  quejlionis,  W^e/^er  Eumenius   affirms  that  thofe 
Biich.  Rer.lriih  then  dwelt  in  brkain}    2"ej, /jiV^  Buchanan,    foliBritanni,    are  fo 
Sal.  1.  2.  ^^  uriderjiood  in  the  Genitive  Cafe,  andfo  thefe  U'Wds  relate  to  the  FiSfs 
and  Irifl}  of  the  Britifh  Soil.     No,  faith  the  Bijhop  of  St.  Afaph,    they  are 
to  he  underjlood  in  the  Nominative  Cafe  ^  andfo  they  fet  forth  the  advan- 
tage in  Conftantius  his  Vidory  over  a  Roman  Legion  above  that  o/ Julius 
Caefar,  who  fought  only  with  the  Britains,   a  rude  People,    and  accufto- 
med  to  no  other  Enemies  but  ?iUs  and  Infl),  a  half  naked  People.     The 
Words  are  thm  printed  in  the  late  Paris  Edition    after  the  comparing  of  fe- 
veral  MSS.  by  Claudius  Puteanus,    and  therefore  more  corretl   than  the 
PlantinEdition.  AdhocNatioetiam  tunc  rudi.e,  &  foli  BritanrdPiftis 
modo  8i  Hibernis  aflueta  hoftibus,  adhuc  feminudis,  facile  Romanis  ar- 
mis  fignifq^  celferunt. 

The  dejign  of  the  Orator,   was  to  leffen  the  Reputation  o/Csfar's  Vi- 
ctory/«  comparifon  of  that  <?/ Conftantius^    and  to  that  purpufe  it  was 
very  material  to  [hew,  that  he  fought  with  the  Britains  alone,  who  were  them- 
felves  a  rude  People,  and  had  no  other  Enemies  but  fuch  as  were  as  rude 
as  themfelves,  the  PiSs  and  IriJIj.    Now  to  what  great  pwpofe  was  it  for 
him  to  fay  that  the  Britains  fought  with  the  Iriflj  oi  the  Brit  if}  Soil.>  Were 
they  fomttch  better  difciplined  and  fo  much  more  famous  among  the  Romans 
for  deeds  of  Arms  than  the  original  /r//Z>,    that  fuch  an  Emphafis  «/»/?  ht 
p.  7z.    laid  upon  that  ?     But  the  Advocate  faith,  the  comparifon  lies  in  this, 
that  then  they  had  been  ufed  only  to  the  Pi&s  iDdlri/h,  but  Conjianti- 
m  overcame  them  when  they  had  been  long  trained  up  in  War.     But  if 
he  had  been  pleafed  to  have  read  the  next  Paragraph  he  would  have  found 
the  Orator  taking  no  notice  of  the  Britains  ^re^^er  experience  in  War.,   hut 
of  a  Roman  Legion  corrupted,  foreign  Soldiers  and  Gallican  Merchants 
drawn  out  of  the  Pfovinces  toftrengthen  Caraujim  and  AlleSus  in  their 
Rebellion  5  fo  that  the  Comparifon //Vx  between  the  Britains  alone  in  Cx- 
far's  time,  and  the  ftrength  of  a  well  difciplined  Roman  Army  in  the  time 
(j/Conftantius.     And  it  is  to  be  obferved,  that  according  to  Eumenius  his 
own  manner  of fpeaking,  if  he  were  to  be  underwood  in  BuchananV  ye»/e,  it 
fiould  have  been  Soli  britannici/)/-  the  Britifti  Soil.     Forfo  he  hath  Victo- 
ria Britannica  at  the  end  of  the  fame  Oration  ;    and  in  another  Britannica 
Trophsea.     So  that  neither  Senfe  nor  Grammar  do  favour  BuchananV  Con~ 
p.  70.    flru&ion.     But  he  faith,  Jcfeph  Scaliger  approves  Bjtchanan's  Con([ruQ:i-' 
on  in  his  Notes  on  Tbullus.     I  have  fearched  the  place  and  can  find  no 
fitch  thing  ;    but  lam  afraid  he  mijlook  his  own  Notes  ^  for  there  Scaliger 
fpeaks  about  the  Scoto-^xigantes,   and  which  is  more,  he  faith,    the  Scots 
were  yet  in  Ireland.     And  becaufe  he  is  fo  accuflomed  to  Maxims  of  Law, 
Ifiall  put  him  in  mind  of  one  t^  that  a  Witnefs  which  a  Man  brings  for 
faimfelfj  be  is  bound  to  receive  againft  himfelf. 


(2.)  As 


The  Preface.  xlixvii 


(2.)  As  to  Claudian'/  Exp'ejjiott, 

Scotorum  cumulos  flevitslacialislerne. 


t>' 


hefiith  rhis  is  not  to  be  underftood  of  Ireland^  but  of  a  Countrey  of  p.  3?. 
Scotland  of  that  Name,  near  to  which  the  Roffiaus  had  a  Camp,  there- 
raainders  whereof  are  ftill  difcernible  ;  and  in  which  there  are  Stones 
found  with  Roman  Infcriptions  defigning  the  Stations  of  the  Legir 
ons  ^  and  Strathern  in  Scotland  is  more  fubjed  to  long  Frofts  than 
Ireland  is. 

This  I  confefs  is  ingenuoujly  ohferved.     But  I  do  not  underjiand  vehat 
the  Roman  Infcriptions  prove  as  to  the  Scots  heit7g  in  thofe  Parts  <?/  Bri- 
tain 5  if  the  qnejiion  were  about  the  Romans  they  would  he  of  fome  ufe.     I     .^c^  n 
do  not  deny  that  Strathern  had  its  Name  from  the  River  Ern,    and  the  '^ 

Countrey  m:ght  in  Latin  be  called  lerne  from  thence.     But  how  doth  it  ap- 
pear that  Claudian  or  the  Romans  knew  it  by  that  Name  .<?     We  are  certain 
that  lerne  commonly  pajfed  for  Ireland  among  them  5    and  that  it  was  then 
accounted  the  Country  of  the  Scots  ^   as  appears  by  the  exprefs  Tefiimony 
<?/Orofius,   who  lived  in  that  Age.     And  Dempfter,    who  fixes  tloeScots^rof-  ^''fi> 
in  Britain  long  before^  yet  is  fo  convinced  by  thefe  Words  (?/Claudian  that  hempft. 
thej  were  in  Ireland,  that  he  fuppofes  them  driven  thither  by  Theodofius,  ^Ap'jf.  l.i. 
and  there  defiroyed  by  him.     And  Claudian  explains  himfelf  elfewhere,^'  ^' 
when  he  faith ^ 


-Totam  cum  Scotus  lernen  t>eUu.d. 

Stiltch.  I. 


Movit,  &  infefto  fpumavit  remige  Tethys.  2.  v.  iji. 

Where  it  feems  ridiculous  to  fay,    that  the  Scots  put  all  Strathern  into 
Commotion  5    and  this  lerne  had   the  Sea  lying  between  it  and  Bri- 
tain,   t»  whofe  Name  Claudian  j^e^j^j- ^   and  Buchanan  underjiands  this  ^^  t,  \  2 
^/Ireland.  p.  i(5. 

(5.)  He  urges  the  great  improbability  that  the  Scots  ftiould  manage    j^j 
fo  long  a  War,    for  600  Years,    and  not  fettle  in  Britain.     But  this  is  103. 
that  which  is  called  begging  theQueftion  5   for  the  difpute  is  how  long  the 
Scots  in  Britain  did  make  War  upon  the  Britains?     Claudian  faiih  in  his 
time,  the  Scots  came  from  lerne,   and  made  the  Sea  foam  with  their 
Oars  ^    Gi\das  faith  the  Irifi  ufually  returned  home,  intending  to  come'^''^'^^'^' 
back,  and  the  Pi&s  then  refted  for  a  time  in  the  farthermoft  parts  of 
the  Ifle,     Why  fhould  not  GWdas  have  faid  that  the  Irilh  and  Pifts  went 
back  to  the  remote  parts  of  the  Ifland,    if  they  both  inhabited  there  at  that 
time  ? 

T^Gildas  his  Authority  be  allowed  in  this  cafe,  I  think  it  is  clear  enough 
to  decide  the  Controverfie.     For,  (l.)  \lpon  Maximus  his  withdrawing (j;/^^.;,^^ 
the  Roman  Legions  and  Br////73  Infantry  which  never  returned,  he  faith,  p- 1?. 
the  B/j/4/»j  were  then  firft  infefted  with  two  cruel  tranlmarine  Nations,  ^'^'■^''^^'• 
the  6V0/J  from  the  Southweft,   and  the  Pitls  from  the  North.     If  there 
had  been  a  War  of  600  Years  from  before  Julius  C^far's  time,  as  the  Ad- 
vocate faith,  how  comes  Gildas  to  be  fo  extremely  m/fiaken  as  to  fay,  the  fir fk  ■ 
War  began  after  Maximus  A/'x  withdrawing  the  Roman  Militia  .^     (2.)  He     P-  ■'4- 
Jim  fpeakt  of  then  coming  by  Sea,  and  carrying  away  their  anniverfary 
Prey  beyond  the  Seas  5  and  ti-ans  Maria  fugaverunt,  faith  he,  of  the  Ro- 
man forces  driving  them  baik.     How  comes  GildasjiiS  to  mention  the  Seas, 
if  they  then  inhabited  the  fame  Ifland  ,<? 

But 


xxxviii  The  Preface. 

P-  '°2,  But  the  Advocate  faith,  that  by  Seas  the  Friths  are  underftaod  5  and 
'^^'  that  in  their  old  Laws  the  Frith  of  Forth  is  called  Mare  Scotia,  the  Sea 
of  Scotland'^  and  the  Frith  of  Diimbriitonis  caUed  one  part  of  the  Mare 
Scoticumhy  the  Englifi  Authors ;  and  this  paffage  to  and  fro  he  makes 
to  be  eafie,  but  the  other  home  to  Ireland  almoff  impoflible  with  their 
Boats  in  the  Iri/b  Seas  ^  from  whence  he  faith,  that  the  BiQiop  of 
St.  ^faph's  Hypothefis  is  abfurd  and  incredible,  but  his  very  con- 
fiftent. 

To  clear  this  we  may  ohferve,  (i.)  That  to  mdke  thefe  Friths  to  be  called 

p.  103.  Seas  not  improperly,  he  faith,  they  are  40  Miles  broad  in  fome  places  5 

andfo  make t  the  Paffage  more  difficult  over  them  than  /row?  Ireland  to  Scot- 

Ctimd.      i^nd  5  for,  as  Camden  ohferves,  there  is  hardly  l^^Mles  difiance  betweett 

P  706.    fame  part  ^/Scotland  and  Ireland.  But  this  is  to  demonff:rate  the  conftftenr 

Ogyg.^ixt.  cy  of  his  own  \ly^Otht^l%  andtheabfurdityoftheBiJhofsi  (2.)  Thelr'ifh 

p  154^  Writers  fay,  their  Curroghs  or  light  Boats  cover'd  with  Leather  were 

Adamn.    Very  Convenient  for  tranfportingan  Army,  though  not  fo  proper  for  a 

^umb^°'\  2  Sea-fight,     Adamnanus  in  the  Lifi  of  St.  Columba  defcribes  one  of  them  it* 

apudcatiif.  which  St.  Cormac  went  to  Sea,  with  all  the  Parts  of  a  Ship,  and  with  Sails 

"^.i-^ntiq- and  O&xs,  and  a  Capacity  for  Paffengersi,  and  he  faith,  he  was  out  at  Sea 

14  Days  Northward  in  it.     Now  what  abfttulity  cr  im  redibilitji  is  there  i» 

it,  that  fach  Veffels  fhould  convey  the  Iriftl  forwards  and  backwards  over-  fo 

narrow aVajfage  as  that  between  Ireland  and  thofe  parts  <?/ Scotland  which 

lay  nearefl  to  it  ?     Why  might  not  the  Iri(h  pafs  thofe  Seas  as  well  in  thefe 

as  the  Britains  did  in  Caefar'/  time  the  Sea  between  Gaul  and  Britain  ;  for 

he  faith,    they  gave  Affiftance  to  the  Grf»//,    and  they  had  then  no  other 

Cifur.  de  hind  of  Ships  }     And  Caefar  himfelfwas  f)  far  from  defpifing  them,    that 

tic.  \.  %, '  ^^  thought  them  a  very  ufeful  Invention  and  made  ufe  of  them  himfelfin 

Spain  to  tranfport  his  Soldiers.  The  Keel  and  Marts,  he  faith,  were  made 

De  Bel.    of  the  Hghteft  Wood,  and  the  Bodies  of  them  of  Wicker,  cover'd  over 

C'v.  1. 1,  vvith  Leather^  which  he  had  learnt  from  the  J3r/7ar«j-.     L\ic%n  calls  them 

little  Ships,  tf»<5^  »of  a  miferable  little  kind  of  fhapelefs  Boats,  as  the  Ad- 

p.  loi.  vocate  doth. 

Lucan.1^.  Primum  canaSalix  madefafto  viminc,  parvam 

Texitur  in  Puppim,  cjefoq^  induta  juvenco,  &c. 

and  in  thefe  he  faith,    the  Britains  vpere  wont  to  pafs  the  Ocean. 

fufoq;  Britannus 


Navigat  Oceano.' 

In  the  oldMSS.  GlolTarles  in  the.  Margin  (p/JoflelinV  Gildas,  Curuca  is 
Solin.c  3j,  rendred  by  Navis,  and  not  a  little  (hapelefs  Boat.  And  Solinus  exprefs- 
ly  faith  {even  in  the  place  quoted  by  him^  that  it  was  common  to  pafs 
between  Ireland  and  Britain  with  thefe  Curroghs.  And  fuch  kind  of 
Veffels  covered  with  Leather  were  not  only  ufed  by  the  Britains  and  Irifh, 
hut  by  the  ^Ethiopians,  ^Egyptians,  Sabeans,  Romans  and  Spaniards  5 
as  might  be  fhewed  from  the  Tejiimonies  of  Agatharchides,  Strabo,  Virgil, 
Pliny  and  others.  How  comes  it  then  to  be  almojl  impoffible  for  the  Iri(h  to 
pafs  the  Seas  in  fuch  Veffels  .<?  And  wherein  lies  the  Abfurdity  and  Incredi- 
hility  of  t he  Biffjop' sHypotheds,  when  he  makes  them  to  crofs  but  13  Miles 
/•<?/»  Ireland  to  Britain  i»  thefe  Carroghs,and  the  Advocate  a/lows  the  Friths 
over  which  they  were  to  pafs  to  be  40  Miles  broad  in  fome  places  .>     And 

how 


The    Preface.  xxxix 


how  could  they  befeatre  they  (hould  not  be  driven  into  the  broadeft  places  ? 
Ifthife  Vejfels  then  could  convey  themfafily  over  the  Friths,  why  not  as  well 
front  Ireland  to  the  neareft  Parts  <?/Scotland  •* 

But  I  have  another  Argument  pom  Gildas  that  the  Seas  cannot  be  under- 
(iood  of  the  two  Friths,  viz.  That  GWdiS  faith,  when  the  Roman  Legior\GiU.Epi^, 
firfl:  defeated  the  Pi^s  and  the  Scots,   they  commanded  a  Wall  to  beP-  ^3-  2* 
built  between  the  two  Seas  to  hinder  their  Incurfion  :  which  is  confirmed 
by  Bede,  who  faith,  this  Wall  began  at  Penneltun^   not  far  from  Abercor-  ^^'^-  '•  *• 
tty,  and  ended  at  Alcluith,  and  was  defigned  to  keep  out  their  Enemies.*^"  '^' 
Now  I  defire  to  know  to  what  purpofe  this  Wall  was  built  bettPeen  the  two 
Friths,  to  keep  out  thereof/ and /*//?/,  if  their  Cufiom  was,    as  the  Ad- 
vocate fuppofes,    tocrofs  over  the  two  Friths  and  to  land  on  this  fide  the 
Wall  ?     Did  the  Romans  avd  Britains/^  little  underfiand  the  way  of  their 
Enemies  coming,  to  put  themfelves  tofo  much  pains  and  trouble  for  no  purpofe 
at  all^     And  Buchanan  thinks  the  laft  Stone  Wall  made  by  the  Romans  Bucb.  p. 
for  the  Security  o{ the  Brit ains,  mentioned  byG\\d2iS  and  Bede,  was  made4'^-  ^■ 
in  the  fame  place  where  he  thinks  Severus  his  Wall  flood  before.     And  it  g[^^'?'\^' 
had  been  madnefs  to  ere^  a  Stone  Wall  there  to  keep  out  the  Scots  and  Pidls,  c.  12. 
if  they  came  out  of  Scotland  over  the  two  Friths,   and  landed  where  the 
Wall  could  do  the  Britains  no  Service.    But  Gildas  and  Bedey^y,  they  at- 
tempted the  Wall,  and  forced  themfelves  a  Paffage  over  it  -^  irrumpunt 
Xtxv[\vc\o%  faith  Bede  5  and  with  their  Iron  hooks  drew  the  Britains^xoxxi 
the  Wall,  faith  Gildas.     What  need  all  this  if  they  came  over  the  Friths, 
and  fo  left  the  Wall  between  the  two  Ftkhs  behind  them  .<?     But  from  hence 
it  is  very  plain^  that  Gildas  knew  nothing  of  their  pajjing  the  Friths,    and 
therefore  mufi  be  underflood  of  their  croffing  the  Seas  from  Ireland   ^<7  Scot- 
land, and  there  joining  with  the  Pifts,   and  fo  marching  towards  the  Wall 
between  the  two  Friths  in  order  to  their  pajfing  into  the  Roman  Province, 
And  it  is  obfervable,    that  Gildas  faith  after  the  making  the  fecond  Wall, 
the  Scots  and  PiUs  upon  the  Romans  withdrawing  grew  more  confi- 
dent, and  took  pofleffion  of  the  Northern  part  of  the  Ifland  as  far  as 
the  Wall,  pro  indigenis,    in  the  Place  of  the  Natives  5  which  fi)ews 
that  he  looked  on  them  as  late  comers,   and  then  newly  entred  into  poficjfion 
there. 

The  laji  thing  I  (hall  take  notireofis,  concerning  the  early  Converfion 
of  the  Scotifh  Nation  to  the  Chriftian  Faith.     And  here  I  am  particularly 
concerned  to  anfwer  hi<i  Arguments,  fince  in  the  following  Book  I  have  re-ch.  2. 
jededthe  Tradition  of  the  Scots  Converfion  under  King  Donald,  and  af-  p-  5^'  ^?» 
ycA-/ Palladius  to  have  been  fentto  the  original  Scots  in  Ireland.     But  the 
Advocate  thinks  it  fo  clear  that  they  were  converted  before  A.  D.  503.  p.  112. 
that  from  thence  he  concludes,  that  they  were  fettled  in  Scotland  before 
that  time.     And  it  were  a  piece  of  very  ill  Nature  to  deny  this  Conclufion, 
if  the  Premiffes  be  well  proved. 

(i.)  Asto  the  Converfation  under  King  Donald  5  hefioews, 
I.  That  it  is  very  probable  the  Britifh  Chriftians  being  perfecuted  by  p_  ,,j^ 
the  Roman  Emperors  in  the  Southern  Parts,  would  go  into  the  Nor-^ 
thern  and  propagate  their  Religion  there.     But  this  proves  only  the 
probability  of  the  Converfion  of  the  Northern  Britains,   and  not  of  the 
Scots. 

5.  He  faith,  the  Druids  were  prepared  to  receive  Chriftianity,  and  p.  ii4« 
fo  would  be  eafie  to  be  converted  themfelves,  and  ready  to  convert  the 
People.    He  fpeaks  foon  after  of  a  double  Conver^on  of  their  Nation  from  p-  ii7« 
Paganifm  and  Pelagianifm.     Methinks  thefe  Words  do  not  argue  the  latter 

k  Con- 


xl  The    Preface. 


Converfion  to  have  keu  fuch,  as  to  have  left  no  Dregs  behind   it.     Far 

how>  came  the  Druids  natural  intprovements  to  facilitate  their  Converpon 

Ogyi.        more  than   the  Philofophers  at  Athens  or  Rome  ?     ^nd  the  Irifh  Anti- 

P-  ^°5-    quaries  fay,    the  Druids  there  were  the  great  oppofers   of  the  Go- 

fpel.     But  flill  t.hefe  Druids   might  be  among  the  Britains«<zw^  not  the 

Scots.  -.  !v,!  . 

P.ii8.        3.  He  faith,  th^t  Donald  was  their  firft  Chriftian  King,  ^.  D.  205. 
feems  moft  fully  proved.     Not  by  anj  thing  yet  faid.     But  vphat  then  is 
.  the  full  Proof. ^    Infiort  it  k  this.     It  was  a  matter  of  Fad".     Fer^  true  ; 
Matters  of  Fadi:  mnft  be  proved  by  Witneffes.   True  again.     But  who  are 
thefe  Witneffes}    Even  the  Hiftorians  of  their  Countrey,    and  the  An- 
nals of  their  Monafteries.     Andfo  we  are  thrown  ba.k  upon  the  debate  of 
their  Authority,    which  I  have  gone  through  already.     Let  it  therefore  reft 
npon  their  Credibility  5  only  remembring  that  nofuch  King  as  Donald  doth 
appear  in  their  meft  ancient  Genealogies. 
p.  115.       4.  He  affirms.  That  5rfri7»/ia  allows  their  Converfion  by  Pope /^V7<7r, 
and  he  made  Ecclefiaftick  Hiftory  more  his  Task  than  the  Bifhop  of  St. 
Afaph,  and  was  more  difinterefted.    It  is  pojpble,  the  Bifhop  of  St.  Afaph 
may  have  confidered  Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory  with  as  much  Care  as  Baronius 
himfelf  i^  but  I  dare  fay,  with  greater  judgment  and  impartiality.     And  of 
all  things  7  cannot  but  wonder  at  the  AdvocateV  looking  on  Baronins  as 
more  difinterefted,  when  the  Converfion  from  a  Pope  was  in  quejiion.  Which 
fhews  him  to  be  fuch  a  (Iranger  to  Baronius,    that  one  would  think  he  had 
Demfl.     ^^ver  looked  into  him.     For  Dempfter  is  difpleafed  with  Baronius,  d^f  one 
Appar,      injurious  to  their  Nation,  as  totbis  firft  Converfiooj  fayir/g,    that  there 
'•  ^'  '^'^'  were  no  Chriftians  in  Scotland  before  Palladhu  but  fuch  as  fled  thirher 
Sari  A  D.  o"*  °f  ^^""^s  P^'*'^  °^  Britain  becaufe  of  Perfecution.     A^d  Baronius  doth 
ijjp.  n.  2.  wonder  that  fuch  a  Converfion  Ihould  be  omitted  not  only  by  Bede  but  by 
Mar  i  anus  Scot  us. 

5.  The  Magdeburgian  Centuries,  hefai'h,  agree  with  Baronius  ;    and 
^'  "^'  thefe  are  the  Standards  of  Ecclefiaftick  Hiftory  to  the  ProfefTors  of  both 
Religions.     He  had  as  good  have  faid  they  were  the  Hercules  Pillars  rf^c/ 
there  is  no  paffage  beyond  them.     But  no  learned  ProfeiTors  of  either  Re- 
ligion allow  thefe  to  be  Standards.     How  many  Errors  in  Baronius  have 
been  difcovered  by  the  learned  Antiquaries  of  his  own  Communion  .<?     What 
Complaints  have  been  made  of  his  partiality  to  the  Court  tf/Rome,  not  only 
by  the  Sorbonifts  but  by  the  King's  Advocates  in  France  ?     And  as  to  the 
Magdeburgians,  we  commend  them  for  their  noble  attempt,  and  great  dili" 
gence  and  indufiry  ^    but  matters  of  Erclefiajiick  Antiquity  are  extremely 
improved  fince  that  time.     More  ancient  Authors  having  been  publifhed  out 
ofMSS.  and  better  Editions  by  comparing  the  Huthors  befjre  printed  with 
MSS.  and  many  counterfeit  Authors  difcovered,    and  jar  greater  Enquiries 
have  been  made  into  all  parts  of  Ecclefiaftick  Antiquities  ^  fo  that  after  fo 
many  vevo  difcoveries  to  make  thefe  the  Standards,  were  almoji  as  abfurd  as 
to  make  Ptolemy  the  Standard  for  modern  Geography.     We  do  not  difpa- 
rage  what  he  hath  done,  when  we  fay,  many  things  have  been  found  out  fince 
his  time. 
p.  114.       (2.)   Astothem';ffionofP2i\\ziS.\x<!,intoSQ.ot\2in^,  the  hAvOQZtt  in fifls on 
thefe  three  things,    I.  T^-\t  Bede  affirms  that  he  was  fent  to  the  Scots  in 
p.  up.   Britain.    2.  That  there  is  no  probability  in  the  Circumftances  of  his  be- 
p.  izz.   '"S  l^snt  into  h eland.    3.  That  Dr.  Hammond  yields  that  the  Scots  were 
converted  before  Celefiines  time  ^   and  therefore  it  is  more  probable  that 
Palladius  was  fent  Biftiop  to  them. 

T0 


The  Preface.  xli 


I 


Tothefe  particulars  I  fjall  give  a  dijii»6f  Attfroer. 

(i.)  To  liedeV  Teflimny,  he  affirms^  that  in  the  eighth  oiTheodopm^- 1.  c.i^ir 
the  younger^  Palladiiu  was  fent  by  Celejiine  the  firft  BKhop  to  iht  Scots 
^jeh'eving  in  Chrifl.     Wherein  Bede  only  applies  Profper'/  Words  to  the 
eighth  <?/Theodofius,    which  he  had  placed  under  BalTus  and  Antiochus 
Confids  •    but  he  doth  not  determine  whether  thefe  Scots  were  in  Ireland  or 
in  Britain.     But  the  Advocate  faith,  all  that  which  Ser/e  faith  before  and 
after  concerning  the  Scots  relates  to  the  Scots  in  Britain,  and  therefore 
thefe  Words  are  fo  to  be  underftood.  Whereas  Bede  in  the  very  beginning 
declares.  That  Ireland  was  the  proper  Countrey  of  the  Scots  ;  and  that  j, ,  c.  i. 
Dtimbritton  Frith  did  anciently  feparate  the  Piils  and  the  Britains  3 
but  the  Si ots  coming  afterwards  to  the  Northern  part  of  that  Frith^ 
there  fettled  tbemfelves.      Which  Words  do  evidently  prove,    that  Bede 
did  not  look  on  the  Scots  as  ancient  Inhabitants  there  5  for  then  he  would 
havefaid,  that  the  Frith  did  antiquitus  gentem  Britonum  a  Scotis  fecer- 
nere  5  but  he  never  mentions  the  Scots  but  the  Pifts  as  the  ancient  Inhabi- 
tants <?»  the  Northern  part  of  the  Frith.     But,  faith  the  Advocate^    Bede's     p.  6o> 
Title  of  his  Chapter  is  of  the  ancient  Inhabitants  of  Britain,    and  he 
mentions  the  Scots  among  them.     Very  true  ^    but  Jhall  not  Bede  explain 
himfelfwhom  he  means  by  the  ancient  Inhabitants;    viz.  the  Britains  and 
Pifts?     For,  by  the  Advocate's  reafoning  the  Saxons  will  be  proved  to  have 
been  in  Britain  before  Julius  Csfar,  as  well  ,/<  the  Scots  ,  for  they  make  up 
one  of  the  dyt  Nations  fpoken  of  in  that  firft  Chapter.     Andfo  Bede  do'h 
mt  only  fettle  the  Scots  and  the  PitJs  in  this  Countrey,  by  his  firft  Chap- 
ter, but  the  Ejlglifti  too.     And  it  is  an  extraordinary  fagacity  that  can  dif- 
cover  thff  Chapter  in  Bede,  to  be  clear  to  a  Demonftration  that  he  makes    p.  5j. 
the  Scots  to  be  ancient  Inhabitants  in  Britain  3    whereas,  to  my  dull  ap- 
frehenfion  Bede  is  clear  the  other  Way. 

But  the  Advocate  proceeds  tofloew,  that  the  Name  of  Scots  doth  origi-  p.  i{6. 
nally  belong  to  the  Scots  in  Britain^  and  only  by  way  of  Communica- 
tion to  thofe  in  Ireland.     This  were  indeed  to  thepur'pofe  if  it  were  proved^ 
And  there  ought  to  be  the  more  care  in  doing  it,  fince  it  is  fo  new  and  fingu- 
lar  an  Opinion.     For  even  Buchanany^zV/6,  that  the  Irijfi  were  at  firft  cal-  such.  i.  u 
led  Scots  i  and  from  thence  they  pafled  into  Albany  •    and  that  by  the  p-  ^'^■ 
Name  Scots theit  coming  from  the  IrifJ}  is  declared.     Joh.  Mzpt faith, '%^^;^^' 
that  Scotia  among  their  Anceftors  was  "the  common  Name  for  Ireland,  h.il  scot. 
And  if  their  ancient  Annals  may  be  believed,  the  Name  ofScot  came  from-'  ^'  ^'  ^' 
Scota  the  Wife  of  Gathelos,    whofe  Pojlerity  went  firft  into  Ireland,    and 
then  carried  the  Name  into  Scotland.     In  Fordon  and  Elphinfton  there  H 
anotherScota  mentioned,  ai  a  Leader  ofthefirji  Colony  into  Irehnd,  who 
gave  the  Name  to  that  Countrey  of  Scotia  3  and  Joh.  Major  faith.  She  Was 
the  Mother  of ///^er.     But  whichfoever  of  thefe  Jiands,    nnlefs  the  Advo^ 
cate  will  at  laft  give  up  the  Caufe  of  their  ancient  Annals,    which  he  hath 
contended  fo  warmly  for,    he  muft  renounce  this  Opinion  of  his,    that  the 
^zvaeoi Scots  doth  originally  belong  tp  the  Albian  Scots,    and  only  by 
way-o/coramunication  to  thelrifi  '.^  fo  that  there  is  no  need  to  produce  the 
plain  Teftimonies  ^/Orofius,    Bede  and  iGdore,    which  make  Ireland  the  Oiof.  I.  x* 
proper  Countrey  oi  the  Scots.    But  it  is  a  wonderful  fubtil/ty  ftom  hence^-f. 
to  infer,  as  the  Advocate  doth,  as  if  it  might  have  been  juftly  doubted,  c.  i*.  ' 
and  were  not  true  in  all  fenfes.     Doth  he  mean  proper  or  improper  fen-  JMor.ong. 
fes  }     Their  Words  are  plain  that  Ireland  in  aftriS  and  proper  fenfe  was  p.''^,  51. ' 
the  Countrey  of  the  Scots,  i,  e.  the  Patria  Originis,  though  the  other  might 
afterwards  be  Patria  incolatus  8c  Domicilii  5  as  the  Advocate  himfelfdoth 

di- 


xlii  The  Preface. 


P-  »52-  difiinguifh  ^  hut  that  which  follows  from  hence  is,  that  if  l  he  Scots  came  ori- 
ginally from  Ireland,  then  the  Name  of  Scots  doth  not  originally  belong  to 
the  Scots  in  Britain,  but  to  thofe  in  Ireland,    unlefs  he  can  (hevo  that  the 
reafon  oftht  Name  doth  agree  to  them  only  upon  their  removal  into  Britain, 
^j,  to  take  his  oxon  inflance  ^  no  one  will  queflion  that  the  Colony  of  Virgi- 
nia are  called  Englifh,  becaufe  the  Inhabitants  of  the  Countrey  from  whence 
they  came  are  fo  called.     But  were  not  the  Irifli  called  Scots  before  they 
rvent  /»/<?  Scotland?     If  not,  that  could  not  be  proprie  Scotorum  Patria, 
as  Orofius  and  Bede  and  Ifidore  affirm ;  as  England  could  not  be  faid  to 
be  the  proper  Countrey  of  the  Engliftl  unlefs  the  Inhabitants  were  called  En- 
glifh 5  and  the  Colony  tf/ Virginia  received  its  denomination  of  being  En- 
glifh becaufe  they  came  from  hence.     ZJnlefs  therefore  the  Advocate  be  plea' 
fed  tojhew,  that  the  Name  of  Scots  dothfo  belong  to  the  Irifli  upon  their  re- 
move into  Britain,  that  it  could  not  agree  to  them  in  Ireland,  it  will  be  im- 
pojfiblefor  him  to  make  out,    that  the  Name  o/ScotS  doth  originally  belong 
to  the  Irifh  in  Britain,  and  only  by  way  of  communication  to  thofe  in  Ireland. 
I  have  already  fldewed  that  Jof.  Scaliger  doth  ajfign  fuch  a  Reafon  of  the 
Name  of  Scoti  as  agrees  only  to  thofe  who  came  over  upon  Expeditions  5   but 
I  believe  the  Scots  wHl  take  it  far  better  to  receive  their  Name  from  the  Irifli 
Scots,   than  to  have  had  the  original  Name  given  them  on  fuch  an  Ac- 
count. 
p.  1 .9.       (3.)  As  to  the  Circumjlances  c/Palladius  his  Mijfion,  the  main  difficulty 
obJe3ed,  is  from  St.  Patricks  being  fent  fo  foon  after  into  Ireland 5 
which  needed  not  have  been  if  Palladium  were  fent  before  thither  and 
not  rather  into  Scotland,  whither  Bale  faith  he  went  and  died  not, 
A;  D.  43 1,  but  434.   This  is  the  force  of  what  the  Advocate  faith  upon  this 
Matter.    But  the  Bifljop  of  St.  Afaph  had  proved  from  Profper,  that  Palla- 
dius  was  fent  to  the  Scots  in  Ireland  ^    becaufe  he  difiinguifies  the    two 
Iflands,  the  one  he  calls  Roman,  /.  e.  Britain,    the  other  Barbarous  where 
the  Scots  lived,  to  whom  PaWad'tas  was  fent -^   which  could  be  no  other  than 
p.  116.  Ireland.     To  which  the  Advocate  anfwers,  that  the  Northern  partofBri- 
tain  was  by  Tacitus  and  Bede  (aid  to  be  reduced  into  an  Ifland  by  the 
Roman  Wall  from  Sea  to  Sea  ;  and  Bede  in  other  places  calls  the  Scots 
Iflanders.     Tacitus  indeed  faith,  that  by  kgriccAsLs  Fortifications  between 
the  two  Friths,   the  Britains  were  driven  as  into  another  Ifland  5    but 
this  is  a  very  different  way  offpeakingfiom  that  of  Pro{'per,  who  makes  a  di- 
fiin&ion  between  two  proper  Iflands.     And  Profper  could  not  be  ignorant 
that  Feftus  Avienus  not  long  before,  viz.  in  the  time  <?/Theodo{ius,  had  di- 
fiingui/hed  the  twoKhnds,  the  one  inhabited  by  the  Hiberni,  and  the  other 
he  calls  Infula  Albionum,  which  takes  in  all  that  we  now  call  Britain.     But 
according  to  the  old  Geographers,  Ireland  tt>,«f  accounted  one  of  the  Britifh 
Iflands  ;  as  appears  by  the  Tefiimonies  f/PIiny,  Apuleius,  Ptolemy,  Dio- 
dorus  Siculus  and  Marcianus  Heracleota,  which  have  been  produced  by  o- 
VJfer.  Pri-  thers,  and  need  not  to  be  repeated  here.     But  no  one  ever  mentioned  Scot- 
722^  %c.  '^""^  ^  ^  diftindt  Ifland,  and  therefore  itisunreafonable  to  underfiand  Pro- 
War.  An-   (^per  in  that  Senfe.     Bede  mentions  the  Infuhni  ip  the  Chapter  referr'd  to  ^ 
nq.^  Hib.   l,„f  nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  he  [peaks  of  the  Britains  on  this  fide 
Bed'\.  I.  the  Wall  5  who  raifed  up  the  Wall  of  Turf  between  the  two  Friths  for 
c.  "2.       their  own  fecurity  againfl:  their  Enemies  beyond  the  Wall.    In  the  other 
1. 4.  c.  2(5.  place  of  Bede,  the  Infulani  are  to  be  under  (iood  of  thofe  i>/Ireland,   as  Bede 
clearly  exprejfeth  himfelf,  miflb  in  Hibemianl  exercitu.     But  the  ingenious 
Advocate  hath  a  fetch  beyond  this,  for  he  faith,  thatfie<^eby  Ireland  mtant 
Scotland^  which  hefets  himfelf  to  prove  from  this  very  paf age.     FoTy  faith 

he. 


\ 


The    Preface.  xliii 


he,  the  fame  thing  that  is  firft  faid  to  be  done  in  Hibernia  is  afterwards   P-  '55- 
fa  id  to  be  done  in  Scotia.     And  might  it  not  befo  i/Ireland  vpcre  theft  cal- 
led Scotia,  as  appears  by  the  former  Teflimonies}     But  that  tkde  could  not 
mean  any  other  than  Irelmd  appears  from  hence,  that  he  faith,  the  Nation 
which  Egfred  invaded  had  been  always  kind  to  the  Engljh  5   and  the  I- 
rifh  Annals  give  an  accmnt  of  the  very  Place  and  Time  <?/Egfred'j  landing  ogyg. 
in  Ireland,  and  the  Captives  he  carried  away  from  thence.     But  Bede  elfe-  ?•  ^3  '• 
where  faith,  //6e  Scots  in  I'ritain  had  been  great  Emmies  to  them,   as  appea-  * '"  ^'  ^^ 
red  by  the  Battel  at  Degfaftan,  where  the  whole  Army  of  the  Scots  was  al- 
moftiut  off  by  Edilfredus  A'/V;^  (^/Northumberland,  and  their  King  Edan 
fled  ty  fiom  which  time  none  of  the  Kings  0/ Scotland  durfi  appear  in  the 
Field  againjl  /^^Englifb.     Which  argues  no  great  kind/sefs  between  them  5 
bHt  Bede   faith,    that   thefe   had  been    Nationi    Anglorum    gens    fu- 
per  amiciflima  5   and  therefore  hk  Words  mufl  relate  to  the  Scots  in 
Ireland. 

"  Bh'  doth  not  Bedey;?/,  that  CoUmhanuf  came  from  Ireland  to  Uy,  P-  '55. 
"  and  fo  to  Brita'n  5  and  afterwards  that  Colman  returned  to  Scotland^ 
"  /.  e.  to  Hy  from  whence  Columba  came ;    therefore  Scotland  was  cal- 
led Ireland  5    or  rather,    Ireland  was  called  Scotia  ;    which  is  fo  clear  in 
Bede,  that  I  wonder  that  any  that  carefully  read  hivt  can  difpnte  it.     He 
faith  indeed,  that  the  ^Ci?//  had  a  Kingdom  in  Britain,  but  where  he  fpeaks 
of  the  Religion  of  the  Scots  he  then  means  the  Scots  of  Ireland  5  as  will  eafily 
appear  by  the  feries  of  his  Difconrfe.     When  he  fpeaks  o/Laurentius  his  care^  ^  ^    . 
not  only  of  the  Britains  but  of  the  Scots  too,  he  explains  himfelf  :o  mean  thofe  ' 
who   lived  in  Ireland,   an  liJind  near  fountain.     Columba,    he  faith, ^  5.0.4. 
came  fr  em  Ireland  to  convince  the  Northern  Pifts,  and  obained  from  their 
King  the  Ifland  Hy,  where  he  founded  his  Mon  after y,  which  he  faith,    was     c  ?. 
the  chief  of  all  the  Northern  Scots,    not  of  thofe  in  Scotland  but  in  Ire- 
land.    For  in  the  fame  Chapter  he  diftinguifiei  h  the  Scots  in  the  Southern 
Paf  ts  of  Ireland,  fiom  thofe  in  the  Northern  ^    the  former  following  the 
Roman  Cujiom  tf/'Eafter,  and  the  Northern  refujing  it.     From  thefe  Aida- 
nmcame,  the  firji  Scotiih  Bifl}op  who  fef tied  among  ^^e  Englifh,    being  fent 
for  by  King  Ofwa'd.     Furfeus,  faith  he  afterwards^    came  from  Ireland,  c.  5,  5, 
being  of  the  moft  noble  Race  of  the  Scots  ^  and  there  he  mentions  the    ^-  '9- 
Scots  of  his  own  Nation,  and  faith,   he  had  preached  a  great  while  in 
Scotiaheiore  he  came  into  England  ;    but  he  never  takes  notice,  after  hk 
coming  over,  of  his  being  any  where,  but  among  the  Britains  before  he  went  to 
the  Eaft  Angles.     After  Aidan'j  death  Finan  came  fiom  the  fame  Scots,    c.25. 
who  ^erjifled  in  the  old  way  of  the  keeping  Eafter ;  after  Finan  Colmany^i;- 
ceeded,  who  was  milTus  a  Scotia,  who  maintained  the  fame  praUice  5    and 
afterwards  he  returned  home,  in  Scotiam  regrefTus  eft  ;  but  what  he  means     (..26. 
by  it  Bede  prefently  informs  us,  when  he  faith,  that  Tuda  fucceeded,    who 
had  been  brought  up  among  the  Southern  Scots,   i.  e.  in  the  Southern 
"Parts  <?/ireland.     Tuda  died  of  the  Plague,  which  Bede  faith  paffed  into 
Ireland,  whither  many  Englifh  went  in  the  time  c/Finan  and  Colman,  who 
wen  all  kindly  received  by  the  Scots.     When  Colman  returned,   Hede  faith,  1. 4.  c.  '4. 
he  went  firft  to  Hy,  then  to  an  Idand  on  the  Weft  of  Ireland  5  but  not  a 
Word  tf/f^e Northern  Parts  of  Britain.  •  Afterwards  he  fhcweth  how  the\.  s.  c. i5. 
greatefl  part  of  the  Scots  in  Ireland  were  brought  to  compliance  in  the  point 
of  keeping  Eafter  by  means  o/Adamnanus,  who  endeavoured  to  reduce  thofe 
tf/Hy  but  could  not  x,  hut  z//>^»  Egbert'j  coming  to  them  from  Ireland,   the    c.13. 
Scorifti  Monks  of  the  Ifland  Hy  or  Jona  yielded^   when  Duurachadus  was 

1  Ab' 


xliv  The    Preface. 


Ahhiit  there.  And  note  let  any  indiferent  Reader  judge,  whether  bj  Scotia 
Bede  mderftands  the  Northern  Parts  of  Britain  or  Ireland. 
p.  156.  "  But  after  all,  doth  not  Bede  {^y.  That  the  Ifljnd  Hydid  belong  to 
"  Britain  aS  a  part  of  it  ?  And  what  then  f  Hows  ?  Doth  not  Bede  in 
the  fame  place,  fay,  it  was  given  be  the  Pids  not  by  the  Scots  to  the  Scotifh 
Monks  who  came  from  lre]and}  So  that  upon  the  whole  matter,  that  which 
Bede underjiands  by  Scoth  feems  to  be  Irehnd,  although  he  affirms  the  Scots 
to  have  fettled  in  ^^e  Northern  Parts  of  i?r?7<i/»,  and  to  have  fet  up  a  King- 
dom there.  , 

From  whence  there  appears  no  probability  e/Palladius'/  being  fent  to  the 
Scots /»  Britain  5    Bede  faying  nothing  of  their  Converfion,  when  he  fo 
1-  3  c.  4.  pun  dually  fet  s  down  the  Converfion  o/the  South  Pifts  by  Ninias  a  Britifli 
Bi(hopW<?/the  Northern  Pifts  ^y  Columba,  ^Scotifho/' Iri(h  Presbyter. 
"  But  r/Palladius  we^e  fent  to  the  Scots  in  Ireland,  how  came  St.  Pa- 
"  trick  to  be  fent  fo  foon  after  him  ?     To  this  the  Bifhop  <?/St.  Afaph  an- 
fwers,  that  Palladius  might  diefofoon  after  his  Miflion  that  Pope  Celejiine 
fftight  have  time  enough  to  fend  St.  Patrick  before  hk  own  death.    And,  th\i 
he  makes  out  by  laying  the  feveral  Circutnftances  of  the  Story  together,  as 
they  are  reported  by  Authors,  which  the  Advocate  calls  a  laborious  Hy- 
p.  120,    pothefis,  and  elaborate  contrivance  to  divert  all  the  unanfwerable  Au- 
'*'•        thorities,  proving  that  Valladius  was  fent  to  them  in  Scotland,  A.  D. 
491.     PF/6<2^  thofe  unanfwerable  Authorities  rfre,   which  prove  VzWdidius 
fent  to  the  Scots  inErita'm  I  cannot  find.     And  for  all  that  I  fee  by  this 
Anfwer,  the  only  fault  <?/the  Bifhop's  Hy  pothefis  k    that  it  k  too  exaft, 
And  doth  too  much  clear  the  appearance  o/contradiftion  between  the  two 
Miffions. 

C5.)  As  to  Dr.  Hammond's  Teftimony  (whok  defervedly  called  by  tht 

jjj    Advocate,  a  learned  and  Epifcopal  Englifh  Divine  )  it  is  very  eafily  an- 

\\ni^\cit\- fwered.     For,  I.  He /<»fl^/ <?»  the  whole  Story  tf/the  .Sci»/j  Converfion  as 

DUfercati^- ^^""y  ""Certainly  fet  down  by  Authors.     2.  He  faith.    That  Bozim  ap- 

on  about  pi ics  the  Converfion  Under  f^(^<7r  to /?*e/4»ij/,    then  CjWed  Scotia:^    for 

Epifcopa-  which  hequotes  Bede.     3.  That  we/V^erMarianus  Scotus  nor  Bede  do  take 

^>  p-i  o»  jj^g  jggQ.  notice  of  it.     4.  That  if  ProfperV  Words  be  underfiood  of  the 

Scots  in  Britain,  yet  they  do  not  prove  the  thing  defigned  by  his  Adverfa- 

ries,  viz.  That  the  Churches  there  we'e  governed  by  Presbyters  without 

Bifiiops  3  for  Profper  fuppofes  that  they  remained  barbarous _/?///,    and 

/Aer(?^re  the  Plantation  was  very  imperfect,  and  could  not  he  underfiood  of 

any  formed  Churches.     But  the  Advocate  very  w'fely  conceals  one  paffage 

vs^hich  overthrows  A*f  Hypothefis,  vi%.  That  they  could  not  be  fuppo- 

fed  to  receive  the  firft  Rudiments  of  their  Converfion  from  Kome,  viz. 

under  Pope  Vidor,  fince  the  Scots  joined  with  the  Britains  in  rejefting 

the  Roman  Cuftoms.     From  whence  we  fee,  that  Dr.  Hammond  wu  far 

from  being  of  the  Advocate's  mittd  in  this  matter  ;  and  what  hepropofes  as 

to  fame  Rudiments  ^/Chriftianity /«  Scotland  />e/oA-e  Palladius  his  coming 

thither,  was  only  from  an  uncertain  Tradition,    and  for  reconciling  the 

Jeeming  differences  between  Bede  and  Profper  5    or  rather  for  reconciling 

Profper  to  himfelf. 

p,  I J  5.       But  1  remember  the  Advocate*/  Obfervation  in  the  Cafe  <?/ their  Prede- 

ceflbr's  Apology  againfl  Edward  I.  viz.   That  they  defigned,    as  raoft 

Pleaders  do,  to  gain  their  Point  at  any  rate  ;  and  how  far  this  eloquent 

Advocate  hath  made  good  this  Obfervation  through  his  Difcourfe  1  leave 

the  Kender  to  determine, 

Havtftg 


The  Preface.  xIy 


HavtMg  thus  gone  through  all  the  material  Parts  o/the  AdvocateV  Booky 
Jjhall  conclude  with  a  ferioM  Troteftation  that  no  Pique  or  Animolity  hd 
Pie  to  this  Undertaking,  no  ill  Will  to  the  Scotijh  Nation,  much  lefs  to 
the  Royal  Line,  (which  I  do  believe  hath  the  Advantage  in  point  of  Anti- 
quity above  any  other  in  Europe,  and  as  far  as  we  know  in  the  World,  } 
But  I  thought  it  nececeffary  for  me  to  enquire  more  flri&ly  into  this  De- 
fence offuch  pretended  Antiquities  ;  both  becaufe  I  owed  fo  much  fervice  to 
fo  worthy  and  excellent  a  Friend  cu  the  Biftiop  of  St.  Afaph,  and  becaufe  if 
the  Advocate' J-  Arguments  would  hold  good,  they  would  overthrow  fever al 
things  7  A<«£/  afferted  in  the  following  Book-^  and  wit  hall,  I  was  willing  to 
let  the  learned  Nobility  and  Gentry  o^  that  Nation  fee  how  much  they  have 
been  tmpofed  upon  by  Hedor  Boethius  and  his  followers  ^  and  that  the  true 
Honour  and  Wifdomof  their  Nation  k  not  concerned  in  defending  fuch 
Antiquities,  which  are  univerfally  difefieemed  among  all  judicious  and  in- 
quifitive  Men.  And  it  would  far  better  become  Perfons  offo  much  Ingenu- 
ity <?»«/ Sagacity,  to  follow  the  Example  I  o/<?/Aer  European  Nations,  in 
rejeiling  the  Romantick  Fables  of  theMonkifti  Times,  and  at  laji  to  fettle 
their  Antiquities  on  firm  and  folid  Foundations. 

As  to  the  following  Book,  it  comes  forth  as  a  Specimen  of  a  greater  De- 
fign,  ( if  God  gives  me  Life  and  Opportunity  )  which  is  to  clear  the  mofl 
important  Difficulties  <)/Ecclef]afticalHiftory.  And  becaufe  I  look  on  a 
General  Church  Hiftory,  as  too  heavy  a  Burthen  to  be  undergone  by  any 
Man,  when  he  is  fit  for  it  by  Age  and  Confideration,  I  have  therefore 
thought  it  the  better  vsray  to  undertake  fuch  particular  Parts  of  it  which 
may  be  mofl  ufeful,  and  1  have  now  begun  with  th&^Q  Antiquities  <?/the  Bri- 
ti(h  Churches  5  which  may  be  followed  by  others  as  I  fee  occafion.  But  Z 
hope  none  will  have  jufi  caufe  to  complain  that  I  have  not  ufed  diligence  or 
faithfulnefs  enough  in  this  prefent  Work,  or  that  I  have  fet  up  Fancies  and 
Chimaera'j  of  my  own  injiead  of  the  true  Antiquities  of  the  BritiQi  Church- 
es. Ihave  neither  negle&ed  nor  tranfcribed  thofe  who  have  written  before 
me  I)  and  ifinfome  things  I  differ  from  them,  it  was  not  out  of  the  Humour 
ofoppofing  any  great  Names,  but  becaufe  I  intended  not  to  deliver  other  Mens 
judgments^  but  my  own. 


THE 


( « ) 


THE 


"s  ,-.■ 


r. 


ANTIQUITIES 


OF      THE 


Britifh-Churches. 


CHAP.    I. 

Of  the  firfl:  Planting  a  Ghriftian  Church  in 
Britain  by  St.  FauL 

NO  Chrijiihn  Church  planted  in  Britain,  during  the  ^Igri  of 
Tiberius. 
Gildas  his  Words  mif-underjioodi 
The  Tradition  concerning  Jofeph  of  Arimathea  and  his  'Brethren 

coming  to  Glaffenbury,  at  large  examined. 
No  Footjieps  of  it  in  the  Bricifli  times. 
The  pretended  Tejlimonies  of  Britifh  Writers  difpro^edi 
St.  Patrick'^  Epi/ile,  a  Forgery. 

Of  the  Saxon  Charters)  efpecially  the  large  one  of  i\jng  Ini. 
The  Jntiquity  of  Seals  in  England. 
Ingulphus  his  Teftimony  explained. 
All  the  SaXon    Charters  fufpicious,    till  the   end  of    the  fe^enth 

Century. 
The  occafion  of  this  Tradition^  from  an  old  Britifli  Church  there. 
The  Circumfiances  about  Jofeph  of  Arin:iathea  and  ArViragus  Verj^ 

improbable. 
Sir  Henry  Spelman  vindicated. 

The  State  of  the  Roman  province  in  Britain  about  that  time. 
No  fuch  ^ng  as  Arviragus  then. 
Kot  the  fame  with  Cara<5tacus. 
J  Chrifiian  Church  proved  to  he  flanted  here  in  the  Apo files  times. 

A  Ths 


i 


Tfe  Antiqaltis^  of 


Chap.  I. 


77;g  Authentick  Teflmonies  of  Eufcbius,  Theodoret,  and  Clemens 

Romanus  to  that  purpo/e. 
St.  Paul  in  'Probability^  the  firjl  Founder  of  a  Church  here, 
Tl^e  Time  and  Opportunity  he  had  for  it^  after  his  (^eleafe. 
Of  Pomponia  and  Crascina,  Claudia  Rufina,  ChriJIians  at  Rome, 

and  their  influence  on  his  coming  hither. 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  compared,  as  to  their  Preaching  here,  and 

the  far  greater  Probability  of  St.  PaulV. 


(a)  An'm- 

adveif.  on 
the  Church 
nifl.  of 
Britain, 
P-  5,  6. 


I 


T  is  an  Opinion  generally  received  among  our  later  Writers,  as 
(rf)  one  of  them  tells  the  World,  That  the  Converfion  of  the  Bri- 
ti(h  Nation,  to  the  Chrijlian  Faith,  was  performed  towards  the  lat- 
ter e»d  of  the  Reign  of  Tiberius  Csefar,  i.  e.  about  thirty  feven 
years  after  Chrift's  Nativity.  But  whofoever  compares  the  Cir- 
cumftances  of  thofe  times,  and  confiders  the  fmall  number  of  the  years 
between  our  Saviour's  Paffion,  and  the  death  of  Tiberim,  will  find  very 
little  Probability,  of  the  founding  a  Chrifiian  Church  fo  foon,  in  a 
place  fo  remote  as  Britain. 

•  To  make  this  appear,  I  (hall  not  infift  upon  the  Teftimony  of  Jpol- 
(b)  Eufeb.  loniuf  in  (b)  Enfebim,  concerning  the  ancient  Tradition,  That  our  Sa- 
^'n'l^l  wWr  commanded  his  Apoflles,  not  to  depart  from  Jerufalem  within  twelve 
c.  i8.  Tears  after  his  Afcenfton-^  nor  on  that  of  the  (0  -Alexandrian  Chronicle^ 
(O  c*''""-  wherein  it  is  faid,  That  the  Apofiles  did  not  feparate,  till  after  the  Conn' 
(j^Qiyc.'  <^''  ^f  Jerufalem  5  nor  on  that  of  Hippolytt0  Thebanus  in  (^d)  Gljcof, 
Ann.ii.p.^.  and  of  Euodiua  in  (e)  Nicephoruf,  who  reckon  the  Martyrdom  of  St.  Ste- 
jP;,^./'' ,,  phen,  to  be  feven  Tears  after  Chrift's  Refurre&ion  (which  fome  learned 
I.' 2.  c.^  CP  Chronologers  think  more  probable,  than  the  common  Computati- 
^d^^'^if'  o"  which  allows  but  one)  before  which  time  it  is  not  pretended  by 
i/^l  r 7w- any,  that  theDifciples  were  difper fed  abroad. 

ftian.  A.D.     But  that  which  is  of  greater  force  and  certainty,  is,  fuppofing  the 
^  ■         difperfion  to  have  been  within  the  Reign  of  Tiberius,  yet  the  Scripture 
gives  fuch  an  Account  of  the  Extent,  and  Defign  of  the  Difciples 
preaching  upon  it,  as  utterly  overthrows  any  Probability  of  their  com- 
Aft.ii.ip.ing  hither,  for  the  Words  are,  N.ow  they  which  were  fcattered  abroad  upon 
the  Perfecntion,  that  arofe  about  Stephen,  travelled  as  far  as  Vhemce,  and 
Cyprus,  and  Antioch,  Preaching  the  Word  unto  none,  but  unto  the  Jews 
alone.    But  the  neareft  of  thefe  places,  is  at  a  great  diftance  from  Bri- 
tain, and  if  they  Preached  to  none  but  to  the  Jews,  they  were  not  likely 
tg)^ifon  to  convert  the  Gentile  Brit ains.     (g)  Baronius  gr:ints,  A.  D.  35.  That 
hitherto  the  Jews  had  only  the  Gofpcl  preached  to  them ;  Although  at  the 
fame  time  he  pleads  for  the  Tradition  of  Lazarus,  Mary  Magdalen, 
Martha  and  Marcel/a,  coming  then  with   Maxi minus  in  a  Ship  without 
Oars  to  Marfcilles,  with  a  defign,  no  doubt,  to  fpread  the  Gofpel  among 
(/;)Bofqu.  theGewf;/ci  inGaid,  for  (/>)  Lazarus  is  fuppofed  to  have  been  Biftiop 
dJj  Gai.  ^^  f^^^feilles,  and  Maximinus  of  Aix.    And  he  adds  out  of  a  Manu- 
//c./.i.e.3.fcript  in  the  Vatican  Library  (which  not  only,  like  the  Houfiolder  in 
the  Gofpel,  brings  forth  things  Nevo  and  Old,  but  fometimes  things  Neiv 
for  Old,  as  happens  in  the  Cafe  of  this  Manufcript,  it  being  lately  writ- 
31i^'/  ^^"'  ^^  ^'^  Archbipiop  Vjlier  hath  obferved)  That  Jofeph  of  Arlmatbea 
lid  bear  them  Company,  and  came  over,  into  Britain,  to  Preach  the  Gofpel-^ 

Which 


35.  n.  5. 


frimm- 


Chap.  I.  the  hritijh  Churches.  3 

Which  according  to  his  own  Suppofition,  rtuf!:  he  only  to  the  Jervs 
in  Britain,  if  there  were  any  here  5  But  if  it  be  nnderftood  of  theGe/r- 
tilet,  Ck)  Jac.  Sirmofidus  faith  in  plain  Terms,  T^is  Tradition  contra- (^■)S'"'- 
diffs  the  Scripture-^  For  faith  he,  //  the  People  0/ Marfeilles  (or  Bri-2Tbtt[^ 
tain)  had  the  Gofpel  Preached  to  them  fo  foon,  how  comes  it  topafs,  that  onydh,  c. 
/ix  Tears  after,  Cornelius  is  f aid  to  be  the  fir jl  Fruit  3  of  the  Gentiles  z?''' 
jlnd  that  upon  the  Incottragettient  of  his  Example,  thofe  of  the  Difperjion, 
began  to  Preach  to  the  Gentiles  at  Antioch  ?  Which  is  confefled  by  (/)(/)  Bar.  a 
Baronius  himfelf.     The  ftrength  of  which  Argument  hath  prevailed  fo  ^  ^i-  «• 
much  in  France,  that  the  (^m)  Defenders  of  this  Tradition,  have  been  (^yLau. 
there  contented  to  let  go  the  Reign  of  Tiberius,  and  to  place  it  a  great  noi'^K'- 
deal  later.  Anno  Dom.  62.  (»)  For  they  evidently  faw,  there  was  nOi^^^^^^g! 
Poflibility  of  defending  it  upon  other  Terms,  although  hereby  they  (p)  Natal, 
make  Lazarus  and  Jofephoi  Arimathea  oi  great  Age,  when  they  under- ^|^^v^'^' 
took  this  Voyage  with  their  Companions :  But  when  fuch  a  Tradition  i.  part.  2". 
is  either  wholly  rejedled  there,  as  difagreeing  to  the  Scripture,  orfetP'S°- 
fo  much  later,  on  purpofe  to  reconcile  it  to  the  A^s  df  the  Apoftles, 
it  cannot  but  feem  ftrange  among  us,  that  there  (hould  be  fuch  an 
Opinion  ftill  fo  generally  received,  That  the  Gofpel  foould  be  here  Preached 
before  the  end  of  the  Reign  of  Tiberius. 

But  that  which  hath  mif-led  moft  of  our  Writers,  hath  been  a  paf- 
fage  in  Gildas,  which  they  have  applied  to  the  particular  Preaching  of 
the  Gofpel  in  Britain,  whereas  it  feems  onely  to  be  underftobd  of  the 
General  Liberty  of  Preaching  it  throughout  the  World,  as  will  beft  appear 
by  confidering,  not  barely  the  Words,  but  the  Circumftances  of  them. 
(^0)  Gildas,  having  undertaken  to  give  fome  Account  of  the  ancient („)  ciid. 
Britijh  Church  in  the  beginning  of  his  Epiflle,  In  the  firft  place,  (ad\j  E-pift.ei. 
laments  the  want  of  any  Domeftick  Monuments,  to  give  hitii  certain  ^jfg.'"' 
information.     For,  faith  he.  If  there  mre  any  fuch,   they  were  either 
burnt  by  our  Enemies,  or  carried  fo  far  by  the  Banifjment  of  our  Country- 
Men,  that  they  no  longer  appear,  and  therefore  he  xii as  forced  to  pick  up  rphat 
he  could  out  of  Foreign  Writers,  witheut  any  continued  Series.     From 
hence,  he  proceeds  to  fpeak  of  the  Romans  eafie  Conqueji  df  Britain,  but 
Difficult  keeping  of  it,  the  Inhabitants  being  fo  unable  to  withfiand  the 
Romans,  and  yet  fo  unwilling  to  obey  them.     Of  vs'hich  he  gives  a  Re- 
markable Inftance,  in  the  Revolt  under  Boadicea,  and  the  harder  ufage; 
of  the  Britains  after  it.     Interea,  faith  he. 


Interea  glaciali  frigore  rigenti  Infu- 
Ix,  &  veluti  longiore  terrarum  re- 
celTu,  foli  vifibili  non  proxirase  ve- 
rus  ille  non  de  firmamento  folum 
(^L.Sol)  temporali,  fed  de  fumma 
etiam  coelorum  arce  tempora  cun- 
fta  excedente  univerfo  orbi  pr^- 
fulgidum  fui  corrufcum  oftendens 
tempore  (  ut  fcimus )  fummo  Ti- 
berii  Cxfaris  (  quo  abfque  ullo  im- 
pedimento  ejus  propagabatur  Re- 
ligio  comminata  fenatu  nolente  a 
Principe  morte  dilatoribus  militum 


In  the  mean  time,  Chrifl  the  trud 
Sun  afforded  his  Rays,  that  is,  the 
knowledge  of  his  Precepts  to  thii 
I/land,  JIdivering  with  Icy-cold,  mand 
feparate  at  a  great  dijlan'ce  from  the 
vifible  Sun,  not  from  the  vifible  Fir"- 
mament,  but  from  the  Supreme  ever- 
lafling  Power  of  Heaven.  For  we  cer- 
tainly know,  that  in  the  latter  end  of 
the  Reign  of  T'ihex'xus,  That  Sun  ap-' 
pear'd  to  the  whole  World  with  his 
GlorioffsBeams,in  which  time  his  Re- 
ligion was  propagated  without  any  im^ 


ejufdem)  radios  fuos  primum  in-    pediment  againjithe  Will  of  the  Ro^ 

A  2  man 


Ibe  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  I. 


dulget,  id  eft  fua  praecepta  Chri- 
ftus.  %.  6i 


mutt  Senate,  death  being  threatned  by 
that  Prince^  to  all  thatfioidd  inform 
againji  the  Soldiers  ofChriji. 


This  I  take  to  be  G/7^4/ his  true  meaning:  For  it  is  certain,  heTpeaks 
of  a  double  (hining  of  the  Gofpel,  one  more  General  to  the  World, 
the  oih&x  more  particular  to  this  Ifland:  The  former,  he  faith,  was  in 
the  latter  end  of  Tiberius ;  The  latter  was,  Interea,  In  the  mean  time, 
of  which  he  firft  fpeaks,  and  that  refers  back  to  the  time  he  had  fpo- 
ken  of  before,  which  was  the  fatal  Victory  over  Boadicea,  and  the 
Britains,  by  Suetonius  Paulinus^  and  the  flavery  they  underwent  after 
it.    Which  happen'd  in  the  time  of  Nero,  about  the  middle  of  his 
Reign,  almoft  twenty  years  after  Claudius  had  fent  A.Plautius  to  reduce 
Britain  into  the  form  of  a  Province,  to  whom  fucceeded  P.  OJiorius 
Scapula,  A.  Didius  Gallus,  and  Veranius,  in  the  Government   of  Bri- 
tain, before  Suetonius  Paulinus  came  into  the  Province.    For  after  Clau- 
dius his  Triumph  for  his  Viftory  in  Britain,  the  Romans  began  to  de- 
duce Colonies,  to  fettle  Magiftrates  and  Jurisdictions  here,  after  the 
manner  of  other  Provinces,  and  fo  continual  intercourfe  was  main- 
tained between  the  Roman  City,  and  the  Britijh  Colonies -^  Cities  of 
Trade  were  fet  up,  and  the  Roman  Merchants  were  very  bufie  in  fur- 
niftiing  new  Provinces  with  neceflaries,  and  Superfluities:  And  the 
Province  of  Britain,  in  the  beginning  of  Nerds  Reign  was  thought  to 
g^iPj]:  be  in  fo  fettled,  and  flourifhing  a  condition,  that  (;)  Bio  faith,  Se- 
ron.         neca,    had  here  at  one  time  to   the  value  of  5C0000  p.  as   Mr.  Cam- 
den computes  it.    A  vaft  fum  for  a  Philofopher  !  But  that  which  I  in- 
fer from  hence  is.  That  this  was  a  very  probable  time,  which  Gildas 
hath  pitched  upon,  for  the  bringing  the  Gofpel  hither,  viz>.  between 
the  time  of  J.  Plautius's  coming  over,  in  the  time  of  Claudius^  and  the 
Battel  between  Boadicea,  and  Suetonius  Paulinus,  as  will  more  fully  ap- 
pear in  the  following  difcourfe.    As  to  the  more  General  [hining  of  the 
Gofpel  to  the  World,  he  pitches  upon  the  latter  end  of  Tiberius,  as  the 
certain  time  of  it,  in  which  he  makes  ufe  of  the  very  Expreffions  of 
{q)  Eufeb.  (f )  Eufebius,  and  that  pafTage  concerning  Tiberius  and  the  Senate  differ- 
jiift.Ec-   i„g  about  Chrifi  and  his  foUovoers,  which  Eufebius  took  from  {rj  Ter- 
2!   '    ''  tullian,  who  fpeaks  of  it  with  great  affurance  5  And  (/)  Orofius  gives 
(r)  Ter-  a  more  particular  account  of  it,  all  which  is  very  agreeable  to  what 
j"  5/"  '^'Gildas  had  faid  before.  That  he  mujl  make  ufe  of  Foreign  Writers  in  fo 
(0  orof.  great  a  defi^  of  their  own. 

i-  7.  c.  4.      gut  J.Q  proceed  clearly  in  this  matter,  there  are  three  things  I  defign, 
concerning  the  firft  planting  a  Chriftian  Church  here. 

1.  To  examine  the  Tradition,  concerning  Jofeph  of  Arimathea,  and 
his  Brethren  coming  hither  to  plant  Chriftianity. 

2.  To  (hew  that  there  was  a  Chriftian  Church  planted  here,  in  the 
Apojlles  times,  and  within  that  compafs  Gildas  fpeaks  of. 

5.  To  prove  the  great  probability,  that  St.  Paul  firft  founded  a 
Church  here. 

1.  As  to  the  Tradition  concerning  Jofeph  of  Arimathea  ^  I  confefs 
I  look  on  it,  as  an  Invention  of  the  Monks  of  Glajfenbury  to  ferve 
their  Interefts,  by  advancing  the  Reputation  of  their  Monaftery.  But 

becaufe 


Chap.  i.  the  Briti/h  Chare bes,  5 

■^ ■  "    ■    "'    ' ■  .1..      I     M—  ■    >-         ' 

becaule  this  Tradition  hath  met  with  better  Entertainment  than  it  de- 
ferved,  among  the  generality  of  our  late  Writers,  who  took  it  for 
granted,  and  believed  that  it  is  grounded  on  the  Teftimony  of  ancient 
Records  5  I  (hall,  before  I  proceed  farther,  take  the  pains  to  examine 
it,  both  as  to  the  Authority^  and  the  Circnf»Jlattces  of  it. 

It  feems  to  be  a  little  Sufpicious,  at  firft  view,  that  fo  confide- 
rable  a  part  of  the  Antiquities  of  this  Church  (hould  be  wholly  paft 
by,  by  the  moft  ancient  and  inquifitive  Writers  of  our  Affairs ,  So 
that  neither  the  true  Gildas,  nor  Bede,  nor  Ajferius^  nor  Marianus 
Scotus,  nor  any  of  the  ancient  Annals  (hould  take  the  leaft  notice  of 
this  Tradition.     (0  Sanders  indeed  faith.  That  Polydore  Virgil  proves  (tjSandcn 
it  front  the  moft  ancient  Gildas,  but  he  never  attempted  any  fuch  thing :  p4-  "'i 
For  having  fet  down  the  Tradition  of  Jofeph  of  Arimathea,  with  the^f/j^y^f^ 
bell:  advantage,  he  only  proves  from  Gildas^  That  the  Chriftian  Religi-  Anglic' 
en  was  very  early  received  here^  which  might  be  very  true,  although  jo- 
feph had  never  come  from  Arimathea.     And  yet,  (v)  Card.  Bon-a  quotes (^z)  Bona; 
Gildas  for  this  Tradition,  on  the  credit  of  Sanders,  unlefs  he  were  dc- ^/'■^'""■- 
ceived  by  thofe  who  produce  the  Teftimony  of  Gildas  Albanins,  in  his^"^ '" '"  *"■ 
Book  of  the  Vi&ory  of  Anrelius  Amhrofius  to  the  fame  purpofe.     But 
no  fuch  Book  of  the  true  Gildas  could  ever  yet  be  found  by  thofe  who 
have  fearcbed  after  it  with  the  greateft  diligence.    (tt>)  Leland  particu- ^f ^  ^^^'^"^^ 
larly  relates,  concerning  himfelf,  What  iticredible  pains  he  took  to  find  ilmli!' 
out  this  piece  of  Gildas,  and  faith,  That  he  hoped  at  laji  to  have  met  with 
it  in  the  Library  at  Glaflenbury,  where  Gildas  is  faid  by  William  of 
Malmesbury,  to  have  ended  his  days,  bitt  not  a  Leaf  of  it  was  to  befeen, 
either  there,  or  in  any  of  the  Old  Libraries  in  Wales,  which  he  fe arched  on 
purpofe.    And  after  all,  he  refers  us  to  the  credit  of  (x)  Geoffrey  of  Mon-  C*)  ^*^f- 
mouth,iox\t.,  where  it  rauft  reft,  till  fome  better  Authority  be  produ- ^^ i'.c. e</, 
ced  for  it :  Yet  Bale,  and  'Pits,  keep  up  the  Title  of  it,  as  they  do  of  Eadii  Xf.' 
many  others  which  were  never  in  being,  as  the  Annals  of  Gildas  Cam- 
brius,  the  Epigrams  of  Claudia  Rufina,  and  the  Epijlles  of  Jofeph  of 
Arimathea^  &C.  which  Bale  thinks  Probable,  that  he  did  Write,  and 
therefore  fets  them  down  as  Written:  And  from  him  a  learned  (y^O)  warts 
Antiquary  reckons  them  among  our  Hiftorical  Antiquities.   And  no  bet-  ^"A'""?"- 
ter  Foundation  can  yet  be  difcovered  for  this  Book  of  Gildas,  it  being  \]f!mnH. 
as  probable,  that  hejhould  write  a  Book  of  that  Vi&ory  <7/Ambrofius,  finceA"/'^- 
Gildas  faith.  He  was  born  upon  the  day  of  his  obtaining  it,  if  it  were  that 
on  Badon-Hill.  But  inch  Probabilities,  arevcryiar  iromTeflimonies.  It 
is  true,  as  the  (z.)  learned  Pr/>/^/e  obferves,  T/^f?;  Gervafe  <?/ Tilbury,  W  ^'''- 
Nauclerus,  Trithemius  and  many  others,  fay.  That  Geoffery  followed  Gil- rsy/"  ^' 
das  in  fuch  a  Book  written  by  him  :  But  they  produce  no  Authority  for 
any  fuch  Book,  but  Geoffrey  himfelf,  and  untill  fome  better  appears,  I 
tnuft  fufpend  my  belief:  It  being  common  with  fuch  Writers  as  him- 
felf, to  pretend  to  fuch  Authorities,  as  no  one  elfe  ever  had  the  for- 
tune to  find.     For  it  being  their  bu(inefs  to  give  an  account  of  times 
long  before  their  own,  it  were  a  vain  thing  to  hope  for  any  Credit, 
unlefs  they  could  produce  fome  Tejlimonies  nearer  thofe  times,  which 
might  be  of  fome  weight  if  they  were  Authetltick.    And  this  is  the 
Reafon,    why  thefe  Inventers  of  Hiftory  have  ftill  given  out,  that 
they  met  with  fome  Elder  Writers,  out  of  whom  they  have  pretend- 
ed to  derive  their  Reports.     Thus  (a)  Hunibaldus  pretends,  as  much  (rf)  ApuJ. 
to  follow  the  Old  Sicambrian  Manufcriptsof  Wafthald,  for  the  remote  ™^_J; 
Antiquities  oi  the  Franks^  asGeoffre]^  doth  thQ  Old  Britl/h  Manufcripts,  Aw  J"  i.'i, 

either 


Ibe  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  1. 


either  for  the  Succeflion  of  the  Brjti(J}  Kings,  or  the  firft  bringing  of 
Chriftianity    hither.     But  which  makes  this  matter  yet  ftranger,  (^) 
{b)  Nen.  Jsleafiim  himfelf,  who  fometimes  palTes  under  the  Name  of  Qjldas^ 
"•  ^  ■      faith  nothing  of  this  Traditto/t,  where  he  (peaks  of  the  firft  receiving 
of  Chriftianity  in  Britain-^  and  yet  S^/e faith  of  him,  7hat  he  coUe^ed 
his  Writings  out  of  the  former  Britifll  Hijiorians,  fuch  as  TelieJFa,  Mel- 
kr»,  Gildas,  and  Elvodiigns  j  and  it  is  not  probable,  he  ivould  have  left  it 
(c)  Brf'.ffeout,  if  he  had  found  it  in  any  of  them.     But  (c)  Bale  quotes  one  of 
Brit!/.  I.  thefe  Britifh  Authors,  -viz.  Melkinus  Avalonius  for  this  Tradition  a- 
?-57'       bout  Jofeph  of  Arimathea.,  and  Arviragus  ;  but  withall  he  confefTes  him 
(^)Lelandto  be  a  Very  fabulous  Writer,  (d)  Leland    faith.  That  he  met  -with  the 
^^Melkf-  F^'^gf'^^"*^  <7/Melkinus  in  the  Library  at  Glalfenbury,  by  which  heuttder- 
no.  flood  that  he  had  written  fomething  of  the  Britiftl  affairs,  but  more  efpeci' 

ally  concerning  the  Antiquity  o/Glaflenbury,  and  Jofeph  ^/Arimathea^ 
Which,  faith  Leland,  he  affirms  without  any  certain  Author,  and  which 
himfelf  could  not  approve,  not  thinking  it  at  all  Credible,  that  Jofeph  of 
Aritmthea  Jhould  be  buried  there,  but  rather  fame  Eremit  of  that  Name, 
*Uhxii,from  whence  the  mijlake  firji  arofe.    And  ("'')  elfewhere,  when  he  fpeak^ 
in  Eiuano.  of  the  Qlaffenbury  Tradition,  He  faith.  That  twelve  Eremits  are  repor- 
ted to  have  come  hither,  with  one  Jofeph  in  the  Head  of  them,  but  not  he 
of  Arimathea  as  he  fuppofes.     But  ftill  the  Tejiimonies  that  concern  this 
matter  are  derived  from  Glaffenbury,  infomuch  that  even  the  Britifli 
Hiftorian  hath  the  name  of  Avalonius  from  thence.    But  forae  make  ufe 
of  this  Teftimony  however  to  prove  the  Antiquity  of  this  Tradition,  fince 
this  Author  is  faid  to  have  lived  Anno  Dom.  550.  under  King  Fortupo- 
rius,  £0  Bale -J  but  PzVj  places  him  ten  years  later,  under  Magoclunus  ; 
They  might  as  well  have  made  him  contemporary  with  Gildas  Cambri- 
us,  or  to  have  been  Secretary  to  Jofeph  of  Arimathea,  when  he  wrote 
his  Epijlles,  for  they  have  no  more  Evidence  to  fhew  for  the  one  than 
for  the  other.    The  truth  is,  there  was  an  old  Legend  which  lay  at 
Glaffenbury,  which  Leland  faw,  and  out  of  which  Capgrave  hath  tran- 
fcribed  that  part  which  concerns  this  matter,  from  whom  Bale  took  it. 
But  it  is  fo  grofly  fabulous,  that  even  Capgrave  himfelf  (  whofe  Sto- 
mach was  not  very  nice  as  to  Legends)  put  an  d^c.  in  the  middle  of  it, 
as  being  afhamed  to  fet  down  the  palTage  of  Abaddar,  a  great  man  in 
Sephat,  and  the  hundred  and  four  thoufand  which  were  buried  with  Jo- 
feph'tf/  Arimathea  at  Glaffenbury.     Yet  this  fenflefs  and  ridiculous Le- 
(e)  spei.   gend  is  by  (e)  fome  thought  to  be  the  Britifh  Hijlory  which  William 
nwn.  COM.  of  Malmesbury  appeals  to  for  the  proof  of  this  Tradition  ^  and,  which 
p^'ii^"' ''  ^s  found  in  the  Libraries  of  St.  Edmund  and  St.  Auguftin.     But  Malmef- 
hury,  having  defigned  to  fet  the  Antiquity  of  Glaffenbury  as  high  as  he 
could,  called  that  a  Britifl)  Hijiory,  which  is  now  found  to  be  written 
(/)UiTer.  by  an  EngUfh  Monk,  as  (/)  Archbijljop  Dfljer  hath  evidently  proved 
^^i'"'"-^  (having  feveral  times  perufed  it  in  the  Cotton  Library}  there  being  the 
very  fame  pafTage  in  it  which  Malmesbury  quotes.    And  that  he  was  no 
Britain  is  moft  certain,  becaufe  he  calls  the  Saxon  his  Mother-Tongue^ 
and  England  his  Country.     And  yet  after  all,  there  is  not  a-  word  of 
Jofeph  of  Arimathea  or  his  Companions  in  it ;  all  that  is  faid  is,  "  That  in 
*'  the  Weftcrn  parts  of  Britain  there  is  a  Royal  Ifland  called  Cleflotr, 
"  large  and  compafled  about  with  Waters  full  of  Fi(b,  and  having  o- 
"  ther  conveniences  of  humane  life;  but,  which  was  moft  confidera- 
"  ble,  it  was  devoted  to  the  Service  of  God.     Here  the  firft  Difciples 
*^  of  the  Catholick  Law  found  an  ancient  Church,  not  built  as  was  re- 

''  ported 


Chap.  I.  the  Brttifh  Churches.  i 


"  ported  by  mens  hands,  but  prepared  by  God  himfelf  for  the  benefit 
"  of  Men,  and  which  by  Miracles  was  (hewed  to  be  confecrated  to  him- 
"  felf  and  to  the  Bleffed  Virgin.  To  which  they  adjoined  another  Ora- 
"  tory  made  of  Stone,  which  they  dedicated  to  Cf>nfi  and  to  St.  Peter, 
The  queftion  is.  Who  are  here  meant  by  th^CeJirJi  Difdples  of  the  Ca- 
tholick  Law  .<?  not  Jofeph  of  Arimathea  and  his  Companions^  who  are 
never  mentioned  by  him,  and  who  are  never  faid  to  have  found  a  Church 
there  huilt  to  their  hands,  but  he  fpeaks  of  fome  of  the  firfl:  Saxon  Chri' 
fiians  inthofe  parts,  who  might  probably  find  there  fuch  a  low  Wat- 
tled Church  as  is  defcribed  in  Sir  H.  (g)  Spelman  5  a  Remainder  oH&)Conc}i. 
the  BritiJ}}  Chriftianity  in  that  Ifland.  And  this  Paf%e  affords  us  the  ^"f•^'?• 
beft  light  into  the  true  Original  of  this  Tradition,  which  was  after  fo 
much  heightaed  and  improved,  as  the  Monks  of  Glajfenhnry  thought 
convenient  for  the  honour  and  privileges  of  their  Monaftery. 

That  which  feems  moft  agreeable  to  Truth  from  hence  is,   That  in 
the  latter  times  of  the  Brit'ifli  Churches,    when  they  were  fo  miferably 
harafled  and  perfecuted  by  the  Pagan  Saxons,    they  were  forced  to  re- 
tire into  places  of  moft  difficult  accefs  for  their  own  Security,  and  there 
they  made  them  fuch  Churches  as  were  fuitable  to  their  prefent  condi- 
tion,  and  lived  very  retired  lives,    being  in  continual  fear  of  their 
barbarous  Enemies.     Such  a  place  this  Ifland  of  Avalon^  or  Glaffenhury 
was ;  which  might  be  of  far  greater  requeft  among  the  Britains^  be- 
caufe  it  was  the  place  where  Ring  Arthur  was  buried  5  for  I  fee  no  rea- 
fon  to  que(\ion  that  which  Giraldus  Cambren/is  relates  concerning  the 
finding  the  Body  of  King  Arthur  there  in  the  time  of  Henry  II.  with  art 
Infcription  on  a  Leaden  Croft,    which  in  Latin  exprelTed,    that  King 
Arthur  lay  there  buried  in  the  Ifland  of  Avalon,     For  ( y&  )  Giraldus  (AJGiraid. 
faith,  he  teas  prefent,  and  faa>  the  Infcription  and  the  Body  ^    which  is  ^^/''-^'f* 
likewife  attefted  by  the  Hiflorians  of  that  time,  as  (  *  )  Leland  proves  inspect. 
at  large.     And  the  account  given  that  his  Body  was  laid  fo  deep  in  ^"'^Z- 
the  Earth,   for  fear  of  the  Saxons^  farther  confirms.  That  this  was  a  ^cdUcVoi. 
place  of  retreat  in  the  Britijfi  times,  but  not  without  the  apprehenfion  2.  p.  14; 
of  their  Enemies  Invafion.  ff/f."^' 

This  Church,  according  to  the  Infcription  on  the  Brafs  Plate  on  the  28.  (z^c* 
Pillar  in  Glaffenhury  Church,    was  in  length  60  Foot,  in  breadth  26. 
But  that  Infcription,    as  the  learned  and  judicious  Antiquary  *  Sir  H."^  C"""^- 
Spelman  obferves,^  was  by  the  Chamber  not  of  above  500  Tears  Antiquity,   "  *^^'*' 
and  favours  very  much  of  the  Legend,     In  it  we  read,    "  That  the 
"  Church  was  firft  built  by  Jofeph  and  his  Companions,    but  was  con- 
"  fecrated  by  Chrifl:  himfelf  to  the  Honour  of  his  Mother.    This  be- 
ing a  very  ufeful  point,   but  not  very  agreeing  with  the  fimplicity  of 
the  primitive  Chriftians,   wanted  fome  more  than  ordinary  confirmati- 
on, and  fuch  we  are  told  it  had.    "  For  St.  T>avid  having  a  defign  to 
"  eonfecrate  this  Church,  our  Lord  appeared  to  him  in  a  Dream,  and 

forbad  him,  having  confecrated  both  the  Church  and  Church-yard 
"  before  himfelf.      And,   for  a  Sign  thereof,    he  thruft  his   Finger 
"  through  the  Bifhop's  hand.    Which  it  feems  was  to  pafs  for  the 
Token  of  a  former  Confecration.     But,  as  much  as  this  looks  like  a 
Monkifh  Legend,    {k)  Alford  and  ( / )  Crefy  are  much  difpleafed ^^^"7^- 
with  Sir  H.  Spelman  for  calling  it  in  queftion.     But  they  who  can  in  ^l' i  2^; 
earneft  believe,    That  Chrift  himfelf  did  then  eonfecrate  a  Church  and{^)f>>"'<:'^ 
Church- yard  to  the  honour  of  his  Mather,  are  paft  all  Confutation  by  rea-  f'g  '^' 
fon,  having  their  minds  naturally  framed  to  believe  Legehds  ^  and  to 

fuch 


The  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p  I. 


fuch,  one  Ltgehd  ferves  to  confirm  another  5   which  is  the  way  thofe 
perfons  take  to  confute  Sir  H  Spelmaft.    For  Crejfy^  to  prove  the  Anti- 
quity of  dedicating  Churches  to  the  hlejfed  Virgin^  brings  the  Traditi- 
on of  the  Temple  at  Saragojfa,  called  del  Pilar,  becaufe  thePillar  on  which 
her  Image  tudi  placed  tvas  br might  thither  by  the  Minitiery  of  Angels. 
Now  thofe  things  are  thought  Proofs  by  fome,   which  to  others  look 
only  like  bringing  one  Abfurdity  to  fupport  another.    But  as  yet  we 
find  no  Teftimonyto  confirm  this  Tradition,  but  what  is  taken  from 
Glaffenbury^  which  is  not  the  beft  Witnefs  in  a  Caufe  which  fo  nearly 
concern'dit  felf. 
(m^  Ai-        But  thefe  now  mentioned  Authors  (  «/  J  at  laft  venture  6n  a  confide- 
iord.  \b.n.  rable  Teftimofiy,   if  it  hold  good,  vi%.  of  Auguftin  the  Monh^  in  an  E- 
oeffy  /.  P^ft^^  to  Gregory,   tut  upon  Examination,   that  which  they  quote  out 
Z.C.7.  '  of  St.  AHguJiins  Epiftle  is  nothing  elfebut  the  paflage  already  mentiO' 
ned  by  Malntesbury,  which  he  found  in  a  Book  taken  out  of  the  Library 
of  St.  Auguftin  at  Canterbury  ;  and  they  might  as  well  have  quoted  St. 
Edmund's  Epiftle  to  the  Pope  to  the  fame  purpofe.    For  William  of 
Malfnesbury  faith,  He  met  rvith  the  fame  pajfage  at  St.  Edmund'/  asveeU  as 
St.  Auguftin' J,  i.  e.  in  the  Libraries  of  thofe  Monafteries  ;  I  will  not 
(n)  Antiq.  dilTemble  that  they  cite  two  confiderable  (n  )  Authors  of  odr  oWn 
r/niin  *  for  this  miftake  i  I  wi(h  they  had  been  as  ready  to  have  followed  them 
depr4ut.  where  they  were  m  the  right,    as  where  they  were  guilty  of  an  over- 
^  "•       fight,  which  the  moft  careful  Writers  may  fometimes  fall  into.     But  it 
is  an  unhappy  temper  to  follow  Great  Men  only  in  their  Errours  and 
Imperfedions. 

So  that  upon  the  whole  matter,    we  have  not  one  Teftimony  which 
reaches  to  the  point  concerning  jefeph  of  Arimathea,  which  is  not  pri- 
ginally  taken  from  the  Glajfenbury  Legends,    where  it  fecms  there  was 
(9) Caper,  great  choice  of  them  5    For    (o")  Capgrave  mentions  feveral,  one,  out 
in  vitajo-  Qf  which  the  Life  of  'Jofeph  of  Arimathea  there  is  extrafted,    is  faid  to 
^^  ''      be  taken  out  of  a  Book  which  the  Emperour  Theodofius  found  in  the  Pa- 
lace of  Pilate  at  Jerufalem ;    which  is  a  very  hopeful  Introduftion  to  a 
Legend  5  And  there  we  find  the  Hiftory  of  Jofeph  of  Arimathea,   very 
diftinftly  fet  down,     "  How  he  was  miraculoufly  delivered  out  of 
"  Prifon  in  Jerufalem  and  conveyed  to  Arimathea,   whither  the  chief 
"  of  the  Jeros  fent  a  folemn  Embafly  to  him  of  feven  Perfons,    with  an 
"  Epiftfe,  wherein  they  beg  Pardon  for  his  Imprifonment,   and  defire 
his  Company  at  Jerufalem,  whither  being  come,   upon  their  requeft, 
be  gives  an  account  of  his  Efcape,  the  houfe  being  taken  up  by  foar 
Angels,   and  Chrifi  appeared  to  him,  and  carried  him  to  the  place 
"  where  he  buried  him,    and  (hewed  him  the  Linen  Cloth  about  his 
"  Headjafter  which  he  was  baptized  by  Philip ^and.  was  prefent  with  him 
*'  attheAffumptionof  the  Blefled  Virgin, and  fifteen  years  after  he  came 
*'  to  Philip  in  Gaul,  who  fent  him  over  into  Britain  with  twelve  of 
"  his  Difciples  and  his  Son  Jofephus.      But  another  Tradition'faith, 
"  They  were  fix  hundred  Men  and  Women  who  were  to  come  over, 
"  having  taken  a  Vow  of  Abftinence  till  they  came  to  the  Land, 
"  which  they  did  all  break,  but  one  hundred  and  fifty  who  pafled  the 
"  Sea  upon  the  Shirt  of  Jofephus,   but  the  reft  repenting,    a  Ship  was 
*'  fent  to  convey  them  over  which  was  built  by  King  Solomon,   and 
"  with  them  came  a  Duke  of  the  Medes  called  Nacianus,  formerly 
"  baptized  by  Jofeph  in  the  City  Sarum,   with  the  King  of  it  called 
*'  Mordraiuf,  who  valiantly  killed  a  Ring  of  North-Wales,   who  kept 


(( 


t( 


G  H  A  p.  I.         the  Britijb  Churches.  p 

**  Jofeph  a  Prifoner  5   After  which  he  and  his  Companions  preached 
"  here  in  the  time  of  Arviragus.     And  then  follows  the  Common  Tra- 
dition,   "  of  his  giving  the  Ifland  of  i4W(?«  to  them,    and  the  twelve 
"  Hydes  of  Land  by  the  three  Pagan  Kings,  Arviragus,  Marius  and  Coi- 
"  lus.     This  is  followed  by  another  Tradition  out  bf  the  A&s  of  King 
Arthur^  and  the  Inquifition  of  Lancelot  de  Lac^'  all  which  is  concluded 
with  the  admirable  Legend  of  Melkims  Avalonius  already  mentioned. 
Thefe  are  the  choice  Materials   in  Cafgraves  Colleftion  to  confirm 
this  Tradition.     And  if  he  had  found  any  better,  he  would  no  doubt 
have  produced  them.    It  muft  be  confeffed  that  Mr.  Cteffy^  with  fome 
fcorn,  rejefts  that  part  of  the  Tradition  taken  out  of  the  holy  Graat 
about  the  fix  hundred  Companions  and  the  Prince  of  Media^  &c.  But 
I  can  find  no  better  Authority  for  one  part  than  for  the  other  5  and  for 
all  that  I  can  fee,  the  holji  Graal  dcferveS  as  much  credit  as  the  Book 
taken  out  of  Pilate  s  Palace,  or  Melkimis  Avalonius^  efpecially  fince,  (/>)  (p)  viK,de 
Pits  hath  given  the  fuppofed  Author  fo  good  a  place,  among  his  Bri-^'^'^'pf.'^- 
*//^  Writers,  under  the  name  of  ErewzV^i  BnV4»««/,  and  faith,  he  lived  ^"  ^"° 
about  the  time  of  King  Ina^  Anno  Dom.  720.     And  Qq)  Helinandusi'i)^?'"^ 
takes  notice  of  the  Vifion  to  the  Britijb  Eremit  about  that  time  concern-  ,yl""2l' 
ing  Jofeph  of  Arimathea,  and  the  Difh  wherein  our  Savioureat  the  Pa.Cs-fior.i-  23. 
over  with  his  Difciples,  which  fort  of  Di/h  he  faith  was  then  called  in*^-  ^'^7- 
French  Graal ;  but  others  think  the  true  name  was  Sangreal,  being  fome 
of  Chriji's  real  blond  which  he  (hed  upon  the  Crofs,  which  was  ftid  to 
be  fomewhere  found  by  Ring  Arthur.     And  to  confirm  this,  it  is  faid 
in  the  authentick  Writing  of  Melkinus,  That  in  the  Coffin  of  Jofeph 
were  two  Silver  Veflels  filled  with  the  Bloud  and  Sn>eat  of  Jefus  the  Pro- 
pbet. 

But  left  I  (houid  feem  to  expofe  fo  ancient  a  Tradition,  by  fetting 
down  only  the  fabulous  Mixtures  which  the  Monks  thought  to  adorn  it 
with,  I  now  proceed  from  their  Dreams  and  Vijions^  to  what  feems  to 
have  much  more  weight  and  authority  in  it,  viz.  their  ancient  Re- 
cords which  William  of  Maltneshury  feems  moft  to  rely  upon :  Among 
thefe.  In  the  firft  place  he  mentions  the  Charter  of  St.  Patrick,  as  he 
calls  it,  which  is  at  large  printed  in  the  (r)  Monajiicon,  and  both  in  (0  ^o"^- 
CO  Alford  and  fO  Crefy,  and  is  magnified  by  them  as  a  fubftantialj,  .-i";"'*'' 
proof  of  the  Glaffenbury  Tradition,  which  Creffy  faith  roas  tranfcribed  (j)Aiiford,' 
out  of  a  very  ancient  MS.  belonging  to  GXz^Qnhuxy  by  Marianus  Viftori-^'^'^'^'' 
us 5  and  for  this  he  quotes  (uj  Ger.  Vojflns  de  Hiji.  Lat.  who  faith  on- (ficreflTy'y 
ly  that  Bale  mentions  a  piece  of  his  de  Antiquitate  Avalonica,  but  he  "'fi-  ^-  *• 
adds,  that  Bale  deferves  no  credit  in  Writers  of  great  Antiquity.    But  the  («^  vofn.' 
perfon  Creffy  means  (or  at  leaft  his  Author)  was  another  Gerard  Vojfius,  <i'  ^'fi- 
Dean  of  Tongres,  (w)  who  publifhed  part  of  this  pretended  piece  of  ^^^ '"j^ '' 
St.  P<i^«V^  among  other  ancient  Writings,  which  will  have  no  great  (»')iWJ/'- 
authority  among  confidering  men,  if  they  have  no  other  Charafifcers  of  p^'^^^"- J- 
Antiquity  than  this  Charter  of  Saint  Patrick.    However,  Mr.  Creffy  is  caidoper, 
pleafed  to  call  it,  a  monument  of  the  goodnefs  of  God  torvards  this  Nation,^'^'^i- 
fo  early,  in  the  very  beginning  of  Chrifiianity -^    becaufe   therein  menti- ^^^1^** 
on  is  made  of  fome  Writings  of  St.  Phaganus  and  Diruvianus  wherein 
it  was  declared  that  twelve  Difciples  of  the  Holy  Apoflles  Philip  and  Jacob 
built  the  faid  ancient  Church  to  the  honour  of  the  Bleffed  Virgin,  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  Archangel  Gabriel.     And  moreover.  That  our  Lord  him- 
fi^f  fof^  Heaven  dedicated  the  faid  Church  to  the  honour  of  his  Mother.  As 
likewife^  That  three  Pagan  Kings  beflowed  upon  them  twelve  Portions  of 

B  Land^ 


I  o  The  Antifjuitie^  of  Chap.  I; 


Land.  If  this  hold  good,  it  goes  a  great  way  towards  the  proving  the 
ancient  Tradition,  although  Jofeph  of  Arimathea  be  not  mentioned. 
But  St  Patrick  goes  on,  and  faith.  That  in  other  Writings  of  a  later 
date  he  found  that  Phaganus  and  Diruvianus  obtained  from  Pope  Eleuthe- 
rius  thirty  years  of  Indulgence,  as  himfelf  likewife  procured  from  Pope 
Ce\Q^\m  twelve  years :  And  towards  the  Condufion,  he  grants  a  hun- 
dred days  of  Indulgence  to  thofe  who  would  clear  the  waji  to  a  certain  Ora- 
tory there  mention  d:  kvi^  to  make  all  plain,  it  begins  with  the  Date, 
Anno  Dom.  42  5.  in  thefe  Words.  In  the  Name  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift, 
JPatr  ick  the  poor  htmhle  Servant  of  God,  in  the  four  hundred  twenty  fifth 
year  of  the  Incarnation  of  oiir  Lord,  being  fent  by  the  moji  holy  Pope  Cele- 
ftine  into  Ireland,  &c. 

I  confefs  this  Charter  offers  very  fair  play  towards  the  difcovery  of 
it's  own  Forgery  by  fuch  open  Marks,  and  Chara&ers  as  thefe.     For  it 
is  certainly  known,  that  in  St.  Patrick's  time,  no  fuch  way  of  Compu- 
tation was  ufed  from  the  year  of  our  Lord.     For  Dionyjius  Exiguns, 
writ  his  firft  Epiftle  to  Pe?r<?»«/J,  Anno  Dom.  $2$.  where  he  firft  men- 
tions, The  reducing  the  Cycle  to  the  years  of  Chrift' s  Incarnation,  that 
People  might  be  better  acquainted  with  it  ^  after  which  it  remained  a  great 
while  in  private  ufe  with  the  Pafchal  Cycle,  and  was  not  publickly  re- 
(x)Buche-  ceived,  faith  (x)  Bticherius  till  about  the  time  of  Charles  the  Great. 
rius  Belg.  *  Joachim  VadiafiHs,  faith,  He  never  f aw  the  Year  of  our  Lord  in  any  an- 
^'''^l"'„,'j^,cient  Charters,  of  which  fort  he  had  feen  many  :  (^)  Some  obferve.  That 
'^Ker'.Aie.  it  was  never  ufed  in  Charters  before  the  ninth  Age,  and  therefore  the  more 
'iTr'-^i  ^"t)tile  Pretenders  to  Antiquity  always  left  it  out.  (z.)  Joh.  Aventinns 
0)  Pape- '  affirms,  that  the  ufe  of  it  in  Epiflles  and  Charters,  was  brought  in  by  Caro- 
broch.      ]qs  Craflus,  with  whom  (a)  Nic.  Vignier  agrees,  as  to  the  Imperial  Di- 
tHz.  Apr.  plomata.  But  it  feems  probable  to  have  been  brought  into  England  before 
§.  102.     that  time,  for  in  the  (^)  Council  at  Celichyth,  Anno  Dom.  816.     Every 
^ImVln-  ^^fi>^P  ^^^  required  to  take  an  Account  of  the  year  of  our  Lord.     And  by 
nai.  Boior.  fome  Charters  in  Ingulphus,  it  appears  to  have  been  ufed  here  before  it  was 
^•4M<5i.  ufed  in  France,  or  the  Empire,  but  not  long  before  the  eighth  Century  ; 
nil  BMg.  and  the  firft  publick  Afts  we  find  it  applied  to,  were  thofe  of  Councils,  as  in 
tid'A.  D.   that  of  Becanceld,  under  King  Withred,  Anno  Dom.6^4..  But  the  fame  King 
(iVspei-  ^°f^  "^'^  "f^  ^^  J"  ^^^  Tears  of  his  Reign.     The  like  Inftances  about 
man.  Con- Councils,  cfpecially  in  the  eighth  and  ninth  Centuries  are  produced  by 
at. p.  3?^.(£-)  Mabillon:  Who  thinks,  That  Bede  was  thefirfl  who  brought  it  into 
(c)Mabii.  the  ufe  of  Hijiory.     But  that  could  not  be  before  Anno  Dom.  725.  at 
h"/^^/  ^^'^^^  ^'"^^  ^^  began  to  write  his  Hiftory ;  and  he  adds.  That  from  him  by 
2.C.  2.V."  *^^  means  tf/Boniface,  it  came  into  the  ufe  of  the  French  Councils  and  Hi- 
17-  §•  zZ'fiories'^  and  at  lafi  of  all  publick  Charters  both  in  France  and  the  Empire^ 
"•  ^^'       as  well  as  here.    But  from  all  this  it  appears,  that  there  is  no  Colour 
for  this  Charter  of  St.  Patrick,  which  reckons  from  the  Incarnation, 
a  hundred  years  before  Dionyfus  Exiguus  firft  introduced  that  way  of 
Computation.    Befides,  it  cannot  pollibly  agree  with  the  time  of  St. 
i^]mct'je  ^'^'""^'^''s  going  firft  into  Ireland  i,  for  (_d)  William  of  Malmesburj  con- 
GejiisPon  feffeth.  He  was  made  Bifloop  by  Celeftine,  and  fent  by  5/.  German  into 
tif.  2.  /.  p,  Ireland  as  an  Apojlle:  But  it  is  on  all  hands  agreed,  that  Palladius  was 
'4'-        fent  thither  before  him  5  and  Profper,  who  iived  at  that  time,  fixeth 
the  fending  Palladius,  to  the  year  wherein  Bajpis  and  Antiochus  were 
Confuls,  which  was  Anno  Dom.  431.  the  year  of  the  firft  Ephejine 
Council.    So  that  this  Charter  of  St.  Patrick  cannot  be  true,  no  not  al- 
though we  allow  the  different  Computation  in  Capgrave,  who  reads  it, 

430. 


HAP.  I.  the  Britijh  Churches.  1 1 


450.     But  Alford  confelTes,  both  Malmeibury-  and  the  Glajfcnhiry  An-. 
tiquitlcs  have  it,  425.     It  is  ftrange  that  Alforcl  fhould  fay.  He  found 
no  Exception  agawfl  the  Credit  of  this  Charter.,  fince  even  (e)  C-^j^r^z^e  (OCapgr, 
himfelf  mentions  it  not  without  doubt,  and  Sufpicion  of  the  truth  of  ch." ''"'^'' 
it:  And  his  own  Brethren  (/)  Uenfchehins.,  and  PapebrochiMs  deride (f)  A3* 
his  fimplicity  for  believing  it.     And  among  other  Arguments  they  pro-'^^"^^^*  j_  " 
duce  that  of  the  mention  of  Indulgences  againft  it,  which  Name  they  vu.  s.  Pa- 
ConfeTs  was  not  ufed  for  the  Relaxation  of  Penance,  till  the  eleventh  J''''-"''  f/^^* 
Century  5  a  very  Competent  time  after  the  Date  of  this  Charter.    The  ^f'-jt'.  ^'' 
queftion  is  not  as  Mr.  Cre/^y-would  put  it.  Whether  every  BlJJjop.,  or  Pope 
as  Chief  hath  a  Povcer  to  relax  Penanced  But,  Whether  the  Name  of 
Indulgences  were  then  applied  to  fuch  a  Senfe,  as  this  Charter  ufes  it  i^ 
Which  thofe  learned  Jefuits  deny.     Add  to  all  this,  that  St.  Patrick 
faith,  He  obtained  from  Celeftine  twelve  years  of  Indulgence,  which  be- 
ing underftood  oiGlaffenbury,  implies  a  plain irapoffibility  :  For  S^Pa^ 
trick  is  faid,  to  retreat  thither  towards  the  end  of  his  Life,  and  Celejline 
dyed  foon  after  his  firft  fending  into  Ireland:  So  that  I  need  not  to 
infift  on  the  Style,  or  the  Names  contained  in  this  Charter,  to  prove 
the  Forgery  of  it,  it  being  fo  manifeft  by  the  Arguments  already  pro- 
duced. • 

I  now  proceed  to  the  Charters,  whereof  there  are  feveral  extant  in 
the  ig')  Monaflicon.  The  large  Charter  of  King  In  a,  feems  to  be  moft  j,^^^  l^^f/^ 
confiderable,  and  to  favour  the  old  Tradition,  as  itrndkestheChnrchati^.  13/ 
Glaflenbury  dedicated  to  Chriji  and  the  Blejfed  Virgin,  to  be  the  Fountain 
of  all  Religion,  and  the  firji  in  the  ILirigdom  of  Britain.  But  upon  a 
ftrid  enquiry  into  the  Circumftances  of  this  Charter,  I  fee  great  reafoil 
to  call  in  queftion  the  Truth  of  it,  and  not  merely  from  the  dilljmilitude 
of  Style,  between  this  and  other  Charters  of  the  Saxon  times,  which 
are  allowed  to  be  Authentick,  fuch  as  thofe  in  Ingulphus,  William  of 
Malmesbury,  the  Additions  to  Matthew  Paris,  &c.  But  for  thefe  two 
Reafons  which  feem  to  me  to  have  weight  in  them. 

1.  Becaufe  it  refers  toother  ancient  Charters  of  that  Church,  as  to 
the  Exemption  of  the  Monaflery.     And  the  Benedi&in  Monks  have  a 
long  time  lain  under  fo  great  a  Sufpicion,  among  thofe  of  their  R.eli- 
gion,  as  to  this  matter  of  forging  Charters  of  Exemption,  that  no  pru- 
dent Perfons  will  think  thofe  a  fufficient  Foundation  to  build  their  Faith 
upon,  as  to  any  ancient  Hiftory,  which  muft  depend  upon  their  Cre- 
dibility.    I  (hall  not  here  mention  what  Gallonius,  Launoy,  Naude,  and 
others  abroad  have  faid  upon  this  Subjed,  nor  what  infufBcient  An- 
fwers  (^)  Mabillon  hath  lately  made  to  their  Obje6tions5  but  it  is[g*]'*^f^'^ 
reafonablefor  us  to  confider,  how  much  they  have  been  Charged  hereatD/>Wf! 
home  with  this  Crime,  by  the  BiQiops  of  this  Church,  and  how  ilW- 3-f-3- 
they  have  been  able  to  defend  themfelves.  It  appears  by  theEpiftleof  Ri- 
chard Archbiftiop  of  Canterbury,  to  Alexander  the  Third,  in  (f)  PetrusO)  Peer, 
Blefenfis,  that  there  was  a  general  Sufpicion  of  Forgery  in  the  Charters^fl^' 
of  Exemptions,  which  the  Monafleries  pretended  to,  "^Ot  faljitas  in  om- 
nium fere  Monajierioruffz  exemptione  pr^valeat,  Sec.     And  he  there  par- 
ticularly inftanceth  in  the  BiJIiop  of  Salisbury,  charging  the  Abbot  of 
Malmesbury,  with  producing  jv?//e  Charters  for  his  Exemption  from  thfe 
Bifljop's  Right  of  Eleftion  :  But  which  is  yet  more  confiderable,  in  the 
time  of  Gregory  the  ninth,  when  St.  Edmond  was  ArchbiJIjop  of  Can^ 
"■  B  2  terburjf^ 


12 


The  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  L 


ierbury,  fome  Monks  oi  Canterbury  were  Convidred  of  Forging  a  certain 
Charter  of  Privileges  :  But  the  Pope's   Legate  took   up  the  bufinefs, 
and  procured  a  Difpenfation  f  om  the  Pope,  which  put  an  end  to  the 
{ii)ofVfe  Caufe.     Which  Difpenfation  Dr.  {k)  Cafatibon  declares  to  the  World, 
and  cu-     He  read  in  an  Old  Manufcript  belonging  to  the  Church  of  Canterbury,  where- 
f/Tspd-'  ^"  '*  ^'^•^  Regijired :  And  wherein,  as  both  he  and  Sr.  Henry  (I)  Spel- 
man.  CoH-  «?(?«,  tell  US,   It  is  obfcrv'd,  That  that  Church  enjoy  d  all  its  Lands  and 
^'l.p- 125- Privileges,  only  by  Cuftom  and  Prefcription,  fine  Chartis  vel  Muniraentis 
Regiis,  without  any  written  Charters,  tintill  Anno  Horn.  694.   When  Wi- 
thred  King  of  Kent  caufed  the  firft  to  be  written,  which  was  the  fame 
with  the  Council  of  Becanceld.     From  hence  Sr.  Henry  Spelman  gives  a 
prudent  Caution,  concerning  the  n/ofi  ancient  Charters,  which  the  Monks 
pretended  to,  that  they  be  not  eajily  believed:  There  being  fo  much  Sifpici- 
on  of  Fraud  in  them.   And  that  not  only  now,  but  was  fo  of  Old,  as  ap- 
(m)  Ger-  pgars  by  what  (m)  Gervafe  reports  of  the  Monks  of  St.  Auguflin,  That  they 
^.D.^isiP^'oduced  very   Sufpicious^  and  rafed  Charters.     The  Cafe  was  this,  the 
inter  10.  Monks  of  St.  Augufiine  pretended  an  Exemption  from  the  Jurifdi&ion  of 
fl$.'      ^^^  Archbijhop  of  Canterbury,  as  thofe  of  Glajfenbury  did  from  that  of 
the  Bijldop  of  Wells ;  upon  an  Appeal  to  Rome,  a  Commiflion  was  gran- 
ted to  the  Bifjop  of  Durham,  and  the  Abbot  of  St.  Albans  to  infpeft 
their  Charters,  and  to  let  the  Archbifhop  examine  them :   But  after 
great  Tergiverfation,  they  at  laft  produced  two  Writings,  which  they 
called  thdr  Originals -J  the  fir9i  was  ancient,  but  r<?/ei5?  and  fubfcribed,  as 
if  it  were  amended,  and  n?///^^?^^  *  iJe^?/,  which  they  called  King  Ethelbert'r 
Charter.     The  other  was  of  much  later  Writing,  with  a  Leaden  Bull 
hanging  at  it,  and  the  Figure  of  a  Bifhop  upon  it,  which  they  called 
St.  Auguftine'j  Charter.   Againft  the  Firft,  The  Rafure  was  objeded,  and 
the  manner  of  Subfcription,  and  want  of  a  Seal.     Againft  the  Second, 
The  latenefs  of  the  Writing,  and  the  novelty  of  hanging  Leaden  Bulls  to 
Charters,  efpecially  by  Bifiops  on  this  ^de  ef  the  Alpes  :  And  he/ides,  the 
Style  was  very  different  from  the  Roman.     Both  thefe  Charters  are  extant 
f»)  Mom-  in  the  (n)  Monafticon,  and  a  third  of  Ethelbert,  with  an  Infpeximus  of 
ihc.  p. 25.  ^6.Edw.  in.     But  another  Charter  of  Ethelbert  is  fet  down  together 
l^)chro'nic.  with  thcfc  in  the  (oj  MS.  Chronicle  of  St.  Auguftines,  the  Author  where- 
m.  in  Bi- of  was  certainly  a  Monk  there,  being  fo  zealoufly  concern'd  to  defend 
'  thefe  Charters,  and  to  anfwer  fome  of  the  former  Objeftions  againft 
them.     As  to  the  want  of  a  Seal  to   Ethelbert's  Charter,  he   anfwers 
truly.  That  hanging  Seals  upon  Wax  were  not  then  ufed,  but  only  a  Sub- 
fcription of  the  Name  of  the  perfon  with  a  Sign  of  the  Crofs  before  it,  in 
(p )  In-    ^tfken  of  their  Converfion.    For   (/?)  Ingulphus,  a  very  competent  Wit- 
guiph.      nefs,  declares,  that  the  ancient  Englijf}  Charters  to  the  time  of  Edward  the 
512.  e<j'.    ^onfeffor  were  attejled  by  Witne/fes  who  fet  their  Names  with  Golden  Crof- 
Sav.        fes,  or  other  Marks  before  them.     But  the  Normans  brought  in  theufe  of 
Seals  by  In/prejjions  upon  Wax.     But  that  MS.  Author  will  not  allow  the 
ufe  of  fuch  Seals,  till  after  the  Conqueji,  except  in  the  time  of  Cnut,  who 
was  aflranger.     Whereas  in  the  Conteft  between  the  Biftiop  of  Lincoln 
(?)  V)t.    and  the  Abbot  of  St.  Albans,  before  Henry  II.  when  the  (q)  Saxon  Char- 
Ai'ban  ^'  *"^  ^^^^  difputed  for  want  of  Seals,  the  other  Party  knew  not  what  to 
79,8"'.^'  answer;  but  the  Ring  infifted  on  their  Confirmation  by  Henry  I.    And 
the  Monk  who  writes  the  account  of  this  Proceeding,  alledgeth  the 
Seal  of  Edward  the  Confeffor  to   the   Church  of  Wefiminfier :  But  Ed- 
ward brought  in  feveral  Norman  Ctiftoms,  as  Ingulphus  (hews,  againft 
the  pra<aice  of  his  PredecelTours.  And  this  the  Normans  borrow'd  from 

the 


C  H  A  p.  J.  the  Briti/h  Churches.  1 3 


the  French^  whofe  Seals  were  generally  affixed  on  the  right  fide  of  the 
Charter,  and  not  pendent  with  Labels,  as  they  began  to  be  about  the 
Reign  of  Lewis  VI.  as  (r)  Mabillon  hath  (hewed  at  large.     And  foCO^'atiiji 
feme  of  our  Learned  (/)  Antiquaries  have  thought,  that  pendent  Seal's p'omlt!'' 
vpere  not  brought  into  ufe  here,  till  the  time  of  Edward  I.     For  in  a  Charter  '■  ^-  <>■  i^. 
Henry  I.  granted  to  Anfelm,  the  great  Seal  was  affixed  on  the  left  fide";)^'^"" 
of  the  Parchment.     And  (t)  Brian  Twyne  affirms  that  he  faw  a  Char-  qxit.  R,i. 
ter  of  William  the  Conqiterour  fo  fealed  in  the  Lnmley  Library^     But  that  '""'"Ah- 
this  Obfervation  is  not  certain,  appears  by  contrary  Inftances,  as  of  the  (l)^A„ti- 
Pendent  Seal  to  the  Charter  of  Battel  Abhy,  printed  by  («)  y[r.Seli"tO)!.au- 
den  ;  and  of  the  Charter  of  Henry  II.  to  Glajfenbttry ,  Abbey,  which  (h')  («)s^e!d.^ 
Dr.  Cuius  faith  he  faw  with  a  Seal  of  green  Wax  hanging  to  it  by  a  Jiring  a'o(.  ad. 
of  red  tnd  white  Silk.     But  from  hence  we  may  fee  how  dangerous  it'^^j^"' 
is  to  make  general  Rules,  as  to  thefe  matters,  from  fome  particular (»)  oe 
Examples,  when  the  Cuftom  might  vary.     And,  notwithflanding  the'^"''?- 
Teftimonyof/»^«/p^«j',there  might  be  ^e^i/j  fometimes  ufed  to  Charters  l^'i'^' 
though  not  fo  frequently.  Mr.  (x)  Sclden  hath  produced  fome  Inftances;-  54. 
to  that  purpofe,  as  in  that  of  King  Edgar  to  the  Abby  of  Perfore,  which  o^^che'^' 
he  faith  had  plain  Signs  of  three  Labels  by  the  places  cut  tor  their  be- office  of 
ing  hanged  on  5  which  is  attefted  in  a  Letter  from  Godfrey,  Archdeacon  ^°'^'* 
of  Worcefler,  to  Alex.Wl.     And  Among  the  Chart  £  antiqu£.  There  areior,ch.z. 
fome,  faith  he,  amSigillo-^  and  one  particularly  cum  Sigillo  of  King 
Cmut,  which  very  much  confirms  what  this  Hiftorian  obferves  concer- 
ning Canutus  his  ujing  a  Seal.     And  our  great  Cy  )  Lawyer  hath  produ-  (y)  i"'^. 
ced  the  Deeds  of  King  Edwin,  Brother  to  King  Edgar ^  and  of  King**^'^' 
Of  a,  with  Seals  to  them.     And  therefore,  I  think,  Ingulphus  ought  not 
to  be  taken  in  fo  ftrift  a  Senfe,  that  there  were  no  Seals  in  ufe  before 
the  l^orman  time,  but  that  Deeds  or  Charters  before  were  good  or  valid- 
by  bare  Croffes  and  Marks,  with  Subfcriptions  without  Seals  5  But  that 
the  Normans  would  allow  none  that  had  no  Seals  to  them.     And  this 
Upon  due  confideration  will  appear  to  be  the  true  meaning  of  Ingul- 
phus. 

And  the  fame  MS.  Author  commends  the  difcretion  of  the  Saxon  way 
of  confirming  Charters,  above  that  of  the  Normans,  a  Seal  of  Wax  he- 
ing  fo  apt  to  decay,  or  to  be  lofl  or  taken  off.  And  he  obferves  one  parti- 
lar  Cuftom  of  the  Normans,  That  they  were  wont  to  put  fome  of  the  hair 
of  their  Heads  or  Beards  into  the  Wax  of  their  Seals.  I  fuppofe  rather 
to  be  kept  as  Monuments  than  as  adding  any  ftrength  or  weight  to  their 
Charters.  So  he  obferves,  That  fome  of  the  Hair  of  William,  Earl  of 
Warren,  was  to  his  time  kept  in  the  Priory  of  Lewes. 

To  that  of  the  Leaden  Bull  appending  to  the  Charter  of  St.  Auguftinej 
he  makes  a  pitiful  Anfwer,  viz.  That  he  beingdeputed  hither  by  the  Pope^ 
might  ufe  the  fame  Seal  which  he  did  at  Romei  And  fo  every  Legate 
might  grant  Bulls  with  Leaden  Seals,  which  would  not  be  well  ta- 
ken at  Rome.  But  it  is  much  more  to  the  purpofe  which  he  adds,  viz. 
That  when  in  the  time  ofWemy  III.  this  Pri7jilege  was  quejiioned  by  the 
Archbijf)0p  <?/ Canterbury,  becaufe  of  this  Leaden  Bull,  the  Earl  of  Fhn- 
Aexs  produced juch  another,  given  him  by  a  foreign  Bifiop,  which  he  and  las 
Predeceffours  had  ufed'^  the  Falhion  whereof  he  fets down,  and  the  5«// 
itfelf  wasprefervedasa  Monument  in  St.  Augufline'%.  But  if  this  were  then 
fo  common  a  Cuftom,  efpecially  at  Rome,  why  had  they  no  fuch  Bulls  of 
Gregory  the  Great,  who  fent  Augufiine  ?  To  that  he  gves  a  frivolous 
Anfwer,  viz.  T/6;?*  Gregory  diedthe  fame  year  of  the  endowment  of  St.  hi- 

guftineV, 


14  1  be  Antiquities  of  Chap.  I. 


guftineV.     But,  did  he  leave  no  Succeffour?     And,    had  it  not  been 
more  to  their  purpofe  to  have  produced  one  Leaden  Bull  of  the  Pope's 
at  that  time,  than  twenty  of  Auguftine's  the  Mo»k.^     But  he  gives  no 
manner  of  anfwer  to  the  Rafure  of  the  firji  Charter,  nor  to  the  late  Wri- 
i'lngofihe  feconcl  :     And  although  the  ufing  of  Leaden  Bulls  were  not 
fo  foon  appropriated  to  the  Co»p[iorial  Grants  of  the  Bifiop  of  Rome,  but 
Princes  and  Biftiops  might  ufe  them,  as  Sir  H.  Spelmdn,  and  Monjieur  dii 
Cange,  and  Mab'dlon  have  all  proved  5    yet  there  ought  to  be  better 
proof  brought  of  the  matter  of  Fad,  as  to  St.  ^?/^«/?/W$  Privilege,  for 
it  is  ftill  very  fufpicious,    not  only  on  the  account  of  the  Leaden  Bull 
fO  roiyd.  (^  yyhich  (;&)  P oly dor e  Virgil  could  not  find  fo  early  ufed  even  at  Rome, 
^LmJU.  and  he  allows  it  to  be  no  elder  than  Anno  Domini  772.  and  all  the  In- 
<•  2.        ftances  brought  before  by  (<?)  Dom.  Raynaldtis  are  confeffed  to  be  fu- 
Leif  Ai-  Tpicious  by  (0  Mabillon  himfelf )   but  there  are  feveral  things  in  it 
la^rfe  On- which  in  (0  Sir  H.  %/;^^«'s  Judgment  favour  of  the  Norman  times^ 
fen!.Eccief.  gg  ^ j^g  j^^^  confuetudinarium,  Judicia  intm  &  fork,  and  the  very  Title  of 
SL    ArMipop,    as  it  is  there  ufed,    was  hardly  of  that  Antiquity  in  the 
/.  I.  c.  6.  Weftern  Church,    and  was  never  given  to  Augnjline  by  Gregory.   But 
1'b)kzh\\-  according  to  (J)  Jjidores  explication  of  it,    who  was  Gregorys  Difci- 
loa.deRe  pie,   and  underftood  the  Language  of  that  Age,    AuguJIine  could  not 
f '2  Tf  ■  properly  call  his  Succeprs  Archbifiops,  for  he  faith,  That  Title  belong  d 
r.  9/'      to  them  who  had  power  over  Metropolitans  as  well  as  other  Bifiops,    and  it 
(c)  spei-  ^ag  not  before  the  ninth  Age,  as  (c)  Mabillon  and  others  obferve,  that 
d/."'.  124.  it  came  to  be  commonly  ufed  for  a  Metropolitan. 
(J)  ifid.  *     It  was  therefore  a  judicious  Rule  laid  down  by  the  Learned  Authour 
orig.i.j.  Qf  fjjg  ^^^  Preface  to  the  Monafiicon  concerning  the  Charters  of  Monks, 
(e)MihUi  that  the  older  they  pretend  to  be,    the  more  they  are  to  be  fufpe&ed  ^     For 
/.  2.  c.  2.  vvhich  he  is  defervedly  praifed  by  (^)  Papebrochim  5  but   (h)  Mabil- 
(/j  Pn-    Ion  is  very  unwilling  to  allow  it,  as  overthrowing  at  once  the  authority  of 
puu.  ,id    all  their  ancient  Charters.    And  therefore  he  hath  endeavoured  with 
^l'^^'    mighty  Induftry  to  defend  chiefly  the  old  Benedi&in  Charters  in  France  5 
(g)  t'ape-  But  he  cannot  deny  many  of  them  to  be  counterfeited    (  Papebrochius 
^VroTi  ad^^^^^'^  almoft  all)  and  at  the  Conclufion  of  his  Difcourfehe  vindicates 
To. Z.Apr. the  Monks  *  by  the  commonness  of  the  fault  in  elder  times  :     Which 
*  '°-  "•    is  an  Argument  of  Caution  to  us,  rather  than  of  any  credit  to  be  given 
lh)mhii-fo  them.     And  it  cannot'  be  denyed,   that  he  hath  laid  down  many 
Ion.  /.  I.  ufeful  Rules  for  difcerning  the  true  and  falfe,  with  refpeft  to  the  Cu- 
''/.''-^V'6  fto™s  of  France.    But  we  are  (till  as  much  to  feek  as  to  our  pretended 
v.il'.  '    Charters,  fince  the  Cuftom  of  making  Charters  cannot  be  made  appear 
to  be  fo  old  here  as  it  was  there.    He  doth  indeed  endeavour  to  prove 
t  /.I.  C.4.  from  -f'  Bedes  Epiftle  to  Egbert,   that  in  his  time  there  were  written 
"  '*■        Privileges  granted  to  Monajieries  among  the  Saxons,    and  fomething  be- 
fore that,    among  the  Britains,    by  the  Synod  of  Landaff,    Anno  Dom. 
660.    But  he  cannot  prove,  nor  doth  he  attempt  it,  that  there  were 
any  Charters  among  the  Saxons  before  that  of  Withred,  Anno  Dom.  6^^. 
and  if  not,    all  the  ancient  Charters  refcrr'd  to  in  this  Charter  of  Ina 
muft  be  Falfe  and  Counterfeit. 

2.  How  comes  King  Ina  to  have  fo  great  authority  over  all  the 
Kings  of  Britain,  the  Archbifhops,  Biftiops,  Dukes  and  Abbots,  as  this 
Charter  expreffeth  ?  In  the  beginning  of  the  Charter,  he  mentions  Bal- 
dred  as  one  of  his  Vice-Roys.  In  the  middle  he  fpeaks  of  Baldred  as 
one  of  his  Predecejfors,   and  joins  him  with  ICenewalchius,  Kentwin  and 

Cedwalla. 


Chap.  I.  the  Britijh  Churches.  1 5 

Cedtpatla.    But  in  the  end  he  makes  him  to  confirm  what  Iva  has  grant- 
ed. Ego,  Baldredus  jRfx,  cottfirmnvi.     But  who  was  this  King  S^^Wrec/.^ 
in  the  Kingdom  of  Kent,  Edrktis  was  in  the  beginning  of  Ina's  Reign, 
according  to  the  Savilian  Fajii,    and  Withreduf  from  the  fixth  to  the 
end.     In  the  Kingdom  of  the  Eaft  Saxons  there  were  Sjghardus,  Senfrs- 
dus,  Offa  and  Selredus.    In  the  Kingdom  of  Eaft  Angles,    Beorna  and 
Ethelrediff.     In  the  Kingdom  of  Mercia,  Adtlredus,  Kenredus,    Ceolre- 
dus,  Athelhddus.     In  the  Kingdom  of  Northumberland,  Aljredus,  Os- 
fredus,  Kenredus,  Ofricus,    But  among  all  thefe  not  one  Baldredus  ap- 
pears.   There  was  indeed  one  of  that  Name  King  of  Kent  near  aa 
hundred  years  after  5   but  what  is  that  to  the  time  of  Ina  .<?    But  fup- 
pofe  Baldred  then  in  being,  and  only  a  Vice^Roy  in  fome  part  of  Ina's 
Dominions,    how  eomes  Ina  to  this  ZJniverfal  Monarchy  or  Power  to 
command  all  the  Rings  oi Britain,    which  is  exprefled  in  the  Charter  ? 
Sed  &  omnibus  Regni  mei  Regihus,  &c.    pr£cipio.   By  what  Authority 
did  the  King  of  the  Weft  Saxons  at  that  time  make  fuch  a  Precept  to 
all  other  Kings  in  Britain  .<?  But,  I  remember,  (i^  Geofrey  of  Monmouth  q^  cal. 
makes  him  Grandchild  to  Cadwallader.      And  the  (Jz)  Authour  of  the  frid.  /.  9. 
Additions  to  King  Edvpard'sLvNS  faith,  he  had  the  Kingdom  <?/ Britain  ^^'^°V''* 
mth  his  fecond  Wife  Wala,  Daughter  <»/Cadwallader^  and  then  Ina  cal-cenf. 
led  a  Parliament  for  the  Intermarriage  <?/Britains  and  Saxons.     So  that(„^^^^-^ 
there  was  an  Opinion  among  fome,  that  Ina  had  the  Monarchy  of  Bri-fej^.c.  l\. 
tain,  which  Opinion  was  certainly  follow'd  by  the  Contriver  of  this 
Charter,    But  Mr.  Lambard  confelTeth,    that  thefe  Paffages  are  not  in 
the  ancient  MS  of  King  Edward's  Laws,  and  it  is  a  wonder  they  (hould 
ever  come  into  them,  being  fodeftitute  of  any  colour  of  authority,  and 
fo  remote  from  the  defign  of  his  Laws. 

As  to  thefe  counterfeit  Charters,   the  Opinion  of  (/)  Papebrochius  (/)  ^opyi. 
fecms  moft  probable  to  me,  that  they  were  for  the  moftpart  framed  in  ^'^f'';^g 
the  eleventh  Ce»?Kr/,  when  there  was  Ignorance  enough  to  make  them„/io3,  * 
pafs,  and  occafion  enough  given  to  the  Monks  to  frame  them  for  their 
own  fecurity,    againft  the  encroachments  of  others  upon  their  Lands, 
and  the  Jurifdiftion  of  Bifhops  over  their  Monafteries.    And  William 
the  Conqueror  having  given  fuch  invidious  Privileges  to  54//e^  JM/,  as 
tnay  be  feen  in  his  C^rfr/er,  the  e/<^erM<?»d'y?er/e/ thought  much  to  be  fo 
far  behind  them,  and  therefore  made  themfelvesas  great  Privileges  by 
the  favour  oi Saxon  Kings.    From  hence  in  the  next  Age  arofe  fo  ma- 
ny Contefts  about  Jurifdi^ion  between  the  Bifhops   and   the   feveral 
Monajieriesy    of   which    we  read    not  before,    as    we    have  alrea- 
dy  obferved   between    the   Abbey  of   St.  Auguftine  and  the  Arch- 
bifldop  of  Canterbury  ^    between  the  Abbey  of  Malmesbury  and  the  Bi- 
p)op  o{  Salisbury  ;  and  the  Abbey  of  St.  Albans  2inA  the  Bijijop  oi  Lincoln.  . 
And  at  that  time  thofe  Abbies  were  charged  with  forging  their  Charter rl 
And  when  they  were  fo  charged  were  not  able  to  defend  them,  as  was 
temarkable  in  the  cafe  of  St.  Auguftine  s,  as  it  is  related  by  («/)  Williami"')'^^^^^' 
Thorn,   a  Monk  of  that  Abbey  :     He  confelTeth  the  Archbtjlwp  chargeth  ci"^"'!.  j. 
their  Privileges  with  Forgery,  and  that  the  Monks  appealed  to  Rome,  and 
that   upon   their  Appeal  feveral  Commijfions ,  were  granted  to    examine 
them^   but  by  his  own  relation,    they  fliamefuUy  declined  toi  produce 
them  as  long  as  they  durft,  and  ftill  continued  their  Appeal.  But  when 
they  faw  no  remedy,   they  produced  the  Charters  of  Ethelbirt  and  Aw 
gHJiine,    the  Copies  whereof  the  Delegates  fent  to  Rome.     But  before 
they  came  thither  the  Pope  died  5  and  the  next  Pope,  Lucius,  lent  an 

Inhi- 


i6  The  Antiquities  of  Chap  I. 

Inhibition  to  the  Archbifhop,  requiring  him  not  to  in  vade  their  Privi- 
ieges  till  the  queftion  of  Forgery  were  determined  ;    and  he  writes  to 
King  Henry  II.  in  the  behalf  of  the  Abbey.    Things  being  at  this  pafs, 
they  fairly  made  a  Compofition  with  the  Archbifliop,  viz.     That  he 
fhould  withdraw  his  Accufation  of  Fraud,  in  the  Court  of  Rome^   and 
they  would  yield  up  to  him  the  main  points  contefted  as  to  Jurifdi&i' 
6n,    TheformofwhichCompofitionisat  large  extant  in  T/Stfrn.     And 
the  Confirmation  of  it  by  Henry  II.  in  the  other  MS.  Chrontcon  of  that 
Abbey.     Which  in  effed  amounted  to  the  Monks  giving  up  the  Caufe  of 
their  Charters,    Such  a  Controverfie  about  JnrtfdiBion  there  was  be- 
tween 3F<7ce//»,  WiiO\ioi  Bath  diWdiWells^    and  the  J bbey  of  G I ajenbury 
about  AnnoDotft.   121 5.    as  appears  by  the  Book  called  Secretum  Do- 
ffiini  Abbatis  lately  in  the  Arundel/ Library,  but  now  in  a  private  hand. 
So  that  there  appears  a  fufEcient  inducement  for    them    to  forge 
fuch  large  Immunities  and  Exemptions,  with  refpeft  to  the  Biftiop's  Jh- 
rifdiSion,  as  this  Charter  contains ;  and  that  feems  to  be  the  main  Point 
aimed  at  in  it.    But  in  order  to  it,  fome  extraordinary  matter  was  to 
be  alledged  in  favour  of  this  Place,  and  nothing  ferved  fo  much  in  that 
Age,  as  to  amufe  the  People  with  wonderful  Stories  of  the  Antiquity 
of  it.    Calling  it  the  Mother  of  Religion,  attd  the  Place  of  Vi/ions  and  Re- 
velations and  Miracles,  tphere  St.  Patrick  and  St.  David  djvelt  in  firmer 
times,  hefire  ever  the  Saxons  came  (  but  not  a  word  yet  of  Jofeph  of  A- 
timatheai )  which  were  very  plaufible  Pretences  for  extraordinary  Pri- 
vileges, and  fo  they  are  alledged  in  this  Charter  of  King  Ina,  It  a  c^  ipfa 
fupereminentem  Privilegii  obtineat  dignitatem,  nee  uUi  omnino  hominum  an- 
ciUare  obfequium  faciat  in  terris,  8cc.     Which  words  are  fpoken  of  the 
Blejfed  Virgin,  but,  according  to  the  Conftruftion  of  that  Age,  to  be 
underwood  of  Glaj^enbury  Abbey,  becaufe  the  Church  was  believed  to  be 
confecrated  to  her  by  our  Saviour  himfelf. 

But  it  feems  ftrange  that  fuch  a  Charter  ftiould  ever  pafs  for  authen- 

itch  with  any  who  compare  the  Language  of  it  with  the  Hiftory  of 

King  Ina,  as  it  is  delivered  by  the  Monkifli  Hiftorians.     For  by  them  it 

appears  what  Wars  he  had  with  his  neighbour  Princes,  and  how  far  he 

was  to  the  laft  from  commanding  Kings  and  Princes  and  Archbijhops, 

whofe  Kingdom  was  confined  to  the  Weft  and  South  Saxons,    and  had 

but  one  Biftiop  in  it  till  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  Reign,  when  it  was 

divided  into  two,    Daniel  having  one  fhare,  and  Aldelm  the  other. 

And  fome  years  after  Eadbertm  was  Biftiop  of  the  South  Saxons,  fo  that 

he  had  but  three  Bijhops  at  the  moft,    and  never  an  Archbijhop  in  his 

Dominions;     Yiow then co\xldheC7M the feveral Kings,  Archbifiops and 

Bijhops  together  to  pafs  this  Charter  f*     The  like  grofs  abfurdity  there 

^)M'>nx.  is  in  the  (»)    Charter  of   Evejham   Abbey,    wherein  Brightwaldut 

flic,  i^oi.i.  Is  faid  to  draw  it  up  with  the  confent  of  all  the  Princes  in  England 

''■ '^  ■     met  in  Council,   as  Pope  0»/?rf»//»e  explains  it  ;   which  is  fomewhat 

hard  to  believe  concerning  that  Age,   wherein  they  were  under  no 

common  Head,  but  continually  fighting  with  each  other,  till  the  Weft 

(0)  w.     Saxons  prevailed.  And  the  Cafe  of  the  Abbey  of  Evefbam  feems  to  have 

^t^dl'  ^^^"  much  the  fame  with  that  of  Glaffenbury.     For  {0)  William  of 

cJii.pon-  Malmesbury  wondets  how  Bede  came  to  omit  die  Foundation  of  it,  if  it 

tif.i.  4.  vvere  fo  folemnly  declared  at  Rome  as  the  Charters  import,    when  Ken- 

**■  *  **     red  and  Offa  were  both  there,   which  is  mention'd  by  Bede.    And  in 

truth  it  is  very  ftrange  that  fo  diligent  a  Writer,    especially  of  fuch 

things,  as  Bede  was,   ftiould  fay  not  a  Word  either  of  Glaffenbury  or 

Evefhant. 


Chap.  I.  the  Britijh  Churches,  1 7 

Evejham.  But  he  judiciouny  imputes  the  occafian  of  Founding  this 
Monajiery  to  fome  old  Church  of  the  Erita'ins  Jianding  there  in  a  defolate 
place,  \wh\ch  Egwin,  then  Brjhop  oi  ('Vorcefter,  took  a  great  Fancy  to, 
and  foraifed  a  Monaftery  there.  But  fuch  a  plain  Story  as  this  would 
never  doe  the  Monks  bufinefs,  and  therefore  they  muft  have  a  Legend 
ofEgtvif/'s  Chains,  &c.  and  the  Vi/^on  of  the  Blejfed  Virgin  there,  and 
Jarge  Immunities  granted  to  the  Place  on  thefe  accounts,  as  they  have 
fully  done  in  the  Charters  of  Kenred  afid  Offa,  the  Bull  of  Confiantine 
and  the  Privilege  of  Egwin.  But  yet  this  unlucky  charge  of  Pope  Con- 
flan  tine  to  Brightwaldus,  to  fumtiton  a  Council  of  the  ivhole  Nation,  Pri/i- 
ces  and  Bifl}of>s,  to  confirm  this  Charter,  at  a  time  when  there  werefcJ 
many  Kingdoms  not  only  divided,  but  moft  commonly  in  adual  War 
with  each  other,  makes  this  whole  C^<?r/er  appear  to  be  an  undoubted 
Forgery  of  the  Monks  to  obtain  great  Privileges  to  themfelves. 

But  to  return  to  Glajfenbury  5    I  do  not  queftion  that  King  Ina  did 
Youxxd  a.  Mona^erj  there,  where  before  had  been  an  ancient  Church  m, 
the  Britifh  times.     But  I  fee  no  ground  to  believe,  that  either  Jofeph  of 
Arimathea,  or  St.  Patrick^  or  St.  David  had  ever  been  there.   But  thefe 
were  great  and  well  founding  Names  to  amufe  the  People  with,    and 
by  degrees  advanced  that  Monaftery  to  fo  high  a  Reputation,  that  the 
very  Monks  of  other  places  were  concerned  to  leffen  the  authority  of 
this  Tradition,  as  is  evident  by  the  (/>)  MS.  Chronicle  of  St.  AKgu/iines,  (a)  chrom 
wherein  the  Monks  of  Glajjenbtiry  are  charged  with  pretending  to  great-  5.Auguft. 
er  authority  than  they  had  reafon  for,  that  Monajiery  being  firfl  founded  a^x"c'^'' 
by  King  Ina,  but  they  give  OHt  they  had  Land  given  by  Arviragus<z  King 
of  the  Britains.    And  even  (^)  William  of  Malmesbury,  although  when     (q) 
he  writes  the  Antiquities  of  Glajfenbury,    he  feems  firmly  to  believe  Maimes- 
St.  Patrick's  being  there,    yet  when   he  comes  elfewhere  to  fpeak  Cf^^i  pL- 
of  his  being  buried  there,    he  adds  that  cooling  Expreflion,   Si  credere  *''f- ^^^ 
dignum,  and  takes  not  the  leaft  notice  of  jf<7/ep/6  of  A/»rf?^e<«  and  his  ^' '*^'     - 
Companions.    So  much  difference  he  thought  there  ought  to  be  be- 
tween writing  the  Legend  of  a  Monajiery  and  a  true  Hijiory.   And  there 
he  plainly  affirms,  that  King  Ina  was  the  firfl  Founder  of  it.     To  which 
(r)  Ajferiuf  agrees  in  an  ancient  MS.  Copy  of  his  Annals.     For  A.  D.^r'j  Affedi 
726.  he  faith,  Ina  went  to  Kome,  and  there  died,    having  built  and  de- -^"""l^^ 
dicated  a  Monajiery  in  GlafTenbury.  But  what  Prefumption  was  ittof^^"^"^' 
(ay,  he  dedicated  it,  if  it  were  dedicated  fo  long  before  by  Chrifl  him- 
felf,  as  the  Vifion  of  St.  David  and  the  Glajfenbury  Tradition  affirm  >     I 
do  not  then  deny  that  there  was  an  ancient  Church  before  Ina's  time, 
which  after  the  Weftern  Saxons  became  Chriftians,   grew  into  mighty 
Reputation,  but  all  the  Succeffion  of  Abbats  before,  either  of  f^tfr^re- 
yfW,  or  Brightwalduf,  or  others,  I  look  on  as  fabulous.     For  (j)  Bede  0)  Bed. 
and  others  fay,  Brightwaldus  was  Abbat  of  Keenly  gt  before  he  was  Afch-  ^'g/'  ^' 
hi/hop  5  which  is  a  good  diftance  from  Glajfenbury.    But  the  firft  Abbat 
there  was  Hemgijlus,  to  whom  Ina  granted  a  Charter  5    aft^r  him  Beor- 
Toalditf,  to  whom  King  Ina  granted  feveral  Lands  by  Charters,  far  more 
probable  than  this  large  one,  whofe  authority  I  have  hitherto  difcuf- 
fed.     Thofe  Charters  are  (hort,  and  the  Style  agreeable  to  thofe  times, 
and  not  one  word  of  Jofeph  of  Arimathea,  or  St.  Patrick,  or  St.  David,  In 
any  ofthem.And  thofe,  I  believe,  were  the  original  Charters  of  thztkhhey. 

But  the  Abbey  being  thus  founded  and  well  endowed,  then,  like  a 
Man  that  hath  made  his  own  Fortunes,  who  pretends  to  be  derived 
from  fome  ancient  Stock,  fo  this  Monaftery  growing  rich  betimes,  faw 

C  it 


1 8  Tbe  Antijuitief  of  C  h  a  p.  I. 

itmuft  becaft  much  behind  in  Place  and  Dignity,    unlefs  it  could  lay 
claim  to  fome  greater  Antiquity.    And  for  this,    the  old  BritiQi  Church 
was  an  admirable  Foundation.     And  St.  Patrick  and  St.  David,   being 
two  Saints  of  wonderful  efteem  in  Ireland  and  Wales,  they  firft  fet  up 
with  the  Reputation  of  their  being  at  Glaffenbnry,  the  former  lying  hxri- 
ed  there,  and  the  latter  building  a  little  C  happel.     The  Monks  finding 
the  advantage  of  thefe  Pretences,  made  a  farther  ftep  towards  the  ad- 
vancement of  their  Monaftery,  by  giving  out  that  their  old  Church  was 
the  firft  Church  in  Britain,  and  that  all  Religion  came  from  thence  into  o- 
ther  Parti  5  which  by  degrees  gaining  belief,  they  at  laft  pitched  upon 
'jofeph  of  Arimathea,  as  the  Perfon  who  came  firft  hither,  being  a  Man 
whofe  Name  was  every  where  in  great  efteem  for  the  refpeft  he  (hew'd 
to  our  Saviour's  Body  :    And  him  they  thought  they  might  fafely 
pitch  upon,  not  being  pretended  to  by  any  other  Church.  But  it  wasai 
confiderable  time  before  the  Name  of  Jofeph  of  Arimathea  came  to  be 
mention'd,  not  being  found  in  any  of  the  Saxon  Charters,  which  fpeak 
moft  to  the  advantage  ofGlaffenbury  ^  as  may  be  feen  by  thofe  of  Ring 
it)  Mora    CO  Edmund  and  King  Edgar  in  the  Monafticon.    But  by  the  time  of 
fikk.  Vol.  Henry  II.  the  Tradition  was  generally  received,   that  the  old  Church  at 
i./-.i5,i5.  Glaflenbury  was  built  by  the  Difciples  of  our  Lord  ;    and  that  it  was  the 
original  Church  of  this  Nation,   as  appears  by  the  Charter  oi  Henry  If, 
fi/jHarps- omitted  in  thQ  Monafticon,    Ijut  printed  by  (v)  Harpsfteld,    and  ther 
field  ffiji.  learned  Primate  of  (tv)  Armagh,  by  which  we  fee  what  Authority  the 
^cdef.  i.u  ^Qjjjjg  q£  Qiaffenbury  had  then  obtained,  for  not  only  this  Tradition  is 
(w)  Uffer.  inferted  in  the  Charter,  as  a  thing  certain,  but  a  Repetition  is  there 
Pnmrd.p.  ^jg^g  ^f  fevetal  other  Charters,    as  feen  and  read  before  the  King, 
'  "^*  which  were  undoubtedly  counterfeit,  fuch  as  that  of  Ring  Arthur  and 
feveral  others  5  yet  all  thefe  went  down  then,  and  were  confirmed  by 
the  King's  Infpeximm.    From  this  time  the  Monks  of  Qlajjenbury  were 
triumphant,  and  no  one  durftdifpute  their  Traditions  how  improbable 
foever.    This  Charter  being  confirmed  by  the  Infpeximus  of  Edtv.  11. 
An.  6,  7.  of  Edttf.  III.  An.  1 ,  6.  and  i  Edrv.  IV.    And  from  hence  it 
grew  to  be  the  common  Opinion  of  the  Nation,    and  was  pleaded  for 
theHonour  of  it  in  the  C<?«w/7/ofP//4,  C<?»/?<?we,  Siena  2ind  Ba/tl,  of 
(x)if.p.  which  the  (x^  Primate  hath  given  a  full  account,  and,  as  things  paf- 
23,  &c,   fed  among  them  then.  Our  Nation  had  as  juft  Right  to  infift  on  their 
Tradition  oi  Jofeph  of  Arimathea,  as  the  Spaniards  on  that  of  St.  James 
going  into  Spain  5  for  certainly  one  Tradition  was  as  good  as  the  other. 

But  having  thus  far  examined  the  Authority  of  this  Tradition,  I  now 
come  to  confider  the  Circumfiances  of  it.  And  f uppofing  the  Teftimo- 
nies  to  confirm  it  to  have  been  of  far  greater  Authority  than  I  find  them, 
yet  the  very  improbable  Circumftances  of  the  Story  it  felf  would  be  a 
fnfficient  reafon  for  me  to  pafs  it  over  (leaving  every  one  to  believe  as 
much  of  it  as  he  fees  caufe  )  viz. 

0)Eufcb     ('•)  The  Tradition  of  the  Church  mentioned  by  {y^  Eufebiuf, 
/.  5.  £.24.(2,)  Sophronius,    (a)  St.  Chryfoftome,  and    {b)  Hippolytus  Portuenfis, 
'piiomVe  ^*'*^  ■^*'  P^^'^P  continued  preaching  in  the  Eaftern  Parts,  about  Phrygia, 
soift.  Ec.andftifferd  at  Hierapolis. 

i??l?^'  C  2  )  The  Ereraetical  courfe  of  their  Lives  fo  wholly  different  from 
fbf'w  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^  Apoftles,  and  other  Difciples  of  our  Lord,  in  an  Age  of  fo 
\l\s3i  ^^^^  bufinefs  and  employment  in  Preaching  the  Gofpel,  who  went 
iz  .4d./?,  from  one  City  and  Countrey  to  another  for  that  End.  C  3')  The 


Chap.  I.  tk  Britijh  Churches.  1 5? 


C5.)  The  building  of  the  Church  by  a  Vi/ion  of  the  Archangel^  and 
devoting  it  and  themfelves  to  the  Blejfed  Virgin,  favours  too  grofly  of 
Monkidi  Superftition  to  be  near  the  time  pretended. 

(4.)  The  Confecration  of  a  Church-yard  together  with  a  Church,  in 
order  to  the  burial  of  perfons  in  it  at  that  time,  is  none  of  the  mofl: 
probable  Circumftances,  and  yet  it  is  a  material  one.  ^lod  ipfe  Domi- 
Ttus  Ecclefiam  Jimul  cum  Cismeterio  dedicarafi  (c)  Sir  Henry  Spelean  ob-  ^'^^  ^Pf'' 
ferves,  That  the  cujlom  of  compajjing  Churches,  tcith  Church-yards,  i3)as cU, p.  ii, 
not  fa  ancient  :  And  withall  he  adds,  That  although  the  Britifti  Cities  had 
Churches  from  the  beginning  of  Chriftianity,  yet  there  were  no  burying  pla~ 
cles  within  Cities,  ?z//Cuthbert,  Jrchbi/hop  of  Csmterhury,  obtain  d  leave 
for  it,  about  Anno  Dom.  758.     Upon  this  (d)  Alford  and  (e)  Crejfyu)AmAL 
charge  him  with  a  manifeji  miflake  and  great  impertinency.     A  miftake,  >i.  f- 63. 
in  that  Ethelbert  and  Auguftine  were  both  buried  in  the  Church  ofSt.Pe-"-^^:    ^ 
tQX  and  St.'?2L\A.     And  what  then?  Doth  Sir  Henry  Spelman  fay  there Lijioryjl 
was  no  burying  /»  Churches  before  Cuthbert's  time?  No.     But  that  there  ^-  [''•  ^' 
was  no  Burying  Place  in  Cities  before  that  time.     For  the  Church  of ""  ^" 
St.  Auguftine,  or  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  was  without  the  City.    For  fo 
the  (f)  Ms.  Chronicle  of  St.  AuguftineV  faith.  That  when  the  Bodies  ofif)  cbro' 
the  Kings  and  Archbi/hops  were  carried  thither  to  burial,  they  follow  d  our  '^^  'j*^^* 
Saviour,  who  fufferd  without  the  Gate.     And  that  it  was  like  the  childreti 
^Ifrael's  going  out  of  Egypt,  &c.    Which  is  fufficient  to  prove  the  truth 
of  Sir  Henry  Spelmans,  Obfervation,  which  relates  to  Burying  in  Ci- 
ties and  not  in  Churches.     And  withall  the  Reafon  alledged  in  one  of 
the  Charters  of  (^)  Y^mg  Ethelbert,  why  that  place  was  afligned  for  a{g)M)na' 
Burying  place,  is,  becau/e  the  City  is  for  the  Living,  and  not  for  the  Dead.-^"^-^"''^' 
But  why  do  they  not  prove  the  Antiquity  of  Church-yards  to  be  fo  great/'  ^'*' 
which  was  the  moft  to  the  purpofe?  But  they  fay,  &>  Henry  SpelmanV 
Obfervation  was  impertinent,  Glafleribury  being  then  a  folitary  place,  and 
very  far  from  being  a  City.    It  is  true,  if  the  weight  had  been  laid  by 
him  only  upon  that,  there  being  no  Evidence  of  any  Roman  City  there. 
But  his  defign  was  to  prove.  That  Church-yards  were  not  then  adjoining 
to  Churches,  becaufe  the  Cemeteries  were  without  the  City,  and  the  Churches 
within  in  the  BritiQi  times  5  And  even  in  the  Saxon  time,  (/j)  he  faith,  (h)  Spei- 
although  they  buried  in  Churches,  yet  thofe  Churches  in  which  they  buried  "-"/"'  ^'"'' 
were  without  theCities,  till  Cuthbert  fir  ft  procured  the  alteration  by  Royal 
Authority,  and,  fame  fay,  by  Papal  too.     But  the  Monks  of  St.  Augujiine's 
denied  the  Pope's  Confirmation. 

But  the  main  Circumftance  I  fhall  irifift  upon,  is,  the  Incongruity  of 
this  Story  with  the  condition  of  the  Roman  Province  at  that  time.     For* 
there  was  no  fuch  Britifi  King  then  as  Arviragm,  and  in  that  Country, 
as  will  appear  by  the  more  Southern  parts  of  the  Ifland  being  reduced 
into  the  form  of  a  Province  before  Anno  Dom.  ^3.  when  the  Gla/fenbury 
Tradition  faith,  Jofeph  of  Arimathea  came  firfi:  to  Britain.    For-(i)  Ta-  (')  Tacic. 
citus  faith,  it  was  done  as  to  the  neareji  part  of  the  Ifland,  when  A.Plau-  ^"'^•'^l''"^» 
tius  and  Oftorius  Scapula  were  Govemours  here,  and  between  them  and 
Suetonius  Paulinus  were  Diditis  GaUus  and  Veranius.     In  probability  the 
Belg£  v/ere  fubdued  by  Vefpafian,  of  whom  {¥)  Suetonius  faith,  That  ^eC^Suetotf, 
conquer  d  here  two  powei  full  Nations,  above  twenty  Towns,  and  the  Ifle  of"^, 
Wight.    By  which  we  find  his  employment  was  Weft  ward,  and  the 

C  2  Belg^ 


20  Ibe  Anti(jiiities  of  Chap.  L 

Belg£  and  Danniomi  were  the  two  pomrfnll  Nations  that  way.     And  in 
all  the  Aftions  afterwards,  we  find  no  Care  taken  by  the  Roman  Gene- 
rals to  fecure  themfelves  againft  the  Belg£,  as  they  did  againft  the  Bri- 
gantes  and  Silures,  among  whom  Cara&acus  commanded  ^  fo  that  there 
could  be  no  fuch  Britijl}  King  at  that  time  among  the  Belg<e  as  Arvlra- 
(/)  Tacit,  gus  is  fuppofed  to  have  been.  •  For  if  there  had  been  when  (/)  OJlorius 
Annul,  "-marched  Northwards,  having  fnpprell'ed  the  Iceni,  it  is  not  to  be  fup- 
''  ^°'      pofed,  that  he  would  have  fixed  his  Garrifons  on  the  Severn  and  the 
(m)Camd.  Avon,  to  fecure  the  Province.     For,  as  our  («/)  Judicious  Antiquary 
Britain,  p.  j^ath  yygll  obfervcd,  The  dejtgn  of  Oftorius  therein  was  to  keep  the  Provin- 
^^*"        cial  hrkains  from  joining  with  the  others ;  and  therefore,  all  on  this  fide 
thofe  Garrifons  were  within  the  Roman  Province ;  Now  the  places 
U'here  the  Garrifons  were  placed  are  by  Tacitus  faid  to  be  Antona  and 
Sabrina.     The  latter  is  certainly  the  Severn,  which  parted  the  Belgts 
and  the  Silures.     For  Antona^  Camden  reads  Aufona^  (although  2Vtfr- 
thanton  comes  nearer  the  former  Name,  and  Sonthanton  had  its  Name 
from  the  River  Anton,  which  there  runs  into  the  Sea ;  and  P/^^/e/s??^ calls 
Tri/knton,  i.  e.  faith  Camden,  Trait h  Anton,  the  Month  of  Anton  ^  But 
he  chufes  Aufona,  for  this  reafon,  becaufe  the  two  Avons  rife  both  ia 
the  County  of  Northampton,  and  fo  cut  the  Ifland,  that  none  can  pafs 
out  of  the  North,  but  they  muft  crofs  one  or  the  other  of  them,  or 
elfe  fall  upon  the  Roman  Garrifons  between,  the  Remainders  whereof 
he  takes  notice  of  between  the  rife  of  the  two  Avons  at  Gilsborongb 
and  Daintrj/^  by  which  means  he  hindred  all  intercourfe  between  the 
Brjgantes  and  the  Roman  Province,  as  the  other  did  between  the  Si- 
lures and  them.    But  if  there   had    been  fuch  a  Britijb  King  as 
Arviragns  among  the  Belg<e,  what  would   the  fortifying  the  Severn 
have  fignified,  when  the  Enemies  to  the  Romans  lived  on  the  Ra- 
in) Britan.  «^^^«  fide?  Tacitus  indeed  mentions  an  Expedition  of  OJlorius  againft  the 
p.  63.      Cangi,  whom  (»)  Camden-  fometimes  thought  a  fmall  People  among  the 
,  ^^Ifj'f'    Belgje,  but  upon  better  confideration,  (o)  he  places  them  in  Chefiire, 
where  he  found  an  Infcription  concerning  the  C BANG  I.    And  Taci- 
tus faith,  They  were  not  far  from  the  Sea  Coaji  which  looks  towards  Ireland. 
(^)R.wh.      (/>)  R.  White  oi  Ba/ingfioke  fuppofes  this  Arviragus  to  beftow  the 
safing.i.  ]ji^„^  on  Jofeph  of  Arimathea,  when  TrebelUus  Maximus  was  Gover- 
'  nour  here,  who  fucceeded  Petronius  Turpilianus  the  year  C.  Suetonius 
Paulinus  was  Conful  at  Rome  5  Which,  according  to  the  Savilian  Fafii, 
was  in  the  twelfth  year  of  Nero,  and  Anno  Dom  67.  (four  years  after 
Jofeph's  coming,  according  to  the  Glajfenbttry  Tradition )  but  that  is 
no  great  matter,  if  at  that  time  we  are  fure  there  was  no  fuch  a  King  as 
Arviragus  among  the  Belg£  :  But  he  again  contradicts  the  Glajfenhury 
Story.     For  Malmesbnry  faith.  That  the  Barbarous  King  obfiinately  refit- 
fed  to  quit  his  Religion,  but,  out  of  pity  to  them,  gave  them  the  Ifland  to 
live  in  5  but  White  faith,  He  was  well  affe&ed  to  the  Chrijiian  Religion, 
and  was  in  all  refpe&s  an  admirable  Prince.     This  Arviragus  he  takes 
Sh^/'k^"^  of  the  {q)  Britijl)  Hijiory,  where  pleafant  Stories  are  told  of  him, 
c.  25, 2/.  and  from  thence  in(r)  Matthew  Wejiatinjler,  as,  of  hisoppofingC/^W/W, 
\Pi}^Td  ^^^  ^^^'^  marrying  his  Daughter  Genijfa,  and  the  reconciliation  be- 
^^  ■        tween  him  and  Vefpafan  by  her  means,  &c.     And  how  his  Son  Marius 
fucceeded  him,  and  then  Coilns  who  was  wonderfully  beloved  by  the 
Roman  Senate.     Here  we  have  found  at  laft  the  three  Kings  oiGlaffen- 
bury,  Arviragus,  Marius  and  Coitus,    as   they  are  exftant  in   Capgrave 
and  others ;  So  that  the  Ghjfenbury  Tradition  had  not  its  perfeftion 

till 


Chap.  I.  the  hriti/h  Cburcbcs.  21 

till  it  had  received  thefe  improvements  from  the  Britifi  Hijlory.  For 
William  of  Malmeshury,  though  be  took  fo  great  pains  in  this  matter, 
yet  knew  nothing  of  Arvimgus,  Maritts  and  Coibu.  He  fpeaks  indeed 
of  three  Pagan  Kings  giving  twelve  portions  of  Land  to  the  twelve  Bre- 
thren, but  he  knew  not  their  Names.  Which  Grant,  he  faith,  reas  con- 
firmed by  King  Lucius  to  twelve  others  who  vpere  placed  there,  in  imitation 
of  thefirji  twelve.  And  this  continued  to  the  coming  of  St.  Patrick.  And 
yet  towards  the  Conclufion  of  this  Book  he  faith,  That  Anno  Domini 
601.  the  King  <?/ Dompnonia,  i.e.  Devon(hire  /?»«/ Cornwall,  gave  to 
the  old  Church  in  ClafTenbury  the  Land  called  Ynis  Withrin,  or,  the  l- 
fland  of  Avalon.  Who  this  King  was,  he  faith,  he  could  not  learn,, 
but  he  concludes  him  to  have  been  a  Britain,  by  calling  the  Ifland  by 
the  Britijh  Name.  But  as  to  Arviragus,  that  there  was  a  Britifh  Prince 
of  that  name  cannot  be  denied,  fince  Juvenal  mentions  him  in  Domi- 
tian'i  time. 

Omen  habes,  inqmt,  magni  chrique  Trinmphi,  Sutyr.  4, 

Regem  aliquem  capies,  aut  de  Tettione  Britanno  *■  "5- 

Excidet  Arviragus 

The  (/)  Author  of  the  Chronicle  of  Dover  underftands  this  Paflage  (s)  cbron. 
as  Cpoken  to  Nero -^  which  agrees  much  better  with  the  Tradition  of^^^'l'^f' 
Glaffenbury,  but  will  by  no  means  agree  with  Juvenal,  who  faith  plain- land,  col- 
ly enough  that  Satyr  related  to  Domitian  and  his  Flatterers.     And  this'^'-'''^'''''- 
was  a  very  infipid  Flattery  to  Domitian,  unlefs  Arviragus  were  a  con-^"  ^°" 
fiderable  Prince  then  living,  and  an  Enemy  to  Cafar.    For  what  Tri- 
umph could  he  have  over  a  Subjeft  or  a  Friend  as  Arviragus  is  fuppofed 
after  the  reconciliation  with  Vefpafian  .<?  And  no  fuch  Enemy  could  ap- 
pear at  that  time  in  thofe  parts  of  Britain.     For  (t)  Petilius  Cerealis  (t)  rack, 
had  Conquer'd  the  Brigantes,  and  Julius  Frontinus  the  Silures,  and  A-  ^gric 
gricola  after  them  the  Ordovices  :  And  in  the  time  of  his  Government,  ^J.'^'  ^  ' 
Tacitus  faith.  Even  the  confederate  Cities  among  the  Britains,  who  flood 
upon  Terms  of  Equality  before  they  fnhmitted  themfelves  to  the  Roman  Power^ 
and  received  Garrifons  among  them.  After  this  Agricola  proceeded  North- 
tvards  againji  new  Peoph,  who  dejlroyed  them  as  far  as  the  Frith  ofXsLUS 
(Tweed.)  Then  he  fortified  the  Paffage  between  Glota  and    Bodotria 
(  Dumbretton  and  Edenborough  Frith.  )  So  that  the  Romans  were  ab- 
folutely  Lords  of  all  this  fide,  having  cafl  out  the  Enemy  as  it  were  into 
an  ether  Land,  as  Sir  Henry  Savil  translates  the  words  of  Tacitus.    From 
which  it  is  evident,  there  could  be  no  fuch  King  as  Arviragus  at  that 
titite  in  thefe  parts  of  the  Ifland,  over  whom  Domitian  could  expeft  a 
Triumph. 

.  But  fuppofe  there  were,  what  is  this  to  the  eighth  of  Nero,  when 
Jofeph  of  Arimathea  is  faid  to  have  come  hither,  at  what  time  Arviragus 
is  faid  to  be  King  in  Britain^  It  is  poflible  he  might  live  fo  long,  but 
how  comes  he  to  be  never  mention'd  in  the  Roman  Story,  as  Pra- 
futagm,    Cogidunus,    Cara&acns,    Togodumnus   and  Galgacus    are?   Ar- 
viragus  his  name  was  well  known  at  Rome  in  Domitian  s  time :,  wby(«)  p. 
not  fpoken  of  before  ?  («)  Some  think  he  was  the  fame  with  Porfuta-  Powei.  /« 
gfts-^  but  this  cannot  be,  for  Prafutagus  was  dead  before  the  Revolt  of  ^fj^'^^jf^ 
the  Britains  under  Boadicca,  which  was  occafion'd  by  the  Romans  ill  u- 
fage  of  the  Britains  after  his  death.     And  Prafutagus  left  only  two  (») white 
•Daughters,  what  becomes  then  of  his  Son  Marius^  whom  00  White  f"^- ^"*' 

would  384. 


Ibe  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  I. 


would  have  to  be  CogidnnHs.     But  Marius  is  faid  to  fucceed  Arviragus^ 
who  was  alive  in  Domitians  time,  and  Coglclunm  had  the  Cities  confer- 
(i)Aiford.  red   upon  him  before  Suetomus  Patdinus  came  into  Britain^     as  ap- 
de/.^A^D.  P^^''^  W  Tacitus ;  which  are  things  inconfiftent.     (;v)  Others  fay  that 
45.  n.p,    Arv'iragus  was  the  fame  with  CaraUacui  ;  for  this  Opinion  Alfordcon- 
tends,  and  Juvenal,  he  faith,  mentions  the  name  by  a  P^e/zV^/ L/Ve»ce, 
although  he  lived  long  before.  But  what  reafon  is  there  to  fuppofe 
that  Fabricus  Veiefiti  (hould  make  fuch  a  courfe  Complement  to  Domi- 
tiaft,    that  he  (hould  triumph  over  a  Mati  dead,    and  triumphed  over 
once  already,  by  Claudius,  who  was  never  known  at  Rome  by  any  o- 
ther  Name  than  Cara&acus    (as  far  as  we  can  find  )   by  which  he  was 
fo  famous  for  his  long  Oppofition  to  the  Romans  .<?     But  it  is  very  prcv- 
bable,    that  in  Domitians  time,    after  the  recalling  Agricola,    and   ta- 
Cv)U(Ier.  king  away  the  Life  of  Saluftius  LuculUis,    his  Succeffor,   The  Brltains 
prinu      took  up  Arms  under  Arviragus.     And  the  (  y)  Learned  Primate  of  Ar^ 
^'  ^  ^'     magh  mentions  an  old  Britijh  Coin  in  Sir  R.  Cottons  CoUeBions  with 
thefe  Letters  on  it  ARIFOG,  from  whence  he  thinks  his  true  name  tvas 
Arh'ogus,  which  the  Romans  turned  to  Arviragus.  And  the  old  Scholiaft 
^       there  faith,  that  was  not  hk  true  Name.    The  Britains  being  now  up  in 
Arms,  as  far  as  we  can  learn,  were  not  reprefled  till  Hadrian  came  over 
(:^)Sparti-  in  Perfon,  and  built  the  firft  Wall,  to  keep  them  out  of  the  Roman 
driano"'  Province.    For,  before  this,  (%)  Spartianus  faith.   The  Britains  could 
not  he  kept  in  fubjeBion  to  the   Roman  Vovper.     So  that  here  was  a  fit 
feafon  in  Domitians  time  (  Agricola  being  recalled  in  the  beginning 
of  Domitians  Reign }   for  fuch   a  King  as  Arviragus  to  appear  in 
('a)Aiford.  the  head  of  the  Britains,    and  it  was  then  a  fuitable  Complement 
.4.D.53-  to  him,   to  wifli  him  a  Triumph  over  Arviragus.     But  (<?)  Alford 
"' '''        faith,    that  Claudius  fent  Caraftacus  home  again,   and  after  many  years 
he  died  in  Peace,   being  a  Friend  to  the  Romans.     How  then  comes 
Tacitus  to  take  no  notice  of  him,    as  he  doth  of  Cogidunns  .<?     Is  it 
probable  the  Romans   would  reftore  fo  fubtile  and  dangerous   an 
Enemy  as  CaraBacus  had  been  to  them?    Cogidunus   had  been  al- 
ways faithful  to  them,    but   CaraUaeus   an  open  Enemy,    and  the 
Silures  ftill  in  being,     over   whom  he  commanded,    and  not   over 
the  Belg£,    as  he  muft   have  done,   if  he  were  the  Arviragus  who 
gave  the  Hydes  of  Land  to  Jofeph  c/Arimathea  and  hk  Companions, 

Thefe  things  I  have  here  put  together  to  fliew  for  what  Reafons  I  de- 
cline the  Tradition  of  Jofeph  of  Arimathea's  coming  hither  to  Pleach  the 
Gofpel.     And  although  they  may  not  be  fufficient  to  convince  o- 
thers,   yet  I  hope  they  may  ferve  to  clear  me  from  unexcufable  Parti- 
{b)  church  ality,  which  (b')  Mr.  Crejfy  charges  on  all  who  call  this  Tradition  into 
■^xhl.r^.^.  queftion. 

C  2, )  But,  notwithftanding,  I  hope  to  make  it  appear  from  very 
good  and  fufficient  Evidence,  that  there  was  a  Chriflian  Church  planted 
in  Britain  during  the  Apoftles  times.  And  fuch  Evidence  ought  to 
be  allow'd  in  this  matter  which  is  built  on  the  Teftimony  of  an- 
cient and  credible  Writers,  and  hath  a  concurrent  probability  of 
■  Circumftances. 

I  fhall  firft  produce  the  Teflimony  of  ancient  and  credible  Writers, 
(c)  Baron.  For  it  is  an  excellent  Rule  of  (c)  Baronius  in  fuch  Cafes,  That  no  lejii- 


A.D. 

t!.   12. 


monies  of  later  Aitthours  are  to  be  regarded  concerning  things  of  remote  An- 
tiquity, which  are  not  fupported  by  the  Tejiimony  of  ancient  Writers.   And 

there 


Chap.  I.  the  Britijh  Churches.  2  3 


there  is  a  difference  in  the  force  of  the  Teftimony  of  ancient  Writers 
themfelves,  according  to  their  Abilities  and  Opportunities.    For  feme 
had  far  greater  Judgment  than  others,  fome  had  greater  care  about 
thefe  matters,  and  made  it  more  their  bufinefs  to  fearch  and  enquire 
into  them  5  and  fome  had  greater  advantages  by  being  prefent  in  the 
Courts  of  Princes  or  Councils  of  Bilhops,    whereby  they  could  better 
underftand  the  Beginning  and  Succeffion  of  Churches.    And  for  all 
thefe,  there  was  none  more  remarkable  in  Antiquity  than  Eufehius,  be- 
ing a  learned  and  inquifitive  Pcrfon,  a  Favorite  of  Co»ftantine^  the  firft 
Chriftian  Emperour    (  born  and  proclaimed  Emperour  in  Britain  ) 
one  prefent  at  the  Council  at  Nice,   whither  Bilhops  were  fummoned 
from  all  parts  of  the  Empire,    and  one  that  had  a  particular  curiofity 
to  examine  the  Hiftory  of  all  Churches,  defigning  an  Ecchfiafticd  Hi- 
fiory  out  of  the  Collegians  he  made.    The  Teftimony  of  a  Perfon  fo 
qualified  cannot  but  deferve  great  Confideration,  efpecially,    when  it 
is  not  delivered  by  way  of  Report,  but  when  the  force  of  an  Argument 
depends  upon  it.    And  (d)  Eufebiuf,  in  his  third  Book  of  Evangelical  C</)Eureb. 
Demon(iration,  undertakes  to  prove,  that  the  Apoftles,  who  firji  preached  ^^^"fl' 
the  Gojpel  to  the  World,  could  be  nolmpojlors  or  Deceivers  5  and,  among  ^7.^,115. 
other  Arguments,  he  makes  ufe  of  this.  That  although  it  were  poffible  for 
fuch  men  to  deceive  their  Neighbours  and  Countreymen  with  an  improbable 
Story,  yet  what  madnefs  were  it  for  fuch  illiterate  Men,  who  underjlood  on- 
ly their  Mother  Tongue,  to  go  about  to  deceive  the  World  by  preaching  this 
Do&rine  in  the  remoteji  Cities  and  Countries  .«"     And   having  named  the 
Romans,  PerJ/ans,  Armenians,  Parthians,  Indians,  Scythians  ;  he  adds 
particularly,    that  fome  pafTed  over  the  Ocean   '^  rdi  ^AaytAtW^ 
B^lavtfc^i   unai;,    to  thofe  which  are  called  the  Britifh  Iflands,     From 
whence  be  concludes,  that  fome  more  than  humane  Power  did  accompany 
the  /ipnflles,  and  that  they  were  no  light  or  inconfiderable  Men,  much  lefs 
Impoflors  and  Deceivers.    Now  unlefs  this  had  been  a  thing  very  well 
known  at  that  time,   that  Chriftianity  was  planted  here  by  the  Apo- 
fVles,    why  fhould  he  fo  particularly  and  exprefly  mention  the  Britijh 
Iflands  ">    It  cannot  be  faid  that  they  are  only  fet  down  to  denote  the 
mofV  remote  and  obfcure  places.     For,    long  before  that  time  the 
Britijh  Iflands  were  very  well  known  all  over  the   Roman  Empire, 
Britain  having  been  the  Scene  of  many  Warlike  Anions  from  Claudius 
his  time  5     The  Occafion  of  Emperors  additional  Titles  and  Tri- 
umphs ;    The  Refidence  of  Roman  Lieutenants  and  Legions  5    The 
Place  of  many  Roman  Colonies,  Cities  and  Ways :    But  efpecially,  a- 
bout  Conflantine's  time.    It  was  the  talk  of  the  World,  for  the  Revolt 
of  Caraufius  and  AUeUm  ;  The  Viftory  and  Death  of  Conflantiuf  here ; 
The  SuccefTion  of  Conflantine,   and  his  being  declared  Emperor  by 
the  Army  in   Britain.     So  that  fcar<:e  any  Roman  Province  was  fo 
much  interefted  in  the  feveral  Revolutions  of  the  Empire  as  Britaitt^ 
and  therefore  Conjlantine  going  from  hence,  and  being  fo  much  in  the 
efteem  of  Eufebius,  it  is  not  to  be  conceived,    that  he  fliould  fpeak 
thefe  Words  at  random,   but  that  he  had  made  a  diligent  Enquiry 
both  of  Conflantine  himfelf,    to  whom  he  was  well  known,  and  of  o- 
thers  of  bis  Court,    concerning  the  State  of  the  Britijf)  Churches,    of 
what  continuance  they  were,  and  by  whom  planted.     After  all  which 
Eufebius  aflBrms  it  with  fo  much  afTurance,   That  fome  of  the  Apoflles 
preached  the  Gofpel  in  the  Britifh  Iflands. 

Much 


24  The  Antiquities  of  Chap  I. 


doret'^zr      '^uc^^  fo  fh^  ^3me  purpofe  (e)  Theodoret  fpeaks,  another  learned  and 
4.  i-etw."  judicious  Church  Hiftorian.    For  among  the  Nations  converted  by  the 
p.p.  610.  Apoftles,  he  exprefly  names  the  Britaws-^  and  elfewhere  faith,  (/) 
/n  Pfal".  *'That  St.  Paul  brought  Salvation  to  the  Jjlattds  that  lie  in  the  Ocean,  after 
ii<5.p.     he  had  mentioned  i'/'rf/w,  and  therefore  in  all  probability  the  Britijbt- 
(J)'in  2    flands  are  underftood  by  him.     And  in  another  place  (g)  he  faith.  That 
ep.adTim.  St.  Paul,  after  his  Releafe  at  Rome,  went  to  Spain,   and  from  thence  car- 
4.1'.  17.  ried  the  Light  of  the  Go/pel  to  other  Nations.     What  other  Nations  fo 
likely  to  be  underftood  as  thofe  which  lay  the  neareft,  and  are  elfe- 
where  faid  to  be  converted  by  the  Jpojiles,  as  the  Britains  are  by  him  > 
xoa.  in  h-^^-  (.h^  Jerome,  faith.  That  St.Va.\x\,  having  been  in  Spain,  went  from  one 
mos  c.  5.  Ocean  to  another,  imitating  the  motion  and  cotirfe  of  the  Sun  of  Righteouf- 
nefs,  of  whom  it  is  faid,  his  going  forth  is  from  the  end  of  Heaven,  and 
his  circuit  »nto  the  ends  of  it  5  and  that  his  diligence  in  Preaching  extend- 
ed as  far  as  the  Earth  it  felfi    Which  are  more  indefinite  Expref- 
(i)De      fions.     But  elfewhere  he  faith,  (r)  That  ^^Paul,  after  hk  Imprifon- 
scrift.  Ec-  ^g„f^  preached  the  Gofpel  in  the  Wejiern  parts  ^  By  which  the  Britifi  I- 
flands  were  efpecially  underftood  5  As  will  appear  by  the  following 
f*).  ,^'^^-  Xeftimony  of  (k)  Clemens  Remanus,  who  faith,  St.  Paul  preached  Righ- 
Coriiich.    feoufnefs  through  the  whole  World,  and  in  fo  doing  went  ^Qn  to  -zi^fjut  •^ 
p-  8.        AvTivi,  to  the  utmoji  bounds  of  the  Weji.     Which  PalTage  will  neceflari- 
ly  take  in  Britain,  if  weconfider  what  was  then  meant  by  the  Bounds 
of  the  Wefl.    Plutarch,  in  the  Life  of  C<efar,  fpeaking  of  his  Expedition- 
into  Britain,  faith.  He  was  the  firjl  who  brought  a  Fleet  into  the  We- 
ftern  Ocean  ^  By  which  he  underftands  the  Sea  between  Gaul  and  Bri- 
i'i.c'onft.'^'*'"'     ^^^  0  Eufebius  feveral  times  calls  the  Britilh  Ocean,  the  We- 
1. 1".  c.  ilfiern,  and  joins  the  Britijh  Ocean  and  the  Weftern  parts  together.  And 
4i-^-2-c-(»z)  elfewhere  he  mentions  Gaul  and  the  Wefiern  parts  beyond  it '.^  by 
fmJEufeb. which  he  underftands  Britain.     And  («)  Theodoret  reckons  up  the  In- 
deMart^r.  habitants  of  Spain,  0/ Britain  and  Gaul,  O^ho,  faith  he,  lie  between  the 
PaUJt.c.  f,fjj(,y.fy;(,o'^  gs  thofe  wko  dwell  in  the  bounds  of  the  Wefi-^  And  among 
(n)Theod.  thefe  the  Britains  muft  be  in  the  utmoji  bounds,  becaufe  the  Gauls  lie  in 
^h('^'z6  ^^^  ^^^^'     (")  Herodotus  faith,  the  Ct\tx  are  the  mofl  Wejiern  of  all  the 
f'.SSi*.*    Europeans.    Now  the  ancient  Greek  Geographers  knew  of  but  two  Na- 
(0)  Herod- tions  in  Etfr^pebefides  themfelves,the  Celt£  and  the  Scythe  ;  thefe  latter 
'■■*"^'*''^*  comprehended  all  in  the  moft  Northern  parts  of  Europe,  and  the  Celt<e 
the  Weftern ;  And  among  thefe  the  remoteft  were  the  Britains.  Thence 
ip)  Horat.(p  j  Horace  calls  them,  Vltimos  Orbis  Britannos  5  As  (  ^)  Catullus  be- 
f.'*?^''  ^"fore  him,  Vltimofque  Britannos.     For  before  the  difcovery  of  Britain^ 
(jjCatuii.  the  Morini,  who  lived  over  againft  it,  were  faid  to  be  the  utmoft  Peo- 
if)^led  P'^  °^  ^^^^  Earth.     So  (r)  Vtrgil  calls  them,  Extremos  hominum  Mori- 
/.  8.       '  nos.     And  (/)  Pliny,  Ultimique  hominum  exijfimati  Morini.     JEthicus 
(s)  Win.  /.  faith  they  were,  Gentes  Oceani  Occidentalis.  But  Britain  being  through- 
'^'  ^'  '■   ly  made  known  in  the  time  of  Claudius,  The  utmofi  bounds  of  the  We{i 
(t)  catuii. fiiuft  be  underftood  of  Britain,  efpecially  fince  (/)  Catullus  calls  Britain, 
"(uyvtnoh.  '^Itimam  Occidents  Infulam.   And  (ti)  Arnobius  fetting  down  the  bounds 
in  iMai.     ot  the  Gofpel  Eaft  and  Weft,  for  the  Eaft  he  mentions  the  Indians,  and 
'47-        for  the  Weft  the  Britains.    I  cannot  but  wonder  what  fo  Learned  a  man 
(m)Lau-  as  ("')  Joh.  Launoy  means,  when,  being  urged  by  his  Adverfaries  with 
r\o^  de     this  place  of  Clemens  his  Epijile  to  prove  the  Jpojiolical  Antiquity  of  the 
pic.  seve-  Gallican  Churches,  He  fairly  rejeftsthe  authority  of  this  Epijile,  which 
ri,  §  23.  hath  been  fo  univerfally  received  by  all  Learned  men  fince  the  firft  pub- 
**•  "5'     liftiing  of  it.    But  then  he  argues  well,  that  if  this  paffiige  holds  for 

Gaul, 


Chap.  I.  the  Britijh Churches.  25 

Gaul,  it  jviS  ffiuch  fftore  hold  for  Britain.     So  that  from  this  undoubted 
Teftimony  of  Clemet^i  it  follows,  not  only.  That  the  Gofpel  was  preached 
in  Britain  in  the  times  of  the  Romans,  but.  That  St.  Paul  himfelftpas  the 
Treacher    of  it.      Which    is  affirmed  by    (x)  Vena^tim  FortuftatHs^  (^x)  vea. 
where  he  defcribes  St.  Paul's  labours^  Fortunat. 

vit.  St. 

Tranftt  €^  OceanuM,  vel  qna  facit  Infula  Portu»i,  I,  3. 

^lafqiie  Britannus  habet  terras^qHafque  ultima  ThulCi 

But  becaufe  this  may  look  only  like  a  Poetical  ExprejfioHi 

(3.)  To  make  this  out  more  fully,  I  (hall  confider  the  concurreat 
probability  of  Ore  Hmjiances,  together  with  thefe  Teftimotties.  And  I 
(hall  make  it  appear,  (i.)  From  St*  Paul  s  Circumfiattces,  that  he  had 
Leifure  and  Opportunity  enough  to  have  come  hither,  (a.)  From 
the  Circumflances  of  Britain,  that  here  was  incouragement  and  invita- 
tion enough  fir  him  to  come.  (3.)  From  the  Circumjiances  of  the  reji  of 
the  JpoJiles,That  he  was  themoft  likely  to  eome  hither  of  any  of  them. 

(i.)  That  St  Paul  had  Leifure  and  Opportunity  enough  to  come 
hither  to  preach  the  Gofpel.    It  is  agreed  by  (y }  Eufehius,  St.  (z,)  (» EuCeb, 
Jeroff/e,    and  others  of  the  Ancients,   That  5/.  Paul  fufferd  at  Rome/"^*^?"- 
i4/^<7/Nero.     (<?)  Baronius  faith,  the  13th,   reckoning  the  years  of ronjic<»* 
Nero  exad[]y  from  the  beginning  of  his  Reign  in  O&oher:,  But  (b)  Pe-tti. 
tavius  faith,  That  the  Ancients  reckon  d  the  years  according    to  the  ufual  ^}q"JT'' 
cHJiom  of  a  civil  year.    So  that  the  13th  of  Nero's  Reign  is  the  14th  n.  i.' 
from  the  Calends  of  January.     St.  Paul  was   fent  to  Rome^    when  Fe-  ^P^""' 
fins  was  made  Procurator  of  Judaa,  in  the  room  of  Felix,  which  was,rfm/.  il 
fay  Eufebius  and  St.  Jerome,  in  the  fecond  of  Nero  5    And  I  fee  no  rea-  n.  «•  «♦ 
fon  to  que(tion  it  ^    For  although  Felix  fucceeded  Cumanus  in  the  Go- 
vernment of  ^W^«,  who  was  not  condemned  till  the  i2ih  of  Claudiuti 
(  from  whence  to  the  fecond  of  Nero  cannot  be  reckon  d  thofe  mafty 
years  (c)  St.  Paul  faith  he  had  been  Governour  among  /Ae  Jews)    yet  we(c)Aft.z4. 
are  to  confider,   that  Felix  was  not  fent  immediately  from  Rome,   as'°- 
(^)  Baronius  miftakes,  but  upon  Cumanus  bis  Sentence,    had  his  for- (rf)  Barom 
mer  Government  inlarged.     'judea  being  then  added  to  his  Province,^-^-  5°* 
and  part  of  the  Province  which  he  had  before  being  given  to  Agrippa^ "' 
3S  (e)  Jofephus  faith  i    So  that  part  of  Galilee  and  Samaria  having  been  (^ )jofeph, 
under  his  Government  before,  Saint  Paul  might  well  fay,  he  had  heen'^'Bea. 
a  Ruler  among  them  many  years,    although  he  were  difmifled  in  the  fe-^^i^i/*  *° 
condofMr*?.     And  although  (/)   Trf«V«j  faith,  That  Yt\vx.  had  been\f)'X^cM. 
along  time  Governour  of  ]udxa,  yet  it  appears,  by  the  difVribution  of  the  ^'"^^- '"° 
Province  between  Cumanus  and  him.  That  before  Cumanus  his  Banifhment,  ' 
that  which  was  properly  Judaa  fell  not  to  his  (hare  ;   And  it  is  not 
probable  that  his  Government  (hould  outlafl:  the  Favour  of  Pallas  with 
Nero,  which  mightily  declined  in  hfs  fecond  year.     After  Saint  PauVs 
coming  to  R^we,  Saint  L»(^e  faith^  he  abode  there  (^)  two  years.  But(5)Aa.»8. 
((6)    Majfutius  obferves  from  the  Circumjiances  of  St.   Paul's  Voyage,  p^;[v,j(fut 
That  he  could  not  come  to  Rome  till  the  third  of  Nero.     So  that  he  je  vit.  si 
conld  not  have  his  liberty  till  the  fifth,   upon  occafion  of  the  Favours  Pauii./.ij. 
fhew'd,  as  he  conjeftures,  to  Prifoners  and  Exiles  on  the  Murder  of^*  *' 
Agrippina.    But  from  this  time  to  his  returning  to  Rome,   he  went  up(')  yiedi 
and  down  Preaching  the  Gofpel.  To  which  time  (»')  Godeau,  in  his^^-''^^^/* 

D  Life 


26  The  Antiqaities  of  ChapiL 

^ : -  .  .  . . — : ^- 

{k)y\Muu  l^ifg  tf/5^.  Paul,  allows  eight  years  :  (h)  Majjutiut  rather  more  5  (/} 
(*/ Eaton. -Brfrowzw  the  fame  ^    And  he  faith,   //  reas  tittje  enj>iigh  for  him  to  pafs 
A.  D.61.'  through  the  whole  World  5    Which  Maffutius  repeats  after  him.     The 
"■  ^-        Qpeftion  now  is,    Where  Saint  ?aul  employ 'd  all  this  time  ?     The  an- 
cient Writers  of  the  Church  generally  fay,  in  the  Wejiern  parts -^  foCle- 
(wiLCap.  f;fe„j^  Theodoret^  St.  Jerome,  Athanafius,  Epiphaniuf,  and  others.     But 
S%o  Ineed  nor  infift  on  particular  Teftimonies,  fince  the  only  Learned  (m) 
^o/.^/'fen.Perfon  who  hath  bppofed  this  Opinion  doth  ingenuoufly  confefs  it  to 
^'  ^^"       have  been  the  common  and  received  Opinion  of  all  the  Fathers.     And  1 
fee  noreafon,  by  any  thing  he  hath  produced,  to  recede  from  it.  For 
fuppofe  we  (hould  grant,  that  he  went  back  into  the  Eaftern  parts,  and 
vifited  the  Churches  there,  feme  part  of  this  time  ;  yet  there  is  enough 
ftill  left  for  St.  Paul  to  Preach  the  Gofpel  in  Britain  and  other  Weftern 
parts,  as  the  Fathers  fay  that  he  did.     And  if  we  compare  the  time 
fpentby  St.  Paul  in  his  former  Travels  in  the  Eaft,  and  allow  him  to 
ufe  an  equal  diligence  afterwards,  there  cannot  appear  any  improbabili- 
ty that  he  (hould  come  into  Britain,    and  eftablilb  a  Chriftian  Church 
here.    Three  Peregrinations  of  St.  Paul  we  have  an  Account  of  in  the 
[n)K&.i^.ABs  of  the  Jpojilet,  before  his  Voyage  to  Rome.     The  (»)  firft  is  of 
'4-  him  and  Barnabas,   from  Antioch  to  Seleuda,  Cyprus,  Perga,  Iconium^ 

Lyftra,  and  Derbe  oiLycaonia  ;  from  whence  they  returned  back  and 
fettled  the  Government  of  the  Churches  then  planted  by  them.     And 
('«)Aa.  14.  although  it  be  faid  (^)  that  they  abode  long  at  Iconium  and  Antioch, 
3'  ^-        yet  Cp)  Majfutius  (hews.    That  this  tvhole  Peregrination  took  tip  but  five 
i.^.-^c.9!^jears:    Which  is  as  much  as  (^)  Baronitts  aWoviS  from  the  beginning 
(5)Bjron.of  it,  to  the  Council  of  Jerufalem.     For  that  heplaceth  in  the  4th  of 
nira.  '^'^' Claudius,  and  this  in  the  ptb.     But  (r)  he  makes  their  return  to  Anti- 
(r)  A.  D  och  in  the  7tb,    fo  that  he  allows  but  three  years  to  the  founding  and 
49'"- 1,   fettling  fo  many  Churches.    After  the  Council  at  Jerufalem,    St,  Paul 
WAft.  15.  takes  another  Progrefsfrom  Antioch,  and  went  through  (^  Syria  and 
4''         Cilicia,  (romthencQ  to  Derhe  and  Lyjir a -^  and  fo  through  PArw-w,  and 
Galatia,  and  My/ta  5  and  then  from  Troas  croffed  the  Sea  into  Macedo- 
nia, Where  he  firft  Preached  at  Philippi,   a  Roman  Colony  :    And  from 
(*)An.i 8.  thence  pafied  to  Theffalonica,   zr\A  fo  to  Berrh£a,    Athens  and  (t)  Co- 
II,  1 8.    rifitfj,   where  he  tarried  a  year  and  fix  months  and  more,    and  then 
failed  into  Syria,  and  made  haft  to  Jerufalem,  and  fo  returned  to  An- 
(u)Eiron.  ttoch.    This  fecond  Progrefs  (»)  Baronius  reckoiis  from  the  ninth  of 
-^:^^5i.    c/,?«<s?/«/ to  the  twelfth,  and  half  the  time  was  fpent  at  Cm»M.    The 
(w)^a'ron.  third  was  again  from  Antioch  over  all  the  Countrey   of  Galatia  and 
A.D.  54.  Phrygia,  to  which  {jw)  Baronius  allows  a  years  time  5   And  the  next 
I's  'ijt^  ^^  fi'^cs  at  Ephefus,   where  St.  Paul  faith  he  (x)  tarried  three  years 
ix)kt\..io.  (not  exaftly,  but  the  far  greateft  part  of  it,  having  taught  {y  )  three 
f\\fL      months  in  the  Synagogue,  and  two  years  in  the  School  tf/Tyrannus.  )  From 
8,10.     '  Epheffs  he  goes  into  Macedonia  and  Achaia,   and  having  abode  there 
thf-ee  months,  he  returned  through  Macedonia  to  Troas,  and  from  thence 
he  went  to'Miletus,  whither  he  (ent  for  the  Elders  of  the  Churdh,  and 
(t)  Aft.  took  his  folemti  leave  of  them,  faying,  (&)  that  they  jhould  fee  hit  Face 
^°-^^'3^-fioinore.     From  Miletus  he  pafled  to  Phcenicia,   and  fo  to  Jerufalem^ 
where  he  was  kept /»(?  ^e«r/  in  cuftody,    and  then  fent  by  F(?/?«/  to 
Rome.      This  is  a  ftiort  account    of   St.   Paul's  labours   and   dili- 
gence in  Preaching  the  Gofpel  before  his  Imprifonment  at  Rome. 
And  we  cannot  fuppofe  a  Perfon  of  fuch  indefatigable  Induftry  and 
Pains,   (hould  lie  ftill  fo  many  years  after.    It  is  certain  he  thought 

he 


Chap.  I.  the  hritijh  Churches.  27 

heflionld  never  return  more  to  the  Eaftern  Parts,  when  he  faid  fo  folemn- 
ly,  I kttOTp  that  ye  alL,  among  whom  I  have  gone  Preaching  the  K.ing4omof 
God,  fitall  fee  my  Face  no  more.     Which  Words  do  not  only  concern 
the  Church  of  Ephefus,  but  all    the  other  Churches   planted  by  him 
in  the  Eaft  ^  And  this  he  fpeaks  not  as  his  fear  or  conjedure,  but  out 
of  certain  Knowledge.     And  therefore  it  is  not  probable  he  fhould  re- 
torn  into  the  Eaft,  nor,  if  he  did,  would  this  hinder  his  coming  into 
thefe  parts  afterwards,  where  he  might  plant  Churches  within  that  time.' 
But  it  is  objefted.  That  there  are  no  certain  Monuments  of  fuch  Churches 
planted  by  him  in  Italy,  Gaul,  Germany  or  Spain.     What  certain  Mo^ 
numents  arc  there  of  new  Churches  planted  by  him  in  the  Eaft  after  his 
return  ?  And  it  is  much  lefs  probable,  becaiife  the  Eaftern  Writers,  whoi 
(hould  know  beft,  allot  this  time  to  his  Preaching  in  the  Weft.     But  it 
is  well  obferved  by  the  Learned  (^d)  M.Velferus,  fpeaking  of  the  Preach- ,'^)  M.vd- 
ing  of  the  Apoftles,  St.  Veter  and  St.  Patd,  in  thefe  Wtftern  parts,  /hat.^f^-/:^^- 
vpe  are  not  to  judge  of  the  Planting  of  Churches  by  the  remaining  Annals  6. 
and  Monuments^  becaufe  on  the  one  fide  we  are  certain  that  their  found  went 
out  into  all  the  Earth  :  And  on  the  other ^  great  care  was  t alien  in  the  (eve- 
rat  Perfecutions,  efpecially  that  of  {^\o<:\tC\^n,  tobi&n  all  the  Monuments 
which  concerned  the  Chrijiian  Churches.     But  yet,  as  to  Britain,  we  have 
undoubted  Teftimony  of  a  Chriftian  Church  planted  here  by  the  Apo- 
Jlles,  and  by  none  fo  probably  as  St.  Paul..     For  Gildas  faith.  The  Go- 
Jpel  was  here  received  before  the  fatal  defeat  of  the  Britains   by  Suetonius 
Paulinus ;  which,  according  to  Sir  H.  Savil's  Fafli,  was  the  fevench  of 
Nero,  the  eighth  faith  Petavius :  And  St.  Paul  being  at  liberty  the  fifth» 
had  time  and  conveniency  enough  to  fettle  a  Chrijiian  Church  in  Britaift. 

(2.)  That  there  was  Incouragement  and  Invitation  enough  for  St. 
Paul  to  come  into  Britain,  not  only  from  the  Infinite  numbers  of  People^ 
which,  (b)  C<efar  faith,  were  here  in  his  time,  but  from  the  new  Set-(i)Ca:faf^ 
tlements  that  were  daily  making  here  by  th^Romans,  after  tbefirft  Sue-  '•  ^' 
cefs,  which  they  had  in  the  time  of  Claudius:  For  then  Colonies  vf  ere 
drawn  over  hither  5  knAnotonXy  Military  Colonies  fettled  for  the  fe- 
curity  of  the  Roman  Conquefls,  fuch  as  that  of  Camahdunum  is  defcri- 
bed  bv  (0  Tacitus,  formerly  the  Royal  Seat  (?/Cynobelin,  King  of  the  i')  Tacit. 
Trinobantes^  but  a\i^o  Civil  avd  Trading  Colonies,  fuch  as  London  was  (.  "o*. /i.* 
from  the  beginning,  and  therefore  commended  by  Tacitm  for  its  admi-  c  31. 
rable  Situation  for  Trading,  and  all   Accommodations  to  that  end^ 
and,  upon  the  beft  enquiry  I  can  make,  I  very  much  incline  to  believe 
it,  of  a  Roman  Foundation,  and  no  elder  than  the  time  of  Claudius  (^s 
will  be  made  appear  in  another  Difcourfe:  )  And  that  in  the  time  of 
Suetonius  Paulinus  it  was  inhabited  by  Romans  and  Britains  together, 
is  evident  from  Tacitus'.^  When  Suetonius  Paulinus  drew  out  the  Inha- 
bitants, the  City  not  being  then  defegfible  againft  the  Britains,  who  in 
that  Revolt  defiroyed  LXX  thoufand  Romans  and  their  Allies,  faith  Ta- 
citMf-^  But^<^    D/<?  faith,  two  Cities  (  London  and  Verulamz^  ^°'"  ^'^**'*' /.-/^Xipiri/, 
lodunum  was  deftroyed  before}  afid  Eighty  thoufand  Men.    This  waS/)  i^. 
a  time  of  fo  much  Diforder  and  Bloudflied,  That  Gildas  with  great 
reafon  places  the  Planting  of  Chriflianity  here  before  it.    And  St.  Paul 
might  have  fome  particular  incouragement  at  Rome  to  come  hither 
from  Pomponia  Gr£cina,  Wife  to  A.  Plautiuf,  the  Roman  Lieutenant  un- 
der tlaudius  in  Britain'^  For  that  (be  was  a  Chrifiian  appears  very  pro- 
bable from  the  account  Tacitus  gives  of  her  ^  (e)  He  faith,  fiie  was  'i^'^'^AnJiTr^^ 

Da  fed  ' 


28  Ihe  Antitjuities  of  Chap.  1. 

fed  of  foreign  Siiperjlition^  and  that  fo  far  as  to  endanger  her  Life -^   But 
her  Husband  clear'd  her,  fitting  as  Judge  iiccordwg  to  the  ancient  form  ^ 
andfje  lived  long  after,  hut  in  perpetual  fad  nefs.      If  Tacitus  were  to  de- 
fcribe  the  Primitive  Chrijiians,  he  would  have  done  ir  jaft  after  this  man- 
ner, Charging  their  Religion  with  Superjiition,  and  the  Severity  of  their 
Lives  (abftaining  from  all  the  Feajis  and  Jollities  of  the  Rowans)  as 
a  continual  Solitude.     It  was  the  way  of  the  Men  ot  that  time,  fuch  as 
(/)  ^^^^^^  (/)  Suetonius,  and  C^)  ?//»;,  as  well  as    h)  Tacitus,  to  fpeak  of  Chri- 
(l)  vlin.   ftianity  as  a  Barbarous  dinAWicked  Snperflition  (as  appears  by  their  Wri- 
£;/)?. /.lo.  tings)  being  forbidden  by  their  Laws  ^  which  they    made  the  only 
%^  Rule  of  Religion.     And  this  happen'd  when  Nero  and  Calphurnius  Fifo 

(h')ric\t.were  Confuls,  after  St.  P<?«/'s  coming  to  Rome.,  and  therefore  it  is  not 
.4/iW.  1 5- unreafonable  to  fuppofe  her  one  of  his  Converts,  by  whom  he  might 
eafily  be  informed  of  the  ftate  and  condition  of  Britain,  and  thereby 
be-more  incouraged  to  undertake  a  Voyage  thither.     It  is  certain  that 
*     St.  Paul  did  make  confiderable  Converts  at  his  coming  to  Rome  ^  Which 
is  the  reafon  of  his  mentioning  (i)  the  Saint  in  CaefarV  houfliold.    And 
it  is  not  improbable  that  fome  of  the  5r/V//&C<?p/ife/ carried  over  with  C*- 
4? 22"'     ^^^^cHs  and  his  FamUy,  might  be  fome  of  them  ^  who  would  certainly 
promote   the  Converfion  of  their  Country  by  St.  Paul.     But  I  cannot 
(^)Mon-  affirm,  as  (y&)  M(?»c^/«j  doth,  Tj6rf/ Claudia,  mention  d  by  St.  Paul,  was 
Ticlmb  ^  Caraftacus  his  Daughter,  and  turn'd  Chrijiian,  and  after  married  to  Pu- 
Regiu  kc-  dens  a  Roman  Senator  ^  whofe  Marriage  is  celebrated  by  Martial  in  his 
clef.  cl:ri.„gfg^  Epigrams  to  that  purpofe.     It  is  certain  that  Claudia  Rufina  was  a 
Britlnn! '  Britain,  who  is  fo  much  commended  by  (/)  Martial  fox  her  Wit  and 
(/)  Marti-  Beauty.     But  if  thefe  Epigrams  were  written  in  Trajan's  time,  as  is  very 
j''/}'^;[^' probable.  It  is  fomewhat  of  the  lateft  for  the  Daughter  of  Cara&acus 
ep.si.  '  who  came  in  Claudius  his  time  to  Rome.     But  {m)  Alford  digefts  all 
(OTjAKord  this  well  enough,  only  he  is  extremely  concern'd,  lefl  Jhe  flwuldbe  made 
fuf^A^'.t^e  Apofile  tf/ Britain,  and  preach  here  before  St.  Peter.     But  the  («)  An- 
5?.n.  T,(5  thor  of  the  Antiquitates  Britannica;,  whom  he  refleds  upon,  faith  no 
^Bntin"^'  ^"^^  tbing  as  he  would  impute  to  him.     He  only  faith.  That  ifjhe  were 
a  Chrijiian  fje  rpould  acquaint  her  ■Conntrywe7t  as  much  rvith  the  Chrijiiatt 
Do^rine  as  jhe  did  before  with  MartialV  Wit.     Wherein  there  is  no 
Profanenefs  or  Abfurdity.     But  he  adds,  that  in  fo  noble  a  Family,  The 
reft  of  her  kindred  who  were  baptized  with  her  might  be  the  Occajions  of 
difperfing  Chrijlianity  in  the  Britifh  Nation.     So  that  there  was  no  need, 
for  his  bidding  Claudia  to  keep  at  home,  and  make  room  for  St.  Peter  to 
come  to  Britain  to  preach  the  Qofpel.     But  if  this  Claudia  were  St.  P<r«/'s 
Difciple,  why  might  not  (he  excite  that  Aprflle  to  go  into  her  Country, 
to  plant  Chrifiianity  there,  as  he  had  done  with  fo  much  Succefs  in  o- 
ther  Places?  And  whether  St.  Peter  or  St.  Paul  were  more  probably  the 
Apojile  of  Britain^  is  now  to  be  confidered.     And  I  affirm, 

(5.)  That  St.  Paul  was  the  moft  likely  to  come  hither  of  any  of  the 
Apoftles.  The  feveral  Traditions  about  St.  James,  Simon  Zelotes  and  Phi- 
lip, are  fo  deftitute  of  any  ancient  Teftimony  or  Probability,  that  the 
Competition  among  the  Apoflles  can  lie  only  between  St.  ^e/erand  St.  Paul. 
Some  Writers  of  our  Church  Hiftory  have  endeavoured  for  particular 
Reafons,  to  prove  St.  Peter  to  have  preached  the  Gofpel  in  jBrzV4/» 5  But 
their  Proofs  are  very  flight  and  inconfiderable,  and  depend  chiefly  on 
the  aurhoriry  of  Simeon  Metaphrafies  or  other  Legendary  Writers^  or 
feme  AJonkifl}  F/Jionsi  or  fome  Domefluk  Tejiimotii^s  of  his  pretended 

Sue- 


C  H  A  p.  I.  the  hntifb  Cburcbes.  29 


SuccefTors,  or  fotne  late  partial  Acivocatesy  fuch  as  (o)  Eyfc»gre»iuf  ^  who'")  Eyfca- 
profelTes  to  follow  Metaphrajles.     All  which  together  are  not  worth  f  p"','^'"!' 
mentioning  incomparifon  with  the  Authors  on  the  other  fide;  I  fhall '^//?. 8. 
therefore  examine  the  Probability  of  the  thing  from  the  Circnmflancts 
of  St.  ?eter^  as  I  did  before  from  thofe  of  >t.  ?aul ;  and  I  (hali  endea- 
vour to  (hew.  That  his  bufinefs  lay  quite  another  way,  and  that  there 
is  no  probable  Evidence  of  his  coming  hither. 

I  take  it  for  granted,  that  the  ApojiLer  were  employ 'd  according  to 
theTenour  of  their  Commijjions,  viz.  That  the  Apoflle  of  the  Circumci- 
fionv/zs  to  attend  the  Jews,   and  of  the  %)ncircumcipon  the  Gentiles. 
Now  St.  Paul  faith.  That  (p)  the  Go/pel  of  theZJncircumci/jon  was  co/u-(p)  Gal. 
ifiitted  to  him,    as  the  Gofpel  of  the  Circumcifion  teas  unto  Peter.     Thif,  ^-  7- 
,(^)  Baroniuf- (aith,  was  agreed  at  the  Council  at  Jerufalem.     But  he  will  (^)  Baron 
not  have  it  to  be  fuch  a  diftribution  of  diflinii  Provinces,   as  that  the  ^-  ^-  5i-, . 
one  upon  no  occafion  (liould  meddle  with  the  Gentiles,   nor  the  other  %  *fp^*^' 
^Niih  the  Jews :    iiut  yet  he  grants,  that  the  Apofllefiip  oftheGentDes 
tfas  in  a  particular  manner  committed  to  St.  Paul,    as  of  the  Jews  to  St. 
Peter.     And  whatever  they  might  do  ^r<:<j/(7»<zZ^jj/,    This,  as  he  proves 
from  (r)  St.  Jerome,    was  the  Principal  Mandatum,     the  Main  of  the  ..„ 
Commijflon  to  either  of  them.      Which  being  fuppofed.    It  necelfarily  ;« £p.  ^li  ' 
follows,    that  St.  Pe/er's  chief  Employment  muft  be  where  the  greateft  <^^'- "^^  *• 
vumhers  of  Jews  were.     And  from  hence  {s)  Petrus  de  Marca  infers,  (^^Pet  de 
That  St.  Peter,  having  preached  to  the  Jews  in  Jud£a,  employed  him-  Marc  </« 
feif  in  converting  the  Jews  abroad  both  of  the firfl  and  fecond  Difperfi-  ^'77^" '' 
on.     The  latter  were  chiefly  in  Egypt,  at  Alexandria,    where  he  fettled 
Mark  the  Bifiop  over  the  converted  Jews.    From  thence  he  went  to  An- 
iioch  ;  from  thence  to  Babylon,  where  the  Head  of  the  firfi  Difperfion 
lived  5    And  in  this  City^   he  faith,     he  wrote  his  Epijile  to  thofe  difperfid 
J^WS,    over  whofe  Synagogues  the  Patriarch  o/ Babylon  had  Jurifdi&ion. 
Clemens  Romanus  takes  no  notice  at  all  of  St.  Peter  %  Preaching  in  the 
jWeftern  parts,  as  hedothof  St.  Prf«/s.     But  (0  Ettfebius,  from  Or igeu  (t)  Euieh. 
•faith.    That  St  Peter  preached  to  the  difperfed  Jews  in  Pontus,  Galatia,-^^-^-?. 
Bithynia,    Cappadocia,   &c.    And  («)   Epiphaniifs,    even  where  he[^)'Epi- 
fairh.  That  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  did  both  conjiitHte  Bifljops  at  Rome,  phan.«er'» 
upon  their  going  thence  to  preach  the  Gofpel  in  other  places  :^    yet  he  adds,  ^7*  ^'^' 
That  St.  Paul  went  towards  Spain,  hut  St.  Peter  frequently  vifited  Pontus 
tfWBithynia,  which  was  very  agreeable  tothedefign  of  his  CommifS-  ' 
on,  there  being  fo  ^reat  a  number  of  Jews  in  thofe  parts.    And  Pontus 
and  £ith)inia  feem  to  have  been  referved  as  the  peculiar  Province  of  St. 
Peter:,    For  when  St.  /'^w/ attempted  to  go  into  Bi/i&;/«»rf,  (w)  ^ew<»,  ^^^^ 
forbidden  hy  the  Spirit,  which  then  commanded  him  to  come  into  Eu-16.7. 
rope.    And  fo  he  made  for  M<z<:e<^<?«/^.     {x)  Baronius  gr&nts,  that  St.,  .^^^^^ 
Peter  fpent  the  greateji  part  of  his  time  in    the  Eajlern  parts^    but  about  a  D.  $8. 
Anno  Dom.  58.  he  finds  him  employed  in  the  Weji,  and  particularly  /«-"  *'• 
mong  the  Britains.     But  what  ancient  authority,    according  to  bis  own 
Rule,  doth  he  produce  for  it  >     He  names  none  but  Metaphraftes,  and 
yet  as  it  falls  out  unluckily,  when  the  fame  Metaphrajles  his  authority 
is  produced,  for  6"^.  Paul  s  preaching  in  the  Wejiern  parts,  he  is  apparent- 
ly flighted  by  him  ( y  '  and  for  the  very  fame  Reafon,  which  holds  a-  ^j  ^.  £> 
gainfV  the  former  Teftimony,    viz.  for  quoting  things  out  of  Eufebius,  6i  n  4'   , 
vphichare  not  to  be  found  in  him.    And  elfewhere  he  faith,  (z,J  he  is  ofno,  .  .  p 
authority  in  the fe  matters.     But  Metaphrajles  his  Teftimony  ferves  to  34^.  «.  3V 
goodpurpofe  in  St.  I  eter$  Cafe,  viz.,  to  clear  a  confiderable  difficulty, 

how 


30  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  I. 

!_• — — — — — , '. \ i^ 

howSr.  Jeter,  if  then  Bidiop  oi  Rome,  fbould  not  then  be  taken  notice 
of  by  St.  Paul,  when  he  wrote  his  Ep/Jtle   to  the  Romans,     To  which 
he  anfvvers.  That  St.  Peter  came  to  Rome  the  fecond  tf/CIaudins,    but  her 
ing  bamjJjed  thence  with  other  Jews  the   7t'wth  of  Claudius,     he  [pent  thb 
time  then  in  preaching  the  Go/pel  in  other  places,  and  jo  very  convenient- 
ly yf«i3^/  him  in  Britain,   when  St.  Paul  wrote  his  Rpijlle  to  the  Romans, 
which  he  placeth  in  the  fecond  of  Nero.     But  it  is  by  no  means  pro- 
f.rj  v^lef.  bable,  faith  (a)  Valejins,    That  St,  Peter  pjonld  come  to  Rome  before  the 
'/' 2.Vi6.<^'^^^'^  ^/ Herod  Agrippa.     And  {bi  BaroHius  W\x\\,    That  after  hk  being 
(b)Biron. delivered  out  of  prifon,  he  went  to  Csefarea,  Laodicea  and  Antioch    (  ac- 
A.D.^  cording  to  his  own  Author  Mefaphrajles )  and  then  into  Cappadocia, 
FontHs,  Galatia,  and  Bithynia,  and  lb  returned  by  Avtioch  to  Jerufalem.  So 
that  if  Metaphrajlcs  his  authority  be  good  for  any  thing,  St.  Feter  could 
hardly  come  to  Rome  the  fecond  of  Claudius  :     And  if  the  death  of 
Agrippa  followed  foon  after  the  delivery  of  St.  leter,  as  Valejiia  thinks, 
and  St.  Luke  feems  to  intimate  ,  then  he  could  not  be  at  Rome  till  the 
fourth  of  Claudius^  for  all  agree  that  J^rz/)/><r  died  that  year.     So  that 
there  is  no  certainty  of  St.  Peter's  coming  to  Rome  the  fecond  of  Claudi- 
us.    Yet  let  that  be  fuppofed,    Jnd  that  St.  Peter  went  from  Rome  on 
the  Editl  tf/Claudius.     What  makes  him  fo  longabfent  from  thence  as 

(c)  Rom.  to  the  fecond  of  Nero,  when  ic)  St.  Paul  in  his  Epijile  to  the  Romans 
'°-  3-       falutes  Aquila  and  Prifcilla  as  then  prefent  at  Rome,  who  certainly  left 

(d)  Aft.  it  before  on  the  (d)  Account  of  that  Ediif.  So  that  this  Ed/ii  could  be 
18.2        no  reafon  of  his  being  abfent  from  Rome  at  the  time  of  this  Epifile. 

But  it  falls  out  unhappily.  That  though  St.  Peter  be  made  by  Baronius 
and  others,  Bifhop  of  Rome  for  twenty  five  years,  yet  he  can  never  be 
found  in  bis  own  Diocefc  in  all  that  time  before  his  Martyrdom  5  But 
one  excufe  or  other  is  ftill  found  for  his  abfence,  v^hen  there  were  fe- 
veral  remarkable  Tranfadions  which  muft  have  difcovered  him  if  he 
bad  been  at  Rome  ;  As  not  only  upon  St.  Pauls  writing  this  Epifile  to 
the  Romans,  but  upon  St.  Paul's  coming  to  Rome,  upon  his  writing  fo 
many  Epfiles  from  thence,   upon  the  defence  he  made  for  himfelf, 

(e)  2 Tim.  \yhen  he  faith  (e)  that  all  forfook  him.  What  St.  Feter  too  ?  So  that 
fz/uft-  upon  the  whole  matter,  the  Opinion  of  (/)  La^antius  in  his  late  pu- 
anc.  de  bliflied  Book,  feems  moft  agreeable  to  truth,  That  St.  Peter  came  not  to 
kT'c  2!^  f^^"^^  "''  *^^  ^^'^"  "/Nero,    and  not  long  before  his  Martyrdom  ;     And 

'  '\  this  Baluzius  confefles  to  have  been  the  mod  ancient  and  received  Opini- 
/  on  in  the  Church,  lince  LaSantms  never  difputes  it :  And  what  he  faith 
of  the  twenty  five  years  wherein  the  Apofiles  planted  Churches,  was  in  like- 
lihood the  occafion  of  that  miftaken  Tradition  concerning  .Jf.  PeterV  be- 
ing twenty  five  years  B  fljop  of  Rome.  So  much  may  ftiffice  to  (hew  the 
greater  probability,  That  the  Chriftian  Church  in  Britain  was  rather 
founded  by  St.  Paul  than  by  St.  Peter  or  any  other  Apofile. 


CHAP. 


Chap.  I.  the  Eritijl  Churches,  3 1 


T^<»r 


CM  A  P.    II 

Of  the  Succeffion  of  the  Britijh  Churches  to 
the  firfl:  Council  of  Nice, 

'"If^  HE  Tejl'imony  of  Tertullian   concerning  them  cleared. 

P         It  extends  only  to  Britains. 

The  Natiotial  Conyerfion  of  the  Scots  under  JjQng  Donald  fahu*' 
bus. 

Of  Dempfler'i  old  Annals, 

Profper  fpeaks  not  of  the  Scots  in  Britain. 

Tertullian  to  he  under  flood  of  the  Provincial  Britains  as  well  as 
others. 

The  Teflimony  of  Sulpitius  Sever  us  examind. 

Several  Tejhmonies  of  Origcn  concerning  the  Britifh  Churches  in 
his  time. 

The  different  Traditions  about  iQng  Lucius. 

The  State  of  the  Roman  TroVince  here,  overthrows  his  being 
i{jng  oVer  all  Britain. 

Great  probability  there  was  fuch  a  l\jng  in  fome  part  of  it,  and 
then  converted  to  Chrijiianity, 

A  ConjeBure  propofed  in  what  part  of  Britain  he  reigned. 

The  moft  probable  means  of  his  ConVerfion^  and  the  Story  cleared 
from  Monkifh  Fables. 

Of  Dioclefian'f  ^erfecution  in  Britain,  and  the  flopping  of  it  ly 
the  means  of  Conftantius. 

Tlye  ^ourifimg  of  the  Britifli  Churches  under  Conftantine. 
-    The  reafon  only  of  three  B''itifli  !Bip?ops  prefent  at  the  Council  of 
Aries. 

77?^  great  Antiquity  of  Epif copal  Government  here. 

Of  the  f  lamines  and  Archflamincs  of  GeofFery  of  Monmouth; 
how  far  agreeable  to  the  Koma.n  Conflitution, 

Maximinus  fet  up  a  Tagan   Hierarchy  in  imitation  of  the  Chri" 
fltayi. 

'The  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Aries  not  fent  to  the  ^ope  to  con- 
firm, but  to  piiblifh  them, 

Av^i>g  (hew'd  the  gre^t  probability  of  the  planting  a  Chrifti- 

^n.  Church  here  in  the  Apoftles  time,  and  that  by  St.  Paul  5 

I  am  now  to  confider,  the  Sncajpon  of  this  Chutch  5  of  which 

we  have  undoubted  Evidence  from  the  unqueftionable  Tefti- 

monief 


^2  _      The  Antiquities  of  ChAp  I, 

monies  of  TertulUan  and  Origen,  who  mention  it  as  a  thing  fo  very 
well  known.  That  they  ufe  it  as  an  Argument  againft  the  Jeir/,  to  prove 
Cfiriji  to  have  been  the  promifed  Mejjias^  becaufe  the  Ml tervto^  parts  of  the 
Earth  ivere  given  for  hk  Pojfejfion.  Terfnllian  flourKhed,  as  St.Jerowe  faith, 
under  Severus  and  his  Son  ;  And  in  the  time  of  Severus  he  wrote  againft 
(d)Bjron.  the  Jervs,  as  (rf)  Baronius  proves  from  feveral  Paflages  in  that  Book. 
A.D  zio-Y^  his  time  the  Affairs  of  Britain  were  very  well  underftood  in  other 
""  '^'        parts  of  the  Roman  Empire,  efpecially  by  Men  fo  learned  and  inquifi- 
tive  as  TertulUan     For  Clodiuf  Albintis  having  kt  up  for  the  Empire  in 
Britain^  and  being  beaten  by  Severus  near  Lyons,  he  took  care  to  fecure 
this  Province  by  fending  Firi»s  Lupus,  his  Lieutenant,  hither.     But 
things  growing  troublefome  here,  Severus  himfelf  undertook  an  Expediti- 
on hither,  and  brought  the  Britains  to  luch  Terms,  That  they  were  con- 
tented to  live  beyond  the  Wall  which  Severus  built  ^  where  Hadrian's 
Wall  had  been  before.    The  part  of  Britain  beyond  the  Wall  was  cal- 
(b)  Dio/nied  Caledonia,  as  (^)  Dio  faith.     And  it  is  apparent,  that  the  Romans 
^^''"'      were  at  that  time  fully  acquainted  with  the  Condition  of  the  Britains, 
both  within  the  Province,  and  withopt^  and  therefore  TertulUan  CAn- 
(e)  Ter-    not  be  fuppofed  to  fpeak  at  random  about  this  matter,  when  (c)  he 
Tudios  c.  mentions  the  Nations  of  Gaul  and  the  Britains,  with  as  much  afTurance 
7.      '    as  he  doth  his  Countrymen,  f^e  Moors,  for  receiving  Chrifiianity^  And 
faith.  The  Kingdom  of  Chrift  was  advanced  among  them,  and  that  Chrift 
was  folemnly  tporfiipped  by  them.     TertulUan  was  a  man  of  too  much  un- 
derftanding  to  expofe  himfelf  to  the  contempt  of  the  Jews,  by  men- 
tioning this  as  a  thing  fo  well  known  at  that  time,  if  the  Britains  were 
then  known  to  be  no  Chriftians ;  Or,  if  they  had  been  fuch,  and  were 
Returned  to  Barbarifm,  the  Argument  would  have  been  ftronger  againft 
him.    When  therefore  fuch  a  Paflage  doth  not  fall  by  chance  from 
fuch  a  Writer,  but  the  force  of  an  Argument  depends  upon  it,  it  is  of 
fo  much  greater  weight.    How  ridiculous  would  it  appear  for  a  man  to 
prove  that  Popery  is  the  Catholick  Religion,  by  inftancing  not  only  in 
Italy  and  Spain,  as  the  Nations  where  it  isuniverfally  received  ^  but  in 
Great  Britain,  and  Denmark,  and  Sweden  .<?  No  lefs  was  the  abfurdity 
than  to  prove  Chriji's  univerfal  Kingdom  by  enumerating  Gaul  and  Bri- 
tain  with  other  Nations  where  Chriji  was  worfhipped,  if  there  were 
no  Chriftian  Churches  at  that  time  in  being  among  them. 
>  ,  But  there  are  two  Objeftions  againft  this  Paffage  of  TertulUan,  which 
ihuft  be  removed,     (i.)  That  h€  fpeaks  of  that  part  of  Britain  which 
was  not  under  the  Roman  Power,  and  the  Converfion  of  it  is  faid  to 
(({)  For-   ^^  ^^^^'*  *h^"  ^°  b^  ^^""^  mention'd  by  TertulUan  :  For  (c?)  ^oh.  Fordon 
don./.  3.  and  (er)Joh.  Maior,  from  an  ancient  Difticb  in  both  of  them 

de  Gejh         ,         (Chtifti  tranfa&is  tribuf  annff  atque  ducentis 
Scot.  /.I.  Scotia  CathoUcam c«pit  inire  Fidem. ) 


c.  14. 


fay.  That  the  Chriftian  Religion  was  received  in  Scotland  in  A.  D.  203. 
about  the  feventh  of  Severus.  But  this  was  fo  little  a  time  before  Ter- 
tulUan's  Writing,  that  it  could  hardly  be  fo  well  known  in  Africa,  as 
to  afford  ftrength  to  an  Argument  againft  the  Jews. 

To  which  I  anfwer.  That  it  is  true,  TertulUan  doth  add  the  greater 
Emphafts  to  his  Argument  by  faying,  Et  Britannorum  inacceffa  Roma- 
nis  loca,  Chrifto  vero  fubdita,  the  Gofpel  had  accefs  to  thole  parts  6f 
5/-i/4m  whether  the  Romans  had  none.  Which  doth  prove,  that  Chri- 
5"u  -rri  ftianity 


Chap.  I.  the  Bnti/h  Churches.  3  3 

ftianity  was  then  received  beyond  the  Wall,  but  not  by  the5f<?/x,  who 
were  not  yet  fettled  in  thofe  parts ;    But  by  the  old  Britalns,    who 
were  driven  thither,  as  appears  by  the  Account  given  by  Cf)  XiphiH/j  (f)x\^hi\, 
oat  of  Dio,   who  faith,    that  /AeBritains  were  divided  into  two  forts^'"^^"^'^'^' 
the  Maeatae  and  the  Caledonii^    2 he  former  dwelt  by  the  Wall^    and  the 
latter  beyoMd  the/ft.     Thefe  were  the  Ext raprovi»cial  Britains,  and  were 
diftinft  both  from  the  Piffs  and  the  Scots,  faith  (g)  John  Fordon,  who(?)For- 
carefully  diftinguiOieth  thefe   three  Nations  when  he  fpeaks  of  their  J°;";^f]^' 
Wars  with  the  Romans  ;     And  he  makes  Fulgentius  the  Head  of  the  3. 'c,  36.' 
Britains  of  Albany  in  the  time  of  Severus  \    But  he  fuppofes  both  the 
Scots  and  ?/"<?/  to  have  been  in  the  Northern  parts  long  before,    and 
that  the  Scots  received  the  Chriftian  Faith  in  thetimeof  i'er/erASf,  ViUor 
being  then  Bifliop  of  Rome,  who  fucceeded  Eleutherius  ^  To  whom,  faith 
(A)    He3or  Boethius,    King  Donald  fent  Embajffadors,    to  defire  him  to  (/j)Heftor. 
find  Rcrfonsfit  to  in/iru^  them  in  the  Chrijiian  Faith.     And  trpon  thk,  Both. /.j. 
faith  he,  it  was  generally  received  in  Scotland,     "*"  Dempifer,  according  C*Demp. 
to  his  cuftom,  is  very  warm  in  this  matter,  and  faith,  all  their  Annalsfier.Appa. 
and  Hijiories  agree,  that  King  Donald  and  the  whole  JCingdom  of  Scot-  ^^{a^^ot. 
land  did   then  embrace  Chrijiianity  -^    And  is  angry  with  Baronius  for  i.  i.e. 6. 
putting  off  their  Converfion  to  the  time  of  Palladius.     But  notwith-  ^^'^f  j' 
ftanding  all  his  boaftingof  the  confent  of  Annals  and  Hijiories,  the  Sco-  j„  Valla-  ' 
tichroaicon  is  the  only  Authority  he  hath  to  produce  :     And  in  his  Pre-  dio. 
face  he  faith.    That  King  Edward  I.  dejiroyd  all  the  Monuments  of  the 
Kingdom  5  and  it  is  fomewhat  unreafonable  to  complain  of  the  want., 
and  to  alledge  the  confent  of  them  at  the  fame  time.  And  befides,  he  pro- 
duceth  fomething  out  of  Fordon  concerning  PafchaJiHs  of  Sicily,    being 
fent  by  Vi(3or  into  Scotland,  and  returning  with  a  MelTage  from  King 
Donald,    which  is  not  to  be  found  in  Fordon.     But,  as  (0  Baronins  (i)  Bzron. 
obferves.    It  isjlrange,  that  fo  remarkable  a  Converfion  flmdd  be  omitted  '^■O-  4^?' 
not  only  by  Bede,    but  by  Marianus  Scotus,    who  mentions  the  Mijfion  of'  ^' 
Palladius.     And  {Iz)  Yrofper  fmh,  Vpon   the  Mijpon  of  PaWsd'ms,  rvho  (^j^-^p^of, 
was  made  the  firfi  Bifiop  over  the  Scotiflb  Chrifiians,    the  feople,  who  were  per.  conr, 
barbarous  before,  were  made  Chrifiians.  tfnf,"'"'^ '" 

But  it  is  urged  by  Dempfier,  not  without  fhew  of  Authority,  that  Pal- 
ladius  was  fent  to  thofe  which  were  already  Chrifiians,    and  therefore 
Chriftianity  muft  be  planted  among  the  Scots  before  the  Mijfion  of  Pal" 
ladius  ;    and  for  this  he  quotes  Beda,    Ado  Viennenps,  Hermannus  Con- 
iraSuf,  Marianus  Scotus,  and  others ;  and  he  blames  Platina  and  Ciac- 
conius  who  make  him  the  Infirument  of  their  Converfion,    wherein   he    • 
confeffeth  they  follow  Fabius  Ethel werd  and  Ingulphus  ;    but  he  takes 
no  notice,    that  Profper  himfelf,    in  his  Chronicon,   affirms  the  fame; 
thing,  and  the  others  have  it  from  him.    So  that  Profper  makes  the 
Scots  to  be  converted  by  PaSadius,  and  to  have  been  Chrifiians  before 
his  time  ^    which  are  inconfiftent :     But  (/)  Nennius  feemS  to  have  (/)  Nenm 
hit  upon  the  true  account  of  this  matter,  viz.  That  Pa\zdvjiS  was  fent  by'^-  55. 5^- 
Celeftine/tf  convert  the  Scots,  but  finding  no  great  fuccefs  therein,  he  was 
driven  on  the  Coafts  ^/Britain,  and  there  died  :     And  after  hk  death,  Sf 
Patrick  was  fent  on  the  fame  Errand.     And,  if  the  Writers  of  bis  Life 
may  be  believed,  Palladius  did  very  little  towards  the  Converfion  of 
the  Scots  i,    And  therefore  v/hztProfper  faith  of  Celefiine's  making  a  bar" 
barous  Nation  Chrifiian,  muft  be  uriderftoodof  his  tiefign  and  good  In- 
tention, and  not  of  the  Event,  which  came  not  to  pafs  till  fome  time 
after  5    and  chiefly,  by  tile  means  of  St.  Patrick,    who  w^nt  after  the 

E  death 


I 

^34  1  be  Antiquities,  of  Chap.  I. 

death  oi  Palladium  :  Unlefs  we  underftand  the  Words  of  Profper,  of 
thofe  who  were  made  Chriftians  at  the  time  ofhk  Writing  ;  the  Defign 
whereof  being  laid  by  Palladium  is  therefore  attributed  to  him,  when 
he  wrote  againft  Cajfian,  fometime  after  the  death  of  Celeftine :  But 
when  he  wrote  his  Chronicon,  in  the  time  of  Leo,  The  Scots  being  then 
^converted  ^  he  faith,  That  Palladius  was  appointed  to  be  Bifiop  over  the 
believing  Scots.  Not  that  they  did  then  believe  before  Palladium  his 
coming,  but  that  they  did  norv  believe  mhen  he  wrote  his  Chronicon.  For 
all  the  Teftimonies  of  fuch  as  Preached  there  before  Palladius  are  of 
very  little  Credit.  But  nothing  of  all  this  relates  to  the  Scots  in  Bri- 
tain ^  but  to  the  original  Scots  in  Ireland,  who  were  uncapable  of  a 
National  Converfion  in  Britain,  fo  long  before  they  came  to  fettle  in 
it,  as  will  appear  afterwards :  So  that  if  there  were  any  Converfion 
of  Scots  before  the  Mijjlon  of  Palladius,  it  cannot  at  all  refpeft 
this  Place  of  Tertul/ian,  who  fpeaks  only  of  the  Britains,  and  not 
of  the  Scots. 

And  Dio  knew  of  none  but  Britains  that  lived  Northward  in  that 
Expedition  of  Severuf,  although  he  faith,   he  went  to  the  utmojl  extent 
of  the  Ijland,    and  at  laji  concluded  a  Peace  with  the  Britains  upon  their 
quitting  no  /mail  part  of  their  Countrey,    although  they  foon  revolted  ; 
So  that  here  was  a  great  number  of  Britains  to  be  converted  in  thpfe 
Places,  where  the  Romans  never  had  been  before  Severut  his  laft  Expe- 
dition :     Which  the  Scotifi  Hijiorians  apply  to  the  Converfion  of  their 
Nation,  who  were  not  yet  come  into  Britain.    But  allowing  that  there 
were  Churches  planted  among  the  Northern  Britains,    this  doth  noto- 
verthrow  the  continuance  and  propagation  of  the  Chriftian  Church  a- 
mong  the  Provincial  Britains  ;    For  now,   for  a  long  time,  the  Chri- 
ftian Religion  had  a  great  Liberty  of  propagating  it  felf ;   For,  from 
the  time  of  Hadrian  to  Severus,  the  Chriftians  were  generally  free  from 
Perfecution,   excepting  what  the  Rage  of  the  People  brought  upon 
them  in  fome  Places,    without  any  Edi^  of  the  Emperors,    as  in  the 
time  of  the  Antonini  both  at  Rome,  in  G^«/,  and  fome  parts  of  the  Eaft  : 
But  thefe  Perfecutions  were  neither  general,  nor  continued  fo  long  as 
when  the  Emperors  publifhed  Edifts  on  purpofe  ^    and  therefore,  the 
Perfecutions  under  Trajan  and  the  Antonini,  ought  in  reafon  to  be  di- 
ftinguiftied  from  thofe  under  Neroax\A  Domitian,  Decius  and  Dioclefian^ 
when  the  Emperors  made  it  their  bufinefs  to  root  out  Chriftianity. 
But  in  the  former  Cafe,  the  Emperors  reftrain'd  the  People  by  their  £- 
diSIs,  but  the  People  in  fome  Places  by  falfe  Suggeftions  fruftrated  the 
defign  of  thofe  Edi&s,  which  Places  excepted,  the  Chriftians  enjoy'd  a 
long  time  of  Liberty  ^  In  which  they  neglefted  no  opportunities  to 
(m)jMm.  promote  their  Religion.     And  within  this  time  the  Chriftian  Writers 
Tryph.  p.  ^^y,  There  was  no  Nation  almoji  then  known,   where  Chriflianity  was  not 
345-        planted.  So  («?)  Juftin  Martyr  tells  Trypho  5  fo  («)  Eufebius  and  {<>)  Ruf- 
^'^^^"'^^•jp/z/j-  fpeak?    and  (p)  I.a&antius  h\th.    That  Chrtjlianity  fpread  it  felf 
1. 5.  c.  zi.  into  the  Eaji  and  Weji,  fo  that  there  was  fear ce  any  Corner  of  the  Earth  fo 
(o)Ruffin./.  remote  whither  it  had  not  pierced,  no  Nation   fo  barbarous   that   was 
(9)  Laft-  »ot  reduced  by  it.     As  to  Britain,    Gddas  affirms  the  continuance    of 
ant.  de     a  Church  here,   from  the  firft  Plantation  of   the  Gofpel,    though  not 
fec.c'.T,.    Maintain  d  with  equal  Zeal,    to  the  Perfecution  <?/ Dioclefian  5   and  e- 
(7)Bed. /.  ven   that  was  fo  far  from  deftroying   it,    that  it  gained   ftrength 
/r)*'Gi:d    ^"*^  reputation  by  the  Courage  of  Confffors  and  Martyrs  x,    and  the 
§.  8.        heat  of  it   was  no  fooner  over,    but,  as  (y)  Bede  and  (r)  Oildas 

both 


C  H  A  p.  I.  the  BrJtifh  Churches.  3  4 

■  ■ __i -__ , '        '   , 

both  fay.  The  Chrijiian  Church  flovrijijed  again  in  great  Peace  and.  Unity 
till  the  ^rhn  UereCie gd'ZJe  it  di^Hrbance. 

(2.)  It  is  objefted,  That  (s)  Sulpiciut  Severus^  fpeaking  of 'the  Per-W^uipic- 
fecution  of  Chrijiian i  in  Gaul  in  the  time  of  M.  JureliusAnto»imif,f''^Q\^ 
faith.  That  Martyrdoms,  were  then  firjl ,feen  in  Gaul,  the  Chrijiian  Reli- 
gion being  more  lately  received  beyond  the  Alpes.     Which  feems  to  over- 
throw the  Antiquity  of  the  Britannick  aS  well  aS  the  Gallich  Churches, 
But  in  my  opinion  (after  fo  many  Difcourfes  written  in  a  neighbour 
Nation  about  this  PalTage)  we  are  to  diftinguirti  that  which  SulpiciusSe- 
verus  abfolutely  affirms,  viz.  That  there  were  no  Martyrdoms  in  Gaul 
hejore  that  time ;  From  that  which  he  fuppofes  to  have  been  the  reafon, 
of  it,  viz.  That  the  Chrijiian  Religion  was  more  lately  received  on  this  fide 
the  Alpes.    The  other  he  was  certain  of,  there  being  no  authentick  Re- 
lation of  any  Martyrdoms  there  before  ^  but  that  which  he  affignsasthe. 
reafon  of  it,  hath  no  fuch  certainty  in  it;  For  the  Chriftiau  Churches 
might  have  been  planted  there  before,  and  haye  efcaped  that  Perfecu- 
tion  which  befell  the  Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienne  in  the  time  of 
M  Aurelius  :  He  might  as  well  have  argued,  that  Chriftianity  was  not 
here  received  till  a.  little  before  the  Perfecution  of  Dioclefian,  be- 
caufe  we  read  of  no  Martyrdoms  before  thofe  of  St.  Alban,  Julius  and 
Aaron,  at  that  time.    But  if  there  were  no  Edi^  for  Perfecution  of 
Cbriftians  for  above  an  hundred  years  together,  viz.  from  the  Perfe- 
cution of  Domitian  Anno  Dom.  92.  to  the  EdiB  o{  Sever  us.  Anno  Dom. 
234.  then  it  was  very  poflible  that  there  might  be  Chriftiari Churches 
in  Gaul,  and  yet  no  Martyrdoms  till  the  Perfecution  under  M.  Aurelius 
by  a  popular  Tumult,  which,  as  (/)  Eufebius  tells  us,  was  the  feven- rO  Eufeb. 
teenth  year  of  his  Reign.    («)  Baronius  thinks  that  M.  KnxeWviS  fent''^'^-^^^^ 
private  Edi^s  againjl  the  Chriflians.^m  (w)  Tertullian  faith,  none  of  their  a.d.  kS^'j 
good  Emperors  ever  perjecnted  the  Chrifiians,  and  inftanceth  in  Trajan,  "■  '^• 
Hadrian,  Pius,  Verus  and  M.  Aurelius.     (x)  Eufebius  faith.  That  Tra-  [m.'^^I 
)an  abated  the  fercenefs  of  the  Perfecution,  but  left  the  Laws  in  force,  upon  c-  5- 
information.  That  Hadrian,  in  his  Refcript  to  Minutius  Fundanus,  Pro  {^^^^^^^' 
conful  of  Afia,  forbad  a  general  Perfecutien  of  any  as  Chrijlians  ^  That^i^  ^^^ 
Antoninus  Pius,  not  only  purfued  the  fame  method,  but  threatmd  fevere  c.i^. 
punifhment  to  all  Informers :  the  fame  he  faith  of  M.  Aurelius.     InCem- 
Modus  his  tipie,  he  faith,  the  Chrijiian  Churches  flourifhed  very  much  ia  I-  5-  c  5* 
*//  parts ;  So  that  till  Severus  his  Edi^  there  was  no  Perfecution,  by  '•  ^i* 
virtue  of  any  Ediif  of  the  Emperors;  by  the  account  which  Eufebius 
gives.     And  (y)  La&antius  hardly  allows  any  Perfecution  at  all  from  {y)  u(k. 
Domitian  to  Decius.    Not  but  that  the  Chrifiians  fufFered  very  much '''  ^'"^^■'  ^ 
in  fome  Places,  through  the  Rage  of  the  People,  and  the  Violence  q^^"'"'''''^' 
forae  Governours  of  Provinces  5  But  there  was  no  general  Perfecution 
countenanced  by  the  Emperors  Edi&s,and  therefore,where  the  People 
werequiet  orintent  upon  other  things,thQrem\ghthQ  Chrijiian  Churches 
where  there  were  no  fuch  Martyrdoms  as  thofe  of  Lyons  and  Vienne. 

It  is  certain  that  (z.)  Iren£us  mentions  the  confent  of  the  Celtick  Cy&«r-C<)iren./.- 
ches,  and  thofe  <>/ Germany  and  the  Iberi,  with  the  Eajlern  and  Libyan  '•  *•  ^• 
churches.  All  the  Queftion  is.  Whether  this  ought  to  be  refiirained  to 
the  Churches  planted  among  the  Celt£,  as  they  were  one  Liivijion  of 
the  Gauls  in  C<efars  time,  or  whether*  he  took  the  word  in  the  larger 
fcnfe,  as  comprehending  all  the  Gauls.  This  latter  feems  much  more 
probable,  becaufe  Iremeus,  in  none  of  the  others  mention'd  by  him, 
takes  any  particular  Divifion  of  the  People,  but  the  genefal  Name,  ai 

E  2  ojf 


3(^  T/;^  Antiij-uities  of  Chap.  L 

of  the  Germans  and  Iberi,  and  why  not  then  the  Celt£  in  as  large  a' 
(^)Strab.  fenfe>  Since  {a)  Straho,   (b)    Plutarch,    (c)  Appian,  and  others,  call 
(b)'na^'  the  Gauls  in  general  by  the. name  of  Celt£  ;  and  TertulUan  manifeftly 
tarch.  in   rcjcfts  that  fenfe  of  Celi£  for  one  Divifion  of  theGWx,  when  he  men- 
cralo^''"tions  thefeveral  Nations  of  the  Gauls  which  had  embraced  Chriftianity. 
(c)Appi-  But  I  will  not  infift,  as  {d)  Fetrus  de  Marca  doth,  Thai  Tertullian  by 
^"•^•^''  the  Galliarum  diverfse  Nationcs  means  the  four  Provinces  of  Caul  into 
(rf)Pec  dew/^/Vy&Auguftus  did  di^ribute  it :  But  I  fay,  that  there  is  no  reafon  to 
Marc.  E.    \\<cmt  thc  fcufc  of  Tertullian  to  one  Divifion  of  the  Gauls,  fuppofing  the 
vfief!^"'  different  Nations  do  comprehend  thofe  of  Gallia  Cifalpina  and  Tranfal- 
(E)Launoy /"*»<?;  although  I  fee  no  ground  to  underftand  Tertullian  Co,  (e)  fince 
Ep.e.7.    the  name  of  Gallia  Cifalpina  was  much  difufed  5  efpecially  after  the 
Hew  diftribution  of  the  Empire  by  Hadrian.    So  that  from  the  Tefti- 
itionies  of  7re»<e«xand  Tertullian,  we  fee  no  reafon  to  queftion  thegreat- 
er  Antiquity  of  the  Celtick  Churches  than  Sulpicius  Severus  intimates, 
much  lefs  to  overthrow  the  Antiquity  of  the  Britannick  Churches.    For, 
befides  this  Teftiraony  of  Tertullian  concerning  the  Britif)  Churches  5 
(/)  9"-  We  have  another  of  (/)  Origen,  not  long  after,  who  faith.  When  did 
Ezek.'/;oOT. ^"tain  before  the  coming  tf/Chrift  confent  ifi  the  Worjhip   of  one  God? 
4.  Which  implies,  that  the  Britains  were  then  known  to  be  Chrijlians  ; 

and,  by  being  fo,  were  brought  off  from  the  former  Idolatry.    And 
unlefs  fo  learned  a  Man  as  Origen  had  been  fully  fatisfied  of  the  truth 
of  this,  having  choice  enough  of  other  Inftances,  he  would  not  have 
run  as  far  as  Britain  to  bring  an  Argument  to  prove,  that  all  the  EartB 
doth  praife  the  Lord  ;  Which,  he  faith,  is  fulfilled  in  the  Chrifiian  Chur- 
ches difperfed  over  the  World.     But  I  wonder  what  (hould  make  two  fuch 
(i)Camd.  learned  Antiquaries  as  (g^  Mr.  Camden  and   h)  Bifliop  Godwin,  fo  far  to 
B'''^'?-47-miftake  the  fenfe  of  Origen,  to  underftand  him  as  if  he  had  faid,  That 
mD.de'  Britain,  by  the  help  of  the  Drvids,  always  confented  in  the  belief  of  one 
prxfui.p.  God,  whereas  it  is  very  plain.  That  Origen  fpeaks  of  it  as  a  great  AI- 
.  **•         teration  that  was  made  in  the  Religion  of  the  Britains  after  the  coming 
of  Chriji.  And  Origen  doth  not  only  fpeak  of  the  belief,  but  of  the  Wor- 
Jhip  of  one  God,  which  it  is  certain  from  Cafar,  That  the  Druids  did 
never  inftrud  the  People  in.    But  the  Chriftian  Religion  alter'd  the 
w^hole  Scheme  of  the  Druids  Worfhip,  and  inftead  of  their  Taranis 
and  Uefus,  and  Teutates,  and  Belenus,  and  Andate,  it  taught  them  to 
believe  and  worfhip  one  true  God,  and  Jefus  Chriji,  whom  he  hath  fent 
to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  World  ^  Whofe  Power,  (*)  Origen  faith  elfe- 
(i)  orig.  where,  wasfeen  in  Britain  as  well  as  Mauritania, 
j".  Aww  6      Thus  far  I  have  endeavoured  to  clear  the  ApoJloUcal  SucceJJion  of  the 
'  Britijh  Churches,  which  thofe  have  rendred  more  doubtfull,  who  have 
derived  our  Chriftianity  from  King  Lucius  his  Meflage  to  Pope  Eleuthe- 
rius,  and  the  Perfons  he  fent  over  to  convert  him  and  the  whole  Na- 
tion, as  the  Traditioa  goes,  to  the  Chriftian  Faith.    But  there  is  a 
(k\  Uffr  confiderable  difference  to  be  obferved  about  this  Tradition,  not  merely 
de  Pri-    about  the  time  of  the  Converfion  of  this  King  Lucius  (of  which  (/^) 
""'^''•'^•B- Archbifhop  Vjher  hath  given  fo  full  an  account,  that  to  his  diligence 
jv/^j.^/i^  therein,  nothing  material  can  be  added)  but  concerning  the  means  and 
*•  24.      manner  of  his  Converfion,  and  the  Perfons  employ'd  in  it.     For  (/)  Pe- 
S'ii/!"- '*■"■'■  ^V"l^""^  faith.  That  he  was  baptised  by  Timothy,  a  Difciple  of 
tyr'oi.  8.    St.  Paul  5  and  he  had  it  from  a  much  better  Author,  for  im)  Notkerus 
ctt'end,     Balbulus  faith,  That  King  Lucius  was  baptized  by  Timothy ;  not  the 
Timothy  to  whom  St,  Paul  wrote  his  Epiftle  j  But  the  Brother  of  Nova- 

tHSf 


I 


Chap.  I.  the  h'^itipj  Cburcbes,  3-] 

ivsy  whpfe  Names  are  extant  in  the  old  Martyrology  publiftied  by  Rof- 
reeyd,'  il.CB\.Julii  ^  who  were  both,  faith  (»)  Baronius,  Sons  toPu-(n)Biroa. 
dens  a  Roman  Senator  ^  the  fame  who  is  fuppofed  to  have  been  mar-  ^  o.  i66. 
i-yed  to  Claudia  Rufina.  the  Britain ;  and  therefore  his  Son  might  not "'  ^' 
improbably  be  employ 'd  in  this  work  of  converting  a  Britijli  King.  (ff}(o)  Nau, 
Nanclerus  takes  notice.    That   thk  Relation  agrees  bcft  rcith  the  Tra-^J:"- 
dhion  of  the  Church  o/ Curia,    a  noted  City  of  Rhatia.      And  (p)  t'Gm.t'. 
Paataleon   calfs  Lucius  the  Difciple  «/ Timothy  5    out  of  the    ^^-WPaptai. 
nab  of  that  Church.     From  whence    (^ )     Marcus  Velferus  fhews, ^^*^X ''" 
that    he  did   not  die  here   in  Britain,    but   vcent  over    into  thofe  parts  Gem.  p.i, 
/?/■  Rhstia   to  preach  the  Gofpel,    and   there  fuffer'd    Martyrdom:    01,^^^^^^" 
at  leaft,  ended  his  days  ^    For  they  are  not  agreed  about  the  manner  o{vMeLL6. 
his  death,    (r)  JEgidius  Tfchudi^  Caith    the  former,   who  adds,   thatW^fch. 
there  is  a  place  near  C«rz<f  called  CUvus  S.LucU  (till  5  and  (sj  MunfierRf/t'c!is. 
faith,  near  the  Epifcopal  Palace,  there  if  Monafterium  Sanfti  Lucii.  And  0)  Mun- 
(t)  Ferrarim  in  his  new  Topography  to  the  Martyr ologiunt  Romanum^^l\''''^/. 
reckons  King  Lucius  of  Britain  one  of  the  Martyrs  of  Curia,  which  the  3  p.  "^  18.' 
Germans  call  Chur,  and  the  Italians  Choira.  And  the  («)  Roman  Mar-  (^  ^"'■^'■• 
tyrology  faith.  That  there  his  memory  is  flill  obferved,     (vp)  Notherus  Bal-  graph.  T' 
lulus  faith,   That  he  converted  all  Rhaetia,    and  part  of  Bavaria.     If  fo,  44 
they  had  great  reafon  to  preferve  his  Memory,   and  the  Britifl}  Church,  ^mIuT' 
on  the  account  of  King  Lucius  his  converting  their  Countrey,    faatfi  as  Non.  Def. 
rauch  right  to  challenge  Superiority  over  Bavaria  and  Rh<etia,  as  the(^)  ^°'' 
Church  of  Rome  hath  over  the  Brit'fi  Church  on  the  account  of  the  Con-  bul'  8.c*- 
verfion  of  Lucius  by  Eleutherius.     If  this  Tradition  hold  good,   the  9-  icia.jHnii. 
ther  cannot ;  which  differs  as  to  time,  Perfons,  and  the  remainder  of 
his  Life,  which  our  Writers  fay,  was  fpent  here  ;    And  (x)  Geoffrey,  r^\  caifr 
from  the  Britifh  Hifiory  faith.   That  he  died  at  Gloucefter,    and  left  no  Monu./.z' 
Heir  tofucceed  him.     Wherein  he  is  follow'd  by  (^y)  John  Fordott,  who  ]•  >% 
faith.  That  after  the  death  or  difappearance  of  King  Lucius  the  Royal  Stock  aL.  sciti- 
filled,  and  then  the  Romans  appointed  Governors  inflead  of  Kings.      But,  '^'"''"'-  ^'  3- 
Dy  thatExpre(Iion,^/«o»  comparente,  Fordon  kems  to  doubt,  whether''^  ' 
he  did  not  withdraw  in  his  old  Age,  according  to  the  GermanTraditiott. 

(z)  Nennius  Mth,   That  Anno  Dom.i6\.  Lucius,    i^?'»?  <»/ Britain, /-,)  j^j^n 
with  all  the  inferior  Kings  of  Britain,  vpere  baptized  upon  an  Embajfy  fent  c*  ^h. 
by  the  Roman  Emperors  and  Fope  Evariftus.     But  the  old  MS.  in  the 
Cotton  Library  hath  it,    Fofl  167  annos  poji  adventum  Chrifti.    One  of 
the  Cambridge  MSS.  pojl  164  annos.     In  the  margin  whereof  it  is  faid. 
That  Nennius  is  grievoufly  mijiaken,  becaufe  Evariftus  his  time  cannot  a- 
gree  to  either  oft  he  computations,  Evarijius  dying,    according  to  the  old 
Catalogue  of  theBifhops  of  JR^^re  made  about  AnnoDom.  554.  whenTrc- 
bonius  Gallus  and  Metilius  Bradua  were  Confuls,which  according  to  the 
Fajit  both  of  Onuphrius  Panvinius  and  Sir  H»  Savil,   was  Anno  Dom. 
log.    But  ArchbiQiop  ?[J/&er  obferves,    that  in  one  Copy  of  Nennius  he 
found  the  name  <>/Eleutherius,    therefore  I  pafs  it  over ;     And  yet  the 
time  of  Eleutherius  will  not  agree  with  either  of  thefe  Computations  : 
For  he  was  made  Bilhop  of  Rome,  according  to  the  fame  Catalogue  in 
the  Confulfhip  oi  Sever  us  and  Herennianus,    which  according  to  thofe 
Fafii,  is  Anno  Dom.  1 72.    But  it  will  be  two  hard  to  prefs  the  point  of 
Chronology  too  far,  when  (^)i?e<^e,  according  to  the  different  Computa-  (a)  Bed. 
tions,  fometiraes  puts  Anno  Dom.  1 56.  and  at  another  time  AnnoDom.  ^'^'  L^i 
167.    But  as  long  as  it  is  generally  agreed  to  have  been  in  the  time  oi'^Htjior, 
M.  Aurelius  and  Lucius  Verus^   and  the  beginning  of  Eleutherius  his 

Pope- 


38  1. be  Antiquities  of  Chap.  I, 


Popedom,  I  fhall  urge  this  matter  no  farther  ;  fincc  it  muft  come  with- 
in a  very  little  compars,if  the  Chara&ers  of  time  muft  fuitwith  it.whicb, 
MdrUnui  Scotus  faith,  was  when  PoU'to  and  Aper  were  Confuls,     the 
fixteenthof  M.  Aitrelhts,  znA  Anno  Dom.  176.  according  to  the  Diony- 
fian  account,  although  Marianus  follow  another  himfelf.     Which  falls 
out   to    be  the  year  before   the    Perfecution  of   the   Churches   of 
Ci>)^yi(eh. Lyons  and  Fkafte,  which,    as  (/•)  Eiifehins  faith,   was  the  feventeenth 
(£)B'a'rou.°^  ^'  AHreliHs,  whcn  Iren£us  was  fent  by  them  on  a  MelTage  to  Eieu- 
A.D.  li-i,.  therms,     (c)  Baronius  places  the  Converfion  of  Lucius  fomewhat  la- 
«' 3.        ter,  in  the  beginning  of  Com fffodus.  Anno  Dom.  iS:^.    But  therein,   as 
Archbilhop  V/Jjer  obferves,  he  hath  all  the  more  ancient  Hiftorians  a- 
gainfl:  him ;    and  it  is  only  his  own  miftake  in  the  Chronology  of  the 
firft  Biftiops  of  Romcy   which  makes  him  fay,    the  time  of  Eleuthe- 
rius,    will   not   agree   to   M.  Anrelhs   and   Lucius    Ferus,     where- 
'(^)Camd.in  he  is  too  much  followed  by  our  (d)  learned  Antiquary. 
Brit.  M7.     Having  then  found  no  fuch  inconfiftency  in  the  point  of  tiKe^hut  that 
if  there  were  fuch  a  King  as  Lucius  in  Britain  then,  he  might  well  fend 
to  Eleutherius  fuch  a  MefTage  ;    I  now  proceed  to  confider,  how  far  this 
Tradition  of  King  Lucius  can  agree  with  the  State  of  the  Britifh  Af- 
fairs at  that  time.     The  Britains  being  impatient  of  the  Roman  Toke  in 
Hadrians  time,    he  comes  over  and  brings  new  Legions  with  him  5 
And  fettles  the  whole  Province  in  quietnefs,    and  built  his  Wall,   to 
keep  the  other  Britains  in  order.     Notwithftanding  this,    in  Antoninus 
(e)Capi-  his  time,  the  War  broke  out  more  fiercely  5  and  not  only  the  {e)  o- 
toi.jn  An- ther  ^nV^wj- forced  their  Paflage  into  the  i^(?«?<?»  Frw/we,  but,  as  (/) 
(?)Paufan.  Paufanias  faith,  The  Brigantes  rebelled,  who,  for  that  caufe,    had  part  of 
in  Axcdi.  their  Countrey  taken  front  them.     But  Lollius  Urbicus  being  fent  hither, 
he  drove  the  5r/^4/»/ back,   built  another  Wall  farther  Northwards, 
where  Agrtcola  formerly  had  placed  his  Garrifons,    as  appears  by  the 
(g)  carad.  C^)  Infcriptions  there  taken  up  :     So  that  Lollius  TJrbicus  drove  the 
l"o'  609  ^^"'^^'"^  '°o  Miles  Northward  ;    For  fo  much  is  the  diftance  between 
^°'      '  the  Walls  of  Hadrian  and  Antoninus.     For  all  this,  the  Britams  brake 
{ft)jui.ca-  out  again  with  fo  much  violence  in  the  beginning  of  (i6)  M.  Aurelius 
picoiMM.  Jfitonims  his  Reign,  that  Calphurnius  Agricola  was  fent  againft  them, 
^^^^'      and  from  that  time  we  read  of  no  difturbance  here  till  the  time  of 
(i)Dio  in  cdmntodai,  when  (/)  Ulpius  MarcelUis  was  Roman  Lieutenant.    This 
Comrao-   jjgjjjg  fjjg  jjyg  ^f^fg  Qf  Britain  at   that    time,     what  place  is  here 
left  for  fuch  a  King  over  Britain  as  Lucius  is  reprefented  ?     He  muft 
either  be  over /Ae  Britains  ^ej/tf»<:/ Me  Wal/^  which  overthrows  one  main 
part  of  the  Tradition  as  to  his  fettling  the  Churches  here  after  his  Conver- 
fion t,    bx  he  muft  be  the  Head  of  the  Revolting  Britains  who  were  re- 
preffed  by  Calphurnius  Agricola ;   or,  he  muft  be  a  fubordinate  King  to 
the  Romans,  fuch  as  Cogidunus  and  Prafutagus  had  been.   But  then  how 
comes  he  to  comitiand  all  Britain^     To  have  feveral  Kings   under 
him  ?    To  change  the  Affairs  of  Religion  as  he  thought  fit?     Were 
thefe  Privileges  ever  allowed  to  fuch  Titulary  Princes  >    It  is  very 
true.  That  the  Komans  did  often  fuffer  Kings  to  goi)ern  Provinces  under 
them  5    But  then  they  were  Provinces  wholly  fubdued,  and  compafled 
about  with  the  Roman  Forces  on  all  fides :     But  no  Inftance  can  be  gi- 
ven where  they  fuffer'd  an  Hereditary  King  of  the  fame  Countrey  to 
enjoy  full  power  over  his  Subjcfts,  whilft  a  great  part  of  the  Countrey 
was  in  Arms  againft  them,  and  ready  to  break  out  into  a  War,  where- 
in the  Romans  were  in  continual  fear,  that  the  Natives  within  the  Pro- 
vince 


Chap.  I.  the  Britifi Churches.  35" 

vinceQiould  join  with  thofe  without  for  their  deftruftion.  For  them  in 
fuch  a  cafe  as  this,  to  trufl:  fuch  a  King  as  Lucius  with  the  Government 
of  the  Province,  is  to  fuppofe  them,  to  have  utterly  loft  thofe  Arts 
whereby  they  attained  fo  va ft  an  Empire.  The  Cafe  of  ^fitiochns  in 
Jjia,  Her^i/ and  his  Children  in  ^«(^<f4,  Dejotanis  in  Gal  alia,  Arioharza- 
Kcs  in  Cappadocia,  and  of  many  others  that  might  be  named,  will  not 
at  all  make  it  probable,  where  the  Circumftances  were  fo  different,  and 
efpeciallv  in  fuch  an  Iflind  as  Britain  was  then  accounted,  being  in- 
compafled  with  a  Sea,  which  the  Romans  thought  dreadful  and  almoft 
unpaffable, 

(Ji)  Semota  C^  vafto  disjm^a  Britannia  Ponto 

CitJ^iqHC inaccejjis  horrida  Littoribus^  ^knT]\ 

whither  Supplies  could  not  come  without  difficulty  ^  and  wliere  the  ^"''S- ^■'* 
Inhabitants  defpifed  Death  and  Danger,  as  they  found  by  fo  tedious  a 
War,  which  was  kept  up  fo  long  here  :  And  after  all,  they  were  for- 
ced to  keep  out  their  Enemies  by  Walls  from  Sea  to  Sea,  in  feveral  pla- 
ces :  So  that  the  Romans  never  had  the  whole  Ifland  in  fubjeftion. 
And  therefore  it  is  very  improbable,  that  they  (liould  truft  the  Power 
over  it  in  the  hands  of  a  Native  of  the  fame  Countrey  ^  Which  Con- 
fideration  makes  me  very  hard  to  believe  the  Monkifti  Traditions  con* 
cerning  King  Lucius. 

But  I  do  not  deny,  that  there  was  fuch  a  Perfon  in  this  Ifland,  or 
that  he  had  Royal  Authority  in  fomepartof  it,  or  that  he  was  conver- 
ted to  Chriftianity  at  that  time,  or  that  the  Chriftian  Church  here 
flouriftied  by  his  means.  That  there  was  fuch  a  Perfon,  who  was  a 
King  and  a  Chrifiiatt,.  is  proved,  befides  the  concurrence  of  fo  many 
Authors  from  Bedes  time,  from  the  two  Coins  mentioned  by  (I)  Arch- 
biftiop  Z^yZjf**,  one  Silver  and  the  other  Gold,  having  an  Image  ofa(/)U(rer. 
King  on  them,  with  a  Crofs,  and  the  Letters  oi  LZ)c,  as  far  as  they  "^^  ^'''""• 
could  be  difcerned.  But  if  it  be  farther  asked  in  what  part  of  Britain  ^'  ^^'  *** 
this  King  L«f/«j- lived,  I  (hall  only  propofe  my  Conjefture,  and  leave 
it  to  the  Judgment  of  others.  It  is  well  known  that  the  Romans  were 
fo  well  fatisfied  with  the  fidelity  of  Cogidunus,  that  they  beftow'd  fome 
Cities  upon  him.  And  Tacitus  faith,  he  continued  firm  to  the  Roman  /«- 
ierejl  to  his  time.  And  where  Kings  were  faithful  to  them,  tho  Romans 
were  kind  to  their  Pofterity,  and  kept  them  up  in  the  fame  dignity  as 
long  as  they  behaved  themfelves  as  they  expected  from  them.  Of  this 
we  have  a  clear  Inftance  in  Herod's  Pofterity  ;  For  Archelaus,  Hero- 
des  Antipas  and  Philip,  his  Sons,  fucceeded  into  their  (hares  of  his 
Kingdom.  Then  Herod  Agrippa^  his  Grandchild  by  Arijlobulusy  was 
made  King  by  Caius  Cal/gula,  whofe  Government  was  inlarged  by  Clau" 
dius,  and  his  Brother  Herod  had  the  Kingdom  of  Chalcis  given  him : 
Sometime  after  his  Father's  death,  Claudius  beftow'd  firft  the  Kingdom 
oiChalcis  upon  his  Son  Agrlppa,  then  the  Tetrarchj  of  Philip,  which 
was  inlarged  afterwards  by  Nero,  and  he  continued  till  the  War,  and 
was  the  laft  King  over  the  Jetvs.  Now  from  hence  we  obferve.  That 
the  Romans  thought  it  no  ill  policy  in  fome  Cafes  lO  continue  the  fame 
Royal  dignity  -to  the  Children  of  thofe  who  deferved  fo  well  of  them 
as  Cogidunus  had  done.  And  it  feems  moft  probable  to  me,  that  where 
Ptolemy  places  ihe  Regni,  were  the  Cities  which  Cogidunus  had  the  rule 
over  -J  not  from  the  Name,  but  from  the  Circumftances  of  thofe  places, 
which  have  fewer  Roman  Monuments  or  Totrnj  than  any  other  in  Bri- 

tait/^ 


4.0  The  Antiquities  of  Chap  I. 

tain^  and  therefore  were  the  raoft:  likely  ftill  under  their  own  Prince, 
who  kept  up  the  Briti/Ij  aijiomf.     Where  ever  the  Romans  inhabited, 
they  may  be  traced  by  their  Ways,  by  their  Buildings,  by  their  Coins, 
by  their  Urns,  by  their  Infcriptions:  But  fcarce  any  thing  of  this  na- 
ture could  be  found  in  Surry  or  StiJJixhy  the  moft  diligent  Enquirers. 
C»f)  Leland  indeed  difcover'd  fame  Roman  Coins  near  Kingfton  vpon 
(;«)Le.    Thames,  where  other*  have  been  taken  up  fince:  (but  Camden  could 
■,j"f^*  5pg, hear  of  no  Roman  Antiquities  thereabouts.)    And   (w)  forae  fup- 
(ii)Burton.  pofe  the  place  where  thofe  Coins  were  taken  up,  to  have  been  a  Sta- 
OH  Anco-   ^^-^^    J-  j.j^    ^oman  Souldiers  under  Afclepiodotiis,  when  he  marched  that 
>.  77,       way  from  Vortfrnotith  to  London,  m  the  Expedition  agamit  Alkaus.   If 
fo,  it  was  too  late  for  the  days  of  Kyig  Ludus.     All  that  (<?}  Camden 
fd)  Camd.  pretends  to,  is  only  a  Military  way  near  Ockley,  which  was  neceffary 
Brit. p.     f-Qf  ff^g  conveniency  of  the  Roman  Souldiers  pafTing  to  rhe  remoter 
parts  of  the  Province,  and  fome  Coins  about  Gat  ton -^  but  as  to  his  No- 
p.  216.     viomagus  which  he  will  have  to  be  Woodcote  in  Surry.,  (/>)  Mr.  Somner 
(p)  Som-  hath  well  proved  from  the  courfe  of  the  Roman  Itinerary,  that  it  muft  lie 
ntt.Antiq.  in  Kent.^  in  the  Road  to  Portus  Rutupk  :  and  Woodcote  is  as  far  from 
Canterb,  -j.  ^g  i^o„^o„^    \^  all  Suffex  there  is  no  remainder  of  any  i?c«frf»  Build- 
ing, or  Way,  or  Colony,  or  Coins  yet  difcovered  to  the  Worfd,  ex- 
cept towards  the  i'e^/«/e,  which  xht  Romans  "kt^t  to  themfelves.    In 
Antoninus  Pius  his  time  (^ )  Seiiis  Saturnius  was  Archigubernus  i»  Clajje 
{^  D.  tit.  Britannica  ^  Which  (hews,  that  the  Romans  had  then  a  Fleet  here,  and 
Treticiw.  ^''^'-  ^^  ^^^  Admiral  of  it.     And  in  after-times,  the  Comes  Uteris  Saxo- 
■jd.     *  *  nici  per  Britanniam,  had  feveral  Garrifons  on  the  Sea  fide  for  Security 
of  the  Coafts,  as  appears  by  the(r)  Notltia  Imperii  where  the  places 
(r)  mttt.  3re  fet  down,  among  which  two  were  on  the  coafts  of  Sujfex,  Anderida 
imper.  Oc  and  Portus  Adurni^  By  the  former  our  learned  Antiquaries  is)  Camden 
(o'camd.^"^  (0  Selden  nnderftand  Nemnden  in  Kent,  but  that  ftands  too  much 
Brit.  p.    'within  Land.     Mr.  Somner  in  z  MS.  dif courfe  of  the  Komzn  Ports  and 
^47.        Forts  in  Rent,  rather  thinks  it  to  be  Pemfey  in  Suffex,  or  Hafiings,  as 
jj^re    ^"more  agreeing  with  («)  Gz'W^,  who  faith,  that  the  Komzm  placed  their 
tiauf.  1. 2.  Forts  for  Security  of  the  very  Coafis  in  litore  Oceani  ad  Meridiona- 
{u)'G\\di   ^^.™  Plagam,  upon  the  very  Coajis  5  And  fo  the  reft  of  them  flood,  as 
Epiji.%.i4.Reculver,  Richborough,  Dover,  Lim,  which  were  all  in  iCe»/ 5  and  the 
Portus  Adurni  was  Aldrington  near  Shoreham  in  Suffex.     From  hence  it 
appears,  that  the  Romans,  being  fecure  of  the  Coafts,  and  having  their 
Souldiers  difperfed  in  the  Colonies  about,  and  being  fo  near  the  Me- 
tropolk  at  London,  where  the  chief  Governours  of  this  part  of  Bri- 
tain  refided ;  They  might  better  permit  a  Britijh  King  to  govern  thefe 
parts  of  the  Country.     And  this  is  the  moft  probable  account  I  can 
think  of,  as  to  this  King  Lucius  within  the  Roman  Province, 
(w)  spe\-      (^j„^  Sir  Henry  Spelman  would  bring  him  to  his  Iceni,  but  without  a- 
l7/!"fo.i"."y  colour  of  Probability  5  Lucius,  faith  he,  vpas  the  Son  <?/ Coilus, 
p.  3^-       Coilus  of  Marius,  Marius  of  Arviragus.     And  what  then  }  Some,  he 
faith,  vpould  have  him  to  be  Pr2iCatagus,  rvho  vpas  King  over  the  Iceni.  But 
(x)  Tacit,  doth  not  (jc)  Tacitus  fay,  that  Prafutagus  died  before  the  Revolt  of  the 
AnnaL  14.  g^itaius  Under  Boadicea  >  And  that  he  left  Nero  hk  heir,  and  his  two 
Daughters,  hoping  thereby  to fecuringhis  Kingdom?  If  he  were  Arviru' 
gus,hQ  was  dead  before  the  Revolt  of  the  Iceni.  And  if  Mariuf  were  his 
Son,  how  comes  he  never  to  be  mention'd  in  the  Story  afterwards  j  no, 
not  in  that  moft  remarkable  Battel  between  his  Mother  and  Suetonius 
PaulJnus.^  Bfft  HeftorBoethiiis  r.j//x  Arviragus <JW(?/^^e  Iceni,  as  though 

his 


Chap.  II.  the  Eritilh Churches,  41^ 

his  authority  were  to  be  mention'd  againft  Tacituf,  who  was  the  Geoffery 
of  Scotland,  fo  many  and  fo  improbable  are  his  Fictions,     (y)  Baro-  ^>)  ^'"■''"• 
»/*sf,  after  trying  feveral  ways  to  reconcile  the  Tradition  of  King  Ltt-  te.'^^^' 
cius  with  the  Roman  Story,  concludes  with  that  as  the  moft  probable, 
(z.)  That  he  was  a  King  under  the  Roman  Power  in  Britain,  fuch  as  Pra-  W  Baron. 
futagus  vpof.     But  he  was  only  King  over  the  Iceni^  and  not  over  al/ '^^^'"^^^^.•. 
Britain,  and  although  among  the  Britains  there  were  many  Kings  over  i6. 
particular  Cities  (as  they  then  called  the  People  under  one  Govern- 
ment )  yet  there  was  no  one  King  over  the  whole  Ifland.     But  in  Ca- 
fes of  great  difficulty  they  pitched  upon  one  as  Supreme,  as  on  CaJJi- 
helan,  upon  the  Invafion  of  Cafar  :  So  that  the  old  Britifh  Government 
was  neither  Popular  asfome  pretei^d,  nor  under  one  Monarchy.-^  but  the 
People  were  govern'd  by  feveral  petty  Monarchs,  as  appears  by  the  un- 
queftionable  Teftimonies  of  (<«)  Diodorus  Siculm,  Q)  Strabo,  and  (c)  W  Diod. 
Pompomus  Mela-j  Fert  populos  &^  Reges  populorum,  faith  Mela-j  0//««  (6)Strat"o 
Regihus  parebant,  faith  {d)  Tacitus  5  which  prove  both  the  Antiquity  '•  4- 
and  Number  of  BritiJI)  Monarchs.     And  what  (e)  Dio  faith  of  a  Dento- ''[}J^f,l^ 
cratical  Government  among  the  Britains  is  only  fpoken  of  the  Maatieund  (d,  Tacit. 
Caledonii,  in  their  great  Confufion,   when  all  the  Reins  of  Govern-  ^^f"pif  j*^' 
ment  were  caft  off,  and  the  People  did  what  they  lift,  as  Tacitus  de- se^fero/" 
fcribes  them  in  his  time,  faying,  That  they  were  drarvft  off  from  their  for- 
mer obedience  to  their  Kings,  by  the  Heads  of  feveral  Fa^ions  among  them. 
^  that  although  in  the  moft  ancient  times  here  was  Monarchical  Govern- 
ment, yet  it  was  not  extended  over  all  Britain,  as  the  Monkifti  Tradi- 
tion pretends  concerning  King  Lucius,  and  I  know  not  how  many  Pre- 
deceiibrs  of  his,  even  from  the  coming  of  Brutus  to  his  days.    But 
neither  our  Religion,  nor  our  Government  need  fuch  Fiftions  to  fup- 
port  them. 

Suppofing  then  that  King  Lucius  fucceeded  Cogidunus,  though  not 
immediately,  in  the  Government  of  that  part  of  Britain  committed  to 
his  care ;  I  fee  no  inconvenience  in  allowing,  that  King  Lucius  hearing 
of  the  Chriftian  Doftrine,  either  by  the  old  Britifti  Chrijiians,  fuch  as 
Eluanus  and  Medteinus  are  fuppofed  to  have  been ;  or  by  fome  of  M. 
Jurelius  his  Souldiers  coming  hither,  after  the  great  deliverance  of  the 
Roman  Army  by  the  Prayers  of  the  Chriftians  ( which  had  then  lately 
happen'd  and  occafion'd  great  difcourfe  every  where,  the  Emperor  him- 
felf,  as(/)  Tertullian  faith,  giving  the  account  of  it  in  his  own  Letters  y^Hj^pJi' 
might  upon  this  be  very  defirous  to  inform  himfelf  throughly  about  this -^^  5.  Eu-' 
Religion,  and  there  being  then  frequent  Intercourfe between  Rome  and^^^-  ^^^^ 
Britain,  and  by  reafon  of  the  Colonies  that  were  fettled,  and  the  Go- 1.7.  as'. 
vernours  and  Souldiers  paffing  to  and  fro,  he  might  fend  Eluanuj  and 
Medwinus  to  Eleutherius  to  be  fully  inftrudted  in  this  Religion  5  And 
either  the  fame  perfons  alone,  or  two  others  with  them  (called  Faga- 
nus  and  Duvianus  commonly  )  coming  into  Britain,  might  have  fo  great 
fuccefs  as  to  baptize  King  Lucius,  and  many  others,  and  ffiereby  inlarge 
the  Chriftian  Church  here. 

The  (g)  old  Book  of  Landaff  ^wqs  a  much  more  modeft  account  of  (f)  ^'""^' 
this  whole  matter  than  either  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth,  or  any  of  his  fo\-^J,i  :^"f' 
lowers.     "  There  we  find  only  that  King  Lucius  fent  Eluanus  and  Med-i88. 
**  minus  to  Eleutherius  the  twelfth  Biftiop  of  Rome,  to  defire  that  he 
"  might  be  made  a  Chriftian  through  his  Inftruftionj  Upon  which  he 
"  gave  God  thanks,  that  fuch  a  Heathen  Nation  did  fo  much  defire 
"  Chriftianity  ^  And  then,  by  the  Advice  of  the  Presbyters  of  the 

F  City 


42  The  Anti(]uities  of  Ghap.  II. 

"  Chyoi Rome,  they  firft  baptized  thefe  JBwf/^/r^is^tfrj-^  and,  being  well 
"  inftrufted,  they  ordained  them,  making  Eluams  a  Bifhop  and  Med- 
"  wimis  2L  Teacher^  And  fo  they  returned  to  Ring  Lucius,  who  with 
"  the  chief  of  the  Britalns  were  baptized ;  And  then,  according  to  the 
"  Inftruaions  of  Ehuiherhis,  he  fettled  the  Ecclefiaftical  Order,  cau- 
"  fed  Biftiops  to  be  ordained,  and  the  Chriftian  Religion  to  be  taughf. 
There  is  nothing  in  all  this  account  but  what  feems  to  have  great  pro- 
bability in  it.  The  fame  account  is  in  Capgrave,  out  of  John  oi  Tin- 
mouth,  in  the  Life  of  Duhridus,  and  this  feems  to  have  been  the  ori- 
ginal Tradition  of  the  Britijh  Church :  Which  Geofery  of  Monmouth 
hath  corrupted  with  his  Flamines  and  Archfiamines ;  and  others  after- 
wards made  an  Epijile  for  Eleutherius  \o  Ring  Lucius^  but  could  not  a- 
void  fuch  Marks  in  the  way  of  Writing  as  evidently  difcover  the  Im- 
pofture  5  and  when  the  Monks  hands  were  once  in,  they  knew  not  how 
to  give  over.  For  fome  of  them  carry  I-'aganus  and  Diruviantts  (  as 
fome  call  him)  to  G I  of  en  bury -^  othersmake  them  Confecrate  the  Church 
at  Winchefter,  to  which  they  fay  Ring  Lucius  had  a  particular  kindnefs, 
and  gave  all  the  Lands  and  Privileges  which  the  Flamines  had,  to  the 
Bifliop  and  Monks.  (  A  Gift  that  would  never  make  them  the  richer 
or  the  fafer. )  Others  make  Ring  Lucius  to  found  St.  Veters  Church  at 
Wejiminjier,  the  Church  in  Dover  Caftle,  St.  Martini  by  Canterbury^ 
St,  Peters  in  CornhiU,  where  the  Metropolitan  Church,  they  fay,  was 
placed  by  him,  and  Theanus  made  the  firft  Biftiop,  who  was  fucceeded 
by  Eluanns,  who  went  on  the  Embafly  to  Eleutherius  5  and,  befides 
thcfe,  they  make  him  to  found  and  endow  fo  many  Churches,  with 
fuch  unlikely  Circumftances,  as  hath  made  others  queftion,  whether 
there  was  ever  fuch  a  Perfon  in  the  World  as  Ring  Lucius :  That  being 
the  common  effeft  of  faying  much  more  than  is  true,  to  make  what  is 
really  true  more  doubtfull  and  fufpicious. 

But  there  is  one  DiflSculty  yet  to  be  cleared^  For  all  this  Story,  in 
its  beft  Circumftances,  feems  to  imply,  that  there  was  no  Chriftian 
Church  here  before.  For,  if  there  had  been,  what  need  he  to 
have  fent  as  far  as  Rome  to  be  inftrufted?  unlefs  the  Biftiop  of  Rome 
were  then  known  to  be  the  Head  of  the  Church,  which  were  a  fuffici- 
ent  Reafon  for  it.  To  this  I  anfwer,  That  if  the  Conteft  lay  between 
thefe  two  things.  Whether  it  be  more  credible.  That  Chriftianity  was 
planted  here  before  Ring  Lucius  5  Or,  that  Ring  Lucius  was  baptized 
by  order  from  Eleutherius  5  I  (hould  very  much  prefer  the  former,  be- 
caufe  the  Authority  of  Gildas,  as  to  the  Britifi  Chriftianity,  is  to  be 
relyed  on  before  the  later  Writers  5  and  Gildas  alferts  the  one  5  and 
although  he  had  as  much  reafon  as  Bede,  or  any  after  him,  he  never 
takes  the  leaft  notice  of  Ring  Lucius  and  Eleutherius.  And,  if  a  Ne- 
gative Argument  will  hold  any  where,  it  is  where  a  perfon  hath  as 
much  reafon  to  know  as  any  that  follow  him ;  and  as  great  occafion  to 
difcover  what*he  knows  ^  both  which  will  hold  in  cafe  of  Gildas  com- 
pared with  Bede  or  later  Writers.  It  were  worth  while  for  us  to  know 
whence  Bede  had  his  firft  Information  of  this  matter  5  for  he  profefles 
to  follow  other  Writers  about  the  Briti/h  Affairs,  and  in  many  places 
he  follows  G/7<^<?/ exadly,  but  in  this  he  pafles  by  what  Gz'W^/ faith 
about  the  'Primitive  Chriftianity  of  Britain,  and  inftead  thereof  puts 
silt  in  this  Story  of  Ring  Lucius,  (h)  Bale  faith,  that  "  Eluanus  Avaloni- 
cent.  I.  "  jts  was  a  Difciple  to  thole  who  were  the  Difciples  of  the  Apoftles, 
"  ^'^'       "  and  that  he  preached  the  Gofpel  in  Britain  with  good  Succefs^  But 

Ring 


Chap.  II.  the  Brittjh  Churches.  43 

u  — I 

*'  King  Lncius,  being  perfuaded  by  his  Dniids,  who  would  not  come 
"  to  any  refolution;  but  to  fatisfie  himfelf,  Jeft  he  (hould  be  deceived 
"  by  his  Countrymen,  he  fent  Ehamts  and  Medwjmtt  to  Eleutherius. 
"  And  Eluams  upon  his  return  wrote  a  Book  De  Origine  Ecclefi^  Bri- 
"  tannorum  ,  Of  the  firfi  beginning  of  the  Britifti  Church.     And  Fits  is 
fure  to  follow  him  where  he  hath  no  reafon  :  But  Leland  never  menti- 
ons this  Book,  nor  the  Writings  of  Medvpinus  Bdgiits,  and  of  King  Z,«- 
«"«/ himfelf,  all  relating  to  this  matter:  But  (/)  Leland on\y  takes  no-  (i) Leland. 
tice,  "  that  Eluanus  and  Medvpinus  were  employ'd  upon  an  Embafly  f'^  ^"'t*- 
"  to  Eleutheritff,    that  by  his  means  he  might  become  a  Chriftian, '"  ^'"^"°' 
"  which,    faith  he,    is  very  unreafonable  to  fuppofe,   unlefs  he  were 
"  firft  informed  w^hat  Ghriftianity  was,  which  he  thinks  was  preached 
"  to  King  Lucius  by  them,   being  two  of  the  old  Britijh  Chriftians. 
And  there  he  relates   "  how  by  chance  he  met  with  an  old  MS.  of  the 
"  Britifh  Arlairs  joyn'd  with  Geoffrey  oi  Monmouth^  wherein  this  Story 
"  is  told  exaftly  as  it  is  in  the  Book  of  Landaff:    and  no  mention  is 
"  made  of  any  other  Perfons  fent  back  butthofe  that  went.     And,  aS 
far  as  I  can  judge,    Be^/e  follow'd  this  old  5riVi/Z)  Tradition,    only  lea- 
ving out  the  Names  of  the  Perfons  fent,  and  the  Eftablilhment  of  t\\6 
Britifld  Churches  after  the  Baptifm  of  King  Lucius.     For  Bede  faith  as 
little  as  he  well  could  that  tended  to  the  honour  of  the  Britijh  Churches. 
So  that  according  to  this,  which  feems  the  trueft  account  of  this  Em- 
balTy,    Eluanui  and  Medwinus  were  BritiJIi  Chriftians  themfelves,  and 
therefore  fent  to  Eleutherius,   having  been  probably  the  Perfons  em- 
ploy'd to  convince  King  Lttcius  ^    but  he  knowing  the  great  Fame  of 
Rofne,  and  it  being  told  him,  not  only  that  there  were  Chriftians  there, 
but  a  Bifhop  in  that  City,   the  twelfth  from  the  Apojlks,  had  a  defire 
to  under ftand  how  far  the  Britijh  Chriftians  and  thofe  of  Rome  agreed  • 
and  he  might  reafonably  then  prefume.    That  the  Chriftian  Doftrine 
vi'as  there  truly  taught,  at  fo  little  diftancefrom  the  Jpoftles,   and  in  a 
Place  whither,   as  (k)  Iren^us  argues  in  this  cafe,    J  refort  was niddei^)^'^'^'^' 
from  aB  places,  becaufe  of  its  being  the  Imperial  City.     Thefe  were  reafo-^''*^' 
nableConfiderations,  which  might  move  King  Lucius  to  fend  this  Em- 
bafly to  Rome,   and  not  any  Opinion  of  St.  Peters  having  appointed 
the  head  of  the  Church  there,   of  which  there  was  no  Imagination  then 
nor  a  long  time  after  in  the  Britift)  Churches,  as  appears  by  the  Con- 
teft  of  the  Britift)  Biftiops  with  Auguftine  the  Monk  3    of  which  in  its 
due  place. 

If  any  credit  were  to  be  given  to  King  (/)  Arthur's  Diploma  to  thee/)  Caj.  de 
1)niverfity  oX  Cambridge,  this  matter  would  be  fully  clear'd  5    For  there  ^"% 
it  is  exprefly  faid,    "  That  King  Lucius  was  converted  by  the  preach-  ^^ ""  m 
"  mgoi  the  iyod(.oxsoi  Cambridge,   for  which  reafon  he  gave  lar<yef.^9. 
*'  Privileges  to  that  llniverfity,  which  were  confirmed  by  King  Arthur. 
And  in  the  MS.  Annals  of  Burton  it  is  faid,    "  That  Akno  Dom.  141. 
nine  of  the  Dolors  and  Scholars  ^/Cambridge  were  baptized.     I  am  not 
ignorant  what  Objedtions  have  been  made  by  learned  Antiquaries  againft 
both  thefe  Paffages,  and  how  hard  it  is  to  reconcile  them  to  the  Lan- 
guage and  Hiftory  of  that  time  5   Nor  that  this  PafTage  in  the  Annals 
of  Burton  was  put  into  the  MS.  Copy  by  another  hand,    as  the  learned 
(«/)  Primate  obferved,  by  comparing  the  Copy  of  them  in  the  Libra- («^  uder. 
ryofC.  C.C.    But  on  the  other  fide  it  is  juftly  pleaded,    that  in  the '^'^ '''■''"• ' 
Bull  of  Honorius  I.  bearing  date  Anno  Dom.  ^24.    20th  Febr.  there  is^*''' 
mention  made  of  the  Privileges  granted  to  the  TJniverJity  <»/Cambridge 
^  F-2  %y 


44  The  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  IL 

by  Pope  Eleutherius  5  and  that  withal  he  takes  notice  of  Do&ors  and 
Scholars  there.  And  that  this  Bull  of  Honorhts  is  allowed  to  be  autheti' 
tick  in  the  BuUoi  Eugenius  IV.  upon  the  Controverfie  about  Jurifdi- 
ftion,  between  the  Bipop  of  Ely  ar]dth&Z)niverJity  oiCatfihrdge,  bear- 
ing date  Anno  Dom  1433.  14  Cal.  05?.  Which  is  a  fufficient  Proof  to 
all  that  rely  on  the  Pope's  Authority,  that  in  the  time  of  King  Lucius 
and  Eleutherius  there  might  be  a  fufficient  number  of  learned  Men  in 
Cambridge  to  have  inftrufted  King  Lucius  in  the  Chriftian  Faith  5  And 
that  it  is  not  improbable,  that  Eluanus  and  Medwinus  might  be  of  that 
number,  efpecially  confidering  that  Camboritum,  or,^  as  many  Copies 
have  it,  Camboricnm,  was  a  Roman  Colony,  and  mention'd  in  the  beft 
Copies  among  the  28  Cities  ^/Britain,  and  the  Roman  Colonies  had 
their  Schools  of  Learning,  wherein  the  feveral  Profeflbrs  of  Arts  and 
Sciences  did  inftruft  both  the  Roman  and  Britifh  Touth.  Of  which  I 
may  have  occafion  to  difcourfe  afterwards. 

After  this  time,    we  meet  with  little  concerning  the  Britijh  Churches, 
till  the  Perfecution  of  Diochfian,   in  which  they  had  a  confiderable 
(hare,    for  the  time  it  lafted  here :     For   although  the  Names  of  no 
more  are  prefervedthan  only  of  St.^/^^«,  Aaron  and  Julius  •,  yet  both 
(„)  Gild,  ^^j  Gildas  and  (oj  Bede  fay,    that  many  more  fufFer'd  Martyrdom 
(ojBe'd/.i.thenin  Bri/^/«,  as  (pj  fi^zr^jw/wj- acknowledgeth.    And  although  D/V 
('p)Blroa  ^'f/-^»  being  a  Prince  of  infinite  Ambition,   as  appear'd  by  his  conv 
A.D.  303".  manding  himfelf  to  be  worlhipped  as  God,    and  therefore  had  fo  great 
"•  '44-     an  Antipathy  to  Chriftianity,   that  his  whole  Reign  might  be  called, 
(^)veifer,  as  (q)  M.  Velferus  fsiith,  one  perpetual  Perfecution,  yet  he  had  fo  much 
Com.  in  s.  Art,  as  to  throw  off  the  odium  of  it  upon  others  ;    To  which  purpofe 
W'""-     jjg  gf(^  jjj^jg  choice  of  Maximianus,   a  Brutifh  and  Fierce  Man,    who 
ftuck  at  nothing  for  the  Shame  or  the  Cruelty  of  it,    as  he  is  (et  forth 
by  Eutropius  and  Vi&or  5   and  therefore  was  a  fit  Inftrument,  as  occafi- 
on ferved,  to  execute  D/Wey7^»'s  Malice  againft  the  Chriftians  ^  which 
he  did  not  fail  to  perform,    as  appear'd  by  the  Thehean  Legion  which 
fufFer'd  in  the  firft  Expedition  againft  the  Bagaud^e,  for  refufing  to  take 
())Sigon.anOath,  to  extirpate  the  Chriftians  as  well  as  the  Rebels,  as  (r)  Si- 
fJ^fi\,gonius  and  (/)  Velferus  relate  the  Story.     But  the  great  Perfecution  un- 
:x^  veifer!  dcr  Dioclejian,  of  vfhichGildas  and  Bede  fpeak,    did  not  certainly  be- 
comment.  gjjj  j-jjj  _^ftfif,  L)om.  505.    Dioclefian  and  Maximianus  being  one  the 
'Ji/r''^'^' eighth  the  other  the  feventhtime  Confuls,  as  {t)  La&antius  hath  evi- 
(t)  La-    dently  made  to  appear:     But  in  the  next  year,   upon  the  Refignatioa 
MoTt'eplr-  of  thefe  two,  Galerius  Maximianus  and  ConUantius  Chlorus  were  decla- 
fe(.c.i2.  red  Emperors  5    and  it  is  generally  faid  by  the  Ecclefiaftical  Writers, 
(«)Alford.  f^^f  Conftantius  Jiopt  the  Perfecution  in  the  Provinces  under  his  Govern- 
chA^D.'  ntent.    So  that  either  the  Perfecution  in  Britain  muft  be  before  the  o- 
285.H.S,  ther,  or  it  could  continue  but  a  little  time.    To  folve  this,  («)  Alford 
^'^'         faith,  there  is  no  other  vpay,    but  fo  make  thk  Perfecution  to  have  been  in 
(B-lBaron.  the  third  of  D\oQ\tCi2in  and  the  fir jl  <?/Maximianus.     At  which  time,  (»?) 
^'?o  ^^t  '  ^^^onius  h\th,  a  very /harp  Perfecution  was  begun  againft  the  Chriflians  at 
'  ^  '    '  Rome.     Which  was  about  the  time  when  Maximiatim  htgzn  his  Expe- 
dition into  Gaul  againft  the  Bagauda,    and  in  his  PafTage  over  the  Alps, 
the  Thehean  Legion  fufFer'd.     The  Circumftances  of  which  Story  are 
fo  agreeable  in  all  refpefts,    that  I  fee  no  reafon  to  call  in  queftion  the 
truth  of  it,    it  being  not  only  preferved  by  Eucheriut,   but  by  Venanti- 
us  For  tun  at  us,    Helinandus,   Bcda,  TJfuardus  and  Ado.     But  Maximia- 
nus made  then  no  long  ftay  in  Gaul,  and  for  feveral  years  after,   botli 

Di' 


C  H  A  p.  IL  the  Britijh  Cbiircbes.  4.5 


Diockfian  and  he  were  fo  taken  up  in  Warlike  Expeditions,  that  they  had 
no  leifure  for  a  fharp  and  long  Perfecution.  And  I  can  however  fee 
no  ground  for  any  Perfecution  in  Britain  about  that  time  by  Dioclefian 
OtMaximiatt.  For  when  he  came  againft  the  Bagand^,  Caraujius  was 
employ 'd  to  fecure  the  Seas  againft  the  Franks  and  the  Saxons  5  But, 
underftanding  Maximian's  defign  to  take  him  off,  he  watched  his  op- 
portunity, and  with  a  good  Fleet  and  confiderable  Army  comes  for 
Britain,  and  takes  pofleffion  of  the  Government  here,  and  Maximian 
had  no  Fleet  left  to  purfue  him  hither.  This  Revolt  oiCarauJins  hap- 
pen'd  within  few  years  after  Dwclejian  and  Maxim'tan  were  joint  Em- 
perors, viz.  Anno  Don*.  286. 

But  Alford  faith,  the  old  Writer  ofSt.A\han's  Life  pitches  tipon  Anno 
Doni.  286.  for  thk  Perfecution.     And  a  MS.  Copy  <?/Bede  vphich  he  had 
tftet  with  agrees  xoith  that  time.    Biit  he  urges  farther,  that  after  the  Re- 
beUion  tf/Caraufius,  vphen  Conftantius  veas  made  Csefar,  the  'Provinces  he~ 
yond  the  Alps  were  committed  to  him^  and  that  roas.  Anno  Dom.  292. 
And  if  there  were  no  Ferfecution  under  Conftantius,    thk  muji  be  before 
hetpas  Csfar.     But  for  any  thing  Alford  faith,  the  Perfecution  might 
have  been  under  Caraufius^  or  AUedus,    before  Confiantius  came  to  the 
Vo&Gaov^  oi  Britain^.     Y or  Caraujius,  as  appears  by  ix)  Aur.  Fi5f or  and  (^\  ^^f 
(y)  Eutr Optus,  was  let  alone  with  the  Government  of  5nV<?i»  ;  which,  viaor/B 
faith  (z)  Orojius^  he  enjoy'd  feven  years,  and  after  him  Alle^»s,  three  ^''°'='^''" 
years  .nore  5    So  that  for  feveral  years  after  Confiantius  his  being  (")Eutrop 
Cafar,  he  had  no  influence  on  the  Affairs  of  Britain  :     At  the  end  of'-9- 
thofe  ten  years,  Alle&us  being  killed,  and  his  Army  routed  by  Afclepi-  ^''j^c^i], 
odofus,    Confiantius  came  over  as  appears  by  (a)  Eumenins,    in  the  very  (««)  Eu. 
nick  of  time  to  preferve  the  City  of  London  from  being  pillaged  by  the  '"^"■^'*' 
Franks,  and  then  he  was  received  with  wonderful  joy  by  the  Inhabi-  if."  "*  ^^' 
tants,  being  delivered  from  the  Tyranny  they  underwent  in  the  times 
oiCaraufms  and  AlleBus  5    And  after  his  Death  Medals  were  coin'd  in 
London  to  teftifie  the  Cities  gratitude  to  him ;    whereon  was  the  Effi- 
gies of  Confiantius  of  one  fide,   and  on  the  other,  a  Temple  between  two 
Eagles,  with  this  Infcription,    Memoria  felix  ^  and  under  the  Temple 
P.  L.  N.   Pecunia  Londin.  Not  at  a,    as  fome  explain  it.     For  by  the 
Eagles  and  Infcription  it  appears  that  thefe  Coins  were  intended  for 
the  Apotheojis  of  Confiantius  ;  And  (o  Jofeph  Scaliger  and  Camden  under- 
ftand  them,     {b)  Zoftmus{i\ih,  TA4?  Conftantius,  whde  he  livedo    ^'^^ (b\TQ^\va. 
hk  chief  refidence  in  Britain  ;  And  if  a  Perfecution  happen'd  here,    he/-  2. 
muft  be  Acceflbry  to  \t,  which  is  contrary  to  what  is  conftantly  affirm- 
ed of  C^^/zy^^^^/jW.     For  rO  Eufebiuf  Taith,  he  never  Join  d  with  the  other  m  ^^fei. 
Emperors  in  deflroying  Churches.     Qd)  Sozomen  and  (e)  Cajfiodore  {"ay,  1-8.  c  1^'. 
That  he  gave  full  liberty  to  the  Chrifiians,^    and  that  their  Churches  flou-V*-^°^' 
rifiied  under  him -^    And  (/j  Optatus  {a\th.    That  the  Donatifts  made  o  I.  '^' 
their  Application  to  Con{}iSintine,  to  appoint  Judges  out  of  GaxA,    and  give  ('^^^°'^°'^- 
this  Reafon,  Becaufe  there  was  no  Perfecution  under  his  Father  s  Govern-  (e)  Aiji  ' 
rnent.    And  accordingly  the  Council  of  Aries  confifted  of  Bifhops  chief-  Tripartl 
Jy  out  of  Gaul  and  Britain.  '■'■^  7^^ 

That  which  upon  the  whole  matter  appears  moft  probable  tome,/,  i.  ^^* 
is.  That  the  Perfecution  was  begun  while  Dioclejian  and  Maximianus 
had  the  Empire  in  their  hands ;  and  although  Confiantius  and  Galeri- 
us  had  the  Titles  of  defars  ^  yet  the  fupreme  Government  was  in  the 
others  hands,  as  appears  by  what  Orofius  faith  of  Dioclefians  ufage  of 
Galerius,  upon  his  return  from  the  Ferfian  War  ^    And  by  the  Infcrip- 

tions 


4  6  Ihe  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  1  f. 


(^)Baron.fions  in  Spain    (if  they  be  authentick)    produced  by  (g)  BaromHs^ 
n.'s.        C^)  VelferHs  and  (J)  Gruterus.     In  one  of  which  Dioclefiantts  and  Max' 
(/j)Veifer.  injiatius  are  only  mention'd  5    And  this  muft  be  after  the  Perfecution, 
T'Jln  ^or  there  it  is  faid,   ISSowim  C  HR  1ST  I A  NORVM  DELETO. 
Afr.       'And  in  the  other,  SVP E RSTITIONE    CHRISTIVBI^ 
Ogruter.  DELE  T A.     And  there  Dioclefian  is  only  named  Auguftus,  and  Gale- 
zzT.^i'  ' rtus  as  adopted  by  him.     Baromns  thinks  [tich   Infcriptions  tpere  fet 
up  every  vohere,    but  time  hath  only  preferved  thofe  in  Spain.     But  if  they 
were  fet  up  in  Spain,    under  the  Government  of  Conjiantitis,   it  is  an 
Argument,    that  while  Diodejtan  and  Maximianus  held  the  Empire, 
they  did  what  they  pleafed.in  thefe  matters :  For  although  the  name 
(/f)viftor.of  C'^y^'*  carried  i-n  it  fomething  of  fupreme  Authority,  yet  (/^)  Aure- 
/nXraja-  //'»/  Vi&or,  when  he  takes  notice  of  the  foft  beginning  of  the  difference 
"°'  of  the  Titles  of  Anguflus  and  Cafar,  HS  faith.  Though  they  were  both  Ti- 

tles of  Sovereignty,  yet  they  who  enjoy  d  them  did  not  dijfcr  lefs  in  their 
(/)  Laft.   Powerthan  they  didin  their  Titles.     And  therefore  (/)  La&antius^&hh, 
'perj'ecl'.Q.^^^"  Dioclcfian  called  Galerius  by  the  name  «/ Caefar  after  his  Perfian 
Vt&ory,    he  cryed  out,  Qpoufque  C<£far  ?     How  long  Jhould  he  continue 
Cxfar  ?    And  the  Impatience  of  this  made  him  force  Dioclefian  torefign 
c  18.    the  Empire,  as  La&antius,  who  was  upon  the  Place,  aflures  us  5  Nay, 
when  Diode  fan  offer'd  him.  That  all  fourjloould  be  declar'd  Augufti,  he 
refufed  for  this  reafon,  Becaufe  he  knew,  while  Dioclejian  continued  ill 
c.  Jj.    Power,  be  (hould  have  only  the  Name.     And  L«^<?»/;kx  farther  faith. 
That  the  Ediif  ^gainji  the  Chrijlians  was  fent  to  Conftantius  without  oik- 
ing  his  con  fent  ^  and  he  confefTes,  Conftantius  complied  fofar  as  to  puU 
down  their  Churches.     But  his  kindnefs,  when  declared  Auguftus,  made 
them  willing  to  forget  the  reft.    So  that  the  Perfecution  was  general 
till  their  Refignation ;  But  upon  Cow^rfw^f^a- being  declared  Augujius,  it 
{m)Eufeb. ceafed in  all  thefe  parts;  in  which,  (m)  Eufebius  affirms,  it  did  not  la(i 
"rd'^PaUc. '^^ years,  although  it  continued  ten  years  in  the  Eafi.     And  within  that 
13.  time  the  Perfecution  took  away  St.Alban,  Aaron  and  Julius,  and  other 

Martyrs  here,  as  Gildas  and  Bede  relate,  who  give  a  more  particular 
account  of  the  Sufferings  of  the  firft,  not  without  fome  mixture  of  Im* 
probabilities  or  Interpolations  ^  but,  as  to  the  reft,  we  have  nothing 
but  their  Names  preferved  and  the  Places  they  belong  to.     The  firft 
is  fald  to  have  been  a  Roman  Officer  of  the  Municipium  oiVerulam,  the 
firft  Britifl}  Town  which  had  Roman  Privileges  5  and  the  other,  Citizens 
of  Caerleon,  where  there  was  a  Roman  Colony. 
,  ■'     Conflantius  dying  at  Tork,  his  eldeft  Son,  Confiantine,  was  declared 
Cdfar  by  the  Army  in  Britain.     For  although  Conftantius  did  what  in 
f ,A  Eufeb.  hini  hy  to  fecure  the  Succejfion  to.  him,  as  (»)  Eufebius  faith,  yet  that 
vit.con-  did  not  fignifie  much  without  the  Concurrence  of  the  Legions.     And 
^^^'^■j-^^'  (^0}  Lai^antius  faith.  That  he  commended  him  to  the  Souldiers,  and  fo 
(o)Uflan.  delivered  the  Empire  to  him.    This  Confent  of  the  Army  is  exprefs'd 
di  Morte  by  (/>)  Eumenius,  and  by  theEmperor  (^)  y«/M»;  and  Aurelius  Vi£f or 
jf      *^'  faith.  All  that  were  prefent promoted  his  being  Emperor-^  But  he  was  not 
(p)  Eu-     declared  C^efarhy  Galerius  Maximianus  till  afterwards,  asBaluz^ius  hath 
mta.pa-  clearly  proved  out  of  La&antius  and  others,  who,  when  he  faw  he 
(q)  Julian. could  not  help  it,  fent  him  to  the  Purple  Robe,  Thus  Con^antine,  being 
OMf  I. <ji  firmly  fettled  in  the  Throne,  took  care  in  the  firft  place  of  the  Tran- 
'  quility  of  thefe  parts,  where  he  was  proclaimed  Emperor,  and,  zsLa- 
Bantius  faith,  Thefirfl  thing  he  did  was,  to  fecure  full  Liberty  to  the  Chri- 
flians.    And  now,  we  may  well  fuppofe,  all  that  Gildas  and  Bede  fay, 

to 


Chap.  II.  the  Britijl  Churches.  47 


to  have  been  accompliftied,  viz.  That  the  Chrifiians  rebuilt  their  Chur- 
ches^ dejiro/d  to  the  ground,  and  therein  celebrated  their  Holy  Sacraments^ 
and  kept  folemn  Fejiivals  in  memory  of  fo  great  a  Deliverance.  And  from 
this  time  we  may  date  the  flouri(hing  condition  of  this  Church,  which 
before  muft  labour  under  great  difficulties;  the  Governours  of  Provin- 
ces before  Conftantius^  and  the  Generality  of  the  People,  being  fet  a- 
gainft  the  Chriftians. 

But  the  firft  Evidence  we  meet  with  of  the  fettled  Condition  of  the 
Britijh  Churches^  is,  the  number  of  Bi(hops  which  went  from  Britain 
to  the  Council  at  Arles^  AnnoDom.  514.  where  we  find  three  Bifhops 
fubfcribing  to  it,  Eborius,  Bifhop  of  Tork  5  Rejiitutus,  Biihop  of  Lon- 
dtin  5  and  Adelfius,  de  Civitate  Colonia  Londinenfium  :  So  it  is  in  (r)  Sir-  {t)  Sir- 
mondus  his  beft  Copy.    And  although  ,(/)  Mr.  Selden  feems  to  queftion  ^°^^' 
the  Antiquity  of  it,  yet  the  other  vouches  it  to  be  very  good  and  anci-  oaiik.  t». 
ent.     But  what  then  is  the  Civitas  Colonia  Londinenjlum  .<?  The  Learned  i-  P-  9- 
CO  Primate  thinks  it  to  be  Colchejler  5  that  being  called  in  Antoninus  Co-  ^i^%^y^h_ 
Ionia.     («)  Mr. 5e/<^e»  takes  it  to  be  Camalodunum^  and  fo  written  C^-^II8. 
mdodon^  which  the  ignorant  Scribes  made  Col.  Londinenpum :  Qw)  SirW^||er, 
Henry  Spelman  likewife  fuppofes  it  to  be  the  old  Colony  oiCamalodunum.  60, 195. ' 
But,  I  think,  a  far  more  probable  fenfe  may  be  given  of  it,  if  we  con-  («)  s^'«'- 
fider  the  way  of  fummoning  Bifhops  to  Councils  at  that  time :  For  it  is^"  ns,' ' 
ii;ireafonable  in  imagine  that  every  Roman  Colony  or  City  fent  a  Bijhop :  'ip. 
For  then  every  Council  would  have  been  as  full  as  the  Arabick  Writers  ^g^^^^f^'. 
fay  the  Council  of  Nice  was  (of  which  Mr. Selden  hath  difcourfed  at cU.To.i. 
large)  or  at  leaft  as  (x)   Commianus  and  (>)   Ado  thought  this  Coun-f-  39- 
cil  of  Aries  was,  which  they  made  to  confift  of  600  Bifiops:  An  \in- Hibern.i'z.. 
reafonablc  number  to  be  called  together  on  fuch  an  occafion,  as  the  giv-  0")  Ado/n 
ing  way  to  the  reftlefs  importunity  of  the  Donatifts  to  have  their  ^*"'* 
Caufe  heard  over  again.    It  is  not  to  be  prefumed  that  Conjiantine  would 
fummon  fo  great  a  number  to  make  up  a  Court  ( Epifcopale  Judicium 
St.  Augujiine  often  calls  it)  wherein  the  main  thing  to  be  done  was,  to 
hear  the  Parties  and  give  Judgment  5  And  in  the  fortiier  Judgment  19 
Bifiops  were  fummoned.    It  is  faid,  (&)  That  St.  Auguftine  makes  ^^CfUn  a"|"p: 
tmmber  of  Bijhops  at  Aries  to  be  2co.     But  I  fee  np  fufficient  ground  to  Pam.  i. ' 
underftand  thofe  words  of  this  particular  Council  5  but  of  all  the  Bi^oops  '•  ''^  J- 
nahich  had  condemned  them  in  fever  at  Councils,  among  whom  he  reckons 
the  Italian,  Spanifj  and  Gallick  Bifjops,  who  met  at  Aries.     But  when 
I  compare  the  Subfcriptions  to  that  Council  publifhed  out  of  the  moft 
ancient  MS.  with  a  Paflage  in  Hilary,  I  am  apt  to  believe,  that  except- 
ing thofe  that  were  very  near  about  Aries,  there  were  no  more  than  a 
Bilbop  out  of  a  Province  with  one  or  two  Presbyters.     So  it  is  exprefly 
in  the  (tf)  Summons  to  Chrefius  Bi(hop  of  Syracufe  in  Sicily,  ( the  only  f'')E»f«^' 
one  remaining,  and  which  (b)  Baronius  thinks  was  the  fame  to  the  reft  )  (i)°Baron. 
wherein  he  is  required  to  come  out  of  that  Province,  and  to  bring  two  Pres-  ^.d.  314. 
hyters  vpith  him,  as  Valejius  (hews  againft  Baronius  and  Sirmondus  the "'  "*'■ 
words  are  to  be  underftood.    And  (<:)  Hilary,  fpeaking  of  the  Councils  (c)  Hilar. 
of  his  time,  faith,  That  one  or  tn>o  Bifhops  were  fent  for  out  of  aProvince^'^^  ■^>'""^' 
and  he  inftanceth  in  the  Council  of  Ancyra,  and  the  great  Council  of  Art- 
minum :  So  here  we  meet  with  Chreftus  out  of  the  Province  of  Sicily, 
^tintaftm  out  of  the  Province  of  Sardinia,  and  fo  in  moft  of  the  reft, 
the  diftinft  Provinces  are  fet  down  out  of  which  they  came:  And  at 
that  rime  there  were  18  Provinces  of  Gaul  and  Britain,  and  fo  many 
BiQiops  appear'd  at  Aries ^  befides  Marinus  the  Biihop  of  the  Place.    But 

t9 


^8  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  II. 


to  fupply  the  defeft  of  feme  other  Provinces  there  were  more  out  of 

thsit  Prdvi»ce  wherein  ^r/ex  ftood  than  out  of  anyother.     In  Britain 

thde  were  then  three  Provinces  according  to  the  MS.  Copy  of  Sextus 

Kuffts X2L\i\\  Mr.  Camden  :    therefore  in  all  probability,  (ince  the  other 

two  Bi(bops  were  out  of  the  other  two  Provinces,  Maxima,  C<efarienfis 

and  Britannia.  Prima  ;    The  third  Bifhop  was  out  of  the  third  Province 

of  Britannia  Secunda,  wherein  there  were  two  noted  Colonies,    the  one 

called  Colonia  Divana  in  the  Coin  of  Septimius  Geta,    Civitas  Legiomim 

(i) Bed. /.in  {d)  Beda,   now  Chejler  :,    the  other,     Civitas  Legionis  4^  Yfcham, 

2.  c.  2.     where  was  a  Colony  of  the  ilth  Legion,   which  Province  is  fometimeS 

called  Britannia  Secundd.      And  therefore  this  Bifhop  Adelphius  came 

ex  Civit.   Col.  Leg.  ii.  which  the  ignorant  Tranfcribers  might  eafily 

turn  to  ex  Civit.  Col.  Londin.     The  only  Objeftion  is  that  which  is 

(?)U[rer.  fuggefted  by  the  Learned  (e)  PnmditQ  of  Armagh,  viz.    That  there  were 

%^'"'"'^'foHr  Provinces  <7/Britain  at  that  time,   and  that  Flavia  Cxfarienfis  wm 

one  of  them  ;  having  its  name  from  Conftantine,  tpho  ajfumed  the  name  of 

Flavius  •,   But  Golt%ius  his  Copy  deferves  not  to  be  fo  much  preferr'd 

(/)  Camd.  before  (/)  Camden  %  5  And  the  name  of  Flavia  Cafarienjis  might  eitfier 

f)Eea    ^^  taken  from  Flavins  Valentinianus,  as  (g)  Berterius  thinks,  or  from 

pithar.^'  Fl.  Theodofius,  before  whofe  time  Camden  faith  he  never  met  with  Bri- 

vutr.i.    fa„„ia  Flavia. 

c.i  p.  4-       There  being  then  but  three  Biflwps  prefent  at  the  Council  of  Aries,  is  fo 
far  from  being  an  Argument  that  there  were  no  more  in  Britain,  that 
it  is  rather  an  Argument  to  the  contrary  ;    fince  it  was  the  Cuftom  to 
fend  but  one  or  two  out  of  a  Province  where  they  were  moft  nuriierous. 
And  I  fee  no  reafon  to  queftion  a  Succejjion  of  Bifldops  here  from  the  firft 
founding  of  a  Chrijlian  Church.     To  prove  this,  I  (hall  not  rely  on  the 
(h)Apu{   Tef}[imon'f  of  the  Afionymous  ( h)  Greek  Author  of  the  Martyrdoms  of 
Fatric.      p^ter  and  Paid,  who  faith,  St.  Peter  here  ordained  Bijfjops,  Priejis  and 
ITepiji'.   L>eacons  ^    But  upon  the  Reafon  of  the  Thing,   there  being  no  other 
Clem,  '   Church  in  the  Chriftian  World  which  derived  from  the -^/'<?/?/ej,  which 
had  fiot  a  Succeflion  of  Bifhops  from  them  too  ^    And  we  cannot  trace 
the  Hiftory  of  other  Churches  farther  than  we  can  do  that  of  their  Bi- 
(hops.     As  for  inftance.   The  firft  Converfion  of  the  Churches  of  Afri- 
ca is  much  in  the  dark,  but  as  foon  as  we  read  any  thing  confiderableof 
f;)Cypr.  them,  we  meet  with  a  Council  of  Bifhops,  t^/z..  of  (0  Agrippinus  and 
■Ey-?!'      [jig  Brethren,  out  of  the  Provinces  of  Africa,    Numidia  and  Manritania^t 
and  he  was  not  the  immediate  Predeceflbr  of  St.  Cyprian,  who  fufiFer'd 
(-f)Ter-  in  the  Perfecution  of  Valerian,  AnnoDom.   258.     And  (i^  ^  TertuUian 
tuii.  de     puts  the  proof  of  Apojiolical  Churches  upon  the  Succejjion  of  Bijhopsjrom  the 
b'xfet%2.  Apojiles  :    which  were  a  fenflefs  way  of  preceding,  unlefs  it  were  taken 
for  granted,    that  whereever  the  Apojiles  planted  Churches,   they  ap- 
pointed Bifhops  to  take  care  of  them.    Although  therefore,  by  the  lofs 
of  Records  of  the  Britijh  Churches,  we  cannot  draw  down  the  Succefli- 
on of  Bifhops  from  the  Apoftles  time  (  for  that  of  the  Bipops  of  London 
by  Jocelin  of  Fumes  is  not  worth  mentioning  )   yet  we  have  great 
reafon  to  prefume  fuch  a  Succeflion  ^  When  upon  the  firft  fummoning 
a  Council  by  Conjiantine  three  Britijlj  Bifhops  appear'd  5    one  out  of  e- 
very  Province  ;  as  they  did  in  other  Parts. 

But  fome  pretend  to  give  a  more  punctual  and  exadl  account  of  the 
fettling  of  our  Church  Government  here,  viz.  That  there  were  twenty 
eight  Cities  among  the  old  Britains,  That  in  thefe  there  were  twenty  Jive 
Flamins  and  three  Archflamins,    in  whofe  places^    vpon  the  Converfion  of 

the 


Chap.  II.         the  BritijhCburcbes,  49 

the  Nation   by  l^ing  Lucius,    there  wat  the  like  number  of  B'fliopt  and 
Jrchbipops  here  appointed  5   And  for  this,    befides  the  Fvabblc  of  our 
Monkilh  Hiftorians,  who  fwallow  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth  whole  without 
chewing  :^    I  find  two  of  my  Predeceffors,    Men  confiderable  in  their 
times,    produced  to  the  fame  purpofe,  viz.  U)  Radtilphus  de  Diceto,(J)^^^^"- 
and  Rad.  Baldock.     Others  fay,  (m")  That  thefe  twenty  eight  Cities  voeice  i\er.Angl. 
not  all  furnijhed  with   Bifiopi  in  King  Lucius  hk  time,  but  that  the  ho'  '•  2-<'-  ?• 
nour  of  it  belongs  to  him  becaufe  he  began  it :     But  this  is  making  a  new  ^^Ji^erf. 
Story,  and  in  effed  denying  the  truth  of  the  old  Tradition.     However  on  chunb 
I  deny  not,  but  that  it  is  as  certain  that  King  Luciusfettled  Bijhops  here,  "''}•  °f^^ 
as  that  be  was  converted  by  Eluanus  and  Medwinus  ^   For  the  fame  Au- 
thors dehVer  both.  But  how  far  his  Power  extended,  and  confequent- 
lyhow  many  Cities  had  Epifcopal  Government  then  fettled  in  them,  is 
now  impofiible  to  be  known.     As  to  the  tvpenty  eight  Cities  among  the 
Britains,  the  Tradition  doth  not  depend  upon  the  Credit  of  Geoffrey  ox 
Nennius ;    For  Bede  and  before  him  Gildas  Cay  the  fame  thing,   viz. 
That  there  werefo  many  Cities  among  the  Britains,    while  the  Romans  had 
Power  here,  which  I  fee  no  caufe  to  doubt  but  they  were  Cities  made  by 
the  Romans,  or  by  the  Britains  m  imitation  of  them,  as  I  (hall  prove  in 
another  Difcourfe.  But  that  which  follows  from  hence  is,  viz.    That 
the  Government  here  fettled  being  in  Roman  Cities^  the  correfpondence 
muft  not  be  to  the  Briti/Jj  Druids,    but  to  the  Roman  Colonies.     That 
there  was  fome  Subordination  among  the  Druids  is  unqueftionable.  For 
C£far  affirms.  That  there  was  a  Prince  of  the  Druids,  and  the  laft  Age  hath 
difcovered  a  famous  Urn  of  one  Chyndonax,    Chief  of  the  Druids  5 
concerning  which  whole  (»)  Books  have  been  written,   and  feveral  (»)/•«  ^f- 
Difcourfes  publirtied,   without  any  great  fatisfaftion  to  me  5    But  it  is'^/'LtLe 
not  to  any  purpofe  to  tell  why,  fince  I  yield  the  thing  it  felf.     And  itTombsde 
is  improbable  there  (hould  be  a  Prince  of  the  Drai^/j-,  without  an  inter- ^^y°^**" 
mediate  Subordination,  and  the  Druids  being  fo  far  difperfed,   it  v/as  Licet. 
a  reafonable  thing.  That  the  fuperior  Druids  (hould  have  their  particu-^^/^  "'' 
lar  Limits  affigned  them,  that  they  might  the  better  underftand  and  give  %tft'.!!'i. 
account  of  thofe  under  them,  and  not  interfere  or  intrench  one  upon^?-  ^J- 
another.    As  far  then  as  we  fuppofe  them  to  be  reafonable  and  pru- 
dent, thefe  things  may  juftly  be  fuppofed  concerning  them,    fo  that 
Jetting  afide  the  name  of  i7rf««/»j-  and  Archflamins,   for  which  there  is 
no  foundation  at  all  (  as  to  either  among  the  Druids,  and  not  for  the 
latter  word  among  the  Romans}  yet  the  thing  it  felf  hath  no  fuch  ab- 
furdity  or  improbability  in  it.     But  the  Cities  here  being  Roman,  as  I 
fuppofe,  the  Government  muft  be  fuitable  to  that  oi  Roman  Colonies^ 
and  they  that  know  any  thing  of  the  nature  and  conftitution  of  them, 
do  know  that  they  exaftly  foUow'd  the  Pattern  of  the  City  of  Rome, 
having  a  Senate,  Confuls,    Pr£tors,   Cenfors,    JEdiles,    ^<efiors,   &c. 
And,  befides  the  reft,   they  had  their  feveral  Flamins  and  Vontificet 
too.    But  there  were  many  of  thefe  Flamins  in  each  City  or  Colony  5 
thence  (0^  Latinus  Pacatus,  in  his  Panegyriek  to  Theodojtus,  mentions,  (^j  p^car, 
Reverendos  municipali  purpura   Flamines,    in/tgnes  apicibus  Sacerdotes,  F-iieg. 
fpeaking  of  a  Roman  Colony  5  But  there  can  be  no  refemblance  between  ^'  ^^' 
a  multitudeof  i^rf*;//;/ ina  City,  andoneB//&tf/>over  a  Diocefe.    The 
Flamins  were  the  Priefts  of  fome  peculiar  Deity,   from  whom  they 
took  their  denomination,    as  may  be  at  large  feen  in  Gruters  Book  of 
Roman  Infcriptions.    But  among  them  there  was  a  certain  order  oi{p)  in- 
Place  and  Dignity  ;    for  we  read  of  a  Primus  Flame^t  in  (p)  GruterJ"^-*'  ^^' 

G  But 


50  The  Antiquities  vf  Chap.  II. 


^i))^^'  But  iq)  JacGutheriui  hath  an  Obferyation  which  will  tend  to  clear 
^TvHeri  this  matter.  For  among  the  Roman  hfcriptions,  we  meet  with  one  ex- 
j^wrepon- traordinary  of  this  kind,  viz.  {r)  Flamlni  Divorum  omniuM -^  Now 
t^fiao,  1.1.  fgjjjj  i^g^  ji^g  ^^^g  ^^  F/,?we»  teas  commn  to  all  the  Priep  in  the  Ro- 
fO/fl/c-'V- ttian  Cit'iet  ^  ^«^  f^e  Flamen  Divorum  omnium  woi  the  chief  Prkji  a- 
f.  359. 3.  tuofig  theM.  And  fo  there  is  no  fuch  mighty  abfurdity  as  bath  been 
|?r*'  ^"imagined  in  fuppofing  thefe  Flaw'ws  to  be  put  down,  and  the  Chrijii- 
0)Stmt. an  Bijhops  to  fucceed  in  their  Places;  Efpecially  if  we  could  have 
^Inl'm.  made  out  that  there  were  Flamines  Frov'tnciarum.,  ^  as  at  firft  ap- 
Patav.'l.  pearance  feem'd  very  probable  in  the  Roman  Infcriptions.  And  (/) 
I.  §.6.  p.  Sertorius  Vrfatus  feems  to  make  no  doubt  concerning  it  in  this  In- 

#39*  r-     •     i» 

fcription. 

DIVO  AVGVSTO 
ALBINVS.   ALB.   F.    FLAMEN 
DIV^.  AVG.   PROFINCI^ 
LVSITAN. 

But  it  is  ati    eafie  miftake   for   a  Flamen  D.  Aug.  one-of  AtigU' 
flus  his  Flamins  in  that  Rrovi)it:e.     Of  which  fort  there   are  ma- 
fOGrutcr.ny  Examples.     But  there  are  other    (/)   Infcriptions  wherein  we 
Mcript.p.  read  of, 

FLAMINICA   RROVINCIM 
LVSITANI^. 

But  all  that  Sertor'ms  Vrfatus  infers  from  hence  is,    That  there  were 

Temples  dedicated toMvimd^h  and  to  Provinces,  and  thefe  Temples  had 

their  Flamines  and  Flaminicae.    But  this  doth  not  prove,  that  the  Fla- 

mns  had  any  Jurifdiftion  over  a  Province  ^    Which  had  been  indeed 

to  the  purpofe.    Among  the  Romans^  although  there  were  none  called 

ArchflamneSy    yet  there  were  Flamines  majores  &  minores,  as  appears 

by  FeflHs  and  others.    The  lefTer  are  thought  by  fome  to  be  called  Ve-- 

(u)Gr\aer. flamines  in  the  Infcriptionshoth  of  (»)  Gruter  and  (w)  Reinejrus.     Fc' 

'^''^fP'^'^fius  faith,    the  Majores  Flamines  were  the  Patricians  ;    the  Minorer, 

('>^j)Reinef!the  Plebeians :   but  the  late  Publifher  of  Fefitts  faith,  That  the  Majores 

jnfcript.p.  Flamines  were  the  Dialk,   Mart  talk  and  ^tirinalk-^    the  reft  of  the 

^^^'        fifteen  who  were  added  afterwards,    were  the  M/»orej  5    The  Flamen 

Martialk  and  ^irinatis  were  of  the  College  of  Pontifices^  as  appears  by 

(^)  Cicero  fx)  Cicero  :    And  the /'tf»///fcf/ themfelves  were  divided  likewife  into 

<^^Aruip.  Majores  and  Minores,    as  appears  both  by  Fejius  and  the  Infcriptions  : 

Thefe  leffer  were  at  firft  Afeffhrs  in  the  College  or  Court  of  Pontifices  5 

But  afterwards  became  only  Officers  to  them  5   And  among  thefe  there 

was  a  Pontifex  Maximtfs  too:   But,  as  Fejius  iakh,  he  tvas  only  the  firji 

in  the  College  :     But  all   this  relates  only  to  the  City.    That  which 

0)  c       comes  nearer  to  our  bufinefs  is  the  Confideration  of  the  Sacerdotes  Pro- 

T^rd      "^'f^ciarum,  as  they  are  called  in  the  {y)  Jheodofian  Code,    (z.)  JacGa- 

Dec.l.ii6,thofredHs  faith.  The  difference  between  the  Flamins  and  thefe  tpos '^  That 

7J,  ire.   the  Llam/ns  belong'd  to  particular  Cities  5   But  thefe  had  n>hole  Provin- 

[i^o/r]^J*'<rex  under  their  Care  ;    and  foin  the  Law,  the  Honor  Flaminii  was  di- 

c.Theod.ftinct  from  the  Honor  Sacerdotii  i,    this  latter  is  called  Archierofyne  in 

^dtvll' '"  ^^^  ^^^^  ^"'^^  '  ^^^  ^^^  ''""'^  ^"*^  Office  ftill  continued  in  the  time  of 
/,zi,  1*12  Theodofius  M.    And  it  is  there  defcribed  to  be  a  Care  that  Divine  Officer 

were 


C  H  A  p.  II.  the  Britijh  Churches.  5 1 

Tvere  performsd  in  their  Templet  ^  and  fuch  as  thefe  were  (a)  Sopelianus  ('^)*''": 
m  A/ta,    and  {b)  C hryfantitis  in  Lydia,  and  {c)  Arfacius  mGalatia,  to  s°opel.^' * 
whom  an  Epiftle  of  Julian  is  ftill  extant,    giving  him  charge  to  lookC*)^""^?. 
after  his  Office  with  great  Care,    and  to  warn  and  punifh  the  inferior 'l'^?\2\'in. 
Priejis  if  they  neglefted  their  Daty.     So  that  we  have  now  found  out  Ep.  49. 
what  did  bear  a  great  correfpondence  among  the  Romans  to  our  Bifiops 
and  Archbifloops. 

But  it  ftill  remains  a  Qaeftion,    Whether  they  did  not  rather  bor- 
row this  from  the  Chrifiians,   than  the  Chrifiians  from  them  ?     For 
Julian  in  that  Epifile  makes  it  his  bufinefs  to  perfuade  Arfacius  to 
take   all  things  commendable  from  the  Chrifiians  :,    and  no  doubt    this 
was  thought  fo  by   his  PredecelTors,  who  firft  fet  up  this  Sacerdotal 
Government  of  Provinces  among  them.     And,  if  I  miftake  not,  it  begaa 
much  later  than  the  firft  Settlement  of  Epifcopacy  in  the  Britifj  Church- 
es^   For  (d)  Etifebim    faith.     That  Maximinus  appointed  not  only(rf)£ufeb, 
Priefts  in  the  Cities,    but   'Afj^r^es^^,    Chief priefts    in   the  Provinces^^-^"-^^- 
where  Valefius  miftakes  his  meaning  ^    for  he  thinks  all  the  Innovati- '"  ^' '"  ** 
on  of  Maximinns  was  the  appointing  them  himfelf,    whereas  they 
were  wont  to  be  chofen  by  the  Decuriones  in  the  Cities  ;     But  he 
fpeaks  of  it  as  a  nerv  thing  of  Max/minus,    to  appoint  fuch  an  Order 
and  Office  among  the  Priejis  which  had  not  been  known  before  : 
And  that  which  puts  this  matter  out  of  doubt  is.    That  (e)  La&an-  (s)U- 
tills,    in  his  excellent  Piece  lately  publifhed  out  of  a  Mi",  by  Baluzi-^^^^'^' 
us,    faith  exprefly  of  Maxim-mis,    Novo  more  Sacerdotes  maximos  perfeVc^.l^' 
fingnlas  Civ'itates  fingulos   ex  primoribiis  fecit,    /.   e.     That  by  a.  nerv 
Cujiom  he  appointed  Chief  Priejis  in  the  feveral  Cities,    of  the  great- 
eft  Perfons  in  them,    who  were  not  only  to  do  the  Office  of  Priejis 
themfelves  t,    but  to  look  after  the  Inferior  Prie(is,  and  by  their  means 
to  hinder  the  Chrifiians  from  their  Worftiip,    and  to  bring  them  to 
puniftiment :     But,    as  though  this  were  not  enough,    He  appointed 
other  Priejis  over  the  Provinces,    in  a  higher  degree  above  the  reji.    Al- 
though then  Valefiiis  afferted  that  fuch  were  elder  than  Maximinus, 
yet  Laflant/Hs,   whofe  authority  is  far  greater,    hath  determined  the 
contrary. 

I  am  not  ignorant  that,  long  before  Maximinus  his  time,    (/)  Ter-  f/;Tertuii. 
/«///(?«  mentions  the  PraJidesSacerdotdes,   but  thofe  do  not  relate  to  despeliac. 
this  matter,  but  to  the  Spe&acula,   as  appears  by  the  place.    (_^)  Some/  w'l^ 
infift  on  the  Sacerdotes  Provinciales  in  (h^  TertnUiah  '^    but  Rigaltius  p1ccoii"</? 
ftiews  there  ought  to  be  a  comma  between  them,    it  being  very  unlike.  ^"^'V'". 
ly  the  Provincial  Priejis  fhould  have  Golden  Crowns  when  thofe  at  Rome  uEcc'ief' 
had  not.     And  in  a  (/)  Canon  of  the  African  Code  we  find  the  Sacerdo-  <=■  ^  '• 
tes  Provincia,   but  that  Council  wss  long  after,  Anno  Dom.  407.     Andfui^j  J"}, 
thefe  feem  to  be  no  other  than  Advocates,    who  were  to  appear  for /ow.cis' 
theCaufes  which  concerned  the  Temples  and  Sacrifices  throughout  tht^'\^'"^-'i' 
Province.     According  to  which  method,    the  African  Bifjops  there  ds-"'^"^'''^^' 
fire.  That  the  Churches  might  have   Advocates    too,    with  the  fame  Pri- 
vileges :    Which  Requeft  was  granted  by     (]e)  Honorius -^    and  was  ^^''^^'^^' 
the  firft  Introduftion  of  Lawyers  into  the  Service  of  the  Church,    who 2. li^'f' 
were  called  Defenfores  Ecclefarum,    and  were  afterwards  Judges  in  Ec  (OSpan- 
clefafiical  Caufes.     But  that  which  comes  nearer  to  this  matter  is,  the  ^N^Hnffm 
Authority  of  the  ^/4rf^<«,  who  in  fome  Cw«/,  mentioned  by  (I)  Span- r- 692. 
hemius,  are  faid  to  be  Priejis  over  thirteen  Cities-^  And  this  in  the  Law  is  ^'"y"  '?* 
called  (m)  Sacerdotium  AJia  :    But  thefe  feem  to  have  been  no  other  Awr? 

G  2  than 


5  2  The  Anti{juities  of  C  h  a  p.  11. 

than  fhofe  who  took  care  of  the  publich  Solemmties  in  the  common  Af- 
fembly  in  Afia,  when  the  People  met  out  of  thefe  Cities  to  perform 
them  either  at  Ephefits  or  Smyrna^  or  any  other  of  the  Cities  within 
this  comhination,  as  is  obferved  by  many  (n)  Learned  Men.  And  air 
^obP'^^^]'  ^^o"gh  there  were  but  one  Chief  at  a  time,  yet  the  Office  feem'd  to 
5.  {."^15.  have  pafTed  by  turns  through  the  feveral  Cities  5  And  he  in  whofe 
Pet.  Fabr.  Qty  the  Solemnities  were  to  be  kept,  was  the  Prefident  for  that  time, 
;^'"'/"  ^'  and  had  the  Title  of  Afiarcha.  But  (<?)  Alb.  Rubenius  (hews  from  Ari- 
Albafp.  flrdes  and  Dio,  That  the  Afiarch^e  had  the  Superintendef7cy  over  the  Tern- 
T^'A'.  '  f^^^  '^"^  *^^  Priefis  within  the  Commmtity  of  the  Afian  Cities  5  But  thefe 
Scld.  arf  were  only,  he  faith,  For  the  Temples  ereUed  to  the  Csfars  cut  of  the  com- 
Marm.  A-  fffg„  Stoclz ;  The  Temple  of  Diana  at  Ephefis  belonging  to  the  Ionian 
'164.  Community,  and  not  to  that  of  AJia.  Herodes  Atticus  is  called  in  the 
{o)h\h.  Infcription  at  ( p')  Athens,  'Af^'U^fey?  t^''  :Ei/2xgSv,  Csfar'/  High-priefi^ 
i"tl"!  ^"^  fhat  feems  to  be  only  a  Title,  without  Power.  But  it  appears  by 
Neocoris,  the  (^)  Infcription  at  Thyatira,  That  the  Afiarcha  was  called  the  High- 
r  ]^'  ns  P^'^ft  ^f  Afia,  and  had  Power  to  place  Priefis  in  the  Cities  under  his  Care. 
voy.  220.  But  ftill  this  falls  (hort  of  fuch  Chief  priefis  in  the  Provinces  as  Maximi- 
(q)  Id  p.  „fff  appointed. 

^^'^'  And  thus  I  have  endeavour'd  to  clear  the  Antiquity  and  Original  In- 

flitution  of  Epifcopacy  here,  by  fhewing  it  was  not  taken  up,  according 
to  the  Monkijh  Tradition,  from  the  Heathen  Flamins  and  Archflamins  5 
But  came  down  by  Succeffion  from  the  firfl:  planting  of  Apojiolical  Chur- 
ches. For  although  we  cannot  deduce  a  lineal  Succeffion  of  Bijhops,  as 
they  could  in  other  Churches,  where  Writings  were  preferved,  yet 
affoon  as  through  the  Churches  Peace  they  came  to  have  intercourfe 
with  foreign  Churches  (as  in  the  Council  of  Arles^  they  appeared 
with  a  proportionable  number  of  Bifljops  with  thofe  of  the  other  Pro* 
vinces  ;  And  their  Succeffion  was  not  in  the  leaft  difputed  among  them, 
they  fubfcribed  to  the  Sentence  and  Canons  as  others  did.  And  what 
Canons  did  then  pafs,  did  no  doubt  as  much  concern  the  Britifh  Churches 
to  obferve,  as  any  other  Churches  whofe  Bifhops  were  there  prefent. 
Which  Canons  were  paffed  by  their  own  Authority  ^  For  they  never 
fent  to  the  Bifiop  of  Rome  to  confirm,  but  to  publifh  them,  as  appears 
by  the  Synodical  Epiftle  which  they  fent  to  him ;  Their  words  are, 
^«<g  decrevimus  Communi  Concilia,  Charitafi  tu£  fignificamus,  ut  omnes 
(r)  Baron,  fciant  quid  in  futurum  obfervare  debeant.  (r)  Baronius  had  good  luck  to 
Ad.  314.  And  om  fiig  „eceffity  of  the  Pope's  confirmation  here  5  Whereas  they  plain- 
(;)Pec.  de  Jy  tell  him,  they  had  already  decreed  them  by  common  confent,  and  fent 
Marca  </?  them  to  him  to  divulge  them,  i.  e.  As  (/)  Petrus  de  Marca  faith.  As  the 
Emperors  fent  their  Edi&s  to  their  Prxfecti  Praetorio.  Was  that  to  con- 
firm them  ?  It  is  true,  they  fay,  the  Pope  had  a  large  Diocefe  5  But  if 
thefe  words  had  implied  fo  much  as  a  Patriarchal  Power  over  the  Bifhops 
there  afTembled,  how  could  they  affume  to  themfelves  this  Porver  to 
hiake  Canons  5  And  only  to  fignifie  to  him  xohat  they  had  done,  and  to 
defire  him  to  communicate  thefe  Canons  toothers?  Would  fuch  a  Mef- 
fage  from  a  Council  have  been  born,  fince  the  Papal  Supremacy  hath 
been  owned  ?  Nay,  how  faucily  would  it  have  looked  in  any  Council 
within  the  Patriarchats  of  the  Eaft  to  have  done  fo>  But  thefe  Bifhops 
of  Aries  knew  no  other  Style  then,  but  Charitati  tu£ ;  And  they  fig- 
nifie to  the  Bi(hop  of  Rome  what  they  had  already  decreed,  but  not  what 
they  had  prepared  for  him  to  confirm.  And  they  are  fo  far  from  own- 
ing his  Authority  in  calling  them  together,  That  they  tell  him,  They 

were 


Concord. 
1.7  C.14 
n.  2. 


Ch  a  p.  II. 


the  Britiflj  Cbiircbes, 


53 


ComKiuni  copula  charitatk  €^  um- 
tate  Mntrh  Ecclef£  Catholic<e  vi/t- 
cnlo  inh<erentes  ad  Arelatenfium  Ci- 
vitatem  piijjimi  Impcratork  volunta- 
te  addt0i 

^os  d^  Dei  fToJirt  pr^feaT  Au&o- 
ritas  &•  Traditio,  ac  Regula  verita- 
tk  ita  refpttit 

Jfidice  Deo,  ac  Matre  Ecclcjia 
qu£  fuos  novit  aut  comprobat,  aut 
damttati  funt  ant  repnlji. 

Etutinafft,  Prater  dile^ijjtme,  ad 
hoc  tantum  fpe&acuUm  interejjes — 

Et  te  pariter  tiobifcHm  judicante 
CcetHs  nofter  majori  latitia  exult ajfet. 


were  aflembled  at  the  Emperors, 
Command,  and  were  fo  far  from 
expefting  X^irQd\ox\s  from  him,  that 
they  tell  him  they  had  a  Divine  Au- 
thority prefent  with  them,  and  a 
certain  Tradition  and  Rule  of 
Faith.  They  wi/Ijed  indeed,  he  had 
been  prefent  with  them,  and  to 
have  judged  together  with  them. 
Was  thfs  to  make  himfole  Judge?  or 
could  they  believe  him  at  the  fa/fie 
time  to  be  their  Supreme  Head?  The^ 
could  have  been  glad  of  the  Com- 
pany of  their  Brother  of  Rome,  as 
they  familiarly  call  him  5  But  fince 
his  Occafions  would  not  permit 
his  Abfence  from  home,  they  ac- 


quaint him  what  they  had  done,  and  fo  fend  him  an  Abftra&  of  their 
Canons,  as  may  be  feen  at  large  both  in  Sirmondm  and  Baronius.  By 
this  we  fee  what  Opinion  the  Britijh  Bi/hops  and  their  Brethren  had  of 
the  Pope's  Supremacy. 

But  now  to  their  Canons  1  Thofe  may  be  reduced  to  three  Heads  5 
Either  to  the  Keeping  of  Eajter ;  Or  to  the  Difdpline  of  the  Clergy  5  Of 
to  Lay  Communion. 

C'O  As  to  Eajier,  That  Council  decreed,  Can.  i.  That  it/hould  be 
obferved  on  the  fame  day  and  time  throughout  the  Worlds  And  that  thi 
Bijhop  of  Rome  J/jould  give  notice  of  the  day,  according  to  cufiom.  But 
this  latter  part  was  repealed,  as  Binius  confelTes,  by  the  Council  of 
Nice,  which  referr'd  this  matter  to  the  Biftiop  of  Alexandria. 

(2.)  As  to  the  Clergy,  There  were  Canons  which  related  to  Bifliops, 
Priefts  and  Deacons,  (i.)  To  Bi/hops,  and  thofe  were  four  i  (i.)  That 
ito  Bifhop  Jhould  trample  upon  another.  Can.  17.  which  Albafpin^eus  viqW 
interprets  of  invading  another's  Diocefe.  (2,)  As  to  travelling  Bijhops,that 
they  [hould  be  allow  d  to  perform  Divine  Offices  in  the  City  they  came  nntOy 
Can.  19.  (5.)  That  no  Bijloop fhould  Confecrate  another  alone,  but  he  ought 
to  take  feven  with  him,  or  at  leaji  three^  Can.  20.  Which  (hews  the 
number  of  Bilhops  then  in  the  Weftern  Provinces  and  fo  in  Britain  at 
that  time.  The  Nicene  Canon,  Can.  4.  takes  notice  only  of  three  Bi- 
pops  as  necelTary  to  be  prefent,  becaufemany  EaUern  Provinces  had  not 
feven -J  as  Chriflianus  Lupus  obferves  on  that  Canon.  In  an  African. 
Council  in  Crefconius  we  find,  That  because  that  two  hadprefumed  to  cofi- 
fecrate  a  Bifhop,  they  defire  that  twelve  may  be  prefent  5  But  Aurelius,  Bi- 
fhop of  Carthage,  refufed  it  for  this  reafon,  Becaufe  in  the  Province  of 
Tripolis  there  were  but  five  Bijhops.  Therefore  vs^hen  the  Council  of 
Arlesappo'mts  feven,  it  doth  fuppofe  thefeProu/»fef  to  have  a  greater 
number  of  Bi/hops.  (4.)  That  if  any  were  proved  to  have  been  Tradito- 
res  in  the  Time  of  Perfecution,  \.  e.  to  have  given  up  the  facred  Books 
or  Veflels,  or  to  have  betray  d  their  Brethren,  and  thk  proved  by  Authen- 
tick  A&s:^  Then  they  were  to  be  depofed.  Bpwevet  their  Ordinations  are 
declared  to  be  valid,  Can.  1 3. 


(2.)  As 


54 


Ibe  Antiquities  of 


Chap.  11. 


(2.)  Asto interior  Clergy  •  (l.)  Rxcomntun'ication k  dtnotmced  aga'wjl 
ihofe  thnt  put  out  money  to  tifc.  Can.  l  3.  (2.)  That  tfiey  were  not  to  forfahe 
the  churches  rchere  they  were  orda'wed.  Can.  2.  And  Deprivation  is 
threatned  on  that  account,  Gw.  21.  (3,)  The  Deacons  are  forbidden 
to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Slipper y  there  called  O^rzw^,  Can.  15, 

(^5.)  As  to  Lay  Communion  :  (r.)  Thofe  that  refttfe  to  contimie  in  their 
Employment  as  Sonldiers,  novo  the  Perfecittion  was  over,  were  to  befufpend- 
ed  Communion,  Can.  5.  The  words  are  dc  hk  qui  arma  projiciunt  in  Pace, 
Of  which  fome  do  hardly  make  tolerable  fenfe.    Binir/f  faith  it  muft 
be  read  in  Bello.     But  nothing  can  be  more  contrary  to  Peace  than  War  ^ 
How  then  (hould  fuch  a  miftake  happen?  Albnfpin^us  faith,  Itk  againji 
thofe  who  refiife  to  be  Souldiers  in  time  of  Peace  :  Baroniuf  faith.  It  k  a- 
ga/njl  them  that  apofatize  in  time  of  Peace  ;  But  if  a  Metaphorical  Senfe 
will  be  allow'd,  that  which  feerns  moft  probable  is.  That  many  Chri- 
ftians,  now  the  Perfecution  was  over,  negleded  that  Care  of  them- 
felves,  and  that  Striftnefs  of  Difcipline  which  they  ufed  before ;  And 
therefore  fuch  are  here  threatned,  if  not  to  be  thrown  out,  yet  to  be 
debarr'd  Communion  till  they  had  recover'd  themfelves.     And  much 
to  this  purpofe  Jofephitf  Egyptius  and  Joh.  Antiochenus  do  underftand 
the  12.  Can.  of  the  Council,  of  Nice.     But  if  a  Metaphorical  Senfe  be 
thought  too  hard  ;  Then,  Ifuppofe,  theraeaningis,  againfl:  thofe  who 
renounced  being  Souldiers,  as  much  now  in  time  of  the  Churches  Peace, 
as  under  Perfecution,  when  they  could  not  be  Souldiers  without  com- 
mitting Idolatry,  as  appear'd  in  the  Perfecution  of  Licinius  and  others. 
.  _  .  ^  Confiantine,  as  (/)  Eufebius,  gave  them  all  leave  toforfakc  their  Employment 
devu.    '  that  would.     But  the  Council  oi  Aries  might  well  apprehend,  Thar  if  all 
conft./- 2- C/&w^w» J  renounced  heing  Souldiers,  They  muO:  ftill  have  an  Army  of 
'^'  ^^'      Heathens,  whatever  the  Emperors  were  j  And  therefore  they  hadreafon 
to  make  fuch  a  Canon  as  this,  fince  the  C  hrifiians  ever  thought  it  law- 
full  to  ferve  in  the  Wars-^  Provided  no  Idolatrous  A&s  were  impofed, 
which  was  frequently  done  on  purpofe  by  the  Perfecutors,  as  Maximi- 
attus,  Licinim,  Julian,  8cc.     And  this  I  think  the  true  meaning  of  this 
difficult  Canon.     (2  )  For  thofe  who  drove  the   Chariots  in  Races,  and 
aifed  on  Theatres,  as  long  as  they  continued  fo   to  do -^  There  being  fo 
many  Occafions  of  Idolatry  in  both  of  them,  They  were  to  be  cafi  out  of 
Communion,  Can.  4.  5.     (3.)  That  thofe  who  were  Chrijiians  and  made 
Governours  of  remote  places  /hould  carry  with  them  the  communicatory  Let- 
ters of  their  own  Bifjop,  and  not   be  debarr'd  Communion,   unlefs  they 
aUed  againji  the  Difcipline  of  the  Church.     This  I  take  to  be  the  rtieaning 
of  Can.  7.  (4.)  That  thofe  who  were  received  into  the  Church  in  their  weak' 
ttefs  fl3ould  have  Impofit'ion  of  hands  afterwards.  Can.  6.     (5.^  That  thofe 
who  brought  Teftimonials  from  Confeffors  fljould  be  bound  to  take  communi- 
catory Letters  from  their  Bifiop,   Can.  9.     (6.)  That  thofe   who  found 
their  Wives  in  Adultery,  fiould  be  advifed  not  to  marry  again  while  they 
did  live.  Can.  10.     (7.)  That  thofe  young  Women  who  did  marry  Infidels 
fiouldfir  a  time  be  fufpended  Communion,  Can.  1 1.     (8.J)  That  thofe  who 
falfly  accufed  their  Brethren  jliould  not  be  admitted  to  Communion  as  long 
as  they  lived.  Can.  14.     (9.)  That  none  who  were  excommunicated  in  one 
place  pjould  be  abfolved  in  another.  Can.  1 6.   (10.)  That  no  Apofiatejlwuld 
be  admitted  to  Communion  in  Sicknefs  ;  But  they  ought  to  wait  til/ they  re' 
cover d  and  flmvd  amendment.    Can.  22.     (n.)  That  thofe  who  were 
bitptiud  in  the  Faith  of  the  Holy  Trinity  Jhould  not  be  rebaptized.  Can.  8. 

And 


HAP.  III.         the  Enti/hChurches.  55 


And  this  was  the  Canon  which  St.  Augufiim  on  all  occafions  prefled  up- 
on the  Dottatifts,  as  Sirmondns  and  Launoy  think  5  And  therefore  they 
fuppofe  this  Council  to  be  called  fo  often  a  Plenary  and  TJmverfal  Cohh- 
cily  not  from  the  number  of  fii/Stf/)j  prefent,  but  from  the  Provinces  out 
of  which  they  came  5  And  fo  it  was  thefirft  General  Council  of  the  We- 
fiertt  church. 


CHAP.    III. 

Of  the  SuccefHon  of  the  Britijh  Churches 
from  the  Council  of  ISIice  to  the  Council 
of  Ariminiim. 

G^at  Trohahil'ities  that  the  Britifii  'Bifhop  were  prefent  in  the 
Council  of  Nice. 

The  Tejlimonies  of  Conftantine'f  hein^  horn  in  Britain  clear  d. 

The  particular  Canons  of  the  Council  oj  Nice  relating  to  the  Co- 
yerriment  of  the  Churches  explain  d. 

How  far  the  right  of  EkBion  was  devolved  to  the  ^ijhops. 

Of  the  Authority  of  Provincial  Synods  there  fettled.  ■ 

Particular  Exceptions  as  to  the  ^ifhops  of  Alexandria,  Rome 
and  Antioch  from  ancient  Cuflom. 

They  had  then  a  Patriarchal  Tower  within  certain  hounds. 

Ho  Metropolitans  under  the  JurifdiBion  of  the  'Bifhips  of  Rome 
W  Alexandria. 

The  jufi  Rights  of  the  Britifli  Churches  clear  d. 

*Ko  evidence  that  they  were  under  the  Roman  Patriarchate. 

The  Cyprian  privilege  Vindicated  from  all  late  Exceptions. 

The  Patriarchal  Rights  examind;  And  from  them  the  Tope*s  Pa- 
triarchal Tower  over  the  Weflern  Churches  at  large  difputed  and  over- 
thrown. 

Tope  hco's  Arguments  againfl  the  Tatriarch  of  Conftantinople 
held  for  the  Weflern  Churches  again  jl  him. 

The  Britifli  Bijhops  prefent  in  the  Council  of  Sardica. 

What  Authority  granted  hy  them  to  the  Bifhop  of  Rome,  and  how 
far  it  extends, 

HAving  deduced  the  Succejjion  of  the  Britijh  Churches  down 
to  the  Appearance  of  the  Britiflj  Bifhops  at  the  firft  Coun- 
cil of  Arles^  I  now  come  to  the  famous  Council  of  Nice  5  And 
although  the  Subfcriptions  ftill  remaining  which  are  very  im- 
perfe^l:  and  confufed  in  the  beft  Copies,  do  not  difeorer  any  of  the  Br»- 


5^  Tk  Anti/juities  of  Chap.  IIL 


tiflj  Biftiops  to  have  been  there  prefent,  yet  there  are  many  ProbabiJi- 
ties  to  induce  us  to  believe  that  they  were.     For  (i.)  Conjiar/titrede- 
cjares,  that  his  Deflgn  waS,  to  have  as  full  an  Appearance  of  Biilops 
there  from  all  parts  as  he  could  well  get  together.     To  that  end  he 
lent  forth  an  univerfal  Summons  for  the  Bifliops  to  come  ont  of  all  Pro- 
(a)^u(:eh.'vifices,  oiTrzti'lxyj'^v  is  the  word  ufed  by  (^0  Eufebins.     And  prefently 
devit.      after  ^e  faith  Conftantine's   Edid  was  divulged  Tmvla^i,  in  all  Provin- 
conft,/.3.  ^^^  ^  ^^^  Ewpire.     How  can  this  be.  If  there  were  no  Summons  in  the 
Provinces  oi  Gad  and  Britain^  And  to  prevent  all  Objeftions,  as  to 
difficulty  and  charges  of  Paflage,  Eufebuis  adds.  That  he  had  given  or- 
\      der  to  have  the  pnblich  Carriages  ready ^  and  all  Erpences   to  he  defrayed 
for  them.    To  this  purpofe  Tra&orite  were  to  be  given  them  by  the 
(*)  Baron.  Emperor's  O'rder,  which  fecored  their  PafTageandProvifion  in  all  Pla- 
^•^•_5H-j.es .  the  form  of  which  is  exftant  in  (^)  BaronUts.    And  the  Clajjis  Bri- 
tanhica  lying  near  to  Britain  to  fecure  thefe  Coafts  from  the  Franks 
and  Saxons,  who  were  then  troublefome,  (  and  over  which  Carakfws 
fo  lately  was  appointed  Admiral  to  clear  thefe  Seas)  the  Bifliops  here 
could  not  want  conveniency  to  tranfport  them.  (2.)  Conjiantine  expref- 
fed  great  fatisfa^ion  in  the  Numbers  that  did  appear  from  all  parts.     Soi' 
that  there  is  no  reafon  to  queftion.  That  they  did  anfvver  hisexpefta- 
(r)  Socrat.  tion.    For  in  his  Epifile  to  the  Church  of  Alexandria^  (c)  he  faith, 
I.  I.e. 9.  ^^  ^^^  brought  together  a  great  number  of  Bifiops ;  But  more  fully  in  his 
Epijile  to  the  Churches  ^  That  to  the  fettlement  of  the  Chrijlian  Faith  it 
VPas  then  necejfary,  that  all  the  B/fiops  Jhould  meet  together,  or  at  leaji  the 
greateji  part :  Therefore  he  had  affembled  as  many  as  he  could.     But 
when  it  appears  by  the  Council  of  Jrles,  what  numbers  of  Bifliops 
(i)  Eufeb.  there  were  in  thefe  Weftern  Provinces,  how  could  C<>/7y?<?»//we  ufefuch 
]!'a  c""?  Expreflions  as  thefe,  if  they  were  not  fummoned  to  appear?  And  (d^ 
'  '  '  '  Ettfebius  faith,  Thofe  that  rvere  fummond  did  come  according  to  appointment 
with  great  readinefs,  not  only  for  the  fake  of  the  Cottncil,  hut  of  the  Em- 
peror  5  And  he  after  faith,  That  the  moji  eminent  Bifliops  of  all  Churchesy 
as  well  thofe  of  Europe  as  Afia  and  Africa  did  come  to  Nice.     Did  not 
Eufebius  know  of  the  Churches  of  Britain  .<?  Yes,  moft  certainly.  For 
he  mentions/AeiV  early  converJiontoChriftianity,  as  I  have  already  fhew'd^ 
Eufeb-t/i^  And  in  that  very  Book  of  the  Lift  of  Conjiantine,  he  mentions  the  Chur- 
Con(f./.3  ^^^j.  g^  Britain,  as  well  as  thofe  of  Gaul  and  Spain:  And  there  Conftan- 
''  '^'      tine  infifts  upon  the  confent  of  the  Wejiern  and  Northern  Churches  about 
Eajier,  as  well  as  the  Southern  and  fome  of  the  Eafiern.    Now  if  their 
^  Confent  were  fo  confiderable  as  to  add  weight  in  this  matter.  It  is  not 

to  be  fuppofed  they  flnould  be  left  out,  when  he  defigned  an  Oecumc' 
nical  Council,  as  far  as  it  was  in  his  power  to  make  it  fo,  which  cer- 
tainly extended  to  all  the  Provinces  within  the  Empire.     C^.)  It  is  not 
probable  the  Churches  of  Britain  fliould  be  left  out,  confidering  Con- 
jiantine s  relation  to  Britain.    For  he  was  not  only  proclaimed  Empe- 
(e)  Pant-  ror  here  on  the  death  of  his  Father ;  But,  if  the  Panegyriji  who  lived 
^'^Con.''  in  that  time  may  be  believed,  He  was  born  here.     For,  comparing  (e) 
ftant.        Conjiantius  and  him  together,  he  faith.  That  hk  Father  deliverd  Bri- 
\l\e'mi.  t^'"  f^^'"  Slavery,  In  etiam  Nobiles  illic   oriendo  ficijii  :  The  queftion 
Aow.  1.4.  now  is.  Whether  thefe  words  relate  to  his  Birth,  or  to  hk  being  pro- 
c.ii.  in   claimed  C^far  here?  Livineius  is  for  the  latter,  after  (/)  But  I  fee  no 
(£  Euinen,  reafon  to  decline  the  moft  natural  and  proper  fenfe,  viz.   That  he  brought 
panesyr.   jif^f,  a  great  honour  to  Britain  by  being  born  in  it.     (g)  Eumeniuf,  in  ano- 
Conttant.  i)^q^  J  ^negyrick,  applauds  the  happincfs  of  Britain,  That  had  the  firfi 

fight 


i' 


Chap.  III.         the  Briti/h Churches.  57 

^gBt  of  Conftantine  Csfar.     This  is  likewife  capable  of  both  fenfes  5 
But  he  immediately  falls  into  a  high  commendation  of  Britain,  for  its 
Temper,  Fertility,  Riches  and  Length  ofdaj/s.     If  this  were  CotTJinntine's 
oven  Country,  this  was  done  like  an  Oratow^  If  not,  to  what  purpofe  is 
all  this  }  And  then  he  parallels  Britain  with  Egypt,  where  Mercury  ivat 
born  5  Which  (hews  that  he  fpake  of  the  Place  of  Nativity.    Befides, 
the  former  Panegyriji  made  his  Oration  to  Maximianus  and  Conjiantine 
together,  upon  his  Marriage  of  Theodora  his  Daughter^  But  it  is  not 
fo  probable  that  he  would  to  him  fo  much  own  Cf»/?<z»/z»e's  being  made 
€iefar  in  Britain  5  For  that  was  not  according  to  the  Rules  of  Govern" 
went,  in  the  Court  of  Maximianns  and  Dioclef/an-^  for  as  G<?/m*sf  told 
Diode  fan  when  he  would  have  had  four  Jugujii-j  Nu,  faith  he.  That 
is  again(l  your  own  Maxim,  tvhich  k  to  have  only  two  Augufti,  and  for  them 
to  name  two  Caefars,    Therefore  it  is  not  likely.  That  the  Oratour 
(hould,  to  Maximianus  his  face,  own  him  to  be  made  C^efar,  without 
the  confent  of  thofe  who  were  then  Angujii :  But  if  he  fpeaks  of  his  be- 
ing made  Ciefar  by  Galerius,  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  he  were  then 
in  Britain.  (A)  For  LaSantius  faith,  he  took  tivie  to  confider  about  it,  and  [h)  La- 
was  very  hardly  brought  to  it  :  But  (/*)  Nazari^,  and  (/')  Praxagoras,  "^^"^"  '^^ 
both  fay.  That  Conftantine  went  into  Gaul  foon  after  hk Fathers  death -^ fee.  c. sj.' 
And  therefore  Gaul  firft  faw  him  C^far,  according  to  the  confliitutionC')  Nazir. 
of  the  Empire  at  that  time.    So  that  this  one  Teftimony  of  the  Pane-  ^^"^-' "• 
gyrifl  weighs  more  with  me  than  ten  Cedrenus's  or  Nicephortts's  who  fay  (-f)  I'hot. 
he  was  horn  in  the  Eafi.     But  I  produce  this  only  as  an  argument  of  the  ^''•'''  ^^* 
improbability.  That  the  Britifi  Churches  fhould  be  omitted  by  Con- 
jiantine in  the  Summons  to  his  Oecumenical  Council ;  or,  That  tiiey  be- 
ing fummon'd  (hould  negleft  to  go.  C4.)  They  were  certainly  fummon'd, 
and  did  goto  the  Councils  of  Sardica.  and  Ariminum  after,  and  to  that 
of  Aries  before,  and  why  (hould  we  believe  them  left  out  in  that  of 
Nice?  This  argument  alone  prevailed  with  Mr.  (/)  Selden  to  believe (/jSeiden. 
them  prefent  at  the  Council  of  Nice.    And  we  are  now  forced  to  make '"  ^"'^^'^'^* 
ufe  of  the  beft  Probabilities,  (ince  At hanajius- his  (»/)  Sjnodicon  hathi'23.^' 
been  fo  long  loft,  wherein  all  their  Names  were  fet  down  who  were("')Socr. 
then  prefent ;  And  that  Catalogue  of  them,  if  it  were  diftind,  which  {'njipiph. 
(n)  Epiphanius  had  feen.  im,6^. 

There  being  then  fo  much  reafon  to  believe  the  Britijh  Bi(hops  pre- 
fent in  the  Council  of  Nice,  we  have  the  more  caufe  to  look  into  the 
Conjiitution  of  the  Eccle(iaftical  Government  there  fettled,  that  fo  we 
may  better  underftand  the  juft  Rights  and  Privileges  of  the  Britijh 
Churches.  After  the  Points  of  Faith  and  the  time  of  Eajier  were  de- 
termined ;  The  Bifhops  there  afTembled  made  twenty  Canons  for  the  Go' 
vernment  and  Difciplin6  of  the  Church,  in  which  they  partly  re-inforced 
the  Canons  of  the  Council  of  Aries,  and  partly  added  new.  Thofe 
that  were  re-inforced  were,  ( i.)  Againji  Clergy -mens  taking  the  cujio-- 
mary  Vfurji  then  al/ow'd.  Can.  1 7.  (2.)  Againji  their  removing  Jrom  their 
own  Diocefe,  Can.  1 5.  which  is  here  extended  to  Bijhopsz,  and  fuch  re- 
moval is  declared  null.  (9.)  Againji  Deacons  giving  the  Euchariji  to 
Presbyters,  and  in  the  prefence  of  Bijhops,  Can.  18.  (2.)  As  to  Lay 
Communion  5  The  Canon,  againft  re-baptizing  is  re-inforced  by  Can.  1 9. 
wherein  thofe  only  who  renounced  the  Trinity  are  required  to  be  re- 
baptized,  and  the  Canon  againft  being  excommunicated  in  one  Church,  and 
received  into  Communion  in  another.  Can.  5.  whether  they  be  of  the  Lai- 
ty or  Clergy. 

H  For 


58  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  lU. 

«  f  "r  '    -'        '     '        — -■     ■  '  ' 

For  the  Nero  Canons  about  Lay  Comviunion,  tbey  chiefly  concerned 
the  Lapfed  in  times  of  Perfecu^ion.  As  (ij  If  they  mreiinly  Catechu- 
men f,  that  for  three  years  they  Jhoulcl  nmain  in  the  lovceft  Form,  not  he- 
ing  admitted  to  Join  in  any  Frayers  of  the  Church,  hut  only  to  hear  tht 
Lejfons  read^  and  the  Infiru&ions  that  were  there  given,  Czn.  14.  (2.)  For 
thofe  that  rvere  baptized,  and  feO  vclnntariiy  in  the  ]ate  Perfccntion  of 
Licinius,  They  veer e  for  three  years  to  remain  among  thofe  who  were  ad* 
mitted  onely  to  hear,  for  feven  years  to  continue  in  the  fiate  of  Penitent f^ 
and  for  two  years  to  join  only  with  the  People,  in  Prayers,  without  being 
admitted  to  the  Eucharifl,  Can.  ti.  (3.)  For  thofe  Sonldiers  who  (in 
that  Perfecution  when  Licinius  made  it  neceflary  for  them  to  facrifice 
to  Heathen  Gods  if  they  would  continue  in  their  PhCes )  firfi  rcnoaa- 
ced  their  Employments,  and  after  by  Bribery  or  other  means  got  into  them 
again,  for  three  years  they  were  to  be  without  joining  in  the  Prayers  of 
the  Church,  and  for  ten  years  to  remain  in  the  fiate  of  Penitents  ;  But  fa 
as  to  leave  it  to  the  Bfftop's  Difcretion  to  judge  of  thefincerity  of  their  Re^ 
pentance,  and  accordingly  to  remit  fame  part  of  the  Dtfciplme,  Can.  1 2. 
(4.)  If  perfons  happen  d  to  be  in  danger  of  Death  before  they  had  paffed 
through  all  the  methods  of  the  Churches  Difcipline,  they  were  not  to  be  dc 
nyed  the  Eucharifi  ,  But  if  they  recover,  thej  were  to  he  reduced  to  the 
fiate  of  Penitents,  Can.  15.  But  there  was  one  Canon  added  of  an- 
other nature,  which  concerned  L'»/^r»if//;',  and  thatis  the  laft  of  the 
Genuine  Canons.  It  had  been  an  ancient  Cuftom  in  the  Chriftian 
Church  to  forbear  kneeling  in  the  publick  Devotion  on  the  Lord's  Day, 
and  between  Eafier  and  Whitfontide,  but  there  werp  fome  who  refufed 
to  obfervc  it  ^  And  therefore  this  Canon  was  made  to  bring  all  to  an 
Uniformity  in  that  TraBice,  Can.  20. 

But  there  are  other  Canons  which  relate  more  efpecially  to  Uccleji- 
aftical  Ferfons,  and  thofe  either  concern  the  Difcipline  oi  the  Clergy,  or 
the  Government  of  the  Church. 

(i.)  For  the  Difcipline  of  the  Clergy,  they  are  thefe. 
(l.)  None  who  had  voluntarily  cajlrated  themfelves  were  to  be  admit- 
ted into  Orders,   Can.  I.     For  it  feems  Origen's  Faft,  however  con- 
(«)  chri-  demned  by  fome,  was  as  much  admired  by  others,  and  (<?)  Chriftia- 
^^'^^":^^'P-  nus  Lupm  thinks  the  Seft  of  the   Valefii,  who  c  a  fir  ate  d  all,  came  from 
c/Immh.  him  ;  But   I  do  not  find  that  Origen  did  propagate  any  Seft  of  this 
c«n,        kind  ^  And  E.piphanius  makes  one  Valens  the  Authour  of  it ;  However 
this  great  Council  thought  fit  to  exclude  all  fuch  from  any  Capacity 
of  Church  Employments  5  But  it  is  generally  fuppofed,   and   not 
without  rcafon,  that  the  Fa£t  of  Leontius,  a  Presbyter  of  Antioch, 
(f)  Baron.  (/?)  caftrating  himfelf  becaufe  of  his   fufpicious  Converfation  with 
^■^■%^}-Eufiolia,,  gave  the  particular   Occafion  to  the  making  this  Canon. 
\  Aclian.  (2-)  None  who  were  lately  Catechumens,   were  to  be  confecrated    Bijhops 
adftiit.    or  ordained  Presbyters,  Can.  2.    For  however  it  had  happen'd  well  in 
Tsi?,^"'^  fome  extraordinary  Cafes,  as  of  St.Cyprian  before,  and  others  after  this 
822,8^7.  Council,  as  St.  Awbrofe,  Nedarius,  &:c.     yet  there  was  great  reafon 
to  make  a  ftanding  Rule  againfl:  it.  (5.)  None  of  the  Clergy  were  to  havt 
any  Woman  to  live  in  the  Houfe  with  them,  except  very  near  Relations, 
as  Mother,  or  Sifter,  Scc.  Can.  ^.     For  fome,  pretending  greater  San- 
3ity,   and  therefore  declining  Marriage,  yet  afFefted  the  familiar  Con- 
fq)  Rud.   'verfation  of  Women,  who  made  the  fame  pretence.     For  (f)  Budaus 
Com.  L.     hath   well  obferved  that  l-ajLu^'im-x^©^  is  a  Companion  of  Celibacy  ^  So 
^'•^•148- ti;j3t  when  two  Perfons  were  refolved  to  continue  unmarried  and   a- 

greed 


Lii r I  I 

Chap.  III.  the  Britijh  Churches.  ^^ 

_____ ■— : ' i I  t  ■> 

greed  to  live  together,  one  of  thefe  was  ^tuj&i(rctz1(^.  to  the  othef. 
And  (r)  TertHliiatt^  writing  againftfecond  Marriages,  feems  to  advifefOTertuU. 
this  Praftice,    Hahe  aliqttam   Dxorem  fpirit»alet» '^  adfume  de  Vidms  /  j6l"De 
Ecclefiie,  8cc.     And  it  fooh  grew  into  a  Cuftom  in  Africa,  as  appears  Exhort. 
by  (/  )  St.  Cyprian  who  writes  vehemently  againft'  it,  and  fhews  thef^^^^^' 
Danger  and  Scandal  of  if.     And  that   this  Co»verfatidn  was  under  a(/)Cypr- 
Pretence  of  San&ity  appears   by  (/)  St.Jerom's  Words,  fpeaRing  of^P-^ 4- «''• 
fuch  Perfons,  Snb  Mominibus  pietatk  qHarentium  fitfpe&a  coMJortia-^  andcf)Hieron. 
again.  Sub  nomitie  Religionk  ^^  umbra  Ceniinrntint.     But  el  few  here  he  ^^  ^"^^1^. 
calls  it  '9ejik  ^gapetarum,  for  it  fpread  like  the  Plague,  and  was  re-jen^^ai 
{trained  with  great  Difficulty  ^  And  at  laft  Laws  were  added  to  Cn-  Euftoch. 
ito»s,  thefe  being  found  ineffeftual.     (n.)  If  anj perfons  were  admitted 
loofely  and  without  due  Examination  into  Orders^  or   upon  Confeffion  of 
lawful  Impedinienis   had   Hands  notxpithjiandihg    laid  upon  them,  fuch 
Ordinations  were  not  to  be  allewed  as  Canonical,  Can.  9.  which  is  riiore 
fully  exprefled  in  the  next  Canon  as  to  one  Cafe,  vit.  That  if  any  lap- 
fed  perfons  were  ordained,  whether  the  Ordainers  did  it  ignorantly  or 
knowingly^  they  were  to  be  deprived.  Can.  10.     (5.)  If  any  among  the  No- 
vatians  returned  to  the  Church,  and  fubfcribed  their  Confent  to  the  Do- 
,  Urine  and  Pra&ice  of  it,  their  Ordination  feems    to  be  allowed.     Juflel- 
lus,  and  fome  others  think  a  new  Impofition  of  Hands  was  required  by 
this  Canon  i,  If  any  of  the  Novatian  Clergy  were  admitted  into   the 
Church.    And  fo  Dionyfus  Exiguus  and  the  old  Latin  Interpreter  dd 
render  it.     But  Balfamon,  Zonaras  and  others  underftand  it  fo,  as  that 
the  former  Impofition  of  Hands,  whereby  they  were  admitted  into  the 
Clergy  were  hereby  allow'd.    If  the  words  of  the  Canon  feem  to  be 
ambiguous,  and  their  Senfe  to  be  taken  from  the  Praftice  of  the  Ni- 
cene  Fathers  in  a  parallel  Cafe,  then  they  are  rathef  to  be  uftderftood 
of  a  new  Impofition  of  Hands.     For  in  the  Cafe  of  the  Meletians  who 
were  ordained  in  Schifm  too,  they  determined  in  their  Synodical  Epi-* 
ftle  that  they  (hould  be  received  fAAjg^x^li^  y&iso-nvlci,  with  a  niore  fa- 
cred  Impofition  of  Hands  -^  But  it  is  not  agreed  whether  this  implies  a 
Re-ordination  or  not.     {u)  Falefius  thinks  it  doth,  but  others  takeit.^N y^igf^ 
only  for  afimple  BenediBidn,  or  the  Laying  on  of  Hands  upon  Recon-  m.hSo. 
ciliation  to  the  Church.     And  {w)  Godfrey  Hermant  hath  at  large  pro-*^"^*'  '• 
ved  Re-ordifiation  in   this  Cafe  to  have  been  againft  the  fenfe  of  the (iJjLavie 
Church  5  wherein  he  hath  the  advantage  of  Valefius  :  As  is  evident  td  ''^  ■5'.  a- 
any  one  that  reflefts  on  the  Occafion  of  the  Lucifer/an  Schifm ;  which  f  j"'  )„' 
began  upon  the  Council  of  Alexandria's  allowing  theOrdination  ofthemt. 
Arian  Bijhops.    And  it  would  be  very  ftrange  if  Schifm  were  more  de- 
Aruftive  to  Orders  than  plain  Herefie.    But  the  Novatian  Bifijop  wai 
to  have   no  JurifdiStion  where  there  was  one  of  the  Catholick  Church  5 
Can.  8. 

Among  the  Canons  which  relate  to  the  Settlement  and  Polity  of  the 
Church,  thefe  three  are  very  material,  (i.)  About  Ele^ion  and  Con- 
fecration  of  Biflwps.  (2,)  About  Provncial  Synods.  (3.)  About  the 
Bounds  of  Jurifdidion.  For  the  feventh  Canon  is  but  a  Complement  to 
the  Bijhop  of  Jerufalem,  giving  hini  the  honour  of  a  Metropolitan^  with- 
out the  Jurifdi&iOn. 

(1.)  About  Ele^ion  and  ConfecratioH  ofBipjops,  The  Canon  is.  That 
a  B/JJjop  ought  chiefly  to  be  conjlituted  by  all  the  B  /hops  in  the  Province  5 
But  if  this  be  too  difficult,  either  through  urgent  Qccafions,  or  the  length 
of  the  way^  yet    three    muji    be  prefent  for  that  purpofe,   and  have  the 

H  2  Confent 


_l      I  [ — • ■ —      •      —        ...  — -    --     —  —  ■  ' 

60  The  Anti^uiCies  of  Chap.  IIL 

Confetit  of  the  ahfent  uttder  their  Hands,  and  fo  to  make  the  Confecrat'f 
on.  But  the  Confirmation  of  all  things  done  in  the  Province  muji  he  re- 
ferved  to  the  Metropolitane,  Can.  4.  By  this  Canon  the  Government  of 
the  Church  came  now  to  be  fettled  under  Confiantine,  and  with  his 
Approbation.  And  here  we  find,  That  every  Province  had  a  number  of 
BiQiops  within  it  feFf,  who  were  to  take  care  of  the  Ecclefiajiical  Go- 
wrnment  of  it,  but  fo  as  the  confent  of  the  Metropolitane  were  ob- 
tained :  So  that  the  Rights  of  Metropolitans,  as  to  the  chief  Ecclefia- 
jiical Government  of  every  Province,  are  hereby  fecured  j  For  the  laft 
Claufe  doth  not  merely  refer  to  the  Con fecr  at  ion  of  Bifiops -^  But  takes 
in  that,  with  other  Ecclefiafiical  Affairs  of  the  Province.  The  only 
difficulty  lies  in  the  firft  Claufe,  What  is  meant  by  the  Bifhops  of  the 
Province,  conjlituting  a  new  Bifiiop  ^  Whether  the  Right  of  EleBion  h 
hereby  devolved  to  them,  or  whether  it  be  only  the  Right  of  Confer 
cration  upon  the  Ele^ion  of  the  People?  Which  is  therefore  here  fit 
to  be  enquired  into,  becaufe  the  ancient  Praftice  of  the  Britijh  Churches 
may  from  hence  be  gathered  5  which  we  may  ;ufl:ly  prefume  was  a- 
grecable  to  the  Nicene  Canon.  And  becaufe  the  fignification  of  the 
Greek  word  is  ambiguous,  we  (hail  firft  fee,  what  Senfe  the  Greek 
Writers  do  put  upon  it.  Balfamon  interprets  Kgf-Sfit^&a^  by  \}/f?/^fe;&a/ 
which  is  chufing  by  Suffrage  ;  And  he  in  plain  terms  faith,  by  this 
Canon,  the  Right  of  Ele&ion  was  taken  from  the  Feople,  and  given  to 
the  Bifijops  of  the  Province.  And  it  is  not  Balfamon  alone,  as  fome 
imagine,  that  was  of  that  Opinion,  but  Zonaras,  Ariftenus,  Mattheus 
Blafiares^  as  any  one  may  find.  But  we  are  told.  If  they  are  all  of  that 
mind,  they  are  greatly  mifiahen,  becaufe  this  Council,  in  their  Synodical 
(:c)Socm.Epifile  fo  thofe  <?/ Alexandria  rf»<^  Egypt,  declare  their  Judgment,  (x) 
I.  i.  c.  9-  Xhat  if  any  Bifijops  deceafe,  others  reconciled  to  the  Church  may  be  ad- 
mitted in  their  room,  if  they  be  worthy,  and  the  People  do  chufe  them, 
}y  0  Actlc,  cu^om.  One  would  think  by  this.  That  the  Council  of  Nice 
had  put  this  matter  wholly  into  the  Peoples  hands,  but  if  we  look 
into  that  Synodical  Epiftle,  we  (hall  find  it  much  otherwife.  For  the 
cafe  was  this.  The  Council  declares  their  tendernefs  towards  thofe 
that  had  been  made  Bifhops  and  Priefts  in  the  Meletian  Schifm,  al- 
lowing their  Orders  upon  due  Submiffion,  but  not  to  exercife  any 
Jurifdi&ion  to  the  prejudice  of  thofe  in  Poffeffion  5  But  if  any  Bifliops 
died,  thofe  Meletian  Bifliops  might  fucceed,  but  with  thefe  three  Pro- 
vifoes.  (i.)  That  they  he  judged  worthy -^  By  whom?  By  the  People? 
No  certainly,  For  then  there  had  been  no  need  of  the  following 
Claufe,  but  this  Judgment  belonged  to  the  Bifiops  of  the  Province, 
according  to  this  Canon.  (2.)  If  the  People  chufe  them  ^  What  Peo- 
ple? The  Meletian  party  ^  No  5  They  are  excluded,  becaufe  of  their 
being  in  Schifm,  from  having  any  thing  to  doe  in  the  Choice,  altho' 
they  were  admitted  to  Communion.  For  they  are  forbidden  before 
•zs-^^&t^tXiQjLI  «  -^•zav^ciM.'Hv  'IvofA^la.,  to  put  up  the  Names  of  the  Perfons 
to  be  chofen,  or  to  hold  up  their  hands  5  And  fo  all  Right  of  Suffrage 
was  taken  from  them  on  the  account  of  their  Schifm-^  So  that  what 
right  of  choice  was  in  the  People,  it  was  only  in  the  found  and  un- 
tainted Party,  and,  after  all,  it  was  no  more  but  a  Nomination  by 
the  People^  For  the  true  Right  of  Election  was  ftill  in  the  Bijhops. 
.  For  (3.)  all  this  fignified  nothing  without  the  confent  of  the  Bifhop  of 
Alexandria,  which  immediately  follows  the  other.  And  is  it  a  fair 
thing  to  mention  that  Claufe  onely  in  the  middle,  and  to  leave  out 

the 


C  H  A  p.  III.  the  Briti/b  Cburcbes,  61 

the  two  ofher  which  reduce  it  to  a  bare  Nomination,  2ind  the  Mekti- 
an  party  excluded  too?  Would  thofe  who  contend  among  us  for  popit- 
lar  Eleilions  like  them  upon  thefe  terms?  It  is  one  thing  for  the  Peo- 
ple to  propofe  ox  nominate  Perfons  to  be  chofen  ^  And  another  for  them 
to  have  the  Ktght  of  EleUion  :  And  it  is  one  thing  for  a  Perfon  chofen 
to  have  the  confent  of  the  People^  and  another  for  them  to  have  the 
Power  to  reje3  him,  becaufe  he  doth  not  pleafe  them  :  And  again,  it  is 
one  thing  for  the  People  to  be  allowed  to  enjoy  fome  Privileges  till 
the  Inconveniences  of  them  have  made  them  to  be  taken  away  by  juft 
Laws:  And  another  for  them  to  challenge  fuch /z  right  as  inherent  in 
themfelves,  and  without  which  there  lies  no  obligation  on  them  to 
fubrait.  If  thefe  things  were  better  underftood,  it  would  allay  fome 
mens  heats  about  thefe  matters  ^  For  granting  that  in  the  Time  of  the 
Council  of  Nice,  the  People  had  the  liberty  of  propofing  names,  or 
objeding  againft  ^he  Perfons  to  be  chofen  ^  And  although  their  con- 
fent were  generally  defined,  yet  all  this  doth  not  put  the  Right  of  E- 
le^ion  in  them  ^  For  all  that  they  could  do  fignified  nothing  without 
the  Confent  of  the  Bifhops  and  MetropoUtane  j  and  none  are  proper- 
ly faid  to  chufe  but  thofe  upon  whofe  Judgment  the  Determination 
depends,  the  reft  do  but  propofe  and  offer  Perfons  to  be  chofen.  So  thaf 
the  utmoft  the  People  could  have  by  this  Canon  was  a  Right  of  Nomi" 
ttation -J  Which  upon  Seditions  and  Tumults  was  juftly  alterd  ;  And 
there  can  be  no  Plea  for  refuming  it,  unlefs  it  be  proved  to  be  a  divine 
and  unalterable  Right,  which  can  never  be  done,  nor  is  it  fo  much  as 
pretended  by  thofe  who  feem  to  court  the  Peoples  favour,  by  plea- 
ding for  popular  Ele^ions  at  this  day  from  the  Precedents  of  former 
Times. 

But  I  will  not  deny  the  People  then  had  a  farther  Ri^ht  of  Ex- 
ception againfl:  the  Perfons  chofen,  but  therein  they  were  confidered  as 
Witneffes,  and  not  as  Judges :  If  their  Exceptions  were  juft  and  well 
proved,  the  Bifiops  as  Judges  were  to  proceed  canonically  againft  them', 
and  then  they  went  to  a  new  Nomination,  but  ftill  the  Judgment  reft- 
ed  \nthQ  provincial  Synod.  So  in  the  i6  Canon  in  the  Council  oi  Aw 
iioch  it  is  provided,  That  although  all  the  People  chufe  one  aHually  a  Bi^ 
/hop,  yet  if  he  takes  Poffeffion  of  his  See  rvithout  a  perfe&  provincial  Sy- 
nod, the  MetropoUtane  being  prefent,  he  is  to  be  caft  out.  This  Canon 
doth  more  fully  explain  the  fourth  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Nice^ 
for  here  the  Cafe  is  put  of  the  Peoples  choice,  which  is  there  only  im- 
plied :  And  here  it  is  put  concerning  one  a&ually  a  Bijhop,  and  fo  nee- 
ding no  new  Confecration,  but  being  out  of  employment  in  his  own 
See,  by  fome  extraordinary  accident,  is  Chofen  into  another  by  con- 
fent of  the  People.  Now  if  the  People  had  there  the  Povper  of  Ele^i-^ 
on,  what  hindred  this  Bifhop,  from  being  fully  poffeffed  of  his  Bi- 
fhoprick?  And  yet  this  Canon  determines,  that  fuch  a  one  was  to  be  cdjl 
out,  if  he  did  not  come  in,  by  the  full  confent  of  the  MetropoUtane  and  A 
provincial  Synod  ^  And  to  (hew  the  force  of  this  Canon,  by  virtue  of  it, 
Bajpanus  was  reje^ied  from  being  Biftiop  of  Ephefusj  by  the  genera! 
O  )  Council  oichalccdon,  where  6  jO  Biftiops  are  faid  to  have  been  pre-  (y)  condi. 
fent.  The  Cafe  was  this,  Bajfianus  was  confecrated  Bifhop  of  Euaza,  by  ^*/'"f" 
Memnon  Bifhop  of  Ephefus,  but  it  was  againft  his  Will,  and  he  never 
went  thither.  BaJiHus,  who  fucceeded  Memnon,  fends  another  Bifhop 
to  that  City  in  a  provincial  Synod,  but  leaves  Bajfianm  the  dignity 
of  a  Bilhop  5  Bafilius  being  dead,  Bajfianus  is  chofen  by  the  People  of 

Ephefuiy 


i     I  II      ■  "  ■ ^  -   .      I  I  ■    _  ■■  _  -  —       ■    ■  ■     1 .1 1   I  - 1  ■        ■  ■ 

62  Ihe  Antiquities  of  Chap.  111. 


Epheftis,  and  enthronked  by  Olympius  without  a  Provincial  Sjnod.  But 
after  four  years,  Steph.atius  is  put  in  his  room,  becaufe  he  came  not  in 
canonicdly.     The  Cafe  was  heard  at  large  by  the  Council  of  Chalce^ 
don,  and  this  Canon  oi  Antioch  was  alledged  againft  him,  and   fo  he 
was  thrown  out  by  the  Council.     From  whence  I  infer ;  ( i.)  That  the 
choice  of  the  People  at  that  time  was  not  allowed,  but  the  main  force 
of  Ele&ien  lay  in  the  PCovincial  Synod.     And  fo  Maxrmu  Biftiop  of 
Antioch,  Jidianus  Coenfs,  Diogenes  Cyzicen/is  declare  that  it  belonged 
to  the  BiOiops  of  the  Province  to  appoint  a  new  Bifhop,  as  being  moft 
competent  Judges,  and  this  was  the  way  to  prevent  diforder  in  the  Ci- 
ty.    (2.)  That  the  Bifhops  appointing  was  not  mere  ordaining  or  confe^ 
crating,  as  fome  fay.     For  this  Canon  of  Antioch  fpeaks  of  a  BiOiop  al- 
ready confecrated,  and  fo  likewife  the  12  Canon  of  Laodicea  is  to  be 
^         underftood ;  The  fame  cafe  being  fuppofed  which  is  mention'd  in  the 
Canon  of  Antioch.     And  if  he  were  unconfecrated  before,  the  Loadi- 
eean  Canon  rekrs  the  whole  matter,  as  far  as  I  can  difcern,  as  to  the 
Capacity  and  fitnefs  of  the  Perfon,  to  the  Provincial  Synod.     And  if 
the  following  Crf«<?«   13.  be  underftood  of  Bijhops,  the  Confequence 
will  be,  that  the  People  will  be  wholly 'excluded  from  their  Eleftion, 
till  it  can  be  made  appear,  that  at  that  time  the  generality  of  the  Peo* 
pie  were  fhut  out,  and  the  Eleftion  reftrained  to  the  Common  Council  5 
>    which  is  contrary  to  the  Examples  brought  for  Popular  Ele3ions,  as  ap- 
pears by  the  inftance  of  Alexandria  in  the  choice  of  Athanafius,  wher^ 
the  rvhole  multitude  is  mention'd,  and  the  Suffrages  of  the  whole  People^ 
and  afterwards  the  Plehk  Vulgique  "judicium  in  St.  Jerom,  the  Vota  Ci' 
•vium  in  Leo  is  as  much  fpoken  of  as  the  Honoratorum  Arbitrium ;  and 
by  the  fame  reafon,  any  of  the  People  may  be  excluded,  the  reft  may  ^ 
or  at  leaft  it  fhews,-  that  the  People  have  no  inherent  and  unalterable 
Right,  without  which  all  other  Pretences  fignifie  nothing,  where  Law 
and  Cuftoms  have  determined  the  contrary.     And  that  the  Cuftoms  e- 
ven  then  differ'd  appears  from  St.  Jerom  ad  Rufiicum,  where  he  menti* 
ens  either  the  People  or  the  Biftiop  chufing. 

(2.)  Another  Canon  is,  about  the  frequency  of  Provincial  Synods. 

For  in  the  fifth  Canon,  it  is  Provided,  That  no  perfon  excommunicated 

by  one  B'jhop,  fiould  be  rece-ved  into  Communion  by  another  x,  according 

to  the  Council  of  Aries .^  but  then  no  Provifion  was  made  for  the  Cafe 

of  Appeals-^  If  any  Perfon  complain'd,  that  he  was  unjuftly  excommu- 

(j)  C""'^''-  nicated,  which  it  is  natural  for  men  to  do.    For  this  purpofe,  the  N"/- 

cdp.  20.    ^f  2  Council  decrees.  That  Provincial  Synods  be  held  twice  a  year,  in 

chaiced._  c.  Lent  and  Autumn,  which  was  confirmed  by  many  other  (z.)  Canons.  And 

Ian  ^1^62.^^  thefe  all  fuch  Caufes  were  to  be  heard  and  determined,  and  Per- 

Re'gieiif.  c.  fons  cxcommuuicated  were  to  be  held  fo  by  all,  unlefs  the  Provincial 

7.  Araii^  Synod  repealed  the  Sentence.     And  although  the  cafe  of  B/Jlwps  be  not 

'^giv.h'.c  71.  here  mention'd  ;  Yet  the  African  Fathers  with  great  reafon  faid,  it  ought 

Emerit.  c.  to  be  uudctftood,  Smce  Caufes  are  to  be  heard  within  the  Province,  and 

ImiJ'th.  no  Jurifd  &  ion  is  mention  d  by  the  Council  of  Nee,  beyond  that  of 

145  Mart,  a  Metropolitane,  thofe  only  excepted  whofe  Rights  are  fecured  accord- 

Bracjr.     j^g  j-q  j^g  Prefcript/on  then  in  ufe  in  the  following  G/;^».     For  if  any 

irvnocent.  Other  fuperiour  Authority  had  then  been  known,  that  was  the  proper 

aci  Vift.    place  to  have  inferted  it,  where  the  right  of  Appeal  is  determin'd,  that 

]Tam-   being  the  moft  plaufible  Pretence  for  removing  Caufes  to  a  fuperiour 

iiaf.Hinc-  Court.     And  it  is  irapoflible  that  the  N/cene  Fathers  ftiould  have  ftopt 

47 '^20.  &t  Provincial  Synods,  if  they  had  known  or  believed,  thzt  Chrijihad 

appointed 


C.-HAP.  Hi.         the  Britifh  Churches,  6^ 

—  ■  ■■'■-  — -  I --■■■■         .       ■■-■ ■  I     ^  

appointed  a  Vicar  upon  Earth,  who  was  to  be  Supreme  Judge  m  all  Ec- 
clejiajlkal  Matters-^  For  it  would  have  been  as  abfurd  as  if  our  Judge* 
fhould  declare,  that  all  Caufes  are  to  be  determin'd  in  the  Conntry 
Courts,  when  they  know  there  are  fuperiottr  Courts  of  Jud/cature  ap- 
pointed in  WejiminBer-hall. 

It  hath  been  thought  a  matter  of  forae  difficulty  to  ftate  the  difFe- 
rence  between  the  Rights  of  a  Patriarch  and  a  Metropolitane.  But  there  are 
two  things  chiefly,  wherein  the  diftinSion  lies,  viz,  a  greater  extent  of 
Jftrifdi&'on  founded  on  the  Confecration  of  Metropolitane  Bifhops  in 
feveral  Provinces  ;  and  a  Power  of  receiving  Appeals,  or.  Judicium  in 
ma)ar;bus  citu(is^  even  after  Provincial  Synods  have  determined  them^ 
^nd  fince  in  matters  of  Appeal,  there  muft  be  a  ftop  fomewhere,  the 
only  queftion  before  us  is,  Where  the  Council  of  Nice  fixed  \t.  I  fay, 
in  a  Provincial  Synod  by  this  Canon x,  for  I  am  certain,  it  takes  notice 
here  of  no  EccleJ/dJiical  Judicatory  beyond  this.  In  matters  of  Faith, 
or  upon  extraordinary  Occafions,  by  the  Summons  of  an  Emperor,  or 
^  general  Concurrence  of  Chriftian  Princes  a  general  Council  is  the 
highefl  Court -^  But  in  the  (landing  and  ordinary  Method  of  Proceeding, 
C  where  there  have  been  no  ancient  Privileges  to  the  contrary,  of  which 
the  following  Canon  is  to  be  underftood)  a  Provincial  Synodis  the  lafl: 
Court  of  Appeal,  according  to  the  CoMneil  of  Nice.  So  that  all  foreign 
Jurifd0ion  is  excluded  by  this  Canoni,  And  the  Britijh  Churches  had  a 
full  Power  within  themfelves  to  end  all  Caufes  that  did  arife  within 
their  own  Provinces.  And  it  was  mere  ufurpation  in  any  Foreign  Bi- 
p:>ops  to  inter poCe  in  any  differences  in  the  Br iti/h  Churches,  Becaufethe 
Council  of  Nice  had  circumfcribed  the  Liberty  of  Appeals  to  Provincial 
Synods.  And  this  was  it  which  made  the  African  Fathers  Co  ftout  in 
defence  of  their  Juji  Rights,  againft  the  manifeft  incroachments  of  the 
Bijbop  of  Rome ;  and  the  Britiflj  Churches  had  as  great  Privilegci  and  as 
yujl  Rights  in  thefe  matters  as  the  African  Churches. 

C^.)  About  fettling  the  ancient  Bounds  of  Jurifdi&ion  as  to  Patri- 
archal Churches  in  the  famous  fixth  Canon.  Which  hath  been  the  oc- 
cafion  of  fo  many  warm  Debates.  In  the  former  Canon,  the  Nicene 
Fathers  fixed  the  general  Right  of  Appeals  5  And  in  this  Canon  they 
fettle  the  particular  Bounds  of  Patriarchal  Jurifdi&ion,  according  to 
ancient  Cufiont :  So  that  none  ought  to  violate  the  Privileges  which 
Churches  had  hitherto  enjoy 'd.  The  Words  are,  "  Let  ancient  Cu- 
"  ftoms  prevail,  for  the  Bifhop  of  Alexandria  to  have  Jurifdiftion  over 
*'  ^ZyV^->  Libya  and  Pentapolis  ^  Becaufe  the  Bifl)op  of  Rome  hath  a  like 
"  Cuftom^  Likewife  in  Antioch,  and  other  Provines,  let  the  Privile^ 
**  ges  of  Churches  be  preferved  ^  Let  no  man  be  made  a  Bifhop  with- 
"  out  the  confent  of  his  Metropolitane.  If  Differences  arife,  let  the 
"  Majority  of  Votes  determine.  In  this  Canon  there  are  three  things 
principally  defign'd.  (1.)  To  confirm  the  ancient  Privileges  of  fome  of 
the  greater  Seest,  as  Rome,  Alexandria  and  Antioch.  (2.)  To  fecure  the 
Privileges  of  other  Churches  againft  their  encroachments  upon  them.  (5.) 
To  provide  for  the  quiet  eftablifhment  of  Metropolitane  Churches, which 
laft  is  fo  plain  that  it  will  need  no  farther  difcourfe ;  But  the  other 
two  are  of  great  confequence  to  our  defign.  (i.)  To  confirm  the  ancient 
Privileges  of  fome  of  the  greater  Sees-^  which  had  gotten  the  extent  of 
more  than  a  bare  Metropolitane  Power  to  themfelves,  as  is  plain  in  the 
cafe  of  Alexandria,  which  feems  to  have  been  the  occafion  of  this 
Canon.    Not  merely  from  the  Schifm  oi  Mektius  (as  is  commonly 

thought ) 


^4  The  Anti(}Uities  of  Chap.  III. 


(rf)  Theo  thdught )  which  the  Council  took  care  of  another  way,  in  the  Ca^ 
c°^  ■  '■  Synodical  Epijile  to  the  Chttrchei  of  Egypt.     But  becaufe  fo  large  a  Ju- 
rifdi^tion  as  had  been  exercifed  by  the  Bifhops  of  Alexandria,  and 
Rome^  and  Antioch,  feem'd  repugnant  to  the  foregoing  Canon  about 
Provincial  Synods.    It  is  true  that  Meletiuf  after  the  Schifm  did  confe- 
crate  Bifhops  in  Egypt,  in  oppofition  to  the  Bifhop  of  Alexandria ;  But 
the  queftion  between  them  was,  not  concerning  the  Bounds  of  Jurif- 
diftion,  but  about  the  Validity  of  Meletius  his  depofition  by  Peter  of 
Alexandria-^  Which  Meletiut,  not  regarding,  fell  mto zSchifm,  and,  to 
maintain  this  Schifm,  he  confecrated  near  Thirty  Bifliopi,  as  appear'd  by 
the  lift  he  gave  in  to  Alexander,  after  the  Council  of  Nice  extant  in 
(6)Atha-  (^)  Athanafus.     Whereby  it  is  evident,  Ih^t  Meletiut  his  Schifm  Coxxld. 
naf.  Apoi.  jjQf  jjg  f  jjg  Occafion  of  this  Canon  ^  For  that  Schifm  did  not  at  all  re- 
^'  ^'  ^  ^'  fate  to  the  feveral  Provinces  of  Egypt  here  mention'd,  which  would 
Vide  A-    have  continued,  if  the  Bifhop  of  Alexandria's  Authority  had  been  con- 
*^*"^^' '   fined  to  a  fingular  Province,  and  what  ftop  could  it  put  to  the  Schifm^ 
to  fay,  his  Authority  extended  overall  the  Reman  Provinces  in  Egypt  ? 
For,  the  queftion  was,  Who  had  the  Authority  ?  not.  How  far  it  ex- 
tended ?  But,  upon  the  former  Canon  about  Provincial  Synods,  there 
was  a  very  juftoccafion,  to  addthrs  concerning  the  Bifhops  of  Alexandria 
and  Rome :  For  if  no  Salvo  had  been  made  for  them,  as  to  the  largenefs  of 
their  JurifdiSion,  the  next  thing  had  been  for  all  the  provincial  Synods  to 
haveimmediatelycaftoffallrefpedtto  them;  except  only  thofe  of  their 
own  Province.  Now  in  £^^/>*  here  are  three  diftlnQ:  Provinces  mention'd 
as  fubjeft  to  the  Bifhop  of  Alexandria,  viz.  Egypt,  Lrhyaatid  Pentapolis^ 
And  fo  the  Nicene  Fathers  reckon  thein  in  their  Epiftle  to  the  Churches 
(c)  Atha-  ^^^syP^i  ^^'^  *"  thefe  (c^  Athana/ius  mentions  an  hundred  Bifhops  i^  But 
naf.  Afoi.  fometimes  he  names  only  Egypt  and  Libya,  as  in  his  Epijile  to  the  African 
t.f.  788.  bifhops  5  fometimes  £^7/?^  and  the  two  Libya's -.^  and  in  both  comprehend- 
ing Thebak  under  f'gypt-,  and  fometimes  he  names  Thebais^  and  feveral 
times,  as  it  is  here,  only  Egypt,  L'bya  and  Pentapolk.  Which,  as  Juflellus 
id)  Am    faith,  coniprehend  the  vphole  Egyptian  Diocefe  ^  But  (d)  Ammianus  Mar- 
22?cfi/*  ^^^'"^f  reckons  them  otherwife,  viz.  Egypt,  Thebaic  and  Libya,  to  which 
Pofterity,  he  faith,  added  Augtijiamnica  and  Pentapolk:  But  Pentapolis 
was  not  comprehended  under  Libya,  being  always  a  diftindi: /*rtfz;zwe, 
and  by  the  Divifion  of  Augujius,  was  under  the  Proconful  of  Crete,  by 
(e)Epiph.tiie  Name  ofCyrenaica.    However  (e)  Bpiphanius  takes  in  Libya,  Penta- 
„fj\    ■    polff,  Thebak,  Ammoniaca  and  Mareotk :  And  faith  plainly.  That  all 
the  Provinces  of  Egypt  were  under  the  Jurifdi&ion  of  the  Bifljop  c/ Alex- 
andria.    And  thfs,  he  faith,  was  the  Cufiom  before  the  Council  of  Nice. 
For  he  fpeaks  of  the  quarrel  between  Peter,  Bifhop  of  Alexandria,  and 
Meletius,  then  Bifhop  of  Thebak ;  of  whom  he  faith.  That  he  was  next 
to  the  Bijhop  of  Alexandria,  but  in  fithjeBion  to  him,  all Ecclefiafiical  mat- 
ters being  referred  to  hiw.  For  it  k  the  Cuflooi  far  the  Bijliop  tf/ Alexandria 
to  have  the  Ecclefiafiical  JnrifdiSiion  over  all  Egypt.     By  which  it  is  plain, 
that  the  Bifhop  of  Alexandria  had  then  a  true  Patriarchal  power  by  an' 
cient  Cufiom,  i.  e.  an  Ecclefiaftical  Authority  over  the  Bifhops  in  feve- 
ral Provinces,  anfvvering  to  the  Power  which  the  PncfeSus  Augufialk' 
had  over  them  in  the  Civil  Government.     It  is  not  at  all  material  whe- 
ther the  name  of  PatrUrch  or  Diocefe  (in  that  fenfe  as  it  takes  in  the 
extent  of  Patriarchal  Jurifditlion  )  were  then  in  ufe,  for  it  is  the  thing 
we  enquire  after,  and  not  the  ufe  of  words :  And  if  the  Bifhop  of  A' 
kxandria  had  at  that  time  the  Power  of  Confecration  of  Bifiops,  of  cal- 
ling 


Chap.  III.  the  Britijh Churches.  ^5 


ling  Councils^  oi  receiving  Appeals  throughout  all  Egypt,  no  nietiof  Senfe 
can  deny,  that  he  had  a  true  Patriarchal  Porter.     I  grant  he  had  no  M.e- 
tropolitancs  then  under  him  in  the  fever  al  Provinces,     But,  what  then? 
the  manner  of  Adminiflrat  on  of  the  Patriarchs  povper  might  be  diffe- 
rent then,  from  following  times;  hxxttht  extent  of  the  povper'isthQ  thing 
in  qaefiion.     Either  then  the  Bi(hop  of  Alexandria  had  a  barely  Metro''' 
political  power  or  Patriarchal.     If  barely   Metropolitical,  then  it  could 
not  reach  beyond  one  Province  ^  If  it  extended  to  more  Provinces,  with 
full  JttrifdiSlion^  then  it  was  Patriarchal.  And  it  is  a  wondtr  to  me,  fomd 
learned  men  in  their  warm  Debates  about  this  Canon  could  not  difcern 
fo  plain  a  Truth.     But  it  is  often  faid.  That  there  were  no  fuch  th  ngs  as 
Patriarchs  at  this  time  in  the  Churchy  nor  any  Diocefes  here  taken  notice  of  as 
they  imply  an  Z)nion  of  fever  al  Provinces  under  a  Patriarchal  Jurifdi&ion. 
Suppofe  there  were  not  under  thofe  Names'.,  but  a  Jurfdi&ion  over  fe- 
veral  Provnces  there  was  in  the  Bithop  of  Alexandria  :  Which  is  a  true 
Patriarchal  power -^  and  Appeals  were  brought  to  him  out  of  the  feveral 
Provinces,  as  appears  not  only  by  the  plain  Teftimony  of  Epiphan'us  in 
the  cafe  of  Melet/us,  but  by  the  Jnrifdi&ion  exercifed  by  Dionyfins  o- 
ver  PentapolfS,  long  before  the  Council  of  Nice.     And  (/)  Athanaftts  (/)  Atha. 
faith.  The  Care  of  thofe  Churches  then  belong  d  to  the  Bifjop  of  Alexandria.  ^^^'  '^^. 
If  it  be  faid.  That  there  were  then  no  Metropolitanes  under  the  BiJIiop  ofZl.p.K'i'ii 
Alexandria,  but  he  was  the  fole  Metropohtane,  and  therefore  this  was  no 
Patriarchal,  but  a  Metropolitane  power.     I  dnfwer,  (li)  This  dorh  not 
folve  the  difficulty,  but  rather  makes  it  greater  ;  becaufe  it  doth  more 
overthrow  the  Metropolitane  Government  of  the  Church  here  fettled  by 
the  Council  of  Nice.     For  then  there  were  feveral  Provnces  without 
Metropolitanes  ;  How  then  could  the  Canons  here  made  be  ever  obfer- 
ved  in  them,  as  to  the  Confecration  of  Bifloopi  and  Provincial  Synods  .<? 
(2.)  I  do  confefs  there  was  fomething  peculiar  in  the  cafe  of  the  Bi(horj 
of  Alexandria.     For  all  the  Provinces  of  Egypt  were  under  his  imme- 
diate care,  which  was  Patriarchal  as  to  Extent,  but  Metropolitical  in 
the  Adminiflration.     And  fo  was  the  Jurifdi&ion  of  the  Bifhop  of  Rome 
at  that  time,  which  is  the  true  reafon  of  bringing  the  Cufkom  of  Rome 
to  jiiftifie  that  of.  Alexandria.     For  as  it  is  well  obferved  by  (g)  Chri-  f^^  ^"P* 
Ji/anus  Lupus,  The  Bifjop  of  Rome  had  then  no  Metropolitanes  under  hint  pan"  I'. 
within  the  Provinces  fuhje£l  to  his  JurifdiSion  5  and  fo  all  Appeals  lay  im-^-  ^°^- 
mediately  from  the  feveral  Bifhops  to  him-     And  therein  lay  the  exa(S 
parallel  between  the  Biflnops  of  Rome  and  Alexandria.     So  that,  I  do 
not  queftion,  but  the  firft  part  of  this  Canon,  was  brought  in  as  a  Pro- 
vifo  to  the  former,  which  put  the  laft  refort  into  Provincial  Synods.  For 
Alexander,  '^\fixo\i  of  Alexandria,  could  not  but  think  himfelf  extreme* 
ly  concerned  in  this  matter,    and  although  he  prevailed  againft  Arius 
in  matter  of  Do&rlne,  yet  if  he  had  gone  home  fo  much  lefs  than  he 
came  thither,  having  great  part  6f  his  Authority  taken  from  him  by 
Provincial  Synods,  this  would  have  weakned  his  Caufe  fo  much  in  Egypt, 
that  for  his  fake  the  Nicene  Fathers  were  willing  to  make  an  Exception 
as  to  the  general  Rule  they  had  laid  down  before ;  Which  proved  of 
very  ill  confequence  afterwards:  For  upon  this  encouragement,  others 
in  following  Councils  obtained  as  hrge  Privileges,  though  without  pre- 
tence of  Cujiom ;  and  the  Church  ot  Rome,  though  but  named  occaj/- 
onally  here,  to  avoid  envy,  yet  improved  this  to  the  utmoft  advantage  5 
And  the  Agents  of  the  Bilhop  of  Rome  had  the  impudence  in  the  (/5)(^)Co»f/7. 
Council  ot  Chalcedon  to  falfifie  the  Title  of  this  Canon,  and  to  pretend  ^Ja'U' 

I  a6«-     ■    ' 


66  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  III. 


a  Supremacy  owned  by  it,  which  was  as  far  from  the  intention  cf  this 
Council  as  a  limited  Patriarch  is  from  being  Bead  of  the  Church.     And 
it  is  impoffible  for  them  with  all  their  Arts  and  Diftinftions  they  have 
ufed,  to  reconcile  this  G»o»  with  an  univerfal  and  undoubted  Supre- 
niacy  in  the  Biftop  of  that  Church.     For  it  would  be  like  the  faying 
that  the  Sheriff  oi  TorkjJj'.re  (ball  have  JurifdiSioft  over  all  three  Hj- 
diffgs,  becaufe  the  Ki»g  of  Etfgland  hath  power  over  all  the  Nut',o», 
What  Parallel  is  there  between  thefe  two  ?  But  if  the  Claufe  be  retrain- 
ed to  his  Patriarchal  power  :,  then  we  are  certain  the  Council  of  Nice  did 
fuppofe  the  Bi(hop  of  Rov/e  to  have  only  a  Iw/ited  poTver  within  certain 
Provinces:,  Which  according  to  Riiffinus,  who  very  well  underftood  the 
Extent  of  the  Biftiop  of  Rome's  Jnrifdi&ion,  was  only  to  the  Suhr^icary 
Churches  j  Which  is  the  greater  D/ocefe  mention  d  by  the  Council  of  Aries, 
it  fo  very  much  exceeding  the  D  ^ce/cofany  WeflernBKhopbefidesj  And 
f})  Atha-  j|j  jg  obfervable,  that  (?)  Aihanajius,  as  he  calls  Milan  the  Metropolis  ot  Ita- 
foli't.  vit.   ly,  i.  e.  of  the  Italick  Diocefe,  fo  he  calls  Rome  the  Metropolis  ot  Romania^ 
agent.  ^    ;_  g^  ^f  fj^g  Roman  Diocefe.  But  the  Council  of  Nice  fixing  the  laft  Appeal 
^^'        toProvincial  Synods  in  other  Places,  utterly  overthrows  a  patriarchal  as 
wiefl  asunlimited  Jurifdi&ion  ^  whtxe ancient  Cujicmdid  not  then  prevail. 

(2.)  This  Canon  was  defigned  to  fecure  the  Privileges  of  other  Chur- 
ches.   For  that  is  the  general  nature  of  Exceptions  to  make  the  Rule 
more  firm  in  cafes  not  excepted.     So  that  all  Churches  are  to  enjoy  their 
juji  Rights  of  having  the  laft  refort  to  Provincial  Synods,  that  cannot  be 
brought  within  thefe  Exceptions  allow'd  by  the  Council  of  Nice.     And 
here  we  fix  our  Right  as  to  the  Britifi  Churches,  that  they  were  not  un- 
der any  Patriarchal  Jurifdi&ion  of  the  Bifliop  of  Rome  before  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice,  i.  e.  That  he  never  had  the  Authority  to  confecrate  the 
MetropolJtanes  or  Bifiops  of  thefe  Provinces  ^  That  he  never  called  them 
to  bis  Councils  at  Rome-^  That  he  had  no  Appeals  from  hence  5  That 
the  Britijh  BiJJjops  never  owned  his  JurifdiBion  over  them,  and  there- 
fore our  Churches  were  ftill  to  enjoy  their  former  Privileges  of  being  go- 
vern'd  by  their  own  Provincial  Synods.     It  was  upon  this  ground,  the 
Cyprian  BifDops  made  their  Application  to  the  Council  of  Ephefus  ;  Becaufe 
the  Biftiop  of  Antioch  did  invade  their  Privileges  contrary  to  the  Nicene 
Canons  pretending  to  a  Right  to  confecrate  their  Metropolitane,  whieh 
they  knew  very  well  was  a  defign  to  bring  their  Churches  in  fubj.ftion 
to  him.     The  Council  upon  hearing  the  Caufe  declared  their  opinion 
in  favour  of  the  Cyprian  Privilege  5  and  not  only  fo,  but  declared  it  to 
be  A  common  Caufe  that  concerned  other  Churches  which  were  hound  to  main- 
tain their  own  Rights  againfi  all  Ufurpations\  And  that  no  Bifhops  JJjould 
prefume  to  invade  anothers  Province  ;  And  if  they  did  ufurp  any  authority 
over  them,  they  were  hound  to  lay  it  down,  as  being  contrary  to  the  Canons  5 
Savouring  of  Worldly  ambition  ;  and  defiru&ive  of  that  Liberty  which  Je- 
fus  Chrift  hath  purchafed  for  us  with  hk  own  Bloud.     And  therefore  the 
(*)  Geo-    Council  decreed,  That  every  Province  JJjould  enjoy  its  own  Rights  pure  and 
Saer.Fa-  inviolable,  which  it  had  from  the  beginning,  according  to  the  ancietit  Cuflom. 
triarch.     This  important  Canon  is  pafled  over  very  flightly  by  Baronim  and  o- 
(vfLupw  fherSjbut  (i(')Carolus  a  SanBo  ?au\o  faith  it  proceeded  upon  afalfefuggeflion, 
inCan.E.  although  the  BiQiops  of  Cyprus  do  moft  folemnly  avow  the  truth  of 
^''^^^^'     their  ancient  Privilege.     (/)  Chriftianus  Lupus  imputes  the  Decree  to  the 
{m)  Leo  Partiality  of  the  Council  againji  the  Bifliop  tf/ Antioch  5  although  he  con- 
^/•'^•vS.  fefles,  they  infifted  upon  the  Nicene  Canons.     Which  even  (/w)  Leo  I. 
'm/.°'^   ia  his  eager  Difputeswith  Anatoli a^hiihop  of  Confiantinople  pleads  for 
.  .  '  i  as 


Chap.  III.  the  hntijb  Churches,  6l 

as  inviolable,  and  as  the  Standard  of  the  Rights  of  Churches.  And  by- 
the  Decree  of  the  Council  of  Ephefits,  all  Churches  are  bound  toftand 
up  for  their  own  Rights  againft  the  Ufurpations  of  foreign  Bidiops. 

But  (»)  ^<?^.Mm»3y  apprehending  the  force  of  this  con^eq^en^e,,.^^[^Jg|.i 
makes  it  his  bufinefs  to  overthrow  it,  by  (hewing  that  thk  was  a  parti-  Exeat. 
Btlar  and  occafonal  thing,  and  therefore  not   to   be    made  an  Example   td^^^'^f-^' 
other  Churches.     A  two  fold  occafion  he  affigns  5  Firfl:,  the  difficulty   of'^' 
pajfage  by  Sea  from  Cyprus  to  Antioch,  efpecidlly  in  Winter,  tvhen  it  was 
i)ery  pojtble  a  Metropolitane  might  die,    and  rather  than  live  fo  long  with- 
out one,  they  chofe  to  fet  up  one  themfeltJes  i,  Another  is   the  forty    years 
Schifm  in  the  Church  of  Antioch,  between  Euioius,  Meletius  <z»^  Pauli- 
nus.    But  thefe  are  onely  flight  and  frivolous  Evafions.     For  the  Cy- 
prian Bifiops  never  alledged  the  firfl:  Inconveniency,  nor  did  the  Bi- 
(hop  of  Antioch  the  fecond :  No,  not  when  Alexander  was  unani- 
moufly  chofen,  as  Morinus  confeiTeth,  and  made  his  Complaint  of  the 
Cyprian  Privilege  to  Innocentim  I.  as  may  be  feen  by  his  1 8  Epiftle  • 
To  whom  the  Pope  gave  an  ignorant  Anfwer,  as  Appears  by  Morinus 
himfelf :  For  he  pretends  that  the  Cyprian  BiQiops  had  broken  the  Ni^ 
cene  Canons,  in  confecrating  their  own  Metropolitane,  becaufe,  faith  h^^ 
The  Council  of  Nice  had  fet  the  Church  of  Antioch,  not  over  any  Pro- 
hince,  but  over  the  Diocefe  ^  By  which  he  muft  mean  the  Lajlern  Did- 
cefe,  within  which  Cyprus  was  comprehended :  But  there  is  not  one 
word  of  the  Diocefe  in  the  Nicene  Canons,  and  thefe  things  are  re- 
ferr'd  to  ancient  Cufloms,  as  Morinuf  acknowledgeth  *  And  he  faith, 
the  Diocefe  of  the  Orient,  as  difiinguified  from  Afiana  and  Pontica  was 
not  fettled  at  the  Time  of  the  Nicene  Council.     And  yet  he  brings  the 
Teftimony  of  Innocentius  to  difprove  the  Allegation  of  the  Cyprian 
Bijhops  5  when  he  confefles,  that  he  vpjs  fo  miftaken  in  the  Nicene  Ca- 
nons, on  which  he  grounds  that  Right  5  And  the  Cyprian  Bifkops  had    - 
the  l^icene  Canons  to  plead  for  themfelves,  as  the  general  Council  of 
Ephefus  thought,  who  underftood  them  far  better  than  Innocentini 
feems  to  have  done.    If  what  he  faith  had  been  true,  it  is  not  to  be 
thought  that  the  Council  of  Ephefus  would  have  deter-min'd  in  favouf 
of  the  Cyprian  Bijhops.     But  Morinus  urges  againfl:  them,     (i.)  That 
they  named  onely  three  Bifjops,  Troilus,  Sabinus  and  Epiphanius.    Bu£ 
do  they  not  aver  that  it  had  been  always  (6  from  the  Apoftles  time  .<? 
(2.)  That  no  one  pleaded  fot  the  Bifhop  of  Antioch.     What  then?  If 
-they  were  fatisfied  of  the  truth  of  their  Allegation,  the  Nicene  Coun- 
cilj  had  already  determin'd  the  cafe.     (3.)  They  only  doit  conditional- 
ly, if  it  werefo:  But  they  en  joy 'd  their  Privilege  by  virtue  of  it  5 
which  (hews  it  could  not  be  difproved.     (4,)  The  Cyprian  Privilege 
vpos  granted  in  Zeno'/  Time,  upon  finding  the  Body  of  St.  Barnabas.    But 
it  is  evident  they  enjoy'd  It  before  5  by  the  Decree  of  the  Couticil  of 
Ephefus.     And  It  was  not  properly  2l  Privilege -^  For  that  implies  a 
particular  exemption  ;  But  it  was  a  Confirmation  of  their  jufi  Rights* 
and  not  onely  as   to  them,  but  as  to  all  provincial  Churches.    So  that 
this  Decree  is  the  Magna  Charta  of  Metropolitane  Churches,  againft  any 
Incroachments  upon  their  Liberties :  And  fo  the  Council  thought  it, 
when   it  appoints  all  Metropolitanes  to  take  Copies  of  it,  and  voids  all 
ABs  that  floould  he  made  again fi  it. 

It  is  neceffary  now  to  enquire,  whether  the  Bifhop  of  Rome  had  a 
patriarchal  Power  over  the  Britifh  Churches,  before  the  Council  of  N/ae  : 
And  the  onely  way  to  doe  that,  is  to  examine  the  feveral  patriarchal 

I  3  Rights 


6S  Ihe  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  II L 

Rights  which  were  allowed   in    the  Church.     And  if  the  Marks  of 
none  of  them  do  appear  ;  We  have  reafon   to  conclude,  he  had  no 
patriarchal  Power.     For  however  fome  urge  the  Converfion  of  Britain 
by  Elemherins  as  a  Pretence  to  the  Bifhop  of  Rome's  Authority,  yet, 
allowing  it  to  be  true,  no  man  of  underftaqding  can  pretend  to  de- 
rive a  patriarchal  Poiver  from  thence,  unlefs  there  were  a  concurrence 
of  Jtinfdi&ion   from  that  time.     Neither    were  it  of  force,  if  Saint 
feter  himfelf  had  preached  the  Gofpel  here  ^  and  fettled  the  BKhops 
of  thefe  Churches.    For,  by  the  fame  reafon,  there  could  have  been 
no  Patriarchates  at  Antioch  or  Alexandria,  (  where  he  is  fuppofed  to 
have  placed  Saint  Af^ri(0  but  if  notwithftanding,  the  Bifhops  of  thofe 
Churches  had  a  true  patriarchal  Pomr ;  Then  fo  might  the  Metropo- 
litanes  of  the  Brltifh  Churches  have  their  proper  Rights.     Although 
(a) Morin.  St.  Pe^er  himfelf   had  founded   thefe  Churches,    {o)  Mortms  faith, 
^'Jll'r j^^  The  patriarchal  Povper  cofjfjied  in  thefe  four  things,     (i.)  In   the  Confe- 
c.  29.        cration  of  Metropolitanesy  and  the  Confirmation  of  other  Bifhops.     (2.}  In 
calling  Councils  out  of  the  fever  al  Provinces  under  his  Jitrifdi&ion.  (3.)  In 
receiving  Appeals  front  provincial  Synods.     (4.)  In  the  Delegation  of  per' 
fons  with  authority  from  him  to  aB  in    the  feveral  Provinces.     The  firft 
is  that  upon  which  the  reft  are  founded :  As  we  fee  in  the  cafe  of  the 
Bifliop  of  Antioch  and  the  Bifhops  of  Cyprus  ^  For  if  he  could   have 
carried  the  Point  of  Confecration  of  the  Biftiop  of  Confiance,  he  knew 
all  the  reft  would  follow.     In  the  Patriarchate  of  Alexandria  it  ap- 
ip)  Synef.  pcars  by  the  Epijiles  of  (p)  Synefius,  That  the  Bipopt  of  Pentapolis, 
£pfl-  (>1,  although  then  under  a  Metropolitane  of  their  orvn,  yet  had    their  Confecra- 
'^^'         tion  from  the  Bifhop  of  Alexandria.     When  Jufiinian  advanced  the  Bi- 
fhop  of  Jujiiniana  prima  to  the  dignity  of  a  Patriarch,  by  giving  him 
(q)  Novel!. poiver  over  feven  Provinces,  he  (^)  exprefles  the  patriarchal  Power  by 
131.  c.  3.  this  ;  That  all  the   Bifjops   of  thofe  Provinces  fhould  be  confecrated  by 
him,  and  confequently  be  under  his  JurifdiGion,  and  be  liable  to  be 
called  to  his  Council,  as  Jufiinian  elfe-where  determines :  And  when 
(0  ^«^^-  the  (r)  Biftiop  of  Juflinianopolts  removed  from  Cyprus  thither,  he  not 
J^|;  ®'    onely  enjoy'd  the  Cyprian  privilege  there,  but  was  allow'd  for  a  Patri- 
arch by  the  Council  in  Trullo,  and  confequently,  the  Confecration  of  the 
Bilhops  in  the  Province  of  Hellefpont  belong'd  to  him. 

And  when  the  patriarchal  Power  was  fettled  at  Conflantinople,  that 

was  the  chief  thing  infifted  upon,  at  leaft  as  to  MetropoUtanes.     The 

firft  attempt  the  Bi(hop  of  Conflantinople  made  towards  any  true  pa- 

(s)  Condi,  triarchal  Power  (  for  all  that  the  (x)  Council  of  Conflantinople  gave 

co)!^. c.  3. him  was  a  mere  honorary  Title)  was  the  confecrating  Bifhops  in  the 

Diocefes  of  Aftana,  and  Pont  tea,  and  Thracia  :  And  this  was  charged 

[t)  Phot,  on  St.  Chryfofiome  as  an  Innovation  in  the  Synod  (0  ad  ^ercum,  i.  e. 

c2';9.'   ^"  ^^^  Suburbs  of  Chalcedon.    And  his  («)  agings  in  the  Council  at 

(«)  Soz.    Ephefuf,  and  Confecrating  of  many  Bilhops  in  that  Diocefe,  could  not 

i.s.c.6.  \yQ  jnftified  by  the  Canons  of  the  Church  :  The  beft  excufe  is  what 

(w)Pallad.  (jj?)  Palladiu-s  makes,  viz.  That  hk  going  into  Afia,  was  upon  the  great 

w/^^hryH  importunity   of  the  Bifhops  and   Clergy   there  :  For   what  (jf)  Morinus 

Cx)Morin.  faith.  That  he  did  this  by  the  Pope's  Authority,  is  ridiculous  ^  It  being  not 

ETcun    °"^^  thought  of  by  St.  Chryfofiome  or  his  Friends.     And  for  a  Biftiop 

c."i4'  ^  °^  Conflantinople  to  aft  by  Authority  from   the  Biftiop  of  Rome,  was 

then  as  abfurd,  as  for  the  C%ar  of  Mufcovy  to  aft  by  Commiffion  from 

th^  Emperour  of  Germany.    For  it  is  plain,  That  one  ftood  upon 

equal  Privileges  with  the  other  5  As  fully  appears  by  the  Council  of 

Chal' 


G  H  A  p .  1 1 1 .  the  B  ^ittjl  Cbiircbes.  6  9 

■  —  ■■  --  ,, . ■    .  —  —    ■  -c 

Chalcedon,  and  the  warm  JDebates  which  follow'd  ir,  between  the  two 
Sees.  And  what  could  have  fervd  Leo's  turn  better  againfl:  Anatoliuf^ 
than  to  have  produced  St.Chryfoflomes  Delegation  from  one  of  his  Pre- 
decelTours  ?  But  in  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  where  the  Right  of  the 
Patriarch  of  Conflantinople  was  at  large  debated,  this  Aft  of  St.  Chryfo- 
fiome  was  alledged  as  a  remarkable  Precedent  to  prove  a  patriarchal 
Power  :  And  there  (;'  )  a  Canon  was  paffed.  That  the  Metropolitanes  of{^y-)Cmi\U 
tbofe  three  D/ocefis  fiiould  be  confecrated  by  the  Bijhop  of  Conftantino-  cA^W. 
pie,  which  was  the  eftabli(hment  of  his  patriarchal  Authority  over'*  * 
them.  Upon  this  Pope  Leo  infifted  on  the  Council  of  Nice  and  the 
Canons  there  made,  and  pleaded  ftrongly.  That  this  was  an  unjitji  Inva* 
fion  of  the  Rights  of  thofe  Churches  vphich  ought  to  be  invhlably  preferved. 
And  we  defire  no  better  Arguments  againft  the  Pope's  pretended  pa- 
triarchalPareer  over  thefe  Weflern  Churches^  than  what  Leo  infifted  on 
for  the  Diocefes  of  Afia,  Pontus  and  Thrace,  againft  the  patriarchal  Power 
of  the  Biftiop  of  Conjiantinople.  For  we  plead  the  very  fame  things  ^ 
That  all  Churches  ought  to  enjoy  the  Rights  of  provincial  Synods  :  ' 
And  that  no  Perfon  can  be  excufed  in  violating  the  Nicene  Canons* 
But  if  it  be  pretended.  That  the  Bijhop  of  R.ome  had  always  a  patriar- 
chal Power  over  the  Britifh  Churches  ^  Let  any  one  Inftance  be  given  of 
it :  Let  them  tell  us  when  he  confecrated  the  Metropolitanes  or  Bijbopt 
of  the  three  Provinces  of  ^nt^xn -^  ox  fummond  them  to  his  Councils '^  pf 
heard  their  Caufes  5  or  received  Appeals  from  hence  5  ory2>  much  asfent  any 
one  Legate  to  exercife  Authority  in  his  Name:,  And  if  they  can  produce 
nothing  of  this  kind,  there  is  not  then  the  leaft  appearance  of  his  pa- 
triarchal Power. 

We  do  not  deny  that  the  Biftiop  of  Rome  had  any  patriarchal  Power 
in  thofe  times  ^  But  we  fay.  It  was  confined  within  the  Roman  Dio- 
cefe ;  As  that  did  comprehend  the  Churches  within  the  Suburbicary  Pro*  • 
vinces  ;  And  within  thefe  he  exercifed  the  fame  Authority  that  the 
Eajiera  Patriarchs  did,  i.  e.  He  confecrated  Bijhops,  called  Synods  and 
received  Appeals^  which  are  the  main  patriarchal  Rights.     But  if  we  go  # 

beyond  thefe  Provinces,  (z,)  Petrus  de  Marca  himfelf  is  extremely  putf^Pecde 
to  it  to  prove  the  Exercife  of  a  patriarchal  Power  ^  He  confefTes  /j&e  Marca  .^e 
Matter  is  not  clear  either  as  to  Confecrations  or  Councils,  but  he  runs  tof'^"^;^^ 
Refirences,  Confultations  and  Appeals  in  greater  caufes  ;  And  yet  he  (<«}  "•  7« 
confefles,  as   to  Appeals  (which  onely  do  imply  a  juft  Authority ) ^'*)^''-*^-** 
There  is  no  one  certain  evidence  of  them  before  the  Council  ('/Sardica.     So 
that  by  the  confeffion  of  the  moft  learned  and  judicious  of  tht)fe  who 
plead  for  the  Pope's  being  Patriarch  of  the  Wefi^  No  proper  A3f  of 
patriarchal  Power  can  be  proved  beyond  the  Roman  Diocefe,  before  the 
Council  of  Nice.     And  the  fame  (b)  learned  Archbiftiop  doth  grant,  (b)  l.  6, 
that  the  Bijhop  ofKoTRQ  did  not  con  fee  rate  even  in  Italy  out  of  the  Rc>-'-'*j''-^ 
man  Diocefe,  as  appears  by  the  Bijhop s  0/ Milan  and  Aquileia^  Nor  in^*   '^' 
Africa,  nor  in  Spain,  nor  in  Gaul.     And,  after  thefe  ConceJJtons,  it  is 
impoflible  to   prove  the  Biftiop  of  Rome  Patriarch  of  the  Weftera 
Churches.    Which  fome  late  Writers  of  that  Church  have  been  much 
concerned  at,  and  have  endeavour'd  to  fliew  the  contrary,    (f)  Chri-  (0  ^«P' 
Jiianus  Lupus  hath  written   a  Differtation  on  purpofe  ^  But  the  greateft 'p^rt"]".' 
thing  he  faith  to  prove  it  is.  That  to  affirm,  that  the  Bifhop  c/Rome  hadp-i^^ 


no  fuch  Authority,  is  a>?Eu(ebhn  and  Schifmatical  Errour,  and  came  fir fi 
from  //6eCoK»c;7  flf  Philippopolis  ^  yet  he  grants.  That  in  the  Wejfernf.j^ 
Prov'nces^  the  Metropolitanes  did  confecrate  their  Suffi-agansy  and   they 

their 


TO  •     1  be  Antiquities  of  Chap.  111. 

their  Metfopol/tanes,     But  all  this,  he  faith,  was  done  byfpecial  pr'.v'lege. 
But  where  is  any  {uch  privilege  to  be  feen  >  It  is  evident  by  tlw  Nicene 
Catjotjs,  every  Province  had  its  own  jaft  Pvights  for  tbefe  things.     And 
if  there  were  any  privilege,  it  muft  be  produced  on  the  other  fide.     He 
(d)  Leo.    doth  not  deny.  That  (d)  Leo  difow>rd  having  any  thing  to  due  in    the 
c!s.^'     Confecration  of  the  Gallican  B'f/jups,  in  his  Epiftle  to  the  Bijhops  of  Vi- 
((r)Hinc-  enna.^  or  that  (<?)  Hincfftarns  [akh,  The  TvanCsilp'me  B'fiops  did  not  he- 
^il'c^i'i.  '^"-^  *^*^^  Confecration  or  Councils  of  the  B'fJo'jp  of  Kom^.     And  there- 
fore Ecclefiaftical  Caufes  were  to  be  heard  and  determin'd  by  prcv'ncial 
(f)  Lup.  Synods  :  But  he  thinks  to  bring  off  all  at  laft,  by  faying,  (f)  That 
tb.f.  813  fi^gj-^  j^^^g  privileges  indulged,  becaufe  of  dijiance  fromKome.     Which  is 
a  mere  Shuffle,  without  any  colour  for  it,  unlefs  fucb  privileges  could 
be  produced,  for  othefwife  it  will  appear  to  be  common  Right.  And 
fgi cok;7.  yet  this  is  the  main,  which  a  late  Authour,  {g")  Emanuel  a  Siheljiraet 
c^n  "9!    ^^^^  to  ^^y  about  this  matter.     But  this  hath  been  the  common  Arti- 
es?. 14.    fice  of  Rome  -^  Where  any  Bifhops   infifted  on  their  own  Rights  and 
^•473-     ancient  Cuftoms,  and  Canons  of  Councils,  to  pretend  that  all  cam» 
from  privileges  allow'd  by  the  See  of  Rome  5  And  the  Defenders  of  it 
are  now  (hamefully  driven  to  thefe  Arts,  having  nothing  el fe  left  to 
(h^Anti.  plead  for  the  Pope's  Ufurpation.    But  this  lafl:  (h)    Author  (the 
fX*.  W-  prefeftt  Keeper  of  the  Vatican  Library,  which  makes  fo  great  a  noife  in 
[ert.7.     the  World  for  Church  Records )  having  endeavour'd,  in   a  fet  Dif- 
courfe,  to  aflert  the  Pope's  patriarchal  Power  over   the  Wejiern  Churches^ 
I  (hall  here  examine  the  ftrength  of  all  that  he  produceth  to  that  pur- 
pofe.     He  agrees  with  us  in  determining  the  p(?fr/rfr(/W  R/g^//,  which 
he  faith  lie  in  thefe  three  things:    (i.)  In  the  Right  of  Confecration  of 
B'fhops  and  Metropolitanes.     (2.)  In  the  Right   of  fummoning  them  to 
Councils.    Q^.^  In  the  Right  of  Appeals.     All  which  he  proves  to  be  the 
juftand  truQ  patriarchal  Rights  from  the  feventeenth  Crf»<?»  of  the  eighth 
General  Council.    And  by  thefe  we  are  contented  to  ftand  or  fall. 

«4.y4,s?.r.     (i.)  As  to  the  Right  of  Confecration  of  Bifiops  and  Metropolitanes 
O'PV      ihroughout  the  Wejiern  Churches,     He  confefies.  That  fuch  a  Right  n>as 
not  exercifed,  Becaufe  the  Metropolitanes  in  the  feveral  Provinces  were  al- 
lovp'd  to  confecrate  the  Bifiops  belonging  to  them,  upon  the  Summons  of  the 
provincial  Synod  ;  And  for  this  he  produces  the  fourth  Canon  of  the  Conn- 
'  *'  cil  of  Nice.     Here  then  is  a  plain  allowance  of  the  MetropoUtane  Rights 

by  this  General  Council  5  But  how  doth  this  prove  the  Patriarchal^  Or 
rather.  Is  it  not  a  plain  derogation  from  them  >  No,  faith  he,  The  pa- 
triarchal Rights  are  preferved  by  the  fixth  Canon.     I  grant  it  ^  But  then 
it  muftbe  proved,  That  the  patriarchal  Rights  of  the  Biftiop  of  Rome, 
did  at  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nice  extend  to  all  the  Weftern 
^r"^    Churches,  which  I  Utterly  deny.    Yet  I  grant  farther.  That  the  Bifliop 
'^ '    ■    of  Rome  had  all  the  patriarchal  Rights,  within  the  Provinces,  which 
were  then   under  his  Jurifdiiiion,  and  were  therefore  called  the  Sub- 
vrbicary  Churches.     But  thefe  were  fo  far  from  taking  in  all  the  Weftern 
Churches,  that  they  did  not  comprehend  the  Provinces  of  Italy  proper- 
.:t:^    ly  fo  called  :  But  he  offers  to  prove  out  of  Gratian,  and  from  theTe- 
■*^"p6.    (timony  of  Pelagius,  Bifhop  of  Rome,  That  by  reafon  of  the  length  of  the 
-;■  "    rpay,  the  Bifiops  0/ Milan  and  Aquileia  did  confecrate  each  other.     But 
is   fuch  Authority  fufficient  to  prove  that  the  Bi(hops  of  Milan  and 
Aquileia  were  of  old  fubjeft  to  the  Roman  Patriarchate  .<?  We  have  no- 
thing to  prove  this,  but  the  bare  word  of  ooe  who  was  too  much  cdn« 
^<%^»  cerned 


_        I      I        I        .  -  -.....■  ■ ■ ,  — — ^■— .^^ 

C  H  A  p.  1 1 1.         the  Britijh  Churches.  7 1 

cerned  to  be  a  competent  Witnefs  ^  and  too  much  alone  to  be  a  fuSi- 
cient  Witnefs  in  this  matter.    The  length  and  difficulty  of  the  way 
was  no  hindrance  afterwards  for  obtaining  the  Pope's  confent  for  the 
Confecration  of  the  Bifhop  of  Milan,  as  appears  by  the  Inftance  of 
Gregory  produced  by  him;  Why  then  (hould  that   be  allcdged  as  the 
Reafon  before  ?  For  the  Ways  were  not  one  jot  (horter  or  eafier  to  pafs. 
Hut  if  we  compare  the  Elt&ton  and  Confecration  of  St.  Ambrofe  at  Mi- 
lan, with  that   of  Deiisdedit  in  St.Gregor/s  Time  ^  We  fliall  fee  an 
apparent  difference  in  the  Circumftances  of  them.     For  at  the  firft 
there  was  a  prov-ndal  Synod  by  the  Emrerour's   appointment,  as  (/)  ('/)Tiieod,. 
Theodorct  relates  it,  who  referr'd  the  choice  to  the  Emperour  •  But  he^^i^-sA 
declining  it,  and  the  City  falling  into  great  heats  about  it,  St.  Ambrofe 
was  of  a  fudden  chofen,  being  then  Governonr  of  the  Province,  and  fo 
was  Inthronized,  by  the  Bifhops  there  prefent.     Not  one  word  here 
of  the  confent  of  the  Bifhop  of  Rome  required,  or  ^o  much  as  men- 
tion'd^  And  yet  Pope  Damafys  was  as  ready  to  affert  any  thing  that 
Jooked  like  a  Right  of  his  See,  as  Pelagius  oxGregory.     But  at  that  time 
St.  Ambrofe,  at  Milan,  had  as  great  Authority   as  Damafus  at  Rome  t^ 
And  the  Italick  Diocefe  was  as  confiderable  as  the  Roman.  _  If  the  length 
and  d^culty  of  the  Way  were  the  true  Reafon  why  St.  Ambrofe  did  not 
go  to  Rome  5  yet  why  no  MelTenger  fent  ?  Why  no  Agent  from  the 
Pope  to  declare  his  confent?  But  then  the  Extent  of  the  Roman  Dio- 
cefe was  better  underftood,  wherein  all  the  Bifhops  were  to  receive 
Confecration  from  the  Bifliop  of  Rome,  having  no  MetropoUtane  of 
their  own  ^  But  this   did   not  reach  fo  far  as  Milan.     This  Roman 
Dioceje  was  traly  patriarchal,  having  feveral  Provinces  under  it,  and  was 
therein  peculiar  and  made  a  Precedent  for  the  Bifhop  of  Alexandria^ 
all  the  other  Weftern  Churches  being  then  govern'd  by  their  feveral 
Bifhops  and  Metropolitanes.    (  ^  )  Jac.  Lefchajjier  thinks  that  five  of  the  /^  ^^^.^  qc- 
eleven  Provinces  c/ Italy  made  up  this  Diocefe  ;  I  mean  the  Provinces  oicunes  de 
Aitguflus,  and  not  of  Conjiantine  ;  And  within  thefe  were  about  feventy  LelchaOi- 
B'Jhops  who  belonged  to  the  Confecration  of  the  BiJIwp   of  Rome,  having 
no  other  MetropoUtane  5  And  with  this,  as  he  obferves,  the  old  Notitia 
of  the  Vatican,  produced  by  (/)  Baronius,  agrees  ;  wherein  the  Suffra-  (/)  Baron. 
^4»/ of  the  Bifhop  of  Rome  are  faid  to  be  the  Bifhops  oi  Campania,^-^-"-^'i- 
the  Marfi,  Tufda,  TJmbria  and  Marchia  :  Which  Notitia  is  the  fame 
with  the  Proviniiale  Romanum,  publifhed  by  (w)  Mir<eus,  and  com- (w) mhx. 
pared  by  him  with  four  AISS.  wherein  are  fet  down  all  the  Bifhops  of  Y"''^-  ^- 
the  Roman  Province,  as  it  is  there  called.     (»)  Ferd.  TJghellus  reckons  ^'l"^' ^' 
up  feventy  Bifliop s  of  thofe  who   were  immediately  under  the   Bifhop  tf^(")Ughel!. 
Kome'sjurifdi&ion,  and  had  no  MetropoUtane  over  them -^  Thefe  were^J-^'l^""' 
within  the  Provinces  of  Lrt//»/«,  Valeria,  Tufc/a,  Picenum  andZJmbria:,    '  '    . 
which  neither  anfwering  exactly  to  the  JurifdiSiion  of  the  Roman  Fre- 
fiS,  nor  to  that  of  the  Vicarius  TJrbis  1^  We  are  not  to  judge  of  the 
Extent  of  this  Diocefe  from  that  of  the  Civil  Government,  but  from 
ancient  Cuftom,  to  which  the  Council  of  Nice  doth  exprefly  attribute 
it.     In  the  Diurnus  Romanus,  lately  publifhed  by  (<?)  Garnerius  out  of (o)Gita. 
an  mcier)\.ManHfcript,  there  is  one  Title,  De  Ordinatione  Epifcopi  Sub-  ^^f^"\ 
urbicarii  a  Romano  Pontifi e,  where  the_  whole  Procefs,  as  to  the  Con-p^'^-i, 
fecrtttianoi  a  new  Bifhop,  is  fet  down,  but  from  thence  it  appears,  that 
none  but  the  Suburblcary  Bifh.)ps  belonged  to  his  ( onfecration..    We 
freely  grant  then.  That  the  bifhop  of  Rome  had  a  patriarchal  Power 
over  feveral  Provinces  :  as  the  Bifhop  of  Alexandria  was  allowed  to 

have 


72  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  Ill, 


have  by  the  Council  of  Nice  in  imitation  of  him  ^  And  that  within  thhs 
Diocefe  he  did  exercife  this  as  2i  patriarchal  Right  to  confecrate  Bi(heps 
.  within  thofe  fex'cral  Provivces,  as  the  Bifhop  of  Alexandria  did  :  But 
we  deny  that  ever  the  Bifliop  of  i^owedid  exercife  this  part  of  his  Pa- 
triarchal power  beyond  the  foremention'd  Prvvitjcet. 

But  to  prove  the  larger  Extent  of  the  Pope's  Power  as  to  CotTfecratl- 
(;>)  Schel-  ons  the  Epiftle  of  Siricim  to  Anyfius  Bifhop  of  TheffaloMica  (p)  is  urged, 
Ifraet.  n.    n>/yofa  the  Pope  flakes  his  Legate  in  the  Part  <7/lIlyricum,  and  charges  him, 
91i'o'-     fff^f  „g  Confetrations fljould  be  allowed  which  were  made  without  his  con- 
sent:  And  the  fame  appears  hy  the  Ep/jiles  of  Bomf ace  to  the  Bifiiops  of 
Theflaly  and  Illyricum,  and  of  Leo  to  Anaftafius.   All  which  are  pub- 
lifhed  together  by  Holfienius  out  of  the  Barberine  Library^  or  rather 
(q)y\.  A-  out  of  his  Tranfcripts  by  Card.  Barberine  (  but  (^)  Hieron.  Alexander 
lexmder.  cites  a  PafTage  out  of  the  fame  Colletiion  as  in  the  Vatican  Library^  but 
ilbwbic"'  from  whencefoever  it  came,  the  Objeftion  feems  tote  the  more  confi- 
Diff.z.'p.  derable,  becaufe,  as  (r)  Holfienius  in  bis  Notes  obferves,  (/)  Blondel 
J'^7-         had  denied  that  it  could  be  proved  by  any  Monument  of  Antiquity^  That 
ften.  Not.  the  Bijhop  of  Theffalonica  was  Legate  to  the  Pope  before  the  time  of  Lto.  ' 
ad  Coll.        But,  to  give  a  clear  account  of  this  matter,  Leo  himfelf,  in  his  B- 
loT  ^"    P^P^  ^^  Anajlafus,  derives  this  Authority  no  higher  than  from  Siricius, 
(sj  Pri-     who  gave  it  to  Anyptff  Bifliop  of  Theffalonica,  cert  a  turn  primum  ratiofie 
niMtep.    c0fftffi\jlt^  ut per  illamProvinciam  pofitis,  quas  addifciplinam  teneri  volnit^ 
^^''        Ecclefifs  fubveniret.     SiriciufimmedhtdyCacceededDamafus,  who  died 
(f)  Hoi-    according  to  (/)  Holjienius,    ii  Dec.  384.     Three   years   after    the 
Hen.  Di-  Council  of  Confiantinople  had  advanced  that  See  to  the  Patriarchal  dig- 
"chZmzf' nity  :^  wbich  gave  great  occafion  of  Jealoufie  and  Sufpicion  to  the  Bi- 
ponfj/.Da.  (hops  of  Rome,  that  being  the  Imperial  City  as  well  as  Rome:,  And  (») 
rii'socr    "^^^^'^'^•^  obferves,  That  from  that  time  Neftarius  the  Bifjop  ^f  Conftan- 
/"j.c.  s"  tinople,  had  the  G over ment  <?/ Conftantinople  avd  Thrace,  as  falling 
to  hisfl^are.     This  made  the  Bilhops  of  Rome  think  it  high  time  to  look 
about  them,  and  to  inlarge  their  JurifdiBioa,  fince  the  Bi(hop  oi  New 
Rome  had  gained  fo  large  an  acceflion  by  that  Council  5  And  to  pre- 
vent his  farther  incroachments  Weft  wards,  his  Diocefe  of  Thrace  bor- 
dering upon  Macedonia,  the  fubtileft  Device  they  could  think  of,  to 
fecure  that  Province  and  to  inlarge  their  own  Authority,  was,  to  per- 
fwade  the  Bifhop  of  Theffalonica  to  aft  as  by  Ccmmifjion  from  the  Bi- 
fhop of  Rome  :  So  that  he  (hould  enjoy  the  fame  Privileges  which  he 
had  before.     And  being  back'd  by  fo  great  an  Intereft,  he  would  be 
better  able  to  conteft  with  fo  powerfull  a  Neighbour  as  the  Bifhop  of 
Conjiantinople.     And   if  any  objefted.  That  thk  was  to  break  the  Rules 
fettled  by  the  Council  of  Nice 'j  They  had  that  anfwer  ready;  That  the 
Bipjop  of  Conftantinople  began  :  and  their  Concernment  was,  to  fecure 
the  Rights  of  other  Churches  from  being  invaded  by  him  5  By  which 
means  they  endeavour'd  to  draw  thofe  Churches  bordering  on  the 
Thracian  Diocefe,  firft  to  own.  a  Submiflion  to  the  Bifhop  of  Rome 
as    their  Patriarch  ;  which  yet  was  fo  far  from  giving  them  eafe, 
which  fome  it  may  be  expefted  by  it,  that  it  only  involved  them 
in  continual  Troubles,  as  appears  by   that  very  Colle&ion  of  Hd- 
(«>)The.  jienius.     For  the  Biftiops  of  Conflantinople  were  not  negligent  in  pro- 
°^'l^'Je  niof'ng  '^^^^^'"  °w"   Authority' in  the  Provinces  oi  Illyricum,  nor  in 
'pffc.  c.   withftanding  the  Innovations  of  the  Bifhop  of  Rome.     To  which  pur- 
juft.rfe     pofe  they  obtained  an /ac/^er/W  E(^/^  to  this  day   extant  in  both  (w) 
s^9^  E« .  ^^^^^^  which  ftriftly  forbids  any  Innovation  in  the  Provinces  of  ///yri- 


Chap.  III.  the  Britifh  Churches.  7  3 


cum,  and  declares,  That  if  atjy  doubt  fid  Cafe  happen  d,  according  to  the 
ancient  Cuflom  and  Canons^  it  was  to  be  left  to  the  provincial  Synod,  hut 
not  without  the  advice  of  the  jBzy&i?/>  (?f  Conftantinople,  The  occafion 
whereof  was  this,  Perigenes  being  rejefted  at  Patne,  the  Bifliop  of  Rome 
takes  upon  him  to  put  him  into  Corinth,  without  the  confent  of  the 
provincial  Synod :  This  the  Bifhops  of  Thejfaly,  among  whom  the  chief 
were,  Paufianus,  Cyriacns  and  Calllopus,  look  upon  as  a  notorious  Inva- 
fion  of  their  Rights^  and  therefore  in  a  provincial  Synod  they  appoint  a- 
notherPerfon  to  fucceed  there.  Which  Proceeding  of  theirs  is  hei- 
noufly  taken  at  Rome,  as  appears  by  (x)  Boniface's  Epiftles  about  it,(^)coiieff. 
both  to  Rufiis  of  Thejjalonica,  whom  he  had  made  his  Legate,  and  to^"'"/''^' 
the  Bifiopt  of  Theffaly,  and  the  other  Provinces.  But  they  make  Appli-  ^'  ^" 
cation  to  tht  Patriarch  of  Conftantinople,  who  procures  this  Law,  in  fa- 
vour of  the  ancient  provincial  Synods,  and  for  reftraint  of  the  Pope's  In- 
croachments,  but  withall,  fo  as  to  referve  the  laft  r^fort  to  the  Bifhop 
of  Confiantinople.  At  thlsBoniface  (hews  himfelf  extremely  nettled,  as 
appears  by  his  next  Epiftle  to  Rufus,  and  incourages  him,  to  fland  it 
out  to  the  titmoft'^  And  gives  him  Authority  to  excommunicate  thofe  Bifjops, 
and  to  depofe  Maximus,  whom  they  confecrated  according  to  the  ancient 
Canons.  But  all  the  Art  of  his  management  of  this  Caufe  lay,  in  throw- 
ing the  O^ium  of  it  upon  the  Ambition  of  the  Bifliop  of  Confiantino- 
ple:, And  thus  the  Contention  between  the  Bifliops  of  the  two  Imperial 
Cities  proved  the  defl:ruftion  of  the  Ancient  Polity  of  the  Church,  as  it 
was  fettled  by  the  Council  of  Nice. 

It  is  faid  by  (y)  Petrus  de  Marca  and  Holflenius,  that  all  this  attempt  {y)DeCon- 
of  Theodofius  was  to  no  purpofe'^  Becaufe  afterwards  the  Bifiops  of  Mace-  '^'"^'^-  '•  4- 
donh  fubmitted  to  the  Pope's  Power:,  And  that  Refript  was  revoked  by'^'  ^'"' ' 
another  of  Theodofius  pui?lijhed  in  the  Roman  Colle^ion.     It  cannot  be 
denied,  That  for  fome  time  the  Bifliop  of  Rome  prevailed,  but  it  ap- 
pears, that  it  was  not  long,  by  the  fad  Complaint  made  to  Bonifacell. 
of  the  Prevalency  of  the  Patriarch  oi Confiantinople  in  thofe  parts  made 
by  Stephen,  Bifliop  of  Lariffa,  the  Metropolis  of  Theffaly,  and  his  ^xq^ 
thren  Theodo/fus,  Elpidius  and  Timotheuf :  And  our  (z)  Author  him- ^^V^""*^'^- 
felfconfeffes,  that  it  appears  by  the  Notiti£,  Thatthefe  Provinces  were  i^.ak'i'. 
at  laji  wholly  taken  away  from  the  jurifdiBion  of  the  Bifloop  of  Rome,  and  "  ^"  ?• 
madefubjeB  to  the  Patriarch  of  Conftantinople.  ^^^" 

From  which  account  of  the  matter  of  Fa&  we  have  thefe  things  ve- 
ry obfervable.  (i.)  That  there  was  no  Precedent  could  be  produced 
as  to  the  Pope's  interpofing  in  their  Confecrations  before  the  time  of  &'^ 
ricius.  It  is  true,  Damafus  his  Epiftle  to  Acholius  is  mention'd  fome- 
times  by  the  following  Popes ;  But  any  one  that  reads  both  his  Epiftles 
in  the  (<z)  Roman  ColleBion  will  find,  that  neither  of  them  do  relate  to  COC"''^^. 
this  matter:  And  the  former  is  not  only  direfted  to  Acholius,  but  to  fe-  ^'""'  f" 
veral  other  Bifiops ;  And  the  Defign  of  it  is,  To  advife  them  to  take  care, 
that  a  worthy  perfon  be  put  into  the  See  tf/ Conftantinople  in  the  approach- 
ing Council:,  And  to  the  fame  purpofe  is  the  following  Epiftle  to  Acho'p,^2. 
lius.  But  what  is  this  to  the  Pope's  Power  about  Co  Jecrations  in  the 
Provinces  of  Illyricum^  And  how  was  Acholius  more  concern'd  than 
Euridicus,  Severus,  Uranus,  and  the  reft  of  the  Bifliops  ?  (2.)  That  the 
Bifliop  of  Rome's  interpofing  in  their  Confecrations  was  difliked  and  oppo- 
fed  as  an  Innovation  by  the  Bifliops  of  thofe  Provinces.  Which  ap- 
pears by  the  Epiftles  of  Pope  Boniface  about  the  Cafe  of  Perigenes  : 
For  by  the  Canons  of  the  Church,  the  Confecration  and  Defignation  of 

K  the 


74  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  III. 

the  Bifiops  of  the  Province  was  left  to  the  provincial  Synods:  And  there- 
fore they  did  not  underftand  on  what  account  the  Bifhop  of  Rome  fhould 
interpofe  therein.  (3.)  That  the  Law  of  Thecdojius  was  principally 
defigned  to  reftore  the  Canonical  Difcipline  and  the  Authority  of  pro- 
vincial Synods.  For  the  words  are,  0mm  innovatione  cejpinte,  vetiifla- 
iem  e^  Canones  prijlinos  Ecclejtajiicos,  qui  nunc  ufque  tenmrnnt^  per  omnes 
Illyrici  'Provincias  fervari  prtecipimus.  "Which  cannot  be  well  underftood 
of  any  other  Canons  than  fuch  as  relate  to  the  Ecclefiaftical  Govern' 
ment  of  Provinces,  and  not  of  any  peculiar  Cujioms  there,  as  Gothofred 
miftakes  the  meaning  of  them:  And  in  cafe  any  difference  did  arife,  it 
was  to  be  left  Conventui  facer  dot  alt  fan&oque  Judicio,  i.  e.  To  the  provin- 
cial Synod,  and  not  to  any  Legate  of  the  Bifhop  of  Rome-^  Whofe  in- 
croachment  was  that  Innovation  which  was  to  be  laid  afide :  as  is  now 
plain  by  the  Roman  Colle&ion,  without  which  this  Law  was  not  right- 
ly underftood,  as  appears  by  the  feveral  attempts  of  Baroniut,  Peron 
and  Gothofred.  (4.)  That  although  by  the  means  of  Honorius,  upon 
{b)conen.  the  importunity  of  the  BiJIwp  of  Rome  this  Refcript  was  recalled  by  (Jj) 
^"'"■^'•^'•TheodoJiHs:  Yet  the  former  only  was  enter'd  into  the  Codes  both  of 
^'  TheodoJtHs  and  Jnflinian  5  which  hath  all  the  formality  of  a  Law,  be- 
ing direded  to  the  P.  P.  of  Illyricum,  and  hath  the  date  by  Confuls  an- 
nexed? but  the  Revocation  is  only  a  Refcript  from  Theodofius  to  HonO' 
rJMs,  and  refers  to  an  EdiSt  fent  to  the  P.  P.  of  Illyricum  5  which  not 
appearing,  the  other  being  enter'd  into  the  Code,  gives  great  ground 
to  believe  that  this  Revocation  was  voided,  and  the  former  ftood  as  the 
Law^  Which  ought  rather  to  be  prefumed  to  be  the  AS  of  Jujiinian 
himfelf,  the  Privileges  of  Conflantinople  being  concerned  herein,  than 
merely  the  Pique  of  Trebonian  and  the  Collectors  of  the  Laws  againft 

(c)  Hoi.  the  Roman  See,  as  (c)  Holfienius  fuggefts.  So  that  from  this  whole 
cluet  ^^^^^"^  ^^  appears  what  Oppofition  the  Pope's  interpofing  in  foreign 
Rom.  p.  Confecrations  met  with,  not  only  from  the  Bifhops  of  thofe  Provinces^ 
284-        but  from  the  Imperial  Larvs. 

But  let  us  now  fee  what  Patriarchal  Authority,  as  to  Confecrations, 
the  Bifhops  of  Rome  exercifed  in  thefe  more  Weftern  Churches.     As  to 

(d)  Anti-  Gaul,  our  (^d')  Author  confefletb,  That  the  Bifoops  of  Rome  did  not 
Jir'jJijTeit  ^^^lf^ffg<^  '^^  praSice  of  Confecrations  to  themfelves,  as  appears  by  the  Words 
z.c.^aa.  of  Leo  to  the  Bifiops  of  the  Province  o/ Vienne,  which  he  produces. 
I.  ».  loi.  ^^^  Nobk  Ordinationes  veflrarum  Provinciarum  defendimus  :  (  for  fo  he 

underftands  thefe  Words  of  Confecrations,  although  they  are  capable  of 
another  meaning,  viz.  That  he  did  not  take  upon  him  to  manage  the  Af- 
fairs of  the  Gallican  Churches,  but  only  took  care  that  they  ftiould  do 
it  themfelves  according  to  the  Canons,  which  was  Leo's  Pretence  in  that 

(e)  Leo,  ^e)  Epiftle}  but  then  he  diji/nguifljeth  between  the  Right  it  felf  and  the 
dk  ed°'  Exercife  of  it,  -which  may  he  parted  voith  by  particular  privileges  granted, 
Vov.  '  hut  the  PJght  it  felf  may  be  fill  referved-^  And  the  fame  he  after  faith  in 
(f)ScheJ-  general  of  the  (/)  Weftern  Provinces,  wherein  he  can  trace  no  Footfteps 
ftr.  \b.  n.  of  the  praftice,  and  therefore  concludes,  it  muft  be  from  privileges 

°^'  '°  'granted  by  the  Bifhops  of  Kome  by  reafon  of  di fiance,  which  the  Patriarch 
tf/ Alexandria  would  not  grant.  But -we  are  now  proving  the  Right 
by  the  PraSice,  and  therefore  it  is  unreafonablc  to  alledge  a  Right 
without  it;^  For  this  way  of  proving  is  ridiculous;  viz.  to  prove 
that  the  Pope  bad  patriarchal  Rights,  becaufe  he  did  exercife  them^ 
And  then  to  fay,  Though  he  did  not  exercife  them,  yet  he  had 
them  3  And  fo  to  prove  that  he  had  them,  becaufe  we  was  Patri- 
arch 


Chap.  III.  the  Brtttjh  Churches.  7  ^ 


drch  of  the  Weji.  Yet  this  is  in  truth  the  way  of  proof  this  late  Au- 
thor ufeth  ^  He  ftievveth  from  LupUf,  7 hat,  all  Confecrations  of  Metro- 
politane  and'prov'wcidl  Bijhops  belong  to  the  Patriarch:  Then  to  prove  a 
patriarchal  Pomr,  it  is  iieceffary  to  prove,  that  all  the  Confesrations 
within  the  Provinces  do  belong  to  that  See.  But  how  doth  this  ap- 
pear as  to  the  Weftern  Provi/ices .-?  Did  all  the  Co»fecrations  of  Bifhopsi 
within  them  belong  to  the  Bifhops  of  Rome  .<?  If  not,  then  they  were 
not  within  the  Roman  Patriarchate:  If  they  did,  we  exped  the  proof 
of  it  by  the  prd&ice.  No,  he  confefleth,  the  pra^ke  was  different  ^ 
Bnt  Jiitl  they  had  the  patriarchal  Right.  How  fo?  Tes,  faith  he,  That  if 
plain,  becaufe  the  Bifliop  <?fRome  rvas  Patriarch  of  the  Weji.  This  way  of 
proving  may  be  good  againft  De  Marca,  who  had  granted  the  Pope  to 
be  the  Wefiern  Patriarch-^  but  it  is  ridiculous  to  thofe  that  deny  it. 

But  he  attempts  fomething  farther,  viz.  (^)  That  the  Bifhop  of  KomQ 
had,  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  the  porver  of  depopng  B/floops  in  Gaul,  as  [^^^  ^'^' "' 
appears  by  Martianus  of  Aries  depofed  by  Stephanus.     This  (h)  Mart/a-  V>)  Cypr. 
ftus  had  openly    declared  himfelf  of  the  Novatian  Party  ^  at  which  ^^  ^'^-  ^•^^ 
Faujiinus,  Biihop  of  Lj'flwj',  and  other  Bifhops  in  G<?«/ were  very  much 
troubled,    and    exprelTed   their  Refentments  of  it,   but  he  flighted 
their  Cenfures  of  him :  Both  parties  made  Applications  to  St.  Cyprian, 
and  Martiamts  defired  to  preferve  Communion  with  him  5  But  he  was 
utterly  rejefted  there  for  joining  in  the  Novatian  Schifm.     But  it  feems, 
by  St.  Cjiprian's  Epiftle,  he  hadjiill  hopes  not  to  be  condemned  at  Rome, 
altho'  the  Schifm  began  there.    For,  faith  he.  How  ill  would  it  looh,  after 
Novatian  himfelf  had  beenfe  latbly  and  univerfally  reje&ed,  to  fuffer  our 
felvcs  to  be  deceived  by  his  Flatterers  ?  St.  Cyprian  and  his  Collegues  were 
in  no  danger,  for  they  had  already  detededandcondeirined  him,  there- 
fore this  muft  be  underftood  of  Stephen,  which  is  the  Reafon  he  prefTes 
him  fo  hard,  and  with  fome  Authority  to  difpatch  his  Letters  to  the 
People  of  Aries  to  chufe  another  BiQiop  in  the  place  of  Martianus, 
DirigAntur  in  Provinciam  C^  ad  Plebem  Arelat^e  confijlentem  a  te  Liters, 
Sec.     And  a  little  before  he  tells  him,  He  ought  to  fend  his  mind  at  large 
to  their  Brethren  the  Bifjops  of  Gaul,  That  they  ought  not  fuffer  him  toin- 
fult  over  their  Fraternity,  &c.     And  the  Reafon  he  gives  for  this  Free- 
dom which  he  ufeth  with  him  is,  Becaufe  they  held  the  Balance  of  the 
Government  of  the  Church  in  common  among  them  ;    And,  being  feveral 
Pafiours,  they  took  care  of  the  fame  Flock,  who  ought  all  to  join  in  condem- 
ning fuch  a  Follower  tf/*  Novatian,  akd  thereby  preferve  the  Reputation  of 
their  Predeceffors,  Cornelius /zw^Lucius,  who  were  glorious  Martyrs  :  and 
he  efpecially  who  fucceeded  them.     And  fo,  not  doubting  his  compliance, 
in  a  friendly  manner  he  defires  him,  to  let  him  know  who  fucceeded  Mar- 
tianus at  Aries,  that  he  might  know  tt)  whom  to  write.     I  appeal  to  any 
Man  of  common  Senfe,  whether  this  looks  like  the  Application  made  to 
the  Wefiern  Patriarch,  to  whom  St.  Cj'pr/irw  himfeif  owed  fubjeOion  as 
fuch.     For  when  the  Bifhops  of  Rome  began  to  challenge  a  patriarchal 
Power  over  the  Churches  of  Theffaly,  they  expefted  Application  to  be 
made  to  them  in  a  Style  fuitableto  that  Dignity,  as  is  very  remarkable 
in  the  (i)  Roman  Collediom,  As  in  the  Petition  of  StephanUs,  Bifhop  of  r,\  coiied. 
Lariffa,  the  Metropolis  of  Theffaly,  Domino  meo  fancto  ac  beatijjimo  di^  Rom.p.20: 
revera  vcnerando  Patri  Patrum,  d^  Archiepfcopo  atque  Patriarchs  Bonifa- 
cio data  fuppli  cat!  0  <;  Stephano  exiguo  :  And  in  the  very  fartie  Style  El-p^^. 
pidius,  Stephanus  and  Timotheus.     Thefe  write  like  men  that  knew  their 
diftance,  and  what  Authority  the  Bifhop  of  Rome  then  challenged  ^  But 

K  2  the 


7^  Jh^  AntKjuities  of  .Chap.  111., 

the  meek  and  humble  St.  Cyprian  feems  to  ftand  upon  equal  Terms  with 

the  Bifhop  of  Rome,  or  rather,  as  if  he  were  upon  the  higher  Ground, 

he  takes  upon  him  to  tell  him  his  duty,  and  rather  checks  -him  for  his 

negleft  in  it,  than  owns  any  Authority  in  him  fuperiour  to  his.  "  So 

that  if  any  patriarchal  Poneer  be  to  be  inferr'd  from  thisEpiftle,it  would 

be  much  rather,  that  St.  Cypr'ian  was  Patriarch  of  the  Weft,  than  the 

Biftiopof  i^tfa^e;  fince  he  is  rathery«;?ew«r,  who  direfts  what  another 

Ihould  do,  than  lie  who  doeth  what  is  directed  5  And  if  from  hence  it 

follows,  7"i6rf/  the  execution  of  the  Canons  was  in  the  B'fljop  tf/Rome,  it  will 

likewife  follow,  that  the  dire&ing  that  execution  was  in  the  Bifhop  of 

Carthage. 

{k,  Schel-       But  we  are  told,  (  <('  )  that,  even  in  Africa,  no  Cnnfecrations  were  al- 

ftraet.  \b.  lowd,  without  the  confent  of  the  Bifiop  of  Rome :  This  is  great  News 

/J) '^^,^/.;„ indeed,  of  which  the  African  Code  gives  us  no  information;  But  (/) 

Coll.  Kom.  Holjlenius  finds  it  in  an  Epiftle  of  Siricius  or  of  Innocentius,  (  which 

h  2<5j.     j^g  pleafes,  for  the  fame  Rules  are  in  both  )  only  in  the  Canon  Law 

it  is  taken  from  Innocentius,  and  the  true  Senfe  is  given  of  it.  Extra, 

confcientiam  Metropolitani  Epifcepi,  nullus  audeat  ordinare   Epifcopum: 

But  what  is  this  to  the  Roman  Patriarchate  ?  And  our  Author  doth 

not  feem  to  rely  upon  it  ^  But  he  ajledges  a  PafTage  in  Optatus,  that 

Eunomius  and  Olympius,  two  BiJIiops,  were  fent  to  Carthage  to  confe- 

crate  a  Bifijop  in  the  place  both  of  Cecilian  and  Donatus ;  And  Al- 

hafpinteus  faith,  they  were  fent  by  the  Popes  Authority.     But  this  Ohferva- 

(m)  Op-   tion  of  his  he  hath  not  from  («?)  Optatus,  by  whom  it  rather  appears, 

tat./.  I,    fj^3f  f jjgy.  ^g^g  fgjjj.  |jy  jf^g  Emperour,  who  ftopt  Cecilian  at  Brixia. 

And  no  one  that  reads  the  PaiTages  about  MHthiades  at  that  time,  and 
how  Conjiantine  joined  Marinus,  Maternus  and  Rheticius  in  Commijflon 
with  him,  can  ever  imagine,  that  the  Bifhop  of  Rome  was  then  efteem- 
ed  the  Patriarch  of  the  Weflj  and,  as  fuch,  to  have  had  JurifdttUon 
over  the  Bifhops  of  Africa. 
(«)Schei-  The  laft  (»)  Attempt  to  prove  the  Pope's  patriarchal  Power,  as  to 
ftraecj*.  Confecrat ion  in  the  Weftern  Churches,  is  from  his  Authority  of  giving 
Palls  to  the  Metropolitanes.  Which  he  proves  from  Gregorys  Epiftles, 
as  to  the  BiJJ^ops  of  Aries  and  London  5  And  from  an  Epijile  o/Boniface, 
B I (Ijop  of  Mentz,  wherein,  he  faith,  it  was  agreed  in  France,  That  the 
Metropolitanes  Jliould  receive  Palls  from  the  Roman  See.  But  how  far 
are  we  now  gone  from  the  Council  of  Nice  and  the  Rules  of  Church- 
polity  then  eftablifhed  ?  We  do  not  deny,  that  the  Bifhops  of  Rome 
did  afTume  to  themfelves  in  following  Ages  a  more  than  patriarchal 
Power  over  the  Weftern  Churches  :  But  we  fay  there  are  no  footfteps  of 
it  in  the  Time  of  the  Council  of  Nice  ^  And  that  what  Power  they  gain- 
ed, was  by  ZJfurpation  upon  the  Rights  of  Metropolitanes  and  provincial 
Synods  then  fettled  by  general  confent  of  the  Bifhops  of  the  Chriftiaii 
Church.  But  this  Ufurpation  was  not  made  in  an  Inftant,  but  by  fe- 
veral  Steps  and  Degrees,  by  great  Artifice  and  Stibtilty,  drawing  the 
Metropolitanes  themfelves,  under  a  Pretence  of  advancing  their  Autho- 
rity, to  betray  their  Rights.  And  among  the  Artifices  of  the  Court  of 
Rome  this  of  the  Pall  was  none  of  the  leaft  5  For  by  it  the  Popes  pre- 
tended to  confirm  and  inlarge  the  privileges  of  Metropolitanes,  which 
hereby  they  did  efFeftually  overthrow,  as  though  they  received  them 
merely  from  the  Favour  of  the  Bifhop  of  Rome,  which  did  undoubted- 
ly belong  to  them  by  ancient  Right.  But  that  this  was  a  mere  Device 
to  bring  the  Metropolitanes  into  dependence  on  the  Court  of  Rome^ 

appears 


roi. 


Gpi  AP.  III.  the  B^'itijh  Churches.  77 

appears  by  the  moft  ancient  Form  of  fending  the  'Pall  in  the  (<?)  Di-  (o)  vhr,,, 
urmis  Romawts,  where  it  is  finely  called,  the  fiew'wg  their  unanimity  with '^""^•h'i^' 
St.  Peter.     But  what  the  Nature  and  Defign,  and  Antiquity  of  the  Pali 
was,  is  fo  fully  fet  forth  by  (/?)  Petrus  de  Marca,  and  (^)  Garnerius,(p)Decon- 
that  I  (hall  fay  no  more  of  it :  Only  that  from  hence  the  ancient  Rights  "'■'^-  ^-  ^• 
of  the  Metropolitam  Churches  do  more  fully  appear,  becaufe  it  was  fo^^jGafner' 
long  before  this  Badge  of  Sithje&ion  was  received  in  thefe  Weftern  m.  ad 
Churches ,  For  the  Synod  which  Boniface  mentions,  wherein  the  Metro-  q-^;^'  *' 
politanes  confented  to  receive  Tails  from  Rome,  was  not  till  the  middle  oiKom.' 
the  8th.  Century ;  And  great  Arts  and  Endeavours  were  ufed  in  all  the 
Weftern  Churches,  before  they  could  be  brought  to  yield  to  this  real 
Badge  of  the  Pope's  patriarchal  Power  over  them.     Which  is  particu- 
larly true  of  the  Britifh  Churches  which  preferved  their  Metropolitane 
Rights,  as  long  as  their  Churches  were  in  any  tolerable  condition  5  And 
that  without  fufFering  any  diminution  of  them  from  the  Pope's /Jif^'^^r- 
chal  Power :  As  will  farther  appear  in  this  Difcourfe. 

(2.)  The  next  patriarchal  Right  to  be  examined,  is  that  of  calling 
Bijhops  within  their  Juri/didion  fo  Councils.     It  is   truly  obferved  by 
(r)  de  Marca,  That  thofe  who  received  Confecratiott  from  another,  were  C'')^^  Coii- 
bound  bj  the  ancient  Difcipline  of  theChurch  to  attend  to  his  Councils  ;  And  '"^'^' '"  ^,° 
in  the  Senfe  of  the  old  Canon  Law,  (/)  thofe  two  Exprejjions,  To  be-(s)DeCon- 
loMgtptheConfecration,  or  to  the   Council,  were  all  one.     And  fo  every  •'^''"^'"•  , 
Metropolitane  had  a  Right  to  fummon  the  Bifljops  of  his  Province,  and  ^."I^^I'^  ' 
the  Primates  or  Patriarchs,  as  many  as  received  Confecrations  from  them. 
Thus  the  Bifiiop  of  Rome's  patriarchal  Council  confifted  of  thofe  with- 
in his  own  Diocefe  or  the  Suburbicary  Churches.     Where  there  being  no 
Metropolitanes,  the  Roman  Council  did  much  exceed  others  in  the  num- 
ber of  Bifhops  belonging  to  it :  Thence  Galla  Placidia  relates,  how 
Jlie  found  the  Bifljop  of  Rome  compajjed  about  with  a  great  number  of  Bi- 
Piops  which  he  had  gather  d  out  of  innumerable  Cities  of  Italy,  by  reafon 
of  the  Dignity  of  his  Place.     Its  feems  then  no  Bifhops  of  other  We- 
ftern Churches  were  fummon'd  to  the  Roman  Councils.     But  the  Bifhops 
of  Sicily  were  then  under  the  Italian  Government,  and  reckon'd  with 
the  Italian  Bifljops.    It  may  be  queftion'd,  whether   in  Ruffinus  his 
Time  they  were  comprehended  within  the  Suburbicary  Churches.    But 
in  Leos  Time  the  Bifhops  of  Rome  had  inlarged  their  Jurifdi^lion  fo 
far,  as  to  fummon  the  Bifhops  of  Sicily   to  their  Councils.    This  is 
evident  from  Z,ei>'s  Epiftle  to  all  the  Bifhops  of  Sicily,  where  he  char- 
ges them  every  year  to  fend  three  of  their  Number  to  a  Council  in  Rome  5 
And  this  he  requires  in  purfuance  of  the  Nice ne  Canons  :,  From  whence 
it  feems  probable.  That  the  Bifhop  of  Rome  did  by  degrees  gain  all 
the  Churches  within  the  Jurifdiftion  of  the  Ficarius  ZJrbis  as  his  pa- 
triarchal Diocefe.     For  Sicily  was  one  of  the  ten  Provinces  belonging 
thereto.     But  our  (0  Author  faith.  That  the  Council  of  Nice  fpeaks (f)ScheU 
there  only  of  provincial  Councils,  and  not   of  patriarchal.     What   then>"""g/' 
Was  Sicily  within  the  Roman  Province,  confidering  the  Bifhop  oi  Rome 
merely   as  a  Metropolitane  ?  That   is  very  abfurd,  (ince  Sicily  was  a 
Province  of  it  felf,  and  as  fuch,  ought  to  have  had  a  Metropolitane  of 
its  own  :  And  fo  all  the  other  neighbour  Provinces  to  Ronte-^  where- 
as we  read  of  none  there  5  but  as  far  as  the  Bifhop  of  Rome's  Jitrif 
diciion  extended,  it  was  immediate,  and  fwallow'd  up  all  Metropolitane  ru^ueCon. 
Rights.     I  know  («)  Petrus  de  Marca  ihivk'i  there  were  Metropolitanes  cord,  i.u 

within'-^  ''•  ^- 


1 8  The  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  li  l. 

within  the  Suburbicary  Churches -^  But  I  fee  no  Authority  he  brings  for 
it  befides  the  Nicene  Canon  and  the   Decrees  of  Innocentins  and  heo 
which  relate  to  other  Churches.     But  any  one  that  carefully  reads  the 
Epiftles  of  Leo  to  the  Bijhops  within  thofe  Provinces^  arid  compares 
(w)  Not.  rn  them  with  thofe  written  to  the  Bifhops  without  them,  will,  as  (no) 
^m^i'  ^^f"^^  hath  well  obferved,  find  fo  different  a   ftrain  in  them,  that 
^  *    "    from  thence  he  may  juftly  infer,  that  there  wei"e  no  Metropolitanes  in 
(«)Leo    the  former,  but  there  were  in  the  latter.    When  he  (x)  writes  to  the 
^"  ■ '^' ^' Biftiop  of  Aquileia  he  takes  notice  of  his  provincial  Synod,  anddirefts 
the  Epiftles  of  general  concernment  to  the  MetropoUtane ;  as  he  doth 
{>)£/>.    not  only  to  him,  but  to  (^)  the  Biftiop  of  i^(?t»e»»rf  too.    And  when 
J'°*  ^     (z)  Enjebius,  Bifhop  of  Milan,  wrote  to  him,  he  gives  an  account  of 
135.        the  provincial  Council  which  he  held.    But  there  is  nothing  like  this,  in 
th&  Epiftles  fent  to  the  Biftiops  within  the  ten  Provinces,  no  mention  is 
therein  made  of  Metropolitanes,  or  of  any  provincial  Synods.     But  here 
'    we  find  the  Biftiops  of  Sicily  in  common  fummon'd  to  fend  three  of 
their  number  to  an  annual  Council  at  Rome.     From  whence  I  conclude. 
That  the  Pope's  patriarchal  Council  lay  within  the  compafs  of  thefe 
Suburbicary  Churches.    I  do  not  deny  but  upon  occafion  there  might  be 
(<i)Eureb.inore  Biftiops  fummon'd  to  meet  at  a  Council  in  i?(7^?  5  As  when  (4) 
/.  7.  C.24.  Aurelian  gave  the  Bifhops  of  Italy  leave  to  meet  at  Rome  in  the  Cafe  of 
Paulus  Sdmofatenus.     And  when   they  met-  with  "Julius,  in  the  Cafe  of 
Athanafius,  and  fuch  like  Inftances  of  an  extraordinary  Nature  and 
Very  different  from  the  fixed  canonical  Councils ;  which  were  provincial 
elfe- where,  but  in  the  Roman  Diocefe  they  were  patriarchal  -.^  yet  they 
extended  no  farther  than  to  the  Biftiops  within  the  Suburbicary  Churches, 
And  whofoever  confiders  the  Councils  of  Italy  in  St.  Ambrofe's  Time, 
(6)  Sir-  publiftied  by  (Ji)  Sitmondits,  will  find  that  the  Bifhops  of  the  Italick 
"Append'     ^'^^^fi  ^'^  "^^  think  themfelves  obliged  to  refort  to  Rome  for  a  patri- 
ad  c.      archal  Council.     And,  which  is  more  obfervable,  the  latter  of  them 
Theod.     extremely  differs  from  Damafus  about  the  fame  matter;  which  was  the 
(c)co!ien.Confecration  of  Maximus  to  be  Bifhop  of  Conjfantinople,    For  (^     Da- 
Rom.p.si-  mafus,  in  his  Epiftle  to  Acholius,  Sec.  bitterly  exclaims  againft  the  ^ct- 
ting  up  Maximus,  as  though  all  Religion  lay  at  ftake,  and  admoniftied 
them  at  the  next  Council  at  Conjlantinople  to  take  care  that  a  fitter  Per- 
fon  be  chofen  in  his  room :  And  the  fame  he  re-inforces  in  another 
ffl')#psnrf,  Epiftle  to  Acholius  alone.     But  (^d)   St.Ambrofe,  and  the  BtJJjops  of 
p.  104.      jfaiy  yyjth  him,  in  a  Conciliar  Addrefs  to  Theodojius,  juftifie  the  Confe- 
cratibn  of  Maximus,  and  diflike  that  of  Gregory  and  Ne&arius.     Now 
in  this  Cafe  I  defire  to  know,  whether  this  Council  own'd  the  Biftiop 
ff)Sciiei-  of  Rome's  patriarchal  Power?  For  (e)  Em.  a  Scheljiraet  following 
V.  109.  *  Chriflianus  LupUs,  faith.  That  in  the  Pope's  patriarchal  Power  is  implied, 
that  the  Bifljops  are  only  to  confult  and  advife,  but  the  determination  doth 
wholly  belong  to  the  Pope  as  Patriarch'.,  And  that  the  BiJJoop  of  Alexan- 
dria had  the  fame  power  appears  by  the  Bifiops  of  Egypt  declaring  they 
could  not  do  any  thing   reithout  the  Bijhop  of  Alexandria.     Let  us  then 
grant.  That   the  Bifhop  of  Rome  had  the  fame  Authority  within  his 
patriarchal  Diocefe,  doth  not  this  unavoidably  exclude  the  Bifhops  of 
the  Italick  Diocefe  from  being  under  his  Patriarchate  ?  For  if  they  had 
been  under  it,  would  they  have,  not  barely  met,  and  confulted,  and 
fent  to  the  Emperour  without  him,  but  in  flat  oppofition  to  him  ?  And 
when  afterwards  the  Weftern  Bifhops  met  in  Council  at  Capua,  in  or- 
der to  the  compofingthe  Differences  in  the  Church  of  Antioch,  altho' 

-  it 


HAP.  III.         the  Britifb Cbarcbes.  7^ 


it  were  within  the  Roman  'Patriarchate,  yet  it  being  a  Council  of  Bi- 
(hops  alTembled  out  of  the  Italick  Diocefe  as  well  as  the  Roman,  the  Bi- 
fliop  of  Rome  did  not  prefide  therein,  but  St.  Amb-ofe  i,  as  appears  by 
(f)  St.  Ambrofe  his  Epiftle  to  Theophtli0,  about  the  proceedings  of  this  (/•;  Am- 
Council^  For  he  faith.  He  hopes  rvhat  Theopbilus  <«»(5i  the  Bijhops  of^^^^-^P- 
Egypt  (Ijoiild  determine  in  that  Caitfe  about  Flavianus,  would  not  he  difplea-  g^°  *^' 
Jing  to  their  Holy  Brother,  the  Bifiop  of  Rome.     And  there  follows  ano-  (s)Epijt: 
ther  (g)  Epiftle  in  St.  Ambrofe  which  overthrows  the  Rope's patriarchaV'^^^-  ^' 
Romr  over  the  Weftern  Churches  by  the  confefTion  of  the  Pope  him-  (h)coiien. 
felf.     For  that  which  had  pafled  under  the  name  of  St.  Ambrofe  is  now  ^°'«-  f- 
found  by  (Ji)  Holjlenius  to  be  written  by  Siricius,  and  is  fo  publifhed(^^')  conc;/. 
in  the  Roman  Collection,  and  fince  in  the  (i)  CoUeBicn  of  Councils  at  Ra-  i~M.  t.z. 
rk.     This  Epiftle  was  written  by  Siricius  to  Anyfius  and  other  Biftiops^'  '°^^' 
of  lUjricum,  concerning  the  Cafe  of  Bonofus,  which  had  been  referr'd 
to  them  by  the  Councjl  of  Capua,  as  being  the  neighbour  Biftiops,  and 
therefore,  according  to  the  Rules  of  the  Church,  fitteft  to  give  Judge- 
ment in  if.     But  they,  either  out  of  a  complement  or  in  earneft,  de- 
fired  to  know  the  Pope's  opinion  about  it.     So  his  Epiftle  begins,  Ac- 
cepi  literas  vejiras  de  Bonofo  Epifcopo,  quihuf,  vel  pro  veritate,  vel  pro 
modejiia,  nojiram  fententiam  fcifcitari  voluiflk.     And  are  thefe  the-£;c- 
prejjions  of  one  with  patriarchal  Romer,  giving  anfwer  to  a  Cafe  of  dif- 
ficulty which  canomcally  lies  before  him  ?  But  he  afterwards  declares, 
he  had  nothing  to  do  in  it,  fince  the  Council  of  Capua  had  referr'd  it 
to  them,  and  therefore  they  were  bound  to  give  Judgment  in  it.    Sed 

cum  hujufmodi  fnerit  Concilii  Capaends  Judicium advertimus  quod  no- 

bk  judicandi  forma  competere  non  pojjit.     If  the  Biftiop  of  Rome  had  thea 
patriarchal  Power  over  all  the  Weftern  Churches,  how  came  he  to  be  ex- 
cluded from  judging  this  Caufe  by  the  Proceedings  of  the  Council  of 
Capua  ^  Would  Pope  Siricius  have  born  this  fo  patiently  and  fubmif- 
fively,  and  declined  meddling  in  it,  if  he  had  thought  that  it  did  of 
Right  belong  to  him  to  determine  it  ?  If  the  Execution  of  the  Canons 
belongs  to  the  Biftiop  of  Rome  as  the  Supreme  Patriarch,  how  comes  the 
Council  of  Capua  not  to  refer  this  matter  immediately  to  him,  who  was 
fo  near  them  5  But,  without  fo  much  as  asking  his  Judgment,  to  ap- 
point the  hearing  and  determining  it  to  the  Biftiops  of  Macedonia  .<?  We 
have  no  reafon  to  queftion  the  fincerity  of  this  Epiftle  which  Card.  Bar- 
berine  publiftied  as  it  lay  with  others  in  Holjlenius  his  Papers  taken  out 
of  the  Vatican,  and  other  Roman  MSS.  by  the  exprefs  Order  of  Alexan-  (i)  Des 
der  VU.     And  altho'  a  late  (k)  Advocate  for  the  Pope's  Power  in  France  iJ^^"^^. 
againft  De  Marca,  hath  offer'd  feveral  Reafons  to  prove  this  Epiftle  Evefqmsl 
counterfeit,  yet  they  are  all  anfwer'd  by  a  (/)  DoBor  of  the  S)rbon.     SoP-  '>^^- 
that  this  Epiftle  of  Siricius  is  a  ftanding  Monument,  not  only  againft  ^,-^-'„^^j^''' 
the  Pope's  abfolute  and  unlimited  Power,  but  his  patriarchal  out  of  his  m.-iprihus 
O^n  Diocefe.  f^^'^f^^ 

But  to  jaftifie  the  Pope's  patriarchal  Power  in  calling  the  Weftern  Bi-  {myochti. 
/hops  to  his  Council  at  Rome,  we  have  feveral  («z)  Inftances  brought  ^  As  ^'"^^"^-  '*• 
of  fome  Gallican  Bifiops  prefent  at  the  Council  under  Damafus:,  Wil-'^j^^] 
frid,  an  Et7gl'ijl?  Bifljop  under  Agatho  a  Legate  from  the  Council  held  in 
Britain  5  with  Felix  of  Aries  and  others ;  and  fome  others  of  later  times. 
But  what  do  extraordinary  Councils,  meeting  at  Rome,  prove,  as  to  the 
Biftiop  of  Rof»e's  being  Patriarch  of  the  Weftern  Churches^  Do  the  We- 
ftern Councils,  meeting  at  Milan,  Aries,  Ariminum,  Sardica,  or   fuch 
Places,  prove  the  Biftiops  of  them  to  be  all  Patriarchs?  Thefe  things 

are 


I'  I  I         I  '   — '  ■  ■  .    ■       . ., 

80  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  III. 

are  not  worth  mentioning,  unlefs  there  be  fome  circamftance  to  fhew 
that  the  Bi(hop  of  Rotfie  called  the  Weftern  Bijl^ops  together  by  his 
patriarchal  Pomr,  for  which  there  is  no  evidence  brought.  But  there 
is  a  very  great  difference  between  Councils  affembled  for  Unity  of  Faith 
or  Difcipline  irom  Ce\ ersil  Diocefes,  a.nd  provincial  Synods,  and  patriar- 
chal Councils  called  at  certain  times  to  attend  the  patriarchal  See,  as  is 
(")  ^'"^''n-  to  be  feen  in  the  (;?)  Diumus  Romanus,  where  the  Bifhops,  within  the 
/^.w.f.  2.g^^„  Patriarchate,  oblige  themfelves  to  obey  the  Summons  to  a 
Council  at  Ro»/e,  at  certain  fixed  times,  as  Gamerius  fhews ;  which,  he 
faith,  was  three  times  in  the  year.  But  he  adds,  this  extended  no  far- 
ther than  to  the  BiJIoops  within  the  Suburbicary  Churches,  who  had  no 
Trimate  but  the  Bifiop  of  Rome,  and  fo  this  was   a  true  patriarchal 

Council. 

m 

(5,)  But  the  lafl:  Right  contefted  for,  is,  that  of  Appeals  in  greater 
Caufes.    By  which  we  underftand  fuch  Application  of  the  Parties  con- 
cerned as  doth  imply  a  Superior  JurifdiHion  in  him  they  make  their  re- 
fort  to,  whereby  he  hath  full  Authority  to  determine  the  matters  in  dif- 
ference: For  otherwife  Appeals  may  be  no  more  than  voluntary  Ath  in 
the  Parties,  and  then  the  Perfon  appealed  to  hath  no  more  Power  than 
their  Confent  gives  him.    Now  in  the  Chriftian  Church,  for  preferva- 
tion  of  Peace  and  Unity,  it  was  ufual  to  advife  in  greater  Cafes  with 
the  Bifhops  of  other  Churches,  and  chiefly  wirh  thofe  of  the  greateft 
Reputation,   who  were  wont  to  give  their  Judgment,  not  by  way  of 
Authority,  but  of  Friendly  correfpondence  ;  not  to  (hew  their  Domi- 
nion, but  their  Care  of  preferving  the  Unity  of  the  Church.     Of  this 
we  have  a  remarkable  Inftance  in  the  Italick  Council,  of  which  St.  Am- 
brofe  was  Preftdent,  who  did  interpofe  in  the  Affairs  of  the  Eaftern 
Church  \,  not  with  any  pretence  of  Authority  over  theni,  but  merely 
out  of  Zeal  to  keep  up  and  reftore  Unity  among  them.     They  knew 
very  well  how  fufpicious  the  Eajiern  Bifiops  were  of  the  Wejiern  Bi' 
/hops  meddling  in  their  matters  ever  fince  the  Council  of  Sardica  (  of 
which  afterwards}  but  they  tell  them,  it  was  no  new  thing  for  the  We- 
(0)  App.adjiern  Bijljops  to  be  concerned  when  things  were  out  of  order  among  them.  (<»} 
'^d^'^'^^^  ■^'"^  Pr£rogativum,  fay  they,  vindicamus  examink,  fed  Confortium  ta^ 
°  '^'^°  '  men  debuit  effe  communis  arbitrii.    They  did  not  challenge  a  Power  of 
calling  them  to  account,  but  they  thought  there  ought  to  be  a  mutual 
Correfpondence  for  the  general  good,  and  therefore  they  received  M^Arr- 
mus  his  Complaint  of  his  hard  ufage  at  Conftantinople.     Will  any  hence 
infer,  that  this  Council  or  St.  Ambrofe  had  a  Superior  Authority  over  the 
Patriarch  of  Conftantinople^  So  that  neither  Confultations,  Advices,  Re- 
ferences, nor  any  other  A&  which  depends  upon  the  Will  of  the  Par- 
ties, and  are  defigned  only  for  a  common  good,  can  prove  any  true  pa- 
triarchal Poiver.     Which  being  premifed,  let  us  now  fee  what  Evidence 
(p)  Schei-  is  produced  from  hence  for  the  Pope's  patriarchal  Power  over  the  We- 
^TaV**  -fi^''"  ^^"f"^^^^'     And  the  main  thing  infifted  upon  is,  (p)  The  Bijbop  of 
Rome' J-  appoint ingLegates  in  the  Wejiern  Churches  to  hear  and  examine  Caufes^ 
and  to   report  them.     And  of  this,  the  firft  inftance  is  produced  of  the 
feveral  Epifiles  of  Popes  to  the  Bifiops  of  ThelTalonica  in  the  Roman  Col- 
le^lion.    Of  which  a  large  account  hath  been  already  given  :  And  the 
firft  beginning  of  this  was  after  the  Council  of  Sardica  had  out  of  a 
Pique  to  the  Eajiern  Bijhops  and  Jealoufie  of  the  Emperor  allow'd  the 
Bifhop  of  Rome  the  Liberty  of  granting  a  re- hearing  of  Caufes  in  they^- 

veral 


Chap.  IIL  the  hritt  ft  Churches.  8i 

veral  Provi frees  ^  which  was  fhe  pretence  of  fending  Legates  into  them  j 
And  this  was  the  firft  confiderable  ftep  that  was  made  towards  the  ad- 
vancing the  Pope's  Power  over  the  Weftern  Churches.   For  a  prefent  {q)  {q)  Dt  art' 
Dd&or   of  the  Sorbort    confefleth,  that  in  the  fpace  of  ^4^7  years,  i.eJ'l".''^'.'^ 
td  tht  Sardici'n  CoWncW,  No  one  Injiance  can  be  produced  of  any  Caufe  EpijCpo' 
Tphercin  Bijhops  vecre  concerned,   that  tpas  ever  brought  to  Rome  bi  the  Bif  ''""i  cau- 
fljopj  that  were  the  Judges  of  it.  But  if  the  Pope's  patriarchal  Power  had  been  ^"'  ^'  ^'' 
kfiiown  before,  it  had  been  a  regular  way  of  proceeding  from  the  Bi- 
(hops'in  proiiittcraiS/nods  to  the  Patriarchs     And  witball,  -he  faith,'  be-p-  7J. 
foT'e  that  Council  no  injiance  can  be  produced  ef  any  Judges  delegates  for      ^   , 
the  review  of  Judgment  puffed  in  provincial  Synods  :  And  whatever  Privi-  i^z^'^c.' 
lege  or  Authority  was  granted  by  the  Council  <?/ Sardica  tO'  the  Bfliop  of 
Rome,  -was  wholly  new,   and  had  no  Tradition  of  the  Church  to-jujiifiei'it  ^ 
And  was  not  then  received  either  in  the  Bajlern  or  Wejkrn  Churches:     Sb 
tbat  all  the  Pleas  of  a  patriarchal  Power,  as  to  the  Btrfiop  of  Rome, 
Mvkh  refped  to  greater  Caufis  muft  fall  very  much  (hort  of  the  Council 
of  Nice.     As  to  the  Inftance  of  Marcianus  of  Arles^  that  hath  been  an- 
fwered  already  v  And  as  to  the  Depofition  of  Biftiops  in  England  by 
the  Pope's  Authority  in  later  Times,  it  is  of  no  importance,  fince  we 
do  not  deny  the  matter  of  Fad,  as  to  the  Pope'i  Vfitrpatiens  ^  Bia  we 
fay,  they   can    never  juftifie  the  exercife  of  a  patriarchal  Poit>ercf- 
ver  tliefe  Churches  by  the  Rules  eftablifhed  in  the  Council  of  Nice. 

But  it-is  faid,  That  fhe  Countil  of  Aries,  before  that  tf/Nice,  attributes 
tb  the  Bijhop  of  Rome,  Majores  Diecefesy  i.  e.  according  to  De  Marcd^ 
all  the  Weftern  Churches:^  But  in  anfwer  to  this,  I  have  already  ftiew'd 
how  far  tht  Weftern  Bijhops  at  Aries  were  from  owning  the  Pope's  p<«-; 
triarchal  Pffi»je>' Ov-er  them,  becaufe  they  do  not  fo  much  as  defife  his 
tonfitmafion  of  what  had  paiTed  in  Council;  But  only  fend  the  Canons 
to  him  to  publifh  them.  But  our  Author  and  Chriftianus  Lupus  (ay^ 
thatfuch  ti  the  Patriarch's  Authority,  That  all  A^s  of  Btjliops  in  Council 
are  in-i^effifel-ueis  invalid  without  his  Sentence.^  which  only  gives  Lifi  and 
Vigour  to  theth ;  At  they  prove  by  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  But  if  the 
Bilhop  of  Roffie  •<3verethtn  owned  to  ht  Patriarch  over  feven  or  eight 
Diocefesoi  the  Weft,  according  to  De  Marca's  expofitioH;  how  came 
they  to  fit  and  make  Canons,  without  the  leaft  mention  of  his  Authori- 
ty? So  that  either  they  muft  deny  hirti  to  be  Patriarch,  orthey  muft  fay 
he  was  affronted  in  the  higheft  manner  by  the  Wejlefn  Bi^ops  thetc 
affemblcd.  But  as  to  the  expreffion  of  Majores  Dieecefesy  it  is  very  que- 
ftionable,  whether  in  the  time  of  the  Council  oiArles^  the  diftribution 
of  the  Empire  by  Conftantine  into  Dme/ex  were  then  made,  and  it  feeins 
probable  not  to  have  bee^  done  in  the  time  of  the  Council  of  N/Ve,  Di- 
^€/ei)  not  being  mentioned  there,  but  only  Pr^^^w^c/ ;< 'And  if  foj' this 
Place  muft  be  corrupt-in  that  expreffion,  as  it  is  moft  certain  it  is  in  oi- 
thejfs;  And  it  is  hard  to  lay  fo  great  weight  on  a  place  that  makes  no 
entire  fenfe.  But  aliowing^the  expreffion  genuine,  it  implies  no  more 
than  that  the  Biftiop  of  Rome  bad  then  more  Exten/tve  Diocejet  than  o- 
tber  Wejierk  Eijhopf^-  Which  is  not  denied,  fince  even  thenhe»had(e^ 
veral  Provinces  MudiQT  his  immediate  Government^  which  no  other 
Weftern  Bi/hop  had.       t     :;"  .     ■   .  r,  .  , .. 

u\ry  St.  Bap's  calling  the^ijhop  o/Rome,  Chief  of  the  Weftern  Bi/hops,(r)  Sche\- 
implies  nothing  bur  the  dignity  of  his  See^  and  not  any  patriarchal  ^'^^"''''' 
Power  over  the  Wejiern  Churches.  *  .      "■  '7^" 

L  ^  It 


I- 


82  The  Antitjuittes  of  Chap.  III. 

It  muft  be  a  degree  of  more  than  ufual  fubtilry  to  infer  Damafus  his 
(s)  Id.  ti.  patriarihal  Power  over  the  Weji,  (j-)  becaufe  St.  Jeroff/e  joins  Damafus  and 
the  ^Fe^  together,  ashe  doth  Peter  and  Egjpt :  Therefore Dawafus had 
the  fame  Power  over  the  Weji  which  Peter  had  over  Egypt.  Itfeems  St.^e- 
rome%  language  about  the  dififerent  H^poftafes,  did  not  agree  with  what 
was  ufed  in  the  Syrian  Churches,  and  therefore  fome  charged  him  with 
falfe  Doctrine;  he  pleads  for  himfelf,  that  the  Churches  of  Egypt,  and 
the  Weft,  fpake  as  he  did,  and  they  were  known  then  neither  to  fa- 
vour Aria»ifmr\or  Sabellianifm  5  And,  to  make  his  Allegation  more  par- 
ticular, he  mentions  the  names  of  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  and  the 
Bifhop  of  Rome.     But  a  Caufe  extremely  wants  Arguments  which  muft 
be  fupported  by  fuch  as  thefe. 
{t)  id.n.       'f  (0  St.AuguJiine  makes  Innocent  to  prejide  in  the  Weflern  Churches\ 
19'         he  only  thereby  (hews  the  Order  and  Dignity  of  the  Roman  See ;  but  he 
doth  no^  own  any  Suhje&ion  of  the  Weftern  Churches  to  his  Power,  fince 
no  Church  did  more  vehemently  withftand  the  Bifhop  of  Rome's  In- 
croachments  than  the  Churches  of  Africa  did  in  St.  Avgujiine's  time  5  As 
is  notorious  in  the  bufinefs  of  Appeals,  which  tranfaftion  is  a  demon- 
ftration  againft  his  patriarchal  Power  over  the  African  Churches.     And 
the  Bifhop  of  Rome  never  infifted  on  a  patriarchal  Rights  but  on  the 
Nicene  Canons  wherein  they  were  fhamefully  baffled. 
(u)  Id.  n.      It  cannot  be  denied  that  («)  Pope  Innocent,  in  his  Epiftle  to  Decen- 
°^*         tiuf  EugubinUf,  would  bfing  the  Weftern  Churches  to  follow  the  Roman 
Traditions,  upon  this  pretence.  That  the  Churches  of  Italy,  Gaul,  Spain, 
Africa,  Sicily,  and  the  IJlands  lying  between  -were  firjl  inflituted  either  by 
fuch  as  were  fent  by  St.  Peter  or  his  Succeffors.     But  whofoever  confidei^ 
that  Epiftle  well,  will  not  for  Innocent's  fake  lay  too  much  weight  up- 
on it.     For,  Is  it  reafonable  to  think,  that  the  double  Dn&ion,  the  Sa- 
turday Faji,  the  Eulogi<e  fent  to  the  feveral  Parijlies  in  Borne,  were  Apo- 
jiolical  Traditions  which  all  the  Weflern  Churches  were  bound  to  obferve, 
becaufe  they  were  firft  planted  by  thofe  who  were  firft  fent  frovcfReme  .<? 
But  the  matter  of  Fad  is  far  from  being  evident,  for  we  have  great  rea- 
fon  to  believe,  there  were  Churches  planted  in  the  Wefiem  Parts,  nei- 
ther by  St.  Peter  nor  by  thofe  who  were  fent  by  his  SuccefTours.    Yet 
let  that  be  granted  5  What  connexion  is  there  between  receiving  the 
Chriftian  Doftrine  at  firft  by  thofe  who  came  from  thence,  and  an  Ob- 
ligation to  be  fub)ed  to  the  Bifhops  of  Rome  in  all  their  Or^crj  and  Tra- 
ditions ?  The  patriarchal  Government  of  the  Church  was  not  founded 
upon  this,  but  upon  the  ancient  Cuftom  and  Rules  of  the  Church ;  as 
fully  appears  by  the  Council  of  N/Ve.    And  therefore  the  Churches  of 
Idilan  and  Aquileia  though  in  Italy,  the  Churches  of  Africa  though 
probably  the  firft  Preachers  came  from  Rome,  never  thougfit  themfelve's 
bound  to  follow  the  Traditions  or  obferve  the  Orders  of  the  Roman 
Church,  as  is  very  well  known  both  in  St.Cyprian's  and  St.  Augufrine*s 
times.    But  if  the  Pope's  power  be  built  on  this  ground,  what  then  be- 
comes of  the  Churches  of  Illyricum  .<?  Was  the  Gofpel  brought  thither 
from  Rome  .<?  And,  as  to  the  Britifh  Churches,  this  very  Plea  of  Inno- 
cent will  be  a  farther  evidence  of  their  exemption  from  the  Roman  Pa- 
triarchate:, fince  Britain  cannot  be  comprehended  within  thofe  Iflands 
which  lie  between  Italy,  Gaul,  Spain,  Africa  and  Sicily,  which  can  on- 
ly be  und^rftood  of  thofe  Iflands  which  are  fituate  in  the  Mediterraneaft 
Se^. 

And 


Chap.  III. 


the  Britijh  Churches. 


83 


And  if  no  Inftance  can  be  produced  of  the  Bifhop  of  Roms  patri- 
archal Jurifdiftion  over  the  Britifh  Chur.hes,  why  fliould  not  we 
claim  the  fame  benefit  of  the  Nicene  Canons  which  Leo  urges  fo  vehe- 
mently in  fuch  a  parallel  Cafe?  Neither  can  it  be  faid,  that  after- 
wards,  Subje^ioH  and  Confent  makes  a  jufl  patriarchal  Forcer  5  for  nei- 
ther doth  it  hold  as  to  the  BrltiJI)  Churches,  whofe  BiQiops  utterly  re- 
fufed  to  fubmit  to  Augujiine  the  Monk  ;  And  if  it  doth,  all  the  force 
of  Leos  Arguments  is  taken  away.  For  there  were  both  Prefcrlptiort 
pleaded,  and  a  Confent  of  the  Bifiops  of  the  Diocefes  •concerned  in  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  But  Leo  faith,  the  Nicene  Canons  are  beyond 
both  thefe,  being  di&ated  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  paffed  by  the  common 
Confent  of  the  Chriflian  Church  ;  And  that  it  was  a  Sin  in  him  to  fnffer 

j  any  to  break  them.  Either  this  IS 
^oniam  difpenfatio  mihi  credita  \  true  or  falfe.  If  falfe,  how  can 
efi,  d^  ad  meum  tendit  reatum,  fi\  the  Pope  be  excufed  who  alledged 
paternarum  reguU  SanBionum,  qH£  j  it  for  true  ?  If  true,  then  it  holds 
in  Sjnodo  Nicsena  ad  totius  Eccle/i£  1  as  much  againft  the  Bifhop  of 
Regimen,  SpiritH  Dei  inftrnente,funt  1  Rome  as  the  Bi(hop  of  Conjiantino- 
tradit£  me^  quod  abfit,  connivente  \  pie.  And  as  to  the  Prefcription  of 
violentur.     Leo  ad  Marcian.  Aug.  j  60  years,  he  faith,  the  Canons  of 

Nice  were  before,  and  ought  to  take 
place,   if  the  pra&ice  had  been  ne- 
ver Jo  con  ft  ant,  which  he  denies. 
Nay,  he  goes  fo  far  as  to  fay. 
Though  the  numbers  of  Bifhops  be  ne- 
ver fo  great  that  give  their  confetit 
to  any  alteration  of  the  Nicene  Ca- 
nons, they  fignifie  nothing,  and  can- 
not b'nd.    Nothing  can  be  more 
emphatical  or  weighty  to  our  pur- 
pose than   thefe  Exprellions   of 
Pope  Leo,  for  feeuring  the  Privi- 
leges of  our  Churches,  in  cafe  na 
patriarchal  Power  over  them  can 
be  proved  before  the  Council  of 
Nice.    And  it  is  all  the  reafon  in 
the  World,  That  thofe  who  claim 
a  Jurifdi^ion  (hould  prove  it,  e- 
fpecially  when  the  Ads  of  it  are 
fo  notorious  that  they  cannot  be 
conceal'd  ^  as  the  Confecration  of 
Metropolitanes,  and  matters  of  Ap- 
peals are,  and  were  too  evident  in 
latter  Times,  when  all  the  World 
knew  what  Authority  and  Jurif- 
diftion   the  Pope  exercifed  over 
thefe  Churches.    I  conclude  this 
with    that  excellent  Sentence  of 
Pope  Leo,  PRIFILEGIA  EC- 
CLESIaRVM  SaNCTO- 
RVM  PATRVM   CANO- 
NIBVS    INSTITVTA, 
ET  FENERABILIS  NI- 
L  3  CMNE 


Ep.  78.  c.  3. 

^oniam  contra  Statuta  paterno- 
rum  Canomim,  qii£  ante  longiJpm£ 
£tatis  annos  in  ZJrbe  1>i'Kxna  fpiri- 
tualibus  fun  t  fun  data  Decretis,  ni- 
hil cuique  audere  conceditur.  Leo 
ad  Pulcher.  Ep.  7<).  ».  2. 

Superbum  nimis  ejl  d^  immodera- 
turn,  ultra  proprios  terminos  tende- 
re,  ^   antiquitate  calcath  alienum 
jus  velle  pr£r'pere,  atque  ut  unius 
crefcat  Authorit'as,  tot  Aletropolita- 
vorum  impugnare  Primatus  quietif- 
que  Provincijf,  d^  olim  SanU£  Sy- 
nod i  NiczensE  moderatione  difpojittf, 
helium  nov£  perturbationis  wferre, 
atque  ut  venerabilium  Patrum  De- 
creta  folvantur,  quorundam  Epifco- 
forum  pr£firre  confenfum  cut  tot  an- 
ttorum  feries  negavit  effedfum.   Nam 
60  fire  annus  hujus  conniventi£  effe 
jaSatur  qua  fe  pr£di&us  Epifcopus 
aflimat  adjuvari,  frujira  cupiens  id 
fibi  prodeffe,  quod  etiam  ft  quifquam 
aufus  eji  velle,  nuUus  tamen  potuit 
obtinere.     Id.  ib. 

Nulla  fibimet  de  multiplicatione 
congregationis  fynodalia  Concilia 
hlandiantur,  neque  trecentis  illis 
decern  atque  oclo  Epfcopis  quantnm- 
libet  copiofior  numerus  Sacerdotum 
'  vel  comparare  fe  audeat  vel  pr£fer- 
re  :  cum  tanto  divinitus  privilegio 


The  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  III. 


Nicxna  [it  Symdiif  confecrata,  ut 
fi'ue  per  pauciores  five  per  plures  Ec- 
clejiajiica  Judicia  celebrentiir  omni 
pen'ttus  auUor'itate  fit  vacuum  quic- 
qnid  ab  illorum  fuerit  confi'ituiione 
aiverfum.  Ad  Af/atol.  Ep.  80.  n.  i. 


C/ENJE  SYNODI  FIXA 
DECRETIS,  NVLLA  POS- 
SUNT  IMPRO  BITATE 
CONFELLI  NVLI.A  NQ^ 
FIT  ATE  FIOLARI.  The 
Privileges  of  Churchet  which  were 
begun  by  the  Cations  of  the  Holy 
Fathers  and  confirmed  by  the  Council  of  Nice  can  neither  be  de- 
ftroy'd  by  wicked  Ufurpation  nor  diflblved  by  the  Humour  of  Inno- 
vation. 

In  the  next  great  Council  of  Sardica,  which  was  intended  to  be^e- 
neral  by  the  two  Emperours  Conjians  and  Co»Jia»tius,  it  is  commonly 
(*^  Atha^- faid^  that  (w)  Athanafius  exprefly  affirms  the  Britift)  Bipops  to  have 
2.V  720/ been  there  prefent.     But  fome  think  this  miftake  arofe  from  looking 
no  farther  than  the  Latin  Copy  in  Athanafius,  in  which  indeed  the 
words  are  plain  enough  to  that  purpofe  5  but  the  fenfe  in  the  Greek 
feems  to  be  the  fame.     For  Athanafius  pleads  his  own  Innocency  from 
the  feveral  Judgments  which  had  paffed  in  his  Favour.     Firft,  by  ico 
Bifhops  in  £g;/p/  5  next,  by  above  50  Biftiops  at  i?<?«/e  5  thirdly,  in  the 
great  Council  at  Sardica^  a*  fi,  in  which,  as  fome  fay,  above  300  Bi- 
fhops  out  of  the  feveral  Provinces  there  mention'd  confented  to  his 
*^rf/o///.  Innocency.    But  here  lies  an  in  fuperable  difficulty,  for  *  Athanafius 
'''sif"''  b^*"^^'^  elfe-where  affirms,  that  there  rvere  but  170  Bifliops  tn  all  there 
'*      '    prefent  ^  and  therefore  it  is  impoffible  he  fhould  make  500  there  pre- 
fent.    Which  fome  have  endeavour'd  to  reconcile,  by  faying,  the  lat- 
ter teas  the  true  number  prefent ;  but  the  former  of  thofe  Bifijops  fcattered 
up  and  down  who  did  agree  in  the  Sentence  vehich  pajfed  in  favour  of  A- 
thanafius :  But  then  the  Greek  here  cannot  be  underftood  of  thofe 
prefent  in  Council  5  and,  on  the  other  fide,  if  it  be  not  fo  under- 
ftood, then  the  words  do  not  prove  what  he  defigns,  vi%.  that  he  was 
acquitted  in  the  Sardican  Council ;  in  which,  although  the  number 
were  not  fo  great,  I  fee  no  reafon  to  exclude  the  Britijh  Bifijops. 
(x)Athan.      It  is  true,  that  in  the  (x)  Synodical  Epiftle  of  that  Council,  only 
(y)l%^„,^f^h->  Spain  and  Gaul  are  mention'd  5  and  fo  likewifein  the  (_y  ")  Sub' 
p.  767.    fcriptions.     But  it  is  well  obferved  by  (%)  Bucherius^  that  Athanafius 
(0  Bu-    reckons  up  the  Britifh  Bilhops  among  thofe  of  Gaul.    And  (a)  Hdarv, 
Raman.  /.  wntmg  to  the  Uallican  Btpops  or  yjermama  prjma  and  Uermama  fe- 
9.0.4.11.4.  cunda,  Belgica  prima,  Belgica  fecund  a,  Lugdunenfis  prima,  Lugdunenfis 
ieSmdis.fi^*^*'^'^->  f^ovincia  Aquitanica  and  Frovincia  Novempopulana  ^  after  he 
'  hath  diftinftly  fet  down  thefe,  he  then  immediately  adds,  And  to  the 
Bifl}ops  of  the  Provinces  c/ Britain.     Which  makes  me  apt  to  think, 
that  about  that  time,  the  Bi/hops  of  Britain  were  generally  joyn'd 
with  thofe  of  Gaul,  and  are  often  comprehended  under  them  where 
(b)  Suipic.  they  are  not  exprefly  mention'd.    And,  to  confirm  this,  (b)  Sdpicitef 
sev.  /.  2.  Severus,  fpeaking  of  the  Summons  to  the  Council  of  Ariminum,  men- 
tions only  of  thefe  Weftern  Parts  Italy,  Spain  and  Gaul  5  But  after- 
wards faith.  That  the  Bi/hops  ^/Britain  toere  there  prefent.     So  that  Bri" 
tain  was  then  comprehended  under  Gaul,  and  was  fo  underftood  at 
mmAAd  ^^^^  ^^'^^  '  ^^  AV/'/y  was  under  Italy,  as  (_c)  Sirmondus  ftiews.    And 
vtnt.  c.  5.  Sextus  Rufiis  doth  put  down  the  defcription  of  Britain  under  that  of 
lc/)SemuGaul,  as  (d)  Berterius  hath  obferved.    For  other  wife,  who  could  have 
Diatr.  I.  thought  that  Athanafius  had  meant  the  Bifhops  of  Britain,  when  he 
reckons  up  only  the  Provinces  oi  Gaul}  But  he  declared  that  they  were 
prefent  with  the  GalUcan  Bi/hops.  But 


B. 


C  H  A  p.  1 1 1 .  the  B  ntijh  Cbarcbes.  8  5 

Butir  hath  been  urged  with  great  appearance  of  Reafon,  that  fince  the 
Britifh  Bipops  tvere  prefent  at  the  Council  of  Sardica,  The  Britifh  Churches 
were  hound  to  obferve  the  Canons  cf  it'^  and  Appeals  to  the  Bifljop  (?/Rome 
being  there  ejiahli//}ed,  they  were  then  brought  under  hisjurifdidion,  as  Fa- 
triarch  of  the  Wejlern  Churches.  To  give  a  clear  account  of  this,  we 
muft  examine  the  Defign  and  Proceedings  of  that  Council.  The  occa- 
fion  whereof  was  this ,  Athanafius,  Bifhop  of  Alexandria,  being  depo- 
fed  for  fome  pretended  mifdemeanours  by  two  Synods  of  Eaftern  Bi- 
Ihops,  and  finding  no  redrefs  there,  by  the  prevalency  of  the  Ariah 
Fa^ion,  makes  Application  to  the  Weftern  Bifliops,  and  to  Julius  Bi- 
(hop  of  Kome^  as  the  chief  oi  them,  and  earneftly  defires  that  his 
Caufe  might  be  heard  over  again,  bringing  great  Evidence  from  the 
Bifliops  of  Eg)ipt  and  other  places,  that  he  never  had  a  fair  Hearing, 
but  was  run  down  by  the  Violence  of  the  Enfebian party  at  Tyre  and  ^n- 
tioch.  The  Billiop  of  Rome  communicating  this  with  the  Weftern  Bi- 
fliops, as  at  large  appears  by  Jidius  his  Epiftle  in  Athanafius,  he,  in  their 
name  as  well  as  his  own,  fends  to  the  Eaftern  Bifliops,  That  this  Caufe 
might  be  heard  before  indifferent  Judges:  And  to  that  end,  that  they 
would  come  into  thefe  Parts,  and  bring  their  Evidences  with  them. 
This  they  decline  ;  Upon  which,  and  a  fuller  Examination  of  the  mat- 
ter, they  receive  Athanajius,  MarceUm  and  others  into  Communion  with 
them.  This  gives  a  mighty  diftafte  to  the  Eaftern  Bifliops;  at  laft  the 
two  Brothers,  Confiantius  and  Confians,  agree,  there  fliould  be  a  gene- 
ral Council  called  at  Sardica,  to  hear  and  determine  this  matter.  The 
Bifliops  meet  5  But  the  Weftern  Bifliops  would  have  the  reftored  Bifliops 
admitted  to  Communion,  and  fit  in  Council;  This  the  Eaftern  Bifliops 
Utterly  refufe 5  and  upon  that  withdrew  to  Philippopolk  :^  And  declare 
againft  their  Proceedings  at  Sardica,  as  repugnant  to  the  Nicene  Canons  : 
The  Weftern  Bifliops  continued  fitting,  and  made  nevsr  Canons  to  juftifie 
riieir  own  Proceedings.  This  is  the  true  ftate  of  the  matter  of  Fad  5 
as  far  as  I  can  gather  it  out  of  the  authentick  Writings  on  both  Sides. 
For  the  one  fide  infifts  upon  the  Juftice  of  re-hearing  a  Caufe,  tpherein 
there  was  fo  great  fufpicion  of  foul  dealing:^  And  the  other,  that  the  mat' 
ters  which  concerned  their  Bipops,  were  not  to  be  tried  over  again  by  others 
at  a  dijiance  ;  And  that  thk  was  the  Way  to  overthrow  the  Difcipline  of 
the  Church,  as  it  had  been  fettled  by  the  Council  o/Nice  and  the  ancient 
Canons  oftheChurch.  It  is  apparent  by  the  Synodical  Epiftle  of  the  Greek 
Bifliops  who  withdrew  to  Ph:lippopolk,  That  this  was  the  main  Point 
infifted  on  by  them  5  That  it  was  the  bringing  a  new  Law  into  the  Church-.^ 
For  the  Eafiern  Bifliops  to  be  judged  by  the  Weftern ;  The  ancient  Cujlom 
and  Rule  of  the  Church  being  :^  That  they  fhould,  fiand  or  fall  by  their  own 
Bifhops.  The  Weftern  Bifliops  on  the  other  fide  pleaded.  That  this  was 
a  Caufe  of  common  concernment  to  the  whole  Church  ;  That  there  had  been 
notorious  partiality  in  the  management  of  it ;  That  Athanafius  was  condem- 
ned, not  for  any  pretended  mifcarriages  fo  much^  as  for  his  Zeal  againfl 
Arianifm  ;  That  the  Caufe  was  not  heard  in  Egypt,  where  he  was  charged, 
but  at  a  great  difiance,  and  therefore  in  common  Jufiice,  it  ought  to  have  a 
new  hearing  by  the  Eafiern  and  Weflern  Bifhops  together.  But  the  Eaftern 
Bifhops  finding  that  the  Weftern  would  not  forfake  the  Communion  of 
Athanafius  and  the  reft,  they  look'd  on  the  Caufe  as  prejudged,  and  fo 
went  away.  However  the  other  proceeded  to  the  clearing  the  Bifliops 
accufed,  which  they  did  by  a  Synodical  Epifile,  and  then  made  feveral 
Canoasy  as  againji  Tranflations  frdm  mean  Biffjoprichs  to  better.  Can.  i.  and 

ujfng 


^6  The  Antiquities  of  Chap. 

tfjfvg  Arts  to  procure  them.  Can.  2.  Again jl  placing  BiJJjops  in  fuch  placet 
where  a  ftigle  Presbyter  vponld  ferve,  and  the  abfence  of  Bifjops  at  Confi- 
crations.  Can.  6.  Aga'mfl  their  unfeafonable  Applications  to  the  Court^ 
Can.  7., 8,  9,  20.  Againfi  being  made  Bifiaps  per  Salturo,  Can.  10.  A- 
gainji  their  Non-rejtdence,  Can.  11,12.  Againji  receiving  thofe  who  were 
excommtinicated  by  others.  Can.  13.  About  the  Appeal  of  Presbyters, 
Can.  14.  Againji  taking  Presbyters  out  of  another s  Diocefe,  Can.  15. 
Againfi  their  Non-rejidence,  Can.  1 6.  About  the  Reception  of  banifhed 
Bifhops^  Can.  17.-  ^/"^w/ Eutychianus  and  Mufsus,  and  the  perfons  or- 
daiped  by  them^  Can.  18,  19. 

But  the  main  Canons  of  this  Council  are  the  third,  fourth  and  fifth, 
which  concern  the  re-hearing  of  the  Caufes  of  B'ifhops  ;  And  the  intereft 
the  Biftiop  of  Rome  was  to  have  therein.     For  the  right  underftanding 
whereof  we  are  to  confider  the  feveral  fteps  and  methods  of  Proceed- 
ing therein  eftablifhed.     (i.)  That  the  Caufes  of  Bifljops  in  the  firji  In- 
flancewere  fliUto  be  heard  and  determin'dby  the  Bifhops  of  the  Province:, 
That  is  plain  by  the  firft  part  of  Can.  3.     Which  forbids  any  Bifhpp  in 
cafe  of  difference  with  another,  to  call  Bijhops  out  of  a  neighbour  Province 
to  hear  it.     This  was  agreeable  to  the  Nicene  Can.  5.     Herein  it  is  fup- 
pofed  that  they  refledi:  on  the  Council  of  Antioch's  Proceedings  againfi: 
Athanafius ;  But  the  Council  of  Antioch  did  not  proceed  upon  St.  Atha- 
nafius  in  the  firft  Infiance,  but  upon  this  ground,  viz.  That  being  depo- 
fed  in  the  Council  of  Tyre,  he  afterwards  returned  to  the  Biflioprick  of  A- 
lexandria,  without  being  firfi  refiored  by  a  greater  Synod.     But  this  feems 
to  have  been  very  hard  ufage  of  fo  great  a  man ;  For  they  firft  made 
the  Canons  themfelves,  Can.  4.  1 2.  and  out  of  them  they  framed  an  Ar- 
tide,  by  virtue  whereof  they  deprived  Athanafius.  And  herein  lay  the 
Art  of  the  Eufebian  party,  for  if  they  had  framed  the  Canon  fo  as  it 
(e)PaUad.  is  extant  in  (e)  Palladius,  it  would  never  have  paiTed  the  Council ;  For 
vit.  chry-it  y^as  not  a  Council  of  mere  Arians,  as  is  commonly  thought,  but  of 
(/)HiL.niany  (/)  Orthodox   Biftiops,  together  with  them  in  fome  things 
de  Synod,  wetc  over-reachcd  by  the  Artifices  of  the  Eufebian  Party  ^  And  they  did 
?'^Atha^"°^  meet  purpofely  againft  Athanafius-.,  But  (^7  (g)  Bifiops  were  fum- 
naf.  de     mon'd  by  the  Emperor  to  meet  at  the  folemn  Dedication  of  the  great 
n^p'h     Church  at  Antioch  called  Dominicum  Aureum  5  (h)  as  they  had  done 
Bibiioth.    before  on  the  like  occafion  at  ferufalem  5  And  (/)  Eufebius  faith.  Such 
cod.  157-  Affemblies  of  Bifloops  were  frequent  at  fuch  times.     Thefe,  being  meet  to- 
/!\o!f!^3.  gether,  framed  feveral  Canons,  for  the  better  Ordering  and  Govern- 
ment of  the  Churches,  out  of  which,  being  paffed  by  general  Confent, 
the  Eufebians,  who  hated  Athanafu^,  framed  fufficient  Articles  againft 
him.     For,  by  the  fourth  Canon,  if  a  Biffjop,  being  depofed  by  a  Synod, 
doth  officiate,  he  k  never  to  be  refiored  5  By  the  twelfth.  If  a  Bifhop  depo- 
fed, makes  Application  to  the  Emperor,  and  not  to  a  greater  Council  ofBifhopSy 
he  is  not  to  be  refiored.     But  now  Athanafius,  being  depofed  by  tiie  Ty- 
rian  Synod,  was  reftored  upon  his  Application  to  the  Emperor,  without 
any  Synod  called  to  that  end,  and  did  execute  his  Office  as  Biftiop  of 
Alexandria. ;  and  for  this  rcafon,  the  Council  of  Antioch  confirmed  his 
(*)  Schei-  Depofition. 

niiet.de  A  (k)  late  Author  goes  about  to  prove,  That  the  Canon  againfi  Atha- 
rolf'dlf-'  nafius  did  not  pafs  the  Council  of  Antioch,  but  that  it  paffed  an  Affembly 
firt.^.c.^.of  /{O  Eufebians,  when  the  reft  were  gone  :  But  this  is  incredible  (as  (/) 
(0^^^°^-  Baronius  his  Conceit  is  ridiculous,  vs^ho  takes  the  36  Manfions  that  An- 
,  ■  J '  ^**^*  tioch  was  diftant  from  Alexandria  for  3  ^  Arian  Bifljops  )  and  there  is  no 

Tefti- 


■        ■  ■  ■  ^  -  ■ 

Chap.  111.  the  Bntijb Churches.  87 

Teftimony  of  Antiquity  to  prove  it.     But  there  is  noreafonto  imagine 
any  other  Canon  againft  Athanafiits  befides  thefe  two,  for  they  efFeftu- 
ally  did  his  bufinefs.     That  which  l^aUadiuf  faith,  That  in  the  Canon  it 
Tpas  /aid,   whether  the  Bijhop  were  depofed  Jfjily  or  unjufily  is  very  im- 
probable ^  But  that  which  gave  occafion  tor  him  to  fay  fo  was,  becaufe 
the  ancient  Canon  called  Apojiolical  28  had  in  it  the  word  ^>(Sf-iJt'i;Juftly, 
which  they  left  out,  the  better  to  effeft  their  Defign  ^  That  fo  the  me- 
rits oiF  the  Caufe  might  not  be  enquired  into.     But  there  was  an  Error 
in  the  firft  Inftance  committed,  not  by  the  Council  of  Antioch,  but  by 
that  of  Tyre-^  iinlefs  the  extraordinary  Summons  of  that  Council  by  the 
Emperor's  Command,  as  («/)  Eufehius  faith,  be  b  difpenfation,  as  to  the  (^m)  Eu- 
regular  Proceedings  in  common  Cafes'^  But  there  was  fcarce  any  thing  re-  f^^-  ^o"- 
gular  in  the  Proceeding  of  that  Council  5  For,  according  to  the  Rules  ^j"^*/' 
of  the  Church,  this  Caufe  ought  to  have  been  heard  m^Egypt^  by  the    ' 
Bifhops  there  5  And  they  juftly  complain  of  the  Negleft  of  this  in  their 
(w)  Synodical  Epijile  5  And  C^')  Liherius  made  a  reafonable  f'ropofition  («)  Atha- 
to  Conftantius-^  That  a  Council  might  be  fummoned  at  Alexandria 5  That^^^' ■^^'''' 
thif  Caufe,  which  had  given  fo  much  dijiurhance,  jhould  he  heard  upon  the  i^c.       ' 
Place,  all  Parties  being  prefent.     Which  was  the  heik  Expedient  zt  iaft;('')  •^<"'"^- 
But  the  moft  natural  way  was  to  have  begun  there  ;  And  therefore  the  ^^p^'^jsl 
Sardican  Council  did  very  well  to  reduce  the  Nicene  Canon  about  pro- 
ceeding within  the  Province  in  the  firft  Inftance. 

(2.)  If  the  Party  be  grieved  at  the  Sentence paffed  aga'mjl  him^  then  that 
there  be  a  re-hearing  of  it  granted.  Can.  2.  This  the  Council  of  Antioch 
•allow'd.  Can.  12.  by  a  greater  Synod  of  Bifhops,  but  takes  away  all  hopes 
of  Reftitution  from  him  that  made  hk  Appeal  to  the  Emperor.  The  meari- 
ing  of  the  Canon  is,  not  to  exclude  an  Addrefs  for  a  greater  Synod:, 
hut  an  Appeal,  to  have  the  Emperor  reverfe  the  Sentence,  without  any 
farther  hearing  by  another  Aflembly  of  Bifhops.  So  that  the  final  re- 
fort  was  hereby  fettled  in  a  greater  Council,  from  which  no  Appeal  Qiould 
■lie.  This  Canon  is  fuppofed  to  be  particularly  defign'd  againfl:  Athana- 
fhts'.^  But  I  do  not  find  that  he  made  Application  to  the  Emperor  to  be 
reftored  with  a  Non-obftante  to  the  Sentence  of  the  Tyrian  Council  5  But 
to  have  a  more  indifferent  bearing  by  another  Council.  So  the  BilhopS 
of  Egypt  teftifie  in  their  Synodical  Epiftle  extant  in  Athanafius-^  But  their 
Proceeding  againft  him  at  Antioch  was,  becaufe  after  this  he  took  Pof- 
feffion  of  his  See  without  another  Sentence  of  a  greater  Synod '.,  But  the 
great  difficulty  is,  to  reconcile  this  Canon  with  the  fifteenth  of  the  fame 
Council,  which  takes  away  all  Liberty  of  Appeal  from  the  unanimous  Sen- 
tence of  a  provincial  Synod,  (p)  Petrus  de  Marca,  a  Man  of  more  than  (p)DeCon. 
ordinary  Sagacity  in  thefe  mattery,  was  fenfible  of  this  appearance  of"'"''-^*^* 
Contradi&ion  5  and  he  folves  it  thus,  That  no  Appeal  is  allow'd  from  a  '  *  '  ' 
provincial  Synod,  Can.  15.  But  notwithftanding,  by  Can.  11.  there 
is  a  Liberty  of  proceeding  by  way  of  Petition  to  the  Emperor,  for  a 
re-hearing  the  Caufe  by  a  greater  Synod.  And  in  this  Cafe  the  Empe* 
ror  was  to  be  Judge,  whether  it  were  fit  to  grant  another  hearing  or 
not,  and  although  by  this  Canon,  in  the  Cafe  of  a  general  Confent,  no 
neighbour  Bi(hop  could  be  called  in  ;  as  they  might  in  cafe  of  Diffe- 
rence by  Can.  14.  Yet  if  the  Emperor  thought  they  proceeded  partially, 
he  might  either  join  Bifhops  of  another  Province  with  them,  or  call  a 
more  general  Council  out  of  the  Province,  as  C^»^<«»//»e  did  at  Tyre.  This 
was  the  undoubted  Right  of  the  Emperors,  to  call  together  Affemblies 
of  Bifhops  for  what  Caufes  they  thought  expedient.  But  iq)  Socrates  eS-  {f\f°";, 

prefly 


-"-*- 


88  The  Antiquities  of  GiiAP,  lU: 

prefly  faith,  That  no  Appeal  veas  allowd  by  the  Catjons of  jheC^Hrchj:^  For 

fjpeaking  of  Cyril  of  Jerufalem'i  being  depofed,  be  fait^,.be^9ppealed 

tea  greater  Court  of  Judicature,  which  Appeal  C<'»j?/?»/'?//j- allow'd  5  but 

then  he  adds,  That  he  wax  the  fir Jl  and  orily  perfon  who,  contraryJojthe- 

Ctijiom  atidCanons  of  the  Church,  made  fuck  an  Appeal.  '   H-ValefiUfhofl- 

tra'd\d:s  Socrates,  hecauCe,qf  the  Appeal oi  the  Donatijis  to  Coafia^/tine 

from  the  Council  of  Aries:     But  this  is  nothing  to  the  purpore.ij  for 

the  Aftionsof  the  Donatijis  were  not  regarded  ^  And  befides, ,  tijeir'<^^-! 

peal  was  to  Cotifiantine,  to  hear  the  Caufe  himjelf-^  But  here  Cj^ril  appear 

Jetf  to  a  greater  number  of  Bilhops,  according  to  the  Canon  (^i  Antjochy. 

And  thenappear'd  at  the  Council  of-Scleucia  to  have  his  Caufe  heard. 

(r)  Baron,  (r)  Baronius  IS  much  puzzled  with  this  Exprefllon  of  Socrates,  becaufe 

^•D.  359.  it  vpould'  take  away  Appeals  to  the  Pope  3 .  But  the  ^aft^rn  BiQiops  jtiever 

^'      underftood  any  fuch  thing  ^  And  C^fnY  made  his.  Appeal  to ^4  .gre.fiteff 

Synod.     The  Canons  of  Sardica,  which  Baronius  qxiotes,  were  hot  r§:^ 

•  ceived  and  fcarcc  known  in  the  Ealjern  Church.    Athanafius  fie4  tip  the 

Weftern  Bifhops,  becaufe  h6  Was  fo  ill  ufed  in  the/£aft,  riot  iDecaufe  oj 

any  Authority  in  the  BiJIiop  of  Rome  to  receive  Appeals,     \j\lt  Cyril  went 

according  t6  thb  Carion^  of  Antipch,mzV\r\g  application  tq  Confiantlm^ 

A^fT!^'^®  be  heard,  'h%  a  greaier' Sfnod.     (s)  Sozon/en Taith,  that  Conftantir 


us  recofumended  the  Caufe  of  Cyril  to  the  Council  of  Miminntn.  But  that 
tr/miar.  cannot  be,  /ince  (t)  he  exprefiy  forbad  the  Wejiern  Bifhops  in  that  Council 
/.  2.p.  44  to  Meddle  with  the  Ca^feiofthe  hajtern  Dtjkops  5  And  declares,  whatever 


45'  tFey  did  in  thai  matier  (Hould  have  no  effeB.  Therefore  the  Councif  to 
which  Confiahtius  referred  this  Caufe,  rnuft  be  that  of  Seleuda,  whicti 
was  affembled  at  the  fattie  time.  Which  feeming  to  take  off  from  the 
Right  of pravinciat Syffipds  eftablKhed  in  the  Council  of  Nice,  Socrates 
condemns  aiuncam^icdl!,  and  faith.  He  vpas  ihefirji  that  proceedidin  this 
method  of  feekingio  the  Emperor  for  a  greater  Councih  ^ 

'  Btit  then,  (5.)  The  Council  of  Sardica  m^id^e  in  Itinovation  in  this 
matter,  for  although  it  allows  the  liberty  of  are- Ae4r/»g,  yetitfeerns 
to  take  away  the  Power  of  granting  it  from  the  Empero'r^^.siS  far  as  in  them 
Idy,  and  gives  it  to  Julius,  Biftiop  of  Rome,  for  theJjonour  of  St.  Peterj 
Ah d,  if  he  thought 'fit,  he  was  to  appoint^  the  Neighbour  Bifhops  of  tj^e 
Province  to  hear  it,  and  fuch  Affeffours  as  the  Emperor  was  wont  to  fendy 
To  which  was  added,  Can.  4.  That  no  Bijhop  (h^uld  enter  into  the  vir- 
cant  Bifhoprlck  upon  a  Depofition,  and  application  for  a  new  hearing'^  till 
tfj^Bifhop  of  Kome  had  given  Sentence  in  it :  But  ther^,  C<?».  ^.  it'i$ 
faid.  That  if  the  Caufe  be  thought  fit  to  be  re-heard.  Letters  are  to  be  fent 
front  him  to  the  neighbour  Bifhops  to  hear  and  examine  it.  But  if  this  dp 
ffot  fatisfie,  %e  may  dods^e  fees  caufe. '  Which  1  takp  to  be  the^full  meaa- 
ing  of  Can.  5;  And  this  is  the  whole  Power  which,  the  Council  ofSa^- 
(s/zr^  gives  to  the  Bifllop  of -RtfWe.' "    .      .     '  '     /  ] 

Concerning  which  w^  are  to  obferye,  ('i,')'  Tliatit  was  anew  thitig\ 
fbr  if  it  had  been  known  before,  that  the  fuDreme  Judgment  in  Eccler 
fiaftical  Caufes  lay  in  the  Bifhop  of  Rome,*lnefe  Canons  had  been  idle 
abd  impertinent.  And  there  is  no  colour  in  Antiquity,  for  any  fuch 
jadicial  Power  in  the  Bifhop  of  Rome,  as  to  rehearing  of  caufes  of  ^e- 
l"r?A"  P°^^^  Bifhops  befbre  thefe  Canons  of  Sardica.'.^  So  that  («)  Petrus  de 
c.'i.ti.e.'  Marca  was  iri  the  right,  when  he  made  the  fe  the  foundation  of  the  Pope's 
Power.  And  if  the  fighi  of  Appeal  be  a.  hecefT^ry 'confequent  frpm  the 
Pope's  Supremacy  V  Then  the' liorj-ufage  of  this  pradice  before,  wifl 
Overthrow  the  claim  of  Supremacy.    In  extraordinary  Cafes,  the  great 

BiSops 


Chap.  III.         the  Britijb Churches.  8p 

Biftiops  of  the  Church  were  wont  td  be  advifed  with  ^  asSt.Cypr'ufi^ 
as  well  as  the  Bifhop  oi  Rome,  in  the  Cafes  of  Bajilides  and  Marcianus-^ 
But  if  f  uch  Inftances  prove  a  Right  of  Appeals,  they  will  do  it  as  much 
for  the  Bi(hop  of  CartBage  as  of  Rome.    But  there  was  no  ftanding  Au- 
thority peculiar  to  the  Bi(hop  of  Rome  given  or  allow'd  before  this 
Council  of  Sardica.     And  the  learned  Publiftier  of  (w)  L^os  Works  hath  («>)  nm. 
lately  proved  at  large,  That  no  one  Appeal  was  ever  made   from  t&e^'f^^^^' 
Churches  of  Gaul,  from  the  beginning  of  Chriliianity  there  to  the  Contro-  <^c, 
verfe  hetrceen  Leo,  and  Hilary  0/  Aries,  long  after  the  Conncil  of  Sardica. 
But  fuch  an  Authority  being  given  by  a  particular  C(?«»t/7  upon  prefent 
Circumjiances,  as  appears  by  mentioning  jf«//«/ Bilhop  of  i?(7/»e,  cannot 
be  binding  to  pofterity,  when  that  limited  Authority  is  carried  fo  much 
farther,  as  to  be  challenged  for  an  abfolute  and  fupreme  Power  found- 
ed upon  a  Divine  Right,  and  not  upon  the  Afts  of  the  Council.    For 
hetein  the  difference  is  fo  great,  that  one  can  give  no  colour  or  pre- 
tence for  the  other.    (2.)  That  this  doth  not  place  the  Right  of  Ap- 
peals in  the  Bi/hop  of  Rome,  as  Head  of  the  Church;  But  only  transfers 
the  Right  of  granting  a  re-hearing  from  the  Emperor  to  the  Biftiop  of 
Rome.     And  whether  they  could  do  that  or  not  is  a  great  Queftion  5 
But  in  all  probability  Conftantius  his  openly  favouring  the  Arian  P.^rty 
was  the  occafion  of  it.    (5.)  That  this  can  never  juftifie  the  drawing 
of  Caufes  to  Rome  by  way  of  Appeal -^  becaufe  the  Caufe  is   ftill  to  be 
heard  in  the  Province,  by  the  neighbour  Bifhops,  who  are  to  hear  and  ex- 
amine  all  Parties,  and  to  give  "Judgment  therein.     (4.)  That  the  Coun- 
cil oi Sardica  it  felf  took  upon  it  to  judge  over  again  a  Caufe  which  had 
been  jadged  by  the  Bi(hop  of  Rome,  v'n.  The  Caufe  of  Athanafius  and 
his  Brethren.     Which  utterly  overthrows  any  Opinion  in  them.  That 
the  fupreme  Right  of  'judicature  was  lodged  in  the  Biftiop  of  Rome. 
(5.)  That  the  Sardlcan  Council  cannot  be  juftified  by  the  Rules  of  the 
Church,  in  receiving  Marcellus  into  Communion.    For  not  only  the 
Eaftern  Biftiops  in  their  Synodical  Epijile  fay.  That  he  was  condemned  for 
*  Herefie  by  the  Council  at  Conftantinople  in  Confkantine'/  time,  and  that 
Protogenes  <?/ Sardica  and  others  of  the  Council  had  fubfcrihed  to  hk  Con- 
demnation-^ But  (x)  Athanafius  himfelf  afterwards  condemned  him ;  ^ ,.)  Suipit. 
And  (j')St.J5<?// blames  the  Church  ofR<?/«e  for  admitting  him  into  Com- Sever./,  a, 
munion ;  And  (z)Baroniuf  confeiTes,  t^at  this  brought  a  great  difreputa-  ^j  ^^j*'* 
tjon  upon  this  Council,  v'z.  the  abfolvingone  condemned  for  Herefie,  (:^3  Bar. 
both  before  and  after  that  Abfolution.    (6.)  That  the  Decrees  of  this^-^-347« 
Council  were  not  univerfally  received,  as  is  moft  evident  by  the  known  e'l!' 
Conteft  between  the  Bifhops  of  Rome  and  Africa  about  Appeals.  If  thefe 
Canons  had  been  then  received  in  the  Church,  it  is  incredible  that  they 
fhould  be  fo  foon  forgotten  in  the  African  Churches  5  For  there  were  but 
two  Bifhops  of  Carthage,  Rejiitutus  and  Genethlius  between  Gratus  and 
Aurelius.     {a)  Chrijiianus  Lupus  profefTes  he  can  give  no  account  of  it.  (a)  Chri- 
But  the  plain  and  true  account  is  this.  There  was  a  Defign  for  a  Ge«e-^""-^"P' 
ral  Council'^  But  the Eajiern  and  Wejiern  Bifhops  parting  fo  foon,  there 5^^^"*^. 
was  no  regard  had  by  the  whole  Church  to  what  was  done  by  one  fide  or  ^is- 
the  other.  And  fo  little  notice  was  taken  of  their  Proceedings,  that  (^)  (*)  Augc' 
St.  Augujline  knew  of  no  other  than    the  Council  of  the  Eafiern  B^-Crefc./.j. 
fhops-^  and  even  (c)  Hilary  himfelf  makes  their  ConfefTion  of  Faith  to  ^;?'|^;p_ 
be  done  by  the  Sardican  Council.     And  the  calling  of  Councils  was  be-  Fabr.  0- 
come  fo  common  then,  upon  the  Arian  Controverfies -^  AndtheDepo-?''^  ^39' 
fition  of  Bifhops  of  one  fide  and  the  other  were  fo  frequent,  that  the 

M  remoter 


^o  The  Ant i pities  of  Chap.  IV. 

remoter  Churches  very  little  concerned  themfelves  in  what  pafTed  a- 
mongft  them.  Thence  the  A&s  of  moft  of  thofe  Coumils  are  wholly 
loft,  as  at  Milan,  Sirmnm,  Aries,  Beziers,  &c.  only  what  is  preferved 
in  the  Fragments  of  Hilary,  and  the  ColleBions  of  Athanajius,  who  ga- 
thered many  things  for  his  own  vindication.  But  as  to  thefe  Canons, 
they  had  been  utterly  forgotten,  if  the  See  of  Kome  had  not  been  con- 
cerned to  preferve  them  \  But  the  Sardkan  Council,  having  fo  little  Re- 
putation in  the  World ;  The  Biftiops  of  that  See  endeavoured  to  ob- 
trude them  on  the  World,  as  the  Nuene  Canons.  Which  was  fo  in- 
excufablc  a  piece  of  Ignorance  or  Forgery,  that  all  the  Tricks  and 
Devices  of  the  Advocates  of  that  5ee,  have  never  been  able  to  de- 
fend. 


CHAP.    IV. 

Of  the  Faith  and  Service  of  the  Britijb 

Churches. 

THE  Faich  of  the  Britifh  Churches  enquired  into. 
The  Charge  of  Arianifm  confidered. 

The  true  State  of  the  Arian  Controyerfej  from  the   Council  of 
Nice  to  that  of  Ariminum. 

Some  late  Mijlakes  reBified. 

Of  feVeral  Arian  Councils  before  that  of  Ariminum. 

The  BritiCh  Churches  cleared  from  Arianifm  after  it. 

The  Number  and  ToVerty  of  the  Britifli  ^ifhops  there  prefent. 

Of  the  ancient  endowment  of  Churches  before  Conftantine. 

The  Trivile^es  granted  to  Churches  by  him. 

The  Charge  of  Pelagianifm  confidered. 

Pelagius  and  Celeftius  both  horn  in  thefe  Jflands. 

When  Aremoricfl  firjl  called  Britain. 

Whatjort  of  Monk  Pelagius  was. 

ISlo  probability  of  his  returning  to  Britain. 

Of  Agricola  and  others  fpreading  the  Pelagian  DoEirine  in  the 
Britifli  Churches. 

Germanus  and  Lupus  fent  by  a  Council  of  Galilean  Bifhops  hi- 
ther to  flop  it. 

The  Teflimony  of  Profper  concerning  their  being  fent  by  Caeleftinc 
conftder'd. 

Of  Faftidius  a  Britifli  'Bifhop. 

London  the  chief  Metropolis  in  the  Roman  Government, 

Of  Fauftus  originally  a  Britain.     But  a  Bifhop  in  Gaul. 

The 


Chap.  IV.  the  Britifh  Churches.  ^  \ 

The  ^niiC  e/ieem  he  waf  in. 

Of  the  Semipelagians  WPiedeftinarians. 

0/  the  Schools  of  Learning  fet  up  here  by  the  ?neans  of  Germanus 
and  Lupus. 

Dubricius  and  Iltutus  the  Difciples  of  St.  German,  Tl:>e  num- 
ber of  their  Scholars  ^  anc/ places  of  their  Schools, 

Of  the  Mona/iery  of  Banchor,  and  the  ancient  Weflern  Mona- 
fleries^  and  their  difference^  as  to  Learnings  from  the  Benedi(5line 
Inftithtion. 

Of  Gildas  his  Iren,   whether  an  Univerfity  in  Britain. 

Of  the  Schools  of  Learning  in  the  Roman  Cities^  chiefly  at  Rome, 
Alexandria  d«^  Conftantinople,  and  the  ^rofejfors  of  Arts  and 
Sciences  y  and  the  publick  Libraries  there. 

of  the  Schools  of  Learning  in  the  TroVmce'sy  and  the  Confiitution 
o/Gratian  to  that  purpofe  :    extending  to  Britain. 
.    Of  the  publick  Service  of  the  Britifli  Churches  ;    The  Gallican 
O^ces  introduced  by  St.  German. 

The  Nature  of  them  at  large  explained^  and  their  Difference 
from  the  Roman  Oi^ces^  both  as  to  the  Morning  and  Communion 
SerVice. 

The  Conformity  of  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  to  the 
ancient  BriciHi  Offices^  and  net  derived  from  the  Church  of  Kome  as 
our  Dijfenters  affirm. 

<n|  ^  HE  Succeffion  of  the  Br;/;)7jC^«rf^5/ being  thus  deduced  from 
their  original  to  the  titues  of  the  Chriftian  Emperors,  it  will 
be.  neceffary  to  give  an  account  of  the  Faith  and  Service 
which  were  then  received  by  them. 
And  it  is  fo  much  the  more  necelTary  to  enquire  into  the  Faith  of 
the  Briiip  Churches,  becaufe  they  are  charged  with  two  remarkable 
Herefies  of  thofe  times,  viz.  Arianifm  and  Pdagianifm  ;  and  by  no  lefs 
Authority  than  that  of  (<?)  Gildas  and  (/>)  Bede.  U)gm. 

Tint  ChsxgQoi  Arianifm  is  grounded  upon  the  univerfal  fpreading  offiy^^lj. 
that  Herefy  over  the  Worlds  as  Bede  exprefles  it,  and  therefore  to  (hew  i.e.  s.ioj 
how  far  the  Britijli  Churches  were  concerned,   we  muft  fearch  into  the  ^7* 
Hiftory  of  that  Herefie,   from  the  Council  of  N/ce  to  the  Council  of 
Ariminum,  where  the  BritiJIo  Bifhops  were  prefent. 

It  is  confidently  affirmed  by  a  late  (c)  Writer,  That  the  Arian  FaBion(')^-&^- 
vpos  Tpholly  fiipprefl  by  the  'NicQneCoHmil,    and  all  the  Troubles  that  n>ere^''.'^['^'^' 
made  after  that  were  raifed  by  the  Eufebians,  vpho  ivere  as  forward  as  any 
to  anathematize  the  Arians,    and  all  the  Perfecutions  were  raifed  by  them, 
under  a  pretence  of  Prudence  and  Moderation  :,     That  they  never  in  the  f- 37^. 
leafi  appear  d  after  the  Council  c/Nice  in  behalf  of  the  Arian  DffiJrine,  but 
their  ivhole  fury  was  bent  again fl  the  word  ojuomi©^  and  Athanafius  ;  That 
in  the  times  of  Conftantius  and  ConQans  the  Caufe  of  Arius  was  wholly  p.  415- 
laid  ajide  by  both  Parties^    and  the    only  Conteji  tpas   about   the   word 

M     2  O/ZOdJi©.. 


^2  'The  Anti{jU'ities  of  C  h  a  p.  IV. 

Qfxoii(7i(^  ;   That  the  Eufebian  Caufe  was  not  to  rejlore  Arianifm,     hnt  to 
piece  up  the  Peace  of  the  Church  by  cowtprehending  all  in  one  Communion,  or 
p.  4^8.      l,j,  fftutual  forbearance. 

But  if  it  be  made  appear,  that  the  Arian  Fadion  was  ftill  bufie 
and  aftive  after  the  Nicene  Council ;  that  the  Conteft  about  o^fossTi@L 
was  with  a  defign  to  overthrow  the  Nicetie  Faith  5  that  the  Eufe- 
bians  great  bufinefs  was-,  if  poflible,  to  reftore  Ariamfm  ^  then  it  wiil 
follow,  that  fomeMens  hatred  of  Prude/^ce  and  Moderation  is  beyond 
their  Skill  and  Judgment  in  the  Hiftory  of  the  Church  :  and  the  ma- 
king out  of  thefe  things  will  clear  the  Hiftory  of  Arianifm  to  the  Coun- 
cil of  Arimifium. 

But,  before  I  come  to  the  Evidence  arifing  from  the  Authentick  Re- 
cords of  the  Church,  it  will  not  be  unpleafant  to  obferve,  that  this  ve- 
ry Writer  is  fo  great  an  Enemy  to  the  defign  of  Reconcilers,  that  it  is 
hardly  poflible,    even  in  this  matter,  to  reconcile  him  to  himfelf.  For, 
he  tells  us,    that   the  moft   confiderable  Eufebians  in    the  Weftern 
p.  484.     Churches,  -viz.    Valens,    Urfacius,    and  their  Affociates  had  been  fecret 
p.  508.     Brians  all  along  5   that  the  word  Subftance  teas  left  out  of  the  third  Sirmi- 
p.  jio.     an  Creed,   topleafe  Valens  and  his  Party  ^    veho  being  emboldned  by  this 
Creed  whereby  they  had  at  length  Jhaken  off  all  the  Clogs  that  had  been  hi- 
therto fajlend  on  them  to  hinder  their  return  to  Arianifm,  moved,   at  the 
Council  at  Ariminum,  that  all  former  Creeds  might  be  abolified,  and  the 
Sirmian  Creed  be  eflablijhed  for  ever.     Doth  this  confift  with  the  Arian 
FaBions  being  totally  fitppreji  by  the  Council  of  Nice,    and  none  ever  ap- 
pearing in  behalf  of  the  Arian  Do&rine  after  5    and  the  Eufebians  never 
moving  for  rejloring  Arianifm,    but  only  for  a  fort  of  Comprehension  and. 
(d)R.ir  L.Toleration  .<?    In  another  place  he  faith,    (d)  f/'e- Eufebians  endeavoured 
Part.  2.    tofupplant  the  Nicene  Faith,   though  they  durft  not  difown  it.     And  was 
'*•'■         ^^e  Arian  Fa&ion  then  totally  fupprefl  while  the  Eufebians  remained^ 
p.  4-    Thefe  are  the  Men  whom  he  calls  the  old  Eufebian  Knaves  ^     And  for 
the  Acacians,  he  faith,    when  they  had  got  the  Majiery,    they  put  off  all 
Part.  I.  p- dijguife,  and  declared  for  Arianifm.     Is  it  poflible  for  the  fame  Perfon 
to  fay,    th2it  after  the '^ic&ne  Council,    they  never  appeared  in  behalf  of 
the  Arian  Do&rine  in  the  Eaftern  and  Weftern  Churches  ;   and  yet. 
When,  they  put  off  their  Dijguife,    they  declared  for  Jrianifm  ?     What  is 
this  but  appearing  openly  and  plainly  for  the  Arian  Dodtrine  >     And 
if  we  believe  fo  good  an  Author  as  himfelf,    their  Conteft  after  the 
Council  oiNice  was  fo  f ar  from  being  merely  about  the  word  o^oicrt©.^ 
that  he  frequently  faith,    that  Controverfie  did  take  in  the  whole 
Merits  df  the  Caufe,   as  will  appear  from  his  own  words  in  feveral 
h  $55.    places.     As  when  he  fpeaks  of  the  Council  of  Nice,   he  faith,     "  The 
whole  Controverfie  was  reduced  to  the  word  Confubftantial  ^  which 
"  the  Eufebians  at  firft  refufed  to  admit,    as  being  no  Scripture  word, 
but  without  its  admiflion,   nothing  elfe  would  fatisfie  the  Council, 
and  good  reafon  they  had  for  it,   becaufe  to  part  with  that  word 
after  the  Controverfie  was  once  raifed,  would  have  been,    to  give 
"  up  the  Caufe  ;  for  it  was  unavoidable,   that  if  the  Son  were  not  of 
the  fame  fubftance  with  the  Father,  he  muft  have  been  made  out  of 
the  fame  common  and  created  fubftance  with  all  other  Creatures  3 
and  therefore  when  the  Scriptures  give  him  a  greater  Dignity  of 
Nature  than  to  any  created  Being,   they  thereby  make  him  of  the 
''  fame  uncreated  Subftance  with  the  Father  -.,  fo  that  they  plainly  af- 
fert  his  ConfHbflantiality^  though  they  ufe  not  the  word.     But  when 

"  the 


Chap.  IV.     ,  the  Britijh  Churches,  ^  3 


"  the  Truth  it  felf  was  denied  by  the  Arian  Hereticks  and  the  Son  of 
"  God  thruft  down  into  the  rank  of  created  Beings,  and  defined  to  be 
"  a  Creature  made  of  nothing,  it  was  time  for  the  Church  to  flop  this 
*'  Herefie,  by  fuch  a  Teft  as  would  admit  of  no  Prevarication  ^  which 
"  was  effectually  done  by  this  word  5  and,  as  cunning  and  (huffling 
"  as  the  Avians  were,  they  were  never  able  to  fwallow  or  chew  it, 
"  and  therefore  it  was  but  a  weak  part  of  the  EufebUns  to  (hew  fo 
**  much  zeal  againft  the  word,  when  they  profelTed  to  allow  the 
"  things  For  if  our  Saviour  were  not  a  mere  Creature,  he  muft  be 
"  of  the  fame  uncreated  Subftance  with  the  Father,  becaufe  there  is 
"  no  middle  between  created  and  uncreated  Subftance  5  fo  that  who- 
*'  ever  denied  the  Confubftantiality  could  not  avoid  the  Herefie  of  Fau- 
**  las  Samofatenus,  whichyet  the  ^rjd»x  themfelves  profeiTed  to  defie  5 
"  for  if  he  were  a  mere  Creature,  it  is  no  matter  how  foon,  or  how 
"  late  he  was  created. 

And  therefore  it  is  not  to  be  imagined  that  the  Eufebiam  (hould 
really  believe  the  Confubflantiality  of  the  Son,  and  yet  fo  vehemently 
oppofethe  ufe  of  the  word.  Would  any  Men  of  common  fenfe,  who 
did  believe  the  Bread  and  Wine  in  the  Euchar'ijl  to  be  turned  into  the 
very  Body  and  Blood  oichrift,  fet  themfelves  with  all  their  force  and 
intereft  to  overthrow  the  term  of  Tratifubflantiation  .<?  So,  if  tlie  Eu- 
febians  did  believe  the  Son  of  the  fame  Sttbjiafice  with  the  Father,  to 
what  purpofe  fhould  they  cabal  fo  much  as  they  did  all  the  Reign  of 
Conjiantiuf^  to  lay  afide  the  word  o/xobo-i©.  5  If  it  be  faid,  It  was  by 
wayofCowprehenfon,  to  take  in  dijffenting  Parties  :  then  it  is  plain  they 
were  really  diffenting  Parties  ftill,  and  confequently  did  not  differ  only 
about  the  ZJfe  of  a  Word,  but  about  the  Subjiance  of  the  Do&rine.  And 
as  thofe  who  do  believe  the  Doftrine  oiTranfubflantiation,  are  for  the 
TJfe  of  the  Word  ;  and  thofe  who  believe  it  not,  would  not  have  the 
Word  impofed  ;  fo  it  was  in  all  the  Councils  under  Conjiantiiis,  thofe 
who  chiefly  oppofed  the  Word  Confubftantid,  did  it,  becaufe  they 
liked  not  the  Do&rine-^  and  thofe  who  contended  for  it,  did  it,  be- 
caufe they  knew  the  Doftrine  was  aimed  at  under  the  Pretence  of  lay- 
ing afide  an  nnfcriptural  Word.  And  the  fame  Author  tells  us  from  St. 
Hilary,  "  the  Confequence  of  fhutting  out  the  Word  oyWotsVi©-  was,  t-  484. 
"  that  it  muft  be  decreed  either  that  the  Son  was  a  Creature  made  out 
of  nothing,  or  out  of  another  Subftance  uncreated  and  diftinft  from 
the  Divine  Nature.  And  when  he  gives  an  account  of  the  Council 
of  Seleucia,  held  at  the  fame  time  with  that  of  Ariminum,  he  faith. 
They  brake  into  two  Parties^  of  the  Acacians,  who  defied  the  Council  of  p,  520. 
Nice  and  all  its  Decrees,  and  the  old  Eufebians,  who  pretended  to  flick 
only  at  the  Word  Confubftantial  :  and  upon  their  Appeal  to  the  Empe- 
ror, there  are  thefetwo  things  remarkable,  i.  That  thofe  who  were 
for  laying  afide  all  dtfcriminating  Words  were  Arians  of  the  higheft  fort,  ..  j  jj^ 
viz.  Aetians,  who  held  the  Blafphemy  of  Dijjimilitude.  2.  That  thofe 
who  were  for  retaining  the  word  Subjiance  went  on  this  Ground,  That 
if  God  the  S.m  exifl  veither  from  nothing  nor  from  any  other  fubflance,  then 
■hemuflbe  of  the  fame  fnbji  an  re  with  the  Father.  Which  was  the  very  Ar- 
gument, he  faith,  approved  by  the  Council  of  "Nice  for  fettling  the  word  p,  J24. 
cfjudHai'^  This  is  a  fufiicient  Argument  to  me,  that  thofe  who  from 
^the  Council  of  Nice  did  chiefly  oppofe  that  Word,  did  it  with  a  De- 
fign  to  overthrow  the  Doftrine  of  the  Son's  being  of  the  fame  fubftance 
with  the  Father.    Which  will  more  fully  appear  by  a  brief  deduftion 

of 


94- 


Ihe  Antiquities  of 


Chap.  IV. 


(e)  Atha 
naf.  de  Sy 
nod.  Arim. 
&  Seleix 
p.citu 
(f)Theod 
I.  I.  c.  8. 


(e)  Sccr. 
/.  I.  c.  14 

(h)  Soz. 
1.2.  e,  16. 


^;)Theod 
Li.c.  20, 


(*)  Atha- 
naf.  Apol, 
f.727. 


of  the  AriaM  H^ftory  from  the  Council  of  Nice  to  that  of  Arim'unim  ; 
not  from  modern  Colleftions,  but  from  the  beft  Writers  about  that 
time. 

The  Avian  Fa^ ion  finding  themfelves  fo  much  overvoted  in  the 
Council  of  Nice,  that  they  defpaired  to  carry  any  thing  there  by  fair 
means  5  betook  themfelves  to  fraudulent  Arts,  hoping  thereby  to  hin- 
der either  the  paffing  or  the  executing  any  Decree  againft  them.  At 
firft,  they  endeavoured  to  blind  and  deceive  the  Council  by  fceming 
to  profefs  the  Orthodox  Faith,  but  they  made  ufe  of  fuch  ambiguous 
Forms  of  Words  as  might  ferve  their  ends,  by  couching  an  Heretical 
Senfe  under  a  fair  appearance  of  joining  in  the  fame  Faith  vi^ith  the 
reft,  (e)  (/)  This  being  difcovered  by  the  more  fagacious  Defenders 
of  the  old  Chriftian  Faith,  they  at  length  fixed  upon  the  terrrt 
'6/y.ohii^  as  the  only  effeftual  Teft  to  difcriminate  the  Arians  from  o- 
thers ;  and  when  they  had  ufed  their  utmoft  skill  and  endeavour  t6 
keep  this  Teft  from  pafling,  and  found  they  could  not  prevail,  they 
bethought  themfelves  of  another  way  to  keep  the  Fa^ion  alive,  al- 
though the  Herefie  might  feem  at  prefent  to  be  totally  fuppreft.  And 
that  was,  by  fufFering  Arius  and  his  two  faft  Friends,  Secnndm  and 
Theonas,  to  be  condemned  by  the  Council,  and  to  be  banifhed  by  the 
Emperor  5  but  thechief  Heads  of  the  Faction,  Eufebim  ofNicomedia^ 
and  Theognk  of  Nice,  with  others,  refolved  upon  an  Expedient  to 
clear  themfelves,  and  yet  to  keep  up  the  Faftion  ^  which  was,  by 
fubfcribing  the  Confeflion  of  Faith,  and  denying  to  anathematize  A- 
riui  and  his  Followers.  This  is  plain  from  the  Epiftle  ofEtifebius  and 
Theognk,  extant  in  (^)  Soirates  and.  (h)  Sozomen,  wherein  they  own 
their  Subfcription  to  the  Decree  of  Faith,  but  declare,  That  they  utterly 
refufid  tofubfcrihe  the  Anathema  againft  Arius  and  his  Adherents  5  becaufe 
they  did  not  believe  them  guilty  of  the  Herejie  charged  upon  them  ^  as 
they  found  both  by  Writing  and  Converfation  mth  them.  This  Epidle 
was  written  by  them  during  their  Banifhment,  in  order  to  their  return  to 
their  Biftiopricks,from  which  they  had  been  driven  by  Conftantine's  own 
Order  ;  and  the  Reafon  of  it  is  given  in  bis  Epiftle  to  the  Church  of 
Nicomedia,  viz.  (i)  for  communicating  with  the  Arians  whovt  he  had 
caufed  to  he  removed  from  Alexandria  for  their  Herejie  and  Diftur' 
hance  of  the  Peace  of  the  Church  there -^  and  the  fame  Account  is  given  of 
it  in  the  Synodical  Epiftle  of  the  Biftiops  of  Egypt  extant  in  (Ji)  Athana- 
jius.  Which  ftiews  their  Refolution  to  keep  up  the  FaBion  in  fpite  of 
the  Council  of  Nice  :  For  if  they  had  any  regard  to  the  Decree  there 
paft,  they  would  not  have  prefumed  to  have  communicated  with 
thofe  who  were  exprefly  anathematized  by  the  Council  ^  and  had 
very  hardly  efcaped  it  themfelves,  as  Conjiantine  there  upbraids 
them  in  his  Epiftle.  But,  upon  this  notorious  Contempt,  they 
were  depofed  from  their  Biftiopricks,  and  fent  into  Baniftiment  5 
where  they  grew  very  uneafie,  and  refolved  upon  any  Terms  to 
be  reftored  5  knowing  that  if  they  continued  there,  the  Fa&ion 
was  indeed  in  danger  to  be  wholly  Suppreft  :  And,  for  that  end, 
they  wrote  that  fubmiffive  Letter  to  the  leading  Biftiops,  promi- 
fing  an  univerfal  Compliance  upon  their  Reftauration.  And  the 
main  ground  they  built  their  Hopes  upon,  was,  becaufe  Arius  him- 
felf  upon  his  fubmijjlon  TPift  recalled --^  as  they  declare  in  the  end  of 
that  Epiftle. 


Which 


C  H  A  p.  I V .         the  Britijh  Churches,  9  5 

which  Intrigue  was  carried  on  by  (/)  («?)  a  Ctcx^t  Ar'nvi,  Chap-('>'S°"-'' 
lain  to  Cof/Jia»tia,  the  Emperor's  Sifter,  recommended  to  the  Emperor  ('w^soz^ 
at  her  Death  ^  who,  being  received  into  Favour,  whifper'd  into  his'-'-^-^?. 
Ear  very  kind  things  concerning  Ariuf  and  his  Adherent  f^  adding,  that 
they  were  unjaftly  banifh'd,  and  that  the  whole  Controverfie  was  nothing 
but  a  Pi^ue  which  the  Bifhop  of  Alexandria  had  taken  againft  one  of 
his  Presbyters,  for  having  more  Wit  and  Reputation  than  himfelf  5 
and  that  it  would  become  Conjiantlne,  in  point  of  Honour  and  Juftice, 
to  recall  Arluf,  and  to  have  the  whole  matter  examined  over  again. 
Upon  this  Ariuf  is  fent  for,  and  bid  by  the  Emperor  to  fet  down  his 
Confeffion  of  Faith  plainly  and  honeftly  5  which  is  extant  in  the  Eccle- 
fiaftical  Hiftorians,  under  the  Name  of  Ariuf  and  Euzoius,  and  was 
framed  in  fuch  a  fpecious  manner,  as  made  the  Emperor  believe  that 
AriusviBiS  indeed  of  the  fame  Mind  with  the  Nicene  Fathers^  only  lea- 
ving out  the  word  Confithjlantial.     But  he  would  not  undertake  to  de- 
termine himfelf,  whether  he  fbould  be  received  into  Communion  upon 
this  '^  but  he  referr'd  the  whole  matter  to  the  Bifhops  then  met  at  Je- 
rufaletft  ^  who,  faith   Sot,omen,  unanimoujly   approved  fhk  Confijfion    of 
Faith,  and  wrote  a  Circular  Letter  upon  it  for  receiving  hx'msand  hk  Ad- 
herents into  Communion  ;  notwitftanding  the  peremptory  Decree  of  the 
Council  of  N/ce  to  the  contrary.  Which  Epiftle  is  extant  in  (#)  Athana-  ^jl'^jp,^ 
jtHs  who  looks  on  it  as  the  firft  Blow  given  to  the  Authority  of  the  Conn-  p.  801.  & 
cilof  Nice ;  Andheunderftands  it  of  that  Arius,  who  was  Author  oiSynod.A- 
the  Herefie,  and  not  of  the  other  Ar'ius,  as  fome  modern  Writers  do.      /™c.  p.^^ " 

Andhere,Athanafius  faith,  they  hegan  to  open  their  Defign  in  favour  of  the  ^99>  ^9^' 
Arian  Herefie,  which  till  then  they  had  concealed.  For  they  knew  that  work 
was  not  to  be  done  at  once  ^  but  this  was  a  good  ftep  towards  the  lefTening 
the  Authority  of  the  "Nicene  Council-^  which  being  once  removed,  the 
FaBion  did  not  queftion  they  (hould  be  able  to  fet  up  Arianifm  fpeedily. 
They  were  not  fo  plain  hearted  to  declare  prefently  for  what  they  aimed 
at ;  nor  to  put  it  to  the  Vote,  whether  the  Nicene  Faith  (hould  be  deftroyed 
ornot.  For  that,  having  the  great  Advantage  of  fo  publick  a  Settlement, 
and  fuch  a  general  Content  of  the  Chriftian  World,  it  was  not  to  be  over- 
thrown at  once,  nor  by  open  violence,  but  to  be  taken  in  pieces  by  de- 
grees ;  and  the  generality  were  to  be  cheated  into  Arianifm,  under  o- 
ther  pretences  and  infinuations.     And  the  firft  thing  was,  to  perfuade 
the  World,  that  the  /.rians  had  been   hitherto  mifunderftood,  and 
their  Doftrine  mifreprefented  by  fuch  faftious  and  bufie  Men  as  Atba- 
nafius,  and  a  few  others,    therefore  it   was  abfolutely   neceflary  to 
weaken  the  Authority  of  the  Council,  as  being  influenced  by  a  fmall 
number  of  Men  who  overfwayed  the  reft;  Neither  was  it  fafe  to  be- 
gin with  the  Matter  of  Faith,  for  that  would  give  too  great  an  Alarm  5 
but  it  was  a  much  more  plaufible  way  to  bring  the  Arians  into  Com- 
munion, as  being  much  mifreprefented  and  not  owning  the  Doftrines 
which  the  Athanajian  Party  did  charge  them  with,  and  being  once  joined 
in  Communion  together,  it  would  be  fit  to  lay  afide  all  Terms  of  F>if 
crimination,  as  tending  to  FaUion  ^  efpecially  fuch  as  were  lately  {tt  up, 
toput  adiftinftion  between  the  Ariansand  others.  And  when  thefethings 
were  done  by  other  Councils,  the  Authority  of  the  Council  of  Nice  would 
fall  to  the  Ground,  and,  as  they  fuppofed,  the  Nicene  Faith  together 
with  it.    But  fuch  Defigns  could  not  be  carried  on  fo  fecretly  and  fub- 
tilly,  but  the  wifer  fort  fufpefted  what  was  doing,  as  Athanapus  faith ;  ^  891; 
and  therefore  they  foon  called  another  Council  at  Antioch,  where  they 

made 


■  ■■i...^.—        ■ I     ■■-I     ■■ ■       ■— —.        .  —  .i  F        uej     .-ujL.   .I,..,  — —   1.1  I        ■  ■■■,■■—■     m  m  i  „,j< 

^6  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.   IV. 

made  vehement  Proteftations  to  the  contrary.  We,  fay  they,  are  ns 
followers  of  AnoS'y  for,  being  Bifliops,  how  can  we  follow  a  Presbyter? 
As  though  the  World  could  be  deceived  by  fuch  pitifull  Pveafonings. 
But  after  they  declare,  That  they  entbraced  none  but  the  ancient  Faith, 
but  withall  confefs  they  had  received  Arius  to  Communion  -^  and  then 
make  a  Profeflion  of  their  Faith  very  agreeable  to  that  of  Arius  and 
Eu7^oiuf,  delivered  to  Conjiantine -^  wherein  they  aflert  the  Coeternity  of 
the  Son  with  the  Father,  but  leave  out  his  being  of  the  fame  Subjiance. 
But  fearing  this  would  not  give  fatisfad^ion,  they  added  another,  where- 
fo)Ach.^in  they  owned  (o)  the  Son  to  be  God  of  God,  Lord  of  Lord,  the  un- 
°9^'  changeable  Image  of  his  Deity,  Subjiance,  WW,  Power  and  Glory  :  but 
after,  they  exprefs  themfelves  more  fully,  when  they  fay,  they  believe 
three  difiinS  hypoftafes  and  an  unity  of  confent  ^  which  overthrows  the 
Nicene  Faith,  it  being  built  on  the  unity  of  Subjiance  and  not  of  Will. 
It  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  crude  expreflions  of  Arius  in  the  firft 
Heat  of  the  Controverfie  were  here  rejedted,  viz.  that  there  was  a  time 
before  the  Son  was,  or  that  he  was  a  Creature  like  other  Creatures  ;  for  they 
knew  thefe  expreflions  would  not  then  be  born  ,  and  therefore  they 
were  forced  to  refine  Arianifm  to  the  utmoft  degree,  to  make  it  pafs 
down  the  better,  till  the  prejudice  againft  it  by  the  Council  of  Nice 
were  wholly  removed.  To  which  end  they  fet  forth  feveral  other 
Confeflions  of  Faith  to  prevent  the  fufpicion  of  what  they  aimed  at  ^ 
but  thefe  were  in  the  time  of  Conjlantius. 

I  return  therefore  to  the  Reign  of  ConflanttKe,  which  excellent  Prince 

{q)  Soz.  /.  (.p)  would  fufFer  no  alteration  to  be  made  in  the  Nicene  Faith  in  h\i 

S'  «•  I-    time ;  and  therefore  the  Secret  Arians  were  forced  to  great  diffimulati- 

on  and  hypocrifie,  and  to  carry  on  their  defign  under  other  pretences. 

(g)Theod.  So  (q)  Theodoret  faith.  That  Eufebius  and  his  Party  outwardly  complied 

/.I.e.  5,7- ;»  the  Council  of  Nice  out  of  fear -^  and  he  applies  to  them  the  faying 

of  the  Prophet,  This  People  honoureth  me  with  their  lips,  but  their  heart 

(r)  i.i.cis  far  from  me.     And  elfewhere  he  faith,  (r)  The  Arians  in  the  Council 

'9-         fubfcribed  to  the  Nicene  Faith,  that  being  in  Sheep s  clothing,  they  might 

{,)  Soz.  /,  devour  like  ravening  Wolves,     (.r)  So%omen  faith.  It  was  reported  that 

2.  c.  21.    gufebius  <?«£/ Theognis,  aftertheir  return  from  Banifloment,  corrupted  the 

Perfonto  whom  the  Subfcriptions  of  the  Council  tf/Nice  were  committed, 

and  rafed  out  their  own  Names  ;  and  then  openly  declared  againji  the  Son's 

being  of  the  fame  Subjiance  with  the  Father:  and  that  even  to  Conftantine 

himfelf.    But  that  doth  not  feem  credible  to  me.    It  being  much  more 

(t)  Sorr.  probable,  which.  (*)  Socrates  relates,  viz.  That  Eufebius  andTheognis 

I.  I.e.  i'i- having  recover  d  the  pojfejjion  of  their  Churches  upon  their  return  from  Ba- 

nijhment  had  frequent  accefs  to  the  Emperor,  who  honoured  them  as  his  Con^ 

vertst^  and  under  that  Pretext  of  embracing  the  MVe»e  Faith,  did  more 

mifchief  than  otherwife  they  could  have  done:  and  fo  made  a  very 

great  Difturbance  in  the  Church  :  which  he  imputes  partly  to  their  love 

of  Arianifm,  and  partly  to  their  hatred  of  Athanafius  :  but  the  latter,  as. 

Athafiafus  at  large  proves,  was  on  the  account  of  the  former. 

For,  it  being  their  Defign  to  introduce  Arianifm,  without  owning 
it,  next  to  their  leflening  the  Authority  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  the 
mofl:  effectual  means  they  could  think  of  was,  by  all  pofljble  Arts,  to 
blacken  and  render  odious,  thofe  Perfons  who  moft  vigoroully  defend- 
ed the  Nicene  Faith,  And  from  hence  began  the  great  quarrel  againft 
^(VTh  od  Eujiathlus,  Bifhop  of  Antioch,  and  Athanafius.  As  to  the  former,  he 
/.I  c  8   gives  an  Account  in  the  Fragment  of  a  Homily  extant  in  («)  Theodoret.^ 

"  what 


Chap.  IV.  the  hyitijh Churches.  517 

what  (hutfling  the  Arians  ufcd  in  the  Council  of  Nice  to  preferve 
their  Bifhopricks ;  and,  for  that  Reafon,  fubfcribed  to  the  Decree  of 
Faith  ^  and  fo,  having  efcaped  the  Cenfures  they  deferved,  they  did 
fometimes  fecretly,  fometimes  openly,  propagate  the  Opinions  there 
condemned.     One  of  their  great  Arts,  he  faith,  was  to  decline  fuch 
as  well  underftood  the  Controverfie,  and  made  it  their  bufinefs  to 
oppofe  them.     And  fo  Eufiathius  himfelf  found  to  his  forrow.     For, 
Eufebim-  of  Nicomedia  and   his  Party,  meeting  together  at  Antioch^ 
whom  (xc)  Thcodoret  exprefly  caWs  the  Arian  Fa^ion,  they  there  pro- fw)  The- 
seeded  to  thedepofing  EnftathiHs,  upon  the  Accufation  of  an  infamous"*^'  '•  '•'^• 
Perfon  fuborned  to  that  purpofe,  and  afterwards  prevailed  with  Con- 
fiantJHe  to  banifh  him  5  which  being  done,  Theodoret  faith.  There  was  a    c.  22. 
SnccejJion  of  Bifljops,  who  veere  fecret  Arians,  as  ^;/Eulalius,  Euphroni- 
MS  and  Flaccillus;  and  that  was  the  Rcafjn  the  Orthodox  Party  thin  fe- 
parated  themfelves^  and  were  called  En\k2Lthhx\s.     (jr)  Socrates  and  (;/)(^)Socr. 
So%omen  confefs,  that  the  qitarrel  about  Arianifm  was  renew' d  foon  after  ry\'sozi. 
the  Council  of  Nice  both  in  Egypt  and  in  Bithynia,  Hellefpont^WCon-  2.  c.21, 
ftantinople.     But  6'(?cT<?fej'  faith,  It  was  begun  about  the  word  ot-waoj:^,    - 
which  was  indeed  the  Pretext  of  the  Quarrel,  but  the  true  Ground  was 
Arianifm.  Socrates,  being  a  Man  not  throughly  verfed  inthefe  Matters, 
blames  both  fides,  for  contending  about  they  knew  not  what  ^  both  agree- 
ing in  the  fame  Do&rine,  and  yet  not  agreeing  among  thenifelves.     But  he 
did  not  penetrate  into  the  depth  of  the  Arians  Defigns,  as  Theodoret^  a 
Man  of  far  greater  Judgment  and  Learning  did.     And  he  proves  from 
Eujiathins,  an  eminent  Biihop  of  that  time,  and  one  prefent  in  the 
Council  of  Nice,  that  Arianifm  lay  at  the  bottom  5  and  that  they  com- 
plied at  firft  only  out  of  Fear,  but  bad  the  fame  hatred  to  the  true  Faith 
they  ever  had  ;  but  after  the  Council  they  durft  not  fo  openly  (hew  it. 
(a)  Sozomen  faith,  the  Arian  Party  charged  thofe  who  afferted  Chrift  of  the  (,\  sozJ. 
fame  Subjiance  with  the  Father  (as  the  Council  of  Nice  had  determined)  ^-c  18. 
with  Sabellianifm  and  Blafphemy  ^  and  the  followers  of  the  Nicene  Faith 
charged  the  others  with  Idolatry  and  Innovation  5  as  afferting  three  diflinB 
Gods  as  to  Subjiance,  when  the  Council  had  declared  the  Son  of  the  fame     '^^  ^9' 
Subjiance  with  the  Father.     And  he  ingenuoufly  confefleth,  that  it  was 
generally  believed  that  Eujlathius  was  depofed  at  Antioch  for  adhering 
to  the  Nicene  Faith,  and  declaring  himfelf  againft  the  Arian  Party  then 
prevailing  in  the  EaO. 

Who  finding  fuch  fuccefs  in  their  firft  attempt  on  Eufiathius,  they 
next  proceed  againft  Athanafms,  the  other  great  Champion  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Ni.e.  They  (a)  had  conceived  an  inveterate  hatred  againft  him  for  .^w^jj^n 
his  great  zeal  and  aftivity  in  that  Council,  but  their  rage  brake  forth,  after  Apoi.  2.  p. 
they  heard  that  he  fucceeded  Alexander  in  the  See  of  Alexandria.  Eufebiusi^^y  7^^' 
of  Nicomedia  was  his  mortal  Enemy,  who  was  removed  to  be  near  the 
Court,  (though  againft  the  Canons  0  y^t  he  brake  through  all,  there- 
by to  have  opportunity  to  fill  the  Emperor's  Mind  with  Jealoufies  and 
Sufpicions  of  all  thofe  that  oppofed  them,  and  efpecially  of  Athanafius. 
And  (Jb)  Socrates  gives  the  true  Reafon  of  the  great  Spite  againft  Atha-  .^.  ^^^^ 
nafius,  viz.   that  unlefs  he  were  removed,  there  was  no  hopes  of  the  Arian  /,  i.  c  27. 
Doifrinc prevailing:  which  he  there confefles  was  the  thing  the  Eufebi- 
ans  aimed  at.  And  now  they  thought  fuch  a  Snare  was  laid  for  Athana- 
fius, which  it  was  hardly  poflible  for  him  to  efcape.     For,  upon  Arius 
hisSubmiffion,  they  advife  Conjiantine  to  fend  him  to  Alexandria,  there 
to  be  received  by  Athanafius,  as  the  only  way  to  put  an  end  to  all  the 

N  Diftur- 


9 8  Ihe  Antiqaities  of  Chap.  IV\ 

Difturbances  of  the  Church.     Away  goes  Arius  with  the  Emperor's 

(0  Soz. /.  Command  to  Athanafms  :  Who,  according  to  their  imagination,  (<-) 

ai.'^' '  ■'""refufing  to  admit  him,  being  anathematized  by  the  Council,  as  the  (^d) 

(i/)  Atha-  firft  Broacher  of  a  dangerous  Herefie,  they  eafily  exafperated  the  good 

"^^  g^"'"  Emperor  againfl:  him,  as  a  fedltious  and  turbulent  Perfon  ;  and  fo  plied 

him  with  one  Accufation  upon  another^  that  ^x.\z^Coriftantir,e  fentfor 

him  to  appear  before  him  upon  an  Information  ogainft  him  of  no  lefs 

than  Treafonable  Praftices.  But  upon  a  full  hearing  of  the  Matter  by  the 

(e)  Socr. /.  Emperor  himfelf,  (e)  he  was  acquitted,  and  fentback  with  Marks  of  his 
I.  c.  27.    payQur  and  vindication  of  his  Innocency  ;  in  an  Epiftle  to  the  People  of 

(f)  Sox,/.  Alexandria.^  part  of  which  isextant  in  (^f)  Sozomenand  (g}  Theodoret^  but 
2-  <■•  22.  at  large  in  (/>)  Athanafius.  One  would  think  this  ftiould  have  difcouragcd 
^oiJiT.c.  i^'s  Enemies  from  any  farther  Profecution  of  him ;  but  thefe  Eitjebians  were 
27-  Men  of  reftlefs,  ambitious,  implacable  Spirits,  that  fcrupled  no  means 
iiai'^^w  tocompafs  their  ends,  which  they  thought  they  could  never  do,  un- 
p.  779.  lefs  they  could  blaft  the  Reputation  of  Athanafins.  To  this  end,  they 
(;)Soz.  /laid  a  moft  malitious  defign  againft  him.  Firft,  (/)  they  draw  in  the 
%\'k^i  (^)  Meletian  Varty  in  Egjp  to  join  with  them ;  who  hoped  to  get  their 
vli.Api.  ends  one  upon  the  other  afterwards  ^  but  at  prefent  they  were  willing 
^  777.  to  join  together  againft  their  common  Enemy  ^  for  fo  Athanapm  was 
f/) Socr. /.accounted  by  them.  And  (/)  EHfehlus  promifed  the  Meletians  great 
z.  c.  Z2.   favour  at  Court,  if  they  would  manage  the  bufinefs  againft  Athanafus: 

which  they  undertook;  and  by  their  means  fo  many  Complaints  were 
brought  againft  Athanafus  to  the  Emperor,  that  he  was  forced  for  the 
general  Satisfaftion,  to  appoint  a  Council  at  Tyre,  which  was  accor- 
ding to  the  Eftfehiafts  defire,  where  things  were  managed  with  fo  little 
regard  to  Juftice  or  common  Honefty,  that,  after  he  had  plainly  clear- 
ed himfelf  as  to  the  main  Accufations,  he  yet  found  they  were  refolved  to 
condemn  him  5  and  therefore  he  privately  withdrew  from  thence  to  the 
c.ij.    Imperial  Court,  to  acquaint  the  Emperor  with  the  horrible  Partiality 
(m)  Socr.  there  ufed.  Upon  («*)  this  he  writes  a  very  fmart  Letter  to  them,  and  re- 
/. I.e.  II. quires  them  to  come  fpeedily  to  him,  (»)  to  give  him  an  account  of 
^'"^/g^"'  their  violent  Proceedings,     They  fend  a  feleft  Number  of  their  Party 
to  Court  with  Eufebius  of  Nicomedia  in  the  Head  of  them,  who  there 
quit  all  the  Accufations  brought  againft  Athanafuf  at  Tyre,  and  ftart  a 
new  one  which  touched  the  Emperor  in  a  very  tender  part,  viz.  That 
he  had  threattted  to  hinder  the  bringing  Corn  from  Egypt  to  Conftantino- 
ple  5  which  was  in  effeft  to  threaten  the  ftarving  his  beloved  City  -^ 
which  nettled  the  Emperor  fo  much,  that  it  tranfported  him  beyond  his 
ufual  Temper,  and  immediately  he  gave  order  for  baniftiing  Athanafius 
into  Gaul.     Not  long  after  Conflantine  died,  htit  before  hif  death,  faith 
(o)Theod.  ^fl)  Theodoret,  he  gave  order  for  the  recalling  Athanafius,  to  the  great 
i-  '•  f-  i^- regret  of  Eufebius  of  Nicoraedia  then  prefent. 

Let  any  one  now  judge,  whether  in  ConftantineV  time  the  Arian  Fa- 
Bion  were  wholly  fuppreji  5  and  whether  Eufebius  and  hk  Party  were  men 
that  only  pretended  to  Prudence  a>;d  Moderation-^  Who  made  ufe  of  the 
moft  malitious,  unjuft,  abominable  means,  tofupprefs  thechiefeft  Op- 
pofers  of  the  Arian  ¥a&iox)}  What  will  not  fuch  men  fay  to  ferve  a 
turn,  who  dare  to  tell  the  World,  That  the  Eufebians  were  no  lefs  Ene- 
mies to  the  Arians  than  to  the  orthodox,  and  that  it  is  a  great  an 4  com- 
mon Mi  flake,  that  Eufebius  was  the  ring-leader  of  the  Arian  Fa&ion  .<? 
^AoT^^^'  ^^  ^^  ^^  ^  Miftake,  others  have  it  from  Athanafius,  and  it  is  hard  to 
777.'  ^'^'  believe  that  man  ever  read  (/?)  Athanafius  his  Writings,  \^ho  dare  fay 

the 


Chap.  IV.  tbe  Britijh  Churches,  ^^ 

the  contrary.     All  the  Bifliops  of  Egypt  in  their  Synodical  Epiftle  from 
Alexandria  charge  the  (</)  Eufehians  with  a  rejilefi  de/tre  to  promote  A-f?)Acha- 
rianifm^    and  affirm,    that  their  malicious  profecution  of  kxh^na^im  jp^?/ "'*^^'"''- 
for  no  other  end  '^  that  their  Councils  veere  called  mth  a  De/tgn  to  overthroiv  yis. 
that  o/Nice  5   that  they  had  written  againfl  them  as  Arians  5    that  the  Eu-  p.  751. 
fehisins  joined  mth  the  Mdctians  only  for  the  fake  o/Arianifm;    that  the 
Perfons  fent  by  the  Council  of  Tyre  into  Egypt  jvere  Arians,  and  therefore  P-  735 
declared  Enemies  ;  and  whatevertheir  pretences  were,  nothing  but  the  ad-        ^ 
vancing  Arianifm  lay  at  the  bottom.     Were  fo  many  Bifhops  guilty  of  fo 
grofs  a  Miftake,    who  had  certainly  greater  opportunity  of  knowing, 
and  skill  in  judging  the  Men  and  their  Defigns  than  the  moft  quick- 
fighted  Perfon  of  our  Age  can  have  ?    It  would  be  endlefs  to  recite  all 
the  paflages  in  Athanafius  his  Apology,  and  Epiftles,  and  Difcourfes  of 
the  Councils  of  Ariminutn  and  Seleucia,    to  prove  that  the  Eufebians 
carried  on  the  Arian  Defign,  fince  a  great  part  of  them  is  fpent  in  the 
proof  of  it.     But  we  are  told,  with  confidence  enough,  that  the  Synod 
<>/ Alexandria,  in  their  Synodical  Epijlle,  do  not  in  the  leaji  accufe  the  Eu- 
febians ^/Arianifm,  but  only  of  holding  Communionvoith  them,  i.e.  with    . 
the  Arians.     This  cannot  but  feem  ftrange  to  any  one  that  will  be  at 
the  pains  to  perufe  that  excellent  Epiftle.     And  even  in  that  page,  it 
is  exprefly  faid,  (r)  their  violent  and  malicious  proceedings  againfi  Athz-{r)i^d^in- 
.nafius  were  onpurpofe  to  difcourage  others  from  daring  to  oppofe  Arianifm  5  ^^i'^' 
and  this  with  a  particular  defign  to  introduce  that  Herefie.     Could  any 
Men  be  thought  to  take  fo  much  pains  to  fet  up  a  Doftrine  they  had 
no  kindnefs  to  ?  i.  e.     Would  any  hut  fecret  Arians  tn^QavoMX  to  fet  up 
Arianifm  .<?    Unlefs  we  fuppofe  them  fuch  Tools  to  be  made  ufe  of  by 
others  to  do  their  bufinefs,    and  then  to  be  laid  afide.     But  the  £«/e- 
bians  were  no  fuch  mean  Politicians  ;  for  they  were  at  the  top  of  bu- 
finefs, having  all  the  advantages  and  opportunities  to  carry  on  their 
own  ends  5   and  therefore  we  have  all  the  Reafon  in  the  World  to 
conclude  themyecref  ^r/^»j-,  who  were  at  fo  much  trouble  tolelTenthe 
Credit  of  the  Oppofers  of  Arianifm  :     Which  they  look'd  on  as  one  of 
the  moft  effectual  means   to  introduce  it.     And  although  they  did  not 
openly  declare  themfelves  in  behalf  of  the  Arian  DoSrine,    after  the 
Council  of  Nice;  which  had  been  to  hinder  their  own  Defign,    in  the 
time  of  Confiantine  5  yet  they  made  ufe  of  all  the  Methods  which  bad 
Men  do  to  carry  on  their  ends;   viz,,    by  falfe  Infinuations,   lying 
Pretences,    and  all  manner  of    malicious  Proceedings  againft  thofe 
who  ftood  in  their  Way  ;    as  is  moft  notorious  in  the  cafe  of  A- 
thanafim. 

After  the  Deathof  C(?»/?rf»//»e  we  aretold,  that  all  the  Councils  under 
Conftantius  that  are  commonly  accounted  Arian,   have  as  fully  and  clearly 
condemned  Arianifm,  as  the  Nicene  Council  itfelf-^     It  is  true,  they  could 
not  digefi  the  Word  Q/xoiai©^.  5    but  otherwife,    as  for  the  whole  Scheme  of 
Arianifm,  they  have  in  all  their  Creeds  anathematized  it  with  all  clearnefs 
and  fitlnefs  of  ExpreJJion.  This  is  fomewhat  ftrange  Doctrine  for  one  who 
pretends  to  have  read  Athanafius,  who  hath  taken  fo  much  pains  to  lay 
open  the  juggling  of  the  Arian  i^z:7/(?»inall  thofe  Councils;  and,  one 
would  tliink,  by  this  manner  of  Writing,    fuch  a  Man  took  a  particu- 
lar pleafure  in  con  trad  ifting  him.    For  in  his  (j)  Book  of  the  Coun- (»)  ^f'^^- 
cils  of  Ariminum  and  Seleucia,  he  faith,   none  of  the  Councils  under  Con-  "*^  /^^' 
ftantius  could  be  brought  to  anathematize  the  Arian  Herefie,   as  the  Council  iff  stleuc. 
of^KQ  did.    He  faith,  that  Conftantius  himfelfwas  an  Arian  Heretich,^-}!^- 


1  oo  The  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  IV. 

/••■SSp.     ^„Ji  f^^f  fj^  ^j^j^j  Delign  in  all  thofe  Councils  was^    to  take  away  the  force 

/.  874  of  the  Council  <?/Nice.  He  fairh  indeed,  they  were  not  fuch  Fools  to  own 
thif^  but  thk  was  the  true  Reafon  of  all  the  Councils  thej  called^  and  the  di- 

TS70.    Jiurbance  they  made,  to  the  great  Scandal  of  the  Chriflian  World.     Nay,  he 

^'  ^*'  faith,  that  in  all  their  Councils  they  never  once  mention  d  the  Arian  He- 
rejie  as  an  evil  thin^  :  and  if  any  Herejies  were  mention  d,  the  Arian  was 
excepted,  which  the  Nicene  Council  anathematized  5  and  they  received 
with  great  kmdnefs  fuch  as  were  known  to  be  Arians  ;  which  .is  an  ArgU' 
ment  that  the  calling  thefe  Councils  was  not  for  ejiabl'jhing  the  Truth,  but 
for  overthrowing  the  Council  of  Nice.     And  to  (hew  what  Con/iantius  his 

^9o7,  own  Mind  was,  he  obferves,  that  when  he  came  to  die  he  would  be  bapti- 
zed by  none  but  Euzoius,  who  had  been  fever  al  times  depofed  for  Arianifm  5 
and  he  there  affirms,  that  Con^idinnns  continued  an  Arian  to  the  lajl.     As 

p  909.  to  the  Word  h/jcoiat^  about  which  fo  much  ftir  was  made,  he  takes 
notice,  that  all  the  offence  that  was  taken  at  it,  was  by  the  Arians  5  and 
the  true  Caufe  was,  becaufe  it  Jiruck  at  the  root  of  their  Herefie.  And  as  to 
the  V^ordi  Subflance,  he  wonder  d  they  fhould  fo  vehemently  oppofe  it,  when 
themfelves  confeffed,  the  Son  was  from  the  Father  ;  for  either  he  mufi  be  from 
fomething  without  him,  or  fomtthing  within  him  difiinll  from  his  Subftance, 
or  he  muji  be  of  the  Subfiance  of  the  Father  5  or  they  mufl  make  the  Word 
and  the  Son  to  be  no  real  Subfiance,  but  mere  ISames  5  and  fo  they  did  not 
really  believe  what  they  expreffed.  And  he  farther  (hews,  that  no  other  way 

p.  510.  offpeaking  doth  fufficiently  exprefs  the  Difference  between  the  Son  of  God 
and  his  Creatures '^  which  are  only  the  effeBs  of  God's  Will.  From  whence 

^9'4•  he  concludes,  that  the  oppo/ition  to  thefe  Terms,  whatever  was  pretended, 
was  from  a  diflike  of  the  DoBrine  ejiablified  in  the  Council  of  Nice.  For 
if  it  had  been  a  mere  doubt  about  the  ftgnification  of  the  Words,    they  ought 

P'9^5-  to  have  explained  their  own  fenfe,  and  withall  to  have  condemned  the  Arian 
Herefie. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  were  feme  who  agreed  in  the  Sub- 
ftance of  the  Doftrine  with  the  Council  of  Nice,    but  yet  difliked  the 
ibid.     Term  ofjioiai©^  ;    as  to  thefe  Athanafus  confeifes  them  to  be  Brethren  5 
as  long  as  they  acknowledged  the  Son  not  to  be  a  Creature,    nor  to  be  from 
another  Subfiance  diftintl  from  the  Father.     And  among  thefe  he  reckons 

t.^\6.  Bafiliiu  of  Ancyra  ^  whofe  Doftrine  he  doth  not  feem  to  diflike,  pro- 
vided that  to  the  Jimilitude  of  Subfiance  in  the  Son  they  add  his  being  of 
the  Subfiance  of  the  Father.  And  in  this  fenfe  the  70  6f/.oiscriov  comes  to 
the  fame  with  the  to  optoncyiov.  There  were  two  great  Arguments, 
there  ufed  againft  the  Term  o/uoiTiQ-  5  The  firft  was^  that  it  implied 
a  Partition  or  Divifton  of  the  Divine  Subfiance,  as  a  Son  among  Men  is 
faid  to  be  of  the  fame  Subfiance  with  his  Father,  but  fo,  as  that  there  is  a. 
Divifton  of  the  fame  common  Nature  in  the  fever  al  individuals.  To  this 
Athanafius  anfwers,  ""  That  the  Divine  Generation  muft  not  be  appre- 
"  bended  like  the  humane  5  but  our  Conceptions  of  Cod  mufl:  be  a- 
"  greeable  to  the  Divine  Nature  \  and  therefore  we  muft  not  imagine 
"  the  Son  of  God  to  be  of  the  Subftance  with  the  Father,  after  the 
"  fame  manner  that  the  Son  of  Man  is.  For,  as  he  is  the  Son,  fo  he 
.  "■  is  the  Word  and  Wifdom  of  the  Father  :  and  the  internal  Word 
or  Conception  in  Man  is  no  divifible  part  of  himfelf ;  but  left  the 
"  Notion  oiWord  (hould  feem  to  deftroy  his  real  Subfiftence,  therefore 
"  the  Notion  of  Son  is  added  in  Scripture  to  that  of  Word  ;  that  we 
"  may  know  him  to  be  a  living  Word  and  fubjiantial  Wifdom.  So  that 
"  when  we  fay,  the  Son  is  confubftantial  to  the  Father,  we  underftand 


C  H  A  p.  I V.  the  Bntijb  Cbarcbes.  i  o  i 

*'  it  not  by  way  of  Divifion,    as  among  Bodies,    but  abftrafting  our 

"  Minds  from  all  corporeal  things,   we  attribute  this  to  the  Son  of 

"  God,  in  a  way  agreeing  to  the  Divine  Nature,  and  mean  by  it,  that 

"  he  is  not  produced  by  his  Will  as  the  Creatures  are,   nor  merely  his 

"  Son  by  Adoption  5    but  that  he  is  the  true  Eternal  Son  of  God  ^   by 

"  fuch  an  emanation  as  Splendour  from  Light,    or  Water  from  the 

"  Fountain.     And  therefore  when  they  interpreted  the  Term  Son  m  a 

*'  way  agreeable  to  the  Divine  Nature,  he  wonders  they  fhould  ftick  fo 

"  much  at  the  word  Confubfiantiul^    which  was  capable  of  the  fame 

"  Interpretation.     The  fecond  Objeftion  was,  That  thofe  rvho  condent'   " 

tied  the  Samofatenian  Here/ie,  reje&ed  the  iVord  Q/Lt-oiai^.     In  anfwer  to 

this,    Athamfus  fhews,   "  That  the  Word  was  fo  much  u fed  and  al-  /..913. 

"  lowed  inthe  Chriftian  Church  before  the  Samofatenian  Herefie  was 

"  heard  of,  that  when  Dionyfius  of  Alexandria  was  accufed  to  Diony- 

"  Jitfsof  Rome,  for  rejefting  it  5   the  Council  thereupon  was  fo  much 

"  concerned,  that  the  Biftiop  of  i^<7/;'/e  wrote  their  fenfe  to  the  Bifhop 

"  of  Alexandria  about  it,   he  returns  an  Anfwer,    wherein  he  owns  all 

"  the  fenfe  contained  under  it,  as  appears  by  his  Epiflle  in  Athanafius  ^ 

"  but  for  thofe  who  oppofed  Pauliu  Samofatenus,  be  faith,  they  took. 

"  the  Word  in  a  corporeal  fenfe,   as  if  it  implied  a  diftinft  Subftance 

"  from  the  Father  ;    But,  faith  he,   thofe  who  condemned  the  Ariam 

"  faw  farther  into  this  matter  5    confidering  that  it  ought  not  to  be 

*'  applied  to  the  Divine  Nature  as  it  is  to  corporeal  Subftances  ;    and 

"  the  Son  of  God  not  being  a  Creature,    but  begotten  of  the  Sub- 

"  fiance  of  the  Father  ;    therefore  with  great  Reafon  they  ufed  the 

"  Word  0^0871;^,    as  being  moft  proper  to  exprefs  the  Senfe  of  the 

"  Chriftian  Church  againft  the  Arian  Herefie  5    as  he  fhews  there i'-P*'''?^*' 

"  at  large. 

From  thefe  palTages  of  Athanafius  it  appears  that  there  was  a  third 
Party  then  in  the  Church  diftinft  from  the  Nicenijis  and  the  Eufebians. 
The  former  would  by  no  means  yield  to  any  relaxation  of  the  Council 
of  Nice ;  becaufe  they  evidently  faw  that  this  Defign  was  carried  on  by 
thofe  who  made  it  their  bufinefs  under  that  pretence  to  introduce  ^rz- 
anifm^  who  were  the  Eufebians.  But  there  were  others  extremely  con- 
cerned for  the  Peace  of  the  Church,  and  on  that  account  were  willing 
to  let  go  the  Term  0fAQi7i(^.,  hoping  the  Doftrine  might  befecured  by 
other  ExprefTions ;  and  this  facility  of  theirs  gave  the  greatefl  advan- 
tage to  the  Ettfebian  Party  in  all  their  Councils,  who  continually  almoft 
over-reached  andout-witted  them,under  the  pretence  of  Accommodation. 
For  by  this  Artifice  they  gained  their  Votes,  and  when  they  had  them, 
made  ufe  of  them  merely  to  ferve  their  own  Defigns  3  as  appears  by 
the  Account  the  Hiftorians  give  of  the  management  of  the  Arian  hi- 
fairs  under  the  Reign  of  Conftantius. 

(0  Socrates  £d\th,    that  immediately  after  the  death  of  ConOizntine J ^)^°"- 
EaCeh'msand  Theognis,  the  Heads  of  the  Arian  Fa^ion,    apprehended  it  '  *  '* '' 
now  to  be  a  convenient  feafon  for  them  to  throw  down  the  Nicene  Faith, 
and  tofet  up  Arianifm  ;    and  to  thk  purpofe  they  endeavoured  to  hinder 
Athanafius  from  returning  to  Alexandria.     But  firjl  they  gained  the  Eu- 
nuchs and  Court-favorites,  then  the  Wife  of  Cov\{{antius  himfelf  to  embrace  -^^.c  26. 
Arianifm  :   and  fo  the  Controverfie  of  a  fudden  fpread  into  the  Court, 
Camp,  Cities  and  all  Places  of  the  EafV;    (  for  the  Weftern  Churches 
continued  quiet  during  the  Reign  oiConfians,    to  whofefhare  all  the 
Weftern  Provinces  in  a  ftiort  time  fell.  )    After  the  Death  of  Alexan- 
der, 


I02  'Ihe  Antiquities  of  Chap,  IV, 


der,   Bifhop  oi  CotTJiantinople,    the  two  Parties  openly  divided  in  the 
c.  6.     Choice  of  a  Succeflour  ^  the  one  chufing  Paulus,  and  the  Arians,  Mace- 
don'ius-^    this  nettled  Con^antim^  who  coming  to  Centtanthwple  calls  a 
Council  of  Ar'san  Biftiops,    who  depofe  Paulits,  and  fet  up  Enfebius  of 
Niiomedia  ;  who  prefently  falls  to  work,  going  with  the  Emperor  to 
Jutioifj,  where,  under  the  pretence  of  a  Dediration^   as  is  obferved  in 
the  precedent  Chapter,   a  Council  of  ninety  Biftiops  was  alTembled  ; 
c.  8      hut  the  De/ig»  was^  faith  Socrates,  to  overthrow  the  Nicene  Faith.      Here 
they  made  fome  Canons  to  enfnare  Jthamjius  (  of  which  before.  )    As 
to  the  matter  of  Faith,  they  durft  not  openly  propofe  the  nulling  the 
Council  of  Nice  ^  but  they  gained  this  great  Point,    That  the  Matters 
of  Faith  might  be  difculTed  after  it,  and  fo  they   fet  open   the  Gate 
for  New  Councils  which  by  degrees  might  eftablifh  the  Jrian  He- 
refie, 
(«)Soz.         (»)  So%omen  faith,  that  after  the  death  c/Conftantine  the  fecret  Ari- 
/.  3.  c.  I.   ans  began  tofhew  them/elves  more  openly  ^  among  »>/&(?«;  Eufebius  and  The- 
ognis  efpecially  bejiirr  d  themfelves  to  advance  Arianifm.     He  agrees  with 
Socrates  as  to  the  fpreading  of  it  in  the  Court  and  elfewhere  5    and  in 
the  other  particulars,    to  the  Council  at  Atitioch  5    but  he  faith,    they 
c.  J.     framed  their  Confejfion  of  Faith  in  fuch  ambiguous  Terms,  that  neither  Par- 
ty could  quarrel  vuith  the  Words.    But  they  left  out  any  mention  of  the 
Subjlance  of  Father  and  Son,    and  the  Word  Confubflantial  5    and  fo  ia 
efFeft  overthrew  the  Council  of  Nice. 

Thisis  that  Confejjion  of  Faith,  which  the  Council  in  Ifaurla  called 
(w)  Atlia-  (w)  the  Authentick  one  made  at  Antioch  in  the  Dedication.  Cut  it  was 
"^jy^^^f^;  not  fo  Authentick  but  they  thought  good  to  alter  it  5  and  fome  Months 
;.  895.  after  fent  another  to  Conjians  to  explain  themfelves  more  fully ;  where- 
by they  rejed  thofe  who  (aid,  the  Son  was  made  of  Nothing  or  of  ano- 
ther Hypojiajis,  and  not  from  God.  Who  could  imagine  thefe  to  have 
been  any  other  than  very  found  and  orthodox  Men  ?  Efpecially  when 
three  years  after,  they  fent  a  lafger  Confeffion  of  Faith  into  the  Weft- 
ern  Parts  for  their  own  Vindication,  wherein  they  anathematize  thofe 
who  held  three  Gods,  or  that  Chrift  was  not  God,  or  that  he  was  begotten 
of  any  other  Subflance  befides  God,  &c.  But  that  there  was^«^f//»^  un- 
der all  this  appears,  becaufe,  as  Athanajius  obferves,  they  wereftill  al- 
tering their  Forms  i,  for  this  again  was  changed  feveral  times  at  Sirmi- 
ttm,  before  they  refolved  upon  that  which  was  to  be  carried  to  the 
Council  of  Ar'minum.  And  although  the  difference  in  the  matters  of 
Faith  as  delivered  by  them  feem'd  now  very  nice  and  fubtle,  yet  they 
Were  irreconcilably  fet  againO:  the  Council  of  Nice  and  all  that  adhe- 
red to  it.  Which  was  a  plain  Evidence  that  they  concealed  their 
Senfe  under  amb'gnouf  Words,  or  that  they  faw  it  neceffary  at  pre- 
fent  to  feem  Orthodox,  that  fo  they  might  the  better  fet  afide 
the  Council  of  Nice -^  which  being  once  effeded,  it  would  be  an 
eafie  matter  to  fet  up  Arianifm,  which  was  the  thing  they  de- 
figned. 

This  Intrigue  was  not  difcovered  fully  till  after  the  Council  of 
Ariminttm,  but  was  certainly  carried  on  all  along  by  the  Eufebian  Par- 
ty, who  without  thefe  Artifices  could  never  have  deceived  the  Eaftern 
Bifliops,  who  joined  with  them  till  they  more  openly  declared  them- 
felves in  the  Council  of  Seleucia  5  and  then  the  difference  was  not  be- 
tween the  Acacians  and  Eufebians,  as  fome  have  weakly  conjeftured, 
but  between  the  old  Eufebians,    who  now  appear'd  to  be  Arrans  under 

the 


„    |_  IN— !W^      III  l—i.— ■         ■■.■■■■I ■■       ■■      I —     I  ■ -■    I-    ■■    I  ■  ■  ■--       I    -    -■■IP-I     .1    II       1  ,.         „     ■  II        ■■^■—    ■         I     I       M    — ^M^ 

Chap,  I'v^  the  Br itijh Churches.  103 

the  Name  of  Jcacius,  and  the  Followers  of  Bafillus  of  Ancyr*^  who 
(luck  chiefly  at  the  word  1'j-cv.it©^ -^  of  whom  Athanajius  fpeaks  before. 
Now  to  draw  in  thefe  Men,  and  to  hold  them  faft,  who  had  great 
fway  in  the  Eaftern  Churches,  the  Etifehians  were  forced  to  comply 
in  rverds  with  them,  and  in  all  probability  to  fufFer  them  to  draw  up 
thefe  Creeds,  provided  only  that  they  left  out  the  Nkene  Daree  and 
Anatherftd'i^    which    would  do   their  bufinefs   at   laO.     So  that  the 
Eufelnans  were  forced  to  the  utmoft  Diffimulation  and  Hypocrifie,  to  be 
able  to  carry  on  the  Ar'ian  Defign  in  the  Eaftern  and  Weftern  Chur- 
ches.    But  whatever  their  Words  and  Pretences  were,  their  Adions  fut- 
ficiently  manifefted  their  Intentions.     For  they  fet  themfelves  with  the 
utmoft  violence  againft  all  who  conftantly  adhered  to  the  Council  of 
At^e,  and  openly  favoured  and   preferr'd  all  the  declared  or  fecret 
Friends  to  Arianifm.     They  caufed  Athanajius  to  be  baniftied  a  fecond 
time  from  Alexa/^drla,  and  appointed  Gregory  in  his  Place,  rvho  coutl- 
ftued  there,  faith  (x)  Theodoret,  with  great  Cruelty  for  fix  years,  and(x)r\\e- 
then  was  murthered  himfelf  by  the  Alexandrians  ^  but  that  feems  to  have  °^-  '•  ^■ 
been  a  miftake  for  George  of  Cappadocia,  who  fucceeded  him.     For  O')  (^,)  Atham 
Athanafius  faith,  he  died  a  natural  death -^  but  he  at  large  defcribes  the  "d  f"i'it- 
horrible  Perfecution  both  of  the  Clergy  and  Laity  then  in  Egypt,  who'^'^'^f" ' 
would  not  comply  with  the  Arians  5  for  his  bufinefs  was  to  fet  up  Aria-  p.  816. 
ttijm,  as  Athanafius  faith.     After  his  Death,  Conftantius  finding  fo  little  ?•  817. 
fuccefs  of  thofe  violent  Courfes,  fends  for  Athanafius  with  great  eat- 
neftnefs  to  come  to  him ;  and  gives  him  free  Liberty  to  return  to  Alexan-  ^'  ^'^' 
dria'^  and  folemnly  fvvears  to  him,  he  would  never  more  receive  any  Ca- 
lumnies againfi  him  ;  and  writes  feveral  Letters  on  his  behalf:  and  one  f.  Szs. 
very  kind  one  to  himfelf  after  the  death  of  his  Brother  Confians,  who 
was  a  true  Friend  to  Athanafius  :  and  then  his  greateft  Enemies  courted 
him,  and  begg'd  his  Pardon  for  what  they  had  done 5  being  forced  to 
it  by  the  violence  of  the  Torrent  againft  him  :  and  even  TJrfacius  and 
Valens,  two  warm  Men  of  the  Eufebian  Party,  publickly  recanted  what  P-  ^''■^' 
they  had  done  againft  him,  without  his  feeking,  and  then  anathemati- 
zed the  Arian  Herefie.     But  this  was  done  while  Confians  was  alive,  and 
fo  great  a  Number  appeared  in  the  Weftern  Churches  on  his  fide ;  but 
Confians  being  dead,  the  Eufebian  Party  perCa^dQ  Confiantius,  to  take  heart 
once  more  and  to  try  what  he  could  do  to  reftore  Arianifm  ,  then  Va- 
lens and  TJrfacius  recant  their  recantation,  and  lay  it  all  on  the  i^^^r  of  ^-  ^^^* 
Confians  i  and  now  to  fliew  the  Emperor's  zeal  for  Arianifm,  the  pub-  t-^^9- 
Jick  allowance  is  taken  from  Athanafius  and  his  Party,  and  given  to  the 
Arians  5  and  the  Magiftrates  threatned,  if  they  did  not  communicate     '*''^' 
with  them;  and  not  only  the  People  baniftied  that  refufed,  but  the  Bi- 
(hops  were  fummoned  to  appear  in  the  Courts  and  were  there  told,  they 
mufi  immediately  fubfcribe  or  lofe  their  Places.     But  all  this  while  Tole- 
r««//tf«  was  granted  to  all  but  to  the  followers  of  the  Council  of  Nice.  And 
thus  all  Places  were  fill'd  with  Tumult  and  Diforder,  and  the  People 
forced  their  Biftiops  to  the  Tribunals  for  fear  of  being  punifhed  them- 
felves.  And  the  Reafon  of  his  Violence  was,  becaufe  the  Arian  Herefie 
was  fo  much  hated  by  the  People,  and  they  hoped  by  this  means  to  bring 
them  to  own  it.  Her4c/////,the  Emperor's  Lieutenant,  declared  in  his  Name,  p.  850. 
that  Athanafius  »'i^J•  to  be  caji  out,  and  the  Churches  given  to  the  Arians  ;  and  p,  84^, 
required  the  People  to  receive  fuch  a  BiChop  as  he  fhould  fend,  viz.  George 
of  Cappadocia^  a  violent  Arian.     But  the  tragical  Account  of  all   the 
Perfecurions,  which  the  orthodox  Chriftians  then  underwent  in  Egyt^ 

from 


104  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  1^^, 

from  tbefe  Men  of  Prudence  and  Moderation  is  at  large  fet  down  by  A- 
than ajius  h'xmkM-^  and  in   the  concurrent  Teftimony  of  the  Peopled 
Alexandria-^  fo  that  nothing  feems  to  have  been  more  violent  and  cruel 
in  the  Heathen  Perfecutions  than  v/as  afted  under  (S'^r/rf^;^ and  HcracHus 
in  Egypt.     And  that  it  vs'as  wholly  for  the  fake  of  Arianifm,  Athanafitis 
evidently  proves  by  this  Argument,  That  if  a  Man  vccre  guilty  of  we« 
ver  fo  great  Crimes,    if  he  profeffed  himfelfan  hx'l^n,  he  cfcaped  ^  hut  if  he 
f,  s  10.    B'^'*^  an  Oppofer  fl/Arianifm  the  greateft  Innocency  could  not  prated  him. 
8»i-        But  this  was  not  the  Cafe  of  Egy^t  alone,  but  in  other  Places,  The 
hefi  Salification  for  a  Bipop  was  to  ftand  rcell  inclined  to  Arianifm  ^  as 
p.  8ii.    AthanafiHs  affirms.     But  othervpife,  though  the  Perfons  were  never  fo  well 
deferving  ;  one  fault  or  other  was  found  with  them  to  caji  them  ottt :  So, 
faith  he,  it  was  with  Enflathitts,  Bipjop  «/ Antioch,  a  Man  famous  for 
hk  Piety  and  Zeal,  yet  becanfe  he  appeared  againfl  Arianifm,  feigned  Ac- 
cufations  are  brought  againfl  him,  and  he  is  eje&ed  with  hk  Clergy,  and 
none  but  favourers  <?/ Arianifm  placed  in  their  room -^  and  the  like  Ex- 
amples he  brings  at  Laodicea,  Tripolk,  Germanicia,  Sebajiea,  Hadria' 
Kople  and  many  other  places  ^  infomuch  that  a  confiderable  Bilhop  fcarce 
any  where  appear'd  againft  Arianifm,  but  they  found  fome  pretence  or 
other  to  put  him  out,  and  where  they  could  alledge  no  other  Caufe, 
f.813.    they  faid.  It  was  the  Pleafure  <?/ Conftantius.     But  their  dealing  with 
Paulus,  the  Bilhop  of  Conflantinople,  was  very  remarkable.     He  being 
chofen  by  the  Anti-Arian  Party,  and  ftanding  in  the  Way  of  Eufebius 
of  Nicomedia,  whofe  heart  was  fet  upon  that  Biftioprick,  being  fo  near 
the  Imperial  Court,  he  firfl:  procured  Paulus  bis  Bani(hment  to  Pontus, 
then  he  was  fent  in  Chains  to  Singara  of  Mefopotamia,  thence  to  E- 
mefa,  thence  to  Pontus,  thence  to  Cucufus^  where  he  was  at  length 
ftrangled  by  the  Eufebian  Party,  as  Athanafius  faith,  he  had  it  from  the 
Perfons  there  prefent.     But  although  Macedonins  who  fucceeded  at 
{x)  Soz.  I.  Conflantinople  were  of  a  temper  violent  enough,  as  (a)  So%omen  (hews, 
t^'Xht-  y^'  C'*)  Iheodoret  obferves,  that  even  he  was  expelled  Conftantinople, 
od.  /.  2.    hecaufe  he  would  not  hold  the  Son  of  God  to  be  a  Creature  5  For,  although 
«•  <5-        he  denied  Chrifl  to  be  Confubfiantial  with  the  Father  ^  yet  he  afferted  him 
to  be  like  the  Father  in  all  things,  and  made  the  Holy  Ghoft  to  be  a  Crea- 
ture ;  by  which  he  feem'd  to  deny  the  Son  to  be  fo,  and  there  could  not 
keep  the  Favour  of  the  A/<?«  Party,  which  then  governed  all  in  the  Ea- 
ftern  Churches;  but  yet  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  by  no  means,  yet  to  de- 
clare for  Arianifm.     And  therefore  Theodoret  takes  notice,  that  after  the 
e.  25.    death  of  Leontius,  Eudoxius  was  the  firfl:  who  pulled  off  his  Vizard,  and 
declared  openly  for  Arianifm;  but  Leontius  his  way  was,  to  promote 
only  thofe  in  the  Church,  he  was  before  hand  fure  of,  and  to  fuffer 
no  other  to  come  into  Orders,  by  which  means,  faith  he,  mojlof  the 
Clergy  were  Arians,  and  the  People  fill  continued  found  in  /ifee^icene 
Faith,  tiWEudoxius  his  Perfecution began. 

This  was  the  miferable  Condition  of  the  Eaftern  Churches  under  the 
Prudence  and  Moderation  oixht  Eufebian  Party  ^  but  the  Wefl:ern  Chur- 
ches continued  quiet  and  very  little  difturbed  with  the  Ar':an  Herefie 
while  Conftans  lived;  who  was  ready,  not  only  to  maintain  the  true 
Faith  in  his  own  Dominions,  but  to  give  his  Affiftance  for  the  Relief 
of  thofe  who  fuflPer'd  in  the  Eaftern  Parts.  Which  was  the  Reafon  of 
the  calling  of  the  Council  of  Sardica  by  confent  of  both  Emperors, 
although  thathappen'd  only  to  widen  and  inlarge  the  Breach.  How- 
ever the  Sardican  Council  had  fuch  effeft  in  the  Weflern  Parts,  as  to 

the 


Chap.  IV.  the  Britijh Churches.  lo^ 

the  bufinefs  of  Athatjajius,  that  as  (Jo)  Athanafus  ttWs  Cot7fiatitmt,  P'rf-(*)Atha- 
lens  and  Vrfacius,  two  very  bufie  Factors  in  the  Arlan  Caufe,  freely  qvph^^^^^'^'^' 
the  malicious  Intrigue  that  was  carried  on  in  the  frofecntion  of  him:     The(«}Petav. 
firft  Council  oi  Milan  h  fuppofed  by  (0  Petavius,  to  be  called  the  0,^^,°^°° 
fame  year  that  of  Sardica  ended.     But  (d^  Sirmondus  thinks  it  very  {d)  sir- 
improbable  there  (hould  be  two  Councils  in  one  year  5  and  therefore  he  ^°^^' . 
believes  it  rather  to  have  been  the  year  before ;  which  is  the  more  pro-  de  aim  ^ 
bable  Opinion.    This  Council  of  Milan  was  afTembled  on  the  occafion  ^>''"'-  5>- 
of  feveral  Bi(hops  there  meeting  to  wait  on  the  Emperor  Conftans  in  ""'''• 
order  to  a  General  Council,  to  put  things  in  order  in  the  Chriftian 
Church,  which  the  Arian  Fa&ion  had  fo  much  difturbed.    While  they 
were  there  the  four  Eaftern  Biftiops  arrived,  with  the  long  Confeflion 
made  at  Antioch,  and  defire  the  Weftern  Bifliops  concurrence  with  them 
in  it.     Thefe  exprefs  their  diflike  of  any  New  Confeflion  of  Faith,  e- 
fpecially  after  the  Nlcene  ^  but,  (ince  they  were  fo  free  of  their  Ana- 
thema's at  the  end  of  their  Confeffion,  they  defired  them  to  make  (hort 
Work  of  it,  to  anathematize  the  Arian  Herefie ;  which  they  utterly  re- 
fufed  to  do,  and  fo  difcover'd  the  Juggle  of  that  feeming  orthodox 
Confeflion.    This  appears  by   Liberius  his  Epiftle  in  the  ColleBion  of 
Church  Records  in  (e)  Hilary's  Fragments  5  in  which  he  tells  Conftatitins,  (e)  Hilar, 
that  tkefefour  Bijhops  were  fo  far  from  anathematizing  the  Arian  Herefie  then  ^f^^-  "P- 
in  order  to  Peace,  that  upon  being  prejfed  to  do  it,  they  rofe  up  in  a  Rage  and  ^'  *''^' 
left  the  Council.     From  hence  the  Weftern  Bifhops  fmelt  their  Defign, 
however  cover'd  over  with  fair  Pretences  of  Peace  and  Reconciliation. 
Which  they  farther  difcover'd  by  their  own  Legates,  whom  they  fent 
into  the  Eaft,  who  made  this  Offer  to  the  Bifliops  there,  that  they  would 
accept  of  their  own  Terms  of  Accommodation,  provided,  they  would 
but  condemn  the  Arian  Herefie,  which  upon  confultation  they  refufed  to  doi 
Upon  thefe  plain  Difcoveries,  the  Weftern  Bifhops  could  eafily  fee 
through  all  their  propofals  for  Peace;  being  only  made  with  a  Defigti 
to  make  them  betray  the  Faith.     So  that  as  long  as  Conjians  lived  the 
Arian  Fa&ion  could  make  little  or  no  impreflion  on  the  Weftern  Chur- 
ches ;  but  he  being  foon  after  taken  off  by  the  Treachery  of  MagneH- 
tius.  Captain  of  his  Guards ^  and  the  whole  Empire  falling  to  Conjlan- 
/rwjupon  his  Viftory  over  Magnentius,z  fudden  alteration  here  happen'd 
about  thefe  Matters.     Valens  and  ZJrfacius  who  had  fo  folemnly  retra- 
ced their  former  unjuft  Sentence  of  Athanafius,  now  lay  it  upon  their 
fear  of  Conflans,  and  appear  in  the  Head  of  the  Arian  Fa&ion,  and  with 
them,  as  (/)  Severus  Sulpicius  faith,  the  two  Pannonia's  declared  for(f)Sev, 
Arianifm.   And  now  they  having  an  Emperor  to  their  mind,  refolve  to^"'?''^"  '•, 
lofe  no  time,  but  carry  things  on  with  a  mighty  violence,  and  banifh* 
all  who  would  not  fubfcribe  to  the  condemning  Athanafius.    For  this 
fiale  Pretence  muft  (till  be  made  ufe  of  to  deceive  the  People  and  to  make 
way  for  Arianifm  5  and  yet  this  prevailed  fo  far,  that,  as  Hilary  faith, 
in  the  Preface  to  his  Fragments,  the  People  wondred  what  made  fo  many 
Bifliops  go  into  Banifhmenty  rather  than  condemn  one  \  and  the  Defign  of 
thofe  Fragments  is,  to  fhew  that  the  Matter  of  faith  lay  at  the  bottom  of 
all  this  violence  4^<j/'»/?  Athanafius.     Which  proceeded^  fo  far,  that  in 
the  Council  called  at  Aries,  PauUnus,  Bifhop  of  Triers,  was  for  oppo- 
fing  the  condemning  Athanafius,  and  defiring  the  Matters  of  Faith  might 
firft  be  fettled,  depofed  by  the  Council  and  banifhed  by  the  Emperor. 
And  fo  great  then  was  the  Power  of  Fear  upon  them,  that  fome  of 
thofe  very  Perfons,  who  had  clear'd  Athanafius  at  the  Council  of  Sar- 

O  died, 


io6  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  IV, 

dica,  did  now  fubfcribe  to  his  condemnation  5  among  whom  was  Fift- 
U)^^^^^-  centtHs  of  Capua  the  Pope's  own  Legate  \  as  {g)  Athanafius  himfelf  con- 
conftanc.  fcfles.    Not  long  after,  Conftantius  fummons  another  Council  at  Mi- 
P.69Z.     latt'^  where,  (/»)  Socrates   and  (z)  So%omen  fay,  above   three  hundred 
/*]f°"^  Weflern  Bi/hops  were  ajjemhled  :  Here  again  the  Ar/an  Fa&ion  made  a 
(/)  Soz.  /.great  outcry  about  Athanafius ;  but  Dlonyfius^  Biftiop  of  Milan,  and  Eh- 
4.  C.9.    j~ci,if{jQ{  Vercelles,  laid  open  theDefign  fo  far  as  to  make  the  Council 
be  broken  up  and  themfelves  to  be  banifticd  by  the  Emperor's  Edift. 
While  the  Emperor  continued  at  Milan,  Ltberius,  Biftiop  of  Rome^ 
was  fummon'd  to  attend  upon  him  there,  in  order  to  his  Banifliment, 
{k)  The-  if  he  did  not  condemn  Athanafius  ^  (]i)  Theodoret  hath  preferved  the 
°'^;J"  ^'   moft  material  paflages  that  happen'd  between  them,  One  whereof  is, 
that  if  Conftantius  really  defigned  the  Peace  of  the  Church,  the  firft 
thing  was  to  be  a  general  Subfcription  of  theNicene  Faith,  after  which 
other  things  would  more  eafily  be  compofed.     But  this  would  not  be 
hearkned  to^  and  fo  Liherius  was  baniftied;  but  afterwards  he  unwor- 
thily complied  not  only  to  the  Condemnation  of  Athana/ius,  but  he 
profeffed  his  confent  to  the  Sirmian  Creed,  as  appears  by  his  Epiftle  in 
(/)  Hilar.  (I)  Hilarys  Fragments-^  for  which  Hilary  ht^O'vuihh  Anathemas  very 
in  Fragm.  freely  upou  him.     But  it  is  of  late  pleaded  on  behalf  of  Liherius,  that 
^'  '^^  ■      he  [uhfcribed  only  to  the  fir fi  Sirmian  Confejfion  in  the  Council  againfi:  Pho- 
tinus  which  was   exprefs  againji  the  Arian  Herefie.     Whereas    Hilary 
(who,  I  think,  knew  this  matter  fomewh at  better)  faith  in  fo  many 
Words,  Htec efi: perfidia  Ariana,  i.e.  that  what  he  fubfcribed,  contain- 
ed in  it  the  Arian  Herefie.     But  where  doth  Hilary  or  any  one  elfe  fay, 
that  Liherius  only  fubfcribed  the  firfi  Confejjion  of  Sirmium,  and  upon 
(;«)Soz /.  that  was  reftored?  Nay,  {ni)  Sozomen  faith,  f^^^  Conftantius  at  jirfi 
q.c.  15.    required  him  in  terms  to  renounce  the  Son's  being  Confubjiantial  to  the  Fa- 
ther :  but  afterwards  they  joined  together  the  Confejjion  againfi  Paulus  Sa- 
mofatenus  and  Photinus,  with  that  of  Antioch  at  the  Dedication,  and 
to  thefe  Lihet'ws  fubfcribed.     So  that  he  ftruck  in  wholly  with  the  Arian 
Fa&ion  which  undermined  the  Authority  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  and 
he  betray'd  the  Faith,  if  he  did  not  renounce  it.     The  Eudoxians  at 
Antioch,  he  faith,  gave  out  that  both  Ofius  and  Liherius  had  renounced 
the  Nicene  Faith,  and  declared  the  Son  to  be  unlike  the  Father  :  but  Li- 
herius clear'd  himfelf  by  rejeding  the  Doftrine  of  the  Anom^eans,  i.  e. 
the  open  and  profefled  Arians  5  and  this  Vrfacius,  Valens  and  Germi- 
nius  then  at  Sirmium  were  willing  to  accept  of,  having  a  farther  Defign 
to  carry  on  in  thefe  Parts,  which  was  like  to  be  fpoiled  by  the  Anom^" 
ans  appearing  fo  openly  and  unfeafonably  in  the  Eaft.     And  for  the 
fame  Reafon,  they  were  willing  to  call  in  that  which  Hilary  calls  the 
Blafphemy  of  Ofius  and  Potamius,  as  being  too  open  and  giving  Offence 
to  the  Followers  of  BafiUus  of  Ancyra  in  the  Eaft.     For  now  the  Em- 
peror having  baniflied  fo  many  Biftiops  and  ftruck  fo  much  terrour  in- 
to the  reft,  thought  it  a  convenient  time  to  fettle  the  Church-afFairs  to 
his  mind  in  thefe  Weftern  Parts,  and  to  that  end  he  (ummoned  a  Gene- 
ral Council-^  but  juftly  fearing  theEaftern  and  Weftern  Bifliops  would 
no  more  agree  now  than  they  did  before  at  Sardica  5  he  appoints  the 
former  to  meet  at  Seleucia  in  Ifauria,  and  the  latter  at  Arlminum ;  whofe 
Cn)  Sever.  Number,  faith  («)  Severus  Snlpiiius,  came  to  above  four  hundred,  and 
Suipic.  /.  fQ  fj^g  fgjjjg  purpofe  (<?)  Sozomen.     When  they  were  affembled,  Valens 
(0)  S02.  /.  and  Urfacius  acquainted  them  with  the  Emperor's  good  Intentions  in 
4.  c.  17.    calling  them  together,  and  as  the  only  Expedient  for  the  Peace  of  the 

Church, 


Chap.  IV.  the  hritijh  Churches,  107 

Church ,  they  propofed,  that  all  former  Confijfions  of  Faith  fljould  be  laid 
afide,  as  tending  to  diffetition  :^  and  this  to  be  univerfallji  received,  which 
they  had  brought  rvth  them  from  Sirmium  5  where  it  was  drawn  up  by 
feveral  Bifhops,  and  approved  by  the  Emperor.  Upon  the  reading 
this  New  Confeflion  of  Faith,  wherein  the  Son  is  faid  to  be  like  the  Fa- 
ther, ac' ordmg  to  the  Scriptures,  and  the  Name  of  Subflance  agreed  to  bs 
rvholly  laid  aftde  :  the  Bidiopsat  AriminHm  appeared  "very  much  unfa- 
tisfied  ;  and  declared,  they  were  for  keeping  to  the  iV/Ve//e  Faith  with- 
out alteration  ;  and  required  of  the  Arian  Party  there  prefent  to  fub- 
fcribe  it,  before  they  proceeded  any  farther  ^  which  they  refufing  to 
doe,  they  forthwith  (/>)  excommunicated  and  depofed  them,  and  pro-  (p)  Atha^ 
tefted  againftall  Innovations  in  matters  of  Faith.  And  of  thefe  Pro-  naf-'"^'^- 
ceedings  of  theirs,   they  fend  an  account  by  feveral  Legates  of  their  ' 

own,    wherein  they  exprefs  their  Refolution  to  adhere  to  the  Nicene 
Faith,  as  the  moft  efFedual  C^)  (r)  u)  Bar  againft  Atianifm  and  other  (?)Socr.> 
Herefies^   and  they  add,    that  the  removing  of  it  would  open  *Mq  ^Xkl^. 
Breach  for  Herefie  to  enter  into  the  Church.     They  charge  Urfacias  /.  4.  c  is. 
and  Valens  with  having  once  been  Partakers  of  the  Arian  Herefie,  arid  ^^^J^^^ig" 
on  that  account  thrown  out  of  the  Church  5  but  were  received  in  again 
upon  their  Submidion  and  Recantation  :    but  now  they  fa)',   in  this 
Council  of  A/«//»««»,  they  had  made  a  frefh  Attempt  on  the  Faith  of 
the  Church,  bringing  in  a  Doftrine  full  of  Blafphemies  ^     as  it  is  in  5"^- 
crates  5  but  in  Hilary's  Fragments  it  is  only,   that  their  Faith  contained 
multaperverfe  DoBrime-^  which  fliews  that  they  looked  on  the  Sirmian 
Creed  as  dangerous  and  heretical.     And  in  the  fame  (t)  Fragments  it  (^)  Hilar, 
appears  by  the  A&s  of  the  Council,  that  they  proceeded  againft  Valens^  Frag.  p. 
i)rfaci»f,   Germinius  and  Caius  as  Heretiiks  and  Introducers  of  Herefie  5  '^^^' 
and  then  made  a  folemn  Proteftation,   that  they  would  never  recede 
from  the  Nicene  Faith. 

Their  ten  Brethren  whom  they  fent  to  Conflantius  to  acquaint  him 
•with  the  Proceedings  of  the  Council,  he  would  not  admit  to  fpeak  with 
him  :    For  be  was  informed  beforehand  by  the  Arian  Party  how  things 
went  in  the  Council,    at  which  he  was  extreamly  difpleafed,    and  re- 
•folved  to  mortifie  the  Bithops,  foas  to  bring  them  to  his  Will  atlaft.He 
(»)fends  word  to  the  Council  how  much  his  Thoughts  were  then  taken  (-»)  soz.  /. 
up  with  his  Eaftern  Expeditibn,  and  that  thefe  Matters  required  greater  4  c.19. 
freedom  of  Mind  to  examine  them  than  he  had  at  fuch  a  time  ;  and  fo 
commands  the  Legates  to  wait  at  Hadrianople  till  his  Return.     The 
Council  perceived  by  this  MelTage  that  his  Defign  was  to  weary  them 
out,  hoping  at  laft,    as  (n?)  Theodoret  exprefles  it,   to  bring  them  to  (>r)Theod. 
confent  to  the  demolifhing  that  Bulwark  wh'ch  kept  Herefie  out  of  the  Church,  ^'  *•  '^'  '9' 
/.  e.  the  Authority  of  the  Council  of  Nice.     To  this  fmart  Meffage  the 
Council    returned  a  refolute  Reply,    That  they  would  not  recede  from 
their  former  Decree  ;  but  humbly  beg  leave  to  return  to  their  Biftiopricks 
before  Winter  5  being  put  to  great  hardlhips  in  that  ftrait  Place.  This 
was  to  let  the  Emperor  know  how  he  might  deal  with  them,    and  he 
fends  a  charge  to  his  Lieutenant,    not  to  let  them  (tir  till  they  all  con- 
fented.     And  in  the  mean  time  eflfeftual  means  were  ufed  with  their  Lei- 
gates  in  the  Eaft  to  bring  them  to  terms  5  an  account  whereof  we  have 
in  (x-)  Hilary's  Fragments,    which  were  to  null  all  the  former  Procee-,^sHi{^^ 
dings,  and  to  receive  thofe  who  were  there  depofed,  to  Communion.  Frag,  p- 
Which  being  done,  they  were  fent  back  to  decoy  the  reft  of  the  Coun-  4S*- 
cil  5  who  at  firft  were  very  ftifF,  but  by  degrees  they  were  fo  foftned, 

O  2  that 


1  o  8  The  Anti^mies  of  Chap.  IV; 

that  they  yielded  at  laft  to  the  Emperor's  own  Terms.    The  very  In- 

?  453-    ftrument  of  their  Confent  is  extant  in  Hilary's  Fragments,  wherein  fchey 

declare  their  full  Agreement  to  the  laying  afide  the  Terms  of  Subftance 

and  Confnbftantial  in  the  Creed  :   /.  e.  to  the  voiding  the  Authority  of 

the  Council  of  N/Ve,    which  was  the  thing  all  along  aimed  at  by  the 

(»  Athan.  Arian  Party.     And  (_y)  Athatiafiut  faith,  it  was  there  declare  ualavpful^ 

p^pfl'.'^'  '"  "fi  *^^  ^"^^  Suhjiance  or  Hyfojiafis  concerning  God. 

It  is  time  now  to  confider,  how  far  thofe  Churches  can  be  charged 
with  Arlanifm^  whofe  Bifhops  were  there  prefent  and  confented  to  the 
(^)  Hier.  Decrees  of  this  Council.  It  is  a  noted  Saying  of  (si)  St.  Jerome  on  this 
c.  Lucif.  Occafion,  that  the  World  then  groaned  and  wondered  at  its  being  become 
Arian.  Which  a  late  Aulhour  faith,  k  a  pajfage  quite  worn  out  by  our 
Innovators.  Whom  doth  he  mean  by  thefe  Innovators  ?  The  Divines 
of  the  Church  of  England,  who  from  time  to  time  have  made  ufe  of  it> 
Not  to  prove  an  Apojiafie  of  the  CathoUck  Church  from  the  true  Faith  5 
which  no  Man  in  his  Wits  ever  dream'd  of,  but  from  hence  to  over- 
throw the  pretended  Infallibility  of  General  Councils^  or  fuch  as  have 
been  fo  called.  And  notwithftanding  the  opprobrious  Name  of  Inno- 
vators (which,  as  we  find  in  thofe  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  often  belongs 
to  thofe  who  give  it  to  others  )  it  is  very  eafie  to  prove,  that  this  one 
Inftance  of  the  Council  of  Ariminum  doth  overthrow  not  only  the  Pre- 
tenceto  the  Infallibility  of  General  Councils,  but  the  abfolute  binding 
Authority  of  any,  till  after  due  examination  of  the  Reafons  and  Moiivet 
of  their  Proceedings.  For  it  is  apparent  by  the  whole  Series  of  the 
Story,  as  I  have  faithfully  deduced  it,  that  tJie  whole  Defign  of  the 
Jria/t  Party  was  to  overthrow  the  Authority  of  the  Council  of  Nice^ 
whkh  they  were  never  able  to  compafs  by  a  General  Council  till  this 
oi  Arintinum,  agreeing  as  they  declared  with  the  Eaftern  Bifliops.  So 
that  here  was  a  Confent  both  of  the  Eaftern  and  Weftern  Churches, 
(rf)Soz.  I.  the  Council  of  Ariminum  hc'mg  approved  by  W  (b)  (c)  a  Council  at 
tb)'sltr.  Conjlantinople  the  fame  Year.  What  is  now  to  be  faid,  when  the  Bi- 
/.  4.  c.  41.  (hops  aflembled  in  Council  both  in  the  Eaftern  and  Weftern  Churches 
^Id  ludf.  ^'^  efFediually  as  far  as  their  Decrees  went,  overthrow  the  Nicene 
Council  >  If  it  be  faid,  that  the  Council  ^/Ariminum  decreed  nothing 
pofltively  agamfl  the  Nicene  Faith ;  we  are  to  confider,  that  the  reverfng 
the  Decree  of  tht  Nicene  Council  was  in  effeft  overthrowing  the  Faith 
thereby  eftabliftied  5  And  fo  St.  Hierome  faith,  TuncVSix  Nomen  aboli- 
turn  eji,  tunc  Nicena  Fidei  dantnatio  conclamata  eft.  And  then  thefe 
Words  follow,  Ingemuit  totus  Orbk  &  Arianum/e  effe  miratus  eft  :  and 
if  nothing  vpould  ever  be  able  tojiop  out  the  Arian  Herejie  but  the  Nicene 
Faith,  as  is  confelTed  5  and  this  Council  took  away  the  Authority  of 
that  Council,  then  it  at  leaft  made  way  for  the  introducing  Herefie,  and 
left  all  Men  to  be  -Hereticks  that  had  a  mind  to  be  fo.  And  fo  St.  Hie- 
ronre  faith,  Falens  andVrfaciu-s  after  the  Council  boafted,  that  they  ne- 
ver denied  the  Son  to  be  a  Creature,  but  to  be  like  other  Creatures  :  from 
{d)  Am  whence  (S)  St.  Awbrofe  takes  it  for  granted,  that  Chriji's  being  a  Crea- 
33°^/''  '«^^  did  pafs  for  good  Doftrine  in  the  Council  c&  Ariminum.  But  we 
vaient.  are  told,  that  St.  Jerome  only  complains  of  the  World's  being  cheated  and 
trepan'd  into  Arianiftn  by  the  Bijhjps  being  fo  vceahly  over-reached  and  out" 
witted  by  an  handful  tf/Arians.  Doth  not  St.  Jerome  plainly  fay,  the 
Name  of  Subflance  was  there  laid  afide,  and  the  Cottrtcil  of  Nice  condem- 
ned^ And  could  this  be  a  mere  Cheat  and  Trepan  to  thofe  who  were 
fo  much  aware  of  it,  as  to  declare  at  fir  ft,   they  would  never  give  way  to 

if, 


Chap.  IV.  the  Briti/b  Cbiircbes.  i  o^ 

»>,  hecaufe  they  fare  the  danger  of  it  5    and  to  renew  their  ProleJiatio»s  a- 
gainft  it,    after  the  Emperor's  fevere  Meflage  to  them  about  it  >     So 
that,    whatever  it  was,  it  could  be  no  Cheat  or  Trepan  in  thofe  who 
made  fucb  Decrees  at  firft,    depofed  the  Arian  Bifhops,    fent  fuch  Mef- 
fages  to  the  Emperour  as  they  did.    Which  is  a  plain  Demonftratiori, 
that  they  Taw  and  knew  what  they  did  5    and  underftood  the  Confe- 
quences  of  it.     But  they  were  frighted  into  this  Coafent  at  lafl.     I  grant 
they  were  fo,  but  what  then  becomes  of  the  Infallibility  of  Councils,  if 
mere  Fear  can  make  fo  many  Hiftiops  in  CoHncilaOi  and  declare  againfl: 
tbm  Confciences.^    If  in  fuch  Meetings,   the  Perfons  were  capable  of 
being  fway'd  by  any  particular  hiafs,  from  aflerting  the  Truth,  what 
Security  can  there  be  as  to  Mens  Faith  from  tlieir  Authority,   any  far- 
iber  than  we  can  be  fecure  they  were  not  influenced  by  any  Temporal 
Hopes  or  Fears  ?    So  that  we  are  not  barely  to  refpeft  the  Definition^ 
oiCoHncih,  but  to  examine  the  Motives  by  which  they  were  afted  in 
paffing  thofe  Decrees  5  and  liU  appear,  they  did  ad  freely  and  fincere- 
ly,  and  deliver  the  general  fenfe  of  theChriftian  Church,  from  the  be- 
ginning, as  it  was  in  the  Cafe  of  the  Nicene  Council,  then  a  mighty  re- 
gard ought  to  be  fliewed  to  the  Decrees  of  it ;  but  if  Partiality,    Inte- 
reft.  Fear,  or  any  other  fecular  Motive  be  found  to  fway  them  in  their 
Debates  and  Refolutions,  then  every  particular  Church  is  at  liberty  to 
refqfe  their  Decrees,  and  to  adhere  to  thofe  of  more  free  and  indifferent 
Couticil«.     And  this  was  the  Cafe  here,    as  to  the  Council  of  Arinti- 
ttunf,  if  the  Church  had  been  abfolutely  tied  up  to  the  Decrees  of  Coun- 
€il/y  however  paft,   there  had  been  an  utter  Impoflibility  of  reftoring 
fihetrue  Chr}fiian  Faith  5   for  there  was  no  fuch  Council  affembled  to 
reverfe  the  Decrees  of  it  5  but  in  every  Church,  the  baniftied  Bilhops 
beirjg  returned,  inot  long  after,   upon  the  death  of  Confiantiuf,   they 
took  -care  to  fettle  the  true  Faith  in  the  Weftern  Churches,   by  leffei* 
AirembUes  of  the  feveral  Bi(hops.    A  remarkable  Inftance  whereof  ap* 
pears  in   (e)  Hilary  s  Fragments,    where  we  find  the  G<?i7r<?»  Biftiops /^j  Hiiaf . 
met  at  f.aris,  f  enouncing  the  Council  oi  Arintinum,  and  embracing  the  frag. 
Niceite  Faith.    The  like  we  bave  Reafon  to  believe  was  done  in  the^'*''' 
5ri>i/^  Churches,  becaufein  Jovian  s  time,  (f)  A thanafiuf  par ticuhrly  ^^  Athi. 
<afces  notice  of  the  Britannic  k  Churches,  as  adhering  to  the  Nicene  Faith  ^  naf- «'' 
«ad  Cg)  St.  J^o/ne,    and  (h)    St.  Chryfoflome,   feveral  times  ^^y^t\or\^^^^{l^Q^. 
ihe'-r  agreeing  veith  other  Churches  in  the  true  Faith.     Which  is  a  fufficient  ai.Marcei. 
Argument  to  clear  them  from  the  Imputation  of  Arianifm,    which  did  ffs  c"h,Pj 
nootberwjfe  lietupon  them,    than  as  they  had  Bithops  prefent  in  the  fort  nni. 
-Council  Qi Ariminunt.  3.  p.  695. 

For  (/)  Sever  us  Sulpiciuf,   fpeaking  of  the  Care  Conflantiuf  took  tol'^lrom. 
provide  Lodging  and  Enterta'nment  for  the  Bifhops  at  Ariminum,    out  of  8.  p.  in. 
!the  pwhilick  Charge,    he  faith,  t.hetr  Bifl}0ps  refufed  to  accept  it,    only  three  ^'^^^7^ 
ant  />/ Britain,  not  being  able  to  mamtaitt  themfelves,  made  ufe  ofthepublick 
Allayttance,  rather  than  he  chargeable  to  their  Brethren.     Which,    he  faith, 
he  heard<javi6'ms  their  Bi/hop  blame  them  for  :^   but  he  rather  thinks  it  a 
'Commendation  for  them,    in  thefirfi  place  to  have  heenfo  poor  5    and  next^ 
that  they  chofi  -mtt  to  be  burthenfome  to  their  Brethren,   hut  rather  to  live 
tonthe  Emperors  Charge.    This  had  been  better  faid  of  any  Place,  than 
at  the  Council  of  Ariminum,  where  the  Emperor's  Kindnefs  was  a  Snare 
-to -their  Confciences  ^  unlefs  it  be  faid.  That  the  Emperor  took  grea- 
ter advantage  by  their  bearing  their  own  Charges,    to  make  them  foo- 
ncr  grow  weary  of  ftaying  there  ^  and  that  if  the  reft  had  followed  the 

Exampl« 


1 1  o  Ibe  Antiquities  of  Chap.  IV. 

--       •^ • — * 

Example  oiihQBritains,  the  Emperor  might  have  been  weary  before 
them.  But  how  came  the  Britifti  Bifljops  to  be  fo  poor  above  the  reji,  who 
were  not  only  able  to  live  at  their  own  Charges,  but  to  fupply  their 
Brethren  ?  Which  fhews  as  much  the  plenty  of  the  reft,  as  it  doth 
the  poverty  of  the  Britains.  What  became  of  all  the  Endowments  of 
the  Britjfl)  Churches  by  King  Lucius  .<?  The  Britifh  Hiftory  publifhed 
OJ)Gaifr.  by  (k)  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth  faith,  That  King  Lucius  gave  not  only  all 
1. 2.  c.  2.  '-^^  Lands  which  belonged  to  the  Heathen  Temples  to  the  Churches  built  by 
him  5  but  added  very  much  to  them  with  manj  Privileges.  The  fame  is 
faid  from  him  by  moft  of  our  Monkifh  Hiftorians,  whofe  Authority  is 
no  greater  than  Geoffreys,  from  whom  they  derive  their  Information  5 
only  inlarging  it  as  occafion  ferves^;  As  Thomas  Rudburn  doth  very 
particularly  for  the  Church  o^Vinchefier,  who  makes  the  old  Lands  of  the 
Flamins  to  be  twelve  Mies  compafs  about  the  Towh-^  And  King  Lucius 
added,  he  faith,  to  the  New  Church,  all  the  Suburbs  of  the  City,  with  the 
Privlege <?/Dunwallo  Molmutius,  /.  e.  of  a  San£fuarj.  Methinks  then 
the  Br/tifh  Bifhops,  might  have  been  in  as  good  a  condition  as  the  reft 
of  their  Brethren  at  Ariminum  ;  unlefs  their  Lands  were  taken  away  in 
the  Perfecution  of  Dloclejian,  as  Rudburn  feems  to  intimate,  which  is 
all  as  true,  as  that  Monks  continued  there  from  Lucius  to  thefecond  year 
<?/ Dioclefian ;  which  was  a  long  time  before  his  Perfecution  began  5  or 
'  there  were  anyfuch  Monks  mtht  World.     But  it  feems  ftrange,    that 

theSW/i/SBifliopsftiould  be  then  under  fuch  Poverty,   when  Liberiut\ 
in  his  Conference  wixhConjiantiL^,  told  him,  The  Churches  were  able  to 
bear  the  Charges  of  their  Bifldops  in  going  to  Councils,    without  the  publick 
Carriages.     For  even  before  Confiantine's  time,    they  had  Endowments^ 
befides  the  voluntary  Oblations  of  the  People,    which  in  great  Churches 
were  very  confiderable.     But  that  there  were  certain  Endowments  be- 
fides,   appears  both  by  the  Edidts  of  Maximinut  and  Conjiantine.     By 
that  of  Maximinus,  not  only  Houfes,    hut  the  Lands  which  belongd  to 
(I)  Eukh.  the  Chrijiians,  whether  feized  into  the  (/)  Emperor  s  hands,  or  in  the  Pof- 
l.  9.  c.  ^o.fgjflgjj  of  any  City,  or  given,  orfold^  are  allcommanded  to  be  refiored.     And 
that  this  doth  not  relate  to  then  private  Poffejfions,    but  to  the  publick 
Revenue  o£  their  Churches,    will  appear  by  the  following  Edi^  oi  Con- 
fiantif/e  and.  Licinius  ;     which  in  the  firft  place  commands  all    their 
Churches  to    be  refiored  5    and   then  is  added,    becaufe  the  Chriflians  are 
known,    770t   only  to  have  thofe   Places  where  they  affemble,    but  otherfy 
which  likewife  of  Right  belong  to  their  Body,    i.  e.  their  Churches.     For 
(m)  ua.  fo  the  Words  of  the  Edi6t  in  (w)  La&antius  are.   (  Sed  alia  etiam  ha- 
Perfect'    ^^W^  nofuntur  ad  jus  corporis  eorum,  id  efl,   Eccleftarum  non  hominum 
c. ^8.      fingidorum  pertinentia^     Thefe  are  commanded  to  be  refiored,    without 
any  delay  or  difpute.     Which  is  again  inforced  by  another  Edi^  of 
(n)  Eufeb  Confiantine  to  Anulinus  .extant  in  (»)  Eufebius  with  the  former,  and 
/.  10.  c  5- there  are  mentiond  Houfes,  Gardens,   or  whatfoever  Poffejfions  they  had. 
Thofe  who  would  have  nothing  more  meant  by  thefe  Expreflions, 
but  fome  Fields  and  Gardens  rather  than  Lands,    may  coniiider  that 
when  the  Church  had   plentiful  Poffeffions,  they  were  called  by  no 
,    Am     ^^^^^  Names.     So  St.  (<?)  Ambrofe,   (Agri  Ecclef<e  folvunt  Tributum.  ) 
brof."Je    And  in  another  Law   of  (/>)  Confiant/ne  directed  to  the  Provincials 
trad.Ba/l-oi  Palefiine  to  the  fame  purpofe,    and   with  as  full  and  large  Ex- 
{^')Eufeb.  P''^^'0"s  5    And  howfoever  they  became  alienated,    the  prefentPof- 
vit.  Con- feflbrs  were  to  be  fatisfied  with  the  mean  Profits ;   But  by  all  means 
ftant. /.  2.|jg  commands  a  Reftitution  to  be  made,    not  only  to  particular  Per- 
' '       i  fons, 


C  H  A  p .  I V .         the  Britijh  CImrches.  1 1 1 

_ 5 — ■ ■ ■■ _ _ . 

fons,  but  to  the  Churches  too.     But  if  the  EtidowmeMts  of  Churches  were 
not  then  confiderable,  what  need  fo  many  EdiCfs  for  the  Rejlauration  of 
them  }  But  Conjiantine  did  not  only  take  fo  much  care  to  reftore  what  the 
Churches  had  before,  but  in  cafe  there  were  no  Heirs  at  Law  to  the 
Martyrs  and  Cottfejfors,  he  beftows  their  Lands  and  Goods  on  the  Chur-    '•  3'^' 
ches.     And  after  this,  about  four  years  after  the  Council  of  Nice,  he 
publifhed  the  famous  Cofffiitution  {\i\l  extant  in  the  (q)  Theodojian  Code  ii^^tJ^-J^?' 
wherein  a  full  Liberty  k  given  to  aU  forts  of  Verfons  to  leave  what  they  7.1.^ 
thought  Jit   by  Willy  to  the  Catholick  Churches  of  Chrijiians.     And  this, 
asGothofred^akh,  was  the  trae  Donation  of  Conjiantif/e,  for,  by  means 
of  this  Law,  Riches  flowed  into  the  Church,  and  efpecially  at  Rome. 
For  although,  as  (r)  Paulus  faith,  by  an  Edidt  of  M.  Aurelius,  the  Col-  (r)  t>.  44. 
legia  licit a^  Societies  allow'd  by  the  Laws,  veere  capable  of  receiving  Ls' <^J  ^'}'-' ' 
gacies  and  Ejiates,  yet  by  the  (/)  Laws  of  the  Empire,  the  Chrifiiani  i^2o!cum 
were  no  legal  Society  to  that  purpofe  before  :  And  by  a  late  Conftitii-  Senat. 
tion   of  Dioclejtan,  Societies  were  excluded  from  receiving  Inheritances  ^^^^  ^^^ 
without  a  fpecial  Privilege-^  yet  now,  by  this  Law,  all  thofe  Bars  he- legCoa^. 
ing  removed.  Riches  came  in  fo  faft  in  fome  Places,  that  there  needed?-  ^5- 
new  Conf^itutions  to  fet  bounds  to  fo  great  liberality. 

And  the  Privileges  which  Cohflantine  gave  to  the  (^)  Clergy  of  exemp-  ^9^"J''^" 
tion  trom  puhlick  Services^  drew  fo  many  to  take  Orders,  efpecially  in  2. /,2,'3,6, 
Corporations,  where  the  Services  were  very  burthenfome  ^  That  Conjian- 
tine  was  forced  to  publifh  EdiSs  to  reftrain  the  Numbers  of  them  5 
which  were  not  intended,  to  hinder  Perfons  ofEjiate  and  ^tality  from  en- 
tring  into  Orders^  as  fome  have  fuggefted,  but  only  fuch  whofe  Ejiates  were 
WahXe  to  thQpublick  Services,  as  thofe  who  were  (jt)  Decuriones  ortgine,  (u)Berteti 
and  not  merely  incolatu  were  5  who  bore  all  the  Offices,  and  did  the  ^'"'*'^-  '• 
publick  Duties,  having  Lands  given  them  on  purpofe  in  the  firft  Settle- "'  ^°' 
ment  of  Colonies  which  were  called  Pnedia  Re/publica,  as  (w)  P</»a-(») Panel- 
rol  obferves;  And  therefore  Conjiantine  had  reafon  to  forbid  fuch  en- ^^V^^yj^n'. 
tring  into  Orders  to  the  Prejudice  of  the  Government.     And  fo  the  Ti-  cip.  c.  i. 
tie  of  the  Conjiitution  is,  De  ordinatione  Clericorum  in  Curiarum  &  Qvi- 
tatum  prajudicium  non  facienda.     Which  was  at  that  time  a  very  juft 
and  reafonable  Conftitution.    But  afterwards  Men  of  great  Honour  and 
Dignities  came  into  the  Council,  as  not  only  St.  Ambrofe,  at  Milan, 
who  was  the  Confular  Governour  over  Ligtiria,  and  /Emilia,  and  St.Pau- 
linus,  a  Roman  Senator,  behind  none  in  Birth,  faith   (x)  St.  Ambrofe,  (*)  Am- 
having  a  great  Eftate  in  Jquitania,  was  made  Prieft  at  Barcelona,  and,^°  "^^° 
Bifhop  of  Nola,  but  many  Examples  of  this  kind  were  in  one  Age  in 
the  Gallican  Church,  as  (;/)  Honor atus,  Bifbop  of  Aries,  of  a  Senato- f;')  yin- 
rian  and  Confular  Family ;  St.  Hilary,  of  Aries,  of  a  very  Noble  Fami-  ^^^,^^'"  |^^J' 
ly,  and  born  to  great  Riches  ^  Sidonius  Apollinaris,  whofe  Father  and '^w^V 
Grandfather  were  Pr^fcSti  Pr£torio  Galliarum,  and  himfelf  married  to  ^^'''"'• 
the  Daughter  of  the  Emperor  Avitus,  made  Prafe&us  Vrbi,  &  Pa-  ^^^  y;t^ 
tricius,  one  of  the  greateft  Perfons  and  Wits  in  Gaul,  was  made  (4)  Bi-SidoniiA- 
fhop  of  Auvergne  5  St.  (^)  German,  Bifhop  of  Auxerre,  was  of  Noble  ^I'i}'^^^, 
Parents,  and  Governour  of  a  Province;  St.  (r)  Ruricius,  Bifhop  offtanc.wv. 
Limoges,  defcended  from  the  Annician  Family,  as  Venantius  Fortunatus  German.- 
faith,  which  was  of  that  Fame  at  Rome,  that  St.  (^)  Hierome  faith,  nancFort. 
Very  few  of  it  miffed  the  Corifuljhip,  and  two  Brothers  of  it  were  Confuls  I-  4*  <;•  J- 
together,  as  Claudian  faith,  a  thing  never  ^een  before  or  fince.     From  ^^j  q^^' 
this  Family  (e)  Arnoldus  Wion  proves  that  the  Emperors  of  Germany  (?)  Uin^ 
are  defcended.    And  of  this  fame  Family  another  Ruricius  fucceeded  bis*^^'- ^" 
Grandfather  in  the  fame  Biflioprick.  Butj 


11^  The  Antiquities  of         Chap.  IV. 

But,  befides  that  general  Law  which  gave  Permiffion  to  others  to  give 
liberally  to  Churches,  Conjiantine  of  his  own  Revenue  allow'd  a  pro- 
portion of  Corn  to  be  given  to  the  Clerg)  of  the  greater  Cities ;  Of  which 
f/).Atha-  (/)  Athaaafus  fpeaks,  when  he  faith,  Conftantius  tooh  it  away  from 
vzL  ad ]o.  ^i^^  and  his  Clergy^  and  gave  it  to  the  Arians;  But  the  Gift  it  felf  was 
(£  Theod.  continued  all  the  time  of  Confiantius  5  Then  it  was  taken  away  by  (^) 
/.  4.C.4.*  'Julian^  and  in  part  reftored  by  Jovian. 

It  is  then  no  wonder  that  the  Bilhops  at  A/W»«/!»refufed  the  pullick  aU 
lowance^  being  maintained  by  the  Revenues  of  their  Churches  5  But  it 
feems  the  B^itijh  Churches  were  not  then  in  fo  Rich  a  condition  to  main- 
tain their  Bifhops  fo  long  abroad  5  For  Conjiantine^  drawing  all  the 
Wealth  and  Trade  of  the  Empire  Eaftward,  for  the  greater  Advance- 
ment of  bis  New  City  ;  And  this  Country  having  been  fo  long  haraf- 
fed  with  Wars,  and  fcarce  recovered  from  the  EfFefts  of  them  5  (For  the 
Scots  and  Pi&s  had  been  very  troublefome  to  them,  both  in  the  times 
(*)  Am.    oi  Conflans  and,  Conftantius -^  the  (^}  former  came   himfelf  over  into 
ToT'if  ^rJtaJ"  to  fupprefs  them  5  and  the  latter  fent  Lupuinus  his  General, 
who  arrived  at  London  about  the  time  the  Council  of  Ariminum  was 
dilTolved  )  and  therefore  in  a  time  of  fuch  Confufion  in  the  Britijh 
Province,  it  is  not  ftrange  that  thefe  Churches  (hould  not  be  in  fo  plen- 
tifull  a  condition  as  thofe  which  were  the  Seat  of  Trade  and  Covern- 
(0  Id.  I'  ment.     And  ( i)  Ammianus  Marcelllnus  obferves,  that  the  Provincial 
^l^c.  3-    Bijhops  lived  in  a  much  meaner  condition  than  thofe  of  the  greater  Cities^ 
efpecially  of  Rome -^  And,  although  a  Heathen,  he  very  much  com- 
mends them  for  their  Temperance,  Humility  and  Modefty. 
But  Arianifm  was  not  the  only  Herefie  the  5r/Vif/^  Churches  were  char- 
(t)  Gild,  ged  with  5  For  (k)  Gildas  from  hence  makes  every  following  Herefie  to 
^''* ''^■^' find  a  paflage  hither^  among  which  the  chief  was  Felagianifm.    And 
(/)  Bed.  /.  Q^  Bede  doth  infinuate,  That  Pelagius,  king  a  Britain,  andy  fpreading 
^•'^•^°'    his  Do&rine  far  and  near,  did  corrupt  thefe  Churches  with  it  5  which  fome 
(m)  Bai.  («i^  late  Writers,  having  taken  up,  have  affirmed,  that  both  Pelagi^f 
^^  f  ^'^;  ^- and  C"*/e/?/«x,  after  their  Repulfe  at  Rome,  came  over  to  Britain^  and 
Pits,  de    difperfed  their  Doftrine  here.     (»)  LelandCadly  laments  the  Condition 
T'^'ha    °^  ^^^  Church  of  God,  that  had  no  fooner  recover'd  it  felf  from  Ari- 
io'n.'d7'  anifm,  but  a  new  Herefie  fprung  up  to  difturb  the  Peace,  and  infeft  the 
*^^.Peiag.  minds  of  Chriftians^  But  as  Eg^pt  brought  forth  the  Author  of  the 
(n)  Le-^^'  former  Herefie,  fo  did  Britain  the  Author  of  this,  which  took  his  name 
jand.  rfe    from  hcnce;  And  is  fuppofed  to  have  been  Morgan  in  Britijh,  which 
^'da^eio'."  ^y  ^'5  converfation  at  Rome  he  turned  into  Pelagius  ^  And  (<»)  St.  Au- 
(0)  Aug.  guftine  faith.  He  was  commonly  called  Pelagius  Brito,   to  diftinguifii 
^h}°^-    him,  as  he  fuppofed,  from  another  Pe/<?gi«/ of  Tarentum.  Leland  oh- 
fin.  '       ferves,  that  fome  made  him  a  Britain,  as  being  born  in  that  Bretagn 
(p)Conci/.  which  was  called  Aremorira,  on  the  Continent.    But  I  do  not  find  that 
^^  *  ^°^\  it  had  then  loft  its  name  of  Aremortca.     The  firft  time  we  find  the  name 
>f.  D  46,.of  Britannia  given  to  that  Country,  is  in  the  (/>)  Subfcription  of  Man- 
\fl^^"a'' f"^tus  to  the  Council  of  Tours,  where  he  is  named  Epifcopus  Britanno- 
Ecc  ef.  /.  rum,  after  which  time  it  was  frequently  called  Britannia  Cifmarina, 
1 5-  "•      Minor,  Celtica,  &c.  (^)  Dempjier  (not  a  Jefuit,  but  a  Lawyer)  takes  it  very 
(r)Bro-    ill  of  Brovpertff,  the  Jefuit,  that  he  makes  Pelagius  a  Scot:  But  not  as 
wer.  in     Dempfter  underftands  him.  For  (r)  he  explains  himfelf.  That  he  meant 
Forcum     ^"^  *^^*  '^"'"^  ""^  "f  Ireland,  and  therefore  was  Scoticx  Originis.    For 
/.  3.;>.<S9.  which  he  quotes  St.  "Jerome.     But  Archbiftiop  (j)  V/her  hath  obferved, 
(s)De  Fri-  j^^f  he  fpeaks  there,  not  ^f  Pelagius,  but  of  Coeleftius,  whom  he  makes  the 

word.  p.  ■''  ■>  J  a       ->  J  7  -^t 

209.  Cerberus 


C HAP.  IV.  the  hritiflj Churches.  1 1 3[ 

Cerberus  to  Pluto,  (according  to  his  ufual  way  of  comjDlementin^ 
his  Adverfaries.  )  But  both,  he  thinks,  came  out  of  ^he  Britifh  Iflands. 
The  late  (0  Publiftief  of  Marius  Menator,  endeavours  to  (hew,  T&ai  (^t) Gar- 
onr  learned  Private  xoas  herein  htijlaken  ^  And  that  St.  Jerome  doth  not  ner.  Dlf^ 
[peak  of  Cocleftius,  but  of  Pelagius  himfelf:,  And  that  by  Pluto  he  means^^l^  mS. 
Ruffinus  dead  In  Sicily  three  yean  before  St.  Jerome's  writing  thefe  Words ^  cac'e.  5. 
But  notvpithjianding  he  didjiill  bark  through  Pelagius  hff  Mouth,  whom 
be  compares  to  a  great  Scotch  Majliff,  from  which  Country  he  is  derived  it* 
the  Neighbourhood  of  Britain.     If  thefe  Words  relate  only  to  Ruffinus 
and  Pelagius,  it  is  certain  that  St.  Jerome  would  have  it  believed.  That 
Pelagius  came  out  oflreland.    That  which  makes  it  moft  probable,  that 
he  means   them  is,  That  in  the  Preface  to  his  (»)  Commentaries  ori  («)  Hier, 
Ezekiel,  he  mentions  the  death  of  Ruffinus,  and  then  faith,  he  hoped'"  ^'"^• 
now  he  Jhould  be  quiet  to  go  on  with  his  Commentaries  on  the  Scriptures  '.^f^t.' 
But  not  long  after  he  complains,  That  there  were  others,  which  in  hh 
Room  opend  their  Mouths  againft  him.     In  the  beginning  of  his  Com- 
mentaries on  Jeremiah,  which  he  undertook  after  he  had  finiflied  thof6 
on  Exekiel,  he  mentions  one  who  carped  at  hk  Commentaries  on  the  E- 
phefians,  and  calls  Grunnius,    (  i.  e.  Ruffinus)   hk  Forerunner-^  And 
faith,  he  was,  Scotorum  pultibuf  pr£gravatuf,  made  fat  with  Scotch  Flum^ 
mery.     All  this  agrees  very  welliwith  Pelagius,  whom  (tp)  Orojius  de- W  o™^ 
fcribesas  a  very  corpulent  Man  5  But  there  is  one  thing  which  makes  the  ^^''^''^'^'^° 
former  Opinion  not  improbable,  which  is,  That  St.  Jerome  himfelf  takes 
to  much  notice,  that  Pelagius  at  that  time  wrote  little  or  nothing  about 
thefe  matters,  but  Cceleftius  was  the  Man  who  appeared,  ejpecially  in  the 
two  main  Points  about  Original  Sin,  and  the  Pojjibility  of  PerfeSion  : 
(x)  In  his  Epiftle  to  Ctejiphon,  he  faith.  That  the  Author  of  the  Se^Jiill (x)H\er. 
held  hfs  Peace,  and  his   Difciples  wrote  for  him  ^    Magiflrorum  filentid'i*  ^^^' 
profert  rabies  Difcipulorum.    Methinks  Rabies  agrees  well  enough  with  jj^'rb.a.' 
Cerberus,  and  here  it  is  meant  of  the  Difciple  C<Bleflius,  and  not  of  Pe- 
lagius ;  Which  Expreffion  anfwers  very  well  to  the  other.  Mutus  Ma- 
gifter  latrat  per  Albinum  Canem.  And  he  fpeaks  as  if  he  defigned  to  draw 
him  from  his  clofenefs  and  retirement  ^  Which  doth  far  better  agree  to 
the  mute  Perfon,  than'to  the  barking  Cerberus.    There  is  then  no  Impro- 
bability, that  Cxlejiius  and  Pelagius,  may  be  both  meant  5  But  if  any 
other  Country   hath  a  mind  to  challenge  Ccelejiius  to  themfelves,  I 
think,  they  may  be  allow'd  to  put  in  their  Claim  notwithftanding  thefe 
Expreflions.     But  it  is  very  unworthy  in  the  fame  (y')  Author,  to  prove  (y)  Gar- 
Pelagitts  to  have  been  an  Irifl>  Scot,  and  at  the  fame  time  to  charge  "^'"" '*'  f° 
his  Vices  on  the  Brltl/h  Nation.     He  cannot  deny.  That  Pelagius  had'^'^' 
a  great  natural  (harpnefs  of  Wit,  fince  St.  Augufiine  and  his  other  Ad- 
verfaries  allow  it^  But  then  he  faith.  It  was  fierce  and  contentious,  after 
the  fajhion  of  his  Country  5  and  which  he  could  not  thake  off  by  his  long 
Converfation  at  Rome.     He  grants  that  his  Exhortations  to  Piety  were 
vehement  and  earnejl,  but  written  in  an  uncouth  and  imperious  Style,  chore 
Oentis,  according  to  the  humour  of  his  Nation.    But  why  muft  the  Bri- 
tifh  Nation  be  reproached  for  the  particular  faults  of  Pelagius?  It  is  i 
very  ill  way  of  confuting  Pelagius,  to  attribute  Mens  Vices  and  Ver- 
tues  to  their  Countries;  And  is  contrary  both  to  the  difcretion  of  a 
Philofopher,  and  to  the  Grace  of  a  Chriftian  5  Pelagius  might  have 
had  the  fame  temper  if  he  had  been  fo  happy  as  to  have  been  bofn  iri 
a  Neighbour  Country  5  And  I  do  not  fee  how  his  Way  of  writing  doth 
affeft  the  Britijh  Churches  3  Where  the  Cbriftians  might  be  very  wife? 

P  and 


114  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  IV, 

and  humble,  notwithftanding  this  fevere  and  unjuft  Charafter  of  the 

Briti^o  Nation 5  Which  (as  all  National  Reproaches)  is  not  fo  great 

a  Reproach  to  any  as  to  him  that  gives  it.     But  the  greateft  Adverfa- 

(O  Aug.  ries  to  Pelagius,  did  not  give  him  fo  ill  a  Character  ^  St.  (z.)  ^ugufiine 

de  peccut.  faith,  he  had  the.  efteem  of  a  very  Pious  man,  and  of  being  a  Chrijiian  of 

rem'Ht  "'^  "^^'^^  ^^"^^'    ^^^  ^^^*  ^^'^  *"^^^  Gentis  too  .<?  And  of  his  Learning 
c.  I'.es'j.and  Eloquence  St.  Auguftine  gives  fufficient  Teftimony,  in  his  Epiftle 
de  Ge-    to  Juliana^  the  Mother  of  Demetrias,  to  whom  Pelagitts  wrote  an  Epi- 
ujiHtzz.  ft^e  highly  magnified  for  the  Wit  and  Elegance  of  it.    But  Gamerius 
Epiji.io6.  will  not  allow  that  Pelagius  was  able  to  write  it  himfelf  without  the  ajji- 
fiance  of  his  Difciples  Goeleftius  and  Annianus.     But  why  (hould  this  be 
fo  hard  a  thing  for  a  Man  whom  he  confefles  to  have  had  a  great  deal 
(a)  Aug.   Qf  Natural  Wit,  and  (a)  St.  Augufline  faith.  He  lived  long,  yea,  very 
orig.  c.  8.  ^^^g  'f^  Rome,  and  kept  the  beft  Company  there  .<?  Could  a  Britain  never 
21-         attain  to  fo  much  Purity  of  the  Roman  Language  as  to  write  an  Epi- 
ftle to  the  Envy  of  thofe  meliore  folo  prognatorum,  as  he  fpeaks,  who 
were  born  in  more  happy  foils  ?  What  mean  fuch  unbecoming  reflexions, 
on  the  Country  oi  Pelagius  -^  when  himfelf  confefles  he  had  fo  much 
Mother  Wit  ?  And  one  would  think  of  the  two,  that  is  the  better  foil 
which  produceth  more  Wit  than  Words. 

Our  Monkifh  Hiftorians  make  Pelagius  not  only  a  Monk  at  Bangor, 
but  the  Abbot  there  ^  So  the  Author  of  the  Polychronicon,  and  John  of 
Tinmouth ;  Leland  takes  it  from  them  ^  To  whom  Bale  adds.  That  he 
I*)  Le-  was  made  B'ljhop  in  the  Eafi  5  But  without  any  Authority,  (b)  Leland 
Serip.  faith.  That  he  went  over  into  Aremorica,  to  vift  his  Countrymen  who  were 
tiewly  fettled  there,  being  carried  over  by  Maximus.  Gildas  feems  to  im- 
ply, That  Maximus  was  originally  a  Britain,  when  he  calls  him  Ger^ 
wen  plantationk  fu£  ^  But  Bede  takes  no  notice  at  all  of  his  Country. 
The  Saxon  Annals,  Fabius  Ethelwerd,  Huntingdon,  and  Others  fay,  he 
(e) Zofim. ^^j  [,gy„  l„  Britain-^  But  (<r)  Zofimus  affirms.  That  he  was  a  Spaniard, 
and  took  it  ill  that  he  was  no  more  prefer  d,  when  his  Countryman  Theo- 
dofius  was  made  Emperor-^  However  this  were,  it  is  certain  that  he  was 
declared  Emperor  in  Britain,  and  that  he  went  out  of  Britain  with  the 
Forces  here  5  And  that  Gratian's  Legions  revolted  to  him^  upon  which 
he  fled,  and  was  killed  5  And  that  Maximus,  being  unfatisfied  with 
Gratian's  (hare  of  the  Empire,  went  into  Italy  againft  Valentinian,  and 
was  after  four  years  deftroyed  at  Jquileia ;  But  in  all  the  Proceedings 
of  Maximus,  I  fee  no  ground  for  the  fettling  the  Colonies  of  Britains 
in  Aremorica.  For  he  landed  at  the  Mouth  of  the  Rhine,  faith  Zofimus^ 
and  was  well  received  by  the  Roman  Legions  there-abouts.  What  oc- 
cafion  then  was  there  for  his  coming  againft  the  Aremorici:  Or,  if  he 
had  driven  them  out,  had  he  nothing  to  do  with  his  Souldiers,  but  to 
.people  Countries  with  them  ?  But  we  find  the  Aremorici  in  quiet  pof- 
fefljon  of  their  Country  after  this  time.  So  that  we  fee  no  reafon  at  all 
for  Pelagius  to  go  to  his  Countrymen  in  Aremorica:  From  thence  Ze- 
land  carries  him  to  all  the  Places  of  Learning  in  Gaul ;  As  there  were 
many  at  that  time ;  And  while  he  was  thus  pajjing  up  and  down,  he  met 
with  Julianus  of  Campania,  whofe  Wit  and  Learning  recommended  him 
to  Pelagius.  But  this  cannot  hold.  For  Pelagius  lived  a  long  time  in 
Rome  before  his  Herefie  was  difcovered^  After  the  difcovery  of  it, 
many  years  pafled  before  Julian  appeared  in  it;  And  in  the  laft  Work 
((/)  Julian,  of  (^)  St.  Augujiine,  jiift  before  his  death.  He  calls  ]a\hn  a  young  man  ^ 
17V""     Although  he  had  been  a  Biftiop  in  Campania,  at  a  Place  called  /Ecula- 


nutftf 


Chap.  IV.  the  Britijh  Churches.  115 

»«/»,    thence   his  Title  was  Epifcoput  Rdanenfis.     The  Town  ftood, 
faith  (e)  Holjteriius,    near  Miraklla  ;    But  fince  its  Deftruftion,    thef^O  "oi- 
See  was  removed  to  Frigento,  and  the  Bifhop  called  Ep^flopm  Frequen- cinver, 
thm.    If  PeUgius,  paffing  through  Gaul,  madefo  long  a  ftayin  Rome^if<^^-t- 
as  St.  Augufiine  faith,  before  he  was  fufpefted  of  Herefie,    there  is  no  "''^' 
probability  at  all  in  the  Monkilh  Tradition  of  his  being  Abbat  of  Ban- 
gor.    And  there  is  not  much  more  of  Bangor's  being  fo  famous  a  Mo- 
naftery  at  that  time,  or  of  Pelagius  his  being  a  /H^fuk  therein  J    For  the 
Britijh  Monafteries  were  no  elder  than  St.  Patrick's  time,  as  I  may  have 
occafion  to  (hew  afterwards.     And  even  at  Rome  it  felf  the  Monaftick 
State  had  not  been  long  known  there,  being  brought  out  of  the  Eaft 
by  Athanafiiu  and  Eufebius  oiVercelles,     And  in  Pelagius  his  time,  tho(e 
were  called  Monks  at  Rome,  who  had  no  Office  in  the  Church,  but  yet 
retired  from  the  common  Employments  of  the  World  for  Sacred  Stu- 
dies and  Devotion  ^    and  where  any  Number  of  thefe  lived  together, 
that  was  called  a  Monaftery  5   Such  was  the  Monaflerinm  Pinneti,  meri- 
tion'd  by  (/)  Ruffinuf,    not  far  from  Rome  ^    Probably  a  Houfe  of  (/j  Ruffiit- 
Melana  ^    whithet  they  were  wont  to  retire  in  times  of  greater  Devo-  °f'  P'9. 
tion,     Grin-zer/w  confeflTes /^i?/ Pelagius  was  no  otherveife  a  Monk,    than 
as  thofe   veere  then  called  fo  who  led  flri^er  Lives    than  others  within 
their  own  Houfes  ^   of  which  Number  he  reckons  Pammachius,  Paidi- 
uus^  Melania,  Demetrias  and  others  at  that  time,    to  whom  Pelagius 
was  well  known,  and  much  efteemed  by  them,    before  his  Herefie  was 
difcover'd.     Thechief  Employment  of  thefe  Perfons,  next  to  their  De- 
votions, was  ihQ  Study  of  the  Scriptures^    as  appears  by  St.  Jeromes  E- 
piftles ;    And  fome  grave  Perfon  made  it  his  bufinefs  to  inftruft  his 
Difciples  therein  :     So  St.  Jerome  did  at  Bethlehem ;    So  Ruffinus  did 
Pammachius,  Melania  and  her  Family  ^    And  fo  Pelagius  did  at  Rome, 
where  he  had  Scholars  whom  he  brought  up,  as  appears  both  by  CiB' 
lefiius,  and  JuUanus  whom  he  inftrufted  very  young,    and  by  Timafus 
and  Jacobus.    From  this  Employment  it  was  that  he  wrote  his  fhort 
Commentaries  on  St.  Paul's  Epijiles,  and  his  Epijiles  to  Melania  and  De- 
metrias :,    I3ut  after  he  was  accufed  of  Herefie,    his  time  was  fpent  in 
Vindication  of  himfelf,    in  Africa,  Afta  and  Rome  ^    and  after  many 
Bandyings  to  and  fro  from  want  of  underftanding  the  meaning  oi  Pela- 
gius, he  was,    befides  the  Councils  in  Africa,    at  laft  condemned  in  a 
Cou/sci I  at  Ant ioch,     vnder  Theodotus,    as  (g)   Marius  Mercator  (hews  ^(g)Viit'm 
And  from  thence  forward,  he  fpent  the  Remainder  of  his  Life  in  Ob-^^"^*^^" 
fcurity,  dying  fomewhere  in  the  Eaft.  <■■  3. 

From  whence  it  appears,  that  there  is  no  probability,  that  Pelagius 
and  delejliuf  (honld  come  back  to  Britain,  to  fpread  their  Herefie  here. 
For  he  coraplain'd  of  his  Age,    when  he  fet  forth  his  Commentaries  at 
Rome,  about  Annu  Dom.  4©4.    And  he  was  certainly  in  the  Eaft  at  the 
Council  of  Diofpolfs,  Anno  Dom.  415.    from  whence  he  fent  Ccelejiius 
to  Rome,   but  abode  there  himfelf  with  Albina,  Pinianus  and  Melania  5 
and  wrote  Letters  to  clear  himfelf  firft  to  hmocentius,  and  then  to  Zo- 
fmm,  who  wasfo  well  fatisfied  therewith,  that  he  wrote  a  ftiarp  Let- 
ter to  the  African  Biftiops  (  who  had  condemned  him  )  in  his  Vindica- ^pg^af'.o- 
tion  5    feverely  taxing  his  Accufers^    Although  there  were  Herefie  in  rkin-c.  6. 
that  Confeffion  which  Ccelefiius  tendred  to  Zopmus,  and  which  he  eftee-  f^^^°^l\ 
med  Orthodox.     And  (h)  St.  Augufiine  is  fain  to  make  ufe  of  all  his(i)Noris 
Wit  to  bring  the  Pope  off  from  approving  of  Herefie.     (f)  Henr.  de^'ft'p^'' 
Nor  is  confeiTeth  that  he  was  circumvented  by  the  Pelagians.     But  it  was  ,"//  ' 

P  2  in 


jii6  Ibe  Antiqaities  of  C  h  a  p.  IV- 

^m^pT''^'^  «»^«er  ofFadt^  faith  Qi)  Janfettim  ;   What,  when  he  denied  Ori- 
Ug.  p.  i8.  gJif""!  Sin  in  that  very  Paper  he  deliverd  in  to  Zoftmui  I    (/)  Ca^pellus 
(/)Cap-  thinks  it  better  r<7«;/e»7  Zofimua  A*r  Lef/er  ^  but  therein  he  iscondem- 
^Apie^at.   ^^^  by  (*')  Petaviuiy  and  others  who  have  lately  written  about  this 
f.  2.  %  28.  matter,  and  fay,  f^^??  Cappellus  hif  Opinion  k  fingular  andfalfe,   being 
v'Jmn'e  '^0"^''3difted  by  the  Teftimonies  of  Marim  Mercator,    tacuttdus  Herm'- 
eij-om.T,.  amnfis  and  St.  Augujiine  :    And  one  of  them  blames  the  Pope  fir  too 
dt  Htr.    great  eafimfs  ^  and  the  other /»r  too  great  hajiinefs,  and  doth  think,  that 
^.if.Git-  *^^  hufftefs  of  Appeals,    then  cofttejled  by  the  African  Bifhopj  ftuck  in  the 
ner.  Diff.  Pope's  Stomach,  which  made  hivt  willing  to  take  thk  Occafion  to  rebuke  them. 
mJis  >     ^"^  ^'^^  Afritan  Fathers  proceeding  fmartly  againfi:  the  Pelagians,  not- 
caufa  Pe-  withftandjng  Zo/fmushi$  Letter,  made  him  to  comply  too,   in  condem- 
lag  Natal,  njpg  jjQth  Ctelejiius  and  Pelagins,    notwitbftanding  his  former  Epiftie. 
J.  f  16^9.  So  that  upon  the  whole  matter,  Pelagins  and  Co^le/iius,  by  their  own  na- 
tural Wit,  had,  in  all  probability  been  too  hard  for  a  whole  Succeffi- 
on  of  Popes,  Innocent ihs,  Zofimus  and  Xjijius,  had  not  the  4/»'*'<^'«»  Fa- 
thers interpofed,  and  freely  told  them  what  the  true  Doftrine  of  the 
(n)Ang.tfi/ Church  was.      For  («)   they  offer'd  to  fubfcribe  7«»tfce»/j«/ his  Epi- 
r.^s"'^.  '^' files.     Zofimus  was  very  well  fatisfied,    and  thought  them  peevilh  and 
('JAug.    unreafonabletbat  were  not.      (^o")  Xyflns  wiS  their  Patroft  at  Kome,  be- 
£p-  '04-   fore  the  African  Biftiops  appear'd  fo  refolute  in  the  Caufe.    And  had  it 
not  been  for  them  ;  for  all  that  I  can  fee,  Pelagianifm  had  fpread  with 
the  Approbation  of  the  Roman  See. 

But  notwitbftanding  it  was  at  laft  condemned  at  Rome,  and  Imperial 
CmfiitHtions  publiihed  againft  it  5  Yet  it  found  a  Way  over  into  the 
fir/Vi/Zr  Churches,  by  the  means  of  one  ^^r/Vo/4,  the  Son  of  iSez/eritf^wj-, 
(;,)Prof-  *  F-elagian  BiQiop,  Ss  (p)  Profper  informs  us.  It  appears  by  the 
per.  in  RefcTipt  of  (q)  VaUntitiidn  \\\.  Anno  Dom.  425:.  There  were  Je- 
?nt"i'°^^'^'  Pelagian  Bijhops  in  Gaul.  And  the  fevere  Execution  of  the 
Diony.  Edict  there  was  probably  the  occafion  of  this  AgricoU's  coming  over  hi- 
("fcomii  ^^^^  ^""^  fpreadingthat  Dodrine  here,  (r)  Bale  and  (j)  Pits  run  in- 
c«//' rlw.' fo  many  Mlftakes  about  this  Agricola.  1 1.)  They  call  him  Leporius 
1.  p.  54-  Agricola,  and  then  confound  the  two  Stories  of  Leporius  and  Agricola 
Sn^^gVi^  together :  For  after  his  Preaching  Pelagianifm,  they  mention  his  Con- 
cent.in.^verj/on  and  Recantation  by  St.  Auguftines  means.  Now  there  was  one 
^ScT^^Jt  ^^P'^'''^^  of  whom  (0  CaJJian  and  (u)  Gennaditts  fpeak,  that  was  a 
j.n.?4.  Difciple  of  Pelagins,  who  was  driven  out  of  Gaul  by  Proculus,  Bifliop 
(f)Cairian.  of  Marfeilles,  and  Cylinnius  of  Fornm-Jftlii,  and  fo  went  into  Africa, 
ili'.T^'.  where  being  convinced  by  St.  AugHJiine,  he  publiihed  his  Recantation 
(u)  Gen-  extant  in  (n?)  Sirmondas  his  Gallican  Councils,  and  elfewhere ;  And 
^s^ripf.c  ^'"'el'»s,  Attguftinns  and  Florentius,  gave  an  account  of  it  to  the 
59.  '  Biftiops  of  Provence  5  But  there  is  no  Pelagian  Error  there  mention'd^ 
g'Juto'i  ^^^  fomething  of  Neftorianifm :  And  by  Leontius  fucceeding  Cylinnius 
f%'i.  "^  Jn  his  See,  before  Anno  Dom.  420.  It  follows,  that  Leporius  recanted 
before  the  Pelagian  Herejie  was  fpread  into  thefe  Parts  ^  And  there- 
fore this  Leporius  could  have  nothing  to  do  in  it :  Befides,  it  feems 
probable  that  this  Leporius,  after  his  Recantation,  continued  in  Africa  ; 
(x)  Aug.  por  one  Leporius,  a  Presbyter,  is  (x)  mention'd  in  the  Eleftion  of 
f/j  Aug.  Eradius  in  the  See  of  Hippo,  Anno  Dom.  426.  and  (^)  St.  Augujline 
serm.  jo.  faith,  he  was  a  Stranger,  (2.)  Bate  makes  him  the  Son  of  Severus  Sul- 
({)'Gen-'  Picius,  a  Pelagian  Priefi  in  Britain  :  But  Prufper  and  Bede  fay,  he  was 
md.de  the  Son  of  Sever /anus,  a  Biftiop.  It  is  true  (a)  Gennadius  chiirges  Se- 
TX'     verus  Sulpicius  with  Felagianifm  in  his  old  AgQ:,   But  if  he  died,   as  the 

(a)  Sam' 


Chap.  IV.  the  B^itijl  Churches.  117 


(^a)  Satatftartham  fay.  Anno  Dow.  41  o.  Pelagianifm  was  not  known  to  (")  f'f''- 
the  World  then  5    And  (/>)  Guihertus  Abbas  frees  him  from  the  imputa- y*."-^"; 
tion  of  it :    But  this  Severus  never  was  a  Bifhop,    and  therefore  could  147- 
not  be  the  Father  of  Jgrkola,    (?.)  They  both  make  him  a  Monk  <'/io'ibndf° 
Batigor  ^    which  had  need  to  have  been  a  large  Place  to  receive  all  AHiSa^. 
that  they  fend  thither.     (4,)  They  fay  he  did  write  againft  one  Timo'  f'^"-  ^9- 
theus^  a  Britijh  Heretick  5   ttpo  Books,  faith  Bale  5    bn*  one,  faith  Pits  ; 
Which  arifes  from  a  Miftake  of  Sigebert's  Copy,    where  Britannia  h 
put  for   Bithyniuy     as  our  Learned  Archbifhop   Ujlier   hath  obfer* 
ved  ;     And  Pits  feemed  to  have  forae   miftruft   of  this,     for    he 
doth  not  affirm  his  fpreading  his  Doftrine  in  Britain  as  the  othet 
doth. 

But  Pelagianifat  was  not  fpread  here  by  Agricota  alone  ;    for    (f)  ^^^s  p^of. 
Profper,  fpeaking  of  Celefiine's  care  to  root  it  out  of  Britain,    he  faith,  percCoIL 
It  had  taken  Pojfejjlon  here  by  the  Enemies  of  Gods  Grace,  Solum  fuse  ori- 
ginis  occupantes,    retHming  to  the  Soil  from  vphence  theyfprang:     Soi 
that  there  were  more   than  one,    and  thofe  Br/tains  who,  being  in- 
fefted  with  that  Herefie  themfelves   did  return  hither  to  infeft  others. 
From  hence  (d)  fome  have  thought  that  Ccelejiius  at  leaft,   if  not  Pela-  WJanfen. 
gius,  did  come  hither,  being  driven  out  oi  Italy  by  Celefiine  ^  as  Profper  ^, /V 
relates  :    which  Janfenius  thought  not  improbable  :     But  it  now  ap-    " 
pears^  by  the  Commonitorium  of  Marias  Mercator  delivered  to  Theodojius 
in  the  ConfuKhip  of  Dionyfus  and  blorentius,    i.  e.  Anno  Dont.  429. 
That  Ccelefiitts  did  return  into  the  Eaft,  and  was  banifbed  from  Conjlan- 
tinople  by  the  Emperor's  Ed  id  5  From  whence  it  follows.  That  C<?- 
lefiius  came  not  into  thefe  Parts  5    nor  do  we  read  what  became  of 
him  after  the  Council  ofEphefus,  wherein  he  was  condemned  by  275 
Bifibops,    as  the  fame  Marius  Mercator  (hews.     Whofe  account  of 
riiefe  things,    being    a  Perfon   of   that  time,  and   adive   in  this 
Caufe,   hath  clear'd  feveral  things,    which  were  much  in  the  dark 
before. 

But  whofoever  they  were  who  brought  Pelagianifm  hither,  it  ap- 
pears by  Profper  that  they  were  Britains,  and  had  too  great  Succefs 
here  by   the  fpreading  of  Pelag'anifm.    But  care  was  taken   by  the 
founder  part  to  get  it  out  5   and  therefore,  diftrufting  their  own  fuffi- 
ciency  to  deal  with  fuch  fubtile  Adverfaries,    they  fend  for  help;  faith 
(^}  Bede,  to  the^  Bijhops  <7/Gaul  '^    Who  called  a  great  Council,    and  una-  /^\  gg^^ 
mmoufly  thofe  Germanus  and  Lupus,  two  Bifhops  of  great  Reputation,/,  i.e.  H. 
to  come  over  on  purpofe.     They  readily  undertook  the  Employment, 
and  performed  it  with  great  Succefs,    as  it  is  at  large  related  by    (/)(/)  Con- 
Conftantius  and  Bede.     It  is  afirmed  by  a  late  (g)  Author,    That  the^f'^^'^if^' 
A^s  of  theCiHucilxeh.ch  fent  Germanus  and  Lupus  are  Ji/ll  in  being, {g)GzTaer. 
with  the  InflrH^ions  given  them  at  their  coming  hither  5    If  ever  they  ^'ff-^'f-^^' 
come  to  light,  they  will  very  much  clear  this  intricate  part  of  the  Hi- 
ftory  of  the  Britijh  Churches.    For  there  is  now  fifteen  years  difference 
among  Writers  about  the  time  of  their  coming.    Profper  faith  it  was. 
Anno  Dom.   429.     '^ut  Sigebert,  as  (/>)  Sirmondus  ohCerves,  places  it,C*)Sir-  . 
Anno  Dom.  446.     To  which  he  thinks  Bede's  Relation  doth  beft  agree  5  TcmT' 
And  Sirmondus  himfelf  puts  it  that  year  Aetius  IIL    and  Symmachus  Gail.  Tom. 
wereConfuls,    in  the  21  oi  Falentin/an  III.  and   5  of  Leoh     If  this'' ''•^'^' 
Computation  of  the  time  be  true,  then  it  is  impoffible  that  St.  German 
fliould  be  fent  hither  by  Celefiine,    as  Profper  affirms  5    For  Xyfius  was 
Pope  after  CelefUne^    Anno  Dom.  432.    And  it  is  incredible,    That  if 

he 


1 1 8  Ihe  Antiquities  of  Chap.  IV. 

he  had  been  fent  hither  by  CommiflSon  from  him,   neither  Conjiantms 
in  his  Life  of  St.  German^  who  lived  fo  near  that  time  5   nor  the  Au- 
thor of  the  Life  of  St.  LupusTvecen/is  5    nor   Bede  fhould  take  any  no- 
tice of  it.     But  they  all  mention  the  particular  Application  made  by 
the  Britains  to  the  Gallican  Biibops  for  their  Afliftance  ;    and  their 
meeting  in  Council  on  purpofe,  and  chufing,  and  difpatching  St.  Ger- 
(?)  Baron.  f»an  and  Lupus,  without  any  intimation  of  Celeftwe.     (/)  Baronius  and 
^.0,429.  (^^^  Ja/tfemus  go  about  to  reconcile  thefe  things,  by  faying.  Either  that 
(if)janfen.  the  Pope  approved  him  xchom  the  Council  chofe  ;    Or  that  the  Pope  left  it 
Hifl  pe-  to  the  Council  to  chufe 'j    But  neither  of  thefe  will  hold.    For  Pro/per 
''^'  ■'*    faith.  That  Celeftine  fent  hi/».  Vice  fu3,    in  his  own  Name  andjlead^ 
Whichis  very  different  from  appointing  a  Council  tochufe  one  to  be 
fent  :    And   ConfiaMtius   faith.    That   immediately  they  went  5    Which 
fhews  they  did  not  (fay  for  the  Pope's  Approbation.     And  withal,  the 
kindnefs    was  not  fo  great  at  that  time  between   Celeftine  and    the 
Gallican  Bifliops,    That  either  he  fhould  fend  to  them  to  appoint  ^  of 
they  (hould  wait  for  his  direftion  in  this  matter.     For  Pro/per  and  Hi- 
lary had  made  great  Complaints  of  them  at  Home,    as  favouring  Pela- 
gianifm  too  much.     And,  among  thefe,  Hilary,    Bilhop  of  Arles'^   was 
(/)  Prof-  the  chief.     For  (/)  Profper  complains  of  him  particularly  in  his  Epi- 
Tu^htfr^^^  to  St.  Auguftine,    which  was  fent  to  him,    Anno  Dom.  428,  or  429. 
Aug^f^//?.  as  the  late  Editors  of  St.  Augufl'.ne'%  Epiftles  conclude  ^    So  that  Hilary 
S2X-        was  Bifhop  oi  Aries  zt  that  time  before  St.  Auguftin e's  death.  Anno  Dom. 
430.     After  his  death,    the  fame  Profper  and  another  Hilary  join  in  a 
Complaint  to  Celejiine,  and  went  to  Rome  on  purpofe  ^    as  appears  by 
(m)concii.his  («?)  Aufwcr,  who  therein  rcproves  the  Bifhops  of  Gaul,  for  giving 
.  <''*''■  ^<""-  too  much  countenance  to  fome  Presbyters  who  vented   new  Do&rines,    viz. 
i-i-'J?-    CaJ/tan  and  his  Followers  5   and  who  reflected  on  the  Memory  of  St.  Au- 
guftine.    It  is  not  therefore  any  ways  probable  that  the  Gallican  Bi- 
(hops,  having  been  complained  of  fo  long  before  St.  Augujiine's  death, 
that  he  wrote  a  Book  in  anfwer  to  them  before  he  died,  (hould  be  in- 
trufled  by  Celejiine  to  chufe  Perfons  to  go  over  into  Britain  to  confute 
Pelagianifm,  when  he  fufpefted  them,  from  Pr^/per's  Information,  to  be 
too  much  inclined  to  it.     It  feems  therefore  moft  likely  that  St.  German 
and  Lupus  were  fent  by  a  Council  of  Gallican  Bifhors,    without  the 
^      '       Pope's  Concurrence,  (inceCtf»/?d»/7«/,    who  certainly  knew  all  the  cir- 
cumftances  of  this  matter,  faith  nothing  at  all  of  it.     And  this  St.  Ger- 
man was  fo  great  with  Hilary,   Biftiop  of  Aries,   that  he  joined  with 
him  in  the  depofing  Chelidonius    (  for  which  Pope  Leo  was  fo  in- 
cenfed  againft  him  )   fs  Honoratus  affirms  in  his  Life ;    which  was 
no  new  acquaintance,   but  of  fo   long  ftanding.    that  if  Hilary  of  Ar- 
ies were  at  that   time  fufpefted  at  Rome,    St.  German  would  hard- 
ly have  been  pitched  upon  by  Celejiine  for   his  Legate   into  Bri- 
tain, 
(n)  Baron.     I  wonder  how  (»)  Baronius  and  (0)  Vojftus  came  to  miftake  the 
A.  D.ii6.  Hilary  who  joined  with  Profper,  for  Hilary  Bifhop  of  Aries  ^  Since  this 
(9)^voff.    ^^'l^ry  never  was  a  Difciple  ot  St.  Auguftine's,   as  the  other  was ;    And 
ffift.pe-    he  was  certainly  Bifhop  of  Aries,   after  St.  Auguflines  death,   when  Ce- 
/«£./.!.   lejiine  mem'xom  the  other  Hilary  as  prefent  with  Profper  at  Rome,  when 
they  informed  againf\  the  Bifhops  of  Gaul.    For  Honoratus  fucceeded 
Patroclus  in  the  See  of  Aries  5  Profper  faith,    that  Patroclus  was  killed. 
Anno  Dom.  426.     Honoratus  continued  but  two  years  in  the  See  :  And 
fo  Hilary  might  well  be  newly  Bifhop  of  Arlet,   when  Profper  and  the 

other 


C  M  A  p.  I V .         the  Bntifi  Churches,  1 1 51 

other  Hilary  fent  to  St.  Auguftim^    as  plainly  appears  by  their  Epiftle  ^ 
So  that  Semipelagianifm  did  not,   as  Archbifhop  (/>)  Vjher  fuppofes,  C?)  ^^^^' 
then  begin  in  Gaul^  when  St.  Germams  and  L»/)«j-  were  here  employ'dpfj^f  * 
a.gzin{i  Pelag/anifw,  but  was  begun  before,  and  embraced  by  the fe  very 
Bifliops  who  fent  them  hither  ^   Who  for  their  own  Vindication  ap- 
peard  zealous  againfl:  Pdagian'tfm,  and  were  therefore  willing  to  em- 
brace this  opportunity  to  fend  two  of  their  Number  \ntcy  Britain. 
And  it  is  the  more  ftrange,  that  fo  Learned  a  Perfon  fhould  fall  into 
this  miftake,  when  he  had  fo  fully  proved,    as  {q)  Holjienins  confef-  f^)  hoI- 
fes.  That  Hilary,  Bifhop  of  Arks,    did  favour  the  Semipel^lans  ^  and  l^^"-  ^°*' 
it  is  certain  that  Pro/per  did  complain  of  him  to  St.  AugnJiiKe   ( if  the  '"oi^Zm'. 
Copies  be  not  corrupt,  as  he  (hews  they  are  not)    before  St.  Ger«//2«  s  34s- 
Voyage  into  Britain.    For  St.  AHguJlitte  received  the  Complaint  time 
enough  to  write  his  two  Books  of  Predejlination  and  Perfeverance,    in 
anfwer  to  it,   after  his  Book  of  Retra&ions,    and  before  his  elaborate 
Workagainft  y«//rf»,  and  therefore  they  are  probably  fuppo fed  to  be 
written,  Atmo  Dom.  -328.     If  we  then  yield  that  St. Gerf;tans  coming 
hither  was  when  Profpcr  faith,  An/ro  Dom.  ^'21^.  yet  we  find  that  Se- 
tftipelagtanifnt   had    prevailed    among    the    GalUcan    BiOiops    before 
that  time,    or  elfe  there   >vas  no   caufe  at  all  for   Profpers  Com- 
plaint. 

And  to  make  it  appear  yet  more  improbable,  that  Celejiine  (bould 
fend  St.Germanus  and-St . Ltipus -^  We  are  to  confider,  that  Lupus  was 
Brother  to  VtncentiHs  Lirinen/is,  and  were  both  of  the  fame  Society, 
Which  Vincentius  was  a  great  Stickler  in  the  Semipelagian  Caufe,  as  all 
the  Members  of  that  Society  that  were  confiderable  were  engaged  in  it  5 
And  when  the  Pope  wrote  fo  fmartly  againft  the  Accufers  of  St.  Ah- 
gHfiines  Dodrine,  it  is  very  unlikely  he  fhould  pitch  upon  one  of  that 
Society  moft  fufpefted  for  it,  and  whofe  Brother  appeared  fo  early  and 
fo  warmly  in  it ;  Not  only  by  the  Objections  under  his  Name  in  Prof- 
per-^  But  by  the  whole  Defign  of  his  Commomtorium  -^  Which,  if  I 
miftake  not,  was  levelTd  againft  thofe  who  went  about  to  broach  a 
new  Doftrine  about  Predefiination,  as  they  faid,  under  St.  AHguftine's 
Name.  And  they  who  carefully  read  over  that  Difcourfe,  and  confi- 
der  the  drift  of  it,  will  find  I  am  not  miftaken  ;  But  (r)  Baronius  is,  (r)  Baron. 
when  he  would  clear  the  Author  of  the  Co>f//nonitoriHm  from  favou-  ^"^-'"^ 
ring  thofe  who  impugned  St.  Augtijiine's  Doftrine  about  Predejii- ^^'^j^Iih 
nation  5  Which  was  quite  another  thing  from  favouring  Pelagia- 
n:ff»,  which  CaJJianus,  Faujlus,  and  this  Vlncentius  all  profefTed  to 
abhor. 

But  what  fhall  be  faid  to  Pr(?/^er,  who  affirms,  that  CQ\tQdnQ  fent  St. 
German?    (i.)  (/)  Pro/per,    in  his  undoubted  Work  againft  Crf//?4»,  W  Prof- 
doth  not  affirm  it.     For  there  he  only  faith,  That  Celeftine  took  care  to  ITfii, 
free  Britain  from  Pelagianifm.     Why   is  not  the  Miffion  of  St.  German 
here  menrion'd,  when  it  had  been  moft  feafonable  againft  the  chief  of 
the  Semipelagians  .<?     No  doubt  Profper  would  not  have  loft  this  Op- 
portunity of  magnifying  CeleJiine'sCare,  by  fending  Bifhops  of  fo  great 
Reputation.    Efpecially,  if  thefe  Bifhops  were  not  Semipelagians  ;    But 
if  fo,  why  doth  he  not  mention  them  in  that  Work  as  fuch,    when  he 
com  plains  how  much  Semipelagianifm  did  prevail,  and  even  among  their 
Bifliops  ?    (2.)  The  Profper  publifhed  by  Pith^us  never  mentions  it, 
which  he  thought  to  be  the  genuine  Chronicon  of  Profper.  CO  Hadri-(t)Ker: 
anus  ValeftHs  concludes  one  or  the  other  not  to  be  genuine  5  fince  they  '^"^j''^' 

differ^' 


120  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  IV, 

differ  in  point  of  time,  and  it  is  not  probable  the  fame  Man  would 
write  two  feveral  Books  about  the  fame  matter  with  fuch  Diverfity. 
(u)boar.  (jf^  Bmherius  thinks  it  impoflible  the  fame  Perfon  (hould  write  both  5 
p'^'ij.'^yet  both  pafs  under  the  Name  of  Tyro  Profper  ;  and  fo  he  faith  the  an- 
(w)  Pon-  cient  MS",  of  it,  which  he  had  (which  was  like  that  (»)  Pontacus  calls 
^^Iff^-"'^  Lodumnfe )   had  that  Name  in  the  Title  of  it ;    But  Fontacus  his  had 
f.  i8.      the  Title  of  Profper  Aquitanus,  where  he  is  faid  to  be  Epifcopus  Regini, 
and  great  debate  hath  been,  whether  he  was  Biftiopof /^e^«/»!r  Lepidum 
(x)  Sir-    in  jf^  ,    Qr  of  Regium  (Re%)  in  Gaul  ^    But  (x)  Sirmondut  proves. 
Not.  ad     ^s  vp^ neither  one  nor  the  other  ^    By  the  Teftimonies  of  Gennadius,  VI' 
Sidon.      l^ortHf,  Marcel/jntfs,  and  others  5    And  by  Fanjius  immediately  fuccee- 
f^°j^'''^' ding Maximts  in  that  See  :     And  fo  leaving  no  room  for  Profper  be- 
tween them.     But  there  was  a  Profper  BiQiop  of  Orleans  at  that  time  5 
0)Ugheii.  and  another  Profper,  Biftiop  of  Regium  Lepidum  in  Italj^  as  (^)  TJghel- 
lui  Sao.  i^j  (hews,  which  might  occafion  the  Miftake  ;  But,  befides  thefe,  (a} 
p.  199.     Sirmondus  tells  us,  there  was  another  Profper  in  Gaul  who  wrote  a  Chro- 
(^)  Sir-    tiicon  too,   and  ended  at  the  fame  time  with  Tyro  Profper  5   with  this 
'ni^^n-  difference,  that  the  one  was  only  an  Appendix  to  St.  Jerome,    the  other 
dcfi'.c.  J.  an  entire  Chronicon,  as  Gennadius  expreffes  it.     Which  is  fuppofed  to 
Eccfef."''  ^f^^3'  publiOied  Ijy  Labhe  out  of  feveral.  M55.     but  (a)  thofe  who 
jFv"«c,      have  carefully  examined  it  have  found  fuch  a  difference  in  the  Compw 
^■D.'i5S-tation  ufed  in  the  feveral  parts  of  it,    That  they  cannot  think  them 
n.*i8?''    written  by  the  fame  Author  ,    And  therefore  conclude  that  publiftied 
by  Pithteus  to  be  the  genuine  Chronicon  of  Profper,    as  far  as  it  reaches  ^ 
And  that  the  firfl:  Part,  which  fhould  make  it  entire,   is  not  yet  difco- 
ver'd.    So  that  it  remains  uncertain  whether  this  Paffage  be  in  the  true 
muflr  f'^tfp^'^  ornot.    Our  (^)  Learned  Primate  of  Aw^gA  was  of  Opinion, 
jePrim.    7 hat  the  Chronicon  puhli/hed  by  Pithxus  was  not  veritten  by  Profper,    hut 
?.429.     ^;/ Cennadius ;  becaufe  B<7/?tf«  of  Bwr^  faith.  That  Gennadius  added  a 
Chronicon  to  St.  Jerome.    And,   I  confefs,  the  Paflage  in  it  about  the 
Herefie  of  the  Pradefiinati  doth  better  agree  with  Gennadius  than  Prof- 
per 5    And  for  that  Reafon  Sirmondus  hath  found  out  another  Profper. 
(e)  Maug.  But  the  Prefident  (c)  Mauguin  faith,   it  was  counterfeited  by  the  Semi- 
f/ift.  &    pelagians  in  Profper'j  Name  ^    And  that  there  is  no  mention  in  any  Ah' 
Dijfert^p.  *^''^^  "/  ^"other  Profper  who  publijhed  a  Chronicon,    which  ended  at  th 
J 1 9.        time  the  true  Pro(peT  did,  viz.  AnnoDom,  444.     Sirmondus  faith.  All 
the  ancient  Copies  had  the  Name  of  Profper  upon  it.    And  it  is  fo  quoted 
by  S'gebert  ;   But  if  he  had  a  mind  to  pafs  for  the  other  Profper^    he 
would  never  have  differ'd  fo  materially  as  he  doth  from  him.    So  that 
this  whole  matter  is  very  dark  and  obfcure  yet.    (3.)  Suppofe  it  be 
granted  that  Profper  wrote  fo,    yet  there  is  greater  Reafon  to  believe 
Conftantius  than  Profper  in  this  matter.     For  Conftantius  was  not  only 
living  in  that  Age,    but  a  Perfon  of  great  Reputation,   as  appears  by 
Sidonius  ApoUinark  his  Epiftles  to  him ;    and  one  that  wrote  with 
(/•;  Baron,  great  fidelity,  faith  (/)  Baronius^    And  therefore  it  cannot  be  fup- 
A.  0.429.  pofed  that  he  (hould  not  exprefly  fet  down  by  whom  St.  German 
"'  ^'        was  fent  into  Britain.    Befides,  Conjiantius  is  not  alone  ^    but  the 
Author  of  the  Life  of  St.  Lupus  gives  the  fame  account  5    and  fo 
doth  Bede,     (  with  whom  Paulus  D/aconus,    Freculphus,    Erricus  and 
Ado  Viennenfis  agree  )    And  he  places  their  coming  after  the  Reign 
of  Theodofius  j   And  therefore  it  was  impolTible  that  Celejline  fhould 
fend  them. 

^  ^  St. 


C  li  A  p.  IV.  the  Briti/h  Cburchifs,  1 2  i 

St.  GermariHs  and  Lupus  being  thus  employ 'd  by  the  Biftiops  of,  Gaul, 
in  a  folcmn  Conference  at  (g)  Verulam  they  difputed  with  the  Pe/<?g^  («)  Matt. 
ans'^  and  had  fo  great  Succefs  therein  ;  and  by  their  Preaching  up  and  ^d1'^^. 
down  in  many  places,  Tfjat  they  left  the  Rr'mins  vcell  fittled,  as  they 
fuppofed,  i»  the  ancient  Faith.     But  no  fooner  were  they  returned,  but 
f()me  of  the  Pelagians  got  ground  again  5  which  occafion'd  another 
llleflage  to  St.Gerwan,  who  then  took  wjth  him  (h)  Severus,  Biftiop.^.  g^. 
of  Triers ;  And  theri  they  prevailed  fo  far  as  tb  procure  the  banifh-  /.  i.  c^z'u 
nient  of  thefe  Heretical  Teachers,  according  to  the  Edift  of  Falentl- 
tiian  5  And  from  thence  forward  Bede  obferves  that  the  Britith  Churches 
continued  [ound  and  orthodox.  \ 

But  here  it  will  be  proper  tbconfider  how  juftly  two  Britiih  Bifliops 
have  been  charged  with  Pelagiamfvt  s,  the  one  is  Fafiidius,  and  the  other 
Faujlus.  -     r 

As  to  Faflidius,  (0  L^/d»<i  confeffes,  that  hk  memory  had  been  loJi,^2\^^Xp.' 
but  for  the  n/ention  which  GQnnad'ius  makes  of  him  (k)  :,  who  faith  of  (/f)  Gen. 
him,  that  he  was  Britannorum  Epifcopus  ^  And  wrote  a  Book  to  one  Fa-^'"^^-. 
talis,  De  vita  beata,  wherein  the  DoHrine  was  very  found  and  good.     Q)  de  Script, 
Trithemius  highly  commends  him,  as  a  man  of  great  Wit  and  Eloquence^i'")  ^a'- 
an  excellent  Preacher,  and  very  pious  Man,,     (m)  fi<j/c  faith,  that,  being  ^^'^'^' 
made  Bijhop,  he  preached  over  a// lirkaio,  and  was,  as  is  reported,  M.etro'{n)V\t  de 
politane  of  London :  What  Bale  fpeaks  upon  report,   («}  Pits  aSirmswith  ^'="f-^' 
confidence,  that  he  was  Archbi/hop  of  London.     (0).  Afchbiftiop  Z)jljer  (a/uffer. 
thinks,  they  had  no  other  ground  for  this,  but  a  different  reading  in<^^P>''"' 
Gennadius,  Britanniarum  Epifcopus.     From  whence  they  concluded,  He^'^^^' 
muji  be  Archbiflwp  of\jindiOn,that  being,  .as  they  fuppofed,  the  Metro- 
polis of  Britain  5  but  he  rather  inclines  to  the  opinion  of  Berterius  5  That   p.  9% 
York  was  then  the  Metropolis  of  Britain ;  not  only  becaufe  it  was  a  Roman 
Colony,  but  becaufe  the  Prsetorium  and  Emperors  Palace  was  there.     But 
thefe  Arguments  are  not  fufficient  to  overthrow  London's  being  the  chief 
Metropolis  of  the  Roman  times.     For  every  Province  had  its  Metropolff^ 
And  the  fuperiority  of  one  Metropolis  above  another  depended  on  the 
Refidenee  of  the  Roman  Governour,  the  Vicarius  Britanniarum.  I  grant 
that,  in  the  time  oi  the  Wars  with  the  Northern  Britains,  Tork  was  the 
chief  Seat  of  the  Emperor  when  he  was  here,  as  in  the  times  oi  Sever lu 
and  Conjlantius ;  but  that  was  for  the  conveniency  of  attending  the 
Wars,  and  being  near  to  give  Dirediioris  and  fend  Supplies.     But  the 
Preheminence  of  Places  in  the  Roman  Account  did  depend  more  upoa 
the  OW  than  the  Military  Officers:,  Thefe  being  more  uncertain  than 
the  other,  and  where  the  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature  was,  that  was 
the  thief  Metropolis,  and  that  was  where  the  Supreme  Governour  of 
thofe  Provinces  had  his  Refidenee.    Thus  every  Province  had  a  Pre- 
fident  in  the  Metropolis  :,  but  where  there  was  a  Superiour  Officer  over 
thefe  Prefidents,  as  the  Vicarius  Britanniarum  was  over  the  five  Provin- 
ces, the  Place  of  his  refidenee  was  the  highefl  Metropolis,  becaufe  the 
Prefidents  Courts  were  in  Subordination  to  his,  whether  they  were  Cow 
fular  or  Prefidial^  and  therefore  the;  folemn  Conventus  out  of  the  Pro- 
vinces were  appointed  there.    Of  thefe  things  we  have  a  clear  inftance 
in  the  Cafe  of  Aries,  whereby  the  Conftitution  of  (p)  Honorius,  the  (p)  Vit. 
feven  Provinces,  over  which  that  was  the  Metropolis,  were  to  have  an  an-  S'rniond; 
nual  Affembly  there,  where  the  chiet  Magiftrate  refided  ^  and  the  Rea-  sidon.  a- 
fons  there  given  are,  the  great  conveniency  of  that  City  being  uponpo">°-f' 
the  River  Rhofne,  both  for  other  bufinefs  and  trading  into  all  parts.  ^'^^• 


122 


The  Antiquities  of 


HAP. 


IV. 


C?)  Am. 
Marcel.  /. 
278.28.3. 

(r)  Velfer, 

Rer.l'in- 
del.  I.  5. 


(j-)  Hen. 
de  Noris, 
Hfl.  Pe. 
Ug.t.  I.e. 
19.' 


(ODemp- 
fter.  Hift. 
Ecclef.  I. 
6.  n-  550 


(«)  Fac- 
cund.  c. 
Mocian. 
f.  <;6l. 
(»)  Ale. 
Avit.  Ep. 
4.  p.  35. 
{x)  Canil. 
Antiqui 
Lea.  To. 

0)DeFri. 
mord.  p. 

A39' 
(ij;)  Noris 

,  liifl.  Pe- 

lag.  I.  2.C. 

f6. 


The  fame  Reafons  will  hold  to  make  Lofidon  the  chief  Metropolk  in  the 
Roman  times,  becaufe  of  its  admirable  fituation  for  Trade  and  Com- 
merce, and  the  opportunity  of  fending  into,  or  receiving  Difpatches 
from  the  foreign  Provinces  and  the  Emperor's  Court  where  ever 
it  was.  So  that  1  fee  no  reafon  to  queftion  London's  being  the 
chief  Metropolis  among  the  Romans.  The  Argument  from  York's  being 
a  Colony  fignifies  nothing  after  Antoninus  gave  the  J«/  Gvitatis  to  the 
whole  Empire;  and  London  was  a  Colony  before  Tork,  (as  I  may  fhew 
elfewhere)  and  of  a  higher  nature,  when  it  was  called  (q)  Augufia^ 
which  (hews  that  it  was  then  the  Imperial  City  of  Britain,  that  name 
being  given  to  no  other  City  in  Britain  befides.  And  it  is  obfer- 
ved  by  the  learned  (r)  Marc.  Velferm,  That  thofe  Cities  which  had  the  Ti- 
tle of  Augufta  conferred  upon  them.,  where  the  Capita  Gentium,  the  chief 
Metropoles  of  the  Provinces'^  And  fince  by  the  general  Rule  of  the 
Church,  the  Ecclefiaftical  Government  did  follow  the  Civil,  There  is 
no  reafon  to  queftion,  but  if  Fajiidius  were  then  Bifhop  of  London,  he 
was  the  chief  Metropolitane  over  the  Churches  of  Britain. 

But  whether  Fajlidius  were  Metropolitane.,  or  only  a  Britijh  BiQiop, 
his  Doctrine  is  of  late  charged  to  be  inclinable  to  Pelagianifm.  For  Hol- 
ftenius  found  in  an  ancient  MS.  the  Book  Faftid'ius  wrote  De  Vita  Chrijiia- 
»a  with  his  name  to  it,  and  fo  publifhed  it  5  but  it  is  not  directed  ad 
Fatalem,  but  to  a  certain  Widow.  In  this  Book  a  late  (x)  AugufiimaH 
hath  diicovered,  as  he  thinks,  fame  Tin&ure  of  Pelagianifm  5  but  to 
any  candid  Reader  his  Exceptions  will  appear  very  frivolous,  and  there 
is  fo  much  of  true  Primitive  Chriftianity  in  the  reft  of  it,  as  makes 
good  the  Charafter  which  Gennadius  and  Trithemi/mf  give  of  him.  Out 
of  which  Book,  and  no  great  one,  Bale  hath  made  four,  one  De  Vitxt 
Chrifiiana,  a  fecond  De  Do&rina  SpiritHs,  a  third  DeVidituate  fervanda, 
a  fourth,  Admonitiones  P/>.  Pits  keeps  the  fame  number,  but  left  he 
(bould  feem  to  take  all  out  of  Bale,  he  alters  the  Title  of  one  of  them  5 
And  becaufe  Gennadius  faith  his  Doftrine  was  Deo  digna,  therefore  P/Vj-, 
very  artificially,  makes  the  Title  of  his  fecond  Book  to  be  De  Do^irina 
Deo  digna  vel  fpirituali.  Bo/ion  of  Bury  makes  him  the  Author  of  two 
Boohs,  by  miftaking  Gennadtus-^  but  as  far  as  we  can  find,  there  is  but 
one  exftanf.  (t)  Dempjier  hath  found  Fafiidius  to  have  been  horn  upon 
the  Mountains  of  the  Wejlern  parts  of  Scotland,  and  he  makes  him  Au- 
thor of  a  fifth  Book  called  Chronicon  Scotorum,  which  is  a  Strain  be- 
yond Pits.  He  pofitively  affirms  that  he  Wv^dAn.Dom.  440.  Trithemi- 
ns  faith,  about  An.  Dom.  410. 

As  to  Faujhs,  his  Cafe  is  much  harder.  That  he  was  originally  a 
Britain  I  find  not  denied  by  any ;  For  although  («)  Facundus  calls  him 
a  Gaul,  >et  that  was  becaufe  of  his  being  a  Bifhop  fo  long  there,  as 
<SVm(?«t/«f  obferves;  he  being  Ortu  Britannus,  habit aculo  Regienfis,  as 
(r»)  AltifHus  A^itus  faith,  in  his  Epiftle  to  Gtmdobadui,  King  of  the 
BurgttndJans,  to  whom,  he  faith,  Faujius  was  known.  In  his  (jc)  Epiftles 
to  Ruricius,  Fmftns  fpeaks  of  his  living  in  a  State  of  Banijhment,  and 
the  Comforts  he  found  in  it  :^  This  our  Learned  {y')  Primate  underftood 
of  his  living  out  of  his  own  Country  \  But  (z.)  Hen.  de  Noris,  of  a  Ba- 
nijhment by  Euaricus  an  Arian  King  then  in  Gaul,  wh.ch  he  fuppofes  he 
underwent  for  writing  againji  the  Arians.  If  he  had  produced  any  Te- 
ftimony  of  fuch  Baniftiment,  there  might  have  been  Reafon  to  have 
underftood  his  ExprefSon  fb ;  But  fince  there  is  none,  and  his  Words 
are  general  as  to  his  Country  j  I  fee  no  caufe  to  take  them  in  any  other 

fenfe. 


Chap  IV.  the  hritijl  Churches.  123 

fenfe.     For  Men  do  not  ufe  to  call  that  thdr  Country  where  they  live 
as  Strangers,  and  he  fpeaks  of  the  kindnefs  of  Ruricius  fo  to  him,  that 
he  did  Patriam  in  peregrinatione  facere,  which  cannot  well  bear  any  o- 
ther  fenfe,  than  that  he  made  up  the  want  of  hk  own  Country  to  him. 
(a)  Sirmondus  grants  he  was  a  Britain^  but  he  adds,  he  was  one  ofthofe(a)  s\t. 
Britains  who  dwelt  upon  the  Loir,  /.  e.  in  the  parts  of  Aremorica.  ThetQ  mon<i' 
is  no  queftion,  but  in  the  time  of  Faujius,  there  were  great  numbers  Facund, 
of  Britains  there ;  for  (b)  Jornandes  faith.  That  Riothamus,  their  King  p-  561. 
or  General,  went  with  1 2000  Britains  againft  Euricus,  King  of  the  Vifi-  naidT 
goths.     ^hich  Riothamus  (s)  Sidonlus  Jpol/inaris  writes  to ^  and  men- 45. 
tions  the  Britains  with  him-^  But  it  may  be  juftly  a  queftion,  whether  W  ^1*^°"" 
there  were  any  Colonies  of  Britains  on  the  Continent,  before  JFauJius^j'ep.'^.' 
his  birth  5  For  FauJius  wds  made  Abbat  of  jLerw,  before  the  Saxons 
came  firft  into  Britain ;  For  he  was  Abbat  when  St.  Caprajius  died,  as 
the  Author  of  his  Life  affirms,  which  was  about  An.  Dom./^io.     But 
their  cortiing  was  not  till  -An.  Dom./\^().  and  it  will  be  hard  to  make 
out  any  Settlement  of  the  Britains  on  the  Loir  before.     It  is  then  moft 
probable  that  Fauftus  went  at  firft  out  of  Britain  into  Gaul,  where  he 
attained  to  a  wonderful!  Reputation  both  for  Piety  and  Learning.   He 
was  worjhipped  aS  a  Saint,  faith  (d)  Nork,  in  the  Church  of  Riez,  and  '^'^X  ^'^' 
his  Name  was  preferved  in  the  Calender  of  the  Gallican  Church.     Mo-  p^z^j.'^' 
lamu  was  thfe  firft  who  durft  adventure  to  ftrike  out  his  name  j  Baroni- 
us  follow'd  him,  but  upon  admonition  reftored  it,  as  (e)  Bollandm  ob-  (?)  Aa*- 
ferves,  who  likewife  takes  notice,  that  he  was  called  a  Saint  by  CI.  Ro-  ^f'^'  '*^ 
bertHs^  by  Ferrariui,  and  by  Pet.  Galefiniuf,  in  his  Martjrology^  who  ^      "° 
adds,  that  hii  Books  are  pioufly  aitd  learnedly  written,  and  that  Miracles 
arefaid  to  be  wrought  by  him.     It  is  certain,  he  was  a  Perfon  in  mighty 
efteem  in  his  own  time,  as  appears  by  the  Paflages  of  (/)  Sidonius  Apolr  (f)  Sidon; 
linaris,  oi  (g)  Ruricius,  and  others,  concerning  both  his  Eloquence,  ^P°"- ^^ 
Learning  and  Piety.     Of  whom  Sidonius  JpolUnaris  gives  that  excel- ^fnEu*-. 
lent  Cbarafter,  that  he  had  learnt  tofpeak  better  than  he  was  taught,  and^^^^' 
to  live  better  than  he  fpake:  He  was  Biftiop  of  Riez,  An.  Dom.  462.  ior^Epi^^Li. 
at  that  time  he  was  joined  with  Auxanius  in  determining  the  Contro-ef.  2. 
verfie  between  Leontius  of  Aries  and  Mamertus  of  Vienna.     But  no- 
thing can  more  manifeft  the  efteem  he  was  then  in  among  the  Gallican 
Biftiops,  than  that  in  the  Council  of  Aries  he  was  pitched  upon  as  the 
fitteft  Perfon  to  draw  up  their  fenfe  in  the  great  Points  then  fo  much  a- 
gitated  about  Predefiination  and  Grace,  as  appears  by  his  Preface  to  Le- 
ontius.   At  this  Council  thirty  Biftiops  were  prefent,  and  there  Lucidus 
prefented  his  Recantation  of  the  Errors  he  held  about  Predeftination^  and 
after  this  Faujius  wrote  his  Books  of  Grace  and  Free-will,  to  which,  he 
faith,  another  Council  at  Lyons  caufed  fome  things  to  be  added.    In 
thefe  Books  it  is  thought  that,  under  a  Pretence  of  confuting  thofe  Er- 
rors, he  fets  himfelf  againft  St.  Augujiine's  Doi^rine,  as  feems  clear  by 
one  Expreflion  in  his  firft  Book ;  That    if  it  be   true,  thai  Jome    are 
predejiinated  to  Life,  and  others  to  Dejiru&ion,  ut  quidani  Santhrum  dix- 
it, non  judicandi  nafcimur,  fed  judicati :  But  thefe  words  may  refer  to 
what  follows,  as  well  as  to  what  went  before,  As  a  certain  holy  Man 
hathfaid.  We  are  not  born  to  he  judged,  but  we  are  Judged  before  ^e  are 
born.    According  to  which  Doftrine,  faith  Faujius,  There  can  be  no  E- 
quity  in  the  day  of  'judgment. 

It  hath  been  a  great  Queftion  among  fotrie  Learned  Men,  whether 
there  were  any  Perfons  who  drew  ill  Confequences  from  St.  Augujiine's 

Q.  2  Do£frine^ 


124-  1  he  Antiquities  of  Chap.  IV; 

Do&rJ»e,  and  were  therefore  oppofed  by  Fanftus  and  others,  or  whether 
it  were  the  were  Dodrine  of  St.  Jugujiifte  that  was  fo  oppofed  by  them, 
and  urged  with  thofe  Confequences  as  following  from  it.    I  fee  no 
Reafon  to  deny,  that  the  Semipelagians  did  charge  the  followers  of 
St.  AHgu^itie  with  the  fame  things  which  are  made  the  Opinions  of  thofe 
who  are  called,  the   Predejiination    Heretiiks  by  Sigebert,  Gennadius, 
Hmcmarus,  and  others.     But  yet  that  there  were  certain  Perfons  who 
did  own  fuch  bad  Confequences  as  the  overthrowing  tke  Liberty  of 
.     Man's  WtUand  the  Necejfity  of  our  Endeavours^  will  appear  from  thefe  two 
Reafons.    (i.)  St.  Augvfiine's  Dodfrine  was  fo  mifunderftood  by  fome 
in  his  Life-time,  as  appears  by  the  Controverfie  amongft  the  Adrume- 
tine  Monks.    The  Cafe  was  this,  Florus,  one  of  that  Society,  going  to 
TJzala,  a  City  dear  Vtica,  between  Hippo  and  Carthage,  where  Euodius 
(b)  va-     was  then  Biihop,  a  Friend  of  St.  Augu^ine's,  there  met  with  (/j)  St.  Au- 
Aug  sl  if'fi""^'^  large  Epiftle  to  Sixtus  againft  the  Pelagians,  which  being  fent 
21(5."        home,  and  Florus  himfelf  going  to  Carthage,  before  his  return  they 
were  fallen  into  great  Heats  upon  the  Occafion  of  that  Epiftle.     Some 
(i)  Aug.    of  thcM,  as  (0  St.  Augufiine  himfelf  faith,  didfo  preach  up  the  Grace  of 
aJ  Vi]en:.  Q^j^  <7j-  to  deny  Free-will,  and  confequently  to  fay.  That  God  in  the  day 
'  ^f  Judgment  would  not  render  to  men  according  to  their  Works  5  Others 
faid.  That  our  Free-will  was  ajjified  by  the  Grace  of  God,  that  we  may 
know  and  do  the  things  that  are  right  ^  That  the  hard,  when  he  comes  to 
render  to  every  Man  according  to  their  Works,  may  find  our  Works  goody 
vphich  he  hath  prepared  that  we  may  walk  in  them.     And  they,  faith  he, 
who  judge  thus  do  judge  rightly.    Therefore  thofe  who  thought  other- 
wife  did  miftake  his  Doffrine :,  For,  as  he  faith,  If  there  he  no  Grace^ 
there  can  be  no  Salvation  i  If  there  be  no  Free-will,  there  can  be  no  day  of 
Judgment.    To  what  purpofe  is  all  this,  if  fome  of  thefe  did  not  fo 
mifunderftand  his  Doftrine  as  to  overthrow  all  Liberty  of  Will  in  Man- 
Sirmond    kind?  And  fo  (/.')  Euodius,  in  his  Anfwer  to  thofe  Adrumetine  Monks 
u^n.  prdt  (hews.  That  there  isfiill  Free-will   in  us,  but  wounded  by  the  Fall,  and 
(/^fiia'nren  "'"^^  recoverable  by  the  Grace  of  Chrift.     (/)  Janfenius  grants  that  they 
Hijl.  Pe-   did  mlfunderfiand  St.  Auguftine'x  Docirir.e,  thinking  that  Free-will  was 
lag.  1. 1,    ■offjolly  dejlroyed  by  it  5  And  that  no  Man  ought  to  be  reproved  when  he 
I'.j.c.  I.  ^'^t^  amijs,  but  that  others  ought  to  pray  that  he  may  have  Grace  to  do 
{m)  Frx-  better.     But  the  Prefident  (w)  Mauguin  will  not  allow  this;  For  he 
f^!!fJ,t\J'^'^^^-,  fhat  5'^  Auguftine  was  at  firfl  falfely  informed  of  the  flate  of  the 
Controverfie  among  them  by  Crefconius  and  Felix;  But  after  Florus  hfs 
coming  he  found  they  were  Semipelagians  who  mifunderfiood  his  Do3rine. 
in)  De     But  to  what  purpofe  then  doth  (»)  St.  Augufiine  take  fuch  pains  to 
^^Grlt.    Pfove  even  in  the  Book  he  wrote  after  the  coming  of  i7or«x.  That  there 
c.  I.         is  Free-will  flill  left  in  Mankinds  Liberum  itaque  arbitrium  confitendum 
nos  efl  habere,  d^  ad  maltim,  d^  ad  bonum  faciendum.   Not  fo  as  to  exclude 
the  necejfity  of  Divine  Grace,  as  he  proves  at  large,  but  yet  in  fuch  a  man- 
c  4.  14,    ner  as  to  /hew  its  confi(iency  with  Divine  Commands,  and  the  jufi  Reproof 
'^'  ^^'    and  Punifhment  of  thofe  who  do  amifs.     Which  (hews  plainly.  That  he 
thought  there  were  fome  flill  who  mifinterpreted  his  Dodrine,  not  bare- 
{<p  H''fi^'    ly  to  objed  againft  it,  but  to  make  ill  ufe  of  it.     Therefore  {0)  Nork 
p!i8i.'    bad  no  Reafon  to  conclude  that  the  Error  of  the  Adrumetine  Mo/iks  was 
Semipelagianifm.     (2.)  It  appears  evidently  from  the  Cafe  of  Lucidus, 
and  the  Councils  of  Aries  and  Lyons.     I  grant  that  the  Objedions  men- 
(/.)  mjl.    tioned  by  Profper  and  Hilary  were  made  by  the  Semipelagians,  and  not 
c!t^t'    ^y  ^"y  Predefii nation  Hereticks  at  that  time  in  Gaul  j  and  therein  (p) 

otr- 


C  H  A  p.  I V^  the  B  ^itijJj  Churches.  125 

S'lrmondHs  was  certainly  miftaken,  as  he  was  likewife,  when  he  faith, 
that  the  Ep'tjlle  of  Celeftine  was   againfi  the  latter^  and  not  againjl  the 
former.     But  it  appears  by  Fauftus  his  Epiftle  to  LitcidHs  that  there  were 
fome  who  did  fo  afTert  Fredeftination  as  to  make  all  Mens  Endeavours 
vain  and  ufelefs  j  And  this  dangerous  Error  he  renounced  in  his  Re- 
cantation delivered  to  the  Council  of  Arks.     (^)  MaugHin  is  very  hard  '"J^/^p^j, 
put  to  it,  when  he  faith,  That  all  thefe  things  xoere  the  mere  invention  ofcanfut.c.j, 
Fauftus ;  whom  he  makes  to  be  Countryman  with  Pelagins  and  Celefiius, 
and  to  have  fucked  in  the  Poifon  of  Pelagianifm  with  hk  Milk.     He 
grants  that  he  was  famous  for  his  Wit,  Eloquence  and  Philofophy  ^ 
But  efpecially  for  a  profound  cunning,  which  (r)  Ifidore  mentions  in(rjifid.a'e 
him;  From  whence  he  endeavours  to  prove  by  many  Arguments,  That^^^'"'^^'*- 
thefe  Councils  and  Epijiles  were  all  forged  by  Fauftus.     But  he  is  fo  far  ^'  '^'  '*' 
from  perfuading  Learned  Men  to  be  of  his  Mind,  That  (/)  Noris  him-  (^)  ^'fi- 
felf  confefleth  he  can  never  affent  to  it ;  And  although  it  be  looked  on  as  f^['^^'/' 
part  of  the  cunning  of  Faujius^  that  he  defigned  to  convey  his  Books 
ib  privately  to  his  Countrymen  the  Britains,  as  appears  by  the  Epiftle 
of  Sidoiiius  Apollinaris  to  him,  yet  it  is  utterly  incredible  that  he  ftiould 
forge  two  Councils,  and  kt  down  the  Names  of  feveral  Biftiops  as  pre. 
fent  in  them,  with  v^homSidonius  Apollinaris  was  particularly  acquain- 
ted, and  yet  he  not  difcover  the  Cheat  and  Impofture.     But  the  Janfe- 
nifts  yield,  that  both  thofe  Councils  were  held  about  An.  Dem.  475. 
But  they  fay,  that  the  Bifiops  were  partly  Semipelagians,  partly  deceived 
hy  Fauftus  who  was  fo ;  And  Nork  doth  not  deny,  that  there  were  other 
Verfons  who  were  then  charged  with  thofe  Opinions  which  Lucidus  held. 
But,  he  faith,  they  were  not  many  nor  conjiderable  enough  to  make  a  Se^  5 
And  that  they  did  not  willingly  yield  thofe  Confequences.     But  not  knowing 
how  to  atifwer  the  Semipelagians,  they  were  forced  to  affert  them  x,  Which 
their    Adverfaries   therefore  charged  them  with    as  their  own  Opinions. 
Which  feems  no  improbable  Account  of  thofe  called  Predejiinations. 
It  cannot  be  denied,  that  Faujius  his  Books  were  feverely  cenfured  after 
his  death,  not  only  by  the  Scythian  Mo/.ks  at  Confiantinople,  among  whom 
Joh.Maxentius  wsis  the  chief -J  but  by  the  African  Bifliops  who  were 
then  Exiles  in  Sardinia,  by  whom  Fulgentius  was  employ'd  to  write  a- 
gainft  them.     But  Poffeffor,  one  of  the  African  exiled  Bifliops,  being 
then  at  Confiantinople,  and  finding  great  Heats  about  Fauflus  his  Books, 
fends  to  Pope  Hormifdas,  to  know  his  Judgment  about  them  5  Which 
he  did  at  the  requeft  ot  Vitalianus  and  Jufin/anus  two  of  the  greateft 
Men  in  the  Emperor's  Court.     He  returns  a  cautious  Anfwer  as  to 
Faujius ;  Which,  by  the  way,  fliews  how  little  Credit  is  to  be  giveii 
to  the  Decree  of  Gelajius  about  Apocryphal  Books,  for  therein  Fauflus 
his  Books  are  condemned.     But  if  this  had  been  done  by  Gelafius,  is  it 
probable  that  Hormifdas,  his  SuccelTor,  would  have  ftuck  fo  much  at  it 
as  Maxentius  faith  that  he  did  ?  But  he  refers  them  for  the  fenfeof  the 
Church  to  St.  Augufline,  and  Proffer,  and  Hilary  ^  And  the  Definitions 
of  his  Predeceffors.     Maxentius  rails  againft  this  Anfwer,  as  unfatisfa- 
ftory  and  next  to  heretical,  and  fets  St.  Augufline's  Sayings  againft  thofe 
of  Faufijis.     Afterwards  C/efarius,  Biftiop  of  Aries,  not  only  wrote  a- 
gainft  Fauftus  his  Doftrine,  but  by  his  means  chiefly  it  was  condemned 
in  the  Second  Council  of  Orange  :  Which  aflerted  the  Necejfity  of  Pre- 
venting Grace ;  The  denying  whereof  was  the  main  Error  charg'd  on 
Fauftus,  not  fo  much  as  to  good  H^orks  for  (/)  Janfenius  hath  at  large  W  h^- 
proved,  That  the  Semx^eh^nm  did  yield  the  Necejfity  of  Internal  Grace  pgfaf.i.s, 

as 


126  Ihe  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  1 V, 

as  to  them  f,  )    but  Fmujius  and  Cajjiah  and  Gennadius  denied  it  as  to 
Faith  or  Good  Ittclitiationt. 

But  to  return  to  St.  Germmus  and  his  Companions  into  Britain  ^  If 
we  give  Credit  to  our  Antiquaries,  they  did  other  Kindnefles  to  the 
Briiifh  Churches  befides  the  confuting  Pelagianlfm,  whereof  two  are 
tnoft  confiderable.  (i.)  The  Inftitution  of  Schools  of  Learning  among 
the  Britains.  (2.)  The  Introduftiort  of  the  Galhcan  Liturgy  into  the 
ufe  of  thefe  Churches. 

(i.)  As  to  Schools  of  Learning,   none  were  more  famous  among  the 
Britains  than  thofe  of  Dubricius  and  Iltutus,  who  are  both  faid  to  have 
been  the  Difciples  of  St.  German.     The   Anonymous  Author  of  the 
(u)CoUen  Chronhle  in  (u)  Leland  faith,   that  St.  Germanus  and  Lupus,    having 
i">!'!-P'\'^- rooted  out  Pelagianifm,    confecrated  Bifhops  in  feveral  parts  0/ Britain, 
and  among  the  reji  they  placed  a  Cathedral  at  LandafF,  and  made  Dubrici- 
us Archl?!/l}i)p,  who  difpofed  of  hk  Difiples  to  feveral  Churches^  He  made 
Daniel  Bifiop  of  Eangor,    andfent  Iltutus  to  a  Place  from  him  called  Llan 
{w  Brit.  Iltut,  or  the  Church  of  Iltutus.     (w)  Camden   faith,     to  this  day  it  if 
^■493       r^Zi'l?!^  Llantuit,  where  the  Foundations  of  many  Hot/fes  are  fill  to  be  feen  ^ 
Near  the  Place  called  Bovium  in  the  Itinerary,  now  Boverton.  But  there 
is  another  Place  near  Nidum  or  Neath,  whofe  name  comes  very  near  it 
(x'v.Mo  Llanyltad.    The  (x)  old  Regifter  of  La»<^rf^  after  it  hath  mentioned 
"/;f  vlh  tf^^  f^^ft^f^t  Meffages  the  Britains  ye»^  to  the  neighbour  Bijiwps  of  Gaul  for 
3./).  188.  ajjifiance  againji  /^e  Pelagians,    and  the  coming  (j/Germanus  and  Lupus 
fent  by  them,    it  adds,    that  they  confecrated  Bifhops  in  many  Places,   and 
made  Dubricius  Archbijbop  over  all  the  Britains,  Dextralis  partis  Britan- 
nia,  Of  the  right  hand  part  of  Britain.      With  which  John  ofTinmouth 
and  Capgrave  agree.     What  this  Bjght  hand  part  of  Britain  was  at  the 
time  of  the  Confecration  of  Dubricius  is  not  fo  eafie  to  underftand  5 
{y)T>errt-  Archbirtiop  (;)  Vjher  takes  it  for  South  Wales  5    it  being  the  cuftom  of 
nmd.p.^-:.  ^^^  britains  to  call  the  South  the  Right  hand  fide  i,    fo  Ajftrius  Meneven- 
fis  calls  Suffex  the  Region  of  the  Right  hand  Saxons.     But  it  is  obferva- 
fr)/>Ge-ble  that  (z.)  Aj/erius  there  makes  Demetia,  or  South  Wales,  to  be  but  a 
frf  ^'^D  '  P^""^  of  what  he  calls  Dextralis  pars  Britannia?.     For  when  he  faith  in 
884.         general,    That  all  the  Countrey  of  the  Right  hand  of  Eritsin  fubmitted  to 
King  Alfred,  he  then  inftanceth  particularly  in  Hemeid  King  of  Deme- 
tia,  and  Houil,  and  other  Kings  of  Guent,  by  which  North  Wales  is  as 
much  underftood  as  South  Wales  is  by  the  other.     And  therefore  I  ra- 
ther think  Dubricius  was  made  Archbirtiop  over  all  the  Britains  in  thofe 
(a)  Poly-  Parts  ^     For  (a)  Ranulphus  Cejirenfis  faith.    The  Bijhop  tf/Caerleon  had 
f">^-'-^-feven  fufragan  Bifhops  under  him  :     And  (/>)  Matt.  Wejiminjler  faith, 
(/)  Matt   That  Dubricius  was  made  Archbiflwp  of  Caerleon,    (  although  he  might 
weftm.    {^^yg  a  Seat  at  Landaff,  as  the  Regifter  of  that  Church  affirms,  by  the 
%  507.^°' Gift  of  Mauricius.  )     But  it  appears  that  he  had  then  Archiepifcopal  Po- 
wer'.^  And  pofTibly,    upon  the  Difturbance  of  thofe  times,    the  See 
might  for  a  time  be  removed  to  Landaff -^    From  whence  it  was  again 
removed  by  St,  David  to  the  Town  bearing  his  Name.    But  the  Bi- 
(hops  of  Landaff  who  fucceeded  were  fo  unfatisfied  with  it ;    That  the 
Regifter  of  that  Church  faith.  That  from  OwAoceus  the  fecond  from  Du- 
bricius, (for  he  fucceeded  r^e/MWj- in  that  See)  They  chofe  rather  to  be 
Confecrated  by  the  Archbifliops  ^/Canterbury,  than  by  their  own  Metropoli- 
tan of  St.  David  V,  as  appears  by  the  Proteftation  made  by  the  Biftiop 
of  Landaff  to  Calixtus  II.  in  the  Council  of  Rhemes,  Anno  Dom.  1 1 19. 
But  I  confefs,   it  doth  not  feem  very  probable  that  a  Britijh  Bifhop 

Ihould 


C  H  A  p.  1 V .         the  britijh  Clmrches:  127 

(hould  go  for  Confecration  to  AugujUne  the  Monk  or  his  Succeflbrs  ; 
For  the  Br'itifl)  Bifhops  did  all  look  on  them  as  Itrtruders  ^   And  if  any 
fhould  have  done  it,    how  would  they  have  been  received  by  the  Sri- 
ti/h  Churches  at  that  time  ?     It  is  therefore  far  more  probable,   either 
that  they  went  over  to  the  Britj/fi  Archbifliop,  at  Dol  in  Brita»»ie,  or 
that  there  wasa  Succeffion  preferved  for  fome  time  of  the  Archbifhops  of 
London  among  the  Britains,  alter  the  retirement  of  Theonus  andThadi- 
ocus^   the  two  other  Metropolitans  of  London  and  Tori,    who,    as  (c)(c)mu. 
Matt.  iVeJintinJier  faith,  did  vcithdraw  vphen  their  Churches  rpere  dejirdyed  ^^^"^\. 
^//&e  Saxons,  with  many  of  their  Clergy  into  Waits  i,    whereas  long  as   *   •'    ' 
that  Succeffion  continued  they  might  exercife  fome  parts  of  their  Fun- 
dion,  leaving  the  main  to  the  Archbiftiop  of  Caerleon,  to  whom  of  right 
it  belonged  5    And  Ranitlphuf  faith  5    That  Province  extended  as  far  as 
the  Severn,  and  fo  took  /»  Chefter,   Hereford  and  Worcefter  ^    But  be- 
fore Dubriciui  was  fo  much  advanced,   the  Authors  of  his  Life  fpeak 
of  the  great  number  of  Scholars  which  flock' d  to  him  from  aU  Parts  of  Bri- 
tain 5    Not  the  Rude  and  Vulgar  only,   but  Perfons  of  greateft  Kepu-r 
tation,  among  whom  they  name  St.  Theliaus,    Samfon^   Aidanus,    andi 
many  others.    Two  Places  they  mention,    where  he  received  and  in- 
ftruded  his  Difciples,  one  at  Hentlan,  on  the  River  Wye,  where  they, 
fay  he  had  a  tboiifand  Students  with  him,    whom  he  brought  up  in  humane 
and  divine  Literature.     And  the  other  was  at  Moch-rhos,  where  he  had 
a  Place  for  Study  and  Devotion. 

IltutUs  hy  (J.)  Vincentim,  and  the  (e)  Author  of  the  Life  of  5tf«?/<>;*(<^)Vm- 
is  faid  poiitively  to  have  been  a  Difciple  of  St.  Germanus  5  And  the  ^|^;  ffll[ 
(/)  Author  of  the  Life  of  Gildds  faith.    That  in  the  School  <?/Iltutusc.  los". 
many  Noblemens  Sons  toere  brought  up,  among  whotti  he  reckons  as  the  (^^  ^j,*''*._ 
chief  Sampfon,  afterwards  Archbiftop  of  the  BnV<i»/,  viz.  at  Dol  in  ac.'f.  ^iil 
Britannie :,  Paulus,  Bi(hop  of  the  Oxifmii,  the  moft  Northern  of  the^X^^f* 
Aremorici  (which  Bilhoprick  is  fince  divided  into  three,  Tregnkr,%i.  Polc.\'. ' ' 
de  Leon  and  St.  Breu  )   and  Gildas,    called  Sapiens,    of  whom  after- 
wards:    Leland  to  thefe  adds  David  and  Paulinus :     And  faith,    his 
School  flourified  like  an  TJniver/tty  among  the  Britains.    (^)  BoUandus  and  («)  ^^- 
Henfchenius  make  a  very  probable  Conjefture,    That  when  St.  German  l^yftfs.' 
came  into  Britain,  and  found  the  decay  of  Learning  to  have  been  the  ^gre^/ Teliaj. 
occafion  of  the  fpreadtng  <?/ Pelagian  ifm    he  appointed  Dubricius  and  Iltu-  g*^!'^!?* 
tas  to  undertake  the  Education  of  the  Britifli  CVer?;';    And  that  by  thefe 
means,   as  Bede  faith,    thefe  Churches  continued  afterwards  pure  and  fret 
from  this  Herefie.    Which  was  a  wife  and  feafonable  Inftitution  ^    And 
hereby  we  fee  the  ^ritijh  Churches  were  not  defedive  in  Learning  in 
their  loweft  Condition,    when  the  Britains  were  forced  to  leave  their 
Habitations,  and  to  fly  into  Corners. 

Of  which,  befides  thefe  Nurferies  of  Dubricius  and  IltutHs,we  have  a 
famous  Inftance  in  the  Monaftery  of  Banchor,vfhich  even  (A)  Bede  faith,  (*)  Bed. 
wasfitrnijbed  with  learned  Men  at  the  coming  of  Auguftine  into  England.'*  **  ''  ^' 
This  Banchor  was  diftant  but  ten  or  twelve  Miles  from  Chefter,  as  (/)  {i)Poi)chi. 
Ranfdphus  Ce/irenJ/s,    and  Brad/haw,    in  his  Life  of  St.  Werburg,    fay. '-4  '-l^' 
(k)  Leland  in  his  Itifferary  defcribes  the  Place  as  Jianding  in  a  Valley,  (i^coiuit. 
and  having  the  cowpafs  of  a  walledTown,  and  two  Gates  remaining  half  a  "vol.  2.  p. 
Mile  difiawt  front  each  other.     (/)  Camden  fuppofes  it  to  be  the  Bomium  ^^,^8?"^° 
in  Antoninus,    being  ten  Miles  diftant  from  Deva,  i.  e.  Chefter.    That  (/)  Camd; 
which  was  moft  obfervable  in  this  Britijh  Monaftery  was,    tliat  Men  B"r/>4$7 
there  were  bred  up  to  Lemming  and  Devot^ion  toother,  and  fo  more  re- 

fembling^ 


128  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  IV. 

fembling  our  Colleges  than  the  Egyptian  Mofiajlerks,    where  Men  were  4 

brought  up  to  Igvormce  and  Labour  as  much  as  to  Devotion.     Wherein 
the  Betteditlwes  followed  them  according  to  their  firft  Inftitution:    For 
St.  Benedid  himfelf  not  only  defpifed  Learning,    as  the  Writers  of  his 
Life  fay  5  But  he  takes  no  care  about  it  in  the  Rule  of  his  Order  5  And 
(m)  Boni-  when  (m)  Boniface  gave  an  account  to  Zachary  of  his  fetting  up  a  Be- 
fac,  £;i/f.  „edi&i»e  Monaflery  at  Fnlda,  he  fets  the  Monks  out  by  their  Abjlinence 
(n)  chron.  ^"^  ^^f'^  Labour  with  their  own  Hands,  without  Servants,  It  is  true  that  (») 
Mrf.  A.D.Trithemius  fpeaksmuch  of  the  Schools  of  Learning  in  the  Benedi^ihe  Mo-         I 
\T)'capH.  »^fteries,  but  not  before  AnnoDotft.  850.  which  was  after  the  {p)<Con-        * 
Anfeg.  l.i.  flitHtions  oi Charles  the  Great,  who  appointed  Schools  for  inflru&ing  Yokth 
c.  17-  /.  5-  hoth  in  Monafieries  and  Cathedi-als  5   Which  gave  the  lirft  Countenance 
(pjiup.    and  Encouragement  to  Learning  at  that  time;    And  (/>)  Lupus  Ferrd- 
Epift.  I.     rienfis  faith.  That  the  reviving  of  Learning  was  then  owing  to  him  :     But 
although   thefe  Conftitutions  extended  no   farther  than  to  Grammar 
Schools  ^  yet  from  hence,  thofe  who  were  inclined  to  Learning  in  the 
Monafleries  applied  themfelves  more  to  it  ^    and  by  degrees  gained  a 
great  Reputation  by  it,   as  Rabanus  Maurus  at  Fulda,    whofe  efteem 
drew  Lupus  thither,    and  many  others  ^    Which  example  prevailing, 
and  the  Monks  finding  fuch  refort  to  increafe  their  Wealth  as  well  as 
(q)  orig.   Reputation,  as  {q)  Aub.  Mir£us  obferves  ^   from  that  time  the  Mona- 
Afonaft.    fteries  were  defirous  to  have  fome  of  their  Number  to  be  eminent  for 
^■^•"^    Learning,    which  had  been  before  fo  much  neglefted  by  them,   as 
wholly  befides  the  Rule  of  their  Order.    But  the  Monafieries  oi  tbs 
Wejiern  Churches  before  St.  Benedi&'s  time,  fuch  as  that  of  St.  Ambrofe,  . 
St.  Eufebius  of  Vercelles,  St.  Augujiine  in  Africa^  St.  Martin  in  Gaul^  were 
chiefly  intended  as  Nurferies  to  the  Church,    and  the  Perfons  educated 
therein,  were  brought  up  with  a  defign  to  do  the  Church  Service  af- 
terwards.    This  method  of  Education  taking  fo  much  in  other  Church- 
es (  as  in  Gaul,  where  fo  many  eminent  Biftiops  were  taken  out  of  the 
Monajlery  of  Leritis,  according  to  the  Rule  of  CapraJ/us,  )    St.  German 
who  was  fo  well  acquainted  with  St.  Honoratus,    St.  Hilary  of  ArleSy 
and  others  of  that  Education,  might  probably  be  the  firft  Inftrument  of 
fetting  up  this  way  in  the  Britifh  Churches.     And  to  confirm  this,  St. 
Patrick,  who  carried  over  this  Monafiuk  Education  into  Ireland^  fpent 
fr)Prob.  many  Years  under  the  Difcipline of  St.German,  as  (>•)  Probus  and  (j) 
^'l/s'^d  Jocelin  the  Writersof  his  Life  do  agree.     And  thofe  who  have  written 
To!  3.  ^    of  St.  Ger«/4»  have  mention 'd  him  as  one  of  his  Difciples,  as  (0  Erri- 
{s)  Jocel.  cus  of  Auxerre.     And  («)  William  of  Malmesbury  faith,  he  was  not  onlj 
€."22'.^''^'  ^  Difciple  of  St.  German,  but  being  made  Bijhop  by  Celeftine,    he  was  fent 
(0  B'ft/'-  by  St.  German  into  Ireland.     And  in  the  Irifh  Monafteries  there  were 
tlihnm  SchoolsMkQ  thofe  of  Dubricius  and  Iltutus  for  the  breeding  of  Youth  in 
I.  p.  537  Learning.     For  therein,    as  Roufe  an  Antiquary  in   Edward  IV.  time 
(u)De     faith^  The  Mafiers  did  teach.  Secundum  formamStudiorumantiquorutn, 
Tz  p.^i'^l'.  according  to  the  ancient  Method  of  Learning  -^    Which  our  learned  (jt>) 
(w)  De    Primate  underftands  of  joining  the  Studies  of  humane  Learning  with  di- 
P^'^'c!'    vine  5   of  which  he  produces  an  Inftance  in  a  MS.  of  the  Library  of 
Worcefter  ;    Being  a  Commentary  of  an  Irifl)  Biftiop  upon  Martianut 
Capella's  Afirology  which  he  read  to  his  Difciples  in  the  Monaftery  of 
St.  Remigius  in  Down.     And  the  Author  of  the  Opus  Tripartitum  of  the 
Life  of  St.  Patrick  faith,  That  hefet  up  at  Armagh  Summum  Jiudium  lite- 
rale.    Which  in  the  Language  of  that  time  is  the  fame  with  an  Z)»i- 
verjity,  only  this  is  a  Law-term,  and  implies  a  i,e^4/.Sw/ery  incorporated 

for 


Chap.  IV.  the  l^ntijh Churches.  12^ 

for  the  ProfefTion  of  Learning,  which  the  {x')  Civilians  tell  us,  TS/'^'we  W  dop- 
hut  the  Supreme  Authority  of  a  Nation  can  do.     In  this  School  at  ^r-^'"„.''*^'' 
magh^  Caradoc  of  Lancarvan  in  his  Life  of  Gildas  faith.  That  he  was  a  pfinc  /.g. 
Profejjor,  Studium  regens  &  praedicans  in  Civitate  Ardmaca.  But  the  A-  *uxm'jns 
nonymous  Author  of  his  Life  publifhed  out  of  an  ancient  MS.  by  Joh.pM.'i.i! 
a  Bofco  (^)  faith.  That  Gildas,  going  over  info  Ireland /«  thetime  of(y)mn- 
Ammeric,  /.  e.  about  An.  Dom.  <$66.  fonnd  both  Religion  and  Learning  otb-  fior. 
much  decay  d   there,  and   that  he  built  many  Churches  and  Monajieries,'^''^^^ 
and  brought  up  many  Noble  Mens  Sons  therein.     In  hk  younger  days,  he 
faith,   Gildas  went  to  Iren,  and  vijited  the  Schools  of  many  Learned  U.  (.60 
Men,   and   enquired  their  Opinions  in  Philofophicat   and  Divine  mat- 
ters. 

Some  queftion  hath  been  made  by  Learned  Men,  what  this  Author 
means  by  Iren  ^  The  moft  eafie  and  obvious  fenfe  is  to  take  it  for  ire- 
land,  where  there  were  fo  many  Schools  of  Learning  in  the  Monafte- 
ries  of  St.  Patrick's  Foundation ;  And  Irk  is  ufed  by  (z,)  Diodorus Sicu-'^^^  Y'^^' 
Ins  for  Ireland:  And  (a')  lerne  in  the  Book  de  Mundo,  and  Apuleius  ;(4)"De 
and  the  Inhabitants  are  called  Irenfes  by  (/»)  OrderiiusVitalis:  and  the ''^^''«'''  P* 
Country  is  called  Erin  by  the  Inhabitants,  as  Archbi(hop  (c)  Vjher  ob-  vticanii. 
ferves  ^  But  the  marginal  Note  of  Joh.  a  Bojco  hath  led  fome  quite  out  (a)  ord* 
of  their  way  in  feeking  for  this  Place  ^  Which  is,  That  Iren  was  an  ^0"]/^ 
ZJniverJtty  then  in  Great  Britain;  And  from  hence  they  have  proceed-  D.*iop§' 
ed  to  prove  our  famous  Univerfity  of  Oxford  to  be  meant  by  it ;  {d)  ''^)  ^'fi- 
Firft,  Iren,  fay  they,  was  mijiahenfor  Icen,  and  that  for  Ychen,  andYchen  f.^p.     ' 
^rRydychen,  and  Kydychen  in  the  Wm^hTongue  fignifies  the  fame  with  {<<)  ^ntiq. 
Vadum  Bourn,  and  that  is  the  fame  with  Oxford.     I  cannot  think  Lear-  f^'^^^^i^^ 
ned  Men  write  thefe  things  any  otherwife  than  as  Sports  of  Wit,  which  /.  V  n.  sV 
are  intended  for  the  diverfion,  and  not  for  the  convi&ion  of  the  Rea-  ^'fl-^'"'^; 
dear.     As  likewife,  when  the  fame  Authors  produce  out  of  Confiantius  p^°^^ to,' 
his  Life  of  St.  German,  Regionk  illius  Univerfitas,  to  prove  the  Antiquity  ^^' 
of  their  ZJniverJity.     But  that  Paflage  in  the  Copy  of  Ajjerius,  printed 
by  Camden  is  more  material,  viz.  That  .S^  German  Jiaid  half  a  year  in 
Oxford,  and  approved  the  Orders   made   by  Gildas,  Melkin,  Nennius 
and  Kentigern.  I  know  what  Heats  have  been  about  this  PafTage  among 
very  Learned  Men.     For  my  part,  I  fee  no  caufe  to  miftruft  the  fince- 
rity  of  Archbiftiop  Parker  in  the  Edition  of  his  very  ancient  Copy, 
where  this  Paffage  was  not  to  be  found ;  And  I  do  not  queftion  Cam- 
den's Fidelity  in  publiftiing  Afferius   out  of  fome  other  Copy ;  But  it 
had  been  fair  to  have  given  an  Account  whence  he  had  it,  and  for 
what  Reafons  he  inferted  it  in  another  Edition  of  Afferius  ;  and  why 
he  preferred  the  Savilian  Copy  before  the  other.    But  1  cannot  but 
wonder  that  thefe  Learned  Men  have  taken  no  more  notice  of  the  In- 
confiftency  of  this  Paflage  with  the  Hiftory  of  thofe  times.    For  thefe 
Perfons  all  lived  a  confiderable  time  atter  St.German,  as  it  were  eafie  to 
prove,  if  it  were  worth  the  pains.  For  Gildas  was  not  born  till  at  leaft 
forty  four  years  were  paft  after  St.  German's  death :  which  thus  appears  5 
He  faith  he  was  born  the  year  of  the  Vidory  of  Aurelius  Ambrojius 
over  the  Saxons  at  the  Mons  Badonicus,  which  was  forty  four  years  af- 
ter they  came  hither,  .<4».Dtf»!».  449.     And  by  comparing  St.  GerA«4«'s 
Embaffy  to  Valentinian  at  Ravenna,  where  he  died,  we  fhall  find  that  clrmli'n^ 
St.  German  was  dead  the  year  before  the  Saxons  arrival.  An.  Dom.  448.  n.  2. p.' 
As  the  (e)  Samarthani  (hew.  But  againft  this  there  is  a  confiderable  Ob-  ^^7-      . 
jeaion  from  what  (/)  Bede  faith,  That  the  Saxons  and  Pidis joined  toge-^Pcto 

K  i'her 


1^0  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  IV. 

ther  after  5"^  German'/  coming,  which  occafiond  a  Vi&ory  by  finging  Alle- 
luiah  according  to  5^  German*/  direBio??-^  and  it  is  fo  much  ftronger, 
in  that  the  very  fame  Expreffions  are  in  Cofrjiantius.     But  this  may  be 
eafily  folved  by  thofe  that  confider  the  frequent  Incurfions  the  Saxons 
made  on  the  Britains  before  they  were  fent  for  over,  as  appears  by  rhe 
Corns  Litork  Saxonici  per  Britanniam,  appointed  to  fecure  the  Coafts 
from  the  Saxons  ^  and   that  Gildas  therefore   wonders  the  Britains 
fliould   fend   for  the  Saxons^  of  whom  they  were  fo  much  afraid  before  ; 
And  when  the  Roman  forces  were  withdrawn,   no  doubt  they  did 
more  boldly  and  frequently  difturb  them. 
(g)  Con-       Befides,  (g)  Confiantius  faith  in  St,  German's  Life,  that  he  fncceeded 
GermaT'  ^*-  Amator  in  his  See,  and  continued  therein  thirty  years  and  twenty  five 
i^l^l.  lilt.  days.    But  St.  Amator  died  An.Dom.  418.  as  our  Learned  {h)  Primate 
{h)  Uffer.  i^gfj^  proved,  becaufe  the  Calends  of  May  on  which  he  died  were  that  year, 
1 382"!'    as  Conftantius  faith,  the  fourth  day  of  the  Week,  which  agrees  to  418. 
If  it  be  faid.  That  this  Pajfage  of  AlTerius  is  meant  of  an  Elder  Gildas, 
called  GWdiSiS  Albanius,  whofe  Life  the  fame  excellent  Antiquary  fuppofer  to 
be  written  by  Caradoc  of  Lancarvan  5  lanfwer,  that  when  he  comes  to  fix 
the  times  in  his  Chronological  Index,  he  doth  overthrow  his  own  Suppo- 
fition:  Tor  Caradoc,  by  his  own  confeffion,  makes  Gildas  contemporary 
with  King  Arthur,  and  he  is  faid  by  him  to  be  born  An.  Dom.  495. 
And  therefore  Caradoc  s  Gildas  can  be  no  elder  than  the  Gildas  Bado- 
nicus.    Although  therefore  the  want  of  skill  may  make  Caradoc  fet  his 
Gildas  elder  than  he  ought  to  have  done;  yet  whofoever  will  compare 
that  Life  publiflaed  by  "^oh.  h  Bofco  with  the  other  by  Caradoc,  will 
find  that  they  were  defigned  for  the  fame  Perfon.     And  therefore  Le* 
Itcftd,  with  far  more  judgment,  mentions  but  one  G;7<5/<?/;  butB<z/eand 
Pits  ttiake  more  5  but  it  is  their  Vanity  to  multiply  Authors  as  well  as 
Books.     St.  Kentigern  was  baptized  aflbon  as  he  was  born,  by  Serua- 
nus,  one  of  the  Difciples  of  Palladius,  whofe  Miffion  had  the  fame 
date  with  the  firft  coming  of  St.  Germanus  and  Lupus  ^  And  therefore 
it  is  not  very  probable  that  St.German  (bould  fee  the  Orders  of  Gil- 
das and  Kentigern,  much  lefs  thofe  of  Melkin  and  Nennius,  whofe  A- 
ges  fall  fo  far  fhort  of  the  others. 

But  although  St.  Germans  being  at  Oxford  cannot  be  proved  by  fuch 
obfcure  and  incoherent  Paflages  as  this  ^  yet  I  doubt  not  but  by  the  E- 
vidence  already  produced,  he  did  take  care  to  advance  Learning  and 
Piety  in  the  Britijh  Churches  wherefoever  he  came :  Both  which  were 
falling  very  much  to  decay  upon  the  irruption  of  the  barbarous  Na- 
tions. While  the  Roman  Empire  flourifhed  there  was.  care  taken  for 
the  encouragement  of  Learning,  efpecially  in  greater  Cities.  At  Rome 
by  the  Conftitution  of  Valentinian  we  may  fee  the  Orders  then  made  for 
the  Regulation  of  Students  there  ^  as  for  entring  their  Names  whocame 
thither  out  of  the  feveral  Provinces  by  the  Magifter  Cenfus,  with  the 
Tejiimonials  from  the  Governours  of  Provinces,  of  the  Place  of  their 
Birth  and  Quality,  who  then  were  to  declare  what  Studies  they  de- 
figned to  follow,  and  an  account  was  to  be  given  of  their  Lodgings: 
And  particular  Officers  were  appointed  called  Cenfuales  to  make  an  In- 
'  fpeftion  into  their  Lives,  that  they  did  avoid  all  Clubs  called  there 
Confociations,  or  frequent  appearing  at  the  Sports,  or  afFefting  unfea- 
fonable  and  publick  Entertainments.  If  any  were  found  faulty,  they 
were  to  be  chaftifed,  and  fent  away  home,  but  none  were  permitted 
to  ftay  after  twenty  at  Rome,  and  an  account  of  thefe  things  was  to 
\  be 


Chap.  IV.  the  Bnttjh  Churches,  13  i 

be  taken  monthly,  and  given  in  to  the  Pr£fi&Ht  Urbk,  and  return'd 
to  the  Emperor  every  year ;  as  appears  by  the  (i)  Conjlitution  it  felf  in  (')C.Thc. 
the  Theodojian  Code.     By  which  we  find.  That  Rome  it  felf  was  then  °^.*  9,'*^ 
the  chief  Univerjity  of  the  Empire,  to  which  Students  reforted  from  *  ^-c. 
all  the  Provinces,  and  the  Emperor  thought  it  not  below  his  Cogni-  ^^°* 
zance  to  have  notice  fent  him  of  the  Numbers,  Qualities  and  Behavi- 
ours of  the  Students 'j  ^\xt  left  the  Splendor  and  Vanities  of  Rome 
fliould  tempt  them  to  forfake  the  Service  of  their  Country,;  they  were 
not  permitted  to  ftay  there  after  twenty  years  of  Age^  For  then,  not 
having  the  Difficulties  of  the  Language  to  conquer  which  they  wereufed 
to  while  Children,  at  fifteen  they  were  thought  fit  to  be  inftrufted  in  o- 
ther  Studies,  and  five  or  fix  years  was  all  the  time  this  Law  allow'd 
them  to  profecute  them  under  the  Mafters  at  Rome.    Where,  befides 
an  infinite  number  of  private  Teachers  in  that  vaft  City,  there  were 
publick  Profcjfors  appointed,  who  had  their  Sihoolt  within  the  Jred 
of  the  Capitol,  which  were  called  Jt/d'toriapi/blica,  as  we  may  reafo- 
nably  infer  from  the  (li'^)  Conflitution  oi  Theodojius -^  where  the  £xe<5^rdp  (-f)C.Th&., 
of  the  Porticos  of  the  Capitol  at  Conjlantiuople  are  appointed  to  make°!^*  '•  ^5° 
Audttoria  for  the  publich  Projejfors  there:  And  Covftantinople  follow'd  '  i.'^j. 
the  Vztitxn  zt  Rome.     Thefe  Exedra  were,  as  (/) /^/r«2;/«/ defcribes  (0  y'tru^- 
them,  Places  of  C<«/'<«aV^  within  the  Portico's,  with  Seats  round,  in  which  f"z^'^'^' 
the  Rhetoricians,  and  others,  were  wont  to  difcourfe  ;  Or,  according 
to  («?3  Cicero,  they  were  Cell£  ad  colloquendum  aut  meridiandum,  fuch  (»»)  P« 
as  Crajfus  had  at  Tufculum,  and  Cotta  at  Rome,  where  thofe  great  Men  ^'"'*''"'- 
were  wont  to  fit  for  their  diverfion  and  difcourfe  with  each  other :  And  * '' 
the  Greek  Glojfary  renders  Exedra^  a  S(.  hool  ^  fuch  a  one  (»)  Strabo  de-  («)  Oeogri 
fcribes  in  the  Mufeum  at  Alexandria,  which  confifted  of  a  Walk,  an ''^7. 
Exedra,  and  a  great  Houfe  where  the  Learned  Men  did  all  live  and  eat 
together  upon  a  publick  Allowance,  under  the  Government  of  a  Per- 
fon  appointed  by  their  Rings,  and  after  by  the  Ctefars.    This  Muf<eum 
was  adjoining  to  the  Palace,  and  near  it  was  the  famous  Library  of  Pto- 
lemy Phil adelp bus :  For  that  was  in  Bruchio,  as(o)Epiphanius  faith,  and  W  Epiph. 
was  diftinft  from  the  other  Library  afterwards  in  Serapeo  mertfioned  by''*  ^'"'^^''' 
(/>)  Ammianus  Marcellinus.     This  Bruchion  was  a  Region  of  the  City,  (j)  Am. 
as  Epiphanitis  faith ;  And  fpme  will  have  its  Name  from  the  nu^8;j<«o),'^^"^"*''' 
the  Granary  of  Alexandria  hdr.g  there,  and  by  contraction  it  was  cal-^^'*^' 
led  Up^uyjrior.    So  the  MS.  of  Qq)  Eufebius  mention'd  by  Valefms  hathcj)Eureb. 
it.    But  '(j)  SalmafiHs  would  have  the  name  taken  from  the  Stores  laid  in '  7-  «•  3*. 
therefor  the  College  of  Learned  Men  in  the  Mufxum,  which  Ammianus  ^^J^j^ 
Marcellinus  calls  Pr/eftantium  hominum  domicilium  5  And  this  Uv^ayfiov^  Spartianl 
be  faith,  is  the  fame  with  U^v1a.v&ov,  and  Eujiathius  faith.  The  one  fig-^'  ^^• 
nijied  the  fame  at  Alexandria,  which  the  other  did  at  Athens  5  And,  he 
obferves,  that  it  was  accounted  a  great  favour  in  the  Emperors  to 
grant  any  Learned  Man  -nv  a^  Maa-dcfi  oumv,  i.  e.  a  Fellorvfhip  in  the  Col- 
lege.   So  (/)  Athen£us  mentions  it  as  the  kindnefs  of  Hadrian  to  Pan-  r^s  ^^Y^ta. 
crates  the  Poet,  for  flattering  Antinous  5  That  he  gave  him  a  Right  ofi.  i j. 
Commons  in  the  Mufseum  :  As  he  did  likewife  to  Dionyfius  the  Sophift, 
and  Polemon,  and  Nicetas  Smyrn£us,  as  Philofiratus  in  their  Lives  re-, 
lates.     Arijionicus  wrote  the  Hiftory  of  the  Mufeum  at  Alexandria,  and 
of  the  Philofophers  and  Learned  Men  who  flouriftied  in  it,  and  thef 
mannerof  their  living  there  5  Out  of  whom  (0  Photius  faith  that  So- (t)CQi 
pater  borrow'd  part  of  the  twelfth  Book  of  his  Mifcellanies.     But  this*'^- 
Book  being  loft,  as  likewife  thofe  of  CalUmachus  and  Alcidamas^  no 

R  2  par- 


I J2  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  IV. 

particular  account  can  be  given  of  the  Hiftory  of  it.     Only  in  general 
we  know,  that  the  moft  Learned  Pcrfons  in  their  feveral  Profeffions 
were  invited  thither,  and  had  there  all  the  Encouragements  which  Free- 
dom from  Care,  good  Air,  (for  the  MMfeum  was  celebrated  for  that 
by  Straho)  futable  Society  and  an  excellent  Library  could  give  them  5 
the  Keepers  whereof  were  men  of  the  greateft  Reputatiort,  as  Deme- 
trius Phalerens,  Zenodotus  Ephefus,  EratoJihef7es,  Jpollofiius,  Arijlofij' 
!i?n?^r   ""^^^  Charemoft,  Dionyfius^  &:c.    In  this  Mufeum  it  was  that  («j  Ha- 
Hadrian.   drian  propofed  Queftions  to  the  ProffeiTors i^  and  in  it  were  'A^ij^  in- 
ftituted,  or  Sports,  by  Philadelphus  to  Apollo  and  the  Mnfes,  after  the 
finiftiinghis  Library,  and  Rewards  given  to  thofe  that  overcame  in  the 
Opinions  of  the  five  Judges  appointed  for  that  purpofe.    From  hence 
came  the  CoMmjJioms  and  Agones  Sacri  among  the  Romans^  at  which 
(w)Horat.  Judges  were  appointed;  Among  whom  (w)  Horace  mentions  Me^/«/ 
'poefd'  in  ■^'^'"/"^  ^°'"  °n^-     Thefe  were  fometimes  performed  in  the  Capitol,  as  {x) 
Satyr.       Rycqu'iHs  obfcrves,  i.  e.  in  the  Portko'%  where  the  Exedrce  v^^ere  like 
(.t)DeCd- thofe  at  Confiantinople.     What  the  Number  of  publick  Profeffors  was 
/>//(!. C.3 5. gj.  jlig.^a»dria. and  Rome  is  not  certainly  knovvn,  but  at  Confiantinople 
0)c.The-  tbeirNumber  isdetermin'd  by  a  (^)  Conjlitution  of  Theodofius.    In  the 
od.  /.  14.  Publick  Schools  called  there  Auditorium  Capitolii  and  Auditorium  nofirum, 
"'•^9-^'_  3.  ti^gre  were  to  be  for  the  Latine  Tongue  three  Orators,  and  ten  Gram- 
marians'.^  For  the  Greek  five  Sophtfis,  and  ten  Grammarians -^  One  Pro- 
fejfor  ofPhilofophy  and  two  of  Law.     Thefe  had  had  their  diftinO:  Schools 
allotted  them  called  Publico  Magijirationes  and  Cell£  in  the  Latp^  And 
all  others  were  forbidden  to  teach  in  publick,  either  within  the  Capi- 
tol, orelfewhere,  upon  pain  of  Infamy  for  the  Faft,  and  Banifhment 
/.  2.     out  of  the  City.    The  Emperor  Valens,  by  another  Conftitution,  ap- 
pointed for  the  Publick  Library  at  Confiantinople  [even  Antiquaries  to 
look  after  the  Books,  four  Greek  and  three  Latine,  who  were  to  have  a  pub- 
lick allowance'^  So  that  there  was  a  Bibliotheca  Palatina  there  as  well  as 
at  Rome,  and  both  in  probability  were  near  the  Capitol,  where  the  Pro- 
feffors taught;  For  that  at  Rome  was  called  Bibliotheca  Capitelina,  con- 
^'^V''/^8  ^^'""'"S  which   Joh.  (z.)  Saris  bur  ienjis  faith.  It  was  reported  that  Gre- 
c.  ,'9.     '  gory  the  great  caufed  it  to  be  deftroyed,  out  of  a  fear,  that  Heathen  Lear- 
ning/hould  abate  Mens  Love  to  the  Scriptures ;  which  was  a  very  foolifh 
and  fuperftitious  fear.     For  Men  know  better  how  to  value  the  Scrip- 
tures by  it.     And  he  did  ill  then  to  fetch  the  Soul  of  Trajan  out  of 
Purgatory  (but  I  hope  one  Story  is  no  truer  than  the  other)  for  he  found- 
ed the  Bibliotheca  Olpia,  which  was  next  to  the  Palatina ;  and  Vi&or 
faith,  There  were  twenty  feven  more  publick  Libraries  in  Rome.     If  this 
Story  be  true,  Gregory  rather  follow'd  the  Steps  of  Julian  than  of  Con- 
fiantihe-j  for  the  one  envied  Learning  to  the  Chriftians  as  much  as  the 
other  promoted  it,  Vi&ors  Epitome  faith  of  Conflantine,  that  he  did, 
f^")^-^^^' Nutrire  artes  bonas,  pracipue  jludia  Literarum -^  And  his  (^ay  ConJiituti- 
's.LL.i,  o»f  ftiU  extant  do  ftiew  the  great  kindnefs  he  had  fdr  Learning  and 
^1  ?•       Learned  Men ;  granting  great  Privileges  and  publick  Salaries  to  the 
lb.  L.  5.  Profeffors  of  Learning  in  the  feveral  Cities  of  the  Empire     But  Ju- 
lian, finding  that  Chriftianity  did  fpread  by  the  Learning  of  the  Chri- 
ftians, he  firft  drew  the  choice  of  publick  Profsffirs  to  himfelf  by  making 
his  Approbation  neceflary  after  the  Judicium  Ordinis  and  Decretum  Cu- 
(b)  Tuiisn  ^^^^^^^r  3nd  fo  excluded  the  Chriftians.  Afterwards  (/>)  he  exprefly  de- 
ff.  42.     clared,  He  would  endure  none  to  interpret  Heathen  Authors,  who  argued  a- 
gainfi  ikeir  Religion :  But  no  ConfHtntion  appears  in  the  Code  befides 

the 


C  H  A  P.  IV.  the  B^itijh  Churches.  133 

the  former  tending  that  Way.    Upon  this  Pro<erepHs,    faith  (c)  St.  j^e-Co  Hier. 
rame,  left  the  Chair  at  Athens,  although  he  had  a  particular  Indulgence  ^  '^'"'' 
by  Julian .     And  {d)  Orofins  adds,  That  the  Chriftian  Frcfejfors  of  Lear- i'^)  ^'^°^' 
n'wg  almofi  univerfatlj  fftrfook  their  Places :     But  both  mention  an  exprefs  ^ '''  '''^°" 
Edfdt  of  Jnliati's  to  that  purpofe.     Some  Writers  fpeak  of  another  E- 
A\€t  forbidding  Chriftian  Children  to  learn '^    But  I  can  find  no  Edidt  to 
that  purpofe.    And  it  feems  to  me  to  have  been  only  a  Confequence 
of  the  former  5  Since  Chriftian  Parents  would  not  fend  their  Children 
to  be  taught  by  Heathens,  having  feen  thefad  efFeft  of  it  in  the  Apojia- 
cy  of  Julian,  under  his  Heathen  Tutors, MWwi^j,  Maximus  and  Jambli- 
chttj. 

Bat  by  this  Edift  we  find  how  univerfally  Learning  was  then  dif- 
fufed  through  the  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire,  which  was  in  a  great 
tneafure  due  to  Antoninus   ?ius^    of  whom  (e^  Jul.  Capitolinm  faith,  (e)^';^Ari' 
That  he  appointed  Honours  and  Penfions  to  Rhetoricians  and  Philofophers  ^®""  '^"' 
through  all  the  Provinces ;  which  were  confirmed  and'  inlarged  by  the  fe- 
veral  Edifts  of  Conjlantine  to  that  purpofe,   already  mention'd.     And 
(/)  Fr.  Baldrvin  takes  particular  notice  of  his  Zeal  to  promote  Lear-  (f)DeLe- 
ning.     In  Gaul    g)  St.  Jerome  mentions  the  Florentijjima  Stadia  Gal  1 2-^'"'^^°'^' 
arum  5    And  Conjiantius,  in  the  Life  of  St.  German^    the  Auditoria  Gal- p.  i^i.' 
liarftm  ^    after  which,  he  faith,  he  went  to  Rome  as  the  chief  TJniver/t-  (0  ^d 

ty,  efpecially for Z^jj' 5    thence  {h)  Sidoniuf  ApoUinarkC2\\%itDomici-^^^^^{^Qa. 
littat  Legnm,  and  St.  it')  Augujtine  faith,  he  went  thither  tofludy  the  Laws.  Ep.6. 1. 1, 
But  other  ProfefSons  flouriftied  el fe where  5  as  at  Carthage,  (k)  Salvlan\'^f''"ff' 
faith,  Therewere  Profejfors  of  all  Arts  and  Sciences  :    And  at  Sicca  Veneria  {k)he'Git^ 
in  Africa,  Arnobim  was  Profeflbr  of  Rhetorick.    Near  Lyons  in  Gaul  the  *^''"*  ^"» 
60  Cities  had  dedicated  an  Altar  to  Augujius,  where  the  Rhofne  and  the  *^* 
Arar  meet,    there  Caiuf  Caligula  appointed  Prizes  to  be  plaid  both  in 
Greek  iv) 6  Latine  Eloquence-^    And  not  that  only,    but  Philofophy  was 
there  taught  ;   Thence  (/)  Odilo,  khhatoiChgny,    about  Anno  Dom.(i)V't.   . 
i02C).ca]]s  Lyons  of  old  the  Mothef  and  Nurfe  of  Philofophy.     In  the  ^^'°'^'gj,. 
time  of  Dioclejian  and  Maxif^/ianiis,  the  Nobility  of  G^w/ were  brought 
np  to  Learning  at  Anguflodunum   (  AutH?/, )  and  there  Eumenius  was 
both  Reel  or  and  Profeffbr^  as  appears  by  his  Speech  toConflantim,  where 
(««)  he  celebrates  fo  much  the  SchoU  M(jenian£,  ^ondam  pid  herrimo(m)Orat. 
opere&  fiudiorHmfreqiientia  celehres  5    which  having  fufFer'd  very  much  ^l"-  ^^' 
in  the  Rebellion  of  the  Bagaudteunder  the  latter  Claudius ;    he  was  ex-  scbo'i.  n.j/ 
trcmely  concerned  to  have  them  rebuilt,    which  is  the  defign  of  his 
excellent  Oration.     But  long  before,  in  Tiherit^  his  time,    (»)  Tacitus  (")  AnnaU 
faith,  The  Sons  of  the  Nobility  did  there,  Liberalibusftudijsoperari,  m-^"'^"*^' 
prove  themfelves  in  Learning,     {p)  Eufebius  mentions  in  the  time  of(ijj/rt 
Nero,  Statins  Vrfulus  of  Tholoufe,  a  famous  Profeflbr  of  2iAe/<?«V^   And  ^*'''"'"^- 
(/*)  Aufonins  reckons  up  many  of  thofe  who  had  been  famous  there  (p)in  Pro- 
and  at  Bourdeaux,  and  other  Places.     But  to  fpare  our  pains  in  parti- ^^' 
cular  Places,  there  is  extant  in  the  Theodofian  Code  an  (q")  Edift  of  Gra-  {q)c.The- 
tian,  requiring  all  the  chief  Cities  ofthefe  Parts  of  the  Komari  Empire  to  °'^-^  3- *i^' 
fettle  and  maintain  in  them  Prof effors  of  Learning,    both  of  the  Greek  and^'    '  '^" 
Roman  Languages.     This  Edift  was  directed  to  the  Prafe&us  Pr£torio 
Galliarum,  and  was  commanded  to  be  obferved  through  all  his  Diocefe, 
which  Gothofred  reftrains  to  the  Provinces  of  Gaul,  excluding  Britain, 
for  which  I  fee  no  reafon  ^   Since  (r)  Aufonius  who  was   himfclf  inc^)/„^^. 
that  Office  in  Gr<?*fWs  time,  comprehends  the  BnV^z»j  under  his  Jurif-  feiiv^ir 
diUion.     And  the  Notitia  Imperii  places  the  Provinces  of  Britain  under       .    ^ 

hifDf    - 


1 34  The  Anuquities  of  C  h  a  p.  IV. 

him  after  Gratian's  time.  Which  Notitia  he  thinks  was  made  about 
A«no  Dom.  426.  By  virtue  of  which  Edift  we  are  to  fearch  for  the 
ancient  Schools  of  Learning  among  the  Britalns^  in  the  chief  Cities  of 
the  Provinces  at  that  time  5  efpecially  at  London,  which  was  the  Ca- 
put  Gentfs,  being  Augufla,  or  the  Imperial  City,  and  fo  at  Torh  and  Q- 
erleon.  So  that  the  Britijh  Churches,  as  long  as  the  Roman  Vorver  conti- 
nued here,  had  the  fame  advantages  for  Learning  which  they  had  in 
other  Provinces ;  But  when  the  Roman  Forces  were  withdrawn,  and 
nothing  but  Miferies  and  Defolation  follow'd  5  then  St.  Germans  Care 
proved  a  mod  feafonable  Relief  to  them  in  providing  fuch  Schools  as 
thofe  of  D«^m7»j-and  Iltutus,  for  the  breeding  up  of  Perfons  qualified 
for  the  Service  of  the  Church  5  as  far  as  the  Miferies  of  thofe  times 
would  permit. 

The  laft  thing  to  be  confidered  is,  The  publick  Service  of  the  Britijh 
Chunhes.     And  in  an  ancient  MS.  in  the  Cotton  Library,  about  the  Ori- 
ginal of  Divine  Offces,  Germanus  and  Lupus  are  faid  to  have  brought  into 
the  ufe  of  the  Britifh  Churches,    Ordinem  Curfus  Gallorum.     By  which 
(/)D?pn-(j)  Arch.bi(hop  Djher  underftands  the  Gallica»  Liturgy.    For  Curfus  in 
Tli'2.     ^^^  Ecclefiaftical  ufe  of  the  Word  is  the  fame  with  Oflcium  Divinum,  as 
Dominicus  Macer,   in  his  late  Hierolexicon  fhews  ^  thence  Curfum  cele- 
brare,  is,  to  perform  Divine  O^ces  5    And  fo  the  Word  Curfus  is  often 
(t)  Apud  ufed  in  (t)  Fortunatus  his  Life  of  St.  German,  Bifliop  of  Paris,    and  in 
^J:.  ^^'    our  (k)  Saxon  Writers  :     But  this  Curfus  Gallorum  is  there  diftinguifh- 
(«)  Bed.  /.  ed  from  the  Curfus  Orientalis,   and  the  Curfus  Ambrofii^    and  the  Curfus 
4.C.18.    Benedi&i    (  which  little  differs,   he  faith,    from  the  Car/«j  i^(7/!»</»«/.) 
m'.c.  7.  And  this  was  that  which  Germanus  and  L<^pus  had  learnt  in  the  Monafte- 
Affer.  vit.  ry  of  Lerins,  where  it  was  ufed  by  Cajjianus  and  Honor atus,  as  the  Au- 
^^^^'       thor  of  that  Book  affirms,   which  I  find  to  have  been  the  fame  which 
(»)  cinci/.  (vp)  Sir  H.  Spelman  commends  for  its  great  /intiquity.    And  that  Author 
f"i6?  ^'  derives  the  GalUcan  Liturgy  from  St.  John  by  Poljcarp  and  Irenaus  5 
Which  Ms.  Mabillon  was  inclined  to  think  to  have  been  the  Book 
which  Gregorius  Turonenjis  wrote  de  Curfibus  Ecclefta(iick,  but  for  the 
(:c)Mabi!-  quoting  the  {x^  Life  of  Columbanus  and  Attala,  which  was  not  written 
]on.A,mai.  (ju  gftgr  j^jg  Death. 

1. 1-  9-         Yhis  will  oblige  us  to  enquire,   what  the  GalUcan  Liturgy  at  this 
time  was,   and  how  far  different  from  the  Roman,    It  is  agreed  on  all 
hands,  that  there  was  a  material  difference  between  them,  but  wherein 
it  lay  is  not  fo  eafily  underftood.     When  Gregory  fent  Augufiine  the 
Monk  into  England,  to  fettle  the  Saxon  Churches,   and  he  was  confe- 
(^)Bed./.  crated  by  the  Archbifhop  of  A/e/,   one  of  the  Queftions,  (^)  Jugu- 
1.C.27.   y?;»e  propofed,    was,   J/me   there  was  fuch   difference  between   the  Offi- 
ces df  the  Koman  and  Gallican  Churches,  which  he  /bou  Id  follow  ^    Grego- 
ry anfwered,  That  he  fhould  chufe  what  he  thought  mofl  proper  for  the  En- 
glifh  Church.    Which  implies,  That  there  was  a  diverfity  ftill  between 
them  ;    And  that  the  Pope  did  not  oblige  him  to  follow  the  Example 
of  the  Roman  Church  ;   chiefly,  I  fuppofe,  Becaufe  the  Queen,  being 
a  Chrift  Jan  before,  and  ufing  the  Gallican  Liturgy  in  the  Publick  Service^ 
and  her  Bilbop  being  of  the  Gallican  Church,  it  would  have  given  great 
Offence  to  them  to  have  had  it  taken  away  ;   as  likewife  to  all  the  Bri- 
tifh Churches  which  had  been  accuftomed  to  it.     If  the  Books  of  Mu- 
(;^)Gen=  f£us  mention'd  by  (a)  Gennadius  were  extant,  we  (hould  eafily  under- 
nad.  de     ftand  whcrcin  the  difference  lay.     For,    he  being  a  Presbyter  of  the 
/.j'^T'  Church  of  Marfeilks,  and  a  Man  learned  in  the  Scriptures,  was  defired 

by 


'    Chap.   IV.  the  Brit  iJhCbiirchej.  135; 

by  Vener'iHs,  the  Biftiop  there,  to  draw  up  a  Form  of  Publuk  Service, 
co»fiftifig  of  tvpo  Parts,  viz.  The  Morning  Servhe^  and  the  Communion 
Service.  The  firft  he  finiftied  in  the  time  of  Venerius,  and  is  highly 
commended  by  Gennadius  for  its  Order,  Ufeftthiefs  and  Decency.  The 
fecond,  in  the  time  of  Eujlathius  his  SuccelTor,  which  he  likewife 
commends  tor  its  great  ■weight  and  exatlnefs.  And  there  was  great  Rea- 
fon  at  that  time,  to  bring  the  Church- Service  into  Order,  hecau{e  CaJJi an 
and  others  endeavour'd  to  introduce  the  Monajiit  k  Cu(ioms  which  he 
had  obferved  in  Egjipt  and  elfewhere,  as  appears  by  the  defign  of  his 
Monajiick  Inftitutions,  efpecially  the  fecond  and  third  Books,  which  he 
dedicated  to  Caftor,  Bifhop  of  Jpta  'Julia,  at  the  fame  time  that  Veneri- 
Hs  was  Bifhop  of  Marfeilles,  where  Cajfian  lived.  This  Mufteus  was 
therefore  employ'd  to  draw  up  the  moft  convenient  Order  for  the 
Publick  Service^  from  whence  we  may  be  able  to  judge  of  the 
Difference  in  both  Parts  between  the  Gallican  and  Roman  Offi- 
ces. 

I  begin  with  the  Jirji,  viz.  the  Morning  Service,  which  confifted  of 
Lejfons,  Hymns  and  Pfalms,  agreeable  to  the  Lejffons,  and  (hort  Collets 
after  them. 

In  the  Church  of  Rome,    for  a  long  time,  viz.   for  above  400  Years, 
they  had  nothing  before  the  Sacrifice,    as  the  old  Riiualijis  agree,    be- 
sides the  Epijile  and  Gofpel ;    then  Celejlihe  appointed  the  Pfalms  to  be 
ufedj  or  as  (a)  Walafr.  Strabo  and  Micrologus  iay,    cauijed  Antiphon^ (^a)Wi- 
to  be  made  out  of  them  and  fung.     The  Epijile  was  conftantly  taken  lafr.c  as.' 
out  of  St.  Paul,    as  Walafr.  Strabo   proves  out  of  the  Pontifical  Book -.^f'^J'^' 
in  procefs  of  time,    he  faith,   other  Leffhns  were  taken  out  of  the  Old  and 
New  Tejiament,  agreeably  to  the  time  ;    Which  might  be  ^orrow'd  from 
the  Gallican  Church -.^    as  Other  Inlargements  of  their  Offices  by  the  Ri- 
tualifts  Confeffion  were,     and   in  probability  the  Diftribution  of  the 
Lejfons  was  firft  begun  by  Miiftcus,  which  we  have  digefted  according 
to  the  Roman  Cuftom  in  the  Li&isnarius,    publKhed  by  Pamelius,    by 
feme  attributed  to  St.  Jerome.     After  the  Lejfons  follow'd  the  Refpon-         .  ., 
foria,  ox  Proper  Hymns,   for  fo  (/>)  ^i^ore  faith,    they  were  called,    be-{b)DeEccl.. 
caufe,    one  fingir.g,    the   whole  Choire    did  anfvper  ^    and  (c)  Rhabanus^J^^'**''^'^' 
iVXi7«rKj  calls  fuch  an  Jnthem,  RefponforiusCantus  :,   and  thefe  differ'd  (c)  De /«. 
from  the  Afitiphon<e,     becaufe    in    them    the    Whole    Choire   fung^'*'-'^''™' 
eacii  Verfe  altematim  :     But  (d)  Rupert  us  thinks,  they  had  their  Name  (df^eo}'. 
hecaufe  they  anfxvered  to  the  Lejfons,  being  fung  immediately  after  them  5  /"^''^s  /.  '• 
ior  the  refrefljment  of  the  Hearer  t  Mind,  faith  (e)  Amalarius,   But,  be- /^'^^al_ 
fides  the  Leffons  and  Hymns,  he  raethodiz'd  the  Pfalms,  fo  as  to  be  read  /.  4.  c  3! 
agreeably  to  the  times  and  the  heffons  ^  and  not  in  the  Order  wherein 
they  ftand  ;  which  feems  to  have  been  peculiar  to  the  Gallican  Church,  .r  f  ^ 
Tbe  raoft  ancient  Cuftom  of  the  Church,   as  (/)  Menardus  proves  crimXJre- 
from  Jufiin  Martyr,  and  others,  was  to  begin  the  publick  Service  with  the  gor-  P-  4- 
Lejfons.     And  (g)  St.  Ambrofe,  in  one  Place,    feems  to  mention  no^^^.^"/^^; 
more  in   his  Church  at  Milan  befides  the  Lejfons  and  the  Sermon,  he- (h)in  Hex- 
fore  his  expounding  the  Creed  to  the  Competentes  i^     But  in  the  fame ''^'"' ^' 3' 
Epijile  he  fpeaks  of  the  Pfalms  that  were  read  in  the  Morning  Service  :  (J/d^  of- 
And  (^h^  elfewhere  of  the  Peoples  anfwering  to  the  Pfalms  :,    and  it  is  ge-  fici.ucj. 
nerally  faid  by  the  zv\CKnt  Ritualijis,  that  St.  Ambrofe  brought  into  //&e /f^^^^'jo, 
ufe  of  the  Weflern  Church  the  Cufiom  of  Singing  the  Pfalms  Verfe  by  Verfe  in  (')  Wal.c 
turns  by  both  fides  of  the  Choire '.^    fo  (/)  Ifldore,  {k )  Rhabaaus,     I)  Wa-^h^^^^ 
lafridus  Strabo,  and  (jn)  Radulphus  Tungrenfis  :  And  fo  I  aulinus  in  his  c.  n. 

Life 


I.  -■     -_ .  ,  ■      ■■        I  ,,.  —  ■,■         ■  — . — . 

13^  The  Ann(]inties  of  C  h  a  p.  IV . 

Life  faith,  he  brought  up  the  Z)fe  t^/Antiphonae,    in  the  Weflern  Church. 
(n)Sigeb.  And  (jt )  Sigehert  adds,    that  he  took  it  from  the  Greeks.    And  C")  St. 
cb  .A.D.  ^ttgjfjii„g  fefs  down  the  occafion  of  it,  viz,.    When  the  People  at 'Mxlan 
}^J'(^^„jgffr!Pere  perfecuted  by  the  Arians,    and  refolved  to  abide  in  the  Church.     And 
l.<).c.6,-i  therefore  to  keep  them  reell  employ  d  he  thought  upon  this  Cujiom  of  the  Eaji- 
ern  Churches-^  Which  not  only  continued  there,  but  from  thence  fpread 
(?)  !^e-     into  other  Churches,  not  without  oppofition  in  fome  Places  ;    as  (/>) 
jr^s./.j.  gj^  Augujline  confeffes,  it  met  with  fome  at  Carthage ;  But  withal  he  faith, 
he  wrote  in  Vindication  of  it.     In  the  Eajiern  Church  it  v/as  of  ancient 
C?)Socr.  ufe,  if  (^)  Socrates  fay  true  ;  for  he  faith,  it  begun  upon  a  Divine  Vtf- 
/•4_.c.  8.  on  to  Ignatius,  at  the  Church  of  Antioch.     But  (r)  The/jdoret  hitb,  Fla- 
/.  2.'c^a  ""'t^fi^  an<^  Diodorm  brought  it  up  there  ^  l^ut  the  Words  ofTheodorm 
(/)  Ni.  er.  Mopfuefienm  in  (j)  Nicetas  feem  to  intimate,'  that  they  took  this  Cuflom 
2f^ ''  ^-from  the  Syriack  Churches  ;    However  Theodoret  attributes  the  beginning 
of  Singing  the  Pfalms  of  tiiv id  in  that  manner  iti  the  Greek  Churches  to 
them  ^    From  whence  he  faith  it  fpread  into  other  Parts.     But  we  find 
(/)  Bafil.  by  (f  I  St.  Bafil,  it  was  very  hardly  received  in  the  Church  ^/Neocaefarea, 
^P-  ^3-     becaufe  it  was  not  introduced  by  Gregory,  whofirfi  fettled  the  Church  there. 
Neither,  faith  he,  were  the  Litanies,  which  they  thenufed,  brought  in  by 
him  :     And  for  that  Cuftom  of  Singing,  he  faith,  it  was  pra^ifed  in  the 
Churches  of  ^gypt.  Pal aeftine  rf»^  Syria,  ^/?r  ^  Euphrates-  But  it  came 
(«)  Rer.    later  into  the  Weftern  Church.     («)  Card.  Bona  faith.   That  Damafus 
i/^Krg./.z.^^y^  commanded  it  to  be  nfed  in  all  Churches  by  his  Apofiolical  Authority  ; 
(w)A.D.  But  (a?)  Card.  Baronius  faith,  It  is  a  plain  Falfloood  which  the  Pontifical 
384.  n.2o.  Qggj^  affirms  of  DimaCas  hfs  appointing  the  Pfalmsto  be  fung  in al/  Churches, 
and  he  adds,   that  the  Epijlhs  of  St.  Hierome  and  Damafus  about  it  are 
f*)Pamei.  counterfeit.     Yet  thofe  are  the  Authorities  which,   as  appears  by  (x) 
Lit.  7o.  I.  Pamelius,  the  ancient  Ritualifis  rely  upon.     All  that  Baronius  will  al- 
^'  ^^  ■     low  to  be  done  in  the  time  of  Damafus,    was,  that  St.  JeromeV  Pfalter 
(yj  Ga     was  then  introduced  at  Rome.     And  yet  we  are  told,  (y)  that  to  this 
Br"v?e5  ^^'^'  the  oldTranflat'iOfi  of  the  Pfalter  is  ufed  in  St. Peter  s,  and  is  called, 
jTs  /is'.  Pfalterium  Romanum  in  the  Rule  of  St.  Fran  ir,  which  he  forbids  to  be 
ufed  in  Divine  Service  5   But  the  fame  is  only  ufed  in  the  Ambrofian  Of- 
{^)R.er.  fice.     And  (2s)  C<?r(^.  5^»^  obferves,  tbatSt.  Gregory  compofed  the  Anti- 
Ltturg.i.  pboux  at  the  \mro\tViS,  and  at  theKd'ponfdxia,  &c.  out  of  the  oldVer- 
^'''^'^"^' fton,  before  Sr.  Jeromes  time -.^  Of  which  he  gives  this  reafon.  That  the 
Feople  at  Rome  werefo  accujiomed  to  it,    that  they  would  not  learn  the 
(a)  /.I.    New  Tefiament  of  St.  Jerome  ;   And  the  fame  Author  (a)  obferves  Hke- 
'^-  '*•       wife.   That  the  old  Italick  Verfion  was  not  only  ufed  in  Rome,    but  in  all 
the  Suburbicary  Churches,    and  other  Churches,    Gaul  only  excepted.     And 
from  thence  St.  Jeromes  Tranflation  was  called  Ver/to  Gallicana,   becaufe 
it  was  immediately  received  into  the  ufc  of  the  GalUcan  Churches.    So 
that  I  fee  not  how  Baronius  can  make  good  his  own  Affertion,  That  St. 
Jerome'/  Tranflat'ion  of  the  Pfalter  was  introduced  by  Damafus.     But  the 
(c)  Regift.  ufe  of  Alleluja  by  St.  Jeromes  means,  as  b")  St.  Gregory  faith,  was  brought 
^■1-^P-^l-  fygfft  the  Church  o/Jerufalem.     Which  Baronius  thinks  is  rather  to  be  un- 
derwood of  fome  particular  manner  ofufing  it.     But  how  he  can  juftifie  the 
ancient  ufe  of  the  Singing  Pfalms  at  Rome,  either  before  or  after  Dama- 
fus his  time  till  Celeftine  was  Pope,   I  cannot  imagine,    if  the  Pontifical 
Book  fay  true,  for  that  exprefly  affirms,   that  Celeftine  appointed  Da- 
vidV  Pfalmsto  ie  y«»g  Antiphonatim  before  the  Sacrifice,  and  that  it  war 
not  done  before,  but  only  the  Epifiles  of  St.  Paul  and  the  holy  Gofpel  were 
read.    Which  Words  are  repeated  by  Alcuinus,  Amalarm,  Rhabanus 

MauruSy 


I 


'C  HAP.  IV.  the  Buti/b  Churches,  137 

Maurus,  Walafridus  Strabo,  Berno  Augievjfs^  and  feveral  other  Ritua- 
lillsand  Hiftorians,  as  may  be  feen  in  (c)  Pameliui  his  Colledion,  and  CO  ^'• 
(ci)  Ojfifider's,  befides  the  Authors  themfelves^  But  (e)  BarofiiusCakh,',]'^^  ^"° 
t/je  life  of  the  Singing  the  Pfalms  was  from  the  beginning  in  the  Roman  (^)  ^-'-    ■ 
Chunh  ;  which  we  are  to  take  upon  his  Word,  for  he  brings  no, proof  ^7^*" '^' 
of  if.     It  is  true,  that  (/)  St.  AugHliifre  faith.  That  n>e  have  the  Precept  {eJBxr. 
and  Example  <;/ Chrift   and  his  Apojlles^  for  fnging  in  cur  ^jfemblies.''^'^'^^' 
But  he  fpeaks  not  of  David's  Pfalms,  nor  of  the  Church  of  Rome,     And  "ffkag. 
he  faith.  The  Cttflojfts  of  Churches  were  very  different  about  this  matter.  In  ^P'A-  ^^9- 
the  Churches  of  Africa,  he  faith,  They  confined  themfelves  to  the  Prophe-  ^'  ^  ' 
lical  Hymns,  for  which  they  were  upbraided  by  the  Djnatijis,  as  too 
grave  and  formal  5  But  he  allows  Singing  to  be  one  of  the  Solemn  Parts 
oi  Divine  Service,  with  which  he  joins  Reading  the  Leffons,  Preaching 
and  Prayer  ^  either  aloud  by  the  Bifhop,  or  in  common,  by  the  Deacon's 
giving  notice,     (g)  JujVn  Martyr  mentions  the  Hymns   of  the  Church,  (g)  Apo- 
without  declaring  whether  they  were  compofed  or  infpired-  And  fo '"^  f  ^°^ 
do  (/))  Pliny  and    i  1  Tcriulliun  in  fome  Places.     But  in  his  ik)  hpo-'J')  E.pifl. 
logy  he  faith,  both  were  ufed.     (7  )  Eujeblus  mentions  the  Hymns  compo- '"  '°"  ^^' 
fed  by  Chrifiians  which   proved  the   Divinity  of  Chrifi  :^    And  (*>/ '   the(')Teni\lf. 
great  efteem  the  Hymns  of  Nepos  were  in  5  and  (»)  the  complaint  aganji  'j^ ^'"'s- 
Paulus  Samofatenusyar  laying  afide  the  Hymns  made  to  the  Honour  ofij.ad 
Chrijl.     The  Council  of  {0)  Leodicea  frji  reflrai/ied  the  ufe  of  private '^^'"^■'•^' 
Hymns  in  the  Churches  Service,  the  Greek  Canonijls  underftand   this  Ca-/^\^"^j5. 
non  of  Apocryphal  Pfalms,   fuch  as  Salomon's  Pfalter  publifhed  by  La  l^g-  c  39. 
Cer<5^4  out  of  the  Aufpurg  MS.  which  he  highly  magnifies,  and  almoft  ^'^  ^"^^g* 
believes  to  be  genuine;  But  if  this  Canon  be  extended  to  all  humane (w/z.Vc'. 
Compofitionsj  it  was  never  received  in  the  Weftern  Church,  wherein  ^4- 
the  Hymns  of  St.  HZ/^^r/,  St.  Ambrofe,  Prudent ius,  and  others  have  been  30.  '^''' 
generally  ufed.     And  the  Ambrofian  Hymns  were  received  into  the  Ser-{o)  z.<to/. 
vice  of  the  Galilean  Church,  as  appears  by  the  fecondjCouncil  at  Qp^u^concfi. 
Tours  ^  And    ij    Cajfmder  obferves,  that  not  only  thsfe  made  by  St.  Am-  Turon.  2. 
brofe,  but  others  in  imitation  of  h.m,  were  called  by  his  name  i^  Which ^"  '^• 
(r)  Walafidus  Strabo  confirms ;  Hut  among  thofe  the  Te  Deum  is  notpr^/.^i' 
reckon'd   by  Caffander,   neither  is  it  of  the  Ambroftan  Compofition,  for  f^y""-  £'^- 
thofe  Hymns  ended  the'r  Sentence  every  fourth  Verfe,  as  he  obferves,  Te/Avvala- 
Deum  is  commonly  faid  to  have  been  made  by  St.  Ambrofe,  and  St.  ^a-  fr.  c.zj- 
gujiine,at  his  Baptifm,  and  to  prove  it,  the  Ritual ifts  quote  the  Chronicle 
of  Datius,  Bifhop  of  Milan.     But  /)  Gavantus  obferves,  that  the  Lear-  {f)Gi7.}n 
ned  Men  of  Milan  deny  that  there  is  any  fuch  thing  as  a  Chronicle  of  Da-  ^^^'  ^'  ^' 
tius  among  them,     (t)  Mabillon  fent  to  them  to  enquire  particularly  (^j'^n^/e^jt. 
about  it,  and  they  return'd  Anfwer,  That  they  had  no  fuch  thing,  But^o'-^-P-?' 
that  there  was  fuch  a  Title  put  upon  a  Book  written  by  other  Authors.     In 
an  old  Colledion  of  Hymns,  and  an  old  Latine  and  French  Pfalter  men- 
tion'd  by  'u)  Archbi:lop  Vj/jer  this  Hymn  is  attributed  to  St.  N/ce?;^.  («)  UHm. 
And  there  were  two  of  that  name  in  the  GalUcan  Church  ^  The  former  p*^/'"' 
of  which,  might  probably  be  the  Author  of  it.     The  one  was  Bifhop 
of  Triers,  and  fubfcribed  to  the  Council  of  Auvergn,  An.Dom.  535. 
highly  commended  for  his  Eloquence  and  Sanftity  by  w)  Gregorius  Tu-^J'\o^^^° 
ronenps,  (a:)  For  tun  at  us  and  Others ;  And  the  other  of  great  fame  too  29. 
and  Bifhop  of  Lyons,  who  fubfcribed  to  the  Council  there  An,  Dom.(.^)^°^^- 
^67.    But  againft  this  latter  there  is  a  ftrong  Objeftiori  from  the  menti-  (y]'cod?' 
on  of  this  Hymn  in  the  Rule  of  St.  BenediB,  c.  1 1.  who  died,  according  f^egxi- 
to Baronius^  Anno  Dom.  545.  It  is  likewife  mcntiond  in  the  Rule  of  [y')  ^"'^^  *^'' 

S  Cefa^'^' 


J 


1 3  S  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  IV, 

Cicfariuj,  drawn  up  by  Tetradim,  c.  21.  who  died  about  the  fame  time^ 
k_^w-  p-And  in  the  R/z/e  of  ^z.)  Aiirelianus,  who  was  prefent  in  the  Council 
of  Ljo»s  An. Dom.  549.  in  the  time  of  Sacerdos,  PredecelTor  toNicetms. 
{a)  Nt.m  But  1  fee  no  reafon  againft  the  former  Nicetius^  fince  (d)  Mcnardus  coti- 
sacrQreg.  fidgntly  affirms  there  is  vo  mention  ofthk  Hymn  in  Any  Writers  before.  And 
therefore  we  may  look  on  this  Hymn,  as  owing  its  Ooriginal  to  the  GaU 
tiean  Church. 
%flif'        Befides,  (h)  Cajjlan  takes  notice  that  in  the  GalliGan  Churches,  GIo- 
Ahnach.    1"'^  Patri,  &c,  tvas  faid  by  the  People  at  the  end  of  every   Pfalm.     But 
/.  2.  c.  8.  Walaftdus  Strabo  obferves,  Ihat  at  Rome  they  ufed  it  rarely  at  the  end 
of  the  Pfaltfts-^  but  more  frequently  after  the  Refponforia.     From  hence 
(c)  Beiiar,  the  three  Cardinals,  (c)  Bellarmhe,  (d')  Baronius  and  (e)  Bona  all  con- 
ffif  ''  ^^"^^  ^^"fi  Ritualijls  miftaken  vnho  make  Damafus  the  Author  of  adding 
('ci)Bzi-.A  the  Gloria  Patri,  d^-c.  to  the  end  of  every  Pfalm:  And  that  the  Epijtleuu- 
7J.  325.  n.  derthe  name  of  St.  Jerome  to  him  about  it  is-notor'ioufiy  falfe^  and  withall 
(f/Bon.  itbey  fay,  that  the  other  Rtualijis  are  mijiaken  rvho  attribute  it  to  the  Council 
Je  pj.1i.    of  Nice^  Becaufe  then  there  would  not  have  been  fuch  difference  in 
mt^.c.  16.  (i^g  y^g  Qf  jj  jp  feverai  Churches.     In  the  JEthiopick  Enchariftical Office^ 
of  the  318  Fathers  at  the  Council  of  Nxe,  beftow'don  meby  my  wor- 
thy Friend,  Doftor  Caftle,  this  Hymn  it  felf  is  not  ufed  5  But  the  Of- 
fice confifts  chiefly  of  a  Lofty  and  Divine  Paraphrafe  upon  it.    In  the 
Liturgy  of  Diofiorus  it  is  ufed  in  the  middle  of  the  Prayers.     It  is  evi- 
(/)  Ad    dent  from  (/)  St.  BajU's  Difcourfe  concerning  it,  that  the  Hymn  it  felf 
Amphii.   vvas  of  ancient  ufe  in  the  Eajlern  Church  ^  but  he  doth  not  fay  in  what 
(gjcamn.parf  of  the  Churches  Service  it  was  ufed  ^  But  (g)  CaJJian  faith,  over  all 
1. 2.  t.i^.the  Eafl,  it  was  ufed  only  to  coKclude  the  Antiphona.     By  which  he  un- 
derftands  a  Hymn  between  the  Pfilms ;;  Wahfridus  Sirabo  obferves  great 
diverfity  in  the  ufe  of  it  in  the  We  fern  Churches:^  Seme  put  it,  he  faith, 
into  all  Ojffjces:,  Some  at  the  end  of  every  Ffalm :,  Some  at  every  breaking 
off  the  longer  Pfalms  ^  Sume  after  the  Refponfals  j  But  the  ufe  in  gene- 
ral wasuniverfally  approved,  only  the  Gree^j^  found  fault  with  the  La- 
tines  for  putting  in  the  middle,  Sicut  erat  in  principio,  but  the  ufe  there- 
(A)  Core/',  of  was  required  in  all  the  GaUican  Churches  in  the  time  of  (A)  Cafari- 
^(f'c'oiJi  "^''  Archbilhop  of  Aries  ( as  (/)  Uniformity  was  required  by  other 
/i'^af/'f.'  Councils.)    Cardinal  Bona,  following  Baronius,  makes  that   Council 
3°-         much  elder  which  required  the  ufe  of  this  Hymn,  and  foon  after  the 
1 5"^£p^^„„  Council  of  N/Ve^  But  that  cannot  be,  if  the  Subfcriptions  in  Sirmon- 
r.  17.      d»r  be  true  ^  and  he  obferves  that  miftake  in  Baronius  to  have  rifen 
T.'^Brac. '' ^^°^  mifunderftanding  a  PafTage  of  Ado  Viennenfis.    So  that  the  Morn- 
2>.c.  12.    ing  Service  of  the  Gallican  Churches  confilled  chiefly  in  Lejfons,  Hymnf 
7o'et.  4.    and  Pfalms  of  St.  Jerome*/  Tranfiation,  with  Gloria  Patri  at  the  end  of 
every  Pfalm.    The  Latine  Tongue  being  yet  the  common  Language  of 
the  Roman  Provinces. 

But  are  we  tofuppofe,  that  they  met  together  for  the  Worflnp  of  God  witif- 
mt  any  Prayers  .<?  I  anfwer;  that  they  had  then  two  forts  of  Prayers  in 
their  Affemblies. 

(i.)  Private  Prayers  of  each  particular  Perfonhy  htmfelf. 
(7.)  A  concluding  O/ZeSf,  which  was  the  Common  Prayer^  wherein 
they  all  joined. 

(i.)  That  they  had  fuch  private  Prayers  in  their  Ajfemblies  I  prove 

(Jf)  De     from  (k)  Cajjian,  who  reproves  the  Cuftom  of   fome  in  the  Gallican 

^^'*'i      Churches,  who  fill  to  their  private  Devotions  on  their  Knees,  before  the 

f.  7.  '     Pfalm  was  well  ended.     But,  he  faith,  the  Egyptian  Monks  ufed  t(y 

fpend 


Chap.  IV.  the  Britijh  Churches.  •135' 

fpendfome  t'lKie  in  the  Prayer  to  themfelves  jiandivg^  and  then  fall  dovpn  for  a 
fjortjpat'e  in  a  roity  of  Adoration,  and  prefehtly  rife  up  again,  continuing  their 
Devotions  flanding.    All  which  is  capable  of  no  other  fenfe,-  but  that 
between  the  Pfalms  a  time  wasallow'd  in  the  GalUcan  Churches  as  well 
as  Egyptian  Monafleries,  for  private  Devotions  in  the  publick  Aflem- 
blies.     (/)  Gregor.  Turonenfis  faith,  J  hat  in  /^e  Gallican  Churches  //feWGreg. 
Deacon  did  Silentium  indicere ;  and  the  Prieft  did  it  by  the  («?)  Moza-  ('m]'Eog', 
rabiih  Liturgy,  which  Eugenius  Roblefius  uriderftands  only  of  making  /y&^Roblci. 
People  attenti7je  5  Which  I  grant  was  part  of  the  Deacon's  Office  and^g^^^'^" 
Defign  in  commanding  Silence,  as  appears  by  feveral  palTages  in-the  an-c.  28. 
cient  Liturgies  hoth'Greck  and  Latin.    But  there  was  a  farther  meaning 
in  it,  and  that  the  People  were  for  a  time  there  to  attend  to  their  own 
private  Prayers,  appears  not  improbable  to  me  on  thefe  Confiderations. 
Ci.)  Gregory  Turonenfis  faith,  in  the  Place  before  mentioned.  That  the 
K-ittg  took  that  ti^/e  to  /peak  to  the  People,  mho  immediately  break  forth 
into  a  Prayer  for  the  King ;  Not  that  any  Collet  was  then  read  for  him,  for 
that  was  not  the  proper  time  for  it^  but  it  being  a  time  of fecret  Pray- 
ers, they  were  fo  moved  with  what  the  King  faid,  that  they  all  pray'd 
for  him.    (2.)  Among  the  Heathens,  when  they  were  bidden  )^z/ere 
Linguis,  yet  then  (»)  Brijfoniuf  faith.  They  made  their  private  Prayers ^^„\  jjg 
And  as  the  Deacons  commanding  Silence  feems  to  be  much  of  the  Came  Pormuiiti 
Nature,  it  is.not  probable  that  the  Chriftians  (hould  fall  (hortof  their'''  ^' '°' 
Devotions.    (3.)  The  great  Argument  to  me,  is  the  fmall  number  of 
ColleSs  in  the  Ancient  Churches  ^  For  the  Chriftians  fpent  a  great  deal 
of  time  in  the  publick  Service,  on  the  Lord's-days,  and  the  Stationary 
days  5  But  all  the  other  Offices  could  not  take  up  that  time,  there 
being  no  long  Extemporary  Prayers,  nor  fuch  a  multitude  of  tedious  Cert" 
monies  in  all  Parts,  as  the  Roman  Breviary  and  Miffal  introduced,  and 
the  Collets  of  gre?.tefl:  Antiquity,  being  very  few  and  (hort,  it  feems 
moftprobible,  that  a  competent  part  of  the  time  was  fpent  itl  private 
Devotions.     A  remainder  whereof  is  Hill  preferved  in  the  Office  of 
Ordination  of  Priefis  in  our  Church,  whereby  filence  is  commnaded  to 
he  kept  for  a  time,  for  the  Peoples  fecret  Prayers.     And  the  fame  Cuftom 
was  obferved  at  the  Bidding  of  Prayers,'  which  was  a  dlreftion  for  the 
People  what    to   pray    for  in    their  (<?)    private    Devotions -,    After  (^0)  Vid. 
which  followd  the  Lord's-prayet  as  the  concluding  Collet.     But  eithe;r  Mat.  Par- 
that  or  another  was  ftill  ufed  after  thefe  filent  Prayers,  and  that  is  the  ^f/' 'j''^- 
^true  ancient  Reafon  of  the  Name:  For  (p)  Micrologus  faith,  Thenamiit'.YM-' 
Collefta  reas,  becaufe  the  Priefi  therein  did.  Omnium  Preces  colligere,  or,  5^"'  - 
as  (^cf)  Walafridus  Strabo  faith,  Neceffarias  omnium  Petitiones  compendi-  /,  3. 
<?/i  hrevitate  colligere.    This  was  diftinft  from  the  Prayer  made  ad  Col-  (1)  ^^"'a- 
le&am,  before  the  People  went  to  the  Stationary  Churches -,  Of  which  0-  ^'^' '"" "' 
nuphrius  Panvintus  and  Front 0  in  his  Calendafium  Piomanum  have  faid  e- 
nough.     But  as  to  the  GalUcan  Churches,  the  (r)  Council  of  Jgde(r)Coit. 
(hews  that  after  the  other  Offices  were  performed  in  the  Morning  and  ^2"'*;  ^« 
Evening  Service,  the  People  were  to  be  difmifled  by  the  BiQiop  Col-^°' 
le&a  Oratione,  i.  e.  With  a  concluding  Col/e^. 

(2.)  As  to  the  Communion  Service  (j)  Gennadius  faith.  That  Mufsetis (^s)  Gen- 
compofed  a  large  Volufhe  of  the  Sacraments,  mthfeTJeral  Offices  according  to  n^^- '" 
the  Seafons,  with  a  diverfity  of  Leffons,  and  PfalMs,  and  Anthefits,  and    "  **** 
Prayers  andThanksgivings.  This  book  is  called.  Liber  Sacramentorum,  and  (0  tldt-  iA 
fo  is  Gregorys,  faith  (/)  Menardus  in  feveral  MSS.  and  the  old  Miffal  ^(^^:  ^, 
publilhed  by  Illyriius  is  called  Ordo' Sacramentorttm  ^  Which  was  the  i,  ?, 

S  2  Natne 


140  ^  The  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  IV. 

Name  given  to  the  Books  of  Liturgick  Offices,  which  were  called  Sa- 
eramenta,    both  by  St.  Ambrofe  and  St.  Atigujlitte,  as  Menardus  fhews. 
{u)  Rer.    (^u)  Cardinal  Bona  confelTes ,  That  there  is  undmhted  Evidence,  that  the 
Liturg.i.  gi^  Gallican  Liturgy,  differ  d  from  the  Roman;  And  (»>)  Charles  the 
(w)  Car.    Great,  not  only  faith.  That  there  was  fiuh  a  difference  in  the  Celebration 
de  imag.    of  the  Divine  Offices  5  But  that  the  Gallican  Churches  were  very  unmlling 
''^■'^•^-  t0  change  theirs  fir  the  Koman,  Matthias  Flacius  Illyricus  Q  Dot  Flavins , 
as  Le  Cointe  pretends  to  corred  his  Name)  having  found  an  an- 
cient MS.  Miffal,  and  difcerning  feveral  different  Prayers  in  it  from 
the  Ra>»an  Miffal,  thought  this  to  have  been  the  ^nckv)tGallica»  Mif- 
£^1/""'*''^''  ^hsfcin  he  is  followed  by  fx)  Le  Ceinte,  who  hath  printed  it  at 
ftmc.  n.  Jarge  in  his  Annals '^  with  an  Epitome  of  it  publifhed  by  Menardus  out 
z.A.D.    of  an  ancient  Copy.  But  (y)  he  (hews  that  Illyricus  his  Copy  could 
W^Me-    "°^  ^^  of  ^^3f  Antiquity  he  pretends,  viz,.  Before  the  time  of  Gregory 
nard  App.  the  Great :  There  being  feveral  things  in  it  not  of  that  Age  ;  Which 
''sJr\     ^^""^  "°^  ^"  xhQold  Miffal  of  986.  and  were  in  another  of  later  date  5 
266.   '    To  which  Le  Ceinte  returns  no  Anfwer^  BuTbecaufe  this  differs  from 
the  Roman  Miffal,  he  concludes  it  muft  be  the  Gallican  ^  Whereas,  up- 
on perufing  it,  it  will  appear  rather  to  be  a  Supplement  to  the  Roman 
Miffal  for  the  Devotion  of  thofe  that  celebrate  it,  confifting  chiefly  of 
private  Prayers  to  be  ufed  by  them  before  Celebration,  and  during  the 
Singing  of   the  Several  Hymns  :  For  the   common  parts  of  the  Of- 
fice, as  the  Jntroitus,  Epifiola,  Graduale,  Evangelium,  Offertoriunt,  Se- 
cret a,  Pr^efatio,  Communio,  &  Poft-communio,  are  only  referr'd  to,  and 
not  fet  down  5  Whereas  if  this  had  been  the  Gallican  Miffal,    all 
thofe  parts  would  have  been  fet  down  rather  more  diftindly  than  o- 
(0  Rer.   tbers.     (s)  Card.  Bona  thinks  it  not  to  have  been  before  the  end  of  the 
Lturg.  I.  tenth  Century,  about  which  timefiveralfuchprivaieMiffalswere  made.  But  he 
■ "'  '^"    concludes,  that  certainly  this  was  not  the  old  Gallican  Miffal :  What  it 
was,  he  thinks  hard  to  determine,  and  I  think  fo  too  ;  If  fuch  Authors 
as  Hildmnus  miift  be  relied  on.    It  is  true,  he  mentions  the  old  Miffals 
which  contained  the  Gallican  Liturgy  from  ihefirfi  reception  of  the  Chrifti- 
an  Faith,  till  the  Roman  Miffal  was  received  5  But  be  is  an  Author  of 
no  Authority,  and  quotes  thefe  Miffals  for  a  thing  notorioufly  falfe, 
vi%>.  the  iHartyrdomof  Dionyfius  Areopagita  in  Gaul.     And  he  pretends, 
that  Jnnocentius,  Gelafius  and  Gregory,  all  endeavour  d  to  alter  the  Gal- 
lican Liturgy,  which  continued  in  ufe  till  Pep/Vstime;  So  that  from 
Hildmnus  no  certain  Note  can  be  taken.    It  is  much  more  material 
r-t)  DfAe.  which  (<«'i  Berno  Augienffs  hkb,  That  in  the  Archives  of  their  Mona- 
A/V'      ft^^y^'  ^^  found  an  old  Miffal  wherein  the  Offices  were  very  differently  orde- 
fpea^c.2.  red  from  what  they  were  in  the  Roman.     And  he  mentions  one  remarka- 
ble particular  of  the  Roman  Miffal,  which  is, 

( I.)  The  Difference  I  Ihall  obferve  in  the  Communion  Service,  viz.  That 

the  Creed  was  not  faid  nor  fung  at  Rome  after  the  Gofpel,  of  which  he 

faith,  They  gave  this  Reafon,  becaufe  the  Roman  Church  was  never  in- 

fe&ed  with  Herejie -^  which,  he  faith,  the  Emperor  Henry  I.  was  fo  little 

fatisffed  with,  that  he  never  ceafed,  till  they  had  introduced  it  at  Rome  5 

(OBar.    which,  faith  [b  '  Baronius,  was  done  An.  Dom.  1014,  but  he  feems  not 

A.v.ioi^.  pleafed  that  the  former  Cujiom  was  broken.     Before  that  time,  none  that 

"*  ^"        ipeak  of  the  Cnftomsoi  the  Roman  Miffal  ever  mention  the  Creed,  as 

may  be  feen  in  Alcuinus,  Amalariuf,  Rabanns,  and  others.     And  this 

(0  iVot.in  cannot  be  underftood  barely  of  the  ConftantinopoUtane  or  Wicene  Creed, 

Oreg,  sa-  gg  (^T^  Menardus  well  provei,  becaufe  then  Berno  would  have  fpoken  more 

dijiin^ly. 


Chap.  IV.  the  Bf'iiiji  Cbiircbcs:  i'4.'i 

diiiincily.     And  the  Athanafian  Creed,  as  far  35  we  can  trace  it,  was  firft 
U fed  in  the  GnUhan  Chnher,  and  that  ufe  firfl:  mei>tion'd  by  Ahh  Flo- 
riaccnps  in  fome  Fragments  fen t  by  N'uoUhs  Faher  to  (^)  Baronius,  But,V)Ban/i, 
wbofoever  confiders  tbe  upiverfal  Silence  about  that  Creed  before,   and  ^-  '°°'- 
compares  it  vvith  the  Frofcjjim  of  Faith  in  the  firft  CV/^»  of  the  fourth"'  ^' 
Council  of  Toledo,  which  then  took  fo  many  of  the  Galilean  0§fces  in- 
to the  Service  of  the  SpaniJIj  Churches,    will  fee  Heafon  to  beljeve  that 
thisCreed  was  originally  of  a  Gallkan  Compofition,  ^nd  thence  vva$  car- 
ried into  Spa'tnu^on  the  Converfion  of  the  Goths  frora  Ariamfm,  where' 
in  feveral  Expreflions  are  taken  out  of  St.  Jugt/Jline's  Works.  RnffMHs 
(hews.  That  thofe  that  vpere  to  he  baptized  did  at  Ronie  rtpeat  the  Creed  5 
but  that  is  another  thing  from  its  ufe  in  the  Liturgy,   which  both  Barv- 
nius  and  (e)  Bona  confefs  was  fo  lately  introduced  at  Rowe.  So  that  here  (e)  Rer. 
we  have  one  confiderable  difference  of  the  Roman  Offices  from  thofe  ofj-'^^'S- 
other  Churches  5  For  (/)  Ijidore  faith.  That  the  Nicene  Creed  was  then  (f^'ve 
ufed  in  theCothk^^Chitrches  in  the  tiwe  of  Sacrifice,   a§  the  Church  Service  ^'^'^'-^f'' 
W;as  then  called^    For  that  it  had  no  Relation  to  that  which  is  called *^*"^* 
tSc  Sa:  rifjce  of  the  Mafs,  appears  by  Cgz/cH.  Aurel,  3.  can.  29.    Where  we 
/in;l|he  name  of  Sacrifice  applied  to  the  Evening  Service  ^Sairt fid  a  Ma- 
tu4ii/a  M/Jfurum,  five  Vefpertina  ^  And  fo  (_g)  Caffian  ufes  Sacrifitia  Vefper-  [g^  catTi- 
titta  in  allufion  to  the  Cuftom  of  Sacrificing  among  the  Jews.     And  (y&)  ^n.deinft. 
HovaratMs,  in  the  Life  of  St.  Hilarins  of  Aries,  calls  it  SacrificiumVefper-  f^'^'^f/^^ 
tfff^  L^dif.     And  Miffa  was  fhen  ufed  for  the  public^  Service,  as  (i)  Caf-  (h)  h't. ' 
fander  and  others  (hew.     In  the  Rule  of  St,  Benedi^,  Miff^  are  to  he  ta-  "'["|'',i 
iten  for  the  concluding  Collects  at  the  Canonical  Hours,     (k)  Caffian  ufeth  (,)  'uturg. 
Miff^  for  any  publick  meetif:g  at  Prayers,   thence  he  (peaks  of  Mfjfa  No-  '=■  ^7- 
(Xurna^  and  MifftOrationum,  and  AliJfaCansn  If  a,  for  the  ]SJoCfurnalOf-f2de\njf, 
fice  among  the  Monks ^    And  in  the  Concil.  Agath.  c.  30.     We  read  ofi.z.c.z%, 
M-iff(g  Vefpertina.  Rut  afterwards  the  name  was  appropriated  to  the  moft  '*  ^' ''  ^' 
folemn  part  of  publick  Worfhip,  \\z.  The  Commtwion  Service.  In  which 
the  Creed  was  appointed  by  the  third  Council  of  Tojedo,  c.  2.  in  all  the 
Churches  of  Spain  and  GalUcia  ^  or  as  fome  Copies  have  it,  of  Gallia  5 
Which  is  confirmed  by  an  Ed'iCcof Reccaredus  to  that  purpofe  ^    which 
extended  to  th?^  Part  of  Gallia  Narbonenfis,    then  under  the  Gothich 
Row^r '^    Where  3  (/)  Council  met  under  i?eff<?re<^wj-,   about  the  fame  (/)  conc/i. 
time.    In  which  Gloria  Patri  was  decreed  to  be  ufed  at  the  end  of  emry  ^'«''*''"- 
Pfahn-y    which  was  obferved  by  the  other  Gallican  Churches  [n  Cajfians^' ''  ^' 
time.     It  feems  very  probable,  that  the  Spani/h  Churi  hes  did  follow  the 
Cuftoms  of  the  Gallican  in  other  parts  of  the  Divine  Offices  as  well  as 
this  ^    Which  appears  by  the  Paffage  in  the  Epiftle  of  Carolm  Calvus 
produced  by  (ni)Card.  Bona,  where  fpeaking  of  the  ancient  G^///Vrf«  0/ .^v  ^^^ 
fices  before  the  Introdudion  of  the  Roman,   he  faith,    He  had  feen  and  utwg.Ci. 
heard  how  different  they  were  by  the  Priejis  of  the  Church  of  Toledo,    rvho'-^'^' 
bad  celebrated  the  Offices  of  their  Church  before  him.     Which  had  fignified 
nothing  to  this  matter,  unlefsthe  Gothich  and  Gallican  Offices  had  then  .. 

agreed.     1  do  not  fay  that  the  old  Gallican  Serttice  can  be  gather'd  from  !/"\„°'xi; 
all  the  Parts  of  the  Mozarabick  Liturgy,  as  it  was  fettled  by  (n)  Card.^^°-  '-.z.' 
Ximenes,  in  a  Chapel  of  the  Church  of  Toledo  ^  or  as  it  is  performed  on  f"^  ^eRe- 
certain  days  at  Salamanca,  becaufe  many  Alterations  might  be  in  thofe  bus  Hifp. 
Offices  as  well  a?  others  in  folong  time  5  And  fuch  no  doubt  there  were,'- ^j]^'^  5- 
as  {0)  Mariana  confefTeth,  by  the  length  of  time  ;    alfhopgh  it  did  ^ear  phonf.  </« 
the  Name  of  Leander  and  Ifidore.    For  (p^JuUanus  Toletanus  js  faid  to  script.Ec.^ 
have  review'd  the  whole  Office,   and  tQ  Jjave  alter  d  aail  ^dd^d  mapy  AmS- '" 

things. 


142  '     'J he  Antiquities  of  Chap. 

things,  and  Johannes  Cafaraugn^amis  and  Conantius,  and  after  them  Pe- 
trus  Ihrdenfs,  and  Salvus  Abbaildenfs,  befides  fuch  whofe  Names  are 
not  preferved  ^  But  fo  far  as  we  can  trace  the  ancient  Cuftoms  of  the 
Gothick  Mijfal  we  may  probably  infer  what  the  Cuftoms  of  the  GalUcatt 
Churches  at  that  time  were,  and  thereby  (hew  the  diflference  between 
them  and  the  Roman  Offices.     As  befides  this  of  the  Creed. 

(2.)  The  Prophetical  Lejjons  were  always  to  be  read  by  the  Rules  of 
the  Mozarab'iik  Liturgy  :    And  accordingly  three  Books  were  laid  upon 
C5)Greg.  the  Altar  in  the  Oal/ican  Churches,  as  (^)  Gregorius  Turonenjis  obferves, 
Turonej'^  That  of  the  Prophets,   and  of  the  Epijiles,  and  of  the  Gofpels.     But  no- 
i.B.l.i.  tbingbut  the  Epijile  and  Gofpel  were  read  at  Rome,  as  is  (hew'd  alrea- 
dy -J    Which  manifefts  that  the  Book  under  St.  Jeromes  Name,    called 
the  Le&ionarius  or  Comes  muft  be  counterfeit  5  Becaufe  therein  LelTohs 
out  of  the  Prophets  are  fet  down  :     And  the  Authorities  of  Bemo  Ah- 
{r)  To.  2.  gienfts,   Micrologus  and  Radulphifs  Tungrenfis,    which  are  the  beft  (r) 
i|^f«r^.  in  Pamelius  could  find,  are  not  great  enough  againft  fo  plain  Evidence 
to  the  contrary,    to  prove  this  Le&ionarius  to  have  been  made  by  St. 
Jerome.    And  he  confefles  that  Amalarim  feveral  times  only  mentions 
the  Au&or  Lei^ionarii  without  St.  Jerome's  Name,    who  lived  a  good 
while  before  them.     But  in  this  the  Roman  Church  had  its  peculiar 
Rites  5  for,  in  the  Church  of  Milan,  firft  aLeflbn  out  of  the  Prophets 
(f)  Sever,  was  read  before  the  Epijile,   as  appears  by  (/)  Sulpicim  Severus^    And 
M^Sr^"  the  Greek  Church,    St.  (0  Bafil  faith,    That  Lejfons  out  of  the  Old  as 
1. 3.     '    well  as  the  New  lejiament  were  read      By  the  («)  Council  oi  Laodicea^ 
(()  Bafil.   all  f^g  Canonical  Boohs  were  appointed  to  be  read.     Zonaras  obferves,    on 
om^i3.  ^j^^  i^xh  Canon  of  that  Council,    That  before  this  Council  there  were  no- 
(u)  concii.  thing  but  Prayers  before  the  Confecration  :    But  therein  he  was  certainly 
^w^am-'  miftaken  ^  For  (w)  Jufiin  Martyr  (hews.  That  the  heffons  wererefid  long 
loi.  z.       before,  and  that  out  of  the  Prophets  as  well  as  Jpojiles.     But  Balfamon  and 
Arijienus  reftrain  this  Canon  only  to  Saturdays  ;    And  it  enjoins  the 
reading  of  the  Gofpels  then,  which  was  not  accuftomed  before.     There 
being  no  Religious  AfTemblies  in  thofe  Parts  on  that  day :     Bur  by  the 
fame  Canon  we  find,  That  where  the  Gofpels  were  read,   other  Scriptures 
(x)  Hiero.  ^^^^  appointed  to  be  read  too.     It  is  obferved  by  (x*)  Dominicus  Macer^ 
Uxkog.  V.  that  at  the  heffons  of  the  Old  Tefiament  the  Greeks  do  fit  5    but  fi and  at 
fy)'soT.  t  *^°f^  <"''  ^/  *^^  ^^^'     (y^  Sozomen  reckons  it  as  a  peculiar  Cuftom  of 
7.  c.  19.    Alexandria,  That  the  Bifhop  did  not  rife  up  at  the  Gofpels  :  And  Nicepho' 
*  Niccph.  rus  *  Callijihus  faith,    It  was  contrary  to  the  Praftice  of  all  other 
/.iz.  c  34.  Churches. 

(5.)  After  the  Gofpel,  the  Sermon  follow'd  in  other  Churches  ;   But  in 
the  old  Roman  Offices,  there  is  no  mention  at  all  of  any  Sermon  to  the 
MRer.    People,     (z.)  Card.  Bona  Caith,  That  it  hath  been  the  uninterrupted  Pra- 
i-iturg.l.i.  ijf-^^  ffjfljg  Church  from  the  Apofles  time^  to  our  own,  for  the  Sermon  tofol- 
*'  ^* "'  *  low  after  the  Gofpel :     And  he  doth  fufficiently  prove  the  Antiquity  of 
it  from  the  Teftimonies  of  Jufiin  Martyr  and  Tertullian,  and  the  gene- 
ral Praftice  of  it  in  other  Churches,  efpecially  the  Galilean ;   But  he 
(a)Soz.    offers  no  Proof,  that  it  was  obferved  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  But  (^a^So- 
i.j.c  9.  zomen  obferves  it  as  the  peculiar  Cuftom  of  that  Church,   That  there  was 
no  Preaching  in  it  ;    neither  by  the  Bifhop,    nor  by  any  one  elfe.     Valefiut 
feems  to  wonder  at  it  5   But  he  faith,  If  it  had  not  been  true,  Caffiodore, 
who  certainly  knew  the  Cuftoms  of  that  Church,  would  never  have  repeated 
it.    In  the  Sacramentary  of  Gregory,    The  Ojfgr*£;r>' immediately  follows 
after  the  Gojpel^   And  Micrologus  faith,  Finito  Evangelic,  ftatim  eft  of' 

ferenduMf 


r 


Chap.  IV.  the  hi itijh Chinches.  143 

fercfiAum,  c.  lo.     And  to  the  fame  purpofe  in  thzOrdo  Rotftaniu  j  But 
ill  the  Ordo  of  the  Wejiern  Churches,    publifhed  by  (J>)  Ojjander  \N\ih {b)Liturg. 
the  other.  There  the  B/fhcp  is  to  be  attetided  on  after  the  Cofpel  in  order  ^  ^^  "°5' 
tohff  Preaihing  j  But  if  he  will  not,  Then  the  Creed  if  to  he  fang  :     And 
according  to  this  Cuftom,  the  (<r)  Qemma.  Anim£  is  to  be  underftoodlO^"^' 
when  it  faith,  That  after  the  Go/pel^    the   Bi/hop  preacher   to  the  People,  f'l'"^l ^^^ 
It  is  true.  That  in  the  Church  ot\R<7we,  Leo  did  make  fome  Sermons  on  ' 
folemn  Occafions  ^  But  he  was  the  fir Jl  that  did  it,   faith  (jT)  ^tefncl  ^   '^^  {d)Di!  v't. 
Sozomen  may  be  believed.     It  is  poffible.    That  upon  fome  extraordi-€^^e/f« 
nary  Occafions,  the  Bi(hops  of  Rome  might  fpeak  to  the  People  before  YT^n 
his  time,    as  Liberius  is  faid,    by  St.  (e)  Ambrofe,   to  have  done  at  St.  e)Am- 
Peters  ^    But  this  fignifies  nothing  to  the  conftant  Office  of  Preaching,  ^\^^-  ''■^ 
which  was  not  ufed  in  the  Church  of  Rome  by  any  Bifliop  before  Lea,  TandJ.3: 
nor  by  many  after,  as  it  was  in  other  Churches.  In  the  Gallii  an  Churches, 
as  (/)  Chrijlianui  Lnpits  obferves.  The  Bilhops  called  their  Office  /V^-  C/)^"  c^n. 
dicationif  Officium  ^    as  appears  by  the  PrcfeJJion  both  of  Bfhops  and  ^^'*"' 
Jrchbiff}0ps,   among  (g)  Sirmondus  his  FormuU  publiftied  out  of  anci-(s)  To.  2. 
em  Copies.     And  in  the  Royal  Confirmatio»  they  were  charged  to  be  di-  q''"[/p,^.„, 
ligent  in  Preaching.     The  fame  Author  tells  us.    That  Charles  the  Great  iz,  15'. 
was  fo  jirlS  in  requiring  it,  That  he  made  the  Penalty  of  the  neglefl  of  it  to 
be  no  lefs  than  Depofition.     Which  is  warranted  by  the  Apofiolical  Canon 
58.     The  Council  in  7>«//tf,  c.  19.  charges  the  Bifiups  to  preach  conjiant- 
ly.  But  tfpccially  on  the  Lord's-days  ;  The  want  whereof  was  extremely 
lamented  afterwards  in  the  Greek  Church  by  {h)  Barlaam,  and  (/)  Gre-  (A)Baria^ 
gvr/iu  Protofyncelliu.     And  the  negleft  of  it  in  the  Armenian  Churches  ""•  ^^'^° 
hath  brought  the  Epifopal  Order  into  fo  great  Contempt,    as  (k)  Clemens  (i)  Greg. 
Calaniu  reports,   (  who  was  a  long  time  among  them)  that  he  faith, ''^''^' ""^ 
They  life  their  Bifhops  for  little  elfe  but  to  give  Orders  ;    But  the  only  Men  ^hcf. 
in  efteem  are  their  Vartabret,  (whom  he  renders  Magijiri,  their  Preach-  {k)condi. 
eri:,  }   whom  the  People  regard  far  beyond  their  Btfiiops,  becaufe,  they  ^^'I'/^V 
fay,  they  reprefent  Chrid  himfilf,  as  he  rvasKahhi,    or  the  Teacher  of  his  c.z8. 
Church.    But  to  return  to  the  Weftcrn  Churches.  In  the  Church  ofMi-P-  4J5. 
Jan,    (I)  St.  Afiguliine  faith.    He  heard  St.  Ambrofe  every  Lord's-day  ^  {iy:onfeff. 
.And,  he  faith,  (m )  He  accounted  it  the  proper  Off.ce  of  a  B:fl}op  to  preach  5  '•  ^-^  ?• 
Which  he  performed,  as  in  other  Churches  («;  after  the  Gofpel,  before }^/j J.  i- 
the  D/fmiJpon  of  the  Catechumen i-^    ^at  by  the  Moz^rabick  Liturgy,  thec-i- 
Sermon  was  after  their  difmijfion.  ^"^^^' 

(4,)  The  Gallii  an  Churches  had  peculiar  Offices  after  the  Sermon;  So 
(0  IValafridus  Strabo  faith.  That  fome  ofthofe  Prayers  were  jiill  in  ufe  a.-  (0)  Wa- 
mongthem.  And  (p)  Mi crologui.  That  the  Prayer,  Veni  Sanftificator,'^'''^;^^^- j 
C^r.  »>as  taken  out  of  the  Gallican  Ordo.  But,  to  make  this  more  clear,  cn'.'^'^ 
we  are  to  confider,  that  there  were  fome  parts  of  the  Communion  Ser- 
vice wherein  all  the  Anctent  Ofices^greed  ;  as  in  the  Surfum  Corda,  and 
Habemus  ad  Dominum  ufedinthe  Eajiern,  as  well  as  Wejiern  Churches  5 
and  there  are  as  plain  Teftimonies  of  their  ufe  in  the  African  and  Galli- 
can Churches  as  the  Roman  5  before  the  Roman  Offices  came  to  be  im- 
pofed  on  other  Churches.  The  Gratiat  agamus  Domino  Deo  *toftro,  and 
Vere  dignum  ^juftum  eft  £quum  df  faint  are,  nos  tibi  femper  €^  ubiquegra^ 
tiasagere,  are  mention'd  by  St.  Cj»r/7,  St.Chryfoftome,  St.  Augujiine,  and 
c>ther  ancient  Writers  ;  This  latter  part  in  the  Mozarabick  Liturgy  is 
called  Inlatio.  The  Trifagionwzs  generally  ufed  5  I  do  not  mean  that 
which  was  faid  to  have  come  by  Revelation  in  the  time  ofProclus  at 
CffnjiantinopU  %    But  that  which  theGreeh  call  Ettu/xi^,    and  is  called 

Trifagiuni 


14.4.  The  Anti/jutties  of  Chap.  IV, 

Tnfagium  in  the  Ambrofian  Mi^al,  and  was  ufed  with  a  more  ample  Para- 
phrafe'in  the  Eajicrn  Churches.     All  thefe  Parts  are  retained  in  the  ex- 
cellent Office  of  our  Church  ^  not  from  the  Church  oi  Rome  (as  our  Dif- 
fenters  weakly  imagine)  but  from  the  confentof  <?//  the  ancient  Church- 
es in  the  ufe  of  them  ^    Which  it  hath  follow'd  likewife  in  the  putting 
(,7)  LUurg.  them  into  a  Language  underftood  by  the  People  (as  {q)  Cajfander  ful- 
c.  28, 35.  ly  fhews. )     And  in  the  ufe  of  the  Hymn,    Gloria  in  excelfis,    which, 
with  the  Addition  to  the  Scripture  Words,    was  ufed  in  the  Eaftern 
(r)conftit.  churches,  as  appears  by  the  (r)  ApojioHcal  Conflitutions,    and  a  Paf- 
><;^^-/-7-fage  ir^    (j)  Athanafius  his   Works,    and  feveral    Greek  MSS.  of  it, 
(j)  Acha-  this  was  called  Hymntu  Angelicus  from  the  beginning  of  it,  and  Hymnus 
"''^-        Matutinus  from  the  ancient  time  of  ufing  it,    as  appears  not  only  from 
';  '°'^'    other  MSS.  but  from  the  famous  Alexandrian  Copy  of  the  LXX.  where 
it  is  fet  down  in  large  Letters,    and  called  by  the  Name  of  the  Morning 
{f)Aicuin.  Hymn.   Its  ufe  in  the  GalUcan  Church  is  attefted  by  the  ancient  MS.  in 
'^-  42-       the  beginning  of  this  Difcourfe  ^  And  (/)  Alcninus  makes  St.  Hilary  of 
Poi&ou  to  have  been  the  Inlargerof  it.     The  Prayer  for  the  Church  Mili- 
tant ;  For  Kings  and  Princes  ;   And  all  Ranks  and  Orders  of  Men  5  The 
Commemoration  of  Saints  departed  ^    The  Reading  the  Words  of  Injiituti- 
on,    and   ufing  the   Lord's-prayer -^    were  in  aW  the  ancient  Liturgies  as 
parts  of  the  Communion  Service  :     And  therefore  are  not  to  be  look'd 
on  as  appropriated  to  the  Canon  of  the  Mafs  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 

Wherein  then  did  the  Difference  confift  between  the  Roman  and  Galli' 
can  Churches  at  that  time,  as  to  thk  Service  ? 

In  Anfwerto  this  Queftion,    I  (hall  go  through  the  other  parts  of  it, 
and  (hew  the  difference. 

(i.)  The  GalUcan  Office  began  with  a  peculiar  Confejfton  of  Sitts  made 

(H)Ker.    by  the  Prie^i,  which  was  called  ^/?<?/<7^7^.     A  form  whereof  (a)  Cardi- 

LUmg.     nalBona  hath  publifhed  out  of  a  very  ancient  MS.  in  the  ^een  ofSwe- 

'■  *  '^'  ^'  den's  Library  5    And  which  he  proves  to  have  been  the  old  GalUcan  Of- 

(w)  sucr.  fee.     It  is  true,    that  feveral  Forms  of  fuch  Co>ifejfions,    are  in  the  (n») 

^'■^s-       Sacramentary  of  Gregory  5    But  all  different  from  the  GalUcan  Form.    In 

^(x)Sacr.  the  old  Miffal  of  Ratalduj,  Abbat  of  C(?r%,   publifhed  by  [x")  Menar- 

Greg.      dus,  inffead  of  the  Jpology,  we  read  that  Form,  SufcipeConfejJionemme-' 

^'^  ^'     am,  ttnicaSpesSalutfs  me£,  Domine  Deui  meus,  8cc.     And  then  follows 

a  particular  enumeration  of  Sins,  and  a  general  ConfeJJion  of  them.  And 

0)Greg.  a  different  Form  is  produced  by  ^  y)  Menardus,  out  of  another  ancient 

sacr.       Mijjal,  which  he  calls  the  Codex  TiUanus,    and  feems  moft  agreeable  to 

^*  ^^^"     the  old  GalUcan  raention'd  by  Bona ;    And,  There  is  a  great  variety  of 

Forms  of  ConfoJJton  and  Supplication  in  the  old  Mijfal  publifhed  by  lllyri- 

cus.     But  I  obferve.    That  the  Form  prefcribed  in  the  Roman  Mijfal  is 

in  none  of  them:    viz.  Confiteor  DeoOmnipotenti,   B.  Marix  femper  Fir- 

gini,    B.  M'lchaeW  An hangelo,  8cc.    ^  omnibus  San&is,  8cc.  Idea  precor 

B.i}Aax\avn,^c.  OmnesSanBos.  ^C."-CXrareprome  ad  Dominumnofirum: 

For  all  the  ancient  Forms  of  Con fiffion  were  only  to  God  himjelf-j     And 

fo  they  continued  for  1000  Years  after  chrtji  ;   About  which  time 

Menardus  faith.  The  feveral  ancient  Miffals  before  mentioned  do  hear  Date. 

The  Common  Ritualifls  attribute  the  prefent  Form  to  Pontianus,  or  Da- 

(z)Rer.    f»aftts,  h\it  without  any  Authority,    faith  (z.)  Card.  Bona.  Thefirflmen- 

'i'Tti.    t^°"  ^  ^^"  ^^^  of  Confejfion  to  Saints,  is  that  which  he  fets  down  out  of 

(a)id.l.\.  the  Codex  Chi/ii  I,    Which  being  in  the    (a)   Lombard  Chara&er,    he 

riiM*    1  g^^^^s  to  have  been  before  the  end  of  the  tenth  Century,  and  with 

1.23!"°  this  iff)  Micrologus  agrees  i   The  Author  whereof  lived  towards  the 

end 


Chap.  IV.  the  EritilhCbarches,  145 

end  of  the  eleventh  Century.  So  that  this  part  of  the  Roman  Miffd 
was  neither  in  th(^  Gregorian  nor  Galilean  Offices^  being  of  a  much  later 
Original. 

(2.)  The  Gallicaft  Oj^ce  hzd  peculiar  Prefaces,  and  Collets  different 
from  the  Roman.  By  the  Prefaces  are  underrtood  that  part  of  the  Ser- 
vice which  immediately  goes  before  t/:ie  Confccration,  and  is  called  in  the 
Gallican  Office,  Conteflatio,  in  the  Gothick,  Illatio,  (hewing  not  only 
the  general  Fit »efs  for  us  at  all  times,  to  give  thanks  to  God:,  But  the 
particular  Reafon  of  it.,  with  refpe^  to  the  Day.  Of  which  kind  oi  Pre- 
faces, the  Roman  Church  allow'd  but  Nine,  which  were  attributed  to 
Pope  GelafiHs  ;  But  (f)  Card.  Bona  faith,  That  number  is  to  be  found  on-  (c)  rc. 
ly  in  the  Mijjals,  after  An.Dom.  1200.  For  before,  there  were  many  lh.  1.2.1:. 
more,  as  appears  by  Gregory's  Sacramentary  ^  But  how  they  came  to  be  ^^' "'  ^' 
left  out  afterwards  in  the  Roman  Mi/fal  is  a  Myftery,  of  which  none 
of  the  Ritualifts  give  any  tolerable  account.  However  this  is  enough 
to  (hew  their  Ignorance,  when  they  fo  confidently  attributed  the  pro- 
per Prefues  to  Gelajius '^  As  though  Gregory  would  have  flighted  fo 
much  the  Decree  of  his  Predecejfjrs,  as  to  have  appointed  fo  many 
more,  if  Gelafns  had  limited  the  number  to  Nine.  But  however  it 
was  in  the  Roman  Church,  the  Galilean  Church  had  peculiar  Prefaces  for 
all  folemn  Occafions.  Of  which  {d)  Card.  Bona  hath  produced  three  ^j)  j^^r. 
remarkable  Inftances,  two  out  of  the  former  ancient  MS",  of  'H'me  LUwg.i. 
hundred  Years  old,  which  formerly  belong'd  to  Petavius,  a  Senator  of '"  ^'  '"' 
Parff  ^  And  a  third  out  of  a  Copy  of  the  Palatine  Library,  tranflated 
to  the  Vatican,  of  the  fame  Age.  From  thefe  exellent  Monuments  of 
Antiquity  compared  together  we  may  in  great  raeafure  underftand  the 
true  Order  and  Method  of  the  Communion  Service  of  that  time,  both  in 
the  Gallican  and  Britijh  Churches,  efpecially  on  Saints-days ;  For  no  o- 
ther  Offices  are  preferved,  or  at  leaft  made  known  to  the  World.  And 
on  thofe  Oicafions  the  Service  began  with  particular  Colle&s  for  the 
Drf/;  Then  foUow'd  the  Commemoration  out  of  the  Diptychs:,  Then  a- 
nother  Co/Ie^l,  Poji  nomina  ^  After  which  the  Collet,  ad  Pacem ;  Then 
the  particular  Prefaces  relating  to  the  Saint  whofe  memory  was  cele- 
brated i,  with  a  larger  account  of  his  good  Aftions  than  is  ufed  in  any 
of  the  Gregorian  Prefaces,  expreffed  in  a  devout  and  pathetical  manner^ 
Which  ended  in  the  Trifagion ;  And  was  continued  by  another  ColleU 
to  the  Confccration  -^  After  which  folio w'd  a  devout  Prayer  for  benefit  by 
the  Holy  Sacrament  ^  And  after  another  Collet  for  the  occafion  follow  a 
the  Lord's-prayer,  with  a  Conclujion  for  the  Day :  And  the  whole  Ser- 
vice was  concluded  with  a  Be?!edi3ion  of  the  People,  a  CoUe3  after 
the  Eucharifi,  and  a  (hort  Thanhgiving.  This  is  a  jufl  and  true  Ac- 
count from  thefe  authentick  Offices  of  the  Publitk  Service  then  ufed  in 
the  Britifh  Churches  followiug  the  Gallican  from  the  time  of  St.German, 
vphofe  particular  Office  is  one  of  thofe  preferved  by  Card.  Bona ;  And  in 
the  peculiar  Preface  his  great  Zeal  is  mentioned  in  Preaching  and  going  up 
and  down  doing  good  in  Gaul,  Italy  and  Britain,  for  thirty  years  together. 

(5.)  As  to  the  Canon  of  the  Mafs,  as  it  is  called  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  or  the   Prajer  of  Confecration   ufed  in    the   Church    of  Rome, 
and  magnified   as  Apoflolical,  St.  (e)  Gregory  affirms,  as  plainly  asheW.^"^' 
well  could,  That   it  was  firji  compofed  by   a  private   Perfon,    and  waSep.  63." 
not  of  Apoflolical  Tradition.     Who  that  Scholar  was,  it  is  now  im- 
poflible  to  know,  and  not  at  all  material,  fince  it  is  apparent  that  it 
was  received  into  the  puhluk  VJe  of  the  Church.    Some  fmall  additi- 

T  ohs. 


"The  Antiqimks  of  Chap.  IV^ 


ons,  they  fay,  were  made  to  it  by  feveral  Fopes^  till   Gregory's  time, 
who,  according  to  the  Ritualifts,  (hut  up  this  Cafton.    But  I  fee  no  rea- 
fon  to  believe  that  0»yerr<r?rw  of  the  Euchariji,  was  at  that  time  per- 
formed in  other  Churches  by  the  words  of  this  Canon.     For,  fetting  a- 
fide  the  Eajlern  Churches,  which  had  Forms  of  their  own  ^  The  African 
(f)  Opt.    Churches  did  not  follow  the  Roman  Form.     For  although  (/)  Optatns 
'•  *•        mentions  Hind  legitimum  in  Sacramctitorum piyflerio -.^  which  implies,  that 
there  was  a  certain  Form  to  be  obferved^  yet  this  doth  not  at  all  prove, 
that  it  was  the  Roman  Canon :  And  it  evidently  appears  that  it  was  not, 
(ejviaor-ljy  the  Teftimonies  of  (^)  Marius  Vi&orinrfs,  and  (h)  Fnlgentius,  two 
Arkm,  /.  -African  Writers,  who  both  mention  fome  Prayers  ufed  in  the  Eucharifl^ 
I-  which  are  not  in  the  Roman  Canon,  and  thofe  not  Prefatory  5  but  fuch 

^stJ^in    ^5  ^^  relate  to  the  main  parts  of  the  Canon.     It  is  true,  the  Writer  a- 
Ep.i.ad  bout  the  Sacraments,  under  St.  Ambrofe's  name  (for  (i)  Ct?rd.  Bona  will 
1  Cor.  c.  f,Q(  allow  him  to  be  St.Ambrofe)  doth  produce  feveral  Expreffions  in 
{t)Ker.    the  Form  of  Confecratien  which  agree  with  the  Roman  Canon '.^  But  then 
Liturg.i.  he  adds  a  very  confiderable  Paffage,  which  I  hardly  believe,  thofe  who 
I-  c-  7.  n-  g^g  jj^g^  zealous  for  the  Roman  Canon  will  fay,  was  ever  part  of  it,   (k) 
\i)  De     Fac  nobis  hanc  oblationem  afcriptam,  rationabilem,  acceptabilem,  quod  efi 
ir/'^^*  ^'fi^**'"'^  corporis  &  fanguinis  Domini  noftri  Jefu  Chrifti.     And  in  tbeG<j/« 
lican  Church,  the  Form  of  Confecration,  as  appears  by  the  Office  of 
St.  German,  was  nothing  elfe  but  repeating  the  Words  of  Injlitutiony  after 
the  Conclufion  of  the  Trifagion,  and  Gloria  in  Exceljts.     After  which 
follow'd  a  Prayer,  for  God's  Holy  Word  and  Spirit  to  defend  upon  the 
Oblation  they  made.  That  it  might  be  a  fpiritnal  Sacrifice  well  pleafing  to 
God^  And  that  God,  by  the  Blood  ^/Chrift,  would  with  hk  own  Right  Hand 
defend  thofe  his  Sacraments  i,  And  then  follow'd  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  o- 
ther  Collets.    This   Prayer  after  Confecration,  Card.  Bona  knows  not 
what  to  make  of,  as  feeming  wholly  inconfiftent  with  Tranfubftantia-. 
tion,  for  if  that  Doftrine  had  been  then  believed,  and  by  Confecration 
the  Elements  turn'd  into  the  Body  of  Chrifl  ^  To  what  purpofe  doth 
the  Church  then  prayer  the  Word  and  Spirit  to  defcend  upon  the  Eh' 
^luw-'l'i-  ^^"*^^  when  they  are  actually  united  already  ?  But  (/)  he  makes  a  ve- 
2.C.13.    ry  hard  fhift  to  interpret  thefe  Words,  not  of  a  defcent  on  the  Elc 
l.i.c.i2.ffig„fs^  but  on  the  Hearts  of  the  Communicants  :    But  the  Words  are, 
Defcendatfuper  hac  qute  tibi  offerimus  Verbum  tuum  San&um,  Which  are  To 
plain  and  evident  concerning  the  Elements,  that  nothing  but  mere  force, 
can  make  any  Man  to  underftand  them  of  the  Receivers.     Befides,  that 
Ofice  concludes  with  a  particular  Prayer  for  the  Benefit  of  thofe  that 
had  partaken  of  the  Body  ofChrifi,  wherein  his  Expreffion  is  remark- 
able, Chrijie  Domine,  qui  ^  tuo  vefci  corpore,  ^  tuum  co'pus  efji.i  vis 
fideles,  fac  nobis  in  remijfionem  Peccatorum  effe  quod  fumpfimus,  i.  e.     O 
Chrifl,  our  Lord,  who  wottldejt  have  thy  People  eat  thy  Body,  and  become 
thy  Body,  grant  that  we  may  he  that  which  we  have  taken  for  the  RemiJJion 
of  our  Sins.   And  it  is  certain,  the  meaning  of  this  Prayer  was  not  that 
Chriftians  might  become  the  Natural  Body  of  Chrifl:  5  And  therefore  it 
was  not  then  believed.  That  the  Faithful  did  in  the  Euchariji  take  the 
Natural  Body  o/Chrift^  But  that  which  was  the  Body  ofChnU  in  fuch 
d  myflical  fenfe  as  the  Church  is.     But  Tranfubfiantiation  was  no  part  of 
the  Faith  of  the  Church  at  that  time,  and  therefore  it  is  no  wonder  to 
(m)  Rer.  meet  with  Expreffions  fo  difagreeing  to  it  in  their  folemn  Devotions. 
i'.Tf's'.'  ^^^  "  *^  ^^''  obferved  by  (m:)  Card.  Bona,  that  the  Cuftom  of  Ele- 
n.  2.  '    vation  of  the  Hofi,  in  Order  to  Adoration^  is  found  in  none  of  the 

ancient 


Chap.  IV.  the  Britijh  Churches.  14-7 

ancient  Sacrament aries,  nor  in  the  Ordo  RowanHf,  nor  in  the  Old  Ri- 
tualijh,  fuch  as  AlcHinns,  Amalarius,  H'alafridus^  Mtcrologuf  and  others. 
The  fame  had  been  ingenuoufly  confeffed  before  by  (»)  Menardus,  in(")  ^'''•'» 
the  fame  Words:  And  although  there  may  be  Elevation,  where  there  Greg. 
is  no  beh'ef  of  Tranfubjiantiation^  yet,  fince  the  Cuftom  of  Elevation  p- 37^- 
was  lately  introduced  into  the  Weflern  Churches,  and  iq  order  to  Ado- 
ration of  the   Body  of  Chrift  then  prefent  by  Tranfnbftantiation ;  it 
feems  very  probable,  that  Dodrirve  was  not  then  received  by  the 
Church,  the  Confequences  whereof  were  not  certainly  in  ufe :  For 
there  was  as  much  Reafon  for  the  Elevation  and  Adoration  at  that 
time  as  ever  could  be  afterwards.    But  my  Bufinefs  is  now  only  to 
(hew  wherein  the  Gallican  and  Britijh  Churches  difFer'd  from  the  Re 
man,  and  not  wherein  they  agreed. 

(4.)  The  laft  difference  was  as  to  the  Church  MuJ/ch,  wherein  the  Ro- 
mans were  thought  fo  far  to  excel  other  Wejlern  Churches,  That  the 
goodnefs  of  their  Mufick  proved  the  great  occafion  of  introducing  their 
Offices :  For  {0)  Charles  the  Great  faith.  That  his  Father  Ve^m  brought  (o)  Da 
the  Roman  way  of  Singing  into  the  Gallican  Churches,  and  their  Offices  ^'"''^'  '•  ^' 
along  with  it.     And  although  he  faith,  many  Churches  jiood  out  then,  yet 
by  his  means  they  were  brought  to  it.     And  he  caufed  fome  of  the  bed: 
Mafters  of  Mufick  in  Rome  to  be  brought  into  France,  and  there  fet- 
tled for  the  Inftruftion  of  the  (/>)  French  Churches:  By  which  means  WP'tbsi 
the  old  Gallican  Service  was  fo  foon  forgotten.  That  in  (q)  Caroliff^canm 
Calvm  his  time,  he  was  forced  to  fend  as  far  as  Toledo,  to  have  fome  to  oaU^ca- 
perform  the  Old  Offices  before  him  ^  So  great  a  Power  had  the  Roman""": q^^^ 
Mufick,  and  the  Prince's  Authority  in  changing  the  ancient  Service  of  thecaiv.  e-' 
GaSican  Churches.     But  thus  much  may  fuffice  to  have  cleared  the  an-^X'/t, 
cient  Service  of  thefe  Wefiern  Churches,  and  to  have  ftiew'd  their  diffe- 
rence from  the  Roman  Offices. 

From  which  Difcourfe  it  will  appear,  that  our  Church  of  England 
hath  omitted  none  of  thofe  Offices  wherein  all  the  Ancient  Churches  a- 
greed  5  And  that  where  the  Britifij  or  Gallican  and  Roman  differ'd,  our 
Church  hath  not  follow'd  the  Roman,  but  the  other  5  And  therefore 
our  Dijffenters  do  unreasonably  charge  us  with  taking  our  Offices  from 
the  Church  of  Rome, 


Cler.  Rt&> 
vin. 


CHAP. 


148  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V. 

CHAP.    V. 

Of  the  Declenfion  o£  the  Britijb  Churches. 

Ritain  never  totally  fuhdued  by  f/;e  Romans. 
77;df,  the  Occajion  of  the  Miferies  of  the  Britains  in  the  Pro- 
vince, by  the  Incur fiom  from  beyond  the  Wall. 
Of  the  ?i^s,  and  Scots ^  their  mortal  Enemies. 
The  true  Original  of  the  V\£ts  from  Scandinavia. 

That  Name  notgmn  to  the  Old  Brirains,  hut  to  the  New  Co- 
lonies. 

The  Scotifli  Antiquities  enquired  into. 

An  Account  of  them  from  John  Fordon,  comparec/  with  thatgiyen 
by  Hedor  Boethius  and  Buchanan. 

Of  Hc6tox*s  Authors,  Vercmundus,  Cornelius  Hibcrnicus  and 
their  ancient  Annals. 

An  Account  of  the  Antiquities  of  Ireland,  and  of  the  Au» 
thority  of  their  Traditions  and  Annals^  compared  with  the  Bri- 
tifli  Antiquities  publtjhed  by  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth  in  point 
of  Credibility. 

A  true  Account  of  the  Fabulous  Antiquities  of  the  ISlorthern  'N.ati- 
ons.     Of  thefirjl  coming  of  the  Scots  into  Britain. 

The  firft  Caufe  of  the  Veclenfion  and  (fyin  of  tk  Britifli 
Churches  was,  the  laying  them  open  to  the  fury  of  the  Scots  and 
Pidls. 

Of  Maximus  his  withdrawing  the  Roman  Forces ;  And  the 
Emperor  s  fendmg  numbers  of  Pidls  to  draw  them  back. 

The  miferahle  Condition  of  the  Britains  thus  forfaken  3  And  Sup- 
plies fent  them  for  a  tiyne,  and  then  taken  away. 

Of  the  Walls  then  built  for  their  Security,  and  the  Roman  Legi- 
ons then  placed. 

Of  the  great  degeneracy  of  Manners  among  the  Britains. 

Of  Intefline  Diyi[ions,  and  calling  in  of  Foreign  Ajfiflance. 
.  The  Saxons  firft  cmimg  hither. 

Who  they  were,  and  whence  they  came. 

Bede's  Account  examirid,  and  reconciled  with  the  Circumflances  of 
thofe  tmies. 

His  fixing  the  time  of  their  coming  juflified. 

Of  the  ^eafons  o/Vortigern'j  callitig  in  the  Saxons. 

And 


C  H  A  p.  V.  the  Britijb  Churches.  1 4.9 

*  — — T 

And  the  DiJJatis/aHion  of  the  Bricains  upon  their  comings  and 
Vortigern'f  League  with  them. 

Of  the  Valour  of  Vortimer  and  Aurelius  Ambrofius  againfi  the 
Saxons. 

The  differe^it  Account  of  the  Battels  between  the  Britains  and  Sax- 
ons among  our  Hiflorians. 

Tlje  fad  Condition  of  the  Britifli  Churches  at  that  time. 

The  imperfeH  Account  given  hy  the  BriciQi  Hiftory. 

Of  I^ng  Arthur'^  Story  and  Succefs. 

Of  Terfofis  of  greateft.  <^putation  then  in  the  Bricifh  Churches^ 
and  particularly  of  ^t.D3i\'id. 

Of  the  Britains  paffing  oyer  to  Aremorica. 

The  hegliining  of  that  Colony  flated. 

Gild  as  there  writes  his  Epiflle  j      Tlje  Scope  and  Vefign  of  it. 

The  Independency  of  the  Britifli  Churches  proved  from  their  car* 
riage  towards  Auguftine  the  Monk. 

Tlje  Particulars  of  that  Story  cleared  5  And  the  whole  con- 
cluded. 

BEing  now  to  give  an  Account  of  the  fatal  Declenfion  of  the  Bri- 
ti/h  Churches,  it  wiH  be  neceflary  to  look  back  on  the  time 
when  their  Miferies  firft  began.  For  which  we  are  to  confi- 
der.  That  the  Romans  having  never  made  an  entire  Conqueft 
oit\\Q  viho\e  Ijl and '^  but  contenting  themfelves  with  the  better  part, 
and  excluding  the  reft  by  a  Wall,  they  ftill  left  a  back-door  open  for 
the  poor  Provincial  Britains  to  be  difturbed,  as  often  as  the  Roman 
Garrifons  negleded  their  Duty,  or  were  overpowered  by  their  Enemies. 
Who  were  now  very  much  increafed  in  thofe  remoter  Parts  oi  Britain  5 
Which  being  abandoned  by  the  Romans,  they  became  an  eafie  Prey  to 
the  Scots  andPi^s  5  Who,  from  different  parts,  took  Pofleffion  of  thofe 
Coafts,  which  lay  neareft  to  the  Place  from  whence  they  came.  Thus, 
the  Scots  coming  from  Ireland,  cntred  upon  the  Southern  and  Wejlern 
Parts,  as  the  Pifls  from  Scandinavia  had  before  done  on  the  Northern. 
Our  Learned  (<?)  Antiquary  was  of  Opinion,  That  the  Pifts  were  no  0-  (a\  Camd. 
ther  than  the  ancient  Britains,  partly  fettled  in  thofe  Parts,  before  the  ^"*-  ^•'*' 
Roman  Inv^idon,  and  partly  retiring  thither  out  of  Impatience  of  the 
Roman  Yoke,  who  by  degrees  grew  up  into  a  confiderable  number  of 
People.  It  is  not  to  be  queftion'd,  that  there  was  a  Stock  of  OW  Bri- 
tajnsin  thofe  Northern  Parts,  as  appears  by  the  Army  under  Galgacus, 
and  the  Adlions  againft  'Urbicm,  Agricola,  Marcellus  and  Severus  5  But 
their  continual  Wars  with  the  Roman  Legions,  who  were  placed  about 
the  Wall,  on  purpofe  to  take  all  Advantages  againft  them,  muft  needs 
exhauft  them  by  degrees,  and  leflen  them  fo  much,  as  to  leave  room 
enough  for  new  Recruits  to  come  in  and  take  up  part  of  their  Coun- 
trey.  And  although  for  their  own  Security,  the  Parts  near  the  Wall 
might  be  well  fupplied  on  that  fide,  yet  when  fo  much  Blood  retired 
to  the  Heart  as  wasnecefTary  to  fupport  Life,  a  great  deal  muft  be  cal- 
led off  from  the  extreme  Parts  tor  a  frefti  fupply  of  it,  and  thofe  Parts 

muft 


^■^^^^^^~"~  ■■■—■■  I       ■     -■  I  I.  .    .     .  II    ■  .IMIII    ■    I    I     I  I.    ■■,,MiiMi..,Mi  Mi^.M     ■il,w    II     I        ■^     .m...     ,.,,„.  .....  ,_ 

1^0  Ihe  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V. 

mufl:  needs  be  left  deftitute  of  natural  Heat,   and  Strength  enough  to 
maintain  themfelves.     For  during  the  War,  which  continued  for  feve- 
ral  Ages,  the  very  Life  of  the  S/-////^  N".?/?!?;/,    beyond  the  Wall,    was 
in  perpetual  danger  ^    And  not  only  the  Duty  and  Service,  but  the  ma- 
ny Difeafes  and  Accidents  of  War,    could  not,    in  fo  long  a -traft  of 
time,  but  very  much  impair  the  Britipj  Strength,  and  leave  the  remoter 
Parts,  if  not  wholly  void  of  Inhabitants,    yet  not  in  a.  Condition  to 
vi^ithftand  a  foreign  Invafion.     I  grant  that  Tacittts,  Dlo,  Herodlan^ 
VopifcHs,  8cc.  take  no  notice  of  any  other  Enemies  the  Romans  had  at 
that  time  in  thofe  Parts  befides  the  Britahs -^    But  then,  I  think,  the 
Argument  may  be  thus  turned  upon  Camden,    What  makes  the  latter 
Writers  fo  exprefly  and  diftinftly  mention  the  P/5?j-,  if  they  were  no  o- 
ther  than  the  Old  Britains  ,   fo  often  fpoken  of  by  Romati  Hijlorians  / 
I  do  not  underftand,  why  their  continuing  an  old  Ciiflom  Qiould  now 
give  them  a  new  Name  .<?     The  Britains,  Lowever  rude,  were  no  more 
Pi&s  then,  than  they  were  at  C^far's  coming.    What  makes  the  Roman 
Writers  fo  of  a  fudden  alter  their  Style,  and  leave  off  a   Name  fo  fa- 
mous among  the  Romatjs,  for  th^Nameof  P/^x,  which  was  not  heard 
(A)P4nf^.  ofbefore  >    The  firft  mention   tve  find  of  them  is  in  (/»)  EiimeniMs 
conft.      his  Ranegyrich  to  CoKJlantius,   where  he  takes  notice  of  the  different 
State  of  the  Bn7(Z/»j-,  when  C4?/ir  fubdued  them,  from  what  they  were 
in  ConjlatJthts  his  time :     Then,  faith  he,    they  were  a  rude,    half  naked 
People,  andfo  caftly  vanquifhed  ;    But  now  the  Britains  xtere  exercifed  by 
the  Arms  of  the  Pifts  and  the  Irifh.  Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  Eh- 
»i?e«/«j- here diftinguifhes  the  Pi^s  from  the  Britains,  and  fuppofes  them 
to  be  £»e/!«/ej- to  each  other.    Neither  can  we  reafonably  think  this  a 
Name  then  taken  up  to  diftingiiifh  the  barbarous  Britains  from  the  Pro- 
vincial :    For  that  dif^inftion  had  now  been  of  a  very  long  (landing, 
and  if  it  had  been  applied  to  that  purpofe,  we  fhould  have  met  with 
it  in  TacitHs,  or  Dio,  or  Herod/an,  or  Zofmus,  who  fpeak  of  the  Extra- 
(c)x\^h\\.p*'ovJncial  Britains,  under  no  other  Name  but  of  5ri^^/»j.     0)  Dio  is 
in  Sever,  fo  exaft  as  to  fet  down  the  Names  of  diftinftion  then  ufed  for  thofe 
Britains,  and  he  faith,  they  were  of  two  forts,  the  M^eat^,  and  the  C  ale- 
donii  5    If  the  name  of  Pi&s  had  then  comprehended  them  all,    no 
(./)  Zonar.  doubt   he  would  have  mention'd  it    on  that  occafion.     (^)  Zonaras 
i«  Sever.    Jikewife  calls  them  all  then  by  the  name  of  Britains.      But  it  is  faid, 
{f)Eumen.  That  the  (e)  Panegyriji  himfelf  calls  the  Caledonians,    Pids,    who  were 
"  7-         certainly  Britains.     His  Words  are,    Non  dico  Caledonum,    aliorumque 
Piftorum,  Sdvas  &  Paludes  :    where  H.  Valefits  obferves,    it  ought  to 
(/)  Am.    be  read,    Non  Dicaledonum  aliorumque  Pidorum  ^   For  (/)  Ammianns 
Marcel.     Marcellinus  faith,    the  Pifts  were  divided  into  the  Dicaledones  atid  the 
•^7-c-  'Yg^yr Jones.     It  is  ingenioufly  conjeftured  hy  Mr.  Camden,  that  thefe 
Names  were  taken  from  the  Situation  of  the  People,  the  firft  from  De- 
hen  and  Caledones,    or  the  Caledonians  on  the  Right-hand,    and  the  o- 
ther  Uom  Chwithic,  which  fignifies  the  Left-ha>.'d  in  the  Brit ifi  Language 
(ODern-But  Archbifhop  (g)  V/hcr  ohCerves,  that  he  is  miftaken,  infuppo(ing5 
»""''*'•        the  Right- hand  among  theBrhams  to  be  the  If yi,     and  the  Left-ha/id  the 
^'  '°^^'    Eajl  j  for  he  plainly  proves,  that  by  the  one  k  underjlood  the  South,  and 
(h)  Bed.    the  other  the  North.     And  (h)  Bede  (hews,    that   the  Northern  and 
Hiih  Ecci.  Southern  PI&s  were  divided  from  each  other  by  a  Ridge  o{ Mountains  5 
nhntt  which  (/)  John  Fordon  faith,  was  Mount  Grampius,  which  parted  the 
chron.  1.2.  Scots  ar\d  the  Pin s.     For  the  Scots  came  into  that  part  of  the  Piils. 
'''^'        Oww/rcj  which  lay  next  to  Ireland -^   from  whence  they  came  thither 

under 


Chap.   V .         the  Enti/b  Churches.  151 

^ : — ^ — — _ 

under  the  conduft  of  Reuda,  as  (k)Becle^2iXtK     Who,  as  feme  think, <'^)  ^^• 
W2ii  the  chief  of  the  Six  Sons  of  theK.ingofiJ\?(tv,  who,  ^  Giraldus  Cam-  '^''' 
brenfis yiz7/j,  tplth  nofmall  Fleet ^  came  into  the  Northern  Parts  «>/" Britain, 
and  there  fettled  themfelves  5  from  whom  that  Countrey  was  called  Sco- 
tia.    Which,  if  it  happened  in  the  time  o^Conjlantius,   as  Archbifhop 
(/)  Dfher  proves  from  the  Anonymous  Life  oi  St.  Patricks    it  agrees  (/)Deni. 
very    well  with  what  («?)  Ammanus  MarcelUmts  faith.   That  in  the '""'''Sp- 
latter end  of  his  Reign^    the  Scots  and  the  Pifts  were  both  Joined  ogiif!filfJ)\tnf  - 
the  Britains.     The  Scots ^  as  (ji)  Gildas  and  (0)  Bede  fay,  coming  from  Marcel.  ^. 
the  Wefi,  and  the  Pifts  from  the  North  5  And  fo  Fabius  Ethelmrd  faith,  '/J^q]^^ 
the  Pifts  came  from  the  North  5  and  the  Scots  from  the  Weft  ;    who  took  Epifl. 
poffejfiofi  of  the  Southmefl  parts  c/Caledonia  beyond  Glota,  and  Bodotri^,  or  (0  ^^^' 
Dumbritton,   and  Edenborough  Frith.  And  fo,  the  MonsGrampii/s,  or  ''''  "' 
the  Dorfnm  Britan/ticum,  as  fome  call  it,  parted  the  Fi&s  and  the  Scots  5 
the  Old  Britains  (till  living  between  the  Wall  and  the  two  Fr.ths ; 
For  Bede  exprefly  faith.  That  both  the  Scots  and  the  Pids  lived  beyond 
them  5    and  he  likewife  adds.  That  upon  the  remove  <?//Ae  Roman  Legion 
they  took  in  all  the  Countrey  as  far  as  Severus  hk  Wall  5    where  the  Bri- 
tains dwelt  before.     I  confefs,  the  Roman  Province  had  different  Bounds 
at  feveral  times,   it  fometimes  extending  as  far  as  Antonius  his  Wall, 
or  Grahams  Dike  hQtvjQQn  the  two  Friths-^    Sometimes  again  it  was 
brought  within  the  Compafs  of  Hadrian  and  Severus.hk  Wall,    id  eft, 
between  the  Tine  and  the  Esk  5    And  Bede  thinks  that  the  laft  Wall 
made  by  the  Romans  was  where  Severus  his  Wall  ftood.    If  fo,  that 
whole  Countrey  between  the  two  Walls  muft  be  then  abandon'd  for 
100  Miles  5    Which  (p)  fomeobjedl  againft  as  an  improbable  thing,  (/>)  Ufler: 
Tie  Wall  being  fo  much  longer^    and  confequently  mere  indefenfible  by  the'^^  ^'^ 
Britains.     But,   in  probability,  the  Britains  were  then  willing  to  let'''  ^    ' 
their  Enemies  have  the  more  room  to  prevent  being  difturbed  by  them  5 
And  this  was  the  main  Security  they  always  had,   the  Linea  Valli  rela- 
ting to  this  Wall  from  Hadrian's  time  ;   And  although  fometimes  in  a 
bravery  the  Roman  Soldiers  would  march  to  Antoninus  his  Wall,    and 
drive  the  Britains  before  them,    yet  generally   the  Roman  Province 
was   bounded  by   Severus  his  Wall,    and  therefore  GalUo  Ravennas 
might  at  laft  chufe   rather  to  make   up  and    fortifie  this  for  the 
Britains,    when   the    Roman  Soldiers  left    them    to    defend    them- 
felves. 

But,  as  to  the  feveral  Inhabitants  beyond  the  Wall,  it  will  be  necef- 
fary,  in  order  to  the  following  Hiftory,  to  fet  down  a  more  particular 
Account  in  this  Place  of  the  different  Orzgr«<i/  of  them,  which  hath 
been  fo  perplexed  by  the  partial  Conjeftures  of  the  Scotti/h  and  Irifh 
Antiquaries,  that  it  is  no  eafie  matter  to  find  out  the  plain  Truth  a- 
mongft  them.  But  I  (hall  endeavour  to  trace  the  Footfteps  of  it  by  the 
beft  Light  which  ancient  or  modern  Authors  afford.  And  I  am  fo  far 
from  any  pique  or  partiality  in  this  matter,  that  I  (hall  be  glad  to  re- 
ceive any  better  Information  from  learned  and  ingenious  Men.  For  it 
will  appear  by  this  enquiry  that  the  Antiquities  of  both  Nations  do  yet 
ftand  much  in  need  of  being  cleared  to  the  fatisfaftion  of  inquifitive 
Men.    But  to  the  bufinefs. 

It  is  certain  that  in  the  time  of  Tacitus,  the  Northern  Parts  of  this 
Ifland  were  well  inhabited,  as  appears  by  the  following  Account  from 
him.     The  Brigantes,  who  extended  as  far  as  the  Tine,  were,  as  (^)  iq)  Tack. 
he  faith,  fubdued  by  Petilius  Cerealk  j   The  Si  lures  y  by  Julius  Fronti-  ^^'f*  jg 

nus  s^ 


r  I     I     I.  •  ■ 11      ■  I  ..g  I  II  .--■-. ....  .  ■■    -      ,  ■       .-  ■  ..       I.      .         ■ 

152  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V, 

nuf -^  The  Ordovices,  the  other  People  ofW'd/ej-,  by  Jidiift  AgricoUm 
his  firft  entry  upon  this  Province.  But  in  his  third  year  he  went  as  far 
as  the  Frith  of  Tam  :  By  which  Sir  H.  Savll  faith.  Some  utiderfiaad  the 
Tweed:  For  that  it  cannot  be  underftood  of  thtTaus,  which  parrs  the 
Northern  and  Southern  parts  of  i-cotla?}d,  feems  evident  from  Tacitus, 
who  faith,  That  the  Romans  had  leifure  to  hn'ild  Cajiles  there:  But  this  Tauf 
is  a  great  way  beyond  the  txoo  Friths ;  And  Tacituf,  in  the  fourth  year 
of  ^gricola,  makes  the  RomanVowQr  to  reach  no  farther  than  to  Glota 
and  Bodotria,  where  he  thought  the  Romans  f;ii,ght  have  co»vet,iently 
fixed  the  Bounds  of  their  Empire  that  way.  But,  I  confefs,  Tacitus  his 
words  may  bear  another  meaning^  viz.  That  although  the  Romans  had 
made  Excurjiotts  as  far  as  the  Taus,  affd  fet  up  fome  Forts  there  5  Tet  whett 
Agricola  went  about  to  fettle  the  Province,  he  reduced  it  within  the  com- 
pafs  of  the  two  Friths;  There  being  the  moji  convenient  Place  for  the  Gar- 
rifon  to  be  fixed -^  There  being  fo  fmall  a  Neck  of  hind  between  the  Arms  of 
the  two  Seas,  which  wasfhen  very  well  fortified.  Buttheboundlefs  Ambi- 
tion of  thtRomans,  in  the  fifth  year  of  Agricola,  carried  them  beyond 
thefe  Limits;  And  then  he  fubduedNationsbefore  that  time  unknown; 
And  furnifhed  with  Forces  that  part  of  Britain  which  lieth  againft  Ire- 
land i,  Not  out  of  fear  of  any  Invafion  from  thence;  But  rather  in 
hopes  of  fubduing  that  Country  by  their  means.  Which  (hews  that 
Ireland  was  then  well  peopled -^  and  thought  by  Agricola  very  fit  for  the 
Roman  Army  to  conquer;  Becaufe  it  lay  fo  convenient  for  uniting  the 
parts  of  the  Empire  together;  And  it  would  help  much  towards  the 
total  fubduing  of  Britain,  if  there  were  no  appearance  of  Liberty  left 
within  their  view.  And  Tacitus  infinuates  that  Agricola  had  it  in  his 
Defign,  if  he  had  been  fufFer'd  to  continue  longer  after  his  Vidiory  o- 
ver  Galgacus :  Which  Domitians  incurable  Jealoufic  of  Great  Men 
would  not  permit.  Ho^wever,  in  order  to  it,  /Agricola  had  taken 
an  account  of  the  Ports,  and  condition  of  the  People,  whom  he 
found  not  unlike  the  Britalns ;  And  he  kept  with  him  till  Occafion 
ferved,  one  of  the  Princes  of  that  Country,  who  was  driven  from 
thence  by  a  domeftick  Sedition  But  in  the  mean  time,  in  his  fixth  year, 
he  applied  himfelf  to  the  Conqueft  of  the  feveral  Nations  beyond  Bo- 
dotria, among  whom  a  general  InfurrefVion  was  apprehended,  and  all 
Pafiages  by  Land  were  fuppofed  to  bebefet;  And  therefore  Agricola 
fet  out  a  Fleet  for  difcovery  of  the  Country ;  the  fight  whereof  ftruck 
great  Terror  into  the  Britains.  And  then  he  faith,  the  Caledonians 
armed  themfelves  and  fet  upon  the  Romans  with  all  the  Force  they  could 
rnalie'^  and  falling  upon  the  ninth  Legion  unexpeftedly,  had  like  to 
have  totally  defeated  them,  if  the  reft  of  the  Army  had  not  come  in 
to  their  timely  refcue.  By  which  good  fuccefs,  the  Roman  Army,  be- 
ing much  incouraged,  cried  out  to  march  into  Caledonia-^  That  they 
might  at  laft  come  to  the  utmoft  Bounds  of  Britain.  But  the  Britains 
attributed  this  not  to  the  Valour  of  the  Romans,  but  to  the  ill  Con- 
duct of  their  Gewer^/ ;  And  therefore  refolved  to  fight  it  out,  and  to 
that  end  they  difpofed  of  their  Wives  and  Children  in  Places  of  Safe- 
ty, and  by  frequent  Meetings  and  folemn  Sacrifices  they  entred  into  a 
ftrid  Confederacy,  to  ftand  it  out  to  the  utmoft  againft  the  Romans. 
And  in  this  Cafe  of  common  danger,  all  the  Cities  were  united  toge- 
ther, and  raifed  an  Army  of  30000  Men,  under  the  Command  oi  Gal- 
gacus, who,  in  his  brave  Oration,  fo  much  commended  by  Lipfiut, 
tell?  his  Souldiers,  they  were  the  lafi  of  the  Britains,  there  being  no  Na- 
tion 


'  — _    '        '         '  '  '  '  'II 

Chap.  V.  the  hritilh Char cbes,  15^ 

tiett  beyond  them  i^' hr\A  he  calls  them,  the  tttofl  noble  of  the  BritaitiSj 
veho  had  never  beheld  the  Slavery  of  others  ^  Upon  this  the  fatal  Battel  was 
fought  at  the  Foot  of  Motts  Grampius,  where  ioo©o  Britains  reere  kil- 
led, and  the  rejl  difperfed '^  Aftet  which  -^gr/Vo/^  was  recalled.  This  is 
the  Subftance  oi  Tacitus  his  Relation,  wherein  we  may  obferve^  (i.) 
That  thefe  Britains  were  not  merely  fuch  as  were  driven  thither  by  the 
ftrefs  of  War,  but  fuch  as  had  long  inhabited  there,  and  had  fo  little 
Communication  with  the  other  Britains,  that  they  had  never  feen  the 
Condition  of  Slavery  which  the  Romans  had  brought  them  to.  (2,)  That 
they  were  not  inconfiderable  for  their  Numbers  or  Valour,  who  were 
able  to  oppofe  the  wholfe  Roman  Army,  and  make  their  ViQory  fo 
doubtful.  (5.)  That  thefe  had  a  diftind  Name  from  the  reft,  beingin 
general  called  the  Caledonian  Britains:  And  Tacitui  thinks  they  had  a 
different  Original  from  the  Silures,  and  other  Britains.  Thofe  who  ad- 
joined to  Gaul,  he  concludes  came  at  firft  from  thence,  and  had  fe ve- 
ra! Colonies  followed  them  afterwards,  as  appears  by  their  Names,  Cur- 
ftoms  and  LanguaiE;e5  the  Silures  he  deduced  from  Spain,  which  he 
proves  from  their  Complexion  and  Situation  ;  And  fo  probably  enough, 
he  thinks  them  a  Colony  of  the  old  Iberi  ^  fome  whereof  went  info 
Ireland,  and  peopled  fome  part  of  it:  But,  befides  thefe  two,  he  makes 
a  third  Race  of  Men  in  Britain,  whom  he  fetches  out  of  Germany,  and 
thefe  were  the  Caledonian  Britains '^  But  ("r)  he  takes  Germany  in  a.  very  (r)  Tacfc 
large  Senfe,  fo  as  to  extend  as  far  as  the  Sarmata^  And  to  comprehend  '^^  •'^!"- 
under  it,  the  Northern  Nations  of  the  Cimbri,  and  the  Gothones,  and  Tl^Au' 
the  Sueones  ^  From  whom  it  feems  very  probable,  that  the  Caledo- 
nian Britains  defcended;  As  the  Southern  Britains  came  from  the 
Celt£'.,  Whofe  Language  and  Religion  were  kept  up  among  them. 
But  the  Caledonians  came  from  the  European  Scythians,  to  whofe 
Coafts  they  lay  much  nearer  than  to  thofe  of  the  Celta,  and  their 
larger  Proportions,  which  Tacitus  obferves  agree  very  well  with  this 
Suppofition. 

And  thefe,  if  I  miftake  not,  were  the  Original  Pi&s,  but  not  cal- 
led by  that  Name,  till  nerv  Colonies  came  over  to  people  the  Country, 
after  the  terrible  Devaftation  of  it  by  the  Continuance  of  the  Ro- 
man IVars.    For  (j-)  Claudian  makes  TA«/e  the  Country  of  the  Pi^s  ^  (s)  chad 
And  after  all  the  Difputes  which  have  been  about  it,  (t)  Olaus  Rud-Jequar't,' 
beck  hath   made  it  very  probable,  that  Scandinavia  is,  meant  by  it;  ^'"'■^'''•.. 
Which  he  proves,  not  only  from  the  Teftiniony  of  Procopius,   who(f)°o5a. 
affirms  it ;  but  from  the  exafl:  Agreement  of  the  Relation  of  Pytheas,  Ijt.  Rudbcck, 
dorus,  and  others  with  that,  and  neither  with  Ifeland,  nor  any  other  f  ^'fo'"^* 
Place.     Befides,  («)  Bede  faith.  The  common  Tradition  was,  that  the('u)Bedl. 
Fids  came  out  tf/Scythia;  Which  is  affirmed  by  Matt.  Wejlminfier,  and  i  c  i-   ' 
many  others :  But  they  do  not  mean  the  Ajian,  but  the  European  Scy- 
thia'j  Which  comprehended  under  it  all  the  moftl^orthern  Nations, 
Ab  extreme  Aquilohe,  faith  (n?)  Pliny^  And  el  fev^here  he  faith,  C-Jcj^^^pij^ 
That  the  Getx,  the  Daci  and  Sarmatae,  and  even  the  Germans  were  cal- 1  e.c.  ijv 
led  Scythians :  (^)  Herodotus  mentions  the  Northern  Scythians  to  whom  W  '•  4-  «• 
there  was  no  accefs  by  thofe  who  dwelt  near  the  Palus  Moeotis  without  the  (y)HtToi. 
help  offeven  Languages  5  And  when  Darius  fought  with  them,  they  re-  '•  4- 
tired  Northwards  towards  their  own  Country^     (z)  Ptolemy  places  the  ^l  g°'° 
Royal  Scythians  near  the  Hyperborean  Mountains  5  Which  could  never  £«»■«;«. 
be  found  in  the  vaft  Plains  of  Poland  and  Mufcovy  5  There  being  no  ^'^^^''' 
Mountains  there  anfweringto  their  Defcription  as  («)  Heberjfeinius  and  61.  "*'  ^' 

U  ib)Mat- 


154-  7bc  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V. 

W  S"'-'"-  {b)  Matthias  a  Micou  confefs;  And  therefore  (c)   Olaus  Rudheck  hath 
c. '374.^' undertaken  to  prove,  not  without  great  (bew  of  Reafon,  T&at  thefe   / 
(c)  Allan-  Moitntains  were  no  other  than  the  Ridge  of  Mountaiiis  in  Sweden,  where   . 
tic.c.^.    fke  feat  of  the  ancient  Scythians  was -^  And  that  Ptolemy  was  extremely 
faijiaken  in  the  Situation  of  the  Northern  Nations,  removing  them  feveral 
Degrees  more  Eafiward  than  they  ought  to  have  been,  land  fo  very  much 
{d)T)eRefiraitning  Scandinavia.     Which  (^d)  Jornandes  cMs  the   Work-houfe  of 
bus  Get.  i.]<Iations ;  and  the  fame  Jomandes  affirms  from  Jofephus,  That  the  Sue- 
(e)'Mem.  ofes  Were  the  true  Scythians,  whom  (e)  Xenophon  takes  to  be  the  Go- 
i.  2.P.58U -verning  People  of  Europe  in  his  time  5  As  the  Perfans  were  in  j4fia  and 
(/) "  Sera-  ^^^  Carthaginians  in  Africa.     And  the  old  Greek  (f)  Geographers  (as 
bo,/.i.(^is  faid  before)  knew  of  but  two  Nations  in  Europe  befides  themfelves, 
"•         viz.  the  Scythce  towards  the  North,  and  the  Celt£  towards  the  Weft. 
Thefe  European  Scythians  did  make  frequent  Expeditions  by  Sea,  asap- 
(g)  Allan- pears  by  the  old  Got  hick  Hifiories-^  And  (g)  Olaus  Rudbeck  obCerves 
tic.  c.  7.    from  them.  That  it  was  a  Cufiom  for  them  to  go  abroad  by  Sea,  under  the 
(A)  Germ.  Condu^  of  One  of  their  Princes,  to  fee  for  Booty  ^  And  f  h^  Tacitus  faith 
'^•44>       particularly  of  the  Sueones,  that  they  were  well  provided  of  Shipping  5  And 
therefore  there  can  be  no  improbability  that  thefe  Northern  Nations 
(/•)  Sue-    (hould  people  that  part  of  Britain  which  lay  neareft  to  them.     And  (»V 
iion.Ofufc.  Sueno,  the  firft  Hiftorian  of  Denmark,  faith.  That  Helgi,  the  Son  of 
'■ ''         Haldan,  the  Son  of  Skio\d,  the  firfi  Monarch  there,  was  fo  powerful  at  Sea, 
(t)  f/fl.   ^^^^  ^^  ''^'^^  called  Rex  Maris,  the  King  of  the  Sea.    And  (k)  Saxa  Gram- 
Dan.l.T.  mat icuf  faith.  That,  having  fubdued  the  King  of  the  Sciavi,  he  failed  in- 
{i)v.-Ni)t.*<^  divers  Paffages  of  the  Sea.     (l)  Andreas  Velleius  gives  this  Reafon 
Steph.  in  why  the  Northern  Nations  were  fo  foon  and  fo  much  given  to  Expedi- 
Gram.      t'o^h  Sea,  bccaufe  their  Kings  having  many  Children,  they  thought  them 
befi  employed  abroad,  infeeking  other  Countries  and  getting  Spoils  at  Sea. 
And  upon  the  old  boaft  of  the  Scythians  concerning  their  Antiquity 
and  Nobility  might  be  grounded  that  Saying  of  Galgacus,  That  the 
Caledonian  Britains  were  the  moji  noble  of  any  of  them. 
{m)L.^       Among  thefe  Scythians  {ni)  Pliny  reckons  the  Agathyrji'^^  Who  had 
\n-\^A.t-     ^^^^^  Name,  faith  (»)  Olaus  Rudbeck,   from  Aggathyr,   one  of  the 
Untie! c.   Got  hick  Names  for  Neptune :  From  Agga,  fignifying  Power  at  Sea  5  and 
30.         Tyr,  Power  at  Land  5  Thefe  Agathyrfi,  faith  he,  were  a  fort  of  People 
who  lived  near  the  Sea,  in  the  Sinus  Codanus,  and  were  wont  to  prey  up- 
on the  Spoils  of  the  Sea..    Jornandes  places  them  in  Scandia,  and  calls 
them  Jgantzyrios.    They  were  remarkable  in  Antiquity  for  Painting 
their  Bodies,  as  not  only  appears  from  Virgil's 

Pi&ique  Agathyrfi, 
(o)Solin.  But  from  what  (<?)  Solinm  faith  of  them.  That  their  Bodies  vi>ere  paint- 
'•'5-  ed  Colore  coeruleo,  Jufi  as  the  old  PiCts  were,  (p)  Tacitut  obferves  of 
ribut^  "'  the  Arii,  a  fierce  Northern  People,  That  they  had  Tind:a  Corpora,  i.  e. 
Germ.  j^ere  pais.  And  the  fame  (q")  Virgil  faith  of  the  Geloni,  who  were  next 
(q)Gcoyg,  isjeighbours  to  the  Agathyrfi:  So  that  (r)  HeBor  Boethius  his  Conje- 
(r)  m^.  fture  is  not  at  all  improbable,  who  deduces  the  PiBi  from  the  Agathyrfi^ 
scot.f.  4.  •  g_  from  the  Maritime  Inhabitants  of  the  Baltick  Sea  5  or,  as  he  ex- 
prefTes  it,  from  thofe  who  came  firft  out  of  Sarmatia  into  the  Cimbrick 
Cherfonefe,  and  from  thence  into  Scotland. 

This  being  to  me  the  moft  probable  Account  of  the  Original  of  the 
PiBs,  I  now  come  to  that  of  the  Scots.  And,  to  do  right  to  all  Pre- 
tenders, I  (hall  impartially  fet  down  the  feveral  Claims  of  the  Scotijh  and 
Jrifb  Antiquaries,  and  in  paffing  make  fome  Remarks  upon  them. 

Ibe^ 


Chap.  V.  the  Britijb  Churches.  155 

I  begin  with  the &<?//7^  Pretences,    (s)  Demp/fer  hath  given  a  large  CO -i/p*- 
Catalogue  of  the  ScotifJ}  Antiquaries    (  whom  he  never  L\w  )  fuch  as  'filihsco- 
Marcerius,  the  firft  Writer  of  their  Hiftory,  whom  he  places  Jfjfjo  Ddm.  t'ci.i  c  2. 
55.   From  him,    (t")  he  faith,  Veremundus  took  his  Materials,  (  whom  /-,-)  ^//j. 
He&or  Boethiiis  profefTes  to  follow  )  and  Cornelius  Hibemicus,   another  £cc/er  /.  ^ 
of  Hei^or's  great  Authors,  who  is  faid  by  him  to  have  lived  AfwoDow.  ■-•"•^^'^ 
1 1 60.  about  80  Years  after  Veremundus,  according  to  De/ftpjler's  com- 
putation.    Lejly   (  or  Robert  Turner^  as  fome  think  )    mentions  forae 
anient  Annals,    which  HeUor   takes  no  notice  of  in  particular,   but 
Dempjier  doth,  as  thofe  of  Pa/let  and  Scone,  and  other  Monafteries.   It 
would  tend  very  much  to  the  clearing  of  the  Sroti^}  Antiquities  if  fome 
of  thefe  ancient  Annals  or  Lieger  Books  were  printed  by  foitie  of  their 
Learned  Men,- who  have  never  been  wanting  in  that  Nation  fince  lie- 
nors time.    And  it  hath  rendred  their  Credit  the  more  fufpicious,  be- 
caufe  they  have  been  fo  long  kept  up,  when  all  the  o\di  Annals  which 
have  been  found  among  us  have  either  been  carefully  publifhed,    or 
our  Writers  have  on  all  Occaflons  appealed  to  their  Authority,    and 
made  ufe  of  their  own  Words  to  juftifie  their  Aflertions.  Whether  this 
hath  been  done  by  He&or,    Buchanan  or  LeJIj,    as  to  thefe  Annals,   I 
leave  the  Reader  to  determine. 

I  omit  Dcmpfters  other  Authors,  vvho  were  never  heard  of  by  any 
befides  himfelf  5  But  it  is  fomewhat  ftrange,  that  even  fuch  as  Fere- 
taundus  and  Cornelius  ftlould  never  fall  into  any  hands  ( that  1  can 
find)  but  thofe  of  He^or  Boethius '^  And  that  he  fhould  never  ^o 
much  as  mention  John  Fordon's  Scoti-chronicon.  Pits  confounds  this 
Author  with  John  de  Fourdam,  ConfefTor  to  our  King  John,  and  fo 
places  him  Anno  Dom.  12 10.     Wherein  he  is  follow'd  by  the  Learned  -  '. 

(ji)  Ger.VojJiHs.    He  was  A bbat  of  Ford  in  Devonfhire,   h'lth  Lei and,{u)DeHiji. 
and  he  mentions  no  Hiftorical  Writings  of  his.     But  it  is  certain  tha't^'^^i'-  ^• 
John  Fordon,  who  v/rotQ  the  Scoti-chronicon,  lived  aftef  this  time,   by'^*^  ' 
the  Authors  he  quotes    ( fuch  as  the  (n?)  Poly-chronicofi  of  Rafiulphus  (»)  scoti- 
Higden,  the  Polycraticon  of  Roger  of  Chejier,  who  both  lived  in  the  four-  <^*''°"- 
teenth  Century. )    And  (x)  Maculloch,   who  tranfcribed  and  inlar-z.V/c.aS. 
ged  it,    lived,  faith  Dempjler,  Anno  Dom.  1489.     For  it   appears  by  (x)  ^i/f. 
the  Preface,    Debitor  fum  fateor,  &:c.     That   John  Fordon    (  whois^"'^^':'" 
there  called  a  Pra^j'/er,  andnoM^w;^)  finijhed  no  more  than  fiue  Booh  ^'"''^^^' 
of  the  Scoti-chronicon  ^    But  left  the  Materialsto  make  up  the  reft  5  And 
that  Fordonsov/n  Work  was  but  lately  done,  before M^r«//<7c/?i  under- 
took to  finifh  and  inlarge  it,  who  profefTes  himfelf  <«  Difciple  of  Fordon's  • 
And  diftinguifties  his  own  Additions  from  Fordon's  Copy,  by  puting  in 
the  Margin    Scriptor  &  Autor.     But  (/)  Dempjler  vaikes  Maculloch, (y)  Aptak 
Scoti-chronicon,  and  Fordon,  three  feveral  Authors,  which  is  a  Sign  he  "<(  Ml^-  - 
never  faw  them.  Mr.  (a)  Camden  takes  notice  how  much  the  later  Scotifli  f'^^'^' '" '' 
Hijiorians  are  beholding  to  Fordon'/  diligence.  And  therefore  Out  of  him  (^)  Brit. 
I  (hall  give  a  fhort  Account  of  the  Scotifl)  Antiquities  ^    And  theii''-?'-' 
Ihew   how    far  Major,     HeSor   Boethins   and   Buchanan   differ   frotn 
him  :      For  Lefly  doth  very  faithfully  contradt  Heflor  where   Bu- 
chanan was  afhamed   to  follow   him  5    as  will  appear  by  what  fol- 
lows. 

There  was,  fahh  {a^  Fordon,    "  One  Gait helos.  Son  of  Neoluf,  Oxie  {a)  scoti- . 
"  of  the  Kings  of  Grme,  who,  having  difpleafed  his  Father,-  was  ba-'^*'^'"'' '•.*■ 

niflaed  hisCountrey,  and  went  into  Egypt,  where  he  was  married  tp*^'^' 
"  Scota,    the  King's  Daughter.     But  he  quotes  another  Chronicle, 

13   2  "  which' 


C.   II. 


I  $^  The  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  V. 

.  *'  which  faith,  that  he  was  fent  to  the  afliftance  of  the  King  of  Egypt^ 
"  againft  the  Ethiopians  5    who  gave  him  his  only  Daughter  Scota  to 
Wife  ;    And  the  Legend  of  St.  Brendan  to  the  fame  purpofe  ^    And 
*'  another  Chronicle,   which  makes  him  to  be  Grandchild  to  Nimrod^ 
"  who  was  driven  into  Egypt^  and  there  married  this  S-ota.    However 
they  differ  in  lefler  Circumftances,  they  agree  in  the  main  Point  5  For 
Scota  he  muft  have,   or  elfe  the  Name  of  Scot/a  would  be  quite  loft. 
"  After  the  dcftruftion  of  tharaoh  in  the  Red  Sea,   Galthelos  is  chofen 
"  King  5    But,  Difcontents  arifing,  he  and  his  Wife  &(?/<i,  with  their 
"  Company,  put  to  Sea,  and  made  Weftward ;  But,  after  many  Dif- 
"  Acuities,  they  landed  in  Spain,  where,  after  the  Conqueft  of  theln- 
c  14.    "  habitants,  he  built  the  City  Br;^rf»//rf  ^  But,  being  wearied  out  with 
"  continual  Wars,  he  fent  fome  of  his  Company  to  Sea  to  find  out  an 
"  Ijland  without  Inhabitants  ^   upon  difcovery  whereof  they  returned 
1. 16.    "  to  Gaithelos ;    Who  foon  after  died,  and  charged  his  Children  and 
».  17-    "  Friends  to  go  thither  j    And  accordingly  his  Sons,   Iher  and  Imec, 
c.  i3,    "  ^gnt  to  take  Pofleffion  of  this  Ijland,   which  from  him  was  called 
"  Ibernia,  and  from  his  Mother  Scotia  :     Which  Name  was  after  given 
to  partof&xxtdm  ;    Becaufe  the  Inhabitants  of  the  other  Ijland  fettled  there, 
(  faith  Macul/ochy  in  his  Additions  to  Fordon  )    as  appears  by  the  affitii- 
c.  21.    ty  of  their  Language  and  Cnjioms,  which,  faith  he,  continues  to  this  day. 
"  In  Spain  fome  of  that  Race  abode,  faith  Bordon,  out  of  an  old  Chro- 
e.  2a-    "  nicle,  240  Years  5    Then  arofe  a  King,  whom  he  calls  Micelius, 
*'  who  had  three  Sons,  Hermonins,  Fartholomus  and  Hibertus,    whom 
"  he  fent  into  Ireland  with  a  great  Army ;    The  eldcft  returned  to 
c.ij.    "  Spain  5  but  the  other  two  continued  there.    Afterwards  Sintott  Brek 
*'  with  his  Company  made  a  third  defcent  into  Ireland,    who  fprang 
"  from  Hermottius,  and  carried  along  with  him  the  Marble  Chair  in 
*'  which  their  Kings  were  wont  to  fit,    and  which  Gaithelos  brought 
f.jp.    "  out  oi  Egypt,   as  fome  think  5   but  others  fay,    Simon  drew  it  up 
"  from  the  bottom  of  the  Sea  with  an  Anchor  in  a  great  Terapeft, 
"  and  therefore  was  preferved  as  a  precious  Relid  5  And  he  took  it  as 
"  a  Prefage  of  his  Kingdom,    which  was  to  continue  wherever  that 
"  Stone  was  5  as  the  Southfayers  faid..    From  Ireland,  Ethachius  Ro- 
c.  30.    "  thay,  a  Defendent  from  Simon  Brek,   took  pofleffion  of  the  .Ifland 
*'  Rothfay ;;   And  many  Scots  aflbciated  with  the  Pi3s  in  the  Northern 
e.33.    "  Parts  of  Britain  ^   But  being  hardly  ufed,  and  having  no  Head,  Fer- 
"  gus,  the  Son  of  Ferchard,  or  Ferard,  being  defcended  of  the  Royal 
e.37.    *'  Family,  went  over,  and  took  upon  him  the  Government  of  them  : 
Which,  he  faith,  was  before  C^r//I  3^0  Years,   in  the  time  of -^/cx-- 
/.2.  C.12."  <«»<^er  the  Great  5  vfho  czxiK^tht  Fatal  Chair  mto  Scotland,  and  was 
crowned  in  it.    Some  time  after  him  fucceeded  Ret  her,  whom  Bede 
calls  Reuda,  who  endeavour'd  to  inlarge  the  Borders  of  the  Scots  in 
thofe  Parts,   and  fixed  himfelf  in  that  which  from  him  was  called 
'3-   "  Retherdale,  butfince  Rydifdale-^  And  this  he  makes  the  fecond  com- 
"  ing  of  the  Scots  out  of  Ireland.     After  this,  he  tells  how  the  Kings  of 
"  the  Britains,    of  the  Scots,    and  the  Pi&s  lived  very  lovingly  toge- 
14-    *'  ther  till  jf«//«/C<e/^r  difturbed  them  all,  who,  he  faith,   went  to  the 
"  very  Borders  of  Scotland  5    And  there  fent  Letters  to  the  Kings, 
"  both  of  the  Scots  and  Pids,    who  both  returned  Anfwers  in  Latin, 
*'  although  but  the  Chapter  before  he  faith,    The  very  Britains  had  ne- 
ver heard  of  the  Name  of  the  Romans.     But  it  happen'd,  That  Cafar, 
hearing  ofthe  Revolt  of  the  Gauls,  made  a  fpeedy  return  out  of  thofe 

"  Parts. 


(C 
(C 


it 


Chap.  V.  the  Bnti/b  Churches.  157 

"  Parts.  Then  he  relates  the  bloody  Wars  of  the  Scots  and  l?itls  againft    «•  ^8. 
"  the  5r/7<r/w/ 5  and  hovv  FnlgentiHs^  Head  of  the  Br/V<i/;!<j,  joined  with      *9- 
"  the  Hds  and  Scots  againft  Severns,  and  killed  him  at  Tork  :     And  fo    «.  35. 
**  proceeds  in  the  Story  of  C^jm;//?;// and  M4jf//wK/,  and  their  Wars  with      37. 
"  the  Scots  and  P/5r/,    till  he  comes  to  Fergus  II.    With  whom  he  be-      38; 
**  gins  his  Tkird  Book  5    And  between  the  two  Fergus's    he  reckons 
"  Fort)i  five  Kings ;    But  he  confefleshe  cannot  diftingui(h  the  times  of 
**  their  Reign  5    as  he  can  do  thofe  from  Fergus  II.    And  he  gives  this  /.  3.  c.  1. 
confiderable  Reafon  for  it,    N(tt»  ad  plenum  Scripta  non  reperimus,  i.  e. 
He  could  not  find  any  full  Account  of  them  in  any  ancient  Annals  or 
Records.     And  therefore  it  ought  to  be  confiderd  from  whence  HeSer, 
Buchanan  andLefij/  (hould  be  able  to  give  fuch  a  particular  Account  of 
the  Reigns  of  thofe  Rings  which  were  wholly  unknown  to  Fordon. 
This  is  the  (hort  Account  of  what  Fordon  delivers  about  thefe  Remoter 
Antiquities  of  the  Scots. 

(p)  Joh.  Major  confelTeth,    That  the  Scots  were  derived  from  the  Iri(h,  f^)  d? 
vphich^  he  faith,  is  plain  by  the  Language '.,   For  in  his  time,  half  the  Na-W'^. 
tion  fpake  Irifb,  and  before  that  time,  more.    And  fo  he  tells  the  Sto-  ^"^' '"  '* 
ry  of  their  coming  from  Spain^  of  the  City  Braganza,  of  Il/erus  and  his ' 
Mother  Scota,  and  then  repeats  the  Tradition  of  Gaitheloiy  as  Fordon 
relates  it ;   But  very  honeftly  faith.  That  he  looks  on  that  part  of  it^   a- 
bout  coming  out  of  Greece  and  Egypt  as  a  Fi3ion  5    And  very  probably 
conjedlures  it  was  done,    becaufe  the  Britains  derived  themfelves  from  the 
Trojans.    Which  was  fubtilly  done  of  the  Scots  to  claim  Kindred  rather 
with  the  conquering  Greeks,    than  the  fubdued  and  baniftied  Trojans. 
All  that  Major  afferts  is.  That  the  Irilh  came  out  «•/ Spain,    and  the  Scots 
out  <?/Ireland  :     And  the  Story  of  Simon  Brek  he  rejeds  as  a  Fable  :  And 
he  makes  the  firft  fettling  of  the  Scots  in  Britain,  to  be  that  under  fie«-    c,  it. 
da  ;  But  he  mentions  their  Annals  for  Fergus^  the  Son  of  Ferchard,  be- 
fore Reuda  ^  and  Rether  and  Ryddefdale^   as  it  is  in  Fordon.     But  he 
makes  the  Kingdoms  of  the  P/fifj-,  Scots  and  Britains  to  be  diftind  in 
C^far's  time  5     And  that  they  all  joined  againft  him :    And  fo  relates 
Fordon  s  Story  to  the  time  of  Fergus  IK    But  between  the  two  Fergus's 
he  makes  but  1 5  Kings,  and  700  Tears. 

(c)  HeSor  Boethius^  before  he  begins  the  Tradition  ofGaithelos,  ve-  (c)ft>jt. 
ry  ingenioufly  confefTes,    that  their  Nation  follove'd  the  Cujiom  of  other  ^<^'>*-  ^-  '* 
Nations,  therein  making  themfelves  the  Offspring  of  the  Greeks  and  Egyp^- 
tians  ^  And  fo  he  tells  all  the  Story  from  Gaithelosy    as  Fordon  has  done, 
only  here  and  there  making  Additions  and  Embellifhmcnts  of  his  own  5 
As  when  he  derives  the  Brigantes  from  Brigantia  in  Spain  3    When  he 
fetsdown  the  Deliberation  about  the  Form  oiGovernment  upon  Fergus 
his  coming  to  Scotland  ;    And  the  Speeches  of  Fergus  and  the  King  of 
the  Pi3s  ^  The  Death  of  Cw7«/Ringof  the  Britains  ^  The  entring  the 
fundamental  ContraS  of  the  Scots,  with  the  Pofterity  of  Fergus  in  Mar- 
ble Tables  in  the  way  of  Hieroglyphicks  ;  The  Agrarian  Law,  and  I'arti- 
tion  made  hyJSeven,  and  the  Divifion  of  the  Tribes^  The  bringing  thii 
Silures^  Ordovices,  Camelodunum,  as  well  as  the  Brigantes,    within  the 
Compafs  of  Scotland  i,  Thefe  are  the  proper  Inventions  of  He3or,   un- 
lefs  he  had  them  from  his  Spaniard  Veremundus,    which  no  one  could 
tell  but  himfelf ;   Thence  Leland  and  (_d)  Lluyd  charge  him  with  m-('^'^?'^* 
numerable   FalOioods.      (ej    Dempfier  confefles,    that  Buchanan  fre-^fff' 
quently  chajiifes  him  ^    But  he  would   have   it  rather  on  the  Account  {e)  hift^ 
vf  Religion  than  Learning  :     But  it  is  plain,    that  he  owns  his  Mi-  ^"'*{'  ^  *' 

f\ake«""  ^^' 


I5S  Ihe  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V. 

!w/f  T  2'.  ^^^^^  ^"*i  (/)  V'anit)',  only  he  charges  Llnyd.  with  as  great  on  behalf 
ad  fin!      of  the  Britains. 

(g)  Scoff  In  the  Second  Book  HeBor  inlarges  more.^ox(g)Fordon  paiTeth  on  from 
fi. '12.  ^'  Fergus  to  Rether,  or  Bedes  Re/tda,  having  nothing  to  fay  ^  But  He^or  ac- 
quaints us  with  the  Conteft  about  the  Regency  u^on  Fergus  his  Death, 
and  the  Law  then  madeconcerning-it,  the  attempt  oiReJigtjation  of  Feri- 
thark,  to  Ferlegus,  the  Son  of  Ferg*ir,  and  his  Imprifonment  upon  it ; 
The  Death  of  Fer/V/^^r^  after  fifteen  Years  Reign  ^  The  Flight  ofFer- 
legHs  into  Britaw,  with  the  Choice  o(  Main,  his  younger  Brother,  to 
be  King  5  His  good  Government  and  Annual  Progrefs  for  Juftice 
through  all  Places  of  his  Dominions ;  His  appointing  Circles  of  great 
Stones  for  Temples,  and  one  in  the  middle  for  the  Altar  ^  And  the 
Monthly  Worlhip  of  the  New  Moon  ^  And  feveral  Egyptian  Sacrifices 
(which  one  would  have  thought  had  been  more  proper  for  Gaithelos 
himfelf )  with  the  Succeflion  of  his  Son  Domadil,  his  making  the  Laws 
of  Hunting,  which  were  ftillobferved  there;  And  of  his  Brother  No- 
thatus,  his  Son  Renther  being  an  Infant :  Who  came  in  by  the  Laxv  of 
Regency,  faith  Ee^or  5  By  the  Poveer  of  the  People  faith  Buchanan  ;  but 
in  truth  by  neither.  For  all  this  Snccejjion  feems  to  have  been  the  pro- 
dudt  of  He^or's  fruitful  Invention,  which  Buchanan  follows  without 
Authority  5  as  he  doth  in  all  the  reft  of  the  Succejfion  of  that  Race  of 
Kings  from  Reuther  to  Fergus  II. 

To  make  way  lox Bedes  Account  of  Reuda's  coming  into  thofe  Parts, 
of  Britain,  This  Reuther  is  forced  back  into  Ireland  ^    from  whence  he 
is  faid  to  return  with  new  Supplies  after  twelve  Years ;    From  whom 
the  Scots  were  then  called  Dalreudini :     But  this  return  of  Reuther,  He- 
Uor  places  in  the  Year  before  Chrifi  204.    And  after  him  Reutha,   his 
Kinfman  5    In  whofe  time,  He^or  relates  an  Embaffy  from  Ptolemy  Phi- 
ladelphus  to  him  5    And  the  Account  of  Sotland  which  he  began  in  a 
large  Volume  for  his  Satisfaftion,    which  was  after  finifhed  by  Ptolemy 
the  Coftnographer.     This  Buchanan  had  the  Wit  to  leave  out   (  and  even 
(6)  Hift.  (A)  Dempfier  himfelf,    though  he  mentions  him  for  a  Writer  of  their 
Eccief.  I.  Hiftory  )  and  fo  he  doth  the  Voyage  of  the  two  Spanilh  Philofophers  in 
^  '"''°  ^'thetime  of  "Jofina,  and  their  Preaching  againft  the  Egyptian  Worfhipin 
Scotland 'j  (but  Le/7y  hath  it. )     And  if  5«cW<««  had  believed  it,   he 
would  have  fet  it  down,  as  well  as  Jofinas  bringi>rg  Fhyfick  and  Chirur- 
gery  into  fo  much  requeft.  That  there  was  not  a  Noble  Man  that  could 
not  praftife  the  latter.    And  yet  He^or  declares  immediately  after  the 
Story  of  the  Philofophers,    that  hitherto  he  had  followed  Veremundm, 
'John  CampbeU  and  Cornelius  Hibernkus,  the  moft  approved  Authors  of 
their  Hiftory.     It  would  have  been  fome  fatisfaftion  to  the  World,    if 
any  other  Perfon  had  feen  thefe  Authors  befides  ^    Fordon  never  menti- 
ons them  ;   And  yet  heufed  great  diligence  to  fearch  their  Antiquities  5 
[,)AppAr.  And,   if  It)  Dempjier  may  he  believed,    had  the  Sight  of  their  moft 
ad  hift.    ancient  MSS.    Buchanan  pafTes  them  over  ;    Dempjier   names  them, 
Scot.  1. 1.  ^^  j.j^g  authority  of  Heclor  :     What  became  of  thefe  great  Authors 
after  He^iors  time  ?     Did  he  deftroy  them,    as  fome  fay  Polydore  Vir- 
gil did  fome  of  ours  after  he  had  ufed  them  >    3ut  this  were  Madnefs, 
to  quote  their  Authority-  and  deftroy  the  Authors  5   For  thefe  were  his 
Vouchers  I,   which  ought  moft  carefully  to  have  been  preferved.    And 
in  truth  He^or  himfelf  gives  no  very  confiftent  Account  of  his  Authors  : 
For  in  his  Epiflle  to  James  5.  he  mentions  Veremundus,    Archdeacon  of 
St.  Andrew's,  who  deduced  the  Scotijh  Hiftory  from  the  Original  to  Mai- 

colm 


Chap.  V.         the  Britijh  Churches,  15^ 

colm  II  r.     And  Turgott,    Biftiop  of  St.  Jndrevo's,   and  Jokn  Campbejl^ 
which  were  brought  from  the  Jjlaf7d  lona  ^  To  whom  he  adds  an  Ano- 
n^mmt  Author^  and  the  imperfed  Hijiorv  of  William  Elphitrflon,  Bifhop 
oi  Aberdeen.     But,  faith  he,  if  any  atk  (uch  ^  material  QueOion,    Hote 
came  thefe  Authors  to  he  fee »  no  vphere  elfe?    He  anfwers,  That  Edw.  /. 
defiroji'd  all. their  Monuments  of  Antiquity  ;  So  that  had  not  thofe  been  pre- 
fertjedin  the  Ifland  lona,  with  theChefi  of  Book  f  which  Fergus  11.  brought 
from  the  facking  <7/Rome,  in  the  time  <7/Alaric,  They  had  been  able  to  give 
no  account  of  their  Antiquities.    From  whence  it  is  evident  that  Hellor 
never  faw  or  heard  of  any  ancient  Authors  of  their  Hiftory,    but  fuch 
as  were  conveyed  to  him  from  the  Ifland  lona.     But  in  bis  (Ji)  Seventh  {k)  l.  7. 
Book,  where  hegives  a  more  particular  account  of  thofe  Books  which  P-  "^8. 
were  brought  to  him  from  thence,  he  only  mentions  forae  broken  Frag- 
ments of  Latin  Authors  5  But  whofe  they  were,  where  Written,  whence 
they  came,  he  knew  not  5    And,    as  to  their  own  Hijiories,   he  names 
indeed  Veremundiu  and  Elphinjion,    and  no  more.     The  latter  he  faid 
before  was  imperfidl,   and  lately  done  ;   So  that  the  whole  Credit  of 
He&or's  Antiquities  refts  entirely  upon  Veremundus  ;  For  here  he  never 
takes  notice  oi  Campbell  or  Cornelius  Hibernicus  5   But  he  faith,  Edn>.  i. 
had  defhroyd  all  their  Antiquities,  but  fuch  as  were  preferved  in  the  Ifland 
lona  or  Hy.     And  is  this  now  a  good  Foundation  to  build  a  Hiftory  up- 
on ?     For  is  it  not  very  ftrange,   that  no  one  Copy  of  Veremundus 
fiiould  be  heard  of  fince  that  time  ^  When  there  werefeveral  ofFordon, 
not  only  there,  but  in  our  Libraries,   fome  with  the  tnlargements  and 
fome  without  }     But  if  our  King  Edw.  I.  dejiro/d  all  their  ancient  Hi- 
jiories, how  came  Turgott's  to  be  preferved  ?     He  was  Bifhop  of  St.  Ak' 
dfew's  in  the  time  of  Malcolm  III.  and  ^een  Margaret,    whofe  Lives  he 
Vrotet^   And  whofe  Hijiory,  HeSor  faith,   he  had.     So  that  not  orlly  Tuy- 
gott's  Hiftory  of  the  Church  of  Durham  is  preferved  in  the  Cotton  Libra- 
ry, with  his  own  Name  written  in  an  ancient  Charafter  (the  fame  that 
is  printed  under  the  Name  of  Simeon  Dunelmenfs,  with  fome  Alterati- 
ons,  as  (/)  Mr.  Selden  hath  (hew'd  5    But  if  Hoveden  be  fo  much  to  (!)Pr4at. 
blame,  as  (w)  Leland  faith,  for  concealing  what  he  borrow' d  from  SimQ-'"^}°' 
on  Dunelmenfis,  Simeon  himfelf  is  at  leaft  as  much  to  blame  for  aflh-  (m)ie- 
ming  to  himfelf  the  proper  work  of  Turgott. )     But  it  feems  He^or  had  '3°«!-  '^^. 
feen  what  he  wrote  in  relation  to  the  Scotifh  Hiftory  :     And  Bale  andfi'meon!^ 
J^its  fay,  he  wrote  of  the  Kings  ^/Scotland.  But  Dempfter  faith,  he  wrote 
cnly  the  Annals  of  his  own  time,  i.  e.     I  fuppofe,    the  Lives  fl/ Malcolm 
and  Margaret ;    If  fo,  HeUor  mentions  him  to  little  purpofe,  with  re- 
rpeft  to  the  Scotiflj  Antiquities.    But  however,  from  the  forementioned 
Authors,  He^or  pretends  to  give  an  Account  of  the  Inftitution  of  the 
Great  Council  by  Finannus,  of  the  Order  of  the  Druids,  and  their  Chief 
Seat  in  the  Ifland  Mona,   (  which  he  would  have  to  be  the  Ifle  of  Man, 
to  the  great  regret  of  Humphrey  Lluyd,    who  hath  written  a  Book  on 
purpofe  to  difprove  him  and  Polydore  Virgil  about  it. )    Of  the  Tyran- 
ny and  violent  Death  of  King  Durfius  5    Of  the  choice  of  Euenus  his 
Kinfman  to  fucceed  him,  and  his  firft  requiring  an  Oath  of  Allegiance  5 
Of  the  Difturbances  by  Gillus  his  natural  Son,    and  his  flying  into 
Ireland  :     And  his  Death  by  Cadalhu  5    And  Euenus  his  fetting  up 
Edecus,  the  Grandchild  of  Durftus  j  with  which  he  ends  his  Second 
Book. 

In  his  Third  Book  he  gives  an  Accolint  of  the  Troubles  from  Ireland 
by  Bredius,   a  Kinfman  of  Qillus  ;    Of  Cajfibellans  Meffage  to  Ederus 

for 


i^o 


The  Antiquities  of 


HAP. 


V. 


(fi)  Brit, 
p.  700. 
(o'  Nenn 
c:  19. 


for  Afliftaoce  againft  JuUuf  defar :  And  the  Speech  of  J»clrogeus  before 
the  Cornell:  and  Ederus  his  Anfvyer,  and  fending  icooo  Men  under  the 
Command  of   Cadallatnis^  Son   to  Cadalluf-j  Who,  with    the  Britijh 
Forces,  quite  overthrew  C^far,  by  the  help  of  Te»,->»tiiif,  Duke  of  the 
Camhrl  and  Corhei:^  for  which,  as  we  may  eafily  conceive,  there  was 
wonderful  rejoicing  in  Scotland:  And  great  Friendftiip  upon  it,  be- 
tween the  Britaifis,  the  Pl&s  and  the  Scots.     But  next  Summer  they 
hear  the  fad  News  of  C£far's  coming  again-  And  then  the  Britains  re- 
fufed  the  Scots  affiftance  (  and  it  is  eafie  to  imagine  what  rauft  follow) 
the  poor  Britains  mere  miferably  beaten ;  And  Cajjthellafi  yields  himfelf  to 
C£far,  and  C£far  marches  towards  Scotland  5  but  before  he  enters  it,  he 
fends  a  more  Eloquent  Letter  to  them  than  that  in  Fordon ;  And  the 
Scots  and  P/5?/  returned  a  refolute  Anfwer.     But  it  feems  defar  had  fo 
much  good  Nature  in  him  as  to  fend  a  Second  Meffage  to  the  Scots, 
which  was  deliver'd  with  great  Eloquence,  but  it  did  not  work  upon 
them ;  For,  faith  He£lor.,  hud  it  not  been  for  the  Law  of  Nations,  they 
had  torn  the  Mejfengers  to  pieces.     But  it  happen'd  luckily,  that  while 
C£far  was  making  Preparations  to  enter  Scotland,  he  received  Letters 
from  Labienus  of  the  Revolt  of  the  Gauls  ;  upon  which  C"<f/^r  returns, 
having  fcarce  fo  much  as  frightned  the  Piils  and  the  Scots,    And  here 
again  Hedor  vouches  the  Authority  of  Veremundus  and  Campbel  3  But 
notwithflanding,  Buchanan  very  wifely  leaves  all  this  out,  which  Lejly, 
believing  Veremundus,  or  rather  He&or  before  C£far,  keeps  in.     But 
here  Hedfor  becomes  very  nice  and  critical,  rejeding  the  vulgar  Annals 
(  which  it  feems  were  not  deftroy'd  by  Edvp,  \. )  which  fay,  that  Csefar 
tcent  as  far  as  the  Caledonian  Wood,,  and  befieged  Camelodunum,  and 
left  there  his  Pretorian  Houfe  which  he  ufed  to  travel  with,  called  Julh 
Hoff.    But  for  his  part,  he  would  write  nothing  that  might  be  found 
fault  with,  and  therefore  he  follows  Veremundus  again.  That  thkvpas 
the  Temple  ofVitiory,  built  by  Vefpafian,  »o//?r  ^tfw  Camelodunum  5 
Only  the  Infer ipti on  was  defaced  by  Edw.  I.     Buchanan  in  the  Life  of 
King  Donald  faith.  This  was  the  Temple  of  the  God  Terminus :  being 
near  the  Roman  Wall.    It  was  a  round  Building,  made  of  fquare  Stones, 
and  open  only  at  the  top  24  Cubits  in  height,  13  in  breadth,  as  (») 
Camden  defcribes  if.     (<?)  Nennius  faith.  It  was  built  by  Caraujius,  iti 
token  of  his  Triumph.     But  this  looks  no  more  like  a  Triumphal  Arch, 
than  C£fars  travelling  Palace :  And  therefore  Buchanan's  opinion  feems 
mofl:  probable,  fince  He^or  faith.  That  there  was  within  it  a  Stone  of 
great  magnitude,  which  was  the  Reprefentation  of  the  God  Terminus, 
efpecially,  if  the  hole  in  the  top  were  over  the  Stone,  as  it  was  in  the 
Capitol  at  Rome.    Then  follow  the  wicked  Life  and  tragical  End  of  £«- 
enus  IIL  the  good  Reign  of  Metallanus,  and  his  Friendfhip  with  Augu- 
fius,  which  he  goes  about  to  prove  from  Strabo :  But  he  had  better 
kept  to  Veremundus.     After  him  fucceeded  Caratacus,  born  at  CaraBoni- 
urn,  a  City  of  the  Silures,  faith  He^or,  and  that  he  might  be  fure  to 
confound  all,  he  faith,  his  Sifter  ^d^<i  was  married  to  ^rw/rrf^w/,  King 
of  the  Britain!'^  But  he  divorced  her,  and  married  Gew///^,  a  Noble 
Roman:,  upon  which  Caratacus  joined  the  Britains  againft  the  Romans, 
and  was  at  laft  beaten  by  them,  and  betrayed  by  Cartumandua^  his  Mo- 
ther-in-law, who,  after  his  Father's  death,  was  married  to  Venuftus, 
and  was  by  Ojlorius  carried  in  Triumph  to  Rome,  from  whence,  he  faith, 
he  returned  to  Scotland,  and  remained  to  his  death  a  Friend  to  the  Ro- 
mans-^ After  CaraUiUs,  Corbred  his  Brother  was  chofen  King 3  who 

joined 


C  H  A  p. >  v.         the  Briti/h  Churches.  i6i 

joined  with  Foada  ae,ainft  the  Romafts-^  And  partaking  of  her  misfor- 
tune returned  into  Scotland,  and  there  died.  His  Sons  being  under 
Age,  DardafTMus  fucceeded  5  Who  defigning  to  deftroy  the  right  Heirs 
of  the  Crown,  was  himfelf  taken  off:  And  thereby  Way  Was  made  for 
Galdtu  the  true  Heir  to  fucceed  5  Who  was  the  fame,  faith  Ue^or^  with 
TacitHs  his  GalgacHs  5  and  he  confeffes,  was  beaten  by  Pitilius  Cerealk. 
This  King,  Buchanan  thinks,  was  the  firft  of  their  Rings  who  fought 
with  the  Romans.  What  becomes  then  of  the  Credit  bf  He^or  and 
Veremundusy  from  whom  we  have  fuch  ample  Narrations  of  their  eri- 
gaging  with  the  Romans  fo  long  before  ?  From  hence  it  is  plain  that 
Veremundus  his  Authority  fignified  nothing  with  him;  And  yet  he  fol- 
lows He^lor  where  he  profeffes  to  rely  upon  his  Authority.  For  Bh- 
chanan  evidently  abridges  He£lor  as  to  the  Scotipi  Affairs,  leaving  out 
what  he  found  inconfiftent  with  the  Roman  Hijiory. 

HeBor  begins  his  Fifth  Book  with  the  (hort  Reign  and  doleful  End 
of  LuilacHs^  Galdus  his  Son  5  who  was  fucceeded  by  Mogallus,  his 
Sifter's  Son  5  who  continued  for  fome  time  a  brave  Prince,  but  at  laft 
degenerating,  was  killed  by  his  Subjeds.  After  him  Conarus  his  Son, 
who  was  confined  for  ill  management,  and  the  Government  commit- 
ted to  Argadm  5  Upon  his  death  the  Kingdom  fell  to  Ethodiuir,  Nephew 
to  Mogallus^  who  was  ftrangled  in  his  Bed  by  an  Irijh  Harper:  And  fo 
was  Satrad  that  fucceeded  him,  by  thofe  of  his  Bed-chamber.  Thefe 
are  fad  Stories,  if  they  were  true,  but  the  comfort  is,  there  appears 
yer  no  better  Authority  than  that  of  Helior  for  them.  For  Fordoh 
hath  nothing  of  all  this  5  And  Buchanan  and  Lejly  take  them  upon 
HeUors Crediti  They  ferved  Buchanans  purpofe  well  enough,  as  ap- 
pears by  his  Book  Dejure  Regni  apud  Scotosj  And  therefore  he  was 
willing  to  let  them  ftand  in  Hiftory,  being  none  of  his  Invention,  and 
knowing  what  ufe  was  to  be  made  of  them.  Donalds,  Brother  to  fi- 
thodiuf,  was  chofen  in  his  room,  and  here  Hs&or  falls  in  with  Fdrdon 
about  Fulgenths^  one  of  the  Royal  Britifh  Race,  who  revolted  from 
the  Romans,  which  Fordon  had  from  Geoffny  of  Monmouth^  who  Calli 
him  Fulgeniuf,  and  faith,  he  was  driven  with  the  Britain^  into  Albany: 
But  after,  in  a  Fight  with  Severut  at  York,  they  were  both  killed.  But 
in  this  HeUor  was  afbamed  to  follow  therh,  allowing  Severn  to  die 
a  natural  death,  and  Fulgentius  to  furvive  him.  As  to  Donald's  etti- 
bracing  Chriftianity,  he  follows  Fordon,  but  never  quotes  him  5  And 
here  he  never  mentions  Veremundus  5  As  though  fo  confiderable  si 
Point  of  Hiftory  ne<;ded  no  Authority  but  his  own.  He  concludes 
this  Book  with  a  brief  Account  of  Ethodius,  Son  to  the  former,  who 
for  his  ill  Government  was  Confined  by  his  Nobles  and  killed  by  his 
Guards.  ,  •  •'  .  ' 

In  the  Sixth  Book  he  begins  with  a  Convention  of  the  Ejiates  for  the 
choice  of  a  new  King.  And  they  fet  up  his  Son  Athirco,  who  gave 
great  hopes  at  firft,  but  falling  into  Debauchery,  his  Nobles  combined 
againft  him,  and  finding  no  way  to  efcape,  he  killed  himfelf.  NathaU- 
CHS,  Head  of  the  confpiracy  fucceeds,  who  was  for  a  time  Popular,  after- 
wards Cruel,  to  that  degree,  as  raifed  a  general  hatred  of  him,  which 
ended  in  a  DefTgn  to  deftroy  him ;  Wherein  they  were  prevented  by 
one  of  his  greateft  Confidents,  who  ftabbed  him.  Then  Fihdocus^ 
eldeft  Son  to  Athirco,  recover'd  the  Crown,  who  proved  an  excellent 
Prince,  but  was  at  laft  murthered  by  two  Villains,  his  Brother  Cdran- 
tius   being  privy  to  it :  The  Murtherers  were  executed,  but  Carahtiui 

X  fled. 


1^2  Jhe  Anticjuities  of  Chap.  V; 

fled,   and  was  afterwards  a  great  Souldier  under  Probns,   Cants  and 
D'loclejian.     This  Carantius  is  the  fame  whom  the  Roman  Writers  call 
Caraufius,  as  Heclor  afterwards  confeffes,  who  fet  up  for  himfelf  in  Bri- 
tain-^ But,  faith  he,  he  purpofely  difguifed  himfelf  abroad.    Geoffrey 
(p)  scoti.  of  Monmouth  makes  Inm  a  Eritain,  and  calls  him  Carajjius.     (/>)  For- 
chtoH.t.i,don  tells  the  main  oi  tht  Story  oi  Car aufiHs  well  enough  5  only  iniarge- 
'^'  '^^'      ing  on  the  Leagues  he  made  with  the  Scots  and  P/^j  ;  And  Gotkoriuj^ 
Nephew  to  Fulgentms,  who  ruled  over  the  Northern  Britains.     But 
whence  had  He^or  this  Information,  That  he  was  Carantins,  Son  to 
4thirc0j  and  Brother  to  Findocus^  Bmhanan  is  not  afhamed  to  relate 
the  Story  oiCarantius  as  far  as  to  his  paffing  into  the  Roman  Army,  and 
there  ftops.     But  afterwards  he  fpeaks  of  Caraufus  his  Aftions  in  Bri- 
tain, without  any  farther  mention  of  Carantins  5  Which  (hews  that  Bu- 
chanan took,  and  left  what  he  pleafed  out  of  He&or's  Hiftory  without 
being  obliged  by  any  Authority  heproduced  to  carry  it  on  as  he  found 
it  there. 

After  the  Death  of  Findocus,  his  Brother  Donat  fuccceded,  who 
was  foon  killed  by  Donald  of  the  Ijles,  who  ufurped  the  Kingdom, 
and  was  at  laft  killed  by  a  Confpiracy  whtreoi' CrathUntHf,  Son  to  Fin- 
docus was  the  chief;  Who  immediately  took  poffeffion  of  the  Crown : 
After  him  fucceeded  Fincormackus ;  both  thefe  died  peaceably.  Then 
arofe  a  mighty  Conteft  about  the  Regency  between  the  three  Nephews 
of  Crathlintus-^  At  firft  Romackus  prevailed,  but  Governing  cruelly,  he 
was  taken  off:  Then  followed  Angujianus,  who  was  killed  in  Battel  by 
thePi^j,  After  him  Fethelmachns,  killed  in- his  Bed  by  his  Harper; 
And  laft  of  all  Eugenins,  killed  in  Battel  by  the  Romans:  And  foon  af- 
ter, by  the  Inftigation  of  the  B^/  their  mortal  Enemies,  the  Scots  were 
univerfally  baniftied  out  of  Britain  by  order  of  Maximus  the  Roman 
General  tj  whithci"  they  returned  not  till  about  forty  years  after,  under 
Fergus,  II.  And  in  this,  as  to  the  main  part  of  this  laft  Tragedy,  For- 
don  agrees  with  Heftor,  viz.  That  it  was  occafiond  by  the  Romans 
joining  with  the  Pi^s  againft  the  Scots,  in  the  time  of  Eugenius,  who 
were  not  only  beaten  by  them,  but  driven  out  of  Britain  into  Ireland, 
and  Norway,  and  other  Countries. 

This  is  the  Subftance  of  what  thefe  ScetiJ}}  Antiquaries  deliver  con- 
cerning their  remoteft  Antiquities  to  the  time  of  Fergus  If.    y-   I' 

But  feveral  Arguments  are  of  late  produced  to  juftifie  the  Hiflory  of 
Scotland,  as  it  is  delivered  by  He^or  Boethius  out  of  Veremundus  and  his 
other  Authors;  which  muft  be  briefly  confidered,  before  I  proceed  to 
the Iri/h  Antiquities.  And  it  is  alledg'd,  that  the  Stotifh  Antiquities,  as 
delivered  by  him  (  for  it  is  concerning  He^or's  Authority  which  I  dif- 
pute  )  have  been  received  with  great  Applaufe  for  many  hundreds  of  year  s, 
ky  all  Hijiorians,  Antiquaries  and  Criticks  of  other  Nations,  who  had  any 
»ccafion  to  mention  their  Affairs.  Ic  will  go  a  great  way  with  me,  if  it 
be  made  appear,  that  there  was  any  foch  account  received  among 
Learned  Antiquaries  in  any  part  of  the  World  before  Hetlor's  time. 
But  I  cannot  find  any  one  Antiquary,  no  not  in  Scotland,  before  his 
time,  who  gives  the  fame  Account  that  HeHor  doth.  The  Tradition  of 
ths  Scots  peopling  that  part  of  the  IJland  long  before  Fergus  II.  I  graat 
was  a  much  elder  Tradition,  and  is  embraced  by  For  don,  and  proba- 
bly others  before  him.  But  Fordun  doth  not  own  the  Succeffton  of  the 
fame  number  of  Kings,  and  in  fuch  a  manner  as  He^for  delivers  them. 
Froip  whence  then  came  HeUor  to  know  fo  much  more  than  Ferdon  in 

thefe 


Chap.  V.  the  Britijh  Churches.  i  <53 

thefe  matters  r*  I  yield  that  there  was  fofhe  ancient  Chronica  lefireFor- 
don,  which  he  often  quotes.     But  ftil!  the  Argument  is  the  ftronger  a- 
gainft  He^or.     For  if  Fordon  had  all  thofe  Helps,  and  yet  knew  no- 
thing of  thofe  particulars,  it  is  a  vehement  Prefumption  againft  HeHor, 
that  he  took  too  much  Liberty  in  thofe  many  particulars,  which  For- 
don pafled  over,  as  having  nothing  to  fay  about  them.    The  more  Co' 
pes  they  haite  of  Fordon  in  their  Monajieries,  the  more  eafily  they  may 
be  convinced,  how  little  He&or  and  he  agree  about  the  frji  Sac cejjion 
between  the  Fergus's.     And  if  Fordoh  did  agree  with  all  their  Annals^ 
as  it  now  pleaded,  He[ior  Boethins  could  not,  becaufe  they  differ  fo  much 
from  each  other  ^  as  will  appear  to  any  one  that  compares  them.  Why 
do  we  not  read  in  Fordon  the  Authorities  of  Veremundus  and  Cornelius 
HibernicHs^  who  were  certainly  before  his  time,  if  ever?  For  we  ar6 
told,  that  he  was  Archdeacon  of  St.  Andrew*/,  An.  Dont.  1076.  and  de- 
dicated his  Book  to  Malcolm  Canmore ;  which  was  long  enough  before 
Fordon  s  time.    But  it  is  fa  id,  that  he  is  cited  in  a  partiiular  part  of  For- 
don'j  Book^  which  could  not  he  copied  from  Boethius.     It  had  been  a  much 
clearer  Evidence,  if  that  Place  had  been  produced  5  for  then  we  might 
have  confider'd  whether  it  was  a  PafTage  of  Fordon,  or  of  one  of  thofe 
feveral  Writers  who  it  feems  wrote  Additions  and  Continuations  to  him  5 
fuch,  as  befides  Maculloch,  Arelat  and  Walter  Bowmaker  are  faid  to  have 
been,  who  continued  the  Hifiories  to  the  Reign  of  James  ll.     And  yet  I 
would  be  ^ad  to  fee  any  Teftimony  of  Veremundus  of  that  Antiquity. 
As  to  the  Teftimony  of  Chambers,  who  faith,  he  had  thefe  principal  Au- 
thors^ Veremund,   a  Spaniard,  Turgott,  Swinton,   Campbel,  &c.  till 
fome  farther  Proof  be  produced,  I  have  reafon  to  fuppofe,  it  was  the 
fame  Cafe  as  to  him  with  that  of  Sir  R.  Baker,  which  immediately  fol- 
lows 5  For  we  are  told,  that  he  likemfe  quotes  this  Veremund  among  the 
Authors  out  of  whom  he  compiled  his  Hifiory,  and  likewije  Campbel  and 
Turgott.    And  if  we  have  no  more  ground  to  believe  that  Chambers 
had  them,  than  Sir  R.  Baker,  the  matter  muft  remain  in  as  much  ob- 
fcurity  as  before.     For  no  one  imagines  that  Sir  R.  Baker  had  all  thofe 
Authors  by  him  which  he  there  mentions ;  but  he  fets  down  the  Names 
of  thofe  whofe  Authorities  he  relied  upon,  although  he  found  them 
quoted  by  others.    And  he  is  not  the  only  perfon  in  the  World  who 
hath  cited  the  Authority  of  Books  which  he  never  faw ;  The  fame  is 
to  be  faid  of  HolUnfljed.     But  if  fuch  kind  of  Proofs  muft  pafs  for  e- 
vident  Demonjirations,  that  the  Scots  had  fuch  Hijiorians  as  Veremundus 
and  the  others  before  mentioned '.y  I  wonder  the  fame  Learned  Author 
(hould  fhrink  fo  much  the  Faith  of  Hiflory  as  to  allow  that  defpicable 
thing,  called  Moral  Certainty,  to  he    a  fuficient  Probation  for  ii^  For 
fcarce  any  Hiftory  can  be  mention'd,  but  may  have  fuch  kind  of  evident 
Demonjirations  to  prove  it.  Well,  but  halxus,  a  Learned  Engli/h-man^  and 
Gefner,  and  other  famous  Strangers,  quote  Veremundus.     But  fo  do  ndt 
Bojion  of  Bury,  nor  Leland,  who  had  written  of  the  Britijh  and  other 
Writers  before  the  time  of  Hedor  Boethitu.    And  thofe  were  Men  who 
fearched  all  our  Libraries  for  the  ancient  Books  in  them,  and  have 
digefted  them  with  great  Care;  and  //  Veremundus  with  other  MSS. 
were  brought  into  England  by  Edw.  L  as  is  now  fuggefted,  it  could  hard- 
ly have  efcaped  the  diligence  of  thofe  Men.     Bur  thofe  who  lived  af- 
ter He3or  Boethius  publiftied  his  Hiftory,  took  his  word  for  Veremun- 
dus, and  entred  him  into  their  Catalogues  j  as  Voffius  hath  done  m^nf 
whom  he  never  faw.    But  Erafmus  faith  that  Heftor  was  a  Rerfon  »ho 

X  2  coul4 


—■ " ■  M  '  .■■■■■— t—  .     ■       ■     ■  ;- 

1  ^4  Ihe  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  V. 

contd  not  lye.  That  was  more  than  Erafmus  could  know,  unlefs  he  had 
been  by  when  he  wrote  his  Hiftory  and  compared  it  with  the  Authors 
he  pretended  to  follow.  As  to  Faahs  Jovius,  he  was  a  fit  Second  to 
Boethius :,  but  I  am  fure  Erafmus  would  not  have  faid  of  him,  that  he 
eonld  not  lye.  For  He^or's  pretending  to  have  his  Books  from  the  Jfland 
lona,  I  have  given  an  Account  of  it  already,  and  (hew'd  how  incon- 
liftent  his  own  relation  thereof  is.  But  all  this  while.  Where  is  the 
great  Applaufe  of  thefe  Scotiftl  Antiquities  for  many  hundreds  of  years  bj 
alt  Hijiorians,  Antiquaries  and  Crithhs  of  foreign  Nations  ?  When  not 
fo  much  as  one  is  produced,  who  lived  before  HeBor  Boethius^  and,  I 
think,  that  was  not  many  hundred  years  fince. 

But  whatever  becomes  of  Feremundtu^  v/e  are  told.  That  the  Black' 
hook  of  Scoon,  containing  the  Scotiftl  Hifiories  from  the  beginning,  was 
among  Prefident  Spotfwood'i-  Books,  and  given  to  Lambert,  and  by  him  to 
Colonel  Fairfax.  All  this,  I  am  afraid,  is  a  great  miftake  for  a  Black  book 
of  Fordon's,  which  was  brought  out  of  Scotland  and  prefented  to  the 
Jate  King  by  a  Gentleman  of  that  Name,  as  fome  yet  Jiving  can  atteft. 
But  no  fuch  thing  as  the  Btack-book  of  Scoon  was  ever  heard  of  here 5, 
and  if  any  fuch  could  be  found,  we  (hould  be  fo  far  from  fuppreffing 
any  thing  that  tended  to  the  Glory  of  the  ScotiJIj  Nation,  that  fome 
here  would  be  very  glad  to  publifti  it,  with  all  other  ancient  Annals 
which  themfelves  would  think  fit  to  be  printed 5  whether  it  be  the 
Black-book  of  Pafley,  Plufcardin,  or  any  others.  We  do  ncJl  deny  that 
they  had  any  ancient  Annals  or  Regifters  in  their  Monafteries  5  but  we 
defire  to  be  better  acquainted  with  them ;  and  it  is  no  good  Argument, 
they  can  tell  us  where  to  find  them,  that  they  are  fo  careful  to  let  us 
know  how  they  came  to  lofe  them. 

But,  after  all  this  Fencing,  it  is  pofitively  faid,  that  the  furefl  fmn- 
dation  of  all  Hiftory  is  the  common  belief  and  confent  of  the  Natives.  Bl^ 
what  if  the  Natives  of  feveral  Countries  differ  from  each  other?  It 
may  be  reafonable  to  believe  neither,  but  it  is  not  poffible  to  believe 
both.  What  if  they  had  for  a  long  time  no  certain  way  of  convey- 
ing their  Hiftories  from  one  Age  to  another?  It  is  poffible  Oral  Tra- 
dition may  preferve  fome  general  ftrokes  of  the  ancient  Hiftory  of  a 
Country  5  but  it  is  hardly  credible,  that  fo  many  particulars  as  Boethitff 
hath  in  the  firft  Race  of  Kings  could  be  kept  fo  diftinftly  by  the  force 
of  Tradition.  The  cafe  of  the  old  World  is  vaftly  different  from  any 
other  People  fince  the  iliortningof  Mens  Lives  ^  and  whatever  Nation 
wanted  Records,  could  never  make  out  the  Credibility  of  their  Hifto- 
ry to  other  People.  We  do  not  deny  the  Annals  of  the  Jewifh  or  Ro- 
man Priefisi,  but  we  think  Annals  ax\A  Oral  Tradition  are  two  things  5 
when  Annals  are  produced,  we  muft  weigh  and  confider  them,  and 
compare  the  Annals  of  feveral  Nations  together,  that  we  may  better 
judge  which  are  to  be  relied  upon. 

And  yet  we  are  told  again,  that  rehen  Hiftories  are  formed  out  of  an- 
cient Records,  there  is  no  farther  need  to  produce  them ;  for  Papers  may  be 
loft  by  accident,  but  the  Hiftories  taken  out  of  them  are  to  be  believed,  al- 
though the  Records  cannot  be  found  ;  as  it  is  in  refpeS  of  the  Hiftories  of 
Rome  and  Greece,  whofe  Authority  remains,  although  the  Teftimonies  on 
which  they  relied  are  not  extant. 

So  that  at  laft  Geoffrey  oi  Monmouth  muft  be  believed  as  to  the  Bri- 
tifh  Antiquities,  as  well  as  He&or  Boethius  as  to  the  Scotijh.  For  Geof- 
frey doth  no  more  pretend  to  invent  his  Hiftory  than  HeUor:  and 

Hn- 


Chap.  V.  the EntiftjCburcbes.  1^5 

HHmbdldiis  is  as  good  an  Author  as  either  of  them  j  and  Ket'wg  as  good 
as  HHn'ibalduf.  For  they  all  equally  pretend  to  derive  their  Hiftories 
'from  ancient  Records  and  the  Tradition  of  the  Natives  ;  and  all  thefe 
having  formed  their  Hiftories  out  of  thefe  fubftantial  Grounds,  we  are 
to  fearchno  farther;  but  to  believe  them  all  however  improbable  m 
themfelves,  and  contradiftious  to  one  another. 

The  cafe  is  very  different  as  to  the  Learned  Greek  and  Roman  Hiflo' 
ties,  from  thofe  of  the  modern  barbarous  Nations  ^  which  were  plainly 
made  in  imitation  of  them,  as  will  appear  afterwards.  And  as  to  the 
Greeks  and  Romans,  there  is  a  confiderable  difference  to  be  made  between 
the  Hijiorles  that  related  to  the  times  before  they  had  written  Annals 
and  atter.  Can  any  Man  imagine  that  there  is  as  great  reafon  to  believe 
tbefirft  Accounts  of  Greece  as  thofe  that  were  written  after  the  Pelopon' 
nefian  War  .<?  Or,  that  thefirft  beginnings  of  the  Roman  Monarchy  by 
Romulus  are  delivered  with  as  much  certainty  as  the  Carthaginian  War  ^ 
Themoft  judicious  Writers  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans  did  make  al- 
lowance for  the  0^/«n>^  o{ ancient  Times,  when  many  things  were  ut- 
terly loft,  and  others  very  imperfedly  delivered  :  What  Reproach 
then  is  it  to  any  modern  Nations  to  fuppofe  their  Hijiorles  to  have  had 
the  fame  Fate  the  Greeks  and  Romans  had?  Only  in  this  refp^ft  they 
are  liable  to  greater  Difpute,  becaufethey  pretend  to  give  an  exaft  Ac- 
count of  thofe  times  before  they  had  any  Annals  or  written  Records  ^ 
and  in  this  Cafe,  the  more  exadi:  and  particular  the  more  fufpicious. 
And  we  have  more  certain  Rules  of  trying  their  ancient  Hiftories, 
than  the  Greeks  and  Romans  had  5  becaufe  we  have  the  Accounts 
of  feveral  Nations  to  compare  together  5  and  undoubted  Teflime- 
nies  of  other  Writers  to  examine  them  by.  And  if  they  be  not 
found  faulty  by  fome  of  thefe  ways,  we  are  contented  to  let  theiri 

But  as  to  the  Scotijh  Antiqultiei,  we  not  Only  objeft  the  want  of  fuf- 
ficient  jinticfutty  in  their  written  Records,  but  their  InconGftency  with 
approved  Writers,  in  the  moft  ancient  Account  they  give  of  the  firft 
fettling  of  the  &<j//  fo  early  in  Britain.  And  which  yet  adds  more  to 
the  Sufpicion,  the  Irifh,  from  whom  they  defcend,  give  a  far  more  dif- 
ferent Account  of  their  firft  coming  than  themfelves  do  ;  as  will  appear 
by  what  follows. 

For,  The  Irijh  Antiquaries  will  by  no  means  allow  the  Account giveti 
by  Hedor  Boethius  ;  And  fay.  He  had  not  regard  to  Truth  in  the  Writing 
of  it  ;  Particularly,  as  to  Simon  Brek's  coming  out  oi  Spain,  and  bring- 
ing the  fatal  Chair  with  him,  which  they  fay  are  both  falfe,  and 
the  main  ground  they  infift  upon  is.  That  they  are  contrary  to  the 
Relation  of  the  {q)  Old  Irifh  Antiquaries  who  deferve  far  more  (q)  Cam- 
Credit.  ^'^^"''s    ,, 

I  fliall  therefore  fet  down  the  Account  they  give,   and  confider  the  Gt£iM.^ 
Credit  they  deferve.  dan.  c.8. 

The  beft  Account  we  have  from  (r)  th6m  is  this  5  .  z'^fp'o, 

(i.)  That  Ireland  vposfirfi  planted  after  the  Flood,  by  one  Ciocal,  mtl>  fpeftof  , 
a  Fleet,  wherein  every  Veffel  had  fifty  Men  and  fifty  Women  5    And  this,  ^"1^"^^] 
Keting  faith,  happen  d  about  100  Tears  after  the  Deluge.     Butfincefuch    '    '^" 
remote  Antiquities  are  very  tender  things,  I  (hall  not  with  a  Befom  fweep 
them  all  away  at  once,   but  gently  take  them  in  Pieces,    and  lay  them 
open  as  I  pafs  along.    Nowl  defire  to  know  what  Foundation  there  is 
for  our  believing  a  thing  fo  unlikdyf  as  the  Peopling  oi  Ireland  in  this 

marines 


1 66  1  be  Antiquities  of  Chap. 


manner,  witll  fuch  a  Fleet,    fo  foon  after  the  Flood?     It  was  a  long 
time  after  this  before  thQphcemcians  had  any  Skill   in  Shipping  5    to 
whom  the  £tf;!^4//j  attributed  the  Invention  of  it.  And  certainly  the  Expe- 
dition of  the  ArgonaHt£  had  not  made  fuch  a  noife  among  the  Greeks  fo 
long  after  the  Flood  (but  twenty  Years  before  the  Deftrudion  of  Trojr, 
{s)  Ant-  as  (s)Scaliger  hith,  which  happened  in  the  time  of  the  ^//(:/gex)  if  the 
Eufeb"     ^^'^'  ^"  Shipping  had  been  fo  great  within  100  Years  after  it  ?   Yet,  if 
chran'     that  Expedition  were  fuch  as  (j)  OUus Rudbeck defcribes  it,    it  was  far 
p.  4'5-      more  confiderable  than  is  commonly  thought.     For  he  faith,    They 
[^'ii!'^"'^'  "o^  <^"^y  entred  the  Euxwe  Sea,   but  he  proves  from  Orpheiu  and  Dio- 
dorus  Siculus,    that  they  failed  up  the  Tanais,   from  whence  Hornius  in 
his  Map  faith,  They  went  into  the  Mare  Cronium,  and  fo  came  round 
Egypt,  pafling  between  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  returning  home  by  the 
Straits.     But  Rudbeik  finds  a  Paflage  for  them  from  the  Tanak  to  the 
Volga,  and  fo  to  the  Lake  of  Fronoe,  the  Head  of  the  Volga,  and  thea 
by  Rivers  into  the  Baltick  Sea,   and  fo  about  the  ^r-^/zAz^//  Promontory 
to  Irene  ( Ireland  )  and  Pencejfa   (  Britain  )  and  to  Aufonia   (  Italy  ) 
and  TriHacria  (^Sicily)   and  fo  home  to  lolcos.     If  this  were  a  mere 
Poetical  Fancy,  yist  it  was  extraordinary,  fince  it  agrees  with  the  exad 
Defcription  of  the  Northern  Conntries,    faith  Rudbeck,  far  more  than 
Vtoknty  doth.     I  will  fuppofe  this  Orpheus,    who  wrote  the  Argonau- 
ticks,  to  be  neither  the  Old  Orpheus,   nor  Onomacritns,   but  Orpheus  of 
Crotona,  to  whom  Suidas  attributes  the  Argonaut icks,  who  lived  in  the 
time  of  Pififtratus  ;    yet  it  is  very  much  for  him  then  to  defcribe 
thefe  Parts  of  the  World,  as  he  doth  5    and  to  mention  Ireland  as 
a  Country  then  known  to  the  Greeks.    And  Fejius  Avienus,    defcri- 
(k)  l.  2.   bing  the  Voyage  of  Himilco  the  Carthaginian    (  fpoken  of  by    («) 
c.  (5?.      Pliny")   fpeaks  of  Ireland  as  then  efteemed  Sacred  in   thefe  reraar^ 
kable  Verfes  ; 

Afl  hi  no  dmbus,  in  facram,  fie  Infnlam 
Dixere  prifci  folibus  curfus  rati  eji 
H<ec  inter  TJndas  multum  cefpitemjacit 
Eamque  late  Gens  Hibernorum  colit 
Rropinqua  rnrfits  Infiila  Albionum  patet. 

Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  he  here  fpeaks  of  Ireland  and 
Britain,  as  then  known  by  Hm/Zro ;  For  Fejius  Avienus  i^dLith^  He  took 
this  Defcription  front  the  Pha-nichn  Annals,  in  which  this  Voyage  was  itt' 
(w)Atian-ferted.  And  it  is  very  ftrange  to  me  that  (w)  Olans  Rudbeck  (hould 
ticf^is-  here  change  the  Hiberni  into  Hyperborei,  efpecially  when  he  allows  Al- 
bion to  ftand  for  Britain.  But  thefe  are  undoubted  Tejlimonies  of  the 
ancient  Peopling  oi  Ireland  :  and  of  far  greater  Authority  than  thof« 
domeftick  Annals  now  fo  much  extolled.  But  mufl:  we  follow  Keting, 
becaufe  he  follows  the  old  Annals  in  this  Tradition  of  the  firfl:  Peopling 
of  Ireland  ^  And  why  not  then  in  the  Story  of  Seth  and  three  Daugh- 
ters of  Clin  viewing  Ireland  ?  And  of  the  three  Fi(hermen  e/Spain  being 
Wind-driven  thither  the  Year  before  the  Flood  ?  And  of  Keafar  the 
Daughter  ^/Bajoth,  Son  of'Ho2\\,  coming  thither  with  three  Men  and  fifty 
Women,  to  fave  themfelves  from  the  Flood  ?  Are  not  all  thefe  fine  Sto- 
ries in  the  fame  Irifl}  Annals  ?  But  Keting  re\eUs  them  h  And  what 
then  "i  Doth  this  make  for  or  againft  the  Authority  of  thefe  Annuls, 
that  even  Keting  looks  on  thefe  as  Poetical  Fi^ions  ?    But  he  faith, 

The 


Chap.    V.         the  Eritijh Churches,  167 

The  bejl  Irifli  Antiquaries  d'd  of  Old  look  on  thefe  as  fabuloHS.  Poffibly  the 
two  former  rbey  might  ^    But  do  they  indeed  rejeft  the  Story  of  Kea- 
fannd  her  Coatpauions  ?   (x)  Giraldus  Cambrenfs  quotes  the  moft  an- (x)Totogt. 
cient  Hijior'ies  of  Ireland  for  this  Tradition  ^    and  they  confirm  it  by  *'*-^'-/^' 
the  Names  of  the  Place  where  {he  landed,    and  where  ff^e  was  buried.     And 
(y)  Gratianus  Lncius  confeffes,    that  he  had  the  fight  of  their  ancient  An-(^^\  cama 
nals -^   and  he  fufpefts  that  he  made  away  many  of  them.  Iffo,  2<Ce^;V/^  brenfis 
had  fewer  advantages  than  Giraldus  for  the  Old  Irifti  Antiquities.     But'^*'^'^^'*''' 
if  thefe  Old  Annals  be  of  fo  little  Authority  in  this  Story,   What  Cre- 
dit do  they  deferve  in  this  early  Plantation  after  the  Flood  ?     But  to 
proceed  in  the /rr/j  Account,  Itis  faid, 

(2.)  That  Bartholanus  and  his  three  Sons,  about  three  hundred  Tears 
after  the  Flood,  landing  in  Ireland  w^h  a  thcufand fighting  Men^  had  ma- 
ny doughty  Battels  with  the  Pofierity  of  C\ocd\  j  /ind  at  the  end  of  three 
hundred  Tears  they  were  all  confumed  by  a  Pejiilence. 

This  Story,  Iconfefs,  is  in  '%)  Nennius,  and  (a)  Giraldus  Ca»ibren-{K^^em. 
yKf  5    But  itis  a  very  obvious  Qpeftion,  ifthey  all  died.  How  their  Me^  ^•^•.„  v 
raory  came  to  be  preferved,  and  even  the  memory  of  that  Peftilence  c.  ;. 
which  deftroy'd  them  all  >     But  to  this  Giraldus  gives  a  very  fubftantial 
Anfwer  out  of  the  ancient  Annab,  viz.    That  only  one  Kuanus  efcaped^ 
who  lived  to  St.  Patrick '/  days,   and  was  baptized  by  him  :     (  in  a  good 
old  Age  certainly,  for  he  muft  be  born  within  fix  hundred  Years  after 
the  Flood  J  And  it  was  above  four  hundred  and  thirty  Years  after 
Chrijl  before  St.  Patrick  was  defigned  for  Ireland.  )     This  Buanus,  fay 
the  Irifly  in  Giraldus^  was  the  true  Relator  of  the  ancient  Hiftory  of  Ire- 
hndto  .SV.  Patrick,   and  who  can  queftion  the  Teftimony  of  fuch  art 
authentick  and  truly  ancient  Witnefs  >    A  late  (i)  Irijlj  Antiquary  faith,  (b)  Ogyg, 
he  continued  fo  long  by  a  Pythagorean  Tranfmigration  ;  but  it  was  H''l<'-T-^ 
njuch  he  could  retain  thefe  things  in  his  Memory  under  all  his  Tranf- 
mutations. 

But  as  to  this  Bartholanus  (  who  is  called  by  Nennius,  Bartholomeuty 
but  by  Geoffrey,  Partholomeus,  by  Fordon,  Partholomus  )  we  read  in  the 
(c)  Britifl)  Hiftory,    That  when  Gurguintus  returned  from  Dacia,    ^e  (O^^^'.'S' 
found  ^o  Ships  near  the  Orcades  full  of  Men  and  Women,    and  fending  to  Briton.  Lu 
enquhewho  they  were,  their  Commander,  (t)  Bartholomeus,    faid.    They '•  ^o- 
veete  driven  out  o/Spain  to  feek  a  Countrey  to  live  in,  and  beg'dfome  part  of^j^Q^a^f' 
Britain,  for  they  had  been  a  year  and  a  half  at  Sea  ;    But  hefent  them  into  Briton.l.i. 
Ireland,  then  void  of  Inhabitants,  which  they  planted,    and  there  continu-'''°' 
ed  to  thrs  day.     It  feems  there  was  a  Tradition  in  Nennius  his  time.  Anno 
Dem.  830.     That  JreHnd  was  Peopled  from  Spain  ;    And  that  one  Bartbo- 
lonus,    orBirrholomeus,    was  the  Leader  of  them :,    But  Geoj^e;*  would 
notler  them  go  thither  without  leave  from  the  Britains  ^    but  Nennius 
hath  nothing  of  it,  and  that  part  concerning  being  a  year  and  a  half  at  Sea, 
Nennius  applies  to  Nimech,  ks  he  calls  him,  but  the  Irifh,  Nimead ;  and 
he  faith,  after  hk  abode  in  Ireland,    he  returned  to  Spain.    Then,  Nen- 
nius faith.  Three  Sons  of  a  Spaniard  came  tpith  thirty  Veffels,  and  thirty 
Women  in  each  of  them,  whofaw  a  Towr  ofGlafs  in  the  middle  of  the  Sea, 
and  Men  upon  it,  who  would  give  no  Anfvper,  wherefore  they  refolved  to  of 
fault  it  with  all  their  Veffels,    except  one,  which  was  Shipwreck'd,    paving 
thirty  Men,  and  as  many  Women,  in  it,  all  the  reft  were  ftrk  in  the  At- 
tempt of  the  Cajile,   and  from  thofe  thirty  AJen  and  thirty  Women,    faith 
Nennimf,  all  Ireland  was  Peopled.     Here  we  fee  how  far  Geoffrey  differs 
from  Nennius  5   and  alters  the  old  Traditions  as  he  thoaght  fit.    But 

Nehhius 


1 68  The  Anti(]iiities  of  Chap.    V. 

Normus  goes  on,  and  faith,  That  More  Jiill  came  from  Spain,  a»d  the 
laji  was  one  whom  he  calls  Clarrihochor,  and  his  Company.  But  the  In- 
terpolator of  Nennitis  (whether  Samuel  Beulanus  or  another)  there 
obferves.  That  there  is  no  certain  Account  of  the  Original  of  the  Scots  \ 
iSo  the'Ir/fl)  were  then  called.  Hut  yet  NennJus  relates,  from  the  Irrfi 
Antiquaries,  the  Story  of  the  Noble  S ythian,  who  was  Son-in-law  to 
Pharaoh,  and  his  Expulfion  out  of  Egypt,  and  coming  at  laft  to  Spain, 
and  thence  to  Ireland  above  a  thoufand  Years  after  the  Egyptians 
were  drowned  in  the  Red  Sea  j  And  firft  (ettled  in  Dalrieta,  which 
he  underftands  of  that  Region  in  Ireland:^  But  the  S^otifli  Antiquaries 
apply  it  to  the  Countrey  which  had  the  fame  Name  in  Scotland.  So 
that  here  we  have  very  different  Accounts,  that  were  given  fo  long 
fihce  as  the  time  of  Nennius  ^  and  no  way  found  then,  to  diftinguifh 
the  true  from  the  falfe,  or  the  certain  from  the  uncertain.  But  of 
that  more  afterwards.  Now  to  go  on  to  a  farther  Account  from  the 
Irijl)  Authors,  who  fay, 

(5-)  That  thirty  Tears  after,  Nemedus,  another  Scythhn,  reith  his  four 
Sons,  arrived  iu  Ireland  with  a  good  Fleet,  and  fought  with  the  remainder 
of  the  Giants,  but  by  another  Pefiilence  were  driven  off,    under  the  Condu^ 
of  three  Captains,  Simeon  Breac,  Ibaath,  and  liriotan,  and  the  two  former 
failing  to  Greece  f    Briotan,  with  his  Adherents,    landed  w  the  North  of 
Britain,  now  called  Scotland  5  And  by  thefe,  and  their  Pofierity  remaining 
there,  gave  the  Denom'nation  o/Britain  to  the  whole  Ifland.     And  this  we 
are  told  is  affirmed  by  the  Holy  Cormach,   King  ^/Munfter  and  Bifhcp 
fl/CaOiel,  /»/AePfalter  tf/Ca(hel.    And  all  the  Chronologers  of  7re/rf»,i 
agree  with  him.     Thisi^//er  ofCafljel  is  one  of  the  mbft  authentick  Hi- 
(d)  Pro-   ftories  among  them,  and  fo  called  becaufe  done  in  Ferfe^    And  (d)  it 
(pert  of   Is  faij^  That  the  more  remote  Antiquities  in  it  were  taktn  from  another 
p.  350.'    ^ook  made  1260  Tears  fince,    colle&ed  out  of  all  the  former  Chronicles  of 
that  Nation,  .and  allowed  in  a  folemn  Convention  of  the  Efiates  at  Tarach, 
;>.  46.    under  Laogerius,  in  the  time  of  St.  Patrick,  who  was  one  of  the  Committee 
appointed  for  the  fnpervifing  of  it.     And  this  Book  was  called  the  Pfalter 
tf/Tariich. 

This  I  confefs  goes  much  beyond  what  can  be  faid  for  Geoffrey  oi 

Monmoth,  or  Hettor  Boethius.     But  yet  methinks  there  feemto  be  fome 

Reafons,    why  thefe  Annals  (hould  not  have  fuch  a  mighty  Authority 

with  us.     For  we  cannot  be  certain  that  there  ever  were  fuch  Annals, 

or  that  thefe  Annals,  if  they  were  fo  exaftly  drawn  up,   are  ftill  pre- 

((?)  Cam.  ferved.     For  not  only  (e)  Gratlanus  Lucius  complains  for  the  lofs  of 

brenfis     their  old  Annals  :^  But  (/;  Jocelin,  in  the  Life  of  St.  P^/r/Vi^,  concludes 

ThV'itT  wi^h  faying,  that  many  of  their  Writings  relating  to  him,    were  burnt  by 

Pacricii,    the  fury  of  the  Pagans  while  they  governed  in  \re\2ind.     By  thefe  Prf^4»/ 

f  mo-    ^^^  Danes  are  meant,  and  the  Slavery  under  them  is  (g^  faid  to  beworfc 

fpeftof    than 'Egyptian,  Circaflian,  or  any  other  mention  d  in  Hi^ory.    And  par- 

ireiand,     ficularly  it  is  (aid.    That  the  Clergy  were  banifh'd  into  Bogs,   Woods  and 

Caves,    where  they  jvere  fain  to  lurk  fever al  Years  like  wild  Beajis  5    And 

p.  141.   that  none  were  Jtiffered  to  kpep  School,  or  to  be  taught  any  kind  of  Learning, 

not  even  in  their  own  Houfes  :     And  which  is  yet  more  to  the  purpofe. 

None  were  fufferd  to  have  any  kind  of  Book  ^    But  all  Books  the  Danes 

could  light  upon,  were  either  burnt,  or  taken  away  from  them.     It  is  poffi- 

ble  their  Annals  might  efcape  fucb  a  Storm  as  this,  but  it  doth  not  feem 

altogether  probable  ^    Efpecially  confidering,  that  this  firft  Slavery  un- 

Aex  the  Danes  conxinrxed  Forty  Tears,  in  which,    they  fay,  all  their  fa- 

mom 


C  H  A  P.   V .         the  Biitijh  Churches.  i6^ 

tftoHs  Monaflerks ,  Cells,  Unwerfitks^  Colleges  veere  deftroyed,  not  one  be-  P-  '4<S> 
irtgleft  in  the  Land.     And  it  is  withal  faid.    That  although  other  Lojfet 
might  be  recover'd,  yet  their  Libraries  were  n^ver  recover  d.     Only  fame 
few  Religious  Aien  preferved  fome  of  their  Books.     But  we  have  no  afTu-  ^.  ij,,; 
ranee  that  the  old  Annals  were  among  them.     Or  if  they  were  then. 
That  they  could  efcape  the  Second  Danifti  Invafion,  which  continued  for 
a  hundred  and  fifty  Years.    In  which  (Ji)  Colganus{2S.xh,  The  Iriiti  /I nti- a,^  Alia, 
qu-tles  had  an  irrecoverable  Lofs,  at  leafi,  he  faith,  not  yet  recover  d.  And  SanS.  Hi- 
yet  he  had  Cormach's  Pfalter,  or  the  Pfalter  ofCafhel,  Tigemactis  his  Au-  ^Yie^fl' 
*tals,    or  the  Annals  Cluanenfes,    the  Annals  Itifulenfes,  compofed  by 
one  Magraidin^,  in  the  JJland  of  All-faints.,   in  the  County  oi  Lengford^ 
which  he  deduces  to  Anno  Dom.  1405.     The  Annals  oi  Vljier,  by  one 
Maguir,  Canon  of  Arn/ach,  deduced  to  his  own  time,    who  died  Akmo 
Dow.  1498.     And  the  Annals  of  Dungall,   compofed  by  tour  modern 
Authors  out  of  all  their  former  Annals  ;    But  among  all  thefe,  there  is 
nothing  pretending  to  Antiquity,   but  the  Pfalter  of  Cajhel. and  Tigerna- 
(CUs'j    yet  the  Pfalter  of  Cafhel  falls  (hort  of  the  time  of  Nennius,  for 
Cormach,  Ring  of  M«»/?er,   the  fuppofed  Author  of  it,    lived  after  the 
beginning  of  the  10th  Century,  being  killed  by  Flanmhac  Siona  (called 
t'lannus  Siuna  by  (/)  Grat/ai/us  Lucius  )  who  died  Anno  Dotn..  9 1 4.  or  f;)  g„^^ 
as  Sir  James  (k)  Ware  thinks.    Anno  Dom.  916.     And  for  Tigemacus  tndijs, 
his  Annals,  the  four  Magiflri,  as  Colganus  calls  them,    or  the  Annals  oi^^^^l^-j^^ 
Dungall  are  pofitive,    that  Tigernacus  b  Braion,    the  Author  of  them,  {k)  Anti^. 
died  (/)  in  t^he  nth  Century,  Anno  Dom;  1088.     There  remains  only  ^'*'^^"- 
the  Pfaltuir  Na-Ran,  written  by  Aonghais  Ceile  de,  or  by  /Engufius,  one^l^^g^ 
of  the  Culdeesy  who  lived  in  the  latter  end  of  the  Sth  Century,   as  the  ^^"^ 
fame  Irijh  Antiquary  confeffcs,  who  withall  faith,    That  all  the  Works  ^'^'^^• 
contained  therein  relate  only  to  Matters  of  Piety  and  Devotidn,    which     p  8. 
therefore  can  fignifie  nothing  to  our  purpofe.  So  that  nothing  appears  ^-  579' 
of  the  Iri/h  Antiquities  which  can  pretend  to  be  written  before  the  Da- 
nifh  Invafion  5    And  although  we  are  told,   that  thefe  Annals  were  taken 
out  of  others  more  ancient  ^    yet  we  have  barely  their  Word,  for  it  ;  for 
thofe  ancient  Annals,  whatever  they  were,  are  irrecoverably  loft  j    So 
that  there  can  be  no  comparifon  of  one  with  the  other.     And  how 
Can  they  be  fo  certain  of  the  exadnefs  ufed  in  the  Parliament  of  Tarach 
to  preferve  their  Annals,  if  there  be  no  ancient  Annals  to  preferve  the 
Memory  of  the  Proceedings  at  that  time?     It  was  a  very  extraordinary 
Care  for  the  Eftatesofthe  whole  Nation  to  preferve  their  Annals -.^  if 
we  could  be  affured  of  it ;     Which  doth  much  exceed  the  Library  of 
Antiquities  which  (m)  Suffridus  Fetria  fpeaks  of^    fct  up,    as  he  faith,  (m)  oi 
^^  Frifo,  the  Founder  of  theVn^^zm,  <*/ Stavefa,  near  the  Temple  of  Stz-^'^-^^'P" 
vo,  in  which  not  only  the  ancient  Records  were  preferved  from  time  to  time  ; 
But  the  Pi&ures  of  the  fever  al  Princes,  with  the  times  of  their  Reigns,  from 
An.  313.  before  Chrift'i-  coming,  /tf  CharlemagnV  time  5  The  like  whereof, 
he  faith,  no  German  Nation  can  boafl  of:,   But  yet  methinks  thePofteri- 
ty  of  Gaithelos  exceeds  that  of  Frifo's  in  the  Careof  Preferving  their  An- 
tiquities 5    For  the  Wifdom  of  the  whole  Nation  was  concerned  in  it. 
But  I  never  read  of  any  who  ever  faw  this  Library  of  Antiquities  at  Sta- 
vera,  but  we  muft  believe  Cappidus  Staverenjis  and  Occa  Scarlenfis,  as  to 
thefe  things  ^  And  that  they  faw  the  Records,  as  Hetlor  did  Veremun^ 
dus,  although  none  elfe  ever  did.     But  as  to  this  Parliament  of  Tarach.^ 
which  was  careful  to  preferve  the  Irijh  Antiquities  ;   Whence  have  we 
this  Information  ?     Are  the  AUs  of  that  Affembly  preferved  ?    Are  any 

"     y  Copies 


1 70  The  Anti pities  of         Chap.  V, 

f"^ft°f    Copies  of  thofe ^»»«/j  ftill  in  being?     Tes,   we  (w)  are  told,    t^at 
Id  ni,     t^^  keeping  of  the  Original  Book  was  entrufted  by  the  Eflates  to  the  Prelates^ 
p.  -^1.      and  thofe  Prelates,  for  its  perpetual  Prefervation^    caufed  feveral  authentick 
Copies  of  it  to  be  fairly  e>igroffed,  whereof  fame  are  extant  to  thk  day,    and 
feveral  more  faithfitUj  tranfcribed  out  of  them  5    their  Names  being  the  Bosk 
ofArdmach,  the  Pkhcr  of  Ca^e),  &c.    It  feeras  then,    thefe  are  the 
Tranfcrjpts  of  the  Original  Authentick  Book,   allowed  by  all  the  Eftates 
of  the  Kingdom.     But  the  Book  of  Ardmach  is  a  late  thing,  being  the 
fame  with  the  Annals  ofVlJier  compofed  by  a  Canon  of  Ardmach  .•  So 
that  the  whole  refts  upon  the  Pfalter  of  Cajhel,    which  muft  be  compd- 
fed  500  Years  after  the  meeting  of  that  famous  AfTembly.     For  St.  Pa- 
trick was  one  of  the  number,  and  it  was  done  in  the  time  of  Laogirins^ 
(o)Cambr.  or  Leogarius,    King  of  Ireland,    who  died,   faith  (tf)  Gratianus  Luci- 
everfp.-js.  ^^^    ^„^g  Y)om.  458.     But  King  Cormach  lived  in  the   10th  Century  5 
And  therefore  an  account  muft  be  given,     how  this  Original  Book 
or  Authentick  Copies  were  preferved  for  that  500  Years  and  more,  in 
the  miferable  Condition  that  Nation  was  in,  a  great  part  of  that  time. 
So  that  the  Difference  is  not  fo  great  between  the  Authority  of  Geof" 
frey  of  Monmouth  and  thefe  Annals,     as  is  pretended.     For  I  fee  no 
Reafon  why  the  Story  of  Brutus  fhould  be  thought  more  incredible 
than  that  of  Ciocal,    Bartholanus  and  Nemedus,    with  his  Son  Briotan 
that  gave  the  Name  to  Britain  5    And  efpecially  the  Story  of  Gaithelos 
bimfelf,   his  Marriage  in  Egypt  to  Scota,   coming  to  Spain,    and  thence 
his  Pofterity  to  Ireland  5    which  feems  to  me  to  be  made  in  imitation  of 
.f       Geoffrey's  Brutus.      For  Brutus  married  Pandrafus  his  Daughter,   the 
King  of  Greece,  and  then  v^as  forced  to  feek  his  Fortune  at  Sea,    and 
paffingby  Mauritania,  juft  as  G<?/V/&e/w  did,  the  one  landed  in  Gaul^  and 
came  for  Albion  ;    And  the  other  in  Spain,  and  fent  his  Son  for  Ireland. 
And  I  wonder  to  find  (p)  Brutus  his  Giants  in  Albion  of  fo  much  lar- 
Cp)Pro     ger  Proportions  than  the  Giants  in  Ireland,  who  are  faid,  not  to  exceed 
ipeft  of    the  talleji  growth  of  Men  ^    For  I  had  thought  Giants  had  been  Giants 
'l^'!^"^ '    in  all  Parts  of  the  World.     Suppofe  fome  Learned  Men  have  quejlion'd, 
'  p.i'.      Whether  there  were  fuch  a  Perfon  as  Brute -^   I  fhould  think  it  no  more 
t'  347-    Herefie,  than  to  call  in  queftion.  Whether  there  were  fuch  Perfons  as 
Ciocal,  Bartholanus,  Briotan  or  Gaithelos ;   If  the  filence  of  good  Au- 
thors, the  diftance  of  Time,    and  want  of  ancient  Annals  complained 
of,  makes  the  Hiftory  of  Brutus  fo  hard  to  be  believed,    I  only  defire 
that  thefe  Irijh  Traditions  may  be  examined  by  the  fame  Rules,    and 
then,  I  believe,  the  Iri/h  Antiquities  will  be  reduced  to  the  fame  Form 
with  the  Britiff} -^  Only  Geoff ey  had  not  fo  lucky  an  Invention,   as  to 
have  his  Hiftory  confirmed  by  Parliament.     For,  if  he  had  but  thought 
of  it,  he  could  have  made  as  general  an  Affembly  of  the  Eflates  at  Lud's 
Town,  and  as  feleft  aCommittee  of  Nine,  as  ever  was  at  Tarach.    But  all 
Mens  Inventions  do  not  lie  the  fame  way  5    And  in  this,    I  confefsy 
Keting  or  his  Authors  have  very  much  exceeded  Qeoffrey  and  his  Br/- 
tilh  MS.     And  upon  the  whole  matter  I  cannot  fee  that  the  IriJJj  Chror 
nologers  and  Hiftorians  have  fo  much  more  probability  in  their  Story  of 
Briotan  than  the  Britifl)  Writers  had  in  the  Tradition  of  Brute.     For  it 
is  certain,    it  was  not  originally  the  Invention  of  Geoffrey,   only  he 
might  ufe  fome  art  in  fetting  it  off,  as  he  thought,  with  greater  advan- 
tage than  the  BrJtains  had  done  before  him. 

But  ftill  v;e  are  referr'd  to  the  Authority  of  the  Irifh  Monuments  in  the 
Pfalter  i^/Cafhcl  written  Sco  years  finee  by  the  holy  Cormach,  both  King 

a»d 


<»■'■■  ■■■■■>      I     I         I   II  ■■■■      I      I   I         I  .  W       '■  ■        --I.  I        ■        I  ■  ■      >  —        .  I     .  i_ 

Chap.  V.  fl^^  Britijb  Churches,  1 7 1 

atid  Bifhop  of  Munfter.     Let  us  tlierl,  for  once,  examine  one  part  of 
the  Hiftory  taken  from  thence,  and  then  leave  the  Reader  to  jadge, 
whether  it  deferves  fo  much  more  Credit  than  the  Britifi  AKtiqui- 
tkt  5  And  that  fhall  be  concerning  the  Kingdom  of  the  P/&f,  becaufe 
we  are  told,  (q)  Thk  k  the  way  to  end  the  vexations  ^lejlions  about  them^ 
being  taken  out  of  the  moji  atithentick  Records  of  Ireland,  vphich  are  of 
fuch  irrefragable    Authority,    That  fot}2e   are  perfuaded ,    had   they   been('])^'^' 
knoipn  to  Camden,  he  would  never  have  difpnted  the  matter.     And  fo/^,7,,°/. 
I  think  too.     But  this  irrefragable  Authority  is  that  of  the  Pfalter  ofp.^9o- 
Cafhel ;  From  whence  we  are  indrufted  in  thefe  Particulars:  (i.)  That 
the  Pifts  ferved  in  Thracia,  under  one  Polycornus,  a  King  of  that  Coun- 
try^   where  their  General  Gud  took  away  the  King's  Life,  to  prevent  an  p-  49 1» 
Attempt  on  his  Daughter.     And  did  not  Brutus  ferve  King  Pandrafuf 
with  his  Army  not  far  off  in  Greece  .<?  And  methinks  Pandrafus  is  as 
good    a  Name  for  a  King  of  Greece  as  Polycornus  for  the  King  of 
Thrace.    But  where  are  either  of  them  to  be  met  with  elfewhcre  ?  (2.) 
That  upon  this  the  General  and  his  Army  fled  the  Country,  roamed  up  and 
down  at  Sea  till  they  came  to  Gaul,  and  there  they  founded  the  City  of 
Piftavia.  This  is  jufl:  Geoffrey.     For  Brutus  came  to  Gaul  too,  and  there 
fought  with  Groffarius,  King  of  the  PiCfs,  and  founded  the  City  of 
Tours,  which  had  its  Name  from  T;/ro»«j-,  Brutus  his  Nephew.     (3.) 
That  upon  the  fame  Occafion  they  were  forced  to  leave  Gaul,  a/id  to  go  far 
Ireland,  (as  Brutus  did  for  Albion")  where  they  were  entertained,  to  fight 
with  the  Britains  5  Who  it  feems  made  very  early  Invafions  upon  Ire- 
land, which  ftill  agrees  with  Ge<?/re/s  Hiftory.     (4.)  The  Story  of  the 
Advice  of  Trofdan,  the  Piftifh  Magician,  for  the  Irifh  Army  to  bath  in 
the  Milk  of  C  50  White,  Crumple-horned  Cows,  as  an  effe&ual  Antidote  a- 
gainji  the  envenom'd  Arrows  of  the  Britains,  and  the  ftrangeSuccefs  upon 
it,  is  hardly  to  be  matched  in  Geoffrey.     (5.")  That  the  Vidcs,  growing 
infolent,  were  forced  by  Herimon  to  retire  to  the  Northern  Parts  ^/Britain, 
Only  with  three  IriQi  i^'omen,  whatever  Bede  faith  of  more;  or,  how 
differently  foever  he  relates  the  whole  Story  of  the  Pi&s-^  For  whaC 
is  Bede' s,  a  poor  Mtf;7(''s  Authority,  to  Ring  Gr/^<?c^'s  ?  (6.)  That  front 
Cathluan,  Son  to  Gud,  there  was  a  cmiflant  Succeffion  of  Kings  of  the 
Pids  in  that  Country.     But  not  more  exaft  than  the  Succeffion  of  Britiflj 
Kings  from  King  Brutus.    And  now  I  leave  the  Reader  to  judge  whe- 
ther Geoffrey  be  not  hardly  dealt  with,  when  fuch  Authors  are  prefer'd 
fo  much  before  him.     We  now  return  to  the  farther  Account  which 
the  IriJI)  Antiquaries  give  of  their  own  Antiquities. 

(4.)  We  are  then  to  underftand,  that,  befides  the  Race  defcended 
from  Nemedtu,  there  was  another  called  Clanna  Gaoidhel,  or  Poflerity  of 
Gaithelos;  concerning  whom  thefe  things  are  affirmed,    (i.)  That  he  p.  m, 
defended  from  Niul,  a  younger  Son  to  Feanufa  Farfa,  King  <?/Scythia, 
who,  travelling  into  Egypt,  had  a  Country  there  given  him  hy  Pharaoh  f.  324. 
Cingeris  called  Capacyront  (I  fuppofe  in  the  old  Egyptian  Language  ) 
who  was  married  to  Pharaoh\r  daughter  called  Scorn.     Whereas  the  Sco- 
tifh  Antiquaries  do  peremptorily  affirm,  it  was  Gaithelosh\m(e\f  W2is  mar- 
ried to  her.     But  we  ought  not  to  forget,  that  this  Scythian  King  had 
a  celebrated  School  on  the  Plain  <?/ Sennaar,  and  one  Gaodel,  being  there  p  332- 
employ'd  tocompofe  or  refine  the  Irifh  Language,  called  from  him  Gaodhelc 
or  Gaodhlec.     This  is  a  Strain  beyond  Geoffrey,  who  never  thought  of 
bringing  the  BritijI)  Language  from  the  Plain  of  Sennaar.    (2.)  That 
Gaodhel's  Poflerity  continued  in  Egypt  ////  the  time  of  his  Grandchild 

Y  2  Sruth 


— ■ ■■  .    -  ^,  ,  .  ■  -... —    ■ 

172  'The  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  V. 

Sruth,  dffd  then  being  prced  thence^  they  Unded  in  Greet,  where  he  d.'ed. 
^nd  his  Eldeji  Son  Eibhir  Scot  went  into  Scythia  ^  where  one  of  his  De- 
~  fcendents  killed  ^t?io'n,  the  King  of  that  Ccunfy,  and  was  forced  w  th 
his  Company  to  the  Cafpian  Sea^  and  landed  in  an  IJlard  there   ( juft  like 
Qeoffirey's  Largecia^  where  B.'Utt^  landed,)     But  they  went  from  thence 
to  Caronia,  another  Jfland  in  the  Pontick,  and  from  thence  to  the  North 
end  of  the  Riphean  Mountains-^   (a  pretty  kind  of  Coropafs!)  And 
here,  inftead  of  Dianas  Orach  to  Brutus^  an  old   Druyd  told  them, 
they  Jhotdd  never  fix  till  they  came  to  the  Weflem  Jfland^  and  fo  they  re' 
moved  to  Gothia,  and  in  the  eighth  Generation,  they  went  to  Spain.    And 
doth  not  this  exceed  the  Story  of  Brute,  in  the  great  Probability  of  it, 
^^l^f^^^s",  which  their  lateft  (r)  Antiquary  knows  not  what  to  make  of>  It  is 
p.         '  certain  whoever  invented  it,  defigned  to  go  beyond  the  Author  of  the 
former.     But  this  is  not  all  ^    For  we  are  told  farther  from  the  fame 
p.  3?i-    Authentick  Irijh  Annals  (3.)  That  Galamb  (called  Milead  Efpain  or 
MdefiHs  the  Spaniard^  great  Grandchild  to  Bratha,  who  brought  them  in^ 
h  12-    to  Spain,  went  back  into  Scythia  :  and  there  ferved  as  General  under  Re- 
floir,  iC/V^  c//^e  Scythians;  From  whence,  upon  Sufpicions,  he  fled  into 
Egypt,  and  there  married  Pharaoh'j  Daughter  called  Scota  ^  And  at  lajl 
returned  to  Spain,  and  there  founded  Braganza ;  And  here  the  Scotifb  An- 
tiquities fall  in.    But  is  it  not  a  little  improbable  to  have  the  fame  Scene 
afted  twice  over  ?  Two  Gaodel's,  two  Refloir's,  two  Scota  s,  twice  paf- 
fing  to  and  fro  after  much  the  fame  manner  f  We  may   well  fay,  as  our 
Author  doth,  enough  cf  thefe  profound  remote  Antiquities.  For  I  (hall  not 
'   h  3?3'    need  now  to  add  any  thing  about  the  eight  Sons  of  thk  Milefius  coming 
to  Ireland  5  And  how  the  reft  being  killed,  the  Country  was  divided 
between  Eibhir  and  Erimthon ;  and  the  former  being  killed,  the  latter 
became  the  firft  Monarch  of  Ireland,  from  whom  defcended  i8f  Mo- 
varchs  of  this  Milefian  Race :  which  muft  depend  on  the  Credit  of 
their  Annals,  of  w^hich  I  have  already  fpoken. 

But,  in  ftiort,  to  give  the  true  Account  of  thefe  Fabulous  Jntiqui- 

ties.     We  are  then  to  confider,  That  when  the  Northern  Nations  began 

to  have  fome  fmattering  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  Learning,  they  were 

never  fatisfied,  till  by  one  means  or  other,  they  could  deduce  their  O- 

riginal  from  fome  of  the  Nations  moft  celebrated  in  ancient  Books ;  Such 

were  the  Trojans,  the  Greeks  and  the  Egyptians.     As  to  the  Trojans,  the 

Romans  themfelves  had  (hewed  the  Way  to  other  Nations.    For  there 

are    confiderable    Arguments  to    prove    that    neither   Mneas ,    nor 

Afcanim,  ever    came  into  Italy  x,     as   may  be  feen   in  (i)   Dionyjius 

(U)  Dio-  Halicarnajfeus,  (t)  Strabo  and  Fejius,  in  the  Word  Roma.     Hellanicuf^ 

".^59/^'  in  Dionyftus,  faith.  That  bSQznwx's,  (from  whom  Brwf*sf  is  derived)  ne- 

\t)Qeogr.  ver  left  Phrygian  But  only  withdrew  for  a  time  to  Dafcylites,  near  tht 

^'  ^^'       hake  (^from  him  called  the  Afcanian)  and  afterwards  returned  to  Troy. 

Strabo  faith.  That  Afcanius  reigned  at  Scepfis,  near  the  Ruins  of  Troy, 

and  that  his  Pojierity  continued  there  a  long  time  after,  with  a  Royal  Title. 

Fejhis  (hews,  that  the  old  Authors  were  not  agreed  where  i^neas  was  buri- 

ed  5  Many  were  of  Opinion,  that  he  lay  buried  in  the  City  Berecintbia. 

And  fome  in  Dionyfus  fay,  he  died  in  Thrace,  others  in  Arcadia.     But 

the  Romans  making  it  fo  great  a  part  of  their  Glory  to  be  defcended 

from  the  Trojans  ^  Other  Nations  of  Europe,  upon  the  Diffolution  of 

f«)  Tri-    the  Roman  Empire,  would  not  feem  to  come  behind  them  in  this.     So 

them.       (^„-^  Httnibaldus  gives  as  formal  an  Account  of  thedefcent  of  the  Franks 

Hijl'i.  I.  from  Antenor,   and  as  good  a  Succeffion  of  their  Kings  down  from  him 5. 

wkb 


Chap.  V.  the  hntijh  Cbiircbes,  173 

with  the  particular  Names  of  Perfons,  and  the  time  of  their  Keigns, 
as  either  Geoffrey  doth  of  the  Briti/h  Rings  from  Bruti/s  -^  or  HeSlor  of 
tbe^ttf/j-from  Fergus-^  or  the  Irijl:)  Annals  from  Gaithelos  or  Herimon. 
And  that  this  is  no  late  Invention  appears  from  hence  ^  That  Aimolm^^ 
Ado  Viennenjis,  Abbas  'Urfpergenfis,  Rorico,  Gaguinus,  JEneat   Silvius, 
and  others,  agree  with  Hun'ibaldm  in  the  Sftbjiance  of  his  Story.    And 
(w)  Vignler  mentions  feveral  Dlplomata  of  the  ancient  Kings  of  the  (»,)  !>»  <?. 
Flanks,  to  prove  the  Authenlicknefs  of  this  Tradition.     And  it  is  lefs '"'S'"^. 
to  be  wonder'd  at,  that  the  Britains  (hould  pretend  to  be  derived  from  ^""'"''* 
the  Trojans  becaufc  of  the  mixture  of  the  Romans  and  them  together, 
while  Britain  continued  fo  long  a  Roman  Province.     From  whence  I 
fuppofe  the  firft  Occafon  was  taken,  which  continued  as  a  Tradition 
among  the  Britains  for  a  long  time  before  it  was  brouglit  into  fuch  a 
Hijlorj  as  we  find  in  Geoffrey.    That  the  Tradition  it  felf  was  elder 
than  his  time  is  certain ;  For  even  thofe  who  defpifed  Geoffrey  embra- 
ced it,  as  appears  by  (jf)  Glraldus  Cambrenfis -^  And  in  the  5rfX(7»  times  ('^^^c^wAr. 
this  Tradition  was  known,  as  is  evident  by  the  Saxon  Poet,  mention  d  o  fcript.i' 
by  (y)  Abr.  Whelock  ^  But  Nennius  his  M5.  puts  it  out  of  difpute.  That  ]')'^lt  ;„ 
there  was  then  a  Tradition  about  the  Britains  coming  ^om  Brute  i  but  heBed.  e.i. 
could  not  tell  what  to  make  of  this  Brute-^  fometiraes  he  was  Brito  the^'  *?• 
&7«  <?/■  Yficion,  the  Son  of  Ahn,  of  the  Pjjierity  of  Jsiphet:  And  for  this 
he  quotes  the  (z)  Tradition  of  his  Ancejiors  5  But  this  being  uncapable  of 
much  Improvement  or  Evidence,  he  then  runs  to  Brutus  the  Roman  ^  U)  Menu. 
and  fometimes  it  is  Brutus  the  Conful-.^  But  that,  not  fuiting  fo  well,  he "  '^' 
then  produces  the  Story  of  JEneas,  and  Afanius,  and  SHvius,  and  the 
Prediilion  of  the  Magician,    that  his  Son  Jhould  kill  hk  Father  and  Mo-  c.2  3. 
ther  5  y%e  died  in  Labour,  and  his  Father  vpm  killed  by  him  by  chance  5 
However  he  was  banijijed  from  Italy  into  Greece ;  and  from  thence  a- 
gain  banifhed,   and  fo   came   into  Gaul,    and   there  built   Tours,    ha- 
ving its  Name  from  one  of  his  Companions'^  And  from  thence  he  came 
for  Britain,  which  took  its  Name  from  him,  and  he  filled  it  with  hk  Pro- 
geny, which  continue  to  this  day.    So  that  here  we  have  the  Foundati- 
on of  Geoffrey's  Hiflory  laid  long  before  his  time  5  And  Nennius  his  Ac- 
count is  mention'd  by  (^)  William  of  Malmesbury,  under  the  Name  of  W  ^' 
Geffa  Britonum-j  And  follow'd  by  Henry  of  Huntingdon,  and  T«r^c;f?, /.  ,.'^c.  if' 
or  Simeon  Dnnelmenfis  5  But  when  Geoffrey's  Book  came  abroad,  it  was 
fo  improved  and  adorned  with  Particulars,  not  elfewhere  to  be  found, 
that  the  generality  of  the  Monki[h  Hijiorians,  not  only  follow'd,  but 
admir'd  it,  and  pitied  thofe  that  not  had  feen  it,  (as  they  fuppofed)  as 
(b)  Ranulphus  Cefirenfs  doth  William  of  Malmesbury:^  But  there  were  f*)  ^"^y 
fome  Crofs  grained  Writers  who  called  it  an  Impofture  as  Gul.  Newbur- t'^ly'^^s. 
genfts  I,  ox  a  Poetical  Figment,  as  John  Whethamjied.     But  thefe  were 
but  few  in  Comparifon  with  thofe  who  were  better  pleafed  with  the 
Particulars  of  a  Legend  than  the  drynefs  of  a  true  Hiftory. 

But  this  humour  was  not  peculiar  to  the  Fj-anks  and  Britains  ;  For 
the  Saxons  derived  (c)  themfelves  from  the  Macedonian  Army  of  /i-,  v^,.,j_ 
lexander,  v^hich  had  three  Captains  faith  {d)  Suffndus  Petrus  Saxo,k\i)d.u. 
Frifo  and  Bruno -^  from  whom  are  defcended  the  Saxons,  Frifians  and^'^)^-/'- 
thofe  of  Brunfwii  k.  And  (e)  Abbas  Stadenffs  adds,  That  not  only  the  /.'^z.^'J. 
Saxons,  but  thofe  of  Prufia,  Rugia  and  Holftein  cami  from  them,  (f)  (0  a.  d. 
Gobelinus  Perfona  relates  the  Particulars  as  exaftly  as  Geoffrey,  or  He-VrT^.^.^^ 
Hor,  or  the  Irijh  Annals  do  ^  how  they  were  left  on  the  Cafpian  Moun-  drom.  at. 
tains,  and  wandred  up  and  down  juft  as  Brutus  and  Gaithelos  did,  till  5 

they 


'^mo- 
e.  IS, 


1 74  T/;/?  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V. 

^G^^J;/*',. they,  fettled  in  Pruffla,  Ruget?  and  Saxony.  The  Dams,  faith  (g')DiiIo 
Ui)  Macih,  S.  ^'wtin  derived  themfelves  from  the  Danm-^  The  (h)  PruJJians  from 
2  'Ts^'o'-  ^''"/''^^^  I^'"S  of  BithynU,  who  brought  the  Gr^f/i'j-  along  with  him. 
r'g.'pr'ujf.  Only  the&cfj-  and  /r/y/:;  had  the  JF/V  to  derive  themfelves  from  theGreeks 
n-f.        and  Egypt]  a  ft  s  together. 

We  are  now  to  fit  down  and  confider,  what  is  to  be  faid  to  all  thefe 
glorious  Pretences?  Muft  they  be  all  allowed  for  good  and  true  Hifto- 
ry  ?  If  not,  what  marks  of  diftinftion  can  we  fet  between  them  ?  They 
all  pretend  to  fuch  Founders  as  came  afar  off,  wandred  from  place  to 
place,  confulted  Oracles,  built  Cities,  founded''  Kingdoms,  and  drew 
their  Succeffion  from  many  Ages;  So  that  it  feeras  unreafonable  to  al- 
low none  but  our  own.  And  yet  thefe  Antiquit?es  will  hardly  pafs  a- 
ny  where,  but  with  their  own  Nation  5  And  hardly  with  thofe  qf  any 
Judgment  in  any  of  them.  But  when  all  this  is  (aid,  every  one  will 
believe  as  he  pleafes;  But  it  is  one  thing  to  believe  with  the  Will^  and 
another  with  the  1)nderflanding. 

To  return  now  to  the  Ir'ifh  Antiquities.     And  it  only  remains  that 
we  enquire,  Howthe/r//Z>  ^«^/^«mc/ give  an  Account  of  their  Nations 
(i)?ro-    coming  into  the  Northern  Parts  of  Britain:   And  here  is  fomething 
^^euiif   ^'hich  deferves  Confideration,  -viz.  That  they  (/*)  charge  the  Scotifi 
p.zo.  '     Antiquaries  vpith  placing  the  time  <?/ Fergus  /.  819  years  before  he  landed 
p.  367.    in  Britain.     For,  fay  they,  the  Irifh  Monuments  fix  on  An.  Doni.  498. 
as  the  time  wherein  Fergus  Mor  the  Son  oj  Erch  (  whom  the  Scotifh  Wri- 
ters call  the  Son  of  Ferchard^  with  hk  five  Brothers  invaded  the  North 
of  Britain.     To  this  purpofe  they  produce  the  Teftimony  of  Tigernacus, 
who  in  his  Annals  faith,  Fergus  Mor  mhac  Ercha  cum  gente  Dalraida 
partem  Britannia  tenuit,  d^  ibi  ntortum  e/?.     This  he  writes  about  the 
beginning  of  Pope  Symmachus,  which  was  about  fix  years  after  the 
death  of  St.  Patrick,  and  very  near  the  end  of  the  fifth  Century.     Be- 
fides  another  Irifi  Author  who  writes  of  the  Kings  of  Albany  who 
were  contemporary  with  the  Monarchs  of  Ireland,   reckons  twenty 
years  between  the  Battel  of  Ocha,  and  the  going  of  the  fix  Sons  ff  Etc 
into  Albany':  And  the  Annals  of  Vlfler  place  the  Battel  of  Ocha  An. 
Dom.  483.  fo  that  Fergus  his  coming  into  Scotland  co\x\A  not  be  before  the 
(.*)Cam-  beginning  of  the  fixth  Century.  (Je)Gratianus  Lucius  ia\th,thzt  theBat- 
br.  everf.  tcl  of  Ocha,  wherciu  Oll'iol  Molt,  the  Irifi}  Monarch,  who  fucceeded  Leo- 
f''^^      garius  was  killed,  was  An.Dom.^yS.  Which  makes  but  five  years  diffe- 
rence.    Farther,  Cay  they,  Ti^eScotilh  Antiquar'-es  maize  KtwAa  the  fixth 
(i)Czmhr.-^''^S  ^fi^^  Fergus.  Whereas  it  appears  by  their  Annals,  (/)  That  their 
everj.p.    Mouatch  Conatr  had  three  Sons,  called  the  three  Cairbres,  and  the  third 
f^x  p      C««)  was  Cairbre  Riada-^  from  whom  that  part  of  Britain  was  called 
fpeft  of    Dal  Riada,  or  Dal  Reuda -^  But  Conair  was  killed  An.  Dom.  165.  and 
■^»^/'»"A?- therefore  this   (»)  Reuda  muft  be    500    years  before  Fergus.    The 
(%°/..  90  ^^^   ■^^^'   "^^'^    %    W   (^^ff'den,   makes    Fergus    to  be  defcended 
(1)  Brit 'p.  ixom  Conair,  with    which  as    (p)  Archbifijop  tJfioer  obferves  the  old 
mmer  ^■'■'^  Genealogies  agree:  But   he  faith,  Conair  reign'd  An.  Dom.   215, 
prim.  p. '  however,  long  enough  before  the  time  of  Fergus.    According  to  this 
^"-         fuppofition,  that  part  of  Scotland  called  Dalrieta,  or  Dalreuda,  ( the 
■^'   '  ^'    bounds  whereof  are  defcf  ibed  by  the  Learned  Primate^  was  inhabited  long 
Iq)  Bcde,  before  the  comiiTg  of  Fergus  ^  and  fo  agrees  with  what  (^)  Bede  faith, 
/.  I.  c  I.  jfj^f  ff^g  Scots  came  fir fi  out  a/ Ireland  under  the  conduB  tf/ Reuda,  and  ei- 
ther by  force  or  Friendfijip  found  habitations  for  themfelves  there,  which 
they  flill  enjoy  d,  and  from  their  Leader  to  this  time  they  were  called  Dal- 

reudi- 


Chap.  V.         the  Briti/h  Churches,  175 

« ■  ■       - — — .    .  i_  — • » 

i'eudini ;  Dual  (ignifyng  a  (lure  in  thz'r  Language.    This  Keuda  feems 
to  be  the  fame  with  Cairbre  Riada,    the  third  Son  of  Conair  ^   And  if 
Fergus  were  defcended  from  the  fame  Coftatr,    it  gives  a  probable  Ac- 
count of  Fergus  his  coming  afterwards  into  thofe  Parfs  ^    and  taking  . 
the  Government  upon  him.  For    (r)  Keting  faith,  That  Eochac  Mum-(>)Pra-     ~ 
reamhar  of  the  Progeny  of  Cairbre  Redhfadac  or  Riada  had  trvo  Sons Jp^'^^'J 
Earcha  and  Elchon  ^   And  from  the  former  the  Families  «i/Dal  Riada/z/p^oj-  * 
Scotland  are  defcended  5   from  the  latter  thofe  of  Dal  Riada  in  Ulfter. 
Which   mufl:  be  underftood  of  that  part  of  the  lilfier  Dal-rladans, 
which  Fergus  carried  with  him  :     For  there  were  the  Defcendentsfrom 
R/ada  in  Scotland  before,  according  to  the  former  account.    But  the 
whole  matter  about  the  Reign  of  Fergus  remains  ftill  very  obfcure. 
For  (i.)  It  feems  ftrange  that  Bede  takes  no  notice  at  all  of  hini, 
which  in  all  probability  he  would  have  done,  as  well  as  of  Reuda,  who 
Was  lefs  confiderable.     (2.)  (s)  JocelJn  in  the  Life  of  St.  Patrick  faith,  (^)  ^''?;^- 
That  Fergus  rvas  one  of  the  twelve  Sons  of  the  King  o/Dalredia,    and  n'^f"^^"' 
excluded  from  his  P^ are  by  his  Brethren,   of  whom   St.  Patriik  prophefed. 
That  from  him  Kings  fljould  rife,  who  Jliould  not  only  Reign  at  home,    but 
in  a  foreign  Countrey ;    Aper  which,    faith  he,    Fergus  in  no  long  time 
came  to  be  King  in  his  own  Countrey  ^    And  from   him  fprang   EanuS, 
vehofuhdued  Albany,    and  other  Iflands,   and  whofe  Fojierity  flill  reigns 
there 'j    So  that  if  l^oce/rVs  Authority  be  good,    F(?i'^ttf  himfclf  never 
came  into  Scotland  5    But  the  miftake  arofe,    becaufe  he  was  King  in 
Dalrieda  5    Which  the  Scots  underftood  of  their  own,    and  thought 
they  bad  Reafon,  becaufe  the  Pofterity  of  Fergus  reigned  there.   (5.) 
(/)  Giraldus  Cambrenjis,   who  had  a  Sight  of  the  Irifh  Annals,   never  ff)  Topoir. 
mentions  Fergus,  but  only  faith.  That  in  the  time  o/Nellus/^e  Monarch  ^'*  ^f- 
<;/ Ireland,  fix  Sons  ^/ Mured  King  of  U]{ier  failed  into  the  JStorthem"^'''^  ' 
Parts  of  Britain,    and  there  planted  themfelves,   from  whom  the  Scotifh 
Nation  is  derived.     This  Nellus,   whom  the  Iriflj  call  Niall  the  Great, 
was  killed,  faith  Gratianus  Lucius,    Anno  Dom.  405.     And  if  the  Sons 
of  the  King  of  Vlfier  came  then  over  to  plant  and  fettle  in  Scotland, 
this  muft  be  100  Years  before  the  time  of  Fergus ;  and  confequently 
he  could  be  none  of  that  Number  :     And  yet  the  («)  Iri/h  Annalijis  («)  Camb, 
make  the  two  Fergus's,    the  two  iEngus's,  and  the  two  Loams,  to  be  the  '-^^[^^1^' 
fix  Sons  tf/Muriedhach,  King  <?/ Ulfter,  who  came  over  to  fettle  in  Scot- of //•l/Wj 
land.     But  if  Gzrrt/^«f  his  Authority  be  allow'd,    the  Scots  Q2icat  notf-P3- 
to  fettle  in  Britain,  till  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  Century ;    And  the 
Monarchy  in  the  Pofterity  of  Fergus,    according  to  Jocelin,  could  not 
be  till  towards  the  middle  of  the /x^^  Century.    And  ifEdan,  King  of 
the  Scots  in  Bede's  Hiftory,  be  the  fame  with  that  Edan  in  Jocelin,  who 
defcended  from  Fergus,  Then  the  Scot  if)  Kingdom  did  not  begin  till  the 
feventh  Century,    as  appears  by  (w)  Bede.    But  in  matters  of  fo  much  (»)  Bcde, 
Obfcurity  I  determine  nothing.  '•  ^-  '•  54' 

But  it  is  but  Juftice  to  confider  on  the  other  fide,  what  the  Scoti/h  An- 
tiquaries do  now  plead  for  themfelves,  to  prove  that  they  inhabited 
Scotland  long  before  this  time. 

Firft,  They  fay,  (x)  Bede  mentions  them  as  ancient  Inhabitants  of  thisi^)'^^^^^ 
Jfland  before  the  coming  of  the  Romans  :^   and  defcribes  the  Wars  between''  '■'^' '' 
the  Pifts,  Scots  and  Britains  before  that  of  the  Romans.     It  is  very  true, 
thztBede,    in  the  beginning  of  his  Ht/for;,    doth  fet  down  the  yez/er^/ 
Nations  which  inhabited  Britain,  and  he  names  five,  Englif}},  Britains, 
Scots,   'Pi&s  diVid  Romans.    And  among  thefe  he  reckons  t^Q  Britains 

firft. 


ll6  The  Ant  i  pities,  of  .Chap.  V. 

'         '  I  ; * 

firft,  then  the  PrV?j,  after  them  the  Septs  from  Ireland  under  Reuda^ 
and  then  adds.  That  Ireland  was  the  true  Cduntrey  of  the  Scots,  who  com- 
ing hither  made  a  third  Natio??  in  Britain,  bejides  the  Britains  and  Pifts, 
and  landed  on  the  NorthPart  of  the  Fr'nh^  towards  Ireland,  and  there  fit- 
ted themfelves.  But  Bede  faith  nothing  at  all  of  the  time  when  the  Scots 
came  firfl:  from  Ireland,  and  it  is  of  no  force,  that  he  reckons  them  here 
before  the  War  with  the  Romans  ;  for,  fo  he  doth  the  Englif}  as  ivell 
as  the  Scots  :  His  bufinefs  being  to  give  an  Account  of  the  prefent  Inha- 
bitants, and  not  merely  of  the  /indent.  H<ec  in  prdfenti  5  Gentium  tin- 
guk,  Sec.  But  where  doth  Bede  fay,  that  the  Scots  were  in  Britain  be- 
fore the  Romans  coming  hither  .<?  I  cannot  find  fo  much  as  an  Intimation 
that  way  ,  unlefs  it  be  in  the  Title  of  the  Chapter,  Of  the  Situation  of 
Britain  and  Ireland,  and  their  ancient  Inhabitants.  And  doth  not 
Bede  fpeak  of  the  Britains  as  the  ancient  Inhabitants  of  this  Ifland  and  the 
Scots  of^ Ireland?  ^Ut'li  zWrnQnUon  A  m\x{\.hQ  ancient  Inhabitants,  then 
fo  muft  the  EngUfl)  and  Romanshe^  as  well  as  the Pi^s  and  Scots. 
0)l.i.c.5.  Well!  But  doth  not  Q)  hede  afterwards  fajf.  That  Severus  hk  Wall 
was  built  againfi  the  unconquerd  Nations  beyond  it  .«"  I  grant  it,  if  he 
had  faid,  //6e  Scots  ^//(S^Pifts  beyond  it,  the  Controverfie  had  been  end- 
ed. But  doth  not  Dio  explain  Bede,  who  exprefly  tells  us,  thefe 
Nations  were  the  Mseatae  and  the  Caledonii  ?  Why  not  the  Pi&s  and 
the  Scots  if  then  in  Britain  ?  The  latter  Roman  Writers  never  forbear 
Calling  them  by  their  own  Names,  when  they  knew  them  to  be  here  5 
as  appears  by  Eufnenim,  Claudian  and  Ammianus  Marcellinus  :  but  to 
fay  the  Scots  were  called  M<£at£,  becaufe  they  came  from  the  Pains 
Mceotk^  will  hardly  go  down  in  this  Age.  However  it  is  confidently 
affirmed,  /^e  Caledonii  n^ereZ/^e  Scots.  Let  this  one  thing  be  well  pro- 
ved, and  I  will  yield  the  Scots  were  in  Britain  long  before  Severus  his 
time  ^  for  Tacitus  mentions  the  Caledonians.  But  it  is  to  no  more  pur- 
pofe  to  quote  modern  Writers,  viho  caW  ihQ  Caledonians  Scots,  than 
Lipfins  his  calling  Galgacus  a  Scotijlj  Ring  :  for  we  are  not  bound  to 
follow  any  modern  Writers  in  their  Improprieties.  There  is  no 
Queftion  the  Caledonians  were  known  to  Flaccus  and  Martial  (  who 
certainly  lived  not  in  Auguflus  his  time,  unlefs  that  Name  be  very  im- 
properly given  by  it  felf  to  Domitian  or  Trajan.")  But  do  any  of  thefe 
Roman  Authors  ever  tell  us  the  Caledonians  were  Scots  .<?  If  not,  to 
what  end  are  the  Caledonians  fo  much  fpoken  of?  As  far  as  we  can 
find  by  Tacitus,  or  Dio,  or  any  others,  they  were  the  Northern  Bri- 
tains. And  \i  Tacitus  had  known  that  they  came  out  of  Ireland,  and 
were  SL  dijiin^  Nation,  he  was  fo  diligent  and  judicious  a  Writer,  he 
vi^ould  never  have  omitted  the  fetting  it  down,  when  he  gives  fo  pun- 
ctual an  account  of  the  Original  of  the  feveral  forts  of  Britains,  ac- 
cording tohisbeft  Judgment  and  Information  ^  and  none  could  have 
better  ^  relating  feme  things  concerning  Ireland,  from  Agricola's  own 
Mouth,  who  vizsihen  the  Roman  General  li^am^k.  the  Caledonians.  And 
he  faith,  Agricola  had  one  of  the  Kings  of  Ireland  with  him.  Suppofe 
we  then  the  Caledonians  to  have  been  Scots  come  out  of  Ireland ;  Is 
it  pofTible,  that  an  Irip)  King  (hould  not  be  able  to  inform  Agricola 
who  thefe  Caledonians  were  ?  Or,  if  Tacitus  had  known  any  fuch 
thing,  would  he  have  faid,  the  Caledonians,  by  the  habit  of  their  Bo- 
dies feemed  to  be  of  German  BxtraUion,  when  he  derives  the  Silures 
from  Spain  /  Had  it  not  been  as  eafie  for  him  to  have  derived  the  C</- 
ledoniansiromSpa'.nthrou^^  Ireland^  if  any  fuch  thing  had  been  heard 

by 


H  III'  ■  ■ J 

Chap.   V  .  tk  Eritijh  Churches.  177 

by  him,  as  that  the  Cakdonians  were  of  Ireland,    and  came  firft  out  of 
Spain  thither  ?     But  nothing  can  be  more  plain  than  thatT4«/«j  took 
the  Caltdonians  for  Britaws^  and  fo  doth  Galgacus^    in  his  excellent 
Speech,  wherein  he  calls  them,  the  Nobleji  of  the  Britains,    and  excites 
them  to  recover  the  Liberty  of  the  Britains  ^   and  tells  theiii,  they  fought 
the  fame  Caufe  with  the  other  Britains  ;    attd  none  they  rvere  to  jhew  what 
fort  of  Men  Caledonia  ^4^/  referred  for  their  common  defence.  WasTacittti 
fo  inconfiderate  a  Writer  to  put  fuch  Words  into  GalgacUs  his  Mouth, 
if  he  knew  or  fufpefted  the  Caledonians  to  be  no  Britains,    but  a  dife- 
rent  Nation  come  out  of  Ireland  in  the  time  that  Alexander  took  Bahy- 
h»  .<?    Had  Tacitus  known  any  thing  of  this,  he  would  never  have  con- 
cealed it,  when  he  values  himfelf  iipon  his  integrity,   in  relating  what 
he  could  find  about  the  Affairs  oi  Britain.     And  theroioxe  Tacitus  his 
Judgment  in  this  matter  is  to  be  much  preferr'd  before  Scaligers  Criti- 
eifm  about  thei  S:  oto-brigantei,    or  the  Stotic<e  pruin<e  in  Spartian's  Poet  • 
or  any  fuch  uncertain  Conjeftures.     And  yet  the  Scoto-brigantes  might 
be  Iripj  5    where   both  Scoti  and  Brigantes  were,   and  fo  it    proves 
hothing,    as  to  Britain  5    for  Claudius  conquer'd  Ireland  as  much  as 
Scotland.  ^ 

But  it  is  more  plaufibly  urged.  Thai  (z.)  Bede  fpeaking  of  the  Scots  W^-  J- 
^eing  a  tranfmarine  Nation,  he  explains  himfelfby  faying,  that  he  means  '^' 
not  that  they  were  out  of  Britain,  but  beyond  the  two  Friths  ;  therefore  the 
Scots  then  inhabited  Britain.  This  was  but  a  necelfary  Explication,  for 
Bede,  who  u fed  thefe  Words,  after  he  had  confefled  before,  that  the 
Scots  under  Reuda  did  fettle  ;»  Britain.  Therefore  when  he  ufed  Gil- 
das  his  Words,  he  thought  it  neceffaf  y  to  reconcile  them  with  his  own  5 
and  fo  declares  that  he  ufed  tranfmarire  now  in  another  fenfe.  Juft  as 
if  a  Scotifh  Writer  in  Bede%  time  had  fpoken  of  the  iranfmarine  Saxons^ 
ofing  the  Words  of  an  Author  who  lived  before  their  coming  into  Bri- 
tain 5  and  then  (hould  explain  himfelf.  That  he  did  not  mean  the  Ger- 
man Saxons,  but  thofe  who  lived  in  Britain,  beyond  the  two  Friths  5  would 
this  prove,  that  the  Saxons  lived  here  before  C<efar's  time  ?  And  if  Z^^- 
be  an  Argument  clear  to  a  Dem:>nJifation,  fome  Mens  Demonfirations  will 
hardly  amount  to  the  ftrengthof  a  probable  Argument.  And  I  am  apt 
to  fear  no  Mens  way  of  reafoning  more  than  thofe  who  talk  moft  of 
Demonfirations. 

What  if  St.  Jerome  mentions  the  Scoti  from  Porphyry,  and  the  At- 
tacotti  as  a  Britirti  Nation,  what  doth  this  prove,  as  to  the  Scots  inha- 
biting Britain  fo  long  agon  ?  Could  there  be  no  Scots  but  in  Britain, 
when  it  is  confefTed  they  came  originally  out  of  Ireland  .<?  Sidonius 
JpoUinark  AoxhmQwnon  the  Scots  and  Pi^s,  in  his  Panegyrick  to  (s)  (f)^^^^°°' 
Authemius  ^  but  what  then  ?  who  denies  that  the  Scots  dind  H^s  did  ^."9^* 
then  fight  and  were  beaten  in  Britain  ^  But  could  not  they  be  beaten 
here  then  unlefs  they  came  into  Britain  by  Julius  C^efar^  Is  this  clear 
to  a  Demonflration  .<?  But  it  is  obfervable,  that  in  the  Verfe  before  he 
calls  the  Caledonians  Britains  even  then, 

Vi&rhia  C^far 
Signa  Caledonios  tranfvexit  ad  ufque  Britanno^. 
Fttderit  &  quamquam  Scotum,  C^  cum  Saxone  PiSuni, 

Where  it  is  evident  he  difthiguilheth  the  Caledonian  Britains  frofo  the 
Siots  and  Piiis. 

Z  But 


178  The  Anti pities  of  Chap.  V, 

But  Claudian  Mentions  the  Scots  as  fettled  in  Britain  before  hk  time. 
If  it  be  granted,    that  falls  very  much  (hort  of  Alexander  or  JhUhs 
defar's  time  5    yet  there  appears  no  Demonflratien  for  it.     His  Words 
are, 
(0  Claud.  (t)  Scotorffm  cuMfths  fievit  glacialk  Irene. 

y,  jj"^  '  But  there  is  a  certain  Place  in  Scotland  called  by  that  Name.  I  will  not 
difpute  it ,  but  are  we  fure  that  Claudian  knew  it  by  that  Name  >  Was 
that  fo  confiderable  to  be  taken  fuch  notice  of  by  the  Roman  Writers  > 
Was  not  Ireland  then  called  Irene  hy  him  S^  And  doth  he  not  mention 
the  Scots  moving  all  lerne  .<? 

(h)  Totam  cum  Scotus  lemen 

((/)i?Cb/i-  Movitj    ^  injeflo  fpumavit  remige  Tethys  ? 

fiilat.  Sti- 

v'^Ts'i.' ''  And  is  not  this  very  Poetical,  to  fay,  He  moved  all  a  certain  littie  Part 
<?/ Scotland  >  From  whence  they  might  pafs  beyond  the  Wall,  with- 
out fo  much  as  touching  the  Ocean  .«'  Muft  thefe  things  pafs  for  Demon- 
fiations  too  > 

I  mention  thefe  Evidences,  which  the  Weight  of  the  Caufe  is  laid 
upon,  to  (hew  how  far  thefe  Antiquities  are  ftill  from  being  cleared,  to 
the  fatisfaftion  of  impartial  Men.  For  I  had  no  Luddus  my  Kinfman^ 
no  Buchanan  my  Enemy  5  I  fearch  for  nothing  but  Truth  in  fuch  En- 
quiries,  it  being  as  much  to  my  fatisfaftion,  that  the  Scots  came  into 
Britain  in  Alexanders  time,  as  any  time  after,  if  it  can  be  as  well 
proved.  But  it  doth  not  become  the  Ingenuity  of  Learned  Men,  when 
all  Judicious  Perfons  in  the  Nations  about  us  have  re}eded  their  fabff 
lous  Antiquities,  to  adhere  to  them  without  producing  better  Proofs  of 
them  'y.  and  that  withfo  much  violence,  as  if  the  Intereft  of  the  Nati- 
on, and  the  Succeffion  of  the  Royal  Family  were  concerned  in  them  t 
Which  hath  far  ftronger  Grounds  to  ftand  upon  than  the  Authority  of 
He^or  Boethius,  Of  the  Race  of  Kings  between  the  two  Fergus's,  or  the 
certain  time  when  the  Siots  came  (irlV  into  Britain. 

Having  thus  far  given  an  Account  of  the  Antiquities  relating  to 
the  Fi^s  and  Scots,  the  mortal  E>iemies  of  the  Britains  ;  I  now  come 
to  purfue  my  main  Defign,  which  rejates  to  the  Antiquities  of  th« 
Britifh  Churches,  whofe  declining  State  and  Condition  I  am  now  ar- 
rived at. 

And  the  firft  Occaffon  thereof  was,    the  laying  them  open  to-  the  fitry  of 

their  great eji  Enemies,  the  Pifts  and  the  Scots,     it  is  impoffible  for  us  to 

fet  down  the  punftual  time  when  the  Scots  and  the  Piils  firft  join'd 

their  Forces  together  to  give  difturbance  to  the  Britains,  but  it  is  clear 

(x)  Ara.    that  they  did  fo  towards  the  middle  of  the  fourth  Century.     For  (x-) 

Marceii.    Ammianus  Marcellinus,  fpeaking  of  the  Incurjions  they  made  in  the  time 

''  of  Conjlantius,  when  Julian  was  C£far,  Anno  Dom.  -^60.  he  faith.  That 

Julian  beif/g  then  at  Paris,  durji  not  go  over  to  the  ajjijiance  of  the  Britains 

againji  the  Scots  and  the  Pifts,  as  Conftans  had  done  before.     Which  Ex- 

0)c^iie-  pedition  of  his  happen' d  A»no  Dom.   34:?.  after  his  Succefs  over  the 

°yl„j^XL  Franks,  and  he  pafled  an  Edid,  ftill  exftant  in  the  (y)  Theodo/an  Code, 

Tit.  16.     when  he  was  at  Bologn,   in  his  Paifage,    which  bears  date  that  Year 5. 

Cx)^hil}.    And  a  Coin  of  his  is  mention'd  by  (z)  Du  Cange  and  (a)  Spanheim, 

B)^.int.     wherein  the  Effigies  of  Conji an s  is  on  one  Side,  and  on  the  Reverfe,  an 

r  V  C  f  ^^'"^'^  Man  on  Shipboard,  with  the  Image  of  Vitlory,  and  the  Infription  of 

jui.f.134  ^ononia  Oteanen  5    being  Coined  on  purpofe  to  p  eferve  the  Memory 

of 


C  H  A  p.  V.  the  hritijh  Omrches.  1 7  ^ 

of  this  PalTage.     And  upon  his  coming  over,  things  were  quieted  here, 
but  not  long  after,  they  began  to  make  new  Incurfions,  within  the 
Bounds  of  the  Provittce^  as  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  Paflage  of 
Ammiatms  MarceUinus,  when  Lupicinus  was  Tent  over,  who  arrived  at 
London^  faith  he,  in  the  middle  of  Winter^  to  take  CoUncH  how  to  pro- 
ceed.   In  the  time  of  Valentinian,  the  fame  Hiftorian  C^)  faith,  That(b)  r..i6, 
there  feetfid  to  be  a  general  dijiurbance  through  the  whole  Effipire,  by  the''  '*' 
barbarous  Nattofrs  who  lay  near  them '^  And,  amon^  the  reft,  he  mentiotis 
the  Pifls  (whom  fome  render  Red/hanh)  the -Saxons,  the  Scots,  and 
the  Attacots,  who  were  continually  vexing  and  doing  mischief  to  the  Bri- 
tains,  fo  that  in  a  little  time,  the  {/)  britains  were  reduced  to  a  mifera-  W_^-  *7v 
ble  condition  by  a  new  Confpiracy  of  the  Barbarians,  wherein  Ne(Saridus//5g^    ' 
Comes  Maritimi  Traftus,  or  Komzn  Admiral,  rf»^/ Fallofaudes,  theOe- 
neral,  were  both  killed.     And  then  Valentin/an  fent  over  Theodopus,  a 
famous  Captain  (  Father  to  the  firft  Emperor  of  that  Name  )  with  con- 
fiderable  Forces.     For  at  that  time,  the  Pids  of  both  hinds,  the  Deucali- 
dones  and  VeSuriones  ^    the  Attacotti  ^   a  fierce  Nat'oh,  and  the  Scots, 
difperfing  themfelves  up  and  down,  did  abundance  of  mfchief^  But  The- 
odolius,  leaving  London,  difperfed  his  Farces  likewfe  into  feverdl  parts, 
who  furprized  the  Enemies,  and  recover  d  their  Booty,  which  they  rejiored 
to  the  Owners,  only  referving  a  fmall  Jhare  for  the  Souldiers-^   And  fo  in 
ajhort  time,  he  put  the  City  out  of  its  fears  and  difficulties,  and  entred  it 
4is  it  were  in  Triumph:  And  then  took  care  to  have  good  Officers  placed 
here^  Civills  ^r  Adminijiration  ofjujtice-^  and  Dakltius  for  Mi litdry 
Affairs. 

Who  thefe  Attacotti  were,  who  joyn'd  with  the  Pi^s  and  Scots,  our 
.4»/»^«4m/ are  not  agreed  5  But  becaufe  of  their  joining  with  the  o- 
ther,  and  yet  being  diftinguiftied  from  them,  it  feems  moft  probable, 
that  they  were  the  Wild  Britains -,  For  (d)  St.  Hierome  doth  fay,  they{d)e.i6- 
were  <f  Britifh  People.     But  what  the  Reafon  of  the  Name  was,  is  not*'"-  '•*• 
yet  underftood,  and  I  doubt  will  not  be,  unlefs  fome  happen  todeHve 
it  from  the  Phoenician  Language.     What  great  rriifchief  had  been  done 
to  the  Britains,  by  this  Combination  of  their  Enemies,  appears  by  the 
care  taken  by  Theodofus,  after  his  beating  them  out  of  the  Country, 
to  reftore  the  Cities  and  Garrifons,  and  to  fettle  the  Guards  upon  the  Fron- 
tiers '^  which  being  done,  That  part  of  the  Conntry  which  he  recover'd 
from  them,  he  obtained  leave  to  have  it  named  a  New  Province.     And 
it  was  called  Valentia,  from  the  Emperor's  Name,     This  was  done  An. 
Dom.  568.     And  the  next  year  Theodojius  returned  to  the  Emperor's 
Court.     From  that  time  we  read  no  more  of  their  Inctirftons  till  Maxi- 
mus,  in  the  time  of  Gratian,  Son  to  Valentinian,  was  fet  up  by  the 
Souldiery  in  Britain,  to  be  Emperor.    Then  (e)  Profpcr,  fet  out  by  (?)  cfiw- 
Pithtexs,  faith,  Maximus  overcame  the  P'l^s  and  Scots,  making  new  tti-^i^-''*''^- 
airftons.     Which  he  thought  he  had  done  fo  efFedtually  as  to  fear  no 
difturbance  on  that  Side  ^  And  therefore  took  away  frorii  hence  all  the 
Flower  both  of  the  Roman  and  Britifh  Souldiery,  to  make  good  his 
Title  againft  Gratian  and  Valentinian,  atid  after,  againft  Theodoftus  5 
So  that  there  was  no  poffibility  of  their  return,  to  fecure  the  Frontiers 
from  their  Enemies.     And  this  proved  the  fatal  Blow  to  the  Britains. 
For  the  Empire  being  fo  divided,  and  Maximus  forced  to  keep  his  Ar- 
my together,  thofe  parts  were  left  open  to  the  Rage  and  Fury  of  their,,,     ^^ 
Mercilefs  Enemies.     And  if  the  (/)  Author  of  the  Eulogium  and  Gi-ier.  \im. 
raldiu  Cambrenfis  may  be  believed,  Gratian  and  Valentiriian  entred  into  t-  59o- 

Z   2  4  LeagHS 


i8o  "^/^^  Antiqaitus  of  C  h  a  p.  V. 

a  League  with  the  Gothick  Pids,  and  helped  them  voith  Shipping  to  convey. 
them  into  the  Northern  parts  <?/ Britain,  on  purpofe  to  mthdraw  Maximus 
hk  Army  out  <7/Gaul ;  Who  coming  thither  in  great  Nu/^l^ers^  and  finding 
the    Country    naked  and    xvithout    defence^  fettled    themfelves    in   thofe 
Pnrts.     Not  as  though  the  Pids  had  not  come  hither  before,  but  they 
never  came  over  in  fo  great  Numbers  and  with  fo  much  Incouragement 
as  they  did  now.    And  it  feems  not  improbable,  that  Gratian  and  Fa- 
lentinian  ftiould  at  that  time  deai  with  the  Gothick  Nation  to  give  a 
(^^)  zofim.  jj^gj.j^Qj^  to  Maximm,     For  (g)  Zojimtu  affigns  that  as  one  of  the 
■j6o.        great  Caufes  of  Gratians  Ruine,  that  hefeemed  more  fond  of  the  harlxt- 
roHs  Nations  than  of  the  Romans:  And  Maximus  charged  Valentinian, 
with  making  ufe  of  the  Hunns  and  the  Alani  againji  him-^  Which  is  not 
(fe)sf.Am- denied  by  (i&)  St.  Amhrofe,  who  was  fent  by  Valentinian  on  an  Embaffy 
hioi.Ep.  tQ  j^jfj,.     Thefe  Hunni  and  Jlam  were,  as  is  commonly  faid,  Inhabi- 
tants of  Sarmatia  Europ£a  near  to  the  Palus  Mctotis.    The  Alani  did 
(ij  Rer.    live  Upon  the  Tanah^  faith  (0  Hadnanui  Valefius  ;  And  the  Hunni,  faith 
Franc.  I.    ]^g^  j^^^g  ^  ScythiaH  People,  between  the  Pontus  and  the  Cafpian  Sea,  up- 
/■  4.^,"    on  the  Northern  Parts  of  the  CaucsiCus,  f  om  whomthe  Abares,  Turks  and 
153-        Hungarians  ar^  defcended.     But  whofoever  obferves  (k)  Ammianua 
MarfeL/.  Marcellinus  his  Defcription  of  them,  will  find  that  the  Hunni  were  the 
31.  c.  7.    Afiatick  Tartars ;  and  the  Alani  the  European.     The  Hunni  in  the  time 
of  Valens  paffed  over  the  Palus  Mipotk  in  vaft  Numbers,  and  after, 
having  killed  many  of  the  Alani,  took  the  red  into  Confederaey  with 
them,  and  having  conquer'd  the  Goths  in  thofe  Parts  inlarged  the'it 
Power  as  far  as  the  Danube:  Where  they  lay  ready  to  come  into  the 
Roman  Empire  on  any  Occafion.     And  it  is  not  to  be  wonder'd  if  ^r<i- 
tian  flioulci  employ  Perfons  into  Scandinavia  to  draw  out  greater  Forces 
from  thence,  thereby  to  make  a  Revulfion,  as  to  Maximus  his  Defigns 
in  the  Northern  Parts  of  BHtain.  However  this  were,  Cildas  from  this 
time  dates  the  miferable  Condition  of  the  Britains,  as  being  in  no  Po- 
(/)Ncnn.  Qyfg  to  defend  themfelves  at  Home.     (/)  New//^  faith.  That  Maxi- 
'^***'       mianus  (  as  he  calls  him  }  earned  all  the  Forces  out  of  Britain,  and  killed 
Gratian  the  Emperor  ^  And  would  not  let  the  Britilh  Souldiers  return  to 
their  Wives,  Children  QX  Pojfejjions,  hut  gave  them  another  Country. inftead 
of  it ;  /;/  the  Weftern  parts  of  Gaul,  faith  the  Interpolator  of  Nennius, 
And  thefe,  faith  Nennius,  are  the  Aremorican  Britains,  who  never  after 
returned  to  their  own  Country.     And  from  hence,  he  faith,  Britain  waf 
feiz^ed  upon  by  fore'.gn  Nations,  and  its  own  Natives  were  driven  out  5  and 
would  fo  contiue  till  God  helped  them.     But  the  Britijh  Hiftory,  {et  forth 
(»)  mfl.  by  (m)  Geoffrey,  hath  improved  the  Story  in  many  Particulars.    Firft, 
B./t.  /.  2.  jf  jnakes  this  Maximianus  to  marry  the  Daughter  of  O^avius,  and  fo  t& 
'  ^        come  to  the  Kingdom  of  Britain ;  Then,  it  adds.  That  Conanus  retired 
into  Albany,  and  raifed  an  Army,  which  was  overthrown  by  Maximianus, 
who  after  five  years  paffed  into  Gaul,  and  fought  firji  againji  Me  Aremori- 
cans,  whofe  Country  he  gave  to  Conanus  and  his  Britains;  Who,  refolvittg 
not  to  marry  any  others  than  Britifti  Women,  he  fent  over  Mejjengers  to  Di^ 
onotus,  lt;'wg  0/ Cornwall,  *i?  n'/&^>!«  Maximianus  had  committed  the  Go^ 
vernment  of  Britain,  to  provide  H'ives  for  thetn  :>  And  fent  with  Urfula 
his  own  Daughter  Eleven  thoufand  of  the  better  fort,  and  of  the  common- 
fixty  Thoufand.     But  thefe  were  unhappily,  by  Storms  either  funk  or  driven 
into  thofe  Places,  where  Guanius,  K.itfg  of  the  Hunns,  and  Melga,  Ifiing 
of  the  Pifts,  who  were  Confederates  jpiM  Gratian,  were  joined  with  their 
Armies^  who  cruelly  defiroyed  them.     After  which  they  came  into  Albany, 

when: 


Chap.  V.  the  hntifli  Cburches,  1 8 1 

vbere  they  made  havOi  k  of  all  Places  they  came  near.     Then  Maximianus 
fent   Gratianus  Municeps  w/VA  two  Legions  who  fubdued  the  Hunns  and 
Pids,  and  drove  them  into  Ireland.    Here  we  have  many  fabulous  Par- 
ticulars put  together,  but  none  comparable  to  the  71006  Virgins  funk  of 
deftroyed  by  the  Hunns,     And  yet  Geoffreys  Relation  of  this  Legend  is 
magnified  by  («)  Baronius^  and  approved  by  r<») -M-FcZ/frttj,  (p)  AubA'^J^'^- 
Mir£tis,  and  (^)  /€gid.  Bncheri/fs,  as  moft  agreeable  to  the  Circnm-f^ro/.Aom. 
ftances  of  the  time.     Which  is  a  thing  to  be  wonder'dat;  confidering  <'■'?''*''•  2^^ 
how  little  Foundation  there  is  for  anyone  Particular  of  Ge<7^re/s  whole  j^if  Pen. 
Relation,  either  as  to  Odavius,  then  Ring  of  Britain^  or  the  marry-  tinger, 
ing  his  Daughter  to  MaximttSy  or  as  to  Conanm  going  firft  into  Albany^  ^%^fe 
and  thence  into  Aremorica,  or  the  fettling  of  the  Britiflo  Soi^ldiersls.'vhg. 
there,  at  fobufie  a  time,  when  Maximus  wanted  all  the  Affiftance  be^-j' 
could  get ^  or  the  fending  to  Dionotus,  or  the  fending  away  fuch  ^K(,m!iAz. 
Number  oi  Virgins  Tit  once,  without  any  Fleet  to  conduft  or  fecure^  s- 
their  Paifage,     But  (r)  Browems  hath  overthrown  this  Legend  at  once,  fr)  mt.in 
by  proving  that  Aremorica  was  not  in  the  Britains  Poff^flion  till  a  good  Ven  For- 
dme  after  this  5  For,  as  he  well  obferves,  Maximus  was  kindly  recei-;..  59."  *' 
ved  in  Gatl^  and  met  with  no  confiderable  Oppofition  there,  Gratians 
own  Souldiers  revolting  to  him,  and  he  pafled  on  and  fettled  himfelf 
at  Trrerf,  (then  the  Seat  of  this  part  of  the  Empire)  as  Gildas  faith  5 
And  befides,  in  the  time  of  Aetius,  the  Aremorici  enjoy *d  their  own 
Country  (as  he  proves  from  Confiantitts  his  Life  of  St.German')  about 
An.  Dom,  434.    After  which  time  they  ftood  up  in  their  own  defence, 
till  they  were  reduced  by  Littorius,  which  he  (hews  from  Sidonius  A- 
poUittarfs-     And  (/)  Rutiliut  Claudius,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  W  ^^"'jJ- 
Century,  after  Maximus  h\s  time,  mentions  the  Aremorici^  as  ftill  en-i.'",!2je. 
joying  their  Country,  where  Exuperantius  was  then  Covernour.    Say- 
ing,  that  after   the   Troubles  by    the  Goths  they  had  Pojiliminiunt 
Pacts  5  which  evidently  proves,  they  were  not  then  kept  out  of  Pof- 
feffion. 

Cujus  /iremor'icas  Pater  Exuperantiuf  or  as 

Nunc  Pojiliminium  pads  amare  docet. 
Leges  refiitHit  libertatemque  reducit, 

Et  Servos  Famulis  non  finit  ejfe  fttif. 

And  this  was  written  after  the  Sacking  of  Rome  by  the  Goths  5  So 
that  there  is  no  foundation  for  this  Legend  in  the  time  of  Maximus. 
JEgid.  BucheriuSy  although  he  approves  oiGeoffrey,  as  to  the  time,  and 
fome  other  Cinumfiances,  yet  he  differs  from  him  in  others.  For  he 
goes  upon  thefe  Grounds,  that  Maximus  landed  at  the  Mouth  of  the 
RJ>i»e,  as  Itofimus  faith.  That  there  they  left  the  Multitude  of  Women 
and  Virgins  which  follow'd  the  Army  omX.  of  Britain  i^  where  the  Hunns 
which  Bauto  fent  agaipft  Maximus  fell  upon  them  and  deftroy'd  them. 
This  is  no  ill-contrived  Story;  but  very  different  from  the  Legend  in 
Geoffirey^  in  all  the  confiderable  parts  of  it ;  And  yet  after  all,  Bw 
cherius  thinks  fit  to  yield  up  his  Faith  to  the  old  Legend^  as  it  is  de- 
fended by  Bebius  and  Crombachius  -^  and  fo  it  is  taken  off  irom  the  time 
qf  Maximus.  ^ 

CO  Joh.Fordon,  agrees  withGeoffrey  ahoMt  Max:mus  his  giving  the(0  5«'/- 
Country  of  Aremorica  to  Conanus  and  bis  Britains,  An.  Dom.  3§5.  but^*^"^""'*^' 
be  is  fo  far  from  mentioning  the  71000  Virgins^  That  he  fuppofes  the 

Bri- 


chrrm.l.  ^. 


f.  I. 


C.   2. 


182  Ihe  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  V. 

Brifains  of  both  fexes  to  have  fettled  there  together.  But  he  makes  a  more 
credible  Relation  of  Conanus  his  going  over  to  Aremorka.^  which  \%^ 
That  Mdxtmus  miftrufted  he  might  fet  up  for  himfelf  in  his  Abfence, 
having  the  legal  Title  to  Britain,  and  therefore  he  removed  him  and  the 
Chief  of  the  Britalns,  and  fettled  them  In  thofe  Parts  oiGaul.  This  is 
no  improbable  Story,  but  yet  the  r.  re  w  or  leans  enjoying  their  Coun- 
try after  this  time,  is  an  effeftual  Contutation  of  it. 

After  the  death  of  Maximus,  more  Troubles  following  in  the  Ra- 
^"ilf'^f'-,  ^^"  Empire,  the  Pifts  and  the  Scots,  faith  («)  Fordon,  negotiate  a 
Mutual  Peace  and  flri&er  Alliance,  in  order,  faith  he,  to  the  recovering 
their  Country  again.  For  Maximus  had  made  ufe  of  the  Pifts  to  drive  out 
the  Scots,  and  then  put  Garrifons  among  the  Pifts  to  keep  them  under. 
And  upon  this  Agreement,  An.  Dom.  403,  in  the  fixth  of  Arcadius  <?/?,5i 
Honorius,  Fergus  the  Son  ^/Erk  the  Son  o/Ethadius  the  Brother  ofEu' 
genius,  tpho  vpar  driven  out  by  Maximus,  came  with  his  two  Brothers 
(called  there  Loarii  and  Tenegus,  in  all  probability  Loarn  and  JEngus, 
u'hich  were  the  Names,  the  Irifh  Annals  give  to  the  Brothers  of  Fergus, 
asisobferved  before)  and  great  Supplies  of  Scots  from  the  Jjlands  is/Irelgnd 
and  Norwey,  whither  they  were  driven  :  And  the  Pifts,  to  prevent  all 
Sufpicion  of  Treachery  furrendred  up  their  Forts  to  Fergus.  Who  now  he- 
came  King  of  all  Scotland,  i.  e.  of  that  part  which  is  beyond  Drum  Al- 
bain,  as  well  as  on  this  other,  which,  he  faith,  it  doth  not  appear  how  he 
came  to,  whether  by  the  Sword  or  by  any  other  Right,  none  of  his  PredeceJ/brs 
(w)  H'ift.  having  any  Power  there,  (w)  Bede  faith,  The  Romans  had  the  Right  of 
Ecc/f/./.i.  j;)gf^i„-g„  f^  ff,g  remotejipart  of  the  Jfland :  Wtiich  is  not  eafie  to  make 
out,  unlefs  the  Pojfejfion  and  Con^ueji  were  better  proved  thari  appears 
by  Bede's  Hiflory.  For  although  he  mentions  Claudius  his  Conquering 
the  Orcades:,  yet  it  is  hard  to  prove  it  by  any  Roman  Authors^  And  if 
the  PoflefTion  were  after  loft  for  fo  long  a  time,  it  will  be  as  hard  to  prove 
the  Romans  ftill  enjoy'd  the  Right  of  Dominion  upon  fo  flender  a  Title. 
But  the  Pifts  and  Scots  being  thus  united,  their  firji  Work,  faith  Fordon^ 
was  to  drive  out  the  Romans  and  ^nti'ms  from  their  Country,  and  then 
to  invade  Britain,  which  was  then  left  dejiitute  of  any  defence  :  Andfohy 
their  Incur/ions  they  either  killed  the  Common  People,  or  made  them 
Slaves. 

Here  Fordon  tranfcribes  Bede's  twelfth  Chapter  of  his  firft  Bookj 
'■  3-      the  Foundation  whereof  he  took  out  of  Gildas,  concerning  the  depar- 
ture of  the  Britijf}  Forces  without  returning^  the  Invafion  of  the  Scots 
and  Pids  i,    the  Britains  fending  an  Addrcfs  to  Rome  for  Afliflance  5 
a  Ron/an  Legion  coming  and  driving  out  their  Enemies  ^  and  perfua- 
ding  the  Britains  to  build  a  Wall  for  their  own  Security.    But  it  is  ob- 
fervable,  that  Bede  varies  from  Gildas  without  Reafon  5  for  what  Gil- 
das  fpeaks  of  their  departure  with  Maximus,  he  applies /<?  the  going 
of  the  Remainders  of  the  Britifti  Forces  under  Conftantinus  and  Con- 
ftans,   after  Gratianus  Municeps  was  killed  in  Britain,   having  ufurped 
the  Empire  here.     But  that  Bede  was  herein  miftaken  will  beft  appear 
by  digefting  the  times  wherein  thefe  things  happen'd  as  well  as  we 
can. 
(x)  Zof.        j^;^)  ZofimtiS  faith,  That  Honorius  VII.  and  Theodoftus  II.  being  Con- 
'if  ?r]-   fi*^^->  '*''^'  ^"-  Dom.  ^07.  (  nineteen  years  after  the  death  of  Maximus, 
mord.p.    as  (^)  Archbijhtf  Z)/hr  ohCerves,  (z)  01  ympi  odor  us  in  Photius  Ca.\th, 
r^>Vh     the  year  before,  Oro/ius  and  Sozomen  the  year  after,  viz,,  the  year  when 
Cod.  80.    Arcadius  died ; )  the  Britilh  Sovldiers  in  a  Mutinj  fet  up  one  Marcus  to  be 

Emperor 


Chap.  V.  the  Briti/h  Cbiircks,  1 83 

Emperor^  as  a  Ma»  of  great  Power  in  thefe  Parts  3     Rut  he,  not  anfipering 
their  expeSatton^  t hey  foon  took  him  off,  and  then  fet  up  Gratianus,  (^vpho 
tpoi  4  Native  o/Britain,  for  fo  much  (4)  Orofus  his  Words  mp]y,  when  (a)  ffiji. 
he  faith,  he^vas  Municeps  ejufdem  Infnlte  )  and  made  him  put  on  the  Roy-  ^- 1-  *^'^®* 
at  Purple  and  Crotvn,  8cc.     but  he  not  pleajingthem,  after  four  Months  they 
take  away  his  Life.     (J>)  Of  him  Nennins  faith  nothings    But  he  rhenti-  (4)Nenn. 
onsone  Severus  between  Maximiu  and  Conjlantius,    whom  others  omit  •^'-  ^^' 
But  (f)  Geoffrey  makes  Gratianiu  toaflumethe  Ro5'al  Authority  as  foon  ('(r)Gaifr, 
as  he  beard  of  the  Death  of  Maximiu  ^  But  he  waifo  tyt-annical,  he  faith, '  ^-  '^•■^• 
That  the  common  People  rofe  up  and  killed  him  ^    and  after  hk  Death  the 
Britains,  according  to  him.  font  to  Rome,  to  beg  help  againji  the  Pi6ts  a/rd 
Scots.    But  Zofimus  and  Orofius  both  fay  5   That,  upon  the  Death  ofGra- 
tianas,  they  fet  up  here  Conftantine,   a  mean  Perfon,    (^for  the  good  Omett 
of  his  Name,  faith  Or  o/«/ )  n>ho  immediately  left  Britain,  and  pa  fed  over 
i»/<?GauI,  rphere  he  gained  the  Army  to  him,  and  made  his  Son  Conftans 
CseGir,    and  fent  him  into  Spain.     Olympiodorus  faith.    That  he  fent  a. 
Meffage  and  Excufe  to  Honorius,  for  affnm'ng  the  Imperial  Dignity,    that 
he  wcu  forced  to  it  by  the  Army  5     and  that  Honorius  allow' d  the  Excufe^ 
and  for  a  time  admitted  him  into  Partnerpyip  vp  th  him.     Eut  Geront^us  a 
Britain,  one  of  the  Generals,  finding  himfelf  flighted  by  Conjians  made 
a  Revolt  among  his  Soldiers,    and  ftirr'd  up  the  barbarous;  Nations  in 
Gaul  againft  Confiantine  5    Upon  which  occafion,    faith  Zofimus,   The 
BritiQi  Iflands,andfomeofthe  Celtick  Nations  renounced  the  Roman  £»/- 
Pjre^    And  took  up  Arms  to  defend  themfelves  from  the  Incurfions  of  their 
enemies  .*     And  Honorius  by  his  Letters,  gave,  them  leave  to  take  care  of 
tiet/tfihes.     Not  long  ^f ter  Conjians  is  killed  by  Gerontius,  and  Conjian- 
iifte,  after  the  Siege  of  Aries,    had  his  Head  cut  off  by  {d)  Honorius  (-/.Sor/.p., 
bis  Order.    But  (e)  Nennius,  againft  the  confent  of  all  the  Greek  and^oisor" 
Latin  Hijiorians,    both  Heathen  and  Chriftian,    {"aith.  That  this  Con-(e)Nenn. 
fiantine  reigned  16  Tears  ;«  Britain,    and  in  the  ijth  died  at  York.'' ^^' 
However  he  falls  much  (bort  of  (/)  Geoffrey-^   for,  he  faith,    ThaiifJ^^^^h 
Conftantine  vpos  Brother  to  Aldroenus,  King  of  the  Aremorican  Britains,  ^•^" ''  ^"^ 
to  whom  GniihtMn,  Metropalitane  ofLondon,    ripasfent  on  an  Embaffy  to 
accept  the  Government,  which  he  put  tjf/^?  Conftantine,    who  was  chofen 
King  at  Silcefter,    and  had  a  Roman  W/fe  <?/Guithclin'/  Education,,  by 
whom  he  had  three  Sons,    Conftans  4  Mtfwii' «r  Winchefter,    Aurelius  Am- 
brofius,  and  Uther  Pendragon,  v>ho  were  committed  to  GuithelinV  Care. 
After  Conftantine'j-  Ceath,  who  was  killed  by  a  Pift,  there  happen  d  a  great 
Conteji  about  the  Succeffion  ^    but  by  Vortigern'j  means  Conftans  is  taken 
from  the  Monajiery,   and  fet  on  the  Throne  at  London  j    J3«/  Guithelin 
VP  u  now  dead,  and  Vortigern  put  the  Diadem  on  his  Head,  who  governed 
all  things,  and  foon  got  himfelf  rid  of  him  by  a  Guard  e/Pi&s  he  had  pla- 
ced about  him,  and  fo  took  the  Government  upon  himfelf. 

But  I  fliall  fet  aiide  thefe  Fiftions  or  Traditions  of  Geoffrej  and  Nen- 
nius, and  confidcr  now  what  Bede  faith.  He  makes  Gratianus  Municeps 
to  be  fet  up  two  Years  before  the  facking  of  Rome  by  Marie,  Ring  of 
the  Goths,  which  happen'd  Anno  Dom.  410.  And  he  follows  Orojtus^ 
about  Conjiantine  and  his  Son  Conjians,  without  ever  imagining  their 
Continuing  to  govern,  and  lofing  their  Lives  in  Britain  :  But  then  he 
applies  the  Paflage  in  GUdas  concerning  the  lamentable  Condition  of  the 
Britains,  and  their  help  from  the  Romans,  to  the  Times  after  the  Death 
oi Confiantine  5  Whereas  Gildas  mentions  both  upon  the  Ufurpation  of 
Maximus^  and  his  withdrawing  the  Forces  from  hence  ^  And  therefore 

this 


184  ly  Anurjuities  of  Chap,  \\ 

this  firft  cruel  Invafion  of  the  F'lcii  and  Scots,    muft  be  between  the 
Death  of  Maximus,   and  the  fetting  up  of  Gratianus  Municeps  :     And 
then  the  Britains  Co  earneftly  begging  for  Affiftance,  had  Roman  Gover- 
Uytiner.  nors  and  Forces  fefft  ro  their  Relief.     Some  think  that  (g)  Claudius  Rn- 
"^■'^''^°°  til/us  mentions  Fi&orifins  as  a  Roman  Governor  here  at  that  time^    but 
this  is  uncertain,    when  he  there  fpeaks  of  the  taking  Tholoufe  by  the 
Goths^  which  was  done  by  Ataulphus  fome  time  after  the  death  of  Ala- 
V  ric  5    And  therefore  could   not  be  before  the  time  of  Gratian  and 
Conjlantwe  ;     For    Idatins    faith,    that   thk  latter   was   killed   before 
Ataulphus  entred  Narbon,    which  was  before   the  taking  of  Iho' 
louje. 
(j^  Pj  It  is  evident  from  many  Paflages  in  (-6)  Claadian^  that  Stilicho,  took 

Uud.  Sci.  particular  care  of  the  Supplites  of  the  Britains  againft  the  Scots  and  Pifts  : 
'i!?2'j!  Df  ^"^  Stilicho  was  killed  by  the  Army  when  Bajfus  and  Philippus  were 
BeitoGer.  Confi/ls,  Anno  Dom.  408.  before  the  firft  Siege  of  Rome  by  the  Goths  ^ 
•^^  415-     And  therefore  the  Roman  Forces  fent  by  him  were  before  the  Ufurpati- 
/"2""°^'^»</Gratianus<z»£/Conftantine  :     Stilicho  htin?^  killed  the  fame  Year 
that  thefe  were  fet  up  in  Britain,   it  is  not  poflible  he  fhould  do  it  after 
their  Death  5  And  it  feems  not  probable  that  any  Supplies  fhould  be 
fent  through  Gaid  while  Conjiantine  remained  there,  the  Army  through 
which  they  were  to  pafs  in  Caul  taking  part  with  Conjiantitie  againft 
Honor  ins.     Andwithall  Gil  das  faith.  That  the  Roman  Legion^   hat/ing 
dr  ven  out  the  Pifts  and  Scots,    rettir/ied  in  Triumph  to  Rome  :    And  fo 
much  is  confelTed  by  Bede.     But  at  what  time  ftiould  we  fuppofe,  after 
the  TJfurpation  of  Conjiantine,  that  a  Roman  Legion  /hould  return  in  fo 
much  Triumph  ^    For  after  Conjiantine's  Ufurpation  the  Roman  Empire 
began  to  decline  extremely  in  thofe  Parts  through  which  they  were  to 
(/)  Jor-    pafs :     Gaul  being  upon  Compoftion  (i)  delivered  up  to  the  Goths  by 
PaufDiac'  ^^"'^^^^^i  ^"cl  the  Franks  and  Burgundians  making  continual  iraprefli- 
/  14.       ons  there.    I  conclude  it  therefore  moft  probable,    that  the  fir^  Sup' 
S'seb.      piigj   given   to  the  Britains  were  not  after  Conjiantine's  TJfurpation, 
^.^'"■^ij  but  between   the  Death  of  Maximus,    and  the  fetting  up  of  Grati- 
anus Municeps. 

The  fecond  time  the  diftrefled  Britains  were  forced  to  folicSt  the  Ro- 
(*)  Pri-   mans  for  Supplies,  is  placed  by  (k)  Archbifhop  TJjher,  Anno  Dom.  426. 
r'fios      when  Gallio  Ravennas  was  fent  hither,  as  he  fuppofes,  becaufe  the  next 
Year  Profper,  hitb  Gallio,  tpos fent  againji  Eomfadus  in  Africa.  But  then 
he  makes  the  firji  Supplies  to  have  been  in  the  latter  end  e/Honorius^ 
p.  594.    for  which  I  can  fee  no  reafon.     For  he  grants,  That  after  the  Death  of 
Maximus,  the  Scots  and  the  Pifts  did  voafie  Britain  ;    and  that  then  Sti- 
licho did  fend  ajfijlance  to  them.      Why  then  (hould  the  j5r/?  jr-a/^/w^ 
of  the  Countrey,  fpoken  of  by  Gildas,   and  the  Legion  fent  upon  it,    be 
that  in  the  latter  end  of  HoHorius,  and  not  rather  that  in  the  beginning  .<? 
For  the  latter  end  of  Honorius  his  Reign  was  very  perplexed  and  trou- 
blefome.     The  Alani,  Suevi  and  Vandali  were  in  Spain  ;    The  Franks^ 
Burgundians  and  Goths  in  Gaul  5    Jovinus  and  Sebajiian  there,    after 
Conjiantine's  death,    ufurped  the  Empire  ^    And  although  the  Goths, 
going  into  Spain,    did  great  Service  againft  the  other  Barbarians,    yet 
fuch  were  the  Straits  of  the  Roman  Empire  in  Gaul,  That  Conjlantiusy 
who  then  managed  the  Affairs  of  the  Empire,  was  forced  to  recall  them, 
as  both  Profper  and  Idatius  fay,    Monaxius  and  Plinta  being  Confuls 
(  which  was  the.twenty  fourth  of  Honorius,  )    and  to  give  them  all  that 
part  in  Gaul  from  the  Garonne  to  the  Ocean.     The  Year  before  Honorius 

his 


C  H  A  P.   V.         the  Eritijh  Churches,  185. 

hisdeathj  he  was  forced  to  fend  his  Forces  under  Caflinus  into  Spain, 
agamft  the  Fatfdab,  as  Profper  affirms  ^  and  that  proved  the  Occafion 
of  new  Troubles  in  Africa,  by  the  difference  between  Cafkifius  and  Bo- 
vifaciiu,  who,  for  his  own  Security,  conveyed  over  the  Vandals  thi- 
ther. It  is  not  therefore  very  probable,  that  the  firji  Supplies  of  tke 
Britairts  (hould  be  in  the  latter  end  oi  Homrius,  efpecially  fince  the 
Learned  Primate  confefleth,  that  Hottorifif  did  not  in  his  time  recover 
the  Province  <?/Britain,  and  he  proves  it  againft  SabelUcus  from  Proco-  p  Soo. 
fins,  Bede,  the  Saxon  Annals  and  Ethelvperd.  And  the  fingle  Teftimo-. 
ny  of  Sigebert,  That  Honorius,  at  the  fame  time,  fent  ajjiftance  to  the 
Britains,  that  he  did  to  the  S^zmards  (when  Profper,  Idatins and  Cajjl- 
dore,  who  all  mention  the  latter,  fay  not  a  Word  of  the  former  }  can- 
not weigh  down  the  Reafons  on  the  other  fide. 

But  as  to  the  fecond  Supplies  which  were  fent  updn  the  mighty  impor- 
tunity  oi  the  Britains  -^  They  were  in  probability  in  the  beginning  of 
the  Reign  of  Valentinian  III.  after  that  Aetius  had  fomewhat  recovered 
the  Credit  of  the  Roman  Empire  in  Gatil  :  For  after  his  Succefs  there, 
both  againft  the  Goths  and  Franks  he  had  liberty  enough  to  fend  over 
a  Legion  to  the  Afliftance  of  theBritains,  who  were  again  miferably  ha? 
rafs'd  by  the  Scots  and  PiUs.  And  at  this  time  it  was  that  Gildas  faitb^ 
T;6e  Romans,  upon  the  fad  Reprefentations  the  Britifti  Embajfadors  madi 
of  their  pitiful  Condition,  fent  them  fpeedy.  Supplies,  who  coming  upon  their 
Enemies  on  afudden,  like  a  violent  Torrent,  drove  them  all  before  them, 
and  made  them  repafs  the  Seas  :  Which  is  an  Argument,  they  did  not 
then  inhabit  in  Britain.  But  the  Romans  then  plainly  told  the  Bri- 
tains. they  were  not  at  lelfure  to  bring  over  Legions  as  often  as  their  Ene- 
mies invaded  them  :  But  they  mufl  train  up  their  own  People  to  Arms  to 
defend  themfelves  and  their  Wives  and  Children  againft  a  fort  of  Men  no 
ways  flronger  than  themfelves.  And,  to  incourage  them  the  more,  they 
built  a  Wall  of  Stone  from  Sea  to  Sea,  and  Forts  on  the  Shore,  and  exer- 
cifed  them  in  Arms,  taking  their  leave  of  them,  and  telling  them,  they  »tuft 
expe&  their  return  no  more.  This  is  the  Subftance  ofGildas  his  Relati- 
on, with  whom  Bede  agrees ;  only  inlarging  the  Defcription  of  the 
Wall,  which,  he  faith,  was  eight  Foot  in  breadth  and  twelve  in  height, 
and  that  it  flood  where  the  Wall  ofSevetus  flood,  being  all  made  of  Stone, 
and  not  of  Turf  as  that  unferviceable  Wall  was,  which  the  "^ntaini  had 
before  without  skill  and  dire&ion  built  for  themfelves. 

It  hath  been  much  difputed  among  our  Learned  Antiquaries  where 
this  laft  Wall  ftood,  whether  in  the  place  where  the  former  of  Turf  was 
raifed  by  the  Britains  between  the  two  Friths,  or  where  Hadrians  Walt 
was  firft  built,  between  the  Titfc  and  the  Esk.  Bede  puts  a  great  di- 
ftance  between  thefe  two  Walls,  and  makes  the  former  to  have  been  between 
the  two  Friths,  beginning  at  a  Place  called  Peneltun,  two  Miles  from  A- 
bsrcorney,  and  ending  to  theWefl,  w^^rAlcluyd:  Which,  faith  he,  ^- 
nifies  a  Roi  k  in  the  River  Cluyd.  But  the  latter  Wall  was  from  Sea  to  Sea^ 
in  a  direli  Line,  between  the  Cities  there  built  frr  Security  againft  Incurfl- 
ons,  and  it  flood  in  the  Place  <?/Severus  his  Wall.  (/)  J  oh.  For  don  di-f/)  SMtl. 
ftinguiflhes  between  the  old  Wall  called  Grimefdike,  from  Grime,  a  Bri-  '=^""'-  '•  i- 
tain  (  whofe  Daughter  i^erga^  married,  and  after  his  death,  ruled  over '^" '' 
the  Scots,  during  his  Grand-child's  Minority  :  and  which  ff  4//,  he  faith, 
thk  Grime  overthrew^  and  fa  recovered  the  ancient  Pojfeffrons  due  to  him 
as  defended  from  Fulgenius  )  and  the  other  Wall  built  where  Severus  hfs 
ftood  :    And  he  gives  very  different  defcriptions  of  them.    Th&  former 

A  a  Wall, 


lS6  The  A^ti pities  of  Chap.  Vv 

Wall,    he  faith,    hegifts  from  the  Eaji,    upon  the  South-ftde  of  the  Scotifh 
Shore,  near  a  Village  called  Raredin,  and  then  pr  trventjt  two  Miles  crojfes 
f.  4.      the  Land,  leaving  Glafgow  <?» /Ae  South  5    and  ends  on  the  Bank  of  the 
River  CI  yd,  near  Kirk-patrick.     The  other,    he  faith,  begins  on  the  Eafi 
e.  1.     in  the  Southern  Bank  of  theTyT\e  to Gahihe\Q<i,  <>r  Goats-liead,  where  Ss- 
verus,  faith  he,  a  long  time  before  had  made  a  Wall  and  a  Trench  over 
againfl  New-caftle  ^   and  fait  k  continued  to  the  River  Esk,   called  Sco- 
[m^hifl.    t'l^wath,  fir  Jixtji  Miles,  and  ends  near  drWde,  ojttheWejl.     But  (w) 
i^A-^^^g'-  Buchanan conitndiS,  thitSeverus  his  Wall  was  vihtxtQraham's  Dike,  or 
R.^'i."     Grimef-dike  was,  and  at  leaji  eighty  Miles  difl  ant  from  Hadrians  Wali^ 
which  he  proves  from  the  Antiquities  there  found,    and  the  fjuare  Stones 
taken  up ;    which  do  fufficiently  prove  an  ancient  fione  Wall  to  have 
been  there,    but  not  that  of  Severus  :     And  the  Roman  Infrr'iptions  in 
(n)  Brit.   (.")  Camden  mention  Antoninus,  and  not  Severus.  Joh.  (<?)  Major  places 
p.  699.      Severus h\s  Wall,    as  Fordon  doth,  between  the  Tine  and  /^eEsk.     But 
(0  '•  !•    Archbiftiop  (/>)  Dfher  hath  endeavoured  to  clear  this  matter,  by  yield- 
(p)  pri-    ing  to  Buchanan,  that  the  Scotiflj  Wall  was  made  of  Stone,  viz,.    By  the 
mord.       Romans  under  Gallio  Ravennas,  and  by  proving,  that  Bede  tvof  mijiaken 
i'024'^c.  as  ^0  Severus  hk  Wall  being  madeof  Turf  before,   which  was  the  Reafon 
he  thought  it  turned  into  Stone  at  this  time  5    it  being  not  likelyt    that 
the  Romans  would  bring  the  Britains  at  leaJi  eighty  Mdes  bark,    and  put 
them  to  defend  a  Wall  fo  very  much  longer  than  the  other  ;   But  I  rather 
think  Severus  his  Wall  was  now  repaired,   and  a  larger  Scope  allow'd 
for  the  P/V?/  and  Scots  5    As,  befides  what  hath  been  faid  before,    may 
(^)  Scot)-  appear  by  this  one  Argument  from  (^)  Fordon.     He  (aith.  That  when 
ehron.l.^-the  Scots  made  a  new  Incur f on,    they  apen'd  Pajfages  in  the  Wall,   from^ 
*''°'       whence  it  was  called  Thirle-wall,  /.  e.  faith  he,  Murus  perforatus.  Now 
(,)  p^;.   the  Learned  (r)  Primate  grants,   that  a  Place  called  Thirle-wall  ftood 
mord.       on  the  Borders  c/Cumberland  and  Northumberland  :    And  that  Fordon 
f.  1028.  j-^iffj^  Thirle-wall  was  built  by  Severus  on  th^  Tyne.     And  therefore 
Bede  feems  to  have  been  in  the  right  as  to  Severus  his  Wall,    but  only 
miftaken  in  thinking  it  was  made  of  Turf  before,    which  was  built 
of  Stone  by  Stverus,   and    accounted  one  of  the  great  Works  of  the 
Koman  Empire,  which  wasimpoffible  tobe  built  of  ly^owea-newby  <?»e 
Legion  and  the  help  of  the  Countrey  5  But  might  very  well  be  repaired, 
and  made  defenfible  againft  the  Scots  and  P/fifj. 

We  might  now  think  that  the  Britains  were  left  by  the  Romans  in  a 
tolerable  Condition  to  defend  themfelves  ;  But  as  foon  as  their  old  E- 
uemies  underftood  that  their  old  Friends  had  forfaken  them,  they  came 
upon  them  with  a  greater  Force  and  Violence  than  ever.  And  the  Spi- 
rits of  the  poor  Britains  were  fo  broken  by  their  former  Miferies,  that 
they  were  not  able  to  withftand  the  Affaults  of  their  Enemies :  But 
they  forfook  their  Wall  and  Forts,  and  fled  as  far  as  they  could,  and 
difperfed  themfelves,  which  made  them  an  eafie  Prey  to  their  barba- 
rous Enemies,  who  now  deftroyed  them  in  a  more  cruel  manner  than 
they  had  done  before  ^  And  thofe  who  efcaped  were  driven  from 
their  Habitations,  and  hardly  left  in  a  Condition  to  fubfift,  having  no 
Provifion  left,  but  what  they  did  get  by  Hunting.  This  is  the  fliort 
account  of  what  Gildas  more  Tragically  inlarges  upon.  And  being 
thus  reduced  to  the  utmoft  Extremities,  they  refolve  once  more  to  fend 
to  Aetitis  their  lafi  Groans  5  and  to  let  him  underftand  how  unable 
they  were  to  ftand  out  againft  their  Enemies,  Seeing  between  them  and 
the  Sea  they  were  either  drowned  or  butchered.     But  all  further  Afliftance 

was 


Chap.  V.  the  britijh  Cburcbes. 

was  now  denied  them  5  A^tius  being  then^  as  (/)  Bede  faith,  deeply  en-U)  ^^^<^* 
gaged  in  the   War  with  B]eda  and  Attila,  Kings  of  the  Hunns.     This'" '' '^■'^* 
Meffage  was  fent,  faith  Bede  in  the  23^.  of  Thcodojins,  Aetius  bein<y 
then  third  time  Confid  with  Symn/achia.     hatBleda,  according  to  Pro-' 
[per  and  Cajjtodore,  was  killed  by  Attila  two  years  before  Aetius  and 
Symmachm  were  Confuls  (but  one  year  before  according  to  Marcellinus') 
but  the  year  following  he  makes  the  terrible  Invafion  of  Europe  by  At- 
tila to  be  5  And  (o  Aetius  havingthen  a  Profpeft  of  that  War,  had  jufl: 
reafon  to  deny  Supplies  to  the  Britains.  And  when  Valetstinian  was  VI. 
Conful,  the  year  before  Aetim  and  Symmachm^  it  appears  by  Valentini- 
«»' s  Letters  to  him,  that  he  was  then  in  GW,  for  then  he  direfted  the' 
famous  Conftitution  de  Epifcoporum  Ordinatione  to  him  there  ^  wherein  he 
interpofes  his  Authority  to  ratifie  Leo'i  Sentence  againfl:  Hilary  of  Aries, 
But  this  is  fufficient  to  (hew  that  the  Britains  Complaints  were  then  fenc 
to  Aetiuf,  and  not  to  any  Agitius  or  JEquititis,  as  fome  imagine.     (t)it)Snti''- 
Fordon  faith,  The  Britains  fent  to  Agitius  rfwd'Litorius 5   But  LiVem/ <=*'''"'•'•  3' 
fome  years  before  was  beaten,  and  taken  Prifoner  by  the  Goths^  as  ap-'^'^^* 
pears  by  the  Fafli  Confdares  both  of  Profper  and  Cajjzodore,  and  (»)(")  ^'Jf' 
Paulus  Diaconns  out  of  them.  ...      Mkb.  t. 

But  the  Miferies  of  the  Britains  were  ftill  increafed  by  a  Famine  which 
then  raged '^  which  was  not  peculiar  to  Britain,     (w)  Be^/e  faith,  ThatM^-^^ 
there  rvas  then  a  Famine  at  Conftantinople,  and  a  great  Plague  which  fol-'^'  '^" 
lovp'd  it,  which  confumed  abundance  both  of  Men  and  Beajis.     Which  he^ 
borrows  from  Marcellinus  who  makes  both  Famine  and  Plague  to  break 
out  tlip  very  year  Aetius  and  Symmachus  were  Confuls.     Both  thefe  are 
mention'dby  (x)  Euagrius  in  the  Eajiern  Parts,  and  therefore  are  notc:c)Euasr. 
to  be  looked  on  as  a  peculiar  Judgment  on  the  Britaiffs.  i-^-c  6.' 

After  this,  as  (y)  Gildas  Zindi  Bede  teW  us,  finding  their  Cafe  almoft  W  G'ld. 
defperate,  the  Britains  were  lefolved  to  fell  their  Lives  and  Liberties  f.  if  cfil* 
as  dear  as  they  could,  and  by  making  a  fierce  Affault  upon  their  Ene-  '  '  '    ' 
mies,  they  began  to  get  the  better  of  them  5  Which  they  impute  to  theif 
trujiing  rather  to  Divine  AJJiJiance  than  to  the  help  of  Men,  which  they  too 
much  relied  upon  before.     The  Britains,  as  appears  afterward,  did  not 
want  Courage,  but  Exercife  in  Arms ;  being  kept  under  fo  long  by  the 
Romans,  they  durft  not  fo  much  as  pretend  to  fighting,  for  fear  of  be- 
ing deftroyed  5  And  now  the  Romans,  when  they  had  a  mind,  could 
not  infufe  new  Spirits  into  them  5  But  their  own  Miferies  at  laft  roufed 
and  awaken'd  them  to  that  degree,  that  they  made  their  Enemies  quiet 
fox  fome  time  5  And  the  Irifh  Robbers,  faith  Gildas,  returned  home,  in- 
tending to  return  fhortly  :  And  the  Pifts  in  the  farthejl  part  of  the  Ijland 
layflill,  only  fometimes  making  Excurfions.    This  is  a  confiderable  paC- 
fage  in  Gildas,  which  (hews,  that  even  then  the  Scots,  whom  he  calls 
Iriflj  Robbers,  were  not  Inhabitants  of  any  part  oi  Britain.     For  he 
calls  Ireland  their  home,  as  before  he  faid  upon  the  Second  Devafiation 
(as  the  Margin  of  Jocelin's  Gildas  hath  it)  that  they  came  in  their  Cur- 
roughs  over  the  Scythian  Vale,  fohe  calls  the  Iri(h  Sea  ^  as  Nennius  calls 
the  Scots,  Scytte.    But  if  they  had  then  inhabited  in  Britain,  there  had 
been  no  ufe  of  Cnrroughs  to  convey  them  over,  and  this  had  been  their 
proper  Home,     (x)  Fordon  feems  to  have  beeh  aware  of  this  ObjeHion, 
and  therefore  faith,  The  Scots  and  Pifts  took  the  Iri(h  in  to  their  ^JJf-[l}f„"l'''o 
fiance-^  But  Gildas  takes  notice  of  no  other  Scots  than  thofe  that  came c.  10. 
out  of  Ireland,  and  returned  back  again.     (^)  Buchanan  faith,  That^y)"'^'^' 
upon  theSuccefs  <?/ Grime  againji  the  Britains,  many  Strangers  came  in  to^'    ^  ' 

A  a  2  ths 


1 8  8  7  he  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  V , 

the  Scots  Jijpjlatjce,  and  had  their  (hares  allow'd  them  in  the  conqHerd 
Lands.     But  he  takes  no  notice  of  Gildas  or  Bedes  laying.  That  thofe 
very  People  who  fought  with  the  Britains  returned  home  to  Ireland  5  And 
the  Pifts  were  quiet  in  the  utmoji  parts  of  the  Jjland-^  where  there  is  no 
mention  of  any  third  fort  of  People  called  the  Scots  in  Britain.     But 
(«1  "IdT  ^^^  Dempfter  undertakes  from  this  place  of  Gildas  to  prove,  That  the 
1.  c.  3.     Scots  and  Irifih  were  then  dijiinguifloed,  becaufe  Gilda?,  after  he  had  menti- 
on d  the  Scots  and  PiSs,  here  names  the  Irifti  Robbers.     It  is  true,  that 
Gildas  before  doth  mention  the  Scots  and  Fi&s  5  but  in  this  Place  he 
only  fpeaks  of  the  IriJIi  and  the  P/^/,  which  is  an  Argument  on  the  o- 
ther  fide.    For  either  the  Scots  had  no  (hare  in  thefe  lafl  Incwjionf,  or 
they  muft  be  comprehended  under  the  Name  of  IriJJ},  having  then  no 
fettled  Habitations  elfewhere  but  in  Ireland.     But  there  is  one  Paflage 
{a)  Gild,  in  (/?)  Gildas  which  feems  to  imply  that  it  was  their  Cujiom  to  inhabit 
S-  '°-      this  Country,  but  Solito  more  being  their  ufed,   and  they  being  then 
fuppofed  out  of  Britain,   the  word  Inhabit  can  only  imply  making 
a  longer  flay  here,  as  they  were  wont  to  do  when  they  had  Succefs. 
For  their  coming  is  defcribed,  like  that  of  the  Bucaniers  in  the  Wefl-In' 
dies,  and  their  Stay  was  as  they  liked  their  Entertainment. 

From  this  time  Gildas  only  mentions  the  Vices  and  the  Fears,  and  a- 
nother  great  Plague  among  the  Britains,  before  he  comes  to  that 
pernicious  Counfel,  as  he  calls  it,  for  fending  for  the  Saxons  by  Vorti- 
gern. 

But  before  I  fpeak  of  that,  while  we  are  upon  this  Head  of  the  Bri' 
tains  being  thus  expofed  to  their  Enemies,  it  will  be  needful  to  e«quire 
what  that  Legionary  Affiflance  was  which  is  mention'd  in  the  Notitia 
Imperii,  and  at  what  time  that  was  made  5  For  if  the  Common  Opinion 
be  true,  that  it  was  made  after  the  time  of  Honorius,  then  Britain  could 
not  have  been  left  fo  deftitute  of  Roman  Ajfiftance  as  Gildas  and  Bede 
fay.    For  by  that  Notitia,  here  in  Britain,  under  the  Dux  Britannia- 
rum  (  who  feems  to  have  fwallow'd  up  the  Power  of  the  Comes  Bri- 
tannia, whofe  bare  Title  is  ftill  left  in  the  Notitia)  there  was  the  Pre- 
fiSf  of  the  J/xth  Legion  at  York,  of  the  Dalmatian  Horfc  at  Rrntfidium^ 
i.  e.  Warwick,  probably  firft  built  in  the  time  of  Didius  Gallus  againfl: 
the  Silures,  and  fo  continued  its  Name  after,  as  being  a  con-venient  Sta- 
tion to  keep  under  the  Provincial  Britains ;  Of  the  Cafpian  Horfe  at 
Danum,  (  Doncajier  ? )  Of  the  Cataphra^arii  at  Morhium,  (  Moresby  in 
Cumberland:^)  and  fo  of  others,  at  Albeia  (Jerby  in  the  fame  County,) 
at  Di&um  (^Diganwey  in  Carnarvanfnre,)  at  Concangii  (^Kendal  in  Weji-^ 
moreland,)   at   Lavatrte  (^ Bowes  in  Richmond/hire,)  at  Vertera  (^Burgh 
in  Weflmoreland,)  at  Brovoniacum  {Brongham  in  the  fame  County,)  at 
Jktaglona  (^Macleneth  in  Montgomery-pire,)  at  Magi  (old  Radnor,)  at 
Longovicum  (^Lanchejier  in  the  Bifhoprick  of  Durham,)  at  Derventio 
(  Aldby  in  Torkfhire  z,)  And  beftdes  thefe,  there  were  many  Cohorts  dif- 
pofed  per  lineam  Valli,  along  the  Wall,  as  at  Segedunum  (  Seton  or 
Seghill  in  Northumberland, )  Pons  JElii  (  Ponteland  in  the  fame  Coun- 
ty, )  Condercum  (Chefler  in  the  iSVre^*,)  Vindohila  (Walls- end,)  Hun- 
vum  (Severfhale,)  Cilurnum  (Sihhejlerin Muro,)  Procolitia  (  Frudlow,) 
Borcovicus  (  Berwick, )  Vindolana   (  Winchejier,  )  lEfica  (  Netherby  on 
the  Esk  in  Cumberland,)  Magna  (Chefier  in  the  Wall,)  Amboglana  (Am- 
hie  fide  in  Wefimoreland, )  Petri  an£  (old  Per  it  h  in  Cumberland,)  AbalU' 
ha  (Appleby  in  Wefimoreland^  Congavata  (near  Caudebec  in  Cumberland,) 
^xelhdunum  (  Hex  am  in  Northumberland, )  Gabrofentum  (  Gate/head  by 

New- 


i 


Chap.  V.  the  Britijh  Churches.  /        189 

_ "  ~"-'  • '       '        '  '  '      '         .  II 

Netvcajile,}  Tanngielum  (^Tinmonth,^   Glanvventa  (a  Place  upon  the  '[ 

WeMsbetk,  faith  our  Learned  (i)  Antiquary,  (whofe  Judgment  in  the(A)Camd. 
other  I  have  follow'd)  fotMc  Miles  vp'tthin  the  iVaU-^)  AUone  (upon  the  ^^'^g 
Kivtr  Al ft e  \r\  Cumberland,^    Bremenluracum  (^Brampton  in  the  fame 
Comity,)    Olennawi  (ElefthoroMgh  in  the  Came,')    Vtrofidtt/ft  QVarroick 
on  iheEdeff.  )     Now  if  all  the  Military  Forces  lay  here  fo  near  to  the 
Wall,  after  the  time  of  Honor i/^^  how  came  the  Britains  to  have  been 
in  fuch  diftrefs  >  But  we  have  no  certainty  when  this  Notttia  was  made. 
If  it  were,  as  Pancirol  conjectures,    in  the  latter  end  of  Theodofns  the 
younger,   alx)ut  Anno  Lorn.  445.     Then  all  thefe  Roman  Forces  were 
certainly  withdrawn  5   and  any  new  Supplies  denied  by  Aetius  in  the 
a^th  oijheodojius  5    Therefore  this  Notitia  muft  relate  to  the  Rowan 
Settlement  here,  before  the  time  that  Maxinms  carried  over  the  Roman 
Legions,  which  never  returned  to  that  Station  which  they  had  before. 
And  although  the  Title  feems  to  imply  that  itextended  beyond  the  times 
oiArcaditts  and  Honorius ;  yet  it  cannot  be  underftood  of  what  then  was, 
but  of  what  had  been  in  former  times.    For  that  the  Britahs  had  then 
no  fuch  Forces  among  them  is  apparent  by  what  hath  been  faid  already. 
I  now  come  to  that  fatal  Counfel  offending  for  the  Saxons  to  come 
to  their  Afliftance.    It  appears  by  (0  Gildis,  That  the  SnV^jwx  could  (c)  ciM. 
come  to  no  Settlement  among  themfelves.    "  For,  faith  he,  They  a-  §•  '?>  2a, 
"  nointed  Kings,  not  according  to  the  Will  of  God,    but  fuch  as  ivere  *■''  ^^" 
*'  more  fierce  and  cruel  than  others,   and  not  long  after  they  without 
"  Examination  took  them  off,  and  fet  up  worfe  than  they.    If  any  one 
*'  was  more  gentle  and  a  Lover  of  Truth,    he  was  the  mofl  hated  and 
"  maligned,  as  a  Betrayer  of  his  Countrey,  they  minded  not  what  was 
**  pleafing  or  difpleafing  to  God ;  or  rather  the  latter  was  more  pleafing 
"  to  them.    They  afted  ftill  contrary  to  their  own  Intereft,    and  there 
"  was  an  univerfal  Degeneracy  of  Manners  in  all  forts  of  Men ;    And 
*'  thofe  who  (hould  have  given  the  beft  Examples,    their  Priefts  and 
*'  Teachers,  were  as  bad  as  others ;  Exceffive  Drinking,  Heats  andAni- 
*'  mofities.  Contentions  and  Divifions,  Envy  and  Oppreflion,  were  then 
"  fo  prevailing,  that  they  feemed  to  have  loft  all  Judgment  of  Good 
"  and  Evil ;   fo  that  then,  he  faith.    The  Saying  of  the  Pfalmift  was 
*'  fulfilled.  He  poureth  Contempt  KponPrinces,  and  caufeth  them  to  wander 
*'  in  the  Wildernefs,  where  there  if  no  Way.     And  when  neither  Fear  of 
*'  their  Enemies  nor  the  Judgments  of  God  in  a  raging  Peftilence  would 
"  do  them  good,  then  their  Iniquities,  faith  he,  growing  full,  like  the 
"  Amorites,  they  fell  into  Confultation,    what  was  beft  for  them  to  do 
*'  againft  their  Enemies  Incurfions,  and  they  all  agreed  to  invite  the 
*'  Saxons  over  to  afTift  them.     Upon  which  he  breaks  out  into  a  ftrange 
*'  Admiration  of  that  Stupidity  and  Infatuation  which  the  Britains  were 
"  then  under,    to  call  in  a  Nation  to  help  them  whom  they  dreaded 
"  worfe  than  Death. 

For  the  Saxons  had  been  terrible  for  fome  time  before  to  the  Britt(h 
Nation  ^  which  was  the  Occafion  of  calling  the  Shore  on  both  fides  the 
Saxon  Shore,  and  fetting  up  fuch  an  Admiral  here  by  the  Romans,  who 
was  called  C(?««ej  £.7>om  Saxon' /»er  Britannfam.     Which  ftiews  that  the 
Saxons  were  then  very  well  known  for  their  great  Piracies,   and  had 
been  fo  from  the  time  of  Caraufius  :     For  then,  ^d)  Eutropius  faith, ((/jEutrop. 
he  vpas  employ  d  to  four  the  Seas  from  the  Franks  and  Saxons,   mho  tvere'-9-<^-  }9- 
very  troublefome.     It  appears  by  (e)  Tacitus,  that  Gannafcus,   with  the^^l^^i]^' 
Chauci,  didy  /« Claudius /6/r  f//»e,  infefl  /AcGallican  Shore  with  Piracy. 

C/)  Zoji^ 


i^o  Ibe  AntKjuittes  of  Chap.  V 


(f)Zofim.(^y^  Zojimus  faith.  That  f^e  Saxons,  rvhowerethejioutejiofall  the  harbi- 
roffs  Nations,  fent  out  /^e  Quadi,  apart  of  their  ovph  People,  i»to  the  Ko- 


lltfrr^  ™^"  Territories.  By  thefe  Qttadi  (g)  Cluverius  and  (h)  Bttcherius  un- 
{h)  Beig.  derftand  the  Cauchi.  But  (i)  Archbifhop  Ufljcr  fliews,  That  thefe  were 
Ram.  L  7.  neither  the  Qpadinor  the  Cauchi,  bnt  the  Chamavi,  from  Eunapius,  mhovt 


(^'i^'pyi     2,oCimus  tranfcribes,  a/^d  from  ]u\hn  hiwfelf:   But  from  hence  it  appears, 
mord.       That  the  Chamavi  were  then  accounted  a  part  of  the  Saxons,  who,  ac- 
(*)^Germ.  cording  to  [k)  Cluverius,    there  lived  near  the  River  Amifia,    a  great 
/,  3.  c.  14.  way  on  this  fide  the  Elb  or  the  Wefer  ^    And  Eunapius  places  them  not 
far  from  the  Rhine.    However,  this  proves,    that  the  Name  of  Saxons 
then  comprehended  Nations  of  other  denominations.     But,    to  make 
this  out,    we  are  to  confider,    that  Zofimus  faith.   That  in  the  time  of 
Conftantius,  three  German  Nations  brake  forth  m  it  were  at  once  on  the 
Roman  Empire  ;    The  Franks,  the  Alemanni  and  f^e  Saxons  ^  and  had 
taken  and  dejirqyed  forty  Cities  on  the  Rhine.     And  Sf.  (J.)  Hierome  men-r 
(/)  Hicr.    tions  the  Franks,  as  lying  between  the  Alemanni  and  the  Saxons.  Thefe 
{m\  Rer     '^'*^^j  ^^  (««)  Beatus  Rhenanus  obferves,  comprehended  the  feveral  Nati- 
Germ.Li.  ons  fl/ Germany  ^    And,   as  the  late  Learned  Bilhop  of  i«)  Munfter 
i^-  55-       faith,  The  Saxons  vpoi  a  Name  belonging  to  different,  but  Neighbour  Nati- 
Fadtr"     ^^'j    Tphich  joined  together  upon  a  common  Intereji,     And,    not  improba- 
l-.pi.       bly,  had  their  Name  at  firfl:  from  the  y&(7rf  Swords  they  did  commonly 
wear,  called  Sachs ;  as  the  ^irites  had  their  Name  from  ^uirk,  a  fort 
(«)  witi-  of  Spear  :^   And  the  Scythians,  from  Scytten,    to  fl)oot  with  a  Bow'    (o) 
kind.       Witikindus  firft  mentions  this  Etymology,  which  is  followed  by  others ; 
(/.)Reiner!  ^^^  Cp)  Reinerus  Reneccius  and  (^q)  Gryphiavder  do  much  more  incline 
desax.    to  another  derivation,  viz..  from  Sajfen,  which  in  the  German  Tongue 
/."ifo!*     ^^ ^^^  ^^"^^  ^^^^  Natives  or  inhabitants ^    And  which  in  the  modern 
(q)De     Saxon  is  Saten  ;   as  Grofs  is  Grote  5    and  fo  Holfati  are  the  fame  with 
VJmn^'^'  H!>//.y^/e»,  Men  that  lived  in  Woods,     But  why  tWs,    which  was  com- 
e.70.  n.  5.  ™on  fo  other  Germans,  (hould  give  a  particular  denomination  to  one 
fort,  is  not  fo  eafie  to  apprehend  :     But  Tacitus,  fpeaking  of  fome  of 
_  _     the  Northern  Germans,  faith.  That  the  common  Badges  of  them  are  round 
Franc j".k.^^'^^^^  '^"^  f^ort  Swords  :     And  the  Arms  ^/Saxony  to  this  day,    as  (/) 
u  2.        Pontanus  obferves,  are  two  fljort  Swords  a-crofs.     As  to  thofe  who  derive 
the  Saxons  from  the  Sactie  of  Ajia,   as  though  they  were  Sacafones  ^   al- 
though there  be  Perfons  of  great  Name  who  embrace  that  Opinion  (a- 
(s)  Brit,   n^ong  whom  our  (j)  Mr.  Camden  is  one  )  yet  I  think  it  no  more  pro- 
t'^z.       bable,   than  that  the  Germans  are  derived  from  the  Plowmen  o/Perfia, 
fome  whereof,  Herodotus  faith,    were  called  Germanii.     For  a  bare  d' 
militude  of  Names  is  no  fufficient  ground  to  judge  of  the  Affinity  of 
People  ;  nor  the  agreement  oifome  Words,  as  in  the  German  and  Persi- 
an Languages  (which  Mr.  Camden  infifts on  )  to  conclude  the  People 
of  the  fame  Original :    Unlefs  there  be  a  probable  account  withall  gi- 
ven, how  they  came  to  be  propagated  from  each  other,  i.  e.  how  the 
Perfian  Germans  came  into  thefe  Parts  \  And  how  the  Sac£^  left  their  own 
Countrey  to  People  Saxony.    But  under  this  Name  of  5^:v(?»/,   not  on- 
ly thofe  who  originally  had  that  Name,    but  all  thofe  who  join- 
ed   with    them,    were  comprehended.    And  it  is  obfervable,     that 
not  one    of   the    three   Names   of  the    German  Nations    then  in 
ufe  was  known  in  Tacitus  his  time.    The  Alemanni  are  firft  fpoken  of 
■(t)Vit      by  (0  Spartianus,  m  the  L\k o{ Caracalla -^    and,  as  (u")  Agathiasfaith 
(u)^H'fl.   ^^^^  Afinms  i^Hadratus,  They  were  an  Affociation  of  many  People  together 
1.1.     '  under  that  Name,  as  the  Word  imports.    The  Name  of  Franks  was 

firft 


.*• 


Chap.  Y,.  the  Bnt/jh  Cbarcbes.  1 9 1 

firft  known  in  the  time  of  (w)  Jnrelian,  and  took  in  feveralof  theoU''^";)  !^*^" 
GermdH  Names,    the  Slcambri^    Chatti^    Ten&eri,    and  many  others  5  Aurei'."  , 
Thence  (^x)  Sr.  Jerome  faith.   That  France  was  that  which  HiftoriansC^^Hier.in 
called  Germany  ^    And  fb  t)oiQ  Saxons  was  a  general  Name  for  the  iV(?r-^'''"''^'^' 
them  Germans,  who  chiefly  lived  upon  the  Sea-Jhorc,   from  the  Amaps 
to  the  Wifer  and  £//•,  as  far  as  the  Ejidor^  unto  the  Chnbr'ich  Cherfonefe, 
rfiat  had  peculiar  Appellations.     For  although  the  Teftimony  of  (j  ;(>)g«£''. 
Ptolomy  be  commonly  produced  for  the  Saxons  living  on  the  back  of'*  ^' 
the  Omhr/ck  Cherfonefe,  yet  Mr.  SeUen's  MS.  in  both  places,   leaves 
out  the  5',   and  Capttio,  as  (2.)  C//»er«j  obferves,    contends,    k  ought  U}Fr4at. 
to  be  read  "A^oi'j^.     But  I  lay  no  weight  upon  this.     But  it  is  certain,  ^'^C'''"'^^- 
that  the  People  in  Tacitus  his  time  were  called  Fof,    who  lived  in  the 
Place  where  theSaxons  are  fuppofed  to  have  been.    (<z)  Cluverms  makes(d)Gfr;.7. 
a  very  unhappy  Conjecture,    that  F05/,    mTacitus,   was  corrupted, ^^"^'9 '-3' 
for  SASONI 'j    becaufe  they  lived  in   Holjle'in,    and  about  Sleftvick -f'^^' 
But  it  is  far  more  probable,    That  the  Name  of  Saxons  was  then  gene- 
rally affumed  by  the  Northern  Germans  when  they  joined  their  Forces 
togetl'ker,  and  refolved  to  make  fome  Expeditions  abroad,  as  the  Franks 
ana  Alemanni  had  done.    Which  they  did  with  fo  great  Succefs,    that 
(i'  Zofimus^ddth,  in  the  time  <?/ Julian  they  went  down  the  Rhine,   and  f[,\  i^a^n. 
drove  out  the  Salii,  a  Nation  of  the  Franks,  out  of  the  Iflandofthe  Batavi./.  s- 
But  it  feems  very  probable.    That  the  Saxons  had  placed  themfelves 
near  the  Sea-floore,   from  the  time  of  Dioclefian,    vih^n  Caraufut  was 
employ'd  againft  them,     (f)  Orofius  defcribes  them  as  a  People  iiv^'ng(c)H;fi.' 
Qu  the  Sea-fljore'^  and  fodo  Ifidore  and  Paulus  Diaconusaiter  him.     Am-  '•7-  <=■  3*- 
mianus  (d)  Marcellinus  mentions  them,    as  bordering,   /'»  Valentinian'jCf/jMarcel. 
time,  on  the  Parts  <?/Gaul  as  vpell  ai  the  Franks.  '•*''• 

But  about  this  Point  our  two  Learned  Antiquaries  differ,  (e)  Camden (e)Brit. 
faith.  That  the  Saxons  originally  came  from  /^eCimbrick  Cherfonefe,  inP-  93- 
the  time  of  Dioclefian  5   jind  after,  pajjtng  the  Elb,  they  fartly  went  in- 
to thofe  parts  of  the  SuQvi,    which  are pnce  called  Saxony,    and  partly  into 
Frifia  «»^  Batayia  ^    From  whence,   he  faith,    all  the  Inhabitants  of  the 
German  Shore,  who  ufed  Piracy  at  Sea,  were  called  Saxons  -y  by  which  he 
underftands  the  People  from  Jutland  to  Holland.     Foj  which  he  produ-    " 
ces  the  Teftimony  of  Fabius,  Ethelwerd,    of  the  Royal  Blood  of  the 
Saxons  5    Who  faith.  That  the  Saxons  lived  upon  the  Sea  Coajis,  from  the 
Rhine  ^/ir  as  Denmark.     But  Archbifhop  (/)  Ufoer  will  not  allow,  (/)  vrU 
that  the  Saxons  hadfeated  themfelvos  upon  thofe  Coajis  then  ^  But  only  that  '""'''•  , 
they  did  exercife  their  Piracies  along  them.      He  grants,  that  before  Rede's 
time,    the  Saxons  took  Pojfejjion  of  the  Places  quitted  by  the  Franks,  when 
they  went  into  Gaul,    and  not  only  inhabited  on  the  Coaft  between  the  Elb 
and  the  Rhine,   but  in  the  inner  Parts  of  the  Countrey  ^    But  he  denies, 
that  this  was  before  the  Saxons  coming  into  Britain.  But  then  Fabiiis Ethel- 
werd did  not  underftand  where  his  Countreymen  lived  before  they  came 
into  Britain  ^   And  if  the  Saxons  in  Valentinians  time,    were  ftill  only 
in  the  Cimbrick  Cherfonefe,   how  comes  Ammianus  Marcellinus  to  make 
them  to  border  upon  the  Parts  ofGauU  Are  either  Jutland  or  Holbein, 
or  Slefivitk,  or  any  of  thofe  Countries  contiguous  to  Gaul  .<?     Yet  his 
Words  are,   GalUcanos  Tra&us  Franci  &  Saxones  iifdem  confines,  &r; 
Which,  that  it  is  not  to  be  underftood,  that  the  Saxons  were  Neighbours 
to  the  Franks  5    but  that  the  Franks  and  Saxons  then  bordered  upon  the 
Gauls,  will  appear  from  hence,  The  Franks  were  then  in  Taxandria, 
as  is  plain  by    (g)  Ammianus  his  Words,    in  the  time  of  Julian, U)  L  i?- 

and 


1^2  JIhe  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V. 

and  in  BatavU  •,  and  withall^  ^ojimtts  fpeaks  of  the  Salii,  who  were  un- 
doubtedly Franks,    being  driven  out  of  the  Ijland  of  the  Bafavi   hy  fume 
of  the  Saxons.     And  this  was  no  Incurfion  of  the  Franks.    For  Am- 
miamts  Man  ellinus  Caith,  They  did  there  fix  their  Hahitdtious  :     And  the 
Chamavi,  whom  he  makes  a  part  of  the  Saxons,   had  that  Command  ot 
the  Rhine,  that  Julian  made  Peace  with  them,  becavfe  without  their  leave 
{h)  Ex.     Corn  could  not  be  brought  out  <?/" Britain,  as  (^)  Eunapius  Sardianus  faith  : 
"2%.  \\.  ^"^  ^°  CO  Libaniut  and  {k)  Zofmus  fay,    that  Julian  took  greater  Care 
ll)Orat.    for  the  transporting  Corn  out  of  Britain,  as  had  been  accujiomed,  by  building 
m'l  f     ^ore  Ships  on  the  Khine  fir  that  purpofc -^     And  (/)  Ammianm  Marcelli- 
l.  5.         nus  faith,  he  built  Granaries  inflead  ofthofe  which  vpere  burnt.    Such  a  one 
CO  L- 18.  the  Arx  Britannica,  in  the  Mouth  of  the  Rhine,  was  made  from  a  M4- 
{m)Brit.  gazine,  and  thence  probably,  faith  (ni)  Camden,  had  its  Name,  becaufe 
f.8j2.      the  Corn  was  conveyed  thither  out  of  \ix\xz\n.     From  thence  it  follows, 
that  the  Saxons  fo  early  as  Julian's  time,    had  the  Command  of  the 
Rhine.     For,  whether  thefe  were  the  Chauci,    the  ^adi,  or  the  Cha* 
mavi-j    yet  Zojimus  faith,  That  they  were  a  People  of  the  Saxons.     But  it 
may  be  faid.  That  thk  was  only  a  fudden  Incurfon,    and  that  they  were 
driven  out  again  by  the  Roman  Forces.     So  ipdeed  Zofimiis  and  Julian 
relate  it,  but  how  then  come  the  Saxons  in  Valentinians  time  to  border 
ftill  upon  Qaul  .<?    So  that,  if  they  were  driven  out  by  Julian,   they 
quickly  returned,    and  fixed  their  Habitations  by  the  Sea,   as  the  Salii, 
who  were  Franks,  did  in  Taxandria  -^    which  was  more  within  Land ; 
(ti)Natdie  ^"^  where,    as   (n)  Godfrey  Wendelin  hath  endeavoured  to  prove. 
Solum  Le-  the  Salick  Lar»  was  firfl  made.    Which  Taxandria,  according  to  him, 
lum  Salic.  ^35  bounded  by  the  Maes  on  the  Eaft  and  North  ^    by  the  Tamera  on 
the  South,  and  by  the  Scheld  on  the  Weft  ,    And  here,  upon  Submifli- 
on,    the  Franks  were  permitted  to  live  5  And  this  was  thence  forward 
c.  1 1,    called  Francia  M  nor,  and  he  mentions  a  Place  there  ftill  called  Vranrijck, 
the  Kingdow  of  France  (  but  a  very  fmall  one  )  and  others  called  Seil- 
berg,  the  Mountain  of  the  Salii,  Seelbendens,  the  Sdian  Meadows,  Sele- 
^ig.    heim,  the  Houfe  of  the  Salii  :    But  the  other  Franksheing  by  Stilichos 
means  driven  out  of  their  Poffeffions  bey ond  the  Rhine,  they  came  into 
the  Parts  about  Tongres  near  to  Taxandria,   and  there  joined  in  ofle 
Body  ^  and  fet  up  Kings  among  themfelves,   as  he  ftiews  from  Gregorius 
Turonenfis,  and  then  they  made  that  Body  of  Laws,  called  the%2XKkLaws. 
But  to  return  to  the  Saxons. 
<o)  Ker.        C**)  'Vbbo  Emmius,  a  learned  and  judicious  Hiftorian,   gives  this  Ac- 
Frific.  1. 1,  count  of  the  Saxons  and  their  Neighbour  Nations,  who  inhabited  on  the 
Northern  Parts  of  Germany.     The  Frifii  dwelt  from  the  middle  Stream 
oi  the  Rhine,  ahoxxtTJtrecht,   to  the  Khier  Ant  afus,   (Eems^)   From 
thence  to  the  Elb  lived  the  Chauci,   divided  into  the  greater  and  lefTer 
by  the  Wefer  ;    A  great  part  of  thefe,  leaving  their  Native  Soil,  joined 
with  the  Sicambri  on  the  Rhine,  who,    from  their  afFefting  Liberty, 
were  called  Franks  ^    beyond  the  Elb  were  the  Saxons  and  the  Cimbri^ 
Thefe  Saxons,  being  prefTed  by  the  more  Northern  People,  or  for  their 
own  Conveniency,  came  Southwards,  and  took  PoiTeffion  firft  ofthofe 
Places  where  the  Chattel  dwelt  5   And  by  degrees  prevailing,  all  the  o- 
/  ,      ther  People,  who  joined  with  or  fubmitted  to  the  Saxons,  were  called 
by  their  Name  :  and  among  the  reft  the  Frijii ;  From  .whofe  Coafts  he 
fuppofes  the  two  Brothers,  Hengifi  and  Horfa,    to  have  gone  into  Bri- 
tain ;  and,  returning  thither,  carried  over  a  far  greater  Number  with 
them,  not  fo  much  to  fight,    as  to  inhabit  there.    He  thinks  it  moft 

probable, 


I 


Chap.   V. ;        the  Britijh  Churches,  193 

probable,    th^t  Hefigr/i  and  Horfa,  by  their  Defcenr,    were  originally 
Saxons  ;    But  that  the  greateft  part  of  the  People  who  went  over  with 
them  were  rathef  Frifiafis  than  Saxons.     Which  he  proves,   not  only 
from  the  greater  facility  of  Paflage  from  the  Coafts  of  Frifeland^   and 
the  Tejiimony  of  their  own  Avnals  ^    but  from  the  greater  agreement  of 
the  E»gH(h  Language  with  theirs  than  with  the  Saxon,   or  any  other 
German  DialeSf.     And  becaufe  (/?)  Bede  reckons  the  Frifians  among  thofe  (p)  i.  f 
fromvphom  the  Englifb  are  derived  ^  and  Wilfrid,  Wiikbert,  Willibrofd,'^  '°' 
preach'd  to  the  Frifians  in  their  own  Tongue^  as  he  proves  from  Marcel- 
lintfs  his  Life  of  Sitidbert :     And  Procopius  reckons  the  Frifians  among 
the  Inhabitants  <?/ Britain.  But  he  faith  farther.  That  the  Affinity  of  the 
Languages  continues  ftill  fo  very  great,   that  from  thence  he  concludes 
many  more  to  have  gone  out  of  Frifeland  into  Britain,  than  either  of 
the  Saxons,    Jutes  or  Angles. 

But  to  all  this  our  Learned  (q)  Primate  anfwers,   That  Hengift  andr.^  Pr-,. 
Horfa  might  be  true  Frifians,    there  being  a  Frifia  in  the  Southern  Parts  mord  p. 
of  Jutland,  which  Saxo  Grammaticm  calls  theleffer  Frifia,  and  is  par-  3^=9.  4001 
ted  by  the  Eidore  from  the  Countrey  of  the  Angli  on  the  Eaft,    and  of 
the5'4Ar£/»/ on  the  South.     But  whatever  Sufridus  Petrus,  or  fuch  Au- 
thors contend  for,    as  to  Hengijl  and  Horfa  being  originally  Frifians, 
Z)bbo  Emmius  quits  that  Point  upon  (r)  Bede's  Genealogy,   and  grants  (r)i.u 
they  were  Saxons  ^   being  the  Sons  of  Vi^gilfus,  whofe  Father  was  Fit-  '^-  'J- 
ta,  the  Son  of  Fe^a,  whofe  Father  wasVoden,  of  whofe  Race  the  Kings 
of  Many  Provinces  are  defended.    It  doth  not  feem  at  all  probable.  That 
thefe  Jived  in  the  leffer  Frifia,  which  is  hardly  taken  notice  of  by  any 
but  by  (/)  Sax^  Grammaticus :,  and  (*)  Pontanus  tells  us,  is  not  above  U)  ^-^4' 
four  German  Miles  in  length  upon  the  Sea-fjore  i    But  fuppofe  that  Saxoj^Jf^f^'j^^, 
comprehended  Dithmars  under  it,  yet  we  have  no  certainty  that  them*. 
Colony  of  Frifians  was  removed  thither  before  Hengifi  and  Horfa  came 
for  Britain  ;  and  Helmoldus  feems  to  imply  that  it  was  brought  thither 
by  Adulphus  IL  Count  of  Holflein,   about  Anno  Dom.  11 37.     But  the 
Queftion  is  not  concerning  Hengifi  and  Horfa,  but  the  greater  Number 
of  the  People,    which  might  be  ftill  of  the  greater  Frifia  ;  For  which 
the  affinity  of  the  Language  is  a  confiderable  Argument,  which  doth 
not  depend  merely  upon  the  Credit  of  MarceUinus  his  Life  of  Suidbert, 
but  upon  the  probability  of  the  thing.     For  fince  feveral  Englifh  went 
thither  to  Preach,  and  the  Affinity  of  the  Language  continues  fo  great 
ftill,  it  is  a  good  Argument  to  prove,  either  that  the  Frifians  cameover 
hither,   or  that  the  Frifian  and  Saxon  Languages  were  then  the  fame. 
And  («)  Procopius  hisTeftiraony  is  not  to  be  flighted,  who  places  theC")De*rf/rf 
Frifians  in  Britain  ^     for  although  he  calls  it  Brett/a,    it  is  certain  ^"'^^^ '•  *■ 
he  means  Great-Britain,    becaufe  he  places  the  Angles  together  with  '     '• 
the  Frifians  in  it  ^    So  that  he  might  as  well  queftion  the  Angles  as 
the  Frifians  coming  hither  j    if  Procopius  his  Authority  fignifie  any 
thing. 

I  know  that  our  moft  Learned  {tp)  Primate  takes  thhBrettia  for  the(„,)p^^ 
Ifland  of  the  Batavi,  becaufe  Joh.  Leidenfis  faith.  That  upon  the  Saxons  "">r<i- 
Invafion,  feme  of  the  Britainsy?ef/  into  Holland,  and  there,  in  the  Mouth^'  '^'^'' 
of  the  Rhine,    built  that  famous  Cafile  called  Britton,    and  fubdued  the 
People  thereabout.    But  this  feems  to  be  very  improbable,   for  any  one 
that  looks  into  the  Defcription  of  it,    in  (*)  Scriverius  his  Antiquitates  ^x)  Aittii^ 
Batavicae,  will  conclude  it  to  have  been  a  Roman  Work  ^   which  a  Per-  ^"^-P- 
fon  of  his  Judgment  could  not  but  difcern  ,   But  he  faith,  //  vaas  pof-  ^7t.&e* 

B  b  feffed 


I  ^^  The  Antiquities  of  C  *h  A  p.  V. 

— ' — „— — : — ■ • — ' — ■ ' ■ — T- 

fejffed  then  by  the  Britains :    Which  depends  wholly  on  the  Creditof  this 
Joh.  Gerhrandus  of  Leyden,  who  was  a  late  Writer,    and  of  no  great  E- 
fteem  with  him,  as  appears  by  many  Paffages  in  his  Book  ;     But  how 
came  the  /ingles  to  live  here  with  the  Frijians  and  Britains  .<?    For  that 
the  fame  Gerbrandus  is  cited,  who  faith.  That  rvhenpart  <7/HengiftV  Ar- 
my was  driven  out  «7/Britain,  they  built  the'CaJile  of  Ley  den.     And  fo  we 
have  the  Britains  dwelling  there,  being  driven  out  by  the  Saxon 1 5  and 
the  Saxons  driven  out  by  the  Britains  5    only  to  make  this  to  be  the 
Wand  Breftia,   in  Procopius,  diftinft  from  Great-Britain.     But  to  pro- 
ceed. 
(y)  f/iii.        0)  AdantHs  Bremenfis,  who  lived  near  to  'Jutland,    faith.   That  thz 
£«/«/!/.!.  Saxons,    who  went  over  into  Britain,    lived  near  the  Khme.     (z)  Engel- 
(zf'chrn.  ^«/«-f,  lately  publi(hed  out  of  MSS. by  Maderus,  and  who  lived  in  the 
p.  III.     lower  Saxony,  faith.    That  Hengift  and  Horfa  went  out  of  Weftphalia, 
fi-ont  a  Place  called  Enghere,  and  inflead  oj  Engerfchen,  called  themfelves 
(a)DeOrig.  Engclfchen.     (a)  Sufridus  Petrus  faith,  Thofe  People  were  called  Angri- 
*)■//:/.  2,  varii,  and  the  Country  kngxh,    which  was  Jubdued  by  \Id6\phvs,    Father 
''^^'       to  Hengift  and  Horfa,    and  Prince  o/Frifia  ;    But  their  Mothers  Name 
was  Suana,  Daughter  to  Veftgiftus,  a  great  Man  about  Hamburgh.     If  he 
fuppofe  Hamburgh  then  built,  he  was  extremely  miftaken  5    for  it  was 
only  a  Cafile  erefted  on  the  Elb,   in  the  time  of  Charles  the  Great,    for 
preventing  the  Incurfion  of  the  Sclavi,   as  appears  by  the  Teftimonies 
(b)  Annai.  ^f  (b)  Eginhardus,   and  (c)  Albertus  Stadenfis  :    After  which  he  built 
AH.  81©,  a  City,  and  founded  a  Church  there,  as  Adamus  Bremenfis  and  Helmol- 
le)'stad.  '^"^  ^g*"^^  5   Which  City  had  its  Name  from  a  Neighbour  Wood,    cal* 
><.D.  810.  led  in  the  Saxon,  Hamme  ^   as  (^d)  Lambecius  faith,    in  Ditmarje  there 
(J)Orii.    are  two  Woods  ftill  called  Suderhamme  and  Norderhamme.     But  to  rctarn 
^%.'^'   to  Supidus  J    When,    according  to  Cnftom,    faith  he,   a  Colony  of  Frifi- 
^n%was  to  be  drawn  out,    Hengift  and  Horfa  were  their  Captains.^    and  fo 
went  for  old  England,   or  Anglen  in  Jutland,   where  they  were  hindlyrt- 
ceived,  by  means  <?/Veftgiftus  ;  and  from  thence  took  the  opportunity  of  com- 
ing into  Britairr.    From  hence  he  finds  fault  with  Crantz,ius,  for  making 
Angria  in  Wejiphalia  to  be  Old  Anglen  5    and  faith.   That  Bede  only  re^ 
ckons  the  Mother's  Line,   and  not  the  Father's.     But  his  Occa  Scarlenfis^ 
on  whom  he  chiefly  relies,   is  much  fuch  another  Author  as  HunibaU 
dus,  or  Geoffrey,  or  He&or's  Veremundus  5   and  therefore  1  (hall  fay  no 
more  of  him.    For,   I  perceive,  fcarce  any  of  the  Northern  Nations 
wanted  fuch  Authors,  who  endeavour'd  to  fupply  the  defeft  of  their 
Hz/?<7m/ by  their  own  Inventions.    So  that  it  is  neceflary  to  lay  open 
the  pretended  Antiquities  in  order  to  the  fetting  forth  the  true. 
(t)MmMm.     The  late  Biftiop  of  (0  Munfier,  a  Perfon  of  far  greater  Judgment  and 
Pader.     Learning  than  Suffridus  Petrus,  calls  his  Originals  of  the  Saxons,  by  no 
*»«)■«;. 88.  i^gj^gj.  ^  -pjjig  j.j^gj^  oiCanor£  Nug£,   Sounding  Trifles,   having  no  Foun- 
dation in  good  Authority.    The  Account  he  gives  of  the  Saxons  is  this, 
p.  90,  &c.  That  they  at  firft  lived  beyond  the  Elb,  where  they  had  the  fame  Situ- 
ation with  Tacitus  his  Angli,  whom  he  makes  the  fartheft  of  the  Strevi, 
and  therefore  might  well  be  the  fame  People  ^   That  in  Bede's  time 
they  were  come  on  this  (ide  the  Wefer,  and  were  fettled  in  Wejiphalia  t^ 
and  fo  they  made  a  threefold  Saxony  of  the  Ojiphali,    Angrivarii  and 
Weftphali,   who  were  called  Olt-faxons  by  Bede  and  others :   Not  that 
thefe  were  all  originally  Saxons  5   But  they  bore  the  fame  Name,  being 
united  in  one  common  League;  So  that,  as  all  the  Ger/«(i»/.  which  went 
info  Gaul  were  called  Franks,  fo  thofe  who  prevailed  in  Germany  and 
went  into  Britain,  were  called  Saxons.  BuC 


.  iiVi'ii  I 


Chap.  V.  the  Bntijh  Cbiircbes.  1^5 

•  fiut   (/;  OUus  Rudbeck,  after  all,  hath  found  the  Seat  of  the  Sax:-\f)f''^^\ 
»«/ more  North  than  ^«f/<7W,  where,  faith  he,  Tke  Name  of  the  Saxons  ^!'iX 
could  neve^  yet  he  jbund-^  and  vehere  arenoMonntains  to  be  ff/et  with  upoa 
mhich  Ptolemy  places  them  on  the  back  of  the  Cimbrick  Cherfonefe,  but 
in  that  part  of  Sweden  which  lies  between  Vermelandia  and  Angermannii 
h  hath  found  Norfaxen,  and  Soderfaxen,  and  Saxehundari,  and  Saxe- 
wall,  and  Saxen,  &•€.     And  in  Smalarid  he  hath  difcovered  ntaky  Places'- ^i' 9' 
taken  from  the  Angles,  4s  Anglefted  Hundred^  Angloridia,  Anglodorpia, 
Engelbeck,  ^c. 

But  for  our  bettef  underftanding  the  Condition  of  that  People  whd 
were  called  in  by  the  Britains,  it  will  be  moft  material  to  confider  what 
is  faid  of  them  by  thofe  who  defcended  from  them,  and  lived  here  not 
long  after  their  coming. 

(g)  Bede,  who  was  himfelf  a  Saxon,  and  lived  nearefl:  the  time  of  ^'^)  ^- *• '* 
the  Saxons  coming  hither,  muft  be  prefumed  to  have  underftood  beft  ^' 
who  they  were,  and  whence  they  came.    And  although  at  the  begin- 
ning he  makes  the  Angles  and  Saxons  all  one,  faying,  the  Angles  or 
Saxonsy  being  invited  by  King  Vortigern,  came  hither  in  three  Keels  or 
long  Boats  at  firji :,  yet  when  he  adds,  that  Numbers  came  afterwards,  he 
then  diftinguidieth  them  into  three  diflinU  forts  of  People^  viz,  the  Sax- 
vns.  Angles  and  Jutes.     The  Saxons,  he  faith,   came  from,  that  Place 
which  was  then  called  Saxony ;  The  Angles,  from  the  Country  called  An- 
gulus,   which    remained  defart   to  thk  day,  and   lay  between  the  Pro- 
vinces  of  the  Jutes  and  Saxons.     And  much  to  the  fame  purpofe  (*)  Eti^ci* 
(A)  Fabitfs   Ethelwerd'^   only  he   faith,  that  they  came  de  Saxon ia,"^' ^' '' 
Anglia  atque  Giota.     Saxony,   he  faith,   was  then   called   Ealdfexe  j 
and  for  Anglia,   he  faith,  it  lay  between  the  Saxons  and  the  Gioti, 
whofe  chief  Town  in  the  Saxon  Tongue  was  called  Slefwic,  and  by 
the  Danes,  Haithahy.     But,  by  this  Account,  all  thefe  People  who 
came  hither  to  affift  the  Britains,  and  after  conquer'd  them,  and  poflef- 
fed  their  Land,  muft  come  out  of  that  Cherfonefe  called  Jutland,  taking  it  in 
the  largeft  extent,  not  only  to  the  Eidore,  but  from  the  Eidore  to  the  Elb. 
For  if  the  Angli  came  from  about  Slefwic,  and  lay  between  the  Jutes  and 
the  Old  Saxons-.,  then  the  Jutes  pofielTed  all  that  part  of  the  Cher- 
fonefe  which  is  now  called  the  Northern  Jutland:  and  the  Southern  Jut- 
land takes  within  it  all  that  was  poflefled  by  the  Angli,  which  reached 
no  farther  than  between  Slefwic  and  Flensburgh,  which  in  the  modern 
Maps  is  ftill  called  Angelen-^  And  fo  the  Country  lying  between  thefiJ^ 
and  the£/^<7re,  comprehending  Hi?/?e/»,  Dithmars  ax\d  Stomar,  muft  be 
the  Seat  of  the  Old  Saxons  ^  which,  by  (0  Adamus  Bremenfis  add  (Ji)  ^^'^'  *' 
Nelmolduf,    is  called  Nortalbingia  ^   and,  by  (/)  Egitihartuf,  Saxon ja  W  l.  i. 
Tranfalb'tanai,  by  (jn)  AlhertusStadenfis,  Tranfalb'ia-^  vihexe^eSaxons^'J'.  „ 
remained  in  fo  great  Numbers  that  Charles  the  Great  could  not  totally -j^i.' 
fubdue  them,  till  afier  a  War  of  above  thirty  years,  as  the  foremention'd  ('")  S*""^' 
Authors  afTure  us.     And  (»)  Eginhartus,  whofe  Authority  is  unque- f„')^j/;*; 
ftionable,  faith,  TA^/ Charles  had  no  War  more  tediofff  or  more  fierce  C"°^^' 
than  that  which  he  had  with  theSaxons^  And  in  the  condufion  of  it,  he 
was  forced  to  remove  J  cooo  Saxons  on  both  fides  the  River  Elb,  and  to 
difperfe  them  in  fever al  Parts  of  the  Empire.     And  as  to  that  part  of 
Jutland  which  Bede  faith  was  left  defolate  to  his  time  upon  the  remove  of 
hhe  Angli  ^  (<?)  Adamus  Bremen fs  gives  another  Reafon  for  it,  faying,  ^)°^^''* 
That  Jutland  was  the  mofi  uncultivated  par t  of  all  Germany,  and  the  leaji 
fit  for  humane  habitation,  being  fo  barren  and  unfruitful,  and  fo  obnoxious 

Bb  a  t0 


19^  'ih'^  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V, 

to  Pirates  from  both  Seas.  But  fince  the  Saxons,  Angles  and  ']utes,  com- 
ing into  Britain,  took  Poffeffion  of  fo  great  a  part  of  if,  as  our  Hi(io~ 
rians  tell  us,  viz.  The  Jutes,  Kent,  the  Ifle  ^/Wight  and  part  <9/Hamp(hire  5 
The  Saxons,  Sullex,  EfTex,  Middlefex,  the  Sottth  part  of  Hartford(hire, 
Surrey,  the  other  part  of  Hampfhire,  BerkQiire,  Wiltftiire,  DorfetQiire, 
Somerfetftiire,  Devonfhire /?»r:/;)4r^<7/ Cornwall ;  /"Ae  Angles,  Norfolk, 
Suffolk,  Cambridge,  the  Midland  and  Northern  Counties  :,  It  deferves  to 
be  confidered  whether,  fince  there  were  fofew  Inhabitants  then  in  Jut- 
land and  fo  many  Saxons  left  behind,  there  be  not  far  greater  pro- 
bability that  thefe  (hould  come  from  all  the  Maritime  Coafls  from  the 
Rhine  to  Jutland,  than  merely  out  of  fuch  an  unpeopled  Country  as  that 
was,  I  do  not  deny  the  diftinftion  of  People  that  Bede  mentions,  nor 
their  coming  originally  out  oi  Jutland,  or  rather  through  Jutland:  But, 
I  think,  all  Circumftances  confidered,  it  is  mote  probable  that  the 
Saxons,  before  that  time,  were  come  nearer  to  the  Rhine,  and  fo  had 
greater  Conveniency  of  removing  themfelves  over  in  fuch  great  Num- 
bers into  Britain,  as  they  did  upon  Vortigem's  Invitation,  and  the 
Difcontents-  which  foon  happen'd  between  the  Saxons  and  the  Bri- 
fains. 

And  it  is  obfervable.  That  thofe  who  inlarge  the  Bounds  of  the 
(/>)  t)e  0- Saxons  do  take  notice  of  a  difference  in  their  Situation  agreeable  to 
rig.  Sax.  what  Bede  faith ;  For  (p)  Reiner  us  Reineccius,  a  Learned  German  Anti- 
quary, faith.  The  Saxons  roere  divided  into  three  forts,  the  Ofivali,  or 
the  Eafiern  Saxons,  whom  the  Old  Saxon  Roet  calls  Ofierlingi,  ivhofe  Li- 
mits  extended,  he  faith,  as  far  as  the  Slavi,  i.  e.  beyond  the  River  Elb  : 
the  Wefivali,  whofe  Bounds,  he  faith,  came  very  near  the  Rhine ^  And 
between  thefe,  he  faith,  were  the  Angarii^  juft  as  Bede  puts  his  Angli, 
between  the  Jutes  and  the  Saxons. 

Inter  pradi&os  media  Regione  morantur 
Angarii,  Populus  Saxonum  tertius 

If  this  Divifio^  of  ihc  Saxons  be  allow'd,  we  have  here  fcope  enough 
for  all  thofe  People  to  live  in  who  came  over  into  Britain,  and  num- 
ber enough  to  come  hither,  and  yet  not  to  leave  the  Places  defolate 
whence  they  came.  -  And  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  Northern  Nati- 
ons thrufting  one  another  forwards,  for  a  greater  Conveniency  of  liv- 
ing, thofe  .S^zx^jwj  who  lived  about  Hojlein  might  come  into  Weflpkalia, 
and  fo  be  near  eft  to  the  Rhirte -^  The  Angli  came  into  the  Place  where 
•  the  Angrivarii  are  feated  ^  And  the  moft  remote  Inhabitants  of  the 
Cherfoiiefe,  "would  then  be  the  Oficr lings  or  the  Eafiern  Saxons.  This, 
upon  the  whole  matter,  feems  to  me  the  moft  probable  way  of  reconciling 
what  Bede  faith  with  the  Circumjlances  of  thofe  times,  and  with  the 
Frifians  coming  in  together  with  the  Saxons,  which  he  elfewhere  ex- 
prefly  affirms,  as  is  already  (hew'd. 

As  to  the  time  of  the  Saxons  coming  into  Britain,  in  the  common 
printed  Copies  of  Bede,  it  is  faid  to  have  been  An.  Dom.  409.  and  (o 
it  is  in  the  late  Edition  by  Ch'.ffletius,  out  of  the  old  MS.  of  S.  Maxi- 
tnin  at  Triers  t,  But  that  cannot  be  true,  becaufe  Martianus  is  faid  to 
beEmperor  at  the  fame  time.  Butin  the  Chronology,  at  the  end  of  that 
Edition,  it  is  faid  to  have  been  An.  Dom.  449.  to  which  Mr.Wheelock's 
AI^. agrees:,  and  AJferius  Menevenfs  \n  hi$  Annals-.,  which  is  followed 
by  Fabius  Ethehverd,  the  Old  Saxoa  An/zals,  William  of  Malmesbury, 

Henry 


Chap.  V.  the  Britijh  Churches.  1^7 

■       ■ ■  ■  .    ■      -  ■  ■  ■     .1  -    ..    ■  ■      -       .  .  .  ,  ■    ■■  .  ..a.- 

Henry  Huntingdon,  Matth.  Wefivtinjier,  and  others.     Florentjns  Wigor- 
nitnps,  who  Ejenerally  follows  MariaMur  Srotus,  places  it  in  the  follow- 
ing year  ^  Vulefrtinianns  zr\<\  Avienns  Confuls -^  but,  according  to /I/<?r/4- 
nus  ScatHs,  in  the  Ba/tl  Edition,  they  were  Confuls  the  year  before  Mar- 
tianns  was  Emperor,  and  he  makes  their  coming  in  to  have  been  when 
Herculamis  and  ^fporatius  were  Coafuls,  An.  Dom.  455.     But  Archbi-  (?)  Pri- 
(hop  {q)  VflKr  faith.  That  appears  by  the  Fafti  to  have  been  An.  Dom.  ^^^'^J*  ^' 
452.  or  the  fecond  of  iVf<?r/;<?««/,  hy  Cafftodore.    Tv^oChara^ers  oiih^ 
time  are  certain ;  vly^.  that  it  was  after  the  third  Confal/kip  of  Aetius, 
and  the  Death  of  Theodofms  \,    And  therefore  it   is  to  be  wondred,  (r)Br/7. 
Mr.  (r)  Camden  (bould  fo  confidently  affirm  that  it  was  before  Ait.  Dom.  f-  ^^' 
449.    But  there  are  three  things  he  goes  upon  which  muft  be  confi- 
der'd.     Firft,  That  Vortigern'j-  Death  was  before  <S^  German'/  return-^ 
But  St.  German  died  An.  Dom.  43  5.     And  therefore  the  coming  in  of  the 
Saxons  mnji  be  fome  time  before.     As  to  Vortigern's  Death,  before  St.Ger- 
tftans  return,  he  produces  only  the  Teftimony  of  Nennius,  who,  in 
the  Affairs  of  Vortigern,  doth  Romance  fo  much,  That  even  Geojfrey 
of  Monmouth  was  aftiamed  to  follow  him.  But  as  to  the  time  of  St.  Ger- 
«f<«a*s Death,  (here  are  very  convincing  Arguments  to  ^xove  Camden i')"^'^^- 
miflaken.     (s)  Honoratris,   in   the  Life  of  Hilary,   Bifhop  of  Arles,''s^l\^^[! 
mentions  St.  German  as  prefent  when  Chelidonius  was  depofed  by  ////<?-  nenf.  K/■^ 
r)i  in  his  Vi/itation-^  which  (j)  Sirmondus  placeth  not  without  Reafon, ^\'^^"^^;^ 
An.  Dom.  444.  as  appears  by  the  EpifHe  of  Leo  and  the  Refcript  of  Va-  om.  To.u 
lentinian  upon  Chelidomus  h\s  Appeal,  which  bears  date.  An.  Dom.  445. f  79- 
But  which  is  yet  more  confiderable,  («)  Bede  faith,  that  after  hisfecond[''\,,'^' 
return  he  tveni  on  an  Embaffy  to  Ravenna,  and  was  there  kindly  received  by 
Valentinian  and  Placidia,  and  there  died ;  And,  not  long  after,  Vatentinian 
was  killed  in  the  (ixth  of  Martianus  :  And  therefore  SLGerman's  Death 
could  not  be  fo  foon  as  Mr.  Camden  fuppofeth.  Add  to  this,  th  Jt  Conjian- 
tius,  in  his  Life  of  St.  German  faith.  That  he  fate  thirty  years  after  St.  A- 
mator  in  hk  See,  who  died  An.  Dom.  418.     But  the  Sammarthani  fay. 
An.  Dom  420. 

As  to  the  Teftimony  of  Profper  Tiro,  who  faith.  That  Britain  was 
brought  under  the  Power  of  the  Saxons,  the  i8th  of  Theodofius,  it  plain- 
ly contradifts  Gildas  ^  For  this  was  before  the  third  ConfulJJjip  of  Ae ti- 
ns, which  was  five  years  after ;  and  in  matters  of  the  Britijh  Hiftory, 
Gildas  certainly  deferves  the  greater  Credit,  fuppofing  it  were  the  true 
Profper. 

His  laft  Argument  is  from  the  Calculation,  at  the  end  <?/Nennius,  on 
which  he  lays  the  greateft  Weight;  which  makes  their  coming  in  to 
be  when  Felix  and  Taurus  were  Confuls,  which  agrees  with  An.  Dom. 
438.  But  this  was  near  twenty  years  before  the  third  Confuljlnp  of  Ae- 
tins,  when  the  Britains  were  not  yet  in  defpair  of  Affiftance  from  the 
Romans:,  Before  which  they  never  fought  for  the  Saxons.  And  Icon- 
fefs  the  Authority  of  Gildas  and  Bede,  with  the  Seriel  of  the  Britijh 
and  Roman  Affairs  at  that  time  fway  much  more  with  me  than  fuch  an 
Anonymous  Calculation.  iw^Rtt4 

It  is  a  ftrange  miflake  of  (w)  Hadrianus  Valejius,  to  make  Vortigern,  Frir^c.  i. 
King  of  the  Angles,  who  were  hired  to  ajfiji  the  Britains  5  But  the  Ambi-  fl'l^ft,' 
guity  of  the  words  in  (x)  Pattlus  Diaconus  feem  to  have  been  the  occa-  /.  14. 
fion  of  it;  which  had  been  eafily  prevented  byWooking  into  Bede :  And 
fo  had  another  miftake  in  the  fame  place,  viz.     That  only  the  Angles, 
4ind  not  the  Saxons,  were  invited  over :   For  Bede  faith  exprefly,  That 


— ^  '■    "     -^      -  -r 


1^8  Ihe  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  V. 

^^e  Britains,  vpith  their  King  Vortigern,  agreed  to  fend  far  the  Saxons  5 
But  it  is  a  third  miftake,  when  he  faith.  That  the  Saxons  before  this  time 
had  a  part  of  the  IJland  near  to  the  Pifts ;  Which  he  proves  from  the 
Words  of  £onJi.antit(t  as  to  their  joining  with  the  PiBs  in  one  of  their 
Battels.  But  the  Saxons  did  frequently  make  Incurfions  before,  and  in 
Che  of  them  might  join  with  the  other  Enemies  of  the  Britains,  which 
is  a  very  different  thing  from  Inhabiting  in  any  Part  of  the  Ifland,  which 
we  have  no  Evidence  that  they  did,  till  they  were  called  in  by  the 
Britains. 

The  Saxons  having  received  fuch  an  Invitation  from  the  Britains 

were  unwilling  to  let  flip  fo  fair  an  Opportunity  of  coming  into  that 

Land,  by  the  confent  of  Prince  and  People  whofe  Shores  they  had  fo 

1^14.^     longinfefted.     (^)  jBf<5^e  faith.  There  rvas  a  particular  Providence  of  God 

(?:)Giid.  in  it,  to  make  them  the  Sconrges  of  the  Peoples  mikednefs.     (z.)  Gildas 

f^ti   n  ^'"P'^'^^s  it  to  mere  Sottifhnefs  and  Ihfatuation.     {a)  Nennius  intimates 

ftzs/"  '  foiDQ  Domejiick  Fear  that  was  the  Occa/ion  of  Vortigcrn's  fending  for  the- 

Saxons,  as  well  as  that  of  their  common  Enemies,  i.  e.  he  was  very  ap- 

prehenfive  of  a  fudden  Rijtng  of  the  Roman  Party  yet  left  in  the  Ijland, 

and  of  Ambrofius,    But  he  leaves  it  wholly  in  the  dark,  who  this  Am- 

(b)  Gild,  hrofius  was,  and  what  Caufe  Vortigern  had  to  be  afraid  of  him.  {b) 
S>  25-       Gildas  fpeaks  oi  Ambrofius  Aurelianus,  as  of  a  modeji  Man,  and  as  al- 

moji  the  only  perfon  of  the  Roman  Nation  then  furviving,  whofe  Parents 
were  killed  enjoying  the  Purple,  and  whofe  Pojlerity  was  living  in  Gildas 
his  time,  but  much  degenerated  from  the  Vertues  of  their  Ancejiors.  This 
is  the  only  Paflage  which  gives  us  any  light  into  this  matter  which  is 

(c)  L.  I.  repeated  by  CO  Bede,  who  more  plainly  faith.  That  his  Parents  had 
*•  *^'  Royal-  Authority,  and  were  killed.  Who  thefe  Parents  of  his  were  we 
(rf)Gaifr.  are  left  only  to  conjecture.  The  (d)  Britijh  Hijiory  would  clear  the 
I.2.C.6.  juattgr,  if  it  deferved  Credit,  for  there  we  read,  716<?*  Aurelius  Ambro- 

fius  was  one  of  the  younger  Sons  o/Conftantine,  King  c/ Britain,  who 
was  forced  to  fly  from  Vortigern  after  the  Murther  of  their  Brother  Con- 
ftans  by  his  Contrivance.  But  we  know  that  Conjlantitie  and  his  Sons, 
Conjians  and  Julian,  were  killed  abroad  5  and  it  is  not  probable  the  Ro* 
mans  would  have  permitted  any  one  of  his  Sons  to  have  remained  here  5 
or,  if  they  did,  this  ^«?^r<7/!«  muft  have  been  of  Ripe  years  for  Govern- 
ment long  before  this  time.  For  Conflantine%  Life  was  taken  away  whea 
Theodofius  was  W.Conful,  asldatius  and  MarceUinus  agree.  An.  Horn.  41 1. 
So  that  Ambroftus  could  not  be  very  young  when  Vortigern  took  the  Go- 
vernment, in  whofe  fourth  year,  they  fay,  Ti6e Saxons  were  called  in.  But 
there  is  another  Paffige  in  Gildas  which  helps  to  explain  this :  For  he  faith. 
That  after  they  found  themfelves  deferted  by  the  Romans,  theyfet  up  Kings 
of  their  own,  andfoon  after  put  them  down  again,  and  made  choice  ofworfe 
in  their  Room^  This  fetting  up  of  Kings  he  exprefles  by  their  being  a- 
vointed-^  whether  that  Cuftom  were  then  ufedor  not,  it  is  plain,  that 
he  fuppofes  that  the  Britains,  in  that  Confufion  they  were  in,  took 
upon  them,  without  regard  to  their  Duty,  to  place  and  difplace  them. 
But  that  he  takes  anointing  in  a  metaphorical  Senfe  appears  by  what  fol- 
lows. That  the  Anointers  were  thofe  who  dejiroyd  them.  Among  thefe  in 
all  probability  was  the  Father  of  Ambroftus,  and  the  rather  becaufe,  it 
is  (aid,  he  was  of  Roman  Defcent :  For  the  Britains  thought  none  then 
able  to  defend  them  tha^had  not  a  Roman  Spirit  in  him.  At  this  time 
(e)  L  I  ^^^  Britains  were  left  to  their  full  Liberty  by  the  Roman  Empire, 
t.  a.      which,  2i$(e)Bede  reckons,  had  the  Dominion  here  for  ^jojears-^  And 

then 


I 


— ^     -  J 

Chap.  V*         the  hntijh Churches,  199 

then  there  was  no  Line  remaining  to  facceed  iil  the  Government,  nor  fo 
much  as  to  determine  their  Choice,  which  made  themfoeafily  to  make 
and  unmake  their  Kings,  who  loft  their  Purple  and  their  Lives  together. 
This  muft  needs  breed  infinite  Confufions  among  them  ^  and  every  one 
who  came  to  be  King  lived  in  perpetual  fear  of  beiog  ferved  as  others 
had  beeti  before  him;^  And  the  natural  Confequence  of  this  Jealoufie 
of  their  own.  Subjeds  was,  looking  out  for  Alliftance  from  abroad, 
which  I  doubt  not  was  one  great  Reafonof  Fortigertis  fending  for  the 
Saxons^  hoping  to  fecure  himfelf  by  their  means  againft  his  own  Peo- 
ple :  although  it  proved  at  laft  the  Ruin  both  of  himfelf  and  his  Peo- 
ple. But  this  Jealoufie  could  not  but  increafe  upon  them,  while  there 
was  aPerfondefcended  from  a  forrtier  King,  and  of  Roman  Parentage  in 
"being  ^  So  thatNe»»/<^feems  to  have  hit  upon  one  of  the  main  Reafons 
which  fway'd  Vortigern  to  fend  for  the  Saxons. 

(  f)  Some  have  gone  about  to  defend  Vortigern  fo  far  as  to  fay.  That  (/jHifl.  of 
J>e  took  the  moji  prudent  Courfe  he  could ^  for  the  benefit  and  fecur'ity  ofhis^}''f' 
Subje^Sy  by  placing  the  Saxons  upon  the  Pifts  Wall,   and  upon  the  Kentilli  '"  ''"'^  ' 
Shores,  vohichtvere  thought  fit  to  be  fecured  by  the  Romans.     But,  ^  againft 
whom  ?   Was  it  not  againft  thefe  very  Saxons  ?    And  is  it  the  beft  way 
to  fecure  the  Flock,  to  fet  the  Wolves  to  watch  them  ?    If  they  had  the 
Command  ofthofe  Shores,  could  not  they  let  in  what  Numbers  they  plea- 
fed  of  their  own  People,  toftrengthen  themfelves  againft  the  Britains.^ 
And,  was  this  for  the  Peoples  Security  ^    What  Succefs  had  there  beerl 
in  that  Age,  in  letting  in  the  Barbarous  Nations  upon  the  feveral  Parts  of 
the  Roman  Empire  .<?    And  what  could  be  expefted  in  fuch  a  Condition 
as  the  Britains  were  in,  otherwife  than  what  did  happen  when  a  fierce, 
ungovernable,    military  People  were  called  in  to  defend  a  Nation  fo 
long  kept  under,  and  wholly  almoft  unacquainted  with  the  exercife  of 
Bruti/J}  Valour,  and  unexperienced  in  the  Arts  of  War  ?  Efpecially  when 
the  Air,  Situation,  Fruitfulnefs  and  all  forts  of  Conveniencies  were  fo 
touch  above  thofe  of  the  Countrey  which  they  came  from  >    So  that 
Gildas  feeras  to  have  a  great  deal  of  Reafon,   when  he  attributes  this 
hSt  of  Vortigern  s,  with  a  refpeft  to  the  Nation,  to  mere  Sottijhnefs  and 
Infatuation, 

(£)  Witikindus  tells  a  formal  Story  of  a  Speech  made  by  xhtBritifh^CP^^'^- 
Amhajfadors  to  the  Saxons,   wherein  they  magnify  the  Saxons  Courage,  '^'*  ''"  *' 
and  lament  their  own  Miferies ;  andinftiort  tell  them.   If  they  would 
come  and  help  them,  their  Land  and  themfelves  vpould  be  at  their  fervice  5 
/or  they  knevp  none  more  worthy  to  Command  them,  fince  the  Romans  had 
left  them.    But  neither  Bede  nor  Ethelwerd,    although  both  Saxons, 
mention  the  leaft  Promife  of  Submijpon  5   And  it  is  apparent  by  their 
Quarrel  with  the  Britains  afterwards,  that  they  came  as  Mercenary  Sol- 
diers, upon  promife  of  Pay.     For  (Jj)  Gildas  faith.   The  firji  Pretence  (h)  Gi\i: 
vf  Quarreling  was  for  greater  Allowance,    which  he  calls  their  Epimenia,  §•  ^3- 
&T\iBede,  Annons  :    Which  (hews  upon  what  Terms  they  came.     And 
Witikindiu  himfelf  makes  no  other  Pretence  for  their  Rifing  againft  the 
Britains,  but  that  the  Countrey  pleafed  them,  and  they  found  they  were  «- 
hie  to  fubdue  the  Inhabitants.     For  after  Heugiji  and  his  Company  had 
tafted  the  Sweetnefs  of  it,    they  never  left  Wheedling  that  weak  and 
vicious  King  (asall  defcribe  him)  with  fair  Promifes,  andneceffityof 
more  Succours  to  fecure  himfelf  and  to  defend  his  Countrey,    till  they 
had  by  degrees  got  over  Strength  enough  to  bid  defiance  to  the  Britains^ 
Atfirft  they  fcem'd  very  zealous  and  hearty  againft  their  common  Ene- 
mies,- 


200  7k  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V. 

mies,  and  did  great  Service  in  beating  the  P't3s  and  Scots -^   infomuch 

{•)hifl.    that  (?)  iB«r^tf»<?/?  confefles,  they  were  driven  beyond  kdrhn's  Wall -^  And 

^(kl'sctti-  fonie  think  their  King  E«_^e»/«/ was  then  killed,   (k)  Foi-don  idXth,  They 

chron.  1. 3.  vpent  into  Albany,   and  brought  away  great  Booty  from  thmch  5    and  con- 

'<  13.  H-felTes,  that  he  found  in  a  certain  Hi (iory^  that  he  veas  killed  South  of  Hum' 

ber,  by  the  Britains  and  f^eEngliffi.     And  it  is  eafieto  imagine  howin- 

folent  fuch  a  Barbarous  People  would  grow  upon  their  Succefs,   wheii' 

(!)L.i.    they  knew  the  5r/7<?i»/ durft  not  oppofe  them.     (/)  jBe<^e  faith.   That 

'•  ^J*       they  entredinto  afecret  League  with  the  ?i6ts  and  the  Scots  after  they  had 

beaten  them,    and  then  took  occafton  to  quarrel  with  the  Britains  5   Only 

they  fiill  endeavour  d  to  keep  Vortigem  firm  to  them.     To  this  purpofe 

(/n)Nenn.  (««)  Nenniuf  tells  the  Story  of  Hengips  fair  Daughter  Rovena,    and 

'•  37.      how  Vortigem  was  infnared  by  her,   to  the  great  diffatisfaftion  of  the 

Britains.     He&or  Boethius  (akh.  That  Vod'mus,   Bi/hop  of  London,   was 

killed  by  Hengift,  for  reproving  Vortigem  for  that  Marriage  5    But  we 

muft  not  be  too  ftrift  upon  Heilor  to  put  him  to  produce  his  Vouchers, 

(n)  L.  3.   And  the  (»)  Britifh  Hiftory  adds,    that  Bengiji,  being  a  fubtile  Matt, 

''  '•        infinuated  ftill  into  Vortigem,  That  his  own  People  did  not  love  him,  and 

that  they  would  depofe  him,  and  fet  up  Aurelius  Ambrofius :  And  by  fuch 

Arts  they  widen'd  the  Diftance  between  him  and  his  People,  when  they 

defigned  nothing  lefs  than  the  deftru£tion  of  both. 

It  is  certain,   by  what  Gildas  and  Bede  have  left,    that  thefe  Heats 
foon  brake  out  into  open  Flames,  to  the  Ruine  and  Defolation  of  the 
Countrey :    But  how  the  War  began,   and  by  what  means  it  was  firft 
(9)Ncnn.  managed  on  the  Brz///&/<^e  is  not  fo  clear.     But  (0)  Ne«»f»x  faith.  That 
f-39-       when  Vortigem'/  Wickednefs  grew  fo  great  as  to  Marry  his  own  Daughter, 
he  was  condemned  in  folemn  Council  of  the  BritiQl  Nation  both  Clergy  and 
Laity,    and  upon  the  Advice  of  his  Nobles,    he  withdrew  himfelf  from  Af- 
(8)  i.  3.  fairs  to  a  private  Cajole.     But  the  (p)  Britijh  Hijiory  makes  it  worfe, 
-•2.        viz.    That  the  Britains  forfook  him,  and  fet  up  his  Son  Vortimer,    who  be- 
haved himfelf  with  great  Courage  and  Refolution  againfi  the  Saxons  :     And 
then  reckons  up  four  Battels,    which  he  fought  with  them  ^   Thefirji  upon 
the  Derwent,  thefecond  at  Episford,  or  rather  Alesford,    the  third  upon 
the  Sea-(horc,  when  he  drove  them  into  their  Ships,    and  fo  home  ;    but  the 
fourth  is  not  mention'd  5    After  which  Geoffrey  relates  Vortimers  being 
poifond  by  his  Mother-in-law,   and  the  rejioring  of  Vorti^Qm,  and  his  cat' 
(a)Ncnn.  ^'"gfif"  t^^  Saxons  back  again,  {q)  Nennius  fpeaks  of  Vortimers  fighting 
£.45.       with  Hengiji  and  Horfus,  and  adds,  his  Succefs  to  have  beenfo  great,  as  to 
have  driven  them  into  the  Ifle  (?/Thanet,    and  that  there  he  befieged,  and 
beat,  and  terrified  them  to  that  degree.    That  they  fent  into  Germany  for 
fi-ejh  Succours  ^    by  which  they  were  enabled  to  manage  the  War  with  various 
fucce/s  againfi  the  Britains.     And  then  reckons  up  the  three  Battels,  juft 
as  Geoffrey  doth  5    Only  the  Jaft,   he  faith,    was  upon  the  Sea-fhore, 
juxta  lapidem  tituli  ^    a  little  after  which,  he  faith,  that  Vortimer  died, 
without  any  mention  oFPoyfon^    But,  he  faith,  before  his  Death  he 
gave  command  to  have  his  Body  buried  on  the  Sea  fhore,    where  the  Saxons 
fled  ;  which  was  negleded,  and  to  which  Nennius  imputes  their  Return, 
after  which  they  could  never  be  driven  out.     Becaufe,   as  he  faith.    It  was 
the  Divine  Pleafure  more  than  their  own  Valour  which  made  them  fettle 
here.    And  it  is  he  that  Orders  and  Rules  the  Nations  of  the  Earth  5    And 
who  can  refifi  his  Will  .<?     It  is  plain  by  all  this,    that  Nennius  conful- 
ted  the  Honour  of  the  Briti/h  Nation  as  much  as  it  was  poflible,  and 
no  where  ufelh  that  freedom  which  Gildas  doth  in  fetting  forth  the 

great 


Chap.    V.  the  Britijh  Churches.  20 1 

great  vSV^j-  among  them  which  provoked  God  to  punifli  them  in  fd  Te- 
vere  a  manner^ 

The  Place  where  Vortimer  defired  to  be  buried  is  called  by  Nennius^ 
Lapk  Titttli  5  from  whence  (r)  Camden  and  Archbi(bop  (.r)  Vfier  con-  (0  S'''*- 
ceive  it  to  be  Stonar  in  the  IJleofThanet,  near  Richlforroro  ^  but  Nennius^'j^fri^ 
faith  only,    //  was  upon  the  ^hore  of  the  French  S'ea  ;    From  whence  "W'^- 
Mr.  (r)  Somner  rather  concludes  it  to  be  Folkftone  in  Kent,    becaufe  oP^^YKmM 
its  lofty  Situation,  whereas  Stonar  lies  in  a  low  and  flat  level,    apt  to  In-  Torts  and 
undations '^    But  then  Nennius  muft  have  miftaken  Laph  Titult,    fof^^n^MS 
Lapis  Populi  -^   and,  I  dare  fay,  Nennius  was  guilty  of  greater  Miftakes 
than  that.     But,  he  farther  obferves,    that  in  the  ancient  Records,   the 
Name  k  wo/ Stonar,  ^«?Eftonar,  which  fignifies  the  Eajiern  Bonier,  Shore 
or  Coaji. 

(u)  Matthew  of  Weflminfier  gives  this  account  of  thfefe  Proceedings :  («)  Mac. 
That  the  Britifh  Nobility,  fjrfaking  Vortigern,  fetup  Vortimer,  who  with^^^"^- 
their  AJp^anc^e,  purfned  the  Saxons  to  Derwent,  and  there  killed  many  of  ' 
them.     Which  feems  to  have  been  Darent  in  Kent  5   thence  Dartford^ 
as  (w)  Camden  obferves,    is  the  fame  with  Darenfird.     But  he  makes  ^»)Br;^. 
Vortigern    to  have  fled  away  with  the  Saxon  Army,    and  to  have  given?-  233- 
them  all  the  Ajfijianre  he  could  :    And  then,  faith  he,  Vortimer  began  to 
rejiore  the  Britains  Pojfejflons  to  them,  and  to  rebuild  their  Churches,  and 
to  fhetp  kindnefs  to  the  Churchmen.     The  next  Year,  he  faith,    "The  Sa- 
"  xons  fought  again  with  the  Britains  at  Ailesford ;    and  after  a  fharp 
*'  Fight  the  Saxons  fled,  and  great  Multitudes  of  them  were  flain  ;  Not 
*•  long  after  Vortimer,  with  his  Brothers  Catigem  and  Pafcentim,  and  the 
*'  whole  Nation  of  the  Britains  made  War  with  the  Saxons,   and  iti 
**  Battel  Catigem  v/as  killed  by  Horfus,  and  Horfus  by  Vortimer,    upon 
*'  which  the  Saxon  Army  fled.      The  next  Year,   he  faith,    Hengijl 
*'  fought  three  Battels  with  Vortimer,   and  at  laft  he  was  forced  to  go 
"  back  into  Germany,    and  four  Years  after,    Vortimer,    faith  he,  was 
"  poifon'd.   Anno  Dom.  460.    and  buried  in  London,   and  then  Vorti^ 
"  gem  recalled  the  Saxons. 

(x)  William  of  Malmesbury  faith,    "  That  the  Britains  and  Saxons  a-  ,  >  p^ 
"  greed  for  feven  Years  after  their  Landing,  and  then  Vortimer,  finding  (5f/?/\fXe^~ 
"  their  Deceit,  incenfed  his  Father  and  the  BrzVd/»j- againft  them,  aod'-"'''^' 
"  fo  for  twenty  Years  there  was  continual  War  and  light  Skirmilhes, 
"  and  four  pitched  Battels.     In  the  firft  he  makes  their  Fortune  equal, 
"  Horfa  being  killed  on  one  fide,    and  Catagk  on  the  other.     In  the 
"  reft,  the  Saxons  being  always  fuperior,    and  Vortimer  dead,  a  Peace 
"  was  made  5    And  fo  the  Britains  Affairs  went  ill,    i\\\  Ambrojitfs  re- 
"  cover'd  them, 

{y)  Henry  of  Huntingdon  relates  this  Story  after  a  different  manner :  ^^^  ^^^ 
He  tells  us,  "  That  Vortigern,  after  the  Marriage  of  M(?/?^//?'s  Daughter /.i. 
"  was  fo  hated,    that  he  withdrew  to  the  Mountains  and  Woods,    and 
*'  that  he  and  his  Caftle  were  confumed  together.     After  which  Ambro- 
"  fiiu  Aurelianus,  with  Vortigern  s  two  Sons,  Vortimer  and  Catigern,fought         , 
"  the  Saxons-^   And  he  makes  the  firft  Battel  at  A'.lefireu  or  Eljiree,  the 
"  next  after  Vortimer  s  Death  at  Creganford  or  Crayford,  in  which,  he  faith, 
"  the  Britains  were  quite  beaten  out  of  Kent,    and  from  thence  he  be.- 
"  gins  the  .S-^xu/zj  Kingdom  of  7<Ce»/;  The  next,  he  faith,wasat  ^;/?pe^/- 
*  fiede,  which  was  fo  terrible  on  both  fides.  That  from  thence  he  faith, 
"  That  the  Saxons  and  Britains  did  not  difiurb  each  other  for  a  great  while, 
••  they  remaining  within  Kent,  and  the  hrhains /quarrelling  among  themfelves. 

C   G  (z.)  flo- 


20  2  The  Antiquities  of         Chap.  V. 

(O  elm-       (^  )  Florentiu^  Wieormenfis  therein  differs  from  the  reft,  that  be  make* 
^jj"    '  the  Battel  at  JEgelftherp  to  have  been  between  Fortigem  and  He»giji  ^ 
But,  he  faith,  after  the  Battel  atCreccaf;ford,  th<:Britai»s  ^eA  to  Lon- 
don, and  left  Kent  to  the  Saxons  :     Wherein  he  follows  the  Saxon  An- 
nals i,  as  he  doth  in  the  Account  of  the  two  other  Battels  5  that  at  Wip- 
pedsfleot,  and  that  which  he  calls  the  great  ViBory  over  the  Britains  by 
Hengifl  and  /^fca  his  Son  ;  which  he  places  Anno.  Dom.  479.    when  he 
faith,  the  l&rit^'ins  fled  from  the  Saxons  <a  from  Fire. 
(a)  cbro-       M  Fabiits  Etheltverd  agrees  with  the  Saxon  Annals  and  florentins  m 
I- 1.         thefe  Particulars ;    And  fo  doth  Ajferms  in  his  MSS.  Annals,  as  to  Vot' 
tigerns  fighting  with  Hengifl.    Wherein   they  very  tnuch  differ  from 
the  Britifl}  Traditions  ^    But  after  the  Tranflation  of  the  Britifli  Htjiory 
by  Geoffrey,  the  Monkifl)  Hiflorians  generally  follow  that,  astotbeSuc- 
cefs  of  thofe  Battels,  and  as  to  the  Treachery  ufed  towards  Vortigem  by 
' Hengift,  upon  Salisbury  Plain,   near  Ambresbury^   Where  it  is  fiid  by 
Geoffrey,  that  the  Saxons  killed  4.'/  o  of  the  Britifli  Nobility,  under  a  Pre- 
(j)Nenn  fence  of  a  Treaty  of  Peace  ;  (/>)  Nenniusy^z/Abut  300  5    and  that  Vorti- 
1.49-       gern  was  then  taken,  and  was  forced  to  give  Eftfex,  Suthfex  «iW  Middle- 
fex  for  his  Redemption. 

This  Story  pafles  for  current  among  the  Monks,  and  our  late  Colle- 

iiors  of  Engliflj  Hiflory  :    And  that  which  feems  to  add  moft  weight  to' 

it  is.  That  William  of  Malmesbury  relates  it,  but  he  reports  it  much  as  be 

found  it  in  Nenniut,   only  inlarging  on  the  drinking  part,    that  went 

(c)  De     before  the  Maffacre.     But  when  1  find  the  fame  Story  in  effeft  in  (c) 

Geftis      Witikindus,  between  the  Saxons  and  the  Thuringers,  and  the  very  fame 

s^^i'^'  Word  given  NEM   ET  EOV R  SEAXES,   I  am  apt  to  think 

one  was  borrowed  from  the  other.    But  I  cannot  but  take  notice  of  the 

(dyferhe-  Difingenuity  of  (d)  Verflegan,    who  lays  this  to  the  Charge  of  the 

gm.p.J4\Thuringers,  whereas  Witikindus  not  only  faith,    the  Saxons  did  it,  but 

adds.    That  the  Saxons  ftrnck  terror  into  their  Neighbours  by  it,  and  faith. 

They  were  thought  to  have  their  Name  from  it,    as  Verfiegan  himfelf 

thinks  5    Which  were  ridiculous,     unlefs  the  Seaxes  belong'd  to  the 

Saxons. 

All  the  certainty  we  have  as  to  the  matter  of  the  Proceedings  between 

(e)  Gild,  tlifi  Britains  and  Saxons  is,   what  (c)  Gild «  relates,  which  is  very 

§.24.      Tragical,  viz.    "  That  all  the  Cities  and  Churches  were  burnt  to  the 

"  Ground,  from  the  Eaft  to  the  Weftern  Ocean  ^  The  Inhabitants  ie- 

*'  ftroyedby  the  Sword  or  buried  in  the  Ruinesof  Houfesand  Altars 

"  which  were  defiled  with  the  Blood  of  the  Slain  5    in  which  horrible 

"  Devaftation,  the  Rulers  of  the  Church  and  the  Priefts  fufFered  toge- 

"  ther  with  the  Common  People.     So  that  he  applies  to  this  Defolati- 

"  on  the  Words  of  the  Pfalmift,  They  have  cafi  Fire  into  thy  San&uary^ 

"  they  have  defiled  it  by  cajiing  down  the  dwelling  Flace  of  thy  Name  to  the 

"  Ground.     And,    0  God,    the  Heathen  are  come  into  thine  Inheritance  5 

ffBed     "  thy  holyTemple  have  they  defiled,  &c.     And    (/)  Sec/e  faith,  A  Fire 

i.  i.c.is.  "  was  kindled  by  the  hands  of  the  Heathens,    which  executed  Ven- 

"  geance  on  God's  People  for  their  Sins,  not  unlike  that  of  the  Chalde- 

"  ans,  which  burnt  Jerufalem  to  the  Ground  :   So  here,  faith  he,  the 

"  wicked  Conqueror  prevailing,  or  rather  the  ;uft  Judge  fo  difpofing, 

"  there  feem'd  to  be  one  continued  Flame  from  one  Sea  to  another  i 

"  All  publick  and  private  Buildings  demoliflied,   the  Prieft^  Blood  fpilf 

"  upon  the  Altars,  the  Prelates  and  People  deftroy'd  together  by  Fire 

"  and  Sword,  and  no  Man  durft  to  give  them  Burial.     Many  of  thofe 

"  that 


-  ■  -'■" ■  ■      '     — ^ — " ■ --     ■    ■     '  •    - 

Chap.  V.  the  Bntijh  Cbanbes.  20  j 

"  that  efcaped  at  prefent,  as  (g  Gildas  faith,  had  their  Throats  cut/'?) '^''^' 
"  and  were  thrown  on  Heaps  in  the  Mountains,  or  delivered  them-^'  ^^' 
"  felves  up  to  Slavery,  to  avoid  being  famiOied,  and  thought  it  a  Fa- 
"  vour  to  be  prefently  difpatched,  and  others  hid  themfelves  among 
**  Mountains  and  Rocks  and  Woods  to  efcape  the  Fury  of  their  Ene- 
"  mies,  where  they  lived  in  continual  Fear  ^  and  others  went  over  in- 
"  to  Foreign  Parts :  Which  was  the  Foundation  of  the  Aremorlcan  Co- 
"  lony  of  Britain  s  j   as  will  appear  afterwards. 

But  that  which  prevented  a  total  Deftruftion  of  the  Briuihs  now 
was,  that  it  feems  both  by  (h)  Gildas  and  (?)  Bede,  the  S^i^ons  having  ,h)  gm; 
burnt  fo  many  Cities  and  Torvns^  and  driven  the  Ren/aihder  of  the  Inhabi-  §•  '5. 
tants  into  inaccejjible  f  laces,  did  go  home  for  fome  time,  "  And  in  that /.  ^  f_ /g. 
"  Interval,  the  difperfed  Sr/V^/^/ gathered  together,  and  after  moft 
"  earneft  Supplications  to  God,  that  they  might  not  be  utterly  deftroy- 
"  ed,  they  made  Choice  of  ^«/^r(?/«j  Aitrelianns,  as  their  Ring  ;  and, 
*'  under  his  Conduct,  God  was  pleafed  to  give  them  Snccefs :  And, 
"  from  that  time,  faith  Gildas,  now  one  Party  prevailed,  and  thena- 
*'  nother  (^hereby  God  made  a  farther  Tryal  of  the  Britains, 
"  whether  they  would  love  him  or  not)  to  the  Battel  on  Badon  Hdl, 
**  wherein  the  Saxons  fufFer'd  fo  great  a  Lofs ;  Which  was  forty  four 
Years  after  their  firft  coming  hither,  as  appears  more  plainly  by  Bede. 
But  Gildaf  adds,  "  Even  at  this  time  their  Cities  were  far  from  being 
"  Inhabited  as  formerly  ;  And  when  their  Enemies  gave  them  refpite, 
"  they  defperately  quarrell'd  among  themfelves.  So  that  we  have  here 
a  Conjunftion  of  fo  much  Severity  and  Patience,  fuch  Fears  add  Hopes, 
and  yet  fuch  Defeating  of  thefe  Hopes,  by  their  own  Follies  and  Divi- 
lions,  as  commonly  forerun  a  Churches  Deftruftion  and  a  Peoples 
Ruine. 

This  is  the  beft  and  trueft  Account  of  the  BritiJJj  Affairs  from  the  Sa- 
xons coming  till  the  Government  of  Jmbrofius,  by  which  we  are  to 
judge  of  the  probability  of  Nennius  his  Traditions, 

As  to  the  particular  Condudt  of  the  Britijh  Affairs  under  Amhrojius, 
we  have  little  more  light  than  what  Traditions  and  Conjedures  give 
us.  However,  it  may  not  be  amifs  to  lay  together  what  we  can  find 
about  them. 

{¥)  Nennius  faith  little  more  of  him,   than  that  Vortigem  tpos  afraid  (k)  Nenfi; 
of  him  :   and  afterwards  he  confounds  him  with  Merlin,  when  he  tells '''  '^^• 
Vortigem,  after  the  Story  of  his  being  without  a  Father,    That  he  con- 
cealed his  Father  s  Name  out  of  Fear,    but  that  his  Father  rvas  one  of  the 
Roman  Confuls  5    and  fo  Vortigem  gave  him  the  Command  of  the 
Weftern  Parts  of  Britain. 

But  (/)  Geoffrey  gives  a  more  ample  account  of  him,  riot  only  that  (/)Gi!fr, 
he  was  one  of  Conjiantine's  Sons -^    But  that  he,   underftanding  the'-'-'^-^i 
Condition  of  the  Britains,   came  over  from  Aremorica,   with  his  Bro-  *'  ^' 
ther  Ijther  Pendragon,    and  confiderable  Forces,  and  after  his  Re- 
venge upon  Vortigem,  burning  him  in  his  Caftle,    he  makes  the  Sa- 
xons to  retire  beyond  Hww/'er,    through  the  Terror  of  his  Name  3 
Whither  Aurelins  purfued  them,    and  overcame  Hengiji  in  a  fet  Bat- 
tel,   who   fled  to  Caer  Conan  or  Conisburg,    where   they   fought  a- 
gain,    and   Hengiji-  was  taken  by  Eldol,    Duke   of  Gloucejler,    and 
beheaded  by  him,  according  to  the  Advice  of  Eldad,    then  Bifhop  of 
CloKceJieri 

G  c  2  (m)  Mai'         ( 


204  1  he  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V. 

a^S.d!  ^^)  Matthew  Weflmmfier  tranfcribes  thefe'Paffages  out  of  Geoffrey, 
487,  .jSp.' and  puts  therfi  to  fuch  years  as  he  fanfied  5  but  it  is  obfervable  that  he 
makes  Aureliuf  Amhrofius  to  have  fought  the  Buttel  at  ^frppedsfleet  with 
Het?gifl  and  his  Son  JEfs^  16  years  before  this^  which  according  to 
hira  was  feven  years  after  his  coming  into  Britaift :  So  that  even  Mat- 
thevp  Weflmittjier  durft  not  wholly  rely  on  Geoffrey^  Relation.  But,  as 
to  the  death  of  Hettgifi,  Florentiiu  faith,  he  died  after  he  had  reigned  in 
Kent  thirty  four  years,  and  KXcz  fucceeded  him.  An.  Dom.  488.  The 
Saxon  Annals  take  no  notice  of  Hengift's  death,  but  place  IEft%  Reign 
An.  Dont.  487. 
W  ^"""  (»)  Henry  of  Huntingdon  faith.  That  Hengifl:  died  the  fortieth  fear 
1. 2.  '  ^fter  his  coming  w/o  Britain,  the  39th  faith  William  of  Malmeshnry.  But 
neither  of  them  mentions  any  violent  Death  by  the  hands  of  his  Ene- 
mies, and  that  after  a  Viftory  by  the  Britains  under  Aurelius  Amhro- 
fim ;  which  are  fuch  Circumftances  they  could  not  eafily  have  omitted, 
if  they  had  then  heard  of  them.  But  if  they  had  heard  of  them,  and 
yet  left  them  out,  it  is  a  fhrewd  Sign,  they  gave  no  Credit  to  them. 
We  are  then  to  confider,  that  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth^  accprding  to  he- 
land,  flouriftied  in  the  time  of  Henry  I.  Of  King  Stephen  fay  Bale  and 
Pits:,  but  Leland  obferves,  That  he  dedicated  his  Tranflation  of  Merlin 
to  Alexander  Bifhop  of  Lmco\r\,  the  fame  that  jr^if  Henry  ^//Huntingdon'j 
Patron:  And  WiUiam  of  Malmesbury  dedicates  his  Hiftory  to  the  fame 
Robert  of  Gloncefier,  Son  to  Henry  I.  to  whom  Geoffrey  dedicates  his 
Tranflation  of  the  Britifh  Hiftory,  who  died  1 2  of  King  Stephen.  So 
that  in  all  probability  Geoffreys  Book  waS  feen  by  both  thefe  Hifiori- 
ahs,  and  fince  they  do  not  follow  him  where  they  have  occafion  to 
mention  the  fame  matters.  They  plainly  difcover  they  preferr'd  Nen- 
nius  before  him,  whom  both  of  them  follow ;  but  it  appears  by  H. 
Huntingdon  he  then  pafled  under  the  Name  of  Gildas. 

But  thele  two  Hiftorians  thought  it  befl:  for  them  to  decline  taking 
any  publick  notice  of  Geoffreys  Hiftory,  it  being  fo  great  a  Novelty 
theti,  and  probably  enough  in  fome  efteem  with  Robert  of  Gloucejier, 
(5)Cambr.  whofe  Father;  as  (0)  Giraldus  Cambrenfis  faith,  had  lately  fubdued  the 
L  2.  C.I.  gritains/«  Wales;  and  fuch  a  Hiftory  feemed  to  add  to  his  Father's 
Glory.  But  after  i^<)^er*'s  death,  William  oi  Newborotigh  very  frankly 
delivers  his  Opinion  of  it,  charging  the  Original  with  Faljhood,  and 
the  Trixnflator  with  Iiijincerity.  Geoffrey,  in  the  Conclufion  of  his  Hi- 
ftory, mentions  William  of  Malmesbury  and  H.  of  Huntingdon,  as  then 
Writing  the  Englifl}  Hijiory ;  But  he  bids  them  not  to  meddle  with  the 
BritipYJmgs,  fince  they  had  not  the  BritiflyMS.  which  Walter  of  Oxford 
brought  out  of  Brit  any.  But  they  do  not  forbear  to  make  ufe  of  Nen- 
nius ;  and  Huntingdon  tranfcribes  feveral  things  out  of  him  ;  But  they 
do  not  inUrge  or  alter  or  adorn  their  Hiftory  in  one  Point  from 
the  Britifl)  MS.  although  in  all  likelyhood  fet  forth  before  their 
Dekh. 

As  to  what  he  next  adds,  That  Isfter  hk  Vi^lory  over  the  Saxons,  Au- 
relius  Ambrofius  called  the  Princes  and  great  Men  together  at  York,  and 
gave  order  for  repairing  the  Churches  which  the  Saxons  deftroyed,  there  is 
far  greater  probability  in  it.  For  after  the  Battel  at  Wippedsfleet,  which 
was  feventeen  years  after  the  Saxons  coming;  H.  Hunt'-ngdon  faith. 
Things  remained  quiet  for  a  good  while  between  the  Britains  and  Saxons  ; 
and  in  that  time  it  is  reasonable  to  prefume  that  Ambrofius  and  the 
Nobles  and  People  did  their  endavour  towards  the  recovering  the  ho- 
nour 


Chap.  V.  the  hrittjb  Churches.  20 ^^ 

Hour  of  their  Churches,  as  well  as  of  the  KwgdoM.     And  after  the  care 
he  took  in  other  places,  faith  Geoffrey,  he  marched  to  London,  which 
had  fuffered  as  well  as  other  Cities ;  and  having  called  the  difperfed 
Citizens  together,  he  went  about  the  repairing  of  it;  all  his  defign  be- 
ing the  reftoring  the  Church  and  Kingdom.     From  thence  he  went  to 
Wittchefter  and  to  Salisbury.     And  in  the  palllige  thither  Geoffrey  laun- 
ches out  to  purpofe  in  his  Riflory  of  Stonehenge,  tranjlated  faith  he,  by 
Merlin  ettt  «/ Ireland,  to  make  a.  Monumtnt  for  the  Britifii  A/ij^/e/,  flain 
there  by  HengiftV  Treachery  :  Which  is  fuch  an  Extravagancy  that  it  is 
to  be  wondrcd  any  (hould  follow  him  in  if,  and  yet  M«//-.  (/>)  RTe/?- (/.) Fiores, 
mitifker  tranfcribes  the  main  of  it  ^  and  (^)  Walter  Coventry  fetsitdown  ^-^  49=' 
iox  authent'nk  Eiflory '.,  But  he  adds  two  circumftances  which  make  itcov^try 
feem  probable  that  Stomhetjge  had  fome  Relation  to  Ambrofiiis,  viz.'"  Prxfat. 
That  here  Ambrofiw  was  Crowned,  and  was  not  long  after  buried-^  from 
whom  (r)  Polydore  Virgil  makes  it  the  Monument  of  Ambrofius  5  and  vi-'^S! 
"John  of  TinmoHth  In  the  Life  of  Dubricius  calls  it  Mons  Ambrofii :  And  I.  ^ 
the  Name  of  Ambresbury  near  it  doth  much  confirm  the  probability, 
That  it  had  rather  a  refpeft  to  Ambroftus,  than  either  to  the  Romans  ov 
the  Danes.    But  I  cannot  now  infift  on  this. 

(j)  Matthew  Wejlminjier  confirms  Geoffrey's  Relation  concerning  the  (i)  Fiores 
great  Zeal  of  Antbrofifs  in  repairing  the  Britijh  Churches  every  where  ^n^--'^-^' 
and  fetting  up  Divine  Worfhip  in  them,  and  giving  great  incourage- '^^^^ 
ment  to  the  Clergy  to  perform  all  Divine  Offices,  and  particularly  to 
pray  for  the  Prosperity  of  the  Church  and  Kingdom.     But  Geoffrey 
adds  yet  farther  concerning  him,  that  in  afolemn  Council  of  the  Britains 
he  appointed  two  Metropolitans  for  the  two  Vacant  Sees  at  that  time    viz. 
Sampfon  one  of  eminent  piety  for  York,  and  Dubricius^yr  Caer-leon.  This 
faith  Matt.  Wejiminfter  was  done  An.  Dom.  490.  and  he  makes  them 
both  to  live  and  flourifli  An.  Dom.  507.     But  he  faith,  That  Sampfon 
was  afterwards  driven  over  to  Aremorica,  and  there  was  Archbifjop  of 
Dole //w(?»^  ?/^e  Britains.     For  An.  Dom   561.  he  CsLith,  another  Simp, 
fonfucceeded  in  that  See,  the  former  who  came  out  of  Great  Britain  to  the 
Lefs.     Sigebert  of  the  old  Edition,  An.  Dom.  $66.  fpeaks  of  Sampfoa 
then  ArchbiJJjop  of  Dole,  Kinfman  to  Maglorius,  who  came  from  the  Bri- 
tain beyond  the  Sea  to  that  on  thk  fide.     This  fecond  Sampfon  s  Life  is 
extant  in  the  Bihliotheca  Floriacenfis,  where  he  is  faid  to  have  been  born 
in  Britain,  and  the  Scholar  of  Iltutus,  and  confecr.ated  by  Dubricius. 
But  (^)  Giraldus  Cambrenfis  faith.  The  Pall  was  carried  over  from  Wales 
to  Dole,  in  the  time  of  another  Sampfon,  who  was  the  i^thfrom  iS"/. Da-CO  ^'"'"' 
vid,  and  went  over  becanfe  of  the  Plague  which  di/coloured  People  like  the^^'  '' 
Jaundice,  and  therefore  called  Flava  Peflis:  Which  is  tranfcribed  by  («}  («)  Hove- 
R^ger  Hovedott.     But  here  are  feveral  miftakes  in  this  Account.     For^^"'^" 
there  was  no  fuch  thing  as  a  Pall  then  known  or  ufed  in  the  We-  ^'^ 
fl em  Church  '.^  And  if  this  Sampfon  went  over  on  the  occafion  of  that 
Plague,  there  could  not  be  25  between  St.  David  and  him  :  For  in  the 
Life  of  St.Teliaiis,  St.  D^^yz^'s  Sifter's  Son,  that  P/^^//e  is  defer ibed,  and 
then  Sampfon  is  faid  to  be  Archbifhop  of  Dole,  and  to  have  received  Te- 
liaus  and  his  Company  with  great  joy,  having  been  School-fellows  un- 
der Dubricius,  and  Sampfon  being  confecrated  by  him.     But  ftill  we 
have  two  Sampfons  Archbiftiops  of  Dole,  and  in  the  time  of  the  great 
Controverfie  about  that  Archbifhoprick,  (  of  which  afterwards)  it  was 
a  Queftion  from  which  the  Title  was  derived.     And  Innticent  IIL  as 
Ciraldus  relates,  faid  it  was  from  this  Sampfon  Archbifhop  of  Tork  • 

but 


2o6  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V* 

but  the  Sammarthanl  only  mention  him  that  came  from  St.  Davids, 
when  Magloriuf  fucceeded  among  the  Aremoricati  Britalns'^  but  we  are 
not  yet  come  to  them. 
(w)  Hunt-      it  is  obferved  by  H.  of  (p)  HuntingdoM,  that  after  the  Brjtains  had 
ingd.  /.  2.  a  little  refpite  from  their  Enemies,  they  fell  into  Civil  diffenfions  among 
themfelves,  which  is  very  agreeable  to  what  Gildas  had  faid.     Of  this 
M  ?*6^'  ^^^  C-^)  Britifb  Hiftory  gives  no  improbable  account,  when  it  relates  that 
oneoiVortigernsSonscdWtAPafcentms^  raifed  a  Rebellion  in  the  North 
againfl:  Amhroftm  among  the  Britatns,  who  were  overcome  by  him,  and 
put  to  flight  -^  but  afterwards  he  hired  a  Saxon  to  poifon  Amhrofius  at 
Wiftchefier.     This  faith  Matthew  Weflminjler  happen'd  An.  Dom.  497. 
But  we  are  not  to  pafs  over  what  he  affirms  of  him,  An.  Dom.  485. 
viz      That  he  commanded  in  the  Battel  at  Mecredsburn  againji  MWa  and 
hk  Sons^  in  which  they  were  fo  much  vporjied  as  to  fend  home  for  Supplies, 
as  he  faith.     This  JElta  and  his  Sons  Cjimen,  Plenting  and  Ci£fa  came 
into  Britain,  An.  Dom.  477.  and  landed  at  a  place  from  his  eldtft  Son 
0)  Snf.r.  called  Cymenjkore,  on  the  Coafts  of  Snjfex.     (y)  Camden  faith  it  hath 
^^'        loft  its  Name  5  But  he  proves  from  a  Charter  of  Cedtvalla  to  the  Church 
of  Selfey  it  muft  be  near  Wittering.     Here  y^lla  and  his  Army  fought 
the  Britains  at  his  firft  Landing,  and  forced  them  to  retire  to  Andre- 
defwald,  fay  the  Saxon  Annals,  and  Matthew  Weftminfter,  Florentius 
and  Huntingdon.     The  Saxon  Annals  and  Huntingdon  call  it  Andrede- 
fleage:  by  that  no  queftion  is  meant  the  vaft  Wood  which  began  in 
Kent,  and  ran  through  Sujfex  into  Hampjhire,  called  by  the  Britains  Coid 
Andred,  by    the  Saxons   Andrcd,  and   Andrefwald  :,  from  whence  as 
Mr.  Somner  obferves,  that  part  of  Kent  where  the  Wood  ftood  is  ftill 
(■<)m<jm- called  the  Weald -^  and  (z.)  Lambard  obferves,  that  no  Monuments  of  An- 
jfenc'";    '^V'"'/  ^^^  '"  ^^  ^'^^  ""^^  ^""  '^^^  Weald  either  of  Rent  or  Suffex.     The 
2'i-'       Saxons  after  this  Battel  continued  to  inhabit  on  the  Shore,  till  at  laft 
the  Britains  finding  them  to  incroach  farther,  refolved  to  fight  them 
at  a  place  called  Mecredsburn.     And  a  different  account  is  given  of  the 
Succefs  of  this  Battel :  The  Saxon  Annals  and  Ethelwerd  only  mention 
it,  boalling  of  no  Viftory^  Florentius  makes  it  a  clear  ViSory  on  the 
Ssixori  ftde :  Matthew  Weftminfter  /^//^  ^lla  quitted  the  field,  hut  con- 
fejfeth  the  Britains  had  great  lofs :    H,  o/ Huntingdon  jaith.  It  was  a 
drawn  Battel,  both  Armies  having  fuflained  great  damage  and  avoiding 
each  other.     After  this  JEUa  and  Cijfa,  fay  the  Saxon  Annals,  befieged 
Andredefcefter  and  hilled  all  the  Inhabitants,   leaving  not  one  Britain 
Or)  Matt-  ative  ;  and  fo  Florentius  and  Matthew  Weflminfter  relate  it.     But  he  (<?) 
0.^92.*  faifb.  That  the  britains  came  out  of  the  Wood,  and  galled  the  Saxons  yt> 
Much,  that  they  rvere  forced  to  divide  their  Army  ^  and  the  Inhabitants  pe^ 
riJJjed  by  a  Famine  as  well  as  by  the  Sword  :  And  he  obferves  that  the 
Saxons  utterly  demoUfhed  the  City,  and  the  place  where  it  ftood  was  in  hk 
time  fhewed  to  Travellers.     Therefore  the  queftion  among  our  Antiqua- 
ries which  was  the  Anderida  of  the  Ancients,  Newenden  or  Haftings  or 
Pemfey  is  quite  out  of  doors,  unlefsone  of  thefe  be  proved  to  be  built  irr 
the  place  of  Anderida  fince  Matthew  Wejiminfters  days^  which  were 
(b)6tit  p.  towards  the  end  of  Edw.lU.     Thofe  words  (/>)  Camden  applies  only 
^47-        to  H.  of  Huntingdon,  and  he  faith  it  was  new  built  in  Edw.  I.  hk  time, 
and  therefore  called  Newenden  ^  but  they  are  likewife  Matthew  Weft- 
minfler's  who  lived  after  that  time,  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  Newen- 
den if  it  were  rebuilt  in  the  time  of  Edw.  I.  for  he  faith,  The  defolate 
place  was  fiewed  in  hk  time ;  unlefs  one  tranfcribed  the  other,  witfiout 
any  regard  to  the  difference  of  their  own  times.  After 


-I         I       1^1    I     I  I       -  ■ —.1     ^       I  ■       -I..—     ^■^■fci    „,m.  I       III— >— ■      ■■        ■       .^^—i i^^—— .     I     mt.mm       ■■■■    i  ■    .iia-.f- 

Ch\p:  V.  the  hntijb  Churches.  267 

■  '1  '-         -  -  —  -■  -  -        —       ,  ....  ■  -   ■ 

After  Ambrofius  his  death,  according  to  the  (/)  Briti/h  Hijiorji,  his^'^.'P'*'^'^- 
Brother  Vtkr  Pendragon  fucceeded,  who  routed  the  Saxons  in  the  ' 
North,  relieved  Tork  befieged  by  them,  took  the  Sons  of /:/e«^//?Pri To- 
ners marched  to  London,  and  there  called  a  Parliament,  and  was  fo- 
iemnly  Crowned,  and  fell  out  with  Coalok  Duke  of  Comveall,  about  his 
Wife  Jgerna,  and  under  his  fliape  had  Ring  Arthur  by  her:>  but  her 
Husband  was  killed  at  the  Siege  of  his  Caftle.  After  which  it  is  faid, 
that  he  overcame  the  Saxons  at  Verulam,  where  he  was  after  poifoned 
by  their  means,  and  his  Son  Arthur  fucceeded. 

This  is  the  fumm  of  what  is  there  more  at  large  related ;  but  taking 
it  all  together,  it  is  a  very  blind  and  partial  account  of  the  proceedings, 
between  the  Britains  and  Saxons  of  that  time.     For  even  Matthew  Vl^ejl- 
minfier.    An.  Dom.  494.  takes  notice  of  Cerdic  and  Kenric  his  Sori, 
Landing  with  new  Forces  at  a  place  called  from  him  Cerdicjjjore,  (  near 
Tarmouth  faith  (^)  Camden  where  the  name  Cerdicfand  ftill  remains  )  and  M^^'^'^-P- 
fought  the  Britains  at  their  firft  Landing,  till  they  were  forced  to  with-  ^'^  ' 
draw  and  leave  room  for  them,  who  atter  went  into  the  Weftern  parts, 
and  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Kingdom  of  the  Wefi  Saxons.    To  the 
fame  purpofe  Florentius,  Ethelwerd  and  Huntingdon.    Seven  years  after 
him  came  Port  and  his  two  Sons  Bleda  and  Magla,  and  arrived  at  Portf- 
mouth,  which  had  its  Name  from  him,  as  the  fame  Authors  inform  us 
from  the  Saxon  Annals.     Now  how  comes  Geoffrey  to  think  of  none 
of  thefe,  but  only  of  Hengifi's  two  Sons  In  the  North  ?  Befides,  be 
let  flip  one. of  the  greateft  battels  that  was  fought  between  Cer<5//V  and 
Nathanleod,  and  pretends  to  give  no  account  at  all  of  it.    This  the 
Saxon  Annals,  Florentius,  Ethelwerd  and  Matthevp  Weftminfler  all  place 
An.  Dom.  508.     But  Huntingdon  the  fixtieth  year  after  the  firft  coming 
of  the  Saxons.    This  NarMeod,  as  he  calls  him,  was  the  greatefi  King 
of  the  Britains,  one  of  great  Fame  and  Pride,  from  whom  the  Coun- 
try about  Charford  did  take  its  Name.     At  this  place  the  whole  Forces 
of  the  Britains  were  gathered  together,  and  Cerdic  procured  afllftance 
from  Efc  of  Kint,  from  lElU  of  Sujfex,  from  PortanA.  his  Sons  5  fo 
that  here  was  a  pitched  Battel  of  the  Strength  of  both  fides  5  and  Na- 
%deod  behaved  himfelf  with  fo  much  Courage,  that  he  drove  Cerdic 
out  of  the  Field,  and  purfued  him  ^  which  his  Son  who  commanded 
the  other  Wing  perceiving,  followed  him  clofe  and  cut  him  off,  and 
5COO  of  his  Men  who  fled  upon  the  death  of  their  King.    And  frorai 
this  memorable  Battel,  the  Place  was  called  Cerdicsford,   and   fince 
Charford,  upon  the  Aven  between  Salisbury  and  Ringvpood.     But  who 
was  this  mighty  King  of  the  Britains,  who  loft  his  Life  in  this  Battel  > 
(e)  Mr.  Camden  profeffes  he  cannot  guefs  -^  unlefs  it  were  Aurelius  Am-^^l^'''^-^' 
bropiis,  whofe  Name  he  obferves  the  Saxon  Annalifts  never  mention, '  ^* 
nor  the  Battels  wherein  they  were  worfted.     And  the  Briti/h  Hiftory  is 
even  with  them  for  that,  which  takes  no  rfotice  of  this  great  Fight, 
.wherein  their  King  was  flain.    Matthew  Wcflminfler  will  not  have  him 
to  be  King,  but  only  to  be  General  under  Uther,  who  was  then  fick, 
which  contradidls  £^^e/n7er<^,  and  Huntingdon,  and  Florentius,  who  af- 
firm him  to  have  been  then  King,and  as  Huntingdon  faith  Rex  Maxi- 
r,tui  Britannorum  ;    which  feems  to  imply,  that  there  were  more  Kings 
then  among  the  Britains^  as  there  were  among  the  Saxons ;  and  that 
one  was  the  Chief  as  in  the  Heptarchy.  Archbiftiop  (  f)  Vjher  thinks  this  ^^^fj''"' 
King  was  the  fame  whom  the  Britl^}  Hiftory  calls  Vther,  and  that  Na-^'  *    ' 
thanleod  was  his  true  Name,  and  TJther  was  a  Nick-name  to  denote  his 

fieri  e- 


208  Jhe  Antirjuities  of  Chap.  V^ 

Ci)Nenn.  Jiercemfs^  as  the  Annotator  on  (g)  Ne»>tiuj  calls  Arthur  Mai?  Utcr  in  the 
BritiJIi  Tongue  for  the  fame  reafon  :  And  fo  Arthuru-s  in  Latiue  from 
the  Br/tifi  Arih,  whick  fignifies  a  Bear.  This  is  an  ingenious  Conje- 
dure  :  But  we  are  not  fo  fure  there  ever  was  fuch  a  King  as*  ZJtker, 
as  we  are  from  Gild  if,  that  there  was  fuch  a  one  as  Amhrofiuf  5  But 
Gildds  faith.  That  fome  of  the  Race  <?/Ambrofius  were  liv/ftg  in  his  timet 
therefore  he  died  not  without  lITue,  as  tlieBr///"(5Hiftory  fuppofes,  and 
this  might  probably  be  his  Son,  who  was  flain  in  thh  Battel, 

But  what  then  is  to  be  faid  to  King  Arthur,  who  was  Son  to  Vther, 
and  fucceeded  him,  whofe  mighty  Feats  are  Co  amply  related  by  the 
^BritiJJ}  Hiflery  ?  I  think  both  forts  are  to  blame  about  him,  \  mean 
thofe  who  tell  incredible  Tales  of  him,  fuch  as  are  utterly  inconfiftent 
with  the  C/rcumJia>ices  of  the  Brittifi  Affairs  at  that  time  ^  and  thofe 
who  deny  there  was  any  fuch  Perfon,  or  of  any  confiderable  Poiver  a- 
tnong  the  Britains.  William  of  Malmeshury  takes  notice  of  the  Briti/b 
Fables  about  him,  (and  if  I  miftake  not  makes  a  fevere  Reflexion  up- 
on Geofre/s  Hiftory  without  naming  it,  when  he  faith,  Hie  efiArthn- 
rus  de  quo  Britonum  Nug^  hodieq-^  delirant  )  but  he  wiQies  a  true  Ac- 
count had  been  given  of  him,  for  he  wis  thefupport  ofhk  Coutitrey  for  a 
long  time,  who  jharpned  the  broken  Spirits  of  the  Britains,  and  made  them 
(4^aflike.  But  after  all,  he  will  not  allow  him  to  have  been  Monarch 
in  Britain,  but  only  the  General  under  Ambropt0.  And  in  all  this  Wil- 
liam keeps  clofe  to  l^ennius-^  for  Nennius  fpeaking  of  the  Wars  between 
the  5r//i/^  Kings  and  the  Saxons,  faith  of  Arthur,  Ipfe  Dux  erat  Bello^ 
^  rum'^    although  he  exceeds  the  bounds  of  Truth  in  the  next  Words. 

^  C^in  omnibus  Belief  Vi&or  extitit,   he  came  off  always  Conqueror.     If 

this  had  been  true,    the  Saxons  could  never  have  kept  footing  in  En- 
gland.   I  will  allow  the  Saxon  Annals  to  be  partial  in  not  recounting 
their  LofTes^   and  on  the  other  fide  it  is  unreafonable  to  fuppofe,  that 
the  Sdxons  fhould  be  always  beaten,  and  yet  always  get  Ground  even 
in  Arthurs  Days.     For  after  the  great  Battel  wherein  Nathanleod  was 
killed,    (the  only  Britifh  King  rnentioncd  in  the  Saxon  Annals  )    Cer' 
^//V's  two  Nephews,  Stuff  and  Witgar,   landed  upon  Cerdicfjore,  which 
(h)  Mat.    (h)  Matt.  Wejiminjier  here  places  on  the  Wejiern  Coafts  (  and  not  on  the 
^n^T',^  Eajiern  as  Camden  doth,  which  feems  more  probable,  becaufe  they  came 
"^  with  Supplies  to  (Ter^s^zV  their  Uncle)   but  all  agree,  that  as  they  fought 
upon  their  Landing,  they  had  the  better  of  the  BrzV^i»j;    Huntingdon 
faith.   It  was  fuch  a  Vtdory  as  laid  open  the  Countrey  to  them  ;    the  force  of 
the  britains  being  fcattered,    God  having  caft  them  off.     Where  was -4r- 
thur  at  this  time  ?     Again,  five  Years  after  faith  Ethelwerd,    Cerdic  and 
Cenric,  came  the  fecond  time  to  Cerdicsford,  and  there  fought  the  Bri- 
tains ^   the  Saxon  Annals  fay  nothing  of  the  VtBory,  but  Florentius  gives 
it  to  the  Saxons,  and  fo  doth  Huntingdon,  who  faith,   the  Britains  had 
a  terrible  Blow  that  Day.  '  And  as  an  Evidence  of  the  Saxons  ConquefV, 
Ethelvperd  faith,  Thiit  Year  Cerdic  began  the  Kingdom  of  the  Weft  Saxons  ; 
From  that  very  day  faith  Huntingdon,    Anno  Dom.^K^.     Were  Mat f. 
Wejiminjier  is  fo  hard  put  to  it,    that  taking  in  King  Arthur  at  Anno 
horn.  516.  he  is  forced  to  leave  out  this  Battel,    and  to  tell  Geoffrey's 
Story  of  King  Arthurs  beating  the  Saxons  in  the  t^orth  about  Torh  and 
Lincoln,  and  driving  them  as  far  as  the  Caledonian  Wood,    and  takes  no 
notice  of  Kcrdic's  fctting  up  a  Kingdom  in  the  Weji  :     But  the  follow- 
ing Year,  Anno  Dom.  520.  he  brings  Co/^r/»,    Badulph  and  Cheldric  to 
Totnes  with  new  Forces,    with  which  they  befieged  Bath  ^    And  thert 

4rthur 


A.D.  514. 


■Vf  li  ■; 


Chap.  V.         the  BrhiJhChiirches,  :2d^- 

Arthur  with  his  Caliburn  did  incredible  Execution,  for  he  faith,  h  kilieJ. 
840  n?/^^  A«"  owii  Hands,  and  fd  totally  i'outed  the  Saxons  ;  and  not  i 
Word  of  Ket'dic  or  Kenrh\  whereas  Anno  Doht.  528.  he  remember^ 
them  again,  dnd  tells  what  a  mighty  Army  they  had  in  the  Ifle  o^ 
Wtghtj  which  H.  Huntingdon  calls  fVitland,  and  what  flaughter  they 
made  at  Whgaresburgh^  which  had  its  Name  from  Witgar^  one  of  Ker- 
die's  Nephews,  to  whom  he  gave  the  Ifle  6i  Wi^bt^  and  was  buried  at 
Witgar  faith  Huntingdon.  ,    * 

But  before  this  there  was  another  Battel  between  Kerdic  and  the 
Britains  at  Cerdijleage  5  which  Huntingdon  makes  the  fame  with; 
Cerdicsford^  in  which  there  Was  great  Slaughter  on  both  fides,  and  in 
that  time,  he  faith,  manj  Sajcons  came  in  out  <7/Germany  into  Eaftanglc 
and  Mercia,  but  they  were  not  yet  formed  into  Kingdoms  ^  however;^ 
innumerable  Battels  were  fought  iti  matiy  Places  by  Perfons  whofe 
Names  are  Hot  recorded.  And  now  Httntingdon  mentions  Arthur,  as  a 
moji  valiant  General  on  the  Brki^  Jtde,  who  commanded  in  twelve  Battels ^ 
ht  all  which  he  had  the  better '^  and  fo  reckons  them  Up  in  order  jufl:  as 
(0  Nennius  had  done,  whom  he  tranfcribes,  and  when  he  hath  fet  (<)  Nenn.' 
down  the  Places  of  the  twelve  Battels  he  confefTes  they  were  then  un- '•*^'*" 
known,  but  he  adds,  that  there  was  almoji  perpetual  fighting,  in  which 
Jome  times  one  fide  had  the  better  and  fometimes  the  other  x,  butftillthe  6*<t- 
xons  poured  in  greater  Numbers  upon  them  :  And  (k)  Nennim  faith,  (>f)  Nenc. 
They  increafed  here  without  intermijfion,  and  fetched  new  Kings  out  of^'  ^^ 
Germany  to  Rule  over  them.  And  then  fets  down  the  Foundation  of  ^^, 
the  Northern  Saxon  Kingdom  under  Ida,  who  govern'd  all  beyond 
Humber  twelve  Years,  which  was  branched  into  two,  Deira  and  Ber- 
ftfcia.  This  Kingdom  be^an,  faith  Huntingdon^  in  the  i  \th  Year  of 
the  Reign  of  Kear/c  (who  fucceeded  Kerdic)  Anno  Dom.  547.  anc 
Ida  defcended  from  Woden  was  the  firfl:  King.  Kenric  in  his  i^tl 
Year,  faith  the  fame  Author,  fought  againft  the  Britains^  who  came 
with  a  powerful  Army  to  Salkbury,  where  he  difperfed  them  and 
made  them  fly.  But  this  is  fuppofed  to  have  hapned  after  Arthur's 
Death,  which  is  placed  by  Matt.  Wefiminfief  and  others,  An.co 
Dom.  542. 

We  muft  therefore  look  back  to  judge  of  Arthurs  Prowefs   We  have 
already  feen  feveral  Saxon  Kingdoms  eftablifhed,    that  of  Kent,    of 
South-Saxons,  of  fVeJi-Saxons  and  Saxons  in  other  Parts,    not  yet  ga- 
ther'd  into  Kingdoms  ^    and  befides  thefe,   before  Kerdic  had  gained 
the  Ifie  of  flight,    H.  Huntingdon  faith.    The  Kingdom  of  Eafi  .Saxons 
WIS  founded  by  Erkinwin,  whom  Slede  fitcceeded,  rtho  married  the  Daugh- 
ter tf/Ermenerick,  King  of  Kent,    Sifler  <>/Ethelbert,    and  Mother  to  Si- 
bert  the  firfl  Chrifiian  King  there.    Now,    it  Arthur  were  a  Riog  fo 
powerful,  fo  irrefiftible  as  the  Briti^j  Hifiory  makes  him,  how  came  all 
thefe  Kingdoms  to  grow  up  under  him  ?     Why  did  he  not  fend  the 
Saxons  all  out  of  Britain  .<?  Nay,  how  came  Cerdicand  Kenric  to  grow 
fo  fl:rong  in  the  IVefiern  Parts  as  they  did?    Cerdit,  faith  (l)  Williant^i^pe 
o(  Malmesbury,  came  hither  8  Years  after  the  death  of  Hertgifl,  Anno Oeftit Reg. 
Dom.  49 5.     He  was  here  24  Years  before  he  fct  up  his  Kingdom,  and  ^-  '• ''  ** 
lived  in  it  16  Years.  This  was  in  the  midft  of  Arthur  s  Fame  and  Ofeat- 
nefs.    If  it  were  fuch  as  Geofrey  defcribes,  would  he  have  fuffered 
fuch  a  Terror  to  the  Br.  tains  to  have  been  fo  near  him  >    («?)  Ramd-  ('»)  |'»0" 
phus  Hgdenfanh,  That  Arthur  wds  fo  tired  out  with  fighting  Cerdic,  (fof ''^^ '  ^' 
weary  of  overcoming)  that  16  Tears  after  hfs  coming  he  yielded  part  of 

D  d  thi 


2IO  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V. 

^"■^f^Ti  *^^^^fif<^Mf^  '    And  to  tlie  ftme  purpofe  (»)  Radhum  fpeaks.  VVhat 

wc.  .2.C.  .  .^  ^j^^  meaning  of  all  this  ^    t'he  plain  truth  is,  they  followM  Geoffrey 

as  far  as  they  could,   but  they  found  at  laft  they  muft  give  away  Ker- 

dic%  Kingdom  to  him  5    and  Co  they  had  better  make  it  a  free  Mf  of 

Eing  Artiiur. 

Let  us  now  compare  with  this,  the  Account  the  Er/ti/h  Hifiory  gives 

of  him  5  which  is  this  in  (hort. 

(a)  Gaifr.       (^o)  ■'  After  the  death  of  TJt^er  Pe»drag0»^  the  Britijh  Nobility  met 

'•  7-         "  at  Silcefier,  where  they  defired  Dubridus  to  confecrate  Arthur  :     For 

"  the  Saxons  had  conquer'd  from  Hurler  to  Cathnes.    .(  It  feems  all 

"  clear  on  this  fide  Humber.  )    And  fo  he  was  no  fooner  Crown'd  but 

"  away  he  marches  for  Tork,  ( leaving  the  Saxons  here  in  quiet  pof- 

*'  feffion  )    where  Childenc  came  with  600  Ships  to  affift  the  two  Bro- 

"  thers  Colgrin  and  Baldulph   (  whofe  Names  the  Saxon  Annals  con- 

"  ceal.)     Upon  this  dreadful  Conjunction  Arthur  repairs  to  Londott^ 

*'  and  calls  a  'Parliament :     And  they  fend  over  to  Hoel  King  of  Little 

"  Britaiu^    his  Nepherv,   and  who  brings  r50oo  to  his  affiftance  at  «SW; 

"  thamptoa^    (  notwithftanding  Port  and  his  Sons  were  fo  near  )   theri 

"  away  he  marches  for  Uncoln,   and  there  kills  6coo  Saxons,  and  pur- 

*'  fued  the  reft  into  Scotland  ^  and  there  difmiffed  them  home  upon  pro- 

"  mife  of  Tribute  ^  but  they  perfidioufly  returned  to  Totttes,   and  Co 

"  marched  to  befiege  Bath :    Where  after  he  had  done  the  execution 

**  Matt.  Wefiminjler  related,    the  Saxons  get  upon  the  Hill,    which  Ar- 

"  thur  by  the  help  of  his  Calihurn  recover'd,    killed  the  two  Brothers, 

*'  and  made  Chilaerk  fly,    whom  Cador  purfued  to  the  Ifle  of  Thanet^ 

"  (although  the  Son  of  Hengiji  had  all  Kent  as  his  Kingdom.)    After 

*'  this  he  drives  GiUomaruj  and  his  Iri[h  home  ;  and  determined  to  root 

"  out  the  Scots  and  Pi&s,  but  upon  great  Submiflion  he  fpared  them. 

"  This  being  done  he  returns  to  Xork^  where  he  rebuilds  theChurcheSi 

".  and  fettles  Pyransus  ArchbiJJjop  in  the  place  oiSamfon,  and  reftores  the 

"  Britijh  Nobility.     Next  Summer  he  goes  for  Ireland^    and  having 

(?)Crymog."  fubdued  that,    he  fails  for  Ifeland^   ( not  then  inhabited  faith  (f) 

t.ruc  z.  «  Arngrimus  Jonas  a  Learned  Native  there  )    but  upon  notice  of  his 

"  coming,    the  Kings  of  Seland  and  the   Orcades  yielded  themfelves. 

"  Then  he  returns  home  and  fettles  the  Nation  in  a  firm  Peace  for  12 

"  Years,   (although  the  Saxons  were  every  where  about  them.  )     Af- 

*'  ter  which  time,  his  Name  was  dreaded  abroad,  and  away  he  fails  for 

"  Norwaji,  and  there  conquer'd  J^fV«//i«  and  the  whole  Countrey:  from 

*'  thence  to  Gaul,   where  he  chopt  in  pieces  the  Head  of  Flollos  the 

"  Governor  in  fingle  Combat,   and  difpofed  the  feveral  Provinces  to 

"  his  Servants,    and  returning  home  refolved  to  keep  a  folemn  Court 

*'  at  Caer-leon,   (this  was  well  thought  upon,  for  we  read  of  no  Sti'- 

"  xons  thereabouts  )  where  bcfides  feveral  Rings  the  three  Metropoli- 

*'  tans  met,    of  London^    Tork  and  Caerleon,    bffides  all  his  Nobility. 

*'  But  to  pafs  over  .the  great  Solemnities  there,   the  Emperor  Lucius 

*'  (nottobefound  elfewhere)  fends  to  demand  Tribute  on  the  account 

"  oi  Julius  C(«/4r's  Conqueft,  upon  which  he  makes  great  Preparations 

"  to  conquer  Rovte  5  and  leaves  Britain  to  Mordred  his  Nephew,  who 

*'  rebelled  againft  him,   and  forced  him  to  return  home,   when,    after 

'^  he  had  conquered  Lucius,  he  was  marching  for  Rome^    and  here 

"  Mordred  had  afibciated  Saxons,   Scots  and  P;fi?j-,    all  againft  Arthur  ^ 

"  but  upon  his  coming  the  other  fled  to  Winchejier,  from  thence  to 

**  Corimall,  where  near  the  River  CambUn  he  waited  for  Arthur's  com» 


Chap.  V.  the  Bntijb  C  bare  be  s.  211 

*'  ing,  the  iffue  of  the  Battel  Mordred  was  killed,  and  Arthur  mor- 
"  tally  wodnded,  who  Was  carried  into  the  IJldnd  of  Avaton^  and 
"  there  died  and  Was  buried. 

This  is  the  Britiflj  Legend  of  King  Arthur^  which  hath  raifed  the 
laughter  of  fome,  and  the  indignation  of  others.  William  of  New- 
burgh  was  the  firft  who  openly  and  in  plain  tefms  charged  it  with  fal- 
fityAudi  iticonjijiency^  but  againft  fome  parts  of  it  he  makes  trifling  ub- 
jeiiioHs  5  as  about  the  three  Anhbiflupiy  denying  that  the  Britainf  had 
any  Anhbifiopf,  becaufe  the  firft  Pall  was  given  to  Augujiine  the  Mo»L 
Eut  this  was  a  piece  of  Monkifli  ignorance  in  him,  for  there  were  Me- 
fropolitd»s  before,  and  without  Palls  from  Rottte  ^  and  Archbijhops  or 
Metropolitans  did  aflume  the  ufe  of  Palls  to  themfelves,  without  asking 
the  Popes  leave 5  and  when  he  faith  Archbijhops  camefo  late  into  the 
Wefiern  Churches^  it  is  true  the  ufe  of  the  word  did,  but  the  Jurisdi^ion 
over  Provinces  was  long  before,  as  I  have  already  (hewd. 

Upon  the  reviving  of  Learning  fome  were  fo  offended  at  this  ri- 
diculous Legend,  that  they  queftioned  whether  ever  there  were  fuch  a 
Perfon  as  Arthur,  againfl:  whom  Leland  undertook  the  defence  of  King 
Arthur.  But  fome  of  his  Authors  will  not  be  allow'd  to  bear  witnefs 
in  this  caufe,  being  partial  followers  of  Geoffrey  5  fuch  as  Alfred  of  Be- 
verly, Qray  the  Author  of  Scal£-Chronicon,  Joh.  Burgenfis,  J  oh.  Roft^ 
e^f.  Others  do  not  fpeak  home  to  the  point,  fuch  are  the  Teftimo- 
nies  of  Nenniiu,  Malmeshury,  Huntingdon,  which  make  him  only  Ge- 
neral  of  the  Britilh  Forces:  others  are  too  modern,  as  Trithevtius,  Vola- 
itrranus,  Philippus  Bergomas,  Naucleruf,  Hc&or  Boethiuf,..Pontius  Vi- 
runnim,  &c.  Others  overthrow  the  main  part  of  it,  as  to  Arthur' j-  So- 
vereign Dominion  in  Britain,  as  the  (^ef)  Chronica  Divionenfis,  which  faith,  (?)  '^jO^''^ 
That  after  fever  al  Combats  Cerdic  had  the  fojjejflon  of  the  Wejl  Saxon  King-  f'^""'^* 
dom  by  Arthur's  Confent :  and  as  parts  of  this  Kingdom  he  reckons 
Seven  vehole  Provinces  from  Surry  to  Cornwall.  But  the  Britifh  Hi- 
jiory  takes  no  notice  of  Cerdic,  but  fuppofes  all  under  Arthurs  com- 
mand, and  bis  Nephew  Mordred's  in  his  abfence.  If  Cerdic  had  the 
Weji-Saxon  Kingdom,  then  how  comes  no  notice  of  him  in  the  Battel 
at Camblan^  how  came  the  fight  within  his  Territories?  Again,  the 
Author  of  the  Life  of  Gildas  cited  by  him,  faith.  That  one  Meluas  had  ^'  ^^' 
Jiollen  hfs  Wife  Guenhere,  and  defiled  her,  and  that  Arthur  a  long  time 
befieged  him  in  the  Marfies  near  Glaffenbury.  Is  this  agreeable  to  the 
mighty  power  of  King  Arthur,  to  have  his  Queen  detained  by  force 
fo  long  by  fuch  an  inconfiderable  Perfon  as  Meluas  .<?  Efpecially  if  it 
were  as  Caradoc  of  Lancarvan  there  faith,  She  vpos  reflored  at  lafi,  more  ^  8. 
by  the  intreaty  of  Gildas  than  out  ofrefpeSl  to  Arthur*/  Authority.  As  to 
Arthurs  Seal  which  he  lays  fo  much  weight  upon,  it  certainly  belong- 
ed to  the  Diploma  he  gave  to  theUniverfity  of  Cambridge,  in  his  time,  p.tzi 
mentioned  by  Leland  5  and  the  Church  of  Wejiminjier,  if  they  have  it 
ftill,  ought  to  reftore  it.  But  after  all  Leland  hath  fufEciently  pro- 
ved. That  there  was  fuch  a  Perfon  as  King  Arthur  from  the  Cair-Ar- 
ture  in  Wales,  two  Mountains  fo  called ^  And  Arthurs  Gate  in  Mongo- 
faery ;  and  the  abundant  Teftimony  he  brings  about  his  CoflBn  in 
Lead  found  in  Glaffenbury^  either  in  Henry  the  Second's  time,  or  at 
leaft  in  the  beginning  of  Richard  the  Firft,  with  an  Infcription  fetdown 
often  by  him,  and  more  exaftly  by  (r)  Camden.  Where  the  Letters ^[\/j_'^' 
appear  very  rude,  and  the  Infcription  very  plain,  and  therefore  more  " 
likely  to  be  true. 

Dd  2  HlC 


212  1  he  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V. 

HIC    JACET    SBPVLTVS    INCLITVS    REX 
ARTVRIVS    IN    INSVLA    JFALONIA. 

Where  are  all  the  Noble  Titles  given  him  in  the  Britijh  Hifiory  and 
contained  in  the  Infriftian  about  his  Seal  ? 

PATRICWS  ARTVRIVS    BRITANNIJE,  GALLIJE, 
GERMANIC,    DACIJE,    IMPERATOR. 

So  much  greater  a  Man  was  Arthur  living,  when  be  ufed  his  Seal, 
than  dead,  when  fo  mean  an  Itifription  was  put  upon  the  lower  part 
of  his  Leaden  Coffin  !  How  foon  were  all  his  great  Titles  forgotten  I 

Brl^f-  ^"'-  ^"^^  Leland,  Sir  John  (/)  Price  hath  undertaken  to  vindicate  the 
fenf'p.  Story  of  King  Arthur  :  and  the  firft  Argument  he  ufes  is  from  the  /»- 
^  J09-  fcription  on  his  Coffin^  and  the  Antiquity  of  the  Letters  ^  but  the  modefty 
of  the  Infcription  is  a  better  Argument  to  me,  for  if  the  Mow/^j- defign- 
cd  a  Cheat  in  Henry  II.  his  time,  and  laid  this  Coffin  there  on  purpofe 
to  deceive,  they  might  counterfeit  fuch  Letters,  but  they  could  never 
have  held  from  fpeaking  more  glorious  things  of  fo  great  a  Heroe, 

t'1^1-  Then  he  produces  the  Teftimonies  of  Nennius,  Malmesbury  and  Hun- 
tingdon, and  proves  that  thefe  two  could  not  take  out  of  Geoffirey ;  that 
they  did  not  I  grant,  but  the  other  is  not  proved.  The  Verfes  pf 
Thaliajin  (who  he  faith  lived  in  the  time  of  Ai<ig/t>c«««f  mentioned 

f.  120.  by  Gildas)  do  prove  That  Artbm  commanded  in  the  Battel  at  Ba- 
don  Hill,  which  I  fee  no  reafon  to  queftion  ^  but  Polydore  Virgil  will 
have  Aureliuf  Amhrofius  to  do  it,  which  I  fee  no  reafon  to  believe. 

f.  121.  Befides,  he  quotes  old  5r////7j  C/6rtf»/V/ej-,  which  reckon  irom  Vortigem 
to  the  Battel  or\  Badon  Hill,  wherein  Arthur  beat  the  Saxons,  128 
years;  from  that  Battel  to  the  Battel  at  Camblan  wherein  Arthur  was 
killed,  22  years.     And  he  finds  the  Name  of  Arthur  in  many  ancient 

f.  us.  Britifl]  Poems  5  and  in  the  old  Regijier  of  Landaff:  But  that  only  proves, 
there  was  one  Arthur,  vphofe  Son's  Name  w.is  Noe  5  but  what  is  more 

f.  128.  material,  he  finds  fome  paflages  agreeing  with  Geoffrey  in  the  old  Chro' 
*        nicies  of  St.  Davids  and  Caer-Mardin,  as  to  his  fighting  againft  Luciia 
Hiherus  in  Burgundy,  and  the  Battel  at  Camhlan  5  but  it  doth  not  ap- 
pear, that  thefe  Chronicles  were  before  Geoffrey  %  time.     As  to  K.ing 

p.  129.  Arthur*/  Crorva  and  Seal,  they  may  go  together.  But  as  to  Gildas  his 
filence,  from  whence  fome  would  prove  that  there  was  no  fuch  Per- 
fon,  he  anfwers  from  Giraldns,  that  Arthur  having  killed  hk  Brother 

J"-  ^4''  Hoel,  hepurpofely  left  him  out,  which  is  no  clear  anfwer^  For  \i Gildas 
did  this  in  revenge,  he  would  rather  have  mentioned  his  Cruelty,  as 
we  (ee  he  fpares  not  the  Rings  of  his  own  time.  But  his  better  An- 
fwer  is.  That  G'Mas  defignd  no  Hifiory,  but  a  feriom  exhortation  to  the 
Britains  to  repent  of  their  Sins,  and  therefore  paffes  over  other  things, 
only  by  the  by  mentioning  Amhrofius  Aurelianus,  and  addreffes  himfelf 
to  his  main  bujinefsi,  which  is  reafon  enough  why  he  never  names  King 
Arthur. 

(t)<!cotk.       Joh^  (t")  Fordon  follows  Geoffrey,  as  far  as  he  thinks  confident  with 

/.  4.C.  2  5.j.|^g  honour  of  his  Country.  This  appears  in  the  Story  of  King  Ar- 
thur -y  for  he  faith,  he  was  fet  up  by  a  FaSion  againji  the  lavpful  Heirs, 
who  vpere  Mordred  and  Walwan,  the  Sons  of  Uther'j  Daughter  by  Loth, 
then  a  great  Man  in  Scotland  5   but  defcended  from  Fulgentius ;  but  he 

after 


Chap.  V.  the  Eritijh  Churches.  21^^ 

after  excufes  if,  on  the  account  of  necefpty  ^  which  Duhriduf  alledged, 
ihej/  being  then  under  age  jo  much,  ai  not  to  be  able  to  go  into  the  Field, 
But  he  juftifies  Mordred's  Rebellion  afterwards  a gainft  Arthur  on  this 
ground,  that  he  had  the  right  Title  to  the  Crown,     (jt)  He^or  Boethiuf  („)  hij}. 
faith.  That  Lothius  put  in  his  claim,  according  to  the  ancient  Law  ^^Scor./.  9. 
the  Britains,  and  that  he  ought  to  have  the  Regency  during  the  Mino-^'  "^'^" 
rity  of  his  Sons  ^  But  the  Britains  would  by  no  means  hear  of  Strangers 
coming  to  their  Crown ;  and  fo  Arthur  took  pofleffion  of  it  -^  who  firft 
conquer'd  the  Saxons  10  Miles  from  London,  then  took  London  (which 
it  feems  the  Saxons  had  before)  and  fo  went  towards  Humber -^  and 
then  he  goes  on  with  the  Britifi  Hijlory,  only  interfperfing  feme  News 
of  his  own.     Particularly  he  tells  what  a  profane  Chriflmas  Arthur  kept 
Tpith  his  Nobles  at  York  for  thirteen  days  together ;  And  thatfuch  Jollity 
■and  Feajiing  then  had  its  original  from  him.     (w)  Buchanan  is  fo  pjea-  (»>)  Buch. 
kd  with  this  notable  obfervation,  that  he  fets  it  down  for  good  Hi-'-5 •^44• 
ftory ;   faying  upon  it,  that  the  old  Saturnalia  lopere  renewed,  only  the 
Days  i»creafed,  and  Saturn'/  Name  changed  to  Ciffar'j,  for,  faith  he,  we 
call  that  Feaft  Julia.     But  why  (honld  the  Name  of  Sxturn  be  changed 
into  Cafar's,  Was  he  worfhipped  for  a  God  among  the  Britifl}  Chrijiianr^ 
as  Saturn  was  among  the  Old  Pagans  ?  But  the  Name  Julia  imports  it  : 
by  no  means.    For  Buchanan  doth   not  prove  that  this  Name  was  e- 
ver  ufed  for  that  Feftival  among  the  Britains -^  And  the  Saxons  who 
brought  in  both  the  Feafi  and  the  Name  give  another  reafon  for  ir. 
For  (x)  £e^e  faith.  That  December  was  called  GiuU  from  the  conver/i-(x)_De 
on  of  the  Sun  and  the  increafe  of  the  days.     And  Giul,  as  (^  )  Loccenim  ^^""^^ 
obferves,  fignified  a  Wheel,  or  any  thing  that  turns  round,  in  the  Go- 13.     ' 
thick  Language.    At  which  time  among  the  Northern  Nations,  the  Feafl  ^^)  ^"^'"i"' 
of  the  New-year  was  cbferved  with  more  than  ordinary  Jollity  5  thence  as  oltl'.  Li. 
-(z)  Olaui  Wormius  and  (jt)  Scheffer  obferve  they  reckon'd  their  Age  by  "^  ?•     . , 
fo  many  7<?/«'s,  and  Snorro   Sturlefon  defcribes  this  New-years  Feafl,^^Jfli 
juft  2iS  Buchanan  fets  out  the  Biitijh  Saturnalia,  by  feajiing  and  fending  c.12. 
Prefents  or  New-years  Gifts  to  one  another  :   Thence  fome  think  the  ('')^P^*'* 
Name  of  this  Feajl  was  taken  from  lola,  which  in  theGothick  Lan-'^'''  ' 
guage  fignifies  to  make  merry.    But  (b')  Olaus  Rudbeck  thinks  the  former  /^x  ^^;^„. 
more  proper,  not  only  from  Bede'%  Authority,  butbecaufe  in  the  oldnc «.  j. 
Runick  Fajii  a  Wheel  was  ufed  to  denote  that  Fejiival:  And  as  he  ob-^-  "** 
ierves,  this  Feftival  continued  twelve  days  from  their  firji  of  ]u\i].     The 
true  reafon  whereof  was,  as  Olaus  Rudbeck  at  large  proves,  from  the 
Joy  they  had  at  the  hopes  of  the  return  of  the  Sun ;  at  which  time  they 
made  Solemn  Sacrifices  to  the  Sun.    But  after  Chrijiianity  prevailed,  all 
their  Idolatrous  Sacrifices  were  laid  afide,  and  this  time  of  Feajiing  was 
joined  with  the  Religious  Solemnities  of  that  Seafon,  which  in  other 
parts  of  the  World  were  obferved  by  Chrijlians.    Which  is  certainly  a 
very  different  thing  from  the  Roman  Saturnalia,  although  Buchanan 
thought  fit  to  parallel  them. 

But  to  proceed  with  the  Story  of  King  Arthur,  as  it  is  in  Buchanan, 
who  takes  his  Materials  from  He&or,  and  puts  them  into  a  finer  drefs. 
Arthur,  he  faith,  made  a  League -with  the  Scots  andV\^%  rf»<^  Lothus 
brought  his  Sons  to  him  :  And  then  a  refolution  was  taken  to  drive  out  the 
Saxons,  and  to  reflore  Chfijiianity  '-)  Then  follow'd  the  Battel  againji  Col- 
grin  ^  of  which  before :  And  the  reft  of  Arthurs  Battels ;  But  upon 
the  whole,  he  concludes  that  GeoffreyV  Relations  have  770  colour  of 
Truth  5  and  yet  he  makes  ufe  of  no  other,  but  where  he  follows  fie' 

&ors 


214  Ihe  Antitjuities.of  Chap.  V. 

Qor'sown  inventions.  The  remainder  of  his  Story  is,  "That  things 
being  quieted  here,  Arthur  goes  ovtx  mio  Leffer  Britain^  and  leaves 
the  Government  to  his  Nephew  Mordred^  But  while  he  was  abroad, 
*'  fome  had  prevailed  with  him  to  declare  Conftantine  the  Son  of  Cad  or 
"  his  Succeilbr  being  born  in  Britain  j  which  being  done,  Mordred  fet 
"  up  for  himfelf,  and  in  a  Battel  about  Humber,  faith  he,  Mordred  was 
"  killed,  and  Arthur  mortally  wounded.  Thus  Buchanan  having  pick- 
ed what  he  thought  fit  of  HeiJor,  concludes  with  a  bitter  Inve&ivi 
againft  the  fabulous  Relations  about  Arthur-^  Eut  he  gives  him  anex-^ 
traordinary  Charafter,  faying,  he  was  certainly  a  great  Man,  of  mighty 
Courage  and  rvonderful  kindnefs  to  his  Country,  preferring  them  from  SU'- 
very,  and  keeping  up  or  rejioring  the  true  Religion. 

And  that  is  the  Subjeft  I  am  now  to  confider,  viz.     The  State  of  Re- 
ligion here  in  King  ArthurV  days.     It  was  under  great  Perfecution  al- 
moft  where-ever  the  Saxons  came,  who  were  cruel  both  to  the  Bodies 
and  Souls  of  the  poor  Britains :  Moft  of  the  Southern  and  Weftern 
parts  wer€  under  their  Tyranny ,  and  (c)  Brian  Troyne  quotes  a  paflage 
(0  Ant]q.  out  of  Matthew  Wejiminjier,  which  is  not  fo  full  in  the  printed  Co- 
^^j"-  ^-   pies,  concerning  the  Perfecution  of  the  Britijh  Chrijiians  in  the  Eajiern 
]'!i_^%j,P'irts  of  the  Land.     For,  faith  he.  An.  Dom.^'ij.    The  Pagans  came 
out  of  Germany,  and  tookpoffeffion  of  the  Country  of  the  Eaft-Angles,  & 
omni  crudelitatis  genere  Chriftianos  afFecerunt,  They  tormented  the  Chri-- 
Jlians  ipilh  all  forts  of  Cruelty.     Although  this  be  wanting  in  other  Co- 
pies, yet  it  may  be  reafonably  prefumed,  The  Saxons  ufing  the  Briti/h 
Chriflians  in  fuch  a  manner  in  the  moft  places  where  they  prevailed.    It 
is  true  that  (<^)  Malmeshury  faith,  many  of  the  ^xkams  fubmit ted  to  Cqt- 
rj.  p^     die,  and  it  is  probable  they  were  the  better  ufed  for  doing  fo.     Thomas 
Geft.  Kez.  (e)  Rudbum  faith.  That  Cerdic  allorp'd  Liberty  ofprofejjtng  the  Chrifiian 
/.  1  c  2.  Religion  to  the  Corni(h  upon  a  certain  Tribute.     I  rather  think  that  Cer- 
I'l.  c!°i'  dii:  never  went  fo  far,  but  left  that  part  to  the  Britains,  who  ftill  con- 
tinued there:  For  in  Gildas  bis  time  Conftantine  is  faid  to  be  King  of 
thQ  Danmonii:  and  (/)  Camden  obferves  out  of  Marianm  Scotiu,  that 
(/■)  Brit.   An.  Dam.  820.  the  Britains  and  Saxons  had  a  terrible  Fight  at  Camelford 
r'^4i'     in  Cornwall,  which  Leland  thinks  to  have  been  Camblan,  where  King 
Arthur  fought  with  Mordred,  and  near  which  is  a  Stone,  faith  Mr.  {g) 
IPcota^^ Carew,  which  hears  Arthur'j-  Name',   but  now  called  Airy.     To  prove 
(.122.     what  I  have  faid,   that  the  Weft-Saxon  Kingdom  did  not  extend  to 
Cornwall,  we   may  obferve  that,   (^)  William  of  Malmesbury  faith, 
V>)Ve     That  Ceaulin,  Grandchild  to  Cerdic,  was  the  firft  who  took  Gloucefter, 
/.^i.*f.  ^f' Cicefter  and  Bath  from^^he  Britains,  and  drove  them  thence  into  the 
Roikej  and  Woody  places:  And  in  the  time  of  Atheljian,  above  400 
years  after  the  coming  of  the  Saxons  5  the  Cornijh  Britains  did  inha- 
/.  2.  c.  6.  bit  in  Exceter,  and  were  driven  thence  by  him  beyond  the  River 
Tamar,    and   confined  by  that,    as   the  other   Britains  were  by  the 
Wye.    This   fhews  that   the  B'ita'ms  in  Cornwall,   and   thereabouts, 
/.  I.e. 3.  ^Q^Q  frge  fpQp^  {{^g  -Yoke  of  the  Weft-Saxon  Kingdom.     As  to  the  Nor- 
thern Britains,  they  came  to  fome  agreement  after  a  while  with  Occa 
and  Ebufa,  whom  //e»g»/^  feut  thither  5  and  that  they  had  their  own 
Government,  and  the  Chriftian  Religion  among  them  appears  by  the 
0) '•  2c.Hiftory  of  Ceadwalla,   a  Prince  of  thefe  Britains  in  (i)  Bede.     But 
^°'  thefe  were  but  fmall  remnants  in  the  Northern  and  Wejiem  Parts.     As 

to  the  Eajiern,  we  have  had  the  Teftimony  of  Matthew  Wejiminjier  al- 
ready.   And  although  the  Kingdom  of  the  Eajl-Angles  did  not  begin  till 

after- 


Chap.  V*  the  hrittfh Churches,  21 S 

' ' : — T'' \ ~ — : "! — :^ — T" ~'   u-f  ^-•,   . .  -  -'-V 

afterwards,   ^k^oxxlAnno  Dom.'^l^.  yet  vixxht  ^thXtzx  oiCerAk^    a-? 
bout  Anno  Dom.  517.  Huntingdon  obferves.  That  many  Angles  or  Saxons 
were  come  out  t?/Gerfnany,   and  took  Pofleffion  of  the  Countrey  of  the 
'Baft- Angles  and  Merda,  and  wherever  they  prevailed,    the  poor  Briti(h 
Chrijiians  fufered  to  the  higheft  extremity.    Which  is  enough  to  confi- 
dering  Memo  overthrow  the  Credit  of  the  fuppofed  Diploma  of  King 
Arthur  to  the  "Unlverfly  of  Cambridge,  which  bears  date  A}!uo  Dom.  53  it 
But  Brian  Tveyne  bath  brought  no  fewer  than  t5  Arguments  againft  it, 
which  are  far  more  than  needed.    For  I  cannot  think  that  Dr.  Cd]Hs  in 
earneft  believed  it,   for  he  goes  not  about  to  prove  the  Diploma,   but 
King  Arthur -J   And  I  cannot  think  it  any  Honour  or  Service  to  fo  fa- 
mous and  ancient  an  Z)mverfity,  to  produce  any  fuch  fufpefted  Diplo^ 
mata  or  Monkijh  Legends  to  prove  its  Antiquity.    It  is  not  certain  in 
whofe  Poffeflion  London  was  at  that  time,   from  Whence  the  Charter  is 
dated  :     For  the  Kingdom  of  the  Eaft-Saxons  was  then  fet  up  by  Er- 
kinwJn,  and  London  commonly  was  under  that,    and  that  Kingdom  as 
(k)  Malmeshurj/  obferves,    had  the  fame  Limits  which  the  Diocefe  off^^^DeGe- 
London  now  hath,  vis,.  Effex,  Middlefex,    and  pnt  of  Hartford/hire  :Ji'i  Res- 
(/)  Matt,  Weftminjier  agrees,    that  Middlefex  vs>as  under  the  Kingdom  fff'n\',^'Jrl 
*^e  Eaft-Saxons,  but  he  will  not  yield  that  Theoms  Bifhop  oi  London, \N^{\.Ah. 
did  retire  with  his  Clergy  into  Wales  till  Anno  Dom.  586.   and  then  he  s8<5i 
confeffes,  that  he  and  Thadioc,    Bifl3op  o/York,  tehen  they  faipjil  their 
Churches  demoUftfed^   dr  turned  into  Idol  Temples,    did  for  their  Security 
retire  thither. 

And  there  was  the  freeft  Exercife  of  their  Religion  kept  up,   even  in 
the  Reign  of  King  Arthur  5    There  flourilhed  the  Schoob  of  Littrature  feC 
Up  by  Dubricius  and  tltutuj,  and  there  were  the  Perfons  of  greateft  Re- 
putation for  Learning  and  Sanftity  in  the  BritipJ  Churches,    fuch  as  Dk- 
bricius,  lltutuf,  PauUniu,   Gundleus,  Cadocus,    Sampfon,  Patefniif,  Da- 
niel,  and  St.  D<?e;/^  above  the  reft,  whofe  Reputation  continues  to  this 
Day,  and  was  preferved  in  the  Saxon  Churches  of  Britain,  as  appears  by 
the  Breviary  of  Salisbury,    where  nine  Lejfons  are  appointed  upon  his 
Day  ^   And  (m)  Matthevp obferves  that  this  was  by  a  Provincial  Confti-  {m)rr^ 
tHtion  in  the  Province  of  Canterbury  ;    But  the  nine  Lejfons  were  taken  ^**''. 
out  of  the  firft  Chapter  of  the  Legend  of  his  Life,   a  little  being  added  at  sS.  /« 
the  end  concerning  his  Tieath.    It  is  the  juft  complaint  of  (w).BolIan- 1-  P  =^3' 
.  dus,  that  there  is  nothing  extant  concerning  him^    which  wa^s  written  nedr  l'/„lt. 
hh  own  timei,  and  what  is  extant  hath  many  fabulous  mixtures,  fo  that  it  jyfart.  t. 
is  hard  to  find  out  the  Truth.    The  oldeft  MS.  of  his  Dfe,  he  faith,   is  §•  '•  "•  ^' 
thsLtofVtrecht,  which  he  hath  publifhed  5  the  next  he  accounts  is  that 
in  Colganuf^  which  he  would  have  thought  to  be  the  Life  written  by 
Rjcemarchus,  quoted  by  Archbifhop  (_o')t}jher '^    whom  he  fuppofes  to  (■<')Pf'>-^ 
have  lived  before  Giratdus  Cambrenfis,    who  tranfcribed  much  out  of  ^^3, 844^ 
him.  But  Colganus  withall  intimates,  That  the  Life  was  tahfi  out  of  an  old 
Book,   wherein  Auguftin  Macraidin,    the  Author  of  the  Annals  of  lllfter 
had  written  many  things,    and  probably  might  write  that  too  ;   and  to 
confirm  this  Bollandus  ohCerves,  only  a  little  difference  in  Style  between 
this  and  the  Vtretcht  MS.     But  if  we  add  to  thefb,  Giraldus  his  Life, 
with  thatof  J<j^»of  TV»/»<?K^/5,  ot  Capgrave,  we  (hall  aftef  all  find,  the 
Life  of  St.  David,    not  much  clearer  than  that  bf  his  Nephew  Arthur, 
for  he  is  fuppofed  to  have  been  ZJucle  to  him  by  the  Mothers  Gde,  whofd 
Name  isTaid  to  be  Nonnita  in  Capgrave  :^    Nonna  in  the  Utrecht  MSt 
Nemata  in  Colganus,    Melari  in  the  Life  of  St,  Kfnna  .5   fo  Colganus  and 

BoU 


21 5  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V. 

BoUandus  fay  ^  But  in  Capgrave  I  find  Melari  f  aid  to  be  the  Mother  to  the 
Father  efSt.  David,  /.  e.  to  Xantus  King  of  the  Provimia  Ceretica,  i.  e. 
CardiganJInre  (fo  called  from  Cerettts  Father  to  XnnSut  fay  fome^  from 
(p)  Brit.  Caraticut^  who  ruled  here,  as  (/>)  Camden  feems  inclinable  to  believe) 
p.  518.  That  Melari  was  one  of  the  12  Daughters  of  Braghattus  King  of  Breck- 
(q)  It ner. Kock  from  whom,  C<j[)  Giraldus  faith.  The  County  took  its  Name:,  And 
c^/ni./.i.jje  fa  id  from  the  Britifh  Hiftories  that  he  had  24  Daughters  5  but  Cap- 
grave  faith,  he  had  12  Sons  and  12  Daughters.  D.  Poxpelt  in  his  Notes 
on  Giraldus  fsiith,  thif  hrsichanas  his  Father  roaf  Haulaphus,  King  of 
Ireland,  and  his  Mother  a  Britain,  viz..  Marcella,  Daughter  to  Theodo' 
ric  Son  of  Tethtvaltus  King  of  Garthmathrin,  afterwards  called  Breck' 
nock  ;  Another  Daughter  of  Brachanus,  he  faith,  was  Wife  to  Conge- 
nus  Son  to  Cadel,  King  of  Povpijland,  and  Mother  of  Brochntiel,  who 
killed  Etheldred  King  of  Northumberland,  and  routed  his  Army  about 
Anno  Dom.  603.  By  this  we  fee  what  a  Number  of  Petty  Princes  there 
was  about  that  time  among  the  Britalns  ;  but  whether  St.  David  were 
X}ncle  hy  the  Mother  to  King  Arthur  or  not,  we  have  not  light  enough 
to  difcover.  I  (ball  pafs  over  all  the  Legendary  Parts  ot  his  Life  5  and 
confider  only  what  relates  to  the  Church  Hiftory  of  thofe  Times.  His 
Domejlick  Education  is  faid  to  have  been  under  Pauleus  or  Paulinus  a 
Difciple  of  St.  German  5  with  whom  he  continued  ten  Tears  5  in  the 
Jjle  of  Wight,  faith  Giraldus,  but  it  feems  more  probable  to  have  been 
Whiteland  in  Caermardenjhire  ^  the  School  of  II  tut  us  being  not  far  ofFin 
Glamorganfijtre  at  Lantwitt,  i.  e.  Fanum  Iltuti ;  and  in  his  Life  it  is  faid, 
that  he  came  to  the  King  (^/Glamorgan  5  and  after,  that  Sampfon,  Pauli- 
mi,  Gildas  and  Dav:d  were  his  Scholars.  But  BoUandus  (hews,  that 
there  muft  be  a  miftake  as  to  David ;  and  that  inflead  of  him  it  ftiould 
be  read  Daniel.,  who  was  a  Difciple  of  Iltutus,  and  confecrated  firft  Bi- 
ftiop  of  Bangor  by  Dul/r'lcius.  After  this  it  is  faid,  that  David  and  Eliud, 
<Jr  Teliaus,  and  Paternus  went  to  Jerufalem,  and  David  was  there  conji' 
crated  Bifliop  hy'the  Patriarch.  And  it  is  not  to  be  wondred,  that  in 
CO  Efiji.  fuch  a  diftrafted  time  at  home,  they  (hould  go  to  Jerufalem,  when  (r) 
"'^^  St.  Jerome  in  his  time  mentions  the  Britains  going  thither  5  efpecially  . 
fuch  as  were  more  inclined  to  Devotion  t,  which  humour  fprcad  fo 
much,  that  Gregory  Nyffen  wrote  againft  it,  as  a  thing  very  much  tending 
to  Superjlition  it  not  arifing  from  it.  But  it  was  moft  excu fable  in  fuch 
a  troublefome  time  at  home.  Not  long  after  his  return,  the  famous 
Synod  at  Brevy  was  held  at  a  place  called  Lhandevey-hreVy,  the  Church  of 
St.  David  at  Brevy.  Here  the  "Utrecht  MS.  faith^  was  a  Synod  ajfembled 
t)f  all  the  Bifjops  of  Btritain,  upon  the  account  of  the  Pelagian  Cotttrover^e 
then  revived.  Giraldus  faith.  It  was  a  general  Convention  of  Clergy  and 
Laity.  But  the  former  MS.  faith,  *^ere  we/-e /re/ewf  118  Biftiops,  ^e/<^cx 
Abbats  and  others.  One  would  think  it  hard  to  find  fo  many  Bithops  in 
Britain  at  that  time  :  And  BoUandus  ftartles  at  it  5  but  Colga- 
nus  undertakes  to  defend  it  5  having  premifed  that  Giraldus  and 
Capgrave  leave  it  out  5  But  he  faith,  there  were  more  Bi/hops  at 
that  time  than  afterwards^  and  more  Bijhops  thdn  BiJJiopricks,  Di' 
ocefes  not  being  then  fo  limitted  as  afterwards  5  And  every  Monajiery 
almoft  having  a  Bifhop  its  Superior  \  by  which  means  he  juftifies  St.  Pa- 
trick'/ confectating,  as  Jocelin  faith,  550  Bifhops  with  his  own  Hands, 
But  after  all  this,  Giraldus  did  much  better  to  omit  fuch  a  number  in 
fuch  af  time,  unlefs  there  were  better  Teftimony  concerning  it.  How- 
ever there  was  a  confiderable  number  there  prefent,  yet  St.  David  was 

\  abfent 


[ 


Chap.   V .         the  Etitifh  Churches.  217 

— —^ — . • 

abfent'^  and  firft  P4«/»««/ was  fent  to  hirn,  but  he  prevailed  nof,  thett 
Daniel  ^x\6.  DnhictHs  went,  upon  whofe  intreaty  he  came,  and  By  his 
Authority  and  Eloquence  put  an  efFeftual  ftop  to  Pelagianifnt :  And  be- 
fore the  end  of  the  Synod  it  is  faid,  That  by  general  Confent  he  was  Cho- 
fen  Archbifljop  t;/Caer!eon,  Dubricius  dejiring  to  retire  on  the  account  of 
his  Age. 

But  here  we  meet  with  a  confiderable  difficulty  cbncernitig  the  Succef- 
fion  to  DHbricius,  viz.  That  Teliaus  is  faid  to  fucceed  Dubricius  at  Lan- 
dafF,  and  to  have  Poreer  over  all  the  Churches  of  the  Weflern  Parts  ofErU 
tain^  How  can  this  be  confident  with  St.  Ddz>/^'s  fucceeding  Dubriciui 
in  the  See  of  Caerleon^  which  had  the  Metropolitan,  Potper  over  thofe 
Churches  .<? 

(y)  ^\{}c\o\>  Godmn  oMt  oi  Bale,  and  as  he  fuppofeth,  out  of  Leldnd(i)t}f 
faith.  That  St.  Dubricius  vposfirfl  Bijhop  tf/Landaff  being  there  con fet rated ^'^f^''^' 
by  Germanus  and  Lupus,  and  that  afterwards  he  vpas  removed  by  a  Synod 
to  Caerleon,  and  TeVizwi  placed  in  LandafF,     But  this  by  no  means  clears 
the  difficulty  5    for  although  Bale  doth  there  ejcaftly  follow  Leland, 
yet  Leland  himfelf  doth  hot  feem    to  have  confulted  the  Book  of 
Landaff-^    Where  it  is  faid.  That  when  Duhricws  woas  made  Archbijhop, 
he  had  the  See  0/ LandafF  conferr'd  upon  him,  by  the  Gift  o/Mouricus  thih 
King,  and  the  three  Eftates,  i.  e.  the  NMes,  Clergy  and  People,  and  all 
the  Land  between  the  TafF  <?»^  Elie  :     And  (j)  Leland  himfelf  out  of(()  coOe^ 
another  Author  faith,  That  when  Dubricius  veas  made  Archbifhbp,    hzn-^"'-^' 
Ad.S  was  made  his  Cathedral  Church.     After  Dubricius  his  time  Teliaus  is** 
faid  to  be  Archb'fiop  feveral  times  in  the  Book  of  Landajf-^    and  after 
him  Oudoceus  is  called  Summus  Epifcopus  j    and  the  Biihop  of  Landaff 
in  his  Petition  to  Calixtus  2.  Anno  Dom.  1 109,  faith,   That  it  appears  by 
the  hand  writing  of  St.  Teliaus,    That  the  Church  o/LandafF  was  Superior 
in  dignity  to  all  other  Churches  in  Wales*    That  which  feems  to  me  the 
raoft  probable  account  of  this  matter  is.  That  when  Landaff  v/2.%  giveti 
to  Dubriciuf  then  Archbijhop,    he  fixed  his  See  there,    and  fo  Landaff 
was  the  Seat  of  the  Archbifhop  of  Caerleon.     But  afterwards  when  St. 
David  removed  the  Arcbiepifcopal  See  to  Menevia,  a  remote,   barrert 
and  inconvenient  Place,  as  Giraldus  himfelf  confeffeth  ^    The  Bifhops 
oi  Landaff  2i^ume6.  the  Archiep  ft  opal  Power,   which  had  been  in  thaC 
See,  and  would  not  fubmit  to  the  Bifhops  of  St.  Davids.   1  his  is  appa- 
rent from  that  pafFage  of  Oudoceus   (  who  fucceeded  Teliaus  )    in  thd 
Book  of  Landaff,  that  he  would  not  receive  Confecration  from  the  Bifhop 
of  St.  Davids,  as  his  Metropolitan,  but  had  it  from  the  Archbifhop  of 
Canterbury.     This  is  a  very  improbable  thing  at  that  time,  confidering 
the  hatred  the  Britains  did  bear  to  the  Saxons,  and  their  Bijhops  to  Au- 
gujiine  the  Monk  :   It  is  tar  more  likely  that  they  received  it  from  th^ 
Archbifhop  of  Dole  in  Britany  ^    or  from  the  Archbifhop  of  London 
then  refident  in  thofe  Parts  ^    who  probably  kept  up  their  Succefljort 
for  fome  time,  as  long  as  there  were  any  hopes  of  returning  to  their 
own  See,  as  is  before  obferved* 

After  this  Giralduf  fpeaks  of  another  ^rc<if  Council  held  by  St.  David, 
which  he  calls  Victoria  ^  in  which  he  faith  all  the  Clergy  0/ Wales  were 
prefent  ^  And  the  Detrees  of  the  former  Council  were  confirmed,  and  nei6 
Canons  made  for  the  Government  of  the  Bri'ifh  Churches  ;  But  this  fecond 
Synod  is  not  mentioned  in  the  old  Utrecht  MS.  nor  in  Capgrave,  but  if 
is  in  Colganiis,  and  by  the  Exprejfions  it  appears  to  have  been  tiken  out 
of  Giraldiu,  who  confefFeth,  That  no  Copits  of  thofe  Canons  were  to  be' 

t  e  feeH 


21 S  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.   V. 

Jeeft  in  hk  time^  that  Coafl  hehgfo  often  vijited  by  Pirats,  (who  no  doubt 
came  to  fteal  MSS.  and  efpecially  Church-Canons.)  I  will  not  deny 
that  the  5r/7i/^  Churches  at  that  time,  and  in  thofe  Parts  might  be  faid 
to  be  in  a  flourifhing  Condition,  in  comparifon  with  other  Parts  of 
Britain,  and  there  might  be  more  Chriftians  there,  becaufe  they  had 
been  driven  out  from  other  Places  ^  and  their  Brethrens  Affiiftions 
might  encreafe  their  Devotion  5  But  Gildas  takes  no  more  notice  of 
St.  David  than  he  doth  of  King  Arthur.  The  Battel  at  Badon-hill,  ac- 
cording to  Archbi(hop  'Djher,  was  the  Year  after  the  Synod  at  Brevy, 
and  from  that  time  the  Britilh  Churches  had  forae  quiet  from  their  E- 
(K)Gi!d.  nemies  :  But  then  («)  Gild  is  faith.  The  Britains  quarrelled  among 
.§•  26.  themfelves  ;  hut  yet  fo  as  that  fame  hind  of  Order  and  Government  tvas  then 
kept  up  among  them,  by  the  Remembrance  of  their  late  Calamities.  And  at 
this  time  he  fpeaks  the  beft  of  the  Britains,  that  he  doth  in  his  whole 
Book  5  for  he  faith.  That  Kings,  and  Publick  and  Private  Perfons,  Bi- 
/hops  and  other  Churchmen  (  for  Sacerdotes  in  that  Age  often  fignified 
(#-  Bifhops,    and  Gildas  calls  it,    Sacerdotalem  Epifcopatus  Sedem  )    did  a  II 

keep  to  the  Duty  of  their  Places.  But  then  he  adds,  when  the  Senfe  of 
thefe  Calamities  vpas  worn  out,  and  a  nevp  Generation  arofe,  they  fell  into 
fiich  a  degeneracy  as  to  cajl  off  all  the  Reif^s  of  Truth  and  "juflice,  that  no 
remainder  of  it  appear  d  in  any  fort  of  Men,  except  a  feto,  a  very  /ea?, 
n>hofe  number  was  fo  fmall  in  comparifon  with  the  reji,  that  the  Church 
could  hardly  difcern  its  genuine  Children  when  they  lay  in  her  Bo- 
fome. 

But  before  I  come  to  this  laft  and  faddeft  part  of  the  Hiflory  of  the 
Britifh  Churches  it  will  be  neceffary  now  to  give  fome  Account  of  thofe 
Britains,  who  being  wearied  out  here  went  tor  Refuge  to  that  Countrey 
in  France,  which  from  them  is  called  Bretagn. 

It  feems  hard  to  determine  when  the  ^t^i  Colony  o{ Britains  was  fettled 
in  the  Parts  of  Aremorica.  For  in  the  declining  times  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  there  was  fo  frequent  occafion  of  the  Briti(h  Soldiers  removing 
into  the  Continent,  and  fo  little  encouragement  to  return  hither,  that  it 
is  not  improbable,  that  after  the  Troubles  of  Maximus  and  Conflantine 
a  Colony  of  Brita'ns  might  fettle  themfelves  upon  the  Sea  Coafis  near 
to  Britain,  where  they  might  be  ready  to  receive  or  to  go  over  to  their 
Countreyraen,  as  the  condition  of  Affairs  (hould  happen.  This  I  am 
very  much  induced  to  believe,  not  from  the  Authority  of  Nennius,  or 
Geoffrey,  or  William  of  Malmesbury,  or  Radulphut  Niger,  &c.  but  from 
thefe  Arguments  ^ 

Firft  from  Sidonius  ApolUnarh  ^  and  there  are  two  PafTages  in  him 
which  tend  to  the  clearing  this  matter  ^  The  firft  is  concerning  Aru' 
andiis  accufed  at  Rome  of  Treafon,  in  the  time  of  Anthemius,  for  per- 
fuading  the  King  of  the  Goths  to  make  War  upon  the  Greek  Emperor, 
i.  e.  Anthemius,  who  came  out  oi  Greece,  and  upon  the  Britains  on  the 
ire)  Epifi.  Loir,  as  (w)  Sidonius  ApolUnarh  QTS-preHy  affirms,  who  lived  at  that 
:'."  ^'I•£^7time,    and  pitied  his  Cafe.      This  ha pned  about /4»«i?  D(?a«.  467.  be- 

fore Anthemius  was  the  fecond  time  Conful.  From  whence  it  appears, 
not  only  that  there  were  Britains  then  fettled  on  the  Loir,  but  that  their 
Strength  and  Forres  were  confiderable,  which  cannot  be  fuppofed  to 
confift  of  fuch  miferable  People  as  fled  from  hence  for  fear  of  the  Sa- 
xons :  And  it  is  obfervable,  that  about  this  time  Ambroftus  had  Suc- 
cefs  againft the  Saxons,  and  by  Vortimers  means,  or  his,  the  Britains 
vyere  in  great  likelihood  of  driving  them  out  of  Britain  5    fo  that  there 

is 


t^StSf" 


Chap.  V.  the  hntijh  Lburcbes.  "     21^' 

is  no  probability  that  the  Warlike  Britains  (hould  at  that  time  leave 
their  Native  Countrey.    A  fecond  paiTage  is  concerning  Riothamus,    a 
King  of  the  Britains  in  the  time  of  (jc)  Sidonhis  Jpollinar/s,    and  to  C':)  ^  3- 
whom  he  wrote,  who  went  with  12000  Britains  to  aflift  the  Romans  a-  ^'''  ^' 
gainft  £«r/VK/ King  of  the  Gc?/^x,  but  were  intercepted  by  him,  as  (y)  y)Ve  Ke- 
Jornandes  relates  the  Story,  and  Sigebert  places  it  Anno  Dom.  470.  Now  ^'*'  ^''^ 
what  clearer  Evidence  can  be  defired  than  this,    to  prove  that  a  confi- '"'  '^^' 
derable  Number  oi Britains  were  there  fettled,    and  in  a  condition  not 
only  to  defend  themfelves,  but  to  affift  the  Romans  ^    which  cannot  be 
imagined  of  fuch  as  merely  fled  thither  after  the  Saxons  coming  into 
Britain.     Befides  we  find  in  Srmondus  his  Gallican  Councils,    Manfue- 
tus,  a  BilTiop  of  the  Britains  fubfcribing  to  the  firfl:  Council  at  Tours^ 
which  was  held  An^io  Dom.  461.     By  which  we  fee  the  Britains  had 
fo  full  a  Settlement  then,  as  not  only  to  have  Habitations,  but  a  Kif;g 
and  Bi/hops  of  their  own  ^    which  was  the  great  incouragement  foro- 
ther  Britains  to  go  over,  when  they  found  themfelves  fo  hard  prefled 
by  the  Saxons  at  home.     For  a  People  frighted  from  hence,   would 
hardly  have  ventured  into  a  foreign  Countrey,    unlefs  they  had  been 
fecure  before  hand  of  a  kind  Reception  there.  If  they  mufl:  have  fought 
for  a  dwelling  there^  had  they  not  far  better  have  done  it  in  their  own 
Countrey  ?     From  whence  I  conclude,   that  there  was  a  large  Colony 
of  Britains  in  Aremorica  before  thofe  Numbers  went  over  upon  the  .S^- 
xon  Cruelties  \    of  which  (^z)  Eginhardus  and  other  foreign  Htfiorians  C^)  Anmi. 
fpeak.      Archbifhop  Dlher  feems    to   think    this  Riothamus   bimfelf '^  ^-72^* 
to  have  been  the  firfl  Leader  of  them  5   But  it  is  hard  to  think  a  Perfon  Jc.  script. 
of  his  Valour  and  Experience  would  leave  his  Countrey  in  that  diftref-  "*'•  To  z. 
fed  Condition  it  was  brought  into  by  the  Saxons.  ^  '^59' 

But  («)  Florentius,  the  Author  of  the  Life  of  ^«^tff«/ Son  to  a  KJng('«)-s«r. 
of  Bretagn  faith,  That  his  Name  was  Rioval,  a  Prime  herein  Britain,  ^''•^^• 
vpho  gathered  a  good  Army  and  Fleet  together,  and  veith  that  fubdued  the 
People  xpho  lived  on  the  Ar emorican  Coajis,  being  then  left  dejiitute  and  un- 
able  to  defend  themfelves.  For  that  was  the  efFeft  of  the  Roman  Govern- 
ment, which  was  kept  up  by  the  force  of  the  Roman  Legions  in  all 
Parts  of  it,  and  fo  when  thefe  were  broken,  the  Nations  were  fo  un- 
accuftbmed  to  War,  that  they  lay  open  to  all  Invaders.  So  that  the 
Aggreffors d\A  generally  fucceed  in  their  attempts  where  the  Roman  Legi- 
ons were  withdrawn  ^  and  next  to  the  Wife  Providence  of  God  which 
ordereth  all  things,  there  was  no  oneCaufe  which  contributed  fo  much 
to  the  miferies  of  thofe  times,  and  the  ftrangc  Revolutions  which  hap- 
ned  in  them,  as  the  Natives  being  not  trained  up  to  Martial  Difipline, 
but  depending  wholly  on  the  Roman  Legions  for  their  Defence  and 
Security  ;  thence,  whatever  People  had  the  Courage  to  invade,  did 
ufually  take  PolTeffion  of  the  Countrey  where  the  Roman  Legions  were 
.It  a  diftance,  or  orherwife  engaged  againft  each  other.  Thus  in 
Frane,  the  Goths,  the  Burgundi an s,  the  Franks,  and  the  Britains  took 
poflelTion  of  thefeveral  Parts  they  attempted  ^  and  the  Goths  and  Van- 
dals in  Spain:  SoGoths  and  Lombards  in  Italy  it  felf.  So  that  it  is 
not  to  be  wondred,  if  the  Saxons  prevailed  here  at  laft  ^  but  with  as 
much  difficulty,  and  after  as  many  Battels,  as  were  fought  by  any  Peo- 
ple of  that  time  without  foreign  Affiftance.  But  to  return  to  the 
Aremorican  Britains,  whether  they  came  over  under  Rioval  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Diflradions  here,  vphen  the  People  were  fo  Rebellious  againfi 
their  Princes,  as  Gildasxe\&ies,  or  whether  they  went  over  to  aflift  Con' 

E  e  2  Jiantine 


220  Ibe  Antiquitief  of  Chap.  V. 

JiuMtwe  aiid  his  Son,  and  fo  remained  there,  I  fhall  not  determine.  But 
that  the  Britajtis  were  v^ell  fettled  there  before  Sampfon  Archbiftiop  of 
(i)  A.  D.  Tork  arid  his  Company  pafTed  the  Seas,  appears  by  what  (^)  Matt.  Park 
'*9'*       faith.    That  thej  went  to  their  fdlove  Citizens  and  Coutitrey  Me»,    hoping 
to  live  more  quietly  there.     And  after  the  death  of  the  Bijhop  of  Dele,   he 
Was  by  the  confent  of  the  Britains  put  into  his  Place,  and  from  thence- 
forwards  exercifed  his  Archiepifcopal  Power  there  ;    the  Kings  of  that 
Province,  not  fuffering  his  Succeffors  there  fo  pay  any  Obedience  to 
the  Arehbijhop  of  Tours.     Which  begot  a  Suit  which  held  300  Years  in 
the  Court  of  Rome,  and  was  this  Year  manfully  decided  by  hmocent  III. 
as  Matt.  Park  there  relates :     Who  ftates  the  Cafe  very  unskilfully, 
laying  the  weight  of  it  upon  the  Anhb^jljcp's  bringing  oftr  hk  Pdll  from 
York,  which  the  Po^pt  had  given  him  there.    Suppofe  this  were  trite  iz\- 
though  the  Popes  gave  no  Palls  then,    nor  a  great  while  after)    yet 
this  were  no  reafon  to  conteft  it  in  the  Court  of  Rome  fo  long  together. 
But  the  difficulty  of  the  Cafe  lay  upon  another  Point,  viz.,  according  to 
tieOld  Canon  of  the  Church,  If  a  Pr<?t;/»(e  were  divided  into  two,   each 
Frovince  yfis  to  have  a  Metropolitan -,    Now  thk  Reafon  held  much 
ftrcnger  when  new  Kingdoms  were  erefted  out  of  the  Roman  Provinces  .• 
For  what  Reafon  was  there  why  the  Biffjop  of  Dole  in  the  Kingdom  of 
Bretagn  fhould  yield  Subjeftion  to  the  Bijhop  of  Tours  in  a  diftinft  King- 
dom .<?    And  there  was  the  fairer  Colour  for  this  when  one  aftually  an 
Archbipjop  before  came  to  be  fettled  there  ;   and  from  hence  they  infi- 
fted  on  a  Prefcription  of  a  very  long  time,  wherein  no  Subje^ion  had 
been  made  to  the-  Bifhop  of  Tours,   as  appears  by  the  account  given  of 
(e)Epifi'.  thkCaufe  by    (c)  Innocent  lU.  in  hk  Epijiles  lately  publilhed  by  Balu- 
i-'i-'PO'zius.     On  the  other  fide  it  was   pleaded,    that  all  Britany  was  under 
^  the  Jurifdi^ion  of  the  Archhifiop  of  Tours,    but  that  the  Britains  confpi- 

f  Ing  againft  the  King  of  France,  and  fett/ng  up  a  Kingdom  of  their  own, 
they  made  ufe  of  Sampfon,    Archbifliop  of  Tork,    coming  to  eftablifh  a 
Metropolitan  Power  within  that  Kingdom  5    and  upon  Complaint  made 
to  Rome,  the  Popes  had  put  it  upon  this    ifTue,    whether  any  of  their 
Predecessors  had  granted  the  Pall  to  the  Bifhop  of  Dole,   which  not  being 
proved,  the  Pope,  as  it  was  eafie  to  imagine,  gave  Sentence  agaitlft  the 
Bijl-opoi  Dohi     But  it  is  certain,    that  they  went  upon  a  falfe  Suggell:!- 
on,  viz,.   That  the  Kingdom  of  Bretagn  wf.s  fet  up  in  Rebellion  to  the 
Kingdom  of  France.     For  Childeric  had  not  extended  his  Dominions  in 
France  as  far  as  the  Loir  :    and  before  his  time,  the  Britains  were  in 
(i)  Meze-  qniet  Poffeffion  of  thofe  Parts  of  Aremorica  5    and  the  bed  (^)  French 
ray,  To.  I'Hiftorians  now  grant  that  the  Britains  came  thither  in  the  time  of  Me- 
\e)  Rer.   rd*v^^,   who  obtained  but  tittle  in  Gaul,  as  (e)  Hadrianus  Valefus  con' 
Fran.i.\.feSeth.    And  the  (/;  Author  of  the  Life  of  Gildcu  obferves.    That 
\f^^it'.      *^^  Power  of  the  Kings  of  France  was  very   inconfiderable  in    the    time 
Gild. C.I 2.0/ Childeric,    Son  o/Merovee,    at  what  time  Gildas  went  over  into 
Aremorica,    as  his  School-fellows  under  Iltutus,  Sampfon  and  Paulut  ha:d 
done  before  him  ^   whereof  one  fucceeded    the  other  Sampfon  at  Dole, 
and  the  other  was  made  Bifhop  of  the  Oxifmii,  the  mofl:  Northern  Peo- 
ple of  Bretagn  ;  which  Drocefe  is  fince  divided  into  Three,   Treguier, 
S.  Pol  de  Leon,  and  S.  Briett. 

Here  Gildas  at  the  requeft  of  his  Brethren  who  came  out  of  Britain, 
faith  the  Author  of  his  Life,  wrote  his  Epijile,  wherein  he  fo  (harply 
reproves  the  feveral  Vices  of  the/t'e  Kings  of  Britain,  whom  he  call* 
by    the  Names  of   Conjiantine,   Aurelius,  Vortiporius^    Cuneglafus  and 

Maglo' 


C  H  A  p.  V.  the  Britijh  Churches.  2  2 1 

♦ — ■ "~  ■  '  - ■     I     . .  II  I-      1 1. 1^ 

Maglocmm-^  and  fpeaks  to  them  all  as  then  living.  ■  The  (^)  BritiJ^'e)^^^^^' 
Hifiory  makes  them  to  fucceed  each  other  5  Cottftantine,  according  to  "   " 
that,  was  killed  in  his  third  year  by  Aurellus  CortAnuf.     He  died  in  his 
fecond  year,  and  Vortiporins  fucceeding  him  Reigned  four  years.     Af'ter 
him  he  places  Mrf/^<?,  and  leaves  C«»f^/i?//w  wholly  our.     But  that  they 
Reigned  at  the  fame  time  in  fevefal  parts  oi  Brit  am  is  evident  from 
Gildaf,  becaufe  he  faith,  He  hnevo  that  Conftantine  n?^/  then  living:, 
Now  Conjiantine  Reigning  the  firft  of  thefe,  how  could  he  fpeak  to  tlie 
four  Kings  that  fiicceeded  him,  if  be  were  ftill  living?  For  there  is  no 
colour,  for  imagining  that  Gildas  ftill  added  his  Reproof  as  one  died 
and  another  fucceeded  ^  for  any  one  may  difcern  it  was  written  in  one 
continued  Style,  and  he  writes  to  them  all  as  then  living  without  thd 
leaft  intimation  that  they  fucceded  each  other :  Befides,  he  calls  Conftan- 
tim  the  IffUe  of  the  impure  Danmonian   Lionefs-^  and  at  this  time  the 
Britains  in  the  remote  Wefiem  parts  were  feparated  from  the  other  by 
the  Wejl  Saxon  Kingdom  5  and  therefore  there  is  far  lefs  Probability  that 
all  the  BriPains  at  that  time  (hould  be  under  one  Monarch.     And  where 
they  bad     greateft   freedom   of  living  together,  they  were   divided 
into  fevera^  Principalities.     For  he,  whom  Gildas  calls  Maglocumts,  is 
by  the  Br iti(h  Writers  called  Maelgun  Gnineth,  and  Maelgunns  mentio- 
ned by  "^ohn  of  Tinmouth,  in  the  Life  of  St.  Patertius,  and  by  Thalkjjifi 
ih  Sir  John  Price,  from  whom  it  appears  that  he  was  King  of  North- 
Wales.    And  as  Gildas  calls  Vortiporius  the  Tyrant  of  the  Demet£,  by 
whom  the  Inhahitants  of  South-Wales  are  underftood ;  AureliHsConanHs, 
Archbifhop  (h)  Dfher  thinks  was  King  of  Povpifland  5  which  was  fome-  r/j)  prim. 
time  a  third  Kingdom.    And  for  Cuneglafns,  it  feems  probable,  he  had  P-  W- 
the  Command  of  the  Northern  Britains  5  for  it  is  plain  from  Bede  they  had 
a  diftinft  Principality  there.     All  thefe  Gildas  doth  very  feverely  re- 
prove for  their  feveral  vices ;  and  then  taxes  the  'Judges  and  Clergy  to 
the  Conclupon  of  his  Epijile,  to  the  end  they  might  repent  of  their  Sins, 
and  acquit  thejuji  and  roife  Providence  of  God  in  the  judgments  he  brought 
itpon  then*,  which  were  very  terrible,  and  ended  in  the  defilation  of  the 
Country  and  the   ruine  of  the  Britifh  Churches,  excepting  only  thofe 
Remnants  which  were  confined  to  the  Comers  of  the  Land.    For  our 
(»)  Hijiorians  fay.  That  the  Saxons  left  not  the  Face  ofChrijiianity  jvhere-  (i)  Ra. 
ever  they  did  prevail.  nulph. 

*     This  is  a  very  fad  Subjeft,  which  ought  not  to  be  pafled  over  with-  chfonlc. 
tMt  that  Refleftion  which  St.  (^k)  Paul  made  on  the  Church  of  the  Jews  Matthe\f 
audPentiles.  _  J'§;'^''l 

Behold  the  goodnefs  and  feverity  of  God  5  on  them  which  fell  feverity,  596. 
hut  towards  thee  goodnefs ;  if  thou  continue  in  hk  goodnefs,  otherwife  thou  (^-^  ^°"'' 
alfo  fhalt  he  cut  off. 

It  remains  only,  that  weconfider  the  Liberty  or  Independency  of  the 
Britijh  Chknhcs -^  of  which  we  can  have  no  greater  Proof  than  from 
the  Carriage  of  the  Britijh  Bijliops  towards  Augujline  the  Monk,  when 
he  came  wnh  full  power  ixom  the  Pope  to  require  5«/yW7tf/?  from  them. 
And  this  material  point  relating  to  the  Britijh  Churches  I  (hall  endeavour 
to  clear  from  all  the  Objeclions  which  have  been  made  againft  it.     In 
order  thereto,  we  are  to  undefftand.  That  (/)  Jugujline  the  Monk  by(/)Bed./. 
virtue  of  the  Pope's  Authority,  did  challenge  a  Superiority  over  the  Bi-  '•*•  '"'• 
JJpops  of  the  nritilh  Churches,  which  appears  not  only  by  Gregory's  An-    c.  29. 
Twer  to  his  Interragations,  but  by  the  Scheme  of  the  Erclefiajiical  Go- 
vernment,   here,  which  Gregory  fent  to  him,  after  he  had  a  fair  pro- 

fpeft 


2 ;  2  ^Ihe  Antiquities  of  C  h  a  p.  V. 

fpeft  of  the  CoHverJion  of  the  Saxof/s,  which  was  at  the  fame  time  that 
he  fpnt  Melithfs,  Jftjius,  PanlifrHs  and  Rujinianiis,  with  the  Archiepi- 
topal  Pall  to  him.  There  he  declares  that  there  were  to  be  two  Arch- 
i?'ijhops  SeeSf  one  at  London  (which  out  of  honour  to  Ethelbert  or  ^iit- 
gujiine  was  fixed  Sit  Canterbury^  or  rather  by  EtheWert's  own  Authority) 
and  the  other  ,at  York,  which  had  been  a  Metropolitan  See  in  the  Bri- 
tijh  times,  and  both  thefe  Archhifldops  were  to  have  tvit\\e  Sufragan^ 
Bijliops  under  them.  -  The  Bifhop  of  London  was  to  be  confecrated  by 
his  own  Synod,  and  to  receive  the  Pall  from  the  Pope  ^  But  Augttjiine  was 
to  appoint  the  firft  Biftiop  of  Torh,  who  was  to  yield  SuhjeSion  to  him 
for  his  time,  but  afterwards  the  Sees  were  to  be  Independent  on  each 
other.  But  by  all  this,  it  (hould  feem,  that  he  kad  Authority  given  hint 
only  over  thofc  Bifhops  who  were  confecrated  by  him,  and  the  Archbifliop  of 
York  J  what  then  becomes  of  thofe  Bilhops  in  Britain  who  were  Con- 
fecrated by  neither,  and  fuch  they  knew  there  were  ?  Concerning  thefe 
Gregory  gives  a  plain  Anfwer,  That  they  were  all  to  be  fubje&  to  the  Ait' 
ihority  «?/"  Auguftine  5  and  to  govern  themfelves  in  Life  and  DoSrine  and 
Chun^-Offic^s  according  to  his  D'lretUon.  Auguftine  being  furnilhed  with 
fuch  fiill  Powers^  as  he  thought,  defires  a  Meeting  with  the  Britijh  Bi- 
(w)  L.  2.  /hops,  at  a  place  called  Augnfiinfac,  as  («?)  Bede  faith,  in  the  Conp;es 
*•  ^'  of  the  Wiccii  and  the  Weft-Saxons.  Where  this  place  was  is  very  un- 
certain, and  not  at  all  material  5  Camden  could  find  nothing  like  it,  and 
the  Conjeilnres  of  others  fince  have  no  great  probability,  either  as  to 
Jt/Jiric,  or  Hauftake,  or  Ojfnntree,  but  at  this  place,  the  Britipi  Bijhops 
gave  AHguftine  a  Meeting  ^  where  the  firft  thing  propofed  by  him  was. 
That  they  Would  embrace  the  Unity  of  the  Cathglich  Church,  and  then  join 
with  them  in  Preaching  to  the  Gentiles,  for,  faith  he,  they  did  many 
things  repugnant  to  the  iJnity  of  the  Church  ^  Which  was  in  plain 
tertris  tp  charge  them  with  Schifm-^  and  the  Terms  of  Communion  of- 
fered, 6id  imp]y  Suhmlflion  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  by  confequence 
to  his  Authority  over  thetn.  But  the  utmoft  that  could  be  obtained 
from  them,  was  only  that  they  would  take  farther  advice,  and  give  ano* 
ther  Meeting,  with  a  greater  Number.  And  then  were  prefent  Seven  Bi- 
jhops of  the  Britains,  and  many  Learned  Men,  chiefly  cf  the  Monaftery  of 
Banchor,  where  Dinoth  was  then  Abbat-j  And  the  Refult  of  this  Meet- 
ing was.  That  they  utterly  refufed  Submijfion  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  or 
foAuguftine  as  Archbifhop  over  them.  And  for  the  Account  of  this,  we 
are  beholding  to  Bede,  whofe  Authority  is  liable  to  no  exception  in* 
this  matter. 

But  againft  this  plain  Matter  of  Fa^,  there  have  been  thrce'Oi^'e- 
';  Sions  made  which  muft  be  removed. 

(i.)  That  Augttjiine  did  not  require  Subje&ion  from  the  Britifh  Bi" 
flops,  but  only  treated  with  them,  about  other  matters  in  difference  be- 
twcen  them. 

(2.)  That  their  xefrxfmgSttbje&ion  to  the  Bi/hop  of  Rome  depends  up- 
on the  Credit  of  a  Sfurious  Britifh  MS.  lately  invented  and  brought 
into  light,  as  the  Anfwer  of  Dinoth. 

(3.)  That  if  they  did  refufe  SubjeBion  to  the  Pope,  it  was  Schifmati- 
cal  Obftinacy  in  them,  and  contrary  to  the  former  Senfe  of  the  Bri- 
tifi  Church. 

To  all  thefe  I  (hall  give  a  clear  and  full  ^nfwer. 

(i.)  A» 


Chap.  V.  the  Bntijl  Churches.  2i'3 

(^i.y  As  to  the  matter  of  their  Confirehce,  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
bther  things  were  ftarted  •  as  about  the  Pafchal  ControverJ/e  and  fome 
Ritet  of  Baptifm,  &c.  but  this  was  the  main  point-  which  Augttftine 
did  not  in  plain  Terms  infifl:  upon,  becaufe  it  would  look  too  in- 
vidioufly  to  require  Subje&ion  to  himfelf,   but  he  cunningly  infinu- 
ates  it  under  the  Name  of  Ecdcfajikd  TJnity.    For  I  dare  appeal  to 
any  Man's  common  Senfe,  whether  upon  the  Prlnnples  of  the  Church 
of  Rome^  the  Britijh  B'fiops  complying  in  other  things  and  rejedling  the 
Pope's  Authority  would  have  been  thought  fufBcient?  If  fo,  then  Sul;- 
t»l(Jim  to  the  Pope-is  no  neceffary  term  oi  Communion-^  and  Men  may 
be  in  a  very  fafe  Condition  without  it.     But  if  it  were  necefTary,  then 
Auguftwe  muft  imply  it  within  the  terms  of  Catholuk  Peace  and  Eccle/i-^n)  Amati 
ajlical  TJnity.  It  is  therefore  ridiculous  in  («)  Alford  and  (o')  CreJJ},  and  ^"^'^-  ^^^ 
fuch  Writers  to  fay.  That  Auguftine  did  nut  tufifl  upon  it :  For  it  is  to  jj.  °"*" 
charge  him  with  Ignorance  or  Stupidity,  that  he  (hould  leave  out  {o(.op>urd\ 
neceltary  an  KnldQ  oi  Communion :  And  yet  Gregory  had  fo  great  an ^';,g'/„f 
opinion   of  him,  as  to  make  him  the  Dire&or  of  the  BritiHi  Churihes.e. 
And  therefore  it  cannot  be  fuppofed  that  he  llould  offer  terms  of  Com- 
munion  without  requiring  Submljjion  to  the  Pope's  Authority ,  if  thofe 
were  in  a  ftate  of  S.hifm  who  denied  it. 

But  it  is  faid.  That  in  the  Condufion  of  the  fecond  Meeting,  Augu- 
ftine did  not  inftfi  upon^  nor  fe  much  as  mention  any  fubjeSlion  to  him  from 
the  Britifh  Churches,  hut  only  required  Compliance  in  three  Points^  viz. 
the  time  of  the  Pafchal  Solemnity  agreeable  with  the  Church  of  R.ome^ 
following  the  Roman  Cujloms  in  Baptifm  ;  and  joining  with  them  in  Preach- 
ing to  the  Saxons  5  and  upon  thefe  they  broke  up  the  Meeting. 
To  which  I  Anfwer, 

That  thefe  things  were  required  by  Augufline,  not  as  Conditions  of 
Brotherly  Communion,  but  as  the  Marks  of  Suhje^ion  to  his  Authority  5 
which  appears  from  Bede's  own  Words,  Si  in  tribus  hk  mihi  ohtempe- 
rarevultis,  &c.  Which  Cre//)  very  unfaithfully  renders.  If  they  would 
conform  in  three  points  only :  Whereas  the  meaning  is,  It  they  would 
own  his  Authority  in  thofe  three  things  ^  and  therefore  the  Britifh  Bijhops 
aafwered  very  appofitely,  when  they  faid,  we  will  neither  do  the  things 
nor  fubmit  to  yon  as  Archhifhop  over  us.  Why  (hould  they  deny  Subje- 
<?/(?»  if  it  had  not  been  required  of  them?  Which  (hews  they  very 
well  underftood  his  meaning,  and  gave  anfwer  in  (hort,  to  the  main 
,point.  And  upon  this  Account  I  fuppofe  it  was,  that  the  Anchoret'^ 
advice  was  followed  about  obferving  Whether  he  rofe  up  to  the  Britilh 
Biflwps  at  their  entrance  ^  Not  that  they  were  fo  offended  for  want  of  a 
Complement,  as  Mr. Cr^^  fuggeffs,  but  this  was  look'd  on  by  them,  as 
a  Mark  of  that  Superiority  which  he  challenged  over  them  5  And  there- 
fore they  had  reafon  to  take  fo  great  notice  of  it,  .and  to  infer  harder 
ufage  from  him,  when  they  (hould  be  under  his  Authority.  They 
could  not  be  ignorant  what  Authority  the  Pope  had  given  Auguftine, 
and  that  made  them  more  Obfervant  of  his  whole  Behaviour,  and  find- 
ing it  fo  agreeing  to  the  character  of  an  Archbifiop  over  the  Britifh 
Churches,  They  give  him  that  Refolute  Anfwer,  7 hat  they  would  not 
own  any  Authority  he  had  as  Arihbifhop  over  them.  Which  is  a  fufficienC 
proof,  that  this  was  really  the  main  point  contefted  between  them. 

(2.)  As  to  the  Britifl)  MS.  which  contains  Dinoth's  Anfwer  more  a£ 
large  5  I  Anfwer; 

<.  if) 


224  The  Antiquities  of  Chap.  V. 

(P)P^  .  I.  (/>)  Lei  and  obferves.  That  the  Britifti  Writers  give  a  more  ample  ac- 
D^inoth.'"  <^OH»t  of  thh  Matter  than  is  extant  in  Bede^  who  is  very  fparing  in 
what  concerns  the  Brit'tfi  Affairs.  But  from  them  be  faith.  That  Di- 
noth  did  at  large  difpute  with  great  Learning  and  Gravity  againfi  receiv- 
ing the  Authority  of  the  Pope,  or  <7/Auguftine^  and  defended  the  Power 
of  the  Archbijhop  of  St.  Davids  ;  and  affirmed  it  not  to  be  for  the  Britifti 
Intereji  to  own  either  the  Roman  Pride  or  the  Saxon  Tyranny.  And  he 
finds  fault  with  Gregory,  for  not  admoniflnng  the  Saxons  of  their  grofs 
Ufiirpiitions,  againfi  their  Solemn  Oaths  ;  And  adds,  that  it  was  their 
duty,  if  they  would  be  good  Chrijlians,  to  refiore  their  utijufl  and  Tyranni- 
cal Power  to  thofe  from  whom  they  had  taken  it.  For  Dinoth,  out  of 
hk  great  Learning  could  not  hut  know,  that  the  Pope  under  a  pretence  of 
bringing  in  the  true  Faith  could  not  confirm  them  in  the  r  unjuji  Ufurpati- 
on.  For  if  that  (hotdd  be  admitted  no  Princes  could  be  fafe  in  their  Do' 
minions.  And  no  doubt  the  Britifti  Bt/Z)^;)/ looked  upon  this  attempt 
of  ^ugu/iine  upon  them  to  be  the  adding  one  Z)furpatien  to  another: 
Which  made  them  fo  adverfe  to  any  Communication  with  the  Miffiona- 
ries  which  otherwife  had  been  inexcufable. 

(2.)  The  certainty  of  the  Britifh  Churches  rejeding  the  Pope's  Autho- 
rity, and  Augujiines  jurifdidion  doth  not  depend  upon  the  Credit  of  this 
Britijh  MS.  for  this  is  fufBciently  clear  from  Bedes  own  Words,  where- 
in they  declare,  they  would  not  own  Auguftine  as  Archbipop  over  them. 
But  if  they  had  owned  the  Popes  Authority,  they  ought  to  have  fub-^ 
mitted  to  him,  who  afted  by  virtue  of  bis  Comm'ifflon :  And  it  was 
not  poflible  for  them  at  fuch  a  diftance  from  Rome,  to  exprefs  their 
difowning  his  Authority  more  effeftually  than  by  rejeHing  him,  whom 
he  had  fent  to  be  Archbijhop  over  them.  And  Nich.  Trivet  in  his  MS. 
fi)Cot,cU.HiJiory  cited  by  Sir  H.  (q)  Spelman,  faith  exprefly,  that  Auguftine  did 
demand  Subje&ion  from  the  Britains  to  him,  as  the  Pope's  Legate,  but 
they  refufed  it.  So  that  if  this  MS.  had  never  been  heard  of,  the  Mat* 
ter  of  Fad  had  been  neverthelefs  fully  attefted. 

(?.)  TheObJeSions  againft  this  MS.  are  not  fufficient  to  deftroy  the 
Authority  of  it.  Sir  H.  Spelman  who  fets  it  down  at  large  in  Weljh, 
Englifl}  sind  Latin,  tells  from  whom  he  had  it,  and  exaftly  tranfcribed 
it,  and  that  it  appeared  to  him  to  have  been  an  Old  MS.  taken  out  of 
an  Older,  but  without  Date  or  Author,  and  believes  it  to  be  ftill  in  the 
Cotton  Library.  Here  is  all  the  appearance  of  Ingenuity  and  fait hfulnej} 
that  can  be  expefted;  and  he  was  a  Perfon  of  too  great  Judgment  and 
Sagacity  to  be  eafily  impofed  upon  by  a  modern  Invention,  or  a  new 
found  Schedule,  as  Mr.  Crejfy  Phrafes  it.  The  fubftance  of  it  is.  That 
the  Abbat  of  Banchor,  in  the  Name  of  the  Britijh  Churches  declares. 
That  they  owe  the  Subjetlion  of  Brotherly  Kindnefs,  and  Charity  to  the 
Church  of  God,  and  to  the  Pope  of  Rome,  and  to  all  Chrijiians :  but  0- 
iher  obedience  than  that,  they  did  not  know  to  be  due  to  him  whom  they 
called  Pope '.^  And  for  their  parts  they  were  under  the  Jurifdiilion  of  the 
Bifijop  of  Caerleon  upon  Usk,  who  was  under  God  their  fpiritual  O- 
verfeer  and  Dire^lor.  But  fay  the  Objeftors,  There  was  then  no  Bijhop 
of  Caerleon  upon  Usk,  and  had  not  been  fince  the  time  the  Metropolitan 
JurifdiCiion  was  by  St.  David  transferr'd  to  Menevia.  I  grant  that  from 
the  time  of  Dubricius  the  See  was  transferr'd  firft  to  Landaff,  and  then 
to  St.  Davids,  but  this  latter  Tranjlation  was  not  agreed  to  by  all  the 
Britifl)  Bijhops  5  And  it  appears  by  the  foregoing  Difcourfe,  That  the 
Biftiops  ot  Litndajf  did  at  that  time  whe»  Ondoceus  lived,  challenge 

the 


HI. 


Chap.   V.  the  Britijh  Churches.  225 

the  Metropolit/cal  Porocr  ^;/CaerIeon  to  themfelves,  an8  therefore  would 
not  be  confecrated  by  the  B^jop  of  St.  Davids.  And  Caerleon  having 
been  the  ancient  MetropoliticalSee,  it  was  no  abfurdity  at  all  torhenti- 
on  that  in  a  Difpute  which  depended  upon  ancient  Right.  For  the 
Authority  over  the  Br. 7 //Zi  Churches  was  not  upon  the  account  of  St. 
David's  or  Lattdaff,  but  the  Metropolitan  Right  which  belonged  to  the 
See  <?/Caerleon.  As  if  in  the  Br/tip  times  the  Metropolitan  See  had 
been  removed  from  London  to  Canterbury^  what  incongruity  had  it  beeh 
in  a  Difpute  of  Superiority  to  have  alledged,  that  the  Br/7y/7j  Churches 
ofthefe  Parts  were  under  the  Jurifdiftion  of  th<i  Archbipjop  ^/London, 
although  at  that  time  the  See  were  removed  to  another  Place  ?  And  if 
this  be  all  to  make  it  appear  to  be  a  Forgery,  as  Mr.  Crejfy  pretends,  for 
all  that  I,  can  fee,  it  may  be  a  very  ancient  and  genuine  MS". 

But  ^//<?r£/ goes  deeper,  for  he  difproves  it,  becaiife  it  contradi&s  the 
Senfe  of  the  Britilll  Chunhes  before,  which  profrffed  Subje^ion  to  the  Ro- 
man See. 

-This  is  indeed  to  the  purpofe  if  it  be  well  proved,  which  in  the  lad:  * 
place  comes  to  be  confidered. 

(3.)  To  this  purpofe  he  alledges,    (r.)  The  Confirmation  of  St. D3- 
vidV  Synod  by  the  Pope's  Authority.     But  from  whence  hath  he  this  ? 
From  no  other  Teftimony  than  that  oi  Giraldus  Camhrenjis  cited  by  Bi^ 
(hop  Z)per,  who  in  the  fame  place  confefles.   That  there  n>.i(  no  Monti- 
ment  of  thofe  Synods  at  all  remanitig^    nor  of  the  I' opes  Confirmation  of 
themi^  and  the  other  MSS.  and  Legends  Of  St.  David's  Life  fay  not  a 
Word  of  this.     How  then  came  Giraldtis  to  affirm  it?     We  are  to  re- 
member that  G/ra/t/^f  had  a  Caufe  depending  in  the  Court  oiRon/e,  a- 
bout  the  B'fioprick oi' St.  Dav'd's,  and  he  knew  well  enough  what  Do- 
Sirine  was  pleafing  there,  and  therefore  the  Tefiimony  of  fnch  a  one,  ha- 
ving no  concurrent  Evidence  to  fupport  it,   is  of  very  little  force  in 
this  matter.     (2.)  He  mentions  the  Refpeft  Kent/gem  fhew'd  to  the 
Church  ^yRome,  go:ngfeven  times  thither,  and  having  at  lafl  his  uncano- 
ttical  Ordi/;ation  purged,  or  confirmed  by  the  Pope  ^    as  the  Author  of  his 
Legend  relates.     But  this  feems  to  me  a  fenfelefs  and  ridiculous  Legend  : 
For  as  (r)  BoUandtis  obferves,  if  Kent/gem  went  feven  times  to  Rome,  (0  '?;. 
how  came  he  to  put  off  the  Error  of  his  Confecration  to  the  lafl:  ?     If /end- ''* 
it  were  good  before,    why  not  then?     If  naught  before,   then  all  the  gem. 
^fi?j- performed  by  him  by  virtue  of  his  firft  Conferation  were  invalid. 
But  there  is  no  more  Error  fuppofed  in  the  Confecration  of  Kentigem 
by  ontBfjop,  than  there  was  in  that  of  Seritamts  by  Pal/adius,    which 
as  (0  Joh.  Major  faith,  ivas  good  in  cafe  ofnecejfity.     But  the  Writers  of  (/)  ue 
the  Legends,  living  long  after  the  times  of  the  Perfons,  framed  their  ^f/?. -ycofa 
Stories  according  to  the  Cuftoms  of  their  own  times  ;   and  becau/e  '^' 
fuch  3  Confe  ration  was  not  then  held  good,   therefore  the  Author  of 
his  Legend  rakes  care  to  have  that  defeft  fupplied  at  Rome,  and  to  make 
amends,  he  faith,  That  Kentigern  at  his  death  recommended  to  his  Dif- 
ciples  the  Decrees  of  the  Fathers,    and  the  Cufloms  of  the  Roman  Church. 
But  what  is  this  to  the  necelfityoi  Subje&ion  to  the  Roman  See  from  the 
general  Etui's  of  the  Briti/h  Churches  .<?     What  if  Kentigern  having  been 
often  at  Rome^    were  pleafed  more  with   the  Cuftoms  of  that  Church, 
than  of  the  Britains^     Doth  it  hence  follow,  tiiat  thofe  Britains  who 
maintained  Cuftoms  contrary  to  the  Romans,    did  think  it  neceflary  to 
conform  to  the  Church  ot  Rome,    when  the  plain  Evidence  of  Fai:i  is 
to  the  contrary  j    and  which  hath  far  more  Authority  than  fuch  Le- 

F  f  gends. 


c.z. 


2i6  The  Antiquities  of,  &CC       Chap.  V. 

/  )  Bede,  gg/f^f  35  thefe  ?  (3.)  Ninianus  if  (*)  faid  to  have  learnt  the  Chrijiiau 
DoSrtttc  at  Rome,  vpho  converted  the  Southern  Fid's,  a,: d  founded  the 
church  ad  Candidam  Cafam  ^  being  the  firjl  built  of  Stone.  But  what 
follows  from  hence  ?  Becaufe  Ninianus  was  made  a  Chriflian  at  Rome, 
therefore  the  Br.'tip  Churches  always  ovvn'd  the  Pope's  Supremacy.  They 
are  indeed  to  feek  for  Arguments  who  make  ufe  of  fuch  as  thefe.  (4. 1 
He  offers  to  prove  the  conftant  Submijfton  oi  ihQ  Britifl)  Churches  to  the 
Roman  SeefromGildas  himfelf,  and  he  makes  ufe  of  two  Arguments. 

{\.)  From  his  callingihe'^xm^  Churthes,  Sedem  Petri,  the  See  of  St. 
Peter.  I  confefs  Gildas  hath  thefe  Words,  but  quite  in  another  Senfe  ^ 
For  in  the  beginning  of  his  InveSiive  againft  the  Clergy,  among  other 
things  he  charges  them,  that  they  did  Sedem  Petri  Apojiolr  immundis pedi- 
bus  ufurpare.  Doth  he  mean  that  they  defiled  St.Vtttx'sChair  at  Rome  > 
No  certainly,  but  he  takes  St,  Peter's  Chair  for  that  which  all  the 
Clergy  poflTefled,  and  implies  no  more  than  their  Eccle/rajiical  Funclionj 
(«)  Gild,  and  fo  he  oppofes  it  to  («)  the  Chair  of  Judas,  into  which,  he  faith, 
h  58.<5o  j-^^fj  rvi  ked  Men  fell.     But  if  they  will  carry  St.  Peter'j-  Chair  to  Rome, 

they  muft  carry  the  Chair  tf/Judas  thither  too. 
(w)A.  D.      (2.)  (n>)  Alford  infifts  on  this  Paffage  in  Oildas,  That  they  were  mare 
548.  n.4  ambitious  of  Degrees  in  the  Church  than  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  5    And 
after  a  bitter  Inve^ive  againft  their  Symoniacal  Contra&s,  he  adds,    that 
where  they  were  oppofed  they  ran  beyond  Sea  to  compafs  their  ends.     Now 
faith  Alford,    whither  fhould  this  be  but  to  Rome  ?     For  as  Leland  ob- 
ferves  in  the  Cafe  of  Giralduf  CambrenJFs,  funt  en'tm  omnia  Venal} a 
Romas  :    all  things  are  bought  and  (old  there  ^   and  therefore  whither 
fliould  fuch  notorious  Symoniacal  Perfons  go,   but  to  Kome}     This  is  a 
very  furprifing  Argument,    and  is  more  wifely  paft  over  by  Mr.  CreJ/y 
than  infifted  on  by  Alfrd,  as  being  a  horrible  Refleftion  on  the  Court^ 
of  Rome  in  thofe  Days.     But  to  fay  Truth,   there  is  not  one  Word 
of  Rome  in  Gildas  ;   but  if  they  will  apply  it  to  Rome,    how  can  we 
help  it. 
(*)  A.  D.      To  conclude  this  Difcourfe,  (x)  Alford  is  much  difpleafed  with  (y) 
604.  n.io.  Sir  H.Spelman,  for  parallelling  the  Cafe  «>//^e  Britifti  Bifhops,  and  Aa- 
^\^^''"'' guOime,  with  that  of  the  Cyprian  hifhops  againfl  **e  Patriarch  ofAnti- 
och  :    But  for  what  Reafon  ?    Why,  faith  he.    The  Council  of  Ephe^as 
did  not  permit  the  Cyprian  Biftiops  to  decline  the  Judgment  of  their  Pa- 
triarch, but  declared  the  Bifhop  (j/Antioch  not  to  be  their  Patriarch.  Very 
well  !  And  is  not  this  the  very  cafe  here  ?     The  Biftiopof  Rome  chal- 
lenged a  Patriarchal  ?oroer  over  the  BritiJIj  Churches,    and  appoints  an 
Archbi/hop  over  them,    but  they  deny  that  he  had  fuch  Authority  over 
them,  they  being  governed  by  their  own  Metropolitan,    as  the  Cyprian 
Bifhops  were  5   and  therefore  by  the  Decree  of  the  Council  o/Ephefus, 
they  were  bound  topreferve  their  own  Rights.,    and  confequently  to  op- 
pofe  that  foreign  Jnrifdi&ion,  which  Augtiflirie  endeavoured  to  fet  up  o- 
ver  them. 


Two 


A 


7 


Two  DISCOURSES  Concerning  the  DOC  TRIM  E 
of  C  H  R  I  s  t's  S  a  t I  sf  a  c  I  o  n  ;  or,  the  true  Reafon 
of  his  Sufferings :  Wherein  the  Socinian  and  Antinomi- 
an  Controverfies  are  truely  Stated  and  Explained. 

With  an  ANSWER  to  Mr. Lobb's  Appeal,  and  to 
feveral  Letters  from  the  Didenting  Parties  in  London. 


Part     J. 


The    PREFACE 

TH  E  De/tgn  of  the  follomtJg  Di/courfe,  is  to  v'lMclicate  the  Do^rine 
of  Chrift's  Satisfaftion  from  the  Socinian  Objections.    Which, 
that  I  might  do  More  effeSttallj^  Ifet  my  felfto  confider  the  Force 
and  Strength  of  all  that  Crellius  had  produced  in  his  elaborate  Anfrver  to 
Grotius.     For  I  have  alrvays  endeavoured  to  underftand  the  right  Jiate  of 
a  ^ejiion,  before  I  undertook  it ;  and  when  I  had  done  that,  I  have  ta- 
ken as  much  Care,  as  I  could,  to  reprefent  it  truly  to  others.     Which  made 
me  not  a  little  furprifed,  when  1  found  our  modern  Socinians  in  their  late 
Vamphlets  to  charge  Me  as  well  as  others,  with  not  reading  their  Books 
upon  this  Queftion,  and  wholly  miftaking  the  State  of  the  Qpeftion 
between  the  Church  and  them.     Whereas,  if  I  had  not  read  their  Books  ^°'?^'^'^' 
I  might  peradveiiture  have  entertained  a  more  favourable  Opinion  of  them,  the  Expli- 
than  I  now  have.     But  it  was  upon  a  diligent  Conjtderation  of  the  HtmoJi'^^^^°"^.°^ 
I  could  find  wasfald  by  their  beji  Writers,  that  I  fo  long  fince  fatisfied^^y^-^'^^^l' 
my  felf  that  if  the  Books  of  the  New  Teftament  are  to  be  our  Rule  of  ArchU- 
Faith,  they   were  extreamly  mifiaken.     Indeed,  our  Unitarians  ( as  then  '^°P'*^^''" 
call  themjelves  )  Jeem  to  go  another  way  to  work  5  which  is,  by  undermining  p.  3 1. 
the  Authority  of  thefe  Books,  and  fo  to  introduce  Deifm  among  us  :^  (^of 
Tphich  I  hope  to  give  an  Account  in  another  Difourfe.  )     But  my  prefent 
buftnefs  is  to  lay  open  the  true  flate  of  this  Controverfie  between  us.     In 
their  Anfwer  to  my  Sermon  (^which  is  here  Reprinted^  they  fay.  That  the  ge"      '" 
Unitarians  never  denied,  as  I  fanfie,  that  Jefus  Chrift  made  himfelf  a  12. 
voluntary  Sacrifice  for  Expiation  of  the  Sins  of  Mankind.     If  this  he 
true,  I  confef,  I  have  mifiaken  them  t,  but  if  the  contrary  prove  very  true 
from  their  own  Writings,  what  do  thefe  Men  deferve,  fr  denying  that  which 
they  know  to  be  true  ?  For  it  is  hardly  poffihle  tofuppofe  fuch  bold  under' 
takers,   as  they  are.  fhould  be  ignorant  that  Socinus  abfolutely  denied.  That 
Chrift  made  himfelf  a  voluntary  Sacrifice  for  Expiation  of  the  Sins  of 
Mankind.     For  in  his  Anfwer  /<?  Volanus,  he  faith.  That  he  and  moftsocin.Op. 
others  are  greatly  miftjken  when  they  fay,  that  Chrift  offered  up  him-T.i.p. 
felf  to  God,  when  his  Blood  was  fhed  upon  the  Crofs:  And  hepofi-"^^^' 
tively  affirms.  That  the  Sacrifice  which  Chrift  offered  was  not  upon  the 
Crofs,  but  in  Heaven.    Thefe  Pajfages  gave  great  offence  to  one  Niemo)e-  Socin.  &- 
vius,  a  Friend  of  his,  who  in  his  firfl  Epijile  to  him,  calls  it,  A. horrid  p''^-p- 

Ff  2  Para- jM.Racov, 


228 


The  Preface. 


p.  204. 


p.  224. 

p.  225. 


2;4. 
26$. 


Paradox,  and  directly  contrary  to  Scripture,  and  wonders  what  be 
meant  to  write  fo  confidently  againft  the  plain  Teftimonies  of  Scrip- 
ture. Socinus  in  anfwer  to  him,  faith.  It  is  no  more  than  bimfelf  had 
aflerted  fome  Years  before,  in  hk  Book  De  Servatore  ;  and  others  of 
their  Party  before  him.  Af/d he  lajis  dorvn^,  (k  his  Conctujion,  which  he 
dejfres  his  Friend  to  brivg  his  Arguments  againjl,  viz.  That  the  Expia- 
tory Sacrifice  of  Chrift  for  our  Sins  was  not  performed  on  the  Crofs, 
but  in  Heaven.  Niemojevius  brings  exprefs  places  of  Scripture  againji 
this  Opinion  -^  and  faith.  He  could  by  no  means  excufe  fuch  plain  Op- 
pofition  to  the  words  of  Scripture.  Socinus  in  his  Reply^  p^^fifi^  i»  fry- 
ing. That  there  was  no  Expiatory  Sacrifice  for  Sin  in  the- Death  of 
Chrift ;  and  that  it  ought  to  be  confidered  as  an  Intervening  Condition 
in  order  to  the  Expiation  in  Heaven,  and  not  otherwife  ;  hut  he  roll 
by  no  means  allow  any  Proof  of  any  Sacrifice  of  the  Expiation  on  the 
Crofs.  And  fo  the  difpute  ended.  H'ith  rvhat  face  can  theji  norr  fay.  That 
the  Unitarians  never  denied  this,  vphen  Socinus  not  only  doth  it,  hut  de- 
fends it,  to  the  lafi,  and  faith.  That  others  had  done  it  before  him: 
Which  flievps,  that  it  was  no  fingrdar  Opinion  of  his  own,  but  that  which 
had  been  received  among  the  Unitarians  before  him. 

But  they  fay.  The  ^Unitarians  ever  acknowledged  that  the  Lord  Chrift 
was  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice  for  our  Sins,  as  may  be  feen  in  the  Rarovian 
Catechifm.  This  is  indeed  a  wonderful  Proof,  they  ever  acknowledged  it, 
as  may  be  feen  in  the  Racovian  Catechifm:  Were  there  no  Unitarians 
before  the  KdiCovhn  Catechifm?  And  was  that  always  the  fame  ^  Suppofe 
/^e Unitarians  before,  were  of  another  Opinion ;  fappofe  the  Racovian  Ca- 
techifm it  felf  hath  been  altered  in  this  matter  :  how  can  any  man  ofSenfe 
he  fatisfied  with  fuch  kind  of  Arguments  as  thefe .«"  One  would  think,  thej 
wrote  only  for  fuch  as  would  take  their  Words '.^  theyjoynfo  much  Confidence 
with  fo  very  little  appearance  of  Reafon.  All  that  know  any  thing  of  thefe 
Matters,  krttw  very  well,  that  //ie  Racovian  Catechifm  was  firfl  framed  by 
Smalcius,  aflri5t  Follower  and  defender  <?/ Socinus,  from  whofe  Opinions 
he  did  not  vary  at  all  as  to  this  matter,  as  will  appear  from  all  the  old  E- 
ditions  of  it.  In  which  the  ^eflion  is  put,  -What  is  the  Reafon  of  the 
Sufferings  of  Chrift  >  The  Anfwer  is  two  fold  5  i.  To  be  an  Example  of 
Patience.  2.  To  confirm  the  Truth  of  God's  Promifes.  And  after  thefe 
are  explained,  another  ^eflion  is  asked.  Is  there  no  other  Caufe  of  the 
Death  of  Chrift  >  The  Anfwer  is  very  jhort.  Nulla  prorfus.  None  at  all. 
And  in  the  Conclufion  of  that  Chapter  a  ^te(iion  is  put  about  Sairifices, 
and  the  Anfwer  is.  That  the  Death  of  Chrift  was  no  Sacrifice,  but  on- 
ly a  Preparation  to  it,  and  a  kind  of  Introduftion  to  it,  for  the  Sacri- 
fice was  offered  in  Heaven  and  not  before.  Have  we  not  now  great  E- 
vidence  to  believe  from  the  Racovian  Catechifm,  that  Jefus  Chrift  made 
himfelf  a  voluntary  Sacrifice  for  Expiation  of  the  Sins  of  Mankind  > 
But  befides  the  Racovian  Catechifm,  they  refer  me  to  Schliftingius  and 
Ruarus.  For  what,  I  pray  ?  For  what  the  Unitarhns  always  held. ^  That 
is  impojfible,  when  there  is  fuch  evident  Proof  to  the  contrary,  I  fuppofe 
their  meaning  is,  l^at  the  Kacovian  Catechifm,  being  reviewed  by  them 
fpeaks  otherwife.  And  is  this  a  good  Proof,  that  they  ivere  always  of  that 
mind,  becaufe  from  hence  it  is  evident  they  have  changed  it  .<?  And  fo  it 
will  appear  to  any  one  that  will  compare  the  latter  Editions  with  the  for- 
In  the  lafi  Edition  I  have  feen,  as  it  is  review  d  by  Schliftingius, 


Cacech. 
Racov.  c, 
8.  q.  4. 


Q.   12. 

q.  38. 


Catecli. 
Racov. 
Scaurop. 
An.  Dom. 
»68o 


mer. 


Ruarus,  and  others,  there  is  a  Preface,  wherein  they  confefs  it  is  changed  in 
fever al  things  fom  what  it  was,  when  it  was  firjl  publifljed  by  Mofcoro- 

vius. 


The  Preface.  2  ia.9 


vius,  A.D.  1 609,  aad  yet  the  Unitarians  vpercftill  of  the  fame  mind,  although 
fame  more  fofning  Exprejftons  were  for  meer  fl^ame  thought  fit  to  be  infer t- 
cd.  In  this  Corte^  Edition,  the  ^efiion  is  put.  Why  was  it  necelTary 
for  Chrifl:  to  fufFer  as  he  did  ?  And  the  Anfrver  is  two-fold  5  i .  That  p.  hi. 
Chrift  fuffered  for  our  Sins  by  God's  appointment,  and  underwent  a 
cruel  Death  as  a  Sacrifice  of  Expiation.  Who  could  imagine  this  to  be 
the  Racovian  Catechifmy?///.'?  2.  Becaufe  thofe  who  are  to  be  faved 
by  him  are  fubjeft  to  the  like  Suffering.  This  isfomewhat  a  dark  Rea- 
fon  ^  but  the  former  is  that  which  we  are  to  confider. 

Chrift,  [ay  they,  fufFer'd  for  the  fins  of  Mankind,  and  was  a  Sacrifice 
of  Expiation  by  his  Death.     What  can  we  deftre  more .«"  full  we  always 
iftain'ain  difputes  about  Words,  when  we  agree  in  Senfe  ^  No,  that  is  not 
the  Cafe,  but  we  may  feetn  toagiee  in  Words  and  differ  in  Senfe.     That 
therefore  muji  be  more  firi&ly  examined.     But  becaufe  t^ej  fometimes  feem  conMe- 
io  be  difpleafed  that  we  take  their  Opinion  from  foreign  Writers,  (yfW^e  rations  on 
they  herefet  up  for  themfelves  and  are  fo  able  to  exprefs  their  own  Senfe^^^^^^^^'f 
and  becaufe  they  refer  me  to  their  own  late  Prints  in  the  Englifh  Tongue,  the  Tnni- 
therefore  I  fhall  apply  myfelf  to  them,  to  find  out  what  their  true  Senfe  in  '^  ^^  ^'"• 
this  matter  is.     And  they  feem  freely  to  tell  us  what  they  deny  and  what'^^.       ^* 
they  aflBrm.  Anfwer 

1.  They  deny  that  this  Sacrifice  was  by  way  of  true  and  proper  Sa-s"^™^ 
tisfa£^ion  or  full  and  adequate  Payment  to  the  Juftice  of  God.  12™  ^' 

2.  They  affirm,  that  this  Sacrifice  was  only  an  Oblation,  or  Appli- 
cation to  the  Mercy  of  God. 

In  another  place  they  complain,  that  very  few  of  their  Adverfaries  have  Anfwer  to 
really  underftood  what  they  affirm  or  deny  concerning  the  Caufes  or'^'^'P- 
Effefts  of  our  Saviour's  Death.     And  they  fay,  the  Queftion  is  only ' 
this,  Whether  the  Lord  Chrift  offered  himfelf  as  fuch  a  Sacrifice,  Ob- 
lation or  Price  as  might  be  made  to  the  Juftice  of  God,  by  way  of  E- 
quivalent  for  what  we  ftiould  have  fuffer'd  ;  or  was  an  Oblation  or  Sa-  . 
tisfaftion  as  all  former  Sacrifices  under  the  Law  were,  to  the  Mercy  of 
God  by  way  of  Humble  Suit  and  Deprecation  ?  So  that  they  will  no 
longer  difpute  with  us,  about  the  Death  of  Chrifl  being  an  Expiatory 
Sacrifice  for  the  Sins  of  Mankind  ;  andfo  this  Point  feems  wholly  gained. 
But  we  muJi  have  a  care  of  being  deceived  by  them.     For  the  Scripture  was 
too  clear  and  juU  to  be  horn  down  by  the  Authority  or  Evafions  o/Socinus  ; 
and  therefore  they  found  it  neceffary  to  comply  in  Terms,  as  long  as  they 
could  keep  to  their  own  Notions  under  them.     But  what  is  the  true  mean- 
ing of  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice  to  the  Mercy  of  God  ?  If  it  he  no  more 
but  as  a  Condition  intervening,  Socinus  would  not  allow  that  to  make  an 
Expiatory  Sacrifice,  and  therein  he  was  in  the  Right. 

The  main  Point  then  between  us  feems  to  be  whether  the  Death  of  Chrifl 
had  Refped  to  the  Juftice  or  to  the  Mercy  of  God?  And  here  we  «!f»/?Anfwerco 
confider  what  they  underftand  by  the  Juftice  of  God.  ^'/*-  P- 

1.  They  fay,  that  Almighty  God  as  King  and  Proprietor  of  all  Per-  *^' 
fons  and  Things,  can  forgive  any  Offence  or  all  Offences,  even  with- 
out Repentance  or  Amendment,  nor  is  it  contrary  to  his  Juftice  fo 
to  do. 

2.  That  it  is  not  the  Juftice  of  God,  by  which  he  is  prompted  to 
punifti  finners,  but  his  Holinefs  and  Wifdom,  and  that  juftice  hath  no 
other  ftiare  or  intereft  in  Punifhment,  but  only  to  fee  that  Puniftiment 
be  not  mifplaced,  and  that  it  do  not  exceed  the  OflPence. 

3.  That 


!^i,  o  The  Preface, 

3.  That  God  could  not  (juftly  or  wifely)  fubftitute  an  innocent 
P- H-     and  well  defervingPerfon  to  undergo  Punifhrnent,  properly  fo  called 

in  the  Place  of  the  unrighteous  and  worthlefs,  becaufe  it  is  of  the  Na- 
ture of  Juftice  not  to  mifplace  Punifhments. 

4.  That  Chrifl:  could  not  offer  himfelf  freely  for  us  to  undergo  the 
Punifhrnent  due  to  us,  nor  could  God  accept  of  it,  or  allow  ir :  be* 
caufe  it  is  of  the  very  Effence  of  Juftice  not  to  mifplace  Punifhrnent 

^'  ^^'    and  not  ro  exceed  the  Defert  of  the  Offence,  which  they  fay  are  the 

two  things  that  conftitute  the  Nature  of  Punitive  Juftice. 
anSchem'      ^"  '^"''^^"'  P^^^^->  t^^yfaj/.  That  Chrift  made  himfelf  an  Oblation,  an 
of  Rdf^*^ Expiatory  Sacrifice  on  tlie  Altar  of  the  Crofs  for  our  Sins.     But  his 
p-i8.      Sufiferings  were  not  (as  Trinitarians  teach)  defigned  as  a  Punifliment 
laid  on  him  in  our  ftead,  becaufe  Puniftiment  is  the  evil  of  Suffering 
inflifted  for  the  evil  of  Doings  but  Chrift  having  done  no  fin  5  what 
he  underwent  was  only  labour  and  fuffering  and  no  Puniftiment.     And 
agahi  they  fay,  the  Oblation  was  not  made  to  the  Juftice,  but  to  the  Mer- 
p- 19.     cy  of  God.     But  the  Sufferings  of  Chrift  being  gracioufly  accepted  by 
God,  as  an  Interceflion  on  our  behalf,  God  was  fatisfied  with  them, 
^e^Arch°3nd  this,  they  fy,  is  the  proper  Notion  of  Satisfadion.     The  fame  they 
bifhop,  p.  repeat  in  other  places.     And  if  no  more  were  to  be  regarded  bur  meer  n>ordf, 
'*•  this  Cofitroverfe  were  at  an  endi,  for  they  own  Chrifi's  Death  to  be  an  Ex- 

piatory Sacrifice  for  the  Sins  of  Mankind,  and  that  he  made  by  his  Suffer' 
ings  Satisfadion  to  God. 

But  Ijhall  now  make  it  appear,  that  whatever  they  pretend,  they  do  real- 
ly  own  no  fuch  thing  as  the  Death  of  Chriji  being  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice 
for  the  Sins  of  Mankind.  However,  we  have  this  Advantage  by  thefe 
Concejjions,  that  the  Scriptures  are  yielded  to  be  on  our  fide,  and  that  they 
are  forced  tofpeak  as  we  do,  whatfoever  their  meaning  be.  But  that  they 
do  not  own  any  proper  Expiatory  Sacrifice  in  the  Death  of  Chrift,  will 
bejl  appear  by  an  Account  of  the  Rife  and  Progrefs  of  this  Controverfie^ 
and  of  the  true  State  of  it. 

Thefirft  Rife  of  it  was  from  the  Mul/i/udes  of  PI  ares  of  Scripture,  which 

Attribute  all  the  proper  Effe&s  of  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice  to  the  Death 

of  Chrift.     And  that  by  thofe  who  beji  nnderfiood  for  what  End  it  was  that 

Chrifl  fufferd,  and  had  no  Intention  to  deceive  or  to  amufe  Mankind,  I 

Matt.  10.  ^^g^,^  gj^y.  Saviour  and  his  Apofiles.   Our  Blejfed  Saviour  himfelf  faith.  That 

Mark  10.  the  Son  of  Man  came  to  give  his  Life  a  Ranfom  for  many.    A  Ran- 

45-  fom  as  to  what;!  Surely  not  as  to  the  Mercy  of  God.     But  Chrifi's  Death 

was  a  Ranfom  as  it  ves  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice;  and  if  the  one  refpe£ls 

the  Mercy  of  God,  the  other  mufi  dofo  too.     They  may  fay,  the  Ranfom 

is  from  the  Puniftiment  of  Sins,  but  this  Ranfom  might  be  made  as  to 

the  Mercy  of  God,  which  delivers  from  it.     But  a  Ranfom  is  fomething 

which  is  paid  or  laid  down  as  a  Price  <)/Redemption  ;  and  was  very  well 

Lcvit.  17.  nnderfiood  in  that  Senfe  among  the  Jews  x,  who  all  knew  that  by  their  Law, 

"•         the  Blood  of  the  Sacrifices  was  appointed  to  be  a  Ranfom  for  their 

Souls.     For  it  is  the  Blood  that  maketh  an  Atonement  for  the  Soul. 

Heb.9.z2.Ttf  which  \the    Apoflle  refers,  when  he  faith.  That  without  fheding  of 

Blood  there  is   no  Remiflion.     So  that  hereby  the  Jews  undcrjlood  thefe 

things,     (l.)  That  there  was  a  Punifliment  due  to  their  Sins,  from  which 

they  could  expe^  no  Deliverance  but  by  the  Blood  of  Sacrifices  as  a  Ranfom 

or  Price  of  Redemption  for  them.     («.)  That  as  the  Punijjjment  became  due 

by  the  Law,  and  the  execution  of  it  was  by  the  Jufiice  of  God,  fo  the  Ranfom 

er  Price  of  Redemption  mufi  be  by  way  of  Satisfa&ion  to  the  Law,  in 

fuch 


The    Preface.  2^i 

Jitch  a  ntAn>ier  oi  it  had  appointed.  (3.}  That  they  had  mo  other  Notion  of 
an  Expiatory  -Sacrifice,  but  the  Offering  the  Blood  of  the  Sacrifice ^r  an 
Atonement  in  order  to  the  Averting  the  juft  Difpleafure  of  God  againjl 
them  for  their  Sins  ^  and  this  rcasthat,  which  they  underjlood  by  Expiati- 
on or  Kemiflion  of  Sins.  (4._)  That  the  Expiation  did  not  depend  upon 
the  Sacrifice,  ^trfw  intervening  Condition  as  /^  the  Party,  who  therebj 
ferfjrmed  an  A^  ofObed:ence^  but  upo?2  the  Nature  of  the  Sacrifice  rvhich 
was  offer  d  to  God.  For,  whatever  had  been  required^  the  Obedience 
had  been  the  fame -^  but  here  the  great  Force  is  laid  on  the  Blood  bein^ 
ofFer'd  for  Expiation.  (5.)  7hat  however  the  Mercy  of  God  was  feen 
both  in  the  Appointing  and  Accepting  the  Ranfomj   yet  the  Expiatory 

•  Sacrifice  was  never  underfiood  by  them  to  Refpe^i  the  Mercy  of  God,  but 
his  Jnft  Difpleafure  againjl  their  Sins.  What Jirange  Language  would  it 
have  been  thought  among  the  Jews  to  offer  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice  to  the 
Mercy  of  God  ?  But  Men  that  bring  in  New  Doftrines,  muji  make  a 
New  Senfe  of  Words  and  Phrafes  ^  or  elfe  they  can  never  reconcile  theni 
to  each  other.  And  it  is  a  mighty  Adva>Jtage  to  our  Caufe,  that  we  nnder- 
fiand  the  Expreflions  of  the  New  Teftaraent  with  RefpeSf  to  thefe  Mat- 
ters, no  otherwife  than  the  Jews  nnderjiood  them,  among  whom  they  were 
fpohen  ;  and  who  had  their  owh  Law  to  interpret  them  by.  Our  prefent 
Unitarians  do  not  deny  that  the  Sacrifices  under  the  Law  had  an  immedi- 
ate Refpeft  to  God  \  hit  they  fay,  it  was  not  by  way  of  Satistaftion  to 
the  Juftice  of  God,  but  by  way  of  Application  to  the  Mercy  of  God,  by 
way  of  humble  Suit  and  Deprecation. 

But  if  there  were  fuch  a  San&ion  of  the  Law,  whereby  an  Obligation  to 
Vunifhment  did  follow  the  Offences  prbidden  by  it  ^  If  the  Jujiice  of  God 
were  concerned  to  fee  the  PunijJoment  executed,  if  the  Law  were  not  fatisfted  5 
If  the  Sacrifice  of  Atonement  or  Expiation  were  defigned  for  fatisfaUion  of 
the  Law  ^  and  God  did  accept  it  for  that  end,  then  it  follows,  that  thefe 
Sacrifices  were  intended  not  merely  as  Rites  (?/Intefceffion  4W  Deprecati- 
on to  the  Mercy  of  God  ;  but  by  way  o/Satisfaftion  to  his  Juftice.  For 
was  it  not  Jujlice  in  God  to  punifh  Offenders  again(i  his  Law  ?  Wm  it  not 
Jujiice  in  God  to  require  a  Satisfa&ion  to  his  Law  when  itwai  broken  .<?  Was 
it  not  juJiice  in  God,  when  he  had  declared  that  he  would  accept  a  Sacrifice 
of  Atonement,  to  require  that  infiead  of  the  Punifhment  of  the  Offenders^ 
and  to  punifb  thofe  who  wilfullj  negle&ed  or  defpifed  it  ?  How  then,  can 
they  pretend  that  thefe  Sacrifices  had  no  Refpeft  to  the  Juftice  of  God  > 
We  never  read  in  Scripture  any  Exprejfions,  m  to  the  Methods  ofSupplica* 
tion  like  this.  That  the  Blood  of  the  Sacrifices  was  to  expiate  for  their 
Sins :  and  that  it  was  given  for  an  Atonement  for  the  Soul.  7/  it  ever 
faid,  that  Prayer  and  Supplication  was  to  make  a  Sacrifice  of  Atonement, 
and  that  it  was  appointed  for  that  End  ?  Prayer  is  a  Natural  and  Necef- 
fary  Duly  and  a  Condition  in  order  to  Pardon,  but  the  Life  and  Force  of 
that  lies  in  a  Man's  own  Breaji,  in  the  inward  and  fervent  Defires  of  the 
Soul  :  but  a  Sacrfiie  of  Atonement  was  a  thing  of  another  Nature,  the 
Blood  was  to  be  /bed  and  then  offer  d  up  to  God,  as  a  Sacrifice  of  Atonement, 
which  God  himfelfhad  appointed  for  that  End  ^  and  without  which  no  Re- 
mijjion  of  Sins  was  to  be  expe&ed.  But  was  not  this  from  the  Mercy  of 
God  to  appoint  fuch  a  Sacrifice  of  Atonement  ?  No  doubt  of  it,  andfo 
it  was  that  he  would  accept  it  for  fitih  an  End,  But  that  is  by  no  means  the 
prefent  ^efiion  ;  for  it  is.  Whether  the  Sacrifite,  which  God  appointed 
for  an  Atonement,  was  only  a  Rite  <j/'Supplication  to  the  Mercy  of  God  ? 
In  one  Senfe  a  Sacrifice  of  Atonement  is  a  way  <?/ Deprecation  ;   but  then  if 

re* 


23  2  The    Preface. 


relates  to  the  l^Vrath  and  D  fpleafure  of  God  5  pr  it  is  thi\i  vphich  God  hath 
appoifited  as  the  Means  of  Averting  his  ^  rath,  and  Preve>?t-ng  the  Exe- 
cution of  his  Jnflire.  But  the  main  ^ief.ion  is,  iVhethcr  the  Sacrifice  of 
Atonement  as  to  God's  juji  Wrath  and.  •  ifpleafure,  be  not  a  Real  Satisf.'i- 
ftion  to  his  Juftice  >  For  if  he  be  juflly  difptea'ed,  and  might  jitjlly  pn- 
»JJJ},  hut  doth  accept  a  Sacr'ft.e  of  Expiation  in  jiead  of  it,  although  there 
be  a  Concurrence  of  Mercy,  yet  there  is  a  Real  Atonement  to  his  Jujlice  •■: 
unlefs  they  rvill  fay,  the  Juflive  of  God  is  not  concerned  in  preferving  the 
Honour  ofh  s  Laws.  But  of  this  more  afterwards.  If  an  Expiatory  Sa- 
crifice under  the  Larv  were  nothing  elje  hut  a  Solemn  Rife  <7/SappIicatLon 
to  the  Mercy  of  God  it  vrould  take  away  theTypical  Nature  ofthfe  Sacrifi- 
ces, and  efpecially  thofe  on  the  Day  of  Expiation.  For  vchat  doth  a  Rite  of 
Supplication  and  Intercejjion  reprefent  as  a  Figure  of  foraething  to  come? 
Levit.  6.  I'i'hji  were  the  Go^tand  the  Bullock  for  the  Sin-Offering  to  be  prefented 
^°»  ^^-  alive  before  the  Lord  ^  then  their  Blood  to  be  fhed,  and  to  be  fprink- 
''*'^^'^^' led  before  the  Mercy-feat  and  upon  the  Altar?  V/hy  n^as  the  Scape- 
Goat  to  ha7je  the  Sins  of  the  People  confelTed  over  him  and  put  upon 
"•  =••  his  head  >  H  hy  was  the  Fle(h  of  the  Bullock  and  Goat  that  was  Sacri- 
ficed burnt  without  the  Camp  ?  Do  thefe  look  like  Applications  to  the 
Mercy  of  God,  by  way  of  humble  Suit  and  Deprecation  ?  But  the  A- 
Heb.  9.  9,  pojile  to  the  Hebrews  tells  us,  thefe  things  were  a  Figure  reprefenting  Chirfi 
'^>>3.'4  offering  himfelf  up  to  God  by  his  own  Blood,  who  having  obtain'd  e- 
ternal  Redemption  for  us  enter'd  into  the  Holy  Place  (  in  Heaven  ) 
tvhofe  Blood  was  far  more  effeBual  for  the  Purging  away  of  Sin,  than  the 
Bloodof  Bulls  and  Goats  could  he  :^  and  to  anfwer  to  the  burning  of  the 
13. 12.  Flefiy  of  the  Sacrifices  without  the  Camp,  that  he  might  Sanftify  the  People 
with  his  own  Blood,  hefuffer'd  without  the  Gate.  0^as  all  this  nothing 
but  an  Oblation  to  the  Mercy  of  God  by  way  of  Prayer  and  Interceffi- 
on  ?  Why  all  this  Ceremony  about  an  Oblation  of  Prayer,  which  depends 
on  the  hearty  Devotion  of  him  that  makes  it  ?  Why  d'd  not  the  High- 
Prieft  enter  without  Blood  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  if  it  were  nothing 
but  a  Rite  of  Supplication  .-?  Whji  was  the  Blood  fprinkled  upon  the  Al- 
tar for  Atonement,  after  he  came  otitfiom  the  Mercy  Seat?  Why  was  the 
FleQi  burnt  without  the  Camp  ?  Was  that  for  Interceffion  too  ?  But  faith 
?^e  Cfl^re^  Racovian  Catcchifm,  all  this  doth  not  prove  that  the  whole 
Expiatory  Sacrifice  of  Ch rift  was  performed  on  the  Crofs,  but  only  that 
it  was  begun  there  and  perfeded  in  Heaven.  This  doth  evidently  prove, 
that  the  blood  of  Chrift  was  (hed^?*  the  Expiation  of  Sins,  and  that  as 
the  High-Prieft  went  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  with  the  Blood  of  the  Sacri- 
ficed/Atonement there  to  make  Interceffion  ;  fo  Chnft  as  our  High-Prieft 
Feb  jztVpithh's^]oodfijed  enter  d  into  Heaven,  where  he  ever  lives  to  make  In- 
terceffion for  us.  But  fay  they,  the  Sacrifices  under  the  Law  did  not 
make  any  proper  Satisfaftion  for  Sin,  therefore  neither  did  Chrift's  Si- 
crifice.  So  that  at  la(l  they  confefs  that  Chrift's  death  was  no  proper  Ex- 
piatory Sacrifice  5  for  whatfoever  is  fo,  muji  make  Sitisfaftion  to  the  Law 
and  Juftice  of  God.  But  fay  they,  the  Sicrifices  were  not  offer'd  for 
Payment  but  for  Remiffion.  1  fay,  they  were  2l  Payment  in  order  to  Re- 
miffion.  I  meanfuch  a  Payment  as  the  Law  appointed  and  God  accepted, 
and  that  is  true  and  proper  Satisfaftion.  But  we  muji  diflinguifl)  a  Legal 
Payment  and  Satisfa&ion.^  front  Pecuniary  Payment  to  a  Creditor,  And 
all  the  Confusion  thefe  Men  have  run  into,  hath  been  from  want  of  diftin- 
gu'frnng  thefe  ;  of  which  I  have  treated  at  large-  in  the  following  Dif- 
courfe. 

Thus 


The  Preface.  233 

.Thus  far -it  appears  that  they  have  hy  no  means  allovp'd  the  Death  and 
Sufferings  ofChriJi  to  have  been  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice  in  the  Senfe  of  the 
Jews,  as  it  was  a  Ranfom  or  Price  of  Redemption. 

But  there  is  fomething  farther  to  be  confider  d  in  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice,' 
and  that  is  a  Subftitution  in  Place  of  the  Offenders.     For  that  the  Jews 
and  others  underjlood  by  a  Sacrifice  of  Expiation,  tvhen  the  Pnnijhment  of 
one  vpas  laid  upon  another,  in  order  to  his  deliverance.     Not  that  the  very 
fame  vpas  to  be  undergone,    as  appears  by  the  Sacrifice  0/ Atonement  on  the 
Day  <?/ Expiation  5   rchich  was  not  that  which  the  People  of  Ifrael  were 
to  have  fujfer'd  without  it,    but  it  was  what  God  Appointed  and  Accepted 
infiead  ^/f/je/r  Punifhment :    and  therefore  the  Scape-Goat  is  faid  to 
bear  upon  him  all  the  Iniquities  of  the  People,  which  was  fuppofed  to  ^eLevit.  i^. 
fo  mudh  charged  with  them,  that  he  that  let  him  go  was  to  Purify  himfelf  ^^" 
before  he  could  come  into  the  Camp.     So  in  the  Sin-offering  for  the  4.  15. 
Congregation,    the  Elders  were  to  lay  their  hands  upon  the  head  of 
the  Bullock  before  the  Lord :  and  in  other  Sacrifices  the  Rule  among  the 
Jews  was,  that  none  but  the  Owner  was  to  lay  on  his  Hands  5  to  f/jew    ^  4' 
on  whofe  Account  he  was  offer  d  up  as  a.  Sacrifice  of  Atonement,     for  here 
the  Right  of  Dominion  n>as  fufficient  for  Subftitution  j  but  in  a  Rational 
Agent,  Confent  //  neceffary  to  make  it  Juft. 

Having  thus  feen,   what  the  true  Nature  of  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice  was, 
tee  mufi  now  confider,  how  far  this  can  agree  with  the  Suffering  of  Chrift, 
for  the  Sins  tf/ Mankind.     And  we  have  already  found  our  Saviour  himfelf 
declaring,  that  he  gave  his  Life  a  Ranfom  for  many.  But  that  is  not  alii, 
for  when  he  inftituted  his  laft  Supper  ^r  a  Commemoration  of  his  Suffer- 
ing, he  faid.   For  this  is  my  Blood  of  the  New  Teftament,    which  is  Matt.  2d, 
(had  for  many  for  the  Remiflion  of  Sins.     His  Difciples,  to  whom  he  ^^' 
fpake  thefe  Words,    mufl  underfiand  them  as  the  Jews  commonly  did  5 
tphen  the  Blood  f/a  Sacrifice  was  offer  d  for  an  Atonement  in  order  to  the 
Remiflion  of  Sins.     And  one  great  end  of  his  Preaching  was  to  declare 
.that  he  came  into  the  World  with  that  defign  ;    that  it  was  the  Will  af  God 
kefhouldfuffer,   and  that  he  carrie  to  do  his  Will.    And  therefore fpeaking  ^^^-  ^°- 
cf  laying  down  his  Life,  he  faith.  No  man  taketh  it  away  from  me  but  I  joimto. 
lay  it  down  of  my  felf.  t  have  power  to  lay  it  downand  I  have  power  17, 18. 
to  take  it  again^    This  Commandment  have  I  received  of  my  Father. 
So  that  here  we  have  God's  Appointment,<7/y«cA  4  Sacrifice  <?/ Atonement 
for  Mankind  t,    Chriji's  free  and  voluntary  Confent  ^r  the  undertaking  it, 
and  a  Tranflation  of  the  Punifhment  of  our  Sins  upon  him  ^    which  St.  Paul 
calls  God's  making  him  to  be  fin  for  us  who  knew  no  Sin  ^   which  (hews  ^  ^"i".  5= 
phat  the  Sufferiugs  ofChriJi  were  on  the  Account  of  our  Sins,  being  laid  upon 
him  by  his  own  Confent  as  our  Sin- offering  i   or  a  Sacrifice  of  Expiati- 
on* for  our  Sin.      And   in  another   place  faith,    that  he    hath    re- ■Gal.  3. lo. 
deemed  us  from  the  Curfe  of  the  Law,     being  made  a  Curfe  for 
us.     How  could  he  be  made  a  Curfe  for  us  in  order  to  the  Redeming 
us  from  the  Curfe   of  the   Law  t,   if  his  Sufferings  were  only  a  mere 
voluntary  Condition  in  order  to  his  Exaltation,  without  bearing  the  Burden 
of  our  Sins  ?  But  St.  Paul  adds,  that  we  have  Redemption  through  his  Epii.  r.  7- 
Blood,  the  Forgivenefs  of  Sins.     That,   God  hath  fet  him  forth  as  a  ^°'°^'-  ^• 
Propitiation  through  Faith  in  his  Blood,    to  declare  his  RighteoufnefsRcm.  3. 
for  the  RemifEon  of  Sins.    That,  when  we  were  enemies,    we  were  re-  ^^■ 
conciled  to  God  by  the  Death  of  his  Son.    That  he  hath  given  him-  Eph.  t±* 
felf  for  us,   an  Offering  and  Sacrifice  to  God.     That,   he  appeared  "eb.  p.i^. 
to  put  away  Sin  by  the  Sacrifice  of  himfelf  5  and  that  he  was  once  ^^" 

G  e  offer'd 


2  34-  The  Preface. 

1  Tim.2.6,  ofl-er'tj  to  bear  the  Sins  of  many.     That^    he  gave  himfelf  a  Ran- 
fom  for  all. 

Neither  was  it  St.  Paul  only  who  [peaks  after  this  manner  5  hut  St. 
I  Pet.  i.  Peter  faith,  that  his  own  felf  bare  our  Sins  in  his  own  Body  on  the  Tree„ 
"|\  ,g_  That  Chrifk  alfo  hath  once  fufFered  for  Sins,  the  Juft  for  the  Unjaft. 
I  john'i.  And  St.  John,  That  the  Blood  of  Jcfus  Chrift  his  Son  cleanfeth  us  from 
''•  all  Sin,  and  that  God  fent  his  Son  to  be  the  Propitiation  for  our  Sins. 

4  10.    So  that  Chriji  and  his  Apojlles  agree  in  the  fame  manner  ofexpreffion  ;    and 
great  veeight  is  laid  up^n  Chrfji's  being  a  Propitiation  for  ns^   and  our 
Uopes  ofRemijfion  of  Sins  and  the  Favour  of  God  depend  upon  it.    What 
ttow  is  to  be  faid  to  all  thefe  places  of  Scripture  }     Were  they  defgned  on- 
ly to  humour  and  impofe  upon  the  Credulity  of  Mankind  by  telling  them  of 
fitch  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice  in  the  Death  of  Chriji,   which  never  was  nor 
could  be,  being  Repugnant  to  the  Jujiice  of  God  ?  For  Chriji,  fay  they,  be- 
ing Innocent  could  not  fuffer  the  Punifhment  of  our  Sins,  and  God  be- 
ingjuft  could  not  accept  of  it,  although  he  freely  ofFer'd  himfelf  as  a 
Sacrifice  for  our  Sins.     Doth  this  agree  with  the  Force  and  Dejign  of  all 
thefe  Exprejfions  .<?     Had  not  Chriji  the  Power  and  Will  to  offer  up  himfelf 
as  a  Sacrifice  <?/  Propitiation  to  God  ?     And  where  lies  the  Injuftice  of  ac- 
cepting fuch  a  Sacrifice  which  he  feely  offer' d  ?     But  it  could  not  be,  fay 
they,  by  way  of  Punifhment  for  our  Sins.     What  then  is  the  meaning  of 
■^  all  thofe  places,    wherein  he  is  faid  to  bear  our  Sins  and  to  f»ffer  in  our 

fiead,  the  juft  for  the  unjuft  ?  What  is  this  but  to  contradiS  the  Tenoitr 
and  Scope  of  the  New  Teftament  with  refpeci  to  the  Death  ef  Chriji  5 
and  to  turn  their  Senfe  quite  another  way  from  what  they  were  thought 
to  fignifie  at  that  time  .<?  Which  is  no  reafonaUe  way  of  interpreting 
Scripture. 

Do  they  deny  that  Chriji  fuffered,  what  we  fay  he  did  .«'  No  j  that  they 
dare  not  do.  But  they  fay.  What  he  underwent  was  only  Labour  and 
Suffering  ^  but  not  the  Puniftiment  of  our  Iniquities.  Then,  I  fay,  it 
could  be  no  Expiatory  Sacrifice,  which  implies  a  Subftitution,  and  the  con-  • 
trary  appears  by  the  many  places  <)/ Scripture  already  mentioned,  whereiit 
our  Sins  and  the  Sufferings  of  Chrift  are  joined  together. 

Thfff  we  fee  the  true  Rife  ofthisControverfte  was  from  the  many  places  of 
Scripture,  which  feem  very  plain  and  clear  in  this  matter  5  and  therefore  I 
fhall  now  give  an  account  of  the  Progrefs  of  it. 

F.  Socinus  feeing  the  bent  of  the  Scripture  fo  much  againft  him,  fets  him- 
felf to  the  finding  out  ways  to  avoid  the  force  of  them. 
...        I,  To  thofe  which  fpeak  of  Chrift' s  being  a  Ranfom  (W  Price  of  Redemp- 
serv"i.  2.  tion  for  us,   he  anfwers,   That  thefe  Expreffions  are  to  be  underftood 
c.i.iiifio.  only  Metaphorically,  and  Chrift's  Death  being  an  Intervening  Condi- 
tion in  order  to  our  Deliverance^   it  is  therefore  called  a  Price  of  Re- 
demption.    Jnd  to  the  fame  purpofe,    the  Corrc^  Racovian  Catechifm  5 
only  there  it  k  added.  That  God  did  accept  of  the  Death  of  Chrift  as  a 
moft  Acceptable  Sacrifice.      But  not  by  way  of  Satisfaction  or  Pay- 
ment of  our  Debts,  becaufe  he  3s  a  Sacrifice  was  given  by  God  him- 
felf; but  that  he  might  give  us  the  greater  AlTurance  of  Pardon  and 
Eternal  Life. 

So  that  here  we  have  the  true  State  of  this  Matter  before  tts  5  viz.  Whe- 
ther the  Death  of  Chrift,  when  it  is  faid  to  be  a  Ranfom  or  Price  of  Re- 
demption for  us,  is  only  to  be  locked  on  as  a  hard  Condition  on  his  fide  In- 
tervening, or^i^  a  proper  Sacrifice  fl/Atonement,  which  God  had  appointed, 
for  the  Expiation  ^/:ins  >    The  §lueftion  k  not.  Whether  God  appointed 

or 


The    Preface.  23^ 


er  accepted  him,  for  that  we  have  al/otved  in  all  Sacrifices  of  Atonement, 
by  the  Law  <?/Mofes  j  but  vehether  hk  Sufferings  were  not  required  in  oY- 
der  to  the  Satisfaftion  0/ Divine  Juftice  for  the  Sim  of  Mankind  ^  not  by 
Tpay  fl/ftrift  Payment,  as  in  cafe  tf/ Debts  ^  but  by  a  Legal  Satisfadion  to 
the  Juftice  of  God  asit  is  cancemed  in  the  Honour  of  his  Laws. 

0«r  Unitarians  ^r-rfwf.  That  Chrift  was  a  Ranfom  and  Price  of  Re- Anfw.  m 
demption  for  us  ^  but  they  deny.  That  he  was  an  Adequate  Price,  or  a'*''"'-P-5'' 
Sacrifice  tothe  Juftice  of  God.  But  fliU  they  run  upon  the  Notion  «j/Debts 
and  Payments,  as  though  there  were  no  other  Notion  ^/Juftice  and  Satis- 
faftion  hut  between  Creditors  and  Debtors  ;  or  as  ?/ their  Notions  of 
thefe  things  were  rather  taken  from  the  Shops  than  the  Schools.  And  the 
monftrous  Contradidiion  they  conclude  the  charge  of  oar  Dodtrine  with,  »•, 
That  God  freely  Pardons  the  whole  Debt  ot  Sin,  and  yet  hath  been 
infinitely  over-paid  for  both  in  the  Death  and  other  Sufferings  of  the 
Lord  Chrift. 

But  in  the  following  Difcourfe,  I  have  endeavoured  to  lay  open  this  Mi-  Ch.  r» 
ftake,  by  fhewing,  That\^t\ii%  and '^xxm^mtxiX.'S,  are  of  a  different '^■^tmtiy 
and  therefore  the  Satisfaftion  in  one  Cafe  is  not  to  be  nteafured  by 
the  other.  But  I  Jhall  not  here  anticipate  the  Reader,  as  to  what  fol- 
lows;  hut  I  fhall  take  notice  of  what  they  fay^  which  feems  to  relate  to 
this  Matter. 

Almighty  God,  fay  they,  as  Ring  and  Proprietor  ot  all  Perfons  and 
things,  can  forgive  any  Offence  or  all  Offences  even  without  Repen- 
tance or  Amendment,  nor  is  it  contrary  to  his  Juftice  fo  to  do. 

This  is  a  very  ftrange  Affertion.  For  then  there  is  no  Obligation  M 
God's  part  in  point  <?/ Juftice  to  punifh  the  moft  Impenitent  and  Incorri- 
gible Offenders.  But  there  is  a  great  deal  of  difference,  between  making 
the  Exercife  of  Punitive  or  Vindiftive  Juftice  neceffary  upon  every  Of- 
fence, and  faying  that  the  Juftice  of  God  doth  not  require  that  any  Offen- 
ces fl}ould  be  punifhed. 

The  former  makes  Juftice  in  God  to  proceed  by  a  natural  Neceffity, 
vphich  would  leave  no  place  for  Mercy,  nor  any  Satisfaction  by  a  Mediator, 
for  that  mujifuppofe  Liberty  and  Relaxation,  as  to  the  Executive  Part  of 
Juftice.  yind  if  God  muji  puni(h  Sinners  as  they  'deferve,  there  can  be  no 
flop  to  the  Execution  of  Juftice  fhort  (?/ Annihilation  j  for  our  very  Beings 
are  the  Gift  of  God  whiiv  we  have  deferved  to  be  deprived  of.  But  oh  the 
other  fide,  to  fay ^  that  the  JuftiCe  of  God  doth  not  require  the  Puni(h- 
ment  of  any  Offences  without  Repentance  Or  Amendment,  is  to  over' 
throw  any  fuch  thing  as  Punitive  Juftice  in  God  5  by  which  I  do  not 
mean,  the  aftual  Execution  of  it,  and  the  due  Meafures  which  belong  to 
it,  but  the  Will  to  punifl)  Obftinate  and  Inlpenitent  Sinners.  And  that 
refults  from  his  Hatred  af/d  Abhor rency  of  E\i\,  and  his  juft  Govern- 
ment tf/the  World.  For  how  can  any  Men,  who  believe  that  God  is 
really  difpleafed  with  the  Wickednefs  of  Men,  and  that  he  is  a  Juft  and 
Righteous  Governor,  ever  think  that  it  is  not  Repugnant  to  his  Juftice 
to  forgive  all  Offences  without  Repentance  or  Amendment  .<"  How  can  his 
Hatred  of  Sin  and  the  Juftice  of  his  Government  be  reconciled  with  the 
Impunity  of  the  moft  Obftinate  Offenders  ?  Is  thefe  no  fuch  thing  as  Ju- 
ftice to  himfelf  and  to  his  Laws  '^  which  lies  in  a  juft  Vindication  of  his 
Honour  and  of  his  Laws  from  Contempt  ?  And  who  can  be  guilty  of  grea- 
ter Contempt  of  him,  than  thofe  who  perfift  in  their  Wickednefs,  without 
Repentance  or  Amendment  ?  And  after  all.  Is  it  not  contrary  to  his 
Juftice  to  forgive  fuch  as  thefe,  becaufe  be  is  abfolute  Lor4and  Propri- 

(j  g  2  etof 


2^6  The  Preface. 

etor  of  all  Perfons  and  Things  >    T&is  might  fignifie  fotnetB'mg,    if  we 
could  intAgine  God  to  be  nothing  hut  Almighty  Power  without  Juftice; 
but  if  his  Juftice  be  as  Effential  an  Attribute  as  his  Omnipotency,   vpe  muji 
ttotfo  much  as  fuppofe  the  Exercife  ofonemthout  the  other, 
hnivr.  to     But  they  do  not  deny^  That  it  is  inconflftent  with  the  Wifdctn  and 
Miib.p,53'  Holinefs  of  God  to  let  the  Incorrigible  and  Impenitent  efcape  unpuni- 
{hed,  or  to  forgive  Sin  without  Repentance  or  Amendment.    But  */the 
Wifdom<?w«/ Holinefs  <?/God  will  not  permit  the  Impunity  of  Impenitent 
Sinners,  is  it  not  juft  in  God  to  punifti  them  >    t^ot  barely  as  to  the  De- 
gree and  Defert  of  Punifhment ;    hut  as  to  the  Will  of  Puniftiing  them 
according  to  their  Merits  ?     Whence  doth  their  Punifhment  come  .<?    Is  it 
not  from  the  Will  of  God  >     Is  that  Will  juft  or  not  >     If  the  Will  to  pu- 
nifhheJHJi,  whence  comes  it  tobefo^     From  the  Wifdom  andHoVm^k  of 
God  i?     Then  Punitive  Jiaftice,   when  it  is  agreeable  to  God's  Wifdom 
and  Holinefs,   //  a  proper  Divine  Attribute  as  well  as  they.     And  they 
muft  have  ftrange  Notions  <?/Punitive  Juftice,  who  would  feparate  it  from 
them. 

But  Juftice,  they  fay,  hath  no  other  fhare  or  intereft  in  the  Punifli- 
ment,  but  only  to  fee  that  Puniftiment  be  not  mifplac'd,  and  that  it  do 
rot  exceed  the  Offence.  We  are  far  from  denying  thefe  things  to  belong  to 
the  Meafures  in  the  Exercife  of  Punitive  Juftice  :  But  whence  comes  Pu- 
tiitive  Juftice  to  belong  to  God  ?  //  it  not  hecaufe  it  is  juft  in  him  to  puni/b 
Offenders  according  thofe  Meafures  ?  And  whence  comes  this,  but  from 
that  llniverfal  Juftice  in  God,  which  is  always  joyned  with  his  Wifdom 
an4  Holinefs  ;  and  implies  an  llniverfal  Reftitude  in  all  he  doth  .<?  And 
from  thence  it  comes  that  all  the  Meafures  of  Juftice  are  obferved  by  him  in 
the  Puniftiment  of  the  greateft  Offenders. 

Now  this  llniverfal  Juftice  in  God  is  that,  whereby  he  not  onlypunijhes 
Obftinate  and  Impenitent  Sinners,  but  he  takes  care  efpreferving  the  Ho- 
nour of  his  Laws,  And  therefore,  although  Almighty  God  out  of  his  great 
Mercy  were  willing  that  Penitent  S'mrters ^ould  be  forgiven^  yet  it  was 
moft  agreeable  thereto,  that  it  Jhonld  be  done  in  fuch  a  manner  as  to  difcoH" 
rage  Mankind  from  the  praSice  of  Sin,  by  the  fame  way  by  which  he  offers 
Forgivenefs ;  and  for  this  end,  it  pleafed  God  in  his  Infinite  Wifdom  and 
Goodnefs  to  fend  hk  Son  to  become  a  Sacrifice  <?/Propitiation^r  the  Sin§ 
^f  Mankind -y  which  being  freely  undertaken  by  him,  there  wn  no  breach  in 
the  Meafures  of  Punitive  Juftice  with  reJpeS  to  him  5  and  fo  by  his  Death 
he  offered  up  himfel fas  Si  iuW,  perfcd  and  fufficient  Sacrifice,  Oblation 
and  Satisfafti6n  for  the  Sins  of  Mankind.  And  this  is  that  Doftrine  of 
the  Satisfaftion  of  Chrift  which  we  own  and  defend. 

But  thefe  bold  Affertions,  That  God  as  abfolute  Lord  may  forgive  all 
Offences  without  Repentance,  and  it  is  not  contrary  to  his  Juftice  fo  to 
do  t,  that,  it  is  not  the  Juftice  of  God  which  prompts  him  to  punifliSin- 
nerSi  arifefrom  too  mean  and  narrow  a  Conception  0/ Divine  Juftice  5  as 
ihough  it  lay  only  in  the  manner  of  the  Execution  of  it.  But  that  there  is  an 
Eflential  Attributei(j/Juftice^e/o;7gi»^/<?  the  Divine  Nature,  appears  from 
hence,that  there  are  fome  things  which  are  fo  difagreeable  tothe  Divine  Na- 
ture, that  he  cannot  do  them  5  he  cannot  break  his  Promifes,  nor  deceive  Man- 
hind  to  their  Deftru^ion^  ^e  cannot  deny  himfelf,  nor  pervert  that  Order,or 
due  Refpe^s  of  things  to  each  other,  which  he  hath  eftablifhed  in  the  World, 
He  cannot  make  it  the  Duty  of  Mankind  to  dijhonour  their  Maker,  or  to  vi- 
olate the  Rules  of  Good  and  Evil,  fo  as  to  make  Evil  Good  and  Good  E' 
vil  i  he  cannot  make  Murder  and  Adultery  to  be  Vertues,  nor  Impiety  and 

.  Wick- 


The  Preface.  23*^ 

Wickednefs  not  to  deferve  J^itnijhment^    But  vehence  comes  all  this  .<?  Is  it 
that  God  n»rf»f/  Almighty  Power  to  do  what  he  pleafes?  No  doubt,  he  is 
fupreme  Lord  over  all,  and  hath  all  things  under  his  Will.     But  there  is 
an  Ejjential  Jujiice  in  God,  which  i/  4  fupreme  Rule  of  Righteoufnefs,  ac- 
cording to  which  he  doth  always  exercife  his  Power  and  Will.     Andfo  Mo- 
fes  faith  of  him.  All  his  ways  are  perfect,  a  God  of  Truth,  and  without  Deut.32* 
Iniquity,  juft  and  right  is  he-^  rfW /^e  Pfalmift,  The  Lord  is  righteous  ^j-^,     , 
in  all  his  ways  and  holy  in  all  his  works.     He  not  only  is  fo,  hut  he  can  17. " 
he  no  otherwife,  for  this  Univerfal  Righteoufnefs  is  as  great  a  PerfeHion 
and  Attribute  of  God,  as  his  Wifdom,  or  Power.   It  is  not  one  Name  which 
Jiands  for  all  ;  but  it  is  a  real  and  diftlnS  Attribute  of  it  felf:  It  is  as  a 
Rule  and  Meafure  to  the  Exercife  of  the  reft.  And  he  particularly  Jhews  it  in 
all  the  A3s  of  Punitive  Juftice :  So  Nehemiahj  Howbeit  thou  art  juft  ^^^  9-35' 
in  all  that  is  brought  upon  us,  for  thou  haft  done  tight,  but  we  have 
done  wickedly.    J4«<5/ Daniel  ^  Righteoufnefs  belongeth  unto  thee,  butoan.  9. 7, 
unto  us  confufion  of  Face:  For  the  Lord  our  God  is  righteous  in  all  ^4- 
his  Works  which  he  doth,  for  we  obey'd  not  his  Voice.     AndZepha'Zefh.3.5, 
niah  j  The  juft  Lord  is  in  the  midft  thereof,  he  will  not  do  Iniquity. 
From  whence  it  appears  that  the  Exercife  of  Punitive  Juftice  is  according 
to  the  Effential  juftice  or  Righteoufnefs  of  the  Divine  Nature.     And  fb 
Abraham  pleaded  with  God,  Shall  not  the  judge  of  all  the  Earth  doGen.  18/ 
tight }  i.  e.  Will  he  not  punijh  according  to  the  Righteoufnefs  of  his  Na-  25. 
ture.^  And  fo  Abimelech  argues  from  the  natural  Notion  he  had  of  God's 
righteous  Nature,  Lord,  wilt  thou  flay  alfo  a  righteous  Nation?  20.4* 

But  here  the  main  Difficulty  which  deferves  to  be  cleared  is  this,  How 
far  Punitive  Juftice  //  founded  on  that  Univerfal  juftice  which  is  an  Ef- 
fentinl  Attribute  of  God.  For  the  want  of  underftanding  thif,  hath  been 
the  great  occafton  of  fo  much  Confufion  in  the  Difcourfes  about  this  matter. 
And  for  the  clearing  of  it,  thefe  things  muft  be  confidered  5 

I.  That  there  is  a  difference  between  that  Juftice  in  God,  whereby  he 
hates  Sin,  and  that  whereby  he  punifies  the  Sinner.     The  hatred  of  Sin 
doth  necejfarily  follow  the  PerfeSiion  of  his  Nature.  ,  Therefore  God  is  faid. 
To  hate  the  Wicked  5  and  Evil  to  be  an  Abomination  to  him  5  to  love  p^*'*  l^' 
Righteoufnefs  and  to  hate  Wickednefs.  But  if  the  Punijfment  of  the  Offen-  pfai!V5-7' 
der  were  as  necejfarily  confequent  as  his  Hatred  of  Sin,  all  Mankind  muft  '^^^h.  8. 
fuffer  as  they  offend,  and  there  would  be  noplace  for  Mercy  in  God,  nor  for  '^' 
Repentance  in  Men.     But  Sin  in  it  felf  is  perfi^ly  hateful  to  God,  there 
being  nothing  like  God  in  it  ^  but  Man  was  God's  Creature  and  made  after 
his  Image  and  likenefs ;  and  however  God  be  difpleafed  with  Mankind  on 
the  account  of  Sin,  yet  the  Workmanftiip  of  God  ftill  remains  5  and  we  con- 
tinually fee  that  God  doth  not  exercife  his  Punitive  Juftice  according  to  the 
Meafures  of  their  Iniquities.     And  they  who  plead  moft  for  the  neceffity  of 
Punitive  Juftice,  are  themfelves  a  Demonftration  to  the  contrary ;  for  they 
cannot  deny,  that  they  are  not  punifjed  as  their  Iniquities  have  defer- 
ved.     And  if  Punitive  Juftice  be  necejfary  in  it  felf  it  muft  reach  the  Per-     ' 
fons  that  have  deferved  to  be  funifl}ed,  if  there  be  no  Relaxation  of  the  Ser 
verity  of  it. 

2.  That  it  is  very  agreeable  to  /^e  Divine  Juftice,  to  exercife  the  Severity  of 
Punitive  Juftice  on  obfiinate  and  incorrigible  Offenders.  And  this  is  that 
whereon  the  Juftice  of  the  Punifhments  of  Sinners  in  another  World  is  found- 
ed 5  becaufe  God  hath  beenfo  merciful  to  them  here,  and  ufedfo  many  ways  to 
reclaim  them,  and  it  is  the  Not  exercifing  his  Punitive  Juftice  upon  them  in 
this  World,  which  makes  itfo  much  more  reafonable  in  another,     Fer  thereby 

they 


'jii;^ 


^^8  The  Preface. 

they  have  Jherved  their  Contetapt  of  God  and  his  Laws,  of  his  offers  of  Mercy 
and  their  vpillful  objiinacy  in  offending  hitri.  And  the  reafonablenefs  of  the  Pu- 
fti/hment  of  fetch  Offender  s  is  not  deny  ed  by  any  of  our  more  Learned  Adverfa- 

Ch.  I.  p.  fies,  as  I  have  f/jervedinthefolloTping  D/fcoHrfefromSocinusandCre]]ias,and 

20.  might  do  from  fever  al  others.  But  1  need  not  mention  any  more,  fence  in  the 

Catech.    late  CorreB  Edition  of  the  Racovian  Catechifm  there  is  this  Note,  That  they 

Facov.p,  j^^^^  always  afferted,  that  the  Wicked  (hall  be  raifed  up  at  the  great 

Day  to  undergo  the  Punifhment  of  their  Sins,  and  to  be  caft  into  the 

Fire  prepared  for  the  Devil  and  his  Angels.     And  for  this,  befedes  their 

Publkk  Confejfeons,  they  quote  Crellius,  Schlidingius,  Volkelius,  Wol- 

SchHrtin  ^^S^nJ^Sj  ^'^'     ^"^  Schlidingiusy^zV^,  The  Doftrine  of  future  Pu- 

jn  joh.  j.niftiments  was  necefTary  to  be  preached,  as  being  part  of  the  Chriftiari 

=^?-         Faith  5  and  that  God's  Veracity  is  concerned  in  the  Execution  of  his 

Threatnings.   Which  is  apart  of  Natural  Jufeice.   Andthofe  Learned  Men 

rvho  have  been  thought  mofe  favourable  to  the  Socinian  Opinions  have  de^ 

dared  themfelves  very  frankly  as  to  the  Juftice  of  the  Punife)ment  of  Impeni- 

tent  Sinners. 

CurcelleEUS,  rvhom  they  of  en  mention  wi  h  refpeH,  faith,  the  Juftice  of  God 
CurceUn.  requires,  that  he  (hould  inflift  the  Puniftiments  he  hath  threatned  on 
c.  12.  §.y. Contumacious  Sinners.     And  Limborch  (  whom  the\  fometimes  appeal  to) 
Limborc.  jaith.  That  the  Juftice  of  God  doth  not  permit  the  Impunity  of  Re- 
chr^  1 2  ^'"^^ary  and  Impenitent  Contemners  of  his  Grace.    Becaufe,  faith  he, 
c.ii.'i   God  by  his  declared  Will  hath  tied  himfelf  up  from  the  Exercife  of 
3J-         his  Abfolute  Power ;  and  his  Laws  would  be  trampled  upon,  and  his 
Ma jefty  flighted:;  nor  would  God's  hatred  of  Sin  ever  be  fully  difcove- 
red.     And  therefore  the  Day  of  Wrath  is  calld  by  Sf.  Paul,  The  Reve- 
Rom,2. 5.  lation  of  the  Righteous  Judgment  of  God.    Epifcopius  faith.  That  al- 
EpTfcop.    though  in  fuch  Punjjhments,  which  depend  only  on  the  Will  of  the  Law- 
inft,  The-  ffiaker,  he  doth  not  thiiih,  that  God  in  Juftice  is  obliged  to  make  good 
\'<}.'^''^'  his  Threatnings;  as  he  is  to  perform  his  Promifes;  (butthatin  fuch 
Cafes  God  is  not  bound  in  Juftice  to  execute  all  that  the  Law  threa- 
tens; but  when  he  thinks  fit  to  punifti,  then  his  Juftice  requires  him 
not  to  punifti    beyond  the  Commination )  yet  in  the  Cafe  of  ob- 
ftinate  and  incurable  Offenders,  he   doth  not  deny,  that  the  Juftice 
of  God  requires  the  Rigour  of  the  Law  to  be  executed  upon  them. 
Atid  he  adds.  That  the  Day  of  Judgment  will  fully  manifeft  the  Ju- 
ftice of  God  in  the  Threatnings  he  hath  made  to  Impenitent  Sinners. 
Even  Vorftius,  who  was  fuppofed  to  be  too  much  inclined  to  the  Socinian 
vorft.  de  Do&rine  ,  owns  it  to  be  a  part  of  God's  Juftice  to  punifti  wicked  and 
Attrib.     impenitent  Perfons ;  that  his  Patience  and  Goodnefs  may  not  be  always 
^8.^  ^  ^  contemned  with  Impunity.     And  afterwards.  That  although  God  doth 
§.  47.     no  Injury  to  the  Offender,  if  he  doth  not  execute  his  Threatnings,-  yet 
out  of  regard  to  the  Juftice  of  his  Word,  he  doth  not  recede  from  what 
he  hath  declared  :  But  all  Threatnings  under  the  Gofpelare  Conditional; 
and  none  are  damned  by  it,  but  fuch  as  continue  in  Impenitency  and 
tj.  JO.  Not.  Unbelief.     And  in  his  Explication  he  faith.  That  where  God  hath  abfor 
ad  §.46.  lutely  declared  his  Will  to  punifti  in  fuch  a  manner,  he  cannot  forgive 
without  Injuftice. 

But  our  Unitarians  ypedy^  without  any  Referve,  That  it  is  not  the  Juftice 
of  God  which  prompts  him  to  punifti  Sinners,  and  fo  it  is  not  contrary 
to  his  Juftice  to  forgive  all  Offences  without  Repentance  or  Amendment.  ■ 
And  thus  the  Juftice  of  God  is  not  concerned  in  the  Punijhments  of  the 
great  Day,  although  the  Apofele  calls  it,  Thjp  Revelation  of  the  Righ- 
teous Judgment  of  God.  And 


Hi 


The    Preface.  239 


Jnd  by  this  the  World  may  fee  how  very  far  our  Modern  Unitarians  are  from 
handling  this  Subjeft  more  Carefully,  Judicioufly  and  Exadly  than  others-. 
However  one  of  their  own  Party  bath  lately  affirmed  it ;  with  as  jnuch  Confidence  and  Vindic.  of 
at  little  Ground  as  they  have  done  other  things.  S.  R.  H. 

9.  That  it  is  very  agreeable  to  DiA'ine  Juftice  to  accept  of  a  Satisfiflion  on  be-  P>  '^8. 
half  of  the  Sins  of  Jlajikind,  who  do  not  peijifi  in  their  evil  ways,  fo  that  their  Sins 
ptall  be  forgiven  upon  their  Repentance  and  Amendment.  For  fitce  the  Exercife  of 
Punitixte  Jujijcc  is  not  necejfary  on  the  Verfons  of  the  Ojfenders^  andjince  God  in  this 
lAfe  abates  Jo  much  of  his  jiijl  Severity  againfi  them  ;  he  thereby  fjews^  that  he  doth 
not  proceed  with  Mankind  here  according  to  the  Rigour  of  his  Jiijlice ;  but  yet,  fnce 
God  bath  given  to  them  very  jujl  and  righteous  Laws,  fince  thofe  Laws  have  been  bro- 
ken and  his  authority  coyttemrted,  it  is  very  juft  for  God  to  require  a  Sacrifice  of  Atone- 
ment for  the  Sins  of  the  World,  that  Majikind  may  fee  that  God  was  jufily  difpleafed 
at  them,  and  that  none  take  Incouragemejtt  to  go  on  to  commit  them ;  but  yet,  that 
upon  their  hearty  Repentance  andfincere  Obedience,  they  may  be  ajfured  of  the  Remif- 
fion  of  Sins  and  the  Promife  of  Eternal  Life.  All  the  Difficulty  now  remaijting  is  a- 
bout  Chrift's  Suffering  in  our  ftead,  of  which  the  Scripture  Jpeaks  fo  fully  in  the 
places  already  mention  d.     But  we  mufi  cojifider  what  is  Anfwered  to  them. 

II.  To  thofe  places  of  Scripture -which  fpeak  o/Chrifl  Suffering  the  Punifhment 
of  our  Sins  ;  all  that  Sozmius  faith,  comes  to  thefe  two  things. 

1.  That  Chrift  fufFer'd  on  the  occafion  of  our  Sins,  and  jvith  a  Delign  to^Qj,jj,  ^^ 
take  away  our  Sins.  Serva't. 

2.  That  by  his  Sufferings  he  came  to  have  a  Power  to  Forgive  Sins  •,  and  Pare  2. 0 
that  this  is  the  proper  Expiation  of  Sin;    But  by  no  means  that  he  fuffer'd  in  4.  i&'f- 
our  ftead-,  for  he  hath  thefe  Jfotds;  Ut  nihil  aliud  fit  Chriftum  pro  nobis  mor-  C-  ?• 
tunm  efie,  quam  vice  feu  loco  noflro  mortem  fubiifle,  id  adeo  a  veritate  abhor- 

ret  ut  nihil  magis.     Which  in  plain  Englifi)  is,  that  nothing  is  more  falfe  than 
that  Chrift  fuffer'd  in  our  flead. 

The  old  Editions  of  the  Racovlan  Catechifm  follow  Socinus,  and  there  the 
Anfwer  to  the  Places  which  fpeak  0/ Chrift's  Dying  for  us,  K,  that  they  do  not 
fignifie  in  our  ftead  5  but  for  our  good.  Which  they  are  very  careful  to  difiinguifi),  be- 
caufe  they  think  that  tlie  latter  implies  no  more  than  a  Condition  in  order  to  the  Ex- 
piation in  Heaven  j  but  the  other  makes  him  a  true  Propitiatory  Sacrifice  for  our  Sins, 
But  if  Chrifi  did  n't  tiiffer  ia  OUT  ftead;  hoiv  can  they  pojfibly  Reconcile  his  undergo- 
ing this  Condition  with  their  own  Meafures  of  Divine  Juftice  ?  AM  they  pretend  to 
fay,  if,  that  it  was  labour  and  Suffering  but  not  Punifhment.  Which  is  tojpeak 
againH  the  Common  Senfe  of  Mankind ;  and  is  a  ridiculous  piece  of  Stoicifin-  They 
fay,  it  was  a  meer  A£l  of  Dominion  as  to  Chrift  and  not  of  Juftice.  But  if 
there  be  fuch  an  Ejfential  Attribute  as  Juftice  in  God,  then  the  Exercife  of  Dominion 
muft  be  regulated  by  it ;  efpecially  where  there  was  nothing  but  perfeEl  Innocency.  The 
Cafe  is  very  different  as  to  the  finful  Race  of  Mankind,  who  having  the  Guilt  of  Sin 
upon  them,  God  may  juftly  exercife  his  Dominion  over  them  as  he  fees  caufe ;  but  he 
always  doth  it  juftly,  although  the  particular  Reafons  may  not  be  within  our  reach.  But 
here  is  no  Guilt  of  Sin  confidered,  either  of  his  own,  or  others  -,  according  to  their 
Principles;  and  yet  they  make  himto  undergo  as  great  Sufferings,  as  we  do,  who  affert 
that  he  fuffer'd  for  our  fakes  in  our  ftead  ;  which  alone  gives  a  Reafmiable  Account 
of  it. 

But  in  the  late  CorreB  Edition  of  the  Racovlan  Catechifm  they  fay,  the  Senfe 
of  Chrift's  Sufferings  for  our  Sins  is  two-fold,  but  both  come  to  one  at  laft, 
1.  That  Chrift  fuffered  as  a  Sacrifice  in  our  ftead;  tanquam  viftimapro  nobis 
Succedanea.  How  can  Socinus  and  the  Racovian  Catechifm  agree  f"  2.  That  he 
fuffer'd  for  our  good-  But  they  deny  any  Commutation  which  they  fay,  was  not 
In  the  Expiatory  Sacrifices  among  the  Jews.  Jfljat  doth  a  Subftitution  differ 
from  a  Commutation  in  this  Caje  ? 

But  how  do  fuftering  in  our  ftead  and  for  our  good  come  all  to  one  at  laft? 
Either  it  muft  be,  that  Chrift  did  truly  fuffer  in  our  ftead,  when  he  underwent  the 
Puniftiment  of  our  Sins  in  order  to  our  Redemption  and  Expiation  •  and  that  is  a  very 
good  and  true  Senfe  ;  which  we  readily  embrace,  and  are  very  well  content  that 
they  ftmild come  all  to  one:  Or  if  the  meaning  be  only,  that  Chrift  may  befaid  to 
fuffer  in  our  ftead,  becaufe  we  have  Benefit  by  the  Confequences  of  his  Death ; 
then  bis  dying  is  or,ly  confiderd  as  a  bare  Condition  and  not  as  a  Sacrifice  in  our 

ftead. 


2^o  The    Pre  FA 


C  E. 


ftead.  Js  to  7nake  it  plahi  by  an  Injiance;  we  all  agree  that  Joieph^  Suffering  irt 
Egypt  was  defign^d  by  the  Wife  1  rovider.ce  of  God  for  the  gocd  of  his  Brethren,  which 
they  received  after  his  Advavcemevt,  to  which  his  Svfferivg  was  an  Antecedent  Con- 
dition. But  can  any  Man  fay^  that  he  fiffer'd  in  Jtead  of  his  Brethren  ?  But  now 
if  Jofeph'i  Brethren  had  been  fold  for  Slaves  in  Egypt,  and  Jofeph  had  gone  down 
thither  and  offer  d  himfelf  a  Prifoner  for  their  Deliverance  ^  this  had  been  truly  Suf- 
fering in  their  ftead,  as  well  as  for  their  Advantage,  And  fuppofe  the  King  of  E- 
gypt  had  agreed  with  Joieph,  that  if  he  would  become  Prifoner  for  his  Brethren^  he 
would  advance  him,  and  he  Jliould  himfelf  deliver  them  by  his  own  Power-,  this  doth 
not  at  all  hinder  his  Suffering  in  their  ftead.  But  if  it  had  no  Relation  to  their 
Deliverance  by  his  being  made  Captive  himfelf-,  hut  was  only  a  ftep  to  his  Advvnce-^ 
went ;  then  it  cannot  be  faid  to  be  in  their  flead,  although  it  might  turn  to  their  Ad- 
vantage. Andfo  much  for  the  Senfe  of  the  Racovian  Catechifm. 
£«t  ozir  Unitarians  j?y  higher,  for  they  fay, 

1.  That  God  could  not  juftly  or  wifely  fubflitute  an  Innocent  Perfon  to  un- 
dergo Punifhment  in  place  of  the  Guilty. 

2.  That  Chiift  could  not  freelj^  offer  himfelf  as  a  Sacrifice  in  our  ftead,  nor 
could  God  accept  of  it,  or  allow  it. 

So  that  here  we  have  the  true  State  of  this  Controverfie  between  us,  viz.  whether 

Chrift  were  a  Real  Expiatory  Sacrifice  for  the  Sins  of  Mankind.    Foj-,  if  he 

■  could  not  be  Subflituted  in  our  flead,  nor  God  accept  of  his  offering  up  him' 

felf  for  us ;  all  the  other  expre^ons  are  meer  li^ords  given  out  on  purpofe  to  Amife 

and  Deceive  us. 

And  this  is  that  which   I  have  ttndertaken  to  make  out   in  the  following  Dif- 
cottrfe,  viz. 

Chap  II  ^"  '^"^  ^^^  Scripture  doth  as  plainly  fet  forth  that  Chrifl  fuffer'd  the  Punifh- 
ment of  our  Sins  and  in  our  flead,  as  it  could  do  -,  and  that  no  Exprejfions  could 
be  thought  of  to  that  purpofe,  but  might  be  anjwered  in  the  fame  way  that  they  do 
thefe.  And  therefore  it  is  in  vain  to  contend  with  fuch  Men,  who  are  refolved  that 
Words  and  Phrafes  (hallfgnifie  no  otherwife,  than  they  would  have  them.  And  yet  at 
lajl  they  cannot  deny  but  a  kind  of  Subftitution  is  implied  as  a  Viftima  Succeda- 
nea ;  but  how  ?  That  he  fuffefd  for  our  good  and  by  the  occafion  of  our  Sins, 
but  not  the  Punifhment  of  them.  Thus  far  then  we  have  gained,  that  the  JF'ords  of 
Scripture  are  for  us  -,  but  fay  they.  Whatever  the  Words  are,  they  cannot  mean 
any  real  Punifhment,  becaufe  he  was  an  Innocent  Ferfbn.  Therefore  I  have 
fiewed ; 

Chap.  III.  2.  That  there  is  no  Repugnancy  in  Reafon,  nor  to  the  fujlice  of  God  for  an  Inno- 
cent Perfon  tofuffer  by  his  own  Confent  and  for  fo  great  an  End,  what  the  Scripture 
attributes  to  our  Saviour.  And  I  have  fidly  anfwered  the  Arguments  brought  by  our 
Adverfaries  to  prove  that  God  could  not  juftly  or  wifely  fubftitute  an  Innocent 
Perfon  to  fuffer  for  the  Guilty. 

Ch.  IV.        3-  That  Ghrift  did  offer  himfelf,  as  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice  to  God  in  our 

V.  4.  ftead ;  and  that  God  did  accept  and  allow  of  it.  Which  is  the  Defign  of  the  three 
lajl  Chapters.  And  till  an  Avfwer  be  given  to  what  I  have  there  difcourfed  at  large, 
Ijball  refer  the  Reader  to  what  is  already  faid ;  and  fljall  fuppofe  thofe  Anfwers  to 
befvfficient,  till  I  fee  fame  better  Reafons  for  their  Opinion  in  this  jnatter,  than  I  have 
yet  met  with,  although  I  have  been  no  franker  to  their  late  Writings,  as,  God  willing, 
they  may  fee  on  another  Occafion. 


E  W. 

April  24.  1696. 


241 


DISCOURSE 

CONCERNING 

The  Sufferings  of  Chriji. 


i  c 


HAP.    I. 


I.  Of  the  Socinian  vpay  of  interpreting  Scripture  ^  and  of  the  uncertaintj 
it  leaves  us  in  as  to  the  main  Articles  of  Faith,  mantfefled  by  an  Ex' 
fojition  ofGtti.  i.  fuitable  to  that  way.  II.  The  State  of  the  Controvert 
ft  in  general  concerning  the  Sufferings  of  Chriji  for  us.  He  did  not  fu^et 
the  fame  toe  jhould  have  done.  III.  The  grand  Mijiake  in  making  Ph- 
nifhments  of  the  nature  tf/ Debts.  IV.  The  difference  bettpeen  them  at 
large  dif covered,  from  the  different  reafon  and  ends  of  them.  V.  Tht 
Right  ofPuniJhment  in  God  proved  againji  CfelHus,  not  to  arife  front 
mere  dont'tnion.  VI.  The  end  ofPuni/bment  not  bare  Compenfation,  at 
it  is  in  Debts  ^  rvhat  Punijhment  due  to  an  injured  Perfon  by  the  right 
of  Nature  ^  proper  Punijhment  a  refult  of  Laws.  Vll.  Crellins  his  great 
M'jlahe  about  the  end  ofPunifhments.  VIII.  Not  defigned  for  Satisfar 
Hion  of  Anger  as  it  is  d  DeJ/re  of  Revenge.  Seiieca  and  Laftantius  w«- 
dicated  againji  Crellius.  IX.  The  iSigiJlrates  Intereji  in  Punijhment 
diflinBfrom  that  of  private  Perfohs.  X.  Of  the  Nature  of  Anger  inGod, 
and  the  Satis fa^ion  to  be  made  to  it.  Crellius  hk  great  Arguments  a- 
gainji  Satis failion  depend  on  a  falfe  Notion  of  God's  Anger.  XI.  Of  the 
ends  of  Divine  Punijhments.  XII.  The  different  Nature  of  them  in  thk 
and  the  future  State. 

s  i  R, 

ALthough  the  Letter  J  received  from  your  hands  contained  in  it 
fo  many  miftakes  of  my  Meaning  and  Defign,  that  it  feemed  td 
be  the  greateft  Civility  to  the  Writer  of  it,  to  give  no  Anfwer 
at  all  to  it  5  becaufe  that  could  not  be  done,  withour  the  dif- 
covery  of  far  more  Weakneffes  in  him,  than  he  pretends  to  find  in  my 
Difcourfe  ;  Yet  the  Weight  and  Importance  of  the  Matter  may  require 
a  farther  account  from  me,  concerning  the  true  reafon  of  the  Sufferings  of 
Chriji.  Wherein  my  Defign  was  fo  {^lX  from  reprejenting  Old  Errors  to 
the  beji  Advantage,  or  to  wreck  my  Wits  to  defend  them,  as  that  Perfon 
feemsto  fuggeft;  that  I  aimed  at  nothing  more  than  to  give  a  true  Ac- 
count of  what  upon  a  ferious  enquiry,  I  judged  to  bethemoft  natural 
and  genuine  Meaning  of  the  Chriftian  Doftrine  contained  in  the  Wri- 
tings of  the  New  Teftament. 

H  h  t  For 


24^  Of  the  Suferings  Chap.  I. 

Of  the  So-  I,  por  finding  therein  fuch  multitudes  of  Expreflions,  which  to  an 
of'htl7prt  unprejudiced  Mind  attribute  all  the  the  mighty  efFefts  of  the  Love  of 
ting  Scrip-  God  to  us,  to  the  Obedience  and  Sufferings  of  Chrift,  1  began  toconfi- 
*'"'^-  der  what  reafon  there  was  why  the  plain  and  eafie  fenfe  of  thofe  places 
muft  be.forf|^en,  and  a  ftmote  and  metaphorical  meaning  put  upon 
them.  Which  I  thought  tny  felf  the  more  obliged  to  do,  becaufe  I 
could  not  conceive  if  it  had  been  the  defign  of  the  Scripture,  to  have 
delivered  the  received  Doctrine  of  the  Cbriftian  Church,  concerning 
the  reafon  of  the  Sufferings  of  Chrift,  that  it  could  have  been  more 
clearly  and  fully  exprefled  than  it  is  already.  So  that  fuppofing  that 
to  have  been  the  true  meaning  of  the  feveral  places  of  Scripture  which 
we  contend  for  5  yet  the  fame  arts  and  fubtilties  might  have  been  ufed 
to  pervert  it,  which  are  imployed  to  perfwadeMen  that  is  not  the  true 
meaning  of  them.  And  what  is  equally  ferviceable  to  Truth  and  Fal- 
fhood,  can  of  it  felf,  have  no  power  on  the  Minds  of  Men  to  convince 
them  it  muft  be  one,  and  not  the  other.  Nay,  if  every  unufual  and 
improper  acception  of  words  in  the  Scripture,  ftiallbe  thought  fufficient 
to  take  away  the  riatural  and  genuine  Senfe,  where  the  Matter  is  capa- 
Ble  of  if,  i  know  fcarce  any  Article  of  Faith  can  be  long  fecure  5  and 
by  thefe  arts  Men  may  declare  that  they  believe  the  Scriptures,  and  yet 
believe  nothing  of  the  Chriftian  Faith.  For  if  the  improper,  though 
unufual  acception  of  thofe  Expreflions  efChriji's  dying  for  m^  oiRedemp' 
tiOftf  PropifiatJon,  Recoffciliatwn  by  his  Blood,  of  his  hearing  our  Iniqui- 
ties, and  being  made  Sin  and  a  Cur fe  for  lu,  ftiall  be  enough  to  invalidate 
all  the  Arguments  taken  from  them  to  prove  that  which  the  proper  Senfe 
of  them  both  doth  imply,  why  may  not  the  improper  ufe  of  the  terms 
of  Creation  and  Refurreftion,  as  well  take  away  the  natural  Senfe  of 
them  in  thegreat  Articles  of  the  Creation  of  the  World,  andRefurefti- 
on  after  death  ?  For  if  it  be  enough  to  prove  that  Chriji's  dying  for  w, 
doth  not  imply  dying  in  our  Jlead-^  becaufe  fometimes  dying  for  others 
itnports  no  more  than  dying  for  fome  advantage  to  come  to  them  5  if 
Redemption  being  fometimes  ufed  for  were  deliverance,  ftiall  make  our 
Eedehiptionhy  Chrift,  whoWy  Metaphorical  '^  if  the  terms  of  Propitiation, 
Reconciliation,  &c.  ftiall  loofe  their  force,  becaufe  they  are  fometimes 
ufed  where  all  things  cannot  be  fuppofed  parallel  with  the  Senfe  we 
contend  for  .•  Why  ftiall  I  be  bound  to  believe  that  the  World  was  ever 
created  in  a  pro  per  Senfe,  fince  thofe  Perfons  againft  whom  I  argue,  fo 
earneftly  contend  that  in  thofe  Places  in  which  it  feems  as  proper  as  a- 
john  i.3,ny,  it  is  to  be  underftood  only  in  a  Metaphorical  ?  If  when  the  World 
!»•  and  all  things  are  faid  to  be  made  by  Chrift,  we  are  not  to  underftand  the 
Produftion  but  the  Reformation  of  the  World  and  all  things  in  it,  al- 
though the  natural  Senfe  of  the  Words  be  quite  otherwife  ^  what  Ar- 
gument can  make  it  neceflary  for  me  not  to  underftand  the  Creation  of 
the  World  in  a  metaphorical  Senfe,  when  Mofes  delivers  to  us  the  Hi- 
ftory  of  it  ?  Why  may  not  I  underftand  in  the  beginning.  Gen.  i.  for 
the  beginning  of  the  Mofaical  Difpenfation,  as  well  as  Sodnrn  doth  in 
the  beginning,  John  I.  for  the  beginning  of  the  Evangelical  ?  And  that 
from  the  very  fame  Argument  ufed  by  him,  zizi.  That  in  the  beginning 
is  to  be  underftood  of  the  main  Subjeft  concerning  which  the  Author 
intends  to  write,  and  that  I  am  as  fure  it  was  in  Mofes  concerning  the 
Lrfir  given  by  him,  as  it  was  in  St.  ']ohn,  concerning  the  G(3//)e/ delivered 
by  Chrifl.  Why  may  not  the  Creation  of  the  Heavens  and  the  Earth,  be 
no  more  than  the  ere<Sion  of  the  Jewilh  Polity  ?  fince  it  is  acknowled- 
ged, 


Chap.  I.  ofCHKlST. 

ged,  that  by  New  Heavens  and  New  Earth,  wherein  dvpelleth  Righteoujneff^ 
no  more  is  underftood  than  a  new  State  of  things  under  the  Gofpel  > 
Why  may  not  the  conjufed  Chaos  import  no  more  than  the  ftate  of  Igno- 
rance and  Darknefs,  under  which  the  World  was  before  the  Law  of 
Mofes  ?  Since  it  is  confeiTed  that  it  fignifies  in  the  New  Teftament  fuch 
a  ftate  of  the  World  before  the  Gofpel  appeared  ?  And  confequently, 
why  may  not  the  Light  which  made  the  firji  Da)i  be  the  firft  tendencies 
to  the  Dodrine  of  Mofes,  which  being  at  firft  divided  and  fcattered 
was  united  afterwards  in  one  great  Body  of  Laws,  which  was  called  the 
Sh»,  becaafe  it  was  the  great  Direftor  of  the  Jetvlfl}  Nation,  and  there- 
fore faid  to  rule  the  day  ;  as  tlie  lefs  confiderable  Laws  of  other  Nati- 
ons are  called  the  Moon,  becaufe  they  were  to  govern  thofe  who  were 
yet  under  the  night  of  Ignorance  ?  Why  may  not  the  Firmament  being 
in  the  midji  of  the  Waters,  imply  the  eredioh  of  the  Jewifh  State  in  the 
midft  of  a  great  deal  of  trouble,  fince  it  is  confeffed,  that  Waters  are 
often  taken  in  Scripture  in  a  Metaphorical  Senfe  for  troubles  and  affli- 
ftions }  And  the  Earth  appearing  out  of  the  Waters^  be  no  more  but  the 
fettlement  of  that  State  after  its  troubles^  and  particularly  with  great 
Elegancy  after  their Paffage  through  the  Red  Sea?  And  the  Produdtofi 
tif  Herbs  and  living  Creatures,  be  the  great  encr^afe  of  the  People  of  all 
forts,  as  well  thofe  of  a  meaner  Rank  (and  therefore  called  Herbs  ) 
as  thofe  of  a  higher,  that  were  to  live  upon  the  other,  and  fometime^ 
trample  upon  them,  and  therefore  by  way  of  excellency  called  the  Li~ 
v'ng  Creatures .-?  And  when  thefe  were  multiplied  and  brought  into 
order,  (  which  being  done  by  fteps  and  degrees,  is  faid  to  be  finiftied  in 
feveral  days  )  then  the  State  and  the  Church  flouriftied  and  enjoyed  A 
great  deal  of  pleafure,  which  was  the  produftion  of  Man  and  Woman, 
and  their  being  placed  in  Paradife  :  (  for  <«  perfeS^  Man,  notes  a  high 
degree  of  Perfeftion,  and  a  Woman  is  taken  for  the  Church  in  theRevela- 
tions^  but  when  they  followed  the  Cuftoms  of  other  Nations  which 
were  as  a  fobidde,t  Tree  to  thctii,  then  they  loft  all  their  happinefs  and 
pleafure,  and  were  expell'd  out  of  their  own  Country,  and  lived  in 
great  flavery  and  mifery,  which  was  the  Curfe  pronounced  againft  them, 
for  violating  the  Rules  of  Policy  eftabliftied  among  them.  Thus  you 
fee  how  fraall  a  meafure  of  Wit,  by  the  advantage  of  thofe  ways  of  in- 
terpreting Scripture,  which  the  fubtileft  of  our  Adverfaries  make  ufe  of, 
will  ferve  to  pervert  the  cleareft  Exprelfions  of  Scripture  to  quite  ano- 
ther Senfe  than  was  ever  intended  by  the  Writer  of  them.  And  I  aflure 
you,  if  that  Rule  of  interpreting  Scripture  be  once  allowed  ^  that  if 
Words  are  ever  ufed  in  a  Metaphorical  Senfe,  there  can  be  no  neceffity 
of  underftandingthem  any  where  in  a  proper  ;  there  is  fcarce  any  thing 
which  you  look  on  as  the  moft  necefiary  to  be  believed  in  Scripture, 
but  it  may  be  made  appear  not  to  be  fo  upon  thofe  terms.  For  by 
reafon  of  the  paucity,  and  therefore  the  ambiguity  of  the  Original 
Words  of  the  Hebrew  Language,  the  ftrange  Idioms  of  it,  the  different 
Senfes  of  the  fame  Word  in  feveral  Conjugations,  the  want  of  feveral 
modes  of  Expreflion  which  are  ufed  in  other  Languages,  and  above  all 
the  lofty  and  metaphorical  v^ay  of  fpeaking  ufed  in  all  Eaftern  Coun- 
tries, and  the  imitation  of  the  Hebrew  Idioms  in  the  Greek  Tranflation 
of  the  Old  Teftament,  and  Original  of  the  New,  you  can  hardly  affix 
a  Senfe  upon  any  Words  ufed  therein,  but  a  Man  who  will  be  at  the 
pains  to  fearch  all  poflible  Significations  and  ufes  of  thofe  Words,  will 
put  you  hard  toit,  to  make  good  that  which  you  took  to  be  the  proper 

H  h  2  meaning 


243 


*— f^l^^M^TT— 1~^~^~~-^^^^~~~^— '-^-^-^^^-~— ^— II  — — ■ — — TT   —I'll  1^^      II 

244  Of  the  Sufferings  C  h  a  p.  I. 

-  --  -' — ^ — — , ,  I  

meaning  of  them.     Wherefore  although  I  will  not  deny  to  our  Adver- 
fariesthe  praife  ofSubtility  and  Diligence^    I  cannot  give  them  that 
(  which  is  much  more  praife- worthy  )  of  Difcretion  and  found  Judg- 
ment.   For  while  they  ufe  their  utmoft  Induftry  to  fearch  all  the  moft 
remote  and  metaphorical  Senfes  of  Words,  with  adefign  to  take  off  the 
genuine  and  proper  Meaning  of  them,  they  do  not  attend  to  the  ill  Con- 
fequence  that  may  be  made  of  this  to  the  overthrowing  thofe  things, 
the  belief  of  which  themfelves  make  neceflary  to  Salvation.     For  by 
,      this  way  the  whole  Gofpel  may  be  made  an  Allegory,  and  the  Refurre- 
ftionof  Chrifl:  be  thought  as  metaphorical  as  the  Redemption  by  his 
Death,  and  the  force  of  all  the  Precepts  of  the  Gofpel  avoided  by  fome; 
unufual  fignification  of  the  Words  wherein  they  are  delivered.    So  that 
nothing  can  be  more  unreafonable  than  fuch  a  method  of  proceeding, 
unlefs  it  be  firft  fufficiently  proved  that  the  Matter  is  not  capable  of  the 
proper  Senfe,  and  therefore  ofneceflity  the  improper  only  is  to  be  al- 
owed.     And  this  is  that  which  Soc'tnus  feems  after  all  his  pains  to  per- 
vert the  meaning  of  the  Places  in  controverfie,    to  rely  on  mofV;    viz. 
£ocin.de    That  theDo&ri»eoffatfsfa^io»  dolh  it»ply  an  impojjthility  in  the  thing  it 
Servat.    j^^ij^  ^^^  therefore  mufl  needs  be  falfe  5    nay,   he  faith,  the  infallibility  of 
Cap.  4.'    f^^  Revealer  had  not  been  enough  in  this  Cafe,  fuppofng  that  Chrift  had  [aid- 
it,    and  rifen  from  the  dead,   to  declare  his  own  Vera  ity -^    unlefs  he  had 
delivered  it  by  its  proper  Caufes  and  Effetls,  andfj  fherved  the  poffihility  of 
the  thing  it  felf.     And  the  reafon,  he  faith,  why  they  believe  their  Dodrine 
true,  is  not  barely  becaufe  God  hath  faid  it,  but  they  believe  certainly  that 
Cod  hath  faid  it,  becaufe  they  know  it  to  be  true  ;  by  knowing  the  contra- 
ry Doftrine  to  be  impoffible.     The  Controverfie  then,  concerning  the 
meaning  of  the  Places  in  difputeis  to  be  refolvedfrom  the  nature  and 
reafonablenefs  of  the  matter  contained  in  them  >    For  MSocinus  his  rea- 
fon  be  anfwerableto  his  confidence,  if  the  account  we  give  of  the  Suf- 
ferings of  Chrift,  be  repugnant  not  only  to  the  Juftice,  Goodnefs  and 
Grace  of  God,  but  to  the  nature  of  the  thing;    if  it  appear  impoffible 
that  Mankind  (hould  be  redeemed  in  a  proper  Senfe,  or  that  God  ftiould 
be  propitiated  by  the  Death  of  his  Son  as  a  Sacrifice  for  Sin;;  if  it  ener- 
vate all  the  Precepts  of  Obedience,  and  tend  rather  to  juftifie  Sins  than 
thofe  who  do  repent  of  them ;   I  fhall  then  agree,    that  no  induftry 
can  be  too  great  in  fearching  Authors,   comparing  Places,   examining 
Verfions,  to  find  out  fuch  a  Senfe  as  may  be  agreeable  to  the  nature  of 
things,  the  Attributes  of  God,  and  the  defign  of  Chriftian  Religion. 
But  if  on  the  contrary,  the  Scripture  doth  plainly  affert  thofe  things, 
-  from  whence  our  Dodrine  follows,  and  without  which  no  reafonable 
account  can  be  given  either  of  the  Expreffions  ufed  therein,   or  of  the 
Sufferings  of  Chrift ;   if  Chrift's  Death  did  immediately  refpeft  God  as 
a  Sacrifice,  and  was  paid  as  a  Price  for  our  Redemption  ^  if  fuch  a  defign 
of  his  death  be  fo  far  from  being  repugnant  to  the  nature  of  God,that  it 
highly  manifefts  his  Wifdom,   Juftice  and  Mercy  ;    if  it  aftert  nothing 
but  ivhat  is  fo  far  from  being  impoffible,    that  it  is  very  reconciieable 
to  the  common  Principles  of  Reafon,  as  well  as  the  Free-Grace  of  God 
in  the  pardon  of  Sin  5  if,  being  truly  underftood,   it  is   fo  far  from 
enervating,  that  it  advances  highly  all  the  purpofes  of  Chriftian  Reli- 
gion, then  it  can  be  no  lefs  than  a  betraying  one  of  the  grand  Truths  of 
the  Chriftian  Doftrine,  not  to  believe  ours  to  be  the  true  Senfe  of  the 
Places  in  Controverfy.     And  this  is  that  which  I  now  take  upon  me  to 
maintain. 

11.  For 


Chap.  I.  ef  CHRIST.  24.5 

II.  For  our  clearer  proceeding  herein,  nothing  will  be  more  necefTa- 
fy,  than  fo  underftand  the  true  State  of  the  Controverfe  5    which  hath  Thefi.^te 
been  rendred  more  obfcure  by  the  miftakes  of  forae,    who  have  mana-  "/'^^ pon- 
ged it  with  greater  Zeal  than  Judgment  5    who  have  aflerted  more  than  ]nllmr»[. 
they  needed  to  have  done,  and  made  our  Adverfaries  aflert  much  lefs 
than  they  do  :     And  by  this  means  have  (hot  over  their  Adverfaries 
Heads,  and  laid  their  own  more  open  to  Affaults.    It  is  eafie  to  obferve, 
that  moft  of  Socinuf  his  Arguments  are  levelled  againfl:  an  Opinion, 
which  few  who  have  confidered  thefe  things  do  maintain,   and  none 
need  to  think  themfelves  obliged  to  do  it  ,•  which  is,    That  Chrift  paid 
a  proper  and  rigid  Satisfadion  for  the  Sins  of  Men,  confidered  under  the 
notion  of  Debts,  and  that  he  paid  the  very  fame,  which  we  ought  to 
have  done ;   which  in  the  Senfe  of  the  Law,  is  never  called  Satisfaftion, 
but  ftrift  Payment.     Againft  this  SoAnuf  difputesfrom  the  impoffibili- 
ty  of  Chrift's  paying  the  very  fame  that  we  were  to  have  paid  5  becaufe 
our  penalty  was  eternal  Death,  and  that  as  the  confequent  of  inherent 
guilt,  which  Chrift  neither  did  nor  could  undergo.     Neither  is  it  e- 
nough  to  fay.    That  Chriji  had  undergone  eternal  Death,    unlefs  he  had 
been  able  to  free  bintfelf  from  it  ^  for  the  admiflion  of  one  to  pay  for  ano- 
ther, who  could  difcharge  the  Debt  in  much  lefs  time  than  the  Offen- 
ders could,  was  not  the  fame  which  the  Law  required.     For  that  takes 
no  notice  of  any  other  than  the  Perfons  who  had  finned  ^  and  if  a  Me- 
diator cou\d  have  paid  the  fame,   the  Original  Law  muft  have  been  dis- 
junftive  5   viz.   That  either  the  Offender  muft  fuflPer,    or  another  for 
fiim  X,  but  then  the  Gofpel  had  not  been  the  bringing  in  of  a  better 
Covenant,  but  a  performance  of  the  old.    But  if  there  be  a  relaxation  or 
difpenfation  of  the  firfi  Law^    then  it  necefTarily  follows,    that  what 
Chrift  paid,  was  not  the  very  fame  which  the  firft  Law  required  :   For 
what  need  of  that,  when  the  very  fame  was  paid  that  was  in  the  Obli- 
gation >    But  if  it  be  faid.  That  the  dignity  of  the  Perfov  makes  up,    what 
wanted  in  the  kind  or  degree  of  punifloment  -^    this  is  a  plain  Confeflion 
that  it  is  not  the  fame,    but  fomething  equivalent,    which  anfwers  the 
ends  of  the  Sanation,  as  much  as  the  fame  would  have  done,   which  is 
the  thing  we  contend  for.    Befides,  if  the  very  fame  had  been  paidia 
the  ftrift  Senfe,   there  would  have  followed  a  Deliverance  ipfofa^o^ 
for  the  Releafe  immediately  follows  the  Payment  of  the  fame  ^    and  it 
had  been  injuftice  to  have  required  any  thing  further,    in  order  to  the 
difcharge  of  the  Offender,  when  ftrift  and  full  Payment  had  been  made 
of  what  was  in  the  Obligation.     But  we  fee  that  Faith  and  Repentance, 
and  the  Confequences  of  thofe  two,  are  made  Conditions  on  our  Parts, 
in  order  to  the  enjoying  the  benefit  of  what  Chrift  hath  procured  ^ 
So  that  the  Releafe  is  not  immediate  upon  the  Payment,   but  depends 
-  on  a  new  Contraft,    made  in  confideration  of  what  Chrift  hath  done 
and  fuffered  for  us.     If  it  be  faid.    That  hj  Chrifis  Payment,    we  become 
his,    and  he  requires  thefe  Conditions  of  us ;    befides  the  contrariety  of  it 
to  the  Scriptures,  which  make  the  Conditions  to  be  required  by  him  to 
whom  the  Payment  was  made;  wearetoconfider,  that  thefe  very  Ferfons 
afTert,  that  Chrift  paid  all  for  us,  andinournameandftead  ^  fothatthe 
Payment  by  Chrift  was  by  a  Subftitution  in  our  room  ^  and  if  he  paid  the 
fame  which  the  Law  required,the  benefit  muft  immediately  accruetothofe, 
in  whofe  Name  the  Debt  was  paid.For  what  was  done  in  the  Name  of  ano- 
ther, is  all  one  to  the  Creditor,  asif  it  hadbeen  done  by  the  Debtor  him- 
feU.  But  above  all  things,it  is  impoffible  to  reconcile  the  freenefs  of  Re- 

miflion, 


24<^  Of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  I. 

miffion,  with  tbfe  full  payment  of  the  very  fame  which  was  in  the  obli- 
gation. Neither  will  it  ferve  to  fay.  That  though  it  was  not  free  to  Chrifi^ 
yet  it  was  to  us.  For  the  fatisfaftion  and  remiffion  muft  refpeft  the 
fame  perfon  ^  for  Chrift  did  not  pay  for  himfelf,  but  for  us,  neither 
could  the  remiffion  be  to  him.  Chrift  therefore  is  not  confider'd  in  his 
own  name,  but  as  afting  in  our  ftead  5  fo  that  what  was  free  to  him, 
muft  be  to  us ;  what  was  exaftly  paid  by  him,  it  is  all  bne  as  if  it  had 
been  done  by  us:  fo  that  it  is  impoffible  the  fame  debt  ftiould  by  fully 
paid  and  freely  forgiven.  Much  lefs  will  it  avoid  the  difficulty  in  this 
^  cafe  to  fay,  That  it  was  a  refufable  payment :  For  it  being  fuppofed  to 

be  the  very  fame,  it  was  not  in  juftice  refufable;  and  however  not  iti 
equity,  if  it  anfwer  the  intention  of  the  Law,  as  much  as  the  fufFer- 
ing  of  the  offenders  had  done ;  and  the  more  it  doth  that,  the  lefs  refu- 
fable it  is.     And  although  God  himfelf  found  out  the  way,  that  doth  not 
make  the  pardon  free,  but  the  defignation  of  the  perfon  who  was  to 
pay  the  debt.   Thus  when  our  Adverfaries  difpute  againft  this  opinion, 
no  wonder  if  they  do  it  fuccefsfully  ^  but  this  whole  opinion  is  built 
uponamiftake,  that  fatisfadiion  muft  be  the  payment  of  the  very  fame  5 
which  while  they  contend  for,  they  give  our  Adverfaries  too  great  an 
advantage,  and  make  them  think  they  triumph  over  the  Faith  of  the 
Church,  when  they  do  it  only  over  the  miftake  of  fome  particular  per- 
fons.     But  the  foundation  of  this  miftake,  lies  in  the  confideration  of 
punifhment,  under  the  notion  of  debts,  and  that  fatisfadion  therefore 
muft  be  by  ftrift  payment  in  rigour  of  Law  5    but  how  great  that  miftake 
is,  will  appear  in  the  fubfequent  difcourfe.    But  it  cannot  but  be  won- 
dred  at,  that  the  very  fame  perfons  who  confider  fins,  as  debts  which 
muft  be  ftriftly  fatisfied  for,  do  withal  contend  for  the  abfolute  necefr 
fity  of  this  fatisfadion ;  whereas  Sodnus  his  Arguments  would  hold 
good,  if  fins  were  only  confidered  as  debts,  and  God  as  the  mere  Creditor  of 
punifhment  ;  he  might  as  freely  part  with  his  own  right  without  fatisfaH ion, 
as  any  Creditor  may  forgive  what  fumm  he  pleafes  to  a  perfon  indebted  to 
him-^  and  no  reafon  can  be  brought  to  the  contrary,  from  that  notion 
of  fins,  why  he  may  not  do  it.     But  if  they  be  confidered  with  a  re- 
fpeft  to  God's  Government  of  the  world,    and  the  honour  of   his 
Laws,  then  fome  further  acccount  may  be  given,  why  it  may  not  be 
confiftent  with  that,  to  pafs  by  the  fins  of  men,  without  fatisfadion 
made  to  them. 
Ofthedif-     in.  And  becaufe  the  miftake  in  this  matter,    hath  been  the  foun- 
/tfwicfo/  dation  of  moft  of  the  fubfequent  miftakes  on  both  fides,  and  thedif- 
plni(i>-"   covery  of  the  caufe  of  errors,  doth  far  more  to  the  cure  of  them,  than 
merits,      any  Arguments  brought  againft  them;   and  withal,  the  true  under- 
ftanding  of  the  whole  Doftrine  of  fatisfadion  depends  upon  it,  I  fhall 
endeavour  to  make  clear  the  notion  under  which  our  fins  are  confide- 
red ;  for  upon  that  depends  the  nature  of  the  fatisfadion  which  is  to 
be  made  for  them.     For  while  our  Adverfaries  fuppofe,  that  fins  are 
tox  be  looked  on  under  the  notion  of  debts  in  this  debate,  they  afTert 
it  to  be  wholly  free  for  God  to  remit  them,  without  any  fatisfadion. 
They  make  the  right  of  puniflament  merely  to  depend  on  God's  abfo- 
lute Dominion  ;  and  that  all  fatisfadion  muft  be  confidered  under  the 
notion  of  compenfation,  for  the  Injuries  done  to  him,  to  whom  it  is 
to  be  made.     But  if  we  can  clearly  ftiew  a  confiderable  difference  be- 
tween the  notion  of  debts  and  punilhments,  if  the  right  puniOiment 
doth  not  depend  upon  mere  Dominion,  and  that  fatisfadion  by  way 

of 


Chap.  I.  of  CHRIST.  24.7 

of  puniftimenr,  is  not  primarily  intended  for  compenfation,  but  for 
Other  ends,  we  (hall  make  not  only  the  ftate  of  the  Controverfie  much 
clearer,  but  offer  fomething  confiderable  towards  the  refolution  of  it. 
The  way  I  fliall  take  for  the  proof  the  difference  between  debts  and 

Eunifhments,  (hall  be  ufing  the  other  for  the  Arguments  for  it.     For 
elides,  that  thofe  things  are  juft  in  matter  of  debts,  which  are  not  fo 
in  the  cafe  of  punilhments^  as,  that  it  is  lawful  for  a  man  to  forgive 
all  the  debts  which  are  owing  him  by  all  perfons,  though  they  never 
fo  contumacioufly  refufe  payment,  but  our  Adverfaries  will  not  fay  fo 
in  the  cafe  of  Sins  j  for  although  they  afTert,  That  the  juftice  of  God 
doth  never  require  punifhment  in  cafe  of  repentance,  yet  withal!  they 
affert.  That  r»  cafe   of  impenitency,  it  is  not  only  agreed-        „ 
ble,  but  dne  to  the  nature  and  decrees'-,    and  there fre  to    am  Z[tpeTf''''ddm 
the  re^itude  and  equity  of  God  not  to  give  pardon.     But   nature  divim,  iy  decretk 
if  this  be  true,  then  there  is  an  apparent  difference  be-   T.f  TTl'^  {''^'^"^'"n. 

,  .  r      t   ,  1         ^r„  r-         f       X  '^'  &  -fq'<itati  debit  urn  ell 

tween  the  notion  or  debts  and  pumjhments ;  tor  the  Im-   ac  confentaneum.  socin.  de 
penitency  doth  but  add  to  the  ereatnefs  of    the  debt:   Serjaci.  i.e.  i.    Nonre- 
And  will  they  fay,  it  is  only  in  Gods  Power  to  remit   tum per (/ ^qmtati  eft  ai- 
fmall  debts,  but  he  muft  punifh  the  greate(t>  what  be-   mdumconfentamum,  &i,0' 
comes,  then  of  God's  abfolute  liberty  to  part_  with  his  &';Sr&£t^,r 
own  right?  will  not  this. (hew  more  of  his  kindnefs  to   nibus prxfixit  ftiij  neceffd- 
pardon  the  greater,  rather  than  lelTer  offenders  ?  But  if  ^^^^-  ^  *=■■«''•  <=•  Groc.  c.  2. 
there  be  fomething  in  the  nature  of  the  thing,  which 
makes  it  not  only  juft,  but  neceffary  for  impenitent  finners  to  be  pu- 
nilhed,  as  Crellim  after  Socinus  frequently  acknowledges,  then  it  is 
plain,  that  fins  are  not  to  be  confidered  merely  as  debts,  for  that  obfti- 
nacy  and  impenitency  is  only  punilhed  as  a  greater  degree  of  fin,  and 
therefore  as  a  greater  debt.    And  withal,  thofe  things  are  lawful  in  the 
remiffion  of  debts,  which  are  unjuft  in  the  matter  of  punifhmentsj  as 
it  is  lawful  for  a  Creditor,  when  two  perfons  are  conlidered  in  equal 
circumftances,  to  remit  one,  and  not  the  other  ^  nay  to  remit  the  greats 
er  debt,  without  any  fatisfaftion,  and  to  exaft  the  lelTer  to  the  greateft 
extremity^  but  it  is  unjuft  in  matter  of  Puni(hments,  where  the  rea- 
fon  and  circumftances  are  the  fame,  for  a  perfon  who  hath  committed 
a  crime  of  very  dangerous  confequence,   to  efcape  unpunifhed,  and 
another  who  hath  been  guilty  of  far  lefs  to  be  feverely  executed.     Be- 
fides  thefe  confiderations,  I  fay,  I  (hall  now  prove  tlie  difference  of 
debts  and  puni(bments,  from  thofe  two  things  whereby  things  are  beft 
differenced  from  each  other;  vii,.    The  different  Reafon,  and  the  dif- 
ferent end  of  them. 

IV.  (l.)  The  different  Reafon  of  debts  and  puni figment s  :  The  re^i^on  The  reafon 
of  debts  is  dominion  and  property,  and  the  obligation  of  them,  de-°{^/^^^"'^ 
pends  upon  voluntary  con  trads  between  parties;  but  the  reafon  ofh  the  put- 
puni(hments  is  Juftice  and  Government,  and  depends  not  upon  mere  '''"^  '"^^^ 
contrafts,  but  the  relation  the  perfon  ftands  in  to  that  Authority  to 
which  he  is  accountable  for  his  aftions.    For  if  the  obligation  to  pu- 
nifhment,  did  depend  upon  mere  contraft,  then  none  could  jiiftly  be 
punifhed,  but  fuch  who  have  confented  to  it  by  an  antecedent  con- 
trad  :  If  it  be  faid.  That  a  contratl  is  implied,  by  their  being  in  focietji 
toith  others  ;  that  is  as  much  as  I  defire  to  make  the  difference  appear, 
for  in  cafe  of  debts,  the  obligjtion  depends  upon  the  voluntary  con- 
trad  of  the  perfon;  but  in  cafe  of  punifhments,  the  very  relation  to 
Government,  and  living  under  Laws  doth  imply  it.    And  the  right  of 

punifh- 


248  . ,.  Of  the  Stlfferings  ^  Chap.  I. 

— ^ — ^ —      —  -- --     .      .       '  -  

puniflament  depends  upon  the  obligation  of  Laws,  where  the  reafon  of 
them  holds,  without  any  exprefs  con  trad,  or  fuperiority  of  one  o- 
ver  iinother  5  as  in  the  cafe  of  violation  of  the  Laws  of  Nations,  that 
gives  right  to  another  Nation  to  punifti  the  infringers  of  it.  Other- 
wife  Wars  could  never  be  lawful  between  two  Nations^  and  none 
could  be  warrantable,  butthofe  of  a  Prince  againft  his  rebellious  fub- 
jefts,  who  have  broken  the  Laws  themfelves  confented  exprefly  to. 
Befides,  in  cafe  of  debts  every  man  is  bound  to  pay,  whether  he  be 
caird  upon  or  no ;  but  in  cafe  of  puniftiments,  no  man  is  bound  to 
betray  or  accufe  himfelf.  For  the  obligation  to  payment  in  cafe  of 
debt  arifeth  from  the  injury  fuftained  by  that  particular  perfon,  if  a- 
nother  detains  what  is  his  own  from  him  5  but  the  obligation  to  punifti- 
ment,  arifes  from  the  injury,  the  Publick  fuftains  by  the  impunity  of 
crimes,  of  which  the  Magiftrates  are  to  take  Care  5  who  by  the  difpen- 
fing  of  puniftiments,  do  ftiew  that  to  be  true  which  Grotius  afTerts,  that 
if  there  be  any  Creditor  to  be  affigned  in  puniftiment,  it  is  the  publick 
good  :  Which  appears  by  this,  that  all  puniftiments  are  proportioned, 
according  to  the  influence  the  offences  have  upon  the  publick  intereft  5 
for  the  reafon  of  puniftiment  is  not  becaufe  a  Law  is  broken,  but  be- 
caufe  the  breach  of  a  Law  tends  to  diifolve  the  community,  by  in- 
fringing the  Authority  of  the  Laws,  and  the  honour  of  thofe  who  are 
to  take  care  of  them.  For  if  we  confider  it,  the  meafure  of  punifti- 
ments is  in  a  well  ordered  State,  taking  from  the  influence  which  crimes 
have  upon  the  peace  and  intereft:  of  the  community.  No  man  quefti- 
ons,  but  that  Malice,  Pride  and  Avarice,  are  things  really  as  bad 
as  many  faults,  that  are  feverely  puniftied  by  humane  Laws,  but  the 
reafon  thefe  are  not  puniftied  is,  becaufe  they  do  not  fo  much  injury 
to  the  publick  intereft,  as  Theft  and  Robbery  do.  Beftdes,  in  thofe 
things  wherein  the  Laws  of  a  Nation  are  concerned,  the  utmoft  rigour 
is  not  ofed  in  the  preventing  of  crimes,  or  the  execution  of  them  when 
committed,  if  fuch  an  execution  may  endanger  the  publick  more  than 
the  impunity  of  the  offenders  may  do.  And  there  are  fome  things 
which  are  thought  fit  to  be  forbidden,  where  the  utmoft  means  are  not 
ufed  to  prevent  them ;  as  Merchants  are  forbidden  to  fteal  cuftoms,  but 
they  are  not  put  under  an  Oath  not  to  do  it.  And  when  penalties  have 
been  deferved,  the  execution  of  them  hath  been  deferred,  till  it  may 
be  moft  for  the  advantage  of  the  publick :  as  Joab's  puniftiment  till  So" 
lomon's  R-eign,  though  he  deferved  it  as  much  in  David's.  So  that  the 
rule  commonly  talked  of.  Fiat  jnflitia  &  pereat  muMclus,  is  a  piece  of 
Pedantry,  rather  than  true  Wifdom ;  for  whatever  penalty  inflidted 
brings  a  far  greater  detriment  to  the  publick,  than  the  forbearance 
of  it,  is  no  piece  of  Juftice  to  the  State,  but  the  contrary  5  the  great- 
eft  Law,  being  the  fafety  and  prefervation  of  the  whole  Body.  By 
which  it  appears,  that  in  humane  Laws,  the  reafon  of  puniftiment  is 
nor,  that  fuch  an  aftion  is  done,  bat  becaufe  the  impunity  in  doing 
it,  may  have  a  bad  influence  on  the  publick  intereft  ^  but  in  debts, 
Ther-ght  j-t^q  right  of  Reftitution  depends  upon  the  injury  received  by  a  parti- 
fumfhrnent  cular  pcrfou,  who  looks  at  no  more  than  the  reparation  of  his  lofs 

t>ot  mere     bv    it. 

Cre:i.'''Re.  V.  We  are  now  to  confider,  how  far  thefe  things  will  hold  in  Di- 
ipoiif.  ad  vine  Laws,  and  what  right  of  puniftiment  doth  refult  from  them. 
^7ea"r  ^^"^  Crellius,  the  fubtilleft  of  ourAdverfaries,  knowing  of  how  great  con- 
j^*.    '  "fequence  the  refolution  of  this  is,  in  the  whole  Controverfie  of  Satis- 

faftioji, 


Ch  AP.  L  of  C  HR  I  S  L  249 

faftion,  vehemently  contends,  Tkat  the  right  of  pumfiment  doth  refidt 
from  God's  abfotute  Dominion,  and  therefore  he  is  to  be  con/idered  as  the 
offended  party,    and  tiot  as  Govern  our  in   the  right  of  infixing  punifly 
merit  ;  for  which  his  firft  Argument  is.  That  our  obedience  is  due  to  God's  p.  ,^ 
LatP,  on  the  account  of  his  Dominion  ^  but  when  that  is  not  performed,  the 
penalt)/  fucceeds  in  its  room,  and  therefore  thai  doth  belong  to  God  on  the 
fame  account  ••  *His  other  arguments  are,  from  the  compenfation  of  injuries 
due  to  the  offended  party,  and  from  God's  anger  againfl  fin,  in  which  he  sr 
to  be  conpderd  as  the  offended  party  :  Thefe  two  latter  will  beanfwered 
under  the  next  head  ^  the  firft  I  am  to  examine  here.     He  therefore 
tells  us,  that  the  right  of  punifliment  belongs  to  God's  Dominion,  be- 
caufe  the  reafon  of  his  Government  of  mankind  is,  becaufe  he  is  the 
Lord  of  them.    But,  for  our  better  underftanding  this,  we  aretoconfi- 
der,  although  the  original  right  of  Government  doth  refult  from  God's 
Dominion ,  for  thcefore  our  obedience  is  due,  becaufe  of  his  Sove- 
reignty over  us^  yet  when  God  takes  upon  him  the  notion  of  aGover- 
nour,  he  enters  into  a  new  relation  with  his  Creatures,  diftinft  from 
the  firft  as  mere  Lord.     For  he  is  equally  Lord  of  all  to  whom  he  gives 
a  being,  but  he  doth  not  require  obedience  upon  equal  terms,  nor  go- 
verns them  by  the  fame  Laws:  Dominion  is  properly  ftiewed  in  the 
exercife  of  power ;  but  when  God  gives  Laws  according  to  which  he 
will  reward  and  punilh,  he  fo  far  reftrains  the  exercife  of  his  Domi- 
nion to  a  fubferviency  to  the  ends  of  Government.    If  we  (hould  fup- 
pofe,  that  God  governs  the  world  merely  by  his  Dominion,  we  muft 
take  away  all  rewards  and  punifhments ;  for  then  the  aftions  of  men,' 
would  be  the  mere  efFeds  of  irrefiftible  power,  and  fo  not  capable  of 
rewards  and  punilhments^  for  there  could  be  neither  of  thefe,  v^^here 
mens  aftions  are  capable  of  the  differences  of  good  and  evil,  and  that 
they  cannot  be,  if  they  be  the  afts  of  God's  Dominion,  and  not  of 
their  own.    But  if  God  doth  not  exercife  his  full  Dominion  over  ra- 
tional Creatures,  it  is  apparent  that  he  doth  govern  them  under  ano- 
ther notion  than  as  mere  Lord,  and  the  reafon  of  puniQiment  is  not  to 
be  taken  [from  an  abfolute  right  which  God   doth  not  make  ufe  of, 
but  from  the  ends  and  defigns  of  Government,  which  are  his  own  Ho- 
nour, the  Authority  of  his  Laws,  and  the  good  of  thofe  whom  he  doth 
govern.     And  Crellms  is  greatly  miftaken,  when  he  makes pmi^ment  to 
fucceed  in  the  place  of  the  right  of  obedience-^  for  it  is  only  the  defert  of 
punifliment,  which  follows  upon  the  violation  of  that  right  ^  and  as  we 
affert,  that  the  right  of  obedience  is  derived  from  God's  Sovereignty, 
fo  we  deny  not,  but  the  defert  of  punifliment  is  from  the  violation  of  it  5 
but  withal  we  fay,  that  the  obligation  to  punilhment  depends  upon 
the  Laws,  and  Cods  right  to  inflift  punifliment  (Laws being fuppofed) 
is  immediately  from  that  Government  which  he  hath  over  mankind  j 
For  otherwife,  if  the  whole  right  of  punifliment  did  ftill  depend  up- 
on God's  Dominion,  and  the  firft  right  of  Sovereignty,  then  all  fins 
muft  have  equal  punifliments,  becaufe  they  are  all  equal  violations  of 
the  fundamental  right  of  obedience;  then  it  were  at  liberty  for  God 
to  punifh  a  greater  Sin,  with  a  lefs  punifliment  ^  and  a  lefler  Sin,  with 
a  greater  ;  And  laftly,  this  would  make  the  punifliment  of  Sin,  a  mere 
Arbitrary  thing  in  XJod  ^  for  there  would  be  no  reafon  of  punifliment, 
but  what  depended  upon  God's  mere  will  5  whereas  the  reafon  of  pu- 
nifliment in  Scripture  is  drawn  from  repugnancy  of  fin  to  the  divine 
purity  and  holinefe,  and  not  merely  from  God's  power  or  will  to  pu- 

I  i  nifti  5 


250  Of  the  Sufenngs  Chap.  I. 

nifti  ^  but  if  that  were  all  the  reafon  of  it,  there  would  be  no  repug- 
nancy in  the  nature  of  the  thing  for  the  moft  vitious  perfon  to  be  re- 
warded, and  the  mofl:  pious  to  be  made  everlaftingly  miferable.     But 
who  ever  yet  durft  fay  or  think  fo  >  From  whence  it  appears  that  the 
relation  between  fin  and  punifhment  is  no  refult  of  God's  arbitrary  will  5 
but  it  is  founded  in  the  nature  of  the  things ;  fo  that  as  it  is  jufl  for 
God  to  punifli  offenders,  fo  it  would  be  unjufl:  to  punilh  the  mofl:  in- 
nocent perfon  without  any  refpeft  to  fin.    But  if  the  right  of  punifh- 
ment depends  merely  on  God's  Dominion,  I  cannot  underftand  why 
God  may  not  punifli  when  and  whom,  and  in  what  manner  he  plea- 
feth ;  without  any  impeachment  of  his  Juftice,  and  therefore  it  is  to 
be  wonder'd  at,  that  the  fame  perfons  who  affertthe  right  of  punifh- 
ment to  be  merely  in  God's  Dominion,  fliould  yet  cry  out  of  the  in- 
juftice  of  one  perfon  being  puniflied  for  anothers  faults  ^  for  why  may 
not  God  exercife  his  Dominion  in  thfs  cafe?  yes,  fay  they,  he  may  his 
dominion,  but  he  cannot Jumjl),  becaufe  punifldment  fuppofes guilt,  and  can- 
not hejufl  without  it ;  how  far  that  reaches,  will  be  examined  afterwards  5 
at  prefent,  we  take  notice  of  the  contradidVion  to  therafelves  which 
our  Adverfaries  are  guilty  of,  that  they  may  ferve  their  own  Hypothe- 
fis,  for  when  we  difpute  with  them,  againft  abfolute  remiflion  with- 
out fatisfaftion,  then  they  contend  that  the  right  of  punifliment  is  a 
mere  aft  of  Dominion,  and  God  may  part  with  his  right,  if  he  pleafe  5 
but  when  they  difpute  with  us  againft  the  tranflation  of  puniQiment  from 
one  to  another,  then  they  no  longer  fay  that  the  right  of  punifhment 
is  an  aft  of  Dominion,  but  that  it  is  a  neceffary  confequent  of  inhe- 
rent guilt,  and  cannot  be  removed  from  one  to  another.    And  then 
soc.  de     they  utterly  deny  that  punifhment  is  of  the  nature  of  debts,  for  one 
Servat.  Lean's  money,  they  fay,  may  become  anothers,  but  one  mans  puniJJoment 
%'^^iek.  c.  (^^""ct  become  anothers  :  Thus  they  give  and  take,  deny  and  grant,  as 
18.         it  ferves  for  their  prefent  purpofes. 

2  The  end     ^^'  C^O  '^^^  different  ends  of  debts  and  piini (laments,  make  it  appear 
offunifl).  that  there  is  a  difference  in  the  nature  of  them  ^  for  the  intention  of 
ments  not  f|^g  obligation  to  payment  in  cafe  of  debt,  is  the  compenfation  of  the 
fenjatkn   damage  which  the  Creditor  fuftains  5  but  the  intention  of  punifhment, 
as  it  is  in  \%  not  bate  compenfation,  but  it  is  defigned  for  greater  and  further 
ends.    For  which  we  are  to  confider  the  different  nature  of  punifh- 
ments,  as  they  are  inflifted  by  way  of  reparation  of  fome  injury  done 
to  private  perfons,  and  as  they  do  refpeft  the  publick  good.    I  grant, 
that  private  perfons  in  cafe  of  injuries,  feek  for  compenfation  of  the 
damage  they  fuftain,  and  fo  far  they  bear  the  nature  of  debts ;  but  if 
we  confider  them  as  inflifted  by  thofe  who  have  a  care  of  the  publick, 
though  they  are  to  fee  that  no  private  perfon  fuffers  injury  by  ano- 
ther ^  yet  rhe  reafon  of  that  is  not  merely  that  he  might  enjoy  his  own, 
but  becaufe  the  doing  injuries  to  others  tends  to  the  fubverfion  of  the 
ends  of  Government.     Therefore,  I  can  by  no  means  admit  that  Pofi- 
CreU.  c.     fition  of  Crellius,  that  a  Magijirate  only  punlfies  as  he  affumes  the  perfon 
Grot.  cap.  gj  ^^g  particular  men  who  have  received  injuries  from  others  ^  for  he  aims 
^;  ,47"  '  at  other  ends  than  merely  the  compenfation  of  thofe  injured  perfons. 
^ei?.i7.p.  Their  great  end  is  according  to  the  old  Roman  Formula,  ne  quid  Rejp, 
^  *■        detrimenti  capiat :  the  reafon  of  exafting  penalties  upon  private  men  is 
ftill  with  a  regard  to  the  publick  fafety.     Suppofing  men  in  a  ftate  of 
nature  no  punifhment  is  due  to  the  injured  perfon,  but  reftitution  of 
damage,  and  compenfation  of  the  lofs  that  accrues  to  him  by  the  inju- 
ry 


Chap.  L  of  C  H  K  I  S  T.  251 

ry  fuftained  ^  and  whatever  goes  beyond  this,  is  the  effeft  of  Govern- 
ment, which  conftitutespenaltiesforprefervation  of  the  Society  which 
is  ander  Laws.     But  herein  Crellius  is  our  adverfary,  but  with  no  ad- 
vantage at  all  to  his  Caufe  ^  for  he  offers  to  prove  againft  Grotittt,  That 
fomething  more  is  due  by  an  injury  beyond  hare  compenfation  for  jvhat  the 
other  if  fuppofed  to  lofe  by  the  right  of  f/ature-^  for  faith  he,  /»  every  in- 
jury  there  is  not  only  the  real  damage  which  the  perfonfujiainx,  but  there  if 
a  contempt  of  the  perfon  implyed  in  it  for  which  as  well  as  the  former^  he 
ought  to  have  compenfation.     To  which  I  anfwer,    i.  That  this  doth  not 
prove  what  he  defigns,  viz.  that  puniftiment  doth  belong  to  the  inju- 
red perfon  in  a  ftate  of  Nature  beyond  bare  reftitution,  but  that  it  is 
neceffary,  that  men  (hould  not  continue  in  fuch  a  ftate,  that  fo  they 
may  be  vindicated  from  that  contempt,  and  others  compelled  to  refti- 
tution.    Both  which,  as  they  are  puniftiments,  are  not  in  the  power 
of  the  offended  party  as  fuch,  but  ftiew  that  it  is  very  reafonable  there 
Ihould  be  Laws  and  Governours,  that  private  perfons  may  be  prefer- 
ved  in  their  juft  rights,  and  offenders  puniftied  for  the  vindication  not 
only  of  their  honour,  but  of  the  Laws  too.    And  Laws  being  efta- 
blifhed,  the  injured  perfon  hath  right  to  no  more,  than  the  compenfa- 
tion of  his  lofs;  for  that  being  forced  upon  the  offending  party,  is  a 
fufficient  vindication  of  his  honour.     2.  If  the  contempt  of  a  private 
perfon  makes  a  compenfation  neceffary,  how  much  more  will  this  hold 
in  a  publick  Magiftrate  5   whofe  contempt  by  difobedience  is  of  far 
worfe  confequence  than  that  of  a  private  perfon.    And  by  this  argu- 
ment CreUiufGvtnhrov/s  his  main  Hypothejis,  viz.  that  God  may  par- 
don fin  without  fatisfadion  5  for  if  it  be  not  only  neceffary,  that  the 
lofs  be  compenfated  but  the  diftionour  too  ^  then  fo  much  greater  as 
the  diftionour  is,  fo  much  higher  as  the  perfon  is,  fo  much  more  bene- 
ficial to  the  world  as  his  Laws  are,  fo  much  more  necefTary  is  it  that  ia 
order  to  pardon  there  muft  be  a  fatisfadion  made  to  him,  for  the  af- 
fronts he  hath  received  from  men.     And  if  the  greatnefs  of  the  injury  creU.  c. 
be  to  be  meafured  as  Crellius  aflerts,  from  the  worth  and  value  of  the^'^"^' ^^^* 
thing,  from  the  dignity  and  honour  of  the  perfon,  from  the  difplicency  of  ' 
the  faU  to  him,  which  he  makes  the  raeafure  of  punifhment ,  this  makes 
it  ftill  far  more  reafonable,  that  God  fhould  have  fatisfadion  for  the 
fins  of  men,  than  that  men  (hould  have  for  the  injuries  done  them  by 
one  another;  efpeciallyconfidering  what  the  fame  Author  doth  afTertaf-g^^ 
ter wards,  that  it  is  fometime  repugnant  tojujiice,  for  one  to  part  with  hisf.  198. 
own  right  in  cafe  of  injuries,  and  that  either  from  the  nature  and  circum- 
fiances  of  the  things  themfelves  or  a  decree  or  determination  to  the  contra' 
ry:  for  the  firft  heinftanceth  in  cafe  of  notorious  defamation :,  in  which 
he  faith,  it  is  a  difhoneji  and  unlawful  thing  for  a  man,  not  to  make  ufe  of 
his  own  right  for  his  vindication  :  and  for  the  other,  in  cafe  of  great  ob- 
Jiinacy  and  malice.     By  both  which,  it  is  moft  apparent,  that  CreUius 
puts  a  mighty  difference  between  the  nature  of  debts,  and  punifhments, 
fince  in  all  cafes  he  allows  it  lawful  for  a  perfon  free,  to  remit  his 
debts ;  but  in  fome  cafes  he  makes  it  utterly  unlawful  for  a  perfon  not  to 
make  ufe  of  his  right  for  puniftiment.     And  withal  if  a  private  per- 
ion  may  not  part  with  his  own  right  in  fuch  cafes,  how  unreafonable 
is  it  not  to  alfert  the  fame  of  the  great  Governour  of  the  World  ?  and 
that  there  may  be  a  neceflity  for  hirri  upon  fuppofition  of  the  contempt 
of  himfelf  and  his  Laws,  to  vindicate. himfelf  and  his  honour  to  the 
world,  by  fome  remarkable  teftimony  of  his  feverity  againft  fin. 

11  a  VIL  But 


-*— "^ -  ■  -  ,  -  — — r^ 

i252  of  the  Suferings  C  h  a  p.  1. 

fmlll'  ^^^'  ^"*  Crellius  yet  urgeth  another  end  of  puniftiment,  which  though 
great  mif- the  mod  unreafonable  of  all  others,  yet  fufficiently  proves  from  hitn- 
take  a-  felf  the  difference  of  debts  and  punifhments,  which  is,  the^delight  which 
endof  pu-  *^^  iftjured  per/on  takes  in  feeifjg  the  offender  pHniJhedi  This  he  fo  much 
niniraencs  infifts  upon,  as  though  he  made  it  the  moft  natural  end  of  panifhment^ 
^^'r^'J^"^'  for  faith  he,  among  the  Punifiments  which  a  Prince  or  any  other  free  Perfo/i 
kn.Tk.'  ^'^^  infijli,  revenge  is  in  the Jtrfi  place,  and  the  more  there  if  of  that  in 
any  thing,  the  wore  properly  it  is  called  a  puuifhment  5  and  he  tells  us 
what  he  means  by  this  ultio  5  viz.  foUtium  ex  alieho  dolore,  the  content- 
P-  ^Pi-  tftent  taken  in  anothers  pain.  But  faith  he,  no  man  muft  ohJeS,  that  this 
is  a  thing  evil  in  it  felf\,  for  although  it  he  forbidden  us  under  the  New 
Tejiament,  yet  in  it  felf  it  is  not  unlavpful  for  one  that  hath  fnffered  pain 
from  another  tofeekfor  the  eafe  of  his  own  pain,  by  the  miferies  of  him  that 
injured  him:  and  for  this pttrpofe,  faith  he,  we  have  the  Paffion  of  Anger 
in  us,  which  being  a  defire  of  returning  injuries,  is  then  fatisfied  when  it 
apprehends  it  done.  But  how  abfurd  and  unreafonable  this  Doftrine  is, 
will  be  eafily  difcovered,  for  this  would  make  the  primary  intendment 
of.  punifhment  to  be  the  evil  of  him  that  fufFers  it.  Where  the  right 
of  punilhment  is  derived  from  an  injury  received,  and  therefore  that 
which  gives  that  right,  is  fome  damage  fuftained,  the  reparation  of 
which  is  the  firft  thing  defigned  by  the  offended  party :  Though  it  take 
not  up  the  whole  nature  of  punifhment.  And  on  this  account  no 
man  can  juftly  propofe  any  end  to  himfelf  in  anothers  evil,  but  what 
comes  under  the  notion  of  reftitution.  For  the  evil  of  ariother  is  on- 
ly intended  in  punilhment  as  it  refpefts  the  good  of  him  for  whofe 
fake  that  evil  is  undergone.  When  that  good  may  be  obtained  with- 
out anothers  evil,  the  defire  of  it  is  unjuft  and  unreafonable :  and 
therefore  all  that  contentment  that  any  one  takes  in  the  evil  another 
nndergoes,  as  it  is  evil  to  him,  is  a  thing  repugnant  to  humane  nature, 
and  which  all  perfons  condemn  in  others  when  they  allow  themfelves 
in  it.  It  will  be  hard  for  CreUius  to  make  any  difference  between  this 
end  of  punifhment  which  he  afligns,  and  the  greatefl  cruelty  5  for  what 
can  that  be  worfe  than  taking  delight  in  making  others  miferable,  and 
feeing  them  fo  when  he  hath  made  them.  If  it  be  replyed,  that  cru- 
elty is  without  any  caufe'j  but  here  ajuji  caufe  isfuppofed  :  I  anfwer,  a  jufl 
caufe  is  only  fuppofed  for  the  punifhment,  but  there  can  be  no  jufl  caufe 
for  any  to  delight  in  the  miferies  of  others,  and  to  comfort  themfelves 
by  inflifting  or  beholding  them.  For  the  evil  of  another  is  never  in- 
tended, but  when  it  is  the  only  means  left  for  compenfation  5  and  he 
mufl  be  guilty  of  great  inhumanity,  who  defires  anothers  evil  any  fur- 
ther than  that  tends  to  his  own  good,  /.  e.  the  reparation  of  the  da- 
mage fuflained  5  which  if  it  may  be  had  without  anothers  evil,  then 
that  comes  not  by  the  right  of  nature  within  the  reafon  of  punifh- 
ment; and  confequently  where  it  doth  not  ferve  for  that  end,  the 
comfort  that  men  take  in  it  is  no  part  of  juflice,  but  cruelty.  For 
there  can  be  no  reafon  at  all  afllgned  for  it ;  for  that  lenimentum  doh- 
ris  which  CreUius  infifls  on  is  merely  imaginary,  and  no  other  than  the 
Dog  hath  in  gnawing  the  ftone  that  is  thrown  at  him  5  and  for  all  that 
I  know,  that  propenfion  in  nature  to  the  retribution  of  evil  for  evil 
any  further  than  it  tends  to  our  fecurity,  and  the  prefervation  for 
the  future,  is  one  of  the  moft  unreafonable  Paflions  in  humane  Na- 
ture. 

VIII.  And 


Chap.  I.  ofCHKlST. 253 

Vfll.  And  if  we  examine  the  nature  oi  A/;per,  either  confideredNa-O*^^^"*- 

cvir^  Oi  211* 

lurally  or  Morally,  the  intention  of  it  is,  not  the  returning  evil  to  a-gerand 
nother,  for  the  evil  received,  but  the  fecurity  and  prefervation  of  ourrevengein 
felves  ;  which  we  fhould  not  have  fo  great  a  care  of,  unlefs  we  had|^^";^^^^ 
a  quick  fenfe  of  injuries,  and  our  blood  were  apt  to  be  heated  at  thepuniih- 
apprehenfion  of  them.     But  when  this  paffion  vents  it  felf,  in  <^oing^^'^""^*^*' 
others  injury  to  alleviate  its  own  grief,  it  is  a  violent  and  unreafona- to  facibfie 
ble  perturbation  5  but  being  governed  by  reafon,  it  aims  at  no  more.ihem. 
than  the  great  end  of  our  beings ;  WZ-.  Self-Prefervation.  Butwhenthat 
cannot  be  obtained  without  anothers  evil,  fo  far  the  intendment  of  it  is 
lawful,  but  no  further.  And  I  cannot  therefore  think  thofe  Philofophers, 
who  have  defined  Anger  to  be  o^ira  r^-nAi-mnuic,  by  whofe  Authority  cre//.c.i, 
Crelltuf  defends  himfelf,  when  he  makes  anger  to  be  a  defire  of  revenge  J'^^'^^- 
did  throughly  confider  what  was  juft  and  reafonable  in  it,  but  barely^'  '  ^' 
what  was  natural,  and  would  be  the  effeft  of  that  paffion,  if  not  go- 
verned by  reafon.     For  otherwife  Jul.  Scaliger's  definition  is  much  £«>•<:. 
more    true  and  juftifiable,   that  it  is  appetitus  depulfoms-j  viz.  that^^^' 
whereby  we  are  ftirred  up  to  drive  away  from  us,  any  thing  that  is  in- 
jurious to  us.     But  becaufe  Creliius  alledgeth  a  faying  of  Seneca^  that 
would  make  vindi^a  of  the  nature  ot  punifhment,  duabiu  de  caufis pu- 
ttlre  princepsfolet,  fi  ant  fe  vindicet  ant  alium  :  We  (hall  oppofe  to  this^""'*,''^ 
the  fenfe  of  the  fame  Author  in  this  matter,  which  may  fufficientlyc.  20. 
clear  the  other  paffage:  For,  faith  he,  InhumattHtn  verbum  eji,  &  qui-Deira,L 
demproJHJioreceptum,  ultio,  ^  a  contuntelia  non  differt  niji  ordwe :  qni^-'^''^^* 
dolorem  regerit^  tantum  excufatius  peccat.     And  no  man  fpeaks  with 
greater  vehemency  againft  the  delight  in  others  punifhments  than  he 
doth  5   for  he  always  afferts,   the  only  reafon  of  punifhment,  to  be 
feme  advantage  which  is  to  come  by  it,  and  not  meerly  to  fatisfie  anger, 
or  to  allay  their  own  griefs,  by  feeing  anothers:  For,  faith  he,  the 
punifhment  is  inflifted,  Non  quia  delecietur  ullitu  pcet/a  {procul  eji  emmUe  ira,l. 
kfapieute  tam  itihumana  firitas^   fed  nt  dovumentum  ommum  fint :  So'*'^**^" 
that  it  is  only  the  ufefulnefs  of  punifhment  according  to  him,  which 
makes  it  become  any  wife  man  5  and  fo  far  from  a  fatisfaftion  of  his 
grief  by  anothers  punifhment,  that  he  makes  that  a  piece  of  inhu- 
manity, not  incident  to  any  who  pretend  to  wifdom.    Nay,  he  denies, 
that  a  jufl  punifhment  doth  fiow  from  Anger  5  for  he  that  inflids  that, 
doth  it  non  ipfiuf  pcen£  avidus,  fed  quia  oportet,  not  as  defining  the  pu-  De  Ira,  I. 
nifliment,  but  becaufe  there  are  great  reafons  for  it:  And  elfewhere  ^■'^■9- 
Exfequar  quia  oportet,  non  quia  dolet :  he  is  .far  enough  then  from  ap-^at  13. 
proving,  that  imaginary  compenfation  of  one  mans  grief  by  anothers. 
And  he  (hews  at  large  that  the  weakefl  natures,  and  the  leafl  guid- 
ed by  reafon,  are  the  mofl  fubjeft  to  this  anger  and  revenge.     And  al- 
though other  things  be  pretended,  the  general  caufe  of  it  is,  a  great 
infirmity  of  humane  nature^  and  thence  it  is,  that  children  and  old 
men,  and  fick  perfons,  are  the  mofl  fubjedt  to  it  5  and  the  better  any 
are,  the  more  they  are  freed  from  it : 


quippe  minuti 

Semper  C^  infrmi  eji  animi,  exiguiqne  voluptas 
Vltio 

He  makes  Cr»e//y  to  be  nothing  elfe,  hut  the  intemperance  of  the  mind  p^  ^^^ 
in  exa3f)ig  pHnifhment ;  and  the  difference  between  a  Prince  and  a  Ty- 1.\,  !!"^, 

rant 


254        Of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  I. 

A  N^c.Ti  ^^^^  ^°  ^^^  ^"  ^^■'^^'  ■^'^^  °"^  delights  in  pHnijhing,  the  other  never  does  it 
12.'  *    'hut  in  cafe  of  necejjity,  when  the  publick  good  requires  it.     And  this 
throughout  his  difcourfe,  he  makes  the  meafure  of  punifhment.    Who 
then  could  imagine,  that  he  (hould  fpeak  fo  contradiftory  to  himfelf, 
as  to  allow  punifhment  for  meer  revenge,  or  the  eafing  ones  own  griefs, 
by  the  pains  of  another  >  In  the  places  cited  by  CreUim  (if  taken  in  his 
fenfe)  he  fpeaks  what  commonly  is,  not  what  ought  to  be  in  the 
world ;  for  he  difputes  againft  it  in  that  very  place,  therefore  that  can- 
not be  the  meaning  which  he  contends  for.    The  common  defgn  of  pw 
nipjfftents  by   a  Prince,  faith  he,  is  either  to  vindicate  himfelf  or  others. 
I  fo  render  his  words,  becaufe  vindicare,  when  it  is  jjoyned  with  the 
perfon  injured,  as  here,  vindicare  fe  aut  alium,  doth  properly  relate  to 
the  end  of  puniftiment,  which  isafferting  the  right  of  the  injured  per- 
fon ;  but  when  it  is  joyned  with  the  perfons  who  have  done  the  in- 
jury, or  the  crimes  whereby  they  did  it,  then  it  properly  fignifies  to 
saiiull.  in  puniQi.     Thus  Salluji  ufeth,  Vindicatum  in  eos  ^  and  Cicero,  In  milites 
^ckellqv.  "ofi^os  vehementer  vindicatum,  and  for  the  faft  very  frequently  in  him, 
maleficia  vindicare :  But  when  it  relates  to  the  injured  perfon,  as  here 
it  doth,  it  cannot  fignifie  meerly  to  punifti  5  for  thcnye  vindicare  would 
be  to-puniih  ones  felf,  but  to  affert  his  own  right  in  cafe  of  injury, 
Chen,  de   though  it  be  with  the  punifhment  of  another  :  For  Vindicatio,  as  Cice- 
nvent.  1.  y^  defines  it,  eji  per  qttam  vis  &  injuria  &  omnino  quod  ohfuturum  efi  de- 
fendendo  aut  ulcifcendo  propulfatur.     So  that  the  fecurity  of  our  felves 
in  cafe  of  force  or  injury,  is  that  which  is  called  Vindication  5  which 
fometimes  may  be  done  by  defence,  and  other  times  by  puniftiment. 
And  that  Seneca  doth  mean  no  more  here,  is  apparent  by  what  fol- 
lows 5  for  in  cafe  of  private  injuries,  he  faith,  pasnam  ft  tut))  poterit 
donet,  he  would  have  the  Prince  forgive  the  punifhment,  if  it  may  be 
done  with  fafety  ^  fo  that  he  would  not  have  any  one  puniftied,  to  fa- 
tisfie  anothers  defire  of  revenge,^  btrt  to  pref^rve  his  own  fafety :  And 
^lc!z\.  '  afterwards  he  faith.  It  is  much  beneath  a  Princes  condition,  to  need  that 
fatisfaUion  vphich  arifes  from  anothers  fuffer in gs  :  But  for  the  punifliments 
of  others,  he  faith.  The  Law  hath  ejiablijhed  three  ends,  the  amendment 
of  the  perfons,  or  making  others  better  by  their  pumjhments,  or  the  publick 
fecurity,  by  taking  away  fuch  evil  members  out  of  the  body  :  So  that  in  pub- 
lick punifbments,  he  never  fo  much  as  fuppofes,  that  contentment 
which  revenge  fanfies  in  others  punifhments,  but  makes  them  wholly 
defigned  for  the  publick  advantage.     For  the  Laws  in  punijhment  do  not 
'*  ^on  P^-  look  backward  but  forward:^  for  as  *  Plato  faith.  No  wife  man  everpuni- 
fiturain-  ft'^^i  ^^^^h  becauje  men  had  offended,  but  leji  they  fhould  :  Forpajl  thingt 
luebitw  ;  cannot  be  recalled,  but  future  are  therefore  firbidden,  that  they  may  be  pre- 
viito^  It  '^^"^^'^'    So  ^^  '^^e  fame  purpofe  is  the  faying  of  LaBantiiu,  produced 
remo  fru!  by  Grotius,  Surgimus  ad  vindiBam,  non  quia  lafi fimm,  fed  ut  difciplina 
dens  punit  fervetw,  mores  corrigantur,  licentia  comprimatur  :  h£c  efi  Ira  jufia.     To 
turn  efi^^'  which  Crellins  anfwers.  That  this  fignifies  nothing,  unlefs  it  can  be  proved^ 
fed  ne  pec-  that' no  man  may  juflly  punifi}  another,  meerly  becaufe  he  is  wronged.     If  he 
deLa.T  "^eans  of  the  right  to  punifti,  we  deny  not  that  to  be,  becaufe  the  per- 
I.  c.  16.'  fon  is  wronged  ;  but  if  he  underftands  it  of  the  defign  and  end  of  pu- 
Ldi.de    nifhment,  then  we  deny,  that  it  is  an  allowable  end  of  punifhments, 
,7.    '*  '^'.any  further  than  it  can  come  under  the  notion  of  reftitution,  of  which 
cf.z.     we  have  fpoken  already.     When  a  Majier  (which  is  the  inflance  he 
/^'  •  ^?*     produceth)  punifieth  his  fervants  becaufe  they  have  difobeyed  him:  The' 
reafon  of  that  puniftiment,  is  not  the  bare  difobedience,  but  the  in- 
jury 


HAP.  I.  of  CHK  1ST.  255; 


jary  which  comes  to  him  by  it  5  the  reparation  of  which  he  feeks  by 
punidimenr,  eitlier  as  to  his  authority,  fecurity  or  profit.     But  he  adds. 
That  where  puniJJment  it  dej^tted,  for  prefervation  of  difciplitie,  and  a- 
mendment  erf  matniert^  and  keeping  perfons  in  order,  (which  are  the  ends 
mentioned  by  La&antius^  it  is  vphere  the  intereji  of  the  perfons  lies,  in 
the  prefervation  of  t-hefc,  and  is  therefore  offended  at  the  negleB  of  thent. 
To  which  lanfwer.  That  the  intereft  of  fuch  a  one,  is  not  barely  the 
intereft  of  an  offended  party,  as  fuch,  but  the  intereft  of  a  Governour  5 
and  no  body  denies,  but  fuch  a  one  may  be  an  offended  party :  but 
the  queftion  is.  Whether  the  defign  of  punilliment  be  meerly  to  fatis- 
fie  him  as  the  offended  party,  or  to  anfwer  the  ends  of  Government? 
For  Crellim  hath  already  told  us,  what  it  is  to  fatisfie  one  as  an  offend- 
ed party,  that  is,  to  eafe  himfelf  by  the  punifliment  of  others;  but 
what  ever  is  def]gned  for  the  great  ends  of  Government,  is  not  to  be 
confidered  under  that  notion,  although  the  Governour  may  be  juftly 
offended  at  the  negleft  of  them.     And  there  is  this  confiderable  diffe- 
rence between  thepuniihment  made  to  an  offended  party,  as  fuch,  and 
that  which  is  for  the  ends  of  Government  ^  that  the  former  is  a  fatis- 
faftion  to  Anger,  and  the  latter  to  Laws  and  the  publick  intereft.     For 
Crellius  difputes  much  for  the  right  of  Anger  in  exafting  punilhments  .Crfp.z.ff/?. 
the  fatisfa3ion  of  which,  in  cafe  of  real  ii^nry,  he  never  makes  unlawful,  'sei.  13. 
hut  in  cafe  that  it  be  prohibited  us  by  one,  whofe  power  is  above  our  oivn  :P- 1'^'- 
Nay  he  makes  it  otherwife  the  primary  end  of  pHniJJjment.     So  that  atiger 
is  the  main  thing  upon  thefe  terms  to  be  refpeded  in  puniihment :  But 
where  it  is  defigned  for  the  ends  before-mentioned,  there  is  no  neceffi* 
ty  of  any  fuch  paflion  as  anger  to  be  farisfied,  the  ends  of  puniihment 
maybe  attained  wholly  without  it;  And  publick  punifliment,  accord- 'S«''.<^f'>'*> 
itig  to  Seneca  7ion  ira  fed  ratio  ejl,  is  no  effeft  of  anger,  but  reafon  ji.'ij*/'^* 
for,  faith  he,  nihil  minus  quam  irafci  punientem  decet :  nothing  lefs  be- 
comes one  that  puniiheth,  than  anger  doth  ^  for  all  punilhments  being 
confidered  as  Medicines,  no  man  ought  to  give  Phyfick  in  anger,  or  to 
let  himfelf  blood  in  a  fury :  A  Magifirate,  faith  he,  when  he  goes  topn- 
»//Zi,  ought  to  appear  only  vultu  legis  qu£  non  irafcitur,  fed  conftituit,  with  ^^''P-  ^^■ 
the  countenance  of  the  Law,  which  appoints  punifliments  without  pafli- 
on :  The  reafon  of  which  is,  becaufe  the  Law  aims  not  primarily  at  the 
evil  of  the  man  that  fuffers  puniihment,  but  at  the  good  which  comes 
to  the  publick  by  fuch  fufferings.    For  the  firft  defign  of  the  Law  was 
to  prevent  any  evil  being  done,  and  puniihment  coming  in  by  way  of 
Sanftion  to  the  force  of  the  Law,  muft  have  the  fame  primary  end 
which  the  Law  it  felf  had  ^  which  is  not  to  fatisfie  barely  the  offended 
party  for  the  breach,  any  further  than  that  fatisfaftion  tends  to  the  fe- 
curity of  the  Law,  and  preventing  the  violation  of  it  for  the  future. 
The  fubftance  of  what  I   have  faid  upon  this  fubjed,  may  be  thus 
briefly  comprized.  That  antecedently  to  Laws,  the  offended  party  hath 
right  to  no  more  than  bare  reparation  of  the  damage  fuftained  by  the 
injury ;  that  the  proper  notion  of  puniihment  is  confequent  to  Laws, 
and  the  inflifting  of  it  is  an  adtof  Government,  which  is  not  defigned 
for  meer  fatisfaftion  of  the  anger  of  injured  perfon,  but  for  the  pub- 
lick good,  which  lies  in  preferving  the  authority  of  the  Laws,  the  pre- 
venting all  injuries  by  the  fecurity  of  mens  juft  rights,  and  the  vindi- 
cation of  the  dignity  and  honour  of  him,  who  is  to  take  care  of  the 
publick  good.     For  thefe  Crellius  hitiifelf  acknowledgeth,  to  be  thejuji 
ends  of  pun j foments,  only  he  would  have  the  fatisfaftion  a  man  takes  in 

ancH 


Of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  I. 


Quibus  {fc.  [oUt;ofy  fecu-  ^nothers  evil,  to  come  in  the  firft  place ;  wherein  how 
ritati)  add,  fofint  hm^rx  much  he  IS  miftaken,  I  hope  we  have  already  manitefted. 
ac  dtgnitafis,  per  injuriam  Becaufe  the  proper  nature  of  punill^ment  depending  up- 
immimu  vMich,  afferfw-  on  Laws,  the  Laws  do  not  primarily  dehgn  the  benefit  of 
que  juris  noftri.  Ciei.  cap.  private  perfons  (fuppofing  that  were  fo)  but  the  advan- 
2.  feft.  28.  p.  191.  jggg  ^^  jj^^j.  community  which  they  are  made  for. 

The  In-        jx.  And  in  thofe  cafes  wherein  the  Magiftrate  doth  right  to  particu- 
the^MaV^'"  psf^ons  in  the  puniihment  of  thofe  who  have  injured  them,  he 
ftrate  in    doth  it  not  as  taking  their  perfon  upon  him,  for  he  aims  at  other  things 
men'c^di.  ^^^"  ^^^Y  ^'^'s  ^^^Y  '^^k  at  3  bare  compenfation  for  the  injury  receiv- 
fbrift       ed;  but  the  Magiftrate  at  the  ill  confequence  the  impunity  of  injuries 
^oi^\wlll^^^  be  of  to  the  publick:  they,  it  may  be  at  the  fatisfa£i:ion  of  their 
perfonT^  difpleafute ;  but  he  at  the  fatisfaftion  of  their  Laws ;  they  at  their  own 
private  damage  5  he  at  the  violation  of  the  publick  peace.     And  from 
hence  among  thofe  Nations  who  valued  all  crimes  at  a  certain  rate,  in 
matters  of  injury  between  man  and  man,  the  injured  perfon  was  not  on- 
ly to  receive  compenfation  for  his  wrongs  but  a  confiderable  fine  was 
to  be  paid  to  the  Exchequer  for  the  violation  of  the  publick  peace. 
Demmb.  Thus  Tacituf  obferves  among  the  old  Germans,  Grotius  of  the  old  Go- 
^ermd«.    ^j^.^j^  Laws,  and  from  them  (as  moft  of  our  modern  Laws  and  Cuftoms 
o>ot.de     are  derived)    Lwdenbrogius*oi  the  Salkk,    Alemanttick,    Lomhardick, 
h^Ftofeg   ^P^^ff'^"  of  the  Saxon,  who  tells  us  in  cafe  of  murder  there  are  three 
ad  bifl. '  payments,  one  to  the  Kindred,  which  was  called  Megbote:,  the  fecond 
^!"*^^'^7•  to  the  Lord,  called  Manbote,  the  third  to  the  X/»^,  called  Fre<^<?,  from 
brosfoiojf.  the  German  Frid,  which  fignifies  Peace,  it  being  the  confideration  paid 
ad  Cod.     to  the  King  for  the  breach  of  the  publick  Peace.     And  this,  faith  he, 
•u.^reda.'  ^"  ^^^  anions,  was  anciently  paid  to  the  King,  becaufe  the  peace  was  fup' 
spelman.  pofed  to  he  broken,  not  by  meer  force,  but  by  any  injuries  '-,  and  if  the  a^i- 
Vrlfa^'     ^*  ^^^  unJHJl,   the  Plaintiff  paid  it:^  if  j'tfl,    *^^  defendant.     And  the 
meafure  of  it,  faith  Bignonius,  was  the  tenth  part  of  the  value  of  the 
BigMn.not  thjng  as  cftimated  by  Law  which  by  the  Cuftoms  of  the  ancient  Romans 
^f  hi  form,  was  depofitcd  at  the  commencing  of  afuit.by  both,  and  only  taken  up 
cap.  20.    again  by  him  who  overcame  ^  and  was  by  them  called  Sacramentnm,  as 
^lT iib.6,.^^^^(>  tells   us.    And  the  fame cuftom  was  obferved  among  the  Greeks 
Jul.  Po!.  too,  as  appears  by  '^ulius  Pollux,  who  tells  us  it  was  called  irQp>cx.1al3o)\}t 
'"*■  '•  ^-  among  them,  and  in  publick  adions  was  the  fifth  part,  in  private  the 
tenth.     But  that  which  was  paid  to  the  publick  in  cafe  of  murder,  was 
among  the  Greeks  called  yrvivr;  the  fame  with  pana,  for  Hefychius  tells 
us  that  is  di'lijclmi  m  vc:^  ipovn  k^fjuify^,  and  to  the  fame  purpofe  the  Scho- 
liaft  on  Homer  on  thofe  words,  Iliad,  i.  ^ri>c^  -Tmm^  hih'^q  ^v^i'AvHy 
by  which  the  Original  of  the  name  pcsna,  comes  from  a  payment  made 
to  the  publick,  according  to  that  known  rule,  infereft  reip.  deli&a  pMniri, 
that  perfons  tuay  fee  how  much  the  publick  fafety  is  concerned,  that 
crimes  be  punifhed.    From  which  and  many  other  things  which  might 
be  infifted  on,  CreUiiu  his  Hypothefis  will  be  made  appear  to  be  falfe, 
■viz..  that  when  the  Magiftrate  doth  judge  in  the  affairs  of  particular  men, 
he  doth  it  only  as  affuming  the  perfon  of  thofe  men-^  whereas  it  appears 
from  the  reafon  of  the  thing,  and  the  Cuftom  of  Nations,   that  the 
intereft  of  the  Magiftrate  is  confidered  as  diftinft  from  that  of  private 
perfons,  when  he  doth  moft  appear  in  vindication  of  injuries.     But 
all  this  is  managed  with  a  refpeft  to  the  grand  Hypothefis,  viz.  that  the 
right  of  puniftiing  doth  belong  only  to  the  offended  party  as  fuch,  that 
the  punilhment  is  of  the  nature  of  debts,  and  the  fatisfaftion  by  corn- 
pen- 


Ghap.  I.  of  CHRIST. !257 

penfation  to  the  anget  of  him  who  is  offended.    The  falfity  of  which 
this  difcourfe  was  defigned  to  difcover. 

Having  thus  confidered  the  nature  of  punifhments  among  men,  we 
come  more  clofely  to  our  matter,  by  examining  how  far  this  will  hold 
in  the  punifhments  which  God  inflifts  on  the  account  of  fin.  For 
which  two  things  muft  be  enquired  into,  i.  In  what  fenfe  we  attri- 
bute anger  to  God.  2.  What  are  the  great  ends  of  thofe  punifhments 
God  inflifts  on  men  on  the  account  of  fin. 

X.  For  the  firft,  though  our  Adverfliries  are  v?fy  unwilling  to  allow  [|^|^^'^^j"*' 
the  term  of  pnmtive  jufike,  yet  they  contend  for  a  punitive  anger  in  Anger  ia 
Cod,  and  that  in  the  worft  fenfe  as  it  is  appet'ttm  vwdi^a:  For  after  ^o<';'i'5 
CreUim  hath  contended  that  this  is  the  proper  notion  of  anger  in  ge-  oTtVbe* 
neral;  neither  ought  any  one  to  fay  ^  he  adds,   that  anger  as  other  pajjions'^^i^'^oit. 
is  attributed  improperly  to  God '^  for  fetting  afide  the  impcrfedions,  which '^J^  '^"'^' 
thofe  pajfions  are  fubjeil  to  in  us,  all  the  reji  is  to  be  attributed  to  him, p.  14.^. 
taking  avpay  then  that  perturba'ion,  and  pain,  atid  grief  rve  find  in  our^-  ^77- 
felvet  in  anger,  to  vehiih  the  abhorrency  of  fin  anfwers  in  God,  all  the  reft 
doth  agree  to  him.     I  would  he  had  a  little  more  plainly  told  us  what  he 
means  by  all  the  reJi,  but  we  are  to  giiefs  at  his  meaning  by  what  went 
before,  where  he  allows  of  Cicero,  and  Arifto  le's  definition  of  Anger,  cker.Tuf- 
whereof  the  one  is,  that  it  is  l.bido,  or  (  as  CrelUus  would  rather  have  llji\he't. 
it,)  cupiditas  puniendi,   the  other  6=^1?  f^i\^  Ail-^s  n/xoa^c,  8cc.  and/.  2. c. a. 
himfejf  calls  it  pente  appetitio,  and  in  another  place,  that  it  may  be  as 
properly  defined  cupiditas  v'ndiBa,  as  cupiditas  p(en£  or  affe&us  vindi- ^J^"^'^^- ^' 
candi,  as  wf  11  zs puniendi :  In  all  which  pl.ces,  he  doth  affert  fuch  an^.  177.' 
anger  in  God  as  fuppofes  fuch  a  motion,  or  defire,  or  inclina'ion  to 
punifh  fin  when  it  is  committed,  as  there  is  in  us  when  an  injury  is 
done  us,  only  the  perturbation  and  pain  excluded.    But  he  hath  not 
thought  fit  to  explain  how  fuch  new  motions  or  inclinations  in  the  di- 
vine nature  every  time  fin  is  committed,  are  confiftent  with  the  immu- 
tability and  perfeftion  of  it;  nor  what  luch  a  kind  of  defire  to  punifh 
in  God  imports,  whether  a  meer  inclination  without  the  efFeft,  or  an 
inclination  with  the  efFeft  folldwing:  If  without  the  effeS,  then  either 
becaufe  the  fin  was  not  great  enough,  or  God's  honour  was  not  con- 
cerned to  do  it,  and  in  this  cafe  the  fame  reafons  which  make  th6  ef- 
feft  not  to  follow,  make  the  defire  of  it  inconfiflent  with  the  divine 
wifdom  and  perfeftion  :  Or  elfe  becaufe  the  effeft  is  hindred  bv  the  re- 
pentance of  the  perfon,  or  fome  other  way  which  may  make  it  not 
neceflary  to  do  it;  then  upon  the  fame  reafon  the  effeft  is  fufpended,  the 
inclination  to  do  it  fhould  be  fo  too;  for  that  muft  be  fuppofed  to  be 
governed  by  an  eternal  reafon  and  counfel  as  well  as  his  adions;  un- 
lefs  fome  natural  pafljons  in  Cod  be  fuppofed  antecedent  to  his  own 
wifdom  and  counfel,  which  is  derogatory  to  the  infinite  perfe't  ion  of 
God,  fince  thofe  are  judged  imperfeftions  in  our  felves;  If  it  be  taken 
only  with  the  effeB  following  it,  then  God  can  never  be  faid  to  be  an- 
gry but  when  he  doth  punifh,  whereas  his  wrath  is  faid  to  be  kindled. 
in  Scripture,  where  the  efFed:  hath  not  followed;  which  if  it  implies 
any  more  than  the  high  provocation  of  God  to  punifh  (  as  I  fuppofe 
it  doth  not)  then  this  inclination  to  punifh  is  to  be  conceived  difiindt 
from  the  effeft  following  it.   But  that  conception  of  anger  in  God  feems 
moft  agreeable  to  the  divine  nature,  as  well  as  to  the  Scriptures,  which 
makes  it  either  t he  punijJment  it  felf,  as  CrelUus  elfewhere  acknowledges'^^'- ^^^/'^ 
it  is  often  taken  fo;  or  God's  declaration  of  his  will  to  punifi},  which  is/,  i,  e.  30. 

K  k  called 


258  Of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  I. 

called  the  revelation  of  the  wrath  of  God  again ji  all  unrighteoftfnefs  of  men  ^ 
God  thereby  difcovering  the  juft  difpleafure  he  hath  againft  fin  5  ox  the 
great  provocation  of  God  to  funifjj,  by  the  fins  of  men ;   as  when  his 
wrath  is  faid,  to  he  kindled,  8cc.     By  this  fenfe  we  may  eafily  recon- 
cile all  that  the  Scripture  faith  concerning  the  vprath  of  God  ^  we  make 
it  agreeable  to  infinite  perfeftion,  we  make  no  fuch  alterations  in  God, 
as  the  appeafing  of  his  anger  muft  imply,  if  that  imply  any  kind  of 
commotion  in  him.     And  thus  the  grand  difficulty  of  Crellitts  appears 
to  be  none  at  all,  againft  all  thofe  paflages  of  Scripture  v^hich  fpeak 
^^11^"^' ^^  appeafing  God ^  o{  atonement,  and  reconciliatioHy  viz.  that  if  they  prove 
p.  3J0.    fatisfa^ion,  they  muft  prove  that  God  be  a&ually  angry  vplth  mankind  be- 
fore the  fufferings  of  hk  Soh^  he  mnft  be  prefently  appeafed  upon  his  under- 
going  them.    For  no  more  need  to  be  faid,  than  that  God  being  juftly 
provoked  to  punifh  the  fins  of  mankind,  was  pleafed  to  accept  of  the 
fufferings  of  his  Son,  asa  fufficient  facrifice  of  Atonement  for  the  fins  of 
the  world,  on  confiderationof  which  he  was  pleafed  to  offer  thofe  terms 
of  pardon,  which  upon  mens  performance  of  the  conditions  required 
on  their  part,  (hall  be  fufficient  to  difcharge  them  from  that  obligation 
to  punifliment  which  they  were  under  by  their  fins.    And  what  abfur- 
dity,  or  incongruity  there  is  in  this  to  any  principle  of  reafon  I  cannot 
imagine.     But  our  Adverfaries  firft  make  opinions  for  us,  and  then 
ihew  they  are  unreafonable.     They  firft  fuppofe  that  anger  in  God  is 
to  be  confidered  as  a  paflSon,  and  that  paffion  a  defire  of  revenge  for 
fatisfafiion  of  it  5  and  then  tell  us,  that  if  we  do  not  prove,  that  this 
defire  of  revenge  can  be  fatisfied  by  the  fufferings  of  Chrift,  then  we 
can  never  prove  the  doftrine  of  fatisfaftion  to  be  true;  whereas  we  do 
not  mean  by  God's  anger  any  fuch  paffion,  but  the  juft  declaration  of 
God's  will  to  punifh  upon  our  provocation  of  him  by  our  fins;  we  do 
not  make  the  defign  of  fatisfadtion  to  be,  that  God  may  pleafe  himfelf 
in  the  revenging  the  fins  of  the  guilty  upon  the  moft  innocent  perfon  5 
becaufe  we  make  the  defign  of  punifhment,  not  to  be  the  fatisfaftion 
of  anger  as  a  defire  of  revenge,  but  to  be  the  vindication  of  the  ho- 
nour and  rights  of  the  injured  perfon,  by  fuch  a  way  as  himfelf  fhall 
judge  moft  fatisfaftory  to  the  ends  of  his  Government. 
of  the         XI.  (2.)  Which  is  the  next  thing  we  are  to  clear:  For  which  end 
d"^ne      w^  ^^'^  n^^ke  ufe  of  the  Conceffion  of  Crellius,  That  God  hath  prefixed 
punifh-    ffme  ends  to  himfelf  in  the  Government  of  mankind  5  rvhich  being  fuppo- 
'creiLc  ifi^'  '*  "  ^^^^cjfary,   that  impenitent  finners  fhould  be  pnnifhed.     What 
ftii.  -<).    thefe  ends  of  God  are,  he  before  tells  us,  when  he  enquires  into  the 
^  129.     ends  of  divine  punifhments,  which  he  makes  to  be,  fecurity  for  the  fu- 
ture, by  mens  avoiding  fins,  and  a  kind  ivSttua.,  or  pleafure  which  God 
takes  in  the  deflruSlion  of  hk  implacable  enemies,  and  the  afferting  and 
vindicating  hk  own  right  bypunifhing,  and  fhexoing  men  thereby,  roithrthat 
care  and  fear  they  ought  to  ferve  him-^  and  fo  attains  the  ends  of  punifli- 
ment propofed  by  Laftantius,  and  manifeflation  of  the  Divine  Honour  and 
Majejiy,  which  hath  been  violated  by  the  fins  of  men.     All  thefe  we  ac- 
cept of,  with  this  caution.  That  the  delight  which  God  takes  in  the 
puniftiing  his  implacable  enemies,  be  not  underftood  of  any  pleafure 
in  their  mifery,  as  fuch,  by  way  of  meer  revenge;  but  as  it  tends  to 
the  vindication  of  his  JR^ight,  and  Honour,  and  Majefty  ;  which  is  an 
end  fuitable  to  the  Divine  Nature;  but  the  other  cannot  in  it  felf 
have  the  notion  of  an  end  doth  fuppofe  fomething  defirable  for  it  felf, 
which  furely  the  miferies  of  others  cannot  have  to  us,  much  lefs  to 

the 


C  H  A  p.  I.  of  C  HK  I S  T.  259 

the  Divine  Nature.     And  that  place  which  CreUius  infifts  on  to  prove 
the  contrary,  T>eitr.  28.  63.     The  Lord  will  rejoyce  over  yon,  to  deflroy 
you-^  imports  no  more,  than  the  fatisfaftion  God  takes  in  the  execution 
of  his  Juftice,  when  it  makes  moft  for  his  honour,  as  certainly  it  doth 
in  the  punifhment  of  his  greatefl:  enemies.     And  this  is  to  be  under- 
ftood  in  a  fenfe  agreeable  to  thofe  other  places,  where  God  is  faid  ^/^/Ezek.  18. 
to  delight  in  the  death  ofjinnen-^  which  doth  not  (as  Crelliuf  would ^\\5.  S*- 
have  itmeerly  exprefs  God's  benignity  andmercy^  but  fuch  an  agreeable-'^' ''""' 
nefs  of  the  exercife  of  thofe  attributes  to  God's  nature,  that  he  neither 
doth  nor  can  delight  in  the  miferies  of  his  creatures  in  themfelves,  but 
as  they  are  fubfervient  to  the  ends  of  his  Government,  and  yet  fuch  is 
his  kindnefs  in  that  refpedl  too,  that  he  ufeth  all  means  agreeable  there- 
to, to  make  them  avoid  being  miferable,  to  advance  his  own  glory. 
And  I  cannot  but  wonder  th^t  Grotiiu^  who  bad  afferted  the  contX2Lxy  am  de  fa- 
in his  Book  of  Satisfaction,  (hould  in  his  Books  De  Jure  belli  ac  pacff/'^f"^-'-^- 
affert.  That  vehen  God  punifheth  wicked  men,  he  doth  it  for  no  other  end  ievj, 
but  that  he  might  punijh  them:  For  which  he  makes  ufe  of  no  other  ar- ^'^o^-  <^^, 
guments,  than  thofe  which  CrelHtfs  had  objefted  againft  him^  ^'z-'  T^'^^r/fz.'c. 
delight  God  takes  in  punifhing,  and  the  judgments  of  the  life  to  come,  tchen  20.  fta.  4. 
Hj  amendment  can  be  expelled '^  the  former  hath  been  already  anfwered, 
the  latter  is  objedled  by  CrelUuf  againft  him,  w^hen  he  makes  the  ends 
of  puniftiment,  merely  to  refpeft  the  community,  vphtch  cannot  be  af- 
ferted of  the  puniffjments  of  another  life,  which  muft  chiefly  refpeft  the 
vindication  of  God's  Glory,  in  the  punifhment  of  unreclaimable  fin- 
ners.     And  this  we  do  not  deny  to  be  a  juft  puniftiment,  fince  our  Ad- 
verfaries  themfelves,  as  well  as  we,  make  it  neceflary.     But  we  are  not 
to  underftand,  that  the  end  of  Divine  puniftiments  doth  fo  refpeft  the 
community,  as  though  God  himfelf  were  to  be  excluded  out  of  it  5  for 
we  are  fo  to  underftand  it,  as  made  up  of  God  as  the  Governour,  and 
mankind  as  the  perfons  governed,  whatever  then  tends  to  the  vindica- 
tion of  the  rights  of  God's  Honour  and  Sovereignty,  tends  to  the  good 
.of  the  whole,  becaufe  the  manifeftation  of  that  end  is  fo  great  an  end 
of  the  whole. 

XII.  But  withal,  though  we  aflert  in  the  life  to  come,  the  ends  of  The  ends 
puniftiment  not  to  be  the  reclaiming  of  finners,  who  had  never  under- °f^|7'"^ 
gone  them,  unlefs  they  had  been  unreclaimable  ^  yet  a  vaft  difference  m"encsdif- 
muft  be  made  between  the  ends  of  puniftiments  in  that,  and  in  this  pre-  ^«nt  ><» 
fent  ftate.     For  the  other  is  the  Referve,  when  nothing  elfe  will  do,  [Je  fuwrc 
and  therefore  was  not  primarily  intended  5    but  the  proper  ends  offlace. 
puniftiment,  as  a  part  of  Government,  are  to  be  taken  from  the  de- 
fign  of  them  in  this  life.     And  here  we  affert,  that  God's  end  in  pu- 
nifliing,  is  the  advancing  his  Honour,  not  by  the  meet  miferies  of  his 
creatures,  but  that  men  by  beholding  his  feverity  againft  fin,  ftiould 
break  off  the  praftice  of  it,  that  they  may  efcape  the  punilbments  of 
the  future  ftate.     So  that  the  ends  of  puniftiment  here,  are  quite  of  a- 
nother  kind,  from  thofe  of  another  life  5  for  thofe  are  inflifted,  be- 
caufe perfons  have  been  unreclaimable  by  either  the  mercies  or  punirti- 
ments  of  this  life  ^  but  thefe  are  intended,  that  men  fliould  fo  far  take 
notice  of  this  feverity  of  God,  as  to  avoid  the  fins  which  will  expofe 
them  to  the  wrath  to  come.     And  from  hence  it  follows.  That  whatfo- 
ever  fufferings  do  anfwer  all  thefe  ends  of  Divine  Puniftiments,  and  are 
inflidled  on  the  account  of  fin,  have  the  proper  notion  of  puniftiments 
in  them,  and  God  may  accept  of  the  undergoing  them  as  a  full/^//V- 

Kk  2  fatliofii 


26o 


of  the  Sufferings 


C  H  A  p.  II 


fusion  to  his  Law,  if  they  be  fuch  as  tend  to  break  men  ofip  from  fin, 
and  affert  God's  right,  and  vindicate  his  Honour  to  the  world  ;  which 
are  the  ends  affigned  by  Crellius,  and  will  be  of  great  confequence  to 
us  in  the  following  Difcourfe. 


Chap.     II. 

L  The  particular  fiate  of  the  Cojjtroverfie^  cortcerningthe  Sufferitigt  ofChrlfi, 
The  Concejjion  of  our  Adverjaries.  II.  The  debate  reduced  to  two  heads  : 
The  firjt  concerning  Chriji's  Sufferings,  being  a  punijhwent  for  fin,  en- 
tred  upon.  In  what  fenfe  Crellius  ackttorx>ledgeth  the  fins  of  men,  to 
have  been  the  impnlfive  caufe  of  the  death  of  Chriji.  III.  The  fufferings 
cf  Chrifl  proved  to  be  a  ptnijhment,  from  Scripture^  The  importance  of 
the  phrafe  of  bearing  fins.  IV.  Of  the  Scape-Goats  bearing  the  fins  of 
the  people  into  the  Wildernefs.  V.  Grotius  his  fenfe  of  i  Pet.  2.  24. 
vindicated  againji  Crellius  and  himfelf  'Arape^eiv  never  ufed  for  the 
taking  avpay  a  thing  by  the  deftru^ion  of  it.  VI.  Crellius  his  fenfe  ex' 
amined.  VII.  Ifa.  53.  ii.  vindicated.  The  argument  from  Matt.  8. 17. 
anfvcered.  Grotius  conflant  to  himfelf  in  his  notes  on  that  place.  VIII. 
Ifa.  53.  5,  6,  7.  cleared.  IX.  Whether  Chriji's  death  be  a  proper  -ss^pi- 
S'c^y/uM,  and  whether  that  doth  implj^  that  it  was  apuni^ment  of  fin  i 
How  far  the  punifhments  of  Children  for  their  Fathers  faults,  are  ex- 
emplary among  men.  The  dijiin&ion  of  calamities  and  punifhments^ 
holds  not  here.  X.  That  God's  hatred  of  fin  could  not  be  feen  in  the 
fufferings  of  Chrifi:,  nnlefs  they  were  a  punifhment  of  fin,  proved  againji 
Crellius.  XI.  Grotius  his  Arguments  from  Chrifi's  being  made  in  fin 
and  a  curfe  for  us,  defended.  The  liberty  our  Adverfaris  take  in  change 
ing  the  fenfe  of  VF&rds.  XII.  Ti^e  particles  Sua,  -z?^',  'Oa:^,  being  Joj- 
ned  to  fins  and  relating  to  fufferings  do  imply  thofe  fufferings  to  be  a. 
punifhment  for  fin.  According  to  their  way  of  interpreting  Scripture^  it 
bad  been  impojfible  for  our  doSfrine  to  be  clearly  expreffed  therein. 


the  parti- 
cular (late 
of  the 
contro- 
•verfiecon- 
cerning 
the  fuffer- 
ings of 
Chrift  for 


T 


Crell.pxf. 
p.  7. 
Ruariii  in 
Epijtol. 
Creli.  cajt. 
9.  fell.  2. 
Cap  10. 
feff  10. 
Cap.  7,  8, 
&c. 

Cap.i.feU. 
J7. 


I.  r  i  "1,  HESE  things  being  thus  far  cleared  concerning  the  nature 
and  ends  of  puniQiments,  and  how  far  they  are  of  the  na- 
ture of  debts,  and  confequently  what  kind  of  fatisfadion 
is  due  for  them,  the  refolution  of  the  grand  Queftion  con- 
cerning the  fufferings  of  Chrift  will  appear  much  more  eafie  ^  but  that 
we  may  proceed  with  all  poffible  clearnefs  in  a  debate  of  this  confe- 
quence, we  muft  yet  a  little  more  narrowly  examine  the  difference  be- 
tween our  Adverfaries  and  us  in  this  matter  ^  for  their  conceflions  are 
in  terms  fometimes  fo  far,  as  though  the  difference  were  meerly  about 
words  without  any  eonfiderable  difference  in  the  thing  it  felf.  If  we 
charge  them  with  denying  fatisfaftion,  Crellius  anfwers  in  the  name  of 
them,  that  we  do  it  unjuflly  5  for  they  do  acknowledge  a  fatisfa&lon  wor- 
thy of  God,  and  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures.  If  we  charge  them  with 
denying  that  our  falvation  is  obtained  by  the  death  of  Chrift,  they  af 
fert  the  contrary,  as  appears  by  the  fame  Author.  Nay,  Ruarus  attri- 
butes merit  to  the  death  of  Chriji  too.  They  acknowledge,  that  Chr/Ji 
died  fir  us,  nay,  that  there  was  a  commutation  between  Chrift  and  us,  both 
of  one  perfon  for  another,  and  of  a  price  for  a  perfon-^  and  that  the  death 

of 


4 

-If 


Chap.  II.  ef  CHRIST.  2it 

ofChriJl  may  be /aid  to  move  God  to  redeem  us  ^  they  acknowledge  recon- 
ciliation, and  expiation  of  fins  to  he  by  the  death  of  Chrifli     Nay,  they 
affert,  that  Chriji's  death  was  by  reafon  of  our  fins ^  and  that  God  deftgned 
by  thatto  fherohk  feverity  againfi  fin.     And  what  could  we  defire  more, 
if  they  meant  the  fame  thing  by  thefe  words,  which  we  do  >  They 
aflert  z  fatisfa^ion,  but  it  is  fuch  a  one  as  is  meerly  fulfiWng  the  de fire 
of  another  :  in  which  fenfe  all  that  obey  God  may  be  faid  to  fatisfie 
him.    They  attribute  our  falvation  to  the  death  of  Chrift,  but  only  as 
a  condition  intervening,  upon  the  performance  of  which  the  Covenant 
was  confirmed,  and  himfelf  into  Glory,  that  he  might  free  men  from 
the  punifliment  of  their  fins.     They  attribute  merit  to  Chrift's  death       '' 
but  in  the  fame  fenfe  that  n>e  may  merit  too,  when  we  do  what  is  plea- 
fing  to  God.     They  acknowledge,  that  Chrift  died  for  us,  but  not  in  our 
ftead ,   but  for  our  advantage  ^  that  there  was  a  commutation ;  but  not 
fuch  a  one,  as  that  the  Son  of  God  did  lay  down  his  blood  as  a  proper 
price  in  order  to  our  redemption  as  the  purchafe  of  it  ^  when  they  fpeak 
of  a  moving  canfe,  they  tell  us,  they  mean  no  more  than  the  perfor- 
mance of  any  condition  may  be  faid  to  move^  or  as  our  prayers  and  re- 
pentance doi    The  reconciliation  they  fpeak  of,  doth  not  all  refpedfc 
God  but  us  5  they  affert  an  expiation  of  fins  confequent  upon  the  death 
of  Chrift,  but  not  depending  upon  it  any  otherwife,  than  as  a  cdfidition 
neceffary  for  his  admiflion  to  the  office  of  a  High-Prieft  in  Heaven, 
there  to  expiate  our  fins  by  his  power,  and  not  by  his  blood  ;  but  they 
utterly  deny,  that  the  death  of  Chrifi  is  to  be  confidered  as  a  proper  ex- 
piatory facrifice  for  fin'^  or  that  it  hath  any  further  influence  upon  it, 
than  as  it  is  confidered  as  a  means  of  the  confirmation  of  the  truth  of 
his  Doftrine,  and  particularly  the  promife  of  remifllon  of  fins,  on 
v^hich,  and  not  on  the  death  of  Chrift  they  fay  our  remiffion  depends  5 
but  fo  far  as  the  death  of  Chrift  may  be  an  argument  to  us  to  believe 
his  Doftrine,  and  that  faith  may  incline  us  to  obedience,  and  that  obe- 
dience being  the  condition  in  order  to  pardon,  at  fo  many  removes  they 
make  the  death  of  Chrift  to  have  influence  on  the  remiffion  of  our  fins. 
They  aflert,  that  God  took  occafion  by  the  fins  of  men  to  exercife  an  a^ 
of  dominion  upon  Chrifi  in  his  fuffe rings,  and  that  the  fujferings  of  Chrifi 
were  intended  for  the  taking  arvay  the  fins  of  men  ^  but  they  utterly  deny, 
that  the  fuferings  of  Chrifi  voere  to  be  confidered  as  a  punifhment  for  fin  5 
or  thai  Chrifi  did  fuffer  in  our  place  aft  d  fie  ad  ^  nay,  they  contend  with 
great  vehemency,  that  it  is  wholly  confifient  with  the  Jufiice  of  God  to 
make  one  mans  fins  the  meritorious  caufe  of  anothers  punifioment  :^  efpecially 
one  wholly  innocent,  and  fo  that  the  guilty  Jhall  be  freed  on  the  account  of 
his  fufilrings.    Thus  I  have  endeavoured  to  give  the  true  ftate  of  the 
controverfie  with  all  clearnefs  and  brevity.    And  the  fubftance  of  it 
will  be  reduced  to  thefe  two  debates. 

1.  Whether  the  fufferings  of  Chrift  in  general  are  to  be  confidered 
as  a  punifiment  of  fin,  or  as  a  meer  all  of  dominion  .<? 

2.  Whether  the  death  of  Chrift  in  particular  were  a.  proper  expiato- 
ry facrifice  fir  fin,  or  only  an  antecedent  condition  to  his  exercife  of  the 
Offce  of  Priefthood  in  Heaven  .<?  wh  h  r 

II.  (i.)  Whether  the  fufferings  of  Chrift  in  general  are  to  be  con- the inffer- 
fidered  as  a  puniftiment  of  fin,  or  as  a  meer  ad  of  dominion?  for  that '"ss. of 
it  muft  be  one  or  the  other  of  thefe  two,  catinot  be  denied  by  our  Ad-  ^X[  con- 
verfaries;  for  the  inflifting  thofe  fufferings  upon  Chrift,  muft  either  fidered 
proceed  from  an  antecedent  meritorious  caufe,  or  not.    If  they  do,  ^enrof' 

they  fin. 


26 z  Of  the  Suff'erings  Chap.  II. 

they  are  then  punilliments ;  if  nor,  they  are  meer  exercifes  of  power 
and  dominion;  whatever  ends  they  are  intended  for,  and  whatever 
creii  cap.  i^ecompcnce  be  made  for  them.    So  Crellit^  aflerts,  that  God  as  aljolutc 
f.  iIj".  ''  J^ord  of  all,  had  a  right  of  abfolnte  dominion  upon  the  life  and  body  of 
Chriji,  and  therefore  might  juftly  deliver  him  up  to  death,  and  give  his  body 
to  the  Crofs'^  and  although  Chriji  by  the  ordinary  force  of  the  Larv  of  Mo- 
fes,  had  a  right  to  efcape  fa  painful  and  accurfed  a  death,  yet  God  by  the 
right  of  dominion  had  the  power  of  difpofal  of  him,  becanfe  he  intended  to 
compenfate  his  torments  mth  a  reward  infinitely  greater  than  they  were  : 
But  becaufe,  be  faith,  for  great  ends  the  confent  of  Chriji  was  mceffary^ 
\  therefore  God  did  not  nfe  his  utmoji  dominion  in   delivering  him  up  by 

force  as  he  might  have  done,  but  he  dealt  with  him  by  way  of  command^ 
and  rewards  propofed  for  obedience,  and  in  this  fenfe  he  did  aS  as  a  righ- 
teous Governour,  and  indulgent  Father,  who  encouraged  his  Son  to  under- 
go  haf-d,  but  great  things.    In  which  we  fee  that  he  makes  the  fufFer- 
ings  of  Chfift  an  a6t  of  meer  dominion  in  God  without  any  antece- 
dent catife  as  the  reafon  of  them  5  only  he  qualifies  this  aft  of  domini- 
on with  the  propofal  of  a  reward  for  it.    But  we  muft  yet  further 
enquire  into  their  meaning,  for  though  here  CrelUus  attributes  the  fuf- 
^•"'^^ ''''''•  ferings  of  Chrift  meerly  to  God's  dominion.^  without  any  refpeft  to 
&Lc.s'ocin.  fin,  yetelfewhere  he  will  allow  a  refpeft  that  vv^as  had  to  fin  antece- 
de  chrifto  dently  to  the  fufferings  of  Chrift,  and  that  the  fins  of  men  were  the 
fervat.  .3.  -^p^yj^^  ^^^y^  q£  them.     And  although  Socinus  in  one  place  utterly  de- 
Crell.  cap.  nies  any  lawful  antecedent  caufe  of  the  death  of  Chriji,  befides  the  will  of 
soi^ini^.z.  ^^'^  ^"^  C^fiji,  yet  CrelUus  in  his  Vindication  faith,  by  lawful    caufe 
C.J. '       be  meant  meritorious,  or  fuch  upon  fuppofition  of  which  he  ought  to 
diet)  for  elfewhere  he  makes  Chrjji  to  die  for  the  caufe,  or  by  the  occajion 
of  our  Jins-^  which  is  the  fame  that  Crellim  means  by  an  impuljive,  or, 
creJi.  c.  i.procatartick  caufe.     Which  he  thus  explains,  we  are  now  tofuppofe  a  de- 
cree of  God  not  only  to  give  falvation  to  Mankind,  but  to  give  us  a  firm 
hope  of  it  in  this  prefent  Ji ate,  now  our  Jtns  by  defer ving  eternal  punifyment^ 
do  hinder  the  effeB  of  that  decree  upon  us,  and  therefore  they  were  an  impul- 
jive caufe  of  the  death  of  Chrifl,  by  which  it  was  effe&ed,  that  this  decree 
Jhonld  obtain  notwithjianding  our  fins.     But  we  are  not  to  underjiand  as 
though  this  were  done  by  and  expiation  of  the  guilt  of  fin  by  the  death  of 
Chriji  ;  but  this  effeB  is  hindred  by  three  things,  by  taking  away  their  fins y 
by  affiiring  men  that  their  former  fins,  and  prefent  infirmities  upon  their  fin- 
cere  obedience  Jfjall  not  be  imputed  to  them,  and  that  the  effeSf  of  that  de- 
cree fhall  obtain,  all  which,  faith  he,  is  effe&ed  morte  Chrifti  interve- 
niente,  the  death  of  Chrifl  intervening,  but  not  as  the  procuring  caufe.     So 
that  after  all  thefe  words  he  means  no  more  by  making  our  fins  an  im- 
pulfive  caufe  of  the  death  of  Chrift,  but  that  the  death  of  Chrift  was  an 
argument  to  confirm  to  us  the  truth  of  his  Doftrine,  which  doftrine  of 
his  doth  give  us  affurance  of  thefe  things :  and  that  our  fins  when  thty 
are  faid  to  be  the  impulfive  caufe,  are  not  to  be  confidered  with  a  re- 
fpeft  to  their  guilt,  but  to  that  diftruft  of  God  which  our  fins  do  raife 
in  US;  which  diftruft  is  in  truth  according  to  this  fenfe  of  CrelUus  the 
impulfive  caufe,  and  not  ihc  fins  which  were  the  caufe  or  occafion  of  it. 
For  that  was  it  which  the  doftrine  was  defigned  to  remove,  and  our 
fins  only  as  the  caufes  of  that.     But  if  it  be  faid,  that  hefpeaks  not  on- 
ly of  the  djlru^,  but  of  the  punifldment  of  fin  as  an  impediment  which  muft 
he  r'emoved  too,  and  therefore  may  be  called  an  impulfive  caufe,  we  are  to 
confider  that  the  removal  of  this  is  not  attributed  to  the  death  of  Chrift, 

but 


Chap.  II.  of  CHRIST.  263 

_  —    —  — ■ — —  — --    ■-       ■  ■■  '  II  I     I      ■  -       - 

but  to  the  leaving  of  our  fins  by  the  belief  of  his  Doftrine^  there- 
fore the  puniOiment  of  our  fins  cannot,  unlefs  in  a  very  remote  fenfe, 
he  Paid  to  be  an  impulfive  caufe  of  that,  which  for  all  that  we  can  ob- 
ferve  by  Crellius,  might  as  well  have  been  done  without  it;  if  any  o- 
ther  way  could  be  thought  fufticient  to  confirm  his  Doctrine,  and 
Cfarift,  without  dying,  might  have  had  power  to  fave  all  them  that  o- 
bey  him.     But  we  underftand  not  an  impulfive  caufe  in  fo  remote  a 
fenfe,  as  though  our  fins  were  a  meer  occafion  ofChrifis  dyings  becaufe 
the  death  of  Chrift  was  one  argument  among  many  others  to  believe  his 
Doftrine,  the  belief  of  which  would  make  men  leave  their  fins  5  but 
we  contend  for  a  nearer  and  moft  proper  fenfe,  viz.  that  the  death  of 
Chrift  was  primarily  intended  for  the  expiation  of  our  fins ^  with  a  re-, 
fpedl  to  God  and  not  to  us,  and  therefore  our  fins  as  an  intpnlfive  caufe 
are  to  be  confidered  as  they  are  fo'difpleafin^;  to  God,  that  it  was  n'eceffa- 
ry  for  the  Vindication  of  God's  Honour,  and  the  deterring  the  world 
from  fin,  that  no  lefs  a  Sacrifice  of  Atonement  fhould  bs  offered,  than 
the  blood  of  the  Son  of  God.    So  that  we  underftand  an  impulfive 
caufe  here  in  the  fenfe,  that  the  fins  of  the  people  were,  under  the 
Law,  the  caufe  of  the  offering  up  thofe  Sacrifices,  which  were  ap- 
pointed for  the  expiation  of  them.    And  as.in  thofe  Sacrifices  there 
were  two  things  to  be  confidered,  viz,,  the  maftation,  and  the  oblation 
of  them,  the  former  as  a  punijlmeut  by  a  fubftitution  of  them  in  place 
of  the  perfons  who  had  offended  ^  the  latter  as  the  proper  Sacrifice  of 
Atonement,  although  the  maftation  it  felf,  confidered  with  the  defign 
of  it,  was  a  Sacrificial  act  too  :  So  we  confider  the  fufferings  of  Chrift: 
with  a  two-fold  refpeft,  either  as  to  our  (ins,  as  the  impulfive  caufe  of 
them,  fo  they  are  to  be  confidered  as  a  punifj/nent,  or  as  to  God,  with 
a  defign  to  expiate  the  guilt  of  them,  fo  they  are  a  Sacrifice  of  Atone- 
ment.   The  firft  confideration  is  that  we  are  now  upon,  and  upon 
which  the  prefent  debate  depends,  for  if  the  fufferings  of  Chrift  be  to 
be  taken  under  the  notion  of  punjpment,  then  our  Adverfaries  grant, 
that  our  fins  muft  be  an  impulfive  caufe  of  them  in  another  fenfe  than 
they  underftand  it.    For  the  clearing  of  this,  1  ftiall  prove  thefe  two 
things. 

1.  That  no  other  fenfe  ought  to  be  admitted  of  the  places  of  Scrip- 
ture which  fpeak  of  the  fufferings  of  Chrift  with  a  refpedl  to  Cm,  but 
this. 

2.  That  this  Account  of  the  fufferings  of  Chrift,  is  is  no  ways  re- 
pugnant to  the  Jujiice  of  God.  The  fuf- 

III.  That  no  other  fenfe  ought  to  be  admitted  of  the  places  of  Scrip- f"'?g»o^ 
ture,  which  fpeak  of  the  fufferings  of  Chrift  with  a  refpefl;  to  our  fins,  pjyed  to 
but  that  they  are  to  be  confidered  as  a  punifliment  for  them.     Such  are  be  a  pu- 
thofe  which  fpeak  of  Chriji  hearing  our  /ins,  of  our  initjuities  being  '<^^''^  fv^lcri- 
upon  him,  of  his  mah'ng  himjelf  an  offering  for  fin,  and  being  made  fin  and  pcure. 
a  curfe  for  us,  and  of  his  dying  for  our  fins.     All  which  I  fliall  fo  far  con-  ^  '^^^■^  ^• 
fider,  as  to  vindicate  them  from  all  the  exceptions  which  Socinus  and  4^5,  ^,'7] 
Crellttfs  have  offered  againft  them.  lo.w. 

I.  Thofe  which  fpeak  of  Chrifis  bearing  our  fins.    As  to  which  we^rfcai.^s- 
(ball  confider,  Firft,  The  importance  of  the  phrafe  in  general  of  bear- 1?.  Rom. 
ing  fin,  and  then  the  circumftances  of  the  particular  places  in  <iif-^'J^j/j;.. 
pute.    For  the  importance  of  the  phrafe,  Soinui  acknowledges,  that  vat.  i. ;. 
it  generally  fignifies  bearing  the  punijhment  of  fin  in  Scripture  :  but  that  fonte-  «•'?•  4- 
times  it  fignifies  taking  atvaj.    The  fame  is  confefied  by  Crellittf,  but  he ^'^'seii^ii 

faith. 


2^4      -  Of  the  Suferings  Chap.  L 

faith,  it  doth  not  always  fignJfie  bearing  proper  pnnifl:iment^  hut  it  is  e- 
notigh  (  fays  he  )  that  one  bears  fomething  burdenfome  on  the  occafion  of 
ethers  fins  :  and  fo  Chrifl  bj  undergoing  his  fnfferings  by  occafion  of  fins^ 
Ktay  be  f aid  to  bear  our  fins.     And  for  this  fenfe  he  quotes  Numb.  14.  35. 
And  your  Children  fijall  wander  in  the  Wilder nefs  forty  years,  and  hear 
your  whoredoms,  until  your  carcajjes  bewafied  in  the  Wildernefs.     Whereby^ 
faith  he,  it  is  not  meant  that  God  would  puniflj  the  Children  of  the  Ifraelites 
hut  that  by  the  occafion  of  their  parents  fins,  they  jhould  undergothat  trouble^ 
inwandring  in  the  Wildernefs,  and  being  deprived  of  the  poffijfion  of  the 
promifed  Land.   But  could  Crellius  think  that  any  thing  elfe  could  have 
been  imagined,  (  fetting  afide  a  total  deftruftion  )  a  greater  inftance  of 
pfal,95.    God's  feverity,  than  that  was  to  the  Children  of  Ifrael  all  their  circum- 
Heb.a.ii.  ft^Hces  being  confidered?  Is  it  not  faid,  thditGod  did  fwear  in  his  wrath 
'  they  fijould  not  enter  into  his  reji  ^  Surely  then  the  debarring  them  fd 
Jong  of  that  reft,  was  an  inftance  of  God's  wrath,  and  fo  according 
to  his  own  principles  muft  have  fomething  of  Vtndi&a  in  it,  and  there- 
fore be  a  proper  puniftinient.  The  truth  is,  our  Adverfaries  allow  them- 
felves  in  fpeaking  things  moft  repugnant  to  Humane  Nature  in  this  mat- 
ter of  puniftiments,  that  they  may  juftifie  their  own  Hypothefis.    For 
a  whole  Nation  to  be  for  forty  years  debarred  from  the  greateft  blef- 
fings  were  ever  promifed  them  5  and  inftead  of  enjoying  them,  to  en- 
dure the  miferies  and  hardftiips  of  forty  years  travels  in  a  barren  wil- 
dernefs, muft  not  be  thought  a  puniftiment,  and  only  becaufe  occa- 
fioned  by  their  Parents  fins.    But  whatever  is  inflifted  on  the  account 
of  fin,  and  with  a  defign  to  fhew  God's  feverity  againft  it,  and  there- 
by to  deter  others  from  the  praftice  of  it,  hath  the  proper  notion  of 
puniftiment  in  it^  and  all  thefe  things  did  concurrin  this  inftance,  be- 
fides  the  general  fenfe  of  mankind  in  the  matter  of  their  puniftiment, 
which  was  fuch,  that  fuppofing  them  preferved  in  their  liberty,  could 
not  have  been  imagined  greater.     And  therefore  Vatablus,  whom  So* 
fyfifi'^l  fz»«/  and  Crellius  highly  commend,  thus  renders  thofe  words,  dahunt 
tifime  Va  pxnos  pro  fomicatiombus  veflrk  qitiku  defeciflk  a  Deo  vefiro:  They  fliall 
*ffrtfokt   ^"ff^r  ^^^  puniftiment  of  your  fornications.     And  that  bearing  the  fins 
Sol.  de  '  of  Parents  doth  imply  properly  bearing  the  puniftiment  of  them,  me- 
^"l'^' '//  f'^nks  they  fliould  not  fo  earneftly  deny,  who  contend  that  to  be  the 
ca/).  I.  '  meaning  of  the  words  in  Ezekiel,  The  Son  /hall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of 
Sea.^u    the  Father-^    viz.  that  he  foall  not  bear  the  punifhment  of  his  Fathers 
Ezek.  18.  ^^j.^     Where  in  bearing  iniquity  with  a  refpeft  to  their  Parents  fins, 
by  their  own  confeflion,  muft  be  taken  for  the  proper  punifliment,- 
^''^^^  •^^"Z'- for  otherwife  they  do  not  deny,  but  Children,  notwithftanding  that 
'^^     ■'^*  fentence,  may  undergo  much  afflidion  on  the  occafion  of  their  Parents 

fins. 
Of  the  iv.  But  Socinm  further  objefts,  that  bearing  fins  doth  not  imply  the 

Goats'  punifhment  of  them,  becaufe  the  Scape-Goat  under  the  Law,  is  faid  to  bear 
bearing  upon  him  the  iniquities  of  the  people,  and  yet  could  not  he  faid  to  he  punifh' 
fimof the ^^ /""  *^^'"'  ^°  which  Crotius  anfwers,  that  Socinus  takes  it  for 
people,  granted  without  reafon,  that  the  Scape-Goat  could  not  he  faid  to  he  punt fh- 
Soci.  2.  c.  g^  p^  f^g  jjjjj  f^j  ffjg  people  ;  for  punifioment  in  general,  may  fall  upon 
t^.^Qrlt.' beafts  for  the  fins  of  men.  Gen.  9.  5.  Exod.  21.  28.  Lev.  20.  15.  Gen.  8. 
dejat  cap.  2 1,  and  Sociuus  hath  no  caufe  to  fay,  that  the  Scape-Goat  was  not  flain  5 
^*  for  the   Jerviflj  Interpreters  do  all  agree  that  he  was,  and   however   the 

fending  him  into  the  Wildernefs  was  intended  as  a  punifhment,  and  mofl 
J. ]eh!^6'. probably  by  an  unnatural  death.    To  which  Crellius  replies,  That  in  the 

gene" 


Chap.  II.  of  CHRIST.        26_5 

general,  he  denies  not  but  punifl^ment  may  fall  upon  beafls  as  well  as  men  ^ 
but  (that  he  might  (hew  himfelf  true  to  his  principle,  that  one  cannot 
be  puniflied  for  anothers  fiiults, )  he  falls  into  a  very  pleafant  difcourfe. 
That  the  Beajis  are  not  faid  to  be  pnnijhed  for  mens  fins ^  hut  for  their  own, 
and  therefore  when  it  is  faid,  before  the  food,  that  all  fie/h  had  co'rrupted'^^'^'^''^' 
his  way  ^  he  will  by  no  means  have  it  underflood  only  of  men,  but  that  the 
fins  of  the  beafls  at  that  time,  were  greater  than  ordinary ,  as  well  as  mens. 
But  he  hath  not  told  us  what  they  were,  whether  by  eating  forae  for- 
bidden herbs;  or  entringinto  confpiracies  againft  mankind  their  law- 
ful Sovereigns,  or  unlawful  mixtures ;  and  therefore  we  have  yet  rea- 
fon  to  believe,  that  when  God  faith,  the  ground  was  curfed  for  man's  GeB.8.2u 
fake,  that  the  beads  were  punilhed  for  mans  fin.  And  if  all  flejh,  myft 
comprehend  beafls  in  this  place,  why  (hall  not  all  flefl^  feeing  the  glory  of^^^-  40.  J. 
the  Lord,  take  in  the  hearts  there  too?  For  Vatablus  parallels  this  place 
with  the  other.  But  if  faith  CrelUiu,  any  (hall  contend  that  fome  beafls 
at  leafl  were  innocent,  then,  he  faith,  that  thofe  though  they  were  dejlroy- 
ed  by  the  flood,  yet  did  not  fuflir  punifl)ment,  but  only  d  calamity  by  occa- 
fion  of  the  flns  of  men.  I  wonder  he  did  not  rather  fay,  that  the  inno- 
cent beafts  were  taken  into  the  Ark,  for  the  propagation  of  a  better  kind 
afterwards.  But  by  this  folemn  diftinftion  of  Calamities  and  Funifl}- 
tnents,  there  is  nothing  fomiferable,  that  either  men  or  beafls  can  under- 
go, but  when  it  ferves  their  turn,  it  fliall  be  only  a  calamity  and  no  pu- 
nilliraent,  though  it  be  faid  to  be  on  purpofe  to  (hew  God's  feverity  a- 
gainft  the  fins  of  the  world.  And  this  excellent  notion  of  the  heafls 
being  puniflied  for  their  own  flns,  is  improved  by  him  to  the  vindication 
of  the  Scape-Goat  from  being  punifljed,  becaufe  then,  faith  he,  the  mofl 
tpicked  and  corrupt  Goat  floould  have  been  made  choice  of.  As  though 
all  the  defign  of  that  great  day  of  expiation  had  been  only  to  call  the 
Children  of  Ifrael  together  with  great  folemnity,  to  let  them  fee,  how 
a  poor  Goat  muft  be  punilhed  for  breaking  the  Laws  which  we  do  not 
know  were  ever  made  for  them.  I  had  thought  our  Adverfaries  had 
maintained  that  the  Sacrifices  (on  the  day  of  expiation  at  leaft)  had 
reprefented  and  typified  the  Sacrifice  which  was  to  be  offered  up  by 
Chrift  ;  and  fo  Socinus  and  CrelUus  elfewhere  contend:  He  needed  not 
therefore  have  troubled  himfelf  concerning  the  fins  of  the  Goat,  when 
it  is  exprefly  faid.  That  the  fins  of  the  people  were  put  on  the  head  of^^^'  ' 
the  Goat',  Whatever  then  the  puniChmcnt  were,  it  was  on  the  ac- 
count of  the  fins  of  the  people,  and  not  his  own.  But  CrelliUf  urgeth 
^againft  Grotitts,  that  if  the  Scape-Goat  had  been  puniflied  for  the  expi- 
ation of  the  fin's  of  the  people,  that  Piould  have  been  particularly  exprejfed 
in  Scripture,  whereas  nothing  is  faid  there  at  all  of  it,  and  that  the 
throwing  down  the  Scape-Goat  from  the  top  of  the  rock,  was  no  part  of  the 
Primitive  Inflitution,  but  one  of  the  fuperflitions  taken  up  by  the  Jews  in 
after- times,  becaufe  of  the  Ominoufnefs  of  the  return  of  it  ;  and  although 
tve  fliould  fuppofe  (  which  is  not  probable )  that  it  floould  die  by  famine  in 
the  Wildernefs,  yet  this  was  not  the  death  for  expiation,  which  was  to  be 
by  the  peddmg  of  blood.  To  this  therefore  I  anfwer,  i .  I  do  not  infifi: 
on  the  cuftoms  of  the  later  Jews  to  prove  from  thence  any  punifh- 
ment  defigned  by  the  primitive  inftitution.  For  I  ihall  eafily  yield, 
that  many  fuperftitions  obtained  among  them  afterwards  about  the 
Scape-Goat ;  as  the  ftories  of  the  red  lift  turning  white  upon  the  head 
of  it,  the  booths  and  the  caufey  made  on  purpofe,  and  feveral  other ^^^  _ 
things  mentioned  in  the  Rabbinical  Writers  do  manifeft.    But  yet  it  ^fV/' 

L  1  feems 


oma 


266  Of  the  Suferings  Chap.  II. 

feems  very  probable  from  the  Text  it  felf,  that  the  Scape-Goat  was  not 
carried  into  the  Wildernefs  at  large,  but  to  a  fteep  mountain  there.  For 
although  we  have  commonly  render'd  i4z,rfz.e/  by  the  Scape-Goat,  yet  ac- 
cording to  the  beft  of  the  Jewifh  writers,  as  P.  Fagius  tells  us,  bisiy 
doth  not  come  from  iy  a  Goat,  and  h\^  abiit ;  but  is  the  name  of  a 
Mountain  very  fteep  and  rocky  near  Mount  Sinai,  and  therefore  proba- 
bly called  by  the  latter  Jews,  "ii!£,  the  name  of  a  Rock :  And  to  thispur- 
pofe,  it  is  obfervable  that  where  we  render  it,  and  let  him  go  for  a  Scape- 
Y^,'  Goat  into  the  Wildernefs,  in  the  Hebrerv  it  is,  ma^SP  ViKiyb  ms  n^vh 
to  fend  him  to  Azazel  in  the  Wildernefs  :  As  the  joyning  the  prepofition 
^  doth  import,  and  the  Arabich  Verfion  whereever  Azazel  is  mentio- 
ned, renders  it  by  Mount  Aza7>:  and  the  Chaldee  and  Syriack  to  Aza- 
z.e/;  fo  that  from  hence,  a  carrying  the  Scape-Goat  to  a  certain  place 
may  be  inferred;  but  I  fee  no  foundation  in  the  Text  for  the  throw- 
ing it  down  from  the  rock  when  it  was  there ;  and  therefore  I  cannot 
think,  but  that  if  the  punifhment  intended  did  lie  in  that,  it  would 
have  been  exprefly  mentioned  in  the  folemnities  of  that  day,  which 
had  fo  great  an  influence  on  the  expiation  of  the  fins  of  the  people. 
2.  I  anfwer,  that  the  St  ape-Goat  was  to  denote  rather  the  efFedl  of 
the  expiation,  than  the  manner  of  obtaining  it.  For  the  proper  ex- 
Heb,9.22.  piation  was  by  the  fiedding  of  bloody  as  the  Apojile  tells  us  ^  and  thence 
the  live  Goat  was  not  to  have  the  fins  of  the  people  to  bear  atvaji  into 
Lev.  i6.  the  defart,  till  the  High-Priefl  had  made  an  end  of  reconciling  the  Holy 
^°'  Place,  and  the  Tabernacle  of  the  Congregation,  and  the  Altar  ;  and  by  the 

fprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  other  Goat  which  was  the  fin-offering  for  the 
V.  15.   people 'j   which  being  done,  he  was  to  bring  the  live  Goat,  and  to  lay 
his  hands  upon  the  head  of  it,  and  confefs  over  it  all  the  iniquities  of  the 
V,  21.  Children  of  Ifrael,    and  all  their  tranfgrejjzpns  in   all  their  ^ns,  putting 
them  upon  the  head  of  the  Goat,  and  /hall  fend  him  away  by  the  hand  of 
^'  *'•   a  fit  man  into  the  Wddernefs  s  and  fo  the  Goat  fh  all  bear  upon  him  all 
their  iniquities  unto  a  land  not  inhabited,  and  he  fliall  let  go  the  Goat  in 
the  Wildernefs.    So  that  the  former  Goat  noted  the  way  of  expiation 
by  the  fliedding  of  blood,  and  the  latter  the  eflPect  of  it,  viz.  that 
the  fins  of  the  people  were  declared  to  be  expiated  by  the  fending  the 
Goat  charged  with  their  fins  into  a  defart  place  ^  and  that  their  fins 
would  not  appear  in  the  prefence  of  God  againft  them,  any  more  thaa 
they  expeded,  that  the  Goat  which  was  fent  into  the  Wildernefs  fliould 
return  among  them.     Which  was  the  reafon  that  afterwards  they  took 
fi3  much  care  that  it  fliould  not,  by  caufing  it  to  be  thrown  off  from 
a  fteep  rock  5  which  was  no  fooner  done,  but  notice  was  given  of  it 
very  fuddenly  by  the  founding  of  horns  all  over  the  Land.     But  the 
force  of  Soiinm  his  argument  from  the  Scape-Goat's  bearing  the  fins  of 
the  people,  that  therefore  that  phrafe  doth  not  always  imply  the  bearing 
cre\i.  c.  I.  of  puniftiment,  is  taken  off  by  Crellius  himfelf,  who  tells  us,  that  the  Scape- 
fea.  5<5.     Goat  is  not  faid  to  bear  the  fins  of  the  people  in  the  Wildernefs  5  but  on- 
ly that  it  carried  the  fins  of  the  people  into  the  Wildernefs ,  which  is  a 
phrafe  of  another  importance  from  that  we  are  now  difcourfing  of. 
As  will  now  further  appear  from  the  places  where  it  is  fpoken  of 
C)o««xh;s  concerning  our  Saviour,  which  we  now  come  particularly  to  examine. 
?  m°2        V.  The  firft  place  infifted  on  by  Grotius  with  a  f  efpeft  to  Chrift,is  i  Pet. 
94.  vi'ndi-  2.  24  Who  his  otvn  felf  bare  our  fins,  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,  which,  faith 
cated.       CrelliiU,  k  fo  far  from  proving  that  Chrifi  did  bear  the  punifliment  of  ouf 

feii.  35-    /^■'"j  ^^•'^*  ^^  ^'-'^^  "^*  imply  any  fufferings  that  he  underwent  on  the  occa- 

fiott 


Chap.  II.  ^f  CHRIST,  261 

port  of  them.  He  grants  that  ai/a^l^cii/  doth  fignifie  to  curry  »/>,  hut  with- 
all  (he  ^3ith  )  it  jignifies  to  take  away  5  hecaufe  that  which  is  taken  up, 
is  takeft  away  from  the  place  where  it  was.  Befides,  he  obferves,  that 
oLvctj)i^&if  doth  anfvpcr  to  the  Hebrew  nVyn,  he  hath  made  to  afcend,  which 
is  frequently  rendred  by  it  in  the  LXX.  and  fontetime  by  ivdy^ai  •  but  that 
Hebrew  word  doth  often  fgnifie  to  take  away,  where  it  is  rendred  in  the 
Greek  by  one  of  thofe  two  words,  2  Sam.  21.  19.  Jo(l).  24.  32.  Pjal.  102. 
25.  Ezra  I.  II.  To  which  I  anfwer,  i.  That  the  fignification  of 
dvoL^kb^v  in  this  place,  muft  not  be  taken  from  every  fenfe  the  word  is 
ever  ufed  for,  but  in  that  which  the  words  out  of  which  thefe  are  ta- 
ken do  imply  ;  and  in  Ifa.  53.  11.  it  doth  not  anfwer  r\^'^T\  but  to 
ban,  a  word  which  by  the  confeflion  of  all  is  never  properly  ufed 
for  taking  away,  but  for  bearing  of  a  burden,  and  is  ufed  with  a  refped 
to  the  punifliment  of  fin,  Lament.  5.  7.  Our  fathers  have  finned,  and 
are  not,  and  we  have  born  their  iniquities,  where  the  fame  word  is  ufed; 
fo  that  the  (ignification  of  the  word  dva^i^biv  here,  muft  depend  upon 
that  in  Ifaiah,  of  which  more  afterward.  2.  Granting  that  a^ape^&iv 
doth  anfwer  foraetimes  to  the  Hebrew  nVyn,  yet  it  mikes  nothing  to 
Crelliiu  his  purpofe,  unlefs  he  can  prove  that  dva-i^l^c-.v  doth  ever  figni- 
fie  the  taking  away  a  thing  by  the  deftruflion  of  it;  for  where  it  an- 
fwers  to  that  word,  it  is  either  for  the  offering  up  of  a  Sacrifice,  in 
which  fenfe  dvafi^mv  is  very  frequently  ufed,  as  isconfeffed  by  Crelliiu ; 
and  in  that  fenfe  it  is  no  prejudice  at  all  to  our  caufe;  for  then  it  muft 
be  granted,  that  Chrift  upon  the  Crofs  is  to  beconfidered  as  sifacrifice 
for  the  fins  of  men  ;  and  fo  our  fins  were  laid  upon  him  as  they  were 
fuppofedtobeon  the  Sacrifices  under  the  Law,  in  order  to  the  expiation 
of  them,  by  the  fhedding  their  blood ;  and  if  our  Adverfaries- would 
acknowledge  this,  the  difference  would  not  be  fo  great  between  us;  or 
elfe  it  is  ufed  for  the  removal  of  a  thing  from  one  place  to  another,  the 
thing  it  felf  ftill  remaining  in  being,  as  2  Sam.  21. 13.  And  he  made 
Saul's  bones  to  afcend,  diiveyyjiv  G^etSry  -m  cjai,  he  took  them  away,  faith 
CrelUu)  ;  true,  but  it  is  fuch  a  taking  away,  as  is  a  bare  removal,  the 
thing  ftill  remaining;  the  fame  is  to  be  faid  ofjofeph's  bones,  Jojh.  24, 
32.  which  are  all  the  places  where  aW^e'^'&u' is  ufed;  and  although 
a^a)frl^  may  be  fometimes  taken  in  another  fenfe,  as  Pfal.  102.  25.  yet 
nothing  can  be  more  unreafonable  than  fuch  a  way  of  arguing  as  this 
is;  c^vuspi^e^v,  iMth  Crellius,  fignifies  taking  away '^  we  demand  his  proof 
of  it;  is  it  that  the  word  fignifies  fo  much  of  it  felf?  No^  that  he 
grants  it  doth  not.  Is  it  that  it  is  frequently  ufed  in  the  Greek  Verfion  to 
render  a  word  that  properly  doth  fignifie  fo>  Nt?;  nor  that  neither. 
But  how  is  it  then  ?  CrelUus  tells  us,  that  it  fometimes  anfwers  to  a  word 
that  fignifies  to  make  to  afcend  :  well,  but  doth  that  word  fignifie  ta- 
king away  ^  No -^  not  conftantly,  for  it  is  frequently  ufed  for  a  facri- 
Jice:  But  doth  it  at  any  time  fignifie  fo?  Tes ;  it  fignifies  the  removal 
of  a  thing  from  one  place  to  another.  Is  that  the  fenfe  then  he  con- 
tends for  here?  No -^  but  how  then?  why  aia^^pe^r  is  ufed  to  render 
the  fame  word  that  dvayetv  doth,  and  didy&v,  though  it  fignifies  too  a 
bare  removal,  as  Ezra  i.  ii.  yet  Pfal.  102,  25.  it  is  ufed  for  cutting 
off,  //^  dvctyiya  lA,  the  Hebr,  is,  make  me  not  to  afcend  in  the  midfi  of 
my  days.  But  doth  it  here  fignifie  utter  deftruftion  ?  I  fuppofe  not ; 
but  grant  it,  what  is  this  to  aWje^w,  when  the  LXX  ufeth  not  that 
word  here,  which  for  all  that  we  know  was  purpofely  altered  ;  fo  that 
at  laft  dva<fiifiifiv  is  far  enough  from  any  fuch  fignification  as  Crelllus 

L  1  2  would 


26S  of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  11. 

— I . '■ 

would  fix  upon  it,  unlefs  he  will  affert,  that  Chrifl:  taking  away  our 
fins,  was  only  a  removal  of  them  from  Earth  to  Heaven.  But  here 
Grotius  comes  in  to  the  relief  of  Crell'nu  againft  hirafelf ;  for  in  his 
Notes  upon  this  place,  though  he  had  before  faid,  that  the  word  was 
never  ufed  in  the  New  Teftament  in  that  fenfe,  yet  he  there  faith, 
<lv^vi[miv\s  abftnlit,  for  which  he  referrs  us  to  Heb.  9.  28.  where  he  pro- 
ceeds altogether  as  fubtilly  as  CrelUus  had  done  before  him,  for  he  tells 
us  dvctpi^iAv  is  put  for  ^sfa",  i<^3.  Numb.  14.  35.  Deut.  14.  24,  If  a.  5:?. 
12.  but  ^^feir,  i.  e.  "^"^^  is  put  for  a'^a^^eiv,  Lev.  ic.  17.  Numb.  14.  18. 
A  moft  excellent  way  of  interpreting  Scripture  ?  confidering  the  vari- 
ous fignifications  of  the  Hebrew  words,  and  above  all  of  that  i^U::  which 
is  here  mentioned.  For  according  to  this  way  of  arguing,  df^^^-^v  (hall 
fignifie  the  fame  with  ?iaju/2clmv,  j>7n^iy,  and  /Sccgzt^nv^  for  su;i  fignifies 
all  thefe,  and  is  rendred  by  them  in  the  Greek  Verjion,  fo  that  by  the 
fame  way  that  Grotius  proves  that  at-a^e^tiv  fignifies  dcpo^^^ivj  we  can 
'  prove  that  d^oif^&ai  doth  not  fignifie  to  take  away^  but  to  hear  pjwifljMeut  5 

nay,   i*^3  fignifies  the  bearing  pu»iflment  in   the  (trifteft  fenfe,  Ezek. 
16.  52,  54.  and  bearing  fin  in  that  fenfe,  E%eh.  16.  58.     Thou  haft  born 
thy  leudneff,  and  thy  abominations^  a^HKiy:.     So  that  when  Kty:  is  more 
frequently  ufed  in  this  than  in  the  other  fenfe,  why  fliall  its  fignifying 
dfatj^iriv  at  any  time  make  dvafi^iiv  be  taken  in  the  fame  fenfe  with  that  > 
Nay,  I  do  not  remember  in  any  place  where  81^3  is  joyned  with  fin, 
but  it  fignifies  the  puniftiment  of  it,  fo  dfAMoVa^v  ^a./u^dviiv.  Lev.  19.  8. 
to  bear  his  iniquity.  Lev.  20.  1 7.  d/Lui^ltctp  ytMiiuZvlai^  bearing  their  iniqui- 
ty, in  one  verfe,  is  explained  by  being  cut  off  from  among  their  people, 
in  the  next.  And  in  the  places  cited  by  Grotitfs,  that  Numb.  1^.3^.  hath 
been  already  (hewed  to  fignifie  bearing  the  punifhment  of  fin,  and  that 
Deut.  14.  24.  is  plainly  underftood  of  a  Sacrifice,  the  other,  Ifa.  55. 
12.  will  be  afterwards  made  appear  by  other  places  in  the  fame  Chap- 
ter to  fignifie  nothing  to  this  purpofe.    So  that  for  all  we  can  yet 
fee,  dvct^i^iiv  muft  be  taken  either  for  bearing  our  fins  as  a  facrifice  did 
under  the  Law,  or  the  punifhment  of  them  ;  in  either  fenfe  it  fervcs 
our  purpofe,  but  is  far  enough  from  our  Adverfaries  meaning. 
j^jj       VI.   But  fuppofing  we  (hould  grant  them,  that  dvapl^av  may  fignifie 
tenV exi-  to  take  avpay,  let  us  fee  what  excellent  fenfe  they  make  of  thefe  words 
mined,     of  gf,  Pe'er.    Do  they  then  fay,  that  Chri(t  did  take  away  our  fins  up- 
on the  Crofs?  No-^  they  have  a  great  care  of  that,  for  that  would 
make  the  expiation  of  fins  to  have  been  performed  there  5  which  they 
utterly  deny,  and  fay,  that  Chrift  only  took  the  Crofs  in  his  way  to  his 
Afcenfion  to  Heaven,  that  there  he  might  expiate  fins.    But  doth  not 
St.  Peter  fay,  that  what  was  done  by  him  here,  was  in  his  body  on  the 
tree:  and  they  will  not  fay,  he  carried  that  with  him  to  Heaven  too. 
Well,  but  what  then  was  the  taking  away  of  fin  which  belonged  td 
soc  de     Chrifl  upon  the  Crofs?  is  it  only  toperfwade  men  to  live  vertuoufly, 
ferv.  t.  z.  and  leave  off  their  fins  ?     This  Sociniis  would  have,  and  CrelUus  is 
'crHcA    "  contented  that  it  (hould  be  underftood  barely  of  taking  away  fins, 
T^sei/'sp. "  and  not  of  the  punilhment  of  them,  but  only  by  way  of  acceflion 
"  and  confequence  :  but  if  it  be  taken  (^rvhich  he  inclines  more  to")  for 
"  the  punifhment,  then  (he faith)  it  is  to  be  underftood  not  of  the 
''  vercue  and  efficacy  of  the  death  of  Chrift,  but  of  theeffeft  :  and  yet 
X  "a  tittle  after  he  faith,  thofe  words  of  Chrift  bearing  our  fins,  are  to 

"  be  underftood  of  the  force  and  efficacy  of  Chrifts  death  to  do  it,  not 
*'  including  the  eifeft  of  it  in  us ;  not  as  though  Chrift  did  deliver  us 

from 


H  A  P. 


IL  of  CHRIST.  269 


"  from  fins  by  his  death,  but  that  he  did  that  by  dying,  upon  which 
*'  the  taking  away  of  fin  would  follow,  or  which  had  a  great  power  for 
"  the  doing  it.  So  uncertain  are  our  Adverfaries,  in  affixing  any  fehk 
upon  thefe  words,  which  may  attribute  any  efFeft  at  all,  to  the  death 
of  Chrift  upon  the  Crofs.  For  if  they  be  underftood  of  taking  away 
fins,  then  they  are  only  to  be  meant  of  the  power  that  was  in  the 
death  of  Chrift,  to  perfwade  men  to  leave  their  fins  5  which  wemuft 
havp  a  care  of  underftanding  fo,  as  to  attribute  any  effedt  to  the  death 
of  Chrift  in  order  to  it  5  but  only  that  the  death  of  Chrift  was  an  ar* 
guraent  for  us  to  believe  what  he  faid,  and  the  believing  what  he  faid 
would  incline  us  to  obey  him,  and  if  we  obey  him,  we  (hall  leave  off 
our  fins  whether  Chrift  had  died  or  no  :  fuppofing  his  miracles  had 
the  fame  effeft  on  us,  which  thofe  of  Mofes  bad  upon  the  Jetvs,  which 
were  fufficient  to  perfwade  them  to  believe  and  obey  without  his  deaths 
But  if  this  be  all  that  was  meant  by  Chrift's  bearing  otir  Jins  in  hk  body 
on  the  tree  5  why  might  not  St.PefeA-  himfelf  be  faid  to  bear  them  upon 
his  Crofs  too  }  for  his  death  was  an  excellent  example  of  patience,  and 
a  great  argument  to  perfwade  men  he  fpake  truth,  and  that  doftrine 
which  he  preached,  was  repentance  and  remiflion  of  fins:  So  that  by 
this  fenfe  there  is  nothing  peculiar  attributed  to  the  death  of  Chrijti 
But  taking  the  other  fenfe  for  the  taking  areay  the  punifiment  of  fins  ^ 
we  muft  fee  how  this  belongs  to  the  death  ot  Chrift:  Do  they  then 
attribute  our  delivery  from  the  puniftiment  of  fin,  to  the  death  of 
Chrift  on  the  Crofs  ^  yes,  juft  as  we  may  attribute  defars  fubduing 
Rome,  to  his  paffing  over  Rubicon,  becaufe  he  took  that  in  his  way  to 
the  doing  of  it :  fo  they  make  the  death  of  Chrift  only  as  a  paflage, 
in  order  to  expiation  of  fins,  by  taking  away  the  puniftiment  of  them. 
For  that  ftiall  not  be  adually  perfefted,  they  fay,  till  his  full  delive- 
rance of  all  thofe  that  obey  him,  from  hell  and  the  grave,  which  will 
not  be  till  his  fecond  coming.  So  that  if  we  only  take  the  body  of 
Chrift  for  hh  fecond  coming,  and  tht  Crofs  of  Chrift,  orthe/ree,  for  his 
Throne  of  Glory,  then  they  will  acknowledge,  that  Chrift  may  very  well 
be  faid  to  take  away  ft  ns  in  his  oivn  body  on  the  tree :  but  if  you  take  it  in  any 
fenfe  that  doth  imply  any  peculiar  efficacy  to  the  death  of  Chrift,  for  all 
the  plainnefs  of  St.  Peters  words,  they  by  no  means  will  admit  of  it* 

VII.  But  becaufe  Crellius  urgeth  Grotius  with  the  fenfe  of  that  place, 
Ifa.  59. 1 1,  out  of  which  he  contends  thefe  words  are  taken,  and  CrelUut  J-nd'^^!*' 
conceives  he  can  prove  there,  that  hearing  is  the  fame  with  taking  axpay  ted.  creiL 
ftn  :  We  now  come  to  confider,  what  force  he  can  find  from  thence/-  '•/*^' 
for  the  juftifying  of  his  aflertion,  That  the  bearing  of  fins  ^  when  attri-^^' 
buted  to  Chriji,  doth  not  imply  the  punifhment  of  them,  but  the  taking  them 
away.     The  words  are,  for  he  fhall  bear  their  iniquities.     As  to  which 
Grotius  obferves.  That  the  word  \\^  which  (ignifies  iniquity,  is  fometimes 
taken   for    the  pumfJimeitt  of  fin,    2  King  7.   9.  and  the   verb  ^33  is 
to  bear,  and  whenever   it  is  joyned  with  fin    or  iniquity,  in  all  langua- 
ges,   and    efpecially  the    Hebrew,    it  fignlfies   to  fuffer  punifhment ;    for 
although    SWJ    may  fometimes  fignlfie  to  take    away,   ^20   never   does! 
fo  that    this    phrafe    can   receive    no     other    interpretation^     Notwith- 
ftanding  all  which  Crellius  attempts  to  prove.  That  hlHQ  here,  t^ufi  becreiLc.  i, 
taken  in  a  fenfe  contrary  to  the  natural  and  perpetual  ufe  of  the  word  j  for  ^^^^  'l^' 
which  his  firft  argument  is  very  infirm,  viz.  becaufe  it  is  mentioned  after 
the  death  of  Chriji,  and  is  therefore  to  be  confidered  as  the  reward  of  the 
other.    Whereas  it  appears:  i.  By  the  Prophets  difcourfe,  that  he  doth 

not 


270  Of  the  Siiferings  Chap.  11^ 

not  infift  on  an  exaQ:  methodical  order,  but  dilates  and  amplifies  thing? 
as  he  fees  occafion  :  for  Verfe  9.  he  faith,  He  made  his  grave  tp'tth  the 
wicked,  A»d   with  the  rich  in  his  death  ;  and  Verfe  lO.  he  faid,  Yet  it 
pleafed  the  Lord  to  bruife  him,  he  hath  put  him  to  grief:  Will  Crelliuf 
'     therefore  fay,  that  this  muft  be  confequent  to  his  death  and  burial  ? 
2.  The  particle  "  may  be  here  taken  caufaily,  as  we  render  it,  very  a- 
greeably  to  the  fenfe;  and  fo  it  gives  an  account  of  the  foregoing 
claufe,      By  his  knowledge,  fhall  my  righteous  ferv ant  jujiijie  many,  for  he 
pjall  bear  their  iniquities.     And  that  this  is  no  unufual  acception  of  that 
particle,  might  be  eafily  cleared  from  many  places  of  Scripture  if  it 
were  neceflary;  and  from  this  very  Pr(?/>^e/,  aslfa.  39.  i.  where  you;^! 
is  the  fame  with  PO^  ^2  2  Kings  20.  1 2.  and  Ifa.  64.  5.     Thou  art  wroth, 
for  we  have  finned,  xunj\  what  where  the  fame  particle  is  made  thecafual 
of  what  went  before.  But  we  need  not  infift  upon  this  to  anfwer  CrelUas, 
creii.  c.  9.  whoelfewhere  makes  ufe  of  it  himfelf,  and  fays,  They  muflbe  very  ignorant 
fea.  7.  ;>.  ^y  ffjg  Hebrew  Tongue,  who  do  not  know  that  the  conjunction  copulative  is 
sol'prxi.  often  taken  cafually  j  and  fo  much  is  confefled  by  Socinus  alfo,  where 
c.  z^.feii.  he  explains  that  particle  in  one  fenfe  in  the  beginning,  and  cafually  in 
2.  Sam,  24.  fbs  middle  of  the  verfe  :  and  the  Lord's  anger  was  kindled  againjl  Jfra- 
I.  el,  nQ''\  for  he  moved,  8cc.  but  if  this  will  not  do,  lie  attempts  to 

prove,  That  ^^D  in  this  very  Chapter,  hath  the  fgnif  cation  of  taking  away^ 
V.  4.  For  he  hath  born  our  griefs,  and  carried  our  forrows,  which  is  ap- 
plied by  St.  Matth.  8.  1 7.  to  bodily  difeajes,  which  our  Saviour  did  not 
bear,  but  took  away,  as  it  is  faid  in  the  foregoing  Verfe  5  he  healed  all  that 
werefich,  on  which  thofe  words  come  in.  That  it  might  be  fulfilled  which 
was  fpoken  by  Ifaias,  &c.  To  which  I  anfwer:  i.  It  is  granted  by 
our  Adverfaries,  that  St.  Matthew  in  thofe  words,  doth  not  give  the  full 
fenfe  of  the  Prophet,  but  only  applies  that  by  way  of  accommodation, 
to  bodily  difeafes,  which  was  chiefly  intended  for  the  fins  of  men.  And 
in  a  way  of  accommodation  it  is  not  unufual  to  flrain  words  beyond 
their  genuine  and  natural  fignification,  or  what  was  intended  primari- 
ly by  the  perfon  who  fpake  them.  Would  it  be  reafonable  for  any 
to  fay  that  np*?  fignifies  to  give,  becaufe  that  place,  Pfal.  68.  18.  where 
the  word  by  all  is  acknowledged  to  fignifie  to  receive,  is  rendred  togive^ 
Eph.  4.  8.  fo  that  admitting  another  fenfe  of  the  word  here,  as  appli- 
ed  to  the  cure  of  bodily  difeafes,  it  doth  not  from  thence  follow,  that 
this  fliould  be  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  primary  fenfe  intended 
by  the  Prophet.  2.  The  word  asufed  by  St,  Matthew,  is  very  capable 
of  the  primary  and  natural  fenfe  ^  for  St.  M<?»AeH' retains  words  of  the 
fame  fignification,  with  that  which  we  contend  for,  diiAa-d  and  l^a- 
g^n,  neither  of  which  doth  fignifie  taking  away,  by  caufing  a  thing 
not  to  be.  So  that  all  that  is  implied  hereby,  is  the  pains  and  trouble 
which  our  Saviour  took  in  healing  of  the  fick.  For  to  that  end,  as 
Gri?/»*^  well  obferves  upon  that  place,  the  Circumftances  arementio- 
^'"  ''  ■  ned.  That  it  was  at  even,  and  multitudes  were  brought  to  him,  in  St.  Mat- 
thew ;  that  after  Sun  fet  all  that  were  difeafed  were  brought,  and  all  the 
"■  I|  City  was  gathered  together  at  the  door,  in  iS"/.  Mark  ;  That  he  departed  not 
Luke  4.  till  it  was  day,  in  St.  Luke  ;  that  he  might  the  better  underftand  how 
4*-  our  Saviour  did  bear  our  griefs,  becaufe  the  pains  he  took  in  healing 

them  were  fo  great.  And  here  I  cannot  but  obferve,  that  Grotius 
in  his  Notes  on  that  place,  continued  ftill  in  the  fame  mind  he  was  in, 
when  he  writ  againft^tfawAy,  for  he  faith,  "  Thofe  words  may  ei- 
"  ther  refer  to  the  difeafes  of  the  body^  and  fo  they  note  the  pains 

"  he 


Chap.  IL  of  CHRIST,  271 

"  he  took  in  the  cure  of  them^  or  to  our  fins,  and  Co  they  were  ful- 
"  filled  when  Chrift  by  fuffering  upon  the  Crofs,  did  obtain  remiflion 
**  of  fins  for  us,  as  St.  Peter  faith,  i  Pet.  2.  24.  But  upon  what  reafon 
the  Annotations  on  that  place  come  to  be  fo  different  from  his  fenfe 
expreffed  here,  long  after  Crellins  hisanfwer,  I  do  not  underftand.  But 
we  are  fure  he  declared  his  mind,  as  to  the  main  of  that  Controverfie, 
to  be  the  fame,  that  it  was  when  he  writ  his  Book  which  Crelliuf  an- 
fwered;^  as  appears  by  two  Letters  of  his  to  Vojjiuf^  not  long  fince^'''^-^"'- 
publiftied  ;  and  he  utterly  difowns  the  charge  of  Socinianifmf  as  a  ca-y^sfoV- 
lumny  in  his  d'lfcujfion,  the  laft  Book  he  ever  writ.  c»f  p- 

VIII.  But  we  are  no  further  obliged  to  vindicate  Grotius^  than  he  did  ^''  '^* 
the  truth  ;  which  we  are  fure  he  did  in  the  vindication  of  the  5?  of 
Ifaiah,  from  Soiinus  his  interpretations,  notwithftanding  what  Crellius '/*•  53-, '>■, 
hath  objefted  againft:  him.     We  therefore  proceed  to  other  Verfes  indicated."' 
the  fame  Chapter  infifted  on  by  Grotius,  to  prove  ^  that  Chrijl  did  bear 
the  punijhments  of  our  fins,  v.  6,  /•     The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  ini' 
qui  ies  of  us  all,'    It  is  required,  and  he  was  aff.i3ed,  as  Grotita  renders 
thofe  words.    Soinus  makes  a  twofold  fenfe  of  the  former  claufe;  the 
firft  is,  That  God  by  or  with  Chriji  did  meet  neith  our  iniquities  i^  the  lat-i.  V,  c.  5. 
ter.  That  God  did  make  our  iniquities  to  meet  with  Chriji.     The  words 
faith  Gr^//»/,  will  not  bear  the  former  interpretation  ^  for  the  verb  y^J£n 
being  in  Hiphil,  mujl  import  a  double  a&ion,  and  fo  it  muji  not  be,  That 
God  bji  him  did  meet  with  our  fins,  but  that  God  did  make  our  fins  to 
meet  upon  him.    To  which  Cre///«/ replies.  That  words  in  Hiphil  are^"'^^-'^-'^' 
fometimes  ufed  intranfitively  ;  but  can  he  produce  any  inftance  in  Scrip-       ^^* 
ture,  where  this  word  joyned  with  3  and  PK  is  fo  taken?  for  in  the 
laft  verfe  of  the  Chapter,  the  conftruftion  is  different :     And  what  arj 
uncertain  way  of  interpreting  Scripture  will  this  be,  if  every  Anoma- 
lous fignification,  and  rare  ufe  of  a  word,  fhall  be  made  ufeof  to  take 
away  fuch  a  fenfe  as  is  nloft  agreeable  to  the  defign  of  the  place.    For 
that  fenfe  we  contend  for,  is  not  only  forced  upon  the  moft  naturaj 
importance  of  thefe  words,  but  upon  the  agreeablenefs  of  them  with 
fo  many  other  expreffions  of  this  Chapter,  that  Chrifi  did  bear  our  i- 
ttiquities,  and  Was  wounded  for  our  traufgrejftons,  and  that  his  foul  was 
made  an  offering  for  fin:  To  which  it  is  very  fuitable,  that  as  the  ini- 
quities of  the  people  were  (as  it  were)  laid  upon  the  head  of  the  Sa- 
crifice 5  fo  it  (hould  be  faid  of  Chrift,  who  was  to  offer  up  himfelf  for 
the  fins  of  the  world.    And  the  Jews  themfelves  by  this  phrafe  do  un- 
derftand  the  punifhment  either  for  the  fins  of  the  people,  which  Jofin 
underwent,  or  which  the  people  themfelves  fuffered,  by  thofe  who 
interpret  this  prophecy  of  them.    To  which  purpofe,  Aben  Ezra  ob- 
ferves,  that  iniquity  is  here  put  for  the  punifhment  of  it,  as  I  Sam,  28. 10. 
and  Lam.  4.  6.     But  Socinus  miftrufling  the  incongruity  of  this  Inter- 
pretation, flies  to  another  ^  viz.    That  God  did  make  our  iniquities  to 
meet  with  Chrifi :  And  this  we  are  willing  to  admit  of,  if  by  that  they 
mean.  That  Chrift  underwent  the  punifhment  of  them  5  as  that  phrafe 
mufl  naturally  imports,  for  what  otherwife  can  our  iniquities  meeting 
with  him  fignifie?    For  the  word  V'B  taken  properly  (^zs  Socinus  ac- 
knowledgeth  it  ought  to  be,  when  he  rejefts  Pagnin's  Interpretation  of 
making  Chrifi  to  interceed  for  our  iniquities )  iignifies,  either  to  meet 
with  one  by  chance,  or  out  of  kindnefs,  or  el fe  for  an  encounter,  with 
an  intention  to  deftroy  that  which  it  meets  with.     So  Judg.  8.  21. 
Rife  thou  "'33  yJ3\  dymvln'mv  h'ju'.,  LXX.  irnte  in  nos,  fall  upon  us  ;  *.  c. 

run 


1^72  Of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  II. 

run  upon  us  with  thy  fword,  and  kill  us.     Judg.  15.  12.  Svpear  unto 
«/e,  that  ye  will  not  fall  upon  me  your  felves  ;  where  the  fame  word  is 
ufed,  and  they  explain  the  meaning  of  it  in  the  next  words,  v.  13. 
We  will  not  kill  thee,  Amos  5.  19.  as  if  a  man  did,  flee  from  a  Lyon^ 
and  a  Bear  met  him^  iy  Bi,  i.  e.  teith  a  defign  to  kill  him.     Now  I  fup- 
pofe  they  will  not  fay  that  our  fins  met  with  Chrift  by  Chance,  fince  it  is 
faid,  that  God  laid  on  him^  &c.  not  out  of  kindnefs^  it  muft  be  therefore 
out  of  enmity,  and  with  a  defign  to  deftroy  him  5  and  fo  our  fins  can- 
not be  underftood  as  Socinus  and  Crellius  would  have  them,  as  thq 
meer  occafions  of  Chrift's  death  :  but  as  the  proper  impulfive  caufe  of 
it.     Whether  the  following  word  wn  be  taken  with  a  refpefl:  to  fin, 
and  fo  it  properly  fignifies,  it  is  required,  or  with  a  refpeft  to  the 
perfon,  and  fo  it  may  fignifie  he  was  opprejfed,  is  not  a  matter  of  that 
confequence,  which  we  ought  to  contend  about  5  if  it  be  proved  that 
Chrift's  oppreffion  had  only  a  refpeft  to  fin,  as  the  punifhment  of  it. 
Which  will  yet  further  appear  from  another  expreffion  in  the  fame 
Chapter,  v.  5.     The  chajiifement  of  our  peace  was  upon  'him,  and  by  hit 
ftripes  we  are  healed.    In  which  Grotius  faith  "  the  word  "IDIQ  doth  not 
"  fignifie  any  kind  of  affliftion,  but  fuch  as  hath  the  nature  of  puniflb- 
"  ment,  either  for  example  or  inftruftion^  but  fince  the  latter  cannot 
creii.c.j."  be  intended  in  Chrift,  the  former  muft.    Crellius  thinks  to  efcape 
fell.  57.    from  this,  by  acknowledging,  that  the  fufferings  of  Chriji  have  fomere- 
fpeii  to  fin  ;  but  if  it  be  fuch  a  refpedtofin,  which  makes  what  Chrift 
underwent  a  puniftiment  (  which  is  only  proper  in  this  cafe  )  it  is  as 
much  as  we  contend  for.    This  therefore  he  is  loth  to  abide  by  ^  and 
faith  that  chajiifement  imports  no  more  than  bare  affli&ion  without  any  re- 
fpe^  to  fin,  which  bethinks  to  prove  from  St.  P<?«/'s  words,  2  Cor.  6. 
9.     We  are  chajiifed,  but  not  given  over  to  death -^  but  how  far  this  is 
from  proving  his  purpofe  will  eafily  appear,  u  Becaufe  thofe  by  whom 
they  were  faid  to  be  chaftned,  did  not  think  they  did  it  without  any  re- 
fpedi  to  a  fault;  but  they  fuppofed  them  to  be  juftly  puniftiedj  and 
this  is  that  we  plead  for,  that  the  chaftifement  confidered  with  a  refpeft 
to  him  that  inflids  it,  doth  fuppofe  fome  fault  as  reafon  of  the  inflidiing 
it.  2.  This  is  far  from  the  prefent  purpofe,  for  the  chajiifement  there  men- 
tioned is  oppofed  to  death,  as  chaftned,  but  not  killed  5  whereas  GrO' 
tim  exprefly  fpeaksof  fuch  chaftifements  as  include  death,  that  thefe  can- 
not be  fuppofed  to  be  meerly  defigned  for  inftruftion,  and  therefore 
muft  be  conceived  under  the  notion  of  puniftiment.    The  other  place, 
Pfal.  73.  14.  is  yet  more  remote  from  the  bufinefs ;  for  though  the 
Pfalmiji  accounts  himfelf  innocent  in  refpeft  of  the  great  enormities 
of  others  5  yet  he  could  not  account  himfelf  fo  innocent  with  a  refpeft 
to  God,  as  not  to  deferve  chaftifement  from  him. 
^^^^^ly^      IX.  But  Crelliuf  offers  further  to  prove  that  Chrift's  death  muft  be 
death  be  coufidcred  as  a  bare  affliftion,  and  not  as  a  -zo^t^^t^M^,  or  exemplary 
a  Droper  puniftiment,  becaufe  "in  fuch  a  puniftiment  the  guilty  themfelves are 
'^'ind   "  ^obe  punifhed,  and  the  benefit  comes  to  thofe  who  were  not  guilty, 
whether   "  but  in  Chtift's  fufferings  it  was  quite  contrary,  for  the  innocent  was 
f^\  'Iha't"  PuniOied,  and  the  guilty  have  the  benefit  of  it;  and  yet  (^  he  faith) 
it  was  a    "  if  we  (hould  grant  that  Chrift's  fufferings  were  a  7m^J\iyua,  that 
punidi-     "  will  not  prove  that  his  death  was  a  proper  puniftiment.    To  which 
fin"  °     I  anfwer.  That  whatever  anfwers  to  the  ends  of  an  exemplary  punijlj' 
ment,  may  properly  be  called  fo :  but  fuppofing  that  Chrift  fuffered  the 
punifhment  of  our  fins,  thofe  fufferings  will  anfwer  to  all  the  ends  of 

an 


Chap.  II.  of  CHRIST. 273 

an  exemplary  puni(hment.     For  the  ends  of  fuch  a  punifliment  affigned 
by  Crelliuf  himk\f,  are,  "That  others  obferving  fuch.a  punilhment, 
"  may  abftain  from  thoie  fins  which  have  brought  it  upon  the  perfon 
"  who  fuffers.     Now  the  queftion  is,  whether  fuppofmg  Chrift  did 
fufFer  on  the  account  of  our  fins,  thefe  fufFerings  of  his  may  deter  us 
from  the  praftice  of  fin  or  no  ?  And  therefore  in  oppofition  to  Crel- 
lius^  I  (hall  prove  thefe  two  things:     i.  That  fuppofing  Chrift  fufFered 
for  our  fins,  there  was  a  fufficient  argument  to  deter  us  from  the  pra- 
ftice  of  fin.    2.  Suppofing  that  his  fufferings  had  no  refpecS:  to  our  fins, 
they  could  not  have  that  force  to  deter  men  from  the  praftice  of  it : 
for  he  after  aflerts,  That  Chriji's.  fufferings  might  be  a  Tzzt^hiyjUyo,  to  lu^ 
though  they  roere  no  funijhment  of  fin.     i.  That  the  death  of  Chrift  con- 
fidered  as  a  puniftiment  of  fin,  is  a  proper  TzztogiS^iyiuxt^  or  hath  a  great 
force  to  deter  men  froln  the  practice  of  fin :  and  that  becaufe  the  fame 
reafon  of  punifliment  is  fuppofed  in  Chrift  and  in  our  felves,  and  be-;' 
caufe  the  example  is  much  more  confiderable,  than  if  we  had  fufFered 
our  felves.     i.  The  fame  reafon  of  puniftiment  is  fuppofed.     For  why 
are  men  deterred  from  fin,  by  feeing  others  punilVied  ^  but  becaufe  they 
look  upon  the  fin  as  the  reafon  of  the  puniftiraentj  and  therefore 
where  the  fame  reafon  holds,  the  fame  ends  may  be  as  properly  ob- 
tained.   If  we  faid  that  Chrift  fufFered  death  meerly  as  an  innocent 
perfon  out  of  God's  dominion  over  his  life ;  what  imaginable  force 
could  this  have  to  deter  men  from  fin,  which  is  afferted  to  have  no  re- 
lation to  it  as  the  caufe  of  it  ?  But  when  we  fay,  that  God  laid  our  ini- 
quities upon  him,  that  he  fufFered  not  upon  his  own  account  but  ours^ 
that  the  fins  we  commit  againft  God  were  the  caufe  of  all  thofe  bitter 
Agonies  which  the  Son  of  God  underwent,  what  argument  can  be 
more  proper  to  deter  men  from  fin  than  this  is  ?    For  hereby  they  fee 
the  great  abhorrency  of  fin  which  is  in  God,  that  he  will  not  pardon 
the  fins  of  men  without  a  compenfation  made  to  his  Honour,  and  a 
demonftration  to  the  world  of  his  hatred  of  it.    Hereby  they  fee  what 
a  value  God  hath  for  his  Laws,  which  he  will  not  relax  as  to  the  pu- 
niftiment of  offenders,  without  fo  valuable  a  confideration  as  the  blood 
of  bis  own  Son.   Hereby  they  fee,  that  the  puniftiment  of  fin  is  no  meer 
arbitrary  thing  depending  barely  upon  the  will  of  God  5  but  that  there  is 
fuch  a  connexion  between  fin  and  punifhment  as  to  the  ends  of  Govern- 
ment, that  unlefs  the  Honour  and  Majefty  of  God,  as  to  his  Laws  and 
Government  may  be  preferved,  the  violation  of  bis  Laws  rauft  expeft 
a  juft  recompence  of  reward.     Hereby  they  fee  what  thofe  are  to  expeft 
who  negleft  or  defpife  thefe  fufFerings  of  the  Son  of  God  for  them  5 
for  nothing  can  then  remain,  but  a  certain  fearful  looking  for  of  judg- 
ment and  fiery  indignation  which  fiiall  devour  the  Adverfaries.     So  that, 
here  all  the  weighty  arguments  concur  which  maybe  moft  apt  to  prevail 
upon  men  to  deter  them  from  their  fms.    For  if  God  did  thus  by  the 
green  tree,  what  will  he  do  by  the  dry ."?  If  he  who  was  fo  innocent 
in  himfelf,  fo  perfedlly  holy,  fufFered  fo  much  on  the  account  of  our 
fins ;  what  then  may  thofe  expeft  to  fuffer,  who  have  no  innocency 
at  all  to  plead,  and  add  wilfulnefs  and  impenitency  to  their  fins>  But 
if  it  be  replied  by  CrelUus,  that  it  is  otherwife  among  men  :  I  anfwer, 
that  we  do  not  pretend  in  all  things  to  parallel  the  fafFerings  of  Chrift 
for  us,  with  any  fufFerings  of  men  for  one  another.     But  yet  we  add, 
that  even  among  men  the  puniftiments  inflifted  on  thofe  who  were  them- 
felves  innocent  as  to  the  caufe  of  them,  may  be  as  exemplary  as  any  o- 

M  m  ther. 


274  Of  the  S lifer  ings  Chap.  II; 

ther.  And  the  gre^at'er  appearance  of  feverity  there  is  in  them,  the 
greater  terror  they  ftrike  into  all  offenders.  As  Children's  lofing  their 
eftates  and  honours,  or  being  banifhed  for  their  Parents  treafons  in 
which  they  liad  no  part  themfelves.  Which  is  a  proper  punifhment 
on  them  of  their  Father's  feults,  whether  they  be  guilty  or  no?  and 
if  this  may  be  juft  in' men,  why  not  in  God  ?  If  any  fay,  that  the  Pa- 
rents are  only  pHmjJoed  in  the  Children,  he  fpealis  that  which  is  contra- 
diftory  to  the  common  fenfe  of  mankind  5  for  punilhment  doth  fuppofe 
fenfe  or  feeling  of  it 5  and  in  this  cafe  the  Parents  are  faid  to  be  pu- 
riifhed,  who  are  fuppofed  to  be  dead  and  paft  feeling  of  it  5  and  the 
Children  who  undergo  the  fmart  of  it  muff  not  be  faid  to  be  punifh- 
ed  ;  though  all  things  are  fo  like  it,  that  no  perfon  can  imagine  him- 
felf  in  that  condition,  but  would  think  himfelf  punifbed,  and  feverely 
fob;  If  it  be  fdid,  that  theje  are  calamities  indeed,  but  they  are  no  pro- 
per puni/hntehts,  it  may  eafily  be  (hewed  that  diftindion  will  not  hold 
here.  Becaufe  thefe  punifhments  were  within  the  defign  of  the  Law, 
and  vi^ere  intended  for  all  the  ends  of  punifhments,  and  therefore  muft' 
have  the  nature  of  them.  For  therefore  the  Children  are  in^^olved  in 
the  Father's  puniftimeritf  on  purpofe  to  deter  others  from  the  like  A- 
dions.  There  are  fome  things  indeed  that  Children  may  fall  into  by 
otcafion  of  their  Father's  guilt,  which  may  be  only  calamities  to  them, 
becaufe  they  are  neceffary  confequents  in  the  nature  of  the  thing,  and 
not  purpofely  defign'd  as  a  punimment  to  them.  Thus,  being  depri- 
ved of  the  comfort  and  afTiftance  of  their  Parents,  when  the  Law  hath 
taken  them  off  by  the  hand  of  juftice:  this  was  defigried  by  the  La W* 
as  a  punifhment  to  the  Parents,  and  as  to  the  Children  it  is  only  a  ne- 
ceffary confequent  of  their  punifhment.  For  otherwife  the  Parents 
would  have  been  punifhed  for  the  Childrens  faults,  and  not  the  Chil- 
dren only  involved  in  that  which  unavoidably  follows  upon  the  Pa- 
reriti  punifhment.  So  that  CrelUus  is  very  much  miflaken  either  in  thd 
prefent  cafe  of  our  Saviour's  punifhment,  or  in  the  general  reafon  of 
exemplary  purtifhtnents,  as  among  men.  But  the  cafe  of  our  Saviour 
h  more  exemplary,  when  we  confider  the  excellency  of  his  perfon, 
thoiigh  appearing  in  our  nature,  when  no  meaner  fufferings  would  fa- 
fi'sfie,  tlian  of  fo  trarifce'ndent  a  nature  as  he  underwent,  though  he 
w'fere  the  Eternal  Son  of  God,  this  mufV  make  punifhment  much  more 
dx'emfpTary,  than  if  h'e  v^ere  confidered  only  as  our  Adverfaries  do,  as 
a  mere  htdh.  So  th^t  the  dignity  of  his  perfon  under  all  his  fufferings 
may  jiif?fy  add  a  greater  cohfideration  to  deter  us  from  the  praftice  of 
fift',  whicft  was  fo  feverely  punifhed  in  hirti,  when  he  was  pleafedtobe 
a  Sa'crJf9c6  for  our  (ins.  From  whence  we  fee  that  the  ends  of  a  77a- 
^S^iyiuca.  are  ye'ry  agfeeabld  ^itii  the  fufferings  of  Chrifl  confidered  as 
ipMifliAehtoffin.  n^v7•,o^rK,o81^'^ 

Sedof'fiB  'X;  W^'o.<^coTTri(fer  whethet  di  Cre///'^/ afferts,  fuppofing  Chrifl's 
could  not  death  Wtrfe' no  purtifhment,  it  could  have  thefe  effefts  upon  mens  minds 
"'^  ^^^" '"  or  no  ?  Yes,  he  faith,  it  mght,  becaufe  by  hk  fufferings  rve  might  fee  horn 
ings  of  feverely  God  ipotlld  punijl)  wicked  diid  objl'hate  perfons.  Which  being  a 
chrifi,  if  ftrange  riddle  at  the  firfl  hearing  it,  viz.  that  by  the  fufferings  of  an  in- 
no^unX- nocfent  pQr'ioh  without  any  refped  to  fin  as  the  caufe  of  them;  we 
menc  of  (h6ulcf  difcej-n  GOd's  feverity  againft  thofe  who  are  obflinate  in  fin  5 
c"//  c  I  ^^^'^ghi  the  tiiore  diligently  to  attend  to  what  is  faid  for  the  clear- 
/^9-  ^"S  ^^  ^^'  "  F'ffij  f^ith  be.  If  God  fpared  not  his  own  mofl  inno- 
"  cent  and  holy  and  only  Son,  than  whom  nothing  was  more  dear  to 

"him 


Chap.  II.  of  CHRIST,    27^ 

him  in  Heaven  or  Earth,  but  expofed  him  to  fo  cruel  and  ignomi- 
nious a  death  5  how  great  and  fevere  fufFerings  may  we  think  God 
V  will  inflia  on  wicked  men,  who  are  at  open  defiance  with  him  >   I 
confefs  my  felf  not  fubtle  enough  to  apprehend  the  force  of  this  ar- 
gument, viz.    If  God  dealt  fo  Severely  with  him  who  had  no  fin  ei- 
ther of  his  own  or  others  to  anfwer  for  5  therefore  he  will  deal  much 
more  fev^rely  with  thofe  that  have.     For  God's  feverity  conhdered 
without  any  refpeft  to  fin,  gives  rather  encouragement  to  finners,  than 
any  argument  to  deter  them  from  it.    For  the  natural  confequence  of 
it  is,  that  God  doth  aft  arbitrarily,  without  any  regard  to  the  good  or' 
evil  of  mens  aftions;  and  therefore  it  is  to  no  purpofe  to  be  follicitous 
about  them.     For  upon  the  fame  account  that  the  moft  innocent  per- 
fon  fufFers  moft  feverely  from  him,  for  all  that  we  know,  the  more  we 
ftrlve  to  be  innocent,  the  more  feverely  we  may  be  dealt  with,  and  let 
men  fin,  they  can  be  but  dealt  feverely  with  5  all  the  difference  then  is^ 
one  fhall  be  called  punijhments,  and  the  other  calamities,  but  the  feve- 
rity may  be  the  fame  in  both.  And  who  would  leave  off  his  fins  meerly 
to  change  the  name  of  pu»ifhments  into  that  of  Calamities  .<?     And  from 
hence  it  will  follow,  that  the  differences  of  good  and  evil,  and  the  re-^ 
Ipefts  of  them  to  punilhment  and  reward,   are  but  airy  and  empty 
things^  but  that  God  really  irt  the  difpenfiation  of  things  to  men,  hath 
no  regard  to  what  men  are  or  do,  but  ads  therein  according  to  his  own 
Dominion,  whereby  he  may  difpofe  of  men  how  or  which  way  he 
pleafes.     If  a  Prince  had  many  of  his  Subjefts  in  open  rebellion  againft 
him,  and  he  fhould  at  that  time  make  his  moft  obedient  and  beloved 
Son  to  be  publickly  expofed  to  all  manner  of  indignities,  and  be  diftio- 
noured  and  put  to  death  by  the  hands  of  thofe  rebels:  could  any  one 
imagine  that  this  was  defigned  as  an  exemplary  punilhment  to  all  Re- 
bels, to  let  them  fee  the  danger  of  Rebellion?    No^  but  would  it  not 
rather  make  them  think  him  a  cruel  Prince,  one  that  would  puni(h  in- 
nocency  as  much  as  Rebellion  5  and  that  it  was  rather  better  to  ftand 
at  defiance,  and  become  defperate,  for  it  was  more  dangerous  to  be 
beloved  than  hated  by  him,  to  be  his  Son  than  his  declared  Enemy  ? 
fo  that  infifting  on  the  death  of  Ghrift  as  it  is  confidered  as  a  -Tm^^S' 
/w«,  (for  of  that  we  fpeak  now)  there  is  no  comparifon  between  our 
Adverfaries  hypothecs  and  ours  5  but,  faith  Crellim,  the  confeqnefjce  is  n^t 
good  on  our  fide,  if  Chrift  fuffered  the  punijhment  of  our  (i its,  therefore  they 
fijall  fuffer  much  more,  who  contifme  in  Jin,  for  Chrift  fuffered  for  the  fin  t' 
of  the  whole  world  t,  hut  they  fuffer  only  for  their  own,  and  what  they  have- 
dejerved  themfelves.    To  which  I  anfwer,  that  the  argument  is  of  very 
good  force  upon  our  hypothefis,  though  it  would  not  be  upon  theirs; 
For  if  we  fuppofe  him  to  be.  a.meer  man  that  fuffered,  then  there  could 
be  no  argument  drawn  from  his  fufferirigs  to  ours,  but  according  to' 
the  exaft  proportion  of  fins  and  puniftiments:  but  fuppofing  that  he 
had  a  divine  as  well  as  humane  nature,  there  may  not  be  fo  great  a  pro- 
portion of  the  fins  of  the  world  to  the  fufferings  of  Chrift,  asofthefinS 
of  a  particular  perfon  to  his  own  fufferings  ^  and  therefore  the  argu- 
ment from  one  to  the  other  doth  ftill  hold.    For  the  meafure  of  pu- 
niOiments  muft  be  taken  with  a  proportion  to  the  dignity  of  the  per-     _      , 
fon  who  fuffers  them.     And  Crettim  himfelf  confeffeth  elfewhere,  /^^/^^.^j..  ° 
the  dignity  of  the  perfon  k  to  he  confidered  in  exemplary  punifhment,  and 
that  a  leffer  punifliment  of  one  that  is  "Very  greats  may  do  much  more  /b'^^"^-^- 
deter  men  from  fin ^  than  a  greater  punijhment  of  ofie  much  lefs>     But  he  ^o/     ' 

M  m  2  yet 


2"!  6  of  the  Sufferings  _  Chap.  II. 

yet  further  urgeth,  that  thefeverity  of  God  againfl  f  utters  tttaj  be  difco- 
vered  itt  the  fufferitigs   of  Chriji,  becaufe  God's  hatred  aga'ittfi  frt  is  dfco- 
vered  thereitt.     But  if  we  ask  how  God's  hatred  againft  fin  is  feen  in  the 
fuffering  of  one  perfeftly  innocent  and  free  from  fin,  and  not  rather  his 
hatred  of  innocency,  if  no  re  fpeft  to  fin  were  had  therein:  he  anfwers, 
That  God's  hatred  agaittfl  Jin  was  tttattifejied,  in  that  he  rvould  not  fpare 
hk  only  Son  to  draw  tnen  off  frotn  pn.     For  anfwer  to  which,  we  are  to 
confider  the  fufferings  of  Chrift  as  an  innocent  perfon,  defigned  as  an 
exemplary  caufe  to  draw  men  off  from  fin  5  and  let  any  one  tell  me, 
what  hatred  of  fin  can  poffibly  be  difcovered,  in  propofing  the  fuffer- 
ings  of  a  moft  innocent  perfon  to  them  without  any  confideration  of 
fin  as  the  caufe  of  thofe  fufferings?     If  it  be  faid,  That  the  DoHrine 
of  Chriji  was  dejigned  to  draw  tuen  off  from  fin  ;  and  that  God  fuffered  his: 
Son  to  die  to  confirm  this  Do&rine^  and  thereby  Jhewed  his  hatred  to  fin. 
I  anfwer,     i.  This  is  carrying  the  difpute  off  from  the  prefent  bufi- 
nefs,  for  we  are  not  now  arguing  about  the  defign  of  Chrift's  Doftrine, 
nor  the  death  of  Chrift  as  a  means  to  confirm  that,  but  as  a  -zaS^^'.^^- 
/t<<«,  and  what  power  that  hath  without  refpeft  to  our  fins  as  the  caufe 
of  them,  to  draw  us  from  fin,  by  difcovering  God's  hatred  to  it.  2.  The 
Doftrineof  Chrift  according  to  their  hyp  thefis,  difcovers  much  lefs  of 
Cod's  hatred  to  fin  than  ours  doth.     For  if  God  may  pardon  fin  with- 
out any  compenfation  made  to  his  Laws  or  Honour,  if  Repentance  be 
in  its  own  nature  a  fufEcient  fatisfaftion  for  all  the  fins  paft  of  our 
Livcs^  if  there  be  no  fuch  Juftice  in  God  wlich  requires  punifhment 
of  fin  committed  5  if  the  puniftiment  of  fin  depend  barely  upon  God's 
will  5  and  the  moft  innocent  perfon  may  fufFer  as  much  from  God  with- 
out refpeft  to  (in  as  the  caufe  of  fuffering,  as  the  moft  guilty  5  let  any 
rational  man  judge  whether  this  Doftrine  difcovers  as  much  God's  ab- 
horrency  of  fin,  as  afferting  the  neceflity  of  vindicating  God's  Ho- 
nour to  the  World,  upon  the  breach  of  his  Laws,  if  not  by  the  fuf- 
fering of  the  offenders  themfelves,  yet  of  the  Son  of  God  as  a  facrifice 
for  the  expiation  of  fin,  by  undergoing  the  punifhment  of  our  iniqui- 
ties, fo  as  upon  confideration  of  his  fufferings,  he  is  pleafed  to  accept 
of  Repentance  and  fincere  Obedience,  as  the  conditions  upon  which - 
he  will  grant  remiffion  of  Sins,  and  eternal  life.    So  that  if  the  difco- 
very  of  God's  hatred  to  fin  be  the  means  to  reclaim  men  from  it,  we 
aflert  upon  the  former  reafons,  that  much  more  is  done  upon  our  Do- 
ftrine  concerning  the  fufferings  of  Chrift,  than  can  be  upon  theirs.    So 
much  (hall  fuffice  to  manifeft  in  what  fenfe  Chrift's  death  ihay  be  a 
<z5)%9t^>i7/^u«,  and  that  this  doth  imply,  that  his  fufferings  are  to  be 
confidered  as  a  puniftiment  of  fin. 
Grofmh\i     XI.  The  next  Series  of  places  which  makes  Chrift's  fufferings  to  be 
arguments  a  puniftiment  for  fin,  are  thofe  which  affert  Chrift  to  be  made/»  and 
chHfi's     ^  curfe  for  us,  which  we  now  defign  to  make  clear,  ought  to  be  under- 
being       ftood  in  no  other  fenfe,  for  as  Grotius  faith,     "  As  the  Jews  fome- 
made  fin  «  dmes  ufe  fin,  for  the  puniftiment  of  fin  5  as  appears,  befides  other  pla- 
curfe  for  "  ces,  by  Zach.  14. 19.  Gen,  4.  15.  fothey  call  him  that  fuffers  the  pu- 
usdefend-*'  nifhment  of  fin  5  by  the  name  of  fin  as  the  Latins  ufe  the  word  Pia- 
c^S.    "  '  «/««^,  both  for  the  fault,  and  for  him  that  fuffers  for  it.    Thence  un- 
"  derthe  Law,  an  expiatory  Sacrifice  for  fin,  was  called  fin,  Lev.4..  3.29.— 
"  5,  6.  Pfal.  40.  7.     Which  way  of  fpeaking  Efa^as  followed,  fpeaking 
"  of  Chrift,  Ifa.  5:?.  10.  Wis:  DtDK  aty^n  he  made  his  foul  fin,  /'.  e. 
*'  liable  to  the  puniftiment  of  it.    To  the  fame  purpofe  St.  Pant,  2  Cor, 

"  S.21. 


I 


GkAP.  IL     '.      of  CHRIST.  277 

"  5.  21.     He  made  him  to  be  fin  for  us,  who  knew  no  fiti,  that  we 
*'  might  be  made  the  righteoufnefs  of  God  in  him.    To  which  Crel-^*'"-''-^- 
*'  liuf  replies,  That  there  is  no  neceflity,  that  by  the  name  of  fin/'^'  ^°' 
"  when-applied  to  fufferings,  any  more  (hould  be  implied,  than  that 
*'  thofe  fufferings  were  occafioned  by  (In,  no  more  is  there  when  it  is 
*'  applied  to  the  perfon  5  nay,  much  lefs,  for  he  faith,  No  more  is 
"  required  to  this,  but  that  he  (hould  be  handled  as  fihners  ufe  to  be, 
"  and  undergo  the  matter  of  punifhment,  without  any  refpeft  to  fin, 
"  either  as  the  caufe  or  occafion  of  it.    So  he  faith,  The  name  S'wmr 
"  is  ufed,   I  Kifig.  1.  21.  and  in  St.  Paul,  the  name  of  fin  in  the  firft 
"  claufe  is  to  be  undeftood,  as  of  righteoufnefs  in  the  latter^  and  as 
*'  we  are  faid  to  be  righteoufnefs  in  him,  when  God  deals  with  us  as 
"  with  righteous  perfons,  fo  Chrift  was  faid  to  be  fin  for  us,  when 
"  he  was  dealt  with  as  a  finner.     And  the  Sacrifices  for  fin  under  the 
"  Law  were  fo  called,  not  with  a  refpedt  to  the  puniChmentof  fin,  but 
*'  becaufe  they  were  offered  upon  the  account  of  fin,  and  were  ufed 
*'  for  taking  away  the  guilt  of  it,  or  becaufe  men    were  bound  to 
"  offer  them,  fo  that  they  finned  if  they  neglefted  it.     So  that  all  that 
"  is  meant  by  Efaias  and  St.  Paul  is,  That  Chri(!  was  made  anexpiato- 
"  ry  Sacrifice,  or  that  he  expofed  himfelf  for  thofe  affliftions  which 
"  finners  only  by  right  undergo.     But  let  CreU'.us  or  any  others  of  them 
tell  me,  if  the  Scripture  had  intended  to  exprefs,  that  the  fufferings  of 
Chrifl:  were  a  punifhment  of  our  fins,  how  was  it  pofllble  to  do  it  more 
emphatically  than  it  is  done  by  thefe  Expreflions  (the  cuftom  of  the 
Hehreri>  Language  being  confidered )  not  only  by  faying,   that  Ckriji 
did  hear  our  fins^  but,  that  himfelf  was  made  fin  for  us  ?  thofe  phrafes 
being  fo  commonly  ufed  for  the  punifhment  of  fin.    Let  them  produce 
any  one  inftance  in  Scripture,  where  thofe  expreflions  are  applied  to  a- 
ny  without  the  confideration  of  fin :  that  place,  i  King  r.  21.  is  very 
far  from  it,  for  in  all  probability,  the  defign  of  Bathjheba  in  making 
Sclot^on  King  was  already  difcovered,  which  was  the  reafon  that  Ado- 
mjah  his  elder  Brother  declaring  himfelf  King,  invited  not  him  with 
the  reft  of  the  King's  Sons:  All  that  flie  had  for  Solomon's  Succefljon, 
was  a  fecret  promife  and  oath  of  David ;  and  therefore  fhe  urgeth  him 
T10V7  to  declare  the  Succejfioir,  v.  20.     Othermfe,  (he  faith,  tvhen  David 
Jhould  die,  I  and  my  fon  Solomon  jhall  be  accounted  offenders  ^  i.  e,  faith 
Crellius,  we  foall  be  handled  as  offenders,  we  [hall  be  deflroyed  :  But  fu rely 
not  without  the  fuppofition  of  a  fault  ^  by  them  which  (hould  inQxdt 
that  punifliment  upon  them:  The  plain  meaning  is,  they  (hould  be  ac- 
cufed  of  Treafon,  and  then  punifhed  accordingly.    But  we  are  to  con- 
fider,  that  (till  with  a  refpeft  to  them,  who  were  the  inflifters,  a  fauU 
or  fin  is  fuppofed  as  the  reafon  of  their  punifliment,  either  of  their 
own  or  others.     But  of  our  Saviour  it  is  not  faid.  That  he  Jhould  be 
counted  M  an  offender  by  the  Jews-^  for  although  that  doth  not  take  a- 
way  his  i'nnocency,  yet  it  fuppofeth  an  accufation  of  fomething,  which 
in  it  felf  deferves  punifliment.    But  in  Efai.  53.  10.  it  is  faid.  He  made 
his  foul  Jfn-j  and  2  Cor.  5.  21.     That  God  made  him  (in  for  us,  which 
muft  therefore  imply,  not  being  dealt  with  by  men  only  as  a  finner, 
but  that  with  a  refpeft  to  him  who  inflicted  the  punifliment,  there  was 
a  confederation  of  fin  as  the  reafon  of  it.  We  do  not  deny  but  God's  fuf- 
fering  him  to  be  dealt  with  as  a  finner  by  men,  is  implied  in  it,  for 
that  was  the  method  of  his  punifhment  defigned ;  but  we  fay  further, 
that  the  reafon  of  that  permifTion  in  God,  doth  fuppofe  fome  an- 
tecedent 


278  df.the  Suferings  Chap.  II. 

tecedent  caufe  of  it;  For  God  would  never  have  fufifered  his  cn)y  Son, 
to  be  fo  dealt  with  by  the  hands  of  cruel  men,  unlefs  he  h^d  made  him- 
felf  an  offering  for  fin -^  being  willing  tQ  undergo  thofe  fiifferings,  that 
he  might  be  an  expiatory  Sacrifice  for  the  fins  of  the  world.    .And  al- 

:}ocA.  i.c-though  Soclnus  will  not  yield,  That  by  being  made  fin  for  us  (houldbe  un- 
derjiood  Ckriji's  being  an  expiatory  Sacrifice  for  fin^  yet  Crellius  is  con- 
tented  it  fljould  befo  taken  in  both  places :  W  hich  if  he  will  grant,  fo  as 
by  vertue  of  that  Sacrifice,  the  guilt  of  fin  is  expiated,  we  (hall  not 
contend  with  him  about  the  reafons,  why  thofe  Sacrifices  were  called 
fins,  although  the  moft  proper  and  genuine  muft  needs  be  that,  which 
is  affigned  by  the  Law,  that  the  fins  of  the  people  were  fuppofed  to 
be  laid  upon  them,  and  therefore  they  were  intended  for  the  expiation 
of  them :  But  it  is  very  unreafonable  to  fay.  That  expiatory  Sacrifices 
TPere  called  fins,  becaufe  it  Tcould  have  been  a  fin  tonegle&  them:  For  on 
the  fame  account,  all  the  other  Sacrifices  muft  have  been  called  fo  too  5 
for  it  was  a  fm  to  negleft  any  where  God  required  them,  and  fo  there 
had  been  no  difference  between  Sacrifices  for  fin  and  others.  ,  To  that 
reafon  of  Crellius,  from  our  being  made  righteous,  becaufe  dealt  with  as 
fuch,  to  Chrifl's  being  made  fin  only,  becaufe  dealt  with  as  a  finner,  wC 
iieed  no  more  than  what  this  parallel  will  afford  us ;  For  as  Crellius 
would  never  fay,  that  any  are  dealt  with  as  righteous  perfons,  who  are 
not  antecedently  fuppofed  to  be  foby  his  own  Argtiment,  Chrift  being 
dealt  with  as  a  finner,  muft  fuppofe  guilt  antecedent  to  it  ^  and  fince 
the  Apoftle  declares  it  was  not  his  own,  in  thofe  words.  Who  knew  no 
fin,  it  follows  that  it  muft  be  the  confideration  of  ours,  which  muft 
make  him  be  dealt  with  as  a  finner  by  him,  who  made  him  to  be  fin 
for  us.  But  to  fuppofe  that  Chrift  ftiould  be  faid  to  be  made  fin,  with- 
out any  refpeft  to  fin,  is  as  much  as  if  the  Latins  fliould  call  any  one 
Scelus,  and  mean  thereby  a  very  honeft.  man ;  or  a  Piaculum,  with- 
out any  fuppofition  of  his  own  or  others  guilt.  But  we  are  to  confi- 
der,  that  the  fufferings  of  Chrift,  feeming  at  firft  fo  inconfiftent  with 
that  relation  to  God  as  his  only  Son,  which  the  Apoftles  affert  concern- 
ing him,  they  were  obliged  to  vindicate  his  innocency,  as  to  men,  and 
yet  withal  to  ftiew,  that  with  a  refpeft  to  God,  there  was  fufficient  rea- 
forj  for  his  permifljon  of  his  undergoing  thefe  fufferings.  That  he  knew 
fio  fin,  was  enough  to  clear  his  innocency  as  to  men ;  but  then  the  que- 
ftion  will  be  asked,  If  he  were  fo  innocent,  why  did  God  fuffer  all 
thofe  things  to  come  upon  him  >  Did  not  Abraham  plead  of  old  with 

Gen.  18.  QqJ^  j-^^^  ^^  ^^^i^  not  flay  the  righteous  with  the  wicked,  becaufe  it  was 
repugnant  to  the  righteoufnefs  of  his  nature  to  do  fo ;  That  be  far  from 
thee  to  do  after  this  manner,  to  flay  the  righteous  with  the  wicked,  and 
that  the  righteous  fjjodd  be  as  the  wicked,  that  be  far  from  thee:,  (hall  not 
the  Judge  of  all  the  Earth  do  right  .<?  How  then  comes  God  to  fuffer  the 
moft  perfeft  innocency  to  be  dealt  with  fo,  as  the  greateft  fins  could 
not  have  deferved  worfefrom  men  >  Was  not  his  righteoufnefs  the  fame 
ftill  >  And  Abraham  did  not  think  the  diftinftion  of  calamities  and  pu- 
nifhments,  enough  to  vindicate  God's  proceedings,  if  the  righteous 
fhould  have  been  dealt  withal  as  the  wicked.  And  if  that  would  hold 
for  fuch  a  meafure  of  righteoufnefs  as  might  be  fuppofed  in  fuch  wha 
were  not  guilty  of  the  great  Abominations  of  thofe  places,  that  it 
ftiould  be  enough,  not  only  to  deliver  themfelves,  but  the  wicked  too  5. 
how  comes  it  that  the  moft  perfeft  obedience  of  the  Son  of  God,  is 
fjot  fufficient  to  excufe  him  from  the  greateft  fufferings  of  Malefaftors  > 

But 


Chap.  II.  of  CHRIST.  219 

But  if  his  fufferings  had  been  meerly  from  men,  God  had  been  ac- 
countable only  for  the  bare  permiflion  ^  but  it  is  faid,  that  he  fore  or- 
dained  and  determined  thefe  thhrgt  to  he,  that  Chrifl:  himfelf  complain- 
ed, that  God  had  forfaken  hinti,  and  here,  that  he  made  him  fin  for  us  : 
and  can  we  imagine  all  this  to  be  without  any  refpeft  to  the  guilt  of  lln, 
as  the  caufe  of  it?  Why  fhould  fuch  an  expreffion  be  ufed  oi  being  made 
fin  .<?     Might  not  many  others  have  ferved  fufficiently  to  declare  the  in- 
dignities and  fufferings  he  underwent,  without  fuch  a  phrafeas  feems 
to  refleft  upon  Chrift's  innocency?  If  there  had  been  no  more  in  thefe 
expreflions  than  our  Adverfaries  imagine,  the  Apoftles  were  fo  care- 
ful of  Chrift's  Honour,  they  would  have  avoided  fuch  ill  founding  ex- 
preflions as  thefe  were  ^  and  not  have  afFefted  H^braifms,  and  uncouth  • 
forms  of  fpeecb,    to  the  difparagement  of  their  Religion.    But  this 
is  all  which  our  Adverfaries  have  to  fay,  where  words  are  ufed  by 
them  out  of  their  proper  fenfe.  That  the  Prophets  and  Apojlles  afetled 
tricks  of  vpit,  playing  with  words,  ufing  them  fometimes  in  one  fenfe,  and 
prefently  quite  in  another.     So  Crellins  faith  of  Ifaiah,  That  he  affects  lit^  Crell.  cap. 
tie  elegancies  of  words  and  verbal  Allufions,  which  makes  him  ufe  words  ^'  ^'^'  ^^* 
fometimes  ont  of  their  proper  and  natural  fenfe  5  thence  he  tells  us,  The 
fufferings  of  Chriji  are  called  chajiijements,  though  they  have  nothing  of  the 
nature  of  chajiifements  in  them:  And  from  this  liberty  of  interpreting, 
they  make  words  (  without  any  other  reafon,  than  that  they  ferve  for 
their  purpofe)  be  taken  in  feveral  fenfes  in  the  fame  verfe:  For  Soci-^"/'"- "' 
nm  in  one  verfe  of  St.  'john%  Gofpel,  makes  the  World  to  be  taken  in  LpfjoA* 
three  feveral  fenfes :  He  was  in  the  World,  there  it  is  taken,  faith  he,  **•  ^='- 
for  the  men  of  the  World  in  general :  The  world  was  made  by  him,  there 
it  muft  be  underftood  only  of  the  reformation  of  things  by  the  Go- 
pel;  and,  the  world  knew  him  not,  there  it  muft  be  taken  in  neither  of 
the  former  fenfes,  but  for  the  wicked  of  the  world:  What  may  not 
one  tnake  of  the  Scripture,  by  fuch  a  way  of  interpreting  it?  But  by 
this  we  have  the  lefs  reafon  to  wonder,  that  Socimu  ftiould  put  fuch 
aft  Interpretation  upon  Qal,  3.  19.     Chrift  hath  redeemed  us  from  the 
curfe  of  the  Latv,  being  made  a  curfe  for  us  5  for  it  is  written,  Curfed  is  e- 
very  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree  .-In  which  he  doth  acknowledge  by  the 
curfe,  in  the  firftclaufe,  to  be  meant,  the  punifhment  of  fin,  but  not  in 
the  fecotid:  And  the  reafon  he  gives  for  it  is,  amavit  enim  Paulia  in  ^^^.^  ^^ 
execratianff  verba  argutuf  effe,    St.  Paul  afFeded  playing  with  the  word  chriflofer- 
i~urfe,  underftanding  it  firft  in  a  proper,  and  then  a  Metaphorical  fenfe.  ^'''-  ^-  ^' 
But  it  is  plain  that  the  defign  of  St.  Paul  and  Socinus  are  very  diffe- 
rent in  thefe  words:  Socinus  thinks  he  fpeaks  only  Metaphorically, 
when  he  faith,  that  Chrifl  was  made  a  curfe  for  m  5  i.  e.  by  a  bare  Allu- 
fion  of  the  name,  without  a  correfpondency  in  the  thing  it  felf  5  and 
fo  that  the  death  of  Chrift  might  be  called  a  curfe,  but  was  not  fo : 
But  St.  Paid  fpeaks  of  this  not  by  way  of  Extenuation,  but  to  fet  forth 
the  greatnefs  and  weight  of  the  punilhment  he  underwent  for  us.    He 
therefore  tells  us,  what  it  was  which  Chrift  did  redeem  us  from.  The 
curfe  of  the  Law  ^  and  how  he  did  it,  by  being  not  only  made  a  curfe  but  a 
curfe  for  us'^  i.e.  not  by  being  hateiful  to  God,  or  undergoing  the  very 
fame  curfe,  which  we  fhould  have  done ;  which  are  the  two  things  ob- 
jeded  by  CrelUiu  againft  our  fenfe  ^  but  that  the  death  of  Chrift  was  to 
beconfidered,  not  as  a  bare  feparation  of  foul  and  body,  but  as  properly 
pienal,  being  fuch  a  kind  of  death,  which  none  but  Malefa^ors  by  the 
Liov  were  to  fufFer ;  by  the  undergoing  of  which  punilhraent  in  our 
.1 IV                                                                                           fteadj, 


28o  Of  the  Safer ings  Chap.  II* 

ftead,  hefedeemed  us  from  that  cnrfe  which  we  were  liable  to  by  the 
violation  of  the  Law  of  God.     And  there  can  be  no  reafon  to  appro- 
priate this  only  to  the  Jervs^  unlefs  the  death  of  Chrift  did  extend  only 
to  the  deliverance  of  them  from  the  punifbment  of  their  fins;  or  be- 
caufethe  curfe  of  the  Law  did  make  that  death  poenal,  and  therefore 
the  intention  of  the  punifhment,  could  reach  no  further  than  the  Law- 
did  5  but  the  Apoftle  in  the  very  next  words  fpeaks  of  the  farther  ex- 
tenfjon  of  the  great  hlejfitjg  promfed  to  Abraham,  That  it  Jhould  cofke 
upon  the  Gentiles  aljo  5  and  withal  thofe  whom  the  Apoftle  fpeaks  to, 
were  not  "^evps,  but  fuch  as  thought  they  ought  to  joyn  the  Law  and 
creii.  .4n-Gofpel  together:  that  St.  V^aul  doth  not  mean  as  Crelliiu  would  have  it, 
riff,  in  kc.  ffjat  Chriji  by  his  death  did  confirm  the  New  Covenant,  and  fo  take  away 
the  obligation  of  the  Law ,  (  for  to  what  end  was  the  curfe  mentioned 
for  that?     What  did  the  accurfednefs  of  his  death  add  to  the  confirma* 
tionof  the  truth  of  his  Dodrine?     And  when  was  ever  the  curfe  ta- 
ken for  the  continuance  of  the  Law  of  Mofes  .<? )  but  that  Chrift  by  the 
efficacy  of  his  death  as  a  puniftiment  for  fin  hath  redeemed  all  that  be- 
lieve and  obey  him  from  the  curfe  deferved  by  their  fins,  whether  in- 
forced  by  the  Law  of  Mofes,   or  the  Law  written  in  their  hearts, 
which  tells  the  confciences  of  finners,  that  fuch  who  violate  the  Laws 
of  God  are  worthy  of  death,  and  therefore  under  the  curfe  of  the 
Law. 
The  par-      ^^^'  ^^  come  now  to  the  force  of  the  particles  which  being  joy- 
ticies  j>a,ned  with  our  fins  as  referring  to  the  death  of  Chrift,  do  imply  that  his 
^f^  vsi-if  death  is  to  be  confidered  as  a  puniftiment  of  fin.    Not  that  we  infift 
jo"nfd  to  on  the  force  of  thofe  Particles  h%,  -ze^'  and  u vrJe,  as  though  of  them- 
fins,  and  felves  they  did  imply  this  (  for  we  know  they  are  of  various  fignifica- 
to  fuffe^r.  ^^°"^  according  to  the  nature  of  the  matter  they  are  joyned  with  )  but 
ings,  do   that  thefe  being  )oyned  with  fins  and  fuffering  together,  do  fignifie  that 
thofe  fuf-  ^^^^^  fufFerings  are  the  puniftiment  of  thofe  fins.    Thus  it  is  faid  of 
feiings  to  Chrift,  that  he  died,  hd  -m  'o^^-nlcJiu/x.la.  ri/xwv,  for  our  fins,  \is^  a.- 
be  the  pu-  Lcet^-nSov  y\uZv,  that  he  fuffered  once  -22^^  a.ug.p-nr2\'    that  he  ^ave  himfelf 
of  fin.      "^^  a/tta^Ti^y,  that  he  offered  a  oacrtjice   "m^  ajuutpnoy.     To  which 
Rom.^.z$.  Crellius  replies,    "  That  if  the  force  of  thefe  Particles  not  being  joy- 
I  Cor.  15. "  jjgjj  ^j(|^  fufFerings  may  be  taken  for  the  final  and  not  for  the  irapul- 
I  Pet.  3.  "  five  caufe,  they  may  retain  the  fame  fenfe  when  joyned  with  fuffer- 
^8.         "  ings,  if  thofe  fufFerings  may  be  defigned  in  order  to  an  end;  but 
jI    '**•  "  if  it  fliould  be  granted,  that  thofe  phrafes  being  joyned  with  fufFer- 
creii.  cap.**  lugs,  do  always  imply  a  meritorious  caufe,  yet  it  doth  not  follow, 
^afitp- "  *^  ^o*^'*i  ^^  ^^^^  ^o  underftood  becaufe  the  matter  will  not  bear  it. 
17.         To  this  a  (hort  anfwer  will  at  prefent  ferve  :  for.  It  is  not  poffible  a 
meritorious  caufe  can  be  exprefTed  more  emphatically  than  by  thefe 
words  being  joyned  to  fufFerings :  fo  that  we  have  as  clear  a  Teftimo- 
ny  from  thefe  expreffions  as  words  can  give;  and  by  the  fame  arts 
by  which  thefe  may  be  avoided  any  other  might ;  fo  that  it  had  not 
been  poffible  for  our  Doftrine  to  have  been  exprefTed  in  fuch  a  man- 
ner, but  fuch  kind  of  anfwers  might  have  been  given  as  our  Adverfa- 
ries  now  give.    If  it  had  been  faid  in  the  plaineft  terms,  that  Chriji's 
death  was  a  punifhntent  for  our /tns,  they  would  as  eafily  have  avoided 
the  force  of  them  as  they  do  of  thefe ;     "  they  would  have  told  us 
*'  the  Apoftles  delighted  in  an  Antanaclafis,  and  had  exprefTed  things 
"  different  from  the  natural  ufe  of  the  words  by  them ;  and  though 
"  puniftiment  were  fometimes  ufed  properly,  yet  here  it  muft  be  ufed 

^'  only 


J 


Chap.  III.  ofCHKlST. 28I 

"  only  metaphorically  becaufe  the  matter  would  bear  no  other  fenfe. 
And  therefore!  commend  the  ingenuity  of  Socinus  after  all  the  pains  he 
had  taken  to  enervate  the  force  of  thofe  places  which  are  brought  a- 
gainft  his  Doftrine;^  he  tells  us  plainly,  "  That  if  ourDoftririe  "^txt  s,c\n.de 
"  not  only  once,  but  frequently  mentioned  in  Scripture  ?  yet  he  would  ^"^-^V  /, 
"  not  therefore  believe  the  thing  to  be  fo  as  we  fuppofe.  For,  faith"^'  *"•  ^' 
"  he^  feeing  the  thing  it  felf  cannot  be,  I  take  the  leaft  inconvenient 
"  interpretation  of  the  words  ^  and  draw  forth  fuch  a  fenfe  from  them, 
"  as  is  raoft  confiftent  with  it  felf  and  the  tenor  of  the  Scripture. 
But  for  all  his  talking  of  the  tenor  of  the  Scripture  ^  by  the  fame  rea- 
fon  he  interprets  one  place  upon  thefe  terms,  he  will  do  many,  andfo 
the  tenor  of  the  Scripture  fhall  be  never  againft  him:  And  by  this  we 
find,  that  the  main  ftrength  of  our  Adverfaries  is  not  pretended  to  lie 
in  the  Scriptures ;  all  the  care  they  have  of  them  is  only  to  reconcile 
them  if  poffible  with  their  Hypothefis  5  for  they  do  not  deny  but  that 
the  natural  force  of  the  words  doth  imply  what  we  contend  for  5  but 
becaufe  they  fay  the  Doftrine  we  affert  is  inconfiftent  with  reafon,  there- 
fore all  their  defign  is  to  find  out  any  other  poffible  meaning  which  they 
therefore  affert  to  be  true,  becaufe  more  agreeable  to  the  common  rea- 
fon of  mankind.  This  therefore  is  enough  for  our  prefent  purpofe, 
that  if  it  .had  been  the  defign  of  Scripture  to  have  exprefled  our  fenfe, 
it  could  not  have  done  it  in  plainer  expreflions  than  it  hath  done,  that 
no  expreffions  could  have  been  ufed,  but  the  fame  arts  of  our  Adver- 
faries might  have  been  ufed  to  take  off  their  force,  which  they  have 
ufed  to  thofe  we  now  urge  againft  them,  and  that  fetting  afide  the  pof- 
fibility  of  the  thing,  the  Scripture  doth  very  fairly  deliver  the  Do- 
ftrine  we  contend"  for  ;  or,  fuppofing  in  point  of  reafon  there  may  be 
arguments  enough  to  make  it  appear  poffible,  there  are  Scriptures  e- 
nough  to  make  it  appear  true. 


G    H    A    P.       III. 

I.  The  words  ef  Scripture  being  at  lafl  acknowledged  by  our  Adverfaries  to 
ntahe  for  us^  the  only  pretence  remaining  is,  that  our  DoSrine  is  repug' 
nant  to  reafon.  The  debate  managed  upon  point  ef  reafon.  The  grand 
difficulty  enquired  into,  and  manifijied  by  our  Adverfaries  Confejfions^ 
not  to  lie  in  the  greatnejs  of  Chriji's  fufferings,  or  that  our  fins  were  the 
intpulj^  caufe  of  them,  or  that  it  is  impojfible  that  onejhould  bepuni/h- 
ed  for  anothers  faults :  or  in  all  cafes  itnjuft.  II.  The  cafes  wherein 
Crellius  allows  it,  injianced.  From  whence  it  is  'proved  that  he  yields 
the  main  caufe.  III.  The  arguments  propounded  whereby  he  attempts  to 
prove  it  unjujifir  Chrift  to  be  punifhedfor  our  fins.  Crellius  his  princi' 
pies  of  the  jujiice  of  punifl)ments  examined.  Of  the  Relation  betweem 
defert  and  punifi)ment.  IV.  That  a  perfon  by  his  own  confent  may  be 
puni/hed  beyond  the  defert  of  his  own  anions.  V.  An  anfwer  to  Crelli- 
us his  Objedions.  What  it  is  to  fuffer  nndefervedly.  Crellius  his  mi- 
fiake  in  the  ft  ate  of  the  quejiion.  VI.  The  inftances  of  Scripture  confi- 
dered.  In  what  fenfe  Children  are  punifijed  for  their  Parents  fins.  Vlh 
Ezek.  18.  20.  explained  at  large.  VIII.  Whether  the  guilty  being  freed 
from  the  fufferings  of  an  innocent  perfon  makes  that  pHniJhm^nt  unjuft  or 

N  n  no? 


282  -        Of  the  Saferings         Chap.  III. 

no  ^   Crellius  his  Jhifts  and  foafions  in  this  matter  difcovered.     Why 
among   men  the  offenders   are  not   freed  in  criminal   matters   though 
the  fureties  be  punijbed.     The  releafe  of  the  party  depends  on  the  terms  of 
the  fureties  fttffering,  therefore  deliverance  tiot  ipfo  fafto.     Hi^o  necejfity 
offuch  a  tranflation  in  criminal^  as  is  in  pecuniary  matters. 


I.  jr  "^  Aving  gained  fo  confiderable  conceflions  from  our  Adverfa- 
The  mat-      jj  ^  ^  ^  |    ries  concerning  the  places  of  Scripture,  we  come  now  to  " 
ted^in**        I       i    debate  the  matter  in  point  of  reafon.    And  if  there  appear 
point  of      -^  to  be  nothing  repugnant  in  the  nature  of  the  thing,  or  to 

reafon.  ^^^  juftice  of  God,  then  all  their  loud  clamours  will  come  to  nothing  5 
for  on  that  they  fix,  when  they  talk  the  moft  of  our  Doftrine  being 
contrary  to  reafon.  This  therefore  we  now  come  more  clofely  to  exa- 
mine, in  order  to  which  we  rauft  carefully  enquire  what  it  is  they  lay 
the  charge  of  injuftice  in  God  upon,  according  to  our  belief  of  Cbrift's 
fufFerings  being  a  punifhment  for  our  fins. 

1.  It  is  not.  That  the  offenders  themfelves  do  not  undergo  the  fitU pu- 
nifhment of  their  fins.  For  they  aflert,  that  there  is  no  neceffity  at  all 
that  the  offenders  fhould  be  puniftied  from  any  punitive  juftice  in  God  : 
for  they  eagerly  contend  that  God  may  freely  pardon  the  fins  of  men  : 
If  fo,  then  it  can  be  no  injuftice  in  Cod  not  to  punilh  the  offenders 
according  to  tbe  full  defert  of  their  fins. 

2.  It  is  not.  That  God  upon  the  fufferings  of  Chrifl  doth  pardon  the  fins 
of  men:  For  they  yield  that  God  may  do  this  without  any  charge  of 
injuftice,  and  with  the  greateft  demonftration  of  his  kindnefs.  For  they 
acknowledge,  that  the  fufferings  of  Chrift  are  not  to  be  confidered  as 
a  bare  antecedent  condition  to  pardon,  but  that  they  were  a  moving 
caufe  as  far  as  the  obedience  of  Chrift  in  fuffering  was  very  acceptable 

to  God. 

g.  It  is  not,  i»  thegreatnefs  or  matter  of  the  fufferings  of  Chrift.     For 
they  aflert  the  fame  which  we  do.    And  therefore  I  can- 

certum  eflchriflum  tnmcen-  jjqj.  jj^.  wonder  to  meet  fometimes  with  thofe  ftrange  out- 

!£Lx  !^%f^qte' Zrte  crys  of  our  making  God  cruel  in  the  punijhing  of  his  Son  for 

fuijfe  affeiium ;  cum  mn  in  j^s  .•  For  what  do  we  afferc  that  Chrift  fufFered,  which 

%f/:Lff:J!'Xt  theydonotafl^erttoo?  Nay,  doth  it  not  look  much  more 

etiam  in  ea  affiHiope  i  qu^  like  cruclty  in  God  to  lay  thofe  fufFerings  upon  him  with- 

%"'lTntbfs'dilJtT/'crd  ^"'  ^^^  cdnfidcration  of  fin?  as  upon  their  Hypothecs  he 

c.  %sa\.  'I  PotZ' auum  doth  5  than  to  do  it  fuppofing  he  bears  the  punifhment  of 

id  veus  facere^  atque  adeo  Qur  iniquities,  which  is  the  thing  we  plead  for.    They 

&ZJ!:T^r^fC  aflert  all  thofe  fufferings  to  be  lawful  on  the  account  of 

bebat;  accedente  prxfenim  God's  dominion^  which  according  to  them  muft  ceafc  to 

ipfius  chrifli  confenfu.   Id.  j^g  j-^  q„  jj^g  fuppofition  of  3  meritorious  caufe.     But  how- 

Ib.  Sect.  4.  _            ,  r^.                         ,         .                 -^           .   n     1 

ever  from  this  it  appears,  that  it  was  not  unjuft  that 
Chrift  fhould  fuffer  thofe  things  which  he  did  for  us :  the  qaeftion  then 
is,  whether  it  were  unjuft  that  he  fhould  fuffer  the  fame  things,  which 
he  might  lawfully  do  on  the  account  of  dominion  with  a  refpe^  to  our 
fins  as  the  caufe  of  them. 

4.  As  to  this,  they  acknowledge,  that  it  is  not,  that  the  fufferings  of 
Chrifi  were  occafioned  by  our  fins^  or  that  our  fins  were  the  bare  impulfive 
caufe  of  thofe  fufferings.  For  they  both  confefs  in  general,  that  one 
mans  fins  may  be  the  occafion  of  anothers  punifhment,  fo  far  that  he 
might  have  efcaped  puniihment,  if  the  others  fins  had  not  been  the 
impulfive  caf^e  of  it.    And  therefore  Crelllm  in  the  general  ftate  of  this 

que- 


Chap.  III.  of  CHRIST,  283 

queftion,    would  not    have    it,  whether  it  he  unjufi  to       diod  ft  ex  thefi  ipeda't 
pH,vJhor,e  for  anothers  fins  5  for  that  he  acknowledges  it  is    t':C!!-St'^:„[:t 

not,    but  whether,  fir  any  caufe  Vohatfoever  it  he  juji  to  pit-      hnccsntem,  quaamqiie  tan- 

ttijh  an  innocent  per  Con?    And  likewife  in  particular  of    '^^'"-''*  f*"'"  "^^Jt,  non 

f-i     -n.     ^u  t-  r         t    ^  r  ^1      •  ip  r        '^^'>">f">ipliciter,punireqHe/n. 

CnrilT,  tney  coniels,  that  our  Jins  were  the  impHlfive  cauje,    p'un,  ob  aiiena  deuau,  id 
and  the  occafton  of  hk  fufferinps,  ^'"'"  """'^'  P'^^T?  nonfem- 

'  ■'  J  JJ         i>  pa  ,ffe  hjuflum.  Crel.  c.4. 

Sea.  3. 
5.  It  is  not,  that  there  it  fo  necejjary  a  relation  between 
guilt  and  punijhmentj  that  it  cannot  be  called  a  punifliment  which  is  ijifli- 
iled  an  an  innocent  per/on.     For  CreUius^  alter  a  long  difcourfe  of  the 
difference  of  affliftions  and  puniftiments,  doth  acknowledge,    "  That 
"  it  is  not  of  the  nature  of  punifhment,  that  the  perfon  who  is  to  cum  «  n- 
"  bepunilhed,  fhould  really  defer ve  the  punifliment;  and  afterwards lnJ qtidun 
"  when  Grot'ms  urgethf  though  it  be  eflential  to  punifhment,  that  it  be^'^J"^"* 
*'  inflided  for  fin,  yet  it  is  not,  that  it  be  inflided  upon  him  who  hath  rtqlhltur 
**  himfelf  finned,  which  he  Jhews  by  the  fimilitude  of  rewards,  which '"."'''/^» 
"  though  neceffary  to  be  given  in  confideration  of  fervice,  may  yet  be  ^17^/?'^- 
"  given  to  others  befides  the  perfon  himfelf  upon  his  account.  AH  this^^^jewi 
Cre///jw  acknowledgeth  ;  who  faith,  "They  do  notmakeitneceflary  to-^^j^"'"* 
"  the  nature,  but  to  the  juftice  of  punifhment,  that  it  be  inflifted  upon  id.  Seft'  s. 
**  none  but  the  perfon  who  hath  offended.  So  by  his  own  Confejfion,  it  is  p^ 
not  againft  the  nature  of  punifliment,  that  no  one  man  fuffer  for  ano- demjimp'n^ 
thers  faults.     From  whence  it  follows,  that  all  Socinus  his  arguments  "'^''"'''- 
fignifie  nothing,  which  are  drawn  from  the  impoflibility  of  the  thing,  "^"/Jj^^ 
that  one  manjhould  be  punified  fir  anothers  fiults  ,  for  Crellius  grants  the  "oncadit, 
thing  to  be  poflible,  but  denies  it  to  be  juft  ;  yet  not  abfolutely  neither,  seft"*^g'^* 
but  with  fome  reftriftions  and  limitations.     For, 

II.  6.  It  is  not,  but  that  there  may  be  fuficient   caufis   ajjjgned  /«lnwhac 
fiffte  particular  cafis  ;  wherein  it  may  be  jttft  for  God  to  punijh  fome  for  ^?^'^^  ^^'^' 
the  (tns  of  others.    For  CreUim  himfelf  hath  afligned  divers.     "  When  fomf  may 
there  is  fuch  a  near  conjunftion  between  them,  that  one  may  be  ^'^  lavvfui- 
faid  to  be  punifhed  in  the  puniihment  of  another:  as  Parents  ine^^fo"'t^e 
their  Children  and  Pofterity,  Kings  in  their  Subjefts,  or  the  body  fins  of  o- 
"  of  a  State  in  its  Members,  either  in  the  raoft,  or  the  moft  principal,  ^^Xoeus 
*'  though  the  feweft  :  but  we  are  to  confider  how  far  he  doth  extend  fUncpul}- 
"  this  way  of  punifiiment  of  fome  in  others,     i.  At  the  greatefi  di-""^^'^'"'" 
(lance  of  time,  if  they  have  been  of  the  fame  Nation-^  for  he  extends  it  to  f^ltm  lb 
the  utmoft  degree  of  God's  patience  towards  a  people  5  "  For,  faith  he, ':-<)»f  pec- 
"  God  doth  not  prefently  punifh  as  foon  as  they  have  finned  i  hut'f'.f'"" 

Ipares  for  a  great  while,  and  forbears,  in  expeaation  or  their  Repen-wre,  fmui 
"  tance,j  in  the  mean  while  a  great  many  guilty  perfonsdie,  and  feem  to^'"''''^K- 
"  haveefcaped  punKhment.  Butatlaftthe  time  of  God's  patience  being ///^rL^a"^ 
"  paft,  he  puni(heth  their  Pofterity  by  exacting  the  full  punifhment  of '"''"•  ^//w 
"  their  fins  upon  them,  and  by  this  means  punilheth  their  Anceftors  too,  f"J,j^,^/^f/. 
*'  and  punilheth  their  fins  in  their  punifhment;  for,  faith  he,  all  that  new.  Creii. 
"  people  are  reckoned  for  one  man  of  feveral  Ages,  and  that  punifhment  ^^-  ^J'^^-  J* 
*'  which  is  taken  of  the  laf\,  may  be  for  the  fins  of  the  firfV,  for  the  con-  2/,."  ^' 
"  jundion  and  fucceffion  of  them:  of  which  we  have  an  example, y^/>A 
"  he,  in  the  deftruftion  of  JerHfalem.  By  which  we  fee  a  very  remote  Con - 
jundion,  and  a  mere  fimilitude  in  comparing  fuccefCon  of  Ages  in  peo- 
ple with  thofe  in  a  man,  may  (when  occafion  ferves)  be  made  ufe  of  tp 
juftifie  God's  punifhir\g  one  Generation  of  men  for  the  fins  of  others 
that  have  been  long  before.     2.  When  fins  are  more  fecnt  or  left  remark- 

N  n  2  abU 


C( 


<c 


284  of  the  Suferings  Chap.  III. 

able  which  God  might  Hot  pitmfl)^  unlefs  an  occafion  were  gven  from  others 
fins  impellittg  him  to  it  -^  but  becaufe  God  would  punifti  one  very  neat 
them,  he  therefore  punilheth  them,  that  in  their  puniiliment  he  might 
punifti  the  other.     Or  in  cafe  fms  fpread  through  a  Family  or  a  people, 
or  they  are  committed  by  divers  perfonsat  fundry  times,  which  God 
doth  not  feverely  punifh,  but  fometimes  then,  when  the  Head  of  a' 
People  or  Family  hath  done  fomeihing  which  remarkably  deferves  pu- 
niftiment,  whom  he  will  punifti  in  thofe  he  is  related  to,  and  therefore 
generally  puniftieth  the  whole  Family  or  People.     3.  That  which  may  be 
a  meer  exercife  of  dominion  as  to  fome,  may  be  a  proper  punijhment  to  0- 
thers ;  as  in  the  cafe  of  Infants,  being  taken  away  for  their  Parents  fins  5 
For  God,  as  to  the  Children,  he  faith,  fifeth  only  an  aSf  of  dominion,  but 
the  punifiment  only  redounds  to  the  Parents^  who  lofe  them\  and  though 
this  he  done  for  the  very  end  of  punijhment,  yet  he  denies,  that  it  hath 
Crell.ib.    the  nature  of  Punifhment  in  any  but  the  Parents.     4.  That  punifhment 
felt.  II.     f^ay  be  intended  for  thofe  who  can  have  no  fe>ife  at  all  of  it  5  as  Crelliiu  af- 
/«<!?.  tp-    (gffg  jf,  (.jjg  cafe  of  Sauls  Sons,  2  Sam.  21.  8,  14.  that  the  punifliment 
was  mainly  intended  for  Sofd,  who  was  already  dead.  From  thefecon- 
ceffions  of  Crelliuf  in  this  cafe,  we  may  take  notice,    i.  That  a  remote 
conjunftion  may  be  fufficient  for  a  tranflation  of  penalty,  wa.  from  one 
Generation  to  another.     2.  That  fins  may  be  truly  faid  to  be  punifhed 
in  others,  when  the  offenders  themfelves  may  efcape  punifhment,  thus 
the  fins  of  Parents  in  their  Children,  and  Princes  in  their  Subjefts. 
5.  That  an  aft  of  dominion  in  fome  may  be  defigned  as  a  proper  p*> 
nifhment  to  others.     4.  That  the  nature  of  punifliment  is  not  to  be 
meafured  by  the  fenfe  of  it.  Now  upon  thefe  concefllons,  though  ouf 
Adverfaries  will  not  grant,  that  Chrifl:  was  properly  punifhed  for  our 
fins,  yet  they  cannot  deny  but  that  we  may  very  properly  be  faid  to 
be  punifhed  for  our  fins  in  Chrifl,  and  if  they  will  yield  us  this,  the  o- 
ther  may  be  a  ftrife  about  words.    For  furely  there  may  be  eafily  ima-* 
gined  as  great  a  conjun&ion  between  Chrift  and  us,  as  between  the  fe- 
veral  Generations  of  the  Jews,  and  that  laft  Which  was  puniftied  in  the 
deftruftion  of  Jerufalem :  And  though  we  efcape  that  punilliment  which 
Chrift  did  undergo,  yet  we  might  have  our  fins  puniflied  in  him,  as 
M^ell  as  Princes  theirs  in  their  Subjefts,  when  they  efcape  themfelves  5 
or  rather  as  Subjefts  in  an  innocent  Prince,  who  may  fuffer  for  the 
faults  of  his  people^  if  it  be  faid,  that  thefe  are  a6fs  of  meer  domnion  as 
to  fuch  a  one,  that  nothing  hinders  but  granting  it,  yet  our  fins  may  be 
faid  to  be  punifhed  in  him;  as  well  as  Parents  fms  are  punidied  pro- 
perly in  meer  afts  of  dominion  upon  their  Children  ^  if  it  be  faid,  that 
can  be  no  punifhment  where  there  is  m  fenfe  at  all  of  it,  that  is  fully  taken 
off  by  Crellim-^  for  furely  we  have  as  great  a  fenfe  of  the  fuflFerings  of 
Chrift,  as  the  firft  Generation  of  the  Jem  had  of  the  fufferings  of  the- 
laft,  before  the  fatal  deftruftion  of  the  City,  or  as  Saul  had  of  the  pu- 
niOiment  of  his  Sons  after  his  death.    So  that  from  CrelUus  his  own 
conceffions,  we  have  proved,  that  our  fns  may  very  properly  be  faid  to 
he  puniflied  iti  Chrifl,  although  he  will  not  fay,  that  Chrift  could  be 
properly  punifhed  for  our  fins;  nay  he  and  the  reft  of  our  Adverfaries 
not  only    deny  it,  but  earneftly   contend,  that  it  is  very  unjuft  to 
fuppofe  it,  and  repugnant  to  the  redtitude  of  God's  nature  to  do  it. 
creiim      ^  IIL  And  fo  we  come  to  confider  the  mighty  arguments  that  are  in- 
his  argu.  (j^g^j  ^^  fQ^  (jjg  proof  of  this,  which  may  be  reduced  to  thefe  three  5 
pounded.  vi%,.     1.  That  there  can  be  no  punijhment  but  what  isdeferved,  but  no  man 

can 


Chap.  III.     .         of  CHRIST. 


can  deferve  that  mothr  P^ould  be  pumjljed.  2.  That  punijlmettt  flomfrom 
Revenge,  but  there  can  be  no  Revenge  where  there  hath  been  no  fanlt, 
5.  That  the  punijlment  of  one,  cannot  any  rpays  be  made  the  punifhrnent  of 
another  5  and  in  cafe  it  befuppofed  pofftble,  then  thofe  in  rvhofeflead  the  o- 
ther  is  punifjed,  muji  be  a^nally  delivered  upon  the  payment  of  that  Debt 
which  was  owing  to  God- 

I.  That  one  man  cannot  deferve  another s  punifhrnent,  and  therefore  one 
cannot  be  puni(hed  for  another ;  for  there  is  no  juft  punifliment,  but 
what  is  deferved.     This  being  the  main  Argument  infifted  on  by  CreU 
luu,  muft  be  more  carefully  confidered  ^  but  before  an  anfwer  be  made 
to  it,  it  is  neceffary  that  a  clear  account  be  given  in  what  fenfe  it  is  he 
underftands  it,  which  will  be  beft  done,  by  laying  down  his  princi- 
ples, as  to  the  juftice  of  punifliment,  in  a  more  diftind  method  than 
himfelf  hath  done  ^  which  are  thefe  following:     i.  That  no  perfon 
can  be  juftly  punilhed,  either  for  his  own  or  anothers  faults,  but  he 
that  hath  deferved  to  be  puniflied  by  fome  fm  of  his  own  :  For  he  ftili 
aflerts,     "  That  the  juftice  of  punifliment  arifeth  from  a  mans  own  c*-?//.  c.  4: 
"  ftult,  though  the  actual  punifliment  may  be  from  anothers:  But  he ^^fo ^140. 
"  that  is  piiniflied  without  refpeft  to  his  own  guilt,  is  puniflied  unde- 
"  fefvedly  x,  and  he  that  is  punilhed  undefervedly,  is  punilhed  unjufl:- 
"  ly.     2.  That  perfonal  guilt  being  fuppofed  one  man's  fin  may  be  the 
itnpulftve  caufioi  another's  punifliment,  but  they  cannot  be  the  merito- 
rioHu    The  difference  between  them  he  thus  explains,     ""  The  caufe 
"  is  that  which  makes  a  thing  to  be  3  the  impulfive,  that  which  moves 
"  one  to  do  a  thing,  without  any  confideration  of  right  that  one  hath 
"  to  do  it;  Merit,  is  that  which  makes  a  man  worthy  of  a  thing,  ei- 
**  ther  good  or  bad,  and  fo  gives  a  right  to  it  5  if  it  be  good,  to  him- 
"  felf;  if  bad,  to  him  at  whofe  hands  he  hath  deferved  it.    Now  he 
tells  us,  that  it  is  impofTible,     "  That  one  mans  fins  fliould  make  any 
"other  deferve  punifliment,  but  the  perfon  who  committed  them  5  but 
'*  they  may  impel  one  to  punifli  another,  and  that  juftly,  if  the  perfoa 
^  hath  otherwife  deferved  to  be  puniflied,  unjuftly,  if  he  hath  not. 
The  reafon  he  gives  of  it  is,     "  That  the  vitiofity  of  the  aft,  which 
"  is  the  proper  caufe  of  punifliment,  cannot  go  beyond  the  perfon  of 
"  the  offender  5  and  therefore  can  oblige  none  to  punifliment,  but  him 
**  that  hath  committed  the  fault.  And  therefore  he  aflerts,  "  That  no 
"  man  can  be  juftly  puniflied  beyond  the  defert  of  his  own  fins,  but 
"  there  may  fometimes  be  a  double  impulfive  caufe  of  that  punifti- 
"  raentj  viz.    His  own  and  other  mens,  whereof  one  made  that  they  crei/.  »fi. 
"  might  be  juftly  puniflied,  the  other  that  they  Ihould  be  aftually  'J'^-  ^^' 
"  But  the  latter,  he  faith,  always  fuppofeth  the  former,  as  the  foun- 
"  dation  of  juft  punifliment  ^  fo  that  no  part  of  punifliment  could  be 
'*  executed  upon  him,  wherein  his  own  fins  were  not  fuppofed  as  the 
"  meritorious  caufe  of  it.    Thefe  are  his  two  main  principles  which  we 
muft  now  throughly  examine,  the  main  force  of  his  Book  lying  in 
them.    But  if  we  can  prove  that  it  hath  been  generally  received  by^,,jf , 
the  confent  of  mankind,  that  a  perfon  may  be  puniflied  beyond  the  perfon  by 
defert  of  his  own  aftionsi  if  God  hath  juftly  puniflied  fome  for  the*^'^?^'" 
fins  of  others,  and  there  be  no  in  juftice  in  one  mans  fuffering  by  his  may  be 
own  confent  for  another,  then  thefe  principles  of  CrelUus  will  be  found  punished 
not  fo  firm  as  he  imagines  them.  Ih^defert 

IV.  I.  That  it  hath  been  generally  received  by  the  confent  of  man-of  hisown 
kind,  that  a  perfon  may  be  juftly  puniflied  beyond  the  defert  of  hiSg*J^'°"^; 

OVfti  Satis f,s.<i. 


2^6  Of  the  Sufferings        ^  Chap.  III. 

own  aftions.     For  which  purpofe  Grotius  objeftedwgainft  Socinm  (who 
appealed  to  the  con  Pent  of  Nations,  9baut  one  being  punifhed  for  ano- 
thers  fault)  "  That  the  Heathens  did  agree,  that  Children  might  be 
"  paniflied  for  their  Parents  faults,  and  People  for  their  Princes,  and 
"  that  corporal  puniiliment  might  be  born  by  one  for  another,  didap- 
"  pear  by  the  Perfans  punilbing  the  whole  family  for  the  fault  of  one. 
"  The  Macedomans  the  near  kindred  in  the  cafeof  Treafon  5  forae  Ci- 
"  ties  of  Greece,  deftroying  the  Children  of  Tyrants  together  witli 
"  them;  in  all  which,  the  mere  conjundion  was  fuppofed  a  fufficient 
"  reafon  without  confent  ^  but  in  cafe  of  confent,  he  faith ^  They  all 
"  agreed  in  the  Juftice  of  fome  being  puniftied  for  the  faults  of  o- 
"  thers.    Thence  the  right  of  killing  hoftages  among  the  moft  cjvili- 
"  zed  nations  ^  and  of  furetics  being  punithed  in  capita}  matters^  if  the 
"  guilty  appear  not,  who  were  thence  called  aVTiJt/;:)^/,  who  were  bound 
"  to  anfwer  body  for  body.     In  which  cafes,  the  punilhrnentdid  ex. 
tend  beyond  the  defert  of  the  perfon  who  fuffered  it  5  for  no  other 
reafon  is  afligned  of  thefe  fufferings,  befides  the  eonjunftion  of  the 
perfon,  or  his  confent^  but  no  antecedent  guilt  is  fuppofed  as  necefla- 
ry,  to  make  the  punilhment  juft.    We  are  now  to  confider  what  Crelli- 
us  doth  anfwer  to  this :     i.  As  to  their  acknowledgments  of  God's  pu- 
nilhing  Children  for  their  Parents  faults,  he  gives  the  fame  anfwer 
which  he  doth  to  the  examples  recorded  in  Scripture  to  that  purpofe. 
That  either  they  jvere  punifhed  for  the  fins  of  others,  but  their  oven  fins  de- 
ferved  the  punifhment ,  or  that  the  Parents  were  punifhed  in  the  Children^ 
hut  the  Children  were  not  properly  pmijhed,     2.  As  to  puniftiraents  among 
creih  c.  4- men,  he  anfwers  two  things  ^     r.  That  fuch  perfons  were  truly  "  pu- 
{^f^/''*  "  niHied,  but  not  juftly :  For  he  acknowledges,  That  in  fuch  a  cafe  it 
"  is  a  proper  punifliment,  and  that  it  is  enough  in  order  to  that,  that 
"  any  fault  be  charged  upon  a  perfon,  whether  his  own  or  anothers, 
"  vflhether  true  or  falfe,  on  the  account  of  which  be  is  fuppofed  wor- 
"  thy  to  be  punifhed :  And  that  fuch  a  conjunction  is  fufficient  for  cru- 
*'  el,  angry,  or  imprudent  men ;  for  where-ever  there  is  a  place,  fait/i 
*'  he,  for  anger,  there  is  likewife  for  punifliment.    So  that  he  confef-^ 
feth,  there  may  be  a  true  pHnifloment,  and  that  which  anfwers  all  the 
reafon  and  ends  of  punilhment  afligned  by  him  where  there  is  no  de- 
fert  at  all  of  it  in  the  perfon  who  undergoes  it.  But  then  he  adds,  that 
this  is  an  unjuji  ptinifhntent^  to  which  I  reply,  That  then  the  reafon  of 
punifliment  afligned  by  Crellim  before  is  infufficient^  for  if  this  an- 
fwers all  the  ends  of  punifliments  afligned  by  him,  and  yet  be  unjuO, 
then  it  neceffarily  follows,  that  thofe  ends  of  punilhment  are  confiftent 
with  the  greateft  injuftice.    For  he  before  made  punilhment  to  have  a 
natural  refpeft  to  anger,  and  makes  the  ordinary  end  of  punifhment 
to  be  a  fatisfadion  of  the  defire  of  Revenge  in  men,  yet  now  grants, 
that  thefe  may  be  in  an  unjuft  paniil  ment.    Neither  can  it  be  faid,  that 
he  confidered  punifhment  only  naturally^  and  not   morally ;  for  he  tells 
us,  that  this  is  the  nature  of  divine  punifhment s,  which  are  therefore  jufl, 
becaufe  defigned  for  thefe  ends;  but  in  cafe  there  be  no  fuppofal  of  a 
fault  at  all,  then  he  denies  that  it  is  a  punifliment,  but  only  an  Affli- 
ftion,  and  an  exercife  of  dominion.    So  that  according  to  him,  where- 
ever  there  is  a  proper  punilhment,  it  muft  be  juft,  when-ever  God  doth 
punilh  men :  And  the  only  difference  between  God  and  man  fuppofa- 
bJe  in  this  cafe  is,  that  we  have  aflurance  God  will  never  ufe  his  domi- 
nion unjuftly ;  but  that  men  do  fo  when  they  make  one  to  fuffcr  for  a- 

nothers 


Chap.  III.  ^     of  C  H KIST.     287 

notbers  fault,  notwithftanding  a  confent  and  conjunftion  between  the 
man  that  committed  the  fault,  and  the  perfon  that  fuffers  for  him.  But 
this  is  begging  the  thing  in  queftion,  for  we  are  debating,  whether  it 
be  an  unlawful  exercife  of  power  or  no?  For  we  have  this  prefump- 
tion,  that  it  is  not  unlawful,  becaufe  it  may  anfwerall  the  ends  of  pu- 
nifhments,  and  what  way  can  We  better  judge,  whether  a  puniChment 
be  juft  or  no,  than  by  that  > 

V.  But  we  are  to  confider,  that  we  do  not  here  take  the  perfon  we  o"^'^^'- 
fpeak  of,  abftraftly  as  an  infiocent perfon,  for  then  there  is  no  queftion,  but  fvvered' 
anger  and  puniihraentis  of  one  as  fuch  unjuft  5  but  of  an  innocent  perfon 
as  fuppofed  under  an  obligation  by  his  own  confent  to  fuffer  for  another. 
And  in  this  cafe  we  aflert,  fince  according  to  Creltiuf  the  natural  and 
proper  ends  of  punifhments  may  be  obtained,  and  the  confent  of  the 
perfon  takes  away  the  wrong  done  to  him  in  the  matter  of  his  fufFer- 
ings,  fo  far  as  he  hath  power  over  himfelf,  that  fuch  a  punifhment  is 
not  unjuft.  For  if  it  be,  it  muft  fuppofe  fome  injury  to  be  done  5  but 
in  this  cafe  let  them  affign  where  the  injury  lies ;  it  cannot  be  to  the 
fublick,  if  the  ends  of  puniftiments  may  be  obtained  by  fuch  a  fufFering 
of  one  for  another  by  a  valid  confent  of  the  fufFering  party,  it  cannot 
be  to  the  perfdu  in  whofe  room  the  other  fufFers,  for  what  injury  is  that 
to  efcape  punilhment  by  anothers  fufFering;  it  cannot  be  to  thefnffering 
perfon,  fuppofing  that  to  be  true,  which  the  Heathens  ftill  fuppofed,  immeritt 
viz.  that  every  man  had  a  power  over  his  own  life.  If  it  be  faid  ftill,  i'<m'""" 
that  the  in  juftice  lies  in  this ;  that  fuch  a  one  fuffer s  undefervedly,  and  Z]uftk  pi- 
therefore  unjuflly.  I  anfwer ;  if  be  meant  by  undefervedly  without  fuf-  "'''*•  Crell. 
ficient  caufe  or  reafon  of  puniihment,  then  we  deny  that  fuch  a  one  doth^'  ^^°' 
fuffer  undefervedly.  Immerito  in  the  Greek  Gloffes  is  rendred  by  'AAo;^^, 
and  Merito  by  dtcoloi'i  and  suAo-ja;?,  and  in  Cicero,  Jure  &  merito,  are 
moft  commonly  joyned  together.  So  that  where  there  is  a  right  to 
punifti,  and  fufficient  reafon  for  it,  fuch  a  one  doth  not  fufifer  immerito, 
i.  e.  undefervedly.  If  it  be  faid,  thatfkch  a  one  is  not  dignm  pcena,  that 
implies  no  more  than  the  other,  for  dignus,  or  as  the  Ancients  writ  it 
dicnus,  comes  from  the  Qreeh  ^>on  jus,  as  Voffius  tells  us,  ut  dignits  fit 
cut  tribui  aliqmd  aquttnt  eji:  So  that  where  there  is  an  equity  in  the 
thing,  there  is  a  dignity  in  the  perfon,  or  he  may  be  faid  to  be  vporthy 
to  undergo  it.  B«/;  doth  not  this  lay  open  thegreateji  innocency  to  as  great 
a  defert  of  fufferings,  as  the  higheji guilt  ^  By  no  means.  For  we  make  a 
I iablenefs  to  punifhment,  the  natural  confequentpf  guilt:  And  he  that 
hath  committed  a  fault,  cannot  but  dejerve  to  be  punilhed,  fo  that  no 
fufferings  of  others  can  take  away  the  natural  confequence  of  a  bad  a- 
ftion,  which  is  a  defert  of  punifhment  •.  So  that  as  we  fay,  a  wicked  a- 
&ion  cannot  but  deferve  to  be  punifhed,  i.  e.  there  is  an  agreeable- 
nefs,  inreafon  and  nature,  that  he  who  hath  done  ill,  fhould  fuffer  ill  5 
fo  we  fay  likewife  there  is  necefiity  in  nature  and  reafon,  that  he  that 
hath  thus  deferved  it,  muft  unavoidably  fuffer  it.  And  on  the  other 
fide,  we  fay,  vo  man  hy  his  innocency  can  deferve  to  be.punifhed,  \.  e.  no 
man's  innocency  makes  him  by  virtue  of  that  obnoxious  to  puniftiraent^ 
but  yet  we  add,  that  notmthjianding  his  innocency,  the  Circumftancea 
may  be  fuch  that  he  may  be  juflly  punilhed,  and  in  that  fenfe  defer- 
vedly.  So  that  the  Queftion  is  ftrangcly  miftaken,  when  it  is  thus  put. 
Whether  an  innocent  perfon  conjidered  as  fuch,  vtay  he  jujily  punifhed  :y  for 
no  one  aflerts  that,  or  is  bound  to  do  it ;  but  the  true  queftion  is,  whe- 
ther a  perfon  notwithftanding  hk  innocency  may  not  by  fame  a^  of  his  own 

will 


288  Of  the  Siifferings        ^    Chap.  III. 

^ '  1 

vpHI  oblige-  himfelfto  undergo  that  punijhhtetit  which  othervp'tje  he  did  vet 
deferve  .<?     Which  punjfhmeni,  in  that  cafe  is  JHJi  and  agreeable  to  reafon. 
And  this  is  that  which  we  aflert  and  plead  for.  So  thait  innocency  here  is 
not  confidered  any  other  ways,  than  whether  that  alone  makes  it  an 
unlawful  punilhment,  which  otherwife  would  be  lawful,  i.e.  whether 
the  Magiftrate  in  fuch  cafes,  where  fubftitution  is  admittable  by  the 
Lav/s  of  Nations  (as  in  the  cafes  we  are  now  upon)  be  bound  to  re* 
gard  any  more  than  that  the  obligation  to  punifbment  now  lies  upon 
the  perfon  who  by  his  own  aft  hath  fubftituted  himfelf  in  the  others 
room  ^  and  if  he  proceeds  upon  this,  his  adlion  is  juftifiable  and  agree- 
able to  reafon.    If  it  be  faid,  that  the  fubftitHtion  is  nnjuji,  unlefs  the  fub- 
ftituted perfon  hath  before-hand  deferved  to  be  punijhed  •  it  is  eafily  anfwef- 
ed,  that  this  makes  not  the  matter  at  all  clearer  5  for  either  the  perfon 
is  puniOied  for  the  former  fault,  and  then  there  is  no  fubftitution  5  or 
if  he  be  punilhed  by  way  of  fubftitution  ;  then  there  is  no  regard  at  all 
had  to  his  former  fault,  and  fo  it  is  all  one  as  if  he  were  perfeftly  in- 
,  nocent. 
The  in-        VI.  And  by  this  Crellius  his  anfwer  to  the  inftancesboth  in  Scripture 
Scr"ip"re^^"^  clfcwhere  concerning  Childrens  being  punilhed  for  their  Parents 
confider-  faults,  will  appear  to  be  infufficient,  vi%.  "  That  God  doth  never  p'u- 
^^'         "  nifli  them  for  their  Parents  faults  beyond  the  defert  of  their  own      s 
"  fins,  and  therefore  no  argument  can  be  drawn  from  thence,  that  God     1 
"  may  punifh  an  innocent  perfon  for  the  fins  of  others,  becaufe  he 
"  hath  punirtied  fome  for  what  they  were  innocent:  For  the  force  of     « 
the  argument  doth  not  lie  in  the  fuppofition  of  their  innocency,  as     1 
to  the  ground  of  punifliment  in  general,  for  we  do  not  deny,  but  that 
they  may  deferve  to  be  punilhed  for  their  own  faults:  But  the  argu- 
ment lies  in  this,  whether  their  own  guilt  were  then  confidered  as  the 
reafon  of  punilliment,  when  God  did  punilh  them  for  their  fathers 
faults  ?     And  whether  they  by  their  own  fins  did  deferve  to  be  puni- 
flied  not  only  with  the  punifhment  due  to  their  own  Mifcarrigges,  but 
with  the  puniftiment  due  to  their  fathers  too  >  If  not,  then  fome  perfons 
are  juftly  puniflied,  who  have  not  deferved  that  puniftiment  they  un- 
dergo 5  if  they  did  deferve  it,  then  one  perfon  may  deferve  to  be  pu- 
niflied  for  anothers  fins.     If  it  be  faid,  as  it  is  by  Crellim,  that  hk  oven 
fins  make  him  capable  ofpunifhtnent,  and  God  by  occafion  of  others  fins  doth 
execute  that  punifhment,  vehich  he  might  not  have  done  fr  his  oven.     I  an- 
fwer, we  are  not  enquiring  into  the  bare  Capacity  of  puniftiing,  but 
into  the  reafon  of  it:  Was  the  reafon  of  puniftiment  his  own  or  his 
Fathers  fins }  If  his  own,  then  he  was  puniftied  only  for  his  own  fins  ? 
If  his  Fathers,  then  the  puniftiment  may  be  juft  which  isinflided  with- 
out confideration  of  proper  defert  of  it  5  for  no  man  (  fay  they  )  can  de- 
ferve to  be  puniJJoed,  but  for  his  own  fins.'    But  it's  faid,  that  the  fins  of 
Fathers  are  only  an  impulfive  caufe  for  God  to  punifi  the  Children  according 
to  the  defert  of  their  own  fins  which  he  might  othervpije  have  forborn  to  pu- 
nifi}.    Then  the  fins  of  the  Fathers  are  no  reafon  why  the  Children 
fliould  be  puniftied ;  but  their  own  fins  are  the  reafon,  and  their  Fa- 
thers the  bare  occafion  of  being  puniftied  for  them.     But  in  Scripture, 
the  reafon  of  puniftiment  is  drawn  from  the  Fathers  fins,  and  not  from 
the  Childrens :  For  then  the  words  would  have  run  thus,  if  the  Children 
fin,  and  deferve  piiniJJoment  by  their  own  iniquities,  then  I  vplll  take  occafi- 
on from  their  Fathers  fins,  to  vifit  their  own  iniquities  upon  them  :  Where- 
as the  words  refer  to  the  Fathers  fins  as,  the  reafon  of  the  Childrettt 

pu- 


Chap.  III.  of  CHRIST. 289 

punifhment.    So  in  the  words  of  the  Law,  wherein  the  reafoii*  of  pu- 
nifhment  ought  to  be  moft  exprefly  afligned,  it  is  not,  I  will   cer- 
tainly punifli  the  Children,  if  they  continue  in  the  Idolatry  of  their  Fa- 
thers ;  but,  1  veil  vijit  the  fins  of  the  Fathers  Upon  the  Ch'ildre)i,  unto  the  Exod.  20. 
third  and  fourth  Generation  of  them  that  hate  me.     If  it  were  only  be-  3* 
caufe  of  Imitation  of  the  Fathers  fins  by  the  Children,  there  could  be 
no  reafon  for  the  limitation  to  the  third  and  fourth  Generation  ;  for 
then  the  reafon  of  punifhment  would  be  as  long  as  the  Imitation  con- 
tinued, whether  to  the  fourth  or  tenth  Generation:  And  as  Alphonfus AiphAca- 
a  Cajiro  obferves,    "  If  the  reafon  of  punilhment  were  the  Imitation^?/'^^"" 
"  of  their  Fathers  fins,  then  the  Children  were  not  puniihed  for  their  ;,H*„iU^ 2. 
"  Fathers  fins,  but  for  their  own  5  for  that  Imitation  was  a  fin  of  their '^•^°- 
"  own,  and  not  of  their  Fathers.   Befides,  if  the  proper  reafon  of  pu- 
niftiment  were  the  fins  of  the  Children,  and  the  Fatliers  fins  only  the 
occafion  of  it,  then  where  it  is  mentioned  that  Children  are  punifhed 
for  their  Parents  fins,  the  Childrens /«/  ihould  have  been  particularly 
pfprefled,  as  the  proper  canfe  of  the  punifhment :  But  no  other  reafon 
is  afligned  in  the  Law,  but  the  fins  of  the  Fathers,  no  other  caufe  men- 
tioned of  Canaan's  punifhment,  but  his  Father's  fin;  nor  of  the  pu-. 
nifhment  of  the  people  in  David's  time,  but  his  own  fin;  Lo,  I  have  2Sim^*^. 
finned.,  and  I  have  done  wickedly,  but  thefe  /heep,  tvhat  have  they  done  .<?  '7- 
Which  is  no  hyperbolical  ExprefCon,  but  the  affigning  the  proper  caufe 
of  that  judgment  to  have  been  his  ovpn  fin,  as  the  whole  Chapter  de- 
clares: Nor,  of  the  hanging  up  of  SauV s  Sons  Lji  the  Giheonites,  but,  ^/&<i/ ^  Sam.  21. 
Saul  their  Father  had  plotted  their  dejiruction.     And  in  an  inftance  more  ^' 
remarkable  than  any  of  thofe  which  CrelUus  anfwers;  viz.  the  punilh- 
ment of  the  people  of  Judah,  for  the  fins  of  Manajes  in  the  time  "of 
Jofiofj  when  a  through  Reformation  was  defigned  among  them,  the 
Prince  being  very  good,  and  all  the  places  of  Idolatry  deftroyed,  fuch 
a  PafTover  kept  as  had  not  been  kept  before  in  the  time  of  any  King  iri 
tfrael,  yet  it  then  follows,  Notmthjianding  the  Lord  turned  not  from  the  2  Kin. »?. 
fiercenefs  of  his  great  wrath,  wherewith  his  anger  was  kindled  againjl  Jw  ^jf  ^^  ** 
dah,  hecaufe  of  all  the  provocations  wherewith  Manaffes  had  provoked  him 
withal.     Who  can  fay  here,  that  the  fins  oiManaffeh  were  only  the  oc-  y^^.^  ^^ 
cafion  of  God  punifhing  the  people  in  the  time  of  'jofias  for  their  own 
fins,  when  their  fins  were  much  lefs  in  the  time  of  jofias,  than  in  any 
time  mentioned  before,  after  their  lapfe  into  Idolatry?  Nay,  it  is  ex- 
prefly faid.  That  'jofiah  took  away  all  the  abominations  out  of  all  the  conn' 
tries  that  pertained  to  the  Children  of  Ifrael,  and  made'  all  that  were  pre'  ^±.■^■1. 
fent  in  Ifrael  to  ferve,  even  to  ferva  the  Lord  their  God.     And  all  his  days 
they  parted  not  from  following  the  Lord  God  of  their  Fathers  :  To  fay, 
that  this  was  done  in  Hypocrifie,  and  bare  outward  compliance,  is  to 
fpeak  without  Book  ^  and  if  the  reafon  of  fo  fevere  puniHiments  had  ^ 

been  their  Hypocrifie,  that  ought  to  have  been  mentioned  5  but  not 
only  here,  but  afterwards  it  is  (aid,  that  the  reafon  of  God's  deftroy- 
ing  Judah,  was  for  the  fins  of  Manaffch  5  viz..  his  Idolatries  and  Mur- 
ther,  which  it  is  faid,  the  ^iOrd  will  not  pardon.  And  if  he  would  not » Sam.  34, 
pardon,  then  he  did  punilh  for  thofe  fins,  not  barely  as  the  occafion, ''  *' 
but  as  the  meritorious  caufe  of  that  punilhment.  What  Ihall  we  fay  then? 
Did  the  people  in  Jofiah's  time,  deferve  to  be  punifhed  for  the  fins  of 
Manaffeh,  Grandfather  to  Jofiah?  Or  was  God  fo  highly  provoked  with 
thofe  fins,  that  although  he  did  not  punilh  Manaffeh  himfelf  upon  his 
Repentance,  yet  he  would  let  the  world  fee  how  much  he  abhorred 

O  o  them. 


25  o  Of  the  Sufferings         Chap.  III. 

them,  by  punilhing  thofe  fins  upon  the  people  afterwafds  j  although 
according  to  the  ufual  proportion  of  fins  and  puniftiments,  the  fins  of 
the  people  in  that  age  did  not  exceed  the  fins  of  other  ages,  as  much 
as  the  punlihments  they  fuffered,  did  exceed  the  punifhments  of  other 
ages:  which  is  necellary  according  to  Crelllus   his  Doftrine;  for  if 
God  never  punilheth  by  occafion  of  their  Fathers  fins,  the  Children 
beyond  the  defert  of  their  own  jins  5  then  it  is  neceflary,  that  where 
judgments  are  remarkably  greater,  the  fins  rauft  be  fo  too  5  the  con- 
trary to  which  is   plain  in  this  inftance.    By  which  we  fee,  that 
it  is  not  contrary  to  the  Juftice  of  God  in  punilhing,  to  make  the 
punilhment  of  fome  on  the  account  of  others  fins,  to  exceed  the 
defert  of  their  own :  meafuring  that   defert,  not  in  a  way  common 
to  all  fin,  but   when  the  defert  of  fome  fins  is  compared»with  the 
defert  of  others:  For  it  is  of  this  latter  we  fpeak  of,  and  of  the 
method  which  God  ufeth  in  puni(hing  fin  here,  for  the  demonftra- 
tion  of  his  hatred  of  it,  according  to  which  the  greateft  punilhments 
mufl:  fuppofe  the  greateft  fins,  either  of  their  own,  or  others  which 
they  fuffer  for. 
Exek.  18.       VII.  But  hath  not  God  declared.  That  he  tvill  never  punijh  the  Children     jj 
^T-^^A    fi^  *f^^  Fathers  fins  ^  For  the  foul   that  finneth  it  (hall  die  :,  theSon  Jhall 
Ezek^jS.  ""^^  ^^^''  *^^  iniquity  of  the  Father,  &c.    To  which  I  anfwer,  Thefe 
4. 20.      words  are  to  be  confidered,  as  an  anfwer  to  a  complaint  made  by  the 
Jews,  foon  after  their  going  into  Captivity,  which  they  imputed  to 
God's  feverity  jn  punidiing  them  for  their  Fathers  fins.    Now  the  com- 
plaint was  either  true  or  falfe;  if  it  were  true,  then  though  this  was 
looked  upon  as  great  feverity  in  God,  yet  it  was  no  injuftice  in  him  5 
for  though  God  may  aft  feverely,  he  cannot  aft  un juftly :  If  it  was 
falfe,  then  the  anfwer  had  been  an  abfolute  denial  of  it,  as  a  thing  re- 
pugnant to  the  Juftice  of  God.     Which  we  do  not  find  here,  but  Aat 
God  faith  unto  them,  v.  3.  2e  Jhall  not  have  occafion  any  more  to  ufe 
this  'Proverb  in  IfracI :  If  the  thing  had  been  plainly  unjuft,  which  they 
complained  of,  he  would  have  told  them,  they  never  had  occafion  to 
ufe  it.     But  we  find  the  Prophets  telling  them  before-hand,  that  they 
fliould  fuflPer  for  their  Fathers  fins,  Jer.  1 5.  g^  4.  where  he  threatens 
them  with  deftruftion  and  baniftiment,  becaufe  of  the  fins  of  Manaffeh 
in  Jerufalem ;  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  captivity  they  complain  of 
this.  Lam.  5.   7.     Our  Fathers  have  finned,  and  are  not,  and  we  have 
born  their  iniquities,     And^er.  51.  id.  God  faith  by  the  Prophet,  that 
he  had  voatihed  over  them  to  pluck  up,  and  to  pull  dovDn,  and  to  dejiroy, 
and  to  aff-i^  :  But  that  he  would  watch  over  them  to  build^  and  to  plants 
jer.3i.29.  *»d  i*f  *"t>fe  days  they  fhallfay  no  more,  the  Fathers  have  eaten  fowre  grapes 
30.  and  the  Childrens  teeth  are  fet  on  edge:,  hut  every  onefijall  die  for  hif  own 

iniquity.  Which  place  is  exaftly  parallel  with  this  inEr^ekiel,  and  gives 
us  a  clear  account  of  it,  which  is,  that  now  indeed  God  had  dealt  ve- 
ry feverely  with  them,  by  making  them  fuffer  beyond  what  in  the  ordi- 
nary courfe  of  his  providence  their  fins  had  deferved;  but  he  punifhed 
them  not  only  for  their  own  fins,  but  the  |(ins  of  their  Fathers :  But 
left  they  ftiould  think,  they  ftiould  be  utterly  confumed  for  their  iniqui- 
ties, and  be  no  longer  a  people  enjoying  the  Land  which  God  had  pro- 
mifed  them,  he  tells  them  by  the  Prophets,  though  they  had  fmarted 
fo  much,  by  reafon  of  their  Fathers  fins,  this  feverity  (hould  not  al- 
ways continue  upon  them  5  but  that  God  would  vifit  them  with  his 
kindnefs  again,  and  would  plant  them  in  their  own  Land,  then  they 

ftiould 


Chap.  III.  of  CHRIST. 


15)1 


ihould  fee  no  reafon  to  continue  this  Proverb  arnong  them,  for  they 
would  then  find.  Though  their  Fathers  had  eaten  J'owre  grapes,  their  teeth 
Jhould  nbt  be  always  fet  on  edge  rvith  it.    And  if  we  obferVe  it,  the  oc- 
cafion  of  the  Proverb,  was  concerning  the  Land  oflfrael,  ^K^^iy"  nQi!!*'7Sj 
fupira  terra  Ifrad,  as  the  Chaldee  Paraphrajl  renders  it  more  agreeable  to 
the  Hebrew,  than  the  other  Verfions  do.     So  that  the  Land  of  Ifrael  ^^^^- ^5. 
was  the  occafion  of  the  Proverb,  by  their  being  banifhed  out  of  it  for  *' 
their  Fathers  fins.    Now  God  tells  them,  they  (hould  have  no  more 
occafion  to  ufe  this  Proverb  concerning  the  Land  of  Ifrael -^  for  they, 
notwithftanding  their  Fathers  fins,  fhould  return  into  their  oWn  Land. 
And  evert  during  the  continuance  of  their  Captivity,  they  fliould 
not  undergo  fuch  great  feverities  for  the  future,  but  they  (hould  find 
their  Condition  much  more  tolerable  than  they  imagined  5  only,  if  any 
were  guilty  of  greater  fins  than  others,  they  fliould  themfelves  fufFef 
for  their  own  faults,  but  he  would  not  punifli  the  whole  Nation  for 
them  or  their  own  Pofl:ef  ity.    This  I  take  to  be  the  genuine  meaning  of 
this  place ;  and  I  the  rather  embrace  it,  becaufe  I  find  fuch  infuperable 
difficulties  in  other  Interpretations  that  are  given  of  \t:  For  to  fay  as 
our  Adverfaries  do.  That  vehat  God  faith,  flwnld  not  be  for  the  future, 
roas  repugnant  to  hk  nature  and  jufiice  ever  to  do,  is  to  charge  God  plain- 
ly with  injuftice  in  what  he  had  done:  For  the  Prophets  toldthem  they 
fhould  fuffer  for  the  fins  of  their  Fathers :  Which  fuJBferings  were  the 
ground  of  their  complaint  now,  and  the  anfwer  here  given  muft  relate 
to  the  occafion  of  the  complaint  5  for  God  faith,  They  jhould  not  have 
occafion  to  ufe  that  Proverb :  Wherein  is  implyed,  they  (hould  not  have 
the  fame  reafon  to  complain  which  they  had  then.    I  demand  then. 
Do  not  thefe  words  imply,  that  God  would  not  do  for  the  future  with 
them,  what  he  had  done  before  5  if  not,  the  proper  anfwer  had  been 
a  plain  denial,  and  not  a  promife  for  the  future  he  would  not  5  if  they 
do,  then  either  God  properly  puni(hed  them  for  the  fins  of  their  Fa- 
thers, and  then  God  mu(t  be  unjufi  in  doing  fo,  or  it  was  ju(t  with  God 
to  do  it,  and  fo  this  place  inftead  of  overthrowing  will  prove,  that    ' 
fome  may  be  juftly  puni(hed,  beyond  the  defert  of  their  own  fins :  or 
elfe,  God  did  only  take  occafion  by  their  Fathers  fins,  to  punifl}  them  ac- 
cording to  the  defert  of  their  own  iniquities :  But  then  they  had  no  caufe 
to  complain,  that  they  were  puni(hed  for  any  more  than  their  own  i- 
niquities  5  and  withal,  then  God  doth  oblige  hittifelf  by  his  promife 
here,  never  to  punilh  men  for  the  future  ^^  the  occafion  of  others  fins  : 
Which  is  not  only  contrary  to  their  own  Doftrine,  but  to  what  is 
plainly  feen  afterwards  in  the  punifhment  of  the  Jews  for  their  Fa- 
thers  fins,  mentioned  by  our  Saviour  after  this:  And  if  this  be  a  cqt-^^^^  j. 
tain  rule  of  equity  which  God  here  faith,  that  he  would  never  vary  35. 
from,  then  the  puniflaingof  fome  on  the  occafion  of  others  fins,  would 
be  as  unju(t,  as  our  Adverfaries  fuppofe  the  puni(hing  any  beyond  the 
defert  of  their  own  fins  to  be.     But  it  is  not  implyed,  that  Gods  ways  e^^^-  i^- 
vpould  be  unequal,  if  he  ever  did  otherwife  than  he  there  faid  he  would  do^  ^'' 
No,  it  is  not,  if  by  equal  he  meantya/^  for  his  ways  never  were,  or  can 
fo  unequal  5  but  here  if  it  be  taken  with  a  refpeft  to  the  main  difpute 
of  the  Chapter,  no  more  is  implied  in  them,  but  that  they  judged  a- 
mifs  concernfng  God's  Aftions,  and  that  they  were  juji,  when  they 
thought  them  not  to  be  fo :  or  if  at  leaft  they  thought  his  ways  very 
fevere,  though  juft,  God  by  remitting  of  this  feverity,  would  (hew 
that  he  was  not  only  Juji,  but  kind^,  and  fo  they  would  find  his  ways 

O  o  2  equal f 


29  2  of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  Ill, 

equal,  that  is,  always  agreeable  to  themfelves,  and  end'mg  in  ki)td»efs 
to  them,  though  they  hitherto  were  fo  fevere  towards  them  in  their 
baniOiraent  and  Captivity.    Or  if  they  be  taken  with  a  refpeft  to  the 

immediate  occafion  of  them  both,  Ezek.  i8. 33.    They  do  notre- 

Ezek.  33.  Jate  to  this  difpute  about  Children s  ftiffering  for  their  Fathers  fins  -^  but 
20-         to  another,  which  was  concerning  a  righteous  mans  finning  and  dying 
in  his  fins,  and  a  wicked  mans  repenting,  and  living  in  his  righteouf- 
nefs  5  which  were  direftly  contrary  to  the  common  opinion  of  the 
Jetps  to  this  day,  which  is,  that  God  will  judge  men  according  to  the 
greateft  number  of  their  Aflions  good  or  bad  :  As  appears  by  Maimo- 
ttidcs  and  others.    Now  they  thought  it  a  very  hard  cafe,  for  a  man 
who  had  been  rigliteous  the  far  greateft  part  of  his  time,  if  he  did  at 
laft  commit  iniquity,  that  his  former  righteoufnefs  (hould  fignifie  no- 
thing, but  he  muft  die  in  his  iniquity.    To  this  therefore  God  anfwers, 
that  it  was  only  the  inequality  of  their  own  ways,  which  made  them 
think  God's  ways  in  doing  fo  unequal.    This  then  doth  not  make  it 
unequal,  for  God  either  to  punifh  men,  upon  the  occafion,  or  by  the 
defert  of  other  mens  fins,  fuppofing  fuch  a  conjunftion  between  thera, 
as  there  is  in  the  fame  body  of  people,  to  thofe  who  went  before 
cre/;.,c.4.  f},eu5_     And  CrelUus  himfelf  grants,     "  That  Socinm  never  intended 
je  .  15-    «  j^  prove,  that  one  mans  fufFering  for  anothers  finS  was  unjuft  in  it 
"  felf,  from  this  place :  No,  not  though  we  take  it  in  the  ftrifteft  fenfe, 
M-,        "  for  one  fufFering  in  the  (lead  of  another. 

VIII.  Having  thus  far  declared,  how  far  it  is  agreeable  to  God's  Ju- 

lemmfe'   ^^^^  ^^  punifti  any  perfons  either  by  reafon  of  his  dominion,  or  the 

of  the      conjunftion  of  perfons,  for  the  fins  of  others,  and  confequently  whe- 

^h'^7uf^  ther  any  punifhment  may  be  undergone  juftly  beyond  the  proper  defert 

ferings  of  of  their  owu  fius,  I  uow  return  to  the  confent  of  Mankind  in  it,  on  fup- 

an  inno-   pofition  either  of  a  near  conjunftion,  or  a  valid  confent  which  muffc 

ibn'^by^iiis  v^^ikt  up  the  waut  of  dominion  in  men  without  it.    And  the  queftion 

own  con-  ftiU  procccds  upon  the  fuppofition  of  thofe  things,  that  there  be  a 

m"kes  fiSc  P''°P^'"  ^ofoi'^ion  in  men  over' that  which  they  part  with  for  others 

the  pu-    fakes,  and  that  they  do  it  by  their  free  confent ;  and  then  we  juftifie 

niihmenc  jf  ^Qt  to  be  repugnant  to  the  principles  of  Reafon  and  Juftice,  for  any 

tinju  ,      ^^  fuffer  beyond  the  defert  of  their  anions.    And  CreUius  his  faying, 

that  fuch  a  punifhment  is  true  punifhment,  but  not  juft,  is  no  anfwer 

at  all  to  the  confent  of  Nations  that  it  is  fo.    And  therefore  finding  this 

anfwer  infuflScient  5  he  relies  upon  another,  vi%.  "  That  it  was  never 

"  received  by  the  confent  of  Nations,  that  one  man  ihould  fuffer  in 

creii.c.^'-*  the  ftead  of  another,  fo  as  the  guilty  ihould  be  freed  by  the  others 

■ff.'  IZ    "  fufFering.  For,  he  faith,  neither  Socinm  nor  he  do  deny  that  one  man 

^c.    '     "  may  be  punilhed  for  anothers  fins  5  but  that  which  they  deny  is, 

"  that  ever  the  innocent  were  punifbed  fo  as  the  guilty  were  freed  by 

"  it  5  andfo  he  anfwers,  in  the  cafe  of  Hoftages  and  Sureties,  their' pu- 

"  nifhment  did  never  excufe  the  offenders  themfelves.  And  to  this  pur- 

"  pofe  he  faith,  Socinus  his  argument  doth  hold  good,  that  though  one 

"  mans  Money  may  become  anothers,  yet  one  mans  fufFerings  cannot 

"  become  anothers :  For,  faith  he,  if  it  could,  then  it  would  be  all  one 

"  who  fufFered,  as  it  is  who  pays  the  Money  due:  And  then  the  of- 

*'  fender  muft  be  prefently  releafed,  as  the  Debtor  is  upon  payment  of 

"  the  Debt.    This  is  the  fubftance  of  what  is  faid  by  him  upon  this 

Argument.    To  which  I  reply^     i.  That  this  gives  up  the  matter  in 

difpute  between  us;  for  the  prefent  queftion  is,  Whether  it  be  unjuft 

for 


Chap.  III.  of  CHRIST,  25^^. 

for  any  one  to  fuffer  beyond  the  defertof  his  own  aftiotis?  Tet,  faith 
CrelliVf,  it  is,  it?  cafe  hefiiffersfo,  as  that  the  guilty  be  freed  b\  his  fuffer^ 
ings.     But  we  are  not  enquiring,  whether  it  be  juft  for  another  perfon 
to  be  freed  for  a  mans  fufFering  for  him  ?  But  whether  it  be  juft  for 
that  man  to  fiifFer  by  his  own  confent,  more  than  his  own  actions, 
without  that  confent,  deferved?  The  releafe  of  another  perfon  by  vir- 
tue of  his  fufferings,  is  a  matter  of  another  Confideration.     Doth  the 
freeing  or  not  freeing  of  another  by  fufFering,  add  any  thing  to  the 
defertiftg  of  fufFering?  He  that  being  wholly  innocent,  and  doth  fufFer 
on  the  account  of  anothers  fault,  doth  he  not  fufFer  as  mdefervedly^ 
though  another  be  not  freed,  as  if  he  were?  As  in  the  cafe  of  Hoflu' 
ges  or  Sureties,  doth  it  make  them  at  all  the  more  guilty,  becaufe  the 
perfons  they  are  concerned  for,  will  be  punilhed  notwithftanding,  if 
they  come  under  the  power  of  thofe  who  exafted  the  punifhment  upon 
them,  who  fufFered  tor  them  ?    Nay,  is  not  their  defert  of  punilhment 
fo  much  the  lefs,  in  as  much  as  the  guilty  are  ftill  bound  to  anfwer  for 
their  own  offences?  If  we  could  fuppofe  the  guilty  to  be  freed  by  the 
other- fufferings,  it  would  be  by  fuppofing  their  guilt  more  fully  tran- 
(lated  upon  thofe  who  fufFer,  and  confequently,  a  greater  obligation 
to  puniiliment  following  that  guilt.     From  whence  it  follows,  that  if 
it  be  jufV  to  punifli,  when  the  perfon  is  not  deliver'd  from  whom  the 
others  fufFers,  it  is  more  jufl  when  he  is  5  for  the  tranflation  of  the  pe- 
nalty is  much  lefs  in  the  former  cafe,  than  in  the  latter;  and  what  is 
juft  upon  lefs  grounds  of  punifliment,  rauft  be  more  juft  upon  greater. 
I  look  on  this  therefore  but  as  a  (hift  of  Crellius,  hoping  thereby  to  a- 
void  the  confent  of  mankind  in  one  mans  fufFering  for  another,  without 
attending  to  the  main  argument  he  was  upon  5  viz.    The  juftice  of  one 
perfon  fufFering  for,  another.     2.  It  is  a  very  unreafonable  thing,  to 
make  an  aftion  unjuft  for  that,  which  of  it  felf  is  acknowledged  by 
our  Adverfaries  to  be  very  juft ;  viz.    The  pardoning  the  Offenders 
themfelves.    If  it  were  iuft  to  fufFer,  if  the  other  were  not  pardoned, 
and  it  were  juft  to  pardon,  whether  the  other  were  puniflied  or  no, 
how  comes  this  fufFering  to  be  unjuft,  merely  by  the  others  being  par- 
doned by  it :  Nay,  is  it  not  rather  an  argument,  that  thofe  fufferings 
are  the  moft  juft,  vshich  do  fo  fully  anfwer  all  the  ends  of  punillments; 
that  there  is  then  no  neceffity  that  the  offender  fhould  fufFer  5  but  that 
the  Supreme  Governour  having  obtained  the  ends  of  Government,  by 
the  fuffering  of  one  for  the  reft,  declares  himfelf  fo  well  pleafed  with 
it,  that  he  is  willing  to  pardon  the  Offenders  themfelves.    3.  Many  of 
thofe  perfons  who  have  had  their  fins  puni/hed  in  others,  have  them- 
felves efcaped  the  punifhraent  due  to  the  defert  of  their  fins:  As  is 
plain  in  the  cafe  of  Ahab,  whofe  puniQiment  was  not  fo  great  as  his 
fins  deferved,  becaufe  the  full  punilhment  of  them  was  referved  to  his 
Pofterity.     If  it  be  faid,  as  it  is  by  Crellius^  That  Ahab  was  not  voholly  creii. c.  i^, 
freed,  bis  life  being  taken  aroay  for  his  own  fins  :  That  gives  no  fufficient/^^-.^5 
anfwer  5  for  if  fome  part  of  the  punifhment  was  deferred,  that  part  he  J  J^'"'  ^^' 
was  delivered  from ,  and  the  fame  reafon  in  this  cafe  will  hold  for 
the  whole  as  the  part.     As  is  plain  in  the  cafe  of  Menajfth,  and  feveral 
others,  the  guilt  of  whofe  fins  were  puniQied  on  their  Pofferity,  them- 
felves efcaping  it.    4.  Our  Adverfaries  confefs,  that  in  fome  cafes  it  is 
lawful  and  unjuft  for  fome  to  fuffer,  with  a  defign  that  others  may  be 
freed  by  their  fuffering  for  them.    Thus  they  aflert,  That  one  Chrijii- 
jiian,  not  only  may,  hut  OMght  to  lay  doWn  his  life  for  another,  if  there  be 

any 


294  Of  the  Suferifigs  Chap.  IIL 

any  danger  of  his  denying  the  truth,  or  he  judges  far   more  ttfefnl  and  con- 
Crell.cap.  pderahle  than  himfelf:  So  likevc'ife  a  Son  for  his  Father,  one  Brother  for  ano- 
feS.s9.     '^^^»  '^^  "■  Friend^  or  any,  rohofe  life  he  thinks  wore  ufcful  than  his  oven. 
Now  I  ask,  whether  a  man  can  be  bound  to  a  thing  that  is  in  its  own 
nature  unjuft  /  If  not,  as  it  is  plain  he  cannot,  then  fuch  an  obligation 
of  one  man  to  fufFer  for  the  delivery  of  another  cannot  be  unjuft,  and 
confequently  the  fufFering  it  felf  cannot  be  fo.    But  CrelUns  faith,  The 
injuftice  in  this  cafe  lies  wholly  upon  the  Magi/irate  who  admits  it :  But  I 
ask,  wherefore  is  it  unjuft  in  the  Magiftrate  to  admit  it  ?     It  is  becaufe 
the  thing  is  in  it  felf  unjuft  ?  If  To,  there  can  be  no  Obligation  to  do 
it ;  and  it  would  be  as  great  a  (in  to  undergo  it,  as  in  the  Magiftrate 
to  permit  it  5  but  if  it  be  juft  in  it  felf,  we  have  obtained  what  we 
contend  for,  viz.    That  it  may  be  juft  for  a  man  to  fufFer  beyond  the 
defert  of  his  own  aftions  ^  for  he  that  lays  down  his  life  for  his  Bre- 
thren, doth  not  deferve  by  his  own  aftions  that  very  punilhment  which 
he  undergoes.     And  if  the  thing  be  in  it  felf  juft,  how  comes  it  to  be 
unjuft  in  him  that  permits  it  ?     5*  The  reafon  why  among  men  the  of- 
fenders themfelves  arc  punidied,  is  becaufe  thofe  were  not  the  terras, 
upon  which  the  perfons  fuffered.    For  if  they  had  fuffered  upon  thefe 
terms  that  the  other  might  be  freed,  and  their  fufFering  was  admitted 
of  by  the  Magiftrate  on  that  Confideration,  then  in  all  reafon  and  ju- 
'3*'      dice  the  offenders  ought  to  be  freed  on  the  account  of  the  others  fuf- 
fering  for  them.     But  among  men  the  chief  reafon  of  the  Obligation 
to  punifliment  of  one  man  for  another,  is  not,  that  the  other  might 
be  freed,  but  that  there  may  be  fecurity  given  by  the  publick,  that  the 
offenders  ftiall  be  puniflied  :  and  the  reafon  of  the  Sureties  fufFering 
is  not  to  deliver  the  offender,  but  to  fatisfie  the  Law,  by  declaring  that 
all  care  is  taken  that  the  offender  (hould  be  puniftied,  when  in  cafe  of 
efcape,  the  Surety  fuffers  for  him.     But  it  is  quite  another  thing  when 
the  perfon  fufFers  purpofely  that  others  might  be  freed  by  his  fufFering, 
for  then  in  cafe  the  fufFering  be  admitted,  the  releafe  of  the  other  is 
not  only,  not  unjuft,  but  becomes  due  to  him  that  fuffered,  on  his  own 
terms.    Not  as  though  it  followed  ipfo  faSo  as  Crellius  fanfies,  but  the 
manner  of  releafe  doth  depend  upon  the  terms  which  he  who  fuffered 
for  them,  (hall  make  in  order  to  it.  For  upon  this  fufFering,of  one  for  a- 
nother  upon  fuch  terms,  the  immediate  confequent  of  the  fufFering  is 
not  the  a&ual  difchargehut  the  right  to  it  which  he  hath  purchafed  ^  and 
which  he  may  difpenfe  upon  what  terms  he  (hall  judge  moft  for  his 
honour.    6.  Although  one  perfons  fufferings  cannot  become  anothers 
fo  as  one  mans  Money  may  5  yet  one  mans  fufferings  may  be  a  fufficient 
Confideration  on  which  a  benefit  may  accrue  to  another.     For  to  that 
end  a  Donation,  or  fuch  a  transferring  right  from  one  to  another  as  is 
in  Money,  is  not  neceffary,  but  the  acceptation  which  it  hath  from  him 
who  hath  the  power  to  pa»don.    If  he  declare  that  he  is  fo  well  plea- 
fed  with  the  fufferings  of  one  for  another,  that  in  Confideration  of 
creii  tb    ^^^^^  ^^^  ^^''  pardon  thofe  from  whom  he  fuffered  5  where  lies  the  im- 
/eS.  J8.*  pofiibility  or  unreafonablenefs  of  the  thing  >    For  Crellius  grants,  that 
rewards  may  he  given  to  others  than  the  perfons  who  did  the  aUions  in  Con- 
fideration of  thofe  Anions  j  and  why  may  not  the  fufferings  of  one  for 
others,  being  purpofely  undertaken  for  this  end,  be  available  for  the 
pardon  of  thofe  whom  he  fuffered  for  >    For  a  man  can  no  more  trans- 
fer the  right  of  his  good  Aftions,  than  of  his  fufferings.     From  all 
which  it  follows,  that  one  perfon  may  by  his  own  confent,  and  being 

admit- 


1 


» 


Chap.  IV.         of  C  H KIST.  295 

admitted  thereto  by  him  to  whom  the  right  of  puniftiing  belongs,  fuffer 
juftly  5  though  it  be  beyond  the  defert  of  his  own  Aftions ;  and  the 
guilty  may  be  pardoned  on  the  account  of  bis  fufFering.  Which  was 
the  -firft  thing  we  defigned  to  prove  from  Crellius,  in  order  to  the 
overthrowing  his  own  Hypothefis.  For  it  being  confeffed  by  him  that 
fuch  fufFerings  have  all  that  belongs  to  the  nature  of  puni(hments,*and 
fince  God  hath  juftly  puniftied  fome  for  the  fins  which  they  have  not 
committed  ^  fince  all  Nations  have  allowed  it  juft  for  one  man  by  his 
own  confent  to  fufifer  for  another*;  fince  it  cannot  be  unjuft  for  the  of- 
fender to  be  releafed  by  anothers  fufFerings,  if  he  were  admitted  to 
fuffer  for  that  end,  it  evidently  follows,  contrary  to  CrelUus  his  main 
principle,  that  a  perfon  may  be  juftly  pHm/hed  beyond  the  defert  of  his  omtt 
Anions :  And  fo  that  firft  argument  of  Crellim  cannot  hold,  that  one 
man  cannot  by  his  oven  confent  fuffer  for  another^  becanfe  no  man  can  de- 
ferve  anothers  punifiment,  and  no  punijhment  is  juft  but  what  is  deferved. 
His  fecond  argument  from  the  nature  of  Anger  and.  Revenge  hath  been 
already  anfwered  in  the  firft  Difcourfe  about  the  nature  and  ends  of 
puniftiments,  and  his  third  argument,  that  one  mans  punifhment  cannot 
become  anothers,  immmediately  before.  And  fo  we  have  finifhed  our 
firft  Confideration  of  the  fufferings  ofChrift  in  general,  as  a  punijjjment 
of  our  fins,  which  we  have  fhewed  to  be  agreeable  both  to  Scripture 
and  Reafon. 


Chap.     IV. 

» 

I.  The  Death  ofChrift  confidered  as  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice  for  (in.  II.  What 
the  expiation  of  fin  rcas  by  the  Sacrifices  under  the  Law  5  twofold.  Civil  and 
Ritual.  The  Promijes  made  to  the  Jews  under  the  Law  of  Mofes,  re- 
fpe^ed  them  as  a  People,  and  therefore  muft  be  temporal.  The  typical 
nature  of  Sacrifices  afferted.  III.  Afubftitution  in  the  Expiatory  Sacri- 
fices under  the  Law,  proved  from  Lev.  17.  II.  and  the Concejfion  of  Crel- 
liusabout  the fignification of  dvTi  join d  with  4^;^.  Lev.  10.  ly. explained. 
The  expiation  of  uncertain  murther  proves  a  fubftitution.  IV.  Afub- 
ftitution of  Chrip  in  our  room  proved  from  Chrift's  being  faid  to  die  for 
us  5  the  importance  of  that  phrafe  confidered.  V.  In  what  fenfe  a  Sur- 
rogation  of  Chrift  in  our  room  is  afferted  by  us.  VI.  Our  Redemption 
hy  Chrift  proves  a  fubftitution.  VII.  Of  the  true  notion  of  Redemption: 
that  explained,  and  proved  againft  Socinus  and  Crellius,  No  necejfity 
of  paying  the  price  to  him  that  detains  captive,  where  the  captivity  is 
not  by  force,  but  by  fentence  of  Law.  Chrift's  death  a  proper  Avr^v  : 
and  therefore  the  ^TrcAtiV^iiJTO  attributed  to  it^  cannot  be  taken  for  mere 
deliverance. 

y  Ecome  now  toconfider  the  Death  of  Chrift,  as  an  ^*/"''«- The  death 
/      tory  Sacrifice  for  the  (ins  of  Mankind  :  Which  is  as  much  of  chrift 
denied  by  our  Adverfaries,  as  that  it  was  a  punifhment  '^'^^^l^ 
for  our  fins.    For  though  they  do  not  deny,  That  Chrift  Expiatory 
as  a  Priefi  did  offer  up  a  Sacrifice  of  Expiation  for  t be  fins  of  men -^  yet  Sacrifice 
they  utterly  deny,  that  this  was  performed  on  Earth,  or  that  the  Expia-^°^  '"• 
tion  of  fins  did  refpeB  God,  but  only  us  -^  or,  that  the  death  ofChrift,  had 
any  proper  Efficacy  towards  the  Expiation  of  fin^  any  further  than  as  it 


com- 


Of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  IV. 

comprehends  in  it  all  the  confequences  of  his  death,  by  a  {^xsLn^tCatechrefis.  I 
fhall  now  therefore  prove,  that  all  things  which  do  belong  to  a  proper 
Expiatory  Sacrifice,  do  agree  to  the  death  of  Chrift.  There  are  three 
things  efpecially  confiderable  in  it :  i.  A  Subftitution  in  the  place  of 
the  Offenders.  2.  An  Oblation  of  it  to  God.  3.  An  Expiation  of  fin 
confequent  upon  it.  Now  thefe  three,  I  fliall  make  appear  to  agree 
fully  to  the  Death  of  Chrift  for  us. 

I.  A  Subftitution  in  the  place  of  the  offenders.     That  we  are  to  prove 
was  defigned  in  the  Expiatory  Sacrifices  under  the  Law,  and  that  Chrijl 
in  his  death  ywr  us,  was  fubfiituted  in  our  place,     i.  That  in  the  Expia- 
tory Sacrifices  under  the  Law,  there  was  a  Subjiitution  of  them  in  the 
place  of  the  Offenders.    This  our  Adverfaries  are  not  willing  to  yield 
us,  becaufe  of  the  correfpondency  which  is  fo  plain  in  the  Epijile  to 
the  Hebrews,  between  thofe  Sacrifices,  and  that  which  was  offered 
up  by  ChrifV.     We  now  fpeak  only  of  thofe  Sacrifices,  which  we  are 
fure  were  appointed  of  old  for  the  Expiation  of  fin,  by  God  himfelf. 
Heb.  9.22.  As  to  which  the  great  Rule  afligned  by  the  Apoftle  was.  That  tvithout 
creii.c.\o.jije^(ll„g  oj  Blood  there  was  no  RemiJJion.    If  we  yield  Crellim  what  he 
''  ' '*■     fo  often  urge th,  viz.     That  thefe  words  are  to  be  underftood,  of  what  was 
done  under  the  Lttw  ;  they  will  not  be  the  lefs  ferviceable  to  our  pur- 
pofe  i,  for  thereby  it  will  appear,  that  the  means  of  Expiation  lay  in 
the  (kedding  of  Blood  :  Which  (hews,  that  the  very  Matiation  of  the 
beaft  to  be  facrificed,  was  defigned  in  order  to  the  Expiation  of  fin. 
To  an  inquifitive  perfon,  the  reafon  of  the  flaying  fuch  multitudes  of 
beafts  in  the  Sacrifices  appointed  by  God  himfelf  among  the  Jews,  would 
have  appeared  far  lefs  evident  than  now  it  doth,  fince  the  Author  of 
the  Epifile  to  the  Hebrews  hath  given  us  fo  full  an  account  of  them. 
For  it  had  been  very  unreafonable  to  have  thought,  that  they  had 
been  merely  inftituted  out  of  compliance  with  the  Cuftoms  of  other 
Nations,  fince  the  whole  defign  of  their  Religion,  was  to  feparate 
them  from  them;  And  on  fuch  a  Suppofition  the  great  defign  of  the 
'Epijile  to  the  Hebrews  fignifies  very  little ;  which  doth  far  more  explain 
to  us  the  nature  and  tendency  of  all  the  Sacrifices  in  ufe  among  them, 
that  hath  any  refpeft  to  the  Expiation  of  fins,  than  all  the  Cuftoms  of 
the  Egyptians,  or  the  Commentaries  of  the  later  Jews.     But  I  intend 
^  not  now  to  difcourfe  at  large  upon  this  Subjuft  of  Sacrifices,  either  as 
to  the  Nature  and  Inftitution  of  them  in  general,  or  with  a  particular 
refpeft  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift,  fince  a  learned  perfon  of  our  Churchy 
hath  already  undertaken  this  CreUius  upon  Argument,  and  we  hope 
e'er  long  will  oblige  the  World  with  the  benefit  of  his  Pains.    I  (hall 
therefore  only  infift  on  thofe  things  which  are  neceffary  for  our  pur- 
pofe,  in  order  to  the  clearing  the  Subftitution  of  Chrift  in  our  ftead, 
for  the  Expiation  of^our  fins  by  his  death;  and  this  we  fay  was  repre- 
fented  in  the  Expiatory  Sacrifices,  which  were  inftituted  among  the 
fe^.'x^°'Jews.    If  we  yield  Crellius  what  he  after  iSo^'wwj-  contends  for  ^  viz. 
That  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrifi  was  only  reprefented  in  the  publick  and  folemn 
Expiatory  Sacrifices  for  the  people,  and  efpecially  thofe  on  the  day  of  Atone- 
ment-^ We  may  have  enough  from  them  to  vindicate  all  that  we  af- 
fert,  concerning  the  Expiatory  Sacrifice  of  the  Blood  of  Chrift. 
What  the     if.  For  that  thofe  were  defigned  by  way  of  Subfiitution  in  the  place 
ofTn"^s°^  the  Offenders,  will  appear  from  the  Circuraftances  and  Reafon  of 
by  Che sa.  their  Inftitution:  But  before  we  come  to  that,  it  will  be  neceffary  to 
underthe  ^'^  ^^^^  ^^^^  Expiation  was,  which  the  Sacrifices  under  the  Law 
Law!"'^  .  were 


Chap.  IV.  of  CHRIST.  2^7 

were  defigned  for^  the  not  underftanding  of  which,  gives  a  greater 
force  to  our  Adverfaries  Arguments,  than  otherwife  they  would  have, 
t'or  while  men  aflert,  that  the  Expiation  was  wholly  typical,  and  of 
the  fame  Nature  with  that  Expiation  which  is  really  obtained  by  the 
death  of  Chrift,  they  eafily  prove.  That  all  the  Expiation  then,  mas  on- 
ly declarative^  and  did  no  more  depend  oH  the  Sacrifices  offered,  than  oft 
a  Condition  required  by  God,  the  negleU  of  which  would  be  an  a^  of  dif- 
ohedience  in  them '^  and  by  this  means  it  could  reprefent,  (zy  they,  ««> 
more  than  fuch  an  Expiation  to  be  by  Chrifth  viz.  God's  declaring  that  fins 
are  expiated  by  him,  on  the  performance  of  fuch  a  Condition  required  in  6- 
der  thereto^  as  laying  down  his  life  Was.  But  we  aflert  ariother  kind  of 
Expiation  of  fin,  by  virtue  of  the  Sacrifice  being  flain  and  offered  5 
which  was  real,  and  depended  upon  the  Sacrifice :  And  this  was  two- 
fold a  Civil,  and  a  Ritual  Expiation^,  according  to  the  double  Capacity 
in  which  the  people  of  the  Jews  may  be  confidered,  either  as  members  of 
a  Society,  fubfifting  by  a  body  of  Laws,  which  according  to  the 
ftrideft  SanSfion  of  it,  makes  death  the  penalty  of  difobedience,  Deut. 
27.  ■26.  but  by  the  will  of  the  Legiflatpr,  did  admit  bf  a  Relaxation  in 
many  Cafes,  allowed  by  himfelf  5  in  which  he  declares,  That  the  death 
of  theBeaft  defigned  for  a  Sacrifice  (hould  be  accepted,  inftead  of  the  death 
of  the  offender  ^  and  fo  the  offence  fliould  be  fully  expiated,  as  to  the 
Executionof  the  penal  Law  upon  him.  Andthusfar,  Ifreely  admit  what 
Grotius  aflerts  upon  this  Subjeft,  and  do  yield  that  no  other  o^tnce  Grot,  di 
could  be  expiated  in  this  manner,  but  fuch  which  God  himfelf  did  par- 5**"/  «• 
ticularly  declare  (hould  be  fo.  And  therefore  no  fin  which  was  to  be  '*' 
puniftied  by  cutting  off,  was  to  be  expiated  by  Sacrifice  ;  as  wilful  Ido- 
latry, Murther,  &c.  Which  it  is  impoilible  for  thofe  to  give  an  ac- 
count of,  who  make  the  Expiation  wholly  Typical :,  for  why  then 
fhould  not  the  greateft  fins  much  rather  have  had  Sacrifices  of  Expiati- 
on appointed  for  them :  Becaufe  the  Confciences  of  men  would  be  more 
folicitousforthe  pardon  of  greater  than  lelTer  fins  5  and  the  Blood  of 
Chrift  reprefented  by  them,  was  defigned  for  the  Expiation  of  alf. 
From  whence  !t  is  evident,  that  it  was  not  a  meer  Typical  Expiation  p 
but  it  did  relate  to  the  Civil  Conftitution  among  them.  But  befides 
this,  we  are  to  confider  the  people  with  a  refpeO:  to  that  Mode  of  Di- 
vine Worfbip  which  was  among  thern  ^  by  reafon  of  which,  the  peo- 
ple were  to  be  purified  from  the  legal  Impurities  which  they  contrad. 
ed,  which  hindred  them  from  joining  with  others  in  the  publick  Wor- 
ftiip  of  God,  and  many  Sacrifices  were  appointed  purpofely  for  the  ex- 
piating this  legal  Guilty  as  particularly,  the  afhes  of  the  red  heifer. 
Numb.  19.  9.  which  is  there  called  a  purification  for  fin  t  And  the  Apo- nthAAi^ 
file  puts  the  Blood  of  Bulls  and  of  Goats,  and  the  afhes  of  the  heifer  fprink-  H- 
ling  the  unclean,  together  ^  and  the  efFedl:  of  both  of  them,  he  faith, 
was  to  funUifie  to  the  purifying  of  the  Flefh\  which  implies,  that  there 
was  fome  proper  and  immediate  effeft  of  thefe  Sacrifices  upon  the  peo- 
ple at  that  time,  though  infinitely  (hort  of  the  effed  of  the  Blood  of 
Chrift  upon  the  Confciences  of  men.  By  which  it  is  plain,  the  Apo- 
ftle  doth  not  fpeak  of  the  fame  kind  of  Expiathft  in  thofe  Sacrifices, 
which  was  in  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift,  and  that  the  one  was  barely  ty- 
pical of  the  other  5  but  of  a  different  kind  of  Expiation,  as  far  as  pu- 
rifying the  flefh  is  from  purging  the  Confcience.  But  we  do  not  deny, 
that  the  whole  difpenfation  was  typical,  and  that  the  Law  had  a  fhadow  Hcb.  xai, 
of  good  things  to  come  ^  and  not  the  very  image  of  the  things,  i.e.  a  dark 

P  p  and 


298  Of  the  Sufmngs  Chap.  IV. 

-^        and  obfcure  Reprefentation,  and  not  the  perfeft  Refemblance  of  them. 
There  are  two  things  which  the  Apoftle  aflerts  concerning  the  Sacrifi- 
cesof  the  Lan>:  Firft,  that  they  had  an  efFed  upon  the  Bodies  of  men, 
which  he  calls  purifyittg  the  flefh  ^  the  other  is,  that  they  had  no  power 
to  expiate  for  the  Sins  of  the  Soul,  confidered  with  a  refpeft  to  the  pu- 
nilhment  of  another  Life,  which  he  c^Ws  purging  the  ConfcJeKce  from  dead 
Heb.  9. 9.  xnorks  ;  and  therefore  he  faith,  that  all  the  Gifts  and  Sacrifices  under  the 
'°'  **■       Lajv,  could  not  make  him  that  did  the  fervice  perfe&,  as  pertaining  to  the 
Confcience,  and  that  it  tvos  impojflble  that  the  Blood  of  Bulls  and  Goats 
fhould  take  away  fin.    So  that  the  proper  Expiation  which  was  made  by 
them,  was  Civil  and  Ritual,  relating  either  to  corporal  puniflbment, 
or  to  legal  uncleannefs,  from  whence  the  Apoflle  well  proves  the  ne- 
ceffity  of  a  higher  Sacrifice  to  make  Expiation  for  Sins,  as  pertaining  to 
the  Confcience :  But  that  Expiation  among  the  Jews  did  relate  to  that 
Polity  which  was  eftablilhed  among  them,  as  they  were  a  people  un- 
der the  Government  of  a  body  of  Laws  diftinft  from  the  refl  of  the 
World.    And  they  being  confidered  as  fuch,  it  is  vain  to  enquire, 
whether  they  had  only  Temporal  or  Eternal  Promifes  :^  for  it  was  im- 
poffible  they  (hould  have  any  other  than  Temporal,  unlefs  we  imagine, 
that  God  would  own  them  for  a  diftind  People  in  another  World  as  he' 
did  in  this.    For  what  Promifes  relate  to  a  People  as  fuch,  muft  confi- 
der  them  as  a  People,  and  in  that  Capacity  they  muft  be  the  BlefTmgs 
of  2i  Society,  viz.  Peace,  Plenty,  number  of  People,  Length  of  Days, 
&c.    But  we  are  far  from  denying  that  the  general  Principles  of  Reli- 
gion did  remain  among  them,  viz.  that  there,  is  a  God,  and  a  rewarder 
of  them  that  feek  him  5  and  all  the  Promifes  God  made  to  the  'Patriarchs, 
did  continue  in  force  as  to  another  Country,  and  were  continually  im- 
proved by  the  Prophetical  Inftrudlions  among  them.    But  we  are  now 
fpeaking  of  what  did  refped  the  people  in  general,  by  virtue  of  that 
Law  which  was  given  them  by  Mofes,  and  in  that  refpeft  the  punilh- 
ment  of  faults  being  either  Death  or  Exclupon  from  the  publick 
Worfhip,  the  Expiation  of  them,  was  taking  away  the  Obligation 
%f  either  of  thefe,  which  was  the  guilt  of  them  in  that  Confidera- 
tion. 

But  doth  not  this  take  away  the  typical  nature  of  thefe  Sacrifices  .<?  No, 
sec:n.  de  but  it  much  rather  eftablifheth  it.  For  as  Socinus  argues,  "  If  the  Ex- 
fervat.1.2."  piation  was  only  Typical,  there  muft  be  fomething  in  the  type  Cor- 
]'en°' Theo.''^  rcfpondcnt  to  that  which  is  typified  by  it.  As  the  Brazen  Ser- 
log  cap.  "  pent  typified  Chrift,  and  the  benefit  which  was  to  come  by  him,  be- 
*'  caufe  as  many  as  looked  up  to  it  were  healed.  And  Noah's  Ark  is  faid 
"  to  be  a  type  of  Baptifm,  becaufe  as  many  as  entred  into  that  were  fa- 
"  ved  from  the  deluge.  So  Corinth,  ic.  the  Apoftle  faith,  that  thofe 
*'  things  happened  to  them  in  Types,  z/.  11.  becaufe  the  Events  which 
"  happened  to  them,  did  reprefent  thofe  which  would  have  fall  up- 
"  on  difobedient  Chriftians.  So  that  to  make  good  the  true  notion  of 
a  Type,  we  muft  affert  an  Expiation  that  was  real  then,  and  agreeable 
to  that  difpenfation,  which  doth  reprefent  an  Expiation  of  a  far 
higher  Nature,  which  was  to  be  by  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Blood  of 
Chrift. 

IIL  Which  being  premifed,  I  come  to  prove,  that  there  was  a  Snbflittt' 
proved  tion  defigned  of  the  Beaft  to  be  flain  and  facrificed  inftead  of  the  Of- 
irom  £fi-.  fenders  themfelves.  Which  will  appear  from  Levlt.  17.  11.  For  the 
&c.    '     lifi  of  the  flefh  is  in  the  Bloody  and  I  have  given  it  you  upon  the  Altar,  to 

make 


zz 


A  fubfU. 
tucion 


2^^ 


Chap.  IV. ofCHKiSL 

make  an  Atonement  for  your  Souls  x,  for  it  is  the  Blood  that  maketh  an  A- 
tonement  for  the  Soul.     The  utmoft  that  Crelliuf  would  have  meant  by^''^'^'^'^- 
this  place  is,  that  there  is  a  double  reafon  ajfigned  of  the  Prohibition  of  eat-       ^" 
ing  Blood,  viz.  that  the  Life  was  in  the  Blood,  and  that  the  Blood  was 
defignedfor  Expiation  5  but  he  makes  thefe  wholly  independent  upon  each  0- 
ther.    But  we  fay,  that  the  proper  reafon  affigned  againft  the  eating  of 
the  Blood,  is  that  which  is  elfewhere  given,  when  this  precept  is  men- 
tioned, viz.  that  the  Blood  was  the  Life,  as  we  may  fee  Gen.  9. 4.  Lev. 
17.  14.  but  to  confirm  the  Reafon  given,  that  the  Blood  was  the  Life^ 
be  adds,  that  God  had  given  them  that  upon  the  Altar  for  an  Atonement 
for  their  Souls :  So  the  Arabick  Verfion  renders  it,  and  therefore  have  I 
given  it  you  upon  the  Altar,  viz.  becaufe  the  Blood  is  the  life.     And 
hereby  a  fufficient  reafon  is  given,  why  God  did  make  choice  of  Blood 
for  Atonement,  for  that  isexprefled  in  the  latter  Claufe,  ^r»V///y&« 
Blood  that  maketh  an  Atonement  for  the  Souli^  why  (hould  this  be  men- 
tioned here,  if  no  more  v/ere  intended  but  to  give  barely  another  Rea- 
fon why  they  (hould  not  eat  the  Blood  ?  What  force  is  there  more  in 
this  Claufe  to  that  end,  than  in  the  foregoing?  For  therein  God  had 
faid,  that  he  had  given  it  them  for  an  Atonement.    If  no  more  had  been 
intended,  but  the  bare  Prohibition  of  common  ufe  of  the  Blood,  on 
the  account  of  its  being  Confecrated  to  facred  ufe,  it  had  been  enough 
to  have  faid,  that  the  Blood  was  holy  unto  the  Lord,  as  it  is  in  the 
other  inftances  mentioned  by  CreUim,  of  the  holy  Ointment  and  P^y.  Exod.  ^w, 
fume,  for  no  other' reafon  is  there  given,  why  it  (hould  not  be  profa-^^'^^* 
ned  to  common  ufe,  but  that  it  fliould  be  holy  for  the  Lord  5  if  there-  37, 38. 
fore  the  Blood  had  been  forbidden  upon  that  account,  there  had  been 
no  neceflity  at  all  of  adding,  that  the  Blood  was  it  that  made  Atonement 
for  the  Soul :  Which  gives  no  peculiar  Reafon  why  they  (hould  not  eat 
the  Blood,  beyond  that  of  bare  Confecration  of  it  to  a  facred  ufe  5  but  if 
we  confider  it  as  refpedting  the  firft  Claufe,  viz.    tor  the  Life  of  the 
fleJJj  is  in  the  blood,  then  there  is  a  particular  reafon  why  the  Blood 
(hould  be  for  Atonement,  viz.  Becaufe  the  Life  was  in  that  5  and  there- 
fore when  the  Blood  was  offered,  the  Life  of  the  Bea(t  was  fuppofed 
to  be  given  inftead  of  the  Life  of  the  Offender.    According  to  that 
of  Ovid, 

Hanc  animam  vobk  pro  meliore  damuf.    This  will  be  yet  made  clearer  o„-^_  j?^^ 
by  another  inftance  produced  by  Crellim  to  explain  this,  which  is  the  i-6. 
forbidding  the  eating  of  Fat  5  which  faith  he,  is  joy  ned  with  thk  of  Bloody 
Levir.  5. 1 7.     It  /hall  be  a  perpetual  Statute  for  your  Generations,  through- 
out all  your  dwellings,  that  ye  eat  neither  Fat  nor  Blood.    To  the  fame 
purpofe,  Levit.  7.  25,  25,  26.    Now  no  other  reafon  is  given  of  the 
Prohibition  of  the  Fat,  but  this.  All  the  Fat  is  the  Lords.    Which  was  Ler.  j.  lii 
enough  to  keep  them  from  eating  it.    But  we  fee  here  in  the  Cafe  of 
Blood  fomewhat  further  is  affigned,  w'z..  that  it  was  the  life:,  and  there- 
fore was  moft  proper  for  Expiation,  the  Life  of  the  Beaft  being  fubfti- 
tuted  in  the  place  of  the  Offenders.    Which  was  therefore  called  ani- 
malts  hoftia  among  the  Romans,  as  Grotitff  obferves  upon  this  place,  and 
was  diftinguifhed  from  thofe  whofe  entrails  were  obferved  5  for  in 
thofe  Sacrifices  as  Servius  faith,  fola  anima  Deo  facratur,  the  main  of      .^,^ 
the  Sacrifice  lay  in  (bedding* of  the  Blood,  which  was  called  the  5o«/ j^wii  4.. 
and  fo  it  is  iy2J  in  this  place.     From  whence  it  appears  that  fuch  a  Sa- 
crifice was  properly  ^Iw^n  dvVi  4f;^M--,  for  the  fame  word  u;33  is  ufed, 
both  relating  to  the  Blood  and  the  Soul,  that  is  expiated  by  it:  And 

P  p  2  the 


300  Of  the  Sufferings  Chap. IV. 

rhe  LXX  do  accordingly  render  it,  4^/^«  wajr?  oTt^Kk  '^y^  avIS  o^, 
tifeb.de-  and  in  the  laft  Claule,  tc  >6  miulo.  aCiz^v  dvll  \Iv:-;^k  i^tXeicnlai,  From 
monft.E-  vyhence  Eufebitfs  calls  thefe  Sacrifices  of  living  Creatures,  cli1i4v^  i- 
c.io.  ' cLi-TCvv  ■\u-^,c,.^  and  afterwards  faith  they  were  ^^^-r^^  ^-  Idvliev ,^^r.q ,  'i, 
creii.c.8.'^'"^'^^?^  -^  cixaa?  fimuic.  And  Crellhu  elfewhere  grants,  that  vchere 
fea.  23.  a.vVi  is  joy  Med  with  ■Iv'^^  it  doth  imply,  that  one  doth  unde'^go  the  Pioiifi- 
Denotai  e.  ^^^^  rphich  another  was  to  have  u»derpo»e,  which  fs  all  we  mean- by  S/ib- 

fllfjt  "VOX  o  ^  .        -• 

avii-iv-    ftitntion,  it  being  done  in  the  place  of  another.     From  whence  it  fol- 
i^vcos     lows,  that  the  Sacrifices  under  the  Law  being  faid  to  be  di-ri  -^^z, 
reTpT/  doth  neceffarily  infer  a  Subftitution  of  them  in  the  place  of  the  Offen- 
aitero  ani-  dcts.    And  from  hence  may  be  underftood,  what  is  meant  by  the  Goat  • 
^Ht'Ievo'*  "f  '^^  ^'"  cff^^'f^gi  hearing  the  iniquity  of  the  Congregation,  to  make  A- 
watjyfictonement  for  them  before  the  hard,  Levit.  lo.  17.  for  Crellius  his  faying, 
U  malwn  "Yhat  bearing  is  as  much  its  tahing  away,  or  declaring  that  they  are  takefi  a- 
fubeundum^'^J,  hath  been  already  difproved :  And  his  other  anfwer  hath  as  little 
erafe'r-ts    weight  in  it^  viz.     That  it  if  not  faid,  that  the  Sacrifice  did  bear  their 
tndeiZ  l»iq»'ities,  but  the  Priefi  :  For,     i.  The  Chaldee  Paraphraji,  and  the  5>- 
iiet.        riackVerfion,  under(i:in6  h  wboWy  of  the  Sacrifice,     2.  iSmwwj  himfelf 
fena'/]    grants.  That  if  it  were  faid,  the  Priefl  did  expiate  by  the  Sacrifices,  it 
2.C.  II.    ^sre  all  one  as  if  it  were  faid,  that  the  Sacrifices  themfelves  did  expiate  5 
becaufe  the  Expiation  of  the  Priefi  was  by  the  Sacrifice.     Thus  it  is  plain 
in  the  cafe  of  uncertain  Murther,  mentioned  Deur.  21.  from  the  firft  to 
the  tenth  --^  If  a  Murther  were  committed  in  the  Land^  and  the  perfon  not 
■    known  who  did  it,  a  Heifer  wiis  to  have  her  head  cut  off  by  the  Elders  of 
the  next  City  5  and  by  this  means  they  were  to  put  away  the  guilt  of  the  iff' 
nocent  Blood  from  among  them  :  The  Reafon  of  which  was,  becaufe 
^um  .3  -QqjJ  j^^^  j-^jj  before.  That  Blood  defiled  the  Land,  and  the  Land  can- 
not be  cleanfed  of  the  Blood  that  is  filed  therein,  but  by  the  Blood  of  hint 
thatjhedit.    From  whence  it  appears,  that  upon  the  fiiedding  of  Bloody 
there  was  a  guilt  contrafted  upon  the  whole  Land  wherein  it  was  (bed, 
and  in  cafe  the  Murtherer  was  not  found  to  expiate  that  guilt  by  his  own 
Blood,  then  it  was  to  be  done  by  the  cutting  off  the  head  of  a  Heifet 
inftead  of  him :  In  which  cafe,  the  death  of  the  Heifer  was  to  do  as 
much  towards  the  expiating  the  Land,  as  the  Death  of  the  Murtherer  if 
he  had  been  found :  And  we  do  not  contend,  that  this  was  defigned  ta 
€>eii.c.io.  expiate  the  Murtherers  giiilt  (which  is  the  Objediion  of  Crellius  againft 
'^'     this  inftance)  but  that  a  Subftitution  here  was  appointed  by  God  himfelf, 
for  the  Expiation  of  the  People :  For  what  CrelHifs  ac(ds.  That  the  Peo- 
ple did  not  deferve  Punijhment^  and  therefore  needed  no  Expiation  ;  it  is 
Deut.  z\.  ^  £gj.  Contradidion  to  the  Text;  For  the  Prayer  appointed  in  that  cafe 
is.  Be  mercifiil,  0  Lord,  unto  thy  People  Ifrael,  whom  thou  hafi  Redeem- 
ed, and  lay  not  innocent  Blood  unto  thy  People  Ifrael' s  Charge,  and  the 
Blood  fijall  be  expiated:  For  the  fame  word  "iSD  is  ufed  here,  which  is 
in  the  other  places  where  Expiation  is  fpoken  of.    So  that  here  muft  be 
fome  guilt  fuppofed,  where  there  was  to  be  an  Ex;>/<ifro/;,  and  this  Ejc- 
piation  was  performed  by  the  Subftitution  of  a  Sacrifice  in  the  place  of 
the  Offender.     Which  may  be  enough  at  prefent  to  (hew,  that  a  Sub- 
ftitution was  admitted  by  the  Law,  of  a  Sacrifice  inftead  of  the  Offender, 
in  order  to  the  Expiation  of  guilt;  but  vyhether  the  Offender  himfelf 
was  to  be  freed  by  that  Sacrifice ;  depends  upon  the  Terms  on  which 
the  Sacrifice  was  offered  5  for  we  fay  ftill,that  fo  much  guilt  was  expiated, 
as  the  Sacrifice  was  defigned  to  expiate  5  if  the  Sacrifice  was  defigned  to 
expiate  the  guilt  of  the  Offender,  his  fin  was  expiated  by  it;  if  not  his, 

in 


Chap.  IV.  of  CHRIST.  301 

in  cafe  no  Sacrifice  was  allowed  by  the  Law,  as  in  that  of  Murther, 
then  the  guilt  which  lay  upon  the  Land  vyas  expiated,  although  the 
Offender  himfelf  were  never difcovered. 

IV.  I  now  come  to  prove,  that  in  Correfpondency  to  fuch  a  SHhJii-  a  fubni- 
tutioK  of  the  Sacrifices  for  Sin  under  the  Law,  Chrift  was  fubftituted  tution  of 
in  our  room  for  the  Expiation  of  our  guilty  and  that  from  his  being q^^qJ,^ 
faid  to  die  for  us,  and  his  death  being  called  a  Price  of  Redemption  proved  by 

for  us.  f's  dying 

I.  Frof»  Chriji's  being  faid  to  die  for  us.     By  St.  Veter,  ForChrifi  hath  i  Pe".?. 
alfo  oncefuffered  for  fins,  thejiiflfor  the  unjuji:^  by  whom  he  is  alfo  faid,  '8. 
tofiiffer  \^  Yifjt&v,  for  us,  and  for  us  in  thefiefi:  By  St.  Paul,  he  is  faid  2  corV* 
to  die  -O?^  Tzzhruy,  for  all,  and  v'Tti^  aTi^-^v,  for  the  ungodly,  and  to  give  14. 
himfelf  a.vH>'vl^^ov  -v^  -ttuvImv,  a  Ranfomfor  all,  and,  totajl  Death  -vsr^^S.^*'  f- 
ym^Ti^,  for  every  Man:  Ey  Caiphis,  fpeaking  by  infpiration,  he  is  faid  Heb.  i.  9.' 
to  die  C-TT^  tS  AaS,  for  the  People.     So  Chrift  himfelf  inftituting  hisJ°h.". 
laft  Supper,  faid.  This  is  my  Body  which  was  given,  and  my  Blood  which  [uke  22. 
was  fhed  rj'jn^  vuZv,  for  you -^  and  before  he  had  faid.  That  the  Son  tf/rp,  20.  '  • 
Man  came  to  give  his  Life  ?\.vrsov  dim  'ttcKaSov,  a  ranfom  for  many.     We  ^l^"'  ^°' 
are  now  to  confider,  what  Arts  our  Adverfaries  have  made  ufe  of  to 
pervert  the  meaning  of  thefe  places,  fo  as  not  to  imply  a  Subftitution 
of  Chrift  in  our  room:     i.  They  fay.  That  all  thefe  phrafes  do  imply  '  J^^i-  3- 
no  more  than  a  final  Caufe -^  viz.     That  Chriji  died  for  the  good  tf/M<«;?-Co'i.  1.24. 
kind  ^  for  the  Apoftle  tells  us,  We  are  bound  to  lay  down  our  Lives  for 
the  Brethren,  and  St.VzxA  is  faid  to  fuffer  for  the  Church.     To  which  I 
anfwer;     i.  This  doth  not  at  all  deftroy  that  which  we  now  plead 
for,  viz,.     That  thefe  Phrafes  do  imply  a  Subftitution  of  Chrift  in  our 
room  :  For  when  we  are  bid  to  lay  down  our  Lives  for  our  Brethren,  a 
Subftitution  is  implied  therein  5  and  fuppofing  that  dying  for  another, 
doth  fignifie  dying  for  fome  benefit  to  come  to  him,  yet  what  doth  this 
hinder  Subftitution,  unlefs  it  be  proved,  that  one  cannot  obtain  any 
benefit  for  another,  by  being  fubftituted  in  his  room.    Nay,  it  is  ob- 
fervable,  that  although  we  produce  fo  many  places  of  Scripture,  imply- 
ing fuch  a  Subftitution,  they  do  not  offer  to  produce  one  that  is  in- 
confiftent  with  Chrift's  Suffering  in  our  ftead  5  all  that  they  fay  is.  That 
v-jTi^  doth  not  always  fignifie  fo,  which  we  never  faid  it  did,  who  fay,  that 
Chrift  fuffered  -JTref  aaxt^yiv,  not  inftead  of  our  fins,  but  by  reafon  of 
them  ^  but  we  affert,  that  when  one  perfon  is  faid  to  die  for  others,  as 
in  the  places  mehtioned,  no  other  fenfe  can  be  fo  proper  and  agreea- 
ble, as  dying  in  the  ftead  of  the  other.     2.  Socinus  himfelf  grants,  .socrff/er. 
*'  That  there  is  a  peculiarity  implied  in  thofe  Phrafes,  when  attributed  *''^-'-*'^' 
"  to  Chrift,  above  what  they  have  when  attributed  to  any  other.  And 
"  therefore,  he  faith,  it  cannot  be  properly  faid.  That  one  Brother  dies 
*'  for  another,  or  that  Paul  fuffered  for  the  Colojfians,  or  for  the 
"  Church,  as  Chrift  may  truly  and  properly  be  faid  to  fuffer  and  to  die 
"  for  us.    And  from  hence,  faith  he,  St.  Paul  faith j  was  Paul  Crucified  1  Cor.  i. 
"  for  you?  Implying  thereby,  that  there  never  was  or  could  be  any, '3- 
*'  who  truly  and  properly  could  be  faid  to  die  fof  Men,  but  Chrift  a- 
lone.    How  unreafonable  then  is  it,  from  the  ufe  of  a  Particle  as  ap- 
plied to  others,  to  infer,  that  it  ought  to  be  fo  underftood,  when  ap- 
plied to  Chrift?  when  a  peculiarity  is  acknowledged  in  the  Death  of 
Chrift  for  us,  more  than  ever  was  or  could  be  in  one  mans  dying  for  a- 
nother.     9.  It  is  not  the  bare  force  of  the  Particle  Jt^^  that  we  infift 
upon  ^  but  that  a  Suhjiitution  could  not  be  more  properly  exprefled,  than 

it 


302    '  Of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  IV. 

it  is  in  Scripture,  by  this  and  other  Particles,  for  not  only  v-m-^  is  ufed, 
Sccin.'b.   but  aVri  too :   which  5'of»»«T  faith,  although  it  may  figmfie  fowething  elfe 
he  fides  in  the  jiead  of  another^  yet  in  fttch  places^  where  it  is  fpoken  of  a 
Ranfotft  or  Price,  it  jignifies  the  payment  of  fomething  which  was  owing  he- 
fore,  as  Matt.  17.  27.  av-Ti  £//S  ;^o-S,  and  Jo  he  acknowledges,  that  where 
Redemption  isfpoken  of,  there  dv-ri  doth  imply  a  Commutation,  hccaiife  the 
Price  is  given,  and  the  Perfon  received,  which,  he  faith,  holds  in  Chrifi 
only  Metaphorically :  For  the  Redemption  according  to  him  being  only 
Metaphorical,  the  commutation  muft  be  fuppofed  to  be  fo  too. 
In  whac        V.  And  this  now  leads  us  to  the  larger  Anfwer  of  CrelUuf  upon  this 
Srogati-  argument.     Wherein  we  (hall  confider,  what  he  yields,  what  he  de- 
on  of       nies,  and  upon  what  reafons.     i.  He  yields,  and  fo  he  faith  doth  Soci- 
chrift  in  ^^^^  very  freely  A  commutation-^  but  it  is  neceffary  that  we  (hould  through- 
h  arterted  ly  underftand  what  he  means  by  it :  To  that  end  he  tells  us,  That  they 
by  us.       acknowledge  a  twofold  commutation  ;  one  of  the  perfon sfufering,  the  kind 
ila.  '■^,'ib.  of  fnffering  being  changed,    not   aBually  hut   intentionally,    hecaufe    we 
Ua.  2.      are  not  dlually  freed  by  Chri^  dying  for  us,  but  only  Chriji  died  for  that 
end,  that  we  might  be  freed.     And  this  commutation ,  he  faith,  that  Soci- 
nus  doth  not  deny  to  be  implied  in  the  Particle  tJ-rn^,  in  the  places  where 
Chriji  is  [aid  to  die  for  us.     Another  commutation,  which  he  acknow- 
ledges, is,  that  which  is  between  a  Price,  and  the  thing  or  perfon  which  is 
bought  or  redeemed  by  it -J  where  the  price  is  paid,  and  the  thing  or  perfon 
if  received  upon  it.     And  this  kind  of  commutation,  he  faith,  if  to  be  «»- 
derftood  in  the  places  where  a-v-n  is  mentioned  5  which  price,  he  faith,  by 
accident  may  be  aperfon  5  and  becaufe  the  perfon  is  not  prefently  delivered,  he 
ib.fiS.  <5.  tJierefore  faith,  that  the  commutation  is  rather  imperfeH  than  Metaphori- 
cal^  and  although,  he  faith,  dv-n  doth  not  of  it  felf  imply  a  commutati- 
on, yefc  he  grants,  that  the  Circumjiances  of  the  places  do  imply  it.     2.  He 
K.lelt.  7.  denies,  that  there  if  any  proper  Surrogation  in  Chrifi' s  dying  for  us,  which^ 
he  faith,  if  fuch  a  commutation  ofperfons,  that  the  fubjlituted  perjfon  is  in 
all  RefpeBs  to  be  in  the  fame  place  and  flate  wherein  the  other  was  ;  and  if 
it  refers  to  fufferings,  then  it  if  when  onefuffers  the  very  fame  which  theo- 
i her  was  tofuffer,  he  being  immediately  delivered  by  the  others  fufferings. 
And  againft  this  kind  of  Surrogation,  CrelUiu  needed  not  to  have  pro- 
duced any  Reafons ;  foxGrotiuf  never  afferted  it  5  neither  do  we  fay, 
that  Chrift  fuffered  eternal  death  for  us,  or  that  we  were  immediately 
freed  by  his  fufferings.     But  that  which  Grotius  aflerts,  that  he  meant 
by  Subftitution  was  this,  that  unlefs  Chrifi  had  died  for  us,  we  mufi  have 
died  for  our  felves,  and  becaufe  Chrifi  hath  died,  we  Jhdll  not  die  eternal- 
ib.  felf.  3.  h'     ■^*'  *f  *^^  ^^  ^IK  faith  Crdlitif,  he  meant  by  it,  we  grant  the  whole 
thing,  and  he  complains  of  it  as  an  injury  for  any  to  think  otherwife  of 
them.    If  fo,  they  cannot  deny  but  that  there  was  a  fufficient  Capaci- 
ty in  the  Death  of  Chrift  to  be  made  an  expiatory  Sacrifice  for  the  fins 
of  the  World,    But  notwithftanding  all  thefe  fair  words,  CrelUiu  means 
no  more  than  Socinus  did;  and  though  he  would  allow  the  words 
which  Grotiuf  ufed,  yet  not  in  the  fenfe  he  underflood  them  in  5  for 
CrelUiu  means  no  more  by  all  this,  but  that  the  Death  of  Chrifi  was  an 
antecedent  Condition  to  the  Expiation  of  fins  in  Heaven,  Grotius  under- 
ftands  by  them,  that  Chrifi  did  expiate  fins  by  becoming  a  Sacrifice  for 
them  in  his  Death.     However,  from  hence  it  appears,  that  our  Adver- 
faries  can  have  no  plea  againft  the  Death  of  Chrift's  being  an  expiato- 
ry Sacrifice  (from  want  of  Subftitution  iriour  room)  fince  they  pro- 
fefs  ihemfelves  fo  willing  to  own  fuch  a  Subftitution.    But  if  they  fay, 

that 


Chap.  IV.         0}  CHKIST. 303 

that  there  could  be  no  proper  Subjiitutlon,  becaufe  the  Death  ofChrifi 
teas  a  bare  Condition,  and  no  ^unifljment^  they  then  exprefs  their  minds 
more  freely;  and  if  thefe  places  be  allowed  to  prove  a  Subftitution,  I 
hope  the  former  difcourfe  will  prove  that  it  was  by  way  of  Punifhment. 
Neither  is  it  necefTary,  that  the  very  fame  kind  of  Punifhment  be  undergone 
in  order  to  Surrogation,  but  that  it  be  fufficient  in  order  to  the  accom- 
plilhing  the  end  for  which  it  was  defigned.    For  this  kind  of  Subfiituti- 
on  being  in  order  to  the  delivery  of  another  by  it,  whatever  is  fuffici- 
ent for  that  end,  doth  make  a  proper  Surrogation.     For  no  more  is  ne- 
ceffary  to  the  delivery   of  another  perfon  than   the  fatisfying  the 
ends  of  the  Law  and  Government,  and  if  that  may  be  done  by  an  e- 
quivalent  fufFering,  though  not  the  fame  in  all  Refpefts,  then  it  may 
be  a  proper  Surrogation.    If  David  had  obtained  his  wi(h,  that  he  had 
died  for  his  Son  Abfolom^  it  had  not  been  necefTary  in  order  to  his  Son's 
efcape,  that  he  had  hanged  by  the  hair  of  his  head,  as  his  Son  did  ;  but 
his  Death,  though  in  other  Circumftances,  had  been  fufficient.    And 
therefore  when  the  Lawyers  fay,  fubrogatum,  fapit  naturam  ejus  in  cujuf 
locum fubrogalur:  Covarruvias  teWs  us,  it  is  to  he  underiiood,  fecundum^^^f"'f^ 
primordialem  naturam  non  fecundum  accident alemiy  from  whence  it  ap-/e^.  4.n. 
pears,  that  all  Circumftances,  are  not  necelTary  to  be  the  fame  in  Sur-  ?• 
rogation  5  but  that  the  nature  of  the  Punifhment  remain  the  fame.  Thus 
Chri^  dying  for  us,  to  deliver  us  from  Death,  and  the  curfe  of  the  Law, 
he  underwent  an  accurfed  Death  for  that  end  ^  although  not  the  very 
fame  which  we  were  to  have  undergone,  yet  fufficient  to  fhew,  that  he 
underwent  the  Punifhment  of  our  Iniquities  in  order  to  the  delivering 
us  from  it.     And  if  our  Adverfaries  will  yield  us  this,  we  (hall  not 
much  contend  with  them  about  the  name  of  a  proper  Surrogation. 

VI,  But  in  the  matter  of  Redemption,  or  where  dvVi  is  ufed,  Crellius  0"r  Re- 
will  by  no  means  yield  that  there  vcas  a  commutation  of  perfons  between  by'chr* 
Chri(i  and  us,  but  all  the  commutation  he  will  allow  here  is  only  a  commU'  proves  a 
tation  between  a  thing,  or  a  Prince,  and  a  perfon.     Which  he  therefore  ^"''*^"""' 
afTerts,  that  fo  there  may  be  no  necefTity  of  Chrift's  undergoing  the  Pxx- crdi.c.^. 
nifhmcnt  of  (in  in  order  to  Redemption,  becaufe  the  price  that  is  to  bef'^-^' 
paid,  is  not  fuppofed  to  undergo  the  Condition  of  the  perfon  delivered  Jjj  it. 
Which  will  evidently  appear  to  have  no  force  at  all,  in  cafe  we  can 
prove,  that  a  proper  Redemption  may  be  obtained  by  the  Punifhment 
of  one  in  the  room  of  another  ^  for  that  Punilhment  then  comes  to  be 
the  /'jTisav  or  price  of  Redemption  ^  and  he  that  pays  this,  muft  be  fup- 
pofed to  undergo  Punifhment  for  it.    So  that  the  commutation  between 
the  Punifhment  of  the  one,  and  the  other  Redeemed  by  it,  here  is  a  pro- 
per commutation  of  perfons  implied  in  the  payment  of  the  Price.    But 
hereby  we  may  fee  that  the  great  fubtilty  of  our  Adverfaries  is  de- 
figned  on  purpofe  to  avoid  the  force  of  the  places  of  Scripture,  which 
/  are  fo  plain  againft  them :  For  when  thofe  places  where  ?<.6rp_pv  and 
afV,  are  joyned  together,  are  fo  clear  for  a  Subftitution,  that  they  can- 
not deny  it;  then  they  fay,  by  it  is  meant  only  a  commutation  of  a. 
price  for  a  perfon  ;  but  when  the  word  ?vtcjv  is  urged  to  prove  a  Re- 
demption purchafed  by  Chrifl,  by  the  payment  of  a  price  for  it,  then 
they  deny  that  Xvr^ov  doth  fignifie  a  proper  price,  but  it  is  only  taken 
Metaphorically  ;  and  yet  if  it  be  fo  taken,  then  there  can  be  no  force 
in  what  Crellius  faith,  for  a  bare  Metaphorical  price  may  be  a  real  Pu- 
nifhment :  Two  things  I  fhall  then  prove  againft  Crellius.    i.  That  the 
?jjr^v  as  applied  to  Chrift,  is  to  be  taken  in  a  proper  Senfe.    2.  That 

although 


304  Of  ths  Sufferings  Chap.  IV. 

although  it  be  taken  in  a  proper  fenfe,  yet  it  doth  not  imply  a  bare 
commutation  of  a  price  and  a  perfon,  but  a  Subftitution  of  one  perfofi 
in  the  room  of  another.^ 
Of  the         VIl.  Both  thefe  will  be  cleared  from  the  right  ftating  the  notion  of 
trucBoti-  Redemption  between  our  Adverfaries  and  us.     For  they  will  not  by  a- 
dcmpdon  "y  means  have  any  other  proper  notion  of  Redemption  hut  front  Cap- 
tivity^ and   that  by  the  payment  of  a  price  to  him  that  did  hold  in  Capti- 
vity, and  therefore  becaufe  Chrifl  did  not  pay  the  price  to  the  Devil,  then 
could  .he  no  proper  fenfe  either  of  the  Redemption,  or  the  price  which  rcai 
paid  for  it.     This  is  the  main  ftrength  of  all  the  Argumentsufed  by  So- 
socin.  it   cinm  and  Crellius,  to  enervate  the  force  of  thofe  places  of  Scripturt 
2T1  2.  which  fpeak  of  our  Redemption  by  Chrifl,  and  of  the  price  which  he  paid 
crsii.l. 8.  in  order  to  it.    But  how  weak  thefe  Exceptions  are,  will  appear  upoii 
fea.ii.    a  true  Examination  of  the  proper  notion  of  Redemption,  which  in  its 
primary  importance  fignifies  no  more,  thanV^e  obtaining  of  one  thing  by 
another  as  a  valuable  Conjideration  for  it.     Thence  r^<^7/«ere  anciently  a- 
mong  the  Latins  fignified  barely  to  purchafe  by  a  valuable  price,  for  the 
thing  which  they  had  a  right  to  by  it  ^  and  fometimes  to  purchafe  that 
which  a  Man  hath  fold  before,  thence  the  pa&um  redimendi  in  Coli- 
trafts:  ftill  in  whatever  fenfe  it  was  ufed  by  the  Lawyers  or  others,  the 
main  regard  was,  to  the  Conlideration  upon  which  the  thing  was  ob- 
Vlpianl.    tained,  thence  redimere  delatorem  pecunia,  h.  e.  eum  a  delatione  dedn- 
jurefifcL    ^^''^  5  fo  redimere  litem '^  and  redemptor  litis  was  one  that  upon  certain 
Confideration  took  the  whole  charge  of  a  fuitupon  himfelf;  And  thofe 
who  undertook  the  farming  of  Cuftoms  at  certain  Rates,  were  called 
^^^^l^J^'^redemptoresve^igalium^qmredemptHris  auxiffent  ve5tigalia,  faith  Livy.  And 
p.  189.     all  thofe  who  undertook  any  publick  work  at  a  certain  price,  redemptores 
L'v.i.i-i.  atttit^Hitus  diceban'ur,  faith  Fejlus  and  Vlpian.     From  hence  it  was  ap-  ' 
ikci'!vipi-  plied  to  the  delivery  of  any  perfon  from  any  inconvenience  that  he 
an.  I.  ^9.  lay  under,  by  fomething  which  was  fuppofed  a  valuable  Confideration 
veifd. ''"  ■^°'"  '^'     ^"'^  ^^^^  ^^  ^'^^^  "°*^  °"'y  relate  to  Captivity,  but  to  any  other 
great  Calamity,  the  freedom  from  which  is  obtained  by  what  another 
^"i;^^^jg- fuffers ;  is  apparent  from  thofe  two  remarkable  Exprefllons  of  Cicero 
to  ^is  purpofe.    ^uamquidem  ego  (faith  he,  fpeaking  of  the  (harp- 
nefs  of  the  time  )  a  rep.  mek  private  C^  domefticis  incommodis  libentijft-  ' 
crut.  pro  M^  redemiffem.   And  more  exprefly  elfewhere,  Ego  vitam  omnium  civium, 
Sylia.      fiatuwt  orbis  terra,  urbem  hanc  den'tque,  d^c.  qulnque  hominum  amentium 
ac  perditorum  pcena  redemi.    Where  it  is  plain,  that  Redemption  is  u- 
fed  for  the  delivery  of  fome  by  the  Punifhment  of  others;  not  from 
mere  Captivity,  but  from  a  great  Calamity  which  they  might  have  fal- 
len into,  without  fuch  a  Punifhment  of  thofe  Perfon.    So  vain  is  that 
su. defer-  AfTertion  oi  Socinuf,  Redimere,  nihil  aliud  proprie  fignificat,  quant  eun^ 
vat.  1.1  c  captivitm  e  manibus  ilUus,  qui  eum  detinet,  pretio  illi  dato  libcrare. 
No  nccef-     ^"^'  '^"^  y^^  fuppofing  we  fhould  grant  that  Redemption  as  ufed  in 
fjty  of    facred  Authors  doth  properly  relate  to  Captivity,  there  is  no  neceffity 
payingihegt  all  of  that  which  our  Adverfaries  contend  fo  earneflly  for,  viz.  That 
Jiiin  that  '^«  /"'''"c  ffftft  ^^  p'^id.  to  him  that  detains  Captive.     For  we  may  very  ea- 
deuins     Qy  conceive  a  double  fort  of  Captivity,  from  whence  a  Redemption 
captive,    j^.^y  be  obtained;  the  one  by ^rce,  when  a  Captive  is  detained  pur- 
pofely  for  advantage  to  be  made  by  his  Redemption;  And  the  other 
in  a  judicial  manner,  when  the  Law  condemns  a  perfon  to  Captivity, 
and  the  thing  defigned  by  the  Law  is  not  a  meer  price,  but  fatisfadion 
to  be  made  to  the  Law,  upon  which  a  Redemption  may  be  obtained  5 

now 


t    Chap.  V.  ofCHRlSZ  305 

~"  ■'        ■- ; ' — '    '''  ■  ■■— IF  ■■■  III  i_iii_  I     jui  —■— — ■■■i».  ■ 

.^0^ow  in  the  former  ckfe  it  is  neceflary,  that  the  price  be  paid  tb  the  per- 
^K)n  who  detaitis,  becaufe  the  reafon  of  hk  detaining,  was  the  E*peft- 
ation  of  the  price  to  be  paid  5  but  in  the  latter,  the  detainer  is  meerly 
the  inftrument  for  Execution  of  the  Law,  and  the  price  of  Redemption 
is  not  to  be  paid  to  him  ^  but  to  thofe  w-ho  are  mofl:  concerned  in  the 
Honour  of  the  Law,  .But  Crelliu^  objeds,  JfA^*  the  price  can  tiever  yeCriil.c.Z^ 
ft'd  to  be  paid  to  God,  becaufe  our  redemption  is  aitriiMted  id  God  as  the  '"' 
Author  of  it,  and  becaufe  roe  are  [aid  to  be  redeemed  for  his  ufe  and  fer~ 
vice^  now  faith  he,  the  price  can  never  he  paid  to  him  for  rvhofe  fervice 
the  pcrfon  is  redeemed.  But  all  this  depends  upon  the  former  mi- 
ftake,  as  though  we  fpake  all  this  while  of  fuch  a  Redemption  as  that 
is  of  a  Captive  by  force :  In  whom  the  detainer  is  no  further  concern- 
ed than,  for  the  Advantage  tb  be  made  by  him  ^  and  in  that  cafe 
the  price  rauft  be  paid  tp  him  v/ho  detains,  becaufe  it  would  otherwife 
be  fuccefsful  for  his  deliverance :,  Bi^t  in  caCe  of  Captivity  by  Law,  as 
the  efFeft  of  difobedience,  the  Magiftrate  who  is  concerned  in  the  life 
of  the  perfon,  and  his  future  obedience  triay  himfelf  take  care  thatSa- 
tisfaftion  may  be  given  to  the  Law  for  his  Redemption,  in  order  to 
bis  future  ferviceablenefs.  Frotn  hence  we  fee  both  that  the  ?ivr^v^ 
4s  propef'  in  this  cafe  of  our  Redemption,  and  that  it  is  not  a  meer.tom- 
mutatioH  of  a  price  for  di  perfon,  but  a  commutation  of  one  perfons  taf- 
fering  for  others,  which  fuffering  being  a  Punifhment  in  order  to  Sa- 
tisfadion  is  a  valuable  Confideration,  and  therefore  a  price  for  the  Re- 
demption of  othets  by  iti  Which  price  in  this  fenfe  doth  imply  a  pro- 
per Subftitution  5  which  was  the  thing  to  be  proved.  Which  was  the 
firft  thing  to  be  made  good  concerning  the  Death  of  Chrift  being  a 
Sacrifice  for  fin,  viz.  that  there  was  a  Subftitution  of  Chrift  in  ourftead 
as  of  the  Sacrifices  of  old  under  the  Law^  and  in  this  fenfe  the  Death  of 
Chrift  was  a  proper  Ailr^cy  or  price  of  Redemption  for  us*  Nothing 
th^n  can  be  more  vain,  than  the  way  of  our  Adverfaries,  to  take  a- 
livay  the  force  ctf"  all  this,  becaiffe  ^Atir^^cTJc  «•  fometimes  taken  for  a 
meer  deliverance  tpithottt  any  price,  which  wfe  deny  not  5  but  the  maiil 
force  of  our  Argument  is  from  the  importance  of  ^^Xu-r^oon^,  where 
the  Ay'r^  is  mentioned  ;  and  then  we  fay  that  '^htir^tt^m  when  ap- 
plied to  fins,  fignifies  Expiation,  ( as  Heb.  9.  1 5.  &?c  '^^vreoenv  t^ 
■s^^i.'wtv,)  but  when  applied  to  perfons,  it  fignifies  the  deliverance 
,purchafed  by  the  aw't^ci',  which  is  not  to  be  confidered  as  a  bare  price, 
or  thing  given,  but  as  a  thing  undergone  in  order  to  that  deliverance  t 
And  is  therefore  not  only  called  >^6r^cv,  but  dvllKvr^v  too,  which 
Crelliut  confefleth  doth  imply  a  commntation,  and  we  have  (hewed, 
doth  prove  a  Subjiitittion  of  Chrift  in  our  place. 


Chap.     V. 

The  notion  of  a  Sacrifice  belongs  to  the  Death  Chriji,  becaufe  of  the  Ob' 
lation  made  therein  to  God.  Crellius  his  fenfe  of  Chrift s  Oblation 
propofed.  IL  Againji  him  it  if  proved,  that  the  Priefilji  Office  of  Chriji 
had  a  primary  RefpeS  to  God,  and  not  to  ns.  Expiatory  Sacrifices  did 
divert  the  Wrath  of  God,  IIL  Chri^  not  a  hare  Metaphorical  High- 
Friefi.  IV.  Crellius  deftroys  the  Priejihood  of  Chrift  by  confounding  it 
with  the  Exercife  of  his  Regal  Pomr.    V.  No  proper  Expiation  of  fin 

Q.q  ^- 


m.  ,M  I  -     I         -^  ■ ' '  '  '  ■»■■■■'■  «    --■■    ■!■     I 

30^  Of  the  Suferings  Chap.  V, 

belongs  to  Chrifl  in  Heaven,  if  Crellius  his  DoSrltre  be  true.  VI.  E-, 
phef.  5.  2.  proves^  the  Death  of  Chrijl  an  Expiatory  Sacrijiie,  and  an 
Oblation  to  God.  The  Phrafe  of  a  fweet-fmelling  Savour,  belongs  to 
expiatory  Sacrifices-^  Crellius  his  grofs  notion  of  it.  VIL  His  miftakes' 
about  the  kinds  of  Sacrifices.  Burnt- offerings  tvere  Expiatory  Sacrifices 
both  before  and  under  the  Larv.  A  new  dijiribution  of  Sacrifices  propo- 
fed.  VIII.  What  influence  the  Ma^ation  of  the  Sacrifice  had  on  Expi- 
ation. The  High-Prijf  only  to  flay  the  Sin-offering  on  the  day  of  Atone- 
ment ;  from  whence  it  is  proved  that  Chrifts  Priefl-hood  did  not  begin 
from  his  entrance  into  Heaven.  The  MaHation  in  Expiatory  Sacriffces 
vo  bare  Preparation  to  a  Sacrifice,  proved  by  the  'jevoifb  haws,  and  the 
Cufioms  of  other  Nations.  IX.  Whether  Chrifi's  Oblation  of  himfelf  once 
io  God,  were  in  Heaven,  or  on  Earth  .<?  Of  the  proper  notion  of  Oblati- 
ons  under  the  Levitical  Law.  Several  things  obferved  fom  thence  to 
our  purpofe.  X.  All  things  neceffary  to  a  legal  Oblation,  concur  in  the 
Death  of  Chrifi.  XI.  His  entrance  into  Heaven  hath  no  correfpondency 
with  it^  if  the  Bl(^d  of  Chrijl  were  no  Sacrifice  for  fin.  In  fin-offerings 
far  the  People,  the  whole  was  confumed^  no  eating  of  the  Sacrifices  al- 
lowed the  Priejis,  but  in  thofe  for  private  Perfons.  XII.  Chrifi's  Exer- 
cifeof  Power  in  Heaven,  in  no  fenfe  an  Oblation  to  God.  XIII.  Crel- 
lius, his  fenfe  repungnant  to  the  Circuntfiances  of  the  places  in  difpntt, 
XIV.  ObjeSious  anfwered. 

of  tiie     I." H  "*  HE  fecond  thing  to  prove  the  Death  of  Chriji  a  Sacrifice  for 

oblation         ■       fill,  Is  the  Oblation  of  it  to  God  for  that  end.     "  Grotius  to- 

chilftun-  "  wards  the  conclufion  of  his  Book,  makes  a  twofold  Oblati- 

toGod"   "  on  of  Chrift,  parallel  to  that  of  the  Sacrifices  under  the  Law,  the 

"  firft  of  Madation,  the  fecond  of  Reprefentation  5  whereof  the  firft 

"  was  done  in  the  Temple,  the  fecond  in  the  Holy  of  Holies ;  fo  the 

*'  firft  of  Chrift  was  on  Earth,  the  fecond  in  Heaven  5  the  firft  is  not 

a  bare  Preparation  to  a  Sacrifice,  but  a  Sacrifice :  The  latter  not  fo 

much  a  Sacrifice,  as  the  Commemoration  of  one  already  paft.  Where- 

"  fore,  fince  appearing  and  interceeding  are  not  properly  facerdotal 

"  Afts,  any  further  than  they  depend  on  the  efficacy  of  a  Sacrifice  alrea- 

"  dy  offered,  he  that  takes  away  that  Sacrifice,  doth  not  leave  to  Chrift 

"  any  proper  Prieft-hood,  againft  the  plain  Authority  of  the  Scrip-       , 

**^  ture,  which  afligns  to  Chrift  the  Office  of  a  Prieft  diftinft  from  that       j 

"  of  a  Prophet  and  a  King.    To  which  Crellim  replies:  That  the  Ex- 

rreil.e.io.p-^f-^„  of  pft  doth  properly  belong  to  what  Chrifi  doth  in  Heaven  5  and  may 

be  applied  to  the  Death  of  Chrifi  only,  as  the  Condition  by  which  he  was  to 

lb, fsil.ji.  enjoy  that  Power  in  Heaven,  whereby  he  doth  expiate  fins 'j  but  the  Priefi 

was  never  faid  to  expiate  fins  when  he  killed  the  Beafi,  but  when  the  Blood 

was  fprinkled  or  carried  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  to  which  the  Oblation  of 

^Yf^'^'^'  Chrijl  in  Heaven  does  anfwer  :  But  Ma&ation,  faith  he,  was  not  proper 

'^^'  to  the  Priefisy  but  did  belong  to  the  Levites  alfo.     And  Chrijl  was  not  trU"       I 

ly  a  Priejl,  while  he  was  on  Earth,  but  only  prepared  by  his  fufferings  to  be 

Ih.feH.^i^  one  in  Heaven,  where  by  the  perpetual  care  he  takes  of  his  People,  and  eX' 

Sea.  56.  ^Ycifing  his  Totoer  for  them,  he  is  faid  to  offer  up  himfelf,  and  intercede  for 

them,  and  by  that  means  he  difchargeth  the  Office  of  a  High-Priefi  for 

them.     For  his  Prieflly  0£ice,  he  faith,  is  never  in  Scripture  mentioned 

as  difiin^  from  his  Kingly,  but  is  comprehended  under  it ;  and  the  great 

difference  between  them  is,  that  one  is  of  a  larger  extenfion  than  the  other 

isf  the  Kingly  Office  extending  to  punfijing,  and  the  Priejlly  only  to  Expia- 

■j  tion. 


Chap.  IV.  ofCHKlST.  307 

t$o/f.  This  is  the  fubftance  of  what  CreUrns  more  at  large  difcourfeth 
upon  this  Subjed.  Wherein  he  aflerts  thefe  things.  That  the 
prieftly  Office  of  Chrift  doth  not  in  Reference  to  the  Expiation  of  fins 
refpeft  God  but  us  j  his  Interceffion  and  Oblation  wherein  he  makes  the 
facerdotal  Funftion  of  Chrift  to  confift,  being  the  exercife  of  his  pow- 
er for  the  good  of  his  People.  2.  That  Chrift  did  offer  up  no  Sacrifice  of 
Expiation  to  God  upon  Earth,  becaufe  the  Ma3ation  had  no  reference 
to  Expiation,  any  other  than  as  a  Preparation  for  it  5  and  Chrift  not 
yet  being  conftituted  a  High-Prieji  till  after  his  Refurreftion  from  th6 
Dead.  Againft  thefe  two  Aflertions  I  (hall  direft  my  following  dif- 
courfe,  by  proving;  t.  That  the  Prieftly  Office  of  Chrift  had  a  pri- 
mary Refped  to  God,  and  not  to  us.  2.  That  Chrift  did  exercife  this 
Prieftly  Office  in  the  Oblation  of  himfelf  to  God  upon  the  Crofs. 

II.  I.  That  the  Prieftly  Office  of  Chrift  had  a  primary  Refpeft^^G^^,  Sefn'^^ 
and  fiat  tous-^  which  appears  from  the  firft  Inftitutionof  a  High-PrieJifOtaceli 
mentioned  by  the  Apoftle,  Heb.  5.  i.     For  every  High-Prkfi  taken  frovt^^'^^^^^^ 

•         J   •      J  jr  •     ^f  .    •    •  f~*    r      t       t'         a  primary 

among  men,  ts  ordained  for  men  tn  things  pertaining  to  C/^rf,  that  he  may  refpeft  to 

offer  both  gifts  and  Sacrifices  for  fins :    Id  eji,  faith  Crelliui  elfewhere,  ^°^  ^""^ 
Mtprocnret  d^  peragat  ea  qute  ad  colendum  ac  propitiandum  numen  perti-cTeirin 
Kent  5  i.  e.    That  he  may  perform  the  things  which  appertain  to  the  ^'i>-y  ^- 
wor/bfpping  and  propitiating  God :  We  defire  no  more,  but  that  the  pro- 
filiating  God,  may  as  immediately  be  faid  to  f efpeft  him,  as  the  wor^ 
pjipping  of  God  doth  ^  or  let  CrelUiu  tell  u%  what  fenfe  the  propitiating 
God  will  bear ;  if  all  that  the  High-Prieji  had  to  do,  did  immediately  Re- 
fpea  the  People :  Nay,  he  faith  not  long  after,  "  That  it  was  the  chief 
"  Officeof  a  High-Prieft,  to  plead  the  caufe  of  Sinners  with  God,  and 
"  to  take  care,  that  they  may  find  him  kind  and  propitious,  and  not 
"  angry  or  difpleafed.    In  what  fenfe  God  was  faid  to  be  moved  by  the 
Expiatory  Sacrifices,  is  not  here  oqr  bufinefs  to  difcufs ;  it  is  fufficient 
for  our  purpofe,  that  they  were  inftituted  with  a  Refpeft  to  God,  fo 
as  to  procure  his  Favour,  and  divert  his  Wrath.    In  which  fenfe,  the 
Prieft  is  fo  often  in  the  Levitical  Law  faid,  by  the  offering  up  of  Sa- 
crifices, to  expiate  the  fins  of  the  People.    But  Crellitfs  faith,    "  This '^^^^^ '•'<'•■ 
**  ought  not  fo  to  be  underftood,  as  though  God  by  Expiatory  Sacri-^     ^* 
*'  fices,  were  diverted  from  his  anger,  and  inclined  to  Pardon ;  which 
is  a  plain  Cotitradiftion,  not  only  to  the  words  of  the  Law,  but  to 
the  Inftances  that  are  recorded  iheriin  5  as  when  Aaron  was  bid  in  the 
time  of  the  Plague  to  make  an  Atonement  for  the  people,  for  there  is  rerath^f^^'^^' 
gone  out  from  the  Lord  :  And  he  jiood  between  the  Living  and  the  Dead,  Ve'rf.  48. 
and  the  Plague  was  flayed.    Was  not  God's  Anger  then  diverted  here, 
by  the  making  this  Atonement  ?    The  like  inftance  we  read  in  Da- 
vid's  time,  that  by  the  offering  burnt-offerings,  &c.  the  Lord  was  intreated  ^  ^"^-  *4* 
for  the  Land,  and  the  Plague  was  flayed  from  Ifrael :  By  which  nothing  *'" 
can  be  more  plain,  than  that  the  primary  intention  of  fuch  Sacrifices, 
and  confequently  of  the  Office  of  the  Prieft  who  offered  them,  did 
immediately  Refpeft  the  Atoning  God :  But  yet  Crelltus  urgeth,  "  This 
*'  cannot  be  faid  of  all,  or  of  the  moft  proper  Expiatory  Sacrifices  ^  but 
we  fee  it  faid  of  more  than  the  meer5<7fr//Jfw^r///,  as  appointed  by 
the  Law  5  viz,  of  burnt-offerings,  and  peace-offerings,  andincenfe,  in  the 
Examples  mentioned.    So  that  thefe  Levitical  Sacrifices  did  all  Refpeft 
the  Atoning  God  \  although  in  fome  particular  Cafes,  different  Sacrifi- 
ces we're  to  be  offered  5  for  it  is  faid,  the  Immt-tffering  was  to  make  Atone-  Lev.  t.4. 
ment  for  them^  as  well  as  the  fin  and  trefpafs- offer ingt  (excepting  thofe    *•  ^^ 

Qq  3  Sacri-    *'^' 


308  _  Of  the  Sufferings  C  h  a  p.  V. 

Sacrifices  which  were  inftituted  in  acknowledgment  of  God's  Sove- 
reignty over  them,  and  prefence  among  thera,  as  the  daily  Sacrifices, 
the  Meat  and  Drink  offerings,  or  fuch  as  were  meerly  occafional,  &c:') 
I  chron.5.Thus  it  IS  faid,  that  Aaron  and  his  Sons  were  appointed  to  make  an  Atone- 
49  mentfor  Ifrael :  So  that  as  Grotius  obferves  out  of  Philo,     "  The  High- 

^b'Ti  "  P"^ft  was  a  Mediator  between  God  and  Man,  by  whom  Men  might 
^ '        "  propitiate  God,  and  God  difpenfe  his  favours  to  men.    But  the 
means  whereby  he  did  procure  Favours  to  Men,  was  by  atoning  God 
by  the  Sacrifices,  which  he  was  by  his  Office  tooflFer  to  him.  We  are  now 
to  confider,  how  far  this  holds  in  reference  to  Chrift,  for  whofe  fake 
the  Apoftle  brings  in  thefe  words ;  and  furely  would  not  have  menti- 
oned this  as  the  primary  Office  of  a  High-Prieft,  in  order  to  the  pro- 
ving Chrift  to  be  our  High-Vrieft,  after  a  more  excellent  manner  than 
the  Aaronical  was,  unlefs  he  had  agreed  with  him  in  the  nature  of  his 
Office,  and  exceeded  him  in  the  manner  of  performance. 
Chrift  no      jjj^  pQf  (jjg  Apoftle  both  proves,    that  he  was  a  true  and  pro- 
ta^phoricai  per,  and  not  a  bare  Metaphorical  High-Prieft,  and  that  in  fuch  a  Capa- 
High-      city,  he  very  far  exceeded  the  Priefts  after  the  Order  of  Aaron.     But 
Pneft.     jjQ^  could  that  poflibly  be,  if  he  failed  in  the  primary  Office  of  a 
High-Prieft^  viz.  In  offering  up  gifts  and  Sacrifices  to  God  ^     If  his  Office 
as  High-Prieft  did  primarily  RefpeQ:  men,  when  the  Office  of  the  Aa- 
ronical Prieft  did    Refpeft  God^    To    avoid  this,    Crelliuf     makes 
crf//.c. I o.ftjgfg  words  to  be  only  an  Allufion  to  the  Legal  Prieflhood,  and  fome 
'^  ■  ^'     kind  of  fimilitude  between  Chrift  and  the  Aaronical  Priefts ;  but  it  is 
fuch  a  kind  of  Allufion,  that  the  Apoftle  defigns  to  prove  Chrift  to  be 
an  High-Prieft  by  it  5  and  which  is  of  the  greateft  force,  he  proves  the 
necefEty  of  Chrift's  having  foraewhat  to  offer  from  hence :    For  every 
He  .  b.  ^'  fJigjj.'Pyigjl  jg  ordained  to  ojfer  Gifts  and  Sacrifices  ;  wherefore  it  is  ofne- 
cejjtty,  that  this  Man  have  fomevehat  alfo  to  offer.    This  is  that  which  he 
looks  at  as  the  peculiar  and  diftinguifhing  Charafter  of  a  High-Prieft  5 
for  interceding  for  others,  and  having  CompafEon  upon  them,  might 
be  done  by  others  befides  the  High-Prieft  5  but  this  was  that,  without 
which  he  could  not  make  good  his  name,  what  order  foever  he  were 
of.    if  Chrift  then  had  no  proper  Sacrifice  to  offer  up  to  God,  to  what 
purpofe  doth  the  Apoftle  fo  induftrioufly  fet  himfelf  to  prove,  that  he 
is  our  High-Prieft  ^    When  he  muft  needs  fail  in  the  main  thing,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  AfTertion  ?    How  eafie  had  it  been  for  the  jews^ 
to  have  arifwered  all  the  Apoftles  Arguments  concerning  the  Priefthood 
of  Chrift,  if  he  had  been  fuch  a  Prieft,  and  made  no  other  Oblation 
than  Crelliuf  allows  him  >    When  the  Apoftle  proves  againft  the  Jews, 
that  there  was  no  neceffity,  that  they  fhould  ftill  retain  the  Mofaical 
Difpenfation,  becaufe  now    they  had    a  more  excellent  High-Prieft 
than  the  Aaronical  were^  and  makes  ufe  of  that  Charafter  of  a  Higb- 
Prieji,  that  he  was  one  taken  out  front  among  men,  in  things  pertaining  to 
God  to  offer  Gifts  and  Sacrifices  for  fins:     *'  Well,  fay  the  Jews,  we  ac- 
"  cept  of  this  Character,  but  how  do  you  prove  concerning  Chrift, 
"  that  he  was  fuch  a  one?     Did  he  offer  up  a  Sacrifice  for  fin  to  God 
**  upon  Earth,  as  our  HirgA-Pw^/ do  >    No,  faith  CrelUus,  his  fitffer^ 
ings  were  only  a  Preparation  for  his  Priefthood  in  Heaven:     "  But  did  he 
*'  then  offer  up  fuch  a  Sacrifice  to  God  in  Heaven  >    Tes,  faith  Crel- 
lius,  he  made  an  Oblation  there.    "  But  is  that  Oblation  fuch  a  Sacrifice 
"'  to  God  for  (in,  as  our  High- Priefts  offer}    Yes,  faith  Crellius,  it 
may  be  called  fo  by  way  of  Allufion.    "  Well  then,  fay  they,  yoo  grant 

"that 


Chap.V.  of  CHRIST.  3d9 

• : • — , 

*'  that  your  Jefus  is  only  a  High-Prieji  by  way  of  Allujion^  which  was 
"  againft  your  firft  defign  to  prove ;  vi%.  That  he  was  a  true  High-Priefi, 
"  and  more  excellent  than  ours^  But  fppofe  it  be  by  way  of  Allulion, 
"  doth  he  make  any  Oblation  to  God  in  Heaven  or  hot?  No,  faith 
Oelliiu,  really  and  truly  he  doth  not:  For  all  his  Office  doth  Refpe^ 
us,  but  the  benefits  we  enjoy  coming  originallffrom  the  kindnefsof  God,  yon 
fnay  call  it  an  Oblation  to  Qod  if  you  pleafe.  "  But  how  is  it  poflible 
"  then,  fay  the  Jews,  you  can  ever*  convince  us,  that  he  is  any  High- 
"  Prieji,  or  Prieji  at  all,  much  lefs,  that  he  fhould  ever  exceed  the  A- 
"  aronical  High-Priejis  in  their  Office?  For  we  are  aflured,  that  they  do 
"  oflPer  Sacrifices  for  fin,  and  that  God  is  atoned  by  them :  But  if  your 
*'  ///g^-Pn>/2  make  np  atonement  for  fin,  he  falls  far  fliort  of  ours,  and 
"  therefore  we  will  ftill  hold  to  our  Levitical  Prtejlhood,  and  not  for- 
"  fake  that  for  one  barely  Metaphorical,  and  having  nothing  really 
"  anfwering  the  name  of  a  High-Prieft.  Thus  the  force  of  all  the  A- 
poftles  Arguments  is  plainly  taken  away,  by  what  CrelUus  and  his  Bre- 
thren affert  concerning  the  Priefthood  of  Chrift.  But  CrelUus  thinks  to 
make  it  good  by  faying,  That  things  that  are  improper  and  figurative,  tt.fe^^^i 
may  be  far  more  excellent  than  the  things  that  are  proper,  to  which  they  are  ^d.jeif.^ei 
oppofed  'jfo  that  Chrifl's  Priefihood  may  be  far  more  excellent  than  the  Aaroni'^'  ^*^' 
t/ical,  although  his  he  only  figurative,  and  the  other  proper.  But  the  que- 
ftion  is  not.  Whether  Chrift's  Priefihood  by  any  other  adventitious  Con- 
fiderations,  as  of  greater  Power  and  Authority  than  the  Aaronical 
Ptiefis  had,  may  be  faid  to  be  far  more  excellent  than  theirs  was ;  but. 
Whether  in  the  notion  of  Priefthood,  it  doth  exceed  theirs  >  Which 
it  is  impoffible  to  make  good,  unlefs  he  had  fome  proper  Oblation  to 
make  unto  God,  which  in  it  felf  did  far  exceed  all  the  Sacrifices  and  Of- 
ferings under  the  Law. 

IV.  But  what  that  Oblation  of  Chrift  in  Heaven  was,  which  had  a-  citeiim 
ny  correfpondency  with  the  Sacrifices  under  the  Law,  our  Adverfaries  thfprfeV 
can  never  affign  5  nay,  when  they  go  about  it,  they  (peak  of  it  in  fuch  hood  of 
a  manner,  as  makes  it  very  evident  they  could  heartily  have  wilhed  the  ^'^"'** 
Epiftles  to  the  Hebrews  had  faid  as  little  of  the  Priefihood  of  Chrifi,  as 
they  fay,  any  other  part  of  the  New-Teftament  doth.    Thence  SmaU  smaie.  e. 
ciUs  and  Crelliuf  infift  fo  much  upon  the  Priefihood  of  Chrift^  being  di-^'^ifl'*' 
fiinHly  mentioned  by  none  hut  the  Author  to  the  Hebrews  5  which,  fay  they,  lo.f.  J44< 
had  furely  been  done,  if  Chrifi  had  been  a  proper  Priefi,  or  that  Office  in 
him  difiin^  from  his  Kingly.    Which  fufficiently  difcovers  what  they 
would  be  at  5  viz.    That  the  Teftimony  of  the  Author  to  the  He- 
brews, is  but  a  fingle  Teftimony  in  this  matter  5  and  in  truth,  they  do 
(  as  far  as  is  confiftent  with  not  doing  it  in  exprefs  words )  wholly  take 
away  the  Priefihood  of  Chrift:  For  what  is  there  which  they  fay  his 
Priefihood  implies,  which  he  might  not  have  had,  fuppofing  he  had 
never  been  called  a  Priefi  .<?  His  being  in  Heaven,  doth  not  imply  that  he 
is  a  Priefi,  unlefs  it  be  impoffible  for  any  but  Priefis  ever  to  come 
there :  His  Power  and  Authority  over  the  Church,  doth  not  imply  it  5  for 
that  Power  is  by  themfelves  confeffed  to  be  a  Regal  Power :  His  rea- 
dinefs  to  ufe  that  power,  cannot  imply  it,  which  is  the  thing  5«r<i/«ttJ  in- 
fifts  on  ^  for  his  being  a  King  of  the  Church,  doth  neceflarily  imply 
bis  readinefs  to  make  ufe  of  his  Power  for  the  good  of  his  Church. 
Hit  receiving  his  power  from  God,  doth  not  imply  that  he  was  a  Prieft,  al- 
though CrelUus  infift  on  that,  unlefs  all  the  Kings  of  the  Earth  are  Priefts 
by  that  means  too,  and  Chrift  could  not  have  bad  a  fubordinate 

Pawef 


310  Of  th  Suferings  Chap.  IV. 

Power  as  King,  as  well  Prieft.     Bat  his  death  u  ^ore  implied,  faith  Crel- 
lius,  in  the  tiante  of  a  Pr'iefi  than  of  a  King ;  true,  if  his  death  be  cpn- 
fidered  as  a  Sacrifice,  but  not  otherwife  :  For  what  is  there  of  a  Priefi 
iri  bare  dying,  do  not  others  fo  too?     Bnt  this  reprefents  greater  tender- 
nefs  and  care  in  Chriji,  than  jhe  meer  Title  of  a  King:     What  kind  of 
King  do  they  imagine  Chriji  the  mean  while,  if  his  being  fo,  did  not 
give  the  grcateft  encouragement  fo  all  his  Subjefts  >    Nay,  it  is  plain 
the  name  of  a  King  muft  yield  greater  comfort  to  his  people,  becaufe 
that  implies  his  power  to  defend  them,  which  the  bare  name  of  a  Prieji 
doth  not.  So  that  there  could  be  no  reafon  at  all  given,  why  the  name 
of  a  High-Prieji  fliould  be  at  all  given  to  Chrift,  if  no  more  were  im- 
plied in  it,  than  the  exercife  of  hispovper  mth  re/pelf  to  us,  without  any 
proper  Oblation  to  God  :  For  here  is  no  proper  Sacerdotal  Aft  at  all 
attributed  to  him;  fo  that  upon  their  Hypothefis,  the  name  of  Htgh- 
Priefi,  is  a  meer  infignificant  Title  ufed  by  the  Author  to  the  Hebrews, 
without  any  Foundation  at  all  for  it.     Bji  no  means,  faith  Crellus,  for 
his  expiation  of  fin  is  imptyed  by  it,  which  is  not  implyed  in  the  name  of 
King:  True,  if  the  expiation  of  fin  were  done  by  him  in  the  way  of  a 
Priefi  by  an  Oblation  to  Gpd,  which  they  deny  5  but  though  they 
call  it  Expiation,  they  mean  no  more  than  the  exercife  of  his  Divine 
Power  in  the  delivering  his  People.    But  what  parallel  was  there  to 
tent,  4.  this  in  the  Expiation  of  fins  by  the  Levitical  Priejihood  .<?    That  was 
^f""-  5*'  cetainly  done  by  a  Sacrifice  offered  to  God  by  the  Prieji,  who  was 
thereby  faid  to  expiate  the  fins  of  the  People  :  How  comes  it  now  to  be 
taken  quite  in  another  fenfe,  and  yet  ftill  called  by  the  fame  name? 
No  pro.       V.  But  this  being  the  main  thing  infifted  on  by  them,  I  (hall  prove  from 
fioifoffin  ^^^'^^  °^"  Principles,  that  no  Expiation  of  fin  in  their  own  fenfe  can 
belongs  to  beloiig  to  Chrift  in  Heavcn,  by  Virtue  of  his  Oblation  of  himfelf  there, 
Chrift  in  and  confequently  that  they  muft  unavoidably  overthrow  the  whole  no- 
fureiiius  tion  ofthc  Priejihood  of  Chrift.    For  this  we  are  to  confider,  what 
his  do-    their  notion  of  the  Expiation  of  fiiis  is,  which  is  fet  down  briefly  by 
me.*^^^  Oe^/«r  in  the  beginning  of  his  difcourfe  of  Sacrificet,    "  There  is  a 
<:re/'/.c.io."  twofold  Power,  faith  he,  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift  towards  the  Ex- 
fea.  2.     «  piation  of  fin,  one  taking  away  the  guilt  and  the  puniftiment  of  fin, 
*'  and  that  partly  by  declaring,  that  God  will  do  it,  and  giving  us  a 
*'  right  to  it,  partly  by  adual  deliverance  from  puniftiment ;  the  o- 
"  ther  is  by  begetting  Faith  in  us,  and  fo  drawing  us  off  from  the  Pra- 
*'  ftice  of  fin :  Now  the  firft  and  laft  Crellius  and  Socinus  attribute  to 
the  Death  of  Chrift,  as' that  was  a  Confirmation  of  the  Covenant  God 
made  for  the  remiflSon  of  fin  5  and  as  it  was  an  argument  to  perfwade 
us  to  believe  the  truth  of  his  Doftrine^  and  the  other,  viz.  the  afluat 
deliverance  from  punifhrneni,  is  by  themfelves  attributed  to  the  fecond 
coming  of  Chrift  5  for  then  only,  they  fay,  the  juft  (hall  be  aftually  de- 
livered from  the  punifhment  of  fin,  viz.  eternal  death  ^  and  what  Expia- 
tion is  there  now  left  to  the  Oblation  of  Chrift  in  Heaven?  Doth  Chrift 
in  Heaven  declare  the  pardon  of  fin  any  other  way  than  it  was  decla- 
red by  him  upon  Earth  ?    What  efficacy  hath  his  Oblation  in  Heaven 
upon  perfwading  men  to  believe  ?    Or  is  his  fecond  coming  when  he 
Ihall  fit  as  Judge,  the  main  part  of  his  Priefihood'^  for  then  the  Expia- 
tion of  fins  in  our  Adverfaries  fenfe  is  moft  proper?    And  yet  nothing 
can  be  more  remote  from  the  notion  of  Chrift's  Priejihood,  than  that 
is ;  fo  that  Expiation  of  fins  according  to  them  can  have  no  Refpeft 
at  all  to  the  Oblation  of  Chrift  in  Heaven,  or  (  which  is  all  one  in  their 

fence) 


Chap.  V.  of  CHRIST.  311 

fence  )  his  continuance  in  Heaven  to  his  fecond  coming.  Tes,  faith  c'-f'/.c-io. 
Crellius,  his  contiuance  there^  is  a  condition  in  order  to  the  Expiation  h  p^j^', 
a&ual  deliverance,  and  therefore  it  may  he  [aid,  that  God  is  as  it  were  mo- 
ved by  it  to  expiate  (ins.  The  utmoft  then,  that  is  attributed  to  Chrift's 
being  in  Heaven  in  order  to  the  Expiation  of  fins,  is  that  he  mnft  con- 
tinue there  without  doing  any  thing  in  order  to  it;  for  if  he  does,  it 
muft  either  refpefl:  God  or  us:  But  they  deny  ( though  contrary  to  the 
importance  of  the  words,  and  the  defign  of  the  places  where  they  are 
ufed)  that  the  terms  of  Chris's  interceding  for  us,  or  being  an  Advocate 
With  the  Father  for  us,  do  note  any  refpeft  to  God,  but  only  to  us  5  ifHeb.yii- 
he  does  any  thing  with  refpeft  to  us  in  Expiation  of  fin,  it  muft  be  ei- 1  joilf,".'' 
ther  declaring,  perfwading,  or  adlual  deliverance  5  but  it  is  none  of 
thefe  by  their  own  Aflertions  5  and  therefore  that  which  they  call 
Chriji's  Oblation,  or  his  being  in  Heaven,  fignifies  nothing  as  to  the  Ex- 
piation of  fin;  And  it  is  unreafonable  to  fuppofe  that  a  thing,  which 
hath  no  influence  at  all  upon  it,  (hould  be  looked  on  as  a  Conditi- 
on in  order  to  it.  From  whence  it  appears,  that  while  our  Adver- 
faries  do  make  the  Exercife  of  Chriji's  Priejihood  to  refped  us  and  not 
God,  they  deftroy  the  very  nature  of  it,  and  leave  Chrift  only  an  emp- 
ty name  without  any  thing  anfwering  it:  But  if  Chrift  be  tru- 
ly a  High-Prieji,  as  the  Apojile  afferts  that  he  is,  from  thence  it  fol- 
lows that  he  muft  have  a  refpeft  to  God  in  offering  tip  Gifts  and  Sacri- 
fices  for  fins  :  Which  was  the  thing  to  be  proved. 

VI.  2.  That  Chrift  did  Exercife  his  Prieftly  Office  in  the  Oblation  of  £;*«/.  5.2. 
himfelf  to  God  upon  the  Crofs.     Which  I  (hall  prove  by  two  things.  ^'^°*'"'')!= 
J.  Becaufe  the  Death  of  Chrift  is  faid  in  Scripture  to  bean  Offering, chVift an 
and  a  Sacrifice  to  God.     2.  Becaufe  Chrift  is  faid  to  offer  up  himfelf  an-  Expiatory 
tedecently  to  his  entrance  into  Heaven,     i .  Becaufe  the  Death  of  Chrift  and  an^ob- 
18  faid  to  he  an  offering  and  a  Sacrifice  to  God,  which  is  plain  from  the  lation  to 
words  of  St.  Paul,  as  Chriji  alfo  hath  loved  us,  and  given  himfelf  for  us  |°^' 
an  offering  and  a  Sacrifice  to  God,  for  a  fvpeet-fmelling  favour.     Our  Ad- 
versaries do  not  deny  that  the  Death  of  Chrift  is  here  called  an  Obla- 
iion,  but  they  deny,    "  That  it  is  meant  of  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice, 
"  but  of  a  Free-will  offering  ^  and  the  reafon  Crellius  ^rz/w  is,  becaufe  o<r//.c.  10. 
"  that  phrafe  of  a  fweet-fmelling  Savour  is  generally  and  almoft  al-^^-47. 
"  ways  ufed  of  Sacrifices  which  are  not  Expiatory  3  but  if  ever  they 
*'  be  ufed  of  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice,  they  are  not  applied  to  that  which 
"  was  properly  Expiatory  in  it,  vi%.  the  offering  up  of  the  Blood,  fof 
*'  no  fmell,  faith  he,  went  up  from  thence,  but  to  the  burning  of  the 
*'  Fat,  and  the  Kidneys,  which  although  required  to  perfeft  the  Expi- 
**  ation,  yet  not  being  done  till  the  High-Prieft  returned  out  of  the 
"  Holy  of  Holies,  hath  nothing  correfpondent  to  the  Expiatory  Sacri- 
"  fices  of  Chrift,  where  all  things  are  perfected  before  Chrift  the  High- 
"  Prieft  goes  forth  of  his  Sanftuary.    How  inconfiftent  thefe  laft  words 
are  with  what  they  aflert  concerning  the  Expiation  of  fin  by  actual  de- 
liverance at  the  great  day,  the  former  difcourfe  hath  already  difcove- 
red.  For  what  can  be  more  abfurd,  than  to  fay,  that  aS  things  which  per- 
tain  to  the  Expiation  of  fn  perfe^ed  before  Chriji  goes  forth  fr-om  hts  San- 
iluary,  and  yet  to  make  the  raoft  proper  Expiation  of  fin  to  lie  ii?  that 
aft  of  Chrift  which  is  confequent  to  his  going  forth  of  the  Sanliuary^ 
vis^.  When  he  proceeds  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.    But  of  that 
already.    We  now  come  to  a  punftual  and  dired  anfwer,  as  to  which 
two  things  muft  be  enquired  into.     i.  What  the  importance  of  the 

.    fihrafe 


i  .   iJ    — .. 


31-2  ^  Of  ths  Sufer'nigs  Chap.  V. 

phrafe  oi  ^  fmet-fmellwg  favaui-  is?     2.  What  the  Sacrifices  are  to 
which  that  phrafe  is  applied  ?     iJ  F6r  the  importance  of  the  phrafe. 
The  firft  time  we  read  it  ufed  in  the  Scripture  was  upon  the  occafion  of 
Oen.aio,  i^oah's  Sacrifice  after  the  Flood,  of  which  it  is  faid,  that  he  offered  hurnl- 
ti.        'offerings  on  the  Altar,  and.  the  Lord  fmeiled  a  fay  our  of  the  refi,  or  afmet 
favour.    Which  we  are,  not  wont  to  imagine  in  a  grofs  corporeal  mari- 
ner, as  Creltiiu  ftems  to  underftand  it,  when  he  faith,  the  Blood  could 
not  makefuch  a  favour  as  the  Fat  and  the  Kidnes  ^  for  furely  none  ever 
thought  the  fmell  of  Flefh  burnt  was  afweet-fmelUng^  favour  of  it  felf, 
and  we  muft  leaft  of  all  imagine  that  of  God,  which  Porphyry  faith, 
was  the  property  only  of  the  word  of  Demons  tobs  pleafed,  and  as  it 
were,  to  grorc  Fat,  -mic,  a*  7^/  a^jnArziv  it)  im-^xMi  xu^mic,  with  the  fmell 
^Jj!tl'„f' and  Vapours  of  Blood,  and  Flejh,  (by  which  Teftimony,  it  withal  ap- 
i.i.feif.  pears,  that  th6  fame  i^erf«a/  in'  Sacrifices  were  fuppbfed  to  arife  from 
*'^-         the  Blood  as  the  Plejh:')  But  we  are  to  underftand  that  Phrafe  in  a 
fenfe  agreeable  to  the  divine  Nature,  which  we  may  eafily  do,  if  we 
take  it  in  the  fenfe  the  Syriack  Verfion  takes  it  in,  when  it  calls  it,  Odo- 
'rem  placahllitatk,  or  the  favour  of  refi,  as  the  word  properly  fignifies,^ 
for  nn>J  is  the  word  formed  from  the  Verb  n'ij  which  is  ufed  for  the 
refling  of  the  Ark,  -v.  4.  of  the  fame  Chapter,  and  fo  it  imports  a  re|2 
after  fome  Commotion,  and  in  that  fenfe  is  very  proper  to  Atonetneni,  or 
"that  whereby  God  make  hk  anger  to  rejl  t,  fo  Aben  Ezra  upon  that  place 
expounds  the  Savour  of  reft,  to  befuch  a  one  which  makes  God  ceafe  from  hh 
Anger:  Thence  in'Hiphil  n^2n Signifies  to  appeafe,  or  to  make  peace:,  in 
which  fenfe  it  is  ufed  by  J^.  S>ld/^.  upon  Ifa.  27.  5.   Munjier  tells  us  the 
fenfe  is,  t)eiu  nunc  quiev:t  ab  ira  ^  placatus  fuit,  and  to  the  (ame  puir- 
pofe  Vatablm:  Which  fenfe  is  moft  agreeable  to  the  defign  of  the  fol- 
lowing word,  in  which  God  expreffeth  his  great  kindnefs,  and  the 
Lord  faid  in  his  Heart,  I  will  not  again  curfe^  the  Ground  any  mote  for 
Mans  fake  I  which  are  word  highly  expreflirig,  how  much  God  was 
propitiated:  by  the  Sacrifice  which  Noah  offered,  and  therefore  Jofephof 
doth  well  interpret  this  to  be  a  proper  Expiatory  Sacrifice  5  that  God 
2%  jitd.  ^0'*^'^  "ow  be  atoned,  and  fend  no  more  fuch  a  deluge  upon  the  World  5 
'/..I  C.4.  which  he  faith  was  the  fubftance  of  Noah's  Frayer,  when  he  offered 
this  Burnt-offering,  and  that  God  would  receive  hk  Sacrifice,  iij  /m^i^/Aup 
Of^j  '^^'  tLu  ytjjj  oL^ixv  KcLB^v,  That  he  would  no  more  re.  eive  fuch  difpulea- 
fure  again fl  the  Earth:  So  that  the  firft  time  ever  this  ExprefSon  was 
'  ufed,  it  is  taken  in  the  proper  fenfe  of  zxx  Expiatory  Sacrifice. 
crdiius  -     VII.  And  by  that  the  fecond  enquiry  may  beeafily  refolvedj  viz. 
flakes  a-  What  kind  of  Sacrifices  it  doth  belong  to,  which  we  fee  in  the  firft  place 
about  the  is,  to  Expiatory,  which  CreUius  denies  by  a  great  miftake  of  the  fenfe 
blendes    ^^  ^^^  Phrafe,  and  of  the  nature  of  the  Offerings,  concerning  which 
"this  ExprefTion  ismoft^fed^  viz.  Holocaujis,  as  though  thofe  were  not 
Expiatory  Sacrifices :  Bift  if  we  can  make  it  appear,  that  the  Holocaufir 
were  Expiatory  Sacrifices,  then  it  will  follow,  that  this  Phrafe  doth 
moft  properly  agree  to  a  Sacrifice  defigned  for  Expiation.    But  CrelUus 
here  fpeaks  very  confufedly  concerning  Sacrifices,  oppodng  Holocaujis 
and  Freewill- offerings  to  Expiatory  Sacrifices^  whereas  the  Freewill. of 
ftrings  might  be  Expiatory  as  well  as  Eucharifiical  5  that  denomination 
not  refpefting  the  end  the  Sacrifices  we  defigned  for,  but  that  the  pre- 
cife  time  of  offering  them  was  not  determined  by  the  Law 5  as  in  the 
ftated  and  folemn  Sacrifices.    For  the  general  diftribution  of  Sacrifices, 
feems  proper  into  Propitiatory  and  Eurharijiical  i  which  diftindion  is 
'''-'''•  thought 


Chap.  V>  of  CHRIST. 313 

thought  by  fome  to  hold  from  the  firft  time  we  read  of  Sacrifices  in 
Scripture  ^  becaufe  the  Sacrifice  of  Cain  was  of  the  Fruits  of  the  Ground;'^'^^  4-  3. 
at7d  0/ Abel,  of  the  Hrjilings  of  his  Flock.     Although  there  feeras  to*^ 
be  nothing  meant  by  this  difference  of  Sacrifices,  but  tbe-^iverfity  of 
their  iraployments,  either  of  them  Sacrificing  according  to  them  5  and 
I  cannot  fay  what  fome  do,  that  the  reafon  of  God's  rejefting  Cain's 
Sacrifice,  was  becaufe  it  was  not  defigned  for  Expiation.     But  the  Pra- 
ftice  of  after  Ages,  wherein  we  have  a  fuller  account  of  the  Grounds 
of  the  feveral  Sacrifices,  makes  it  appear,  that  the  Expiatory  Sacrifices 
before  the  La vv,  were  all  Bnr»t-offeri»gs '^  and  of  all  thofe  who  were 
not  under  the  particular  obligation  of  that  Law:  As  is  plain  in  the 
Expiatory  Sacrifices  oi  Job  for  his  Sons,  and  for  his  Friends,  which  1°^  "^^  J- 
were  Burnt- offerings 5  and  among  the  Jews,  all  the  Sacrifices  that  were'**    ' 
offered  up  before  the  Levitical  Law,  were,  as  the  Jews  themfelves  tell 
us,  only  Burnt-offerings  :  And  after  the  fettling  of  their  Worlhip  among 
themfelves,  they  did  receive  Burnt- offerings  for  Expiation  from  ftran- 
gers,  as  Mr.  Selden  at  large  proves  from  the  Jewijh  Writers.    It  feems  '^''f'„''Jf 
then  very  (trange,  that  (ince  Bkmt- offerings  before  the  Lavsr  were  ^x^^gelt'.'^apki 
piatory,  and  under  the  Law  they  continued  fo  for  ftrangers,  they  fhould  ^'"'"j  '■  '• 
be  of  another  nature  for  the  yew/ themfelves.     But  what  reafon  is  there '■^■^" 
for  it  in  the  Text  ?     Not  the  leafl:  that  I  can  find,  but  exprefly  the  con- 
trary.    For  in  the  beginning  of  Leviticut,  where  the  Law  for  Burnt- 
offerings  is  delivered,  the  words  are,  And  he  /hall  put  his  hand  upon  the 
kead  of  the  Burnt-offering,  and  it  jhall  he  accepted  for  him,  to  faake  A-^^""^^'-^' 
tonentent  for  him  ;  which  is  as  much  as  is  ever  faid  of  any  Expiatory  Sa- 
crifices: And  in  the  Verfe  before,  where  we  render  m">V  <7/^///)jp» 
voluntary  will '^  it  is  by  the  vulgar  Latin  rendred.  Ad  placandum /hi 
Dominum ;  by  the  Syrlack  Verfion,  Ad  placationemfibi  obtinendam  a  Do- 
0$in0^  and  to  the  fame  purpofe  by  the  Chaldee  Paraphra/i  ^  but  no  one 
Verfion  confiderable  that  fo  renders  it,  as  to  make  Burnt-offerings  to  be  1^07.7.  is, 
Freewill-ofiFerings  here,  which  are  fpokcn  of  dif^inftly,  and  by  them-"^'^'*^'- 
felves  afterwards :  And  the  Chaldee  Paraphraji,  Jonathan  thus  exphinSy 
This  is  the  Law  of  the  Burnt- offerings  i.e.     ^tod  venit  ad  expianduni 
pro  cogitatiottibm  cordis  5  but  although  the  Jews  be  not  fully  agreed  what 
the  Burnt- offerings  were  defigned  to  expiate,  yet  they  confent  that  they 
were  of  an  Expiatory  nature.    Which  might  make  us  the  more  won- 
der, that  Crellius  and  others  (hould  exclude  theiti  from  it,  but  the  only 
reafon  given  by  him  is,  becaufe  they  are  difiinguijhed  from  Sacrifices  for p'^^^l'^"' 
fin,  as  though  no  Sacrifices  were  of  an  Expiatory  nature  but  they,  and 
then  the  Trefpafs-offerings  mufl  be  excluded  too,  for  they  are  diftingui- 
(hed  from  Sin-offerings  as  well  as  the  other.    The  ignorance  of  the  fews 
in  the  reafon  of  their  own  Cuftoms,  hath  been  an  occafion  of  great 
miftakes  among  Chriftians,  concerning  the  nature  of  them;  when  they 
judge  of  them  according  to  the  blind  or  uncertain  Conjeftures  which 
they  make  concerning  them :  So  that  the  Text  is  oft-times  far  clearer 
than  their  Commentaries  are.    Setting  afide  then  the  intricate  and  un- 
fatisfadory  niceties  of  the  J ewi/h  Writers,  about  the  feveral  reafons  of 
the  Burnt  offerings  and  Sin  and  Trefpafs-offerings,  and  the  differences 
they  make  between  them,  which  are  fo  various  and  incoherent,  I  fhall 
propofe  this  Conjefture  concerning  the  different  reafons  of  them,  viz. 
That  fome  Sacrifices  were  afTumed  into  the  Jewijb  Religion,  which  had 
been  Jong  in  ufe  in  the  World  before,  and  were  common  to  them  with 
the  Patriarchs^  and  all  thofe  who  in  that  age  of  the  World  did  fear  and 

R  r  ferve 


^i^  Of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  V. 

ferve  God,  and  fuch  were  the  Eurtit- offerings  for  Expiation  ot  fin,  and 
the  Fruits  of  the  Earth  by  way  of  gratitude  to  God.     Other  Sacrifices 
were  inftitured  among  them,  with  a  particular  refped  to  themfelves, 
as  a  people  governed  by  the  Laws  of  God  :  And  thefe  were  of  feveral 
forts  5     I.  Symbolical,  of  God's  prefence  among  them,  fuch  was  the 
daily  Sacrifice,  inftituted  as  a  Teftimony  of  God's  prefence,  Exod.  29, 
from  V.  38.  to  the  end.     2.  Occafional,  for  fome  great  mercies  vouch- 
fafed  to  them,  as  the  Pajfover  and  the  Solemn  Fejiivals,  &c.     5.  Ex- 
piatory, for  the  fins  committed  againft  their  Law :  And  thefe  were  of 
three  forts  ^     i.  Such  as  were  wholly  confumed  to  the  Honour  of  God, 
which  were  the  Burttt-offeriNgf.     2.  Such,  of  which  fome  part  was  con- 
fumed  upon  the  Altar,  and  fome  part  fell  to  the  (hare  of  the  Friefis^ 
and  thefe  were  either  fins  particularly  enumerated  by  God  himfelf,  un- 
der the  iZiiys,  or  elfe  generally  comprehended  under  the  nsen  as  be- 
ing allowed  to  be  expiated,  becaufe  committed  through  inadvertency. 
9.  Such,  whereof  a  lefs  part  was  confumed,  as  in  the  Peace-offerings  of 
the  Congregation,  mentioned,  Levit.  23. 19.  whtxeoi  the  Bloodvpas fprink- 
led,  only  the  inwards  burnt,  and  the  Flefi  not  eaten  by  the  perfons  that  of- 
fered them,  as  it  was  in  the  Peace-offering  of  particular  perfons  (of  which 
as  being  private  Sacnfices,l  have  here  no  occafion  to  fpeak)  but  only  ^j> 
the  Friejls  in  the  Court :  And  thefe  had  fomething  of  Expiation  in  them : 
For  thence,  faith  Fatablus,  the  Peace-offering  was  called  by  the  Greeks 
T7A£7(;«2r,  i.  e.  Expiatorium,  and  the  LXX.  commonly  render  it,  ^m^ 
<m1fl^iii,  and  feveral  of  the  Jeros  think  the  reafon  of  the  name  was,  That 
it  made  peace  between  God  and  him  that  offered  it :  But  the  great  reafon 
I  infift  on,  is,  Becaufe  all  the  things  which  were  ufed  in  an  Expia- 
tory Sacrifice,  were  in  this  too^  the  flaying  of  the  Beaft,   the  fprink- 
ling  of  the  Blood,  and  the  confumption  of  fome  part  of  it  upon  the 
Altar  as  an  Oblation  to  God,  which  are  the  three  ingredients  of  an 
Expiatory  Sacrifice-^  for  the  fiedding  of  the  Blood,  noted  the  bearing  the 
puniftiment  of  our  iniquity  -^  and,  the  fprinkling  of  it  on  the  Altar^  and 
the  confuming   of  part   of  i  he  Sacrifice,  or  the  whole  there,  that  it   was 
defigned  for  the  Expiation  of  fin.    From  whence  it  follows,  that  the 
Phrafe  of  a  fweet-fmelling  favour^  being  applied  under  the  Law  to  Ex' 
piatory  Sacrifices,  is  very  properly  ufed  by  St.  Paid,  concerning  Chrift's 
giving  up  himfelf  for  us,  fo  that  from  this  Phrafe,  nothing  can  be  in- 
ferred contrary  to  the  Expiatory  Nature  of  the  Death  of  Chrift,  but 
rather  it  is  fully  agreeable  to  it. 
What  in-      VIIL  But  Oe///w  hath  yet  a  farther  Argument,  to  pro'vt  that  Chrift's 
fltience^    Death  cannot  be  here  meant  as  the  Expiatory  Sacrifice  ^  vi%.    That  the 
tion'ofthe  *"''""''  ^'f  "  Sacrifice,  doth  confifl  in  the  Oblation  whereby  the  thing  is  con~ 
facrifice    fecrated  to  the  Honour  and  Service  of  God,  ti)  which  the  MaBation  is  but  a 
had  Oil  ex-  ^^^^  preparation,  which  he  proves,  Becaufe  the  flaying  the  Sacrifice  might 
crell.c.'io,  belong  to  others  befides  the  Pricfts,  Ezek.  44.  10,  1 1 .  but  the  Oblation  only  to 
P' 533-     the  Pr/effs.     To  this  I  anfwer,     i.  The  Ma&atio,<!  may  be  confidered 
two  ways,  either  with  a  refpeft  to  the  bare  infirument  of  taking  away 
'  the  life,  or  to  the  defign  of  the  Offerer  of  that  which  was  to  be  facri- 

ficed :  As  the  Ma&ation  hath  a  refpect  only  to  the  inftruments,  fo  it  is  no 
otherways  to  be  confidered  than  as  a  punifhment ;  but  as  it  hath  a  Re- 
fpeft  to  him  that  defigns  it  for  a  Sacrifice,  fo  the  (bedding  of  the  Blood, 
hath  an  immediate  influence  on  the  Expiation  of  fin.  And  that  by  this 
clear  Argument,  The  Blood  is  faid  to  make  an  Atonement  for  the  Soul -^  and 
,  .  the  reafon  given  is,  becaufe  the  Life  of  the  Flefh  is  in  the  Blood  :  So  that 
It.  which 

\ 


3*5 


Chap.   V.  of  CHKIS  I. 

which  was  the  i:fe,  is  the  great  thing  which  makes  the  ^/tf«p«?e/// 5  and 
when  the  Blood  was  (hed,  the  l/fe  was  then  given  5  from  whence  it 
follows,  that  the  great  Efficacy  of  the  Sacrifice  for  Atonement  lay  in 
the  Jhedding  of  the  Blood  for  that  end.  Thence  the  Apoftle  attributes  Heb  92-6 
remiflion  of  fins  to  the  aj^V-^rjjt^si?',  the  (bedding  of  the  Blood  ^  and  not 
to  the  bare  Oblation  of  it  on  the  Altar,  or  the  carrying  it  into  the  Ho- 
ly of  Holies,  both  which  feem  to  be  nothing  elfe  but  a  more  folemn 
Reprefentation  of  that  Blood  before  God,  which  was  already  (hed  for 
the  Expiation  of  fins,  which  was  therefore  neceffary  to  be  performed, 
that  the  concurrence  of  the  Priefl  might  be  feen  with  the  Sacrifice  in 
order  to  Expiation.  For  if  no  more  had  been  neceffary  but  the  bare 
flaying  of  the  Beafts,  which  was  the  meaneft  part  of  the  Service,  the 
people  would  never  have  thought  the  inftitution  of  the  Friejlhood  ne- 
ceffary, and  Jeaft  of  all  that  of  the  High-Prieji,  unlefs  fome  folemn  A- 
ftion  of  bis  had  been  performed,  fuch  as  the  entring  into  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  on  the  day  of  Expiation,  and  carrying  it,  and  fprinkling  the 
Blood  of  the  fin-offering  in  order  to  the  Expiation  of  the  fins  of  the 
People.  And  it  is  obfervable,  that  although  the  Levitical  Larv  be  Cl- 
ient in  the  common  Sacrifices,  who  were  to  kill  them  whether  the 
Priejis  or  the  Levites  i  yet  on  that  day  whereon  the  High-Priefl  waste 
appear  himfelf  for  the  Expiation  of  fin,  it  is  exprefly  faid,  that  heUvii.\6-. 
fljoiild  not  only  kill  the  Bul/ock  of  the  fin-ofering,  which  is  fir  himfelf,  btit  ^'»  ^5. 
the  Goat  of  the  fn'offering,  which  is  for  the  people.  And  although  the 
Tatmudifis  difpute  from  their  Traditions  on  both  fides,  whether  any 
one  elfe  might  on  the  day  of  Expiation,  flay  the  fin-offerings  befides 
the  High-Prieft;  yet  it  is  no  news  for  them  to  difpute  againft  the  Text, 
and  the  Talmud  it  felf  is  clear,  that  the  High-Priefi  did  it.  From  whence  ccdex  Jo- 
it  appears,  there  was  fomething  peculiar  on  that  day  as  to  the  flaying  '"yf-  4- 
of  xht  fin-offerings  -^  and  if  our  Adverfaries  opinion  hold  good,  that  Ijea!^^' 
the  Sacrifii.es  on  the  day  of  Expiation  did,  if  not  atone,  yet  chiefly  repre- 
fent  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrifi.^  no  greater  argument  can  be  brought  againft 
themfelves  than  this  is,  for  the  Office  of  the  High-Priefl  did  not  begin 
at  his  carrying  the  Blood  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  but.  the  flaying  the 
Sacrifice  did  belong  to  him  too:  From  whence  it  will  unavoidably  fol- 
low, that  Chrift  did  not  enter  into  his  Office  of  High-Prieji,  when  he 
entred  into  Heaven,  but  when  the  Sacrifice  was  to  be  flain  which  was 
defigned  for  the  Expiation  of  fins.  It  is  then  to  no  purpofe  at  all,  if 
CreSiuf  could  prove  that  fometimes  in  ordinary  Sacrifices,  (  which  he 
will  not  fay,  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift  was  reprefented  by  )  the  Levites 
might  kill  the  Beafts  for  Sacrifice;  for  it  appears,  that  in  thefe  Sacri- 
fices, wherein  themfelves  contend  that  Chrift's  was  reprefented,  the 
Office  of  the  High-Priefi  did  not  begin  with  entring  into  the  Sanduary^ 
but  with  the  Ma^ation  of  that  Sacrifice  whofe  Blood  was  to  be  carried 
in  thither.  Therefore  if  we  fpeak  of  the  bare  inftruments  of  Ma&a- 
tion  in  the  Death  of  Chrift,  thofe  were  the  Jews,  and  we  make  not 
rhem  Priefis  in  it,  for  they  aimed  at  no  more  than  taking  away  his  life 
(as  the  f'op£  among  the  Romans,  and  thofe  whofe  bare  Office  it  was  to 
kill  the  Beafts  for  Sacrifice  among  the  Jews  did;)  but  if  we  confiderit 
with  a  Refpedt  to  him  that  offered  up  his  Life  to  God,  then  we  fay, 
that  Chrift  was  the  High-Priefi  in  doing  it  ^  it  being  defigned  for  the 
Expiation  of  fin  5  and  by  virtue  of  this  Blood  fijed  for  that  end,  he  en- 
ters into  Heaven  as  the  Holy  of  Holies,  there  ever  living  to  make  inter- 
ceffijnfor  its.     But  the  virtue  of  the  confequent  Ads,  depends  upon  the 

R  r  2  Effi- 


31^  of  the  Sufferings  C  h  a  p.  V . 

Efficacy  of  the  Blood  ?a^A  for  Expiation^  otherwifc  the  High-Frieji 
might  have  entred  with  the  fame  efFeft  into  the  holy  of  Holies  with  a- 
-  ny  other  Blood  befides  that  which  was  (hed  on  purpofe  ^s  a  J/»-oferj»g, 
for  Expiation  of  the  fins  of  the  people  5  which  it  was  nnlawful  for  him 
to  do.     And  from  hence  it  is,  that  the  Jpojile  to  the  Hebrews  infifts  fo 
much  on  the  Comparifon  between  the  Blood  of  Chriji,  and  the  Blood 
Heb.9.1?,  of  fjjg  jr  eg^/  Sacrifices,  and  the  Efficacy  of  the  one  far  above  the  other, 
14. 10.4,  .^  .^^  power  of  Expiation  ^  which  he  needed  not  to  have  done,  if  the 
fhedding  of  his  Blood,  bad  been  only  a  Preparation  for  his  entrance 
on  his  Pr/ejlhood  in  Heaven.     So  that  the  proper  notion  of  a  Sacrifite 
for  fm^  as  it  notes  the  giving  the  Life  of  one  for  the  Expiation   of 
the  fins  of  another,  doth  properly  lie  in  the  MaUation,  though  other 
facrificial  Afts  may  beconfequent  upon  it.    So  it  was  in  the  animates 
Macrob.     hofiiiC  amoHg  the    Rowans,    in   which,  faith   Macrohius,   Sola  anima 
s^ittirn.  I.  £)gg  facratur :   of  which   he  tells  us  VirgH  properly  fpeaks  in  thofe 
words, 


i-c.y 


.  Hanc  tibi  Erjix  fueliorem  Anitttatn  pro  morte  Daretk. 

And  that  we  may  the  better  understand  what  he  means  by  the  ansma 
here,  he  faith  elfewhere  (as  Macroblus  and  Servius  obferveout  of  his 
excellent  Skill  and  accuracy  in  the  Pontifical  rites) 

Sanguine  placajlis  ventos  €^  virgine  cafa, 
Cuftt  printum  Iliacas  Danai  venijiis  ad  oras  : 
Sanguine  quaerendi  reditus^  animaque  litandttm 
Argolica. 

Which  ftiews,  that  the  Expiation  was  fuppofed  to  lie  in  the  Blood 
which  they  called  the  Soul,  as  the  Scripture  doth.     And  the  Pcr/<i»x, 
as  Strabo  tells  us,  looked  upon  the  bare  Ma&ation  as  the  Sacrifice,  for 
they  did  not  porricere  as  the  Romans  called  it,  they  laid  none  of  the 
strabo  I   V^^^^  °^  ^^^  Sacrifice  upon  the  Altar  to  be  con  fumed  there,  -^  ^  -4^;^? 
jj.     '     pa.mTVli^Ai^&ia-^xA'r  Qtova.?\?\.ii'2)4Siv@^.    For  God  regarded  nothing  but  t  Re 
Euiiath.in ^^^l  i„  the  Sacrifice:  Which  words  Eujiathius  likewife  ufeth  upon  Ho- 
f5,7.  '    «»er,  of  the  Sacrifices  of  the  Magi.     And  Strabo  affirms  of  the  ancient 
strabo^i.^.  Lufitani,  that  they  cut  off  nothing  of  the  Sacrifice,  but  confumed  the 
entrails  whole  ^  but  though  fuch  Sacrifices  which  were  for  divination 
were  not  thought  Expiatory,  and  therefore  different  from  the  animales 
hojiia,  yet  among  the  Ferfia»s,  every  Sacrifice  had  a  Refpeft  to  Expia- 
tion of  the  whole  People.     For  Herodotus  tells  us,  that  every  one  that 
/ftj-o;/. /.I.  offers  Sacrifice  among  them,  -Tmn  td^oi  ui^m(n  >(cf,rii')^1aji  w  yiMa^i  {y 
■ti>  ^zin\&,  prays  for  good  to  all  Perfians  and  the  King.  But  thus  much  may 
ferve  to  prove  againfl:  Crelliuf,  that  the  MatUtion  in  an  Expiatoty  Sa- 
crifice, was  not  a  meet  Preparation  to  a  Sacrifice,  but  that  it  was  a 
proper  Sacrificial  Aft,  and  confequently  that  Chrift  aded  as  High-Prieft, 
when  he  gave  himfelf  for  us,  an  offering  and  a  Sacrifice  to  God  for  a 
Chrift's    jvp^et-jmellingjavour. 

obuciou  IX.  But  this  will  further  appear  from  thofe  places  wherein  Chrift  is 
of  himfelf  fgjj  ^^  ^^^  j^^  himfelf  once  to  God:  The  places  to  this  purpofe  are,  Heb. 
God, were  7-  2/.  Who  needeth  not  daily  as  thofe  fJigh-Priefis  to  offer  up  Sacrifice, 
in  ^ei'>^^  firfi  for  his  oven  fins,  and  then  for  the  peoples,  for  this  he  did  once,  when  he  offered 
Eardi.      «?  himfelf.     Heb.  9-1 4.     HffO)  much  more  fijall  the  Blood  ofChrifi,  who 

through 


Ciojp/v. oic^Hiiisr.  317 

through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himfelf  without  fpot  to  God^ purge  your  Cok' 
fcience  from  dead  works,  to  ferve  the  living   God.     V.  25,  26,  27,  28. 
Nor  yet  that  he  fioiild  offer  himjclf  ofie;?,  as  the  High-Prieji  entreth  into 
the  holy  place  every  year  with  the  Blood  of  others  ^  for  then  mttji  he  often 
have  fuffered  ffnce  the  Foundation  of  the  World  :  But  now  once  in  the  end 
of  the  World  hath  he  appeared  to  put  away  fin  by  the  Sacrifice  of  himfelf. 
And  as  it  is  appointed  to  men  once  to  die^  but  after  this  the  Judgment :  So 
Chriji  was  once  offered  to  bear  the  fins  of  many,  and  unto  them  that  look  for 
him  he  /hall  appear  the  fecond  time  without  fin  unto  Salvation.    Heb.  ic.  10, 
11,12.     By  the  which  w'll  we  are  funtlified  through  the  offering  of  the  Bo- 
dy of  Jefus  ChrIJi  once  for  all.     And  every  H/gh-PrieJi,  ftandeth  da  ly  mi- 
nifir/ng  and  offering  oftentimes  the  fame  Sacrifices,  which  can  never  take 
away  fins  :  But  this  Man  after  he  had  offered  one  Sacrifice  for  fins  for  ever, 
fate  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God.     To  thefe  places  Crellitfs  gives  this 
anfwer,     "  That  the  name  of  Oblation  as  applied  to  Chrift,  prima-  io/ffl.74  • 
"  rily  fignifies  Cbrift's  firft  entrance  into  Heaven,  and  appearance  be- 
"  fore  the  Face  of  God,  there,  but  confequently  the  continuance  of 
"  that  appearance;  fo  that  when  a  thing  is  once  aftually  exhibited  and 
"  prefented,  it  is  faid  to  be  once  offered,  although  being  offered,  it 
"  always  remains  in -the  fame  place,  and  fb  may  be  faid  to  be  a  con- 
"  tinual  Oblation.     But  this  firft  appearance,  faith  he,  hath  a  pecu- 
"  liar  agreement  with  the  Legal  Oblation;  and  therefore  the  name  of 
"  Oblation  doth  moft  properly  belong  to  that,  becaufe  Chrift  by  this 
"  means  obtained  that  power  on  which  the  perfeft  Remiffion  of  our 
"  fins  depends :   But  although  the  continuance  of  that  appearance, 
"  feems  only  confequently  to  have  the  name  of  Oblation  belonging  to 
"  it,  yet  in  its  own  nature,  it  hath  a  nearer  Conjunftion  with  the  ef- 
"  feft  of  the  Oblation,  viz,,  the  remiffion  of  fins,  or  deliverance  from 
*'  punifhment,  and  doth  of  it  felf  confer  more  to  it  than  the  other.  And 
*'  therefore  in  regard  of  that,  Chrift  is  faid  moft  perfectly  to  exercife 
"  his  Priefthood,  and  to  offer  and  intercede  for  us,  from  the  time  he 
"  is  faid  to  fit  down  at  the  right  Hand  of  God.     Againft  this  anfwer, 
I  (hall  prove  thefe  two  things,     i.  That  it  is  incoherent,  and  repug- 
nant to  it  felf.     2.  That  it  by  no  means  agrees  to  the  places  before  men- 
tioned.    1.  That  it  is  incoherent  and  repugnant  to  it  felf  in  two  things. 
I.  In  making  that  to  be  the  proper  Oblation  in  correfpondency  to  the 
Oblations  of  the  Law,  which  hath  no  immediate  Refpeft  to  the  Expia- 
tion of  fins.     2.  In  making  that  to  have  the  moft  immediate  refpeft  to 
the  Expiation  of  fins,  which  can  in  no  tolerable  fenfe  be  called  an  Ob- 
lation.   For  the  firft,  fince  CrelUus  faith,  that  the  proper  notion  of 
Oblation  is  to  be  taken  from  the  Oblations  in  the  Levitical  Law,  we  muft 
confider  what  it  was  there,  and  whether  Chrifi's  firft  entrance  into  Hea- 
ven can  have  any  correfpondency  with  it.    An  Oblation  under  the  Law 
was  in  general,  any  thing  which  was  immediately  dedicated  to  God., 
but  in  a  more  limited  fenfe  it  was  proper  to  what  was  dedicated  to  him 
by  way  of  Sacrifice  according  to  the  appointments  of  the  Levitical 
Law.     We  are  now  enquiring  what  was  properly  called  an  Oblation  in 
other  Sacrifices,  but  in  thofe  which  then  were  for  Expiation  of  fin ; 
And  in  the  Oblation  was,  firft  of  the  perfons  for  whom  the  Sacrifice 
was  offered.    So  in  the  Burnt- offering,  the  perfon  who  brought  it,  was  Lev.  i.^. 
to  offer  it  at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle  of  the  Congregation :  i.  e.  as  the 
Jews  expound  it,   at  the  entrance  of  the  Court  of  the  Priejis,    and 
there  he  was  to  lay  hk  bands  upon  the  head  ofit^  and  it  Jhall  he  accepted  vtri.  4* 

for 


3 1 8  Of  the  Sufenngs  C  h  a  p.  V. 

for  htm  to  make  Atonement  for  hwt.  This  Offering  was  made  before  the 
Beafl:  was  flain  ^  after  the  killing  the  Beaft,  then//>e  Priejls  vere  la  male 
an  Offering  of  the  Blood,  by  fprlnkluig  it  round  about  the  ^liar  of  Burnt- 
offeringj  '^  the  reft  of  the  Blood,  fay  the  "jetes,  was  poured  out  by  the 
Pr'iefls,  at  the  South-fide  of  the  Altar  upon  the  Foundation,  where  the 
two  holes  were  for  the  p;iff;tge  into  the  Channel,  which  convey'd  the 
Blood  into  the  Valley  of  Kidron  ^  thus  the  Blood  being  offered,  the 
parts  of  the  Beaft,  were  by  the  Priejis  to  be  laid  upon  the  Altar,  and 
there  they  were  all  to  be  con  fumed  by  Fire  ^  and  then  it  was  called  an  Offer- 
ing  made  by   Fire,  of  a  fweet  Savour  unto  the  Lord.     The  fame  Rites 
were  ufed  in  the  Peace- offerings,  and  Trefpafs- offerings,  as  to  the  laying 
an  of  hands,  and  the  fprinkling  the  Blood,  and   confuming  fame  part  by 
Fire:  and  in  tht  fin-ofertngs,  there  was  to  be  the  fame  impofition  of 
hands:  But  concerning  the  fprinkling  of  the  Blood,  and  the  way  of  con- 
fuming  the  remainders  of  the  Sacrifice  ^  there  was  this  confiderable  dif- 
ference 5  that  in  the  common  Jin-offerings  for  particular  Perfons,  the 
Lev  4.25,  ^igQ^  jp^j  fprinkled  upon  the  horns  of  the  Altar  of  Burnt-offerings^  but  in 
the  Jin-offerings  for  the  High-Pneft  and  the  Congngation,  or  all  the  Peo- 
verfe  6.    pie,   he  was  to  carry  the  Blood  within  the  SanUnary,  and  to  fprinkle  of  it 
feven  times  before  the  Veil  of  the  Sanctuary  ^  and  fome  of  the  Blood  was 
to  be  put  jtpon  the  horns  of  the  Altar  ofJncenfe-^  but  the  remainder  of  the 
Blood,  and  the  fame  things  (which  were  offered  by  Fire  in  Peace-of- 
ferings )  were  to  be  difpofed  of  accordingly,  on  the  Altar  of  Burnt' 
offerings.     And  withal,  there  was  this  great  difference,  that  in  other 
Jin-offerings  the  Priejls  were   to  eat  the  remainder  of  the  Sacrifice  in  the 
Holy  place  ^  but  in  thefe  there  w^is  nothing  to  be  ^<«fe»  by  them  ^  for 
^^'    ^    the  whole  Bullock  was  to  be  carried  forth  without  the  Camp,  and  there  he 
Lev  4, 1 1,  »"'•»■  to  be  burned  till  all  were  confumed.     For  it  was  an  exprefs  Law,  That 
12'  no  Jin- offerings,  whereof  any  of  the  Blood  is  brought  into  the  Tabernacle  of 

Lev.  6, 3 r.  the  Congregation,  to  reconcile  withal  in  the  Holy-place,  fiall  be  eaten  :  It 
P^all  be  burnt  in  the  F/re.  All  the  difference  that  was  on  the  great  day 
Lev.  I  (J,  of  Atonement,  was  this,  that  the  High- Prieji  himfelf  was  to  flay  the 
'*  '^'  fi»-offerings,  and  then  to  carry  the  Blood  of  them  into  the  Holy  of  Holies^ 
and  there  wm  to  fprinkle  the  Blood  with  his  Finger  towards  the  mercy- feat 
feven  times  :  After  which,  ^  the  fending  away  the  Scape-goat,  the  Ceremo- 
nies were  the  fame  for  the  Atonement  of  the  People,  which  were  at  other  fo- 
lemn  fin  offerings,  fr  the  Priejl  or  the  People. 

X»  From  all  which  being  thus  laid  together,  we  fhall  obferve  feveral 

things,  which  are  very  material  to  our  purpofe: 

All  things      '•  That  in  the  Oblations  which  are  made  for  Expiation  of  fins,  the 

iieceftjiy  difference  between  the  Maftation  and  the  Oblation,  did  arife  from  the 

'u.^v'^l*'  difference  between  the  Prieliznd  the  Sacrifice.  For  the  Prieii's  Office  was 

concur  in  to  atone,  Dut  he  was  to  atone  by  the  sacrifice :,  on  which  account,  al- 

of^crift  ^^°"§^  ^^^  Priefi  were  to  offer  the  Sacrifice  for  himfelf,  yet  theObla- 

■  tion  did  not  lie  in  the  bare  prefenting  himfelf  before    God,  but  in 

the  prefenting  the  Blood  of  that  Sacrifice,  which  was  fhed  in  order  to 

Expiation.     If  we  could  have  fuppofed,  that  the  H/gh-Prieft  under 

the  Law,  inftead  of  offering  a  Goat  for  a  fin-offering  for  the  People, 

on  the  day  of  Atonement,  fhould  have  made  an  Oblation  of  himfelf 

to  God,  by  dying  for  the  Expiation  of  their  fins ;  In  this  cafe,  his  death 

being  the  Sacrifice,  and  himfelf  the  Pm/,  the  Mali ation,  as  it  relates 

to  his  own  Aft  and  his  Oblation  had  been  one  and  the  fame  thing.  For 

his  death  had  been  nothing  elfe,  but  the  offering  up  himfelf  to  Cod, 

in 


1 


Chap,  V.  ofCHKlST.  31J 

in  order  to  the  Expiation  of  the  (ins  of  the  people^  and  there  can  be 
no  reafon,  why  the  Oblation  raufl:  be  of  necefllty  fomething  confe- 
quent  to  his  Death,  fince  all  things  neceffary  to  a  perfeft  Oblation  do 
concur  in  if.     For  where  there  is  fomething  folemnly  devoted  to  God, 
and  in  order  to  the  Expiation  of  fins,  and  by  the  hand  of  a  Prieji,  there 
are  all  things  concurring  to  a  Legal  Oblation  5  but  in  this  cafe,  all  thefe 
things  do  concur,  and  therefore  there  can  be  no  imaginable  neceflity  of 
making  the  Oblation  of  Chrift,  only  confequent  to  his  Afcenflon,  fiace 
in  his  Death  all  things  concur  to  a  proper  Oblation.    In  the  Law,  we 
grant  that  the  Oblation  made  by  the  Pr/e/?,   was  confequent  to  the 
Death  of  the  Beaft  for  Sacrifice ;  but  the  reafon  of  that  was,  becaiife 
the  Beaft  could  not  offer  up  it  felf  to  God^  and  God  had  made  it  ne- 
cefTary,  that  the  Prieft  (hould  expiate  fins,  not  by  himfelf,  but  by  thofe 
Sacrifices,  and  therefore  the  Oblation  of  the  Blood  was  after  the  Sacri- 
fice was  flain  ^  neither  could  this  have  been  folved  barely  by  the  Prieji 
Jlayiag  the  Sacrifices  5  for  this  being  an  Aft  of  Violence  towards  the 
Beafts  that  were  thus  killed,  could  not  be  a  proper  Oblation,  which 
muft  fuppofe  a  confent  antecedent  to  it.    All  which  fhewed  the  great 
imperfedion  of  the  Levitkal  Law,  in  which  fo  many  feveral  things 
were  to  concur,  to  make  up  si  Sacrifice  for  fin -^  viz..    The  firfi  offeriag 
made  by  the  party  concerned,  of  what  was  under  his  Dominion,  vizi 
The  Beaft  to  be  Sacrificed  at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle  of  the  Congrega- 
tion, but  the  Beaft  not  being  able  to  offer  up  it  felf,  it  was  neceCfary  for 
the  offering  up  its  Blood,  that  it  muft  he  flain  by  others  5  and  for  the 
better  underftanding,  not  only  of  the  Efficacy  of  the  Blood,  but  the 
Concurrence  of  the  Prieft  for  Expiation,  he  was  to  take  the  Bloj)d,  and 
fprinhle  fotne  of  it  on  ike  Altar,  and  pour  out  the  reft  at  the  Foundation 
of  it.     But  fince  we  alTert  a  far  more  noble  and  excellent  Sacrifice,  by 
the  Son  of  God  freely  offering  up  himfelf,  to  be  made  a  Sacrifice  for 
the  fins  of  the  World,  why  may  not  this  be  as  proper  an  Oblation  made 
unxo  God,  as  any  was  under  the  Lavp,  and  far  more  excellent,  both  in 
regard  of  the  Priefi  and  the  Sacrifice :  Why  ftiould  his  Oblation  of 
himfelf  then  be  made  only  confequent  to  his  Death  and  Refurreftion? 
Which  latter,  being  by  our  Adverfaries  made  not  his  own  Adl,  but 
Gods  upon  him,  and  his  entrance  into  Heaven,  being  given  him  (as 
they  affert)  as  a  reroardofhis  fufferings,  in  what  tolerable  fenfe  can  that 
be  called  an  Oblation  of  himfelf,  which  was  conferred  upon  him  as  a 
reward  of  his  former  fufferings?     From  whence  it  follows,  that  upon 
our  Adverfaries  own  grounds,  the  Death  of  Chrift  may  far  more  pro- 
perly be  called  the  Oblation  of  himfelf,  than  his  entrance  into  Heaven^ 
and  that  there  is  no  neceflity  of  making  the  Oblation  of  Chrift  confe- 
quent to  bis  Death,  there  being  fo  great  a  difference  between  the  Sacri- 
fice of  Chrift,  and  that  of  the  Sacrifices  for  fin  under  the  Levitical  Law. 
2.  We  obferve.  That  the  Oblation  as  performed  by  the  Priefi,  did 
not  depend  upon  his  prefenting  himfelf  heiore  God,  but  upon  the  pre- 
fenting  the  Blood  of  a  Sacrifi.e,  which  had  been  already  flain  for  the 
Expiation  of  fins.     If  the  Priefi  had  gone  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and 
there  only  prefented  himfelf  before  .the  Mercy-feat,  and  that  had 
been  all  required  in  order  to  the  Expiation  of  fins,  there  had  been 
fome  pretence  for  our  Adverfaries  making  Chrift's  prefenting  him- 
felf in  Heaven,  to  be  the  Oblation  of  himfelf  to  God  ^   but  under 
the  Law,   the  Efficacy  of  the  High-Priefi's  entrance  into   the  Holji 
of  Holies,   did  depend  upon  the  Blood  which  he   carried  in  thi- 
ther. 


320  Of  the  Sufferings  .  Chap.  V. 

ther,  which  was  the  Blood  o^  the  Ji»- offering,,  which  was  already  flair! 
for  the  Expiation  of  fins:  And  in  correrponden(;y  to  this, . Chrift's  Ef- 
ficacy in  his  entrance' into  Heaven,  as  it  refpe&s  our  Expiation,  muft 
bave  a  Refpeft  to  that  Sacrifice  which  was  offered  up  to  God  antece- 
dent to  it.  And  I  wonder  our  Adverfaries  do  fo  rtiuch'  ihfift  on  thCi 
High-Prieji's  entring  into  the  mofl  holy  place  once  a  Tear,  as  though  al! 
the  Expiation  had  depended  upon  that^  whereas  all  th?  promife  of 
Expiation,  was  not  upon  his  bare  entrance  into  it,  but  u^^ontht  Blood 
which  he  carried  along  with  him,  and  fprinkled  there :  In  Correfpon- 
Hcb.9.i2.dency  to  which,  our  Saviour  is  not  hardy  )^si\A  to  enter  into  Heaven ^ 
and  prefent  hirafelf  to  God,  but  that  he  did  ths  by  his  own  Bloody  having 
obtained  eternal  Redemption  for  us. 

3.  We  obferve.  That  there  was  fomething  correfpondent  in  th^ 
Death  of  Chrift,  to  fomewhat  confequent  to  the  Oblation  under  the 
Law,  and  therefore  there  can  be  no  reafon  to  fuppofe,  that  the  Oblati- 
on of  Chrift  muft  be  confequent  to  his  Death :  For  that  deftroys  the 
Correfpondency  between  them.  Now  this  appears  in  this  particular, 
in  the  folemn  Sacrifices  for  fm,  after  the  fprinkUng  of  the  Blood,  which' 
was  carried  into  the  Holy  place  to  reconcile  vpithall,  all  the  remainder  of 
the  Sacrifice  was  to  be  burnt  without  the  Camp,  and  this  held  on  the  day 
Hcb.  13.  of  Atonement,  as  well  as  in  other  fin- offerings  for  the  Congregation. 
'^'  Now  the  Author  to  the  Hebrews  tells  us.  That  in  correfpondency  to 
this,  '^eftfs  that  he  might  fanttifie  the  people  tvith  his  own  Blood,  fuffered 
without  the  Gate :  What  force  is  there  in  this,  unlefs  the  Blood  of 
Ohriftdid  anfwer  to  the  fin-offerings  for  the  People,  and  his  Oblation 
was  fuppofed  to  be  made  before;  and  therefofe  that  he  might  have 
all  things  agreeable  to  tliofe  fin-offerings,  the  laft  part  was  to  be  coiri- 
pleated  too,  viz.  That  he  wastofuffer  without  the  Gate^  which  after 
the  Peoples  fcttlement  in  Jerufalem,  anfwcred  to  the  being  burnt  without 
the  Camp  in  the  Wildernefs. 

4.  We  obferve.  That  the  Oblation  in  Expiatory  Sacrifices  under  the 
Law,  by  the  Prieft,  had  always  Relation  to  the  Confumption  of  what 
was  offered :  Thus  the  offering  of  the  Blood,  in  token  of  the  Deftru- 
(3ion  of  the  Life  of  the  Beaft,  whofe  Blood  was  offered  ^  for  no  Blood 
was  to  be  offered  of  a  living  Creature,  nor  of  one  killed  upon  any  o- 
ther  account,  but  for  that  end  to  be  a  Sacrifice  for  fin,  and  after  the 
y/'riw;^////^  and  pouring  out  of  the  Blood,  the /»jv4r^T  of  fome,  and  all  of 
the  other,  were  to  be  confumed  by  Fire.    And  it  is  obfcrvable,  that 
the  greater  the  Sacrifice  for  fin  was,  always  the  more  was  confumed  of 
it;  as  appears  plainly  by  the  forementioned  difference  of  the  fin- offer- 
ings  for  private  Ferfons,  and  for  the  People -^  of  the  former,  the  Priefis 
were  allowed  to  eat,  but  not  at  all  of  the  latter.    And  fo  it  was  obfer- 
„  „   -  n    .V    ,  .  .  J     ved  among  the  Egyptians,  in  the  moft  folemn  Sacrifices  for 
y>Hi{  ■n.m  wifctx?^,  «7?    Expiation,  nothmg  was  allowed  to  be  eaten  of  that  part 
uihK^i  «  WOT  70'iffi  3uM-    which  was  defigned  for  that  end.    For  Herodotiu  gives 
'^c!  icl£%^^,,  ZZ    "s  an  account  why  the  Egyptians  never  eat  the  head  of  a- 
9«\'r   lOLvm  TfjtTeiSu/.    ny  living  Creature 5  which  is.  That  when  they  offir  up  a 
Herodoc.  I.  z.  c  9.  Sacrifice,  they  make  a  folemn  Execratiop  upon  it,  that  if  any 

Tm  ^tV'  M^tLhi  tH  h  evil  were  to  fall  upon  the  perfons  who  Sacrificed,  or  upon  aU 
tei>.KA-mey.cn^ti,>c,a-!ro}d-  Egypt,  it  might  be  turned  upon  the  head  of  that  Beafi : 
^^VkI!^.  vVYtoU%.  And  Plutarch  adds,  that  after  this  folemn  Execration, 
voi{  a-ro^'Jb/leii.  I'lutarcii,  They  cut  off  the  head,  and  of  old,  threw  it  into  the  River, 
^^  ^^'^^'  but  then  gave  it  to  Strangers.     From  which  Cuftom  we 

obferve, 


Chap.  V.  of  CHRIST,  -     321 

obferve,  that  in  a  folemn  Sacrifite  for  Expiation,  the  guilt  of  the  Of- 
fenders was  by  this  rite  of  Execration  fuppofed  to  be  transferred  upon 
the  head  of  the  Sacrifice,  as  it  was  in  the  Sacrifices  among  the  Jews, 
by  the  laying  on  of  hands  ^  and  that  nothing  was  to  be  eaten  of  what  xtnoth. 
was  fuppofed  to  have  that  guilt  transferred  upon  if.     From  hence  all  cyropJi. 
Expiatory  Sacrifices  were  at  firft  whole  Burnt- offerings,  as  appears  b^/*^"^[^f* 
the  Patriarchal  Sacrifices,  and  the  Cuftoms  of  other  Nations,  and  a-  ur'cb 
mong  the  Jews  themfelves,  as  we  have  already  proved  in  all  folemn  of-  ^•^'I'fi**' 
ferings  for  the  People.     And  although  in  the  Sacrifices  of  private  per-*"^" 
fons,  fome  parts  were  allowed  to  be  eaten  by  the  Priefts  j  yet  thofe 
which  were  defigned  for  Expiation  were  confumed.    So  that  the  greater 
the  offering  was  to  God,  the  more  it  implied  the  Confumption  of  the 
t-hing  which  was  fo  offered :  How  ftrangely  improbable  then  is  it,  That 
the  Oblation  of  Chrift  (hould  not  (  as  under  the  Law  )  have  refpeft 
to  his  death  and  fufferings  5  but  to  his  entrance  into  Heaven,  wherein 
nothing  is  fuppofed  to  be  confumed,  but  all  things  given  him  with  far 
greater  Power,  as  our  Adverfaries  fuppofe,  than  ever  he  had  before. 
But  we  fee  the  Apojile  parallels  Chrift's  fufferlng  with  the  burning  of  the 
Sacrifices  and  his  Blood  with  the  Blood  of  them,  and  confequently  his 
offering  up  himfelf,  muft  relate  not  to  his  entrance  into  Heaven^  but 
to  that  AS  of  his  whereby  he  fuffered  for  fins,  and  offered  up  hk  Blood 
as  a  Sacrifice  for  the  fins  of  the  World. 

XI.  From  all  which  it  appears  ^  how  far  more  agreeably  to  the  Ob-^^i^^Ks 
iationr  under  the  Law,  Chrift  is  faid  to  offer  up  himfelf  for  the  Evpia-  '"to  Hea- 
don  of  fins  by  his  death  and  fiifier/ngs,  than  by  his  entrance  into  Hea-  not  be°the 
ven  5  For  it  is  apparent,  that  the  Oblations  in  Expiatory  Sacrifices  un-  oblation 
der  the  Law,  were  fuch  upon  which  the  Expiation  of  fin  did  chiefly  °^ ''™^^'^ 
depend  :  but  by  our  Adverfaries  own  Confeffion,  Chrift  s  Oblation  of™/.""*** 
himfelf  by  his  entrance  into  Heaven,  hath  no  immediate  Refpeft  at  all 
to  the  Expiation  of  fin:  only  as  the  vpay  vpherehy  he  vas  to  erijoy  that 
power  by  which  he  did  expiate  fins,  as  Crellius  faith  5  now.  Jet  us  confi- 
der,  what  more  propriety  there  is  in  making  this  prefenting  of  Chrift 
in  Heaven  to  have  a  correfpondency  with  the  Legal  Oblations,  thaa 
the  offering  up  himfelf  upon  the  Crofs.    For,  i.  on  the  very  fame  rea- 
fon  that  his  entrance  into  Heaven  is  made  an  Oblation,  his  Death  is  fo 
too  5  viz.     Becaufe  it  was  the  way  whereby  he  obtained  the  power  of  Expi- 
ation ;  and  far  more  properly  fo  than  the  other,  fince  they  make  Chrift's 
entrance  and  power  the  reward  of  his  fufferings,  but  they  never  make 
his  fitting  at  the  Right-hand  of  God,  the  reward  of  his  entrance  into 
Heaven.     2.  His  offering  up  himfelf  to  God  upon  the  Crofs,  was  his 
own  Aft,  but  his  entrance  into  Heaven  was  God's,  as  themfelves  ac- 
knowledge, and  therefore  could  not  in  any  propriety  of  fpeech  be  cal- 
led Chriji's  offering  up  himfelf.     3.  If  it  were  his  own  Ad,  it  could  not 
have  that  Refpeft  to  the  Expiation  of  fins,  which  his  death  had  5  for 
our  Adverfaries  fay,  that  his  death  was  by  reafon  of  our  fins:  and  that 
he  fuffered  to  purge  os  from  fin ;  but  his  entrance  into  Heaven  was  up- 
on his  own  account,  to  enjoy  that  Power  and  Authority,  which  he  was 
to  have  at  the  Right  hand  of  God.    4.  How  could  Chriji's  entrance  in- 
to  Heaven,  be  the  way  for  his  enjoying  that  power  which  was  neceffa- 
ry  for  the  Expiation  of  fin,  when  Chrift  before  his  entrance  into  Hea-  Mat.  28. 
ven,  faith,  that  al/ power  was  given  to  him  in  Heaven  and  Earth:  and  18. 
the  reafon  affigned  in  Scripture  of  that  Power  and  Authority  which  pj,;,  2.  g 
God  gave  him  is,  becaufe  he  humbled  himfelf,  and  became  obedient  to  death,  9. 

»  S  S  even 


52'2  Of  the  Siiffhings  Chap.  V. 

even  the  Death  of  the  Crojs :  So  that  the  entrance  of  Chrijl  into  Heaven; 
could  not  be  the  means  of  obtaining  that  Power  which  was  conferred 
before  ^  but  the  Death  of  Chrift  is  mentioned  on  that  account  in  Scrip- 
ture.    5.  If  the  Death  of  Chrift  were  no  Expiatory  Sacrifice,  the  en- 
trance of  Chrift  mto  Heaven  could  be  no  Oblation  proper  to  a  High- 
Pr.'efi  ^  for  his  entrance  into  the  Hely  of  Holier,  was  on  the  account; of 
the  Blood  of  ihz  Jin- offering  which  was  carried  in  with  him.    If  there 
were  then  no  Expiatory  Sacrifice  before,  that  was  (lain  for  the  fins  of 
Men ;  Chrift  could  not  be  faid  to  make  any  Oblation  in  Heaven,  for 
the  Oblation  had  Refpeft  to  a  Sacrifice  already  flain  15  fo  that  if  Men 
deny  that  Chrift's  Death  was  a  proper  Sacrifice  for  fin,  he  could  make 
no  Oblation  at  all  in  Heaven,  and  Chrift  could  not  be  faid  to  enter 
thither,  as  the  High-Prieji  entred  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  with  the 
Blood  of  the  Sacrifice  5  which  is  the  thing  which  the  Author  to  the  He- 
brews  aflerts  concerning  Chrift. 
Chrift's        XII.  2.  There  is  as  great  an  inconfiftency  in  making  the  Exercife  of 
exercifeof(>j^^j(^.5  Power  in  Heaven,  an  Oblation  in  any  fenfe,  as  in  making 
Herven'^n  Chrift's  entrance  into  Heaven,  to  be  the  Oblation  which  had  corre- 
110  fenfe    fpondency  with  the  Oblations  of  the  Law.     For  what  is  there  which 
""  ?God  tiath  the  leaft  refemblance  with  an  Oblation  in  it?     Hath  it  any  Refpeft 


onto 


to  God,  as  all  the  Legal  Oblations  had?     No,  for  his  interceffion  and 
power,  CrelUus  faith,  Refpetl  us,  and  not  God.     Was  there  any  Sacri- 
fice at  all  in  it  for  Expiation  ?     How  is  it  poffible,  that  the  mere  Exer- 
cife of  Power  fliould  be  called  a  Sacrifice?    What  Analogy  is  there  at 
all  between  them  ?     And  how  could  he  be  then  faid  mofi  perfi^ly  to 
exercife  hts  Prieflhood,  when  there  was  no  Confideration  at  all  of  any 
Sacrifice  offered  up  to  God  ?     So  that  upon  thefe  Suppofitions  the  Au- 
thor to  the  Hebrews  muft  argue  upon  ftrange  Similitudes,  and  fancy  re- 
femblances  to  himfelf,  which  it  was  impoiTible  for  the  Jews  to  under- 
ftand  him  in,  who  were  to  judge  of  the  Nature  of  Prieflhood  and  Oh- 
lations  in  a  way  agreeable  to  the  Inftitutions  among  themfclves.     But 
was  it  poffible  for  them  to  underftand  fuch  Oblations  and  a  Priejihood 
which  had  no  Refpeft  at  all  to  God,  but  wholly  to  the  People  5  and  fuch 
an  entrance  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  without  the  Blood  of  an  Expiatory 
Sacrifice  for  the  fins  of  the  People:  But  fuch  abfurdities  do  Men  be- 
tray themfelves  into,  when  they  are  forced  to  ftrain  exprefs  places  of 
Scripture  to  ferve  an  Hypothefs,  which  they  think  themfelves  oblig'd 
to  maintain. 
creiijus        Xlll.  We  now  come  to  (hew  that  this  interpretation  of  Crellim  doth 
his  fenfe  ^q^  ggfee  with  the  Circumftances  of  the  places  before  mentioned,  which 
to^thfcir-  will  eafily  appear  by  thefe  brief  Confiderations.     1.  That  the  Apoftle 
cumnjn-  always  fpeaks  of  the  offering  of  Chrift  as  a  thing  pafi  and  once  done^ 
'^Wcl^^^f*'  ^^  "^*  *"  ^^  '^^"^  again  ^  which  had  been  very  improper,  if  by  the 
Heb".  17.  Oblation  of  Chrift,  he  had  meant  the  continual  appearance  of  Chrift 
9. 26.  .0.  •^^  Heaven  for  us,  which  yet  is,  and  will  never  ceafe  to  be  till  all  his 
'°*         Enemies  be  made  his  Footftqol.     2.  That  he  ftill  fpeaks  in  Allufion  to 
the  Sacrifices  which  were  in  ufe  among  the  Jews,  and  therefore  the  Ob- 
lation of  Chrift  muft  be  in  fuch  a  way  as  was  agreeable  to  what  was  u- 
fed  in  the  Levitical  Sacrifices,  which  we  have  already  at  large  proved 
T^!lo'^^i.  ^s  could  not  do  in  our  Adverfarics  fenfe.    5.  That  the  Apoflle  fpeaks 
of  fuch  a  Sacrifice  for  fins  to  which  the  fitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God 
was  confequent  5  fo  that  the  Oblation  antecedent  to  it  muft  be  proper- 
]y  that  Sacrifice  for  (ins  which  he  offered  to  God  f:  and  therefore  the 

0  Ex^r- 


Chap.  V.  of  C  H  til  S  T, 


32^ 


Exercife  of  his  power  for  Expiation  of  f  us,  which  they  fay  is  meant />» 
fitting  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  cannot  be  that  Sacrifice  for  fins:  Nei-  "^t)-  ra- 
ther can  his  entrance  into  Heaven  be  it,  which  in  what  fenfe  it  can  be  '^* 
called  a  Sacrifice  for  fins,  fince  themfelves  acknowledge  it  had  no  imme- 
diate Relation  to  the  Expiation  of  them,  I  cannot  underftand.     4.  The 
Apoflle  fpeaks  of  fuch  an  Offering  of  Chrift  once,  which  if  it  had  been 
repeated,  doth  imply,  th^t  Chrip' s  fufferings  muft  have  been  repeated 
'  too.     For  then  mnjl  he  often  have  fitffered  fince  the  Foundation  of  theaeh.g.tS, 
World :  But  the  repeated  Exercife  of  Chrtfi's  Power  in  Heaven  doth 
imply  no  neceflity  at  all  of  Chrift's  frequent /«j^m/_^,  nor  his  frequent 
entrance  into  Heaven  5  which  might  have  been  done  without y«j^r/»^, 
therefore  it  muft  be  meant  of  fuch  an  offering  up  himfelf  as  was  im- 
plyed  in  his  death  and  fufferings.     5.  He  fpeaks  of  the  offering  up  of  "«^-^»-5» 
that  Body  which  God  gave  him  when  he  came  into  the  World  5  but  our  ^°' 
Adverfaries  deny,  that  he  carried  the  fame  Body  into  Heaven,  and 
therefore  he  muft  fpeak  not  off  an  offering  of  Chrift  in  Heaven,  but 
what  was  performed  here  on  Earth.     But  here  our  Adverfaries  have 
(hewn  us  a  tryal  of  their  Skill,  when  they  tell  us  with  much  Confi- 
dence that  the  World  into  which  Chrift  is  here  faid  to  come,  is  not  to 
be  underftood  of  this  World,  but  of  that  to  come,  which  is  not  only  cre//.f«f. 
contrary  to  the  general  Acceptation  of  the  word  when  taken  abfolutely  is'./es-J^ 
as  it  is  here,  but  to  the  whole  Scope  and  Defign  of  the  place.    For  he 
fpeaks  of  that  World  wherein   Sacrifices  and  Burnt-offerings  were  ufed^ 
and  the  Levitical  Law  was  obferved,  although  not  fufficientfor  perfeft 
Expiation,  and  fo  rejeded  for  that  end  z,  and  withal  he  fpeaks  of  that 
World  wherein  the  chearful  obedience  of  Chrift  to  the  wjll  of  his  Fa- 
ther was  feen,  for  he  faith.  Low  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  OGod,  which  Heb.  ro. 
is  repeated  afterwards  5  but  will  they  fay,  that  this  World  was  not  the?.  ?• 
place  into  which  Chrift  came  to  obey  the  Will  of  his  Father  >     And 
how  could  it  be  fo  properly  faid  of  the  future  World,  Lo  I  come  to  do 
thy  will-^  when  they  make  the  defign  of  his  Afcenfion  to  be  the  receiv- 
ing the  reward  of  his  doing  and  differing  the  will  of  God  upon 
Earth  > 

XIV.  But  yet  they  attempt  to  prove  from  the  fame  Author  to  the  objefti- 
Hehrews,  that  Chrift's  entrance  into  Heaven,  was  neceffary  to  his  being  °°*  *j" 
a  perfed  High-Prieji  5  for  he  was  to  be  made  Higher  than  the  Heavens  ^He^.-j.ie. 
and  if  he  were  on  Earth,  he  fhould  not  be  a  PrieJ}-^  hut  he  was  a  Prieji  af-  ^•i-7-i6<> 
ter  the  Power  of  an  endlefs  life  :  Neither  ceuld  he,  fay  they,  he  a  ferfeSt 
High  Priefi,  till  thofe  words  were  fpcken  to  him.  Thou  art  my  Ssn,  this    5-  5- 
day  have  I  begotten  thee^  which  as  appears  by  other  places,  was  after  the 
Refurre&ion  :  But  all  the  fufferings  he  underwent  in  the  World,  were  only 
to  qualifie  him  for  this  Office  in  Heaven  ^  therefore  it  is  faid.  That  in  all    2. 17. 
things  it  behoved  him  to  be  made  like  unto  hit  Brethren,  that  he  might  be  a 
tfterciful  and  faithful  High-Prie^,  &c.     This  is  thefubftance  of  what  is 
produced  by  CrelUus  and  his  Brethren,  to  prove  that  Chrift  did  not  crf//.c.  10. 
become  a  perfeft  High-Prieff,  till  he  entred  into  Heaven :  But  it  were^'^*  ^^' 
worth  the  knowing,  what  they  mean  by  zPerfe^  f/igh-Priefi  ^  Is  it 
that  Chrift  did  then  begin  the  OfiBce  of  a  High-friefl,  and  that  he 
made  no  offering  at  all  before?    No,  that  they  dare  not  affert  at  laft, 
but  that  there  was  no  perfeB  Sacrifice  offered  for  fin,  otherwifc  Socinus 
contends.  That  Chrifi  did  offer  upon  Earth,  and  that  for  himfelf  too  .-^'""•f'^' 
So  that  all  kind  of  offering  is  not  excluded  by  themfelves,  before  ' 
Chrift's  entrance  into  Heaven  :  But  if  they  mean  by  perfe^  High-Prieji 

S  s  2  in 


324  of  the  Sufferings         _     Chap.  VI. 

in   Heaven,    that  his  Office'  of  Htgh'Priefl  r»as   not   confummated  by 
what  he  did  on  Earth,  but  that  a  very  confiderable  part  of  the  Wxeft- 
hood  of  Chrifl:  vi^as  ftill  remaining  to  be  performed  in  Heaven  5  it  is  no 
more  than  we  do  freely  acknowledge,  and  this  iS  all  we  fay  is  meant , 
by  thofe  places:  For  the  Apoftles  defign  is  to  prove,  the  excellency  of 
the  Priefihood  of  Cbrift  above  the  Aaronkal  i,  which  he  doth,  not  on- 
ly from  the  excellency  of  the  Sacrifice  which  he  offered,  above  the 
Blood  of  Bulls  and  Goats  ^  but  from  the  excellency  of  the  Prkft,  who 
did  excel  the  Aaronical  Priejls  5  both  in  regard  of  his  calling  from  God^ 
which  is  all  the  Apofile  defigns,  Heb.  5.  5.  not  at  all  intending  to  de- 
termine the  rime  when  he  was  n/ade,  but  by  whom  he  was  made  High- 
Prleji,  even  by  him  that  had  faid.  Thou  art  my  Son,  8cc.  and  in  regard 
of  the  excellency  of  the  Sanliuary  which  he  entred  into,  which  was 
not  an  earthly,  but  a  heavenly  San&nary  ^  and  in  reg.ird  of  the  perpe- 
tuity of  his  Funftion  there.  Not  going  in  once  a  year,  as  the  HighPriejis 
under  the  Law  did,  but  there  ever  living  to  make  interiejjton  for  Us  ^ 
Now  this  being  the  Apoflles  defign,  we  may  eafiiy  underftand  why  he 
faith.  That  he  was  to  be  a  hedvenly  HlghPrieJi,  and  if  he  had  been  on 
Earth,  he  could  not  have  been  a  Prieft  :  The  meaning  of  which  is  only 
this,  that  if  Chrift's  Office  had  ended  in  what  he  did  on  Earth,  he 
would  not  have  had  fuch  an  excellency  as  he  was  fpeaking  of  ^  for 
then  he  had  ceafed  to  be  at  all  fuch  a  High-Priefl,  having  no  Holy  of 
Holies  to  go  into,  which  (hould  as  much  tranfcend  the  earthly  Sanftu- 
ary,  as  his  Sacrifice  did  the  Blood  of  Bulls  and  Goats:   Therefore  in 
rorrefpondency  to  that  Priefihood,  which  he  did  fo  far  excel  in  all  the 
parts  of  it,  he  was  not  to  end  his  Priefihood  merely  with  the  Blood 
which  was  fhed  for  a  Sacrifice,  but  he  was  to  carry  it  into  Heaven,  and 
prefent  it  before  God,  and  to  be  a  perpetual  interceflbr  in  the  behalf 
of  his  People  :  And  fo  was  in  regard  of  the  perpetuity  of  his  Office,  a. 
Priefl  after  the  Law  of  an  endlefs  Life:  But  left  the  People  fhould  ima- 
gine, that  fo  great  and  excellent  a  High-Prieji,  being  fo  far  exalted  a- 
bove  them,  (hould  have  no  fenfe  or  compafuon  upon  the  Infirmities  of 
his  People,  therefore  to  encourage  them  to  adhere  to  him,  he  tells 
them,  That  he  was  made  like  to  his  Brethren  5  and  therefore  they  need  not 
doubt,  but  by  the  fenfe  which  he  had  of  the  Infirmities  of  humane  Na- 
ture, he  will  have  pty  on  the  weaknefles  of  his  People  ^  which  is  all 
the  Apofile  means  by  thofe  Expreffions.    So  that  none  of  thefe  places 
do  deftroy  the  Priefihood  ofChrift  on  Earth,  but  only  affert  the  excel- 
lency, and  the  Continuance  of  it  in  Heaven :  Which  latter,  we  are  as  far 
from  denying,  as  our  Adverfaries  are  from  granting  the  former.     And 
thus  much  may  fuffice  for  the  fecond  thing,  to  prove  the  Death  of 
Chrift  a  proper  Sacrifice  for  fin  ;  viz.     The  Oblation  which  Chrifl  made 
of  himfelf  to  God  by  it. 


Chap.     VI. 


t.  That  the  Efeifs  of  proper  Expiatory  Sacrifi  cs  belong  to  the  Death  of 

■    Chrifl,  which  either  refpe&  the  fin  or  the  perfon.     Of  the  true  Notion  of 

Expiation  of  fin,  as  attributed  to  Sacrijites.     Of  the  importance  of^"^"^^ 

as  applied  to  them.  Socinus  his  proper  fenfe  of  it  examined.   If.  CrelHus 

hh  Ohjc&ions  anfwered.     III.  The  Jews  Notion  of  "^SD.     The  Sacrifices 


Ch a_p^VL  of  C  HKISn  3 1  j 

vot  bare  Conditions  of  pardon,  nor  expiated  merely  as  a  flight  part  ofO- 
bedieme.  IV.  God's  expiating  (in,  dejiroys  not  Expiation  by  Sacrifice. 
V.  The  importance  of  K^'^^e.K*=^^  ^»d  xyA^nr  relating  to  Sacrifice.  VI. 
Expiation  attributed  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Chri/i,  in  the  fame  fenfe  that  it 
was  to  other  Sacrifices.  VII.  And  fir om  thence,  and  the  places  of  Scri- 
pture whi.h  mention  it,  proved  not  to  be  merely  declarative.  If  it  had 
been  fo,  it  had  more  properly  belonged  to  his  RefurrcLlio,->;  than  his  Death. 
VIII.  The  Death  of  Chrifl  not  taken  Metonymically  for  all  the  Confe- 
quents  of  it  ;  becaufe  of  the  peculiar  Effetls  of  the  Death  of  Chrift  in 
Scripture.  IX.  And  becaufe  Expiation  is  attributed  to  him  antecedently 
to  his  entrance  into  Heaven.  X.  No  difiin&ion  in  Scripture  of  the  Ef- 
feSs  of  Chrifl' s  entrance  into  Heaven  from  his  fitting  at  the  right  hand 
of  God.  XI.  The  Effe&s  of  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice,  refpeSing  the  per- 
fon,  belong  to  the  Death  of  Chrifl,  which  arc  Atonemenr  and  Reconcili- 
ation. Ofthe/ignifi<ationofi/a.auLo;andlAa.7KA:dui  XII.  The  Recon-' 
ciliation  by  Chrifis  Deah,  doth  not  merely  Refpcct  us,  but  Qod  -^  why 
the  latter  lefs  ufed  in  the  Nerv  Teflament.  A  tvpofold  Reconciliation 
with  God  mentioned  in  Scripture.  Crellius  his  Evafion  anfwered.  Xllf. 
The  Objections  from  God's  being  reconciled  in  the  fending  hk  Son.  XIV. 
And  the  inconfiflency  of  the  freenefs  of  Grace  vpith  the  Doctrine  of  Sa- 
tisfaction anfwered,  and  the  whole  concluded. 

h    ■  *  HE  laft  thing  to  prove  the  Death  of  Chrift  a  proper  Expia-of  chc 
I       tory  Sacrifice,  is.  That  the  EfFefts  of  a  proper  Sacrifice  for  fino^'^gj.^ 
*-     are  attributed  to  it.     Which  do  either  refpeft  the /«/ commit- piation, as 
ted,  and  are  then  called  £x/)w/w«  and  Remijfion,  or  the  perfons,  who'*'^'''^"'.^'^ 
were  guilty  of  them,  as  they  ftand  Obnoxious  to  the  difpleafure  of  God,  cesf*"'  ' 
and  fo  the  Effeft  of  them  is  Atonement  and  Reconciliation.     Now  thefe 
we  (hall  prove  do  moft  properly  and  immediately  refer  to  the  De^thof 
Chrift  5  and  are  attributed  to  it,  as  the  procuring  caufe  of  them  ^  and 
not  as  a  bare  Condition  of  Chrift's  entrance  into  Heaven,  or  as  compre- 
hending in  it  the  confcquents  of  it.    I  begin  with  the  Expiation  and 
Rem/[fion  of  fins '^   as  to  which  Sodnus  doth  acknowledge.  That  the  ■^^'^'!'- '^^ 
great  correfpondency  doth  lie  between  Chrift  and  the  Legal  Sacrifices.     We  y^^t  p  z.~ 
are  therefore  to  enquire:     l.  What  refpeft  the  Expiation  of  fins  had^is- 
to  the  Sacrifices  under  the  Law.     2.  In  what  fenfe  the  Expiation  of  j",'/^'*^' 
fins  is  attributed  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift  :  For  the  due  Explication  of 
the  refpecl  which  Expiation  of  fins  had  to  the  Legal  Sacrifices,  we  are 
to  confider  in  what  fenfe  Expiation  is  underftood,  and  in  what  refped 
it  is  attributed  to  them.     For  this  we  are  to  enquire  into  the  importance 
of  the  feveral  Phrafes  it  is  let  forth  by,  whicii  are  iBD  and  Kian  in  the 
OldTeftaraent,  'c^.^-^/^tiv,  a^W^tu',  'iXd.'jXA&sn  in  the  New^  all  which 
are  acknowledged  by  our  Adverfaries  to  have  a  peculiar  Refpeft  to  the 
Expiation  made  by  a  Sacrifice.     We  (ball  begin  with  the  former,  hQ- creiicio, 
caufe  Crelliui  objefts  this  againft  Grotius,  That   he  imployed  his  greatefl^'^'  ^^" 
■diligence  in  the  Explication  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  words  for  Expiation 
of  fin,  and  was  contented  only  to  fay,  that  the  Hebrew  words  would  bear 
the  fame  figrnfication  :  Whereas,  faith  he,  tie  ought  to  have  proved,  that 
the  Hebrew  words  do  require  that  fenfe  which  he  takes  them  in.     Dut  by 
Crellius  his  leave,  Grotius  took  the  beft  courfe  was  to  be  taken  in  words, 
whofe  fignification  is  fo  obfcure  as  thofe  are  in  the  Hebrew  Language. 
For  "^£3  being  fo  very  rarely  ufed  in  Scripture  in  that  which  Socinus 
and  Crellius  contend  to  be  the  proper  and  natural  fignification  of  it  5 

viz,. 


Of  the  Siiferiiigs  Chap.   VI 


7^/z,.  To  hide  or  lover^  and  fo  frequently  in  the  fenfe  of  Expiation,  what 
better  way  could  be  taken  for  determining  the  fenfe  of  it,  as  applied 
to  Sacrifiies,  than  by  infixing  upon  thofe  words  which  are  ufed  in  the 
New  Tejiatftent,  to  the  very  fame  purpofe  that  nsD  is  ufed  in  the  Old? 
For  they  cannot  pretend  that  which  they  fay  is  the  moft  proper  fenfe, 
can  be  applied  to  this  Subjeft,  w/z.  To  cover  with  Pitch,  or  a  bitumi- 
nous matter,  which  is  called  ntO,  Gen.  6.  14.  therefore  it  rauftof  ne- 
socm  de  ccfitty  be  taken  in  another  fenfe  here.  But  Sociniu  contends,  That  it 
Servat.p.  ought  to  he  taken  in  a  fenfe  mofl  agreeable  to  that,  which  is,  faith  he,  that 
VM.ll'.iJ^^  Expiation  of  fn  be  nothing  elfe,  but  the  covering  of  it,  by  God's  Grace 
and  Benignity.  Thence,  faith  he,  David  faith,  Blejfed  k  the  Man  vehofe 
iniquity  is  covered.  But  how  can  this  prove,  that  the  proper  figniffca- 
tion  of  "!»D  as  applied  to  fin,  is  covered  by  God's  Grace,  when  neither 
the  word  "^£3  is  here  ufed,  nor  is  there  any  Refpeft  at  all  mentioned 
of  an  Expiation  by  Sacrifice,  which  is  the  thing  we  are  difcourfing  of? 
-And  is  the  covering  of  Jin  fuch  an  eafie  and  intelligible  Phrafe,  that 
this  fliould  be  made  choice  of  to  explain  the  difficulty  of  "iBD  by?  What 
is  it  that  they  would  have  us  underftand  by  the  covering  fin  ^  Surely 
not  to  make  it  ftronger  and  more  laftirig,  as  the  Ark  was  covered  with 
that  bituminous  matter  for  that  end,  and  yet  this  would  come  the  near- 
eft  to  the  proper  fenfe  of  1£3.  So  that  from  their  own  interpretation 
it  appears,  that  -isD  as  applied  to  the  Expiation  of  fin  by  Sacrifices, 
cannot  be  taken  fo  much  as  in  Allufion  to  that  other  fenfe  :i  for  their 
fenfe  of  Expiation,  is  either  by  the  deftru«3tion  of  fin,  or  deliverance 
of  the  finner  from  the  Puniftiment  of  it,  but  what  R.efemblance  is 
there  between  the  covering  of  a  thing,  in  order  to  its  prefervation, 
and  the  making  it  not  to  be,  or  at  Jeaft  deftroying  all  the  Power  of  it? 
But  fuppofing  we  (hould  grant  that  it  hath  fome  Allufion  to  the  fenfe 
of  covering,  why  muft  it  neceffarily  be  fuppofed  to  be  done  by  the 
tneer  Grace  of  God,  as  excluding  all  antecedent  Caufes  which  ihould 
move  to  it  ?  Would  not  the  propriety  of  the  fenfe  remain  as  welJ, 
fuppofing  a  moving  Caufe,  as  excluding  it  ?  What  (hould  hinder,  but 
that  God  may  be  faid  as  well  to  cover  fin  upon  a  Sacrifice  as  to  forgive 
it,  and  this  is  very  frequently  ufed  upon  a  Sacrifice,  That  the  (in  jhaU  be 
uh.  ii.2i. forgiven  ^  But  yet  themfelves  acknowledge,  that  the  Sacrifices  were 
verfe3r,  Conditions  required  in  order  to  Expiation  5  if  then  "^23  hath  an  imme- 
diate Refpeft  to  God  s  immediate  Favour  and  benignity,  how  comes  it 
to  be  ufed  where  a  Condition  is  neceffarily  fuppofed  in  order  to  it? 
Had  it  not  been  more  agreeable  to  this  Benignity  of  God  to  havepar- 
don'd  fin  without  requiring  any  Sacrifice  for  it,  than  fo  ftridly  infifting 
upon  the  offering  up  Sacrifice  in  order  to  it,  and  then  declaring  that  the 
/?«  k  expiated,  and  it  /hould  he  forgiven  .^  From  hence  we  fee  that  there 
is  no  neceflity  why  "132  (hould  be  ufe  as  applied  to  Sacrifices  in  a  fenfe 
moft  agreeable  to  that  of  covering  with  Pitch,  nor  that  it  is  not  pofli- 
ble  it  (hould  have  fuch  a  fenfe  when  applied  to  fins ;  and  withal  that 
it  is  very  confiftent  with  an  antecedent  Condition  to  it,  and  therefore 
can  by  no  means  deftroy  Satisfaftion. 
Crellwf  If.  Xes,  faith  Crellius,  it  doth,  for  Expiation  is  explained  in  the  Law 
^^l^„^^l'^.hy  non  imputation,  Deut.  21.8.  Be  merciful,  0  Lord,  unto  thy  people  If- 
fvvered.  rael  whom  thou  haji  redeemed,  and  lay  not  innocent  Blood  unto  the  people 
of  Ifrael's  Charge ;  and  the  Blood  pall  he  forgiven  them.  But  not  to  im^ 
fell.  0. '  /"''^»  f^ith  he,  and  to  receive  true  and  full  Satisfaction  overthrow  each  o- 
ther  :  And  fo  Expiation  being  the  fame  with  that,  rvill  overthrow  it  too: 

To 


Chap.  VI.  of  CHRIST.  327 

To  this  I  anfwer,     i.  I  grant  that  i£D  is  here  ufed  both  as  applied  to 
God,  and  to  the  fin,  and  that  the  fenfe  of  it  is  ufed  as  to  the  people,  when 
the  Prayer  is  that  God  would  not  lay  it  to  their  Charge,  which  is  the 
fame  with  expiating  of  it.     2.  We  are  to  confider,  what  the  Foundation 
of  this  Prayer  was,  viz.   The  Jlaj/jng  of  the  Heifer  fir  Expit^tion  of  the  un- 
certain Murder  ^  and  when  the  Elders  had  walhed  their  Hands  over  the 
head  of  the  Heifer,  then  they  were  to  proteft  their  own  innocency, 
,    and  to  ufe  this  Prayer,    "r^-nyi  nyah'  nsD  Expiate  thy  people  Ifael,  &c. 
i.  e.  accept  of  this  Sacrifice  as  an  Expiation  for  them,  and  fo  charge 
not  on  tliem  the  innocent  Blood,  c^c  and  upon  doing  of  this  it  is  faid, 
iZann  anb  "1SD:\  and  the  Blood  fhall  be  expiated,  i.  e.  as  the  Vulgar 
Latin  explains  it,  the  guilt  of  the  Blood  (hall  be  taken  front  them.     But 
how  then  (hould  the  expiating  fin  upon  a  Sacrifice  flain  in  order  there- 
to, deftroy  that  Satisfaftion  which  we  aflert  by  the  Blood  of  Chrift 
being  (hed  in  order  to  the  Expiation  of  our  fins?  Nay,  it  much  rather 
(heweth  the  confiftency  and  agreeablenefs  of  thefe  one  with  anothen 
For  we  have  before  proved,  that  the  Sacrifice  here  did  expiate  the  fin  by 
a  Subftitution,  and  bearingthe  guilt  which  could  not  have  been  expiated 
without  it.  But  Crellius  further  urgeth.  That  God  himfelf  is  here  faid  to 
expiate,  and  therefore  to  expiate  cannot  fignifie  to  atone  or  fat  is  fie  ^  in  rvhich 
fenfe  Chrifi  may  be  faid  to  expiate  too,  not  by  atoning  or  fatisfying,  but  by  not 
imputing  fins,  or  taking  away  the  Puni/hment  of  them  by  hit  power.     To 
which  we  need  no  other  anfwer  than  what  Creltii^  himfelf  el  fe where 
gives,  Vi%,     That  Socinus  never  denies  but  that  "^£3  doth  fignifie  to  ap-  r     noti 
peafe  or  atone  5  which  is  moft  evidently  proved  from  the  place  menti-  neget  St- 
on'd  by  Grotius,  Gen.  32.  20.  nnJQ3  rjs  msDS  Expiabo  faciem  ejutin"""'^' 
rttunere,   faith  the  interlineary  Verfion,  placabo  ilium  muneribus,  thclucandi 
Vulg.  Lat.  i^i\'lmibux.i  773  -n^fTUTmy  dori,  the  LXX.  and  all  the  Circum--^^"'^'^*" 
ftances  of  the  place  make  it  appear  to  be  meant  in  the  proper  fenfe  of  i'j'"/creU» 
appeafing  the  anger  of  a  perfon  by  fomething  which  may  move  him  to«-  20. 
(hew  Favour.    And  if  Crellins  will  yield  this  to  be  the  fenfe  of  Expia-^'^'^^' 
tion  as  applied  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift,  he  need  not  quarrel  with  the  - 
word  Satisfa^inn.    But  why  (hould  he  rather  attribute  that  fenfe  of 

k  Expiation  to  Chrift,  which  is  alone  given  to  God,  wherein  the  Ex- 
piation is  attributed  to  him  that  receives  the  Sacrifice,  rather  than  to 
him  that  offers  the  Sacrifice  in  order  to  the  Atonement  of  another? 
Since  it  is  acknowledged  that  Chrift  did  offer  a  Sacrifice-,  and  therefore 
there  can  be  no  reafon  why  that  fenfe  of  Expiation  (hould  not  belong 
to  him,  which  was  moft  peculiar  to  that;  which  we  (hall  now  (hew 
to  be  of  the  fame  kind  with  what  is  here  mentioned,  viz.  an  appeafing 
by  a  Gift  offered  up  to  God.  So  we  find  the  word  ufed  to  the  fame  fenfe, 
2  Sam.  21.  3.  *123i*  \Vyy\  dt)  -nvi  e^iAairocuxf,  and  wherewith  fhall  I  make 
the  Atonement,  i.  e.  wherewith  (ball  I  fatisfie  you  for  all  the  wrong 
which  Saul  hath  done  unto  you  ?  And  we  fee  afterwards  it  was  by 
the  Death  of  Saul'/  Sons.  In  which  place  it  cannot  be  denied  but  that 
"^S3  not  only  fignifies  to  appeafe^  but  fuch  a  kind  of  Satisfadtion  as  is 
by  the  Death  of  fome  for  the  faults  of  others ;  and  fo  comes  home, 
not  only  to  the  importance  of  the  Expiation  belonging  to  a  Sacrifice 
in  general ;  but  to  fuch  a  kind  of  Expiation  as  is  by  the  fuffering  of 
fome  in  the  place  of  others.  Which  though  it  be  more  clear  and  di- 
ftinft,  where  one  man  fuffers  for  others,  yet  this  was  fufBciently  re- 
prefented  in  the  Sacrifices  under  the  Law,  in  which  we  have  alrea- 
dy proved  that  there  was  a  Subftitution  of  them  in  the  place  of  the  Of- 
I       fenders.  III.  And 


328  Of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  Vj. 

^''cf"^Tf      ^'^'  ^^^  ^"  '^'"^  ^^"^^  *^^  "^^^^  themfelves  do  underftand  "ii3,  viz,. 
^\-Q-2^uch  an  Expiation  as  is  made  by  the  Subftitution   of  one  in  the 
Buxt'orf.    place  of  another.     Of  which  many  inftances  are  collefted  by  Bhx- 
iM/c.rd/-  ^^yyr  wherein  nnsD  is  taken  by  the  Rabbinical  Writers  for   fuch  an 
'"  '^^^jExpiatJon^  whereby  one  was  to  undergo  a  Puniftiment  in  the  place 
of  another.     So   when  in  the    Title  Sanhedrin   the  people    fay    to 
the  High-Prieft  imSD  1J«  "h  jimus  nos  expiatia  tua,  let  us  be  fir  an  Ex' 
piationfer  you,  the  G I  of s  explains  it  thus,  Aoc  efi,  in  nobis  fiat  expiatit 
tua,  nofque  fubeamus  tuo  loco  qiticquid  tibi  evenire  debet.     And  when  they 
tell  us  how  Children  ought  to  honour  their  Parents  after  their  Death, 
they  fay  when  they  recite  any  memorable  Speech  of  their  Fathers,  they 
are  not  barely  to  fay,  My  Father  faidfo :  But  my  Lord  and  Father  [aid 
fi,  vpould  I  had  been  the  Expiation  of  hk  Death:  \.  e.  as  they  explain  it 
themfelves,  would  I  had  undergone  vphat  he  did,  and  they  give  this  ge- 
neral rule,  where  ever  it  isfaid,  behold  I  am  for  Expiation,  it  is  to  be  uh- 
derjiood,  behold  I  am  in  the  place  of  another  to  bear  his  Iniquities.     ^ 
that  this  fignifies  the  fame  with  xir^v  or  a  price  of  Redemption  for 
others.     Hence  lED  is  taken  for  a  P^/Ve  of  Redemption  of  the  life  of  ano- 

ther,  and  rendred  by  A!iT«:^ot/,  Exod.  21.  t^o. 30.  12.  Numb.  55.  51, 

52.  where  we  render  it  Satisfaftion,  and  by  iyihoLdfAM,  Pfal.  48.  7.  and 
thereby   we  fully  underftand,  what  our  Saviour  meant  when  he  faid. 
Matt.  20.  that  he  gave  his  Soul,  "hirf^cv  dv-n  -TraAAai-,  a  ranfomefir  many,  and  to 
*^'         this  day  the  Jews  call  the  Cock  which  they  kill  for  Expiation  on  the 
day  of  Atonement,  by  the  name  of  Cappara  ;  and  when  they  beat  the 
Cock  againft  their  heads  thrice,  they  every  time  ufe  words  to  this 
purpofe.  Let  this  Cock  be  an  Exchange  for  me,  let  him  be  in  my  Room,  and 
be.  made  an  Expiation  for  me  :  Let  death  come  to  him,  but  to  me  and  all  lO' 
fael  Lifi  and  Happinefs.    I  infift  on  thefe  things,  only  to  let  us  under- 
ftand, that  the  Jews  never  underftood  "153  in  the  fence  our  Adverfaries 
contend  for,  when  applied  to  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice,  but  as  implying 
a  Commutation,  and  a  Subftitution  of  one  in  the  place  of  another,  to  as 
by  the  Punifbment  of  that,  the  other  in  whofe  room  he  fufFers,  may 
obtain  deliverance.     Which  is  the  fenfe  we  plead  for.     But  the  utmoft 
e^i ."  Da-  w^'ch  *  Sociniu  and  Crellim  wHl  allow  to  the  Sacrifices  in  order  to  Ex- 
cet  soci.    piation,  is  barely  this.  That  the  offering  of  them  if  to  be  confidered  as  tt 
msv\m-  fffggy  Condition  (that  hath  no  other  Refpeft  to   the  Expiation  of 
7atknem    ^"8,  than  the  paring  a  Mans  Nails  would  have  had,  if  God  had  re- 
obedknti-  quircd  it )  upon  which  flight  obedience,  the  pardon  of  fame  light  fins  might 
'd^m''iko  ^^  obtained.    But  can  any  one  imagine,  that  this  was  all  that  was  de- 
pr^/f-in-     figned  by  the  Sacrifices  of  old,  who  confiders  the  Antiquity  and  Uni- 
''^^'^'''"'•verfality  of  them  in  the  World  in  thofe  elder  times  before  the  Law, 
VeTJn'.   the  great  feverity  by  which  they  were  requir'd  under  the  Law,  the 
tinuijje,    pundtual  Prefcriptions  that  were  made  in  all  Circumftances  for  them, 
ITomiffb    f^s  vaftand  almoft  ineftimable  Expence  the  People  were  at  about  them, 
Vei  levi.  but  above  all,  the  reafon  that  God  himfelf  affigns  in  the  Law,  That 
"JlmTn"'  *^^  Blood  was  given  for  Expiation,  becaufe  it  was  the  Life,  and  the  cor- 
to'umtic   refpondency  fo  clearly  exprefled  in  the  New  Teftament,  between  the 
Ttccatornm  Sacrifice  of  Chrift,  and  thofe  Levitical  Sacrifices  ?   Can  any  one,  I  fay, 
JeqmetTrl  imagine  upon  thefe  Confiderations,  that  the  Sacrifices  had  no  other 
cieii.  c.    Refpedt  to  the  Expiation  of  fin,  than  as  they  were  a  flight  Teftimony 
fcft,  ro.    ^^  ^^^^^  obedience  to  God  >     Why  were  not  an  inward  forrow  for  fin, 
and  Tears  and  Prayers  rather  made  the  only  Conditions  of  Expiation 
than  fuch  a  burthenforae  and  chargeable  Service  impofed  upon  them, 

which 


Chap.  VL  of  CHRIST.  329 

which  at  laft  fignified  nothing,  but  that  a  command  being  fuppofed, 
they  would  have  finned  if  they  had  broken  it  ?  But  upon  our  Suppo- 
fition  a  reafonable  account  is  given  of  all  the  expiatory  Sacrifices^ 
t)iz..  That  God  would  have  them  fee,  how  highly  he  efteemed  his 
Lavvs,  becaufe  an  Expiation  was  not  to  be  made  for  the  breach  of  them, 
but  by  the  facrificing  of  the  Life  of  fome  Creature  which  he  (hould  ap- 
point inftead  of  the  Death  of  the  Offender  ^  and  if  the  breach  of 
thofe  Laws  which  he  had  given  them  muft  require  fuch  an  Expiation, 
what  might  they  then  think  would  the  fins  of  the  whole  World  do, 
which  muft  be  expiated  by  a  Sacrifice  infinitely  greater  than  all  thofe 
put  together  were;  viz.  The  death  and  fufFerings  of  the  Son  of  God 
for  the  fins  of  Men  ?  But  if  the  offering  Sacrifice  had  been  a  hare  Con- 
dition required  of  the  perfon  who  committed  the  fault,  in  order  to  Expia- 
tion ;  Why  is  it  never  faid,  That  the  perfon  who  offered  if»  did  expi- 
ate his  own  fault  thereby?  For  that  had  been  the  moft  proper  fenfe  ^ 
for  if  the  Expiation  did  depend  on  the  offering  the  Sacrifice,  as  on 
the  Condition  of  it,  then  the  performing  the  Condition,  gave  him  an 
immediate  right  to  the  benefit  of  the  Promife.  If  it  be  faid,  That  hjs 
0X0)1  aB  was  not  only  ntceffary  in  bringing  the  Sacrifice,  hitt  the  Priejis  al- 
fo  in  offering  up  the  Blood  :  This  will  not  make  it  at  all  the  more  reafo- 
nable; becaufe  the  pardon  of  fin  (hould  not  only  depend  upon  a  Man's 
own  Ad,  but  upon  the  Adt  of  another,  which  he  could  not  in  reafori 
be  accountable  for,  if  he  mifcarried  in  it.  If  the  Prieft  (hould  refufe 
to  do  his  part,  or  be  unfit  to  do  it,  or  break  fome  Law  in  the  doing 
of  it,  how  hard  would  it  feem  that  a  Mans  fins  could  not  be  expiated, 
when  he  had  done  all  that  lay  in  his  own  power  in  order  to  the  Ex- 
piation of  them,  but  that  another  perfon,  whofe  Aftions  he  had  no 
command  over,  neglefted  the  doing  his  Duty  ?  So  that  if  the  Sacrifice 
had  no  other  influence  on  Expiation,  but  as  a  part  of  obedience, 
in  all  reafon  the  Expiation  (hould  have  depended  on  no  other  Condi- 
tions but  fuch  as  were  under  the  Power  of  him,  whofe  fins  were  to  be 
expiated  by  it. 

IV.  But  Crellius  urgeth  againft  our  fenfe  of  Expiation,  That  if  iV  God's  ex. 
vpere  by  Suhjiitution,   then  the  Expiation  would  be  mofi  properly  attributed  p'^^^'igfiii 
to  the  Sacrifices  them/elves  -^  whereas  it  is  only  faid,  that  by  the  ^'^'^''(/^'^ei' not  expi- 
the  Expiation  is  obtained:^  hut  that  God  or  the  Prieji  do  expiate  and  /<?acionby 
God  it  belongs  properly,  becaufe  he  takes  away  the  Guilt  and  Punipment  of^'^^'^lf'iV'' 
fin -J  which  k,  faith  he,  all  meant  by  Expiation'^  to  the  Prieji  only  con- fen/^g' 
fequently,  as  doing  what  God  requires  in  order  to  itt,  and  to  the  Sacrifices 
only   as  the  Conditions  by  which  it  was  obtained.     But  if  the  Expiation 
doth  properly  belong  to  God,  and  implies  no  more  than  bare  pardon, 
it  is  hard  to  conceive  that  it  (hould  have  any  neceffary  Relation  to  the 
Blood  of  the  Sacrifice :  But  the  Apo(\le  to  the   Hebrews  tells  us,  that 
Remifljon  had  a  necefTary  Refpeft  to  the  fiedding  of  Blood,  fo  that 
without  that  there  was  no  Remijfton,     How  improperly  doth  the  Apojile  ^  '  ^'^^° 
difcourfe  throughout  that  Chapter,  wherein  he  fpeaks  fo  much  concern- 
ing the  Blood  of  the  Sacrifices  purifying,  and  in  correfpondency  to  that, 
the  Blood  of  Chriji  purging  our  Confiences  -.,  and  that  all  things  under  the^^'^^h^* 
Law,  were  purified  with  Blood  :  Had  all  this  no  other  fignification,  but  J^zo,!!, 
that  this  was  a  bare  Condition  that  had  no  other  importance,  but  as^?- 
a  mere  Adi  of  obedience  when   God  had  required  it  ?     Why  doth 
not  the  Apojile  rather  fay,  without  God's  Favour  there  is  no  Remi(fion, 
than  without  the  fiedding  of  Blood -J  if  all  the  Expiation  did  properly 

T  t  belong 


330  Of  the  Sup  rings  Chap.  VI. 

belong  to  that,  and  only  very  remotely  to  the  Blood  of  the  Sacrifice  > 
What  imaginable  neceflity  was  there,  that  Chrift  muft  (bed  his  Blood 
in  order  to  the  Expiation  of  our  fins,  if  all  that  Blood  of  the  Legal  Sa- 
crificed did  fignifie  no  more  than  a  bare  Condition  of  Pardon,  though 
a  flight  part  of  obedience  in  it  felf>     Why  muft  Chrift  lay  down  his 
Life  in  correfpondency   to  thefe  Levitical  Sacrifices  ?     For  that  was 
furely  no /light  part  of  his  obedience.     Why  might  not  this  Condition 
have  been  difpenfed  with  in  him,  fince  our  Adverfaries  fay,  that  in  it 
felf  it  hath  no  proper  Efficacy  on  the  Expiation  of  fin  ?     And  doth 
not  this  fpeak  the  greateft  Repugnancy  to  the  kindnefs  and  Grace  of 
God  in  the  Go/pel,  that  he  would  not  difpenfe  with  the  ignominious 
Death  of  his  Son,  although  he  knew  it  could  have  no  influence  of  it 
felf  on  the  Expiation  of  the  fins  of  the  World?     But  upon  this  Sup- 
pofition,  that  the  Blood  of  Sacrifices  under  the  Law  had  no  proper  in- 
fluence upon  Expiation,  the  Apoflles  difcourfe  proceeds  upon  weak 
and  infuQicient  Grounds.     For  what  neceflity  in  the  thing  was  there, 
becaufe  the  Blood  of  the  Sacrifices  was  made  a  Condition  of  pardon 
under  the  Lavo,  therefore  the  Blood  of  Chrijl  muft  be  fo  now  5  al- 
though in  it  feU  it  hath  no  proper  Efficacy  for  that  end  >    But  the  A- 
pojiles  words  and  way  of  Argumentation  doth  imply,  that  there  was  a 
peculiar  Efficacy  both  in  the  one  and  the  other,  in  order  to  Expiation  j 
although  a  far  greater  in  the  Blood  of  Chrift,  than  could  be  in  the  o- 
ther;  as  the  thing  typified,  ought  to  exceed  that  which  was  theRe- 
prefentation  of  it.    From  hence  we  fee,  that  the  Apojile  attributes  what 
Expiation  there  was  under  the  Law,  not  immediately  to  God,  as  be- 
longing properly  to  him,  but  tot&e  Blood  of  Bulls  and  Goats,  and  the  A- 
Jhes  of  an  Heifer,  fprinkling  the  unclean.     Which  he  had  very  great 
reafon  to  do,  fince  God  exprefly  faith  to  the  Jervs,  that  the  Blood  was 
given  them  "iSD"?  ad  expiandum,  to  expiate  for  their  Souls,  for  the  Blood. 
Lev.  17.    -123  {y2J3  fl^all  expiate  the  Sml.  Than  which  words,  nothing  could  have 
been  more  plainly  faid  to  overthrow  CrelHus  his  Aflertion,  that  Expia- 
tion is  not  properly  or  chiefly  attributed  to  the  Sacrifices,  but  prima- 
rily to  God,  and  confequentially  to  the  Frieji :  Who  is  never  faid  to 
'      expiate,  but  by  the  Sacrifice  which  he  offered,  fo  that  his  Office  was 
barely  Minifterial  in  it.    But  from  this  we  may  eafily  underftand,  in 
what  fenfe  God  is  faid  to  expiate  fins,  where  it  hath  Refped  to  a  Sacri- 
fice (  which  is  that  we  are  now  difcourfing  of,  and  not  in  any  larger  or 
more  improper  ufe  of  the  word)  for  fince  God  himfelf  hath  declared, 
that  the  Blood  was  given  for  Expiation,  the  Expiation  which  belongs 
to  God,  muft  imply  his  acceptance  of  it  for  that  end,  for  which  it  was 
offered.    For  the  Execution  or  difcharge  of  thePunifhment  belonging 
to  him,  he  may  be  faid  in  that  fenfe  to  expiate,  becaufe  it  is  only  in 
his  power  to  difcharge  the  finner  from  that  Obligation  to  punifhment 
he  lies  under  by  his  fins.     And  we  do  not  fay,  that  where  expiating 
is  attributed  to  him  that  accepts  the  Atonement,  that  it  doth,  imply  his 
undergoing  any  Punifhment  which  is  impofTible  to  fuppofe^  but  that 
where  it  is  attributed  to  a  Sacrifice,  as  the  means  of  Atonement,  there 
The  im-    ^^  ^^^  '^  ^'^^^  not  imply  a  bare  Condition,  but  fuch  a  Subftitution  of 
portance  One  in  the  place  of  another,  that  on  the  account  of  that,  the  fault  of 
ofK^W-  the  Offender  himfelf  is  expiated-thereby. 

vV"^  V.  And  to  this  fenfe  the  other  word  Kian  doth  very  well  agree;  for 
leaiing'  Socinus  and  Crellius  cannot  deny.  But  that  Gen.  31.  99.  it  properly  fig- 
ce/**^"''' wz/w  Luere,  or  to  bear  PuniJIment -^  although  they  fay,  it  no  where  elfe 

fignifie/ 


Chap.  VI.  of  CHRIST.  331 

Jigftijies  fa,  and  the  reafoh  is,  becaufe  it  is  applied  to  the  Altar,  and  fuch 
other  things,  which  are  not  capable  of  it  5  but  doth  it  hence  follow,  that 
it  (hould  not  retain  that  Signification  where  the  matter  will  bear  if,  as 
in  the  cafe  of  Sacrifices.  And  although  it  be  frequently  render'd  by 
flsj^a^frir,  >yt6af,i^&ii/,  i^iAxcfKidau,  yet  that  will  be  no  prejudice  to  the 
fenfe  we  plead  for  in  refpeft  of  Sacrifices,  becaufe  thofe  words  when 
ufed  concerning  them,  do  fignifie  Expiation  too.  "  Gr^//«f  proves, 
■"  that  they  do  from  their  own  nature  and  conftant  ufe  in  Greek  Ah- 
**  thors,  not  only  fignifie  an  antecedency  of  order,  but  a  peculiar  Effi- 
'*  cacy  in  order  to  Expiation.    Thence  Expiatory  Sacrifices  among  the 

Greeks  were  called  tAan^^j-',  a^nn^',  ^Ha^Tu^^  and  i^UjK^o^xi,  fre- 
"  quently  in  Homer,  applied  to  Sacrifices,  a^w'^Gii/  rh/j  yri'^tv  ^aOct^t-w/^; 
"  in  hlittarch,  and  d-)ia.^(nv  ufed  in  the  fame  fenfe  5  an  Expiator-y  Si- 
*'  crifice  in  Herodotus  is  call'd  yjt^d^ir.ov,  and  to  the  fame  purpofe  it  is 
"  ufed  in  Hermogenes,  Plato  and  Plutarch  :  As  among  the  Latins,  pla- 

care,  purgare,  pHrificare,  com  i Hare,  luftrare  in  the  fame  fenfe,  and 
*'  piare  when  ufed  in  Sacrifices^  he  proves  to  fignifie  Luere  per  fucceffto- 

nem  rei  alterius  inlocttm  ptBn£  debit <e.    "  ThencQ  piacitlum  ufed  for  an 
"  Expiatory  Sacrifice,  and  exp/are  is  toappeafeby  fuch  a  Sacrifice,  fo 
*'  Cererh  mtmen  expiare  is  ufed  in  Cicero  i,  fil turn  expi are  in  Livy.     So 
"  that  all  thefe  Sacrifices  among  them  were  fuppofed  ftill  to  pertain  to 
"  the  atoning  the  Deity,  and  obtaining  a  Remiflion  of  fins  committed 
*'  by  them.     And  from  hence  (becaufe  where  there  was  a  greater  Equa- 
*'  lity  and  Nearnefs,  theremightbe  the  greater  Efficacy  of  the  Sacrifice 
"  for  Expiation)  came  the  cuftom  of  facrificing  Men,  which  Grotius  at 
"  large  (hews  to  have  almofl:  univerfally  obtained  before  the  coming  of 
'*  Chrift.     We  are  now  to  confider  what  CrelUus  anfwers  to  this ;  the 
fubftance  of  which  lies  in  thefe  two  things,     i.  He  denies  not  hut  that  Creii.c.is. 
t(ctAz^i^.iv  and  dyid'^inv  do  in  their  proper  ufe  in  the  Greek  Tongue  pgnifie^l^'  '^' 
the  purging  of  guilt,  and  the  Aver/ion  of  the  wrath  of  God  and  Punijhntent, 
hut  that  thofe   and  fuch  other  words  are  attributed  to  Sacrifices,  becaufe 
thofe  were  fuppofed  to  be  the  EffeHs  of  them  among  the  Heathen-^  hut  the  at- 
tributing fuch  Effe&s  to  them,  did  arife  from  their  Superfiition,  whereby 
greater  things  were  attributed  to  Sacrifices,  than  God  would  have  given  to 
them,  ei'her  before  or  under  the  Law.     2.  He  denies  not, 
but  that  thofe  words,  ^^^e'^""  a»d  iyd^i-^f,  being  ufed    ,  J'T  ri  "1''° •"  ?"" 
by  the  Author  to  the  Hebrews  more  than  once  with  rejpea    atthet,  q-iibus  in  hoc  mgu- 
to  the  Sacrifices  and  Prieflhood  of  Chri/i,  were  taken  in  the    '"'"''  "'"/l?"J  "^'l"',^' 
Jame  jenle  m  which  they  are  ujea  m  the  \jreek  longue,  viz.    fti  sacrificium  (fy- sacerdntii 
For  the  purging  of  guilt,  and  the  Averfion  of  the  Wrath  of  ffn'^fio'tm  relate  eo  etiam 
God,  a/.-d  the  Punijloment  confcquent  upon  it  :  But  all  that    imgmreceper'It^'h!"*.  ieex- 
he  contends  for  is.  That  there  is  a  difference  in  the  man-    p"  gat'me  reatus  &  averfi. 
nerofeffeSing  it,  which  he  acknowledges  the  words  them-    ZltXlVio!^^?    ^'"' 
felves  do  not  imply  5  and  the  reafons  he  gives  for  it  are. 
That  the  other  were  proper,  hut  Chriji's  an  improper  Sacrifice  5  and  that  the 
other  Sacrifices  were  offered  by  Men  to  God,  but  the  Sacrifice  ofChrifi  wzu 
given  by  God  to  Men,  and  therefore  he  muji  be  fuppofed  to  be  reconciled  be- 
fore.   From  whence  he  would  at  leaft  have  other  fenfes  of  thefe  words 
joyned  together  with  the  former  ^  viz.     Either  fir  purging  away  the 
filth  of  fin,  ox  for  a  declaration  of  a  deliverance  from  guilt  and  puni/I^ntenty 
in  imitation  of  the  Idiom  of  the  Hebrew,  in  which  many  words  are  u- 
fed  in  the  New  Tefiament.    From  hence  it  follows,  that  Crellii^  doth 
yield  the  main  caufe,  if  it  appear,  that  Chrifl^did  offer  up  an  Expia- 

T  t  2  tory 


^32  Of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  VI. 

tory  Sacrifice  to  God  in  his  Death,  for  then  he  grants  that  ^^,&KeJ,f£^» 
and  dytcl^eiv  being  applied  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Cknji,  are  to  be  taken 
far  the  purging  away  of  gu'tlt,  and  the  Aver/ion  of  the  li'rath  of  God,  and 
the  pnnifhntent  of  fin.     And  it  is  to  no  purpofe  to  fay,  that  it  is  not  a 
proper  Sacrifice,  for  if  the  EfFeds  of  a  proper  Sacrifice  do  belong  to 
it,  that  proves  that  it  is  fo ;  for  thefe  words  being  acknowledged  to 
be  applied  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift  by  the  Author  to  the  Hebrews, 
'     what  could  more  evince  that  Chrifi'%  was  a  proper  Sacrifice,  than  that 
thofe  things  are  attributed  to  it,  which  by  the  confent  of  all  Nations, 
are  faid  to  belong  to  proper  Sacrifices,  and  that  in  the  very  fame  fenfe 
in  which  they  are  ufed  by  thofe  who  underftood  them  in  the  moft  pro- 
per fenfe.     And  what  reafon  could  Crellius  have  to  fay,  that  it  rvas  on- 
ly the  Superfiition  of  the  Heathens,  vphich  made  them  attribute  fuch  Ef- 
feBs  to  Sacrifices  5  when  himfelf  acknowledges  that  the  very  fame  fenfe 
doth  belong  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift  under  that  Notion  >     And  as  to 
the  Jews  we  have  already  proved  that  the  fenfe  of  Expiation  among 
them  was  by  virtue  of  the  Law  to  be  taken  in  as  proper  a  fenfe  as  a- 
mong  the  Heathens,  for  the  purging  of  guilt,  and  the  Averfion  of  the 
Wrath  of  God.     And  why  fhould  CrelUm  deny  thatefire(a  of  the  Sa- 
crifice of  Chrift  as  to  the  Atonement  of  God,  becaufe  God's  love  tpas 
feen  in  giving  htm  who  voas  to  offer  the  Sacrifice  ?     Since  that  effeft  is  at- 
tributed to  thofe  Sacrifices  under  the  Law  which  God  himfelf  appoint- 
ed to  be  offered,  and  (hewed  his  great  kindnefs  to  the  People  in  the 
Inftitution  of  fuch  a  way,  whereby  their  fins  might  be  expiated,  and 
they  delivered  from  the  Puniftiment  of  them.     But  of  the  confiftency 
of  thefe  two,  I  fhall  fpeak  more  afterwards,  in  the  EfFeft  of  the  Sacri- 
fices as  relating  to  Perfons. 
Expiation     VL  We  now  come  to  confider  in  what  fenfe  the  Expiation  of  fins  is 
attributed  in  ,Sm/)A«re  attributed  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift,  and  therein  I  ftiall  prove 
to  the  Si-  ({^g(g  [yj^Q  things.     I.  That  the  Expiation  is  attributed  to  the  Sacrifice 
chrHHn  of  Chrift  in  the  fame  fenfe  that  it  is  attfibuted  to  other  Sacrifices,  and 
the  fame  95  (^6  words  in  themfelves  do  fignifie.     2.  That  what  is  fo  attributed 
ft  was'J'o"  dof h  belong  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift  in  his  Death,  antecedent  to  his 
other  Sa.  entrance  into  Heaven,     i.  That  the  Expiation  is  to  be  taken  in  a  pro- 
crifices.    ^^^  fenfe,  when  it  is  attributed  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift.    Crellius  tells 
Crell.ciQ.  us.  The  controver/ie  is  not  about  the  thing,  viz.     Whether  Expiation  in 
felt,  24.     ffjg  i'g„j-g  jj,g  f^]^Q  If  j„  pf.  purging  aroay  guilt,  and  Averfion  of  the  Wrath 
of  God,  doth  belong  to  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrifi,  for  he  acknowledges  it  doth^ 
but  all  the  queflion  is  about  the  manner  of  it  :  Which  in  the  next  Seftion 
he  thus  explains  :  There  are  three  fenfes  in  which  Chrift  may  be  faid  to  ex- 
piate fins '^  either  by  begetting  Faith  in  us,  whereby  we  are  drawn  off  from 
the  Pra&ice  of  fin,  in  which  fenfe,  he  faith,  it  is  a  remoter  antecedent  to 
it  5  or  as  it  relates  to  the  Expiation  by  adfual  deliverance  from  Vunifiimetft^ 
fo  he  faith,  it  is  an  immediate  antecedent  to  it:  Or  as  he  declares  that 
they  are  expiated,  but  this,  he  faith,  doth  not  fo  properly  relate  to  Chrifi 
as  a  Sacrifice,  but  its  a  Frieft.     But  never  a  one  of  thefe  fenfes  comes 
near  to  that  which  Crellius  grants  to  be  the  proper  importance  of  <ic^- 
hr/.^>.^civ  and  dyict^iiv,  as  applied  to  a  Sacrifice,  viz.  The  purging  away 
guilt,  and  the  Averfion  of  the  Wrath  of  God,  and  Vunijliment,  not  any 
way,  but  by  the  means  of  the  Sacrifice  offered.    For  in  the  Legal  Sa- 
crifices nothing  can  be  more  plain  than  that  the  Expiation  was  to  be  by 
the  Sacrifice  offered  for  Atonement :  Suppofing  then  that  in  fome  other 
way  (which  could  be  by  no  means  proper  to  thofe  Sacrifices)  Chrift  may 

be 


Chap.  VI  of  CHRIST,  333 

be  faid  to  expiate  fins,  what  dorh  this  prove  that  there  v/aS  an  Expia- 
tion belonging  to  his  Sacrifice  agreeable  to  the  Sacrifices  of  old?     But 
as  I  urged  before  in  the  cafe  of  Chriji's  being  Hrgh-Prieji,  that  by  their 
Affertions  the  Jews  might  utterly  deny  the  force  of  any  Argument  ufed 
by  the  Author  to  the  Hebrews  to  prove  it :  So  I  fay  as  to  the  Expiation 
by  Cbrift's  Sacrifice,  that  it  hath  no  Analogy  or  Correfpondency  at  all 
with  any  Sacrifice  that  was  ever  offered  for  the  Expiation  of  fins.    For 
by  that  they  always  underftood  foraething  which  was  immediately  of- 
fered to  God  for  that  end,  upon  which  they  obtained  Remiffion  of 
(5ns  5  but  here  is  nothing  anfwerable  to  it  in  their  fenfe  of  Chrift's  Sa- 
crifice^ for  here  is  no  Oblation  at  all  made  unto  God  tor  this  end  ;  all 
the  Efficacy  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift,  in  order  to  Expiation  doth  whol- 
ly and  immediatelyRefped  us^  fo  that  if  it  be  a  proper  Sacrifice  to  any,  it 
muft  be  a  Si^crifice  to  us,  and  not  to  God :  For  a  Sacrifice  is  always  faid 
to  be  made  to  him  whom  it  doth  immediately  Refpeft  ^  but  Chrift  in 
the  planting  Faith,  ip  adfual  deliverance,  in  declaring  to  us  this  delive- 
rance, doth  wholly  Refepeft  us,  and  therefore  his  Sacrifice  muft  be 
made  to  Men,  and  not  to  God.     Which  is  in  it  felf  a  grofs  abfurdity, 
and  repugnant  to  the  nature  and  defign  of  Sacrifices  from  the  firft  in- 
ftitution  of  them  ^  which  were  always  efteemed  fuch  immediate  parts 
of  Divine  Worftiip,  that  they  ought  to  refpeft  noneelfe  but  God,  as 
the  objeft  to  which  they  were  direded,  though  for  the  benefit  and  ad- 
vantage of  Mankind.    As  well  then  might  Chrift  be  faid  fo  pray  for  us^ 
and  by  that  no  more  be  meant  but  that  he  doth  teaih  us  to  u»derfia»d  our 
duty^  as  be  made  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice  for  us,  and  all  the  EfFeft  of  it 
only  refpcft  us  and  not  God.     And  this  is  fo  far  from  adding  to  the  per- 
feSlioft  of  ChriJ^s  Sacrifice  above  the  Legal  (  which  is  the  thing  pleaded 
by  Crellius^  that  it  deftroys  the  very  nature  of  a  Sacrifice,  if  fuch  a  crdic. 
Vvay  of  Expiation  be  attributed  to  it  (which  though  conceived  to  htfea.ze. 
more  excellent  in  itfelf )  yet  is  wholly  incongruous  to  the  end  and  defign 
of  a  Sacrifice  for  Expiation.     And  the  excellency  of  the  manner  of  Ex- 
piation ought  to  be  in  the  fame  kind,  and  not  quite  of  another  nature  j 
\for,  will  any  one  fay,  that  a  General  of  an  Army  hath  a  more  excellent 
ConduS  than  all  that  went  before  him,  becaufe  he  can  make  finer  Spee- 
ihes^  or  that  the  Affoman<ean  Family  difcharg'd  the  Office  of  Priefihood 
beft,  becaufe  they  had  a  greater  Power  over  the  People  y  or  that  Nero 
was  the  moft  excellent  Emperour  of  Rome  becaufe  he  excelled  the  reft  in 
Miifck  and  Poetry :  By  which  we  fee  that  to  afTert  an  excellency  of  one  a- 
bove  another,  we  muft  not  go  to  another  kind,  butftiew  its  excellency 
in  that  wherein  the  Comparifon  lies:  So  that  this  doth  not  prove  the 
excellency  of  the  Sacrifice  of  Chriji,  becaufe  he  hath  a  greater  Power 
to  perfwade,  deliver  and  govern,  than  any  Sacrifice  under  the  Law  3 
for  thefe  are  things  quite  of  another  nature  from  the  Confideration  of 
a  Sacrifice:  But  therein  the  excellency  of  a  Sacrifice  is  to  be  demonftra- 
■ted,  that  itexcells  all  other  in  the  proper  end  and  defign  of  a  Sacrifice^ 
t.  e.  if  it  be  more  effeftual  towards  God  for  obtaining  the  Expiation  of 
fin;  which  was  always  thought  to  be  the  proper  end  of  all  Sacrifices 
for  Expiation.     Although  then  Chrift  may  be  allowed  to  excel  all  o- 
ther  Sacrifices  in  all  imaginable  Refpefts  but  that  which  is  the  proper 
intention  of  a  Sacrifice  -^  it  may  prove  far  greater  excellency  in  Chrift, 
but  it  doth  withall  prove  a  greater  Imperfeftion  in  his  Sacrifice,  if  it 
fail  in  that  which  is  the  proper  end  of  it.  So  that  if  we  (hould  grant  that 
the  Expiation  attributed  to  Chrift's  Sacrifice  fignified  no  more  than  re- 
claiming 


CIO 


3  34  0/  ^^^^  Suferuigs  C  ha  p.  VI 

claiming  Men  from  their  fins,  or  their  deliverance  by  his  Power,  or  a 
Declaration  of  God's  decree  to  pardon,  this  may  prove  that  there  are 
better  Arguments  to  believe  the  Kemiffion  of  our  fins  novy  under  the 
Gofpel  5  but  they  do  not  in  the  leaft  prove  that  Chrift  is  to  be  confider'd 
as  2iSacrifiie  ^  much  lefs  that  he  doth  far  excell  in  the  notion  of  an  Ex- 
piatory Sacrifice  all  thofe  which  were  offered  up  to  God  for  that  end  un- 
der the  Law. 
Expiation      VII.  But  we  muft  now  further  confider,  whether  this  be  all  attribu- 
by  Chrift  ted  to  Chrift  in  order  to  Expiation  in  Scripture  ;  /.  e.     Whether  thofe 
ly^'^d^ia-  words  which  of  themfelvesdo  imply  the  Averfion  of  the  Wrath  of  God^ 
rative.      when  ufed  concerning  other  Sacrifices,  when  applied  to  the  Sacrifice  of 
Chrift,  do  only  imply  the  begetting  Faith  in  us,  or  a  Declaration  of 
Pardon.    The  words  which  are  ufed  to  this  purpofe,  are  /f^c^ctc/^ttr, 
d-yid^&iv,  pxvTi'^&iv,  Afcsfrij',  which  are  all  applied  to  the  Blood  of  Chrift,  and 
thedifpute  is,  whether  they  fignifie  no  more  but  a  Declaration  of  Par- 
Creii.  cap.  don,  or  a  means  to  beget  Faith  in  us.    Thefirji  vpordi  i(j^^e^^n>  and 
Itt^oS  "V"*?^'"  Crellius  acknovpledgeth  do  frequent ly  figtfifie  deliverance  from  guilt 
and  punijhment  ^  but,  he  faith,  they  may  likervife  fgf'ffie  a  Declaration  of 
that  deliverance,  as  decreed  bj  God,  or  a  purging  from  the  fins  themfelvet^ 
or  from  the  Cujiom  of  finning.    So  that  by  Crellius  his  own  Confeffion, 
the  fenfe  we  contend  for  is  moft  proper  and  ufual,  the  other  are  more 
remote,  and  only  poffible  5  why  then  ftiould  we  forfake  the  former 
fenfe,  which  doth  moft  perfeftly  agree  to  the  nature  of  a  Sacrifice, 
which  the  other  fenfes  have  no  fuch  Relation  to,  as  that  hath  ?    For 
thefe  being  the  words  made  ufe  of  in  the  New  Teflament,  to  imply  the 
Force  and  Efficacy  of  a  Sacrifice,  why  ftiould  they  not  be  underftood 
in  the  fame  fenfe  which  the  Bebrexv  words  are  taken  in,  when  they  are 
*  applied  to  the  5rffri/JVej  under  the  Law?     We  are  not  enquiring  into 

all  poffible  fenfes  of  words,  but  into  the  moft  natural  and  agreeable  to 
thefcope  of  them  that  ufe  them:  And  that  we  ftiall  make  it  appear  to 
be  the  fame,  we  plead  for  in  the  places  in  difpute  between  us;  as, 
I  John  I.  7.  The  Blood  of  Jefus  Chriji  his  Son,  KSf-^tK^^  infAMA^'^m  irar 
mc,  a.,cca,^Vce.i;,  purge th  us  from  all  fin,  Heb.  9.  13,  14.  If  the  Blood  of 
Bulls,  and  of  Goats,  and  the  Ajhes  of  an  Heifer,  fprinkling  the  unclean^ 
a-yiai^ii  ^zs^ii;  tIu)  '^  azt^tcot;  hc/,^pJth1  a.  fanBifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the 
flejh,  Horv  much  morejhall  the  Blood  of  Chriji  purge  your  Confciences  front 
dead  works,  ^^.e.l;^«j  tIju  am^i^v^iv}  Heb.  i.  3.  ^'  iciu-ni  >icf.^.^ia/Miv 
7/73i/i(ra,U/«v©-  rjt''  a.fjutpli'ji>v  riu^',  vphen  he  had  by  himfelf  purged  our  [ins.  So 
pcu'li^uv  and  Ah'sif  are  ufed  with  a  Kefpeft  to  the  Blood  of  Chrift,  Heb, 
ID.  2  2.  Apocalyp.  I.  5.  And  becaufe  Remiffion  of  fin  was  looked  on  as 
the  confequent  of  Expiation  by  Sacrifice  under  the  Law ;  therefore  that 
is  likewife  attributed  to  the  Blood  of  Chrift,  Matth.  26.  28.  This  is 
the  Blood  of  the  New  Teflament  which  was  Jfjed  for  many,  &?«  au^t^.v  djuta.^ 
Itvv,  for  the  RemiJJion  of  fins,  Eph.  1.7.  In  whom  we  have  Redemption 
through  his  Blood,  the  RemiJJion  of  fins,  and  to  the  fame  purpofe,  Colojfl 
I.  14.  And  from  hence  we  are  (aid  to  be  jujiified  by  his  Blood,  Rom. 
5.  9,  and  Chrift  is  faid  to  be  a  Propitiation  through  faith  in  his  Blood, 
Rom.  5.  25.  The  fubftance  of  all  that  CrelUiu  replies  to  thefe  places  is, 
CreUx.io.That  thofe  words  which  do  properly  fignifie  the  thing  it  felf  may  very  conve- 
felf.  28.  ffiently  be  taken  only  for  the  Declaration  of  it,  when  the  performance  of  the 
thing  doth  follow  by  virtue  of  that  Declaration :  Whii  h  then  happens,  when 
.the  Declaration  is  made  of  the  thing  decreed  by  another,  and  that  in  the 
.  name  and  by  the  command  of  him  who  did  decree  it.     And  in  this  fenfe, 

Ckriji 


Chap.  VI.  of  CHRIST.     33^ 

Chrifl  by  his  Blood  may  be  faid  to  deliver  us  from  the  FnniPdment  of  our  fns^ 
by  declariffg  or  tejlifyittg  to  us  the  trill  and  decree  of  God  for  that  purpofe. 
But  this  anfvver  is  by  no  means  fufficient,  upon  thefe  Confiderations5 
I.  Becaufe  it  doth  not  reach  the  proper  and  natural  fenfe  of  the  words, 
as  Crc//r<whimfelf  confefleth^  and  yet  he  affigns  no  reafon  at  all,  why 
we  ought  to  depart  from  it,  unlefs  the  bare  poflibility  of  another  mean- 
ing be  fufficient.     But  how  had  it  been  poffible  for  the  Efficacy  of  the 
Btood  of  Chrifl:  for  purging  away  the  guilt  of  our  fins,  to  have  been  ex- 
prefled  in  clearer  and  plainer  terms  than  thefe,  wh  ich  are  acknowledged 
of  themfelves  to  fignifie  as  much  as  we  aflert  >     If  the  mofl:  proper  Ex- 
preffions  for  this  purpofe,  are  not  of  Force  enough  to  perfwade  our 
Adverfaries,  none  elfe  could  ever  do  it:  So  that  it  had  been  impoffible 
for  our  Doftrine  to  have  been  delivered  in  fuch  terms,  but  they  would 
have  found  out  ways  to  evade  the  meaning  of  them.     It  feems  very 
ftrange,  that  fo  great  an  Efficacy  (hould  not  only  once  or  twice,  but  fo 
frequently  be  attributed  to  the  Blood  of  Chrift  for  Expiation  of  fin,  if 
nothing  elfe  were  meant  by  it,  but  that  Chrift  by  his  Death  did  only 
declare  that  God  was  willing  to  pardon  fin?     If  there  were  danger  in 
underftandingthe  words  in  their  proper  fenfe,  why  are  they  fo  frequent- 
ly ufed  to  this  purpofe?     Why  are  there  no  other  places  of  Scripture 
that  might,  help  to  undeceive  us,  and  tell  us  plainly,  that  Chrift  dyed 
only  to  declare  his  Father's  will  ?    But  what  ever  other  words  might 
figniHe,  this  was  the  only  true  meaning  of  them.     But  what  mifera- 
ble  fhifts  are  thefe,  when  Men  are  forced  to  put  off  fuch  Texts  which 
are  confeffed  to  exprefs  our  Doftrine,  only  by  faying  that  they  may 
be  otherwife  underftood?     Which  deftroys  all  kind  of  certainty  in 
words  ^  which  by  reafon  of  the  various  ufeof  them,  may  be  interpre- 
ted to  fo  many  fevcral  fenfes,  that  if  this  liberty  be  allowed,  upon  no 
other  pretence,  but  that  another  meaning  is  poffible.  Men   will  never 
3gree  about  the  intention  of  any  perfon  in  fpeaking.     For    upon 
the  fame   reafon,  if  it  had   been  faid.  That  Chriji  declared   by   his 
detth  God's  readinefs  to  pardon,  it  might  have  been  interpreted,  Thai 
the  Blood    of  Chriji  was  therefore  the  Declaration   of  God's   readinefs 
to  pardon,  becaufe   it  was  the  Confideration  upon  which  God  would  dc 
it :  So  that  if  the  words  had  been  as  exprefs  for  them,  as  they  are  now 
againft  them,  according  to  their  way  of  anfwering  places,  they  would 
have  been  reconcileable  to  our  Opinion.     2.  The  Scripture  in  thefe 
Expreffions,  doth  attribute  fomething  ;)ef«//<?r  to  the  Blood  of  Chriji^ 
but  if  all  that  were  meant  by  it  were  no  more,  than  the  declaring  God's 
Will  to  pardon,  this  could  in  no  fenfe  be  faid  to  be  peculiar  to  it.  For 
this  was  the  defign  of  the  Doftrine  of  Chrift,  and  all  his  Miracles  were 
wrought  to  confirm  the  truth  of  that  part  of  his  Doftrine,  which  con- 
cerned Remidion  of  fins  as  well  as  any  other  :  But  how  abfurd  would 
it  have  been  to  fay,  that  the  Miracles  of  Chrift  purge  us  from  all  fin  ^ 
that  through  Chrifi  heal'ng  the  fick,  raifing  the  dead,  &c.     Wehavei^e- 
demption,  even  the  forg'venefs  of  fins,  which  are  attributed  to  the  Blood 
of  Chrift  ?  But  if  no  other  Refpeft,  than  as  a  Teftimony  to  the  truth 
of  theDoftrine  of  Remiflion  of  fins,  they  were  equally  applicable  to 
one  as  to  the  other.     Befides,  if  this  had  been  all  intended  in  thefe 
Expreflions,  they  were  the  moft  incongruoufly  applied  to  the  Blood  of 
Chrift;  nothing  feeming  more  repugnant  to  the  Dodtrine  of  the  Re- 
miffion  of  fins,  which  was  declared  by  it,  than  that  very  thing  by 
which  it  was  declared,  if  no  more  were  intended  by  it:  For  how  un- 

fuitabld 


336  Of  the  Sufferings  Chap.  VI, 

fuitable  a  way  was  to  it  declare  the  pardon  of  the  guilty  Perfons,  by  fuch 
Severities  ufed  towards  the  mofl:  Innocent !  Who  couM  believe.  That 
God  ftiould  declare  his  willingnefs  to  pardon  others,  by  the  Death  of 
bis  own  Son  ;  unlefs  that  Death  of  his  be  confidered  as  the  meritd- 
rious  Caufe  for  procuring  it?  And  in  that  fenfe  we  acknowledge,  That 
the  Death  of  Chrift  was  a  Declaration  of  God's  will  and  decree  to  par- 
don, but  not  meerly  as  it  gave  Teftimotiy  to  the  truth  of  his  Dodrine 
(  for  in  that  fenfe  the  Blood  of  the  Apojiles  and  Martyrs  might  be  faid 
to  purge  us  from  fin  ^  as  well  as  the  Blood  of  Chrijl')  but  becaufe  it  was 
the  Confideration  upon  which  God  had  decreed  to  pardon.  And  fo  as 
the  acceptance  of  the  Condition  required,  or  the  price  paid,  may  be 
faid  to  declare  or  manifefl,  the  intention  of  a.  perfon  to  releafe  or  de- 
liver a  Captive  :  So  God's  acceptance  of  what  Chrift  did  fufFer  for  our 
fakes,  may  befaidto^/ec/^rehisreadinefs  to  pardon  us  upon  his  account. 
But  then  this  Declaration  doth  not  belong  properly  to  the  Ad  of  Chrift 
in  fufFering^  but  to  the  A6t  of  God  in  accepting:  And  it  can  be  noo- 
ther  ways  known,  than  God's  acceptance  is  known ;  which  was  not  by 
the  Sufferings,  but  by  the  Refurre^ion  of  Chri^.  And  therefore  the 
declaring  God's  will  and  decree  to  pardon,  doth  properly  belong  to 
that:  And  if  that  had  been  all  which  the  Scripture  had  meant,  by  pur- 
ging of  fin  by  the  Blood  of  Chrift^  it  had  been  very  incongruoufly,  applied 
to  that,  but  moft  properly  to  his  Refurre&ion.  But  thefe  Phrafes  be- 
ing never  attributed  to  that  which  moft  properly  might  be  faid  to  de- 
clare the  Will  of  God ;  and  being  peculiarly  attributed  to  the  Death  oi 
Chrift,  which  cannot  be  faid  properly  to  do  it ;  nothing  can  be  more 
plain,  than  that  thefe  Expreffions  ought  to  be  taken  in  that  which  U 
confefled  to  be  their  proper  fenfe  5  viz..  That  Expiation  of  fin,  which 
doth  belong  to  the  Death  of  Chrift,  as  a  Sacrifice  for  the  fins  of  the 
World. 
The  death  VIII.  But  yet  Socinus  and  Creliim  have  another  fubterfuge,  (for 
ofchtift  therein  lies  their  great  art,  in  feeking  rather  by  any  means  to  efcape 
Meton^^-"  ^lieir  Enemies,  than  to  overcome  them.)  For  being  fenfible,  that  the 
micaiiy  main  fcope  and  defign  of  the  Scripture  is  againft  them,  they  feldom, 
for  all  the  and  but  very  weakly  alTault:  But  ftiew  all  their  fubtlety  in  avoiding 
quenKof  t>y  all  imaginable  arts,  the  force  of  what  is  brought  againft  them.  And 
it.  the  Scripture  being  fo  plain  in  attributing  fuch  great  Effefts  to  the  Death 

of  Chrift,  when  no  other  anfwer  will  ferve  turn,  then  they  tell  us,      li 
^^^^  -^^^-That  the  Death  of  Chrift  is  taken  Metonymically  for  all  the  confequents  of 
feli.  119.  hff  Death:)  viz.     His  Refurre^ion,  Exaltation,  and  the  Votper  and  Ah- 
(■  i<^-f(^.thority  which   he   hath   at   the  right   hand  of  hit  Father.     But   how  is 
45-p.527.j(  poflible  to  convince  thofe,  who  by  Death,  can  underftand  Life :  by 
fufferings,  can  mean  Glory -^  and  by  the  Jhedding  of  Blood,  fitting  at  the 
right  hand  of  God  ?     And  that  the  Scripture  is  very  far  from  giving  any 
Countenance  to  thefe  bold  Interpretations,  will  appear  by  thefe  Con- 
fiderations;     i.  hec?i\i^Q  tht  Effehoi  Expiation  of  our  fins,  is  attributed 
to  the  Death  of  Chrijl,  as  diftinft  from  his  Refurre&lonj  viz.    Our  Re- 
conciliation with  God,  Rom.  5'  lO-     For  if  when  we  were  Enemies,  we 
were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  Death  of  his  Son  5  much  more  being  reconciled^ 
crell.c.i.vi>e  fiull  befaved  by  his  Life.     To  \^h\chCrellius  anfwers.  That  the  Apo- 
ji-if.  I J  2.  fi/g  (lo  fj  f,ot  fpeak  of  the  Death  of  Chrift  alone,  or  as  it  is  confdered  di- 
Jl:.,&  from  the  confeqtiences  of  it^  but  only  that  our  Reconciliation  was  ef- 
fc&ed  by   the.  Death   of  Chriji  intervening.     But  nothing  can  be  more 
evident  to  any  one,  who  confiders  the  Defign  of  the  Apoftles  difcourfe, 

than 


Chap.  VI.  of  CHKIST.  337 

than  that  he  fpeaksof  what  was  peculiar  to  the  Death  of  Chrift:  Fot^°"^0'<^" 
therefore  it  is  faid,  that  Chriji  died  fir  the  ungodly.     For  f car  eel y  fir  a      -i. 
righteous  Mau  mil  one  die  :  But  God  commendeth  his  love  towards  Uf,  ih      ^' 
that  while  we  were  yet  /Tnners,  Chriji  died  fir  us.     Much  more  then  being      9. 
Kove  JHJiified  by  his  Blood,  we  fiall  be  fived  through  him-^  upon  which 
thofe  words  tollow.   For  if  when  we  were  Enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to      i'* 
Ged  by  the  Death  of  his  Son,  &c.  The  Reconciliation  here  mentioned, 
is  attributed  to  the  Death  of  Chrift  in  the  fame  fenfe,  that  it  is  menti- 
oned before ;  but  there  it  is  not  mentioned  as  a  bare  Condition  interven- 
ing in  order  to  fomething  farther ,  but  as  the  great  inftance  of  the  love 
both  of  God  and  Chrifl,  of  God,  in  fending  his  Son  ^  of  Chrifl:,  in 
laying  down  his  life  for  finners,  in  order  to  their  being  juftified  by  his 
Blood.    But  where  is  it  that  St.  Paul  faith,  that  the  Death  of  Chrift 
had  no  other  influence  on  the  Expiation  of  our  fins,  but  as  a  bare 
Condition  intervening  in  order  to  that  Power  and  Authority  whereby 
he  would  expiate  fins?  What  makes  him  attribute  fo  much  to  the  Death 
of  Chrift,  if  all  the  benefits  we  enjoy  depend  upon  the  Confequences 
of  it ;  and  no  otherwife  upon  that,  than  meerly  as  a  Preparation  for 
it  >     What  peculiar  Emphafis  were  there  in  Chrift's  dying  for  finners,  and 
for  the  ungodly  ^  unlefs  his  Death  had  a  particular  Relation  to  the  Expi- 
ation of  their  fins?     Why  are  Men  laid  to  be  jujlijied  by  his  Blood,  and 
and  not  much  rather  by  \m  glorious  Refurretlion,  if  the  Blood  of  Chrift 
be  only  confidered  as  antecedent  to  the  other  ?     And  that  would  have 
been  the  great  Dcmonftration  of  the  love  of  God  which  had  the  moft 
immediate  influence  upon  our  advantage :  Which  could  not  have  been 
the  Death  in  this  fenfe,  but  the  Life  and  Glory  of  Chrift.     But  nothing 
can  be  more  abfurd  than  what  CrelUus  would  have  to  be  the  meaning  of 
this  place,  viz.     That  the  Jpojile  doth  not  fpeak  of  the  proper  force  of  the 
JDeath  of  Chriji  difiin^  front  his  Life  ^  but  that  two  things  are  oppofed  to  each 
other,  for  the  effeSing  of  one  of  which  the  Death  of  Chriji  did  intervene,  but 
it  Jhould  not  intervene  for  the  other  ;   viz.  It  did  intervene  for  our  Recon- 
ciliation, but  it  fljould  not  for  our  Lifi.     For  did  not  the  Death  of  Chrift 
equally  intervene  for  our  Life  as  for  our  Reconciliation  .<"     Was  not  our 
eternal  deliverance  the  great  thing  defigned  by  Chrift,  and  our  Recon* 
ciliation  in  order  to  that  end  ?     What  oppofition  then  can  be  imagined^ 
that  it  (hould  be  neceflary  for  the  Death  of  Chrift  to  intervene  in  order 
to  the  one  than  in  order  to  the  other?     But  he  means,  that  the  Death 
of  Chriji  (l^ould  not  intervene  any  morei,  what  need  that,  when  it  is  ac- 
knowledged by  themfelves,  that  Chrift  died  only  for  this  end  before, 
that  he  might  have  Power  to  beftow  eternal  Life  on  them  that  obey 
him  ?     But  the  main  force  of  the  Apoftles  Argument  lies  in  the  Compa- 
rifon  between  the  Death  of  Chriji  having  Refped  to  us  as  Enemies  in  or- 
der to  Reconciliation,  and  the  Life  ofChrfi  to  us  confidered  as  reconci- 
led ^  fo  that  if  he  had  fo  much  kindnefs  for  Enemies,  to  die  for  their 
Reconciliation,  we  may  much  more  prefume  that  he  now  living  in 
Heaven  will  accomplifti  the  end  of  that  Reconciliation,  in  the  eternal 
Salvation  of  them  that  obey  him.    By  which  it  is  apparent  that  he 
fpeaks  of  the  Death  of  Chrift,  in  a  notion  proper  to  it  felf,  having  Expiation 
influence  upon  our  Reconciliation  ;  and  doth  not  confider  it  Metony-itmbmed 
mically  as  comprehending  in  it,  the  confequents  of  it.  Incece"^ 

IX.  2.  Becaufe  the  Expiation  of  fins  is  attributed  to  Chrift  antece- dentiy  to 
dently  to  the  great  confequents  of  his  Death,  viz.  hk  jit  ting  at  the  right  '^'^  ^"".  _ 
hand  of  God,  Heb.  i.  3.     When  he  had  by  himfelf  purged  our  fins,  /^/e  to  heaven. 

U  U  down 


338  Of  the  Siiferings  Chap.  VI^ 

down  on  the  right  hand  of  his  MajeJ}y  on  high,  Heb.  9.  1 1 .  But  by  hk 
own  Blood  he  entred  in  once  into  the  Holy  Place,  having  obtained  eternal 
Redemption  for  us.  To  thefe  places  Crellius  gives  a  double  anfwer, 
Cre/Ac.io.  I*  That  inde^nite  Particles  (  ivo^iu^i@^  and  TrcinawVi:''©- )  being  joyned 
feif.}o.  with  Verbs  ofthepreterperfe&  tenfe  do  not  always  require  that  the  A&ion 
exprejfed  by  them,  [hould  precede  that  which  is  dejtgned  in  the  Verbs  to 
■which  they  are  joyned  ;  but  they  havefometimes  the  force  of  Particles  of  the. 
prefent  or  imperfeS  tenfe  i,  which  fometimes  happens  in  Particles  of  thepre- 
terperfe&  tenfe,  as  Matth.  10.  5.  d-Tnga^a.v  -aC^^!?;^  Fii?  a^  a,'j7ni\,  fo  A^l- 
zs,/9&<<  &i7nv  5  and  feveral  other  inftances  produced  by  him :  According 
to  which  manner  of  Interpretation  the  fenfe  he  puts  upon  thofe  words, 
Heb.  9.12.  is  Chriji  by  the  Jhedding  of  his  -Blood  entred  into  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  and  in  fo  doing  he  found  eternal  Redemption,  or  the  Expiation 
of  fins.  But  not  to  difpute  with  CrelUus  concerning  the  importance  of 
the  Aorifi  being  joyned  with  a  Verb  of  the  preterperfc&  tenfe,  which  in 
all  reafon  and  common  Acceptation  doth  imply  the  Adion  part  by  him 
who  writes  the  words  antecedent  to  his  writing  of  it,  as  is  plain  in  the 
inftances  produced  by  Cre//zW ;  but  according  to  his  fenfe  of  Chrift's 
Expiation  of  fin,  it  was  yet  to  come  after  Chrift's  entrance  into  Hea- 
ven, and  fo  it  (hould  have  been  more  properly  i'Jinro/A^vQ-  than  iV(^^- 
yM^f©.  5  not  I  fay  to  infift  upon  that,  the  Apoftle  manifefts,  that  he  had 
a  Refpeft  to  the  Death  of  Chrift  in  the  obtaining  this  eternal  Redempti- 
on, by  his  following  difcourfe:  For  v.  14.  he  compares  the  Blood  of 
Chriji  in  point  of  Efficacy  for  Expiation  of  fin,  with  the  Blood  of  the 
Legal  Sacrifices:  Whereas  if  the  Expiation  meant  by  him  had  been 
found  hy  Chrift's  QWii'/^^of  himfelf  in  Heaven,  he  would  have  compared 
Chrift's  entrance  into  Heaven  in  order  to  it,  with  the  entrance  of  the  High- 
Prieji  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  and  his  Argument  had  run  thus.  For  if 
the  High-Prieji  under  the  Law  did  expiate  fins  by  entring  into  the  Holy 
of  Holies  5  How  much  more  fhall  the  Son  of  God  entring  into  Heaven 
expiate  the  fins  of  Mankind  ?  But  we  fee  the  Apojile  had  no  fooner 
mention'd  the  Redemption  obtained  for  us  ^  but  he  prefently  fpeaks  of 
the  Efficacy  of  the  Blood  of  Chrift  in  order  to  it,  and  as  plainly  aflerts 
the  fame,  v.  1 5.  And  for  this  caufe  he  is  the  Mediator  of  the  New  Tefia- 
tnent,  that  by  means  of  death,  for  the  Redemption  of  the  Tranfgrefjions 
which  were  under  the  firflTejiament,  they  which  were  called  might  receive 
the  promife  of  eternal  Inheritance.  Why  doth  the  Apoftle  here  fpeak  of 
the  ^WDAuTi^i'ini  -Pj^i"  'ja^o!/Sa'(3^:ti)',  the  Expiation  of  Jin  s  by  the  means  of 
Death '^  if  he  had  fo  lately  alTerted  before  that  the  Redemption  or  Ex- 
piation was  found  not  by  his  death,  but  by  his  entrance  into  Heaven  > 
And  withal  the  Apoftle  here  doth  not  fpeak  of  fuch  a  kind  of  Expia- 
tion as  wholly  Refpefts  the  future,  but  oi  fins  that  were  under  the  firfi 
Teftament,  not  barely  fuch  as  could  not  be  expiated  by  virtue  of  it,  but 
fuch  as  were  committed  during  the  time  of  it,  although  the  Levitical 
Law  allowed  no  Expiation  for  them.  And  to  confirm  this  fenfe,  the 
Apoftle  doth  not  go  on  to  prove  the  neceflity  of  Chrift's  entrance  into 
Heaven-^  but  of  his  dying,  v.  1 6,  17,  18.  But  granting  that  he  doth 
allude  to  the  High-Priefts  entring  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  yet  that  was 
but  the  Reprefentation  of  a  Sacrifice  already  offer'd,  and  he  could  not 
be  faid  to  find  Expiation  by  his  entrance  5  but  that  was  already  found 
by  the  Blood  oi  the  Sacrifice,  and  his  entrance  was  only  to  accomplilh 
the  end  for  which  the  Blood  was  offer'd  up  in  Sacrifice.  And  the  be- 
nefit which  came  to  Men  is  attributed  to  the  Sacrifice,  and  not  to  the 

fprink- 


Chap.  VI. ofCH  KIST.  339 

fprtnklngof  Blood  before  the  Mercy- feat :  And  wl^atever  efFeft  was  con* 
fequent  upon  his  entrance  info  the  Sanftuary,  was  by  virtue  of  the 
Blood  which  he  carried  in  with  him,  and  was  before  flied  at  the  Altar. 
Neither  can  it  with  any  reafon  be  faid,  that  if  the  Redemption  were 
obtained  by  tlie  Blood  of  ChrifV,  there  conld  be  no  need  of  his  entrance 
into  Heaven  ^  fince  we  do  not  make  the  Pricjihood  of  Chrift  to  expire 
at  his  Death  ;  but  that  he  is  in  Heaven  a  merciful  High-Prieft  in  nego- 
tiating the  Affairs  of  his  People  with  God,  and  there  ever  lives  to  make 
intercejjion  for  them. 

X.  Crelliuf  anfwers.  That  (granting  the  Aorijl  being  put  before  the  /^r^,  No  dirt  in- 
'ixd'imv  (liould  imply  fuch  an  A&ion  which  was  antecedent  to  Chrijis  fitting  at  ^'°"  '■* 
the  right  ha/id  of  God,  jet  it  is  not  there  [aid,  that  the  Expiation  of  fins  w^x  of"hc"ef. 
made  bepre  Chrifi's  entrance  into  Heaven  \,  for  thofe,   faith  he,  are  to  ^gfeasof 
confidered  as  two  different  things  ^  for  a  Prince fir/i  enters  into  his  Palace,  ^^'^^^  * 
befire  he  fits  upon  his  Throne.      Atjd  therefore,   faith  he,  Chrifl  may  be  faid  into  Hei- 
to  have  made  Expiation  of /ins,  before  he  fate  down  at  the  right  hand  ofhis]^^^'°J^ 
Father,  not  that  it  was  done  by  his  death  but  by  his  entrance  into  Heaven,  and  at  the'"^ 
offering  hi  mf elf  to  God  there,  by  which  means  he  obtained  his  fitting  on  //Jgrighthand 
right  hand  of  the  Maj^fty  on  High,  and  thereby  the  fill  Power  ofRemi[/io»cl!a°f.'io. 
of  fins,  and  giving  eternal  Life.   To  which  I  anfwer,    i.  That  the  Scri-feii.\o. 
pture  never  makes  fuch  a  diftinftion  between  Chrifi's  entrance  into  Hea-^-  ^^'^• 
ven,  and  fitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God ;  which  latter  implying  no  more 

but  the  glorious  ftate  of  Chrift  in  Heaven,  his  entrance  into  Heaven 
doth  imply  it :  For  therefore  God  exalted  him  to  be  a.  Prince  and  a  Savi- 
our: And  the  reafon  of  the  Power  and  Authority  given  him  in  Hea- 
ven is  no  where  attributed  to  his  entrance  into  it  as  the  means  of  it^  but 
our  Saviour  before  that  tells  us,  that  all  Power  and  Authority  was  com-^^^^'^''^^' 
mitted  to  him  '.^  and  his  very  entrance  into  Heaven  was  a  part  of  his^^" 
tjjory  ^  and  given  him  in  Confideration  of  his  Sufferings ;  as  the  Apo-YaxX.  2. 8, 
file  plainly  aflerts;  and  he  became  obedient  to  death,  even  the  death  of  the'^' 
Crofs,  wherefore  God  hath  highly  exalted  him,  &c.  There  can  be  then 
no  imaginable  reafon  to  make  the  entrance  of  Chrift  into  Heaven,  and 
prefenting  himfelf  to  God  there,  a  Condition  or  means  of  obtaining 
tjiat  Power  and  Authority  which  is  implyed  in  his  fitting  at  the  right 
hand  of  God.  2.  Suppofing,  wefhouldlook  on  thefe  as  diftindi,  there 
is  as  little  reafon  to  attribute  the  Expiation  of  fin  to  his  entrance,  confi- 
dered as  diftinft  from  the  other;  For  the  Expiation  of  fins  in  Heaven 
being  by  Crellius  himfelf  confefTed  to  be  by  the  Exercife  of  Chrift's 
Power,  and  this  being  only  the  means  to  that  Power,  how  could  Chrift 
expiate  fins  by  that  power  which  he  had  not?  But  of  this  I  have 
fpoken  before,  and  fhewed  that  in  no  fenfc  allowed  by  themfelves  the 
Expiation  of  fins  can  be  attributed  to  the  entrance  of  Chrift  into  Hea- 
ven as  diftinft  from  his  fitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  Thus 
much  may  fufiGce  to  prove,  that  thofe  effeds  of  an  Expiatory  Sacri- 
fice, which  do  refpeft  the  fins  committed,  do  properly  agree  to  the 
Death  of  Chrift. 

XI.  I  now  come  to  that  which  refpefts  the  Perfon,  confidered  as  ob-Of  the  a- 
noxious  to  the  Wrath  of  God  by  reafon  of  his  fins ;  And  fo  the  EfFeft  [^"^'^by 
of  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice  is  Atonement  and  Reconciliation.     By  the  Wrath  chrift's 
of  God,  I  mean,  the  reafon  which  God  hath  from  the  Holinefs  and  ^^*^^' 
juftice  of  his  nature,  to  punifh  fin  in  thofe  who  commit  it:  By  the 
means  ofAtonement  and  Reconciliation,  I  mean,  that  in  Confideration  of 
which,  God  is  willing  to  releafe  the  finner  from  the  Obligation  to  Pu- 
ll u  2  jiifhment 


340  of  the  Suff'erings  C  h  a  p.  VI. 

nifhment  he  liesundecby  the  Law  of  God,  and  to  receive  him  into  fa- 
vour upon  the  terms  Vv'hich  are  declared  by  the  Doftrine  of  Chrift. 
And  that  the  Death  of  Chrift  was  fuch  a  means  of  Atoftement  and  Re- 
^^^11^  J  coftcJlJatioH  for  us,  I  (hall  prove  by  thofe  places  of  Scripture  which 
jeif.  J.     fpeakof  it.     But  Crelliiu  would  feem  to  acknowledge,  T/jat  if  Grot'ms 
feem  to  contend  pr  no  more,  than  that  Chriji  did  avert  that  Wrath  of  God 
which  Men  had  deferved  by  their  fns,  they  rpould  willingly  yield  him  all 
that  he  pleads  for :   But  then  he  adds,  That  this  deliverance  front  the  Wrath 
to  come,  is  not  by  the  Death,  but  by  the  Power  of  Chrifl.     So  that  the  que- 
ftion  is.  Whether  the  Death  of  Chrift  were  the  means  of  Atonementand 
Reconciliation  between  God  and   us  ?    And  yet  CrelUus  would  feem 
willing  to  yield  too,  that  the  Death  of  Chrift  may  be  faid  to  avert  the 
Wrath  ofGodfom  us,  as  it  was  a  Condition  in  order  to  it  ^  for  in  that 
fenfe  it  had  no  more  influence  upon  it  than  his  Birth  had:  But  we 
have  already  feen,  that  the  Scripture  attributes  much  more  to  the  Dw/A 
and  Blood  of  Chrift,  in  order  to  the  Expiation  of  fin.     We  do  not  de- 
ny, that  the  Death  of  Chrift  may  be  called  a  Condition,  as  the  per- 
formance of  any  thing  in  order  to  an  end,  may  be  called  the  Conditi- 
on upon  which  that  thing  is  to  be  obtained^  but  we  fay,  that  it  is  not 
a  bare  Condition,  but  fuch  a  one  as  implies  a  Con fi deration,  upon  which 
the  thing  is  obtained,  being  fuch  as  anfwers  the  end  of  him  that  grants 
it:  By  which  means  it  doth  propitiate  or  atone  him,  who  had  before 
JLift  reafon  to  punifh,  but  is  now  willing  to  forgive  and  be  reconciled 
to  them,  who  have  fo  highly  offended  him.     And  in  this  fenfe  we  af- 
fert,  that  Chrift  is  faid  to  be  iAaa^.-,  a  prop:tiation  for  our  fins,  i  Joh. 

2.  2 4.  ID.  which  we  take  in  the  fame  fenfe  that  lAao-^g  is   taken 

ioxxht  fin-offering,  for  Atonement,  Ezek.  44.  27.  ■TiPj.'K\Td.'n\KaiaiAxiv,  they 
fiiall  offer  a  fin-offering'^  for  fo  SUn  there  fignifies,  and  in  the  fame  fenfe 
f|(?iao-^e  is  taken,  Ezek.  45.  19.  and  the  Ram  for  Atonement  is  Called 
y-Z^U  rs  lAacTjuS,  Numb.  5.  8.     And  thence  the  High-Prieft  when  he 
y    made  an  Atonement,  is  faid  -^i^v  •r  WaauJov,  2  Maccab.  3.  33.  which  is 
of  the  greater  confequence  to  us,  becaufe  Crellius  would  not  have  the 
crell.1.   fi"fi  either  of  l^acxfMS  or  ikdaKi&cu,  to  be  taken  from  the  common  ufe  of  the 
felt.  I  c.    word  in  the  Greek  Tongue:^  but  from  that  which  fome  call  the  Hellenifti- 
cal  ufe  of  it  •  viz.     That  which  is  ufed  in  the  Greeh  of  the  New  Teftamenty 
out  of  the  LXX.  and  the  Apocryphal  Greek  ^    in  both  which  we  have 
found  the  word  .Aaa^;  in  a  fenfe  fully  correfpondent  to  what  we  plead 
for.     But  he  yet  urges,  and  takes  a  great  deal  of  pains  to  prove,  that 
i^daiUiiQa.1  and  i^^tAotayji'Sai  do  not  always  fignifie  to  be  appeafed  by  ano' 
fher,  but  fometimes  fignifies  to  be  Propitious  and  Merciful  in  pardoning  5  an^ 
fometimes  to  expiate,  and  then  fignifies  the  fame  with  ;^-9a^/^eiv  and  a^ja- 
(^eii/ .*  Which  if  it  be  granted,  proves  nothing  againft  us,  having  alrea- 
dy proved,  that  thofe  words  do  fignifie  the  Averfion  of  the  Wrath  of 
God  by  a  Sacrifice,  and  that  there  is  no  reafon  to  recede  from  that  Sig- 
nification, when  they  are  applied  to  the  Blood  of  Chrift.     And  we  do 
not  contend,  that  when  the  word  i^a,7/uc.oi  or  (AaV^;&5t>  is  applied  to  him 
that  doth  forgive,  it  doth  imply  appea/ing-j  but  the  effeft  of  it,  which 
is  pardoning  ^  but  that  which  we  alTert,  is,  that  when  it  is  applied  to  a 
third  perfon,  or  a  thing  made  ufe  of  in  order  to  forgivenefs,  then  we 
fay  it  fignifies  the  propitiating  him  that  was  juftly  difpleafed :  So  as  by 
what  was  done  or  fuffered  for  that  end,  he  is  willing  to  pardon  what 
he  had  )uft  reafon  to  punifh.     So  Mofes  is  faid,  to  make  Atonement  for 
the  People  by  hh  Prayers,  k^  1Aoi,p3^  *vL<^/(^  ■a^g/  ■i^  ypt,>dxt;,  Exod.  34.  14. 

and 


C H'A^p^I fff^H R  /  S  r.  341 

and  we  may  fee  Ferfe  11.  how  much  God  was  difpleafed  before. 
And  Mofes  befpHn^ht  the  Lord  his  God,  and  faid.  Why  doth  thy  Wrath 
Vpax  hot  tigawjl  thy  People  .<?  And  Verfe  12.  Turn  from  thy  fierce  Wrath^  ■ 
and  repent  of  this  evil  again fl  thy  People,  and  then  it  is  fliid,  Verfe  14. 
The  Lord  was  atoned  for  the  evil  which  he  thought  to  do  unto  his  People^ 
I  would  therefore  willingly  know,  why  Mofes  might  not  here  properly 
be  faid,  i AaV^tr ^a/ -Sr^v -tt?^!  t^c  fc^Ktzc^  as  it  is  faid  'i?^ciT^  Kju^/@^fn^: 
T>i<;  xjr-fu^c^  and  therefore  fince  it  is  fo  very  often  faid  in  the  Levitical 
Law,  iAa(r>cicrih)a  and  i^iActyxA^S'^  "Tnf  ji  771  (^.,  aS  'Tie'}  avra",  thW  t^  cmz? 
-Tnc}  4t^><>'",  and  the  Accufative  cafe  fcarce  ever  put  but  in  two  Cafes  ^ 
(viz.  When  thefe  words  are  applied  to  inanimate  things,  as  the  Altar, 
d'^c.  or  when  to  God  himfelf,  implying  forgivenefs)  what  reafoncan 
we  aflign  more  probable  for  this  different  Conftruftion,  than  that  when 
'TTse''  is  ufed,  the  Verb  hath  a  Refpeft  to  the  offended  party  as  the  Ac- 
cufative underftood  ?  As  Chriji  is  faid  in  the  places  mentioned  to  be 
'lAaaixU  TT-^i  du^fltii',  which  ought  in  reafon  to  be  underflood  as  thofe 
words  after  Mofes  his  intercefllon,  ic,  ixdaSm  xjupj^  -Tti^l  ■^  ^^;Jz<r.  But 
Crellius  asks.  Why  then  do  we  never  read  once  concerning  the  Priefl^  that 
he  did  'ihdaKiy^.i  -r  3?0!/  -Tn^'i  dfAxt^liiv  or  -ni^t  t?«'(^-,  hut  we  read  that  he 
did  i^i\cc.(TK.iQau  TO  a.yiov  ro  3rej2s^0",  and  God  is  faid,  s'lAaTK^uBcy 
TO<;  tiitet^lUc.  To  this  I  anfwer,  i.  That  the  reafon  why  the  per- 
fon  propitiated,  is  not  exprelTed,  is,  becaufe  it  was  fo  much  taken  for 
granted,  that  the  whole  Inftitution  of  Sacrifices  did  immediately  Re- 
fpeft  God,  and  therefore  there  was  no  danger  of  miflaking,  concerning 
the  perfon  who  was  to  be  atoned.  2.  I  wonder  Crellius  can  himfelf 
produce  no  jnftance  where  ;|i^.aT;wT9x/  ni\  iu^^-noL-  is  ufed  with  a  Re- 
fpeft  to  the  Sacrifices,  and  the  Perfons  whofe  Offences  are  remitted  by 
the  Atonement  5  but  where  (AafficiTOuj/  hath  a  Relation  to  that,  it  is 
f>ill  joyned  with  a  Prepofition  relating  either  to  tire  Perfon  or  to  the 
Offences 5  if  no  more  were  underftood  when  it  is  fo  ufed,  than  when 
God  himfelf  is  faid  to  do  it,  why  is  not  the  Phrafe  i^^\xo-AA^^oui  rmi; 
duxi^Tiat;,  as  well  faid  of  the  Priefl:,  as  it  is  of  God?  From  whence 
Grotiuf  his  fenfe  of  neb.  2.  1 7.  &15  tc  Iha.aitn'j^xi  to?  aw^^77z<  for  i\o!,- 
<r>t«T9zi  3siv  -mii  ^^  ctuuzjn-2-',  is  far  more  agreeable  to  the  ufe  of  the 
Phrafe  in  the  Old  Teflament,  than  that  which  Crellius  would  put  up- 
on it.  Therefore  (ince  the  WcKrvdc,  'm^  -t^'  d/uM^'ni^v  is  attributed  to 
Chrift,  we  ought  to  take  it  in  the  fenfe  proper  to  a  Propitiatory  SacrK 
fice :  So  it  is  faid  by  Mofes,  where  God  is  left  out,  but  is  necefTarily  un- 
der(\ood,  after  the  People  had  provoked  God  by  their  Idolatry ;  2e  ~ 
have  finned  a  great  fin  :  And  now  I  will  go  up  unto  the  Lord,  iW  i^i'\a,>m- 
juuxi  3)§/'  '^  ifxcLo-ntc,  vixcidVy  That  I  may  make  an  Atonement  for  your  fin  : 
What  way  could  Mofes  be  faid  to  make  this  Atonement,  but  by  propiti- 
ating God  5  yet  his  name  is  not  there  expreffed,  but  necefTarily  under- 
ftood.  So  l|AaW(r9jt^  TD  ii^qmTniv  is  ufed  in  the  moft  proper  feafe 
for  appeafing  the  anger  of  a  Perfon,  Gen.  32.  20.  And  Iv  nvi  ili\d'TDfj(g.t^ 
2  Sam.  21.  3.  Which  places  have  been  already  infifted  on,  in  the  Sig- 
nification of  the  word  "123.  And  that  thofe  places  wherein  Chrifl  is 
faid  to  be  a  propitiation  for  our  fins,  are  capable  of  no  other  fenfe, 
will  appear  from  the  Confideration  of  Chrifl,  as  a  middle  perfon  be- 
tween God  and  us  ^  and  therefore  his  being  i\a.<rfA,U  -me}'^  aM^fnSr, 
cannot  be  parallel  with  that  Phrafe,  where  God  himfelf  is  faid,  l^iAa- 
ffXAo-'^oui  TO?  dijutfriic,  for  Chrift  is  here  confidered  as  interpofing  be- 
tween God  and  us,  as  Mofes  and  the  Priefls  under  the  Law  did  between 

God 


34-2  Of  the  Suferings  Chap.  VI. 

God  and  the  People  in  order  to  the  averting  his  Wrath  from  them. 
And  when  one  doth  thus  interpofe  in  order  to  the  Atonement  of  the 
offended  party,  fomething  is  always  fuppofed  to  be  aone  or  fuffered 
'    by  him,  asthe  means  of  that  Atonement.     Asjacol?  fuppofed  the  pre- 
fent  he  made  to  his  Brother  would  propitiate  him  :,  and  David  appea- 
fed  the  Giheonites  by  the  Death  of  SauVs  Soms,  both  which  are  faid  £f.- 
;^a'a•;w=5cz/.     So  tht  fljedding  oj  the  Blood  of  Sairifi.es  before  and  under 
the  Law,  was  the  means  of  atoning  God  for  the  fins  they  committed. 
What  reafon  can  there  be  then  why  fo  receiv'd  a  fenfe  of  Atonement, 
both  among  the  ^ew/, and  all  otherNationsat  that  time  when  thefe  words 
were  Written,  muft  be  forfaken  ^  and  any  other  fenfe  be  embraced, 
which  neither  agrees  with  the  Propriety  of  the  Expreffion,  nor  with 
fo  many  other  places  of  Scripture,  which  make  the  Blood  of  Chrift  to 
be  a  Sacrifice  for  the  Expiation  of  fin  ? 
ofRecon-      XII.  Neither  is  it  only  our  Atonement,  but  our  Reconciliation  is 
^'''^jj°^,^  attributed  to  Chrift  too,  with  a  Refpeft  to  his  Death  and  Sufferings, 
death^     As  in  the  place  before  infifted  on.     For  if  when  vee  were  Enemies,  we 
Rom.j.io.  jjYre  reconciled  to  God  by  the  Death  of  hk  Son  \  and  more  largely  in  the 
2  Cor.  i8,  fecond  Epiftle  to  the  Corinthiam.     And  all  things  are  of  God,  who  hath 
19,  21,     reconciled  us  to  himfelf  by  Jefits  Chriji,  and  hath  given  to  us  the  minijiry 
of  Reconciliation  :  To  wit,  that  God  was  in  Chrifi  reconciling  the  World 
unto  himfelf,  not  imputing  their  Trefpajfes  unto  them,  and  hath  committed 
to  us  the  Word  of  Reconciliation.      For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  fin  for  m 
who  knew  no  fin,  that  we  m'ght  be  made  the  Righ.eoufnsfs  of  God  in  him. 
Eph.  7.!6,  And  to  the  Ephefians,  And  that  he  might  reconcile  both  unto  God  in  one 
^    body  by  his  Crofs,  having  flain  the  enmity  thereby.     To  the  fame  purpofe 
i\  Iz^  'to  the  Coloffians,  And  having  made  peace  through  the  Blood  of  his  Crofs, 
by  him  to  reconcile  all  things  to  himfelf,  by  him  I  fay  whether  they  be  things 
in  Heaven  or  in  Earth:,  and  you  that  were  fometimes  alienated  and  En e- 
mies  in  your  mind  by  wicked  works,  yet  now  hath  he  reconciled,  in  the  bo' 
^  ,f    ^  d.y  of  his  flefh  through  Death.    Two  things  the  fubftance  of  CrelUus  his 
/«.7.i?,i(5,  aniwer  may  be  reduced  to  concernmg  tnele  places,  i.  ihat  ttis  no  where 
il,i^,&c.faid  that  God  was  reconciled  to  us,  but  that  we  are  reconciled  to  God,  and 
therefore  this  Reconciliation  doth  not  imply  any  averting  of  the  anger  of  God. 
2.  That  none  of  thefe  places  do  affert  any  Reconciliation  with  God  antece- 
dent  to  our  Converfion,  and  fo  that  the  Reconciliation  mentioned  implies 
only  the  laying  afide  our  Enmity  to  God  by  our  fins.     I  begin  with  the  firfl 
of  thefe,  concerning  which  we  are  to  confider  not  barely  the  Phrafes 
ufed  in  Scripture,  but  what  the  nature  of  the  thing  implies  5  as  to 
which  a  difference  being  fuppofed  between  God  and  Man  on  the  ac- 
count of  fin,  no  Reconciliation  can  be  imagined  but  what  is  mutual. 
For  did  Man  only  fall  out  with  God,  and  had  not  God  jijft  reafon  to 
be  difpleafed  with  Men  for  their  Apoftafie  from  him  >  If  not,  what  made 
him  fo  feverely  punifti  the  firfl  fin  that  ever  was  committed  by  Man? 
What  made  him  punifh  the  old  World  for  their  impieties  by  a  Deluge? 
What  made  him  leave  fuch  Monuments  of  his  an2,er  againfk  the  fins  of 
pfai.  6. 1.  the  World  in  fucceeding  Ages?  What  made  him  add  fuch  fevere  Sanfti- 
5?'$!7^?i*.  ^"^  ^'^  ^^^  '-^ws  he  made  to  the  People  of  the  Jews  .<?     What  made  the 
II.  5.      moft:  upright  among  them  fo  vehemently  to  deprecate  his  Wrath  and 
Levic.  2<5.  Qjpp|ggj~y^g  upon  the  fenfe  of  their  fins?     What  makes  him  declare 
c'eii,  de   not  only  his  hatred  of  the  fins  of  Men,  but  of  the  Perfons  of  thofe  who 
Deo 6" i4»- commit  them  5  fo  far  as  to  exprefs  the  greateft  abhorrcncy  of  them  ? 
c'{o  '  '*  Nay,  what  makes  our  ^dverfaries  themfelves  to  fay,  that  impiety  is  in 

its 


Chap.  VI.         ofCtiKIST. 34! 

its  oven  nature  hateful  to  God,  a»d  flirs  him  up  to  anger  againji  all  vpho 
commit  it  ^     What  means,  I  fay,  all  this,  if  God  be  not  angry  with 
Men  on  the  account  of  fin  ?     Well  then  ^  fuppofing  God  to  be  averfe 
from  Men  by  reafon  of  their  fins,  fhall  this  difpleafure  always  continue 
or  not?    li  it  always  continues,  Men  muft  certainly  fuffer the defert  of    • 
their  fins  ^  if  it  doth  not  always  continue,  then  God  may  be  faid  to  be 
reconciled  in  the  fame  fenfe  that  an  offended  party  is  capable  of  being 
reconciled  to  him  who  hath  provoked  him.     Now  there  are  two  ways 
whereby  a  party  jaftly  offended  may  be  faid  to  be  reconciled  to  him  that 
hath  offended  him.     Firft,  when  he  is  not  only  willing  to  admit  of 
terms  of  agreement,  but  doth  declare  his  acceptance  of  the  Mediation 
of  a  third  Petfon,  and  that  he  is  fo  well  fatisfied  with  what  he  hath 
done  in  order  to  it,  that  he  appoints  this  to  be  publifhed  to  the  World 
to  affure  the  offender,  that  if  the  breach  continues,  the  fault  wholly 
lies  upon  himfelf.     The  fecond  is,  when  the  offender  doth  accept  of 
the  terms  of  agreement  offered,  and  fubmits  himfelf  to  him  whom  he 
hath  provoked,  and  is  upon  that  received  into  Favour.     And  thefe  two 
we  affert  muft  neceffarily  be  diftinguifbed  in  the  Reconciliation  between 
God  and  us.     For  upon  the  Death  and  fufferings  of  Chrift,  God  de- 
clares to  the  World  he  is  fo  well  fatisfied  with  what  Chrift  hath  done 
and  fuffered  in  orderto  the  Reconciliation  between  himfelf  and  us,  that 
he  now  publifhes  Remifllon  of  fins  to  the  World  upon  thofe  terms  which 
the  Mediator  bath  declared  by  his  own  Doftrine,  and  the  Apofiles  he 
fent  to  preach  it :  But  becaufe  Remiflion  of  fins  doth  not  immediately 
follow  upon  the  Death  of  Chrift,  without  fuppofition  of  any  Ad  on 
our  part,  therefore  the  ftate  of  Favour  doth'commence  from  the  per- 
formance of  the  Conditions  which  are  required  from  us.    So  that  upon 
the  Death  of  Chrift  God  declaring  his  acceptance  of  Chrift's  Mediation, 
and  that  the  Obftacle  did  not  lie  upon  his  part  ^  therefore  thofe  Mef- 
fengers  who  were  fent  abroad  into  the  World  to  perfwade  men  to  accept 
of  thefe  terras  of  Agreement,  do  infift  moft"upon  that  which  was  the 
remaining  Obftacle,  viz..  The  fins  of  Mankind,  that  Men  by  laying  a- 
fide  them,  would  be  now  reconciled  to  God,  fince  there  was  nothing 
to  hinder  this  Reconciliation,  their  obftinacy  in  fin  excepted.     Which 
may  be  a  very  reafonable  account  why  we  read  more  frequently  in  the 
Writings  of  the  Jpojiles,  of  Mens  duty  in  being,  reconciled  to  God  5 
the  other  being  fuppofed  by  them  as  the  Foundation  of  their  preach- 
ing to  the  World,  and  is  infifted  on  by  them  upon  that  account,  as  is 
clear  in  that  place  to  the  Corinthians,  That  God  wu  in  Chriji  reconciling  ^q^^  . 
the  World  to  himfelf,  not  imputing  unto  Men  their  Trefpajfet,  a?2d  hath  19,  20. 
committed  to  us  the  word  of  R.e conciliation  ^  and  therefore  adds,  Nou> 
then  tve  are  Ambaffadors  for  Chrifl,  as  though  God  did  befeech  you  by  lu, 
vpe  pray  you  in  Chriji' sjlead  be  ye  reconciled  to  God  :   And  left   thefe  words 
(hould  feem  dubious,  he  declares  that  the  Reconciliation  in  Chrift  was 
diftinft  from  that  Reconciliation  he  perfwades  them  to  -^  for  the  Re- 
conciliation in  Chrift  he  fuppofeth  paft,  v.  i2.     All  things  are  ofGod^ 
Tpho  hath  reconciled  us  to  himfelf  by  Jefu^  Chriji,  and  v.  2 1,  he  fhews  US 
how  this  Reconciliation  was  wrought.     For  he  hath  made  him  to  be pH 
for  ui  who  knew  no  fin,  that  rve  might  be  made  the  Righteoufnefs  of  God  in 
him.    Crelliiu  here  finds  it  neceffary  to  acknowledge  a  twofold  Recon- 
ciliation, but  hopes  to  efcape  the  force  of  this  place  by  a  rare  Diftin-cce//.*;.  i. 
ftion  of  the  Reconciliation  as  preached  by  Chriji,  and  by  his  Apojiles  ;  andf^^-  '"^^ 
fo  God's  having  reconciled  the  World  to  himfelf  by  Jefus  Chriji  is  nothing  x^' 

stfe 


344-  0/  ths  Sufferings  Chap.  VI. 

^■J_M-^»M1^M^I.  1_LU_J__I_ L___l__Lt   I  1  ■        ■  '■  -■  1-^^— ■-. 

elfe  hut  Chrjjl's  prearh:ftg  the  Go/pel  himfelf,  veho  afterwards  committed  that 
Office  to  his  /ipoftles.  But  if  fuch  (hifts  as  thefe  will  ferve  to  baffle 
Mens  underftandings,  both  the)/  were  made^  and  the  Scriptures  were  n>rit- 
ten  to  very  little  purpofe^  for  if  this  had  been  all  the  Jpofile  bad 
meant,  that  Chrift  preached  the  fame  Doftrine  of  Reconciliation  before 
them,  what  mighty  matter  had  this  been  to  have  folemnly  told  the 
World,  that  Chrlji's  Apofiles  preached  no  other  Dodrine,  but  what  their 
Mafter  had  preached  before  >  Efpecially  if  no  more  were  meant  by  it, 
bat  that  Men  ftiould  leave  their  fins,  and  be  reconciled  to  God.  But 
befides,  why  is  the  Mini/irf  of  Reconciliation^  then  attributed  only  to 
the  apofiles,  and  not  to  Chriji,  which  ought  in  the  firft  place  to  have 
been  given  to  him,  fince  the  Apoftks  did  only  receive  it  from  him  ? 
Why  is  that  Minijirji  of  Recomiliatioti  faid  to  be,  viz.  That  God  wis 
in  Chrifi  reconciling  the  World  to  himfelf?  Was  this  all  the  Subjed  of 
the  Apofiles  preaching,  to  tell  the  World,  that  Chrift  perfwaded  Men 
to  leave  off  their  fins  ?  How  comes  God  to  reconcile  the  World  to  him- 
felf  by  the  preaching  of  Chri^^  fince  Chri^  himfelf  faith,  he  was  not 
fent  to  preach  to  the  World  ^  but  to  the  loji  fheep  of  the  houfe  oflfrael  .■? 
Was  the  World  reconciled  to  God  by  the  preaching  of  Chrift,  before 
they  had  ever  heard  of  them  ?  Why  is  God  faid  not  to  impute  to  Men 
their  Trefpajfes  by  the  preaching  of  Chrift,  rather  than  his  Apofiles  5  if 
the  not  imputing  were  no  more  than  declaring  God's  readinefs  to  par- 
don 'j  which  was  equally  done  by  the  Apofiles  asby  Chrifi  himfelf?  Laft- 
ly,  what  force  or  dependence  is  there  in  the  laft  words.  For  he  made 
him  to  be  fin  for  us,  who  hnew  no  fin,  &c.  If  all  he  had  been  fpeak- 
ing  of  before  had  onlj^  related  to  Chrift's  preaching?  How  was  he 
made  fin  more  than  the  Apofiles,  if  he  were  only  treated  as  a  finner 
upon  the  account  of  the  fame  Doctrine  which  they  preached  equally 
with  him  ?  And  might  not  Men  be  faid  to  be  made  the  Rightroufnefs  of 
God  in  the  Apofiles,  as  well  as  in  Chrifi,  if  no  more  be  meant,  but  be- 
ing perfwaded  to  be  Righteous,  by  the  Doftrine  delivered  to  them  > 

In  the  two  latter  places,  Eph.  2.  16.  Colojf.  i.  20,  &c.  it  is  plain, 
that  a  twofold  Reconciliation  is  like  wife  mentioned,  the  one  of  the  Jews 
and  Gentiles  to  one  another,  the  oth?r  of  both  of  them  to  God.  For 
nothing  can  be  more  Ridjculous  than  the  Expofition  of  Socinuf,  who 
would  have-rrj@i:£  not  to  be  joyned  with  the  Verb  .^WTOiaTaAzifii,  but  to  fland 
by  it  felf  and  to  fignifie  that  this  Reconciliation  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  did 
creU.cj.tend  to  the  Glory  of  God.  And  Crellius,  who  ftands  out  at  nothing, 
M.  ?o.  j^Qpgg  fQ  bring  off  Socinus  here  too  t,  by  faying,  that  it  is  very  common, 
for  the  end  to  which  a  thing  was  appointed  to  be  expreffed  by  a  Dative  Cafe 
following  the  Verb  ^  but  he  might  have  fpared  his  pains  in  proving  a  thing 
noonequeftions;  the  fhorter  anfwer  had  been  to  have  produced  one 
place  where  ^7!zx9.-m?<y.ojii)>  G)i&  ever  fignifies  any  thing  but  to  be  recon- 
ciled to  God  as  the  offended  Party  ^  or  where-ever  the  Dative  of  the 
perfon  following  the  Verb  importing  Reconciliation,  did  fignifie  any 
thing  elfe  but  the  Party  with  whom  the  Reconciliation  was  to  be  made. 
As  for  that  objeftion  concerning /A;>/_g/ /»  Heaven  being  reconciled:,  that 
Phrafedoth  not  import  fuch  a  Reconciliation  of  the  -^wge// as  of  Men, 
but  that  Men  and  Angels  upon  the  Reconciliation  of  Men  to  God,  be- 
come one  body  under  Chrift,  and  are  gathered  together  in  him,  as  the 
Apofile  expreffeth  it,  Eph.  i .  i  o. 
objefti-  y^iii  j^  Having  thus  far  proved,  that  the  Effefts  of  an  Expiatory 
fvvered.    Sacrifice  do  belong  to  the  Death  of  Chrift,  nothing  now  remains  but 

am 


■I 


Chap.  VI.  of  CHRIST.  3£5 

an  anfwer  to  be  made  to  two  Objedlions,  which  are  commonly  infi- 
fted  on  by  oj:r  Adverfaries.     The  firfl:  is,  That  God  was  reconciled  before 
he  fertt  his  So»,  and  therefore  Chrijl  could  not  die  to  reconcile  God  to  us. 
The  fecond  is.  That  the  Do&rine  of  Satisfa&ion  ajferted  by  us,  is  incon- 
fijlent  with  the  freenefs  ofGod^s  Grace  in  the  Remijfion  of  fins:  Eoth 
which  will  admit  of  an  eafie  Solution  upon  the  Principles  of  the  fore- 
going Difcourfe.    To  the  firft  I  anfwer,  That  we  aflert  nothing  incon-- 
fiftent  with  that  love  of  God,  which  was  difcovered  in  fending  his  Son 
into  the  World  5  we  do  not  fay.  That  God  hated  Mankind  fo  much  on  the 
account  of  fin,  that  it  was  impoffible  he  ftiould  ever  admit  of  any  terms 
of  Reconciliation  with  them,  which  is  the  only  thing  inconfiftent  with 
the  greatnefs  of  God's  Love  in  fending  Chrift  into  the  World  ;  but  we 
adore  and  magnifie  the  infinitenefs  and  unexpreffible  greatnefs  of  his 
Love,  that  notwithftanding  all  the  contempt  of  the  former  kindnefs  and 
mercies  of  Heaven,  he  (hould  be  pleafed  to  fend  his  own  Son  to  die 
for  finners,  that  they  might  be  reconciled  to  him.    And  herein  was  the 
great  Love  of  God  manifefted,  that  xohile  we  were  Enemies  and  Sinners^ 
Chrift  died  for  us,  and  that  for  this  end,  that  we  might  be  reconciled 
to  God  by  his  Death.     And  therefore  furely,  not  in  the  ftate  of  Favour 
or  Reconciliation  with  God  then.     But  it  were  worth  the  while,  to 
underftand  what  it  is  our  Adverfaries  mean,  when  they  fay,  God  was 
reconciled  when  he  fent  hk  Son,  and  therefore  he  ( ould  not  die  to  reconcile 
God  to  us.  Either  they  mean,  that  God  had  decreed  to  be  reconciled  upoa 
the  fending  his  Son,  or  that  he  was  aftually  reconciled  when  he  fent 
him :  If  he  only  decreed  to  be  reconciled,  that  was  not  at  all  incon- 
fiftent with  Chrift's  dying  to  reconcile  God  and  us  in  purfuance  of  that 
decree :  If  they  mean,  he  was  aftually  reconciled,  then  there  was  no 
need  for  Chrift  to  die  to  reconcile  God  and  us  ;  but  withal,  aftual  Re- 
conciliation implies  pardon  of  fin  ^  and  if  fin  were  aftually  pardoned 
before  Chrift  came,  there  could  be  no  need  of  his  coming  at  all,  and 
fins  would  have  been  pardoned  before  committed  ^  if  they  were  not 
pardoned,  notwithftanding  that  Love  of  God,  then  it  can  imply  no 
more,  but  that  God  was  willing  to  be  reconciled.     If  therefore  not-re- 
miflion  of  fins  were  confiftent  v^ith  that  Love  of  Godj  by  which  he 
fent  Chrift  into  the  World,  then  notwithftanding  that  he  was  yet  ca- 
pable of  being  reconciled  by  his  Death.    So  that  our  Adverfaries  are 
bound  to  reconcile  that  Love  of  God,  with  not  prefently  pardoning 
the  fins  of  the  World,  as  we  are  to  reconcile  it  with  the  ends  of  the 
Death  of  Chrift,  which  are  aflerted  by  us. 

XIV.  To  the  other  Objeftion,  concerning  the  inconfiftency  of  the  Free-  The  free 
neff  of  Gods  Grace  with  the  Do&rine  of  Satisfa^ion^  I  anfwer.  Either  "efs  of 
God's  Grace  is  fo  free  as  to  exclude  all  Conditions,  or  not:  If  it  be  fo^fje^  j^^ 
free,  as  to  exclude  all  Conditions,  then  the  higheft  Antinomianifm  is  scripture, 
the  trueft  Dodrine  5  for  that  is  the  higheft  degree  of  the  Freenefs  of  ^^^''j°^y|^^ 
Grace,  which  admits  of  no  Conditions  at  all.     If  our  Adverfaries  fay,faftion. 
That  the  Freenefs  of  Grace  is  confident  with  Conditions  required  on  our 
party  Why  ftiall  it  not  admit  of  Conditions  on  God's  part?     Efpecial- 
ly,  when  the  Condition  required,  tends  fo  highly  to  the  end  of  God's 
governing  the  World,  in  the  manifeftation  of  his  hatred  againft  fin, 
and  the  Vindication  of  the  Honour  of  his  Laws  by  the  Sufferings  of 
the  Son  of  God  in  our  ftead,  as  an  Expiatory  Sacrifice  for  our  fins. 
There  are  two  things  to  be  confidered  in  fin,  the  diftionour  done  to 
God,  by  the  breach  of  his  Laws,  and  the  injury  Men  do  to  themfelves 

X  x  by 


34^  A  S  E  K  MON  pre  ode  d  __________ 

by  it 5  now  Remiffion  of  fins,  tliat  Refpefts  the  injury  which  Men 
bring  upon  themfelves  by  it ;  and  that  is  Free,  when  the  Penalty  is 
wholly  forgiven,  as  we  aiTert  it  is  by  the  Gofpel  to  all  penitent  finners  i 
But  fhall  not  God  be  free  to  vindicate  his  own  Honour,  and  to  declare 
his  Right eoufnefs  to  the  World,  vvhile  he  is  ihe  'jufiijier  of  them  that  be- 
Veve  ?  Shall  Men  in  cafe  of  Defamation,  be  bound  to  vindicate  them- 
felves, though  they  freely  forgive  the  Authors  of  the  flander,  by  our 
Adverfaries  orvn  Doclrifie  ^     And  muft  it  be  repugnant  to  God's  Grace^ 
to  admit  of  a  Propitiatory  Sacrifice^  that  the  World  may  underftand, 
tliat  it  is  no  fuch  eafie  thing  to  obtain  pardon  ot  fin  committed  againft 
Cod  5  but  that  as  often  as  they  confider  the  bitter  Sufferings  of  Chrift, 
in  order  to  the  obtaining  the  forgivenefs  of  our  fins,  that  (hould  be  the 
greateft  Argument  fodiffwade  them  from  the  Praftice  of  them  ?  But  why 
(hould  it  be  more  inconfiftent  with  the  Sacrifice  of  Chrift,  for  Cod 
freely  to  pardon  fin,  than  it  was  ever  prefumed  to  be  in  all  the  Sacrifi- 
ces of  either  jfeir/  or  Gentiles  .<?  Who  all  fuppofed  Sacrifices  neceflary  in 
order  to  Atonement ;  and  yet  thought  themfelves  obliged  to  the  Goodnefs 
of  God  in  the  Remiffion  of  their  fins>  Nay  we  find  that  God  himfelf. 

Gen.  20.7.  in  the  cafe  of  Abimelech,  appointed  Abraham  to  pray  for  him^  in  order 
to  his  pardon  5  and  will  any  one  fay,  this  was  a  derogation  to  the 

Job  42, 7.  Grace  of  God  in  his  Piirdon  ?  Or  to  the  Pardon  of  Job's  Friends,  be- 
C3L\Jik\Job  was  apponited  to  Sacrifice  for  them?  Or  to  the  pardon  of  the 
Jfraelites,  becaufe  God  out  of  kindnefs  to  them,  direQed  them  by  the 
Prophets,  and  appointed  the  means  in  order  to  it?  But  although  God 
appointed  our  High-Frieji  for  us,  and  out  of  his  great  Love  fent  him 
into  the  World,  yet  his  Sacrifice  was  not  what  rvas  given  him,  but  what  he 
freely  underwent  himfelf^  he  gave  us  Chrift,  but  C^ri/^  offered  up  himfelf 
a  fnll,  perfefl  and  ftifficient  Sacrifice,  Oblation  and  Satisfaction  for  the  fins 
of  the  World. 

Thus,  Sir,  I  have  now  given  you  a  larger  account  of  what  I  then  more 
briefly  difcourfed  of  concerning  the  true  Reafon  of  the  Sufferings  of  Chrifi  ^ 
and  heartily  wiftiing  you  a  right  underfianding  in  all  things,  and  reque- 
fting  from  you  an  impartial  Confideration  of  what  I  have  Written, 

lam,    SI  R,    Yours,  &c. 

Jan.  6.  i<56^. 

E.S. 


The  Myfteries  of  the  Chriftian  Vaith  AfTerted  and  Vin 'ica- 
ted:  In  a  SERMON  Preached  at  «S/.  Laurence-Jewry 
/«  London,  April  the  ylh,  169I' 


I  T  I  M.    I.    15. 

This  is  a  faithful  faying  and  xvorthy  of  all  acceptation^  That  Chrifl  Jefus 
came  into  the  World  tofave  Sinners,  ofrvhom  1  am  chief. 

IF  thefe  Words  were  to  be  underftood  without  any  Reftridion  or 
Limitation  that  Chrifl  Jefus  came  into  the  World  to  fave  finners,  they 
would  overthrow  the  great  Defign  of  the  Gofpel,  and  make  its 
Excellent  Precepts  Llfelefs  and  InefFeftual.     For,  to  what  purpofe 
(hould  Men  be  put  upon  the  fevere  Pra^ice  of  Repentance,  Mortifica- 
tion 


at  St,  Laurence-Jewry.  ^47 


ii/t-> 


eiowand  s^  cdntmufed  Courfe  t)f  a  Holy  Life,  if  the  meer  being  6Y_ 
^erf  did- fWHciently  qttalifie.fhem  for  Salvation?  This  indeed  would  be 
riibu^ht  iDodrine  worth)  of  all  AiceptMiohhy  the gt-ea'eji Sin»ers  -^  but 
it  could  not  be  a  faithful  fay  wg,  being  not  agreeable  either  to  the  Nature 
of  God,  or  Revelation  of  his  Will  by  Chrifijejm.  ButSt.  Prfa/fpeakS' 
of  rucb'«Jr>//?er/  as  himrelf  had  been,  /,  e.  fuch  as  had  been  great  Gnners/ 
bat  had  truly  and  fitlcerely  Repented.  Of  whom  I  ant  chief ,  What  then> 
Muft  we  Ipoic  on  him  as  the  Standard  and  Meafureof  fuch  Sinners '^hom 
Chrifi  Jefhs  came  to  fave?  What  will  then  become  of  all  thofe  who 
have  been  Sinners  of  a  higher  Rank  than  ever  he  was  ?  It's  true  in  the 
Verfes  before  the  Text,  he  fets  out  his  Sins,  as  a  humble  Penitent  is 
wont  to  do,  with  the  worft  Colours  and  deepeft  Aggravations,  Who  r»,K  ver.  13= 
before  a  Blafphcmer  and  a  perfecutor^  and  injundUs  ^  but  yet  he  adds,  that 
he  obtained  Mercy  becanfe  he  did  it  ignorantly,  in  unbelief  How  then  is 
St.  PaHl  the  Ch'.ef  of  Sinners?  Are  Sinsof  J^wr(«»ceand  Mifiake  the  great- 
eft  of  Sins,  for  which  Chrift  died  >  Is  there  no  Expiation  for  any  o- 
ther  by  Jefuf  Chrift  ?  What  will  become  then  of  all  fuch  who  fin  a- 
gainft  Knowledge  and  Confcience,  and  not  in  Ignorance  and  Unbelief  .^ 
Can  none  of  thefe  hope  for  Mercy  by  Chrifi  Jefus,  although  they  do 
truly  Repent  ?  But  the  Blood  of  Chrifi  is  faid  elfewhere  to  clean fe  us  from  ,  joh.1.7. 
all  Sin  ■^'  riot,  while  wecontirlue  in  them,  but  if  we  repent  arfd  forfake 
them.  And  Jefuf  Chrifi  is  faid  to  he  a  Propitiation  for  our  Sins ;  and  not  Ch.  2.  v.2, 
for  ours  only,  but  for  the  Sins  of  the  whole  H'orld.  And  therefore  this 
E^preflion  oi  StiFaUl  notes  his  great  Humility  and  and  deep  Senfe  of 
ftis  own  Sins  ^  but  doth  not  exclude  others  from  the  hopes  of  Pardoa 
whofe  Sins  have  other  Aggravatiort  than  his  had.  For,  if  we  leav^ 
out  the  laft  words  as  pecilli^r  to  his  Cafe^  yet  the  other  contain  in 
them  a  true  Propofitiori  and  of  the  greateft  Importance  to  Mankind  5 
7hk  is  a  faithful  faying  and  worthy  of  all  Acceptation^  that  Chrifi  "Jefia 
came  into'  the  rdorld  to  fave  finners. 

-'■  This,  you  may  fay,  isanlatter  out  of  all  doubf  among  all  fuch  who 
hope  for  Salvation  by  Ci^n^  Jefui  ;  for  all  are  agreed,  that  one  way  or 
other  we  are  to  be  faved  by  him.  But  there  is  great  Difficulty  as  to  the 
Way  of  faving  Sinneri  by  Chrifi  Jefm  ;  whether  by  the  Do&rine  and 
Example  of  the  Man  Chrifi  Jefus,  by  the  Power  he  attained  through  hk  Suf- 
ferings i,  Or,  by  the  Eternal  Son  of  God's  affuming  our  Nature  and  Suffer- 
ing in  our  fiead  in  order  to  the  Reconciling  God  to  us  and  making  a  Propi- 
tiation for  our  Sins.  Thefe  are  two  very  diffent  Hypothefes  or  Notions 
of  Chrifi' t  coining  to  fave  Sinners ;  and  the  former  feems  more  eafie  to 
be  underftood  and  believed!,  and  the  other  feems  to  have  ihfuperable 
Difficulties  in  point  of  Reafon  5  and  to  run  our  Religion  into  Myfieries, 
which  expofe  our  Faith  and  make  Chriftianity  appear  Contemptible  to 
Men  of  Senfe  and  Underftanding.  Is  it  not  therefore  better  much  to  em- 
brace fuch  a  Scheme  of  it,  as  will  have  the  leaft  Objeftion  againft  it, 
that  fo  Men  of  Reafon  may  not  be  tempted  to  Infidelity,  and  Men  of 
Superftition  may  riot  under  the  Colour  of  Myfieries  bring  in  the  moft  Ab- 
furd  and  Unreafonable  Doftrines  ? 

Thefe  are  plaufible  Infinuations,  and  would  be  apt  to  prevail  on  con- 
fidering  Mens  Minds,  if  they  were  to  form  and  make  a  Religion  that 
might  be  tnoft  accommodated  to  the  Genius  and  Humour  of  the  Age 
they  live  in.  And  truly  no  Men  (by  their  own  Authority)  can  pre- 
tend to  a  Right  to  impofe  on  others  any  Myfieries  of  Faith,  or  any 
fuch  things  which  are  above  theij  Capacity  to  underftand.    But  that 

X  X  2  is 


A  SERMON  frmhed 


is  not  our  cafe  5  for  we  all  profefs  to  believe  and  receive  Chrifiiamty 
as  a  Divine  Revelation  5  and  God  (  vjt  fay  )  may  require  from  us  the 
belief  of  v^^hat  we  may  not  be  able  to  comprehend,  efpecially  if  it  re- 
lates to  himfelf,  or  fuch  things  which  are  Confequent  upon  the  Unioa 
of  the  Divine  and  Human  Nature.  Therefore  our  bufinefs  is  to  confider, 
whether  any  fuch  things  be  contained  in  that  Revelation  which  we  all 
own ;  and  if  they  be,  we  are  bound  to  believe  them,  although  we  are 
hot  able  to  comprehend  them.  .i     | 

Now  here  are  two  Remarkable  Chara&ersm  thefe  Words,  by  which 
we  may  examin  thefe  different  Hypothefes  concerning  the  way  of  Salva- 
tion by  Jefus  Chriji. 

I.  It  is  a  faithful  faying^  and  therefore  muft  be  contained  in  that  Re- 
velation which  God  hath  made  concerning  our  Salvation  by  Chrift. 

II.  It  is  worthy  of  all  Acceptation'^  t.  c.  moft  ufeful  and  beneficial  to 
Mankind. 

No  w  by  thefe  two  I  (ball  proceed  in  the  Examination  of  them. 

I.  Which  is  moft  agreeable  to  the  Revealed  Will  of  God, 

II.  Which  doth  offer  faireft  for  the  Benefit  and  Advantage  of  Man- 
kind. 

I.  Which  is  moft  agreeable  to  the  revealed  Will  of  God.  For  that 
we  are  fore  is  the  moft  faithful  faying  ^  fince  Men  of  Wit  and  Reafon 
may  deceive  us,  but  God  cannot.  When  the  Apoftles  firft  preached 
this  Doftrine  to  the  World,  they  were  not  bound  to  believe  what  they 
affirmed  to  be  %  faithful  faying  till  they  gave  fufficient  Evidence  of  their 
Authority  from  God,  by  the  wonderful  Affiftance  of  the  Holy  Ghoft. 
But  now  this  faithfid  faying  is  contained  in  the  Books  of  the  New  Tefia- 
wenty  by  which  we  are  to  judge  of  the  Truth  of  all  Chriflian  Doftrines. 
And  when  two  different  Senfes  of  Places  of  Scripture  are  offer'd,  we 
are  to  confider,  which  is  moft  Reafonable  to  be  preferr'd.  And  here- 
in we  are  allow'd  to  Exercife  our  Reafon  as  much  as  we  pleafe  ^  and  the 
more  we  do  fo,  the  fooner  we  (hall  come  to  Satisfaftion  in  this  matter. 

Now  according  to  Reafon  we  may  judge  that  Senfe  to  be  preferr'd, 

(i.)  Which  is  moft  plain  and  eafie  and  agreeable  to  the  moft  receiv'd 
Senfe  of  Words;  not  that  which  is  forced  and  intricate,  or  which  puts 
improper  and  Metaphorical  Senfes  upon  Words  which  are  commonly 
taken  in  other  Senfes  5  efpecially  when  it  is  no  Sacramental  thing,  which 
in  its  own  Nature  is  Figurative. 

(2.)  That  which  fuits  moft  with  the  Scope  and  Defign  not  only  of  '^ 
the  particular  Places,  but  of  the  whole  New  Teflament  5  which  is,  to 
magnifie  God  and  to  deprcfs  Man  ?  To  fet  forth  the  infinite  Love  and 
Condefcenfion  of  God  in  giving  his  Son  to  he  a  Propitiation  for  our  Sins^ 
to  fet  up  the  Worfhip  of  one  true  God  in  Oppofition  to  Creatures  ^  to 
Reprefent  and  Declare  the  mighty  Advantages  Mankind  receive  by  the 
Sufferings  of  Chriji  Jefus. 

(3.)  That  which  hath  been  generally  receiv'd  in  the  Chriflian  Church 
to  be  the  Senfe  of  thofe  places.  For,  we  are  certain,  this  was  always 
look'd  on  as  a  matter  of  great  Concernment  to  all  Chriftians;  and  they 
had  as  great  Capacity  of  underftanding  the  Senfe  of  the  Apoftles:  And 
the  Primitive  Church  had  greater  Helps  for  knowing  it  than  others  at 
fo  much  greater  Diftance.  And  therefore  the  Senfe  is  not  to  be  taken 
f torn  modiQxn  Inventions,  or  Criticifms,  or  Pretences  to  Revelation -j  but 
that  which  was  at  firft  deliver'd  to  the  Chrijiian  Church^and  bath  been  fince 
received  and  embraced  by  it  in  the  feveral  Ages  5  and  bath  been  moft 
^  ftrenu- 


nt  Sl  Laurence-Jewry.  54^ 


I 


ftrenupufly  afierted,  when  it  hath  met  with  Oppofition,  as  founded  oh 
Scripture  and  the  general  Confent  of  the  Chrijtian  Church. 

(4.)  That  which  heft  agrees  with  the  Chara&ers  of  thofe  Perfons 
from  whom  we  receive  the  Chriftian  Faith  5  and  thofe  are  Chriji  Jefus 
and  his  Hol)>  Apofiles.  For,  if  their  Authority  be  loft,  our  Religion  is 
gone  5  and  their  Authority  depends  upon  their  Sincerity  and  Faithfut- 
mfi,  and  Car«  to  inform  the  World  aright  in  matters  of  fo  great  Impor- 
tance.       ^     ^ 

(i.)  I  begin  with  the  Charader  which  the  Apoftles  give  of  Chrifi  "je- 
fus himfelf  ^  which  is,  that  he  was  a  Perfon  of  the  greateft  Humility 
and  Condefcenfion,  that  he  did  not  affume  to  himfelf  that  which  he 
might  juftly  have  done.  For  let  the  words  of  St.Paul  be  underftood  ei- 
ther as  to  the  Nature^  or  Dignity  of  Chrift,  it  is  certain  that  they  muft 
imply  thus  much,  that  when  Chrift  Jefus  was  here  on  Earth,  he  was 
not  of  a  vain  afTuming  humour,  that  he  did  not  boaft  of  himfelf,  nor 
raagnifie  his  own  Greatnefs,  but  was  contented  to  be  look'd  on  as  o- 
ther  Men  5  although  he  had  at  that  time  far  greater  and  Diviner  Ex- 
cellency in  him  than  the  World  would  believe.  Lefs  than  this,  can- 
not be  made  of  thofe  Words  of  the  Apoftle,\^^tf  being  in  the  for ^  (jyphii.z.  a, 
God,  he  thought  it  not  Robbery  to  be  equal  voith  God,  but  made  hifnfelf  of"^' 
»tf  Reputation,  and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  Servant. 

Now  this  being  the  Chara&er  given  of  him,  let  us  confider  what  he 
doth  affirm  concerning  himfelf.    For  although  he  was  far  from  draw- 
ing the  People  after  him,  by  letting  forth  his  own  Perfections  5  yet  up- 
on juft  Occafions,  when  the  ^cwx  contefted  with  him,  he  did  AfTert 
fuch  things,  which  muft  favour  of  Vanity  andOftenation,  orelfe  muft 
imply  that  he  was  the  Eternal  Son  of  God.  For,  all  Mankind  are  agreed 
that  the  higheft  d^ree  of  Ambition  lies  in  Affefting  Divine  Honour, 
or  for  a  meer  Man  to  be  thought  a  God.    How  feverely  did  Cod  pu-    ' 
nifti  Herod  for  being  plea  fed  with  the  Peoples  folly  in  crying  out,  the 
Voice  of  God  and  not  of  Man  ?  And  therefore  be  coald  never  have  f 
born  with  fuch  pofitive  AfTertions  and  fuch  repeated  Defences  of  his 
being  the  Son  of  God  in  fuch  a  manner  as  implied  his  being  fo  from  E- 
ternity.     This  in  his  Difputes  with  the  'jevps  he  affirms  feveral  times, 
that  he  came  down  from  Heaven,  not  in  a  Metaphorical  but  in  a  proper ,  . 
Senfe,  as  appears  by  thofe  words,  WhatandifyefloallfeetheSonofMan^^^]'  '^  ' 
afcend  up  where  he  was  before^  In  another  Conference  he  afferted,  that  he  38- jo- 
veas  before  Abraham.   Which  the  Jews  fo  literally  underftood,  that  with-  A^_  gj'jg, 
out  a  Metaphor  they  went  about  tofione  him  5  little  imagining  that  by  A-    v.  59. 
braham  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  was  to  be  underftood.     But  above 
all,  is  that  Expreffion  which  he  ufed  to  the  Jews  at  another  Conference, 
/  and  my  Father  are  onex,  which  they  underftood  in  fuch  a  manner  that  JoK  lo. 
immediately  they  took  up  ftones  to  have  fioned  him.     What  means  all  this  ^°y.  g,. 
Rage  of  the  Jews' againii  him?  What  >  for  faying  that  he  had  ZJnity  of 
Confent  with  his  Father  /  No  certainly.     But  the  Jews  mtfunderflood  him. 
Let  us  fuppofe  it  5  would  not  our  Saviour  have  immediately  explain- 
ed himfelf  to  prevent  fo  dangerous  a  Mifconftruftion  >  But  he  asked 
them,  what  it  was  they  ftoned  him  for  >  They  anfwer  him  direftly  and 
plainly,  becaufe  that  thou  being  a  man  make fh  thy  felfGod.     This  was  v.  325?? 
home  to  the  purpofe.     And  here  was  the  time  for  him  to  have  denied 
it,  if  it  had  not  been  fo.     But  doth  he  deny  ?  Doth  he  fay,  it  would 
be  Blafphemy  in  him  to  own  it?  No  ^  but  he  goes  about  to  defend  it  5 
and  proves  it  to   be  no  Blafphemy  for  him  to  fay  that   he  was  the    ^    ^ 

Son 


Aft.  I  J. 


350  A  SEK  MO  N  preached 


Son  of  God^  f.  e.  io  as  to  he  God,  as  the  Jeves   underftood  it.     Can  we 
imagine  that  a  tHetr  Man  knowing  himfelf  to  be  fuch,  ftiould  affume 
this  to  himfelf ;  afid. yet  God  to  bear  witnefs  to  him  not  only  by  Mi- 
jyiat  j.,7.  r^c/w  but  by  a  Voice  from  Heaven,  wherein  he  was  called  his  beloved 
Son  in  whom  he  was  wellpleafed  ?  Could  God  be  pleafed  with  a  mortal, 
finite,  defpicable  Creature,  as  the  ^ews  thought  him,  that  affumed  to 
himfelf  to  be  God,  and  maintained  and  defended  it  among  his  own  Peo- 
ple, in  a  folemn  Conference  at  a  very  Publick  Place,  in  one  of  the  Por- 
ticos of  the  Temple  ?  And  this  he  perfifted  in  to  the  laft.    For,  when 
Matth.  26.  f}}g  High  Frieft  adjured  him  by  the  li7jing  God  to  tell,  whether  he  were  the 
^^'         Chriji  the  Son  of  God,  (for  he,  no  doubt,  had  heard  of  the  Refult  of 
V.  64.    this  Conference  in  Solomon's  Porch  ^  Jefus  faid  unto  him'.  Thou  haji  faid, 
Mark  14.  ^f  Mark,  more  exprefly,  Jefus  faid,  I  am.     And  this  was  the  Blafphe- 
V.  64.    ^f/,  for  which  they  put  him  to  death  ^  as  appears  by  the  Evangelijis. 
Match.26.S0  that  this  ought  to  be  a  Difpute  only  between  Jews  and  Chrijiians-j 
^^'         fince  it  was  the  very  point,  for  which  they  condemned  him  to  death. 
And  in  his  laft  moft  Divine  Prayer  juft  before  his  Suffering,  he  owns  the 
Luk.  22.  G/(?r>  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before  the  World  had  a  Being.  And 
71.  now,  0  Father,  glorifie  thou  me  with  the  Glory  which  I  had  with  thee,  be- 

joh.  il-5'fore  the  World  was.     Was  this  nothing  but  the  Glory  which  God  had 
defigned  to  give  him  .>  This  is  fo  far  from  being  peculiar  to  Chrift,  that 
it  is  common  to  all  whom  God  defigns  to  glorifie  5  and  takes  away  the 
diftinftion  between  the  Decree  and  the  Execution  of  it. 

(2.)  As  to  the  Jpojiles,  the  Reafon  we  believe  their  Teftimony  is, 
that  they  were  Men  of  great  Sincerity  and  Plainnefs,  and  of  great  Zeal 
for  the  Honour  and  Glory  of  God.    And  according  to  this  Chara&er, 
let  us  examine  what  they  fay  concerning  Chriji  'jefus. 
J    He  that  was  moft  converfant  with  him,  and  beloved  by  him,  and 
lived  to  fee  his  Divinity  cont6fted  by  fome,  and  denied  by  others,  is 
joh.  1. 1,  moft  ample  in  fettingit  forth  in  his  Admirable,  Sublime,  and  Divine 
2.  crc-     introduftion  fo  his  Gofpel.    Which  all  the  Wit  of  Mankind  can  never 
make  tolerable  Senfe  of,  if  they  deny  Chriji' s  being  the  Eternal  Son  of 
God ;  and  it  is  he,  that  hath  preferved  thofe  Conferencef  with  the  Jen?/, 
wherein  he  afferts  his  own  D/«/zW//.  '•  -^ 

S.  Paul  was  a  Stranger  to  him  while  he  lived ;  but  at  the  fame  time 

when  he  was  fo  zealous  to  perfwade  the  Gentiles  to  the  Wor/h/p  of  God 

Rom.  9. 5.  3fd  not  of  Creatures,  he  calls  him  God  over  all,  blejfed  for  evermore. 

Rom.i.2o.And  when  he  faith,  that  the  Eternal  Pomr   dnd  Godhead  are  known 

Col.  1.16.^^  ^^g  Creation  of  the  World,  he  attributes  the  Creation  of  all  things  to 

Heb.  I.  z,Chrifl,  applying  to  him  thofe  words  of  the  Pfalmiji.  Thou  Lord  in  the 

lo.  beginning  haji  laid  the  Foundation  of  the  Earth  and  the  Heaven,  the 

Work  of  thy  hands.     Which  cannot  be  underftood  of  any  Metaphorical 

Creation.  .....  ,  -    ,i    <,  .  ..  ..i.^      j^ 

And  after  the  ftrifteft  Examination  of  Copies,  thofe  will  be  found 
the  beft,  which  have  that  Reading  on  which  ourTranflation  isground- 
t  Tim.?,  ed.     Af;d  without  Controverfie  great  k  the  Myjiery  ofGodlinefs,  God  was 
manifeji  in  the  Flejh.     So  that  God's  being  manifeji  in  the  Flefl}  is  made 
a  great  part  of  the  Myjlery  of  Chrijiianity. 

But  here  arifes  a  Difficulty,  which  deferves  to  be  confidered  5  /.  e. 

;"  If  there  were  nothing  in  the  Chriftian  Doftrine,  but  the  Way  of fa- 

"  ving  Sinners  by  the  Dodrine  and  Example  of  Chrift,  there  would  be 

"  little  Objeftion  to  be  made  to  it ;  fince  the  obtaining  Eternal  Life  is 

"  certainly  the  beft  thing  can  be  propofed  to  Mankind,  and  tlie  Pre-    ' 

cepts 


1(5. 


HI 


-it^. 


/7;  6'^  Laurence-Jewry.  354 


"  ceptsof  Chrift  are  Divine  and  Spirirual,  Plain  and  Eafie  to  be  Un- 
"  derftood,  and  Agreeable  to  the  Reafon  of  Mankind  ^  but  many  other 
"  things  are  impofed  on  Men  as  necefTary  to  be  believed  concernin? 
**  Cbriji  fefuf,  as  to  his  Divinity,  Incarnation,  and  the  fJypofiatical  D- 
"  nion  of  both  Natures,  which  perplex  and  confound  our  underftand- 
"  ings ;  and  yet  thefe  things  are  not  only  delivered  as  Myfleries  of  the 
"  Chrijiian  faith-j  but  the  Belief  of  them. Is  required  as  neceflary  to 
"  the  Salvation  of  Sinners^  whereas,  if  they  are  Revealed  they  are 
"  no  longer  AI;»^er/Vj ;  and  if  they  are  not  Revealed,  how  come  they  to 
"  be  made  Articles  of  Faith  <*  The  Scripture  knows  of  no  other  Myjle- 
"  r'les  of  Faith  but  fuch  as  were  hidden  before  the  Revelation  of  them, 
''  but  fince  they  are  Revealed  they  are  plain  and  open  to  all  Mens 
"  Capacities  5  and  therefore  it  is  a  great  Injury  to  the  Plainnefs  and 
"  Simplicity  of  the  Gofpel  to  impofe  fuch  incomprehenfible  Myfteries, 
'*  as  Neceflary  Articles  of  Faith  5  and  it  is  abufing  the  Credulity  of 
"  Mankind,  to  make  fuch  things  neceflary  to  be  believed,  which  are 
"  impofGble  to  be  underftood.  But  thofe  who  have  ever  loved  to  de- 
*'  ceive  and  abufe  the  reft  of  the  World,  have  been  always  fond  of  the 
"  Name  of  Myfteries'^  and  therefore  all  fuch  things  are  to  be  fufpeded 
"  which  come  under  that  Name.  For,  all  fuch  Points  which  will  not 
"  bear  Examination,  muftbe  wrapt  up  and  Reverenced  under  the  Name 
"  of  Myjieries,  that  is,  of  things  to  be  fwallow'd  without  being  un- 
derftood. But  the  Scripture  never  calls  that  a  Myfiey  which  is  Incom-  Difaurfe 
*'  prehenfible  in  it  felf,  though  never  fo  much  revealed.  of  the 

This  is  the  main  force  of  the  Objection,  which  I  fliall  endeavour  to^jfy  "^^ 
remove  by  ftiewing,  p.  5.' 

(i.)  That  God  may  juftly  require  from  us  in  general,  the  Belief  of 

what  we  cannot  comprehend. 
(2.)  That  which  way  foever  the  Way  of  Salvation  by  Chrifl  beex^ 
plained,  there  will  be  fomething  of  that  Nature  found  in  it  5  and 
that  thofe  who  Rejeft  the  Myfteries  of  Faith  run  into  greater  Dif- 
ficulties than  thofe  who  aflert  them. 
(3.)  That  no  more  is  required  as  a  Neceflary  Article  of  Faith  than 

what  is  plainly  and  clearly  Revealed. 
(i.)  That  God  may  juftly  require  from  us  in  general,  the  Belief  of 
what  we  cannot  comprehend.  It  is  to  very  little  purpofe  to  enquire 
whether  the  Word  Myflery  in  Scripture  be  applied  to  fuch  particular 
Doftrines,  whofeSubftance  is  revealed,  but  the  manner  of  them  is  in- 
comprehenfible by  us  ^  for  why  may  not  we  make  ufe  of  fuch  a  Word 
whereby  to  exprefs  things  truly  revealed,  but  above  our  Comprehen- 
fion  >  We  are  certain  the  Word  Myfiery  is  ufed  for  things  far  lefs  diffi- 
cult and  abftrufe  5  and  why  may  it  not  then  be  fitly  applied  to  fuch  mat- 
ters, which  are  founded  on  Divine  Revelation,  but  yet  are  too  deep 
for  us  to  go  to  the  bottom  of  them  >  Are  there  not  Myfleries  in  Arts, 
Myfteries  in  Nature,  Myfteries  in  Providence  ?  And  what  Abfurdity 
is  there  to  call  tho^Q  Myfteries,  which  in  fomeMeafure  are  known,  but 
in  much  greater  unknown  to  us  >  Although  therefore  in  the  Language 
of  Scripture  it  be  granted,  that  the  word  Myftery  is  moft  frequently 
applied,  to  things  before  hidden,  hut  now  revealed,  yet  there  is  no  Incon- 
gruity in  calling  that  a  Myftery,  which  being  revealed,  hath  yet  fome- 
thing in  it  which  our  underftandings  cannot  reach  to.  But  it  is  meer  Ca- 
villing to  infift  on  a  Word,  if  the  thing  it  felf  be  granted.  The  chief 
thing  therefore  to  be  done  is,  to  ftiew  that  God  may  require  from  us 

the 


35  2  A  SERMON  preached 


tbe  belief  of  fucb  things  which  are  incomprehenfible  by  us.    For' 
Qod  may  require  any  thing  from  us,  which  it  is  reafonable  for  us<t6 
do  5  if  it  be  then  reafonable  for  us  to  give  Aflent  where  the  manner  of 
what  God  hath  revealed  is  not  comprehended,  then  God  m^iy  certainly 
require  it  from  us.     Hath  not  God  revealed  to  us,  that  in  fx  days  he 
made  Heaven  and  Earth  and  all  that  is  therein  .<?     But  is  it  not  reafonable 
for  us  to  believe  this,  unlefs  we  are  able  to  comprehend  the  manner  of 
Qod'i  Produftiori  of  things?     Here  we  have  fomething  revealed  and 
that  plainly  enough,  viz,.  That  God  created  all  things^  and  yer,  here 
is  a  Myftery  remaining  as  to  the  manner  of  doing  it.    Hath  not  God 
plainly  revealed  that  there  (hall  be  a  Refurreilion  of  the  Dead  >  And 
muft  we  think  it  unreafonabic  to  believe  it,  til!  we  are  able  to  compre- 
hend all  the  Changes  of  the  Particles  of  Matter  from  the  G-m/jW  to  the 
General  Refurre&ion  .<?  But  it  is  faid  that  there  is  no  Contradi&ion  in  thk, 
_  hut  there  ff  in  the  Myftery  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation.  It  is  ftrange  Bold- 
onsoTor'.  "^^^  ^"  ^cn  to  talk th US  of MonftroMs Contradictions'mthitigs  above  their 
waiiis  his  Reach.     The  Atheifts  may  as  well  fay.  Infinite  Power  is  a  Monftrous 
^ms^v\  ^'^*'*^^'^''^*^<'»  h  and  Gods  Imntenjity  and  his  other  unfearchable  Perfe- 
'fedions  are  Monftrous  Paradoxes  and  Contradictions.    Will  Men  never 
learn  to  diftinguifti  between  Numbers  and  tbe  Nature  of  Things  .<?    For 
three  to  be  one  is  a  Contradiction  in  Numbers  5  but  whether  an  Infinite 
Nature  can  communicate  it  felf  to  three  different  Subftances  without 
fuch  a  Divifion  as  is  among  Created  Beings,  muft  not  be  determi- 
pfai      I  "^^  ^y  ^^^^  Numbers,  but  by  the  Abfolute  Perfections  of  the  Divine 
ReveU. 4.' Nature  5  which  muft  be  owned  to  be  above  our  Comprehenfion. 
c.  ir.  V.       For  let  us  examine  fome  of  thofe  Perfe&lons  which  are  moft  clearly 
Blfterfieid  ^^^ealed  and  we  fliall  find  this  true.    The  Scripture  plainly  reveals, 
c.  C)f//.p.  that  God  is  from  everlajiing  to  everlajiing  ;  that  he  was  and  is  and  is  to 
Pe'tav  de^"*"^'  but  (hall  we  not  believe  the  Truth  of  this  till  we  are  able  to  fa- 
Trinit.1.5. thorn  the  Jb)ifs  of  God's  Eternity.^    I  am  apt  to  think  (  and  I  have 
c.p.feft.  fome  thoughtful  Men  concurring  with  me)  that  there  is  no  greater 
'^*         Difficulty  in  the  Conception  of  the  Trw/Vy  and  Incarnation,  than  there 
is  of  Eternity.    Not,  but  that  there  is  great  Reafon  to  believe  it  ^  but 
from  hence  it  appears  that  our  Reafon  may  oblige  us  to  believe  fome 
things  which  it  is  not  pofTible  for  us  to  comprehend.    We  know  that 
either  God  muft  have  been  for  ever,  or  it  is  impofTible  he  ever  ftiould 
be  5  for  if  he  ftiould  come  into  Being  when  he  was  not,  he  muft  have 
fome  Caufeof  his  Being  ^  and  that  which  was  the  firft  Caufe  would  be 
God.    But,  if  he  was  for  ever  he  muft  be  from  himfelf  ^  and  what  No- 
tion or  Conception  can  we  have  in  our  Minds  concerning  it?  And  yet, 
Atheijlical  Men  can  take  no  Advantage  from  hence 5  becaufe  their  own 
moft  abfurd  Hypothefis  hath  the  very  fame  Difficulty  in  it.    For  fome- 
thing muft  have  been  for  ever.     And  it  is  far  more  reafonable  to  fup- 
pofe  it  of  an  Infinite  and  Eternal  Mind,  which  hath  Wifdom  and 
Power  and  Goodnefs  to  give  Being  to  other  things,  than  of  dull,  ftu- 
pid  and  fenflefs  Matter,  which  could  never  move  it  felf,  nor  give  Be- 
ing to  any  thing  befides.     Here  we  have  therefore  a  thing  which  muft 
be  owned  by  all  5  and  yet  fuch  a  thing  which  can  be  conceived  by 
none.    Which  fliews  the  narrownefs  and  ftiortnels  of  our  Underftand- 
ings,  and  how  unfit  they  are  to  be  the  Meafures  of  the  Poflibilities  of 
thvagiVain  Men  would  be  Wife ;  they  would  fain  go  to  the  very  bottom 
of  things,  when  alas!  They  fcarce  underftand  the  very  Surface  of 
rhem..   They  will  allow  no  Myjieries  in  Religion ;  and  yet  every  thing 

is 


.,^■1 


Vi 


at  ^^.Laurence-Jewry.  35^ 

is  a  Myftei^y  to  them.     They  cry  out  of  Cheats  and  Impo[inres  uriier  the 
Notion  ot  Myfleries  -^  and  yet  there  is  not  a  Spire  of  Grafs  but  is  a 
Mjjiery  iq  fhcm^  they  will  bear  with  nothing  in  jReZ/gzW  which  they 
cannot  comprehend,  and  yet  there  is  fcarce  any  thing  in  the  World 
which  they  can  comprehend.     But  above  other  things  the  Divlhe  Per- 
feSions,  even  thofe  which  are  moft  Abfolute  arid  Neceffary  are  above 
their  Reach.  For  let  fdch  Men  try  their  Imaginations  about  God's  Etemi- 
/^,  notmeerly  how  hefhbuldbefromhimfelf,  buthowGodftiouldcoexift 
with  all  the  Differences  of  Times,  and  yet  there  be  no  Succeffion  in 
bis  own  Being.     I  do  not  fay  there  is  fuch  Difficulty  to  conceive  a  Rock 
ftanding  ftill  when  the  Waves  run  by  it:^  or  the  Gnomon  of  a  Dial 
when  the  Shadow  paffes  from  one  Figure  to  another ;  becaufe  thefe  are 
grofs  unaftive  things;  but  the  Difficulty  is  far  greater  where  the  Being 
is  Perfeft  and  always  Adtive.     For,  where  there  is  Succeffion  there  is 
a  paffing  out  of  not  being  in  fuch  a  duration  into  being  in  it  ^  which 
is  not  confiftent  with  the  Abfolute  Perfeftion  of  the  Divine  Nature. 
And  therefore  God  mufl  be  all  at  once  what  he  is,   without  any  Re- 
fpeft  to  the  Difference  of  time  paft,  prefent  or  to  come.     From  whence 
Eternity  was  defined  by  Boethuis  to  be  a  perfe&  and  complete  PoJfeJJion   tf/^^^"^"' 
a// at  once  of  ever  I  ad  in^  Lfc    But  how  can  we  from  any  Conception  in  °"  '  ^"  - 
our  Minds  of  that  being  all  at  once,  which  hath  fuch  different  A6ts  as 
muft  be  meafur'd  by  a  long  Succeffion  of  Time  ?  As,  the  Creating  and 
DifTolving  the  Frame  of  the  World  ;  the  promifing  and  feriding  the 
Mejflat '^  the  Declaring  and  Executing  a  general  Judgment;  how  can 
thefe  things  be  confiftent  with  a  Permanent  Inftant,  or  a  Continuance 
of  being  without  Succeffion?  For,  it  is  impoffible  for  us  in  this  Cafe, 
as  to  God's  Eternity,  to  form  a  clear  and  diflind  Idea,  in  our  Mind,  of 
that  which  both  Reafon  and  Revelation  convince  us  mufl  be.     The  moft 
we  can  make  of  our  Conception  of  it  is,  that  God  hath  neither  Begin- 
ning of  Being,  nor  end  of  Days;  but  that  he  always  was  and  always 
muft  be.     And  this  is  rather  a  neceffary  Conclufion  from  Reafon  and 
Scripture,  than  any  diflinft  Notion  or  Conception  of  Eternity  in  our 
Minds.     From  whence  it  evidently  follows,  that  God  may  reveal  fome- 
thing  to  us,  which  we  are  bound  to  believe,  and  yet  after  that  Reve- 
lation the  Manner  of  it  may  be  incomprehenfible  by  us,  and  confequent- 
ly  a  Myjiery  to  us. 

Hath  not  God  Revealed  to  us  in  Scriptun  the  Spirituality  of  his  own  ^  j^j^  ■ 
Nature  ?  That  he  is  a  Spirit,  and  therefore  will  be  worfiipped  in  Spirit  2^: 
and  in  Truth -^  For,  that  is  a  true  Reafon  why  Spiritual  Worfhip  fhould 
be  moft  agreeable  to  him.  Now,  if  we  could  have  a  clear,  diflind, 
pofitive  Notion  in  our  Minds  of  God's  Spiritual  Nature,  we  might 
then  pretend  that  there  is  nothing  Alyjierious  in  this,  fince  it  is  re- 
vealed. J, 

But  let  fuch  Men  Examine  their  own  thought  about  this  matter  5  and 
try,  whether  the  utmofl  they  can  attain  to,  be  not  fomethjng  Ne^^Z/z/e, 
viz.  becaufe  great  Abfurdities  would  follow  if  we  attributed  any  thing 
Corporeal  to  God  ;  for,  then  he  mufl  be  compounded  of  Parts,  and  fo 
he  may  be  difTolv'd ;  then  he  muft  be  confined  4:o  a  certain  place,  and 
not  every- where  prefent;  he  cannot  have  the  Power  of  Ading  and 
Self-determining  which  a  meer  Body  hath  not.  For  the  cleareft  No- 
tion we  can  have  of  Body,  is,  that  it  is  made  up  of  fome  things  as  parts 
of  it,  which  may  be  feparated  from  each  other;  and  is  confined  to  a 
certain  place,  and  hath  no  Power  to  move  or  aft  from  it  felf.     Buc 

Y  y  fom^ 


354  A  SER  MON  preached   -    ' 

fome  of  thefe  Men  who  cry  down  Myfierks  and  magnifie  Reafon,  to 
fiiew  how  (lender  their  pretences  to  Reafon  are,  have  afferted  a 
Corporeal  God,  with  Shape  and  Figure.  It  was  indeed,  well  thought  of 
•  by  thofe  who  would  make  a  Man  to  be  God,  to  bring  God  down  as 
near  to  Man  as  might  be.  But  how  to  Reconcile  the  Notion  of  a 
Body  with  Infinite  Perfeftions,  is  a  Myjlery  to  me,  and  far  above  my 
Comprehenfion.  But  if  it  be  no  Myftev)  to  fuch  Men,  they  muft  either 
deny  God's  Infinite  Perfeftions  or  (hew  how  a  bodily  Shape  tan  be  ca- 
pable of  them.  But  fome  Men  can  confound  Finite  and  Infinite,  Bo- 
dy and  Spirit,  God  and  Man,  and  yet  are  for  no  Myjieries  5  whereas 
thefe  things  are  farther  from  our  Reach  and  Comprehenfion,  than  a- 
ny  of  thofe  Doftrines  which  they  find  fault  with.     But  to  proceed. 

If  we  believe  Prophecy,  we  mufl:  believe  God's  fore-knovpledge  offitture 
Events:  For,  how  could  they  be  foretold  if  he  did  not  fore-know 
them?  And  if  he  did  fore-know  thofe  which  he  did  fore-tell,  then  it 
was  either  becaufe  thofe  only  were  revealed  to  him  which  is  inconfi- 
Oent  with  the  Divine  Perfeftions  ^  or  that  he  doth  fore-know  all  other 
Events  and  only  thought  fitting  to  reveal  the(e:  But  bow  can  they 
folve  the  Difficulties  about  Divine  Prefdence^  Is  there  no  Myfierji  in 
this?  Nothing  above  their  Comprehenfion?  What  then  made  their 
sdc-n.  great  Ma(ter  deny  it,  as  a  thing  above  his  Comprehenfion  ?  Becaufe  no- 
Prxi.c.ii.  thing  can  be  fore-known  but  what  hath  a  certain  Caufe,  and  there- 
fore, if  evil  Actions  be  fore- told,  God  mufl:  be  the  Caufe  of  then>»  and 
Men  will  not  be  free  Agents  in  them.  And  yet  it  is  moft  certain,  that 
the  Sufferings  of  Chrift  by  the  Wickednefs  of  Men,  were  fore-told. 
What  then?  Mufl:  we  make  God  the  Author  of  Sin?  God  forbid.  Will 
the  Righteous  Judge  of  all  the  Earth,  punifli  Mankind  for  his  own 
Afts,  which  they  could  not  avoid  ?  Then  we  mu(t  yield,  that  there  is 
fomething  in  the  manner  of  the  Divine  Prefcience,  which  is  above  our 
Comprehenfion.  And  the  mo(t  Searching  and  Inquifitive  Men  have 
been  fore  d  to  yield  it  at  la(t,  as  to  the  Connexion  between  the  Cer- 
tainty of  Prefcience  and  the  Liberty  of  humane  Aftions.  Is  it  not  then 
much  better  to  fit  down  quietly  at  fir(t,  Adormg  the  Infinitenefs  of  God's 
incomprehenfible  Perfeftions,  than  after  all  the  Hu(fings  and  Difpu- 
Cajetan\ti  {jngg  of  Men  to  fay.  In  Ignorantia  fola  quietem  invenio,  as  the  great 
\'xi.'^.^'  School-man  did?  Surely  then,  here  is  fomething  plainly  revealed,  and 
yet  the  manner  of  it  is  (till  a  Myfiery  to  us. 

I  (hall  not  now  infifl:  on  any  more  of  the  particular  Attributes  of  Cod, 
but  only  in  general  I  defire  to  know,  whether  they  believe  them  to  be 
finite  or  infinite^  If  to  he  finite,  then  they  muft  have  certain  bounds 
and  limits  which  they  cannot  exceed  ;  and  that  muft  either  be  from  the 
imperfection  of  Nature,  orfrom  a  SuperiourCaufe,  both  which  arere- 
pugnant  to  the  very  Being  of  God.  If  they  bg^ieve  them  to  be  infinite 
how  can  they  comprehend  them  ?  We  are  ftrangely  puzled  in  plain, 
ordinary,  finite  things^  but  it  is  madnefs  to  pretend  to  comprehend 
what  is  htfimte  ^  and  yet  if  the  Perfedions  of  God  be  not  Infinite  they 
cannot  belong  to  him. 

I  (hall  only  add,  in  Confequence  to  this  AlTertion,  That  if  nothing  k 
to  be  believed,  but  what  may  be  comprehended,  the  very  Being  of  God  mud* 
be  rejefted  too.  And  therefore  I  defire  all  fuch  who  talk  fo  warmly 
againfl:  any  Myjieries  in  Religion,  to  confider  whofe  work  it  is  they  are 
doings  even  theirs  who  under  this  pretence  go  about  to  overthrow  all 
Religion.    "  For,  fay  they,  Religion  is  a  Myjiery  in  its  own  Nature  5 


"not 


at  5"/^.  Laurence-Jewry.  355 


"  not  this  or  that,  or  the  other  Religion  5  but  they  are  all  alike,  all 
"  is  Myflery  ^  and  that  is  but  another  Name  for  Frand  and  Impojlure. 
''  What  were  the  Heathen  Myjlerks  but  tricks  of  Prieji-craft  \  and  fuch 
*'  are  maintained  and  kept  up  in  ^11  kinds  of  Religion.  If  therefore 
"  thefe  Men,  who  talk  againft  Myjlerks  underftand  themfelves,  they 
"  muft  in  purfuance  of  their  Principles  rejeftflweG^i^,  as  well  as  three 
"  Perfoftfj  For,  as  long  as  they  believe  an  Infinite  and  Incomprehenfi- 
"  ble  Being,  it  is  Nonfenfe  to  rejeft  any  other  Doftrine,  which  relates 
"  to  an  Infinite  Being,  becaufe  it  is  Incomprehenfble. 

But  yet  thefe  very  Men,  who  feem  to  purfue  the  Confequence  of  this 
Principle  to  the  utmoft,  muft  affert  fomething  more  incomprehenfible 
than  the  Being  of  God.  For,  I  appeal  to  any  Man  of  common  Under- 
ftanding,  whether  it  be  not  more  agreeable  to  Reafon  to  fuppofe 
Works  of  Skill,  Beauty  and  Order  to  be  the  EfFeds  of  a  Wife  and  In- 
telligent Being,  than  of  Blind  Chance  and  Unaccountable  Neceffity^ 
whether  it  be  not  more  agreeable  to  the  Senfe  of  Mankind  to  fuppofe 
an  Infinite  and  Eternal  Mind  endued  with  all  poffible  Perfeftions  to  be 
the  Maker  of  this  vifible  World  -^  than  that  it  fl-iould  ftart  out  from  it 
felf,  without  Contrivance,  without  Order,  without  Caufe?  Certainly 
fuch  Men  have  no  Reafon  to  find  fault  v/ith  the  Myjleries  of  Religion 
becaufe  they  are  incomprehenfible,  fince  there  is  nothing  fo  Abfurd  and 
Incomprehenfible,  as  their  darling  Hypothefis-^  And,  there  is  nothing 
which  can  make  it  prevail,  but  to  fuppofe  Mankind  to  be  as  Dull  and 
Infenfible  as  the  firft  Chaot. 

Thus  I  havelhewn  that  it  is  not  unreafonable  for  God  to  require  frond 
us  the  Belief  of  fomething  which  we  cannot  comprehend. 

(2.)  I  now  come  to  confider,  whether  thofe  who  are  fo  afraid  of 
iticomprehenjible  Myjieries  in  our  Faith,  have  made  it  fo  much  more  ea- 
fie  in  the  Way  they  have  taken.  And  notwithftanding  all  the  Hefto- 
ring  talk  againft  Myjleries  and  things  incomprehenfible  in  Religion,  I 
find  more  infuperable  Difficulties  in  point  of  Reafon  in  their  Way  than 
in  ours.    As  for  inftance, 

(i.)  It  is  a  more  Reafonable  thing  to  fuppofe  fomething  Myjleriotff 
in  the  Eternal  Son  of  God's  being  with  the  Father  before  the  World  was 
Made  by  him ;  (as  St.  John  exprelTes  it  in  the  beginning  of  his  Gofpel ) 
than  in  fuppofing  that  although  John  the  Baptijl  were  born  fix  Months 
before  Jefiu  Chrijl  5  that  yet  Chrift  was  in  Dignity  before  him.  What 
a  wonderful  Myflerj  is  this  ?  Can  Men  have  the  Face  to  cry  down  My- 
jleries in  deep  Speculations,  and  matters  of  a  high  and  abftrufe  Nature, 
vt^hen  they  make  fuch  Myjleries  of  plain  and  eafie  things  ?  And  fuppofe 
the  Evangeliji  in  profound  Language  and  lofty  Expreffions  to  prove  a 
thing,  which  was  never  difputed,  viz.  although  ChrijiJefMswtrehotn 
fix  Months  after  John,  yet  he  was  in  Dignity  before  him? 

(2.)  It  is  a  more  Reafonable  thing  to  fuppofe  that  a  Divine  Verfon 
(hould  affume  humane  Nature,  and  fo  the  Word  to  be  made  Flejlj-^  than 
to  fay,  that  an  Attribute  of  God,  his  Wifdom  or  Power  is  made  Flejh, 
which  is  a  Myflery  beyond  all  Comprehenfion  5  There  may  be  fome 
Difficulties  in  our  Conception  of  the  other,  but  this  is  a  thing  beyond 
all  Conception  or  Imagination  ^  For  an  Accident  to  be  made  a  Subflanct 
is  as  abfurd,  as  to  imagine  it  to  fubfifl  without  one. 

(3.)  It  is  more  reafonable  to  fuppofe  that  the  Son  of  God  fhould  comt 
down  from  Heaven  and  take  our  Nature  upon  him,  than  that  a  Man 
fhould  be  rapt  up  into  Heaven,  that  it  might  be  faid  that  he  came 

y  y  2  dowd 


35<^  A  SER  MON  f reached 


down  from  thence.  For  in  the  former  Suppofition  we  have  many  or 
ther  places  of  Scripture  to  fupport  it,  which  fpeak  of  his  being  n>it6 
God,  and  having  Glory  with  him  before  the  World  w  '  5  whereas  there  is 
nothing  for  the  other,  but  only  that  it  isnecellary  to  make  fome  tolera- 
ble Senfe  of  thofe  words. 

(4.)  It  is  more  more  Reafonable  to  believe  that  God  fhould  become 
J^a»  by  taking  our  Nature  upon  him,  than  that  Man  (hould  become 
God.  For  in  the  former,  there  is  nothing  but  the  Difficulty  of  con- 
ceiving the  Manner  of  the  Union,  which  we  all  grant  to  be  fo  between 
Soul  and  Body;  but  in  the  other  there  is  a  Repugnancy  in  the  very 
Conception  of  a  Created  God,  of  an  Eternal  Son  of  Adam,  of  Omni- 
potent Infirmity^  of  an  Infinite  finite  Being.  In  the  tormer  Cafe,  an  In- 
finite is  united  to  a  Finite ;  but  in  the  other  a  Finite  becomes  Infinite. 

(5.)  It  is  more  Reafonable  to  believe  that  Chrifl  Jefiis  (hould  fufFer  as 
he  did^r  our  fakes  than/?)-  his  own.  We  are  all  agreed  that  the  Suffer- 
ings of  Chrifi:  were  far  beyond  any  thing  he  deferved  at  God's  hands  5 
but  what  Account  then  is  to  be  given  of  them  >  We  fay  that  he  made 
himfelf  a  voluntary  Sacrifice  for  Expiation  of  the  Sins  of  Mankind  5  and 
fo  there  was  a  great  and  noble  end  defigned,  and  no  Injury  done  to 
a  willing  Mind  ;  and  the  Scripture  as  plainly  exprefles  this,  as  it  can  do 
in  Words.  But  others  deny  this,  and  make  him  to  fufFer  as  one  wholly 
Innocent  5  for  what  Caufe?  To  make  the  moft  Innocent  Perfons  as 
apprehenfive  of  Suffering  as  the  moft  Guilty  ^  and  the  moft  righteous 
God  to  put  no  difference  between  them,  with  Refpedt  to  Suffering. 

(6.)  It  is  more  Reafonable  to  fuppofe  fuch  a  Condefcenfion  in  the 
Son  of  God  to  take  upon  him  the  Fornhof  a  Servant  for  our  Advan- 
tage ;  than  that  a  meer  Man  ftiould  be  exalted  to  the  Honour  and  Wor- 
fiiip  which  belongs  only  toGod.    For,  on  the  one  fide,  there  is  nothing 
but  what  is  agreeable  to  the  Divine  Nature,  viz.  Infinite  Love  and  Con- 
defi:enfion  and  Pity  to  Mankind  ;  on  the  other,  there  is  the  greateft  De- 
fign  of  Self-Exaltation  that  ever  was  in  Humane  Nature,  viz.  for  a  meer 
Man  to  have  the  moft  Effential  Attributes  and  Incommunicable  Honour 
vi^hich  belongs  toGod.    And  whether  of  thefe  two  is  more  agreeable  to 
the  Spirit  and  Defign  of  the  New  Teftament,  let  any  Man  of  underftand- 
ing  judge.    For  as  it  is  evident,   that  the  great  Intention  of  it  is  to 
magnifie  the  wonderful  Love  of  God  in  the  fending  of  his  Son  ^  fo  it 
is  as  plain  that  one  great  end  of  the  Chriftian  Dodrine  was  to  take 
Mankind  off  from  giving  Divine  Worftiip  to  Creatures  ^  and  can  we 
then  fuppofe  that  at  the  fame  time  it  fhould  fet  up  the  Worfinp  of  a 
meer  Man  with  all  the  Honour  and  Adoration  which  belongs  to  God  .<? 
This  is  to  me  an  incomprehenfible  Myjiery  indeed,  and  far  beyond  all 
that  is  implied  in  the  Myfleries  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation.    For  it 
fubverts  the  very  Foundation  of  the  Defign  of  Chriftianity  as  to  the 
Reforming  Idolatry  then  in  being:  it  lays  the  Foundation  for  introdu- 
cing it  into  the  World  again ;  for  fince  the  Diftance  between  God 
and  his  Creatures  is  taken   away,  in  the  matter  of  Worfhip,  there 
is  nothing  left  but  the  Declaration  of  his  Will ;  which  doth  not 
exclude  more  Mediators  of  Intercejfion  but  upon  this  Ground,  that 
the  Mediation  of  Redemption  is  the  Foundation  of  that  of  Intercefjion. 
And  it  is  far  more  eafie  for  us  to  fuppofe  there  may  be  fome  things 
too    hard  for  us  to  underftand  in  the  Myftery  of  our  Redemption 
by  Jefus  Chri/i,  than  that  at  the  fame  time  it  fhould  be  both  a  Duty 
and  a  Sin  to  worfhip  any  but  the  true  God  with  proper  Divine  Wor- 
fhip. 


If 


at  tS"^.  LaLirence-Jevvry.  35'^ 


(hip.  For  if  it  be  Idolatry  to  give  it  to  a  Creature,  then  it  is  a  great 
Sin  ^  for  fo  the  Scripture  ftill  accounts  it  j  but  if  we  are  bound  to  give 
it  to  Chrift  who  is  but  a  Creature,  then  that  which  in  it  felf  is  a  Sin, 
is  now  become  a  necefTary  Duty  i  which  overthrows  the  natural  Diffe- 
rences of  Good  and  Evil,  and  makes  IdoUtry  to  be  a  meer  Arbitrary 
thing.  And  I  take  it  for  granted,  that  in  Matters  of  Religion,  Moral 
Difficulties  are  more  to  be  regarded  than  InteUeUual-^  becaufe  Religion 
was  far  more  defigned  for  a  Rule  of  our  Anions,  than  for  the  Satis- 
fa(9-ion  of  our  Curiofity.  And  upon  due  Examination  we  (hall  find  that 
there  is  no  fuch  frightful  Appearances  of  Difficulties  in  the  Myftery  of 
the  Incarnation^  as  there  is  in  giving  Divine  Worfliip  to  a  Creature. 

And  it  ought  to  be  obferved,  that  thofe  very  Places  which  are  fup- 
pofed  to  exclude  Chrift  from  being  the  true  God-^  muft,  if  they  haves.joh.  17. 
any  force  exclude  him  from  Divine  Worfiip.     For  they  are  fpoken  of  ?• 
God,  as  the  Objen  of  our  Worjhip  5  but  if  he  be  not  excluded  from  Di- ^„S°[de*^° 
■vine  JVorfiip,  then  neither  is  he  from  being  the  true  God  5  which  they  Eutrof.  p» 
grant  he  is /»;  0^.  e,  hut  not  by  Nature.  w't  c 

But  a  God  by  Office  who  is  not  fo  by  Nature  is  a  new  and  incomprehen-  n.cate'ch. 
fible  Myjiery.     A  Myjiery   hidden  from  Ages  and  Generations  as  to  the  ^''«^-  P- 
Church  of  God  5  but  not  made  known  by  the  Gofpel  of  his  Son.  ^' 

This  is  fuch  a  kind  of  Myftery  as  the  Heathen  Priefts  had,  who  had 
Gods  many  and  Lords  tftany,  as  the  Apojlle  faith,  /'.  e.  many  by  Office  iQ.ox. ^4: 
although  but  one  by  Nature.  But  if  the  Chriftian  Religion  had  owned 
sfie  God  by  Nature  and  only  one  by  Office,  the  Heathens  had  been  to 
blame  chiefly  in  the  Number  of  their  Gods  by  Office,  and  not  in  the  Di- 
vine Worihip  which  they  gave  to  them.  But  S.  Paul  blames  the  Hea- 
thens for  doing  Service  to  them  which  by  Nature  are  no  Gods  ^  not  for  Gal.  4.  ? 
doing  it  without  Divine  Authority,  nor  for  miftaking  the  Perfon  who  was 
God  by  Office,  but  in  giving  Divine  Worftiip  to  them  who  by  Nature 
vpere  no  Gods  ^  which  he  would  never  have  faid,  if  by  the  Chriftian 
DcxHirine,  Divine  Worftiip  were  to  be  giveri  to  one  who  was  not  God  by 
Nature. 

But  thefe  are  indeed  incomprehenfible  My(ieries  how  a  Man  by  Nature 
can  be  a  God  really  and  truly  by  Office ;  how  the  Incommunicable 
Perfections  of  the  Divine  Nature  can  be  communicated  to  a  Creature  j 
how  God  fliould  give  hk  Glory  to  another,  and  by  his  own  Command 
require  that  to  be  given  to  a  Creature,  which  himfelf  had  abfolutely 
fgrbidden  to  be  given  to  any  befides  himfelf.    It  is  faid  by  a  famous 
Jefuit  (I  will  not  fay  how  agreeably  to  their  own  Do&rines  and  Pra&ices 
about  Divine  Worfhip  )  that  the  Command  of  God  cannot  make  him  vpor-  SmigUc. 
thy  of  Divine  Worjfjip,  who  without  fuch  a  Command  is  not  worthy  ''Z 'V.  y^  ^'^j "' 
And  it  is  very  abfurd  to  fay,  that  he  that  is  unworthy  of  it  without  a  Com-  cam.  Nar. 
mand,  can  become  worthy  by  it ;  for  it  makes  God  to  command  Divine  r'4J> 
Honour  to  be  given  to  one  who  cannot  deferve  it.     (  For  no  meer  Man  can  KovxMon' 
deferve  to  be  made  God. )     But  it  is  more  agreeable  to  the  Divine  Nature ftra,  fyc. 
and  Will  not  to  give  his  Honour  to  a  Creature.  P"  ^^' 

(5.)  But  after  all  the  Inveftives  of  thefe  Enemies  to  Myfleries,  we  do 
not  make  that  which  we  fay  is  Incomprehenfible  to  be  a  Neceffary  Article  ' 
of  Faith  as  it  is  Incomprehenfible  ;  but  we  do  affert  that  what  js  Incom- 
frehenfible  as  to  the  Manner,  may  be  a  Neceffary  Article  as  far  as  it  is 
plainly  Revealed.  As  in  the  Inftances  I  have  already  mentioned  of  the 
Creation  and  Refurre'Vion  of  the  Dead  ^  would  they  in  earneft  have  Men 
turn  Infidels  as  to  thefe  things  till  they  are  able  to  comprehend  all  the 

di£&- 


358  A  SERMON  preached 

difficulties  which  relate  to  them  ?  If  not,  why  ftiould  this  Siiggeftion 
be  allow'd  as  to  the  Myjieries  which  relate  to  our  Redemption  by  Jefus 
Chrifi  J?  If  it  be  faid,  the  Cafe  k  not  alike  for  thefe  are  clearly  Revealed  and 
thefe  are  not -j  this  brings  it  to  the  true  and  proper  IfTue  of  this  matter, 
and  if  we  do  not  prove  a  clear  Revelation,  we  do  not  affert  their  being 
Neceffary  Articles  of  Faith  5,  but  my  prefent  bufinefs  was  only  to  take  off 
this  Objeftion,  That  the  M;;^emj  were  Incomprehenfible  and  therefore 
not  to  be  received  by  us. 

II.  And  fo  I  come  to  the  fecond  Way,  by  which  we  are  to  Examine 
the  feveral  Senfes  ofChriJiJefus  coming  tofave  Sinners  :  Which  of  them 
tends  more  to  the  Benefit  and  Advantage  of  Mankind  j  or  which  is 
more  worthy  of  all  Acceptation. 

And  that  will  appear  by  confidering  thefe  things  5 
(i.)  Which  tends  moft  to  the  raifing  our  Ejleem  and  Love  of  Chrlfl 
Jefiu. 

(2.)  Which  tends  moft  to  the  begetting  in  us  a  greater  Hatred  of 
Sin. 

(5.)  Which  tends  moft  to  the  ftrengthning  our  Hope  of  Salvation  by 
Jefns  Chrifi. 

(i.)  As  to  the  raifing  in  us  a  greater  Efieem  and  Love  ofChrift.  We 
are  certain  that  the  Infinite  Love  and  Condefcenfion  of  Chrifi  Jefns  m 
undertaking  fuch  a  Work  as  the  favlng  of  Sinners  makes  it  moft  worthy 
of  all  Acceptation.  Some  Men  may  pleafe  themfelves  in  thinking  that 
by  taking  away  all  Myfieries  they  have  made  their  Faith  more  eafie,  but 
i  am  certain  they  have  extremely  leffen'd  the  Argument  for  our  Love, 
viz,,  the  Apprehenfions  of  the  wonderful  Love  and  Condefcenfion  of 
Chrift  in  coming  into  the  World  tofave  Sinners.  And  yet  this  is  the 
great  Argument  of  the  New  Teftament  to  perfwade  Mankind  to  the 

Joh.3.15. 2,tf^e  of  God  and  of  his  Son:  God  fo  loved  the  World  that  he  gave  hk 
only  begotten  Son,  8cc.  This  is  indeed  a  mighty  Argument  of  Love,  if 
V.  13.  by  the  only  begotten  Son  be  meant  the  Eternal  Son  of  Gcd,  who  came 
down  from  Heaven,  as  S.John  fpeaks  juft  before^  but  if  no  more  be 
meant  but  only  that  God  made  a  meer  Man  to  be  his  Son,  and  after  he 
had  preached  a  while  here  on  Earth  and  was  ill  ufed  and  crucified 
by  his  own  People,  he  Exalted  him  to  be  God  and  gave  him  Divine 
Attributes  and  Honours  ^  this  were  an  Argument  of  great  Love  to  the 
Perfon  of  Chrift,  but  not  to  the  reft  of  Mankind.  But  God's  Love  in 
Scripture  is  magnified  with  Refpeft  to  the  World  in  the  fending  of  his 

I  Joh.4.9.  Son.  In  this  was  manifefied,  faith  the  Apoftle,  the  Love  of  God  towards 
us,  becaufe  that  God  fent  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  World  that  we 
V.  ic.  Jhould  live  through  him.  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that 
he  loved  m,  and  fent  his  Son  to  be  a  Propitiation  for  our  Sin.  The  great 
Love  we  {[i\\{ee  is  toward  us,  i.e.  towards  Mankind ;  but  according  to 
the  other  Senfe  it  muft  have  been,  herein  was  the  Love  of  God  mani- 
fefted  to  his  Son,  that  for  his  Sufferings  he  exalted  him  above  all  Crea- 

ftora.832,  tures.  He  that  fpared  not  his  own  Son,  faith  S.  Paul,  but  delivered 
him  up  for  us  all.  If  he  were  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  who  came  to  fuffer 
for  us,  there  is  a  mighty  force  and  Emphafis  in  this  Exprefiion,  and  ve- 
ry apt  to  raife  our  Admiration  and  our  Love  ^  But  what  not  fparing  his 
own  Son  is  there,  if  nothing  were  meant  but  thathe  defigned  by  Suffer- 
ings to  Exalt  him  ?  For  not  fparing  him  fuppofes  an  Antecedent  Relati- 
on of  the  higheft  Kindnefs,  but  the  other  is  only  defigning  extraordi- 
nary Kindnefs  for  the  fake  of  his  Sufferings.    Therefore,  the  Argument 

for 


/z^  5"^.  Laurence-Jewry.  355J 


for  the  Love  of  God  is  taken  from  what  his  Son  was,  when  he  deliver'd 
him  up  for  us  all  ^  he  was  his  own  Son-^  not  by  Adoption  as  others  are  ^ 
S.John  calls  him,  his  only  begotten  Son -^  and  God  himfelf,  his  beloved^°^-^-^^- 
Son  in  the  Voice  from  Heaven  ^  and  this  before  his  Sufferings,  imme-iuk.'I;!! 
diately  after  his  Baptifm,  when  as  yet,  there  was  nothing  extraordina- 
ry done  by  him,  as  to  the  great  Defign  of  his  coming.  Which  (hews, 
that  there  was  an  Antecedent  Relation  between  him  and  the  Father  ^ 
and  that  therein  the  Love  of  God  and  of  Chrift  was  manifefted,  that 
being  the  only  begotten  Son  of  the  Father,  he  fhould  take  our  Nature  up- 
on him  and  for  our  fakes  do  and  fuffer  what  he  did.  This  is  indeed 
an  Argument  great  enough  to  raife  our  Admiration,  to  excite  our  De- 
votion, to  inflame  our  Affeftions^  but  how  flat  and  low  doth  it  appear, 
when  it  comes  to  no  more  than  this,  that  there  was  a  Man^  whom, 
after  his  Sulferings  God  raifed  from  the  Dead  and  mide  him  a  God  by 
Office^  Doth  this  carry  any  fuch  Argument  in  it  for  our  Efteem  and 
Love  and  Devotion  to  him  as  the  other  doth  upon  the  moft  ferious  Con- 
fideration  of  it  ? 

(2.)  Which  tends  moft  to  beget  in  us  a  greatter  Hatred  of  Sin.     For 
that  is  fo  contrary  to  the  Way  of  our  Salvation  by  Jc/av  Chrifi,  that 
what  tends  moft  to  our  Hatred  of  it,  muft  conduce  moft  to  our  Hap- 
pinefs,  and  therefore  be  mofi  roorthy  of  all  Acceptation.    It  is  agreed  on 
all  hands,  that  Chri^  did  fuffer  very  much  both  in  his  Mind  and  in  his 
Body.     In  his  Mind,  when  it  is  faid,  that  he  was  troubled  in  Spirit  5  that 
he  began  to  be  forrovpful  and  verj  heavy -^  and  foon  after,  My  Soul  is  ex-  2°.    '^' 
ceeding  forrovpful,  even  unto  death.    S.  L/we  faith,  that  heivas  in  an  ^gony  i,Mza.  26. 
wherein  he  not  only  prayed  n/ore  carxejily,  but  hkfveeat  was  as  it  were  ^/jj^j ., 
great  Drops  of  Blood  falling  to  the  Ground.     What  made  this  Amazement,  33, 34. 
and  dreadful  Agony  in  the  mind  of  the  moft  innocent  Perfon  in  the^"'^^^^- 
World  .>     Was  it  meerly  the  Fear  of  the  Pains  of  Death  wliich  he  was''*' 
to  undergo  }    That  is  impofEble,  confidering  the  AfTurance  which  he 
had  of  fo  glorious  a  Reward  fo  foon  following  after ;  when  fo  many 
Martyrs  endured  fuch  exquifite  Torments  for  his  fake  without  any  fuch 
Difturbance  or  Confternation.    But  the  Apoftles  give  us  another  Ac- 
count of  it.     St.  l?eter  faitb,  he  was  to  bear  our  Sins  in  his  own  Body  on  \  Pet.  2. 
the  Tree:,  th^it  Chriji  fufered  for  Sins,  the  jt/ft  for  the  mrj»f}.  S.Paul,  that  ^*-    ^g 
God  made  him  to  be  Sin  for  us  who  knew  no  Sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  2  Cor.  j. 
Righteoiifnefs  of  God  in  him.     Hereby  we  underftand  how  fo  innocent  a  »!• 
Perfon  came  to  fuffer ;  he  flood  in  ourfiead ;  he  w.i<  made  Sin  for  uf-^  and 
therefore  was  to  be  treated  as  a  Sinner;  and  to  fuffer  that  on  our  Ac- 
count, which  he  could  not  deferve  on  his  own.    If  he  fuffer'd  on  his 
own  Account,  this  were  the  way  to  fill  our  Minds  with  Perplexity  con- 
cerning the  Juftice  of  Providence  with  Refpedt  to  his  dealings  with  the 
moft  innocent  and  holy  Perfons  in  this  World  ;  if  he  fuffer'd  on  our 
Account,  then  we  have  the  Benefit  of  his  Sufferings,  and  therein  we 
fee  how  difpleafing  to  God  fin  is,  when  even  his  own  Son  fuffer'd  fo 
much  by  taking  the  guilt  of  our  Sins  upon  him.     And  what  can  tend 
more  to  the  begetting  in  us  a  due  hatred  of  Sin,  than  toconfider  what 
Chriji  himfelf  fuffer'd  on  the  Account  of  it  ?     What  can  make  us  have 
more  dreadful  thoughts  of  it,  than  that  the  great  and  merciful  God 
when  he  defigned  to  fave  Sinners,  yet  would  have  his  own  Son  to  be- 
come a  Propitiation  for  the  Sins  of  Mankinds    And  unlefs  we  allow  this, 
we  muft  put  force  upon  the  plaineft  Expreffions  of  Sripture'^  and 
make  Chrifl  to  fuffer  meerly  to  (hew  God's  Power  over  a  moft  innocent 

Per- 


y 


A  SERMON  preached 


Perfon,  and  his  Will  and  Pieafure  to  inflift  the  moft  fevere  Punifhment 
without  any  Refpeft  to  Quilt.  And  furely  fuch  a  Notion  of  God, 
cannot  be  worthy  of  all  Acceptation. 

(g.)  Which  tends  moft  to  ftrengthen  our  Hope  of  Salvation  by  Chriji 
Jcfus.  If  we  believe  that  he  fufFer'd  for  our  Sins,  then  we  have  great 
Reafon  to  hope  for  the  Forgivenefs  of  them;  although  they  have 
been  many  and  great,  if  we  fincerely  Repent^  becaufe  the  moft  pre- 
vailing Argument  for  Defpair  will  be  removed  5  which  is  taken  from 
thejujiice  of  God,  and  his  declared  Hatred  of  Sin  and  Difpleafure  againft 
Sinners.  If  God  be  fo  much  in  earneft  difpleafed  with  the  Sins  of 
Mankind,  and  his  Juftice  be  concerned  in  the  Punifhment  of  Sinners, 
how  can  they  ever  hope  to  efcape,  unlefs  there  be  a  way  for  his  Dif- 
pleafure to  be  removed,  and  his  Juftice  to  be  fatisfied  ?  And  this  the 
Scripture  tells  us  is  done  by  Ckriji,  who  died  that  he  might  be  a  Sacri- 
Rom.  $.  fi(^^  of  Atonement  to  Reconcile  us  to  God  by  his  Death  j  as  S.  Paul  expref- 
»".  ly  affirms.  And  by  this  means,  we  may  have  ftrong  Confolation  from 
a^cor.  5.  jj^g  Hopcs  of  Forgivcnefs  of  our  Sins.  Whereas,  if  this  be  taken  a- 
Heb.ji.  15  way,  either  Men  muft  believe  that  God  was  not  in  earneft  difpleafed 
with  the  Sins  of  Mankind  5  which  muft  exceedingly  leflen  our  Efteem 
of  the  Holinefs  and  Jujiice  of  God ;  or  if  he  were  fo  difpleafed,  that  he 
laid  afide  his  Difpleafure,  without  any  Atonement  or  Sacrifice  of  Expi- 
tition.  And  fo,  as  many  as  look  on  God's  "juries  and  Holinefs  as  necef- 
fary  and  eflential  Attributes  of  God,  will  be  in  danger  of  finking  into 
the  Depths  of  Defpair,  as  often  as  they  Refleft  ferioufly  on  the  Guilt 
of  their  Sins.  But  on  the  other  fide,  if  we  believe  that  while  we  were 
Enemies  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  ofhk  Son ;  then  we  may 
have  Peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jefus  Chriji ;  and  have  reafon  to 
believe  that  there  will  be  no  Condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Chriji  Jefus 
by  a  lively  Faith  and  Jfincere  Repentance  5  then  they  may  with  Com- 
fort look  up  to  God  as  a  Reconciled  Father,  through  Jefus  Chriji  our 
Mediator  :  Then  they  may  with  inward  Satisfadiion  look  beyond  the 
Grave,  and  ftedfaftly  hope  for  that  Salvation  which  Chrift  purchafed 
on  Earth  and  will  at  laft  beftow  on  all  fuch  as  Love  and  Obey  him.  To 
which  God  of  his  Infinite  Mercy  bring  us  all  through  Jefus  Chriji.  For, 
Thk  is  a  faithful  faying  and  worthy  of  all  Acceptation,  that  he  came  into 
the  World  to  fave  Sinners. 


A  DIS- 


? 


3<^x 


A 


DISCOURSE 


CONCERNING 

The  DOCTRINE  oi  Chrifi\  Satisfaction: 
Wherein  the  Antinomian  and  Socinian  Controverfies 
about  it  are  truly  ftated  and  explained.  In  Anfwcr  to 
Mr.  Lobb\  Appeal^  and  to  feveral  Letters  trom  the 
Dijfenting  Parties  in  London. 

Part    II. 


THE 

BOOKSELLER 

TO    THE 

READER. 

THIS  Second  Dtfcourfe  coHcer»iHg  the  Dodn'mto^  Chnft's  Satis- 
fadlion,  tvas  lejt  prepared  for  the  Prefs^  hy  the  Right  Reverend 
and  Learned  Author,  under  his  own  Handwritings  except  the  twa 
lafi  Heads  mentioned  in  the  Third  Chapter  of  the  Contents^  which  he  was 
prevented  from  finifhing  hy  that  Difiemper  he  laboured  under,  and  which 
at  lafl  put  an  end  to  his  Life.  However,  it  was  thought  convenient  that 
this  Jhould  he  puhlifhed  as  it  is,  rather  than  the  World  fhould  he  depri- 
ved of  any  thing  written  hy  fo  great  a  Man  ;  and  as  this  finds  Acceptance, 
it  may  encourage  the  Printing  of  fame  other  Manufcripts  his  Lordfhip 
left, 

Henrj  Mortloch 


Xz 


3^2  Of  the  Sufferings  Part  II. 

A  LETTER  from  the  Right  Reverend  Dr.  Stillingflect, 
lateBifhop  of  Worcefter,  in  Anjwer  to  one  from  Mr.  Wil- 
liams, who  Jefired  his  Judgment  as  to  the  following  Que* 
fiions  5  becaufe  his  Lordfhifs  Book,  is  in  the  Jirjl  ^apr^ 
and  the  Refort  pleaded  againjl  Mr.  Williams. 

SIR, 

I  Return  you  Thanks  for  the  Papers  you  were  pleafed  to  fend  me,  by 
which  I  am  able  to  underftand  fomething  more  than  formerly  of 
the  prefent  State  of  the  Difference  about  the  Change  of  Ferfoni 
hetvoeen  Chr'tfl  and  us  :  But  I  ihall  meddle  no  farther  in  it,  than  I 
am  obliged  to  do  in  Anl'wer  to  the  Queftions-you  propofe  to  me.  And 
I  wifh  I  may  be  able  to  do  any  Service  therein. 

The  firft  is  about  my  Senfe  of  Commutation  of  Perfons.  It  is  faid  in 
the  firfl:  Paper,  That  I  do  with  Grotius  expreffy  affirm,  and  iUefragaUy 
prove  it  with  the  common  Sentiment  of  Proteflants,  and  thxt  the  Do^lrines 
of  Juflification  and  Chrijis  Satisfa^ion,  cannot  he  duly  explained  and  de- 
fended confiflently  with  the  Denial  of  any  Commutation  of  Perfons  between 
Chrid  and  Believers. 

This  had  been  fairly  reprefcnted,  in  Cafe  there  could  be  no  other  Senfe 
of  Commutation  of  Perfons  than  what  is  aflerted  by  Dr.  Crifp^  but  there  is 
a  threefold  Senfe  of  it,  very  different  from  each  other. 

1.  Such  a  Change  of  Perfons,  as  implies  that  one  is  appointed  and 
allowed  to  z&.  on  behalf  of  others,  and  for  their  Advantage ;  and  this 
fort  of  Commutation  of  Perfons  the  Socinians  never  denied,  as  I  have 

/« 8vo./e- Ihewed  in  the  Difcourfe  of  Satisfa^ion^  p.  (5i,  190,  191.    It  is  not 

condEdit.  therefore  the  ufe  of  the  Words,  but  the  Senfe  of  them  is  to  be  enquired 

into.     For  fomc  may  affirm  a  Change  of  Perfons,  and  yet  be  Socinians  j 

and  others  may  deny  a  Change,  and  be  far  enough  from  Sozinianifm^ 

according  to  the  Senfe  in  which  they  are  underftood. 

2.  Such  a  Change  of  Perfons  as  fuppofes  one  to  be  fubftituted  in  the 
Place  of  others,  to  become  an  Atonement  for  them  in  order  to  their  Re- 
demption and  Deliverance.  And  when  fuch  a  Subftitution  is  by  the 
Will  of  God,  and  Confent  of  the  Perfon  who  fuf!ers,  here  is  a  real 
Change  of  Perfons,  as  to  that  particular  End  which  is  defigned  by  it. 
And  in  this  Senfe  I  did  affert  a  Change  of  Perfons  between  Chrift  and 
us,  becaufe  by  the  Will  of  the  Father,  and  his  own  Confent,  he  became 
a  Sacrifice  of  Propitiation  for  our  Sins,  in  order  to  their  Remiffion,  and 
our  Reconciliation  with  God  on  fuch  Terms  as  are  declared  in  the  Go- 
ff  el ;  as  may  be  feen  at  large  in  the  Difcourfe  already  mentioned,  parti- 
cularly C/j.  4.  5e<?.  4. 

3.  Such  a  Change  of  Perfons  as  implies  an  adiual  Tranflation  of  the 
Perfonal  Guilt  of  all  the  Sins  of  Believers  on  Chriff,  and  his  Perfonal 
Righteoufnefs  on  them,  without  regard  to  any  Conditions  on  their 
Parr,  but  merely  by  the  free  Grace  and  Favour  of  God.  And  this  I  take 
to  be  Dr.  Crifp\  Senfe  of  the  Change  of  Perfons  ;  of  which  I  fhall  dif- 
courfe when  I  come  to  the  lafl  Qiieflion. 

'■    But  the  Authors  of  the  firfl  Paper^  and  of  the  Report,  p.  4.  ftem  to 
take  it  for  granted,  that  there  can  be  but  one  Senfe  of  Commutation 

of 


Part  II.  of  CHRIST.    363 

of  Perfons,  wherein  they  do  not  difcover  their  profound  Knowledge  in 
thefe  Matters,  if  they  thought  fo  ,•  or  their  Ingenuity,  if  they  knew  o- 
therwife,  and  defigned  to  impofe  upon  thofe  who  did  not.  For  it  ap- 
pears that  there  is  a  Senfe  in  which  it  may  and  ouf»ht  to  be  denied, 
without  the  leaft  prejudice  to  the  Dof^rine  of  Chrifl's  Satisfaction.  Al- 
though that  cannot  he  explained  or  defended  without  fome  kind  of  Commu- 
tation of  Perforts  ;  yet  it  very  well  may  and  ought  to  be  defended 
without  and  againft  Dr.  Crifps  Senfe  of  it,  as  will  be  made  appear  af- 
terwards. 

The  Author  of  the  Report,  p.  5-.  faith,  This  is  the  very  Hinge  on  which 
the  Controverfy  ietweeu  theOrthodox  and Sociman  dotfj  turn  ;  which  fliews 
him  to  be  not  very  deeply  skilled  in  it ,  for  the  Hinge  of  the  Controverfy 
is  not  about  the  Words,  but  the  Senfe  of  Commutation  of  Perfons:  And 
even  the  Senfe  is  not  the  Original  Controverfy,  but  confequential  upon 
our  afl".Tting  Chrifl^s  Sacrifice  to  be  a  Propitiation  for  our  Sins ;  for 
upon  this  they  ask  how  the  ^&.  of  one  Perfon  can  be  fo  beneficial  to  o-' 
thers  ?  And  to  that  we  anfwer,  That  although  one  Man's  Adl  cannot 
become  anothers,  yet  if  by  Confenr  both  of  the  Father  and  Son,  he  be- 
comes our  Mediator,  and  fuffers  in  our  flead,  in  order  to  our  Reconcili- 
ation, then  as  ro  that  End  and  Purpofe,  here  is  a  Change  of  Perfons  :  for 
whereas  in  flridnefs  we  ought  to  have  fuffered  the  Defert  of  our  own 
Sins,  God  was  pkafed  to  accept  of  his  Suffering  inffead  of  ours,  and 
fo  by  vertue  of  that  Propitiation,  we  hope  for  the  Remiflion  of  Sins, 
and  the  Favour  of  God,  according  to  the  Terms  of  the  Gofpel.  And 
therein  confitts  the  true  Controverfy  between  the  Socinians  and  us,  viz. 
Whether  the  Sufferings  of  Chrifl  were  to  be  confidered  as  a  Puniihment 
for  our  Sins,  and  as  a  propitiatory  Sacrifice  to  God  for  them,  or  only 
as  an  Aiil  of  Dominion  over  an  innocent  Perfon  in  order  to  his  Advance- 
ment to  glory. 

But  it  is  faid  in  the  Report,  p.  5.  That  if  there  he  no  Change  of  Perfons 
he/ween  Chrifi  and  us,  there  can  he  no  Tranflation  of  the  Guilt,  nor  a  jufi 
Jnfii^ion  of  the  Tmifhment  of  our  Sins  on  Chrifi  j  that  is,  there  cm  he  no 
proper  Satisfa^ion- 

To  this  I  anfwer,  That  there  is  a  twofold  Tranflation  of  Guilt  to  be 
confidered. 

I.  Of  the  Perfonal  Guilt,  which  refults  from  the  Ads  of  Sin  com- 
mitted by  fuch  Perfons.  If  this  Guilt  be  tranflated,  Chrifi  mufl  become 
the  very  Perfon  who  committed  the  Sins  ;  and  fo  he  mufl  be  looked 
on  not  only  as  an  adlual  Sinner,  but  as  the  Perfon  that  committed  all 
the  Sins  of  thofe  for  whom  he  died :  Which  comes  lb  near  to  horrid 
Blafphemy,  that  I  wonder  Perfons  that  bear  any  Reverence  to  our  Blef^ 
fed  Saviour  do  not  abhor  the  very  Thoughts  of  it. 

z.  Of  Legal  Guilt,  which  lies  in  the  Obligation  to  Punifhment,  by 
vertue  of  the  Sandion  of  the  Divine  Law.  Now  this  Guilt  implies  two 
things : 

1.  The  Defert  of  Puniihment  which  follows  perfonal  Guilt,  and  can- 
not be  transferred  by  a  Change  of  Perfons ;  for  no  Man  can  ceale  to  de- 
ferve  Punifhment  for  his  own  Faults,  nor  deferve  that  another  fhould  be 
puniihed  for  them. 

2.  The  Obligation  to  undergo  the  deferved  Punifhment :  But  becaufe 
the  Execution  of  Punifhment  depends  both  on  the  Wifdom  and  Juftice  of 
the  Legiflator,  therefore  here  a  Change  of  Perfons  may  intervene,  and 
by  the  Wifdom  and  Juftice  of  God  a  Mediator  may  be  accepted  in  fuch  a 

Z  2  2  manner 


3<^4  Of  ^^^  Sapnngs Part  II. 

manner  as  himfelf  deternaines,  and  upon  the  Accepcance  of  his  Sacrifice 
the  Offenders  may  be  pardoned,  and  received  into  the  Grace  and  Favour 
of  God,  on  fuch  Terms  as  he  hath  declared  in  the  Gofpel.  And  in  this 
Senfe  the  Guilfof  our  Sins  was  charged  upon  Chrift  as  our  Mediator, 
who  was  to  bear  the  Punilhment  of  our  Sins,  fo  as  by  vertue  of  his  Suf- 
ferings, we  may  not  only  hope  to  efcape  the  juft  Punifliment  of  our 
Offences,  but  to  be  admitted  into  the  Privileges  of  the  Children  of 

God. 

But  the  Reporter,  out  of  a  certain  Mamjcript,  gives  another  Account 
of  Commutation  of  Perfons^  viz.  That  Commutation  in  a  legal  Senfe  is  the 
fame  with  a  proper  Surrcgation,  where  the  Surety  puts  on  the  Ferfon^  and 
flands  in  the  Quality^  State  and  Condition  of  the  Debtor^  and  lies  under  the 
fame  Obligation  to  anfwer  for  him. 

But  this  I  have  Ihewed  long  finceto  be  a  very  wrong  Notion  of  Chrift's 
Satisfadlion,  and  which  in  effed:  gives  up  the  Cauic  to  the  Socinians  ; 
'  for  if  Sins  be  confidered  as  Debts,  God  may  freely  forgive  them  (with- 
out Difparagement  to  his  Wifdom  and  Juftice)  without  any  Satisfaction ; 
and  the  right  of  Punifliment  then  depends  on  God's  abfolute  Dominion,and 
Satisfadion  muft  be  by  way  of  Compenfation  ;  of  which  I  have  treated 
at  large,  Ch.  i.  Se^.  x.  ult.  But  I  cannot  but  wonder  at  the  learned 
Author  of  the  MS.  that  he  doth  at  the  fame  time  aflert  our  Sins  to  be 
confidered  as  Dehts^  and  the  MeceJJity  of  vindi^ive  Juflice ;  for  what 
lindi^ive  Juflice  belongs  to  a  Creditor  ?  May  not  a  Creditor  part  with 
his  own  Right,  and  forgive  what  and  whom  he  pleafes,  without  any 
Violation  of  Juftice  ?  I  can  hardly  think,  that  thofe  who  write  fo  rude- 
ly and  inconfiftently,  ever  penetrated  into  thefe  Matters  in  their  own 
Thoughts,  but  only  take  up  with  a  Set  of  Phrafes  and  common  Expref- 
fions  among  thofe  they  converfe  with,  which  they  look  on  as  the  Stan- 
dard and  Meafure  of  Truth  about  thefe  Matters. 

But  he  finds  fault  with  fome  Men,  who  hold  that  Chrifl  only  fuffered 
in  the  Terfon  of  a  Mediator^  and  not  in  the  Perfon  of  Sinners.  What  is 
the  Meaning  of  this  ?  I  had  thought  that  a  Mediator  interpofing  for 
that  end,  that  by  his  Sufferings  there  might  be  a  Propitiation  for  Sins, 
did  fo  far  fuftain  the  Perfon  of  Sinners,  as  to  take  upon  himfelf  the  Pu- 
nifhment  of  their  Sins,  and  procure  Grace  and  Favour  for  them.  But 
if  he  means  any  thing  beyond  this,  he  mull:  explain  himfelf.  Chrifl  fuf- 
fered in  the  Perfon  of  Sinners.  Is  it  that  he  fulTered  that  others  might 
not  fufTer  ?  That  is  not  denied  by  thofe  who  fay  that  Chrifi  fuffered  in 
the  Terfon  of  a  Mediator.  For  a  Mediator  is  a  publick  Perfon,  and  ad:s 
in  the  ftead,  and  on  the  behalf  of  others ;  and  if  this  be  called  fuflaining 
the  Perfon  of  Sinners,  I  fuppofe  they  will  not  quarrel  with  the  Exprellion. 
But  if  more  be  meant  by  ir,  viz.  That  the  perfonal  Guilt  of  Sinners,  in 
Dr.  Crifp's  Senfe,  is  transferred  upon  Chrift,  that  they  have  to  deny  $  as 
I  hope  to  make  it  appear  in  Anfwer  to  the  third  Queftion. 

The  fecond  Queftion  is,  Whether  the  Author  of  Gofpeltrvth  flated, 
viz.  yJ/r.  Williams,  he  chargeable  with  Soci^mmvim,  in  what  he  [aid,  p. 3  7, 
40  > 

The  Charge  ftands  thus  in  the  Report,  p.  4.  That  he  faith,  there  is  no 
Change  of  Perfons  between  Chrifi  and  Sinners  ;  which  is  there  faid  to  be 
inconjjftent  with  the  DoBrine  of  Chrift's  Satisfa^ion,  which  muft  fuppofe  a 
Commutation  of  Perfons.  And  therefore  he  that  denies  any  Change,  cannot 
affert  the  Do^rhe  of  Satisfa^ioH' 

This 


I 


Part  II.  of  CHRIST. 365 

This  is  the  Force  of  the  Objection.  And  being  defired  to  give  my 
Opinion  of  it,  I  examin'd  and  compar'd  leveral  Paflages  in  that  Book 
that  I  might  judge  truly  and  impartially  concerning  it.  And  I  found 
the  Author,  />  3.  faying  concerning  the  Difference  with  Dr.  Crifp,  That 
it  was  not  whether  Chrifl  had  made  full  Atonement  for  Sin  ;  which  he 
thereby  owned  to  be  his  Senfe.  And,  />.  7.  more  fully  he  owns,  That 
our  Sins  were  imputed  to  Chr/fi,  with  refpe^  to  the  Guilt  thereof ;  fo  that 
he  ly  the  Fathers  Appointment^  and  his  own  Confent,  became  obliged  as  Me- 
diator^  to  bear  the  Puni/hments  to  the  full  SatifaSlion  of  Jufiice,  and  to  our 
a^ual  Remiffion  when  we  believe.  Can  any  thing  be  more  clear  and  ex- 
prefs  againlt  Socinianifm  tiian  this  .*  There  are  other  Paflages,  p.  10,  19, 
a8,  (0c.  to  the  fame  purpofe ;  but  thefe  are  fuiBcient  to  (hew,  that  he 
could  not  abfolutely  deny  any  Commutation  of  Pcrfons. 

But  in  what  Words  doth  he  deny  it  ?  For  it  is  poflible  there  may  be. 
fuch  Words  ufed  as  may  reftrain  and  limit  the  Senfe  ;  and  then  it  is  ve- 
ry hard  to  force  fuch  a  Senfe  upon  thorn,  as  is  inconfiftent  with  what 
he  had  faid  before ;  for  no  Man  loves  to  contradi(3;  himfelf,  efpecially 
when  he  knows  what  Advantage  will  be  taken  by  it.  The  Words  are 
thefe,  p.  40.  the  Difference  lies  in  thefe  Points.  1.  Whether  there  be  a 
Change  of  Perfon  between  Chrifi  and  the  EleSl ."  Tea,  or  betwixt  Chrifi  and 
Believers.  Ibis  the  Do^or  affirms,  and  J  deny.  How  can  any  Perfons, 
in  common  Ingenuity,  underftand  this  othcrwife  than  that  he  denied 
fuch  Change  of  Perfons,  as  Dr.  Crifp  affirmed  ?  But  againft  this  it  is 
urged  by  the  Author  of  the  MS.  in  the  Report,  p.  81.  That  his  Demal  of 
a  change  of  Perfons  is  fo  exprejs  and  full,  as  leaves  no  room  for  any  Difiin- 
iiion,  Limitation  or  Reflri^ion,  or  for  an  owning  it  in  any  fenfe.  What  ! 
not  in  the  Senfe  that  himfelf  had  owned  it  in  before  ?  This  is  very  hard, 
efpecially  when  he  mentions  what  the  Doctor  affirmed^  and  h  denied. 
There  is  a  very  good  Paflage  to  this  Purpofe  in  the  firft  Paper,  men- 
tioned in  the  Report,  p.  iz.  Not  thinking  it  reafonable  or  jufl  to  charge 
upon  any  Brother  fuch  Confequences  of  any  Expreffion  or  Opinion  of  his,  which 
he  himfelf  fhall  difown.^Nhy  then  fhould  fuch  a  Senfe  be  charged  upon  him, 
which  he  difowns  at  the  fame  time  ?  There  muft  be  fomething  farther 
in  this  Matter,  than  appears  to  an  indifferent  and  impartial  Reader  j  what 
it  is,  is  no  part  of  my  Bufinefs  to  enquire. 

But  that  which  muft  give  the  beft  light  into  it,  will  be  the  Refolution 
of  the  laft  Qu;  ftion. 

The  third  Queflion  is,  concerning  Dr.  Crifp  s  Senfe  of  the  Change  of 
Perfons,  whether  it  be  true  or  falfe  ?  Which,  1  fuppofe,  is  truly  fet  dowa 
by  the  Author  of  theGojpel  Truth  fiated,  in  thefe  Words,  p.  38.  M<irk 
it  well,  Chrifi  himfelf  is  not  fo  compleatly  righteous^  but  we  are  as  righteous 
as  he  ;  nor  ive  fo  completely  finful,  but  Chrifi  became^  being  made  Sin,  as 
jinful  as  we  :  Nay  more,  we  are  the  fame  Righteoufnefs  ;  for  we  are 
made  the  Righteoufnefs  of  God ;  that  very  Sinfulnefs  that  we  were,  Chrifi  is 
made  that  very  Sinfulnefs  before  God.  So  that  here  is  a  direll  Change^. 
Chrifi  takes  our  Perjvn  and  Condition,  and  ft  and s  in  our  flead^  and  we  take 
Cbrifi's  Perfon,  and  fiand  in  his  (iead. 

Here  is  indeed  a  Change  of  Perfons  fuppofed,  but  I  do  not  find  it  pro- 
ved; and  therefore  is  only  to  be  looked  on  as  an  imaginary  Change,  which 
it  is  pofllble  for  Men  to  fanfy :  But  that  is  no  ground  to  build  a  matter 
of  Faith  upon,  and  fuch  as  the  Salvation  of  their  Souls  is  fo  nearly  con- 
cerned in.  But  to  deliver  my  Opinion  freely  and  diftindtly  about  it,  I 
(hall  Ihew, 

I.  That 


^66  Of  the  Sufferings  Fart  IL 

1.  That  it  hath  no  Foundation  in  Scripture. 

z.  That  it  is  contrary  to  the  Tenor  of  it,  and  the  Terms  of  Salvation 
,  contained  in  the  Gofpel. 

3.  That  it  is  attended  with  very  bad  Confequences,  which  naturally 
follow  from  it. 

I.  That  it  hath  no  Foundation  in  Scripture.  For  which  I  defire  it  may 
be  confidered,  that  our  blefled  Saviour'himfelf  in  all  his  Preaching,  who 
came  to  reveal  the  Will  of  God  to  Mankind,  faith  nothing  at  all  of  it; 
and  can  any  poflibly  think,  that  he  would  omit  fuch  a  Point,  wherein, 
I  perceive,  fomedo  think  the  Suhftame  of  the  Gofpel  is  contained?  All 
that  our  Saviour  faith  to  this  Purpofe,  is,  ^hat  he  came  to  give  his  Life  a 
Ranfom  for  many^  Mat.  20  28.  and  that  his  Blood  was  fhed  for  many  for 
the  Remiffion  of  Sins ^  Mat.  x6.  z8.  What  other  Change  «f  Ferfons  is  here 
_  implied,  but  that  of  a  Ranfom^  and  «  Sacrifice  of  Propitiation  ?  He  that 
knew  bell  for  what  end  he  fufFered,  faith  not  one  Word  oi  his  taking 
upon  himfelf  the  Perfon  oj  Sinmrs,  in  any  other  Sen(e  than  as  he  fuffer- 
ed  in  their  ftead,  and  for  their  Advantage.  Here  is  nothir^ghke/;«^if/«^ 
as  compleatly  finful  as  we ;  and  our  heing  made  as  righteous  as  he.  And  yet 
certainly  he  communicated  to  his  Dilciples  thofe  Points  on  which  their 
Juftification  and  Salvation  depended.  But  how  could  they  apprehend 
any  fuch  change  of  Perfons  in  this  Senfe,  from  any  Words  ufed  by  him- 
felf to  them  ?  And  all  neceflary  Points  of  Faith  were  delivered  by  our 
Saviour  to  his  Difciples :  And  therefore  to  make  fuch  a  Change  of  Per- 
fons neceflary,  and  yet  not  mentioned  by  him,  is  to  charge  him  with 
failing  in  his  prophetical  Office,  which  all  thofe  ought  to  confider,  who 
lay  fuch  a  ftrefs  upon  this  Matter. 

But  doth  not  St.  Paul  fay,    th-it  God  hath  made  him  to  le  Sin  for  uSy 
who  knew  no  Sin,   that  we  might  le  made  the  Rigbteoufnefs  of  God  in  him  ? 
a  Cor.  5.  a  r.     I  grant  he  doth  fo.     But  do  not  thefe  Words  imply  fuch  a 
Change  of  Perfons,  as  Dr.  Crifp  afferts  ?    By  no  means :    Which  I  thus 
prove  :  Dr.  Crifp's  Notion  of  the  Change  of  Perfons^  fuppofes  the  Benefits 
of  this  Change  to  be  antecedent  to  any  Conditions  on  our  fice,  viz.  that 
it  was  by  a  Tranfa<5tion  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  without  regard 
to  any  A&.  of  ours  :  But  when  the  Apoftle  fpeaks  of  Chrifl's  being  made 
Sin  for  us,  and.  our  leing  made  the  Righteoufnefs  of  God  in  him,  he  fuppo- 
fes, that  before  we  can  have  the  Benefit  of  it,  we  muft  be  firft  reconciled 
to  God,  which  is  an  A<fl  on  our  part.     For  to  this  purpofe  he  faith,  ver. 
18,  19.  that  after //;f /?f(rc«ci//<j/'/o«  made  by  Chrift  at  his  Death,  he  had 
given  to  the  Apoftles //^^  Minifiry  of  Reconciliation.     To  what  purpofe? 
Was  it  only  to  let  them  know  what  Chrifl  had  already  done  for  Man- 
kind ?  That  were  to  fet  up  a  Miniflery  of  Confolation  for  Believers,    but 
not  of  Reconciliation.     But   the  Apoflle  lays  great  Force  upon  ir,  that 
God  had  committed  to  them  the  Word  of  Reconciliation.     Now  then,    faith 
he,  we  are  Amhaffadors  for  Chrifl,  as  though  God  did  befeech  you  ly  us,  we 
pray  you  in  Chrifl's  flead,  be  ye  reconciled  to  God,  ver.  20.     They  were  by 
this  Minift/y  of  Reconciliation,  after  what  Chrift  had  done  and  (uffered, 
prayed,  and  with  great  Farneflnefs,   to  be  reconciled  to  God:  To  what 
end  ?  If  according  to  this  Change  of  Perfons,  they  were  more  than  recon- 
ciled to  God  already,  if  they  were  true  Believers  ,•   for  they  were  as  righ- 
teous as  Chrifl  himfelf,  and  therefore  muft  be  in  the  Grace  and  Favour  of 
God.     If  they  were  not  Believers,  then,  according  to  this  Scheme  of 
the  Change  of  Perfons,  they  could  have  no  Benefit  by  it  j  and  confequent- 
ly  this  Miniflery  of  Reconciliation  is  wholly  fubverted,  as  to  the  great 

Purpofe 


_y 


.if' 


Part  II.  ofCHKlsr,  3^7 

Purpofe  and  Defign  of  ir.  For  either  they  were  reconcile  J  already,  or 
they  netrer  could  be.  And  yet  the  Apoftle,  after  thofe  Words,  ver!zt, 
immediately  fubjoins,  ch.  6.1.  We  then  as  Workers  together  with  him  he- 
feech  you  aljo^  that  ye  receive  not  the  Grace  of  God  in  vain.  What  can  the 
meaning  of  thefe  Words  be,  if  Dr.  Crifp's  Senfe  of  the  Change  of  Terfons 
bold  good  ?  Can  they  who  are  compleatly  righteous,  ever  receive  the 
Grace  of  God  in  vain  *  And  to  what  purpofe  doth  he  fpeak  of  their  work' 
ing  together  with  God,  and  hefeeching  them  not  to  do  a  thing  utterly  im- 
poflible  ?  For  it  would  be  to  undo  what  had  long  fince  been  done  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son  in  the  Change  of  Ferfbns.  So  that  this  Notion  of 
the  Change  of  Perfons  is  as  difterent  from  St.  Paufs  as  may  be ;  for  that 
fappofes  no  Conditions  on  cur  fide  ;  and  the  Miniflery  of  Reconciliation 
in  St.  Paul,  is  wholly  founded  upon  it,  and  really  fignifies  nothing,  as 
to  the  ends  he  propofes  without  it.  For  to  what  purpofe  is  that  appoint- 
ed to  perfvt  ade  Men  to  be  reconciled  to  Gxtd,  if  all  that  ever  Ihall  be  ad* 
mitted  to  Heaveti,  were  long  fince  reconciled  at  the  Death  of  Chrifl,  and 
they  were  made  as  compleatly  righteous  as  Chrifl  himfelf » 

It  may  be  faid,  That  the  Miniflery  of  Reconciliation  is  not  ufelefs^  hecaufe 
it  is  the  Means  wherehy  God  doth  eff equally  convey  his  Grace  into  the  Hearts 
of  Believers.  But  this  cannot  fatisfy  any  one  that  confiders  St.  Pauls 
Expreflions  :  For  his  Words  are,  We  pray  youinChri[Fsfiead,  h  ye  recon- 
ciled to  God  If  he  had  faid,  That  God  had  made  Chrifi  to  he  Sin  for  you 
already,  and  you  as  righteous  as  Chrifl  was  ;  how  would  it  have  looked 
to  have  faid  after  this.  We  pray  you  to  he  reconciled  to  God  ?  For  what 
Deed  they  any  Reconciliation,  who  were  already  fo  much  in  his  Favour  ? 

But  is  there  no  Change  of  Perfons  then  implied  in  thofe  Words  of  St.  Paul  • 
Who  made  him  to  he  Sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  Sin^  that  we  might  he  made 
the  Right  eoufnefs  of  God  in  him  >  Yes  certainly.  Such  a  Change,  where- 
by Chrifl:  did  undergo  the  Punifhments  of  our  Sins  ;  and  lb  Erafmus  ob- 
ferves,  that  Chrifl  is  not  called  a  Sinner  here,  as  Dr.  Crifp  would  have  it 
but  Sin  ;  i.  e.  4  Sacrifice  for  Sin,  according  to  the  Scripture-fenfe  :  And 
toe  are  made  the  Righteoufnefs  of  God  in  him,  i.  e.  That  God  upc5n  the 
account  of  his  Sacrifice,  and  our  Reconciliation  to  him,  would  treat  us 
as  Righteous  Perfons,  or  receive  us  into  his  Grace  and  Favour  j  which 
is  all  that  I  can  find  that  Sr.  Paul  underftood  by  this  Expreffion. 

2.  \  am  now  to  (hew,  that  this  Notion  of  the  Change  of  Perfons,  which 
Dr.  Crifp  aflerts,  is  contrary  to  the  whole  Tenor  of  the  Scripture,  and 
the  Terms  of  Salvation  contained  in  the  Gofpel.  I  am  fenfible  how  large 
a  Field  I  am  entred  upon  :  And  if  I  fhould  purfue  this  matter  as  it  de* 
ferves,  it  would  take  up  much  more  room  than  I  can  allow  this  to  Anfwer, 
I  could  eafily  prove  that  in  all  the  Tranfadtions  between  God  and  Man- 
kind, fome  Conditions  on  our  fide  were  required  in  order  to  his  Favour. 
So  it  was  in  the  (late  of  Innocency  ,-  fo  it  continued  after  Man's  Fall,  as 
appears  by  thofe  remarkable  Words  of  God  to  Cain  ^  If  thou  dofi  well^ 
fhalt  thou  not  he  accepted  .■>  If  thou  dofi  not  well.  Sin  lieth  at  thy  Door^ 
Gen.  4.  7.  So  it  was  in  God's  Dealing  with  the  Patriarchs,  and  the  moft 
excellent  Perfons  in  the  Old  Teftament,  Ahraham,  Mofes,  David,  Joh^ 
fe'c.  But  I  pafs  over  thefe,  (although  I  fuppofe  they  will  not  be  denied 
to  have  been  of  the  Ele£l,  and  to  have  had  the  Benefit  of  ChrifPs  Righ' 
ieoufnefs  as  well  as  Chriflians)  and  come  to  the  Terms  of  Salvation,  as 
declared  by  Chrift  himfelf.  Let  any  one  (erioufly  perufe  the  Dodtrine 
which  he  preached  from  rhe  time,  when  he  hegan  to  preach,  and  to  fay. 
Repent  J  for  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand.  Mat.  41  17,     And  he  ihall 

find 


3^8  Of  the  Siiffemgs  Part  II. 

,^  ■■■■—■       ■IlliaWIIII    11       Ml—f    IM^i^.^—  ■■  .■■■M_>.       ■■...■■«        l-l  ■  —     ..  -I  11    I  ^  !■■  M  I  .11  ,  ,    _^ 

find  the  main  Bufinefs  of  his  Preaching  was  to  put  Men  upon  performing 
fuch  Conditions  as  were  neceffary  to  their  Salvation,  and  for  that  reafbn; 
as  may  be  (een  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  which  he  begins  with 
promifing  Bleflednefs  to  the  humhle,  merciful,  pure  in  Heart,  Mat.  y.  ^, 
4,  ^c.  What  do  thefe  things  mean,  if  they  be  not  Conditions  on  our 
parts  neceflary  in  order  to  Happinefs  ?  And  that  they  are  confidered 
by  God  as  fuch  ?  Why  doth  he  fay.  Except  your  Righteoufnefs  exceed  the 
Righteoufnefs  of  the  Scrihes  and  Pharifees,  ye  fhall  in  no  caje  enter  into  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven,  Mat.  j.  if  fuch  a  Righteoufnefs  be  not  a  Condition 
required  in  order  to  fuch  Entrance  ?  And  if  it  be,  no  Change  of  Perfons 
without  inward  and  real  Righteoufnefs,  can  be  fufficient.  Our  Saviour 
doth  not  fpeak  of  what  will  be  eventually  fome  Perfons,  but  of  what  is 
required  to  be  done  in  order  to  an  end.  And  therefore  he  concludes  his 
Sermon  with  faying,  Whofoever  heareth  thefe  Sayings  of  mine,  and  doth 
them,  I  will  liken  him  to  a  wife  Man,  who  huilt  his  Houfe  upon  a  Rock,  &c. 
Mat.  7.  24.  Not  he  that  believes  that  he  is  one  of  thofe  who  is  made 
compleatly  righteous  hy  a  Change  of  Perfons,  without  any  Change  of  Tem- 
per, or  Difpofition  of  Mind  :  He  never  promifes  the  leaft  degree  of  Hap- 
pinefs to  fuch  ,*  but  flill  infifls  on  our  own  Endeavours,  By  firiving  to 
enter  in  at  the  fir  ait  Gate,  which  St.  Paul  calls,  working  out  our  own  Salva- 
tion with  Fear  and  tremhling,  and  St,  Peter,  giving  all  diligence  to  make 
cur  Calling  and  Ele^ion  fure.  For^  faith  he,  If  ye  do  thefe  things  ye  fhall 
never  fall. 

Do  not  thefe  ExprefEons  note  theNeceffity  of  the  performance  of  Con- 
ditions on  our  fide  ?  And  therefore  all  imaginary  Notions  of  fuch  a  Change 
of  Perfons,  as  hath  no  regard  to  any  Ads  of  ours,  is  wholly  repugnant 
to  the  main  Scope  and  Defign  of  the  Gofpel.  I  meddle  not  with  the  Di- 
fpute  about  the  Moral  Law,  which  muftcontinue  to  oblige  us,  as  long  as 
the  Reafon  of  it  continues ;  but  the  main  Argument  to  me  is  from  the 
Gofpel,  as  it  is  delivered  by  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles,  who  certainly  un- 
derflood  the  Suhflance  and  Defign  of  it  far  better  than  Dr.  Crifp,  or  the  Re* 
porter  doth.  What  was  tranfaded  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  we 
know  no  more  than  they  have  revealed  to  us ;  and  we  know  they  had  no 
defign  to  impofe  upon  Mankind,  by  laying  fo  much  Weight  upon  fuch 
Conditions  as  God  had  no  regard  to,  and  by  concealing  from  them  fuch  a 
Change  of  Perfons,  as  made  them  compleatly  righteous  without  any  Ad  of 
theirs.  Men  could  never  be  reconciled  to  the  jufl  Veneration  and  Efieem 
we  have  of  the  Sacred  Penmen  of  the  Scriptures,  nor  to  their  Knowledge 
of  the  Myfterics  of  the  Gofpel,  nor  to  their  Fidelity  in  declaring  them 
for  the  good  of  Mankind,  So  that  if  we  find  nothing  of  this  Change  of 
Perfons  in  their  Writings,  and  fo  much  as  is  utterly  inconfiflent  with  it, 
we  have  all  the  reafon  m  the  World  to  rejcd  it. 

This  Notion  of  the  Change  of  Perfons  is  attended  with  very  bad  Con- 
fequences.  Which  I  do  not  charge  on  thofe  who  do  not  fee  them,  or 
are  carried  by  fome  higher  Principles  above  them  ;  but  we  are  not  to 
judge  of  Perfons,  but  of  Things,  and  the  natural  Tendency  of  Prin- 
ciples. 

And  fo  the  Change  of  Perfons,  in  this  Senfe,  hath  thefe  very  bad 
Confequences  :  That  it  is  apt  to  leflen  our  Reverence  of  the 
Divine  Perfedions  j  our  juft  Senfe  of  the  Differences  of  Good  and 
Evil ;  our  Obi  gations  to  all  forts  of  Duties :  It  tends  to  the  Difpa- 
ragement  of  ihd^t  free  Grace  they  pretend  to  exalt ;  and  expofes  the 
Gofpel  to  the  Reproach  and  Contempt  of    Infidels  j    and  leaves  the 

Minds 


Part  11.  ofChtKlSZ  349 

Minds  of  thofe  who  embrace  it,   under  great  Temptations  to  Prefump- 
thf*. 

Thefe  things  I  can  only  mention,  becaufe  you  defired  a  (hort  Anfwcr 
to  your  Q^ieftions ;  and  I  have  brought  it  into  as  narrow  a  Compafs  as 
I  could. 

lam,  SIR, 

Nov.  10. 97. 

Tour  Faithful  Friend  and  Servant, 

ED.  WIGORN. 


Mr^Si'lxkh's  Firft  Letter y  Nov.   ig,   ^697* 

My  Lord, 

'Here  being  a  Controverfy  among  Diflenters  about  the  Do<arine  of 
Chrift's  SatisfacStion,  fome  of  the  moft  eminent  among  them,  fuch 
as  Dr.  B.  Mr.  H.  &c.  did,  in  a  Paper  fent  to  fome  other  Brethren  for 
Conciliation,  mention  your  Lordftiip's  Senfe  about  the  aflerting  a  Com- 
mutation of  Perfons  between  Chrift  and  Us,  as  neceflary  to  a  due  Expla* 
nation  and  Defence  of  the  faid  Dodrine :  And  on  the  other  hand,  there 
is  another  of  Efteem  among  us,  who  is  for  carting  off  the  Phrafe  of  a 
Change  of  Perfons  between  Chrift  and  Us,  allowing  only  a  Change  of 
Perfon  ;  upon  which,  he  faith,  your  Lordfliip  hath  put  an  honeft  Senfe, 
viz.  a  Subftitution  of  one  Perfon  in  the  room  and  place  of  another.  Your 
Lordfhip's  Judgment  therefore  being  referr'd  unfo,  it  will  be  a  moft  Chri" 
ftian  part,  if  you  (hall  condefcend  to  give  us  your  impartial  Thoughts  of 
this  point,  as  being  likely,  on  both  hands,  to  be  fo  received,  as  to  cora- 
pofe  the  Difference  between  us, 

I  am  the  more  earneft  in  this,  becaufe  I  fee  that  fome  are  labouring 
to  make  Chrift's  Sufferings  fo  merely  voluntary,  as  not  to  be  pcenal,  or 
not  properly  poena!,  but  improperly  and  materially  fo  :  and  our  Sins 
not  to  be  the  impuifive,  or  not  the  near  impulfive  meritorious  Caufe 
of  them. 

There  being  no  other  end  in  fending  this,  I  hope  your  Lordlhip  will 
both  pardon  and  anfwer  the  Requeft  of, 

Mj  LORD, 

Tour  Lord/hip's  mofi  obedient  Servant, 

and  fincere  Honourery 

Stephen  Lobb. 


A  aa  ^ 


370  Of  the  Sufferings  i^art  11. 

—  ■  » 

Jnfwer  to  Mr>  Sc  Lobb'5  Firji  Letter^  Dec-  1 2.  1 6^7. 

SIR, 

YOUR  Letter,  which  bears  date,  l^ov.  i8.  came  not  to  my  hands 
till  Dec.  lo.  an  J  in  the  mean  time,  I  doubt  not  but  you  have 
feen  my  Letter  to  Mx.W.  wherein  J  have  given  my  Senfe  of  the  things 
which  are  mentioned  in  yours,  and  that  with  great  Freedom  and  Impar- 
tiality, after  I  had  perufed  the  Papers  on  both  fides,  which  came  to  my 
hands.  And  t  heartily  wifli  you  had  fent  me  your  Letter  after  you  had 
jfeen  mine,  that  I  might  have  removed  any  Difficulties  you  apprehend 
therein  :  For  I  defire  to  prevent  all  needlefs,  as  well  as  dangerous  Con- 
troverfies  among  thofe  who  truly  own  the  Dodrine  of  Chrift's  Satisfa- 
(ftion.  And  \  cannot  think  a  Form  of  Words,  capable  ef  a  very  bad  fenfe, 
is  to  be  infifted  fo  much  upon  ;  although  others  may  have  ufed  it  in  a 
good  fenfe.  And  therefore  there  is  no  need  to  difpute  your  Authorities 
about  the  Sound  and  Orthodox  Senfe  fome  Divines  have  ufed  thofe 'Ex- 
|)rcflriot>§  yjou  mention  jn  :  But  the  plain  ftate  of  the  Cafe  at  prefent  is 
this. 

Dr.  Cr.  hath  af!erted  fuch  a  Change  of  Perfons  between  Chrift  and  Belief 
vers,  from  whence  all  the  Antimmian  Principles  do  neceffarily  follow  ; 
as  That  Qod  feeth  no  Sin  in  his  People^  that  no  Conditions  are  required 
en  our  Parts,  to  make  us  Partakers  of  the  Benefits  of  Chrijl's  Sufferings, 
that  Juftification  is  before  Faith,  &c.  This  Senfe  of  the  Change  of  Perfons 
was  denied,  as  it  oiight  to  be,  by  Mr.  VV.  but  allowing  what  is  undere 
Hood  by  it,  as  to  Chrift's  undergoing  the  Punilhment  of  our  Sins ;  up^ 
on  this  he  is  accufed  as  rejecting  fuch  a  Change  of  Perfons  as  is  necefHi- 
ry  to  maintain  the  Dodrine  of  Saitisfadtion.  This,  1  confefs,  appeared 
\o  me  a  very  hard  ^nd  unreafonable  Proceeding;  as  I  havefhcwed  in  my 
Letter.  But  I  perceive  by  the  Papers  you  fenc  me,  that  you  difown  the 
AHttHomian  Principles,  which  I  was  glad  to  find;  and  therefore  you  can- 
not but  difown  fuch  g  Change  of  Perfons  from  whence  they  follow ;  or 
elfe  you  muft  Oiew,  that  thofe  Principles  do  not  follow  from  it,  which  ( 
think  you  will  hardly  dp. 

^  Sir,  I  am  fo  far  from  thinking  you  need  to  ask  Pardon  for  your  writing 
to  me  about  fuch  matters,  that  I  (hall  be  glad  to  hear  farther  from  you, 
9,nd  to  underftand  what  yxjur  Senfe  is  of  my  former  Ltter  to  Mr.  FT,  as 
Well  as  of  this.  For  by  vvhat  I  can  obfervc  from  the  fcveral  Papers,  xt, 
is  a  Fondnefs  for  Dr-.  C's  Notions,  which  lies  at  the  bottom  of  alf  thefe 
Heats ;  which  feems  to  me  to  have  been  the  trge  reafon  why  thofe  Pro- 
pofitions  were  not  condemned,  which  were  taken-out  of  his  Books,  and 
of  others  of  his  way. 

I  cannot  but  look  on  thofe  Antinomian  Do^rines  as  of  very  dangerous 
confequence  to  all  tha,t  underfiand  them,  as  well  as  to  thofe  who  do  not. 

But  I  find  by  what  )ou  affirm  of  your  felf,  that  all  thofe  who  oppofe 
Mr.  W.  ^re  not  for  Dr.  C's  Notions  ;  and  as  to  fuch  there  is  nothing  but  a 
Mifunderftanding  of  each  other,  which  may  beeafily  rectified,  if  Perfon* 
be  inclined  to  think  well  of  one  another. 
I  am,  S  I R, 

Tour  Faithful  Friend  and  Servant^ 

.  E.  W. 

Mf.. 


Part  II.  ofCHKlsr.  371 

Mr.  LohW s  Seconc/ Letter,  Dec.  i8.  16^  j. 

My  Lore/, 

ON  a  Pcrufal  of  your  Letter  to  Mr.  W.  I  was  abundantly  fatisfied, 
in  what  you  write  about  a  Commutation  of  Perfons,  the  Guilt  of 
Sin,  and  your  Confutation  of  Dr.  Crifp ;  only  I  wifhed  your  Information 
had  been  more  full  than  I  perceive  it  was ;  for  then  you  would  have  feen 
that  the  Authors  of  the  Jirji  Paper,  and  the  Report,  are  not  for  a  Com- 
mutation of  Perfons  in  the  Senfe  of  Dr.  C.  That  your  Lordfhip  there- 
fore may  have  a  fuller  date  of  matters  in  Controverfy  among  us,  I  have 
prepared  fome  Sheets  for  the  Prefs,  in  which  I  have  given  the  true  Rea- 
fons  of  the  DifTatisfadions  of  fome  with  Mr.  W.  direding  it  to  your 
Lordlhip ;  hecaufe  you  have  fo  clearly  flated  our  true  Senfe  about  Chrift's 
Satisfaction.  It  is  almoft  finiflied,  and  I  fend  you  this  humbly  to  beg 
your  Lordfhip's  Pleafure,  whether  I  flialifend  it  unto  you  now  in  MS.  or 
not  till  printed. 

My  Lord,  My  hopes  are,  that  God  will  blefs  your  farther  Endeavours 
for  compofingour  Differences,  atleaft  in  the  point  of  Satisfadlion,  about 
which  I  am  moflly  concerned. 

Yours  of  the  nth  came  to  my  hands  this  Evening  ;  for  which  I  ren* 
der  your  Lordlhip  my  humbled  Thanks. 

In  the  Papers  above-mentioned,  you  will  fee  my  Senfe  of  your  Letter 
to  Mr.  IV. 

That  Dr.  C.  hath  aflertcd  fuch  a  Change  of  Perfons  between  Chrift 
and  Believers,  as  from  whence  all  the  Antinomian  Principles  do  neceflari- 
ly  follow  ;  as,  That  God  feeth  no  Sin  in  his  People,  That  no  Conditi- 
ons are  required  on  our  parts  to  make  us  Partakers  of  the  Benefit  of 
Chrift's  Sufferings,  That  Juftification  is  before  Faith,  ^c.  we  entirely  a- 
gree  with  your  LordHiip,  whilft  we  are  neceflltated  to  diflent  from  you 
in  what  you  add  about  your  Charity  to  Mr.  W.  not  doubting  but  that 
we  fliall  be  able  td  evince,  that  it  is  not  a  Fondnefs  for  Dr.  C's  Notions, 
that  lieth  at  the  bottom  of  all  thefe  Heats.  The  true  Reafon  why  the 
Propofitions  were  not  condemned,  you  will  fiiid  in  the  Papers  prepared 
for  the  Prefs,  in  which  your  Lordlhip  will  alfo  obferve,  why  the  con- 
troverted Phrafes  are  rejeded  by  Mr.  iv.  and  Mr.  A.  I  will  wait  for  your 
Lordlhip's  Commandments,  being, 

My   L  0  R  D, 

four  mofl  Ohedient  Humble  Servant, 

Stephen  Lobb. 


A  a  a  i  Anjwef 


37 


Of  the  Sufferings 


Part  11. 


Anfwer  to  Mr.  St.  Lobb'^  Second  Letter^  Dec.  22.  16^  j. 

I  Am  very  glad  my  Letter  to  Mr.  IV.  gave  you  any  Satisfadlon,  as  to 
the  point  of  Commutation  of  Perfons,  ^c.  Only  you  wi(h  I  had 
received  fuller  Information  of  fome  matters  of  fadi  ;  which  was  a  thing 
out  of  my  power,  and  I  could  only  judge  by  what  I  had  feen.  By  the 
firft  Paper  it  did  appear  to  me,  that  Mr.  W.  was  charged  with  denying 
fuch  a  Commutation  as  was  neceflary  to  explain  the  Do(fi:rine  of  Satis- 
fadion  ;  whereas  he  only  denied  fuch  a  Change  as  was  affirmed  by  Dr. 
C.  If  there  be  any  thing  more  in  Mr.  W^'s  cafe,  I  fuppofe  I  (hall  fee  it 
in  the  Papers  you  are  preparing  for  the  Prefs  ;  which  I  fhall  be  glad  to 
fee  when  they  are  printed,  I  would  not  have  you  give  your  felf  the 
trouble  to  fend  them  before.  For  fince  they  relate  to  matters  of  fad,  I 
can  be  no  competent  judge  of  them. 

I  am  very  well  pleafed  to  find  that  you  difown  Dr.&s  AntinomianPrin' 
ciples  :  I  think  you  would  do  your  felves  a  great  deal  of  right  to  condemn 
the  Propofitions  which  they  infift  upon.  For  I  had  fome  reafon  to  be- 
lieve that  they  were  too  much  favoured  by  fome  of  your  Brethren,  but 
I  fliall  not  be  forry  to  find  ray  felf  therein  miftaken. 

I  am,  SIR, 

Tour  Faithful  Friend  and  Servant, 

E.  W. 


An  Anfwer  to  Mr.  Lobb's  Trinted  Appeal. 


Chap.     I. 
Of  the  true  Occafion  of  the  pejent  Difference. 

SIR, 

I  Have  read  and  confidered  your  Appeal ;  and  I  am  very  willing  to  do 
my  Endeavours  in  order  to  the  compofing  thofe  Differences  among 
you,  which  relate  to  the  Antinomian  and  Sociman  Contrcverfies  ;  and 
which,  I  think,  cannot  be  ended  without  a  clearer  underftanding  of  the 
true  ftate  of  both  of  them.  For,  if  I  be  not  much  miftaken,  the  one 
hath  given  occafion  to  the  other  j  and  if  the  juft  bounds  between  them 
be  duly  fetled,  the  prefent  Difpute  about  the  fignification  of  fome  doubt- 
ful Words  and  Phrafes  will  fall  to  the  ground,  (as  I  hope  to  make  it  ap- 
pear in  the  Progrefs  of  this  Difcourfe.)  And  I  /hall  be  heartily  glad  to 
contribute  any  thing  towards  the  leflening  any  needlefs,  as  well  as  dange- 
rous 


Part  11. of  CHRIST. 373 

rous  Controverfes  among  thofe  who  truly  own  the  DoHrine  of  Chrifl's  Sath- 
faWion  ;  fince  it  is  now  out  of  my  Power  to  prevent  them. 

But  it  was  a  Civility  greater  than  I  had  reafon  to  expedJ,  that  you 
fhould  in  the  beginning  o^  your  Appeal,  render  me  your  unfeigned  Thanks 
rot  only  for  what  relates  to  the  Article  of  Satisfa£lioH^  hut  for  my  Confu' 
tation  of  Dr.  Crifp ;  fince  I  had  intimated  to  you  in  one  of  my  Letters, 
that  1  apprehended,  that  a  Fondnefs  for  his  Notions  lay  at  the  bottom  of 
all  thete  Heats.  And  I  cannot  fay,  that  my  Opinion  is  altered  by  your 
Appeal ;  of  which  I  (hall  prefently  give  my  Reafons. 

But  I  muft  firft  take  notice,  that  you  tell  me,  that  /  have  not  leenfo 
fully  acquainted  with  the  matters  in  difference  as  could  le  wifhed.  Truly, 
when  I  wrote  ray  Letter  to  Mr.  W.  I  went  chiefly  upon  the  Report  which 
you  had  publifhed  ;  and  I  thought  I  might  rely  upon  it.  But  I  find  fince, 
fome  of  your  Brethren  charging  it  with  Difingenuity.,  Prevarication,  and'^"^'^'''  ^* 
Partiality,  (Reb.  p.  ^.)  but  I  law  no  caufe  to  fufpedl  any  fuch  thing,  aspJrc,  ^  i. 
to  what  I  was  concerned  in  ;  which  was  the  giving  an  Anfwer  to  the 
three  Quejiions  propofed  to  me.  But  wherein  is  it  that  I  have  (hewed  my 
ielf  not  fo  fully  acquainted  with  the  matters  indifference  among  you  .•»  Is  it 
that  I  fay,  that  the  Authors  of  the  firfi  Paper,  and  the  Report,  feem  to  take 
it  for  granted,  that  there  can  he  hut  one  Senfe  of  Commutation  of  Perfons  ? 
But  if  you  refiedt  upon  the  ufe  made  in  the  Report  of  Mr.  Ws  denying  a 
Commutation  of  Perfons^  as  Dr.  Crifp  had  affirmed  it  ;  that  therefore  he 
wiufl  deny  fuch  a  Commutation  as  is  effential  to  the  Doctrine  of  ChrifPs  Sa- 
tisfa£lion,  you  will  eafily  perceive,  that  the  whole  force  of  this  Reafon* 
ing  depends  upon  this,  that  he  that  denies  it  in  any  Senfe,  cnuft  deny  it 
in  all.  Which  I  (hewed  to  be  very  unreafonable,  fince  there  may  be  and 
are  fuch  di(Ierent  Senfes  of  it.  For  there  is  a  Senfe,  as  I  faid,  wherein 
it  may  and  ought  to  be  denied,  without  the  leaft  Prejudice  to  the  Do- 
drine  of  Chrift's  Satisfaction ;  and  although  that  cannot  be  explained  and  '" 
defended  without  fome  kind  of  Commutation  of  Perfons,  yet  it  very  well 
may  and  ought  to  be  defended,  without  and  againft  Dr.  Crifp's  Senfe  of 
it.  For  in  one  of  your  Letters,  you  grant,  That  the  Antinomian  Do- 
Urines  do  neceffarily  follow  Dr.  C's  Motion  of  the  Change  of  Perfons :  Either 
then  they  muft  be  owned  to  be  true,  or  his  Senfe  of  it  muft  be  falfe. 
But  you  deny  the  former,  and  therefore  you  muft  yield  the  latter,  and 
confefs  that  Mr.  IV,  had  reafon  to  deny  the  Change  of  Perfons  in  his  fenfe. 
But  of  this  more  afterwards. 

Or,  do  you  think  it  argues  my  not  heing  fo  fully  acquainted  with  the 
matters  in  difference  amon^  you,  becaufe  I  intimated.  That  I  fufpe£led  a 
fondnefs  for  Dr.  Crifp'j  Motions  lay  at  the  bottom  of  aU  thefe  Heats  ?  I 
muft  deal  fo  freely  with  you,  as  to  let  you  know,  that  the  way  you  have 
taken  to  remove  this  Sufpicion,  hath  confirmed  me  in  it.  You  pur  me 
at  firft  in  very  great  hopes  of  feeing  an  efl^edtual  Confutation  of  it ;  for 
you  fay,  That  the  condemning  the  Prcpofitions  by  your  Brethren,  will  evince 
the  contrary.  This  is  indeed  to  the  purpofe.  But  where  is  this  CWi?»i- 
tiation  to  be  feen?  I  hoped  to  find  it  in  your  Appeal.^  or  at.the  end  of  it. 
But  I  was  utterly  difappointed  ;  and  inftead  of  it  you  tell  me,  />.  43* 
that  the  reafon  why  they  had  not  done  it  was,  "  That  none  of  the  49, 
*•  whofe  Names  were  to  the  Tefiimonial  before  Mr.  tf's  Book,  called 
"  GofpeUTruth  flated,  had  recalled  their  hands  j  or  exprefled  (o  much  Dif- 
*'  fatisfadion  with  what  he  had  afierted,  as  was  expedied  :  Befides,  you 
"  (ay.  Having  fince  difcourfed  (everal  of  them,  you  find  them  very  wil* 
**  ling  to  declare  their  diflike  of  the  Prcpofitions,  and  you  are  perfwaded 

•^  they 


374  Of  the  Stiffen ngs  Part  II. 

"'  they  will  chearfully  do  it,  (but  when?)  whenever  Satisfadion  (liall 
*  be  given  to  what  Mr,  IV.  is  charged  with.  And  is  this  theconJemnijig 
the  A^timmlan  Dotlrines,  which  you  promifed  ?  This  only  relates  tofme, 
vehomyou  difcourfed  ivith;  and  even  ihefe  are  for  putting  it  off  to  the  long- 
eft  day,  or  till  Mr.  W.  confefl'es  he  hath  wrongfully  denied  Dr.  d  Change 
of  Pel  Cons,  i.  e.  they  will  renounce  Antinomiiinifm,  when  Mr.  W.  confeP 
fes  himfelf'to  be  an  Antinom'mn  :  For  you  grant,  he  cannot  own  Dr.  Crifp'i 
Seyje  of  the  Change  oj  Per/om.ht  theAnthomianDoth  ifiei  mufi  follow  from  it, 
I  do  not  by  this  intend  to  call  in  queftion  your  Sincerity  in  oppofing  An- 
timmianifm  ;  for  you  have  declared  it  fo  often,  and  in  fuch  a  manner,  that 
I  mud  think  very  hardly  of  you,  if  I  thought  you  could  conceal  a  Fond- 
tte/s  for  that  Dodrine,  under  fuch  Expreliions  againft  it.  For  jou  not 
only  tell  me,  that  you  have  formerly  written  againft  it  ;  but  you 
i'peak  againft  fome  of  the  Do(Slrines  of  it  with  great  hdignatioH,  p.  8.  and 
you  have  feverely  rebuked  fbme  of  your  Brethren  for  trimming  too  much 
Defence  o/i"  favour  of  Afttitiomianifm  ;  and  fay,  that  yon  refufedtofet  your  Name  to 
the  Re-  the  »evi>  Tmpreffion  of  Dr.  Crifp'j  Sermons  {when  others  did  it  who  now  hlame 
port,/>.85.  ^^-^  igcaufe  it  looked  like  giving  too  much  comtenaace  to  the  Notions  in  them. 
So  that  I  do  not  at  all  queftion  your  Zeal  againft  Antinomianifm ;  and  I 
do  fuppofe  fome  more  ef  your  Acquaintance  may  be  of  your  Mind.  But 
that  which  fticks  with  me  is,  that  the  Jirjl  Heat  which  began  among  you^ 
was  upon  that  new  Impreffion  of  Dr.  Crifp'j  Sermons,  which  hath  conti- 
nued ever  fince,  but  not  managed  fo  openly  as  at  firft  j  and  therefore 
was  wifely  turned  into  a  charge  of  Socinianrfm.,  and  put  into  your  hands, 
who  could  not  be  fufpeded  lor  Antinomianijm. 

But  I  am  now  fo  much  better  acquainted  with  the  matters  in  difference 
among  you,  that  I  doubt  not,  from  the  Papers  on  both  fides,  to  make  this' 
matter  clear  to  any  unprejudic'd  Perfons;  which  will  give  great  light  to- 
the  following  Difcourfe,  and,  as  you  defire,  lay  open  the  Wound  in  order 
to  a  Cure. 

We  are  then  to  take  notice,  that  about  7  or  8  years  fincejyr.Crifp'sSermons 
were  thought  fit  to  be  reprinted,  with  the  addition  of  fome  new  ones;  and 
your  felf  confefs  (which  is  very  material)  That  you  were  defired  zmong  others 
tofetyour  Name  totheAtteftation  hefore  it  ;  hut  you  very  honeftly  refufedit^ 
lecauje  you  apprehended  it  would  he  taken  for  granted^  at  leafl  hy  the  common 
People^  that  your  Name  fhould  fland  there  as  an  Approval  of  all  the  Notions 
in  that  Book,  and  enfnare  many  to  a  Clofure  with  the  Errors  contained  in  it. 
Which  was  a  fufficient  Reafon.  But  it  feems  others  were  more  eafie  in 
the  matter;  for  twelve  venerable  Names,  in  great  Letters,  appear  in  the 
beginning  of  it :  (whom  1  forbear  to  mention.)  It's  true,  that  the  Words 
of  the  Atteflation  go  no  farther  than,  that  the  additional  Sermons  were 
faithfully  tranfcrihed  hy  the  Authors  Son  from  his  own  Notes.  But  what 
need  fuch  an  Atteflation  of  twelve  Reverend  Perfons,  that  Mr.  Sam.  Crifp 
did  not  falfify  his  Father's  hand  ?  Was  there  ever  fuch  an  Atteflation  gi- 
ven to  a  Perfon  of  any  tolerable  Credit  .^  What  muft  the  World  think,  if 
no  more  were  intended,  of  the  Veracity  of  that  Gentleman  ?  But  it 
may  be  faid,  That  fome  of  theje  Perfons  afterwards  cleared  themfelvef 
in  another  Tejlimonial  to  Mr.  Flavcl'j  Book  againfi  Antinomianifm. 

I  grant,  that  fome  of  them  being  fenfible  of  the  Reproach  they  Jay 
under  by  that  Atteflation,  did  endeavour  to  clear  their  Reputation,  as^to 
this  matter,  in  thefe  Words,  That  whereas  fome  iveak  People  had  mifunder-' 
Jlood  that  Certificate,  as  if  they  intended  an  Approbation  of  all  that  is  con- 
tained in  that  Folume,  they  declare  they  had  no  fuch  Intention.    But  you'_ 

tell 


Partir.  of  CHRIST,  375 

te!I  us,  that  you  refufed  to  join  in  that  Atteitation,  becaufe  it  would  be 
fo  underflood.  And  (o  you  mull  be  under  the  iveak  People,  who  did  ib 
apprehend  the  Defign  of  it,  or  they  who  did  not  a4)prehend  that  fuch  ufe 
would  be  made  of  ir.  But  as  you  very  well  obferve,  Defence  of  the  Report, 
p.  86.  Thefe  very  Perfons  in  that  new  Tedimonial  do  affirm,  That  the 
difference  between  Dr.  Crifp  a»e/  others  feems  to  lie  not  fo  much  in  the 
things,  which  the  otie  or  the  other  of  them  believe ,  as  about  their  order  and 
reference  to  one  another.  But  >  ou  truly  anfwer,  That  you  look  on  the  diffe- 
rence between  the  Orthodox  and  Dr.  Crifp  to  be  much  greater  than  this  fort 
of  palliating  Preface  will  allow  it  to  be.  And  that  if  there  be  any  thingdan- 
geroM  i»  Dr.  Crilp'j  Writings,  as  you  believe  there  is,  the  Exprefions  there 
ufed,  tend  to  enfnare  poor  'People  to  believe  them  as  found  and  true.  So 
that  you  can  by  no  means  think,  that  thefe  Perfons  have  acquitted  them- 
felves  from  giving  too  much  countenance  to  Dr.  Crifp's  Opmions.  And 
one  of  tho(e  Sublcribers  hath  fince  in^enuoufly  confefleJ,  That  this  Im-  Rebuke, 
preffion  of  Dr.  Crifp  j  Sermons  awakened  fome  of  the  more  zealous  among  the  ^'  ^°' 
united  Brethren,  to  confider  of  fome  proper  Expedient  to  obviate  the  growth 
of  thofe  Errors. 

And  this  was  the  Occafion  of  Mr.  D.  Williams's  publifliinghis  Book, 
called  Gofpel-Truih  flated,  wherein  fom:  of  Dr.  Cfifp^j  Opinions  are  con- 
fidered,  &c.  A  Book,  faith  the  fame  Perfon,  to  fay  no  more,  ingenioufly 
penned,  exaitly  methodized,  the  Truths  and  Errors  fairly  flated,  and  for 
ought  I  can  fee,  pioufly  defigned.  Tnis  Book  came  forth  at  firft  with  the 
Atteflation  of  feveralof  his  Brethren,  not  merely  as  to  the  right  lifting  of 
Truths  and  Err  or Sy  but  as  a  confider  able  fervice  to  the  Church  ofChrifi;  and 
as  a  means  for  the  reclaiming  of  thofe  who  have  been  mifled  into  fuch  dange- 
rous Opinions,  and  for  the  eflahlifhing  thofe  that  waver  in  any  of  thefe  Truths. 
Which  are  the  Words  of  it. 

'W.Williams  declares  in  the  beginning  of  his  Preface,  That  he  had  been 
fifteu  foUicited  to  this  work  by  fever al  of  his  Brethren  ;  and  that  he  was  cok" 
vincedf  that  the  Revival  of  thefe  Errors  mu(l  make  their  Miniflery  ufelefs, 
and  Vn'tty  impoffible.     This  bears  date,  Miy  4.  1691. 

But  as  the  Author  of  the  Rebuke  exprefles  it,  p.  15-.  upon  the  coming 
forth  of  this  Book,  Such  a  florm  of  Paffion,  fuch  Indignation  againfl  the 
Author  and  his  Book  broke  out,  as  had dmojl  overfet  the  unied Brethren  with 
their  Vnion.   The  firfl:  publick  Ad,  whereby  any  difcovered  their  Refent- 
raents,  was  a  Paper  delivered  in  to  the  united  Brethren,  Odi.  ij.   1691. 
Importing  a  high  and  heavy  Charge  againfi  the  Author  and  his  Work,  and 
fuifcribed  by  fix,  three  whereof  never  entred  into  the  Vnion,  and  yet  now 
joined  in  accuftng  him  for  breaking  it,  p.  18.     But  it  feems  thefe  ««//?// 5rtf. 
thren  looked  upon  thefe  Accufations  either  as  frivolous,  or  ungrounded ; 
for  fay  they,  They  recited  as  Mr.  Williams'f  Words,  what  they  found  quite  ^"/^er  to 
contrary  to  the  Letter  of  his  Expreffions.     Upon  this  one  of  the  Subfcribers,  '*^  ^'  i 
awarna  Advocate  for  Dr.  Crifp^  (as  he  hath  fince  abundantly  difcovered '''°"'''"* 
himfdfj  declared  in  a  meeting  of  the  united  Brethren,  That  he  would  break 
off  from  their  Vnion,  becaufe  they  had  taken  no  notice  of  the  Paper  of  Ob- 
je&ions  againfi  iJ/r.Williams'j  Book. 
,  Which  Paper  is  fince  printed  by  the  fame  Perfon  ;   and  to  be  fure  to  NmomUn 
liave  it  feen,  both  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  one  of  his  learned  Treati-  *^"?  ^^• 
fcs  againfi  Mr.  W.  but  wiith  fome  variety.    But  the  only  thing  confide-^*  ^  * 
rable  in  it,  is,  that  among  all  the  Exceptions  then  given  in,  there  is  not  onS 
word  tending  to  the  Charge  of  Socinianifm  againlt  Mr.  W.    Can  we  ima- 
gine thefe  zealous  Brethren  fliould  omit  fo  material  a  Charge,    if  they 

had 


SI 6  Of  the  Sufferings  Part  II. 

■  '  -  '  —  • 

had  fufped:ed  it,  or  have  been  ignorant  of  it,  if  there  had  been  ground 
for  it  ?  So  that  if  it  be  a  juft  Charge,  it  is  a  great  Reproach  upon  thofe 
who  dehvered  in  their  Exceptions,  and  wholly  left  it  our.  It  is  true,  they 
very  prudently  referve  to  themfelves  a  liberty  of  bringing  in  farther  Ex- 
ceptions  afterwards ;  but  it  is  not  conceivable  that  they  would  have  omit- 
ted this,  if  they  had  feen  any  ground  for  it ;  becaufe  it  would  have  made 
much  more  noife,  as  it  hath  done  fince,  than  any  of  thofe  mfrounded 
Exceptions  (as  the  united  Brethren  called  them)  which  they  delivered 
in. 

But  it  is  farther  obfervable,  that  fome  confiderabie  time  after  this,  o- 
ther  ways  being  found  unfuccefsful,  a  Perfon  was  appointed  (whom  I 
need  not  name)  to  examine  Mr.  Williams^  Books,  and  to  colIc(9:  out 
of  them  what  Errors  he  could  difcover.  And  accordingly  a  Paper  was 
drawn  up  of  Olje^ions  againft  Mr.  W.  which  coming  to  Mr.  Hs  hand, 
he  printed  it,  which  occafioned  a  fliort  Reply  by  Mr.  TV.  And  here  the 
Charge  of  Socinianifm  began,  which  Mr.  W.  calls  Jlanderous  in  his  Aii- 
fwer  to  Mr.  Hs  Letter,  p.  7.  and  makes  this  folemn  Proteilation ;  That 
he  owned  Chrifi's  eternal  Generation  as  the  Son  oj  God,  of  one  EJfence  with 
the  Father ;  that  he  owned  the  Do^rine  of  Satjsfa^ion,  hy  the  Suffering's 
of  Chrifl  in  our  flead  ;  and  that  his  Sufferings  were  Puni(hments  fatisfa£io' 
ry  to  Divine  Jufiice  for  our  Sins ;  that  Chrili  was  a  proper  Sacrifice^  and 
himfelf  the  Priefi  that  offered  it  upon  Earth  ;  that  his  Obedience  is  properly 
meritorious  of  all  our  faving  Benefits  ;  and  himfelf  a  proper  *Avri^v~^^  in 
his  Death. 

Now  I  appeal  toyourfelf,  whether  any  Perfon  can  in  more  proper  and 
effectual  terms  clear  himfelf  from  the  charge  of  Socinianifm^  than  he 
hath  done  in  thcfe  Words.  I  believe  you  to  be  no  Antinomian,  becaufe 
you  have  fo  exprefly  declared  your  felf  to  be  none  •  but  not  in  Words 
which  can  fignify  it  more  than  thefe  are  againft  Socinianifm  :  And  why 
mufl  I  not  in  equal  Juftice  and  Charity  believe  him  to  be  no  Socinian  ? 
But  if  after  all  he  may  be  a  Socinian,  and  not  know  it ;  why  may  not 
others  as  well  fay,  you  may  be  an  Antinomian,  and  not  know  it  ?  You 
may  fay,  That  he  ufes  fome  Phrafes  and  Expreffions  as  they  do  ,•  but  doth 
he  ufe  them  in  their  Senfc  ?  It's  poffible  I  may  think  you  may  u(e  fome 
Expreffions,  as  the  Antinomians  do,  muft  I  therefore  think  you  an  Anti' 
nomian  againfl  your  exprefs  Declaration  to  the  contrary  .*  Why  fhould  not 
the  fame  meafure  of  Juftice  and  Charity  be  ufed  to  Mr.  W.  which  you 
would  think  reafonable  in  your  own  Cafe  ?  But  of  this  more  at  large 
hereafter.  That  which  I  now  obferve,  is,  that  this  charge  of  Socinianifni 
was  fo  lately  begun,  although  it  had  been  carried  on  with  fo  much  noife 
and  earneftnefs  fince.  For  in  your  Letter  to  Dr.  Bates,  in  Anfwer  to  Mr. 
Letter  to  Williams  his  fhort  Vindication,  you  have  thefe  words  :  Why  did  you  make 
^^^^xst^^he  Intimation  of  Socinianifm  thus  puhlick  }  Mr.  H.  carefully  concealed  that 
part  from  the  World  j  and  it  was  my  Refolution  to  have  confined  all  Debates 
of  it  among  our  felves-  As  to  your  Inflances,  they  mufl  be  confidered 
in  their  due  place  ;  but  you  take  no  notice  of  his  Proteflation  againft  So- 
cinianifm,  which  I  think  you  ought  to  have  done. 

The  next  thing  fit  to  be  obferved  as  to  this  matter,  is,  that  it  appears 
by  the  Anfwer  of  ihe  united  Brethren  to  your  Report,  p.  j.  that  a  num- 
ber of  the  Brethren  was  appointed  to  confider  the  Obje<aions  againft  Mr. 
Ws  Book,  who  with  the  Objedors  came  to  an  Accommodation  in  that 
affair,  by  a  Subfcription  to  certain  Dodrinal  Propofiticns,  wherein  no 
notice  is  at  all  taken  of  thefe  Phrafes,  which  fo  much  weight  is  now  laid 

upon ; 


377 


Partll.  of  CHRIST 

upon ;  and  therein  is  contained,  fay  they,  a  Promife  to  their  utmofl  to  a- 
vo'td  M  Appearance  of  oppofition  to  one  another  ;  and  among  thofe  Sub- 
faibers  your  Name  appears,  />.  5- 1  hope  I  may  upon  this  Appeal  ask  you, 
whether  at  that  time  you  knew  of  this  charge  of  Soc'miaHifm  to  lie  againft 
Mr.  W.  or  nbt  ?  If  you  did  not,  yet  you  promifed  no  oppofition  as  long 
as  perfons  kept  within  the  bounds  of  that  agreement  j  if  you  did  know 
it,  the  matter  lies  harder  upon  you.  For  you  to  promife  no  oppofition,  and 
yet  think  your  felf  at  that  time  bound  to  oppofe.  But  rather  than  charge 
you  with  this,  I  believe  this  about  Socinianifm  to  be  a  game  ftarted  after- 
wards, upon  a  frefh  Examination  of  his  Books, 

Biit  in  the  mean  time,  what  was  done  againft  the  Antinomian  Errors  ? 
For  we  are  to  confider,  that  notwithftandmg  the  expedient,  the  Union 
was  foon  broken,  as  the  united  Brethren  fay,  and  thofe  called  congregati- 
onal  Brethren  held  a  didin^  and  feparate  meeting,  the  very  day  and  hour  of 
the  Week  of  their  affemhliag  as  united  Brethren.     To  prevent  a  total  breach 
/»  the  latter  end  of  1694.  a  mmher  was  appointed  to  treat  with  the  dif.  M^er  to 
fenting  Brethren  in  order  to  a  Re-union  ;  and  they  pretended  nothing  for '*^  ^^'^ 
their  Separatiort,  lut  that  there  were  erroneous  Perfons  in  the  Vnion.    But      '      ' 
to  give  Satisfadlion,  a  new  Paper  of  Propofitions  was  drawn  up,  on  the 
one  fide,  againft  fuch  Errors  as  they  fufpet^ed,  and  on  the  other  againji 
Crifpian  and  Antinomian  Errors  ;    and  they  tell  us,    That  your  felf,  with 
three  more^  were  employed  in  it ;  and  that  you  were  the  P  erf  on  pitched  up- 
on to  carry  it  to  the  diffenting  Brethren,  Jan,  7.  1694-     But  they  tell  us 
withal.  That  this  Paper  was  reje^ed  hy  them,  and  no  Anfwer  fent  them  con-  P.  7: 
cerning  it  to  that  Day.     And  the  Author  of  the  Rebuke  faith,  p.  %y.  That 
no  Satisfa^ion  could  he  obtained,  they  were  inflexible  ;    and  would  not  com- 
ply in  any  one  of  the  feven  Articles  propofed  to  them ;    and  thus  the  breach 
became  beyond  the  united Breihrens  making  up.     And  he  adds,  That  fomep,2t^ 
tf  the  chief  of  the  dijfenting  Brethren  did,    both  from  Prefs  and  Pulpit^ 
diffeminate  fuch  horrid  Opinions,  as  filled  all  intelligent  Perfons  with  equal 
Ajionijhment  and  Indignation  ;   a  number  of  which  he  there  fets  down, 
which  arc  all  Antinomian  Doj^rines.     And  the  united  Brethren  in  their 
Anfwer  repeat  the  fame,  p.  zi.  and  offer  to  prove  them  from  the  Books  of 
the  aforef aid  Authors,  and  a  great  deal  more,  if  not  worfe  of  the  fame  fort : 
By  thefe  things,  fay  the  united  Brethren,  it's  manif eft  what  the  difference  is  V.  25; 
about,  though  a  noife  hath  been  raifed  about  things  remote  from  the  true  ec- 
cafion,  that  while  we  feemed  to  be  only  on  the  defenfive  part,  their  Errors 
might  receive  Countenance,  as  if  unoppofed,  and  the  Abettors  thereof  migfjt 
lefs  appear  the  caufe  of  o«r  Divifions. 

Notwithftanding  all  thefe  Difcouragements,  they  tell  us.  That  three 
Taper s  were  drawn  up  in  order  to  an  Accommodation      Thefirfi  Paper,  they 
hy,was  concerted  by  one  of  their  Brethren,  with  fome  of  the  Dijfenters ;  P.  13^ 
but  it  WM  unanimoufly  agreed  to  be  laidafide,  with  a  fecond  Paper,  that  had 
been  brought  to  them  by  another  Brother  ;    but  they  appointed  fix  of  their 
Brethren' to  draw  up  a  Third  Paper,  which  they,  after  fever al  days  confide- 
ration,  unanimoufly  agreed  to  fend  in  a  Letter  to  the  diffenting  Brethren  ; 
which  is  extant  in  their  Anfwer  to  the  Report,  p.  10,  wherein  they  de- 
clare. That  they  come  as  near  to  them  as  they  could  with  Truth  and  Freedom 
from  ambiguity  in  points  of  fo  great  concernment,  and  in  a  time,  whenfo  ma- 
ny are  at  work  to  propagate  Grifpianifm  <i»^  Antinomianifm,  p.  14.     The 
event  of  thefe  Papers,  as  they  inform  us,  was,  That  the  diffenting  Bre- 
thren adhered  to  their  own  Paper,  called  the  Firfl,  and  refufed  theirs,  be- 
caufe  (fay  they,  />.  ijO  ^^*'  ^"f^  provide  fome  defence  againft  fome  of  the 

B  b  b  Errors 


378  Of  the  Suprings  Part  II. 

Errors  which  our  Jifference  is  about.  And  after  all,  p.  17.  they  make  this 
offer,  That  if  the  Jiffenting  Brethren  will  declare  with  them  in  renouncing 
tbofe  Antinomian  Errors  there  fet  down,  they  would  Juhfcrihe  with  them  to 
P.  29.  ffff^h  a  fenfe  of  the  deuhted  Exprefjions,  as  might  give  them  Satisfa^ion  ; 
and  to  ufe  their  very  Words  and  Phrafes  explained  in  the  Orthodox  fenfe. 
Which  if  they  refufe,  it  w'rll  then  appear,  that  it  was  not  any  difference  in  the 
Doctrines  pretended  hy  the  Report,  which  was  the  reafon  why  thej  did  net  «- 
nite  ;  hut  that  the  differences  are  kept  up  from  their  Zeal  for  the  forenamed 
Opinions  of  Dr.  Crifp,  and  the  Antinomians,  which  they  think  to  he  very 
erroneous. 

Thus  I  have  {hewed  with  as  clear  and  convincing  Evidence  as  thefe  Pa- 
pers would  afford,  what  was  the  true  occafion  of  the  difference,  and  what 
it  is  which  keeps  it  up. 

I  muft  not  now  pafs  over  what  you  have  faid  for  the  clearing  the  dif. 
fenting  Brethren  from  countenancing  Antinomianifm.  And  it  is  in  your 
Obfervations  on  the  firfl:  Paper,  called  Remarks,  p.  9.  where  you  fay, 
that  the  publilhing  this  Paper  clears  the  Congregational  Brethren  from  Jnti*^ 
mmianifm.  It  was  very  good  fervice  to  them,  if  it  be  found  fo  to  do. 
But  I  think  I  have  fome  reafons  to  doubt  it. 

For,  (i.)  Why  are  not  the  Antinomian  Errors,  which  you  look  on  as 
dangerous,  plainly  and  exprefly  condemned  in  it  >  You  knew  very  well, 
that  they  infifted  upon  this  before,  and  your  felf  carried  a  Paper  to  that 
purpofe,  to  which  no  manner  of  fatisfac^ion  was  given  ;  but  inftead  of 
it,  they  went  on  preaching  fuch  Opinions  which  they  accounted  horrid, 
fcandalous,  and  deftrudive  to  their  Miniftery.  Either  this  Accufation 
was  true  or  nor.  If  not,  thofe  Brethren  ought  to  have  been  required  in 
common  juftice  to  make  good  their  Charge,  by  a  folemn  Meeting  on 
both  fides.  But  this  was  never  called  for  ;  and  therefore  a  fufpioion  of 
guilt  muft  remain  on  the  Party  accufed,  when  they  refufe  to  make  their 
defence  before  competent  Judges,  and  upon  fair  notice  of  the  matters 
they  intended  to  proceed  upon.  This  was  fufficiently  intimated  in  the 
feven  Propofitions,  Jan.  7. 1694.  and  more  fully  exprefled  in  the  Vote  of 
the  united  Bretiiren,  Sep.  ij.  16^  s-  Where  they  fet  down  diftint^ly 
the  Errors  they  had  colled;ed  out  of  their  Books,  and  offered  to  prove 
them  by  Book  and  Page,  when  it  fhould  be  called  for.  The  Author  of 
the  Rehuke  call«  them  abominable  Do^rines,  p.  x^,  and  faith  he  will  give 
a  little  tafi  of  fome  few  of  them ;  and  cautions  the  Readers  to  implore  the 
fpeciai  Grace  of  God  to  fortify  themfelves  with  that  Antidote,  leafi  this  lit- 
tie  tafl  fhould  prove  their  Bane  and  Poifon.  And  this  little  tafi  amounts 
to  a  I.  Not  one  of  which  is  renounced  in  this/r/?  Paper,  which  you 
fey,  dothclear  the  Congregational  Brethren  from  Antinomianifm.  I  do  think 
they  had  great  reafon  to  infift  upon  a  plain  and  diredt  renouncing  thofe 
Errors,  if  they  believed  thofe  Accufations  true ;  and  if  they  did  not,  they 
did  very  ill  to  publilh  them.  For  this  muft  fill  the  World  with  fuch 
Jealoufies  of  them,  as  they  can  never  be  cleared  from,  but  either  by 
their  renouncing  the  Errors,  or  the  others  renouncing  the  Accufation.- 
And  I  am  of  opinion,  that  neither  the  firfl  nor  the  third  Paper  can  give 
any  reafonabie  Satisfadion  as  to  this  matter,  without  a  renouncing  the 
Afttinomian  Dodtrines.  For  the  Accufation  is  now  made  publick,  and  the 
Nation  is  concerned  as  to  the  diihonour  done  to  Religion  by  them.  But 
the  united  Brethren  have  fo  much  more  reafon  to  infift  ftill  upon  it,  be- 
caufe  in  that  which  you  call  the  healing  Paper,  (^Rep.  p,  14.  Remark,  p.  6.) 
Mr.  W.  is  required  to  give  Safisfa^ion,  not  only  at.  to  the  Doctrine  of  Jufli- 

pcatiottf 


Part  11.  of  CHRIST,  375> 

fication,  and  Change  of  Per fcm,  &cc.  hut  about  any  thing  elfe^  that  any  Bro- 
ther excepts  againjl  in  the  refl  of  his  Writjngs.  Now  this  feems  to  me 
very  hard  and  unequal  meafure,  that  the  one  mufl:  be  required  to  give 
fuch  a  fatisfadion  as  is  hardly  poflible  to  be  given,  to  he  knows  not  whom 
nor  in  what  manner  •  and  on  the  other  fide,  when  the  whole  Body  of  the 
united  Brethren  defire  fatisfadtion  in  Do(5lrines  of  fuch  Importance,  none 
in  effedl  is  thought  fit  to  be  given  them.  This  to  me  looks  like  a  kind 
of  Inequality  and  Superiority,  which  the  dijfenting  Brethren  challenge  o- 
ver  the  united:  I  do  not  mean  in  a  legal  Jurifdidlion,  but  in  that  which 
is  worfe,  which  is  Will  and  Pleafure.  And  I  think  thofe  very  eajy  Brc' 
thren,  who  fubmitted  to  the  firfl  Paper,  which  was  after  rejedied  at  the 
Meeting  of  their  Body  :  But  it  feems  although  nine  of  them  did  it  in  fe- 
veral  manners,  yet  the  dijfenting  Brethren  gave  a  very  cold  and  indif- 
ferent Approbation  of  it,  not  as  a  foundation  of  Re- union,  but  only, /)&<if 
they  are  glad  to  find  fo  good  an  agreement^  as  that  Paper  doth  exprefs. 
Which  being  penned  in  luch  general  terms,  was  juft  none  at  all;  as  will 
appear  by  the  next  Reafon.     Which  is, 

1.  That  there  is  no  fuch  renouncing  the  Jntinoman  Errors  in  it,  but 
thofe  who  hold  fome  of  the  grofleft  of  them  may  comply  with  them 
in  it. 

To  make  out  this,  I  fliall  infiance  in  fome  of  thofe  which  the  united 
Brethren  charge  the  others  with  preaching  and  publilhing.     As, 

r.  That  Pardon  is  rather  the  condition  of  Faith,  and  much  more  ha- 
ving a  caufal  influence  thereunto,  than  Faith  and  Repentance  are  of  Par- 
don. 

z.  That  fin  it  felf,  as  oppofed  to  guilt,  is  laid  upon  Chrift ;  andChrift 
was  reputed  a  Criminal,  not  only  by  Man  but  by  God. 

3.  That  the  Doftrine  of  Juftification  before  Faith  is  not  an  Error,  but 
a  great  and  glorious  Truth  ;  and  therefore  we  believe,  that  we  may  be 
jullified  declaratively. 

4.  Union  with  Chrift  is  before  Faith,  at  leaft  Nature,  and  we  partake 
of  the  Spirit  by  vertue  of  that  Union  ,•  there  is  a  compleat  Union  with 
Chrift  before  the  AO:  of  Faith. 

5".  It's  a  great  Truth,  that  God  fees  no  Sin  in  a  Believer ;  and,  Sin 
can  do  no  real  hurt  to  a  Believer  ;  God  is  not  difpleafed  with  his  Peo- 
ple, and  is  not  angry  with  the  Perfbns  of  Believers  for  their  Sins. 

6.  Believers  are  as  righteous  as  Chrift,  not  in  a  way  of  Similitude  but 
Equality. 

Thefe  are  the  exprefs  Words  which  are  charged  by  the  united  Brethren, 
Anfw.  to  the  Reply,  p.  ix,  13,  14.  And  I  think  the  Fundamentals  of  Att- 
tinomianijm  are  contained  in  them  ;  let  us  now  fee  how  far  thefe  are 
cleared  by  the  firft  Paper, 

I.  It  is  faid.  That  Regeneration,  Repentance  towards  God,  Faith  in  our 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  and  holy  Converfation,  are  hy  God's  exprefs  Word  ma- 
nifefily  neceffary  to  the  Salvation  of  a  Sinner,  &c.  But  this  doth  by  no 
means  reach  to  the  Antinomian  Do^rine,  which  is  not  that  thefe  are  not 
necefTary  to  Salvation,  as  the  Scripture  hath  declared  God's  purpole  to 
work  thefe  things  in  thofe  he  defigns  for  Salvation ;  but  that  thefe  are 
not  made  any  Conditions  of  the  new  Covenant  on  our  part,  in  order  to 
our  obtaining  Juftification  and  Salvation. 

Dr.  Cr///)  doth  feem  to  exclude  the  ncceflTity  of  our  Obedience  in  or- 
der to  Salvation,  when  he  faith,  It  is  a  received  Conceit  among  many  Per-  criffi 

fans,  that  our  Obedience  is  the  way  to  Heaven ; •  but  I  mufl  tell  you,  that  ^^'■"J°'l^'„ 

Bbbx  ^//fidlf. 


Of  the  Sufferings  Part  11. 

all  this  &an£lification  of  Life  is  mt  a  jot  the  way  of  that  juftified  Perfon  to 
Heaven.  But  we  muft  take  his  w  hole  Senfe  together  ;  for  he  faith  how- 
ever, that  San£iification  of  Life  is  an  infeparahle  Companion  with  the  Ju- 
ftification  of  a  Perfon  hy  the  free  Grace  of  Chrift.  And  what  is  an  infepa- 
rahle Concomitant  in  a  Perfon  to  be  faved,  is  neceflary  by  way  of  Con- 
nexion to  Salvation.  He  faith  indeed,  that  Salvation  is  not  the  end  of 
any  good  Work ;  but  he  adds,  that  there  are  other  ends  of  good  works  :  as 
the  manifeftation  of  9ur  Ohedience  and  Suhjeilion,  the  fetting  forth  of  the 
praife  of  the  glory  of  God  s  Grace  ;  the  doing  good  to  others^  to  le  profit ahle 
to  men  •  which,  he  faith,  are  the  fpecial  ends  that  Ohedience  is  ordained for^ 
Salvation  heingfetled firm  before.  Htie  we  fee,  -that  Obedience  and  good 
Works  are  made  necetTary  as  Concomitants  to  Salvation,  but  not  as  necef- 
fary  Conditions  in  order  to  it,  but  for  other  ends,  as  Gratitude  and  Ufe- 

P-M2.  fulnefs  to  the  World.  In  another  place,  he  faith,  That  without  rejpe^  to 
good  or  evily  the  Lord  hath  everlaflingly  eflahlifhed  aU  that  ever  he  meuMtto 
do.  And  there  arena  intervening  ACls  or  Carriages  of  yours  that  make  any 
alteration  at  all  in  the  L''rd,  at  all  to  crofs  what  he  ha'h  written,  to  put  in 
what  he  hath  left  out :  The  Lord  doth  nothing  to  his  People,  upon  Conditi- 
ons in  his  People,  as  ij  he  did  refer  himfelf  ftiU  lo  thofe  Conditions,  and  did 
fufpend  what  he  meant  to  do  to  his  People,  till  he  did  perceive  how  they 
would  carry  them/elves  to  him.  But  what  then,  are  they  to  do  nothing  ? 
iJothingthat  concerns  the  Peace,  Comfort  and  Good  of  his  People,  that  is  al' 
ready  firmly  ejlahlifbed  ;  nothing  with  an  eye  to  their  own  advantage,  that 
heing  already  perfeilly  compleated  to  their  hands  before  they  do  any  thing  • 
hut  fimply  with  an  eye  to  glorify  God,  and  to  Jerve  their  Generation.  A  nd 
to  the  lame  purpofe  he  Ipeaks  in  other  places.     In  one  of  the  additional 

P-'4S     Sermons,  he  faith,  That  God  himfelf  hath  injeparably  joined  Salvation  and 

l^j'^^^^'  a  holy  Life,  and  hath  promt  fed  the  one  as  well  as  the  other.  So  that  Dr. 
Crifp  himfelf  could  have  fubfcribed  your  third  Pa[:^'er  m  the  Words  you 
have  drawn  up ;  and  have  been  gladj  as  ochers  were,  that  you  were  fo  far 
agreed. 

But  wherein  then  lies  the  difference  ?  Dr.  Crifp  utterly  denies,  that  in 
the  new  Covenant  there  are  any  Conditions  on  our  parr.  Mark  what  Ifay^ 

P.8i,i 8(5.  faith  he,  /  fay  the  new  Covenant  is  without  any  Condition  whatfoever  oh 

^^^> '^^^- Min s  part.     And  this  he  goes  about  to  prove,  and  after  fan h,  that  in 
^'      way  of  Condition  of  the  Covenant  ye  mufl  do  nothing.     But  he  objects,  Con- 

P-  8f  ditions  or  no  Conditions,  fomething  muA  be  done  :  //  is  true,  faith  he, 
hy  way  of  confequence,  that  after  we  are  in  Covenant  with  God,  he  will  he- 
flow  thefe  things  upon  us,  as  Fruits  and  Effetls  of  that  Covenant ;  hut  it  is 
mt  true,  by  way  of  Antecedence,  that  God  doth  require  thefe  things  at  our 
hands  before  we  fhall  be  Partakers  of  the  Covenant.  Again  he  objedis,  If 
all  lies  on  God's  part,  and  Man  mull  do  nothing,  then  all  his  Life-time 
he  may  do  what  he  lil.  He  anfwers,  Tou  mufl  make  a  difference  between 
doing  any  thing  in  reference  to  the  Covenant,  as  the  Condition  thereof ',  and 
in  doing  fomething  in  reference  to  Service  and  Duty  to  that  God,  who  freely 
enters  into  Covenant  with  you.  I  fay  only  that  in  way  of  Condition  of  the 
Covenant  you  mufl  do  nothing.  But  is  there  no  obligation  on  Man's  part 
to  perform  fome  Conditions  as  to  the  benefits  of  the  Covenant  ?    No ; 

P.  82.  he  faith  exprefly,  That  the  whole  performance  of  the  Covenant  lies  only  up- 
on God  birrifelf,  and  that  there  is  not  one  Bond  or  Obligation  on  Man  to  the 
fulfilling  of  the  Covenant,  or  partaking  iu  the  benefits  of  the  Covenant.  This 
feems  to  be  ftrange  Dodtrine  ;  but  he  goes  fanher,  and  denies  even  Faith 
it  Jelf  to  be   the  Condition  of  the  Covenant.     He  objects  that  it  is  faid, 

that 


h 


Part  II.  of  CHRIST.  381 

That  he  that  believes  fhall  he  faved,  and  he  that  helieves  not  (hall  he  damn-  P*  84. 
ed.  But  be  anfwers,  that  there  is  no  Perfon  [hall  he  faved,  till  he  have 
lelieved.  This  I  grant  ;  yet  this  will  not  make  Faith  the  Condition  of  the 
Covenant ;  for  then  the  Covenant  would  depend  upon  a  Work  ;  for  our  aU  of 
believing  is  a  Work.  And  in  another  place  he  faith,  That  it  is  a  bring- t^.  u?. 
ing  back  a  Covenant  of  Works  to  Believers,  to  fay,  that  it  (haS  fare  well  or 
ill  with  them,  as  they  can  obey,  or  as  they  do  difohey  the  Lord  God 
Here  W(?  fee  that  he  makes  Conditions  on  our  part  to  be  no  Icfs  than 
making  void  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  fetting  up  the  Covenant  of 
Works. 

And  is  this  part  of  Dr.Cri//>'s  Dafknm  difowned  or  renounc'd  by  thofe  ^ 

who  are  called  dijfenting  Brethren?  So  far  from  it,  that  one  of  them  hath 
fet  himfelf  to  defend  it :  and  he  lays  down  this  Aflertion,  That  neither  Neomm. 
Faith,  nor  any  other  gracioiu  Qudifications  are  federal  Conditions,  or  Con-  ^'"'* 
ditions  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace.     And  t  his  Man's  name  is  among  the  Sub-  ^" '  ^^' 
fcribers  of  the  firfi  Paper,   by  which  we  may  judge  how  it  was  under- 
ftood  by  them.    The  force  of  all  his  Reafons,  fuch  as  they  are,  is  built 
on  this  Suppofition,  That  all  federal  Conditions  are  meritorious,  and  make 
the  reward  of  Debt,  and  not  of  Grace  ;    and  then  there  is  no  difference  be- 
tween a  Covenant  of  Works  and  of  Grace.     From  hence  he  faith,  That  Chrifi  ?•  »3^» 
is  the  fole  Condition  of  the  Covenant  of  Gra.e ;    and  that  it's  impoffthle  any 
thing  elfe  fhould  be  the  Condition  of  it. 

But  by  Condition  he  means  the  Foundation  ;    for,  faith  he,  nothing  elfe 
can  reconcile  us  to  God  in  bearing  the  Sin  andCurfe.     But  this  is  far  enough 
from  being  the  true  (late  of  the  queftion  ;  which  doth  not  relate  to  the 
fundamental  condition  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  it  felf;  but  to  the  man- 
ner of  the  Communication  of  the  benefits  of  it  to  us.     And  one  would 
think  it  were  eafy  for  Men  to  confider  the  difference  between  a  condition 
of  Purchafe,  and  a  condition  of  Pofleflion,  the  Purchafe  being  paid. 
Will  any  Man  fay,  that  there  can  be  no  condition  of  Pofleflion,  but  it 
muft  have  the  price  of  the  Purchafe  in  it  ?  The  fole  queftion  in  this  cafe, 
is  not,  whether  by  any  conditions  on  our  part,  we  can  merit  pardon  of 
Sin,  or  eternal  Life,  or  increafe  of  Grace  ;  for  we  utterly  renounce  all 
fuch  Dodlrines  as  are  repugnant  to  the  defign  and  grace  of  the  Gofpel ; 
but  whether  Chrift,  who  alone  hath  purchafed  Redemption  for  us,  hath 
not  required  fome  conditions  on  our  parts  to  fit  us  for  the  Participation 
of  the  benefits  of  this  Redemption  ?  And  the  Covenant  of  Grace  being     ' 
founded  in  the  Satisfaction  of  Chrift,  the  conditions  on  our  part  can  be 
no  other  than  conditions  of  Intereji,  Reception,  or  "Participation  of  the  faid 
Covenant.     But  even  thefe  are  denied  by  Dr.  Crifp ;  for  he  will  not  allow 
fo  much  as  fitnefs  on  our  fide  ;  as  appears  by  thefe  remarkable  Words  of 
his  ;    Chrift  looks  not  for  fitnefs,  hut  People  may  he  capable  of  Communion  sem,  p> 
with  him  without  fitnefs  ;   'he  takes  them  into  Communion  with  himfelf  and^^i" 
afterwards  fits  them  for  fuch  Communion  as  he  would  have  them,  but  be- 
fore-hand there  is  ho  fitnefs  ;  fuppofe  what  fitnefs  you  will  in  expelling  of 
the  Grant,  I  fay,  in  expeUing  the  Grant  of  Chrifi,  fitnefs  or  not  fitnefs  u 
all  one. 

But  do  not  all  Conditions  fuppofe  the  reward  to  be  of  Debt  upon  the 
performance  of  them,  and  consequently  imply  fomething  of  merit  ofCon- 
gruity,  althoue;h  there  be  no  Condignity  in  them  ? 

I  anfwer,  that  where  there  is  any  true  Merit,  which  makes  the  Reward 
of  Debt,  there  is,  as  St.  Paul  faith,  a  foundation  of  Boafting  ;  i.  e.  a  right 
to  challenge  the  reward  as  due  on  the  account  of  the  performance.    But 

where 


382         /  Of  the  Stirrings  Part  II. 

where  only  a  Fitnefs  is  required  ;  and  that  Fitnefi  depending  upon 
divine  Afliftance,  and  the  Reward  infinitely  beyond  the  Performance, 
there  is  not  the  leafl:  colour  for  Merit,  or  for  any  ground  of  Boafting. 


B 


C  H  A  p.    II.  • 

The  Myjiery  of  Antinomianifm  laid  open, 

I U  T  concerning  this  whole  matter,  it  may  be  faid.  That  as  long  as 

I  both  Parties  are  agreed^  that  there  is  a  necejfary  Connexiort  between 

Holme fs  and  Happiness  ;  and  that  there  are  relative  Conditions  on  our  parts 
required^  although  not  federal ;  all  the  refi  feems  to  he  a  dijpute  about 
Words,  andfo  any  reafonahle  terms  of  Accommodation  ought  to  be  accepted. 

To  which  I  anfwer,  That  if  there  had  been  no  more  in  the  Contro- 
verfy  than  what  is  contained  in  thofe  Terms,  it  might  have  been  fairly 
and  eafily  accommodated  ;  but  I  am  of  Opinion,  that  there  is  a  greater 
Myftery  in  Antinomianifm  than  this,  which  ought  to  be  laid  open  to  pre- 
vent the  Mifchief  of  it.  For  all  this  Difpute  about  Conditions  on  our 
part  depends  upon  another,  and  if  that  hold,  this  muft  follow  as  the 
confequence  of  it,  and  feveral  other  things  which  Dr.  Crifp  faw  very  well 
had  a  neceflary  Connexion  with  each  other ;  and  like  a  fair  dealer  in  Con- 
troverfy,  owned  them  all. 

I  come  therefore  to  the  next  thing  in  the  jfrfi  Paper,  which  you  fay, 
dears  the  diffenting  Brethren  from  the  charge  of  Antinomianifm.     Your 
Re  0  1 1  Words  are,  That  touching  a  Change  of  Perfons  between  Chrifi  and  Believer s^ 
13.  Rem.'  there  is  no  phyfical  Change,  whereby  Chrifi  and  Believers  do  in  fubftance  be- 
f-  "•       come  one  another  ;  nor  a  moral  Change,  whereby  Chrifi  fhould  become  inherent- 
ly finful,  and  Believers  thereby  become  immediately  innocent  and  finlejs;  but 
the  Change  is  only  in  a  legal  fen  fe  :   Chrifi,  by  confent  between  the  Father 
and  him,  putting  on  the  Per/on,  and  coming  into  the  room  and  flead  of  Sin- 
ners.    Now  I  /hall  make  it  appear,  that  you  have  not  herein  difowned 
Dr.  Crifp's  Senfe  of  the  Change  of  Perfons,  from  whence  his  other  Do- 
<!lrines  follow. 

To  make  this  out,  I  Ihall  prove,  that  Dr.  Crifp  did  not  aflfert  fuch  a 
Change,  from  whence *it  followed  that  Chrifi  was  inherently  finful. 

In  his  firft  i'frwow,  p.  10.  he  hath  thefe  Words,  In  one  word,  Beloved, 

mijtake  me  not ;  /  am  far  from  thinking  any  Believer  is  freed  from  Acts  of 

Sin,  (i.  e.   from  having  been  an  a^ual  Tranfgreffor)  hut  he  is  freed  only 

from  the  charge  of  Sin.     All  his  Sins  are  charged  upon  Chrift,  he  being  Sift 

for  him  -,  yet  Chrifi  is  not  an  aHual  Sinner,  hut  Chrifi  is  all  the  Sinners  ia 

the  World  hy  Imputation.     By  Imputation  he  means  a  real  TranJa£lion,   as 

will  appear  afterwards.     Again,  p.  xdj.  Beloved,    miflake  me  not,  I  fay 

not  that  ever  Chrifi  was  or  could  he  theAUor  or  Committer  of  any  Tranfgreffion^ 

P.  263.     for  he  never  committed  any  Sin  himfelf.     Not  that  he  was  the  ABor  of  any 

Tranfgrefiion.     And  more  fully,  />.  183,  I  fay  here  is  a  real  AB,  God  doth 

really  pafs  over  Sin  upon  him,   fiill  keeping  this  fafi,  that  Chrifi  a^ed  no 

Sin  ;  fo  that  in  refpeH  of  the  ACf,  not  one  Sin  of    the  Believer  is  Chrifi'st 

hut  in  refpeSr  of  Tranfgreffion.     In  refpeU  of  Conveyance,  in  refpeB  °f  P^f- 

fwg  Accounts   from  one  Head  to    another,    in  ref'peU  of  that,  there  is  a 

re- 


Part  11.  of  CHRIST. 383 

reality  of  making  of  Chrijl  to  he  Sin.  So  that  when  you  deny  Chrifl  to 
have  been  inherently  finful^  you  Tay  no  more  than  Dr.  Crifp  himfelf  hath 
done  J  for  lie  could  not  be  iitherently  finful,  unlefs  he  were  an  a^ual  Sin- 
ner. But  we  muft  obferve,  that  although  he  denies  this,  yet  he  affirms 
That  Chrifl  was  as  really  the  Tranfgreffor,  as  the  Perfon  that  did  commit  the 
Sin  ,•  or  as  if  himfelf  had  a^ually  committed  Tranfgreffiort.  Now  I  would 
fain  know,  why  thofe  Words,  inherently  finful  were  put  in,  inflead  of  be- 
ing as  really  a  Tranjgrejfor  j  unlefs  it  were  to  do  Dr.  C.  and  his  Friefids  a 
kindnefs.  For  when  in  your  Appeal  you  difown  the  Principles  of  Anti- 
nomianifm,  p.  8.  you  fay,  That  you  rejetl  the  Opinion  df  thofe  who  hold 
That  upon  transferring  the  Guilt  of  our  Sinf  upon  Chrifl,  he  is  to  he  efleem- 
edthe  Perfon  that  committed  all  the  Sins  of  thofe  for  whom  he  died ;  or  that 
the  turpitude  and  filth  of  our  Sins  wjs  transferred  upon  him,  which  is  a  Noti- 
on equaSy  falfe,  hlafphemoiu  and  impoffihle.  This  is  as  much  as  can  be  ex- 
pected, fuppofing  that  you  mean,  that  he  was  neither  the  a^ual  Tranf- 
greffor,  which  Dr.C.  denies  ;  nor  that  he  had  the  perfonai  Guilt  of  our 
fins  upon  him,  which  Dr.  C.  did  aflert^  and  built  his  whole  Hypothe/js 
upon  it,  as  I  fhall  now  make  it  plain. 

This  feems  to  be  a  great  Myflerj,  but  it  is  really  the  foundation  of  An- 
tinemianifm,  viz.  That  Chrifl  had  the  perfonai  guilt  of  our  Tranfgreffions 
charged  upon  him,  and  fo  he  was  as  finful  as  we  ;  and  that  by  his  difcharge 
cf  it,  the  guilt  of  their  fins  is  removed  from  them,  and  fo  no  longer  charge- 
able upon  them  ,•  and  by  their  Change  of  Perfon  with  Chrifl,  they  become  as 
compleatly  righteota  as  he.  Dr.  Crifp  himfelf  calls  it  a  Myflery,  and  well 
he  might.  Beloved,  faith  he,  here  is  a  flrange  Myflery;  the  World  will  not 
receive  it,  unlefs  they  receive  this  Principle  we  are  now  upon,  namely.  That 
the  Iniquity  it  felf  of  his  People  is  laid  upon  the  Back  of  Chrift.  P.  169. 
By  Iniquity  it  felf,  he  faith,  he  means  the  fault  of  the  Tranfgreffion  it  felf. 
P.  xjo.  If  thou  hafl  part  in  the  Lord  Chrifl,  all  thefe  Tranfgreftetis  of  thine 
become  atluaUy  the  Tranfgreffions  of  Chrifl,  and  foceafe  to  be  thine,  and  thou 
ceafefl  to  be  a  Tranfgreffor  from  that  time  they  were  laid  upon  Chrifl,  to  the 
lafl  hour  of  thy  Life.  lb.  So  that  now  thoa  art  not  an  Idolater,  &c.  Reckon 
what  fin  foever  you  commit,  when  as  you  have  part  in  Chrifl,  you  are  all 
that  Chrifl  was,  Chrifl  is  all  that  you  were.  -  ■  Mark  it  well ;  Chrifl  him- 
felf is  not  fo  compleatly  righteous,  but  we  are  as  righteous  as  he  was;  nor  we 
fo  compleatly  finful,  but  Chrifl  became,  being  made  fin,  as  compleatly  finful 
as  we :  nay  more,  the  righteoufttefs  that  Chrifl  hath  with  the  Father,  we  are 
the  fame  right eoufnefs,  for  we  are  made  the  righteoufnefs  of  God ;  that  ve* 
ry  finfulnefs  that  we  were,  Chrill  is  made  that  very  finfulnefs  before  God.  So 
that  here  is  a  dire^  change  ;  Chrifl  takes  our  perfon  and  condition,  andflands 
in  our  flead;  we  take  Chrifl' s  perfon  and  condition,  and  fland  in  his  flead. 
Thefe  are  his  own  Words,  and  contain  in  them  the  very  foundation  of 
Antinomianifm. 

But  my  bufinefs  at  preftnt  is  about  the  transferring  our  very  faults  upon 
Chrift,  which  he  calls  the  guilt  of  the  fa£l,  and  not  the  mere  guilt  ofPu- 
nifhment.  Many  Men,  faith  he,  p.  z66.  are  ready  to  think,  that  the  guilt 
Cfuch  as  they  call  guilt^  and  the  punifihment  of  fin  lay  upon  Chrifl  indeed^ 
but  fimply  the  very  faults  that  Men  commit,  that  is,  that  the  Tranfgrefiion 
it  felf  IS  become  the  Tranfgreffion  of  Chrifl  is  fomewhat  harfh.  Yes  indeed 
it  is,  and  more  than  fomewhat.  But  let  us  fee  how  he  proves  it  ;  and  he 
undertakes  to  do  it  by  Scripture  and  Reafon.  But  the  mifchief  of  it  is, 
that  in  the  one  he  argues  like  a  Papifl,  and  in  the  other  like  a  Socinian. 

Brfl, 


384  Of  the  Safer ings  Part  11. 

Firfi,  he  faith,  he  will  endeavour  to  clear  it  hy  mamfeft  Scripture,  that 
fimply,  without  any  Equivocation^  Jimply,  I  fay^  Iniquity  it  felf  not  in  any 
figure^  hut  plainly  ftn  it  felf  was  laid  uponChrifl. 

Some  have  been  ready  to  conceive,  that  Iniquity  in  the  Text  is  f pok en  fi- 
guratively ;  Iniquity y  that  is,  the  punijhment  of  Iniquity  was  laid  upon  him, 
Juft  as  the  Proteftants,  when  they  are  toldj  This  is  my  Body  is  in  the  Text, 
fey,  it  is  to  be  figuratively  underftood.  But  Jee,  faith  he,  how  careful 
the  Spirit  of  God  is,  to  take  away  all  fufpicion  of  figure  in  the  Text ;  there 
is  Iniquity^  Tranfgrefion,  and  Sin.  And  it  is  fl range,  that  all  thofe  three 
Expreffims  fhould  fiill  he  underjloodof  punifhment^  and  not  fimply  of  fin  it 
felf  without  an)  figure.  Not  one  jot  ftranger,  than  that  This  is  my  Body 
fhould  be  figuratively  underftood,  when  the  literal  fenfe  is  neither  agree* 
able  to  Scripture  nor  Reafon. 

For  the  Ohje^ion  ahout  guilt,  that  the  Lord  lays  the  guilt  and  punifh- 
ment,  and  not  fimply  the  fin  it  felf  for  ought  that  I  can  fee,  faith  he,  it  is 
a  fimple  Ohjeilion.  So  do  the  Papills  fay,  as  to  our  Objedlions  againft 
Tranfubftantiation,  that  they  are  fimple  Ohje^ions  taken  from  carnal  rea- 
fon ;  but  we  ought  to  fubmit  to  the  plain  Letter  of  Scripture. 

But  how  is  this  fimple  Objeliion  anfwer'd  > 

(i,}  That  the  Scripture  doth  not  mention  the  guilt  of  fin  as  diftin5l  from 
Jin  it  felf,  andCbrift  is  never  jaid  to  hear  the  guilt  of  fin,  hut  to  hear  fin. 

And  is  this  a  wife  Anfwer  to  the  fimple  Ohje£lion  ?  When  every  one 
that  is  converfant  in  the  Idiom  of  Scripture,  knows  that  the  fame  word 
is  often  ufed  for  the  fin  and  the  punilhment  of  it  ;  and  the  beft  Interpre- 
ters cannot  tell  fometimes  which  to  render  the  original  Word  by.  Why- 
then  may  not  Chrift  be  faid  to  bear  our  Sins,  when  he  bears  the  ?uni^~ 
ment  of  them  ?  But  Punifhment  is  not  Guilt.  But  it  is  (uch  a  Confequence 
of  Guilt,  that  therefore  one  is  often  taken  for  the  other.  But  to  fay,  that 
he  had  the  Guilt  laid  upon  him,  and  not  the  Sin^  is  to  contradiil  Scripture. 
How  can  that  be,  if  the  Punifhment  and  the  Sin  be  of  the  fame  importance, 
when  Chrift  is  faid  to  hear  Sin  ?  But  the  Punifhment  muft  then  have  relati- 
on  to  the  Sin  as  in  the  fame  Perjon. 

To  anfwer  this  diftindly  and  clearly,  I  fay,  that  there  are  three  ways 
our  Sins  may  be  faid  to  have  a  relation  to  Chrift's  Sufferings,  as  a  Pmifh- 
went  for  them. 

Ci-)  -As  a  mere  external  impulfive  Caufe,  which  being  confidered  alone, 
amounts  to  no  more  than  an  occafional  Caufe,  and  gives  no  proper  Rea- 
fon for  Punilhment,'  and  fo  far  the  Socinians  will  go. 

(2.)  As  this  impulfive  Caufe  becomes  meritorious  by  the  voluntary  Adfc 
of  Chrift's  undertaking  to  fatisfy  Divine  Juftice  for  our  Sins,  by  making 
himfelf  a  Sacrifice  of  Atonement  for  them.  But  ftill  they  are  confidered 
as  our  Sins,  and  not  as  his  own,  any  farther,  than  that  by  his  confent 
he  took  upon  himfelf  to  bear  that  guilt  which  relates  to  Punifhment,  and 
fo  they  come  to  be  juftly  charged  upon  him. 

(;.)  As  the  per fonal Guilt  of  cur  Sins  is  faid  by  Dr.  Crifp  to  be  tranf- 

ferred  on  Chrift  ;    the  fault  of  our  Tranfgrefiions  themfelves,  faith  he,  is 

p.  170.     faid  to  he  upon  him  ;  Jo  that  in  refpe^  of  the  reality  of  heing  a  Tranjgreffory 

Chrift  is  as  really  the  Tranfgrejfor,  as  the  Perfon  that  did  commit  the  fin 

P.  267.    was  a  Tranfgreffor  before  Chrift  took  the  Tranfgreffion  upon  him.     Thefe  are 

his  own  Words,    and  leaft  any  (hould  miftake  him  in  a  point  of  fuch 

confequence,  he  repeats  them;  And  this  a^  of  Gods  laying  them  upon  him 

^  makes  Chrift  as  really  a  Tranfgreffor^  as  if  he  himfelf  had  actually  commit' 

P.  28r.    ted  Tranfgreftio/t.     And  again,  Chrift  hy  this  Tranfa^ ion,  and  laying  on  of 

M 


Part II.  of  CHRIST.  385 

yf»,  t/otb  MOW  he  come  or  did  become  when  they  were  laid,  as  really  and  truly 
the  Perfon  that  had  all  tbefe  fins,  as  thofe  Men  who  did  commit  them  really 
and  truly  had  them  them/elves.  In  another  place,  The  Lord  hath  laid  this  P.  ?jS-. 
iMiquity  upon  him,  he  makes  a  real  tranfa^ioM,  Chrifl  (lands  as  very  a  Sin- 
ner in  God's  eyes,  as  the  Reprobate^  though  not  as  the  A^or  of  thefe  Tranf- 
grejfions  ;  yet  as  he  was  the  Surety,  the  Debt  became  as  really  his,  as  it  was 
the  Principals  bejore  it  became^  the  Sureties. 

But  do  net  thefe  Words  explain  the  refi^  and  that  he  doth  not  /peak  of 
fin  as  a  phyjical  d£i ;  for  he  denies  Chrifl  to  have  been  an  aBual  Tranfgreffor;     ■ 
but  only  in  a  moral  fenfe,  that  he  did  bear  our  Sins  by  Imputation. 

To  this  I  anfuer,  (i.)  That  he  utterly  denies  the  fenfe  of  imputation, 
as  it  is  oppofed  to  a  real  TranfacStion  ;  and  faith,  it  fuppofes  a  miflakeP-  280, 
in  God  to  efleem  of  things  otherwife  than  really  they  are;  and  that  there  *^''  ^^^' 
is  not  cne  Paflage"  of  Scripture,    which  fpeaks  of  imputing  our  fins  to 
Chrid.     But  if  the  word  be  allowed,  he  faith,  it  hath  reference  to  the 
truth  and  reality  of  the  thing ;  as  Lev.  17.4.  i  Sam.  iz.  i  f .     Befides,  he 
faith,  That  God  hath  no  other  Thoughts  ofthinqjs  than  as  they  are,  he  himfelf^'  ^^^ 
doth  either  make  or  difpofe  of  things.     So  doth  he  efleem  and  think  of  things^ 
and  covfequently  of  fin.     If  he  fay,  he  doth  lay  or  hath  laid  Iniquity  upon     - 
Chrifl,  and  that  he  hath  dtfcharged  the  Believer  from  all  Iniquity,  certainly 
God  doth  juppofe  and  efleem  things  to  be  thus  as  he  hath  dtfpofed  of  them. 

(z.)  He  doth  aflert  fucha  laying  Iniquity  upon  Chrill,  from  whence 
the  immediate  Difcharge  follows  as  to  the  adtual  Sinner,  who  hath  any 
(hare  in  him.  So  that  the  Tranflation  is  fuch,  as  from  that  time  no  a- 
<3ual  Tranfgreflion  lies  upon  him  ;  and  he  ceafes  to  be  a  Tranfgreflbr, 
and  his  Sins  are  no  longer  his  but  Chrift's,  as  appears  from  his  Words. 
His  meaning  then  is,  that  there  is  fuch  a  real  Tranflation  of  the  guilt  of 
fin  upon  Chrifh,  that  no  kind  of  guilt  doth  from  thenceforwarB  remain 
as  to  the  a<aual  TranfgrelTor.  And  fo  there  can  be  no  Remiflion  of  Sins, 
nor  Juftification  afterwards ;  no  condition  in  order  to  Pardon ;  no  charg- 
ing Sin  upon  Believers ;  no  true  Faith,  but  believing  that  their  Sins  are 
already  forgiven,  ^c.  And  if  thele  things  do  not  fubvert  the  whole  Or- 
der and  Deiign  of  the  Gofpel,  it  is  hard  to  contrive  a  Scheme  of  Dodrines 
which  doth  it,  and  yet  retain  the  Profeffion  of  it.  But  thefe  are  Dr. Crifp*s 
words  in  another  place;  Ail  the  Weight,  all  the  Burden,  all  the  very  Sin 
it  f elf  is  laid  upon  Chrifl ;  and  that  laying  of  it  upon  him,  is  a  full  difcharge  p.  298. 
and  general  releafe  and  acquittance  unto  thee,  that  there  is  not  any  one  Sin 
now  to  be  charged  upon  thee.  So  that  a  full  difcharge  is  the  immediate  con- 
lequence  or  laying  our  .fins  uppn  Chrift, 

(x.)  He  anfwers  about  Guilt,  That  it  is  not  an  Obligation  to  Punifhment,  p^  ,-2, 
but  that  it  relates  to  the  Fatl  ;  as  when  a  Malefa&ur  pleads  guilty  or  not 
guilty  ;  the  meaning  is,  whether  the'  FaS  was  done  by  him  or  not.  And 
therefore  to  fay  the  Guilt  is  laid  upon  Chrifl,  but  not  the  Sin,  is  to  fay  the 
Sin  is  laid  upon  Chrifl^  and  Sin  u  not  laid  upon  Chrifl,  which  is  a  contra' 
diHion. 

In  anfwer  to  this,  it  will  be  necefTary  to  clear  this  matter  about  Guilt; 
for  a  great  deal  depends  upon  it,  both  as  to  the  Antinomian  and  Sociniau 
Ccntroverfies. 

In  every  Ad:  of  Sin  there  is  a  twofold  Guilt  to  be  confidered. 

I.  The  Guilt  of  the  FaS,  as  it  is  a  Tranfgreflion  of  the  Law. 

z.  A  Guilt  confequent  upon  the  Fa^,  by  virtue  of  the  Sanction  of  the 
Law.  For  although  the  Defert  of  Punifhment  naturally  follows  the  Fad:; 
jet  the  Obligation  to  it  comes  not  from  the  Sinners  Ad",  but  from  the 

Ccc  will 


^S6  Of  the  Saprings  Part  II, 

Will  of  the  -Law-giver,  who  by  the  Law  binds  the  Sinner  to  Puniihment : 
So  that  this  fort  of  Guilt  depends  upon  the  Law,  as  the  other  did  upon 
the  Fadt, 

Now  it  is  of  great  confequence  for  us  to  confider,  how  far  Guilt  is  fe- 
parable  from  the  AGt  of  Sin  ;  and  fo  whether  it  be  poHible  tor  the  adtual 
Guilt  of  the  Fadt  to  be  transferred  from  the  Tranrgreflbr ;  and  if  it  be  not, 
there  is  no  more  ground  for  Dr.  C's  Hypothefis,  than  tor  Tranfuhftantia- 
tion.  For  both  have  the  words  of  Scripture,  as  they  fuppofe  ;  and  if  one 
be  no  more  poffible  than  the  other,  we  (hall  find  as  little  reafon  to  em- 
brace one  as  the  other. 

As  to  the  A(5t  of  Sin,  thefe  things  are  infeparable  from  it, 

I.  The  Guilt  of  the  Fa&.    For  he  that  hath  been  an  actual  Tranfgref- 
for,  can  never  be  made  not  to  have  been  fo:  For  what  is  part,  can  never 
be  made  by  any  power  whatfoever  not  to  have  been  ;  and  (o  the  Guilt  of 
'        the  fad:  muft  remain  upon  thePerfon  thatcorhmitted  it.     it  may  le  Paid, 
That  this  holds  only  as  to  the  phyfical  Al$,  atid  not  as  to  the  moral  Ohliquity 
of  it.     But  the  committing  of  the  fadt  with  the  moral  circumftances  of 
it,  was  a  perfonal  AS;  and  how  then  can  one  be  transferred  mere  than  the 
■     other  ?  Befides,  when  the  Obliquity  of  the  fadi  lies  in  a  mere  Privation 
of  that  Rediitude,  which  ought  to  have  been  in  it,  how  can  that  which 
is  no  real  thing  in  it  fclf,  be  transferred  to  another  ? 
p.  270.         But  Dr.  Crifp  faith,  A  Believer  ceafeth  to  he  a  Tranfgreffor  from  that 
time  his  fins  were  laid  upon   Chrifl   to  the  lajl  hour  of  his  life.     So  that 
now  thou  art  not  an  Idolater,  &c.  thou  art  not  a  finful  Ferfon,  &c.     It's 
pollible  for  fuch  a  one  to  ceafe  committing  his  fin,  or  to  have  his  fins  for- 
given him  ;  but  how  it  is  poffible  for  a  fadt  already  paft  not  to  continue 
as  a  h&.  paft,  is  a  thing  I  cannot  underdand.    But  be  flill  confiders  Sins 
as  Debts,  that  when  they  are  once  paid,  are  no  longer  Debts.     But  there 
is  a  great  dilTerence  between  the  guilt  of  a  fadt,  and  the  contradling  of 
a  Debt  ;  for  a  Debt  confifting  in  a  thing  real,  whofe  property  may  he 
altcr'd  and  transferred  from  one  to  another,  it  is  ealy  to  apprehend  how 
that  may  ceafe  by  being  paid  ;  but  in  criminal  matters  nothing  is  capa- 
ble of  being  transferred,  but  the  Punifliment,  which  is  a  thing  real;  but 
the  Obliquity  and  Guilt  of  the  fadt  is  a  privative  and  perfonal  thing. 

z.  The  defert  of  Punifhment,  which  follows  the  aftual  TranTgreffion, 
cannot  be  feparated  from  it.  For  let  what  Grace  or  Favour  foever  be 
ihewed,  the  Defert  of  Punilhment  remains  ftill;  or  elfe  there  would  be  no 
fuch  Grace  and  Favour,  if  that  could  be  taken  away.  But  this  Defert 
follows  inherent  Guilt ;  for  no  Sinner  cap  deferve  that  one  that  was  not 
a  Sinner  fliould  fufferfor  his  faults.  Nor  can  the  Law  or  Adtof  any  per- 
fon  transfer  the  defert  of  Punilhment  from  him  that  was  the  adtual  Tranf- 
greffor. 

3.  The  Turpitude,  as  to  the  Adl  of  Sin,  cannot  be  removed  from  it. 
For  where-ever  the  Adt  of  Sin  is,  it  mufl  be  difpleafing  to  God  ;  but  the 
Turpitude,  as  it  affedls  the  Perfon  of  the  Sinner,  muft  have  another  con- 
fideration,  For  God  may  fee  caufe  to  forgive  the  Sinner,  and  receive 
him  into  his  Favour,  although  he  ftill  continues  to  hate  and  abhor  the  fin. 

As  to  the  Guilt  ofSin,  as  it  relates  to  the  Punifhmenty  thefe  things  are  to 
be  confidered. 

I.  That  although  divine  Juftice  requires  Satisfaction  for  Sin,  yet  it  is  not 
neceflary  that  the  ac9:ual  Tranfgreflors  (hould  undergo  that  Punilhment, 
which  they  have  deferved  by  their  Sins.  For  then  there  would  be  no  room 
tor  Grace  and  Favour  to  them. 

2.  That 


Part II.  of  CHKISr.    387 

^.  That  it  is  confiftenc  with  the  Juftice  and  Wifdom  of  God  to  ac- 
cept of  a  Mediator,  to  interpofe  between  the  Severity  of  the  Law,  and 
the  Piinilhment  of  TranfgrelTors,  upon  terms  agreeable  to  the  Divine 
Wi(dom  and  Mercy. 

3.  That  fuch  a  Mediator,  undertaking  to  make  an  Atonment  for  our 
Sins,  by  fufTering  in  cur  place  and  ftead,  may  truly  and  properly  be  Giid 
to  undergo  the  Punifliment  of  our  Sins,  and  our  Sins  to  be  the  merito- 
rious Caufe  of  it.  But  if  Defer t  adhere  to  the  Per] anal  Guilty  how  can  our 
Sins  he  the  meritorious  Caufe  of  another's  Funifhrnent  ?  I  anfwer,  that  3 
meritorious  Caufe  may  be  confidered  two  ways. 

1.  In  the  Natural  Courfe  of  things  ,•  and  fo  Defert  follows  the  FacSJ;  ; 
{6  that  the  Sinner  always  deferves  to  be  puniihed  ;  and  no  interpofition 
by  another  Perfon  can  take  away  this  Original  Defert  of  Puni/liment : 
For  although  our  Sins  be  forgiven,  yet  we  ftill  deferve  to  fuffer  for 
them  ;  which  we  fliould  not  do,  if  Defert  in  this  itak  could  be  tran(- 
ferred. 

2.  As  Defert  implies  only  a  jud  reafoni  of  Punifliment;  and  fo  there 
may  be  a  meritorious  Caufe  in  extraordinary  Cafes,  when  the  Legiflator 
confents  that  another  Ihall  undergo  the  Punifliment,  which  others  have 
deferved.     Immerito  quenquam  punire  eft  injufte  pmire  ;    as  I  have  elfe-Dif.  r.  of 
where  obferved  out  of  Crellius :  And  Immerito  in  the  Greek  Qlojfes  is  ren- ■^"^'W'- 
dcr'd 'AAop^w?,  and  Merito  by  EiV't^j?  and  Ev'Aoq/*?,  and  in  Cicero,  jure^""'  ^'^'''" 
merito  are  moft  commonly  joined  together. 

Thefe  things  I  only  mention  at  prefent;  and  as  occafion  offers,  I  (hall 
dilcourfe  more  of  them  afterwards. 

I  come  now  to  confider  Dr.  Cs  Arguments  from  Reafon,  that  Chrifi  mufi 
hear  Iniquity  it  felfi 

(^r.)  //  had  he  en  otherwife  the  extremefi  Injuflice  in  the  World  for  God 
to  wound  and  hruife  him,  page  z  7 3.  For  vindiiiive  Jufiice  doth  imply  and 
fignify  fome  Fault  committed.  That  God  therefore  might  he  jufi  in  punilh- 
ing  Chrifi,  and  do  no  more  upon  Chrifi  than  what  was  deferved  ;  he  muflfirft 
have  the  Iniquity  laid  upon  him,  that  is,  the  merit  of  that  hruifing,  that  there 
might  he  upon  him  the  defert  of  that  hruifinghe  did  fuflain,  p.  'i.'j^.  And 
again,  p.  zSj.  There  muft  of  neceffity  he  a  prefent  Defert  upon  a  perfon, 
hefore  the  Judge  can  infliSl  any  thing  upon  the  perfon.  A  Fault  mufl  he  found 
upon  a  Man,  before  he  may  he  executed  legally  and  juflly.  Therefore  the  Fault 
mufl  he  found  really  upon  Chrift  himfelf,  hefore  there  can  he  an  A^l  of  God's 
Jufiice  in  itounding  Cbrijl. 

This  is  juft  the  Socinian  way  of  argu-ing.  Chrift  could  not  fuffer  the 
Punifliment  of  our  Sins,  becaufe  he  was  perfedlly  innocent,  and  therefore 
could  not  deferve  to  be  puniflied  ;  but  PuniQiment  without  Defert  is  un- 
jufl.  The  Antinomians  we  fee  join  with  the  Socinians  in  the  main  Prin- 
ciple, That  unlefs  there  he  perfonal  Guilt,  the  Punifhment  of  Chrift  would 
he  unjufl.  But  then  they  give  a  wonderful  Advantage  to  the  Socinians  ; 
becauie  they  put  the  main  of  the  Caufe  upon  an  Iflbe  which  can  never 
be  defended,  viz.  that  our  perfonal  Guilt,  and  the  Defert  of  Punifliment 
was  transferred  upon  Chrifi.  For  let  any  Man  confider  with  himfelf, 
whether  he  can  think  it  pofllble  for  thofe  Circumflances  of  Fadt  to  be 
transferred  to  another,  which  infeparabiy  fallow  and  adhere  to  the  Per- 
fon who  committed  the  Fadt.  Suppofe  Dr.  Crifp's  own  Cafe:  AMale- 
hGtor  is  accufed  of  a  Crime,  to  which  he  is  to  plead  Guilty  or  not  Guil- 
ty ;  fuppofe  it  be  Murder,  or  Adultery,  can  he  that  really  did  commie 
the  fadt,  ever  truly  plead  that  he  did  not  commit  it  .■»   It  may  be  faid, 

C  c  c  z  As 


388  Of  the  Sufferings  Part  II. 

^s  to  Men  he  could  tioty  hut  as  to  God  he  might ;  hecaufe  Chriji  taking  his 
aHual  tratifgreffiom  upon  him,  the  Sin  is  no  longer  his  hut  Chriji' s.  So  that 
as  to  the  j^  and  righteous  "judgment  of  Men,  he  continues  ftill  guilty  of 
the  Fadi,  but  not  as  to  Gods.  But  if  Mens  Judgments  be  true  and  righ- 
teous, then  he  mufl:  remain  really  guilty  ;  and  if  God  always  doth  judge 
according  to  Right,  he  muft  be  16  in  God's  Judgment  too  j  or  elfe  a 
Man  may  be  truly  guilty  before  Men,  and  not  guilty  before  God,  as  to 
the  fame  Fad.  I  do  not  mean  that  a  Man  may  not  be  juftly  found  guil- 
ty before  Men,  whofe  Sins  may  be  forgiven  by  the  mercy  of  God  ;  for 
that  relates  to  the  Guilt  of  Punifliment,  which  God  may  remit  as  to  his 
Tribunal,  and  yet  the  Perfon  may  juftly  fuffer  by  humane  Laws ;  Bur  if 
the  Guilt  of  the  Fadl  were  taken  away  by  God's  Remiflion,  then  there 
would  be  no  Foundation  left  for  the  Laws  of  Men  to  proceed  upon.  But 
if  it  be  granted,  that  God  doth  judge  him  guilty  of  the  Fadl,  then  that 
Guilt  mud  remain  hpon  him ;  and  fo  he  cannot  ceafe  to  be  an  adual 
Tranfgreflbr  in  that  Fad:  which  the  Law  doth  juftly  charge  upon  him. 
And  if  the  Guilt  of  the  Fadt  ftill  remains  upon  him,  then  it  cannot  be 
transferred  to  another ;  for  two  diftindl  Perfons,  who  did  not  join  in  the 
Fad,  cannot  be  guilty  of  the  fame  Fad,  efpecially  fo  as  he  that  com- 
mitted it  fliall  be  free,  and  he  that  did  not  fliall  be  charged  with  it.  Thefe 
things  are  fo  agreeable  to  the  natural  fenfc  of  Mens  Minds,  that  if  they 
did  allow  themfelves  the  liberty  of  thinking,  they  could  be  in  no  doubt 
concerning  them.  ^ 

And  as  it  is  as  to  the  Guilt  of  the  Fad  it  felf,  fo  it  is  as  to  the  natural 
defert  of  Punifliment,  which  follows  from  it.  No  Man  hath  commifted 
a  Fault,  which  the  Law  hath  appointed  a  Punifliment  to,  but  he  deferves 
to  be  puniflied  for  the  violation  of  it.  And  although  it  be  poflible  for 
him  to  be  pardoned,  yet  the  defert  of  Punifhment  muft  ftill  remain  up- 
on him  ;  becaufe  that  refults  from  his  adual  violation  of  the  Law,  which 
cannot  be  unadcd.  But  cannot  this  Defert  be  transferred  to  another  ? 
No  more  than  the  Fad  it  fclf.  And  Punilhment  taken  in  its  moft  ftrid 
and  proper  fenfe,  muft  follow  perfonal  Guilt,  and  that  Defert  which  a- 
rifes  from  the  adual  Tranfgreflion. 

But  do  we  not  hy  this  means  take  away  the  proper  Punifhment  ofChrifi  for 
our  Sins,  and  fo  overthrow  the  Do£irine  of  Satisjailion  }  By  no  means.  For  1 
take  away  nothing  but  the  Punifhment  which  follows  Perfonal  Guilt ; 
and  if  this  be  not  taken  away,  the  Antimmian  fenfe  muft  be  allowed ;  and 
Chrift  muft  be  charged  with  the  a£lual  Guilt  of  our  Sins.  But  if  this  be, 
as  you  confefs,  Falfe,  Blafphemous,  and  Impofible,  then  another  Notion 
of  Punifliment  muft  be  pitched  upon,  which  may  agree  to  the  Sufferings 
of  Chrift  in  our  flead  ;  and  fuch  a  one  is  that  of  the  Suffering  of  Chrift 
as  our  Mediator,  by  the  Father's  Appointment,  and  his  own  Confent, 
which  takes  off  all  Appearance  of  Injuftice  in  it  :  Since  there  is  a  con- 
currence of  the  Will  of  the  Supreme  Lcgiflator,  the  free  confent  of  him 
who  had  the  only  caufe  to  complain,  and  all  this  done  to  promote  the 
wifeft  and  beft  Defign  for  the  good  of  Mankind. 

But  before  I  proceed  farther,  it  will  be  neceflary  here  to  take  notice 
of  an  ExpreflTion  of  yours  in  your  Appeal,  which  may  be  of  ufe  after- 
wards. Your  words  are,  page  55".  Miflake  me  not,  I  dont  believe  that 
the  Perfonal  Guilt  of  our  Sins,  or  that  their  Filth  and  Turpitude  were  trans- 
ferred upon  Chrift :  toothing  more  abhorred  hy  me  than  fuch  abominable 
Blafphemies.  By  this  one  would  think  you  were  the  farcheft  from  the 
Antinomian  Dodrine  of  any  one.     But  then  it  follows  ;    However  J  am 

per- 


PartIL  of  CHRIST. 38^ 

perfwaded that  the  Lord  Jefus  Cbriji  voluntarily ,  on  the  Fathers  In- 
vitation, coming  under  the  Sanilion  of  the  violated  Law,  wis  jufily  charged 
with  the  Guilt  of  our  Sins,  found  guilty,  condemned,  fentenced,  and  execu- 
ted as  fuch,  even  by  that  God  who  laid  on  him  the  Iniquity  of  us  all.  Now 
if  I  do  not  mifunderRand  both  Dr.  Crifp  and  you,  you  fay  as  much  in 
Ccnfequence  as  he  doth  in  thefe  I'atter  words,  and  therefore  you  cannot 
difown  the  transferring  our  perfonal  Guilt  upon  Chrift.  For,  I  pray  confi- 
derthe  force  of  Dr.  Cz-i/^'s  Reafoning :  If  the  Fault  he  not  found  upon  Chrift 
he  could  not  he  jufily  punifhed ;  and  you  fay,  that  he  wajjuflly  charged  with 
the  Guilt  of  our  Sins,  and  therefore  was  jufily  punifhed.  But  what  Guilt 
was  this,  which  was  thus  charged  upon  Chrift?  The  Guilt  of  our  Sins, 
you  fay,  hut  not  the  Perfonal  Guilt.  What  Guilt  was  it  then  .^  Not  the 
meer  Punifhment;  for  we  are  now  enquiring  what  that  Guilt  was  which 
made  the  Punifhment  juft  ;  and  there  muft  be  a  transferring  of  Guilt  be- 
fore to  make  the  Proceedings  juft.  Now  what  Guilt  could  that  be,  but 
the  Perfonal  Guilt  of  our  Sins,  as  Dr.  Crijp  afferted,  and  you  denied  >  And 
this  appears  more  by  your  following  words,  p.  56.  And  feeing  Chrifi's 
Sufferings  were  a  Judicial  A^  of  God,  it  could  not  he  otherwife ;  for  Juflice 
condemns  none  to  Punifhment,  hut  upon  the  account  of  Sin  ;  and  punifheth 
none,  hut  under  the  notion  of  Criminals  :  If  Jefus  Chrifl  had  heen  only 
treated  as  if  he  had  heen  a  Criminal,  and  died  not  as  a  Criminal  in  foro 
Poll,  his  Sufferings  could  not  have  heen  a  proper  Punifhment  flowing  from 
that  punitive  Jufi ice  whicfi  is  natural  to  God.  And  wherein  is  this  difJe- 
rent  from  what  Dr.  Crifp  had  faid  ?  For  if  Chrift  were  a  real  Criminal  in 
God s  Efieem  and  Judgment y  then  he  was  an  a£luiil  Tranfgreffor,  and  had 
the  Guilt  of  our  Faults  upon  him ;  for  he  had  none  of  his  own.  And 
what  Guilt  could  make  him  to  die  as  a  Criminal  inforePoli  (as  you  call  it) 
but  the  Guilt  of  our  Fails,  with  the  Defert  and  turpitude  which  followed 
them  ?  For  nothing  could  make  him  fufFer  as  a  real  Criminal  but  a£fual 
Guilt ;  and  having  none  of  his  own,  ours  muft  be  transferred  upon  him 
in  your  opinion  ;  and  yet  you  deny  that  he  had  the  Perfonal  Guilt  of  our 
Sins.  How  can  you  make  thefe  things  to  confift  ?  You  muft  aflign  fome- 
thing  that  is  not  Perfonal  Guilt  which  can  make  a  real  Criminal ;  which 
I  think  is  very  hard  to  do.  We  fay,  that  Chrift  did  really  fuffer  on  the 
account  of  our  Sins,  and  that  Juftice  was  fatisfied  by  his  Sufferings  j  and 
that  he  took  upon  him  the  Guilt  of  our  TranfgrelTions,  by  undergoing 
the  Paniftiment  for  them,  as  our  SacriBce  of  Atonement  ;  and  that  this 
was  a  real  Punifliment  as  to  him,  but  made  Jufl  by  the  Father's  Will,  and 
his  own  voluntary  undertaking.  But  to  fay,  that  he  fuffered  as  a  real 
Criminal,  and  was  fo  punifhed  hy  God,  is,  I  think,  impoffible  to  be  under- 
ftood,  unlefs  Dr.  Criffs  fenfe  of  the  Tranflation  of  Perfonal  Guilt  be  al- 
lowed, which  you  profefs  to  abhor  as  falfe  and  blafphemom. 

(z.)  Dr.  Crifp's  fecond  Reafon  is,  that  without  this  tranflation  of  our 
Perfonal  Guilt,  no  Advantage  could  come  to  us  hy  Chrifi's  Sufferings,  pag, 
xyx.  For  what  Reafon  ?  Becaufe  a  Man  fuffers  only  for  his  own  Fault, 
unlefs  the  Fault  of  another  he  laid  upon  him.  Here  is  no  Queftion,  but 
our  Iniquities  were  laid  upon  Chrifi,  and  that  he  fuflered  in  our  ftead  ; 
but  the  Difpute  is  about  the  Manner  how  they  were  laid  upon  him  j 
whether  our  very  Tranfgreflrions  themfelves  were  fo  laid  upon  him  ? 
And  how  doth  it  appear  that  we  can  have  no  benefit  by  Chrift's  Suf- 
ferings, unlefs  that  were  done  which  was  irapofUble  to  be  done  .*  But  he 
makes  it  good  by  a  Suretyfhip  for  Deht :  For  (faith  he)  the  hare  Impri-v.  474^ 
jonment  of  another  Man  doth  not  releafe  the  Dehter  in  Prifony  unlefs  he  he 

Surety 


3^0  Of  the  Sufferings  Part  II, 

Surety  for  him.  Very  true.  So  we  fay  that  Chrift's  Sufferings  had  not 
availed  us,  unlefs  he  had  been  our  Mediator,  and  appeared  in  our  flead. 
But  how  doth  it  appear,  that  we  cannot  receive  the  benefits  of  Chrifl's 
Mediatoriliip,  unlefs  our  Perfonal  Guilt  were  transferred  upon  him  ?  Are 
not  the  Divine  Appointment,  the  Defign  of  Chriff,  and  thePromifcs  of 
the  Gofpel  fufficient  for  that  purpofe? 

And  this  is  his  great  Argument  en  all  Occz(\gx\s,T hat  our  Sins  are  Dehts, 

and  they  are  reckon  d  to  Chrifl  as  our  Surety^   and  he  hath  fully  discharged 

them,  and  therefore  they  cannot  jufllyie  charged  upon  us.     This  runs  thro' 

-    all  Dr.  Criffs  Di((:ourfes,  and  he  manages  \i  with  all  advantage  to   his 

Caufe,  and  therefore  mud  be  more  confidered. 

In  his  firji  Sermon,  p.  8.  he  faith,  That  although  a  Believer  doth  Jin,  he 
is  not  to  he  reckon  d  a  Sinner  ;  for  his  Sins  are  reckon  d  to  he  taken  away  from 
him.  A  Man  borrows  a  hundred  pound,  fome  man  will  fay,  doth  not  he  owe 
this  hundred  pound,  feeing  he  harrowed  it  ?  /  fay  no,  in  cafe  another  hath 
paid  the  hundred  pound  for  him.  A  man  doth  fin  againfi  God,  God  rec- 
kons not  this  Sin  to  he  his,  he  reckons  it  Chrifl  s,  therefore  he  cannot  reckon 
Jt  his.  If  the  Lord  did  lay  the  Iniquity  of  Men  upen  Chrifl,  then  how  can 
he  lay  it  upon  their  Perfons  ?  Thou  bafl  finned,  Chrifl  takes  it  off  ;  fuppo- 
fing,  I  fay,  thou  hafl  receivd  Chrifl.  And  as  God  doth  reckon  Sin  to  Chrifl., 
and  cha.'ges  Sin  upon  him  -  [o  if  thou  he  of  the  fame  mind  with  God^  thou 
mujl  alfo  reckon  this  Sin  of  thine  upon  Chrifl ;  his  hack  hath  born  it^  he  hath 
carried  it  away. 

And,  p.  283.  When  one  man  hecomes  a  Dehtor  in  another  mans  rcom  le- 
gally and  hy  con  fent,  thisSurety  that  doth  hecome  the  Debtor,  he  u  not  barely 
fuppofed  to  he  the  Dehtor  ;  hut  hy  undertaking  of  it,  and  legally  having  it  pafi 
upon  him,  he  is  as  really  and  truly  the  Dehtor,  as  he  was  that  was  the  Princi' 
pal  before  %  I  fay  as  truly  and  really  the  Dehtor :  So  that  there  is  anabfolute 
truth  and  reality  of  Gods  A^  in  puffing  over  Sins  upon  Chrifl,  and  layinfg 
them  upon  Chrifl. 

Again,  p.  189.  There  is  therefore  a  certain  tranfaHing  of  Sin  upon  Chrifl^ 
fo  real,  that  indeed  the  Believer,  though  an  AQor  of  Tranfgrefion,  is  as  tru- 
ly and  abfolutely  difcharged  of  his  Sins,  as  if  he  himfelf  had  not  committed 
them  ;  I  fay,  fo  difcharged  as  if  be  had  not  committed  them.  As  a  Debt or^ 
when  a  Surety  hath  taken  the  Debt  upon  him,  and  the  Debtor  receives  an  Ac- 
quittance  and  Difcharge,  he  is  as  free  of  the  Debt  now,  as  if  he  had  never 
run  into  that  Debt  ;  fo  I  fay  it  is  with  a  Believer,  Chrijl  being  made  a 
Surety  of  a  better  Teflament,  and  thereby  becoming  truly  and  really  the 
Debtor  inflead  of  Believers,  he  fo  bears  all  the  Debt  himfelf,  that  they  are 
altogether  releafed,  and  difcharged,  and  freed,  as  if  thej  had  never  been  in 
Debt. 

I  need  not  to  produce  any  more  places  to  this  purpofe,  although  it 
were  eafy  to  do  it .-  for  in  this  Similitude  lies  the  main  ftrength  and  fup- 
port  of  his  Caufe. 

But  to  (hew  how  little  force  there  is  in  it,  -we  need  only  thefeConfi- 
deracions.  .  -v     -\  •<:■■' 

(i.)  That  there  is  no  fufficient  Foundation  in  Scripture,  for  our  Sins 
being  thus  transferred  to  Chrifl  as  our  Debts,  and  his  undertaking  as  our 
Surety  to  pay  them.  If  one  reads  Dr.  Crifp's  Sermons,  one  would  con- 
clude, that  there  is  nothing  plainer,  nor  more  frequently  inculcated  in 
Scripture  than  this :  For  he  feems  to  lay  the  Foundation  of  all  upon  it, 
as  though  there  were  no  other  true  way  of  underflanding  the  Dodirine 
of  Chrifl's  SatUfatlion   but  by   it.     The  Title  of  one  of  )[i\s  Sermons, 

Vol. 


I     Part  II.  of  CHRIST. 


39t 


Vol.  ii.  Serm.  3.  'is,  Chriff  the  great  PayniaJIer  of  aU  the  Deks  of  his  Peo- 
ple ;  and  he  grounds  it  on  that  Text,  If  a.  53.  v.  6.  The  Lord  hath  laid 
on  him  the  Iniquity  of  us  aB.     Now,  faith  he,  p.iS-^.  as  in  Suretyfhib,  our 
Deht  hecoming  pur  Surety  s^  the  Execution  goesjuflly  out  againfi  him  •  and  fo 
God  can  give  a  jufl  Account  of  wounding  him,  &c.     Here  it  is  taken  for 
granted,  that  Chrifi  is  made  Surety  for  .^11  our  Sim  as  Debts,  without  the 
leaft  ground  in  the  Text  for  it,  which  wholly  relates  to  Puniflimenr.  For 
the  Words  properly  fignify,  That  he  made  our  Iniquities  to  meet,  or  to  fall 
upon  him;  as  a  Man  falls  upon  his  Enemy  when  he  meets  him.     So  the 
Jewifh  Interpreters  underftand  the  Word  ,•   and  to  the  fame  purpofe  Sym- 
tnachus  renders  it ;  thcLXX.  God  gave  him  up  to  ottr  Sins  ;  which  Proco- 
pius  exprefles  by  unn^  avTl-lvyyi  -^s^  riji(,£v,  as  one  that  fuffered  in  our 
flead.     St.  "jerom,  Tradidit  eum  pro  peccatis  no/Iris ;  or  as  he  tranflates  the 
LXX.  Domims  tradidit  eum  propter  iniquitates  noftras.     Here  is  nothing 
like  Chrifi' s  Suretyfhip  to  pay  onr  Debts  for  us ;  and  yet,  as  if  it  had  been 
the  necedary  fenle  cf  the  words,  a  great  many  Doctrines  and  Inferences 
are  drawn  from  ic ;    as  of  wonderful  Conlequence  for  right  underftand- 
ing  what  Chrift  had  done  for  us.     God  forbid  that  we  lliould  go  about  4 
to  Icflcn  any  thing  of  the  Defign  of  Chrift's  fuffering  for  us,  on  which  our 
Salvation  fo  much  depends.     But  the  prefent  QueP.ion  only  relates  to  the 
Manner  of  his  doing  it,  whether  as  a  Surety  for  our  Debts  or  no.     Some 
will  fay,  What  harm  is  there  in  this,  fince  it  is  an  eajie  Similitude,  which  Feo- 
pie  may  apprehend  without*  Trouble  ?    But  it  may  be  not  without  great 
Danger  ,•  for  they  can  as  eafily  draw  Conftquences  from  it  too;    "  As 
"  that  Chrifi  hath  then  fully  difcharged  our  Debts  already  ;  and  they  can 
"  no  more  be  charged  upon  us,  than  >  Creditor  can  demand  a  Sum  of 
"  Money  from  a  Debtor,  which  was  fully  paid   to  a  Farthing  by   his 
"  Surety  ;  and  therefore  all  that  we  have  to  do  is  to  believe,  and  to  be 
"  thankful  ;    for  all  this  Tranfadiion  was  long  fmce  part  without  the 
"  confideration  of  any  Ad:  on  our  parts  ,•   and  they  muft  be  great  Ene- 
"  mies  to  the  Privileges  of  Believers,  that  can  now  talk  of  Conditions 
"  on  our  parts ;  for  this  is  no  lefs  than  bringing  us  back  to  a  Covenant 
"  of  Works,  and  making  void  the  Covenant  of  Grace,     Thefe  are  Con- 
fequences  of  a  very  high  nature,  and  have  no  Foundation  but  this  Sup- 
pofition,  That  all  our  Sins  as  Debts  are  transferred  upon  Chrift  as  our  Sure- 
ty ;  and  he  hath  a&ually  difcharged  the  whole  Debt,  which  therefore  cannot 
lie  upon  thofe  whom  he  fuffered  for  ;    and  confequently  we  cannot  fuffer 
for  thofe  Sins,  which  are  already  difcharged ;  nor  do  any  thing  in  order 
to  our  Juflification  and  Salvation  ;   whatever  the  Scripture  feems  to  ex- 
prefs  to  the  contrary.    But  furely  Men  camot  build  their  Faith  onfuch  Sup- 
pofitions,  unlefs  they  had  other  places  of  Scripture  befides  this  for  their 
Foundation.     Dr.  Crifp  looked  as  far  into  this  matter,  as  any  one  fince, 
and  it  may  be  more ;  he  turned  the  Scriptures  over  and  over,  and  ex- 
amined them  with  great  care  to  find  out  what  ferved  his  purpofe ;   for 
his  Heart  feemed  to  be  fel  upon  it,  and  as  his  Son  faith,  it  ran  in  his 
Hea.d  when  he  was  dying ;   and  fpeaking  of  thofe  who  difputed  againft 
his  Notions  of  Free  Grace,  he  faid,  Where  are  they  .■»    /  am  now  ready  to 
anfwer  them  aU.     Which  fhewed  the  earneflnefs  of  his  Zeal  about  them. 
But  there  is  but  one  place  of  Scripture  which  he  could  find,  that  feem'd 
to  favour  his  Senfe,  and  that  is,  Heb.j.  ii.  where  Chritf  is  faid  to  be 
the  Sirety  of  a  better  Teflament.     God,  faith  he,  takes  Chrifi  for  aSarety^p 

as  Men  will  do,   fo  doth  God  with  Chrifi. Man  is  a  broken  Debtor, 

and  Chnji  is  a  Surety  ;  ong  that  is  rich  and  able  to  pay,  and  therefore  God 

win 


277. 


392  Of  the  Sufferings  Part  II. 

will  look  after  none  hut  him  ;  for  this  caufe  Chrijl  gives  hii  owa  Jingle  Bond, 
and  God  is  content  to  take  Chrifl-s  Jingle  Bond,  and  looks  for  no  other  Pay- 
majler  hut  Chrifl.  What  ftrange  Deductions  are  here  mcde  from  one 
word,  quite  befides  the  Intention  and  Scope  of  the  Apoflle  ?  who  doth 
not  fpeak  of  a  Surety  for  Debt,  but  of  the  Surety  of  a  Covenant  ;  not  of 
one  that  was  to  pay  our  Debts  to  God  ;  but  of  fuch  a  Surety  as  was  to 
give  us  Satisfaction  by  his  unchangeable  Priefthood,  of  the  Performance 
of  thofe  Promifes  which  God  made  to  us  in  this  better  Covenant.  But  of 
this  more  afterwards. 

I  now  only  take  notice,  that  fome  of  the  Diflenting  Brethren  I  find 
charged  with  talking  much  of  a  Suretijhip,  Righteeufnejs^  and  of  an  Equa- 
lity of  Believers  with  Chrijl  as  to  it:  Which  is  another  ftrangeConfequence 
from  ChriJFs  hsing  our  Surety  as  to  the  payment  of  our  Debts,  hecaufe  the 
'  Debtor  may  be  [aid  to  pay  that  Sum  which  the  Surety  lays  down  for  him  ; 
and  that  God  doth  account  that  Believers  have  paid  that  Debt  of  Obedience 
which  Chrijl  hath  paid  hi  their  (lead  ;  becaufe  they  are  one  legal  P  erf  on  with 
Chrifl.  All  this  depends  upon  this  miftaken  Notion  of  Suretyfhip:  But 
.  if  it  be  once  fuppofed,  that  we  perfedly  obeyed  the  Law  in  Chrifl:, 
there  can  be  no  room  for  Rcmiflion  of  Sins  ;  for  how  can  Sins  be  for- 
given to  thofe  who  have  perfedly  obey'd  the  Law  ?  Or  how  can  they  be 
laid  to  obey  the  Law  perfectly  in  Chrift,  whofe  Sins  being  laid  upon 
Chrift,  do  lliew  that  they  have  not  obey'd  it  ?  For  can  they  be  faid 
to  pay  for  their  Difobedience,  and  to  give  pcrfe(5l  Obedience  at  the  fame 
time. 

That  the  Argument  doth  not  hold,  that  becaufe  a  Debt  may  be  trans- 
ferred to  a  Surety,  and  ttie  Debspr  be  difcharged  on  the  Surety's  under- 
taking the  Debt,  that  therefore  our  Sins  may  be  transferred  to  Chrift,  and 
we  receive  a  Difcharge  by  his  becoming  our  Surety. 

For  (i.)  there  is  no  difficulty  in  conceiving  the  transferring  of  Debts, 
and  difcharge  of  a  Debtor  by  a  Surety.  But  in  Sins  the  Guilt  cartnot 
be  transferred  as  Money  may  ;  for  the  guilt  of  the  Fad  remains  a  perfo- 
nal  thing  j  and  although  the  Sinner  be  faid  to  owe  a  Debt  to  the  Law, 
yet  that  Debt  lies  in  the  Obligation  to  Punilhment,  which  he  is  liable 
to  by  the  Guilt  of  the  Fad: ;  but  although  the  Punilhment  may  be 
transferred  by  the  Legiflator's  confent,  yet  the  perfonal  fault  cannot. 
But  doth  not  this  Debt  arife  from  the  Guilt  of  the  Fa^,  how  then  can  any 
difcharge  the  Debt  without  taking  the  Fault  ^  I  anfwer,  That  taking  the 
Fault  can  fignify  no  more^han  being  anlwerable  to  the  Law  for  it ;  which 
muft  refped  the  Debt  of  Punifliraent,  which  the  Law  inflids  ,•  and  he 
that  takes  away  the  Guilt  of  Punifliment  doth  fatisfy  the  Juftice  of  the 
Law. 

But  we  are  told,  That  nothing  is  a  Demerit  of  Punifbment  but  Reatus  Cul- 
pK,  and  therefore  if  Chriji  did  undergo  the  punifbment  of  our  Sins^  he  mufl 
hear  the  Guilt  of  our  Sins  as  to  the  Fault, 

In  the  Guilt  as  to  the  Fault  there  are  two  diftind  Confideratibns.  \Jhe 
Fault  it  felfy  or  the  adual  Violation  of  the  Law  by  him  that  committed 
it;  and  this  can  never  be  transferred,  i.  Of  the  Debt  to  the  Law,  which 
follows  the  Fad,  and  this  refpeds  the  Punifliment,  which  may  be  trans- 
ferred. 

How  can  this  be,  mlefs  he  he  made  liable  to  the  Pmifhrnent,  and  that « 
only  hy  the  Fault  i  ■; 

Being 


Part  11.  of  CHRIST.  3^3 

Being  mat/e  liahle  doth  naturally  and  in  ordinary  courfe  follow  the 
Guilt  of  the  Fait  ;  but  Laws  and  Punifhments  being  made  for  wife  Ends 
the  Leglllator  himfelf  may  interpofe,  and  for  great  and  wife  Ends  may 
change  the- ordinary  courfe  of  Juftice,  and  accept  of  another  Perfbn  to 
fuffer  inftead  of  the  Offenders,  (as  I  obferved  before.) 

But  fuppofe  the  Fault  could  be  transferred  as  a  Deit  may,  how  doth  ic 
follow,  that  upon  this  Tranflation  there  mufl  be  a  prefent  Difcharge,  as 
there  is  upon  a  Surety's  being  accepted  inftead  of  the  Debtor  ?  For  in  the 
cafe  of  a  Debt,  there  is  nothing  looked  after  but  payment  of  the  Money ; 
but  in  the  Remiflion  of  Sins,  there  are  very  weighty  Confiderations,  as 
to  the  manner  of  difcharging  the  Obligation  to  Punifhment :  For  the 
true  Honour  of  God,  and  Religion,  and  the  real  Intereft  of  Mens  Souls, 
as  to  the  working  out  their  own  Salvation  are  deeply  concerned  in  this  mat- 
ter. It  is  very  pollible  for  Men  to  frame  a  Scheme  of  Religion  to  them- 
felves  from  fome  reculiar  Phrafes  of  Scripture,  and  general  Promifes, 
which  may  be  fitted  to  fome  particular  u(es,  as  to  give  fatisfacition  to 
fome  Perfons  Doubts,  (which  Teemed  to  be  Dr.  Crijp's  Intention)  but 
upon  Confideration  of  the  whole  Defign  of  the  Gofpel,  they  may  be  of 
dangerous  Confequence  to  Mankind  ;  who  are  too  apt  to  make  ill  ufe  of 
fuch  Principles,  by  drawing  fuch  Deduftions  from  them,  which  tend  to 
encourage  them  in  the  negledt,  orcarelefs  performance  of  that  flrid;  O' 
bedience  which  they  owe  to  God  with  refpe(il  to  himfelf,  and  to  their 
Neighbours.  And  it  is  of  little  moment  to  thfem  to  be  told,  That  God 
veiB  carry  m  his  own  Work  of  Grace  in  thofe  whom  he  intends  to  hring  to 
Salvation  :  For  this  naturally  difpofes  Mens  Minds  to  a  paffive  carelefs 
Temper,  as  though  they  had  nothing  to  do,  but  to  wait  for  Supplies 
from  above  ,-  and  to  depend  upon  God's  working  in  them  to  voi/l  and  to  do 
of  his  good  pleafure,  without  fetting  themfelves  to  work  out  their  own 
Salvation  initb  fear  and  tremhling.  Bnd  yet  St- Paul,  who  certainly  un- 
derftood  the  Power  and  D.fign  of  God's  Free  Grace,  ufes  one  as  the 
ftrongefl:  Argument  for  the  orher.  What  would  he  have  faid  to  fuch  p'^'''*-'^' 
Men,  who  according  to  thefe  Principles  mud  have  told  him,  That  he ''" 
difchargcd  the  freenefs  of  God's  Grace,  by  putting  Men  upon  working 
out  their  own  Salvation  ;  for  this  was  to  bring  in  a  Covenant  oj  Works  again^ 
and  a  Bargain  and  Sale  with  God,  and  to  fet  up  the  Merit  of  Mans  Works 
to  Salvation  ;  for  every  Condition  gives  a  Right,  and  what  gives  Right  may 
le  challenged  as  due,  and  what  may  be  challenged  as  due  is  meritorious.  If 
there  be  any  thing  in  fuch  kind  of  Arguments  St.  Paul  was  as  much  con- 
cerned to  have  anlwcred  them,  as  any  now  a-days ;  but  he  thought  a  great 
deal  lay  upon  Mankind  to  do,  notwithftanding  that  wonderful  Grace  of 
God  in  the  manner  of  our  Salvation  by  Jeftu  Chrifl ;  and  that  by  patient^°^'-^-V 
continuance  in  we /I  doings  men  ought  to  feek  for  glory,  and  honour,  and  im- 
mortality ;  which  they  could  not  do,  unlefs  they  had  a  regard  to  it  in 
the  feeking  of  it,  as  the  way  to  attain  it.  Doth  not  he  bid  Chriftians 
fo  run  that  they  might  obtain  ■>  Doth  not  this  make  running  a  Condition  of  i  Cor.  j. 
obtaining  ?  And  what  \s obtaining  but  Salvation  ?  What  doth  he  mean  by  ^+* 
his  preffiiig  toward  the  mark,  for  the  prize  of  the  high  calling  of  God  inChrifl  Phil. 3- 14- 
Jefus  ?  Do  not  thtfe  ExpieflTions  imply  a  great  care  to  obtain  the  Reward 
of  another  Life?  Here  is  fomething  beyond  meer  Gratitude  and  Service  ; 
ibr  he  doth  fuppole  a  Connexion  in  way  of  Duty  and  Means  in  order  to  the 
End ■  and  not  meer  Connexion  in  a  way  of  Event ;  fo  that  to  thofe  to  whom 
Cod  will  give  Glory,  he  will  give  Grace  to  fit  Perfons  for  it.  But.  St.  Paul 
intimates  far  more,  when  he  faith,  That  he  kept  hit  Body  in  fubje^ioH; 

D  d  d  for 


394  ^f  t^^^  Sufferings  Part  11^ 

for  what  reafon?  Was  it  meerly  to  teftify  his  Thankfulnefs  ?  He'' gives  an- 

iCor.  p.  other  account  of  it ;   lefl  that  hy  any  means  mhile  I  preach  to  others^  I  my 

^^'         [elf  hecome  a  caft-a-ivay.     Was  St.  Paul  fo  ignorant  of  the  furenefs  of  the 

Gofpel  Covenant,  as  to  fuppofe  that  by  any  Adt  of  his  he  could  make  void 

that  Co  w»a»r,  which  hath  no  relation  to  Coviditiom  on  our  part?  Either  he 

was  (o  ignorant,  or  others  mufl  be  extremely  miflaken,  who  can  hardly 

allow  him  to  fpeak  tolerable  fenfe  about  this  matter,  if  he  doth  exclude 

Conditions  on  our  part  in  order  to  Salvation  :    But  as  no  Man  magnifies 

the  Riches  and  Freenefs  of  Grace  more  than  he,  fo  no  one  preffes  the 

Heb.  12.  Neceflity  of  HoUnefs  more,  as  that,  without  which  no  Mm  (h.iS  fee  the 

^^'         Lord.     Is  this  only  to  tell  them.  That  God  wiU  make  them  holy,  if  he  de- 

fgns  to  make  them  happy  ?  No,  but  he  puts  them  upon  purfuirig  after  Ho' 

Rom.8.13.  linefs,  for  that  Reafon.     For  if  ye  live  after  the  Flefh  ye  fh.ill  die  ;  hut  if 

ye  through  the  Spirit,  do  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  Body  ye  fhall  live.     Is 

not  this  ailing  for  Life,  and  not  merely  from  it  ?    He  fuppofes  the  Spirit 

ready  to  aOift  them  in  doing  their  Duty,  and  the  greatefl;  encouragement 

to  the  performance  of  it.     And  in  general,  he  pcrfwades  Chriftians  to 

col.  3. 23. great  Sincerity  in  doing  their  Duties  frorti  this  Confideration  ;   Knowing 

that  of  the  Lord  ye /hall  receive  the  Reward  of  the  Inheritance,  for  ye  ferve 

M.       the  Lord  Chrift.     But  he  that  doth  wrong  fhall  receive  for  the  wrong  that  he 

=5-       hath  done  ;    and  there  is  no  refpe^.of  Perfons.     Could  any  Man  more 

plainly  inforce  Mens  doing  their  Duties  with  refped:  to  Rewards  and  Pu- 

niihments,  according  ,tg  fhp  performance  of  them,  than  Sr.  Paul  here 

doth  ?   And  that  from  this  Confideration,  that  there  is  no  refpeSl  of  Per- 

fans  ;  which  in  this  place  muft  imply,   that  God  will  have  a  regard  to 

Mens  Ait'ions,  and  not  to  their  Privileges. 

ueomm.         Some  may  perhaps  fay.  What  is  this,  hut  to  make  the  Promife  to  fecure 

''^"J;      Life  upon  doing  Ofir  Duties  ."    And  if  this  he  not  to  make  the  Gojpel  a  more 

overgrown  and  fwingmg  Coruenant  of  Works,    than  ever  the  old  Law  was, 

they  have  Ufl  all  their  Theplogical  Meafures.     \  know  not  from  whence 

fuch  men  take  their  Theological  Meaftres,    nor  of  what  kind  they  are, 

nor  by  what  Standard  they  are  to  be  tried  ;  but  I  know  of  no  Infallible 

Standard  but  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and  therefore  all  Theological  Meafures 

are  to  be  examin'd  by  them.     And  I  think  St.  Paul  may  as  little  be  fuf- 

peded  for  fetting  up  a  Covenant  of  Works,  as  any  Penman  of  the  New 

Telfament ;  and  it  is  from  hii-p  I  have  chofen  to  produce  my  Teflimonies, 

becaufe  it  is  he  that  attributes  To  much  to  thcGrace  of  God  m  order  to  our 

2Tim.  I.  Salvation.     It  is  he  that  hath  faid,  That  God  hath  called  us  with  an  holy 

'^*  calling,  not  according  to  our  Works,  hut  according  to  his  own  Purpofe  and 

■  Grace  which  was  given  us  in  Chrifl  Jefus  hefore  the  world  hegan.     It  is  he 

Ti^.  3. 5.  that  hath  faiji,  ^ot  hy  Works  of  Righteoujnefs  which  we  have  done,  hut  ac 

6.        cording  to  his  Mercy  he  jave4  us  hy  the  wafhing  of  Regeneration,  and  renew- 

ing  of  the  Holy  Ghofl  ;  which  he  fhed  on  us  abundantly  through  Jefus  Chrifl 

our  Saviour  ;    that  requires  men  to  work  out  their  Solvation  with  fear 

and  trembling     St.Paulukxh  the  fame  word,  Rom,  7.  18.  where  it  fjg. 

nifies  bringing  a  thing  to  effe<3:,  and  is  oppofed  to  meer  willing,    and 

we  render  it  to  perform  ;  in  the  LXX  it  is  ukd  for  finilhing  and  carrying 

on  a  thing  already  begun  ;   and  can  imply  no  lefs  than  great  Diligence 

in  doing  all  fuch  things  as  tend  to  our  Salvation  ,•  for  that  is  the  thing  we 

are  to  work  out  by  Divine  Affiftance  ,-   and  therefore  our  own  Working 

is  required  by  the  Author  of  our  Salvation  :    Although  he  faves  us  not 

fpr  the  fake  o!  any  Works  of  Righteoufnefs  which  we  can  do  ;   yet  his 

w^y  pf  favir^g  us  is  by  working  out  our  own  Salvation.     But  we  are  told, 

no 


PartIL  of  CHRIST, .  3^ 5 

no  more  is  meant  by  this,  but  a  continual  maintaining  a  holy  Jealoufy  ^^tamm. 
of  our  Jelves,  left  we  fhould  fail  of  the  Grace  of  God  hy  trufling  in  our  p^jgfi 
felves  ;  for  it's  immediately  added.  For  it's  God  that  worketh  in  you  loth 
to  will  and  to  do.  And  is  this  all  that  Sr.  Paul  means  ?  By  Fear  and 
Tremhling  indeed  he  underftands  great  Humility  of  Mind,  which  carries 
along  with  it  a  Jealoufy  of  our  felves ;  but  what  is  working  out  our  Sal- 
vation :  That  is  not  trufling  in  our  felves,  but  depending  on  God  to  do 
it  for  us.  But  is  there  nothing  then  we  are  to  do  with  that  Divine  Affi- 
ftance  promifed  ?  Are  we  to  fitftill,  and  only  expert  when  God  vbill  work 
in  us  to  will  and  to  do  >  Then  working  out  our  own  Salvation  are  infig- 
nificant  Words,  and  imply  doing  nothing  ;  which  is  fuch  a  fenfe  of  the 
words  as  was  never  thought  on  before,  and  will  not  be  again  by  any  that 
do  think  what  they  write. 

But  St.  Paul  gives  another  fenfe  when  he  perfwades  Rich  Men  that 

thej  do  good;  that  they  he  rich  in  good  works laying  up  in  ft  ore  for  ^  Tim.  6, 

them/elves  a  good  foundation  againft  the  time  to  come,  that  they  may  take  '^' 
hold  of  eternal  Life.  How  is  this  ?  What  ?  Do  good  works  that  they  may 
take  hold  of  eternal  Life  ?  What  is  this  but  a  fwinging  Covenant  of  Works 
of  St.  Paul's  fetting  up  >  What  is  become  now  of  the  Theological  Mea- 
fures  ?  Had  St.  Paul  forgot  himfelf  ?  Or  did  he,  who  hecame  all  things  to 
all  men,  here  deal  with  Rich  Men  in  their  own  method,  by  way  of  Bar- 
gain and  Sale  ?  But  furely  he  would  never  accommodate  himfelf  to  their 
way  of  dealing,  fo  as  to  overthrow  the  Covenant  of  Grace;  as  thefe 
men  imagine  fuch  Conditions  would  do  it.  And  he  very  well  underftood 
the  difference  between  the  Foundation  of  the  Covenant  it  felf,  which 
was  certainly  nothing  but  the  Grace  and  Mercy  of  God  through  Jefus  Chrift^ 
and  the  foundation  of  our  hopes  as  to  our  obtaining  the  Benefits  of  it, 
which  fuppofes  the  performance  of  fuch  Conditions  as  are  required  from 
us  i  notisWorks  meritorious  of  a  Reward,  but  iS  Means  which  God  hath 
appointed  in  order  to  an  End.  As  a  Son  that  harh  an  Eftate  promifed 
him  of  the  free  Gift  of  his  Father  ;  but  yet  he  requires  feme  Conditions 
to  be  performed  by  him  before  he  comes  to  the  pofleffionof  it;  can  any 
one  think  this  a  Bargain  and  Sale  between  Father  and  Son  ?  Or  that  he 
is  to  purchafe  the  Etiate  by  thefe  Conditions  ?  If  thefe  be  their  theologi-. 
cal  Meafures  they  had  need  to  feek  for  new  ones,  for  thefe  will  never  hold 
according  to  the  Standard  of  Scripture  or  lieafon. 

Which  will  yet  more  appear  by  what  our  Blefled  Saviour  himfelf 
hath  faid  concerning  this  matter  ;    and  furely  we  may  moft  fafely  take 
our  Theological  Meafures  from  him  :    For  he  knew  befl,  how  far  and  in 
what  fenfe  the  Guilt  of  our  Sins  was  transferred  upon  him ;  and  whether 
there  followed  an  immediate  Difcharge  upon  it,  without  any  regard  to       * 
Conditions  on  our  parr.    He  had  the  Queftion  of  the  higheft  impor- 
tance in  this  matter  twice  put  to  him;  What  (hall  I  do  to  inherit  eter- uke  lej 
Mai  Life  .*   At  one  time  it  was  to  try  |iim,    by  a  captious  Perfon  ;  and  'J- 
after  his  repeating  the  two  great  Commandments  of  the  Law  of  God  • 
and  our  Neighbour,    our  Saviour  faid  to  him,  Thou  haft  anfaered  well,    aS. 
this  do  and  thou  (halt  live.    Had  our  blefled  Saviour  onl>  a  mmd  to  ban- 
ter him  ?  Or  was  it  to  convince  him  of  the  impoflibility  of  his  doing 
what  was  neceflary  for  eternal  Life?  It  is  not  improbable  that  he  intend- 
ed to  convince  him  of  his  folly,  who  fuppofed  he  had  kept  thefe  Com- 
mandments in  the  Jewifh  fenfe  of  them ;  which  he  doth  in  a  fcrious  man- 
ner by  the  Parable  of  the  Samaritan.     But  what  can  be  faid  to  the  o- 
ther  Cafe,  where  a  young  Man  of  QyalitJ^  and  Ellate  came  to  him 

D  d  d  1  with 


39^  Of  the  Suffer  trigs  Part  II. 

with  the  fame  Queftion,  but  with  a  different  Intention  ;  for  to  (hew  he 
Mark  lo.  vvas  in  earneft,  Sr.  Mark  ohCerva,  that  he  kneeled  to  him,  and  oiked  him. 
Good  Mafter,  what  /hall  1  do  that  1  may  inherit  eternal  Life  ?  And  when 
21.      he  anfwered  well,  it  is  faid,  That  Jefm  loved  him  ;  which  fliews  his  fvn- 
cerity  fo  far :  But  there  was  an  immoderate  loye  to  the  World  in   his 
Heart  which  he  was  not  aware  of,    till  our  Saviour  put  him  upon  ~a  k- 
vere  Trial  of  himfelf ;  Go  thy  way,  fell  whatever  thou  haft,  aid  give  to  the 
poor.     And  what  then  ?  And  thou  /halt  have  Treafnre  in  Heaven.     Doth 
Chrifl  himfelf  make  it  a  matter  of  Bargain  and  Sale  for  Heaven  ?  Doth 
the  Surety  of  the  better  Covenant  eftabliili  a  Covenant  of  Works  ?  And 
Matt.ip.  that  when  one  came  to  him  for  diredion  to  attain  eternal  Life  ?  Yet  the 
*'•         three  Evangelitls  who  report  this  Story,  difler  not  as  to  this  particu- 
i8.      '  lar.     But  what  was  our  Saviour's  Defign  in  it  /  Not  barely  to  convince 
him,  that  he  had  greater  and  more  prevailing  Paffiojis  within  him  than 
he  was  aware  of ;    but  that  there  was  fuch  a  ufe  to  be  made  of  the 
the  things  of  this  World,  that  they  may  be  ferviceable  to  another.  And 
Luk.i5.9.  fo  hefaith  in  another  place,  Make  to  your  /elves  Friends  of  the  Mammon 
of  Vnri^hteou/nefs,  that  when  ye  do  fail  they  may  receive   you  into  ever- 
lafiing  Halitations.    Not  by  way  of  Merit,  or  any  foolifh  Imagination 
of  that  fort ;  but  in  Obedience  to  the  Will  of  Chrift,  who  hath  made 
it  fo  neceflary  a  Duty  for  thofe  who  hope  to  be  happy  in  another  World, 
Matt.2s.  to  do  good  in  this;  which  is  evidently  declared  by  the  Account  whicli 
^*'         himfelf  gives  of  the  proceedings  of  the  great  Day.     Which  are  far 
more  to  be  regarded  than  mens  Theological  Meafures.    According  to 
which,   I  confefs,    I  know  not  what  to  make  of  the   main  Scope 
and  Defign  of  our  Saviour's  Preaching.    For  he  was  ftill  prefTing  Men 
to  do  the  Will  of  the  Father,  to  keep  his  Sayings,  to  ohey  his  Command- 
ments, and  upbraided  Men  for  not  doing  it ;  and  yet,  according  to  thefe 
Meafures,  he  knew  it  was  impoflible  for  them  to  do  it ;  and  that  Mens 
Salvation  was  determined,   without  any  Regard  to  Conditions  on  our 
parts. 

If  thefe  be  the  right  Theological  Meafures,    what  doth  our  Saviour 
Luke  13.  mean  when  he  bids  Men  Jlrive  to  enter  in  at  the  fir  ait  Gate ;   for  many 
^^-         (hall  feek  to  enter  in,   and  fhall  not  he  able  }    By  which,  it  feems,  that 
bare  feeking  by  faint  and  weak  Endeavours  is  not  fuiBcient  ;  but  hy  fl ri- 
ving we  may  enter ^  or  elfe  it  is  to  no  purpofe  to  put  Men  upon  it.  What 
can    this  mean,  if  our  Endeavours  are  not  maide  Conditions ;    for  as  he 
Mat.7. 14.  faith  elfewhere.  Strait  is  the  gate,  and  narrow  is  the  way  that  leadethunto 
Life,  and  few  there  he  that  find  it.    To  what  purpofe  is  this  fpoken,  but 
,       to  flir  Men  up  to  greater  care  and  endeavour  to  attain  to  eternal  Life ; 
(ince  fo  many  do  mifs  of  it,    for  want  of  diligence  in  the  enquiry  and 
purfuit  after  it  ? 
Serm.  f.        But  Dr.  Crifp,  by  his  new  Theological  Measures,    hath  found  out  an 
5<3.  extraordinary  fenfe  of  thefe  words,  viz.  That  they  are  not  to  be  mderflood 

of  firi^nefs  of  Converfation  ;  hut  that  it  hath  not  that  latitude  in  it  that 
generally  Men  think  it  hath  ;  for  they  think,  that  hefides  Chrift,  there  is 
fomething  in  the  way  that  leadeth  to  Life,  and  that  is  a  Mans  own  Righ- 
teoufnefs  ;  hut  if  a  Mans  own  Righteoufnefs  he  taken  in,  then  it  is  a  hroader 
Way  than  Chrifl  allows.  But  how  could  it  enter  into  any  Man's  Head 
that  reads  our  Saviour's  words  to  the  end  of  the  Chapter,  to  think  this 
could  be  his  meaning?  ver.  ii.  l^ot every  one  that  faith  unto  me.  Lord, 
Lord,  /hall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  hut  he  that  doth  the  will  of 
my  Father  which  is  in  Heaven  ;  and  v,  %^.  Whofoever  heareth  thefe  Sayings 

of 


PartIL  of  CHRIST.  397 

of  mine  and  Joth  them,  I  mil  liken  him  unto  a  ivife  Man^  &c.  What  can 
be  more  evident,  than  that  our  Saviour  here  fpeaks  of  Obedience  to  his 
Will,  as  that  ftrait  gate  and  tiarrow  way  which  leadeth  unto  life  ?  So  that 
if  Chrift  and  his  Apoflles  taught  true  Dodrine  (as  no  doubt  they  did)  it 
was  not  meer  transferring  our  Sins  to  Chnfl  that  is  fufficient  for  our  Dif^ 
charge  and  Salvation  ;  but  the  Conditions  of  Faith,  Repentance,  and 
fincere  Obedience  are  required  on  our  parts. 

(^)  If  there  be  no  Conditions  on  our  parts  in  order  to  the  partaking 
the  Benefit  of  Chrift's  Sufferings  in  our  (lead,  how  can  Men  have  any 
good  ground  to  fatisfy  themfelves,  that  the  Guilt  of  their  Sins  is  tranf- 
fcrred  upon  Chrift  ?  This  was  a  difficulty  which  Dr.  Crifp  was  aware 
of;  and  therefore  labours  much  for  the  clearing  of  it.  The  fhort  of  it 
is.  If  Men  can.  believe  it  to  be  fo,  that  is  the  beft  Evidence  that  the 
thing  is  really  fo.  Thefe  are  his  words,  //  thou  believe  with  all  thy^'  i^S 
Heart  thy  Sins  are  forgiven  thee  ;  (^though  the  very  believing  it  felf  do 
not  infeoff  thee  in  that  freedom)  hut  if  you  would  know  whether  you  have 
any  part  in  this  freedom  or  not,  the  believing  in  the  Lord  Chrifi  is  a  fufficient 
manifefiation.  Again,  Jf  the  Lord  hath  laid  Iniquity,  and  our  Iniquity  up- p.  195. 
OH  Chrifi,  then  whofoever  thou  art  to  whom  the  Lord  will  be  pleafed  to  give 
the  believing  of  this  truth,  that  the  Lord  hath  kid  thy  Iniquity  upon  him  • 
that  laying  thy  Iniquity  upon  him  is  an  ahjolute  and  full  difcharge  to  thee^ 
that  there  neither  if,  nor  can  he  any  Iniquity,  that  for  the  prefent  or  for 
hereafter,  can  be  laid  to  thy  charge,  let  the  Perjon  he  who  he  will:  If  the 
Lord,  I  fay  again,  give  to  any  to  believe  this  truth,  that  it  is  his  Iniquity 
the  Lord  hath  laid  upon  Chrifi,  God  himfelf  camot  charge  any  one  Sin  upon 
that  Per/on. 

Thele  are  very  bold  Expreflions,  and  ought  to  have  had  plain  Scrip- 
ture, or  evident  Reafon  to  fupport  them,  but  they  have  neither.  The 
place  of  Scripture  he  brings  is,  fVho  fhall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of 
God's  Ele^  ?  But  is  believing  that  our  Sins  are  forgiven  an  infallible  mark 
of  God's  EIe<a  ?  Is  it  not  poifible  for  one  not  Ele<ft  to  believe  it,  or  for 
one  Eled:  not  to  believe  it  ?  If  fo,  how  can  it  be  any  reafonable  Argu- 
ment to  conclude.  That  a  Man's  Sins  are  forgiven  becaufe  he  believes 
that  they  are  ?  Is  Prefumption  a  thing  poffible  or  not  ?  If  it  be  poffible, 
is  it  not  the  greateft  Prefumption  to  believe  without  grounds  ?  Aiad 
what  ground  can  any  one  have  to  believe  tnat  his  Sins  are  forgiven  be- 
caufe  he  believes  it?  Where  hath  God  declared  this  in  Scripture  ?  And 
what  ground  can  there  be  for  true  Faith  without  Divine  Revela- 
tion ? 

But  Dr.  Crifp  was  aware  of  the  Objedion  about  Prefumption,  and 
he  gives  this  Anfwer  to  it.  Let  the  Perfon  be  what  he  will  be,  if  there  he  p 
but  a  real  receiving  of  Chrifi,  there  is  not  Prefumption  but  true  Believing  ;  ' 
which  is  not  at  all  to  the  purpofe  :  for  the  Queftion  is  not  about  Recei- 
ving of  Chrifi,  as  to  his  Word  and  Promifes ;  which  is,  no  doubt,  a  real 
A<5t  of  Faith  ;  nor  about  a  firm  perfuafion  of  the  Mind  as  to  the  truth 
of  what  God  hath  revealed;  but  it  is  about  that  particular  A(3: of  Faith 
whereby  we  believe  that  our  Sins  are  forgiven  ;  and  this  is  fuppofed  to 
be  the  firft  Ad  of  Saving  Faith^  and  to  be  the  true  Manifeftation,  that 
fuch  a  Perfon's  Sins  are  forgiven.  And  this  is  that  which  leads  Men,  we 
fay,  to  Prelijm prion,  and  hath  no  ground  at  all  in  Scripture,  it  is  far 
from  Prefumption  to  believe  what  God  hath  declared  and  pfomifed  ;  for 
this  is  our  Duty  :  It  is  no  Prefumption  to  apply  the  general  Promifes  of 
Forgivenefs  of  Sins  to  our  felves  j   for  without  that,  they  cannot  reach 

to 


I  • ^^ I  ■  ■■■■!- 

3^8  Of  the  Sufferings  .     Part  II 

to  our  cafe,  and  therefore  cannot  afford  fuificient  ground  of  inward  Peace 
and  Satisfadlion  of  Mind  :  It  is  no  Prefumption  to  rely  upon  the  truth  of 
Divine  Promifes,  nor  to  depend  upon  our  Blefled  Saviour  for  the  perfor- 
mance of  them  ;  for  this  is  confcquent  upon  our  perfuafion  that  thefe 
''  Promifes  are  Divine  :  But  yet  it  may  be  great  Prefumption  to  conclude, 
that  a  Maris  Sins  are  forgiven  hecauje  he  ielieves  that  they  are  forgiven, 
leing  laid  upon  Chrijl :  For  on  what  is  this  Connexion  founded  .■»  Where  is 

y  it  revealed  ?  And  if  to  believe  a  thing  without  ground  be  Prefumption, 

this  muft  be  fo. 

P.  105.  But  Qf  crifp  urges  that  Scripture,  While  we  were  yet  Sinners  Chri/i 
died  for  us  :  If  thou  art  a  Sinner  therefore,  Chrifi  died  for  thee.  And  how 
then  ?  Muft  every  S  nner  believe,  not  only  that  Chrift  died  for  him, 
and  that  his  Sins  are  forgiven,  and  if  he  can  believe  this,  it  is  a  mark  of 
his  Eledlion  ;  and  what  follows  ?  Then  here  is  univerfal  Redemption  af- 
ferted  in  its  full  extent ;  and  what  is  more,  here  is  an  univerfal  Election 
too,  if  all  Men  can  beLeve  that  their  Sins  are  forgiven  :  At  leaft  it  is  a 
Conditional  Eledtion  ^  and  that  is  ground  enough  for  Prefumption  as  to 
all  fuch  as  can  believe  that  their  Sins  are  forgiven.  What  can  hinder 
any  Man  more  from  Repentance  and  forfaking  his  Sins,  than  to  be  told, 
that  the  firft  Ad  of  Saving  Faith  is  to  believe  that  his  Sins  are  forgiven  ? 
But  the  Gofpel  preaches  Repentance  in  order  to  Remiflion  of  Sins  ;  for 
when  Chrift  lent  abroad  his  Apoilles  to  preach  to  the  World,  the  Mef* 

Luke»4.  (age  was.  That  Repentance  and  Remiffion  of  Sins  jhould  le  preached  in  his 

*^  Name  among  all  Nations.  Not  that  Men  were  to  believe  that  their  Sins 
are  already  forgiven,  being  laid  upon  Chrift  in  his  Suffering,  although 
the  Suffering  of  Chrift  be  mentioned  juft  before.  And  when  St.  Peter 
had  the  Holy  Ghofl  upon  him,  and  fpake  of  the  Sufferings  of  Chrift,  it 

Aft. 3. 19.  is  ebfervable  what  prefently  follows,  Repent  ye  therefore  and  be  converted, 
that  your  Sins  may  he  hlotted  out,  when  the  times  of  refrefhing  fhall  come 
from  the  prefence  of  the  Lord.  What  a  different  account  is  this  from  be- 
lieving that  your  Sins  are  forgiven,  and  you  may  be  fure  they  are  for- 

^{^  2. 38,  given  ?  And  upon  the  very  day  of  Pentecoft,  hefaid.  Repent  and  he  bap- 
tized every  one  of  you  in  the  Name  of  Jefus  Chrift,  for  the  Remiffton  of  Sins. 
Here  is  not  only  Repentance  required  for  the  Remiffion  of  Sins,  but  Bap- 
tifm  too.  And  is  not  the  Baptifmal  Covenant  a  Condition  on  our 
parts  .•>  It  muft  be  a  mere  piece  of  Pageantry,  and  an  infignificant  Ce- 
remony, if  it  doth  not  imply  a  Stipulation  on  the  part  of  thofewhoare 
baptized.  And  what  is  a  Stipulation,  but  a  federal  Condition  ?  So  that 
thofe  who  exclude  Conditions  from  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  muft  make 
nothing  of  the  Baptifrnal  Covenant,  as  to  any  real  Obligation  on  the 
Confciences  of  Men.  And  how  can  thofe  be  accounted  Chriftians  who 
dofo?  Thefe  things  are  fo  plain  in  Scripture,  that  I  wonder  how  thofe 
can  account  it  the  Rule  of  their  Faith  who  deny  them ;  but  whatever 
fuch  Men  pretend,  they  muft  take  up  their  Theological  Meafures,  as  they 
call  them,  fome  other  way.  And  it  is  not  hard  to  guefs  what  it  is  which 
makes  fuch  Doctrines  fo  popular  with  thofe,  who  have  a  mind  to  recon- 
cile the  Pra(9:ice  of  gainful,  and  trading,  and  fafhionable  Sins  with  an 
Intereft  in  Chrift  ;  which  is  eafily  done,  if  no  more  be  neceflary  to  Re- 
raifhon  of  Sins,  but  fuch  a  Faith  whereby  they  believe  their  Sins  are  al- 
ready pardoned. 

Whether  this  be  theReafon  of  fome  Mens  liking  fuch  Dodrines  above 
others  I  cannot  fay  ;  but  it  is  no  wonder  if  they  ihould  ;  and  it  is  a  dan- 
gerous Temptation  for  others  to  preach  fuch  pleafing  Opinions,  efpe* 

cially 


y 


I 


PartIL  ofCHKIST,        39^ 

ciaUy  when  they  are  covered  over  with  the  very  fpecious  Pretence  of  ad- 
vancing the  freeGracc  of  God ;  which  muft  be  free  indeed  if  no  Conditions 
be  required  on  our  parts.  J3ut  then  methinks  they  might  as  well  exclude 
a  Condition  without  as  well  as  within  them  ;  and  fb  there  would  be  no 
need  of  the  Satisfa(3:ion  of  Chrift.  For  the  Ahfolute  Promifes  of  the  New 
Covenant,  on  Which  fo  much  weight  is  laid  (without  comparing  them 
with  other  places  of  Scripture)  fpeak  no  more  of  Chrifl's  Sufferings  than 
they  do  of  any  Conditions  in  us :  But  to  this  they  think  they  have  a  full 
Anfwer,  by  attributing  to  God  fuch  a  fort  of  vindidtive  Juftice,  as  re- 
quires an.abfolute,  and  rigid,  and  perfed  Satisfadlioo  in  the  fame  kind 
for  the  Sins  of  Mankind.  Now  this  one  would  think  doth  not  agree 
well  with  the  Notion  of  Debts  (already  examined)  for  what  fort  of 
Vindictive  Juftice  is  that,  which  makes  Debts  fo  nccefTary  to  be  paid  to 
the  utmoft  Farthing  \  But  Dr.  Crijp  hath  put  both  ihefe  together  in  feve- 
ral  places. 

The  truth  is,'  faith  he,  where-ever  Sin  is,  the  Juftice  of  God  witlhave 
plenary  SatisfdSion ;  for  all  the  Sins  in  the  World  God  will  have  full  Satis-  '  ^^^° 
faSlion  either  by  the  Sinner  himfelf,  or  by  fome  Surety  for  him  ;  Chrifl^  fee- 
iitg  he  hath  taken  the  Sins  of  the  Ele^l  upon  him,  he  mufi  pay  the  full  value^ 
and  his  pay  muft  be  as  full  as  the  Rebrobates  in  HeUy  God  will  have  the  ut- 
ntofi  Farthing. 

Again,  WhenCbrifl  came  into  the  World,  he  paid  down  ready  Money  all  ^  .j,. 
at  ence,  he  paid  for  every  Tancel  at  one  fayment  ;   God  hath  all  from  him^ 
as  tjjey  fay,  in  ready  Cafh. 

And  again,  From  the  actual  laying  Iniquity  upon  Chrifl^  at  that  infiant  p  ao. 
when  he  was  upon  the  Crofs,  God  nailed  the  Sins  of  Men  to  the  Crofs  of 
Chrift  ;  and  from  that  time  there  was  not  one  Sin  to  be  reckoned^  either  to 
Believers,  who  are  the  Memhers  of  Chrift^  or  to  Chrift  himfelf ;  he  having 
made  SatisfaSiion,  and  upon  it  given  out  to  the  World,  it  is  finifhed.  What  is 
finiihed  }  It  is  the  payment  of  the  Price  fo  longlook'd  for  ithe  utmoft  Farthing 
is  now  laid  down. 

But  in  other  places  he  fpeaks  of  Chrifi's  wearing  out  the  Rod  of  Ven-  p.  30^.. 
geance  to  the  very  Stumps :  And  of  God's  Juftice,  as  a  Blood-hound  follow-  p.  jy^. 
ing  the  Scent  of  Blood,  and  feizes  where- ever  he  finds  it.     If  Chrift  take  our 
Blood  upon  him,  Juftice  will  follow  him,  and  feize  upon  him,  as  if  he  had 
been  the  very  Perfon  a£iing  the  Sin. 

What  mean  and  unworthy  Reprefentations  are  thefe  of  the  Divine 
Juftice,  which  is  always  accompanied  with  infinite  Wifdom  j  apd  ads 
not  here  for  Vengeance,  but  to  prevent  it !  God  hath  great,  aad  wife, 
and  becoming  Ends  to  all  the  Divine  Perfections  in  the  Sufferings  of 
Chrift  for  us,  m  order  to  cur  Redemption  and  Salvation.  But  fuch  kind 
of  Notions  as  thefe,  made  Men  abhor  the  Notion  of  Satufa£lion,  and 
gave  all  the  advantages  which  they  ever  had  againft  it.  Therefore,  if 
we  would  defend  it  (accefsfuUy,  we  muft  have  a  great  deal  of  care  not 
to  run  upon  thefe  Antinomian  Principles  ;  which  muft  unavoidably  carry 
us  into  luch  Abfurditics,  which  will  make  our  Adverfaries  infult  and  tri- 
umph, as  we  find  they  do  in  their  late  Pamphlets,  whenever  they  en- 
counter this  Notion  ot  Satisfadion.  And  they  would  make  the  World 
believe  that  thercis  no  other,  wlVich  is  a  piece  of  Artifice  in  themj  and 
if  ever  they  prevail  in  their  Undertakings,  it  muft  be  only  with  fuch 
Perfons  who  have  efpouled  fuch  an  indetencible  Notion  of  it:  For  the 
ftrength  of  all  they  fay  againft  the  Doftrine  of  Satisfa^ion  in  the  moft 
corred  Edition  of  the  Racovian  Catechifm,  (which,  if  they  have  any,  is  ^^^^^; 


400  Of  the  Sufferings  Part  11^ 

to  be  look'd  on  as  the  Standard  of  their  Dodrine)  is,  that  the  Payment  of 
the  utmoft.  Farthing  muft  exclude  all  Conditions  on  our  fide  :  So  that 
the  Notion  of  Satisfadion  doth  lay  the  Foundation  of  Antincmianijm  j 
which  Dr.  Crtfp  very  well  faw,  and  therefore  by  juft  Confequence  built 
his  Do(5tf  ine  upon  it. 


Chap.  III. 

The  State  of  the  Socinian  Controverfy  exflainJ-,  with  refpedl 
to  the  pefent  Differences  among  Dijfenters  about  it. 


HAving  thus  far  endeavoured  to  lay  open  the  My  fiery' oi  Antiyioml- 
anifm,  and  thereby  to  remove  the  falfe  Principles  on  which  the 
Dodrine  of  Sutufadhn  hath  been  maintained,  I  now  come  more  clofe- 
ly  to  confider  the  Charge  of  Socinianifm  upon  thofe  who  have  appeared 
moft  vigoroufly  againlt  it.  Among  thefe,  in  your  Appeal^  you  have 
fingled  out  Mr.  Baxter^  who  was  remarkable  for  his  fuccefsfu!  writing 
againft  them;  and  Mx.Dan.  WilliamSy  who»hath  made  himfelf  known 
to  the  World  by  his  Examination  of  Dr.  Crifp's  Opinions.  I  do  not  iay 
it  is  upon  that  Account  that  you  have  endeavoured  to  reprefent  them, 
as  yielding  too  much  to  the  Socinians  ;  for  you  declare  againft  fome  of 
them  your  felf  with  great  vehemency  ;  but  I  may  fay,  and  hope  to  make 
itour^  that  it  hath  been  only  a  miftaken  apprehenfion  of  the  trueftate  of 
the  Contrcverfy,  which  hath  been  the  occafton  of  ail  thefe  Heats ;  and 
that  there  is  no  Caufe  for  any  real  Difference  among  thofe  who  are  not 
AntinomianSy  either  in  the  Principles,  or  the  Confequences  which  follow 
from  them. 

And  therefore  I  fliall  immediately  apply  my  felf  to  the  fevera!  Heads 
of  your  Appeal,  in  the  Order  you  have  placed  them  ;  and  bring  under 
each  of  them  the  Matters  which  lie  difperfed  in  your  Book. 

I.  Alout  Chrift's  Sufferings  leing  a  proper  Pmifhrnent  of  our  Sins. 

As  to  this  yeu  produce  leveral  Paflages  out  of  Mr. Baxters  \VritingS; 
wherein«Iie  denies  Chrifi's  Sufferings  to  have  heen  a  proper  Punifiment  of 
our  Sins,  hut  only  faith  that  they  were  Improperly,  Analogically^  and  Ma' 
terially  penal :  That  our  Sins  were  not  a  proper  Meritorious  Caufe,  hut  only 
Occafional  of  Chrifls  Sufferings  ;  and  that  they  were  not  from  the  Obligation 
of  the  Law.,  hut  only  from  his  voluntary  Z/ndertaking',  and  that  Mr.  Willi- 
ams follows  him  in  thoiel^otions.  For  you  look  on  him  only  as  the  Ac- 
ceffory,  and  the  other  the  Principal. 

In  examining  this  matter,  we  have  two  things  to  confider. 

1.  In  what  Senfe  this  is  aflerted  by  Mr.  Baxter. 

z.  How  far  this  Senfe  doth  overthrow  ihcDc&Tineoi  Satisfaff ion,  znd 
how  far  Mr.  IV.  is  concerned  in  it. 

I.  As  to  the  Senfe  in  which  thefe  things  are  aflerted  by  Mr.  Baxter  : 
For  which  we  muft  have  recourfe  to  his  Writings,  where  he  hath  de- 
livered his  Opinion  moft  clearly.  I  pafs  over  therefore  his  Aphorifms, 
becaufe  he  declared  afterwards,  that  he  hid  expreffed  his  Mind  more  ful- 

'y 


Part  II.  of  CHRIST.  4.01 

ly  in  his  other  Books ;  efpecialiy  in  his  Confejjion  of  Faith,  purpofely 
written  for  the  clearing  of  himfelf  In  that  Book,  he  owns,  p.  5.  that 
in  his  younger  Days,  he  was  near  being  enfnared  ly  the  Antimmian  Do- 
iirines  ;  hut  aftenvards  he  found  them  to  he  not  only  falfe  hut  dangerous,  and 
"very  apt  to  prevail  upon  weak  and  injudicious  Minds ^  which  excited  his  !Z.eal 
againjl  them  ;  which  expofed  him,  as  he  faith,  fo  much  to  the  Hatred 
and  Reproaches  of  thofe  who  favoured  them. 

In  the  Confefjion  of  his  Faith,  />.  11.  he  exprefly  owns  not  only  Chrifi 
to  he  God,  and  one  with  the  Father  ;  hut  that  taking  our  Mature  upo'j  him 
he  gave  up  himfelf  a  Sacrifice  for  our  Sins,  and  a  Ranfom  for  us  in  fuffering 
Death  upon  theCrofs.  And  afterwards,  p.  i^z.  he  fers  down  the  Antino' 
mian  Dodtrine  on  one  fide,  the  Secinian  on  the  other,  and  his  own  as  the 
Truth  in  the  middle.  The  Antinomian  is  thus  delivered.  Jefus  Chrifi  fa- 
tiified  God's  Juflice  as  in  the  Ferfon  of  all  his  Eletl^  fo  that  in  Law  fenfe 
and  God s  (iccount,  they  ihemfelves  did  fatufy  in  and  hy  Chri(i.  So  that 
Chrifi"  s  Suffer  inz^s  were  the  full  and  proper  Execution  of  the  threatning  of  the 
Law  to  Man ;  and  fo  acquits  them  ipfo  fadto,  on  the  meer  Suffering  ;  and 
fo  it  IS  theirs  as  paid  and  fuffered  hy  Chriji,  and  accepted  hy  God,  without 
or  hefore  any  further  means  of  Convejance  or  Application  to  give  them  a  Right 
in  it,  or  to  its  Fruits- 

The  Socinian  Doctrine  is  thus  exprefled.  That  Jefus  Chrifi  did  not  un- 
dergo any  Femlty  for  our  Sins,  as  the  Meritorious,  or  Pro-meritorious  Caufe^ 
hut  only  as  Occafions  •  and  that  he  did  not  make  any  Sitisfa^ion  to  God's  f«. 
flice  for  us,  hut  only  fuffer  from  the  cruelty  of  wicked  Men,  and  not  as  from 
a  /'//?  and  offended  God,  and  fet  us  a  Copy  or  Example  of  'Patience  hy  his 
Dej'h  for  0  :r  Imitation. 

T  ar  v\hich  he  puts  down  as  the  Truth  is  thfs.  Jefus  Chrifi  as  theVuh- 
lick  Sp  nfor  did  hear  the  Punifhment  deferved  hy  the  Sins  of  the  World,  and 
fnade  to  his  Father  a  Satisfa^ion  Jufficient  for  all.  I  need  not  repeat  any 
mere  in  this  place  ;  this  being  fufficient  to  ihew  that  he  did  rejc<iJ:  the 
Socinian  Dotl/ine ;  and  owned  that  Chrift  did  hear  the  Punifhment  defers 
ted  hy  Mankind,  and  made  full  Satisfa^ion  to  the  Father. 

\ou  may  fay,  It  isnoneivs  for  yJ^r.  Baxter  to  he  charged  with  contradtli' 
in^  himfelf.  And  it  is  poflib.'e  for  a  Man  who  writeS'  rriuch,  and  lives 
lop^v  to  fall  into  fuch  different  ways  of  expreffing  his  Mind,  as  by  others 
may  be  taken  for  SelfContradiSions  which  really  are  not  fo.  But  this 
ma:l  be  narrowly  examind,  left  we  do  him  or  the  Truth  injury.  We 
muft  therefore  confider  the  force  of  thofe  Expreffions  you  produce  fe6t  of 
him. 

In  his  Methodus  Theologia  you  fay,  That  he  exprefly  declares  that  the 
Sufferings  of  Chrifi  as  to  the  Reafon  of  the  tfnng,  were  only  a  tiatwal  Evil 
undergone  hy  Occafion,  and  tlie  remote  Caufality  of  the  Sins  of  Mankind. 
Not  th.it  our  Sins  defirved  his  Punifhment ;  hut  hecaufe  unlefs  our  Sins  had 
deferved  Punifhment  he  had  not  undergone  it.  Becaufe  t/jere  is  no  proper 
Punifhment  hut  for  Sin  5  and  fo  the  Sufferings  oj  Chrifi  are  only  Punifh- 
ment in  an  Impjroper  and  Analogical  fenfe. 

This  is  the  force  of  what  you  cite  out  of  him,  and  to  the  fame  purpofe 
you  quote  his  Book  of  Vnivtrfd  Redemption.,  lately  printed,  but  long 
fince  written  j  as  appears  by  the  Poflfcript  to  his  Aphorifms,  and  by  the 
Book  it  felf. 

The  chief  Expreffion  in  it,  />.  91.  is,  T/jat  Chrijl's  Sufferings  had  no 
, proper  Meritorious  Caufe,  hut  yet  Mans  Sins  were  the  Pro-cau!a  Merito- 

E  e  e  ria  J 


4.02  Of  the  Supnngs  Part  IL 

r'a  ;  he  undertook  to  hear  that  Sufferhg  which  for  them  was  due  to  us  (rot 
to  him.)  And  therejcre  when  I  Jay  he  lore  the  Sufferings  due  to  us,  I  mean 
it  inaterialiter  only  ;  fuch  Sufferings  for  kind  and  weight  he  hore,  hut  h  ■  Ob- 
ligation to  hear  them  was  only  from  his  own  Sponfion,  a,«d  not  from  the  Law. 
From  thefe  paffages,  you  fay,  you  fear  a  Defign  in  fame  Followers  againfi 
the  Dodrine  of  a  Real,  Full,  and  Proper  Satisfaclion  to  God' i  Juflice  for 
our  Sins.  To  which  it  is  Effential,  that  Chrifl's  Sufferings  he  truly  and  pro- 
perly Penal ;  and  that  our  Sins  he  the  near  Impulftve  Meritorious  Cauje  of 
them -J  and  that  the  Ohligatien  thereunto  arife  from  the  fantlion  of  the  Law. 
This  latter  part  mull  be  examined  afterwards. 

2.  I  now  come  to  confider  how  far  this  overthrows  theDodrine  of  Sa- 
tisfadion.     To  which  I  anfwer, 

I.  It  doth  not  appear  how  this  touches  Mr.  D.  W.  the  Principal  in  the 
Accufation ;  although  you  fuppofe  him  but  an  Acceffory  in  the  Do£irine. 
And  therefore  it  ought  to  have  been  made  out,  that  Mr.  W.  had  efpoufed 
thefe  Notions  of  Mr.  B.  for  he  might  follow  him  in  other  things,  and 
find  reafon  to  diflent  from  him  in  this.  Therefore  I  expected  to  find 
fome  Proof  that  Mr.  IV.  had  faid  the  fame  things  as  to  this  matter,  which 

p.  13.  Mr.  B.  had  done.  But  you  only  produce  the  Complexion  of  his  Wri- 
tings, and  their  Tendency,  and  his  Notions,  Phrafes,  Terms  and  Arguments^ 
to  prove  this  Charge :  From  whence  ynu  infer.  That  he  mujl  with  Mr.  B. 
deny  Chnfl's  Sufferings  to  he  properly  Penal.  Now  I  appeal  to  your  fe!f, 
whether  in  a  matter  of  (uch  Conkqucnce  as  you  apprehend  this  to  be 
it  be  juft  and  reafonable  to  charge  one  Man  with  another's  Opinions, 
from  general  Prelumptions  and  Surmifes?  Efpecially  when  he  frtquently 
owns  the  Sufferings  of  Chrift  to  be  a  Punifhment  for  our  Sins,  in  oppo- 
fition  to  the  Socinian  Drdirine.  Either  Mr.  Bs  Doctrine  as  to  this  mat- 
ter falls  in  with  the  Socinians  or  it  doth  not  ;  if  not,  why  fo  much 
heat  againft  ir  ?  If  it  doth,  Mr.  ^f.  utterly  difowns  it  ;  for  he  exprefly 
rejeds  the  Socinian  Notion  ;  as  will  appear  by  thefe  places  which  I  have 
obferved  in  him.  In  the  firft  place  he  makes  no  fuch  Diftindions  of  a 
Pro-meriiorioui  Caufe  and  Analogical  Punifhments  as  Mr.  B.  did.  And  he 
aflerts  Chri^ft's  Sutierings  to  be  a  Funifhment  for  our  Sins  in  feverai  pla- 

Man  made  ces  ;  as  in  thefe  Words :  But  he  was  willing  to  hear  the  Punifhment  of  our 

Righteous  Crimes,  that  thereby  he  might  merit  o«r  Forgivenefs.     True,  it  was  for  Sift 

r'^8.  "^  "  had  not  heen  neceffary  ;  nor  yet  a  punifhment,  &ic.  Again,  Chrifi  fuf- 
fered  the  utmofl  Punrjhment  which  Juflice  required,  and  God  propofed  for 
the  papiation  of  Sin.     And  when  he  was  accufed  of  Principles  tending 

p.  229.  to  Socinianifm,  he  gave  this  Anfwer.  The  Socinian  Principles  are  fumma- 
rily  reduced  to  that  of  the  Trinity,  and  that  of  Chrift's  Satisfa£lion.  They 
deny  the  Deity  of  Chrift,  as  the  Son  of  God  hy  Eternal  Generation,  we  af- 
firm it  :  They  deny  the  Perfonality  of  the  Holy  Ghofi,  we  affirm  it.  The  mw 
lice  of  our  Adverfaries  cannot  pretend  to  touch  us  here.  The  Socinians  de- 
ny that  Chrijl  died  a  proper  Sacrifice  for  Sin,  we  affirm  it.  They  deny 
that  Chrifl's  Sufferings  were  the  Punifhment  of  our  Sins,  we  affirm  it.  They 
deny  that  Chnfl  fatisfied  Divine  Juflice,  or  died  in  our  place,  we  affirm  that 
he  fatisfied  Juftice,  and  that  Chrifl  died  in  our  place  and  flead.  And  in 
another  place,  /  affert  Chrifl's  Sufferings  to  he  Punifhment  fatisfa^ory  to 
Anfw.  to  "Juftice  for  our  Sins.     And  you  tell   me,  you  agree  with  me.  That  the 

Ut.J.h.  tfue  Controverfy  between  the  Socinians  znd  m  lies  here,  Whether  the 
Appeal,    Sufferings  of  Chrift  were  to  be  confidered  as  a  PuniHiment  for  our 

hi'    '    Sins,  or  as  Dominion  only  over  an  innocent  Peribn  in  order  to  his  Ad- 
vancement 


Part  II.  ofCHKlsr,  4.03 

vancement  to  Glory.  If  you  agree  in  this,  ind  Mr.  IV.  fo  freely  owns 
that  Chrift's  Sufferings  were  a  Punifhment  for  our  Sins,  how  come  you 
to  fufpedt  that  his  Notions  tend  to  SoczMiamfm  »  And  in  his  late  AnimaJ- 
verfions  on  your  Defence  of  the  Report^  p.  80.  he  faith.  That  he  joined 
with  his  Brethren  in  faying  that  the  Tunijhment  of  our  Sim  was  infliiled 
on  Chrifl  ;  that  God  might  without  irjury  to  his  Juftice^  pardon  and  fave 
Penitent  Believers.  Is  this  a  Socinian  Error  >  Or  is  a  Word  wanting  t6 
make  Chrifl  s  Sufferings  proper  Punijhments  ?  Nay,  what  is  it  to  anfwer 
for  our  Violations  ?  Is  not  to  anfwer  for  our  Sins  another  thing  than  So- 
cinians  hoid  >  Even  this  is  no  lefs  thdh  fnfferingthe  Punijhment'^  our  Sins 
if  we  were  for  violating  the  Law  under  its  Qlligations  tofuffer  ihofe  Funifh- 
ments. 

But  you  may  fay.  That  all  this  is  meer  Sophifiry^  and  that  he 
means  ohly  Punijhment  Materially  and  Analogically,  as  Mr.  B.  doth  al' 
though  he  finds  it  neceffary  to  he  more  cautious  and  referved  in  his  Ex*- 
preffioHS :  But  I  fee  no  caufe  for  fuch  a  fufpicion  as  to  Mr.  W.  I  come 
therefore, 

(2.)  To  cdnfider  whether  Mt. Baxters  own  words  do  lay  him  open 
to  the  fufpicion  of  going  too  far  towards  the  Socinians  in  this  matter. 
For  in  this  cafe  we  muft  diftinguifh  the  Scripture  Ndtion  of  Punifhment 
from  a  ftrid  and  Philofophical  fenfe  of  it.  The  Scripture  fpeaks  in  ge- 
neral of  ChrifTs  hearing  our  Sins,  and  our  Iniquities  heing  laid  upon  him^ 
and  his  heing  made  Sin  for  us,  &c.  but  not  a  word  of  y^r/<3f  and  proper 
Punifhment ;  but  of  that  which  was  appointed  dnd  accepted  in  order  to 
Atonement  for  our  Sins,  as  the  Impulfive  Caufe,  becaufe  the  nature  of  the 
Expreflions  do  imply  it  j  which  becomes  Meritorious  by  his  voluntary  un- 
dertaking it. 

But  Mr.  Baxter  it  feems  could  not  fatisfy  himfelf  with  the  Gene- 
ral Terms  of  Scripture  ;  but  was  refolved  to  enquire  into  the  Na- 
ture and  Reafon  of  the  thing  it  felf  ;  and  from  thence  he  found 
thefe  things,  as  to  Sin  and  punifliment,  which  he  thought  fit  to  be  con- 
fidered. 

1.  That  Punifhment  is  a  Natural  Evil infliiled for  a  Moral  Evil,  wherein  Meth; 
the  Matter  is  the  Evil  it  felf  as  Natural ;  the  Form,  as  he  calls  it,  the  re- 1^^^'*  ^ 
fpell  to  the  Meritorious  Caufe.  Def.  5.    ' 

2.  That  the  Name  of  Punifhment  is  in  it  felf  amhiguous  j  letaufe  it  relates 
to  Punifhment  juflly  infli^ed,  and  that  which  is  not ;  the  former  is  proper 
Punifhment,  the  \d  is  only  Analogically  fo.  Here  Analogical  Punifhment  is 
that  which  is  unjuftly  inflidted,  if  it  be  therefore  juftly  it  muft  be  pro- 
per Funifhment. 

3.  The  fir  (I  and  mofl  natural  fenfe  of  Punifhment  is,  when  the  Offen- 
der himfelf  fuffers  for  his  Fault  :  But  there  may  he  two  other  Reaforn  of 
Punifhment,  which  he  calls  Analogical,  hecaufe  they  do  not  immediately 
follow  Perfonal  Guilt  j  and  thofe  are  either  from  nearnefs  of  Relation,  as 
SuhjeSs  for  Princes,  and  Children  for  Parents  ;  or  hy  voluntary  Sponfion^ 
as  in  vicarious  Punifhments.     (By  which  we  arc  not  to  underftand,  as 

you  feem  to  eflimate,  that  which  is  vice  pceme,  or  Infliiiion  injlead  of  Pu-  Def.oftbe 
nifhment ;  but  it  is  a  real  Punifhment  by  Sojbftitution  of  one  in  the  place  I'^'^t"*' 
of  another.) 

E  e  e  z  From 


404  ^f  i^^  Sufferings  Part  II. 

From  hence  he  infers,  That  finceChrifi  did  not  fuffer  as  aSimer,  there- 
fore hisPiAniP:imeHt  could  not  be  proper  in  the  (iricled  fenfe  ;  and  fo  it  muft 
be  Analogical,  becaufe  not  immediately  confeq^uent  upon  the  Fault,  but  by 
the  voluntary  AU  of  another  perjon.  For  in  the  Reafon  of  the  thing  he  al- 
low.1  only  the  Sinner  him/elf  to  he  capable  of  the  Puni/hment  ;  i.  e.  in  the 
primary  fenfe  of  it.  But  if  he  that  undergoes  the  Punifhment  for  another 
by  his' own  A(5t,  be  juflly  punilhed  upon  his  volunrary  Sponfion,  then, 
I  fay,  the  Fault  of  another  becomes  a  meritorious  Caufe  as  to  him,  or 
there  muft  be  Injuflice  in  the  Punifhment.  For  he  diftinguidies  between 
a  Puni/hment  upon  a  falfe  Imputati^^  which  he  calls  Vnjufi ,  but  Analogi- 
cal ;  and  a  Punifhment  of  another  by  Confen't,  which  he  calls  Analogical,  but 
not  TJnjufl.  But  if  the  Punilhment  bs  jafi,  the  Caufe  muft  be  juft;  it 
could  not  be  jufl:  with  refpedl  to  his  own  Fault,  for  none  is  fuppofed  ; 
therefore  there  may  be  a  juft  Punilhment  for  another's  Fault ;  and  if  fo, 
that  may  be  truly  faid  to  be  the  Meritorious  Caufe  of  it,  and  the  Punilh- 
ment a  proper  Punifhment,  although  for  another's  Fault.  But  that  which 
Jed  Mr.  5.  into  the  denying  of  it  was,  the  Antinomians  making  Chrift  to 
undergo  the  proper  Punifhment  of  our  Sin,  becaufe  our  Perfonal  Guilt  ivaSy 
according  to  them,  transferred  upon  him  ;  but  he  finding  this  Principle  to 
be  the  loundation  of  Antinomianifm,  and  that  this  could  not  be  true,  he 
therefore  denied  Chrifl's  Punifhment  to  be  proper,  as  it  is  oppofed  to 
Dcf.  7.  Analogical.  For  he  faith,  That  in  a  proper  fenfe  our  Sins  could  never  be 
the  Sins  of  Chrifl,  becaufe  the  fame  Accident  cannot  belong^  to  divers  Subjects. 
Which  is  true :  But  from  thence  he  concludes,  That  fince  our  Sins  could 
not  be  in  Chrifl,  he  could  not  be  faid  to  le  properly  punifhed  for  them  ;  fince 
the  Guilt  of  the  Fault  as  fuch  mufl  flick  to  the  Sinner,  bat  the  Guilt  of  the 
Fault  as  to  the  Punifhment  may  be  transferred :  And  becaufe  there  can  be 
no  Punifhment  without  refpe£l  to  a  Fault,  therefore,  he  faith,  they  were  Ana- 
logical Punifbments  on  the  Account  of  the  Sins  of  Mankind.  But  then,  as  you 
truly  cite  his  words,  he  makes  our  Sins  not  to  be  the  Meritorious  Caufe  of 
them,  but  a  kind  of  Pro-meritorious  or  Occa/ional  Caufe. 

But  we  muft  do  him  right,  fo  far  as  to  take  notice,  that  in  ftating  the 
Socinian  Controverfy,  he  makes  it  to  confift,  in  denying  that  Chrifi  did  un- 
dergo any  Penalty  for  our  Sins  as  the  Meritorious  or  PrO'meritorious  Caufe ^ 
but  only  as  Occafions.  And  yet  here  he  makes  the  Pro-meritorious  Caufe 
and  the  Occafional  to  be  fame ;  and  he  denies,  That  our  Sins  were  the  Me- 
titorious  Caufe,  but  only  becaufe  if  we  had  not  finned  he  had  not  fuf- 
fered. 

Thefe  Expreflions,  I  grant,  taken  alone,  yield  too  much  to  the  Socini- 
ans,  who  do  not  deny  our  Sins  to  have  been  a  Remote,  Impulfive  and  Oc- 
cafional Caufe  of  Chrifl's  Sufferings,  but  deny  them  to  be  the  Meritorious 
Caufe  of  them. 

What  then?  Muft  we  give  up  Mr.S.  to  them  ?  By  no  means.  For  how 
could  he  be  a  Socinian,  who  fo  frankly  on  all  occafions  owned  the  Do- 
dirines  of  the  Trinity  and  Satisfa^ion  ^  But  thefe  things  may  be  faid  for 
his  Vindication. 

I.  That  by  laying  all  the  Paflages  together,  he  muft  mean  fomething 
more  by  his  Pro-meritorious  Caufe,  than  merely  a  Remote  Occafional  Caufe ; 
becaufe  in  fetting  down  the  Socinian  DoStrine,  he  plainly  diftinguilhes  be- 
tween the  Pro  meritorious  Caufe  and  the  Occafions;  and  faith,  the  Socini- 
ans  allow  one  and  not  the  other.  How  can  this  be,  if  they  were  the  fame  ? 
How  came  his  Pro-meritorious  Caufe  to  be  in  one  place  the  fame  with 

Occafional, 


Part  II. of  CHKIST  405 

OccaJioHjI,  and  in  the  other  as  diftind:  from  it  as  the  Socinhn  Do£lrine 
is  from  ours  ?  Therefore  it  is  but  a  reafonable  Interpretation  ot"  his  latter 
words,  to  fuppofe  that  he  meant  more  than  that  our  Sins  were  only  a 
Remote  Occajjon  of  Chrift's  Sufferings. 

z.  A  Meritorious  Caufe  may  be  confidered  two  ways. 

1.  Antecedently  to  any  ASt  of  the  Legiflator,-  and  as  it  relates  to  what 
follows  from  the  nature  of  the  thing,  of  which  Mr.  5,  fpeaks,  and  fo  In- 
herent Ghilt  is  the  only  Meritorious  Caufe  of  Punifhment  ;  for  that  doth 
naturally  belong  to  it,  and  Puniilimenc  can  be  only  deferved  by  it,  as 
Mr.  B.  truly  obferves.  • 

2.  Confequently  to  the  Lcgiflator's  Ad  in  admitting  another  by  his 
own  Confent  to  undergo  the  Punifliment  which  the  Offender  deferved  • 
and  fo  the  Law  transfers  the  Guilt  of  the  Punifhment  to  the  innocent 
Perfon  without  any  Injuftice  ;  as  Mr.  B.  comefles,  when  he  allows  vica- 
rious Punifhryfents,  or  one  fuflering  by  'voluntary  Sponfion  in  another's 
place.  Now  in  this  cafe,  no  Man  can  fay,  that  Antecedently  ^/le  Fault 
of  the  Offender  was  any  more  than  an  Occajional  Caufe  of  the  innocent 
Perfon's  fuffering^  but  taking  all  together,  when  he  is  admitted  to  fuffer 
in  the  place  of  the  Guilty,  the  Law  with  the  Punilhment  makes  the  Im- 
pul/ive  Caufe  become  Meritorious,  as  it  is  the  immediate  Reafon  of  his 
Sufferings.  The  only  Queftion  then  is,  whether  this  can  properly  be 
called  a  Meritorious  Caufe  .*  To  anfwer  this,  that  Expreffion  may  be  ta- 
ken in  two  Senfes. 

I,  In  theilrid  and  proper  Senfe,  and  fo  it  follows  Perfonal  and  Inhe- 
rent Guilt ;  and  this  your  felf  deny  to  have  been  in  Chrift. 

z.  In  the  Senfe  of  the  Law ;  and  fo  that  which  is  the  near  Impulfive 
Caufe  may  be  truly  faid  to  be  Meritorious  as  to  his  Sufferings :  For  our 
Sins  were  the  immediate  Reafons  of  them  ;  becaufe  they  made  it  an 
A£t  of  Juftice,  which  otherwife  had  been, only  an  A(5l  of  Power  and 
Dominion. 

3.  The  main  Point  in  Controverfy  between  us  and  the  SocimanSy  is 
not  about  the  Senfe  of  a  Meritorious  and  Pro-meritorious  Caufe,  and  how 
they  are  to  be  diftinguifhed  from  each  other ;  nor  about  the  raoft  flricS 
and  proper  Senfe  of  Puni^ment,  which  muft  fuppofe  Inherent  Guilt, 
which  cannot  be  in  the  Cafe  of  our  Saviour ;  (and  your  (elf  grant,  that 
the  Suppoiition  is  falfe  and  hlafphemous}  but  it  is,  whether  Chrift  did 
really  undergo  the  Punilhment  of  our  Sins,  in  order  to  the  being  a  Sacri- 
fice of  Atonement  for  them.  And  in  this  we  have  Mr.  fi's  Confent  expref- 
fed  on  all  Occafions ;  and  fome  Liberty  muft  be  allow'd  to  Metaphyfical 
Heads  to  fhew  their  Skill  in  Diftin(9:ions  above  other  Men  ;  and  fbme- 
times  when  there  is  no  caufe  for  them.  But  we  muft  not  prefently 
charge  Men  with  Herefy  for  new  invented  Diftindlions  ;  wherein  they 
may  be  allowed  to  plcafe  themfelves,  fo  they  do  not  cumber  the  Faith 
with  them;  nor  be  too  Iharp  upon  their  Brethren  for  not  apprehending 
the  ufe  of  them. 

There  is  a  remarkable  Story  in  the  Hiftory  of  the  Synod cH  Dorty 
which  may  not  be  improper  in  this  place.    There  were  in  one  of  the 
Univerfities  of  that  Country  two  Proleflbrs,  both  very  warm  and  cx-s.Lubber- 
tremely  zealous  for  that  which  they  accounted  the  mofl  Orthodos  Do- tus. 
Brine ;    but  it  happened,  that  one  of  thefe  accufed   the  other  before  ^-^if '"^"' 
the  Synod  for  no  fewer  than  5-0  Errors,  tending  to  Socinianifm,  Pela- 
gianifntf  &c.  and  wonderful  Heat  there  was  on  both  fides.    At  laft,  a 

Com- 


^o6  Of  the  Sufferings  Part  II, 

Committee  was  appointed  to  examine  this  dreadful  Charge,  and  upon 
Examinations  they  found  no  ground  for  the  Charge  of  Socinianifm,  or  a- 
ny  other  Herefie,  but  only  that  he  had  alTerted  too  much  the  ufe  of 
Ambiguous  and  Scholafiick  Terms,  and  endeavoured  to  bring  in  the 
way  of  the  School-men  in  his  Writings  j  and  therefore  the  Synod 
difmifs'd  him  with  that  prudent  Advice,  rather  to  keep  to  the  Lan- 
guage of  the  Scripture  than  of  the  Schools.  I  fliail  make  no  Applicsi- 
tion. 

Where  we  are  well  aflured,  that  Perfons  keep  to  the  main  Point  of 
Faith,  we  ought  to  give  the  moft  fevourable  Interpretation  to  fome  pecd- 
liar  Modes  of  fpeaking,  which  appear  to  have  more  Subtilty  and  Art  in 
them  ;  for  fome  Men  will  be  always  ready  to  (hew  the  goodnefs  and 
flrength  of  their  Eye-fight  by  diftinguifliing  things  quite  out  of  the  view 
of  other  Men  ;  and  fometimes  it  is  poffible  that  they  may  take  the  Sha- 
dows in  their  Eyes  for  real  and  diftindlObjedis  without  them.  All  that 
I  aim.  at  is,  to  keep  Men  as  much  as  may  be,  within  the  Bounds  of  thb 
Chriftian  Faith,  v/ithout  raifing  new  Difficulties  by  new  Phrafes  and  Sub- 
tilties,  which  reach  not  to  the  common  Faith ;  but  if  any  will  do  fo,  let 
not  others  make  more  than  there  is  of  fuch  Peculiarities,  and  prefently 
fufped:  that  they  are  carrying  on  Defigns  to  undermine  the  funda:mental 
Articles  of  our  Religion. 

But  before  I  difmifs  this  Particular,  I  muft  take  notice  of  what  you  fay 
relating  to  it. 
?.  3.  As,  (i.)  That  the  Unitarians  in  one  of  their  late  Pamphlets  do  jay^ 

That  though  Chrifi  did  not  undergo  Puni(hment  properly  fo  called^  yet  he 
did  fo  in  a  popular  Senfe  of  Punifhment ;  and  fo  they  grant  as  much  as 
Mr.B. 

To  this  I  anfwer.  That  the  Cafe  Is  not  the  fame  :  For  Mr.  B.  we  find 
on  all  occafions  aflerts  Chrifi' s  being  the  Eternal  Soh  of  6ody  and  taking 
our  Nature  upon  him,  and  hearing  the  Punifhment  deferved  hy  our  SinSy  and 
making  SatisfaHion  to  the  Father  for  the  Sins  of  Mankind.     Can  any  Vni' 
tarian  fay  this,  and  be  ftill  an  Vnitarian  ?  I  know  their  prefent  Wri- 
ters are  a  fort  of  flippery  Gentlemen,  who  will  pretend  to  very  fmooth 
things  that  you  may  take  no  hold  of  them.    And  even  in  the  Article 
of  the  Trinity,  which  they  have  endeavoured  with  all  their  Buffbonry  to 
expofe  and  ridicule,  now  they  find  that  will  not  do,  they  would  fain 
come  to  Terms  of  Accommodation,  and  claim  the  Benefit  of  Explica- 
tions ;  which  others,  fay  they,  are  excufed  by.    So  in  one  of  their  la- 
The      teft  Pamphlets,  we  are  told,  That  they  profefs  to  believe  the  Article  of 
grounds     the  Trinity :  they  may  as  well  hy,T^cy  profefs  to  believe  Tranfubjiantiation ; 
ms^of^the^^^  may  as  well  call  themfelves  Divines  of  the  Church  o/Rome,  as  of  the 
"cLtrover- Church  of  England.  For  it  is  inconfiftentwith  Moral  Honefiy,  or  the  Pro- 
fy  «n";^-  bity  of  a  Deifi,  lor  any  Man  who  is  in  his  Heart  an  Vnitarian,  to  pro- 
ZftyojGod,  fefs  himfelf  a  Divine  of  the  Church  of  England ;  for  he  mufl  be  a  Divine 
p.  12.      without  Confcience,  or  any  regard  to  the  Faith  or  Worfhip  which  he  joins 
in  the  profeflion  of.     For  can  any  Church  more  exprefly  declare  her 
Senfe  as  to  the  Do^rine  of  the  Trinity  than  ours  has  done,  in  her  Arti- 
cles, Creeds,  Doxologies,  Litanies,  &c.     And  can  any  Men  that  in  their 
Hearts  believe  not  a  tittle  of  it,    (as  it  hath  been  always  underllood  in 
the  Chriflian  Church)  yet  profefs  themfelves  to  be  Divines  of  fuch  a 
Church  ?    They  may  better  call  themfelves  Jews  and  Mahometans    for 
they  agree  far  better  with  them  as  to  the  Dodlrine  of  the  Trinity.    But 

thefe 


Part II.  of  CHRIST. 407 

thcfe  Men  of  Sincerity  only  pretend  )tot  to  litigate  about  Terms  and  ^-  3'- 
Wonts.,  and  therefore  are  for  taking:^  them  in  their  own  Senfe  ;  and  fo  will 
interpret  au  ay  our  Creeds,  and  Articles,  and  Prayers,  if  they  can  but 
find  out  fome  kind  of  Senle  which  they  can  underfland  them  in.  And  by 
this  new  Invention  a  Man  may  profeis  to  believe  a  God,  and  mean  no 
more  by  it  than  Spinoza  did  ;  fo  that  there  can  be  no  certainty  of  any 
Mens  Faith  or  Religion  by  their  Profeffions,  and  Subfcriptions,  and  out- 
ward h€ts  of  Worfliip. 

Bur,  fay  they,  Why  may  not  fome  mens  Explications  he  allowed  as  well 
as  others  ?  For  very  good  Reafons  :  Becaufe  fome  mens  Explications  are 
confiftent  with  the  Articles  of  Faith  and  others  are  not ;  and  becaufe 
fome  men  give  not  (o  much  occafion  to  (ufpeit  their  Sincerity  as  o- 
thers  do  ;  and  for  this  caufe  I  do  think  a  more  favourable  Senfe  ought 
to  be  put  on  Mr.  Baxter's  words  than  on  theirs. 

But  their  greatefl:  Clamour  is.  That  fuch  Explications  are  allowed  as^- 12,  aZ'" 
infer  arrant  Tritheifm  ;   and  although  Men  out  of  their  Charity  may  forgive 
the  Tritheifm  of  thefe  Heathenifh  Writers.,  yet  they  can  never  make  Three 
Infinite  Minds  to  he  hut  one  God.     But  the  true  Queftion  is  not,  Whether 
Three  Di(ii»3  and  Separate  Minds  make  Three  Gods  ?    But  whether  Three 
Perfons  in  the  Trinity  do  fo  >  And  even  Crellius  himfelf  could  have  told  creil  Eth» 
them,  That  the  holding  Three  Perfons  in  one  and  the  fame  Individual  Ef-  iJ^c.iAn. 
fence  cannot  make  any  real  or  perfe^  Tritheifm.     And  although  he  doth  Addend, 
not  al!ow  the  Notion  to  be  True  or  Confiflent.,  yet  he  thinks  the  charge  ^"^^  ^^^^' 
of  Tritheifm  doth  not  hold,  becaufe  of  that  clofe  and  infeparable  union  bc' 
ttbeen  the  Perfons  aid  the  Divine  Effence^     And  although  men  may  put 
a  wrong  Notion  upon  Perfon  or  Hypothefis  ;    yet  as  long  as  they  affert 
One  Individual  Divine  Effence  in  the  Three  Diftindl  Perfons,  the  Error  lies 
rather  in  the  Explication  than  in  the  E^odrine  of  the  Trinity.     But  there 
is  a  great  difference  between  thefe,  and  thofe  who  believe  no  Diftindi- 
on  of  Perfons  at  all  ;   and  although  they  would  now  feem  to  oppole 
only  the  Tritheiflick  Do^rine,  as  they  call  it,   yet  Mankind  cannot  be 
fp  forgetful,  as  not   to  call  to  mind  that  their  firft  oppofition  was  to 
wljat  the>  called  the  Athanafian  Religion^    or  that  Dodtrine  of  the  Tri- 
nity, which  is  contained  in  the  Creed  under  the  Name  of  Athanafius^ 
which  we  take  to  be  a  true  Explication oi  it;    and  therefore  thofe  who 
contradidt  that,  cannot  by  us  be  allowed  the  Benefit  of  their  Explica- 
tions. 

(z.)  You  objedl.  That  Legal  Guilt  lying  in  an  Obligation  to  Punifhment^?.  7, 
vshere  Punifhment  is  jujlly  infii^ed,  Guilt  mufi  he  fuppofed  as  a  neceffary 
Antecedent  thereto.  Of  this  there  is  no  Queftion  ;  for  Sin  and  Punifh- 
ment  have  a  necefTary  Refped  to  each  other  :  But  the  Queftion  is. 
Whether  Perfonal  Guilt  muft  be  fuppofed  ;  for  then  it  follows,  ei- 
ther that  ChriR's  Death  could  not  be  a  Punilhment  for  Sin  in  any  true 
Senfe,  or  that  our  Perfonal  Guilt  muft  be  transferred  upon  Chrift, 
which  you  deny.  But  we  fay  that  Punifhment  may  be  juftly  inflidl- 
ed,  where  there  was  a  Tranflation  of  Guilt  by  Relaxation  of  the 
Law  as  to  Perfonal  OfTenders,  and  admitting  a  Mediator  to  fufJer  in  their 
ilead. 

But,  fay  you,  Reiloral  Juflice  doth  effentially  refpeU  the  Law  in  its 
DifiributionSy  and  never  infli&s  Sufferings  on  any  hut  for  Sin  as  their  Meri- 
torious Caufe.  If  a  Re^or  fentenceth  any  to  Sufferings  without  a  Regard  to 
Sin,  it  is  unjufl.    Whatever  a  Sovereign  in  exerting  Ails  of  Dominion  may 

Jo 


4o8  Of  the  Sufferings  Part  If. 

do  in  this  cafe,  a  Re&or  cannot  juflly  tr,fli^  Sufferings   on  an  Innocent  Per- 
fon  as  fuch.     Here  I  grant,  you  have  come  up  to  the  rrue  (late  of  the 
Cafe  between  the  Socinians  and  Vs.     For  whatever  they  fomctimes  feem 
to  pretend,  they  do  not  allow  Chrift's  Sufferings  to  have  any  Relation 
to  Juftice  as  a  Tunifhment  for  Sin  in  any  true  Senfe  ;    but  only  that  they 
were  the  Exercife  of  God's  Dominion  over  him,  or  of  his  Sovereiga 
Power.     It's  true,  they  fay,  that  the  Sins  of  Mankind  may   be  ?aid  to 
have  been  an  Occafional  Caufe  in  this  RefpecSt,  that  if  we  had  not  fin^ 
ned  Chrifl  had  not  fuffered  t    But  this   kind  of  Caufe  hath  no  Influence 
upon  the  EfTedi  which  follows  upon  it,  which  is  produced  by  its  true 
and  proper  Caufes.    As  for  inftance,  a  modern  Philolopher,  of  great  E- 
fteem  among  fome,  hath  afferted.  That  Mankind  are   only  the  Occafional 
Caufes  of  their  own  Senfations^  i.e.  That  nothing  done  by  us  in  Seeing  or 
Hearing  is  the  Caufe  of  that  we  call  Senfation  ;    but  that  fuch  a  Local 
Motion  being  fuppofed,  God  himlelf  doth  immediately  produce  in  us 
thofe  Ideas  which  we  call  Senfations ;   and  fo  he  takes  away  all  Efficacy 
from  Second  Caufes,  and  thereby  makes  Mankind  to  have  lived  under 
a  perpetual  Delufion,  and  God  to  be  the  Soul  of  the  World.     But  I  on- 
ly mention  it  here  to  fliew,  that  thofe  who  aflert  fuch  Occafional  Caufes, 
do  take  away  all  kind  of  Efficacy  from  them.     For  an  Occafional  Caufe 
is  really  no  Caufe  at  all ;  but  fomething  that  is  fuppofed  in  order  to  the 
true  Caufe *s  producing  its   Ertedi.     As  the  BlefTed  Virgin  Mary  being 
at  Bethlehem  in  the  time  of  the  Inrolment  was  the  Occafional  Caufe  of  our 
Saviour's  being  born  there ;  but  will  any  one  fay,  that  this  was  a  True 
Caufe  of  our  Saviour's  being  born  at  Bethlehem  ?     /^nd'yet  we  may  fay, 
that  if  there  had  been  no  fuch  place  as  Bethlehem,  and  the  Blefled  Vir- 
gin had  not  been  there,  he  could  not  have  been  born  there.     And  fo  the 
Fire  of  London  was  the  Occafional  Caufe  of  the  Monument^  for  if  there 
had  been  no  Fire,  there  had  been  no  Monument  ;     but  will  any  man 
fay  therelore,  that  this  was  a  Caufe  of  the  Monument  >  The  moft  that: 
can  be  allowed  to  an  Occafional  Caufe  is  to  make  it  a  Remote  Impulfive 
Caufe  i  and  fo  the  Mifery  of  Mankind  by  Sin  was  the  Caufe  of  ChrilVs 
Sufferings ;  as  the  Difcafes  of  Mankind  are  the  Occafional  Caufe  of  the 
Study  and  Pradice  of    Phyfick  :    for  if  there  had  been  no  Difeafcs, 
there  would  have  been  no  need  of   Phyficians.     And  this  is  all   that 
they  can  make  of  our  Sins  being  the  Caufts  of  Chrifl's  Death,  viz. 
that  they  were  an  Occafion  of  his  coming  to  bear  the  Difeafes  of  Man- 
kind J  which  becauie  his  Preaching  the  Dodtrine  of  the  Gofpel  could 
not  extend  far  enough  to  do,    therefore   he    thought   fit  to  confirm 
his  Doctrine  by  his  Death:    Upon  which  followed  the  Preaching  of  ic 
to  the  World,   and  upon  that  Repentance  and  Amendment  of  Life  ; 
and  fuch  a  Power  in  Chrifl,  as  to  be  able  to  fave  all  fuch  as  truly 
repented. 

This  is  the  true  Account  of  the  Socinian  Scheme,  after  all  their  Refl- 
nings  of  it  in  the  laft  Edition  of  the  Racovian  Catechijm :   By  which  it 
appears  that  they  do  not  allow  the  Sufferings  of  Chrift  to  be  a  Punifh- 
ment  ior  Sin  in  any  true  and  proper  Senfe  ;    but  only  an  A&.  of  Sove- 
reignty in  God.     What  you  fay.  That  a  Re^or  cannot  in fliB  juflly  Suffer- 
ings  on  an  Innocent  Ferfon,  is  the  Socinian  Argument  againfl  Chrili's  Sa- 
tisfad}-ion  ,•    but  when  you  add  as  fuch,   I  fuppofe  you  thereby  allow 
-  Chrifl's  Suffering  juflly  as  taking  our  Sins  upon  him,  which  is  the  thing 
\We  aflert  againit  them  j  and  //  he  fu^ered  jufily  on  that  account,  then 
•  \  his 


Part II.  of  CHRIST. 


409 


his  Sufferings  were  a  true  and  proper  Punilhment.  For  whatever  is  in- 
flidled  fo  Sin  is  (o,  although  not  in  the  moft  ftrid  and  proper  fenfe, 
which  fuppofes  Inherent  Guilt.  And  this  is  all  that  Grotius  and  Fojfius 
mean  in  the  places  you  cite  out  of  them  ,-  viz.  That  our  Sins  were  an  p.  39,40. 
Antecedent  and  Impulfive  Caufe  as  to  Chrift's  Sufferings,  and  fo  they 
were  a  true  and  proper  Punifhment;  but  they  never  could  irnagine  if  in 
the  mod  ftrid:  and  proper  Senfe,  for  they  never  faid  that  Chrift  fufl^r- 
ed  the  very  fame  which  we  were  to  have  fuff'ered,  which  was  Punifli- 
fnent  in  the  ftrideft  Senfe;  but  that  which  was  properly  a  Punifliment 
with  refpe(St  to  Sin,  and  which  God  accepted  as  zfull,perfe^^  andfuffici- 
cnt  Sacrifice  for  the  Sim  0^  Mankind. 

The  ium  of  what  I  have  faid  on  this  Argument  is  this ;  That  the 
moft  proper  Senfe  of  Punifliment  is  that  which  belongs  to  Perfonal  Guilt  • 
fo  that  either  Chrift  could  not  fuffer  the  moft  proper  Punifliment,  or  the 
Perfonal  Guilt  of  our  Sins  mud  be  transferred  upon  him.  But  finceyou 
deny  this,  you  muft  yield  Punilhment  to  be  taken  in  a  Senfe  lefs  proper, 
but  yet  a  true  Punifliment  for  Sin,  and  properly  fo  called,  becaufe  Sin 
was  the  near  Impulfive  Caufe  of  it.  Therefore,  thofe  Who  do  allert  the 
Sufferings  of  Chrift  to  have  been  a  true  Punifliment  for  Sin,  have  no 
reafon  to  be  condemned  and  cenfured  as  approaching  to  Soci»ianiJm  :  For 
if  this  hold,  all  muft  be  either  Antinomians  or  Sociniam.  But  as  you  de- 
fire  to  avoid  both  extremes  your  felf,  fo  I  hope  you  will  allow  your 
Brethren  the  fame  liberty,  although  they  may  difler  in  fome  Modes  of 
Expreffion  from  you. 

• 

^2.)  Of  the  Changf  of  PerfoHS  hetween  Chrtfl  and  Vs ;    and  of  Chr^\s 
fuffering  in  our  Jiead.  - 

This  Article  about  the  Commutation  of  Perfons^  was  thought  fit  to  be 
pitched  upon  as  the  Foundation  of  a  new  Charge  upon  Mr.  Ws  Book. 
From  hence  a  great  Heat  hath  rifen  about  the  Senfe  of  it ;  and  I  per- 
ceive by  your  Appeal,  p.  43.  that  there  is  fo  much  Dijfatisfa^ion  ftill 
among  the  Diflenting  Brethren,  that  they  voiS net  renounce  the  Antinomian 
Errors  till  fatisfa£lion  he  given  as  to  what  Mr.  W.  is  charged  with.  Now 
this  to  me  (eems  to  be  a  very  ftrange  method  of  Proceeding.  If  they  do  re- 
ally think  the  Antinomian  Errors  to  be  Errors  indeed,  why  mttft  the  re- 
iiouncing  them  depend  upon  Mr.  PTs  giving  them  fatisfac^ion.^in  this 
ma  tter  .*  Suppofe  the  other  fide  had  faid.  That  they  xsould  not  renounce 
b  e  Socinian  or  Arminian  Do£lrines  till  Mr.  C.  Mr.  Ch.  Mr.  M.  &c.  had 
cleared  themfehes  of  Antinomianifm.  Would  this  have  been  thought  a 
reafonable  Excufe  ••>  Would  they  not  have  faid,  that  now  they  lliew  in- 
deed what  Fondnefs  they  had  for  thofe  Opinions,  when  they  put  it  up- 
on fuch  terms  which  they  thought  would  never  be  accepted  of?  If  it  hold 
on  one  fide,  it  muft  on  the  other  too.  But  I  fliall  take  no  advantage  of 
fuch  an  unaccountable  StifTnefs,  but  proceed  to  an  impartial  Examination 
of  this  matter,  as  it  lies  on  both  fides ;  which  will  require  the  laying 
open  briefly  the  Rife  and  Progrefs  of  this  Difpute,  and  then  confider 
what  Difference  there  ftill  remains,  and  what  are  the  beft  means  to  com' 
pofe  it. 

I.  As  to  the  Rife  and  Progrefs  of  the  Difpute,  we  muft  look  for  it  in 
Dr.  Crifp^  whofe  Opinions  Mr.  W.  undertook  to  confute.  Now  his 
words  are,  Mark  it  well,  Chrift  himfelf  is  notfo  compleatly  Righteous^  lut  p.  270, 

F  f  £  we 


410  Gf  the  Sufferings  Parti!. 

we  are  as  righteous  as  he  ivds ;  mr  we  fo  compleatly  finful,  hut  Chriji  be^ 
came,  leing  made  Sin,  as  compleatly  finfid  as  ive  — ■ —  So  ihit  here  is  a 
dire^  Chanje ;  Chrift  takes  our  Perfons  and  Condition  and  Jlands  in  our 
Jlead,  we  takeChrifi's  Per/on  and  Condition  and  Jl and  in  his  fiead.  Thefe 
words  are  not  denied  to  be  Dr.  Crifp's^  and  they  are  no  fudden  or  occa- 
fional  Expieflions,  but  are  grounded  upon  his  main  Principle  of  the 
Tranflation  oF  our  Peribnal  Guilt  upon  Chrifl-,  and  his  Pcrfonal  Righ- 
teoufnefs  on  Believers  :  So  that  here  is  nd  force  or  ftrain  upon  Iiis 
•    words. 

Now  to  this  Mr.  W.  faith,  The  Difference  is,  whether  there  he  a 
Change  of  Perjon  between  Chrift  and  Believers  ?  This  the  Do^or  affirms  and 
I  deny.  Thd  Queftion  hence  arofe,  whether  thefe  Words  could  be  rea- 
fonably  extended  beyond  that  Senfe  in  which  the  Dr.  aflerted  it  ?  None 
could  deny  but  there  might  be  other  Senfes  of  the  Change  of  Perfons ; 
but  in  fuch  a  cafe,  by  all  reafonable  ways  of  interpreting  the  Senfe  of 
ambiguous  Words,  we  mud  have  recourfe  to  the  true  Occafion  of  them. 
And  I  mull  declare  that  I  can  fee  no  real'on  for  the  heat  that  hath  been 
about  the  Difference  of  the  Phrafe,  of  Change  of  Perfon,  and  Change  of 
Perfons.  But  that  I  may  exprefs  my  Senfe  of  this  matter  more  diftin<aiy, 
1  ihall  do  it  in  thefe  particulars. 

(i.)  That  Mr.  W.  did  not  invent  the  Phrafe  of  Change  of  Perfon  to 
cover  an  ill  meaning  :    But  you  feem  to  intimate  fo  much,  when  you 
Def.  of    (ay,  That  it  wis  not  known  till  he  ft  art  ed  it  ;  and  that  it  is  a  Phrafe  only 
tiie  Rep.   ffjjffjigj  fQ  exprefs  no  more  than  what  the  Socinians  do  conftantly  grant  ; 
and  hy  it,  you  think,  is  meant  a  Change  of  Chrifi's  Perfon  from  Eafe  to  Pain 
for  our  Good.    Biit  if  you  had  catefUlly  looked  into  the  words  of  Dr. 
Crifp,  you  could  not  but  obferve  that  he  took  the  Phrafe  froni  him. 
Chrifl  takes  our  Perfons  and  Condition  and  ftands  in  our  flead,  we  take 
Chrifl's  Perfon  and  Condition  and  ftand  in  his  flead.     And  foon  after.  So 
that  if  you  will  reckon  weS,  you  mufi  always  reckon  your  felf  in  another's  Per- 
fon, and  that  other  in  your  Perfon.     Here  is  a  Change  of  Perfon  owned  by 
Dr.  Cr.  and  by  it  he  underftands  the  Tranflation  of  Believers  Perfonal 
Guilt  upon  Chrifl,  and  his  Perfonal  Righteoufnefs  on  them  ;    fo  that 
thereby  Chrifl  is  become  as  finful  as  they,  and  they  as  compleatly  righteous 
as  he.    His  words  carl  have  no  other  meaning.     And   not  long  after. 
That  Sacrifice  of  his  made  the  Exchange,  that  hy  virtue  of  this  we  hecame 
that  which  Chrifl  was,  and  Chrifl  hecame  that  which  we  were.     Why  then 
do  yoti  charge  Mr.  W.  with  inventing  this  Phrafe  to  ferve  the  Socinians, 
when  he  denied  it,  becaufe  he  found  it  ufed  bv  the  Antinomians  ?    But 
how  came  this  Phrafe  to  be  invented  by  Mr.W.  to  gnt'ify  the  Socinians, 
when  he  faith  that  Dr.  Cr.  affirmed  the  Change  of  Perfon,  and  he  de- 
nied it?    Would  he  invent  it  on  purpofe  to  ferve  them,  and  deny  it 
when  he  had  done  ?     This  makes  him  not  very  capable  of  doing  them 
any  great  Service,    if  he  had  a  mind  to  it.     But  Mr.  fV.  faith  for 
Anfw.  to  himfelf,  That  he  did  not  invent  the  Phrafe  of  Change  of  Perfon,  hut   «- 
{ence,p.9ifid  and  cited  it  as  Dr.  Crifp'j ;    and  that  this  was  all  denied,   and  not  a 
Change  of  Perfons,  which  he  fully  afferted.     What  is  to  be  done  in  this 
cafe  ?     Vou  charge  him  with  inventing  a  Phrafe  to  ferve  the  Soci- 
nians,   and    he  denies  the  Phrafe  and    the  Senfe  of  it  ;    you  charge 
him  with  denying  the  Change  of  Perfons,   and   he  exprefly  owns  and 
afTerts  it. 

All 


Part  11.  of  CHRIST,  40 

All  that  I  cjn  find  that  you  have  to  plead  for  your  felf  is,  That  /jm  ■'^pp^^i. 
Friend   and  Defender    denies  the  Change  of  Perfbas,  and  afferti  that  <Ji5e'fenc?, 
Change  of  Perfon  may  he  allowed  in  a  good  fen fe  ;  that  he  oppofes  a  Changed-  S^,  3^ 
of  Perfons,  and  fets  up  a  Change  of  Perfon  fingular.     Suppofe  all  this  to  Appeal, 
be  true  j  what  follows  ?  Then  he  took  a  wrong  way  to  defend  him.     Grant  ^'  '''• 
that,  how  doih  it  appear  from  thence  that  Mr.  W.  muft  fuffer  for  the 
Miftakes  of  a  Friend  ?    And   yet  even  he  hath  fufficiently  cleared  his  Rebuke, 
meaning  when  he  faith,  That  Mr.  W.  denied  nothings  was  concerned  to  de-^'"^^' 
ny  nothing  hut  what  the  Dr.  had  affirmed  ;   hut  the  Dr.  had  affirmed  a  wild 
monfirous  Senfe  of  Change  of  Perfons  hetween  Chrifl  and  the  Ele£l  or  Be- 
lievers J'  and  therefore  Mr.  W.  did  not,  could  not  deny  any  thing  elfe,  ac- 
cording to  all  the  Rules  and  Laws  of  pertinent  Difcourfe.    This  is  plain 
Reafoning  without  any  quirks  of  Wit  to  leflen  the  force  of  it.     And 
foon  after,  fetting  down  Dr.  <:ri/;>'s  words,  he  faith.  And  now  you  have^-39' 
ity  what  a  that  Change  of  Perfons  which  the  Dr.  affirms  and  Mr.  W.  denies^ 
which  had  he  not,  he  had  denied  hu  Redeemer,  and  betrayed  theGofpel.  Thefe 
are  fevere  Words,  but  they  (hew  what  his  true  Apprehcnfion  was  of  the 
Change  of  Perfons  as  denied  by  Mr.  W.  which  could  be  no  other  than 
that  Senfe  in  which  Dr.  Cr.  afferted  it,  whether  it  be  Change  of  Perfon, 
or  Change  of  Perfons. 


V  • 


A  DIS- 


4t3 


DISCOURSE 


I    N 


Vindication  of  the  DOCTRINE  of  the  TRINITT:  With 
an  Anfwer  to  the  late  Socinian  Objecflions  againft  it  from 
Scripure,  Antipity  and  Reafon.  And  a  PREFACE, 
Concerning  the  different  Explications  of  the  Trinity^  and 
the  TenJency  of  the  prefcnt  Socinian  Controverfie. 


The    PREFACE. 

WHeft  I  vpm  dejird^  tiot  lo»gfifice,  to  reprint  the  Difcourfe  lately  publi- 
/bed,  concerning  the  Doftrine  of  Chrift's  Satisfaftion,  1  thought  it 
necejfary  to  look  into  the  Socinian  Pamphlets,  (  vphich  have  fwartn- 
edfo  much  among  us  veithin  a  few  Tears  )  to  fee  hone  far  an  Anfwer  had  been 
given  in  them  to  any  of  the  Arguments  contained  in  it  5  but  I  found  the  Wri- 
ters of  them  thought  it  not  for  their  purpofe  to  take  any  notice  at  all  of  it  5  but 
rather  endeavour  d  to  turn  the  Controverfie  quite  another  ivay^  and  to  cover  their 
true  Setife  under  more  plarijtble  Exprejjions.  Of  which  I  have  given  a  full  account 
in  the  P  eface  to  the  late  Edition  of  it.  But  among  thofe  Treatifes  (^  which  for 
the  general  good  of  the  Nation  are  gather  d  into  Volumes  and  difpersd  abroad^ 
to  make  either  Profelytes  or  Infidels  )  I  found  one,  wherein  there  is  pretended 
to  be  an  Anfwer  to  my  Sermon  about  the  Myfteries  of  theChriftian  Faith,  (  re- 
printed with  the  former  Difcourfe  )  and  therein  I  meet  with  a  pajfage,  which 
hath  given  occafion  to  thk  Vindication.  For  there  are  thefe  Words^  That  I 
had  utterly  miftaken,  in  thinking  that  they  deny  the  Articles  of  the  new 
Creed,  or  Athana/ian  Religion,  becaufe  they  are  Myfteries,  or  becaufe,  fay 
they,  we  do  not  comprehend  them ;  we  deny  them,  becaufe  we  do  com- 
prehend them  ^  we  have  a  clear  and  diftinft  Perception,  that  they  are  not 
Myfteries,  but  Coniradiftions,  Impoffibilities  and  pure  Nonfenfe.  fVhich 
Ifords  contain  in  themfjfpitefid,  fo  unjitji,  and  fo  unreafonable  a  Charge  upon 
the  Chrijlian  Church  in  general,  and  our  own  in  particular,  that  I  could  not  but 
think  my  felf  concerned,  efpe daily  Jin ce  they  are  addiej/ed  to  me,  to  do  what  in 
me  lay  ( as  foon  as  my  uncertain  State  of  Health  would  permit )  towards  the 
clearing  the  fundamental  Myftery  of  the  AthanaHan  Religion,  as  thi^  call  it^ 
v.-L,  The  Doftrine  of  the  Trinity,  (^which  is  chiefly  flruck  at  by  theni)  with- 
out running  into  any  new  Explications,  or  laying  afide  any  old  terms,  for  which 
I  could  no' fee  any  jujl  occafion. 

For  however  though: fd  Men  may  think  to  efcape  fame  particular  diffi.ulties 
better,  by  going  out  of  the  common  Roads  -^  yet  they  may  meet  with  others  which 
they  did  not  forefee,  which  may  make  them  as  well  a<  others  Judge  if,  at  laji,  a 
wifcr  and  fafir  courfe  to  keep  in  the  fime  way,   which  the  Chrijiian  Church  hath' 

G  g  g  ufed. 


414 


The  Preface. 

_ . . ^ 

ufedf    ever  fine  e  it  hath  agreed  to  exprefs  her  Setife  in  fuch  Terms,    veo.ch 


were 
thought  moji  proper  for  thatpurpofe.  For  infuchcafesy  theOriginal  and  Cri.ical 
Signification  of  Words  is  not  fo  much  to  be  attended,  as  the  ufe  they  are  applied 
to,  and  fince  no  other  can  he  fitund  more  figntficant  or  proper  for  that  end  5  it 
looks  like  yielding  too  great  advantage  to  our  Adverfaries,  to  give  up  the  BoHnda* 
ries  of  our  Faith.  For  although  there  be  a  difiirence  hefween  the  necefiary  Arti- 
cle of  Faith  itfilf,  and  the  manner  of  exprejfing  it,  fothat  thofe  may  truly  be- 
lieve  the  Subjiance  of  it,  who  differ  in  the  Explication  j  yet  fince  the  Senfe  of 
the  Article  hath  been  generally  received  under  thofe  Terms,  there  feems  to  be  no 
fufficient  reafon  tofubjiitute  new  ones  ipfieadofthe  old,  which  can  hardly  be  done 
VpithoHt  refle^ing  on  the  Honour  of  the  Chriflian  Church,  and  giving  occafionfor 
very  nnreafonable  Heats  and  Difputes,  among  thofe,  who,  if  we  may  believe  their 
own  Words,  agree  in  the  fame  fundamental  Dodrine,  viz.  a  Trinity  in  Unity, 
or  three  Perfons  in  the  f^me  undivided  divine  Effence. 

I  am  fo  little  a  Friend  to  any  fuch  Heats  and  Differences  among  our  fives ^ 
efpecially  when  we  arefo  violently  attacked  by  our  common  Adverfaries,  that  were 
there  no  other  reafon,  I  fhouldfor  the  fake  of  that  alone  forbear  making  ufe  of  new 
Explications  5  but  there  is  another  too  obviom,  which  is,  the\tighty  advantage 
they  have  taken  from  hence  to  reprefent  our  Do£frine  as  uncertain,   as  well  as  un- 
intelligible.    For  as  foon  as  our  Unitarians  began  to-  appear  with  that  Brisknefs 
and  Boldnefs  they  have  done  now  for  fever  al  Tears,  fome  of  our  Divines  thought 
themfelves  oblig'd  to  write  in  Defence  of  the  Do&rine  of  the  Trinity.     Thence 
camefeveral  Anfwers  to  them,    and  in  fcveral  Methods,    as  the  Perfons  thought 
mofi  fubfervient  to  the  fame  end  5    but  whatever  their  Intentions  were,  our  Ad- 
verfaries were  too  much  pleafed  to  conceal  the  Satisfa&ion  which  they  took  in  it. 
For  foon  after,  we  had  the  feveral  EKplications  fet  forth  and  compared  with  each 
other  5  and  all  managed  fo,  as  to  make  the  Caufe  tofuffer  by  the  difagreement  of 
the  Advocates  for  it.     And  from  hence  they  have  formed  a  fivefold  Trinity. 
I.  The  Ciceronian  Trinity  5  becaufe  Tully  had  ufed  the  Word  Perfonse/or  dif- 
cmfidcfat.ferent  Refpe&s-^  Suftineo  ego  tres  Perfonas  5  and  according  to  this  Acceptation^ 
'/^jt/*  Three  Perfons  in  the  Godhead  are  no  more  than  three  Relations,   Capacities 
yt'beDi  or  Refpefks  of  God  to  his  Creatures,    which  fay  they,   is  downright  Sabellia- 
iirine  of   nifm,  and  is  no  manner  of  Myftery,    but  the  moft  intelligible  and  obvious 
l^^^^'"!^' thing  in  the  World.    2.  The  Cartefian  Trinity,  which  raaketh  three  divine 
&c.  p.  10.  Perfons,    and  three  infinite  Minds,    Spirits  and  Beings  to  be  but  one  God. 
P- ^'    ^.  The  Platonick  Trinity,  of  three  divine  Co-eternal  Perfons,   whereof  the 
fecond  and  third  are  fubordinate  or  inferiour  to  the  firft  in  Dignity,  Power 
and  all  other  Qualities,    except  only.  Duration.     4.  The  Ariflotelian  Trini- 
j,  ty,  which  faith  the  Divine  Perfons  are  one  God,   becaufe  they  have  one 

and  the  fame  numerical  Subftance.  5.  The  Trinity  of  the  Mobile,  or  that 
which  is  held  by  the  common  People,  or  by  fuch  lazy  Divines,  who  on- 
ly fay  in  fhort,  that  it  is  an  unconceivable  Myftery  5  and  that  thofe  are  as 
much  in  fault  who  go  about  to  explain  it,  as  thofe  who  oppofe  it.» 

But  that  which  hath  made  the  mofi:  noife,  and  caufed  the  greatefi  Heat  and 
Ferment  among  us,  hath  been  a  difference  firfi  begun  between  two  learned  Divines 
of  our  Church,  about  the  fecond  and  fourth  ,  and  the  account  which  our  Unitari- 
p,  13.  ^ns give  ofbothjs  this,That  theone  is  a  rational  and  intelligible  Explication, ' 
but  not  tij^e  nor  Orthodox  5  the  other  is  true  and  Orthodox  5  but  neither 
rational,  intelligible  nor  poffible.  I  do  not  mention  this,  as  though  their 
Words  were  to  be  taken  as  to  either  5  but  only  to  fl^ew  what  advantage  they  take 
from  both,  to  reprefent  that  which  is  fit  up  for  the  Churches  Do^rine,  either  not 
10  be  truly  fo,  or  to  be  neither  rational  nor  intelligible. 

The  defign  of  the  following  Difcourfe,    is  to  make  it  appear,   (i.)  That  the 
churches  Do&rine,  a^  to  the  Trinity,  as  it  is  expreffed  in  the  Athanafian  Creed, 
is  not  liable  to  their  charges  tf/Contradiftion,    ImpolTibilities  ,and  pure  Non- 
fen  fe. 


The  Preface.  415 


fenfe.  (2.)  That  we  own  no  other  Do&rine  than  what  hath  been  receited  by 
the  Chrifiian  Church  in  the  fever al  Ages  from  the  Apojiles  Times  :  (3,)  And  that 
there  are  no  ObjeB'ions  in  point  ofreafon,  which  ought  to  hinder  our  Jjfent  to  this 
great  point  oft  he  Chrifiian  Faith. 

But  the  f  ^V/Defign  of  this  Preface,  is  to  remove  this  Prejudice  which  lies  ih 
our  way  from  the  different  manners  <7/Ex  plication,  and  the  warm  Difputes  which 
have  been  occajiond  by  them. 

It  cannot  be  denied,   that  our  Adverfaries  have  taken  all  pofjible  advantage  a- 
gainfl  us  from  thefe  unhappy  differences  ;   and  in  one  of  their  latejl  Difconrfes 
they  glory  in  it,  and  think  they  have  therein  out-done  the  foreign  Unitarians:    . 
For,  fay  they.  We  have  (hewed,   that  their  Faiths  concerning  this  pretended  DtSmrfe 
Myftery  are  fo  many  and  fo  contrary,    that  they  are  lefs  one  Party  among'^^'^'^^^'^'"| 
therafelves,  than  the  far  more  learned  and  greater  number  of  them  are  one  and  NomU 
Party  with  us ;    this  is  fpohn  of  thofe  they  call  Nominal  Trinitarians  5  and  "'*(  ^rini- 
for  the  other  whom  they  call  Real,   they  prove  them  guilty  of  manifeft  Herefie  ;  ^o^lel'^' 
the  one  they  call  Sabellians,  which  they  fay  is  the  fame  with  Unitarians,  and  the  p.  3. 
•    other  Polytheifts  or  difguifed  Pagans,  and  they  borrow  arguments  from  one  fide  '^'l^l-^ll , 
to  prove  the  charge  upon  the  other  5  and  they  co>ifidently  affirm  that  all  that  fpeak  fitks,p.i^. 
out  in  this  matter,  mujl  be  driven  either  to  Sabellianifm,  or  Tritheifm.     If  they 
are  Nominal  Trinitarians,  they  fall  into  the  former,  //Real  into  the  latter. 

This  k  the  whole  Defign  of  this  late  Difcourfe,  which  I  fhall  here  examine,  that 
I  may  remove  thk  flumbling  Block,  before  I  enter  upon  the  main  bufmefs. 

\.  As  to  thofe  who  are  called  "^oxvAXi^XXxxm^^xhxi^.     Who  are  they  ^     And 
from  whence  comes  fuch  a  Denomination  ?    They  tell  us.  That  they  are  fuch  Difcourfe^of 
who  believe  three  Perfons,  who  are  Perfons  in  Name  only  5   indeed  and  in  ^^fl^\ 
truth  they  are  but  one  fubfifting  Perfon.    But  where  are  thefe  to  be  found  .<?  irimc^.y. 
Among  all  fuch,  fay  they,   as  agree  that  there  is  but  one  only  and  felf-fame 
divine  Eflence  and  Subftance.     But  do  thefe  affert^    that  there  is  but  one  fub- 
fifting Perfon,  and  three  only  in  Name  ">    Let  any  one  be  produced  who  hath 
written  in  defence  of  the  Trinity  ;  for  thofe  who  have  been  mofi  charged,    have  ut- 
terly deny'd  it.     2  hat  learned  Perfon,  who  is  more  particularly  refle&ed  upon  in 
this  Charge,  is  by  themfaid  to  affirm.  That  God  is  one  divine  intelleftual  Sub-    p-  j°- 
ftance,  or  really  fubfifting  Perfon,  and  diftinguiftied  and  diverfified  by  three 
relative  Modes,  or  relative  Subfiftences.    And  Mr.  Hooker  is  produced  to  the    p-"- 
fame  purpofe.  That  there  is  but  one  Subftance  in  God,   and  three  diftinQ:  re- 
lative Properties,    which  Subftance  being  taken  with  its  peculiar  Property, 
makes  the  diftinftion  of  Perfons  in  the  Godhead.  But  fay  they,  Thefe  Modes 
and  Properties  do  not  make  any  real  fubfifting  Perfons  5  but  only  in  a  Gram- 
matical and  Critical  Senfe,  and  at  moft  this  is  no  more  than  one  Man  may 
be  faid  to  be  three  Perfons  on  the  account  of  different  Relations,  as  Solomon 
was  Son  of  David,    Father  of  Rehoboam,    and  proceeding  from  David  and 
Bathfheba,  and  yet  was  but  one  fubfifting  Perfon.  This  is  the  free  of  what  they 
fay.     But  then  in  a  triumphing  manner  they  add.    That  the  Realifts  have  fo    ?•'?' 
manifeft  an  advantage  againft  them,  that  they  have  no  way  to  defend  thera- 
felves but  by  Recrimination,  i.  e.  by  fliewing  the  like  Abfurdity  in  their  Do- 
Urine.     And  thus  they  hope  either  fide  will  baffle  the  other,  and  in  the  mean  time, 
the  Cattfe  be  lofl  between  them. 

But  in  fo  nice  a  matter  as  this,  we  muji  not  rely  too  much  on  an  Adverfary's 
Reprefef2tation-j  for  the  leaving  out  fame  exprefjions,  may  make  an  Opinion  look 
with  another  Appearance,  than  if  all  were  taken  together,  it  would  have.  We  muff 
therefore  take  mti.  e  of  other  paffages  which  may  help  to  give  the  true  Senfe  of  the 
learned  Author,  who  is  chiefly  aimed  at. 

I.  In  the  very  fame  Page  he  afferts.  That  each  of  the  divine  Perfons  has  an  ^^1^1,^;^^ 
I        abfolute  Nature  diftinftly  belonging  to  him,  though  not  a  diftinft  2hfo\me  charged, 
1         t^siture 'j  and  to  the  fame  purpofe  in  another  place.  &G.p.i57' 

Ggg  2  2.  That 


^i^  The  Preface. 


Ammadv.  2.  That  the  eterPxal  Father  is  and  fubfifts  as  a  Father,  by  having  a  Son, 
Anfmldv.  and  communicating  his  EiTence  to  another.  And  elfewhere,  that  tht  Kchd- 
&c.f.243.  on  between  Father  and  Son  is  founded  on  that  eternal  Aft,    by  which  the 

Father  communicates  his  divine  Nature  to  the  Son. 
lb,  p.  S40.  5.  That  the  foundation  of  the  Doftrine  of  the  Trinity  -is  this,  i .  That  there 
can  be  but  one  God.  2.  That  there  is  nothing  in  God,  but  what  is  God. 
3.  That  there  can  be  no  compofition  in  the  Deity  with  any  fuch  pofitive  rp- 
al  Being,  diftindt  from  the  Deity  it  felf.  But  the  Church  finding  in  Scrip- 
ture mention  of  three,  to  whom  diftindly  the  Godhead  does  belong,  ex- 
prefled  thefe  three  by  the  Name  of  Perfons,  and  dated  their  Perfonalities 
upon  three  diftinft  Modes  of  Subfiftence,  allotted  to  one  and  the  fame 
Godhead,  and  thefe.  alfo  diftinguiflied  from  one  another  by  three  diftind 
Relations. 

What  do  thefe  Men  mean,  to  charge  one  who  goes  upon  thefe  grounds  vp'itb 
Sabellianifm  ?  Doth  he  make  the  three  Perfons  to  be  mere  Names,  as  St.  Ba- 
Bafil.Ep.  fil  in  few  Words  expreffes  the  trite  nature  0/ Sabellianifm,  that  it  was  tv  it^.y- 
*^4-  fxci.  nvo\vJ)Wfjiov,  One  thing  with  different  Denominations!*  Can  the  com- 
municating the  divine  Ellence  by  the  Father  to  the  Son,  be  called  a  Name, 
or  a  Mode,  or  a  Refpeft  only  ?  And  thefe  Men  of  wonderful  Subtil ty,  have 
not  learnt  to  diflinguifh  between  Perfons  and  Perfonalities. 

Where  is  the  leaft  Intimation  given  ^  that  he  look'd  on  the  divine  Verfons  as 
Modes  <?«<^  Refpeds  only  ?  That  is  impojftble,  fince  he  owns  a.  Communicati- 
on of  the  divine  Eflence,  and  that  each  of  the  divine  Perfons  hath  the  di- 
vine Nature  belonging  to  him  5  could  it  ever  enter  into  any  Mans  head  to 
think,  that  he  that  owns  this  fhould  own  the  other  alfo  .<?  But  the  Perfonality  is 
a  thing  of  another  confideration.  For  it  is  thereafon  of  the  diflin^ion  of  Per- 
fons in  the  fame  undivided. ■^afur.e.  That  there  is  a  difiintlion,  the  Scripture 
-  affures  m  \  and  withall^  that  there  is  but  one  divine  Effence.  How  can  this 
difiinBion  be  .<?  Not  by  ejfential  Attributes,  for  thofetnufi  be  in  the  divine  Ef- 
fence, and  in  every  Per  fan  alike,  otherw'fe  he  hath  not  t.he  entire  divine  Nature  5 
not  by  accidents,  as  Men  are  dijlinguifljed  ft-om  each  other,  for  the  divine  Na- 
ture is  not  capable  of  thefe  ^  not  by  feparate  or  divided  Subftances,  for  that  would 
be  inconftfient  with  the  perfeB  ZJ/^ity  of  the  Godhead  5  fince  therefore  there  can, 
be  no  other  way  of  d'i^inition,  we  muft  confider  how  the  Scripture  d're&s  us  i/t 
this  cafe  5  and  that  acquaints  us  with  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft,  as  ha- 
ving mutual  Relation  to  each  other  ;  and  there  is  no  Repugnancy  therein  to  the 
Divine  Nature,  and  therefore  the  dijlinclion  of  the  Perfons  hath  been  fixed  on 
that,  as  the  mofi  proper  Foundation  for  it.  And  thefe  are  called  different  Mo- 
des <7/Subfiftence,  on  which  the  diflh0  Perfonalities  are  founded,  which  can- 
be  no  other  than  relative.  But  <?,Perfon  is  that  which  refults  from  the  divine 
Nature  and  Subfiflen'ce  together  ;  and  although  a  Perfon  cannot  be  faid  to  be  a 
relative,  confider  d  as  fuch,  yet  being  joyned  with  the  manner  of  Subfifience^ 
it  doth  imply  a  Relation,  and  fo  a  Perfon  may  be  faid  to  be  a  relative  Be- 
ing. 
confiderat.  But  fay  they,  If  the  three  Perfons  have  all  the  fame  individual  Subftance, 
on  the  Ex.  then  they  are  truly  and  properly  only  three  Modes  ^  and  therefore  although 
p.^s'."'  among  Men,  Perfonalities  are  diftinO:  from  the  Perfons,  becaufe  the  Perfons 
are  diftinft  intelligent  Subftances,  yet  this  cannot  hold  where  there  is  but 
one  individual  Subftance. 

The  ^efiionis.  Whether  thofe  they  r^^  Nominal  Trinitarians,  are  liable  to 

the  charge  (j/Sabellianifm;  the  anfwer  is.    That  they  cannot,   becaufe  they  affert 

far  more  /to  three  Names,  viz..  That  each  Perfon  hath  the  divine  Nature 

Animad.    diftindly  belonging  to  him.     But  fay  they,   Thefe  Perfons  are   but  mere 

P-  29»-    Modes.    No,  fay  the  other ;   We  do  not  fay  that  the  Perfon  is  only  a  Mo- 

dits,  but  that  it  is  the  divine  Nature,  or  Godhead  fubfifting  under  fuch  a 

Modus, 


The    Preface.  417 


Motius,  fo  that  the  Godhead  is  ftil!  fncluded  in  it,  joynedtoit,  and  diftin- 
gnidied  by  it.     Grant  all  this,    the  Unitarians  reply^    yet  where  there  is  the 
fame  individual  Subftance,  the  Perfon  can  be  only  a  Modus.     To  which  it  is  Trkheifm 
anfwerd.  That  this  individual  Subftance  hath  three  diftinft  ways  of  fubfift-  <:h<irg(d, 
ing,  according  to  which  it  (ubfifts  diftinftly  and  diflferently  in  each  of  the  ^' '°  ' 
three  divine  Perfons.    So  that  here  Ves  the  main  pointy    whether  it  be  Sabelli- 
anifm,    to  ajjert  the  fame  individual  Subftance  under  three  fuch  different  Modes 
of  Siibfr^ence.     If  it  be,  the  mojl  learned  and  judicious  of  the  Fathers  did  not 
know  what  Sabellianifm  meant    (  as  I  have  (hewed  at  large  in  the  following  Dif-  ^"^P-^H- 
coufi  )   for  they  utterly  difowned  Sabellianifm,    and  yet  afferted.    That  the 
feveral  HypolUfesconfifted  of  peculiar  Properties  in  one  and  the  fame  di- 
vine Subftance.     But  it  is  not  the  Authority  of  Fathers  which  they  regard,  for 
they  ferve  them  only  as  Stones  in  the  Boys  way  when  they  quarrel^  viz.  to  throw 
them  at  our  Heads.  \ 

Let  us  then  examine  this  matter  by  reafon  without  them.  Perfons  among  Men, 
fay  they,  are  diftinguiftied  from  Perfonalities,  becaufe  they  have  diftindJ: 
Subftances,  therefore  where  there  is  but  one  Subftance,  the  Perfon  can  be 
only  a  Mode,  and  therefore  the  fame  with  the  Perfonality. 

I  anfxer,  iLat  the  true  original  Notion  <>/ Perfonality  is  no  more  than  a  dif- 
ferent Mode  of  fuhjiftence  in  the  fame  common  Nature.     For  every  fuch  Nature 
is  in  it  felf  one  and  indivifible  5    and  the  more  perfe^  it  is,    the  greater  muft 
itsTJnity  be.     For  the  firft  Being  is  the  moji  One  5    and  alfDiviiion  comes 
from  Diftance,    and  Imperfeftion.     The  fi> ft  foundation  o/Diftinftion  is  Di- 
verfity  ;   for  if  there  were  no  Diver  fit y^    there  would  he  nothing  but  entire  and 
perfeU  TJnity^  All  Diverfity  comes  from  two  things,  Diffimilitude  and  De- 
pendance.    Thofe  Philofophers  (  f<?&£/ Megarici )    did  not  think  much  amifs, 
who  faid.  That  if  all  things  were  alike,    there  would  be  but  one  Subftance 
or  being  in  the  World  5    and  what  we  now  call  different  Subftances,  would  be 
caily  different  Modes  of  Subftjience  in  the  fame  individual  Nature^    The  drffc' 
rence  of  Subftances  in  created  Beings,  arifes  from  thefe  two  things,     i.  A  DiJJi' 
militude  of  Accidents,  both  internal  and  external.      2.  The  Will  and  Power  of 
God,    whereby  he  gives  them  dijiinc^  and  fepar-ate  Beings  in  the  fame  comma  A 
Nature.  As  for  i?tftance,  the  Namreand  Effenceofa  Man  conftderd  in  it  felf ,  is 
but  one  and  indivifible  :;  but  God  gives  afeparate  Exiftence  to  every  Individual^ 
whereby  that  common  Nature  fiibfifts  in  fo  many  d:fiin£l  Subftances,    as  there  are 
Individuals  of  that  kind  ^  and  every  one  oftheje'^ubftances  is  diftinguified  front 
all  others,  not  only  by  a  feparate  internal  vital  Principle  and  peculiar  Properties, 
but  by  fuch  external  Accidents,  as  do  very  eafily  difcriminate  them  from  each  0- 
ther.     And  thefubje^  of  all  thefe  Accidents  is  that  peculiar  Subftance,     which 
God  hath  given  to  every  Individual,    which  in  rational  Beings  is  called  a  Per- 
fon 5    and  fo  we  grant  that  in  all  fuch  created  Beings,   the  Perfonality  doth 
fuppofe  a  dijiin^  Subftance  ^    not  from  the  Nature  of  Perfonality,    but  from  the 
Condition  of  the  Suhje^l  wherein  it  is.     The  Perfonality  in  it  felf  is  but  a  diffe- 
rent Mode  of  Subfftence  in  the  fame  common  Nature,    which  is  but  One  5    but 
this  Perfonality  being  in  fuch  a  ful})e^  as  Man  is,    it  from  thence  follows,    that 
each  Perfjn  hath  a  peculiar  Subftance  of  his  own  5    and  not  from  the  Nature  of 
Perfonality.     But  when  we   come  to  confider  a  divine  Effence,    which  is  mojl 
perfectly  one,    and  is  wholly  unc^pable  of  any  feparate  Exiftence  or  Accidents, 
there  can  be  no  other  wayofdiftin&ion  conceived  in  it,  but  by  different  Modes  of 
Subfiftence,  ^4-  relative  Properties  ;«*^e/iwc  divine  Effence.     And  herein  we 
proceed,  as  we  do  in  cur  other  Conceptions  of  the  divine  Nature,  i.  e.  we  take  a- 
way  all  Imperficlion  from  God,  and  attribute  only  that  to  him,    which  is  agreea- 
ble to  his  divine  Per  fecl  ions,  although  the  manner  of  it  may  be  above  our  compre- 
henfion.     And  if  this  be  owning  ?/jc  Trinity  of  the  Mob,    I  amnol^aft.amed  to 
wn  myflf  to  be  one  of  them  x  but  it  is  not  out  o/Lazynefs  or  affeded  Ignorance, 
•  but  upon  the  greateft  and  mojl  feriofis  confideration.  They 


41 8  The  Preface. 


thv*"       ^^^^  ^'^y  ^^^^  *^"  "'  '^''^"''^y  °^  Cyphers,    if  they  -pkafe^ '  hut  1  think  more 
*iierfity,     fModefi  and  decent  Language  about  thefe  matters  would  become  them  as  well  as  the 
p.  15.      things  them/elves  much  better.     And  they  muji  prove  a  little  better  than  they 
have  done,  that  different  Modes  ofSubfjlence  in  the  divine  Nature,  or  the  rela- 
tions of  Fat  her  and  Son  are  mere  Cyphers,  which  is  fo  often  mentioned  in  Scri- 
pture, as  a  matter  of  very  great  confequence  5  and  that  when  we  are  baptized  in 
the  Name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft,  we  are  baptized  into  a  Trini- 
ty of  Cyphers. 
bifcourfeof     But  our 'U.nitSiria.ns  proceed,  and  fay,  that  the  fame  Author  aSirms  not  only 
an7Z\    *^^  Perfonalities,  but  the  Perfons  to  be  merely  Relative.   For  he  faith.  That 
Trinitari-  cvety  Pctfon,   as  Well  as  every  Perfonality  in   the  Trinity,    is  wholly  R.e- 
ans.p.  lo.iatiye^     But  it  is  plain  he  fpeaks  there,  not  ofthePer[on  in  himfelf,  but  with 
charged,    refpe^  to  the  manner  of  Subfiftence,  or  the  relative  Properties  belonging  to  them. 
Scc.p.i^j.Sftt  if  the  Notion  of  a  Perfon  doth  bejides  the  relative  Property,   necejfarily  fup' 
pofe  the  divine  Nature  together  with  it  5  how  can  a  Perfon  then  be  imagined  to  bs 
wholly  Relative  .<?    But  they  urge.   That  which  makes  the  firft  Perfon  in  the 
Trinity  to  be  a  Perfon,  makes  him  to  be  a  Father,  and  what  makes  him  to 
be  a  Father,  makes  him  to  be  a  Perfon.    And  what  follows  from  hence,    but 
that  the  relative  Property  is  the  Foundation  of  the  Perfonality  ?  B%  by  no  means, 
that  the  Perfon  of  the  Father  is  nothing  but  the  relative  Property  }     The  injiance 
<?/Solomon  is  not  at  all  to  the  Purpofe,  unlefs  we  ajferted  three  Perfons  founded 
upon  thofe  different  Relations  in  his  individual  Nat-ure.     Who  denies,    that  one 
Perfon  may  have  different  Refpe&s,  and  yet  be  but  one  Perfon  fubfifling  .<?  Where 
doth  the  Scripture  fay.  That  the  Son  of  David,  the  Father  of  Rehoboam,    and 
he  that  proceeded  from  David  and  Bathfheba  were  three  Perfons  diJiinguiJJjed 
by  thofe  relative  Properties?     But  here  lies  the  foundation  of  what  tve  believe 
1    as  to  the  Trinity  ^     we  are  affured  from  Scripture,     that   there   are  three  to 
whom  the  divine  Nature  and  Attributes  are  given,  and  we  are  affured  both  front 
Scripture  and  Reafon,   that  there  can  be  but  one  divine  Effence  ^   and  therefofb 
every  one  of  thefe  mufi  have  the  divine  Nature,  ^nd  yet  that  can  be  but  One.  But 
it  is  a  moji  unreafonable  thing  to  charge  thofe  with  Sabellianifm,   who  affert^ 
That  every  Perfon  hath  the  divine  Nature  diftinftly  belonging  to  him,   and 
that  the  divine  Effence  is  communicated  from  the  Father  to  the  Son.    Did 
ever  Noetus  or  Sabellius,  or  any  of  their  Followers  fpeak  after  this  manner}  Is 
the^  divine  Effence  but  a  mere  Name,    or  a  different  refpeft  only  to  Mankind  > 
For  the  afferting  fuch  relative  Perfons  as  have  no  Effence  at  all,  was  the  true  Sa- 
bellian  Dodrine,  as  will  be  made  appear  in  the  following  Difourfe,     And  fo 
Difcfurfeofmuch  ts  confcfs'd  by  our  Unitarians  ihemfelves,  for  they  fay.    That  the  Sabclli- 
AndRfi  '^"^  ^^^'^'   ^^^^  Father,   Son  and  Spirit  are  but  only  three  Names  of  God  gi- 
Unit.i>.i8.  ven  to  him  in  Scripture,   by  occafion  of  fo  many  feveral  Difpenfations  to- 
wards the  Creature,   and  fo  he  is  but  one  fubfifting  Perfon  and  three  rela- 
tive Perfons^   as  he  fuftains  the  three  Names  of  Father,    Sob  and  Spirit, 
which  being  the  Relations  of  God  towards  things  without  him,  he  is  fo  ma- 
ny relative  Perfons,    or  Perfons  in  a  Claffical  Critical  Senfe,  i.  e.  Perfons 
without  any  Effence  belonging  to  them  as  fuch.     But  thofe  who  affert  a  Communi- 
cation of  the  divine  Effence  to  each  Perfon  can  never  be  guilty  0/ Sabellianifm, 
if  this  he  it,  which  themfelves  affirm.     And  fo  thofe  called  Nominal  Trinitari- 
ans, are  very  unjufily  fo  called,  becaufe  they  do  really  hold  a  Trinity  of  Perfons 
in  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead. 

2.  Let  Its  now  fee  what  charge  thiy  lay  upon  thofe  whom  they  call  Real  Trini- 
DircMc/ea/tarians  ^  and  they  tell  us.  That  the  Norainals  will  feem  to  be  profound  Phi- 
Nom.  &c.  lofophers,  deep  Sages  in  comparifon  with  them.    Thefe  are  very  obliging  ex- 
^'  '^'       prejjions  to  them  in  the  beginning.     But  how  do  they  make  out  this  grofs  Stupidi- 
ty of  their  f^    Lt  fhort  it  is.  That  they  ftand  condemned  and  anathematized 
as  Hereticks  by  a  general  Council,    and  by  all  the  Moderns,   and  are  every 

day 


The    Preface.  41^ 


day  challenged  and  impeached  of  Tritheifm,  and  cannot  agree  among  them- 
felves,  but  charge  one  another  with  great  Abfurdities  5  and  in  plain  terms  p.  3*. 
they  charge  them  with  Nonfenfe  in  the  thing,  wheress  the  other  lay  only  in 
Words.  Becaufe  thefe  affert  three  divine  fubfifting  Perfons,  three  infinite 
Spirits,  Minds  or  Subftanccs,  as  diftindi  as  fo  many  Angels  or  Men,  each  of 
them  perfectly  God,  and  yet  all  of  them  are  but  one  God;  To  underftand 
this  matter  rightly^  roe  mufi  conftder,  that  when  the  Socinian  Pamphlets  firji 
came  abroad,  fame  Tears  Jince^  a  learned  and  worthy  Terfon  of  our  Chnrch,  rvho 
had  appear  d  with  great  vigour  and  reafon  againfi  our  Adverfaries  of  the  Church 
«/R.ome  in  the  late  Reign  (  which  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  )  undertook  to  de- 
fend the  DoStrint  of  the  Trinity  againfi  the  Hiftory  of  the  Unitarians,  and  the 
Notes  on  the  Athanafian  Creed  5  but  in  the  warmth  of  difputing,  and  out  of  a. 
defire  to  make  this  matter  more  intelligible,  he  fuffer'd  himfelf  to  be  carried  be- 
yond the  ancient  Methods  which  the  Church  hath  ufed  to'xxprefs  her  Senfe  by,fiiU 
retaining  the  fame  fundamental  Article  0/ three  Perfons  In  one  undivided  Ef- 
fence,  but  explaining  it  infuch  a  manner,  as  to  make  each  ferfon  to  have  a  pe- 
culiar and  proper  Subftance  of  his  own. 

This  gave  fo  great  an  advantage  to  the  Author  of  thofe  Treatifes,  that  in  a 
little  time  he  fet  forth  his  Notes  with  an  Appendix  in  anfwrr  to  this  new  Ex-  Conftderai. 
plication.     Wherein  he  charges  him  with  Herefie,  Tritheifm  and  Contradifti-p",/^^^^^^^ 
on.     The  very  fame  charges  which  have  been  fence  improved  and  carried  on  by  0-  theTrimtji, 
thers :,  I  wip  I  could  fay,   without  any  unbecoming  I/eat  or  Reflexions.  P*  **' 

But  I  Jhall  now  examine  hol»  far  thefe  charges  have  any  ground,   fo  as  to 
affeS  the  Dodlirine  of  the  Trinity,  which  is  the  chief  end  our  Adverfaries  aimed 
at,  in  heaping  thefe  Reproaches  upon  one  toho  appeared  fo  early,  andwith  fo  much       '"•'^ 
%eal  to  defend  it.     We  are  therefore  to  confedsr  thefe  things  :  '  '    ' 

I.  That  a  Man  maybe  very  right  in  the  Belief  <?/ the  Article  itfelf^  and  yet 
may  be  mifiaken  in  his  Explication  of  it.     Anct  this  one  of  his  keeneft  Adverfa-      .  ^  - 
ries  freely  acknowledges.    For  he  plainly  diftinguifhes  between  the  fundamental      ,  ^,.^ 
Article  and  the  manner  ^/explaining  it,   and  affirms.   That  a  Man  may  quit  J^^^^^"" 
his  Explication  without  parting  with  the  Article  it  felf.     And  fo  he  may  re-  ^cl^^^c^, 
tain  the  Article  with  his  Explication.  ■  •  ■> 

But  fuppofe  a  Man  to  ajfent  to  the  fundamental  Article  it  felf,  and  he  mi- 
fiaken in  his  Explication  of  it,  can  he  be  charged  with  Herefie  about  this  Article  ? 
For  Herefie  mufi  relate  to  the  fundamental  Article  to  which  he  declares  his  hear- 
ty and  unfeigned  Affent  5  but  here  we  fuppofe  the  mifiake  to  lie  only  in  /^e  Expli- 
cation. As  for  inftattce,  Sabellianifni  is  a  condemned  and  exploded  Herefee,  for 
it  is  contrary  to  the  very  Do3rine  of  the  Trinity  5  but  fuppofe  one  who  afferts  the 
Do&rine  of  three  Persons,  fliould  make  them  to  be  three  Modes,  mufifuchaom 
prefcntly  be  charged  with  Herefie,  before  we  fee  whether  his  Explication  be  con- 
fifient  with  the  fundamental  Article  or  not  .<?     For  this  is  liable  to  very  obvious  ^-^  . 

Objedlions^  that  the  Father  begets  a  Mode  infiead  of  a  Son,  that  we  pray  to  three  ^^^ 

Modes  infiead  of  three  real  Perfons,  that  Modes  are  mutable;  things  in  their  own 
Nature^  8cc.  but  mufi  we  from  hence  conclude  fuch  a  one  guilty  of  Herefee,  when  _g 

he  declares^  that  he  withall  fuppofed  them  not  to  hemere  Modes,  but  that  the  di-  ';'^;r 

vine  Effence  is  to  be  taken  together  with  the  Mode  to  make  a  Perfon .«"  Tea,  fuppofe  ^'^if^-f'. 

fame  fpitefnl  Adverfary  fi^ould  fay.  That  it  is  a  Contradi&ion  to  fay.    That  the  '•  '    . 

fame  common  Nature  can  make  a  Perfon  with  a  Mode  fuperadded  to  it,    unlefs  ;■:  • 

that  be  individuated,  for  a  Perfon  doth  imply  an  individual  Nature,  and  not  jt 
mere  relative  Mode.  Is  this  fufficient  to  charge  fuch  a  Perfon  witkth^.^^btWizri 
Herefie,  which  he  utterly  difownsi  Is  not  the  lihe'Equttj  to  be  (liew'd  in  ano- 
ther though  different  Explication  .<?  Suppofe  thenitPerfo^^dtSmnlypr'bfeffes  to 
own  the  fundamental  Do&rineofthe  Trinity  as. much  MmjiMbi^ \  but  he  thinks, 
that  three  Perfons  mufi  have  difiinc}  Snb(tancdi00^m^^eniPerfdns,  but  .fo  as  . 
to  make  no  Divifeon  or  Separation  irrthe  Qfftm4'(f^  0nd  that  ify&cmnat  cdticeive 


420  The  Preface. 


A  Communication  of  the  divine  Ejfence  without  this  ;  muft  this  prefenily  be  run 
doTPn  as  Herefie,  when  he  ajjerts  at  the  fame  time  three  Perfons  in  the  fame  un- 
divided Effence  .<?  But  this  isfaid  to  he  a  Contradiftion  ^  fo  it  was  in  the  other 
cafe  and  not  allow' d  then^  and  why  Poould  it  be  otherwife  in  this  ?  I fpeak  not 
this  to  jufi'fie  fuch  Explications^  but  to  pew  that  there  is  a  difference  between 
the  Herefie  of  denying  an  Article,  and  a  miflahein  the  Explication  of  it.  Even 
'  the  great  eft  Herejie- makers  in  the  World,  difiinguifi  between  Herefes  and  errone- 

ous Explications  of  Articles  of  Faith,    as  any  one  may  find  that  looks  into  them. 
And  even  the\nqp\i\toxs  a/ Herefie  themfelves  allow  the  difiinS^ion  between  Hq- 
refie  and  an  erroneous  Proportion  in  Faith,    which  amounts  to  the  fame  with  a 
mijiaken  Explication  of  it  ,    and  they  all  grant  that  there  may  be  Propofitions 
that  tend  to  Herefie  or  favour  of  it,    which  cannot  be  condemned  for  Heretical. 
Direft.  In-  ^„^  g^f,„  Pegna  condemns  Melchior  Canus  for  being  too  cruel  in  afferting  it  to 
Ilqu'^M.^^  H^f^fi^^  fo  contradiB  the  general  Senfe  of  Divines,  becaufe  the  Schools  cannot 
p.  226.     make  Herefi^. 

Modeji  ex-      ^'  ^^  "  frequently  and  folemnly  affirmed  by  him.   That  the  Unity  of  the 
4OT«.^19.  Godhead  is  the  moft  real,  eflential,    indivifible,  infeparable  Unity^    that 
there  is  but  one  divine  Nature,  which  is  originally  in  the  Father,  and  is  fub- 
P.  s7-  28,ftantially  communicated  bv  the  Father  to  the  Son,    as  a  diftindl  fubfifting 
Perfon,  by  an  eternal  ineffable  Generation,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghoft  by  an  e- 
ternal  and  fubftantial  Procefllon  from  Father  and  Son.     Do  the  others  who 
maintain  a  Trinity  deny  this  .<?     By  no  means.     For  ive  have  already  feen  that 
they  affert  the  fame  thing.     So  that  they  are  fully  agreed  as  to  the  main  funda- 
mental Article,     And  even  the  Unitarians  yield,   that  from  the  beginning  he 
''mes  on^-  afferted.  That  the  three  divine  Pej-fons  are  in  one  undivided  Subftance.  Where- 
thanafius   i„  f^^„  ijgj.  the  foundation  of  this  highty  ^larrel,   and  thofe  unreafonable  Heats 
Edit^i-v-  *^^*  ^^"  ^^'^^  fallen  into  about  it ;  to  the  great  fcandal  of  our  Church  and  Reli- 
19-  gion  .<?     In  Jhort  it  is  this  5   thit  the  fame  Author  ajferts,   (i.)  That  it  is  grofs 

^J^^^^^JSabellianifintofay,  That  there  are  not  three  perfonal  Minds,  or  Spirits,  or 
Subftances.     (2.)  That  a  diftindl:  fubftantial  Perfon  muft  have  a  diftindt  fub- 
ftance  of  his  own,    proper  and  peculi-ir  to  his  own  Perfon.      But  he  ownSy 
p.17.    that    although    there   are   three    diOinft   Perfons,    or   Minds,    each  of 
p ..p    whom  is  diftinftly  and  by  him  felf  God,  yet  there  are  not  three  Gods, 
but  one    God,   or  one  Divinity^    which   he  faith,   is  intirely,    and  in- 
divifibly,    and  infeparably  in  three  diftinct  Perfons  or  Minds.    That   the 
P-30.  fame  one  divine  Nature  is  wholly  and  intirely  communicated  by  the  e- 
ternal  Father  to    the  eternal   Son,    and  by  the  Father  and  Son  to  the 
eternal  Spirit  without  any  Divifion  or  Separation  ;    and  fo  it  remains 
one  flrill. 

This  is  the  fdfiance  of  this  new  Explication,  which  haih  raifed  fuch  Elames, 
that  In jundions  from  Authority  were  thought  neceffary  to  fupprefs  them  .<?  But 
thofe  can  reach  no  farther  than  the  rejiraint  of  Mens  Tongues  and  Pens  about  thefe 
matters,  and  unlefs  fomething  be  found  out  to  fatisfie  their  Minds,  and  to  re- 
move Mifapprehenjions,  the  prefent  Heat  may  be  only  cover  d  over  and  kept 
in  ;  which  when  there  is  a  vent  given,  may  break  out  into  a  more  dange- 
rous Flame. 

Therefore  I  full  endeavour  to  Jiate  and  clear  this  matter  fo  as  to  prevent  any 
future  Eruption  thereof,  which  will  be  done  by  confidering  how  far  they  are  a- 
greed,  and  how  far  the  remaining  difference  ought  to  be  purfued. 

1.  They  are  agreed.  That  there  afe  three  diftinft  Perfons  and  but  one  God- 
head. 

2.  That  there  are  no  feparate  and  divided  Subftances  in  the  Trinity  3  but 
the  divine  Nature  is  wholly  and  entirely  one  and  undivided. 

3.  That  the  divine  Effence  is  communicated  from  the  Father  to  the  Son, 
and  from  both  to  the  holy  Spirit,     i^o  that  the  charge  <7/Sabellianifm  on  thofe 

who 


The  Preface.  4,21 

who  reje&  this  new  Explication  is  without  ground.     For  no  Sabellian  did  or 
could  ajfert  a  Communication  of  the  divine  Eflence. 

Which  being  agreed  on  both  fides,     the  Difpnte  turnf  upon  this  fingle  point, 
whether  a  communicated  Eflence,  doth  imply  a  diftindt  Subftance  or  not.    On  Re,„aris 
the  one  fide  it  isfaid.  That  there  being  but  one  God,   there  can  be  but  one  "r"  'he 
divine  Eflence.  and  if  more  Eflences  more  Gods.  p^jj',"'^' 

On  the  other  Jide,  that  fince  they  own  a  communicated  Eflence  neceflary  to 
make  a  diftinilion  of  Perfons  in  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft,  if  the  Eflence  be    . 
not  dirtind,  the  foundation  of  diftifift  Perfonalities  is  taken  away.    But  how 
fs  this  clear  d  by  the  other  Party  .<?  They  fay.    That  it  is  one  pecuh'ar  Prero- ^w"'"'** 
gative  of  the  divine  Nature  and  Subftance,  founded  in  its  infinite  and  there'  ^'  ^'^' 
fore  tranfcendent  Perfeftion,  whereby  it  is  capable  of  refiding  in  more  Per- 
fons tiian  one,  and  is  accordingly  communicated  from  the  Father  to  the  Son 
and  Holy  Gbofl. 

So  that  the  Communication  of  the  divine  Nature  is  owned  to  the  Perfons 
of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft.  But  hovp  then  comes  it  not  to  make  a  dijiin3Bf- 
fence,  as  it  makes  dijiin^  Perfons,  by  being  communicated  ^ 

Theanfwer  vee  fee  is.  That  it  is  a  peculiar  Prerogative  founded  on  the  in- 
finite and  therefore  tranfcendent  Perfedion  of  the  divine  Nature.  But  they 
farther  add.  That  when  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft  are  faid  to  have  the  fame  P'3^« 
divine  Nature  from  the  Father,  as  the  Origin  and  Fountain  of  the  Divini- 
ty ;  not  by  the  Produftion  of  a  new  divine  Nature,  but  by  a  Commu- 
nication of  his  own  ^  which  is  one  and  the  fame  in  all  three  without  Sepa- 
ration, Difference,  or  Diftindion  5  that  this  is  indeed  a  great  Myftery, 
which  hath  been  always  look'dupon  by  tbegreateft  and  wifeft  Men  in  the 
Church,  to  be  above  all  Expreflions  and  Deicription. 

So  that  the  greafeft  difficulty  is  at  lajirefolved  into  the  incomprehenfible  Per- 
feUion  of  the  divine  Nature^  and  that  neither  Man  nor  Angels  can  give  a  fatis-    iwd. 
faftory  anfwer  to  Enquiries  about  the  manner  of  them.    And  the  Author  of 
the  Animadverfions  faith.   That  in  the  divine  Perfons  of  the  Trinity,    the  -^"'""^^'^v- 
iJivine  Nature  and  the  perfonal  Subfiftencecoalefee  into  one,   by  an  incom-  ^*  ^ 
prehenfible,  ineffable  kind  of  Union  and  Conjunftion.  ; 

But  do  thofe  on  the  other  fide  think,  that  the  ajferting  three  dijlin^  Subjiancer 
in  one  and  the  fame  individual  Subjiance  tends  to  clear  and  explain  the  Notion 
0f  the  Trinity  and  make  it  more  eafie  and  intelligible  .«"  The  Divinity,  they  Mudejl  ex- 
fayy  is  whole,  intire,  indivifible,  and  infeparable  in  all  three.  But  can  onei'"''"V'S°. 
whole  intire  indivifible  Subjiance  be  a&ual/y  divided  into  three  Subftances  ?  For 
if  every  Perfon  muji  have  a  peculiar  Subjiance  of  his  own  5  and  there  be  three 
Perfons,  there  muji  be  three  peculiar  Subfiances,  and  how  can  there  be  three  pe- 
culiar Subjiances,  and  yet  but  one  entire  and  indivifible  Sub^ance  ?  I  do  not  fay, 
there  muJi  be  three  divided  Subfiances  in  place,  or  feparate  Suhjiames,  but  they 
mufi  be  divided  as  three  Individuals  of  the  fame  kind,  which  mufi  introduce  a 
Specifick  Divine  Nature,  which  I  think  very  inconfifient  with  the  divine  Perfe- 
ctions ^  but  of  this  at  large  in  the  foUowing  Difourfe. 

I  do  not  lay  any  free  upon  this  argument,  that  there  can  be  no  ground  of  the  Y'^*^^]^"* 
Diftin,'5ion  between  the  three  Subftances,  if  there  be  but  one  Subftance  in  ^/z*^^"^' 
the  Godhead,  (as  fame  have  done  )   becaufe  the  fame  Subftance  cannot  both 
unite  and  diftinguifti  them  ;  for  the  ground  of  the  dijlin&ion  is  not  the  Sub- 
ftance but  the  Communication    of  it,    and  where  that  is  fo  freely  ajferted,  p.  26^^ 
there  is  a  reafm  dijiin^  from  the  Subftance  it  felf,   which  makes  the  Diftin- 
dion  of  Perfons. 

But  the  difficulty  Jl' II  remains,  how  e  ach  Perfon  (Iwuld  have  a  Subjiance  of  his 
own  ;  and  yet  there  be  but  one  entire  and  indivifible  Subjiance,  for  every  Perfon 
mufihdve  a  proper  Subjiance  of  his  own  ^  or  elfe  according  to  this  Hypothefis, 
he  can  be  no  Perfon ;  and  this  peculiar  Subjiance  mufi  be  really  diflin'f^  from  that 

Hhh  Sub- 


■'> 


Ill    m     ■  11  ■     I      ■  ■  I        i—^^^  I        .       ■   I        III         ■      ■»    I       ^.wmjm..   .11   ■  ,  —        ■        ■■    — ^    .        I      ,1  I  ■■■■  I  ■  ■      uMi 

4.2  2  The  P  ^  E  F  A  c  p. 

Skihjiance  rph'ich  is  in  the  other  two  :  fo  that  here  vtufi  be  three  diflinS  Subliancef 
in  the  three  Perfo»r.     But  hove  then  can  there  be  but  one  individual  Ejjence  in 
all  three  ^     We  may  conceive  one  common  Effenee  to  be  individuated ia  three 
Perfonf,  as  it  is  in  Men  ;    hut  it  is  impojjtble  to  conceive  the  fame  ladividuH 
Rjjence  to  be  in  three  Perfons^  which  have  peculiar  Subjiances  of  their  own^    For 
the  Snbjiames  belonging  to  the  Ferjons,  are  the  fame  Bffence  individuated  in  tbofg 
Perfons  :  and  fo  there  is  no  avoiding  making  three  individual  Effen^es  and  one 
fpecijick  or  common  divine  Nature.     And  Main?onides  his  Argument  is  confide- 
More  Ne-  rable  againfi  more  Gods  than  one  5   If,  faith  he,    there   be  two  Gods,    there 
vocii,  par,  muft  be  fomctbing  wherein  they  agree,  and  fometbing  wherein  they  differ  ^ 
that  wherein  they  agree  mufi:  be  that  which  makes  each  of  them  God  5  and 
-  that  wherein  they  differ  muft  make  them  two  Gods.     Now  wherein  doth  this 
differ  from  the  prefent  Hypothelis?     There  is  fomething  wherein  they  differ^ 
and  that  is  their  proper  Sitbfiance  5  but  Maimonides  thought  that  wherein  they 
^iffet'd  fufficient  to  make  them  two  Gods.    So  that  I  fear  it  will  be  impojpble 
to  clear  this  Hypothefis  as  to  the  reconciling  three  individual  Eflences  »'/V/&  one 
individual  divine  EfTence,    which  looks  too  like  afferting  that  there  are  three 
Gods  and  )et  but  one.     And  the  Author  of  thit  Explication  doth  at  lafi  con- 
M^defiex- fifs_^  that  three  diftinCi  whole  infepa rable  Sames,  are  hard  to  conceive  as 
aw;«,p.3o,  ^^  ^^^  manner  of  it.     Now  to  what  purpofe  are  new  Explications  (iartedy   and 
Difputes  raifed  and  carried  on  fo  warmly  about  them,  if  after  all,  the  main  d^ffi' 
culty  be  confefs  d  to  be  above  our  Comprehenjion  ?   We  had  much  better  fatisfie  our 
/elves  with  that  Language  which  the  Church  hath  rei  eiv'd  and  is  exprefs'd  in  the 
Creeds,  than  go  about  by  new  Terms,  to  raife  new  Ferments,  efpecially  at  a  time 
vphen  our  united  Forces  are  mofl  nereffary  again  ft  our  common  Adverfaries.     No 
wife  andgood  Men  can  be  fond  of  any  new  Inventions,    when  the  Peace  of  the 
Church  is  hazarded  by  them.     And  on  the  other  fide,  it  is  as  dangerout  to  make 
.    .    new  Herefies  <^  new  Explications.     If  any  one  denies  the  DodtrinQ  contained 
in  the  Niceqe  Creed,  that  is  no  new  Herefie  i    but  how  can  fuch  deny  the  Bon 
-to  be  confubfl(\ntial  to  the  Father,    ifpho  (iffert  one  and  the  fume  indivijible  Sub- 
fiance  in  the  Father,   and  the  Son  ^     But  they  may  contradift  themfelves. 
That  if  not  impojfible  on  either  fide.     But  doth  it  follow  that  they  are  guilty  of 
Herefie}  ^kre  not  three Subftances  and  but  one  a  Contradidion  ?     No  more, 
fay  they,    th^n  that  a  communicated  Subftance  is  not  difiin^  from  that  which 
did  communicate.     But  this  whole  difpute  we  find  is  at  lafi  refolved  into  the  in% 
finite  and  un(onteivable  Perfe^ions  of  the  Godhead,    where  it  is  mofl  fafely  lod- 
ged 5  and  that  there  is  no  re^/ Contradiction  in  the  Doftrine  it  felf,  *r  part  of 
the  defign  of  the  Difcourfe  afterwards. 

But  here  it  will  beneiefftry  to  take  notice  of  what  the  Unitarians  have  obJeiJed 
Ciinfidertt.^i^^^fi  tk*^  new  Explication,  viz.  That  it  was  condemned  by  the  Ancients  in 
on  the  Ex-  the  Petfon  of  Philoponus  ^  in  the  middle  Ages,  in  the  Perfon  and  Wri- 
{J'fyf"^";,^^trngs  of  Abbot  Joachim-^  but  more  feverely  fince  the  Reformation,  in  the 
&  .  p.  I?.' Perfon  oiValentiniu  Gentilk,  who  was  condemned  at  Gewz><?,  and  beheaded 
at  Bern  for  this  very  Dodrine. 

Tothefel [hallgive  a  dijlintl  aufwer  : 

I.  ^j-?<?  Job.  Philoponus,  I  do  freely  own,  that  in  the  Gxetk  Church,  when 

inthe  fixth  Century  he  broached  his  Opinion,  That  every  Hypoftafis  rauft  have 

the  common  Nature  individuated  in  it,   this  was  look'd  upon  as  a  DoBrineof 

dangerous  confequeme,  both  with  refpeSt  to  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation.     The 

Leont.de  latter  was  the  fir fi  orcafim  of  it  •^  for  as  \^tox\\\w%obferves,  the  difpute  did  Hot  be- 

Aft '5.     &'"  ^^°'^^  ^^^  Trinity,   but  about  the  Incarnation  ;    and  Philoponus  to')k  part 

with  thofe  who  afferted  but  one  Nature  in  Chrifi  after  the  TJnion,    and  he  went 

upoft  this  ground.  That  if  there  were  two  Natures  there  mufi  be  two  Hypoftafes, 

^ec<ff//^  Nature  and  H^oftifis  were  the  fame.     Then  thofe  on  the  Churches  fide, 

y^iVALeontius,  okjetfed,  Thit  if  they  were  the  fame,  then  mttji  be  three  difiinlf 

.V.  ■  '  Na- 


The   Preface.  423[* 


Natures  in  theTrimty^  'Oi  there  were  three  Hypoftafes  5    iv^ich  Philoponus 
yielded^  and  grounded  himfelfon  AriftotleV  DoHrine^    that  hhtre  was  but  one 
bbmfton  Subfidnce  and  feveral  individual  Subjiancei,    and  fo  hetd  it  was  in  the 
Trinity,  whence  he  was  called  the  leader  of  the  Herefie  of  the  Tritheifts.    Th» 
is  the  account  given  by  Leontius  wAo  lived  very  near  his  time,  A.  D.  620.  The 
fame  is  affirmed  of  him  by  NicepboruSi    and  that  he  wrote  a  Book  onpurpofe  a-  Niceph. 
bout  the  Union  of  two  Natures  inChrift,  out  of  which  he  produces  his  own  Wordt^^^^^'' 
concerning  a  common  and  individual  Nature^    (  which  he  calls  f^s^KCvrdrnvly.'^''^  * 
vitx^^iv )  which  can  agree  to  none  elfe.     And  the  main  argument  he  went  upon  was 
this,    that  unlefs  we  affert  a  flngular  Nature  in  the  IJypoftafes,    we  muji  fay, 
that  the  whole  Trinity  was  incarnate  5  as  nnlcfs  there  be  a  fingular  humane  Na- 
ture  d'lflin^  from  the  common,  Chriji  muJi  ajfume  the  whole  Nature  of  Mankind. 
And  this  argument  from  the  Incarnation,  was  that  which madeKoCcclin,  in  the 
beginning  dfthe  difputing  Age,  A.  D.  1095,  to  affert.  That  the  three  Perfons 
were  three  things  diftin^t  from  each  other,    as  three  Angels  or  three  Men, 
becaufe  otherwife  the  Incarnation  of  the  fecond  Perfon  could  not  be  under- 
ftood,  as  appears  by  AnCelm  s  Epi/iles,  and  his  Book  of  the  Incarnation  wr//- ^l'^'""' 
ten  upon  that  occafion.     But  as  Anfelm  jhews  at  large,  if  this  argument  hold,  it  ep.'  ^'ij'* 
muji  prove  the  three  Perfons  not  only  to  he  diftinft,   but  feparate  and  divided 'o^,^^^ 
Subftances,    (which  is direSly  contrary  to  this  new  Explication)    dnd  then^l^^'. 
there  is  no  avoiding  Tritheifm.     But  to  return  to]oh.  Philoponus,  who,  faith 
Nicephorus,  dividedthe  indivifible  Nature  of  God  into  three  Individuals  as  ^'  ^S* 
among  Men  :    Which,  faith  he,  is  repugnant  to  the  Senfe  of  the  Chriftian 
Church  ^  and  he  produces  the  Tejiimony  of  Gregory  Nazianzen  againji  it,   and 
4(^^/,  r^<r?  Leontius  4«(^Georgins  Pifidesf^w^fei^  Philoponus. 

But  in  that  divided  time,  there  were  fome  called  Theodofiani,  who  made  but  C.  49. 
one  Nature  and  oneHypoftafis  5  and  fo  fell  in  with  ^^cSabellians;  but  others 
held.  That  there  was  one  immutable  divine  Eflence,  but  each  Perfon  had  a 
diftinfl:  individual  Nature  ^   which  the  reft  charged  with  Tritheifm.     Which 
confequence  they  utterly  rejected,    becaufe  although  they  held  three  diftindt  Na- 
tures, yet  they  faid.  They  were  but  one  God,  becaufe  there  was  but  one  in- 
variable Divinity  in  them.    Nicephorus  faith,   that  Conon's  Followers  re- 
jeSed  Philoponus  5    but  Photius  mentions  a  conference  between  Conon  and  0-  ^''°^-  ^'''" 
thers,  <i^OT/*  Philoponus,  wherein  he  defends  him  againji  other  Severians.  Pho- 2^ 
tinsgrants,   that  Conon  and  his  Followers  held  a  confubftantfal  Trinity  and 
the  Unity  of  the  Godhead,   and  fo  far  they  were  Orthodox  5    but  faith. 
They  were  far  from  it,    when  they  aflerted  proper  and  peculiar  Subftartcei 
to  each  Perfon.  The  difference  between  Gonon  and  Philoponus  about  this  point,  p^    ^  a 
( fir  Conon  wrote  againji  Philoponus  about  the  Refurre^ion )   feems  to  have  23.  ' 
been  partly  in  the  Do^rine,    but  chiefly  in  the  confequence  of  it  5   for  thefe  refe- 
&ed  all  kind  c/Tritheifm,  which  Philoponus  faw  well  enough  muft  follow  from 
his  Doclrine,    but  he  denied  any  real  Divifion  or  Separation  in  thofe  Subftances  at 
to  the  Deity.     Ifidore  faith.  That  the  Tritheifts  owned  three  Gods,    as  well  im.  Orig. 
as  three  Perfons :;  and  that  if  God  be  faid  to  be  Triple,  there  muft  follow  a'7.deh** 
Plurality  of  Gods.     But  there  were  others  called  Triformiani,  of  whom  St.  Au-  n""^^^"" 
^\x^\nfpeaks.  Who  held  the  three  Perfons  to  be  three  diftind  parts,   which  Aug-dt 
being  united  made  one  God  j   which,  faith  he,  is  repugnant  to  the  divine '^*'*^- 
Perfedion.  '"  ''^ 

But  among  thefe  Severians,  there  were  three  feveral  Opinions  .* 

1.  O/'Philoponiis,  who  held  one  common  Nature  and  three  Individual, 

2.  Of  thofe  who  faid  there  was  but  one  Nature  and  one  Hypoftafis. 

5.  Of  thofe  who  affirm' d  there  were  three  di^inS  Natures,  but  withal,  that 
there  w  is  but  one  indivifible  Godhead  5  and  thefe  differ  d  from  Philoponus 
inthe  main  ground  ^/Tritheifm,  which  was,  that  he  held  the  common  Nature 
in  I  he  Trinity,  to  be  only  a  fpecifick  Nature,  and  fuch  as  it  is  among  Men.  For 

H  h  h  a  Philo- 


4.24-  "    The  Preface. 


Philo}5onns  himfclf  in  the  words  vehtrh  Nicephorus  produces,  doth  aJferfpUin- 
i-)i,  that  the  common  Nature  is  fe^arated  from  the  Individuals,  r^,  -JiAii  e-TTiroio., 
h)i  a  meer  a&  of  the  Mind  5  fo  that  he  allovp'd  no  individual  Z)nity  in  the  di- 
vine Nature^  but  what  vpos  in  the  fever  al  Perfons  5  as  the  common  Nature  of  Man 
if  a  Noti(fn  dfthe  M/nd,  Of  it  fs  ahflraded  from  the  feveral  Individuals,  where- 
in alone  it  really  fubfijis  5  fo  that  here  k  an  apparent  difference  between  the  Do- 
drine  of  Job.  Philoponus  and  the  new  Explication,  for  herein  the  mofi  real, 
ejfential  and  indivifible  Unify  of  the  divine  ^zimzis  afferted  ;  and  it  is  faid 
Modeft  ex-  *<>  ^«  no  Species,  becaufe  it  is  but  one,  and  fo  it  could  not  be  condemned  in 
rtw«..p.i9  Job.  Philoponus. 

2.  iVe  now  come  to  Abbat  Joachim,    ivhofe  Do^rine  feems  to  be  as  7Much  mi- 
Jiaken,  as  it  if  reprefented  in  f,6e  Decretal,  where  the  Condemnation  of  it  by  the 
Lateran  Council  if  extant.     But  here  I  cannot  but  obferve  what  great  Avthori' 
ty  thefe  Unitarians  j?,z/e  to  this  Lateran  Council,   as  if  they  had  a  Mind  tofet 
up  Tranfubftantiation  by  it,    which  they  fo  often  parallel  with  the  Trinity. 
VifcourfenfThence  in  their  late  Difcourfe  they/peak  of  it  as  the  mofl:  general  Council  that 
Retiiand  was  cvef  Called,  and  that  what  v^as  there  defined,  it  was  made  Herefie  to  op- 
XriDic.;.4.  po^s  it.     But  by  their  favour,  we  neither  own  this  to  have  been  a  general  Coun- 
cil, nur  that  it  had  Authority  to  make  that  Herefie  which  wn  not  fo  before. 
But  that  Cmncil  might  affert  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  truly,  as  it  had  been  re- 
Ceiv'd,  and  condemn  the  Opinilin  of  ]oachim  J ufily.     But  what  it  was,  they  do 
not  or  would  not  feem  to  under fla)fd.     Joachim  j»<«y  <?  ^re<?f  Enthuliaft,    but  no 
deep  Divine    (  as  Men  of  that  Meat  feldom  are  )    and  he  had  many  Difputes 
Greg  de  Pjth  Peter  Lombard  in  his  Life^  '^  the  Vindicator  ^/Joachim  confeffes.     After 
Lau  .  A-   Jjij  Death,  a  Book  of  his  was  found,    taxing  Peter  Lombard  with  fome  ftrange 
chiniAb-  I^o^rine  ahout  the  Trmity,  wherein  he  caSed.Aim  Heretick  and  Madmsin ;  this 
bit,  f.  66.  Book  was  complained  oflh  the  Latdf  an  Council,  and  upon  Examination  it  was 
Greg.  1.  i,fiff*^d;    that  inflead  of  charging  'Bster  Lombard /?</?/y,  he  was  fallen  into  Here* 
c.  2.^       /fe  himfelf  which  was  denying  the  ejfential  Unity  of  the  three  Perfons,    and  ma- 
king  it  to  be  Unity  ofConfent.     He  granted  that  they  were  one  EfTence,    one 
Nature,  one  Subftance  :    But  how  .<?     Not  by  any  true  proper  Unity,  but  Si- 
militudinary  and  Colledive,  as  they  called  it ,  as  many  Men  are  one  People,  and 
many  Believers  make  one  Church.     Whence  Thomas  Aquinas  faith,    that  Jo- 
Commerit  achim  fell  into  the  Arian  Herefie.      It   is  fuffident   to  my  purpofe,    that 
opiifc.  24.  ^^  denied  the  individual  Unity    of  the  dimne    Effence,     which    cannot    be 
charged  on  the  Author  of  the  new  Explication,  and  fo  this  comes  Hot  home 
to  the  purpofe. 
« ,  -J ,,  .r      3'  But  the  lajl  charge  is  the  mojlterf-ible,     for  it  not  only  feti  down  the  He-\ 
V  r^fie,  but  the  capital  pHni(hment  whtch  follow  d  it.     Yet  I  f3all  make  it  appear, 
(^notwithjianding  the  very  warm  Pr.ifecution  of  it  by  another  hand^    that  there 
is  a  great  difference  between  the  Do^rine  o/Valentinus  Gentilis,  and  that  which 
is  afferted  in  this  Explication,  > 

B'ief  Ac-  I.  /«  the  Sentence  of  his  Condemnation  it  is  exprejfed.  That  he  had  been 
vlteitin.  gi^ilty  of  the  vileft  Scurrility  and  mbft  horrid  Blafphemies  againft  the  Son  of 
Gauiiis,  God,  and  the  glorious  Myftery  oF  the  Trinity.  But  can  any  thing  of  this  Na- 
^'' '}''      lure  be  charged  upon  one,  who  hath  not  only  written  in  Defence  of  it,    but  fpeaks 

''J;:  "of  it  with  the  highefl  Veneration  .<? 
Ibid."*"   '     "i.  In  the  fame  Sentence  it  is  faid.    That  he  acknowledged  the  Father  on- 
ly to  be  that  infinite God  which  weought  to  worfhip,    which  is  plain  Bla- 
fphemy  againft  the  Son.    But  can  any  Man  ever  think  to  make  this  the  fame  cafe 
MJieJlex-  Tpp'ith  one,   who  makes  ufe  of  that  as  one  of  his  chief  arguments.    That  the  three 
amin.^.2o.  pg^j^pg  ^pg  jq  {^g  worfliiped  with  a  diftinit  divine  Worftiip. 

5.  It  is  charged  upon  him.  That  he  called  the  Trinity  a  meer  human  Inven- 
tion, not  fo  much  as  known  to  any  Catholick  Creed,  and  direftly  contrary 
to  the  Word  of  God.     Bnt  the  Author  here  charged,  hath  made  it  his  bufnefs  to 

prove 


The    Preface.  425 


prove  the  Do^rine  of  the  Trhity  to  be  grounded  on  Scripture,  and  to  vindicate  it  '3'''>/^^ 
from  the  Objeclions  draven  from  thence  againji  it.  •  P.'ao. 

4.  One  of  the  main  Articles  of  his  charge  was.  That  he  made  three  Spirits  of  Brief  Ac- 
different  Order  and  Degree,  that  the  Father  is  the  one  only  God,    by  which  p""^;  ^l' 
the  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft  are  excluded  manifeftly  from  the  Unity  of  the  God-  4?,  45. 
head'    But  the  Perfon  charged  tvith  his  Here/ie  faith.    The  Reafon  why  we '""^^^  "* 
mufl:  not  fay  three  Gods,  is,  becaufe  there  is  but  one  and  the  fame  Divinity  '"""'■^■^^' 
in  them  all  ^  and  that  intirely,  indivifibly,  inifeparably. 

But  it  if  faid,  that  although  there  may  be  fome  differences^   yet  they  agree  in 
afferting.  That  there  are  three  diftinft  eternal  Spirits  or  Minds  in  the  Trini- 
ty ;    and  Genebrard  is  brought  into  the  fame  Hcrefie  with  them.     But  Gene-  Gene- 
brard  with  great  indignation  rejeSs  the  D(?(5?r/»eo/ValentinusGentilis,  hecanfe^IL*'^'^-^'^ 
he  held  an  Inequality  in  the  Perfons,    and  denied  the  individual  TJnity  of  the  1. 2,  p.91. 
Godhead  in  them  x,  but  he  faith,  he  fjllorvd  Damafcen  in  ajferting  three  real 
Hypoftafes  ;^  and  he  utterly  denies  Tritheifm,  and  he  brings  a  multitude  ofrea- 1'^-  P  '59' 
fans,  why  the  charge  o/Tritheifm  doth  not  lie  agoing  his  Opinion,    although  he 
owns  the  Hypoftafes  to  be  three  diftinft  individuals,  but  then  he  adds.    That 
there  i?  an  iudivifible  and  infeparable  Union  of  the  divine  Nature  in  all     '''' 
three  Perfons. 

Now  to  deal  as  impartially  in  this  matter  as  may  be,  I  do  not  think  our  under' 
Jiandings  one  jot  helped  in  the  Notion  of  the  Trinity  by  this  Hypothefis  ;  but 
that  it  is  liable  to  as  great  difficulties  as  any  other,  and  therefore  none  ought  to 
be  fond  of  it^  or  to  fet  it  againff  the  general  Senfe  of  others,  and  the  current  Ex- 
prejjtotis  of  Divines  about  thcfe  Myfieries  ^  nor  to  call  the  different  Opinons  of  0- 
thers  Herefie  <?rNonfenfe,  whit h  are  provoking  Words,  and  tend  very  much  to 
inflante  MensPajJtons,  becaufe  their  Fatth  and  Underflanding  are  both  call  d  in 
t^uejiion,  which  are  very  tender  things. 

But  on  the  other  fide,  a  difference  ought  to  be  made  between  the  Herefie  and 
Blafphemy  o/Valentinus  Gentilis,  and  the  Opinion  of  fuch  who  maintain  the 
individual  and  indivifible  Unity  of  the  Godhead  ;  but  withal,  believe  that  e- 
very  Perfon  hath  an  individual  Subflance  as  a  Perfon,  and  that  Sabellianifra 
cannot  be  avoided  otherwife.  Wherein  I  think  they  are  mijiakeu,  and  that  the 
Fathers  were  of  another  Opinion  ;;  and  that  our  Church  owns  but  one  Subftance 
in  the  Godhead,  as  the  Wefiem  Church  always  did,  (  which  made  fuch  difficulty 
about  recei'jjing  three  Hypoftafes,  becaufe  they  took  Hypoftafis  for  a  Subftance  ) 
but  yet  I  fee  no  reafon  why  thofe  who  affert  three  Hypoftafes,  and  mean  three  in- 
dividual Subfiances  JI)ould  be  charged  with  the  Herefie  (?/Valentinus  Gentilis,  or 
or  fo  much  as  with  that  <?/ Abbat  Joachim  or  Philoponus,  becaufe  they  all  reje- 
lied  the  individual  Unity  of  the  divine  Nature,  which  is conjiantly  maintained 
by  the  Defenders  of  the  other  Hypothefis. 

But  it  is  faid  and  urged  with  vehemency,  that  thefe  two  things  are  inconfiflent 
with  each  other  ^  that  it  is  going  forward  and  bat  kward,  being  Orthodox  in  one 
Breath  and  otherwife  in  the  next-^  that  all  this  looks  like  fhuffling  and  concealing 
the  true  meaning,  and  aBing  the  old  Artifices  under  a  different  Form.  For  the 
Saraofatenians  rf»<^  Arians,  when  they  were  pinched,  feem'd  very  Orthodox  in 
their  Exprejfions,  but  retained  their  Herefies  ffill  in  their  Minds  5  and  there  is 
reafon  to  fufpeci  the  fame  Game  is  playing  over  again,  and  we  cannot  be  too  cauti' 
otKS  in  a  matter  offach  Confequence. 

I  grant  very  great  caution  is  needful,  but  the  mixture  of  fome  Charity  with  it 
Will  do  no  hurt.  Why  fhould  we  fufpeSt  thofe  to  be  inwardly  falfe,  and  to  think 
otherwife  than  they  fpeak,  who  have  fhew'd  no  want  of  Courage  and  Zeal,  at  a. 
time  when  fome  thought  it  Prudence  to  fay  nothing,  and  never  call'd  upon  their 
Superiors  than  to  own  the  caufe  of  God,  and  to  do  their  Duties  as  they  have 
now  done,  and  that*in  no  very  obliging  manner  ?  And  if  the  fame  Men  can  be 
codl  affd  unconcerned  at  fome  times,  (  when  there  was  fo  great  reafon  to  he  other* 

rvife  ) 


^26  The  Preface. 


To/fe)  and  of  a  fudden  grow  very  ivarfft,    and  even  to  boil  over  vplth  'Zeal '^   the 
World  is  fa  ill   natur'd,    as  to  he  too  apt  to  conclude  there  is  fome  other  caufe 
offuchan  alteration  than  what  openly  appears.     But  there  k  a  kind  o/ bitter 
Zeal,    which  is  fo  fierce  and  violent,    that  it  rather  inflames  than  heals  any 
Wounds  that  are  made:,  and  is  of  fo  /Malignant  a  Nature,    that  it  fprends  and 
eats  like  a  Cancer,    and  if  a  flop  were  not  given  to  it,    it  nilght  endanger  the 
whole  Body.     lam  very  fenfble  how  little  a  Man  confults  his  own  eafe,    who  of- 
fers to  interpofe  in  a  difpute  between  Men  of  Heat  and  Animofity  5    but  thfs 
moves  me  very  little,  when  the  interefl  of  our  Church  and  Religion  is  concerned, 
which  ought  to  prevail  more  than  the  fear  ofdifpleafing  one  or  other  Party,    or  it 
may  be  both.     I  do  heartily  wifh,  that  all  who  are  equally  concerned 
oderac  rixas  &  jurgia,     i„  the  common  Caufe,  would  lay  afide  Heats,  and  Prejudices,    and 
•d™o?r"a"c^turpeTir"di'     hardWords,    and  confider  thif  matter  impartially^   and  I  do  not 
cebat  viros   indubiuce     quejiifin,    but  they  will  fee  caufe  to  Judge^    as  I  do,    that  the  diffe- 
dojlos  canina  rabie  fa-  ^  ^^^  r,  .^^^^  ^  ^„^  Adverfariesfor  their  own  advdnt ate  make 

mam  vicilTini   luam   ro-       .  i     t    r        1    ^r    r  1         -tit         t  r         i-r 

dercac  liicerare  Tcriptis     it  to  be.      And  jince  both  Jides  yield,   that  the  matter  they  dtjpute 
tiucibus,  tanquam  viiif-     about  is  above  their  reach,  the  wifefi  coitrfe  they  can  take  is  to  affert 
\a°lagvort\t  fefe  luto     and  defend  what  is  revealed,    and  not  to  be  too  peremptory  and 
ac  flercore  conlpurcan-     quarrelfsme  about  that  which  is  acknowledged  to  be  above  our  cont- 
tes    Nic.  Rhait.  vit.  P.    p^^^^^ff^j^     /  ^gan  as  to  the  manner  how  the  three  Perfons  partake 
of  the  divine  JSature. 
It  would  be  of  the  moji  fatal  Confequence  torn,  ifthofe  Weapons,  which  might 
be  fo  ufefully  imployd  againfi  our  common  Adverfaries,  fhouldfiill  be  turned  up- 
on one  another.     I  know  no  manner  of  advantage  they  have  againji  us,    but  frofa 
thence,  and  this  is  it  which  makes  them  write  with  fuch  Infolence  and  Scorn  to- 
wards thofe  who  are  far  their  Superiors  in  Learning  and  Wit,    as  well  as  in  the 
Goodnefs  of  their  Caufe.     And  is  it  pojfible  that  fome  of  our  mofi  skilful  Fencers 
'fhould  play  Prizes  before  them,    who  plainly  animate  them  againji  each  other  for 
their  own  Diverfion  and  Interefi .«'     Sometimes  one  hath  the  better,  fometimes  the 
other  J  and  one  is  cried  up  in  Oppofition  to  the  other,  but  taken  alone  is  ufed  with 
c^nfideraf.  the  greateji  Contempt.    One  Man's  Work  isfaid  to  be  learned  and  accurate,  and 
«n  the  Ex-  ff,e  more,  becaufe  it  follows,  that  he  concerns  not  hirnfelf  with  the  Socinians. 
o'r.w'U.  ^^^  ^'fi*"  ^*^  **"  doubt,  for  that  Reafon.   At  another  time  it  is  called  the  Birth 
p.  i2.>      of  the  Mountains,    and  the  Author  parallel d  with  no  lefs  a  Man  than  Y^on 
P*  ^3-    Quixot,  and  h's  elaborate  Writings  with  his  Adventures,  and  they  ridicule  his 
_  jj    Notion  of  MoAqs  as  if  they  were  only  fo  many  Gzmhoh  znd.  Poftures.     And 
then  pr  his  Adverfary,  they  hearten  and  incourage  him  all  they  can  ;    they  tell 
him.  He  muft  not  allow  to  the  other  the  leaft  Tittle  of  all  he  contends  for, 
P'23-    leaji  their  fport  fieuld  be  fpoiled  ^    and  to  comfort  him,    they  tell  him,    that  his 
p.  85.    Adverfary  is  a  Socinian  at  bottom,    and  doth  not  know  it  ;    that  all  his  Thing- 
•  urns,  Modes,    Properties  are  only  an  Addition  of  Words  and  Names,   and 
not  of  Perfons  properly  fo  called,  and  that  his  whole  Scheme  is  nothing  but 
p.  19.  Socinianifm  dreft  up  in  the  abfurd  Cant  of  the  Schools.    That  his  Book  hath 
much  more  Scurrility  than  Argument,  that  his  ufage  of  him  was  barbarous, 
and  a  greater  Sol.oecifm  in  Manners,  than  any  he  accufes  him  of  in  Grammar 
p.  i;.    or  Speech  5  and  in  fhort.  That  his  Explication  of  the  Trinity  is  a  great  Piece 
ofNonfenfe,  (  though  it  comes  fo  near  to  Sozim^m^m.^    But  how  do'htheo- 
*;6er  Antagonift  efcape  ?     What,    nothing  but  good  Words  to  him?     In  this 
place  they  had  a  mind  to  keep  him  in  heart,  and  only  charge  him  with  a  Here- 
fie  which  they  laugh  at ;    but  in  another  place,  theyfet  him  out  with  fuch  colours, 
Vefence  of  IS  JJjew  they  intended  only  to  play  one  upon  the  other.     They  charge  him  not  on- 
rieAjvw  /j,  w,;?;^  Herefie /-a^  Polytheifm,  Which,  they  fay,   is  next  to  Atheifm ;    that 
"imi  liiT^  his  Vindication  is  <?  fupercilious,    difdainful  and  peevifh  Anfwer ;    that  he 
Creed,      hgd  neirhcr  Humanity  nor  good  Manners  left  5  that  th<N"e  is  nothing  confi- 
^■p'^^,    derable  in  his  Books  but  what  he  borrow'd  from  Them.     Thefe  are  fom'e  of 


The    Preface.  4  27' 

the  Flovpers  rohU  b  they  heflow  on  thefe  Perfons  of  Reputation  in  Polemick  Squab- 
ble ^  ^Ae;*  £■<?// //,  which  plainly  Jhevp^  that  their  aim  it,  (u  uiuih  as  may  be^  to 
4  vide  And  then  to  expofe  «/.  And  fiall  we  ft  ill  go  on  to  gratifie  thif  iiifttltiti^^ 
HumoHr  of  theirs,  hy  con!  ending  with  one  another,  and  afford  them  jiill  new  mat- 
ter for  Books  againji  both  .«"  As  we  may  fee  in  their  late  Diftonrfe  about  Nomi- 
nzX  and  R.eal  Trinitarians,  which  was  intended  for  a.  rare  fhew,  wherein  the 
two  Parties  are  reprefented  as  combating  with  one  another^  and  theyfland  by  and 
trii{ff/p&  over  thefe  Cadmean  Brethren,  as  they  call  them. 

Neither  are  they  the  Socinians  only,  hut  thofe  whadefpife  all  Religion  (who  I 
dofibt  are  the  far  greater  number  )  are  very  much  entertained  with  fuch  encoun- 
ters between  Men  of  Wit  and  Parts,  becaufe  they  think,  and  they  da  not  think 
4wifs,  that  Religion  it  felf  will  be  the  greateft  fnfferer  by  them  at  I  aft  :  And  thk 
fs  the  moft  danger  otfs,  but  I  hope  not  the  moft  prevailing  Party  of  Men  among  m, 
Zi6e  Socinians  profefs  themfelves  Chriftians,  and  J  hope  a>e  fa,  (  efpecial/y  if  but 
One  (Article  of  Faith  be  required  to  make  Men  fo  }  but  I  cannot  but  obfcrve  that 
in  the  late  Socinian  Pamphlets,  there  is  too  ft  rang  a  biafs  towards  Deifm,  (which 
confider ation  alone  Jljould  make  tff  unite  and  look  more  narrowly  to  their  fteps,  ) 
I  do  not  charge  their  Writers  with  a  profeffed  defign  to  advance  Deifm  among  m  i 
but  their  way, of  managing  their  Difputes,  is  as  if  they  had  a  mind  to  ferve  them. 
■And  fuch  Men  who  are  Enemies  to  all  revealed  Religion,  could  not  find  out  bet- 
ter Tools  for  their  purpofe  than  they  are.  For  they  know  very  well,  that  m  fuch 
a  Nation  as  ours,  which  is  really  concerned  for  theProfeffion  of  Religion  one  way 
or  other,  there  is  no  opening  profejfed  Schools  of  Atheifm  ^  but  the  defign  muft 
be  carried  on  under  fame  fijew  of  Religion.  And  nothing  ferve s  their  turn  fo 
weUj  ^  fetting  up  natural  Religion  in  apportion  to  Revealed.  For  this  is  the 
way  hy  degrees  to  loofen  and  unhinge  the  Fa  th  of  ntoft  Men^  which  with  great 
reafon  is  built  on  the  Scripture  as  the  fureft  foundation. 

But  here  it  is  fit  to  obferve   the  feveral  fteps  they  take   in  order  to  this 
4dvancing  t>eifm,    and  how  our  Unitarians   have  complied    with    all   of 
tbem, 

I.  The  fir/l  point  they  are  to  gain  is.  The  lefTening  the  Authority  of 
tSiripturCy  and  if  this  be  once  done,  they  know  Mens  Minds  will  be  left 
fo  roving  and  uncertain^  that  they  will  foon  fall  into  Scepticifm  and  Infi- 
delity. 

II.  The  next  is,  to  reprefent  Ghurch-tnen  as  Perfons  of  Intereftand  Defign, 
who  maintain  Religion  only  becauje  it  fupports  them  ^  and  this  they  call  Prieft- 
Crafr,  and  if  they  can  hy  this  means  take  away  their  Authority  too,  the  way  lies 
Jiill  more  open  for  them  ^  for  it  is  more  eafie  to  make  a  Prey  of  the  Flock,  when 
the  Shepherds  arefufpe^ed  only  to  look  after  their  Fleeces.  Since  fuch  afufpicion 
takes  axoay  all  Tmft  and  Confidence  in  their  Guides:^  and  they  know  very  well, 
how  little  others  will  be  able  to  defend  themfelves. 

III.  Another  fiep  is,  to  magnifie  the  Deifts  as  Men  of  Probity  and  good  Senfe  j 
that  ajfirt  the  juft  Liberties  of  Mankind,  againft  that  terrible  thing  called  Prieft-  ( 
Craft  ^  and  that  would  refcue  Religion  from  falfe  Glojfes  and  abfurd  Notions  ta- 
ken up  front  the  Schools  and  taught  in  the  Univerfities,  on  purpofe  to  keep  under 
thofe  Principles  of  univerfal  Liberty  as  to  Opinions,  which  thofe  of  freer  Minds 
endeavour  to  pomote.  But  efpecially  they  are  great  Enemies  to  all  Myfteries  of 
Faith,  as  uureafmable  Impofitions  on  thofe  of  more  refined  Dnderftandings,  and 
i?/ clear  and  diftinft  Preceptions,  as  they  have  learnt  to  exprefs  themfelves.  Theft 
they  an  ount  intolerable  ufurpations  on  Men  of  fuch  Elevations  as  themfelves  5 
for  Myfteries  are  only  for  the  Mob,    and  not  for  Perfons  offw.  h  noble  Capacities. 

IV.  The  I  aft  thing  is,  to  reprefent  all  Religions  as  indifferent,  fince  they  agree 
in  the  t.  ommon  Principles  of  natural  Religion,  efpecially  the  Unity  of  God,  and  all 
the  reft  is  but  according  to  the  different  Inventions  of  Men,  the  skill  of  the  Con- 
trivers, and  the  feveral  Humors  andlncliffationt  of  Mankind. 

Theft 


4  -^  8  The  P  R  E  F  A  c  E. 


Thefe  are  the  r^zV/Myfteries  o/Deifm  in  our  Age  ^  for  even  Deifm  hath  its 
Myfteries,  and  it  is  it  felf  a  Myftery  of  Iniquity,  which  I  am  afraid  is  too 
much  working  already  among  m,  and  tvill  be  more  if  no  effeSual  Jiop  be  pnt 
to  it.  ''■'•''■■ 

I  call  it  Deifm,  becaufe  that  Name  obtains  novt>,  as  more  plaufble  and  mo- 
d'ifh  ;  for  Atheifm  is  a  rnde  unmannerly  Word,  and  expofes  Men  to  the  Rabble, 
and  makes  PerfonsJ/nin  the  company  and  avoid  the  Converfation  and  Dealing  veith 
fuch  vpho  are  noted  for  it.  And  this  would  be  a  mighty  Prejudice  to  them,  as  to 
their  Interejifin  this  Worlds  which  they  have  reafon  to  value. 

But  to  be  a  Deift,  feems  to  be  only  a  fetting  up  for  having  more  Wit^  than  to  be 

cheated  by  the  Priefts,  and  impofedupon  by  the  common  Forms  of  Religion,  which 

ferve  well  enough  for  ordinary  People  that  want  Senfe,    and  are  not  skilled  in 

Demonfirations  :;  but  the  Deifis  are  fo  wife  as  to  fee  through  all  thefe  things.  And 

>  therefore  this  name  gains  a  Reputation  among  all  fuch  as  hate  Religion,  but  know 

not  how  otherwife  to  difiingu'fh  the mfelves  from  profeffed  Atheifis,  which  they  would 

by  no  means  be  taken  for  5  although  if  they  be  prejpid  home,  very  few  among  them 

will  fincerely  own  any  more  than  aSenesofCaufes,  without  any  i/itelleBual  Per' 

feUions,  which  they  call  God.     A  firange  God  without  Wifdom,  Goodnefs,  Ju- 

flice  or  Providence  !  .  • 

But  I  am  now  tofhea>,  how  in  all  thefe  points  the  prefcnt  Unitarians  have  been 

very  ferviceable  to  them,  in  the  Books,  which  they  have  lately  publiffjed  and  dif- 

perfed  both  in  City  and  Countrey. 

I.  As  to  the  Authority  of  Scrip ti^e  :     They  have  been  al/eady  Jujily  expofed 
Vmikat'mfor  undermining  the  Authority  of  St.  John's  Gofpel,  by  mufiring  up  all  the  Argu- 
ofthe-rcb-  ntents  of  the  old  Hereticks  Againfi  it,    and  giving  no  anfwers  to  them.     And 
Sermons,    ^^'^f  defence  have  they  ftnce  made  for  themf elves?    No  o'her  but  this  very  tri- 
p.  «;.      fling  one,    that  they  repeat  their  Reafons  but  do  not  affirm  them.     What  is 
d'/'^E]}"  *^^  f»^a»i»g  of  this  }     If  they  are  true,   why  do  they  not  affirm  them  /     If  they 
p.  47.   *  ^fsf^lfi,  ''^hy  do  they  not  anfwer  them  ?     Is  this  done  like  thofe  who  believe  the 
Gofpel  of  St.  John  to  be  divine,    to  produce  all  the  arguments  they  could  meet 
with  againji  it  5    and  never  offer  to  fljew  the  Weaknefs  and  Unreafonablenefs  of 
them  ?     Doth  not  this  look  like  a  defign  to  furnifh  the  Deifts  with  fuch  arguments 
as  they  cotdd  meet  with  againfi  it  ?     Efpecially,    when  they  fay.  That  St.  John 
doth  not  oppofe  them,     ff^hy  then  are  thefe  Arguments  produced  againji  his 
Gofpel  ?     Men  do  not  ufe  to  difpute  againfi  their  Friends,  nor  to  tell  the  World 
what  all  People  have  [aid  againfi  them,  and  give  not  a  word  of  anfwer  in  vin- 
dication of  them.     But  they  fay.  The  modern  Dnitarians  allow  ot  the  Gofpel 
and  other  Pieces  of  Sr.  John,     A  very  great  favour  indeed,  to  allow  of  them. 
,    '         But  how  far  .<?     As  of  divine  Authority  .<?     Not  a  word  of  that.     But  as  ancient 
Books  which  they  think  it  not  fjt  for  them  to  difpute  againfi.      But  if  the  ancient 
^^y^i'{  JS/'/tf^zVe/ were  their  Predeceflbrs,  as  they  affirm,   they  can  allow  none  but  the 
rians.p.io. Gofpel  according  to  the  Hebrews-^  and miifi  rejeB  the  reji  and  all  St.  Paul  s  E- 
]  piftles  ty    and  in  truth,    they  make  him  argue  fo  little  to  the  purpofe,    that  they 
muji  have  a  very  mean  Opinion  of  his  Writings.     But  of  thefe  things  in  the  Dif- 
courfe  it  felf. 

As  to  Church-men,  no  profeffed  Deifts  could  exprefs  themfclves  more  fpite- 

fully  than  they  have  done,  and  that  againfi  thofe  to  whom  they  profefs  thegreatefl 

c^nfiJerat.refpeB.     What  then  would  they  fay  of  the  reji  .^     Thej  fay  in  general.   That  it  is 

on  the  Ex.  natutal  to  Worldlings,   to  mercenary  Spirits,    to  the  timorous  and  ambiti- 

WeArchbl^^'^h   '"  ^  wotd,   to  all  fuch  as  prefer  not  God  before  all  other,   whether 

fl)op,  8cc.  Perfons  or  Confiderations  to  believe  as  they  would  have  it, 

f'  '3'  £^t  although  the  Words  be  general,  yet  any  one  that  looks  into  them  may 

foon  find  that  they  were  intended  for  fuch  Church- men  who  had  written  againfi 

their  Opinions.      And  the  Infinuation  is,  that  if  it  were  not  for  worldly  Inte^ 

refis,  they  would  own  them  to  be  in  the  right.     Whereas  I  am  fully  perfwaded^ 

that 


The  Preface.  419 


ihat  they  have  no  way  to  defend  their  Opinions^  hut  to  reje^the  Scriptures  and 
declare  themfelves  Deifts  ^  and  as  long  as  voe  retain  a  Jn(i  Veneration  for  the 
Scriptures^  vee  can  be  of  no  other  Opinion^  becaufe  vee  look  on  their  Interpretati- 
ons as  unreafonable,  new,  forced,  and  inconfijient  with  the  circumflances  ofPla-^ 
cesy  and  the  main  Scope  and  Tenor  of  t he-New  Teflament.  But  their  Introdit- 
&ion  to  the  Anfwer  to  the  late  ArchbifliopV  Sermons  about  th&  Trinity  and  In- 
carnation, Jhew  their  Temper  fuff-iiently  as  to  all  Church-men.  Uewu  thePer- 
fon  they  profejfed  to  ejleem  and  reverence  above  all  others,  and  confefs  that  he 
infiruUs  them'm  the  Air  and  Language  of  a  Father,  (  which  at  leaji  defeived M'^-^to 
a  little  more  dutiful  Language  from  them.^  But  fome  Mens  fondnef)  for  their  bifh/sem^- 
Opinions  breaks  all  bounds  of  Civility  and  Decency  ^  for  prejently  after,  men-  i-  43- 
tioning  the  Archbifhop  and  other  Biftiops  who  had  written  againji  them,  they  fay 
it  fignifies  nothing  to  the  cafe.  That  they  are  great  Penfioners  of  the  World, 
For  it  is  certain  we  have  a  mighty  Propenfity  to  believe  as  is  for  our  Turn  p*^*' 
and  Intereft.  Andfoon  after,  that  their  Oppofirs  are  under  the  power  of  fuch 
fatal  Biafles,  that  their  Doftrine  is  the  more  to  be  fufpeded  becaufe  it  is 
theirs.  For  the  reafon  vvhy  they  maintain  the  Dod'lrine  of  the  Trinity  is, 
becaufe  they  muft.  The  plain  meaning  of  all  thk  is,  that  the  late  Archbijhop 
Cos  well  ai  thereji)  was  a  mere  felf-interefted  Man,  (which  none  who  knew 
either  the  outfide  or  infide  <?/Lambeth  could  ever  imagine)  that  if  he  were  real- 
ly againft  them  (  as  none  could  think  other  wife,  who  knew  him  fa  well  and  fo 
long  AS  I  did)  it  only  pew'd  what  a  ftrange  Power,  Intereft  hath  iri  the  Minds 
of  all  Church  Men. 

Bftt  what  Biafs  was  it,  which  made  him  teriiewith  thdt  firength  and  judgment^ 
againjl  their  Opinions  ?    Let  us  fet  afide  all  Titles  of  Refpeit  and  Honour 
as  they  defire,  let  Keafon  be  compared  with  Reafon  5    and  his  Arguments  with 
their  Anfwers  ;    and  it  will  be  foon  found  that  the  advantage  vphich  he  had,  was.. 
mt  from  any  other  Dignity  than  that  of  a  clearer  Judgment,  and  a  much  ftronger 
wayofKeafoning.     Wheren  their  Anfwers  are  fuch,    as  may  well  be  fuppofed  to 
come  jrom  thofi,  who  had  fome  fuch  Biafs,  that  they  mufl  at  leafi  feem  to  anfwer 
what  in  truth  they  could  not.     As  hath  been  fully  made  appear  in  the  Vindica- 
tion ^/i6i/»,  to  which  no  reply  hath  been  given ,  although  other  Treatifes  of  theirs 
have  come  out  fince.     In  /^eConclufion  of  that  Anf\Ver  they  fay:,   That  thty  Anfveru 
did  not  exped;  that  their  Anfwer  (hould  fatisfie  us,    and  in  truth  they  had  a  theArchbi- 
great  deal  of  reafon  to  think  fo.     But  what  reafon  do  they  give  for  it  ?    A  very^'"^'^     ' 
kind  one  no  doubt ;  becaufe  PrepolTeffion  and  Intereft  have  taken  hold  of  us. 
As  though  we  toere  Men  of  fuch  mean  and  mercenary  Spirit  s ,  as  to  believe  accor- 
ding to  Prepoffeffion  without  Reafon,  and  to  aB  only  asferves  our  prefent  Inte- 
rfeft.'    Btit  we  never  made  mean  AddrefTes/*?  Infidels  tojhew  how  near  our  Prin-        • 
ciples  came  to  theirs,  nor  made  Parallels  between  the  Trinity  and  Tranfubftan- 
tiation,  <«j  fome  did, '  and  defended  them^  as  well  as  they  could,    when  Popery 
was  Hppermoji.     But  enough  of  this. 

3.  We  havefeen  how  much  they  have  gratified  the  Deifts  by  reprefenting  Church- 
men in  fuch  a  manner,  let  us  now  fee  in  what  manner  they  treat  the  Deifts.     It 
is  with  another  fort  of  Language'^  and  which  argties  a  more  than  ordinary  kind- 
nefs  to  them,    in  one  place  they  fay.    That  the  Deifts  are  moftly  well-natured  ^oyne 
Men,  and  Men  of  Probity  and  Underftanding  5  in  effed  that  they  are  fincere  *houihts 
honeft-bearted  Men,  who  do  good  by  the  impulfeof  their  natural  Religion,  |h!"r?n'<J;- 
Honefty  and  good  Confcience,  which  have  great  Influence  upon  them.    What  iftm. 
another  fort  ofCharaSer  is  this  from  ihat  of  the  greatefi,    and  /«  their  Opinion  ^'  "' 
the  beji  of  our  Clergy  .<?     This  mufi  proceed  from  fome  Intimacy  and  Familiarity 
with  themi,    and  it  is  eafie  to  imagine  from  hence,    that  they   are  upon  very 
good  Terms  with  one  another,  becaufe  they  mufi  be  Unitarians,   //  they  believe  a 
God  at  all. 

Bftt  where  elfe  are  thefe  honeft  confcientiou's  Deifts  to  be  found  ,«". 

I  i  i  /* 


4.30  The     Preface. 


It  is  rare  indeed  for  others  to  find  any  one  that  reje^s  Chrifiianity  out  of  pure 

Confcience,  and  that  a&s  by  Principles  of  fin  cere  Virtue.     I  never  yet  could  meet 

vpithfuch,  nor  hear  ofthofe  that  have.     And  I  would  fain  know  the  reafons  on 

which  fuch  confcientions  Men  proceeded  ^   for  truly  the  Principles  of  natural  Re' 

ligion  are  thofe  which  recommend  Chrifiianity  to  me  5    for  without  them  the  My- 

fteries  of  Faith  would  he  far  more  unaccountable  than  now  they  are  5    and  fuppo^ 

fing  them^  1  fee  no  incongruity  in  them,  i.  e.  That  there  is  a  jufl  and  holy  God, 

and  a  wife  Providence,  and  a  future  State  of  Rewards  and  Punifioments  ^    and 

that  God  defigns  to  b^ing  Mankind  to  happinefs  out  of  a  State  ofMifery  5    let 

thefe  befuppofed,  and  the  Scheme  of  Chrifiianity  mil  appear  very  reafonable  and 

fitted  to  the  Condition  and  Capacity  of  Mankind.     And  the  fublime^  Myfieries 

of  it  are  not  intended  to  puzzle  or  amufe  Mankind,  as  weak  Men  imagine  5   but 

they  are  difcover'd  for  the  great  efi  and  befl  purpofes  in  the  World,  to  bring  Men 

,         to  the  hatred  of  Sin  and  Love  of  God,  and  a  patient  continuance  in  well-doing, 

in  order  to  a  bleiTed  Immortality.     So  that  this  k  truly  a  Myftery  of  Godli- 

nefs,  being  intended  for  the  advancement  of  real  Piety  and  Goodnefs  among  Man- 

kind,  in  order  to  make  them  happy.     But  as  to  thefe  Unitarians,    who  have  fuch 

happy  .-tcquainta//ce  ip/V^ /)6e/e  confcientious  Deifts  5   I  would  fain  learn  from 

them,  if  they  think  them  mifiaken,    why  thej  take  no  more  pains  to  fatisfie  and 

letter  of  convince  them  ;  for  I  find  they  decline  faying  a  word  againji  them.  In  one  place 

ferningtle  '^^^  compare  the  Atheift  and  Delft  together  i,    and  very  honeftly  and  like  any 

Trinity  and  confcieusious  DeiOs.  they  impute  all  the  Deifm  and  moft  part  of  the  Atheifra 

iiicar.p.i8.  of  our  Age  to  the  DodJrines  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation. 

Is  it  pojfiblefor  Men  that  live  fv  our  Age  to  give  fu^h  an  account  as  this  of  the 
Growth  of  Deifm  and  Atheifm  dmo^.gu-s?  What  humber  ^/Atheifts  is  there, 
upon  any  other  account  than  from  a  loofenefs  ofThi  king  and  Living  .<?  Where 
are  thofe  who  beleve  Gfd  to  be  an  incomprehenfible  Being,  and  yet  rejeB  the  My- 
fteries  which  relate  to  his  Be  ng,  becaufe  they  are  incomprehenfible  ?  Suppofe  any 
reje£i  fpiritual  Subftance  as  Nonfenfe  and  Contradidiion,  as  they  do  the  Tri- 
nity on  the  fame  Preten  es.  Is  this  afufiiient  reafon  or  not  .«'  They  may  tell 
them,  as  they  do  us  that  they  can  have  no  Ideas,  no  clear  and  diftinft  Percep- 
tions (>f  immaterial  Subftances  ?  What  anfwer  do  they  give  in  this  cafe> 
Not  a  Syllable  :^  although  they  take  notice  of  it.  But  I  hope  they  give  fome  better 
^^n"^  fatisfaliion  to  the  Deift  ^  No,  fr  they  fay.  This  is  not  a  place  to  argue  a- 
99  •  P  5-  gainft  either  Atheift  or  Deift.  By  no  means  :  fome  would  fay.  They  were  not 
fitch  Fools  to  fall  out  with  their  Friendf.  And  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  they 
have  been  t^e  greatefi  Incouragers  of  fuch  kind  ofWrititfgs,  whii  hferve  their  turtt 
fo  well  ;  and  in  pure  GrdtitUfle  they  forbear  to  argue  againji  them. 

IV.  To  P}ew  how  near  they  come  to  an  Indiffcrency  in  Religion,    they  fpeak 
favourably  of  Mahometans,   and  ]ews,   and  even  Tartars,    becaufe  they  agree 
with  them  in  the  Unity  of  the   Godhead.     What  an  hoheft- hearted  Deift  do  ■■ 
they  make  that  Impoftor  Mahomet  >     One  would  hardly  think  fuch  aCharaUer 
could  have  come  out  of  the  Mouth  ofChnfiians.  But  thefe  are  their  Words,  Maho- 
Letter  of  met  is  affirmed  by  divers  H'ftorians  to  have  had  no  other  defign  in  pretending 
^V'l^w"^^  himfelftobea  Prophet,  but  to  reftorethe  Belief  of  the  Unirv  of  God,  which 
Triltky  and^^  that  time  was  extirpated  among  the  Eajler'n  Ch'^ifiianshj  the  Doftrinesof 
hcar.p.i8.  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation.    Who  are  thofe  Hifiorians  who  give  this  CharaBer 
of  him  .<?     Why  are  they  not  named,    that  their  Authority  might  be  examind  ? 
Was  the  Morocco  Ambaflador  one  of  them  ?    Or  Paulus  Alciatus,  who  from  an 
Unitarian  turned  M.  hometiin  ?    But  by  the  befi  accounts  we  can  meet  with,   we 
Elmacin   find  that  he  was  a  very  cunning  Impoftor,  and  took  in  from  the  Jews  and  Iftima- 
^'^•^'^''^'^•eVltes  his  Countrymen^  Circumctfion  :^  from  the  Chrifiians,  an  honourable  mention 
ievin.      ofChrift,  as  a  Prophet,  and  as  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God,  and  owned  his 
Warner.    MJracles  5  from  the  an  ient  Hereticks  he  denyed  his  Suffering  but  owned  his  be- 
tun.  '°  f'^g  t'^ken  up  ipto  Heaven.    Tea,  he  owned,  That  he  had  his  Gofpel  from  Hea- 
ven s 


The   Preface  43^1 


ven^  but  that  his  Difciples  changed  it  after  his  Death,  and  attributed  more 
to  Chrifl:  than  he  affbmed  to  himfelf.  Which Jhercs  that  he  had  fo  much  Se»ce, 
a'f  to  d'fcern,  that  if  the  Books  of  the  New  Tejiament  were  gennine^  mere  mnflbe 
given  to  Chrijl^  than  either  Mahomet  or  the  Unitarians  do  allow.  Let  any  in- 
different Reader  compare  th'iir  CharaSfer  of  Mahomet  with  that  o/Athanafius,  ^^l^^S^^^' 
which  thefe  Men  give ^  and  they  will  eafily  find  that  they  take  as  much  care  to  p^  ^.  " 
blacken  one^  ai  they  do  to  vindicate  the  other.  What  Chrifiian  Ingenuity  is 
here  ?  But  Mahomet  was  a  Deift,  and  Athanafius  a  Trinitarian.  But  they 
goon. 

Whatfoever  the  defign  of  Mahomet  was,    it's  certain,  that  Mahometifm 
hath  prevailed  over  greater  Numbers  and  more  Nations,    than  at  this  day 
profefs  Chriftianity.     But  how  ?     Was  it  not  by  force  of  Arms,  and  the  F'eva- 
lemy  of  the  Saracen  and  Turkifli  Empire  ?     No,   fay  thefe  learned  Hifiorians, 
It  was  not  by  the  Force  of  the  Sword,  but  by  that  one  Truth  in  the  Alcoran, 
the  Unity  of  God.     It  were  endlefs  to  quote  the  Hifiorians,  who  fay.    That  it 
Teas  Mahomet'j  Principle,  to  fubdue  all  by  force  of  Arms  who  oppofed  his 
Religion  5  but  the  Authority  of  Elmacinus  alone  is  fuficient-j   for  in  the  begin- 
ning of  his  Hiftory  he  owns  that  it  was  his  Principle,    To  make  War  upon 
thofe  that  would  not  fubmit  to  his  Law.  And  others  fay,  that  in  remembrance 
dfthis.  Their  Law  is  expounded  by  their  Dodors,    with  a  Sword  drawn  by  R'card, 
them,   and  that  it  is  the  Law  of  the  Alcoran  to  kill  and  flay  thofe  that  op-  g°s"saM!^* 
pofe  it.     What  liberty  the  Turk'fl}  Empire  allows  to   Chrifiians  in  the  con- cfen.  c.  10. 
quer'd  Provinces  is  not  to  this  pnrpofe,   but  by  what  means  Mahometifm  pre- 
vailed  in  the  World. 

But  fay  they.  The  Jews  as  well  as  Mahometans  are  alienated  fromi 
us,  becanfe  they  fuppofe  the  Trinity  to  be  the  Doftrine  of  all  Chriftians. 
And  what  then  ?  Muji  we  renounce  the  Chrifiian  Do&rine  to  pleafe  the  Jews 
and  Mahometans  >  Muft  we  quit  Chriji's  being  the  Meffias,  becaufe  the  Jews 
deity  it  .<?  Or  the  fuffering  of  Chrifl,  becaufe  the  Mahometans  think  it  inconft- 
fient  with  his  Honour  ^ 

But  ifjhis  be  the  truth  of  the  cafe,  as  to  Jews  and  Mahometans  5  no  Verfons 
are  fo  well  qualified  to  endeavour  their  Converfion,  as  (7«r  Unitarians  5  which 
■would  be  a  much  better  imployment  for.  them,  than  to  expofe  the  Chrifiian  DoSrine 
byfuch  Writings  among  us.  I  am  afhamed  to  mention  what  they  fay  of  the  Tar- 
tars, when  they  call  them.  The  Shield  and  Sword  of  that  way  pf  acknowled-  ^^'.^n' »/  = 
ging  and  worfliiping  God.  Sothat  Mahometans,  Jews  and  Tartars,  are  fairly  ^^'"'-f^^- 
reprefented  becaufe  they  agree  in  the  grand  Fundamental  of  the  Unity  of  the  God- 
head 5  but  the  chrifiian  Church  is  charged  with  beUeving  Impoffibilities,  Con- 
tradiftions,  and  pure  Nonfenfe. 

And  thus  we  yfW  <?«r  Unitariansyeny/wg /Ae  Deifts  in  all  their  methods  ofo- 
verthrowmg  Revealed  Religion  and  advancing  Deifm  among  tu.     And  if  this 
*  TPillnot  awaken  us  to  look  more  after  them,  and  unite  us  in  the  defence  of  our  Cdm- 
ttton  Caufe  againji  them,  Ida  not  think  that  other  Methods  will  do  it.     For  it  is 
become  a  refilefs  and  a^ive,  although  as  yet,  but  afmall  Body  of  Men,  and  they 
tell  the  World  plainly  enough,  that  they  are  free  from  the  Biaffes  of  Hopes  and  f^l'^^l" 
Fears ;  and  fit  loofe  from  the  Awes  and  Bribes  of  the  World.    Sothat  there  is  bi/f,',p.p.^^: 
»o  way  of  dealing  with  them,    but  by  fhewing   thefalfenefsandweaknefsofthii     v-^^' 
gnounds  they  go  upon  ;    and  that  they  have  no  advantage  ofui  As  to  Scripture, 
Antiquity  or  Reafon  ;  which  is  tht  Defign  of  this  Undertaking. 

Worcefter,  Sept.  30.  169^. 

E.W. 

Iii2  A 


4-32 


DISCOURSE 

In  Vindication  of  the 

DoMne  of  the  TR INITK 

WITH 

An  Anfwer  to  the  late  S  o  c  i  n  i  a  n  Objedions. 


C  H  A  P.    I. 

The  Occapon  and  Defign  of  this  Vifcourfe. 

IT  is  now  above  t\|renty  years  fince  I  firft  publiflied  a  Difimrfe  abont  the 
reafons  of  the  Sufferings  of  Chriji,  ( lately  reprinted  )  in  anfwer  tofome 
Socinian  Objeftions  at  that  time.    But  I  know  not  how  it  came  to  pafs, 
that  the  Socinian  Controverfie  feemed  fo  be  laid  afleep  among  us  for 
many  years  after  5    and  fo  it  had  continued  to  this  day,  if  fome  l^ensbufie 
and  indifcreet  Zeal  for  their  own  particular  Opinions    (  or  other  Herefies  ) 
had  not  been  more  prevalent  over  them,  than  their  Care  and  Concernment 
for  the  common  Intereft  of  Chriftianity  among  us.     For  it  is  that  which  real- 
•        ly  fufFers  by  thefe  unhappy  and  very  unfeafonable  Difputes  about  the  My' 
fleries  of  the  Chrijlian  Faith,  which  could  never  have  been  ftarted  and  car- 
ried on  with  more  fatal  confequence  to  all  revealed  Religiorli,    than   in  an 
Age  too  much  inclined  to  ^epticifm  and  Infidelity.    For  all  who  are  but 
well-wi(hers  to  that,  do  greedily  catch  at  any  thing  which  rends  to  unfettle 
Mens  Minds  as  to  matters  of  Faith,  and  to  expofe  them  to  the  fcorn  and  con- 
tempt of  Infidels.    And  this  is  all  the  advantage  which  they  have  above* 
others  in  their  Writings.    For  upon  my  careful  Perufal  of  them   (  which 
was  occafion'd  by  reprinting  that  Difcourfe  )  I  found  nothing  extraordina- 
CfinfderatJY-)  as  to  depth  of  Judgment,  or  clofenefs  ofReafonitig,  or  ftrength  of  Ar- 
onihe  ex.  gument,  ot  skill  in  Scripture  or  Antiquity,   but  the  old  ftufFfet  out  with  a 
IfThTrri'  ^^^  drefs,   and  too  much  fuited  to  the  Genius  of  the  Age  we  live  in,  viz.. 
m>,6>Dr  Brisk  and  airy,  but  withal  too  light  and  fuperficial.  But  although  fuch  afqft 
w.  &c.  p.  Qf  R^aillery  be  very  much  unbecoming  the  weight  and  dignity  of  the  Subjeft, 
Defeme  of  yet  that  is  not  the  worft  part  of  the  Charadter  of  them  ;   for  they  feem  to 
the  H'iflory  be  written  not  with  a  defign  to  convince  others,   or  to  juftifie  themfelves, 
m/*p^5    ^^^^  to  ridicule  the  great  Myfieries  of  our  Faith,   calling  them.  Jargon,  Cant, 
Anftt-erta  Nonfcnfe,  Iwpojjibilities^  Contradi&ions,  Samaritanifm,    and  what  not?     A- 
^iho  t'sn  "y  thing  but  Mahometifm  and  Deifm.     And  at  the  fame  time  they  know,  that 
mnl^'X  we  have  not  framed  thefe  Doftrines  our  felves  5   but  have  received  thera 

by 


■,  / 


Chap.  I.        A  Vindication  of  tbe,  &c.  435 

by  as  univerfal  a  Tradition  and  CoHfentof  theChriftian  Church,  as  chat 
whereby  we  receive  the  Books  of  the  NewTeftament,  and  as  founded  upon  « 
their  Authority.  So  that,  as  far  as  I  can  fee,  the  truth  of  thefe  Doftrines  and 
authority  of  thofe  Books  muft  ftand  and  fall  together  :  For  from  the  time  of 
the  writing  and  publifbing  of  them,  all  Pe'rfons  who  were  admitted  into  the 
Chriftian  Church  by  the  FormofBaptifm,  prefcribed  by  our  Saviour,  were 
underftood  to  be  received  Members  upon  profeflion  of  the  Faith  of  the  Holy 
Trinity  5  the  Hymns  and  Do xologies  of  the  Primitive  Church  were  to  Father, 
Sou,  and  Holy.  Ghojl  5  and  thofe  who  openly  oppofed  that  Dotlrlne  were 
caft  out  of  the  Communion  of  it;  which  to*me  feem  plain  and  demonftra- 
tive  Arguments,  that  this  was  the  DoSrine  of  the  Chrifiian  Church  from  the 
beginning,  as  will  appear  in  the  progrefsof  this  Difcourfc.  The  chief  de- 
fign  whereof  is  to  vindicate  the  Do&rine  of  the  Trinity,  as  it  hath  been  gene- 
rally received  in  the  Chrijiian  Church,  and  is  expreflcd  in  the  Athanafian  Creed, 
from  thofe  horrible  Imputations  of  Nonfinfe,  Contradi&ion  and  ImpojfibiUty  ^ 
with  which  it  is  charged  by  our  Vnitarians  (as  they  call  themfelves  5  )  and 
that  in  the  anfwer  to  the  Sermon  lately  reprinted,  about  the  Myjierier  of  the 
Chrijiian  Faith  :  which  I  firft  preached  and  publiftied  fome  Years  fince,  up- 
on the  breakingout  of  this  Controverfie  among  us,  by  the  Notes  on  Athana- 
fitff  his  Creed,  and  the  other  mifchievous  Pamphlets  one  upon  another.  I 
was  in  hopes  to  have  given  fome  check,  to  their  infolent  way  of  writing  a- 
bout  matters  fomuch  above  our  reach,  by  fliewing  how  reafonable  it  was 
for  us  to  fubmit  to  divine  Revelation  in  fuch  things,  fince  we  muft  acknow- 
ledge our  felves  fo  much  to  feek,  as  to  the  nature  of  Subflances,  which  are 
continually  before  our  Eyes  5  and  therefore,  if  there  were  fuch  difficulties  a- 
boutaMyftery  which  depended  upon  Revelation,  we  had  no  caufe  to  won- 
der at  it ;  but  our  bufinefs  was  chiefly  to  be  fatisfied,  whether  this  Doftrine 
were  any  part  of  that  Revelation.  As  to  whicbl  propofed  feveral  things, 
which  I  thought  very  reafonable,  to  the  finding  6ut  the  true  fenfe  of  the  Scri- 
pture about  thefe  matters.  After  a  confiderable  time,  they  thought  fit  to  pu- 
blifti  fomething,  which  was  to  pafs  for  an  Anfwer  to  it  5  but  in  it,  they  whol- 
ly pafs  over  that  part  which  relates  to  the  fenfe  of  Scripture,  and  run  into 
their  common  place  about  Myfteries  of  Faith  5  in  which  they  were  fure  to 
have  as  many  Friends,  as  our  Faith  had  Enemies-^  and  yet  they  managed  it 
in  fo  trifling  a  manner,  that  I  did  not  then  think  it  deferved  an  Anfwer.  But 
a  worthy  and  judicious  Friend  was  willing  to  take  that  task  upon  himfelf, 
which  he  hath  very  well  difcharged  ;  fo  that  I  am  not  concerned  to  meddle 
with  all  thofe  particulars,  which  are  fully  anfwer'd  already,  but  the  general 
Charge  as  to  the  Chrijiian  Church  about  the  DoflStine  of  the  Trinity,  I  think  ' 
my  felf.oblig'd  to  give  an  anfwer  to  upon  this  occafion.  But  before  I  come  to 
that,  fince  they  fo  confidently  charge  the  Chriftian  Church  for  fo  many  ages, 
with  embracing  Errors  and  Nan  fenfe,  and  ContradlBions  for  Myjieries  of  Faith, 
I  defire  to  know  (  fuppofing  it  poflible  for  the  Chriftian  Church  to  be  fo 
early,  fo  generally,  and  fo  miferably  deceived  in  a  matter  of  fuch  moment) 
by  vehat  light  they  have  difcovered  this  great  Error.  Havethey  any  netv  Books  Anfmrto 
oi Scripture  to  judge  by  >  Truly  they  had  need,  for  they  feem  to  be  very  '*^  ^'<^^^- 
weary  of  the  old  ones  5  becaufe  they  find  they  will  not  ferve  their  turn  i  £^p^fj°' 
therefore  they  mufter  up  t^e  old  Obje&ions  againji  them,  and  give  no  anfwer  of  ti-.e  7,i- 
to  them ;  they  find  fault  with  Copies,  and  fay,  they  are  corrupted  and  falffied"2fJe,^to 
tofpeak  the  Language  of  the  Chun  h  ;  they  let  fall  fufpicious  Words,  as  to  ^/>e  Miibourn. 
Form  ofBaptifm,  as  though  it  were  inferted  from  the  Churches  Prance  ;  they  ^^al'^j' 
charge  us  with  ioWovflng  corrupt  Copies,  and  making^//e  Tranflations  without  ;/,j  Uaic. 
any  manner  of  ground  for  it.  p-  4?- 

And  doth  not  all  this  difcover  no  good  will  to  the  Scriptures,  ar  leaft,  as  ^.'^Xw- 
they  are  received  among  us.**    And  I  defpair  of  meeting  with  better  Copies,  p.  2^,  jo 

or 


434  A  Vindication  of  th  Chap.  I. 

or  feeing  a  more  faithful  Tranflation^han  ours  is.    So  that  it  is  plain,    that 
.      they  have  no  mind  to  be  tried  by  the  Srrjptiires.     For  thefe  exceptions  are 
fuch,  as  a  Malefaftor  would  make  to  a  Jury  he  is  afraid  to  be  condemned 
by. 

But  \jfhat  then  is  the  peculiar  light  which  thefe  happy  Men  have  foutid 
in  a  corner,  the  want  whereof  hath  made  the  Chriftian  Church  to  fall  into 
fuch  monfirous  Errors  and  Contradiliions  ^  Nothing  ( they  pretend  )  but  the 
ttterelight  of  common  fenfe  and  reafoH  -^  which  they  call  after  a  more  refined 
way  of  fpeaking,  clear  Idecis  and  dijiindf  Perceptions  of  things. 

But  left  I  (hould  be  thought  to  mifreprefent  them  ;  I  will  produce  fome 
of  their  own  Expreffions.  In  one  place  they  fay,  \4'e  deny  the  Articles  of 
the  nevpChrifi'ianity,  or  the  Athanafian  Religion^  not  becaufe  they  are  Myjieries,  or 
hecaufe  roe  do  not  comprehend  them  ;  but  we  deny  them  bee Aufe  we  do  comprehend 
them  I,  we  have  a.  clear  and  di^inB  Perception,  that  they  are  not  Alyjieries,  but 
Contradi^ions^  Impojfibilities,  and  pure  Nonfenfe.  We  have  our  reafou  in  vain, 
and  all  faience  and  certainty  would  be  dejlroy'd  if  we  could  not  d/jlingurfj  between 
Anfwer  to  Myfieries  and  Contraditlions.  And  foon  after,  We  are  not  to  give  the  venera- 
myStrinm.  y^^  name ofMyfleries  to  Doflrines  that  are  contrary  to  nature's  andreafons Light ^ 
or  which  dejiroy  or  contradi^  our  natural  Ideas.  Thefe  things  I  have  particu- 
lar reafon  to  take  notice  of  here,  becaufe  they  are  publilhed  as  an  Anfwer  to 
the  foregoing  Sermon  about  the  Myfieries  of  the  Chrifiian  Faith  :  and  this 
fhews  the  general  grounds  they  go  upon,  and  therefore  more  fit  to  be  confi- 
der'd  here.  Tp  which  Khali  add  one  paff^^ge  more,  wherein  they  infinuate, 
that  the  Do&rine  of  the  Trinity  hath  been  fupported  only  by  intereft  and 
force.  Their  Words  are  (after  they  have  called  the  DoSrine  of  the  Trinity,  a 
Anf  toDr.  mon^roiu  Paradox  and  Contradiiljon  )  This  is  that,  fay  they,  which  becaufe 
four  Leu  *^^  other  Arguments  failed  them  in  their  difputations  with  the  Photinians  and 
*<rx,  p.  4.  Arians,  ,they  at  laji  efieduaUy  proved,  by  the  Imperial  Edids,'  by  Confifcations 
and  Banifhrnents,  by  feizing  and  burning  all  Books  written  againji  it  or  them, 
by  capital  Punijliments,  and  when  the  Papacy  {of  which  this  is  the  chief  Article^ 
prevailed  by  Fire  and  Faggot.  This  is  a  new  difcovery  indeed,  that  the  Do- 
drineof  the  Trinity,  as  it  is  generally  receiv'd  in  the  Chriftian  Church,  is 
the  chief  Article  of  Popery  '^  although  it  were  embraced  and  defended  long  be- 
fore Fopery  was  known  ;  and  I  hope  would  be  fo,  if  there  were  no  fuch 
thing  as  Popery  left  in  the  World.  But  if  every  thing  which  difpleafes  fome 
Men  muft  pafs  for  Popery,  I  am  afraid  ChiijUanity  it  felf  will  not  efcape  at 
laft :  For  there  are  fome  who  are  building  apace  on  fuch  foundations  as 
thefe  ;  and  are  endeavouring  what  they  can,  to  remove  out  of  their  way 
all  revealed  Religion,  by  ftie  help  of  thofe  two  powerful  Machines,  viz. 
Priefi-craft  and  Myfieries.  .  • 

But  becaufe  I  intend  a  clear  and  diftinc^  Difcourfe  concerning  the  Do^rine 
of  the  Trinity,  as  it  hath  been  generally  received  among  us ;  I  (hall  proceed 
in  thefe  four  Enquiries. 

Ci.)  Whether  it  was  accounted  zmmfirous  Paradox  and  ContradiBiffn, 
where  Perfons  were  not  fway'd  by  Force  and  Interefi  ? 

(2.  J  Whether  there  be  any  ground  of  common  reafon.  on  which  it  can  be 
Juftly  charged  with  Nonfenfe,  ImpoJJtbilities  and  Contradiclion  ? 

(3.)  Whether  their  Doftrine  about  thsTrinify  or  burs,  be  more  agreeable 
to  the  Jenfe  of  Scripture  2ind  Antiquity  ^ 

(4.)  Whether  our  Doftrine  being  admitted,  it  doth  overthrow  all  cer- 
tainty of  reafon,  and  makes  way  for  the  believing  the  greateft  Abfurdities 
under  the  pretencQ  of  he'm^  Myfieries  of  Faith. ^ 


CHAP. 


I 


Chap.  II.     Do^rine  of  t  be  Trimty,  435 

— . -^ ^ 

CHAP.   II. 

The  VoBrine  of  the  T  Rl  N ITT  noi  received  in  tlie 
Chrijlian   Church  by    Force  or   Intereft, 

■  A  S  to  the  firfl:,  it  will  lead  me  into  an  enquiry  into  the  fenfe  of  the 
t\  Chrijlian  Churchj  as  to  thisDoftrine,  long  before  fo?er)/  was  hat- 
**-  ^  ched,  and  at  a  time  when  the  main  force  of  Imperial  Edi^s  was  a- 
jgainfl;  Chrijlianity  it  felf  5  at  which  time  this  Doftrine  was  owned  by  the 
Ghriftian  Church,  but  difowned  and  difputed  againft  by  fome  particular  Par- 
ties and  Seds.  And  the  queftion  then  will  be,  whether  thefe  had  engrofled 
.Sew/e,  and  i?e^y^»,  and  iC»<?n'/ei5l'^e  among  themfelves  5  and  all  the  body  of 
the  Chriftian  Church,  with  their  Heads  and  Governors,  were  bereft  of 
common  Senfe,  and  given  up  to  believe  Nonfenfe  and  Co»tradi&io»s  for  Mj- 
fteries  of  Faith.  But  in  order  to  the  clearing  this  matter,  I  take  it  for  grant- 
ed. That  iSe»ye  and  Reafon  are  no  late  Inventions  only  to  be  found  among 
our  TJnitariant ;  but  that  all  Mankind  have  fuch  a  competent  (hare  of  them, 
as  to  be  able  to  judge,  what  is  agreeable  to  them,  and  what  not,  if  they  ap- 
ply therafelves  to  it ;  That.no  Men  have  fo  little  Senfe  as  to  be  fond  oiNon- 
fenfe,  when  Senfe  will  do  them  equal  fervice  ;  That  if  there  be  no  Biafs  of 
Intereft  tofway  them.  Men  will  generally  ju^ge  according  to  the  evidence 
of  reafon  5  That  if  they  be  very  much  concerned  for  a  Dodrine  oppofed  by 
others,  and  againft  their  Intereft,  they  are  perfwaded  of  the  Truth  of  it,  by 
other  means  than  by  force  zn^L  fear -^  That  it  is  poflible  for  Men  of  Senfe 
and  Reafon  to  believe  a  Doftrine  to  be  true  on  the  account  of  divine  Reve- 
lation, although  they  cannot  comprehend  the  manner  of  it  5  That  we 
have  reafon  to  believe  thofe  to  be  Men  of  Senfe  above  others,  who  have 
Ihew'd  their  Abilities  above  them  in'other  matters  of  Knowledge  and  Specu- 
lation 5  That  there  can  be  no  reafon  to  fufpe;^  the  Integrity  of  fuch  Men  in 
delivering  their  own  Senfe,  who  at  the  fame  time  might  far  better  fecure 
their  Intereft  by  renouncing  their  Faith  5  laftly.  That  the  more  Per- 
fons  are  concerned  to  eftabli(h  and  defend  a  Doftrine  which  is  oppofed 
and  contemned,  the  greater  evidence  they  give,  that  they  are  perfwaded  of 
the  truth  of  it. 

Thefe  are  Fojlulata  fo  agreeable  to  Senfe  and  common  reafon,  that  I  think 
it  an  affront  to  humane  Nature  to  go  about  to  prove  them.  But  to  ftiew 
what  ufe  we  are  to  make  of  them  5  we  muft  confider  that  it  cannot  be  deni- 
ed, th2itthe  Do^rine  of  the  Trinity  did  meet  with  oppofition  very  early  in 
thtChrifli an  Church,  efpecially  among  the  ^eip//Z»  CAr//?i<?;7J' 5  I  mean  thofe 
who  ftriftiy  adhered  to  the  Law  of  Mofes,  after  the  Apoftles  had  declared 
the  freedorii  of  Chriftians  from  the  obligation  of  it.  Thefe  (  as  I  fhall  (hew 
by  and  by  )  foon  after  the  difperfion  of  the  Church  oijerufalem,  gathered, 
into  a  body  by  themfelves,  diftind  from  that  which  confifted  of  Jem  and 
Gentiles,  and  was  therefore  called  the  Catholick  Chrijlian  Church.     And  this  > 

feparate  body,  whether  called  Ebionites,  Nazdrens,  or  Mineans,  did  not 
only  differ  from  the  Catholick  Chrijlian  Church,  as  to  the  necefiity  of  obfer- 
ving  the  Law  of  Mofes,  but  likewife  as  to  the  Divinity  of  our  Saviour,  which 
they  denied,  although  they  profeffed  to  believe  him  as  the  Chrijl  or  prorai- 
fed  MeJJias. 

Theodoret  hath  with  very  good  judgment  placed  the  Herefies  of  the  firrt  Theodo- 
Agesof  the  Chriftian  Church,   under  two  diftinft  heads,   (  which  others  )",*J^/;. 
reckon  up  confufedly  )  and  thofe  are  fuch  as  relate  to  the  Hnmanity  of  Chrijl^  ' 

as 


43<^  A  Vindication  of  the         Chap.  III. 

as  Simon  Magus,  and  ail  the  Seftsof  tfrofe  who  are  called  Gnoftickt,  which 
are  recited  in  his  firft  Bobk.  In  hi§  fecond  he  begins  with  thofe  which  relate 
to  the  Divinity  ofChrijl ;  and  thefe  are  of  two  kinds  ; 

1.  The  Jeveijf}  Chrijiians  who  denied  it.     Of  thefe  he  reckons  up  the£^/- 
onites,  Cerinthians,   the  Naz^rens^    and  Elcefait(e,     whom  he  diftinguiftied 

Epiphan.  from  the  Other  Ebionites,  becaufe  of  a  Book  of  Revet ati on,  which  one  Elxal 
Haref.  19.  brought  among  them  ;  but  Epphanius  faith,  he  joyned  with  the  Ebioniter 
n.  rj.       ^^^  Nazarens. 

2.  Thofe  of  the  Gentile  Chrijiians,  who  were  look'd  on  asbroachiqg  a  nerv 
Doctrine  among  them 'j  of  thefe  he  reckons  A/ew^»  as  the  firft   thtnTheodo- 

TertuU  de  tus,  whom  Others  make  the  firft  Publifher  of  it,  as  TertuUian,  and  the  old  Wri- 

Fmec"c!  ^^^  i"  Eufebiut,  fuppofed  to  be  Cuius,  who  lived  near  the  time,  and  of  whom 

52.Eufeb.a  confiderable  Fragment  ispreferved  inRufekus,  which  gives  light  to  thefe 

?'f  e^28  '^^^^^'■s-  The  next  is  another  7^eo^flf«f,  who  framed  a  new  Se£l:  of  fuch  as  fet 

'  up  Afe/f^Tei^efZ' above  Chrift.  Then  follow  Pauluj  Samofat en ffs,  and  Sabel/ius, 

who  made  but  one  Perfon  as  well  as  one  God,    and  fo  overthrew  the  Trinity 

with  whom  Marcelliu  agreed  in  fubftance,    and  laft  of  all  Photinus.    But 

Theodoret  concludes  that  Book  with  this  paflage,  viz.  That  all  thefe  Herefies 

againftonr  Saviours  Divimtj/'were  then  vphoBy  extinSf  ;  fb  that  there  tvere  not  fo 

much  as  any  fmall  Remainders  of  them.    What  would  he  have  faid,  if  he  had 

lived  in  our  Age,  wherein  they  are  not  only  revived,  but  are  pretended  to 

have  been  the  true  Doftrine  of  the  Apoftolical  Churches  ?   Had  all  Men  loft 

their  Sen fes  in  Theodoret's  time  ?  And  yet  there  were  as  many  learned  and  able 

Men  in  the  Chriftian  Church  then,  as  eVer  were  in  any  time. 


CHAP.    III. 

Ihe   S  O  C 1 N I  A  N   Pka  for  the  Jntipity  of  their 
DOCTRINE    examinee/, 

UT  this  is  not  the  Age  our  Vnitar tans  mil  ftandor  fall  by.  They  are 
for  going  backward  ^  and  they  fpeak  with  great  comfort  about  the 
^Jf.ofthe  ^-^  old  Ebionites  and  Nazarens  as  entirely  theirs  5  "  And  that  they  had 
«31^^//°* "  confiderable  Men  among  them,  as  Theodotion  and  Symmachus,  two  Tran- 
"  Clators  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  And  among  the  Gentile  Chrijiians,  they  va- 
*'  lue  themfelves  upon  three  Men,  Paulus  Samofatenus^  Lncianus  the  moft 
*'  learned  Perfon,  they  fay,  of  his  Age,  and  Yhotinm  Biftiop  of  Sirminm. 
"  As  to  theVnttarians  at  Rome,  (whom  they  improperly  call  Nazarens)  they 
"  pretended  that  their  Doftrine  was  Apoftolical,  and  the  general  Doftrine 
*'  of  the  Church  till  the  times  of  Fi&or  and  Zepherin. 

This  is  the  fubftance  of  their  Plea,  which  muft  now  be  examined. 
I  begin  with  thok  Primitive  VnitarianSf  the  EbioniteSy  concerning  whom, 
I  obferve  thefe  things : 

I.  That  they  were  a  diftinft,  feparate  body  of  Men  from  the  Chriftian 
Church.  For  all  the  ancient  Writers  who  fpeak  of  them,  do  mention  them 
as  Hereticks,  and  wholly  divided  from  it,  as  appears  by  Iren£us,  Tertullian, 
Epiphanius,  Theodoret,  St.  Augufiin,  and  others.  Eufebius  faith  of  them, 
\j.'  '  That  although  the  Devil  could  not  ^nake  them  renounce  Chrijllanity,  yet  finding 
their  weaknefs,  hferc^'^iro,  he  made  them  his  oxen.  He  would  never  have 
faid  thisof  any  whom  he  look'don  as  Members  of  the  Chriftian  Church.  But 
wherein  is  it  that  £»ye^/«/ blames  them?  He  tells  it  in  the  very  next  words 5 

that 


Cc 


Chap.  III.  Doclrine  of  the  Trinit^^.  437 

that  it  wiSfor  tha  mean  opinion  they  entertained  ofChrifi  j    for  they  look'd  en 
'  him  as  a  mere  Mstn,  but  very  jujl.      And  although  there  were  two  forts  of 
fhem  ^  fome  owning  the  mt>,acHlout  Conception^  and  others  not  ^  yet  faith  he. 
They  at  laji  agreed  in  the  fame  Impiety,  .which  was,  That  they  tvoutd  not  own 
Chriji  to  have  had  any  Pre-exijkni  e  before   his  Birth ,    nor  that  he   was  Oei; 
•Ay>^,  God  the  Word,  It's  true,  he  finds  fault  with  them  afterwards  ^r/i-eep- 
ing  to  the  Law  of  MoCes  ^  but  the  firft  In/piety  he  charges  them  with,   is  the 
other.    That  which  T  infer  from  hence  is,  thn  EHfeblus  himfelf  ( to  whom 
they  profefs  to  fhew  greater  refpeft  than  to  moft  of  the  ancient  Writers,  ^"'f-A^'V'* 
for  his  exa&nefs  and  diligence  in  Church-Hiftory  )  doth  affirm  theDoftrine"'^'"'^'^^' 
which  overthrows  the  Pre  exijieme  and  Divinity  ofChrifi  to  be  an  Impiety. 
And  therefore,  when  he   affirms  the  firfi  fifteen  B^ops  ofthe.ChunhofJe-Anfwerti) 
rufalemwhowereof  the  Circumcifion,  viz.    to  the  Siege  of  it  hY  Hadrian,   did^'^f'J'f'^' 
hold  the  genuine  DMrine  ofCh'iJl,  it  muft  be  underftood  of  his  Pre-exiftencec,Y.  '  ^' 
and  Divinity  ^  for  the  other  we  fee  he  accounted  an  Impiety.     And  he  tells 
us,  the  Church  of  Jerufalent  then  renf/Jled  of  believing  Jews,  and  fo  it  had  done 
front  the  Apsfiles  times  to  that  ^/HadrianV  Banifhment  of  the  Jea>s.     Which  is 
a  conGderable  Teftimony  totwo  purpofes ; 

I.  To  fhew  that  the  Primitive  Church  ofjemfalem  did  hold  the  Do.ftrine 
of  Cbrlft!?  Preexijiencedind  Divinity.     But  fa^  our  Unitarians^  this  doth  not 
follow.     For  what  reafon  ?    „When  it  is  plain  that  Eufebiu^  accounted  that 
the  only  genuine  Do&rine.    No,  fay  tliey,  he  meant  only  the  miraculous  Con-  Refp.  ad 
ception,  and  that  they  held  that,  in  oppoftion  to  thofe  Ebioniter  who  faid  that  he  ci"cf  p.i^e] 
was  born  as  other  Men  are.    This  is  very  ftrange  ^    when  Eafeblus  had  diftin- 
guifhed  the  two  forts  ofEbionites  about  this  matter,  and  had  blamed  both  of 
them,  even  thofe  that  held  him  born  of  a  Virgin,  fpr  falling  in'o  the  fame  Impi- 
ety.    What  can  fatisfie  fuch  Men,    who  are  content  with  fuch  an  anfwer  > 
But  fay  they,  Enfebius  only  fpake  his  own  fenfe.     Not  fo  neither  :    For  he 
faith  in  that  place,    that  he  had  fearched  the  moft  ancient  Records  of  the 
Church  of  Jernfalem.     Tes,  fay  they,  for  the  Succejfion    of  the  firfi  Biflwps  j 
tmtas  to  their  Doftrine  he  had  it  from  Hegefippus,  and  he  w  n  an  Ebionite  him- 
felf   Then  BufebiHs  muft  not  be  the  Man  they  take  him  for.    For  if  Hegefp- 
pHs  were  himfelf  an  £W«7e,    and  told  £///e^/«j  in  his  Commentaries,   that 
the  Primitive  Church  oijerufalem  confifted  of  all  fuch,    then  Enfebius  muft 
fuppofe  that  Church  guilty  of  the  fame  Impiety  with  which  he  charges  the 
Ebionites  ^  and  would  he  then  have  faid.  That  they  had  the  true  knowledge  of 
Chriji  among  them  .■?     ^o,  fay  they,  Eufebius  fpahe  his  own  opinion,    but  He- 
gefippus being  an  Ebionite  himfelf,   meant  otherwffe.     But  Eufebius  doth  not 
uCe  Hege/ippus  his  Words,  but  his  own  in  that  place  5  and  withal,  how  doth 
it  appear  that  Hegefppus  himfelf  was  an  Ebionite  .<?    This  one  of  their  lateft 
Writers  hath  undertaken,  but  in  fuch  a  manner,   as  is  not  like  to  convince 
me.     It  is  thus,  Hegefippus  was  himfelf  a  Jewifli  Chrijiian,  and  made  »fe  of  the  ^"Z"-  '"Dr. 
HebrewGofpel,  and  among  the  Hereticks  which  crept  into  the  Church  c/Jerufa-  i\'f}f 
Isw^  he  never  humbers  the  Ehionitts  or  Cerinthians,  but  only  the  Gnoiiicks.  I 
will  notdifpute,  whether  Hegefippus  was  a  Jewilh  Chriftian  or  not.    Grant 
he  was  fo,  yet  how  doth  it  appear  that  all  the  Jew/fh  Chrljiians  were  at  that 
time  Ebionites  or  Cerinthians  .<?  It  feems  they  were  neither  of  them  Hetetich, 
although  they  were  oppofite  to  each  other  ^    the  one  held  the  World  created 
by  inferiour  Powers,  the  other  by  God  himfelf:  the  one,  we  fee,  made  Chrifl 
a  mere  Man  ;  but  the  Cerinthians  held  an  il/apfe  of  the  ACyQ^  upon  him,    and 
fo  made  him  a  kind  of  a  God  by  his  Prefence,  as  Netiorius  did  afterwards.     But 
honeft  Hegefppus  took  neither  one  nor  the  other  for  Hereticks,   if  our  %)ni- 
tarians  fay  true.     But  yet  it  doth  not  appear,  that  Hegefippus  was  either  one 
or  the  other.     For  he  fpeaks  of  the  Church  ofjerufalem,  as  is  plain  by  Eu/e'  g^p^j,  ^  - 
bins  J  and  the  Cerinthians  and  Ebionitesj  were  in  other  parts  5   the  former  inc.  22.   "^' 

Kkk  Egypt 


4.3B  A  Vindication  of  iht;        Chap,  ill, 

— 77 — " — rr-:r r—  -0 ' -— ' 

Eg)'pt  and  the  J  ejcr  or  ProcohfuUr  Afa-^  and  the  latter  about  Dcrapolfs  and. 

Cd'lefyriit^  fVom  whence  they  fpread  into  Arabia  and  Armenia,  as  appears  by 

EprphaniHs.     But  Origen  faith,  That  alt  the  Jeivip  Chrijiiar/s  were  EbioniteS; 

What  !    no  Ccrinthiatis  among  then^?     Were  not  thofe  'JeveifiChriJlians  ?■ 

Or  were  they  all  turned  E^/<7w?/ej  then  ?  No  fuch  thing  appears  by  Origen's 

faying.     But  we  are  not  enquiring  now,  what  they  were /» /^/.r //^e,  butin 

theChurch  ofjertifalem.     Doth  Or'igen  fay,    all  thtjewiff}  Chri^ilans  thiere 

were  fuch  ?     And  as  to  his  own  time,  it  is  not  improbable  that  thofe  who 

then  made  up  the  feparate  Body  of  Jewifti  Chriftians  were  Ebidnitcs.    But 

what  is  this  to  the  firji  Chrijl'/ans  of  the  Church  of  Jcrnfjle/M  ?.   Very  much^ 

fay  they,  becaufc  the Jprft  Chrijlians  were  called  Nazaretts,    and  the  NazareMs 

held  the  fame  Do&rv/e  xv'ifh  the  Eb'ionites.     But  the  title  of  Nazarens  did  not 

A3^  r;.5.  always  (ignifie  the  fame  thing.     It  was  at  ffrft  ufed  for  a!/  Chriftians,    as  ap- 

■    pears  by  the  Sect  of  the  Nazare^is  in  Tertullus,    his  Accufation  of  St.  Fatil  3 

Eoiphan.  then  it  was  taken  for  the  Chrijiia>7s  who  ftaid  at  Pe/Ia,    and  fettled  at  Deca- 

kiret.  ^^9-pi,^^  3n^  thercabouts,  ^s  Ep'phanins  affirms  3  for  although  all  the  Chriftians 

withdrew  thither  before  the  DeftruQion  of  j'er«/'d/e/w,  as  £;//£/>/«/ faith,  yet 

they  did  not  all  continue  there,  but  a  great  number  returned  to  Jerufatem, 

and  were  there  fettled  under  their  Bifliops  ;  but  thofe  who  remained  about 

Pella  kept  the  name  of  Nazarcns,   and  never  were  united  with  the  Gentile 

Chriffians,  but  kept  up  their  old  Jewifli  Cuftoras,  as  to  their'  Synagogues, 

even  in  Sr.  Jerom  and  St.  Augujiittes  time.     Now  thefe  Nazarcns  mightbe  all 

'•'"■' ^       Ebionites,  and  yet  thofe  of  the  Church  ofjerufdem  not  fo  at  all. 

■  "2..  The  next  thing  obfervable  from  this  place  of  E/z/t/'/;//  is,    that  "vvliile 
the  Nazarem^in^  Ebionites  were  fettled  in  Coelefyria,    and  the  Parts  therea- 
bouts, there  was  a  regular  ChriftianChurch  a(  ^erufalem,  under  the,  Billiops 
of  theCircumcifion,  to  the  Siege  oi  Hadrian.     Eufebius  obferves,    that  be- 
EufeL'./.?.fore  the  deftruftion  of  Jcn//i/e«;i  all  the  Chrijiiavs  forfooh  not  only  Jcrufalew, 
'■  ^'        hntthe  Coafts  ofjudea.     But  that  they  did  not  all  continue  there,  is  moft  e- 
tident  from  what  Eufebius  here  faith  of  the  Church  and  Bifhops  of  Jeruja- 
lem-^  between  the  two  Sieges  olTitus  Vejpapan  and  Hadrian,  which  was  in 
L.  4.  r.  s.  tjie  i8th  Xe^r  of  his  Empire,  faith  EttfebiHs.    Who  produce?  another  Tefti- 
mony put  oljujiin  Martyr^  which  (hews  that  the  Chriftians  were  returned 
(ojcnifale^.'  For  therein  he  faith,  Ti6<«f 'Barchochebas  in  that  War  ufed  the 
^hri[[hns  with  very  great  feverity  to  make  them  renounce  Chrijlianity.     How 
could  this  be,  if  all  the  Chriftians  were  out  of  his  reach,  then  being  fettled 
/.  4.  c.  6.  ihout^F^Ua  ?     And  although ^ufcbins  faith,    That  when  the  Jews  were  bani- 
Uk'd  t7}pr. Conntiy  hjiti^LAxBxisEditl,    that  then  //je  Church  (j/Jerufalem  ip^ 
Vi'fxde  ;//>  r?f  Gentiles  ^  y-et  vye  are  not  fo  ftriilly  to  underftand  bim,  as  though 
|b"e,  Chriftians  whofufer'd  wnd^ex  Bar ^hocheb as,  \yere  wholly  excluded,    t)- 
^.;^i^. [.^r ojt us' ^&\th.  That  thej  ryere  permitted  by  the  Emperor's  Edi&.    Ath  fufficient 
«'«].,;»  for  hie,  if  they  were  c<)nnived^t,  which  is  very  probable,    although  they 
•'♦  '  -^^idiipt. think  fit'to  iiavq'an.y  fuch  publick'Perfoiis  3s  their  Biftiops  to  be  any 
other  than  OentUes^   Mx^AJiegefipptif  is  all.ow'd  after  this  "titriej  to  ha  ve  been 
a  Jewi/h[Chri/lian6fi\\e  Church  of  Jernfalim  :   fo  that  the _tburch  there 
muft'cpfifift  both  of  Jews  and  Ocnfiles  -^  but  they  can  never  (hew  that  any 
pfth^EZ-.W/e/ did  admit  any  Gfw/i/^  Chrijliansamongihttt)^  which  (hews 
tharthey  were  then  diftinft  Bodies.    .  ,'  -..    ^'     V       .  '  '  ' 
;,  2.  They,  were  not.  only  diftinftin  GorrrainiFty,*t)dtM"a'<Jiffeti£^  rule  of 
Tofth.  ,  Xhi^  is  a  point  of  ^reat  confequence,'  arid'ou2;ht  to  bewell  corifi- 

rauft, 

i'/T^l'^  ppt  tot  iiiake'it  a  ppea r.     They  fay.  The  Ebionites  ufed  only  St.  MitHewV  Go- 
^4^.     'jji'fAa''But  the  Chriftian  Church'then,  and  ever  fince,  havdfeceiv'd  thefbtir 

^'^-        .  ''     '  Gofpel?, 


Chap.  III.         Do^rine  of  the  Trinity.  4.355 

tjofpels,  as  of  divine  Authority.  EnfehiuT,  one  of  the  moft  approved  Au- 
thors in  Antiquity  by  o\irZ)ftitarians,  reckons  np  the^«r  ^vangdijh  and  St. 
PaulV  Epijiles,  as  writings  univcrfally  received  by  the  Chriftian  Church  ; 
then  he  mentions  fome  generally  rejefted  as  fpurious  5  and  after  thofe  which 
were  doubted,  among  which  he  mentions  the  Gofpel  accordmg  to  the  He- 
heivfj  which  the  Jewipj  ChrijiiansfoUovp'd.  Nowhere  is  an  apparent  diffe-. 
Tence  put  between  the  Gofpel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  and  St.  Matthew"/ 
Gdfpel  5  as  much  as  between  a  Book  receiv'd  without  Controverfie,  and  one 
that  was  not.  But  if  the  Gofpel  according  to  the  Hebrews  were  then  acknow- 
ledged to  be  the  tr-ue  Gofpel  of  St.M^Ltthew,  it  was  impoffible  a  Man  of  fo 
much  fenfe  as  Enfebius,  ftiould  make  this  difference  between  them.  But  it  is 
worth  ourobferving,  what  onxUnitarians  fay  about  this  matter.  And  by 
that  we  may  judge  very  much  of  their  Opinion  about  the  Gofpels.  I  (hall 
fet  down  their  Words,  for  fear  I  (hould  be  thought  to  do  them  wrong. 
"  Sjmmachiu  and  the  Ebionites,  fay  they,  as  they  held  our  Saviour  to  be  ^"/*«''  fo 
"  the  Son  of  Jofeph  and  Mary  5  fo  they  contended  that  the  firft  Chapter  ofp'.f"'"' 
"  St.  Matthews  Gofpel  was  added  by  the  Greek Tranflators.  St.  Matthew  '  ' ' 
*'  wrote  his  Gofpel  in  Hebrew,  when  it  was  tranflated  into  Greek,  the  Tran- 
"  flator  prefaced  it  with  a  Genealogy  and  Narration  that  our  Saviour  was 
**  conceived  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  and  was  not  the  Son  oijofeph, 
"  but  this  Genealogy  and  Narration,  faid  Symmachm  and  the  Ebionites,  is 
*'  not  in  the  Hebrew  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  nay,  is  the  mere  invention  of 
**  the  Tranflator.  As  for  the  other  Gofpels,  the  Ebionites  and  Symmachians 
"  did  not  receive  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Luh  5  and  for  that  of  St.  'John,  they 
"  faid  it  was  indeed  written  by  Cerinthus,  to  confirm  his  Platonick  Conceits 
"  about  the  Logos  or  Word,  which  he  fuppofed  to  be  the  Chrift  or  Spirit  of 
*'  God,  which  refted  on  and  inhabited  the  Perfon  ofjefus.  Let  us  now 
but  join  to  this  another  Paflage,  which  is  this,  "  Thofe  whom  we  now 
"  call  Socinians,  v?ere  by  the  Fathers  and  the  firft  Ages  of  Chriftianity  cal- 
led Naz,arens  ;  and  afterwards  they  were  called  Ehionit&s,  Mineans,  Sym- 
*'  machians ,  V/JZ. 

If  this  be  true,  they  muft  have  the  fame  Opinions  as  to  the  Books  of  the 
new  Teftament;  and  hereby  we  feewhatfort  ofMen  wehave  to  deal  with, 
who  under  the  pretence  of  the  old  Ebionites,  undermine  the  Authority  of 
the  new  Teftament.    As  to  St  Matthew's  Gofpel,  I  fee  no  reafon  to  queftion 
its  being  firft  written  in  the  Language  then  ufed  among  the  Jews,  which  was 
mixt  oi  Hebrew,  Syriack  and  Chaldee  :  fince  this  is  affirmed,  not  merely  by 
R:pi3f,  whofe  Authority  never  went  far  5  but  by  Origen,  Irenms,  Eufebius,  Eufeb.  /.?; 
St.  Jerom,  and  others.     But  I  muft  diftinguilh  between  St.  Matthew's  Authen-  z",**  g^jo 
tick  Gofpel,  which  F  ant  anus  faw  in  the  Indies,  and  that  which  was  called  the  1.6.  €.'2$. 
Go/pel  acco  ding  to  the  Hebrews,    and  the  Nazaren  Gofpel.     St.  Jeroat  in  one  p'P°^  '' 
place  feems  to  infinuate,  that  St.  y^<«»/5<rn''j' (j<?j^e/ was  preferved  in  the  Libra-  ^'^"  '^" 
ry  oiPa>»phihfs  at  C^farea,    and  that  the  Nazarens  at  Berrh^a  in  Syria  had  Hieroii.de 
given  him  leave  to  tranfcribe  it.      but  if  we  compare  this   with  other  Match. '" 
places  in  him,  we  fliall  find,  that  he  queftion'd  whether  this  were  the  Au- 
thentick  GofpelofSt.M<««/6en»or  not;  he  faith.  It  is  fo  called  by  many  :i  but  Comment, 
he  confefles  it  was  the  fame  which  the  Ebionites  and  Nazare^is  ufed.  In  which  l^^^^^^' 
were  many  interpolations,  as  appears  by  the  coUeftions  out  of  it  in  St.  Jerom's 
Works  and  other  ancient  Writers  5  which  fome  learned  Men  have  put  toge- 
ther.    And  St.  Jerofff  often  caJIs  it  the  Gofpel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  And  '"'^  '^•^'• 
fo  do  other  ancieftr  Writers.    From  the  laying  feveral  Paflages  together, c",8.^^  ' 
Erafmus  {\:i{'^Q ^s,  that  St.  Jero/ff  never  faw  any  other  than  the  common  Na- ^raCmad. 
zaren  Gofpel,  and  offers  a  good  reafon  for  it,  viz.   That  he  never  made  ufe^"''/'"' 
ofits  Jw^^m/)' tocorreift  the  Greekof  St.  M<?«^ejp,   which  he  would  not 
have  failed  to  have  done  in  his  Commentaries ;  and  he  produces  the  Naca- 

K  k  k  2  ren 


4.4.0  A  Vindication  of  the        Chap.  IV. 

ren  Gofpel  upon  (light occifions.     But  hqw.  came  the  Preface  to  be  curtail'd 
in  the  Ebionite  Gofpel}     Of  which  Fp'rphanius  gives  an  account,   and  (hews 
what  was  inferted  inftead  of  it  :    No,  fay  the  Ebioni-es,  the  Preface  was  added 
l)j  the  Tranjlator  into  Greek.     From  what  evidence  ?    and  to  what  end  ?     T0 
prove  that  c  fmjl  was  horn  of  the  Holy  Spirit.    This  then  muft  ht  look'd  on  as  a 
mere  Forgery  -^    and  thofe  Ebionites  were  in  the  right,  who  held  him  to  be 
the  Son  of  fofeph  and  Mary.    What  do  thefe  Men  mean  by  fuch  fuggeftions 
as  thefe  ?     Are  they  refolved  to  fet  up  Deifnt  among  us,  and  in  order  there- 
to, to  undermine  the  Authority  of  the  new  Teftament  >    For  it  is  not  only 
St.  Matthervs  Gofpef  but  St.  LwifVs  and  St.  ;f;.^w's  which  they  ftrikeat,  under 
the  pretence  of  reprefenting  the  arguments  of  thefe  wretched  Ebionites.    If 
their  arguments  are  mean  and  trifling,    and  merely  precar  ous,   why  are 
they  not  flighted  and  anfwered  by  fuch  as  pretend  to  be  Chriftians  ?  If  they 
think  them  good,  we  fee  what  we  have  to  do  with  thefe  Menj  it  is  not  the 
Do&rine  of  the  Trinity,  fo  much  as  the  Authority  of  the  Go/pels,  which  we  are 
to  maintain  againft  them  :    And  not  thofe  only,  for  the  Ebionites  reje&edaU 
St.  Paul'j-  Epifiles  and  called  him  an  Apofiate  and  a  Tranfgreffur  of  the  Lave. 
Anfwerto  What  fay  oviv  Unitarians  to  this  ?  Why  truly.  This  comes  from  Epiphanius, 
Dr.  Bull.    ^^^  becaufe  he  quotes  no  Author,  it  fecms  to  be  one  of  his  malicious  Tales.  Thi^ 
''■  ^^"       is  a  very  ftiort  way  of  anfwering,  if  it  would  fatisfie  any  Men  of  Senfe.  But 
p.  40.    they  ought  to  have  remembred  that  within  a  few  Pages,    they  alledge  Epi- 
fhaniuj  as  a  very  competent  Witnefs  about  the  Ebionites,  ■  beraufe  he  was  borti 
in  Paleftine,  and  lived  very  near  it.    But  we  do  not  rely  wholly  upon  Epipha- 
ni/ff  in  this  matter.     For  thofe  whom  they  allow  to  be  the  beft  WitnefTes  as 
to  the  Dodrine  of  the  Na%arens,    fay  the  fame  thing  concerning  them.    As 
P-  39-    the  moji  learned  Origen,    as  they  call  him,  reho  lived  a  long  time  in  Syria  and 
gjf/]'j^' Paleftine /Vye//5  and  he  affirms,  that  both  forts  i>/£bionites  rejeSed  St.  Paul'/ 
p.  274.     Epifiles  :  and  Theodoret,  who  they  fiy,  lived  in  Coelefyria,,  where  the  Naza- 
Theodor.  j,^„^  ^^a  abound,  affirms  of  them.  That  they  allowed  only  the  Gofpel  according 
t?iT'  '^'  to  the  Hebrews,  and  called  the  Apojile  an  Apofiate  :   by  whom  they  meant  St. 
Hieron.  in  Paul.  And  the  fame  is  faid  by  St.  ferom,  who  conyerfed  among  them  5  That 
m.c  12.^^^^  l^gj^gjj  5"^.  Paul  as  a  Tranfgreffur  of  the  Law,  and  receive  none  of  his  Wri- 
tings.    Have  we  not  now  a  very  comfortable  account  of  the  Canon  of  the 
New  Tefiament  from  thefe  ancient  Unitarians  .<?  And  if  our  modern  ones  ac- 
count them  their  Predeceffors,  we  may  judge  what  a  mean  Opinion  they  muft 
have  of  the  Writings  of  the  New  Teftament.     For  if  they  had  any  concern- 
ment for  them,  they  would  never  fuffer  fuch  fcandalousinfinuations  to  pafs 
without  a  feverecenfure,  and  a  fufficient  anfwer.    But  their  Work  feeras  to 
be  rather  to  pull  down,  than  to  eftablifti  the  Authority  of  revealed  Religion  ; 
and  we  know  what  fort  of  Men  are  gratified  by  it. 


CHAP.    IV. 

Of  the  conficferable  Men  they  petend  to  have  hem  of  their  Opinion 

in  the  Primitiue  Church. 

TT  Now  come  to  confider  the  Men  of  Senfe  they  pretend  to  among  thefe  an- 
1     cient  Unitarians. 

■*-  The  firft  is  Theodotion,  whom  they  make  to  bean  Unitarian.  But  he 
Eufeb./.j.  was,  faith  Eufebius  from  Iren<eus,  a  Jewiff)  Profelyte,  and  fo  they  may  very 
f-  8.        much  increafe  the  number  of  Unitarians,  by  taking  in  all  the  Jett>s  as  well  as 

Prif' 


Chap.   iV.     Doi^Irine  of  the  lnnit]\  44.1 

Prafelytes.  But  muO  thefe  pafs  for  Men  of  Senfe  too,  becaufe  they  are  again !l 
the  l3oftrtne  of  the  Triniry,  and  much  upon  the  fame  grounds  with  our 
modern  Unitariafis  .<?     For  they  cry  out  ot  Contradi&ions  and  Impoljibilrties 
jut  as  they  do  ^  i.  e.  with  as  much  confidence  and  as  little  reafon.     Symma- 
ihus  is  another  of  their  ancient  Heroes',  he  was,  if  Epiphanius  may  be  ber 
lieved,  fir^^  a  Samaritan,  and  then  a  Jew  5    and  Eufebius  faith  indeed.  That  Ep'p^-  ^ 
^e  jr^j"  <r»  Ebior/jte,  and  therefore  for  obferving  the  Law  »/ Mofes.     St.  AitgHflta  menf.n.  d. 
faith,  That  in  his  time  the  Symmachiani  were  both  for  Circumcifion  and  Bap-  Eul.fb,/.5. 
tiffu.     St.  Jer^w  obferves,  That  Theodotion  and  Symmachus,  both  Ebionitet^'^^l]^^^  ^ 
tranflated  the  Old  Tejia/nent  in  what  concerned  oar  Savioftf",  like  Jews  :^  and  A-  Crefcon./. 
quila,  who  was  a  Jew,  like  a  ChriJIian  ^  but  in  another  place  he  blames  all  three  ' •.  '^-  ?^- 
for  the  fame  fault.    Eufebius  goes  fomewhat  farther  5  for  he  faith,  Sjimma-ueb_  c.  3. 
chfts  wrote  againji  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel,    to  ejiablijh  htf  own  Hcrefy,  which  Adverf. 
(hew'd  he  was  a  true  Ebionile.  ^"*"- 

The  next  they  mention  as  one  of  their  great  Lights,  was  Pauluf  Samofate- 
tiUf,  Bi/hop  and  Patriarch  ofAntioch.  But  in  another  place  they  have  a  fpite-  ^  ^  ^ 
ful  InfinuatioT),  that  Men  inftah  places  are  the  great  Penf oners  of  the  World,  ^hc"Anhk 
as  though  they  were  fwayed  only  by  Intereft  ^  and  that  it  keeps  them  from  Scnmn.  p. 
embraci/.g  of  the  truth.     Now  Pauim  Samofatenus  gave  greater  occafion  for  ^'*'  '^'^• 
fuch  a  Sufpicion,  than  any  of  the  perfons  fo  unworthily  reflefted  upon. 
For  he  was  a  man  noted  for  his  Affeftation  of  excejjive  Vanity  and  Pomp, 
and  very  unjiiji  methods  of  growing  rich.     It  is  well  we  have  Eufebius  his  Te-  Eufeb./.y. 
ftiraony  for  this  5    for  they  flight  Epiphaniiu  for  his  malicious  Tales,  and  St. '"  ^°' 
Jeroht  for  his  Legends  5  but  they  commend  Eufebitu  for  his  Exa^nefs,,  and 
Diligence.     And  I  hope  Theodoret  may  efcape  their  cenfure,  who  affirms,  p'^f^^u"" 
that  Paulifs  Samofatenus  fuited  his  Dodrine  to  his  intere(i  with  Zenobia,  JvAdp.35. 
ihen  governed  in  thofe  parts  of  Syria  and  Phoenicia,  who  profijffed  her  fi^f  to  ^.l^-^J^ 
be  of  the  Jewijh  Perfuafion.     Athnnafius  faith.  She  was  a  Jew,  and  a  Favourer  p_  20. 
tf/PauIus  Samofatenus.     What  his  opinions  were,  our  TJ nit 4ri an i^o  notAthan.ad 
take  the  pains  to  inform  us,    taking  it  for  granted  that  he  was  of  their '3°'^^;^'^] 
Mind.     Eufebius  faith.  He  had  a  very  mean  and  low  op'nion  of  Chriji,  as  ha-8')i. 
vlng  nothing  in  him  above  the  common  nature  of  Mankind.     Theodoret  faith,  ^^^'^•'•^' 
tie  fell  into  the  Doftrine  of  Artemon  to  oblige  Zenobia ;   and  Artemon,  he 
faith,  held  that  Chriji  teds  a  meer  Man  born  of  a  Virgin,  but  exceeding  the  Pro- 
phets in  Excellency.    Where  the  words  ■4^(ax  ^.'-r^iu^ivS..  areufed  toexprefs 
the  opinion  of  Artemon  5  which  ought  to  be  taken  notice  of,  becaufe  our 
modern  Unitarians  fay.  That  thofe  words  amonir  the  ancient  Writers  were  ta-  '^f 'P^J!^-. 

7         .  r  t         •  I         /^  .•  J-  o      •  ad  judici- 

ken  tn  oppoltticn  to  the  miraculous  Conception  of  our  oaviour.  .  um  Ecck- 

But  Fauhis  Samofatenus  was  univerfally  difowned  by  the  Chriftian  Cliurch  fi^:  p«  d. 

of  that  time  -^  although  as  long  as  Zenobia  held  her  Power,  he  kept  bis  f"^'  ^' 

See  5  which  was  for  fome  time  after  he  was  firft  called  in  queftion  tor  his 

Herefie.     But  at  firft  he  made  ufe  of  many  Arts  and  Devices  to  deceive  the  ^^|^,f^''^"' 

Chriftian  Biftiopsofthebeft  Reputation,  whoaflembled  at  Antioch  in  order  mofixtenfis 

to  the  fupprefiing  this  dangerous  Doftrine,  as  they  all  accounted  it.    -f^^o''|"^j 

hearing  of  his  Opinions  about  our  Saviour,  they  ran  together,  faith  Eufebius,  as  Decree. 

againji  a  Wolf  which  defigned  to  dejiroy  the  Flotk.     Now  from  hence  it  is  ve-  Conc.Sj.- 

ry  reafonable  to  argue,  that  the  Samofatenian  Do&rine  wsls  then  ^ook'd  on'^^.^^^.^^^^^^_ 

as  a  very  dangerous  Novelty  in  the  Chriftian  Church;    For  although  themenc.  ^ 

Ebionites  had  afferted  the  fame  thing,  as  to  the  Divinity  of  our  Saviour,  ^3'°- Ed. 

yet  they  were  not  look'd  on  as  true  Members  of  the  Chriftian  Church  5  but  E„febj.7. 

as  St.  Jerom  faith.   While  they  affe^ed  to  be  both  Jews  and  Chrijiians,  they  were  c-  ^7. 

neither  Jews  nor  Chrijiians.  f  Artemon,  whoever  he  was,  was  but  an  obfcurc  ^^.r^fab.' 

Perfon  ;  and  Theodotns  had  Learning,  they  fay,  but  was  of  no  place  in  the/.  2.  t,  8; 

Church  ^  but  for  fuch  a  confiderable  Perfon  as  the  Biftiop  of  Antioch  to 

own  (uch  a  Doftrine,  muft  unavoidably  difcover  the  general  fenfe  of  the 

Chriftian 


44-2  A  Vindication  of  the         Chap.  IV 


Chriftian  Church  concerning  it.     Pai/lus  Sdmofatenus  wanted  neither  parts^ 
nor  intereft,  nor  experience  ;  and  he  was  fupported  by  a  Princefs  of  great 
Spirit  and  Courage,  enough  to  have  daunted  all  the  Bifhops,  at  leaft  in 
thofe  parts,  from  appearing  againft  him.     But  fuch  was  the  zeal  and  con- 
cernment of  the  Bifhops  of  the  Chriftian  Church  in  this  great  affair,  that 
Atiwnaf.   ti^ey  not  only  afferabled  themfelves,  but  they  communicated  it  to  DioKjJins 
clonyf^""^' ^i^op  of  Alexandria,  and  to  another  of  the  fame  name,  Ciifhop  of  Rome^ 
?•  558.     and  others,  and  defired  their  advice  and  concurrence  ^  who  did  all  agree  in 
the  condemnation  of  his  Doftrine.     The  former  faid.  He  would  have  gone 
himfelf  to  Ant'toch,  but  for  his  extreme  old  Age,  and  he  died  foon  after  the 
firft  Council  which  met  at  Antioch  on  this  occafion  ;  but  he  fcnt  his  Judge- 
ment and  Reafons  thither,  which  we  find  in  an  Epiftle  of  his  ftill  extant, 
whereof  mention  is  made  in  the  Epiftle  of  the  fecond  Synod  of  Antioch^  to 
DionyJiHs  Bifhop  of  Rome,  and  Maximus  Bifltiop  oi  Alexandria,  and  all  other 
Bijhops,  Priejif  and  Deacons  of  the  Catholick  Church  ;    wherein  they  give  an 
Eufeb./.y.  account  of  their  proceedings  againft  Paulus  Samofatenuf,  and  they  fay.  They 
'^■i^-        had  invited  the  Bijhops  of  the  remoter  parts  to  come  to  Antioch  for  the  fnppref- 
pon  ofthk  damnable  Do&rine  ;  among  the  reft,  Dionyjins  of  Alexandria,  and 
Firmilianoi  Cappadocia,  as  Perfons  of  greateft  reputation  then  in  the  Church, 
Firmlian  was  there  at  the  former  Synod,  (of  whom  Theodoret  faith,  that 
he  v^as  famous  both  for  divine  and  humane  Learning)  and  fo  were  Grego- 
rius  Thaumaturgus  and  Athenodorns  Bifhops  of  Pontus,  and  Helenus  Bifhop 
of  Tarfus    in  Cilicia,    and   Nicomas  of  Lonium,   and    Hymencsits  of  Jem- 
falem,  and  Theot  ec  nu  s  of  C.'e fare  a  ;  who  all  condemned  his  Dodrine,  but  they 
fpared  his  Perfon  upon  his  folemn  promifes  to  rctraft  it  5  but  he  perfifting 
in  it  when  they  were  gone  home,  and  frefti  complaints  being  made  of  him, 
Firmilian  was  coming  a  third  time  to  Antioch,  but  died  by  the  way  :  But 
thofe  Bifhops  who  wrote  theSynodical  Epiftle,  do  all  affirm.  That  they  were 
Witnejfes  and  many  others,  when  he  condemned  his  Do&ritie,  but  vcas  rvillifig 
t»  forbear  his  Perfon  upon  hispromife  of  amendment,  which  they  found  afterwards 
was  merely  delufory. 

Dionyfius  Alexandrinus,  they  fay,  would  not  write  to  him,  but  fen t  his  mind 
about  him  to  the  Church  o/Antioch,  Which  Epiftle  is  mention'd  by  St.Jerom^ 
(as  written  by  him  a  little  before  his  Death)  as  well  as  by  Eufebius  and 
Theodoret  •  and  I  do  not  fee  fufficient  reafon  to  queftion  the  authority  of 
that,  which  Pronto  Ductus  publilhed  from  Turrian's  Copy,  although  it  be 
denied  by  H.  Valeftus  and  others.  It's  faid  indeed.  That  he  did  not  write  to 
him,  \.  e.  he  did  not  dire6l:  it  to  him,  but  he  might  fend  it  to  the  Council  in 
anfv^er  to  his  Letters,  which  he  mentions.  How  far  it  differs  from  his  ftyle 
in  other  Epiftles,  I  will  not  take  upon  me  to  judge  ^  but  the  defign  is  very 
agreeable  to  an  Epiftle  from  him  on  that  occafion.  It's  true,  that  it  feems 
to  reprefent  the  opinion  of  Paulus  Samofatenus  after  a  different  manner  from 
what  it  is  commonly  thought  to  have  been  :  But  we  are  to  confider,  that  he 
made  ufe  of  all  the  Arts  to  difguife  himfelf  that  he  could  ;  and  when  he 
found  the  making  Chrift  to  be  a  mere  Man  would  not  be  born,  he  went 
from  the  Ebionite  to  the  Cerinthian  Hypothefs,  viz.  That  the  ACy@..  did 
dwell  in  him,  and  that  there  were  two  Perfons  in  Chrift,  one  Divine  and  the 
other  Humane  ;  and  two  Sons,  the  one  by  JSlature  the  Son  of  .God,  who  had  a 
Pre- existence,  and  the  other  the  Son  of  David,  who  had  no  fubfiftence  before. 
This  is  the  opinion  which  Dionyfius  fets  himfelf  againft  in  that Epijile,  and 
which  therefore  fome  may  imagine  was  written  after  Neftorius  his  Herefy: 
But  that  was  no  //cw  Herefy,  as  appears  by  the  Cerinthians  ^  and  it  was  that 
which  Paulus  Samofatenus  fled  to  as  more  plaufible  5  which  not  only  ap- 
pears by  this  Epiftle,  but  by  what  Athanafmt  and  Epiphanius  have  deliver- 
ed concerning  it. 

Atha- 


Chap.  IV.     Doctrine  of  the  Trinlt}^  44.3 

Athtwaftus  wrote  a  Book  of  Xht  Incarnation  zgzm'^  the  folJcwers  of,P<««- '^''^*"- ^"^ 
lus  Samofatemts,  who  held,  a?  he  faith,  Trvo  Perfo/;s  i»  Chriji,  viz.  One  horn  j^,^"}, 
of  the  Virgin^  and  a  divine  Perfon,  which  defrended  upon  him  and  dwelt  ifir-  5^'- 
him.     Againfl:  which  opinion  he  difputes  from  two  places  ot  Scripture,  viz. 
God  tvas  ptan'ifcfl  in  the  Flefi,  and  the  Word  was  made  Flefi  ,  and  from  the 
ancient  Doftrine  of  the  Chriftian  Church,  and  the  Synod  of  Antioih  againfl: 
Paulus  Samofi  enus.     And  in  another  place  he  faith,  that  he  held.  That  the  p.  6-^^, 
divine  Word  dwelt  in  Chrill.     And  the  words  of  Epiphanius  ,,^    ,.  .    ,      ■    , 

are  exprefs  to  the  fame  purpofe.  That  the  Logos  came  and   K»cr<t.yUi,'ut^  ■a;&^J^o,-6,- 
dveelt  in  the  Man  Jefits.     And  the  Clergy  of  Conftantinople    t     iipiph- li^r.  6i.  n.  i." 
charged  NcjioriHs  with  following  the  Herefy  of  PaulusSamo-      '^;i:,tot^^!S: 
fatcnns.     And  Photius  in  his  Epiftle  faith.    That  Neftorius 
tajied  too  much  of  the  intoxicated  Cups  of  Paulus  Samofatenus  ^    and  in  the  rhoc.  e* 
foregoing  Epiftle,   he  faith,  Th^t  Paulas  hk  pUowers  ajferted  two  Hypofiafes^'^-'^'^- 
in  Chrift."  But  fome  think,  that  Paultis  Samofatenus  did  not  hold  any  fub- 
fiftence  of  the  Ao>©-  before,  but  that  the  Word  was  in  God  before  with- 
out any  fubfiftence  of  its  own,  and  that  God  gave  it  a  diiVinft  fubfiftence 
when  it  inhabited  in  the  Perfon  of  Cbrifl: ;    and  io  Marius  Mercator  and  Marms 
Leontius  underftand  him  5  who  fay  that  he  differ'd  from  Neftorius  therein,  ,'2  Anath! 
who  aflerted  a  Divine  Word  rvith  its  proper  fubjifience.  But  according  to  them  Neftorii, 
Paulus  hy  the  Word  underftood  that  Divine  Energy  whereby  Chrift  a^^d,  [„J^^ ^j^^ 
and  which  dwelt  in  him  :  But  Dionyfitis  faith,  he  made  tn>j  Chrijis,  and  twodefet{is,p^ 
Sons  of  God.  But  theDodrine  of  the  Chriftian  Church,he  fiith,was,.7'/j^/  there  43j5-  edir. 
viias  but  one  Chrift,  and  one  Son^  rvho  tvas  the  eternal  Word,  and  was  made  FleJJj.      ". 
And  it  is  obfervable,  that  he  brings  the  very  fame  places  we  do  now  to 
prove  this  Doftrine,  as  in  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  8cc,  and  ^e/»re  Abrahatii 
t»as  lam.     It  Teems  that  fome  of  the  Biftiops  who  had  been  upon  the  exa- 
mination of  his  Opinions  before  the  fecond  Synod,  which  depofed  him, 
fent  him  an  account  of  their  Faith,  and  required  his  anfwer  ^  wherein  ttey 
declare'  the  Son  not  to  be  God,  according  to  God't  Decree,  (which  he  did  not 
^ick  gt)  but  that  he  was  fo  really  and  fubfiantially  ^  and  whofoever  denied 
this,  they  faid,  was  out  of  the  Communion  of  the  Church.^  and  all  the  Catholick 
"Chuniies  agreed  with  them  m  it.'  ;  •  - 

'  And  they  declare.  That  they  received  this  Dj&rine  from  the  Sriptures  of  the 
Old  Anil  New  Tefiament,  and  bring  the  fame  places  we  do  now  5  as.  Thy 
,T/.tr9fte,  0  God,  was  f/r  -ever.  Sec.  Who  is  over  all,  God  blejfed  for  ever, 
•'^ll't^h'iffgs^eremade'by  him-.  Sec.  •  And -we  do 'not  find  that  Paulus  Samofd' 
'■ffhis,  ^$  fubtle  a^he  was,  ever  imagin'd  that  thefe  places  belong'd  to  any 
■^vhit:  thati'-Cbr^fii- or  th^t  the  making  of  all  things  was  ta  be  underftood  of 
ihe  m'xiking  of  nofhing,  but  putting  it  into  mens  power  to  make  themfelves 
■new  Cteatures.  Thefe  were  difcoveries  only  referved  for  the  Men  of  Senfc 
and  clear  Ideas  in  thefe  brighter  Ages  of  tfee  World. 

Rut  at  laft,  after  all  the-ar'ts  and  fubterfuges  which  Paulus  Samofatenus  u- 
fcd,  there  was  a  Man  of  Senfe,  as  it  happen'd,  among  the  Clergy  of  An- 
-f/^i/j,'"called  Malchion, ^vaho  was  fo  wsll  acquainted  with  his  Sophiftry,  that 
■hb  di»6ve  him  out  of  all,  and  laid  his  Senfe  fo  open  before  the  fecond  Sy- 
nod, that  he  was  folemnly  depofed  for  denying  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  c/Eifeb./.;- 
God,  and  his  Defcent  from  Heaven,  as  appears  by  their  Synodiral  Epiftle.  If^-S"- 
is  pity  we  haVe  it  not  entire  5  but  by  the  Fragments  of  it  which  are  pre- 
•fer^'e^-by  fome  ancient  Writers^-  we  find  that  his  Doftrine  of  the  Divinity 
in  him  by  //7/4/<^i/<</;<?«vvas  then  conderiined,  and  the  fubftantial  Union  of  Leone,  c. 
-both  Natures  aflerted,    I  have  only  one  thing  more  to  obferve  concernirrg  ^^'^°'''  ' 
him,  which  is,  that  the  Arian  Party  in  their  Decree  at  Sardica  (or  rather 
:Philippopolis)  do  confefs,  that  //zw/wx  Samofatenus  his  Doftrine  was  condemn- 
ed by  the  whole  Chriftian  World.   dFor  they,  fay,  That  which  pajfed  in  the 
■'-''■'  Eaftertt 


444-  ^  Vindication  of  the         Chap.  IV.' 

Hi7.  frag    E<tfler»  Synod,  wai  fignecl  and  approved  by  all.  And  Alexander  Bifbop  of  Alex- 
1321''^    andria,  in  b'lsEpiMe  to  Alex artdrr  of  Conjiantinople,  affirms  the  fame.  An<i 
Theod.  /.now,  I  hope,  I  may  dcfire  our  Men  of  Senfe  to  refleft  upon  thefe  Matters^ 
'  '^•4      Here  was /;<?  Fire  nor  Faggot  threatned,  no  Imperial  Edl&s  to  enforce  this 
Doftrine ;  nay,  the  Queen  of  thofe  parts,  under  whofe  Jurifdid^ion  they- 
lived  at  that  time,  openly  efpoufed  the  caufe  of  Paiil/isSamofaienus  ^  fo  that 
here  could  be  nothing  of  Inter  eft  to  fway  them  to  aft  in  oppofition  to  her.i, 
And  they  found  hislntereft  ^o  Itrong,  that  he  retained  the  Poffeflion  of  hij 
See,  till  Aurelian  had  conquered  Zenohia,  and  by  his  authority  he  was  ejefted.. 
This  Synod  which  depofed  him,  did  not  fit  in  the  time  of  Anrelian^  as  is 
commonly  thought,  but  before  his  time  while  Zenobia  had  all  the  power 
in  her  hands  in  thofe  Eaftern  parts,  which  fhe  enjoy'd  five  years :  till  (he 
P-isrCriti-  ^gg  difpoffeft  by  Aurelian,  from  whence  Ant.  Paei  concludes,  that  Panlut. 

(3  rjr  Car.  ,  f-ni  /-/n  •    n  1  •  \  !•• 

h.i^2.n.2.kept  his  oee  three  ye-ars  after  the  sentence  agatnjt  him:,  but  upon  application 
to  Aurelian,  he  who  afterwards  began  a  Perfecution  againft  all  Chriftians, 
gave  this  rule,  T/jat  he  ivith  whom  the  Italian  Bifiops  and  thofe  fif  Rome  com- 
municated, ftjould  enjoy  the  See  5  upon  vi'hich  Paulus  was  at  lafl:  turned  out^ 
By  this  we  fee  a  concurrence  of  all  the  Chrifiian  Bifhops  of  that  time  againft 
him  that  denied  the  Divinity  of  cur  Saviour  •  and  this  without  tiny  force,  and 
againd  their  intereft,  and  with  a  general  confent  of  the  Chriftian  World : 
i"^^^/"  For  there  were  no  mighty  Awes  and  Draconic  Sanilions  to  compel,  of  which 
ii/h^p,l,.l 4  they  Sometimes  fpeak,  as  if  they  were  the  only  powerful  methods  to  make 
this  Doftrine  go  down.  And  what  greater  argument  can  there  be,  that  ic 
was  then  the  general  fenfe  of  the  Chriftian  Church  ?  And  it  would  be  very 
hard  to  condemn  all  his  Oppofers  for  men  that  wanted  Senfe  and  Reafen, 
becaufe  they  fo  unanimonfly  oppofed  him. 

Not  fo  unanimoH/ly  neither,  fay  our  Unitarians,  becaufe  Lucian,  a  Prcsby^ 
iir  of  the  Church  tf/ Anttoch,  and  4  very  learned  man,  joined  with  him.     It 
would  have  been  ftrange  indeed,  if  fo  great  a  Man  as  Paulus  Samofatenut 
could  prevail  with  none  of  his  own  Church  to  join  with  him,  efpecially 
one  that  came  from  the  fame  place  of  Samofata,  as  Lucian  did,  and  proba- 
bly was  by  him  brought  thither. 
iff''c6^'     ^^  ^^'^  ^"  extraordinary  Charaf^er  given  him  by  Eufebius,  both  for  hk 
Life  and  Learning  ^  and  fo  by  St.  Jerom,  without  the  leaft  reflexion  upon 
him  as  to  matter  of  Faith.     But  on  the  other  fide.,  Alexander  Biftiop  of  A- 
lexandria,  in  his  Epiftle  concerning  Aritfs  to  Alexander  of  Canftantinopte, 
Theod./.  doth  fay.  That  he  ^//^jweaf  Paulus  Samofatenus,  and  held  fe  par  ate  Commumon 
1.  f,  4.     yj,^  many  years,  under  the  three  following  Bifijops.     He  doth  not  fay  that  he 
died  fo,  when  he  fuffer'd  Martyrdom  under  Maximin:u  at  Nicomedia:,  nei- 
ther doth  he  fay  the  contrary  :    Upon  which  learned  Men  are  divided, 
retav.de  whether  he  perfifted  in  that  opinion  or   not.     Petaviut  .und  Valefius  give 
Trint/.  .  j^jj^  yp  .  Q^  jj^g  other  fide  Baronius  vindicates  him,  and  faith.  The  mifre- 
H.  vaiefi-  port  of  him  came  from  his  zeal  againft  Sabellianifmt^   and  that  Alexander 
us  in  The.  ^rof g  that  of  him  before  his  Books  were  throughly  examin'd,  that  Atha- 
_^,  ■  ■'■  "^^  7; ;-//7«j  never  joins  him  whh  Paulus  Samofatenus,  that  the  Arians  never  pro- 
);ao;i.  A.ducedhis  authority  in  their  debates,^  as  they  would  have  done,  fince  the 
1^  8  n  7jr  gt^pgrQr's  Mother  had  built  a  City  in  the  place  where  he  fuffer'd  Martyrdom. 
It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Arian  Party  would  have  it  believed  that  they 
came  out  of  Lucian  s  School,  as  appears  by  Arius  his  Epiftle  to  Eufebius  of 
Niiomedia  :,  but  on  the  other  fide,  the  great  argument  to  me  is.  That  this 
very  Party,  at  the  Council  of  Antioch,    produced  a  Creed,   which  they 
faid  was  there  found  written  with  Lucian  s  own  hand,  which  is  diredlly  con- 
Soz/.?  C.5.  trary  to  tlie  Samofatenian  Doftrine.     Now  either  this  was  true  or  falfe  :  If 
it  were  true,  then  it  was  falfe  that  he  was  a  Samofatenian  ^  if  it  were  falfe, 
hovs'  came  the  Arian  Party  to  give  it  out  for  true  >  Efpecially  thofe  who  va- 
lued 


ir. 


Chap.  IV.  Dodrine  of  the  Trinity.  .445 

Fued  tbemfelves  for  coming  out  of  his  School.  They  were  far  enough  from 
being  fuch  weak  Men  to  produce  the  Authority  oi  Lucian  at  Antioch,  where 
he  was  fo  much  efteemed,  for  a  Doftrine  utterly  inconfiftent  with  that  of 
Paulas  Samofatetjttf,  if  it  were  there  known,  that  he  was  his  Difciple,  and 
"  feparated  from  three  Biftiops  on  that  account.  For  .therein  the  Son  is  own- 
ed to  be  God  ofGod^  begotten  of  the  Father  before  all  Jges,  perfiS  God  ofper- 
feilCod,  Sec.  Suppofe  they  had  a  mind  to  fubvert  the  Nhene  Faith  by  this 
Creed,  under  the  name  oi  Lucian^  (  only  becaufe  6//oi(Tio?  was  left  out  )  yet 
what  an  improbable  way  did  they  take,  when  they  fupported  the  main  points 
by  his  Autho  ity,  and  that  at  ^ntio.h,  where  it  was  greateft?  U  Ph/loJJorgi-  P^iioft.  i. 
us  may  be  ere  iited,  the  great  Men  of  the  Arian  Party  had  been  his  Scholars,  ^'''  ^'  "" 
as  befides  Eafebius  oi  Nicomedia,  Maris  of  Chalcedon,  Theognis  of  Nice^  Lc' 
oniiusoi  Antio.h,  and  feveral  other  leading  Bifliops,  and  even  ./4'z^«  himfelf 
pretended  to  it.  Which  makes  me  apt  to  think,  that  Alexander  knowing 
this,  and  at  firft  not  being  able  fo  well  to  judge  of /«fiWs  Opinion,  charged 
him  with  following  Paitlus  Sawofatemu,  from  whence  the  odium  would  fall 
upon  his-Scholars.  For  his  defign  is  to  draw  the  Succeflion  down  from  F^bi- 
on  and  Artemon,  and  Paulus  S.imofa'enus,  and  Lucian,  to  Ariu^r  zxxd  his  Af- 
fociates  ^  and  charges  them  with  holding  the  fame  Doftrine,  wherein  he 
was  certainly  miftaken  5  and  fohe  might  be  about  Lucian  %  Separation  from 
the  following  Bilhopson  that  account. 

The  laft  our  Unitarians  mention  among  their  great  Men,   is  Fhotinus  8i- 
fliop  oiSirmium.     They  take  it  for  granted  that  he  was  of  their  Opinion. 
This  is  certain,  that  whatever  it  was,  it  was  generally  condemned,    as  well 
by  the  Arians  as  others;  and  after  feveral  Councils  called  he  was  depofed 
for  his  Herefie.     The  firft  time  we  find  him  condemned,   was  by  the  Arian    -, 
Party  in  a  fecond  Council  at  Antioch,   as  appears  by  the  profeffion  of  Faith 
drawn  up  by  them,  extant  in  Athanafnis  and  Socrates.  There  they  anathema-  Atiianaf. . 
tize  exprefly  the  Difiples  of  MarceUus  and  Photinus,  for  denying  the  Pre-exi-  ^°^-  '  ^• 
flmce  and  Deity  ofChrifl.     But  by  Chriji,  they  underftood,   The  Perfon  born  ofsocr.  i.  2. 
the  Virgin,  vcho  vpos  the  Son  of  God  ;    but  they  did  not  deny  the  Pre-exijlence  '•  '9- 
of  the  A'j,;^,  and  never  dream'd  that  any  could  think  that  Chrifl:  was  to  be 
called  the  A'^f^,  from  his  Office  of  Preaching,  as  our  modern  Unitarians  af- 
fert.   But  Photinus  his  Opinion  was.  That  the  A-'y^  was  before  all  Ages,    but  Athan.  de 
not  Chrifl,  or  the  Son  of  God,  whir'h  divine  Word  wai  partly  internal,    <tnd  fo  it  ^^^^^^^^^ 
Teas  ever  with  God,  and  partly  external,  when  it  was  communiiated  to  the  Perfon  p.  897. 
ofChrifl,    whereby  he  became  the  Son  of  God.     But  the  Arians  there  declare 
their  Belief,  That  Chrifl  was  the  living  Wo'd,  and  Son  of  God  before  all  Worlds^ 
and  by  whom  he  made  all  things.     The  next  time  he  is  faid  to  be  condemned, 
was  in  th:it  which  is  called  the  Council  at  Sardica,   but  was  the  Council  of 
the  EafternBi(hops after  their  parting  from  the  Weftern.    This  is  mention'd 
by  Epiphanins and  Sulpitius  Severus,  the  latter  faith,  he  Ax^qx' dirom  Sabelli-  Epiph.ba-^ 
us  only  in  thepoi>it  ojTJnion,    i.  e.  becaufe  Sabellius  made  the  Perfons  to  be ''^^^•7^ ;^^i- 
mere\y  Denominations^  which  was  then  called  the  Herefie  of  the  UnionltJe  ;/ 2.^.397! 
and  therefore  Photinus  muft  aflert  an  Hypoflafis  tolhe  Aiy^ ,   or  elfe  he  did  I'ri^dent. 
not  at  all  differ  from  Sabell/us.     And  it  appears  by  Epiphanius,  that  Photinus  ^^°'^  ' 
did  diftinguifh  between  Chrifl  and  the  Word.     In  the  Beginning  was  the  Word,  Epipli;i.a- 
faid  lie,  but  not  thSon,  which  title  was  promifed  and  foretold,  hut  did  not  be- 
long to  C  hrifl  till  he  was  born  of  the  Holy  Ghofl  and  Mary,    fo  "he  expreffes  it. 
Herein,   futh  Epiphanius,  he  follow'd  Paulus  Samofatenus,   but  exceeded  him  N.  1,  i, 
in  hif  L/ventions.     In  anfwef  tohim,  he  faith,  that  St.  Jci^/z's  Words  are  not, 
In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,    and  the   Word  was  in  God,    but  the  Word  was     N.^. 
rvithGod,  and  the  Word  was  God.      Little  did  either  fide  imagine  that  this 
was  to  be  underftood  of  the  beginning  oftheGofpel,  as  our  modern  Photinians 
\vould  make  us  believe  they  think ,  but  Photinus  himfelf  was  a  Perfon  of  too 

L  1 1  mtuch' 


^i\,6  AVi7idication  of  the        Chap.  IV. 

much  Sagacity  to  take  up  with  fuch  an  abfurd  and  infipid  Senfe.  1  pa fs  over 
the  frefh  condemnations  of  P/6(?^j««/  in  the  Councils  at  Milan  and  Rome,  be- 
caufe  his  Opinion  is  not  to  be  learnt  from  them  ^  and  come  to  that  at  Sirmi- 
urn,  where  it  is  more  particularly  fet  forth,  as  well  as  condemned.     But  here 
we  muft  diftinguiOi  the  two  Councils  at  Sirmitim  ^    in  the  former,    he  was 
coNdemned,  but  the  People  would  notpdrtvp'tth  him  ^  but  in  the  fie  on  d^  he  was 
not  only  condemned^  but  effeftually  depofed,  the  Emperor  Cofifiantius  a  pro- 
fefled  Arian,  forcing  him  to  withdraw  :   But  it  was  upon  his  own  Appeal  to 
Epipii.iix- the  Emperor  againft  the  Judgment  of  the  Council,   who  appointed  Judges 
'soc/i'z  ^s'^&3f6S  to  hear  this  Caufe ;  and  Ba/rlius  Ancyranus  was  the  manager  of  the 
f.  50. '     debate  with  him,  wherein  he  is  faid  to  have  been  fo  much  too  hard  for  Pho- 
Sozi.'.c.6.tint/f^  that  the  Emperor  himfelf  order'd  his  Banifhment.    And  I  can  findno- 
purc  lI'.  tbing  of  his  return  5  but  our  'Unitarians  have  found  out    (  but  they  do  not 
C.8.         tell  us  where  )  That  the  People  recall' d  him,  and  fo  he  planted  his  Do&rine  a- 
j/Zunir    '"o^i  tf^^ff^i  that  it  overfpread,  and  was  the  Religion  of  the  Illyrican  Provinces^ 
p:  10.        til/  the  Papacy  on  one  hand,  and  the  Turk  on  the  other,  fwallow'd  up  thofi  Pro^ 
vinces.     This  looks  too  like  making  Hijiory  to  ferve  a  turn,  unlefs  fome  good 
Concii.ge-  Proof  Were  brought  for  it.   But  inftead  oiPhotinus  his  returning,  and  his  Do' 
^l^t'^i^^'/^^*"^  P^^vailing  and  continuing  there,    we  find  Valentinian  caWin^  a  Council 
inllljricum,  and  eftablifhing  the  iV/Ve»e  F^r'/A  there  ;  and  a  Council  at  J^«/- 
ib.  p.  98;.  ^^ia  againft  the  Arians,  where  the  Biftiop  of  Sirmittm  was  prefent,  and  decla- 
Ambrof    ^^^  againft  Arianifm,  and  joyned  with  St.  Ambrofe,  who  condemns  Photinus 
Apol.  Dj  for  making  Chriji  the  Son  of  David,  and  not  the  Son  of  God.     Paulinas  faith 
vid.  c.  4.  in  his  Life,  that  he  went  on  purpofe  to  Sirm'ium  to  confecrate  an  Orthodox 
Biftiop  there  ^  which  he  did,  notwithftanding  the  power  of  y«/?jV/4  the  Em- 
prefs,  who  favoured  the  Arians.   St.  'jerom  in  his  Chronicon  faith,    that  Pho- 
tinus died  in  Galatia  which  was  his  own  Country  5   fo  that  there  is  no  pro- 
bability in  what  they  affirm  oi  Photinus  his  fettling  his  Doftrince  in  thofe 
parts,    till  the  Papacy  and  the  Turk  fwallow'd  thofe  Provinces  ^    for  any  one 
that  looks  into  the  Hiftory  of  thofe  Parts  may  be  foon  fatisfied,  that  not  the 
Pope,  nor  the  Turk,  but  the  Huns  under  Anila,  made  the  horrible  Devafta- 
tions  not  only  at  Sirmium,  but  in  all  the  confiderable  places  of  that  Country : 
So  that  if  thefe  Mens  reafon  be  no  better  than  their  Hiftory^  there  is  very  lit- 
tle caufe  for  any  to  be  fond  of  their  Writings. 

But  as  though  it  were  not  enough  to  mention  fuch  things  once  5  in  their 
anfwer  to  the  late  Archbifiofs  Sermons,    they  inlarge  upon  it.     For  he  ha- 
ving juftly  rebuked  them  for  the  Novelty  of  their  Interpretations,  they,  toa- 
void  this,  boaftof  the  concurrence  of  the  ancient  Z^//»V<?r/<z»/,  and  followers 
th^A^chbi  ^^  ^'^"^'^^  ^^^  ^^otinus,  who,  they  fay,  abounded  everj-where,  and  even  pof 
iinps  ser.fi.(f^d,  fome  whuU  Provinces.      This  paflage  I  was  not  a  little  fur  prized  at  : 
wn,  P53  Since  Theodoret,  who,  I  think,  was  fomewhat  more  to  be  credited  than  5'<?«- 
h.iTe°.p"Ib.  ""'^'  ^°^^^  fo  exprefly  fay,    That  the  Samofatenians  and  Photinians  were  ex- 
i.2.\a.pho-  tint}  in  his  time,  in  a  place  already  mention 'd.     fiut  upon  fearch  I  could  find 
two.        pQ  other  ground  for  it,  buta  pafTage  or  two  in  Sandius,  who  is  none  of  the 
Sjiid.iV/?.  exadteft  Hiftorians.     In  one  place  he  faith  from  an  obfcure  PoUJh  Chronicle 
Enuci.  /J.  (  extant  in  no  other  Language  but  of  that  Country)  that  the  Bulgarians  when 
*'  ■      they  firjl  received   Chriftianitj  embraced  Photinianifm.     And  is  not  this  very 
good  Authority  among  us?     From  hence  he  takes  it  for  granted,    that  they 
all  continued  Ptiotinians  10  the  time  of  Pope  Nicolas,  who  converted  them.     But 
p.  J7Z.  all  this  is  grounded  on  a  ridiculous  miftake  in  Platina,   who  in  the  Life  of 
Nicolas  faith.  That  the  ^'ope  confirmed  them  in  the  Faith,  pulfo  Photino  5  were- 
asit  ftiould  he  pulfo  Photio  ^  for  Photins  at  that  time  was  Patriarch  ofConJian- 
tinople,  and  as  appears  by  his  firftEpiftle,  aflumed  their  Converfion  to  him- 
felf 5  and  infifted  upon  the  right  of  Jurifdiftion  over  that  Country.     Sandi- 
D».  2.1.2."^  refers  to  Bhndus,  who  faith  no  fuch  thing,  but  only  that  the  Bulgarians 

ppere 


Chap.  IV.  Do^nne  of'  the  Tvmity.  447 

xverecoKverieclbefire^  which  is  true  ;  and  the  Greek  Hiftorians,  as  Joh.  Curo* 
fala'es,  Z<?;;rfr<?j  and  others,  giveaparticular  Account  of  it^  butnotaword 
of  thotiniamfm  in  if.     So  that  the  Archbi(hop  had  very  great  reafon  to  charge 
their  Interpretation  with  Novelty  5  and  that  not  only  becaufe  the  Fhotifiians 
had  no  fuch  Provinces  as  they  boafl:  of  5    but  that  neither  r aulas  Samofate- 
tJtis,  not  I'hofmiis,  nor  any  of  their  followers,  that  we  can  find,  did  ever  in- 
terpret f^e  ^e^///;//»^  of  St.  John,  as  they  do  ;  i.  e.    Of  the  New  Creation  and 
tiot  of  the  Old  ;  and  {o,  as  the  Word  had  no  Pre-exifience  before  he  was  born  of 
'  the  Virgin.     I  do  oot  confine  them  to  the  Nicenr/is^    as  they  call  them  ^    but 
let  them  produce  any  one  among  the  Samofatenia>rs^   or  /  horinians,   who  fo 
underftood  St.  John.     And  therein  Sandijtj  was  in  the  right    (  which  ought  Sjnd.w/?, 
to  be  aliow'd  him,  for  he  is  not  often  fo  )    when  he  fiith,  That  no  Chrijhan  ^''^gi^'cV" 
Interpreter  before  Socinus  ever  held  fmh  a.  ftnfe  of  the  Word  as  he  did  :,    and 
therefore  his  followers,  he  faith,  ought  to  be  called  Socinians  onlj,  and  not  Ebi- 
onites,  Samofatenians,  or  Pbotinians. 

But  to  return  to  Photinus  his  Opinion.     It  is  obfervable,    what  Sorates^^"-  '•2- 
faitb,  concerning  his  being  depofed  at  ^/m/aw,  viz,.  That  what  «'as  done  k^Yt.Vo 
in  that  matter  was  univerfally  approved,  not  only  then,  but  afterwards.     So  i^^-iv a-,  ko.- 
thathere  we  have  the  generaP Confent  of  the  Chrifiian  World,   in  thatdi-  ^f*  ^'^'; 
vided  time,   againft  the  Phetin/an  Doftrine.     And  yet  it  was  not  near  fo'^iTol^Z°J' 
unreafonable  as  our  Unitarians :,  for  Phofi/jusaiktted  the  Pre- exiflence of  the  -^^^  i'''»'i- 
Arjy(^.  and  its  inhabiting  in  Chrift  from  hk  Conception  ;    wherein  he  difFer'd  ^"Aj^ 
from  Paulus  Samofatenns  who  afterted  it  to  have  been  upon  the  Merit  of  his  Tati™. 
Vertue.     In  the  Anathema'^  of  the  Council  of  Sirmmm  againft  Photinus^   one  is  "'nod*^^ 
againfi  any  one  that  afferts  that  there  is  ore  God,   but  denies  Chriji  to  have  been  1175.  Edo 
the  Son  of  God  before  a// Worlds,  and  that  t he  World  was  n/ade  by  him  in  obedi-^^'^^' 
ence  to  the  Will  of  the  Father.     Others  againft  him  that  afferts  that  there  was  a 
Dilatation  of  the  Divine  Subjiance  to  make  him  the  Son  cf  God,  who  was  a  Man 
horn  of  the  Virgin  Mary  •    this  appears  from  Anath.  6,  7,  9;   put  together. 
Which  is  beft  explained  by  Hilary  himfelf  in  another  place,  where  he  men-  Hilar,  de 
tions  this  as  the  Photinian  Doftrine,    That  God  the  Word  did  extend  himfelf^'^'"^^'  ^^^ 
fo  far,  oi  to  inhabit  the  perfon  born  of  the  Virgin.     This  he  calls  afubtle  and 
dangerous  Do^rine.     And  therein  he  faith  I  hotiniu  difFer'd  from  Sabel/i^-^uiUr.  de 
that  the  latter  denied  any  difference  between  Father  and  Son,  but  only  in  Names  5  ^""'  '' "' 
but  Pho:inus  held  a  real  difference,    but  not  before  the  Nativity  of  Chrift ;"' 
then  he  faid,  The  divine  Word  inhabiting  in  Chriji  made  him  to  be  the  real  Son 
cfGod. 

The  only  doubt  is,  whether  Photinus  held,  the  Word  to  have  had  a  diftindl 
Uypojiafis  before  or  not.     Mariia  Mercator,  an  Author  of  good  credit,  who 
lived  in  St.  Augufiins  time  (and  to  whom  an  Epiftleof  his  is  extant  in  the^"g"^- 
new  Edition  of  his  Works  ^  gives  a  very  particular  account  of  the  Opinion  ^'  '^^' 
of  Photinus  with  relation  to  the  Nejiorian  Controverfie.  in  which  he  was  ve- 
ry well  verfed.     In  anEpiJile  written  by  him  on  purpofe,  he  ftiewstharA/e-MJ"' 
florins  agreed  Vf\t\\Photinus  in  afTerting,  That  the  Word  had  a  Pre-exijience  JQ^'^^^fp^^^. 
and  that  the  name  of  Son  of  God  did  ndt  belong  to  the  Word,  but  to  Chrlfi  after  2.  p.  17. 
the  inhabitation  of  the  Word.    But  he  there  Teems  to  think,   that  Photinus 
did  not  hold  the  Word  to  have  had   a  real  Hypofiap  before  the  Birth  of 
Chrift:   but  when  he  comes  after  to  compare  their  Opinions  more  exaftly, 
he  then  affirms,  that  Photinus  and  Neflorius  were  agreed,  and  that  he  did  not  oe.  rs.A- 
deny  the  Word  to  be  Confubjiantial  with  God-^  but  that  he  was  not  the  Son  of  God  "^t'!:  Ne- 
till  Chrifl  was  born  in  whom  he  dwelt.     By  whicZi  we  fee  how  little  reafon  our  ,28.'^' 
ZJnitarianshave  to  hoa(\.oii  Phofinuizs  their  PredecefTor. 

As  to  the  boaft  of  thefirjl  Unitarians  at  B:ome,    that  theirs  was  the  general 
Do&rine,    before  the  timeofViSof,    it  is  fo  fully  confuted  by  the  ancient  £^,fg^,  ^ 
Writer  in  Eufsbius,  who  mentions  it,  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  firft  Chri-  5.C.28. 

L  1 1  2  ftian 


AVindicatio?i  of  the         Chap.  V. 


ftian  Writers,  named  by  him,  that  it  doth  notdefervetobetaken  notice  of  5 
efpecially  fince  he  makes  it  appear,  that  it  was  not  heard  of  among  them  at 
Roffie,  till  it  was  firft  broached  there  by  TheodotitSy  as  not  only  he,  but  Ter- 
ittUian  affirms  ^  as  I  have  already  obferved. 

Thus  I  have  clearly  proved,  that  the  DoBrine  oftheTrmity,  was  fo  far 
from  being  embraced  only  on  the  account  of  fine  and  fear,  that  I  have  (hewed 
there  was  in  the  firft  Ages  of  the  Chriftian  Church,  a  free  and  general  Con- 
fent  in  it,  even  when  they  wqvq  under  l?erfecuiion  5  and  after  the  Arian  Cott- 
troverpehrokt  out,  yet  thofe  who  denied  the  Pre-exijience,  and  Co-eternity  of 
the  Son  oiGod  were  univerfally  condemned  5  even  the  Aria»  Party  concur- 
ring in  the  Synods  mention'd  by  Hilary.  But  our  Unitarians  are  fuch  great 
Pretenders  to  Reafon,  that  this  Argument  from  the  Authority  of  the  whole 
Chriftian  Church,  fignifies  little  or  nothing  to  them. 

Therefore  they  would  conclude  ftill  that  they  have  the  better  of  us  in 
point  of  Reafon,  becaufe  they  tell  us,  that  they  have  clear  and  diftinfb  Per- 
ceptions, that  what  we  call  Myfteries  of  Faith,  are  Contradi^ions,  Impojfibi' 
litief,  and  pure  Nonfenje  ^  and  that  they  do  not  reje&  them,  becaufe  they  do  not 
comprehend  them,  hut  becaufe  they  do  comprehend  them  to  he  fo. 

This  is  a  very  bold  Charge,  and  not  very  becoming  the  Modefty  and  De- 
cency of  fuch,  who  know  at  the  fame  time  that  they  oppofe  the  Religion 
publickly  eftablifbed,  and  in  fuch  things  which  we  look  on  as  fome  of  the 
principal  Articles  of  the  Chriftian  Faith. 


C  H  A  P.    V. 

Of  their  Charge   of  Contradiiimi  in  the  Do^rine    of  the 

TRINITY. 

UT  I  (hall  not  take  any  Advantages  from  thence,    but  immediately 
proceed  to  the  next  thing  I  undertook  in  this  Difcourfe,  viz.  To  con- 
fider  what  Grounds  they  have  for  fuch  a  Charge  as  this,  of  Contradi- 
Uion  and  Impojfibility.     In  my  Sermon  which  gave  occafion  to  thefe  Expref- 
fions  (as  is  before  intimated)  I  had  undertaken  to  prove,    that  confidering 
the  infinite  Perfeftions  of  the  Divine  Nature,    which  are  fo  far  above  our 
reach,  God  may  juftly  oblige  us  to  believe  thofe  things  concerning  himfelf, 
v^hich  we  are  not  able  to  comprehend  5  and  I  inftanced  in  fome  Effential  At' 
tributes  of  God,  as  his  Eternity,  Omnifcience,  Spirituality,  d^c  And  there- 
fore, if  there  be  fuch  Divine  Perfeftions,  which  we  have  all  the  Reafon  to 
believe,  but  no  Faculties  fufficient  to  comprehend,  there  can  be  no  ground 
from  Reafon  to  rejedl  fuch  a  Dodrine  which  God  hath  revealed,  becaufe  the 
manner  of  it  may  be  incomprehenfible  by  us.    And  what  anfwcr  do  they 
give  to  this  ? 
'Anfwer  to       They  do  not  deny  it  in  general,  that  God  may  oblige  us  to  believe  things  above 
abmThe  ^'"'  Comprehenfion  5    but  he  never  obliges  us  to  believe  Contradictions,   and  that 
Trinity,     they  charge  the  Do&rine  of  the  Trinity  with  ;  and  for  this  they  only  refer 
P-  4,  Sj  8.  nie  to  their  Books,  where  they  fay  it  is  made  out.      But  I  muft  fay,  that  I 
have  read  and  confider'd  thofe  Trafts,  and  am  very  far  from  being  convinced 
that  there  is  any  fuch  Contradi^ion  in  this  Doftrine,    as  it  is  generally  recei- 
ved in  the  Chriflian  Church  5    or  as  it  is  explained  in  the  Athanafian  Creed. 
And  Ifhallfliew  the  unreafonablenefs  of  this  Charge  from  thefe  things. 

I.  That  J 


C  H  A  P.  V:       DorJrine  of  the  Trinity.  449 

■        ,  .  ■  (-> 

I.  That  there  is  a  Difference  between  a  Cmtradi&ion  in  Nuxahers^  and 
in  the  Nature  of  t^ingfr 

C2.  Tiiat  it  is  »o  ConiradiCiion  to  afTert  three  Perfo»t  in  One  commoi  Ma- 
tfire. 

g.That  it  is  »o  Coniradin'ion  to  fay  that  there  are  three  diflinli  Pcrfons  in  the 
Trinity,  and  not  three  Cuds.  If  I  can  make  out  thefe  things,  I  hope  I  may 
abate  fomething  of  that  ftrange  and  unreafonable  confidence,  wherewith 
thefe  Men  charge  the  Dodlrine  of  the  Trinity  with  Con trad'id ions. 

I.  I  begin  with  the  firft  of  them ;  and  I  (ball  draw  up  the  Charge  in  their 
own  words.    In  one  of  their  late  Books  they  have  thefe  Words. 

Theirs,  they  fay,  is  an  Accountable  and  Reafonable  Faith,  but  that  of  the  fiiUmy  of 
Trinitarians  is  abfurd  and  contrary  both  to  Reajfon  and  it   [elf,  and  therefore  '*^''^"""' 
not  only  falfe  bnt  intpojfible.     But  wherein  lies  this //!;//'i9//7i'/7/Av  .<?  That  they 
foon  tell  us.  Becanfe  we  affirm  that  there  are  three  Perfons,  who  are  feverally  and 
each  of  them  true  God,  and  yet  there  is  but  one  true  God.  Now,  fay  they,  this  is 
an  Error  in  counting  or  numbring,  which  when  flood  in  is  of  all  others  the  mofl  bru- 
tal and  inexcufable  ^  and  not  to  difern  it  is  not  to  beaMan.'^hzt  muft  thefe  Men 
think  the  Chriftian  Church  hath  been  made  up  of  all  this  while  ?  What  >  were 
there  no  Men  among  them  but  theZ)nitarians  .<?  None  that  had  common  fenfe, 
and  could  tell  the  difference  between  One  and  Three?  But  this  is  too  choice 
a  Notion  to  be  delivered  but  once  ;  we  have  it  over  and  over  from  them. 
In  another  place  they  fay.  We  catmot  be  miflaken  in  the  Notion  of  One  and^e  ce  «/ 
Three  ;  we  are  mofl  certain  that  One  is  not  Three,  and  Three  are  not  One.    This  ['f,iJv\"^ 
it  is  to  be  Men  !  but  the  whole  Chriftian  World  befides  are  in  Brutal  and  urians,"*' 
Inexcufable  Errors  about  One  and  Three.     This  is  not  enough,  for  they  love  ^  7- 
to  charge  home  ^  for  one  of  their  terrible  Objeftions  againft  the  Athanafian 
Creed,  is.  That  here  is  an  Arithmetical  as  well  as  Grammatical  Contraditlion.  For  ^P^  't^' 
in  faying  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghoft,  yet  not  three  p.  15. 
Gods  but  one  God  5  aManfirfl  difiin&ly  numbers  three  Gods,  and  then  in  fum^ 
wing  them  up,  brutijUy  fiys,  not  three  Gods  but  one  God.     Brutiflily  ftillJ 
Have  the  Brutes  and  Trinitarians  learnt  Arithmetick  together  ?    Methinks 
fuch  Expreffions  do  not  become  fucfa  whom  the  Chriftian  Church  hath  fo 
long  fince  condemned  for  Herefies.     But  it  may  be  with  the  fame  Civility 
they  will  fay,  It  wxs  brutiflily  done  of  them.     But  can  thefe  Men  of  Senfe 
and  Reafon  think,  that  the  Point  in  Controverfy  ever  was,  whether  m 
Numbers,  One  could  he  Three,  or  Three  One  >     If  they  think  fo,  I  wonder 
they  do  not  think  of  another  thing,  which  is  the  begging  all  Trinitarians 
for  Fools,  becaufe  they  cannot  count  One,  Two  and  Three,  and  an  'Unita- 
rian Jury  would  certainly  caft  them.    One  would  think  fuch  Writers  had 
never  gone  beyond  Shop-books  ^  for  they  take  it  for  granted,  that  all  depends 
upon  counting.    But  thefe  terrible  Charges  were  forae  of  the  moft:  common 
and  trite  Objedions  of  Infidels.   St.  ^«g«j^/;;  mentions  it  as  id' 

fuch,  when  he  faith.  The  Infidels  fometimes  ask  us,  what  infide"t^&  dfaim,  P°acrem"quc[n 
do  you  call  the  Father  ?  We  anfwer  God.  What  the  Son  ^  dicids,  Deum  dicitis  ?  Eefpou- 
We  anfwer  God.  What  the  Holy  Ghoft,  we  anfwerGod.  So  t^^^^J^lZi^^X^ 
that  here  the  Infidels  make  the  fame  Objeftion,  and  draw  Deun.  Spiricum  sanftum  quem 
the  very  fame  Inference.     Then,  fay  they,  the  Father,  Son     ^'■^'"•'  Dcumdkitis  ?  Refpoa- 

J  U  I    r^i   a.  t        r>    1         r>  i/~-io       a  demus    Deum.     Ergo   inquiunt, 

and  tioly  Kjhojt  are  three  Uods.     But  what  laith  St.  Augu-     i>arcr  &  Filius  &  Spiritus  San- 

ftin  to  this?  Had  he  no  more  skill  in  Arithmefck  than  to     ^"^  tres  funt  Dei,  Refpondemus 
fay  there  are  Three  and  yet  but  One  ?    He  faith  plainly,     Zin Jr7''co"r'"ciaufl"Tabi' 
that  there  are  not  three  Gods.     The  Infidels  are  troubled     quia  clavem  fidei  non  habent. 
hecaufe  they  are  not  enlighten  d,  their  heart  is  jJmt  up,  be-     ^''^• '"  M  Tr.  39. 
canfe  they  are  without  Faith.     By  which  it  is  plain,  he  look'd  on  thefe  as 
the  proper  Objedions  of  Infidels,  and  not  of  Chriftians.    But  may  not 
Chriftians  have  fuch  doubts  in  their  minds?  He  doth  not  deny  it  5  but  then 

he 


450  \      A  Vindic-Uion  of  the  Chap.  V. 

•  he  faith.  Where  ihe  true  foundation  of  Faith  if  laid  in  the 

de^/;'^  Sr^'culun.S;  heart,  ^huh  helps  the  Vnderjia.ding    r.e  are  to  en^brace 

noflri,    quod  intelligimus  fine  vpith  it  all  that  it  can  reach  to '^  and  where  vfc  can  go  no  fur- 

obfcurinte  capiamus,  quod  non  ^/^^       ^^  ^^a  y^f.^^   rvithoitt  douhti/;^  5     which  is  a  wife 
intelligimus  fine  dubitatione  ere-  ^,.         -' r    ,  •  !-•         1^  i- 

damus  /W.  refolution  of  this  matter.     For  there  are  iome  things  re- 

vealed which  we  can  entertain  the  notion  of  in  oui* 
minds,  as  we  do  of  any  other  matters,  and  yet  there  may  be  fome  things 
belonging  to  them  which  we  cannot  diftinftly  conceive.  We  believe  God 
to  have  been  from  all  Eternity,  and  that  becaufe  God  hath  revealed  it  5  but 
here  is  fomething  we  can  conceive,  viz.  that  he,  was  fo  5  and  here  is 
fomething  we  cannot  conceive,  viz:  How  he  was  fo-  This  Inftance  I  had 
produced  in  my  Sermon,  to  fhew  that  we  might  be  obh'ged  to  believe  fuch" 
things  concerning  God,  of  which  we  cannot  have  a  clear  and  diftinfl:  No- 
tion 5  as  that  God  was  from  all  Eternity,  although  we  cannot  conceive  in 
our  minds  how  he  could  be  from  himfelf.  Now  whvit  faith  the  Unitarian  to 
this,  who  pretended  to  anfwerme?  Wt^mhjf  God  mufi  he  from  htwfelf  then 
An[w.  to  anEternal  God  k  a  ContradiStion  i^for  that  implies  that  he  was  before  he  was,  and 
Sem.f.  5-y^  charges  me  with  efpoufing  the  caufe  of  Atheijls,  I  wifh  our  Unitarians  were 
as  free  from  this  Charge  as  I  am.  But  this  is  malicious  cavilling.  For  my 
defign  was  only  to  fhew,  that  we  could  have  no  diftinft  conception  of 
fomething  which  we  are  bound  to  believe.  For  upon  all  accounts  we  are 
bound  to  believe  an  Eternal  God,  and  yet  we  cannot  form  a  diftinft  and 
clear  Idea  of  the  manner  of  it.  Whether  being  from  himfelf  be  taken  po- 
fitively  or  negatively,  the  matter  is  not  cleared  ;  the  one  is  abfurd,  and  the 
other  unconceivable  by  us.  But  ftill  I  fay,  it  is  a  thing  that  we  are  bound 
to  believe  ftedfaftly,  although  it  is  above  our  comprehenfion.  But  inftead 
of  anfwering  to  this,  he  runs  out  into  an  Examination  of  one  notion  of  E- 
ternity  5  and,  as  he  thinks,  fhews  fome  Abfurdities  in  that,  which  are  al- 
ready anfwered.  But  that  was  not  my  meaning,  but  to  (hew  that  we  could 
iiave  no  clear  and  diftinft  Notion  of  Eternity  \  and  if  his  Arguments  were 
good,  they  prove  what  I  aimed  at,  at  leaft  as  to  that  part;  and  himfelf 
produces  my  ownWords  to  (hew,  that  there  were  fuch  difficulties  every  way 
which  we  could  not  ma(!er  ^  and  yet  are  bound  to  believe,  that  neceflary 
Exiftence  is  an  infeparable  Attribute  of  God.  So  that  here  we  have  a  clear 
inftanceof  what  St.  Angujiin  faith.  That  we  may  believe  fomething  upon 
full  Conviftion,  as  that  God  is  eternal,  and  yet  there  may  remain  fomething 
which  we  cannot  reach  to  by  our  underftanding,  viz.  the  manner  how 
Eternity  is  to  be  conceived  by  us  ,  which  goes  a  great  way  towards  clear- 
ing the  point  of  the  Trinity,  notwithftanding  the  Difficulty  in  our  concei- 
ving the  manner  how  Three  (hould  be  One,  and  One  Three. 

But  St.  Augujiin  doth  not  give  it  over  fo  ^  Let  us  hep 

damu?"utTd"culmcn'  Pe"feftio-  i?e^/«A  .^^"^^  ^^'   ^^  ^^e  Foundation  of  our  Faith,  that  we 

nis  veniamus.    Deus  eft  Pater,  may  arrive  to  the  top  of  Perfe^ion  t,   the  Father  is  God,  the 

Deus  eft  Filius,  Deus  eft  Spiritus  ^        ^    Q^     ,^    j^  .    Qf^^a  -^  Q^^        ^^^  p^^^^^  ^       ^  ^^ 
Sanftus,  &   taraen  Pater  non  eft  '  ,     -n     r  t     tj  i    r^t    n     •  t        r- 

qui  Filius ;  nee  Filius  eft  qui  oon,  nor  the  oon  the  rather,  nor  the  Holy  Libojt  either  fa' 

Pater,  nee  Spiritus  Sanftus,  Pa-  ffj^y.  ^y.  ^on.     And  he  soes  ou.  The  Trinity  fS  one  God,  one 

tris  &  Fill!  Spiritus,    Pater    eft      p         .  ^  HJI  •  a       "TL  />     r  J 

aut  Filius.    Ibid.  Ltermty,  one  nwer^  one  Majejtj,  1  hree   I  erjons  and  one 

God.     So  it  is  in  Erafmns  his  Edition  5  but  the  late  E- 

Trinitas  unus  Deus,  Trinitas    ditots  fay,  that  the  word  Pcrfon£  was  not  in  their  Ma- 

una  i^cernitas,  una  Poteftas.  una     nufcript.    And  it  is  not  material  in  this  place,  finceelfe- 

Maiertas    tres  Perfonae  led  non  ,        *,  i        ^      ,-    i  «  in   ^  .      /~      n 

„e^j  j3ii '  where  he  approves  the  ufe  ot  the  word  Perfins,  as  the  fitteft 

to  exprefs  our  meaning  in  this  Cafe.  For  fince  fome  Word 
mujl  be  agreed  upon  to  declare  our  Senfe  by,  he  faith,  thofe  who  under- 
flood  the  Propriety  of  the  Latin  Tongue,  could  not  pitch  upon  any  more- 
proper  than  that,   to  fignijfe  that   thej  did   not  mean   three  diji'inSf  Effen- 

ces^ 


Chap.   V.      ho^rine  of  the  Trinity. 


451 


ce/,  but  the  fame  Ejfence  with  a  different  Hypoftafu,  fouucL- 
id  in  the  relation  of  one  to  the  other  ^  as  Father  and  Son 
have  the  fame  Divine  Effence,  but  the  Relations  being  fo  dif- 
ferent that  one  cannot  be  confounded  with  the  other^  that 
which  refulrs  from  the  Relation  being  joined  with  the  Ef- 
fence,  was  it  which  was  called  a  Perfon, 

But  faith  St,  Aitguflin,  The  Cav/ Her  will  ask.  If  there  be 
Three,  what  Three  are  they  .<?  He  an/wers.  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghofl.  But  then  he  diftinguidies  between  what  they 
are  in  thenifelves,  and  what  they  are  to  each  other.  The 
Father  as  to  himfelfk  God,  but  as  to  the  Son  he  is  Father-^ 
the  Son  as  to  himfelf  is  God,  but  as  to  the  Father  he  is  the 
Son.  But  how  is  it  poffible  to  underftand  this  >  Why, 
faith  he,  Take  two  Men,  Father  and  Son  ;  the  one  as  to 
himfelf  is  a  Man,  but  as  to  the  Son  a  Father  j  the  Son  as  to 
himfelf  is  a  Man,  but  as  to  the  Father  he  is  a  Son  :  but  thefe 
two  have  the  fame  common  Nature. 

But,  faith  he.  Will  it  not  hence  follow,  that  as  thefe  are 
two  Men,  fo  the  Father  and  Son  in  the  Divine  Effence  ntuji 
he  two  Gods  .<?  No  ^  ihere  lies  the  Difference  between  the 
Humane  and  Divine  Nature,  that  one  cannot  he  multiplied 
sand  divided  as  the  other  is. 

And  therein  lies  the  true  Solution  of  the  Difficulty,  as 
will  appear  afterwards.  When  you  begin  to  count,  faith 
he,  yoHgo  on.  One,  Two  and  Three.  But  when  you  have  rec- 
kon d  them  what  is  it  you  have  been  counting  .<?  The  Fa- 
ther is  the  Father,  the  Son  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghofl 
the  Holy  Ghofl.  What  are  thefe  Three  .«'  Are  they  net 
three  Gods  }  No  -^  Are  they  not  three  Almighties  .<?  No  : 
They  are  capable  of  Number  as  to  their  Relation  to  each  0- 
ther  5  but  not  as  to  their  Ejjence  which  is  but  One. 

The  fubftance  of  the  Anfwer  lies  here  :  The  Divine  Eflence  is  that  alone 
which  makes  God,  tliat  can  be  but  One,  and  therefore  there  can  be  no 
more  Gods  than  one.  But  becaufe  the  fame  Scripture,  which  afTures  us  of 
the  Unity  ot  the  Divine  Eflence,  doth  likewife  join  the  Son  and  Holy 
Ghoft  in  the  fame  Attributes,  Operations,  and  Worftiip  ;  therefore  as  to 
the  mutual  Relations,  we  may  reckon  Three,  but  as  to  the  Divine  EiTence, 
that  can  be  no  more  than  One. 

Boethiuf  was  a  great  Man  in  all  refpedts,  for  his  ^ality,  as  well  as  for  Boech,  o- 
his  Skill  in  Philofophy  and  Chriflianity  ^  and  he  wrote  a  (hort  but  learned p^'^'**"*' 
Difcourfe  to  clear  this  matter.  The  CathoUck  Do&rine  of  the  Trinity,  faith 
he,  is  this  5  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghofl  God  5  but  they 
are  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God.  And  yet  (which  our  TJnitarians  may 
wonder  at)  this  very  Man  hath  written  a  learned  Book  of  Arithmetic k.  But 
how  doth  he  make  this  out  ?  How  is  it  poffible  for  Three  to  be  but  One  .<? 
FirO,  he  (hews,  "  That  there  can  be  but  one  Divine  Eflence  5  for  to  make 
"  more  than  One  muft  fuppofe  a  Diverfity.  Principium  enim  Pluralitatis 
"  Alteritas  eft.  If  you  make  a  real  difference  in  Nature  as  the  Arians  did, 
"  then  there  muft  be  as  many  Gods  as  there  are  different  Natures.  Among 
"  Men  there  are  different  Individuals  of  the  fame  kind  5  but,  faith  he,  it 
"  is  the  diverfity  of  Accidents  which  makes  it  5  and  if  you  can  abftraft 
"  from  all  other  Accidents,  yet  they  muft  have  a  different  Place,  for  two 
"  Bodies  cannot  be  in  the  fame  place.  The  Divine  Eflence  is  fimple  and 
"  immaterial,  and  is  what  it  is  of  it  felf  5  but  other  things  are  what  they 
"  are  made,  and  confift  of  Parts,  and  therefore  may  be  divided.    Now 

"  that 


Non  audemusdiceie  unam  eT- 
fentiam  tres  Subftantias,  led  u- 
nam  EfTenciam  vel  SubAanciam, 
tr<.s  aucem  I'erfonas,  quem.idmo- 
duni  multi  Latini  ift.i  tractante* 
&  digni  auftoritate  dixerunt, 
cum  alium  modum  aptiorem  non 
iuvenirenr,  quo  enunciarenc 
verbi.,  quod  fine  verbis  intclli- 
gcbant.  Aug.  de  Trinitut.  /.j.  c.S. 

Nunc  niihi  calumniator  refpon- 
deat,  quid  ergo  trcs  f  ecce  in- 
quic  crcs  dixifti,  fed  quid  tres 
expiime?  Immo  tu  numera. 
Nam  ego  compleotres  cum  dico. 
Pater  ik  Filius&SpiricusSanflus. 
Id.  ubi  [ultra.  Id  enim  quod  Pa- 
ter ad  fe  eft,  Deus  eft,  quod  ad 
Filium  eft.  Pater  eft  :  quod  Fi. 
lius  ad  feipfum  eft,  Deus  eft: 
quod  ad  Patrem  eft,  Fihus  eft. 

Sed  non  quomodo  itli  duo  ho- 
mines funtfic  ifti  duo  Dii.  <^ua- 
re  hoc  non  eft  ita  ibi?  Quia  il- 
lud  aiiud,  hoc  autem  aliud  eft, 
(}uia  ilia  Divinitaseft,  hxc  huma- 
uitjs. 

Ubi  cogitare  coeperis,  in- 
cipis  numerare  ;  ubi  numera- 
veris,  quid  numeraveris  non 
potes  refpondcre.  Pater,  Pater 
eft  ;  Filius,  Filius ;  Spiritus  San- 
ftus,  Spiritus  Sanflus  eft.  Quid 
funt  ifti  tres  ?  Non  tres  Dii  i 
Non,  Non  tres  omnipotentes  ? 
Non.  fed  unus  omnipotens.  Hoc 
folo  numerum  infinuant,  quod  ad 
invicem  funt  non  quod  ad  fe 
lunc. 


45i 


A  Vindication  of  the 


C  H 


A  p. 


VI. 


CC 


that  which  is  of  it  fetf  can  be  but  One,  and  therefore  cannot  benum- 
bred.  And  one  God  cannot  differ  from  anotiier,  either  by  Accidents  Cr 
fubftantial  Differences.  But,  faith  he,  there  is  a  twofold  Number,  one 
by  which  we  reckon,  and  another  in  the  things  reciconed.  And  the 
repeating  of  Units  in  the  former  makes  a  Plurality, 
but  not  in  the  latter.  It  may  be  faid,  that  this  holds 
where  there  are  only  different  Names  for  the  fame 
thing  X,  but  here  is  a  real  Diftinfticn  of  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghoft.  But  then  he  (hews,  "  That  the  dif- 
ference of  Relation  can  make  no  Alteration  in  theEf- 
fence  ^  and  where  there  is  no  diverfity,  there  can  be 
but  one  Effence,  although  the  different  Relation  may 
make  three  Perfons,  This  is  the  fubftance  of  what  he 
faith  concerning  this  Difficulty  ^  which,  as  he  fuggefts, 
arifes  from  our  Imaginations,  which  are  fo  filled  with 
the  Divifion  and  Multiplicity  of  compound  and  material 
things,  that  it  is  a  hard  matter  for  them  fo'to  recolleft 
themfelves,  as  to  confider  the  fir  1  Principles  and  Grounds  of  V»ity  and 
Diver/tji.  But  I'i  omUnitariatts  have  not  throughly  confider  d  thofe  foun- 
dations, they  muft,  as  they  fay  to  one  of  their  Adverfaries,  argue  like  No- 
'vices  in  thefe  queJiio»s.  For  thefe  are  fome  of  the  mofl:  neceffary  Specula- 
tions for  underftanding  thefe  matters ;  as.  What  that  V»ity  is  which  be- 
longs to  a  perfeft  Being?  What  Diverfity  is  required  to  multiply  an  infini'te 
Effence,  which  hath  "Unify  in  its  own  Nature  >  Whether  it  be  therefore 
poffible,  that  there  (hould  be  more  divine  Effenees  than  one,  fnce  the  fame 
effential  Attributes  muft  be,  where-ever  there  is  the  divine  Effence  ?  Whe- 
ther there  can  be  more  Ittdividuals,  where  there  is  no  DijftmUitHde^  and 
can  be  no  Divi/ion  or  Separation  ?  Whether  a  fpedfick  Divine  Nature  be 
not  inconfiftent  with  the  abfolute  Perfeftion,  and  neceffary  Exiftence  which 
belongs  to  it  ?  Whether  the  Divine  Nature  can  be  individually  the  fame, 
and  yet  there  be  feveral  individual  Effenees  ?  Thefe  and  a  great  many  o- 
ther  Queftions  it  will  be  neceffary  for  them  to  refolve,  before  they  can  fo 
peremptorily  pronounce  that  the  Doftrine  of  the  Trinity  doth  imply  a 
Contradiftion  on  the  account  of  the  Numbers  of  Three  and  One,  And  fo 
I  come  to  the  fecond  Particular. 


Numerus  enim  duplex  eft,  unus 
quidem,  <^^°  iiumeramus,  alter 
vero  qui  in  rebus  nunierabilibus 
conflit ;  ergo  in  Numero  quo 
numeramus,  repecitio  uiiiracum 
lacit  I'luralitatem  ;  in  rerum 
vero  numeio  non  facit  fluralita- 
temUnicatuin  repecitio. 

Tta  igitur  fubftantia  continet 
Unitdtem,  relatio  vero  mukipli- 
cat  Tr'nitacem.  Nam  idem  Pa- 
ter qui  Filius  non  eft  ^  r,tc  idem 
ucerquequi  SpiricusSanftus.  I- 
dem  tamen  Deus  eft,  Pater,,  Fili- 
us 8c  Spiricus  ianflus. 


Anfw  to 
Mi.bf.J 


CHAP.     VI. 

No  ContradiHion  fo>'  three  Pcrfens  to  be  in  one  common  Nature. 


II.  "nr"  Hat  it  is  no  contradiftion  to  affert  three  Verfons  in  one  common  Na- 
I  iure.  I  Ihall  endeavour  to  make  thefe  matters  as  clear  as  I  can; 
for  the  greateft  difficulties  in  moft  mens  minds  have  rifen  from  the  want  of 
clear  and  diftinft  apprchenfions  of  thofe  fundamental  Notions,  which  are 
neceffary  in  order  to  the  right  underftanding  of  them. 

1.  We  are  to  diftinguifh  between  the  Being  of  a  things  and  a  thing  in    \ 
Being  ;  or  between  Effence  and  Exiftence. 

2.  Between  the  Unity  of  Nature  or  Ejfence,  and  of  Exigence  or  Indivi' 
duals  of  the  fame  nature. 

^.  Between  the  Notion  of  Perfons  in  a  ftnite  and  limited  Nature,  and  in 
a  Being  Hmapahk  of  Divifon  and  Separation. 

I.  Between 


Chap.   VI.  Do^rtne  of  the  Trinity.  453 

1.  Between  the  Being  of  a  thing,  and  a  thing  in  Being  By  the  former  we 
mean  the  Nature  and  EfTential  Properties  of  a  thing  -^  whereby  it  is  diftin- 
guifhed  from  all  other  kinds  of  Beings.  So  God  and  his  Creatures  are  elTen- 
tially  diftinguiftied  from  each  other  by  fuch  Attributes  which  are  incommu- 
nicable i  and  the  Creatures  of  feveral  kinds  are  diftinguiftied  by  their  Na- 
tures or  EflTences  5  for  the  Eflence  of  a  Man  and  of  a  Brute  are  not  birely  di- 
ftinguiftied by  Individuals,  but  by  their  kinds.  And  that  which  doth  con- 
ftitute  a  diftindl  kind  is  One  and  Indivifible  in  it  felf :  for  the  Eflence  of  a 
Man  is  but  one  and  can  be  no  more  ^  for  if  there  «vere  more,  the  kind  would 
be  alter'd  ^  fo  that  there  can  be  but  one  common  Nature  or  Eflence  to  all 
the  Individuals  of  that  kind.  But  becaufe  thefe  Individuals  may  be  or  may 
not  be,  therefore  we  muft  diftinguifti  them  as  they  are  in  aftual  Being,  from 
what  they  are  in  their  common  Nature  5  for  that  continues  the  fame,  under 
all  the  Variety  and  Succefllon  of  Individuals. 

2.  We  muft  now  diftinguifti  theZJnity  which  belongs  to  the  common  Na- 
ture^  from  that  which  belongs  to  the  Individuals  in  adud  Being.  And  the 
"Unity  oi  EJence'xstvjo-iold: 

1.  Where  the  Eflence  and  Exiftence  are  the  fame,  /,  e.  where  neceffary 
Exiftence  doth  belong  to  the  Eflence.  as  it  is  in  God,  and  in  him  alone  5  it 
being  an  eflential  and  incommunicable  Perfeftion. 

2.  Where  the  Exiftence  is  contingent,  and  belongs  to  the  Will  of  another ; 
and  fo  it  is  in  all  Creatures,  Intelle^ual  and  Material,  whofeaftual  Being, is 
dependent  on  the  Will  of  God. 

The  Unity  of  Exijience  may  be  confider'd  two  ways. 

1.  As  to  it  felf,  and  fo  it  is  called  Identity^  or  a  thing  continuing  the 
fame  with  it  felf :  the  Foundation  whereof  in  Man  is  that  vital  Principle 
which  refults  from  the  Union  of  Soul  and  Body.  For  as  long  as  that  con- 
tinues, notwithftanding  the  great  variety  of  changes  in  the  material  Parts, 
the  Man  continues  entirely  the  fame. 

2.  The  Vnity  of  Exigence  85  to  Individuals  may  be  confider'd  as  toothers, 
i.  e.  as  every  one  ftands  divided  from  every  other  Individulal  of  the  fame 
kind  ;  although  they  do  all  partake  of  the  fame  common  Eflence.  And  the 
clearing  of  this  is  the  main  Point,  on  which  the  right  Notion  of  thefe  mat- 
ters depends. 

In  order  to  that,  we  muft  confider  two  things. 

1.  Whatthatis,  whereby  we  perceive  the  difference  of  Individuals  .> 

2.  What  that  is,  which  really  makes  two  Beings  of  the  fame  kind  to  be 
different  from  each  other? 

I;  As  to  the  reafon  of  our  Perception  of  the  difference  between  Individu- 
als of  the  fame  kind,  it  depends  on  thefe  things. 

1.  Difference  of  outward  Accidents,  as  Features,  Age,  Bulk,  Mein, 
Speech,  Habit  and  Place. 

2.  Difference  of  inward  Qualities  and  Difpofitioni^  which  we  perceive 
by  obfervation,  and  arife  either  from  Conftitution,  or  Education,  or  Com- 
pany, or  acquired  Habits.  ^ 

2-  As  to  the  true  ground  of  the  real  Difference  between  the  Exiftence  of 
one  Individual  from  the  reft,  it  depends  upon  the  feparate  Exijience  which  it 
hath  from  all  others.  For  that  which  gives  it  a  Being  diftinft  from  all  others 
and  divided  by  Individual  Properties,  is  the  true  ground  of  the  difference 
between  them,  and  that  can  be  no  other  but  the  Will  of  God.  And  no  con- 
fcquent  Faculties  or  Ads  of  theMindbySelf  Refledion,^^.  can  be  the  reafon 
of  this  difference  ^  becaufe  the  difference  muft  be  fuppofed  antecedent  to 
tifem.  And  nothing  can  be  faid  to  make  that,  which  muft  be  fuppofed  to  be 
before  it  felf  5  for  there  muft  be  a  diflinft  Mind  in  Being  from  all  other 
Minds,  before  it  can  reflefl  upon  it  felf. 

M  m  m  But 


454  ^  Vindication  of  the        Chap.  Vj. 

But  we  are  not  yet  come  to  the  bottom  of  this  matter.  For  as  to  Individu- 
al Perfons,  there  are  thefe  things  ftill  to  be  confider'd 

i.A&Hal  Exijietice  in  it  fell,  which  hath  a  Mode  belonging  to  it,  or  elfe 
the  humane  Nature  of  Chrift  could  not  have  been  united  with  the  divine,  but 
itmuft  have  had  the  perfonal  Sub0e»ce,  and  confequently  there  muft  have 
been  two  Perfons  in  Chriji. 

2.  Afeparate  and  divided  Exifience  form  all  others,  which  arifes  from 
the  aftual  Exiftence,  but  may  be  diftinguifhed  from;it  v  and  fo  the  humane 
Nature  of  Chrift,  although  it  had  the  Subfiftence  proper  to  Being,  yet  had 
not  afeparate  Exifience^  after  the  Hypofiatical  Union. 

3.  The  peculiar  manner  of  Suhf/Jience,  which  lies  in  fuch  Properties  as  a rd 
incommunicable  to  any  other  ^  and  herein  lies  the  proper  reafon  of  Perfina- 
lity.  Which  doth  notconfifl:  in  a  mere  hitelligent  Being,  but  in  that  peculiar 
manner  of  Subfiftence,  in  that  Being  which  can  be  in  no  other.  For  when 
the  common  Nature  doth  fubfift  in  Individuals,  there  is  not  only  a  feparate 
Exiftence,  but  fomething  fo  peculiar  to  it  felf,  that  it  can  be  commu- 
nicated to  no  other.  And  this  is  that  which  makes  the  diftindion  of 
Perfons. 

4.  There  is  a  common  Nature  which  muft  be  joyned  with  this  manner  of 
Subfiftence  to  make  a  Perfon  5  otherwife  it  would  be  a  mere  Mode  ^  but  we 
never  conceive  a  Perfon  without  the  Effence  in  Conjunftion  with  it.  But 
here  appears  no  manner  of  contradiftion  in  afferting  feveral  Perfons  in  one 
and  the  fame  common  Nature. 

5.  The  Individuals  of  the  fame  kind  are  faid  to  differ  in  number  from  each 
other,  becaufe  of  their  different  Accidents  and  feparate  Exiftence.  For  fo 
they  are  capable  of  being  numbred.  V>i  hatever  is  compounded  is  capable  of 
number  as  to  its  parts,  and  may  be  faid  to  be  one  by  the  Union  of  them  ^ 
whatever  is  feparated  from  another  is  capable  of  number  by  diftindi. 
on.  But  where  there  can  be  no  Accidents  nor.  Divifion,  there  muft  be  per- 
feft  Unity. 

ArrtifiT  6.  There  muft  be  a  Separation  in  Nature^  where-ever  there  is  a  difference 
'^"Slad'  °^ Individuals  under  the  fame  kind.  I  do  not  fay  there  muft  be  an  a^ual Se- 
Uitiov,  paration  and  Divifion  as  to  place,  but  that  there  is  and  muft  be  fo  in  Na- 
e-t/AAx^-^  ture,  where  one  <:<7«/«/o«  iVizfwreibbfifts  in  feveral  Individuals.  For  all  Indi' 
iyoToiii/  viduals  mufl  divide  the  Species,  and  the  common  Nature  unites  them.  And  this 
■nKonov  PhiloponusimderfkoodveryweW,  and  therefore  he  never  denied  fucha  Di- 
ifag!  H'2.  "^'f  on  and  Separation  in  the  divine  Perfons,  as  is  implied  in  diftinft  Individu- 
36  als  5  which  is  the  laft  thing  to  be  confider'd  here. 

Ca^ft  /.       3*  ^^  ^^^  "°^  ^^  enquire  how  far  thefe  things  will  hold  as  to  the  Per- 

18.  c.  47.  fins  in  the  Trinity,  and  whether  it  be  a  Contradiction  to  affert  three  Perfons 

in  the  Godhead  and  but  one  God.     We  are  very  far  from  difputing  theZJ»/- 

'     ty  of  the  divine  Effence,  which  weafTerttobe  fo  perfect  and  indivifible,  as 

not  to  be  capable  of  fuch  a  difference  of  Perfons  as  is  among  Men.    Becaufe 

there  can  be  no  difference  of  Accidents,  or  Place,  or  Qualities  in  the  divine 

Nature  5  and  there  can  be  no  feparate  Exiftence,   becaufe  the  Effence  and 

Exiftence  are  the  fame  in  God  5  and  li  neceffarj  Exifience  be  an  infeparable 

Attribute  of  the  divine  Effence,  it  is  impoflible  there  (hould  be  any  feparate 

Exiftence  ^  for  what  always  was  and  muft  be,  can  have  no  other  Exiftence 

than  what  is  implied  in  the  very  Effence,     But  will  not  this  overthrow  the 

difiin&ion  of  Perfons,  and  run  us  into  Sabellianifm  ?      By  no  means.     For  our 

'Unitarians  grant,  That  the  Noetians  and  Sabellians  held,  that  there  is  hut  one 

^Incernhg  ^'^"'^  Subfiance,  Effcuce  or  Nature,  and  hut  one  Perfon.     And  how  can  thofe 

the  nomi-   who  hold  three  Perfons  be  Sabellians  .<?     Tes,    fay  they,    the  Sabellians  hekt 

""'^"Z'.'^^' three  relative  Perfons.     But  did  they  mean  three  difiinB  Subfifiences,    or  only 

f/rffl,p.i6.one  Subfiftence  fuftaining  the  Names,  or  Appearances,  or  Manifeflations  of 

three 


Chap.  VI.  Doctrine  of  the  Tvimtj.  4.55 

three  Perfons  ?     The  latter  they  cannot  deny  to  have  been  the  true  fenfe  of 
the  SaheUhns.     But  fay  they,    Thefe  are  three  Verfons  in   a  clajjical    critical 
Sef/fe.     We  meddle  not  at  prefent  with  the  Difpute  whicli  Va//a  hath  a»ainft 
Boethim  about  the  proper  Latin  Senfe  of  a  Perfon  (and  Pctaviiu  faith  ^Zi'a's  pecav.de 
Objeftions  are  mere  Jefts  and  Trifles  )   but  our  Senfe  of  a  Perfo»  is  plain,  Trinit.  /. 
that  it  fignifies  the  Effence  with  a  particular  manner  of  Subfiftence,    which ''' ''  "* 
the  Greek  Fathers  called  an  Hypojiafis^    taking  it  for  that  incommunicable 
Property  which  makes  a  Perfon. 

But  fay  our  ZJnitariafjf,  a  Perfon  is  an  ifitellige»t  Be/»g,  and  therefore  three  Defence  of 
Perfons  mitji  he  three  intelligent  Beings.     I  anfwer,    that  this  may  be   taken  t>'^  mflofj 
two  ways.    i.  That  there  is  no  Perfon  where  there  is  no  intelligent  Nature  "/jf^^^,' 
to  m:ke  it  a  Perfon,  and  fo  we  grant  it.     2.  That  a  Perfon  implies  an  in- 
telligent being,    feparate  and  divided  from  other  Individuals  of  the  fame 
kind,  as  it  is  among  Men  :  and  fo  we  deny  it  as  to  the  Perfons  of  the  Trini- 
ty, becaufe  the  Divine  Eflence  is  not  capable  of  fuch  Divifion  and  Separa- 
tion as  the  humane  Nature  is. 

But  fay  they  again.  The  Fathers  did  hold  afpecifical  Divine  Nature,  and  the 
Perfons  to  be  as  fo  many  Individuals.     This  they  repeat  very  often  in  their 
late  Books  ^  and  after  all,  refer  us  to  Curcelltetff  for  undeniable  Proofs  of  it. 
Let  us  for  the  prefent  fuppofe  it,  then  I  hope  the  Fathers  are  freed  from  hold-     ^^-  . 
ingCottt'adi&ions  in  the  Doftrineof  the  Trinity  5  for  what  ContradiBion  czn  La' Moth. 
it  be,    to  hold  three  individual  Perfons  in  the  Godhead,    and  one  common  •'•  ^ 


Explicit, 


Nature,  more  than  it  is  to  hold  that  there  are  three  humane  Perfons  in  One  „  ,, 
and  the  fame  common  Nature  of  Man  >     V\  ill  they  make  this  a  Comradiflion  letter « 
too?     But  forae  have  fo  ufed  themfelves  to  the  Language  of  jargon,    N^"- ltlrt"''v 


fenfe,  CcntradiBion,  Impoffibility,  that  it  comes  from  them,  as  fome  Men  ij.' 
fwear,  when  they  do  not  know  if.  But  I  am  not  willing  to  go  off  with  this 
Anfwer;  Fori  do  take  the  Fathers  to  have  been  Men  of  two  great  Senfe 
and  Capacity  to  have  maintained  fuch  an  abfurd  Opinion,  as  that  of  a  Spe- 
cifick  Nature  in  God.  For  either  it  is  a  mere  Logical  Notion,  an  Ait  of  the 
Mind,  without  any  real  Exiftence  belonging  to  it  as  fuch,  which  is  contra- 
ry to  the  very  Notion  of  God,  which  implies  a  necefTary  Exiftence  ;  or  it 
muft  imply  a  Divine  Nature,  which  is  neither  Father,  Son,  nor  Holy  Ghoft. 
Which  isfo  repugnant  to  the  Dodrine  of  the  Fathers,  that  no  one  that  is  ^ 
any  waysconverfant  in  their  Writings  on  this  Argument,  can  imagine  they 
fhould  hold  fuch  an  Opinion.  And  I  am  fo  far  from  being  convinced  by 
CurcelUus  hk  undeniable  Proofs,  that  I  think  it  no  hard  matter  to  bring  un- 
deniable Proofs  that  he  hath  miftaken  their  meaning. 

Of  which  I  fh  ill  give  an  Account  in  this  Place,  becaufe  I  feaf  his  Authori- 
ty hath  had  too  much  fway  with  fome,    as  to  this  m^itter.     I  (hall  not  infift 
upon  his  grofs  miftake  in  the  very  entrance  of  that  Difcourfe,where  he  faith. 
That  the  Biffiops  of  Gau\  and  Germany  dif  iked  //6e  Homooufion,     and  gave  CwctWAe 
three  Reafons  againft  it  ^  whereas  Hilary  fpeaks  of  the  Eafie  n  BifJjops  whom  1[.°^^^"^ 
be  goes  about  to  vindicate  to  the  Weftern  Bifhops,  who  were  offended  with  sea.  j^. 
them  for  that  reafon  ^  as  any  one  that  reads  Hilary  de  Synodis  may  fee.  But 
I  come  to  the  main  Point.     His  great  Argument  is  fiom  the  ttfe  of  the  Word 
T)/uofa(T.c^  rthich  may  extend  to  Individuals  of  the  famehmd.     Who  denies  it  ? 
But  the  Qiieftion  is  whether  the  Fathers  ufed  it  in  that  fenfe,  fo  as  to  imply 
a  difference  of  Individuals  in  the  fame  common  ElTence  ?     There  were  two 
things  aimed  atby  them  in  their  Difpute  with  thtAriansi 

(i.)  Tofhew,  That  the  Son  was  of  thefameSubffance  with  the  Father, 
which  they  denied,  and  made  him  of  an  inferior  created  Subftance  of  ano- 
ther kind.  Now  the  Fathers  thought  this  term  very  proper  to  exprefs  their 
Senfe  againft  them.  But  then  this  Word  being  capable  of  a  larger  Senfe  thari 
they  intended,  they  tookcare,  (2.)  ToaiTerta  perfect  Unity  and  Indivifr- 

M  m  m  2  bility 


AViiidicatioJi  of  the        Chap.  VI, 


I  bility  of  the  Divine  Effence.     For  the  Ariatts  were  very  reidy  to  chargetbem 

^'  with  one  of  thefe  two  things,     (i.)  That  they  murt  fall  \x\to  Sabelliamfm^ 

if  they  held  a  perfeft  Unity  of  Effence:    or    (2.)  When  they  clear'd  them- 

felvesof  th  s,    that  they  muft  hold  Three  Gods  ;    and  both  thefe  they  con- 

ftantly  denied.     To  make  this  clear,  I  (hall  produce  the  Teftimonies  of  fome 

of  the  chief  both  of  the  Grec/^  and  Latitt  Fathers,  and  anfwer  CttrcelUus  bis 

Objections. 

Aciianif.       AthanaftHs  takes  notice  of  both  thefe  Charges  upon  their  Doftrine  of  the 

de  Sen-    Trinity:  As  to  i-?iZ^e///^«i/««  he  declared,  That  he  abhorred  it  equallywith  Kxi- 

iryf.M58,3"''^^^    and  he  faith,    it  lay  in  waking  Father  and  Sen   to  be  only  different 

567. '     '  Names  of  the  fame  Perfon  5  and  fo  they  afferted  but  one  Perfon  in  the  Godhead. 

orac,4.    As  to  the  Other  Charge  of  Pfj/^/^e////;,   he  obferves.    That  in  the  Scripture 

f.  4jd.     Language,  all  Mankind  vcas  reikon'd  as  one,    hecaufc  they  have  the  fame  Effence:, 

and  if  it  befo,  M  to  Men,  who  have  fnch  a  difference  of  Features,  of  Strength,  of 

muni°E.f-  1J»derJianding,  of  Language,    hovp  much  more  may  God  he  faid  to  be  One,    in 

fenc.  &c.  Kihom  is  an  undivided  Dignity,    Power,    Counfel  aid  Operation  ?     Doth  this 

^*^'*-     prove  fuch  a  difference,  as  is  among  Individuals  of  the  fame  kind  among 

Men  ?     No  Man  doth  more  frequently  aiTert  the  indiviffolcTJnity  of  the  Di- 

ExpQf.  Fi-  '"'"'^  Nature  than  he.~    He  exprefly  Atmesfui  h  divided  Hypojiafes,  as  are  among 

dei,p.2?i.  Men  ^  and  faith,  That  in  theTrinity  there  if  a  Conjun^ion  without  Confiifon, 

Iniliud     ^^^  ^  DiflinBion  without  Divifon  i  that  in  theTrinity  there  is  fo  perfeB  an 

mihi  trad.  Union,  and  that  it  is  fj  undivided  and  united  in  itfelf-^  that  vehereever  the  Fa- 

^  'H'      ther  is,  there  is  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  fo  the  reft,  be.  aufe  there  is  hut 

fapp,2  5P^<7»c  Godhead,  and  one  God  who  is  over  all,  and  through  all,    and  in  all.     But 

Om.  4^  c.  faithCurcelUus,  The  contrary  rather  follows  from  this  nv-.^i'^-l^jiaic   or  mutual 

^"^'^456  I^exiflence,  fjr  that  could  not  he  without  difiinB  Subfiaace,    as  in  Water  and 

V^%m!  Wine.     But  this  is  a  very  grofs  miftake  of  the  Fathers  Notion,    who  did 

curceii.    jjQf  underftand  by  it  a  Local  Jn-exijience  as  of  bodies,    but  fuch  an  indiviji- 

retav.de  ble  Unity  that  one  cannot  be  without  the  other,  as  even  Petavius  hath  made  it 

Triiiic. /.  appear  from  ^/^^»^y/«.f  and  Others. 

D'/be'^'        Athanafius  upon  all  Occafions  afferts  the  Unity  of  the   Divine  Nature  to 

cret.Sy-    he  pcrfeB  and  indivifble.     God,  faith  he,  is  the  Father  of  his   Son  aVefiVaj^, 

nod.N.c.  ^iffjg^f  a„y  ly\i)]f,on  tfthe  Subflance.     And  in  other  places.  That  the  Subjiance 

l'6j.%4,of  the  Father  and  Son  admit  of  no  D'.v'fioa,  and  he  affirms  this  to  have  been 

^1^-        thefenfe  of  the  Council  <?/Nice  ^  fo  that  the  cV&ao-i©.  muft  be  underftood  of 

%^la.'p,'  the fimeindivifble Subjiance.     G/ne//<f//j- anfwers,    That  A thanaj/us  by  this 

514-         indivijible  TJmty  meant  only  a  dofe  and  indff'oluble  Union.      Btit  he  excluded 

^^  ^V     any  kind  of  Divifion.  and  that  of  a  Specifjck  Nature  into  feveral  individuals  as 

nodf.275.a  rezl  Dtvifion  in  Nature:,  for  no  Man  who-ever  treated  of  thofe  matters  de- 

Curceii.     pjgj^  that  a  Specifik  Nature  rras  divided,  when  there  were  feveral  Individu- 

n.  ick'     als  under  it.     But  what  is  it  which  makes  the  Union  indiffoluble  .<?    Is  it  the 

Unity  of  the  Fffemeox.  not  ?     If  it  be,  is  it  the  fame  individual  Effence,  or 

not?     If  the  fame  individual  Effence  makes  the  infeparable  Uniofi,  what  is 

it,  which  makes  the  difference  of  Individuals.^     If  it  be  faid,  Theincommu- 

fiicable  Frvperties  of  the  Perfons:,     I  muft   ftili  ask  how   fuch  Properties  \x\  the 

fame  indii'idual  Effence,  can  make  different  Individuals  ?    If  it  be  Gid  to  be 

the  C?:me  Specifi:  k  Nature  :,  then  how  comes  that  which  is  in  it  felf  capable  of 

Divifon  to  make  an  indffoluble  Union  .<? 

Curcell.         But  faith  Curcellsus,  Athanadus  makes  Chriji  to  be  of  the  fame  Subjiance  as 

n.Sa.        Adam,  and  Seth,  and  Abraham,  and  Ifaacare  ftid  to  be  Con-fubftantial  with 

each  other.     And  what  follows  }     That  the  Father  and  Son  are  div'ded  from 

d'''*vnod  ^'^"^  Other,  as  they  were  ^     This  is  not  poflible  to  be  his  Senfe  ;   confidering 

M\m.  &' what  he  faith  of  the  Indivifibility  of  the  Divine  Nature.     And  Athanafius 

J■cIeuc.^  himfelfhath  given  fufficient  warning  againft  fuch  a  Mif-conftru6tion  of  his 

pi5,  P^o^'^yQj.jj  ,    2f^(-j  (^ji]  yj-ogs  that  our  Conceptions  ought  to  be  fuitable  to  the  Divine 

Na- 


C H  A  P.  VI.      Botlrine  of  the  Trinity.  457 

Nature,  }>ot  taken  from  what  ■wefee  among  Men.  And  it  is  obfervable,  that 
when  Paul Hs  Sa/f/nfaenHsb^d  urged  this  as  the  beft  Argument  againft  the 
term  O,«o8'o-r:^  ,  7 hat  it  madefnch  a  difference  of  Suhjiances  as  if  among  Men  5 
for  thatReafon  faith  Athanafim,  his  Judges  tvere  content  tolet  rt alone,  for  the  p  pio. 
Son  ofGi'd  is  not  in  fuch  a  fenfe  Cofi-fubjlantial  •  but  afervpards  /^elSicene  Fa- 
thers finding  out  the  Art  tf/Paulus,  and  the  fignificancy  of  the  Word  to  difcri- 
rfinate  the  Arians,  made  ufe  of  it,  avd  only  thought  it  f?e(effa>y  to  declare, 
that  when  it  is  applied  to  God,  it  is  not  to  be  underjlood,  (n  among  indivi- 
dual Men. 

As  to  the  Dialogues  under  Athanafius  his  Name,  on  which  CurcelUus  infifts  Curce!!. 
fomuch^  it  is  now  very  well  known  that  they  belong  not  to  him,  buttoAf<i-^jfj^^j"i^ 
ximus  ^    and  by  comparing  them  with  other  places  in  him,    it  may  appear,  oper. 
that  he  intended  ;:o  Specified  Nature  in  Gcd.  -  s^  "t  r 

But  faith  CurcelUus,  If  the  Fat  he's  intended  any  more  than  a  Specifi^k  Na-  p.^',^, ' 
tyre,  vehy  did  they  not  ufe  Words  rohich  would  exprefs  it  more  fully.  As  M;i  o'iat'^  Curcell. 
SiXxd-mnTt^cn^^}  For  that  very  Reafon,  which  he  mentions  from  £'/?//)Art»/«j,'^^'^*^^" 
hecanfethey  ivouldfeemto  approach  too  near  lo  Sabellian/fm. 

Sr.  Bafil  was  a  great  Man,  (  notwithQanding  the  flout  of  our  Vnitarians,)  ^  Df- 
dndapply'd  his  thoughts  to  this  matter,  toclearthe  Doctrine  of  the  Church  ^j''j,^-^,f"' 
from  the  Charge  oi'Sabellianifm  and  Tritheifm.     As  to  the  former,    he  faith,  Nomild 
in  many  places,  That  the  Herefie  lay  in  making  hut  one  Pcrfon  as  well  as  <>fe  1j"^-/^^f 
God,  or  oneSubftance  with  three  feveral Names.     As  tothelatter,  no  Man^iV. 
afierts  the  individual  Unity  of  the  Divine  Effcnce  in  more  fignificant  Words  ^a^''"'^™- 
than  he  doth.    For  he  ufes  the  -nzi^Tc-re,'  and  77)  -riic  ■scri-zc  -tsj/tcV,  as  St.  rjr./,^^^;' 
oi  Alexandria  doth  likewife,  and  yet  both  tbefe  are  produced  by  CurcelUus  Epirti^i. 
for  a  Specific  k  Nature.  T.I.'r.dt  j. 

But  faith  C«rff//^//f,  St.  Baf I 'mh\s  Fpiftle  to  Gregory  Nyffcn  doth  alTert  tmi.V 
the  difference  between  Subjlance  and  Hypoftafis  toconfiftin  this.  That  the  one^^^-^^ 
is  taken  fir  common  Na'ure,'  and  the  other  fr   individual,    and    fo  making  jex.Dia. 
three  Hypofiafis,  he  muft  make  three  Individuals,  and  one  lommon  or  Specifi.k^'^g:  'ie 
Nature.     1  anfwer.  That  it  is  plain  by  the  defign   of  thst  Fpi/fle,    that  by^'_|"g"^' 
three  Hypofiafcs  he  could  not  mean  three  Individual  Effences.     For  he  faith,  50.. 
Thedefign  of  his  writing  it,  was  to  clear  the  difference  between  5'7//y?<7»ce  and  ^'''^""" 
Hyp'jfiafis,     For  faith  he,  From  the  want  cfthis  fome  affert  but  one  Hypoftafs, 
as  well  as  one  Effence  ;  and  others,  be  aufe  there  are  three  Hypojiafes,  fuppofe  there 
are  three  difiinSl  offences.     For  both  went  upon  the  fame  Ground,   that  Hy- 
pojtaffs^vd  Effcnce  were  the  fame.     Therefore  faith  be,  thofe  who  held  three 
Hypojiafes,  did  make  t,c  T-iTi    C.^r7t'  h^xi'rtTiv    aD.'vifronofSubJianres.     From 
whence  it  follows,  that  St.  Baffl  did  look  upon  the  Notion  of  three  diftinft 
Subftancesas  a  millake  :  I  hy  d'J}in& Suhfiances,  as  Individuals ^re  did'ind:  ^ 
for  fo  the  firfl:  Principles  of  Phifofophy  do  own  that  Individuals  make   a 
Atcihrcic,    or  Divifio^;  of  the  Spcies  into  feveral  and  difiiinft  Individuals. 

Bnt  doth  not  St.  B'fil  go  about  to  explain  his  Notion  by  the  (omnr:n  Nature  of 
Man,  aid  the  feveral  Individuals  under  it:^    and  what  can  this  figni fie  to  his 
purpofe,  unlefs  he  allows  the  fame  in  the  Godhead  .<?     I  grant  he  doth  fo,    bat 
he  faith,    the  Subfance  is  that  which   is  common  to  the  whole  kind  ; 
the  Hypffia/s  is  that  which  properly  dif^inguifheth  one  Individual  from 
another;  which  he  calls  the  tc  rd'icxffor  the  peculiar  incommunicable  Proper- 
ty.    Wl'iich  he  dtfcribes  by  a  Concourfe  ofdiflinguiP:ing  Char  alters  in  every  In-  2upcO^.»- 
dividual.     But  how  dorh  he  apply  thefe  things  to  the  divine  Nature  ?    For '"''>;^'^* 
therein  lies  the  whole  difficulty.     Doth  he  own  fuch  a  Community  of  Nature,  ^al^-Aai, 
and  DiHindion  ofind  viduals  there  >     He  firft  confeffes  the  divine  Nature  to 
beincomprehen;;bleby  us^   but  yet  we  may  have  fome  diffinft  Notions  a* 
bout  thefethings.     As^for  inftance.  In  the  Father  we  conceive  fomething  com- 
mon to  him  and  to  fhe  Son  ;    and  that  is  the  divine  Effence  j    and  the  fame  as 

to 


458  A  Vindication  of  the  Chap.  V/. 

to  the  Holy  Ghofl.  But  there  mnfl  be  fame  proper  CharaBers  to  difUngn-.jJj 
thefe  one  fiom  another:^  or  elfe  there  vplU  be  nothing  but  co»fu(ion:  which 
is  SabeWamfm.  Now  the  ejjential  Attributes  and  divine  Operations  are 
common  to  them  5  and  therefore  thefe  cannot  diftinguifh  them  from  each 
other.  And  thofe  are  the  peculiar  Properties  oj  each  Perfon^  as  he  (hews  at 
large. 

But  may  not  each  Ferfon  have  a  diflinH  Ejjence  belonging  to  him,  as  we  fee  it  is 
among  Men  ? 
oi^'Q^y       For  this  St.  Bafd  anfwers :  (i.)  He  utterly  denies  any  poffible  Tiivijion 
\-7nvoyi<fa.i  in  the  divine  Nature. 

•ny.iiv,  »       ^nd  he  never  queftion'd,  but  the  diftinftion  of  Individuals  under  the 
tJi'^lJim  ^anie  Species  was  a  fort  of  Divi/ion,  although  there  were  no  Separation.    And 
Ti'oTTov,  p.  the  followers  ofjoh.  Philoponus  did  hold  an  indijjbluble  Union  between  the 
"^*    ■    three  individual  Eflences  in  the  divine  Nature  ^    but  they  held  a  diftindion 
of  peculiar  Ejfences,  hcfides  the  common  Nature,    which  they  called  Mef./J?9t; 
Phot. Cod.  fciV/x?  ;tj  iSnxs'-i  d^^Tnruc  and  ('(^i^?  fujiii;  ^  as  appears  by  Photim^  who  was 
=4-         very  able  to  judge.     And  it  appears  by  one  of  themfelves  in  thotius^    that 
Cod  234  fbe  Controverfie  was,  whether  an  Hypojia/is  could  be  without  an  individu- 
al Eflence  belonging  to  it  felf  ^    or  whether  the  peculiar  Properties  and  Cha- 
racers  did  make  the  Hypojlafs.     But  as  to  St,  Bajil's  Notion  we  are  to  ob- 
ferve  :    (2.)  That  he  makes  the  divine  Effence  to  be  uncapable  of  Number, 
by  reafon  of  its  perfeft  Unity.     Here  our  Unitarians  tell  us,    that  when  St. 
Difcourfe    Bafil  faith,     That  God  is  not  one  in  number,  but  in  nature,  he  means  5    as  the 
the  nomt    Nature  of  Man  is  one,  but  there  are  many  particular  Men,  as  Peter,  ]iimts  and 
n^/^'rfrf- John,  8cc.  fo  the  Nature  of  God,  or  the  common  Divinity  is  one,  but  there  are 
P  26  27  '  i^^ /'*»/>' «?^re  G(7(5?j/«»///«^er,  or  more  particular  Gods,  as  there  are  more  part i- 
Eafii!  Ep.  cular  Men.     But  that  this  is  a  grofs  raiftake  or  abufe  of  St.  Bafils  meaning,   I 
^"i^'        fhall  make  it  plain  from  himfelf.     For,  they  fay.  That  he  held,  that  as  to  this 
queji'ion.  How  many  Gods  ^  it  mujibe  anfiverd.  Three  Gods  in  number,  or  three 
perjonal  Gods,   and  one  in  Nature,  or  divine  Properties '^    whereas  he  is  fo  far 
from  giving  fuch  an  anfwer,    that  he  abfolutely  denies  that  there  can  be 
more  Gods  than  one  in  that  very  place.     He  mentions  it  as  an  Objeftion, 
that  fince  he  faid.  That  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  God,  the  Holy  Ghoji  God  ^ 
he  muji  hold  three  Gods  ;  -to  which  he  anfwers,  ^''e  oivn  but  one  God,    not  in 
Number,  but  in  Nature:    Then,    fay  they,    He  held  but  one  God  in  Na'u-e 
and  more  in  Number.     That  is  fo  far  from  his  meaning,  that  I  hardly  think 
any  that  read  the  pafTage  in  St,  Bafd,  could  fo  wiliully  pervert  his  meaning. 
For  his  intention  was  fo  far  from  afferting  more  Gods  in  Number,  that  it  was 
to  prove  fo  perfed  a  Unity  in  God,    that  he  was  not  capable  of  number, 
or  of  being  more  than  one.     For,  faith  he,  That  which  is  faid  to  be  one  in  num- 
ber, is  not  really  and  fwply  one,  but  is  made  up  of  many,  which  by  ( ompojition  be- 
come one -^  as  we  Jay,  the  World  is  one,  which  is  made  up  of  many  things.    But 
God  is  afmple  uncompounded  Being -^  and  therefore  cannot  be  faid  to  be  one  in 
number.     But  the  World  is  not  one  bji  Nature,  becaufe  it  is  made  up  of  fo  many 
things,  but  it  is  one  by  Number,  as  thofe  fever al  parts  make  but  one  World.     Is 
not  this  fair  dealing  with  fuch  a  Man  as  St.  Bafd,    to  reprefent  his  Senfe 
*'/!r''^'E    qi^iiteotherwife  than  it  is.>      As  though  he  allow'd  more  Gods  than  one  in 
vdf^rti  a  Number  ?     Number,   faith  he  again,  bclo//gs  to  ^tantity,  and  ^lantityto  Bo' 
'^>-^i  f,  ^- dies,  but  ivhat  relation  have  thefe  toGod,  but  j^  he  is  the  Maker  of  them  ?  Num- 
v^ia,(Sb    ber  belongs  to  material  and  cinumfcribed  Beings  :^  but,  faXthht.  the  mojlpcrfe^ 
rn/y.n.nn-    Unity  is  to  be  conceived  in  the  moflfimple  a>/d  incomprehenfihle  EjJence,    Where 
Toih^^l'  '^  is  obfervable,  that  he  ufes  thofe  Words  which  are  allow'd  to  exprefs  the 
f.  9  i.      moft  perfeft  and  fingular  Unity.     This  Petavius  himfelf  confeffeth,    that 
PcMv.  de  jj^gy  (,3^  never  be  undcrjiood  of  afpedfickNaturc  :    and  CurcelUus  cannot  de- 
£.13. /liio.  ny,   That  /tt/c^i?-  being  added  to  iiT  ,    doth  rejlraln  the  Senfe  more  to  a  nume- 
rical 


Chap.   VI.     Do^rine  of  the Irmity.  45^' 

rical  Vn'tty,  as  he  calls  if.  Hov<r  then  is  ic  poffible  to  underftaiid  St,  Bafil 
of  more  Gods  than  otie  in  nvmber  ?  And  in  the  very  fame  Page  he  mentions 
the  rat^TiTD?  T71,'  (fil'jc-*).',  the  Samenefs  of  the  divine  na'ure,  by  which  the 
h/uLOHaiov  is  better  underOood. 

hut  Curieli^us  will  have  no  rnore  than  a  fpecifich  Unity  underRood. Cur.n.io6. 
Before  he  faid,  that  r-zvlo-imQ.  would  have  fgnified  more,  but  now  he  finds 
it  ufed,  the  cafe  is  alter*d  :  So  that  the  Fathers  could  not  mean  any  other 
than  a  fpec'.fiih  Unity,  let  them  ufe  what  ExprefTions  they  pleas'd. 
But  thefe,  I  think,  are  plain  enough  to  any  one  that  will  not  (hut  his 
Eyes. 

In  another  place  St.  Bafil  makes  the  fame  objedtion,  and  gives  the  fame 
anfwer.  O^e  God  the  Father^  and  one  God  the  Son  ^  how  can  this  be^  and 
yet  not  two  Gods  ?  Becaufe,  faith  he,  the  Son  hath  the  veiy  fame  Ejjence  with 
the  Father.  Not  two  Effences  divided  out  of  one,  as  two  Brothers,  but  as  Fa- 
ther and  Son^  the  Son  fubfifting  as  from  the  Father,  but  in  the  fame  individual  ^^^''  ^-  ^* 
tjjence  :  to  r)  -nii  ii7ta.f.  ttzutui. 

But  CurcelUiu  hath  one  fetch  yet,  vi%.  That  St.  Bafil  denied  God  to  he  one  ^^'^•"'^^i' 
in  Number,  and  made  him  to  be  one  in  Nature,  becaufe  he  look'd  on  a  fpecifit  k 
Unity,  or  Unity  of  Nature,  as  tnore^txaB  than  numerical.  St.  Bafil  look'd  on 
the  divine  Nature  as  fuch  to  have  the  mo^  perfeB  Unity,  becaufe  of  its 
Simplicity,  and  not  in  the  leaft  fpeaking  of  it  as  a  fpecifick  Unity  ^  but  n.  105. 
CurceU<eus  himfelf  calls  this  anUnity  by  a  mere  Fiifion  of  the  Mind -^  and  can 
he  imagine  this  to  have  been  more  accurate  than  a  real  Unity  ?  Thefe  are 
hard  fhifts  in  3  defperate  caufe. 

After  all,  omUnitarians  tell  us.  That  St.  Bafil  doth  againfi  Eunomius  al-  T.u.p^c, 
low  a  dijiin&ion  in  Number  with  refpeB  to  the  Deity.     But  how  >    As  to  the 
Effence  .<?    By  no  means.     For  he  aflerts  the  perfect  Unity  thereof  in   the 
fame  place,  even  the  Unity  of  the  Subfiance.     But  as  to  the  chara^eriflical 
Properties  of  the  Perfons,  he  allows  of  Number,  and  no   farther.     But  fay 
they.  This  is  to  make  one  God  as  to  Effential  Properties,  and  three  as  to  Per' 
fonal.     How  can  that  be,  when  he  faith  fo  often,  there  can  be  but  one  God,  ' 
becaufe  there  can  be  but  one  divine  Eflence  ^  and  therefore  thofe  Proper- 
ties can  only  make  diftind  Hypofiafes,  but  not  difiintl  Effences.     And  is  this 
indeed  the  great  i^'eoet  which  this  hold  Man,  as  they  call  him,  hath  difco- 
ver'd  ?   I  think  thofe  are  much  more  bold,  (I  will  not  fay  impudent)  who 
upon  fuch  flight  grounds  charge  him  with  aflerting  more  Gods  than  one  in 
number.     But  Gregory  Nyffen,  faith  Curctllcem,  fpeaks  more  plainly  in  hisCur.mo^, 
Epiflle  to  Ablabius  ;    for  faith  he.  To  avo-'d  the  difficulty  of  making   three  ^'„^^yom' 
Gods  as  three  hid  viduals  among  Men  are  three  Men  ^   he  anfwers,  that  truly  lu.  p  17. 
they  are  not  three  Men,  becaufe  they  have  but  one  common  Effence,  which  is  ex- 
a&ly   one,  and  indivifible  in  it  felf  however  it  be  difperfed  in  L/div/duals  : 
the  fame,  he  faith,  is  to  be  underjlood  of  God.     And  this  Petavius  had  char- E."^^- ^"^ 
ged  him  with  before,  as  appears  by  C«rfc//ve//!f  his  Appendix.  c.p.n.i,?.* 

This   feems    the  hardeft  p.iffage   in   Antiquity   for  this   purpofe  ;    to 
which  1  hope  to  give  a  fatisfaftory  Anfwer  from  Gregory  Nyfen  himfelf. 

1.  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  he  afferts  the  Unity  of  Effence  to  be  mdivifible 
in  it  felf,  and  to  be  the  true  ground  of  the  Denomination  of  Individuals ; 
as  Peter  hath  the  Name  of  a  Man,  not  from  his  individual  properties  where- 
by heis  dif^ingniflied  from  James  and  John  ^    but  from  that  one  ind  vi/ible      _^   , 
Effence  which  is  common  to  them  all,  but  yet  receives  no  Addition  or  Dimi-  '^]^l^^^* 
notion  in  any  of  them.  av  Myot 

2.  He  grants  a  D'.vifion  of  H pojlafes  among  Men;  notwithflanding  t^"S^'»^« 
Indivifb  l:fy  «f  one  common  Effence:  For  faith  he,  among  Men,  although  the ^'.^^j^"^,. 
Effence  remain  one  and  the  fame  in  all,  without  any  Divifion,  yet  the  fe-  hmit!^ 
veral  Hypofiafes  are  divded  from  each  other,  according  to  the  individual  pro-  ^*f^f{, 

perties -^^ijo.,. 


4^0  A  Vindication  of  the  Chap.   VI. 

perties  heiongmg  to  them.     So  that  here  is  a  double  confideration  of  the  Ef- 
fence :  as  in  it  felf,  fo  it  is  one,  and  indivifible  5  as  it  fiibfifts  in  Individu- 
als, and  fo  it  is  a(aually  divided  according  to  the  Subjefts.     For  although 
the  EfTence  of  a  Man  be  the  fame  in  it  felf  in  Peter,  James  and  John  5  yet 
taking  it  as  in  the  Individuals,  fo  the  particular  EfTence  in  each  of  them 
c'lUft''    "  divided  from  the  reft.     And  fo  Philoponus  took  Hypoftafis  for  an  Ejfence 
m.k  18.  individuated  hy  peculiar  Properties ;  and  therefore  aflerted,    that  where-ever 
'•47.       there  was  an  Hypoftafis,  there  muft  be  a  diftinfl:  EfTence  5  and  from  hence 
he  held  the  three  Perfons  to  have  three  diftinft  Eflences. 

3.  We  are  now  to  confider  how  far  Gregory  Nyjfen  carried  this,  whether 
he  thought  it  held  equally  as  to  the  divine  Hypofiafis  ^  and  that  he  did  not, 
appears  to  me  from  thefe  arguments  : 

1.  He  utterly  denies  a>7y  kind  ofDivifion  in  the  divine  Nature  5  for  in  the 
conclufion  of  that  Difcourfe,  he  faith,  it  is  not  only  <iivx^.\\xK-T{§. ,  (a  word 

f/'^^isl"  often  ufedby  the  Greek  Fathers  on  thisoccafion,  from  whence  AthnKapus 
cifar.    'againft  Macedonius  inferr'd  an  Identity,  and  defarius  joins  to  tuutIv  -ttj;  «Vla< 
Qiiaft.  3.  ^  ^^  aVae^.AAaxTov  'zHi  ^i'jr-/\r@.  5  and  fo  St.  Ba/il  ufes  it)  but  he  adds  ano- 
^* '^"       ther  Word,  whichis  i^^iy-i^i"'©--,  Indivi,  ble.    Tes,  as  all  EJfcnces  are  mdivi- 
Jible  in  themfehes,  but  they  may  he  divided  in  their  Snhje&s,  as  Gregory  Nyffen 
allows  it  to  be  in  Men,  I  grant  it,  but  then  he  owns  a  Divifion  of  fome  kind, 
which  he  here  abfolutely  denies  as  to  the  divine  Nature  ;    for  his  words 
are    that  it  is  3t^'ia(j>s7J5^  cii*  Traa/i?  a^io-W  in  any  confideration  whatfoever. 
Then  he  mujl  dejiroy  the  Hypofiafes.    Not  fo  neither,  for  he  allows  that  there 
is  a'5~ix?oe%  as  to  the  Hypojiafes  however.     For  he  propofcs  the  Objeftion 
himfelf.  That  by  allovping  no  difference  in  the  divine  Nature^  the  Hypojiafes 
would  be  confounded.     To  which  he  anfwers,  That  he  did  not  deny  their  dif- 
ference, which  was  founded  in  the  relation  they  had  to  one 
"Ori  tJ  «V^fAx*..To>/  t?«     another,  which  he  there  explains  1  and  that  therein  only 
iDm  Ki  diliction  j'ia.(iioe^v  B»  «?-     conjijis  the  difference  of  the  i^erjons.     Which  is  a  very  con- 
vii>.t^A,  it  a  (j-ovv  //axfii-e&t*     fidetable  teftimony,  to  (hew  that  both  Petaviuf  and  Cur' 
rilr^e^y  7.eTes«x..T*A«c^^.-     ^^^^^^  miAook  Gregory  Nyffen  s  meaning.     But  there  are 

other  arguments  to  prove  it. 

2.  He  aflerts  fuch  a  difference  between  the  divine  and  human  Perfons,  as  is 
unanfwerable,  viz  the  Unity  of  Operation.  For,  faith  he,  among  Men,  if 
feveral  go  about  thefatfte  Work,  yet  every  particular  Perfon  works  by  himfelf,  and 
therefore  they  may  well  be  called  many,  becaufe  every  one  is  circumfcribed  5  hut 
in  the  divine  Perfons  he  proves  that  it  is  quite  otherwife,  for  they  all  concur  in 
the  A&ion  towards  us,2iS  he  there  fhews  at  large.  Petavius  was  aware  of  this, 
and  therefore  he  faith,  he  quitted  it  and  returned  to  the  other  ^  whereas  he 
only  faith.  If  his  Adverfaries  be  difpleafed  with  it,  he  thinks  the  other  fufficient. 
Which  in  fhort  is,  that  EfTence  in  it  felf  is  one  and  indivifible,  but  among 
Men  it  is  divided  according  to  the  Subjefts;  that  the  divine  Nature  is  capa- 
ble of  no  Divifion  at  all,  and  therefore  the  difference  of  Hypojiafes  muft  be 
from  the  different  Relations  and  manner  of  Subfiflenee. 

3.  He  exprefTes  his  meaning  fully  in  another  place.  For  in  his  Catechetical 
Greg.^yt- Oration,  he  faith,  he  looks  on  /he  Djifrine  of  theTrinity  as  a  profound  Myjie- 
fen.  Tom,  ^^^  (which  three  individual  Perfons  in  one  fpecifick  Nature  is  far  from.)     But 

wherein  lies  it  ?  Chiefly  in  this,  That  there  fiould  be  Number  and  no  Num- 
ber, different  View  and  yet  but  one,  a  difintlion  of  Hypojiafes,  and  yet  no  Di^ 
vifion  in  the  Subjects.  For  fo  his  words  are,  it,  i  /xifxi\^it<^i  to  -visTrKfeiyweror, 
which  is  contrary  to  what  he  faid  of  human  Hypojiafes.  Now  what  is  the 
Snbje&  in  this  cafe  >  According  to  CurceUaeus  his  Notion,  it  muft  be  an  In- 
dividual. But  fince  he  aflerts  there  can  be  no  Divifion  in  the  SubjeBs,  then 
he  mutl  overthrow  any  fuch /»(5^/W«d/j- as  are  among  Men.  Thefearethe- 
chiefTeflimonies  out  of  the  Gree^  Fathers,  whofe  authority  C«rfe//«ett;* and 

others 


\ 


Chap.  VI.  Do^nne  of  the  Trinity.  ^6t 

others  rely  mofl:  upon  as  to  this  matter,  which  I  have  therefore  more  par- 
ticularly examin'd.       .  '    ' 

But  St.  Jcrom,  faith  CurcelUus,  in  his  Epi'ile  to  Damafus,  thought  three  Cmc.ti. 48, 
Hypofidfes  implied  three  difiinSi  Subfiances  5  and  therefore  when  the  Campenfes 
would  have  him  own  them,  he  refkfed  it,  and  asked  his  Advice.  Then  it  is 
plain  St.  Jerom  would  not  own  1  hree  dijiin^  Suhflances,  and  fo  could  not  be 
of  CurcelUus  his  mind.  But  faith  he,  St.  Jerom  meant  by  three  Subftances^^'^'^'^' 
three  Gods  different  in  kind,  as  the  Arians  did.  But  how  doth  that  appear  > 
Doth  he  not  fay  the  Arian  Bifloop  and  the  Campenfes  put  him  upon  it  .<?  But 
who  was  this  Arian  Bifhop,  and  thefe  Campenfes .«"  No  other  than  the  Mele-^ 
tian  Party '^  for  Meletms  was  brought  in  by  the  Arians,  but  he  joined  againft 
them  with  St.  Ba/il  and  others,  who  aflerted  three  Hypo/iafes -^  and  the  Cam- 
penfes were  his  People  who  met  without  the  Gates,  as  the  Hiftorians  tell 
us.  But  it  is  evident  by  St.  Jerom,  that  the  Latin  Church  underftood  Hy- 
pojia/is  to  be  the  fame  then  with  Subjiance  ^  and  the  reafon  why  they  would 
not  allow  three  Hypoflafes,  was,  becaufe  they  would  not  aflert  three  Sub  ft  an- 
ces.  So  that  CurcelUus  his  Hypothe/is  hath  very  little  colour  for  it  among 
the  Latin  Fathers -J  dtice  St.  Jerom  there  faith,  it  would  be  Sacrilege  to  hold 
t^ree  Subfiances  5  and  he  freely  beftows  an  Anathema  upon  any  one  that  af- 
ferted  more  than  one. 

But  Hilary,  Caith  CurcelUuf,  ovens  a  fpecifick  Unity  5    for  in  his  Book  ^/eCur.n.S?. 
Sy  todis,  he  (hews.  That  by  one  Subfiance  they  did  not  mean  one  individual 
Subfiance,  but  Juch  as  was  in  Adam  and  Seth,  that  k  of  the  fame  kind.     No 
Man  affcrts  the  Unity  and  Indifcrimination  of  the  divine  Subftance  more 
fully  and  frequently  than  he  doth,  and  that  without  any  Difference  or  Va- 
riation as  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.     And  although  againft  the  Arians  he 
may  ufe  that  for  an  Illuftration  of  Adam  and  Seth  ^  yet  when  he  comes  to 
explain  himfelf,  he  declares  it  muft  be  underftood  in  a  way  agreeable  to  the 
divine  Nature.     And  he  denies  any  Divifion  of  the  Subfiance  between  Father  Hi.'ar.  de 
and  Son,  but  he  aflerts  one  and  the  fame  Subftance  to  be  in  both  5  and  al-^^_^°^'  "' 
though   the  Perfon  of  the  Son  remains  diftinif  from  the  Perfon    of  the   -f^- Hilar,  de 
thcr,  yet   he  fub/ifis    in  that    Subftance  of  which  he  was  begotten,  and  »(?-Trinic. /. 
thing  is  taken  off  from  the  Subftance  of  the  Father,  by  his  being  begotten  of^  " 
it. 

But  doth  he  not  fay.  That  he  hath  a  Legitimate  and  proper  Subftance  of  hk  Hilar,  de 
own  begotten  Nature  from  God  the  Father  ^  And  what  is  this  but  to  own  two  j|"°  • "' 
diftinB  Subfiances  ? 

How  can  the  Subftance  be  diftini^,  if  it  be  the  very  fame,  and  the  Son 
fub'ill  in  that  Subftance  of  which  he  was  begotten  .<?  And  that  Hilary  (befides  a 
multitude  of  paffages  to  the  fame  purpofe  in  him)  cannot  be  underftood 
of  two  diftinft  Subftances  will  appear  by  this  Evidence. 

The  Arians  in  their  Confeffion  of  Faith  before  the  Council  of  Nice  fet  Hilar,  de 
down  among  the  feveral  Herefies  which  they  condemned,  that  of  Hieracas,  ^^^^"'^' 
who  faid  the  Father  and  Son  were  like  two  Lamps  fhintng  out  of  one  common 
Veffd  of  Oil.  Hilary  was  fenfible  that  under  this  that  Expreftion  was  ftruck 
at  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  which  the  Church  owned.  His  Anfwer  is, 
Luminis  Na'ur£  Unitas  ejt,  non  ex  connexione porreHio,  i.  e.  they  are  not 
two  divided  Lights  from  one  common  Stock,  but  the  fame  Light  remain- 
ing after  it  was  kindled  that  it  was  before ;  as  appears  by        ^^^^^^  ^^  ,„^i„^^  ^^^  ^^^ 

hjS   Words,     L'ght  of  L'ght,     faith    he,    implies.    That   it      dccrimenco     fuo    naturam    fuam 

gives  to   ano-her  that  which  it  continues   to    have  it     P'*'^"j7./'['^'.^J^°^fj^"'^*" 
felf.     And  Petav  us  faith,  that  the  Opinion  of  Hteracas       ^"'  ^'^  '^^^^'"'5'  '5"° 
was,  Ihat  the  fubjtance  of  the  Father  and  Son  differ  d  numerically  as  one  Lamp  Petav.  dc 
ffom  another.     And  Hilary  calls  it  an  Error  of  human  Underftanding,  which  '^'''"'^-  '■ 
would  judge  of  God,  by  what  they  find  in  one  another.  p'^2.  "" 

N  n  n  ,  Doth  ' 


4-^2  A  Vindication  of  the        C  hap.   Vj, 

Curceii.        Doth  not  St.  Ambrofe  fay,  as  CurcellceuA  quotes  him,   That  the  Father  and 

Son  are  not  tvpo  Gods,  becaufe  all  Men  are  [aid  to  beofoneSubftance^ 

Ambrof.        '^utSt.  Atftbrofe  is  diretUy  againft  htm.     For  he  faith,    The  Arhm  obje&ed^ 

f^r^\    ^/6rf^///Ae>»z^<5^e  ^^e5i>«^>-«e  God,    and  Confuhflantial  with  the  father,     they 

ed.  Nov.   fftHJl  make  two  Gods  5  as  there  are  two  Men,    or  two  Sheep  of  the  fame  Ejffence^ 

but  a  Man  and  a  Sheep  are  not  f aid  to  be  Men,  or  two  Sheep.     Which  they  fa'd 

to  excufe  themfelves,  becaufe  they  made  the  Son  of  a  different  kind  and  fubftance 

from  the  Father.     And  what  Anfwer  doth  St.  Ambrofe  give  to  this? 

1.  He  faith.  Plurality  according  to  the  Scriptures  rather  falls  on  thofe  of  dif- 
ferent kinds  5  and  therefore  when  they  make  them  of  feveral  kinds,  they 
muft  make  feveral  Gods. 

2.  That  we  who  hold  but  One  Subjlance,  cannot  make  more  Gods  than 
One. 

3.  To  his  inftance  of  Men,  he  anfwers,  That  although  they  are  of  the  fame 
Nature  by  Birth,  yet  they  diffir  in  Age,  and  Thought,  and  Work,  and  Place  from 
one  another  ;  and  where  there  k  fuch  Diverftty,  there  cannot  be  Unity  5  but  in 
God  there  is  no  difference  of  Nature^  Will,  or  Operation  i^  and  therefore  there  can 
be  but  one  God. 

Cur.  n.p7.     The  Jaft  I  (hall  mention  is  St.  Augujline,  whom  Currellauj  produces  to  as  lit-i 

tie  purpofe  5  for  although  he  doth  mention  the  fame  inftance  of  feveral  Men 

being  of  the  fame  kind  ;   yet  he  fpeaks  fo  exprefly  againft  a  Specifi^k  Unity  m 

Aug.de     God;  that  he  faith.  The  Confequence  mufl  be,  that  the  three  Ferfons  mufi  be 

Tiinit.  /.  fy^^  Gods  5    as  three  humane  Perfons  are  three  Men.     And  in  another  place, 

c.Maxim.  That  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft,  are  One  in  the  fame  individual  Nature. 

I-  '•        And  what  faith  CurceU<£t(s  to  thefe  places,  for  he  was  aware  of  them.     To 

the  latter  he  fiith.  That  by  Individual,  he  means  Specifick.     This  is  an  extra- 

Cur.fl.n4.  ordinary  Anfwer  indeed.     But  what  Reafon  doth  he  give  for  it?    Becaufe 

they  are  not  divided  in  Place  or  Time^   but  they  may  have  their  proper  Effences 

however. 

But  where  doth  St.  Augupn  give  any  fuch  Account  of  it  ?     He  often 

Auguft  de  fpeaks  upon  this  Subjeft  ^  but  always  gives  another  Reafon,  viz.  becaufe 

Trinic  /.4.  (j^gy  g^g  ]^^^  ^^g  ^^^  ff^^  j-^f^^g  Subjiance.      The  Three  Perfons  are  but  One 

c.  ^,5 's.'  God,  becaufe  they  are  ofOne  Subjiance  ;  and  they  have  a  perfect  Unity,  becaufe 

I.  6.  C.J.  there  k  no  Diverf/ty  of  Nature,  or  of  Will.     But  it  may  be  faid.    That  here  he 

chrfft.Ty^^'^^'^  c/  a  Diverfity    of  Nature.     In  the  next  Words  he  explains  himfelf, 

16.  that  the  Three  Perfons  are   One  God,    propter  ineffabilem  conjun&ionetu 

f'^^^To-^"*^*^  '■>   ^"^  ^^^  Union  of  three  Perfons  in  one  Specifick  Nature,    is  no 

■*'  ^°'  ineffable  Conjuntlion,  it  being  one  of  the  commoneft  things  in  the  World  5 

and  in  the   fame  Chapter,   propter  Individuam  Deitatem  unus  Deus  eji  5 

C^  propter  uniufcujufque  Proprietatem  tres  Perfon£  funt.     Here  we  find  one 

Individual  Nature;   and  no  difference  but  in  the  peculiar  Properties  of 

the  Perfons. 

In  the  other  place  he  is  fo  exprefs  againft  afpecifick  Unity,   that  CurcelU' 
Cur.n.114.  us  his  beft  Anfwer  is.  That  in  that  Chapter  he  is  too  intricate  and  obfcure,  i.  e. 
He  durft  not  to  fpeak  his  Mind. 

Thus  much  I  thought  fit  to  fay  in  anfwer  to  thofe  undeniable  Proofs  of 
CurceUteus,  which  our  Unitarians  boaft  fo  much  of,  and  whether  they  be  fa 
ornot,  let  the  Reader  examine  and  judge. 


CHAP. 


i 


Chap.  Vll.  Doilriiie  of  the  Trinity.  4^5 

C  H  A  P.  VII. 

The  Athanafian  Creed  clear  J  from  ContraJi^ions. 

III.  "j  Nowcometofhelafl:  thing  Ipropofed,  viz.  to(hew,Thatit  isnocfl/i- 
I    tradi&ion  toaff'ert  three  Ferfons  in  the  Trinity  and  but  one  God  5  and  for 
that  purpofe,  I  (hall  examine  the  Charge  of  Contradict ians  on  the  Athanafan  Notesmk' 
Creed.  The  fum  of  the  firli  Articles,  fay  they,  is  this,  ThhonetmeGodis  threef^^'^crTd 
dijiinS  PerfoHs,  and  three  dijiinfl  Perfons,  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi  are  the  one  p.  1  u 
trne  God.  Which  is  plainly,  as  if  a  Man  fl.0Hldfay,  Peter,  J?mes  and  John,  being 
three  Perfonr  are  one  Man -^    and  one  Man  is  thefe  three  dijiin^  Perfons,  Peter, 
James  and  John.     Is  it  not  now  a  ridimlous  Attempt  as  well  as  a  barbarous 
Ind.gnity,  to  go  about  thus  to  make  Ajfes  of  all  Mankind,  under  pretence  of  teach- 
ing them  a  Creed.     This  is  very  freely  fpoken,  with  refped,    not  merely  to 
our  Church,  but  the  Chriftian  World,    which  owns  this  Creed  to  be  a  juji 
and  true  Explication  oi  thQ  Doftrine  of  the  Trinity.     But  there  are  fome 
Creatures  as  remarkable  for  their  untoward  kicking,   as  for  their  Stupidity. 
And  is  not  this  great  skill  in  thefe  Matters,  to  make  fuch  a  Parallel  between 
three  Perfons  in  the  Godhead  and  Peter,     James  and  John  ?     Do  they  think 
there  is  no  difference  between  an  infinitely  perfect  Being,  and  fuch  finite  li- 
mited Creatures  as  Individuals  among  Men  are  >     Do  they  fuppofe  the  di- 
vine Nature  capable  of  fuch  Div'ifion  and  Separation  by  Individuals,   as  hu- 
mane Nature  is  ?     No,    they  may  fay,   hut  ye  who  hold  three  Perfons  mufl 
think  fo :    For  what  reafon  >     We  do  affert  three  Perfons,  but  it  is  on  the 
account  of  divine  Revelation,  and  in  fuch  a  manner,    as  the  divine  Nature 
is  capable  of  it.     For  it  is  a  good  rule  of  Boethius,    Talia  funt  pradicata, 
qualia  fubje&a  permiferint.     We  muft  not  fay  that  there  are  Perfons  in  the 
Trinity,  but  in  fuch  a  manner  as  is  agreeable  to  the  divine  Nature  ^    and  if 
that  be  not  cz\)2t\i\e  oi Division  2^11^  Separation,  then  the  Perfons  muft  be  in 
the  fame  undivided  Elfence.    The  next  Article  is.  Neither  confounding  the 
Perfons,  nor  dividing  the  Subftance  ;  But  how  can  we,  fay  they,  not  confound 
the  Perfons  that  have,    as  ye  fa),    but  one  numerical  Subjiance  ?     And  how  can 
TPe  hut  divide  the  Subjiance,  which  we  find  in  three  di^inU  divided  Perfons  ^  I 
think  the  terms  numerical  Subjiance  not  very  proper  in  this  cafe  5    and  I  had 
rather  ufe  the  Language  of  the  Fathers,    than  of  the  Schools  ;    and  fome  of 
the  moft  judicious  and  learned  Fathers  would  not  allow  the  terms  of  one  nu- 
merical Subjiance  to  be  applied  to  the  divine  Effence.     For  their  Notion  was, 
That  Number  was  only  proper  for  compound  I3eings,  but  God  being  a  pure 
andfimple  Being,  was  one  by  Nature  and  not  by  Number,   as  St.  Ba/il  fpeaks  Bafii.  tp. 
(  as  is  before  obferved  )   becaufe  he  is  not  compounded,    nor  hath  any  be-^"*'* 
fides  himfelf  tobe  reckon'd  with  him.     But  becaufe  there  are  different  Hypo^ 
fidfes,  therefore  theyallow'd  the  ufe  of  A'///w/>er  about  them,  and  fo  we  may 
fay  the  Hypoftafesor  Perfons  are  numerically  different  5    but  we  cannot  fay 
that  the  Efience  is  one  Numerically.     But  why  muft  they  confound  the  Perfons, 
if  there  be  but  one  E fence  .<?     The  relative  Properties  cannot  be  confounded  ^ 
for  the  Father  cannot  be  the  Son,  nor  the  Son  the  Father  5  and  on  thefe  the 
difference  of  Perfons  is  founded.     For,    there  can  be  no  difference,    as  to 
effential  Properties,    and  therefore  all  the  difference,  or  rather  diftinftion 
mu{\  be  from  thofe  that  are  Relative.     A  Perfon  of  it  felf  imports  no  Rela- 
tion, but  the  Perfon  of  the  Father  or  of  the  Son  muft  ^    and  thefe  Relations 
cannot  be  confounded  with  one  another.    And  if  the  Father  cannot  be  the 
Son,  nor  the  Son  the  Father,  then  they  muft  bediftinci:  from  each  other.  But 

N  nn  2  how? 


^6^  A  Vindication  of  the        Chap.  VII. 

how  >  By  dividing  the  Subjiaftre  .<?  That  is  impoflible  in  a  Subftance  that 
is  indivifible.  It  may  be  faid,  Tt>at  tl^e  Ejfence  of  created  Beings  k  iffdivtj/l?le, 
and  yet  there  are  divided  ferfons.  I  grant  it,  but  then  a  created  Effence  is 
capable  of  different  accidents  and  qualities  to  divide  one  Perfon  from  ano- 
ther, which  cannot  be  fuppofed  in  the  divine  Nature  ;  and  withal  the  fame 
power  which  gives  a  Being  to  a  created  EfTence,  gives  it  a  feparate  and 
divided  Exigence  from  all  others.  As  when  Peter^  James,  and  John  re- 
ceived their  feveral  diftinft  Perfonalities  from  God  ;  at  the  fame  time  ties, 
gave  them  their  feparate  Beings  from  each  other,  although  the  fame  EfTence 
be  in  them  all. 

But  how  can  we  hut  divide  the  Subfiame  which  we  fee  in  three  difiin^  divided 
FerfoHs  ?  The  queftion  is,  Whether  the  diftinft  Properties  of  the  Perfons 
do  imply  a  Divifion  of  the  Subftance?  We  deny  that  the  Perfons  are  divi- 
ded as  to  the  Subjiance,  becaufe  that  is  impoffible  to  be  divided  ;  but  we 
fay,  they  are  and  muft  be  diftinguiftied  as  to  thofe  incommunicable  Proper- 
ties which  make  the  Perfons  diftindl:.  The  ejfential  Properties  are  uncapable 
of  being  divided,  and  the  Relations  cannot  be  confounded  5  fo  that  there 
mull:  be  one  undivided  Subjiance  and  yet  three  difiinS  Perfons. 

But  ever)!  Peifon  muft  have  his  own  proper  Subjiance  5  and  fo  the  Subjiance 
mufi  be  divided  if  there  he  three  Perfons,  That  every  Perfon  muft  have  a 
Subftance  to  fupport  his  Subfiftence  is  not  denied,  but  the  queftion  is. 
Whether  that  Subftance  muft  be  divided  or  not.  We  fav,  where  the  Sub- 
ftance will  bear  it  as  in  created  Beings  a  Perfon  hath  a  fepnrate  Subftance, 
i.e.  the  f-ime Nature  diverfifiedby  Accidents,  Qualities  and  a  feparate  Ex- 
iftence,  but  where  thefe  things  cannot  be,  there  the  fame  Effence  muft  re- 
main undivided,  but  with  fuch  relative  Properties  as  cannot  be  confounded. 
But  may  not  the  fame  undivided  Subjiance  be  communicated  to  three  divided  Per- 
fons I,  fo  as  that  each  Perfon  may  have  his  own  proper  Subftance,  and  yet  the  di- 
vine Effence  be  in  it  felf  undivided  .<?  This  is  not  the  cafe  before  us.  For  the 
queftion  upon  the  Creed  is,  Whether  the  Subftance  can  be  divided  >  And 
here  itisallow'd  to  remain  undivided.  Tes,  in  it  felf,  but  it  may  be  divided  in 
the  Perfons.  The  Subftance,  we  fay,  is  uncapable  of  being  divided  any 
way  j  and  to  fay,  that  a  Subftance  wholly  undivided  in  it  felf,  is  yet  divi- 
ded into  as  many  proper  and  peculiar  Subftances,  as  there  are  Perfons,  doth 
not  at  all  help  our  llnderftanding  in  this  matter  ^  but  if  no  more  be  meant, 
as  is  exprelly  declared,  than  That  the  fame  one  divine  Nature  is  wholly  and  en- 
tirely communicated  by  the  eternal  Father  to  the  eternal  Son,  and  by  Father  and 
Son  to  the  eternal  Spirit,  without  any  divfon  or  feparation  ^  it  is  the  fame 
which  all  Trinitarians  afTert.  And  it  is  a  great  pity,  that  any  new  Phrafes 
^  or  Ways  of  Expreflion  (hould  caufe  unreafbnable  Heats  among  thofe  who 
are  really  of  the  fame  Mind.  For  thofe  who  oppofe  the  Expreffionsof /^/ee 
<^/yi?i»<5?5'«^y?/«»«j  as  new  and  dangerous  ;  yet  grant,  '  716^^  it  is  one  peculiar 
Prerogative  of  the  divine  Nature  and  Subjiance,  founded  in  its  infinite,  and 
therefore  tranfendent  Perfe&ion,  whereby  tt  is  capable  of  refiding  in  more  Per- 
fons than  one  ;  and  is  accordingly  communicated  from  the  Father  to  the  Son  and 
Holy  Ghoji  ^  but  this  is  d>ne  without  any  Divifion  or  Mutiplication.  Now  if 
both  Parties  mean  what  they  fay,  where  lies  the  difference  >  It  is  fuflBcient 
for  my  purpofe  tliat  they  are  agreed,  that  there  can  be  no  Divifton  as  to  the 
divine  Effencehy  the  diftinftion  of  Perfons.  And  fo  this  paffage  of  the  Atha- 
trafian  Creed  holds  good.  Neither  confounding  the  Perfons  nor  dividing  the 
Subjiance. 

The  next  Article,  as  it  is  fet  down  in  the  Notes  on  Athanafius  his  Creed, 
isa  contradiftion  to  this.  For  there  it  runs,  "  There  is  one  Subftance  of 
*'  the  Father,  another  of  the  Son  another  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  They  might 
well  charge  it  with  Contradi3'.ons  at  this  rate.     But  that  is  a  plain  miftake  tor 

Ferfon  ; 


r 


Chap.  VII.      Do^rine  of  ^^^  Trinity.  4(^5 

yerfott  5  for  there  is  no  other  variety  in  the  Copies  but  this,  that  Bayfiiis 
bis  Greek  Copy  hath  ^V^V^cr^,  2inA  thditoi  Conflantinople  ^^^^^(T^mov^  but  all 
the  Latin  Copies  Perfona.  But  what  confequence  do  they  draw  from  hence? 
Jherti  fay  they,  The  Son  is  not  the  Father,  nor  the  Father  the  Son,  nor  the  Ho- 
ly Ghoji  either  of  t hew.  If  they  had  put  in  Ferfon  as  they  ought  to  have  done, 
it  is  what  we  do  own.  And  what  follows  ?  If  the  Father  be  not  the  Son,  and 
yet  is  the  one  true  God,  then  the  Son  is  not  the  one  true  God,  becaufe  he  is  not 
the  Father.  The  one  true  God  may  be  taken  two  ways  :  i.  The  one  true 
God,  as  having  the  true  divine  Nature  in  him,  and  fo  the  Father  is  the  one 
true  God  5  but  not  exdufive  of  the  Son,  if  he  have  the  fame  divine  Nature. 
3.  The  one  true  God,  as  having  the  divine  Nature  fo  vnhoUj  in  himfelf,  as  to 
make  it  incommunicable  to  the  Son  5  y3  we  do  not  fay,  that  the  Father  is 
the  one  true  God,  becaufe  this  muft  exclude  the  Son  from  being  God  5  which 
the  Scripture  allures  us  that  he  is  5  and  therefore  though  the  Son  be  not  the 
Father,  nor  the  Father  the  Son,  yet  the  Son  may  be  the  one  true  God  as  well 
as  the  Father,  becaufe  they  both  partake  of  x\\t  fame  divine  Nature,  fothat 
there  is  nocontradiflion  in  this.  That  there  is  hut  one  true  God,  and  one  of  the 
Perfons  is  not  the  other.  For  that  fuppofes  it  impoflible,  that  there  (hould 
be  three  Perfons  in  the  fame  Nature  ;  but  if  thediftin^ion  oi  Nature  and 
Ferfons  be  allow'd,  as  it  muft  be  by  all  that  underftand  any  thing  of  thefe 
matters,  then  it  muft  be  granted,  that  although  one  Perfon  cannot  be  ano- 
ther, yet  they  may  have  the  fame  common  Eflence.  As  for  inftance,  let  us 
take  their  own,  Tefer,  James  and  John.  What  pleafant  arguing  would  this 
be,  Peter  is  not  James  nor  John,  nor  James  nor  John  are  Peter,  but  Peter 
hath  the  true  Eflence  of  a  Man  in  him  :^  and  the  true  Eflence  is  but  one  and 
indivifible^  and  therefore  ^^wej  and  y^A^  cannot  be  true  Men,  becaufe  Peter 
hath  the  one  and  indivifible  Effem  eof?L  Man  in  him  ?  But  they  will  fay.  We 
cannot  fay  that  Peter  is  the  One  true  Man,  as  we  fay.  That  the  Father  is  the 
One  true  God.  Yes,  we  fay  the  fame  in  other  Words,  for  he  can  be  faid  to  be 
the  One  true  God  in  no  other  Refpeft,  but  as  he  hath  the  One  true  divine  Ef- 
fence.  All  the  difference  lies,  that  a  finite  Nature  is  capable  of  Divijion^ 
but  an  infinite  is  not. 

It  follows,  "  The  Godhead  of,  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
"  Holy  Ghoftisallone,  the  Glory  Equal,  the  Ma  jefty  Co- eternal. 

To  this  they  fay,  That  this  Article  doth  impugn  and  defiroy  itfelf  How  fo  .<? 
For,  if  the  Glory  and  Majefly  be  the  fame  in  Number,  then  it  can  be  neither  E' 
qual,  nor  Co-eternal.  Not  Equal  for  it  is  the  fame,  which  Equals  never  are^  nor 
Ceetertral  for  that  intimates  that  they  are  diflin^.  For  nothing  is  Co  eternal^ 
nor  Cofen/porary  with  it  felf. 

'  There  is  no  appearance  of  DifEculty  or  Contradiftion  in  this,  if  the  Dl- 
ftinv9ion  of  Perfons  is  allowed;  for  the  three  Perfons  may  be  well  faid  to  be 
Co-equal  and  Co  eternal  ;  and  if  we  honour  the  Son,  as  we  honour  the  Fat  her  ^ 
we  muft  give  equal  Glory  to  him. 

But  one  great  Point  of  0»/r4<^/^/<?»  remains,  viz.  "  So  that  the  Father 
*'  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghoft  is  God,  and  yet  there  are 
",not  three  Gods,  but  one  God. 

Firft,  they  fay,  Th/s  Is  as  if  a  Man  (hould  fay,  the  Father  is  a  Perfon,  the 
Son  a  I'erfn,  and  the  Holy  Ghojia  Perfon,  yet  there  are  not  three  Perfons,  but 
one  Ferfon.  How  is  this  pofGble,  if  a  Perfon  doth  fuppofe  fome  peculiar 
Property,  which  muft  diftinguifh  him  from  all  others  >  And  how  can  three 
Perfons  be  one  Perfon,  unlefs  three  incommunicable  Properties  may  become 
one  communicated  Froperty  to  three  Perfons  ?  But  they  are  aware  of  a  Di- 
ftinftion  in  this  Cafe,  viz,.  That  the  term  God  isu^cd  Perfon  ally,  when  it  is 
faid.  Cod  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghoji  ;  but  when  it  is 
faid,  There  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one  Gody   the  term  God  is  ufed  Ejfentially^ 

and 


A  VindicHion  of  the  Ch  a  p.  VII. 


Notes  on    and  therefore  comprehends  the  whole  three  Perfons,  (o  that  there  is  neither 
us'l'crS  a  Grammatical,  nor  Arithmet:cd  Cot2trad'0w>7.     And  what  fay  our  Vnitar'i- 
p.  13.     '  ans  to  this  ?  Truly  no  lefs,  Than  that  the  Remedy  is  worfe  {if  pojftble)  than 
the  Difeafe.     Nay  then  we  are  in  a  very  ill  Cafe.     But  how  I  pray  doth 
this  appear  ?      l.  Say  they.  Three  perfonal  Gods  and  one  effential  God  make 
four  Gods,  if  the  effential  God  be  not  the  fame  with  the   perfonal  Gods -^   and 
though  he  is  the  fame,  yet  ftuce  they  are  not  the  fame  with  one  another,  but  di- 
JiinB,  it  follows  that  there  are  three  Gods,  i.e.  three  perfonal  Gods.     2.  It  in- . 
traduces  two  forts  of  Gods,  three  Perfonal  and  one  effential.     But  the  Chrifiiatt 
Religion  knows  and  owns  but  One,  true  and  nio(l  high  God  of  any  fort.     So  far 
then  we  are  agreed.  That  there  is  but  One  true  and  mofl  high  God  5  and  that 
becaufe  of  the  perfeft  Unity  of  the  Divine  Ejfence,  which  can  be  no  more 
than  One,  and  where  there  is  but  One  Divine  Ejfence,  there  can  be  but  One 
true  God,  unlefs  we  can  fuppofe  a  God  without  an  Ellence,  and  that  would 
be  a  flrange  fort  of  God.     He  would  be  a  perfonal  God  indeed  in  their  cri- 
tical Senfe  of  a  Perfon  for  a  (hape  or  appearance.     But  may  not  thi  fame  Ef- 
fence  be  divided^  That  I  have  already  (hewed  to  be  impoffible.    Therefore 
we  cannot  make  fo  many  perfonal  Gods,  becaufe  we  aflert  one  and  the  fame 
EfTence  in  the  three  Perfons  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  GhofV.    But  they 
are  difiinll,  and  therefore  muft  be  di^inB  Gods,  fince  every  one  is  dijiin&  from 
the  other.    They  are  diftindt  as  to  perfonal  i'roperties,  but  not  as  to  effential 
Attributes,  which  are  and  muft  be  the  fame  in  all  :    So  that  here  is  but  one 
effential  God,  and  three  Perfons. 

But  after  all,  why  do  we  affert  three  Pcrfuns  in  the  Godhead  .<?  Not  becaufe 
we  find  them  in  the  Athanajian  Creed,  but  becaufe  the  Scripture  hath  reveal- 
ed that  there  zx^Threc,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft,  to  whom  the  Divine 
Nature  and  Attributes  are  given.  This  we  verily  believe  that  the  Scripture 
hath  revealed^  and  that  there  are  a  great  many  places,  of  which  we  think 
no  tolerable  Senfe  can  be  given  without  it  ^  and  therefore  we  affert  this 
Doftrine  on  the  fame  Grounds  on  which  we  believe  the  Scriptures.  And  if 
there  are  three  Perfons  which  have  the  D.vine  Nature  attributed  to  them, 
what  muft  we  do  in  this  Cafe  ?  Muft  we  caft  off  the  Unity  of  the  Divine 
Effence  .<?  No,  that  is  too  frequently  and  plainly  afferted  tor  us  to  call  it 
into  Queflion.  Muft  we  rejed  thofe  Scriptures  which  attribute  Divinity  to 
the  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft,  as  well  as  to  the  Father  ?  That  we  cannot  do, 
unlefs  we  caft  off  thofe  Books  of  Scripture,  wherein  thofe  things  are  con- 
tained. 

But  why  do  we  call  them  Perfons,  when  that  Term  is  not  found  in  Scripture, 
and  is  of  o' doubtful  Senfe  ?  The  true  Account  whereof  I  take  to  be  this  :  It 
Fdcund  is  obferved  by  Facundits  Hermianenfis,  that  the  ChrJjiian  Church  received  the 
DoCtr/ne  of  the  Trinity  before  the  Terms  of  three  Perfons  were  ufed.  But  Sa- 
bellianifm  was  the  occafwn  of  making  ufe  of  the  name  of  Perfons.  It's  true. 
That  the  Sabellians  did  not  diflike  one  Senfe  of  the  Word  Perfon,  (which 
they  knew  was  not  the  ChurclVs  Senfe)  as  it  was  taken  for  an  Appearance 
or  an  external  ^tality  -^  which  was  confident  enough  with  their  Hy  pat  he  fis, 
who  allow'd  but  One  real  Perfon  with  dijferent  Manifefations.  That  this 
was  their  true  Opinion,  appears  from  the  beft  account  we  have  of  their 
Do^rine,  from  the  firft  Rife  of  Sabellianifm.  The  Foundations  of  it  were 
laid  in  the  earlieft  and  moft  dangerous  Herefies  in  the  Chriftian  Church, 
viz..  that  which  is  commonly  called  by  the  name  of  the  Gnojiicks,  and  that 
of  the  Cerin/hians  and  Ebionites.  For  how  much  foever  they  differ'd  from 
each  other  in  other  things  ^  yet  they  both  agreed  in  this,  that  there  was 
no  fuch  thing  as  a  Trinity,  confi.ling  ot  Fathe>-,  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi  ,  but 
that  all  was  but  different  Appearances  and  Manlftjiatianj  of  God  to  Mankind. 
In  confequence  whereof,  the  Gnofiirks  denied  the  very  Humanity  of  Chrift, 

and 


Ed,  Sirm. 


Chap.   V  i  I .    Do^rine  of  the  ~i  r i  n  1 1  y .  4  ^^  7 

and  the  Cennthians  and  Ehionites  his  DivtMtty.     Bur  both  thefe  forts,  were 
utterly  rejefted  the  Communion  of  theChriftian  Church  5  and  no  fuch  thins; Theod. 
as  StibelliaMifm  was  found  within  it.     Afterwards  there  arofe  fome  Perfons  ^■"'^-'f- 
who  ftarted  the  fame  Opinion  within  the  Church  5  the  firft  we  meet  with  c"*-' '"  ^* 
of  this  fort  are  thofe  mention'd  by  Theodoret,   Epigonm^  Cleof»cnes,  nnd 
Noetus,  from  wiicm  they  were  called  ISioetians.     Not  long  after,  SabelUus 
broached  the  fame  Doftrine  in  Penfapolis,  and  the  parts  thereabouts,  which 
made  Dionyfus  of  Alexandria  appear  fo  early  and  fo  warmly  againft  it.Athan,  de 
But  he  happening  to  let  fall  fome  Expreffions,  as  though  he  aflerted  an  nyf^p.fjg." 
Inequality  ot  Hypojiafes  in  the  Godhead.  Complaint  was  made  of  it  to  Diony- 
pus  then  Bi(hop  of  Rome  ^    who  thereupon  explained  that  which  he  took 
to  be  the  true  Senfe  of  the  Chriftian  Church  in  this  matter,  which  is  flill 
preferved  in  Athanafus:  Therein  hedifowns  the  Sabellian  Do&ri»e,  v/hxchA^^^^^^- 
confounded  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghoji,  and  made  them  to  be  the  fame  5  p^def ""* 
and  withal,  he  rejeded  thofe  who  held  three  diftinB  and  feparate  Hypojiafes,  <:^n.p.2'ji. 
as  the  Platonijis,  and  after  them,  the  Marcionijis  did.     Dionyfius  of  Alex' 
andria,  when  he  came  to  explain  himfelf,  agreed  with  the  others,  and  af- 
ferted  the  Son  to  be  of  the  fame  Subjiance  tvih  the  Father,  as  Jthaaapuslmth  Athanaf. 
proved  at  large  ;,  but  yet  he  faid,  That  if  a  dijiin^ion  of  Hypojiafes  iven  »<'^Dbnvf' 
kept  up,  the  Do&rine  of  the  Trinity  would  be  lojl,  as  appears  by  an  Epiftle  of 
his  in  St.  Bafil.     Athanaftus  faith.  That  the  Herefy  of  Sabellim  lay  in  making  ^'"!  ''^ 
the  Father  and  Son  to  be  only  different  Names  of  the  fame  Perfon  ^  fo  that  in].  29. 
one  refpeS  he  is  the  Father^  and  in  another  the  Son.     Gregory  Naz/anzen  in  ^than.  o- 
oppofition  to  Sabellianifm,  faith.  We  muji  believe  one  God,  and  three  Hypo-^^^^ ^' 
Jiafer,  and  commends  ^/Ad//<?/«j  for  preferving  the  true  Mean,  in  afrerting456. 
the  Vnity  of  Nature,  and  the  Dijiindion  of  Properties.     St.  Ba^l  faith.  That '^^^■J^\- 
the  Sabellians  made  but  one  Perfon  of  the  Father  and  Son  5  that  in  Name  they  p.  id,  17.* 
confeffed  the  Son,  but  iu  reality  they  denied  h  m.     In  another  place.  That  the^'-^^^- 
Sabellians  ajferted  but  one  Hypoftafs  in  the  div  ne  Nature,  but  that  God  /<?<''^  BafilHom. 
jeveral  Perfons  upon  him  as  occafion  required  ^  fometimes  that  of  a  Father,  at  o-'^i-f-^°^' 
ther  times  of  a  Son  ^  and  fo  of  the  Holy  Ghofl.     And  to  the  fame  purpofe  ^^X\E\>'\ii 
in  other  places,  he  faith,  That  there  are  diflind  Hypifiafes  rvith  their  peculiar  14T. 
properties:)  vehich  being  joined  with  the  Unity  of  Nature,  make  up  the  true  Con-  ^^'^-  ^4- 
fejjion  of  Fa-th.    There  were  feme  who   would  have  but  one  Hypo^ajis^ 
whom  he  oppofes  with  great  vehcmency^    and  the  Reafon  he  gives,  is. 
That  then  they  mull  make  the  Perfons  to  be  mere  Names,  which  is  Sabellianifm. 
And  he  faith.  That  if  our  Notions  of  djiind  Perfons  have  no  certain  Foun- 
dation they  are  mere  Names,  fuih  as  Sabellius  called  Perfons.     But  by  this 
Foundation  he  doth  not  mean  any  di(lin:l  Effences,  but  the  incommunitable 
Properties  belonging  to  them,  as  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghofl. 

It  is  plain  from  hence,  that  the  neceflity  of  afferting  three  Hypojiafes, 
came  from  thence,  that  otherwife  they  could  not  fo  well  diftinguilh  them- 
felves  from  the  Sabellians,  whofe  Doctrine  they  utterly  difown'd,  as  well  as 
Arianifm  and  Judaifm-^    and  it  appears  by  the  Teftimonies  oi  Athanafus,  ^^^^ruL 
Gregory  Na%i anz.cn,  and  St.  Bahl,  that  they  look'd  on  one  as  bad  as  i^^<'ther,-:J^''^^^ 
and  they  commonly  join  Judaifm  and  Sabellianifm  together.  p.  ,6. 

But  yet  there  arofe  Difficulties,  whether  they  were  to  hold  one  Hyp ojlajis'^*^^^- 
or  three.     The  former  infifted  on  the  generally  received  Senfe  of  Hypofiafs  "^  '  '' 
for  Subjiance  or  Ejfence ;  and  therefore  they  could  not  hold  three  Hypojiafes 
without  three  dijiinB  Effences,  as  the  /  latonijis  and  Marcionijis  held.     Upon  Rnffin.  p. 
this  a  Synod  was  called  at  Alexandria  to  adjuft  this  matter,  where  bo  hPar-^''^; 
ties  were  defircd  to  explain  themfelves.     Thofe  who  held  three  Hypoftafes  Athan.Ep. 
were  asked.   Whether  they  maintained  three  Hypofiafes  as  the  Arians  did,  o/-"^  '^""^. 
different  Subftanres  and  feparate  Sub//(iences,  as  Mankind  and  other  Creatures     ''  '      ' 
are  ^  Or  at  other  Her  etuks,  three  Principles  or  three  Gods, ^  All  which  rhey 

fted- 


4^8  A  Vindication  of  the         -Chap.   VIL 

ftedfaftly  denied.  Then  they  were  asked,  Why  they  ufcd  thefe  terms  ^  They 
anfwered,  Becaufe  they  believed  the  Holy  Trinity  to  be  more  than  mere  Nantes  ^ 
and  that  the  Father^  and  Son,  and  Holy  Ghofl  had  a  real  Subjii/ence  belonging 
to  them  5  but  ft  ill  they  held  but  one  Godhead,  one  Principle,  and  the  Son  of  the 
fame  Subflance  with  the  Father  5  and  the  Holy  Ghoft  not  to  be  a  Creature,  but  to 
bear  the  fame  proper  and  infeparable  Effence  with  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
Then  the  other  fide  were  asked.  When  they  afferted  but  one  Hypoflafts,  whe- 
ther they  held  with  Sabellius  or  not  ;  and  that  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghoji  had  no 
Effence  or  Sub^ence  ^  Which  they  utterly  denied  5  but  faid,  that  their  mean- 
ing was.  That  Hypoflafis  was  the  fame  with  Subfiance  ^  and  by  one  Hypofiafis 
they  intended  no  more,  but  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghofl  were  of  the 
fame  individual  Subflance  5  (for  the  Words  are  kx  -rh  -rnvrCivTa.  tm?  'pviiMc'^ 
and  fo  they  held  but  one  Godhead  and  one  divine  Nature,  and  upon  thefe 
terras  they  agreed.  From  whence  it  follows,  that  the  Notion  of  three 
Hypofiafes,  as  it  was  received  in  the  Chriftian  Church,  was  to  be  underftood 
fo  as  to  be  confiftent  with  the  Individual  Unity  of  the  divine  Effence.  And 
the  great  rule  of  the  Chriftian  Church  was  to  keep  in  the  middle,  between 
the  Doftrines  of  Sabellius  and  Arius ,  and  fo  by  degrees  the  Notion  of  three 
'  Hypofiafes  and  one  Effence  was  look'd  on  in  the  Eaftern  Church,  as  the 
moft  proper  Difcrimination  of  the  Orthodox  from  the  SabelUans  and 
Arians. 

But  the  Latin  Church  was  not  fo  eafily  brought  to  the  ufe  of  three  I/y 
pojlafes,  becaufe  they  knew  no  other  Senfe  of  it,  but  for  Subflance  or  Effence^^ 
and  they  all  denied  that  there  was  any  more  than  one  divine  Sub/lance,  and 
therefore  they  rather  embraced  the  Word  Perfona ;  and  did  agree  in  the  name 
of  Perfons  as  moft  proper  to  fignifie  their  meaning,  which  was.  That  there 
were  three  which  had  dillin^  fubfijtences,  and  incommunicable  properties,  and 
one  and  the  fame  divine  Ejfence.     And  fince  the  Notion  of  it  is  fo  well  un- 
derftood to  fignifie  fuch  a  peculiar  Senfe,  I  fee  no  reafon  why  any  (hould 
fcruple  the  ufe  of  it.     As  to  its  not  being  ufed  in  Scripture,  Socinus  himfelf 
defpifes  it,  and  allows  it  to  be  no  good  reafon.  For  when  Francifcus  Davides 
Socin.  Vol.  oh)tditA,That  the  terms  of  Rffence  and  Perfon  were  not  in  Scripture  5  Socinus  tells 
I.  p.  778.  him^  That  they  expofed  their  caufe  who  went  upon  fuch  grounds  5  and  that  if  the 
fenfe  of  them  were  in  Scripture,  it  was  no  matter  whether  the  terms  were  or  not. 

Having  thus  cleare  d  the  Notion  of  three  Perfons,  I  return  to  the  Senfe 
of  Scripture  about  thefe  matters  5  and  our  Unitarians  tell  us,  ihzt  we  ought  to 
interpret  Scripture  otherwife.    How  doth  that  appear  ?  They  give  us  very  little 
encouragement  to  follow  their /»/er/»re/rffzfl/;i-,  which  are  fo  new,  fo  forced, 
fo  different  from  the  general  Senfe  of  the  Chriftian  World,  and  which,  I 
may  fay,  refleft  fo  highly  on  the  Honour  of  Chrift  and  his  Apoftles,  i.  e. 
by  making  ufe  of  fuch  Expreflions,  which  if  they  do  not  mean  what  to 
honeft  and  fincere  Minds  they  appear  to  do,  muft  be  intended  (according 
to  them)  to  fet  up  Chrijl  a  mere  Man  to  be  a  God.     And  if  fuch  a  thought 
as  this  could  enter  into  the  Mind  of  a  thinking  Man,  it  would  tempt  him 
to  fufpeft  much  more  as  to  thofe  Writings,  than  there  is  the  leaft  colour 
or  reafon  for.     Therefore  thefe  bold  inconfiderate  Writers  ought  to  refleft 
on  the  confequenceof  fuch  fort  of  Arguments,  and  if  they  have  any  regard 
to  Chriftianity,  not  to  trifle  with  Scrip 'ure  as  they  do. 
Nitesonk.      But  fay  they.  The  queflion  only  is.  Whether  we  ought  to  inte  pret  S  ripture 
cv!e"  p*  3  ^^^"  ^'  fpeaks  of  God,  according  to  Reafon  or  not,  that  is,  like  Fools  or  like 
Tpfe  Men  .<?    Like  wife  Men  no  doubt,  if  they  can  hit  upon  it  f  but  they 
go  about  it  as  untowardly  as  ever  Men  did.     For  is  this  to  interpret  Scrips 
ture  like  wife  Men,  to  take  up  fome  novel  Interpretations  againft  the  general 
fenft  of  the  Chriftian  Church  from  the  Apoftles  times?    Is  this  to  aft  like 
wife  Men,  to  raife  Objeftions  againft  the  Authority  of  the  Books  they  can- 
not 


HAP.  V  ill.  Do^n/w  of  tk  Trinity.  4^9 


not  anfvver,  and  to  cry  out  of  falfe  Copies  and  Trat/Jlations  without  reafo'n, 
and  to  render  all  places  fufpicious  which  make  againft  them?  Is  this  to  in- 
terpret S(riptnre  like  rv'tfe  Me»,  to  make  our  Saviour  affeft  to  be  thought  a 
God,  when  he  knew  himfeif  to  be  a  mere  Man,  and  by  their  own  Confef- 
fion  had  not  his  divitte  Authority  and  l^orper  conferr'd  upon  him?    And  to 
make  his  Apoftles  fet  up  the  Wor/hip  of  a.  Creature,  when  their  defign  was 
to  take  away  the  Worfhip  of  all  fuch,  ivko  by  Nature  are  not  Qodi  ?  Is  this  A^ver  to 
like  wife  Men,  to  tell  the  World,    that  thefe  were  only  fuch  Gods  whom  they  ^y^""">^> 
had  fet  up,  and  God  had  not  appointed  ;    as  though  there  were  no  real  Ido-^' ' 
atrj,  but  in  giving  divine  Wotjhip  without  God's  Command. 


C  H  A  P.    Vlli. 

The  Socinian  Senle  of  Scripture  examiwcf. 

BUT  they  muft  not  think  to  efcape  fo  eafily  for  fuch  a  groundlefs  and 
prefumptuous  faying  j  that  they  interpret  the  Scripture  not  like  Fools, 
but  like  wife  Men,  becaufe  the  true  fenfe  of  Siripture  is  really  the  main  point 
between  us,  and  therefore  I  (hall  more  carefully  examine  the  wife  fenfe 
they  give  of  the  chief  places  which  relate  to  the  matter  in  hand. 

I.  Is  this  to  interpret  Scripture  like  wife  Men,  to  make  the  Author  to  the 
Hebrews  in  one  Chapter,  and  that  but  a  fhort  one,  to  bring  nolefs  than  four 
places  oiit  of  the  Old  Teflantent,  and  according  to  their  Senfe,  not  one  of 
them  proves  that  which  he  aimed  at,  vi%.  that  Chrifi  was  fuperiour  to  An- 
gels, as  will  appear  by  the  Senfe  they  give  of  them.     Heh.  i.  5.  For  unto 
which  of  the  Angels  faid  he  at  any  time,  Than  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  be- 
g(^t  en  thee  ?  Thtfe  Words,   Hiy  they,   in   their  original  and  primary  fenfe  are  ffiji.tfibt- 
fp/fken  of  David,  but  in  the'.r  myjiical  fefife  are  a  Prophecy  concerning  ChriJi.^']]^-P-*S' 
Was  this  myftical  fenfe  primarily  intended  or  not  ?   If  not,  they  are  only  ^  '''  *' 
an  accommodation  and  no  proof.    But  they  fay,  even  in  that  myftical 
fenfe,   they  were  intended  not  of  the  Lord  Chrijl's  fuppos'd  Eternal  Generation 
from  the  Ejfence  of  the  Father,  but  of  hk  Kefurretlion  fom  the  dead. 

i.ut  if  that  be  not  taken  as  an  Evidence  of  his  being  the  Eternal  Son  of 
God,  how  doth  this  prove  him  above  Angels} 

Heb.  I.  6.  And  again,  when  he  bringe^h  his  firji- begot ■' en  into  the  World,, 
he  faith.  And   let  all  the  Angels  of  God  worjh'p  him.     This  one  would  think 
home  to  the  buf.nefs  ^  but  our  wife  Interpreters  tell  us  plainly,  That  the  Hift.ofthf 
Words  were  i/fed  by  the  Pfalm'ji  on  another  occafion,  i.e.  they  are  nothing  to^'"^^'^' 
the  purpofe.     But  being  told  of  this,  inftead  of  mending  the  matter,  they 
have  made  it  far  worfe  ^  for  upon  fecond.  Thoughts  (but  not  wifer')  they  D;/j„ce  „/ 
fay.  The  words  are  net  taken  out  of  the  Pfalm,  but  out  of  Deut.  ^2.  45.  where/*?  ^'/?5''r 
the  words  are  not  fpoken  of  God,  but  of  God's  People  5  and  if  thk  be  fida^J^i^S^. 
of  God's  People,  they  hope  it  may  be  faid  of  Chrift  too,  without  concluding 
from  thence,  that  Chrijl  is  the  fupreme  God.  But  we  muft  conclude  from  hence, 
that  thefe  are  far  irom  being  wife  Interpreters  s,   for    what  confequence 
is  this,  the  Ai.gels  worfJiip  God's  People^    therefore  Chrift  is  fuperiour  to 
Angels  ? 

Heb.  I.  8.  7 hy  Throne  0  God  if  for  ever  and  ever,  \.  e.  fay  they,  God  if  n,n,ofthi 
thy  Throne  for  ever.  And  fo  they  relate  not  to  Chrifl,  but  to  God,  And  to  Unit;.  16. 
what  purpofe  then  are  they  brought  ? 

Goo"  l4eb. 


47 o  A  Vindication  of  the       Chap.  Vill. 

Heb.  I.  lO.  ThoH  Lord  in  th?  beginning  hajl  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
ihid.p.ij.  ^^^f^^  affd  the  Heavens  are  the  Work  of  thy  Hands.  Thefe  words,  fay  they, 
are  to  he  underftood  not  ofChriJi,  hut  of  God.  Which  is  to  charge  the  Apo- 
ftle  with  arguing  out  of  the  old  Teftament  very  impertinently.  Is  this  in- 
terpreting the  Scriptures  like  wife  Men  ?  Is  it  not  rather  expofing  and  ridicu- 
ling them  ? 

2.  Is  thk  to  interpret  Scripture  like  wife  Men^  to  give  fuch  a  forced  Senfeof 
the  beginning  of  St.  JohnV  Gofpel,  as  vvaS  never  thought  of  from  the  writing 
of  it,    till  fome  in  the  lafl:  Age  thought  it  neceif.try  to  avoid  the  proof  of 
Anfw  r  to  Chrift's  Divinity  from  it.     For  the  Aj>@u  was  never  taken,   in  the  Senfe 
^hTenl^r  ^hsy  put  upon  it,  for  him  that  tvas  to  preach  the  Word  in  St.  John's  time  ^  but 
p.  9.       'the  fignification  of  it  was  then  well  underftood  from  the  Alexandrian  School 
Anfwerto  r  gg  gppears  by  Philo')  whence  it  was  brought  by  Cerinthtis  into  thofe  parts 
p.  9.       of  Ajra,  where  St.  John  lived  when  he  wrote  his  Gotpel :    and  one  of  them- 
Refleaions  felves  confcfTes,    that  Cerinthuf  did  by  the  A6y@^  mean  fomething  divine^ 
p".^^[^^/n>hich  refted  upon,    and  inhabited  the  Perfon  ofjefits,    and  was  that  power  by 
which  God  created  original  Matter  and  made  the  World,  but  as  the  Chriji  or  the 
Wo'^d  defended  on  Jefks  at  his  Baptifm,  fj  it  left  him  at  his  Crucifixion.     That 
which  I  obferve  from  hence  is,  that  there  was  a  known  and  current  Senfe  of 
the  Ag>©^  at  the  time  of  St.  John's  writing  his  Gofpel,  very  different  from 
that  of  a  Preacher  of  the  Word  of  God  ;   and  therefore  I  cannot  but  think  it 
the  wifeft  way  oi interpreting  St.  John,    to  underftand  him  in  a  Senfe  then 
^    commonly  known,  i,  and  fo  he  affirms  the  Ary®^  to  hzveheen  in  the  beginnings 
i.  e.  before  the  Creation  (  for  he  faith  afterwards,  All  things  were  made  by 
hint  }  and  that  he  was  with  God,  and  was  God  5   and  this  Word  did  not  in- 
habit ^ey^j,  as  Cm»//6A^  held,  hut  was  made  Fltfh  and  dwelt  among  us.     And 
fo  St.  John  clearly  afferted  the  Divinity  and  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God. 
And  in  all  the  Difputes  afterwards  with  Paulu^s  Samofatenm  and  Photinus,    it 
appears,  that  they  underffood  the  ACy®.,  not  for  any  mere  Man,    but  for 
fome  Divine  Power,   which  reffed  upon  the  Perfon  of  Jf/*'*.    So  that  this 
^•'*  •        was  a  very  laie,  and  I  think  no  very  wife  Interpretation  of  St.  John.     And  e* 
Sand./j.pj.  ven  Sandiiis  confcffes,  That  Socinus  hk  Senfe  was  wholly  new  and  unheard  of  in 
the  ancient  Church'.^    not  only  among  the  Fathers,  but  the  Hereticks,    aS  I  have 
before  obferved.     For  they  agreed   (  except  their  good  Friends  the  Alogi 
who  went  the  fureft  way  to  work  )    that  by  the  Word  no  mere  Man  was 
ande  flood.    Let  them  produce  one  if  they  can,  hhh  Sandi/ff  (even  the  learned 
and  judicious <S"<?«^/«tf.)    Did  they  all  interpret  the  Scriptures  like  Fools,  and 
not  like  wife  Men  ?   But  if  the  Chrijiian  Interpreters  were  fuch  Fools  ;    what 
think  they  of  the  Deifls,  whom  they  feem  to  have  a  better  opinion  of,  as  to 
thtir  Wifdom  .<?   What,  if  Men  without  Biafsof  Intereft,  or  Education  think 
ours  the  more  proper  and  agreeable  Senfe? 

The  late  Archbiftiop  to  this  purpofe  had  mention'd  AmeVufs  the  PUtonifi, 

Anftcsr  to  ^  ^"  indiferent  Judge.     But  what  fay  our  Wife  Interpreters  to  this  >    Truly 

Arctbifb    they  fay,  That  the  Credit  of  the  Trinitarian  Caufe  runs  very  low,    when  an  nn- 

P-  5*-      certain  Tale  of  an  ohfcure  Platonift  of  no  reputation  for  Learning  or  Wit,  is  made 

to  be  a  good  part  of  the  Proof  which  is  alledged  for  thefe  Do&rines.     If  a  Man 

happen  to  ftand  in  their  way,  he  muft  be  content  with  fuch  a  Charadfer  as 

■they  will  be  pleafed  to  give  him.     If  he  had  defpifed  St.  Johns  Gofpel,   and 

Eufeb.     nianner  of  exprefTion,  he  had  been  as  Wife  as  the  Alogi  :^  but  notwithftand- 

van """/^i  ^"S  ^^'^^  extraordinary  Charafter  given  of  JFriend  Amelias  (  as  they  call  him  ) 

l^il.'^^' by  Eufeb  us,  by  Porphyriuf,  by Proclus,  and  by  Damafcius,  this  very  Saying 

^y"'-'^     of  his  finks  his  Reputation  for  ever  with  them.    What  would  Julian  have 

l"o!t\'h-  gi^'^"  fo'"  '""^'^  ^^'fi  ^"ferpretation  of  St.  John  .<?     When  he  cannot  deny,  but 

33V        that  he  did  Cct  up  the  Divinity  ofChriJl  by  thefe  ExprefTions :,  and  upbraids 

Julian  ep.  [j^g  (;^^,y^,-^„j  of  Alexandria,  forgiving  JVor/iyip  to  Jefus  as  the  Word  and  God  > 

^''  With 


Chap.  VIII.         Do^rine  of  tbeTrmity.  4.71 

With  what  fatisfadllon  would  he  have  received  fuch  a  Senfe  of  his  Words  iy 
when  he  Complemented  Phoiinus  for  denying  the  Divinity  6fChri(h  k    while  f^<^""<^; 
other  <:/&«>-4«/  afTerted  it  ?  ''^•^•'^3' 

But  they  do  not  by  any  means  deal  fairly  with  the  late  Archbifhop  as  to 
theStoryofJ«/e/i«j-;  for  they  bring  it  in,  as  if  he  had  laid  the  weight  of  the 
Caufe  upon  it ;  whereas  he  only  mentions  it,  as  a  Confirmation,  of  a  pro- 
bable Conjedure,    That  Plato  had  the  J^oftoh  of  the  Word  of  God  from  the 
Jews  ;  becaufe  that  was  a  Title  which  the  Jews  did  commonly  give  to  the  MeJJtas, 
as  he  proves  from  Philo,  and  /^eChaldee  Faraphraji.  To  which  they  give  no 
manner  of  Anfwer.    But  they  affirm  in  anfwer  to  my  Sermon,  p.  9.     That 
Socinus  his  Senfe  was,    That  Chr/Ji  was  called  the  Word,   becaufe  he  -was  the 
Bringer  or  Meffenger  of  God's  Word.     But  were  not  the  Jews  to  underftandit 
in  the  Senfe  it  wa^  known  among  them  >    And  if  the  Chaldee  Pardphraft  had 
ufed  it  in  that  Senfe,  he  would  never  have  applied  it  to  a  Divine  Subfiftenct, 
as  upon  Examination  it  will  appear  that  he  doth.  Of  which  Rittangel  gives 
a  very  good  Account,  who  had  been  a  Jew  and  was  very  well  skilled  in  their 
ancient  Learning.    He  tells  us.  That  he  had  a  Difcourfe  with  a  learned  V-R'inangd 
ttitarian  upon  this  Subjeft,    who  was  particularly  acquainted  with  the  Ea-  "  J^J^'"^ 
ftern  Languages  ;  and  he  endeavoured  to  prove.  That  there  was  vothing  in       ' 
the  Chaldee  Paraphrajis  ufe  of  Kiaa^  becaufe  it  was  promifcuonfly  ufed  by  him 
for  12"J  where  it  was  applied  to  God.    This  Rrttangel  denied  ^  and  ofFer'd  to 
prove,  that  the  Chaldee  Paraphraft  did  never  ufe  that  Word  in  a  common 
manner,  but  as  it  was  appropriated  to  a  Divine  Subfiftence.     He  produces 
feveral  places  where  ^^  s^DQ  is  put,  and  nothing  anfwering  to  Wordin  the 
Hebrew,  as  Gen.  20.  21.     The  Chaldee  hath  it,  The  Word  ofjehovah  Jhall  be 
my  God,  Exod.  2.  25.    And  Jehovah  faid.  He  would  redeem  them  by  his  Word, 
Exod.  6.  8.    Tour  murmur'ings  are  not  againft  us,  but  againjl  the  Word  ofjeho' 
vah,  Exod.  19.  17.    A/id  Mofes  brought  the  People  out  to  meet  the  Word  ofje- 
oovah,    Levit.  76.  46.    Thefe  are  the  Statutes  and  Judgments,    and  Laws, 
which  Jehovah  gave  between  his  Word  and  the  Children  of  Ifrael  by  the  hand  of 
Mofes,  Numb.   1 1.  ao.    Te  have  defpifed  the  Word  ofjehovah  whofe  Divinity 
dwelt  among  y  OH,  Num.  29.  21.     The  Word  ofjehovah  is  with  him,    and  the 
Divinity  of  their  King  is  among  them,    Deut.  I.  50.     The  Word  ofjehovah 
Pjall  fight  for  you,  Deut.  2.  7.   Thefe  forty  years  the  Word  ofjehovah  hath  been 
mth  thee,  Deut.   I.  92.     Te  did  not  believe  in  the  Word  ofjehovah  your  God, 
Deut.  4.  24.  Jehovah  thy  God,  his  Word  is  a  con  fuming  fire,  Deut.  %.  5.  1  flood 
between  the  Word  ofjehovah  and  you,  to  fliew  you  the  Word  of  the  Lord,  Deut. 
32.  6,8.     Jehovah  thy  God,    his  Word  Jhall  go  with  thee,    with  many  Other 
places,  which  he  brings  out  oi  Mofes  his  Writings;  and  there  are  multitudes 
to  the  fame  purpofe  in  the  other  Books  of  Scripture  5   which  ftiews,  faith 
he,  that  this  Term  the  Word  of  God,  was  fo  appropriated  for  many  Ages ;  as 
appears  by  all  the  Chaldee  Paraphrajis,  and  the  ancient  Doftors  of  the  Jews. 
And  he  (hews  by  feveral  places,    that   the  Chaldee  Paraphrajl  did  not  once 
render  "i^i  by  K"iQQ  when  there  was  occafion  for  it ;   no,  not  when  the 
Word  of  God  is  fpoken  of  with  refpeft  to  a  Prophet ;  as  he  proves  by  ma- 
ny Teftimonies  5  which  are  particularly  enumerated  by  him.    The  refult  of 
the  Conference  was,  that  thtZ)  nit  ari  an  had  fo  much  Ingenuity  to  confefs. 
That  un left  thofe  Words  had  another  Senfe,  their  Caufe  vpas  loji  j    and  our  Faith 
had  afure  Foundation. 

But  it  may  be  objefted  that  Morinus  hath  fince  taken  a  great  deal  of  pains  ^°"""g^ 
to  prove  the  Chaldee  Paraphrajis,    not  to  have  been  of  that  Antiquity,    which  biic,/.  5. 
they  have  been  fuppofed  by  the  Jews  to  be  of.  Excrc.  8. 

In  anfwer  to  this,  we  may  fay  in  general,  that  Morinus  his  great  Proofs ''  ^' 
are  againfl:  another  Chaldee  Paraphrajl  oi  very  fmall  Reputation,  viz.  of  Jd- 
tfathan  upon  the  Law ;  and  not  thatof  O/^i^e/^?/,  which  Rittangel  relied  upon 

O  o  o  2  in 


4-72  A  Vindication  of  the        Chap.  VIIL 

in  this  Matter.     And  none  can  deny  this  to  have  been  very  ancient  5   but 
the  Jews  have  fo  little  knowledge  of  their  own  Hiftory,    but  what  is  iti 
Scripture,   that  very  little  certainty  can  be  had  from  them.     But  we  muft 
compare  the  Circumftances  of  things,  if  we  would  come  to  any  refolution  in 
this  Matter.     Nowit  is  certain,  that  PA/Vo  the /4/ex<j«^rM»  "Jew^    who  lived 
fo  very  near  our  Saviours  time,    had  the  fame  Notion  of  the  Word  ofGody 
which  is  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphraji :  whofe  Teftimonies  have  been  produced 
by  fo  many  already,  that  I  need  not  to  repeat  them. 
Eufebius        And  Eufebius  faith,    The  Jews  and  Chriftians  had  the  fame  Opinion  as  to 
^l^aji'.^Chrlji,  ttU  the  former  fell  off  f  om  it  in  oppopion  to  /^e  Chriftians_%   and  he 
C.I.   *    particularly  inftances  in  kis  Divinity.     But  it  Mm»7/x  his  Opinion  be  em- 
braced, as  to  the  latenefs  of  thefe  Chaldee  Paraphrafet,    this   inconvenience 
will  neceflarily  follow,  viz.    That  the  Jews  when  they  had  changed  fo 
much  their  Opinions,    fliould  infert  thofe  Paffages  themfelves  which  afferc 
the  Divinity  of  the  Word.     And  it  can  hardly  enter  into  any  Man's  Head  that 
confiders  the  Humour  of  the  Jewifti  Nation,  to  think,  that  after  they  knew 
what  St.  John  had  written  concerning  the  Word  5    and  what  ufe  the  Chrifti- 
ans  made  of  it  to  prove  the  'Divinity  ofChrlfi^   they  fliould  purpofely  infert 
fuch  paffages  in  that  Paraphrafe  of  the  Law  which  was  in  fuch  efteem  among 
them,  that  Ellas  Levita  faith.  They  were  under  Obligation  to  read  two  Paraf- 
cha's  out  of  it  every  Week,  together  with  the  Hebrew  Text.     Now,  who  can 
imagine  that  the  Jews  would  do  this  upon  any  other  account,    than  that  it 
wasdeliver'd  down  to  them,  by  fo  ancient  a  Tradition,  that  they  durft  not 
difcontinue  it.    And  it  is  obferved  in  the  place  of  Scripture  which  our  Savi- 
our read  in  the  Synagogue,   that  he  follow'd  neither  the  Hebrew  nor  the 
Bichin.     Greek,  but  in  probability  the  Chaldee  Paraphrafe  ;   and  the  Words  he  ufed 
rafcii./i.2i.upon  the  Crofs,  were  in  the  Chaldee  Dialed. 

The  latter  Jews  have  argued  againft  the  Trinity,  and  the  Divinity  of  Chr/Ji 
like  any  Unitarians,  as  appears  by  the  Collection  out  ofjofeph  Alba,  David 
Paris,  Kimchiy  8cc.  publifhed  by  Genebrard,  with  his  Anfwers  to  them.  And 
jjg/.  is  it  any  ways  likely,  that  thofe  who  were  fo  much  fet  againft  thefe  Do- 
ftrines,  (hould  themfelves  put  in  fuch  Expreflions,  which  juftifie  what  the 
Evangelift  faith  about  the  Word,  being  in  the  Beginning,  being  with  God,  and 
being  God  ? 

The Subftance  of  what  I  have  faid,  as  to  St.  John's,  Notion  of  the  Word, 
is  this  ^  That  there  is  no  colour  for  the  Senfe  which 5o«»«j  hath  put  upon 
it  5  either  from  the  ufe  of  it  among  other  Authors,  or  any  Interpretation  a- 
mong  the  Jews.  But  that  there  was  in  his  time  a  current  fenfe  of  it,  w^hich 
from  the  Jews  of  Alexandria,  was  difperfed  by  Cerlnthm  in  thofe  parts 
where  he  lived.  That  for  fuch  a  Notion  there  was  a  very  ancient  Traditi- 
on among  the  Jews,  which  appears  in  the  moft  ancient  Paraphrafe  of  the 
Law,  which  is  read  in  their  Synagogues.  And  therefore  according  to  all 
reafonable  ways  of  interpreting  Scripture,  the  Word  cannot  be  underftood  in 
^t.  John,  for  one  whofe  Office  it  was  to  preach  the  Word,  but  for  that  Word 
which  was  with  God  before  anything  was  made,  and  by  whom  all  things  were 
tnade. 

3.  Is  this  to  Interpret   Scripture  like   wife  Men,    to  give  a  new  Senfe 

Joh.  I.  i.of  feveral  Places  of  Scripture  from  a  matter  of  FaS  of  which  there  is 

3- '5-     no  proof,   the  better  to  avod  the  proof  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Son 

g:$'^'-ofGod? 

Anfvter  to  This  relates  to  the  fame  beginning  of  St.  John's  Gofpel,  the  Word  was  with 
mfjf'  ^"'^h  and  feveral  other  places,  making  mention  of  his  defcent  from  Heaven. 
ie/wp.sd  The  fenfe  which  thefe  wife  Interpreters  put  upon  them  is,  that  Chrift  wjs 
Anfrcer  to  y^pf  f,p  i„fQ  Heaven,  before  he  entred  upon  his  Preaching.  But  where  is  this 
pf  I  c'^'"'"' faid  ?    What  Proof,  what  Evidence,  what  credible  Witneffes  of  it,  as  there 

were 


C  H  A  p.  VIII.     Dff thine  of  the  Trinity.  47  3 

wfere  of  his  Transfiguration^  RefurreBion  and  Afctnfion  ?  Nothing  like  any 
Proof  is  ofFer'd  for  it  ;  but  it  is  a  vDife  may  they  think  of  avoiding  a  preffing 
difficulty. 

But  they  have  a  farther  reach  in  it,  viz.  to  (hew  how  Chrift,    being  a 
mere  Matt,   (hould  be  qualified  for  fo  great  an  Undertaking  as  the  founding 
the  Chriftian  Church  ^  and  therefore  they  fay,  That  before  cur  Lord  entred  Hifi.oftht 
Hpo»  his  Office  of  the  Mejpas,  he  was  taken  up  to  Heaven  to  be  infiructed  in  /Ae  Unit.  f.ip.  / 
Mind  and  Will  of  God  (^as  Mofes  rvas  into  the  Mount,  Exod.    24.  i,  2,  12,) 
and  from  thence  defcended  to  execute  his  Office,  and  declare  thefaid  Will  of  God. 
In  another  place.  That  when  it  is  f aid,  the  Word  wh  jv'th  God  j    that  is,  the  An(werto 
Lord  Chrifi  was  tahen  up  into  Heaven  to  be  injirucled  in  aU points  relating  to  his  '">^f^'*">^i 
Amhaffage  or  Minijlry.     In  a  third,  they  fay.   That  onr  Saviour  be f  re  he  entred  Arft^.ta  the 
Hpon  his  Miniflry,  afcended  into  Heaven^  as  Mo^es  did  into  the  Mount,    to  be  ■'^'"'^^'■f"'P> 
infiruSed  in  all  things  belotfgif^g  to  the  Gofpel  Do£irine,    and  Polity  which  he^' ' 
waito  eJiabliJJ}  and  adminijier.    Now  confideringwhat  fort  of  a  Perfon  they 
make  Chrift  to  have  been,  viz.  a  meer  Man  ;  this  was  not  ill  thought  of  by 
them  5     to  fuppofe  him  taken  up  into  Heaven  and  there  inflruUed  in  what  he 
■was  to  teach  and  do,  as  Mofes  was  into  the  M.)unt  before  he  gave  the  Law. 
But  here  lies  a  mighty  difference ;  when  Mofes  was  called  up  ijtto  the  Mounts 
the  People  had  publick  notice  given  of  it  ^    and  he  took  Aaron  and  his  Sons, 
and  Seventy  Elders  of  \(xdit\v}'nh\\\m'.^  who  faw  the  Glory  of  God,  v.  10.   And 
all  Ifrael  beheld  the  Glory  of  the  Lord  as  a   devouring  Fire  on  the  top  of  the 
Mount,  V.  17.  and  after  the  40  days  were  over,  it  isfaid.  That  Mo^qs  came 
down  from  the  Mount,    and  the  Children  of  Ifrael  faw    him  with  his    Face 
fbining,  Exod.  34.  40,    Now  if  Chrift  ^k^tq  taken  up  into  Heaven,    as  Mofes 
was  into  the  Mount,    why  was  it  not  made  publick  at  that  time  >    why  no 
VVitneffes?   why  no  Appearance  of  the  Glory  to  fatisfie  Mankind  of  the 
-truth  of  it?    And  yet  we  find,    that  when  he  was  transfigured  on  the  holyvim.n.u 
Mount,  he  took  Peter,  and  James,  and]ohr).  with  hm  5  which  Circumftance^'^,^-  ^;|" 
is  carefully  mention'd  by  the  Evangelifts.     And  Peter,   who  was  one  of  the  "  "^'^  ' 
Witnejfes  then  prefent,  lays  great  weight  upon  this  being  done  in  theprefence 
efWitnejfes.  For  we  have  not  follow' d  cunningly  devi fed  Fables,  when  we  made  ^P^f-i  ''5- 
known  unto  you  the  Power  and  coming  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrifi,    but  were  Eye- 
vitnefies  of  his  Majefiy.     For  he  received  from  God  the  Father,    Honour  and      ^7* 

Glory,    when  there  came  fuch  a  Voice  to  him  pom  the  excellent  Glory . 

jAnd  this  Voice  which  came  from  Heaven  we  heard,  when  we  were  with  him  in  the  '^• 
holy  Mount.  Now  let  any  one  compare  this  with  the  account  which  they 
give  of  Chrifl's  Afenfion  into  Heaven.  The  Transfiguration  was  intended  on- 
ly for  a  particular  Teftimony  of  God's  Favour,  before  his  Suffering  -^  but  e- 
ven  in  that  he  took  care  there  fhould  be  very  credible  WitnefTes  of  it.  And 
is  it  then  poffible  to  believe,  there  fhould  be  fuch  an  Afcenfion  of  Chrift  into 
Heaven,  for  no  lefsa  purpofe,  than  to  be  infim^edin  his  Ambajfage,  and  to 
tinderfiand  the  Mind  and  Will  of  God,  as  to  his  Office  j  and  yet  not  one  of 
the  Evangelifts  give  any  account  of  the  Circumftances  of  it  >  They  are  ve- 
ry particular,  as  to  his  Birth,  Fafting,  Baptifm,  Preaching,  Miracles,  Suf- 
ferings, Refurredion  and  Afcenfion ;  but  not  one  Word  among  them  all  as 
to  the  Circumftances  of  his  being  taken  up  intoHeaven  for  fo  great  a  purpofe? 
If  it  were  necefTary  to  be  believed,  why  is  it  not  more  plainly  revealed  ? 
Why  not  the  time  and  place  mention'd  in  Scripture,  as  well  as  of  his  Fafi- 
ing  and  Temptation  .>?  Who  can  imagine  it  confiftent  with  that  Sincerity 
and  Faithfulmjs  of  the  Writers  of  the  l^ew  Teflament,  to  conceal  fo  materi- 
al a  Part  ofCbrift's  Inftruflions  and  Qualifications;  and  to  wrap  it  up  in 
fuch  doubtful  Expreffions,  that  none  ever  found  out  this  meaning  till  the 
days  of  Socinus  .<?  Enjedinus  mentions  it  only  as  a  poifible  Senfei,  but  he  con-  g^j^j  ^^ 
fefles,  That  f  he  New  Tcfiament  faith  nothing  at  all  of  it  ^    but,  faith  he,  nei- ]oh- 6.62. 

ther 


474-  ^  Vindication  of  the         G  h  a  p.  VIlI. 

ther  doth  it  mention  other  things  before  he  entred  upon  his  Office.  But  this  is  a 
very  weak  Evafion,  for  this  was  of  greateft  importance  with  refpefl:  to  his 
Office,  more  than  his  Baptifm,  Fajiing  and  Temptation  5  yet  thefe  are  very 
fully  fet  down. 

And  after  all,  our  Vnitarians  themfelves  feem  to  miftrufl:  their  own  Inter- 

Anfverto  pretations  ^  for  in  their  anftver  to  my  Sermon,  they  fay,  it  is  not  the  Dothine 

wySermm,  g^^^  ^^^  Unitarians,  and  refer  me  to  another  account  given  $f  thefe  Texts  in  the 

ffijhry  of  H'tfiory  of  the  Unitarians.     There  indeed  I  find  Groiius    his  interpretation 

the  Unit.  ("  gg  they  call  it )  prefer'd  before  that  of  Socinus.     But  they  fay,  Grotim  rvas 

'  p*  ii.  Socinian  all  oter,  and  that  his  Annotations  are  a  compleat  Syflem  ofSoinia- 

nifm  ;   and  his  Notes  on  the  firji  of  St.  John  are  written  artificially,    but  the 

p.  28,  Senfe  at  the  bottom  is  theirs.     In  (hort.  That  the  Word,    according  to  Grotius, 

is  not  an  eternal  Son  of  God,  but  the  Power  and  WifdomofGod:^  which  abiding 

without  meafureon  the  LordChriJi,  is  therefore  fpoken  of  as  a  Ferfonandas  one 

with  Chrifi,    and  he  with  that.     And  this  Notion  of  the  Word  leads  a  Man 

through  all  the  diffiiitlties  of  this  Chapter,  with  far  more  eafe  than  any  hitherto 

offer  d.     But  thefe  wife  Interpreters  have  as  much  mifinterpreted  Grotius,   as 

they  have  done  the  Scriptures,  as  1  (hall  make  it  appear. 

(i.)  Grotim  on  "ilohn  6.  62.  interprets  Chriji's  Afcenfion  into  Heaven,  of 
his  corporal  Afcent  thither  after  his  RefurreUion,  where  the  Ao>©.  or  Word 
was  before,  of  whom  it  is  faid.  That  the  Word  was  with  God.  But  how 
comes  Chrift  to  affume  that  to  himfelf  which  belong'd  to  the  Word  ?  He  an- 
fvvers.  Why  not,  fince  we  call  Body  and  Soul  by  the  Name  of  the  Man  .<?  But  if 
no  more  were  meant  by  the  Word,  but  a  divine  Attribute  of  Wifdom  and 
'Power,  what  colour  could  there  be  for  the  Son  of  Man  taking  that 
to  himfelf,  which  belonged  to  an  Attribute  of  God  >  What  ftrange  way  of 
arguing  would  this  have  been  ?  What,  and  if  ye  fkall fee  the  Son  of  Man  of- 
tending  where  he  was  before  ?  For  according  to  this  Senfe,  how  comes  a  di- 
vine Attribute  to  be  called  the  Son  of  Man  ?  How  could  the  Son  of  Man  be 
faid  to  afccnd  thither,  where  a  divine  Attribute  was  before  ?  The  Words 
Z-nii  J\v  7D  li^Tio^cr.  muft  relate  to  him  fpoken  of  before  5  and  how  could 
the  Power  and  Wifdom  of  God  be  ever  faid  to  be  the  Son  of  Man  ^  But  if 
we  fuppofea  perfonal  Union  of  the  Word  with  the  humane  Nature  in  Chrift, 
then  we  have  a  very  reafonable  Senfe  of  the  Words ;  for  then  no  more  is 
imply'd,  but  that  Chrift,  as  confifting  of  both  Natures,  (hould  afcend  thi- 
ther, where  the  Word  was  before  5  when  it  is  faid,  that  the  Word  was  with 
God  ;  and  fo  Grotiuf  underftands  it. 

(2.)  Grotius  doth  not  make  the  Word  in  the  beginning  of  St.  John's  Gofpelfo 
be  a  mere  Attribute  ofWifdom  and  Power,  but  the  Eternal  Son  of  God.  This  I 
(hall  prove  from  his  own  Words. 

1.  He  alTertsin  his  Preface  to  St.  John's  Gofpel,  that  the  chief  caufe  of  his 
writing  was  univerfally  agreed  to  have  been  to  prevent  the  fpreadingof  that 
Venom  which  had  been  then  difperfed  in  the  Church  5  which  he  under- 
ftands of  the  Hereftes  about  Chrift  and  the  Word.  Now  among  thefe,  the 
Herefie  oiCerinthuf  was  this  very  Opinion  which  they  faften  upon  Grotius  ; 
viz.  that  the  Word  was  the  Divine  Wifdom  and  Power  inhabiting  in  the  Ferfou 
offefui,  as  I  have  ftiew'd  before  from  themfelves.  And  befides,  Grotius 
faith,  That  the  other  Evangelifls  had  only  intimated  the  divine  Nature  of  Chrifi 
from  hk  miraculous  Conception,  Miracles,  knowing  Mens  Hearts,  perpetual  Pre- 
fence,  promife  of  the  Spirit,  remifflon  of  Sins,  &c.  But  St.  John,  as  the  time 
required,  attributed  the  Name  and  Power  of  God  to  him  from  the  beginning.  So 
thatby  theNrfwe  and  Power  of  God,  he  means  the  fame  which  he  called  the 
divine  Nature  before. 

2.  He  faith,  that  when  it  is  faid,  The  Word  was  with  God -^  it  ought  to  be 
underftood  as /(j«<t//»/ explains  it,  w/VA /Aei^i/^cr;  what  can  this  mean,  un- 

lefs 


^  •'  ■'■■  ■  '  ■  ■  \  '      ■.» 

Chap.  VIII.        Do^rine  of  the  Trinity.  4.75; 

lefslie  underftood  the  Word  to  htthe  eternal  Son  of  God. ^  And  he  quotes 
TertuUan,  faying,  that  he  k  the  Son  of  God,  and  God  ex  unitate  Subftantiae^ 
and  that  there  veas  a  Prolation  of  the  Word  withoHt  Separation.  Now  what  Prola- 
tionc^iVi  there  be  of  a  meer  Attribute?  How  can  that  be  faid  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  heji^otien  cf  the  Father,  without  Div'ifon,  before  aB  Worlds,  as  he  quotes 
it  from  Juftin  Martyt  <?  And  that  he  is  the  Word,  and  God  of  God,  from 
Theophilus  Antiochemis}  And  in  the  next  Verfe,  when  it  is  faid,  The  fame  voas 
in  the  beginning  -with  God  ;  it  is  repeated  on  purpofe,  faith  he.  That  we 
might  confider,  that  God  is  fo  to  be  underftood,  that  a  Diftinftion  is  to  be 
made  between  God,  tvith  whom  he  tvat,-  and  theWord  who  voas  with  God  5  fo 
that  the  Word  doth  not  comprehend  all  that  is  God.  But  our  wife  Interpreters 
put  a  ridiculous  Senfe  upon  it  ^  as  though  all  that  Grotius  meant  was,  That 
God's  Attributes  are  thefime  w/th  himfelf  (  which  although  true  in  it  felf,  is 
very  impertinent  to  Grotius  his  purpofe  )  and  that  the  Reafon  why  he  faith. 
That  the  Wo  d  a  not  all  that  God  is,  was,  becaufe  there  were  other  Attributes  of 
God  bejides.  But  where  doth  Grotius  fay  any  thing  like  this  ?  Is  this  wife 
Interpreting?  or  honeft  and  fair  dealing?  For  Grotius  immediately  takes 
notice  from  thence  of  the  Difference  oi  Hypoftafes  5  which  he  faith  was  ta- 
ken from  the  Platonijis,  but  with  a  change  ojf  the  Senfe. 

3.  When  it  is  faid,  v-  3.  That  all  things  were  made  by  h:m  5  Grotius  un- 
derftands  \t  oi  the  old  Creation,  and  of  the  Son  of  God.  For,  he  quotes  a 
paffage  of  Barnabas,  where  he  faith.  The  Son  is  the  work  of  his  hands  5  and 
feveral  paflages  of  the  Fathers  to  prove,  That  the  World  and  all  things  in  it 
were  created  by  hint ;  and  he  adds,  That  nothing  but  God  himfelf  is  excepted. 
What  fay  our  wife  Lterpreters  to  all  this  ?  Nothing  at  all  to  the  purpofe  5 
but  they  cite  the  Englip  Geneva  Tranjlation  (  when  they  pretend  to  give 
Grotius  his  Senfe)  and  add.  That  the  Word  now  begins  to  he  [poken  of  as  a 
FerfoM  by  the  fame  Figure  ofSpee  h,  that  So\omon  faith,  Wifdom  hath  builded 
her  Houfe,  8<c.  Doth  Grotius  fay  any  thing  like  this  ?  And  yet  they  fay. 
Let  us  hear  Grot'im  interpreting  thafublime  ProemeofSt.  John'/  Gofpel.  Out 
they  leave  out  what  be  faith,  and  put  in  what  he  doth  not  fay  3  is  not  this 
interpreting  like  wife  Men  ? 

4.  The  Word  was  made  flejl},  v.  14.  i.e.  fay  the  Unitarians  as  from  Grot  ins ; 
//  did  abide  on,  and  inhabit  a  humane  Perfon,  the  Perfon  ofjefus  f.hrifl  •  and  fo 
was  in  appearance  made  Flejf}  or  Man.  But  what  faith  Grotius  himfelf?  The 
Word  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God,  Jhewd  himfelf  in  the  Weaknefs  of  humane 
Nature  5  and  he  quotes  the  Words  of  St.  Paul  for  it,  I  Tim.  3.  l(j.  God  was 
tuaniffi  in  the  flejh  :  and  then  produces  feveral  PaiTages  of  the  Fathers  to 
the  fame  purpofe.  Is  not  this  a  ^diXQ  Specimen  oi  wife  Interpreting,  and  fair 
dealing  with  fo  confiderable  a  Perfon,  and  fo  well  known,  as  Gro'ius  * 
Who,  after  all,  in  a  Letter  to  his  intimate  Friend  (er.  J.  Vojfius,  declares, 
that  he  owned  the  Do&rineof  the  Trinity,  both  in  his  Poems  and  his  Care- 
chifm,  after  his  reviewing  them  3  which  Epiftle  is  printed  before  the  laft  E-  "pufc^  ^ 
dition  of  his  Book  about  Chriji's  Satisfailiott  3  as  an  account  to  the  World  294.  t.  3. 
of   his    Faith  as    to  the  Trinity.      And   in    the  lafl:  E-       ,  „ 

dition    of  his  Poems,     but    little    before    his  Death,     he      Chnfje^capuc  rerumvu^meUon, 
gives  a  very  different  Account  of  the  Son  of  God  from  •  immcnfi  menfura  Patris,   guem 
what  thefe  Vnitarians    faften   upon  him       And   now     ^.^ST^or,  deXu.inc 
iQt  the  World  Judge,     ho;v  w'fely  they  have  mterpre-       Lumen 
ted  hoih  St. '^ohn,    and  his  Commentator  Gm/w  .•»  i^un^'f.  & a-quaii  fe fpefKic  imi- 

1 V.  Is  this  to  interpret  Scripture  like  wtje  Men,  to  make       y^  (;„^_  jyi    ^  3.  Ei.  1^43. 
our  Saviour's  meaning  to  be  exprefly   contrary  to  his 

Words?     For  when  he  faid.     Before  Abraham  was,  I  amt,    they  make  the  J°h.  8.58. 
Senfe  to  be  that  really  he  was  not,    but  only  in  God's  Decree,   as  any  other 
Man  may  be  faid  to  be.    This  place  the  late  Archbipop    (  who  was  very  far 

from 


4-7 <^  A  Vindication  of  ibe      Cti  a  p.  VIII. 

from  being  a  Socin'tan^  however  his  Memory  hath  been  very  unworthily  re- 
proached in  that  as  well  as  other  Refpefts  fince  his  Death)  urged  againft  the 
Socimans,  faying.  That  the  obvious  fenfe  of  the  Words  is,  that  he  had.  a  real 
Exiflence  before  Abraham  was  atlually  in  Being  ^    and  that  their  Interpretation 
about   the  Decree   is  fa  very  fiat,  that  he  can  hardly  abflain  from  faying  it  is 
Anfwerto  ridiculous.     And  the  wife  Anfwer  they  give  is,  That  the  Words  cannot  be 
b}/}jop['     ^''"^  '"  '^"y  <>*^^^  "^fw/^.  being  fpoken  of  one  who  veas  a  Son,  and  Defcendant  of 
p.  j8.      Jhraham.     Which  is  as  ridiculous  as  the  Interpretation  5  for  it  is  to  take  it 
for  granted,  he  was  no  more  than  a  Son  c/ Abraham. 

V.  Is  this  to  interpret  Scripture  l/ke  wife  Men,  to  fay,  that  when  our  Sa- 
Joh.io.36viour  Paid  in  his  Conference  with  the  ^en^j,  I  am  the  Son  of  God,  his  chief 
J^-("J^^'/ meaning  was,  That  he  was  the  Son  of  God  in  fiich  a  fenfe,  as  all  the  faithful 
'are  called  Cod's  Children  /  Is  not  this  doing  great  Honour  to  oar  Saviour  > 
lb.  f.30,  Efpecialiy  when  they  fay,  That  he  never  [aid  of  himfelf  any  higher  than  this, 
Toh  10  ■j,'"*'^''^^  ^  '''«^  of  every  good  man,  I  am  the  Son  of  God.  And  yet  the  Jews  ac- 
Matt.25.  cufed  him  of  Btafphemy,  for  making  himfelf  the  Son  of  God  ^  and  the  High 
^3-  Prieft  adjured  him  to  tell.  Whether  he  were  the  Chriji,  the  Son  of  Godi 

^  Did  they  mean  no  more,  but  as  any  good  Man  is  .<? 

JuieNat.      ^"f  '^r.  Seiden  faith,  that  by  the  Son  of  God  the  Jews  meant  the  Word  of 
&Gent.    God  (as  he  is  callid  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphraft)  which  wm  all  one  as  to  profefs 
po^cock  ^'  ^''^fi^f  God :  And  our  learned  Dr  Vocock  faith.  That  according  to  the  fenfe 
liQi.  M\f-of  the  aficicnt  Jews,  the  Son  of  God  fpoken  of,  Pfal.  2.  was  the  eternal  Son  of 
eel.  ad     Cffj^  g^  fi^f,  fame  fubjian.  e  with  the  Father. 

p.^o7,Sic.  And  by  this  we  may  underftand  St.  Peter's  Confeflilon,  Thou  art  theChriJi, 
Matt.  16.  the  Son  of  the  living  God  5  and  Nathanael's,  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God.  But  it 
5  joh.  6.  ^^  P'ai")  the  Jews  in  the  Conference  thought  he  made  himfelf  God,  by  fay- 
^9.  1.^9.  ing,  I  and  my  Father  are  One.  Nut  one  God,  fay  our  wife  Interpreters,  but 
^mlf^-^  -Fr/cw^x  are  faid  to  be  One.  And  what  muft  they  think  of  our  Saviour 
ni'ur.;.2^.the  mean  time,  who  knew  the  Jews  underftood  him  quite  otherwife,  and 

would  not  undeceive  them  ? 
Anfwer  to  But  they  fay,  The  Jews  put  a  maliciom  Conflru£lion  upon  his  Words.  How 
M>  -MP- doth  that  appear  ?  Do  they  think  the  Jews  had  not  heard  what  paffed  be- 
fore in  fome  former  Conferences,  when  they  thought  he  had  made  himfelf 
Joh. 5. 18.  equal  with  God  ;  and  that  he  faid,  That  all  Men  JImdd  honour  the  Son  even  as 
^'"  they  honoured  the  Father  .<? 

Thefe  Sayings  no  doubt  ftuck  with  them  ;  and  therefore  from  them  they 
had  Reafon  to  think  that  he  meant  fomething  extraordinary,  by  his  fay- 
ing, /  and  my  Father  are  One.     And  if  they   were  fo  wife  in    interpreting 
Scripture,  as  they  pretend,  they  would  have  confidered,  that  if  thefe  things 
did  not  imply  his  being  really  the  Son  of  God,  according  to  the  old  Jew- 
ifh  Notion,  he  would  have  feverely  checked  any  fuch  Mifconftruftions  of 
his  meaning,  and  have  plainly  told  them,  he  '<Nash\ittheSon  of  Man.    But 
St.  Paul's  Charader  of  him  doth  plainly  (hew,  that  he  was  far  from  any 
Phil.  2.    thing  like  Vanity  or  Oftentation,  Although  he  was  in  the  form  of  Qod,  and 
'  ''■       thought  it  no  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God  ^    which  muft  imply  that  he  was 
very  far  from  affuming  any  thing  to  himfelf :  which  he  muft  do  in  a  very 
high  meafure,  if  he  were  not  really  the  Son  of  God,  fo  as  to  be  equal  with 
j/n  of  V.God.    The  meaning  whereof,  fay  our  wfe  Interpreters,  is,  he  did  not  rob 
"'""■7)  J  .  Qgj^  ^j  t^j^  Honour  by  arrogating  to  himfelf  to  be  God,  or  equal  with  God.     But 
what  then  do  they  think  of  thefe  Pailagesin  his  Conferences  with  they^jr^.^ 
Was  he  not  bound  to  undeceive  them,  when  he  knew  they  did  fo  grofly 
mifunderfVand  him,  if  he  knew  himfelf  to  be  a  meer  Man  at  the  fame  time? 
This  can  never  go  down  with  me,  for  they  ma  \  either  charge  him  with 
affcding  Divine  Honour,  which  is  the  higheft  degree  of  Pride  and  Vanity, 
or  they  muft  own  him  to  be,  as  he  was,  The  Eternal  Son  of  God. 

VI. 


Chap.  VI 11.        Dodrine  of  the  Tnmty,  477 

VI.  Is  this  interpreting  S.  ripture  like  wife  AUn^  to  deny  Divine  Worjhip  to 
be  given  to  our  Saviour,  when  the  Scripture  fo  plainly  requires  it>  When 
I  had  urged  them  in  my  Sermon  with  the  Argument  from  Divine  WoiJJnp 
being  given  to  Chrift  ^  they  do  utterly  deny  it,  and  fay,  I  may  as  well  charge  ^^^^.^  ^^ 
them  vpith  the  blackeft  Crimes.  This  I  was  not  a  little  furprized  at,  knowfng  sa'm.^  i? 
how  warmly  Socinus  had  difputed  for  it.  But  that  I  might  not  mifunder- 
ftand  them,  I  look'd  into  other  places  in  their  late  Books,  and  from  them  I 
gather  thefe  thing?. 

1.  They  make  no  Sluejiion  but  fome  Worfl/ip  is  due  to  the  Lord  Chriji,  hut  the  ■'^'f'^"  f- 
Huefiion  is  concerning  the  kind  or  fort  of  l^Vorfljip.  mb.p.^Q. 

2.  They  difingiiipj  three  forts  of  Worfiip.  I.  Civil  Worfhip  from  Men  to 
one  another.  2.  Religious  Worjhip  given  on  the  account  of  a  t'erfon's  Holinefs., 
»r  Reldtion  to  Gjd  ^  which  is  more  or  left  acco'ding  to  their  Sanity  or  nearer 
Relation  to  God.  5.  Divine  IVorJh/p  whiih  belongs  only  to  God:,  whiih  con- 
fifis  in  a  Refignat'on  of  our  TJnderflandings^  Wills,  and  Ajfe&ions,  and  fome 
peculiar  Acls  of  Revereni  e  and  Love  towards  him.  The  two  former  may  be  gi- 
ven to  Chr/Jl,  they  fay,  but  not  the  laji. 

From  whence  it  follows,  that  they  cannot,  according  to  their  own  Prin- 
ciples, refign  theirZ)nder^andings.,  Wills,  and  Affc&ions  to  Chrift  5  becaufe 
this  is  proper  Divine  Wor/hip.  Are  not  thefe  very  good  Chriftians  the  mean 
while?  How  can  they  believe  fincerely  and  heartily  what  he  hath  reveal- 
ed, unlefs  they  rejign  theirUnderJiandings  to  him  ?  How  can  they  love  and 
efkeem  him,  and  place  their  Happinefs  in  him,  if  they  cannot  refign  their 
Wills  and  Affections  to  him  >  I  think  never  any  who  pretended  to  be  Chri- 
ftians, durft  venture  to  fay  fuch  things  before,  and  all  for  fear  they  (hould 
be  thought  to  give  D.vine  Worfiip  to  Chrifi. 

.  But  they  confefs,  That  they  are  divided  among  themfelves  about  the  Invoca- 
tion of  Chriji.     Thofe  who  a>e   for  it,  fay.  That,  he  may  be  the  obje&  of  Prayer  ^^^'  Co^-  '• 
without  making  him  God,  or  a  Perfon  of  God,  and  without  afcribing  to  him  the 
Properties  of  the  Divine  Nature,  Omn'iprefence,  Omnif  icnce,  or  Omnipotence. 
Thjfe  who  deny  it,  they  fay,  do  only  refufe  it,  becaufe  they  fuppofe  he  hath  for- 
bidden it,  which  makes  it  a  meer  Error.     A.rd  in  the  New  Tejiament,  they  fay, 
the  Charge  is  frequently  renewed,  that  they  are  to  worfj/p  God  only.      And  as 
great  Writers  as  they  have  been  thefe  laft  feven  years,    they  affirm  that. 
They  have  wrote  no  Book  in  that  time,    in  whii  h  they  have  not  been  careful  to  Anfwer  ti 
profefs  to  all  the  World,   that  a  like  Honour  or  Vi'orjhip  {much  lefs  the  fame~)  Afcbbtj^yr, 
is  not  to  be  given  to  Chrifi  as  to  God.     And  now  I  hope  we  underftand  their  "^'^p''^5P^_ 
Opinion    right  as  to  this  matter.     The  Qiieftion  is,  Whether  this  be /«/c;- 
preting  thofe  Scriptures,  which  fpeak  of  the  Honjur  and  Worjlnp  due  toChriJi., 
like  w'.fe  Men  ?  And  for  that  I  fhall  confider, 

1.  That  herein  they  are  gone  oft'  from  the  opinion  of  Socinus  and  his 
Followers,  as  to  the  fenfe  of  Scripture  in  thofe  places. 

2.  That  they  have  done  it  in  fuch  a  way,  as  will  jaftifie  the  Pagan  and 
Popifh  Idolatry  ;  and  therefore  have  not  interpreted  Scripture  like  wife  Men. 

I.  That  they  are  gone  off  from  the  opinion  of  Sjcimu  and  his  Follow- 
ers, who  did  allow  cUvine  Worjhip  to  ChriO.  This  appears  by  the  difputes 
he  had  with  Frandfcus  David's  and  Chrijiianiu  Francken  about  it.  The  'or- 
mer  was  about  the  fenfe  of  Scripture.  Socinus  produced  all  thofe  places 
which  mention  the  Invocation  of  Chriji,  and  all  thofe  wherein  St.  Paul  fairh. 
The  Grace  of  our  Lord  Jefi/i  Chr  ft  be  with  you  all-.,  and.  The  Lord  Jefus  Chriji 
dire3  our  way,  ikc.  and  al'  thofe  wherein  a  divine  Power  and  Authority  is 
given  to  Chrift  ;!S  head  of  the  Church,  for  the  fupport  of  the  Faith  and 
Hope  of  all  thofe  who  believe  in  him  in  order  to  Salvation.  And  this  Sj- 
cinus  truly  judged  to  be  proper  divine  Worfhip.  Georg.  BUndrata  was  un- 
fatis/ied,  th&t  Soc in t/s  did  not  fay  enough  to  prove  the  neceflity  of  the  In- 

P  p  p  vocation 


4.78  A  Vindication  of  the       Ch  a  p.  VIII 

vocation  of  ChrifV,  which  he  faid  he  could  do  from  his  Priejihood  and  ha 
Power,  from  the  Examples  of  the  Apojiles,  and  the  very  Nature  of  Adoration, 
And  Blandrata  was  a  Man  of  threat  Authority  among  the  Unitarians,  and 
he  thought  Socmus  ought  to  aflert  the  Necejfity  of  it,  or  elfe  he  would  do 
hjury  both  to  Chrifi  and  to  his  Caufe. 

In  the  difpute  with  Franchen,  Socimis  went  upon  this  ground,  that  di- 
vine Authority  was  a  fufficient  ground  for  divine  Worftiip,  although  there 
were  nor  thofe  effential  Attributes  of  Omni fcief/cy  and  Omnipotency.  But  I 
obferve  that  i'tfr/waa- did  not  look  on  this  as  a  matter  of  Liberty,  as  our  Z)- 
nitarians  now  Teem  to  do  5  for  in  the  Preface  to  the  former  Difpute,  he 
calls  the  Error  of  denying  the  Invocation  of  Chrift  not,  as  they  now  do, 
a  fimple  Error,  or  a  meer  Mijlahe-^  but  a  mofi  filthy  and  pernisiotffEr-^or,  an 
Error  that  leads  to  Jadaifm,  and  is  in  effe&  the  denying  of  Chrift  :  And  in  the 
Tatter  Difpute  he  faith.  That  it  tends  to  Epintrifm  and  Atheifm.  And 
Dediviii  Smalcius  faith.  That  they  we  noChriiiians  who  refitfe  giving  divine  Worjhip  to 
2.^,  Lhrtji. 

2.  Is  it  like  wife  Men,  to  go  upon  foch  grounds  as  will  juftifie  both  Pagan 
and  Pop  fl3  Idolatry  .<?  This  they  have  been  charged  with,  and  we  (hall  fee 
what  wife  Men  they  are,  by  the  Defences  they  make  for  themfelves. 

1.  As  to  Pagan  Idolatry,  they  fay, 

DifeBce  of      1.  They  had  no  divine  Command  for  fuck  a  Worjlnp.  This  was  well  thought 

Ji&eUi'ik.''^^^'  when  they  confefs,  that  fom-^  among  themfelves  deny  that  there  is  any 

f.  54.       Command  for  invocating  Chrift,  and  therefore  they  muft  charge  all  thofe 

who  do  it  with  Idolatry.     But  this  is  no  very  wife  Notion  of  Idolatry, 

which  depends  upon  the  Nature  of  the  Worfhip,  and  not  the  meer  pofitive 

Will  of  God. 

2.  They  fet  up  the  Creatures  more  than  the  Creator,  as  St.ViXiX  faith.  St. 
Paul  doth  not  think  them  fuch  Fools,  that  they  took  the  Creatures  to  be 
above  the  Creator  ^  which  was  impoffible,  while  they  owned  one  to  be 
the  Creator,  and  the  other  the  Creatures  ^  but  that  thev  gave  fuch  Aftsof 
Wor(hip  to  them,  as  belong'd  only  to  the  Creator,  and  exceeded  ia  the 
Worlhip  of  them  thofe  bounds  which  ought  to  be  between  them. 

3.  They  fit  up  an  infinite  number  of  Gods  vehj  had  been  meer  Men.  This 
is,  as  if  the  queftion  were  only,  Whether  one  or  a  great  many  were  to  have 
foch  Worfhip  given  them  ?  As  if  it  were  a  Difpute  about  a  Monarchy  or  a 
Common-wealth  of  Gods.  But  if  it  be  lawful  to  give  divine  Worfhip  to 
one  Creature,  it  is  to  a  hundred. 

4.  The  r  WorfJiiip  was  terminated  on  them,  and  fo  they  made  true  Gods  of 
Men.  Suppofe  they  afferted  one  fupreme  God,  and  made  the  reft  fubordi- 
nate  to  him,  and  appointed  by  him  to  be  the  imm?diate  Direftors  of  hu- 
mane Affairs  ^  I  defire  to  know,  Whether  the  Adoration  of  fuch  were  Ido- 
latry or  not  ?  If  it  were,  they  cannot  be  excufed  who  give  Adoration  to 
Chrift,  while  they  efteem  him  a  mere  Creature  ^  if  not,  all  the  wifer  Pa- 
gans muft  be  excufed. 

2.  As  to  the  Papifts,  the  difference  they  make  is  not  like  vpfe  Interpreters 
of  Scripture  ^  for  they  fay, 

1.  They  have  no  Text  of  Scripture  which  commands  them  to  vp»r(hip  St.  Pe- 
ter, St.  Paul  and  St.  Francis.  So  fome  among  them  fay,  there  is  none  for 
the  Invocation  of  Chrift  ^  and  with  them  the  Cafe  is  parallel.  But  if  So- 
cinus  his  Principle  be  true,  that  communicated  Excellency  is  a  fufficient 
Foundation  for  Worfhip,  becaufe  it  is  relative  to  the  Giver  j^  then  the  Pa- 
pifts muft  be  juftified  in  all  their  relative  Afts  of  Worfhip  without  any  Text 
to  comm:md  it. 

2.  They  exceed  the  Bjunds  of  Honour  and  Refpe^  due  to  glorified  Sa'mts. 
But  who  is  to  Cet  thefe  Bounds  but  themfelves  in  all  Ads  of  relative  Wor- 
fhip, 


Chap.  VIII.         Doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  479 

(hip,  becaufe  they  depend  upon  the  intention  of  the  Perfons  ?  And  they 
hold  the  very  fame  things  concerning  communicated  Knowledge  and  Power 
from  God,  which  our  Dnitarlans  make  ufe  of  to  jaftifie  their  Notion  of 
the  Invocation  of  Chrift. 

VII.  Is  this  JMterpretiffj^  Scripture  like  vcifeMeff,  to  turn  St.  Paul's  words. 
Of  Tfihotn  as  concerning  the  Fief}  Chrifl  came,  who  is  Over  all,  God  blejfed  for  ^7  t'  ?1 
ever,  into  a  Thankfgiving  to  God  tor  the  Exiltation  of  ChriO,  i.  e.  Godv'nk  p.^^. 
roho  is  over  all  be  blejfed  for  ever.      But  what  reafon  do  they  give  for   fucll  ■M'^^^'o 
a  forced  and  unufual  Senfe,  befides  the  avoiding  the  difficulty  of  having  the''^'"''''^' 
Name  of  God  given  here  to  Chrifl:  >  A  very  fubftantial  one.     If  ihe  word} 
had  been  intended  of  Chrifl,  it  would  have  been  in  the  Greek  %  rtv  and  not  5  mv, 
which  they  have  taken  up  from  Er^tfwus  and  Cnrcellxus.     But  Be%a,  who 
underftood  Greek  as  well  as  either,  (and  Curcell^us  owned  him  for  his  Ma- 
tter in  that  Tongue)  faith.  He  could  not  fufficiently  wonder  at  thisCriticifm  of 
Erafmus,  and  thinks  it  a  violent  and  far  fetih'd  L/ferpretat/on,  and  not  agree- 
able to  the  Greek  Idiom,  and  that  6  ii  is  the  fame  there  with  i?  '<^.     And 
which  may  fignify  more  to  our  Unitarians,  one  of  the  learnedfl:  Men  they 
have  had  amonj;  them  utterly  difowns  this  Interpretation,  and  faith,  That  ^'^^^'^l' 
the  whole  Verfe  belongs  to  Chrifl.     But  if  that  will  not  do,  they  have  another  78. 
fetch  in  the  cafe,  viz.  That  it  is  very  probable,    that  the  Word  God  was  not  ^"J?^^  *" 
originally  in  theText.     How  doth  this  appear  to  be  very  probable?  Of  that    '  '^"^^* 
we  have  this  Account :  Grot/us  obferves  that  the  Greek  Copies  ufed  by  the  Au-  ^"f-  '.'"'■'^ 
thor  of  theSyriac,  had  not  the  word  God  5  and  that  Erafmus  had  noted,  that'^"'^^f"^^' 
the  Copies  <?/ ^S'^  Cyprian,  St.  Hilary,  and  St.  Chryfoftom,  had  only  blejfed 
over  all,  or  above  all,  without  the  word  God  :  upon  which  he  charges  his  Adver- 
fary  with  no  left  than  Impiety  in  concealing  this,  and  calls  it,  cheatii;g  his  Rea- 
der.  But  how  if  all  this  prove  a  grofs  miftakein  him^  unlefs  it  be  only,  that 
Grot/us  and  Erafmus  come  in  for  their  (hares.     It's  true,  that  Grotitts  faith,  ^^'\'\ 
That  the  word  God  was  left  out  in  theSyriac  Verfioft.     But  F.Simon,  wbofe 
Authority  they  fometimes  magnifie  as  to  critical  Learning,  faith  plainly. 
That  Grotius  was  miflaken,  and  that  the  word  God  is  in  all  the  old  Copies,  and  H'^o're 
in  all  the  old  Verfions.     And  upon  his  bringing  Erafmus  to  prove  that  it  was  d" Nor! 
not  in  St.  Cyprian,  St.  Hilary,  and  St.  Chryfoflome,    he  cries  out.  Where  rVTeftTo, 
Sincerity  .<?  Exz^mxiS  had  met  with  one  faulty  Edition  which  had  it  not,  but  he^^^'^l'-'j*'' 
faith,  all  the  re(i  of  the  MSS.  have  />.  And  the  Learned  OxprdAnnotators,  both  ^nnot.  ia 
on  St.  Cyprian,  and  the  Creek  Teftament  compar'd  with  MSS.  (which  excellent  Cypr-  ati- 
.  Work  we  hope  will  (hortly  appear  more  publickly)  declare,  that  they  found  d"os. 
it  in  all  the  MSS.  they  could  meet  with  ^   and  even  Erafmus  himfelf  faith. 
That  the  Omijjion  in  St.  Hilary  might  be  only  by  the  negligence  of  the  Tranfcri-  f^''^""-  '" 
hers  ;  and  fo  it  appears  by  the  late  Edition  out  of  thebeft  MSS.  where  the^^*''  '^^' 
words  are.  Ex  quibus  Chrifius  qui  efl  fupcr  omnia  Deus.  And  ior  St.  C hr  ifoflom, 
all  that  is  faid  is,That  it  doth  not  appear  that  he  read  it,  but  he  thinks  it  fflight  be 
added  afterwards.  But  what  a  fort  of  proof  is  this  againftthe  general  confent 
of  MSS.  for  St.Chryfoflom  doth  not  fay  he  thought  fb.     £r/:/««j- very  plain- 
ly faith,  that  it  is  clearer  than  the  Sun,  that  Chrifl  is  called  God  in  other 
places  of  Scripture  ;  but  Grotius  can  by  no  means  be  excufed,  nor  thofe  that 
rely  upon  him  as  to  this  place. 

VIII.  Is  this  interpreting  Scrip'ure  like  wife  Men,  to  take  advantage  of  all 
OmiJJions  in  Copies,  when  thofe  which  are  entire  ought  to  be  prefcrr'd  ? 
This  I  mention  for  the  fake  of  another  noted  place,  i  Tim.  3.  16.  God  was 
manifejlin  the  Flefl).  Here  our  wife  Interpreters  triumph  unreafonably  5  viz..  ff'ff-ofthe 
For,  they  fay,  it  appears  by  theSyriac,  Latin,  iiEthiopick,  Armenian,  Ar.i- ^""' ^ '*°' 
bick,  and  moji  ancient  Greek  Bibles,  that  the  word  God  was  no'  originally  in 
this  Text,  but  added  to  it.  But  the  Arabick  in  all  the  Polyglotts  bath  God 
in  J    the  Syriac  and  JBthiopickj  if  we  believe  their  Verfions,  read  it  in  the 

P  p  p  2  Mafculin« 


480  A  Vindication  of  the       Chap.  VlII. 

Mafculine  Gender,  and  therefore  in  the  King  of  5))«7Vs  Bible,    Guido  Fahri- 

cjm  Boder'ianns  "ps^tts  in  Deitt.     As  to  the /4r»/f»7<?»,  I  have  nothing  to  fay, 

but  what  F.  Simon  tells  us  from  %)[ca.n  an  Armenian  B'lfoop  5    that  there  was 

Hirt.Cii-  great  variety  in  their  Copies  ;    and  that  their  firji  Tranjlation  was  out  of  Syriac 

tique  du  and  not  out  of  Greek.     And  the  main  point  is,    as  to  the  old  Greek  Copies:, 

ij°^c.  rr"  ^"<^  ^^  ^^^  affured,    that  there  is  but  One,  viz,,  the  Clermont  Copy  which 

leaves  out  God,  but  that  it  is  in  the  Alexandrian,  the  Vatican  and  all  others  5 

and  Curcel/£us  mentions  no  more  than  theCler/»ont  Copy. 

It  is  therefore  neceflary  to  examine  in  this  place,    the  Authority  of  this 
Clermont  Copy,  (  as  it  is  called  )  whofe  reading  is  fet  up  againfl:  all  other  an- 
y^^y^^j.cient  Greek  Copies.  B<,'2s<2  affirms  it  with  great  Confidence,  That  all  the  Greek 
pugnanc    Copies  have  God  with  one  Confent.  But  how  comes  he  to  take  no  notice  of  this 
perpccuo  Difference  of  the  Clermont  Copy  .<?   For  that  he  had  a  fight  of  that  part  of  it, 
omne"  "  which  hath  the  Epiftle^  of  St.  Paul,  appears  by  his  Notes  in  which  he  refers 
Grid  Co  to  if.     For  he  mentions  it  three  times  in  his  Notes  on  Rom.  i.  t;.  13,  29,  32. 
ices.Bf:^.  g^j  j^  ^^g  he  calls  it  a  very  ancient  Manufcript  written  in  large  Letters.  W[hat 
Morinus    (liould  make  Beza  pafs  it  over  here  ?     It  feems  by  MorinM  that  in  the  Cler- 
BibTT'    '^''"^  ^^Py^  tht'CQ  was  a  Correftion  made  by  another  hand  5  which  is  put  in- 
fix. 2.  e.4!  to  the  various  Lections  of  the  Polyglot t  in  Morinus  his  Words.    But  how  doth 
it  appear,  that  Beza's  Clermont  Copy  was  the  very  fame  which  Morinus  had  > 
Simon      Mormus  faith,  he  had  it  from  the  F.  F.  Puteani ;    (and  is  the  fame  I  fuppofe 
SuHe'     ^^^^'^  ^^^^  '"  ^^^  ^^"§  °^  France's  Library  5   of  which  they  were  then  the 
MS.  du     Keepers  )     But  Morinus  intimates  that  it  was  an  old  Copy,  rohich  fell  into  their 
^°''j-'^^^-  hands  ;  and  fo  might  come  into  the  French  King's  Library,  when  they  gave 
Rigaic-     their  own  Manufcripts  to  it.     This  feems  to  have  been  the  fame  which  P.  Pi~ 
vit.  p.  Pu-  f^^^j  fpeaks  of  5    for  the  Defcription  exadly  agrees  with  it  ^    but  Pith^us, 
pfpithx.  who  was  a  Perfon  of  great  Integrity  and  Learning,  affirms,  That  this  Volume 
de  \^iuxio  of  the  Epiftles  in  great  Letters  came  out  of  the  Monajiery  ofCorbey  5     and  fo  it 
Interpret.  ^q^^^\  ^qj.  j^g  j|^g  Clermont  Copy  which  Ber^a  had.     And  1  (hall  make  it  appear 
from  the  very  places  mention'd  by  Morinus,    that  Beza'%  Copy  did  differ 
from  that  which  Mor'nus  perufed,    as  Rov/.  4.  9.    Morinus  his  Copy  had 
fji'jiov  ;  Beza  takes  notice  of  it  only  in  the  vulgar  Latin  ^    which  he  would 
never  have  done,    if  it  had  been  in  the  Clermont  Copy,   EV.om.  5. 6.     For  e-n 
Morinus  reads  in  that  Copy  c-k  ri,  and  faith  it  is  the  true  reading ;   but  Be- 
z.(?  condemns  it,  and  never  intimates  that  his  Copy  had  it,  Rom.  7.25.  Mo- 
rinus hith,  the  reading  of  his  Copy  is  the  true,  -/jl^it;  th  ©aS.-    Beza  faith. 
It  if  againfl  all  the  Greek  Copies  but  one,  and  that  hath  yj'^^<^  3  iz^  ®c(S  ;    whe- 
ther Beza  were  miftaken  as  to  other  Copies  is  not  our  bufinefs  to  enquire  5 
but  if  the  reading  had  been  in  his  Copy  as  Morinus  found  it,  he  could  never 
have  faid,  that  but  one  Copy  had  that  different  reading,    Rom.  8.  15.    Mo- 
rinus his  Copy  had  it  rrn  aai^Koc  ^    Beza  takes  no  notice  of  any  difference. 
Rom.  10.  8.   Morinus  reads  ri  Ae'^&t  m  y^ctpi^.     Beza  faith.    It  is  not  in  the 
GreekCopies  i,  and  he  had  then  the  C/er-^/£?»f  by  him  :    but  it  is  both  in  that 
of  the  French  King's  Library,  and  oiSty^Germains -^  which  agree  with  each 
other,  where  Bez,<?'s  Copy  differs :,    and  Beza  upon  Rom.y.  6.  and  11.  6. 
obferves,  that  his  C/erw(?»f  C<?pjy  differs  from  the  reft  ^  by  which  we  fee  how 
careful  he  was  to  obferve  the  various  Readings  in  it ;  and  fo  upon  Rom.  1 5. 
24,33.  16.27. 

Rom.  i^.  6.  5ez.<?  obferves,  That  the  vulgar  Latin  leaves  out  part  of  the 
Verfe,  but  that  it  is  found  in  all  the  Greek  Copies  ;  here  Morinus  charges  Beza 
with  Negligence,  or  Dif  ingenuity  ^  becaufe  it  was  left  out  in  the  Clermont 
Copy  ^  but  how  doth  he  prove  he  had  the  fame  Copy  ;  He  faith  indeed.  That 
the  ancient  Copy,  which  he  had,  was  lent  to  Beza  ;  but  he  tells  not  by  whom, 
nor  in  whofe  Poffeflion  it  was  afterwards.  But  if  Beza  were  a  Man  of  any 
ordinary  Care  or  Honefty,    he  would  never  have  concealed  thofe  things, 

which 


^^ = . —   ^  .    .  .  ^. ^^    ^  ^  ^ 

C  H  A  p.  y  I!I.     Dotlrine  of  the  Trinity.  48  i 

which  Morinus  found  in  it.  i  Ci?r.  6.  20.  5e2;<«  faith.    That  thofe  Words  y^ 
iv  -raf  nrvivjut^xn  v/uL-iv^    are  in  all    the  Greek  Copies  ;   Mor'wus  faith.    That  they 
vpere  want'wg  in  that  vehich  he  made  ufe  of.     It's  true,  they  are  wanting  in  the 
Alexandrian,  and  fome  others;  but  in  none  that  5e2i<?  had  the  fight  of,  if  he 
may  be  believed.    Thefe  are  fufficient  to  fhew,  that  there  is  no  good  Proof, 
that  the  Copy  which  Bezahzd.  was  the  fame  which  Morlnus  borrowed  -^  and 
therefore  his  Authority  is  not  to  be  flighted  in  this  matter,  when  he  affirms, 
that  all  the  Greek  Copies  agreed  in  reading  God  manifeft  in  the  fleflyi,    and  I 
cannot  imagine  Beza  fo  intolerably  carelefs  as  he  muft  have  been,  {fMorinus 
his  Copy  andiBez,as  were  the  fame.     But  whether  it  were  in  Beza's  Copy  or 
not,  ifs  certain,  they  fay.  That  it  is  not  in  that  ancient  Manitfcipt,  which  is 
called  theClermont  Copy^  which  is  affirmed  by  Morinus,  and  taken  for  grant- 
ed by  others,  therefore  we  muft  enquire  a  little  farther  into  the  Authority  of 
this  ancient  Copy.     It  appears  by  thofe  who  have  view'd  and  confider'd 
them,  that  there  are  two  very  ancient  Copies  of  St.  PaHls  Epiftles,  fo  exaft- 
lyagreeing,  that  oneis  fuppofed  tobe  the  Tranfcrlptof  theother  5  oneisin 
the  Ring's  Library,    the  other  in  the  Monaftery"  of  St,  Gfrw«t/»/.      Which 
Mabil/iin  (zkh  is  a  thoufand  Years  old.     Thefe  two  Copies  are  in  effeft  but  Mabii.  dc 
one,  agreeing  fo  much  where  they  differ  from  others  5    and  having  the  old^^^^^P'"' 
Latin  Verfion  oppofite  to  the  Greek.     Monfieur  Amauld  had  fo  bad  an  Opi-  p.  34(5.  ' 
nionof  both  parts  of  this  Clermont  Copy,  (  as  it  is  called  )  that  he  charges  it 
with  manifeft  Forgery,  and  Impofture  5  inferring  things  into  the  Text  with- 
out ground.     F.Simon  ivho  defends  them  cannot  deny  feveral  things  to  be 
inferred,  but  he  faith,  it  was  through  Carelefsnefs  and  not  Defign.     But  he 
ConfefTes,  That  thofe  vphotranfcribed  both  thofe  ancient  Copies  of  St.VdiWVs  Epi-  DiffercSur 
Jiles,' did  not  underjiand  Greek,  and  hardly  Latin.     And  now  let  us  confider, '^^  MS.  cl4 
of  what  juft  Authority  this  different  Reading  of  the  Clermont  Copy  ought  to  p'^y.^^  ' 
be  againft  the  Confent  of  all  other  ancient  Copies.  We  find  fome  good  Rules 
laid  down  by  the  Roman  Criticks,  when  they  had  a  Defign  under  Urban  8th. 
to  compare  the  Greek  Text  of  the  NewTeftament,  with  their  ancient  Manu- 
fcripts  in  the  Vatican,  and  elfewhere  5  and  to  publifhanexaft  Edition  of  it 
(  which  Collation  was  preferved  in  the  Barberin  Library,    and  from  thence 
publiQied  by  Pet.PoJJimts,  )  and  the  main  Rules  as  to  the  various  Leftionsof 
Manufcripts  were  thefe,  i.  That  the  Text  was  not  to  be  alter'd  but  by  a  Con- 
currence of  all,  orthegreateftpartoftheManufcripts.     2.  That  if  one  Ma- 
nufcript  agreed  with  the  vulgar  Latin,  the  Text  was  not  to  be  alter'd,  but  the 
Difference  to  be  fet  down  at  the  end  of  the  Chapter.  But  it  is  obfervable  in 
that  Collation  of  twenty  two  Manufcripts,   there  is  no  one  Copy  produced, 
wherein  there  is  any  Variety  as  to  this  place.     I  know  they  had  not  Twenty 
Two  Manufcripts  of  St.  P<?«/'sEpifl:les,  (they  mention  but  Eight  ancient  Ma- 
nufcripts )    but  they  found  no  difference  in  thofe  they  had.     And  now  I 
leave  any  reafonable  Man  to  judge,  whether  t\\\%  Clcrnnont  Copy  ou^n  to  be 
relied  upon  in  this  matter.     Cut  I  have  fomething  more  to  fay  about  the 
Greek  Copies. 

I.  That  God  is  in  the  Complntenfian  Polyglott,    which  was  the  fir  ft  of  the 
Kind,  and  carried  on  by  the  wonderful  Care  and  Expence  of  that  truly  great 
Man  Cardinal  Ximenes,  who  fpared  for  no  Coft  or  Pains  in  procuring  the  befl 
ancient  Copies  both  Hebrew  and  Greek  t,  and  the  fittefl  Men  to  judge  of  both  Lan-  Alvarez 
guages.     And  in  purfuit  of  this  noble  Defign,  he  had  the  beft  Vatican  Mann-  '^^■^^^^^^ 
fcripts  fent  to  him  (  as  is  expreffed  in  the  Epiftle  before  his  Greek  Tefian/ent)  ftisFr.  xi. 
and  what  others  he  could  get  out  of  other  places,  among  which  he  had  the""^"''.'-*- 
Codex  Brit  an  niius  mention'd  by  Erafmus.     Butafter  all  thefeCopies  made  ufe     ^' 
of  by  the  Editors  there  is  no  intimation  of  any  variety  as  to  this  Place  j  al- 
though the  vulgar  Latin  be  there  as  it  was. 

Bnt 


4.82      ~  A  Vindication  of  the         Chap.  VIll. 

But  Era(mus  ffient ions  the  great  Confent  of  the  old  Copies  as  to  the  vulgar  La- 
t'th,  a>id  whence  Jhould  that  come,  but  from  a  Variety  in  the  old  Greek  Copies.  To 
that  I  anfwer, 

2,  That  the  Greek  Copies,  where  they  were  heft  underftood  had  no  Vari- 
ety in  tbem  ;   /.  e.  among  the  Greeks  themfelves.     As  appears  by  Gregory 
Nyjjen,  St.  Chryfoflom,  Theodoref,  Oectimemiis  and  Theophyla^.    But  doth  not 
Ameloce    Mottfieur  Amelotefay,  That  the  Mar  qui fs  ofVdez  had  Sixteen  old  Mawufcrip's, 
w  Loc,      ^^^^  of  which  he  gathered  various  Readings,    and  he  teads  it  o'.       I  cannot  but 
obferve,  how  he  commends  Fabricitts  and  Walton,    for  rendring  the  Syriac 
Verjion  according  tothe  vulgar  Latin,  but  that  will  appear  to  be  falfe,    to  any 
one  that  looks  into  them  ;  tlieformeris  mentioned  already  ^    and  the  latter 
tranOates  it,  ^iod  manifejlattts  fit  incarne.     But  as  to  the  Marquifs  oiVelez, 
his  Copies,    there  is  a  Secret  in  it,    which  ought  to  be  underftood,    and  is 
Marian,    difcover  d  by  Mariana.     He  confelTes,  He  had  fo  many  Manufripts,  eight  of 
'Ci\ty\i\g.  them  out  of  the  Efcurial,    but  that  he   never  fet  down  whence  he  had  his  Rea- 

dings. 
VtdcL  ad       And  in  another  place,  he  ingenuoufly  confelTes,  That  hk  Defignwas  to  jn- 
Schol.      fiifie  the  vulgar  Latin  If  and  therefore  coUeBed  Readings  on  pu^pofe,  and  he  fuf- 
pedsfome  out  of  fuch  Greek  Copies,   as  after  the  Council  of  Florence  were  made 
conformable  to  the  Latin.  Which  Readings  were  publifhed  by /<;  Cerda,  whofe 
Authnrity  Amelote  follows.     And  now  what  reafon  can  there  be,    that  any 
fuch  late  Copies  lliould  be  prefer'd  before  thofe  which  were  ufed  by  thQGreek 
Fathers. 
Hier.  m         5.  That  the  Latin  Fathers  did  not  concern  themfelves  about  changing 
Loc  Leo  tf^gij.  Verfion,  becaufe  they  underftood  it  ftill  to  relate  to  the  Perfon  o£ 
ad'e".  ^^  Chrift.     So  do  St.  Jerom,  Leo,  Hilary,  Fulgentins,  and  others.     As  to  the 
Hilar,  de  Objcftions  about  Liberatus,  Macedonius  and  Hincmarns,   I  refer  them  to  the 
J""!""^'      Learned  Oxford  Annotations. 

Fuig.'ad  IX.  Is  it  not  wifely  done  of  thefe  L/terpreters,  to  charge  our  Church  fo 
Thra.  c.  4.  j^u^;,  for  retaining  a  Verfe  in  St.  John's  firjl  Epijlle,  when  they  had  fo  good 
I  Joli.5.7-  Authority  to  do  it  ?  The  Verfe  is.  There  are  three  that  bear  Record  in  Hea- 
cinfiJer.tn  ^^^^^  f/^^  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghofi,  &c.  From  hence  they  charge  us  with 
f'29^  "^  corrupted  Copies  and  falfe  Tranflations  ;  as  an  inftance  of  the  former,  they 
fffloryof  produce  this  Text,  which  they  fay,  was  not  originally  in  the  Bible,  but  is  ad' 
^T/t^  '^^'^^^  ^X  and  is  not  fund  in  the  mojl  anJent  Copies  of  the  Greek,  nor  in  the 
ArchbiflncSyrhc,  Arabic,  Ethiopic,  (?/•  Armenian  B/Z'/ej-,  nor  in  the  moji  ancient  Latin 
V'^9-  Bibles.  Notwithftanding  all  which,  I  hope  to  be  able  to  (hew,  that  our 
Church  had  reafon  to  retain  k.  For  which  end  we  are  to  confider  thefe 
things  :, 

I.  That  Erafwus  firft  began  to  raife  any  fcruple  about  it.    For,  however 
it  might  not  be  in  fome  MSS.  which  were  not  look'd  into,  this  Verfe  was  con- 
ftantly  and  folemnly  read  asa  part  of  Scripture  tfoth  in  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Seidcn  de  Churches,  as  Mr.  Selden  confeffes,  and  that  it  was  in  Wickliff's  Bible.  So  that 
syncd./.   i^ere  was  a  general  confent  of  the  Eaftern  and  Weftern  Churches  for  the  re- 
^' ''"'''     ceiving  it ;  and  although  there  might  be  a  variety  in  the  Copies,    yet  there 
was  none  in  thepublick  Service,    and  no  Objeftions  againft  it  that  we  can 
find.     But  Er^/>!w«j his  Authority  fway'd  fomuch  here,    that  in  the  Bibles  in 
the  time  of  H.  8.  and  E.  6    it  was  retained  in  a  different  Letter.     As  in  Tyn^ 
dalls  Bible  printed  by  the  King's  Printer,  ^.  D.  1540.  and  in   the  Church 
Bible  of  King  E.  6.  in  both  which  they  are  read,   but  not  in  the  fame  Chara- 
fter.     Yet  Erafwus  his  Authority  was  not  great  enough  to  caft  it  out,    if  be 
had  a  mind  to  have  done  it.     Which  doth  not  appear,  for  he  faith  himfelf, 
that  finding  it  in  the  codex  Britannicus,    as  he  calls  it,   he  reftoreJ  it  in  his 
TranJlationiiS  well  ^stheCreek  Teftament,  out  of  which  he  had  expunged  it 
before  in  two  Editions,  and  the  Complutenfian Bible  coming  out  with  it,  ad- 
ded 


mil 


Chap.  V'ilL  Doctrine  of  the  1  rinity.  483 

ded  greater  Authority  to  thekeepingof  itin,  and  foitvvas  preferved  in  the 
Greek  TeHaments  oi  Hervagius^  l?ldnti>i  and  R:  Stephens  and  others,  after  the 
MSS.  had  been  more  diligently  fearched.     Morinm  faith,   it  was  in  feven  ^T/'Morin  ex- 
Rob.Stephens  his  MSS.  but  F.  Simon  will  not  allow  that  it  was  in  any  but  the/7"'^Es 
CompUitenJtat}^  which  is  a  ftrange  piece  of  boldnefsin  him.     For  Bez,a  faith,  :.simon 
He  had  the  tife  of  them  all  from  him  ^  and  H.  Stephens  let  him  have  his  Father's  ^,'1'?"^^  ^'^ 
Copy  compared  with  25  MSS.  and  he  affirms.  That  he  found  it  infeveral  of?<.  Ber./piit 
Sxe^hcm  hk  old  Ms S.    befides  xhz  Codex  Brit anni.  us  and  the  Complutenjian^^  ^^''• 
Copy,  and  therefore  he  concludes,    that  it  ought  to  be  retained.     (  And  fo  jt^^'^'^™' 
was,    after  thefe  Copies  were  come  abroad  in  the  Bifhop's  Bible,   under 
Qiieen  Elizabeth,  without  any  diftinftion  of  Charafter,    as  likewife  in  our 
laft  Tranflation.  )     And  it  is  obfervable,  that  r^mclote  oftrms  that  he  found 
it  in  the  mofi  ancient  Greek  Copy  in  the  Vatican  Library  ;  but  the  Roman  Cri- 
ticiis  contefs,  it  was  not  in  their  8  MSS ^  yet  they  thought  it  fit  to  be  retained 
from  the  common  Greek  Copies,  and  the  Teftimonies  of  the  Fathers  agreeing 
with  the  vulgar  Latin. 

2.  This  Verfe  was  in  the  Copies  of  the  African  Churches  from  St.  Cyprian's 
time,  as  appears  by  the  Teftimonies  of  St.  Cyprian,  Fulgentius,  Facundus, 
ViHor  Vitenjis,  and  FfgiliusTapfcn/fs,  which  are  produced  by  Others.  F.Si- 
mon hath  a  bold  conjefture,  of  which  he  is  not  fparing,  that  ViiXor  Viten-  Critiqus 
fis  »•  rhefrrft  who  produced  it  as  St.  JohnV  faying  5  and  that  it  was  St.  Cypri-  !il  '1°''  g 
ZX\s  ownaffert'on  and  not  made  ufe  of  by  him  as  a  Tejiimony  of  Scripture.  But 
they  who  can  fay  fuch  things  as  thefe,  are  not  much  to  be  trufted.  For  Sr. 
Cyprian's  Words  are,  fpeaking  of  St.  John  before,  Et  iterum  de  Patre  &-  Fi- 
V.o  fcriptum  eji,  ^  hi  tres  unum  funt.  And  it  was  not  ViSlor  Vitenfis,  but  the 
African  B/(hops  and  Eugenius  in  the  head  of  them,  who  made  that  addrefs  to 
Huneric,  wherein  they  fav.  That  it  is  clearer  than  Light,  that  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Ghojl  are  one  God,  andprove  it  by  the  Tejiimony  of  St.  John.  Tret 
funt  quiTeJlimonium  perhibent  in  c£lo,  Pater,  Verbum  €^  Spiritus  San3us,  ^ 
hi  Tres  unum  funt, 

5.  In  the  former  Teflimony,  the  Authority  of  the  Vulgar  Latin  was  made 
ufe  of;   and  why  is  it  rejefted  here  ?     When  Morinus  confefles  there  is  no 
variety  in  the  Copies  of  it.     Vulgata  verfio  hunc  verfum  conjlanter  habet.     And  Morin  ex- 
he  obferves,   that  thofe  of  the  Fathers,    who  feem  to  omit  it    (  as  St.  ^4gu-  "^'^^x^^l 
jtin  againft  ALiximinus  )    did  not  follow  the  old  Latin  Verfion.     Lucas  Bru-  c.  i.  n  9.* 
genfts,  faith  only.    That  in   ^55  old  Capies,  they  found  it  wanting  but  in  five. 
As  to  St.  Jeroms  Prologue,    I  am  not  concerned  to  defend  it  ^    but  Erafmus 
thought ;/  had  too  much  of  St.  Jerora  in  it,   and  others  think  it  hath  too  little. 
F.  Simon  confefles,  that  P.  Pith£us  and  Mabillon  think  it  was  St.  Jerom's,  and  Critique 
that  it  was  in  the  MSS.     But  I  conclude  with  faying.    That  whoever  was    °"  '''^' 
the  Author,  at  the  time  when  it  was  written,  the  Greek  Copies  had  this  Verfe, 
orelfe  he  was  a  notorious  Impoftor. 

X.  The  next  thing  I  (hall  ask  thefe  wfe  Interpreters  of  Scripture,  is,    Whe- 
ther,  when  the  Scripture  fo  often  affirms,  Ihat  the  World  was  made  by  the  [oh.  i.g. 
Son,  and  that  all  things  were  created  by   hJm  in  Heaven  and  in  Earth,    irH.b.  1.2, 
be  reafonable  to  underftand  them  of  Creating  nothing^     For  after  all  their  J-*"^",^  ,,ii 
Shifts  and  F^vafi.ns  it  comes  to  nothing  at  laft.     But  that  we  may  fee,    how 
much  they  are  confounded  with  thefe  places,  we  may  obferve. 

I.  They  fometimes  fay,  that  where  the  Creation  of  alJ things  is  fpoken  of  it 
is  not  meant  ofCkri(l  but  of  God.  For  in  the  anfwer  they  give  to  the  place 
of  the  Epiftle  to  the  C'l/olfians,  they  have  thefe  Words :  For  by  him  all 
things  were  created,  are  notfpoken  ofChriji,  but  of  God  :  Thefenfeof  the  whole  ^'^- "!''''' 
context  if  this,  The  L  rdChrifl  it  the  mojiperfeJ  Image  of  the  invijtble  God,  the  "^^'^^ 
Firjl  horn  from  the  dead  of  every  Creature  5  for,  0  Coloilians,  by  him,  even  by 
the  invij/blc  God  were  all  things  created '^  they  were  not  from  all  eternity,  nor  rofe 

from 


484  A  Vindication  of  the        Chap.  YHI. 

from  the  concourfe  of  Atoms  5    but  all  of  them^  whether  things  in  Heaven,  or 
things  in  Earth,  whether  Thrones,  or  Domhnans,  or  Princpalities^dr  Powers^ 
are  Creatures,  and  were  by  God  createrl,  who  is  before  them  all,  and  by  him  they 
all  confft.     This  is  a  very  fair  Conceflion,  that  of  whomfoever  thefe  Words 
are  fpoken  he  muft  be  God. 
Def.ofthe      2.  But  in  thc  defence  of  this  very  Book,  they  go  about  to  prove.  That 
NijJovyof  ffjg  Creation  of  the  World  is  not  meant  by  thefe  Words.     Is  not  this  interp-efing 
p.^-'i^iX  like  wife  Men  indeed?    And  they  tell  us,  They  cannot  bnt  wonder,  that  Men 
fJiohld  attribute  the  old  or  firjl  C  cation  to  ChrijL      Wift  Men  do  not  ufe  to 
wonder  at  plain  things.     For  what  is  the  old  or  firft  Creation,  but  the  ma- 
king the  World,  and  creating  all  things   in  Heaven  and  Earth  ?    And  thefe 
things  are  attributed  to  the  Word,  to  the  Son,  toChrifi.    But  fay  they.  The 
Scripture  does  never  fay  in  exprcfs  words,  that  Chrifi  hath  created  th^^eaven 
and  the  Earth.    What  would  thefe  wife  Interpreters  have  ?  Doth  not  by  whom 
all  things  were  created  in  Heaven  and  Earth  imply,  that  Heaven  and  Earth 
were  created  by  him  ?    But  they  have  a  notable  obfervation  from  the  Lan- 
guage of  the  New  Teftament,  vi%.  That  Chr/Jl  is  never  faid  to  have  created 
the  Heaven,  the  Earth,  and  the  Sea,  and  all  that  therein  is  ;  but  we  are  apt 
to  think,  that  creating  all  things  takes  in  the  Sea  too  ^  and  that  in  the  Scrip- 
ture Language  Heaven  and  Earth  axe  the  fame  with  iheVl'orld  ^  and  I  hope 
the  World  takes  in  the  Sea  ^  and  the  Wbrld  is  faid  to  be  made  by  him  ;    And 
do  not  all  things  take  in  all  ?    No,  fay  they,  all  thngs  are  limited  to  all 
Thrones,  Principalities  and  Powers,  viable  and  invi/ible.     Then  however  the 
making  of  thefe  is  attributed  to  ChriiL     And  if  he  made  all  Powers  vifible 
and  invi/ible,  he  muft  be  GoiL  -N*?/ /^  neither.     What  then  is  the  meaning 
of  thc  words,  By  him  were  all  things  created  that  are  in  Heaven  and  in  Earth, 
vijihle  and  invijible  ;  whether  they  be  Thrones,  or  Dominions,  or  Principalities 
or  Powers,  all  things  were  created  by  him  and  for  him  ?   Surely  then   thefe 
P- 10'      Dominions  and  lowers  were  created  by  him.     No,  fiy  they,  that  which  we 
render  created,  ought  to  be  rendred  modelled,  dijpofed,  or  reformed  into  a  new 
Order,     Were  ever  wife  Men  driven  to  fuch  miferable  Shifts?    One  while 
thefe  words  are  very  ftrong  and  good  Proof  of  the  Creation  of  the  World 
againft  Atheifls  and  Epicureans,  and  by  and  by  they  prove  nothing  of  all 
this,  but  only  a  new  modelling  of  fome  things  called  Dominions  And  Powers. 
Do  they  hope  ever  to  convince  Men  at  this  rate  of  wife  interpreting?  Well 
but  what  is  this  creating  or  difpofing  things  into  a  new  Order  .<?  And  who  are 
thefe  Dominions  and  Powers  .<?  They  anfwer,  Men  and  Angels.     How  are  the 
Angels  created  by  him  and  for  him  ?     Did  he  die  to  reform  them,  as  well  as 
Mankind  ?  No,  but  they  are  put  under  him.     And  fo  they  were  created  by  him^ 
that  is,  they  were  not  created  by  him,  but  only  made  fubje£l  to  him.     But 
who  made  them  fubjeB  to  him  ?  The  Man  Chrift  Jefu  .«*  No  ;  God  appointed 
him  to  be  the  Lord  of  every  Creature.     Then  they  were  not  created  by  Chrifi^ 
but  by  God  i   but  the  Apoftle  faith,  they  were  created  by  Chrift.     But  God 
made  him  Head  of  the  Chunh,  and  as  Head  of  the  Body  he  rules  over  all.    This 
we  do  not  at  all  qneftion  ^  but  how  this  comes  to  be  creating  Dominions  and 
Powers,  vifible  and  invifible.     Did  God  make  the  Earth,  and  all  the  living 
Creatures  in  it,  when  he  made  Man  Lord  over  them  ?    Or  rather  was  Man 
faid  to  create  them,  becaufe  he  was  made  their  Head  ?   If  this  be  their  in- 
terpreting Scripture  like  wife  Men,  I  (hall  be  content  with  a  lefs  meafure  of 
Underftanding,  and  thank  God  for  it. 

XL  Laftly,  is  this  to  interpret  Scripture  like  wife  Men,  to  leave  the  Form 

ofBaptifm  doubtful,  whether  it  were  not  inferted  i/.to  St.  Matthew'j  Gofpel  ^  Or 

to  nnderftand  it  in  another  Senfe  than  thcChriftian  Church  hath  done  from 

An[mrto  the  Apoftles  times  ?  I  fay  firft,  L:aire  it  doubtful:^    becaufe  they  (3i\\That 

^^^^^■^'^'>- Learned  Cr'Jicks  havt  given  very  jlrongRcafons  why  thcj  believe  thofe  w.rds. 

In 


Chap.  VJll.       Do^rnie  of  the  Tv'mity,  485 

I»  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghojl,  were  not 
fpoke  by  our  Saviour,  but  have  been  added  to  the  Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew,  from  the 
commonForm  and  PraHice  of  the  Church.  Why  are  the^Q  JirongReafons  of  Learn- 
ed Criticks  mentioned,  but  to  raife  Doubts  in  Peoples  Minds  about  them  ? 
But  they  declare  afterwards  aga'wjl  them.  Not  too  much  of  that.  For  they  fay 
only,  That  they  are  not  veithout  their  weight,   but  they  have  obferved  feveral  P.  i6„ 
things  that  make  them  think,  that  this  Text  is  a  genuine  part  of  Scripture.  Very 
wifely  and  difcreetly   fpoken  !  The  Reafons  are  flrong  and  weighty,  but  they 
think  othervpife.    I  wi(h  they  had  told  the  World,  who  thefe  learned  Criticks 
were,  left  it  fhould  be  fufpefted  that  they  were  their  own  Inventions.    But 
I  find  a  certain  Namelefs  Socinian  was  the  Author  of  them ;  and  his  Words 
are  produced  by  Sandiiu,  (aPerfon  highly  commended  by  them  for  his  In-^^"*^  ''<'' 
duftry  and  Learning,  but  as  much  condemned  by  others  for  want  of  Skill  or  pYradox- 
Ingenuity.)    The  reafon  of  writing  thefe  Reafons,  Satjdim  freely  confeflesP-  *"5 
was,  Becaufe  this  place  clearly  proved  a  Trinity  ofPerfons  again/?  the  Socinians. 
But  what  are  thefe  very  flrong  and  weighty  Reafons  .<?  For  it  is  great  pity  but 
they  fhould  be  known. 

In  the  firft  place  he  obferves.  That  St.  MatthewV  Gofpel  was  written  in  He- 
hretv,  and  the  Original  he  faith  is  loft  ^  and  he  fufpe^s  that  either  St.  Jerom 
was  himfelf  the  Tranflator  into  Greek  and  Latin  (who  was  a  Corrupter  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  Origen)  or  fame  unknown  Perfon  5  from  whence  it  follows,  that  our 
Gofpel  of  St.  Matthew  zr  not  of  fuch  Authority,  that  an  Article  of  fuch  moment 
fhould  depend  upon  it.  Is  not  this  a  very  flrong  and  weighty  Reafon  .<?  Muft 
not  this  be  a  very  learned  Critick,  who  could  mention  St.  Jerom  as  Tranflator 
of  St.  Matthew's  Gofpel  mio  Greek  >  But  then  one  would  think  this  Interpre- 
ter might  have  been  wife  enough  to  have  added  this  of  himfelf.  No ;  he 
dares  not  fay  that,  But  that  it  was  added  by  Tranfcribers.  But  whence  or 
how  ?  To  that  he  faith,  That  theyfeem  to  be  taken  out  of  the  Gofpel  according 
to  the  Egyptians.  This  is  great  News  indeed.  But  comes  it  from  a  good 
hand  ?  Yes,  from  Epiphanius.  And  what  faith  he  to  this  purpofe  >  He 
faith.  That  the  SaheWhns  made  ufe  of  the  counterfeit  Egyptian  Gofpel,  <?ȣ/ Epiph. 
there  it  was  declared  that  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghofl  were  the  fame.  And  n^i/^' 
what  then  ?  Doth  he  fay  they  borrowed  the  Form  of  Baptifm  from  thence  ? 
Nothing  like  it.  But  on  the  contrary,  Epiphanitff  urges  this  very  Form  in  ^  4* 
that  place  againft  the  Sabellians',  and  quotes  St.  M<?//^eji''s  Authority  for  it. 
But  this  worthy  Author  produces  other  Reafons,  which  Sandius  himfelf 
laughs  at  and  defpifes,  and  therefore  I  pafs  them  over.  The  moft  mate- 
rial feems  to  be  if  it  hold,  That  the  mofl  ancient  Writers  on  St.  Matthew  take 
no  notice  of  them,  and  he  mentions  Or/^e«,  Hilary,  and  St.ChiyfoJlom  -.^  but 
thefe  Negative  Arguments  Sandius  thinks  of  no  force.  Origen  and  %t.Chry 
^oflom,  he  faith,  reach  not  that  Chapter.  The  Opus  iniperfeU-um,  which  was 
none  of  his,  doth  not  x,  bat  his  own  Commentaries  do,  and  there  he  not 
only  mentions  the  Form,  but  takes  notice  of  the  Compendious  DoBrine  deli- 
vered by  it,  which  can  be  nothing  el fe  but  that  of  the  Tr/«//^,  In  the  Greek 
Catena  on  ^t.Matthew  there  is  more  mentioned,  vi%.  That  Chrifl  had  not  then 
firft  his  Power  given  him  5  for  he  was  with  God  before,  and  was  himfelf  by  Na- 
ture God.  And  there  Gregory  Na%iani,en  faith.  The  Form  of  Baptifm  was  iti 
the  Name  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  And  he  there  fpeaks  more  fully :  Remember, 
faith  he,  the  Faith  into  which  thou  wert  baptized.  Into  the  Father  >  That  if 
well,  but  that  is  no  farther  than  the  Jews  go  i  for  they  own  one  God,  and  one 
Perfon.^  Into  the  Son  .<?  That  is  beyond  them,  but  not  yet  perfe&.  Into  the 
Holy  Ghofl  .<?  Tes,  faith  he,  this  is  perfefl  Baptifm.  But  what  is  the  common 
Name  of  thefe  three,  ^«Aasi"«  tdVtS  0eS.<?  Plainly  that  of  God.  But  this  learned 
Critick  obferves,  that  Hilary  in  fome  Copies  takes  no  notice  of  this  Form.  That 
is  truly  obferved  5   for  the  very  Conclufion  is  not  Hilary's,  but  taken  out 

Q.  q  q  of 


4-8 (^  A  Vindication  of  the         Chap.  IX. 

of  St.  Jeroffi  ^   but  if  he  had  look'd  into  Hilary's  Works,  he  would  have 

found  the  Form  of  Baptifm  owned  andafferted  by  him.     For  he  not  only 

Jg  j*jj'„?' fets  it  down  as  the  Form  of  faith,  as  well  as  our  Baptifm  appointed  by  Chrijl* 

'but  argues  from  it  againft  the  SabelUant  and  Ebionites  as  well  as  others.  Thus 

we  fee  how  very  ftrong  and  weighty  the  Arguments  of  this  learned  Critick 


were. 


C  H  A  P.    IX. 

The  General  Sen^e  oj  the  Chrijlian  Chwch  proved  from  the  Form  of 
Baptiffri,  as  it  was  underflood  in  the  firft  Jges. 


B 


ill  iiic  vTiuiuga  or  unoie  racners  5  wnensc.  cypnan  laicn  expreuy,  laattae 
Jyp/jan.  Form  of  Baptifm  is  prefcribed  by  Chrifl,  that  it  f/iould  be  in  plena  &  adunat^ 
£;,.  73'     ffinitate  5  i.  e.  in  the  full  Confeffion  of  the  Holy  Trinity  ^  and  therefore  he 


\\Xt  our  Unitarians  pretend.  That  they  arefatisfied,  that  the  Form  of  Bap- 
tifm is  found  in  all  Copies,  and  all  the  ancient  Tranflations,  and  that  it 
P.  17.       ^^^  fifed  before  the  Council  of  Nice,  as  appears  by  fever al  places  tf/TertulIian. 
But  how  then  ?  There  are  two  things  ftick  with  them. 

(i.)  That  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  do  not  alledge  it  to  prove  the  Divinity 
of  the  Son  or  Holy  Ghofl. 

(2.)  That  the  Form  of  Words  here  ufed,  doth  not  prove  the  Do&rifte  of  the 
Trinity.     Both  which  muft  be  ftriftly  examin  d. 

I.  As  to  the  former.    It  cannot  but  feem  ftrange  to  any  one  converfant 
ia  the  Writings  of  thofe  Fathers  5  when  St.  Cyprian  faith  exprefly.  That  the 

Cypr'  "^  ■' 

ad; 

denied  the  Baptifm  of  the  Marcionites,  becaufe  the  Faith  of  the  trinity  was  not 
Jincere  among  them,  as  appears  at  large  in  that  Epiftle.  And  this,  as  far  as  I 
can  find,  was  the  general  Senfe  oi^t  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  as  well  as  others. 
cenf!"pa  ^"^  '^  ^^  "°  improbable  Opinion  oiErafmm  and  Voffius,  two  learned  Criticks 
rif.Tic.  II.  mdecd,  That  the  mofl  ancient  Creed  went  no  further  than  the  Form  of  Baptifm^ 
Symbdiff  ^'^*  ^°  Relieve  in  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghofl -^^  and  the  other-  Articles 
I.  V.  38.  '  were  added  as  Herefies  gave  occafion.  St.  Jerom  faith.  That  in  the  Traditi- 
Hierom.  onal  C'ced,  which  they  received  from  the  Apoftles,  the  main  Article  was,  the 
ren^\.de^'^"fiJ-I''^"  of  theTrinity^  to  which  he  joins,  the  Unity  of  the  Church,  and  Re 
Bap:ifm.  furre&ion  of  the  Flefh  5  and  then  adds,  that  herein  is  contained,  Omne  Chrijii- 
De'pia;.  '^"^  Dogmatis  Sacramentum,  the  whole  Faith  into  which  Chrijlrans  were  baptized. 
fcripc.ha:-  And  he  faith.  It  was  the  Cujiom  among  them  to  in/lruSl  thofe  who  were  to  be  bap' 

c"'  rian°"  *'^^^  ^''*'  ^'"'^'^  ^^^^  "'  '^^  Do^rine  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  So  that  there  was 
Ep!'2^75  ^^^^"  "o  Qpeflion  but  the  Form  of  Baptifm  had  a  particular  Refpeft  to  it  5 
Ed.  Ox.  and  therefore  fo  much  weight  is  laid  upon  the  ufe  of  it,  as  well  by  the  Ante- 
Baptifm.  ■^■'^^"^  Fathers  as  Others.  For  Tertullian  faith.  That  the  Form  of  Baptifm 
c.  Donar.  n>as  prefcribed  by  our  Saviour  himfelf  as  a  Law  to  his  Church.  St.  Cjipriatt 
Ambror^°  the  fame  purpofe,  That  he  commanded  it  to  be  ufed.  St.  Augufiin  caWs 
de  Sp.  them,  the  Words  of  the  Gofpel,  without  which  there  is  no  Baptifm.  The  reafon 
Sanft.  /. ,.  given  by  St.  Ambrofe  \S~  becaufe  the  Faith  of  the  Trinity  is  in  this  Form.  But 
Bed",  in  ^°w  if  any  one  Perfon  were  left  out  ?  He  thinks,  that  if  the  reft  be  not  de- 
At\  19.    nied,  the  Baptifm  is  good  5  but  otherwife,  vacuum  eji  omne  Myfterium^  the 

H\i't\t'^'^°^^  ^'^P^'f^ ''  -void. 

Sacr./.  I.  So  that  the  Faith  of  the  Trinity  was  that  which  was  required  in  order  to 
^-13,  true  Baptifm,  more  than  the  bare  Form  of  Words.  If  there  were  no  rea- 
son" m\.  ^"^n  to  queftion  the  former,  St.  Ambrofe  feems  of  Opinion  that  the  Baptifm 
s.c.fedqd.  was  good,  although  every  Perfon  were  not  named  ^  and  therein  he  was 
noin.^/.^s".'  ^°^^^'^^^  ^y  ^^'^'^y  ^"i°  ^^  ^'^"^o  ^icfore,  Peter  Lombard,  and  others.    And 

<■•  3   CIO.  ott 


Chap.  IX.  ,  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  487 

St.  Bafil  in  the  Greek  Church  aflerted,  that  Baptlfm  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghofi 
teas  fuffiaent.,  becaufe  he  is  hereby  owned  to  be  of  equal  Dignity  with  the  Father 
and  Son -^  butitisftill  fuppofing  that  the  whole  and  iindividedTriniry  benot 
denied.  And  he  elfevvhere  faith.  That  baptizing  in  the  Name  of  the  Father^ 
Son,  and  Holy  Gho/i  is  a  tnofl  folemn  Profejjion  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  becaufe 
they  are  all  joined  together  in  this  publick  AH  of  Devotion.  But  others  thought 
that  the  Baptifm  was  not  good,  unlefs  every  Perfon  were  named  5  which 
Opinion  generally  obtained  both  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  Church.  And  the 
late  Editors  of  it.  Ambrofe  obferve,  that  in  other  places  he  makes  the  whole 
Form  of  Words  necelTary  as  well  as  the  Faith  in  the  Holy  Trinity.  The 
Baptifm  of  the  Eunomians  was  rejefted,  becaufe  they  alter'd  the  Form  and 
the  Faith  too,  faying,  That  the  Father  was  uncreate^  the  Son  created  by  the^^^^L 
Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghoft  created  by  the  Son.  ad  fin. 

The  Baptifm  of  the  Samofatenians  was  rejefted  by  the  Council  of  NrVe. ^?'"^''- 
St.  Augujiine  thinks  it  was  becaufe  they  had  not  the  right  Form  :,   but  the  truec.'i 


Nica-n. 


9. 


Reafon  was,  they  rejefted  the  Docirine  of  the  Trimty.     And  fo  theCouncilAug.de 
oi  Aries  \.  doth  in  exprefs  Words  refufe  their  Baptifm  who  refufed  to  ^'ww  "*concii. 
thatDo&rine.    That  Council  was  held  A.  D.  314.  and  ihtitioxQ BellarmineVx^u.c.i. 
and  others  after  him  are  very  much  mikken,  when  they  interpret  this  Ca-^^"*'"'" 
non  of  the  ^r/<«»x,  concerning  whofe  Baptifm  there  could  be  no  Difputetill  c.^j.^^' "' 
many  years  after.    But  this  Canon  is  de  Afris,  among  whom  the  Cuftom  o£ 
Baptizing  prevailed  5  but  this  Council  propounds  an  expedient  as  raoft  a- 
greeable  to  the  general  Senfe  of  the  Chriftian  Church,  v'nz,.  That  if  any  relin- 
quifljed  their  Herejy^  and  came  back  to  the  Church,  they  Jhould  ask  them  the  Creed:, 
and  if  they  found  that  they  were  baptized  in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Gho(l,  they  Jhould  have  only  impoption  of  hands  5  but  if  they  did  not  con- 
fefs  theTrinity,  their  Baptifm  was  declared  void.     Now  this  I  look  on  as  an 
impregnable  Teftimony  of  the  Senfe  of  the  ./4«/e-NJfre»e  Fathers,  z/Zsi.  That 
they  did  not  allow  that  Baptifm  which  was  not  in  the  Name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft :,   or  (which  they  underftood  to  be  the  fame)  in  the 
Confejfion  of  the  Faith  of  the  Trinity.     How  then  can  our  Unitarians  pretend. 
That  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  did  not  alledge  the  Form  of  Baptifm  to  prove  the 
Trinity  .<?   For  the  words  are.  If  they  do  not  anfwer  to  thk  trinity,  let  them 
not  be  baptized,  faith  this  plenary  Council,  as  St.  Augujiine  often  calls  it.  What 
Trinity  do  they  mean  ?  Of  mere  Names  or  Cyphers,  or  of  ojie  God  and  two 
Creatures  joined  in  the  fame  Form  of  words,  as  our  Unitarians  underftand 
it  >  But  they  affirm.  That  the  Atidenfs  of  400  Tears  do  not  inft^  on  this  Text  '^"{f"'  *' 
of  St.  Matthew  to  prove  the  Divinity  or  Perfonality  of  the  Son  or  Spirit. 

Therefore  to  give  a  clear  account  of  this  mattisr,  I  (hall  prove,  that  the 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers  did  underftand  thefe  words,  fo  as  not  to  be  taken,  ei- 
ther for  meer  Names,  or  for  Creatures  Joined  with  God  ;  but  that  they  did 
maintain  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft,  from  the  general  Senfe,  in 
which  thefe  words  were  taken  among  them. 

And  this  I  (hall  do  from  thefe  Arguments  5 

1.  That  thofe  who  took  them  in  another  Senfe,  were  oppofed  and  con- 
demned by  the  Chriftian  Church. 

2.  That  the  Chriftian  Church  did  own  this  Senfe  in  publick  Afts  of  di- 
vine Worftiip  as  well  as  private. 

3.  That  it  V9as  owned  and  defended  by  thofe  who  appeared  for  the  Chri- 
ftian Faith  againft  Infidels.  And  I  do  not  know  any  better  means  than  thefe 
to  prove  fuch  a  matter  of  Faft  as  this. 

I,  The  Senfe  of  the  Chriftian  Church  may  be  known  by  its  behaviour 
towards  thofe,  who  took  thefe  words  only  for  different  Names  or  Appearan- 
ces of  One  Perfon. 

Qqq  2  And 


p.   17- 


4.88  ■  A  Vindication  uf  the  Chap.  IX. 

And  of  thjs  we  have  full  Evidence,  as  to  Praxeas,  Noetus  and  Sahellius,  all 
long  before  the  Council  of  Nice. 

Praxeas  was  the-firft, at  leafl:  in  the  Weftern  Church,  who  made  Father,  So/f, 
and  Holy  Ghojl,  to  he  only  feveral  Names  of  the  fame  Perfon,  and  he  was  with 
great  Warmth  and  Vigour  oppofed  by  Terttillian,  who  charges  him  with 
introducing  a  netv  Opinion  into  the  Church,  as  will  prefently  appear.  And  his 
Teftimony  is  the  more  confiderable,  becaufe  out  Unitarians  confefs,  that  he 
lived  120  Tears  before  the  Nicene  Council,  and  that  he  particularly  infifts  upov 
the  Form  ofBaptifm  againji  Praxeas.  But  to  what  purpofe  >  Was  not  his 
Adverf.  whole  defign  in  that  Book  to  prove  three  difiintl  Perjons  of  Father,  Son,  and 
^'r^^<=^'^-  HolyCho^,  and  yet  hut  One  God  .^  Doth  he  not  fay  exprefly.  That  Chrijl 
commanded  that  his  Difciples  fhould  baptize  into  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghofl,  not  into  One  of  them  -^  ad  fingula  nomina  in  Perfonas  fingulas  tingi- 
mur.  In  Baptifm  vee  are  dipped  ome  at  every  Name,  tojhevp  that  voe  are  bapti- 
zed into  three  Perfons.  It  is  certain  then,  that  TertulUan  could  not  miftake 
the  Senfe  of  the  Church  fo  grofly,  as  to  take  three  Perfons  to  be  only  three 
fever  al  Names. 
c.  s.  He  grants  to  Praxeas,  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghofl  are  one,  but  how? 

Per  unitatem  fubjiantite,    becaufe  there  is  but  one  divine  Effence  :    but  yet  he 
faith,  there  are  three,  not  with  refpeft  to  effential  Attributes,  for  fo  they  are 
unius  Subfianti£,  Junius  Status,  d"  unius  Poteflatis,  quia  nnus   Deus.     And 
therefore  the  difference  can  be  only  as  to  perfonil  Properties  and  diftinft 
Capacities,  which  he  calls  Gr^fi/wj,  Forma,  Species,  not  merely  as  to  internal 
Relations,  but  as  to  external  Difpenfations,  which  he  calls  their  0  economy.  For 
hisgreatbufinefsisto  prove againft Pr^xe^j,  thu  theSon  and  HolyGhofl  had 
thofe  things  attributed  to  them  in  Scripture,  which  could  not  be  attributed  to 
Tertui.  AttheYdiXher.Yox  Praxeas2i^QxtQdi,That  the Fatherfufferd  ^  and  thence  his  Fol- 
prasfcr.hx-  lowers  were  called  Patripafjians  and  Monarchici,  \.  e.  Unitarians.    The  main 
ground  which  Praxeas  went  upon,  was  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead,  fo  often  men- 
con.Prax.  tion'd  in  Scripture,  from  hence  TertulUan  faith.  That  he  took  advantage  of  the 
'^■i-         weaknefs  of  the  common  fort  of  Chriftians,  and  reprefented  to  them,  that  whereas 
the  Dodrine  ofChrifl  made  but  one  God,    thtfe  who  held  the  Trinity  accordiug  to 
the  Form  of  Baptifm,  muji  make  more  Gods  than  one.     TertulUan  anfwers,  that 
they  held  a  Monarchy,    i.  e.  unicum  imperium,    one  fupreme  Godhead,    and  a 
fupreme  Power  may  be  lodged  in  diflinB   Perfons  and  adminiflred  in  feveral 
manners'.,  that  nothing  overthrew  the  divine  Monarchy,  but  z different  Power 
c,  4,       and  Authority,  which  they  did  by  no  means  affert.     They  held  z  Son,    but 
■   Aliumautemqu.modoaccipe-     oUhe 'Subfianceof  the  Father     ^ndaHolyGhoJlfiomthe 
re  debes  jam  profefTus  fum,  I'er-     Father  by  the  Son  :  he  ftill  keeps  to  the  dijiinaion  of  Per- 
fons non  Subftaiitia  nomine,  ad     (q^s,  and  the  Unity  ofSubliance.      And  he  utterly  denies 

Diftinaionem,    non    ad   Divilio-  '    .  j-r^  r         .    o   t  a  j-  \i       • 

nem,  cxteruriT  ubique  teneo  u-  any  Divijion  of  bffences  otfeparate  Subjtances  :    for  therein^ 

nam'  (ubftantiam  in  tribus  cohas-  he  faith,  lay  the  Herefie  <7/Valentinus,  in  making  a  Prola- 

'"tc' fe.l'"^ '^^ud'De'm  &  tion  ofa  feparate  Being.     But  although  he  faith,  theGofpel 

nunquam  leparatus  a  Patie  aut  a-  hath  declared  to  US,    that  the  Father  is  God,    the  Son  God^ 

lius  a  Patre  quia  ego  &  I'ater  u-  ^^^  thd'Holy  Ghoii  God,  yet  we  are  taught  that  there  is  (iiU 
num  fumus.  Hjec  erat  probola  ve-  „        -,    -J  "d    n  n.  •  r\  '  o     t>.        -    •   ' 

ritatis,  cuft^s  uniraris  qua  prola-     but  U fie  uod  :  redactum  eit  jam  nomen  uei  8c  Uomtni  in 
turn  dicimus  Fiiium  a  Patre,  fed     unionc,  C.I  3.  wbcreby  the  Chrijlians  are  dijiinguifljed  froM 
eparacum,  .   .  ^^^  Heathens  who  had  many  Gods.     This  is  the  force  of 

what  TertuUian  faith  upon  this  matter. 

And  what  fay  our  Unitarians  to  it  ?  They  cannot  deny  that  he  was  an 
Jnte-Nicene  Father  ^  and  it  is  plain  that  he  did  underOand  the  Form  of  Bap- 
tifm foas  to  imply  a  Trinity  of  Perfons  in  an  Unity  of  Effence  ;  To  which 
they  give  no  Anfwer. 

But  I  find  three  th  ngs  objeif^ed  agiinft  TertulUanhy  their  Friends  5 

I.  That 


Chap.  IX.        DotJrine  of  tkTnn'ity.  4.89 

1.  That  Terttil/iaN  brought  this Do[f vine  into  theChnrch  fromMont^iXWis^who^G  Sch'ichr. 
Difciple  he  then  was.  So  Schliihtingins  in  his  Preface  againft  Meifner,  grants,  de  THnK- 
That  he  was  very  near  the  Apafiolical  Times ^  and  by  his  Wit  and  Learning  promoted  P.  •  3 , 1 4. 
this  new  DoSrine  about  the  Trinity ^efpecially  in  his  Book  againft  Praxeas.But  how      ^^' 
doth  it  appear,  that  he  brought  in  any  nere  Dj&rinc^  Yes,  faith  Schlichtingiifs, 
he  confefles,  That  he  was  more  inftrutled  by  the  Parai  lete.  But  if  he  had  dealt  in-  Adverf. 
genuouOy,  he  would  have  owned  that  in  that  very  place  he  confefles.  He  was  ^'''^^-  ■^^ 
always  of  that  Opinion^  although  more  fully  inftrit^ed  by  the  Para  lete.    This  only  „  °ftmper 
(hews  that  Montanus  himfelf  innovated  nothing  in  this  rnatter,    but  endea- nunc  ma- 
voured  to  improve  it.  And  it  is  poffible,  that  TertulUan  might  borrow  his  Si-  ^'^  ""^.'"' 
vtilitudes  and  Illuftrations  from  him,  which  have  added  no  ftrength  to  it.  But  as  per  Para- 
to  the  main  of  the  Doftrine,  he  faith,  It  came  from  the  rule  of  Faith  delivered  ^^"^"^> 
by  the  Apoftles  ,    before  Praxeas,     or  any  Hereticks  his  Predeicjfjrs.     Which  H^nc  re- 
fhews,  that  thofe  who  rejefted  this  Dodrine  were  always  efteemed  Hereticks  guiamab 
in  the  Chriftian  Church.     And  this  is  a  very  early  Teftimony  of  the  ^"ti-^y^"°^fil 
quity  and  general  Reception  of  it,  becaufe  as  one  was  received  the  other  was  decucur- 
rej  fted.  To  that  the  Afftrtorsof  it  were  accounted  Hereti.ks,   And  the  Senfe"'^^"'^'" 
of  the  Church  is  much  better  known  by  fuch  publick  A^s,  than  by  mere  par-  ^eshJred' 
ticular  Teftimonies  of  the  learned  Men  of  thofe  times.     For  when  they  de-c^s,nedum 
liver  the  Senfe  of  the  Church  in  fuch  publick  Ads,  all  Perfons  are  Judges  of  J"^''^''^ 
the  truth  and  falfhood  of  them  at  the  time  when  they  are  deliver'd  ^  and  the  num. 
nearer  they  came  to  the  ApoftoUcal  Times,  the  greater  is  the  ftrength  of  their 
evidence ;  this  I  ground  on  Ter/«///Ws  appealing  to  the  ancient  rule  ofFaith^ 
which  was  univerfally  known  and  received  in  the  Chriftian  Church,  and  that 
fuch  Perfons  were  look'd  on  as  Hereticks  who  difFer'd  from  it.     Which  be- 
ing fo  very  near  the  Apoftles  Times,    it's  hardly  poffible  to  fuppofe,    that 
the  whole  Chriftian  Church  fhouldbe  miftaken  as  to  what  they  received  as 
the  rule  of  Faith,  which  was  deliver'd  and  explained  at  Baptifm,  and  there- 
fore the  general  Senfe  of  the  Form  of  Baptifm  muftbe  underftood  by  all  who 
were  admitted  to  it.    So  that  the  Members  of  the  Chriftian  Church  cannot 
be  fuppofed  better  acquainted  with  any  thing  than  the  Dodrine  they  were 
baptized  into.     Here  then  we  have  a  concurrence  of  feveral  publick  A&s  of 
the  Church.     I.  The  Form  of  B apt ijm.     2.  The  jR«/e  o//^^i/A  relating  to  that 
Form,  and  explained  at  Baptifm.     3.  The  Churches  rt)Qdi'mg  thofe  as  Here- 
ticks  who  differ'd  from  it  ;    which  TertulUan  applies  to  thofe  who  rejefted 
the  Trinity.     And  Praxeas  his  Doftrine  was  then  condemned,  not  by  a  par-  optac. 
ticular  Sentence,  but  by  the  general  Senfe  of  the  Church  at  that  time.     For'*^''*'" '' 
Opt  at  us  Milevitanus  reckons  him  among  the  condemned  Hereticks,  and  joyns 
him  with  Af,?rt/o»  and  ^/(?////»«/,  as  well  as  ^.Tk/Z/wj,  who  follow'd  him  in 
the  fame  Herefie.     How  was  this  poffible,  if  Fraxear  deliver'd  the  true  Do- 
ftrine,  and  TertulUan  brought  in  a  new  Opinion  as  Schlichtingius  fanfies  ?  Ter- 
tulUan wasat  that  time  a  declared  Montanift  5  and  if  he  had  introduc'd  a  new 
£)tf<3n»e  about  the  Trinity,  can  we  imagine  thofe  would  have  been  filent  a- 
bout  it,    who  were  (harp  enough  upon  TertulUan  for  the  fake  of  his  Para- 
clete^   Some  of  the  Followers  oi  Montanus  afterwards  fell  into  the  fame  O-  Theodor. 
pinions  with  Praxeas,  asTheodoret  tells  us,  and  TertulUan  faith  as  much  of  j^VcVtliL 
thofe Cataphrygtans  who  follow'd  /Efchines  :   But  thefe  Montani/is  are  diftin-  de  prafcr. 
guilhed  from   the  reft.     And  Rigaltius  obferves,    that  TertulUan  follow'd  [^^y'^.'^f^},'^' 
Montanus  chiefly  in  what  related  to  Difcipline,    and  that  himfelf  was  not  ad  ivase- 
fo  corrupted  in  point  of  Doftrine  as  fome  of  his  Followers  were.  an. 

2.  It's  objected,    T/'^?  TertulUan'/ Dtf^r/»e  //  inconftflent  with  the  Tio- ^^_^Xn. 
Brine  of  the  Trinity  ^  for  he  denies  the  eternal  Generation  of  the  Son  ;  and  only 
ajferts  an  Emijfion  of  him  before  the  Creation. 

But  my  bufinefc  is  not  to  juftifie  all  T(?r/«//w«'s  Expreffions  or  Similitudes  5 
for  Men  of  Wit  and  Fancy  love  to  go  out  of  the  Road,  and  fometimes  in- 
volve 


4^o  A  Vindicnion  of  the  Ch  a  p.  IX. 

volve  things  more  by  Attempts  to  explain  them  ^  but  I  keep  only  to  that 
which  he  faith  was  the  Faith  of  the  Church  from  the  beginning -^  and  I  fee  no 
reafon  to  call  in  queftion  his  Fidelity  in  reporting,  liowever  he  might  be 
unhappy  in  his  Explications. 

3.  TertuUianhimfelf,  faith  Schlichtingius,  in  other  PUcef,  where  he  fpeaks 
p.  12.    of  the  Rule  of  Faith,  dothnot  mention  the  Holy  Ghofl  ;  and  therefore  this  feems 
added  by  him  for  the  fake  of  the  Paraclete,     But  this  can  be  of  no  force  to  any 
-     one  that  confiders,  that  Teriullian  grounds  his  Doftrine  not  on  any  New  Re- 
velation by  the  Paraclete,   but  on  the  Rule  of  Faith  received  in  the  Church 
long  before  ;  and  upon  the  Form  ofBaptifm  prefcribed  by  our  Saviour.  Will 
they  fay,  the  Holy  Ghojl  was  there  added  for  the  fake  of  Montanus  hisPara- 
clete  i?     And  in  another  of  his  Books,    he  owns  the  Father,   Son,    and  Holy 
.  Qhojltomake  up  theTrinity  inUnity.     V^herem  Pet avius 

niHtisT°PaterT'Fii?us"&"sp.ri^us  himfelf  confefles.  That  he  aferted  the  Do&nne  of  the 
Sanftus.  De  Pudicit.  c.  21.  Pe-  Church  in  a  CathoUck  manner  5  although  he  Otherwifc 
tav.  T.  2./.  I.  c.  5.  s^n.  4.  ^pggj^g  j^^^^ly  enoi,gh  of  him. 

The  next  I  fhall  mention,    is  Novatian,    whom  Schlichtingius  allows,   to 

Schiich-    fjave  been  before  the  Nicene  Council ;    and  our  modern  ZJnitarjaus  call  him  a 

^^'^S^^'^^f' great 'Man,  whoever  he  was,    and  very  ancient.     And  there  are  two  things  I 

Ante-Ni-  obfcrve  in  him.     i.  That  he  oppofes  Sabellianifm^    lor,    before  his  time 

cen.  p.  27.  pyaxe  h  and  Noetus  were  little  talked  of,  efpecially  in  the  Weftern  Church  ^ 

but  SabelUus  his  Name  and  Doftrine  were  very  well  known  by  the  oppofiti- 

Novatian  on  to  him,  by  the  Bifhops  of  Alexandria  and  Rome.     He  (ticks  not,    at  the 

dc  Trinit.  ^.gijjj^g  jj  f/^^^y^g  fevcral  times;  and  Difputes  againftit,  and  anfwerstheOb- 

%'^'  ^^'  jeiJion  about  the  Vnity  of  the  Godhead.     2.  That  he  owns,    that  the  Rule  of 

C- 29.      Faith  requires  our  believing  in  Father,    Son,    and  Holy  Ghojl -.^    and  aflerts /Ae 

Divine  Eternity  of  it,  and  therefore  muft  hold  the  DoSrine  of  the  Trinity  to 

Ec  cum    ^^  the  Faith  of  the  Church  contained  in  the  Form  of  Bapifm.     For  he  faith, 

Spiritus     The  Authority  of  Faith,    and  the  Holy   Sripturet   admonijh  us  to  believe  not 

Sanfti  di-  ^^ly  -^  the  Father  and  Son,    but  in  the  Holy  Ghojl.     Therefore  the  Holy  Ghoft 

nicacffo-'  muft  be  confidered,  as  an  objea  of  Faith  joyned  in  the  Scripture  with  the 

ciari.       other  two,  which  is  no  where  more  exprefs,    than  in  the  Form  of  Baptifm, 

which  as  St.  Cyprian  faith,     was  to  be  adminijied  in  the  fuS  Confejfion  of  the 

Cypr.  Ep.  7'rinity,   in  the  place  already  mention'd.     And  it  is  obfervablc  that  St.  Cy- 

37.  '      prian  rejefts  the  Baptifm  of  thofe  who  denied  the  Trinity  at  that  time,  among 

whom  he  inftances  in  the  Patripajjians,   who  it  feems  were  then  fpread  into 

Afi-ica. 

The  Difpute  about  the  Marcionites  Baptifm  was  upon  another  ground,  for 
they  held  a  real  Trinity,  as  appears  by  Dion^fiui  Romamts  in  Athanajius,  and 
Epiphanius.)  &ic.  but  the  Qaeftion  was,    whether  they  held  the  fame  Trinity 
or  not.     St.  Cyprian,  faith,  That  our  Saviour  appointed  his  Apoftles  to  baptize 
in  the  Name  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft,  and  in  the  Sacrament  of  this  Tri- 
nity they  were  to  baptize.     Doth  Mar<  ion  hold  this  Trinity  >     So  that  St.  Cy- 
prian fuppofed  the  validity  ofBiptifm  to  depend  on  the  Faith  of  the  Trinity. 
'       And  if  he  had  gone  no  farther,   I  do  not  fee  how  he  had  tranfgreffed  the 
Rules  of  the  Church ;  but  his  Error  was,    that  he  made  void  Baptifm  upon 
difference  of  Communion,  and  therein  he  was  juftly  oppofed.     But  the  Mar- 
cionites  Baptifm  was  rejefted  in  the  Eaftern  Church,    becaufe  of  their  Do- 
BafiiEpift.^rine  about  the  Trinity. 
canoD,47.     j^  ^^^  p^^^^  of  A  ft  a  ahoutEphefus,  Noetus  had  broached  the  fame  Doftrine, 

which  Praxeas  had  done  elfe  where.     For  which  he  was  called  to  an  account, 

and  himfelf  with  hk  Followers  were  caft  out  of  the  Churches  Communion,    as  Epi- 

phaniifs  reports,  which  is  another  confiderable  Teftimony  of  the  Senfeof  the 

Epiph.hac-  Church  at  that  time.     Epiphaniiu  faith,  he  was  thefirjiwho  broached  that  blaf 

ref  57.«  i'themy  ;  but  Theodoret  mentions  E/>/^(?«MfandC/etfK»e»e/ before  him  5  it  feems, 

that 


Chap.  IX.     Do^rine  of  the  Trinit}^ 


that  he  was  the  firft  who  was  publickly  taken  notice  of  for  it  •    and  there- 
fore underwent  the  Cerifure  of  the  Church  with  his  Difciples.    When  he 
was  firft  fummon'd  to  ^nfwer,    he  denied  that  he  ajferfed  any  fuch  Do&rine  ^ 
becaufe  no  Man  before  hi/H  faith  Epiphanius,  had  vented  fuch  Poifon.    And  in 
the  beginning  he  faith,  that  Ni?ef/a  out  of  a  Spirit  of  Contradiction  had  ut- 
ter'd  fuch  things,  as  neither  the  Prophets,    ^orthe  Apojiles,    nor  the  Church  of 
God  ever  thought  or  declared.     Now  what  was  this  unheard  of  DoiSrine  of 
Noetus  ?  That  appears  beft  hyNoetus  his  anfwer  upon  his  fecond  appearance 
which  was.  That  he  vporfh'ippedOne  God,  and  knew  of  no  other,    who  was  horn 
and  fuferd,    and  died  for  us  ;    and  for  this  he  produced  the  feveral  places 
which  aflert  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead,  and  among  the  reft  one  very  obfer-  n.  2; 
vable,  Rom.  9.5.  Of  whom  as  concerning  the  flejh  Chrijl  came,    who  is  over  all 
God  blejfedfor  ever.  From  whence  he  inferr'd,  that  the  Son  and  the  Father  were 
the  Jante,  and  the  fame  he  affirmed  of  the  Holy  Ghofi.     But  from  hence  we  have 
an  evident  Proof,    that  the  moft  ancient  Greek   Copies  in  Noetus  his  time, 
which  was  long  before  the  Council  of  Nice,   had  God  in  the  Text.    Epipha- 
m«t  brings  many  places  of  Scripture  to  prove  the  Diftindion  of  Perfons  irt 
the  Unity  of  the  Godhead ;  but  that  is  not  my  prefent  bufinefs,    but  to  (hew 
the  general  Senfe  of  the  Church  at  that  time.    I  do  not  fay  that  Noetus  wai 
condemned  by  a  general  Council  ;    but  it  is  fufBcient  to  (hew  that  he  was 
caftoutofthe  Church,  where  he  broached  his  Dodrine,  and  no  other  Church 
received  him,  or  condemned  that  Church  which  cafthim  out,  which  ftiews 
an  after  Confent  to  it.    Now  what  was  this  Dod  rine  of  Noetns  .<?    The  ve- 
ry fame  with  that  of  Praxeas  at  Rome.  Theodore'  faith,  this  his  Opinion  was,  Theod.= 
That  there  was  hut  one  God  the  Father,  who  was  himfelfimpafjible,  but  as  he  took  l^^'    '° 
our  Nature,  fo  he  was  pajfible  and  called  the  Son.     Epiphanius  more  fully,  that  Ep'iph.s;.- 
the  fame  Perfon  was  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghoji  ;  wherein,  he  faith,  he  plainly  "• '' 
contradi^s  the  Scriptures,  which  attribute  dijiin&  Perfonalities  to  them ;  and  yet 
affertbnt  one  Godhead.     The  Father  hath  an  Hypofiafis  of  his  own,    and  fo  have 
the  Son  and  Holy  Ghojl ;  but  yet  there  is  but  one  Divinity,  one  Power,   and  one 
Dominion  5   for  thefe  diftinft  Perfons  are  T>i?  dvrK  rxvTornK^,   t*!?  i=s'vT«$ 
xw^ior«7©-  5  of  the  fame  individual  E£ence  and  Power.     But  Epiphanius  was  no 
Ante-Nicene  father  :  however  in  matters  of  Antiquity,   where  there  is  no 
incongruity  in  the  thing,  we  may  make  ufe  of  his  Authority  •    and  I  think 
no  one  will  queftion,    that  Noetus  was  condemned  ^    which  was  the  thing  I 
.  produced  him  to  prove. 

But  although  Noetus  was  condemned,  yet  thisDodrine  did  fpread  in  the  com. 
Eaftern  Parts ;  for  Origen  mentions  thofe  who  confounded  the  Notion  of  Father  ^^'^• 
and  Son,  and  made  them  but  one  Hypofiafis,  and  difUnguifhed  only  by  Thought, '^^  ^-o.  * 
and  Denomination.     This  Doftrine  was  oppofed  not  only  by  Or/^e;^?,   but  he 
hzA  the  Senfe  of  the  Church  concuxn(\gw\thh\vA,   as  appears  in  the  Cafe  of 
BeryUus  Bilhop  of  Boftra,   who  fell  into  this  Opinion,   and  waS  reclaimed 
by  Origen  5  and  Eufebius  gives  this  account  of  it.  That  there  wasaConcurrence  £yfe(,.  /,- 
of  others  with  him  in  it,  and  that  thisDoftrine  was  look'don  as  an  Innovati-  e.  c-  330° 
on  in  the  Faith.     For  his  Opinion  was,    that  our  Saviour  had  no  proper  Subft- 
fience  of  his  own  before  the  Incarnation  ;   and  that  the  Deity  of  the  Father  alone 
tfasinhim.  He  did  not  mean  that  the  Son  had  no  feparate  Divinity  from  the 
Father,  but  that  the  Deity  of  the  Father  only  appeared  in  the  Son  ;    fo  that 
he  was  not  really  God,  but  only  one  in  whom  the  Deity  of  the  Father  was 
made  manifeft.    Which  was  one  of  the  oldeft  Herefies  in  the  Church,   and 
the  moft  early  condemned  and  oppofed  by  it. 

But  thofe  Herefies,  which  before  had  differenced  Perfons  from  the  Church, 
were  now  fpread  by  fome  at  firft  within  the  Communion  of  it '.,  as  it  was  not 
only  in  the  Cafe  of  Noetus  and  BeryUus,  but  of  Sabellius  himfelf,  who  madd  g.pjp^ 
the  greateft  noife  about  this  Dot^rine  ^  and  hisDifciples,  Epiphanius  tells  us,  hjer.di. 

fpread 


492  A  Vindication  of  the  C  ii  a  p.  IX. 

fpread  very  mnch  both  ftt  the  Eaflern  and  Wejiern  parts,  in  Mefopotamia  and 
at  Rome.  Their  DoSrine,  he  faith,  was,  that  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghojl 
were  but  one  Hypofiafis,  with  three  different  Denominations.  They  compared 
God  to  the  Sun,  the  Father  to  the  Subjlance,  the  Son  to  the  Light,  and  the  Holy 
Ghoji  to  the  Heat  which  comes  from  it  ^  and  thefe  two  latter  were  only  di- 
flinti  Operations  of  the  fame  Subflance. 

Epiphaniuf  thinks  that  SabeUins  therein  difFer'd  from  Noetia,  becanfe  he 

Aug.  in    denied  that  theFather  fufferd ;  but  St.Augttfiine  can  find  no  difference  between 

Joh.  traft.  them.    All  that  can  be  conceiv'd  is,  that  a  different  Denomination  did  a- 

^^'         rife  from  the  different  Appearance  and  Operation  ;  which  our  Unitarians 

Hifcourfe    ^all  three  Relative  Perfons,  and  one  fHb0if7g  Ferfon. 

tfRelf     Sabellitff  did  fpread  his  Herefy  moft  in  his  own  Country,  which  was  in 

linit.p.iS.Pentapols  of  the  Cyrenaick  Province,  being  born  in  Ptolemats  one  of  the  five 

Cities  there.Of  thisDionyfiiu  Blttio^  of  Alexandria  gives  an  account  in  his  Epi- 

Eufeb./,7.  ftle  to  Xyfius,  then  Bifliop  of  Rome  ;  wherein  he  takes  notice  of  the  wicked 

^'^'^  '    and  blafphemouf  Herejte  lately  broached  there  againfi  the  Perfhns  of  the  Father^ 

Son,  and  Holy  Ghjfi.    Letters  on  both  fides  were  brought  to  him,  on  which 

occafion  he  wrote  feveral  Epiftles  ^  among  which  there  was  one  to  Ammonium 

Bifhop  of  Bernice,  another  of  the  Cities  of  Pentapolk.    In  this  he  difputedl 

with  great  warmth  againft  this  Doftrinc  of  Sabellius  ^   inforaucb,  that  he 

was  afterwards  accufed  to  Hionyftus  of  Rome,  that  he  had  gone  too  far  the 

other  way,  and  lefTen'd  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  by  his  Similitudes  5    of 

which  he  clear'd  himfelf,  as  appears  by  what  remains  of  his  Defence  in 

Athanafius.    But  as  to  his  Zeal  againft  SabelUanifm,  it  was  never  queftion'd. 

Dionyfius  of  Rome  declares  his  Senfe  at  large  in  this  matter  againft  both 

Extremes,  vi%.  of  thofe  who  aflerted  three  feparafe  and  independent  Princi- 

Athan.  de^/^j^  ^j^^j  q|  tj,Q(g  vv[jq  confounded  the  Divine  Perfons  5  and  he  charges  the 

?ynodi*     Dodrine  o{ Sabellius  too  with  Blafphemy,  as  well  as  thofe  who  fetup  three 

NicxnsE,   different  Principles,  and  fo  made  three  Gods.     But  he  declares  the  Chriftian 

^'  *7^*     Doctrine  to  be,  that  there  were  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi  5  but  that  there  if 

an  indivifible  Union  in  one  and  the  fame  Godhead.     It  feems  Dionyfus  of 

Alexandria  was  accufed  for  dividing  and  feparating  the  Perfons  ;    to  which 

he  anfwers,  that  it  was  impofTible  he  fhould  do  it,  becaufe  they  are  indivi' 

Athanaf.  j^j^i^  ^.^^  ^^r/j  other  ;  and  the  Name  of  each  Perfon  did  imply  the  infeparable 

Dton>fii!'  Relation  to  the  other,  as  the  Father  to  the  Son,  and  the  Son  to  the  Father,  and  the 

^5'^'•  '  Holy  Ghoff  to  both.  And  this  Judgment  of  thefe  two  great  Men  in  the  Church 

concerning  SabelUanifm  was  univerfally  receiv'd  in  the  Chrifiian  Church.  And 

this  happen'd  long  before  the  Nicene  Council. 

2.  Another  Argument  of  the  general  Senfe  of  the  Chrifiian  Church 
is  from  the  Hymns  and  Doxologies  publickly  received  ;  which  were 
in  the  mofl  folemn  Afts  of  religious  "Worfhip  made  to  Father,  Son. 
and  Holy  Ghofi.  The  force  of  this  Argument  appears  hereby,  that  di- 
vine Worfhip  cannot  be  given  to  meet  Names  ^  and  an  Equality 
of  Worfhip  doth  imply  an  Equality  of  Dignity  in  the  objefl;  of  Worfhip  5 
and  therefore  if  the  fame  Afts  of  Adoration  be  performed  to  Father,  Son. 
and  Holy  Ghofl,  it  is  plain,  that  the  Chriftian  Church  did  efteem  them  to 
have  the  fame  divine  Nature,  although  they  were  diflinft  Perfons.  And  if 
they  were  not  fo,  there  could  not  be  diftinft  Afts  of  divine  Worfhip  per- 
fedfii.  de  formed  to  them.  St.  Bafil  mentions  this  Doxology  of  Africanus,  (that  an- 
sp.  sanfto  ^jg^j  Writer  of  the  Chrifiian  Church)  in  the  fifth  Book  of  his  Chronicon^ 
^'^^'  We  render  thanks  to  him  ivho  gave  our  Lord  Jefus  Chriji  to  be  a  Saviour,  to 
whom  with  the  Holy  Ghoft  be  Glory  and  Majejiy  for  ever.  And  another  of 
Dionyfius  Alcxandrinus,  in  his  fecond  EpiMe  to  Dionyfius  of  Rome  ;  To  God 
the  Father,  and  his  Son  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrifi,  with  the  Holy  Ghofi,  be  Glory 
and  Power  for  ever  and  ever.  Amen.    And  this  is  the  more  confiderable, 

be- 


G  H  A  p.  IX.        Do^rine  of  the  Trinity.  4,5^ 

becaufe  he  faith  he  did  herein  foUorp  the  ancient  Cffjiom  and  Rnle  of  the  Church 
and  he  joined  veith  it,  o,uo(^'J.'Vji^  clvror;  Trpja-iU^xptrSvric^  Praijtng  God  in  the 
fame  voice  with  thofe  mho  have  gone  before  ns  i,  which  fhews  how  early  thefe 
Doxologies  to  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghofl,  had  been  ufed  in  the  Chriftian 
Church.     But  to  let  us  the  better  underftand  the  true  Senfe  of  them,   Sf. 
Bafil  hath  preferved  fome  paflages  of  Dionyfim  Alexandrinus  which  do  ex- 
plain it,  vi%.  That  either  the  Sabellians  nmfl  ailow  three  di/iin&  Hypoftafes,  or 
they  fftHJl  wholly  take  avpay  theTr'mitj.     By  which  it  is  evident,  that  by  Fa- 
ther, Sdn,  and  HolyGhoJi,  he  did  underftand  three  diflin^l  Hypojiafes  hut  not 
divided  ;  for  that  appears  to  have  been  the  Sabellians  Argument,  That  if 
there  were  three,  they  miiji  be  divided.     No,  faith  D'ionyJtHS,  they  are  three 
whether  /^e  Sabellians  wiUor  not,  or  elfe  there  k  no  Trinity  5  which  he  look'd 
on  as  a  great  abfurdity  to  take  away,  t\v  %ika.v  r^idfx,  the  Divine  Trinity. 
Of  what  ?  Of  mere  Names  or  Energies  .<?  That  is  no  Trinity  :,   for  there  is 
but  one  fubjffling  Perfon  of  feparate  and  divided  Subftances  :  That  the  Sabel- 
lians thought  muft  follow,  but  both  the  Dionyfim's  denied  it.     And  in  an- 
other PafTage  there  merition'd,  Dionysus  of  Alexandria  afferts 
the  Trinity  in  Unity.     But  before  DionyfiUs,  he  quotes  a  Paf-      ,®j'°^*'^%^  fl"-  '^/*', 
fage  of  Clemens  Romanus   concerning  Father,   Son  and  Holy    t'^Us.^""      '""*  *   K^  " 
Ghoji^  which  attributes  Life  diftinftly  to  them.     Now  Lifi       Zn  finrt.' i  etif^sKi- 
cannot  belong  to  a  I^ame  or  Energy,  and  therefore  muft  imply    %%ulZ^'^yZ'°''  '^  " 
B  Perfon.  t^        y- 

But  that  which  is  mofl:  material  to  our  purpofe,  is  the  Phblick  Doxology 
in  the  Church  of  Neo-Cafarea,  brought  in  by  Gregory  7 hattmaturgus.  St. 
Bafil  gives  a  very  high  Charader  of  him,  as  of  a  Perfon  of  extraordinary 
Piety  and  Exaftnefs  of  Life,  and  a  great  Promoter  of  Chriftianity  in  thofe 
parts,  and  by  hirh  the  Form  of  Doxology  was  introduced  into  that  Church, 
being  chiefly  formed  by  him,  (there  being  but  feventeen  Chrijiians  when 
he  was  firfl:  mide  Bi(hop  there)  which  was.  Glory  to  God  the  Father,  and 
Son,  with  the  Holy  Ghoji,  which  ought  to  be  underftood  according  to  the 
fenfe  of  the  Maker  of  it.  And  Gregory  hath  deliver'd  his  fenfe  plainly  e- 
nough  in  this  matter  ;  for  in  that  ConfeJJion  of  Faith,  which  was  preferved 
in  the  Church  of  NeoCtefarea,  he  owns  a  perfe^  Trinity  in  Glory,  Eternity,  Q^^g. 
and  Power,  without  Separation  or  Diverfitj  of  Nature.  On  which  Doftriile  Tiwumac. 
his  Form  of  Doxology  was  grounded.  Which  St.  Bafil  following,  Excep-*"  '" 
tions  were  taken  againfl:  it  by  fome,  as  varying  from  the  Form  ufed. in  fome 
other  places.  For  the  Followers  of  Aetius  took  advantage  from  the  Ex- 
preflion  ufed  in  thofe  Doxologies,  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  by  the  Son,  and  in 
the  Holy  Ghoji,  to  infer  a  Dijjimilitude  in  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghofl  to  the  Fa- 
ther, and  to  make  the  Son  the  Injirument  of  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghofl 
only  to  relate  to  time  and  place.  But  St.  Bafjl  takes  a  great  deal  of  Pains 
to  (hew  the  impertinency  of  thefe  Exceptions.  They  would  fain  have 
charged  this  Doxology  as  an  Innovation  on  St.  Bafil,  becaufe  it  attributed 
equal  Honour  to  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghofl,  which  the  Aetians  would  not 
endure  ;  but  they  faid,  That  the  Son  was  to  be  honoured  only  in  Subordination 
to  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghofl  as  mferiour  to  both.  But  Sf.  Bafil  proves 
from  Scripture  an  Equality  of  Honour  to  be  due  to  them  ;  and  particularly 
from  the  Form  of  Baptifm,  c.  10.  wherein  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghoji  are  jo.ned 
with  the  Father,  without  any  note  of  Diflln&ion.  And  what  more  proper  token  of 
a  Conjun&ion  in  the  fame  Dignity,  than  being  put  together  in  fnch  a  manner  ? 

Efpecially  confidering  thefe  two  things,  i.  The  extream  Jealoulie  of 
the  Jewifh  Nation,  as  to  joining  the  Creatures  with  God  in  any  thing  that 
related  to  Divine  Honour.  But  as  St.  Bafil  argues,  If  the  Son  were  a  Creature 
then  we  mull  believe  in  the  Creator  and  the  Creature  together  ;  and  by  the  fame 
reafon  that  one  Creature  is  joined,  the  whole  Creation  may  be  joined  with  him  5 
tut,  faith  he,  we  are  not  to  imagine  the  leaft  Difunion  or  Separation  between  Fa- 

R.  r  r  ther. 


4.^4-  -^  Vindication  of  the         Chap.  IX. 

ther.  Son  and  Holy  Ghoji  5  nor  that  they  are  three  dtjiifj£l parts  of  one  infeparable 
Beings  but  thfit  there  is  an  indivifible  C'^njundion  of  three  in  the  fame  Ejjence  5 
fo  that  where  one  is,  there  is  the  other  alfo.  For  where  the  Holy  Ghoft  is,  there 
is  the  Son  ;  and  where  the  Son  is,  there  is  the  Father.     And  fo  Athanafius  ur- 
ges the  Argument  from  thefe  words.  That  a  Creature  could  not  be  joined  with 
Achanaf.   /^g  Creator  in  fuch  a  manner  as  in  the  Form  ofBaptifm'^    and  it  might  have 
J,*  10.    '  been  as  well  faid.  Baptize  in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  any  other  Creature,' 
And  for  all  that  I  fee,  our  Unitarians  would  have  liked  fuch  a  Form  very 
Anfwer  to  ^^11  ^  for  they  parallel  it  with  thofe  in  Scripture  ;  And  they  worfhipped  the 
Milb.f.18.  Lord  and  the  King  5  and.  They  feared  the  Lord  and  Samuel.     But  the  "jews 
underftood  the  different  occafion  of  fuch  Expreffions  too  well,  to  have  born 
fuch  a  Conjunction  of  Creatures  with  the  Creator,  in  the  moft  folemn  Adi 
of  initiating  into  a  Profeffion  of  Fveligion. 

The  Jews  had  a  Notion  among  them  of  three  6\^mdi  Subf! : ences  in  the 
Deity,  fuitable  to  thefe  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghofi.     This  hath  been 
ftiewed  by  many  as   to  the  Son,  or  the  Divme  Word:,    and  Rittangel 
makes  out  the  fame  as  to  the  Holy  Ghojh     Among   the  three   SHbjiiten- 
Rit^rang.    ^^j.  j^  (.|-^g   Mercavah,    (  which    Rittangel  had    proved   from   their   moft 
ancient  Writings)  thofe  which  are  added  to  the  firft  are  Wifdom  and  Intel- 
P.  113.    ligence,  and  this  I  aft  is  by  the  old  Chaldee  Paraphrajl  render'd  ^^PJDiy,  arid 
he  proves  it  to  be  applied  to  God  in  many  places  of  the  Pentateuch,  where 
P.  117-    fuch  things  are  attributed  to  him  as  belong  to  the  Holy  Ghoft.     And  he  par- 
ticularly (hews  by  many  places,  that  the  Shechinah  is  not  taken  for  the  Divine 
Glory,  but  that  is  render'd  by  other  Words,  (however  the  Interpreters  of  the 
Chaldee  Paraphrafi  have  render'd  it  fo)  but  he  produces  ten  places  where 
the  Chaldee  Paraphrajl  ufes  it  in  another  Senfe  ^  and  he  leaves,  he  faith,  ma- 
ny more  to  the  Reader's  obfervation.     If  the  Jews  did  of  old  own   three 
Subjifiences  in  the  fame  Divine  Effence,  there  was  then  great  Reafon  to  join 
.     Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft  in  the  folemn  ASt  of  Initiation  :   But  if  it  be 
denied,  that  they  did  own  any  fuch  thing,  they  muft  deny  their  moft  ancient 
Books,  and  the  Chaldee  Paraphraft,  which  they  efteem  next  to  the  Text,  and 
Rittangel  faith.  They  believe  it  written  by  Infpiration.  '  That  which  I  chiefly 
urge  is  this,.  That  if  thefe  things  be  not  very  ancient,  they  muft  be  put  in 
by  the  later  j'fn'J'  to  gratifie  the  Chriftians  in  the  Doflrine  of  the  Trinity^ 
which  I  do  not  believe  any  Jew  will  aifent  to.     And  no  one  elfe  can  ima- 
Anfwerto  gjne  this,  when  our  Unitarians  fay.  That  the  Do&rine  of  the  Trinity  is  the 
^/jsi."  '  (^hief  Offence  wh'ch  the  Jews  take  at  the  Chrlliian  Religion.     How  then  can  we 
fuppofe  the  Jews  fhould  forge  thefe  Books  on  purpofe  to  put  in  fuch  No- 
tions, as  were  moft  grateful  to  their  Enemies,  and  hateful  to  themfelves? 
Exeidc.   ^oriniis  hath  endeavoured  to  run  down  the  Credit  of  the  moft  ancient 
/.  2.  /.  10.  Books  of  the  Jeivs  5  and  among  the  reft  the  Book  Jezirah,  the  moft  ancient 
'^'  S-        CabbalOiical  Book  among  the  '^ews,    which  he  learnedly  proves  ivas  not 
CofriParc  ^"""f^"  ^y  Abraham,  (as  the  Jews  think  )     I  will  not  ftand  with  Morinus  a- 
4,.f  31(5.  bout  this  ;  however  the  Book  Cofri  faith.  It  was  made  by  Abraham  before 
God  Spake  to  him,  and  magnifies  it  to  the  Ring  of  Cofar,  as  containing  an  ad- 
mirable Account  of  the  firft  frinciples  above  the  Philojfhphers.  Buxtorff^Litb^ 
that  the  Book  Cofri  hath  been  extant  Nine  hundred  Tears  ^  and  in  the  be- 
ginning of  it  it  is  faid.  That  the  Conference  was  four  hundred  Years  before  5  and 
P-  302.    therein   the    Book  Jezirah  is  alledged   as^  a  Book   of    Antiquity  5     and 
there  the  three  Subfi!fences  of  the  Deity  are  reprefented  by  Mind,  Word  and 
Hand.    So  that  this  can  be  no  late  Invention  of  CabbaliBical  Jews.    But 
our  Unitarians  Utterly  deny  that  the  Jews  had  any  Cabbala  concerning  the 
Trinity.     And  they  prove  it,  becaufe  the  Jews  in  Origen  and  Juftin  Martyr 
deny  the  Mejjtas  to  be  God.    They  might  as  well  have  brought  their  Tefti- 
mony  to  prove  Jefus  not  to  be  the  MeJJias  ^  for  the  Jews  of  thofe  times  be- 
ing bard  preffed  by  the  Chriftians,  found  they  could  not  other  wife  avoid 

fevetal 


C  H  A  p.  IK.       DotJrin'e  of  the  Trinity.  4.9  5 

fevera!  places  of  the  Old  Teflament.  But  this  doth  not  hinder,  but  that 
they  might  have  Notions  of  three  Sjtbfifiencef  in  their  ancient  Books 5  whicii 
contained  neither  lute  Invention,  nor  Divine  ReveUtiovs,  but  a  Traditional 
notion  about  the  Divine  Being,  andihtSHbfiJlences'm  it ;  and  I  can  find  no 
Arguments  againft  it  that  deferve  mentioning.  For  when  they  fay  ths 
Jewifh  Cabbala  vpas  a  Pharifaical  Figment,  &c.  it  needs  no  anfwer.  But  what 
do  they  fay  to  the  Old  Paraphrafer,  whereon  the  main  Weight  as  to  this 
matter  lies  ?  All  that  I  can  find  is.  That  thcj  do  not  [peak  of  diJiinU  Pey  ?•  ^r- 
fins  5  hut  they  confefs  that  Philo  [peaks  home,  and  therefore  they  Make  him  a 
Chriftian.  But  Fhilo  had  the  fame  Notion  with  the  Paraphrafls-^  and  their  . 
beft  way  will  be  to  declare,  that  they  look  upon  them  aU  as  Chriftians; 
and  they  might  as  well  affirm  it  of  Onkelos,  as  they  do  of  Philo  ^  but  I 
doubt  the  World  will  not  take  their  Word  for  either. 

But  to  proceed  with  the  ChriMan  Doxologies.     Nothing,  faith  St.  Bajjl,^^^^^^'^' 
fhall  mahe  me  forfahe  the  Do&rine  I  received  ik  my  Baptifm,  rphen  I  rvas  firji     ' 
entered  ifito  the  Chr'ifiian  Church -J  and  I  advife  all  others  to  keep  firm  to  that 
frofetjion  of  the  Holy  Trinity  rvhichthey  made  in  their  Baptifm -^  that  is,  of  the 
indivifible  Union  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi.  And,  as  h€  faith  afterwards,  c.  17. 
iy  the  Order  of  the  Words  in  Baptifm,  it  appears,  that  as  the  Son  if  to  the  Fa- 
ther, fo  the  Holy  Ghoff  is  to  the  Son.     For  they  a^e  aU put  rvifhont  any  Diflin- 
Bion  or  Number,  ivhith  he  obferves  agrees  only  to  a  multitude.     For  by  their  *-•  '° 
Properties  they  are  one  and  one  5  yet  by  the  Community  of  Ejfence  the  two  are 
but  one  :  and  he  makes  it  his  Bufinefs  to  prove  the  Holy  Ghoil  to  be  a  proper 
ObJeSf  of  Adoration  as   tvell  As  the  Father  and  Son,  and  therefore  there  veas 
iToreafon  to  find  fault  with  the  Doxology  ufed  in  that  Chureh  5  and  that,  Firmi-  c.  59. 
lian,  Meletius,  and  the  Eafiem  Chriftians,  agreed  with  them  in  the  ufe  of  it, 
and  fo  did  all  the  PVeJiern  Churihes  from  IllyricUm  to  the  Worlds  end-,  and 
this,  he  faith,  was  by  an  immemorial  Cufiom  of  all  Churches,  and  of  the  great- 
ell  Men  in  them.     Nay,  more  he  faith,  //  had  been  continued  in  the  Churchet 
from  the  time  the  Gofpel  had  been  receivd  among  them.     And  nothing  can 
be  fuller  than  the  Authority  of  his  Teftimony,   if  St.  Bafil  may  be  be- 
lieved. 

To  this  I  (hall  add  the  Doxology  oi  Pelycarp  at  his  Martyrdom,  mention- 
ed by  Eufebius,  which  is  very  full  to  our  purpofe ;  1  glorify  thee  by  our  E-  Eufeb./.4' 
temal  High-Priefi,  'jefus  Chrifi  thy  beloved  Son,  by  whom  be  Glory  to  thee,'' ^^' 
with  him  in  the  Holy  Ghofi.     What  can  we  imagine  Polycarp  meant  by  this, 
but  fo  render  the  fame  Glory  to  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi  5  but  with  fuch 
a  difference  as  to  the  Particles,  which  St.  Bafil  at  large  proves  come  to  the 
fame  thing?  And  to  the  fame  purpofe,  not  only  the  Church  of  5/»>/r«,t,  but 
fionius  the  Martyr,  who  tranfcribed  the  A'fJs,  fpeaking  of  '^eftu  Chrijl,  with 
whom  be  Glory  to  Odd  the  Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghofi.     Thefe  fuffer  d  Mar-  valef.ad 
tyrdom  for  Chriftianity,  and  owned  the  fame  Divine  Honour  to  the  Fa-^'^^'^- 
tber.  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi. 

What  could  they  mean,  if  they  did  not  believe  them  to  have  the  fame  ^°|'^''^'"' 
Divine  Nature  >  Can  we  fuppofe  them  guilty  of  fuch  Stupidity  to  lofe  their  .oj^f' 
Lives  for  not  giving  Divine  Honour  to  Creatures,  and  at  the  fame  time  to 
do  it  themfelves  >  So  that  if  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi  were  not  then 
believed  to  be  three  Perfons  and  one  God,  the  Chriftian  Church  was  mighti- 
ly deceived  •  and  the  Martyrs  afted  inconfifiently  with  their  own  Princi- 
ples: Which  no  good  Chriftian  will  dare  to  affirm.  But  fome  have  adven- 
tured to  fay  that  Polycarp  did  not  mean  the  fame  Divine  Honour  to  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghofl.  But  if  he  had  fo  meant  it,  how  could  he  have  expref- 
fed  it  otherwife  ?  It  was  certainly  a  Worfliip  diftinft  from  what  he  gave 
to  Creatures  ^  as  appears  by  the  Church  of  Smyrna's  difowning  any  Wor- 
(h'lp  but  of  Love  and  Refpe^  to  their  FellowCreatures ;    and  owning  the  gi- 

R  r  r  2  ving 


4.^6  A  Vindicdtion  of  the  C  h  a  p. 


\'mg  Adoration  to  the  Son  of  God -^  with  whom  they  joyn  both  Father  and 
Holy  Ghoji.  Which  it  is  irapoffible  to  conceive,  that  in  their  Circumftances, 
they  (hould  have  done,  unlefs  they  had  believed  the  fame  Divjne  Honour  to 
belong  to  them. 

St.  JB<?//'s  Teftimony  makes  it  outof  Difpute,  that  the  Doxology  to  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft,  was  univerfally  receiv'd  in  the  publick  Offices  of  the 
Church,  and  that  from  the  timeof  greateft  Antiquity :  So  that  we  have  no' 
need  of  the  Teftimonies  from  the  Apoftolkal  Confiitutions  (as  they  are  called) 
to  prove  it.  But  I  avoid  all  difputable  Authorities.  And  I  (hall  only  add, 
that  it  appears  from  St.  Bafil,  that  this  Doxology  had  been  long  ufed  not  only 

C.  29-     in  publick  Offices,    but  in  Occa/ional  Ejaculations,    as  at  the  bringing  in  of 

Light  in  the  Evenings    the  People,    he  faith,    were  wont  to  fay.    Glory  be  to  the 

Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and  tothe  Holy  Ghofi,  8cc.     This,  he  faith,   had  been 

an  ancient  Ciijlom  among  the  People,    and  none  can  tell  who  brought  it  in.     But 

Prudent.    Frudentius,   (hews,    that  it  was  continued  to  his  Time  :,    as   appears  by 

each,  his  Hymn  on  that  occafion,  which  concludes  with  this  Doxology,  and  St. 
HnSr  ^"  -f^^W  ^"^s  his  Hymn  written  to  his  Daughter,  in  the  fame  nian- 
op.  N.  E.  ner. 

jf).  1214.  g_  I  cofne  therefore  to  the  laft  Proof,  which  I  (hall  produce  of  the 
Senfe  of  the  Chrijlian  Church,  which  is ,  from  the  Tejlimony  of  thofe 
who  wrote  in  Defence  of  our  Religion  againfl  Infidels.  In  which  I 
fhall  be  the  (hotter,  fince  the  particular  Teftimonies  of  the  Fathers, 
have  been  fo  fully  produced,  and  defended, by  others,  efpecially  by 
Dr.  Bull. 
Apol.  2.  fnjlin  Martyr  in  his  Jpology  for  the  Chrijiians,  gives  an  account  of  the 
/■  ^^'  Form  of  Baptifm,  as  it  was  adminiftred  among  Chrifiians,  which  he  faith,  was 
in  the  Name  of  God  the  Father  of  all,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jefus  Chriji,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghoji.     And  he  fpake  of  them  as  of  di^inSf  Perfons,    as  appears  by  his 

p.  i6.     Words  afterwards.     They  who  take  the  Son  to  be  the  Father,    neither  know  the 
Father  nor  the  Son,  who  being  the  Word  and  firji  begotten  is  God.     And  when 

P'  97-    he  fpeaks  of  the  Euchariji,  he  faith.  That  it  is  offer  d  to  the  Father  of  all,    by 
the  Name  of  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghoji :    and  of  other  folemn  Aftsof  Devo- 

^-  98-     tion,  he  faith.  That  in  all  of  them  they  praife  God  the  Father  of  all,  by  his  Son 

P-  5<5.    Jefus  Chrifi,    and  the  Holy  Ghofi.     And  in  other  places,    he  mentions  the 
Worftiip  they  give  to  Father,   Son,   and  Holy  Ghoji.     Indeed  he  mentions  a 

r-  ^°'  difference  of  Order  between  them  ;  but  makes  no  Difference  as  to  the  Worfhip 
given  to  them.  And  all  this  in  no  long  Apology  for  the  Chrifiian  Faith. 
What  can  be  the  meaning  of  this,  if  he  did  not  take  it  for  granted,  that 
the  Chriftian  Church  embraced  the  Doftrine  of  the  Trinity  in  Baptifm  ?  Jh- 
fiin  Martyr  was  no  fuch  weak  Man  to  go  about  toexpofethe  Chriftian  Reli- 
gion inftead  of  defending  it  ^  and  he  muft  have  done  fo,  if  he  did  not  be- 
lieve this  not  only  to  be  a  true,  but  a  neceffary  part  of  the  Chriftian  Faith. 
For,  why  did  he  at  all  mention  fuch  aMyfterious  and  dark  Point  ?  Why  did 
he  not  conceal  it,  (as  fome  would  have  done)  and  only  feprefent  to  the  Em- 
perors, the  fair  and  plaulible  part  of  Chriftianity  }  No,  he  was  a  Man  of 
great  Sincerity,  and  a  through  Chriftian  himfelf^  and  therefore  thought  be 
could  not  honeftly  conceal  fo  fundamental  a  Point  of  the  Chriftian  Faith, 
and  which  related  to  their  being  entred  into  the  Chriftian  Church  For  if 
the  Profeflion  of  this  Faith  had  not  been  look'd  on  as  a  neceffary  con- 
dition of  being  a  Member  of  the  Church  of  Chrift  5  it  is  hard  to  i- 
magine,  that  Jujlin  Martyr  (hould  fo  much  in(ift  upon  it,  not  only 
here,  but  in  his  other  Treatifes :.  Of  which  an  Account  hath  been  gi- 
ven by  others. 

Athenagoras  had  been  a  Philofophcr,  as  well  2^%  Jujlin  Martyr,    before  he 

profeffed  himfelf  a  Chriftian^    and  therefore,  muft  be  fuppofed  to  under- 

.      ~  (tand 


Chap.  IX.  Doclr'me  of  the  Trinity.  497 

(land  his  Religion  before  he  embraced  it.     And  in  his  Defence  he  afferts. 
That  the  Chrijltans  do  believe  in  Father,  Son^  atid  Holy  Ghofl  5  in  God  the  /\^-  Athcnag, 
iber,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghof}.     And  he  mentions  both  the  Z)ni~^'  ^' 
ty  and  Order  which  is  among  them.     Which  can  fignifie  nothing  unlefs  they  be 
owned  to  be  diftinft  Perfons  in  the  fame  Divine  Nature.      And  in  the  next  . 
Page,  he  looks  on  it,  as  a  thing  which  all  Chriftians  afpire  after  in  another 
Life,  That  they  flull  then  know  the  Union  of  the  Father,  and  the  Communication 
of  the  Father  to  the  Son,  what  the  Holy  Ghoji  k.  and  ivhat  Union  and  Diflin^ion 
there  k  between  the  Holy  Ghojl,the  Son  and  the  Frt/^er.No  Man  who  had  ever  had 
the  name  of  a  Philofopherwou]d  have  faidfuch  things,  unlefs  he  had  believed 
the  Doftrine  of  the  Trinity  as  we  do,    i.  e.  that  there  are  three  diftinft 
Perfons  in  the  fame  Divine  Nature,    but  that  the  manner  of  the  U- 
rion,    and  diftindtion  between  them,    is   above  our  reach  and  compre- 
henfion. 

But  our  Unitarians  have  an  Anfwer  ready  for  thefe  Men,    viz.    That  they  defence  »/ 
came  out  of.V\^tos  Shool,  with  the  Tin&ure  of  his  three  Principles  5    and  the^  the  Hifl. 
fadly  complain,  that  ?\2iton\[m  had  very  early  corrupted  the  Chrijiian  Faith  as ''^*'"^' 
to  thefe  matters. 

In  anfwer  to  which  Exception,    I  have  only  one  PoJJulatum  to  make ;  ^^'P- ^^ 
which  is,  that  thefe  were  honeft  Men,  and  knew  their  own  Minds  beft,  and  cIef!^  ,7* 
I  (hall  make  it  appear,  that  none  can  morepofitively  declare,    than  they  do,  178. 
that  they  did  not  take  up  thefe  Notions  from  Flato,  but  from  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures ;  Jufiin  Martyr  faith,    he  took  the  Foundation  of  his  Faith  from  thence,  Juft.ApoL 
and  that  he  could  find  no  certainty  as  to  God  and  Religion  any  where  elfe  :  that  ^-  P^""*'- 
he  thinks,    Plato  took  his  three  Principles  from  Mofes  5   and  in  his  Dialogue^'^,^'^^2'^2 
with  Trypho,    he  at  large  proves  the  Eternity  of  the  Son  of  God  from  the  ^/^ 
Scriptures  ;   and  faid,    He   would  ufe  no  other  Arguments,     for   he    preten-  Yl^^'hl"'' 
ded  to  no  Skill  but  in   the  Scriptures,    which  God  had  enabled  him  to  un-  ;>.274,^c, 
derfiand. 

Athenagoras  declares.    That  where  the  Philofophers  agreed  with  them,    their  ^^'f^^^^' 
Faith  did  not  depend  on  them,  but  on  the  Tefiimony  of  the  Frophets,  who  were  in-      ' 
fpired  by  the  Holy  Ghofi. 

To  the  fame  purpofe  fpeaks  The^philus  Bifhop  o^Antioch,  whoaflerts  tbe  ]^''^°p^'^'_''' 
Co-eternity  of  the  Son  with  the  father,  from  the  beginning  of  St.  JohnV  Gofpel  ;  lye. /j.ioo. 
and  faith,  their  Fai.  h  is  built  on  the  Scriptures. 

Clemens  Alexandrin/^  owns  not  only,  the  Effential  Attributes  ofGod  to  be-  ^^^1"^"^ 
long  to  the  Son  ;  but  that  there  is  one  Father  of  all,  and  one  Word  over  all,  and  c,  7. 
one  Holy  Ghofl  who  is  every  where. 

And  he  thinks,  Plato  borrowed  his  three  Principles  from  Mofes ;  that  his  fe-  Scr./.4. 
cond  was  the  Son,  and  the  third  his  Holy  Spirit.  {>ro(J'68 

Even  Origen  himfelf  highly  commends  Mt^/ej-  above  Plato,  in  his  moft  un-  pad.  /.  i. 
doubted  Writings,  and  faith.  That  Numenius  went  beyond  Phto,  zndthat  he'^-'^-^^^- 
borrowed  out  of  the  Scriptures  :^   and  fo  he  faith,    Plato  did  in  other  places ;  orig.cf  ' 
but  he  adds.  That  the  Do^rines  were  better  deliver  d  in  Scripture,    than  in  his  Ceii-  /.  i. 
Artificial  Dialogues.     Can  any  one  that  hath  theleaft  reverence  for  Writers  P' '^g^'^^- 
of  fuch  Authority  and  Zeal  for  the  Chriftian  Doftrine,    imagine  that  they ;,". '275,'  ' 
wilfully  corrupted  it  in  one  of  the  chief  Articles  of  it  ^  and  brought  in  new  ^i9,<i!rc. 
Speculations  againft  the  Senfe  of  thofe  Books,  which  at  the  fame  time,  they  ^j,'  jyj', 
profeffed  to  be  the  only  Rule  of  their  Faith  >     Even  where  they  fpeak 
moft  favourably  of  the  Platonick  Trinity,  they  fuppofe  it  to  be  borrowed 
from  Mofes. 

And  therefore  Numenius  faid.   That  Mofes  and  Plato  did  not  differ  about  i^^^sm^ 
thefirflPri/iciples-^  andTheodo-et  mentions  Nnmenius  as  one  of  thofe,   who  Eufeb. 
faid,  PUto  underjiood  the  Hebrew  Do.^rine  in  Egypt  J   and  during  his  Thir  ^^^J'^^ 
teen  Years  ftay  there,    it  is  hardly  poflible  to  fuppofe,  he  fhould  be  igno-  serm.  V 

rant 


4^8  AVi?idicatio7i  of  the         ChAp.  IX. 

rant  of  the  Hebrew  Do&r'im^   about  the  firji  Frwciplet,    which  he  was  fo 
--        inquifitive  after,    efpecially  among   Nations,     who  pretended   to  Anti- 
quity. , 

And  the  PUtonlck  Notion  of  the  Divine  Bjjeficc  inUrging  itfclfto  three  Hj' 
fojiafes,  is  confiderable  on  thefe  Accounts  : 

1.  That  it  is  delivered  with  fo  much  affurance  by  the  Oppofers  of 
Chriftianity  5     fuch  as  Plotinus,    Porphyrins,    Procltn  and  others   were 

Cyril,  c.    knowH  to  be,    and  they  fpeak  with  no  manner  of  doubt  concerning  it  5 
Till.  1.1.&  as  may  be  feen  in  the  paffages  of  Porphjry  preferved  by  St.  Cynl  and 
■  ■        others. 

2.  That  they  took  it  up  from  no  Revelation  5  but  as  a  Notion  in  it  felf 
agreeable  enough;  as  appears  by  the  paffages  in  ?/<?/<?  and  others  concerning 
it.  They  never  fufpefted  it  to  be  liable  to  the  Charge  of  Non-Senfe,  ana 
Contradiilions,  as  our  modem  ZJ«/>dr/<?»/ charge  the  Trinity  with  5  although 
their  Notion  as  reprefented  by  Porphyry  be  as  liable  to  it.  How  came  thefe 
Men  of  Wit  and  Senfe,  to  hit  upon,  and  be  fo  fond  of  fuch  abCurd  Princi- 
ples which  lead  to  the  Belief  of  Myfterious  Nofi-Senfe,  and  Impojjibilitits,  if 
thefe  Men  may  be  trufted  ? 

5.  That  the  Nations  moft  renowned  for  Antiquity  and  deep  Speculations, 
did  light  upon  the  fame  Dodrijie,  about  a  Trinity  of  Hypofiafes  in  the  Di- 
vine Effencc.     To  prove  this  l  (hill  not  refer  to  the  Trifmegijiick  Books,    or 
Plutarch    the  Chaldee  Oracles,    or  any  doubtful  Autlrorities  5    but  Plutarch  afierts  the 
de  ifid.  ii  three  Hypoftafes  to  have  beenreceivd  among  the  Perlians,    and  Porphyry    and 
?69."'ed.'  Ja»^l^l'<^hus,  fay  the  famQ  oi  the  Egyptians. 

Fr. '     '       4.  That  this  Flypofiajis  did  maintain  its  Reputation  fo  long  in  the  World. 

Eufebius  ^oT  wc  find  it  Continued  to  the  time  of  Macrobius  5    who  mentions  it  as  a 

/.j^.^c.  I'l.  reafonable  Notion,   viz.  of  one  fupreme  Being,    Father  of  all,    and  a  Mind 

janib.de  proceeding  front  it,  and  Soul  from  Mind.     Some  have  thought  that  thePhto- 

8^c  'z!'' '  n^^S  made  two  created  Beings,  to  be  two  of  the  Divine  Hypoflafes  ;    but  this  is 

Marcrob.  contrary  to  what  Plotinns  and  Porphyry  affirm  concerning  it,  and  it  is  hard  to 

scip?on    §^^^  ^^  Account,  how  they  (liould  then  be  Effentially  different  from  Crea- 

/.i.  c.  14.  tures,  and  be  Hypojiafes  in  the  Divine  Ejfence.     But   this  is  no  part  of  my 

bufinefs,  being  concerned  no  farther,  than  to  clear  the  Senfe  of  the  Chriftian 

Church,  SiS  to  the  Form  of  Baptifm  in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  Son,     and  Holy 

Ghojl  ^  which  according  to  the  Senfe  of  the  AnteNicene  Fathers,  I  have  pro* 

ved,  doth  manifeft  the  Doftrine  of  the  Trinity,   to  have  JDeen  generally  re- 

•  ceiv'd  in  the  Chriftian  Church. 

2    Let  us  now  fee  what  our  Unitarians  objsft  againft  the  Proof  of  the 
Trinity  from  thefe  Words. 
Aii(mrta       j.  They  fay.    That  there  is  a  Note  of  difiinSlion  and  Superiority.      For 
'  '^■'^'  Chrifl  owns  J  that  his  Power  was  given  to  him  by  the  Father. 

There  isnoqueftion,  but  thatthe  Perfonwhofuffer'don  the  Crofs,  had 
Power  given  to  him,  after  his  Refurredion  ^  but  the  trueQpeftion  is,  whe- 
ther his  Sonfiip  were  then  given  to  him.  He  was  then  declared  to  be  the 
Son  of  God  with  Power,  and  had  a  N.4me  or  Authority  given  him  above  every 
Name'.,  being  exalted  to  he  aPrince  and  a  Saviour,  to  give  Repentance,  and  Re- 
mijfion  of  S/ns :  in  order  to  which  he  now  appointed  his  Apoftles  to  teach 
all  Nations  ;  baptizing  them  In  the  Name  of  the  Fa'her,  the  Son,  and  the  Ho- 
ly Ghoji.  He  doth  not  fay,  in  the  Name  of  Jefus,  who  fuffer'd  on  the 
Crofs ;  nor  in  the  Name  of  Jcfus  the  Chrifl  now  ex.ilted  ^  but  in  the  Name 
of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft  :  and  although  there  were  a  double  Gift 
with  refpeft  to  the  Son  and  Holy  Choft  ;  the  one,  as  to  his  Royal  Authori- 
ty over  the  Church  ;  the  other,  as  to  his  eKtraordinary  Effufion  on  the  A- 
poftles,  yet  neither  of  thefe  are  fo  much  as  intimated  -^  but  the  Office  of 
Baptifm  is  required  to  be  performed  in  the  Name  of  thefe  three  as  diftinft 

and 


C  H  A  P.  IX.     Do^rifw  of  the  Trinity.  45151 

and  yet  equal  ^  without  any  Relation  to  any  Gift,  either  as  to  the  Son  or 
Holy  Ghoft.  But  if  the  ancient  Jews  were  in  the  Right,  as  we  think  they 
were,  then  we  have  a  plain  account,  how  thefe  came  to  be  thus  men- 
don'd  in  the  Form  of  Baptifm,  viz,,  that  thefe  three  diftinft  Subfiften- 
ces  in  the  Divine  Eflence,  were  not  now  to  be  kept  up  as  a  fecret  Myftery 
from  the  World  ;  but  that  the  Chriftian  Church  was  to  be  formed  upon  the  . 
Belief  of  it. 

,7.  They  bring feveral  placet  of  Scripture,  tvhere  God  and  hk  Creature i  are 
joy  tied,  vpithoHt  any  Note  of  difim^ion  or  Superiority  t,  <«■,  The  People  feared 
the  Lord,  rf»<s?  Samuel,  I  Sam.  12.  18,  They  jvor/hipped  the  Lord,  and  the 
King,  I  Chron.  29.  20.  /  charge  thee  before  God  and  the  Lord  Jefvs 
Chrifi,  and  his  ele^  Angels,  I  Tim.  5.21.  The  Spirit  and  the  Bride  fay 
come.   Revel.  22.  17. 

.  But  can  any  Man  of  Sen  fe  imagine,  thefe  places  contain  a  Parallel  with  a 
Form  of  Words,  wherein  Men  are  entred  into  the  Profeffion  of  a  new  Re- 
ligion, and  by  which  they  were  to  be  diftinguifhed  from  all  other  Religi- 
ons ?  In  the  former  places,  the  Circumftances  were  fo  notorious  as  to  God, 
and  the  Civil  Magifirate,  that  it  (hews  no  more  than  that  the  fame  external 
A£ts  may  be  ufed  to  both,  but  with  fuch  a  different  Intention  as  all  Men  un- 
derftood  it.  What  if  St.  Paul  name  the  eletl  Angels  m  a  folemn  Obteftation 
toTimothy,  together  with  God,  and  the  Lord  Jefus  Chriji  ^  What  can  this 
prove,  but  that  we  may  call  God  and  his  Creatures  to  be  WitnelTes  together 
of  the  fame  thing  >  And  fo  Heaven  and  Earth  are  called  to  bear  Witnefs  a- 
gainft  obftinate  Sinners :  May  Men  therefore  be  baptized  in  the  Name  of 
God  and  his  Creatures  ?  The  Spirit  and  Bride  may  fay  come  without  any  In- 
congruity 5  but  it  would  have  been  ftrange  indeed,  if  they  had  faid,  Come 
be  baptized  in  the  Name  of  the  Spirit  and  the  Bride.  So  that  thefe  Inftances 
are  very  remote  from  the  purpofe. 

But  they  fay  farther.  That  the  ancients  of  thefirjl  four  Hundred  Tears  do 
not  infijl  on  this  place,  to  prove  the  D  vinity  or  Perfonaltty  of  the  Son  or  Spirit. 
As  to  the  firfl  three  Hundred  Tears,  I  have  given  an  Account  already  ;  and  as 
to  the  Fourth  Century,  I  could  not  have  thought,  that  they  would  have 
mention'd  it:  fince  there  is  fcarce  a  Father  of  the  Church  in  that  time,  who 
bad-occafion  to  do  it,  but  makes  ufe  of  the  Argument  from  this  place  to 
prove  the  Divinity  andPerfonalityoftheSon  and  spirit. 

Athanafi«s  faith.  That  Chrifl  founded  his  Church  on  the  Dc&rine  of  the  Tri-  Achan.Ep; 
tJity  contained  in  thefe  Words  5    and  if  the  Holy  Ghofi  had  been  of  a  '^#'"^^*  onfp"!^.'."" 
Nature,  from  the  Father  and  Son,    he  would  never  have  been  Joy ned  vnith  them  row.  2.' 
in  a  Form  of  Baptifm,  no  more  than  an  Angel,  or  any  other  Creature.      For  the  ^  ^"'P' 
Trinity  mujibc  Eternal  and  Lidivifihle,  which  it  could  not  be,  if  any  created  Be- p  ,8*6/ 
ing  were  in  it,  and  therefore  he  difputes  againfl  the  Arian  Baptifm,  although  179- 
performed  with  the  fame  Words,  becaufe  they  joyned  God  and  a  Creature  to-  Arian  p? 
gether  in  Baptifm.     To  the  fame  purpofe  argue  Didymiis,    Gregory  Nazian'  413. 
%en,  St  Bafil  and  others,  within  the  Compafs  of  four  hundred  Years,  whofe 
Teftimonies  are  produced  by  Petavius  ^  to  whom  I  refer  the  Reader,    if  he^^^Yu\. 
hath  a  mind  to  be  fatisfied  in   fo  clear  a  Point,    that  I  cannot  but  think  c.n.feil.S. 
our  Unitarians  never  intended  to  take  in  the  Fathers  after  the  Council 
of  Nice,  who  are  fo  exprefly  againft  them  5   and  therefore  I  pafs  it  over  as 
a  flip. 

4.  They  objeft.  That  the  Form  of  Baptifm  implies  no  more,    than  being  ad-  Hifl.oj  the 
mitted  into  that  Religion  which  proceeds  from  Cod  the  Father,  and  deliver  d  by  ^^'^"' 
his  Son,  and  confirmed  by  the  Tejiimony  of  the  Holy  Ghofi.     So  much  we  grant 
is  implied,  but  the  Qaeftion  (till  remains,   whether  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi 
are  here  to  be  confider'd  only  in  order  to  their  Operations,  or  whether  the 
Perfons  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi,   from  whom  thofe  Effeds  came,    are  not 

here 


Aug.  in 
Pfal.  77- 


500  A  Vindication  of  the  G  h  a  p.  I>v, 

here  chiefly  intended  ?  For  if  no  more  had  been  meant  but  thefe  EfFed^, 
then  the  right  Form  of  Admiffion  had  not  been.  Into  the  Name  of  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Ghoji  ;  but  in  the  Name  of  the  Father  alone,  as  reve^ltn'g 
himfelf  by  his  Son,  and  confirming  it  by  the  miraculous  Vsloxksoith^  Holy 
Ghofl.  For  thefe  are  only  fubfervient  Afts  to  the  defign  of  God  the  Father, 
as  the  only  fnbfifiing  Perfon. 

4.  They  tell  us,  That  it  is  In  vain,  not  to  fay  ridicnlaifly  pretended,  that 
a  Perfon  or  thing  is  God,  hecaufe  tve  are  baptized  into  it  ;  for  fome  Tvere  bap- 
tized into  Mofes,  and  others  into  JohnV  Baptifm,  and  fo  Mofes  and  John 
Baptift  wotdd  be  Gods  5  and  to  be  baptized  into  a  Perfon  or  Perfons,  and  in  the 
Name  of  fuch  a  Perfon  fs  the  fame  thing.  Grant  this  ^  yet  there  is  a  great 
difference  between  being  baptized  in  the  name  of  a  Minijler  of  Baptifm, 
and  of  the  Author  of  a  Religion,  into  which  they  are  baptized.  The  Ifrac- 
lites  were  baptized  nntoMo^QS  5  but  how  ?  The  Syriac  and  ArabicVerfons  rer- 
der  it  per  Mofen  5  and  fo  St.  AHgufline  reads  it.  And  this  feems  to  be  the 
moft  natural  fenfe  of  the  Word,  «?  being  put  for  h\cc,  as  it  is  Acl.  7.- 
53.  compared  with  Gal.^.  19.  And  the  force  of  the  Apoftles  Argu- 
ment doth  not  lie  in  the  Parallel  between  being  baptized  into  Mofes,  and 
into  Chrift  5  but  in  the  Privileges  they  had  under  the  Mintfiery  of 
Mofes,  with  thofe  which  Chriftians  enpyed.  The  other  place  implies  no 
more,  than  being  enter'd  into  that  ProfefTion,  which  John  baptized  his 
Difciples  into.  But  doth  any  one  imagine,  that  becaufe  John  Baptiji  did 
enter  his  Difciples  by  Baptifm,  therefore  they  muft  believe  him  to  be  God  > 
I  know  none  that  lay  the  force  of  the  Argument  upon  any  thing  parallel  to 
thofe  places.  But  it  depends  upon  laying  the  Circumftances  together.  Here 
was  a  new  Religion  to  be  taught  Mankind,  and  they  were  to  be  entred  in- 
to it,  not  by  a  bare  verbal  Profeffion,  but  by  a  folemn  Rite  of  Baptifm  ^  and 
this  Baptifm  is  declar'd  to  be  in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi  5 
which  cannot  be  underftood  of  their  Miniftry,  and  therefore  muft  relate  to 
that  Faith  which  they  were  baptized  into,  which  was  concerning  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghofi.  And  fo  the  Chriftian  Church  underftood  it  from  the 
-  beginning,  as  I  have  proved  in  the  foregoing  Difcourfe. 

And  from  hence  came  the  Inftruftion  of  Catechumens,  who  were  fo  be 

baptized,  about  the  Tn^/A)/ ;  and  the  firft  Creeds,  which  related  only  to 

them,  as  I  have  already  obferved.     And  fo  much  our  Vnitarians  grant  in 

Anfifer  to  one  of  their  lateft  Pamphlets,  that  a  Creed  was  an  InfiitMtion  or  Inftru&iott 

Dr.  Bull,  ^hatwe  are  to  believe  in  the  main  and  fundamental  Articles,  efpecially  concerning 

^'  '^'  '^  thePerfons  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi.    But  they  contend,  That  the  Creed 

which  bears  the  Name  of  the  Apoftles,  was  the  Original  Creed  framed  by  theApofiles 

themfelves,  becaufe  they  fuppofe  thk  Creed  doth  not  ajfert  the  Son  and  Holy 

Ghofi  to  be  eternal  and  divine  Perfons,  and  therefore  they  conclude,  that  the 

Makers  of  this  Creed  either  did  not  know,  that  any  other  Perfon  but  the  Father 

is  God,  or  Almighty,  or  Maker  of  Heaven  and  Earth,  or  they  have  negligently 

or  wickedly  concealed  it. 

This  is  a  matter  fo  neceflary  to  be  clear'd,  that  I  (hall  examine  thefe  two 
things  before  I  put  an  end  to  this  Difcourfe. 

1.  What  Proofs  they  bring  that  this  Creed  was  framed  by  the  Apo- 

flles. 

2.  What  Evidence  they  produce  that  this  Creed  excludes  the  Divinity  of 

the  Son  and  Holy  Ghofi 

I,  As  to  the  Proofs  they  bring,  that  this  Creed  was  framed  by  the  Apo- 
ftles. We  believe  the  Creed  to  be  Apofiolical  in  the  true  Senfe  of  it  5  but 
that  it  was  fo  in  that  Frame  of  Words,  and  Enumeration  of  Articles,  as  it 
is  now  receiv'd,  hath  been  called  in  queftion  by  Come  Cr/ticks  of  great  Judg- 
ment and  Learning,  whom  I  have  already  mentioned.    Erafmus  faith,  He 

dotb 


Chap.  IX.     Doclrine  of  the  Trinity.  k,6i 

doth  not  quejiion  the  Articles  be'tttg  Jpojlolkal  ;  biit  whether  the  Apoflles  put  it  ^"^  *^_ 
thus  i»to  Writing.     And  his  chief  Argument  is  from  the  Variety  of  the  an-'^\^'i\^\i. 
aent  Creeds  ;  of  which  no  Account  can  be  given  fo  probable,  as  that  they 
were  added  Occafionally  in  oppofition  to  a  growing  Herefie.     As  forlnftance, 
the  Word  impajjihle  was  inferted  with  Refpeft  to  the  Father  in  the  ancient 
Eajlern  Creed,  againft  the  Doftrine  of  Sabellius,  but  it  was  not  in  the  old 
Wejiern  Creed,     And  he  afgues,  That  the  Apojlolical  Creed  ended  with  the 
Holy  Ghoft  ;  becaufe  the  Nicene  Creed  did  fo.    And  Vojfms  thinks  the  other  votr.dc 
Articles  which  are  in  Cyrd,  were  added  after  the  Nicene  Council  ^    which  "'bus 
would  not  have  omitted  them,  if  they  had  been  in  the  former  Creed.  And  Divert,  i. 
when  there  were  fo  many  Creeds  made  afterwards,  it  is  obfervable  that  they  .se».47. 
do  all  end  with  the  Article  of  the  Holy  Ghoji-j  which  they  would  never  have 
done,  in  fo  jealous  a  time  dhout  Creeds,-  if  they  had  left  out  any  Articles  of 
what  was  then  receiv'd  for  the  Apojlolical  Creed. 

Thefirft  Creed  after  the  Niiene,  which  made  great  noife  in  the  World, 
was  that  framed  at  Aritioch  ;  and  that  Creed  not  only  ends  with  the  Article  Hilar,  da 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  but  mentions  the  Form  of  Baptifm^  and  our  Saviour s^^'^^^'^' 
commanding  his  ^pojlles  to  baptize  in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  ' 
Ghoji,  as  the  Foundation  of  the  Creed.     For  it  hereby  appears,  that  the  Fa' 
ther  is  true  Father,  and  the  Son  true  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghoji  true  Holy  Ghoji  5 
«ot  bare  Names,  but  fuch  as  import  three  diJiinS  Subjijiences. 

For  Hilary  obferves.  That  this  Council  chiefly  intended  to  overthrow 
SabeBianifm,  and  therefore  aflerted  tres  Subfijlentium  Perfonas,  as  Hilary  in-  Epiphani- 
terprets  their  meaning,  and  fo  doth  Epiphanlus  5  which  was  to  remove  the"^  '^*'"- 
Sufpicion,  thzt thzy  :i&xte6.  onXy  iriplicisvocabuliTJnionem,asHdaryi^'pQdks, 
The  next  Creed  is  of  the  Eaftern  Bifhops  at  Sardica,  and  that  ends  with  the 
Holy  Ghoji  ^  and  fo  do  both  the  Creeds  at  Sirmlum  :  and  the  latter  calls  the 
Article  of  the  Trinity,  the  clofe  of  our  Faith ;  which  is  always  to  be  kept  ac- 
cording to  our  Saviour's  Command,  Go  teach  all  Nations,  baptizing  them  in  chuCuh 
the  Name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  GhoJl.    So  that   in  all  thefe  Creeds,  ^j^p^'^^^ 
about  which  there  was  fo  much  heat  in  the  Chriftian  Church,  there  was  perlVarif. 
not  the  leaft  Objeftion,  that  any  Articles  of  the  /ipojioUcal  Creed  were  o-  ex  mss. 
mitted.  It  is  no  Argument,That  there  was  then  no  conteft  about  thefeArticles ; 
for  they  were  bound  to  give  in  an  entire  Creed ;  and  fo  the  Council  of 
Antiocb  declares,  that  they  would,  publifli  the  Confejjion  of  the  Faith  of  the 
Chnrch  i,  and  how  could  this  be,  if  they  left  out  fuch  Articles  which  had 
been  always  receiv'd  from  the  Apoftles  times  >  But  certainly  our  Unitarians 
would  not  attack  fuch  Men  as  Erafmus  and  Vojpus,  in  a  matter  relating  to 
Antiquity,  if  they  had  not  fome  good  Arguments  on  their  fide.    Their  firfl: 
bufmefs  is  to  (hew,  that  fome  of  FoJJius  his  Arguments  are  not  conclufive  5 
fuch  as  they  are,  I  leave  them  to  any  one  that  will  compare  them  with  the 
Anfwers.    But  there  are  two  things  they  lay  weight  upon. 

1.  That  the  whole  Chrijiian  Church  Eaji  and  Weji,  could  not  have  agreed  /»p.  j^. 
the  fame  Creed,  as  to  Number  and  Order  of  Articles,  and  manner  ofExprejJion, 

if  this  Creed  had  not  come  from  the  fame  Perfons,  from  whom  they  receiv'd 
the  Gofpel  and  the  Scriptures  5  namely,  from  the  Apoftles  and  Preachers  ofChri- 
ftianity. 

2.  That  it  was  receiv'd  by  a  conftant  Tradition  to  have  been  the  Apoftles  j  p.  2?.- 
not  a  bare  Oral  Tradition,  but  the  Tradition  of  the  ancient  Commentators  up- 
on it. 

Now  thefe  I  confefs  to  be  as  good  Arguments  as  the  Matter  will  bear; 
and  I  will  no  longer  conteft  this  Point  with  them,  provided  that  we  be 
allowed  to  make  ufe  of  the  fame  Arguments,  as  to  the  fecond  Point  j  where- 
in they  undertake  to  prove.  That  the  Jpoflles  Creed  doth  exclude  the  Divinity 
of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghqft.     What  is  now  become  of  the  general  Conferit  of 

Sff  .  the 


502  A  Vindication  of  the  C  h  a  p.  X. 

the  Chrifiian  ChurcTj^  Eaft  and  Weft  ?  And  of  the  Commentators  upon  this  Creed? 
If  the  Argument  hold  good  in  one  Cafe,  I  hope  it  will  be  allowed  to  do 
fo  in  the  other  alfo.  And  what  greater  Teftimony  can  be  given  of  fuch  a 
Confent  of  the  Chriftian  Church,  than  that  thofe  who  oppofed  it  have  been 
condemned  by  it,  and  that  the  Church  hath  exprefledher  Senfe  of  it  in  P«^ 
Ink  and  'Private  A&s  of  Devotion,  and  Divine  Worftjip,  and  have  defended 
it  as  a  neceifary  part  of  the  Chriftian  Faith,  againrt  the  Aflaults  of  Infidels 
and  Hereticks  .<?  So  that  although  the  Apoftles  Creed  do  not  ^n  exprefs  words 
declare,  The  Divinity  of  the  three  Perfons  in  the  "Unity  of  the  Divine  E/fencf  5 
yet  taking  the  Senfe  of  thofe  Articles,  as  the  Chriftian  Church  underftood 
them  from  the  Apoftles  times,  then  we  have  as  full  and  clear  Evidence  of 
this  Doftrine,  as  we  have  that  tve  recek/d  the  Scriptures  from  them. 


CHAP.    X. 

The  ObjeSiions  againft .  the  Trinity  in  Point  of  Reafon  anfwerJ. 


H 


"Aving  in  the  foregoing  Chapters  endeavour'd  to  clear  the  Doftririe  of 
the  Trinity  from  the  charge  of  Contradictions,  and  to  prove  it  agreea- 
ble to  the  Senfe  oi  Scripture,  and  the  Primitive  Church  ; 

I  now  come  in  the  next  place  to  examine  the  remaining  Objeftions  in. 
point  of  Reafon  ^  and  thofe  are, 

1.  That  this  Doftrine  is  faid  to  be  a  Myjiery,  and  therefore  above  Reafon ^ 
and  we  cannot  in  reafon  be  obliged  to  believe  any  fuch  thing. 

2.  That  if  we  allow  any  fuch  Myfteries  of  Faith  as  are  above  Reafon,  there 
can  be  no  ftop  put  to  any  abfurd  Doctrines,  but  they  may  be  receiv'd  on 
the  fame  grounds. 

I.  As  to  this  Doftrine  being  faid  to  be  above  Reafon,  and  therefore  not  to 
be  believ'd,  we  muft  confider  two  things  ; 

1.  What  we  underftand  by  Reafon. 

2.  What  ground  in  Reafon  there  is,  torejedany  Doftrine  above  it,  when 
it  is  propofed  as  a  Matter  of  Faith. 

I.  What  we  underftand  by  Reafon.    I  do  not  find  that  our  Vnitarians 
have  explain'd  the  Nature  and  Bounds  of  Reafon  in  fuch  manner,  as  thofe 
ought  to  have  done,  who  make  it  the  Rule  and  Standard  of  what  they  are 
Anfwerto  to  believe.     But   fometimes  they   fpeak  of  clear  and  diftin^  Perceptions, 
'"^'^^'''"'"''fometimes  of  natural  Ideas,  fometimes  of  congenit  Notions,  ^x.    But  a  late 
^Letter  of  Authot  hath  cudeavour'd  to  make  amends  for  this,  and  takes  upon  him  to 
Refotution,  make  this  matter  clear  5  and  to  be  fure  to  do  fo,  he  begins  with  telling  us, 
chnk'ani-  ^hat  Reafon  is  not  the  Soul  abftra&edly  confider  d  5    (no  doubt  of  it)  but  the 
ty  mt  my.  ^quI  a&ing  in  a  peculiar  manner  is  Reafon.     (And  this  is  a  very  peculiar  way 
/?enow,     of  explaining  it.)     But  farther  we  are  told.  It  is  not  the  Order  or  Report  (re- 
fpeft  I  fuppofe)  which  is  naturally  between  all  things.     (But  that  implies  a 
Reafon  in  things.)     But  the  thoughts  which  the  Soul  forms  of  things  accord- 
ing to  it,  may  properly  claim  that  Title,  i.e.  fuch  thoughts  which  are  agree- 
able to  the  reafon  of  things  are  reafonable  Thoughts.    This  is  clear  and 
diftinft.     And  I  perfeftly  agree  "with  him,  That  our  own  Inclinations,  or  the 
hare  Authority  of  others  is  not  Reafon.     But  what  is  it  ?  Every  one  cxperiericer 
in  himfelfa  Power,  or  Faculty  of  forming  various  Ideas,  or  Perceptions  of  things^ 
of  affirming  or  denying,  according  as  he  fees  them  to  agree  or  difagree  ,  and  this 
is  Reafon  in  general.     It  is  not  the  bare  receiving  Ideas  into  the  Mind,  that  is 

ftriaij 


Char,X.         DotJn/te  of  the  Trmity.  f^o^ 

ftriBly  Reafott,  (^  who  ever  thought  it  was  >  )  but  the  Perception  of  the  Agt-ee- 
fMcnt  or  Difagreement  of  our  Ideiti  in  a  greater  or  lejfer  Number^  wherein  foevev 
this  Agreement  or  Difagreement  may  confijK  If  the  Perception  be  immediate 
vctthout  the  ^Jjijlance  of  any  other  Mea^  this  is  not  caU'd  Reafon,  but  Self-E' 
videni  e  5  but  when  the  Mind  makes  ufe  of  intermediate  Ideas  to  difcover  that 
Agreement  or  Difagreement,  this  method  of  K  nowledge  ii  properly  call'd  Reafon 
or  Demonflrat'ion.  And  fo  Reafon  is  defined  to  be  that  Faculty  of  the  Soul  which 
difcover s  the  Certainty  of  any  thing  dubious  or  ohfcure^  by  comparing  it  with 
fomething  evidently  known. 

This  is  ofFer'd  to  the  World  as  an  account  of  Reafon  5  but  to  (hew  how 
very  loofe  and  unfatisfaftory  it  is,  Idefire  it  may  be  confider'd,  that  this  Do- 
ftrine  fuppofes  that  we  rauft  have  clear  and  diJtinS  Ideas  of  whatever  we  pre- 
tend to  any  certainty  of  in  our  Minds  ^  and  that  the  only  way  to  attain  this 
Certainty,i3  by  comparing  thcfe7<^ei:together.Which  excludes  all  Certainty  of 
Faith  orR.eafon,where  we  cannot  have  fuch  clear  and  difiinU  Ideas.^at  if  there 
are  many  things  of  which  we  may  be  certain,  and  yet  can  have  no  clear 
and  diflin^  Ideas  of  them ;  if  thofe  Ideas  we  have  are  too  imperfeft  and 
obfcure  to  form  our  Judgments  by,  if  we  cannot  find  out  fufficient  interme^ 
diate  Ideas,  then  this  cannot  be  the  Means  of  Certainty,  or  the  Foundation 
of  Reafon. 

But  I  (hall  keep  to  our  prefent  Subjeft  ^  and  our  certainty  of  it  in  point 
of  Reafon  depends  upon  our  Knowledge  of  the  Nature  of  Subftance  and 
Perfon^  and  the  Diflindion  between  them  ^  but  if  we  can  have  no  fuch  clear 
Ideas  in  our  Minds  concerning  thefe  things,  as  are  required  from  Senfation 
or  Refle'Hon^  then  either  we  have  no  ufe  of  Reafon  about  them,  or  it  is  ia- 
fufficient  to  pafs  any  Judgment  concerning  them. 

I.  I  begin  with  the  Notion  of  Subjiame  ^  and  I  have  great  reafon  to  be- 
gin with  it ;  for  according  to  this  Man's  Principles,  there  can  be  no  Cer- 
tainty of  Reafon  at  all  about  it.  And  fo  our  new  way  of  Reafon  is  ad- 
vanced to  very  good  purpofe.  For  wc  may  talk  and  difpute  about  Sub- 
fiance  as  long  as  we  pleafe  5  but  if  his  Principles  of  Reafon  be  true,  we 
can  come  to  no  Certainty  5  fince  we  can  have  no  clear  Idea  in  our  Minds 
concerning  it,  as  will  appear  from  his  own  Words,  and  the  Method  he  pro- 
ceeds in. 

(l.)  He  faith.  That  the  Mind  receives  in  Ideas  two  ways.   I.  By  IntroOriJJion  ^^^9'  ^' 
of  the  Senfes  5  as  Colours,  Figures,  Sounds,  Smells,  8cc.     2.  By  the  Souls  con' 
fidering  its  own  Operations  abnut  what  it  thus  gets  from  without  5  as  knowings 
doubting,  affirming,  denying,  &C. 

(2.)  That  thefe  fimple  and  d'liiinU  Ideas .^  thus  laid  up  in  the  great  Repo- 
fitory  of  the  Underfianding,  are  the  fole  Matter  and  Foundation  of  all  our  Rea- 
foning. 

Then  it  follows,  That  we  can  have  no  Foundation  of  Reafoning,  where 
there  can  be  no  fuch  Ideas  from  Senfation  or  RefieSion. 

Now  this  is  the  Cafe  of  Subflame  ^  it  is  not  intromitted  by  the  Senfes,  nor 
depends  upon  the  Operations  of  the  Mind,  and  fo  it  cannot  be  within  the 
compafsot  our  Reafon.    And  therefore  I  do  not  wonder,  that  the  Gen- 
tlemen of  this  new  way  of  Reafoning  have  almoft  difcarded  Subjlance  out 
of  the  reafonable  part  of  the  World.     For  they  not  only  tell  us.  That  we  ff"y^ 
can  have  no  Idea  of  it  by  Senfation  or  Refle&ion  ;  iRJt  that  nothing  is  ^gnified  nlniing, 
by  it,  'only  an  uncertain  Suppofition  of  we  know  not  what.     And  therefore  it  isL  i.chap. 
parallel'd  more  than  once  with  the  Indian  Philofophers,  He  knew  not  ^^t^ h\.^f^c!vi 
which  fupported  the  TonoKe,  that  fupported  the  Elephant,  that  fupported  thefeh' 19. 
Earth  :^  fo  Subftance  was  fund  out  only  to  fupport  ^c.idents.     And,  That  when^'"^-  *3' 
we  talk  of  Subjiances  we  talk  like  Children,  who  being  ask'd  a  ^efiion  about  fome^ 
what  wh'ch  they  know  not,  read/ly  give  this  fatisfaSory  An/wer^  that  it  is  fome- 
thing. Sff2  If 


504  ^  VindiC'Hion  of  the  Chap.  X. 

If  this  be  the  truth  of  the  Cafe,  we  muft  ftill  /<?/ii'  Uke  Children,  and  I 
know  not  how  it  can  be  remedied.  For,  if  we  cannot  come  at  a  rational 
lAc^oi Subftance,  we  can  have  no  Principle  of  certainty  to  go  upon  in  this 

Debate. 

I  do  not  fay,  that  we  can  have  a  clear  Idea'of  Subfiafjce,  either  by  Senfati- 
m  or  Repxioft ;  but  from  hence  I  argue,  that  this  is  a  very  infufficient  Di- 
ftributionofthe/f/s^j  neceffary  to  Reafon.  For  befides  thefe,  there  muft 
be  fome  general  Ideas,  which  the  Mind  doth  form,  not  by  meer  comparing 
thofe  Ideas  it  has  got  from  Senfe  or  Reflexion  ^  but  by  forming  diftinft  general 
Notions  of  things  from  particular  Ideas.  And  among  thefe  general  Notions, 
or  rational  Ideas,  Suhftattce  is  one  of  the  firft  5  becaufe  we  find  that  we  can 
have  no  true  Conceptions  of  any  Modes  or  Accidents  (  no  matter  which  ) 
but  we  muft  conceive  a  SubftratHm,  or  Subjedt  wherein  they  are,  fince  it  is 
a  Repugnancy  to  our  firft  Conceptions  of  things,  that  Modes  or  Accident/ 
(houldfubfiftby  themfelves,  and  therefore  the  Rational  Idea  o(  Subftance'is 
one  of  the  firft,  and  moft  natural  Ideasin  our  Minds. 

But  we  are  ftill  told,  That  our  XJnderJianding  can  have  no  other  Ide.v,  but 
l.  i.ch.K  either  from  Senfation  or  RefieBion.  And  that,  herein  chiefly  lies  the  Excellency 
fea.s.      of  Mankind,  ab-^ve  Brutes,  that  thefe  cannot  abjlrad,  and  inlarge  their  Ideas,  as 

Met7  do. 

But  how  comes  the  general  Idea  of  Subjiance,  to  be  framed  in  our  Minds  ? 
Is  this  by  AbftraUing  and  inlarging  fimple  Ideas  }     No,    but  it  is  by  a  Complin 
cation  of  many  fimple  Ideas  together  :  becaufe  not  imagining  how  thefe  fimple  Ide,fs 
Lichi-i.  can  fitbfift  by  themfelves,    we  aicuftom  our  felves  to  fitppofe  fome  Subftratum 
/«^-  *•      wherein  they  do  fabfift,    and  from  which  they  do  refult,    which  therefore  we  call 
Subjlance.     And  is  this  all  indeed,    that  is  to  be  faid  tor  the  being  of  Sub- 
fiance,    that  we  acctiftom  our  felves  to  fnppofe  a  Subftratum  ?     Is  that  Cufiot/t 
grounded  upon  true  Reafon  or  not  >     If  not,    then  Aci dents  or  Modes, 
muft  fubfift  of  themfelves,    and  theCe  fimple  Ideas  need  no  Tortoife  to  fup- 
port  them :    For  Figures  and  Colours,  &c.  would  do  well  enough  of  them- 
felves,   but  for  fome  Fancies  Men  have  accnjlomed  themfelves  to.     If  it  be 
grounded  on  plain  and  evident  Reafon,  then  we  muft  allow  an  Idea,  of  Sub' 
fiance,   which  comes  nor  in  by  Senfation  or  Reflection  ;    and  fo  we  may  be 
certain  of  fome  things  which  we  have  not  by  thofe  Ideas. 

The  IdeaofSubfiance,  we  are  told  again,  is  nothing  but  the  fuppo fed,  but  un- 
known fnpport  of  thofe  ^/alit/es  we  find  exifling,    which  we  imagine  cannot  fub- 
fiU  fine  re  fubftante  which  according  to  the  true  import  of  the  Word,    is  in  plain 
Englifl)   ftanding  under,    or  upholding.     But  very  little  weight  is  to  be  laid 
upon  a  bare  Grammatical  Etymology,  when  the  Word  is  ufed  in  another  Senfe 
by  the  beft  Authors,    fuch  as  Cicero  and  ^intilian,    who  take  Subfiance  for 
vaii.Di-    the  fame  with  Effcnce  ^    as  Valla  hath  proved  :j    and  fo  the  Greek  Word  in> 
fpucDiaL  ports .    ^ut  Boethius  \n  tranflating  Ariftotle's  Predicaments,    rather  chofe  the 
''  ^'  ''     Word  Subjianre  as  more  proper,  to  exprefs  a  Compound  Being,  and  referved 
Efience,  fof  what  was  more  fimple  and  immaterial.     And  in  this  Senfe,  Sub- 
fiance  was  not  applied  to  God  but  only  Efience,  as  St.  Augnftine  obferves,  but 
afterwards,    the  Names  of  Subftame,   and  Hfience  were  promifcuoufly  ufed, 
with  refpe(a'to  God  and  his  Creatures.     And  do  imply,  that  which  makes 
the  Real  Being,  as  diftinguiftied  from  Modes  and  Properties.  And  fo  the  Sub- 
fiance,  and  Efience  of  a  Munarethe  fame  5  not  being  taken  for  the  individu- 
al Subfiaifce,  which  cannot  be  underftood  without  particular  Modes  and  Pro- 
perties-., but  the  general  Subftance,   or  Nature  of  Man  abftradly  for  all  the 
Circumftances  of  Perfons. 

And  I  defire  to  know,  whether  according  to  true  Reafon,    that  be  not  a 

clear  Idea  of  a  Man  ;    not  of  Peter,    James  or  Jr>hn,    but  of  a  Man  as  fuch. 

This  is  nota  meer  nniverfd  Name,  or  Mark,    or  Sign  ^    but  there  is  as  clear 

,  •  and 


■•^—••i^^— ■"■!"»•■■•■■— ^■^^"^—^■'  ■  -  ■  '  "^ 

Chap.  X.  Doctrine  of  tk  Trinity .  505 

and  diOinft  a  Conception  of  this  in  our  Minds,  as  we  can  have  from  any 
fuch  fmple  Ideas,  'as  are  convey'd  by  our  Senfes.  I  do  not  deny  that  the  Di- 
ftinflion  of  particular  Subftances,  is  by  the  feveral  Modes  and  Properties  of 
them,  (  wh  ch  they  may  call  a  CompUcathtt  offimple  Ideas,  if  they  pleafe  ) 
but  I  do  aflert,  that  the  general  Idea,  which  relates  to  the  Ejfeme  without 
thefe  is  fo  juft,  and  true  an  Idea,  that  without  it  the  Complication  tfpMple  I- 
del',  will  never  give  us  a  right  Notion  of  it. 

I  muft  do  that  right  to  the  ingenious  Author  of  the  Ejfay  of  humane  Under- 
fianding,  (from  whence  thefe  Notions  are  borrowed  to  ferve  other  Purpofes 
than  he  intended  them)  that  he  makes  the  Cafe  oi  Spiritual,    znA  Corporeal 
<S!»i/?4«cei- to  be  alike,  as  to  thoit  Ideas,  Sindthatwe  have  as  dear  a  Notion  of 
a  Spirit,    as  we  have  of  a  Body,    the  one  being  fuppofed  to  be  the  Subftratum  to  ^^<*P-  ^l^ 
thofe  Jimple  Ideas  we  have  from  without,    and  the  other  of  thofe  Operation f  we'^  '  *' 
find  within  our  felves.     And  that  it  is  as  rational  to  afjtrm^    there  is  no  Body, 
becaufe  we  cannot  know  its  Effeme,    as  'tis  called,    or  have  no  Idea  of  the  Sub- 
fiance  of  Matter  5    as  to  fay,  there  is  no  Spirit,   becaufe  we  know  not  its  Effence^ 
or  have  no  Idea  of  a  Spiritual  Subjlance. 

From  hence  it  follows,  That  we  may  be  certain,  that  there  are  both  Spi- 
Vltual  and  Bodily  Subjiances,  although  we  can  have  no  clear  anddiflin^  Ideas 
of  t  hem.  But,  if  our  Reafon  depend  upon  our  c/e(ir4»^<^r/?;»5/£/e4'j-,  how 
is  this  poffible?  We  cannot  reafon  without  clear  Idea's,  and  yet  we  may  be 
certain  without  them:  Can  we  be  certain  without  Reafon?  Or  doth 
our  Reafon  give  us  true  Notions  of  things,  without  thefe  Idea's  .<?  If 
it  be  fo,  this  new  Hypothecs  about  Reafon  amft  appear  to  be  very  un- 
reafonable. 

Let  us  fuppofe  this  Principle  to  be  true.  That  theflmple  Ideas  by  Senfation 
or  Reflexion,  are  the  fole  Matter  and  Foundation  of  all  our  Keafoning'.  I  ask 
then,  how  we  come  to  be  certain  that  there  are  Spiritual  Subjiances  in  the 
World,  fincewecan  have  no  clear  and difiiuc^ Ideas  concerning  them}  Can 
we  be  certain  without  any  Foundation  of  Reafon  .<?  This  is  a  new  fort  of  Cer- 
tainty, for  which  we  do  not  envy  thefe  Pretenders  to  Reafon.  But  methinks 
they  fhould  not  at  the  fame  time  alTert  the  abfolute  neceffity  of  thefe  Ideas 
to  our  Knowledge,  and  declare  that  we  maytave  certain  Knowledge  without 
them.  If  there  be  any  other  method,  they  overthrow  their  own  Principle  j 
if  there  be  none,  how  come  they  to  any  Certainty,  that  there  are  both  Bo- 
dily and  Spiritual  Subjiances  .<? 

As  to  thefe  latter  (  which  is  my  bufnefs  )  1  muft  enquire  farther,    how 
they  come  to  know  that  there  arefuch.     Tiie  Anfwer  is  by  felfrejle^ton  on 
thofe  Vowerswefind  in  our  felvcs,  which  cannot  come  from  a  mere  Bodily  Sub- 
fiance.  I  allow  the  Reafon  to  be  very  good,    but  the  Qieftion  I  ask  is,  Whe- 
ther this  Argument  be  from  the  clear  and  diJiinS  Idea  or  not  ?     We  have  I- 
deas  in  our  felves  of  the  feveral  Operations  of  our  Minds  of  K.nowing,  Willing ^ 
Confidering,  8cc.  which  cannot  come  from  a  Bodily  Subflance.     Very  true;  but 
is  all  this  contained  in  the  fimple  idea  of  thefe  Operations  ?    How  can  that 
be,  when  the  fame  Perfons  fay,  that  notwithftanding  their  Ideas  it  is  poffi- 
hXefor  Matter  to  Thitik.     For  it  is  faid,  That  we  have  the  Ideas  of  Matter  and  ff^mjni 
Thinking,  but  pojftbly  [hall  never  be  able  to  know,  whether  any  mere  material  Be-  Vnderft. 
i/jg  thinks  or  not\  it  being  impojfible  for  us  by  the  Contemplation  of  our  own  Ide-^'^'^^'J^ 
as,  without  Revelation  to  difcover  whether  Omnipotency  hath  not  given  to  fomeM.  f.^io, 
Svjlems  of  Matter,  fitly  difpofed,  a  Power  to  perceive  or  think.     Irthis  be  true, 
then  for  ull  that  we  can  know  by  our  Ideas  of  Matter  and  Thinking,   Matter 
may  have  a  Power  oi  Thinking:    and  if  this  hold,    then  it  is  impoffible  to 
prove  a  Spiritual  Subftance  in  us,   from  the  Idea  of  Thinking :    For  how  can 
we  be  afilired  by  our  Ideas,  That  God  hath  not  given  fuch  a  Power  of 
Thinking,  to  Matter  fo  difpofed  as  our  Bodies  are  ?    Efpecially  fince  it  is 

faid, 


5o^  AVtndication  uf  the  Chap.  X. 

fa  id,  That  i»  refpe&  ofotirNotioKf,    it  is  tfot  much  wore  remote  from  our  Com- 
prehenfion  to  conceive,  that  God  caH,  if  he  pleafes^  fuperadd  to  our  Idea  ofAlut- 
ter  a  Fa'uhy  ofThif/kiffg,  than  that  he  fjould  fuper-add  to  it  another  Siihjlance, 
teith  a  Faculty  of  Thinking.     Whoever  afferts  this,  can  never  prove  a  Spiritu- 
al Subfiance  in  us,  irom  2L  Faculty  of  Thmhitjg  i,  becaufe  he  cannot  know  from 
the  Idea  ofMa'ter  and  Thinki/rg ,  that  Matter  fo  difpofed  cannot  Think.  And 
he  cinnot  be  certain  that  God  hath  not  framed  the  Matter  of  our  Bodies,  f6 
as  to  be  capable  of  it. 
Book  IV.      It  is  faid  indeed  elfewhere.  That  it  is  repugnant  to  the  Idea  offenflefs  Alat" 
chap.  10.  j^^^  thatitJhouldputiMtoitfelfSenfe,    Perception  and  Knowledge  :     But  this 
'  ^*      doth  not  reacii  the  prefent  Cafe  :,  which  is  not  vehat  Matter  can  do  ofitfelf 
but  what  Matter  prepared  by  an  Omnipotent  Hand  can  do.     And  what  cer- 
tainty can  we  have  that  he  hath  not  done  it  ?  We  can  have  none  from  the  1- 
deoi  ;  forthofe  are  given  up  in  this  Cafe;    and  confequenrly,    we  can  have 
no  certainty  uponthefe  Principles,    whether  we  have  any  fpiritual  Subjiance 
within  us  or  not. 
Book  IF.       But  we  are  told,  That  fro/ft  the  Operations  of  our  Minds,  we  are  able  to  frame 
chaf.  23.  the  Complex  Idea  of  a  Spirit.     How  can  that  be,  when  we  cannot  from  rhofe 
fell.  15.    /(^e^tljeafrured,  but  that  thofe  Operations  may  come  from  a  material  Sub- 
fiance.  If  we  frame  an  Idea  on  fuch  Grounds,  it  is  at  moft  but  a  pofjible  Idea  5 
for  it  may  be  otherwife  ^  and  we  can  have  no  aflurance  from  our  Ideas,    that 
it  is  not  :    So  that  the  moft  Men  may  come  to  in  this  way  of  Idea's  is,   That 
it  is  poffible  it  may  be  fo,  and  it  is  poffible  it  may  not  •.,  bur  that  it  is  impof- 
.fible  for  u$from  our  Ideas,  to  determine  either  way.     And  is  not  this  an  ad- 
mirable way  to  bring  us  to  a  certainty  of  Reafon  > 

I  am  very  glad  to  find  the  Idea  of  a  fp'ritual  Subflance  made  as  confiftent, 
and  intelligible,  as  that  of  a  Corporeal  x,  for  as  the  one  confijis  of  a  Cohefion  of 
folid  Parts,  and  the  Power  ofcommuf/icating  Motion  by  impulfe,  fo  the  other  con- 
fijis in  a  Power  of  Thinking,  andWiling,  and  moving  the  Bo-dy  j   and  that  the 
Cohefion  of  folid  Parts,  is  as  hard  to  be  conceived  asThit.king  ;    and  we  are  as 
Sea.  27.  much  in  the  dark  about  the  Power  of  communicating  Mot? on  by  impulfe,  as  in  the 
Power  of  exciting  Motion  by  thought.     We  have  by  daily  experience  clear  Evt- 
Seil.  23.  ^ef/ce  of  Motion  produced,    both,  by  Impulfe  and  by  Thought  ;    but  the  manner 
how,    ha'dly  c ernes  within  our  Comprehenfion  5    we   are  equally  at  a  lofs   in 
■-—         both. 

From  whence  it  follows,  That  we  maybe  certain  of  the  Being  of  a  fpirl- 
tual  Subflance,  although  we  have  no  clear  and  diftin^  Idea  of  it,  nor  are  a- 
hie  to  comprehend  the  manner  of  its  Operations:  And  therefore  it  is  a  vain  thing 
in  any  to  pretend,  that  all  our  Reafon  and  Certainty  is  founded  on  clear 
and  diftinS:  Ideas  ^  and  that  they  have  Reafon  to  rejed  any  Dod^rine  which 
relates  to  fphitual  Subfiances,  becaufe  they  cannot  comprehend- the  manner  of 
it.  For  the  fame  thing  is  confeffed  by  the  moft  inquifitive  Men,  about  the 
manner  of  Operation,  both  m  material,  and  immaterial  Subflances.  It  is  af? 
_5^  firmed,  Thst  the  very  Notion  of  Body,  implies,  fomething  very  hard,  ifnotiw' 
pojfible  to  be  explained,  or  nnderflood  by  us  5  and  that  the  natural  Confetjuence  of 
if  ;  viz.  Dlvifibiltty  involves  us  in  Dificulties  impojftble  io  be  explicated,  or 
made  confiflent.  That  we  have  but  fome  few  fuperficial  Ideas  of  things  5  that  we 
self.^z.  arcdeJiiiuteofFaculfies,  to  atta/n  to  the  true  Nature  of  them  .^  and  that  when 
we  da  that,  we  fall  prefently  into  Darknefs,  and  Obfcurity  ^  andcandif  over  no- 
thing farther,  but  our  own  Blindnefs  and  Ign.  ranee.  ■'   ,"i^ 

Thefeare  very  fair  and  ingenuous  Confeflions  of  the  (hortnefs  of  humane 
Underftanding,  with  refpeft  to  the  Nature  and  Manner  of  fuch  things,  which 
we  are  moft  certain  of  the  Being  of,  by  conftant  and  undoubted  Experience^. 
I  appeal  now  to  the  Reafon  of  M:inkind,  whether  it  can  be  any  reafonable 
Foundation  for  rejeiling  a  Doftrine  propofed  to  us,  as  of  Divine  Revela- 
tion, 


1      II.  I  ,     I    ■-  ml   II  I         I   ■         I  I      I  |[  I  nj   I 111,       ■    1. —        ■ 

Chap.  X.         Do^rtne  of  the  Trinity.  ^07 

tion,  becaufe  we  cannot  comprehend  the  manner  of  it  5    cfpecially,  when 
it  relates  to  the  Divine  EfTence.     For  as  the  fame  Author  obferves.    Our  I-  ^'^-  3?> 
dea  ofGod  if  framed  front  the  Complex  Ideaj  of  thofe  Perfe^iof/f  tve  find  in  our  ^*'  ^^" 
felves,  but  enlarging  them  fo,  as  to  make  them  fuitable  to  an  infinite  Being,    as 
Knowledge,  Poiver,  Duration,  8cc.     And  the  Degrees  or  Extent  of  thefe  which  se^.  ^6. 
we  afcribe  to  the  Soveraign  Beifrg,  are  all  boundlefs  and  infinite.     For  it  is  In- 
finity,   which  Joyned  to  our  Ideas  of  Exifience,  Power,  Knowledge,  8cc.  makes 
that  Complex  Idea,  whereby  we  reprefent  to  our  felves  the  beji  we  can,  the  Sttpreme 
Being. 

Now  when  our  Knowledge  ofgrofs  material  Subftances  is  fo  dark  j  when 
the  Notion  of  Spiritual  Subftances  is  above  all  Ideas  of  Senfation^  when 
the  higher  any  Subftance  is,  the  more  remote  from  our  Knowledge  5  but 
efpecialiy  when  the  very  Idea  of  a  Supreme  Being  implies  its  being  Infinite, 
and  Incomprehenfible  ;  I  know  not  whether  it  argues  more  Stupidity,  or 
Arrogance,  to  expofe  a  Doftrine  relating  to  the  Divine  EiTence,  becaufe 
they  cannot  comprehend  the  manner  of  it.  But  of  this  more  afterwards.  \ 
am  yet  upon  the  Certainty  of  our  i^e^y^w,  from  clear  and  diftinft  Ideas  5  and 
if  we  can  attain  to  Certainty  without  them,  and  where  it  is  confefTed  we 
cannot  have  them  ;  as  about  SubUances  ;  then  thefe  cannot  be  the  file  Mat- 
ter and  Foundation  of  oHr  Reafoning,  which  is  fo  peremptorily  aflerted  by 
this  late  Author. 

But  I  go  yet  farther  5  and  as  I  have  already  fhew'd,  we  can  have  no  cer- 
tainty of  an  immaterial  Subfiance  within  us,  from  thefe  fimple  Ideas  5  fo  I 
(hall  now  (hew,  that  there  can  be  no  fufEcient  Evidence,  brought  from 
them  by  their  own  Confeffion,  concerning  the  Exijience  of  the  mojt  fpiritual 
and  infinite  Subfiance,  even  God  himfelf. 

We  are  told,  That  the  Evidence  of  it  is  equal  to  Mathematical  Certainty^  Book  IV. 
and  very  good  Argurnents  are  brought  to  prove  it,  in  a  Chapter  on  purpofe:  c^^^f-^^- 
but  that  which  I  take  notice  of  is,  that  the  Argument  ^romthe  clear  and  di-^^^',  *' 
y?/»5f  Mea  of  God  is  paffed  over.  How  can  this  be  confiftent  with  deducing 
OMV  Certainty  of  Knowledge  irom  clear  and  fimple  Ideas  .<?  I  do  not  go  about  to 
juftifie  thofe,  who  lay  the  whole  ftrefs  upon  that  Foundation-^  which  I  grant  to 
be  too  weak  to  fupport  (o  important  a  Truth  ,  and  that  thofe  are  very  much 
to  blame,  who  go  about  to  invalidate  other  Arguments  for  the  fake  of  that  ;  but 
I  doubt  all  this  talk  about  clear  and  difiinB  Ideas,  being  made  the  Fiiitndation 
of  Certainty,  came  Originally  from  thofe  Difcourfes,  or  Meditations,  which 
areaimedat.  The  Author  of  them  was  an  Ingenious,  ThinkingMan,  and 
he  endeavour'd  to  lay  the  Foundations  of  Certainty,  as  well  as  he  could. 
The  firft  thing  he  found  any  Certainty  in,  washis  own  Exiftence^  which 
he  founded  upon  tiie  Perception  of  the  ASts  of  his  Mind,  which  fome  call  an 
internal,  infallible  Perception  that  we  are.  From  hence  he  proceeded,  to  en- 
quire, how  he  came  by  this  Certainty,  and  he  refolved  it  into  this,  that  he  had 
a  clear  and  diftinft  Perception  of  it ;  and  from  hence  he  formed  his  general 
Rule,  That  what  he  had  a  clear  anddiflin^  Perception  of  was  true.  Which  in 
Reafon  ought  to  go  no  farther,  than  where  there  is  the  like  Degree  of  Evi- 
dence :  for  the  Certainty  here,  was  not  grounded  on  the  clearnefs  of  the 
Perception,  but  on  the  Plainnefs  of  the  Evidence,  which  is  of  that  Nature, 
that  the  very  Doubting  oik  proves  it  5  fince  it  is  impoffible,  that  any  thing 
fliould  doubt  or  queftion  its  own  Being,  that  had  it  not.  So  that  here  it  is 
not  the  clearnefs  of  the  Idea,  but  an  immediate  Aft  of  Perception,  which  is  the 
true  ground  of  Certainty.  And  this  cannot  extend  to  things  without  our 
felves  ^  of  which  we  can  have  no  other  Perception,  than  what  is  caufed  by 
the  Irapreffions  of  outward  Objefts.  But  whether  we  are  to  judge  according 
to  thofe  Impreffions,  doth  not  depend  on  the  Ideas  themfelves,  but  upon 
theExercifeof  our  Judgment  and  Reafon  about  them,  which  puttheDifFe- 

renedr 


5o8  A  Vindication  of  the  Chap.  ^. 

fence  between  true  and  falfe,  and  adequate  and  inadequate  Ideas.    So  that 
bur  Certainty  is  not  from  the  Ideas  themfelves,  but  from  the  Evidence  of 
Reafon,  that  thofe  Ideas  are  true  and  juft,  and  confequently  that  we  may 
build  our  Certainty  upon  them. 

But  the  Idea  of  an  infinite  Being  hath  this  peculiar  to  it,  that  neceffary 
Exiftence  is  implied  in  it.  This  is  a  dear  and  difiinli  Idea,  and  yet  it  is 
denied,  that  this  doth  prove  the  Exiftence  of  God.  How  then  can  the 
Grounds  of  our  Certainty  arife  from  clear  and  d/fiin^  Ideas,  when  in  one 
of  the  cleareft  Ideas  of  our  Minds  we  can  come  to  no  Certainty  by  it  ?  I  do 
not  fay,-  That  it  is  demed  to  prove  it  5  but  this  is  faid,  That  it  is  a  doubt- 

Sea.'j.  ful  thing  fro/f/  the  different  Make  of  Mens  Tempers,  and  Application  of  their 
Thoughts.  What  can  this  mean,  unlefs  it  be  to  let  us  know,  that  even 
clear  and  dijiin^  Ideas  may  lofe  their  Effeft  by  the  difference  of  Mens  Tem- 
pers and  Studies  ;  fo  that  befides  Ideas  in  order  to  a  right  Judgment,  a  due 
Temper  and  Application  of  the  Mind  is  required. 

And  wherein  is  this  different  from  what  all  Men  of  Underftanding  have 
faid  >  Why  then  (hould  thefe  clear  and  fimple  Ideas  be  made  the  fole  Foun- 
dation of  Reafon?  One  would  think  by  this,  that  thefe  Ideas  would  prefent- 
ly  fatisfy  mens  Minds  if  they  attend  to  them.  But  even  this  will  not  do, 
as  to  the  Idea  of  an  infinite  Being.  It  is  not  enough  to  fay.  They  will  not 
examine  how  far  it  ivill  hold  5  for  they  ought  either  to  fay,  that  it  doth  hold, 
or  give  up  this  Ground  of  Certainty  from  clear  and  diflinU  Ideas. 

Sect.  6.  But  inftead  of  the  proper  Argument  from  Ideas,  we  are  told.  That  from 
the  Confideration  of  our  felves,  and  vphat  we  find  in  our  oven  Confiitutions,  our 
Reafon  leads  Ui  to  the  Knoppledge  of  this  certain  and  evident  Truth,  that  there 
is  an  eternal,  mo(l  powerful,  and  mofi  knowing  Being.  All  which  I  readily 
yield  ^  but  we  fee  plainly  the  Certainty  is  not  placed  in  the  Idea,  but  in 
good  and  found  Reafon,  from  the  Confideration  of  our  felves  and  our  Conjiifu- 
.  tions.  What !  in  the  Idea  of  our  felves  .<?  No  certainly;  for  let  our  Idea  be 
taken  which  way  we  pleafe,  by  Senfatlon  or  Reflexion,  yet  it  is  not  the 
Idea  that  makes  us  certain,  but  the  Argument  from  that  which  we  perceive 
in  and  about  our  felves. 

Sen.  5.  But  we  find  in  cur  felves  Perception  and  Knowledge.  It's  very  true  ;  but 
how  doth  this  prove  that  there  is  a  God  ?  Is  it  from  the  clear  and  diJlinS  I- 
dea  of  it  ?  No ;  but  from  this  Argument,  That  either  there  mujl  have  been  a 
kncwihg  Being  from  Eternity,  or  an  unknowing  ;  for  fomething  mufi  have  been 
from  Eternity  :  but  if  an  unkt:  owing,  then  it  was  impojfible  there  ever  fljould 
have  been  any  Knowledge  5  it  being  as  impojfible  that  a  thing  without  Knowledge 
fliould  produce  it,  as  that  a  Triangle  floould  make  itfelf  three  Angles  bigger  than 
two  right  ones.  Allowing  the  Argument  to  be  good,  yet  it  is  not  taken  from 
the  Idea,  but  from  Principles  of  true  Reafon,  as.  That  no  Man  can  doubt 
his  own  Perception  ;  That  every  thing  muft  have  a  Caufe;  That  this  Caufe 
muft  either  have  Knowledge  or  not :  if  it  have,  the  Point  is  gained  5  if  it 
hath  not,  nothing  can  produce  nothing  ^  and  confequently,  a  not  know- 
ing Being  cannot  produce  a  knowing. 

Sen.  10.  Again,  If  wefuppfe  nothing  to  be  firji,  Matter  can  never  begin  to  be  5  if 
hare  Matter  without  Motion  eternal.  Motion  can  never  begin  to  be  ;  if  Matter 
and  Motion  be  fuppofed  eternal.  Thought  can  never  begin  to  he.  For,  if  Matter 
could  produce  Thought,  then  Thought  mufi  be  in  the  power  of  Matter  i,  and  if  it 
be  in  Matter  as  fuih,  it  mufi  be  the  infeparable  Property  of  all  Matter  ^  which 
is  contrary  to  the  Senfe  and  Experience  of  Mankind.  If  only  fame  parts  of 
Matter  have  a  power  of  Thinking,  how  comes  fo  great  a  difference  in  the  Pro- 
perties of  the  fame  Matter  ?  What  difpofition  of  Mutter  is  required  to  Think' 
i//g  .■?  And  front  whence  comes  it  ?  Of  which  no  account  can  be  given  in  Rea- 
fon, 

This 


C  H  A  p.  X.       Do^rine  of  the  Trinity.  509 

This  is  the  Subftance  of  the  Argument  ufed  to  prove  an  infinite  fpiritual 
Being,  which  1  am  far  from,  weakening  the  force  of  5  but  that  which  I  defign 
is  to  (hew.  That  the  Certa'iuty  of  it  is  not  placed  upon  any  clear  and  dijlinil 
Ideas,  but  uponthe  force  of  Reafon  diftindfrom  it  5  wiiich  was  the  thing 
I  intended  to  prove. 

2.  The  next  thing  neceffary  to  be  clear'd  in  this  Difpute  is,  the  Difl'm- 
Bion  between  Nature  and  Perfo»,  and  of  this  we  can  have  no  clear  and  di- 
flin^Idea  from  Senfation  or  Refletlion.  And  yet  all  our  Notions  of  the  Do- 
ftrine  of  the  Trinity  depend  upon  the  right  underftanding  of  it.  For  we 
muft  talk  unintelligibly  about  this  Point,  unlefs  we  have  clear  and  diftinft 
ApprehenGons  concerning  Nature  and  Verfon,  and  the  grounds  of  Identity 
and  Diflintlion.  But  that  thefe  come  not  into  our  Minds  by  thek  Jintple  I- 
deas  of  Senfation  and  Ruflect/on,  I  fhall  now  make  it  appear  ^ 

I.  As  to  Nature,  That  is  fometimes  taken  for  the  Ejfential  Property  of  a 
thing  5  as  when  we  fay,  that  fuch  a  thing  is  of  a  different  Nature  from  ano- 
ther, we  mean  no  more  than  that  it  is  differencd  by  fuch  Properties  as  come 
to- our  Knowledge.  Somenrnts  Nature  is  taken  for  thtThing  it  felf  in vphich 
thofe  Properties  are ;  and  fo  Arifiotle  took  Nature  for aCorporeal  Subjiance  which 
had  the  Principles  of  Motion  in-  it  felf-^  but  Nature  and  Subjiance  are  of  an  equal 
extent ;  and  fo  that  which  is  the  Subject  of  Powers  and  Properties  is  the  Na- 
ture, whether  it  be  meant  of  Bodily  or  Spiritual  Subftances.  I  grant  that  by 
Senfation  and  Refleotion  we  come  to  know  the  Powers  and  Properties  of 
Things  ^  but  our  Reafon  is  fatisficd,  that  there  muft  be  foraething  beyond 
thefe,  becaufe  it  is  impofTible  that  they  (hould  fubfift  by  themfelves.  So 
that  the  Nature  of  things  properly  belongs  to  our  Reafon^  and  not  to  meer 
Ideas. 

But  we  muft  yet  proceed  farther.  For,  Nature  may  be  confider'd  two 
ways. 

1.  As  it  is  in  diftinft  Individuals,  as  the  Nature  of  a  Man  is  equally  in 
Peter,  James,  and  John  ;  and  this  is  the  common.  Nature  with  a  particular 
Subfiftence  proper  to  each  of  them.  For  the  Nature  of  Man,  as  in  Peter^ 
is  diftin(fi  from  that  fame  Nature,  as  it  is  in  James  and  John  5  otherwife  they 
would  be  but  one  Perfon,  as  well  as  have  thtfame  Nature.  And  this  Diftin- 
ftion  of  Perfons  in  them  is  difcerned  both  by  our  Senfes,  as  to  their  different 
Accidents  j  and  by  our  Reafon,  becaufe  they  have  a  feparatcExiftence,  not 
coming  into  it  at  once  and  in  the  fame  manner. 

2.  Nature  may  be  confider'd  abjiractedly,  without  refpefl:  to  individual 
Perfons,  and  then  it  makes  an  entire  Notion  of  it  felf.  For  however  the 
fame  Nature  may  be  in  different  Individuals,  yet  the  Nature  in  it  felf  re- 
mains one  and  the  fame  ^  which  appears  from  this  evident  Reafon,  that  o- 
thervvife  every  Individual  muft  make  a  different  kind. 

Let  us  now  fee,  how  far  thefe  things  can  come  from  our  /tmple  Ideas,  by 
Reflection  or  Senfation.  And  I  (hall  lay  down  the  Hypothejis  of  thofe  who 
refolv«our  Certainty  into  Ideas,  as  plainly  and  intelligibly  as  I  can. 

1.  We  are  told.  That  all  fimple  Ideas  are  true  and  adequate.     Not  that  they  ffymam 
are  the  true  Reprefentaiions  of  things  without  us  ^  but  that  they  are  the  true  Ef-  mierft. 
fkHs  of  fuch  Powers  in  them  as  produce  fuch  Senfations  within  us.     So  that  real- '  ^'  ^^"^"^ 
ly  we  can  underftand  nothing  certainly  by  them,  hut  the  Effe^s  they  have^'' 
upon  us. 

2.  A//  our  Ideas  of  SubJIances  are  imperfe&  and  inadequate  ;  becaufe  they  re- 
fir  to  the  real  Effences  of  things,  of  which  we  are  ignorant,  and  »?  Man  knows 

vphat  Subjiance  is  in  it  felf :  And,  they  are  all  falfe,  whan  looked  on  as  the  Re-  chap.  32. 
prefentations  of  the  unknown  Effences  of  things.  feff.  i8. 

3.  Abflra&  Ideas  are  only  general  Names,  made  by  feparatingCircumfiances  of^^^J^' 
time  and  place,  &c.  from  them,  which  are  only  the  Inventions  and  Creatures  efjcsi.  6. 
the  IJnderJlttnding. 

T 1 1  4.  Effenc 


tf  lo  A  Vindication  of  the  Chap.  X. 

Xhfeli.is-  4.  Ejfetice  may  he  taken  tvpo  ways.  I.  For  the  real,  internal,  unknown  Con- 
(litHtions  of  things  ^  and  in  this  Senfe  if  is  underflood  as  to  particular  things: 
2.  For  the  ahflra&  Idea  ;  and  one  is  [aid  to  be  the  Nominal,  the  other  the  Real 

Sen.  19,    E/fence.  And  the  Nominal  Ejjences  only  are  immutable  5  and  helps  toenab/eMen 

*°*  to  conftder  things,  and  to  dtfcourfe  of  them. 

But  two  things  are  granted,  which  tend  to  clear  this  Matter, 

1.  Th.at  there  is  a  Real  Ejfence,  which  is  the  Foundation  of  Powers  and 
Properties. 

2.  That  we  may  know  thefe  Powers  and  Properties,  although  we  are  igno- 
rant of  the  Real  Ejfence. 

From  whence  I  infer, 

1.  That  from  thofe  true  and  adequate  Ideas,  which  we  have  of  the  Modes 
and  Properties  of  Things,  we  have  fufficient  certainty  of  the  Real  Ejfence  of 
them  :  For  thefe  Ideas  are  allow'd  to  be  true  ;  and  either  by  them  we  may 
judge  of  the  truth  of  things,  or  we  can  make  no  Judgment  at  all  of  any 
thing  without  our  felves. 

If  our  Ideas  be  only  the  Effeds  we  feel  of  the  Powers  of  things  with- 
out us ;  yet  our  Keafon  muft  be  fatisfied,  that  there  could  be  no  fuch  Pow- 
ers, unlefs  there  were  fome  real  Beings  which  had  them.  So  that  either 
we  may  be  certain  by  thofe  Effefts  of  the  real  Being  of  things  5  or  it  is  not 
poffible,  as  we  are  framed,  to  have  any  certainty  at  all  of  any  thing  with- 
out our  felves. 

2.  That  from  the  Powers  and  Properties  of  things  which  are  knowableby 
us,  we  may  know  as  much  of  the  internal  Ejfence  of  Things,  as  thofe  Pow- 
ers and  Properties  difcover.  I  do  not  fay.  That  we  can  know  all  Eflences  of 
things  alike,  nor  that  we  can  attain  to  a  perfect  underftanding  of  all  that 
belong  to  them  ;  but  if  we  can  know  fo  much,  as  that  there  are  certain  Be- 
ings in  the  World,  endued  with  fuch  diflindf  Powers  and  Properties,  what  is 
it  we  complain  of  the  want  of,  in  order  to  our  Certainty  of  Things?  But 

•  we  do  not  fee  the  bare  Ejfence  of  things.  What  is  that  bare  Ejfence  without  the 
PtfO'e/'j- and  Fropert/es  belonging  to  it?  \t  is  t  hit  internal  Conjiitution  of  things 
from  whence  thofe  Powers  and  Properties  flow.  Suppofe  we  be  ignorant  of  this 
(as  we  are  like  to  be,  for  any  Difcoveries  that  have  been  yet  made)  that  is 
a  good  Argument  to  prove  the  uncertainty  of  Philofophical  Speculations  a- 
bout  the  Real  Effences  of  things  ;  but  it  is  no  prejudice  to  us  who  enquire 
after  the  Certainty  of  fuch  Ejfences.  For  although  we  cannot  comprehend 
the  internal  Frame  or  Conjiitution  of  things,  nor  in  what  manner  they  do 
flow  from  the  Subftance  ^  yet  by  them  we  certainly  know  that  there  are 
fuch  Ejfences,  and  that  they  are  diftinguiftied  from  each  other  by  their 
Towers  and  Properties. 

g.  The  Effences  of  things,  as  they  are  knowable  by  us,  have  a  Reality  m 
them  ;    for  they  aTe  founded  on  the  natural  Conjiitution  of  things.     And 
however  the  ahflraCi  Ideas  are  the  work  of  the  Mind,   yet  they  are  not 
nieer  Creatures  of  the  Mind  ;  as  appears  by  an  Inftance  produced  of  the 
Book  ?     Ejfence  of  the  Sua,  being  in  one  pngle  Individual  ;  in  which  Cafe  it  13  grant- 
c/wp.  6.    ed    That  the  Idea  may  be  fo  abflratled,  that  more  Suns  might  agree  in  it,  and  it 
^^^-  '■      is  as  much  a  fort  as  if  there  were  as  many  Suns  as  there  are  Stars.     So  that 
here  we  have  a  Real  Ejfence  fubfiftly  in  one  Individual,  but  capable  of  being 
multiplied  into  more,  and  the  fame  Eflence  remaining.     But  in  this  one  Sun 
there  is  a  Real  EJjince,  and  not  a  meer  Nominal  or  abjiracted  Ejfence  ;    but 
fuppofe  there  were  more  Suns,  would  not  each  of  them  have  the  Real  Ej- 
fence of  the  Sun  >  For  what  is  it  makes  the  fecond  Sun  to  be  a  true  Sun,  but 
having  the  fame  Real  Ejfence  with  the  firft  >  If  it  were  but  a  Nominal  Ejfence, 
then  the  fecond  would  have  nothing  but  the  Name. 

Therefore  there  muft  he  a  Real  Effence  in  every  individual  of  the  fame 
kind  j    for  Uiaf  alone  is  i|,  which  makes  it  to  be  whal  it  is.    Peter^  and 

Jamett 


Chap.  X.         Doi:Jri/ie  of  tteTnn'Xy.  511 

James,  and  John-axQ  all  true  and  real  Men  ^  but  what  is  it  which  makes 
them  fo?  Is  it  the  attributing  a  general  Name  to  them  ?  No  certainly,  but 
that  the  true  and  Real  Ejjence  of  a  Man  is  in  every  one  of  them.  Andwe 
muft  be  as  certain  of  this,  as  we  are  that  they  are  Men  :  They  take  their 
Denomination  of  being  Men  from  that  common  Nature,  or  Effence  which  is 
in  them. 

4.  That  the  general  Idea  is  not  made  from  the  fimple  Ideis  by  the  mlpr 
Aft  of  the  Mind  abftrafting  from  Circumftances,  but  from  Reafon  and  Con- 
fideration  of  the  true  Nature  of  things.  For  wh^n  we  fee  fo  many  Indivi- 
duals, that  have  the  fame  Powers  and  Properties,  we  thence  infer,  that  there 
muft  be  fomething  common  to  all,  which  makes  them  of  one  kind  ^  and  if 
the  difference  of  Kinds  be  real,  that  which  makes  them  of  one  kind  and 
not  of  another,  muft  not  be  a  Nominal  but  Real  Ejfence.  And  this  difference 
doth  not  depend  upon  the  complex  Ideas  of  Subjiance,  whereby  Men  arbitra- 
rily join  Modes  together  in  their  Minds ;  for  let  them  miftake  in  the  Com- 
plication of  their  Ideas,  either  in  leaving  out  or  putting  in  what  doth  not 
belong  to  them  -^  and  let  their  Ideas  be  what  they  pleafe,  the  real  Ejfence  oi 
a  Man,  and  a  Horfe,  and  a  Tree,  are  juft  what  they  were  ;;  and  let  their 
Nominal  Ejfences  differ  never  fo  much,  the  real  common  Ejfence  or  Nature  of 
the  feveral  Kinds  are  not  at  all  alter'd  by  them. 

And  thefe  real  Ejfences  are  unthangeable  5  for  however  there  may  happen 
fome  variety  in  Individuals,  by  particular  Accidents,  yet  the  Effences  of 
Men,  and  Horfes,  and  Trees,  remain  always  the  fame ;  becaufe  they  do  not 
depend  on  the  Ideas  of  Men,  but  on  the  Will  of  the  Creator,  who  hath 
made  feveral  forts  of  Beings. 

2.  Let  us  now  come  to  the  Idea  of  a  Perfon  -^  for  although  the  common 
Nature  in  Mankind  be  the  fame,  yet  we  fee  a  difference  in  the  feveral  Indi- 
viduals from  one  another.  So  that  Peter,  James,  and  "John,  are  all  of  the 
fame  kind  5  yet  Peter  is  not  ^ames,  and  James  is  not  John.  But  what  is  this 
diftiriftion  founded  upon?  They  may  be  diftinguiihed  from  each  other  by 
our  Senfes,  as  to  difference  of  Features,  diftance  of  Place,  C^c.  but  that  is 
not  all ;  for  fuppofing  there  were  no  fuch  external  difference,  yet  there  is  a 
difference  between  them,  as  feveral  Individuals  in  the  fame  common  Nature. 
And  here  lies  the  true  Idea  of  a  Perfon,  which  arifes  from  that  manner  of 
Suhjiiience  which  is  in  one  Individual,  and  is  not  communicable  to  another. 
An  individual,  intelligent  Sub  ance  is  rather  fuppofed  to  the  making  of  a 
Perfon,  than  the  proper  Dejifiition  of  it^  for  a  Perfon  relates  to  fomething 
which  doth  dirtinguifh  it  from  another  intelligent  Subjlance  in  the  fame  Na- 
ture J  and  therefore  the  Foundation  of  it  lies  in  the  peculiar  manner  of  Sub- 
jGftence,  which  agrees  to  one,  and  to  none  elfe  of  the  kind  ;  and  this  is  it 
which  is  called  Perfonality. 

But  hov?  do  our  limple  Ideas  help  us  out  in  this  Matter?  Can  we  learn 
from  them  the  difference  of  Nature  and  Perfon}  We  may  underftand  the 
difference  between  abjiratled  Ideas,  and  particular  Beings,  by  the  Impreflions 
of  outward  Objeds  j  and  we  may  find  an  Intelligent  Sub^ance  in  our  felves 
by  inward  Perception,  but  whether  that  make  a  Perfon  or  not,  mufl  be  un- 
derflood  fome  other  way  5  for  if  the  meer  intelligentSubftance  makes  a  Per- 
fon, then  there  cannot  be  the  Union  of  two  Natures,  but  there  muft  be  two 
Perfons. 

Therefore  a  Perfon  is  a  compleat  intelligent  Subftance,  with  a  peculiar 
manner  of  Subfiftence  ^  fo  that  if  it  be  a  part  of  another  Subftance,  it  is 
no  Perfon  :  And  on  this  Account  the  Soul  is  no  Perfon,  becaufe  it  makes  up 
an  entire  Being  by  its  Union  with  the  Body. 

But  when  we  fpeak  of  finite  Subftances  and  Perfons,  we  are  certain  that 
diftinft  Perfons  do  imply  diftinft  Subftances,  becaufe  they  have  a  diftinft 
and  feparate  Exiftence^  but  this  will  not  hold  in  an  infinite  Subftance  where 

T  1 1  2  neceffary 


512  A  Vindicn/ion  of  the  C  h  a  p.  X, 

neceffary  Exiftence  dorh  belonp  to  the  Idea  of  it.  And  although  the  Argu- 
ment from  the  Idea  of  God,  mriy  not  be  fufficient  of  it  felf  to  prove  his  Be 
\  ing^  yet  it  will  hold  as  to  the  excluding  any  thing  from  him,  which  is  in- 
confiflent  with  neceffary  Ex'ficftce  ^  therefore,  if  we  fuppofe  a  Diflin^ion  of 
Perfot/s  in  the  hmeDiv/Me  Nature,  it  rauft  be  in  a  way  Sigreeabie  to  the  in- 
finite Perfeftions  of  iti  And  no  objeftion  can  be  taken  from  the  Idea  of  God, 
tof)verthrow  a  Trinity  of  Co-exifling  Perfons  inthcfime  Divine  Ejfence.  For 
neceffary  Exifience  doth  imply  a  Co-exifience  of  the  Divine  Perfons ,  and  the 
Unity  of  the  Divine  Eflence,  that  thefe  cannot  be  fucha  difference  of  indi- 
vidual Snb^ances,  as  there  is  amongMankind.  But  thefe  things  are  faid  to  be 
above  our  Reafon,  if  not  contrary  to  it  ;  and  even  fuch  are  faid  to  be  repug- 
nant to  our  Religion. 

2.  That  therefore  is  the  next  thing  to  be  carefully  examin'd,  whether 
Myfieries  of  Faith,  or  Matters  of  Revelation  abo7)e  our  Reafon,  are  to  be  re- 
jefted  by  us.  And  a  thing  is  faid  to  be  above  our  Reafon,  when  we  can  have 
no  clear  and  dtftind  Idea  of  it  in  our  Minds  :  And,  that  ifvee  have  no  Ideas  of 
a  thing,    it  is  certainly  but  loji  labour  for  U(f  to  trouble  our  felves  about  it^    and 

rvnof '»)>/?.  tb at,  iffuchDo^rineibe  propofed  which  rve  cannot  underfiand,    voe  muji  have 

p,  28,       new  Powers,  and  Organs  for  the  Perception  of  them. 

Wsareiar  from  defending  Contradi&ions  to  our  natural  Notions  (of  which 
I  have  fpoken  already)  but  that  which  we  are  now  upon  is,  whether  any 
Dodtrine  may  be  reje(^cd,  when  it  is  offer  d  as  a  Matter  of  Faith  upon  this 
account,  that  it  is  above  our  Comprehenfion,  or  that  we  can  have  no  dear 
Idea  of  it  in  our  Minds.  And  this  late  Author  hath  undertaken  to  priive. 
That  there  is  nothing  fo  Myflerions,  or  above  Reafn  in  the  Qofpel. 

To  he  above  Reafon,  he  faith,  ntaybeuaderftnodtjtowayi.  I .  For  a  thing  i»- 
telligible  in  it  felf,  but  cover  d  with  figurative  and  myjlical  Words.  2.  For  a 
thing  in  its  own  Nature  unconceivable,  and  not  to  he  judged,  of  by  our  Faculties^ 
tho  It  be  never  fo  clearly  revealed*  This  in  either  Senfe  is  the  fame  toith  Myfiery. 
And  from  thence  he  takes  occafion  to  (bew  his  Learning  about  the  Gentile 
Myfieries,  and  Eccle'iaflical  Myflerie.f,  which  might  have  been  fpared  in  this 
Debate,  but  only  for  the  Parallel  aimed  at  between  them,  as  to  Priefl  craft 
and  Myfier'.es  ^  without  which  a  Work  of  this  nature  would  want  its  duere- 
lifli  with  his  good  Chrifiian  Readers.  Others  we  fee  have  their  Myfieries  too  5 
but  the  comrort  is,  that  they  are  fo  eafily  underftood,  and  feen  through  5 
as  when  the  Heathen  Myfieries,  are  faid,  to  have  been  infiituted  at  firfl  in 
Commemoration  offome  remarkable  Aui dents,    or  to  the  Honour  of  fame  ureat 

P.  71.  Peifons  that  obliged  the  World  by  their  Fertues  and  ufeful  Inventions  to  pay  them 
fuch  Acki.orfledgments.  He  muft  be  very  dull  that  doth  not  underftand  the 
meaning  of  this  ;  and  yet  this  Man  pretends  to  vindicate  Chrifiianity  from 
being  Myfierious. 
p.  11.  But  there  are  fome,  he  faith,  that  being  Jirongly  inclined  out  of  Ignorance,  or 
Pajfion,  to  maintain  what  iras  firfl  introduced  by  ihe  Craft  or  Super  flit  ion  oft  heir 
Fore- fit  hers,  will  have  fame  Chridun  Dodrines  to  be  flill  Myfteries  in  thefe- 
cond  Senfe  of  the  Word  j  that  is,  unconceiveable  in  themfelves,  however  ilearly 
revealed.  I  hope  there  are  iiill  fme,  who  are  fo  throughly  perfwaded  of 
the  ChriftianDodrine,  that  they  dare  own  and  defend  it,  notwithftanding 
all  the  Flouts  and  Taunts  of  a  fort  of  Men,  whofe  Learning  and  Reafon  lies 
moft  inexpofingPmi7<rr<?/t,  ^x\^  Myfieries.  Suppofe  there  are  foch  ftill  iri 
the  World,  who  own  their  AfTent  to  fome  Doftrines  of  Faith,  which  they 
confefs  to  be  above  their  Comprehenfion,  what  mighty  Reafon,  and  invin- 
cible Demonftration  is  brought  againft  them  ?  He  pretends  toDeittonfirate  ; 
but  what  I  pray  ?  The  Point  in  hand  ?  No.  But  he  will  Demonjirate  fome- 
thing  infteadof  it?  What  is  that  >  Why  truly.  That  in  the  New  Teflament 
Myfiery  is  always  ufcd  //;  the  firii  Sence  of  the  Word.  And  what  then  >  Doth 
it  therefore  follow,    thnt  there  are  no  Doftrines  in  the  Gofpel  above  the 

reach 


Chap.  X.  Do ttrine  of  the  Tv\mty,  51-? 

reach  and  comprehen  ion  of  our  Reafon  ?  But  how  doth  it  appear,  thatthe 
Word  Myftery\sd\\vviy%  ufed  in  rhatSenfe?  H  hen  St.  Paul  faith  in  his  firft 
Epijile  to  Timothy^  Cfiap.  ^  V.  9.  That  the  Deacons  mii/i  hold  the  Myffcry  of 
Faith  ifj  a  pure  Confkme  ;  doth  he  not  mean  thereby  the  fame  w'nh  the  form, 
of  found  Wcrdj\,  which  T:r»othy  had  heard  of  him,  2  Tim.  i.  i:?.  And  are 
not  all  themain  Articles  ol  the  Chriftian  Faith  comprehended  under  it  >  E~ 
fpecially  that  whercinto  they  were  Baptized, »»  theNameofthe  Father,  So», 
and  Holy  Ghofi  :  and  if  the  Doftrine  of  the  Trinity  were  underftood  by 
fhis  Form.,  as  I  have  already  proved,  then  thismufl:  be  a  part  of  the  Myfiery 
of  Faith.  And  in  the  fame  Chapter,  v.  16.  He  makes  Qod  manifefi  in  the 
Flejh^  the  firft  part  of  the  Myjiery  ofGodlinefs.  li  it  extends  to  all  the  other 
things,  doth  it  exclude  this,  which  is  the  firft  mention'd  ?  (  And  that  our 
Cbpies  are  true,  is  already  made  to  appear. )  There  is  no  reafon  therefore 
to  quarrel  with  our  Life  of  the  Word  Myfiery  in  this  Senfe  ^  but  the  Debate 
doth  not  depend  upon  the  Word,  but  upon  the  Senfe  of  it. 

And  therefore  I  pafs  overall  that  relates  to  the  bare  ufe  of  the  Word,  as 
not  coming  up  to  the  main  Point  ^  which  is.  Whether  any  Point  of  Do- 
<arine,  which  contains  in  it  fomething  above* our  Comprehenfion  can  be 
made  a  Matter  of  Faith  ? 

For  our  Author  concludes  from  his  Obfervations,  That  Faith  is  fo far  from  p.  145. 
heing  an  implicit  Affent  to  any  thing  above  Keafon.,    that   this  Notion  direSly 
contradi&s  the  end  of  Religion,  the  Nature  of  Man,  atidtheGoodnefsandWif- 
dam  of  God. 

But  we  muft  not  be  frighted  with  this  bold  Conclufion.,    till  we  have  exa- 
min'd  his  Premifes  -.^  and  then  we  ftiall  find,  that  fome  who  are  not  great  Rea- 
ders, are  no  deep  Reafoners.     The  firft  thing  he  premifes  is.  That  nothing  can  p,  75. 
befaidtobe  a  Myjiery,  becaufe  ree  have  not  an  adequate  Idea  of  it,    or  a  difiinS 
Vietp  of  all  its  Proper  lies  at  ome,  for  then  everything  would  be  a  Myfiery.  What 
is  the  meaning  of  this,    but  that  we  cannot  have  an  adequate  Idea  of  any 
thi'-g  ?     And  yet  all  our  Reafon  depends  upon  our  Ideas  according  to  him, 
and  our  ilear  anddiflinct  Ideas  are  b\  him  made  the  fjle  Foundation  of  Reafon. 
All  om  fimple  Ideas  are  faid  to  be  adequate,  becaufe  they  are  faid  to  be  only 
the  Effeds  of  Powers  in  things  which  produce  Senfations  in  Mf.   But  this  doth  noC 
prove  them  adequate  as  to  the  things,  but  only  as  to  our  Perceptions.     But  as 
to  Sttbflances  we  are  told,    Th.it  all  our  Ideas  of  them  are  inadequate.     So  that 
the  ftiort  of  this  is,  that  we  have  no  true  Knowledge  or  Comprehenfion  of 
any  thing  ^  but  we  may  underftand  Matters  of  Faith,   as  well  as  we  under- 
,'fl;and  any  thing  eHe,  for  in  Truth  we  underftand  nothing.     Is  not  this  a  me- 
thod of /r«e  Reafoning  to  make  us  rejed  Doftrines  of  Faith,    becaufe  we  do 
-not  comprehend  them,    and  at  the  fame  time  to  fay,    we  comprehend  no- 
thing-?    For  I  appeal  to  the  common  Senfe  of  Mankind,*   whether  we  can 
be  faid  to  Comprehend  that,  which  we  can  have  no  adequate  Idea  of?     But 
he  appeals  to  the  Learned  ^    for  he  faith,   That  to  Comprehend  in  all  correSt 
Authors  k  nothing  elfe  but  to  know.     But  what  is  it  to  know  ?  Is  it  not  to  have 
adequate  Ideas  of  the  things  we  know  >     How  then  can  we  know,    that  of 
which  we  can  have  no  adequate  Idea .«"     For  if  our  Knowledge  be  limited 
to  o\xx  Ideas,    our  Knowledge  muft  be  impcrfeft  and  inadequate  where  our 
Ideas  are  fo. 

But  let  us  lay  thefe  things  together.  Whatever  we  can  have  no  adequate 
Ideaofis  above  our  Knowledge,  and  confequently  above  our  Reafon  3  and  fo 
all  Subjiances  are  above  our  Reafon  3  and  yet  he  faith,  with  great  Confidence, 
That  to  Affent  to  any  thing,  above  Reafon,  dcjiroys  Religion,  attd  the  Nature  of 
Man,  and  the  Wifdom  and  Goodncfs  of  God.  How  is  it  poflible  for  the  fame  Man 
to  fay  this,  and  to  fay  withal,  that  it  is  very  confiftent  with  the  Nature  of 
Man,  and  theG^dnefs  and  Wifdom  fo  God  to  leave  us  without  adequate  Ideas  of 
any  Subjiance  ?  How  come  the  Myjleries  of  Faith  to  require  more  Knowledge 

than 


514  A  Vindication  of  the  Chap.  X. 

than  the  Nature  ofMan\%  capable  of  >  In  natural  things  we  can'have  no 
adequate  Ideas :,  but  the  things  are  confeffcd  10  be  above  our  Reafon-^  but  in 
Divine  and  Spiritual  things,  to  affcnt  to  things  above  our  Reafctr  k  againji  the 
Nature  of  Man, 

How  can  thefe  things  confiQ  > 

Butthefe  arenot  Myfteries.  Yes,  whatever  is  of  that  Nature  that  we  can 
have  no  Idea  of  it,  is  certainly  a  MyfUrj  to  us.  For  what  is  more  unknown 
than  it  is  known  is  a  Myjiery.  The  true  Notion  of  a  Myjiery  being  fome- 
thing  that  is  hidden  from  our  Knowledge.  Of  which  there  may  be  fever.al 
Rinds.     For  a  Myjiery  may  be  taken  for 

1,  Somethingkept  fecret,  but  fully  underftood  asfoon  as  it  is  difcbver'd  ^ 
Ad.  Artie,  thus T«///  in  his  Fpiftles  fpeaks  of  Myfienes  which  he  had  to  tell  his  Friend, 
4- 87-      J3ut  he  would  not  let  his  Anianncnjts  know  •    no  doubt  fuch  things  might  be 

very  well  underftood  as  (oon  as  difcover'd. 

2.  Something  kept  from  common  Knowledge,  although  there  might  be 
Acad.  4.  great  Difficulties  about  them  when  difcover'd.  Thus  TuUy  fpeaks  of  Myjie- 
>8.         ries  among  the  Philofophers,  particularly  among  the  Academicks,  who  kept 

up  their  Doftrineof  the  Criterion  as  a  Secret,  which,  when  it  was  known  had 
many  Difficulties  about  it. 
.9.  Some  hing  that  Perfons  were  not  admitted  to  know,    but  with  great 
DeLcg.    Preparation  for  it.    Such  were  the  Athenian  Myjier/es  which  Tully  mentions 
I.2.C.  i4>with  Refpeft,  although  they  deferved- it  not  ;    but  becaufe  they  were  not 
Communicated  to  any  but  with  Diffi  ulty,they  were  called  Myfteries.  t^ndthls 
is  fo  obvious  a  piece  of  Learning,  th^it  no  greai  Reading,  or  deep  Reafoning  is 
required  about  it.    Only  it  may  be  obfervcd,  that  the  word  Atoft"  is  oppofed 
to  e'fOfi?>,  and  fo  the  M;//?erz>/ related  to  thofe  who  were  initiated  JLnd  not 
mide  Ep  opt  £  i,  i.e.  to  thofe  who  did  not  throughly  underftand   them,  al- 
though they  had  more  knowledge  of  them  rh.m  fuch  as  were  not   initi- 
aled.   Olympiodorus.,    in  reckoning  up  the  Degrees  of  Admiflions,    menti- 
ons the   fj.vrniic    before   i^oir7tiai.     So  that  they  were  properly  Myjieries 
tofuch,  who  knew  fomething^  though  there  were  other  things  farther  to  be 
difcover'd,  but  they  did  not  yet  know  what  they  were,  as  the  Ep'pt£  did. 
From  hence  the  ancient  Chriftian  Writersdid  not  only  call  the  Sacraments., 
chryf.      but  more  abftrufe  Points  of  Fairh  bv  the  nameof  My/?er->j  •    foSt.Chrjfo- 
^^"^'^J^^  Jiom  caWs  the  RefwreSion,  a  great  and  ineffable  Mjfterj.   And  Ifdore  Pelu/iota 
ifidoi.  Pe  in  hisEpiftle  to  Lantpetiuf  fjith,    That  St.  Paul,    when  he  fpeaks  of  the  great 
!uf.  /.  z.   ^yjlgry  ofGodlinefs,  doth  not  mean  that  it  is  vphMy  unknown  to  lis,    but  that  it 
tp.  192.  ij-^pyjjili^f^)  ^o^prehend  it.  7  heophylaS  hith,  it  is  therefore  called  ^Ae  ^re^r 
My  fiery  ofGodlinefs  ;  becaufe  although  it  be  now  revealed  to  all,  yet  the  manner  of 
it  is  hidden  from  us,  hx  TaTo  M  cii^t^y  'th.   for  this  reafon  it  is  called  a  Myjiery. 
But  this  is  in  the  way  of  Reading,   let  us  now  come  to  deep  Reafoning  5 
and  fee  how  ftrongly  he  argues  againft  this  Senfeof  the  Word  Myfter/es :  his 
chriiJiari-  \\  ords  are  thcfe.  They  tr'fle  then  exceedingly,  and dif  over  a  mighty  fcarcity  of 
p  So'sf'  ^^**^^  Arguments,  who  defend  their  Myfteries,  by  thk  pitiful  flxfi  of  drawing  In- 
ferences from  what  is  unknown  to  what  is  known,    or  of  infiUing  upon  adequate 
Ideas  ;  except  they  will  agree  as  fame  do,    to  call  every  fp'ire  of  Grafs,  fitting  and 
Handing,  fifl)  andflefh  to  be  My  Series.     And  if  out  of  a  pertinacious  orveorfe  hu- 
mour,  they  will  be  Bill  fooling,    and  call  thefe  things  MyBeries,    I'm  vpilling  to 
admit  as  many  as  they  plea fe  in  Religion,   if  they  will  allow  me  Ukewife  to  make 
wine  as  intelligible  to  others,  at  thefe  are  to  me. 

It  is  eafie  to  guefs  whom  thefe  kind  Words  were  intended  for;  And  are 
not  thefeverymodeft  and  civil  Expreffions?  Trifling,  Fooling-^  out  of  a  per- 
tinacious, or  worfe  Humjur  t,  but  why.  Foiling  about  Myjieries,  fO  call  fuch 
thinjjsby  that  Name,  which  are  in  fome  meafure  known,  but  in  a  greater 
meafure  unknown  to  us?  and  if  thefe  are  real  Myfteries  in  Nature,  why 
may  not  the  fame  term  be  ufed  for  Matters  of  Fairh  ? 
V-  And 


Chap.  X.         Do^ruie  of  the  Trinity.  $15 

And  I  think  in  fo  plain  a  Cafe,  no  great  ftore  of  Arguments  need  to  be 
nfe(j.  But  in  thefe  natural  things,  he  faith,  rve  have  dijlinS  Ideas  of  the  Pro-  p.  8^. 
perties  vehich  make  the  Nominal  EJfence,  hut  we  are  ahfolntely  ignorant  oft  he  Real 
BJJence^  orinfrinpik  Confiitutipnofathing,  vphich  is  the  ground  or  fnpport  of  all 
its  Properties.  Are  not  then  (  without  Trifling  and  Fooling  )  thefe  Real  Ef- 
fences  M>y?er/Vj  to  them  ?  They  know  there  arefuchbythe  Ideas  oi thtiT 
Properties,  but  know  nothing  of  their  i^f*?/ £/7ewfe  5  and  yet  they  will  not 
allow  them  to  be  Myfieries  .<?  If  they  do  underftandthem,  why  do  they  fay. 
They  do  not,  nor  cannot?  And  if  this  be  true,  let  them  call  them  what  they 
pleafe,  they  muft  be  inexplicable  Afy/Zer/ex  to  them.  So  that  all  this  is  mere 
quarrelling  about  a  Word,  which  they  would  fain  be  rid  of,  if  they  knew 
how  5  but  they  involve  and  perplex  themfelves  more  by  their  own  deep  Rea- 
fonings  againft  theTrifling  and  Fooling  of  others. 

But  he  faith,  Thatfome  would  have  the  mofl  palp  able  abfurdities  and  grofs  Con- 
traditions  to  go  down, or  words  that  fignijie  nothing^becaufe  men  cannot  comprehend 
theEffence  of  their  own  Souls,  nor  the  Effence  of  God,  and  other  Spiritual  Suhjian- 
ces.  We  utterly  deny,  that  any  Article  of  our  Faith  contains  in  it  any  palpable 
Abfurdities,  or  grofs  Contradi&ions  (  as  I  hope  hath  been  proved  already  as  to 
the  Doftrine  of  the  Trinity  which  is  chiefly  fVruck  at )  but  furely  your  deep 
Reafoners  may  find  a  difference  between  grofs  Contradi&ions  to  our  Reafon,  and 
barely  being  above  it,  or  not  having  any  dijiin&  Conception  of  the  Nature  of 
it.  And  that  is  all  that  we  affert,  and  which  they  grant  as  to  all  Subjlances, 

If  this  be  their  way  of  arguing,  they  may  even  return  to  Tranfubjiantiati- 
on  again,  without  any  great  lelTening  of  their  Underftandings.  But  none  are  fo 
bold  in  attacking  the  Myfieries  oftheChrijiian  Faith  5  as  the  Smatterers  in  Ide- 
as, and  new  Termsof  Philofophy,  without  any  true  llnderftanding  of  them. 
For  thefe  Ideas  t^xq  become  but  another  fort  of  Canting  with  fuchMen  5  and 
they  would  reafon  as  well  upon  Genus  3inA  Species,  or  upon  Occult  ^alities, 
and  Subflantial  Forms,  butohly  that  they  areTerms  out  of  Fafhion. 

But  we  find  that  the  change  of  Terms  doth  neither  improve  nor  alter 
Mens  Underftandings  5  but  only  their  Ways  of  Speaking  s,  and  ill  Gamefters 
will  not  manage  their  Game  dne  jot  thebetter,  for  having  new  Cards  in  their 
hands.     However  we  muft  fee  what  Work  they  make  otit. 

Although  we  do  not  know  the  Nature  of  the  Soul,  yet  we  know  as  much  of  it,   P-  8^. 
as  we  do  of  any  thing  elfe,    if  not  more,  i.  e.  we  really  know  nothing  by  any 
adequate  Idea  of  it,  but  we  muft  believe  nothing,  but  what  we  have  a  clear 
diftinH  Idea  of.      Is  not  this  a  rare  way  of  fixing  the  Boundaries  of  Faith  and 
Reafon'^    As  toGod  and  hk  Attributes,  it  is  faid.  That  they  are  not  Myfieries  i'-  81. 
to  Sf  for  want  of  an  adequate  Idea -^   no  not  Eternity.     And  in  another  place,  ^" 
As  to  God,  we  comprehend  nothing  better  than  his  Attributes. 

Let  us  try  this,  by  the  J«r/'/'«/e  pitched  onbyhimfelf^  viz..  Eternity. 
We  fee  he  pretends  to  comprehend  nothing  better  than  the  Divine  Attributes  5 
and  Eternity  as  well  as  any  ;  (  which  I  am  very  apt  to  believe)  but  how 
doth  he  Comprehend  E'ernity  .<?  Even  by  finding.  That  it  cannot  be  Compre-  ^'  ^^' 
hended.  Is  not  this  Subtle  and  deep  Reafoning  .<?  But  Reafon  he  faith,  per- 
forms its  part  in  find  ng  out  the  true  Nature  of  Things  5  and  if  fuch  be  the  Na- 
ture of  the  Thing,  that  it  cannot  be  Comprehended,  then  Reafon  can  do  no 
more,  and  fo  it  is  not  above  Reafon.  Was  there  ever  fuch  Trifling  that  pre- 
tended to  Reafon  -^  and  that  about  the  higheft  Matters,  and  with  Scorn  and 
Contempt  of  others  whom  he  calls  Myfierious  Wits}  TheQpeftion  is,  whe- 
ther any  thing  ought  to  be  rejefted  as  an  Article  of  Faith,  becaufe  we  cannot 
comprehend  it,  or  have  a  clear  and  diftinft  Perception  ofit :  He  concludes 
it  muft  be  fo,  or  elfe  we  overthrow  Religion,  and  the  Nature  ofMan^  and  the 
Wtfdom  and  Goodnefs  of  God.  Here  is  an  Eflential  Attribute  of  God,  wa.  his 
Eternity.  Am  I  bound  to  believe  it  or  not  >  Yes,  doubtlefs.  But  how  can 
1  comprehead  this  Attribute  of  Eternity  >  Very  eajtly.   How  fo  ?   Do  not  you 

com' 


5 1 6  A  Vindication  of  the  C  h  a  p.  X. 

comprehend  that  it  is  incompreheMjibU?  What  then?  Doth  this  reach  the  Na- 
ture of  the  thing,  or  only  the  manner  of  our  Conception  >  If  the  Nature  of 
the  thitig  be,  that  it  cannot  he  comprehended.,  then  yon  rightly  underjland  the 
Nature  of  ihe  things  and  fo  it  is  not  above  your  Keafon.  Let  the  Cafe  be  now 
put  to  the  Trinity  ;  do  you  believe  the  Doftrine  of  it,  as  of  Divine  Re- 
velation }  No,  God  hath  given  me  the  Nature  and  Faculties  of  a  Man  ;  and 
I  can  believe  nothing,  which  I  cannot  have  a  dijiin^  and  clear  Idea  of,  other- 
wife  I  niuft  have  new  Faculties.  Will  you  hold  to  this  Principle  ?  Then  you 
muft  believe  nothing,  which  you  cannot  have  a  clear  and  diftind  Idea  of. 
Very  true.  But  can  you  have  a  clear  and  diftind  Idea  of  what  you  cannot 
comprehend  ?  A  clear  Idea  is  that  whereof  the  mind  hath  a.  full  and  evident 
Perception.  A  diftinU  Idea  is  that  whereby  the  Mind  perceives  the  difference  of 
it  from  all  others.  Is  this  right  ?  Yes.  But  can  you  have  a  full  and  evident 
Perception  of  a  thing,  fo  as  to  difference  it  from  all  others,  when  you  grant  it 
to  he  incomprehenfible  ^  If  you  havea/«//  Perception  q^ it,  you  comprehend 
its  Nature,  and  efpecially  if  you  can  difference  it  from  all  other  things ;  but 
when  you  fay,  its  Nature  is  incomprehenfible,  and  yet  believe  it,  you  muft  deny 
it  to  be  neceffary  to  Faith,  to  have  a  clear  and  difilnB  Idea  of  the  thing  propo- 
fed.  And  if  it  be  repugnant  to  your  Faculties  to  rejed  the  Trinity,  becaufe 
you  cannot  have  a  dear  and  difiinB  Idea  of  it  ^  for  the  fame  Reafon  you 
muft  unavoidably  rejeft  his  Erer////>',  and  all  other  Attributes  which  have 
Infinity  joined  with  them. 
j-.'gj.  But  we  muft  ftop  here,  becaufe  this  admirable  Undertaker  hath  hi^,That 

he  defpairs  not  of  rendring  Eternity  and  hrpnity  as  little  myflerious,  as  that 
three  and  two  make  five.     And  till  then  I  take  my  leave  of  him. 

And  fo  I  return  to  our  profeffed  Unitarians,  who  in  anfwer  to  my  Ser- 
mon fell  upon  the  fame  Subjeft  ^  and  it  is  neceffary  that  I  confider  fo  much 
as  tends  to  the  clearing  of  it.  In  my  Sermon  I  had  urged  this  Argument 
to  prove,  that  we  may  be  bound  to  believe  fome  things  that  are  incompre- 
henfible to  us,  becaufe  the  Divine  Nature  and  Attributes  are  acknowledged 
to  be  5  and  I  had  faid, 

(r.  j  That  there  is  no  greater  Difficulty  in  the  Conception  of  the  Trinity 
and  Incarnation,  than  there  is  of  Eternity.  Not  but  that  there  is  great 
Reafon  to  believe  it  ;  but  from  hence  it  appears,  that  our  Reafon  may  ob- 
lige us  to  believe  fome  things,  which  it  is  not  poffible  for  us  to  comprehend. 

And  what  fay  our  Unitarians  to  this  ? 

They  charge  my  Notion  of  Eternity  (as  they  call  it)  with  a  Confradiilion, 

The  beft  way  of  proceeding  will  be  to  fet  down  my  own  Words,  which 
Anjwerto  31*6  thefc.  "  We  know  that  either  God  muft  have  been  for  ever,  or  it  is 
ierw.  p.5."  impoflible  he  ever  ftiould  be  ^  for  if  he  ftiould  eome  into  being  when  he 
"  was  not,  he  muft  have  fome  Caufe  of  his  Being,  and  that  which  was 
"  the  firft  Caufe  would  be  God.  But  if  he  was  for  ever,  he  muft  be  from 
"  bimfelf  5  and  what  Notion  or  Conception  can  we  have  in  our  Minds 
"  concerning  it? 

To  this  fay  they.  To  fay  a  Perfon  or  thing  fs  from  itfelf,  is  a  Contradict ion^ 
it  implies  this  Contradidion,  it  was  before  it  wm.  And  they  areforry  an  Eter- 
nal God  mufl  be  a  Contradt^ion.     What  a  falfe  and  fpiteful  Inference  is  this? 

But  it  had  look'd  like  very  deep  Reafoning,  if  I  had  faid,  That  God  was 
ihe  Caufe  of  himfelf  i^  for  that  would  have  implied  the  Contradiftion  he  had 
charged  it  with  :  but  I  had  exprefly  excluded  his  being  from  any  Caufe  ^ 
and  the  thing  I  urged  was  only  the  Impoftibility  of  our  having  a  clear  and 
diftinft  Conception  of  Eternity.  For  if  he  could  have  noCaufe,  what  could 
vs'e  think  of  his  being  Eternal  ?  If  to  be  from  himfelf  as  a  Caufe,  be  uncon- 
ceivable, (as  I  grant  it  is)  then  it  proves  what  1  defigned,  that  we  cannot 
have  any  diftinft  Idea  of  Eternity.  But  tobefom  himfelf,  in  the  Senfe  ge- 
nerally underftood,  is  a  meer  Negative  Exprejfisn  ,    for  no  Men  were  fuch 

Fooli 


Chap.  X.  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  $17 

Fools  to  imagine  any  thing  could  be  before  ir  felf;  and  in  thisSenfe  only 
Learned  Men  have  told  ns,  that  it  is  to  be  underftood  by  thofe  ancient  and  PoUevm. 
modern  Writers,  who  have  u fed  that  Expredion  •  as  when  St.  Jerom  faith,  ^/'Z''"'- '" 
That  God  if  felf- originated  ;    and  St.  Atigitftin,  that  God  is  the  Caufe  of  A^f  brard. 
own  Wifdom  ;  and  Lan&antius,  that  God  made  himfelf.     All  thefe,  and  fuch 
like  Expreliions,  are  only  to  be  negatively  underftood. 

But  I  confefs  I  aimed  at  (hewing,  that  it  was  irapoffible  for  us  to  have 
any  clear  and  diftinB  Idea  of  Eternity  5  and  therefore  I  took  in  all  poflible 
ways  cf  conceiving  it,  either  by  God's  being  from  himfelf,  or  hisCo-exift- 
ing  with  all  differences  of  Time,  without  any  fucceflion  in  his  own  Being, 
or  his  having  a  fucceflive  Duration.  From  all  which  I  argued  the  Impof- 
fibility  of  a  clear  Notion  of  Eternity.  And  now  what  do  thefe  Men  do  ? 
They  difpute  againft  one  of  thefe  Notions,  and  very  triumphantly  expofe, 
as  they  think,  the  Abfnrdities  of  it.  And  what  then  ?  Why  then  this  Notion 
jpillnot  da.    But  I  fay  none  will  do. 

I  prove  there  can  be  no  fucceffive  Duration  in  a  Being  of  neceffaryExiftencd* 
and  that  it  is  not  to  be  conceived,  how  without  Succeffion  God  fhould  be 
prefent  with  the  Being  and  not  Being,  the  Promife  and  Performance  of  the 
fame  thing  ^  and  yet  one  of  thefe  ways  we  mufl:  make  ufe  of.  From  whence 
I  concluded.  That  all  -wq  can  attain  to  is  a  full  Satisfaftion  of  our  Reafoti 
concerning  God's  Eternity,  although  we  can  form  no  diftinft  Conceptioa 
of  it  in  our  Minds.     But  when  thefe  Men,  inftead  of  anfwering  the  Argu- 
ment from  all  the  Notions  of  Eternity,  only  difpute  againft  one  Notion  of 
it,  they  apparently  (hew  the  weaknefs  of  their  Caufe,  if  it  will  bear  no  o- 
ther  Defences  but  fuch  as  this.    For  I  take  it,  that  the  main  Debate  in  point 
of  Reafon  depends  upon  this,  whether  we  can  be  certain  of  the  Being  of  a 
Thing,  of  which  we  can  have  no  clear  and  diflintl  Idea?  If  we  may,  then 
it  can  be  no  Objeftion  in  point  of  Revelation,  that  we  can  have  no  clear 
and  diftinB  Idea  of  the  Matter  revealed  ^  fince  there  can  be  no  Reafon  to 
tie  us  up  drifter  in  Point  of  Revelation  than  we  are  without  it.    If  we  can 
be  certain  in  Reafon  of  many  things  we  can  have  no  fuch  Ideas  of,  what 
imaginable  Reafon  can  there  be,  that  a  point  of  Faith  ftiould  be  rejefted  on 
that  account  ? 

2.  I  urged  another  A' tribute  of  God,  v'%,  \\h  Spirituality^  for  the  fame 
Reafon 5  vi%.  th,at  we  are  fatisfied  in  point  of  Reafon  that  God  muft  be  a 
Spirit,  and  yet  we  cannot  have  a  clear  diftinft  pofitive  Notion  of  a  Spirit. 

And  what  Anfwer  do  they  give  to  this  ?  As  wife  as  the  former.     Why 
truly,  I  had  no  caufe  to  ohje£f  this  aga'uiji  them,  hecaufe  they  own  the  Spirituality  P.  6, 
of  God's  Nature,  and  none  fince  Biddle  have  denied  it. 

Very  well  !  but  doth  my  Argument  proceed  upon  that,  or  upon  the  not 
having  a  difiin^  and  clear  Idea  of  a  Spirit  ?  It  was  hardly  poffible  for  Men 
fo  to  miftaice  my  meaning,  unlefs  they  did  it  becaufe  they  had  no  other 
Anfwer  to  give. 

3.  I  argued  from  God's  Prefcience,  which  I  do  exprefly  affert,  and  prove 
thar  they  cannot  have  a  diftindt  Notion  of  it ;  nay  that  Socims  denied  it, 
becaufe  he  could  not  underftand  it. 

But  here  they  tell  me,  /  cannot  defend  our  Do&rine  againfl  theirs  without  p  „ 
finding  Contradt&ions  in  God's  Eternity  and  Foreknowledge.  If  this  be  the 
Ingenuity  and  Juftice  and  Charity  of  the  Unitarians,  commend  me  to  the 
honejl-hearted  Deifis,  if  there  be  any  fuch,  as  they  aflure  us  there  are^  One 
had  better  be  charged  with  Trifling  and  Fooling  with  Myjleries,  than  with 
undermining  the  main  foundations  of  Religion,  by  charging  them  with  Con- 
tradi&ions. 

But  nothing  could  be  farther  from  my  Thoughts,  than  any  thing  tending 
"  that  way.     And  fuch  a  bafe  Calumny  is  too  much  honoured  with  a  Con- 
futation.   But  do  they  offer  to  clear  the  Difficulty,  and  give  us  a  clear  and 

tl  U  u  «/i- 


51 8  A  Vindication  of  the  Chap.  X. 

difiifili  Idea  of  God's  forehomug  future  Events  without  a  certain  Canfe  to 
tiiake  them  future  >  Nothing  like  it.  JFor  the  queftion  is  not,  Ff-^eMer  <« 
thifig  be  necejfary,  becaufe  God  forefees  it  as  certain  >  (as  they  fuppofe)  But 
how  of  a  thing  merely  poffible  it  comes  to  be  certain  without  a  certain  Canfe^ 
and  how  a  thing  which  hath  no  certain  Caufe,  can  be  certainly  foreknown  5 
and  what  clear  and  diftinft  Notion  we  can  have  of  this  in  our  Minds.  If 
they  had  anfwer'd  this,  they  had  faid  fomething  to  the  purpofe.  To  re- 
folve  aU  into  God's  infinite  Wifdom,  is  a  good  Anfwer  from  us,  \>\xt  not  from 
them.  For  we  think  it  our  Duty  to  fatisfie  our  felves  with  what  God  hath 
revealed,  without  prying  into  the  manner  of  things  above  our  Comprelien- 
fion  ;  but  thefe  Men  who  will  receive  nothing  but  what  they  have  dear  and 
difiila  Ideas  of,  ought  to  (hew  the  manner  of  this,  or  elfe  we  muft  be  ex- 
cufed  on  the  fame  reafon,  if  we  allow  the  manner  of  the  divine  Suhfifiences 
in  thQ  fame  Effence  to  be  above  our  Comprehenfion. 

4.  I  (hew'd  how  unreafonable  their  Demands  were,  when  the  Nature  of 
God  is  owned  to  be  incomprehenfible,  and  his  Perfe&ions  infinite. 

And  now  of  a  fudden  they  are  quite  turned  about ;  for  before,  they  were 
only  for  fencing  and  warding  off  Blows,  but  at  lafl:  they  come  to  the  point, 
and  own  the  Being  of  God  to  be  comprehenfible  by  them  5  and  that  they  have 
clear  and  diftin£i  Ideas  of  God's  infinite  Attributes.  This  is  indeed  to  the 
purpofe,  it  they  can  make  thefe  things  out.  But  Fencers  have  many  tricks, 
and  I  wiih  we  find  none  here.  I  had  faid,  "  That  in  confequence  to  the  Af- 
"  fertion,  that  nothing  is  to  be  believ'd,  but  what  may  be  comprehended, 
"  the  very  Beingof  Godmuftberejeaedtoo,becaufe  his  Being  isincompre- 
"  henfible,  and  fo  they  muft  reject  one  God  as  well  as  three  Perfons. 

To  this  they  reply,  That  to  comprehend  the  Being  or  Exijience  of  God  is  on- 
'  ^'       ly  this^  to  comprehend  that  God  is  ;  and  if  we  cannot  comprehend  that,  allRe- 
ligion  ^ceafes.    Is  not  this  a  fine  turn  >  What  I  faid  of  God  as  to  the  Perfefti- 
ons  of  his  Nature,  they  will  have  it  underftood  of  his  bare  Exiftence,  which 
I  do  not  mention.     When  God  is  faid  to  be  an  incomprehenfible  Beings  who 
before  them  did  underftand  the  meaning  to  be,  That  we  cannot  comprehend 
that  there  is  a  God  :  This  is  not  mere  trifling,  for  it  looks  like  fomething 
worfe  •  and  yet  they  prefently  after  fay.  That  to  copiprehend  a  thing  is  to  have 
a  clear  adequate  Conception  of  it.     And  will  they  pretend  to  have,  fuch  a  one 
P.  5.       of  the  divine  Effence,  when  they  confefs  but  a  little  before,  That  we  con- 
verfe  every  day  with  very  many  things^  none  of  which  we  comprehend,  and  that 
I  might  have  fpared  my  pains  in  proving  it  /  But  what  can  be  the  meaning  of 
thefe  fayings.  They  cannot  comprehend  the  common  Natures  of  things,  nor 
have  a  clear  and  diflind  Idea  of  them,  but  they  can  comprehend  an  infinite 
Being,  whom  all  Mankind  own  to  be  incomprehenfible.    But  as  to  divine -^#- 
tributes,  they  fay.  They  have  clear,  difiin£l  and  adequate  Conceptions  of  them, 
and  inftance  in  Eternity,  Power,  Wifdom  and  Jujiice.     We  do  not  deny  that 
in  fuch  Attributes  which  we  apply  to  God,  becaufe  we  find  them  to  be 
Verfe^ions  in  m,  we  have  a  diftinft  and  clear  Perception  of  them,  as  they 
are  confider'd  in  themfelves,  for  that  is  the  reafon  why  we  attribute  them 
to  God.    But  for  fuch  as  peculiarly  belong  to  God,  as  Eternity  doth  ;  and 
for  the  degrees  of  other  Attributes  as  they  belong  to  him,  as  they  are  infinite, 
fo  they  are  above  om Comprehenfion.    (i.)  As  to  Eternity,  fay  they,  it  is  a 
clear  and  difiinU  Notion  of  Eternity,  to  fay,  it  k  a  Duration  without  beginning 
and  without  end. 

But  we  can  have  no  clear  and  d'lJllnB  notion  of  Duration,  when  applied  to  a 
Being  that  hath  necefaryExifience ;  for  Duration,  they  fay,  confifis  in  aSuc- 
cejfion.  And  what  Succejfton  can  there  be  in  aBeing  which  ahvays  is  the  fame,  if 
there  were  no  difference  of  times,/,  c.  God  was  the  fame  Being  before  time  was, 
and  is  the  very  fame  Being  under  all  the  differences  of  times  ^  he  hath  nota- 
ny  other  Duration  now  than  he  had  before^  and  what  SuccefTion  could  there 

be 


Chap.  X.         Docirine  of  the  Trinity.  519 

be  where  there  was  no  time.>  But  we  make  ufe  of  Dnration  with  refped:  to 
things  done  in  time,  and  forthe  help  of  ourllnderftandings  apply  themeafure 
of  time  fo  divine  Afts.  But  in  a  vecejjkry  Exijience,  there  can  be  »o  paji,  pre- 
fect or  to  come'j  and  in  a  fucceffive  Duration,  there  muftbe  conceived  a  lon- 
ger continuance  from  time  to  time ;  which  is  repugnant  to  the  Notion  of  a 
Being  which  always  is.  So  that  if  we  cannot  conceive  Eternity  without  Du- 
ration,  nor  Duration  without  Suaejjion,  nor  can  apply  SHccejpon  to  a  Being 
which  hath  necejfary  Exijieuce,  then  we  can  have  no  clear  a»d  dijiini^  Notion 
of  God's  Eternity.  (2.)  As  to  the  Infinite/fefs  of  God's  Perfeftions,  they  ray,^-  ^• 
That  although  the  Mind  be  in  it  felf finite,  yet  it  hath  an  infinite  Comprehenfion, 
for  what  is  finite  with  refpeB  to  its  Extenfion  of  parts,  may  be  infinite  in  other 
refpeHs,  and  voith  refpetl  to  fome  of  its  Porvers.  But  how  doth  it  appear  that 
we  have  any  Pi^ircr  to  comprehend  what  is  infinite  .<?  All  the  Power  we  have 
extends  only  to  adding  and  enlarging  our  Ideas  without  bounds,  i,  e.  we  can 
put  no  flop  to  our  Apprehenfions,  but  ftill  they  may  go  farther  than  we  can 
poffibly  think,  but  is  this  an  infinite  Comprehenfion  ?  So  far  from  it,  that  this 
(hews  our  Capacities  to  be  finite,  bccaufe  our  Ideas  cannot  go  fo  far  as  our 
Reafon.  For  ourReafon  tells  us,  we  can  never  go  fo  far,  .but  we  may  ftill 
go  farther :  but  it  is  impoflible  for  our  Underftanding  to  have  difiin£i  Ideas 
of  the  infinite  moments  in  an  eternal  Succeffion  of  the  utmoft  Bounds  of  Im- 
inenfity,  or  of  the  extent  of  infinite  Power  and  Knowledge  5  fince  the  very 
Notion  of  Infinite  implies,  that  we  can  fet  no  bounds  to  out  Thoughts  ; 
and  therefore  alrhongh  the  Infinity  of  the  divine  Attributes  be  evident  to 
our  Reafon  ;  yet  it  is  likewife  evident  to  our  Reafon,  that  what  is  infinite 
muft  be  above  our  Comprehenfion. 

•  ■  II.  I  come  now  to  the  laft  enquiry,  which  is,  that  if  we  allow  things  a-r 
bove  our  Keafon,  what  ftop  can  be  put  to  any  abfurd  Dodtrine,  which  we 
may  be  required  to  believe  } 

And  this  is  that  which  our  Unitarians  objedi  in  all  their  late  Pamphlets. 
In  anfwer  to  my  Sermon  they  fay.  That  on  our  principles,  our  Reafon  would  Anfr^er to 
be  in  vain,  and  all  Science  and  Certainty  would  be  defiro/d,  which  they  repeat  '*^  ^'''^*" 
fevera!  times.     And  from  hence  they  do  fo  frequently  infift  on  the  Parallcl'i'^''^'^^' 
between  the  Doftrine  of  the  Trinity  and  Tranfubftantiation :  They  fay,  That  i'.  17- 
U  the  defence  we  have  made  for  one  will  ferve  fir  the  other,  or  any  other  abfurd  I'  '^^' 


Letter  of 


? 


4nd  impojfible  Do&rine.  That  what  we  fay  will  equally  ferve  all  the  Nonfenfe,  Kcfniut.p^ 
and  impojfible  Doffrines  that  are  to  be  found  among  Men  ;  and  they  particularly  (^""P^''^'' 
in  fiance  in  I  ranfubfiantiaiion.  I  need  mention  no  more.  But  I  did  not  expedi  "piuathn^ 
'to  have  found  this  Parallel  fo  often  infifted  upon,  without  an  anfwer  to  two  ^^-h  Dr. 
Dialogues  pmpbkly  written  on  that  Subjed,  at  a  time  when  the  Dodrine^^* '' '"' 
of  the  Trinity  was  ufed  as  an  Argument  to  bring  in  Tranfubfiantiation,  as  that 
is  now  alledged  for  cafting  oflF  the  other. 

But  I  muft  do  them  that  right  to  tell  the  World,  that  at  that  time  a  Socini^ 
an  Anfwer  was  written  to  tho{e  Dialogues,  which  I  faw,  and  wifh'd  it  might 
be  printed,  that  the  World  might  be  fatisfied  about  it  and  them.  But  they 
thought  fit  to  forbear  5  and  in  all  their  late  Pamphlets,  where  this  Parallel 
is  fo  often  repeated,  there  is  but  once,  that  I  can  find,  any  notice  taken  of 
tho^Q  Dialogues,  and  that  in  a  very  fuperficial  manner.  For  the  main  Defign 
and  Scope  of  them  is  paft  over,  and  only  one  particular  mention'd,  which 
fiiall  beanfvver'd  in  its  due  order. 

But  in  anfwer  to  the  general  Enquiry,  I  (hall  endeavour;  to  ftate  the  due 
bounds  between  Faith  and  Reafon,  and  thereby  to  ftiew,  that  by  thofe  grounds 
on  which  we  receive  the  Doftrine  of  the  Trinity,  we  do  not  give  way  to 
the  Entertainment  of  any  abfurd  Opinion,  nor  overthrow  the  Certainty  of 
Reafon. 

I.  We  have  no  difference  with  them  about  the  Dfe  of  our  Reafon  as  to 
the  Certainty  of  a  Revelation.    For  in  this  cafe,  we  are  as  much  as  they  for 

U  u  u  2  fearching 


,  '  ■  •  ■  ■'  -  -  JJLl       . 

^20  A  Vindication,  &c.  C  hap.  X. 

fearcbing  into  the  grounds  of  our  Fairh  ^  for  we  look  on  it  as  a  reafattaUe 
yJfJofour  Minds,  and  if  we  did  not  allow  this,  we  muft  declare  our  felves 
to  believe  without  grounds.  And  if  we  have  grounds  for  our  Faith,  we  can 
exprefsthem  in  Words  that  are  intelligible  ^  and  if  we  can  give  anaccountof 
our  Faith  in  an  intelligible  manner,  and  with  a  defign  to  give  others  fatis- 
faftion  about  it,  I  think  this  is  making «/«  ofonrReafonm  Mattert  ofEaith.X. 
2.  We  have  no  difference  with  them  about  the  w/eij/owr  Reafift,  as  to  the 
true  Senfe  of  Revelation.  We  never  fay,  that  Men  are  bound  to  believe  upon 
the  hzxt  found  of  Words  without  examining  the  Scnfe  of  them.  We  allow  all 
the  beftand  moft  reafonable  ways  of  attaining  to  it,  by  Copies,  Languages, 
Verfions,  comparing  of  Places,  and  efpecially  the  Senfe  of  the  ChriSiian 
Church'm  the  beftand  pureft  Ages,  neareft  the  Apoftolical  Times,,  and  ex- 
prefs'd  in  folemn  and  publick  Afts.  3«E;i  '^•.•• 

By  thefe  Rules  of  Reaf«n  we  are  willing  to  proceed,    and  not  by  afty  late 
and  uncertain  methods  of  interpreting  Scripture. 

5.  We  differ  not  with  them  about  the  right  ufe  of  the  FaatUksvfhichGoA 
y  hath  given  us,  of  right  Vnderfianding  fuch  matters  as  are  ofFer'd  to  our  Af- 

fent.  For  it  is  to  no  purpofe  to  require  them  to  believe,  who  cannot  ufe  the 
Faculties  which  are  neceffary  in  order  to  it.  Which  would  be  like  giving 
the  Benefit  of  the  Clergy  to  a  Man  with  a  CataraB  in  both  his  Eyes.  And  it 
would  be  very  unreafonable  to  put  his  Life  upon  that  Iffue,  whether  he 
could  read  or  not,  becaufe  hehsidthe  fa ff/e  Organs  of  Seeing  that  other  Men 
had ;  for  in  this  cafe  the  whole  matter  depended  not  on  the  Organ  but  the 
I^ye  of  it:  This  needs  no  Application. 

4.  We  differ  not  with  them  about  reje^ing  forae  Matters  propofed  to  our 
Belief,  which  are  contradiSory  to  the  Principles  of  Senfe  and  Reafon.    It  is  no 
great  argument  of  fome  Mens  Reafon,  whatever  they  pretend  to  talkagainft 
admitting  feeming  Contradi&iuns  in  Religion  i,  for  who  can  hinder  feeming  Cort' 
traditions?  Which  arife  from  the  (hallownefs  of  Mens  Capacities,  and  not 
from  the  repugnancy  of  Things :  and  who  can  help  Mens  Underftandings?  But 
where  there  is  evident  proof  of  a  ContradiUion  to  the  Principles  of  Senfe  and 
Reafon-^  we  are  very  far  from  owning  any  fuch  thing  to  be  an  Article  of  Faith, 
as  in  the  cafe  of  Tranfnbjiantiation.    Which  we  rejed,  not  only,  as  having  no 
foundation  in  Scripture,  but  as  repugnant  to  the  common  Principles  of  Senfe 
and  Reafon  ^  as  is  made  to  appear  in  the  two  Dialogues  before  mention'd. 
?,moMxVnitarians  find  fault  with  the  Author  of  them,  for  laying  the  force 
ctnfider  n.  of  ^is  argument  upon  this.  That  there  are  a  great  many  more  Texts  for  the  Trit- 
on the  Ex  nity,  than  are  pretended  fir  Tranfubfiantiation  5  whereas  many  other  arguments 
Sj."^""*^  are  in'  fted  on,  and  particularly  the  great  abfurd  ty  of  it  in  poitit  of  Reafon,  Di- 
30!     ■  ^'  ah  2.  from  p.  9  ?.  to  the  end.  And  it  is  not  the  bare  number  of  Texts,  which  he 
relies  upon,  but  upon  the  ^re^^er  Evidence  and  ClearnefsoftheTextonone  fide 
than  on  the  other,  which  depends  upon  figurative  Words,  not  capable  of  a 
laeral  Senfe  without  overthrowing  the  Doftrine  defigned  to  be  proved  by  it. 
See  with  what  Ingenuity  thefe  Men  treat  the  Defenders  of  the  Trinity,  and 
Anfn>er  to  the  Enemies  to  Tranfubfiantiation,  which  they  call  only  a  Fhihfiphicd  Error 
^'^^f-   or  Folly  5   but  the  Doftrine  of  the  Trinity  is  charged  with  Nanfenfe,  Contra- 
'.      diSion,  and  Impojfibilities. 

But  wherein  then  lies  the  difference  in  point  of  Reafon?  For  thus  far  I 
have  fhew'd,  that  we  are  far  from  overthrowing  Reafon  or  giving  way  toiany 
abfurd  DoSrines.  It  comes  at  laf^  to  the  point  already  treated  of  in  this 
Chapter,  how  far  we  may  be  obliged  to  believe  a  Dodriue  which  carries  in 
it  fomething  above  our  Reafon  ,  or  of  which  we  cannot  have  any  clear  and 
dijiifj£l  Ideas.  And  of  this  I  hope  I  have  given  a  fufficient  Account  in  the 
foregoing  Difcourfe. 

AN 


521 


IL«_,  .  .    i..mpiWWH 


A  N 


ANSWER 

T  O 

Mr.  LOCKE'S  LETTER, 

Concerning  Some  Parages  Relating  to  liis  E  s  s  a  y  of  Hu- 
mane  Under fiatiding:  Mention  d  in  the  late  Difcourfc  in 
Vindication  of  the  Trinity.  With  ^PO STSC Rlf  T  in 
anfwer  to  fome  Reflecftions  made  on  that  Treatifc  in  a  late 

.    .Sficiman  Pamphlet. 

IH  A  VE  feridufly  confider'd  the  Letfer  you  were  pleafed  to  fend  me,  and 
I  find  it  made  up  of  two  Parts ;  A  Complaint  of  me,  and  a  Vindication  of 
,your  felf :  To  both  which  I  ihall  return  as  clear  and  diftinA  an  Anfwer, 
and  in  as  few  words,  as  the  matter  will  permit. 

I.  As  to  the  ComplaiMt  of  me,  it  runs  quite  through  the  Book,  and  even 
jour  Pofifcript  is  full  of  it. 

The  Subftance  of  it  is,  that  in  anfwer ittg  Ohje^iottsagainji  the  Trinity ^  in  point 
ofReafott,  I  produce  feveral  PafTages  out  of  your  Ejfay  of  Humane  Vnderfiand- 
ingy  as  iftliey  were  intended  by  you  to  that  Purpofc;  but  you  declare  to  the 
World,  p.  I'iO.  that  it  was  written  by  you  without  any  Thought  of  the  Controverts 
letween  //^^Trinitarians  WUnitarians ;  and  p.  114.  That  your  Notiont  about  Ideas 
have  no  Connexion  with  any  Ohje£l ions  that  are  m.ide  hy  others  againji  the  Do^rine 
pf  the  Trinity^  or  againfl  Myfteries.  And  therefore  you  complain  of  it,  as  oh 
Injury  done  toyou^  in  imputing  that  to  you,  which  you  have  notdone,  p.  95.  or  at 
leafl  in  leaving  it  fo  doubtfully  that  the  Reader  cannot  diflinguifh  who  is  meant 
p.  96.  and  this  you  call  my  peculiar  way  of  Writing  in  this  part  of  my  Treatife. 

Now  to  give  you  and  others  fatisfad:ion  as  to  this  matter,  I  fhall  firft  give 
an  account  of  the  Occafmn  of  it,  and  then  (hew  what  Care  I  took  to  prevent 
Mifundfrftanding  about  it.  , 

The  OccafwM  was  this,  Being  to  anfwer  the  Obje&ions  in  Point  of  Reafin 
(which  had  not  been  an fwcred  before)  the  firft  I  mention'd,  was,  That  it  was 
above  Reafou,  and  therefore  not  to  be  believed;  in  anfwer  to  this,  I  propofed 
two  Things  to  be  confider'd  j  i.  What  we  underftand  by  Reafon.  x.  What 
Ground  in  Reafon  there  is  to  rejedl  any  Do<5trine  above  it,  when  it  is  propofed 
as  a  matter  of  Faith. 

Astothe  former  I  obferv'dthat  the  Vnitarians  in  their  late  Pamphlets  talk'd 
very  much  of  clear  and  didinU  Ideas  and  Perceptions^  and  that  the  Myfteries 
of  Faith  were  repugnant  to  them,  but  never  went  about  to  ftate  the  Nature 
and  Bounds  of  Realon  in  (uch  a  manner  as  thofe  ought  to  have  done  who  make 
it  the  Rule  and  Standard  of  what  they  are  to  believe.  But  I  added,  that  a 
late  Author  in  a  Book,  call'd  Chrifiianity  not  MyfleriouSy  had  taken  upon  him  to 
clear  this  Matter,  whom  for  thatcaufe  I  was  bound  to  confider  ;  the  defign  of 
his  Difcourie  related  wholly  to  Matters  of  Faith,  and  not  to  Philofophical  Spc^ 
culations'y  fo  tliat  there  can  be  no  Difpute  about  his  Application  of  chofe  he 
calls  Principles  of  Reafon  and  Ctrtainty, 

Whf9 


522  AnANSWERto 


When  the  mind  makes  ufe  of  intermediate  Ideas  to  difcover  ths*  Agreement  or 
Difagreement  of  the  Ideas  received  into  them^  this  Method  of  Smivledge,  he  (aith, 
is  properly  called  Reafon  or  Demonflration. 
J  The  Mind^  as  he  goes  on,  reffives  Ideas  two  ways:     \\^Jr\ 

I.  By  Intromijftonof  the  Se^esi^    ;  [ Jf     j 

z.  By  confidering  its  own   Oferatimts, 

And  thefe  fimple  and  diflinh  IdeaSy  are  the  fole  Matter  and  foundation  of  all 
our  ReafoHing. 

.  And  (o  all  our  Certainty  is  refolved  into  two  things,  either  immediate  Per- 
ception, ivhich  is  felf' Evidence,  or  the  uje  oj  intermediate  Ideas,  which  difcovers 
the  Certainty  of  any  thing  dubious ^  which  is  what  he  calls  Reafon. 

Now  this  Ifaid  did  fyppofe, 
•  v^  *'  That  we  muQ  have  clear  and  diftin<5t  Ideas  of  wTiat  ever  we- pretend  to 
"  any  Certainty  of  in  our  minds  (by  Reafon)  and  that  the  only  way  to  at- 
"  tain  this  Certainty  is  by  comparing  thefe  Ideas  together ;  which  excludes  ail 
**  Certainty  of  Faith  or  Reafon,  where  we  cannot  have  fuch  clear  and  di- 
"  flindt  Ideas. 

From  hence  I  proceeded  tolhew,  that  we  could  not  have  fuch  clear  and di' 
Jlin£l  Ideas,  as  were  neceflary  in  the  prefent  Debate,  either  by  Senfationor,  Re- 
flexion, and  confcquently  we  could  not  attain  to  any  Certainty  about  it;  for 
■  which,  I  inflanced  in  the  Nature  of  Subflance  and  Perfon,  and  the  Difiin^ioa 
between  them. 

'  And  by  vertue  of  thefe  Principles  I  faid,  "  That  I  did  not  wonder,  that  the 
"  Gentlemen  of  this  new  way  of  Reafoning  had  almoft  difcarded  Subftanceout 
"  of  the  Reafonable  part  of  the  World.  Which  Exprefion  you  tell  me  you  do 
not  underfland.  But  if  you  had  pleafed  to  have  look'd  back  on  the  Words  juft 
before,  a  perfon  of  your  Sagacity  could  not  have  milTcd  the  Meaning  I  in- 
*'  tended.  Which  are.  Now  this  is  the  cafe  of  Subftance ;  it  is  not  mtro- 
"  mitted  by  the  Senfes,  nor  depends  upon  the  Operations  of  the  Mind,  and 
*'  cannot  be  within  the  compafs of  our  Reafon.  .>f.o7=i  ?,  ,',n 

P-  <5«  But  you  fay,  77.7^^  //  I  mean  that  you  deny  or  doubt  that  there  is  in  the  World 
any  fuch  thingas  Subflance,  I  {hall  acquit  you  of  it,  if  Hook  into  fome  Paffages  in 
your  Bookvohich  you  refer  to.  But  this  is  not  the  point  before  us,  whethtr  you 
do  own  Subflance  or  not.^  but  uheiher  by  vertue  of  thefe  Principles,  you  can 
come  to  any  Certainty  of  Reafon  about  it  ?  And  I  fay,  the  very  places  you 
produce  do  prove  the  contrary  ;  which  1  Ihall  therefore  fet  down  in  your  own 
Words,  both  as  to  Corporeal  and  Spiritual  Sub/hnces. 
P-  7-  When  ive  talk  or  think  of  any  particular  fort  of  Corporeal  Subflance,  as  Horfe^ 

Stone,  &ic.  tho  the  Idea  we  have  of  either  of  them  be  hut  the  Complication  or 
Collehion  ofthofe  feveral  fimple  Ideas  of  fenfible  Qualities  which  we  uje  to  find  uni- 
ted in  the  thing  called  Horfe  or  Stone,  yet  becaufe  we  cannot  conceive  how  they 
fhould  fubfifl  alone ^  or  one  in  another,  we  fuppofe  them  exiflingin  and (upported  by 
fome  common  fubjeX,  which  Support  we  denote  by  the  name  Subflance,  tho  it  be 
certain  we  have  no  clear  or  difiirS  Idea  of  that  thing  we  fuppofe  a  Support.     The 
fame  happens  concemingOperations  of  the  Mind,  viz.  Thinking,  Reafoning,  &c. 
which  we  confidering  not  to  fubftfl  of  tkemjelves,  nor  apprehending  how  they  can 
helong  to  Body  or  be  produced  by  it,  we  are  apt  to  think  thefe  the  Ail  ions  of  fome 
other  Subflance,  which  we  call  Spirit,  whereby  yet  it  is  evident,  that  having  no 
other  Notion  or  Idea  of  Matter,  but  fomethtng  wherei/i  thoje  many  fenfible  Qualities, 
which  affeil  ourSenfts  do  fubfifl,  by  fuppofing  a  Subflance  wherein  Thinking,  Know- 
P.  8.      ing.  Doubting,  and  a  Power  of  Movig,  &c.  do  fubfift,  we  have  as  clear  a  Notion 
of  the  Nature  or  Subflance  of  Spirit  as  we  have  of  Body,  the  one  being  fuppofed  to 
be  (without  knowing  what  it  u)  the  Subftratum  to  thofe  fimple  Ideas  we  hrve 
from  without,  and  the  other  fuppofed  {with  a  like  Ignorance  of  what  it  is)  to  be 
/^tf  Subftratum  to  thofe  Operations  which  ws  experiment  inour  felves.   \cu  men- 
tion 


Mr.  L  o  c  K  e's  L  E  T  T  E  R.  ^23 

tion  other  places  to  the  fame  purpofe,  but  thefe  are  fufficient  for  mine.  Thefe  ^-  ?- 
and  the  like,  fajhions  of  [peaking,  you  fay  intimate^  that  the  Suhfiance  is  fuppofed 
always  fcmethitig,  &c.  1  grant  that  you  fay  over  and  over,  that  Suhftance  isfup- 
pofeJ:  but  that  is  not  what  I  looked  for,  but  fomething  in  the  way  of  Cer- 
tainty by  Reafon.  Yes,  you  ^2iy  ^  voe  camot  conceive  how  thefe  fenfihle  Qtialities 
fhoufd  fuhjift  alone,  and  therefore  we  f"ppofe  a  Suhjiance  to  fupport  them.  It  is 
but  fuppofittg  ftill,  becaufe  we  cannot  conceive  it  otherwife.  But  what  Cer- 
tainty follows  barely  from  our  not  being  able  to  Conceive  ?  Are  there  not 
multitudes  of  Things  which  we  are  notable  to  conceive,  and  yet  it  would  not 
be  allowed  us  to  fuppofe  what  we  think  fit  on  that  account  ?  I  could  hard- 
ly conceive  that  Mr.  L.  would  have  brought  fuch  Evidence  as  this  againft  him- 
felf ;  but  I mujl  fuppofe  fame  unknown  Subflratum  in  this  Cafe. 

But  you  go  on,  7hat  as  long  as  there  is  any  fimple  Idea,  or  fenfible  Quality  left^ 
according  to  tm  way  of  Arguing,  Subflance  cannot  be  difcarded,  becauje  all  ftmple 
Ideas,  all  fenfible  Qualities  carry  with  them  a  fuppojition  of  a  Subflratum  to  exijt 
in  and  of  a  Suhftance  wherein  they  inhere.  What  is  the  meaning  of  carrying  with 
them  a  fuppojition  of  a  Subflratum  and  a  Suhftance  ?  Have  thefe  jimple  Ideas 
the  Notion  of  a  Suhftance  in  them  }  No,  but  they  carry  if  with  them.  How  fo> 
Do  fenfible  Qualities  carry  a  Corporeal  Suhftance  along  with  them  i  Then  a  Cor- 
poreal Subfiance  muft  be  intr omitted  by  the  Senfes  together  with  them.  M?; 
but  they  carry  the  Suppofition  with  them.  And  truly  that  is  burden  enough  for 
them.  But  which  way  do  they  carry  it  >  It  feems  it's  only  becaufe  we  cannot 
conceive  it  otherwife.  What  is  this  Conceiving  ?  It  may  be  faid  that  it  is  an  A^ 
of  the  Mind,  not  built  on  fimple  Ideas,  but  lies  in  comparing  the  Ideas  of  Accident 
and  Subfiance  together,  and  from  thence  fnding  that  an  Accident  muft  carry  Suh* 
Jiance  alongivith  it  ?  But  this  will  not  clear  it ;  for  the  Ideas  of  Accidents  are 
Jimple  Ideas,  and  carry  nothing  along  with  them,  but  the  Impreflion  made  by 
fenfible  Objects ;  and  the  Idea  of  Suhftance  comes  in  by  way  of  Suppofition 
with  the  other:  fo  that  it  is  not  the  comparing  two  Ideas  together,  but  the  fup- 
pofing  one  Idea  from  another,  and  that  a  very  ohfcure  and  confufed  one  too,  as 
isconfefled,  viz.  That  it  is  fomething  which  fupports  Accidents,  and  was  found 
out  for  that  fubH  antial  End.  h%  appears  from  thefe  remarkable  words  of  yours. 

They  who  frft  ran  into  the  Notion  of  Accidents,  as  a  fort  of  real  Beings  that  Bo«k  2. 
needed  fomething  to  inhere  in,  were  fore  d  to  find  out  the  word  Suhftance  to  fupport  S'n.'^' 
them.     Had  the  poor  Indian  Philofopher  but  thought  of  this  word  Suhftance^  he 
needed  not  to  have  been  at  the  trouble  to  fnd  an  Elephant  to  fupport  it,  and  a  Tor- 
toife  to  fupport  his  Elephant.     The  word  fubftance  would  have  done  it  eff equally. 
And  it  might  have  been  taken  for  as  good  an  Anfxoer  from  an  Indian  P hilofopher, 
that  Suhftance  without  knowing  what  it  is,  is  that  which  fupports  the  Earth,  as  we 
take  it  for  a  fufficient  Anfwer,  and  good  Doilrine  from  our  European  Philofopher s, 
that  Suhftance  without  knowing  what  it  is^  is  that  which  fupports  Accidents.    What 
can  be  ridiculing  the  Notion  of  Subfiance,  and  the  European  Philofophers  for  p.  14. 
aflertingit,  if  this  be  not.*  I  forbear  now  your  Repetition  of  it ;  becaulel  fee 
it  doth  not  pleafe  you.    But  truly  it  was  not  to  upbraid  you  with  the  baregj^^^J' 
Repetition  as  -i  fault  in  Writing  (many  of  which  I  am  too  much  fenfible  of 
my  felF,  to  blame  it  in  others)  but  only  to  (hew  that  it  was  not  a  fudden  Fan- 
cy, but  a  deliberate,  and  (as  you  thought)  a  lucky  Similitude. 

But  you  fay,  Tou  would  be  glad  to  hear  a  clearer  and  more  diftintl  Idea  of  ^'  **' 
Suhftance,  but  you  can  find  no  better  in  your  oivn  Thoughts,  or  in  the  Books  of  Lo- 
gicians. Are  not  thefe  Logicians  a  (brt  of  European  Philofophers,  who  were 
defpifed  fo  much  before,  for  this  very  Notion  of  Suhftance  >  Even  Burgerfdiciia 
and  Sanderfon  (whom  you  quote)  were  {o,  as  well  as  many  others  of  the  dull 
Tribe  of  Logicians. 

But  I  do  not  find  fault  with  the  Definition  of  Suhftance  brought   by  Logici- 
ans ;  for  they  do  not  fay,  that  it  was  found  out  only  to  fupport  Accidents,  but 

ibey 


524 An  ANSW'EKto 

they  fay,  it  firft  implies  a  Suhjifience  by  it  felf;  and  then  that  it  fupports  Ac- 
cidents :  But  you  fay,  The  former  implies  no  more  than  that  Suhflance  is  a  Things 
or  Being  ;  or  in  fhort,  fomething  they  know  not  what.  Is  there  no  difference  be- 
tween the  bare  Being  of  a  Things  and  its  Suhfiflence  hy  it  [elf  ?  I  had  thought 
Accidents  or  Modes  of  Matter  which  make  fenfible  Impreffions  on  us,  were 
Things  or  Beings^  or  elfe  there  could  be  no  effed:  of  them  ;  but  you  will  not 
fay  they  fuhfifi  of  themjelves,  and  are  in  no  other  thing  as  the  proper  fubjedt  of 
them,  and  you  confefs  at  laftj  that  Suhflance  doth  imply  that  it  is  notfupported 

■  it  felf  as  a  Mode  or  Accident.     So  that  our  European  Philofophers  happen  to  be 
in  the  right  at  lafti 

t.  ii.  Well !  hut  I  would  think  it  hard  to  he  thought  to  difcard  every  thing  ivhich  I  do 
tiot  comprehend i  for  I  own  Myfteries.  Why  then  fhould  I  charge  others  for  dif- 
carding  Suhflance^  hecaufe  they  have  hut  a  confufed  Idea  of  it  ?  This  is  the  force 

■  of  the  Charge  which  I  bring  into  as  kw  words  as  may  be,  but  without  the 
lead  Intention  to  abate  the  ftrength  of  ir. 

To  which  I  anfwer,  That  I  do  not  charge  them  with  difcarding  the  Uotiou 
of  Suhflance,  becaufe  they  have  but  an  imperfe^  Idea  of  it ;  but  becaufe  upon 
thofe  Principles  there  can  be  no  certain  Idea  at  all  of  it :  whereas  I  aflert  it  to 
be  one  of  the  moft  natural  and  certain  Ideas  in  our  Minds,  becaufe  it  is  a  Re- 
pugnance to  our  firft  conception  of  Things  that  Modes  or  Accidents  fliould 
fubfift  by  themfelves;  and  therefore  I  faid  the  Rational  Idea  of  Suhflance  is 
one  of  the  firft  Ideas  in  our  Minds ;  and  however  imperfect  and  obfcure  our 
Notion  be,  yet  we  are  as  certain  that  Subflances  are  and  muft  be,  as  that 

^-  *2.  there  are  any  Beings  in  the  World.  Herein  you  tell  me  you  agree  with  me, 
and  therefore  you  hope  this  is  no  Ohje^ion  againfi  the  Trinity.  I  never  thought  it 
was,  but  to  lay  all  Foundation  of  Certainty  as  to  matters  of  Faith  upon  clear 
and  diflinft  Ideas,  which  was  the  Opinion  I  oppofed,  docs  certainly  over- 
throw all  Myfleries  of  Faith,  and  excludes  the  Notion  of  Suhjiance  out  of 
Rational  Difcourfe,  which  at  length  you  apprehend  to  have  been  my  meaning. 

p.  35.  But,  fay  you,  if  any  ajfert,  that  we  can  have  no  Ideas  hut  from  Senfation  or 
Refleflion,  you  declare,  that  this  is  not  your  Opinion.  I  am  very  glad  of  it ;  And 
I  will  do  you  all  the  Right  I  can  in  this  matter.  But  we  muft  take  your  Mean- 
ing horn  your  own  words.     And  there  are  three  Particulars  you  exprefs  it  in. 

p.  2  J.  C  I-  )  ^^^^  y"*'*  ^^^"'»g  ^^i  '"  fi?^^fi^  all  thofe  Complex  Ideas  of  Modes,  Re- 
lations, and  fpecifick  Suhflaaces,  which  the  Mind  forms  out  of  Jimple  Ideas.  So 
that  thefe  Ideas  are  allowed  by  you  although  they  come  not  by  Senfation  or 
Reflexion.  But  is  not  the  Notion  of  particular  Suhfiances  a  Complex  Idea, 
btcaufe  it  is  a  Complication  of  Jimple  Ideas,  as  will  prefently  appear  Irom  your 
own  words  ;  but  all  fimple  Ideas  come  in  hy  Senfation  and  Reflexion.  But  you 
may  fay  the  Combination  of  them  to  make  one  Idea,  ii  an  AB  of  the  Mind,  and  fo 
this  Idea  is  not  from  Senfation  or  Reflexion.  !t  ieems  then,  the  Mind  hath  a 
Povi  er  to  form  one  Complex  Idea  out  of  many  fimple  ones,  and  this  makes  a 
true  Idea  of  a  particular  Suhflance  not  coming  in  by  Senfation  or  Reflexion.  But 
I  am  ftill  to  leek,  how  this  comes  to  make  an  Idea  of  Suhflance  ;  I  underfland 
it  very  well  to  be  a  Complex  Idea  of  fo  many  Accidents  put  together  5  but  I  can- 
not underfland,  how  a  Complex  Idea  of  Accidents  fhould  make  an  Idea  of  Suh- 
flance. And  till  you  do  this  you  are  as  far  as  ever  from  a  true  Idea  oi  Sub' 
fiance,  notwithftanding  yowx  Complex  Ideas. 

(  z.  ^  ToH  never  faid  that  the  general  Idea  of  Suhflance  comes  in  hy  Senfation 

■  ^  ■    or  Reflexion.     And  if  there  be  any  ExpreflTjons  that  feem  to  aflert  it  to  be  by  a 

Complication  of  fimple  Ideas,  {and  not  by  AbflrJ^ling  and  Inlarging  them)  be- 

P.  2S,  29' caufe  we  accuflom  our  felves  to  fuppofe  a  Suhftratum  •  it  ought  to  be  look'd  on 
as  a  flip  of  the  Pen,  or  a  Negligence  of  Exprefton.  In  which  Cafes,  I  think  no 
Man  ought  to  be  fevere.  But  was  there  not  too  much  occafion  given  for  o- 
ihers  to  think,  that  the  Idea  of  particular  Suhflance  was  only  a  Complication 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Letter.  525 


cf  fimple  Ideas;  and  becaufe  all  Jimple  Ideas  do  come  in ^  you  fay,  oiily'hy 
Senfation  and  Refledicn^  therefore  all  the  Ideas  of  particular  Suhflnnce  (which 
is  but  a  Complicition  of  them)  muH:  either  come  in  thofe  ways,  or  elfe  we  can 
have  no  true  Idea  of  particular  Sulfiance  at  all? 

So  that  there  are  Two  things,  wherein  you  are  very  far  from  giving  Sa- 
tisfaftion, 

I.  That  although  you  fay,  That  the  Idea  of  Suljlance  in  generalis  made hy   P.  22. 
Alilra£lion ;  yet  you  ndd,  That  all  the  Ideas  ive  have  of  particular  diflinSl  Sub- 
fiances  are  nothing  hut  fever  a  I  Comhinations  of  fimple  Ideas.     From  whence  it  is 
plain,  that  according  to  your  repeated  AlTertions,  we  can  have  no  Idea  of 
particular  and  dijlind  Suhflances^  but  what  is  made  up  of  a  Complication  of 
fimple  Ideas ;  and  although  there  may  be  feme  a bftraded. Notion  or  general 
Idea  of  Sulfiance,  which  is  only  an  adt  of  the  Mind,  yet  there  is  no  real  Idea  of 
any  particular  Subftance,  but  what  is  a  Complicarion  of  fimple  Idea*.     And°?°^^' 
that  a  Man  hath  no  other  Idea  of  any  Suh fiance^  let  it  he  Gold,  or  Horfe,  Iron  Seft.  d!* 
Mjk,  Vitriol^  Bread,  hut  what  he  has  barely    of  thofe  fenfihle  Qualities,  which 
hefuppofes  to  inhere- with  a  fuppofition  of  fuch    a  Suhflratum,    as  gives  as  it  were 
,  a  f upper c  to  thofe  dualities  or  fimple  Ideas,  ivh/ch  he  has  ohferved  to  exifl  united 
together.     Tliefe  are  your  own  words;  and  what  can  the  meaning  of  them  be 
but  that  wo  neither  have  nor  can  have  anv  Idea  of  a  particular  Suhfiance,  but 
only  with  rcfpeit  to  t\\Q  fimple  Ideas  which  make  it  up;  anJ  thele  being  ye«- 
^ble  ^^alifies,  there  is  no  fuch  thing  as  an  Idea  of  Suhfiance,  but  only  zfuppojt- 
/iff* of  a  Sulflratum  to  fupport  Accidents? 

X.  That  although  the  Idea  of  Suhfiance  he  made  douhtfull  by  attributing  it  only  P.  32. 
to  our  accujlom'ing  our  felves  to  fuppofe  fame  Suhflratum  ;  yet  the  Being  of  Suh- 
fiance is  not.  How  is  this  pofTible  ?  Is  not  the  33ing  doubtful  if  the  Idea  be* 
and  all  our  Certainty  come  in  by  Jdeas  ?  No,  fay  you,  the  Being  would  not  be 
fbaken  ifwd  had  no  Idea  of  Subllance  at  all.  What !  not  as  to  our  Knowledge?  p.  23. 
But  you  fay,  there  are  many  things  in  Nature  of  ivhich  we  have  no  Ideas.  And 
can  we  have  any  Certainty  of  Reafon  as  to  thofe  things?  For  about  that  our 
debate  is,  viz.  What  Certainty  Me  can  have  as  to  Suhfiance,  if  we  can  have  no 
Idea  of  it  ?  J^o  that  the  Being  of  Suhfiance  on  thefe  Principles  is  far  from  being 
fafe  and  fecure  asto'us,  when  we  have  fo  lame  an  account  of  the  Idea  of  it. 

But  you  have  yet  a  farther  diftindtion  to  bring  ofFthe//f<7  oi  Suhfiance; 
for  you  fav, 

(3.)  That  the  Idea  of  Suhfiance  is  a  Relative  Idea.  For  the  mind  can  frame  p 
to  it  felf  Ideas  of  Relation,  and  perceiving  that  Accidents  cannot  fubfifi  of  them- 
felves,  but  have  a  neceffary  Connexion  with  Inherence  or  being  fupported,  which 
being  a  Relative  Idea,  it  frames  the  Correlative  of  a  Support,  which  is  Suhfiance. 
And  now  I  think  we  have  all  that  is  faid  in  Defence  of  the  Idea  of  Suhfiance  • 
viz.  That  there  is  a  Complex  Ahfira£led  and  Relative  Idea  of  it ;  which  is  deri- 
ved from  the  fimple  Ideas  got  by  Senfation  or  Reflexion.  But  tins  Relative  Ab- 
flraSed  Idea  is  ccnfcflcd  to  be  an  ohfcure,  indifiinif  vague  Idea  cf  Thing  or 
Something ;  and  n  ■'II  that  is  left  to  be  the  pofitive  Idea,  which  hath  the  Relation  of 
a  Support  or  Suhflratum  to  Modes  or  Accidents  :  And  that  what  Idea  we  have  of 
partic:dar  and  drfiin£l  Suhflames  is  nothing  hut  a  Complication  of  fimple  Ideas  with 
the  fuppofition  of  a  Suhfiratum  or  Support. 

Thefe  being  tiie  Concefiions  ^nd  Difiintlions  you  make  in  this  Matter,  I  muft 
now  return  to  the  Occafon  of  this  Debate,  which  was,  whether  the  ground  of 
our  Certainty,  as  to  the  Nature  of  Subftance,  can  be  refolved  into  the  fim- 
ple Ideas  y  ^^  receive  in  by  Senfation  or  Reflexion.  The  queRion  is  not.  Whe- 
ther you  doubt  or  deny  any  fuch  Being  as  Sulfiance  in  the  World ?  nor  whether 
the  Notion  you  have  of  it  be  clear  and  diftin^  ?  for  you  confefs  it  is  not;  but  - 
the  point  in  (!cbate  is,  What  Certainty  we  can  have  of  the  Nature  0*1  Suhfiance 
from,  the  fimple  Ideas  we  have  by  Senfation  or  Reflexion  i  And  here  the  que- 

X  X  X  ftion 


52^  An  ANSWER  td 

ftion  is  not.  Whether  the  mind  cannot  form  Complex  and  AhJIra^ed  general 
Ideas  from  ihok /imple  Ideas  ?  But  whether  thole  jftmp/e  Ideas  are  the  Fou»da- 
tioHof  our  Knowledge  and  Certainty  as  to  the  Nature  of  Suhjlance  .^ 

For  you  affirm  over  and  over  (if  I  may  have  leave  to  fay  lo)  That  the  fim- 
V.  18,  53-  pie  Ideas  we  have  hy  Senfation  and  RefletVton  are  the  Foundation  of  all  our  Kneiv- 
2'4,?<5, 37-  igjgg^     ^nd  yet  that  the  Ideas  we  have  of  particular  diflinB  Suhfiances  are  no- 
P8.      thing  hut  feveral  Comhinat ions  of fimple  Ideas  of  Accidents. 

Which  being  fuppofed,  I  think  it  no  hard  matter  to  make  it  appear  that  we  come 
to  any  Cf/'/;j/«^j' as  to  the  Nature  of  Subftancs  cannot  in  this  way  o^  Ideas.  For, 
I.  The  fimple  Ideis  afford  no  ground  of  Certainty  any  farther  than  as  to 
themfelves.     Outward  Objeds  make  an  imprefllon  on  our  Senfes?  and  all 
the  Certainty  we  have  by  them  Is  that  our  Senfes  are  To  and  fo  affeded  by 
them;  but  what  that  is  in  thofe  Objeds  which  produces  thofe  Effeds  in  us, 
thefe  fmple  Ideas  do  not  acquaint  us.     For  the  o'd  or  new  Do6lrine  of  Quali- 
ties may  be  true,  notwithftanding  any  Effed:  of  thefe  fimple  Ideas  upon  us; 
for  the  fame  cffeds  would  be  whether  there  ht  real  ^ialities  in  the  Ohje^s^  or 
only  a  power  to  make  fuch  Impreffions  on  us,  which  we  fancy  to  be  ^talities 
without  us.     And  fo  for  our  inward  Percey^tions ;  we  certainly  know,  that  we 
have  a  Power  of  Thinking,  Doubting,  Confidering,  ^c.  thefe  fimple  Ideas 
we  are  very  certain  of;  but  whether  thefe  Perceptions  come  from  a  Material  ot 
Immaterial  Suhfiance,  you  fay,  cannot  he  certainly  known  hy  thefe  fimple  Ide.u  : 
for  you  think  Matter  may  be  fo  refined  and  modified  as  to  produce  them. 
Now  it  is  a  very  ftrange  thing  to  me,  that  Men  of  Underflandingfliould  make 
thele  fimple  Ideas  the  Foundation  of  all  our  Knowledge  and  Certainty  ;  and  yet, 
that  we  fhould  be  able  to  attain  to  no  Certainty  at  all  by  them,  from  whence 
they  proceed.     For  if  thefe  Ideas  were  intended  for  the  means  of  our  attaining 
to  any  Certainty,  this  would  be  the  firfl  thing  we  fhould  know  by  them.  .  It 
is  not  diflinguiihing  Primary  and  Secundary  Qualities  will  help  us  out  here. 
For  thefe  fenfible  Qualities  of  Bodies,  which  arife  from  the  firfl,  liz.  Bulk, 
Figure^  Tixture  and  Motion  of  Parts,  do  not  carry  any  evidence  along  witli 
them  that  they  are  not  Refemblances  of  fomething  in  the  Objeds  as  well  as 
the  Primary,     ft  is  very  eafie  to  affirm.  That  there  is  in  Truth  »othi:;g  in  the 
Ohje£ls  themfelves^  hut  only  Powers  to  produce  various  Senfations  in  us  :  but  I 
intend  not  to  difpute,  whether  it  be  fo  or  not ;  all  that  I  obferve,  is,  that 
there  have  been   Philofophers.,  both  European  and  others,  of  another  opi- 
nion ;  and  that  thefe  fimple   Ideas,  which  are  faid  to  be  the  only  Foundation 
EnzY.B.z.  of  our  Knowledge,  do  not  help  us  one  jot  in  the  Dilcovery.     For  it  is  confefied 
ch.8.  Sed.  j^y  yQ^^  ^gjf^  jjj^f  Senfation  difcovers  nothing  of  Bulk,  Figure  or  Motion  of  Parts 
in  the  Produdion  of  fe>fiihle  Qualities,  nor  can  Reafon  (hew  how  Bodies  hy  their 
Bulk,  Figure  and  Motion  fhould  produce  in  the  Mind  the  Ideas  of  Blew,  Tellow,  &c. 
How  then  are  ih^k  fimple  Ideas  the  Foundation  of  our  Knowledge  and  Certainty, 
when  by  them  we  can  difcover  nothing  of  the  true  Caufes  of  thofe  Impreffi- 
choSeft. •'"^  which  are  made  upon  us?  And  you  own.  That  the  Ideas  of  Senfation 
8,  9, 10.   are  often  corrected  hy  Judgment,  and  that  fo  infenfihly,  that  we  are  apt  to  miflake 
one  jor  the  othsr  ;  fo  thit  thefe  ftmple  Ideas  are  but  a  very  flippery  and  un- 
certain Foundation  for  our  Knowledge,  unlefs  Reafon  and  Judgment  be  watch- 
full  to  prevent  the  Errors  we  are  liable  to  in  the  Ideas  of  Senfation.    But  if  no 
more  be  meant  by  the  fimple  Ideas  that  come  in  hy  Senfation  or  Refle£lion,  and 
their  heing  the  Foundation  of  our  Knowledge,  but  that  our  Notions  of  Things 
come  in  either  from  our  Senfes  or  the  Exercife  of  our  Minds ;  As  there  is  no* 
thing  extraordinary  in  the  Difcovery,  fo  I  am  far  enough  from  oppofing  that, 
wherein  1  thnk  all  Mankind  are  [agreed.     But  when  new  Terms  are  made  ufe 
of  by  ill  men  to  promote  Scepticipmnd  Infidelity,  and  to  overthrow  the  My^e- 
ries  of  our  Faith,  v\e  have  then  Reafon  to  enquire  into  them,  arid  to  examine 
the  Foundation  and  Tendency  of  them.     And  this  was  the  true  and  only  Rea- 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Letter.  527 


I- 


foH  of  my  looking  into  this  way  of  Certainty  iy  Ideas,  becaufe  I  found  it  ap- 
plied  tofuch  Purpofes. 

(i.)  The  Idea  of  parlicular  Suhjlavicei  being  only  the  Complication  of  many 
jimple  Ideas,  can  give  no  greater  Foundation  of  ttnnowledge  or  Certainty,  than 
thofe  fmple  Ideai  of  which  it  confifts. 

Which  is  lb  clear  of  it  felf,  that  I  fliall  not  go  about  to  prove  it.     But  that  P-7»5>'<'« 
you  make  the  Ideas  of  particular  Suhfiances  to  be  no  other,  is  plain  from  the  ^°' 
feverai  places  before  mention'd,  produced  by  your  felf  in  this  Book.     So  that 
as  to  the  Notion  oi  particular  Suh^ances,  we  can  find  no  Foundation  of  Knowlcge 
or  Certainty  at  all  from  the  Ideas.     It  cannot  be  denied,  that  you  joyn  the 
fuppofuion  of  a  SuhJlratum'^Mh  this  Complication  of  Jimple  Ideas;  but  we  muft 
take  notice  that  you  place  the  Idea  of  particular  and  diflin^  Suhjlances  in  that 
Complication,  and  only  referve  the  fuppojitiou  of  the  Suhjlratum,  as  a  general 
confufed  unknown  thing,  which  makes  no  part  of  the  Idea,  but  is  only  kept 
at  a  dead  Uft  to  fupport  Accidents.     Your  words  are,  When  we  talk  or  think    P.  6. 
of  any  particular  fort  of  Corporeal  Sulftance,  as  Horfe,  Stone,  &c.  tho  the  Idea 
we  have  of  either  of  thefh  he  But  the  Complication  or  CoUeHion  of  thofe  feverai  fim- 
ple  Ideas  of  fenfihle  ^alitie's,  we  ufe  to  find  united  in  the  thing  called  Horfe  or 
Stone :  then  follows,  Tet  we  fuppofe  them  exifting  in  forne  comr/toi  SuhjeB,  &ic. 
So  that  the  Idea  was  compleat  before  the  fuppojttidn.    And  again,  Whatever  he 
the  fecret  Nature  of  Suhflance  in  general,  all  the  Ideas  we  have  of  particular  Sub-     P.  S. 
fiances  are  nothing  hut  feverai  Combinations  of  fimple  Ideas      Can  any  thing  be 
plainer  ?  Yet  there  follows,  Coexifling  infuch,  though  unknown  cdufe  of  their 
Vnion,  as  makes  the  whole  fuhfifl  of  it  felf.     Here  we  have  ftill  an  unknown  Sup- 
port, but  made  no  part  of  the  Idea  it  felf.     In  another  place,  the  Idea  of  Sub-  b.  2.  ch, 
fiance  isfaid  to  be  a  Complicatioii  of  many  Ideas  together,  becaufe  not  imagining'^l-^^^' 
how  thefe  fimple  Ideas  can  fuhfifl  by  themfelves,  we  accuflom  ourfelves  to  fuppofe 
fame  Suhfiratum  which  we  call  Suhflance.     And  this  is  faid  to  be  the  Motion  ofs^^^'hSA 
pure  Suhflance  in  general,  and  not  of  any  particular  Subftance,  which  confifts 
in  a  Complication  only  of  fimple  Ideas. 

(3.)  The  Relative  IdeaoiSubflance  arifing  frotti  the  necejfary  Support  of  Ac- 
cidents is  a  mere  efFe(5t  of  Reafon  and  Judgment,  and  no  etledt  of  any  /trriple 
Ideas.     For  it  arifesfrom  nothing  fuggeftedby  the  Ideas  of  Scnfation  or  Rc- 
fledlion,  but  it  comes  only  from  the  Mind  it  felf,     Becaufe,  as  I  faid  before, 
itisa  Repugnancy  to  our  firfl  Conception  of  Thngs,  that  Modes  or  Accidents 
fliould  rubfift  by  themfelves.     But  which  of  the  fimple  Ideu  is  this  built  upon  ? 
You  tell  me,  Tou  fay  the  fame  things  and  quote  thefe  Words  of  yours ;  And  I  ^-  "' 
fay,  Becaufe  we  cannot  conceive  how  fimple  Ideas  of  fenftble  ^talities  fhould  jubfifi 
alone,  or  one  in  another,  we  fuppofe  them  exifling  i>i  and  jupported  by  Jome  com- 
mon Suhje^.    But  you  have  not  told  me,  how  this  is  founded  on  the  fimple  I- 
deas,  which  was  your  main  point.   Tou  boafl,  you  fay,  of  my  Agreement  with 
you  herein:  I  widi  wc  might  as  well  agree  in  all  other  things  under  Debate  j 
but  why  did  you  not  inform  me,  how  you  came  to  this,  by  your  fimple  Ideas ; 
and  what  fteps  and  progrefs  you  made  in  the  Complication  of  your  fimple  Ideas 
before  you  came  to  it  ^  For  truly,  I  Ihould  have  found  fome  difficulty  in  it, 
fince  you  make  the  Idea  of  a  particular  Suhflance  a  Complication  of  many  fimple  I- 
deas :  for  if  it  be  fo,  how  could  a  Complication  of  fimple  Ideas,  which  canrioc 
fubfift  by  themfelves,  make  the  Idea  of  a  Suhflance  which  doth  fubfifl:  by  it 
felf?  This  looks  a  little*  untowardly  in  the  way  of  /knowledge  and  Certainty. 
But  there  is  no  help  for  it,  a  Suhflratummuft  he  fuppofed to  fupport  thefe  unlucky 
AccidentSi    Let  it  be  fo  then.    How  came  wc  to  know  {hat  thefe  Accidents'  were 
fuch  feeble  things  .■>  VJhzt  fimple  Ideas  inform'd  you  of  it  ?  If  none,  then  it  is 
to  be  hoped  there  is  fome  other  way  to  attain  Knowledge  and  Certainty  in  this 
matter.     No  ;  you  tell  me,  there  is  no  need  of  any  other  way,  but  this  of  /-   p.  4,. 
deas.    How  lo  \  Your  words  are  thefcj  The  general  indetermined  Idea  of  Some- 

X  X  X  X  things 


^28      An  ANSWER  to 

thing,  is  hy  the  /ilfira^ionof  the  mind  derived alfo  from  the  fimple  Ideas  of  Sen' 
fatioH  and  Reflexion.  But  alas !  We  are  not  upon  the  general  indetermined  Idea 
6f  fowething;  but  upon  the  particular  Idea  of  diftinil  Sui/iances,  which  is  grant- 
ed not  to  be  by  Aljlra^ion,  but  by  a  Complication  oj fimple  Ideas.  So  that  this 
is  quite  off  from  the  matter.  But  as  to  your  general  ahftraUed  Idea^  I  have  feme- 
thing  farther  to  fay. 

(  4. )  A  general  AhflraUed  Idea  of  Suhftance  is  no  real  Suhfiance,  nor  a  true 
Idea  of  one,  if  particular  Sulflances  be  nothing  but  a  Complication  of  fimple  I- 
^-  ^^'    deas.    For  you  fay,  that  the  Mind  by  Ahflra£lioH  from  the  pofitive  fimple  Ideas 
got  hy  Senfation  or  Reflection  comes  to  the  general  Relative  Idea  of  Suhflance.     If 
then  the  general  Idea  be  raifed  from  the  fimple  Ideas,  and  thofe  fimple  Ideas 
make  that  of  particular  and  diftinU  Suhftances  only  by  Complication,  then  the 
general  Idea  of  Suhflance  can  be  nothing  but  an  Akftra£led Complication  of  thefe 
fimple  Ideas,  or  elfe  it  is  not  by  Ahftra£lion  from  the  fimple  Ideas.     But  I  do 
not  deny  that  there  is  z general  Nature  of  Suhflance,  which  is  as  real  as  a  general 
Idea  can  be,  and  it  is  that,  which  makes  any  particular  Suhflance  be  what  it 
is  in  its  own  Nature  without  refpecfl  to  Individual  Modes  and  Properties.    And 
although  this  general  Subftance  doth  not  exift  of  it  (elf,  yet  it  doth  really 
exift  in  the  feveral  Individuals  that  belong  to  its  kind ;  and  the  feveral  kinds 
of  particular  Subftances  are  really  diftinguiftied  from  each  other,  not  merely 
by  fmple  Ideas  of  fenfihle  ^alities,  but  by  their  inward  Frame  and  Conftitu- 
tion  :  as  the  Subftance  of  a  Man  is  from  that  of  a  Horfe  or  a  Tree.    For  it  is 
ridiculous  to  imagine,  that  thefe  really   differ  from  each  other  only  as  Indi- 
viduals of  the  fame  fort  under  the  general  Ahflra^ed  Idea  o{  Suhflance*    And 
if  there  be  Suhftances  oi  feveral  kinds  really  different  from  each  other,  an  ac- 
count mud  be  given,  not  only  of  the  general  Notion  of  a  Suhflratum  for  Acci' 
dents,  but  of  the  fpecifick  Nature  of  different  Suhjlances,  and  wherein  the  dif- 
ference of  the  unknown  Support  lies,  as  to  the  Modes  and  Accidents  of  their 
kinds,  which  I  defpair  of  ever  feeing  done  by  the  fimple  Ideas  of  Senfation  and 
B.  2  ch.  Reflehion.     And  yourfelfconfefs,  that  we  have  no  Idea  of  AhftraCi  Suhftance  ; 
24.  Sea.  and  that  hy  the  Complex  Idea  of  fenfihle  ^alities,  we  are  as  far  from  the  Idea 
*^*  of  the  Suhftance  of  Body,  as  if  we  knew  nothing  at  all. 

And  now  I  freely  leave  the  Reader  to  judge  whether  this  be  a  tolerable  Ac- 
count of  the  Idea  of  Suhflance  by  Senfation  or  Reflexion,  and  whether  Ideferve 
fo  much  to  be  complained  of,  for  expofing  the  unreaibnablenefs  of  laying  the 
Foundation  of  all  our  Certainty  and  Knowledge  upon  fimple  Ideas  which  we  receive 
ly  Senfation  or  Reflexion. 

But  before  I  proceed  further,  it  will  be  proper  here  to  take  notice  how  you 

V.  43.    juftifie  your  Idea  of  Suhftance  from  the  Etymology  of  the  Word;  which,  fay  you, 

is  ftanding  under  or  upholding.     I  told  you  very  little  weight  is  to  be  laid  on  a 

bare  Grammatical  Etymology,  when  the  Word  is  otherwife  ufed  by  the  beft 

Authors  for  the  Ejfence  of  a  thing ;  and  I  named  Cicero  and  ^intilian ;  and 

the  Greek  Word  imports  the  fame.     But  ftill  you  fay,  it  is  derived  a  fuhflando  j 

P-  44-    and  you  tell  us  your  opinion.  That  if  we  knew  the  Original  of  Words,  we  fhould 

he  much  helped  to  the  Ideas  they  were  firfl  applied  to  and  made  to  fland  for.     If 

you  mean  thetrue  Ideas  of  them,  I  muft  beg  leave  to  differ  in  my  opinion,  and 

my  Reafon  is  this,  becaufe  Words  were  ufed  before  men  came  to  form  Philofc- 

phical  Notions  or  Ideas  of  Things;  and  therefore  they  were  forced  to  make 

ufe  of  Words  applied  in  another  Senfe;  or  elfe  to  coin  Words  on  purpofe  to  ex- 

prefs  their  own  (as  Cicero  often  doth,  as  Qualities,  Evidence,  Comprehenfion,  &c.}. 

So  that  iffuhftare  were  ufed  in  another  Senfe  before,  it  doth  not  follow,  that 

it  ought  to  be  fo,  when  we  enquire  into  the  true  Ideas  of  Things.     But  one  of 

the  beft  Cricicks  of  the  Latin  Tongue  in  our  Age,  hath  told  us,  thit  fuhftantia 

Voir.  Ety-  is  fo  called,  quia  per  fe  fuhflat.     And  fuhflare  is  ufed  by  terence,  not  for  fland" 

moi.  in  V.  ^^^  ^„Jer^  but  for  heingftedfaft^  Metuo  ut  fuhftet  hofpes.     But  as  to  your  gene^- 

rat 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Letter.  529 


ral  Obfervation  ;  I  think  there  are  very  few  Words  ufed  in  the  Philobphical 
Language  of  the  Romans,  but  what  were  taken  off  from  the  original  Senfethey 
were  applied  to  ;  as  Perfona  was  fir  ft  taken  for  a  Man  in  Mafquerade,  Genus 
for  a  Pedegree,  Species  for  a  Sight,  from  Specio,  to  fee,  Virtus  for  manly  Cou- 
rage, and  diftinguiih'd  from  Frohity.     Sit  virtus  etiam  non  Prohitate  minor.  0- 
•vicl.  Je  Pont.  I.  ^.     And  fo  Anima  was  firft  taken  for  the  Breath  in  the  Boely^ 
as  well  as  Spiritus.    Thence  Varro  faith,  Their  Ancefiors,  although  they  eat 
Leeks  and  Onions,  yet  were  bene  animati,  had  no  ill  Breath;  and  thence  Ani- 
mam  agere  and  efflare,  faith  Cicero ;  and  from   Anima,  he  faith  came  Animus, 
by  which  they  underftood /;&^  Mind;  Hinc  Animus  ad  inte/ligentiam  tributus, 
faith  ^</rr<».*  and  many  others  of  a  like  Nature.  But  I  Ihall  only  add  one  more,  and 
that  is  the   Name  of  Idea,  fo  very  often  ufed  by  your  felf  and  others  of  late. 
I  wifli  we  had  been  told  the  original  ufe  ofit^  and  how  it  i*as  firfl  applied^  that 
we  might  better  judge  of  the  true  meaning  of  it  now  when  fo  much  Weight  is 
laid  upon  it.     I  find  in  Thucydides^  who  was  an  accurate  Writer,  and  under-  Thucyd. 
flood  the  true  Senfe  of  Words,  that  an  Idea  is  ufed  by  him  for  an  Appearance ^'S.p. 392. 
and  Shew  without  Reality,  as  when  he  faith.  That  the  Athenians  i»  dealing  withf^'^^^' 
the  Sicilians,  made  ufe  of  the  fame  Idea  which  they  had  done  before.      Where  its!^""  *' 
can  (ignifie  nothing  but  what  he  calls  before  a  Pretence.     But  when  the  Philo- 
fopherscame  to  ufe  this  Word,  they  applied  it  to  another  S^n^^;  Plato  made 
ufe  of  it  to  fignifie  the  true  Exemplars  or  Models  of  Things,  according  to 
which  the  feveral  forts  of  them  were  framed  and  diftinguifhed.    This  Notion 
he  had,  as  many  others,  from  the  Pythagoreans,  but  what  they  MyflicaHy  ca\- 
led  J^umlers  he  called  Ideas.     But  Idea  in  its  original  Senfe  from  the  Etymo- 
logy of  it,  is  derived  from  Seeing,  and  fo  the  natural  Senfe  of  it  is  fomethir.g 
Vifible ;  from  thence  it  came  to  fignifie  the  Impreffion  made  in  us  from  our 
Senles ;  and  thence  it  was  carried  to  the  general  Notion  of  a  thing,  and  from 
thence  by  Metaphyfical  and  abftradled  Speculations  to  the  Original  Exemplars 
of  particular  Eflences,  which  were  Simple  and  Vniform,  and  not  liable  to  thofe 
Changes  which  vifible  Objeds  are  fubjec^  to.     So  Cicero  tells  us,  Plato  formed hai.i  r„ 
his  Motion  of  Idea,  which  he  would  by  no  means  allow  to  any  Reprefenration 
made  by  our  Senfes,  which  are  dull,  heavy,  uncertain  and  imperfeii  either  by 
the  Minutenefs,  or  Difiance^  or  Mutability  of  the  Ohje^s  ;  thence  the  Philofo- 
phersof  his  School  denied  any  true  grounds  of  Certainty  t  >  be  laid  in  the  Ideas 
we  have  by  our  Senfes,  which  can  only  afford  ground  for  Probability  (not  as 
to  the  bare  Objects')  but  as  to  the  Notions  we  take  from  them.     But  all  Know- 
ledge and  Certainty  was  placed  in  the  a(9;s  of  the  Mind  (Scientiam  nafquam  effe 
cenfebant  nifi  in  animi  notionibus  atque  rationibus  ^  /.  f.  in  examining  and  com- 
paring, not  th& hare  Ide.is,  but  \\\s.  Definitions  oj  things;  and  from  thefe,  judg- 
ing of  the  Truth  and  Certainty  of  them.     And  if  our  Ideas  of  things  be  fo  few^ 
fo  fuperficial,  and  fo  imperfe^  as  you  confefs  them  to  be;  if  we  are  fo  much  to 
feek,  as  to  the  Connexion  of  Ideas,  and  the  finding  out  proper  intermediate  I- 
deas,  I  amafraid  this  w'ay  of  Certainty  by  Ideas  will  come  to  very  little  at  laft. 
And  fo  this  Agreement  and Dif agreement  of  Ideas  will  have  the  Fate  of  the  StO'- 
icks  Criterion  of  Truth,  which  only  multiplied  Difputes,  but  ended  none.    Ne- 
ver any  men  talked  more  of  Certainty  than  they  ;  and  they  boafted  of  their 
Difcoveries  of  the  true  grounds  of  it ;  and  the  queflion  then  was  not  about  it 
Criterion  of  the  bate  Exifience  of  things;  (about  which  they  allow'd  the  Judg- 
ment of  the  Senfes  to  be  fuificient,  and  the  Ideas  from  them  to  be  true; )  Nor 
was  it  about  a  Criterion  for  the  Anions  of  Life,  for  which  they  thought  Pro- 
bability  or  Opinion  fufficient ;  but  it  was  about  finding  out  fuch  a  mark  of  truth 
in  the  Ideas  of  our  Minds  as  could  not  agree  to  a  Falfhood,  i.  e.  fuch  an  Impreffi- 
on or  Signature,  as  Cicero  exprefles  it,  as  appear  d  in  that  which  was,  which  could  C\ca-  in 
not  le  found  in  that  which  wis  not.     And  this  was  called  Vifum,  or  a  true  Idea ;  L"c"'=' 
his  words  are,  Quale  igitur  vifum  ?  ^uodex  eo  quod  ejfetf  ficut  ejfet^  impreffum  eft 

fignatum. 


530 An  ANSWER  t9 

Jigtiatum^  &  effe^um.  The  Greeks  called  it  z  Comprehenfive  le/ea,  which  they 
^'  compared  to  Light,  which  difcovers  it  felf  as  well  as  other  Things.  But  when 
they  came  to  be  pinched  with  particular  difficHlties  about  the  Natures  of  Things, 
they  were  never  able  to  make  out  that  infallible  mark  of  Truth  in  their  Idea,- 
and  yet  this  was  a  more  likely  way  to  have  found  it,  than  to  place  the 
grounds  of  Certainty  in  the  comparing  the  y4greemetit  and  Dtfagresment  of  /- 
</(?<»,  unlefs  it  could  he  made  out  that  we  have  a  full  flock  of  Ideas^  and  are 
able  to  difcern  and  make  out  the  ConnexioH  of  them  with  one  another.  For 
if  we  fail  in  either  of  thefe,  the  talking  of  Ideas  and  comparing  thofe  which  we 
have  will  do  us  little  fervice  in  finding  out  of  Truth. 

But  I  confefs,  the  defign  in  general  is  fo  good,  that  it's  pity  that  it  ihould 
lie  open  to  fo  many  Objedions ;  and  much  more,  that  it  fhould  be  abufed  to 
very  bad  purpofes.  But  my  joyning  your  words  with  another  s  Application^  is 
that  which  hath  given  you  io  much  Offence  as  to  make  you  think  it  neceflary 
to  publifti  this  Letter  for  your  FindicatioH. 

z.  I  come  therefore  now  to  ftiew  the  Care  I  took  to  prevent  being  mif-under- 
ftoodj  which  will  bed  appear  by  my  own  Words.  "  I  mud  do  that  r  gbt 
"  to  the  Ingenious  Author  of  the  EJfay  of  Humane  Vnderftanding^  (  from 
"  whence  thefe  Notions  are  borrow 'd  to  ferve  other  purpofes  than  he  intend- 
"  ed  them,)  that  he  makes  the  cafe  of  Spiritual  and  Corporeal  Subftances  to' 
"  be  alike.  It  was  too  plain  that  the  bold  Writer  againft  the  Myfleries  of  our 
Faith  took  his  Notions  and  ExprefTrons  from  thence,  and  what  could  be  faid 
more  for  your  Vindication,  than  that  he  turned  them  to  other  purpofes  than 
the  Author  intended  them  ?  And  the  true  Reafon  why  the  Fkral  Numher  was 
iy  often  ufed  by  me,  was  becaufe  he  built  upon  thofe  which  he  imagin'd  had 
been  your  grounds,  and  my  bufinefs  was  to  ftiew  that  thofe  Expreflions  of  yours, 
which  feemed  moft  t®  countenance  his  method  of  Proceeding  could  not  give 
^  .-  any  reafonable  Ssltisfadlion.  But  you  fay,  Ton  do  not  place  Certainty  only  ii$ 
clear  and  difiinSl  Ideas ;  hut  in  the  clear  and  vifihle  Connexion  of  any  of  our  Ideas, 
And  Certainty  of  Knowledge^  you  tell  us,  is  to  perceive  the  Agreement  or  Difa- 
greement  of  Ideas^  as  expreffed  in  any  Propofition.  Whether  this  be  a  true  ac- 
count of  the  Certainty  of  Knowledge  or  not,  will  be  prefently  confider'd.  But 
it  is  very  pofiible  he  might  miflake  or  mifaipply  your  Notions;  but  there  is 
too  much  reafon  to  beheve,  he  thought  them  the  fame,  and  we  have  no  rea- 
fon to  be  forry,  that  he  hath  given  you  thisoccafion  for  the  explaining  your 
Meaning,  and  for  the  ^/W/c<7^io«  of  your  felf  in  the  matters  you  apprehend  I 
had  charged  you  with  :  And  if  your  Anfwer  doth  not  come  fully  up  in  ail 
things  to  what  f  could  wifli,  yet  I  ara  glad  to  find  that  in  general  you  own  the  Mv' 
fieries  of  the  Chrifiian  Faith,  and  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  Foundation  and  Rule 
of  it.  For  thus  you  conclude  your  Book,  in  the  laft  Paragraph  of  the  Pojlfcript, 
p.  22(5,  The  Holy  Scripture  is  to  me,  and  always  will  be  the  confiant  Guide  of  my  Affent, 
and  I  fhall  always  hearken  to  it,  as  containing  infallible  Truth  relating  to  things 
of  the  highefl  Concernment.  And  Iwifh  I  could  fay  there  were  no  Myfleries  in  it; 
I  acknowledge  there  are  to  me,  and  I  fear  always  will  be.  But  where  I  want  the 
Evidence  of  things,  there  yet  is  ground  enough  for  me  to  believe,  becaufe  God  hath 
faid  it :  And  1  (haO  prefently  condemn  and  quit  any  Opinion  of  mine,  as  foon  as 
I  amfhewn  that  it  is  contrary  "to  any  Revelation  in  the  Holy  Scripture. 

Which  Words  feem  to  exprefs  fo  much  of  a  Chriflian  Spirit  and  Temper, 
that  I  cannot  believe  you  intended  to  give  any  advantage  to  the  Enemies  of 
the  Chriflian  Faith ;  but  whether  there  hath  not  been  ioo  jujl  occafion  for  them 
to  apply  them  in  that  manner  is  a  thing  very  fit  for  you  to  confider.  For  in 
an  age  wherein  the  ^j!y?fr;«o//<?i//.7  are  fo  much  expofedby  the  Promoters  of 
Scepticifm  and  Infideiity,  it  is  a  thing  of  dangerous  confequence  to  dart  fuch  new 
methods  of  Certainty  as  are  apt  to  leave  mens  minds  more  doubtfull  than  before  ; 
as  will  foon  appear  f.cm  your  own  Concelfions.  For  if  the  ground  of  Cer- 
tainty 


Mr.  Log xK:  e's  Letter.  531 


taincy  be  refolvcd  into  the  Agreement  and  Difagreemetit  of  the  Ideas  as  exprejfed 
in  any   FropofitioH ;  is  it  not  natural  enough  from  hence  to  infer,  tliat  from 
whcncefoever  tliis  Propofition  comes,  I  muft  judge  of  it  by  the  Agreement  or 
Difagreement  of  the  Ideas  contained    it ;  You   make  a  Diftindtion  between 
the  Certainty  of  Truth  and  the  Certainty  of  Knowledge.     The  former  you  fay,  Is  Book  4. 
whenlVords  are  fo put  together  in  Fropofjtions as  exatlly  to  exprefs  the  Agreement ^'^-  '*; 
or  Difagreement  of  the  Ideas  they  Ji  and  for  :  and  the  latter,  When  we  perceive  ^  '  ^' 
the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  Ideas^  as  exprefjed  in  any  Tropofttion.     But 
curqueftion  about  Certainty  muft  relate  to  ^\\zi  voe  perceive.,  and  the  means 
we  have  to  judge  of  the  Truth  and  Falfhood  of  Things  as  they  areexprefled  to 
US;  which  you  tell  us,  Is  hy  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  the  Ideas  in  the 
Fropofition.     And  in  another  place,  Where  ever  we  perceive  the  Agreement  or  Ch.  4. 
Difagreement  of  any  of  our  Ideas,  there  ascertain  Knowledge;  and  when-ever  we^^^-  ^^' 
are  fare  thofe  Ideas  agree  with  the  Reality  of  Things,  there  is  certain  real  Know- 
ledge :  and  then  conclude,  /  think  I  have  fhewn  wherein  it  is  that  Certainty , 
real  Certainty^  confifis,  which,  whatever  it  was  to  others,  was,  I  confefs,  to  me 
heretofore,  one  of  thofe  Defiderata  which  I  found  great  want  of.     So  that  here 
is  pliinly  a  new  Method  of  Certainty  owned,  and  that  placed  in  the  Agree- 
ment and  Difjgreement  of  Ideas.     But  the  Author  already  mention'd  protefles 
to  go  upon  the  fame  grounds,  and  therefore  it  was  neceflary  for  me  to  exa- 
mine them. 

He  hah.  That  the  fimple  and  diftinti  Ideas  we  receive  hy  Senfation  and  Re-  Chrifiia- 
fletlion  are  the  fole   Matter  and  Foundation  of  all  our  Reafoning  ;  and  that  our  "ity  not 
Knowledge  is  in  Effe£l  nothing  elfe  hut  the  Perception  of  the  Agreement  or  Difa-    ^  '^'^'^' 
gr cement  of  our  Ideas.     And  that  where  our  Perception  is  not  immediate,  our  Cer-    P-  ^2. 
tainty  comes  from  the  clear  and  vifille  Connexion  of  Ideas.  For  he  faith.  That  if 
the  Connexion  of  all  the  intermediate  Ideas  he  not  indulitahle,  we  can  have  no  Cer-    P-  ^3" 
taintj.     Wherein  now  do  his  grounds  of  Certainty  differ  from  yours? 

But  he  applies  them  to  other  Purpofes.  I  grant  he  doth  fo,and  that  was  it  which 
1  had  faid  for  your  Vindication.  But  the  qucllion  now  is,  whether  your  ge- 
neral expreflion  had  not  given  him  too  much  occafion  for  it  > 

It  is  true,  that  Ch.  3.  he  diftinguilhes  the  means  of  Information  from  the 
ground,  of  Perfwafion ;  and  he  reckons  all  Authority  Divine  as  well  as  Humane 
among  the  means  of  Information  :  and  the  ground  of  Perfwafion  he  makes  to  be 
nothing  but  Evidence;  and  this  Evidence,  he  faith  lies  in  our  Ideas,  Ch.4. 
in  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  them,  p.  19.  and  he  places  Certainty  in 
our  clear  Perceptions  of  this  Agreement  or  Difagreement,  which  you  call  clear 
andvifihle  Connexion  of  Ideas.  And  wherein  then  lies  the  difference  as  to  the 
grounds  of  Certainty  >. 

But  hisdefign  is  to  overthrow  the  Myfleries  of  Faith. 

This  is  too  true.  But  upon  vjhzx.  grounds  ^  Is  it  not  upon  this  Principle, 
that  our  Certainty  depends  upon  the  clear  Perception  of  the  Agreement  or  Difagree- 
ment of  Ideas  in  any  Propofjtion  >  Now  let  the  Propofition  come  to  us  either 
by  Humane  or  Divine  Authority :  If  our  Certainty  depends  upon  this,  we  can 
be  no  more  certain,  than  we  have  clear  Perception  of  the  Agreement  or  Difa- 
greement of  the  Ideas  contained  in  it;  and  fo  bethought  he  had  reafon  to  reject 
all  Myfleries  of  Faith,  which  are  contained  in  Propofitions  upon  your  grounds 
of  Certainty. 

But  you  fay,  you  own  the  infallible  Truth  of  the  Scriptures,  and  that  where 
you  wait  the  Evidence  of  Things  there  is  ground  enough  for  you  to  helieve,  hecaufe 
God  hath  faid  it.  I  do  verily  believe  you,  becaufe  I  have  a  far  greater  Opini- 
on of  your  Sincerity  and  Integrity  than  I  fee  realon  for,  as  to  the  other  Per- 
fon  who  pretends  mightily  to  own  the  Authority  of  Scripture  at  the  fame  time 
when  he  undermines  it.  For  his  Words  are.  The  Authority  of  God  or  Divine 
Revelation  is  the  Manijtfiatiou  of  Truth  hy  Truth  it  felf^  to  whom  it  is  impoffihli 

ta 


532  Ah  siNSWEKto 


to  lye,  p.  i6.  But  when  he  comes  to  (late  the  point,  how  far  we  are  to  be- 
lieve upon  Divine  Revelation,  he  hath  thefe  Words,  6"-^^/.  2.  ch.  i.  ».  10.  The 
natural  Refult  of  what  hath  been  faid  is,  That  to  believe  the  Divinity  of  Scrip- 
ture, or  the  Senfe  of  my  Paffage  thereof  without  rational  Proofs,  and  an  evident 
Co»fifteyicy  is  a  hlameahle  Credulity,  and  a  temerarian  Opinion  ordinarily  grounded 
upon  an  ignorant  and  wilful  Difpofition.  And  in  the  next  Chapter  he  faith,  That 
Revelation  is  not  a  neceffitatirtg  Motive,  hut  a  mean  Information.  Not  the  bare 
Authority  of  him  that  [peaks,  but  the  clear  Conception  I  form  of  what  he  fays  is  the 
ground  of  my  Perfuafion.  And  again,  Whoever  reveals  any  thing,  his  words  mufl 
he  in'clligihk,  and  the  matter  poffihle.  Tlys  ride  holds  good,  let  God  or  Man  he 
the  Revealer.  As  for  unintelligible  Relations,  we  can  no  more  believe  them  from 
the  Revelation  of  God,  than  from  that  of  Man.  Sedt.  z.  ch.  2.  n.  16.  p.  41. 

But  uiiat  are  all  thefe  things  to  you,  who  own,  That  tvhereyou  want  the  E- 
vidence  of  things,  the  Authority  of  Revelation  is  ground  enough  for  you  to  believe. 
I  do  not  impute  them  to  you,  but  I  muft  fay,  thit  he  alleges  no  ground  for  his 
fayings  but  your  ground  of  Certainty :  For  in  the  fame  Page  he  faiih,  That  the 
conceived  Ideas  of  things  are  the  only  fubje£ls  of  Believing,  Denying,  Approving^ 
aid  every  other  a£l  of  the  Vnderflanding.  All  the  difference  we  fee  is,  that  he 
applies  that  to  Propofitions  in  Scripture,  which  you  affirm'd  of  Propofitions  i» 
general,  \i\z.  that  our  Certainty  depends  upon  the  clear  Perception  of  the  Agree- 
ment or  Difagreement  of  the  Ideas  contained  in  them.  But  I  fliall  do  you  all  the 
Right  I  can,  as  to  this  matter,  by  fliewing  what  Reafon  I  had  to  fay,  that  your 
Notions  were  turned  to  other  purpofes  than  you  intended  them,  anJ  that  I  fliall 
make  app;ar  from  feveral  palTages  in  the  fame  Book. 
B,4.ch.3.  I.  You  own  the  great  Defedis  of  Humane  Knowledge,  notwithflanding  the 
Seft.  23.  j-^f^pig  jjg^  vi^e  have  by  Senfation  or  Refledion,    And  from  thefe  things, 

"  I,  Tne  Paucity  and  Imperfedion  of  our  Ideas  in  general ;  becaufe  our  Senfa- 
tion and  Reflexion  goes  fo  little  a  way  in  refped  ol  the  vaft  extent  of  the  Uni- 
verfe ;  and  the  infinite  Power  and  Wifdom  of  the  Creator  of  it ;  So  that  what 
we  fee  in  the  intelle(9:ual  and  fenfible  World,  holds  no  proportion  to  what  we 
fee  nor:  and  whatever  we  can  reach  with  our  Eyes  or  our  Thoughts  of  ei- 
ther of  them,  is  but  a  point  almoll  nothing  in  comparifon  of  the  reft. 

2.  The  want  of  Ideas  which  we  are  capable  of,  becaufe  although  we  have 
Sefi.  2i    Weas  in  general  of  Bulk,  Figure  and  Motion  ;  yet  v/e  are  to  fcek  as  to  the  par- 
ent,*    '   ticulars  of  them  in  the  greateft  part  of  the  Bodies  of  the  Univerfe',-  although 
we  daily  fee  their  Efleds.     And  that  becaufe  of  the  Diftance  and  Remotenefs 
■  of  fome,  and  the  Minutenefs  of  others,  and  therefore  we  cannot  come  to  a 
fcientifical  Knowledge  in  Natural  Things,  much  lefs  to  that  of  Spiritual  Beings, 
of  which  we  have  only  fome  few  and  fuperficial  Ideas. 
Scft.zS.        3.  Want  of  a  difcoverable  Connexion  between  thofe  Ideas  we  have.    Becaufe 
the  Mechanical  Affedions  of  Bodies  have  no  Affinity  at  all  with  the  Ideas  they 
produce  in  us ;  there  being  no  conceivable  Connexion  between  any  Impulfe 
of  any  foit  of  Body,  and  any  Perception  of  any  Colour  or  Smell  which  we 
find  in  our  Minds.     And  fo  the  Operations  of  our  Minds  upon  our  Bodies  are 
inconceivable  by  us  j  And  the  Coherence  and  Continuity  of  Parts  of  Matter; 
and  the  original  Rules  and  Communication  of  Motion,  are  fuch  as  we  can  dif- 
cover  no  natural  Connexion  with  any  Ideas  we  have, 
seft.  30.        4.  Want  of  finding  out  fuch  intermediate  Ideas,  which  may  fliew  us  the  A- 
greement  or  Difigreement  they  have  one  with  another.     And  this  for  want 
of  due  Application  of  Mind  inacquiring,  examining  and  due  comparing  thofe 
Ideas;  and  by  ill  ufe  of  Words,  which  have  fo  much  perplexed  and  confound- 
ed Mens  underffanding. 
Book  4.        1.  You  own  the  many  Fallings  in  our  Reafon.     By  which  you  underfland 
^j];^'''    two  Faculties  in  our  iMinds,  viz.  Sagacity,  and  Illation-,  the  one  finding  out, 
and  the  other  ordering  the  intermediate  Ideas ;  fo  as  to  diicover  the  Connexion 
'  between 


Seft, 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Letter.  533 

between  them.     But  Reafon,  you  fay,  fails  where  our  Ideas  failm^  and  becauCe  ^^^'  ?• 
of  the  Ohfctirity,  Co»fufion  or  Imptrfe^ion  of  oar  Ideas,  both  as  to  Matter  and  our.  Seft.  lo. 
Minds,  and  the  Divine  Operations  j  and  for  want  of  intermediate  Ideas,-  andsefti,. 
by  proceeding  upon  falfe  Principles  and  dubious  ExpreffionS. 

3.  As  to  Pr-opofitioni yow  own  thefe  things;  ^^^'  "• 

I.  Thofe  are  according  to  Reafon,  whofe  Truth  we  can  difcover,  by  exa- B.4-ch.i7. 
mining  and  tracing  thofe  Ideas  ve  have  by  Senfation  or  Reflexion  ;  and  by  na-  '-^^^-^S- 
tural  Deduction  find  to  be  true  or  probable; 

t'  Thofe  are  above  Reafon,  whofe  Truth  or  Probability  we  cannot  by  Rea- 
fon derive  from  thofe  Princi]  les. 

3.  Thofe  are  contrary  to  Reafon,  which  are  inconfiflent  with,  or  irrccon- 
cileable  to  our  clear  and  diftindt  Ideas. 

4.  As  to  Faith  and  Divine  Revelation  you  bwrr, 

I.  That  Faith  is  the  Alferit  to  any  Propofition,  not  thus  made  out  by  de-  seft!^2^** 
dudtions  of  Reafon,  but  upon  the  Credit  of  the  Propofer,  as  coming  immedi- 
ately from  God  which  we  call  Revelation. 

X.  That  th'ing'i  al>ove  Reafon  and  not  contrary  to  it,  are  properly  Matters  of 
Faith,  and  to  beaflented  to  on  the  Authority  of  Divine  Reve'ation. 

Thus  far  I  have  endeavoured  with  all  poflible  Brevity  and  Clearnefs  to  lay 
down  your  Senfe  about  this  matter.  By  which  it  is  fufficiently  proved  that  I 
had  reafon  to  fay,  that  your  Notions  uere  carried  heyond your  Intention. 

But  you  (till  feem  concerned  that  I  quote  your  Words^  although  I  deciarej  P-  59- 
that  they  were  uled  to  other  purpofes  than  you  intended  them.  I.  do  confefs 
to  you,  that  the  Reafon  of  it  \yas,  that  I  found  your  Notions  as  to  Certainty  hy 
Ideas  was  the  main  Foundation  which  the  Author  of  Chrifiianity  not  Myfierious 
went  upon  j  and  that  he  had  nothing  which  look'd  like  Reafon,  if  that  Prin- 
ciple were  removed;  which  made  me  fo  much  endeavour  to  fhew  that  it  would 
not  hold.  And  fo  I  fuppole  the  Reafon  of  my  mentioning  your  words  fo  often  ^'  ^'' 
is  no  longer  a  Riddle  to  you. 

Fnow  proceed  to  other  particulars  of  your  Vindication.  - 

Among  other  Arguments  againfl  this  Principe  of  Certainty,  I  inftanced  in 
ihe  Being  of  Spiritual  Sahfiances  within  our  felves,  from  the  Operations  of  our 
Minds,  which  we  do  perceive  hy  Reflexion,  as  Thinking,  Doubting^  Confidering,  &c. 
This  Argument  1  yielded  to  be  very  good  ;  but  that  which  I  urged  from  thence 
was,  that  it  could  not  be  from  thofe  ftmple  Ideas  of  the  Operations  of  the  Mind ; 
becaufe  you  had  affirmed  that  it  is  impoflible  for  us  by  the  Contemplation  of 
our  Ideas  to  be  certain  without  Revelation  that  a  material  Subllance  cannot 
think.  This  is  a  point,  in  my  apprehenfion,  of  great  confequence,  and  there- 
fore! muft  more  ttridtly  examine  what  you  fay  in  anfwer  to  it. 

Which  is,  That  thinking  is  inconfiflent  with  the  Idea  of  Self-fuhfiflence^  and   ^'  '^^' 
therefore  hath  a   neceffary  connexion  with  a  Support  or  Suhjeil  of  Inhefion  ;  i.  e. 
If  there  be  Thinking  there  muff  be  fomething  that  Thinks. 

But  the  que'lion  is,  Whether  that  Something  be  a  Material  or  Immaterial 
Subf^ancfc?  But  this  Thinking  Suhflance  is  iu  your  fenfe  a  Spirit.  The  quell  ion 
I  put  is,  whether  Matter  can  think  or  not  ?  If  not,  then  the  Subftance  which 
thinks  mufl  be  Immaterial;  if  it  can  think,  then  there  can  be  no  evidence 
from  the  Idea  of  Thinking  to  prove  t  he  Subftance  which  thinks  to  be  Immaterial. 

This  I  take  to  be  plain  Reafoning  ;  which  you  mufl  allow,  becaufe  itisa- 
\>ou\.  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  two  fimple  Ide.u^  viz.  Jhatter  and  Thinking. 

But  you  fay.  That  the  general  Idea  of  Suhflance  being  the  fame  every-ivhere,  P.  i^i^' 
the  Modification  of  Thinking,  or  the  Power  of  Ihinking  joyy,ed  to  it  makes  it  a 
Spirit,  without  confidering  what  other  Modification  it  has,  as  whether  it  h  is  the 
Modification  of  Solidity  or  not.  As  on  the  other  fide,  Subftance,  which  hath  the 
Modification  of  Solidity  is  Matter,  whether  it  his  the  Modification  of  Thinkingor 
not.     And  therefore  if  I  mean  by  a  Spiritual  and  Immaterial  Suhflame^  you  grant 

Y  y  y  '  that 


534^ An  ANSWER  td 

that  you  have  mt  proved,  nor  upon  your  frinciples  can  it  he  demonftratively  pro- 
veely  that  there  is  an  Immaterial  Suhftance  in  us  that  thinks. 

I  have  thus  fet  down  your  own  Words,  that  you  may  not  complain  I  have 
Id.  p.  74.  done  you  Injury.     But  when  you  yiat  in  demonjlratively  proved,  I  fuppofe  you 
82.  mean  i«  the  way  of  Certainty  ly  Ideas  ;  for  concerning  that  our  difpute  is.  And 
therefore  when  you  add,  That  you  expe^  that  I [hould  conclude  it  demonftrahle 
from  Principles  of  Philojophy,  you  muft  give  me  leave  to  ("ay,  this  is  going  off 
from  the  bufinefs  before  us ;  which  is  about  your  Principles  oj  Certainty  from 
Ideas;  for  it  was  only  to  that  purpofe,  that  I  brought  this  argument  to  prove, 
that  we  cannot  from  our  Ideas  be  certain  of  one  of  the  points  of  greatf  ft  impor- 
tance, viz.  that  there  is  a  Spiritual  Subftance  within  us;  and  yet  the  operati- 
ons of  our  Mind  are  made  one  of  the  Sources  of  iho^ejimple  Ideas,  which  are 
made  by  you  the  Foundation  of  Knowledge  and  Certainty.     So  that  the  point 
before  us  is,  whether  this  Aflertion  of  yours,  that  the  Power  of  thinking  may 
Belong  to  modified  Matter,  doth  not  overthrow  your  Certainty  by  Ideas  > 

No,  fay  you,  that  which  you  are  certain  of  by  the  Idea  is  only,  that  there 
is  in  us  a  Spiritual  Suhflance,  and  that,  you  fay,  implies  no  more  than  a  Think- 
ing Sulftance,  i.  e.  that  by  Thinking  you  can  prove  you  have  a  Power  of  Think- 
ing, which  I  believe  may  be  demon/lratively  proved. 

But  I  pray  Sir,  confider  how  this  queftion  arofe,  it  was  from  your  diflin- 
guifhing  Spiritual  and  Corporeal  Suhflances  from  each  other  ;  and  faying  that 
voe  have  as  clear  a  Notion  of  a  Spirit  as  we  have  of  a  Body.  Againfl  this  1  urged, 
that  if  it  be  poflible  for  Matter  to  think,  which  you  aflert,  then  from  the  Idea 
of  Thinking,  we  cannot  prove  the  Certainty  of  a  Spiritual  Subftance  within 
us,  where  it  is  plain,  that  a  Spiritual  Suhjlance  is  oppofed  to  the  Power  of  Mat' 
ter.  It  is  not  whether  Matter  fo  modified  can  think,  but  whether  Matter  cart 
think ;  and  let  it  be  modified  how  it  will,  Matter  is  Matter  ftiil.  But  the  Power 
of  thinking  makes  it  a  Spirit,  fay  you.  But  doth  it  ceafe  to  be  Matter  or 
not?  If  not,  then  it  is  Matter  ftill  endued  with  a  Power  of  Thinking;  and  fo 
our  Idea  can  be  no  other,  than  of  a  Material  Thinking  Subflance.  But  you 
fay  further,  that  the  Power  of  thinking  makes  it  a  Spirit,  without  confidering 
what  other  Modifications  it  has,  whether  it  has  the  Modification  of  Solidity  or  not. 
That  is,  "  Although  it  be  really  a  Material  Subftance,  yet  the  Modification  of 
"  Thinking  makes  it  a  Spiritual  Suhflance  ^  for  we  are  to  go  no  farther  than 
"  that  Modification  of  Thinking,  and  from  thence  we  are  to  conclude  it  to  be 
"  a  Spiritual  Suhflance.  But  we  are  now  enquiring  not  into  the  bare  Modifi- 
cation of  thinking ;  but  whether  from  thence  we  can  prove  an  Immaterial  Suh- 
flance within  us,  or  which  is  all  one,  a  Spiritual  Suhflance  as  oppofed  to  Cor- 
poreal, which  is  your  own  Diftinftion.  And  that  1  may  not  be  thought  to  do 
you  injury,  I  fliall  produce  your  own  Words. 
B.  2.  Ch.  By  the  fimple  Ideas  we  have  taken  from  our  own  minds  we  are  ahle  to  frame 
23.  Seft.  ^f^g  complex  Idea  of  a  Spirit.  And  thus  hy  putting  together  the  Ideas  of  Thinkings 
perceiving,  Liherty  and  Power  of  moving  themfelves,  we  have  as  clear  a  Per- 
ception and  Notion  of  Immaterial  Suhjiances,  as  well  as  Material.  So  that  here 
we  have  two  things  clear. 

I.  That  a  Spirit  and  Immaterial  Suhflance  are  the  fame. 
1.  That  from  the  Operations  of  cur  Minds,  we  have  a  clear  Idea  of  an  /w- 
material  Suhflance  within  us. 
Sefi.  17.  Again  you  fay.  That  the  primary  Ideas  we  have  of  Body  as  contradiflinguified 
to  Spirit,  are  the  Cohefion  of  folid  and  confequently  fe  par  able  parts,  and  a  Power 
of  communicating  Motion  hy  Impulfe.  Thefe  you  think  are  the  Original  Ideas  pre- 
per  and  peculiar  to  Body.  Here  Body  is  contradiflinguijhed  to  Spirit ;  and  as  k 
is  fo,  the  Cohefion  of  folid  and  feparahle  Parts  is  made  one  of  the  original  Ideas 
proper  and  peculiar  to  Body  as  diflinguiflied  from  a  Spiritual  Sul fiance :.,  How 
then,  I  pray,  can  a  Spiritual  Suhflance  confift  oi  folid  and  feparahle  Parts  .■>  For 

what 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Letter.  535 

whatever  is  (olid,  you  grant  to  be  coMfeqaently  feparahle.  This  feems  to  me 
to  confound  the  ideas  of  BoJy  and  Spirit,  which  you  had  taken  fo  much  care 
to  diftinguilh  ,•  and  fo  mufl  deftroy  all  Certainty  of  a  Spiritual  Subftance  frotA 
your  Ideas.  For  although  the  bare  fmple  Idea  of  Thinking  may  be  faid  to  be 
diftindt  from  that  oH [olid Body ;  yet  it  is  impoflible  from  that  Idea  fo  explai- 
ned to  prove  a  Spiritual  Suhjlattce^  as  diftindl  from  Body.  Which  was  the 
thing  I  intended  to  prove. 

But  you  go  on  to  compare  the  Complex  Idea  of  Spirit  and  Body  in  thefe 
Words  ;  Let  us  compare  then  our  Complex  Idea  of  Spirit,  without  cur  Complex^^'  "' 
Idea  of  Body.  Our  Idea  oj  Body  is  an  extended  folidSuhJlance,  capahle  of  commit' 
nicating  Motion  hy  Impulfe  ;  and  our  Idea  of  our  Souls  is  of  a  Suljlance  that  thinks 
and  has  a  Tower  of  exciting  Motion  in  Body  ly  Will  and  Thought.  Thefe  you 
think  are  our  Complex  Ideas  of  Soul  and  Body  as  contradiflinguifhed.  Here  you  do 
not  [peak  of  the  bare  Ideas  of  Thinking  and  Solidity  ;  but  of  the  different  Suh- 
ftances,  and  one  is  faid  to  be  a  folid  Suhftance  and  the  other  a  Suhflance  that 
thinks. 
I  (hall  add  onepa/Iage  more  to  the  fame  purpofe. 

The  Idea  we  have  of  Spirit  compared  with  that  ive  have  of  Body,  flands  thia»  Sefl. }», 
The  Suhflance  of  Spirit  is  unknown  to  us,  and  fo  is  the  Suhflance  of  Body  equally  un- 
known to  us.  Here  we  have  again  the  Suhflance  of  Spirit  and  the  Suhflance  of  Bo- 
dy  diftinguiHied  from  each  other;  and  not  the  bare  Modifications,  So  that  I 
need  no  body  to  anfwcr  you  but  your  felf.  But  leafl  fuch  expreflions  fhouid 
be  thought  a  mere  flip  of  the  Pen;  you  are  pleafed  again  to  aflert  the  Notion  ojs^^  ,j,. 
an  Immaterial  knowing  Suhflance  to  imply  no  more  of  a  Contradiction  than  an  ex- 
tended divifihle  Body. 

■     And  yet  after  all  this  you  confefs,  That  you  have  not  proved  an  Immaterial  ?•  ^1- 
Suhflance,  and  that  it  cannot  he  proved  upon  your  Principles. 

What  is  the  meaning  of  this?  I  cannot  think  you  intended  to  leflen  the  Au- 
thority of  your  Book  in  fo  confiderable  a  part  of  it :  And  I  fliould  much  rather 
have  thought  the  latter  PaflageaT?/^  of  your  Pen,  but  that  in  your  Letter  you 
go  about  to  defend  it.     Therefore  I  muft  attend  your  Motions  in  it. 

You  fay,  That  all  the  great  ends  of  Religion  and  Morality  are  fecured  barely  p.  <58. 
hy  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul  without  a  necejfary  fuppofition  that  the  Soul  is  Im- 
material. 

I  am  of  opinion,  that  the  great  ends  of  Religion  and  Morality  are  left  fecured 
by  the  Proofs  of  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul  from  its  Nature  and  Properties ;  and 
which  I  think  prove  it  Immaterial.  I  donotqueftion  whether  God  can  give 
Immortality  to  a  Material  Suhflance ;  but  I  fay  it  takes  off"  very  much  from  the 
evidence  of  Immortality,  if  it  depend  wholly  upon  God's  giving  that,  which 
of  its  own  Nature  it  is  not  capable  of.  For  if  the  Soul  be  a  material  Suhflance  it 
is  really  nothing  but  Life;  or  Matter  put  into  Motion  with  fuch  Organs  and 
Parts  as  sre  necelTary  to  hold  them  together ;  and  when  Death  comes,  then 
this  Material  Suhftance  fo  modified  is  lofl.  God  may  by  his  Power  grant  a 
new  Life ;  but  will  any  man  fay,  God  can  preferve  the  Life  of  a  Man  when  he 
is  dead  ?  This  is  a  p'ain  Abfurdity,  and  I  think  no  fuch  thing  tends  to  preferve 
Religion  or  Morality. 

Mr.  Hohles  fpeaks  very  confonantly  to  his  own  Principles  (although  not  to 
thofe  o\  Religion  and  Morality.')  For  he  faith.  That  the  univerfe  heing  the  Ag-  Leviath. 
gregate  of  all  Bodies,  there  is  no  real  part  of  it  that  is  not  alfo  a  Body.  And  lb  '^^'  34" 
he  laith,  That  Suhflance  and  Body  fignifie  the  fame  thing,  and  therefore  Suhflance 
Incorporeal  areWordswhich  deftroy  one  another.  But  what  then  is  a  Spirits  That^ 
he  faith,  in  the  proper  fignification  of  it  in  common  Speech,  is  either  a  fuhtle,  fluid^ 
invifihle  Body,  oraGhojt,  or  other  Idol  or  Phantafm  of  the  Imagination.  But  is 
there  not  an  Immortal  Soul  m  Man?  The  Promife  of  Immortality,  izwh  he,  is 
made  to  the  Man  and  not  to  the  Soul ;  and  Immortal  Life  doth  not  begin  in  Man 

Yyy  1  Jill 


53^         A  ANSWER  to  ,  

////  the  Refurre£lion.  From  whence  it  is  plain,  he  look'd  on  the  Soul  as  nothing 
Leviath.  but  the  Life  ;  and  fo  he  faith,  That  Soul  and  Life  in  Scripture  do  ufua^y  Jignifie 
ch.  38.  the  fame  thing.  And  in  the  Vindication  of  his  Leviathan,  he  faith,  That  his 
vindicat,  Vo^rine  is^  that  the  Soul  is  not  a  feparated  Suhflance^  hut  that  the  Man  at  his 
ofLcviath.  ^cfurretlion  jhall he  revived.  And  he  anfwers  that  place,  Fear  not  them  which 
^'^'^^'  kill  the  Body,  but  cannot  kill  the  Soul  •  thus,  Man  cannot  kill  a  Soul,  for  the  Man 
killed  Jhall  revive  again.  I  think  he  might  as  well  have  faid,  That  Man  cannot 
kill  the  Body ;  for  that  Iball  be  revived  at  the  Refurretlion. 

But  what  is  aSthis  to  you  >  I  hope  nothing  at  all.  But  it  fliews,  that  thofe 
who  have  gone  about  to  overthrow  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul  hy  Nature,  have 
not  been  thought  to  fecure  the  great  ends  of  Religion  and  Morality. 

And  although  we  think  the  feparate  State  of  the  Soul  after  Death  is  fuffici- 
ently  revealed  in  Scripture,  yet  it  creates  a  great  difficulty  in  underftanding 
it,  if  the  Soul  be  nothing  but  Life,  or  a  Material Sulfiance  which  muft  be  dil- 
folved  when  Life  is  ended.  For  if  the  Soul  be  a  Material  Sulfiance  it  muft  be 
made  up  as  others  are,  o\  the  Cohefion  of  folid  and  fe par  ate  Parts,  how  minute 
and  invifible  foever  they  be.  And  what  is  it  which  fliould  keep  them  together, 
when  Life  is  gone  ?  So  that  it  is  no  eafie  matter  to  give  an  account,  how  the 
Soul  fhould  becapableof /wwor/di/i/j',  unlefs  it  bean  Immaterial  Sulfiance ;  and 
then  we  know  the  Solution  of  the  Textijreof  bodies  cannot  reach  the  Soul  be- 
ing of  a  different  Nature. 

And  this  is  no  more  than  what  the  wifeft  and  moft  intelligent  Philofopbert 
have  afferted,  merely  from  the  confideration  of  the  Nature  and  Properties 
of  the  Soul :  as  you  very  well  know ;  and  I  need  not  for  your  fake,  run  into 
fuch  a  Digreffion,  (or  as  you  call  it,  ftep  out  of  my  way')  any  farther,  than  you 
P.  69.  give  occafion  for  it  in  what  follows.  For  you  tell  me,  Tou  have  great  Authori- 
ties tojuflifie  your  ufinga  Spiritual  Sulfiance  without  excluding  Materiality  from 
it.  And  for  this  you  refer  me  to  two  great  men  indeed  among  the  Romans, 
Cicero  and  Virgil.  I  was  furprized  at  what  you  fay  out  of  Cicero,  having  beea 
no  ftranger  to  his  Writings  about  thefe  matters,  and  I  have  confulted  the  place 
you  refer  to ;  where  you  fay  that  he  oppofes  Corptts  to  Ignis  and  Anima,  i.  e. 
Breath;  and  that  the  Foundation  of  his  diflindlion  of  the  Soul  from  the  Body- 
is,  lecaufe  it  is  fo  fultle  as  to  le  cut  of  Sight.  It  is  a  very  eafie  matter  to  mul- 
tiply Citations  out  of  Cicero,  where  Spiritus  and  Anima  are  both  taken  for 
Breath ;  but  any  one  who  will  but  read  the  very  beginning  of  his  Tufculan 
Que[iions,  may  underftand  his  meaning.  For  in  the  Entrance  of  that  Difpute  he 
takes  Animus  for  the  Soul,  and  neither  Anima  nor  Spiritus  .•  and  he  tells  us, 
there  were  two  opinions  about  it  at  Death.  Some  held  a  Diceffus  Animi  a  Cor- 
pore,  a  departure  of  the  Soul  from  the  Body,  others  faid,  that  the  Soul  never 
departed,  but  was  extinguifhed  with  Life .-  and  the  feveral  opinions  he  fets  down 
at  large,  Ch.  9,  10.  and  then  Ch.  11.  he  fumms  up  the  different  opinions;  and 
faith  he,  If  it  le  the  Heart,  or  Blood,  or  Brain ;  lecaufe  it  is  a  Body,  it  will  he 
extinguifhed  with  it :  IfitleAmmz,  the  Vital  Breath,  it  mil  he  dijftpated ;  if 
it  le  Fire,  it  will  le  extinguifhed.  It  is  true,  he  diHinguillies  here  the  Vital 
Breath  from  the  Body;  and  no  one  queRions  fuch  a  difiindion  of  the  Animal 
and  Vita!  Spirits  from  the  grofler  parts  of  the  Body ;  but  all  this  proceeds  upon 
the  Suppofition  of  thofe  who  held  nothing  to  furvive  after  Death;  but  then 
he  goes  on  to  thofe  who  held  the  Souls,  when  they  are  gone  out  of  their  Bodies, 
to  go  to  Heaven  as  their  proper  Halitation.  And  here  he  plainly  fuppofes  the 
Soul  not  to  be  sl  j/iner  fort  of  Body,  but  of  a  different  Nature  from  the  Body 
which  it  leaves.  tJam  Corpus  quidem,  faith  he,  quajivas  eft  ^  receptaculum  Ani- 
mi, C.  Z2.  and  elfewhere  he  calls  the  Body  the  Prifon  of  the  Soul,  C.  30. 
and  faith,  That  every  wife  Man  is  glad  to  le  difmijfed  out  of  the  Bonds  and  Dark- 
nefs  of  it :  and  his  bufinefs  in  the  Body  is  fecernere  Animum  a  Cor  pore,  to  draw  off 
the  Soul  from  the  Body ;  which  the  Philofophers  called  Comment atio  mortis,  \.  e. 

a  Con- 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Letter.  537 


a  Continual  ^Exercije  ofD)ing  ;  therefore,  faith  he,  Dhjungamus  nos  ^  Corpori- 
hus,  id  eft,  con[uefcamus  wort.  Is  it  poffiblc  now  to  think  lo  great  a  Man  look'd 
on  the  Soul  but  as  a  Modif cation  of  the  Body,  which  muft  be  at  an  end  with 
Life?  Inftead  of  it,  there  are  feveral  things  very  remarkable  in  this  very  Book 
concernirg  the  Immortality  of  Souls  by  Nature. 

I.  He  extremely  defpifes  thofe  who  made  the  Soul  a  mere  Mode  of  Matter 
which  was  extinguiflied  with  Life;  and  he  faith,  they  ^exQpleheii  Philofophi, 
Ch.  zj.  a  mean  fort  of  Philofophers,  and  in  another  place  minuti  fhilofophi^ 
De  SeneA.  c.  zj.  who  held  there  was  no  Senfe  after  Death,  But  he  reprefents 
Cato  there,  as  weary  o^the  Noife  and  Filth  of  this  World^  and  longing  to  go  to 
far  letter  Company.  0  praclarum  diem,  cum  ad  illud  Divinum  Animorum  Conci- 
itum  Cmtumq ;  proficifcar,  atq  ;  ex  hac  turhti  ^  colluvione  difcedam  I  Did  thefe 
men  look  on  the  Souls  of  Men,  as  kiere  Modifcations  of  Matter  > 

X.  He  urges  the  general  Confent  of  Nations  for  the  Permanency  of  Souls  after 
Dtath.  c.  \6.  and  he  affirms  Nature  it  felf  de  Immortalitate  Animorum  tacith 
judicare,  c.  14.  And  I  do  not  think  the  general  Confent  of  Mankind  in  this 
Matter,  i'o  uncertain,  or  fb  flight  an  argument,  as  fome  have  made  it ,-  even 
fince  the  late  Difcoveries  :  as  I  think  it  were  no  hard  Matter  to  prove;  but  I 
fliall  not  here  go  out  of  my  way  to  doit. 

5.  The  molt  ancient  Philofophers  o{ Greece  held  the  fame  opinion  as  he  fliews 
from  Pherecydes,  Pythagoras,  Socrates,  Plato,  &€.  c.  1 5,  1 7,  &c.  and  they 
went  upon  far  better  Reafons  thzn  the  other,  as  he  proves  at  large,  c.  zi,  zz,  Z5. 

4.  That  the  Bodies  and  Souls  of  Men  have  a  different  Frame  and  Original. 
Our  Bodies,  he  faith,  c.  19.  are  made  of  Terreflrial  Principles;  but  the  Souls, 
he  (aith,  are  of  a  divine  Original;  and  if  we  could  give  an  account  how  they  were 
made,  we  Jhould  likewife  how  they  were  diffolved,  c.  14,  as  we  may  oi  the  Parts 
and  Contexture  of  Bodies  ;  but  faith  he,  Animorum  nulla  in  terris  origo  inveniri 
poteft,  nihil  efi  enim  in  animis  mixtum  atque  concretum,  aut  quod  ex  terra  natum 
atque  fi^um  ejfe  videatfr,  c.  xj.  So  that  here  he  plainly  makes  a  Difference 
between  our  Bodily  Suhflance,  and  that  of  our  Souls,  which  have  no  bodily 
Texture  and  Compofition  :  becaufe  there  is  no  material  Subftance,  which  can 
reach  to  the  wonderful  Faculties  and  Operations  of  the  Soul,  and  therefore  he 
concludes  in  thefe  words,  Singularis  efi  igitur  quadam  natura  atque  vis  animife- 
juntla  ah  kisufitatis  notifquenaturis.  What  can  exprefs  the  Soul  to  be  of  a  dif- 
ferent Subftance  from  the  Body,  if  thefe  words  do  it  not  ?  And  prefently  adds. 
That  the  Mind  is  of  a  divine  and  Spiritual  feature  and  above  Material  Compofition 
asGod  himfelf  is. 

I  hope  this  mav  give  yoH  fatisfadlion  as  to  Cicero,  how  far  he  was  from  ma- 
king the  Soul  a  Material  Suhflance.  And  the  only  place  you  produce  out  of  him 
c.  zz.  proves  nothing  but  that  the  Soul  is  invifihle^  as  you  may  fee  by  look- 
ing upon  it  again. 

Asx^oFirgil,  you  quote  that  Expreffion,  Dum  Spiritus  hos regit  artus ;  where 
it  is  taken  tor  the  Fital  Spirit;  which  fenfel  know  no  body  queftionsj  and 
fo  Tully  exprefles  Lifcj  qua  Corpore  ^  Spiritu  continetur,  and  oppofes  it  to  a 
Life  of  Immortal  Fame,  which  he  there  fpeaks  of,  Pro  Marcello,  c.  9.  but  the 
only  matter  in  debate  is,  Whether  they  excluded  any  other  Notion  of  Spirit, 
which  was  not  done,  as  I  have  made  it  appear  concerning  C/cfr<»,  and  folfhall 
of  Virgil  too. 
Forfoon  after,  Mneid  4.  ^85-.  he  hath  thefe  Words. 

Et  cum  frigida  mors  Animts  feduxerit  Artus, 

Omnihus  Vmhra  locis  adero,  dahis  improhe  pcenas. 

Which  ihews  that  Virgtl^sA  believe  the  Soul  to  be  more  than  a  mere  Vital 
Spirit,  and  that  it  fubfifted  and  adled  in  a  feparate  State :  And  it  is  obferved 
hy  Servius,  that  Virgil  uks  Spiritus^  Mens  &nd  Animus  for  the  fame.  In/iE- 
neid  6.  7x6. 

Spiritus 


a,^ 


538 An  AN S  WE  K  to     

spirit  us  htus  alit,  totamj ;  infuja  per  artus. 

Mens  agitat  molem 

And  he  proves,  that  Virgil  zikxted  the  Immortality  of  Souls.,  and  anfwers  the 
arguments  againft  it ;  and  as  far  as  he  could  under  ft  and,  he  faith,  that  our  Bodies 
are  from  the  Elements  and  our  Souls  from  God;  and  the  Poets  intention  was,  Vt 
Animos  tmmortales   dicer et.     So  that  neither  Cicero  nor  Virgil  do  you  any 
kindnefs  in  this  matter,  being  both  Aflertors  of  the  Souls  Immortality  by  Ha- 
p.  17.    ture.     If  thefe  will  not  do,  you  bring  me  to  Scripture,  and  fay,  that  Solomon 
himfelf f peaks  after  the  fame  manner  about  Manand  Beafl,  as  the  one  dieth,  fo  di' 
eth  the  other,  yea,  they  have  all  one  Spirit,  Ecclef.  ^.  19.    I  will  not  difpute 
about  the  proper  Senfe  of  the  Hebrew  Word,  but  I  muft  about  Solomons  Senfe. 
For  although  he  makes  Life  and  Death  common  to  Man  and  Beafl ;  yet  he 
faith,  V.  zi.  The  Spirit  of  a  Man  goeth  upward,  and  the  Spirit  of  a  Beaffgoeth 
down  to  the  Earth.   But  you  fay.  If  the  Motion  of  a  Spirit  excludes  Materiality^ 
then  the  Spirit  of  a  Beaji  mufl  he  Immaterial,  as  well  as  that  of  a  Man,     I  an- 
^er,  that  although  the  bare  Word  doth  not  prove  it,  yet  the  defign  of  Solo- 
mon's Dilcoui  fe  doth,  and  fo  the  going  upward  of  the  Spirit  of  a  Man  muft  be  un- 
dcrftood  in  a  very  different  Senle,  from  the  going  downward  of  the  Spirit  of  a- 
Beajl.     For  he  faith  concerning  Man,  That  the  Spirit  fhall  return  to  God  that 
gave  it,  c.  ^^.  7,    To  what  purpofe  ?  To  be  diffipated  in  the  common  Air? 
or  to  be  loft  in  the  vaft  Confufion  of  Matter  ?  no,  but  he  concludes  his  Book 
thus;  V.  14.  For  God  fhall  bring  every  Work  into  Judgment  with  every  fecret 
thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil.     If  thefe  be  5o/ow5»'s  Words,  as 
no  doubt  they  were,  and  he  were  a  Man  of  Senfe,  and  laid  his  Sayings  together, 
as  no  doubt  he  did ;  thefe  laft  Words  muft  interpret  the  foregoing,  and  his  o- 
ther  Sayings  be  made  Confonant  to  this,    Tes,  you  may  (ay,  This  relates  to 
the  general  Judgment,  and  not  to  the  Soul's  SubfiJIence  after  Death.     But  Solomon 
fpeaks  of  the  Spirit  of  a  Man  going  upward  at  Death,  and  returning  to  God  that 
gave  it :  What  Senfe  is  there  in  this,  if  it  be  a  Material  Subfiance  which  vani- 
Ihes  and  is  diflolved  then  ?  And  if  the  Soul  be  not  of  it  felf  a  free,  thinking 
Subflance,  I  do  not  (ee  what  Foundation  there  is  in  Nature  for  a  Day  of  Judg- 
ment.   For  where  there  is  nothing  but  Matter,  there  is  no  Freedom  of  a(aing; 
where  there  is  no  Liberty,  there  is  no  Choice ;  where  there  is  no  Choice,  there 
is  no  room  for  Rewards  and  Punifhments,  and  confequently  no  Day  of  Judgment. 
But  Solomon  pofitively  concludes,  there  will  be  a  Judgment  to  come  as  to  good 
and  evil  Anions  in  another  World ,  and  therefore  he  muft  be  onderflood  in 
thole  Exprefiions,  to  mean  a  Free  and  Thinking,  and  confequently  an  Imma- 
terial Spirit  in  us. 
P.  72'        But  you  urge  farther,  That  our  Saviour  himfelf  oppofes  Spirit  to  Flefh  and 
Bones,  Luk.  24.  39.  i,  e.  tofuch  a  grofs  Compages as  could  be  feenand  felt.    The 
quetlion  then  was,  whether  it  were  the  real  Body  of  Chrift  or  only  an  Appea- 
rance of  it;  and  how  could  this  be  refolved  better  than  our  Saviour  doth? 
Handle  me  and  fee,  for  a  Spirit  hath  not  Flefh  and  Bones  as  you  fee  me  have.    But 
he  calls  this  a  Spirit.     What  follows  ?  Therefore  a  Spirit  is  only  an  Appearance  ? 
I  do  not  think  that  is  your  meaning     And  no  body  queftions  but  the  name  of 
Spirits  is  fometimes  given  to  Apparations.     But  this  is  far  from  our  cafe, 
which  is,  whether  that  real  Spiritual  Subfiance  we  find  in  our  felves  be  Mate- 
rial or  not  ?  Doth  a  Spiritual  Subfiance  imply  Matter  in  its  Idea  or  not  ?  You 
cannot  fay  it  doth :  Then  it  may  be  Immaterial :  But  how  come   we  to  know 
things  but  by  their  diftindt  Ideas  ?  Is  the  Idea  of  Matter  and  Spirit  diftindl 
or  not  ?  If  nor,  to  what  purpofe  do  we  talk  of  Knowledge  by  Ideas  when  we 
cannot  fo  much  as  know  Body  and  Spirit  from  each  other  by  them  ? 
r>73.         Is  it  then  any  Abfurdity  to  call   a  Spiritual  Subfiance  Immaterial?  No,  you 
fay,  Tou  would  not  be  thought  to  affirm,  that  Spirit  never  does  fignife  a  purely  Im- 
material Subfiance ;  for  in  that  Senfe  the  Scripture  attributes  the  Motion  of  Spirit 

to 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Letter.  539 

to  GoJ,  and  you  have  proved  from  your  Principles,  that  there  is  a  Spiritual  Im- 
material Suhjlance.  And  this  you  think  proves  an  Immaterial  Subflame  iu  your 
way  of  Idedi.  But  of  that  afterwards.  We  are  yet  iipon  the  proving  an  Im- 
material Sahflance  in  ourfelves  from  the  Ideas  we  have  hy  Sensation  and  Reflect- 
on.  Now,  1  iay ,  (lill  this  is  irapoffible  if  the  fpiritual  Suhjiance  in  us  may  he 
material.  And  at  laft  you  grant,  That  vehat  I  Jay  is  true,  that  it  cannot  upon  P.  74. 
thefe  Principles  he  demonftrated.  Tht  n  fay  I,  Tour  grounds  of  Certainty  from  1- 
dtoi  zxt  plainly  given  up.  Biit }  ou  fay,  //  may  he  proved prohahle  to  the  high-  r.  7S. 
eft  Degree.  But  that  is  not  the  point ;  for  it  is  not  Prohahility^  but  Certainty^ 
that  we  arepromi(ed  in  this  way  of  Ideas;  and  that  the  Foundation  of  our  Know- 
ledge znd  real  Certainty  lies  itt  them;  and  is  it  dwindled  into  ^  Frohahility  at 
laft  >.  The  only  reafon  \  had  to  engage  in  this  matter  was  a  bold  Aflertion,  that 
the  Ideas  we  have  hy  Seufation  or  Reflexion  are  the  fole  Matter  and  Foundation 
of  all  cur  Reafoning  :  and  that  our  Certainty  lies  in  perceiving  the  Agreement  or 
Difagreement  of  Ideas  as  expreffed  in  any  Propofition  ;  which  lafl:  are  your  own 
Words.  How  can  we  then  be  certain  where  we  have  no  Ideis  from  Senfation 
or  RefleSlion  to  procted  by  ?  As  in  the  prefent  cafe.  I  have  a  Mind  to  be  refol- 
ved  whether  the  Soul  in  Man  be  an  Immaterial  Suhflance  or  not ;  and  we  are 
to  judge  of  the  Truth  of  it  by  our  Ideas.  I  ask  then,  What  Idea  you  have  of 
the  Soul  by  Reflexion  .•»  Vou  anfwer,  That  it  is  a  Thinking  Suhflance.  But  doth 
this  prove  it  Immaterial  ^  You  anfwer,  That  you  cannot  he  certain^  hut  that  it 
is  very  prohahle.  Is  not  this  giving  up  the  Caufe  of  Certainty  ?  But  you  fay, 
7'ou  never  offer  d  it  as  a  way  of  Certainty  where  we  cannot  reach  Certainty.  But  p,  Sx, 
did  you  not  offer  to  put  us  into  the  way  of  Certainty  >  What  is  that,  but  to  at- 
tain Certainty  in  fuch  thing<;, .  where  we  could  not  othervtjfe  do  it  ?  And  what 
a  ilrange  way  is  this,  if  it  fails  us  in  fome  of  the  firft  Foundations  of  the  real 
Knowledge  of  our  felves  ?  But  you  fay.  If  I  dijlike  your  way,  you  defire  me  io 
fhew  you  a  hetter  way  of  Certainty  as  to  thefe  points. 

I  am  fenfible  that  you  defign  herein,  to  draw  me  out  of  my  way  to  do  you  a    p  g^ 
kindnefs ;  but  I  will  fo  far  gratirie  you  at  this  time  j  and  to  oblige  you  the  more, 
I  will  make  ufe  of  no  other  Principles  or  Ideas.,  than  fuch  as  I  meet  with  in 
your  Book,'  and  from  thence  I  donotdefpair  of  proving,  that  we  may  be  cer- 
tain that  a  material  Suhflance  cannot  think. 

And  the  method  llhall  proceed  in,  fliall  be  to  prove  it,  by  fuch  ways  andfteps- 
3S  you  have  dircdled  me  to,  although  you  might  not  think  to  find  them  io 
laid  together, 

I.  From  your  general  Principles  as  toKnowledg^e  and  Certainty.     You  fay, 
That  all  our  Knowledge  confifts  in  the  view  the  Mind  hath  of  its  own  Ideas;  which ^ook  4. 
u  the  utmofl  Light  and  greateft  Certainty^  we  with  our  Faculties  and  in  our  way  of^^-^' 
Know/edge  are  cspihle  of.  Here  you  refolve  our  Knowledge  and  Certainty  into  the 
view  of  the  Ideas  in  our  Minds  ;  therefore  by  thefe  iJeas  we  may  come  to  know 
iheCertainty  of  things;  not  in  the  Frame  and  inward  Eifenceof  them,  ss  you 
often  tell  us ;  but  by  the  Powers  and  Properties  which  belong  to  them.   fVhat- 
ever,  fay  you,  he  the  fecret  and  ahftrafl  Nature  of  Snhftance  in  general,  all  Z'/^'tf  Book  2. 
Ideas  we  have  of  particular  diflin^  Suhflances,  are  nothing  hut  feveral  Comhina-  ch.  25. 
tions  of Jimple  Ideas.  And  you  take  pains  to  prove,  That  Powers  make  a  great  part^^^'^'^^' 
vf  our  complex  Ideas  of  SuhftHnces  :  -ind  their  [econdary  Qualities  are  thofe  which  seft.  7. 
in  mofl  of  them  ferve  principally  to  diftinguifh  Stthflances  one  from  another  ;  which  - 

f econdary  Qualities,  as  has  heen  (hewn,  are  nothing  hut  hare  Powers.  So  that  our 
Knowledge  cannot  reach  the  inward  subftance  of  things;  and  all  our  Certainty 
of  Knowle'ge  as  to  them,  and  their  D;ftindion  from  each  other,  muft  depend 
on  tlio'e  Powers  and  Properties  which  are  known  to  u?. 

One  would  think  lometimes,  that  you  \A'ould  allow  Mankind  no  more  Know- 
ledge than  fuits  with  the  Conveniences  of  Life;  but  this  would  overthrow  the 
g'cat  defign  of  your  Book,  which  is  to  put  us  into  a  way  of  real  Certainty  hy 

the 


\i. 


540 An  ANSWER  to      - 

the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  Ideas  ;  and  where  ever  we  perceive  the  Agree- 
Book  4.    ^^j^^  ^^  Disagreement  of  any  of  our  Ideoj,  there  is  certain  Knowledge.     So  that 
Seft.^is.  here  you  own  we  may  come  to  a  Certainty  of  Knowledge  (which  is  beyond 
mere  Probability")  and  that  hy  perceiving  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  Ideas. 
1.  If  we  can  find  the  Difagreement  of  any  two  Ideas  upon  your  own  Princi- 
B.j.ch.io.  pies,  we  muft  do  thofc  oiBody  and  Spirit.    For  the  Idea  of  Matter  in  general, 
'5'    you  fay,  That  in  Truth  it  contains  nothing  hut  the  Idea  of  a  folid  Suhjlance,  which 
-    is  every-where  the  fame,  every-where  uniform.     And  that  Bodj _fiands  for  a  folid 
extended ^gured  Sulflance.     So  that  Solidity,  Extenfion  and  Figure  are  the  in- 
feparable  Properties  of  Bodies.     And  in  another  place  ycu  have  thefe  Words, 
^  s'a^'7  ^^•'^  primary  Ideai  we  have  peculiar  to  Bodies  as  contradifiinguifhed  to  Spirit^  are 
theCohefion  of  foltd  and  confequently  feparable  Parts,  and  a  Power  of  communica- 
ting Mot  ion  hy  Impulfe.     Thefe  you  think  are  the  original  Ideas  p  oper  and  pecu- 
liar to  Body,  for  Figure  is  hut  the  confequence  of  finite  Extenfion.     Here  we  have 
the  Idea  of  Body  laid  dowtrby  your  felf  <zj  contradifiinguifhed  to  Spirit.     There- 
fore by  your  own  confeflion  we  may  perceive  the  Dilagreement  of  thefe  two 
Ideas  oi  Body  Siud  Spirit,  and  confequently  may  certainly  know  their  Diftindii- 
on  from  each  other  by  their  infeparable  Properties.     But  if  it  be  poflible  for 
Matter  to  think,  then  thefe  Ideas  muft  be  confounded:  Yet  you  diftinguilh 
the  Ideas  o'iz  Material  and  Immaterial  Suhflance  in  thefe  Words,  Putting  toge- 
E.2.CI1.23.  f];gy.  tijg  jJeas  of  Thinking  and  Willing,  and  the  Power  of  Motion  or  Rejl  added 
Seft.  15.  ^^  Suhflance,  we  have  the  Idea  of  a  Spirit ;  and  putting  together  the  Ideas  of  fo- 
lid  coherent  Parts,  a  Power  of  heing  moved,  joynedwith  Suhflance,  we  have  the 
Idea  of  Matter.     The  one  is  as  clear  and  diftin£l  an  Idea  as  the  other ;  the  Idea 
of  Thinking  and  Moving  a  Body  heing  as  clear  and  diflinSi  Ideas,  as  the  Ideas  of 
Extenfion,  Solidity  and  heing  moved.     Can  any  thing  now  be  plainer  than  the 
Difagreement  of  thefe  two  Ideas,  by  the  feveral  Properties  which  belong  to 
them  ?  But  if  after  all  this  Matter  may  Think,  what  becomes  of  thefe  clear  and 
diftind  Ideas?  And  yet  you  have  thefe  Words,  Thus  hy  puttingtogether  the  I- 
deas  of  Thinking,  Ferceivinz,  Liherty  and  Power  of  moving  themfelves  and  other 
things,  we  have  as  clear  a  Perception  and  Notion  of  Immaterial  Suhflances  as  we 
have  of  Material.    Here  it  is  plain,  that  you  make  Thinking  and  Perceiving  to 
be  part  of  the  Complex  Idea  of  an  Immaterial  Suhflance.     How  is  this  poflible, 
if  a  Material  Suhflance  be  capable  of  Thinking  as  well  as  an  Immaterial  >  either 
therefore  you  muft  renounce  your  own  Dodtrine  of  Certainty  by  Ideas,  or 
you  muft  conclude,  that  Matter  cannot  think. 
B.j.cii.u.     V  But  I  urge  this  yet  further  from  your  Notion  of  Liherty  and  Necefity. 
Sea.  8.     Liherty,  you  fay,  is  the  Idea  of  a  Fewer  in  any  Agent  to  do  or  forhear  any  Atlion^ 
according  to  the  Determination  or  Thought  of  the  Mind,  wherehy  either  of  them  is 
preferrd  to  the  other.     So  that  Liherty  cannot  he,  where  there  is  no  Thought,  no 
Sea.  13.    Volition,  no  Wifh.     And  again,  Agents  that  have  no  Thought,  no  Volition  at  all 
are  neceffary  Agents.     But  you  make  a  Power  of  Thinkingand  Liherty  to  be  parts 
of  the  Complex  Idea  of  an  Immaterial  Suhflance,  in  the  Words  before  cited.     But 
what  Liherty  can  you  conceive  in  mere  Matter?  For  you  gx^nt.  That  Bodies 
B  o.ch.28.  can  operate  upon  one  another  only  hy  Impulfe  and  Motion  -,  that  the  Primary  Qua- 
Seft.  1 1,  lities  of  Bodies  which  are  infeparahle  from  it,  are  Extenfion,  Solidity,  Figure  and 
Seft.  10.  Mohflity  from  any  Body.     Now  how  can  the  Idea  oi  Liherty  agree  with  thefe 
fimple  Ideas  of  Body  ?  To  be  moved  only  hy  Impulfe  from  another  Body ;  and  from 
the  free  Determination  of  our  own  Thoughts  ;  are  two  Ideas  as  difagreeing  with 
each  other,  as  we  can  well  imagine.     But  if  Matter  may  Think,  it  may  have 
Liherty  too,  becaufe  you  join  thefe  together ;  but  if  it  be  uncapable  of  Liherty, 
which  goes  along  with  Thinking,  how  can  you  imagine  it  Ihould  be  capable  of 
Thinking  ? 
B.i.ch  27.     I  argue,  from  your  Notion  of  Perfonal  Identity,  which  you  place  in  felf- 
^^^'9'    Confcioufnefs.     For  you  tell  us,  That  a  Perfon  is  a  thinking  intelligent  Beiug 

that 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Letter.  54.1 

that  has  Reifon  dnd  Reflet  ion  ;  and  ca»  co»fider  it  felf,  as  it  feif,  the  fame  think- 
iiig  thing  in  different  times  and  places  ;  which  it  does  only  hy  that  Confcioujnef^^ 
which  IS  I  nfe  par  able  from  thinking,  and  feems  to  you  ejfentialto  it.  From  whence 
it  follows,  that  if  there  can  be  no  Selfconfcioufnefs  in  Matter,  then  it  cannot 
think,  becaufe  it  wants  that  which  you  (ay  is  Elfential  to  it.  It  being  impoft- 
hle,  for  any  one  to  perceive,  hut  he  mufl  perceive  that  he  doth  perceive.  But 
what  is  there  like  Selfconfcioufnefs  in  Matter  ?  Or  how  is  it  poflible  to  appre- 
hend that  meer  Body  Ihoutd  perceive  that  it  doth  perceive  ?  For  Bodies,  yoU 
fay,  operate  only  hy  Impulfe  and  Motion  ■_  i.  e.  one  Bo  \y  upon  another.  But 
how  can  a  Body  operate  upon  it  felf  without  Motion  ?  Thofe  you  call  the 
Secondary  ^^alities  of  Bodies,  are  only  you  fay,  the  effect  of  the  Powers  in  fome 
Bodies  upon  others  endued  with  Senfe  and  Perception.  So  that  the  efFcdls  of  thefe 
Powers  in  Bodies,  or  of  the  Primary  Qtialities  of  Bulk,  Site,  Figure,  Moti- 
en,  &c.  is  not  upon  themfelves  but  upon  other  Bodies,  either  by  changing 
thofe  Primary  Qjalities  in  them  by  different  Ste,  Figure,  Morion,  ^c.  orpro- 
dacing  thofe  EiieCts  in  us,  or  which  we  call  Senftble  ^alities.  But  either  of 
rhefe  ways  there  is  no  poHibility  for  Matter  to  operate  upon  it  felf  in  a  way  of 
Selfconfcioufnefs.  Iftlien  every  intelligent  thinking  Being  have  this  fo  infepa- 
rabiy  belonging  to  it,  rh  it  you  fay,  it  is  impofftble  for  a>iy  one  to  perceive,  with- 
out perceiving  that  he  d)th  perceive;  and  it  be  impoffible  from  the  Idei  of  Mat- 
ter to  make  out  that  a  meer  Body  can  perceive  that  it  doth  perceive,  I  think  it  iS 
more  than  probable  in  the  way  of  Ideas  that  Muter  cannot  think. 

f.  I  argue    from  the  power  of  Abflrailing  which  vou  make   proper  to  a 
thinking  Subftance.     This  is  done,  fay  you,  by  confidering  Ideas  in  the  Mind  as  B.a.ch.14. 
Jeparate  from  the  Circttmftances  of  Time  and  Place.     And  this  power  of  abfi  racing,  ^^^'  9- 
you  add,  puts  a  perieB  diflintlton  between  Man  and  Brutes ;  and  is  an  Excel-  Seft.  10. 
lency  which  the  Faculties  of  Brutes  do  by  »o  means  attain  to. 

You  tell  me,  That  you  did  not  fay  the  chief  Excellency  of  Mankind  lies  chiefly,  Letter, 
er  any  ways,  in  this  that  Brutes  cjtnnont  abfira^ ;  for  Brutes  not  being  able  to  do   ' 
anything  cannot  he  any  Excellency  of  Mankind.     But  I  hope  it  is  the  Excellency 
of  Mankind,  that-they  are  able  to  do  what  the  Brutes  cannot :  And  you  fay. 
This  puts  a  perfect  difiintlion  between  Man  and  Brutes ;  and  I  had  thought  in 
comparing  Man  and  Brutes  that  which  put  a  perfeSl  Di(lin£lion  was  the  chief  Ex- 
cef/ency  with  refpefl:  tothem.     But  let  that  be  as  it  will ;  the  thing  I  inlift  up- 
on is,  the  power  oi  Abflra^ing  followingthat  of  Thinking  fo  clolcly  that  you 
utterly  deny  it  to  Brutes ;  but  if  it  may  be  in  the  power  of  M.itter  to  think, 
how  comes  it  to  be  fb  impofTible  for  fuch  Organized  Bodies  as  the  Brutes  have 
to  inlarge  their  Ideas  by  Abftra6fion?  Pomponatius  thinks  to  avoid  the  Argu-  Deimmari. 
ment  from  Abftradion  to  prove  the  Souls  Immateriality,  by  faying,  That  in  the  '^"'^^' 
moft  abftra<Sl  Speculation  the  Mind  refts  upon  Particulars ;  Vniverfale  in  fingula- 
ri  fpeculatur.     But  this  doth  not  reach  the  force  of  the  Argument;  which  is 
not,  whether  the  Mind  h-^th  not  an  Eye  to  Particulars,    when  it  forms  Uni- 
vcrl  jI  Notions;  but  whether  the  power  of  forming  fuch  AbftradJ-  Ideas  frorn 
Particu'ars  donot  argue  a  Power  which  meer  Matter  can  never  attain  to :  And 
all  that  Philofopher  hathfaid,  doth  not  amount  to  the  leart  Proofof  it. 

6.  Laflly,  I  argue  from  the  Reafonyou  give,  why  God  muft  bean  Immateri-  Let.p.139- 
alSubjiance.  Fcr  thcfeare  the  words  in  your  Letter.  And  the  Idea  of  an  Etern.d, 
a&ual,  knowing  Being  is  perceived^to  have  a  Connexion  with  the  Idea  of  Immate-' 
rialit),  by  the  Intervention  of  the  Idea  of  Matter,  and  oj  its  atlu.dDivifion,  Divift- 
hility  and  Want  of  Perception,  &c.  Here  tlie  want  of  Perception  is  owned  to  be  fo 
ellential  to  Matter,  that  God  is  therefore  concluded  to  h^t.  Immaterial',  and  this  is 
drawn  from  the  Idea  and  Ellential  Properties  of  Matter;  and  if  it  be  (b  Ellential 
to  It,  that  from  thence  you  conclude  God  muft  be  an  Immaterial  Suhjlance,    1 
think  the  fame  Rcafon  will  hold,  as  to  any  thinking  Subftance.   Becaufe  the  Argu- 
ment is  not  drau  n  from  any  thing  peculiar  to  the  Divine  Perfe^ilionsp  but  from   ^- 1'>- 
the  general /t/i?<3f  of  Mittcr. 

Zzz  Bhs 


542 A?i  ANSWER  to 

But  after  all,  you  tell  me,  That  God  heing  Owftipotent^  ni.iy  give  to  a  Syflem 
of  -very  fuhtil  Matter  Senfe  and  Motion.     Your  words  before  were,  a  Power  ta 
perceive  or  think ;  and  about  that  all  our  debate  runs;  and  here  again  you  fay, 
P.  66.     That  the  Power  of  Thinkingjoined to  Matter^  makes  it  a  Spiritual  Suhflauce.    But 
as  to  your  Argument  from  God's  Omnipoteixy^  I  anfwcr,  That  this  comes  to 
the  fame  Debate  we  had  with  the  Fapi/ls  about  the  Pofihility  ofTranfuhfiantia- 
tioH.  For,  they  neverimagin'd,  that  a  Body  could  be  prekntai'ter  the ma/tner  of  a 
Spirit  in  an  ordinary  way,but  that  by  Gods  Omnipotent  Power  it  might  be  made 
fo ;  but  our  Anfwer  to  them  was,  That  God  doth  not  change  the  ElTcntial  Pro- 
perties of  things  white  the  things themfelves  remain  in  their  own  Nature:  And 
that  it  was  as  repugnant  for  a  Body  to  be  after  the  manner  of  a  Spirit,  as  for 
a  Body  and  Spirit  to  be  the  fame.     The  fame  we  fay  in  this  Cafe.     We  do  not 
fet  bounds  to  Gods  Omnipotency :  For  he  may  if  he  pleafe,  change  a  Body  into 
an  Immaterial  Suhfiance  -,  but  we  fay,  that  while  he  continues  the  Eflential  Pro- 
perties of  Things,  it  is  as  impoffible  for  Matter  to  think,  as  for  a  Body  by 
Tranfubftantiation  to  be  prefeni;  after  the  manner  of  a  Spirit;  and  we  are  as 
certain  of  one  as  we  are  of  the  ether.     Thefe  things  I  thought  neceflary  on 
this  occafion  to  be  cleared,  becaufe  I  look  on  a  miftake  herein  to  be  of  dange- 
rous Confequence  as  to  the  great  Ends  of  Religion  and  Morality  :  which,  you 
think,  may  he  fecured  although  the  Soul  he  allowed  to  he  a  Material  Suhflance  ; 
butl  am  of  a  very  different  Opinion  :  For  if  God  doth  not  change  the  Efjential 
Properties  of  things,  their  Nature  remaining  ;  then  either  it  is  impoflible  for  a 
Material  Suhfiance  to  think,  or  it  muft  be  aflerted,  that  a  Power  of  thinking 
is  within  the  Effential  Properties  of  Matter ;  and  fo  thinking  will  be  (uch  a 
Mode  of  Matter,  a%  Spinoza  hath  made  it :  and  I  am  certain  you  do  not  think 
he  hath  promoted  the  great  Ends  of  Religion  and  Morality. 

I  fhall  now  proceed  toconfider  the  Arguments  for  proving  zSupream  Immate- 
rial S'Ahflance,  which  you  freely  allow  to  be  fo.  And  my  Defign,  as  I  faid, 
was  to  (hew,  that  the  certainty  of  it  is  not  placed  upon  any  clear  and  diftiadt 
Ideas,  but  upon  the  force  of  Reafon  diilindl  from  it. 

P.  87.  To  this  you  anfwer,  That  Knowledge  and  Certainty  in  your  Opinion,  lies  i»  the 
Perception  of  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  Ideas,  fucb  as  they  are,  and  not 
always  in  having  perfe^ly  clear  and  diflinil  Ideas.  But  thofe  who  offer  at  clear 
and  diflin^  Ideas,  bid  much  fairer   for  Certainty  than  you  do;  and  fpcak 

p.  88.  more  agreeably  to  your  original  grounds  of  Certainty.  For  your  Relative  Idea^ 
which  you  here  run  to  again  is  no  certainty  at  all  from  the  Idea,  but  from  the 
plain  Evidence  ofReafon,  that  Accidents  cannot  fupport  themfelves. 

I  pafs  over  all  which  I  think  I  have  fufBciently  anfwered  already  ;  as  when 
you  fpend  fo  many  Pages  about  my  ujing  the  Plural  Namher  when  your  words  are 
only  mentioned,  (Sfc.  But  I  Ihall  pafs  over  nothing  which  may  feem  to  an  indif- 
ferent Reader  to  require  any  Farther  Confideration. 

P.  loij       Whether  you  took  this  way  of  Ideas  from  the  Modern  Philofopher  mentioned 

P.  103.  t)y  you,  is  not  at  all  materia! ;  but  I  intended  no  Rejitdion  upon  you  in  it  (for 
that  you  mean  hy  my  commending  you  as  a  Scholar  of  fo  great  a  Mafier)  I  never 
meant  to  take  from  you  the  Honour  of  your  own  Inventions ;  and  I  do  believe 
you  when  you  fay.  That  you  wrote  from  your  own  Thoughts,  and  the  Ideas  you  had 
there.  But  many  things  may  feem  New  to  one  that  converfes  only  with  his 
•  own  Thoughts,  which  really  are  not  fo ;  as  he  may  find  when  he  looks  into  the 
Thoughts  of  other  Men  which  appear  in  their  Books.  And  therefore,  although 
I  have  a  jufl  Efteem  for  the  Invention  of  fuch  who  can  fpin  Folumes  barely  cut 
of  their  own  Thoughts;  yet  1  am  apt  to  think  they  would  oblige  the  World 
more,  if  after  they  have  thought  {o  much  tliemlelves,  they  would  examine 
what  thoughts  others  have  had  before  them  concerning  the  fame  things,  that 
fo,  thofe  may  not  be  thought  their  own  Inventions,  which  are  common  to 
themfelves  and  others.  If  a  Man  fhould  try  all  the  Magnctical  Experiments 
himfelf  and  publifli  them  as  his  own  Thoughts,  he  might  take  himfcU  to  be  the 

InvcK' 


Mr.  L  O  C  K  E  S  L  E  T  T  E  R.  54.3 

Inventor  of  them ;  but  he  that  examines  and  compares  them  with  what  Gilbert 
and  others  have  done  before  him,  will  not  diminifli  thePraife  of  his  Diligence, 
but  may  wi(h  he  had  compared  his  Thoughts  with  other  Mens,  by  which  the 
World  would  receive  greater  Advantage,  altho'  he  loH:  the  Honour  of  being  an 
Original. 

"The  Matter  of  Certainty^  you  fav,  one  cannot  im ploy  too  many  Thougihti  ahout   P-  io5. 
viz.  as  to  the  finding  the  true  Grounds  of  it.,  or  wherein  it  is  placed      This  I 
was  led  toconfider,  by  our  Vnitarians  placing  it  in  clear  and  di(lin&  Ideas; 
and  therefore  rejediing  the  Mylleries  of  Faith,  becaufe  they  could  not  have  clear 
and  diflinS  Ideas  of  them.     And  one  wrote  purpofely  to  ihew  that  we  were  not 
to  beheve  any  Myfleries  in  the  Gofpel,  becaufe  all  our  Certainty  depended  upon 
the  Perception  of  the  Agreement  or  Difigreement  of  thofe  fimple  Ideas  ivhich  we 
have  hySenfat  ion  or  Refieciion.     Now  ifthefe  Principles  of  Certainty  hold  good 
astoall  Propofitions  wecan  have  no  Certainty  of  Faith,  where  we  cannot  per- 
ceive the  Connexion  of  the  Ideas  contained  in  them.     I  own  that  you  fay,  That 
Faith  is  an  Affent  to  any  Propofition  not  made  out  hy  any  Dedu^ions  of  Reafon.,  hut 
upon  the  Credit  oj  the  Propofer,     Bjt  this  doth  not  cLar  the  matter,-  for,  is 
Faith  an  Vnreafonahle  A^  ?  fs  it  not  an  Aflent  to  a  Propofition  *  Then  if  all  cer- 
tainty in  Adts  of  Reafon  be  derived  from  ihe  perceiving  the  Agreement  or  Difa- 
greement  of  thQ  I  !eas  contained  in  it,  either  there  can  be  no  Certainty  of  the 
Reafonable  Ac^of  Faith,  or  the  Grounds  of  Certainty  mufl  be  laid  fome  other 
way.     But  you  fay,  Where  you  want  Evidence  of  things  there  is  yetGromd  e- 
nough  for  you  to  believe  becaufe  God  hath  faid  it.     Which  doth  not  yet  remove 
the  Difficulty,  from  the  true  Ground  of  Certainty ;  for,  fty  they,  Revelation     ' 
is  hut  a  means  oj  Information;  and  God  difcovsrs  by  that  fuch  Propofitions,  which 
toe  could  not  have  found  out  without  Revelation  ;  but  wherever  Propofitions  are 
offered  to  our  TJnder {landings,  we  tnufi  Judge  of  them  hy  our  Perception  of  th€  A- 
greement  and  Difagreement  of  the  Ideas  contained  in  them      And  Faith  doth  not 
overthrow  Nature.     If  therefore  the  Nature  of  Certainty  lies  herein  we  cannot  he 
certain  without  it. 

Is  it  not  enough  for  you  to  difowrj  the  Confequence,  but  to  (hew  that  it 
doth  not  follow  from  your  Principles  of  Certainty »  But  of  this  1  have  fpoken 
already,  and  I  love  not  Repetition^.  I  only  take  notice,  that  you  AlTert  and 
hold  to  the  fam  •.  Ifiick  to  my  own  plain  way  of  Certainty  by  Ideas.  And  fo  do  P.  107, 
thofe  who  rejed  the  Myfleries  of  Faith,  becaufe  not  agreeable  to  thsir  Ideas,  and 
think  they  proceed  upon  your  Grounds; 

But  you  fay,  That  according  to  my  Rules  you  know  not  where  to  place  Certainty ;  lb. 
for  in  the  Account  I  give  of  Des  Cartes,  I  have  thefe  words  concernmg  him. 
''  The  firft  thing  he  found  any  Certainty  in,  was  his  own  Exiftence,  which 
"  he  founded  upon  the  Perception  of  the  Adts  of  his  Mind.  From  hence  he 
*'  proceeded  toenquire  how  he  came  by  this  Certainty,  and  he  rcfolved  it  into 
"  this,  that  he  had  a  clear  anddiftindi  Perception  of  it.  And  from  hence  he 
"  formed  his  general  Ru'e,  that  what  he  had  a  clear  and  diftmd:  Perception  of 
•*  was  true.  Which  in  Reafon  oughttogo  no  farther,  than  where  there  isthe 
"  like  Degree  of  Evidence;  for  the  Certainty  was  not  grounded  on  the  clear- 
**  nefs  of  the  Perception,  but  on  the  plainneftof  the  Evidence.  Which  is  of 
"  that  nature  that  the  very  doubting  of  it  proves  it,  fince  it  is  impofllble  that 
**  any  thing  Ihould  doubt  or  queftion  its  own  being  that  had  it  not.  So  that 
^V  here  it  is  not  the  riearnefsof  the  Idea,  but  an  immediate  h6t  of  Perception, 
**  which  is  the  true  ground  of  Certainty.  And  this  cannot  extend  to  things 
"  without  our  felves,  of  which  we  can  have  no  other  Perception,  than  what 
^"vis  cauicd  by  the  Impreffion  of  outward  Objeds.  But  whether  we  are  to 
"  judge  according  to  thofe  Imprellions  dnth  not  depend  on  the  Ideas  themfelves, 
*'  but  upon  the  Exercife  of  our  Judgment  and  Reafon  about  them,  which  put 
"  the  difference  Jjetwcen  true  and  falle,  and  adequate  and  inadequaie  Ideas,  fo 

2  2  2  1  "  that 


544  Jn  ANSWER  to 


(C 


that  our  Certainty  is  not  from  the  Ideas  themfelves,  but  from  the  Evidence 
"  of  Reafon,  that  thofe  Ideas  are  true  and  juft,  and  confequently,  that  we 
*'  may  build  our  Certainty  upon  them. 

Thefe  I  acknowledge  to  be  my  words ;  and  yet  I  fee  no  Reafon  why  I  may 

P,  ,oT  nox.  flick  to  them.  But  you  fay,  That  I  have  placed  the  Grounds  of  Certainty  of 
our  own  Exiflence^  fometimes  in  the  plaimefi  of  Evidence,  in  oppofition  to  the 
clearnefs  of  Perception  ,•  fometimes  in  the  immediate  att  of  Perception  in  oppoji' 
tion  to  the  cleamefs  of  the  Idea  and  the  certainty  of  other  things  without  us  in  the 
Evidence  of  Reafon,  that  thefe  Ideas  are  true  and  j<fl  in  oppofition  to  the  Ideas 
themfelves ;  fo  that  fuch  is  your  Dulnefs  you  cannot  hy  thefe  Rules  tell,  where  to 
place  Certainty. 

But  all  thefe  Mills  will  eafily  be  fcattered,  if  you  fet  your  felf  a  little  to 
confider  the  Defign  of  my  D.fcourfe ;  which  was  not,  to  lav  down  Rules  of 
Certainty,  but  to  fhewthat  the  Grounds  of  Certainty  from  clear  and  diiinca 
Ideas  were  not  well  laid  at  firft  by  Des  Cartes  himfelf.  Becaule  he  deduced  his 
Rule  as  to  Certainty  of  other  things,  from  the  Evidence  he  had  as  to  his  own 
Exiftence,  which  he  had  both  from  immediate  Perception  and  uncontroulable 
Evidence,  when  even  the  Doubting  of  it  neceflanly  proved  it.  But  the  main 
Queftion  was,  whether  this  would  reach  to  other  things  without  us:  Yes  (aid 
he,  the  Rule  will  hold,  where- ever  there  are  clear  and  dtfiind  Ideas.  But  I  fay 
the  Certainty  doth  not  depend  upon  the  Idea  but  upon  inward  Perception  and 
the  Evidence  founded  upon  it  ;  and  we  have  not  the  fame  as  to  External  Ob- 
ytdiSz  For  we  have  no  inward  Perception  of  them,  nor  any  Evidence  that  re- 
fults  from  our  own  Beings;  therefore  the  Rule  of  Certainty  is  carried  beyond 
the  true  Ground  of  it.  I  do  not  oppofe  in  the  former  Cafe  the  plaimefs  of  the 
Evidence  to  the  cleamefs  of  the  Perception',  but  I  fu})pofe  them  both  as  to  our 
own  Exigence.  I  fay  indeed  after,  that  it  is  not  the  clearnefs  of  the  Idea,  but 
an  immediate  adt  of  Perception  which  is  the  true  Ground  of  Certainty  as  to 
our  own  Exillence  ;  but  there  I  take  Idea  as  Des  Cartes  did,  for  the  clear  and 
diflindt  Perception  of  our  Minds,  which  might  reach  to  other  Objeds  as  well 
as  our  lelves;  and  fuch  an  Idea  I  deny  is  the  Ground  of  Certainty  as  to  our 
own  Beings  which  is  founded  on  an  immediate  A&.  of  Perception.  And  when 
they  prove  this  as  to  fuch  outward  Objeds,  which  we  have  the  Ideas  of,  they 
may  then  carry  the  Rule  fo  far  ;  but  1  fay  the  Cafe  is  vaflly  different,  as  to  a 
clear  Perception  we  have  from  our  own  Ads,  and  that  which  we  have  as  the 
Impreflions  from  outward  Objeds  ,•  in  the  former  Cafe  we  have  fuch  an  Evi- 
dence, as  it  is  impoflible  to  doubt  of,  but  the  very  doubting  muft  prove  it : 
Is  it  the  fame  as  to  the  Ideas  of  External  Objeds  J  And  as  to  thefe  I  do  not  deny, 
but  we  may  come  to  a  Certainty  :  but  I  fay,  it  is  not  from  the  Ideas,  which 
may  be  true  or  fa Ife,  adequate  or  inadequate,  and  whether  we  may  be  certain 
of  them  or  not,  depends  upon  the  Exerciie  of  our  Reafon  and  Judgment  a- 
boutthem.  So  that  I  found  the  Certainty  of  Ideas  upon  Reafon,  and  not  Rea- 
fon upon  the  Certainty  of  Ideas. 

And  fo  I  come  more  clofely  to  confider  the  Argument  from  the  Ideas  as  to 
the  Proof  of  a  Supream  Immaterial  Subflance. 

If  our  Certainty  did  arife  from  clear  and  diflin^  Ideas  then  it  mufl  hold, 
where  we  have  a  clear  and  difiin£i  idea,  as  it  is  confefled  we  have  concerning 
God.  But  this  Argument  from  the  Idea  will  not  be  allowed  in  this  cafe;  it 
is  denied  by  others  plainly;  but  1  do  not  fay  that  it  is  denied  hyyou,  but  that 

p  J  ^  it  is  made  a  doHhtfuli  thing.  Which  comes  to  the  fame,  in  the  point  of  Cer- 
tainty ;  and  fo  the  force  of  my  Argument  doth  hy  no  means  fail. 

P.  ixj.  But  you  fay,  Tmt  you  intended  by  your  words  not  to  deny  that  the  Idea  of  a 
ntoft  perfect  Being  doth  prove  a  God,  hut  to  hlame  thofe  who  take  it  for  the  only 
proof,  and  endeavour  to  invalidate  all  others,  for  the  Belief  of  a  God  heingthe 
Foundation  of  aliRtligim   and  genuine  Morality^  you  thought  no  Arguments  that 

are 


Mr.  Locke's  Letter. 


545 


are  made  ufe  of  to  work  the  Perfwajion  of  a  God  into  mens  MinJi  jkould  he  invalida- 
ted^ which  you  qrant  is  of  M  "very  ill  Confequence.  P.  H4. 

Here  you  muft  give  me  leave  to  ask  you,  what  you  think  of  the  univerfal 
Confent  of  Mankind,  as  to  the  Being  of  God  ?  Hath  not  this  been  made  ufe  oF,  ^ 
as  an  Argument  not  only  by  Chriltians,  but  by  the  wifeft  and  greateft  Men 
among  the  Heathens?  And  v\  hat  then  would  you  think  of  one  who  (hou'd  go 
about  to"  invalidate  this  Argument?  And  that  by  proving,  that  it  hath  been 
difcovcr'd  in  thefe  latter  Ages  by  Navigation,  that  there  are  whole  Nations  at 
the  bay  of  Soldania,  '\n  Brajil,  in  the  Carrihhe  IJlinds^  and  Paraquaria,  among 
whom  there  was  found  no  Notion  oi  a  God,  and  even  the  Author  of  the  Effay  b.  r.  ch= 
of  Humane  VnderflandiMg  hath  dc  ne  this.  '»•  ^'^-  ®- 

This  cannot  be  thought  a  mere  flip  of  the  Pen.  Fof  men  do  not  quote  Authors 
fo  punctually  then.  But  if  it  would  not  be  x.\\om^\x  fieppingtoo  much  out  of  my 
way,  I  think  I  could  prove  that  thefe  Inftances  are  very  ill  cholen,  bxaufe 
either  they  were  taken  from  fuch  as  were  not  fuifiriently  acquainted  with  the 
People  and  Language  of  the  Country  ;  or  that  their  Teftimony  isccntradidled 
by  thofe  who  have  been  longer  among  them  and  under  flood  them  better;  or 
laflly  that  the  account  g^iven  of  them  makes  them  not  fie  to  to  be  a  flandard  for 
the  Senfe  of  Mankind,  being  a  People  fo  flrangely  bereft  of  common  Senfe, 
that  they  can  hardly  be  reckoned  among  Mankind,  as  appears  by  the  befl  ac- 
counts borh  oflhtCafres  of  Soldania,  and  theCa/gUig  of  Paraquaria. 

But  this  would  be  too  much  a  Digrefion  in  this  place.  I  return  therefore 
to  the  argument  for  proving  the  Exillence  of  God;  and  you  may  pleid  for 
your  felf  that  your  defign  was  only  to  pcove,  That  there  is  no  Innate  Idea  of  a 
God.  But  doth  not  this  however  take  off  from  the  force  of  an  Argument  fome 
haveufed  to  perfwadeMen  that  there  is  a  God?  I  meddle  not  with  Innate  I- 
deas;  but  have  not  fome  Pcrfons  of  Note,  in  thefe  Matters,  ufed  the  Argu- 
ment from  the  M^rk  and  Cbaraiter  of  God  imprinted  on  the  Minds  of  Men  to  prove 
his  Being?  And  have  you  not  fet  your  felf  to  difproveit?  "  ch4,Sea^ 

But  I  leave  this,  and  come  to  the  argument  from  the  Idea  of  God,  concer-  ^2. 
ning  which  you  fay,  That  though  the  Complex  Idea  for  which  the  Word  God  P.  up. 
(^whether  containing  in  it  the  Idea  of  neceffary  Exiflenceor  no,  for  the  caje  is  the 
fame)  will  not  prove  the  real  Exiflence  of  a  Being  aifivering  that  Idea,  anymore 
than  any  other  Idea  in  any  ones  mind  will  prove  the  real  Exillence  of  any  real  Being 
anfivering  that  Idea,  jet  you  conceive  it  does  not  hence  foliiw,  hut  that  there  may 
he  other  Ideas  hy  which  the  Being  of  God  may  he  proved 

And  afterwards  you  offer  to  fhew  that  your  Proof  of  a  Deity  is  aU  grounded  on  p.  12?. 
Ideas.,  i.  e.  from  the  Ideas  ofourfelves,  as  we  are  thinking  Beings.    But  you  con-   ^;  '^|' 
fels,  that  you  think,  that  the  argument  from  the  Idea  w\l\  not  hold,  but  how- 
ever you  will  oot  give  up  the  argument  from  Ideas.     Againrt  which  I  urged 
your  own    argument.  That  from  the  Conjfderation  of  what  we  find  in  our  fe  Ives 
and  in  our  ConfUtutions,  our  Reafon  leads  us  to  the  Knowledge  of  this  certain  and  e- 
vident  Truth,  that  there  is  an  eternal,  moil  power  full,  and  mod  knowing  Being.    All 
which,  1  faid,  1  did  readily  yield  ;  but  we  fee  plainly,  the  Certainty  is  not 
placed  irr  the  Idea,  but  in  good  and  found  Rcjfon  from  the  Confideration  of 
our  felves  and  ourConllitutions,     To  which  you  reply,  That  you  never  thought  p.  i2<5. 
the  Confideration  of  our  felves  and  our  Conflituiions  excluded  the  Confideration  of 
the  Idea  of  Being  or  of  Thinking^  two  of  the  Ideas  that  make  a  part  of  the  Com- 
plex  Idea  a  Man  hathof  himfelf.     But  is  the  Reafon  you  fpeak  of,  which  leads 
us  from  thence  to  the  Knowfedge  of  an  eternal,  mod  powerfull,  and  moft 
kno'wirg  Being,  contained  in  the  Complex  Idea  of  a  Man  or  not?  A  Complex    . 
Idea  is  made  up  of  fimple  Ideas,  ali  fmple  Ideas  come  in  hy  Senfation  or  RefletHon; 
and  upon  comparing  thefe ftmple  Ideas  our  Certainty  you  fay  is  founded.  What 
fimple  Ideas  then  are  there  in  Man,  upon  which  you  ground  the  Certainty  of 
this  PcQpofiticvn,  That  there  is  a  Gjd  ?  I  grant  you,  that  there  is  a  Certainty 
i  grounded 


54^ 


An  ANSWER  to 


grounded  upon  our  Beings  and  the  Frame  of  our  Natures ;  but  this  ftill  I  fay,  is  a 
Certainty  of  Reafon  and  notof  Ideas.  ■  jO(< 

P.  128.       You  lay,  Tou  do  not  well  underfland  tvhat  I  mean  hy  he'tng  not  placed  in  the 
Idea  ;  j or  you  fee  no  fuch  Oppofition^  hut  that  Ideas  and  found  Reafon  way  fiandtO" 
get  he  r^  i.  e.  i«  Reafon  rightly  tnanaging  thofe  Ideas  fo  as  to  produce  Evidence  hy 
them.     But  what  need  all  this  great  noife  about  Ideas  and  Certainty^  true  and 
real  Certainty  hy  Ideas,    if  after  all,  it  comes  only  to  this,  that  our  Ideas  only 
repreient  to  us  fuch  things,  from  whence  we  bring  arguments  to  prove  the 
Truth  of  things?  But  the  World  hath  been  ftrangely  amuzed  with  Ideas  of 
late,  and  we  have  been  told,  that  ftrange  things  might  be  done  by  the  help 
of  Ideas,  and  yet  thefe  Ideas  at  lad  come  to   be  cnly  common  Notions  of 
P.  127.   things,  which  we  muft  make  ufe  of  in  our  Reafoning.     You  fay,  in  that  Chap- 
ter ahout  the  Exijlence  oj  God,  you  thought  it  mofi  proper  to  exprefs  your  j elf  in 
the  mofi  ufual  and  familiar  way,  hy  common  Words  and  Exprtffions      I  would 
you  had  done  fo  quite  through  your  Book;  for  then  you  had  never  given  that 
Occafion  to  the  Enemies  of  our  Faith  to  take  up  your  new  way  or  Ideas,  as 
an  effedual  Battery  (as  they  imagin'd)  againfl  the  Myfleries  cf  the  Chrijlian 
Faith.    But  you  might  have  enjoy 'd  the'fatisfadiion  ot  your  Ideas  long  enough, 
before  1  had  taken  notice  of  them,  unlefs  I  had  found  them  employ 'd  in  doing 
Mifchief.  ^ 

f'  n^'  But  at  lad  you  tell  me.  That  whether  Iwill  call  it  placing  the  Certainty 
in  the  Idea,  or  placing  the  Certainty  in  Reafon;  or  if  I  will  fay,  it  is  not 
the  Idea  that  gives  us  the  Argument,  hut  the  Argument,  it  is  indifferent  to 
you.  And  if  you  mean  no  more  by  your  Certainty  from  Ideas,  but  a 
Certainty  from  Reafon,  I  am  not  fuch  an  unreafonable  Man  to  difagree  with 
you. 

The  next  Argument  for  theExiftence  of  God  (lands  thus,  as  I  have  fumm'd 
it  up. 

We  find  in  our  felves  Perception  and  Knowledge.  So  that  there  is  fome 
Knowing,  Intelligent  Being  in  the  World.  And  there  muft  have  been  a  Know- 
ing Being  from  Eternity,  or  an  Unknowing;  for  (omething  mu^  have  been 
from  Eternity  :  but  if  an  Unknowing,  then  it  is  impoffible  there  ever  fliould. 
have  been  any  Knowledge,  it  being  as  impoffible  for  a  thing  without  Know- 
ledge to  produce  it,  as  that  a  Triangle  fliouId  make  three  Angles  bigger  than 
two  right  ones. 

To  which  I  added,  that  allowing  the  Argument  to  be  good,  yet  it  is  not  ta- 
ken from  the  Idea,  but  from  Principles  of  true  Reafon,  as  that  no  Man  can 
doubt  his  own  Perception ;  that*every  thing  (we  fee)  mud  have  a  Caufej 
that  this  Caufe  muft  either  have  Knowledge  or  not ;  if  it  have,  the  point  is 
gain'd;  if  it  hath  not,  nothing  can  produce  nothing,  and  con(equently  a  not 
knowing  Being  cannot  produce  a  Knowing. 

In  your  Anfwer  to  this,  I  muft  firft  take  notice  of  your  Exception  to  that 
r.  14J.   ExpreffioDj  Allowing  the  Argument  to  he  Good;  which  you  fay,  feems  to  imply 
that  I  thought  the  Argument  not  to  be  Good,  which  was  very  far  from  my 
meaning.     For  I  had  faid  before.   That  you  hrought  very  good  Arguments  to  prove 
the  Exijlence  of  a  God  in  that  Chapter :  and  afterwards.  That  I  ivas  far  from 
.    weakning  the  force  of  your  Arguments.     And  fo  I  hope  that  Exception  is  re- 
moved. 
P.  136,        Tou  except  not,  you  fay,  againfl  my  Arguments  or  Principles  of  Reafon :  but 
P.  137.   you  think  ftill,  this  is  an  Argument  taken  jrom  Ideas:  if  you  will  think  fo,  I 
cannot   help   it.     But  you  endeavour  to  fliew,  That   the  very  Principles  you 
allow  are  funded  upon  Ideas  :  As  that  a  man  cannot  doubt  of  his  own  Per- 
ception ;  This,  you  fav,  is  hy  perceiving  the  neceffary  Agreement  of  the  two  /. 
deas  of  Perception  and  Self-Confcioujnefs.     But  1  rather  think,  it  is  from  that 
Self-Evidence  which  attends  the  immediate  Perception  of  our  own  Ads,  which 

is 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Lettepv.  5^7 

is  fo  grear,  that  as  S.  ^«g»/?/«  obferves,  the  Acaclecnicks  had  Cum  enimduo  fmtgenent 
nctliing  to  by  ngiinft  that  kind  of  Cerrainty,  but  only  againft  'Iru^ '^'!i  '^t^tn^s^'Z'"  r' 
that  which  a^role  from  things  conveyed  by   our  Senfes  to  our    pirdp\t''anfmJ,ainZml'.!. 

Mind.  """  qK£per  feiffu.-n,  mulU 

^  The  next  Principle  that  every  thing  muft  h^ve  a  Caufe.  muft    'la^!:'^:^^^::-:::^^'! 
be  underlioood  of  the  Matter  treated  of,  /'.  e.  the  things  we  fee    ^^'"  I'lJ'^'H'i  tinniftmas ^er 
and  perceive  in  the  World.     You  (ay,  It  is  a  true  Principle  that    Sii';;^;!!^^';^;"^^^; 
every  thing  that  hath  a  Beginning  mufi  have  a  Caufe,  becauje  by     me  vivere,  nequaq^am  )n  du- 
contempUting  our  Ideas  ivefind  that  the  Idea  of  Beginning  is  con-     ^";'"  ]"""''*  potuermt.  Dc 
netted  with  the  Idea  of  fame  Operation  ;  and  that  with  the  Idea  of      "''  '  ^^"  "^  "' 
feme  thing  operating  which  we  call  a  Caufe,  and  fo  the  Beginning  to  he,  is  percei- 
ved to  agree  with  the  Idea  of  a  Caufe,  as  isexpreffed  in  the  Propofnion.     fs  not 
here  a  great  ado  to  make  a  thing  plain  by  Ideas,  which  was  plainer  without 
them  ?  For  is  not  any  Man  whounderftands  the  meaning  of  plain  Words  fa- 
tisficd  that  nothing  can  produce  it  felf  i  or,  That  what  is  not  cannot  make  it 
iclf  to  be?  And  Co  the  evidence  doth  not  depen  ion  the  Agreement  of  the  Ideas 
of  Beginning,  anJ  Operation,  and  Caufe;  but  upon  the  Repugnancy  of  the 
contrary  Suppofitlon.     As  in  that  Pri  :ciple,  That  it  u  impoffihle  for  a  thingto 
be  and  not  to  be  at  the  fame  time  :  If  you  fay  that  this  depends  upon  the  Difa- 
greement  of  the  Ideas  o[  Not-Being  and  Being,  it  will  be  to  little  purpofe  for 
me  to  fay  any  more  about  ir. 

But  there  is  one  thing  which  defervesto  be  confider'd  ;  which  is  the  Connexi- 
on between  the  Idea  of  an  Eternal,  A^ual,  Knowing  Being,  with  the  Idea  of  Im- 
materiality. This  was  the  thing  I  look'd  for.  And  by  what  means  now  doth  *  '^^' 
this  Connexion  between  thefe  two  Ideas  appear?  By  the  help  of  an  Intermediate 
Idea.  What  is  that  ?  Even  the  Idea  of  Matter.  How  fo  ?  Tlie  Idea  of  Matter 
you  tell  us,  implies  its /i^ual  Divifion,  Div/fibility,  and  want  of  Perception,  d^c. 
which  are  the  Arguments  you  ufe  in  this  Proof  Are  they  fo  indeed  ?  And  will 
not  the  fame  Ideas  prove  our  ^ouls  to  be  Immaterial  ?  if  want  of  Perception  be 
in  the  very  Idea  of  Mitier,  how  can  Matter  be  made  capable  of  Perceiving  ? 
But  I  find  you  do  not  al^vays  attend  to  the  Agreement  or  Difagretment  of  your 
own  ideas.     But  of  this  before. 

I  proceed  to  the  la  f  Argument  I  produced  to  ihew,  that  your  Proofs  of  the 
Extftence  of  God  doth  not  depend  upon  Ideas.  And  the  Subftance  of  it  1  thus 
puttogether.  If  wefuppofe  nothing  to  be  firft,  Matter  can  never  begin  to  be; 
if  bare  Matter  without  Motion  be  Eternal,  Motion  can  never  begin  to  be,*  if 
Matter  and  Motion  be  luppofed  Eternal,  Thought  can  never  begin  to  be.  For 
if  Matter  could  produce  Thought,  then  Thought  muft  be  in  the  Power  of  Mat- 
ter ;  and  if  it  be  in  Matter  as  luch,  it  muft  be  the  infeparable  Property  of  all 
Matter,  which  is  contrary  to  the  Senfe  and  Experience  of  Mankind.  If  only 
fome  Parts  of  Matter  have  a  Power  of  Thinking,  how  comes  fo  great  a  diffe- 
rence in  the  Properties  of  the  fame  Matter  >  VVhat  Difpofition  of  Matter  is  re- 
quir'd  to  Thinking  ?  And  from  whence  comes  it  >  Of  which  no  account  can  be 
given  in  Reafon.  This  I  took  to  be  the  Force  of  your  Argument,  which  I  faid, 
]  was  far  trom  dtfigning  to  weaken  :  Only  I  obferved  that  the  Certainty  of  it 
is  not  placed  upon  clear  and  di  lindl  Ideas,  but  upon  Reafon  diftincfl  from  it; 
which  was  the  Thing  I  mtended  to  prove. 

But  you  fay,  Tou  do  not  fee  bjt  the  fame  proof  may  he  placed  upon  clear  and  p.  142* 
dijlin£i  Ideas,  and  upon  Reafon  too.  I  hope  this  matter  is  made  a  little  clearer 
to  you  ;  having  fo  fully  fhew'd  to  you  before,  that  in  the  way  of  ideas  you 
can  come  to  no  Certainty  aboutany  Subftance,  but  by  Reafon  asit  is  diftin(3: 
from  the  Ideas;  >.  e.  as  to  Material  Subftances  that  your  Certainty  is  refolved 
into  this  Principle  of  Reafon,  that  Accidents  cannot  fubfift  withouta.5«^y/r<jr«w. 

As  to  Spiritual  Subftance  in  us,  that  depends  on  two  things* 

X.  That  Thinking  is  only  a  Mode,  and  muQ  fup[ofe  a  Sutftance. 

%'.  Thai 


548  An  ANSWER  to 

z.  That  Matter  cannot  think,  and  therefore  it  muft  be  an  Immaterial  Sub- 
dance  ;  which  I  have  proved  from  your  own  Principles. 

As  to  a  Supreme  Immaterial  Suhjiance,  the  evidence  depends  upon  this  Reafon, 
that  Matter  and  Motion  cannot  produce  Thought;  and  therefore  an  Eternal 
Thinking  Being  muft  be  Immaterial.  And  that  Matter  and  Motion  cannot 
produce  Thought,  is  proved  by  this  Reafon,  that  either  it  muft  be  an  infepa- 
rable  Property  of  Matter ;  or  fome  account  in  Reafon  mufk  be  given  m  hy 
fome  part  of  Matter  fhould  think  and  not  others.  And  doth  not  all  this  pro- 
ceed upon  Reafon  as  diftindl  from  Ideas  ? 

And  when  I  faid,  That  the  Certainty  of  it,  i.  e,  the  Argument  is  not  placed 
on  clear  and  diflinB  Ideas,  hut  upon  the  force  of  Reafon  dijiintl  from  it ^  I  meant 
the  Certainty  from  Ideas,  although  it  were  not  foclearlv  exprefled  as  it  might 
have  been  ;  but  here  I  obferve  you  call  for  the  Plural  Number,  which  you  are 
fo  ofTended  with  in  other  Parts  of  your  Letter. 

The  next  thing  I  undertook  to  fliew  was,  that  we  can  have  no  clear  and  di'* 
flin(St  Idea  o^  Nature  zx\d  Perfo«  from  Senfation  or  Reflexion.  Here  you  fpend 
many  Pages  toftiew  that  this  doth  not  concern  you.  Let  it  be  fo.  Bur  it  con- 
cerns the  Matter  I  was  upon;  which  was  tofhew  that  we  mull  have  Ideas  of 
thefe  things  which  we  cannot  come  to  by  Senfation  or  ReflecSfion. 

My  words  arc,  I  grant  that  by  Senfation  or  Reflection  we  come  to  know 
the  Powers  and  Properties  of  Things.  But  our  Reafon  is  fatisfied,  that  there 
muft  be  fomething  beyond  thefe,  becaufe  it  is  impoflible  that  they  fliould 
fubfift  by  themfelves.  So  that  the  Nature  of  things  properly  belongs  to  our 
P.  i57-  Reafon,  and  not  to  mere  Ideas.  Still  you  are  at  it,  That  you  can  find  no  Oppo- 
fition  between  Ideas  and  Reafon  :  But  Ideas  are  the  ObjeSls  of  the  Vnderjiandin^, 
and  ZJnderflanding  is  one  of  the  Faculties  imploy  d  about  them.  No  doubt  of  it. 
But  you  might  eafiiy  fee  that  by  Reafon,  I  underftood,  Principles  of  Reafon^ 
allow'd  bv  Mankind.  Which  I  think  are  very  different  from  Ideas.  But  I 
perceive  Reafon  in  this  Senfe  is  a  thing  "you  have  no  Idea  of,  or  one  as  obfcure 
as  that  oi  Subflance.  But  if  you  let  afide  thefe  common  Principles  of  ReafoHy 
your  Ideas  will  fignifie  very  little;  and  will,  like  Accidents,  viant  a  Subflratum 
to  fupport  them. 

But  your  Notion  of  Nature  and  Perfon  deferves  to  be  more  throughly  con- 
fidtr'd.  Therefore  to  proceed  more  clearly  in  a  debate  of  this  Conlequence 
with  rcfpcdt  to  the  Do^rine  of  the  Trinity  (what-ever  you  pretend  to  the  con- 
trary3  1  '^^^'I  fii'ft  ^et  down  your  Notions  of  Nature  and  Perfon  from  your  own 
Words,  and  then  enter  upon  the  Examination  of  them. 
P- 1<^5-  As  to  Nature,  you  tell  me  in  fhort  it  is  this,  That  it  is  a  ColIeflioH  of  feve-ral 
Ideas  combined  into  one  Complex  Abfira£l  Idea.  Which  when  they  are  found  united 
in  any  Individual  Exifling,  though  joyned  in  that  Exifience  with  fever al  other 
Ideas,  that  Individual  is  truly  faid  to  have  the  Nature  of  a  Man,  or  the  Nature  of 
Man  to  he  in  him  :  for  as  much  as  all  thefe  fimple  Ideas  are  found  united  in  him, 
which  anfwer  the  Complex  Abflrail  Idea  to  which  the  fpecifick  name  Man  is  given  by 
any  one ;  which  Abflra£l  Specif  ck  Idea  keeps  the  fame,  when  he  applies  the  Spe- 
cific k  Name  /landing  for  it,  to  diflind  Individuals,  i  e.  no  body  changes  his  Idea 
of  a  Man,  when  he  fays,  Peter  is  a  Man,  from  that  Idea  which  he  makes  the  Name 
Man  to  (land  for,  when  he  makes  ]q\\V[  a  Man, 
P'  21^.  As  to  Perfon  in  the  way  of  Ideas,  you  tell  us,  That  the  Word  Perfon  in  it  felf 
fignifies  nothing,  and  Jo  no  Idea  belonging  to  it,  nothing  can  be  faid  to  he  the  true 
Idea  of  it^  but  when  any  Language  appropriates  it  to  any  Idea,  then  that  is  the 
P.  217.  true  Idea  oj  a  Perfon  and  fo  of  Nature.  Thefe  are  therefore  the  Jigns  of  two  Ideas 
they  are  put  to  fi  and  for ;  and  by  enumeration  of  all  i  he  Jim  pie  Ideas  that  are  contain- 
ed in  the  Complex  Idea  that  each  of  them  ism^ide  to  Jl  and  for,  we  fhali  immediate- 
ly fee  the  whole  difference  that  is  between  them. 

After  which,  you  conclude,  That  you  mufl  content  your  felf  with  this  coh. 

demned 


Mr.  Locke's  Lette  R.  54.9 


tiemned  ivay  of  JJeai,  and  defpair  of  ever  attaining  any  Knowledge  hy  any  other 
than  that^  vr  farther  than  that  will  lead  you  to  it. 

But  this  muft  not  hinder  me  from  enquiring  a  littJe  more  ftri(31y  into  thefe 
Notions  of  Nature  and  Ferfon,  for  if  thefe  hole',  I  do  not  fee  how  it  is  poHlble 
to  defend  the  Dodtrine  of  the  Trinity.  For  if  thefe  terms  really  fignifie  nothing 
in  tbemfelves,  hut  are  only  y4hjlra^  and  Complex  Ideas,  which  the  common  ufe 
cf  Language  hath  appropriated  to  betbe/jgns  of  two  Ideas  ;  then  it  is  plain,  that 
ihey  are  only  tactions  of  the  Mind,  as  all  Ahflra^ed  and  Complex  Ideas  are  ; 
and  (b  one  bJature  and  three  Perfons  can  be  no  more. 

We  muft  therefore  examine  what  your  Notion  is,  of  Abfira^ed  and  Complex 
Ideu,  and  how  it  can  be  applied  to  t^atnre  and  Ferfon  ;  and  whether  they  are 
only  figns  of  fuch  Ideas  as  People  have  agreed  to  fignifie  by  them. 

To  explain  this,  I  mud  give  an  account,  as  well  as  I  cin,  from  your  felf, 
how  thefe  Ah[lra^ed  and  Complex  Ideas  come  to  be  formed  in  our  Minds,  and 
what  is  implied  in  them.     The  Vnderflanding,  y  ufay,  feems  to  you  not  ro  /^jx-?  ^-2.  ch.t. 
the  lead  glimmering  of  any  Idets  which  it  bath  not  by  Senjation  or   Reflexion.    ^^'  ^' 
Thefe  and  their  fever  al  Modes  and  the  Compo fit  ions  made  out  of  them,  we  fh  all  find 
contain  our  whole  flock  of  Ideat;  and  that  we  have  nothing  in  our  Minds  which  did 
not  come  in  one  of  thefe  two  ways.     From  henre  you  confider  the  feveral  forts  of  ch.  2. 
Ideas,  fame  Simple  and  fame  Complex.     The  fimple  Ideas  are  the  Materials  of  all'^^^'  '■ 
onr  Knowledge  ;  and  when  the  Vnderflanding  is  once  flored  with  thefe  fimple  Ideas, 
it  has  the  Fewer  to  repeat,  compare  and  unite  them,  even  to  an  almofl  infinite  va- 
riety, and  fo  canmake  at  pleafare  new  Complex  Ideas :  But  no  underflanding  can 
make  one  new  fimple  Idea-,  not  taken  in  by  the  ways  before  mention  d,  nor  can  it 
Jefiroy  thofe  that  are  there.     After  you  have  given  an  account  of  the  fimple  Ideas 
both  ways,  you  come  to  the  Faculty  of  Difcerning  in  our  Minds,  and  there  you  ch.  w. 
reckon  up,  Diflinguifhingldeis,  Compa'ing^  Compounding  ^oA  Ahft racing. 

The  Rea(onof  Ahflratlion,  you  fay,  is  to  have  one  general  Name  for  many  Par-  ^^^'  5- 
ticulars,  or  elfe  Names  would  be  endlefs.     Which  Ahflra^ion  is  performed  by  fe pa- 
rating  the  Ideas  of  particular  Ohje^s  from  the  Circumftances  of  real  Exiflence,  as 
Time,  Place,  6ic.  Complex  Ideas  are  thofe  fimple  Ideas  which  the  Mind  unites  as  ch.  12. 
one  Idea.     But  fli/lit  is  conftnd  to  thofe  fimple  Ideas  which  it  received  by  Senfation  ^^^'  '• 
or  Reflect  ion.,  which  are  the  ultimate  Materials  of  all  its  Compofitions. 

Of  thefe  you  reckon  Modes,  Subftances  and  Relations.  Sea.  3. 

The  Ideas  of  Suhflances  are  fuch  Combinations  of  fimple  Ideas.,  as  are  taken  to  Sea.  6, 
reprefent  particular  things  fuhfifiing  by  themfefves.     And  thefe  are  of  two  forts, 
one  of  ^ngle  Subflances  as  they  exifl  feparately,  as  of  a  Man,  6ic.  the  other  of  fe' 
"veral  of  thefe  put  together,  as  an  Army  of  Men. 

fn  your  Chapter  of  Complex  Ideas  of  Suhflances,   }  ou  affirm  the^deas  of  par-  ch.  25. 
ticular  Suhflances  to  be  made  by  a  Combination  of  fimple  Ideas  :  and  again,  that  ^^^-3' 
it  is  by  fuch  Combination  of  fimple  Ideas  as  co  ex  iff  in  feme  unknown  canfe  of  their  seQ,$  14, 
VnioH. 

That  the  Complex  Ideas  we  have  of  God  and feparate  Spirits  are  made  up  of  the  SeS.  53. 
fimple  Ideas  we  have  by  Reflexion  ;  by  inlarging  the  Ideas  we  find  in  our  f elves. 

In  your  T^dhook  you  coy\U6cr  general  Terms.     And  the  .^e<j/(»«  of  them,  yoiiB.^.ch.j. 
fay  is,   becaufe  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  Humane  Capacity  to  frame  and  retain  ^^^-  *• 
diflincl  Id  as  of  all  Particulars.     And  thefe  are  made  by  way  of  Abftranion  from 
Circamflances  of  Time  and  Flace.     Aittr  which  \  ou  tell  us,  That  General  Natures  Seft.  6. 
are  nothing  but  Abflra^  Ideas  ;  and  the  whole  Myflery  of  Genera  and  Species,  ^^^ 
which  fiiake  fuch  a  norfe  in  the  Schools'^  is  nothing  elfe  but  Ahfb\i^  Ideas    with 
Names  annexed  to  them.     From  v\  hence,  )ou  lay,  >t  is  phun  that  General  andsedi.  ii; 
Zfniverfal,  belong  not  to  the  real  Esiflence  of  Things.^   but  are  the  Inventions  and 
Creatures  of  the  Vnderflanding  ;  made  by  it  for  its  own  ufe  and  concern  only  Sgns  ^'^'  '  ^' 
whether  Words  cr  Ideas.     And  the   Abflrail  Idea  and  the  Effence  of  the  Species  SeCi  ^4. 
or  Genus  of  the  fame  thing:  and  every  diflin£l,  abflra£l  Idea  is  a  d'ftmd  Effeme. 

A  a  a  a  15ut 


550  AnA^SWEKto 


But  then  youdiOinguifli  the  Real  and  Nominal  Ejfevce.  The  former  is  the  Realy 

Sea.  ly.    Jnterml  Confiitution  of  particular  things  ;  and  the  Nominal  is  the  Ahftra^  Idea. 

Seft.  i6.  But  there  is  fo  near  a  Connexion  between  them  that  the  Name  connot  be  attributed 

to  any  particular  Being,  but  what  has  this  Ejfence,  wherehy  it  anfwers  that  JbflraSf 

Idea,  whereof  that  Name  is  the  Sign. 

Thefe  things  you  repeat  and  inlarge  upon  in  feveral  other  places,  but  this  I 
think  is  the  fubftance  of  what  you  fay  upon  this  matter ;  For  I  would  not  wil- 
lingly miftake  or  mifreprefent  your  Meaning. 

The  Queflion  now  between  us  comes  to  this,  Whether  the  common  Nature 
or  Efferce  cf  Things  lies  only  in  an  Ahflra£l  Idea,  or  a  General  Name^  and  the 
Real  Ef^nce  confifts  only  in  particular  Beings  from  which  that  Name  is  ab- 
ftraded  ? 

The  Qiieftion  is  not,  Whether  in  forming  the  Notion  of  Common  Nature, 
the  Mind  doth  not  abftradt  from  the  Circumflances  of  particular  Beings  ? 
•  But  it  is  whether  there  be  not  an  Antecedent  Foundation  in  the  Nature  of 
things  upon  which  we  form  this  Abftrad  Idea?  For  if  there  be,  then  it  can- 
not be  called  an  univerjal  Name  only  :  orameer/^«of  an/</f^,  which  we  have 
formed  from  putting  many  fimple  Ideas  together,  which  Name  belongs  to  all 
offuchafort,  as  have  thofe /w;-/*? /r/<?^i  united  together.  I  know  not  how 
it  comes  to  pafs,  that  a  Man  fpinning  Bocks  out  of  his  own  Thoughts  (houid  hit 
fo  luckily  upon  the  Thoughts  of  another  Man  :  I  do  not  mean  now,  about  clear 
and  diftindt  Ideas,  but  about  this  Point  oiuniverfal  Names.  For  Mr.  Hobbs  in 
Leviath.  his  Chapter  of  Speech,  tells  us,  That  Names  were  to  ferve  for  Marks  or  Notes 
ch.  %  of  Remembrance,  and  therefore  were  cal  led  Signs.  Of  thefe  Names,  fame  are  pro- 
per and  fingular  to  one  thing,  tfj  Peter,  John,  this  Man,  this  Tree ;  fame  are  com- 
mon to  many  things,  as  Man,  Horfe,  Tree,  in  refpe^  of  all  which  it  is  called  an  V- 
niverfal,  there  being  nothing  in  the  World  Vniverfal  but  Names  -,  for  the  things 
narrtd,  are  every  one  of  them  individual  and  fingular. 

One  univerfal  Name  is  impofed  on  many  things,  for  their  fimilitude  in  fame 
Quality  or  other  Accident ;  and  whereas  a  proper  Name  bringeth  to  mind  one  thing 
only  Vniverfals  recall  any  one  ofthoje  many. 

And  of  Vniverfals  fome  are  of  more,  or  lefs  Extent,  the  larger  comprehending 
the  lefs  large,  and  fome  of  equd  extent,  &c. 

This  is  enough  to  let  you  fee  that  thefe  Notions  are  not  fo  peculiar  but  that 
another  Perfon,  from  his  own  Tl^^ughts  too,  had  faidmuch  the  fame  things 

But  whoever  faid  or  thought  them  firft,  we  muft  examine  how  reafonable 

thefe  Thoughts  are. 

I  know  no  Body  that  thinks  now-a-days,  that  Vniverfals  exifl  any  whereby 
themfehes;  but  I  do  think,  that  there  is  a  difference  to  be  made  between  that 
and  making  them  meer  Names,  or  figns  of  Ideas. 

I.  And  the  Reafons  I  go  upon  are  thefe.  In  the  firft  place,  vie  are  agreed 
that  there  is  a  fupream  immaterial  moft  perfed  Being ;  whofe  Eflential  At- 
tributes do  not  depend  upon  our  Arbitrary  Ideas  ;  nor  any  Names  or  Signs  of 
Honour  we  give  him,  nor  upon  the  meer  Inlarging  the  Ideas  of  our  own  Per- 
fedions  ■  or  fuch  as  we  account  to  be  fo  in  our  (elves:  for  we  attribute  thofe 
to  God  w  hich  u  e  aie  not  capable  of,  as  Eternity,  or  Neceffary  Exiflence,  Immu- 
tability, &c.  Herein,  we  take  up  no  Cew/)/(?x /</(?<if  from  feveral  Individuals; 
but  we' form  a  true  Idea  ofaDivine  Eiience,  from  fuch  Attributes  flsareEden- 
tial  to  an  infinitely  perfcd  Being,  which  being  Infinite  is  thereby  Incomprehen- 
fiblehyus.   Andfoyouown,  That  the  great  God  of  whom  and  from  whom  are  all 

fiCc^]'^'''  things  is  incomprehenfibly  Infinite.     And  thatGodis  infinitely  beyond  the  reach  of 
our  narrow  Capacities. 

II.  In  the  next  place,  we  look  on  this  Supream  Being,  as  the  wife  Creator  of 
all  things,  who  hath  ordered  the  feveral  Sorts  and  Ranks  of  Beings  in  the 
World  according  to  his  own  Eternal  Wifdom;  and  hath  given  them  all  fuch 

Pro- 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Letter.  551 


9 


Properties  as  himfelf  thought  fit,  whereby  they '5 re  really  and  eflentially  di- 
ftinguifhcd  from  one  another  i  as  appears  by  Mankind,  and  Brutes,  and  Plants. 
And  no  man  that  ever  imploys  his  own  Thoughts  can  think,  that  thefe  are 
diflinguifhed  from  each  other,  only  by  an  Ad  of  our  Minds. 

III.  Among  thefe  it  is  evident,  that  there  are  fome  things,  wherein  they  a- 
gree ;  and  fome  wherein  they  difTer,  They  all  agree  in  being  real,  created  Be- 
ings, and  having  a  fort  of  Life  belonging  to  them.  But  they  differ,  that  fome 
have  Senfe,  which  others  have  not ;  and  fome  haveReafon  and  Underftanding 
which  others  want.  And  all  this  is  fo  plain  and  evident,  that  one  might  que- 
ftion,  whether  thofe  had  Underftanding  or  not,  who  could  think  the  difference 
of  thefe  from  each  others  was  not  in  their  Natures,  but  only  depended  on  the 
feveral  Nantes  that  we  call  them  by. 

IV.  Among  the  Individuals  of  the  fame  kind,  there  is  an  Agreement  in  the 
fame  ElTential  Properties;  as  all /J/^»  in  being  Rational  Creatures ;  and  there  is 
a  Real  Difference  from  each  other  in  the  feveral  Accidents  that  belong  to  them  j 
as  to  Time,  Place,  Qt.jalities,  Relations,  ^c:  And  no  Man  in  his  Senfes  can 
call  this  in  queftion.     For  his  mofl  plain  and  fimple  Ideas  will  inform  him  of  it- 

V.  The  Queftion  now  is,  Whether  that  wherein  they  do  all  agree,  be  a 
meer  Z/»iver/al  Name  and  Ahjlrad  Idea  or  not. 

It  is  certain,  that  what  God  created  is  no  meer  Name  or  Idea  :  It  is  certain, 
that  God  created  not  only  Individuals  but  the  feveral  Kinds,  with  the  Diffe- 
rences which  they  have  from  each  other;  it  is  certain  that  thefe  Differences 
do  not  lie  in  mere  Names  or  Ideas :  How  comes  it  then  not  to  be  certain  that 
there  is  a  Real  Common  Effence  or  Nature  in  the  Individuals  of  the  fame  kind? 

But  it  comes  mt  to  us  in  the  way  of  Ideas.  If  it  be  (o,  the  way  of  Ideas  and 
Reafotiare  twodifferent  ways;  and  I  fhall  never  forfakeone  for  theother,  un- 
lefs  I  could  fee  better  Reafon  for  it ;  and  even  then  1  (hould  nor,  but  adhere  to 
Rea/on  ftill. 

But  how  doth  it  appear  by  Reafon,  that  Nature  is  any  thing  elfe  hut  a  Col" 
legion  of  feveral  Ideas  combined  into  one  Complex  Ahflraii  Idea  .•» 

That  will  be  done  by  confidering, 

I.  What  thefe  Ideas  are,  which  are  fo  colledled  into  a  Complex  Idea ;  which 
h  called  Nature. 

X.  What  that  Effence  is  which  is  implied  in  this  Idea ;  whether  it  be  a  Real 
or  only  a  Nominal  EJfence. 

I.  What  thefe  Ideas  are,  of  which  this  Complex  Idea  of  Nature  confifls; 
and  they  are  fai  J  to  be,  ihQ  fimple  Ideas  of  particular  Suijlances  united  together 
without  the  Circumflances  of  Time  and  Place.  But  thofe  fimple  Ideas  may 
be  confidered  two  ways, 

I.  With  refpe<9:  to  the  Qualities  of  things,  and  thefe  Ideas  are  faid  to  be  true 
and  adequate ;  but  they  go  no  farther  than  the  Qyalitics  ;  which  reaches  only 
to  that  Senfe  of  Nature,  as  it  is  taken  for  Properties. 

%.  With  refpe(ft  to  the  Suhje^  of  them,  which  is  the  Nature  or  Suhflance  that 
fupports  them,  and  of  this  you  confefs  we  have  only  imperfeH  and  inadequate 
Ideas. 

As  they  are  true  and  adequate  ;  and  fo  they  are  not  the  true  Reprefentations 
of  Things  without  us,  hut  of  the  Effe^s  of  fuch  Powers  in  them  as  produce  Impref- 
fiom  in  us ',  which  are  thok  y on  ci\\  Secondary  Qualities.  And  in  that  Senfe  p.  i^ji 
I  take  your  words.  And  of  thefe  I  faid,  that  we  can  underftand  nothing  really 
by  them  but  theEffedts  they  have  upon  us  ;  /.  e.  the  Powers  and  not  the  Ideas. 
TtiQ  Ideas  are  the  !mpreffions  on  our  Minds;  and  by  thefe  we  can  underftand 
nothing  but  the  Effe^s  which  the  Powers  in  outward  Objedis  have  upon  us, 
and  confequently  not  the  Nature  of  them.     This  I  tike  to  be  plain  Senfe. 

To  this  you  Anfwer  Two  things ; 

X.  That  we  certainly  know  todi[linguifh  things  hy  Ideas^  fuppoftng  them  nothing  P.  170,' 

A  a  a  a  £  hut 


552  ^«  ANSWER  to 

/«f  Effects  produced  in  us  h  t^efe  Powers-,    as  if  they  were  Reprefentations. 
P.i?!'        X.  That  we  have  certa'mly  as  much  pleafttre  and. delighi  hy  thofe  Ideas  one   way 
as  the  other. 

Granting  all  this  to  be  true,  what  is  it  to  the  Complex  Idea  of  Nature,  which 
arifes  from  thefe  fimple  Ide^n  ?  Nature  is  a  CoTiection  of  feveral  Ideas  combined 
into  one  Complex  Ahftract  Idea.     But  the  fmple  Ideas  acquaint  us  not  with  the 
Nature  of  the  Objects.,  but  only  with  the  Powers  which  are  in  them;  by  the 
B  a.ch.  8.  help  of  Bulk.,  Size,  Figure  and  Motion  ;  which  you  call  the  Primary  Qualities. 
^^^j  '  j"  Now  thefe,  you  fay,  are  really  in  the  things   themfelves ;  ivhether  the  Senfes 
"^'^  '    'perceive  them  or  not ;  and  the  Ideas  of  thefe  are  the  true  Kefemhlances  of  what 
exifis  in  the  Objects  ;  i.  e.  that  by  the  Impreflions  we  find  in  our  felves,  we  are 
certain  that  there  are  Bodies  of  a  determinate  Bulk,  Size,  Figure  and  Motion. 
And  this  is  all,  we  can  by  thtk  fimple  Ideas  come  to,  as  the  Nature  of  Corpo- 
real Subft  a  nces.     But  fuppole  one  Ihould  ask  how  we  can  underftand  the  Nature 
of  thefe  Operations  of  the  Primary  Qualities '\n  produc^ng  the  Secondary;  we 
Sea.  2  J.   are  foon  anfwered,  that  there  is  no  conceivable  Connexion  between  them,  and  that 
Reafon  cannot  (hew  how  Bodies  by  their  Bulk,  Figure  and  Motion  fhould  pro/iuce  /« 
the  Mind  the  Ideas  of  Blue,  Tellow,  &c.     And  fo  we  are  extremely  helped  by 
thefe  fimple  Ideas  in  underftanding  the  Nature  of  any  particular  Subjiance.     For 
the  fenfible  Qualities  in  us  are  only  the  EfFeds  of  certain  Powers  in  the  Ob- 
\s£t%,  caufed  by  their  Bulk,  Size,  Figure  and  Motion ;  but  if  we  ask  how  they 
^  are  produced,  we  are  plainly  told,  that  our  Realbn  by  thefe  jjmple  Ideas  can 
breach  to  no  knowledge  of  it.     And  fo  we  are  left  in  as  much  Ignorance  as 
ever,  as  to  the  Manner  how  Things  without  us  produce  Ideas  in  us.  i 

p.  174.  But  fay  you.  By  thefe  fimple  Ideas^  we  can  as  certainly  diflinguifh  the  Beings 
wherein  thdfe  Powers  are,  and  receive  as  certain  Advantages  from  them,  as  if 
thofe  fimple  Ideas  were  Refemblances. 

As  to  Advantages  from  them,  that  is  quite  out  of  our  Enquiry;  which  is  con- 
cerning the  Idea  of  Nature,  as  it  is  a  Complexion  of  fimple  Ideas ;  and  all  that 
it  amounts  to  is,  that  by  thtk  fimple  Ideas,  weundetftandtheD/y?/w^  Powers 
in  feveral  Bodies  to  produce  Impreflions  in  our  Minds ;  and  by  the  fecondary 
Qualities  we  Hnd  in  our  felves,  we  are  certain  of  the  primary  ^alities  in  Bodies^ 
from  their  different  Bulk,  Size,  Figure  and  Motion.    But  ftill  we  have  nothing 
but  an  Idea  of  ^alities,  which  goes  no  farther  than  the  Eflential  Properties; 
but  the  Idea  ol  Nature  goes  farther,and  implies  that  Being  wherein  thofe  Qua- 
lities aie  ;  and  that  I  faid,  which  is  the  fubjedt  of  Powers  and  Properties,  is  the 
Nature  or  Subflanee  of  it ;  which  in  this  refpedl  is  the  fame.     Have  we  any 
Adequate  Idea  of  this  ? 
To  this  you  fay  : 
?'.  ,75.        -z.  That  all  Ideas  of  Subjlances,  which  are  referrd  to  Real  Effences  are  in  that 
refpect  Inadequate.     This  is  what  your  felf  own  to  be  your  Senle;  and  is  as 
much  as  I  defire.     For,  I  pray  confider  what  a/«e  Abfiract  Complex  Idea  you 
have  oiven  us  of  Nature.    Our  Adequate  Ideas  go  no  farther  than  Qualities, 
and  if  we  enquire  into  the  Real  Effencg,  or  Subflanee  that  fupports  them,  we  are 
told  that  they  ^rt  Inadequate  ;  and  confequently  we  can  have  no  true  Notion 
,  or  Idea  at  all  of  ir. 
P.  173.        But  you  fay  farther,  that  you  do  not  affirm.  That  Abfiract  Ideas  are  only  ge- 
neral  Names :  For  you  aflert  a  Real  Effence  in  things;  the  internal  unknown  Coif 
flitution  IS  the  Real  Effence;  and  the  Abfiract  Idea  is  the  Nominal  Effence. 
P.  iSi.        The  former  you  tell  me,  you  do  readily  own;  viz.  that  Effence  which  it  in 
particular  Subjlances  ;  but  the  Queftion  before  us  is.  Whether  that  v\  hich  is 
in  more  Individuals  than  one,  be  a  Real  or  only  a  Nominal  Effence. 

X.  And  this  is  that  which  we  are  next  to  Examine.     To  dear  this,  [  put 
the  Inftance  of  the  Sun,  where  an  Effence  was  faid  by  you  to  be  in  one  hJi- 
tf/dual;  and  yet  more  Suns  might  agree  in  it.    In  this  one  Sun  thSre  is  a  Real 
.,  Efffnce 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Letter.  553 

Effeme,  and  not  a  meer  Nominal  ^ud  Ahftra£led Effence  ;  upon  which  I  asked. 
If  there  were  more  Suns,  would  not  each  of  them  have  the  Real  Effe  nee  of  the 
Sun?  For  what  is  it  makes  the  fecond  Sun,  to  be  a  true  Sun,  but  having  the 
fame  Real  EJfence  with  the  firft  ?  If  it  Were  but  a  Nominal  EJfence,  then  the  Se- 
cond would  have  nothing  but  the  Name. 

Here  I  muft  examine  your  Anfwer,  as  far  as  I  can  underftand  it  •  For  Here  in- 
deed you  may  complain  of  the  want  of  clear  and  dift'mEl  IJeoi;  but  I  will  do 
what  I  can  to  explain  that  which  1  conceive  to  be  your  Senfe. 

You  fay,  This  doth  not  at  aO  concern  the  Real,  hut  the  Nominal  Ejjence.  ^'  *9'^° 

How  is  this  poflTible?  Is  there  not  the  Real  Ejfence  of  the  Sun  in  that  Indivi- 
dual, we  call  the  Sun  ?  But  I  put  the  Cafe,  that  there  were  a  Multiplication  of 
Individuals;  and  there  were  more  Suns  :  would  not  each  of  thefehavethe  Real 
Ejfence  of  the  Stm  >  If  it  were  only  a  Nominal  Ejfence,  the  reft  would  have  only 
the  Name. 

But  you  fay,  you  did  not  mean  the  real  Ejfence  of  the  Sun  was  in  that  Indivi-  '^^° 
dual.  How  could  you  mean  otherwife,  when  you  acknowledge  the  Real  Ejfence 
to  be  in  particular  Suhjlances  ?  And  is  not  the  Sun  a  particular  Sulflance*  But 
the  Idea  of  it  being  a  Complex  and  Ahflr acted  Idea,  could  not  be  the  Real  Ejfence. 
,  I  anfwer,  That  the  Ejfence  of  the  Sun  being  communicated  to  another  is  a  Real 
Ejfence;  or  elfe,  the  Second  is  but  the  Name  Sind  nothing  elfe. 

Youtell  me.  That  you  fay  esprejly,  that  our  dijliniuifhing  Suhjlances  into  Spe- 
cies hy  Names,  is  not  at  all  founded  on  their  Real  Effences.     And  I  think  it  is      -.  '• 
clear  to  any  one  that  underftands  things,  and  not  meer  Ideas  j  that  another  true 
Sutf  muft  have  the  Real  Ejfence  of  a  Sun. 

Vou  ask,  What  I  mean  hya  true  Sun.  I  anfwer.  That  which  hath  the  Ellence 
of  a  Sun;  and  that  the  Name  cannot  be  truly  applied  to  that  which  hath  it 
not  Tes,  fay  you,  it  may  to  any  thing,  which  hath  united  in  it  that  Comhina- 
tion  of  [en f  hie  ^al'tties,  hy  which  any  thing  elfe  that  is  called  Sun  is  diflingutfhed 
from  other  Suhjlances,  i.  e,  hy  the  Nominal  Ejfence.  So  that  now  the  Ahjlract 
Complex  Idea  is  owned  to  be  nothing  but  a  Comhination  of  Qualities  in  one  Idea. 

But  I  muH:  ftill  flsk,  what  becomes  of  this  Combination  of  Qualities  in  the 
fecond  Sun,  if  there  be  not  a  Real  ElTence  to  fupportthem?  Tou  grant  it  whett 
the  fecond  Sun  comes  to  exijl.  And  if  it  does  not  exift,  how  can  it  be  the  Se- 
cond Sun  ? 

Should  it  he  true,  fay  you,  that  the  Real  Ejfence  of  the  Sun  were  in  any  of  the  P.  i??'- 
fxed  Stars,  yet  it  could  not  he  called  hy  us  the  Sun,  whiljl  it  anfwer s  not  our 
Complex  Idea,  or  Nominal  Effence  of  a  Sun.  U  the  Real  Ejfence  o^  a  Sun  be  in 
a  fixed  Star,  it  is  really  a  Sun,  whether  you  call  it  fo  or  not;  as  a  Laplander  is  as 
really  a  Man  whatever  you  call  him,  if  he  hath  the  Eflence  of  a  Man.  And  it 
is  ftrangeto  me  to  find  any  Man  difputefuch  evident  things. 

And  fo  I  come  to  the  Inflance  of  the  Individuals  among  Men.  I  faid,  that 
there  muft  be  a  Real  EfTence  in  every  Individual  of  the  fame  kind.  Peter,  fames 
and  John  are  all  true  and  real  Men ;  not  by  attributing  a  general  Name  to 
them;  but  becaufethe  true  and  realEflenceof  aManis  in  every  one  of  them. 

But  you  fay,  \JirJi  fuppoje  them  to  he  Men :  no  otherwife  than  as  they  are  In-  p,  i^i, 
dividuals  of  the  fame  kind. 

Your  VVeweena,  Cuchepy  and  Coufheda  I  have  nothing  to  fay  to,  they  may 
be  VriBs  for  any  thing  I  know  ;  but  Teter^  James  and  John  are  Men  of  our 
own  Country,  and  we  know  them  to  be  leveral  Individuals  of  the  Race  of 
Mankind  .  And  what  is  it  makes  them  Men,  but  that  the  true  and  real  Fflence 
of  a  Man  is  in  every  one  of  them?  Tes,  fay  you,  ij  makiughe  taken  for  the  Efi-  p.  i97» 
cient  Caufe.  Whotver  dreamt  of  a  Specijfick  Ejfence  being  the  Efficient  Caufe? 
Bull  faid,  that  it  was  the  true  and  real  Ellence  of  a  Man,  which  made  every 
Individuala  trueardrtal  Man;  ofwhichl  laid  we  are  as  certain,  as  that  we  are 
Men.     That,  fay  you,  is  only  hy  our  Senfes  finding  thofe  PropertieSy  which  an-  p,  ,jg, 

fwr 


554  "    An  ANSWER  to 


:;:^:'^raafc.i  i.'.'  ir... 


fwer  the  Ahjlract,  Complex  Ided^  which  is  in  our  Minds  of  the  Specifick  Idea  to 
which  voe  have  annexed  the  Specifick  J^ame  Man.  I  leave  to  you  the  Honour  of 
this  Scholajlick  Languagey  whicli  is  always  moft  proper  when  there  is  nothing 
under  ir.  I  love  to  fpeak  plain  Senfe  if  I  can,  and  fo  as  to  be  underflood  by 
every  one  that  is  acquainted  with  thefe  Matters :  but  theCe  Specifick  Names 
and  Ahftract  and  Complex  Jdeas^  I  think  tend  to  confound  Mens  Apprehenfi- 
ons;  who  can  never  think  otherwife,  but  that  every  Man  is  (aid  to  be  a  true 
real  Many  not  for  any  Specifick  Name,  but  becaufe  his  Properties  fliew  him 
to  be  endued  with  the  true  real  Ejjence  of  a  Man.  I  faid,  that  the  general  I- 
dea  is  not  made  from  the  fimple  Ideas,  but  by  meer  Adt  of  the  Mind  abflrad- 
ing  from  Circumftances,  but  from  Reafon  andConfideration  of  things. 

p.  i9j>.  You  reply,  That  you  thought  Reafon  and  Conftderation  had  heen  meer  AHs  of 
the  Mind,  when  any  thing  was  done  hy  them.  I  hope  the  Ideas  you  have  of  the 
A{3:s  of  your  own  Mind,  are  clearer  than  thofe  you  have  of  other  Mens.  For 
it  is  plain,  I  oppofed  your  General  and  Ahflra[l  Idea  hy  a  meer  A^  of  the  Mind^ 
to  a  Rational  Inference  from  the  Nature  and  Properties  of  things.  For  I  added ; 
for,  when  I  fee  fo  many  Individuals,  that  have  the  fame  Powers  and  Proper- 
ties, we  thence  inferr,  there  muft  be  fomething  common  to  all,  which  makes 
them  of  one  kind  ;  and  if  the  difference  of  Kinds  be  real,  that  which  makes 
them  of  one  kind  and  not  of  another,  muft  not  be  a  Nominal  but  a  Real  Ef- 
fence.  Is  there  now  no  difTerence  between  thefe  Two  Adls  of  the  Mind,  viz. 
AhpraSlion  and  Ratiocination? 

V.  201.  And  you  grant,  that  the  Inference  is  true.  But  you  fay,  it  doth  not  follow^ 
that  the  general  or  fpecifick  Idea  is  not  made  hy  the  meer  Atl  of  the  Mind.  Where 
do  I  deny  tint  Ahflra^ion  is  made  by  an  Ad:  of  the  Mind  ?  But  that  is  not  the 
Queftioni  but  whether  the  Notion  of  Efjence  in  Individuals  of  the  fame  kind, 
be  a  meer  A(3:of  the  Mind  by  Ahjlraction,  or  have  a  real  Foundation  in  the  Na- 
ture of  things?  /.  e.  whether  it  be  a  Real  or  a  Nominal  EjJence  .•> 
Ibid.  But  you  lay.  There  may  he  Objections  to  the  Name  of  Nominal  Ejfence.  My 
ObjedJion  is  not  to  the  Name,  but  to  the  Thing  youunderftand  by  it,  viz..  that 
there  is  nothing  beyond  Individuals  but  Names,  which  utterly  overthrows  the 
Difference  of  Nature  and  Perfon.  For  if  there  be  nothing  really,  but  an  indi- 
viduated Eflence,  then  it  mulf  follow,  that  there  can  be  no  difference  of  Hy' 
pofiafes  in  the  fame  Nature:  For  Nature  individuated  mu!}  take  in  the  JVypffla- 
Jjs  ^  and  Nature  being  taken  as  common  is  affirmed  by  you  to  be  nothing  but 
an  Abflrad  and  Complex  Idea,  and  a  meer  Nominal  Eflence. 

p.  203,  You  fay,  That  we  cannot  know  the  differences  of  things  by  their  real  Effences. 
And  what  then?  Do  lever  deny,  that  the  difference  of  kinds  is  to  beunder- 
ilood  from  the  different  Properties  ?  But  we  are  not  upon  our  Know  ledge  of 
the  difference  of  Species,  but  upon  the  Real  and  Nominal  Effence, 

And  I  Ihew'd  that  the  real  Eflence  doth  not  depend  upon  Complex  Ideas; 
becaufe  if  men  miflake  never  fo  much  in  the  Combination  of  Ideas,  yet  the 
fame  Eflence  remains  j  as  I  inftanccd  in  the  Effence  of  a  Man,  a  Horfe  and  a 
Tree. 

P.  2(0.        True,  you  fay.  Our  Thoughts  or  Ideas  cannot  alter  the  real  Conflitutiont  ef 
things  that  exifl;  hut  the  Change  of  Ideas  can.  and  does  alter  the  fignificatien  of 
'  '  their  Names,  and  thereby  alter  the  kinds,  which  hy  thefe  Names  we  rarik  and  fort 

them  into. 

But  this  doth  by  no  means  reach  the  point,  which  is  not  concerning  our 
forting  of  Things,  which  is  by  Names,  but  God  s  forting  them,  when  he  made 
them  of  different  kinds.  For  fo  I  faid,  that  the  Eflences  remain  always  the 
fame,  becaufe  they  do  not  depend  on  the  Ideas  of  Men,  but  on  the  Will  of  the 
Creator,  who  hath  made  feveral  forts  of  Beings. 

All  the  Anfwer  you  give  is  this,  That  the  real  Conflituiion  or  Effence  of  par- 
ticidar  things  exifling,  do  not  depend  on  the  Ideas  of  Men,  but  en  the  Will  of  the 


p.  212. 


Creator^ 


Mr.  Locke's  Letter.  555 

Creator,  hut  their  he'tug  ranked  into  forts,  under  [itch  and  [neb  Names  does  de- 
pend and  wholly  depend  upon  the  Ideas  of  Men. 

But  my  Argument  did  not  proceed  upon  particular  things  exifling,  but  upon 
ihe  Jeveral  kinds  of  God" %  making,  and  is  it  pofTible  for  you  to  thmk  that  the 
kinds  are  not  of  his  making,  but  that  Men  only  hy  their  Ideas  make  the  fever  at 
forts?  Iffo,  Ihaveveryhttle  hopes  to  remove  you  from  your  Ideas;  bur  I  am 
bound  to  do  what  in  me  lies  to  hinder  fuch  Notions  from  overthrowing  the 
Myfleries  of  our  Faith. 

And  it  is  a  great  fatisfadion  to  me  to  find,  that  thefe  Notions  of  Ideas,  as  far 
as  they  tend  that  way,  have  fo  very  little  Foundation  in  Reafon,  or  rather  are 
fo  manifeftly  repugnant  to  them. 

Before  I  conclude  my  felf,  I  mufl;  take  notice  of  your  Condufion,  viz  That 
jeu  mnfi  content  your  felf  with  this  condemned  way  of  Ideas,  and  defpair  of  ever 
attaining  any  knowledge  hy  any  other  than  that.,  or  farther  than  that  will  lead  me  to 
it.  Which  is  in  eifed:  to  fay,  that  you  fee  no  way  to  avoid  Scepticifm  but  this: 
but  my  great  Prejudice  againft  it  is,  that  it  leads  to  Scepticifm,  or  at  leaft,  that 
I  could  find  no  way  to  attain  to  Certainty  in  it  upon  your  own  grounds. 

for  {i.)  you  fay.  That  Knowledge  to  you  feems  to  be  nothing  hut  the  Fercepti-  Book  4. 
on  of  the  Connexion  and  Agreement  or  Difagreement,  and  Repugnancy  of  any  of  ottr  g  a  V 
Ideas.     In  this  clone  it  cottfifls.    Whence  it  unavoidably  follows,  that  where  we 
can  have  no  Ideas,  we  can  have  no  Knowledge. 

But  you  go  about  to  prove,  That  there  are  many  more  Beings  in  the  World,  Ch,  3. 
of  which  we  have  no  Ideas,  thm  thofe  of  which  we  have  any  ;  and  that  one  holds  ^^^'  ^^' 
no  Proportion  to  the  other.     So  that  v\e  are  excluded  from  any  Po/Tibility  of 
attaining  to  knowledge,  as  to  the  far  greateft  part  of  the  Univerfe  for  wjnt  cf 
Ideas  ;  and  yet  you  fay,  That  he  that  will  confider  the  infinite  Power,  Wifdom 
andGoodnefs  of  the  Creator  of  all  things,  will  find  Reafon  to  think  it  was  not  all  laid 
out  upon  fo  inconfiderahle,  mean  and  impotent  a  Creature,  as  he  will  find  Man  to 
he,  ivho  in  all  Prohahility  o  one  of  the  loweft  of  all  intellectual  Beings.     And  not 
long  after,  you  fay.  That  the  Intellectual  IVorld  is  certainly  a  greater  and  moreSeCt.  27. 
ieautiful  World  than  the  Material. 

But  whence  comes  this  Certainty,  where  there  can  be  no  Ide^^s?  Is  a  general 
Reafon  fufficient  without  particular  Ideas?  Then  why  not  in  other  cafes  as 
well? 

z.  Suppofe  we  have  no  Ideas  of  the  Intelledual  World,  yet  furely  we  may 
have  as  to  the  vifible  World :  No,  you  fay,  That  although  we  have  Ideas  of  Bulk, St^.  24. 
Figure  and  Motion  in  general ;  yet  not  knowing  what  is  the  particular  Bulk,  Fi- 
gure and  Motion  of  the  greateft  part  of  the  Bodies  of  the  Vniverfe,  we  are  igno- 
rant of  the  fever al  Powers,  Efficacies  and  Ways  of  Operation,  wherehy  the  Effects 
we  daily  fee  are  produced.  Thefe  are  hid  from  us  in  fame  things  hy  heing  too  re- 
mote, in  others  hy  heing  too  minute. 

So  that  you  confeis,  We  can  attain  to  no  Science,  either  as  to  Bodies  or  Spi-  Seft.  26. 
rits.     And  what  a  narrow  compafs  muft  our  Knowledge  then  be  confined  to  ?  ^^^-  ^T' 
You  confefs,  We  have  no  Ideas  of  the  Mechanical  A (fert ions  of  the  minute  Far-  Seft.  25. 
tides  ef  Bodies ;  and  this  hinders  our  certain  Knowledge  of  univerfal  Truths  con- 
terning  natural  Bodies ;  and  our  Reafon  carries  M  herein  very  little  beyond  par- 
ticular matter  of  Facl.     Certainty  and  Demonflration  we  mufl  not  in  thefe  things 
pretend  to      So  that  all  Certainty  is  given  up  in  the  way  of  Knowledge,  both  as 
to  the  vifible  and  invifible  World,  or  at  leaft,  the  greateft  part  of  them. 

3.  But  ftill  it  is  to  be  hoped,  that  where  we  have  Ideas,  we  may  come  to  a 
Certainty  in  difcerning  the  Connexion  between  them.  No,  you  fay.  Another  CaufeSeA.  28. 
ofeur  Ignorance  is,  the  ivant  of  a  difcoverable  Connexion  between  thofe  Ideas  we 
have.  What.'  are  we  at  a  lofs  here  too,  and  yet  all  our  Certainty  depends  on  the 
perceiving  the  Agreement  and  Difagreement  oj  Ideas  ?  Yes,  you  confefs,  That  the 
Mechanical  AjffeitioHS  of  Bodies  having  no  Affinity  at  all  with  the  Ideas  they  produce  / 

in 


55^ An  ANSWER  to 

in  us,  we  can  have  no  diflin^  Knowledge  of  fucb  Operations  heyond  Experience. 
And  the  Operations  of  cur  Minds  on  our  Bodies  is  as  unconceivable . 

4.  But  by  the  help  of  Intermediate  Ideas,  may  we  not  come  to  find  out  the 
certain  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  Ideas,  fo  there  be  due  Application  oi  the 

B*4.ch.z.  lyiind  to  it  ?  Yes,  fay  you,  This  may  he  done,  and  this  is  that  we  call  Reafoning^ 
andthofe  intervening  Ideas  are  called  Proofs  :  and  where  the  Agreement  or  Difa- 
greement is  clearly  and  plainly  perceived,  it  is  called  Demonfiration.  But  how 
if  this  way  of  Demon^ration  be  made  impoffible?  What  benefit  can  we  have  of 
Sea.  7.  j,.  ifj  jj^e  ^jy  of  Certainty  ?  Each  fiep,  you  tell  us,  That  Reafon  makes  in  de- 
monfirative  Knowledge  muft  have  intuitive  Evidence  ;  for  elfe,  you  fay,  that  In- 
termediate Idea  would  need  a  Proof.  And  for  want  of  this.  Men  often  embrace 
Falfhoods  for  Demonflrations.  But  if  there  be  no  way  of  coming  to  Demon- 
firation but  this,  I  doubt  we  mufl  becontent  without  it. 

5.  Ycu  give  no  reafonable  Satisfadion  in  the  way  of  Ideas,  as  to  the  plain- 
eft  Evidence  of  Senfe  concerning  the  Exiflence  of  external  Objects.  For  there  is 
no  Intuition  of  the  Mind,  nor  Demonfiration  in  this  Cafe;  and  all  the  evidence 
in  your  way  muft  be  from  the  Ideas  in  our  Minds,  which  are  fuppofed  to  arife 
from  external  Objedts ;  but  the  queflion  is,  how  from  ihefe  /(/e^j  within  our 
(elves,  we  can  prove  the  certain  Exiflence  of  Objedts  without  our  (elves.  Be- 
caufe  men  may  have  fuch  Ideas  in  their  Minds  by  the  power  of  Imagination^ 

ch.  2.       when  there  are  no  Objedtsto  produce  them?  You  fay,  A  man  is  invincibly  con- 
Sea.  14.  f(-jgii^  fo  himfelf  of  a  different  Perception,  in  feeing  the  Sun  in  the  Day,  and  re- 
membring  it  in  the  Night,  and  tafiing  of  Wormwood^  and  fmelUng  of  a  Rnfe,  and 
thinking  of  it  afterwards.     But  this  doth  not  clear  the  main  difficulty,  which 
is,  how  from  the  Idea  of  the  Tafle  of  Wormwood  or  Smell  of  a  Rofe  I  can  prove  the 
adual  Being  of  fuch  things  without  me,  fmce  you  grant,  that  there  is  no  con- 
ceivable Connexion  in  Reafon,  between  the  Towers  in  the  Objetls  and  the  Ideas  in 
us  :  and  if  there  be  not,  how  can  we  be  certain  in  the  way  of  Ideas  >  I  do  not 
fpeak,  as  to  Pain  or  Pleafure,  but  as  to  the  Evidence  from  the  Ideas  in  our  feives. 
For  the  moft  that  you  i'ay  is,  That  a  Man  may  perceive  a  verymanifeft  difference 
between  dreaming  of  being  in  a  Fire,  and  being  a£luaUy  in  it,  becMufe  of  the  Plea- 
fure or  Pain  that  follows  the  Application  of  certain  Obje^s ;  which  Certainty  is  as 
great  as  our  Happinefs  or  Mifery,  beyond  which  we  have  no  Concernment  to  know  or 
to  be.     But  the  prefent  difficulty  is -not  merely  about  the  ditfere nee  between 
jleeping  and  waking ;  and  I  grant  you,  that  a  Man's  being  fenfible  of  Fire  touching 
him,  will  effedlually  convince  him  that  he  is  not  in  a  Dream  :  but  the  point 
Before  us  is,  when  we  are  fenfible  we  are  avvake,  what  it  is  in  the  way  of  Ideas ^ 
Ch.  II.    which  can  fatisfie  us  of  the  real  Exiftence  of  external  Objedls.     For  you  con- 
Sea.  I.     fefs,  That  the  havingthe  Idea  of  any  thing  in  our  Mind,  no  more  proves  the  Exi- 
flence of  that  thing,  than  the  Pitlure  of  that  Man  evidences  his  being  in  the  fVorld, 
or  the  Fifionsof  a  Dream  make  a  true  Hiflory.     How  then  can  we  come  to  any 
Sea.  2.    Certainty  in  the  way  of  Ideas  >  The  Account  you  give  is  this,  that  the  a5lual  re- 
ceiving Ideas  from  without,  makes  us  know  that  fomething  doth  exifl  at  that  time 
without  us,  which  caufes  that  Idea  within  us.     Which  is  in  other  terms   to  re- 
move the  Certainty  from  the  Idea  to  the  mere  A^^  of  Senjation:  but  all  our 
D;(pute  hath  been  not  about  the  Certainty  either  of  Senfe  or  Reafon ;  (which  I 
freely  yield  to)  but  about  a  particular  way  of  Certainty  by  the  Agreement  or 
Difagreement  of  Ideas ;  and  of  this  I  fliew  that  you  give  no  fatisfadory  Account, 
as  to  the  Ex'flence  of  the  plaineft  Objeds  of  Senfe.     For  you  fay,  The  Cer- 
tainty lies  in  perceiving  the  Connexion  between  Ideas ;  and  here  you  grant.  That 
Reafon  cannot  perceive  the  Connexion  between  the  Objeds  and  the   Ideas,  how 
then  (hould  we  poffibly  attain  any  Certainty  in  the  way  of  Ideas?  So  that  your 
felf  gives  up  t  he  way  of  Certainty  by  Ideas. 

I  might  eafily  purfue  this  matter  farther ;  but  I  th^nk  this  is  fufficient  to  let 
you  fee,  you  have  (no  fuch  caufe  to  be  fo  well  contented  with  this  condemned 
way  of  Ideas  as  }  ou  are  plcaled  to  cdl  it.  -  And 


Mr.  Locke's  Letter.  $57 

And  now  to  conclude,  I  am  very  far  from  being  an  Enemy  to  any  free  En- 
quiries into  the  Njrare  and  Reafons  of  Things,  and  would  be  glad  to  find  any 
real  Dilcoveries  that  way.  And  I  can  eafily  bear  the  putting  of  Philofophical 
Notions  into  a  modern  and  falhionable  Drefs. 

Let  Men  exprefs  their  Minds  by  Ideas  if  they  pleafe  ,•  and  take  Pleafure  in 
forting  and  comparing  and  conne<3:ing  of  them  ;  I  am  not  forward  to  condemn 
them;  for  every  Age  mud  have  its  new  Modes,  and  it  is  very  well  if  Truth 
and  Reafon  be  received  in  any  Garb.  I  was  therefore  far  enough  from  condemn' 
ingyour  way  of  Ideas,  till  I  found  it  made  the  only  ground  of  Certainty,  and 
made  ufe  of  to  overthrow  the  Myfteriesof  our  Paith,  as  I  told  you  in  the  begin- 
ning. This  was  it  which  made  me  look  more  narrowly  into  it  at  firfi,  and  now 
to  give  you  this  Trouble  of  an  Anfwer  to  your  Letter. 

I  hope  that  in  the  managing  this  Debate,  I  have  not  either  tranfgrefled  the 
Rules  of  Civility,  or  miftaken  your  Meaning,  both  which  I  have  endeavoured 
to  avoid.  And  I  return  you  thanks  for  the  Civilities  you  have  exprefTed  to  me 
through  your  Letter ;  and  I  do  a(Ture  yoi',  that  it  is  out  of  no  DifrefpedJ-,  or 
the  leaft  lU-will  to  you,  that  I  have  again  conlider'd  this  Matter,  but  becaufe 
I  am  farther  convinced,  that  as  you  have  ftated  your  i^ot'ion  of  Ideas ,  it  may 
be  of  dangerous  conlequence  as  to  that  Article  olChrifiian  Faith,  which  I  en- 
deavour'd  to  defend. 

I  am  no  Lover  o^  Cotit reverses,  however,  I  have  been  often  engaged  in  theni; 
but  I  have  that  fatisfadlion  in  my  mind,  that  my  defign  was  to  promote  that, 
which  upon  my  befi:  Enquiries,  I  thought  to  be  Truth  ;  and  by  fuch  means  as 
were  moil  fuitable  to  the  purfuit  of  it,  without  any  Bitternefs  againft  thofc  I 
oppofed.  But  of  all  Truth,  I  am  convinced,  that  it  is  fitteftfor  me  to  employ 
the  Remainder  of  my  Days  in  what  concerns  the  Vindication  of  our  Ho/y  Re- 
//g/o»  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  which  gives  us  the  only  fure Grounds  to  hope 
for  a  Blejfed Immortality.  And  in  the  Defence  and  Pradice  of  that,  I  hope,  by  , 
the  Grace  of  God  both  to  live  and  die. 


1  am,  Sir, 


worcencr,  "^OH  Real  Friend, 

March  Vf.  idp?, 

and  Humble  Servant^ 


Edw.  Wigom 


POSTSCRIPT. 

I  Had  no  Thoughts  of  adding  a  Poflfcriptio  my  Anfwer,  as  you  had  done  to 
your  Letter ;  but  before  the  Sheets  were  wrought  off,  there  was  fent  to 
me  a  new  Socinian  Pamphlet,  wherein  there  are  Refledlions  (and  little 
more}  on  my  late  Treatife  in  Findication  of  the  Trinity.  The  reafon  I 
had  to  joyn  my  Ihort  Animadverfions  on  that  to  thefe  Papers,  was  the  advan- 
tages he  likes  from  the  ahjlra^ed  Notion  of  Nature  againfl  the  Dodtrine  of  the 
Trinity,  which  was  the  thing  I  told  you  1  apprehended  to  be  of  dangerous 
Confequencein  it. 

But  before  I  come  to  that,  I  cannot  but  take  notice  of  their  very  different 
way  of  Writing  from  yours,  which  is  Grave  and  Civil,  but  theirs  is  trifling, 
and  too  fcurrilous  in  matters  of  Religion,  for  which  I  had  lo  juftly  rebuked 
them  before,  but  it  feems  to  very  little  purpofe :  \\hich  makes  me  apt  to  think, 

B  b  b  b  their 


5$8 An  ANSWER  to     

their  greateft  Hopes  ftill  are  in  fuch  Readers  who  love  to  fee  Matters  of  Reli- 
gion ridiculed ;  and  the  Perfons  who  are  concerned  to.defend  them  expofed  to 
Scorn  and  Contempt.  This  was  that  1  told  them,  which  gave  fuch  a  Relirti 
to  their  late  Pamphlets,  as  though  nothing  would  go  down  with  fuch  vitiated 
Palates,  that  had  not  a  Mixture  of  this  Ajfaftetida  with  it.  But  becaufe  in 
the  Conclufion  of  his  Pamphlet,  he  charges  me  as  well  as  others,  with  «/»g 
them  unjuftly  as  we/!  as  roughly,  I  Ihall  give  a  Tafl:  of  this  man's  decent  man- , 
ner  of  Writing.  The  firft  thing  he  infills  upon  againft  me,  is,  That  J  openly 
profefs  my  Method,  that  I  ivi/I  prove  Firjl,  then  Secondly,  then  Thirdly^  then 
fourthly  and  Fifthly.  And  what  harm  is  there  in  ufing  the  plained  Method 
in  a  nice  and  intricate  Subjed>  Should  I  go  about  to  jultifie  this,  by  the  Rules 
of  the  ancient  and  beft  Mifters  of  Writing  in  Arguments  of  fuch  a  Nature  ; 
That  would  be  (hewing  too  much  regard  to  fuch  pitiful  Cavilling.  But  me- 
thinks  thefe  men  fhould  not  objed  this  Method  againft  us,  of  Firfl^  Secondly 
and  thirdly,  who  had  before  charged  us  with  hrutal  and  inexcufahle  Ignorance 
in  Counting  or  Numhring.  But  he  goes  on.  And  now  beloved  firfl  of  the  firft. 
Have  I  any  words  like  thefe  ?  No  matter  for  that.  But  this  ferves  well  enough 
for  the  Farce -y  when  the  defign  is  to  ridicule  the  Form  and  Way  of  modern  Ser- 
mons '  which  he  knew  was  an  acceptable  Subjedl  to  his  Men  of  Wit,  as  he  calls 
them.'  If  they  be  really  fo,  they  cannot  but  defpife  fuch  Fooling  in  ferious 
matters.  A^^d  our  Modern  Sermons  are  fuch,  both  as  to  the  Structure  and  Reafon 
of  them,  as  will  bear  theCenfures  of  Men  of  Judgment,  (as  well,  it  may  be,  as 
of  any  Age)  but  his  Men  of  Wit,  who  love  Religion  in  no  drefs,  will  always 
have  fomething  or  other  in  Sermons  to  find  fault  with.  And  our  Author  was 
-  hard  put  to  it  to  bring  in  this  fmart  Refledtion  on  Modern  Sermons  to  pleafe  his 
Friends  which  was  very  remote  from  a  Debate  about  the  Trinity. 

The  next  thing  is,  Qbr  I  muft  not  fay  Secondly)  That  my  Way  of  Writing  is 
too  ohfcure ;  and  that  he  could  not  take  my  Meaning  under  two  or  three  Readings. 
Which  to  p'eafe  his  Men  of  Wit,  he  facetioufly  exprefles  after  this  manner; 
And  when  J  have  flrained  my  Jaws  and  hazarded  my  Teeth  to  break  the  Shelly 
tnoft  commonly  it  proves  nothing  hut  a  Shell,  that  I  am  tempted  to  renounce  tfuts 
for  ever.  And  I  think  he  will  do  wifely  in  it.  I  am  certain,  I  was  fo  far 
from  afFeding  Obfcurity,  that  I  endeavoured  to  putthedarkeft  points  into  as 
good  a  Light  as  I  could  ;  and  I  am  afraid  he  fometimes  (liut  his  Eyes,  that  he 
might  complain  of  the  darknefs  of  the  Room. 

I  dare  not  go  fo  far  as  Thirdly,  and  therefore  come  to  confider  the  main 
parts  of  his  Pretence  to  anfwer  my  Book. 

As  to  the  Contents  of  my  Book,  he  faith,  /  (hew,  that  neither  Antiquity,  nor 
Reafon,  nor  Scripture  is  at  all  for  them,  they  are  all  againfi  them.  Wherein  he 
is  very  much  in  the  righr.  And  I  fliall  now  examine  what  he  hath  faid,  to 
take  off'any  part  of  the  Charge. 

•  He  begins  with  Antiquity,  and  very  fairly  takes  it  for  granted.  That  for 
4000  "Years,  The  Dolirine  of  the  Unitarians  was  the  true  Doilrine;  but  he  ob- 
ierves  That  I  make  the  Do^rine  of  the  Trinity  to  have  been  a  part  of  the  Cabala 
or  Oral  Tradition  among  the  Jews ;  upon  which  he  cries  out,  Where  is  Confcience, 
or  is  Religion  nothing  hut  a  Name?  Why,  what's  the  matter?  How  comes Co«- 
fcience  and  Religion  to  be  fo  deeply  concerned,  whether  the  Jews  had  any  An- 
ticipation of  the  Trinity  among  them?  But  he  faith,  I  do  not  believe  the  Jewifh 
Cabala,  no  more  than  the  Alchoran,  and  yet  I  produce  the  Authority  of  it :  and 
he  adds.  That  it  was  aFidion  of  the  Pharifees ;  and  that  it  is  a  Prevarication  in 
me  to  mention  it  as  the  unwritten  Word  of  God.  \  am  afraid  his  Cracking  of  Mats 
hath  put  him  into  fome  Diforder,  and  made  him  cry  our,  without  any  other 
Caufe  but  the  Pain  of  his  Teeth.  Where  did  I  ever  give  the  lead  Caufe  to 
fufpedmy  owning  the  JewipCabJa,  as  the  unwritten  Word  of  God  f  All  that  I 
faid  was  this.    The  Socinians  had  faid,  That  Cbrifi  was  called  the  Word,  becaufe 

be 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Letter.  559 

he  was  the Bringer  or  Meffenger  of  Gods  Word.     To  which  I  anfwer'd,  That  the 
Jews  were  to  underftand  it  in  the  Senfe  it  was  known  among  them:  which  was 
iot  a  Divine  Suhjiflence,  as  I  proved  from  \\\q  Chaldee  Paraphrafl,  and  the  Tefti- 
monies  of  Philo  the  Alexandrian  Jew,  who  hved  fo  near  our  Saviour's  time. 
Here  is  not  a  word  of  the  Pbarifaical  Calala,  which  every  one  knows  to  have 
been  about  Traditional  Cujloms,  which  they  laid  as  much  weight  upon,  as  up- 
on the  Law  of  God,  if  not  more.     But  the  Chaldee  Paraphrafi  was  in  very  great 
Efteera,  as  giving  the  true  Senfe  of  the  Scripture,  and  for  that  only  I  produced 
it.    And  what  anfwer  doth  he  give  to  the  Teftimonies  out  of  it?  He  faith, 
Thej  relate  either  to  the  Law,  or  to  the  Command  of  God  to  Mofes,  or  to  the 
Power  of  God.    But  I  (hew'd  that  Rittangel,  who  managed  the  Debate  on  this 
Argument  with  a  learned  Vnitarian,  proved  to  his  plain  Convidion,  that  thefe 
places  could  be  underftoodof  nothing  but  a  Divine  Suhfijlence.  But  he  mighti- 
ly triumphs,  that  the  moH  pertinent  place  is  falfe  printed ,-  for  it  is  fet  down, 
Gen.io.  21.  and  he  tells  us,  There  are  hut  i8  Ferfes  in  that  Chapter;  but  a 
Man  of  common  Ingenuity  would  fufpedl  an  Error  in  the  Prefs  in  fuch  a  Cafe; 
and  if  he  had  pleafed  to  have  look'd  on  Gen.^^.^l.  he  might  have  found  zx 
Verfes,  and  the  Words  in   the  zi.     Therefore,  faith  he,  fo  much  for  Chaldee 
«»^/ Cabala,  defpifed  hy  all  learned  Men,  Jews  as  well  as  Chrijlians ;  and  nevtr 
ufed  but  when  the  People  are  to  he  gulled  with  noify  Nothings.   One  would  hard- 
ly think  it  poflible  fuch  mean  fluff  as  this  fhould  pafs  for  an  anfwer  among  any 
that  pretend  to  Senfe  or  Knowledge.    For  how  can  he  deny  the  knik  of  the 
Chaldee  Paraphrafi,  when  Thilo  the  Alexandrian  Jew  concurs  in  that  Interpre- 
tation, as  is  evident  by  multitudes  of  places  in  him?  Did  I  notexprefly  men- 
tion hisTeftimony  as  concurring  with  the  other?  Why  not  a  word  faid  to  it? 
Did  I  not  add  theConfent  of  Eufehius  concerning  the  Jews  owning  the  Divini- 
ty of  the  Meffias,  till  they  fell  off  from  it  in  oppofition  to  the  Chnflians  ?  And 
are  thefe  but  noify  Nothings  to  gull  People  with  *  Let  what  will  become  of  the 
Difpute between  the  Phanfaical  Jews  and  iht  Karaites-,  thofe  who  know  any 
thing  of  thefe  Matters,  do  know  that  I  went  upon  other  grounds;  viz.  whether 
the  Ifraelites  did  receive  from  God  an  Oral  Law,  which  they  are  bound  to  ob- 
ferve  as  much  as  the  written  Law,  and  to  interpret  the  written  Law,  and  the 
force  of  its  obligation  by  ir.     And  this  I  never  mention'd  or  intended  to  plead 
for  it.     And  as  to  the  i }  ways  of  Cahaliflical  Interpretations,  I  look  on  them 
as  groundlefs  and  frivolous  things,-  but  the  thing  I  aimed  at,  was  only  this. 
There  are  certainly  places  of  the  Old  Teflamenr,  which  fpeak  of  the  Melfias  as 
the  Son  of  God;  Thou  art  my  Son,  &c.  and  call  him  Lord,  The  Lord  [aid  unto 
my  Lord.    The  queflion  is,  what  the  Senfe  of  thefe  places  was,  and  how  they 
are  to  be  applied  to  Chrift?  Now  if  it  appear,  that  the  mod  ancient  Jews  did 
underfland  them  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  to  apply  them  to  a  Second  Suhftfl erne  in 
the  Divinity,  we  have  great  reafon  to  follow  that  Stai^Q,  which  is  fo  agreeable  to 
theNew  Tef^ament;  and  about  this  we  have  no  manner  of  Reafon  todefpife 
the  Senfe  of  the  ancient  JewSj  and  efpecially  oi  the  Chaldee  Paraphrafi,  whoaf- 
ferts  a  fecond  and  a  third  Subfiftence  in  the  Divinity.     And  this  he  could  not 
but  find  without  any  danger  to  his  Jaws,  was  the  only  thing  I  intended. 

The  next  thing  in  point  of  Antiquity  which  he  contef\s,  is  about  the  Naza- 
renes :  That  Name,  I  faid,  was  at  firll  common  to  all  Chriflians,  as  is  plain  from 
A^.z^-  5".  afterwards  it  was  applied  to  the  Jewifh  ChriQians  at  Pella  andVecapo- 
lis ;  and  to  fuch  as  admitted  no  Gentiles  to  their  Communion,  but  kept  to  the 
Ceremonies  of  the  Law ;  and  of  thefe  1  faid  they  might  be  al!  Ehionites ;  but  I 
utterly  denied  it  of  fuch  as  were  Members  of  the  Catholick  Chriftian  Church, 
as  it  was  made  up  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  This  Diflindrion  he  calls  a  pure  fig- 
ment, but  anfwersnot  one  of  theReafons  I  brought  for  it;  althougli  I  proved 
from  uncontioulable  Evidence,  that  they  made  two  different  Bodies,  had  diffe- 
rent Rules  of  Faith;  and  that  the  Church  oijerufalem  did  hold  the  Divinity 

B  b  b  b  2.  ani 


S6o  .An  ANSWER  to 

and  Pre»exifl:ence  of  our  Saviour.  And  is  all  this  Cahala  too,  and  only  to  he  ufed 
when  People  are  to  he  gulled  with  mify  toothings  ?  i.  e.  with  empty  Pleroma's, 
and  filent  Thunder-claps.  The  Alogians^  were  theirs,  for  any  thing  1  know  in 
all  refpecSls ;  and  I  will  give  them  Theodotion,  and  Pnulus  SamofateHiu^  and  Pho- 
tinus.  But  I  think  not  much  to  their  comfort'  the  two  latter  were  moft  cer- 
tainly condemned  by  the  Chriftian  Church  7  and  whether  the  former  were  a 
mere  Jewifh  Profelyte^  or  an  Ehionite  is  not  worth  contending  about ;  finceS.  Je- 
rem  makes  him  to  tranflate  the  places  about  our  Saviour  like  a  Jew,  and  Aquila 
like  a  Chriftian ;  which  Ihews  how  mean  an  opinion  he  had  of  his  Sincerity. 

I  proved  the  condemning  Paulns  Samofatenus  while  they  were  under  the 
power  of  Zenohia,  to  be  a  plain  evidence  of  the  fenfe  of  the  Chriftian  Church 
againft  his  DotS^rine;  at  a  time  when  no  intereft  could  be  fuppofed  to  fway 
them.  To  this  he  gives  a  twofold  Anfwer,  (i.)  That  he  [ure  it  i<  falfe,  that 
they  were  then  under  the  power  of  Zenobia.  But  how  can  we  he  fure  it  is  falfe,whea 
I  brought  proof  it  was  true,  and  he  anfwers  nothing  at  all  to  it?  But  it  feems, 
all  is  Cahala  andnoify  Nothings  that  ftand  in  his  way.  (i.)  He  faith,  They  were 
all  Hereticks.  A  very  fliort  Anfwer.  But  how  is  this  proved  ?  For  a  little 
proof  looks  well  fometimes,  and  a  man  muft  not  always  fay,  he  fure  it  is  fo. 
Well,  here  is  a  plain  proof;  they  differ  d  from  the  Council  of  Nice  ahout  Homoou- 
fios.  But  I  had  before  given  a  full  Anfwer  to  that,  p.  ^i.  to  which  he  gives 
not  the  leafl  reply,  viz.  that  they  took  it  in  two  different  Senfes. 

As  to  Luciany  I  leave  it  to  the  Readers  Judgment,  if  he  compares  what  I 
have  faid,  and  what  he  anfwers  together,  and  whether  he  thinks  it  probable  that 
the  Arians  (hould  forge  a  Creed  under  his  Name  at  Antioch-,  if  he  continued  in 
the  DotSrine  of  Paulus  Samofatenus,  which  was  contrary  to  it. 

This  is  all,  he  faith,  that  feems  confiderable  in  point  o{  Antiquity  •  and  whe- 
^  ther  he  hath  faid  any  thing  really  confiderahle  about  it,  let  the  Reader  judge. 

Come  we  now  to  the  point  of  Scripture,  which  is  the  main  point  in  the  cafe. 
For  I  had  declared,  />.  iii.  that  our  Faith  as  to  the  Trinity,  is  built  upon  that  ♦ 
and  that  there  are  many  places  of  Scripture,  of  which  no  tolerable  Senfe  can  be 
given  without  it.  And  therefore  I  examined  the  Senfe  the  Zfnitarians  gave  of 
the  moft  remarkable  Places,  and  fhew'd  theWeaknefsand  Inconfiftency  of  it, 
and  then  in  an  entire  Chapter  proved  our  DocStrine  from  the  Form  of  Baptifm  de- 
livered by  our  Saviour,  as  it  was  always  underfliood  in  the  Chriftian  Church. 
This  I  think  was  a  very  plain  and  eafie  Method  of  proving  our  Dodlrine. 

And  now  what  faith  our  Vititarian  to  all  this?  Truly,  I  have  met  with  few 
Anfwers  like  it.  In  fhort,  he  fahh,  that  for  his  part,  he  is  enough  perfwaded 
'  tvithout  further  arguing  the  Matter,  that  I  have  fpent  my  Breath  again/1  a  Rock, 
This  is  juft  the  Popilh  way  of  anfwering  by  Jnfallihility  zndfuper  hanc  Petram. 
But  in  neither  cafe  can  I  fee  the  leaft  ground  for  fuch  mighty  Confidence.  Alas 
for  them !  they  fay.  That  if  we  write  againfi  their  Interpretations  of  Scripture^ 
they  are  not  at  leifure  to  wipe  off  every  jwall  Soil  that  may  happen  to  he  fcatterd 
in  their  Books.  Not  at  Leifure  I  Whence  have  come  all  thofe  Swarms  of  pe- 
ftilent  Books  which  have  come  abroad  of  late  Years  among  us,  to  fpread  their 
infediious  Dodtrine  over  the  Nation  ?  And  now  are  they  not  at  Leifure  to  de- 
fend them?  /\nd  at  the  fame  time  have  Leifure  enough  to  run  into  other  Mat- 
ters, about  which  there  may  be  more  Colour  for  Cavilling.  So  that  this  can- 
not be  the  trueReafon,  and  I  leave  the  Reader  to  judge  what  it  is. 

The  laft  thing  is  the  point  of  Reafon ;  and  here  he  finds  Leifure  enough  to  ex- 
patiate. But  1  ihall  keep  to  that  point,  upon  which  he  fuppofes  the  whole  Con* 
noverfie  to  turn,  which  is,  whether  the  difference  between  Nature  and  Per- 
fon,  which  we  obferve  in  Mankind,  do  fo  far  hold  with  refpe<St  to  the  Divine 
Nature,  that  it  is  a  Contradiction  to  fay,  there  are  three  Perfons  and  not 
three  Gods  ? 

And  there  are  feveral  things  I  propofed,  in  order  to  the  clearing  of  this  Mat- 
ter, 


Mr.  L  o  c  K  e's  L  E  T  T  E  R.  5^1 


ter,  which  I  fliall  endeavour  to  lay  down  as  dlftindlly  as  I  can  ,•  and  I  lliall  not 
be  He^ord  or  Banter  d  out  of  that  which  1  account  the  mofl;  proper  Method, 
although  it  happen  to  be  too  obfcure  for  our  Men  of  Wit  tounderftand  without 
Hazard  of  their  Jaws. 
The  Principles  or  SuppofitioHS  I  lay  down  dre  thefe. 

I.  Nature  is  One  and  Indivifible  in  it  felf,  wherever  it  is. 

II.  The  more  perfe<ft  any  Nature  is  the  more  perfecS:  mufl  its  Unity  be, 

III.  Whatever  is  affirmed  of  a  mod  pefed:  Being,  muft  beunderfloood  in  a 
way  agreeable  to  its  PerfecStion. 

IV.  It  is  repugnant  to  the  Perfedlion  of  the  divine  Nature,  to  be  multiplied 
into  fuch  Individuals  as  are  among  Men ;  becaufe  it  argues  fuch  a  dependence 
and  reparation,  as  is  inconfiftent  with  the  mod  perfe<!i  Unity, 

V.  Tofuppofe  three  diftinc^  Perfons  in  one  and  the  fame  Indivifible  Divine 
Nature,  is  not  repugnant  to  the  Divine  Perfections ;  if  they  be  founded  on  fuch 
relative  Properties,  which  cannot  be  confounded  with  each  other,  and  be  irt 
themfclves  agreeable  to  the  Divine  Nature. 

VL  Whether  there  be  three  fuch  diflin(3:  Perfons  or  not,  is  not  to  be  drawn 
from  our  own  Imaginations,  or  Similitudes  in  created  Beings,  but  only  from 
the  Word  of  God,  from  whom  alone  the  Knowledge  of  it  can  be  communi- 
cated to  Mankind. 

Let  us  now  fee  how  he  proves,  that  fince  there  is  no  Contradidion  for  three 
Perfons  to  be  in  one  common  humane  Nature,  it  muft  be  a  Contradidtion  to 
aflert  three  Perfons  in  the  fame  divine  Nature.  He  offers  at  no  lefs  than  (;/(?' 
'^monfirative  Reafon^  p.  y8.  c.  t.  but  I  have  always  had  the  moft  caufe  to  fear 
the  Men  that  pretend  to  Infallibility^  and  Demonjl ration.  I  pafs  over  his  Mjfte- 
riotts  Boxes,  as  Trifles  fit  only  to  entertain  his  Men  of  Wit,  and  come  immedi- 
ately to  his  demonflrative  Reajon,  if  it  be  to  be  met  with.  It  comes  at  lad  to 
no  more  than  this,  thsit  Humane  Nature,  and  Angelical  Nature,  and  Camel  Na- 
ture have  no  Exifience  lut  only  in  our  Conception ',  and  are  only  Notions  of  our 
Minds  ;  hut  the  Perfons  in  the  fame  rational  Being  are  not  mere  Metaphyseal  Per- 
fons or  Relative  Properties,  but  they  are  fuch  as  necejfarily  (uppofe  diflinh  Subflan- 
ces  as  welt  as  difiin^  Properties.  But  in  the  Trinity,  the  Nature  is  a  really  exifting 
Nature,  'tis  a  Spiritual  Subftance,  and  endued  with  a  great  number  of  Divine 
Attributes,  not  an  abfira^ed  or  mere  notional  imaginary  Nature  ,•  and  the  Divine 
Ter  fans  are  not  difiin^  Subjiances  or  real  Beings,  but  Properties  only  in  a  real  Be- 
ing  and  in  aninfnite  Subftance.  This  is  the  force  of  the  Demonft ration.  But  now 
if  I  can  make  it  appear,  that  every  Nature  is  not  only  One  and  Indivifible  in 
it  felf,  but  endued  with  Eflential  Attributes  and  Properties  belonging  to  it  as 
fuch,  then  it  will  be  evident,  that  Nature  is  not  a  mere  Abflra£ied  Notion  of 
our  Minds,  but  fomething  which  really  exills  fomewhere;  and  then  the  Founda- 
tion of  this  demonflrative  Reafon  is  taken  away.  And  I  appeal  to  any  Perfons 
that  confider  things,  whether  the //«w<j«(?.  Angelical,  and  Camel  Nature  (as  he 
calls  it)  do  not  really  differ  from  each  other,  and  have  fuch  Efftntial  Properties 
belonging  to  them  as  cannot  agree  to  any  other  Nature  ?  For  elfe  it  muft  be  a 
mere  Notion  and  Fi(Sion  of  the  Mind,  to  make  any  real  difference  between  them. 
But  if  Humane  Nature  and  Camel  Nature  do  eflentially  differ  from  each  other, 
then  every  Nature  hath  its  EfTential  Unity  and  Properties  which  cannot  belong 
to  any  other,  and  that  without  any  adt  of  our  Minds.  And  if  every  Nature  is 
really  and  enentially  diffeient  from  another,  it  muft  have  an  Exigence  fome- 
where independent  on  our  Notions  and  Conceptions. 

it  may  be  faid,  that  no  fuch  Nature  doth  really  exi/l  by  it  felf ,  but  only  in  the 
feveral Individuals.  But  that  is  not  theprefent  Qijeftion,  where  or  how  it e- 
xifts,  but  whether  it  depend  only  on  our  Imaginations  or  the  ads  of  our  Minds  ,• 
and  if  it  doth  fo,  then  there  can  be  no  real  and  eflential  Difference  in  the  Na- 
tures of  Men  and  Beaft,  which  I  think  none  who  have  the  Underflanding  of  a 
Man  can  imagine*  But 


5^2 An  ANSWER,  8ic,     

But  really  exifling  Natures^  he  faith,  are  in  fuch  Per/on s,  as  necejfarily  Juppofe 
AifilnB  Suhjiances^  as  well  as  Jtflinil  Properties ;  and  if  they  exified  only  in  a 
common  i^ at ure^  as  the  Humanity,  and  had  not  alfo  dijiintl  Suhjlances^  they  would 
never  make  dijiind  Perfons. 

I  do  allow,  that  in  created  and  dependent  Beings,  there  mufl:  be  diflinfl 
Sul/iances  to  make  diftintl  Perfons  ;  but  he  ought  to  have  given  an  account  what 
that  is  which  makes  dijlin£l  Perfons  neceffarilyto  Juppofe  diftin£i  Sulftances.  For 
the  Nature  is  One  and  Indivifible  in  them  all;  or  elle  every  Individual  muft 
make  a  new  Species,  which  is  an  Abfurdity  I  luppofe  he  will  not  be  fond  of. 
If  there  be  then  one  and  the  fame  Nature  in  the  Individuals,  whence  comes  the 
difference  of  Suhjiances  to  he  fo  neceffarily  fuppofed  *  If  it  be  from  Diverfity,  Dif- 
fimilitude,  Dependance  and  feparate  Exiitence,  aslaflerted,  then  ihele  Heafons 
can  hold  only  in  created  Beings  ;  and  wiicre  they  cannot  hold,  as  in  tfi^. Divine 
Nature,  why  may  there  not  beadiflindion  of  Perfons  founded  on  relative  Pro- 
perties, without  any  diflindtion  of  6^ubflances,  which  is  repugnant  to  the  per- 
fe(aUnity  of  the  Godhead?  What  demonfirative  Reafon^  nay,  what  probable 
Argument  hath  he offer'd  againft  this  ? 

He  takes  notice />.  60.  of  what  I  had  faid  about  the  diftin<fiion  olPerfonality 
sndPerfou;  and  that  Perfonality  is  originally  only  a  particular  Mode  of  Sub- 
fiftence;  and  a  Perfon  befides  the  relative  I  roperty  takes  in  the  divine  Nature 
together  with  it.  And  what  Demonftrationhzve  we  againft  this  ?  So  far  from 
it,  that  he  falls  to  Trifling  again  to  keep  his  Men  ofWa  m  good  Humour.  So 
much  for  Madam  Perjonality,  novo  for  Sir  Perjon.  Is  this  a  decent  way  of  Wri- 
ting about  thcfe  Matters ;  to  begin  with  the  Talk  of  demonfirative  Reafon^  and 
to  end  with  Barlefquing,  and  turning  them  into  Ridicule  ?  Jf  this  be  an  agreea- 
ble Entertainment  for  his  Men  of  Wity  it  fliews  that  they  deferve  that  Character, 
as  well  as  hedoth  that  of  &  Demonjlrator. 

But  this  fportfull  Gentleman  hath  found  fomething  elfe  to  play  with,  viz. 
that  my  Notion  of  three  Subfiftences  without  three  Subftances  is  really  nothing 
but  Sabellianifm.  But  I  had  already  faid  fo  much  for  the  clearing  of  this,  both 
in  the  Preface  and  the  Book  itfelf,  that  I  need  not  to  add  one  Word  about  it,  un- 
i^is  he  had  fuggeftcd  fome  new  demonfirative  Reafon  to  prove  it.  Which  he  is 
far  enough  from.  All  that  he  faith,  is.  That  they  mufl  be  called  Fools  as  well  as 
Sabellius,  //  they  afferted  Relative  Properties,  or  any  Properties  that  were  in  no 
Effence.  But  the  A^ithor  oiiheDikomfe  o{  Real  and  Nominal  Trinitarians,  (to 
whom  he  is  no  Stranger)  had  faid  That  the  Sabellians  held  that  the  father.  Sou 
and  Spirit  are  but  only  three  Names  of  God  given  to  him  in  Scripture  by  occafion 
offo  many  feveral  Difpenfations  toward  the  Creature,  and  fo  he  is  hut  one  fuhJiJHng 
yerfon  and  three  Relative  Perfons.  If  this  be  true,  here  are  Relative  Properties 
indeed  relating  to  a  Divine  Eflence  :  but  how  >  not  as  to  any  Internal  Relations 
of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghofl ;  but  as  to  External  Difpenfations,  which  are  a- 
nother  kind  of  Relative  Properties. 

This  is  all  that  1  can  find  in  this  lad  Effort,  that  relates  to  my  felf :  As  to 
what  concerns  others,  they  are  very  able  to  defend  themfelves,  and  particular- 
ly as  to  Dr.  S.  and  Dr,  Sh.  I  muft  Hill  fay  1  think  them  much  his  Superiours  as 
to  Wit  and  Learning,  (for  of  them  I  fpake  without  the  leaft  Refpetato  my  felf, 
however  he  makes  it  a  Complement  to  my  felf  and  them,  I  know  not  for  what 
Reafon  unlefsit  be  that  I  fpeakofthofe  againft  whom  they  had  written  with  jn- 
Jolenceand  Scorn.')  ButI  hope  they  will  Ihew  themfelves  lo  much  his  Superiours 
too  in  Wifdom  and  Difcretion,  as  not  to  renew  their  Quarrels  upon  his  Provo- 
cations, for  he  doth  what  in  him  lies  to  inflame  them  ;  and  he  thought  it,  (and 
I  do  not  blame  him  for  it)  the  beft  fervice  he  could  do  to  his  finking  Caule. 

WORCESTER, 
April  z6. 16 py.  E    i^ 

AN 


?« 


o 


A  N  S  iv  E  R 

TO 

Mr.  LOCKEs  Second  Letter; 

WHEREIN 

Hfs  Notion  of  IDEAS  is  prov'd  to  be  Inconfiftent  with 
it  felf,  andwith  the  ARTICLES  of  the  CHRISTIAN 
FAITH. 

SIR, 

I  Was  not  a  little  furpriz'd  at  the  length  of  your  Second  Letter^  confider- 
ing.  the  ihortnefs  of  the  Anfwer  contained  in  it :  But  it  put  me  in  mind 
of  the  Springs  of  Modem  mention'd  by  Ramazziui,  which  rife  up  with 
fuch  a  plenty  of  Water  upon  opening  a  Paflage,  that  the  Undertaker  is 
afraid  of  being  overwhelm'd  by  it.  I  fee  how  dangerous  it  is  to  give  occafion 
to  a  Perfon  of  fuch  a  fruitful  Invention  to  write;  for  Letters  become  Booh 
and  fmall  Books  will  foon  rife  to  great  Volumes,  if  no  way  be  found  to  give  a 
Check  to  fuch  an  Ehullition  of  Thoughts,  as  fome  Men  find  within  thcmfelves. 
I  was  apt  to  think  the  beft  way  were,  to  let  Nature  fpend  it  felf  j  and  although 
thofe  who  write  out  of  their  own  Thoughts  do  it  with  as  much  Fafe  and  Pleafure 
as  a  Spider  fpins  his  Web;  yet  the  World  foon  grows  weary  of  Controverfies 
efpecially  when  they  are  about  Perfonal  Matters:  Which  made  me  wonder  that 
one  who  underftands  the  World  fo  well,  Ihould  fpend  above  fifty /'dgw  of  a 
Letter  in  renewing  and  enlarging  a  C«?»»;'/dr/«/  wholly  concerning  himfelf,  Sup- 
pofe  I  had  horn  a  little  too  bard  upon  you  in  joyning  your  Words  and  anothers  In- 
tentions together;  had  it  not  been  an  eafie  and  cffedtua!  way  of  clearing  your 
felf,  to  have  declared  to  the  World,  that  you  owned  the  Dofiriae  of  the  Trinity, 
as  it  hath  been  Received  in  the  Chriftian  Church,  and  is  by  oursin  the  Creeds 
and  Articles  of  Religion  }  This  had  ftopt  the  Mouths  of  the  Clamorous,  and 
had  removed  the  Surpic*ions  of  the  Doubtful,  and  would  have  given  full  Satif- 
fadion  to  all  rcafonable  Men.  But  when  you  fo  carefully  avoid  doing  this,  all 
other  Arts  and  Evafions  do  but  leave  the  Matter  more  fufpicious  among  the 
moA  Intelligent  and  Impartial  Readers.  This  I  mention,  not  that  you  need  be 
afraid  of  the  Inquijition,  or  that  I  intend  to  charge  you  with  Herefie  in  denying 
the  Trinity ;  but  my  prefent  Defign  is  to  fhew,  That  your  Mind  is  fo  intangled 
and  (et  faft  by  your  Notion  of  Ideas,  that  >ou  know  not  what  to  make  of  the 
Dodrinesof  ihe  Trinity  and  Incarnation;  becaufeyou  can  have  no  Idea  of  One 
Nature  znd  Three  Per fons,  nor  oi  two  Natures  and  one  Per/on;  as  will  fully  .ap- 
pear afterwards.  And  therefore,  out  of  regard  to  Publick  Service,  in  order 
to  the  prevent  ng  a  growing  Mifchief,  I  (liall  endeavour  to  lay  open  the  ill 
Confequences  of  your  Way  of  Ideas  with  refpedt  to  the  Articles  of  the  Chri- 
flian  Faith. 

But  I  fhall  wave  all  unneceflary  Repetitions,  and  come  immediately  to  the 
Matter  of  your  Complaint  as  it  is  renewed  in  this  Second  Letter,  which  I  Ihall 
briefly  anfwer,  before  I  proceed  to  that  which  I  chiefly  defign.    Your  Com- 
plaint, 


5(^4  AnANS}VEKto       

2d.  Letter  plaint,  you  fay,  was.  That  you  ivere  hroutiljt  into  a  Controverfie  wherein  you  had 

p-  i.        never  me  J  led,  nor  knew  how  you  came  to  he  concerned  in.     I  told  you,  "  It  was 

Anfw.  to  "  becaufethePerfon  who  opofedthe  MyfteriesofChridianity  went  upon  your 

firft  Let-  "  Grounds,  and  made  ufe  of  your  Words ;  although  I  declared  withall,  that 

ter,p.  4(5, «  ^j^^y  ^^^^  ^Igj  j.^  other  purpofes  than  you  intended  them;  and  I  confefs'd, 

**-  that  the  reafon  why  I  quoted  your  Words  fo  much,  was,  becaufe  I  found 

"  your  Notion  as  to  Certainty  by  Ideas,  was  the  main  Foundation  on  which 

"  the  Author  o'lChriftianitynot  Myfterious  went ;  and  that  he  had  nothing  that 

"  look'd  like  Reafon,  if  that  Principle  were  removed;  which   made  me  fo 

*'  much  endeavour  to  fliew,  that  it  would  not  hold,  and  fo  I  fuppoled  the  rea- 

"  fon  why  I  fo  often  mcntion'd  your  Words,  was  no  longer  a  Riddle  to  you. 

id. Letter  "  Thefe  Paflages  you  fer  down  in  your  Second  Letter;  but  you  fay,  al/ this 

/•.  "48.     'feems  to  you  to  do  nothing  towards  the  clearing  of  this  matter.     Whether  it  doth 

P-49-    QY  not,  I  am  content  to  leave  it  to  any  indifferent  Reader  ;  and  there  it  muft 

reft  at  la  ft,  although  you  (hould  write  Folumes  about  it. 
p.  50.        But  for  what  caufe  do  you  continue  fo  unfatisfied  ?  You  tell  us,  It  is,  that  the 
Author  mentioned,  went  upon  this  Ground,  That  clear  and diflintl  Ideai  are  neceffary 
to  Certainty,  hut  that  ii  not  your  Notion  as  to  Certainty  hy  Ideas  ;  which  is.  That 
Certainty  confifts  in  the  Perception  of  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  Ideas,  fuch 
as  we  have,  whether  the)  he  in  all  their  Tarts  perjeBly  clear  and  diflin£l  or  no  : 
And  you  fay,  that youhave  no  Notions  of  Certainty  more  than  this  one. 
Fhfl  Let.      This  is  no  more  than  what  you  had  faid  before  in  your  former  Letter,  and  I 
«^  P'  57-  took  particular  notice  of  it,  and  gave  three  feveral  Anfwers  to  it,  which  I  (halJ 
here  lay  together  and  defend,  becaufe  you  feem  to  think  I  had  not  anfwered  it. 
(i.)  "  That  thofe  who  offer  at  clear  and  diftind  Ideas  bid  much  fairer  for 
*'  Certainty  than  you  do  (according  to  this  Anfwer)  and  fpeak  more  agreeably 
p.  80.   "  to  your  Original  Grounds  of  Certainty.    For  it  is  a  very  wonderfuJl  thing 
in  point  of  Reafon,  for  you  to  pretend  to  Certainty  by  Ideas,  and  not  allow 
thofe  Ideas  to  be  clear  and  diflin^  ?  You  fay,  the  Certainty  lies  in  the  Percep- 
tion of  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  Ideas :  How  can  I  clearly  perceive  the 
Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  Ideoj,  If  I  have  nox.  clear  and  di(ltn^  Ideas  }  For 
how  is  it  poffible  for  a  Man's  Mind  to  know  whether  they  agree  or  difagree,  if 
there  be  lome  parts  of  thofe  Ideas  we  have  only  general  and  confufed  Ideas  oit 
And  therefore  I  had  great  reafon  to  fay,  that  if  Certainty  be  placed  in  Ideas 
we  muft  have  clear  and  diftin(5t  Ideas.     You  may  as  well  fay,  a  Man  may  be 
certain  of  i\\t  Agreement  and  Difagreement  of  Colours  in  a  confufed  or  uncertain 
Light.     For  fo  much  as  the  Idea  fails  ofClearnefs  and  Diftin(5tnefs,  fo  much  it 
fails  of  ihAt  Evidence  which  it  is  neceflary  to  judge  by.     Where-ever  there  is 
Ohfcurity,  Confufon  or  Irnper jetton  in  the  Ideas,  there  muft  be  fo  much  Uncer- 
tainty in  the  Perception  of  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  them.     And  to 
pretend  to  Certainty  by  Ideas  without  pretending  to  clear  and  diftindl  Ideas,  is 
to  judge  without  Evidence,  and  to  determine  a  thing  to  be  certainly  true,  when 
we  cannot  know  whether  it  be  fo  or  not ;  for  how  can  you  be  fure  that  your 
IdcAS  agree  with  the  Reality  of  things  (wherein  you  place  the  Cfr^^w/^  of  Know- 
ledge) if  there  be  no  fuch  Ideas  of  thofe  things,  that  you  can  perceive  their 
true  Nature,  and  their  difference  from  all  others?  For  therein  you  will  not  de- 
ny thit  the  Notion  of  clear  and  difiin^  Ideas  confifis. 
Letter  II.      But  you  fay  more  than  once  or  twice,  or  ten  times.  That  1  hlame  thofe  who 
ip.2,9, to.  plaice  Certainty  in  clear  and  difiin^  Ideas,  hut  you  do  it  not,  and  yet  I  hring  you 
'g'^l' '^'i«  among  them  ;  which  is  the  thing  you  fo  much  complain  of.     I  will  givcyou 
39^+1^17', a  full  Ant'wer  iq  this  Complaint.     I  do  not  deny,  but  the  firft:  occafion  of  my 
50, 5^,-51, Qj-jgj-gg  ^-,5  t]^e  Suppofnion  that  clear  and  diflinil  Ideas  were  necefjary  in  order 
'      '  to  any  Certainty  in  our  Minds,  and  that  ihe  only  way  to  attain  this  Certainty  was 
hy  comparing  thefe  Ideas  together:  But  to  prove  this,  your  Words  were  produ- 
ced, and  your  Principles  of  Certainty  laid  down,  and  none  elfe;  and  I  could  not 

imagine 


Mr.  L o  c  K  e's  Second  Letter.  5^5 

imagine  that  you  could  place  Certainty  in  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  I- 
deas,  and  yet  not  fuppofethofe  Ideas  to  be  clear  and  diftindt.    But  finding  your 
felf  joyned  in  fuch  Company  which  you  did  not  defireto  be  feen  in,  you  rather 
chofe  to  diftingui^  your  felf  from  them,  by  denying  clear  and  diftiniS:  Ideas 
to  be  neceflary  to  Certainty.     But  it  muft  be  here  obferved,  that  our  Debate 
about  Certainty  hy  Ideas  is  not  about  any  other  Certainty,  but  about  Certainty 
of  Knowledge  "i^'wh  regard  to  fome  Vropofit'tony  whofe  Ideas  are  to  be  compared 
as  to  their  Agreement  and  Difagreement.     For  your  Words  are,  Certainty  <'/f^7s^ft 
Knowledge  is  to  perceive  the  Agreement  6r  Difagreement  of  Ideas  as  expreffedin  a-  ^.'  ' 
ny  Propofition.     Thu  we  ufually  call  knowing  or  heing  certain  of  the  truth  of  any  pj  (^  l  - 
Propofition.     So  that  a  Propofition  wiiofe  Ideas  are  to  be  compared  as  to  their  tcr,  p.  57. 
Agreement  or  Difagreement,  is  the  proper  Objedt  of  this  Certainty.     And 
therefore /)!»/j  Certainty  is  to  be  diftinguirfied, 

r.  From  a  Certainty  hy  5f»/f  jor  that  by  which  we  come  to  know  the  Exiftence 
of  External  Oqjedls.  For  vou  fay,  That  the  Knowledge  of  the  Exiflence  of  any  b.  4.  ch. 
o'her  thing  we  can  have  only  hy  Senfation.  For  there  heing  no  necefjary  Connexion  of  1  i.Seft.  i. 
Real  Exiflence  with  any  Idea  a  Man  hath  in  his  Memory ;  no  particular  Man  can 
know  the  Exiflence  of  any  other  Beings  hut  only  when  hy  actual  operating  upon  him 
it  makes  it  felf  perceived  hy  him.  But  that  this  is  quire  another  Certainty  from 
that  of  Idecis^  appears  from  thefe  following  words  of  yours  ,•  For  the  having  the 
Idea  of  any  thing  in  our  Mind,  no  more  proves  the  Exiflence  of  that  thing  than  the 
Figure  of  a  Man  evidences  hii  heing  in  the  World,  or  the  Fifions  of  a  Dreammake 
therehy  a  true  Hiflory.  Therefore  this  is  a  very  different  Certainty  from  that 
oi  Ideas. 

X.  From  a  Certainty  hy  Reafon;  When  from  the  Exiftence  of  fome  things  evi- 
dent to  Senfe,  we  inferr  the  Exiflence  of  another  thing  not  evident  to  Senfe  ; 
AiS  to  take  your  own  words  in  your  former  Letter.  As  to  the  Exiflence  of  ho-  Letter  i. 
dily  Suhflances,  I  know  hy  my  Senfe s,  that fomethingextended^folid and figurd does  ^'  ^'^' 
exifl  5  for  my  Senfes  are  the  utmofl  Evidence  and  Certainty  I  have  of  the  Exi- 
fience  of  extended,  filid,  figured  things.  Thefe  Modes  heing  then  known  to  exi(l  hy 
our  Senfes y  the  Exiflence  of  them  (^which  I  cannot  conceive  can  ft*hfifl  without  fome- 
thing  tofupport  them)  makes  me  fee  the  Connexion  of  thofe  Ideas  with  a  Support^ 
or  as  it  is  called,  Suhje^  of  Inhefion,  and  fo  conjequently  the  Connexion  of  that  Sup- 
port, which  cannot  he  nothing  with  Exiflence, 

Granting  all  this,  yet  it  by  no  means  proves  that  we  can  have  a  Certainty  in 
the  way  of  Ideas,  where  the  Ideas  themfelves  by  which  we  have  the  Certainty 
are  chfcure  and  confufed ;  but  that  fuppofing  the  Ideas  we  have  by  our  Senfes 
to  be  true,  we  may  from  them  inferr  the  Exiflence  of  fomething  of  which  we 
have  only  an  ohfcure  and  confufed  Idea ;  which  is  the  Cafe  oihodtly  Suhflances. 
Of  which  I  grant  you  may  come  to  a  certain  Knowledge,  but  not  a  Certainty 
hy  Ideas,  but  by  a  Confequence  of  Reafon  deduced  from  the  Ideas  we  have  by 
cur  Senfes.  And  this  can  never  prove  that  we  may  have  a  Certainty  hy  Ideas, 
where  the  Ideas  themfelves  are  not  clear  and  diflind :  For  there  is  a  great  difTe- 
rence  between  having  a  Certainty  by  reafon,  of  a  thing  whofe  Idea  is  confufed 
and  ohfcure,  and  having  that  Certainty  hy  ohfcure  and  confufed  Ideas.  For  in 
this  Cafe  the  Idea  oiSuhflance  is  ohfcure :  but  the  way  of  Certainty  is  by  a  clear 
Dedudtion  of  Reafon   from  the  Ideas  we  have  hy  our  Senfes. 

3.  From  a  Certainty  hy  Rememhrance  ;  By  which  I  mean  the  remaining  Impref- 
(ion  on  the  Mind  of  an  Original  Certainty  by  Demonflration.  As  to  ufe  your 
«\A  n  Inllance;  A  Man  hath  found  hy  Mathematical  Evidence,  that  the  three  An-  B.^.ch. ». 
gles  of  a  Triangle  are  equal  to  two  Right  Angles;  The  Perception  of  this  at  the  ^^^'  ^5- 
ume  of  the  Demonllration  was  clear  and  diitindt ;  but  afterwards,  the  Method 
01  DemonQration  may  have  fl;pt  out  of  his  Mind,yec  he  retains  a  Certainty  of 
the  thing  by  vertue  of  that  Demonflration  ;  but  this  is  not  a  clear  Perception, 
as  you  w  ould  have  it,  ivbere  the  Ideas  are  confufed ;  but  it  is  an  obfcure  Re- 

C  c  c  c  membrance 


S66  An  ANSWER  to 


membrance  of  the  grounds  of  that  Certainty  which  he  once  had  ,•  and  hath  ne- 
ver feen  any  Reafon  fince,  why  he  ftiould  call  it  in  Queftion. 

Thefe  things  then  being  put  out  of  the  Queftion,  which  belong  not  to  it; 
the  Queftion  truly  ftated  is,  whether  we  can  attain  to  any  Certainty  of  Know- 
ledge as  to  the  Truth  of  a  Propofition  in  the  way  of  Ideas,  where  the  Ideas  them- 
felvesby  which  we  come  to  that  Certainty  be  not  clear  and  diftindl? 

Another  thing  tobeobferved  is,  xhzi  Des  Cartes  who  firft  ftarted  this  way  of 
Certainty  hy  Ideas,  thought  it  a  ridiculous  thing  in  any  to  pretend  to  it,  unlefs 
Pr'mc'ip.  their  JJeas  were  clear  and  dijlinth  He  faith,  That  vohen  we  affent  without  clear 
b}'^'^^' Perception,  toe  are  either  deceived,  or  fall  into  Truth  hy  chance,  hut  we  do  often 
err  when  we  think  we  have  clear  Perception,  and  have  net.  But  to  a  certain  Judg- 
ment, it  is  neceffary  that  our  Perception  he  not  only  clear  hut  dtftin£l :  that  is,  when 
the  thing  not  only  lies  open  to  our  view,  hut  we  fee  it  on  all  fides,  and  fo  can  di- 
fiinguifh  it  from  all  other  things.  You  agree  with  him  in  placing  Certainty  in 
Ideas,  but  you  difler  from  him  in  that  which  alone  made  his  Opinion  reafona- 
ble,  viz.  That  thefe  Ideas  he  clear  and  dijiin£l.  If  it  were  poflible  for  us  to  come 
to  clear  and  diftind:  Ideas  of  the  things  we  pretefid  ro  be  certain  of,  it  were  a 
juft  Pretence  to  Certainty  in  that  way ;  but  fince  we  cannot  come  at  them,  we 
rauft  be  content  with  fuch  Meafures  of  Knowledge  as  we  are  capable  of.  But 
for  you  to  talk  fo  much  of  Certainty  hy  Ideas,  and  yet  to  allow  Ohfcurity  and  /»*- 
perfedion  in  thofe  Ideas,  is  like  a  purblind  Man  who  would  pretend  to  judge 
exadly  of  the  differences  of  Colours  in  the  Twilight,  becaufe  another  pretended 
to  do  It  at  Noon-day  :  Or  like  one,  who  would  undertake  to  (hew  certainly  the 
Agreement  or  Dtf agreement  of  two  Men  at  adiflance  from  him,  in  their  Habit, 
Features  and  Stature,  and  yet  at  the  fame  time  confefsthat  he  could  not  clearly 
diftinguifh  one  from  the  other.  So  that  if  I  did  think  you  fpake  more  confiftent- 
ly  to  your  Hypothefis,  than  you  fay  now  that  you  did,  I  hope  yoa  will  forgive 
me  that  Wrong,  if  at  leaft  it  be  a  Wrong  to  you ;  for  after  all,  there  are  feve- 
ral  Paflages  in  your  Eff^y,  which  fuppofe  clear  Ideas  neceflary  to  Certainty. 
B.  4.  ch.  For  in  one  place  you  fay.  That  the  mind  not  being  certain  of  the  Truth  of  that 
iS.seft.S.^^  jg^fj  ^^^  gryi^gfjfjy  ^;,fl„,_     What  is  this  but  to  make  clear  Ideas  neceflary 

to  Certainty  ? 
B,  4.  ch.4.      In  another,  yet  more  plainly.  That  which  is  requifite  to  make  our  Knowledge 

'     certain  is  the  Clearnefs  of  our  Ideas. 
B.  4.  ch.        In  a  third  place  you  fay,  For  it  heing  evident  that  our  Knowledge  cannot  exceed 
i2.Seft.    i)^r  Ideas;  where  they  are  either  imperjeSl,  confufed  or  ohfcure,  we  cannot  expe£i 

to  have  certain,  perfect  or  clear  Knowledge. 
B.  4.  ch  2.      In  a  fourth  5  But  ohfcure  and  confufed  Ideas  can  never  produce  any  clear  andcer' 
Seft.  1 5.    tutft  Knowledge,  hecaufe  as  far  as  any  Ideas  are  confufed  or  ohfcure,  the  mind  can  ne- 
ver perceive  clearly  whether  they  agree  or  difagree.     What  can  be  more  exprefs  ? 
And  yet  you  have  complained  of  me  in  near  twenty  places  oiyom  fecond Letter 
for  charging  this  upon  you.    By  this  the  World  will  judge  of  the  Jufticeof  your 
Complaints  and  the  Confflency  of  your  Notion  of  Ideas. 
Anfw  u        (x.)  I  anfwer'd,  "  That  it  is  very  pofTible  the  Author  of  Chriflianity  not 
^^*'^'     "  Myfleriotts,  might  miClake  or  mifapply  your  Notions,  but  there  is  too  much 
■^  ■        "  reafon  to  believe  he  thought  them  the  fame,  and  we  have  no  reafon  to  be 
"  forry  that  he  hath  given  you  this  occafion  for  the  explaining  your  meaning, 
*'  and  for  the  Vindication  of  your  felf  in  the  matters  you  apprehend  he  had 
*'  charged  you  with. 
ut.r.         Here  you  enter  upon  a  frelh  Complaint,  and  fay,  This  can  he  no  Reafon  why 
P-  3<5-        youfbould  he  joyned  with  a  Man  that  had  mifapplied  your  Notions  ;  and  that  no 
Man  hath  fo  much  mijlaken  and  mifapplied  your  Notions  as  my  felf,  and  therefore 
jou  ought  rather  to  he  joyned  with  me.    But  is  this  fair  and  ingenuous  dealing,  to 
reprelent  this  matter  fo,  as  if  I  had  joined  you  together,  hecaufe  he  had mifunder^ 
flood  and  mij  applied  your  Notions  .^  Can  you  think  me  a  Man  of  fo  little  Senfe 

to 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Second  Letter.  5^7 


to  make  that  the  Reafon  of  it?  No,  Sir,  It  was  becaufe  he  afljgned  no  other 
Grounds  but  yours,  and  that  in  yvur  own  WorJs,  however  now  you  would  di- 
vert the  meaning  of  them  another  way.    And  although  I  was  willing  to  allow 
you  all  reafonable  Occafions  for  your  own  Findication,  as  appears  by  my  Wotds; 
yet  I  was  fenfible  enough,  that  you  had  given  too  jufl:  an  Occafion  to  apply  thetn 
in  that  manner,  as  appears  by  the  next  Page.    But  becaufe  thefe  words  follow 
fome  I  had  quoted  out  of  your  Poflfeript^  you  fall  into  a  nice  piece  of  Criticifm  a-  ^"Z*^'' '" 
bout  them,  which,  you  fay,  in  GramntJtical  CoHJiru^ion,  miifl  refer  to  the  WorJs^^'^^[ '' 
of  the  Foftfiript ;  but  any  one  that  reads  without  a  defign  to  cavil,  would  ea-  utter  2. 
fily  interpret  thent  of  your  IVorJs  and  tfotions  about  which  the  Debate  was  ;'*•'*'• 
and  not  of  the  Poflfcript,  which  comes  in  but  as  a  Parenthejji.    This  looks  like 
Chicaning  in  Controverfie;  which  no  Man,  who  knows  his  Caufe  is  good, 
ever  falls  into. 

But  if,  you  fay,  ly  an  uninteUigihle  nelv  way  of  Con^ruSlion  the  word  Th^m. 
le  applied  to  any  Paffages  in  your  Book:  What  then?  Why  then,  whoever  they 
are,  you  intend  to  complain  of  them  too.  But  the  words  jufl:  before  tell  you  who  ^-  ♦<5' 
they  are,  viz.  The  Enemies  of  the  Chrijiian  Faith.  And  is  this  all  that  you  in- 
tend, only  to  complain  of  them  for  making  you  a  Party  in  the  Controverfie  againji 
the  Trinity  ?  But  whether  you  have  not  made  your  felf  too  much  a  Party  in  it, 
will  appear  before  we  have  done. 

I  had  with  great  Kindnefs,  as  I  thought,  taken  notice  of  aPafTage  in  your  Pojl- 
fcript:  in  which  I  was  glad  to  find  that  in  general,  you  owned  the  Myfleries  of 
the  Chrijiian  Faith,  and  the  Scripture  to  he  the  Foundation  and  Rule  of  it :  From 
whence  I  inferr'd,  that  I  could  not  believe  you  intended  to  give  any  Advantage 
to  the  Enemies  of  the  Chriftian  Faith.  This  Pajfage,  you  fay,  you  were  fur-  p-  4^- 
prized  to  find  in  a  Paragraph  defign  d  to  give  you  fatisfailion.  There  are  fome 
Perlons  I  find  very  hard  to  htjatisfied.  For  I  fpeak  of  my  fat isfaStion  in  this 
Paflage,  and  that  I  was  glad  you  agreed  fo  far  with  me,  although  you  could 
not  come  up  in  all  things  to  what  I  could  wifh.  But  what  Reafon  have  you 
to  exprefs  fo  much  difIatisfa<ftion  at  thefe  Words?  You  call  it  an  entraordina-  -P. 43.44- 
ry  fort  of  Complement ;  and  that  they  feem  to  intimate  at  though  1  took  you  for  a 
Heathen  before. 

How  like  a  cavilling  Exception  is  this?  Do  not  we  know  that  in  the  Debate 
about  the  Myfleries  of  Faith  our  Adverfaries  are  no  Heathens;  but  they  deny 
any  Myfleries:  I  was  glad  to  find  that  you  owned  them  ;  and  refolved  your 
Faith  into  the  Scripture  as  the  Foundation  of  if.  Did  not  this  look  more  like 
a  good  Opinion  of  you  as  to  thefe  matters,  than  any  Inclination  to  fufpedlyou 
for  a  Heathen  > 

But  you  fay,  It  mujl  not  le  taken  for  granted,  that  thofe  who  do  not  write  or  P-  42- 
appear  in  Print  in  Controverfies  of  Religion  do  not  own  the  Chrijiian  Faith,  and  the 
Scriptures  as  the  Rule  of  it.  I  was  far  enough  from  any  (uch  Apprehenfion  j 
but  the  cafe  is  quite  otherwife,  with  thofe  who  are  not  fparing  of  writing  a- 
hout  Articles  of  Fail h,  and  among  them  take  great  care  to  avoid  fome  which 
have  been  always  efteem'd  fundamental  Articles  by  the  Chriftian  Church.  And 
1  think  it  was  no  want  of  Humanity  or  Chriflian  Charity  in  me,  that  I  was  ^o 
glad  to  find  you  own  the  Myfleries  of  theChriftian  Faith  in  general :  whicli  Ihews 
at  lead  that  you  cannot  objedl  againfl;  any  Articles  of  Faith,  becaufe  they  con- 
tain fomething  myflerious  in  them. 

But  I  faid.  That  in  all  things  your  Anfwer  doth  not  come  fully  up  to  what  I  could 
wifh.  And  I  think  I  gave  fufficient  Proof  of  it,  as  to  your  Idea  of  Subjlance,  the 
Nature  of  Ideas,  the  Materiality  of  the  Soul,  the  d if  parading  fome  Argumeits  to 
prove  the  Extftenc:  of  God,  the  Tendency  of  your  Principles,  and  the  Ground  of 
Certainty,  &c.  Which  are  put  off' to  another  Letter,  except  the  lart,  which 
is  therefore  now  to  be  examined. 

C  c  c  c  %  Cv)  The 


S6H An  ANSWER  to 

Anfn>er  to      ^^^)  ^hg  third  Afilwer  I  gave  was,  "  That  your  own  Grounds  of  Certainty 
p!^^!  '    "  ^^^^  ^°  Scepticifm ;  and  that  in  an  Age  wherein  the  Myfleries  of  Faith  are  too 
"  much  expofed  by  the  Promoters  of  Scepticifm  and  Infidelity,  it  is  a  thing  of 
"  dangerous  Confequence  to  flart  fuch  new  Methods  of  Certainty,  as  are  apt 
Letter  2.  "  to  Icave  Mens  minds  more  doubtful  than  before.  Thefe  words,  you  fay,  c<?»- 
P-  4^'       tain  a  farther  Accujation  of  your  Book,  which  (hall  he  confiderd  in  its  due  place. 
But  this  is  the  proper  place  pf  confidering  ir.     For  I  faid,  "  That  hereby  you 
"  have  given  too  jufl  occafion  to  the  Enemies  of  the  Chriftian  Faith,  to  make 
"  ufe  of  your  Words  and  Notions,  as  was  evidently  proved  from  your  own  Con- 
"  ceflions.     And  if  this  be  fo,  however  I  was  willing  to  have  had  you  explained 
your  feif  to  the  general  Satisfaction ;  yet  fince  you  decline  it,  I  do  infill:  upon  it, 
that  you  cannot  clear  your  felf  from  laying  that  Foundation,  which  the  Au- 
thor of  Chriflianity  not  My(lerious  built  upon.   For  your  Ground  of  Certainty  is 
the  Jgreement  or  Difagreement  of  tffe  Ideas,  as  expreffed  in  any  Propojition. 
Which  are  your  own  Words.  From  hence  I  urg'd,  "  That  let  the  Propofition 
"  come  to  us  any  way,  eitherbyHiimane  or  Divine  Authority,  if  our  Certainty 
"  depend  upon  this,  we  can  be  no  more  certain,  than  we  have  clear  Perception 
"  of  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  Ideas  contained  in  it.    And  from  hence 
"  the  Author  of  Chriflianity  not  Myflerious  thought  he  had  Reafon  to  rejed;  all 
"  Myfteriesof  Faith  which  are  contained  in  Propofitions,  upon  your  Grounds 
"  of  Certainty.     By  this  it  evidently  appears,  that  although  I  was  willing  to 
allovv  you  all  fair  ways  of  interpreting  your  own  Senfe ;  yet  I  by  no  means 
thought  that  yourWords  were  wholly  mifunderftoodox  mijappljd  by  that  Author : 
but  rather  that  he  faw  into  the  true  Confequence  of  them,  as  they  lie  in  your 
Book.    And  what  Anfwer  do  you  give  to  this  ?  Not  a  word  in  the  proper 
place  for  ir.    But  afterwards  (for  I  would  omit  nothing  that  may  feem  to  help 
your  Caufe)  you  offer  fomething  towards  an  Anfwer.     For  there  you  diftin- 
Letter  2    8"^^  ^^^  Certainty  of  Faith,  and  the  Certainty  of  Knowledge,  and  you  humbly  con' 
p.  P5.    *  ceive  the  Certainty  of  Faith,  if  I  think  fit  to  call  it  fo,  hath  nothing  to  do  with 
the  Certainty  of  Knowledge ;  and  to  talk  of  the  Certainty  of  Faith  feems  all  one  to 
you  as  to  talk  of  the  Knowledgns  of  Believing,  a  way  of  f peaking  not  eafie  for  you  to 
under fl and.     So  that  if  I  [pake  never  fo  much  the  Certainty  of  Knowledge,  it  doth 
not  at  all  concern  the  Affurance  of  Faith,  that  is  quite  difiin^  from  it,  neither 
Jiands  nor  falls  with  Knowledge.     Faith  flands  hy  it  felf ,  and  upon  Grounds  of  its 
own,  nor  can  he  removed  from  them  and  placed  on  thofe  of  Knowledge,  fheir  Grounds 
are  fo  far  from  being  the  fame,  or  having  any  thing  common,  that  when  it  is  brought 
to  Certainty,  Faith  is  deflroyd,  'tis  Knowledge  then  and  Faith  no  longer.   So  thaty 
whether  you  are,  or  are  not  mifiaken  in  the  placing  Certainty  in  the  Perception  of 
the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  Ideas,  Faith  fi ill  flands  upon  its  own  Bafts,  which 
is  not  at  all  alter  d  hy  it ;  and  every  Article  of  that  hath  jufi  the  Jame  unmoved 
Foundation,  and  the  very  fame  Credibility  that  it  had  before.  This  is  the  Subftance 
of  what  you  fay  about  this  Matter,  and  is  the  mofl:  confiderable  Paflage  in  your 
Book  towards  clearing  this  Matter. 
Anjxee^to       But  I  wasawatc  of  this,  ss  appears  by  thefc  Wotdsj  "  Is  Faith  an  unreafonablc 
letta  I.  «  p^^x  ?  Is  it  not  an  AfTcnt  to  a  Propofuion  ?  Then,  If  all  Certainty  in  Ads  of 
r-Sj.       ti  Reafon  be  derived  from  the  perceiving  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of 
"  the  Ideas  contained  in  it;  either  there  can  be  no  Certainty  in  the  reafonable 
"  Ad  of  Faith,  or  the  Grounds  of  Certainty  muft  be  laid  fome  other  way. 

But  this  is  a  Matter  of  too  great  Weight  and  Confequence  to  be  eafily  pad  over, 
becaufe  the  main  ftrength  of  your  Defence  lies  in  it,  and  therefore  I  Ihall  more 
flridly  examine  what  you  fay  h  and  fet  this  Point  of  the  Certainty  of  Faith  in  as 
good  a  Light  as  I  can,  and  fhew  the  Inconfiffency  of  your  Notion  of  Ideas, 
with  the  Articles  of  the  Chriftian  Faith.  To  talk  of  the  Certainty  of  Faith,  fay  you, 
feems  all  one  to  you  as  to  talk  of  the  Kowledge  of  Believing ;  a  way  of  f peaking  not 
eafie  for  you  to  underfland. 

But 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Second  Letter.  5^^ 


But  how  comes  the  Certainty  of  Faith  to  become  fo  hard  a  Point  with  you  i 
Have  not  all  Mankind,  who  have  talked  of  Matters  of  Faith,  alJow'd  ^Certainty 
ef  Faith  as  well  as  a  Certainty  of  Knowledge,  although  upon  different  Grounds? 
In  your  former  Letter  you  told  us,  that  if  we  knew  the  Original  of  IVords,  we 
fhould  be  m  ich  helped  to  the  Ideas  they  were  jirfl  applied  to  and  made  to  fl and  for. 
Now  what  is  there  in  the  Or/^/Wof  the  word  Cfrr^j/w/i- which  makes  ituncapa- 
ble  of  being  applied  to  Faith?  1  had  thought  that  our  Word  was  taken  frorri 
the  Latin ;  and  that  among  the  Romans  it  was  oppofed  to  doubting,  A^//  tarn 
certum  quam  quod  de  duhio  certum. 

And  therefore  where  the  Mind  upon  examination  of  the  Grounds  of  Aflent 
faw  no  Reafon  for  doubting,  it  might  properly  be  faid  to  be  certain  :  !f  it  fees 
no  Caufe  to  doubt  from  the  Evidence  of  the  Thing  ic  fclf,  or  the  clear  DeducSlion 
of  Confequences,  that  is  Certainty  of  Knowledge ;  but  where  it  fees  no  Reafoa 
to  doubt  from  the  Authority  of  him  that  fpeaks,  that  is  Certainty  of  Believingi, 
and  the  greater  the  Authority  of  him  tliat  fpeaks,  the  Ms  Realbn  there  is  to 
doubt,  and  therefore  the  greater  Certainty  of  Faith.  And  this  I  think  is  very 
eafie  to  he  mderflood^  and  ^o  have  the  Generality  of  Mmkind  thought  to  this 
Day.  But  it  (eems  our  o!d  Words  mu  ll  not  now  pafs  in  the  current  Senfe ;  but 
then  it  is  fit  they  be  called  in,  and  new  (lampt,  that  vvc  may  have  none  but  Nevii  , 
»;//7f^Pf^(7r</j  to  talk  with;  but  in  common  juQice,  a  competent  time  ought  to 
be  allow "d  for  it,  that  none  be  furprized  ;  and  in  the  mean  time  they  ought  to 
pafs  in  their  current  Senfe;  and  that  is  all  the  Favour  I  6e''ve  in  this  Matter. 
But  I  am  utterly  againft  any  Private  Mint  of  Words;  and  think  thofe  Perfons 
afTume  too  much  Authority  to  themfelves,  who  will  not  fufler  common  Words 
to  pafs  in  their  general  Acceptation ;  but  will  fetfuch  Bounds  and  Limits  to  the 
Senfe  of  them,  as  fuit  befl  with  their  own  Speculations. 

But  is  not  this  all  one  as  to  talk  of  the  Knowledge  of  Believing  *  For  what  Rea- 
fon? Knowledge  and  Faith  are  too  diflinit  things,  the  one  relates  to  Evidence, 
and  the  other  to  Teflimony ;  but  Certainty  is  common  to  them  both,  unlefs 
you  think  ir  impoffible  to  be  certain  upon  any  Teftimony  whatfoever.  You 
tell  us  in  your  Poftfcript  (^ which  I  hope  may  be  brought  hither  without  Of-  psflfcript 
fence}  that  it  is  a  fhame  among  Chriflians  to  raife  fuch  a  Doubt  of  this,  Whether  t-  3* 
an  infinitely  power  full  and  wife  Being  he  veracious  or  no.  Then  I  fuppofethe  Vera- 
city of  God  is  a  certain  and  undoubted  Principle?  and  !f  there  be  fufficient 
Means  to  aflure  us  of  Divine  Revelation  (as  I  doubt  not  but  you  yield  there  are) 
what  Ihould  hinder  one,  that  believes  upon  fuch  Grounds  as  are  fufficient  to 
convince  him,  from  attaining  to  a  Certainty  of  Faith}  But  you  take  Certainty 
Hi  helcngingonly  to  Knowledge.  So  do  ihe Papifls,  as  belonging  only  to  Infafli- 
hility,  and  fay  there  can  be  no  Certainty  of  Faith,  where  there  is  not  an  Infa/li- 
hle  Proponent ;  but  neither  you  nor  they  are  to  impofe  upon  the  Underftandings 
of  Mankind,  who  know  how  to  diftinguilli  the  Grounds  of  Certainty  both  from 
Knowledge  and  Infa/lihility.  You  allow  fuch  a  thing  as  Affurance  of  Faith;  and  p.  56. 
whv  not  Certainty  as  well  as  Jffurance*  I  know  no  reafon,  but  that  you  have 
appropriated  Certainty  to  the  Perception  of  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of 
Ideas  in  any  Propofition;  and  now  you  find  this  will  not  hold  as  to  Articles  of 
Faith;  and  theref  re  30U  will  allow  no  Certainty  of  Faith;  which  I  think 
is  not  for  the  Advantage  of  your  Caufe, 

But  you  go  on  and  tell  us,  "that  if  this  Way  of  Certainty  hy  Ideas  doth  not  hold, 
yet  V  cannot  afed  Matters  of  Faith  which  (land  immoveable  upon  other  Grounds  ; 
faith  in  youi  own  words  fl  and s  fl  ill  upon  its  own  Bafts ;  ayid  every  Article  of  it  has 
jufi  the  fame  unmoved  Foundation,  and  the  very  fame  Credibility  that  it  had  before. 
This  will  appear  to  bean  extraordinary  Anfwer,  whm  we  have  throughly  exa- 
min'd  ir.  Here  we  fee  Faith  is  taken  not  with  refpv(5l  to  the  geueial  Grounds  of 
Certainty,  hniiothQ  particular  Articles  of  Faith,  i.e.  tY.c  Pro  po  fi  ti  ons  conuw.td 
in  that  Revelation  si  hich  we  embrace  on  the  Account  of  its  Divine  Authority  ; 
no'ii/  i\\€x  Propofrions  ^xQoi  feveral  Kinds.  i.  Some 


510  An  ANSWER  to 


I.  Some  that  are  more  ckarly  exprefled  therein,  but  fuch  as  might  be  attain- 
ed toby  the  Light  of  Reafon  without  Revelation.    And  fuch  are  the  funda- 
mental Principles  of  natural  Religion,  viz.  The  Being  of  God  and  Providence, 
and  the  Rewards  and  Punifhments  of  a  future  State.     Thefe  Mankind  may  at- 
tain to  a  Certainty  in,  without  Revelation,  or  elfe  there  can  be  no  fuch  thing  as 
natural  Religion  in  the  World ;  but  thefe  things  are  more  fully  and  plainly  revea- 
led in  the  Scriptures.    Let  us  now  fuppofe  a  Perfon  by  natural  Reafon  to  attain 
to  a  Certainty,  as  to  the  Being  of  God  and  Immortality  of  the  Soul ;  and  he 
proceeds  upon  your  general  Grounds  of  Certainty,  from  the  Agreement  or  Difz- 
greement  of  Idem  ;  and  fo  from  the  Ideas  of  God  and  the  Soul,  he  is  made  certain 
of  thofe  two  Points  before  mention'd.    But  let  us  again  fuppofe  that  fuch  a  Per- 
fon upon  a  farther  Examination  of  your  Method  of  Proceeding  finds  that  tl>e 
P.  131.    Way  of  IdeM  in  thefe  Cafeswill  not  do;  forwo  Idea  proves  the  Exijlence  of  the 
thing  without  itfelf  no  more  than  the  Figure  of  a  Man  proves  his  Being,  or  the 
Vifions  of  a  Dream  make  a  true  Hiflory,  (which  are  your  own  Expreflions.)  And 
for  the  Soul  he  cannot  be  certain,  but  that  Matter  may  think,  (as  you  affirm) 
and  then  what  becomes  of  the  Soul's  Immateriality  (and  confequently  Immor- 
tality) from  its  Operations?  But  for  all  this,  fay  you,  his  Affurance  of  Faith  re- 
mains firm  on  its  own  Bafis.    Now  I  appeal  to  any  Man  of  Senfe,  whether  the 
finding  the  Uncertainty  of  his  own  Principles  which  he  went  upon  in  Point  of 
Reafon,  doth  not  weaken  the  Credibility  of  thefe  fundamental  Articles  when 
they  are  confider'd  purely  as  Matters  of  Faith?  For  before,  there  was  a  natural 
Credibility  in  them  on  the  Account  of  Reafon ;  but  by  going  on  wrong  Grounds 
of  Certainty,  all  that  is  lofl: ;  and  inftead  of  being  certain  he  is  more  doubtful] 
than  ever.  And  if  the  Evidence  of  Faith  falls  fo  much  fhort  of  that  of  Reafon,  it 
muft  needs  have  lefs  Effed  upon  Mens  Minds,  when  the  fubferviency  of  Rea- 
fon is  taken  away,  as  it  muft  be  when  the  Grounds  of  Certainty  by  Reafon  are 
vanilhed.     Is  it  at  all  probable,  that  he  who  finds  his  Reafon  deceive  him  in 
fuch  Fundamental  Points  lliould  have)&«  Faith  fiand frm  and unmoveahle  on  the 
account  of  Revelation  ?  For  in  Matters  of  Revelation,  there  muft  befome  An- 
tecedent Principles  fuppofed  before  we  can  believe  any  thing  on  the  Ac- 
count of  it. 

And  the  firfl  is,  that  there  is  a  God ;  but  this  was  the  very  thing  he  found 
himfelf  at  a  lofs  in  by  his  way  of  Certainty  hy  Ideas  ;  and  how  can  his  Faith 
(land  firm  as  to  Divine  Revelation,  when  he  is  made  Uncertain  by  hisown  Way, 
whether  there  be  a  God  or  no  ?  Befides,  to  fuppofe  Divine  Revelation  we  mufl: 
be  certain  that  there  is  a  Principle  above  Matter  and  Motion  in  the  World  ;  but 
here  we  find,  that  upon  the  Principles  o{  Certainty  hy  Ideas  he  cannot  be  certain 
of  this ;  becaufe  he  doth  not  know  but  Matter  may  think,  and  confequently, 
all  Revelation  may  be  nothing  but  the  Effects  of  an  Exalted  Fancy,  or  the  Heats 
of  a  difordered  Imagination,  z%  Spinoza  affirmed.  Again,  before  there  can  be  a- 
ny  fuch  thing  as  Affitrance  of  Faith  upon  Divine  Revelation,  there  muft  be  a  Cer- 
tainty as  to  Senfe  sitid  Tradition ;  for  there  can  be  no  Revelation  pretended  now 
without  immediate  Infpiration  ;  and  the  Bafis  of  our  Faith  is  a  Revelation  con- 
tained in  an  Ancient  Book,  whereof  the  Parts  were  delivered  at  diftant  Times, 
but  conveyed  down  to  us  by  an  Univerfal  Tradition.  But  now,  what  if  your 
Grounds  of  Certainty  can  give  us  no  AfltJrarxe  as  to  thefe  things  >  I  do  not 
mean,  that  they  cannot  demondrate  Matters  of  .Fad,  which  it  were  moft  un- 
reafonable  to  e\pz(3t ;  but  that  thefe  Grounds  of  Certainty  make  all  things 
uncertain  ;  for  I  think  I  have  proved,  that  this  way  of  Ideas  cannot  give  a  la- 
tisfadory  account  as  to  theExiftence  of  the  p!aineft  Objects  of  Senfe;  becaufe 
Reafon  cannot  perceive  the  Connexion  between  the  Olje£ls  and  the  Ideas.  How 
thencan  we  arrive  to  any  Certainty  in  perceiving  thofe  Objedlsby  their  Ideas  ? 
And  I  was  in  the  right,  w  hen  1  laid  this  Way  tended  to  Scepticifm ;  and  I  do  not 
think  that  confiflent  with  the  Affurnce  of  Faith. 

But 


P.  i?i. 


Mr.  Locke's  Second  Letter.  571 


But  this  is  an  Imputation  you  take  very  ill,  and  fay,  that  I  have  hrought  no  Ar-  Letter  2. 
gttment  for  it,  hut  only  that  my  great  Preju/Iice  agaitifi  this  way  of  Certainty  is,  ?•  ^7°' 
that  it  leads  toScepticifm.  (Scepticifnt  is  the  New  Milled  Word.}     This  is  very 
ftrange,  when  that  Expreflion  is  only  the  Introduction  to  the  Arguments  from 
^.  I  If.  to  132.  to  which  no  Anfwer  is  given.     And  fo  I  leave  it. 

There  are  other  Propofitions  or  Articles  of  Faith  which  wholly  depend  on  i. 
theSenfe  of  Words  contain'd  in  the  Scripture,  and  we  are  to  enquire,  whether 
the  /iflurance  of  Faith,  as  you  call  it,  be  confident  with  the  overthrowing  your 
Grounds  of  Certainty;  i  e.  whether  thofe  who  embrace  the  Articles  ot  Faith 
in  the  Way  of  Ideas,  can  retain  their  Certainty  of  thofe  Articles  when  thefe  Ideas 
are  quitted.  And  this  alone  will  be  a  plain  Demonflration  in  the  Cafe,  that 
the  Certainty  of  Faith  cannot  ftand  with  fuch  Men,  if  this  way  of  Certainty  by- 
Ideas  be  deftroyed.  And  by  this  which  I  am  now  to  make  our,  let  any  one 
judge  how  true  your  Words  are  like  to  prove,  when  you  fay,  Let  the  Grounds 
of  Knowledge  or  Certainty  he  refolved  into  what  they  pleafe,  it  touches  not  your  Faith ; 
the  Foundation  of  that  Jl and s  as  fur e  as  before,  and  cannot  he  at  all  fhaken  hy  it. 
Of  this  we  Ihall  judge  by  fome  important  Articles  oiChriflian  /ai/'/E;  according 
to  your  Ideas. 

The  firfl  lliall  be  that  of  the  Fefurre^ion  of  the  Dead.  The  Reafon  of  believing 
the  Refurredtion  of  the  fame  Body  upon  your  Grounds  is  from  the  Idea  of  Iden- 
tity ;  which  I  take  to  be  this  from  your  own  words,     i.  That  the  Identity  of  li-  Eflay,B.2. 
ving  Creatures  depends  not  on  a  Mafs  of  the  fame  Particles,  hut  on  fomethinq^  elfe  i'^^'^'^  °  i- 
for  in  them  the  variation  of  great  Parcels  of  Matter  alters  not  the  Identity  ',  for 
which  you  inflame  in  the  growth  of  an  Oak  and  a  Horfe.     %.  That  the  Identity  of  a    n.  5. 
Man  confifls  in  nothing  hut  a  Participation  of  the  fame  continued  Life  hy  conflant- 
ly  fleeting  Particles  of  Matter,  in  Succefjion  vitally  united  to  the  fame  Organized 
B»dy.     ■\.  That  Per fonal  Identity,  i.e.  the  famenefs  of  a  Rational  Being  lies  in    n.  p. 
Selfconfcioufnefs,  and  in  that  alone,  whether  it  he  annexed  only  to  one  Individual 
Suhftance,  or  can  he  continued  in  a  Succeffion  offeveralSuhflances.   4.  That  thofe  who  n.  1 1. 
place  Thought  in  a  purely  material,  animal  Conflitution,  void  of  Spirit,  do  place  Per- 
fonal  Identity  in  fomething  elfe  than  Identity  of  Suhflance,  as  Animal  Identity  is 
preferved  in  Identity  of  Life  and  not  of  Suhflance.     5.  That  it  matters  not  to  this  n.  15. 
point  of  heing  the  fame  felf,  whether  this  prefent  felf  he  madeup  of  the  fame  or  other 
Suhflance  s.     6.  That  in  this  Per  fonal  Identity  ofSelfconfciouJnefs  is  founded  a/T  ^  i^- 
the  Right  and  Juflice  af  Reward  and  Punifhment,  Happmefs  and  Mifery,  heing 
that  for  which  every  one  is  concerned  for  himfelf  not  mattering  what  hecomes  of  any  n.  26. 
Suhflance  not  joined  to,  or  afeded  with  that  Confcioufnefs.     7.  That  the  Sentence 
at  the  Day  of  Judgment  will  he  juflified  hy  the  Confcioufnefs  all  Perfons  fhall  have 
that  they  themfelves  in  what  Bodies  foever  they  appear,  or  what  Suhflances  foever 
that  Confcioufnefs  adheres  to,  are  the  fame  that  committed  thofe  Actions  and  defer  ve 
that  Punifhment  for  them.     This  I  fuppofe  to  be  a  true  and  juft  Account  of 
your  Senfe  of  this  Matter ;  and  fo  the  Article  of  the  Refurredion  is  Refolved  in- 
to" your  Idea  of  Per  fonal  Identity.  And  the  Queftion  between  us  now  is,  Whe- 
ther \  our  Certainty  of  this  Matter  from  your  Idea  have  no  influence  en  the  Be- 
lief of  this  Article  of  Faith  ?  For  the  main  of  your  Defence  lies  upon  this  Point, 
Whether  your  Method  of  Certainty  hy  Ideas,  doth  at  aU  fhake,  or  in  the  leaft  con- 
cern the  Affurance  of  Faith  >  which  you  abfolutely  deny,  and  affirm,  That  Faith  Letta  2. 
fiands  upon  its  own  Bafts,  and  is  not  at  all  altered  hy  your  Method  of  Certainty ;  ^-  ^^' 
and  every  Article  of  that  has  jufi  the  fame  unmoved  Foundation,  and  the  very 
fame  Credibility  that  it  had  hefore.     Now  I  take  this  Article  of  the  Refurreclion 
of  the  Dead  to  be^Jw  Article  of  Faith,  and  we  are  to  confidcr,  whether  if  your 
Method  of  Certainty  by  Ideas  do  hold  in  this  Matter,  it  continues  as  firm,  and 
in  the  fame  Credibility  it  had  hefore  >  I  ihall  not  urge  you  witli  the  Senfe  of 
our  own  or  other  Chriftian Churches  in  this  Point  of  the  Samenefs  ol  the  iiody 
in  the  Refurredion  of  the  Dead,  but  1  fliall  confine  my  felf  to  the  Scripiure  as 

the 


572 AnANSlTERto       

the  Foundation  and  Rule  of  our  Faith  ;  and  the  main  Point  is,  Whether  accor- 
ding to  that,  it  be  not  neceflary  for  the  fame  Subflance  which  was  united  to  the 
Body  to  be  raifed  up  at  the  laft  Day  >  I  do  not  fay  thefameindividual  Particles 
of  Matter  which  were  united  at  the  Point  of  Death ;  for  there  muft  be  a  great 
Alteration  in  them  in  a  lingring  Difeafe,  as  if  a  Fat  Man  falls  into  a  Confumpti- 
on  ;  I  do  not  (ay,  the  fame  Particles  which  the  Sinner  had  at  the  very  time 
of  commiffion  of  his  Sins ;  for  then  a  long  Sinner  muil  have  a  vaft  Body,  con- 
fidering  the  continual  fpending  of  Particles  by  Pcrfpiration  ;  but  that  which 
T  fuppole  is  impl}  ed  in  it  is,  that  it  muft  be  the  fame  Material  Subftance  which 
was  vitally  united  to  the  Soul  here.  You  mention  the  Hypothecs  of  thofe,  who 
n.  25.  place  Thought  in  a  purely  Material  Animal  Conflitution'void of  Spirit:  but  you 
agree,  that  the  were  prohahle  Opinion  is,  that  this  Confcioufnefs  is  annexed  to  the 
Jffedion  of  one  Individual  Immaterial  Suhfiance.  It  is  very  well  that  it  is  al- 
lowed to  be  the  more  prohahle  Opinion ;  but  it  feems  without  any  Certainty  as 
to  the  Truth  of  it.     For  you  have  told  us,  what  the  Effedt  of  Frohahility  is, 

Ef[ay,B4.  ^jg,    ffj^f  j[  }j  enough  to  induce  the  Mind  to  judge  the  Propojition  true  or  falfe  ra- 

Seft.'  I "  ^^^''  '^'"'  '^•'^  contrary  ;  and  that  it  is  converfant  ahout  things  whereof  we  have  no 
Certainty,  hut  only  fame  Inducements  to  receive  it  for  true.     Thence  I  cannot  but 

Sea.  4.  obferve,  that  we  have  no  Certainty  upon  your  Grounds,  that  Selfconfcioufnefs 
depends  upon  an  individual  immaterial  Subflance,  and  confequently  that  a  Ma- 
terial Subtlancc  may,  according  to  your  Principles,  have  Self-confcioufnefs 
in  it ;  at  leaft  that  you  are  not  certain  of  the  contrary.  Now  I  pray  confider, 
whether  this  doth  not  a  little  affedt  the  whole  Article  of  the  Rejurretlion  ?  For, 
if  it  may  be  only  a  Material  Subflance  in  us  that  thinks,  then  this  Subftance, 
which  confifts  in  the  Life  of  an  Organiz'd  Body,  muft  ceafe  by  Death  ;  for 
how  can  that,  which  confifted  in  Life,  be  preferved  afterwards  ?  And  if  the 
Perfonal  Indent ity  confifts  in  a  Selfconfcimfnefs  depending  on  fuch  a  Subftance 
as  cannot  be  preferved  without  an  Organiz'd  Body,  then  there  is  no  Subfiftence 
of  it  (eparate  from  the  Body,  and  the  Refurre^tion  muft  begiving  a  new  Life. 
To  whom?  To  a  Material  Subftance  vihich  wholly  loft  its  Perfonal  I- 
denrity  by  Death.  So  that  here  can  be  no  Perfonal  Identity  at  all  ;  unlefs 
you  fay  the  very  fame  Life  which  was  long  fince  at  an  end  can  be  Reproduced. 
Which  T  fuppofe  you  will  not  aflert. 

But  let  us  take  the  more  prohahle  Opinion ;  which  I  think  certain,  viz.  That 
Self-confcioufnefs  depends  upon  an  Immaterial  Principle  in  us;  and  then  the 
Queftion  is.  How  far  the  Scripture  determines  the  famenefs  of  the  Body  at 
the  Refurredlion,  i.  e.  of  that  Material  Subftance,  which  was  vitally  united 
witl)  that  Immaterial  Subftance  in  this  Life.    The  Dodrine  deliver'd  by  our 

john5.i8,  Saviour  is,  that  all  that  are  in  the  Graves  Jha/l  hear  his  voice ;  and  fjaO  come  forth; 

^^'  ^  they  that  have  done  good  unto  the  Refurre£iion  of  Life,  and  tkey  that  have  done 
evil  to  the  Refurre^ion  of  Damnation.  What  is  the  meaning  of  all  that  are  in 
their  Graves  ^  Doth  this  relate  to  any  other  Suhfiance  than  that  which  was  uni- 
ted to  the  Soul  in  Life  >  Can  a  different  Subftance  be  fa  id  to  be  in  the  Grai^es 
and  to  come  out  of  them?  Is  it  not  material,  as  you  fay,  whether  the  prefent  Self 
he  made  up  of  the  jame  or  other  Suhflances  ?  If  it  be  not  fo  to  your  Idea  of  /■ 
dentity,  it  is  as  to  the  Senfe  of  our  Saviour's  Words  :  unlefs  you  can  make  it 
out,  that  a  Subftance  which  never  was  in  the  Grave  may  come  out  of  it.  But  it 
may  be  fa  id.  That  if  thefe  Words  he  taken  ftriilly  they  confine  the  Rejurre^ion  to 
thofe  Particles  of  Matter  only  which  were  in  the  Grave ;  if  not,  then  they  may  extend 
to  another  Suh/lance.  I  anfwer,  that  by  comparing  this  with  other  places  we 
find  that  the  Words  are  to  be  underftood  of  the  SubUanceof  that  Body  to  which 

»Cor. s.  the  Soul  was  united;  and  not  to  thofe  Individual  Particles.     So Sr.  Paul,  For 

^°'  we  mufl  all  appear  before  the  Judgment-Seat  of  Chrifl,  that  every  one  may  receive 

the  things  done  in  hishody,  according  to  that  he  hath  done,  whether  it  he  good  or 
had'.    Can  thefe  words  be  underftood  of  any  other  Material  Subftance,  but  that 

Body 


Mr.  Locke's  Second  L e t t e r.  573 

Boely  in  which  thefe  things  were  done  >  How  could  it  be  (aid,  if  any  other  Sub- 
ftance  be  joyned  to  the  Soul  at  the  Refurredion,  as  its  Body,  that  they  were 
the  things  done  in  or  hy  the  Body  ?  CurceUtetu  his  Copy  reads  it,  a.  ^x  tS  aupux.- 
1(^  eVg^t^fev ;  the  Complutenfian  to  tha,  to  ctw,m«7(^,  and  feveral  of  the  Fathers 
fotook  it ;  either  way,  it  mufl:  relate  to  that  which  was  the  real  Body  in  which 
the  Perfon  lived  and  a<5ed,  whether  Good  or  Evil.     And  St.  PauFs  Difpute  a- 
bout  the  manner  of  raifing  the  Body  might  foon  have  been  ended,  if  there  were 
no  neceflity  of  the  fame  Body.  If  there  he  no  Refurre^ion  of  the  Dead^  then  is  not ,  cor.  15. 
Chri/i  raifed.     It  leems  then  other  Bodies  are  to  be  raifed  as  his  was ;  and  can  i^. 
there  be  any  doubt  whether  his  Body  were  the  fame  material  Subftance  which 
was  united  to  his  Soul  before  ?  And  the  Apoftle  lays  fo  much  weight  upon  it, 
that  he  faith,  //  Chrifl  be  not  raifed  your  faith  is  vain  ;  doth  he  mean,  if  there      17- 
were  not  the  fame  perfonal  Identity^  as  to  the  Soul  of  Chrift  and  the  Matter 
united  toitafter  the  Refurredion?  That  cannot  be  his  meaning,  for  then  there 
would  have  been  no  neceffity  of  Chrifts  own  Body  being  raifed,  which  he  af- 
ferts  and  proves  by  undoubted  Witnefles.     Were  they  Witnefles  ovAy  oi  fome 
material  Suhjlance  then  united  to  his  Soul  ?  He  faith.  He  wasjeen  of  five  hundred     ^^ 
Brethren  at  once.     What  He  was  this  ?  It  was  Chrifl  that  died.     Tes,  the  Perfon     4- 
of  Chrifl ;  hut  perfonal  Identity  doth  not  require  the  fame  Suhflance^  hut  the  fame 
Confcioufnejs  ;  and  fo  if  Chrift  were  confcious  to  himfelf  in  another  Suhflance^  there 
was  no  neceffity  of  the  fame  Body.     And  fo  truly  from  the  feeing  the  Perfon  of 
Chrift  they  could  not  prove  it  was  the  fame  Individual  Body.    But  Thomas  faid,  John  ao4 
Except  I  fl} all  fee  in  hu  hands  the  print  of  the  L^ails,  and  put  my  Finger  into  the  ^J- 
print  of  the  Nails,  and  thruft  my  Hand  into  his  fide.,  I  will  not  helieve.     The 
doing  whereof  convinced  him  it  was  thelame  Individual  Body;  but  there  will 
be  no  fuch  proof  at  the  great  Day.     And  there  is  no  Reafon  there  (hould,  fince 
the  Refurredlion  of  Chrift  was  a  fufficient  proof  of  God's  Power  to  raife  the 
Dead,  and  the  Diflimilitude  of  Circumftances  can  be  no  Argument  againft  it, 
fince  the  Power  and  Wifdom  of  God  are  concerned  in  it. 

But  the  Apoftle  infifts  upon  the  Refurre^ion  of  Chrifl,  notmeerly  as  an  Ar- 
gument of  the  Poflibility  of  ours,but  of  the  Certainty  of  it ;  hecaufe  he  rofe  as  the 
firfl  Fruits  ;  Chrift  the  firft  Fruits,  afterwards  they  that  are  Chrifts  at  his  coming,  i  Cor.  is. 
St.  Paul  was  aware  of  the  Objedtions  in  Mens  Minds  about  the  Refurre<9;ion  of  *°*  ^^' 
the  fame  Body  ;  and  it  is  of  great  Confequence  as  to  this  Article  to  (hew  upon 
what  Grounds  he  proceeds.     But  fome  Man  will  fay.  How  are  the  Dead  raifed     35. 
up,  and  with  what  Body  do  they  come  >  Firft  he  ftiews,  that  the  feminal  parts  of 
Plants  are  wonderfully  improved  by  the  ordinary  Providence  of  God  in  the  man- 
ner of  their  Vegetation.     They  jow  hare  Grain  of  Wheat,  or  of  fome  other  Grain,  35, 37,38 
hut  God  giveth  it  a  Body,  as  it  hath  plea  fed  him,  and  to  every  Seed  his  own  Body, 
Here  is  an  Identity  of  the  Material  Subltance  fuppofed,-  -n  t^ov  azS.out,  that  pro- 
per Body  which  belongs  to  it ;  every  Seed  having  that  Body  in  little,  which 
is  afterwards  fo  much  inlarged;  and  in  Grain  the  Seed  is  corrupted  before  its 
Germination;  but  it  hath  its  proper  Organical  Parts,  which  make  it  the  fame 
Body  with  that  which  it  grows  up  to.    For  although  Grain  be  not  divided  into 
Lohes  as  other  Seeds  are,  yet  it  hath  been  found,  by  the  moft  Accurate  Ob- 
fervations,  that  upon  feparating  the  Membranes  thefe  Seminal  Parts  are  dif- 
cerned  in  them ;  which  afterwards  grow  up  to  that  Body  which  we  call  Corn. 
St.  Paul  indeed  faith,  that  wefow  not  that  Body  that  (hall  he ;  but  he  fpeaks  not 
of  the  Identity  but  the  Perfehion  of  it.     And  although  there  be  fuch  a  diffe- 
rence from  the  Grain  it  felf,  when  it  comes  up  to  be  perfect  Corn,  with  Root, 
Stalk,  Blade  and  Ear,  that  it  may  be  faid  to  outward   Appearance  not  to  be 
the  fame  Body,  yet  with  regard  to  the  Seminal  and  Organical  Parts,  it  is  as 
much  the  fame  as  a  Man  grown  up  is  the  fame  with  the  Emhryo  in  the  Womb. 
And  although  many  Arguments  may  be  ufed  to  prove,  that  a  Man  is  not  the 
lame,  becaufe  Life  which  depends  upon  thecourfeof  the  Blood  and  the  manner 

D  d  d  d  of 


574  ^«  ANSWER  to 


of  Refpiration  and  Nutrition  is  fo  different  in  both  dates,  yet  that  Man  would 
be  thought  Ridiculous  that  fliould  ferioufly  affirm,  that  it  was  not  the  fame 
Seft.  4.     Man.     And  you  grant,  that  the  variation  of  great  parcels  of  Matter  in  Plants^ 
alters  not  the  Identity :  and  that  the  Organization  of  the  Parts  in  one  coherent  Bo- 
dy partaking  of  one  common  Lifemakes  the  Identity  of  a  Plant ;  fo  that  in  things 
capable  of  any  fort  of  Life,  the  Identity  is  confi^lent  with  a  continued  fucceffion 
of  Parts ;  and  fo  the  Wheat  grown  up  is  the  fame  Body  with  the  Grain  that  was 
fown.     And  thus  the  Alteration  of  the  Parts  of  the  Body  at  the  Refurre^ion  is 
confiftent  with  its  Identity^  if  its  Organization  and  Life  be  the  fame;  and  this 
is  a  Real  Identity  of  the  Body  which  depends  not  upon  Confcioufnefs.     From 
whence  it  follows,  that  to  make  the  fame  Body,  no  more  is  required  but  reftoring 
Sea.  6.     Life  to  the  Organized  Parts  of  it.     And  you  grant  likewife,  that  the  Identity  of 
the  fame  Man  confifls  in  a  Participation  of  the  fame  continued  Life  hy  conflantly 
fleet  ingP  articles  of  Matter  in  Succeffion  vitally  united  to  the  fame  Organized  Body. 
So  that  there  is  no  difficuhy  as  to  thefamenefs  of  the  Body,  if  Life  were  con- 
tinued ;  and  if  by  Divine  Power  Life  be  reftored  to  that  Material  Subftance 
which  was  before  united,  by  a  Re-union  of  the  Soul  to  it,  there  is  no  Reafon 
to  deny  the  Identity  of  the  Body.    Not  from  the  Confcioufnefs  of  the  Soul,  hut 
from  that  Life  which  is  the  Refu't  of  the  Union  of  Soul  and  Body.    But  St.  Paul 
ftill  fuppofes  that  it  muft  be  that  Material  Subllance  to  which  the  Soul  way 
^^'      before  united.     For  faith  he,  Jtisfown  in  Corruption,  it  is  raifedin  Incorrupti' 
4?.      on :  It  is  [own  in  Difhonour,  it  is  raifed  in  Glory  ;  It  is  foivn  in  Weaknefs,  it  is 
-  44.     raifed  in  Power  ;  It  isfown  a  Natural  Body,  it  is  raifed  a  Spiritual  Body.     Can 
fuch  a  Material  SubHance  which  was  never  united  to  the  Body  be  faid  to  be 
fown  in  Corruption,  and  Weaknefs,  and  Di/honour?  Either  therefore  he  mud  fpeak 
of  the  fame  Body,  or  his  meaning  cannot  be  comprehended.    For  what  doth 
all  this  relate  to  a  Confcious  Principle  ?  The  Apoftle  fpeaks  plainly  of  that  Body 
which  was  once  quickened  and  afterwards  falls  to  Corruption ;  and  is  to 
53j  54-  be  reftored  with  more  noble  Qualities.     For  this  Corruptible  mufi  put  on  Incor- 
ruption,  and  this  Mortal  muft  put  on  Immortality.  I  do  not  fee  how  he  could  more 
expredy  affirm  the  Identity  of  this  Corruptible  Body,  with  that  after  the  Re- 
furredtion,  and  that  without  any  Refpedito  the  Principle  of  Self  confcioufnefs  j 
and  fo  if  the  Scripture  be  thefole  Foundation  of  our  Faith,  this  is  an  Articleof 
it,  and  fo  it  hath  been  always  underftood  by  the  Chriftian  Church.    And  your 
Idea  oi  Perfonal  Identity  is  inconfiftent  with  it;  for  it  makes  the  fame  Body 
which  was  here  united  to  the  Soul  not  to  be  necelTary  to  the  Dodlrine  of  the 
Refurre5iion,  but  any  Material  Subftance  being  united  to  the  fame  Principle  of 
0«/c/o«/«eyi  makes  the  fame  Body.     TheDifpute  is  not,  how  far  Perfonall- 
dentity  in  it  felf  may  confifl  in  the  very  fame  Material  Subflance ;  for  we  allow 
the  Notion  oi  Per fonal  Identity  to  belong  to  the  fame  Man  under  feveral  chan- 
ges of  Matter ;  but  whether  it  doth  not  depend  upon  a  l^ital  Zfnion  between 
the  Soul  and  Body  and  the  Life  which  is  ccnfequent  upon  it;  and  therefore  in 
the  Refurre^ion  the  fame  Material  Subflance  mull  be  reunited ;  or  elfe  it  cannot 
be  called  a  Refurredion,  but  a  Renovation ;  i.  e.  it  may  be  a  Neiv  Life,  but  not  a 
raifing  the  Body  from  the  Dead. 

X.  Tlienext  Articles  of  Faith  which  your  Notion  of /^/f^z^isinconfiflent  with, 
are  no  lefs  than  thofe  of  the  Trinity  and  of  the  Incarnation  of  our  Saviour.  The 
-'  former  by  the  firfl:  Article  of  our  Church  is  exprefled  hy  three  Perfons  in  the  Vni' 
ty  of  the  Divine  Nature :  the  latter  is  faid  Art.  i.  to  be  hy  the  Vnion  of  the  Di- 
vine and  Humane  Nature  in  one  Perfon.  Let  us  now  fee  whether  your  Ideas  of 
Nature  and  Perfon  can  confift  with  thefe.  But  before  1  come  to  that  I  muft 
endeavour  to  fet  this  Matter  right,  as  to  the  Difpute  about  the  Notion  of  Na- 
ture mA  Ferfon,  which  )ou  have  endeavour'd  with  all  your  Art  to  perplex  and 
confound,  and  have  brought  in  feveral  hterlocoutrs  to  make  it  look  more  like 
an  Entertainment:  Of  which  afterwards.  The  Onginal  Que  :iion  was,  Whe- 
ther 


Mr.  L o c K  e's  Second  Letter.  575 


ther  VI  e  could  come  to  any  Certainty  about  the  Diftindtion  of  Nature  ind  Per- 
foH  in  the  Way  of  Ideas ;  and  my  bufinefs  was  to  prove  that  we  could  not    be- 
caufe  wc  had  nojjmple  Ideas  by  Senfation  or  Refletlion,  ii?'ithout  which  you  affirm  ^ff^y^-^ 
that  our  Vnder {landing  feems  to  you  not  to  have  the  lead  Glimmering  of  Ideas  :  and  *^*'  '^^^''' 
that  we  have  nothing  in  our  Minds  which  did  not  come  in  one  of  thefe  two  Ways. 

Thefe  are  your  own  Words.    And  then  I  undertook  to  (hew,  that  it  was  not  ^''"</'W'- 
poffiblc  for  us  to  have  any  fimple  Ideas  of  Mature  and  Perfon  by  Senfation  or  Re-  *"  °^-**'' 
fie£iion  :  and  that  whether  we  confider'd  Mature  as  taken  for  Eflential  Proper- ^252%c. 
ties,  or  for  that  Subftance wherein  that  Property  lies:  whether  we  confider  it 
in  diftincfl  individuals,  orabftradly  ;  dill  my  Defign  was  to  lliew  that  in  your 
Way  of  Ideas,  you  could  come  to  no  Certainty  about  them.    And  as  to  Per-  ''•  *^** 
fon  I  (hew'd,  that  the  Diftindiion  of  Individuals  is  not  founded  meerly  on  what 
occurs  to  our  Senfes,  but  upon  a  different  manner  of  Subfiftence,  which  is  in 
one  Individual,  and  is  not  communicable  to  Another.     And  as  to  this  I  faid 
that  we  may  find  within  our  felves  an  intelligent  Subftance  by  ins\'ard  Percep- 
tion ;  but  whether  that  make  a  Perfon  or  not,  muft  be  underflood  fome  other 
way ;  for  if  the  meer  intelHgent  Subftance  make  a  Perfon,  then  there  cannot 
be  the  Union  of  two  fuch  Natures,  but  there  muft  be  two  Perfons.     Which  is 
repugnant  to  the  Article  of  the  Incarnation  of  our  Saviour. 

That  this  was  the  true  State  of  the  Qtieftion  will  appear  to  any  one  that 
will  vouchfafe  to  look  into  it.  But  what  faid  you  in  your  firft  Letter  in  An- 
fwer  to  it  ? 

As  to  t^afure  you  fay.  That  it  is  a  CoHeBon  of  feveral  Ideas  combined  into  letter ,. 
one  complex ^  ahfira^  Idea,  which  when  they  are  found  united  in  any  Individual  h  '^J- 
exifling,  though  joyned  in  that  Exifience  with  feveral  other  Ideas,  that  individual 
or  particular  Being  is  truly  faid  to  have  the  Nature  of  a  Man,  or  the  Nature  of  a 
Man  to  he  in  him  ;  Jorafmuch  as  thefe  fimple  Ideas  are  found  united  in  him,  which 
anfwer  the  complex,  abjiratl  Idea,  to  which  the  fpecifick  Name  is  given  by  anyone: 
which  abflra^  fpecifick  Idea,  he  keeps  the  fame  when  he  applies  the  fpecifick  Name 
fianding  for  it  to  diflind  Individuals. 

And  as  to  Perfon,  in  the  way  of  Ideas,  you  fay  that  the  Word  Perfon  in  it  f elf  f.  216. 
figtifies  nothing,  and  fo  no  Idea  belonging  to  it,  nothing  can  be  faid  to  be  the  true 
Idea  of  it.     But  as  foon  as  the  common  Vfe  of  any  Language  has  appropriated  it  to 
any  idea,  then  that  is  the  true  Idea  of  a  Perfon,  and  fo  of  Nature. 

Againft  this  I  objected  in  my  Anfwer  to  that  Letter,  that  if  thefe  Terms  really  An(v,er  ta 
fignihe  nothing  in  themfelves,  but  are  only  abftracft  and  complex  Ideas,  which  ^'^^*'' '* 
the  common  U(e  of  Language  hath  appropriated  to  be  the  figns  of  two  Ideas;'''  '°^* 
then  it  is  plain  that  they  are  only  Notions  of  the  Mind,  as  all  abftra(5ted  and 
complex  Ideas  are  ,•  and  fo  one  Nature  and  Three  Perfons  can  be  no  more; 

To  this  you  anfwer  in  your  fecond  Letter,  That  your  Notion  of  (he  Terms  Na'  ."iT/* 
ture  and  Perfon  is,  that  they  are  two  founds  that  naturally  fignifie  not  one  thing  more 
than  another,  nor  in  themjelves  fignifie  any  thing  at  all,  hut  have  the  fignification 
which  they  have  barely  by  Impofttion.     Whoever  imagined  that  Words  fignifie 
any  othervvife  than  by  Impofition  ? 

But  the  Queftion  is,  whether  thefe  be  meer  Words  and  Names,  or  not  ?  Or 
whether  there  be  not  a  real  Foundation  in  things  for  fuch  a  Diflindion  between 
Nature  and  Perfon?  Of  which  I  gave  this  evident  Proof,  that  if  it  were  not  the 
fame  Nature  in  different  Individuals,  every  Individual  muft  make  a  different  Kind. 
-  And  what  Anfwer  do  you  give  to  this  plain  Reafon  >.  Nothing  particular  that 
I  can  find.  But  in  the  general  you  fay,  that  all  that  you  can  find  that  I  except  a-  f\  1=0. 
gainfi  in  your  Notion  of  Nature  and  Perfon  is  nothing  but  thiSj  viz.  that  thefe  are 
two  founds  which  in  themjelves  fignifie' nothing.  And  is  this  all  indeed  i  Did  not 
1  tell  you  m  thtfe  Words,  (^which  I  am  forced  to  repeat  on  this  occafion,  al- 
though I  am  very  unwilling  to  fill  Pages  with  Repetitions.)  "  The  Queftion  vf^^Tw^r  h 
"  now  between  us  comes  to  ths,  whether  the  common  Nature  or  Eftence  oi Letter  i. 

D  d  d  d  z  1'  things'-  "7- 


An  ANSWEKto 


p.  103. 


"  things  lies  only  in  an  abftradt  Idea,  or  a  general  Name,  and  the  real  Eflence 
**  confifts  only  in  particular  Beings  from  which  that  Nature  is  abftraded  i  The 
"  Queftion  is  not  whether  in  forming  the  Notion  of  common  Nature,  the  Mind 
*'  doth  not  abftra<a  from  the  Circumftances  of  particular  Beings ;  but  it  is  whe- 
*'  ther  there  be  not  an  Antecedent  foundation  in  the  Nature  of  things,  upon 
"  which  we  form  this  abftradt  Idea  ?  For  if  there  be,  then  it  cannot  be 
«  called  an  Univerfal  Name  only,-  or  a  meer  fign  of  an  Idea,  which  we  have 
"  formed  from  putting  many  fimple  Ideas  together,  which  Name  belongs  to 
"  all  of  fuch  a  fort,  as  have  thofe  fimple  Ideas  united  together. 

In  thefe  Words,  which  you  cannot  deny  to  be  in  the  place  mention'd,!  thought 
I  had  ftated  the  Cafe  fairly  between  us.  And  why  do  you  not  return  afi  Anfwer 
to  them?  But  inftead  of  that  you  only  mention  another  PafTage  more  liable  to 
cavilling,  where  1  fay,  "  That  upon  your  Notions  of  Nature  and  Perfon,  I  do  not 
"  fee  how  it  is  poffible  to  defend  the  Do<arine  of  the  Trinity.  For  if  thefe  Terms 
"  really  fignifie  nothing  in  themfelves,  but  are  only  abilradt  and  complex  I- 
"  deas,  which  the  common  ufe  of  Language  hath  appropriated  to  be  the  figa 
"  of  two  Ideas ;  then  it  is  plain  that  they  are  only  Notions  of  the  Mind,  as 
"  all  abftraft  and  complex  Ideas  are ;  and  fo  one  Nature  and  three  Perfons  can 
"  be  no  more. 

Upon  this  you  charge  me  with  affirming  that  of  you  which  you  never  faid, 

viz.  that  thefe  Terms  are  only  ahftra£l  or  complex  Ideas  :  but  your  Words  are,  Ta- 

%  ul'.  king  therefore  Nature  and  Ferfon  for  the  fign  of  two  Ideas  they  are  put  to  fi  and  for  : 

Letter  i    ^f^^  h  enumerating  all  the  fimple  Ideas,  that  are  contained  in  the  complex  Idea^ 

p.  27.    '  that  each  of  them  is  made  to  ft  and  for,  we  [hall  immediately  fee  the  whole  difference 

that  is  between  them. 

Thefe  are  your  own  Words.  Now  from  thence  it  appears,  that  Nature  and 
Ferfon  are  Terms  which  are  the  fignsof  two  Ideas  by  your  own  Confefrion :  hnt 
you  never  made  thefe,  or  any  other  Terms  to  he  Ideas :  and  you  fhould  be  afhamed 
of  juch  "jargon. 
jj.  g  But  have  not  you  faid  in  your  ElTay,  that  it  is  a  very  common  Practice  for 
cTLdi.u  Names  to  be  made  ufe  of  inftead  of  the  Ideas  themfelves,  efpecraSy  if  the  Ideas  be 
very  complex.  Nature  and  Perfon  you  grant  to  be  complex  Ideas ;  and  thefe 
Terms  you  confefs  are  appropriated  to  be  thefigns  of  two  Ideas :  Therefore  here  is 
an  Ambiguity  in  the  Ule  of  thefe  Words,  for  they  are  complex  Ideas  themfelves, 
and  they  are  made  thefigns  of  them  ;  and  fo  the  Words  of  the  Sentence  are  ca- 
ble of  both  thole  Senfe^ 

For  it  is  true,  according  to  you,  that  thefe  Terms,  Nature  and  Perfon,  real- 
ly ftguifie  nothing  in  themfelves,  hut  are  only  complex  and  ahfiraSl  Ideas ;  and  thofe 
Terms  are  appropriated  to  be  the  figns  of  two  Ideas.  So  that  Nature  and  Perfon 
are  both  Ideas  themfelves,  and  ihok  Terms  are  the  Signs  of  two  Ideas  :  and  the 
Senfe  had  not  been  liable  to  Exception,  if  Andhsid  been  inferted  j  "  For  if  thefe 
"  Termsreally  fignifte  nothing  in  themfelves,  but  are  only  abftradl  and  com- 
"  plex  Ideas;  And  which  the  common  Ufe  had  appropriated  to  bethe  Signs  of 
two  Ideas,  (^c.  But  whether  this  be  properly  exprefled  or  not,  according  to 
your  Senfe  of  Ideas,  the  Weight  of  the  Controverfie  depends  not  at  all  upon 
it ;  but  whether  Nature  and  Perfon  c^n  be  any  other  but  ahfirad  Ideas,  accord- 
ing to  your  own  plain  Expreffions;  and  if  they  arefo,  they  are  no  more  than 
Notions  of  the  Mind,  and  then  the  Confequence  muft  hold,  that  One  Nature 
and  three  Perfons  can  be  no  more.  Upon  which  I  faid,  i  did  not  fee  how 
it  was  poliible  to  defend  the  Docftrine  of  the  Trinity,  (and  1  now  add  of  the 
Incarnation')  which  was  the  thing  I  undertook  to  make  our. 
Letter  t.  But  you  Very  freely  fay,  ivhether  I  rightly  deduce  from  it  this  Confequence,  viz. 
?•  ^'3'  Andfo  one  Nature  and  three  Perfons  can  be  no  more  ;  is  what  you  neither  know  nor 
are  concerned  to  examine.  Which  I  think  is  an  ExpreflTion  could  hardly  drop  from 
a  Perfon,  who  did  know  how  to  declare  his  Belief  of  three  Perfons  in  the  Vnity 

of 


p.  no. 


Mr.  L o c K  e's  Second  Letter.  57? 

of  the  Divhe  Nature.  But  you  pretend  thefe  are  none  of  your  Notions  of  Nature 
and  Perfon,  nor  indeed  any  thing  you  can  under (i  and.  But  it  is  plain,  that  this 
Confequence  follows  from  your  own  Notions  of  Nj/z/z-i?  and  Perfon;  as  they  are 
fet  down  exprefly  by  your  felf  in  the  former  Letter. 

You  tell  me,  /  made  this  Inference  a  little  in  hafie!  Whether  a  Man  write  in  p.  icp. 
ha/te  or  nor,  the  World  will  judge  by  what  appears,  and  not  by  what  he  or  any 
other  faith.  And  I  think  it  will  appear,  that  I  did  not  make  this  Inference /« 
hajie,  but  from  a  deliberate  Confideration  of  your  Notion  of  the  Ideas  of  Nature 
and  Perfon.  But  by  thofe  Terms  fignifying  nothing  in  themfelves,  you  fay,  that  you  p,  ,09. 
meant,  that  they  are  two  founds  that  naturally  fignifie  not  one  thing  more  than  ano- 
ther.^ nor  in  themfelves  fig»ifie  any  thing  at  all.,  hut  have  thefignificaiion  ivhich  they 
have  larely  hy  Impofition.  And  was  this  truly  all  that  you  meant  by  it?  And  do 
you  think  that  Peter^  and  James,  and  John,  (Ignifie  any  thing  by  Nature  ?  Are 
not  all  Words  made  fignificative  by  Impofition  ^  But  is  there  no  difference  in  the 
fjgnification  of  Words  as  they  (land  for  fig  is  of  Tilings?  If  they  be  Words  for 
particular  Suhjlances,  then  you  grant,  that  there  is  fomething  really  exifting 
which  is  meant  by  thofe  Words ;  but  if  they  relate  only  to  the  Conceptions  of 
the  Mind,  then  they  fignifie  them  and  no  more.  And  the  QueHion  is,  which 
of  thefe  two  you  meant  by  thofe  Words  Nature  znd  Perfon^  And  you  plainly 
affirm  both  of  them  to  be  complex  Ideas,  which  are  made  only  by  an  AGt  of 
the  Mind,  and  therefore  your  meaning  can  benootherwife  underftood. 

Tou  prefume,  that  upon  more  leifurely  thoughts,  both  my  felf  and  the  red  of  Man- 
kind will  concur  with  you.  I  never  affected  Singularity,  and  am  ready  to  com- 
ply with  the  reft  of  Mankind  in  any  reafonable  thing.  But  you  fay,  that  this 
Notion  oj  Nature  and  Perfon,  That  they  are  two  Words  that  fignifie  only  hy  Impofiti- 
on, is  what  will  hold  in  the  common  Senfe  of  Mankind.  No  doubt  of  it :  But  I  mufl 
again  and  again  tell  you,  that  is  not  the  Point  in  Quef^ion,  but  whether  they  are 
only  ahfl.  a^  and  complex  Ideas,  which  have  no  other  Being  but  in  the  Mind? 
And  to  this  you  anfwer  not  a  Word.  I  do  not  in  the  leaft  think  as  you  fuggeft, 
that  it  is  necejfary  to  the  Defence  of  the  Trinity,  that  thefe  two  Articulate  founds 
fhouldhave  Natural  fignifications,  and  that  unlefs  they  are  ufed  in  thofe  fignifications^ 
it  were  impoffible  to  defend  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  But  I  do  affirm  that  thofe 
who  make  Nature  and  Perfon  to  be  only  ahfiraBand  complex  Ideas;  can  neither 
defend  nor  reafonably  believe  it.  And  this  is  making  no  extraordinary  Suppofi-  f.  wi. 
tion  necejfary  to  the  Belief  ^or  Defence  of  it ;  but  only  that  which  in  the  common 
Senfe  of  Mankind  is  neceflary  to  it.  For,  if  you  have  exprefled  your  own  Mind 
in  your  former  Letter ;  that  mufl  guide  us  in  your  Notion  of  Nature  and  Perfon, 
where  you  undertook  to  explain  them.  For  if  Nature  and  Perfon  be  ahflra^, 
and  complex  Ideas,  as  you  fay,  and  fuchare  only  Ads  of  the  Mind,  I  do  not  fee 
how  it  IS  pofTible  for  you  to  reconcile  thefe  Notions  with  the  Articles  of  the 
Trinity  and  Incarnation. 

.  I  do  not  go  about  toaccafe  you  oH denying  thefe  Do^lrines  -,  I  hope  you  do  not. 
But  I  impute  all  this  Hefitancy  and  doubting  only  to  your  Notions  of  Ideas ; 
which  you  had  been  fo  long  forming  in  your  Mind,  that  as  it  often  happens  in 
fuch  Cafes,  one  darling  favourite  Notion  proves  too  hard  for  fome  Points  of  far 
greater  Confequence,  when  they  are  found  inconfiftent  with  it.  And  becaufe 
you  had  firft  fixed  your  Notion  of  Ideas,  and  taken  much  Pains  about  them, 
you  thought  all  other  thigns  were  to  be  entertained  as  they  appear'd  confiftent 
with  them.  But  you  could  not  but  find,  that  the  Articles  of  three  Perfons,  and 
one  Nature ;  and  two  Natures,  and  one  Perfon,  were  not  reconcileable  with  your 
Ideas  ot  Nature  and  Perfon;  which  is  that  they  are  complex  Ideas,  wh.ch  de- 
pend upon  the  A6t  of  the  Mind  ;  for  this  were  to  make  the  two  Natures  in  Chrifi 
to  be  only  tv^o  complex  Ideas.  For  if  Nature,  as  you  fay,  he  aColle^ion  of  fe- 
veral  Ideas  combined  into  one  complex  ahftra6t  Idea ;  then  two  Natures  can 
be  nothing  clfe  but  two  fuch  Colk^ions^  or  two  ahjira£led  anJ  complex  Ideas. 

Ic 


p.  1 1 f. 


578 An  ANSWER  to 

It  may  be  fa  id,  that  when  yeu  make  Nature  an  ahftr  acted  and  complex  Idea,  you 
/peak  of  a  fpecifick  Idea^  but  the  Humane  Nature  in  Chrift  uas  a  particular 
Subftance,  and  this  )ou  ajfert  to  he  a  real  things  and  not  to  depend  on  the  Act 
of  the  Mind. 
Letter  I.       But  this  doth  not  clear  the  matter.    For  in  your  former  Letter  you  faid,  that 
?•  32'       all  the  Ideas  we  have  of  particular  di/linfi  Suiflances,  are  nothing  hut  fever  al  Comhi- 
nations  of  fimple  Ideas :  which  in  Corporeal  Subftances  are ye«yf^/f  C2««//^/fi,  in 
Incorporeal  are  Operations  of  the  Mind.  The  utmoft  then  w  hich  the  Idea  of  Humane 
Nature  in  Chrifl:  comes  to  is,  that  there  were  in  him  th^  fenfihle  Qualities  and  /«- 
telle^ual Operations  of  a  Man,  with  an  unknown  Subftance  to  (upport  them: 
which  belongs  not  to  the  firaple  Ideas,  but  is  fuppofed  by  them.     This  is  all  I 
can  make  of  your  way  of  Ideas :  and  fo  the  Incarnation  of  Chrift  is  the  afluming 
the  fenfible  Qualities,  and  intelledual  Operations  of  a  Man,  to  which  a  Suh- 
ftratum  doih  belong:  but  is  no  part  of  the  fimple  Ideas.     So  that  we  can  have 
no  Idea  at  all  of  the  Humane  Nature  of  Chrifl ;  but  only  an  Inference,  that  fince 
thofe  are  but  Accidents,  there  muft  be  a  Suhflratum  to  fupport  them;  and  con- 
iei\nGm\yx.\\ere^2iSZ  particular  Suhflance'xn  him  made  up  of  Mind  and  Body.  But 
if  this  had  come  in  the  way  of  Ideas,  yet  it  cannot  make  out  the  Humane  Nature 
o{  Chrifl.     For  if  it  were  in  him  no  otherwife  than  in  other  Men,  then  the 
Myflery  of  the  Incarnation  is  quite  gone,  and  Chrift  is  to  be  confider'd  but  like 
other  Men;  which  doth  not  anfwer  to  what  the  Scripture  faith  of  the  Word's 
heing  made  Flefh,  and  that  God  was  manifefl  in  the  Flefh.     There  mufl  be  there- 
fore fomething  beyond  the  meer  Humane  Nature  in  him ;  and  either  it  muft 
be  only  fome  Divine  Operation  upon,  and  with  it,  and  that  is  no  Suh/lance;  or 
if  it  be  a  Subftance,  it  muft  either  co-habit  with  it,  or  elfe  be  united  to  it.     If 
it  only  co-habits,  then  there  are  two  Perfons  dwelling  together  in  one  Body, 
and  the  Adiions  of  one  cannot  be  attributed  to  the  other ;  if  there  be  a  real 
Union  between  them,  fo  as  the  h&is  belong  to  one  Perfon  j  then  there  mufl  be 
fuch  a  Manner  of  Exiftence  in  the  Humane  Nature  of  Chrift,  which  is  diffe- 
rent from  it  in  other  Perfons.    For  in  all  others,  the  Ad:s  belong  to  the  Humane 
Perfon  -,  but  if  it  were  fo  in  Chrift,  then  the  Divine  ^&:s  of  Chrift  muft  How 
from  the  Humane  Nature  as  the  Principle  of  them ;  which  is  to  confound  the 
Divine  and  Humane  Nature,  and  Operations  together :  If  they  come  from  the 
Divine  Perfon,  then  the  Humane  Nature  muft  have  another  kind  of  Subfiftence 
than  it  hath  in  others,  or  elfe  there  muft  be  two  Perfons  j  and  Perfon  being  as  you 
Effay  1. 2.  fay,  a  Forenfick  term.,  there  muft  be  two  dif!erent  Capacities  of  Rewards  and 
ch.  27.  ,  Punifhmenrs ;  which  is  fo  abfurd  an  Opinion  as  I  think  no  one  will  afTert. 
Seft.ztf.       jp  ^^^^^  i^g  j.jjg^  y^^^  p^^  Perfon  and  two  Natures.,  how  can  you  poffibly  re- 

Letteri.  concile  this  toyour  way  of  Ideas?  Perfon,  fay  you,  in  it  felf  fignifies  nothing  ^ 
^  2'^'     hut  as  foon  as  the  common  ufe  of  any  Language  has  appropriated  it  to  any  Idea, 
then  that  is  the  true  Idea  of  a  Perfon,  i.  e.  Men  may  call  a  Perfon  whatthey  pleafe, 
for  there  is  nothing  hut  common  «/c  required  to  it;  They  may  call  a  Horfe,  or 
a  Tree,  or  a  Stone  a  Perfon  if  they  think  fit;  but  fince  the  common  ufe  of  Lan- 
guage hath  appropriated  it  to  an  Intelligent  Being,  that  is,  a  Perfon. 
Elfay,  1. 2.      A  nd  fo  you  tell  us.  That  Perfon  fiands  for  a  Thinking  Intelligent  Being  that  hath 
l\^^'     Reafon  and  Reflexion,  andean  confider  it  (elf  as  it  f elf  the  fame  thinking  Being  in 
'  ^'     different  times  and  places.     How  comes  Perfon  to  fland  for  this  and  nothing  elfe  ? 
From  whence  comes  Selfconfcioufnefs  in  different  times  and  places  to  make  up 
this  Idea  of  a  Perfon?  Whether  it  be  true  or  falfe,  I  am  not  now  to  enquire, 
but  how  it  comes  into  this  Idea  of  a  Perfon?  Hath  the  common  ufe  of  our  Lan- 
guage appropriated  it  to  this  Senfe »  If  not,  this  feems  to  be  a  meer  Arbitrary 
Jdeai  and  may  as  well  be  denied  as  affirmed.     And  what  a  fine  pafs  are  we 
come  to  in  the  iVay  of  Ideas,  if  a  meer  Arhitrary  Idea  muft  be  taken  into  the 
on  y  true  Method  of  Certainty  >  But  of  that  afterwards.     We  now  proceed  in 
he  Way  of  Ideas  as  you  give  it  us.    But  if  this  be  the  true  Idea  of  a  Perfon, 

then 


Mr.  L  o  c  K  e's  »becond  Letter.  57^ 

rhen  there  can  te  no  Union  of  twoNatures  in  one  Perfon  :  For  if  aninrelligent 
Gonlcious  Being  be  the  Idea  of  a  Perfon;  and  the  Divine  and  Humane  Nature 
be  Intelligent  Confcious  Beings,  then  the  Dodtrine  of  the  Union  of  two  Natures 
And  one  Perfo»  is  quite  funk,  for  here  muft  be  two  Perlons  in  this  way  of  Ideas. 
Again,  if  this  be  the  Idea  of  a  Perfon,  then  where  there  are  three  Perfons, 
there  muft  be  three  diftind  Intelligent  Beings;  and  fo  there  cannot  be  three 
P  rfons  in  the  fame  individual  Eflence.  And  thus  both  thefe  Dodrines  of  the 
Trinity  and  Incarnatiomxt  part  recovery  gone,  if  this  Way  oi  Ideas  hold.  So 
great  a  difference  there  is,  between  forming  Ideas  firft,  and  then  judging  of  Re- 
velation by  them ;  and  the  believing  of  Revelation  on  its  proper  Groun  s,  and 
interpreting  the  Senfe  of  it  by  the  due  Meafures  of  Reafon.  You  may  pretend 
what  you  pleafe,  that  you  hoJd  the  Ajfurance  of  Faith^  and  xhtCertaity  by  Ideas 
to  go  upon  very  different  Grounds ;  but  when  a  Propofition  is  offered  you  out 
of  Scripture  to  be  believed,  and  you  doubt  about  the  Sq^{q  of  it,  is  not  Re- 
courfe  to  be  made  xo^om  Ideas }  As,  in  the  prefent  Cafe,  whether  there  can  be 
three  Ferfons  i»  one  Nature^  or  two  Natures  and  one  Perjon  ;  what  Refolurion  can 
you  come  to  upon  your  Principles,  but  in  the  way  of  ideas i  You  may  pofli- 
bly  fay,  That  where  Ideas  are  clear  and  dtftind^  there  you  are  to  jud^e  of  Revela- 
tion by  them  ;  and  this  is  what  you  affert  in  your  Effhy,  That  in  Propofitions^^^^'^-.'^'^- 
whofe  Certainty  is  built  on  clear  and  per fe^  Ideas  and  evident  Dedudions  of  Rea-  ^'^  ^^' 
foM,  there  no  Propofition  can  be  received  for  Divine  Revelation  which  contradicts 
them ;  from  hence  you  conclude  it  impofftble  for  the  fame  Body  to  be  in  two  F laces 
at  once.  And  yet  there  is  a  Perfon  who  hath  lately  told  the  World,  that  there  is  Evangel. 
one  certain  fecret  way  how  by  Divine  Power.,  the  fame  Body,  but  not  the  fame  Perfon,  ^li^l\ 
may  be  in  very  difiant  places  at  once  ;  hut  he  is  advifed  to  keep  it  up  as  a  Secret;  p.  170.' 
which  was  good  friendly  Advice:  But  till  it  be  difcovered  there  is  no  judging 
of  it.  Here  I  obferve,  that  you  require  clear  and  diflin^  Ideas ;  and  yet  we 
find,  if  a  Man's  Word  may  be  taken,  thefe  clear  and  dillinii:  Ideas  do  not  prove 
the  thing  impoflTible.  But  what  is  to  be  faid  when  the  Ideas  are  not  clear  and 
diflinSl .-'  You  fay.  Tour  Method  of  Certainty  is  by  the  /Agreement  or  Difagree- 
ment  of  Ideas,  where  they  are  not  in  aU  their  Parts  perfetily  clear  and  dijlin^. 
And  this  is  your  Secret  about  Certainty;  which  I  think.had  been  better  kept 
up  too:  For  I  pray,  in  the  Cafe  now  before  us,  Are  your  Ideas  of  Nature  and 
Perfon  clear  and  diflin^  or  not  ?  if  they  are,  then  it  is  plain  (rem  your  own  Do- 
ctrine, that  if  Revelation  be  pretended,  ycu  are  to  rejed  ix.  How  then  comes 
the  Certainty  of  Faith  to  be  preferved  firm  and  immoveable,  although  the  Grounds 
of  Certainty  be  difputed  .*  But  fuppofe  they  are  not  clear  and  difiinS  ?  What  is 
to  be  done  in  a  Matter  of  Revelation  contrary  to  your  Ideas?  Are  you  to  fub-  ch.  18. 
mit  to  x\\e  Revelation  or  not.^  Whatever  God  hath  Revealed  is  mnfl  certainly  true^^^^'  '*'" 
HO  doubt  can  be  made  of  it.  This  is  the  proper  Object  of  Faith  ;  but  whether  it 
he  a  Divine  Revelation  or  no,  you  fay,  Reafon  mufi  judge.  Yes,  Reafon  pro- 
ceeding upon  clear  and  diflinct  Ideas.  But  fuppofe  you  have  Ideas  fuificient  for  , 
Certamty  in  your  Way,  but  not  clear  and  diftind;  what  is  to  be  done  then? 
In  things  that  are  above  Reafon,  you  fay,  when  they  are  Revealed,  they  are  proper 
Matters  of  Faith.  What  is  here  being  above  Reafon?  Either  above  the  Difco- 
very  of  Reafon,  as  the  Fall  of  Angels-,  the  Refurrection  of  the  Body,  &c.  and  a- 
hout  thefe,  you  fay,  Reafon  hath  nothing  to  do.  (What  not  if  there  be  an  Idea 
vf  Identity  as  to  the  Body?)  Or  fuch  as  are  above  the  Comprehenfion  of  Rea- 
fon when  difcovered.  And  they  are  either  fuch  as  we  have  no  Natural  Ideas 
of;  and  then  you  grant,  that  they  are  pure  Matters  of  Faith;  or  they  are  fuch, 
as  you  have  certain  Ideai  of,  but  not  clear  and  dijlinct.  Now  here  lies  the 
pinching  Diffi-u'ty,  is  xo  y our  IVay  of  Ideas.  You  iay  mdccii.  That  Revelation  se^.  3. 
mu/l  c.rry  it  againft  meer  Probabilities  to  the  contrary  ;  becaufe  the  Mind  not  being 
certain  of  the  Truth  oj  that  it  doth  not  evidently  know,  but  is  only  probably  con- 
vinced of,  is  bound  to  give  up  its  Affent  to  fuch  a  Teflimcny,  which  it  is  fatisfied 

comes 


58o An  ANSWER  to      

comes  from  one  who  cannot  err  and  will  not  deceive.  I  pray  obferve  ydur  own 
Words,  you  here  pofitively  fay,  That  the  Mind  not  leing  certain  of  the  Truth  of 
that  it  doth  not  evidently  know :  So  that  it  is  plain  here,  that  you  place  Certainty 
only  in  Evident  Knowledge,  or  in  clear  and  difiinct  Ideas ;  and  yet  your  great 
Complaint  of  Me  was,  that  I  charged  this  upon  you,  and  now  I  find  it  in  your 
own  Words  (which  I  obferved  before.}  But  let  us  allow  you  all  you  defire, 
viz.  That  there  may  he  Certainty  hy  IdeaSy  where  they  are  not  clear  and  diflinct ; 
and  let  us  now  fuppofe  that  you  are  to  judge  of  a  Propoftion  delivered  as  a  Mat- 
ter of  Faith,  where  you  have  a  Certainty  hy  Reafon  from  yoxxr  Ideas ^  fuch  as 
they  are :  Can  you  aflent  to  this  as  a  Matter  of  Faith,  when  you  are  already 
certain  by  your  Ideas  of  the  contrary  ?  How  is  this  pofTible?  Can  you  believe 
that  to  be  true,  which  you  are  certain  is  not  true?  Suppofeit  be  that  there  arc 
two  tfatures  in  one  Per/on ;  theQueftion  is.  Whether  you  can  Aflent  to  this  as  a 
Matter  of  Faith  ?  If  you  had  faid,  there  had  been  only  Prohahilities  on  the  other 
fide,  I  grant  that  you  then  fay,  Revelation  is  to  prevail;  but  when  you  fay  you 
have  Certainty  hy  Ideas  to  the  contrary,  I  do  not  fee  how  it  is^poflible  for  you  to 
Aflent  to  a  Matter  of  Faith  as  true,  when  you  are  certain  from  your  Ideas  that 
it  is  not  true :  For  how  can  you  believe  againft  Certainty  >  The  Evidence  is  not 
fo  great  as  u  hen  the  Ideas  are  clear  and  diflinct,  but  the  Bar  againft  Jffent  is  as 
ftrong;  becaufe  the  Mind  is  atftually  determined  by  Certainty.  And  fo  your 
Notion  of  Certainty  hy  Ideas  muft  overthrow  the  Credibility  of  a  Matter  of 
Faith  in  all  fuch  Fropofitions  which  are  offered  to  be  believed  on  the  account 
of  Divine  Revelation. 

1  (hall  now  fumm  up  the  Force  of  what  I  have  faid  about  this  Matter, 
Your  Anfwer  is,  That  your  Method  of  Certainty  hy  Ideas^  fhakes  not  at  all,  nor 
in  the  leafl  concerns  the  Ajjurance  of  Faith.  Againft  this  I  have  pleaded,  (i.) That 
your  Method  of  Certainty  Ihakes  the  Belief  of  a  Revelation  in  general,  (i.)  That 
it  fhakes  the  Belief  of  Particular  Fropofitions  or  Articles  of  Faith,  which  depend 
upon  the  Senfe  of  Words  contained  in  Scripture.  Becaufe  you  do  not  fay, 
that  we  are  to  believe  all  that  we  find  there  exprefled ;  but  in  cafe  we  have  any 
clear  and  diftind;  Ideas  which  limit  the  Senfe  another  way  than  the  words  feem 
to  carry  it,  we  are  to  judge  that  to  be  the  true  Senfe.  But  in  cafe  our  Ideas 
are  not  clear  and  diftind,  yet  you  affirm  as  your  proper  DocSrine,  That  we  may 
come  to  Certainty  hy  IdeaSy  although  not  in  all  refpecti  perfectly  clear  and  diflinct. 
From  whence  I  infer.  That  where  you  have  attained  to  a  Certainty  by  your 
imperfedJ:  Ideas,  you  muft  judge  of  a  Matter  of  Faith,  by  thofe  Ideas,  and 
confequently,  if  the  Union  of  two  Uatures  and  one  Perfon,  or  three  Perfons  in 
one  Nature  be  repugnant  to  your  Ideas  (as  I  have  (hewed  that  they  arej  you 
muft  by  vertue  of  your  own  Principles  rcje(5t  thefe  from  being  Matters  of  Faith. 
And  thus  I  hope  I  have  proved  what  I  undertook,  viz.  That  your  Notion  of 
Certainty  hy  Ideas  is  inconfiftent  with  thefe  Articles  of  the  Chriltian  Faith. 

But  you  have  this  Comfort  left,  that  you  are  not  the  firft  Perfon  who  hath 
run  himfelf  into  infuperable  Difficulties  as  to  Matters  of  Faith,  by  this  way  of  I- 
deas.  For  Des  Cartes  himfelf  did  fo  in  a  remarkable  manner ;  He  was  a  Perfon 
of  a  great  Reach  and  Capacity,  and  fpent  many  Thoughts  in  laying  the  Foun- 
dations of  Certainty  from  Ideas,  both  as  to  Incorporeal  and  Corporeal  Suiflances ; 
and  yet  was  raiferably  foiled  as  to  both  of  them.  His  Demon Itrations  from  his 
Ideas  in  his  Metaphyseal  Meditations,  did  not  meet  with  the  Entertainment  he 
promifed  himftlf  from  the  Inquifitive  part  of  Mankind;  for  his Ohjective Rea- 
lity from  his  Idea  gave  no  Satisfaction ;  and  his  other  Argument  was  thought  to 
have  no  Force,  unlefs  it  were  taken  off  from  the  I^ea  and  placed  upon  the  Ne- 
ceffity  of  Exiftence  in  the  Nature  of  the  Thing.  As  to  Corporeal  Suhftances,  his 
fundamental  miftake  was  in  a  wrong  Ideaoi  Matter,  which  he  made  to  be  the 
Came  with  Extenfion ;  and  upon  this  he  buWth'isSy/ieme  of  Nature.  But  againft 
this  firft  falle  flep  many  things  were  obje(a:ed  by  his  Adverfaries,  as  may  be 


Mr.  L o c K e's  Second  Letter.  581 


feen  by  the  late  Difputes  in  France  about  his  Principles ;  rhey  objedled,  that  his 
Notion  or  Idea  of  Matter  made  it  neceffary,  and  impofliblc  for  God  \.o  Annihi- 
late it ;  and  his  Defenders  are  driven  to  fuch  (hifts  as  to  God's  Will  and  Powers 
that  an  indifferent  Perfon  might  thereby  fee  how  dangerous  it  is  to  take  up  with 
Ideas  as  to  the  Ground  of  Certainty,  although  neither  hirafelf  nor  his  Follow- 
ers pretend  to  place  it  in  any  thing  but  clear  and  dijlin^  Ideas.    But  when  they 
came  to  reconcile  their  Ideas  with  Matters  of  Faith,  they  were  fo  plunged,  that 
they  could  fee  no  way  to  get  through  their  Difficulties.     For  as  Monfieur  Hu  cenfur. 
et  obferves,  Although  Des  Cartes  profejfes  great  fuhmiffion  to  Divine  Revelation,  I'hiiof. 
yet  when  it  came  to  the  Trial,  he  judged  his  Opinions  could  not  be  repugnant  to  it^<^^^^^2 
hecaufe  he  was  certain  of  the  Truth  of  them-,  which  /hews,  that  he  judged  of  Re- 
velation ly  his  Rules  of  Certainty,  and  whatever  he  pretended,  he  did  not  take 
his  Meajures  of  Truth  from  Revelation.     A  late  Defender  of  Des  Cartes  in  anfwer 
to  this,  produces  the  Words  ufed  by  him  in  his  Principles,  wherein  he  owns. 
That  in  cafe  of  Divine  Revelation  if  God  declares  any  thing  concerning  himfelf  or 
others  which  exceed  our  Capacity,,  as  the  Myfleries  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation^ 
he  would  not  refufe  to  believe  .them^  although  he  could  not  clearly  under  (land, 
theni. 

This  Monfieur  /y«ef  denies  not,  viz.  That  hemade  fuch  ageneral  Profeffton  of 
Submiffton  to  Revelation  and  owning  the  Myjleries  of  Faith ;  but,  faith  he,  when 
it  comes  to  particular  Points^  then  Ideas  are  to  be  the  Standard  by  which  we  are  to 
judge  of  Revelation.     Monfieur  Regis  in  his  Reply  faith,  That  Matters  of  Fatth 
and  Philofiphical  Truths  are  of  different  kinds  ;  and  that  there  can  be  no  Contra- 
riety but  between  things  of  the  fame  kind.     Which  makes  him  run  into  that  great 
Abfurdity,  that  although  in  zPhilofophical  Senfe  God  cannot  do  things  repug- 
nant to  Reafon,  yet  in  the  Way  of  Faith  he  may ;  and  ail  this  to  preferve  the 
Certainty  by  Ideas^  when  nothing  can  be  more  repugnant  to  all  kinds  of  Certain- 
ty than  fuch  a  Suppofition.    But  another  great  Admirer  of  Des  Cartes  thinks  phiiofo- 
this  way  unreafonable ;  But  Des  Cartes^  he  faith,  hath  fhewn  the  right  Method  v^"^^  Scri- 
of  Certainty  by  clear  and  diflin^  Ideas,  and  therefore  he  calls  it  no  lefs  than  a  Di-  ^^^^^^^ 
vine  Certainty;  and  he  adds,  that  Truth  cannot  be  contrary  to  it  felf^  and  he  j.  n.  56. 
laughs  at  the  Diftindion  of  Philofophical  and  Theological  Truths ;  or  the  twd  c.  8. 
ways  of  Certainty  by  Knowledge  anJ  Faith:  For  ,  Truth  is  always  one  and  the 
fame,  and  changes  not  its  Countenance :  and  if  Truth  be  an  Agreement  of  Words 
with  Things,  how  can  the  fame  Words  agree  in  one  Book  and  differ  in  another  * 
for  the  fame  God  is  the  Authqr  of  Truth  where-ever  it  is :  and  therefore  he  calls 
it,  A  mqfi  abfurd  Opinion  of  thofe  who  fay,  that  God  who  is  immutable  fhould  teach 
that  as  Truth  in  Pbilofophy:,  which  is  falfein  Divinity.     But  I  return  to  you. 

You  (eem  to  be  not  a  little  concerned  that  I  fay,  "  That  as  you  have  fia- 
"  ted  your  Notion  of  Ideas  it  may  be  of  dangerous  Confequence  to  that  Article 
"  of  the  Chriftian  Faith  which  I  had  endeavour'd  to  defend.  Such  an  Accu- 
fation,  you  fay,  brought  into  any  Court  in  England,  would  be  thought  to  fhew  d 
great  Inclination  to  have  the  Accufed  be  fufpeSled  rather  than  any  Evidence  of  be-  . 
ing  guilty  of  any  thing;  and  fo  would  immediately  be  d/f miffed  without  hearing  a- 
ny  Plea  to  it.  But  you  muft  give  me  leave  to  fay,  that  you  have  quite  mi-da- 
ken  my  Defign,  which  was  not  to  accufe  you,  but  to  fhew  my  own  Diflatis- 
facawn,  as  to  the  W^ay  you  had  taken  to  clear  your  felf.  I  hoped  you  would 
have  faid  fo  much  for  your  own  Vindication,  as  wpuid  have  fatisfied  the 
World,  that  your  i^otion  of  Ideas  was  far  from  any  Tendency  that  way  to  which 
it  was  carried  by  him  who  made  ufe  of  your  Expreffions :  But,  inftead  of  that 
you  explained  it  in  fuch  a  manner  as  made  it  far  more  fufpicious  that  he  had 
not  perverted  your  meaning.  And  that  made  me  to  fay.  That  as  you  had  fla- 
red ir,  it  ma)  be  of  dangerous  Confequence.  //  may  be,  fay  you,  tlm  is  p.  58. 
no  Evidence,  but  only  an  Inclination  to  accufe  you.  ^0  far  from  it  j  that  it 
ihewed  an  Inclination  to  favour  you,  when  1  only  faid  //  may  he ;  for  now  you 

E  e  e  e  fee, 


$82  An  ANSWER  to 


fee,  that  I  think  it  is  o(  fuch  dangerous  Confequence,  and  I  mud  think  fo  till 
you  have  cleared  it  better. 

Bat  the  Notion  of  Ideas  as  you  have  (latedit^  relates  to  your  whole  Book :  Why 
ihould  you  carry  it  farther  than  I  intended  it?  The  flatingoi  it  I  mentioned 
was  \nyour  frft  Letter;  where  you  told  us  what  you  meant  by  Nature  and 
p.  60.  perfon.  '^\xiyouh^VQ{onx\6  out  two  Particulars  wherein  it  may  he  of  dange- 
rous Consequence^  firfi  in  making  fo  much  ufe  of  the  word  Ideas,  and  your  placing 
Certainty  in  Ideas.  As  to  the  Term  of  Ideas y  I  have  noObjedion  to  the  ufe  of 
the  word  it  felf ;  provided  it  be  ufed  in  a  common  Senfe,  and  no  Weight  be 
laid  upon  it  more  than  it  can  bear ;  for  I  am  for  no  new  affedted  Terms  which 
are  apt  to  carry  mens  Minds  out  of  the  way;  they  are  like  Ignes  fatui,  which 
^  feem  to  give  Light,  but  lead  thofethat  follow  them  into  Bogs :  Like  FontangeSf 
which  feem  to  fet  Peoples  Heads  that  wear  them  higher,  but  their  Underftan- 
dings  are  juft  what  they  were  before.  I  always  dillik'd  the  Stoical  Improvements 
by  New  Words,  or  giving  New  Senfes  to  Old  ones.  But  I  told  you,  "  I  /hould  ne- 
"  ver  have  mention'd  this  Way  of  Ideas,  but  for  the  ill  ufe  I  found  made  of 
"  them ;  and  you  might  have  enjoy 'd  the  Satisfadion  you  had  in  them  long 
*"•  ^i'  "  enough,  unlefs  I  had  found  them  imploy'd  in  doing  Mifchief.  Which  as 
you  humbly  conceive  amounts  to  thus  much  and  no  more  j  that  J  fear  Ideas ;  i.  e.  the 
Term  Ideas  may  fome  time  or  other  he  of  dangerous  Confequencei  Can  you  poflibly 
think  this  was  my  Meaning  >.  I  know  of  no  Antipathy  I  have  to  the  Term  Ideas ; 
nor  do  1  underftand  any  Mifchief  that  lies  in  the  bare  ufe  of  the  Term.  If  it 
gives  you  any  Satisfadion  I  pray  make  what  ufe  you  pleafe  of  it,  fo  you  do  not 
fet  it  up  in  your  Way  of  Ideas  for  a  new  Method  of  Certainty ;  nor  weaken 
Mens  Belief  as  to  Matters  of  Faith  by  it.  Thefe  were  my  Prejudices  againft  your 
Ideas,  and  they  are  incrcafcd  by  your  Defences;  for  I  can  find  nothing  that 
hath  any  force  to  remove  them. 

You  tell  me,  my  Quarrel  muft  be  with  the  Term  Ideas  as  of  dangerous  Con- 
fequence :  But  why  fo?  !t  was  the  Way  of  Certainty  hy  Ideas  which  I  infifled  upon, 
and  the  «eu>7(?r»wj  as  imploy'd  to  that  purpofe.  Iconfefs,  I  fay,  "  The  World 
"  had  been  ftrangely  amuzed  with  Ideas  of  late,  and  we  have  been  told  what 
**  firange  things  might  be  done  by  the  help  of  Ideas,  i.  e.  as  to  Matter  of  Cer- 
P«  6u79-  tainty.  But  you  tell  me  more  than  once,  that  I  own.  That  thefe  come  only  to 
le  common  Notions  of  thingt,  which  I  have  no  Averfion  from.  This  is  a  way  of 
turning  things  upon  Me,  which  I  could  not  exped  from  You.  For  thofe  Words 
are  brought  in  by  me  on  this  Occafion.  You  had.faid,  that  you  fee  no  fuch  Op- 
pofition,  hut  that  Ideas  and  found  Reafon  may  fland  together,  i.  e.  Re  of  on  rightly 
managing  thofe  Ideas,  fo  as  to  produce  Evidence  hy  them.  Upon  this,  I  ufed  thefe 
Words.  "  But  what  need  all  this  great  Noife  about  Ideas  and  Certainty  ?  true 
*'  and  real  Certainty  by  Ideas,  if  after  all  it  comes  only  to  this,  that  our  I- 
"  deasonly  reprefent  fuch  things,  from  whence  we  bring  Arguments  to  prove 
"  the  Truth  of  things  ?  But  the  World  hath  been  flrangely  amufed,  &c.  Judge 
1  now  how  fair  and  ingenuous  this  Anfwer  is.  That  which  I  bring  in  as  a  Con- 

fequence of  your  Aflertion,  you  make  to  be  my  own  Senfe  as  to  your  Notion 
of  Ideas :  when  I  all  along  diflinguifh  the  Way  of  Reafon,  by  deducing  one 
thing  from  another,  from  your  Way  of  Certainty  in  the  Agreement  and  Difagree- 
meat  of  Ideas ;  and  I  therefore  mention  it  as  an  Argument  of  your  own  depar- 
ting from  your  beloved  Notion  of  Ideas.     I  never  laid  any  thing  againft  Reafon 
rightly  managing  Ideas,  fo  as  to  produce  Evidence  hy  them.     1  was  glad  you 
came  fo  far  towards  my  own  Apprehenfion  as  to  the  Ufe  of  Ideas,  and  I  declare 
foon  after,  "  That  if  you  mean  no  more  by  your  Certainty  from  Ideas,  but  a 
'*  Certainty  from  Reafon,  I  was  not  (o  unreafonable  a  Man  to  difagree  with 
From  p.   "  you.  And  yet  you  fpend  many  Pages  to  juftifie  your  Ufe  of  the  Term  Ideas  : 
63.  to  p.  vvhichisall  loft  upon  me.    For  in  fhort,  it  is  not  your  Way  of  Ideas,  but  your 
^^'        Way  of  Certainty  hy  Ideas,  which  I  was  unfatisfied  about,  and  am  fo  much  the 

more 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Second  Letter.  583 


more  by  the  Method  you  have  taken  to  defend  your  klt\  And  this  was  the 
thing!  found  fault  with,  as  you  could  not  but  fee,-  but  you  found  it  much  ea- 
fier  to  run  into  a  long  Difcourfe,  to  no  purpofe,  about  the  Ufe  of  the  Word 
Ji/eas,  How  far  your  lJ(e  of  the  Term  is  new  I  will  not  difpute  with  you ; 
be  it  new  or  old  the  thing  you  do  pretend  to  by  your  Ideas  is  that  which  I 
difliked,  and  am  forced  to  do  fo  dill ;  for  you  give  me  no  manner  of  fatisfadi- 
on  about  it,  as  will  appear  by  the  Examination  of  what  you  fay,  about  the 
new  Method  of  Certainty^  which  is  the  matter  in  Queftion :  Youdefire  to  know  ^"  ^''' 
whether  there  he  any  other  or  older  Method  of  Certainty  ?  That  is  not  the  Point, 
but  whether  yours  be  any  at  all?  Which  I  deny.  If  there  he  no  Older^  you 
fay,  the  World  is  obliged  to  you  for  this  iJew  o»e  :  Very  true,  if  it  were  what  it 
pretends.  But  you  tell  me,  I  ought  tofet  the  World  right  in  a  thing  of  that  great  p-  8?' 
Concernment,  and  to  overthrow  yours,  and  thereby  prevent  the  dangerous  Conejquence 
of  your  unfeafonahle  Jiarting  this  new  Method  of  Certainty.  I  did  never  pretend 
to  inform  the  World  of  new  Methods,  and  therefore  am  not  bound  to  go  any 
farther  than  to  that  I  found  fault  with,  which  was  your  new  Method  -,  and  al- 
though 1  thought  I  had  faid  enough  before,  to  fhew  how  far  it  was  from  what 
it  pretended  ;  yet  becaufe  you  call  me  to  it  in  fuch  a  manner,  I  (hull  endeavour 
more  freely  to  reprefent  to  you  the  Vnfatisfa^orinefs  and  Inconjifiency  of  it. 
For  it  is  ftill  to  me  a  ftrange  thing,  that  you  ftiould  talk  fomuch  of  a  new  Me- 
thod of  Certainty  by  Ideas;  and  yet  allow,  as  you  do,  fuch  a  Want  of  Ideas, 
fo  much  Imperfe^ioH  in  them,  and  fuch  a  want  of  Connexion  between  our  Ideas 
and  the  things  themfelves.  One  would  think,  that  he  that  owned  thefe  things 
rather  defign'd  to  prove  there  could  be  no  Certainty  by  Ideas.  And  when  I 
had  objected  thefe  things  in  the  Conclufion  of  my  former  Anfwer,  you  do  not 
deny  them  ;  and  all  the  Return  you  make  is,  that  it  is  better  to  have  feme  way  p.  171: 
of  Certainty  (^though  it  will  not  lead  us  to  it  in  every  thing)  than  no  way  at  all.  As  ^'^^' 
though  the  Difpute  between  us  had  been,  Whether  any  Certainty  be  not  better 
than  none.  No  doubt  any  true  Certainty  isdefirablc,  but  it  is,  as  I  have  of- 
ten faid,  of  ill  Confequence  to  fet  up  fuch  a  Method  of  Certainty,  as  if  it  hold, 
will  overthrow  our  Faith,  and  if  it  doth  not,  muft  deceive  all  thofe  that  follow 
it.  And  it  is  the  Certainty  of  Faith  which  I  defend  agiinft  your  pretended 
Certainty  of  Knowledge.  But  to  let  you  fee  what  Ground  I  had  to  be  unfa- 
tisfied  with  it,  I  (hall  now  wave  all  the  Inftances  of  Ideas  I  infifled  on  before,  as" 
to  Suhjiames  and  fenfthle  Qualities ;  and  I  /hall  fmgle  out  one  remarkable  Idea, 
by  which  the  Uncertainty  of  your  way  of  Ideas  will  be  fully  difcover'd.  And 
that  is  the  Idea  of  Space  5  upon  which  a  famous  Syfleme  of  l^atural  Philojophy 
hath  been  built,  and  as  upon  a  clear  and  diftindl  Idea  j  and  yet  you  will  by  no 
means  allow  it  to  be  fo;  and  think  you  have  a  clear  Idea  to  the  contrary  ,•  al- 
though thofe  who.  will  not  allow  it  to  be  true  cannot  deny  it  to  beconfiilent 
with  It  felf,  and  that  the  Ideas  in  it  have  an  Agreement  with  one  another. 

As  to  fpace,  you  fay,  that  we  have  it  both  by  Sight  and  Touch,  which  inform  lu  E(ray,B.  2. 
efthe  Diftance  between  Bodies :  which  in  feveral  Refpe^is  may  be  called  Diftance,^^-  ^^• 
Capacity  and  Extenfton;  and  fo  Extenfion,  you  fay,  is  an  Idea  belonging  to  Body  on-  ^^^'  ^' 
ly,  hut  Space  may,  as  is  evident,  he  confiderd  without  it.     But  here  now  arifes 
a  great  difficulty  to  me  in  the  way  of  Certanity  by  Ideas:  viz.  that  fome  very- 
thinking  Men  in  this  way  of  Ideas,  have  look'd  on  the  Idea  of  Space  and  ex- 
tended Matter  to  be  the  lame,-  for,  fay  they,  it  appears  to  us  from  clear  Ideas, 
that  Body  and  Extenfion  are  the  fame  thing,  and  therefore  if  there  be  Extenfion 
in  Space  there  muft  be  Body.    But,  you  fay,  thofe  that  do  fo,  either  change  StCt.  12. 
the  fjgnification  of  Wordsy  and  fo  render  it  a  doubtfull  Idea  ;  or  they  confound 
very  different  Ideas  with  one  another,  and  fo  can  never  come  to  Certainty  by  tlie 
Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  Ideas.  But  you  conclude,  that  the  clear  and  di-Sed.  14. 
fiin^l  Idea  of  fimple  Space  dijiinguifhes  it  plainly  and  fufficientlyfrvm  Body.     Here 
we  fee  you  pretend  to  a  clear  anddiflintl  Idea.    But  it  falls  out  very  unluckily 

£  e  e  e  X  (or 


58+ 


An  ANSWER  to 


for  the  Way  of  Ideas^  that  the  firft  flarter  of  this  Way  of  Certainty  is  as  pofi- 
Princip,    tive,  that  the  Idea  of  Space  and  extended  Body  are  the  fame.     So  that  here  we 
p.ii.n,i5.|^^^g  c/ir^r  and  dijlin£l  Ideas  both  ways.     And  is  not  this  an  admirable  Method 
of  Certainty,  when  in  one  of  theplaineft  /j/f^  which  depend  upon  ourSenfes, 
the  greateft  Defenders  of  Ideas  differ  fo  fundamentally  ?   What  can  other  Men 
hope  for  in  this  Way  of  Ideas^  if  fuch  Men  can  agree  no  better  in  one  of  the 
moft  evident  to  our  Senfes  ?  But  then  we  mufi  con(ider^  who  hath  the  letter  Rea- 
fon  >  This  is  not  Certainty  by  Ideas,  but  by  Reafott  upon  them,  which  is  ano- 
ther thing.  Let  us  go  to  Reafon.     Is  that  Reafon  built  only  on  fome  interme- 
diate Idea,  which  makes  it  clear?  I  find  intermediate  Ideas  on  both  fides,  and 
urged  with  equal  AfTurance.     Des  Cartes  faith,  that  from  Extenjion  we  rightly 
conclude  a  Body  to  he  a  Sulflance^  hecaufe  it  is  a  Repugnancy  that  there  (hould  he 
an  Extenfion  of  Nothing ;  and  therefore,  if  there  he  Extenfion  in  Space  there  mufi 
he  Body.  And  he  proves  it  from  the  Idea  of  Body ;  for,  if  we  cafi  off  all  fmh  things 
as  are  not  neceffary  to  Body,  as  Hardnefs,  Colour.  Gravity,  Heat,  and  Cold,  and  all 
other  Qualities,  we  fhall  find  nothing  to  remain  hut  Extenfion,  and  therefore  nothing 
hut  Extenfion  is  in  the  Idea  of  Body,  which  heing  likewife  in  Space  the  Idea  of  Body 
May  1. 2  ^^J Space  are  the  fame.     But  fay  you  on  the  other  fide,  /  appeal  to  every  Man's 
ch.  i\.'  '  ownThoughts,  whether  the  Idea  of  Space  he  not  as  diflinSl  from  that  of  Solidity,  at 
Seft.  12.  j^  j^  p.g^  fiyg  jjg^  Qj  ^  Scarlet  Colour.     'Tis  true,  That  Solidity  cannot  exifl  with- 
out  Extenfion ;  but  this  hinders  not  hut  they  are  diflin£l  Ideas.     One  appeals  to 
Thoughts,  and  the  other  xo  Reafon:  ^AzA  Des  Cartes  no  Thoughts.^  Yet  his  Rea- 
/o«  convinced  him,  that  whatever  Thoughts  he  had,  he  mult  be  perfwaded  by 
Reafon,  which  was  the  true  Idea.    You  lay,  that  is  a  clear  and  diftin^  Idea  that 
a  Mans  thoughts  dictate  to  him  to  he  fo.     No,  faith  Des  Cartes,  that  only  is  the 
true  Idea,  which  a  Man  comes  to  by  the  Exercife  of  his  Reafon ;  and  he  look'd 
upon  thole  others  as  meer  Ideas  of  Imagination,  and  not  Rational  Ideas.  So  that 
here  we  have  another  Work  to  do,  and  that  no  eafie  one,  which  is  todiftinguifh 
the  Ideas  of  Imagination  from  thofe  of  Reafon:  and  what  way  have  you  laid 
down  to  prevent  fo  great  a  Miftake  ?  Or  what  Rules  have  you  to  judge,  how 
far  Imagination  is  to  be  allowed  in  the  Matter  of  Ideas  i  For  in  all  Objedls  of 
Senfe  the  Impreffion  is  made  upon  the  Imagination  j  which  is  the  Seat  of  Ideas, 
that  come  in  by  Senfation :  now  here  lies  a  very  confiderable  Difficulty,  how 
far  Reafon  is  to  judge  of  thefe  Ideas  of  Imagination  ?  For  if  all  our  fimple  Ideas 
of  things  without  us  come  in  by  Senfation,  then  one  would  think  thofe  Ideas 
are  to  be  allowed  which  come  in  that  way;  and  fo  the  Impreffions  of  Fancy 
are  to  be  the  Standard  and  Rule  of  Certainty,  which  I  think  you  will  not  affirm. 
But  what  Rule  then  have  you  when,  and  where,  and  how  far,  you  are  to  cor- 
xtGi  the  erroneous  Ideas  of  Imagination  ? 

I  cannot  deny  but  you  were  fenfible  of  the  Difficulty  from  the  Ideas  of  Ima- 
B  4  ch.4.  gi»atio»y  and  thus  you  propofe  it.   To  what  purpofe  is  ail  this  flir  >  Knowledge,  fay 
Seft,  I.     you,  is  only  the  Perception  of  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  our  own  Ideas,  hut 
who  knows  what  thofe  Ideas  may  he  >  Is  there  any  thing  fo  extravagant  as  the  Ima- 
gination of  Mens  Brains  .*  Where  is  the  Head  that  hath  no  Chimxrds  in  it  >  Or 
if  there  he  a  foher  and  wife  Man,  what  difference  wiU  there  be  hy  your  Rules  he- 
tween  his  Knowledge,  and  that  of  the  moft  extravagant  Fancy  in  the  World  f  They 
both  have  their  Ideas,  and  perceive  their  Agreement  and  Difagreement  one  with  a- 
nother.     Let  us  now  confider  the  Anfwer  you  give  to  it,  and  by  that  we  fhall 
better  judge  of,  your  Way  of  Certainty. 
5j(t.  2,         Your  general  Anfwer  is,  That  if  our  Knowledge  of  our  Ideas  terminate  in  our 
Fancies,  our  Affurance  would  go  no  farther  than  that  of  Dreams,  or  the  Fifions  of  a 
heated  Fancy.     But  our  Knowledge  is  real,  only  fo  far,  as  there  is  a  Conformity  be- 
tween our  Ideas,  and  the  Reality  of  Things. 

Ail  this  is  undoubtedly  true.     But  you  fay,  How  fhall  the  Mind,  when  it  per- 
ceives nothing  but  its  own  Ideas.,  know  that  they  agree  with  Things  themfelves. 

There 


Mr.  L o c K  E s  Second  Letter*  585 

There^ indeed  lies  the  Difficulty,  but  how  do  you  remove  it?      '  -    ■  ■■  '  - 

There  are  tm  forts  of  It/eas,  you  fay,  tve  may  le  fure,  ^^ree  with  things. 

Arid  tliefe  are  worth  the  knowing,  -a J  u-.w.. 

I .  The  firfi  are  (imple  Ideas^  which  jince^he  Mind  can  hy  no  means  make  to  it  felf^  Seft.  4. 
tnufi  necejfarily  be  the  Produil  of  Things  operating  on  the  Mind  in  a  natural  way 
and  producing  therein  thofe  Perceptions  which  hy  the  Wifdern  and  Will  sf  our  Ma- 
ker they  are  adapted  to.     From  whence  it  follows ,  that  fimple  Ideas  are  not  Fi£li- 
•  ons  of  our  Minds. 

All  that  can  be  proved  from  hence  is  no  more,  but  that  the  Objeds  of  our 
Senfes  do  make  thofe  Imprellions  upon  them,  that  from  them  we  may  be  cer- 
tain there  are  fuch  things  without  us,  which  produce  thofe  Impreffions.  And 
this  is  all  you  mean  when  you  (ay,  that  you  are  certain  thefe  Ideas  are  no 
Ficilions  of  our  Brains.  But  let  us  apply  this  to  the  prefent  Cafe.  Our  Senfes 
truly  inform  us  of  a  Diflance  between  Bodies  •  and  fo  far  we  are  certain  of  an 
Idea  of  Space,  but  the  Queftion  about  the  Idea  of  Space  goes  farther;  viz. 
Whether  the  Idea  of  Space  imply  fomething  or  nothing?  How  can  nothing 
be  extended?  If  it  be  fomething  extended  it  mufl  be  Body,-  and  fo  Space  and 
Body  are  the  fame. 

And  k>yo\xv  fmple Ideas  give  no  manner  of  fatisfadion  in  this  Matter. 

z.  AH  our  complex  Ideas.,  except  thofe  of  Suhfiances,  you  lay,  heing  Archetypes  ofstCt  j. 
the  Mind's  own  makings  not  referrd  to  the  Exiflence  of  any  thing.,  cannot  want  any  Con- 
formity neceffary  to  real  Knowledge ;  jor  that  which  is  not  defigned  to  reprefent  any 
thing  but  it  felf,  can  never  be  capable  of  a  wrong  Reprefentation,  nor  miflead  us  from 
the  true  Apprehenfion  of  any  thing  hy  its  diflikenefs  to  it. 

Where  are  we  now  ?  What  in  the  Way  to  Certainty  ftill  ?  Methinks  it  feems  to 
be  too  intricate  and  winding  to  be  that  plain  Way.  What  is  meant  by  thefe 
Archetypes  in  the  Mind  which  cannot  deceive  tu  }  \  confefs  here  are  fuch  things 
faid  in  order  to  Certainty,  which  are  above  my  Underflanding,  if  taken  with 
•refped  to  Things,-  as  how  we  cannot  hut  he  infallibly  certain,  that  all  the  Know- 
ledge we  attain  concerning  thefe  Ideas  is  real,  and  reaches  things  themfelves,  and 
yet  they  are  Archetypes  of  the  Mind's  own  making,  not  intended  to  he  the  Copies  of 
any  thing,  nor  referrd  to  the  Exifience  of  any  thing.  How  can  the  Certainty  by 
thefe  Ideas  reach  the  things  them/elves,  if  they  are  Archetypes  of  the  Mind,  not  re- 
ferrd to  the  Exiflence  of  any  thing  >  But  I  fuppofe  all  this  is  meant  of  Mathemati- 
cal Truths,  and  fo  reaches  not  the  Cafe,  which  is  concerning  theCf/-/</i«/yof  our 
Knowledge  of  things  that  really  exifl. 

?.  You  fay,  there  is  another  fort  of  complex  Ideas,  which  heing  referrd  to  Se^.  n. 
Archetypes  without  us  may  differ  from  them,  and  fo  our  Knowledge  about  them  may 
come  fhort  of  being  real.  Now  thefe  were  the  things  we  defired  to  be  made 
certain  in ;  and  to  find  out  fuch  Rules  as  would  make  our  Knowledge  real.  But 
for  all  that  I  can  fee,  the  hopes  of  any  Criterion  is  quite  loft,  as  to  the  point  in 
Queftion  :  How  fhall  the  MinA  when  it  perceives  nothing  but  its  own  Ideas,  know 
that  they  agree  with  the  things  themfelves  ? 

For  upon  thefe  Grounds  we  can  have  no  Certainty  as  to  firaple  Ideas,  bar  on- 
ly as  to  the  Power  of  making  Impreffions  on  our  Senfes  5  but  as  to  complex  I- 
deas,  as  of  Subftances.our  Knowledge  about  them  may  comefliort  of  being  real, 
/.  e.  we  cannot  arrive  to  Certainty  about  them  in  the  way  of  Ideas ;  becaufe,  they 
may  differ  fromthe  Archetypes  ivithout  us.  And  you  confefs,  that  our  Ideas  are  not  Seet.  it. 
very  exaEl  Copies,  and  yet  are  the  Suhje^sof  real,  {as  far  as  we  have  any)  Know- 
ledge of  them ;  which  will  not  he  found  to  reach  very  far.  But  to  make  it  real  con- 
cerning Sub/lances,  the  Ideas  mufl  he  taken  from  the  real  Exiflence  of  things.  .>\nd  if 
our  complex  Ideas  may  deceive  us  as  to  the  things  from  whence  they  are  fuppo- 
ftd  to  be  taken,  what  an  Acount  o^ Certainty  in  the  way  of  Ideas  is  here  ?  And 
yet  you  conclude  this  Chapter  in  that  Triumphant  manner,-  I  think  I  have 
(hewn  wherein  it  is  that  Certainty^  real  Certainty  conjifis^  which  whatever  it  was 

to 


5^£ A  ANSWER  to 

to  others  was  tome  heretofore  one  ofthofe  Defideratdsy  which  J  found  great  want  of: 
And  for  all  that  1  can  %  may  do  fo  ftill.  For  here  is  nothing  faid  to  diftinguifli 
the  ftrong  Impreflions  of  Fancy  from  the  Appearances  of  things,  from  that  Cer- 
tainty of  Knowledge  which  comes  from  the  things  themfelves.  For,  a  confi- 
dent Opiniator  will  talk  with  greater  Affurance  of  the  Agreement  and  Difagree- 
ment  of  things  with  his  Ideas,  than  a  Man  of  far  greater  Judgment  and  more 
Modefty.  And  you  have  given  us  no  Rules  to  make  a  difference  betvteen  0- 
pinion  and  rational  Certainty  ;  efpecially  when  the  Ideas  of  Fancy  are  found  to . 
agree  with  one  another. 

But  I  ihail  go  a  ftep  farther  to  (hew,  that  the  Agreement  of  Ideas  is  no  Ground 
of  Certainty,  and  that  from  a  Suppofition  relating  to  the  pvefent  Cafe. 

We  have  feen  how  poffible  it  is  for  an  ingenious  Perfon  skilled  in  the  Phano^ 
mena  of  Nature  to  contrive  fuch  an  Hypothecs,  that  one  part  may  agree  with 
another,  fo  as  that  no  difcernible  Inconfiflency  may  be  found  in  it,  and  yet  all 
this  may  be  built  on  fuch  a  Foundation,  as  cannot  be  confiftent  with  your  Cer- 
tainty hy  Ideas ;  nay,  fuch  as  you  are  certain  cannot  be  true. 

The  Hypothefis,  I  mean,  is  that  of  Des  Cartes ;  for  allowing  him  his  Laws  of 

Motion,  and  his  three  Elements,  the  Phanomsna  of  Mature,  or  the  Ideas  of  it 

agree  with  one  another,  and  yet  all  this  is  built  upon  Space  being  the  fame  with 

Body ;  and  confequently,  that  there  can  be  no  Tacuum:  upon  which  his  Laws  of 

Motion,  and  his  Solution  oi  the  Phtenomena  is  all  built.  And  therefore,  when  a 

learned  Man  of  our  own  objeded  that  to  him,  and  thought  it  of  »o  great  Confe- 

Des  Cartes  quence  to  his  Philofophy-  he  replied  with  fome  fmartnefs,  that  he  was  miftaken, 

Epift.  T.i.jTgj.  f^g  fggf^  jf  jg^  g„g  ofthemofi  certain  Principles  of  his  Philofophy.  What  Certainty 

Ep.87,88.  jj^g^  ^^^  ^j^^j.g  jjg  -jj  jj^^^  ^ijgjj  fQ  abfurd  a  Principle  as  that  Ihall  be  look'd  on 

by  fo  great  a  Man,  asfo  certain  a  thing  in  the  Way  of  Ideas,  as  to  build  his  whole 
Syftem  of  Natural  Philofophy  upon  it?  and  his  followers  to  this  day  ftifly  de- 
fend it,  who  are  otherwife  ingenious  Men. 

Nothing  now  remains  to  be  anfwer'd  in  your  Second  Letter,  but  what  relates 
to  the  Defence  of  what  I  had  faid  in  my  Bpok  concerning /<frf/»r<f  and  Perfon.  For 
I  cannot  but  obferve,  that  inftead  of  clearing  (ome  preffing  Difficulties  in  my 
Anfwer  to  your  former  Letter,  you  run  back  to  my  Book,  and  begin  a  new  Cri- 
tique upon  that  part  of  it ;  and  take  in  the  help  of  fome  ingenious  Perfons  of 
your  Acquaintance,  to  whom  I  muft  (hew  fo  much  Civility  as  to  take  notice  of 
their  Objedions.  Which  I  fhall  the  rather  do,  becaufe  the  Dodlrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  exprefled  in  the  firfl  Article  of  our  Religion  by  one  Nature  zn^  three 
Perfons,  and  foit  hath  been  underflood  by  the  Chriflian  Church  long  before. 
And  it  is  the  Senfe  of  the  Chriftian  Church  which  I  am  bound  to  defend,  and 
no  particular  Opinions  of  my  own. 

You  tell  me,  that  there  hath  not  leen  one  of  your  Acquaintance  who  owned  that 
^'  "^"   he  underflood  my  Meaning ;  hut  confeffed  that  the  farther  he  look'd  into  what  I  had 
faid,  the  more  he  was  at  a  lofs  ahout  Nature  and  Perfon.     But  I  hope  I  am  not 
to  anfwer  for  other  Men's  want  of  Underftanding  in  thefe  Matters:  which  re- 
quires greater  Application  of  Mind,  than  moft  Men  are  willing  to  allow  them- 
felves  about  them.     But  I  am  to  judge  no  otherwife  of  their  Senfe  and  Capa- 
city, than  as  you  have  reprefented  them, 
p      8         One  faid  I  began  with  givingtwo  fignifications  of  the  word  Nature :  One  of  them^ 
.     as  it  fi  cod  for  Properties;  and  this  he  underflood ;  hut  the  other  wherein  Nature 
was  taken  for  the  thing  it  felf,  wherein  thofe  Properties  were,  he  faid  he  did  not 
underfland.     But  he  faid  he  was  not  very  well  acquainted  with  Greek,  and  Ariftotle 
was  brought  to  explain  and  fettle  the  Senfe  of  Nature. 

But  why  did  not  this  Gentleman  in  the  ftrfl  place  confider  what  it  was  I  under- 
took to  Ihew,  which  was,  that  we  had  an  Idea  of  Nature,  which  came  not  in  by 
our  Senfes;  and  in  the  very  next  words  I  faid,  "  That  Nature  and  Subftance  are 
!'  of  an  equal  Extent;  andfo,  thatwhichis  the  Subjed  of  Powers  and  Proper- 


*'  ties 


Mr.  Locke's  Second  L e t t e r.  587 


20. 


"  ties  is  the  Nature,  whether  it  be  meant  of  bodily  or  fpiritual  Subftances.  And 
"  although  by  Senfation  and  Reflexion  we  know  the  Powers  and  Properties  of 
"  things  •■,  yet  it  is  by  Reafon  we  are  fatisfied  there  muft  be  fuch  a  Nature  or 
"  Subilance,  becaufe  it  is  impoffible  that  they  fliould  fubfiftby  themfelves. 

Methinks  if  the  Gentleman  were  fo  much  at  a  loft  as  you  reprefent  him 
you  fliould  have  helped  him  out  by  your  relative  Ideas :  For  hard  things  go  down 
much  better  with  fome  mens  Minds  in  the  Way  of  Ideas,  (which  is  a  fort  of 
•gilding  the  Pills)  and  I  doubt  not  but  you  could  have  fatisfied  him,  that  the 
Underftanding  may  by  virtue  of  a  relative  Idea  be  very  well  fatisfied  of  the  Be- 
ing of  Nature^  as  well  as  Suhjlaftce,  when  I  declared  that  I  took  them  to  be  of 
equal  Extent ;  as  they  were  the  Snhje£l  of  Powers  and  Vroperties.  But  he  faith 
that  this  he  under fiood  not ^  hecaufe  Nature  extended  to  things  that  were  net  Suhjlan-  P  i 
ces.  Did  I  not  fay,  that  Nature  was  fometimes  taken  only  for  Properties,  but  that 
there  muft  be  another  Senfe  proved,  becaufe  there  muft  "be  a  Subjedl  wherein 
thefe  Properties  are,  and  in  that  refpedJ,  I  faid,  that  Nature  andSuhJlance  were  of 
equal  Extent.  But  he  doth  not  under fl and  the  Deduction ;  Ariftotle  takes  Nature  for 
a  corporeal  Suhfiance,  and  therefore  Nature  and  Suhflance  are  of  an  equal  Extent, 
What  a  hard  Fate  doth  that  Man  lie  under,  that  falls  into  the  hands  of  a  fevere 
Critick !  He  muft  have  a  care  of  his  Bat,  and  For^  and  them,  and  It ;  for  the  leaft 
Ambiguity  in  any  of  thefe  will  fill  up  Pages  in  an  Anfwer,  and  make  a  Book 
look  confiderable  for  the  Bulk  of  it.  And  what  muft  a  Man  do,  who  is  to  anfwer 
to  all  fuch  Objedlions  about  the  Ufe  of  Particles  ?  But  let  any  indifferent  Rea- 
der judge,  how  I  am  ufed  in  this  place.  My  words  are,  "  Sometimes  Nature  is 
"  taken  for  the  Thing  it  felf  in  which  thofe  Properties  are  j  and  fo  Arifiotle 
**  Cook  Nature  for  a  Corporeal  Subftance,  which  had  the  Principles  of  Motion 
*'  in  it  felf  J  but  Nature  and  Subftance  are  of  an  equal  Extent.  Doth  not  any 
Man  of  Common  Senfe  fee,  that  I  oppofe  this  to  Ariflotle's  Senfe  of  Nature 
for  a  Corporeal  Suhflance  i  He  confines  it  to  that  only ;  I  fay.  That  it  is  of  equal 
Extent  with  Suhflance  whether  Bodily  or  Spiritual:  and  thof&  very  words  fol- 
low after.  If  you  had  really  fuch  a  Converfation  with  a  Gentleman^  I  am 
forry  for  him ;  and  I  think  you  did  not  deal  fo  like  a  Gentleman  by  him,  to 
expofe  him  thus  to  the  World. 

But  I  perceive  he  is  a  Philofopber  too ;  for  he  proves,  That  AriftotlcV  Notion  of  P.  up. 
Nature  for  a  Corporeal  Suhflance  will  not  hold.  Did  I  ever  fay  that  it  would  ?  I  am 
far  enough  from  thinking,  that  a  Corporeal  Suhflance  hath  a  Principle  oj  Motion 
from  it  felf '^  But  might  not  I  mention  Arifiotle  s  taking  Nature  for  a  Suhjtance^ 
although  I  prefently  add,  his  Senfe  was  too  fliort  and  narrow,  becaufe  Nature 
and  Suhflance  were  of  equal  extent  f  But  did  not  his  Notion  of  Nature  imply  that 
it  was  a  Principle  of  Motion  in  it  felf  ?  Whatever  Arifiotle  thought,  the  Notion 
of  Nature  doth  not  depend  upon  a  Principle  of  Motion  from  it  felf ;  but  it  was 
confidered,  not  as  in  it  /f^astheCaufe,  but  in  it  felf  zs  the  Subject.  And  that 
Philofophical Gentleman  might  be  pleafed  to  confider,  that  Ariflotle  did  not  make 
Motion  to  arife  from  Matter,  but  aflerted  it  to  come  from  a  firft  Mover,  and 
faid.  That  thofe  Philofophers  talked  like  Men  not  well  in  their  Wits,  who  attrihu- 
ted  Motion  to  Matter  of  it  felf;  as  I  could  eafily  prove,  if  it  were  needful. 
And  methinks  you  fliould  not  have  been  fuch  a  Stranger  to  Arifiotle,  to  let  your 
Acquaintance  run  into  fuch  Blunders,  and  then  to  print  them  for  him. 

But  the  Gentleman  is  farther  plunged  and  knows  not  how  to  get  out.  He  P-  "'• 
cannot  for  his  Life  underfl and  Nature  to  he  Suhflance,  and  Suhflance  to  he  Nature. 
Where  lies  the  Difficulty?  Is  the  Repugnancy  in  the  Words  or  in  the  Senfe? 
Not  in  the  Words  or  Senfe  either  in  Greek  or  Latin.  For  the  Greek,  (if  I  may 
have  leave  to  mention  that  language  in  this  Cafe)  thofe  who  have  been  very 
well  acquainted  with  the  force  of  Words  therein,  have  taz.dtNature  of  the  fame 
importance  with  Suhflance.  ^o  Hefychius  renders  it  by  8jia,  Suhflance;  but  I 
fliall  not  bring  the  Teftimony  of  Criticks  but  of  Philofophers.    And  Arifhtle 

may  ' 


588 An  ANSWER  to  

Arift  Me-  ^^V  ^^  allowcd  to  underftand  his  own  Language,  he  faith  pofitively,  yriion. 
taph.  1.  s.  8cnx  ifooi?  7\.i-yvmi ;  every  Sulfiance  is  called  Nature,  and  the  Reafon  he  gives  for 
*^'  *'        it  is,  071  ic,  «  pvni  Hn'z  Tii  '^f,  hecaufe  Nature  is  a  Sulfiance.     It  may  be  faid. 
That  Ariftotle  faiJ  this,  hecaufe  he  took  Nature  for  fttch  a  Suhflance  as  had  the 
Tower  of  Motion  in  itfelf;  I  do  not  deny,  buthelook'd  on  tl^at  as  the  proper 
AccQ^ivonoi  Nature ;  but  from  hence  it  follows,  that  whatever  Subftance  had 
fucha  Principle  of  Motion  in  it  felf  was  truly  and  properly  Natkre;  not  as  eJC- 
clufive  of  a  Superiour  Principle  of  Motion,  but  as  having  an  int;ernal  felf-mo-* 
ving  Principle.    And  herein  Ariftotle  differed  from  feme  modern  Philofophers, 
V      who  make  all  Motion  tocome  from  the  Impulfe  of  another  Body,  and  to  be  a 
.   meer  Mode  of  Matter  continued  from  one  Body  to  another.     I  confefs  Ariflotle 
was  of  another  Opinion  from  thofe  Gentlemeo,  and  look'd  on  Motion  as  an 
EfTedl  of  an  inward  ^  Principle ;  and  not  meerly  of  an  External  Impulfe :  but 
whether  Ariflotle  were  miftaken  herein  is  not  the  Qiieftion ;  and  it  is  poflible  he 
was  not,-  however,  it  plainly  appears,  that  Sulfiance  with  a  Power  of  Motion 
in  it  felf,  and  Nature,  had  the  fame  Senfe;  and  none  of  thofe  who  have  been  the 
moft  fevere  Criticks  upon  Ariflotle  have  difputed,  that  1  remember,  againft  this 
p.  Rami   Stnko'i  Nature  in  him.    One  of  them  finds  this  fault,  that  it  was  but  a  Repe- 
Schoi.Me.  j| jJQjj  Qf  ^j^jjj  [jg  jjjjj  fajj  jj,  his  phyficks ;  where  he  doth  likevi/ ife  treat  of  the 
"V  "  ^'  Senfe  of  Nature.     And  there  he  takes  it  for  fuch  a  Suhflance  which  hath  the  Prin- 
Phyfic.     ciple  of  Motion  and  Reft' within  it  felf  and  hy  it  felf-.  which  he  oppofes  to  arti- 
Aufc.  1. 2-^^^^^  things,  as  a  Bed  or  a  Garment.     And  as  much  3S  this  Definition  hath  been 
run  down  by  fome  Men,  if  we  fetafide  fome  affeded  Obfcurity  in  his  Philo- 
fophical  Writings,  there  is  no  fuch  Abfurdity  in  it ;  when  he  explains  him- 
felf  not  to  underftand  it  of  meer  Local  Motion,  or  change  of  Place,  but  of  aS 
Alterations  incident  to  Bodies.     So  that  Nature  in  his  Senfe,  was  a  Suhflance  en- 
dued with  a  Principle  of  Life  and  A£lion,    And  all  thofe  things  which  did  par- 
take of  Nature  in  this  Senfe,  he  faid,  were  Suhflances ;  k,  '^  mura  yrArm.  B^a. 
For  Nature  is  always  a  Suhje£l  and  in  a  Suhje^ ;  i.  e.  the  Siibftance  it  felf  is  Na- 
?iut.de    ture,  and  that  which  is  in  it  is  according  to  Nature.     And  this  Senfe  oi  Ariflotle 
p]ac.  Phil,  piuf  arch  relies  upon,  as  the  true  Notion  of  Nature,  which  he  faith  is  the  Principle 
'of  Motion  and  Refl  ;  hecaufe  the  heginning  and  ending  of  things  depend  upon  it : 
But  Plutarch  by  no  means  approves  of  thofe  Mens  Opinion  who  made  Nature 
«.  3.     to  be  an  Original  Self- moving  Principle;  For,  faith  he.  Matter  of  it  felf  cannot 
move  without  an  Efficient  Caufe,  no  more  than  any  Metal  can  frame  it  felf  into  a 
particular  Form  without  an  Artificer.     From  whence  we  fee  that  AriftotWs  No- 
tion of  Nature  was  very  confident  with  an  Efficient  Caufe  of  Nature.     But 
Letter  II.  your  Gentleman  laith.  That  to  thofe  who  admit  nor  Matter  and  Motion  to  he  E- 
p.  up.     ternal,  no  Nature  in  that  Senfe  will  he  left,  fince  Nature  is  faid  to  he  a  Corporeal 
Suhflance  which  hath  the  Principles  of  Motion  in  it  felf,  and  fuch  a  fort  of  Corpo- 
real Suhflance  thofe  Men  have  no  Notion  of  at  all,  and  confequently  none  of  Nature, 
which  is  fuch  a  Corporeal  Suhflance.     But  if  Ariflotle  did  not  fuppofe  Matter  to 
move  it  fcif,  without  an  Efficient  Caufe,  (as  certainly  he  did  not)  then  all 
this  falls  to  the  Ground,  and  his  Notion  of  Nature  for  a  Sulflantial  Principle  of 
Life  and  A^ion  may  remain  good. 

But  it  may  be  faid,  That  this  was  one  of  his  fingular  Notions,  and  that  no  other 

Philofophers  took  itfo.  '  Which  is  fo  far  from  being  true,  that  a  great  Enemy  of 

Fr.  Patrit.  AriflotUs  confefTes,  77;:!/  the  Name  of  Nature  among  the  Writers  hefore  him  ex- 

Difcuff,    tsnded  to  all  kinds  of  Beings,  and  not  only  to  individual  hut  to  Spectfick  Natures. 

T."lU.2.      Ariflotle's  fault  lay  in  applying  Nature  only  to  Corporeal  Suhfiances ;  and 

p.  107.    whatever  was  above  them  he  look'd  on  as  dboveNature ;  but  the  Pythagoreans 

and  Platonifls  took  Nature  to  extend  to  Spiritual  as  M'ell  as  Bodily  Suhfiances. 

Which  appears  by  Timaus  Locrus  his  Book  o\  Nature  ;  in  the  beginning  where* 

of  he  divides  Things  into  two  kinds,  Intellectual  and  Corporeal;  and  the  former, 

.  whofe  Nature  was  more  excellent,  he  derives  immediately  from  the  hcfl  Principle, 

'  viz.  God  himfelf.  But 


Mr.  Locke's  Second  L e  t t e  r.  5851 

But  to  make  this  plainer,  we  are  to  confider,  that  there  were  four  Opini- 
ons among  the  Old  Philofophers  about  Nature.     Some  held  Nature  to  be  the 
fame  with  iW4/^tfr,  and  attributed  the  Beginning  of  all  things  to  that  alone; 
fuch  were  the  followers  of  Anaximander  and  Democritus.     Others  rejedled 
this  Dodrine  as  abfurd  and  impious,  and  held  a  Divine  Being  above  Matter, 
which  gave  the  beginning  to  Motion  and  framed  the  World,  and  they  afiferted 
Spiritual  as  well  as  Corporeal  Natures,  and  tliefe  were  the  followers  of  Pytha- 
goras and  Anaxagoras.    Others  aflerted  the  Beginning  of  Motion  and  of  the 
World  from  a  firft  Caufe;  but  confined  theSenfe  of  Nature  to  the  Courfe  of 
things  eflablilhed  in  this  Vifible  World  by  an  Univerial  Providence  at  firfl. 
And  this  was  the  Notion  of  Ariflotle  and  his  fo'lowers  to  the  time  of  Strata 
who  attributed  all  to  meer  Nature.     Laflly,  there  were  fome  who  made  Na- 
ture to  be  the  firft  Principle  which  formed  all  things ;  which  fometimcs  they 
called  God,  and  fometimes  Nature,  as  is  obvious  in  all  the  Writings  of  the 
Stoicks I  f^is  ilium  Naturam  vocare ?  mn  peccahii\   faith  Seneca:  and  in  ano- 
ther place,  Quid  aliud  efi  Natura,  quam  Deus  &  divina  Ratio?  and  again, f'^'^'^"*^' 
Nee  Deus  fine  Natura  efl,  tiec  Natura  fine  Deo,  fed  idem  efi  utrumque,  which  De'benef. 
he  elfe where  calls,  Incorporalis  Ratio  ingentium  operum  Artifex.     With  which '•4-  '^•7.8' 
Balhus  in  Cicero  agrees,  when  he  defines  Nature  from  Zeno,  to  be  an  Intelli-  ^l^°^J' 
gent  Fire  that  produces  all  things.     For  whit  he  calls  Ignem  artificiofum  ad  gig-  c.  8. 
nendum,  &c.  Laertius  calls  TrveDw/*  'Tru^o^Sii  sy  -n^vo&tSii; ;  and  it  is  called  m  ^"^*  f^ 
Cicero,  Natura  Artifex,  Confultrix  ^  Provida,  &c.   which  can  agree  to  no- 
thing but  a  Spiritual  Sulfiance ;  and  when  he  explains  what  Nature  is,  he 
faith,  That  Epicurus  called  all  hy  the  Name  of  Nature ;  and  divided  it  into 
Matter  and  Vacuity  and  the  Accidents  of  both:  hut  we  (faith  he  of  the  Stoicks^ 
hj  Nature  underfland  no  Inanimate  Things  which  have  no  Principle  within  to 
finite  them,  as  Earth  and  Stones-,  hut  a  livingSuhfiance,  as  an  Animal,  in  which 
is  no  Chance,  hut  Order  and  Contrivance.     And  fo  Plato  faid.  That  Nature  or-  ^'"°  ''^ 
dered  all  things  with  Reafon  and  Vnderflanding.     By  which  he  underftood  the      *^  ' 
Divine  being.    If  we  come  lower  dowh  among  the  Philofophers,  we  Ihall 
find  Nature  taken  for  a  Principle  of  Life.    So  Sextus  Empiricus  d.flinguifhes^^'"^*^™* 
the  Union  of  Matter  in  Stones  and  Wood  from  that  which  is  in  Plants,  and  IT2. ' 
this  he  calls  Nature^  which  is  the  loweli  degree  of  it;  for  afterwards,  he  P-3M-. 
fpeaks  of  Rational  and   Litelle^ual  Natures,  arid  places  God  in  the  head  of 
them.     Antoninus  diftinguifhes  Nature  in  Plants  from  a  heap  of  the  Particles  ^"^°"-''^" 
of  Matter  in  Wood  and  Stone.    But  in  another  place  he  diftinguifhes  thatL!^o.'*' 
which  is  meer  Nature  in  Man,  viz.  what  he  hath  in  common  with  Plants, Seft.  2. 
from  the  Nature  of  an  Animal  in  him;  and  that  again  from  the  Nature  of  a 
Rational  Creature  in  him.    Here  indeed  he  fpeaks  of  the  Properties  of  thofe 
Natures;  but  he  ftill  fuppofes,  that  where  they  are  feparate,  they  are  founded 
in  dif\in(ftSubflances. 

So  that  I  hope,  if  the  Philofophers  of  old,  of  all  kinds  did  underfland  the 
Senfe  of  Nature  and  Sulftance,  the  Gentleman  may  not  continue  in  fuch  a  pe- 
remptory Humour  of  faying,  That  for  his  Life  he  cannot  underfland  Nature  to 
he  Suhflance,  nor  Suhftance  to  he  Nature.  For  they  all  agreed  in  this,  however 
they  differed  in  their  Opinions  of  Nature. 

But  I  have  fomething  farther  to  add  concerning  the  Senfe  ^f  the  Chrifliaa 
Church  in  this  Matter;  which  I  think  is  by  no  means  to  be  defpifed. 

It  is  obferved  by  Damafcen,  that  fome  of  the  Philofophers  made  this  dif-  Damafc 
ference  hetween  mU  and  ?t;in? ;  that  the  former  was  taken  for  fimple  Efence,^^^^'^'^'' 
hut  the  latter  for  Effence  with  a  Specifical  Difference ;  lnt  that  the  Chriftian 
Writers  took  hoth  of  them  for  that  which  was  common   to   more  than  one  •  as  chryfoft. 
an  Angel,  a   Man,  a  Horfe,' ^c.     So  St.  Chryfoftom  calls   Angels  ao^.w^rs?  ""Sen/* 
«(T;a?,  and  datofxci-xisc,  fiaac,  and  Theodore t  cco^tu^  (ptja^^^    St.  Bafl  Myii^^c,  TheoAAa. 
ii,  aog^Ta;  ytJcr&if,  but  they  all  agree,  that  Incorporeal  and  Invifthle  Sulflances  ^*":'^"?-*- 

I  .  F  f  f  f .  are  Hex.'ori. 


590 An  ANSWER  to     

are  real  Matures.     And  the  Reafon  Damafcen  gives  is,  That  they  have  both 
the  fame  Original  (and  you  know  that  it  is  a  good  way  to  find  out  rise  true 
Idea)  for  as  8(7<a  is  from  I*),  fo  (^vnc,  is  from  Tre^vxifai,  hoth  which  are  the 
fame.   So  that  if  Real  Exifience  belong  to  Subflance,  and  Nature  hath  its  Name 
from  thence  too,  then  Suhftance  and  Nature  muft  be  of  the  lame  Importance* 
And  this  Notion  of  Nature  they  do  not  take  up  meerly  from  the  Etymology 
of  the  Word,  but  from  the  Senfe  of  it  in  Scripture ;  as  when   St.  Paul  faith. 
Gal.  4. 8.  They  worjhipped  thofe  which  hy  Nature  are  no   GeJs ;  -nT^  <pija&  ^  §01  ^oT!?^ 
as  the  Alexandrian  Copy  hath  it  more  clearly  ;  i  e.  which  are  not  really  and 
fubftantially  Gods.    They  had  the  Names  of  Gods,  and  the  Divine  Properties 
were  attributed  to  them ;  but  becaufe  they  had  not  the  Divine  Eflence,  they 
are  faid  not  to  be  Gods  hy  Nature.    And  what  Senfe  would  this  Gentleman 
make  of  the  Apoftle's  words,  who  cannot  for  his  Life  underfland  that  Nature 
is  the  fame  with  Suhftance  ?  He  muft  underftand  this  only  of  the  Properties 
which  belong  to  God.    But  thele  Properties  .muft  be  foniewhere,  and  fo  a 
Suhftance  muft  be  fuppofed  as  the  Subjedt  of  them;  and  what  Reafon  can 
there  be  to  exclude  that  which  is  the  Subjed  of  thofe  Properties  ?  For  there 
muft  be  a  Divine  Being  as  well  as  Properties;  and  that  Being  muft  have  Ef- 
fential  Properties  belonging  to  it ;  and  what  imaginable  Reaion  can  there  be, 
why  that  ftiould  not  be  called  the  Divine  Nature?  And  if  it  be,  then  Suh- 
ftance and  Nature  are  the  fame.    I  might  ealily  purfue  this  farther,  but  I  de- 
fjgn  to  bring  things  into  as  litttle  a  compafs  as  I  can. 

But  it  may  be  there  is  fomething  in  our  own  Language  which  hinders  Na^ 
ture  from  heing  taken  for  a  Suhjiance ;  and  for  this  I  appeal  to  a  late  Ingeni- 
Mt.Btyle  ous  and  Honourable  Perfon  and  Philofopher  of  our  own;  I  mean  Mr.  Boyle^ 
oi  the  No- who  hath  written  a  Philofophical  Enquiry  into  the  Notion  of  Nature;  and  he 
tion  of    jgjjj  y5  Qf  (he  various  Acceptations  of  it.    (i.)  For  the  Author  of  Nature. 
p.">*^'    C^-O  For  the  Eflence  of  a  Thing.    (3.)  For  what  comes  to  Men  by  Birth; 
as  a  Man  is  Noble  by  Nature.     (4.3  For  an  Internal  Principle  of  Motion  ; 
as  that  a  Stone  is  carried  downwards  by  Nature,    (^j.)  For  the  eftablifhed 
courle  of  things;  as  that  Nature  makes   the  Night  to  fucceed  the  Day, 
(6.)  For  an  Aggregate  of  Powers  belonging  to  a  Living  Body  ;  as  that  Na- 
ture is  ftrong  or  weak,     (7.)  For  the  Syftem  of  the  Univerfe ;  as  when  we 
fay  of  a  Chimasra,  there  is  no  fuch  thing  in  Nature.    (8.)  For  a  Semi- 
Deity  ;  which  is  the  Notion  he  oppofes.    But  we  may  obferve,  that  he  al- 
lows God  and  all  the  real  Beings  of  the  Vniverfe  to  have  Nature  belonging 
p.  35.  to  them  ;  and  he  faith,  The  Word  Eflence  is  of  great  Affinity  to  ity  if  not  of 
an  adequate  Import.    But  the  Real  Eflence  of  a  thing  is  a  Suhftance ;  and 
•  therefore  Nature  and  Suhftance  are  of  the  like  Importance. 

The  next  thing  fit  to  be  confidered  is,  How  far  your  Certainty  hy  Ideas 
and  the  Certainty  hy  Reafon  differ  from  each  other. 
The  occafion  of  this  Debate  ftands  thus. 
Difcourfe      I  had  faid  in  my  Book,  "  That  I  granted,  that  by  Senfation  and  Refledi- 
oftheTri-"  on  we  come  to  know  the  Powers  and  Properties  of  things;  but  our  Rea- 
nity,p.25.«  ^^^  j^  (atisfied,  that  there  muft  be  fomething  beyond  thefe,  becaufe  it  is 
"  impoflfible  that  they  ftiould  fubfift  by  themfelves.    So  that  the  Nature  of 
*'  things  properly  belongs  to  our  Reafon  and  not  to  meer  Ideas. 

In  anfwer  to  this  you  faid.  That  you  can  find  no  Oppofition  hetween  Ideas  and 
Reafon ;  hut  Ideas  are  the  Ohje^s  of  the  Vnderflanding,  and  Vnderflanding  is 
one  of  the  Faculties  imployed  about  them. 

To  which  I  replied,  "  No  doubt  of  it.  But  you  might  eafily  fee,  that  by 
**  Reafon  1  underftood  Principles  of  Reafon,  allow'd  by  Mankind;  which  I 
"  think  are  very  different  from  Ideas.  But  I  perceive  Reafon  in  this  Senfe  is 
"  a  thing  you  have  no  Idea  of,  or  one  as  obfcure  as  that  of  Suhftance. 

If 


Mr.  L o c xK.  e's  Second  Letter.  5^1 

It  there  be  any  thing  which  feems  too  (harp  and  refledling  in  the  Manner 
of  Expreflion,  1  do  not  go  about  to  defend  it ;  but  the  worft  of  it  is,  That 
your  Idea  of  Reafon  is  as  obfcure  as  that  of  Subftance.  And  whether  there 
were  not  a  juft  Occafion  for  it,  the  Reader  mufl:  judge  when  the  Faculty 
was  put  for  the  PrtHc'iplei  of  Reafon.  Could  any  Man  judge  otherwife,  but 
that  you  had  a  veryohfcure  iJea  of  Reafon,  who  could  miftake  theVnderfiand' 
ing  for  it  ? 

But  Reafon,  you  fay,  taken  for  the  Faculty  is  as  different  from  Ideas  in  your  ^-  ;*4' 
Apprehenfion.  But  what  is  that  to  the  Point  in  Difpute,  whether  the  Notion  , 
of  Nature  be  to  be  taken  from  Ideas  or  from  Reafon  >  You  fay,  the  Vnder- 
fianding  is  imployd  ahout  them.  And  what  then  ?  I  (hewed  that  the  Nature 
of  things  belongs  to  Reafon  and  not  to  hare  Ideas-,  becaufe  lAeas  come  in  by 
Senfation  and  RefledJion ;  by  which  we  come  to  know  the  Powers  and  Pro- 
perties of  things;  but  we  cannot  come  to  know  the  Notion  of  Nature  as 
the  iubjcdl  of  them,  but  by  this  Rea(bn  that  we  are  convinced  they  cannot 
fubCft  of  therafelves.  And  is  this  no  more  than  to  fay,  the  Vnderfianding 
is  implojed  ahout  Ideas  ?  But  now  you  anfwer  farther,  That  if  Reafon  he  ta- 
ken for  the  Faculty  or  the  Principles  of  Re tf on  allowed  hy  Mankind,  Reafon  and 
Ideas  may  confifl  together.  This  leads  me  to  the  Examination  of  that  which 
may  be  of  fome  ufe,  -viz.  To  (hew  the  Difference  of  your  Method  of  Certainty 
hy  Ideas,  and  the  Method  of  Certainty  hy  Reafon. 

And  the  Way  of  Certainty  hy  Reafon  hes  in  two  things ; 

1.  The  Certainty  of  Principles. 

2.  The  Certainty  of  Deduilions. 

As  to  the  former,  the  Gentleman  your  Defender  in  your  Book  faith,  That  i'*'^- 
in  your  Ejay^  in  more  places  than  one,  you  have  fpoken,  and  that  pretty  largely^ 
of  Self-evident  P/opofjtions  and  Maxims ;  fo  that  if  I  have  ever  read  them,  I  can- 
not douht,  hut  you  have  Ideas  of  thofe  common  Principles  of  Reafon. 

What  Ideas  you  have  of  them  muft  appear  from  your  Book  And  I  do  Book  ^. 
there  find  a  Chapter  of  Self-evident  Propofitions  and  Maxims ;  which  I  can-  se^Jj* 
not  but  think  extraordnary  for  the  Defign  of  it,-  which  is  thus  fummed 
up  in  the  Conclufion,  viz.  That  it  was  to  (hew.  That  thefe  Maxims,  as  they 
are  of  little  ufe  where  we  have  clear  and  diflin^  Ideas,  fo  they  are  of  dange- 
rous ufe,  where  our  Ideas  are  not  clear  and  diftin£l.  And  is  not  this  a  fair 
way  to  convince  me  that  your  Way  of  Ideas  is  very  confident  with  the  Cer- 
tainty oj  Reafon;  when  the  Way  of  Reafon  hath  been  always  fuppofed  to 
proceed  upon  General  Principles ;  and  you  aflert  them  to  be  Vfelefs  and  Dan- 
ger om  ? 

Your  firft  Defign  you  fay  is  to  prove,  that  the  Confideration  of  thefe  Gene-  Se£t.  4- 
ral  Maxims  can  add  nothing  to  the  Evidence  or  Certainty  of  Knowledge,  which 
overthrows  all  that  which  hath  been  accounted  Science  and  Demonfl ration, 
and  muft  lay  the  Foundation  of  Scepticifm.     Becaufe  our  true  Grounds  of 
Certainly  depend  upon  iome  general  Principle  of  Reafon.    To  make  this  plain, 
I  (hall  put  a«  Cafe  grounded  upon  your  Words,  which  are,  that  you  have  dif-  BooV  4. 
courfed  with  very  rational  Men,  who  have  a£iually  denied  that  they  are  Men.  jej^^*,- 
Thefe  Word,  J.  S.  underftands  as  fpoken  of  themfelves,  and  charges  them  Solid  Phi- 
with  very  ill  Confequencesj  but  I  think -they  are  capable  of  another  mean- 1°^- ^fc"- 
ing:  However,  let  us  put  the  Cafe  that  Men  did  in  earned  queftion,  whe- f,ce,'^sert, 
ther  they  were  Men  or  not?  and  then  I  do  not  (ee,  if  you  (et  afide  general  Reflex.ip. 
Maxims,  how  you  can  convince  them  that  they  are  Men.  For,  the  way  I  look  ^'  '^^' 
on  as  moft  apt  to  prevail  upon  fuch  extraordinary  Sceptical  Men,  is  by  ge- 
neral Maxims  and  Principles  of  Reafon.     As  in  the  firrt  place,  that  Nothing 
can  have  no  Properties ;  which  I  take  to  be  the  Fundamental  Principle  of  Cer- 
tainty, as  to  real  Beings.     For,  all  our  inward  Perceptions  are  only  of  lomc 
AGts  or  Properties,  as  of  Thinking,  Douhting,  Reafoning,  6(c.  and  if  a  Man 

F  f  f  f  2  proceeds 


592  An  ANSWERto 


proceeds  fo  far  as  to  queflion  every  thing,  in  order  to  the  difcovering  the 
true  Ground  of  Certainty ,  he  cannot  be  fatisfied  with  finding  out  only 
feme  Modes  of  Being ;  but  that  which  he  aims  at  is,  fatisfadiion  as  to  his 
real  Exiftence. 

But  this  wholly  depends  upon  the  Truth  and  Certainty  of  this  FunJamen- 
tal  Maxim ;  That  Mothi»g  can  have  mo  Operations ;  and  therefore,  whatever 
thinks,  or  doubts,  or  realons,  muft  certainly  be.  And  fince  by  another  Fun- 
damental Maxim,  it  is  impojfihle  for  the  fame  thing  to  he  and  not  to  he  j  he  can- 
not entertain  any  poffible  doubt  of  his  own  Exiftence. 

It  may  be  faid,  that  this  reaches  only  to  hare  Exiftence,  and  not  to  the  heing 

Men.    I  anfwer,  that  for  the  Certainty  as  to  that,  there  are  other  general 

Maxims  of  neceflary  Ufe ;  as,  That  all  different  forts  of  Beings  are  difiinguifh- 

ed  hy  Effential  Properties ;  That  the  EJfential  Properties  of  a  Man  are  to  Rea- 

fon,  Di/courjey  &c.     That  thefe  Properties  cannot  fuhfi^  hy  themfehes  without 

a  real  Suhjiance :  And  therefore,  where  thefe  Properties  are  found,  thofe  who 

have  them  mufl  be  real  and  fubilantial  Men. 

Book  4.        You  may  poffibly  fay,  That. thefe  Maxims  areufekfs,  hecaufe  you  affirm  that 

ch.  9-      nothing  can  he  more  evident  to  lu,  than  our  own  Exiftence  ;  and  that  we  have  an 

^^^'^'     internal  infallihle  Perception  that  we  ire. 

But  I  anfwer,  that  thefe  Maxims  do  not  at  all  appear  to  be  ufelefs,  be- 
caufe  the  Certainty  we  enquire  after  is  a  Certainty  of  Reafon,  and  not  of  bate 
Perception.  And  if  it  be  a  Certainty  of  Reafon,  fome  Ground  of  Reafon  muft 
be  affigned  for  it :  but  all  that  the  Perception  reaches  to,  are  thofe  KQis  men- 
tioned by  you.  /  think,  1  reafon,  I  feel  pleafure  and  pain  :  but  the  Queflion 
goes  farther  as  to  the  Subjedl  of  thofe  Adls,  and  the  Nature  of  that  Subjeia", 
whether  it  be  a  Man  or  not. 

Now  here  lies  the  main  Difficulty,  whether  without  the  help  of  thefe  Prin- 
ciples you  can  prove  to  any  that  doubt,  that  they  are  Men  ?  And  I  Ihall  now 
Ihew,  that  in  your  Way  of  Ideas  you  cannot.    For, 

(i.)  You  fuppofe  that  we  muft  have  a  clear  and  diftind  Idea  of  that  which 
we  are  certain  of  in  the  Way  of  Ideas. 

(x  3  You  deny  that  we  have  any  fuch  clear  and  diftintS;  Idea  of  Man. 

I.  You  fuppofe,  that  we  muft  have  a  clear  and  didindl  Idea  of  that  we  are 

Book  4.    certain  of.     For  in  your  Chapter  oi Maxims,  you  fay,  that  every  one  knows  the 

*^^-  7.      Ideas  that  he  has,  and  that  diftin^lj  and  unconfufedly  one  from  another.    Which 

^^^'^'     always  heing  fo  (I  pray  mark  that,  and  judge  whether  you  do  not  make  clear 

and  diftind  Ideas  neceflary  to  Certainty)  he  can  never  he  in  douht  when  any 

Idea  is  in  his  Mind,  that  it  is  there,  and  is  that  Idea  it  is,  and  that  two  di- 

flinil  Ideas  when  they  are  in  his  Mind  are  there,  and  are  not  one  and  the  fame  Idea  : 

From  whence  you  infer  the  IJeceffity  of  Certainty,  when  the  Ideas  are  clear  and 

diftin£l.    This  is  fo  plain  and  clear,  that  I  wonder  how  you  came  to  forget 

it,  and  to  think  that  I  did  you  wrong  when  I  charged  you  with  holding  clear 

and  diftinB  Ideas  neceflary  to  Certainty.     But  of  that  in  the  Beginning  of  this 

Difcourfe. 

a.  But  let  us  now  examine  your  Idea  of  Man,  whether  that  be  clear  and 
diftindt  or  not;  and  if  not,  then  according  to  your  Principles  very -rational 
Men  cannot  be  certain  that  .they  are. Men.  For  if  they  have  no  Way  of  Cer- 
tainty but  by  Ideas\i  and  you  allow  no  clear  and  diflin^  Idea  of  Man,  then 
they  can  come  to  no  Certainty ;  and  I  hope  you  will  not  deny  them  to  be  very 
rational  Men,  if  they  follow  the  Way  of  Ideas. 
Book  4.  Firft,  you  ftiew,  that  there  can  he  no  Demonftration  in  the  Way  of  Principles 
^'fj\     tvhat  Man  -is. 

^  '^  '  Secondly,  that  there  are  very  different  Ideas  of  Man,  fome,  you  fay,  make  the 
Idea  of  a  Man  without  a  Soul ;  as  Children  do.  Others  add  Laughter  and  rational 
Difiourfe,  and  thefe  way  demonflrate  hy  general  Principles  that  Ideots  and  Infants 

are 


Sea.  17' 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Second  Letter.  5^3 


are  no  Men  hy  this  Maxim,  that  it  is  impojfihle  for  the  fame  thing  to  he,  and  not 
to  he;  and  you  have  difcourfed  with  very  rational  Men^  who  have  a^lually  denied 
that  they  are  Men. 

Others  take  in  the  Idea  of  Body  in  general,  and  the  Powers  of  Language  and^^^'  '^• 
ReafoH,  and  leave  out  fhape;  and  fo  a  Man  may  he  a  Four-footed  Creature,  or  in 
whatever  Body  or  Shape  he  found  Speech  and  Reafon  joined,  that  was  a  Man. 

But  where  is  ih^  clear  and  diflinil  Idea  of  a  Man  all  this  while  ?  We  can  have 
no  Certainty  hy  Principles,  you  fay,  and  you  offer  none  in  the  Way  of  Ideas ; 
for  the  Ideas  are  very  confufed,  imperfe^  and  repugnant  to  each  other,-  and 
fo  in  this  new  Method  of  Certainty  by  Ideas^  we  cannot  be  fo  much  as  certain 
that  we  are  Men. 

But  is  it  poflible  to  fuppofe,  that  a  rational  Man  (liould  talk  of  Certainty  by 
Ideas,  and  not  be  able  to  fix  th^  Idea  of  a  Man)  One  would  have  thought 
this  had  been  only  an  Omiflion  in  this  place  out  of  pure  Zeal  againfl  Principles : 
but  certainly  in  other  places  this  Idea  of  a  Man  muft  be  made  clear  and  di- 
flinH.  So  far  from  it,  that  in  other  places,  you  induftrioufly  fet  your  felf  to 
difprove  the  common  Idea  of  a  Man.  It  could  not  pofihly  he,  fay  you,  that  the  Book?  ch. 
ah li rati  Idea  to  which  the  Name  Man  is  given,  (hould  he  different  in  fever  al  Men  ^• 
if  it  were  of  Natures  making  ;  and  that  to  one  it  fhould  he  animal  rationale;  to  <j-  ^^^'  ^^' 
nether  animal  implum.e  bipes  latis  unguibus.  From  whence  it  is  plain,  that 
you  allow  no  clear  and  di(tin(9:  Idea  of  Man ;  and  you  endeavour  to  expofe 
the  facred  Definition,  as  you  call  it,  of  animal  rationale-,  which  Was  never  ex- 
pofcd  by  any  Man  without  Caufe.  But  you  conclude.  That  we  are  far  from^^^-  ^7- 
knowing  certainly  what  Man  is,  though  perhaps  it  will  he  judged  great  Ignorance 
to  douht  ahout  it.  And  yet  you  think  you  may  fay.  That  the  certain  Boundaries 
of  that  Species  are  fo  far  from  heing  determined,  and  the  precife  Numher  of  fim- 
pie  Ideas,  which  make  that  nominal  Ejfence  fo  far  from  heing  fettled  and perfe£l' 
ly  known,  that  very  material  Deuhts  may  fiill  arife  ahout  it.  So  that  I  begin  to 
think  jF.  S.  was  in  the  right,  when  he  made  you  fay.  That  you  had  difcourfed 
with  very  rational  Men  who  denied  themfelves  to  he  Men.  But  this  is  a  little 
too  hard  to  deny  themfelves  to  he  Men.  If  it  had  been  only,  who  douhted  whether 
they  were  Men  or  not ;  you  could  not  deny  them  to  be  very  rational  Men,  be- 
caufe  they  went  upon  your  Grounds,  that  we  can  have  no  Certainty  either 
by  Principles,  or  by  any  clear  and  diflintl  Ideas,  what  a  Man  is. 

Thus  i  have  ihew'd  how  inconfiftent  your  way  of  Ideas  is  with  true 
Certainty ;  and  of  what  Ufe  and  Neceffity  thefe  general  Principles  of  Reafon 
are. 

I  now  come  to  the  Certainty  of  Reafon  in  making  Dedu^ions.  And  here  I 
ihall  briefly  lay  down  the  Grounds  of  Certainty,  which  the  Ancient  Philofo- 
phers  went  upon,  and  then  compare  your  way  of  Ideas  with  them. 

Arifiotle  obferves,  that  Socrates  firji  hrought  in  Definitions  and  Inductions  in  Ariftot. 
order  to  Certainty ;  and  went  no  farther.     Plato  allowed  no  Certainty,  but  on-  '^'^"P^'  ^• 
Jy  Opinion,  as  to  External  Objeds  j  but  he  faid,  that  Certainty  depended  upon 
abftradl  and  feparate  Ideas,  which  were  always  the  fame.    This  he  took,  (as  Anfwerto 
I  obferved  in  my  former  Letter)  from  the  Pythagoreans,  only  changing  Num-  ^l^i^^\ 
hers  into  Ideas.     For  by  Numhers,  they  underftood  firfl  Principles,  not  grofs  32. 
and  material ;  but  immaterial  z^A eternal ^  as  Jamhlichus  faith;  and  therefore  jambl.  in 
Moderatiu  Gaditanus,  one  of  the  mod  underftanding  Men  among  them  faith,  Nicom.p.5. 
the  Pythagoreans  hrought  in  Numhers.     'Evmjuv  hlh.ayjf.?\ict.<;  ^t^v,  for  a.  more  porj-h.  vit. 
decent  Way  of  Inflrudion,  following  the  PraUice  of  Geometricians,  who  make  ufe  Py^^^g- 
of  Figures  to  reprefent  things  to  the  Mind ;  and  therefore  their  Do£lrine  of  Num- 
hers \hzst\\&y  bibfophy  of  Principles,  or  the  general  Grounds  of  Certainty  ;  but  "• 
this  was  fo  abi.rufe  and  fo  little  underHood,  that  it  foon  lolt  its  Reputation, 
as    Porphyry  a\:>kT\ts,  or  was  mixed  with  Platonifnt;  and  therefore  Photinus 
joins  the  Pythagorean  and  Platonick  Principles  together.    But  Arifiotle  was  a 

great 


S94-  ^^^  ANSWER  to 

great  Enemy  to  thefe  abftradted  Speculations,  and  therefore  fet  himfelf  fo  much 
'^hTi  7.°"^  °''  occafionsagainft  Ideoj  and  Numbers,  efpecially  in  his  Metaphyficks;  But 
c.  15,  Wlinftead  thereof,  he  endeavour "d  to  bring  down  Certainty  to  material  Things, 
i.ij.c.4,and  to  real  Beings,  In  order  to  this,  he  faw  it  neceflary  to  avoid  Confufi. 
^'  on,   by  explaining  doubtfull  Ternis,  and  by   ranking   things  under  feveral 

Heads,  which  he  called  Categories;  wherein  all  things  are  reduced  to  Suhjiance^ 
and  Accidents  belonging  to  them  ;  to  which  he  joins  fome  general  Difcourfes 
about  the  right  Apprehenfion  o{  xMmgs  Jimply  cnnfiderd.  But  it  is  obfervable, 
that  in  all  the  Categories  from  Archytas  the  Pythagorean  downwards,  (who  firft 
placed  them  in  that  Order,)  Suhjiance  was  firft  ranked,  as  the  moft  proper /- 
deaoi  the  Mind,  and  all  Accidents  or  Modes  were  confider'd  with  refptdl  to 
that.  And  the  French  Cartefians  in  their  Logick,  place  Suhjiance  as  the  firfiOh- 
jeil  of  their  Ideas :  and  do  not  leave  us  a  relative  Idea,  to  be  fuppofed  only, 
becaufe  Accidents  cannot  fubfift  without  a  Subjedl.  Then  follows  the  Way  of 
underftanding  the  Truth  and  Falfjbood  of  Propofitiom ;  after  which,  he  purfues 
the  Way  oi'  Reafoning,  or  inferring  one  thing  from  another,  which  he  calls  Syl/o' 
gizing,  wherein  he  profeflesto  go  upon  this  common  Principle  of  Reafon,  That 
what  things  do  agree  in  a  third mufl  agree  among  themfelves.  But  being  not  con- 
tent with  the  ordinary  Diale^ical  Way,  which  proceeded  upon  the  Conceffions 
of  the  Party,  he  attempted  to  bring  in  true  Demonftration.  To  which  he  fup- 
\)oks  general  Axioms  neceflary,  and  Definitions^  and  Poftttlata:  and  he  diftinp 
guidies  between  a  neceffary  Conclufion^  and  a  Demonftrationr,  for  the  former 
may  arife  from  the  manner  of  reafoning ;  but  a  Demonjiration  fuppofes  a  necejfary 
Caufe,  and  that  the  Propofitions  are  fuch  as  that  the  Conclufion  neceflarily  fol- 
lows from  them.  So  that  Demonjiration  according  to  him  muft  be  of  an  in- 
feparable  Property,  and  by  the  moft  immediate  and  neceflary  Caufe.  How 
far  Arijiotk's  Notion  of  Demonjiration  can  be  applied  to  Phyfical  matters  is 
not  my  bufinefs  to  enquire ;  it  being  only  to  Ihew  what  his  Method  of  Cer- 
tainty was.  , 

But  befides  Ariflotle,  the  Stoicks  took  upon  them  to  lay  down  the  true  Me- 
thod of  Certainty  i  and  they  went  another  Way  to  work  about  it,  viz.  (i.) 
By  finding  out  the  Criterion  of  Truth  and  Falfhood.  (2.)  By  examining  the 
Confequences  and  Deductions  of  Reafon. 

As  to  things  which  had  fome  Degree  of  Evidence  to  Senfe  or  Reafon,  they 
made  the  Criterion  neceflary,  but  for  thofe  which  had  not,  but  muft  be  proved, 
the  Examination  of  that  Proof  was  neceflary  in  order  to  Certainty. 

The  Criterion  was  agreed  to  be  (aaI^v  ^7aAM4£*'?,  the  Meafure  whereby 
we  are  to  judge  of  things.     But  as  in  theUfe  of  Balances  for  Weight,  there 
muft  be  one  to  hold  them  and  the  Balances  themfelves,  and  the  Pofition  of  them  ; 
and  as  in  the  judging  of  a  Line,  whether  ftreight  or  crooked,  there  muft  be 
the  Artificer,  the  Rule  and  the  Application  of  it  5  fo  in  judging  of  Truth  and 
Fallliood,  there  muft  be  the  Faculty  of  Underftanding  as  the  Artificer,  Senfe 
and  Reafon  as  the  Rule ;  and  the  inward  Ideas  of  the  Mind,  which  anfwer'd 
to  the  Pofition  of  the  Balances,  or  the  Application  of  the  Rule.    Now  that 
which  they  placed  their  Notion  of  Certainty  in,  was  that  inward  and  comprehen- 
Jive  Idea,  which  was  called  by  them  «  ncf.-ra.M'o-Tim  ^ax-ntiia..    \{  it  were  a 
weak  Aflent,  they  called  it  0/>/«i<7« ;  for  they  made  the  Afl!ent  voluntary,  not- 
withftanding  the  Criterion;  but  if  it  were  a  firm  and  immoveable  Ajfenty   that 
xhty  Qi[\td  Knowledge  zn6  Certainty. 
AnUn.l.i.      But  befides  ihek  cemprehenfive  Ideas  they  did  allow  of  common  Notions,  which 
^•^g*'."^;  they  called  wepA/!4«?,  or  Anticipations :  of  which  Arrian  fpeaks  ;  and  Simpli- 
■pk'm  E-  "''^  laith,  they  are  thofe  wherein  all  are  agreed,  and  are  planted  in  us  hy  right 
f^^f:- 33' Reafon,  and  confirmed  by  Time  audOhfervation. 

As  to  ihe  other  Part,  they   took  great  pains  about  the  true  fignification 
of  Words,  the  rank  and  order  of  Things,  the  nature  and  kind  of  Propofitions, 

and 


Mr.  Locke's  Second  L e t t e r.  5^5 

and  the  difference  of  Signs,  whereof  (ome  were  Monitory,  and  others  Demon- 
firafivr.  And  the  proving  a  thing  uncertain,  by  fomeihing  granted  to  be  cer- 
tain! was  tiiat  which  they  called  Demonftration.  According  to  the  Principles 
of  rhe  Eleatick  School,  themoft  fimple  and  natural  way  of  reafoning  was  fup- 
pofed  to  be  by  drawing  C(»»/^3'«mc«  upon  Suppofitions^  and  the  way  the  Stoicks 
took  CO  judge  of  reafoning,  was  by  judging  what  approached  neareft  to  the 
jirji  Principles  of  reafoning ;  fuch  as  that  every  thing  we  talk  about  either  muft 
be  or  not  be  ;  and  in  fuch  disjund  Propofitions,  one  Part  or  other  muft  be  ta- 
ken, and  then  a  Train  of  Confequences  follows. 

And  Plutarch^  no  friend  to  the  Stoicks,  thinks  this  faculty  of  drawing  Con- 
fequences, lays  the  beft  Foundation  for  Demonftr-ation.    For  the  Principle  of  it, 
he  feith  is  the  tc  <n*«^^ov,  the  connex  way  of  reafoning;  that  is,  as  Simpli-  PIut.de E< 
cius  explains  it,  when  two  things  are  fo  joyned  together  as  antecedent  andconfe-  ^^'P''- 
quent,  that  hy  Pofition  <^  the  Antecedent,  the  Conjequent  follows,  and  ^y  takingEpioH'.  ia 
away  the  Confequent  the  Antecedent  is  removed.    Thus  I  have,  in  as  few  Words  58. 
as  I  could,  laid  together  thofe  old  Methods  of  Certainty,  which  have  obtain- 
ed greateft  Reputation  in  the  World, 

Bgt  your  way  of  Certainty  hy  Ideas  {■&  fo  wholly  New,  that  here  we 
have  no  general  Principles;  no  Criterion,  no  Antecedents  and  Confequents;  no 
Syllogijiical  Methods  o\  Demon/lratien;  and  yet  we  are  told  of  a  better  way  of 
Certainty  to  be  attained,  meerly  by  the  hdpoi  Ideas.    But  how  comes  there 
to  be  fuch  a  way  of  Certainty  hy  Ideas,  and  yet  the  Ideas  themfelves  are  fo 
uncertain  and  ohfcure.i  I  confefs,  that  the  more  I  look  into  it,  the  farther  it 
appears  to  be  from  a  way  of  Certainty  to  me.    For  in  your  Chapter  of  the  Im-  EiTay,B.4. 
prcvetttent  of  Knowledge,  you  have  tbefe  Words ;  for  it  leing  evident  that  our  ^^'  ^^• 
Knowledge  cannot  exceed  our  Ideas ^  where  they  areimperfe£i,  confufed  or  ohfiure,       *"*' 
we  cannot  expert  to  have  certain,  perfeil,  or  clear  Knowledge.     And  yet  how  of- 
ten do  you  confefs,  that  our  Ideas  are  imperfe£iy  confufed,  and  olfcure  ?  How 
then  is  it  poflible  to  attain  to  any  Certainty  by  them  ?  And  notwithftanding 
thefe  plain  Words,  you  aflert  it  over  and  over  in  your  fecond  Letter,  as  ap- 
pears in  the  Beginning,  that  you  do  do  not  place  Certainty  in  clear  anddiflintl 
Ideas,  (as  I  obferved  in  the  Beginning.)  How  can  thefe  things  confift  ?  Can 
Certainty  be  had  with  imperfe^  and  ohfcure  Ideas ^  and  yet  no  Certainty  be  had  hy 
them  >  I  cannot  blame  you  for  finding  fault  with  common  Principles  of  Reafon, 
if  both  Pans  of  a  Contradiflion  may  be  true :  But  I  forbear.    However  I  cannot 
but  join  other  Words  of  yours  to  ihew  how  refolved  you  were  to  be  inconfi- 
flent  with  yourfelf:  But  olfcure  and  confufed  Ideas  can  never  produce  any  clear  j^qq]^ 
or  dijlin£l  Knowledge  ;  hecaufe  as  far  as  any  Ideas  are  confufed  or  ohfcure^  fo  far  ch.  2.  ' . 
the  Mind  can  never  perceive  clearly,  whether  they  agree  or  dif agree,  ^^^'  ^^' 

And  yet  in  the  fame  Place,  you  fay,  that  our  Knowledge  confifling  in  the  Per- 
cept ton  of  the  Agreement  or  Difagreement  of  any  two  Ideas,  its  Clear  nefs  or  Ohfcu- 
rtty  confifls  in  the  Clear  nefs  or  Ohfcurity  of  that  Perception,  and  not  in  the  Clearnefs 
or  Ohjcurity  oj  the  Ideas  themfelves.  How  is  it  poilible  for  us  to  have  a  clear  Per- 
ception  of  the  Agreement  oj  Ideas,  ifthe  Ideas  themfelves  be  not  clear  and  diftintS  > 

It  the  Mind  can  never  perceive  clearly  the  Agreement  or  D'fagreement  of  oh* 
[cure  and  confufed  Ideas,  how  can  its  Knowledge  lie  in  the  Perception  of  that 
which  is  not  to  he  perceived* 

This  is  a  thing  which  I  cannot  make  confident. 

But  befides,  I  have  another  Charge  upon  your  way  of  Certainty,  viz.  that 
you  have  no  Criterion  to  diftinguifb  falfe  and  douhtfull  Ideas  from  true  and 
certain;  how  then  can  any  Man  be  (ecure  that  he  is  not  impofed  upon  in  this 
way  of  Ideas  ? 

The  Academicks  went  too  far  in  the  way  to  Scepticifm,  but  they  difler'd 
from  xhe  Sceptic ks  in  two  Things,  i.  They  aflerted,  that  there  was  no  abfo- 
luie  Certainty  to  be  had,  which  the  Scepticks  would  not.    z.  They  held  a  far 

greater 


59^  An  ANSWER  to 


greater  Probability  in  fome  things  than  others,  and  that  Men  were  bound  to 
follow  the greateft  Probability  in  what concern'd  the.r  own  Welfare:  but  rlie 
Sceptich  faid,  that  they  would  do  as  others  did,  or  follow  Inclination,  and 
the  Laws  of  their  Country,  but  they  held  no  Opinion  in  their  Minds,  as  they 
faid.  "!'  "^ 

The  AcaJemicks  went  much  upon  IJeas^  or  Reprefenrations  of  things  to 
their  Minds,  but  they  did  not  proceed  upon  every  Idea^  but  they  examin'd  and 
weighed  all  the  Circumftances  belonging  to  it,  before  they  allow'd  it  to  pre- 
vail upon  them  to  give  an  Allent  as  to  a  greater  Probability.    CameadeSy 
Sext.  Em- one  of  the  fubtilefl:  of  them,  as  appears  by  Sextm  Empiricus,  diflinguilhed  a 
verL^Ma-  three-fold  Idea. 

them. I.  7.  I.  Tli^.vy]  <pct.vra.ij(ct^  a prolabk  Idea^  which  the  Academicks  called  "Efxpaau;, 
For,  faid  he,  neither  that  which  appears  falfe  of  it  felf  •  nor  that  which  is 
true,  but  doth  not  appear  fo,  can  perfwade  a  Man's  Mind.  And  of  thole  things 
which  do  appear  to  be  true,  fome  have  a  very  {lender  Appearance,  others  have 
a  mighty  firong  one,  and  therein  he  placed  his  Criterion, 

I.  ' Kiti^tj-TTusoc,  (fiCcv-maU^  an  undijiraHed  Idea-,  i.  e.  when  no  Circum- 
ftances difturb  or  fliake  the  firft  Imprelfion,  fo  as  to  make  us  queftion  the  Xruth 
of  it  J  which  Sextiu  Empiricus  calls  mv^^o/jiri  ipavTaoiw,  a  Concurrence  of  Ideas 
and  none  difagreeing,  and  yet  he  would  not  allow  this  to  be  a  ground  of  cer- 
tainty but  only  of  Prohahility. 

3.  A^^ofvjoixkvn  fpctv-ntaUy  a  well  examin'd  Idea,  by  the  beft  Reafon  a  Man 
hath  and  the  greateft  Application  of  Mind.  And  this  was  the  F^oundation  of 
the  higheft  Frohahility  a  Man's  Mind  could  reach  to.  Now  to  apply  this  to 
your  Cafe ;  You  tell  us  of  a  way  of  Certainty  ly  Ideai^  and  never  offer  any 
iuch  Method  for  Examining  them,  as  the  Academicks  required  for  their  Fro- 
hahility. As  for  inflance,  Your  firft  Idea  which  you  go  upon,  is  that  of  Soli' 
Ertay,  B.2.  dity,  which  you  fay,  oj  all  others  feems  the  mo(i  intimately  conne£led  with  and  effen- 
ch.  4*  tialtoBody:  .And  therefore  muft  be  of  great  Moment.  Solidity,  you  fay,  conjifts 
^  '  ^'  in  Repletion  and  Reftftence ;  and  ly  this  Idea  of  Solidity  the  Extenfion  of  Body,  you 
fay,  is  dtfiinguifhed  from  that  of  Space  -,  fo  that  of  pure  Space  and  Solidity  you 
have  clear  and  dijiintl  Ideas.  Now  here  in  the  way  of  Certainty  I  have  two  Que^ 
ftions  to  ask.  1 .  How  this  Idea  comes  to  be  clear  and  dijlin^  to  you,  when  others 
who  go  in  the  fame  way  of  I<ieas  have  quite  another  Idea  of  it,  and  think  they 
have  as  ;>/<»/»  and  difiin£l  an  Idea  that  the  Extenfion  of  Space  and  Body  are 
the  fame  >  Now  what  Criterion  is  there  to  come  to  any  Certainty  in  this  Mat- 
ter? I  fee  none  i'o  much  as  offer  d,  but  only  that  they  feem  to  you  to  be 
clear  and  diftintl,  but  to  others  the  contrary.  So  that  here  we  are  at  a  lofs  as 
to  any  Certainty  in  the  way  of  Ideas.  And  the  blind  Man  who  fanjied  the  I- , 
deaof  Scarlet  to  he  like  the  found  of  a  Trumpet,  could  hardly  be  convinced 
of  his  Error  in  the  way  of  Ideas.  This  you  mention  to  ihew  the  different 
Ideas  men  may  fall  into ;  which  I  think  is  enough  to  fhew  that  they  have 
no  way  of  Certainty  in  themfelvcs,  if  it  be  poffible  for  Men,  even  for 
Philofophical'and  Rational  Men,  to  fall  into  (ach  contrary  Ideas  zhout  the 
fame  thing;  and  both  fides  think  thevv  Ideas  clear  and  dijiin£l.  x.  But  I  have 
another  Queftion  to  propofe ;  viz.  Whether  by  this  Idea  of  Solidity  we  may 
come  to  know  what  it  is  ?  This  is  a  very  reafonable  Qijeftion  in  the  way  'of 
Certainty,  which  is  to  lead  us  to  the  certain  knowledge  of  Things.  I  pray 
therefore  tell  me  from  your  Idea,  what  it  is,  and  wherein  it  confijls  ?  The 
Queilion  you  fuppofe  might  be  very  well  asked  ,•  and  you  give  a  moft  fa- 
Seft.  6,  tisfa<5ory  Anfwer  to  it.  If  any  ask  me  what  this  Solidity  is,  I  fend  him  to  his 
Senfes  to  inform  him.  I  had  thought  by  the  Dcfign  of  your  Book  you  would 
have  fent  him  to  his  Ideas  for  Certainty  •  and  are  we  fent  back  again  from 
our  Ideas  to  our  Senfes  .■>  What  do  thefe  Ideas  fignific  then?  But  you  fay  far- 
ther; That  if  this  he  not  a  Ji^fficient  Explication  of  Solidity^  you  promife  to  teU 

him 


Mr.  Lock e s  Second  Letter.  597 

him  what  it  is,  when  he  tells  you^  what  Thinking  is,  or  explains  to  you  what 
Extenjion  and  Motion  are.  Are  vie  not  now  in  the  true  way  to  Cer- 
tainty, when  luch  things  as  thefe  are  given  over,  of  which  we  have 
the  cleared  Evidence  by  Se^fation  and  Refle&ion>  For  here  you  make  it 
as  impoli.ble  to  come  to  certain,  clear  and  diftindt  Notions  of  thcfe 
things,  as  to  dijcourfe  into  a  blind  Man  the  Ideas  of  Light  and  Colours. 
Is  not  this  a  rare  way  of  Certainty? 

Thus  I  have  Ihewed  that  you  have  no  Security  againft  falje  and  uncer- 
tain IdeaSy  no  Cri/frww  to  judge  them  by;  no  Light  into  the  Nature  of 
Things  bv  them,  as  will  farther  appear  by  what  you  fay  of  the  Ideas  of 
jenfthle  ^alities.  To  difcover,  fay  you,  ihe  Nature  of  o;r  Ideas  the  Book  li; 
better,  and  to  difcourfe  of  them  inteSigibly,  it  will  I e  convenient  to  diflin-  ch.  8. 
guifb  them,  as  they  are  Ideas  or  Perceptions  in  our  Minds  ;  and  as  they  are  '  ^' 
Modifications  of  Matter  in  the  Bodies  that  caufe  fach  Perceptions  in  us  .• 
that  fo  we  may  not  think  (^as  perhaps  is  ufuaHy  done)  that  they  are  exactly, 
the  Images  and  Refemblances  of  fomething  inherent  in  the  Subjed :  mqfi 
of  tkofe  of  Senf at  inn  being  in  the  Mind  no  more  the  likenefs  of  fome  thing  exi- 
fting  without  uSy  than  the  Names  that  (land  for  them  are  the  likenefs  of 
our  Ideas,  which  yet  upon  hearing  they  are  apt  to  excite  in  us.  Now  here 
again  our  Ideas  deceive  us,  in  the  way  of  Certainty.  We  defire  to  know 
fomethingof  the  Nature  of  thofe  objects  of  which  we  have  the  Ideas  in 
our  Minds,  becaule  thefe  we  are  told,  will  bring  us  to  a  Certainty  of 
Knowledge.  Of  what?  Of  what  we  feel?  No  certainly,  but  of  that 
which  caufes  thefe  inward  Perceptions.  Can  we 'then  by  thefe  Ideas 
know  the  Nature  of  things  without  ui  ?  No,  you  fay  we  cannot ;  for  mofl 
of  thofe  of  Senfation  are  no  more  the  likenefs  of  fomethirig  without  us,  than 
Names  are  for  thhtgs  which  they  (land  for.  So  that  theie  Ideas  are  really 
nothing  but  Names,  if  they  be  not  Reprefentations  of  Things ;  and  if  they 
be  not,  how  can  we  underftand  Things  by  them  j  and  if  we  cannot, 
what  Certainty  is  attainable  by  them  ? 

But  I  will  do  you  no  wrong ;  and  therefore  I  muHconfider  what  you  fay 
about  Demonfiration :  For  it  cannot  be  denied  that  you  own  the  thing, 
although  you  deny  it  to  be  ex  preecognitis  ^  praconceffis,  and  fav,  //  /jg^  jy^ 
a  mifiake  that  they  are  fappofed  to  be  the  Foundations  of  all  our  Knowlege  ch^  2. 
and  Reafoni'gs.     We  muft  therefore  examine  your  way  of  Demonflration^^^'  ^' 
without  Principles. 

Certainty,  50U  fay,  depends  fo  wholly  on  Intuition,  that  in  Demonflra-^^^-^^' 
tive  Knowledge,  this  Intuition  is  neceffary  in  all  the  Connexion  of  the  In- 
termediate  Ideas,  without  which  we  cannot  attain  Knowledge  or  Certain- 
tyi  By  Intuition  you  mean  Selj- Evidence.  For  )  ou  lay,  in  this  the 
Mind  is  at  no  pains  of  proving  or  examining,  but  perceives  the  Truth  as 
the  Eye  doth  Light  only  by  beingdire£led  towards  it.  For  hence  you  niu  i: 
fuppfile  Self  Evidence  to  be  in  the  Ideas  of  your  Mind  j  and  that  every 
Intermediate  Idea  which  you  take  to  demonftrate  any  thing  by,  muft 
have  a  Self-Evident  Connexion  with  the  other  Idea .-,  which  is  fuch  a 
way  of  Demonftration,  as  the  old  Philofophers  never  thought  of.  For 
upon  this  Ground  every  Demonftration  carries  its  own  Light  with  it ; 
andean  no  more  be  quefti  ned,  than  whether  two  and  two  make  four ; 
and  I  would  be  glad  to  fee  any  Demonjlration  (not  about  Figures  and 
Numbers)  of  this  kind,  which  I  think  is  not  to  be  expedted  in  the  way 
of  Ideas.  But  becaule  in  this  lies  the  chief  Point  as  to  a  way  of  Certainty  by 
Ideas,  I  (hail  more  carcfu'ly  examine  the  Grounds  you  proceed  upon, 
and  Ihew  them  to  be  very  Infuificient  for  the  purpole  you  intend 
them.  G  g  g  g  Your 


5^8  An  ANSWER  to 

Your  principal  Ground  is  from  Mathematical  Demotiflrations^  and  your 
Examples  are  brought  from  them.     But  his  is  quite  a  different  Cafe  from 
yours.     For  you  grant,  that  thofe  Ideas  on  which  Mathematical  Demon- 
flrations  proceed,  are  wholly   in  the  Mind,  and  do  not  relate  to  the  Exi- 
ftence  of  Things ;  but  our  Debate  goes  upon  a  Certainty  of  the  Knowledge 
of  things  as  really  exifting;  fo  that,  although  we  /hould  grant  all  that 
you  fay,  about  the  Intuition  of  Ideas  in  Mathematical  Demon/t rations,  yet 
it  comes  not  at  all  to  your  Bufinefs,  unlefs  you  can  prove  that  wc  have 
as  clear  and  difiin^  Ideas  of  Beings,  as  we  have  of  IJumhers  and  Figures. 
And  yet  herein  you  are  not  confiftent  with  you  felf  ,•  for  your  defign 
to  prove  Demonftrations  without  General  Principles ;  and  yet  every  onis 
knows,  that  General  Principles  are  fuppofed  in  Mathemat/cks,  and  that 
Perfon  would  be  thought  Ridicuions,  who  Ihould  go  about  to  prove,  that 
General  Principles  are  of  little,  or  of  dangerous  ufe  in  Mathematical  De- 
monftrations.     And  fo  in  Morality,  which  you  place  among  the  Sciences 
B.  IV.     capable  of  Demonfiration  ;  you  confefs.  That  the   way  of  Demonjiration 
Sea  ^8    '*<^^<?^»  "  f ''"'*'  J*rinciples,  as  thofe  of  the  Mathematicks,  hy  necfpry  Com- 
^  * '  *  fequences.    This  is  a  very  intelligible  way  of  Demonflration :  But  how 
^^-  7-     then  comes  it  to  pafs,  that  in  the  way  of  Certainty  hy  Ideas  as  to  other 
Scft.  lo.   Pqjjjjjqj-  Knowledge,  yoxa  deny  general  Maxims  to  he  the  Foundation  we 
Seft.  y.     arg  fg  proceed  upon*  And  the  Method  you  lay  down,  is  this,  that  Ideu 
of  particular  things  are  firft  in  the  Mind,  which  are  firfi  received  and  di' 
Sea.  10.  Jlinguifhed,  and  fo  Knowledqe  got  hy  them ;  hut  general  Ideas  are  Fictions 
and  Contrivances  of  the  Mind,  which  carry  Difficulty  with  them^  hut  that 
it  is  true  of  our  particular  difiinil  Ideas^  that  they  are  all  known  hy  their 
Native  evidence,  are  wholly   independent,  receive  no  Light,  nor  are  capa- 
hle  of  Proof  one  from  another ;  much  lejs  the  mors  particular  from  the  more 
general,  or  the  more  fimple  from  the  more  compounded,  the  more  fimple  and 
lefs  Ahjira^  heing  the  mofl  familiar,  and  the  eafier  and  earlier  apprehend- 
ed.    But  which  ever  he  the  clear  eft  Ideas,  the  Evidence  and  Certainty  of 
aO  fuch  Propofitionsis  in  this,  that  a  Man  fees  the  fame  Idea  to  he  the  fame 
Idea,  and  infallthly  perceives  two  different  Ideas  to  he  two  different  Ideas. 
For  when  a  Man  has  in  his  Vnderflanding  the  Ideas  of  One  and  of  Two,  the 
Idea  of  Tellow  and  of  Blue,  he  cannot  hut  certainly  know,  that  this  Idea  of 
One  is  the  Idea  of  One,  and  not  the  Idea  of  Two ;  and  that  the  Idea  of  Tel- 
low  is  the  Idea   of  Tellow,  and  not  of  Blue.     For  a  Man  cannot  confound 
the  Ideas  in  his  Mind,  which  he  has  difHn£l ;  that  would  he  to  have  them 
confufed  anddifiinil  at  the  fame  time,  which  is  aContradiBion :  and  to  have 
none  diflin^  is  to  have  no  ufe  of  our  Faculties,  to  have  no  knowledge  at  aB. 
And  therefore  what  Idea  foever  is  affirmed  of  it  felf,   or  what  fo  ever  two 
entire  diflinSl  Ideas  are  denied  one  of  another,  the  Mind  cannot  hut  affent 
to  fuch  a  Propofition,  as  infallihly  true,  affoon  as  'it  underflands  the  Terms 
without  Hefitation,  or  need  of  Proof,  or  regarding  thofe  made  in  more  ge- 
general  Terms,  and  called  Maxims.     Thefe  are  your  own  Words,  which 
I  have  fet  down  at  large,  that  you  may  not  complaiti  -that  I  mifrepre- 
(ent  your  Senfe.     And  ifl  underftand  the  force  of  them,  you  cake  olf  the 
way  of  Demonflration  from  general  Principles  and  Confejuences  deduced 
from  them,  and  place  it  in  the  Self- Evidence  of  Ideas. 

But  that  it  is  impoflible  to  come  to  a  Demonflration  about  real  Be- 
ings, in  this  way  of  Intuition  of  Ideas,  I  Ihill  now  make  appear  from 
your  felf,  which  will  farther  difcover  the  Inconfiftency  of  your  Notion 

of  Ideas. 

^  '  And 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Second  Letter.  599 


And  the  Reafons  I  go  upon  are  thefe ; 

I. .  That  you  confelis,  that  (ome  of  the  moft  obvious  Ideas  are  far  from 
heinQ*Self-evideHt. 

z.  That  there  may  be  contradictory  Opinions  about  fome  Ideas,  which 
you  account  moft  clear  and  diflin^. 

3.  That  granting  the  Ideas  to  be  true^  there  is  no  Selj- evidence  of  the 
Connexion  ot  them,  which  is  neceflary  to  make  a  Demonjl ration. 

I.  That  fome  of  the  moft  olvious  IdeaSy  are  far  from  being  Self-evi- 
dent by  your  own  Confellion.  Among  thefe  you  cannot  deny  thofe  of 
Matter  iv\6  Motion,  oi  Time  and  Duration^  and  of  Light,  to  be  very  con. 
fiderable.  But  I  ihall  prove  from  your  feif,  that  we  can  have  no  Intui- 
tion of  thefe  things,  which  are,  fo  obvious  to  us  j  and  confequently  can 
have  no  Self-evident  Ideas  of  them. 

As  to  the  Idea  of  Matter :  That  you  tell  us,  conjifis  in  a  folid  Suh-  ^^^  3- 
fiance  every  where  the  fame  ;  and  a  Body  is  a  folid  extended  figured  Suh-^^g^^l' 
fiance. 

Now  there  are  two  things  concerning  Matter,  which  I  wbiJld  be  glad 
to  come  to  a  certain  Knowledge  of     And  thofe  are, 

1.  The  Manner  of  Cohefion  of  the  Parts  of  Matter,  concerning  which 

you  have  thefe  words.  For  fince  no  Bodj  is  no  farther,  nor  otherwife  ex-  Book  z. 
tended^  than  hy  the  Vnion  and  Cohefion  of  its  folid  Tarts,  voe  fl^all  very  ill^^^^\ 
comprehend  the  Extenfion  of  Body,  without  underfianding,  wherein'confifls- 
the  Vnion  and  Cohefion  of  its  Parts,  which  feems  to  me  as  incomprehenfihle 
as  the  Manner  of  thinking,  and  how  it  is  performed.  I  would  have  any  one 
intelligihly  explain  to  me,  how  the  Parts  of  Gold  or  Brafs  {that  hut  now  inStH.  a?. 
fufion  were  as  loofe  from  one  another^  as  the  Particles  of  Water,  or  the 
Sands  of  an  Hour-glafs)  come  in  a  few  Moments  to  befo  united,  and  adhere 
fo  firongly  one  to  another,  that  the  utmofl  force  of  Mens  Arms  cannot  fepa- 
rate  them.  A  confidering  Man  will  I  fuppofe  be  here  at  a  lofs,  to  Jatisfie 
his  own  or  another  Man's  Vnderfianding.  And  can  you  then  imagine  that 
we  have  Intuition  into  the  Idea  of  Matter^  Or  that  it  is  poffible  to  come 
to  a  Demonfiration  about  it  by  the  help  of  any  intervening  Ide,a  ?  The  I- 
dea  of  Solidity,  or  firm  Cohelion  of  Parts  cannot  be  faid  to  come  from 
the  Ideaoi  Matter  it  felf,  for  then  there  could  be  no  fuch  thing  as  j^«- 
id  Matter.  Whence  then  comes  the  diftindion  between  thefe  Ideas  of 
folid  and  fluid  Matter  ?  That  there  is  fuch  a  Cohefion  of  the  folid  Parts 
of  Matter  is  evident:  now  what  other  Ideas  do  you  compare  and  con- 
nect with  this  to  make  it  evident,  how  this  Solidity  and'Matter  came  to 
have  this  Agreement  with  each  other  ? 

Is  it  by  the  Denftty  or  Compadednefs  of  the  Matter  in  a  little  Compafe  ? 
But  that  is  as  hard  to  give  an  account  of;  viz.  how  fome  Parts  of  Mat- 
ter come  to  take  up  fo  much  lefs  Room,  and  to  ftick  clofer  than  others. 
Is  it  by  bare  Refi  of  the  Parts  ?  Bur  how  comes  the  Refifiance  of  folid  Bo- 
dies to  come  only  from  Refl  i  Is  it  from  the  Preffure  of  the  Ambient  Air> 
No,  )  ou  fay,  that  in  Truth  the  Preffure  of  an  ambient  Fluid  how  great  fo-  Book  2. 
ever,  can  be  no  intelligible  Caufe  of  the  Cohefion  of  the  folid  Parts  of  Mat-\^'^j^^.^ 
ter.:  So  that  we  are  not  to  look  for  any  thmg  like  a  Demopftration  of 
the  Cohefion  of  the  Parts  of  Matter. 

2.  And  as  little  are  we  to  cx'pe<5t  it,  as  to  the  Divifibility  of  it ;  which 
was  the  other  thing  I  hoped  to  find  demonftrated  in  the  way  of  Ideas. 

For  you  tell  us,  that  the  Notion  of  BoJy  is  cumbred  with  fome  Difficulties  f^^-  23. 
which  are  very  hard,  and  perhaps  impoffible  to  be  explained,  or  mderflood^^^'  ^'' 
by  us.    And  among  thefe  }ou  particularly  inftancein  the  Divifibility  of 

G  g  g  g  z  Matter  j 


600  An  ANSWER  to 


Mutter;  which  you  fay,  whether  we  grant  or  deny  it  to  he  in  infinitum, 
it  involves  us  in  Confequences  impofihle  to  be  explicated  or  made  confiftent. 
Conjequences  that  carry  greater  Difficulty,  and  more  apparent  Atjurdity 
than  any  thing  can  follow  from  the  Notion  of  an  immaterial  knowing  Sub- 
fiance.    So  that  I  think  it  is  vain  to  exped  a  Demonfiration  in  the  way  of 
Ideas  as  to  this  Matter. 
Book  3.        The  next  is  that  of  Motion.    Concerning  which  you  tell  us,  that  the 
'^'  4-      Definition  of  the  Schools  is  exquifite  Jargon :  That  of  the  Atomifls  is  hut  put- 
SeO.  ].    t^fig  one  SynonimoHS  Word  for  another  ;  viz.  that  Motion  is  a  Paffage  front 
one  Place  to  another  :  for  Paffage  may  oi  well  he  defined  a  Motion  from  one 
Place  to  another.     And  the  Cartefian   Definition,  that  it  is  the  fuccefftve 
Application  of  the  Parts  of  the  Superficies  of  one  Body  to  thofe  of  another^ 
will  not  prove  a  much  better  Definition  of  Motion  when  well  examin'd.   And 
what  is  there  fo  evident  as  Motion?  So  that  if  our  Ideas  fail  us  in  fo  plain 
a  Cafe,  what  help  can  we  hope  from  them  in  things  more  abftrufe  and 
remote  from  our  Senfes  ? 
Book  2.        As  to  Time  and  Duration,  you  fay,  that  the  Anfwer  of  a  great  Man  (to 
ch.  14.  .^^^  y^^jg  asked  what  Time  was,  Si  non  rogas,  intelligo,  which  amounts  to 
this,  the  more  I  fet  my  felf  to  confider  it,  the  lefs  I  underfland  it)  might 
perhaps  perfwade  one,  that  Time,  which  reveals  all  other  things,  is  it  /elf 
not  to  he  difcoverd.    This  Ihews,  that  there  is  no  Self  evident  Idea  of 
Time. '  But  here  you  offer  to  furnifli  us  with  as  clear  and  diflin^  Ideas, 
as  of  many  other  which  are  thought  much  lefs  obfcure.    However,  then 
it  is  plain,  that  we  have  not  the  Knowledge  by  Intuition,  but  by  rational 
Sea.  32.  Dedu(5lion.    For  you  proceed  from  the  Idea  of  Succeffton  to  that  of  Dura- 
tioH^hy  ohferving  a  Difiance  in  the  Parts  of  Succeffton ;  and  then  from  oh- 
ferving  Periodical  Motions,  we  get  Ideas  of  the  Meafures  of  Duration ;  as 
Minutes,  Hours,  Days,  Tears,  &c.     From  hence  we  proceed  to  imagine  Du- 
ration not  yet  come  I  and  fuch  to  which  we  can  always  add;  from  which 
comes  the  Idea  of  Eternity :  and  by  confidering  any  Part  of  Duration  with 
Periodical  Meafures,  we  come  to  the  Idea  of  what  we  call  Time  in  generah 
So  that  the  Idea  of  Time  in  general  is  fo  far  from  being  known  by  Intu- 
ition, that  many  Steps  are  to  be  taken  in  order  to  it ;  and  fome  fuch  as 
Seft.  4.  one  would  hardly  have  thought  of.     As  how  the  Idea  of  Succeffton  Ihould 
arife  from  a  Train  of  Ideas  in  our  Minds :  You  fay  it  is,  becaufe  we  have 
no  Perception  of  Duration,  but  by  confidering  the  Train  of  Ideas,  that  take 
their  Turns  in  our  Vnderftandings. 

What  think  you  of  thofe  People  that  fail'd  not  in  reckoning  the  Suc- 
ceffion  of  Time  right  for  many  Years  together  by  Knots,  and  Notches 
on  Sticks,  and  Figures,  without  ever  fo  much  as  thinking  of  Ideas,  or 
any  thing  like  them  ?  But  befides,  fuch  Arbitrary  Meahires  of  Time, 
what  need  any  Recourfe  to  Idecu,  when  the  Returns  of  Days,  and  Months, 
and  Years  by  the  Planetary  Motions,' ztt  fo  eafie  and  fo  univerfal?  If  a 
Man  hath  no  Perception  of  Duration  when  he  fleeps,  yet  the  Time  runs 
on,  and  Nights  have  as  much  their  (hare  in  Succeflion  as  Days  have.  And 
although  you  fay,  it  feems  very  clear  to  you,  that  Men  derive  their  Ideas 
of  Duration  from  their  Reflexion  on  the  Train  of  the  Ideas  they  ebferve 
to  fucceed  one  another ,  yet  I  think  the  contrary  fo  clear,  that  Men 
may  have  a  clear  Idea  of  Succeffton  without  it,  that  I  rather  wonder 
how  you  came  to  think  of  this  Way.  But  it  is  fufficient  to  my 
purpofe,  that  you  could  never  know  this  Idea  of  Time  by  Self- evi- 
dence. 


The 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Second  Letter.  601 

The  Jaft  I  fha!!  mention  is  Light,  and  one  would  think,  if  any  Idea 
be  Self-evident,  it  fhould  be  that.     But  let  us  fee  what  you  fay  about 
it;  you  explode  the  Peripatetick  Definition  of  it  as  unintelligihle ;  and  Book  ^. 
the  CartefiaH  you  allow  to  he  hut  little  letter.     For  when  they  make  it  to  ^^'  4*: 
he  a  l^umher  of  little  Glohules  flriking  briskly  on  the  bottom  of  the  Eye,  ^^^'  ^°" 
you  fay,  to  a  Man  that  underflands  it  not  before,  thefe  Words  would  make 
the  Idea  of  Light  no  more  known  to  him,  than  if  one  Ihould  tell  htm,  that 
Light  was  nothing  but  a  Company  of  little  Tennis  balls,  which  Fairies  all 
day  long  fir  oek  with  Rackets  againfl  fame  Mens  Foreheads  while  they  pafs  by 
others.     And  is  this  a  Self  evident  Idea  of  Light  >  Thus  we  have  feen 
what  Account  your  felf  have  given  of  thefe  Self-evident  Ideas,  which 
are  the  ground-work  of  Demonjlration. 

X.  But  fuppofe  an  Idea  happen  to  be  thought  by  fome  to  be  clear  and 
di[iin^,  and  others  (hould  think  the  contrary  to  be  fo,  what  hopes  of 
Demonflratton  by  clear  and  di[lin£l  Ideas  then  ?  As  fuppofe  a  Man  enter- 
tain Des  Cartes  his  Idea  of  Space,  as  the  fame  with  Body,  or  extended 
Matter,  which  he  affirms  to  be  clear  and  diflinS ;  the  Confequence 
from  hence  is,  as  your  felf  confefs,  that  he  may  from  thence  demonfirate  ^^^"^  4- 
that  there  can  he  no  Vacuum :  but  again,  let  us  fuppofe  another  to  have  a  Seft7i2- 
clear  and  diftind  Idea  of  Space'  from  Body,  this  Man,  you  fay,  may 
demonfirate  as  eafily  that  there  may  be  a  Vacuum,  or  Space,  without  a  £o- 
dyy  as  Des  Cartes  demonfirated  the  contrary.  Say  you  fo?  What  De- 
jj.  ntonftrations  on  both  fides,  and  in  the  way  of  Ideas  too  ?  This  is  extra- 

f'  ordinary  indeed.  But  if  we  may  be  allowed  the  Ule  of  common  Prin- 
ciples, we  may  be  fure,  that  both  Parts  of  a  Contradidlion  cannot  be 
true,  and  therefore  there  muft  be  a  fundamental  Miilake  fomewhere. 
You  fay,  it  is  in  wrong  Application  of  that  general  Maxim,  What  is,  is. 
But  there  is  no  fault  in  the  .Principle,  which  is  the  true  meaning  of 
the  other  ;  that  it  is  impoffible  for  the  fame  thing  to  be  and  not  to  he^ 
which  undoubtedly  holds  true ;  but  it  is  in  fuppofing  the  Reality  of  the 
thing  to  be  according  to  what  you  call  a  clear  and  diftinSl  Idea.  So  that 
the  general  Principles  of  Reafon  ftand  firni  and  good ;  but  your  Self- 
evidence  of  clear  and  diftinEi  Ideas  is  fuch  a  Principle,  we  fee,  as  ferves 
for  Demonfirations  of  both  Parts  of  a  Contradidion. 

V  But  granting  the  Ideas  to  be  true,  yet  when  their  Connexion  is  not 
Self-evident,  then  zn  intermediate  Idea  mufl  complete  the  Demonflra- 
tion.     But  how  doth  it  appear  that  this  middle  Idea  is  Self-evidently 
'   conne^ed  with  them ?  For,  you  fay,  if  that  intermediate  Idea  be  not  known^ook  4. 
hy  Intuition,  that  mufl  need  a  Proof;  and  fo  there  can  be  no  Demenjira-  '^k^l 
tion.    Which  I  am  very  apt  to  believe  in  this  way  of  Ideas ;  unlefs 
thefe  Ideas  get  more  Light  by  being  put  between  two  others.     This 
will  beft  appear  by  a  remarkable  Inftance  already  menti  ned,  viz.  in 
.    the  Ideas  of  Space  and  Body ;  the  Queflion  fuppofed  is,  whether  they 
be  the  fame  or  not  ?  fome  we  fee  affirm  it,  and  others  deny  it.    So 
that  here  we  muft  ufe  an  intermediate  Idea,  and  that  is  of  Motion,  and 
we  are  to  confider  whether  this  hath  a  Self  evident  Connexion  with 
the  other  Ideas?  The  Motion  of  Bodies,  you  fay,  that  are  in  our  ■oifw Effay,B.2. 
and  neighbourhood,  feems  to  you  plainly  to  evince  a  Vacuum.     But  how  i'cea'lj 
Is  it  by  Intuition  or  Self-evidence  ?  No,  you  do  not  pretend  to  it.     But 
by  Reafon  :  Becaufe  there  muft  he  a  void  Space  equal  to  the  Bulk  of  that 
Body-,  which  moves  within  the  Bounds  of  fuch  a  Superficies.     And  if  there 
he  a  Space  without  Body  there  muft  be  a  Vacuum.     But  Gaffendus  attempt- 
ed to  prove  Motioa  impoffible,  if  there  were  no  Vacuum  :   For  every 

Body 


£o2 An  ANSWER  to 

Body  muft  go  into,  the  place  of  another,  and  fo  in  infinitum  •  which  he 

faid  was  ridiculous  and  impoflible. 

The  Cartefians  anfwer'd,  that  the  Motion  was  Circular,  Gajfendus  urged, 

that  ftillit  was  impoffible:  For  fuppofe  A  the  firft  Body,  and  -JTthe  laft  5 

A  cannot  move,  unlefsXcanbe  moved:  but  X cannot  niove,  becaufe 

the  Place  is  filled  with  A. 

The  Cartefians  fay,   this  proves  nothing,    becaufe  in  the  fame  in- 

ftant,  that  X  goes  into  the  place  of  A,  that  gives  way.  Joh.  Bapt. 
joh.Bapt.  ]y[orinus  ( Profeflbr  of  the  Mathematicks  at  Paris,  at  the  fame  time 
Differt.de  with  GaJfenJus^  anfwcrs  to  Gajfendus  his  Argument,  that  the  Separa- 
Atomis  &  tion  of  two  Bodies  and  Succeffion  are  at  the  fame  time ;  and  Jo  there  can 
vacuo,  p.  ^^  ^^  rjcutim. 

Beraier        Bernier  defends  Gajfendus  his  Argument,  and  faith,  that  no  Motion  can 
d^^^f^M '  ^^^^*  without  a  Facuum  ;  but  other  Philofophers  and  Mathematicians  as 
ri's?p.  99"  ft^^y  '^'^"y  '^*    ^^^  *5  '"^  poffible  to  imagine,  that  there  Ihould  be  a  Self- 
evident  Connexion  of  Ideas  in  this  Cafe  ? 

But  what  hath  Reafon  now  to  do  in  this  way  of  Intuition  ?  Yes,  fay 
Sea.  2.  you,  Reafon    ii  to    difcover   the  Agreement  or  Difagreement   of  Ideas. 
But  this  is  nothing  but  an  imploying  the  Faculty  of  Reafon  in  fuch  a 
manner :  And  fo  in  the  beginning  of  your  Chapter  of  Reafon,  you  tell 
ch- 1?'    U5,  that  it  is  fometimes  taken  for   true  and  clear  Principles^  and  fome- 
.    '    '     times  for  clear  and  fair  Dedu^ions  from  thofe  Principles ;  hut  jeu  take 
it  for  a  faculty  in  Man.    But  why,   in  a  Chapter  of  Reafon^  are  the 
other  two  Senfes  negleded  ?  We  might  have  expeded  here  full  Satif- 
fa(3ion  as  to  the  Principles  of  Reafon  as  dillipcJl  from  the  faculty,  but 
Seft,  2,  you  wholly  avoid  it;  and  only  (hew  how  //  is  ufed  in  fnding  out  the 
certain  Connexion  of  Ideas  in  Demonjlration ;  and  the  probahle  Connexion 
in  other  things.    So  that  the  Difference  lies  between  us,  as  to  this  Mat- 
ter of  Reafon,  in  thefe  two  things. 

(1.3  You  affirm,  that  general  Principles  and  Maxims  of  Reafon  are 
of  little  Or  no  ufe  ;  I  fay  that  they  are  of  very  great  u(e,  and  the  only 
proper  Foundations  of  Certainty. 

(i.)  You  (ay.  That  Demonjlration  is  hy  way  of  Intuition  of  Ideas y 
and  that  Reafon  is  only  the  Faculty  imployd  in  difcovering  and  compa- 
ring  Ideas  with  themfelves,  or  with  others  intervening ;  and  that  this  is 
the  only  way  of  Certainty. 

I  affirm,  and  have  proved,  that  there  can  be  no  Demonftration  by 
Intuition  oj  Ideas ;  but  that  all  the  Certainty  we  can  attain  to,  is  froin 
general  Principles  o^  Reafon,  and  necejfary  Deductions  made  from  them. 

But  before  I  conclude  this  Difcourfe,  I  muft  obferve  that  you  prove 
that  Demonjlration  muft  be  by  Intuition^  in  an  extraordinary  manner, 
Effay,B.4.  from  the  fenle  of  the  Word.     For  you  fay,  //  is  called  Demonjlration, 
ch.  2.      ff  heing  (hewn  to  the  Vnderjlanding,  and  the  Mind  made  fee,    that  it 
'  '■    is  fo.     i  have  told  you  formerly,  how  very  uncertain   a  way  of  Ar- 
guing it  is,  which  is  taken  from  the  original  fignification  of  Words; 
and  if  it  would  hold  in  this  Cafe,  it  would  be  moft  proper  for  Ocu- 
lar Demonft  rat  ions,  or  by  the  Finger.     But  in  the  Philofophical  Senfe 
of  the  Word,  Demonfiration  was  never  taken  for  Intuition,  or  the  know- 
Sedl.y,  8.  ing  of  a  thing  by  its  Self-evidence.    But   you  aflert  the  Neceffity  of 
Artflot.     '»("iti've  Knowledge,  in  every  Step  of  a  Demonfiration.     Whereas,  Art- 
Metaph'    (lotle  faith,  things  that  are  Self-evident  cannot  he  demonflrated ;  and  that 
1.4.  c.  4.  ^f  isWeaknefs  and  Folly  not  to  know  what  things  are  capahle  of  Demon' 
firationy  and  what  not.  > 

It 


Mr.  Locke's  Second  Letter.  6o^ 

It  feems  there  were  fome  Philofophers,  who  would  have  firft  Princi- 
ples demonftrated  ;  This,  faith,  Arijlotle,  cannot  he  done  without  running  in 
infinitum,  which  isahfurd.    Whence  it  is  plain,  that  Demonftration  was  lup- 
pofcd  to  lie  in  fome  antecedent  Proof;  and  where  any  thing  was  Self-e- 
vident it  was  abfurd  to  look  for  it :  So  that  the  way  of  Intuition  and 
Demonftration  were  thought  inconfillent.     For  what  a  Man  fees  by  its 
own  Light,  he  needs  no  Proof  of.     But  you  fa}^  that  in  a  Demonliration  Scfl',?. 
the  intervenient  Ideas  are  called  Proofs  ;  and  where  hy  the  help  of  thefe  the 
Agreement  or  Difagreement  is  plainly  perceived,  that  is  Demonftration  : 
And  that  in  every  flep  there  is  an  intuitive  Knowledge  of  the  Agreement  or  Seft.7. 
Difagreement  it  feeks  with  the  next  intermediate  Idea,  which  it  ufes  as  a 
Proof -^  for,  if  it  were  not  fo,  that  would  need  a  Proof     So  that  according 
to  your  Method  o{  Demonftration,  that  which  is  ufed  as  a  Proof  mu{\  need 
no  Proof  but  muft  be  known  by  immediate  Intuition.   Of  which  kind  of 
Demonftration,  I  would  fain  fee  any  one  inftance  in  the  Knowledge  of 
Things,  and  not  in  abftraded  and  mathematical  Demcnflrations.     For 
it  may  be,  it  hath  been  the  occafion  of  fome  gre.it  Miftakes  in  the  Phi- 
lofophy  of  this  Age,  that  ingenious  and  mathematical  Men  have  labour'd 
fo  much  to  accommodate  the  Principles  of  that  Science  to  the  Nature 
of  material  Things;  of  which  we  have  a  remarkable  Inftance  in  the  Sy- 
ftem  of  Des  Cartes.     And  fuppofmg  we  could  come  to  a  Certainty  about 
the  Nature  and  Tendency  of  Bodies  here  within  our  Reach,  [I  mean 
with  refped:  to  the  Earth)  I  do  not  know  how  far  the  greateft  Mathe- 
matician can  proceed  in  making  Demon '•rations  as  to  the  Nature  and 
Tendency  of  thofe  Bodies  which  are  fo  much  out  of  our  Reach,  as  the 
Heavenly  Bodies  are,  both  in  themfelves  and  with  refped  to  one  ano- 
ther.    For,  if  the  Phosnomena  depend  upon  a  force  given  them  by  the 
Great  and  Wife  Creator,  how  can  we  know  in  what  Manner  or  Degree 
that  force  is  given  to  Bodies  at  fuch  a  wonderful  Diftance  from  us    as 
the  fixed  Stars  are  ?  For,  if  God  can  alter  the  Laws  of  Motion  in  another 
Syflem,  as  it  is  not  denied ;  how  can  we  be  mathematically  certain,  that 
the  Laws  of  Motion  in  Bodies,  fo  much  above  us,  are  the  very  fame 
that  we  find  them  here ;  I  do  not  by  any  means  take  off  from  the  laudable 
Endeavours  of  thofe  who  have  gone  about  to  reduce  natural  Specula- 
tions to  mathematical  Certainty:  but  I  mention  it  to  ihew,  that  it  is  a 
very  eafie  way  for  Thinking  Men  to  deceive  themfelves,  in  talking  fo 
much  of  demonflrative  Certainty  about  natural  Things,  when  all  their 
Inftances   are   brought    from    Mathematical   Demonft rations.     Ariflotle,  Arifl.  de 
whom  I  cannot  delpife  fo  much  as  fome  do  (I  do  not  fay  for  wantof^?"'^" 
reading  him)  hath  a  Difcourfc  on  purpofe  in  the  Beginning  of  his  Books  "T." 
of  Animals,  in  what  way  natural  Things  are  to  he  handled;  and  he  faith 
there  arc  two  ways.     i.  By  way  of  Science,  z.  By  way  of  Injhuiiion,  which 
muft  he  fuitahle  to  the  Mature  of  the  things.     So  that  in  natural  Hiftory 
he  faith,  there  muft  be  certain  hounds  fet  for  Enquiry,  without  proceeding 
to  fir  id  Demonftration.  And,  faith  he,  the  Manner  of  Demonftration  as  to  na- 
tural  Things  is  different  from  ivhat  it  is  infpeculative  or  mathematical  Things. 
In  another  place  he  laments  the  want  of  Experiments  as  to  natural  Hi- 
ftory, (although  he  made  far  more  than  any  before  him,  and  was  better 
able  to  do  it  by  the  plentifull  Afliitanceof  Philip  and  Alexander,  while 
he  1  ved  at  Court")  and  he  looks  on  that  as  the  heft  way  of  far  isfying  our  De  Gen. 
tieafon  ahout  fuch  things ;  and  our  Reafons,  faith  he,  are  then  good,  »/;<?«  ^"''"•'•^* 
they  agree  with  the  Phanomena. 

And 


^04  An  ANSWER  to 


And  he  was  Co  far  from  chinking  he  had  made  Demon(lrations  in  Fhy- 
l>e  Mete,  licks,  that  in  one  place  he  faith,  that  in  thiftgs  not  ev  dent  to  Senfe,  he 
°'^' '^'''^' thought  it  fufficient  to  /hew  the  P  offihility  of  it  i  and  therefore  he  ought 
not  to  be  run  down  for  his  Modeiiy  ;  however  his  phyfical  Notions  fall 
far  ihort  of  Demonji  rat  ions. 
Moral.  In  his  Morals    he  faith,  aH  Principles  mttfl  he  fuitahle  to  the  Mature  of 

Magn./.i.  ^jjg  Science  ;  for  it  would  he  ahfurd  for  a  Mjn   to  go  ahout  to  prove  the 
three  Angles  of  a  Triangle  equal  to  two  right  Angles  ;  and  take  this  for  his 
Principle,  that  the  Soul  is  intmortal.     For  the  Proof  »»«/?  he  proper  and  con- 
ne^ed  with  it.    And  from  hence  he  excludes  Plato\  Idea  from  being  a 
Principle  in  Morals. 
Eudem.  /.     In  his  Eudemia,  theway  of  Proceeding  in  Morals,  he  fairh,  is  hy  Reafons, 
y-c.6.     Teflimonies,  and  Examples  -,  and  he  looks  on  ix.  as  great  want  of  Judgment 
for  Men  not  to  confider  what  Reafons  are  proper  for  every  Science.     So  that 
according  to  him,  Morality  is  not  uncapable  of  Demonftration;  fo  it  be 
upon  Mural  Principles :  For  that  he  lays  down  in  the  Beginning  of  his 
Ethic,  ad  Ethicks,  and  afterwards,  that  the  fame  ExaHneJs  is  not  to  he  required  in  all 
Nicom.  /.  y^^/j  gj  Reafoning :  hut  that  it  ought  to  he  fuitahle  to  the  Matter  it  is  ahout. 
h  I.e.  2.    ^  '  K^'^-  '^^  ^•^M''  °'  ^o-)s>i  oma^lmioi. 

If  therefore  the  Principles  in  Morality  be  clear  and  proper,  and  the 
DednHions  be  plain  and  natural,  I  do  not  fee,  but  that  it  is  as  capable 
oi  Demonji  rat  ion  as  any  other  Science  ;  if  Men  were  as  willing  to  be  con- 
vinced in  Morals.,  as  they  are  in  Mathematicks.  And  therein  I  fully  a- 
gree  with  you  :  But  the  way  of  Demonfiration  hy  Ideas  will  not  do,  ei- 
ther there  or  any  where  elfe.  I  mean  by  this  intuitive  Knowledge  in  every 
Step  of  the  Demonfiration^  when  the  intervening  Ideas  are  far  trom  being 
capable  of  this  intuitive  Certainty. 

And  as  to  your  Argument  from  the  Notation  of  the  Word,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  after  the  Philofophical  Ufe  of  it,  it  fignified  no  more  among  fome 
Philofophers  than  the  Conclujion  of  an  Argument ;  vcherehy  we  are  brought 
jromfomething  we  did  perceive,  to  fome  thing  we  did  not. 

Not  by  way  of  Intuition,  but  by  a  Dedu^ion  of  Reqfou. 

itaque  Argumenci  Con-    ^pj  pj^^g   makes  ufe  of  the  Word  Demonfiration  in  his 

OT*VǤ/Titkdefinituri  Ra-"    Phadrtu,  for  fuch  a  Reafon  which  wife  Men  would  helieve., 

do  qusE  ex  rebui  percepcis   and  Others  would  not .    But  there  could  be  no  intuitive  Cer- 

t^  rdd'cic?"cS'i;   tainty  in  fuch  a  Demonftration. 

LucuIIo,  c.  8.  ^  • 

'H  jj  J^  'A-aro/^l/j  *«'«««  i'etvoH  tttp  ecsnsBf,  ctiftit  3  OTjii,  Plato  in  Pha»dro.    V.  Dialeft.  Ciceron.  A- 
dam  Burfii,  1.  6.  c.  lo. 


I  have  been  longer  a  clearing  this  Matter  than  F  thought  I  fliouid 
have  been  ;  but  it  is  the  main  Point  as  to  Certainty  hy  Ideas,  and  what 
remains  will  admit  of  aneafierDifpatcb.  I  now  return  to  the  Difference 
between  Mature  and  Perfon ;  and  1  fhall  only  fmgle  out  what  is  material 
and  pertinent ;  and  now  leave  the  interlocutory  Gentlemen  to  maintain 
their  Converfation  by  themfelves. 

I  had  faid  in  my  Vindication,  "  That  Nature  may-  be  confider 'd  two 
*'  Ways,  (i.)  As  it  is  in  diftind  Individuals.  (2.)  Abftradly  with- 
"  out  refpe^  to  individual  Perfons. 

(i.)  "  As  it  is  in  diftind  Individuals,  as  the  Nature  of  a  Man  is 
"  equally  in  Peter,  James,  and  John,  and  this  is  the  common  Nature 
''  with  a  particular  Subfiftence  belonging  to  each  of  them.    For  the 

"  Nature 


Mr.  L  o  c  K  e's  Second  Letter.  6o^ 

"  Nature  of  Man,  as  in  Peter,  is  diftin(5l  from  the  fame  Nature,  as  it 
"  is  in  James  and  Joh>t;  otherwife  they  would  be  but  one  Perfon,  as 
"  well  as  have  the  (ame  Nature.  Which  to  my  underftanding  is  plain 
and  clear  Reafon.  And  if  fo,  then  here  we  have  an  Identity  of  tfature^ 
and  iDiflin^ioH  of  Perfons  in  the  fame  Nature. 

But  to  this  you  objed:  thefe  three  Things : 

Ci.)  That  you  cannot  put  together  one  and  the  farhe,  and difth^  •  and  P.  127. 
confequently  there  is  no  Foundation  for  the  Dijiin^ion  of  Nature   and  Per- 
fon. 

(^z.)  That  what  I  fay  alout  common  feature,  and  particular  Suhfiflence^'  '^^' 
and  Individuals  ,  is  wholly  uninteUigihle  to  you  and  your  Friends.  ,38^  &c; 

(3.)  That  to  fpeak  truly  and  precifely  of  this  Matter,  as  in  reality  it  is,  P-  ^54- 
there  is  no  fuch  thing  as  one  common  Nature  in  feveral  Individuals  ;  for  aS 
that  is  Truth  in  them  ts  particular,  and  can  be  nothing  hut  particular.  But 
the  meaning  is,  that  every  particular  individual  Man  or  Horfe,  &'c.  has 
Juch  a  Nature  or  Conflitution  as  agrees,  and  is  conformahle  to  that  Idea  which 
that  general  Name  fiands  for. 

This  is  the  Subitancc  of  what  I  can  gather  out  of  your  Difcourfe  in 
feveral  Pages,  but  as  to  the  genera!  Refiedlions  I  pafs  them  over,  ha- 
ving no  other  Defign  but  to  fet  Truth  in  as  good  a  Light  as  I  can. 
And  if  I  have  the  Misfortune  not  to  be  uncjerftood,  I  cannot  help  it ;  I 
Willi  it  were  in  my  Power  to  help  other  Men's  Capacities  as  well  as  to 
help  my  own. 

But  you  fay,  the  Notionifls  and  Ideifls,  (as  they  are  called)  fcem  ^- '44» 
to  have  their  apprehenfive  Faculties  very  differently  turned.  I  do  not 
think,  that  there  is  any  different  Turn  in  their  Faculties ;  but  there 
may  be  a  very  wrong  Turn  in  the  Method  of  Reafoning  in  thofe,  who  go 
in  this  way  of  Ideas,  from  what  there  is  in  thofe  who  purfue  the  gene- 
ral Principles  of  Reafon^  and  from  thence  draw  particular  Conclufi- 
ons. 

If  any  Man  takes  it  for  granted,  that  your  way  of  Ideas  is  the  only  way 
to  Certainty  (and  he  mufl.take  it  for  granted,  if  he  will  believe  it) 
then  I  cannot  fee  how  he  can  apprehend  one  and  the  fame  common  Na- 
ture indifferent  Perfons  or  Individuals,  becaufe  all  his  Ideas zxe  taken 
from  Particulars  i  and  therefore  a  common  Nature  is  no  more  but  one 
common  Name;  and  every  Individual  is  confider'd  as  ranked  under 
thofe  Names.  But.  herein  lies  the  fundamental  Miftake,  that  you  pre- 
fume  that  we  are  not  to  judge  of  things  by  the  general  Principles  of 
Reafon,  but  by  particular  Ideas.  For  if  Men  fet  afide  this  new  way 
of  Judging  only  by  thefe  Ideas,  things  would  appear  in  another  Light 
to  them  :  But  I  find  it  is  to  very  little  purpofe  to  argue  with  fuch 
Men,  who  are  refolved  to  flick  to  this  way  of  Ideas;  for  they  can 
apprehend  nothing  but  juft  in  their  own  way :  And  let  us  fay  what 
we  will,  it  is  jargon,  and  unintelligible  to  them;  although -y^ry  rational 
Men  have  faid  the  fame  things  that  we  do,  and  have  been  thought  by 
the  reil  of  Mankind  to  have  fpoken  imelligihly.  But  now  it  feems 
nothing  is  inteUigihle,  but  what  fuits  with  this  new  way  of  Ideas, 
however  repugnant  it  be  to  the  common  Principles  of  Reafon,-  which 
mud:  be  the  i^tandard  to  Mankind,  whatever  becomes  of  this  way  of 
Ideas. 

And  therefore  in  this  Debate  I  fhall  proceed  upon  thefe  Principles 
of  Reafon,  which  have  been  receiv'd  among  Mankind ;  and  from  them 
I  hope  to  make  it  appear,  that  the  Difference  of  Nature  and  Perfon  is 

H  h  h  h  not 


6o6        ^        '""'An  ANSWER  to 


not  imaginary  and  fidlitious,  but  grounded  upon  the  real  Nature  of 
things. 

The  Principles  of  Reafon  which  I  go  upon  are  thefe ; 

I.  That  Nothing  hath  no  Properties. 

X.  That  all  Properties  being  only  Modes  or  Accidents  muft  have  a 
real  Subjedl  to  fubfift  in. 

3.  That  Properties  eflentially  different,  muft  fubfift  in  different  Ef- 
fences. 

4.  That  where  there  is  an  Agreement  in  Eflential  Properties  and  a 
.     Difference  in  Individual,  there  muft  be  both  an  Identity  and  D^verfity  in 

feveral  Refpedls. 

Now  upon  thefe  Principles  I  build  my  Aflertion,  that  there  is  one 
real  and  common  Nature  or  Eflence  in  Mankind,  and  a  Difffrence 
of  Perfons  in  the  feveral  Individuals.  For,  that  there  are  fuch  Ellen- 
tial  Properties  in  Mankind  which  are  not  in  Brutes,  I  fuppofe  you 
will  not  deny.  Now  thele  Eflential  Properties  muft  fubfift  forae- 
where ;  for  Nothing  can  have  no  Properties,  and  thefe  Properties  can- 
not fubfift  (where  Individuals  are  multiplied)  in  any  one  Individual : 
For  that  is  to  exclude  all  the  reft  froni  the  Effential  Properties  which 
belong  to  them  ;  and  if  they  have  them  in  common,  there  muft  be 
fome  common  Subjedi  wherein  they  fubfift,  and  that  can  be  nothing 
but  the  common  Eflence  of  Mankind.  For  the  Effence  of  B>utes  or 
Plants  have  them  not ;  and  therefore  thefe  Eflences  muft  be  really  diffe-  , 
rent  from  one  another. 

But  becaufe  Individuals  of  the  fame  kind,  have  fomething  to  diftin- 
guifh,  as  well  as  to  unite  them,  therefore  there  muft  be  a  different 
Subfiftence  in  every  Individual :  and  fo  one  and  the  fame,  and  jet  di' 
fiin^,  may  very  eafily  and  intelligibly  confift  together. 
P.  131.        But  you  fay,  I  have  not  told  you  what  Nature  is  ;  I  think  ray  Dif^ 
courfe  fufficiently  fhew'd  it,  if  you  had  a  mind  to  underftand  it ;  for  you 
could  not  but  fee  that  I  meant  the  Subject  of  the  Effential  Properties, 
whether  you  call  it  Nature,  Suhftance,  or  Effence.     Your  Objedion  ahout 
Nature  and  Suhflance  being  of  equal  Extent^  I  hope  I  have  fufficiently 
removed  in  the  foregoing  Difcourfe. 
P-  '32.       You  tell  me,  that  it  is  more  than  you  know,  that  the  Nature  of  a  Matt 
is  equal  in  Peter,  James  and  John.     I  am  forry  for  it.     For  I  thought 
you    had   Ideas   of  particular  Sulfiances.     But  they,  may  he  Drills  or 
Horfes  for  any  thing  you  know.     I  am  again  forry  that  you  know  parti- 
cular Men  no  better;  but  that  for  ought  you  know,  they  may  be  DriOs 
or  Horfes. 
P.  133.        But  you  know  a  Horfe  that  was  called  Peter,  and  you  do  not  know  hut 
the  Mafler  of  the  fame  Team  might  caO  other  of  his  Horfes,  James  and 
John.    Suppofe  all  this.     And  could  you  not  in  the  Way  of  Ideas  ditin- 
guilh  them    from  thofe  of  your   Acquaintance  who  had    the   fame 
Names?    I  confefs,  this  tempts  me  to  think  xhzt  Ideifls  (as  you  call 
them)    have  a  particular  Turn  of  their  Vnderfiandings    about    thefe 
Matters.     For  I  cannot  but  think,  that  thole  who  were  not  -very  ra- 
tional  Men,  might  underftand  the  Difference  between  Men  and  Horfes ; 
without  being  told,   that  although  Horfes  might  be  called  by  their 
Names  ;  yet  that  thefe  were  real  Men,  and  their  Confiitution  and  Na- 
ture was  conformable  to  that  Idea,  which  the  general  Nam;  Man  flands 
for.     But   this  is  no  more  than  to  fay,  thut  he  that  has  the  Nature  of 
a  Man  is  a  Many  or  what  has  the  Nature   of  a   Drill  is  a  Drill ;  and 
;  '  what 


— "     ■■■■■■  ■,..-■■       -,  -   ■         ■  — ,  ^.^ —         ■  ■   ■      ■■ 

Mr.  Locke's  Second  Letter.  ^07 

I  ■  —  ■■-..  .  ■  . 

'what  has  the  Nature  of  a  Horfe  is  a  Horfe ;  whether  he  he  called  Vtxtx^ 
or  not  called  Peter.  If  this  were  really  the  Difcourfe  of  your  Friends 
in  private  Converfation ,  you  have  been  very  obliging  to  them  to 
publilh  it  to  the  World :  For  Mankind  are  not  fo  ftupid,  as  not  to. 
know  a  Man  from  a  Horfe  or  a  Drill^  but  only  by  the  Specifick  Name 
of  Man.  You  may  have  a  Horfe  called  Peter  if  you  pleafe,  and  a- 
nother  James,  and  a  third  John;  but  for  all  that,  there  is  no  one  that 
hath  the  Underftanding  of  a  Man,  but  will  be  able  without  your 
Specifick  Names  to  tell  the  Difference  of  your  Horfe  Peter  from  your 
Man  Peter;  and  call  them  by  what  Names  you  pleafe  the  Difference 
will  not  de[5end  upon  them,  but  upon  the  Eflential  Properties  which 
belong  to  them  ;  and  fo  it  will  be  owned  by  all  that  have  not  this 
New  turn  of  their  Vnderflandings.  But  I  plainly  fee,  that  a  new  No- 
tion when  it  hath  got  deep  into  a  Man's  Head  doth  give  a  ftrange 
Turn  to  his  Underftanding ;  fo  that  he  cannot  fee  that  which  every 
one  elfe  can,  that  hath  not  the  fame  Tindture  upon  his  Mind.  Arid 
I  remember  an  Obfervation  of  youxs.  How  dangerous  it  is  to  a  MansBooV  2, 
Reafon  to  fix  his  Fancy  long  upon  one  fort  of  Thoughts,  Thefe  Ideas ^'f.^^' 
are  a  very  odd  fort  of  Spedacles  to  our  Underflandings,  if  they  make 
them  fee  and  underftand  lefs,  than  People  of  very  ordinary  Capacities 
do.  For  even  the  Man  who  had  the  Horfe  with  the  Name  Peter,  and 
might  have  others  ly  the  Names  of  James  and  John,  would  not  a  little 
wonder  at  a  graye  Philofopher  that  fhould  ferioufly  fay  to  him ;  You 
fee,  Friend,  that  your  Horfes  have  the  Names  of  Men,  how  do  you 
know  but  that  they  are  Men?  Know,  faith  the  Country-man,  I  hope  you 
are  wifer  than  to  ask  me  fuch  a  Queftion  ?  Or  what  do  you  take  me 
for,  if  I  cannot  tell  the  Difference  of  Men  from  Horfes  whatever 
Names  they  have.  Do  not  tell  me  of  your  Specifick  Names^  and  Con- 
formity to  your  IdeaSy  I  know  well  enough  the  Difference  between 
my  Horfe  Peter  and  my  Man  Peter  without  fuch  GibberiHi.  My  Man 
Peter  and  I  can  fit  and  chop  Logick  together  about  our  Country 
Affairs,  and  he  can  Write  and  Read,  and  he  is  a  Very  fharp  Fellow 
at  a  Bargain  ;  but  my  Horfe  Peter  can  do  none  of  thefe  things,  and 
I  never  could  find  any  thing. like  Reafon  in  him,  and  do  you  think  I 
do  not  know  the  Difference  between  a  Man  and  a  Beafi  ?  1  purfue 
this  no  farther  left  the  Country-man  ftiould  be  too  rude  to  the  Gentle- 
men, with  whom  you  had  this  Learned  Converfation^  about  the  Diffe- 
rence of  Men^  and  Horfes,  and  Drills. 

But  you  or  your  Friend,  or  both,  are  very  hard  fet  again  ahout  a  p.  124. 
Common  Nature  with  a  particular  Suhflance  proper  to  each  P  erf  on.  For 
fuch  is  your  Misfortune,  you  fay,  that  for  your  Life  you  cannot  find  it  p.  itr. 
out.  This  is  a  hard  Cafe;  before, /or  your  Life  you  could  not  under- 
jland  Nature  and  Suhfiance  to  be  the  fame ;  and  now  again,  for  your 
Life  you  cannot  find  out  this.  Where  lies  the  monftrous  DiiBculty  of 
it?  You  fay,  Tou  repeated,  and  this  twenty  times  to  your  f elf -.^  and  your 
weak  Vnderflanding  always  Rejolts.  At  what?  My  Words  are,  "  Na- 
"  ture  may  be  conftdered,  as  it  is  in  diftindi  Individuals,  as  the 
"  Nature  of  Man  is  equally  in  Peter,  James  and  John.  And  this  is 
"  the  common  Nature  with  a  particular  Subfiftence  proper  to  each 
"  of  them. 

You  fay,  That  the  Nature  of  Man  in  Peter  is  the  Nature  of  a  Man,  p.  i?5. 
if  Peter  he  fuppofed  to  he  a  Man ;  but  if  it  be  the  Name  of  a  Horfe^ 
your  Knowledge  ■vantfhes.    Cannot  you,  for  your  Life^  know  the  Diffe*- 

H  h  h  h  1  rence 


'An  ANSWER  to 


rence  between  a  Mau  and  a  Horfcy  by  their  Eflential  Properties,  what-  ^ 
ever  their  N.imes  be  ?  If  fo,  there  is  a  greater  turn  of  Mens  V^der- ' 
ftandiMgSy  than  I  imagined.  But  again,  fay  you.  Let  it  he  impoffihle  to 
give  that  Name  to  a  Horfe  (whoever  had  faid  or  thought  fo  3  yet  you 
cannot  underftand  thefe  Words,  the  common  Nature  of  a  Man  is  in  Pe- 
ter ;  for  whatfoever  is  in  Peter  exifls  in  Peter ;  and  whatever  exifis  in 
Peter  is  particular ;  hut  the  common  Nature  of  Man  is  the  general  Na- 
ture  of  Man,  or  elfe  you  underhand  not  what  is  meant  hy  Common  Na- 
ture i  and  it  confounds  your  Z/nderfianding  to  make  a  General  a  Par- 
ticular. 

.  To  this  I  anfwer,  That  the  Common  Nature  of  Man  may  be  taken 
two  ways.     In  the  way  of  lde.n,  and  in  the  way  of  Reafon.     In  your  way 
of  Ideas  it  is  not  at  all  to  be  wondered   at,  that  you  cannot  under- 
ftand (uch  a  Common  Nature,  as  1  fpake  of,  which  fubfifts  in  feveral 
Perfons,  becaufe  you  fay.  Ton  can  have  no  Ideas  of  Real  Suhflances  hut 
fuch  as  are  Particular ;  all  others  are  only  Ahjlra^  Ideas-,  and  made  on- 
ly by  the  A&.  of  the  Mind.     But  I  fay,  That  in  the  Way  of  Reafon  you 
may   come  to  a  better  under  (landing  of  this  Matter.     Which  is  by 
confidering  the  Nature  of  Beings,  and  the  Caufes  of  the  Differences  a- 
Anfw.to  mongfl  the  feveral  kinds  of  them,    I  had  told  you  before,  in  my  An- 
Letter  I.  \^q^  (q  your  firll:  Letter,  that  we  are  to  confider  Beings  as  God  hath 
'^■^'°*     ordered  them  in  their  (everal  Sorts  and  Ranks,  and  that  he  hath  difttn- 
guilhed  them  by  Effential  Properties  from  each  other,  as  appears  by 
Mankind,  and  Brutes,  and  Plants :  And  that  although  the  Individuals 
of  the  feveral  kinds  agree  in  Eflential  Properties,  yet  there  is  a  real 
Difference  between  them  in  feveral  Accidents  that  belong  to  them,  as 
to  Time,  Place,  Qualities,  Relations,  ^c.     Now  that  wherein  they  a- 
gree  is  the  Common  Nature;  and  that  wherein  thy  differ,  is  the  Farti' 
cular  Suhftftence.     And  if  this  be  fo  hard  to  be  underftood,  why  was  it 
not  anfwered  here  in  the  proper  place  for  it  ?  Is  not  that  a  Real  Nature 
that  is  theSubjeift  of  Real  Properties?  Is  not  that  Nature  really  in  all 
thofe  who  Have  the  fame  Eflential  Properties?  And  therefore  the  Com- 
mon Nature  of  Man  muft  exifi  in  Peter,  becaufe  he  is  a  Man,  and  fo 
in  James  and  John:    and  yet  every   one  of  thefe  is   fo  diflinguiflied 
from  the  other,  that  we  may  juilly  fay  he  hath  a  Particular  Suhfiflence 
with  that  Common  Nature,     And  this  is  no  making  a  General  a  Particu- 
lar, but  diftinguilhing  one  from  the  other ;  which   is  a  Diftindion  fo 
eafie  and  neccflary,  that  I  cannot  but  wonder  at  thofe  who  fay,  that  for 
their  Lives  they  cannot  find  it  out. 

I  had  faid,  "  For  the  Nature  of  Man  as  in  Peter^  is  diflincSt  from  that 
*'  fame  Nature,  as  it  is  in  James  and  John,  otherwife  they  would  be 
"  but  One  Perfon  as  well  as  One  Nature.  And  what  Reply  is  made 
p.  137.  to  this?  Tou  cannot  underfland  what  this  is  a  Proof  of.  It  is  plain  that 
I  meant  it  of  a  Particular  Suhfijlence  ;  and  if  you  cannot  for  your  Life 
underfland  fuch  eafle  things,  how  can  I  for  my  Life  help  it  ?  Read  the 
Words  over  again  which  are  before  them,  and  joyn  them  together. 
"  And  this  is  the  Common  Nature  with  a  Particular  Subfiflence  pro- 
"  per  to  each  of  them ;  for  the  Nature  of  Man  as  in  Peter  is  diflind 
"  from  that  fame  Nature  as  it  is  in  James  and  John.  But  I  am  really 
afhamcd  to  be  put  to  explain  fuch  things ;  1  hope  Ideas  do  not  give 
p.  138.  another  Turn  to  Common  Senfe.  But  you  (ay.  That  otherwife  they 
could  not  he  three  Perfons,  is  to  prove  it  hy  a  Proportion  unintelligthle 
to  you,  hecaufe  you  do  not  yet  apprehend  what  a  Perfon  is".     Of  that  in  its 

proper 


Mr.  Lock  e's  Second  Letter.  Go^ 

proper  place.  Thefe  Words  of  mine  follow,  "  And  this  DiHindtion 
"  of  Perfons  in  them,  is  difcerned  both  by  our  Senfes  as  to  their  diffe- 
"  rent  Accidents  and  by  our  Reafon  becaufe  they  have  a  Separate- Exi- 
**  ftence,  not  coming  into  it  at  once  and  in  the  fame  manner.  And  is 
this  unhtelltgihk  too  i  You  fay,  It  will  hold  as  well  for  three  Phyfical  P.  14,0. 
Atoms,  which  are  three  JiJiinS  hJiviJuals,  and  have  three  diflinEl  Na- 
tures in  them,  as  certainly  as  three  diflind  Men.  But  are  three  Atoms 
as  much  three  Perfons  as  three  Meu  .■»  But  you  cannot  difcern  the  diflin^ion 
I)  our  Senfes  as  to  their  Accidents.,  nor  hy  your  Reafon  as  to  feparate  Ext- 
fience,  hecaufe  God  might  create  them  at  once.  Therefore  we  cannot  d;- 
ftinguifh  three  Humane  Perfons  that  way  ?  Is  this  Reafoning  in  the  way  of 
Ideas  ?  Or  in  any  way  ? 

Suppofe  we  put  the  Common  Nature  of  an  Animal  for  the  Common  ^'  '*'• 
Nature  of  Man.  What  follows?  Therefore  three  Animals  are, three  di- 
fliv£l  Perfons,  as  well  as  three  Men  ?  I  thought  there  was  fome  caufe 
for  your  difl.king  the  Common  Principles  and  Methods  of  Reafoning  \ 
am  forced  to  give  but  fliort  touches  at  fuch  things,  which  I  cannot 
anfwer  more  largely,  without  being  thought  to  make  Marks  of  Di- 
ftin^ion. 

Come  we  now  therefore  to  the  Second  Senle  of  Nature,  "  as  it 
*'  is  taken  abftradly  without  Refped  to  Individual  Perfons;  and  then  ' 
"  I  faid,  it  makes  an  entire  Notion  of  it  felf  For  however  the  fame 
*'  Nature  may  be  in  different  lndi\^iduils,  yet  the  Nature  in  it  felf 
"  remains  one  and  the  fame ;  which  appears  from  this  evident 
**  Reafon ,  that  otherwife  every  Individual  muft  make  a  different 
"  kind. ' 

Is  this  to  be  under  flood  any  better  ?   No.     An  entire  Notion  of  it 
felf  is  an   Expreffton  never  met   with   before.     An  entire  Idea  of  it  felf  p_  j,.^ 
had  been  very  plain  and  eafie  ;  but  this  is  not  to  talk  with  Men  in  their 
own  Dialed.     But  if  we  put  it  fo,  the  Difficulty  remains.     What  Diffi- 
culty ?  It  then  makes  no  more  an  entire  Notion  than  the  Nature  of  Peter. 
Is  11  not  the  fame  Nature  confidered  as  common  to  all  Individuals,  diftin(3: 
from  that  Nature  as  in  Peter  ?  I  wilh  among  all  the  ways  of  inlarging 
Knowledge,  you  could  think  of  fome  new  way  of  conveying  Notions 
into  Mens  Minds,  for  I  find  your  Way  of  Ideas  will  never  do  it.    For 
you  cannot  be  brought  one  ftep  beyond  the  fir  ft  Caft  of  Ideas.     And 
you  will  not  allow,  that  which  I  give  for  an  Evident  Reafon,  to  prove    p  146. 
any    thing  towards  clear  Apprehenfous  of  one  Common  Nature.     But  if 
Nature  be  one  and  the  fame  in  different  Individuals,  then   there  muft 
be  one  Common  Nature,  which  makes  an  entire  Notion  of  it  felf:  If  it  be 
not  one  and  the  fame,  then  every  Individual  muft  make  a  Diftind  Kind  ?  • 
Can  any  thing  be  more  evident  ?  But  you  give  onecommon  Anfwer;  /««-  p.  147- 
derfland.  not  any  thing  that  is  meant  in  this  whole  Paragraph,  as  to  the 
right  Apprehenfion  of  one  Common  Nature.    And  fo  I  am  very  well  content 
to  leave  it  to  the  Reader's  Underftanding. 

And  now  I  come  at  Jaft  to  the  Idea  of  a  Perfon.  And  here  I  am  glad 
to  find  fomethingyou  do  underfiand :  Which  is  great  News.  Ihis,  fay  P-MPi 
you,  /  underfiand  very  well.,  that  fuppofing  Peter,  James  and  John  to 
he  all  three  Men,  and  Man  being  a  Nlame  for  one  Kind  of  Animals,  they 
are  all  of  the  fame  Kind.  Do  you  mean  that  they  have  the  fame  com- 
mon Efllnce,  or  have  only  the  fame  common  Name?  If  you  mean  the 
former,  there  muft  be  a  common  Nature,*  if  only  the  latter,  that  can- 
not 


6io  An  ANSWER  to 


not  make  them  of  the  f'^me  Ktnd.  For  Kind  fignifies  nothing  but  a 
meer  Na;me  without  it.  It'  it  be  asked  you,  whether  Men  and  Dri/Is  be 
of  the  fame  Kind  or  not  ?  Could  you  give  no  other  Anfwer,  but  that  the 
Specifick  Name  Man  (lands  for  one  (ort,  and  the  Sped  fie  k  Name  Drill 
for  the  other;  and  therefore  they  arc  not  of  the  lame  Kind?  Are  thofe 
Names  arbitrary,  or  are  they  founded  on  real  and  diilindl  Properties  ? 
If  they  be  arbitrary,  they  have  no  other  Difference,  but  what  a  Didli- 
onary  gives  them.  If  they  are  founded  on  real  and  diftind  Properties, 
then  there  muft  be  a  real  Difference  of  Kinds  founded  in  NJture;  which 
is  as  much  as  I  defire.  But  to  go  on.  Tou  mderftand  too  'very  welly 
that  Peter  is  not  James,  j»</ James  is  not  John,  ht  that  there  is  a  Dif- 
ference in  thefe  Individuals.  Tou  under fl and  alfo^  that  they  may  he  di- 
fiingui/hed  from  each  other  hy  our  Senfes,  as  to  different  Features  and  Di- 
fiauce  of  Place,  &c.  But  what  follows^  you  fay,  Ton  do  not  mderfland, 
viz.  that  fuppofing  there  veere  no  fuch  external  Difference,  yet  there  is  a 
Difference  between  them  as  Individuals  of  the  fame  Nature.  For  all 
\  that    this  comes   to^  as  far    as   you  can  underfland,  is  that  the  Ground 

of  the  Dijlin&ion  between  feveral  Individuals  in  the  fame  common  Nature  is 
f.  1 52'  that  they  are  feveral  Individuals  in  the  fame  common  Nature.  You  un- 
derfland,  it  feems,  that  they  are  feveral  Individuals.,  that  Peter  is  not 
James,  and  Jsitnes  is  not  John;  and  the  Queftion  is,  what  this  Diftindti- 
on  is  founded  upon?  Whether  upon  our  obferving  the  Difference  of 
Features,  Diflance  of  Place,  &c.  or  on  fome  antecedent  Ground?  I 
affirm,  that  there  is  a  Ground  of  the  Diftindion  of  Individuals  an- 
tecedent to  fuch  accidental  Differences  as  are  liable  to  our  Obfervation 
by  our  Senfes. 

And  the  Ground  I  go  upon  is  this,  that  the  true  Reafon  of  Identity 
in  Man  is  the  vital  Union  of  Soul  and  Body  ;  And  fince  every  Man  hath 
a  different  Soul  united  to  different  Particles  of  Matter,  there  muil  be  a 
real  Diflindtion  between  them,  without  any  refped  to  what  is  acciden- 
tal to  them.  For,  if  Peter  have  a  Soul  and  Body  different  from  JameSy 
and  James  from  John^  they  muft  have  different  Principles  of  Individua- 
tion, without  any  refpedt  to  Features  or  Place,  @c. 
p.  149.  You  fay,  Ton  cannot  fuppofe  a  Coutradi^ion,  viz.  that  there  is  no  dif' 
ference  of  P lace  between  them.  But  that  is  not  the  Point,  whether  when 
weconfider  them  with  refped  to  Place,  there  can  be  fuch  a  thing  as  1- 
dentity  of  Place  to  two  different  Bodies ;  But  whether  we  cannot  con- 
fider  two  feveral  Individuals  of  Mankind  without  particular  regard  to 
Place  ?  Which  I  fay,  we  may,  and  for  this  Reafon ;  becaufe  Relation 
to  Place,  is  an  external  Difference,  but  the  real  Diftincaion  of  Indivi- 
duals doth  not  relate  to  any  Accident  of  the  Body  ;  becaufe  the  Indivi- 
dual confifts  of  the  Union  of  Soul  and  Body  ;  and  you  cannot  judge  of 
Effay,  B.  the  Exiftence  of  the  Soul  by  the  Place  of  the  Body.  You  fay,  that  when 
2.  ch.  27-tpefee  any  thing  to  be  in  any  place  in  any  infiant  of  Time,  we  are  fure  {he 
^^*  '■  it  what  it  wilt)  that  it  is  that  very  thing,  and  not  another  which  at  that 
Time  exifls  in  another  Place,,  how  like  and  undiflinguifhini  foever  it  may 
he  in  all  other  Refpe^s.  And  in  this  confifls  Identity.  But  I  think  the 
Identity  of  Man  depends  neither  upon  the  Notion  of  Place  for  his  Body, 
nor  upon  the  Soul  confider'd  by  it  felf,  but  upon  both  thefe,  as  a<ftually  u- 
nited  and  making  one  Perfon.  Which  to  me  feems  fo  clear  and  intelligi- 
ble, that  I  can  imagine  no  Objcdion  againif  it.  i  am  certain  you  pro- 
duce none. 


My 


Mr.  L o c K E s  Second  Letter.  ^ii 

■■!■■■     II    MHI^M Ill'  I  I  .  ,■■■-.  ■ 

My  next  Words  are,  "  And  here  lies  the  true  Idea  of  a  Perfon,  which 
"  arifes  from  that  manner  of  Subfiftence,  which  is  in  one  Individual,  and 
*'  is  not  communicable  to  another. 

In  your  Anfwer  to  this,  I  pafs  over  the  trifling  Exceptions,  about  P.»55. 
the  Dijfyllahle  Perfon,  and  the  true  Idea  and  Signification  of  the  articu- 
late  Sound  •  and  about  here  and  herein,  &c.  being  refolved  to  keep  to 
what  appears  material.  And  the  only  thing  of  that  kind  is,  that  ac-  p.  ijtf. 
cording  to  my  Senfe  of  Perfon,  it  will  as  well  agree  to  Bucephalus  as  to 
Alexander ;  and  the  difference  will  he  as  great  hetween  Bucephalus  and 
Podargus,  as  hetween  Alexander  and  Hedtor,  aU  heing  fever al  Indivi- 
duals  in  the  fame  commoH  Mature :  but  for  your  part  you  cannot  under- 
fland  that  Bucephalus  and  Podargus  are  Perfons  in  the  true  figiification 
of  the  Word  Perfon  in  the  Englt(h  Tongue.  And  whoever  defired  you 
fliould  ?  For  I  exprefly  fay,  that  a  Perfon  is  a  compleat  intelligent  Suh- 
flance,  with  a  peculiar  manner  of  Suhfifience.  And  again,  For  a  Perfon. 
relates  to  fomething  which  doth  difiinguijh  it  from  another  intelligent 
Suhflance  in  the  fame  Nature.  So  that  it  is  impoffible  to  apply  my  No- 
tion of  Perfon  to  any  irrational  Creatures,  although  they  be  Bucepha- 
lus and  Podargus :  And  I  think  a  Man  rauft  ftrain  hard  to  make  fuch 
Obje<aions,  fo  diredily  againfl:  that  Idea  of  a  Perfon  which  I  (et  down. 
And  it  is  very  eafie  to  underftand  the  Difference  between  a  Diftindion 
of  Individuals  as  fuch,  and  of  intelligent  Individuals,  and  that  manner  of 
Subfiftence  in  them,  which  makes  them  di!  ind:  Perfons. 

But  you  fay,  that  I  affirm,  that  an  individual  intelligent  Suhflance  is  P.  iJ9. 
rather  fuppo fed  to  the  making  of  a  Perfon,  than  the  proper  Definition  of  it : 
and  yet  afterwards  I  make  it  to  be  the  Defnition  of  a  Perfon,  that  it  is  a 
compleat  intelligent  Suhflance. 

To  this  I  aniwer,  That  in  the  former  place  I  give  an  Account  of  the 
Reafon  of  Perjonality,  which  I  fay  lies  in  the  Manner  of  Subfiftence, 
and  not  in  the  intelligent  individual  Subftance;  which  is  rather  fuppo- 
fed  to  the  making  of  a  Perfon  :  For  that  which  critically  diftinguiflies 
the  Pcrlon  is  the  Reafon  of  Perfonality  ;  but  when  we  come  to  give  a 
common  Definition  of  it,  there  is  no  fuch  neceflity  of  infifting  upon 
the  Reafon  of  the  Difference,  but  upon  the  common  Acception  of  it 
Perfon.  And  upon  that  account  I  call  it  a  complete  intelligent  Suhflance., 
becaufe,  although  the  iS^«/  be  fo  in  it  felf ;  yet  we  take  Perfon  with  Re- 
lation to  Soul  and  Body  united  together.  And  lb  the  Identity  of  'Perfon 
mufl  take  in  both,  not  only  here,  but  at  the  Refurredion. 

And  thus  I  have  gone  through  all  that  I  could  find,  that  (eem'd  ma- 
terial in  the  Dijlogi'e  between  you  and  your  Friends  as  to  this  Subjedt, 
and  I  affure  you,  1  have  omitted  nothing  which  I  apprehended  had  any 
Appearance  of  Difficulty  in  it.  And  I  find  not  the  leaft  Reafon  to  be 
unfatisficd  in  the  Account  I  had  given  of  the  Difference  of  Nature  and 
Perfon :  but  I  ftill  think  that  it  doth  ,tend  very  much  to  the  right 
Apprehenfion  of  the  Dodrine  of  the  Trinity ;  as  I  hope  doth  farther  ap- 
pear by  the  foregoing  Difcourfe. 

And  now  to  come  to  a  Conclufion  of  this  whole  Debate.  (For  I  in- 
tend not  to  draw  this  Saw  any  longer,  having  done  as  much  as  I  think 
fitting  for  my  felf  to  do.) 

I  faw  no  NecefTity  of  writing  again  for  my  own  Vindication  as  to 
your  firft  Charge,  which  I  was  contented  to  leave  to  the  Reader's  Judg- 
ment. But  in  the  Conclufion  of  my  former  Anfwer,  I  had  faid,  "  That 
"  as  you  had  Hated  your  Notion  of  Ideas,  it  may  be  of  dangerous  Con- 

''  fequence 


6i2  An  ANSWER,  &c. 


"  fequence  to  that  Article  of  the  Chriftian  Faith,  which  I  endeavoured 

p,  57,    "  to  defend.     This  you  call  a  new  Charge  agatnfl  your  Book  ,•  and  you 

59.    complain,  that  I  do  not  fpecifie  the  Particular i,  wherein  I  apprehend  it 

84.  may  be  of  fuch  dangerous  Confe^uence ;  and  you  blame  me  for  rhis  fiying, 

85.  without  /hewing  that  it  is  fo  :  and  that  aU  the  Reafon  I  give  is,  that  it  is 
,    *,!'    made  ufe  of  by  ill  Men  to  do  mifchief :  that  when  I   fay,  it  may  /,?,  it 

^'  Jhews  onh  an  Inclination  to  accufe,  and  proves  nothing ;  that  Danger  may  be 
apprehended  where  no  Danger  is ;  that  if  any  thing  mu(l  be  laid  afide^ 
becaufe  it  may  be  ill  ufed,  you  do  not  know  what  will  be  innocent  enough  to 

170-  be  kept ;  and  laftly,  that  the  Imputation  of  a  Tendency  to  Scepticifm,  and 
to  the  overthrowing  any  Article  of  the  Chriflian  Faith  are  no  jmall  Charge-^ 

171.  and  that  you  cannot  fee  any  Argument  I  have  brought^  that  your  i^otion  of 
Ideas  tends  to  Scepticifm.  Thefe  things  laid  together,  made  me  think 
it  necefTary  to  do  that  which  I  was  unwilling  to  do,  till  you  had  driven 
me  to  it ;  which  was  to  Ihew  the  Reafons  1  had,  why  I  look'd  on  your. 
Notion  of  Ideas,  and  of  Certainty  by  them,  as  inconfiilent  with  it  felf^ 
and  with  fome  important  Articles  of  the  Chriftian  Faith. 

What  I  have  now  done,  I  thought  it  my  Duty  to  do,  not  with  re- 
fped:  to  my  felf,  but  to  fome  of  the  Myfteries  of  our  Faith;  which  I 
do  not  charge  you  with  oppofing^  but  with  laying  fuch  Foundations  as  do 
tend  to  the  Overthrow  of  them ;  of  which  wc  have  had  too  much  Ex- 
perience already  ;  and  may  have  more,  if  your  Way  of  Certainty  by  Ideas 
fhould  obtain.  Which  I  cannot  think  it  will  among  fuch  as  are  capable, 
and  willing,  to  judge  impartially.  I  have  now  done  with  this  Matter : 
And  as  fome  may  think  it  the  firft  part  of  Wifdom  not  to  begin  in  fuch 
Difputes  (and  I  am  of  their  Mind  if  they  did  not  touch  the  Chriftian 
Faith)  fo  they  cannot  but  judge  it  the  next  (as  \  do)  to  know  when  to 
make  an  End. 

I  am,  Sir, 

Tour  faithful  Friend^ 

Sept.  22.  and  Servant, 

1697,  * 


Ed.  Wigorn. 


E  C- 


6i^ 


ECCLESIASTICAL  CASES 

Relating  to  the 

DUTIESand  RIGHTS 

O  F    T  H  E 

Parochial  Clergy, 

Stated  and  Refolved  according  to  the  P  R I N  C I P  L  E  S  of 
CONSCIENCE  and  LAW. 


To  the  Revexend 

CLERGY 

OF    THE 

DIOCESE  oi  WORCESTER. 

My  Brethren, 

THE  follovp'itig  DifiOHrfes  do  of  Right  belong  to  Tout,  the  Suh 
fiance  of  them  being  contained  in  what  I  delivered  to  You  infeve' 
ral  Times  and  Place f^  in  the  Courfe  of  my  Vifitations :  In  which 
1  endeavoured  to  lay  open  the  Nature  and  Dignity  of  your 
Fnn&ion^  the  Rules  you  are  to  ohferve  in  the  Difcharge  of  it,  and  to 
/late  and  refolve  the  mofi  important  Cafes^  which  relate  to  your  Duties  and 
Rights,  according  to  the  Principles  both  of  Law  and  Confcience.  For  I 
obferved,  that  fame  had  fpoken  very  well  of  the  General  Nature  of  the  Eccle- 
fiaflical  Fun^ion,  without  a  particular  regard  to  the  Limitations  of  the  Ex- 
ercife  of  it  by  our  Laws.  Others  had  endeavoured  to  give  Advice  and  Coun- 
fel  in  Point  of  Law,  who  meddle  not  with  theObl/gation  of  Confcience.  And 
therefore  I  thought  it  neceffary  to  joyn  both  thefe  together.,  that  you  might 
have  a  clear  and  difiinS  View  of  your  Duties  in  both  RefpeiJs.  For  in  a 
matter  ofpofitive  Infiitution,  where  only  the  General  Duties  are  prefribed  in 
Scripture,  and  the  Bounds  of  the  Exercife  of  them  depend  upon  the  Laws  of 
the  Land,  I  could  not  fee  how  any  Perfon  could  fatisfie  himfelfin  the  Dif- 
charge of  his  Duty,  without  a  regard  to  both.  For  the  Care  of  Souls  in  Gc 
neral,  is  a  maltir  ofwonderful  Weight  and  Importance,  and  can  never  be 
fufficiently  confidered  hy  thofe  who  are  concerned  in  it.  But  no  M.an  among 
ut  takes  upon  him  an  indefini'e  Care  of  Souls,  without  regard  to  Perfons  or 
Places  ;   for  that  would  produce   Confiifion  and  endlefs  Scruples^    and 

1 11  i  Per- 


14-  ThePRE_FACE. 


Perplexities  ofCoufciehce  about  the   'Nature  and  Obligation  to  f  articular 
Du'iei.  '       ■     , 

Whi<:h  cannot  he  prevented  or  removtd  ■without  a  right  underjianding  the 
different  Refped  all  that  have  taken  our  Holy  Funilion  upon  them,  defland 
in  both  to  the  Church  in  General^  And  to  that  particular  Cure  of  Souls  which 
they  are  admitted  to.  The  beji  way  I  knovp  to  reprefent  them,  Js4o  conjider 
the  Cafe  ofDimitiion  and  Property  ;  and  how  far  the  ZJnherfal  Obligition 
of  Mankind  to  promote  each  others  Good,  is  conjifient  with  the  Care  of  their 
own  and  Families  Welfare.  Adam  had  in  himfelfthe  Entire  andOriginal 
Dominion  over  all  thofe  Things,  which  after  became  the  Suhje^  of  particular 
Property  ;  when  his  Pojierity  found  it  neceffary  to  make  and  aUffw  feveral 
Shares  and  Allotments  to  difiinit  Families,  fo  af  they  were  not  to  incroach, 
or  break  in  upon  one  another.  But  the  Law  of  Nature  did  not  prefcribe  the 
Way  and  Method  of  Partition,  but  left  that  to  Occupancy  or  Compad  : 
And  fo  the  Heads  of  Families  upon  their  Settlement  in  any  Count  rey,  had  a 
twofold  Obligation  upon  them  ^  thejirft  was  to  preferve  the  Interejl  of  the 
Tphole  Body,  to  which  they  Jiill  were  bound,  and  were  to  fhew  it  uponfuch 
Occafions  as  required  it.  The  next  was  to  take  particular  Care  of  thofe  Shares 
which  belof7ged  to  themfelves,  fo  as  to  improve  them  for  their  Service,  and 
to  proteB  themfom  the  Invafton  of  others,  dnd  although  this  Divifion  of 
Property  was  not  made  by  any  Antecedent  Law,  yet  being  once  made,  and  fo 
ufeful  to  Mankind,  the  Violation  of  it,  by  taking  that  which  is  anothers 
Righ  t,  is  a  manife(i  Violation  of  the  Law  of  Nature. 

I  do  not  thinks  that  the  Difiribution  of  Ecclejiaflical  Cures  ^  for  the  great' 
er  Benefit  off  he  People,  is  of  fofiri&  a  Nature  5  becaufe  the  Matter  off  Pro- 
perty doth  not  extend  to  this  Cafe  in  fuch  a  manner.  But  fince  an  Univer- 
fal  Good  is  carried  on  by  fuch  a  Divfion  far  better  than  it  could  be  without 
it,  there  "  an  Obligation  lying  on  al/  Perfons  who  regard  it,  to  preferve  that_ 
Order  which  conduces  to  fo  good  an  End.  And  I  cannot  fee  how  any  Per- 
fons  can  better  jufUfie  the  Breach  of  Parochial  Communion  as  fuch,  than  0- 
thers  can  juftifie  the  altering  the  Bounds  of  Mens  Rights  and  Properties,  he- 
caufe  they  apprehend  that  the  common  Good  may  be  befi  promoted  by  return' 
itfg  to  the  firfi  Community  of  all  things. 

If  our  Blefled  Saviour,    or  his  Holy  Apoftles  in  the  firfi  fouudiiig  of 
Churches,  had  determined  the  Number  of  Ferfons,    or  fixed  the  Bounds  of 
Places  within  which  thofe  who  were  ordained  tofo  holy  a  Fun  ff  ion,   were  to 
take  eare  of  the  Souls  committed  to  them,  there  could  have  been  no  Difpute  d- 
bottt  it  among  thofe  who  owned  their  Authority.     But  their  Bufinefs  was  to 
lay  down  the  Salifications  of  fuch  as  were  fit  to  be  imployed  in  it  ;    to  fet 
before  them  the  Nature  of  their  Duties,   and  the  Account  they  mufi  give  of 
theDifcharge  of  them '^  and  to  Exhort  all  fuch  as  undertook  it  to  a  Watchful^ 
ttefs,    and  Diligence  in  their  Places  5    but  they  never  go  about  to  limit 
the  Precin&s,    within  which  they  were  to  Exercife  the  Duties  incumbent 
upon  them. 

When  churches  were  firfi:  planted  in  feveral  Countries,  there  could  be  no 
fuch  things  expe&ed  as  Parochial  Divifions  5  for  thefe  were  the  Confequents 
of  the  Generaifpreading  of  Chr'ii^hmtY  among  the  People.  As  is  evident 
in  the  befi  Account  we  have  of  the  Settlement  of  the  Parochial  Clergy  among 
us,  after  Qhxx^i'xmtY  Tvas  received  by  the  ^■3LyiOV\%,  W hie h  was  not  done  dU 
at  once,  but  by  feveral  Steps  and  Degrees,  h  cannot  be  denied  by  any,  that 
are  converfwt  in  our  Hi/iories,  that  the  Nation  was  gradually  converted  front 
Paganifm  by  the  fuccefsfitl  Endeavours  of  fame  Bifiiaps  and  their  Clergy  in 
the  feveral  Parts  of  Er)^hn<i. 

^  Not 


The   PREPACK  615 

Not  by  CommiifiM  from  one  Perfon  (^  lU  k  commonly  fUppofed')   but  feve- 
ral  B-fJyjps  came  from  fever al  Places,    and  applied  themjelves  to  this  Excel- 
lent Work,    and  God  gave  them  conjiderablc  Sttccefs  in  it.     Thus  Birinus 
did  great  Service  among  the  Weft-Saxons  ;   af!d  Felix  the  Burgundlan  a- 
mong  the  Eaft-Saxons  ^    and  /^e  Northern  Bijhops  in  the  Midland-Parts, 
as  well  as  Auguftin  a)!d  his  Companions  in  the  Kingdom  ofY^Qwt.     And  in 
/Ae/e  Midland-Parts,    as  Q\\x\'!S!\2imx.^  increafed,  y^ /Ae  Biftiop's  Sees  were 
multiplied  (  Five  out  of  One  )  and  plwed  in  themoji  convenient  Dijiances 
for  the  farther  inlarging  and  ejiablifljing  Chriftianity  among  the  People. 
The  Bifjops  vpere  Refdent  in  their  oven  Sees,    and  had  their  Clergy  then  ttr- 
bout  them,  whom  they  fent^abroad,  as  they  favo  caufe,    to  thofe  Places  whefe 
they  had  the  fairejl  Hopes  ofSuccefs.    And  accordingthereto  they  either  con- 
tinued  or  lemoved  them,  having  yet  no  fixed  Cares  or  Tk\es.     AUthefirfi 
Titles  rvere  no  other  than  being  entred  in  the  Bifjop'r  Regijier,    as  of  his 
Clergy,  fom which  Relation  none  could  d'fcharge  himfelf    without  the  Bi- 
fhops  Con  feat.     But  as  yet  the  Clergy  had  no  Titles  to  any  particular  Places^ 
there  being  no  fixed  Bounds  ofParifl.es,     wherein  any  Perfons  were  obliged 
to  be  Refident  for  the  better  Difcharge  of  their  Duties.     This'  State  of  an  un- 
fixed and  itinerant    Clergy  was  foon  found  to  be  very  inconvenient  ^    and 
therefore  all  Ir.couragement  was  given,    where  Chriftianity  mofi  prevailed, 
for  the  building  Churches  at  a  convenient  L  ifiance  from  the  Cathedral,    and 
fetli/:g  a  Number  of  Presbyters  together  there,  which  were  after  called  Colle- 
giate Churches  ^    and  the  Great  and  Devout  Men  of  that  Time  gave  them 
Liberal  Endowments  that  they  might  the  better  attend  the  Service  of  Gad 
there,  and  in  the  Countrey  about  them. 

But  after  that  the  fever  al  Parts  grew  to  be  more  populous,  and  Lords  of 
Alannors,  for  the  Conveniency  of  ihemfelves  and  their  Tenants,  were  wit-  ^ 
ling  to  ereU  Churches  within  their  PrecinBs  5  Laws  were  then  made  that 
they  m'ght  detain  one  Share  of  the  Tythes  for  the  Supply  of  this  New  Churchy 
the  other  two  remaining  due  to  the  Mother-Church.'  And  I  can  find  no- 
thing like  any  Allowance  for  the  Lords  of  Mann  or  s  to  appropriate  the  other 
Two  Parts  'IS  they  thought  fit.  For  thofe  Mannors  themfelvcs  were  but 
Parcels  of  larger  Parifhes  ;  and  the  Tythes  were  due  frpm  thofe  Eflater^ 
which^wereno  part  of  their  Mannors, and  therefore  they  had  nothing  to  do  with 
them. 

But  after  the  "Norman  Invafion,  the  poor  ParocbhX  Ckrgy  being  Saxons, 
and  the  Nobility  and  Biflwps  Normans,  they  regarded  not  how  much  they 
reduced  the  Infer i our  Clergy,  to  enrich  theMonafieries  belonging  totheNoT- 
mans,  either  at  home  or  abroad.  And  this  I  take  to  be  the  true  Reajon  of 
the  Multitude  ^/'Appropriations  of  Two  Thirds  of  the  Tythes  in  the  Nor- 
man Times,  and  too  often  with  the  Confent  of  the  Bijhops^  who  ought  to 
havefljewed  more  Regard  ta  the  Intereftofthe  Parochial  Clergy  than  they 
generally  did. 

But  of  this  I  have  difcourfed  more  at  large  in  one  of  the  following  P.2jj,iie. 
Cafes. 

In  the  latter  end  of  the  Saxon  Times,  if  we  believe  thofe  called  the  Con- 
feflbr's  Law,  after  all  the  DaniQi  Devaftations,  there  were  Three  or 
Four  Churches  where  there  had  been  but  One  before.  By  which  it  ap- 
pears that  the  Parochial  Clergy  were  Numerous  before  the  Conquefl.  And 
within  this  Diocefs,  in  Two  Deanaries  of  it,  there  are  tabe  found  in 
Doomfday  Book  above  Twenty  Parifh-Churches  :  In  the  Deanary  of 
Warwick,  Ten  ^  and  in  the  Deanary  <7/Kington,  Fifteen  :  But  of  the 
former  Seven  were  Appropriated  in  the  Norman  Times  3   and  of  the  latter 

I  i  i  i  2  Ten  3, 


6i6  The  PREFACE.  _^ 

Ten  ^   by  which  we  may  fee  to  how  low  a  Condition  they  then  brought  the 
Parochial  Clergy.     One  Church  in  the  former  Deanary  Ififtd  built  in  that 
time,    and  that  tvas  at  Exhsil :,    which  rvas  before  a  Chapel  ff?  Sal  ford,    but 
was  EreSedin  the  time  ofH.  i.  by  the  Lord  of  the  Mannor  and  Freeholders, 
who  gave  the  Glebe  and  Tythes,  as  appears  by  the  Confirmation  of  Simon, 
Bijhop  of  Worcefter.     Many  other  Parochial  Churches,  I  doubt  not,  were 
built  and  endowed  after  the  fame  manner,  although  the  Records  of  them  are 
lofl.     And  as  Churches  were  new  Erected,    the  Parochial  Bounds  were  fix- 
ed, that  the  People  might  certainly  know  whither  they  were  torefort  for  Di- 
.vine  fVorjhip,  who  were  bound  to  attend  them  as  part  of  their  Charge,  from 
pphofe  Hands  they  were  to  receive  the  Holy  Sacratnents  5    and  whofe  Advice 
and  Counfel  they  were  to  take  in  Matters  which  related  to  the  Salvation  of 
their  Souls.     Now  here  lies  the  main  Difficulty  withfome  People  5  they  can- 
not think  that  Parochial  Bounds  are  to  determine  them  in  what  concerns 
the  Good  of  their  Souls  5  but  if  they  can  edifie  more  by  the  Parts  and  Gifts  of 
another,  they  conclude,    that  it  is  their  Duty  to  for  fake  their  own  Minifier, 
iind  go  to  fuch  a  one  as  they  like.     I  meddle  not  with  extraordinary  Occaji- 
ons  of  Absence,   nor  with  the  Cafe  /^/Scandalous  Incumbents,    becaufe  it  is 
J  he  Peoples  Fault  if  they  be  not  profei  uted,  and  the  PI  are  fupphed  by  better 
Men.     But  the  Cafe,  as  it  ought  to  be  put,    is,   how  far   a  Regard  is  to  be 
(hewed  to  aCo»Jiitutio»fo  much  for  the  General  Good,   as  that  <i>/Parochial 
Communion  is.    I'^e  do  not  fay.  That  Mens  Confciences  are  bound  byPtr- 
..ambulations,  or  that  it  is  a  Sin  at  any  time  to  go  to  another  Parijh  ^  but  we 
fay.  That  a  conjiant  fixed  Parochial  Communion,    tends  more  to  preferve 
the  Honour  of  God,    and  the  Religion  Ejiablijhed  among  us,    to  promote 
Peace  and  Unity  among  Neighbours,  and  to  prevent  the  Mifchief  of  Separa- 
tion.,   And  what  advances  fo  good  Ends,  is  certainly  the  beji  Means  of  E- 
'dification  :     Which  lies  not  in  moving  the  Fanfie,  or  warming  the  Pajflons, 
but  in  what  brings  Men  to  a  due  .Temper  of  Mind,    and  a  holy,  peaceable, 
and  unblameable  Converfation.     And  as  to  thefe  Excellent  Ends,  it  is  not 
only  your  Duty  with  great  Zeal  and  Diligence  to  perfwade  your  People  tp 
•thent:^   but  to  go  before  them  your  felves  in  the  Pra&ice  0f  them.      For  thef 
will  never  have  any  hearty  Regard  or  Efieem  for  what  any  one  fays,    if  they 
find  him  to  contradiSi  it  in  the  Cturfe  of  his  Life.     Suppofe  it  be  the  Peo- 
ples Fault  to  /hew  fo  little  Regard  to  your  Frofejfion  ^    yet  you  are  bound  to 
confider  how  far  you  may  have  given  too  much  Occapon  for  it,    and  their 
Fault  can  be  no  Excufe  for  jou,    if  any  of  your  own  were  the  true  Occafion 
of  theirs. 

We  live  in  an  Age  wherein  the  Converfation s  of  the  Clergy  are  more  ohfer' 
ved  than  their  DoSrines.  Too  many  are  bufie  in  finding  out  the  Faults  of 
the  Clergy.^  the  better  to  ewer  their  own  ^  and  among  fuch  Prieft-craft  is  be- 
come the  mofi  popular  Argument  for  their  Infidelity.  If  they  could  once  make 
it  appear,  that  all  Religion  were  nothing  but  a  Cheat  and  Impofiure  offome- 
^  r  ^j  ,^  cunning  Min  for  their  own  Advantage,  who  believed  nothing  of  it  thentr 
felves  ;  and  that  all  the  bufinefs  of  our  Profcffion  was  to  fupport  fuch  a  Pratia 
in  the  World  for  our  own  Inter efi,  they  were  very  excujable  in  their  moji  bit- 
ter Inve&ives  againft  fuch  Pncit-craft.  For  nothing  is  more  to  be  abhorred  by 
Men  of  Ingenuous  Minds,  and  Natural  Probity,  than  to  be  the  Infiruments  of 
Deceiving  Mankind  infogrofs  a  manner.  But,  thanks  be  to  God,  thu  is  very  far 
from  being  the  Cafe  among  its  ifor  our  I  rofejpon  is  built  upon  the  Belief  of  God 
and  Providence, the  Differences  of  Good  and  Evil,  and  the  Rewards  and  Pu- 
nifbmentsof  anotl>er  Life.  If  thefe  Things  have  no  Foundations^  we  are  certain 
that  the  beU,  and  wifeji,  and  mofi  dfinterefied  Men  in  alt  Ages  have  been  in 

the 


The  PREFACE.  6ti 


the  fame  fundamental  Miflakei.  And  it  is  norv  fomewhat  too  late  for  any 
Verfotjs  to  fet  up  for  Sagacity  and  true  Judgment  in  thefe  Matters  ahove  all 
thofe  of  foregoing  Ages.  There  is  a  mightyDifference  between  flight  and 
fuperficial  Reafonings,  (although  fomc  may  be  vain  enough  to  cry  them  up  for 
Oracle*)  and  thofe  which  are  built  on  the  Nature  of  Things,  and  have  horn 
the  Teji  of  fo  many  Ages,  and  remain  Jiill  in  the  fame  Degree  of  Firmnefs 
and  Strength,  notwithjiattding  all  the  Batteries  of  Profane  and  Atheifiical 
Wits.  For  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  fnch  there  have  been  in  former  times 
as  well  as  now  5  but  that  makes  more  for  the  Advantage  of  Religion,  that 
our  modern  Pretenders  are  fain  to  borrow  from  the  old  Stock  5  and  fcarce 
■  any  thing  worth  anfwering  hath  been  faid  by  them,  but  hath  been  often  faid 
and  with  more  Force  by  their  Majlers.  And  the  beji  Philofophers  of  this 
Age  have  given  up  the  Caufe  of  Aiheifm  as  indefinable  :  So  that  the  Be- 
ing of  God  and  Providence  feems  to  be  ejiablijhed  by  a  General  Confenf  ^  ' 
and  if  any  fecretly  be  of  another  Mind,  they  think  it  not  for  their  RepH* 
tation  to  own  it. 

The  main  Pretence  now  if  againfl  Revealed  Religion  ;   but  with  jut  of- 
fering to  (Ihw  how  fo  great  and  confiderable  apivt  0/ Mankind  as  the  Cbri- 
(tian  Church  hath  been  made  up  of  came  to  be  fo  impofed  upon,  as  to  a  Do^ 
&rine  which  advances  Morality  to  the  greatefl  Height,  and  gives  Mankind 
the  Moji  affured  Hopes  of  a  Blejfed  Immortality,  when  nothing  like  Intereft 
and  Defign  as  to  this  World,  could  be  carried  on  by  the  frji  and  greateji 
Promoters  of  it.     But  we  are  told  in  a  late  Complaint  made  abroad  by  a, 
Friend  of  our  Deifts,  (wherein  I  am  particularly  concerned^  That  WC  Hifloire 
make  Objeftions  for  them  which  are  moft  eafy  to  anfwer,  and  pafs  o- ges'^'j^gY*' 
ver  their  moft  confiderable  Difficulties      Which  is  a  very  unjujl  Charge,  Scivam, 
and  cannot  be  made  good  but  by  producing  thofe  confiderable  Difficulties  \^^^ 
vphich  we  have  taken  no  notice  of     For  my  part,  Iknow  of  none  fnch,  and  p.  jjt. 
we  make  no  Objedions  for  them,  however  n>e  may  think  it  our  Duty  to 
lay  opVn  the  Weaknefs  of  them,  when  we  are  importuned  to  do  it  5    which 
Teas  my  Cafe  in  the  Treatife  I  fuppofe  he  refers  to.     If  they  keep  their  con* 
fiderable  Difficulties  to  themfelves,  Iknownot  how  we  jhould  be  able  to  an- 
fwer them.     But  it  is  the  common  way  in  a  baffied  Caufe  JiiS to  pretend  that 
the  main  Difficulties  were  not  produced. 

But  this  is  not  a  proper  Occapon  to  infji  longer  on  thefe  Matters  5  my 
prefenr  Bupnefs  if  to  anfwer  the  Ohje^ion  whit  h  immediately  regards  the 
Clergy  t,  and  the  Sum  of  it  is,That  our  Profjpon  rather  hinders  than  confirms 
the  belief  of  Religion,  becaufe  they  would  plead  for  what  makes  for  their 
Intereft,  are  always  fufpefted  to  be  fwayed  more  by  Intereft  than  by 
Reafon.  To  give  a  fill  and  clear  Anfwer  to  this,  we  mufi  confider.  That 
however  Mankind  are  apt  to  he  fwayed  by  Interefi,  yet  the  Truth  and  Rea- 
fon of  Things  do  ngt  at  all  depend  upon  the/ft  ^  for  a  Thing  is  not  true  or 
falfe  in  it  jelf,  becaufe  it  makes  for  or  againji  a  Man  ^  and  the  Meafures  of 
jftdging  Truth  and  FalfJjood,  are  quite  of  another  Nature,  and  fo  Mens  /«- 
terefls  come  not  into  Confider ation.  So  that  in  this  Cafe  they  are  not  to  ex' 
amine  whofe  Turn  is  ferved,  whether  fuch  a  thing  be  true  or  falfe  5  but 
whether  there  be  fufficient  Evidence  to  convince  an  impartial  Mind  of  the 
Truth  of  it  ^  for  let  the  Reafons  be  produced  by  whom  they  pleafe,  the  grounds 
of  ConvsBion  are  the  fame.  If  a  Man  in  a  Difpute  about  Surveying  a 
piece  of  Land,  which  he  claimed  a  Right  to,  fljould  appeal  to  the  Elementt 
of  Geometry  in  his  Cafe,  would  the  Evidence  be  left  becaufe  he  was  concern- 
ed in  the  hand  .<? 


But 


^^8 The    PREFACE. 

But  tve  proceed  farther  :  Suppofc  it  be  for  the  Interefl  of  Religion  rtt  a 
Nation,  for  a»  Order  of  Men  to  be  fet  apart  on  purpofe  to  attend  the  Ser- 
vices of  it  •■)  and  that  there  Jlyould  be  great  Encouragements  for  their  Edu- 
cation^  and  a  Maintenance  fet  apart  for  their  Suhfiflence  afterwards,  that 
they  may  not  live  in  dependance  on  the  Humours  and  uncertain  Fancies  of 
the  People 'j  hove  can  fuch  a  Confiitution  take  off  frotn  the  Credibility  of  that 
Religion  which  they  a>e  to  fupport  /  Was  it  any  leffening  to  the  Authority 
of  the  Larv  of  MoCes,  that  the  Tribe  of  Levi  was  fo  plentifully  provided 
for  bjf  God's  own  Appo.ntment  .<?  Thef  were  to  teach  the  Law  to  the  Peo- 
ple in  the  Places  where  they  ivere  difperfed  among  the  fever al  Tribes  :  And 
fuppofe  it  had  been  then  faid.  Why  Jhould  we  believe  what  you  fay,  when 
you  live  by  it  .<?  To%t  have  Cities,  and  Lands,  and  Tythes,  and  Oblations, 
and  Dignities  among  you,  no  wonder  you  fet  up  thk  Law  as  Divine  and 
Holy  ^  but  we  gel  nothing  by  it,  but  part  with  a  flure  of  our  Profits  to 
maintain  fou.  What  then  ^  Was  the  Law  therefore  falje,  and  Mofes  an 
Impofior}  Thefc  are  hard  Confqitences,  but  they  naturally  follow  from  fuch 
a  Suppofition.  And  if  fuch  an  Inference  were  not  reafnable  then,  neither 
reijl  it  appear  to  be  fo  now. 

But  we  do  not  pretend,  that  the  Parochial  Settlement  of  our  Clergy  if  by 
fuch  a  Divine  Law  as  the  Levitical  Priefihood  was  ;  but  this  we  do  inffi 
upon.  That  the  Chrijiian  Religion  being  owned  and  eJiabUP-'ed  in  the  Nati- 
on, there  was  a  neceffkry  Reafon  from  the  Nature  of  it,  and  the  Obligation 
to  preferve  and  fnpport  it,  that  there  fJmild  be  an  Order  of  Men  fet  apart 
for  that  End,  that  they  fbould  inflru^  the  People  in  it,  and  perform  the 
feveral  Offices  belonging  to  it :,  and  that  dfufficient  Maintenance  be  allowed 
them  by  the  Law  of  the  Land  to  fupport  them  in  doing  their  Duties.  And 
I  appeal  to  any  Men  ofSenfe  or  of  common  TJnderflanding,  whether  on  Sup' 
pofition  that  our  Religion  is  true,  thefe  be  not  very  jufl  and  reafonahle 
Things  .«■  How  then  can  that  make  a  Religion  fttfpe&ed  to  be  falfe,  which 
are  very  reafonable,  fuppoftng  it  to  be  true  ?  If  it  be  true,  as  mofi  certainly 
it  is,  are  jiot  they  bound  to  maintain  it  to  be  true  ?  And  can  it  be  the  left 
fo,  becaufe  their  Subfiflence  depends  upon  it  .<?  Therefore  all  the  impertinent 
Talk  of  our  Profeffion  being  a  Trade,  can  fignify  nothing  to  any  Men  that 
ttnderfiand  the  Difference  between  Scarron  and  Euclid,  or  the  way  of  Bur- 
lefquing  and  of  Demonftration. 

There  is  flill  one  common  Prejudice  to  be  removed,  and  that  is.  That 
too  many  of  thofe  who  preach  up  our  Religion  as  true,  do  not  live  as 
if  they  believed  it  to  be  fo.  We  are  very  frry  there  jJoould  be  any  Occa- 
fion  given  fur  fuih  a  Reproach  as  this ^  and  voe  hope  there  are  not  fo  many 
Inflances  of  it  as  fome  would  have  it  believed.  Woe  be  to  thofe  by  whom 
fuch  Offences  come.  But  fuppofing  the  Inflames  true,  is  there  any  Religion 
in  the  World,  confidering  the  Follies  and  Infirmities  of  Mankind,  which 
can  fecure  all  the  Profeffors  of  it  from  a&tng  againfl  the  Rules  of  it  ^  But 
if  fuch  hijlances  are  fufficiently  proved,  there  ought  to  be  the  greater  Seve- 
rity ufed  in  fuch  Cafes,  becaufe  Religion  itfelf  as  n^ll  as  the  Honour  of  our 
Church,  fuffers  fo  much  by  them. 

But  it  will  ftill  be  faid.  That  thefe  Perfons  are  fecrct  Infidels,  and 
believe  nothing  of  what  they  profefs. 

T^his  is  another  Point,  how  far  bad  Lives  are  confljlent  with  found  Opi- 
nions .  Some  that  think  that  Men  aB  confiflently,  will  not  allow  that  bad 
Men  can  be  any  other  than  meer  Infidels  ^  but  others,  who  confider  the  Pre- 
valency  of  Mens  Lufis  and  Fajfions  over  their  Reafons,  are  apt  to  think, 
that  they  may  retain  their  good  Opinions,  even  when  they  a£f  contrary  to 

them : 


€ 


Tlie  PR  tF  ACE.  <6t9 


them  :  But  then  their  C'ittfciences  fly  in  their  Faces,  and  they  condemn 
thetafelves  for  their  evil  A&ions.  And  then  thefe  very  Inftances  are  an 
Argument  again fi  Infldelity  i,  for  we  may  jfifilj  prefume,  that  they  would 
fiake  off  their  Pears  of  another  World,  if  they  could.  But  why  ff^ould  fome 
Infiancei  of  this  Nature  fgtjify  mdrt  againfl  Religion,  than  the  many  re- 
markable Examples  of  a  Godly,  Righfeous  and  Sober  Life  among  the 
Clergy,  to  a  flronger  Confii^al^n  of  it  ?  For  they  have  had  greater  Occa- 
fitn  of  fearching  into  all  tht  GoHfiderable  Difficulties  about  Religion,  thah 
others  can  pretend  to  ;  and  L  do  not  linotB  any  that  have  implofed  fkofl 
Time  and  Pains  about  it,  but  have  had  greater  SatiifaUion  as  to  the  Truth 
and  Excellency  of  it. 

Thus  I  have  endeavoured  to  remove  the  mofi  common  Prejudices  of  our 
Times  agaif/fi  our  Profejfian.  It  would  now  be  froperi  for  me  to  give  fame 
particular  Dire&ions  to  you,  but  that  is  fo  much  the  Dufineft  of  the  following 
Difcourfes,  that  I  /hall  refer  you  to  them  ^  and  commend  you  to  the  Grace 
and  BleJJing  of  Almighty  Gdd,  that  you  tHay  fo  Carefully  difcharge  your 
Duties  in  this  World,  that  it, may  advance  your  Happinefs  in  another.     I 


am 


m/tUhury  C. 
Apr.  23. 1698. 


Your  Affedionate  Friend 
and  Brother, 


ei)W.   WIGORN. 


T  HE 


620 


THE 

BISHOP  of  WORCESTER'S 

CHARGE 

T  O    T  H  E 

CLERGY  of  his  D I  o  c  E  s  E  i 

In  his  Primary  Vtfitathn,  begun  at  Worcejler^   Septem- 
ber nth,  i^^o. 


T 


My  Brethretty 

HIS  being  my  Primary  Vifitation,  I  thought  it  fitting  to  ac- 
quaint my  felf  with  the  ancient,  as  well  as  modern  Praftice 
of  Epifcopal  Vifitations  ;  and,  as  near  as  I  could,  to  obferve 
the  Rules  prefcribed  therein,  with  refpeft  to  the  Clergy  who 
are  now  fummoned  to  appear.    And  I  find  there  were  two  principal 
Parts  in  them,  a  Charge  and  an  Enquiry. 
Regino  /.      The  Charge  was  given  by  the  Bi/hop  himfelf,  and  was  called  Admoni- 
Hifpan°^  ^^''^P^fi^ph  or  Allocutio:  wherein  he  informed  them  of  their  Duty,  and 
concii.'    exhorted  them  to  perform  it. 

h  »$>•  The  Enquiry  was  made  according  to  certain  Articles  drawn  out  of  the 

Coficft.  (^^"OHs^  winch  were  generally  the  fame  5  according  to  which  the  Jh- 
C3non.i.2. ratoref  Synod f  (as  the  ancient  Canottijls  call  them,  ov  Tefies  Synodales) 

Burchard.  ^^'"^  ^'^  8*^^  *"  *^^'*'  -^"fi"^^^  "po"  Oath  ^  which  was  therefore  called 
/.  I.  c.9z\jHr  amentum  Synodales^  for  the  Bifhop'sViftation  was  accounted  an  Epif- 
^-  .        copal  Synod. 

3  J. }.  5.       The  former  of  thefe  is  my  prefent  bufinefs ;  and  I  (hall  take  leave  to 
«.  7-        fpeak  my  Mind  freely  to  you  this  firft  time,  concerning  feveral  things 
which  I  think  moft  ufeful,  and  fit  to  be  confidered  and  praftifed  by 
the  Clergy  of  this  Dhcefe. 

For  fince  it  hath  pleafed  God,  by  his  wife  and  over-ruling  Providence, 
(without  my  feeking)  to  bring  me  into  this  Station  in  his  Church,  I 
(hall  efteem  it  the  beft  Circumftance  of  my  prefent  Condition,  if  he 
pleafe  to  make  me  an  Inftrumenr  of  doing  good  among  you.     To  this 
end,  I  thought  li  neceffary  in  the  firfi  place,  moft  humbly  to  implore 
his  Divine  AfCftance,  that  I  might  both  rightly  underftand,  and  con- 
fcientioufly  perform  that  great  Duty  which  is  incumbent  upon  me  ^ 
tor  without  his  help,  all  our  Thoughts  are  vain,  and  our  be(t  Purpofes 
will-  be  inefFeftual,     But  God  is  not  wanting  to  thofe  who  fincerely  en- 
deavour to  know  and  to  do  their  Duty  -^  and  therefore  in  the  next  place  I 
fet  my  felf  (as  far  as  my  Health  and  other  Occafions  would  permit)  to 
confider  the  Nature  and  Extent  of  my  Duty,  with  a  Kefolution  not  to 
be  difcoiiraged,  although  I  met  with  Difficulties  in  the  performance  of 
it.     For  fuch  is  the  State  and  Condition  of  the  World,  that  no  Man 

c?.n 


of  the  Parochial  Clergy,  621 


can  defign  to  do  good  in  it,  but  when  that  crolTesthe  particular  Interefls 
and  iMciinations  of  others,  hemuft  expeft  to  meet  with  as  much  Trou- 
ble as  their  unquiet  Puffions  can  give  him. 

If  we  therefore  confulted  nothing  but  our  own  Eafe,  the  only  way 
were  to  let  People  follow  their  Humours  and  Inclinations,  and  to  be  as 
little  concerned  as  might  be,  at  what  they  either  fay  or  do.  For  if  we 
go  about  to  rouze  and  awaken  them,  and  much  more  to  reprove  and 
reform  them,  we  Iball  foon  find  them  uneafy  and  impatient  ^  for  few 
love  to  hear  of  their  Faults,  and  fewer  to  amend  them. 

but  it  is  the  peculiar  Honour  of  the  Chrijiian  Religion^  to  have  an 
Order  of  Men  fet  apart,  not  meerly  as  Priefts  to  offer  Sacrjfiies^  (for 
that  all  Religions  have  had)  but  as  Preachers  of  Righeoufnefs,  to  feC 
Good  and  Evil  before  the  People  committed  to  their  Charge^  to  inform 
them  of  their  Duties,  to  reprove  them  for  their  Mifcarriages,  and  that 
not  in  order  to  their  Shame,  but  their  Reformation  ;  which  requires 
not  only  Zeal,  but  Difcrctiof/,  and  a  great  Mixture  of  Courage  and  Pru- 
dence, that  we  may  neither  fail  in  doing  our  Duty,  nor  in  the  beft 
means  of  attaining  the  end  of  it. 

If  we  could  reafonably  fuppofe,  that  all  thofe  who  are  bound  to  tell 
others  their  Duties,  would  certainly  do  their  own,  there  would  be  lefs 
need  of  any  fuch  Office  in  the  Church  as  that  of  B'fldops  ;  who  are  to 
infpeA  and  govern,  and  vifit  and  reform  thofe  who  are  to  watch  over 
others.     But  fince  there  may  be  too  great  Failings  even  in  thefe,  too 
great  negled  in  fome,  and  diforder  in  others  ^  too  great  pronenefs  to 
Fadion  and  Schifm.and  impatience  of  Contradiftion  from  mere  Equals. 
Therefore  St.  Jerom  himfelf  grants,  That  to  avoid  thefe  Mifchiefs,  there 
was  a  neceflity  of  a  fuperiour  Order  to  Presbyters  in  the  Church  of  God  5  nieron. 
ad  quem  omnis  Ecclefis  cura  pertineret,  &  Schifmatttm  femitia  tollerentur.  Comment. 
as  hefpeaks,  even  where  he  feemsmoft  to  lefTen  the  Authority  of  Bi-gpift^'ad' 
(hops.     But  whatever  fome  Expreffions  of  his  may  be,  (when  the  Bi-  Evagr. 
fhop  of  Jeriifalem  and  the  Roman  Deacons  came  into  his  Head)  his  Rea- 
fons  are  very  much  for  the  Advantage  of  Epifcopal  Government.    For 
can  any  Man  fay  more  in  point  of  Rcafon  for  it,  than  that  nothing  but  Adverf. 
F^^ion  and  Diforder  foUovced  the  Government  of  Presbyters,  and  there-  Luciferian 
fore  the  whole  Chrifliafi  Church  agreed  in  the  necejfity  of  a  higher  Order,  and 
that  the  Peace  and  Safety  of  the  Church  depends  upon  it  ^  that  if  it  be  ta- 
ken away,  nothing  hut  Schifms  and  Confupons  vnll  follow.     I  wifti  thofe 
who  magnify  St.  Jerom'%  Authority  in  this  matter,  would  fubmit  to  his 
Reafon  and  Authority  both  as  to  the  Neceflity  and  Ufefulnefs  of  the  Or- 
der of  Bijhops  in  the  Church. 

But  beyond  this,  in  feveral  places,,  he  makes  the  Bijhops  to  be  Succef  nieron. in 
fors  of  the  Apojiles,  as  well  as  the  refV  of  the  moft  eminent  Fathers  of  Pfai.  ad 
the  Church  have  done.     If  the  Apofiolical  Office,  as  far  as  it  concerns  jj^jfrj  *<« 
the  Care  and  Government  of  Churches,  were  not  to  continue  after  cyprian 
their  Deceafe,  how  came  the  befl,  the  moft  learned,  the  nearefl  to  the  ep-  ?-.6^ 
apofiolical  Times,  to  be  fo  wonderfully  deceivd  >   For  if  the  Bifhops  pc^f.^l. 
did  not  fucceed  by  the  Apoftles  own  Appointment,  they  mutl  be  Intru-  44 
ders  and  Vfurpers  of  the  Apoftolical  Fun&ion ;  and  can  we  imagine  the  Jj^ejh.  4. 
Church  of  God  would  have  fo  univerfally  confented  to  it?    Befides,  n.iCor. 
the  Apoftles  did  not  die  all  at  once  ;  but  there  were  Succefors  in  feve-  ^^.^^J  ^^ 
ral  of  the  Apofiolical  Churches,  while  fome  of  the  Apoftles  were  living  :  ,Tim.i.?. 
Can  we  again  imagine  thofe  would  not  have  vindicated  the  Right  of 
their  own  Order,  and  declared  to  the  Church,  That  thh  Office  was  pe- 

K  k  k  Jc  culiar 


(^  2  2  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights ' 

'"        culiar  to  themfelves?  The  Change  of  the  Name  from  Apojiles  to  Bi- 

jhops  would  not  have  been  fufficient  Excufe  for  them  ^  for  the  Prefump- 

tion  had  been  as  great  tn  the  Exercife  of  the  Power  without  the  Name, 

So  that  I  can  fee  no  Medium,  but  that  either  the  Primitive  Bifhops  did 

fucceed  the  Apojiles  by  their  owfj  Appointment  and  Approbation,  (which 

Iren./.  3.   Jren^eus  exprefly  affirms,    ^ti  ab  Apojiolis  ipfis  injiituti  fuf/t  Ep'fcopi  in 

'^'^'         Eccleftis)  or  elfe  thofe  who  governed  the  Apoftolical  Churches  after 

3  John  9,  them,  out-went  Diotrephes  himfelf  ^    for  he  only  reje&ed  thofe  whom 

'°V  the  Apojiles  fent,  but  thefe  affumed  to  themfelves  the  Exercife  of  an  Apo- 

jlolical  Authority  over  the  Churches  planted  and  fettled  by  them. 

But  to  let  us  fee  how  far  the  Jpojiles  were  from  thinking  that  this 
part  of  their  Office  was  peculiar  to  themfelves,  we  find  them  in  their 
own  time,  as  they  faw  occafion,  to  appoint  others  to  take  care  of  the 
Government  of  the  Churches,  within  fuch  bounds  as  they  thought  fir. 
I  Tim.i.  Thus  Timothy  was  appointed  by  St.  Paul  at  Ephefuf,  to  examine  the 
'    '     ■  Qualifications  of  fuch  as  were  to  be  ordained  ^    and  not  to  lay  hands 
^•'2-     fuddenly  on  any^  to  receive  Accnfatiot2S,  it  there  were  cnufe,  even  agai//Ji 
Elders  5  to  proceed  judicially  before  troo  or  three  Witncffes  ^  and,  it  there 
^°-     wereReafon,  to  gwe  them  a  pnblick  Rebuke.     And  that  this  ought  not 
21.      to  bethought  z  flight  matter,  he  prefently  adds,  I  charge  thee  before  God  ^ 
and  the  hard  Jefus  Chriji,  and  the  elelf  Angels,    that  thou  obferve  the/e 
thifrgs,  ivithout  preferring  one  before  another,  doing  nothing  by  partiality. 
Here  is  a  very  ftrift  and  fevere  Charge  for  the  impartial  Exercife  of 
Difcipline  in  the  Church  upon  Offenders.     And  although  in  theEpiftle 
Titus  1. 5.  to  Titu^,  he  be  only  in  general  required  to  fet  tn  order  the  things  that 
are  wanting,  and  to  ordain  Elders  in  every  City,  as  he  had  appointed  him  5 
yet  we  are  not  to  fuppofe,  that  this  Power  extended  not  to  a  Jurifdi- 
Bion  over  them  when  he  had  ordained  them.    For  if  any  of  thofe 
whom  he  ordained  (as  believing  them  qualified  according  to  the  Apo- 
flles  Rules)  (hould  afterwards  demean  themfelves  other  wife,  and  be 
felfwdled,  frovDard,  given  to  Wine,   Bravelers,  Covetous,   or  any   way 
fcandalous  to  the  Church,  can  we  believe  that  Ttttis  was  not  as  well 
bound  to  corred  them  afterwards,  as  to  examine  them  before  ">   And 
what  was  this  Power  of   Ordination  and  Jurifdiiiion,  but  the  very  fame 
which  the  Bifljops  have  exercifed  ever  fince  the  Apojiles  Times  ?    But 
they  who  go  about  to  ZJnbi/hop  Timothy  and  Tittu,  may  as  well  Un- 
firipture  the  Epijiles  that  were  written  to  them,  and  make  them  only 
fome  particular  and  occafonal  Writings,  as  they  make  Timothy  and  Titus 
to   have  been   only   fome  particular  and  occafional  Offiers.     But  the 
Chrijiian  Church  preferving  thefe  Epijiles,  as  of  conftant  and  perpetual 
ufe,  did  thereby  fuppofe  the  fame  kind  of  Office  to  continue,  for  the 
fake  whereof  thofe  excellent  Hpiftles  were  written:    And  we  have  no 
greater  Affurance  that  thefe  Epijiles  were  written  by  St.  Vaul,  than  we 
have  that  there  were  Bifiops  to  fucceed  the  Apojiles  in  the  Care  and  Go- 
vernment of  Churches. 

Having  faid  thus  much  to  clear  the  Authority  we  aft  by,  I  now  pro- 
ceed to  confidcr  the  Rules  by  which  we  are  to  govern  our  felves. 

Every  Bijhop  of  this  Church,  in  the  time  of  his  Confecration,  makes 
a  folemn  Profeffion  among  other  things,  "  That  he  will  not  only  main- 
*'  tain  and  fet  forward,  as  much  as  lies  in  him,  quietnefs,  love  and 
peace  among  all  Men  ^  but  that  he  will  correft  and  punifti  fuch  as  be 
unquiet,  difobedient,  and  criminous  within  his  Diocefe,  according  to 
fuch  Authority  as  he  hath  by  God's  Word,  and  to  him  (hall  be  com- 
mitted by  the  Ordinance  ofthk  Realm.  So 


«t 


of  the  Varochial  Clergj,  ^23 


So  that  we  have  two  Rules  to  proceed  by,  -y/z..  The  Word  of  God; 
and  the  Ecdejiafiical  Law  of  this  Realm. 

Ci.)  By  the  Word  of  God-^  and  that  requires  from  us,  Diligence,  and 
Care,  and  Faithfulnefs,  and  Impartiality,  remembring  the  Account  we 
muff  give,  that  we  may  do  it  with  Joy  and  not  with  Grief.  And  we  are  not 
itieerly  required  to  correft  and  punifli,  but  to  warn  and  inftruift,  and  ex- 
hort the  Perfons  under  our  Care,  to  do  thofe  things  which  tend  mofl: 
to  the  Honour  of  our  holy  Religion,  and  the  Church  whereof  we  are 
Members.  And  for  thefe  Ends  there  are  fome  thirigs  I  dial!  more  par- 
ticularly recommend  to  you. 

(1.)  That  you  would  often  confider  thefolemn  Charge  that  was  given 
you,  and  the  Profcjfton  you  made  of  your  Refolution  to  do  your  Duty 
ztyonr  Ordiftat'ion. 

I  find  by  the  Provincial  ConjlitHtion  of  this  Church,    that  the  Btfhops  Devoto& 
vpere  to  have  their  folemn  Frofejjlon  read  over  to  them  tTp:ce  in  the  Year,  to  ^°'^'  ^^' 
put  them  in  mind  of  their  Duty.     And  in  the  Legatine  Conftitutions  ofLyndw./. 
Otho,  (22  H.  3.  )  the  fame  Conftitution  is  renewed,  not  meerly  by  a  ^°?' 
Legatine  Power,    but  by  Confcnt  of  the  Archbifjjops  and  Bif)ops  of  both  AngL  vol; 
Provinces  5  wherein  it  is  declared,  That  Bifhups  ought  to  vifit  their  Dio-  ^-f- 182. 
cefes  at  fit  times,    C erred ing  and  Reforming  what  tvas  amip,    and  fowing  ^^^^^ 
the  Word  of  Life  in  the  Lord's  Field ;  and  to  put  them  the  more  in  mind/.  292- 
of  it,    they  were  twice  in  the  Tear  to  have  their  folemn  Profejfion  read  to  Co"cil. 
them.     It  feems  then.    That  Profefjion  contained  thefe  things  in  it ;   or  3.  '/."aiV 
elfe  the  reading  that  could  not    ftir   them  up  to  do  thefe  things. 
What  the  Frofejjton  was  which  Presbyters  then  tnade  at  their  Ordinati- 
on, we  have  not  fo  clear  an  Account,    but  in  the  fame  Council  at  Ox- 
ford, 8  H  5.  it  is  ftriftly  enjoined,  That  all  Redors  and  Fit  ars  fljould  in-  conniz. 
firn&  the  People  committed  to  their  Charge,    and  Feed  them,    Pabulo  Ver-  Provinc. 
bi  Dei,    with  the  Food  of  God's  Word  ^    and  it  is  introduced  with  that  a^^.J?"'' 
Expreflion,    that  they  might  excite  the  Parochial  Clergy  to  be  more  diligent  Presbyte- 
in  what  was  moji  proper  for  thofe  times.     And  if  they  do  it  not,  they  3rep  /-.p- 
there  called  Canes  muti :  and  Lyndwood  beftows  many  other  hard  terms  ^ngi.  Col. 
upon  them,    which  Khali  not  mention  ^    but  he  faith  afterward,    thofe  ^-p-  ^83. 
ivho  do  it  not,  are  but  like  Idols,  which  bear  thefimilitude  of  a  Man,    but  \^tf^ti^'f'^' 
do  not  the  Offices  proper  to  Men.     Nay,  he  goes  fo  far  as  to  fay.    That  7,1.    '  ■ 
the  Spiritual  Food  of  God's  Word  is  as  neceffary  to  the  Health  of  the  Soul,  y*  J,^^''° 
as  Corporal  Food  is  to  the  Health  of  the  Body.     Which  Words  are  taken 
out  of  a  Preface  to  a  Canon  in  the  Decretals  de  Officio  Jud.  Ordinarii,  in- 
ter cetera.     But  they  ferve  very  well  to  (hew  how  much  even  in  the 
dark  times  of  Popery,  they  were  then  convinced  of  the  Necejfity  and 
ZJ/e/;////f/r  of  Preaching.     Thefe  Conjlitutions  were  flighted  fo  much,  Prov.con- 
that  in  9  Edw.  1.  the  Office  of  Preaching  was  funk  fo  low,    that  in  a^^^-^^^ 
Trovincial  Conjiitution  at  that  time,  great  Complaint  is  made  of  the  Igno-  Arch. 
ranee  and  Stupidity  of  the  Parochial  Clergy,  that  they  rather  made  the  Peo-  P'^sby. 
pie  worfe  than  better.     But  at  that  time  the  Preachihg  Friars  had  got  that  concil. 
Work  into  their  Hands  by  particular  Privileges,  where  it  is  well  ob- Angi.  voi.'- 
ferved.    That  they  did  not  go  to  Places  which  mofl  needed  their  help,   but  ^  Z"'  ^^^' 
to  Cities  and  Corporations,  where  they  found  mofl:  Incouragement.  But 
what  Remedy  was  found  by  this  Provincial  Council  ?     Truly,   every 
Tarochial  Prieji  four  times  a  Tear  was  bound  to  read  an  Explication  of  the 
Creed,  Ten  Commandments,    the  two  Precepts  of  Charity,    the  Seven  Works  Concil. 
of  Mercy,  the  Seven-deadly  Sins,  the  Seven  principal  Vcrtues,    and  the  Se-  ^^"1''^^°': 
ven  Sacraments.   This  was  renewed  in  the /'r^z».»te  of  Tc^r^,  (which  had  707. 

Kkkk  2  diftini:t 


^24-  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 

diftinft  Provincial  Cotrjiitntions  )    in  the  time  of  Ediv.  4.    And  here  was 
all  they  were  bound  to  by  thefe  Conflitutions. 

But  when  Wickcliff  and  his  Followers  had  awakened  the  People  fo 
far,  that  there  was  no  fatisfying  them  without  Preaching,    then  a  new 
Concii.     Provincial  Conjiitution  was  made  under  Arundel,  Archbiftiop  of  Canter- 
Angi.Tol.  hnry^    and  the  former  ConJiitHti on  was  reftrained  to  Parochial  Priejit, 
conftittde  ^^^  officiated  as  Curates  5  but  feveral  others  were  authorized  to  Preach  ; 
hseret,  /.   as  (i.)  The  Mendicant  Friars  were  faid  to  be  authorized  Jure  communt, 
'*•*•         or  rather  Privilegiofyeciali,Qaatt}:itrt\oreLyndwood  faith,  itisfaidto  be 
Lyndw.     jHreconimuni,   becaufe  that  Privilege  is  recorded  in  the  Text  of  the  Ca- 
f-  'J*^-      nonLavp')  thefe  were  not  only  allowed  to  preach  in  their  own  Church- 
e.  Dudum  es,    but  in  Platek  publicis^   faith  Lyndvpood,  out  of  the  Canon  Law 
Clem,  de  (^  wherein  thofe  words  were  expreffed  )    and  at  any  hour,    unlefs  it 
^P"  '""=•  were  the  time  of  preaching  in  other  Churches  ^   but  other  Orders,    as 
Attguflinians  and  Carmelites,    had   no  fuch  general  Licence,      Thofe 
Preaching  Friars  were  a  ^ort  o{Licef/fed  Preachers  ^itthattime,  who  had 
no  Cures  of  Souls  ;    but  they  were  then  accounted  a  kind  of  Pajlors. 
jo.  de  A-  For  Jo.  de  Athon.  diftinguifheth  two  forts  of  Payors ;    Thofe  who  had 
thon  in    Ecclefiaftical  Offices,   and  thofe  who  had  none,    but  were  fuch  only 
othobon.  ^'"^''  ^  Exemplo ;   but  they  gave  very  great  difturbance  to  the  Clergy, 
/.  46.       as   the  Pope  himfelf  confefles  in  the  Canon  Law.     (2.)  Legal  Inctm- 
de  Sepd*"  ^^"*^  authorized  to  preach  in  their  own  Parifhes  Jnrefcripto.     All  Per- 
turis.        fons  who  had  Cures  of  Souls,  and  Legal  Titles,   were  faid  to  be  ntijfji  a 
Jure  ad  locum  &  populum  cur<efu£,  and  therefore  might  preach  to  their 
own  People  without  ajpecial  Licence  ;  but  if  any  one  preached  in  other 
parts  of  the  Diocefs,  or  were  a  Stranger  in  it,  then  he  was  to  be  exami- 
ned by  the  Diocefan,  and  if  he  were  found  tarn  Moribus  quam  Scientia 
-     idoneUf,   he  might  fend  him  to  preach  to  one  or  more  Parifhes  as  he 
thought  meet  5  and  he  was  to  fhew  his  Licence  to  the  Incumbent  of  the 
Place,    before  he  was  to  be  permitted  to  preach,   under  the  Epifcopal 
Seal.     And  thus,  as  far  as  I  can  find,    the  Matter  flood  as  to  Preaching, 
before  the  Reformation. 

After  it,  when  the  Office  of  Ordination  was  reviewed  and  brought 
nearer  to  the  Primitive  Form ;  and  inftead  of  delivering  the  Chalice  and 
Fatten,  with  thefe  Words,    Accipe  potejiatem  offerre  Deo  Sacrificium,  &c. 
the  Bifhop  delivered  the  Bible  with  thefe  words.    Take  thou  Authority 
to  Preach  the  Word  of  God,    and  to  Minifier  the  Holy  Sacraments  in  the 
Congregation,  &c.     The  Priefts  Exhortation  was  made  agreeable  there- 
to,  wherein  he  exhorts  the  Perfons  in  the   "  Name  of  our  Lord  Jefus 
Chrifl:,    to  confider  the  Weight  and  Importance  of  the  Office  and 
Charge  they  are  called  to  ^  not  barely  to  inftruft  thofe  who  are  al- 
ready of  Chrift's  Flock,  but  to  endeavour  the  Salvation  of  thofe  who 
"  are  in  the  midft  of  this  naughty  World.     And  therefore  he  perfwades 
"  and  charges  them  from  a  due  regard  to  Chrifl:,    who  fnfFered  for  his 
"  Sheep,  and  to  the  Church  of  Chrift,  which  is  fo  dear  to  him,    too- 
mit  no  Labour,    Care  or  Diligence  in  intruding,    and  reforming 
thofe  who  are  committed  to  their  Charge.    And  the  better  to  ena- 
ble them  to  perform  thefe  things,   there  are  fome  Duties  efpecially 
recommended  to  them,  vi%.  Prayer,    and  Study  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, according  to  which  they  are  to  inftrudt  others,    and  to  order 
their  own  Lives,  and  of  thofe  who  belong  to  them.     And  that  they 
miglitthc  better  attend  fo  great  a  Work,  they  are  required  to  forfake 
**  and  fet  afide   (  as  much  as  they  may  )   all  worldly  Cares  and  Studies, 

*'  and 


of  the  Varochial  Clergj,  $25 


"  and  apply  themfelves  wholly  to  this  one  thing,  that  they  may  fave 
"  .tJaemfelves  and  them  that  hear  them.  After  which  follows  the  fo- 
lemn /V(?/e//z(?;/,  wherein  they  undertake  to  do  thefe  things. 

This  is  that,  my  Brethren,  which  I  earneftly  defireofyou,  that  you 
would  often  confider.     You  are  not  at  liberty  now,    whether  you  wi  1 
do  thefe  things  or  not  5  for  you  are  under  a  mofl:  folemn  Engagement 
to  it.    You  have  put  your  Hands  to  the  Plough,    and  it  is  too  late  to 
.  think  of  looking  back  ;  and  you  all  know  the  Husbandman's  Work  fs 
laborious  and  painful,   and  continually  returning.    It  is  poflible  after 
all  his  Pains,   the  Harveft  may  notanfwer  his  Expeftation  ;    but  yet  if 
he  neither  Plows  nor  Sows,  he  can  expeft  no  Return ;  if  he  be  idle  and 
carelefs,  and  puts  off  the  main  of  his  Work  toothers,  can  he  reafona- 
bly  look  for  the  fame  Succefs  ?  Believe  it,  all  our  Pains  are  little  enough 
to  awake  the  fleepy  and  fecure  Sinners,  to  inftruft  the  Ignorant,    to  re- 
claim the  Vitious,    to  rebuke  the  Profane,  to  convince  the  Erroneous, 
to  fatisfie  the  Doubtful,  to  confirm  the  Wavering,   to  recover  the  Lap- 
fed,    and  to  be  ufeful  to  all,   according  to  their  feveral  Circnmftances 
and  Conditions.    It  is  not  to  preach  a  Sermon  or  two  in  a  Weeks  time 
to  your  Parifhioners,    that  is  the  main  of  your  Duty  -^    that  is  no  fuch  Nonpoteft 
difficult  Task,  if  Men  apply  their  minds  as  they  ought  to  do  to  Divine  c(k  i'aao- 
Matters,  and  do  not  fpend  their  Retirements  in  ufelefs  Studies  ^  but  the  '"'^^'|["^1^" 
great  Difficulty  lies  in  Watching  over  your  Flock,    i.  e.  knowing  their  pusoves' 
Condition,    and  applying  your  felves  fuitably  to  them.     He  that  is  a<^°"ifdit. 
Stranger  to  his  Flock,  and  only  vifits  them  now  and  then,  can  never  be  nefctt."'^ 
faid  to  watch  over  it ;  he  may  watch  over  the  Fleeces,   but  he  underftands  fif^  de  . 
little  of  the  State  of  his  Flock,  viz.   of  the  Diftempers  they  are  under,  ^  "f "of""^ 
and  the  Remedies  proper  for  them. 

TheCafnifls^diy,  That  the  Reafon  why  there  7f  mo  CoMmand  for  Perfinal  ReginM. 
Re/idef/ce  in  Scripture^  is,  hecanfe  the  Nature  of  the  Duty  requires  it ;    for  ^"^j).^' '' 
if  a  Perfon  be  required  to  do  fuch  things  which  cannot  be  done  with-  c.  s.p.s'j. 
out  it,  Repdenceis{m\A\td.     Asa  Pilot  to  a  Ship,   needs  no  Command 
to  be  in  his  Ship  5  for  how  can  he  do  the  Office  of  a  Pilot  out  of  it  ? 
Let  none  think  to  excufe  themfelves  by  faying,  that  our  Church  only  takes 
them  for  Curates,  and  that  the  Bipops  have  the  f^ ajloral  Charge -^  for  by  oufconftit. 
old  Provincial  Conjiitutions  (  which  are  ftill  in  force  fo  far  as  they  are  frovinc. 
not  repugnant  to  the  Law  of  the  Land  )  even  thofe  who  have  the  fmal-  non  Refid! 
left  Cures  are  called  Pajior*  5  and  Lyndwood  there  notes,    that  Parochi-  c.  quam 
at/s  Sacerdos  dicitur  Fajior  5    and  that  not  merely  by  way  of  Allufion,^*"^"- 
but  in  refpeft  of  the  Cure  of  Souls.     But  we  need  not  go  fo  far  back. 
For  what  is  it  they  are  admitted  to  >     Is  it  not  ad  curam  Animarum? 
Did  not  they  promife  in  their  Ordination,   To  teach  the  People  commit- 
ted to  their  Care  and  Charge  .<? 

The  Cafuifts  diftingui(h  a  three-fold  Cure  of  Souls,  i.  In  forointe- 
riori  tantum,  and  this  they  fay  is  the  Parochial  Cure.  2.  In  for 0  exteri- 
ori  tantum,  where  there  is  Authority  to  perform  Minifterial  Afts,  as  to 
fufpend,  excommunicate,  abfolve,  {Jme  PafioraliCura  :  )  and  this  ^rcA- 
<^e/2t7?»/ have  by  Virtue  of  their  Office.  5.  Inutroque  fimtd,  where  there 
is  a  fpecial  Care,  together  with  Jurifdiftion:  this  is  the  Bifliops*.  And 
every  one  of  thefe,  Cny  they,  fuundtim  commu)/e  'JufCanoni(nn/,  is  obli- 
ged to  Refidence,  i.e.  by  the  common  Law  Ecclejfiifiical :,  of  which  more 
afterwards.  The  Obligation  is  to  perpetual  Refidence,  but  as  it  is  in  o- 
ther  pofitive  Duties,  theremayother  Duties  intervene,  which  may  take 
away  the  prefent  force  of  it,  as  care  of  Health,  neceffary  Bufinefs,  pub- 
lick 


S2^  The  Duties  and  Rights 

lick  Service  of  the  King  or  Church,  &.:  But  then  we  are  to  obferve, 
joh.  A-  that  no  Difpenfation  can  juftifie  a  Man  in  point  of  Confcience,  unlefs 
cmlnic'o  ^^^^^^  ^^  ^  fitfficient  Caufe  -^  and  no  Cuftora  can  be  fufficient  againft  the 
thon./;i4.  natural  Equity  of  the  Cafe,  whereby  every  one  is  bound  from  the  Na- 
Reginaid.  ture  of  the  Office  he  hath  undertaken. 

'*• "'  '^'       I  confefs  the  cafe  in  Reafon  is  different,    where  there  is  a  fufficient 

Provifion  by  another  fit  Perfon,  and  approved  by  thofe  who  are  to  take 

care  that  Places  be  well  fupplied,   and  where  there  is  not  5    but  yet, 

this  doth  not  take  off  the  force  of  the  Perfonal  Obligation,  arifing  from 

Can.jReia- undertaking  the  Cure  themfelves,    which  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law  under- 

tum  Ex.de  ftands  tobe,  not  meerly  byPromife,    but  cum  effetht,    as  the  Canonifts 

non^Refid.  O^^^kj  which  implies  perfonal  Refidence.     Not  that  they  are  never  to 

be  away  5  Non  fie  amarc  iHtelligi   debet,    ut  nunquam  ivde  recedat,  faith 

Lyniw.m  Ljindtipood :,   but  thefe  Words  are  to  be  underftood  civili  modo,    as  he 

c.  quum    exprefles  it,  i.  e,  not  without  great  Reafon.     There  muft  not  be,  faith 

Refideant  he,  callida  Interpretatio,     fed  talis  tit  ceffcvt  fraudes  ^  negligefitia,  \.  e. 

cum  effe- There  mufl:  be  no  Art  ufed  to  evade  the  Law,  noranygrofs  Negleft  of 

deAthM.''"-     It's  true,    the  Canonifts  have  diftingui(hed  between  ReBoriet  &nd 

jnConfiic.  Vicarages,  as  to  Perfonal  Refidence  ^  but  we  are  to  coafider  thefe  things. 

f^^coriti-  '•  ^^^  Canon  Law  ftriftly  obliges  every  one  that  hath  a  Parochial  Cure 

tiui.         to  perpetual  Refidence,  and  excepts  only  two  Cafes,  when  the  Living  is 

Can  Extir-  annexed  to  a  Prebend  or  Dignity  5  and  then  he  who  hath  it,  is  to  have 

vrabend!  3  perpetual  Vicar  inftituted,    with  a  fufficient  Maintenance.     2.  After 

&  Dign.    this  Liberty  obtained  for  dignified  Perfons  to  have  Vicars  endowed  in 

their  Places,  the  Point  of  Refidence  was  ftridJly  enjoined  to  them  :   and 

we  find  in  the  Provincial  Conftitutions  a  Difference  made  between  Per- 

fonatus  and  Vicaria  ^  but  this  was  flill  meant  of  a  Vicarage  endowed.  This 

DePrsE-    wasin  the  timeofiS'/ep^e^L^w'^^^/z,    Archbiftiop  of  Crf»/er^«ry  ;    and  in 

fump/.55-  another  Confiitution  he  required  an  Oath  of  Perfonal  Refidence  from  all 

De  cieri-  ^^ch  Vicars,  altho'  the  Place  were  not  above  the  Value  of  Five  Marks  5 

cis  non     which  as  appears  by  Lyndwood  eKewhere,   was  then  fitfficient  for  Main- 

cum^ho-'  f^f"^"^^  ^"^  Hofp'itality.     And  to  cover  the  fhameful  Difpenfations  that 

ftis.crc    were  commonly  granted  to  the  higher  C/erg;/,   under  pretence  of  the 

^^"/hde  ^^P'^^  Power  ^   the  poor  Vicars  by  a  Conftitution  oiOtho,    were  bound 

Achrn.  in  totake  a  ftrid:  Oath  oi  continual  Refidence  :i,  and  without  it  their  Inftituti- 

conftic     on  was  declared  to  be  Null.    But  even  in  that  Cafe  the  Glofs  there 

j2  °"   '   faith,    That  they  may  be  fome  time  abfent  for  the  Benefit  of  the  Church  or 

otho.  dc  State ;  but  not  for  their  own  particular  Advantage.     5.  The  Obligation 

f"*!'!'.  "^"^  ^"  point  of  Confcience  remains  the  fame,   but  difpenfing  with  Laws  may 

ochobon.,  take  away  the  Penalty  of  Non- refidence  in  fome  cafes.     Joh.  de  Athon. 

/•4<5.       Qanonoi Lincoln,  who  wrote  the  Glojfes  on  the  Legatine  Conjiitutions^ 

thon.  tn    doth  not  deny,  but  that  Refers  are  as  well  bound  to  Refidence  as  Vicars  5 

Conftic.     but  thefe  are  moftftriftly  tied  by  their  Oath  ^  and  becaufe  a  Vicar  cannot 

ochon.      appoint  a  Vicar,  but  a  Parfon  may.  And  altho'  that  Name  among  fome 

Can. quia  beufed  as  a  Term  of  Reproach,  yet  informer  Ages  Verfonatiu  and  Dig- 

decicHcis  ^'^'^"'^  were  the  fame  things  and  fo  ufed  here  in  England  in  the  time  of 

nonRefid.  Henry  II.  but  afterwards  it  came  to  be  applied  to  him  that  had  the  Pof- 

Quadril.    fejpon  of  a  Parochial  Benefice  in  his  own  immed' ate  Right  5    and  was 

I.  !•  c.  5.  tjjerefore  bound  to  take  care  of  it.     For  the  Obligation  muftin  Reafon 

be  fuppofed  to  go  along  withthe  Advantage ^  however  Local  Statutes 

may  have  taken  off  the  Penalty. 

II.  When  you  have  thus  confidered  the  Obligation  which  lies  upon 
you,  to  take  Care  of  your  Flock,  let  me  in  the  next  place  recommend 

to 


of  the  Varochial  Clergy.  ^27 


fo  you  a  plain,  ufeful,  and  praftical  way  of  Preaching  among  them. 
I  mean  fiich  as  is  moft  likely  to  do  good  upon  them,  (  which  certainly 
ought  to  be  the  jufl  Meafure  of  Preaching.)  I  do  not  mean  therefore 
a  loofe  and  carelefs  way  of  Talking  in  the  Pulpit,  which  will  neither 
profit  you,  nor  thofe  that  hear  you.  He  that  once  gets  an  ill  Habit  of 
fpeaking  extempore,  will  be  tempted  to  continue  it  by  the  Eafinefs  of  it 
to  himfelf,  and  the  Plaufiblenefsof  it  to  lefs  judicious  People.  There 
is  on  the  other  fide,  a  Clofenefs  and  Strength  of  Reafoning,  which  is 
too  elaborate  for  common  llnderftandings  ^  and  there  is  an  affefted 
Finenefs  of  Expreflion,  which  by  no  means  becomes  the  Pulpit  ;  but 
it  feems  to  be  like  ftroaking  the  Confciences  of  People  by  Feathers  dipt 
in  Oil.  And  there  is  a  way  of  putting  5crz/)^«re-PAr<?/9/  together  with- 
out the  Senfe  of  them,  which  thofe  are  the  moft  apt  to  admire,  who 
underftand  them  leaft :  But  for  thofe  who  have  not  improved  their  Minds 
by  Education,  the  plaineft  way  is  certainly  the  beft  and  hardeft,  pro- 
vided it  be  not  flat,  and  dry,  and  incoherent,  or  defultory,  going  from 
one  thing  to  another,  without  purluing  any  particular  point  home  to 
Pradice,  and  applying  it  to  the  Confciences  of  the  Hearers.  And  give 
me  leave  to  tell  you,  That  meer  general  Difcourfes  have  commonly 
little  EfFed  on  the  Peoples  Minds  ^  if  any  thing  moves  them,  it  is  ^Ar- 
ticular Application  as  to  fuch  things  which  their  Confciences  are  con- 
cerned in. 

And  here  I  muft  recommend  to  you  the  purfuing  the  Defign  of  his 
Majeftjs  Letter^  which  hath  been  fome  time  fince  communicated  to 
you  j  by  it  you  are  required  to  preach  at  fome  times  on  thofe  parti- 
cular Vices  which  you  obferveto  be  moft  prevalent  in  the  Places  you 
relate  to  ;  fuch  as  Drnnkennefs,  Whoredom,  Stoearirtg,  Profaning  the 
Lord's  Day,  &c.  If  ever  we  hope  to  reform  them,  you  muft  through- 
ly convince  them,  that  what  they  do  is  difpleafing  to  God. 
And  there  are  two  forts  of  Men  you  are  to  deal  with. 
I.  Profane  Scoffers  at  Religion.  Thefe  feldom  trouble  you  ;  but  if 
any  good  be  to  be  done  upon  them,  it  is  by  plain  and  evident  Proofs 
of  the  Good  and  Evil  of  Moral  Aftions.  For  as  long  as  they  think  them 
indifferent,  they  will  never  regard  what  you  fay,  as  to  the  Rewards  or 
Punifhments  of  them. 

2.Stupid  and  fenfelefs  People,whofe  Minds  are  vj^holly  funk  into  the 
Affairs  of  the  World,  buying,  and  felling,  and  getting  Gain.  It  is  a 
very  hard  thing  to  get  a  Thought  into  them  about  thefe  Matters.  And 
whatever  you  talk  of  meer  Religion  and  another  Life,  is  like  Metaphy- 
ficks  to  them  i,  they  underftand  you  not,  and  take  no  care  to  do  it : 
'  But  if  you  can  convince  them,  that  they  live  in  the  Praftice  of  great 
Sins,  which  they  ftiall  certainly  fuffer  for,  if  they  do  not  repent,  they 
may  poffibly  be  awakensd  that  way  5  if  not,  nothing  but  immediate 
Grace  can  work  upon  them,  which  muft  work  on  the  Will,  whatever 
becomes  of  the  llnderftanding. 

III.  After  Preaching,  let  me  intreat  you  to  look  after  Catechizing 
and  inftruding  the  Youth  of  your  Parifties.  He  that  would  reform 
the  World  to  purpofe,  muft  begin  with  the  Youth,  and  train  them  up 
betimes  in  the  Ways  of  Religion  and  Vertue.  There  is  far  lefs  proba- 
bility of  prevailing  on  thofe  who  have  accuftomed  therafelves  to  vi- 
cious Habits,  and  are  hardened  in  their  Wickednefs.  It  feems  ftrange 
to  fome,  that  confidering  the  fhortnefs  of  human  Life,  Mankind  fhould 
be  fo  long  before  they  come  to  Maturity  5  the  beft  Account  I  know 

of 


628  7/;^  Duties  andKizhts 


of  it  is,  that  there  is  fo  much  longer  time  for  the  Care  oF  their  Edu- 
cation, to  infill  the  Principles  of  Vertue  and  Religion  into  them,  there- 
by ro  foften  the  Fiercenefs,  to  direft  the  Weaknefs,  to  govern  the  In- 
clinations of  Mankind.     It  is  truly  a  fad  Confideration,  that  Chriftian 
Parents  are  fo  little  fenfible  of  their  Duties,  as  to  the  Education  of  their 
Children,  when  thofe  who  have  had  only  natural  Reafon  to  dire€l 
Plato  de    them,  have  laid  fo  much  Weight  upon  it.     Without  it,  P/4/<?  faith, 
Arfii.  Po-  '^'^^  Mankind  grevp  the  fttoll  unruly  of  all  Creatures.     Ariftotle,  That  as  by 
lit.  /.I.C.2.  Nature  they  are  capable  of  being  the  beji,  fo  being  negle^ed,  they  become  the 
Nicom  /   '"'^''^■ft  "f  -Animals,  i.  e.  wheh  they  are  brought  up  "without  Vertue.   Education 
i.  c.  I.  7.  and  Vertue^  faith  he,  is  a  great  thing  5  yea,  it  is  all  in  all,  and  without 
<■•  7-        it  they  xvill  be  much  vporfe  than  Beajis.     The  main  Care  of  the  Education 
of  Children  muft  lie  upon  Parents  ^    but  yet  Minifters  ought  not  only 
to  put  them  in  mind  of  their  Duty,   but  to  aflift  them  all  they  can, 
and  by  publick  Catechizing,  frequently  to  inftruft  both  thofe  who  have 
not  learned,  and  thofe  who  are  afhamed  to  learn  any  other  way.  And 
you  rauft  ufe  the  beft  means  you  can  to  bring  them  into  an  Efteem  of 
it;  which  is  by  letting  them  fee,  that  you  do  it,  not  meerly  becaufe 
you  are  required  to  do  if,  but  becaufe  it  is  a  thing  fo  ufeful  and  bene 
ficial  to  them  and  to  their  Children.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  difference 
between  Peoples  being  able  to  talk  over  a  Set  of  Phrafes,  about  Reli- 
gious Matters,  and  underftanding  the  true  Grounds  of  Religion,  which 
are  eafieft  learned  and  underftood,  and  remembred  in  the  fhort  Cateche- 
tical way.    But  I  am  truly  ferry  to  hear,  that  where  the  Clergy  are 
willing  tQ  take  pains  this  way,  the  People  are  unwilling  to  fend  their 
Children.     They  would  not  be  unwilling  to  hear  them  inllrufted,  as 
early  as  might  be,  in  the  way  to  get  anEftate,  but  would  be  very  thank- 
ful to  thofe  who  would  do  them  fuch  a  Kindnefs  5  and  therefore  it  is 
really  a  Contempt  of  God  and  Religion,  and  another  World,  which 
makes  them  fo  backward  to  have  their  Children  taught  the  way  to  it. 
And  methinks  thofe  who  have  any  Zeal  for  the  Reformation,  (hould 
love  and  purfue  that  which  came  into  Requeji  with  it.     Indeed  the 
Church   of   Rome  it  felf  hath    been   made   fo  fenfible  of  the  Ne- 
Seft.24.dcceffity  of  it,    that  even    the  Council  of   Trent  doth  not  only  re- 
heform.    ^^\^q  Catechizing  Children,  but  the  Bijhopt  to  proceed  with  EcclefiafticaL 
Cenfures  againfl:  thofe  who  negleft  it.     But  in  the  old  Provincial  Confli- 
tutioMS,  J  can  find  but  one  InjunHion  about  Catechizing  ^    and  that  is 
tyndw.     when  the  Priefl  doubts  whether  the  Children  were  baptized  or  not  ;  and  if 
Vtoy.Co^' they  be  born  eight  days  before  Eafter  and  Whitfontide,  they  are  not  to  be 
Concil.     baptized  till  thofe  days,    and  in  the  mean  time  they  are  to  receive  Cafe- 
Angi.  2.  chifm.     What  is  this  receiving  Catechifm  by  Children,  before  they  are 
VoL  311,  gigi^t  (Jays  old  >  It  is  well  Exorcifm  is  joined  with  it  5  and  fo  we  are 
^    '       to  underftand  by  it  the  Interrogatories  in  Baptifm;  and  Lyndwood  faith, 
the  Catechifm  is  not  only  required  for  InflruBion  in  Faith,  but  propter 
fponjionem,  when  the  God-father  anfwers,  De  FideiObfervantiL 
fetr.Di/f.      If  is  true,  the  Canon  Law  requires  in  adult  Perfons  Catechizing  before 
4.f-54,57-  Baptifm ;  but  I  find  nothing  of  the  Catechizing  Children  after  it ;  and 
*^i"'saa'c  ^^  wonder,  fince  Lyndwood  faith,  the  Laity  are  bound  to  no  more,  than 
Si  cnim     to  believe  oi  the  Church  believes  ;  nor  the  Clergy  neither,  unlefs  they  can  bear 
habeanc    ffj^  Charges  ofjiudying,  and  have  Maflers  to  infirucl  them.     This  was  good 
&  magu  Doftrine,  when  the  Defign  was  to  keep  People  in  Ignorance.     For 
ftros, pec- Learning  is  an  irreconcilable  Enemy  to  the  Fundamental  Policy  of  the 
ptusfciaiu  ^of^'^"  Church ;  and  it  was  that  which  brought  in  the  Reformation, 

quamLaici  MUCe 


of  the  Farocbial  Clergy.  6  25» 

fince  which  a  juft  Care  hath  ftill  been  required  for  the  Inftruftion  of 
Youth  5  and  the  fifty  ninth  Canon  of  our  Church  is  very  ftrift  in  it, 
which  I  defire  you  often  to  confider,  with  the  firft  Rubrick  after  the 
Catechifm,  and  to  adt  accordingly. 

IV.  After  Catechizing,  I  recomtiiend  to  you  the  due  Care  of  bringing 
the  Children  of  your  Parifhes  to  ConfirKjatiotr.  Which  would  be  of 
excellent  ufe  in  the  Church,  if  the  feveral  Minifters  would  take  that 
pains  about  it  which  they  ought  to  do.  Remember  that  you  are  re- 
quired to  bring  or  fend  in  Writing,  roith  your  Names  fuhfcribed,  the 
Names  of  all  fuch  Perfons  in  your  Parifi,  asyoufiall  think  Jit  to  be  prefent- 
ed  to  theBifhop  to  be  confirmed.  If  you  take  no  care  about  it,  and  fuf- 
ferthem  to  come  unprepared  for  fo  great,  fo  folemn  a  thing,  as  renew- 
ing the  Prom  fe  andVoiv  made  in  Daptifm,  can  you  think  your  felves  free 
from  any  Guilt  in  it  >  In  the  Church  of  Rome  indeed  great  care  was  ta- 
ken to  haften  Confirmation  of  Children ^all  they  could  :  PoJ}  Baptifmitm  rrovinc 
quam  (itius  poterint,  ZS  \t  is  in  ouv  C'jnjiitution  Provincial  ^  in  -'mother  pg^gj^^.'^^^ 
Sjnod:cal,  the  Parochial  Priejis  are  charged  to  tell  their  Parifl^ioners,  that  Unft,/.i8. 

,they  ought  to  get  their  Children  confirmed  as  foo/i  as  they  can.     In  a  Synod  ^o"'^''- 
at  U'orcejier,  under  Walter  deCantilupo,  in  the  time  oi  Henry  \\l.  thCKo'/.l.gj?. 
Sacrament  of  Confirmation  is  declared  neceflary  for  Strength  againjl  the 
Power  of  Darhncfs,  and  therefore  it  was  called  Sacramentum  Pugnantium:  "i'  f-  ^4^' 
And  no  wonder  then  that  the  Parochial  Priejis  fliould  be  called  upon  ' 
fo  earneftly  to  bring  the  Children   to  Confirmation  ^  arid  the  Parents 
were  to  be  forbidden  to  enter  into  the  Church,  ii  they  neglefted  it  foe 
a  Tear  after  the  Birth  of  the  Child,  if  they  had  opportunity.     The 
Synod  of  Exeter  allowed  two  T^ears  ^  and  then  if  they  were  not  con-  p.  353. 
firmed,  the  Parents  were  to  fafi  every  Friday,  voith  Bread  and  Water, 
till  it  were  done.     And  to  the  fame  purpofe,  the  Synod  of  Winchefler^^'  '^4°' 
in  the  time  of  Edw.  I.  in  the  Conjiitutions  of  Richard  Bifhop  of  Sarum, 
two  Tears  were  allowed  5   but  that  time  was  afterwards  thought  too 
long  ;  and  then  the  Prieft  as  well  as  the  Parents   was  to  be  fuf-  ^*  '*'' 
pended  from  Entrance  into  the  Church.     But  what  preparation  was  re- 
quire.d?  None  that  I  can  find  :   But  great  Care  is  taken  about  the  Fil- 
lets to  bind  their  Heads  to  receive  the  Unci  ion,  and  the  taking  them  off  at 
the  Font,  and  burning  them,  leji  they  fhould  be  tifed  for  Witchcraft,  as 
Lyndwood  informs  us.     But  we  have  no  fuch  Cuftoms,  nor  any  of  the  Lynd/.i?* 
Reformed  Churches :  We  depend  not  upon  theOpu^  operatum,  but  fup- 
pofe  a  due  and  ferious  preparation  of  Mind  neceflary,  and  a  folemn 
Performance  of  it.    I  hope,  by  God's  Affiftance,  to  be  able  in  time  to 
bring  the  Performance  of  this  Office  into  a  better  Method  ^  in  the  mean 
time  [  (hall  not  fail  doing  my  Duty,  have  you  a  care  you  do  not  fail 
in  yours. 

V.  As  to  the  Publick  Offices  of  the  Church,  I  do  not  only  recommend 
to  you  a  due  Care  of  the  Diligent,  but  of  the  Devout  Performance  of 
them.  I  have  often  wondered  how  a  fixed  and  dated  Liturgy  for  ge- 
neral Ufe,  {hould  become  a  matter  of  Scruple  and  Difpute  among  any 
in  a  Chriftian  Church,  unlefs  there  be  fomething  in  Chriftianity  which 
makes  it  unlawful  to  pray  together  for  things  which  we  all  underftand 
beforehand  to  be  the  Subjedt  of  our  Prayers.  If  our  common  Necef- 
fities  and  Duties  are  the  fame  ^  if  we  have  the  fame  IJleffings  to  pray, 
and  to  thank  God  for  in  our  folemn  Devotions,  why  (hould  any  think 
it  unlawful  or  unfitting  to  ufe  the  fame  Expreffions  ?  Is  God  pleafed 
ivith  the  Change  of  our  Words  and  Phrafes?  Can  we  imagine  the  Ho- 

LIU  ly 


6^o  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


ly  Spirit  is  given  to  diftate  new  Expreflions  in  Prayers  ?  Then  they 
muft  pray  by  immediate  Infpiration,  (which  I  think  they  will  riot  pre- 
tend to,  left  all  the  Miftakes  and  Incongruities  of  fuch  Prayers  be  im- 
pued  to  the  Holy  Ghofl)  but  it  not,  then  they  are  left  to  their  owrt 
Conceptions,  and  the  Spirit's  Affiftance  is  only  in  the  exciting  the  Af- 
feftions  and  Motions  of  the  Soul  towards  the  things  prayed  for  ^  and 
if  this  be  allowed,  it  is  impoflible  to  give  a  Reafon  why  the  Spirit  of 
God  may  not  as  well  excite  thofe  inward  Defires,  when  the  Words  are 
the  fame  as  when  they  are  different.  And  we  are  certain,  that  from 
the  Apoftles  times  downwards,  no  one  Church  or  Society  of  Chriftians 
can  be  produced,  who  held  it  unlawful  to  pray  by  a  Set- Form.  On 
the  other  fide,  we  have  very  early  Proofs  of  fome  common  Forms  of 
Prayer,  which  were  generally  ufed  in  the  Chriftian  Churches,  and  were 
the  Foundations  of  thofe  ancient  Liturgies^  which,  by  degrees,  were 
much  enlarged.  And  the  Interpolations  of  later  times  do  no  more  o- 
verthrow  the  Antiquity  of  the  Groundwork  of  them,  than  the  large 
Additions  to  a  Building  do  prove  there  was  no  Houfe  before.  It  is  , 
an  eafy  matter  to  fay,  that  fuch  Liturgies  could  not  be  St.  James's  or 
St.  Mark's,  becaufe  of  fuch  Errors  and  Miftakes,  and  Interpolations  of 
Things  and  Phrafes  of  later  times  ^  but  what  then  >  Is  this  an  Argument 
there  were  no  ancient  Liturgies  in  the  Churches  of  Jerufalem  and  Alex- 
orig.in  andria,  when  fo  long  fince,  as  in  Origen's  time,  we  find  an  entire  Col- 
H-  p"*i4.^^*^  produced  by  him  out  of  the  Alexandrian  Liturgy  >  And  the  like 
Ej.ffuet. '  may  be  fliewed  as  to  other  Churches,  which  by  degrees  Came  to  have 
their  Liturgies  much  enlarged  by  the  devout  Prayers  of  fome  extraor- 
dinary Men  -J  fuch  as  St.  Bajil  and  St.  Chryfoftom  in  the  Eaftern 
Churches. 

But  ray  Defign  is  not  to  vindicate  our  ufe  of  an  excellent  Liturgy, 
but  to  put  you  upon  the  ufing  it  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  may  moft  re- 
commend it  to  the  People;  I  mean  with  that  Gravity,  Serioufnefs,  At- 
tention and  Devotion,  which  becomes  fo  folemn  a  Duty  as  Prayer  to 
God  is.  It  will  give  too  juft  a  caufe  of  Prejudice  to  our  Prayers,  if 
the  People  obferve  you  to  be  carelefs  and  negligent  about  them  ^ .  or  to 
run  them  over  with  fo  great  haft,  as  if  you  minded  nothing  fo  much  as 
to  get  to  the  end  of  them.  If  you  mind  them  fo  little  your  felves, 
they  will  think  themfclves  excufed  if  they  mind  them  lefs.  I  could 
heartily  wifti  that  in  greater  Places,  efpecially  in  fuch  Towns  where 
there  are  People  more  at  liberty,  the  conftant  Morning  and  Evening 
Prayers  were  duly  and  devoutly  read,  as  it  is  already  done  with  good 
Succefs  in  London,  and  fome  other  Cities.  By  this  means  Religion  will 
gain  ground,  when  the  publick  Offices  are  daily  performed ;  and  the 
People  will  be  more  acquainted  with  Scripture,  in  hearing  theLeflbns^ 
and  have  a  better  efteem  of  the  Prayers,  when  they  become  their  dai- 
ly Service,  which  they  offer  up  to  God  as  their  Morning  and  Evening 
Sacrifice  5  and  the  Defign  of  our  Church  will  be  beft  anfwered,  which 
appoints  f/^e  Order  for  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer  daily  to  be  faid  and 
ufed  throughout  the  Year. 

VI.  As  to  the  Di£enters  from  the  Church  ^  the  prefent  Circumftati- 
ces  of  our  Affairs  require  a  more  than  ordinary  Prudence  in  your  Be- 
haviour towards  them.  It  is  to  no  purpofe  to  provoke  or  exafperate 
them,  fince  they  will  be  but  fo  much  more  your  Enemies  for  it  5  and 
if  you  feem  to  court  them  too  much,  they  will  interpret  your  Kind- 
nefs  to  be  a  liking  their  Way  better  than  your  0  wn  ;  fo  that  were  it  not 

for 


-■     ■ 

of  the  Varochial  Clergy^  6^i 


for  fome  Worldly  Intereft,  you  would  be  juft  what  they  are  j 
which  is  in  efFeft  to  fay,  you  would  be  Men  of  Confcience,  if  ye 
had  a  little  more  Honefty.  For  they  can  never  think  thofe  honeft 
Men,  who  comply  with  things  againft  their  Confciences,  only  for 
their  temporal  Advantage  ^  but  they  may  like  them  as  Men  of  a  Party, 
who  under  fome  fpecious  Colours,  promote  their  Intereft.  For  my  owrt 
part,  as  I  do  fincerely  value  and  efteem  the  Church  of  England  {  and 
I  hope  ever  (hall )  fol  am  not  againft  fuch  a  due  temper  towards  them, 
as  is  confiftent  with  the  preferving  theConftituiionofour  Church.  But 
if  any  think,  under  a  pretence  of  Liberty,  to  undermine  and  deftroy  it, 
we  have  Reafon  to  take  the  beft  care  we  can,  in  order  to  its  prefervati- 
cn.  Ido  notmeanby  oppofingLaws,  or  affronting  Authority,  but  by 
countermining  them  in  the  beft  way,  /.  e.  by  out-doing  them  in  thofe 
things  which  make  them  moft  popular,  if  they  are  confiftent  with  In- 
tegrity and  a  good  Confcience.  If  they  gain  upon  the  People  by  art 
Appearance  of  more  than  ordinary  Zeal  for  the  good  of  Souls,  I  would 
have  you  to  go  beyond  them  in  a  true  and  hearty  Concernment  for 
them  ^  not  in  irregular  Heats  and  Paflions,  but  in  the  Meekness  of  Wif- 
dom^  in  a  calm  and  fedate  Temper  ,  in  doing  good  even  to  them  who 
moft  defpitefully  reproach  you,  and  withdraw  themfelves  arid  the  Peo- 
ple from  you.  If  they  get  an  Intereft  among  them  by  Induftry,  and 
going  from  Place  to  Place,  and  Family  to  Family  ^  I  hope  you  will 
think  it  your  Doty  to  converfe  more  freely  and  familiarly  with  your 
own  People.  Be  not  Strangers,  and  you  will  make  them  Friends.  Let 
them  fee  by  your  particular  Application  to  them,  that  you  do  not  de- 
fpife  them.  For  Men  love  to  value  thofe  who  feem  to  value  them^ 
and  if  you  once  flight  them,  you  run  the  hazard  of  making  them  youc 
Enemies.  It  is  fome  Trial  of  a  Chriftians  Patience^  as  well  as  Hnmli- 
ty,  to  condefcend  to  the  Weakneffes  of  others ;  but  where  it  is  our 
Duty,  we  muft  do  it,  and  that  chearfully,  in  order  to  the  beft  End, 
vi%.  doing  the  more  good  upon  them.  And  all  Condefcenfion  and 
Kindnefsfor  fuch  an  End,  is  true  Wifdom  as  well  as  Humility.  lama- 
fraid  Diftance  and  too  great  Stiffnefs  of  Behaviour  towards  them,  have 
made  fome  more  our  Enemies  than  they  would  have  been.  I  hope  they 
are  now  convinced,  that  the  Per  fecution  which  they  complained  lately 
fo  much  of,  was  carried  on  by  other  Men,  and  for  other  Defigns  than 
they  would  then  feem  to  believe.  But  that  Perfecution  was  then  a  po- 
pular Argument  for  them  5  for  the  complaining  fide  hath  always  the 
moft  Pity.  But  noiv  that  is  taken  off,  you  may  deal  with  them  on 
more  equal  Terms.  Now  there  is  nothing  to  affright  them,  and  we 
think  we  have  Reafon  enough  on  our  fide  to  perfwade  them.  The 
Cafe  of  Separation  ftands  juft  as  it  did  in  Point  of  Confcience,  which 
is  not  now  one  jot  more  reafonable  or  juft  than  it  Was  before.  Some 
think  Severity  makes  Men  confider  ^  but  I  am  afraid  it  heats  them  too 
rnuch,  and  makes  them  too  violent  and  refradary.  You  have  more 
reafon  to  fear  now,  what  the  Intereft  of  a  Party  will  do,  than  any 
Strength  of  Argument.  How  very  few  among  them  underftand  any 
Reafon  at  all  for  their  Separation  !  But  Education,  Prejudice,  Autho- 
rity of  their  Teachers  fway  them  ^  remove  thefe,  and  you  convince 
them.  And  in  order  thereto,  acquaint  your  felves  with  them,  endea- 
vour to  oblige  them,  let  them  fee  you  have  no  other  Defign 
upon  them,  but  to  do  them  good  ;  if  any  thing  will  gain  upon 
them,  this  will. 

Llll  2  But 


Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


But  if  after  all,   they  grow  more  headftrong  and  infolent  by  the  In- 
dulgence which  the  Law  gives  them  5  then  obferve,  whether  they  ob- 
ferve  thofe  Conditions  on  which  the  Law  gives  it  to  them.    For  thefe 
iiQ.  3.C.  are  known  Rules  in  Law,    That  he  forfeits  his  Privilege  who  goes  bejiond 
p'  the  Bounds  of  it  5  Th<U  no  Privileges  are  to  he  extended  beyond  the  Bounds 

adl/de  Tfhich  the  Lavps  give  them-^  for  they  ought  to  be  obferved  as  they  are  given, 
Poenis.  /.  I  leave  it  to  be  confidered,  whether  all  fuch  who  do  not  obferve 
Ewr.  de  ^^^  Conditions  of  the  Indulgence,  be  not  as  liable  to  the  Law,  as  if 
Priv.c.     they  had  none. 

Porro  in  gyj.  jjjg^g  jj  a  very  profane  Abufe  of  this  Liberty  among  fome,  as 
though  it  were  an  Indulgence  not  to  ferve  God  at  all.  Such  as  thefe, 
as  they  were  never  intended  by  the  Law,  fo  they  ought  to  enjoy  no  Be- 
nefit by  it :  For  this  were  to  countenance  Profanenefs  and  Irreligi- 
on,  which  I  am  afraid,  will  grow  too  much  upon  us,  unlefs  fome  ef- 
fedual  Care  be  taken  to  fupprefs  it. 

VII.  There  is  another  Duty  incumbent  upon  you,  which  Imuft  par- 
ticularly recommend  to  your  Care,  and  that  is,  of  Vifning  the  Sick.  I 
do  not  mean  barely  to  perform  the  Office  prefcribed,  which  is  of  very 
good  life,  and  ought  not  to  be  neglefted  ^  but  a  particular  Application 
of  your  felves  to  the  State  and  Condition  of  thePerfonsyou  vifit.  It  is 
no  hard  matter  to  run  over  fome  Prayers,  and  fo  take  leave  j  but  this 
doth  not  come  up  to  the  Defign  of  our  Church  in  that  Office.  For  after 
the  general  Exhortation  and  Profeffion  of  the  Chriftian  Faith,  our 
Church  requires,  That  the  ftck  Perfon  be  moved  to  fftahe  fpecial  Confijpon 
ofhkSins^  if  he  feel  his  Conjcience  troubled  with  any  rveighty  tnatter '^  and 
then,  if  the  fick  Perfon  humbly  and  heartily  deftres  it,  he  is  to  be  abfolved 
after  this  manner.  Our  Lord  Jefus  Chrtji,  who  hath  left  Power  in  his 
Church  to  abfolveall  Sinners  who  truly  repent  and  believe  in  him,  8cc.  Where 
the  Power  of  Abfolution  is  grounded  upon  the  Suppofition  of  true  Faith. 
^  and  Repentance  5  and  therefore  when  it  is  faid  afterwards,  And  by  hh 

jiuthority  committed  tome,  I  abfolve  thee  from  the  fame,  &c.  It  muft  pro- 
ceed on  the  fame  Suppofition.  For  the  Church  cannot  abfolve  when 
God  doth  not.  So  that  all  the  real  Comfort  of  the  Abfolution  depends 
upon  the  Satisfaction  of  the  Perfon's  Mind,  as  to  the  Sincerity  of  his  Re- 
pentance and  Faith  in  ChrifV.  Now  here  lies  the  great  Difficulty  of  this 
Office  5  how  to  give  your  felves  and  the  wounded  Confcience  fatisfa- 
ftion,  as  to  the  fincerity  of  thofe  Afts  5  I  do  not  mean  as  to  the  fincerity 
of  his  prefent  Thoughts,  but  as  to  the  Acceptablenefs  of  his  Faith  and 
Repentance  with  God,  in  order  to  Remiffion  of  Sins.  But  what  if  you 
find  the  Perfons  fo  ignorant,  as  not  to  underftand  what  Faith  and  Re- 
pentance mean  ?  What  if  they  have  led  fuch  carelefs  and  fecure  lives 
in  this  World,  as  hardly  ever  to  have  had  one  ferious  Thought  of  ano- 
ther I*  Is  nothing  to  be  done  but  to  come  and  pray  by  them,  and  fo 
difmifsthem  into  their  Eternal  State  >  Is  this  all  the  good  you  can,  or 
are  bound  to  do  them  ?  I  confefs  it  is  a  very  uncomfortable  thing  to 
tell  Men  how  they  are  to  begin  to  live,  when  they  are  liker  to  die  than 
to  live  (and  the  People  generally  have  a  Arrange  fuperftitious  Fear  of 
fending  for  the  Minifter,  while  there  is  any  hope  of  Recovery.  )  But 
atlaftyou  are  fentfor  5  and  what  a  melancholy  Work  are  you  then  to 
go  about?  You  are,  it  may  be,  to  make  a  Man  fenfible  of  his  Sins,  who 
never  before  confidered  what  they  were,  or  againft  whom  they  were 
committed,  or  what  eternal  Mifery  he  deferves  by  committing  them. 
.  But  I  will  fuppofe  the  beft  I  can  in  this  Cafe,  viz.    That  by  your  warm 

and 


of  the  Yarocblal  Clergy,  6^^ 


and  ferious  Difcourfe,  you  throughly  awaken  the  Confcience  of  a  Jong 
and  habitual  Sinner  ^  what  are  you  then  to  do?  Will  you  prefently 
apply  all  the  Promifes  of  Grace  and  Salvation  to  one  whofe  Confcience 
is  awakened  only  with  the  Fears  of  Death,  and  the  Terrors  of  a  Day 
of  Judgment  >  This,  I  confefs,  is  a  hard  Cafe  ^  on  the  one  fide,  we 
muft  not  difcourage  good  Beginnings  in  any  5  we  muft  notcaft  an  awa- 
kened Sinner  into  Defpair  5  we  muft  not  limit  the  infinite  Mercy  of 
God  :  But  on  the  other  fide,  we  muft  have  a  great  care  of  incouraging 
prefumptuous  Sinners  to  put  off  their  Repentance  to  the  laft,  becaufe 
then  upon  Confefllon  of  their  Sins,  they  can  foeafily  obtain  the  Church- 
es Abfolution  5  which  goes  no  farther,  than  truly  Repetttittg  and  Believ 
if/g.  But  here  is  the  difficulty,  how  we  can  fatisfie  our  felves  that  thefe 
do  truly  Repent  and  Believe^  who  are  out  of  a  Capacity  of  giving  Proof 
of  their  Sincerity  by  Amendment  of  Life?  I  donotqueftlon  the  Since- 
rity of  their  prefent  Purpofes  3  but  how  often  do  we  find  thofe  to 
come  to  nothing,  when  they  recover  and  fall  into  the  former  Tempta- 
tions >  How  then  (hall  they  know  their  own  Sincerity  till  it  be  tried? 
How  can  it  be  tried,  when  they  are  going  out  of  the  State  of  Tri- 
al ?  The  moft  we  can  do,  is  to  encourage  them  to  do  the  beft  they  cari 
in  their  prefent  Condition,  and  to  (hew  as  many  of  the  Fruits  of  true 
Repentance  as  their  Circumftances  will  allow  3  and  with  the  greateft 
Humility  of  Mind,  and  moft  earneft  Supplications  to  implore  the  infi- 
nite Mercy  of  God  to  their  Souls.  But  befides  thefe,  there  are  many 
Cafes  of  fickPerfons,  which  require  very  particular  Advice,  and  fpiri- 
tual  Direflion,  which  you  ought  to  be  able  to  give  them,  and  it  cannot 
be  done  without  fome  good  Meafure  of  Skill  and  Experience  in  cafuifti- 
cal  Divinity.  As,  How  to  fatisfie  a  doubting  Confcience,  as  to  its  own 
Sincerity,  when  fo  many  Infirmities  are  mixed  with  our  beft  Anions? 
How  a  Sinner  who  hath  relapfed  after  Repentance,  can  be  fatisfied  of 
the  Truth  of  bis  Repentance,  when  he  doth  not  know,  but  he  may 
farther  relapfe  upon  fre(h  Temptations  >  How  he  (hall  know  what 
Failings  are  confiftent  with  the  State  of  Grace,  and  the  Hopes  of  Hea- 
ven, and  what  not  >  What  Meafure  of  Convidion  and  Power  of  Re- 
fiftance  is  neceflary  to  make  Sins  to  be  wilful  and  prefumptuous  ?  What 
the  juft  Meafuresof  Reftitution  are  in  order  to  true  Repentance,  in  all 
fuch  Injuries  which  are  capable  of  it  >  I  might  name  many  others,  but 
thefe  I  only  mention  to  (hew  how  neceflary  it  is  for  you  to  apply  your 
felves  to  Moral  and  Cafit'ifiical  Divinity,  and  not  to  content  your  felves 
barely  with  the  Knowledge  of  what  is  called  Pojitive  and  Confroverfiali 
I  am  afraid  there  are  too  many  who  think  they  need  to  look  after  no 
more  than  what  qualifies  them  for  the  Pulpit  5  (  and  I  wi{h  all  did  take 
fufficient  care  of  that )  but  if  we  would  do  our  Duty  as  we  ought,  we 
muft  inquire  into,  and  be  able  to  refolve Cafes  of  Confcience.  Forth 
Prieji's  Lips  Jhould  keep  this  kind  of  Knowledge  3  and  the  People  Jhould 
feek  the  Lavp  at  his  Month  -^  for  he  is  the  Mejjenger  of  the  Lord  of  Hojisy 
Mai.  2.  7.  If  this  heldintheLeviticalPriefthood,  much  more  certainly 
under  the  Gofpel,  where  the  Rates  and  Meafures  of  our  Duties  are  not 
to  be  determined  by  Levitical  Precepts,  but  by  the  general  Reafon  and 
Nature  of  Moral  Anions. 

VIII.  Among  the  Duties  oiPuhlick  Worfhip,    I  muft  put  you  in  mind 
of  a  frequent  Celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.     There  is  generally  too 
great  a  Negled  of  this,  which  is  the  moft  proper  part  of  Evangelical 
Worpp.     The  Duties  oi  Prayers  and  Praifes^  are  excellent  and  becom- 
ing 


Ib^  Duties  and  Rights 


ing  Duties,   as  we  are  Creatures  with  refpeft  to  our  Maker  and  Prefer- 
ver.    The  Duty  of  hearing  the  Word  of  God  read  and  explained,   is 
confequent  upon  our  owning  it  to  be  the  Rule  of  our  Faith  and  Man- 
ners -J  and  all  who  defire  to  underftand  and  praftife  their  Duty,  can  ne- 
ver defpife  or  negleft  it.     But  that  folemn  Aft  of  Worihip  wherein  we 
domoftfliew  our  felvesChriftians,  is  the  celebrating  the  Holy  Eucharifi. 
For,  therein  we  own  and  declare  the  wfinlte  Love  of  God  in  fendivg  his 
Son  into  the  World  to  die  fir  Sinners,    in  order  to  their  Salvation  5    and 
that  this  is  not  only  a  true  Saying,    but  worthy  of  all  Men  to  be  credited. 
Therein,  we  lift  up  our  Hearts,  and  give  Thanks  to  our  Lord  God  5  wejoyn 
with  Angels  and  Archangels  in  lauding  and  magnifying  his  glorious  Name. 
Therein,  we  not  only  commemorate  the  Death  and  Sufferings  of  our 
Lord,  but  are  made  Partakers  of  his  Body  and  Blood,  after  a  Real,  but 
Sacramental  Manner.      Therein  we  offer  up  our  felves  to  God,    to  be  a 
Reafonable,  Holy  and  Lively  Sacrifice  unto  him.    Therein  we  Adore  and 
Glorifie  the  ever  BlefTed  Trinity  ^    and  humbly  implore  the  Grace  and 
Affiftance  of  our  ever  Bleffed  Mediator.     And  what  now  is  there  in  all 
this,    which  is  not  very  agreeable  to  the  Faith,    Hope  and  Charity  of 
Ghriftians  ?     Nay,    what  Duty  is  there,    which  fo  much  expreffes  all 
thefe  together,  as  this  doth  ?    Nor,  whereby  voe  may  more  reafonably 
expeft  greater  Supplies  of  Divine  Grace  to  be  beftowed  upon  us  ? 
What  then  makes  fo  many  to  be  fo  backward  in  this  Duty,  which  pro- 
fefs  a  Zeal  and  Forwardnefs  in  many  others  >     If  we  had  that  Warmth 
and  Fervor  of  Devotion,  that  Love  to  Chrift,  and  to  each  other,  w^hich 
the  Primitive  Ghriftians  had,  we  ftiould  make  it  as  conftant  a  part  of  our 
publick  Worftiip,  as  they  did  ;  but  this  is  not  to  be  expefted.    Neither 
did  it  always  continue  in  the  Primitive  Church,    when  Liberty,    and 
Eafe,    and  worldly  Temptations  made  Perfons  grow  more  remifs  and 
carelefs  in  the  folemn  Duties  of  their  Religion. 
In  Hebr.    .    Sf,  Chryfojiom  takes  notice  in  his  time  of  the  different  Behaviour  of 
inEphef.  Perfous,  with  refpeft  to  the  Holy  Eucharift.      There  were  fome  who 
Horn.  3.  pretended  to  greater  Holinefs  and  Aufterity  of  Life  than  others,    who 
withdrew  from  the  common Converfation  of  Mankind,    and  fo  by  de- 
grees from  joining  in  the  Afts  of  publick  WorQiip  with  them.     Which 
did  unfpeakable  Mifchief  to  Chriftianity  ;    for  then  the  Perfection  of 
the  Chriftian  Life,  was  notfuppofed  toconfift  in  the  aftive  Part  of  it, 
but  in  Retirement  and  Contemplation.     As  tho'  our  higheft  Imitation 
of  Chrift  lay  'm  following  him  into  the  Wildernefs  to  be  tempted  of  the  De- 
pil  5    and  not  in  walking  as  he  walked,    who  frequented  the  Synagogues^ 
and  went  about  doing  good. 

But  this  way  of  Retirement  happening  to  be  admired  by  fome  great 
Men,  the  Publick  Worftiip  came  to  be  in  lefs  efteem ;  and  others  upon 
Reafonsof  a  different  Nature,  withdrew  themfelves  from  fuch  Afts  of 
Devotion  as  required  a  ftrifter  Attendance,  and  a  more  prepared  Tem- 
per of  Mind.  And  there  were  fome  who  did  abftain,  becaufe  they  were 
not  fo  well  fatisfied  with  themfelves  as  to  their  own  Preparations;  and 
fuch  as  thefe  St.  ChryfoBom  feems to  favour,  rather  than  fuch  who  came 
often  without  due  care,  as  to  the  whole  Courfe  of  their  Lives ;  only 
outofcuftom,  or  out  of  regard  to  the'Orders  of  the  Church.  From 
hence  many  thought  it  better  to  forbear,  as  long  as  they  did  it  not  out 
of  Contempt.  And  fo  by  degrees  the  People  were  content  to  look  on 
it  as  a  Sacrifice  for  them  to  be  performed  by  others,  rather  than  as  an 
Office,    wherein  they  were  to  bear  a  part  themfelves  5   at  leaft,    they 

thought 


<?/  ^)^^  Parochial  Clergy,  ^35 


thought  once  or  thrice  a  Vear  fufBcient  for  them.     And  to  this,   as,  Concii. 
appears  by  our  old  Provincial  ConfiitHtious^  they  were  forced  by  fevere  t"^  ^44! 
CanoMs.  166, 299. 

When  the  Reformation  began,  this  Difufe  of  this  holy  Sacrament 
was  looked  on,  by  the  chief  Reformers,  as  a  great  Abufe  and  Corrup- 
tion crept  into  the  Church,  which  ought  by  all  means  to  be  reform- 
ed, and  the  frequent  Celebration  of  it  fet  up  in  the  Reformed  Chur- caiv.  infi. 
ches.    But  unreafonable Scruples  in  fome,  and  Mifapprehenfions  in  o-  '•4-  C'  ^l- 
thers,  and  a  general  Coldnefs  and  Indifference,  as  to  Matters  of  Reli- Mmyr?'^' 
gion,  have  hitherto  hindered  the  reviving  this  primitive  part  of  Devo-  l.  c.  i'.^. 
tion  among  us.  inl'cw' 

I  do  not  go  about  to  determine  the  Frequency  in  your  Parirties,  n.  p.  $]. 
which  the  Scripture  doth  not  as  to  the  Chriftian  Church,  but  fuppofes^"*^"'" 
it  to  be  often  done  5  but  I  may  require  you  to  take  care  that  Chrift's  In-  ^."3(5/ 
ftitution  be  obfervcd  among  you,  and  that  with  your  utmoft  Care,  both 
as  to  the  Decency  and  Purity  of  it. 

The  lafl:  thing  I  recommend  to  you  all  is,  To  hdve  a  great  Care  of 
your  Converfations.  I  do  not  fpeak  it  out  of  a  diftruft  of  you  5  I  hope 
you  do  it  already  5  and  your  Cafe  will  be  fo  much  worfe,  if  you  do  it 
not,  becaufe  you  very  well  know  how  much  you  ought  to  do  it :  For 
the  Honour  of  God  and  Religion,  and  the  Succefs  of  your  Miniftry,  as 
well  as  your  own  Salvation,  depend  very  much  upon  it.  Lead  your 
Flock  by  your  Example,  as  well  as  by  your  Doftrine,  and  then  you 
may  much  better  hope  that  they  will  follow  you  ^  for  the  People  are 
naturally  Spies  upon  their  Minijiers^  and  if  they  obferve  them  to  mind 
nothing  but  the  World  all  the  Week,  they  will  not  believe  them  in 
earned,  when  on  the  Lord's  Days  they  perfwade  them  againftit.  And 
it  takes  off  tlie  Weight  of  all  Reproof  of  other  Mens  Faults,  if  thofe 
they  reprove  have  reafon  to  believe  them  guilty  of  the  fame.  I  do 
not  think  it  enough  for  a  Preacher  of  Righteonftiefs  merely  to  avoid  o- 
pen  and  fcandalous  Sins,  but  he  ought  to  be  a  great  Example  to  others 
in  the  moft  excellent  Vertues  which  adorn  our  Profeffion,  not  only  in 
Temperance  and  Chafiity^  in  Jujiice  and  ordinary  Charity^  but  in  a  rea- 
dinefs  to  do  good  to  all,  in  forgiving  Injuries,  in  loving  Enemies,  in 
evennefs  of  Temper,  in  Humility  and  Meeknefs,  and  Patience,  and 
Submiflion  to  God's  Will,  and  in  frequent  Retirements  from  the  World, 
not  merely  for  Study,  but  for  Devotion.  If  by  thefe  and  fuch  things 
you  fl}ine  as  Lights  among  your  People,  they  will  be  more  ready  to 
follow  your  Conduft  ;  and  in  probability  you  will  not  only  (top  their 
Mouths,  but  gain  their  Hearts.  For  among  all  the  Ways  of  advancing 
the  Credit  and  Intereft  of  the  Church  of  England,  one  of  the  moft  fuc- 
cefsful  will  be  the  diligent  Labours,  and  the  exemplary  Lives  of  the 
Clergy  in  it. 

But  if  Men  will  not  regard  their  own  or  the  Churches  Intereft  in  this 
matter  5  if  they  will  break  their  Rules  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  to  dilho- 
nour  God,  and  the  Church,  and  themfelves  by  it  5  then  you  are  to  con- 
fider  the  next  thing  I  was  to  fpeak  to,  which  is, 

II.  What  Authority  is  given  to  us  for  the  punilbing  Offenders  in  our 
Dioceffes  by  the  Ecclejiajlical  Law  of  this  Realm.  For  this  we  are  to 
confider.  That  our  Authority  herein  is  not  derived  from  any  modern 
Canons  or  Conjlitutions  of  this  C^«rfy&,. (although  due  Regard  ought  to 
be  fhewed  to  them)  but  from  the  ancient  Common  Law  Ecclefiajlical  in 
this  Realm,  whicli  ftill  continues  in  force.    For  as  there  is  a  common 

Law 


6^6  Of  tbe  Duties  andKtgbts 


Law  with  refpeft  ta  Civil  Rights,  which  depends  not  on  tbe  Feudal 
ConftittttioMs^  although  in  many  things  it  be  the  fame  with  them; 
but  upon  ancient  Frattice  and  general  Coufcnt  of  tbe  People  from  Age 
to  Age.  So,  I  fay,  there  is  a  Common  Lave  Ecclejiajiical,  which  altho* 
in  many  things  it  may  be  the  fame  with  the  Canon  Law,  which  is  read 
in  the  Books,  yet  it  hath  not  its  force  from  any  Papal  or  LegatiKe 
ConflitHtions,  but  from  the  Acceptance  and  Pra&ice  of  it  in  our  -Church. 
I  could  eafily  (hew  (if  the  time  would  permit)  that  Vapal  and  Lega- 
tine  Coiftittttions  were  not  received  here,  although  direded  hither  -^  that: 
2inft.632.fQu^g  Pfovincial  Conflitut'ions  never  obtained  the  Force  of  Ecclejiajiical 
Laws  ^  but  my  bufinefs  is  to  (hew  what  did  obtain  and  continue  ftill 
to  have  the  Force  of  fuch  EccleJ/aJiical  Laivs  among  us. 

By  tht  Statute  oi  25  H,  8.  c.  19.  it  is  declared,  "  That  fuch  Canons, 
*  "  Conftitutions,  Ordinances,  and  Synodals  Provincial  being  already 

"  made,  which  be  not  contrariant  nor  repugnant  to  the  Laws, 
"  Statutes,  and  Cuftoms  of  this  Realm,  nor  to  the  Damage  or  Hurt  of 
*'  the  King's  Prerogative  Royal,  (ball  now  ftill  be  ufed  and  executed 
"  as  they  were  afore  the  making  of  this  Aft,  &c.  It's  true,  a  Review 
was  appointed,  but  fuch  Difficulties  were  found  in  it,  as  to  the  (ba- 
king the  Foundations  of  the  Ecclejiajiical  Law  here,  that  nothing 
was  ever  legally  eftablilhed  in  it,  and  therefore  this  Law  is  (till  in 
force. 

In  the  Statute  25  H.^.c.ii.  it  is  faid, "  That  this  Realm  recognizing 
"  no  Superiour  under  God  but  the  King,  hath  been  and  is  free  from  fub- 
"  jeftion  to  any  Man's  Laws  but  only  to  fuch  as  have  been  devifed, 
"  made,  and  obferved  within  this  Realm,  for  theWealth  of  the  fame  5 
*'  or  fuch  other,  as  by  the  Sufferance  of  the  King  and  his  Progenitors, 
"  the  People  of  this  Realm  have  taken  at  their  free  Liberty,  by  their 
"  ov/n  Confent  to  be  ufed  amongft  them,  and  have  hound  themfelves 
"  by  long  life  and  Cu(tom  to  Obfervance  of  the  fame,  not  as  to  the 
"  Obfervance  of  the  Laws  of  any  Foreign  Prince,  Potentate,  or  Pre- 
"  late,  but  as  to  the  Cuftoms  and  ancient  Laws  of  this  Realm  original- 
"  ly  eftablilhed  as  Laws  of  the  fame,  by  the  faid  Sufferance,  Confent, 
"  Cuftom,  and  none  otherwife. 

AH  that  I  have  now  to  do,  is  to  (hew  what  Authority  the  Bi/Jjops  had 
over  the  Clergyhy  the  ancient  Ecclejiajiical  Law  of  this  Realm  j  and  what 
Cenjares  they  were  liable  to  for  fome  particular  Offences. 

I.  By  the  Ecdefiajlical  Law  the  Bi(hop  is  Judge  of  the  Fitnejs  of  any 

Clerk  prefented  to  a  Benejice.     This  is  confefled  by  the  Lord  Coke  m 

2lnft.i532.  thefe  Words  :  And  the  Examination  of  the  Ability  and  Sufficiency  of  the 

Pe'^fon  prefented  belongs  to  the  Bifhop,  vcko  is  the  Ecclejiajiical  Judge,  and 

in  the  Examination  he  is  a  Judge,  and  not  a  Minijler,  and  may  and  ought 

to  reftife  Ihe  Perfon  prefented,  if  he  he  not  Perfona  idonea.     But  this  is 

plain  to  have  been  the  ancient  Ecdefiafiical  Law  of  this  Realm,  by  the 

Art/cul.  Cleri  in  Edw.  II.  time,  De  Idoneitate  Perfon£  pr£fentat£  adBenefi- 

cium  Ecchfiafiicum  pertinet  Examinatio  ad  Judicem  EcclefajiicHm,  d>  ita 

eji  ha&enus  ufitatnm,  d^  Jiat  in  futurum. 

Piovinc.        By  the  Provincial  Conftitutions  at  Oxford  in  the  time  of  Hen.  III.  the 

^°"*-       Bifhop  is  required  to  admit  the  Clerk  who  is  prefented,  without  Op- 

cundl/.yiPofition,  within  two  Months,  dum  tamen  ideonus  fit,  if  he  thinks  him 

fit.     So  much  time  is  allowed,  propter  Examinationem,  faith LyndwooJ, 

even  when  there  is  no  Difpute  about  Right  of  Patronage.     The  maia 

thing  he  is  to  be  examined  upon,  is  his  /Ability  to  difcharge  hu  Pajio- 

ral 


of  the  Parochial Cln.gy.  637 

ralDnty^  asCohe  czWi  it^     or  as  Lynwood  faith,    whether  he  be  corfz- 
tftendandm  Scientia  df"  Moribits.     As  tO  the  former,   the  BifliCp  may 
judge   himfelf ;    but  as  to   the  latter,    he  muft  take  the  Teflimorji- 
als  of  Others  ^    and  I  heartily  wifli  the  Clergy  would  be  more  care- 
ful in  giving  them,    by  looking  on  it  as  a  Matter  of  Co>/fcie»ce,   and 
not  merely  of  Civility  ^    for  otherwife  it  will  be  impoffible  to  avoid 
the  peftering  the  Church  with   frandalous  and  ignorant  Wretches. 
If  the  Biftiop  refufes  to  admit  within  the  time   (  which  by  the  Modern  can.  py. 
Canons  is  limited  to  twenty  eight  Days  after  the  Prefentatiori  deliver- 
ed )  he  is  liable  to  a  Duplex  ^erela  in  the  Ecclefiaftical  Courts,    and  a 
^tare  impedit  at  Common  Law  ^  and  then  he  muft  certifie  the  Keafons 
of  his  Refufal.     InSpecot's  Cafe  it  is  faid.  That  in  1 5  H  7.  7,  8.  all  the    Rep.  57. 
Judges  agreed,  that  the  Bifljop  is  Judge  in  the  Examination,    and  therefore 
the  Lavpgiveth  Faith  and  Credit  to  his  Judgment.     But  becaufe  great  In- 
conveniencies  might  otherwife  happen,    the  general  Allegation   is  not 
fufBcient,  but  he  muft  certifie  fpecially  and  direSfly  ^  and  the  general  Rule 
is,  and  it  was  fo  refolved  by  the  Judges,   That  all  fuch  as  are  fufficient 
Caufcs  of  Deprivation  of  an  Incumbent^     are  fufficient  Caufes  to  refufe  a  Pre' 
fentee.    But  by  the  Canon  Law  more  are  allowed.     In  the  Co^/Jiitutions^-^^]^^  ''^' 
oiOthobon,  theBifhop  is  required  particularly  to  enquire  into  the  Lifcpromo-'^ 
and  Converfation  of  him  that  is  prefented  ;  and  afterwards,    that  if  a  vendum, 
Biftiop  admits  another  who  is  guilty  of  the  fame  Fault  for  which  he  re-  ^"^ciun" 
Jefted  the  former,    his  Inftitution  is  declared  null  and  void.      By  theGiofi.iar. 
Canon  Law,  if  a  Biftiop  malicioufly  refufes  to  admit  a  fitPerfon,  he  is  ^'■„'^^'*'|l' 
bound  to  provide  another  Benefice  for  him;   but  our  Ecclefiaftical  Law  cleric,  c. 
much  better  puts  him  upon  the  Proof  of  the  Caufe  ofvhis  Refufal.   But  chriaia- 
if  the  Biftiop  doth  not  examine  him,  the  Canonifts  fay  it  is  a  Proof  fuf-  Def   ^" 


ure 


ficient  that  he  did  it  malitiose.     If  a  Biftiop  once  rejefts  a  Man  for  In-  Patron,  c. 
fufEciency,  he  cannot  afterwards  accept  or  admit  of  him  ^   as  was  ad-  o^(i;-''''^ 
Judged  in  the  Biftiop  oi  Hereford's  Cafe.     If  a  Man  brings  a  Prefentation  aioif.  in 
to  a  Benefice,  the  Biftiop  is  not  barely  to  examine  him  as  to  Life  and  A-  c-^"-  ^. 
bilities,  but  he  muft  be  fatisfied  that  he  is  in  Orders.    How  can  he  be  Moor°26! 
fatisfied,  unlefs  the  other  produce  them  ?     How  can  he  produce  them,  ei.  3,  ? 
when  it  may  be  they  are  loft  ?    What  is  to  be  done  in  this  Cafe  >    The  ^^'  ^^' 
Canon  is  exprefs.  That  no  BifJiopJhall  injiitute  any  to  a  Benefice,  who  hath  ^^^-  39' 
been  Ordained  by  any  other  Bi/hop,  (  for  if  heOrdained  himfelf,    he  can- 
not after  rejeft  him,  becaufe  the  Law  fuppofes  him  to  have  examined 
and  approved  him  )    except  hejirjijhew  unto  him  his  Letters  of  Orders^ 
and  bring  him  a  fufficient  Tejiimony  of  his  former  good  Life  and  Behaviour^ 
if  the  Bijhop  JJmII  require  it ;  and  lafily,  f)all  appear  upon  due  Examination 
to  be  worthy  of  the  Mini firy.     But  yet  in  Falmes  and  the  Biftiop  of  Peter- 
borough's Cafe,    it  was  adjudged.    That  no  Lapfe  did  accrue  by  the 
Clerk's  not  ftiewing  his  Orders,  for  the  Biftiop  upon  his  not  coming  to 
him  again,  collated  after  fix  Months.     But  the  Court  agreed.  That  the  ?  Cr.  54-, 
Clerk  ought  to  make  Proof  of  his  Orders ;  but  they  differed  about  the^f^""' 
manner  of  their  Proof.    Anderfon  faid.  The  Biftiop  might  give  him  his 
Oath.     But  if  a  Proof  were  neceflary,   and  the  Clerk  did  not  come  to 
m;ke  Proof,  it  feems  tome  to  be  a  very  hard  Judgment. 

IL  The  Biftiop  by  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law,  is  to  vifit  his  Diocefs,  and 
to  take  an  account  of  the  Clergy  how  they  behave  themfelves  in  the  ,.^f' "^  .f^. 
Duties  of  their  Places.     By  the  eldeft  Canons  I  can  find,  the  Biftiop'sS, 'o.Ba- 
Vi  "tation  is  fuppofed  as  a  thing  implied  in  his  Office  ^    whereby  he  is||'e;in^o„. 
obliged  to  lookafter  thegood  Eftate  of  his  whole  Diocefs,    and  efpeci-p  53,. 

M  m  m  m  ally 


Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


concii.     ally  of  the  Clergy  in  it.     In  the  time  of  Hnbtrt  Archbifhop  of  Canter- 
^zf.'ilt  W.  i"  the  beginning  of  Ring  John's,  time,    care  is  taken  in  the  Canons 
then  made,  That  Bi/hops  [hodd  not  be  burden fom  to  the  Clergy  in  the  Ntim- 
her  of  the  Attendants  in  their  Fijitations,  which  then  were  Parochial,  and 
the  Number  allowed  of  Twenty  or  Thirty  Horfe,  was  too  heavy  far  the  Cler- 
gy  to  hear.     And  therefore  by  degrees  it  was  thought  fit  to  turn  that 
Charge  into  a  Certainty,    which  was  the  Original  oi  Procurations.     By 
the  Fourth  Council  of  Tc/e«/fl,  theBifhop  wasto  vifitbis  whole  Diocefs, 
c.  to.q.  I.  Parochially,  every  Year.     The  Glofs  faith,  if  there  mre  occajionjor  it ; 
purn^Re-   '^"^  *^'^*  *^^  Bijhop  may  vijit  as  often  m  he  fees  caufe  s  hut  if  he  be  hindered, 
gino!/.  I.  the  Canon  faith,    he  may  fend  others   (  which  is  the  Original  of  the 
*  1'  Arch-Deacons   Vifitation)    to  fee  not  only  the  Condition  of  the  Churches, 

but  the  Lives  of  the  Mrnijiers.  The  Council  of  Braga  in  the  latter  end 
concii.  of  the  fixth  Century,  makes  this  the  firft  Canon,  That  all  Biftiops(houId 
Braga.  2.c.yj(jf  jj^gj^  Dioceflcs  by  Parifhes,  and  there  fhould  firft  examine  the 
piacuiJ''  Clergy,  and  then  the  People  ;  and  in  another  Canon  he  was  required 
to  receive  only  his  Cathedraticum,  i.  e.  a  certain  Sum  in  lieu  of  Enter- 
tainment; which  came  to  be  fettled  by  Prefcription.  The  Council  of 
Cone.  Cavailon  in  France,  A.  D.  831,  fixed  no  Sum,  but  defired  the  Bifhops 
Cabii.  tQ  bg  no  Burdens  to  the  Clergy  in  their  parochial  Vifitations.  Lyn- 
De'c«ifi-  i«>ood  faith,  the  ancient  Procuration  here,  was  a  L  ay  and  Nights  Enter- 
bu5,/i2i.  tainment ;  which  after  came  to  be  a  cuftomary  Payment  :  But  how- 
vka?*?  ever  it  was  paid,  it  is  an  evident  Proof  of  the  Right  of  the  BiOiops  Vi- 
quaniam  fitatioHS  by  the  ancient  Ecclefiaftical  Law  5  and  by  fuch  a  Caftom  as  \^ 
'*''•  P''^'^"-  allowable  by  the  Rules  of  our  common  Law.       ;;,-:-;')  1 

""'  III.  There  are  fome  Faults  which  make  the  Clergyliable  fd  E>epriVlii 

tion  by  virtue  of  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law,  which  was  here  received,  j 
(ball  name  only  fome  of  them,  and  conclude  5  tbefe  being  fuflScient  fd^ 
ray  prefent  purpofe.  \ 

I.  ExceJJtve  Drinking.  All  drinking  (  ad  Pot  us  equates  )  was  abfoi- 
Concil.  lutely  forbidden  to  Clergymen,  on  pain  of  Sufpenfion  after  Admonition  ^ 
Angl.  vol.  j^Qf  Qi^jy  jjy  2  Synodical,  but  by  a  Provincial  Conjiitutionunder  Edmund, 


2 

200 


Archbilhop  of  Canterbury.     Tlie  Canon  Law  faith  in  that  cafe,   ab  Offi^ 
^^"•^^  cio  vel  Beneficio  fufpendatur  :     But  our  Conjiitution  is  more  fevere,    a  Be- 
Honefiat.  »eficio  &  Officio.     The  Council  of  Oxford  not  only  ftriftly  forbids  all 
cleric.      Clergymen  whatever  tends  to  Gluttony  and  Drunkennefs  ;  but  it  requires 
pj^t".       the  Biftiops  to  proceed  ftriftly  againft  thofe  who  are  guilty,  according  to 
conft.       the  Form  of  the  General  Council,  i.  e.  the  Lateran,  4.  viz.  bv  Admoni' 
f-^^'       tion  Rrik,  and  then  Sujpe/rfion.     Lynwood  comphins,    Thst  this  was  not 
fo  much  looked  after  as  it  fiould  be,    becaufe  it  brought  no  Profit  ;   I  hope 
that  Reafon  will  not  hold  among  thofe  who  pretend  to  Reformation  ^ 
which  will  be  very  defeifJive,  if  it  extend  not  to  our  Lives  as  well  as 
our  Doftrines :  For  there  can  be  no  greater  Reproach  than  to  fee  thofe 
loofe  and  diffolute  in  their  Converfations,    who  think  it  their  Honour 
to  be  Minifters  of  a  Reformed  Church.     It  was  a  ftinging  Refleftion 
upon  our  Church  by  the  Archbiftiop  of  Spalato,   (  who  was  no  very 
Epift.  ad   ^"'^  Man  himfelf  ^  That  he  farv  nothing  Reformed  amotig  m  hut  our  Do- 
Jof.Hail.   brines.     I  hope  there  was  more  of  Satyr  than  of  Truth  \n  it  ;    fori  do 
not  queftion,  but  there  were  many  then    (  as  there  are  no  w  )   of  Exem- 
plary Lives,  and  unblameable  Converfations  5  but  if  there  be  any  o- 
thers,  it  will  be  the  morefhame  not  to  proceed  againft  them;    fincee- 
ven  before  the  Reformation,   the  Canons  were  fo  ftrift  and  fevere  m 
this  matter.    In  the  Council  at  Wejlminjhr  in  Henry  IL  time,   under 

Richard, 


of  the  Varocbial  Clergy,  ^^^ 


Richard,   Archbiftiop  of  Canterbury^  all  Clergymen  are  forbidden  going 
into  Taverns  to  eat  or  drink,  unlefs  upon  Travelling  ^  and  the  Sanftion 
of  this  Canon  is,  aut  cejfet,  aut  deponatnr.     The  fame  was  forbidden  ConcO. 
m  the  Council  at  Tork,  in  the  time  of  Richard  I.  in  the  Council  at  ^"s'-  ^' 
London  under  Hubert,  in  the  time  of  King  John.     And  fince  the  Refor-7.'  122*" 
mation  the  fame  Canon  is  renewed,  That  no  Ecclefiajlical  Perfons  fhall    '26.' 
at  any  time,  other  than  for  the^rhoneji  Necejfities,  refort  to  any  Taverns  or  ^^"'78- 
Alehoufes.     And  there  have  been  Inftances  of  the  Severity  of  our  Ec- 
defiaftical  Cenfures  againft  Drunkennefs  in  Clergymen. 

In  8  Jar.  Parker  was  deprived  of  his  benefice  for  Drukehnefs,  and  ^rown- 
moved  for  a  Prohibition,  but  it  was  denied  him.  ^^"l^r  ^ 

In  g  Jac.  another  was  deprived  for  the  fame  fault  •  and  the  Judges 
at  Common  Law  allowed  the  Sentence  to  be  good. 

No  doubt  there  are  other  Inftances,  but  we  had  not  known  of  thefe,/rf./.  79; 
if  they  had  not  been  preferved  in  Books  of  Reports. 

II.  Incontinency-Lyndvpood  faith,  Thofe  who  are  proved  to  be  guilty  Lyndw. 
of  it,  are  ipfo  Jure  privati  -^  but  he  thinks  a  Declaratory  Sentence  of  the-^-  ^^ 
Ecclefiaftical  Judges  neceflary  for  the  Execution  of  it.    Since  the  Re- 
formation, we  have  Inftances  of  Deprivation  for  Adtdtery  in  our  Law<*  C'  M' 
Books,  one  12  Eli%.  another  16  Eliz,.  a  third  27  Eliz.    Thefe  ^re  e-o°^enSj' 
nough  to  (hew  that  the  Ecclefiajlical  Lan>  is  allowed  by  the  Judges  of  i  Cr.  41. 
Common  Law,  to  continue  in  fufficient  Force  for  Deprivation  in  this  ^s?* 
Cafe. 

IIL  Simony.  Which  is  the  Name  given  by  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law,  to 
ail\  Contracts  for  Gain  in  the  difpofing  or  obtaining  any  Ecclefiaftical 
Promotion  or  Miniftry.     It  is  true,  thefe  do  not  come  up  to  the  very  offidum 
Sin  of  Simon  Magus,  which  related  to  the  immediate  Gifts  of  the  Holy  ^"/^^^"ji 
Ghoft  5  but  becaufe  the  whole  Minifterial  Office  in  all  the  parts  of  it  (  e-  pratcipu- 
fpecially  the  Cure  of  Souls)  is  of  a  Spiritual  Nature '^  and  all  Bargains  "j™^'|:^p'' 
are  fo  repugnant  to  the  Defign  of  it,  therefore  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law  mum  Dei 
hath  fixed  that  deteftable  Name  upon  it :  For,  all  CofitraSus  hon  gra-  Don«ni- 
tuiti  in  thefe  things,  favour  oiturpe  Lucrum,  and  tend  to  bring  in /fer/>e  J  ^ft^S. 
Commercium  into  the  Church  ;  which  would  really  overturn  the  whole 
Defign  of  that  Miniftry,  which  was  defigned  for  the  Salvation  of  Souls. 
And  therefore  it  was  neceflary,  that  when  Perfons  had  received  (  by 
the  Favour  of  Temporal  Princes  and  other.  Benefaftors,  who  were 
Founders  of  Churches)  fuch  Endowments  a^  might  encourage  them  in 
their  Funftion,  that  fevere  Laws  ftiould  be  made  againft  any  fuch  for- 
did and  mifchievous  Contrafts.    And  fuch  there  were  here  in  England 
long  before  the  excellent  Stat,  of  31.  Eliz.  c.  6.  although  it  feems  the 
Force  of  them  was  fo  much  worn  out,  as  to  make  that  Statute  necefla- 
ry for  avoiding  of  Simony  ^  which  is  there  explained  to  be  Corruption 
in  bej} owing  or  getting  Poffcjfion  of  Promotions  Ecclefiaftical. 

In  a  Council  at  London  under  Lanfranc,  in  the  Conqueror's  time,  concii: 
Simony  was  forbidden,  under  the  Name  oi  Buying  and  Jelling  of  Orders.  Angi,  vol. 
And  it  could  be  nothing  elfe  before  the  Churches  Revenue  was  fettled :  *  ''  '*°' 
But  in  the  time  of  Henry  I.     Ecclefiaftical  Benefices  were  forbidden  to  be    p,  35; 
bought  or  fold,  and  it  was  Deprivation  then  to  any  Clergyman  to  be  convi' 
ded  of  it:,  and  a  Layman  was  to  be  Out-lawed,  and  Excommunicated,  and 
Deprived  of  his  Right  of  Patronage.     And  this  was  done  by  a  Provinci- 
al Synod  of  that  time. 

In  the  Fveian  of  Henry  W.  it  was  decreed.  That  if  any  Perfon. received  ^f-^°^- 
any  Monyfor  a  Prefentation,  he  was  to  be  for  ever  deprived  of  the  ratro-  prov.  jsj. 

M  m  m  m  2  nage 


The  Duties  a?id  Rights 


nage  of  that  Church  s,  and  this  was  not  meerly  a  Provincial  Confiitution^ 
but  two  Kings  were  prefent  (^Hen.W.  and  bis  Son)  and  added  their 
Parfons     Authority  to  it.     This  was  not  depriving  a  Man  of  his  Free-hold  by  a 
io°"sea.5.^'^'''^'^'  as  a  Learned  Gentleman  calls  it;  fo  here  was  the  greateft  Au- 
thority, Temporal  as  well  asEccIefiaftical,  added  to  it. 

But  we  are  told,  thefe  Canons  were  of' as  little  Effe&s  as  that  o/Otho- 
bon,  which  made  all  Simoniacal  Contra&s  void  5  but  fome  of  the  mod 
Hob.  167.  judicious  Lawyers  have  held,  that  Simony  being  contra&us  ex  turpi  cans^, 
is  void  of  Parties. 

All  that  I  aim  at  is  to  (hew,  that  by  our  old  Ecclefiaftical  Law,  Si- 
moniacus  incurred  a  Deprivation  and  Difabiliiy  before  the  Stat.  31  Eliz,. 

1  Rolls  and  therein  I  have  the  Opinion  of  a  very  Learned  Judge  concurring  with 
237-        me. 

jo.de  A-  IV.  Dilapidations.  By  which  the  Ecf/e/^^rW  L.in' underftands  any 
con"(iic"  confiderable  Impairing  the  Edifices,  Woods,  and  Revenues  belonging  to 
ochob./.  Ecclefiaftical  Perfons,  by  Virtue  of  their  Places.  For  it  is  the  greateft 
55.2. 35  Intereft  and  Concernment  of  the  Church  to  have  things  preferved  for 
f;  R.  72.fbe  good  of  SuccefTors  5  and  it  is  a  part  of  common  Jujlice  and  Honefiy 
3inft,204.  fo  to  do.  And  the  Lord  Cooke  pofitively  affirms,  That  Delapidation  is 
Godboi'c^  ^  ^""'^  ^'^"fi  °f  Deprivation.  And  it  was  fo  refolved  by  the  Judges  in 
279.  the  Kings-Bench,  1 2  Jac.  Not  by  Virtue  of  any  new  Law  or  Statute 
Roil  81?.  but  by  tbe  old  Ecclefiaftical  Law.    For  which  Cooke  refers  to  the  Year- 

2  HeM.5  Books,  which  not  only  ftiew  what  the  Eccle/ajiical  Law  then  was,  but 
iiHen.6.that  it  was  allowed  by  the  Common  Law  of  E»^/4»^  5  and  we  are  told, 
g°E.4-2  4,  ^^"^^  ^  never  given  to  change -^  but  it  rnay  be  forced  to  it  by  a  New  Law, 
conaic.    which  cannot  be  pretended  in  this  cafe.     And  by  the  old  Conftitutions 
othob.  /,  bg  received,  the  BiQiops  are  required  to  put  the  Clergy  in  mind  of  keeping 
otiiob./.  their  Houjes  in  fufjicient  Reparations,  and  if  they  do  it  not  within  two 
55-  2'        Months,  the  Biflsop  is  to  take  care  it  be  done  out  of  the  Profits  of  the  Bene- 
fice.    By  the  Injunftions  of  Ed.  VI.  and  Queen  Elizabeth,  all  Perfons 
having  Ecclefiaftical  Benefices,  are  required  to  fet  apart  the  Fifth  of 
their  Revenue  to  repair  their  Houfes ;  and  afterwards  to  maintain  them 

.      in  good  Condition. 
con(iir!  /".      V.  Pluralities.     By  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law,  which  was  here  received, 
59-         the  aftual  receiving  Inftitution  into  a  fecond  Benefice  made  the  firft 
void  ipfo  Jure:,  and  if  he  fought  to  keep  both  above  a  Month,  the  fe- 
cond was  void  too.     Lytrdwood  obferves,  that  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law 
had  varied  in  this  matter.    And  it  proceeded  by  the  Steps,  (  which  are 
Lynw.  tb.  more  than  Lyndwood  mentions. )  . 

V.  fit  con.  i^  It  yj^as  abfolutely  forbidden  to  have  two  Parifties,  if  there  were 
lo.q.  3.  more  than  ten  Inhabitants  in  them,  becaufe  no  Man  could  do  his  duty  in 
c.  Unio.  both  Places.  And  if  any  Biftiop  negledl-ed  the  Execution  of  it,  he  was 
Toiet!''i6.  to  be  excommunicated  for  two  MonthSj,  and  to  be  reftored  only  upon 
c.  5.        proraife  to  fee  this  Canon  Executed. 

Ei.q.i.c  n.  The  Rule  was  allowed  to  hold,  as  to  Cities,  but  an  Exception 
1.  Gieri-  yvas  made  as  to  fmall  and  remote  Places,  where  there  was  a  greater  Scar- 
"^'         city  of  Perfons  to  fupply  them. 

Ex.  dc  III.  If  a  Man  had  two  Benefices,  it  was  left  to  his  Choice,  which 
refcrente.  ^^^  would  have:  But  he  could  not  hold  both.    This  kind  of  Option 

was  allowed  by  the  Ecclefiajiical  Law  then  in  force, 
cier!^  IV.  That  if  he  takes  a  fecond  Benefice,  that  Inftitution  is  void,  by 

Non-Refi-  the  Third  Council  of  Lateran,  under  Alexander  3. 

.  den.  c. 
quia  non-  _, 

nuiii.  >  V.  The 


of  the  Varochial  Clergy,  6^1 

V.  That  by  taking  a  fecond,  the  firft  is  void  j  which  is  the  famous  ^"^^  ^^ 
Canon  of  the  Fourth  L<«fer^»  Council.  ^ttViX'^ 

Vf.  That  if  he  were  not  contented  with  the  lafl-,  but  endeavour  to 
keep  both,  he  fhould  be  deprived  of  both.  And  this  was  the  Ecclefi- 
afiical  Law  as  it  was  declared  in  our  Provincial  Co»Jiitutio»T.  But  the  ge- 
neral Pradice  was  to  avoid  the  former  according  to  the  Lateran  Coun- 
cil. Thefe  were  very  fevere  Canons,  but  that  one  Claufe  of  the  Pope's 
Difpenfi»g  Power,  made  thera  to  fignifie  little  unlefs  it  were  to  advance 
his  Power  and  Revenue.  For  when  the  Difyenftng  Power  came  to  be 
owned,  the  Law  had  very  little  Force  ^  efpecially  as  tothe  Confcien- 
ces  of  Men.  For  if  it  were  a  Law  of  God,  how  could  any  man  dif- 
penfe  with  it  ?  Unlefs  it  were  as  apparent  that  he  had  given  a  Power 
in  fome  Cafes  to  Difpertfe,  cis  that  he  had  made  the  Law.  Thofe  Ca- 
fuifts  are  very  hard  put  to  it,  who  make  Refidence  Jure  Divino,  and 
yet  fay  the  Pope  may  difpenfe  it;  which  at  lafl:  comes  only  to  this. 
That  the  Pope  can  authoritatively  declare  the  fufSciency  of  the  Caufe: 
So  that  the  whole  matter  depends  upon  the  Caufe  ^  whether  there  cart 
be  any  fufEcient  to  excufe  from  Perfonal  Refidence. 

It  is  agreed  on  all  hands,  that  the  habitual  NegleO:  of  a  Charge  we 
have  taken  upon  our  felves,  is  an  evil  thing,  and  that  it  is  fo  to  heap 
up  Preferments  meerly  for  Riches,  or  Luxury,  or  Ambition  5  but  the 
main  Qpeflion  in  point  of  Confcience  is,.  What  is  a  fufficient  Caufe  to' 
juftifie  any  Man's  breaking  foreafonable  and  juft  a  Rule  as  that  of  Refi- 
dence is.  i 
It  cannot  be  denied,  that  tlie  eldeft  Canons  of  the  Church  were  fo 
ftria  and  fevere,  that  they  made  it  unlawful  for  any  Man  to  go  from  that 
Church  in  which  he  firft  received  Orders  ^  as  well  as  to  take  another 
Benefice  in  it ;  And  fo  for  any  Biftiop  to  be  tranflated  from  that  Place 
he  was  firft  Confecrated  to ;  as  well  as  to  hold  another  with  it.     But 
the  Good  of  the  Church  being  the  main  Foundation  of  all  the  Rules 
of  it  5  when  that  might  be  better  promoted  by  a  TranJIation,  it  was  by 
a  tacit  Confent  looked  on,  as  no  unjuft  Violation  of  its  Rules.     The 
Queftion  then  is,  whether  the  Churches  Benefit  may  not  in  fome  Cafes 
make  the  Canons  againft  Non-Refidence  as  Difpenfible,  as  thofe  againft 
Tranjlatiotts  ?    And  the  Refolution  of  it  doth  not  depend  upon  the 
voiding  the  particular  Obligation  of  the  Incumbent  to  his  Cure  5  but 
upon   fome   more  general  Reafon  with  refpefl:  to  the  State  of  the 
Church  5  as  being  imployed  in  the  Service  of  it,  which  requires  a  Per- 
fons  having  (  not  a  bare  Competency  for  Subfiftence,  but)  a  Suffici- 
ency to  provide  NecefTaries  for  fuch  Service:  For  thofe  feem  to  have 
very    little  regard  to  the  fliourifhing  Condition  of  a  Church,   who 
would  confine  the  Sufficiency  of  a  Subfiftence,  meerly  to  the  NecefTaries 
of  Life.     But  it  feems  to  be  reafonable,  that  Clergymen  fhould  have  In- 
couragement  fufficient,  not  only  to  keep  them  above  Contempt,  but  iti 
fome  refpefl:  agreeable  to  the  more  ample  Provifion  of  other  Orders  of 
Men.     And  by  God's  own  Appointment  the  Tribe  of  Levi  did  not  tall 
fhort  of -any  of  the  reft,  if  it  did  not  very  much  exceed  the  Proportion 
of  others.  We  do  not  pretend  to  the  Privileges  they  had,  only  we  obferve 
from  thence,  that  God  himfelf  did  appoint  a  plentiful  Subfiftence  for 
thofe  who  attended  upon  his  Service.    And  I  do  not  know  what  there 
is  Levitical  or  Ceremonial  in  that.     I  am  fure  the  Duties  of  the  Clergy 
now  require  a  greater  Freedom  of  Mind  from  the  anxious  Cares  of  the 
World,  than  the  Imployments  of  the  Priejls  and  Lcvites  under  the 

Law, 


Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


Law.  But  we  need  not  go  fo  far  back  j  if  the  Church  enjoyed  all  her 
Revenues  as  entirely,  as  when  the  fevere  Canons  againft  Pluralities  were 
made,  there  would  not  be  fuch  a  Plea  for  them,  as  there  is  too  much 
Caufe  for  in  fome  Places,  from  the  Want  of  a  competent  Subfiftence 
But  fince  that  time,  the  Abundance  oi^  Appropriations  (fmce  turned  in. 
to  Lay-Fees)  hath  extremely  leffened  the  Churches  Revenues,  and  have 
left  us  a  great  Number  of  poor  Vicarages,  and  Arbitrary  Cures,  which 
w^ould  hardly  have  afforded  a  Maintenance  for  the  Nethinims  under  the 
Law,  who  were  only  to  be  Hewers  of  Wood,  and  Drawers  of  Water. 
But  this  doth  not  yet  clear  the  Difficulty  :  For  the  Queftion  is.  Whe- 
ther the  Subfiftence  of  the  Clergy  can  lawfully  be  improved  by  a  Flu- 
rality  of  Livings?  Truly,  I  think  this  (if  it  be  allowed  in  fome  Cafes 
lawful)  to  be  the  leaft  defirable  way  of  any;  but  in  fome  Circumftan- 
ces  it  is  much  more  excufable  than  in  others ;  as,  when  the  Benefices 
are  mean,  when  they  lie  near  each  other,  when  great  care  is  taken 
to  put  in  fufficient  Curates  with  good  Allowance  ;  when  Perfons  take'" 
all  Opportunities  to  do  their  Duties  themfelves,  and  do  not  live  at  a 
diftance  from  their  Benefices  in  an  idle  and  carelefs  manner.  But  for 
Men  to  put  in  Curates  merely  to  fatisfy  the  Law,  and  to  mind  nothing 
of  the  Duties  of  their  Places,  is  a  horrible  Scandal  to  Religion  and 
our  Church,  and  that,  which  if  not  amended,  may  juftly  bring  down 
the  Wrath  of  God  upon  us.  For  the  loofeft  of  all  the  Popifh  Cafuifts 
look  upon  this  aS  a  very  great  Sin^  even  thofe  who  attributed  to  the- 
Pope  the  higheft  difpenfing  Power  in  this  Cafe. 

But  when  the  great  Liberty  of  Difpenfing  had  made  the  Ecclefiaftical 
Laws  in  great  meafure  ufelefs,  then  it  was  thought  fit  b.y  our  Law- 
makers to  reftrain  and  limit  it  by  a  Statate  made  21  H.  VIIL  wherein 
it  is  enafted,  "  That  if  any  Perfon  or  Perfons  having  one  Benefice 
"  with  Cure  of  Souls,  being  of  the  yearly  Value  of  eight  Pounds  or 
"  above,  acceptor  take  any  other  with  Cure  of  Souls,  and  be  infti- 
"  tuted  and  indufted  in  Pofleffion  of  the  fame,  that  then  and  immedi- 
"  ately  after  fuch  Poffeffion  had  thereof,  the  Benefice  (hall  be  adjudged 
*'  to  be  void.  And  all  Licences  and  Difpenfations  to  the  contrary  are 
*'  declared  to  be  void  and  of  none  efiFeft. 

This,  one  would  have  thought,  had  been  an  efFeftual  Remedy  a- 
gainft  all  fuch  Pluralities  and  Difpenfations  to  obtain  them  ;    and  this, 
no  doubt,  was  the  primary  Defign  of  the  Law  ;  but  then  follow  fo  ma- 
ny Provifos  of  qualified  Men  to  get  Difpenfations,  as  take  off  a  great 
deal  of  the  Force  and  EfFeft  of  this  Law.    But  then  it  ought  well  to 
be  confider'd.  Whether  fuch  a  Licence  being  againft  the  chief  Defign 
of  a  Law,  can  fatisfy  any  Man  in,  point  of  Confcience,  where  there  is 
rot  a  juft  and  fufficient  Caufe  ?  For  if  the  Pope's  Difpenfation,  with  the 
fuppofed  Plenitude  of  bis  Power,  could  not  fatisfy  a  Mans  Confcience 
without  an  antecedent  Caufe,  as  the  Cafuifts  refolve,  much  lefs  can  fuch 
Provifo's  do  it. 
Y^'^'n't       ^^  ^  the  general  Opinion  of  Divines  and  Lawyers,  hith  Lejji^,  That 
27*'    "  ■  no  Man  k  fafe  in  Confcience  by  the  Pope's  Difpenfation  for  Pluralities^  unlefs 
Pan.  c.  du-  there  be  ajufi  Caufe  for  it. 

Eieft  Syiv!      -^^  ^"^  ^^**  with  a  fafe  Confcience  take  a  Difpenfation  fi-om  the  Pope  for 
Benef.4.  ^^'^'^  Benefices  than  one,  merely  for  his  own  Advantage,  faith  Panorntitatt  5 
and  from  him  Sylvejier  and  Sumnt.  Angelica. 


Sum,  An 
gel.  Ben. 
3')' 


'fff  the  Varofhial  Clergy,  ^4  3 

hiiui  Di^^pit^Uij;  fiittl  CardlfralT*?/**',  ficU^era  Matt  astotke  Lavp  ;  ^/^o'ec 
■as  ^r/Csh/f  fM't  e  there  mhJI  be  a  good  Caf^  for  it  ^    a/rcl  that  h^  v^hen  the  caOiu^j. 
Church  h'a^'h  ^fe  Benefit  by  if,  than  it  rponld  have  rvithmt  it.  -    -■  ■  c-8. 

BiM  the  Pope's  Difpenfing  Power  went  much  farther  in  point  of  C<!>t1*- 
fcience  in  their  Opinion,  than  that  which  is  fettled  among  us  by  Aft  of 
Parliament^  for  it  is  exprefied  in  the  Statute  of  21  Hea.YlW.  That  the 
Difpenfation  is  intended  to  keep  Men  from  incttrring  the  Ehnger,  Pe- 
nalty, and  Forfeiture  in  the  Statute  comprized.  So  that  the  mod:  qua- 
lified Perfon  can  only  fay,  thatithe  LaSvdoth  not  deprive  him  ;  but 
he  can  never  plead  that  it  can  fatisfy  him  in  point  of  Confcience,  un- 
lefs  there  be  fome  Caufe  for  it,  which  is  of  more  Moment  to  the  Church 
than  a  Mans  fole  and'  conftant  Attendance  on  a  particular  Cure  is.  But 
this  Statute  is  more  favourable  to  the  Clergy  than  the  Canon  Law  was 
before,  in  two  Particulars.    ' 

I.  In  declaring  that  no  fimple  Benefices,  ormeer  Dignities,  astheCz- 

'  nonijis  call  therri,  are  comprehended  under  the  Name  of  Benefices,  having 
Cure  of  Souls,  viz.  no  Deanary,  Arch-deaconry,  ChanceOorjlnp,  Treafurer- 
Jf}ip,  Chanterfi)/p,  or  Prebend  in  any  Cathedral  or  Collegiate  Church,  nor 
Parfonage  that  hath  a  Vicar  endowed y  nor  any  Benefice  perpetually  appro- 
priate.  But  all  thefe  before  were  within  the  reach  of  the  Canon 
Law,  and  a  Difpenfation  was  necefl'ary  for  them :  Which  (hews 
that  this  Ltw  had  a  particular  RefpedJ:  to  the  neceffary  Attendance  on 

■  Parochial  Cures,  and  looked  on  other  Dignities  and  Preferments  in  the 
Church,  as  a  fufficient  Encouragement  to  extraordinary  Merit. 
■-'2.  That  no  rrotice  is  taken  of  Livings  under  the  Valuation  of  8 /i 
which,  I  fuppofe,  is  that  of  20  £.  i.  for  that  of  H.  8.  was  not  till  fiv^ 
years  after  that  Statute.     But  after  that  Valuation  it  was  to  be  judged 
according  to  it,  and  not  according  to  the  real  Value,  as  the  Judges 
declared  iiCar.  \.  in  the  Cafe  of  Drake  and  Hill.     Now  here  was  aCr.  Can 
regard  had  to  the  Poornefs  of  Benefices  fo  far,  that  the  Statute  doth^*'^* 
not  deprive  the  Incumbent  upon  tailing  a  fecond  Living,  if  the  former 
be  under, 8  /,    The  Qpeftion  that  arifes  from  hence  is.  Whether  fuch 
Perfons  are  allowed  to  enjoy  fuch  Pluralities  by  Law,  or  only  left  to 
the  Ecclefiaftical  Law  as  it  was  before?  It  is  certain,  that  fuch  are  not^-^^^j^^^- 
liable  to  the  Penalty  of  this  Law ;  but  before  any  Perfon  might  be  de-  c«/e." 
prived  by  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law  for  taking  a  fecond  Benefice  without 
Difpenfation,  of  what  Value  foever  the  former  were  5  now  here  comes 
a  Statute,  whic^  enads.  That  all  vvho  take  a  fecond  Benefice,  having 
one  of  8  /.  without  Qualification,  (hall  lofe  his  legal  Title  to  the  firft  5 
but  what  if  it  be  under?  Shall  he  lofe  it  or  not  ?    Not  by  this  Law, 
But  fuppofe  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law  before  makes  him  liable  to  Depriva- 
tion 5  doth  the  Statute  alter  the  Law  without  any  Words  to  that  pur- 
pofe?'The  Bilhop  had  a  Power  before  to  deprive,  where  is  it  taken  a- 
way  ?  The  Patron  had  a  Right  to  prefent  upon  fuch  Deprivation  5 
how  comes  he  to  lofe  it  ?  And  I  take  it  for  granted,  That  no  antecedent 
Rights  are  taken  away  by  Implications,  but  there  muft  be  exprefsClau- 
fes  to  that  purpofe.  So  that  I  conclude,  the  ancient  Ecclefiaftical  Law 
to  be  ftill  in  Force,  where  it  is  not  taken  away  by  Statute. 
•  And  thus,  my  Brethren,  I  have  laid  before  you  the  ^«f/^mifj/ and  the 
Rules  we  are  to  aft, by  ^  I  have  endeavoured  to  recommend  to  you  the 
mbf\  ufeful  parts  of  your  Duty,  and  I  hope  you  will  not  give  me  oc- 
rafiori  to  fhew  what  Power  we  have  by  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law  of  this 
Realm  to  proceed  againft  Offenders.    Nothing  will  be  more  uneafy  to 

me, 


^44  Of  ^^^  Duties  and  Rights 


me,  than  to  be  forced  to  make  ufe  of  any  Severity  againft  you.  And 
ray  Hearts  defire  is.  That  we  may  all  fincerely  and  faithfully  difcharge 
the  Duties  of  our  feveral  Places,  that  the  Bleffing  of  God  may  be  upv 
on  us  all  5  fo  that  we  may  fave  cur  fehes,  and  thofe  contmitteti  to  our 
Charge. 


O  F    T  H  E 

Nature  of  the  TRUST 

Committed  to 

The  Parochial  Clergy 

At  a  Vifitation  at   Wonefter^    OMer    21th.     16^6- 

My  Brethren^ 

I  Have  formerly,  on  the  like  Occafion,  difcourfed  to  you  of  the  Ge- 
neral Duties  of  your  Funftion,  and  the  Obligation  you  are  under  to 
perform  them  5  and  therefore  I  (hall  now  confine  my  Difcourfe  to  thefe 
Two  things : 

I.  To  confider  the  particular  Nature  of  the  Trnfi  committed  to 
you. 

II.  The  Obligation  you  are  under  to  your  'Parochial  Cures. 

I.  The  firft  is  neceffary  to  be  fpoken  to  ^  for  while  Perfons  have  on- 
ly foconfufed  and  cloudy  Apprehenfions  concerning  it,  they  can  nei- 
ther be  fatisfied  in  the  Nature  of  their  Duties,  nor  in  their  Perfor-j 
raance  of  them.  And  there  is  danger  as  well  in  letting  them.fo  high  as 
to  make  them  Imprafticable,  as  in  finking  them  fo  low  as  to  make, 
not  only  themfelves,  but  their  Profeflion  Contemptible.  For  the  World 
C  let  us  fay  what  we  will  )  will  always  efteem  Men,  not  meerly  for  a 
Name  and  Profeflion,  but  for  the  Work  and  Service  which  they  do. 
There  is,  no  doubt,  a  Reverence  and  Refpeft  due  to  a  Sacred  Fundion 
on  its  own  Account ;  but  the  higheft  Profeflion  can  never  maintain  its 
Charafter  among  the  reft  of  Mankind,  unleG  they  who  are  of  it,  do 
promote  the  General  Good,  by  afting  fuitably  to  it.  And  the  greater 
the  Charafter  is,  which  any  bear,  the  higher  will  the  Expeftations  of 
others  be  concerning  them  ^  and  if  they  fail  in  the  greateft  and  moft 
ufeful  Duties  of  their  Funftion,  it  will  be  impofTible  to  keep  up  the  Re- 
gard which  ought  to  be  (hew'd  unto  it.  We  may  complain  as  long  as 
we  pleafe  of  the  Unreafonablenefs  of  the  Contempt  of  the  Clergy  in  our 
Days,  (which  is  too  general,  and  too  far  fpread  )  but  the  moft  efFe- 
ftual  Means  to  prevent  or  remove  it,  is  for  the  Clergy  to  apply  them- 
felves to  the  moft  neceffary  Duties,  with  Refpeft  to  the  Charge  and 
Truft  committed  to  them. 

But  here  arifes  a  confiderable  Difficulty,  which  deferves  to  be  clea- 
red ^  viz,,  concerning  the  juftMe<«/«rcj  of  that  Diligence  which  is  re- 
quired.     For,    there  are  (ome   who  will  never  be  fatisfied  that  the 

Clergy 


of  the  Parochial  Clergy.  6^% 


Clergy  do  enough,  let  them  do  what  they  can  ;  and  it  is  to  no  pur- 
pofe  to  think  to  fatisfie  them  who  are  refolved  not  to  be  fatisfied  :  But 
on  the  other  fide,  fome  care  not  how  little  they  do,  and  the  lefs,  the 
better  they  are  pleafed  with  them  -^  and  others  again,  have  raifed  their 
Duties  fo  high,  that  fcarce  any  Man  can  fatisfie  himfejf  that  he  hath 
done  his  Duty. 

It  is  a  matter  therefore  of  the  higheft  Confequence  to  us,  to  under- 
ftand,  What  Rule  and  Meafure  is  to  be  obferved,  fo  as  we  may  neither 
wilfully  neglect  our  Duty,  nor  defpair  ofdoingit. 

Here  we  are  to  confider  two  Things  5 

1.  How  far  the  Scripture  hath  determined  it. 

2.  What  Influence  the  Conftitution  of  our  Church  is  to  have  upon 
us  concerning  it. 

I.  The  Scripture  doth  fpeak  fomething  relating  to  it,  both  in  the 
Old  and  New  Teftament. 

In  the  Old  Teftament  we  have  the  Duties  enjoyned  to  the  Levi- 
tical  Priefthood,  and  the  extraordinary  Commiflions  given  to  the 
Prophets. 

As  to  the  Levithal  Prkfthood,  we  can  only  draw  fome  general  Inftru- 
dions,  which  may  be  of  ufe,  altho*  "that  Priefthood  hath  been  long 
fince  at  an  end  5  Chrift  being  our  High-Prieft  after  another  Order,  vi%. 
of  Melchifedeck  ,  and  our  Duty  now  is  to  obferve  his  Laws,  and  to  of- 
fer that  FLeafonable  Service  which  he  requires* 

But  even  from  the  Leviticd  Priefthood,  we  may  obferve  thefe 
things. 

I.  That  although  the  main  of  their  Duty  of  Attendance  refpefted 
the  Temple  and  Sacrifices  ^   yet  at  other  times  they  were  bound  to  m- 
ftruft  the  People  in  the  Law.     For  fo  Mofcs  leaves  it  as  a  fpecial  i>f"c  i3- 
Charge  to  the  Tribe  of  Levi,    to  teach  Jacob  hk  'judgments,    and  Ifrael  [^'^j.  ^^^ 
his  Law.     And  to  encourage  them  to  do  it,  they  had  a  liberal  Mainte  u. 
nance,  far  above  the   Proportion  of  the  other  Tribes.    For  by  Com- 
putation it  will  be  found,  that  they  were  not  much  above  the  6cth  part 
of  the  People  ;  for  when  the  other  Tribes  were  numbred  from  twenty 
years  old,  they  made  fix  hundred  thousand,  and  three  thoufand  five  hurt-  Num.  r. 
dred  and  fifty.     But  the  Children  of  Levi  were   reckoned  by  them-  3.  4'^- 
felves  from  a  Month  old  5  and  they  made  but  two  and  twenty  thoufand  •    ,  j_  ^^ 
fo  that  if  the  Males  of  the  other  Tribes  had  been  reckoned,    as  they 
were,  it  is  agreed  by  Learned  Men,   who  had  no  Fondnefs  for  the  Seidenv 
Clergy,    that  they  did  not  make  above  a  fiftieth  or  fixtieth  part;    and  ^'"''^l 
yet  they  had  near  a  fifth  of  the  Profits,    befides  accidental  Perquifites, 
as  to  Sacrifices,  and  Ranfoms  of  the  Firft-born.     Thus,   fay  they,   God 
was  ^leafed  to  enrich  that  "Tribe  which  w  is  devoted  to  his  Service^     But  it 
was  not  certainly,    that  they  ftiould  fpend  their  time  in  Idlenefs  and 
Luxury,  but  that  they  might  with  thegrcater  freedom  apply  themfeives 
to  the  Study  of  the  Law,  that  they  might  inftrudt  the  People.     For  the 
Cities  of  the  Levites  were  as  fo  many  Colleges  difperfed  up  and  down  in 
the  feveral  Tribes,  to  which  the  People  might  upon  occafion,  more  ea- 
fily  refort. 

,  2.  Thatifthe  People  erred  thro' Ignorance  of  the  Law,  God  himfelf 
laid  the  Blame  on  thofe  who  were  bound  to  inftruft  them.     My  People,  Hofea  4  &. 
faith  God  by  the  Prophet,  are  defroyed  for  lack  of  Knowledge.     If  Peo- 
ple are  refolved  to  be  ignorant,  who  can  help  it  ?     Had  they  not  the 
Law  to  inform  them  ?     ^jut  it  is  obfervable,  that  the  Peoples  Errors  are 

N  n  n  n  laid 


6/\.6  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 

laid  to  the  Charge  of  the  Priefts,   and  the  Punifliment  is  denounced  a- 

gainft  them.     Becaufe  thou  haft  rcje&ed  Knowledge,  I  will  alfo  re)e&  thee^ 

that  thou  Jhdlt  be  no  Vrieji  unto  me.      It  feems  the  Priefts  were  grown 

carelefs  and  negligent,    as  to  their  own  Improvements  ^    they  did  not 

know  to  what  purpofethey  (hould  take  fo  much  pains  in  ftudying  the 

Law,  and  the  difficult  Points  of  it  5   they  were  for  a  freedom  of  Con- 

verfation,    and  hoped  to  keep  up  their  Intereft  among  the  People  that 

ifa.  5(5.11.  Way.     Therefore  Ifaiah  calls  them  Shepherds  that  cannot  underftand  ^ 

but  were  very  intent  upon  their  Profits,  they  all  look  to  their  own  Way, 

every  one  for  hisGainfrom  hk  garter.     But  this  was  not  all,    for  the 

Prophet  charges  them  with  a  Voluptuous  Carelefs,  Diflblute  Life.  Come 

It.      y^y  f^y  tf'^yy  I  rvi// fetch  Wine,  and  we  will fiU our  felves  with firong  Drink, 

and  to  morrow  {hall  he  as  this  day,  and  much  more  abundant.  Was  not  this 

a  very  agreeable  life  for  thofe  who  were  to  inftruft  the  People  in  the 

Duties  of  Sobriety  and  Temperance  ?     It  was  Death  for  the  Priefts  by 

L^y^         the  Law  to  Drink  Wine  or  ftrong  Drink,    when  they  went  into  the  Taher- 

8,  j».^      tiacle  of  the  Congregation  5    and  the  Reafon  given  is,    That  ye  may  put  a 

10.  difference  between  holy  and  unholy,    and  between  unclean  and  clean  5    and 

1 1.  that  ye  may  teach  the  Children  ofJjrael  all  the  Statutes,  which  the  Lord  hath 
fpokento  theebythe  HandofMoCes.  Which  implies,  That  thofe  who 
are  given  to  drinking  Wine  or Jirong  Drink,  are  very  unfit  to  inftruft  o- 
thers  in  the  Law  of  God.  And  God  looked  on  them  as  fuch  a  Diftio- 
nour  to  his  Worftiip,  that  he  threatens  immediate  Death  to  them  that 
approached  to  his  Altar,  when  they  had  drank  Wine  5  and  the  Jews 
fay,  that  was  the  Reafon  why  Nadab  and  Abihu  were  deftroyed.     And 

Lev.  10.3.  then  God  faid,  /  will  befan&ified  in  them  that  come  nigh  me.  All  Nati- 
ons have  abhorred  fottilh  and  drunken  Priefts,  as  moft  unfit  to  approach 
to  God  when  they  were  not  themfelves ;  or  to  offer  Sacrifices  for  o- 
thers,  when  they  made  Beafts  of  themfelves.  But  this  was  not  all  5 
for  God  required  from  them  who  were  to  teach  others  the  Law,  that 
-  they  ftiouldbe  always  in  a  Capacity  of  underftandingand  praftifing  it 
themfelves. 

But  if  we  proceed  to  the  Prophets,    nothing  can  be  more  dreadful, 

EKck.  3.  than  what  God  faith  to  Ezekiel,  That  if  be  did  not  warn  thePeopleas 

18,  20.    j,g  commanded  them,   their  Blood  will  I  require  at  thy  hand.    Is  this 

^^'  ^*    Charge  now  lyinguponevery  one  ofyou,  as  to  every  Perfon  under  your 

Care.>  Who  would  not  rather  run  into  a  Wildernefs,  orhidehimfelf  in 

a  Cave,  than  take  fuch  a  Charge  upon  him  > 

But  we  muftdiftinguiftiwhat  was  peculiar  to  the  Prophet's  immediate 
Commiffion  to  go  to  any  particular  Perfon  in  God's  Name,  from  a  Ge- 
neral Charge  to  inform  Perfons  in  their  Duties,  and  to  tell  them  the 
Danger  of  continuing  in  their  Sins.  If  any  fail  for  want  of  Informati- 
on, when  you  are  bound  to  give  it,  the  Negleft  muft  fall  heavy,  and 
'  therefore  you   are  bound  to  take  all  juft  Opportunities  in  publick 

and  private  to  inform  thofe  under  your  Care  of  fuch  Sins  as  you 
know  them  to  be  guilty  of;  not  with  a  Defign  to  upbraid,  but  to  re- 
form them. 
I  Pet.  5.  In  the  New  Teftament  the  Charge  is  General  to  feed  the  Flock  of  God  5 
''  5*  and  to  do  it  willingly,  not  for  filthy  Lucre,  hut  of  a  ready  mind  ;  and  to  be 
Examples  to  the  Flock.  But  St.  Peter,  who  gives  this  Advice,  doth  not 
determine  who  belong  to  the  Flock -.^  nor  within  what  Bounds  it  is  to  be 
limited  5  and  there  were  many  Flocks  in  tbejewifi  Difperfion,  and  ma- 
ny Elders  fcattered  up  and  down  among  them  in  Ponttfs,  Afia,  Galatia, 

Cap' 


of  the  Farochidl  Clergy.  6^1 

Cappadacia,  and  Bhhynia-^  fo  that  here  we  have  only  general  and  ex- 
cellent Advice  for  fiich  who  had  care  of  the  feveral  Flocks,  to  carry 
rhemfelves  towards  them  with  great  Humility  and  Tendernefs,  with 
Charity  and  Goodnefs,  as  thofe  that  made  it  their  bufinefs  to  do  good 
among  them,  and  conduft  them  in  the  Way  to  Heaven. 

St.PW,  in  his  Charge  to  thofe  whom  he  fent  for  to  Miletus^  tells 
them,  That  they  mujl  take  heed  to  them/elves,  and  to  all  the  Flock,  ovet* 
which  the  Holy  Ghoft  hath  made  them  Over-feers^  to  feed  the  Church  of^^^  *°" 
God,  vphich  he  hath  purchafed  with  his  own  Blood.  It's  poffible  here 
might  be  a  particular  Defignation  of  the  Flock  they  were  to  overfee^  by 
the  Direftion  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ^  but  yet  the  Charge  is  general  to  take 
heed  to  themfelves  and  to  the  Flock,  and  to  promote  the  good  of  the 
Church  of  God,  which  Chriji  hath  purchafed  with  his  own  Blood.  Which 
are  the  moD:  weighty  Confiderations  in  the  World  to  excite  us  to  the 
utmoft  Care  and  Diligence  in  Difcharge  of  our  Duties. 

In  the  Epiftle  to  the  Thejfalonians  they  are  faid  to  he  over  them  in  the  i  Theff. 
Lord,  and  to  admonifi  them.  In  that  to  the  Hebrews,  to  watch  for  their  He"',2, 
Souls^  as  they  that  mufi  give  an  account.  No  doubt,  very  great  Care  and  17. " 
Wathfulnefs  is  required  in  all  that  take  fo  great  and  folemn  an  Office  up- 
on them  ;  but  where  are  the  Bounds  and  Limits  ^tt,  as  to  the  People, 
and  Nature  of  the  Duties  required  from  them  ?  Muft  every  Man  be  left 
to  his  own  Confcience  and  Judgment,  what,  and  how  far  he  is  to  go? 
Or  can  we  fuppofe  all  Men  equally  careful  of  doing  their  Duties,  if 
no  particular  Obligation  be  laid  upon  them?  Some  of  the  Eloquent 
Fathers  of  the  Church,  as  St.  Chryfojiom,  St.Jerom,  St.  Gregory  Nazi- 
anzen,  and  others,  have  allowed  themfelves  fo  much  in  the  Flights  of 
Fancy,  and  Figures  of  fpeaking  about  the  Height  and  Dignity  of  the 
Sacred  Fundion,  as  if  they  had  a  mind  to  difcourage  all  Men  of  mo- 
deft  and  humble  Difpofitions  from  undertaking  it.  I  do  not  wondef 
that  they  ran  into  Solitudes,  and  withdrew  from  the  World  upon  it  5 
but  I  do  wonder  how  they  came  from  thence  and  undertook  the  fame 
Charge  afterwards,  without  giving  an  anfwer  to  their  own  Argu- 
ments. For  the  World  remained  juft  as  it  was  when  they  left  It.  Man- 
kind were  ftill  as  impatient  of  being  governed,  or  told  of  their  Faults, 
as  fickle  and  humourfome,  as  prone  to  evil,  and  untraftable  to  Good, 
as  it  was  before.  And  could  they  hope  it  would  ever  mend  by  their 
running  away  from  it  ?  Or,  was  their  Duty  become  more  eafie  by  de- 
clining if^  I  think  it  was  very  well  for  the  Church  of  God,  that,  not- 
withftanding  their  own  many  Arguments,  they  took  the  Sacred  Office 
upon  them  at  laft,  and  did  God  and  the  Church  good  Service  in 
it.  But  if  Men  were  to  judge  by  their  Writings  upon  this  Argument, 
one  would  think  none  but  thofe  who  had  a  mind  to  be  damned,  would 
undertake  it.  And  their  great  Strains  of  Wit  and  Eloquence,  if  they 
had  any  Force,  would  keep  the  beft  Men  out  of  the  Church,  who  were 
moft  likely  to  do  God  Service  in  it 5  and  we  need  no  other  Inftances 
than  thefe  very  Perfons  themfelves.  And  if  all  good,  and  humble,  and 
confcientious  Men  ftiould  for  the  fake  of  the  Hardnefs  of  the  Work,  de- 
cline the  Church's  Service,  and  take  any  other  lawful  Imployment,  what 
would  become  of  the  Church  of  God?  For  none  that  had,  or  intend* 
ed  to  keep  a  good  Confcience,  could  undertake  the  Cure  of  Souls 5  and 
fo  they  muft  be  left  to  fuch  as  had  no  Regard  to  their  own  5  but  were 
either  ignorant,  ftupid  and  fenfelefs  Creatures,  or  fuch  as  regarded  not 
their  own  Salvation,  who  durft  undertake  fuch  a  Task,  as  would  not 

N  n  n  n  2  only 


■^U^rtiiaiM^MMi 


^tti^tamtmm^^^^  '    ■    '    —■■■■■■■■■■  i     i     m    ■■  ^m—— ^m^^^^ 

648  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights . 

only  add  to  their  own  Guilt,  but  bring  the  heavy  Load  of  other  Men's 
Faults  upon  them  too. 

What  is  now  to  be  done  in  this  Cafe  ?  Hath  God  really  impofed 
fuch  a  Task  upon  all  thofe  who  enter  into  this  Sacred  Funftion,  that  it 
it  is  morally  impoffible  for  an  honeft  Man  to  difcharge  it  with  a  good 
Confcience?  How  then  can  any  fuch  undertake  it?  But  if  it  may 
be  done,  what  are  thofe  Bounds  and  Rules  we  are  to  obferve,  fo  as  a 
good  Man  may  fatisfie  himfelf  in  a  competent  Meafure,  that  he  hath 
done  his  Duty  > 

II.  And  this  is  that  which  I  fhall  now  endeavour  to  clear.  For  eve- 
ry one  who  is  in  Orders  hath  a  double  Capacity :  One  with  Refpedb 
to  the  Church  of  God  in  general ;  another  to  that  particular  Flocfc 
which  is  allotted  to  him,  by  the  Conftitution  of  this  Church,  and  the 
Law  of  the  Land.  For  although  the  Nature  of  our  Duty  in  general  be 
determined  by  the  Word  of  God,  as  I  have  already  (hewed,  yet  the 
particular  Obligation  of  every  one  to  his  own  Flock,  is  according  to 
that  Power  and  Authority,  which  by  the  Rules  and  Orders  of  this 
Church  is  committed  to  him,  and  is  fully  expreffed  in  the  Office  of 
Ordination.  By  which  it  plainly  appears,  that  the  Care  of  Souls  com- 
mitted to  Perfons  among  us,  is  not  an  abfolute,  indefinite,  and  unac- 
countable thing  5  but  is  limited,  as  to  Place,  Perfons,  and  Duties, 
which  are  incumbent  upon  them.  They  are  to  teach  the  People  commit' 
ted  to  their  Charge  5  By  whom?  By  the  Bifhop  when  he  gives  Infti- 
tution. 

They  are  to  give  private  as  well  as  publick  Monitions  and  Exhortations^ 
as  well  to  the  fick^  as  to  the  whole :  What,  to  all  ?  No,  but  to  thofe  with- 
in their  Cure. 

They  are  to  banijh  erroneous  Do^rines,  and  to  promote  Peace  and  Love^ 
efpecially  among  them  committed  to  their  Charge. 

And  laft  of  all,  they  are  to  obey  thofe  who  have  the  Charge  and  Govern- 
ment over  them. 

Thefe  things  are  fo  exprefs  and  plain  in  the  very  Conftitution  of  this 
Church,  and  owned  fo  folemnly  by  every  one  that  enters  into  Orders, 
that  there  can  be  no  Difpute  concerning  them. 

And  from  thence  we  obferve  feveral  things  that  tend  to  the  Refolu* 
tion  of  the  main  Point,  as  to  the  Satisfaftion  of  doing  your  Duties,  as 
Incumbents  on  your  feveral  Places. 
Ad  pro-       I-  That  it  is  a  Cure  of  Souls  limited  as  to  Perfons  and  Place,  i.  e.  with- 
bandam    in  fuch  a  Ptecinft  as  is  called  a  Parilh. 

?aSr      "•  '^^^^^ "  's  limited  as  to  Power,  with  Refpeft  to  Difcipline. 
km,  pri-      Therefore  I  (hall  endeavour  to  clear  thefe  two  Things: 
'"effe'^uod     ^'  ^^^f  '^^"'^  J"^  Bounds  and  limits  of  Parochial  Cures  are. 
habeaTio-     II.  What  is  the  Meafure  of  that  Diligence  which  is  required  within 
cum  cer-  thofe  Bounds. 

conftKu-"^  As  to  the  former,  we  are  to  begin  with  the  Limitation  as  to  Place. 
turn  in  J.  That  it  is  a  Cure  of  Souls  limited  within  certain  Bounds  which 
populufi"  ^""^  called  Parifies,  which  are  now  certainly  known  by  long  Ufage  and 
li  Eccief«  Cuftom,  and  ought  ftill  to  be  preferved  with  great  care  ^  for  otherwife 
depura-  Coufufiou  and  Difputes  will  arife  between  feveral  Miniftcrs,  and  feveral 
b"uff.  ad  Parifhes  with  one  another.  For  fince  the  Duties  and  the  Profits  are 
Concord,  both  limited,  it  is  neceflary  that  thofe  Bounds  ftiould  be  carefully  pre* 
sefh  stac.  Served,  as  they  generally  are  by  Annual  Perambulations. 

n,  J. 

But 


of  the  Parochial  Ciergj.  649 

But  there  are  fome  who  will  underftand  nothing  of  this  bounding 
of  Minifterial  Duties  by  diftinft  Parifhes,  who  think  they  are  at  liberty 
to  exercife  their  Gifts  where-ever  they  are  called  5  and  that  it  were 
better  that  thefe  Parochial  Inclofures  were  thrown  open,  and  all  left  at 
liberty  to  chufe  fuch  whom  they  liked  beft,  and  under  whom  they  can 
improve  mod. 

Thefe  things  feem  to  look  plaufible  at  the  firft  Appearance,  and  to 
come  neareft  to  the  firft  gathering  of  Churches,  before  any  fuch  thing 
as  P.iriflies  were  known. 

But  to  me  this  Arguing  looks  like  Perfons  going  about  now  to  over- 
throw all  Dominion  and  Property  in  Lands  and  Eftates,  becaufeit  feems 
not  fo  agreeable  with  the  firft  natural  Freedom  of  Mankind  ;  who,  ac- 
cording to  the  Original  Right  of  Nature,  might  pick  and  chufe  what 
ferved  moft  to  their  own  Conveniency.  But  although  this  were  the 
firft  State  of  things,  yet  the  great  Inconveniencies  which  followed  it, 
upon  the  Increafe  of  M.inkind,  made  Divifion  and  Property  neceflary  5 
and  although  there  be  no  exprefs  Command  of  God  for  it,  yet  being 
fo  neceffary  for  the  Good  of  Mankind,  it  was  not  only  continued  e- 
very  where,  but  thofe  Perfons  were  thought  fit  to  be  puni;hed  by  fevere 
Laws,  who  invaded  the  Rights  and  Properties  of  others,  either  by  o- 
pen  Violence  and  Rapine,  or  by  fectet  Stealth  and  Purloining. 

I  grant,  that  at  firft  there  were  no  fuch  Parochial  Divifions  of  Cures 
here  in  England  as  there  are  now.  For  the  Biftiops  and  their  Clergy 
lived  in  common  5  and  before  that  the  Number  of  Chriftians  was  much 
increafed,  the  Biihops  fent  out  their  Clergy  to  preach  to  the  People,  as 
they  faw  Occafion.  But  after  the  Inhabitants  had  generally  embraced 
Chriftianity,  this  itinerant  aud  occafional  going  from  Place  to  Place, 
was  found  very  inconvenient,  becaufe  of  the  conftant  Offices  that  were 
to  be  adminiftred,  and  the  Peoples  knowing  to  whom  they  (hould  re- 
fort  for  Spiritual  Offices  and  Diredions.  Hereupon  the  Bounds  of  Pa- 
rochial Cures  were  found  neceifarji  to  be  fetled  here  by  degrees,  by 
thofe  Bifhops  who  were  the  great  Inftruments  of  converting  the  Na- 
tion trom  the  Saxon  Idolatry.  But  a  Work  of  this  Nature  could  not  be 
done  all  at  once,  as  by  a  kind  oi  Agrarian  Larv,  but  feveral  Steps  were 
taken  in  order  to  it. 

At  firft,  as  appears  by  Bede,  they  made  ufe  of  any  old  Briti/h  Chur-  Bed.  /.  i, 
ches  that  were  left  ftanding  ^  fo  Augujljn  at  firft  made  ufe  of  St.  Martins  '=•  ^^• 
tiCBt  Canferhry,  and   after  repaired  Ckrijl's  Chunh,  which  were  both"'^^" 
Britifh  churches.     But  Ethelbert  gave  all  Incouragement  both  to  repair 
Old  Churches  and  to  build  Nen>.    However,  the  Work  went  on  flowly  ^ 
Angtiflin  confecrated  but  two  Biftiops,  which  were  fettled  at  London  and 
Rochejier^  wbtre  Ethelkrt  built  and  endowed  two  Churches  for  the  ^.2.  <•■  ?« 
biftiops  and  their  Clergy  to  live  together.     In  the  Wejiern  Parts  Birinu^  /.j.  c.  7. 
built  federal  Churches  ^bout  Dor chefier,  where  his  See  was  fixed.    Wil- 
fred converted  the  South- Saxons, and  fettled  Presbyters  in  the  Jjle  of  Wight, 
but  they  were  but  two.    In  the  Kingdom  of  MercM  there  were  five^4-f'?» 
Dioceftes  made  in  Theodores  time  ;  and  Putta,  Biftiop  oiRochefler,  be- ' 
ing  driven  from  his  See,  he  obtained  from  Saxulphus,  a  Mercian  Bifliop,  1.4.  c  a, 
a  Church  with  a  fmall  Glebe,  and  there  he  ended  his  Days.     In  the 
Nofthern  Parts  we  read  of  two  Churches  built  by  two  Noblemen,  (Puch  ^•5-';"t.5- 
and  Addi)  upon  their  own  Manors.     And  the  fame  might  be  done 
elfewhere  ;  but  Bede  would  never  have  mentioned  thefe,  if  the  thing 
had  been  common.    But  in  his  Epiftle  to  Egbert^  Archbiftiop  of  York,  Ifil^l,^^ 

a  p.  6^ 


Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


a  little  belbre  his  De.ith  he  intimates  the  great  Want  of  Presbyters  and 
Parochial  Settlements,  and  therefore  earneftly  perfwades  him  to  pro- 
Egbert,    cure  more.    And  if  Egbert's  Canons  be  genuine  (of  which  there  are 
^an.  1, 2,  fgygpgj  ancient  MSS.')  the  Duties  of  Presbyters  in  their  feveral  Chur- 
ches are  fet  down.     However,  the  Work  went  not  on  fo  faft,  but  in 
Concij.     his  Succeflbr  Eanbaldus  his  time,  the  Biftiops  were  required  to  find  out 
293^.  "^  convenient  places  to  build  Churches  in,  and  the  fame  paffed  in  the 
I.;. 248.  Southern  parts  by  general  Confent.    In  the  Council  of  Clovejhoe,  we 
read  oi  Presbyters  ^aced  up  and  down  by  the  B/fljops  in  the  Manors  of  the 
Laity,  and  in  feveral  parts  difiin&  from  the  Epifcopal  <See;  and  there  they 
Can.  9.     are  exhorted  to  be  diligent  in  their  Duties.    In  the  times  of  Edgar  and 
Angi'i.    Canutuj,  we  read  of  the  Mother  Churches^  which  had  the  Original  Set- 
444-        element  of  Tithes,  (after  they  were  given  to  the  Church  by  feveral 
Laws)  and  of  the  Churches  built  upon  their  own  Lands  by  the  Lords 
^-  544.    of  Manors  5     to  which  they  could  only   apply  a  third  part  of  the 
'■*''        Tithes.     But  in  the  Laws  of  Canutus,   we  find  a  fourfold  Diftinftion 
P'  54°-    of  Churches      i.  The  Head  Church,  or  the  Bifhop's  See.     2.  Churches 
of  a  fecond  Rank,  which  had  Right  of  Sepulture,  and  Baptifw,  and 
Tithes.     3.  Churches  that  had  Right  of  Sepulture,  but  not  frequented. 
4.   Field-Churches  or  Oratories,  which  had  no  Right  of  Burial.    The 
fecond  fort  feem  to  be  the  Original  Parochial  Churches  which  had  the 
Endowment  of  Tithes,  and  were  fo  large,  that  feveral  other  Chur- 
ches were  taken  out  of  them  by  the  Lords  of  Manors  j  and  fo  the  Pa- 
ri(hes  came  to  be  multiplied  fo  much,  that  in  the  Laws  of  Edvpard  the 
Confeffor,  c.  9.  it  is  faid,  That  there  roere  then  three  or  four  Churches,  where 
Anfeim.    there  had  been  hut  one  before.     In  this  Diocefs  I  find  by  an  Epiftle  of 
|P'^-'-4-ff»//?^«,  Bilhop  of  Worcefier,   to  Jnfelm,   that  before  the  Conqueft 
^*      there  were  Churches  in  Vills,  or  upon  particular  Manors  that  were 
confecrated.     And  if  William  the  Conqueror  demolifhed  fix  and  thirty 
Parifh-Churches  in  theCompafs  of  the  New  ForeJi,as  is  commonly  faid, 
there  muft  be  a  very  great  Number  before  the  Conqueft,  although  fo 
few  are  faid  to  appear  in  Doomfday  Book,  (yet  there  are  many  parochial 
Churches  of  this  Diocefe  in  it,  above  twenty  in  two  Deanaries)  but 
the  Normans  almoft  ruined  the  parochial  Clergy,  by  feizing  the  Tithes, 
and  making  Appropriations  of  them.     But  in  the  Saxon  times  the  Num- 
ber ftill  encreafed,  as  Lords  of  Manors  and  others  were  willing  to  eredl 
new  Churches,  and  to  have  a  fettled  Parochial  Minifter  among  them, 
who  was  to  take  Care  of  the  Souls  of  the  People  within  fuch  a  Prc- 
cinft,  as  hath  obtained  the  Name  of  a  Parifb.     But  Parifties  now  are  of 
a  very  different  Extent  and  Value  ^  but  the  Obligation  which  the  Law 
puts  upon  them  is  the  fame,  only  where  the  Maintenance  is  greater, 
they  may  have  the  more  AfCftants.  And  from  hence  came  the  Difference 
among  the  Parochial  Clergy  5  for  thofe  whofe  PariQies  were  better  en- 
dowed, could  maintain  inferior  Clerks  under  them,  who  might  be  ufeful 
to  them  in  the  publick  Service,  and  aflift  them  in  the  Adrainiftration  of  Sa- 
craments.And  this  was  the  true  original  ofthofe  we  now  call  Prfr,7^-CW'j', 
but  were  at  firft  intended  as  Clerks- A fllftant  to  him  that  had  the  Curej 
and  therefore  hehad  the  Nomination  of  them,  as  appears  by  the  Ecclefia- 
Joh.  de    ftical  Law,both  here  and  abroad. kndLynwood  (a\xh,EveryVicarrpMfohave 
Conft.'o-  cn:)ugh  to  ferve  htm,  and  one  Clerk  or  more  5  and  by  the  Canon- Law,  no 
chob/>.59.  Church  could  be  founded,  where  there  was  not  a  Maintenance  for  Ajfijlin^ 
Ke'pa-   ^'^'"^'J"-     I"  fh^  Synod  of  Worcefier,  under  Walter  Cantelupe,  in  Henry 
iron.c.30.  the  Third's  time,  they  are  called  C^pe/^w/  Parochiales,  and  the  Reftors 

of 


of  the  Yarocbial  Clergj.  ^51 

of  Pari(be8  were  required  to  have  fuch  with  thern.     And  th?  Canon 
Law  doth  allow  a  Re&cr  to  give  a  Title  to  another  to  receive  Orders  asiynw.  f.  ■ 
an  Ajjiflatit  to  him;    and  this  without  any  prejudice  to  the  Patron's ^•^y'^"^''' 
Right ;  becaufe  but  One  can  have  a  Legal  1  itle  to  the  Cure.    But  Lyn-  noneft".  c. 
wood  obferves  very  well.    That  thofe  vebo  give  litles  ta  others,    as  their  3-  <21o(Lc. 
Ajjijiants  or  Oiratex,  are  bound  to  maintain  them  if  they  veant.     Thefeare'concii,'^^' 
called  Vicarli  Parochiales,    <:>-'  Stipendiarii -^     hut  Couduciitii  Pres(>)/teri,  Angl.  i,. 
who  are  forbidden,  were  thofe  who  took  Livings  to  farm,    without  3il^l\^f 
Title.     But  after  Appropriations  came  in,  then  there  were  another  fort  53. 2.167. 
of  Vicars  called  Perpetni,  and  were  endowed  with  a  certain  Portion  of  7^-j'^~ 
the  Temporalities,  and  were  admitted  ad  Otram  Animarum  :    But  fuch  iiaijci 
could  not  Ferfonam  Ecclefi<e  fiijiinere  in  an  Ai3:ion  at  Law  ^bout  the  ^'c".  ©'<^- 
Rights  of  the  Church,  but  as  to  their  own  Right  they  might.     But  ftill  ^.^n-y  ^^ 
•  there  is  another  fort  of  Vicars^  who  arePerpetual,  but  not  Endowed  any  Confcrr. 
otherwife  than  the  Bifhop  did  allow  a  congrua  Pertio ;    and  this  was  in  ^^|"^'/' 
Appropriations  where  the  Bifhop  confented  only  upon  thofe  Terms,    as  thon./.i?. 
they  generally  were  fo  made,  till  the  Negleft  made  the  Statutes  necelTa- 
ry,  !<)  R.2.  6.  and  4  H.  4.  12.    The  Bifhops  were  to  make,  or  enlarge  ^^"^^^, 
the  Allovvance,  fay  the  Canonifts,  after  Prefentation,  and  before  Inftir  WMachis! 
tution,  and  were  to  fee  rhatit  were  a  fufficient  Subfiftence. 

But  there  were  fome  Cures  which  had  Chapels  of  Eafe  belongingLynw.de. 
to  them  5    and  they  who  officiated  in  them,  were  called  Capellani,  andyicaHi 
had  their  Subfiftence  out  of  the  Oblations  and  Obventions,    and  were  c.  quoni- 
often  Perpetual  and  Prefentative.     And  where  the  Incumbents  had  fcve-  ^1^'^  ^  ^ 
ral  Chapels  of  Eafe,   and  only  Affiftants  to  fupply  them,   the  Canon  luTe'n.'i. 
Law  doth  not  call  them  Re&ores,   but  Plehani  5    who  had  a  fort  of  pe-  E^tr.  de 
culiar  Jurifdidion  in  leiTer  Matters  ;   but  ftill  they  were  under  the  Bi- J'J''- °'^' 
rhops  Authority  in  Vifitations  and  other  Ecclefiaftical  Cenfures,  becaufe  azoV.?.  ?, 
the  Care  of  the  whole  Diocefs  belonged  to  him  Jure  Commtmi  ;    and  fo  \l^^^^^' 
\t  was  taken  for  granted  in  all  Parts  of  the  Chriftian  World :  Andefpe-  de  officio 
cially  in  this  Kingdom,  \Nhtxe  F arochid  Epifcopacy^  was  never  heard  of  P^ochiai. 
till  of  late  Years.     For,    nothing  can  be  plainer  in  our  Hiftory,    tharj"'  ''"*  ^' 
what  is  affirmed  in  two  of  our  Laws,  Stat,  of  Carlijle,  25.fi.  i.  and  the 
Stat,  ofProvifors,  25.  E.  5.  That  the  Church  of  En^and,  was  founded  in 
Prelacy,  or  Diocefan  Epifopaty.     For  our  firft  Biftiops  were  fo  far  from 
being  confined  to  one  Church  or  Tovpn,  that  at  firft  in  the  Saxon-Divifi- 
on  of  Kingdoms,  every  Biftiop  had  his  Diocefs  equal  with  the  Extent  of 
the  Kingdom,  except  in  K.ent,  where  one  Suffragan  to  the  Archbifhop 
atRoihejier  was  confirmed. 

The  firft  Converfion  of  the  Englip  Nation  to  Cbriftianity  from  Pd- 
ganifm,  was  by  the  Diocefan  Biftiops,  who  were  fent  hither  from  feve- 
ral  Parts,  and  the  Presbyters  im ployed  by  them  ;  and  as  the  Number  of 
Chriftians  increafed,  the  Number  of  biftiops  did  fo  too  5  fo  that  in 
the  Parts  of  Men/<i  one  Diocefs  was  divided  into  five,  that  they  might 
the  better  look  after  the  Government  of  them  5  and  every  Bifhop,  as 
appears  by  the  Saxon  Councils,  was  bound  to  fee  parochial 
Churches  built,  and  the  Clergy  to  be  fettled  in  them  to  attend 
upon  the  Duties  of  their  Fundion  among  the  People  committed  to 
their  Charge. 

That  which  I  have  aimed  at  in  this  Difcourfe,   was  to  fhew.    That 

the  Original  Conftitution  of  this  Church,    was  Eplfcopal ;    but  yet  that 

the  Biftiops  did  ftill  defign  to  fix  a  tarochial  Clergy  under  them,    as 

Churches  could  be  built  and  endowed. 

It 


^52  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


It  remains  now  to  ftiew,  That  this  Conftitution  of  a  Parochial  Clergy ^ 
is  more  reafonable,  than  that  of  an  unfixed,  and  unfettled  Clergy  by 
Law;  which  will  eafily  appear,  if  we  confider. 

I.  The  greater  Advantage  as  to  Unity,    and  real  Edification  among 
the  People.     For  this  makes  them  to  be  as  one  Body  within  certain 
Bounds :    And  the  People  know  whither  to  refort  for  publick  Worfhip 
and  Sacraments  5  and  the  Inconveniencies,  as  to  the  difference  of  Mens 
Abilities,    is  not  fo  great,    as  the  Inconveniency  of  a  broken,   divided 
People,  as  to  Religion  -^  which  always  creates  Sufpicions  and  Jealoufies, 
and  generally  Contempt  and  Hatred  of  each  other.     And  I  thirik  every 
wife  and  good  Chriftian  will  confider,    that  which  tends  to  Peace  and 
Unity,  is  really  more  Edifying  than  a  far  better  Talent  of  Elocution,  or 
the  moft  moving  Way  of  exciting  the  Fancies  and  Pallions  of  Hearers. 
For  St.  Paul  tells  us.    Charity  is  beyond  miraculous  Gifts.      It  is  eafie  to 
obferve,  that  the  wifeft  Methods  are  feldom  the  moft  popular  j  becaufe 
the  generality  of  Mankind  do  not  judge  by  Reafon,  but  by  Fancy,  and 
Humour,  and  Prejudices  of  one  kind  or  other.     From  hence  the  Heats 
ofEnthufiafm,  and  oddGeftures,  and  vehement  Expreffions,    with  no 
deep  or  coherent  Senfe,  take  much  more  with  ordinary  and  injudicious 
People,  than  thegreateft  ftrength  and  clearnefs  of  Reafon,  or  the  found- 
eft  Doftrine,  and  the  moft  pious  Exhortation,  if  they  be  not  fet  off  in 
fuch  a  Way  as  ftrikes  their  Imaginations,  and  raifes  their  Paflions.  And 
this  is  that  which  fuch  do  commonly  call  the  moft  Edifying  Way  of 
Preaching,    which  is  like  the  coming  up  of  the  Tide  with  Noife  and 
Violence,  but  leaves  little  Effeft  5    whereas  the  other  is  like  a  conftant 
Stream  which  goes  on  in  a  fteady  and  even  Courfe,    and  makes  the 
Earth  more  fruitful.    The  one  is  like  a  Storm  of  Thunder  and  Light- 
ning, which  ftartles,  and  confounds,  and  amufes  more:;  but  the  other 
is  like  a  gentle  Rain  which  foftens  and  mellows  the  Ground,  and  makes 
it  more  apt  to  produce  kindly  and  lafting  Fruit.     We  are  to  judge  of 
true  Edification,  not  by  the  fudden  Heat  and  Motion  of  Paffions,    but 
by  producing  the  genuine  Effeds  of  true  Religion  ^  which  are  fixing 
our  Minds  on  the  greateft  and  trueft  Good,   and  calming  and  governing 
our  diforderly  Paffions,    and  \Q2LA\x\gagodly,    righteous  and  joher  Life. 
But  we  too  often  find  violent  and  boifterous  Paffions,     an  ungoverna- 
ble Temper,  Envy,  Strife  and  Uncharitablenefs,  growing  up  with  grea- 
ter Pretences  to  Zeal,  and  better  Ways  of  Edification. 

I  never  expeft  to  fee  the  World  fo  wife,  as  to  havePerfons  and  Things 
univerfally  efteemed  according  to  their  real  Worth.  For  there  ivill  be 
a  Tinfture  in  moft  Perfons,  from  Temper,  and  Inclination,  and  the 
Principles  of  Education  ^  but  generally  fpeaking  Matters  of  Order  and 
Decency,  and  Things  which  tend  to  a  publick  Good,  affeft  thofemoft, 
vi^ho  have  the  beft  Judgment  and  Temper  3  and  irregular  Heats,  and 
diforderly  Methods  of  praying  and  preaching,  thofe  whofe  Religion 
makes  more  Impreffion  upon  their  Fancies,  than  their  Judgments,  and 
is  feen  more  in  the  inflaming  their  Paffions,  than  in  keeping  them  in 
their  due  Order. 

2.  There  is  a  greater  Advantage  as  to  Difcipline  :  For,  if  among 
the  Teachers  they  are  under  no  Bounds  nor  Subjrftion  to  a  Superiour 
Authority,  it  is  very  eafie  to  avoid  any  kind  of  Cenfure  for  the  moft 
corrupt  Doftrines  or  Pradlices.  We  cannot  boaft  much  of  the  ftrift 
Exercife  of  Difcipline  among  us  ^  and  one  great  Reafon  is,  That  many 
have  more  mind  to  complain  of  the  Want  of  it,  than  to  do  their  Endea- 
vour 


of  the  i^arochialQlergj. 


vour  to  amend  it.     We  hear  of  many  Complaints  cf  the  Clergy  in  ge- 
neral,   and  fometimes  by  thofe  who  have  more  mind  to  have  thenl 
thought  guilty,than  to  prove  them  fo,  for  fear  they  (hould  acquit  them- 
felves,  or  at  leaft  the  Church  (hould  not  bear  the  blame  of  their  Mif- 
carriages.      But  we  cannot  proceed  arbitrarily,   we  muft  allow  them 
timely  notice,  and  fummon  them  to  appear,    and  a  juft  Liberty  of  De- 
fence ^  but  if  upon  Proof,  and  fufficient  Evidence  we  have  not  proceed- 
ed againft  them  with  the  )uft  Severity  of  the  Law,    then  we  ought  to 
bear  the  Blame,    but  not  otherwife.     But  whatfoever  perfonal  Neg- 
lefts  or  Faults  there  have  been,  or  may  be,  my  Bufinefs  is  to  (hew,  that 
our  Way  is  much  better  fitted  for  the  )uft  Exercife  of  Difcipline,  than 
that  of  Independent  Congregations,  altho'  the  Managers  of  them  pick 
and  cull  out  the  beft  they  can  for  their  Purpofe  ^  and  one  would  think, 
when  they  had  made  choice  of  Members  to  their  Mind,  and  bound  them 
together  by  an  explicit  Covenant,    they  (hould  be  very  eafie,    and  tra- 
dable, and  fubmiffive  to  their  own  Difcipline.     But  they  have  found 
the  contrary  by  their  fad  Experience ;  they  grow  too  heady  and  wilful 
to  bear  any  (uch  thing  as  ftridl:  Difcipline ;    for  when  they  had  the 
Courage  to  exercife  it,  their  Congregations  were  fbon  broken  to  pieces, 
and  the  feveral  divided  Parts,    were  for  fetting  up  new  Heads  one  a- 
gainft  another,  till  at  lafl:  they  found  it  was  much  ealier  to  be  Teaching 
than  to  be  Ruling  Elders.     And  fo  they  have  let  the  Reins  of  Difci- 
pline fall  to  keep   their  Congregations  together.      But  fuppofe  the 
Teachers  fliould  fall  out  among  themfelves ;  as,  to  give  a  fre(h  and  late 
remarkable  Inftance:   Suppofe  fome  fet  up  Antlnomianifm,    and  preach 
fuch  Dod^rinesto  the  People  or  Flocks  they  go  to,  which  others  think 
of  dangerous  Confequence,  What  is  to  be  done  in  fuch  a  Cafe  ?     They 
may  fend  fome  Brethren  to  enquire  whether  the  matters  of  Faft  be 
true.    Suppofe  they  find  them  true.  What  then  ?     What  is  to  be  done 
next  ?    It  may  be,  fome  would  have  them  come  up  to  their  Brethren 
and  anfwer  to  the  Accufations  brought  againft  them.     But  fuppofe 
they  will  not  ^  and  others  of  the  Brethren  fay,  they  ought  riot  5    and 
fo  fall  into  Heats  and  Difputes  among  themfelves  about  it,    and  make 
new  Parties  and  Divifions :     Is  not  this  an  admirable  Way  of  prefer- 
ving  Peace,  and  Order,  and  Difcipline,  in  a  Church?     And  I  am  as 
certain,  this  is  not  the  Way  ofChrift's  appointing,  as  I  am,  that  God  is 
the  God  ofOrder^   and  not  of  Confujion  ;    and  that  when  Chrift  left  the 
Legacy  of  Peace  to  his  Church,  he  left  a  Power  in  fome  to  fee  his  VVill 
performed.     But  thefe  things  can  never  be  objei>ed  againft  us  5   for  all 
are  Members  of  the  fame  IJody,  and  are  governed  by  certain  and  known 
Rules  5  and  if  any  be  guilty  of -open  Violation  of  it,    the  Way  is  open 
to  accufeand  profecutethem  ;  and  if  they  be  found  guilty,   the  Cen- 
fures  of  the  Church  will  render  them  uncapable  of  doing  it  in  fuch  a 
Station^  or  at  leaft,    to  bring  them  to  Confeflion  of  their  Fault,    and 
Promife  of  future  Amendment.     And  now  I  leave  any  one  to  judge, 
whether  the  Parochial  Clergy  are  not  under  greater  and  better  Difcipline, 
than  the  Teachers  of  the  feparate  Congregations. 

II.  But  the  great  Complaint  of  fuch  Men  is.  That  we  want  Parochi- 
al a/id  Congregational  Difcipline,  fo  that  Faults  fhould  be  examined  and 
puni(hed  where  they  have  been  committed  5  but  inftead  of  that,  all  Mat- 
ters are  drawn  into  the  Ecclefiaftical  Court,  and  there  Caufes  are  mana- 
ged fo,  as  looks  rather  like  a  Defign  to  puni(h  Men  in  their  Purfes,  than 
for  their  Faultsj   and  the  Delays  are  fo  great,   that  the  Court  it  felf 

O  o  o  o  feems 


^54  0/^/;^  Duties  and  Rights 

feems  to  be  defigned  for  Penance,  and  grows  very  nneafie,  even  to 
thofe  who  are  Members  of  our  Church.  And  fome  think  that  the  pro- 
ceeding againfl:  Men  upon  Articles  of  Enquiry,  is  not  fo  agreeable  to  the 
Rights  and  Liberties  of  Mankind.  In  anfwer  to  this,  I  (hall  confider, 
(i.)  The  Proceedings  upon  Enquiry  at  Vifitations.  (3.)  The  Method 
of  Proceeding  in  the  Ecclefiaftical  Courts.  (3.)  The  Inconveniencies 
of  Parochial  Difcipline. 

1.  As  to  Enquiries  at  Vifitations.  They  were  grounded  upon  one  of 
the  main  Pillars  of  our  Law,z;rz,.  an  ancient,  immemorial  Cuftom  found- 
ed upon  good  Reafon :  In  the  firft  Canons  that  ever  were  made  in  this 
Church  under  Theodore,  Archbifhop  of  Caf^terhnry^  the  fecond  is. 
That  every  Bijhop  is  to  look  after  the  Govertiment  of  his  orccn  Diocefs,  and 

Angi!  i.    *^'  '''  invade  anothers.     And  that  in  fo  doing  they  went  about  their 
p.  183.     Dioceffes  in  order  to  an  Enquiry  and  Correftion  of  Mifcarriages,  is 
evident  from  the  Council  under  Cuthbert,  Archbifliop  of  Canterbury,  Can. 
g.  25.  the  firft  Council  at  Calechph,  Can.  3.  the  Conftitutions  of  Oda^ 
Archbifhop  of  Canterbury,  Can.  5.  and  the  Canon  of  Edgar,  Can.  g. 
But  in  the  Saxon  times,  the  Vifitations  were  annual,  which  were  found 
inconvenient  5  and  therefore  in  the  Norman  times,  the  Archdeacons  were 
taken  into  a  part  of  the  Jurifdidtion  under  the  Bifhop,  and  vifited  thofe 
years  the  Bifhop  did  not.     But  we  meet  with  no  Archdeacons  with  any 
kind  of  Jurifdiftion  in  the  Saxon  times  ^  we  read  indeed  fometimes  of 
the  Name  of  Archdeacons,  but  they  had  nothing  to  do  in  the  Diocefs, 
but  only  attended  the  Bifhop  at  Ordinations,  and  other  publick  Services 
in  the  Cathedral.     Lanfranc  was  the  firft  who  made  an  Archdeacon  with 
Angi  Sacr.  jurifdi6fion  in  his  See.     And  Thomas  firft  Archbiftiop  of  Tork,  after  the 
Stub^vt   CofiQueft,  was  the  firft  who  divided  his  Diocefs  into  Archdeaconries:^ 
Arch.       and  fo  did  Kemigius,  Bifhop  of  Lincoln,  his  large  Diocefs  into  Seven 
H-  Hf»n-  Archdeaconries,  faith  H.  of  Huntingdon :  And  fo  it  was  with  the  reft  ; 
Angi.Sacr.  °^  which  there  were  two  Occafions,     i.  The  laying  afidethe  Chorepi- 
fcopi  in  the  Weftern  Parts,  as  afTuming  too  much  to  themfelves.     2.  The 
publick  Services  which  the  Biftiops  were  more  ftri(!Jly  tied  to,  as  the 
King  s  Barons  in  the  Norman  times :  Which  was  the  Reafon  not  only 
of  taking  in  Archdeacons,  but  likewife  of  Archpresbyters  or  Rural- 
Deans,  who  had  fome  Infpeftion  into  the  feveral  Deanaries,  and  afli- 
fted  the  Bilhop  in  fuch  things,  as  they  were  appointed  to  do  5  and  then 
came  in  the  other  Ecclefiaftical  Officers,  as  Vi car-General,  Chancellors, 
Commijfaries,  &c.  for  we  read  not  of  them  here  at  all  in  the  Saxon  times -^ 
but  about  the  time  of  Henry  II.  the  BiQiops  took  them  for  their  AfG- 
ftance  in  Difpatch  of  Caufes,  when  the  Ring  required  their  ftrift  At- 
tendance on  the  publick  Affairs  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  Parliament. 

2.  As  to  the  Method  of  Proceeding  in  the  Ecclefiaftical  Courts,  it  is 
no  other  than  hath  been  continued  here  without  Interruption,  till  of 
late  years,  ever  fince  the  Conqueft.  For  the  Confiftory-Court,  and  the 
Rules  of  Proceeding  there,  were  eftabliftied  by  a  Law  in  the  time  of 

■  William  the  Firft.  As  far  as  I  can  find  by  King  Edward's  Laws,  c.  4. 
the  Bifhops  did  then  proceed  by  the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws,  although  they 
then  fat  in  the  County-Court  ^  but  this  caufed  fo  much  Confufion, 
that  William,  by  a  general  Confent,  and  a  Charter  direfted  to  all  the 
concii.  People  of  England^ Aoth  feparate  the  Ecclefiaftical  from  the  Temporal 
Angf.  II.  Courts;  which  was  enrolled  as  good  Law,  2  R.  2.  upon  occafion  of  a 
Suit  of  the  Dean  and  Chapter  of  Lincoln ;  and  therefore  the  Charter 
of  Remigius,  Biftiop  of  Lincoln,  is  more  mentioned  than  others,  but 

the 


of  the  Varochtnl  Clergj  6^^ 


the  fame  was  to  all  the  Bifliops  and  Counties  of  England,  as  appears  by  ^^'''-  ^4. 
other  Copies  of  it.     Thus  the  Confiftory-Court  was  firft  eftablifhed,  as  'j^.  " 
a  diftinft  Court  from  the'County-Court,  which  it  was  not  in  the^rfx- 
ott  times^  for  then  the  Biihop  fate  with  the  Civil  Magiftratein  the  fame  Tic.  h.  i. 
Court ;  and  Ecclefiaftical  Caufes  were  firft  heard  and  decided  there.  It^-  ?• 
feeras  the  People  were  very  unwilling  to  go  to  a  new  Place  ;  and  there- 
fore the  Law  is  inforced  with  fevere  Penalties  for  Contempt.  And  thofe 
whoobjeftagainft  the  Keafonablenefsof  the  Method  of  Proceeding  in 
thofe  Courts,  muftrefleft  upon  fomeofthe  vvifeft  Nations  in  the  World, 
who  have  gone  upon  the  fame  Grounds,  in  all  that  have  received  the 
Civil  Law,  and  upon  fome  of  the  greateft  Courts  at  this  time  in  the 
Kingdom,  as  the  Chancery  and  Admiralty,  which  go  by  the  fame  Fun- 
damental Rules.     As  to  any  Objedions  which  arife  from  the  perfonal 
Faults  of  thofe  who  are  imployed  in  them,  that  reaches,  I  am  afraid^ 
to  all  Courts;  and  it  ought  to  be  the  Work  and  Bufinefs  of  thofe  who 
look  after  them,  to  do  what  in  them  lies,  to  reform  them,  that  others 
Faults  may  not  be  laid  at  their  Doors. 

3.  But  for  thofe  who  would  have  a  Parochial  or  Congregational  Dis- 
cipline fet  up,  as  much  better,  and  more  efFedual,  I  fliall  defire  them  to 
confider,  that  fince  Matters  of  Difcipline  are  fuch,  as  that  in  them  the 
Reputation  and  Intereft  of  Perfons  is  very  much  concerned,  they  ought 
not  to  be  left  to  Arbitrary  Proceedings  of  any  Perfons,  but  they  ought 
to  be  managed  by  the  certain  and  common  Rules  of  Juftice  ^  fince  eve- 
ry Man  hatJh  a  Right  to  defend  himfelf,  when  he  isaccufed.  Andun- 
lefs  there  be  known  and  eftablifhed  Methods  of  Proceedings  agreeable 
to  natural  Juftice,  and  the  Laws  of  the  Land,  nothing  would  be  more 
grievous  ;'nd  intolerable  than  the  common  Exercife  of  a  Parochial  Dip 
cipline.    For, 

1.  It  cannot  be  prefumed,  that  there  will  be  competent  Judges.  For 
every  cne  who  hath  a  Faculty  of  Preaching,  hath  not  a  Faculty  of 
Judging  in  fuch  Cafes,  And  where  Difcretion  and  a  Judgment  of 
Circumftances  is  wanting,  rn  honeft  Mind  will  not  fecure  Men  from 
doing  Injury,  and  expofing  their  Judicature  to  Contempt. 

2.  They  have  no  fixed  and  efi:ablifhed  Rules  of  proceeding,  as  there 
are  in  the  EccJefiaftical  Courts,  which  have  been  continued  down  from 
time  to  time,  and  allowed  by  the  Laws  of  the  Land.  And  what  miferable 
Diforder  muft  follow  an  Arbitrary  Method,  when  Humour,  and  Will, 
and  Pafi]on  may  over- rule  Juftice,  and  Equity,  and  Confcience? 

3.  They  are  not  under  the  Check  of  the  Law,  as  the  Ecclefiaftical 
Courts  are.  For,  if  they  exceed  their  Bounds,  either  as  to  the  Nature 
of  the  Caufe,  or  the  Manner  of  proceeding,  they  are  liable  to  Prohi-  ' 
bitions  from  the  King's  Courts  of  Juftice  5  but  the  Law  can  take  no  no- 
tice of  Parochial  or  Congregational  Judicatures,  and  fo  Men  may  fuffer 
without  Remedy. 

4.  They  have  no  way  to  judge  of  Legal  Evidence,  which  is  very 
material  when  a  Perfon  is  accufed.  It  is  one  of  the  niceft  Points  in  all 
criminal  Proceedings  to  determine  what  is  good  and  fufficient  Evidence^ 
For  feveral  things  are  to  be  weighed  before  either  WitnefTes  or  Tefti- 
monies  can  be  allowed.  As  to  WitnefTes,  it  is  required  that  they  be 
perfons  of  Reputation,  and  free  from  Infamy  of  Law  and  Fad;  that 
they  be  difintercfted,  c;nd  fo  not  liable  to  the  juft  Sufpicion  of  Par- 
tiality^ that  they  be  Men  of  Difcretion  and  fane  Memory  -^  and  all  reij- 
fonable  Exceptions  are  to  be  allowed  againft  them.     As  to  Teftimonies  j 

O  o  o  o  2  they 


6^6  Of  the  Duties  a?id  Rights 

they  muft  be  by  our  Law  upon  Oath  ^  and  what  Authority  have  fuch 
Perfons  to  give  an  Oath,  and  why  (hall  a  Man  be  liable  to  fufFer  by  a 
Teftimony  without  one,  when  the  Law  requires  it  ?  They  muft  be  de- 
liberate, and  not  given  to  Paffion,  confiftent  as  to  Time,  Place,  and  o- 
ther  Circumftances  :  They  muft  be  certain  and  pofitive,  and  not  upon 
Hear-fay,  or  the  Believing  of  other  Perfons ;  They  muft  be  free  from 
any  juft  Sufpicion  of  Contrivance  and  Confpiracy,  or  any  fort  of  Cor- 
ruption or  Partiality.  And  now  is  every  parochial  Minifter,  or  feledl 
Congregation  fit  to  judge  of  thefe  Matters,  whereon  the  Reputation, 
and  confequently  the  Intereft  of  every  Perfon  may  be  fo  deeply  con- 
cerned } 

5.  They  have  no  way  to  prevent  a  precipitate  and  hafty  Sentence. 
Suppofe  a  Man  be  accufed  by  one  of  Intereft  and  Paffion,  who  poflef- 
fes  others  with  the  fame  Opinion  before-hand,  and  the  Judges  are  all 
prejudiced  be'ore  the  Matter  comes  to  be  heard  5  and  in  popular  Aflem- 
blies  fome  few  Men  fway  the  reft,  M^hat  a  Cafe  is  a  Perfon  accufed  un- 
juftly  in  ?  He  hath  no  Liberty  for  others  that  are  not  of  the  Congre- 
gation, although  moredifinterefted,  either  to  come  in  to  judge,  or  to 
plead  for  him  :  He  can  have  no  Advocate  to  defend  him,  or  to  ftievv 
the  Weaknefs  or  Inconfiftency  of  the  Evidence  againft  him.  In  all 
Ecclefiaftical  Courts,  they  may  fometimes  proceed  fummarily,  but  even 
then  the  Fundamental  Rules  of  the  Court  muft  be  obferved,  as  to  Proofs 
and  Witneffes,  or  elfe  the  Sentence  is  void  ^  but  here  the  Sentence  will ' 
take  place,  although  there  hath  not  been  the  leaft  Colour  of  Juftice  in 
the  whole  Proceedings. 

6.  Here  is  no  fettled  courfe  of  Appeals  in  cafe  of  a  wrong  Sentence. 
But  where  Men  are  liable  to  Miftake  and  Paffion,  a  Right  of  Appeal  is 
one  of  the  Fundamental  parts  of  Juftice.  And  therefore  Independent 
and  Arbitrary  Courts  of  Judicature,  as  all  Congregational  Churches' 
are,  are  inconfiftent  with  the  common  Rights  of  Mankind,  and  that 
due  Subordination  which  ought  to  be  in  all  Societies,  in  order  to  the 
preferving  Order  and  Juftice  among  Men.  But  fuppofe  Parochial  Dif- 
cipline  fo  fettled  among  us,  as  to  allow  a  Liberty  of  Appeal,  how 
would  the  Trouble,  and  Vexation,  and  Expence  be  increafed,  by  going 
from  the  Parochial  Sentence  to  the  Biftiop's  Court,  and  from  thence 
(till  further?  So  that  if  there  be  fome  Inconveniencies  in  point  of  Di- 
ftance,  for  Perfons  to  be  fummoned  to  appear  at  firft  fo  far  from  home^ 

,  yet  there  is  fome  Compenfation  by  the  lefs  Trouble  and  Charges,  if 
due  care  be  taken  to  prevent  Delays  and  unnecelTary  Expences  5  which 
ought  to  be  done :  And  thofe  who  do  make  the  greatdft  C  lamour  a- 
gainft  our  Courts,  are  rather  willing  they  fhould  continue  fuch  as  they 
may  have  Caafe  to  complain  of,  than  to  do  their  Endeavours  to  re- 
form them. 

Thus  I  have  endeavoured  to  ftiew  the  juft  Bounds  and  Limits  of  Pa- 
rochial Cures. 

II.  I  now  come  to  confider  the  juft  Meafure  of  that  Diligence  which 
is  required  under  thofe  Limits.  For  our  Church  requires  Faithful  Di- 
ligeme  in  Preaching,  and  Sacraments,  and  Prayers,  and  Reading  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  If  then  we  can  underftand  what  this  Faithful  Diligence 
implies,  we  may  come  to  fatisfie  our  felves  whether  we  do  our  Duty  or 
not. 

I.  Faithful  Diligeffce  implies  ferious  Application  of  our  Minds  to 
the  main  End  and  Defign  of  our  Holy  Funftion  ^  which  is  to  do  good 

to 


of  the  farochial  Clergy.  ^57 

to  the  Souls  of  Men,  efpccially  to  thofe  committed  to  your  Charge. 
And  an  idle,  carelefs,  fantering  Life,  or  one  too  bufy  and  diftrafted 
with  the  Cares  of  the  World,  are  not  confiftent  with  it.  I  do  not  go 
about  to  take  you  off  from  neceffary  Bufinefs,  and  reafonable  Allow- 
ances, as  to  Health  and  Studies,  but  to  perfwade  you  that  the  doing 
good  to  your  Peoples  Souls,  ought  to  be  the  principal  and  chief  Dc- 
fign  of  your  Thoughts,  Studies  and  Endeavours.  And  if  the  People 
be  fatisfied  that  this  is  really  your  Defign  among  them,  you  will  find 
that  your  Dodrine  will  be  eafier  received,  your  Perfons  efteemed,  and 
your  Labours  valued.  It  is  poflible  you  may  meet  with  a  froward,, 
peevidi,  felt-willed  People ;  and  it  is  hard  when  a  Man  is  only  fet  to 
water  and  mend  a  Hedge  made  up  of  Briars  and  Thorns  5  the  more 
Pains  he  takes,  the  more  Scratches  he  may  meet  with  ^  but  if  it  be 
your  Lot,  be  not  difcouraged  from  doing  your  Duty  :  Remember  what 
fort  of  People  the  Prophets  were  fent  to,  and  what  llfage  they  had 
from  them;  what  Hardfhipsand  Reproaches  C  hrift  and  his  Apoftles 
underwent  from  a  very  unkind  World  ;  but  a  very  patient  Continuance 
in  well-doing  gave  thera  inward  Satisfaftion  in  the  midft  of  all,  and  did 
by  degrees  gain  the  Chriftian  Dodrine  Accefs  to  the  Hearts  of  thofe  who 
moft  oppofed  it. 

2.  It  implies  an  honeft  and  confciencious  Care  of  difcharging  the 
known  and  common  Duties  of  your  Funftion,  as  Preaching,  Prayings 
Catechizing,  Adminiftring  Sacraments,  Vifiting-the  Sick,  &c.     A  dili- 
gent Perfon  is  one  who  neglefts  no  good  Opportunities  of  doing  his 
fcufinefs,  but  watches  for  them,  and  ftudies  to  improve  them  to  the 
beft  Advantage.     Can  thofe  fatisfy  themfelves  that  they  ufe  Faithful 
Diligence,  who  (liamefully  negled  their  Cures,  and  care  not  how  feldom 
they  come  at  them,    nor  how  they  are  fupplied,    if  they  make  a 
good  Bargain  for  their  own  Advantage  }  I  cannot  deny,  but  that  ac- 
cording to  the  Laws  of  the  Land,  and  the  Canons  of  this  Church, 
fome  Perfons  are  allowed  to  have  two  feveral  Cures,  which  muft  im- 
ply a  Non-refidence  for  fome  time,  at  leaft,  upon  one  of  them.    But 
they  fliil  fuppofe,  that  there  are  Perfons  refident  upon  them,  who  are 
allowed  by  the  Bifhop  to  be  fufficient  to  difcharge  the  neceflary  Duties 
of  the  place,  and  not  to  be  taken  up  like  Poft-horfes,  the  next  that 
comes,  and  to  be  turned  off  at  the  next  Stage.     I  think  it  a  very  great 
Fault  in  thofe  who  have  Pluralities,  that  they  look  no  more  after  the 
Curates  they  employ,  and  that  they  do  not  bring  them  to  the  Bifhop 
to  be  approved,  and  to  have  their  Allowance  fixed  before  they  imploy 
them.    They  think  no  more  is  required  but  to  pay  the  Fees  for  a  Li- 
cence ;  but  I  have  and  (hall  endeavour  to  convince  the  Clergy  of  this 
Diocefe,  that  Licences  are  not  to  be  taken,  as  St.  Peter  took  the  F/Jh 
that  firjl  came  veith  Money  in  the  Mouth  of  it  ;    I  hope  to  be  able  to  fa- 
tisfy them,  that  it  is  not  the  Fees  that  we  aim  at,  but  at  Perfons  do- 
ing their  Duties.     And  our  Canons  are  exprefs.  That  no  Curate  is  to  can.  48. 
be  allowed  in  any  Cure  of  Souls,  that  hath  not  been  examined  and  ad- 
mitted by  the  Bifhop  or  Ordinary  having  Epifcopal  Jurifdiftion,  and 
atteffed  by  the  Hand  and  Seal  of  the  Bifhop.  How  then  come  Curates  to 
officiate  without  ever  coming  to  the  Bifhop  at  all,  or  undergoing  any 
Examination  by    him  ?     This  is  a  plain  Breach  of  the  Canon,  and 
ought  to  be  reformed.     I  do  not  fay,  that  fuch  Licences  as  have  cu- 
ftomarily  paiTed  without  the  Bifhop  s  Hand  and  Seal  are  void  ^  but  I  do 
fay,  That  they  are  irregular  and  voidable,  and  none  ought  to  be  allow- 
ed, 


^58  Of  the  Dimes  and  Rights 


€d,wbich  are  not  accordingto  the*Canon  ^  and  tbat  no  Incumbent  ought 
totJke  any  one  lor  his  Carate,till  the  uifliophath  allowed  and  approved 
him  under  his  Hand  and  Seal.     And  this  Remedy  the  Law  gives  us  a- 
gainftthe  Inconveniencies  which  attend  Pluralities  by  weak  and  infuf- 
ficient  Curates.  But  no  Man  is  excufed,  either  by  Law  or  Canons,  from 
attending  the  Duties  of  his  Place  at  feme  times  in  his  own  Perfon,  and 
can.  41    t^'^f  r?""^  ^^^*  "/  *^^  '^^^*'  5  ^"  which  time  he  ought  to  do  the  Duties 
of  his  Place  with  Diligence  and  Care  ^  and  to  acquaint  himfelf  with 
his  Parilhioners,  in  order  to  the  better  Difcharge  of  his  Duty  towards 
them.     They  have  very  mean  Thoughts  of  their  holy  Funftion,  that 
think  the  mainPart  of  itlies  only  in  the  Pulpit ;  (I  wiCheven  that  were 
minded  more)  but  all  the  ways  you  can  do  good  among  your  People 
is  within  the  Compafs  of  your  Duty,  not  merely  to  inftruft  them  in 
Religion,  but  to  prevent  Quarrels,  and  Contentions,  and  Meetings  for 
Debauchery,  which  tend  to  corrupt  Mens  Minds,  and  draw  them  off 
from  the  Principles  as  well  as  Praftice  of  true  Religion  :  It  is  your  Duty 
to  endeavour  to  make  them  live  like  good  Chriftians,  and  good  Neigh- 
bours, and  to  fet  Patterns  your  felves  of  Sobriety,  Meeknefs,  Charity, 
and  of  every  thing  praife- worthy. 

^.  Faithful  Diligence  implies  filling  up  your  vacant  Hours  with  the 
moft  ufeful  Studies,  as  to  the  main  End  of  your  Fun61:ion.  For Jn  your 
Ordination  you  folemnly  promife  to  lay  ajide  the  Study  of  the  World  and 
the  hlefl.;  and  to  apply  your  felves  to  the  Study  of  the  Scriptures,  and  fuch 
Studies  Of  help  to  the  Knowledge  of  the  fame. 

But  it  may  be  feafonably  asked  by  fome,  What  Method  and  Courfe  of 
Study  will  beft  conduce  to  that  End  ? 

To  this  I  fball  endeavour  to  give  a  (hort  Anfwer  fo  far  as  it  concerns 
the  main  End  of  your  Funftion,  which  it  is  moft  proper  for  me  to  con- 
fider  at  this  time. 

I.  Look  well  to  the  Temper  of  your  Minds,  that  it  be  humble,  fo- 
ber,  and  religious  5  for  a  vain,  affeded,  and  felf  opinionated  Perfon  can 
never  have  an  inward  and  hearty  Reli(hof  Divine  Truths.     The  Scri- 
ptures will  appear  to  him  either  too  plain  and  eafy,  or  too  obfcure 
and  intricate  ^  fome  things  will  feem  low  and  flat,  and  others  too  lofty 
and  poetical.    Thofe  who  read  not  with  a  good  Mind,  will  haye always 
fomething  or  other  to  cavil  at.     It  is  a  mighty  Advantage  in  all  Spiri- 
tual Knowledge,  to  come  to  it  with  an  unbiafs'd  Mind,  free  from  the 
Power  of  Prejudice  and  evil  Inclinations.     For  thefe  give  a  ftrange 
Tinfture  to  the  Mind,  and  hinder  the  clear  and  diftinft  Perception  of 
Revealed  Truths,  as  above  the  Natural  Faculties  which  God  hath  gi- 
ven us.    Some  are  therefore  fo  fond  of  Philofophical  Speculations, 
that  unlefs  the  Letter  of  the  Scripture  fuits  with  them,  they  are  ready- 
to  defpife  it,  and  only  Shame  and  Fear  keep  up  any  Reverence  for  it 
in  them.     Some  are  altogether  for  Mathematical  Evidence  andDemon- 
flration,  as  though  the  Way  to  Salvation  were  to  be  fhewed  by  Lines 
and  Figures :  Why  do  they  not  firfl:  run  down  all  Laws  and  Hiftory, 
becaufe  they  are  not  capable  of  Mathematical  Evidence  ?   And  it  ar- 
gues a  far  greater  Meafure  of  true  Underftanding  to  know  when  to  be 
fatisfied,  than  to  be  always  difputing  and  cavelling.     The  Plainnefs  of 
Scripture  in  fome  places  is  no  more  an  Offence  to  one  that  wifely  con- 
(iders  the  Defign  of  it,  than  a  beaten  Road  is  to  a  Traveller  who  de- 
lires  to  know  which  is  the  true  Way  to  his  Journey's  End  ^  and  the 
plainer  it  is,  the  more  he  is  fatisfied  with  it.  But  the  Scripture  wints  not 

its 


of  the  Varocbial  Clergy.  5^^ 

its  Depths,  which  require  a  very  attentive  and  confidering  Mind,  and 
will  afford  Matter  for  Excrcife  of  Thoughts,  and  frequent  and  fcrious 
Meditation.  The  Excellency  of  the  Scripture  is,  That  all  things  ne- 
cefTary  are  plain ;  and  fuch  as  are  not  fo,  although  they  are  not  necef- 
fary  to  be  known  for  Salvation,  yet  require  our  l5iligence  to  underftand 
them,  and  give  great  Satisfaction  as  far  as  we  can  know  them. 

2.  Not  to  perplex  your  Minds  with  Difficulties  above  your  reach,  as  m 
what  relates  to  the  Eternal  Decrees,  and  the  particular  Manner  of  that 
Unity  of  the  Godhead,  which  is  confiftent  with  the  Trinity  of  Per- 
fons.  For  fince  the  Scripture  doth  aflert  both,  we  may  fafely  be  con- 
tented with  what  the  Scripture  reveals,  although  the  Manner  of  it  be 
incomprehenfible.  And  as  to  the  other,  the  Scripture  is  clear  and  po- 
fitive,  as  to  the  Moral  Parts  of  our  Duties  5  and  if  we  are  to  feek  how 
to  reconcile  them  with  God's  Decrees,  we  have  this  certain  R.ule  to 
go  by.  That  without  doing  our  Duty  we  cannot  be  happy,  but  we  may 
without  underflanding  how  the  Freedom  of  our  Wills  is  confident  with 
the  Divine  Prefcience  and  Decrees. 

3.  Not  to  fix  plain  and  necelTary  Duties  upon  new  and  unaccounta- 
ble Theories.  As  for  In  lance:  There  are  no  Duties  of  greater  Con- 
fequence  than  the  Love  of  God  and  our  Neighbour^  but  it  would  be 
unfpeakable  Mifchief  to  Religion,  to  fix  the  Love  of  God  upon  fo  ab- 
furd  a  Principle,  as  his  being  the  immediate  Caufe  of  all  Senfation  in 
us.  And  it  would  have  made  the  Chriftian  Dodrine  ridiculous,  to 
found  its  fundamental  Precepts  on  extravagant  Notions  and  Myftical 
Contemplations.  And  fo  for  the  Love  of  our  Neighbours,  to  allow 
only  a  Love-  of  Benevolence  and  Charity,  and  not  of  Delight  and 
Complu.cftcy,  is  to  make  nice  Diftinftions,  where  God  hath  made  none. 
But  to  take  away  the  Love  of  Complacency  in  Friends  and  Relations, 
and  the  Blefljngs  which  God  gives  for  the  Comfort  of  Life,  is  to  o- 
verthrow  the  due  Senfe  of  God'sGoodnefsin  giving  them  ^  and  to  take 
away  a  great  Meafure  of  that  Gratitude  we  owe  to  God  for  them.  But 
when  any  feem  very  fond  of  fuch  Notions,  and  (hew  fo  much  Self- 
Complacency  in  them,  it  is  impolTible  upon  fuch  Principles  that  they 
fhould  love  their  Neighbours  as  themfelves. 

4.  If  you  would  underftand  the  New  Teftament  aright,  fix  in  your 
Minds  a  true  Scheme  of  the  State  of  the  Controverfies  of  that  time, 
which  will  give  you  more  light  into  the  true  Knowledge  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, than  large  Volumes  of  Commentators,  or  the  beft  Syftems  of 
Modern  Controverfies  5  as.  What  the  Jervijl)  Notions  of  Juftification 
by  Works,  and  Expiation  of  Sin  were,  and  of  God's  Decrees  of  Ele- 
ftion  and  Reprobation  as  to  themfelves  :  And  what  the  Principles  of 
the  Judaizing  Chriftians  were,  as  to  the  joining  the  Law  and  the  Go- 
fpel,  and  the  Pythagorean  Superftition  together.  And  what  the  Gfio- 
jiicks^  who  were  profeffed  Libertines,  held  as  to  Grace,  Redemption, 
Liberty,  Government,  &c.  All  which  tend  very  much  to  the  clearing 
the  Senfe  of  the  New  Teftament. 

5.  Where  the  Senfe  appears  doubtful,  and  Difputes  have  been  raifed 
about  \t,  enquire  into  the  Senfe  of  the  Chriftian  Church  in  the  firft 
Ages,  as  the  beft  Interpreter  of  Scripture  li  as.  Whether  the  Apoftles 
left  Biftiops  or  Presbyters  to  fucceed  them  in  the  Government  of  Chur- 
ches ^  Whether  the  Apoftles  appointed  the  Lord's  Day  to  be  obferved 
as  the  Day  of  Publick  Worfhip^  Whether  Baptifm  were  not  tobead- 
miniftred  to  Infants  as  well  as  Circumcifion,  both  being  Seals  of  God's 

Cove- 


660  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


Covenant  5  Whether  Divine  Worfhip  doth  not  belong  to  Chrift,  and 
were  not  given  to  him  in  the  Hymns  and  Doxologies  of  the  Primitive 
Church  5  and,  Whether  Divine  Worfhip  can  be  given  to  any  Crea- 
ture ^  Whether  the  Form  of  Baptifm  was  not  underftood  fo,  as  to 
imply  a  Trinity  of  Perfons ;  and.  Whether  all  true  Chriftians  were 
not  Baptized  into  this  Faith  ;  and  confequently.  Whether  denying  the 
Trinity  be  not  renouncing  Chriftian  Baptifm.  Thefe  and  many  other 
fuch  Queftions  of  great  Importance,  receive  great  Light  from  the  Wri- 
tings of  the  firft  Ages. 

But  fome  Rules  may  be  very  ufeful  for  right  judging  the  Senfe  of 
thofe  Times. 

1.  To  diftinguifli  the  Genuine  and  Suppofititious  Writings  of  that 
Time.  This  hath  been  examined  with  fo  much  Care  by  Learned 
Men  of  this  laft  Age,  that  it  is  no  hard  matter  to  make  a  true  Judg- 
ment about  them. 

2.  In  thofe  that  are  Genuine,  to  diftinguifli  the  Senfe  of  the 
Church,  delivered  by  them,  from  their  own  particular  Opinions  5 
the  Senfe  of  the  Church  is  beft  known  by  publick  A6l:s,  as  by  Creeds, 
Sacraments,  Hymns,  Prayers  and  Cenfures  of  fuch  as  oppofe  or  con- 
tradift  them. 

5.  To  put  a  Difference  between  the  Authority  of  private  Perfons, 
and  of  the  Bifhops  and  Governours  of  the  Church  who  may  be  prefum- 
ed  to  underftand  the  Senfe  of  the  Church,  and  the  Doftrine  of  the  Apo» 
ftles  better  than  the  other.  And  fo  Clemem^  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Thee 
philus,  and  Iren£us  are  more  to  be  trufted  as  to  the  Senfe  and  Pradice  of 
the  Chriftian  Church  than  fuch  as  Hermes,  and  Papias  and  Tatiaaus, 
who  had  neither  the  Judgment  nor  the  Authority  of  the  other. 

4.  That  may  be  juftly  looked  on  as  the  Senfe  of  the  Church,which  is 
owned  both  by  the  Friends  and  the  Enemies  of  it.  The  Enemies  of 
Chriftianity  charged  them  with  many  Things,  which  the  Apologifts 
utterly  denied.  Now  we  find  Pliny  charging  the  Chriftians  with  fing- 
ing  Hymns  to  Chrift,  as  to  God  ;  feveral  Chriftian  Writers  of  that 
time  mention  this,  but  never  go  about  to  foften^  or  to  excufe,  or  de- 
ny it.  And  fo  we  find  Lncian  deriding  the  Chriftians  for  the  Doftrine 
of  Three  and  One.^  which  the  Apologifts  of  that  time  are  fo  far  from  de- 
nying, that  they  aflert  and  vindicate  it,  as  appears  by  Athenagoras  and 
others. 

But  thefe  things  I  only  touch  at,  to  (hew  how  the  Senfe  of  the  Church 
is  to  be  taken,  and  how  from  thence  the  Senfe  of  the  Scriptures  may  be 
cleared. 


O  F 


of  the  VarochialClergj,  ^6x 

O  F    T  H  E 

Particular   DUTIES 

O  F    T  H  E 

PAROCHIAL    CLERGY, 

At  aVifitation,  ^c^o^erijth.  1^5?^. 

My  Brethren, 

AS  often  as  it  pleafes  God  in  his  wife  Providence  to  bring  me  among 
you  in  the  ordinary  Courfe  of  my  Vifitation,  I  cannot  fatisfie  my 
felf  that  I  do  my  own  Duty,  unlefs  I  put  you  in  mind  of  doing  yours. 
We  live  in  an  Age,  wherein  the  Contempt  of  the  Clergy  is  too  notori- 
ous not  to  be  obferved  5  but  the  true  Reafons  are  not  fo  well  confidered 
as  they  ought  to  be.  Some,  to  increafe  the  Contempt  of  the  Clergy, 
have  given  fuch  Reafons  of  it,  as  feem  to  make  it  a  light  and  jefting 
matter  5  but  truly  it  is  very  far  from  being  fo  :  For  the  Contempt  of 
Religion  is  oft-times  both  the  Caufe  and  the  Effedtof  it.  It  is  not  at  all 
to  be  wondred  at,  that  thofe  who  hate  to  be  reformed,  (hould  hate  thofe 
whofe  Duty  and  Bufinefs  it  ought  to  be  to  endeavodr  to  reform  them. 
But  when  Religion  is  (truck  at  through  our  Sides,  we  ought  with  Pa- 
tience to  bear  the  Wounds  and  Reproaches  we  receive  in  fo  good  a 
Caufe.  IVobetous,  if  thofe  who  are  Enemies  to  Religion,  /peak  weU 
of  us  :  For  it  is  a  ftrong  Prefumption  that  they  take  us  to  be  of  their 
fide  in  our  Hearts,  and  that  we  are  diftinguiftied  only  by  our  Ptofeffion, 
which  they  look  on  only  as  our  Trade.  And  we  give  too  much  occa- 
fion  for  fuch  Sufpicions  ofcus,  if  we  do  not  heartily  concern  our  felves 
for  the  Honour  and  Intereft  of  true  Religion  in  the  World,  whatever 
we  may  fufFer,  as  to  our  Reputation,  for  the  fake  of  it.  It  is  poffible, 
thit  if  we  go  about  to  humour  fuch  Perfons  in  their  Infidelity  and  Con- 
tempt of  Religion,  we  may  efcape  fome  hard  Words  for  the  prefent, 
but  they  cannot  but  have  the  greateft  inward  Contempt  and  Hatred  of 
all  thofe  who  live  upon  Religion,  and  yet  have  not  the  Courage  to  de- 
fend it.  And  what  Satisfaftion  can  fuch  have,  when  they  refleft  upon 
themfelves,  and  think  what  Occafion  they  have  given  to  confirm  fuch 
Perfons  in  their  Infidelity,  and  to  make  them  think  the  worfe  of  Religi- 
on for  their  fakes. 

The  beft  thing  we  can  do  to  recover  the  Honour  of  Religion,  and 
to  fet  our  Profeffion  above  Contempt,  is  to  apply  our  felves  ferioufly 
and  confcientioufly  to  do  our  Duties.  For  if  others  find  that  we  are  in 
earneft,  and  make  it  our  great  Bufinefs  to  do  all  the  Good  we  can,  both 
in  the  Pulpit,  and  out  of  it  ^  if  we  behave  our  felves  with  that  Gravi- 
ty, Sobriety,  Meeknefs  and  Charity  which  becomes  fo  holy  a  Profeffl^ 
on,  we  (hall  raifeour  felves  above  the  common  Reproaches  of  a  fpite- 
ful  World  5  and  do  what  lies  in  us  to  ftop  the  Mouths  at  leaft,  if  not  to 
gain  the  Hearts  of  our  Enemies. 

P  p  p  p  For 


662  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


For  the  real  Efteem  which  Men  have  of  others,  is  not  to  be  gained 
by  the  little  Arts  of  Addrefs  and  Infinuation,  much  lefs  by  complying 
with  them  in  their  Follies  ^  but  by  a  fteady  and  refolute  Pradice  of  our 
own  Duties,  joined  with  a  gentle  and  eafie,  and  obliging  Behaviour 
to  others,  fo  far  as  is  confident  with  them.  But  a  proud,  fupercilious, 
morofe  Behaviour  towards  our  greateft  Enemies,  doth  but  make  them 
much  more  fo ;  if  any  thing  foftens  them,  and  makes  them  more  tra- 
ftable,  it  will  be,  joining  a  Firmnefs  of  Mind,  as  to  our  plain  Duties, 
with  Humility  and  Rindnefs  in  other  Matters. 

But  what  are  thefe  Duties  we  are  obliged  to  fo  much  Care  in  the  Per- 
formance of? 

There  is  a  two-fold  Obligation  lying  upon  us. 

I.  That  which  is  more  General  from  the  Nature  and  Defign  of  our 
Imployment;  which  is  the  Cure  of  Souls -^  and  that  requires  great  Dili- 
gence and  Faithful nefs,  frequent  Recolledion  and  Confideration,  feri- 
ous  Application  of  our  felves  to  Divine  Studies  and  Imployraents;  a 
prudent  Ufe  of  the  beft  Methods  for  the  Convincing,  Reproving,  Di- 
refting  and  Aflifting  thofe  who  are  committed  to  our  Care.  And  all 
thefe  are  implied  in  the  Nature  of  our  Office,  as  it  is  fet  forth  in  holy 
Scripture;  wherein  we  are  defcribed  as  Labourers^  and  therefore  muft 
take  Pains,  and  not  fpend  our  time  in  vain  and  idle  Company :  As  Tea- 
chers, and  therefore  ought  to  be  ftored  with  a  good  Stock  of  Knowledge 
our  felves,  and  be  ready  to  communicate  it  to  others :  as  Pajhrs,  and 
fo  we  ought  to  look  after  our  Flock,  and  not  leave  them  to  the  carelefs 
Management  of  others,  who  are  not  fo  concerned  for  their  Welfare, 
ns  we  ought  to  be;  As  Ambajptdors  from  Chrifi,  and  therefore  we  are 
bound  to  look  after  the  Bufinefs  we  are  fent  upon,  and  the  great 
Weightand  Importance  of  it,  as  to  your  own  Salvation  as  well  as  others ; 
As  Stewards  of  the  Myfieries  of  God,  and  the  firfl:  thing  required  in  them, 
is  to  difcharge  their  Truft  honeftly  and  faithfully,  remembring  the  Ac- 
count they  rauft  give  to  God.  ' 

But  thefe,  you  may  fay,  are  only  general  Things,  and  do  not  deter- 
mine and  limit  our  Duties  within  certain  Bwnds ;  what  is  there  which 
doth  fix  and  determine  our  Duties,  as  to  the  Station  we  have  in  this 
Church  ? 

II.  I  come  therefore  to  the  Special  Duties,  which  by  the  Ancient 
Conftitution  of  this  Church,  and  the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  of  it,  are  incum- 
bent upon  you.  And  you  are  to  confider,  that  as  the  Law  hath  taken 
Care  for  your  Maintenance  and  Subfiftencein  doing  your  Duties  ^  fo  it 
doth  fuppofe  your  careful  Performance  of  them,  not  only  in  regard 
tothegeneral  Rule  ofConfcience,  butto  that  particular  Obligation  you 
are  under,  as  Members  of  this  Church.  And  therefore  I  fliall  enquire 
into  two  things: 

I,  The  Duties  you  are  under  this  Obligation  to. 

IL  The  Incouragement  which  the  Law  gives  in  Confideration  of  it, 

I.  The  Duties  are  of  two  forts : 

I.  Publick  and  Solemn.     2.  Private  and  Occafional. 

I.  Publick  and  Solemn ;  and  thofe  either  refpeft  the  Time,  or  the 
Duties  themfelves. 

I.  As  to  the  Times  of  Solemn  and  Publick  Worfhip,  which  are  the 
Weekly  Lord's-days,  and  the  other  Holy-days. 

I.  I  begin  with  the  Obfervation  of  the  Lord's-day^  which  I  Ihall 
now  make  appear  to  have  been  fet  apart  for  the  folemn  Worlhip  and 

Ser- 


of  the  Varocbial  Clcrgj,  66^ 

Service  of  God,  efpecially  by  the  Clefgy,  from  the  firfl:  Settlement  of 
a  Parochial  Clergy  in  this  Church. 

In  a  Provincial  Council  held  at  C/f'T/e/^t'e  or  C///,  AD.  747.  the  King 
and  Nobility  being prefent  (where  the  Archbifhop  and  Bilhops  Aflem- condi. 
bled  for  Regulating  the  Worfhip  of  Godwin  Parochial  Churches  thenAngi.  1. 
newly  ereded  in  many  places)  the  Fourteenth  Canon  is  exprefs,  That**^" 
the  Lord's-day  ought  to  be  celebrated  with  due  Veneration,  and  de- 
voted only  to  Divine  Worfhip  (Divi»o  tantttm  cultui  dedicattts)  and  the 
Presbyters  are  required  to  officiate  in  their  feveral  Churches^  both  in  Preach- 
ing and  Praying  5  and  the  People  are  required  to  let  alone  their  common 
worldly  Affairs^  and  to  attend  the  publick  WorJIiip  of  God. 

ThtCznomoi Egbert,  Archbifhop  of  21?rj^,  are  as  clear  and  full  for  the 
Northern  as  the  other  for  the  Southern,  Can.  1 04.    That  nothing  is  to  be  done 
on  the  Lord's  Day,  bttt  what  tends  to  the  Worfhip  and  Service  of  God.     And 
Can.  ^6.  That  Chrifl fandijied  the  Lord's  Day  by  hk  Refnrre&ion.  But  be- 
caufe  thefe  Canons  of  Egbert  will  be  often  ufed,  fomerhing  ought  to  be 
obferved  to  clejr  their  Authority.   Sir  H.  Spelman  faith  there  are  feveral  ^ngifi. 
Ancient  MS^".  of  them.  Mr.5'e/ie«ownstheC(7//^»  Af-S".  tobeof  the  time  158.' 
of  H.  I.  but  he  fufpeftsthatanother  made  the  Colleftion,  and  put  it  under 
his  Name.  But  it  was  no  ftrange  thing  for  the  great  Bifhops  to  make  fuch 
a  Colledion  of  Canons^  for  fo  it  was  done  by  Theodore,  Archbifhop  of 
Canterbury  ^  by  Theodulphfff  of  Orleans  ;  Ifaac  Lingoneiifis,  Chrodegangiu, 
Herardus,  Hincmartts,  &c.     And  Egbert  was  not  only  a  great  Man,  Bro-  Egberr. 
ther  to  the  King  of  the  Northumbrians,  but  a  great  Promoter  of  Learn-  ^'^'-  ^^ 
ing  and  Ecclefiaftical  Difcipline,  as  appears  by  his  Dialogue  about  theftk^cum" 
latter,  and  the  other  by  Alcuins  Epifiles  about  him,  and  Bede's  Epi(tleBed«Epi- 
to  him  a  little  before  his  death.    And  the  Agreemerit  between  the  Ca-  Egbert 
pitulars  and  thefe  Canons  might  come  from  Alcuins  carrying  them  o- Dublin, 
ver  into  France  with  him.  '^^'*- 

In  the  Saxon  Canons,  c.  24.  it  is  faid,  that  the  Lord's-day  on  which  concii. 
our  Saviour  rofe  from  the  Dead,  is  to  be  devoted  wholly  to  the  Service  ^"s''  > 
of  God,  excepting  only  Works  of  Neceflity  and  Charity. 

Thefe  Canons  are  tranflated  from  thofe  of  Theodulphus ,  Bifhop  of 
Orleans,  A.  D.  j86.  And  it  is  obfervable,  that  as  the  Chriflian  Reli- 
gion prevailed  in  thefe  Northern  Parts,  fo  the  Religious  Obfervation  of 
the  Lord's-day  was  enforced,  as  appears  by  the  Canons  of  the  Galli- 
can  Church,  as  well  as  this.  As  in  the  famous  Canon  of  the  Council 
of  Mafcon,  A.D.  585,  where  the  Bifhops  Affembled,  complain  of  the 
Negleft  of  the  Lord's-day,  and  agree  to  put  the  People  upon  a  ftrifter 
Obfervance  of  it.  And  fo  before  in  the  Council  of  Orleans,  A.D.  538. 
But  in  both  thefe  Canons  they  avoid  a  'Jercijlj  Superftition  as  well  as  pro- 
fane Negled.  They  allowed  both  Works  of  Neceflity  and  Conveni- 
ency,  and  did  not  place  the  Obfervation  in  a  bare  Reft,  but  in  Atten- 
dance on  the  Worfhip  of  God;  and  forbad  all  manner  of  Secular  Im- 
ployments  which  were  inconfiftent  with  it.  Nay,  Theodulphuf  his  Ca- 
non goes  higher,  Tantummodo  Deo  vacandum,  the  whole  Day  ought  to 
be  fpent  in  Religious  and  Charitable  Imployments. 

The  greateft  Men  in  our  Saxon  Churches  afferted  the  fame.     Bede^^^-J-i- 
faith,  That  the  Apojlles  appointed  the  Lord's-day  to  be  obferved  with  Reli-^'   ^^' 
gicus  Solemnity,  and  therein  we  ought  to  devote  ourfelves  to  the  WorJJoip  of 
God  5  tantum  divinis  cultibm  ferviamus.    And  to  the  fame  purpofe  f peaks  ^icuin.  dc 
Alcuin,  who  was  bred  up  under  Eg/ier^,  Arch-bifhopof  Tor^',  and  calls  o  fie.  c. 
hede  the  greateft  Mafler  of  his  time;  and  in  another  place  he  faith,  ■7- 

P  p  p  p  2  '  One 


66^  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


Epift.  J.   Q^Q  Seventh  Day  is  fet  apart  among  Chriftians,  as  another  had  been 
De'off.  c.  among  the  Jem  for  the  Service  of  God^  and  that  therein  we  ought  to 
4°.         attend  to  the  Care  of  our  Souls  and  to  lead  a  fpiritual  Life. 
Bed.  T.        Bede  diftinguifhes  between  the  Patriarchal  and  Jevpifl)  Sabbath.    The 
IV.  585.   latter  he  calls  a  Carnal,  and  the  other  a  Spiritual  Sabbath-^  the  former 
lay  in  a  ftrid  Abftinence  from  Labour,  but  the  other  in  Prayer,  and 
V-  583.   Devotion,  and  Spiritual  Contemplations.     The  Jemf)  Reft,  he  faith, 
\ii\!l%.  was  inutile,  languidum,  &  luxuriojim.     For  the  "jews  allowed  Recre- 
ations and  Sports  on  their  Sabbaths  ^  Vacant  ab  opere  bono,  faith  he, 
Auguft.  in  non  ab  opere  nugatorio.     Vacant  ad  niigas,  faith  S.  Auguflin^  but  he  faith, 
Jtl'h\'   ^^^^y  ^^d  better  plow  or  dig,  than  dance  on  that  Day,  or  fit  in  the 
7,2.  ii.d.   Theater.     And  he  tells  us,  That  the  Heathens  objefted  againft  the  yea?/, 

ch  ^d-  '^'■'^''  ^^^^  ^P^"^  °"^  ^^y  ^"  ^^^^  Week  in  Idlenefs.  For  they  fuppofed 
°'^  "'  the  bare  Reft  to  be  the  Sandification  of  the  Day  which  was  command- 
ed, and  the  fpending  any  part  of  it  in  the  publick  Worfhip,  to  be  vo- 
Enfeb.  luntary  Devotion.  But  the  better  fort  of  the  Jews  thought  the  Rejt 
Tyfjo-^'  was  appointed  for  the  Knowledge  of  the  Law,  and  Spiritual  Imploy- 
fepli.  2.C.  ments.  So  Philo,  Jofephus,  Aben-Ezra,  Kimchi,  and  Menajfeh  ben  Ifraet. 
Abe^Ez-  ^^  ^^^^^  iTioft  reafonable  in  this  Cafe  to  diftinguilh  between  the  Le- 
ra  in"Ex^  gal  Reft  ftriftly  required  by  the  Fourth  Commandment,  and  the  Origi- 
od.  Kim.  „al  Reft  in  Remembrance  of  God's  refting  from  the  Work  of  Creation. 
ad'pfai.  The  former  was  a  Sign  between  God  and  the  People  of  Ifrael,  as  it  is 
p2.  Me-  often  called  in  Scripture  5  and  the  other  was  a  Commemorative  Sign, 
cfi Jn^Ex-  ^"'  ^"^^  ^5  excited  them  to  the  Worftiip  of  the  Creator  ^  and  therefore 
odiQ.jj.  the  Patriarchal  Sabbath^  as  Bede  obferves,  was  of  a  fpiritual  Nature. 
Aug.  c.  And  fuch  a  fpiritual  Sabbath,  as  S.  Auguftine  calls  it,  ought  to  be  ob- 
^dt'J.'t  Served  by  Chriftians  in  the  Duties  of  God's  Worftiip,  as  well  as  in  fpi- 
d imanc.  c.  ritual  and  holy  Thoughts.  But  the  JeteiP)  Sabbath,  he  often  faith, 
Genc'f  ?d  '^^^^  ^^^  oblige  Chriftians.  I  the  rather  mention  him,  becaufe  Bede 
lit.  c.  ii.  followed  his  Doftrinc  herein  ;  and  that  oi Gregory  I.  who  was  the  great 
13.  Epifi.  inftruraent  of  promoting  the  Converfion  of  our  Anceftors  to  Chriftia^ 
ip.  c!"3.  "^fy*  ^"^  ^^  declares  himfelf  fully,  both  as  to  the  Ceflation  of  tiie 
Jervi/l}  Sabbath,  and  the  religious  Obfervation  of  the  Lord's-day.  It 
feems  there  were  fome  then,  as  there  are  among  us  now,  who  were  for 
Greg.  E-  the  ftrift  Obfervation  of  the  Saturday-Sabbath.  But  Gregory  faith.  They 
II  'J.'i.  "I'gbt  as  well  infift  upon  Circumcifon  and  Sacrifices,  as  the  JevpiJJ)  Sab- 
bath. But  yet  he  adds,  We  ought  on  the  Lord's-day  to  abftain  from 
worldly  Imployments,  and  devote  our  felves  unto  Prayers,  that  we 
^^^?"^^-may  make  fome  Amends  for  the  Weeks  Negligence,  by  the  Devotions 
Z'lel  "^  on  that  Day.  And  this  devoting  the  Lord's-day  to  the  Service  of  God, 
Cone.  is  entred  into  the  Body  of  the  Canon  Law^  and  taken  oxxt  of  Ivo,  and 
Cm  4?  '^y  ^""^  ^'■of^  tf^^  Canons  of  the  Gallican  Chunh,  as  appears  by  feveral 
concii.     Councils. 

is.'Aquif  ^^^  Lynvpood  mentions  that  Canon  as  in  force  here.  Die  Dominich 
grzn.c.8i."'hil  aliud  agendum,  nife  Deo  vacandum.  And  he  takes  fome  Pains  to 
Areiat.     explain  it,  by  diftinguiftiing, 

i6.'Rifem.      '-  Works  fcrvilc  materially  and  formally,  as  Plowing,  Sowing,  Mar- 
2.C.  35.    kets.  Law-days,  &c.  thefe  are  generally  forbidden, 
r^l'i.^^       ^*  ^^s  fpiritual  materially  and  finally,  as  all  Afts  of  Piety  and  De- 
De  Officio  votion,  and  thefe  we  ought  to  attend  upon  with  Care  and  Diligence. 
presb'  c        ^'  ^^^  "°'-  ^^"^^"^^  '"  theHifclves,  but  done  for  a  fervile  End,  as  Stu- 
/^'fp.V,  dies  and  Defigns  for  Gain. 

'4.  AGs 


_^^^^^      of  the  Faroe  bid  Clergy.  ^^^ 

4.  A£cs  fervilc  in  tliemfelves,  but  not  fo  in  their  End  ^  as  the  Man's 
taking  up  his  Couch  on  the  Sabbath-day,  whom  Chrifl:  cured. 

He  affirms,  that  there  is  a  Moral  Part  in  the  Fourth  Commandment, 
which,  he  faith,  is  a  fpirit»al  Reji,  or  a  time  fet  apart  for  God's  Ser- 
vice: Which  he  takes  from  Aquinas,  who  faith  theSubftance  of  the  Com-  ^'^"'"; '" 
mand  is  Moral  5  but  he  doth  not  make  it  to  be  one  day  in  Seven,  but  0X37?" 
fome  determinate  time,  which,  he  faith,  theChurch  may  appoint 5  butO."-  '• 
then  it  muft  be  imployed  in  the  Service  of  God  (^vacare  rebus  divinis)  ^'I'.^iii^. 
as  things  were  faid  to  be  faiiftified  under  the  Law,  which  were  applied 
to  God's  Service.     But  notwithftanding  this  Judgment  of  Aqnlnas,  fome 
great  Men  in  the  Church  of  Rotfte  have  thought  one  day  in  Seven,  Mo- 
ral 5  and  that  the  Proportion  which  God  himfelf  had  appointed,  can- 
not be  leflen'd.     For  although  Mankind  could  not  by  natural  Reafon 
find  out  the  Proportion,  yet  being  once  reveal'd,  it  doth  not  ceafe  to 
oblige,  unlefs  fomething  figurative  and  fymbolical,  or  peculiar  to  the  j-»Q.- 
Jen>lfJ)  Nation  bedifcovered  in  it.  ^o°-  '• 

Bellarmine  makes  that  the  Reafon  of  the  Inftitution  of  the  Lord's-day,  ^^"-  ^^ 
becaufe  God's  Law  required  that  one  day  in  Seven  (hould  be  fet  apart  Sa./.j. 
for  the  WorRiip  of  God ;  but  the  Apoftles  thought  it  not  fit  to  obferve  <^-  «i'    ° 
the  ^ewijb  Sabbath,  and  therefore  changed  it  into  the  Lord's-day. 

CovarrHvius  faith.  That  all  Divines  agree  with  Aquini-.,  That  there  Covarruv. 
is  fomething  Moral  in  the  Fourth  C  ommand,  which  continues  to ob- ]^"-^^^°'° 
lige;  and  that  the  Lord's-day  is  of  Divine  Inftitution.  And  to  him  ''^^'^^^• 
the  Roman  Editors  of  the  Canon  Law  referr,  as  to  this  matter. 

A%or'ius  confefletb.  That  the  Obfervation  of  the  Lords-day  hath  Azor.  t. 
fomething  of  the  Divine  and  Natural  Law  in  it,  which  requires  one  day  ^*  ^'  ^'  ^" 
in  a  Week  fhould  be  confecrated  to  the  Service  of  God,  and  that  it  is  ^' 
moft  agreeable  to  Reafon.     And  he  adds.  That  Pamrmitan,  Syhefler, 
and  other  Canonifts  held  the  Lord's-day  to  be  of  divine  Inftitution. 

Snarez  faith.  That  the  C  hurch  doth  obferve  one  day  in  Seven  by  Suarez,  dc 
virtue  of  the  divine  Law;  that  Proportion  being  fo  agreeable  to  Natu-  J^^'-Tr-  2- 
ral  Reafon,  that  it  cannot  be  altered.  n.  ij^'c'^. 

Jh«mas  Waldett/ts,  who  lived  here  in  the  time  of  H.  5.  obferves,"-  ^•9' 
That  even  then  there  were  ttpo  Extreams  in  Mens  Opinions  about  the  Ob-j  V  xir. 
fervatioH  of  the  Lord's-day  \  fome  allowed  no  kind  of  Work,  and  others  16.C.140. 
any.     But  be  (hews,  That  the  Law  of  Nature  requires  fome  Solemn  Days 
for  Divine  Worfljip  ^  and  that  then  there  ought  to  be  a  Reft  from  other  La' 
bours^  becaufe  they   hinder  the  Mind  from  that  Attention  neceffary  to  the  '"^  ^V  '^' 
Service  of  God  :  And  necejfary  Works  are  left  to  a  few,  that  others  may  be  t'hred!  c. 
more  At  Liberty,  lo.  Al- 

In  xht  Saxon  Laws  we  find  many  againft  the  Profanation  of  the  Lord's  ^"i^.*^"" '°' 
day  by  flavilh  Imployments,  by  Markets  and  Trading,  by  Folkmotes  Atheift.  c. 
and  Law-fuits,  &c.  So  that  great  care  was  taken  then,  that  the  Lord's-  ^"  ^^^^ 
day  Ihould  be  duly  obferved.  ciidred.  c 

After  the  Norman  times,  we  have  feveral  Conftitutions  to  inforce 'J-^*""^- 
the  ftrift  Obfervation  of  the  Lord's-day.     In  the  time  of  U.  6.  Hubert  concii. 
de  Burgo  faith.  That  Cuftom  may  derogate  from  other  Holy-days,  butAngi.  if. 
not  from  the  Lord's-day  ^  becaufe  they  are  not  commanded  by  God,  as  If'  ^^^' 
that  is,  i'upiii.  o- 

Since  the  Reformation  our  Book  of  Homilies  goes  upon  the  fame'^"''- 5^"- 
Grounds  which  were  ufed  in  the  Saxon  times,  viz.     That  the  Jewi/h  Homiiy  o£ 
Sabbath  doth  not  oblige  us ;  but  however  to  obferve  the  like  Proporti-  ^^^  ''l*'^^ 
on  of  time,  and  devote  it  to  the  Service  of  God.  ^{Vr^tt 

Mr. 


^^^  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


Eccief.     Mr.  Hooker  faith,  That  we  are  to  account  the  Sanftification  of  one  day 
s^n'yo^'  i"  Seven  a  Duty  which  God's  immutable  Law  doth  exaft  for  ever. 

But  what  is  meant  by  this  Sandification  of  one  day  in  Seven  >    If  it 

be  underftood  according  to  the  old  Canons,  it  will  fill  fcrupulous 

Minds  with  more  Doubts  and  Fears  about  the  right  Obfervation  of 

it. 

orig  in        Origen  faith,  The  Obfervation  of  the  Chriftian  Sabbath  lies  in  thefe 

Numer.    things  ;     I.  A  Forbearance  of  worldly  Bufinefs.     2.  Attendance  on  the 

Horn.  23.  Publick  Worftiip.     5.  Divine  Meditation  on  things  invifible  and  future. 

Hom.V.iii  Har  eft  ohfervatio  Sabbati  Chriftiani.     And  in  another  place,  he  requires 

levit.  16.  befides  Publick  Worfhip,  private  Meditation  and  Reading  the  Holy 

Scriptures, 
chryfoa.  St.  Chryfoftom  infifts  very  much  upon  the  fame  in  feveral  places,  and 
Horn  5. in  on  different  Occafions.  And  although  it  be  in  his  popular  Sermons, 
Hora.  in"  yet  he  would  certainly  not  put  them  upon  any  thing,  but  what  he 
joh. Horn,  thought  very  fit  to  be  done.  And  they  muft  have  a  mean  Opinion  of 
Ambchf'  ^"f^'  ^^°  th\vk  his  Eloquence  carried  him  too  far  in  this  matter. 
Horn.  10'.  1  (hall  conclude  with  the  Opinion  of  Lynwood,  a  Learned  and  Judi- 
inGen.  ciousCauonift;  and  heobfervesa  three-fold  Sandification  of  the  Lord  s- 
Deo:^cioday.  i.  By  Abftinence  from  Sin,  which  is  neceffary  at  all  times.  2.  By 
Archi-  Abftinence  from  fuch  bodily  Labours  as  hinder  the  Minds  Attendance 
J^l'^g^^i.  upon  God's  Service.  5.  By  the  whole  Imployment  of  our  Minds  in 
fices.       Divine  Matters  5  and  this  he  calls  the  perfeft  Obfervation  of  it. 

Thefe  things  I  have  the  more  largely  infifted  upon,  to  (hew,  that  the 
religious  Obfervation  of  the  Lord's-day,  is  no  Novelty  ftarted  by 
fome  late  Se^s  and  Parties  among  us,  but  that  it  hath  been  the 
general  Senfe  of  the  befl:  part  of  the  Chriftian  World,  and  is  particu- 
larly inforced  upon  us  of  the  Church  of  England,  not  only  by  the 
Homilies,  but  by  the  moft  ancient  Ecclefiaftical  Law  among  us. 

But  this  is  not  all,  for  the  Ancient  as  well  as  Modern  Canons  require 
the  Obfervation  of  Holy-days  likewife.  The  Canons  of  Egbert  require 
not  only  Prayers,  but  Preaching  then.  Can.  i.  5. 

TheCouncil  ofCloveJhoe,  Can.  13.  diftinguifhes  the  Holy-days  relating 
to  our  Saviour,  from  the  reft;  and  faith,  they  are  to  be  obferved  in  a 
folemn  and  uniform  Manner,  and  the  reft  according  to  the  Roman  Mar- 
h\cM\a.Ac*J^ology:  Which,  I  fuppofe,  were  thofe  repeated  then  in  the  Diptychs 
offic. c 40. of  the  Church,  which  cuftom  continued  longer  at  Rome,  than  in  o- 
inDi'p-"*'  ther  Churches  5  but  it  was  generally  difufed  before  the  t\mQ  oi  Charles 
tych  Leo.\  the  Great. 

f'  8.  The  Cuftom  in  Rome,  in  Gregory's  time,  was  to  obferve  the  Saints- 

days  with  the  folemn  Service  at  one  Church,  as  appears  by  his  Homilies 
on  the  Evangel  ifts,  which  were  many  of  them  preached  on  thofe  Occafi- 
ons 5  as  of  S.  Felicitas,  Horn.  3.  S.Agnes,  Horn.  II,  12.  S.Felix,  Horn. 
1 5.  S.  Pancrace,  Horn.  27,  &c.  and  of  others  who  were  Roman  Martyrs  5 
and  therefore  had  a  particular  Solemnity  appointed  for  them.  But  as 
to  other  Saints-days,  it  appears  by  the  Antiphonarius  and  Sacramentary 
of  Gregory  I.  that  they  had  particular  Anthems  and  Collefts  proper  for 
them  in  the  Offices  of  the  Day ;  but  I  do  not  find  that  the  generality  of 
the  People  were  fo  ftriftly  tied  up,  when  the  Offices  were  over,  as  they 
were  on  the  Lord's-day,  and  the  greater  Feftivals  relating  to  our  Savi- 
our. In  the  Council  of  C/tfz/e/7joe,  Q;/.  15.  I  obferve  that  the  N<2/<«/i- 
lia  SanUorum,  i.  e.  the  Anniverfary  Saints-days,  were  obferved  with 
particular  PfalmoJy  and  Anthems ;  and  Can,  17.  the  days  of  Gregory 

and 


of  the  Yarocbial  Clergy. 


and  Aitgtijlwe,  the  two  great  inftruments  of  converting  the  Nation 
were  only   to  be  kept  as  Holy-days  by  the  Clergy,  without  any  par- 
ticular Obligation  on  all  the  People.     So  that  the  Holy-days  of  ftrift 
Obfervation  then,  feem  to  have  been  no  other  than  thofe  which  relate 
to  our  Saviour,  called  Dominica  Difpenfaiionis  in  cartie  Fefiivitatjs  t,  the 
reft  had  fome  proper  Offices  which  were  performed  on  their  days  ^  but 
the  People  were  to  attend  them,  as  well  as  they  could  5  but  after  there 
was  not  this  ftridnefs  required,  as  upon  the  greater  Holy-days  ^  gnd  as     ^ 
it  was  in  the  Church  of  Rome  afterwards,  when  they  made  the  Obli- 
gation of  Confcience  to  extend  to  all  Holy-days  appointed  by  the 
Church.    But  it  is  obfervable,  (i.)  That  this  Obligation  is  taken  from  DeCuitu 
thofe  Canons  which  mention  only  the  Lord's-day,  as  appears  by  Bellar-  S*"^-  '-s- 
»v/«£.     (2.)  That  they  kept  up  the  Diftindion  of  greater  and  lefler  Ho-  '■'"■ 
ly-days.     (3.)  That  they  allow  the  bilhop  to  difpenfe,    as  to  fome  i^^  ^"''^' 
Works  on  Holy-days.    Lynwood  obferves,  that  the  Abftinence  from^"  '*' 
Work  is  not  alike,  but  as  the  Church  hath  required  it;  and  that  if  a 
Bifliop's  Licence  cannot  be  had,  a  lefs  will  ferve.     Our  Church,  Can. 
13.  requires  Holy-days  to  be  obferved  with  Works  of  Piety,  Charity, 
and  Sobriety  ^  but  gives  no  Rule  as  to  Abftinence  from  Works,  or  the 
ftrift  Obligation  of  Confcience. 

2.  I  now  come  to  the  particular  Duties  of  the  Clergy  on  the  days 
which  arefolemnly  devoted  to  the  Service  of  God. 

r.  Theconftantand  devout  Attendance  upon,  and  folemn  Reading  the 
Prayers  of  the  Church,  as  they  are  appointed.     In  the  old  Saxon  Ca-  ^°°^''- 
nons  the  Presbyters  are  required  to  officiate  conftantly  at  Prayers  in  their  247.' '' 
Churches ;  fo  in  the  Council  at  Clovefiocj  Can.  8.  the  Canons  of  Egbert, 
Can.  2.  Canons  of  Edgar,  Can.^$. 

But  how  if  the  People  will  not  come  to  the  Prayers }  You  ought, 
what  lies  in  you,  to  remove  the  Caufes  of  fuch  Negledl  ^  which  arifes  ge- 
nerally from  thefe  things  ^  either  grofs  Stupidity  and  Regardlefnefs  of 
Religion,  which  is  too  common  in  the  World,  or  from  Prejudice  and 
Principles  of  Education,  or  thelntereft  of  a  Party;  or  from  not  Read- 
ing the  Prayers  with  that  Attention  and  Devotion  which  is  fit  to  raife 
an  Efteem  of  them.  The  other  two,  you  ought  to  do  what  you  can 
to  remove ;  but  this  is  your  own  Fault  if  you  do  it  not.  We  are  not 
to  pleafe  the  Fancies  of  People  by  an  affedted  Variety  of  Expreffions  in 
Prayers^  but  we  ought  to  do  what  we  can  to  excite  their  AfFedions, 
which  is  done  as  much  by  the  due  manner  of  Reading,  as  by  Figures 
in  fpeaking.  And  the  People  are  uneafie  at  ftaying,  when  they  fee  the 
Minifter  read  them  fo  faft,  as  though  he  minded  nothing  fo  much  as  to 
be  at  the  end  of  them ;  or  when  he  mangles  them  fo,  as  if  he  had  a 
mind  to  make  the  People  out  of  love  with  them. 

2.  The  next  Duty  is  Preaching ;  and  truly  that  need  to  be  looked  af- 
ter, when  the  Efteem  of  our  Profeflion  depends  fo  much  upon  it : 
We  have  none  of  thofe  Methods  which  thofe  on  both  fides  make  fo 
much  ufe  of;  we  can  neither  comply  with  the  People  in  Geftures,  and 
Phrafes,  and  Enthufiaftick  Heats,  nor  with  Superftitious  Devotions  and 
Prieft-craft  of  others.  Of  all  Churches  ours  hath  the  leaft  Reafon  to 
be  charged  with  it  fince  they  let  go  fo  many  Advantages  over  the  Peo- 
ple by  the  Reformation.  Thatiks  be  to  God,  we  have  Scripture,  and 
Reafon,  and  Antiquity  of  our  fide;  but  thefe  are  dry  and  infipid  things 
to  the  common  People,  unlefs  fome  Arts  be  ufed  to  recommend  them. 
But  fince  our  main  Support  lies  in  the  Honefty  and  Jiiftice  of  our  Caufe, 

with- 


^^'g  Of  tte  Duties  and  Rights 


without  Tricks  and  Devices,  we  ought  to  look  very  well  to  that  part 
of  our  Profeflion  which  keeps  up  any  Reputation  among  the  People  5 
and  that  is  Preaching.  Thofe  who  are  fo  weak  or  lazy,  as  to  be  glad 
to  have  that  laid  afide  too,  in  a  great  Meafure,  never  well  confidered 
the  Defign  of  our  Profeffion,  or  the  way  to  fupport  it.  It's  true,  for 
fome  time  Preaching  was  an  extraordinary  thing  in  the  Church ;  and 
none  but  Great  and  Eloquent  Men  of  Authority  in  the  Church  were 
permitted  to  preach,  and  the  greateft  Biftiops  were  then  the  Preachers, 
as  appears  by  the  Sermons  of  S.  /4t}tbrofe,  S.  Chryfofiovi,  S.  Augujiine,  8cc. 
Soz  /.7f-And  even  fome  of  the  Bifhops  of  R<?«?e,  whatever  >S'<)z,<?«?e»  faith,  were 
'^'  frequent  Preachers,  as  appears,  by  Gregorys  Homilies  on  Ezekiel  and  the 
Regifi.  /.  Go/pels.  And  if  it  were  not  then  praftifed  he  did  very  ill  to  complain 
Conai.  of  the  Burden  of  it,  and  the  danger  of  negleding  it.  But  in  other 
vafenf.  s.  Churches  while  the  Bifhop  and  the  Presbyters  lived  together,  before 
cz.Tnron.pg^Q^jjjgj  c^res  were  fettled,  the  Presbyters  had  no  conftant  OflBce  of 
Arehl'c.  preaching,  but  as  the  Biftiops  appointed  them  occafionally.  Butafter- 
10.  dpi-  wards  when  the  Presbyters  were  fixed  in  their  Cures,  they  were  requi- 
ReginofcT.'  ^ed  to  be  very  diligent  and  careful  in  preaching,  or  inftrufting  the  Peo- 
I.  205,  '  pie  committed  to  their  Charge,  as  may  be  feen  in  many  early  Canons 
capit.  II. Qf  jj^g  Gallican  Church  ;  and  fo  it  was  here  in  England:  Council  of 
Era'fm.  CloveJIwe,  c.  8.  14.  Egbert^  Can.  3.  and  that  not  only  in  the  moving 
PraEfat.  ad  ^ay  in  the  Pulpit,  but  in  the  familiar  and  inftrufting  way,  which  we 
Sefl,  24.  call  Catechizing  ;  Council  Clove/hoe,  c.  11.  Can.  Egbert.  6.  Both  ought  to 
c.  4.  de  be  done,  becaufe  they  are  both  very  ufeful.  The  Principles  and  Foun* 
Aft°  e!:'.  Nations  of  Religion  muft  be  well  laid,  to  make  the  People  have  any 
def.  Mc-  Tafte  or  Relifti  of  preaching ;  otherwife  it  is  like  reading  Mathematicks 
dioi.  44»-to  thofe  who  underftand  not  Numbers  or  Figures.  Erafmus  obferves, 
vaiz'ot.  de  that  the  Senfe  of  Religion  grows  very  cold  without  preaching  5  and 
Admini-  xhzt  the  Couutefs  of  Richmod,  Mother  to  H.  7.  had  fuch  a  Senfe  of 
Boifon!'^^'  the  Neceffity  of  it  in  thofe  times,  that  (he  maintained  many  Preachers 
part.  2,  p.  at  her  own  Charges,  and  imployed  Bifhop  Fijher  to  find  out  the  beft 
34-^|^°|^^^- qualified  for  it.  And  fince  the  Reformation  the  Church  of  Rome  hath 
ordres,  p.  been  more  fenfible  of  the  Neceffity  of  it,  as  appears  by  the  Council  of 
458.  Eor-  Xrent.  Cardinal  Borromeo,  one  of  the  moft  celebrated  Saints  fince  that 
Eg^r  ^time,  frequently  infifts  upon  it,  gives  Direftions  about  it,  and  fpeaks 
Cache-  of  it  as  a  thing,  which  tends  very  much  to  the  Glory  of  God,  and  the 
TertuMe  Salvatiou  of  Souls.  And  to  the  fame  purpofe  other  great  Men  among 
Bapcif.  c.  them,  as  Cardinal  Pal<eotus,  Godeau,  Bordenave,  and  others.  Would 
^^-  ^^°  it  not  then  be  a  great  fhame  for  us,  who  pretend  to  a  Zeal  for  Refor- 
Amblof  mation  and  the  true  Religion,  to  negleft  or  leffen  the  Reputation  of 
Serni.6i.  fhofe  things  which  our  Adverfaries  have  learnt  from  us,  and  glory  in 
duiph!  de  them  ^  and  thofe  are  Diligence  in  'Preaching  and  Catechizing?  Which 
ordine  none  cau  defpife  who  value  Religion,  none  can  negleft  who  have  any 
Eapcifm.  j^ggarj  tQ  the  Intereft  or  Honour  of  their  Profeflion. 
Aicuin.de  5.  The  next  duty  is  the  folemn  Adminiftration  of  the  Sacraments, 
Bapc.  ce-  vs^hfch  ought  to  be  done  in  the  publick  Affemblies,  where  is  not  a  great 
i^i'siTau-  Reafon  to  the  contrary.  The  Saxon  Canons  are  exprefs,  that  Baptifm, 
guft.de  unlefs  in  Cafe  of  Neceflity,  fhould  be  adminiftred  only  in  due  times 
adCatech.  ^"^  places,  Egbert  Can.  10, 1 1.  While  the  ancient  Difcipline  was  kept  up, 
/.  I.  c.  I.  and  Baptifm  only  celebrated  at  the  great'Feftivals,  there  was  a  neceflity 
^o^T  ^^  ^^^  being  publick  5  and  the  Catechumens  underwent  feveral  Scruti- 
(.6.^"'  nies,  which  lafted  feveral  days  in  the  Face  of  the  Church,  as  S,  AiigH- 
Augud.    n-.fjf;  obferves,  after  they  had  been  kept  under  private  Examination  for 

fome 


of  the  Varochial  Clergy,  66^ 


fome  time  before.     But  when  whole  Nations  were  not  only  converted, 
but  Infants  generally  baptized,  the  former  Method  of  Difcipline  was 
changed.    But  yet  the  Church  retained  her  Right  as  to  Satifadion  about 
the  due  Admiflion  of  her  Members.    And  that  is  the  true  Reafon  why, 
after  private  Baptifm,  the  Child  is  required  to  be  brought  to  the  pub- 
lick  Congregation.     For  Baptifm  is   not  intended  to  be  done  before 
a  feleft  Number  of  Witneffes,  but  in  the  Face  of  the  Church,  which 
is  the  regular  and  folemn  way  ;  however,  the  Bi(hop  may  difpenfe  in 
fome  particular  Cafes,  which  he  judges  reafonable.     At  firft  Baptifm 
was  adminiftred  publickly,  as  occafion  ferved,   by  Rivers;  as  Bedi 
faith,  Panli»us  haptized  many  in  the  Rivers,  before  Oratories  or  Chtirchet  Bed.  /.  t. 
rcere  built.     Afterwards    the  Baptijiery  was  built  at  the  Entrance  of'^-^'i- 
the  Church,  or   very  near  it;  which   is  mentioned  by    Athanafiuf^ 
S.  Chr\fofiom,  S.  Ambrofe,  S.  AugHJiine,  &c.     The  Baptijiery  then  had  a 
large  Bafon  in  ir,  which  held   the  Perfons  to  be  baptized,  and  they 
went  down  by  Steps  into  ir.     Afterwards  when  Immerfion  came  to 
be  difufed.  Fonts  were  fet  up  at  the  Entrance  of  Churches:  But  ftill 
the  place  was  publick.     But  in  Cafe  of  Neceflity  there  is  a  Form  pre- 
fcribed ;  and  I  not  fee  how  any,  without  leave,  can  ufe  the  form  of 
publick  Baptifm  in  private  Houfes ;  which  is  againfl:  both  our  Ancient 
and  Modern  Canons.     In  the  Greek  Church  it  is  Deprivation  to  do  it;*-""?''- '" 
and  do  the  Synod  under  Photi/^  confirms  it,  both  as  to  the  Eucharift  and  cai"  ^r, 
Baptifm,  becaufe  publick  Order  is  to  be  preferved.  But  it  is  there  under-  59-Syn. 
ftood  to  be  done  in  oppofition  to  the  Bifhop's  Authority,  whofe  Confent  on^  fi. 
may  make  the  Cafe  different,  if  they  judge  it  reafonable.    ButMinifte-  . 

rial  Officers  are  not  Judges  in  an  equitable  Cafe  againft  a  ftanding  Rule. 

4.  Another  Duty  of  the  Parochial  Clergy  is,  to  be  able  and  ready 
to  refolve  Penitential  Cafes,  which  relate  to  the  internal  Court  of  Con- 
fcience,  and  not  the  external  and  judiciary  Court,  which  refpefts  the 
Honour  of  the.  Church,  as  to  fcandalous  Offences  committed  by  the 
Members  of  it.  And  this  takes  in  the  private  and  occafional  Duties  of 
the  Parochial  Clergy ;  for  they  ought  to  inform  themfelves  of  the  Spi- 
ritual Condition  of  their  People,  that  they  may  be  able  to  give  fuita- 
ble  Advice  and  Diredtions  to  them  both  in  Health  and  Sicknefs;  But 
chiefly  to  be  able  to  give  them  fafe  and  feafonable  Advice  under  trou- 
bles of  Confcience  by  reafon  of  wilful  Sins.  Dnareniu,  a  very  conlide- 
rable  Lawyer,  ■  thinks  the  main  Bufinefs  of  the  Clergy,  as  to  the  Cure  of  J*"  Benef. 
Souls,  lies  in  the  Power  of  Binding  and  Loofing,  /.  e.  in  dealing  aright',  i.  c.  ?• 
with  the  Confciences  of  Men,  as  to  the  Guilt  of  their  Sins.  And  the 
Rules  of  the  penitential  Court,  are  different  from  thofe  of  the  Eccle- 
fiaftical  Court,  as  well  as  the  end  is  different.  In  the  Saxon  times,  there 
were  both  here.  There  were  Ecclefiaftical  Law  which  related  to  Judi- 
cial Cafes,  wherein  a  publick  Penance  was  injoyned  in  order  to  the  (^ongjj"^ 
Churches  Satisfadion.  Angi.  i.  p. 

But  there  were  many  Caufes  which  were  not  publick,  and  yet  great  i^^-^-^^ 
Care  was  to  be  ufed,  as  to  the  Direftion  of  Penitents,  as  appears  bycapir.'jy, 
the  Penitentials  of  Theodore  and  Bede  in  the  Saxon  times.     Whereby  57-  l.  l. 
we  learn  that  a  difference  was  to  be  obfcrved,  as  to  the  nature  of  Of-  jj""^^/!,. 
fences,  and  the  Circumftances  of  Perfons  and  Aftions,  and  the  Meafure  L.Edman. 
of  Contrition  ;  and  the  particular  Method  is  fet  down  in  the  peniten-  jj^g^d ' 
tial  books,  which  was  in  very  material  Circumftances  different  from  the  capk  a 
Methods  ufed  in  the  Church  of  Rome.     But  it  is  a  thing  neceffary  for  '?• .     . 
every  Parochial  Minifter  to  be  able  to  fettle  doubting  Confciences,  and^ofl" 

Qqqq  to 


6 -JO  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 

to  put  tbem  into  the  beft  Methods  of  avoiding  Sin  for  the  Future,  with- 
out which  the  Abfolution  of  the  Prieft  fignifies  nothing.  For  where 
God  doth  not  abfolve,  the  Church  cannot. 

5.  Giving  a  good  Example  to  the  People  committed  fo  your  Charge. 
This  is  often  mentioned  in  the  Saxon  Canons:  Council  at  Clovejhoe,  c. 
8.  Canons  of  Egbert,  14,  15,  18,  19,  33.  in  the  Laws  of  Alfred^  c.  5. 
of  Edward  c.  g.  Coftjiit.  of  Odo.  c.  4,  5.  of  Edgar,  57,  58,  59,  60,  61, 
64.  of  Camttuf,  c.  16.  And  in  the  Conclufion  of  oneCollefticn  of  his 
Laws  are  thefe  Words,  Hap^y  is  that  Shepherd,  jvho  by  his  good  Life  and 
Do&rine  leads  his  Flock  to  Eternal  and  heavenly  Joys  3  and  happy  is  that 
Flock  that  follevps  fuch  a  Shepherd,  who  hath  refcued  them  out  of  the  Devil's 
Hands,  and  put  them  into  God's. 

6.  Laftly  the  Performance  of  all  thefe  Duties  fuppofes  a  confrant  Re- 
fidence  among  your  People  ,  without  which  it  is  impoffibleto  difcharge 
the;m  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  to  give  them  and  your  felves  full  Satisfafti- 
cn.  This,  I  am  fenfible,  is  a  very  nice  and  tender  Point  5  and  the  Dif- 
ficulties of  it  do  arife  from  thefe  things :  On  one  fide  it  is  faid, 

1.  That  there  is  an  Allowance  by  the  Law  given  to  feveral  Perfons 
to  hold  more  Benefices  than  one  ^  and  fince  the  Diftribution  of  Benefi- 
ces is  not  by  the  Law  of  God,  but  by  the  Law  of  the  Land,  whatFaultis 
there  in  making  ufe  of  the  Privileges  which  the  Law  gives  ?  But  there 
cannot  be  conftant  Refidence  in  more  Places  than  one. 

2.  That  the  general  Service  of  the  Church  is  more  to  be  pre- 
ferred than  taking  Care  of  a  particular  PariQi  ^  becaufe  the  neceflkry 
Duties  of  a  Parifh  may  be  fupplied  by  Perfons  approved  by  the  Biftiop, 
and  a  fingle  Living  feldom  affords  a  fufEcient  Competency  for  perfons 
to  be  capable  of  publick  Service. 

5.  That  the  way  of  Subfiftence  for  the  Clergy,  is  now  much  altered 
from  what  it  was  when  Celibacy  was  enjoyned.  For  a  Competency 
was  always  fuppofed  where  Refidence  was  ftriftly  required  5  and  what 
was  a  Competency  to  a  fingle  perfon,  is  noi  fo  to  a  Family. 

4.  That  the  Church  hath  a  power  of  Relaxing  the  feverity  of  Anci- 
ent Canons  from  the  different  Circumftances  of  things:  And  when  the 
general  good  of  the  Church  may  be  more  promoted  therein  5  as  in  the 
Removal  of  Clergymen  from  one  Diocefs  to  another,  and  the  Tran- 
ilation  of  Bifhops. 

5.  That  the  Cafe  is  now  very  different,  as  to  Difpenfations,  from 
what  it  was  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  to  the  number  of  Benefices,  and 
the  manner  of  obtaining  them  that  a  great  Reftraint  is  laid  by  our  Laws 
upon  Pluralities,  and  our  own  Metropolitan  is  the  Judge  when  they  are 
fit  to  be  granted. 

But  on  the  other  fide  it  is  objtded, 

T.  That  in  the  firft  Conflitution  of  Parochial  Churches,  every  In- 
cumbent was  bound  to  a  drift  Refidence;  fo  in  the  Canons  oi Egbert, 
Can.  25.   Presbyters  are  faid  to  be  fettled  in  thofe  Churches,  which  had 
a  Houfe  and  Glebe  belongiiig  to  them  5  and  many  Canons  were  then  ex- 
preHy  made,  that  no  Perfon  fhould  have  more  than  one  Church  5  and 
it  is  faid  in  the  Capitulars,  that  this  had  been  feveral  times  decreed. 
Capit./*    And  fo  it  is  in  Herardus  his  CoUeftion  of  Canons,  Can.  49.  in  Ifaac 
•«•  '?t     Lingonenfis,  Tit.  I.  c.  24.  in  Chrodegangus ,  c.  6j.  in  Ivo  Carnotenfis,  part. 
Addit.  2.  5.  £■.  51.  in  Regino,  l.i.  c.  254.    The  like  we  find  in  the  Spamfl}  Chur- 
*'io-       ches,  Concil.  Tolet.  16.  c.  5.  and  thence  in  the  Canon- Law,  C.  10.  ,^. 
3.  c.  4.  and  in  the  Greek  Churches,  Concil.  7.  Can,  15.  C,  21.  ^  t.  c.  i. 

And 


of  the  Vdrochial  Clergy.  ^71 


And  as  foon  as  the  Abufe  crept  into  thefe  Weftern  Churches,  it  was  com- 
plained of,  and  endeavoured  to  be  redrefTed,  Concil.  Pari/.  6.  c.  /^g. 
Confil.  Aqnifgran.  2. part.  2.  c.  5.  Concil.  Matetjf.  c.  g.     That  afterwards, 
not  meerly  the  Mendicant  Friars  complained  of  them,  as  fome  have  fuw- 
gefted,  but  fome  of  the  greateft  BKhops  have  been  zealous  againft  them, 
as  GulielmHs  Pari/Fenjis,  Pemldus^  Archbiftiop  of  Lzow/,  Jacobus  de  ^^  ^ui.  Parin. 
triaco  Bifhop  of  Acett^  Robert  de  Chorto//,  Cardinal  Guiard  Bifhop  of  Cam-  Benef." "! 
bray^  AT\A  GregorylX.  declared,  That  he  could  only  difpenfc  with  the ''"^''^•. 
Penalty  of  the  Law.     After  a  folemn  Difputation  at  Paris,  it  was  de-  To'2!  de 
termined  againft  Pluralities,  if  one  Benefice  be  fufficient;  and  all  theAvarir.e. 
Divines  joyned  with  the  Bi(hop  thefein,  except  two^  fo  that  it  feemed  "a"^^^''' 
to  be  the  current  Opinion  of  the  Learned  and  Pious  Men  of  that  time.prac.de 
Aqui»iV  faith,  //  is  a  doubt  fid  Point,  but  Cdjetan  is  pofitive  againft  them.  ^P''^"*  /. 
So  that  all  the  Zeal  againft  Pluralities,  is  not  to  be  imputed  to  the  „".  5.  mft. 
Piques  of  the  Friars  againft  the  Secular  Clergy  ^  although  there  is  no  ""'y^f^'f-' 
queftion  but  they  were  fo  much  the  more  earneft  in  it ;  but  in  the  Coun-  H"^:  ^^' 
cil  of  Trent  the  Biftiops  of  Spain  were  the  moftzealous,  as  to  the  Point  i<?4. 
of  Refidence,  and  the  Friars  asainft  it,  as  appears  by  Catharinus  and  ^^"'J?- 
otners.  QuodH- 

2.  Setting  afide  all  Authorities,  the  Argument  in  Point  of  Confci-  ^^^-  0.-  9- 
ence,  feemsthe  ftrongeft  againft  Non-refidence  ^  becaufe  perfons  have  caj.  ad'i. 
voluntarily  undertaken  the  Cure  of  Souls  within  fuch  Limits,  and  al-  2-  q-  185! 
though  the  bounds  be  fixed  by  human  Authority,  yet  fince  he  hath  ^'  ^' 
undertaken  fuch  a  Charge  perfonally,  knowing  thofe  Bounds,  it  lies 
upon  his  Confcience  to  difcharge  the  Duties  incumbent  upon  him, 
which  cannot  be  done  without  conftant  Refidence,  as  the  Magiftrates 
are  bound  in  Confcience  to  do  their  Duty,  although  the  Bounds  are 
fettled -iiy  human  Laws :  And  fo  in  the  cafe  of  Property,  human  Laws 
bind  fo  that  it  is  a  Sin  to  invade  what  is  fettled  by  them.     And  if  it  be 
left  to  a  Man's  Confcience,  whether  a  Man  anfwers  his  Obligation  more 
by  perfonal  Attendance,  or  by  a  Curate  ^  whether  the  Honour  of  Re- 
ligion, and  the  good  of  Souls  be  more  promoted,  and  the  Peace  of  his 
own  Mind  fecured  by  one  or  the  other,  it  is  no  hard  matter  to  judge 
on  which  fide  it  muft  go.     It  is  impoffible  to  defend  all  the  Arguments 
ufed  in  the  old  Canons  againft  Pluralities,  as  that  Polygamy  is  unlaw- 
ful under  the  Gofpel :  So  that,  as  a  Bijhop  hath  but  one  City,  and  a  Man 
but  one  Wife,  fo  a  Presbyter  ought  to  have  but  one  Church  :  That  no  Man  can  Concif. 
ferve  two  Mafters,  8cc.  but  all  their  Reafons  were  not  of  this  fort.     For,  ''"°'^'''  i'^- 
the  Council  of  Toledo  fpeaks  home.  That  one  Man  cannot  perform  hit'^^_'^/c% 
Duty  to  more  than  one  Charge.  To  the  fame  purpofe  the  fixth  C  ouncil  atconcii." 
Paris  :^  and  withal,  That  it  brings  a  Scandal  on  the  Chrifiian  Church,  and  ''^"^-  ^■^' 
an  Hinderance  to  thepublicklVorp}ip,  a//d  the  good  of  Souls,  and  favours  too 
much  of  a  worldly  Mind  ^  which  are  weighty  Arguments. 

The  only  confiderable  thing  on  the  other  fide,  is.  That  the  Bifhops 
are  to  take  care  that  the  Places  be  duly  fiipplied  ;  but  whether  it  be  done  by 
Parfon,  Vicar  or  Curate,  is  not  material.     But  this  will  not  hold.     For, 
(1.3  the  Care  of  Souls  is  committed  perfonally  to  him  that  doth  under- 
take ir.     And  a  Regard  is  had  to  the  Qualifications  of  the  Perfon  for 
fuch  a  Truft,  by^the  Patron  that  Prefents,  and  the  Biftiop  who  admits 
and  inftitutes  the  Perfon  fo  qualified,     (2.)  The  old  Canons  were  very  Capic.  /,, 
ftrift  as  to  perfonal  Refidence,  fo  as  to  fix  them  in  their  Cures  from  '•'^'  ^°^* 
which  they  could  not  go  away  when  they  pleafed,  which  they  called  Cap'c-  /. 
VromifBonem  (iabilitatis.    Our  Saxon  Canons  are  clear,  as  to  the  perfo-f  _f'.\°°:. 

^  J  »  ,'•/•*•. •45? 

Qq  q  q  3  nal 


6^2  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 

nal  Cure,  Caa.  Egbert,  i.  4,  6.  Popula  fibi  commjffo  ;  and  no  Presbyter 
could  leave  his  Cure  and  go  to  another  only  for  Honour  or  Profit,  Can. 
13.  And  none  could  go  from  one  Bilhop  to  another,  without  his pi- 
ocefan's  Leave,  Concil.  Herudford.  c.  5.  Egbert,  de  Ecclef.  hftit.  p.  97, 
100.  And  when  the  Biftiop  gives  Inftitution,  he  commits  the  Care  of 
Souls  to  the  Incumbent,  and  not  meerly  the  Care  that  Divine  Offices  be 
there  performed. 

But  yet  it  is  well  obferved  by  Jqulnas,  That  if  the  having  more  Bene" 
fives  than  one  were  a  thing  evil  in  it  felfi  it  could  in  no  cafe  be  difpenfed 
with  5  but  there  are  fame  ABiotis  which  in  general  are  irregular^  yet  in  fame 
cafes  maj  bejuflified  ,  ejpe daily,  if  they  he  extraordinary,  as  topublick  Ser- 
vice and  ZJfefulnefs,  8cc. 
tzjet.  And  to  the  fame  purpofe  Cajetan  fpeaks,  but  he  faith,  The  Cafes  that 

B"nef^i  ^'^^^  '^  lawful,  mujl  relate  to  a  Publick,  and  not  a  Private  Good  5  but  he 
6.  '  mentions  thefe  things  which  excufelrom  Refidence^  i.  Lawful Impedi- 
In  J.  ■>.q.ffients,  as  to  Health,  &c.  2.  Publick  Service.  And  others  fay,  a  Ge- 
^  ''' ^' ^' ometrical  Proportion  ought  to  be  obferved  in  the  Diftributionof  Eccle- 
Fiiiiuc.  fiaftical  Benefices,  and  not  an  Arithmetical,  i.  e.  A  Regard  ought  to 
^t.T.'  *^'^'  ^^  ^^^  ^^  ^^^  Merits  and  Capacities  of  Perfons ;  as  a  Commander  hath 
more  Pay  than  many  common  Soulders^  but  this  reaches  only  to  the 
Value,  and  not  to  the  Number  of  Benefices. 

But  the  Queftion  ftill  remains,  whether  a  Legal  Difpenfation  take 
not  off  the  Obligation  in  Point  of  Confcience,  fince  it  is  allowed  by 
Law,  and  the  Curate  appointed  by  the  Biftiop,  who  committed  the 
Cure  of  Souls  to  him  > 

In  anfwer  to  this,  we  muft  confider, 

I.  That  the  Law  propofes  in  Difpenfations  very  allowable  ends,  as 

Publick  Service,  Incouragement  of  Learning,  Reward  of  Merit '^  and  there- 

concii.     fore  DoStors  by  Favour  have  not  the  Privilege  which  others  have  5  and 

Nanec.c.  \^  (,gfg  q^  Incompetency,  as  it  was  then  judged,  no  Legal  Difpenfation 

Kegino     was  needful. 

Liquific.        2.  Some  Ancient  Canons  took  care  of  the  fupply  of  the  Place  by  com- 
bIiuiIap  Patent  Perfons,  and  in  that  cafe  abated  the  Rigour  of  the  Canon.     For 
pend.  ad  Sirntondm  faith  in  the  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Naniz,,  againft  Plura- 
60^  °6o8  ''"^s,  this  Claufe   was  added,  unleft  he  hath  Presbyters  under  him  to 
diz!      'f»pply  the  Duties  ofhk  Place:  And  the  fame  Claufe  is  in  Regino,  1. 1.  c, 
Jm°van'  '^'^'^'  ^"^  Regino  puts'it  amor\g  the  Articles  of  Enquiry,  as  to  the  Clergy, 
3.  c.  42.    If  ^ny  had  more  Churches  than  one  without  Presbyters  to  ajfjjl  him.     And 
"•  9-       in  their  old  Admonition  to  them  at  Vifitations  it  is  to  the  (ame  purpofe, 
p^J^"  ,j^    but  in  others  it  is  left  out.     Thomajfin  is  of  opinion,  that  the  former 
Nicen.  c.  enquiry  related  to  thofe  who  had  Chapels,  and  not  to  more  Churches,  be- 
och'^"."   <^3"^s  then  there  were  none  that  had  Titles  upon  anothers  Benefice  5  but 
laodic.    thefe  Words  are  exprefs  as  to  more  Churches.    It's  true,  there  were  no 
4=-Cai-    fuch  Titles  then  ^  for  a  Title  in  the  old  Canon  Law,  was  the  Relation 
Cod.' Af.^"  which  a  Clergyman  ftood  in  to  the  Bi(hop  of  his  Diocefs,  being  orje  of 
ric.  c  5^.  his  Clergy  ^  and  fo  the  Grtek  Canonijls  underftand  a  Man's  not  being  or- 
Coll.^ic   '^^'ned  without  a  Title,  and  not  having  two  Churches'^  i.e.  not  to  have 
17.  Con-  Relation  to  two  Dioceffes,  and  fo  fine  Titulo  is  without  being  owned  by 
^'^cin'^"  ^°™^  Bifliop;  and  this  was  that  which  they  thought  ought  to  be 
Kdgar.  s.'ftriftly  obferved  5  and  to  which  purpofe  many  Canons  were  made, 
Egbeir.    both    ancient   and    later;    and    if  any  deferted  their   Bi(hop,    they 
Capitui^'/.  were  liable  to  Deprivation.     Afterwards  the  Word,  Title,   came  to 
5.1-;  (75   be  applied  to  Parochial  Churches;  but  there  were  fome  who  found 

out. 


of  tbe  Faroe  hi  al  Clergy.  673 


out,  that  the  Ancient  Canons  had  another  Senfe.  Thence  in  the  Coun- 
cil of  I'hientia  in  the  Canon  San^orum  Dtji.  70.  c.  2.  it  was  decreed. 
That  one  might  have  two  Churches  in  the  fame  Diocefs,  bnt  not  two  Prefer- 
ments in  fever al  Cathedrals.     And  in  the  Council  of  Clermont,  A.  D. 
1095.  the  reafcn  is  given,  bee  an  fe  according  to  the  Canons  no  Man  could 
have  two  Titles  ;  and  every  one  was  bound  to  hold  to  theTi7/e  to  which 
he  was  firfl:  ordained.     But  after  all,  the  Council  of  N^w/z.  (hews  plain- concii. 
ly,  that  mere  parochial  Titles  were  then  allowed,  if  well  provided  for,  ^*"^^'''^' 
by  fuch  perfons  as  the  Bifhop  of  the  Diocefs  approved.    Now  this  ve-' 
ry  much  alters  the  State  of  the  cafe  5  for  then  the  Obligation  is  Real^ 
and  not  Pcrfonal. 

3.  It  was  agreed  by  the  Ancient  Canons,  that  where  there  was  concii. 
an  Incompetency  of  Maintenance,  they  allowed  an  Union  for  Sup-  Toiet.  16. 
port^  now  that  is  but  the  Bifhop's  Aft   in  joyning  what  had  been  ^'^•^•^''°* 
divided,  fuppofing  a  fufficient  Subfiftence.     And  a  reafonable  Diftance  unio.  ' 
with  the  Bifhop's  Allowance,  hath  the  fame  Equity  ^  i.  e.  the  Bilhop's 
Aft  may  unite  two  fmall  Benefices  for  a  Support,  not  by  a  perpetual 
Union,  but  fo  long  as  he  fees  caufe,  which  our  Law  doth  ftill  allow, 
under  fuch  a  Value.    But  it  is  rather  a  Difpenfation  than  an  Union  ^compegi- 
for  the  Rights  continue  diftinft.     In  the  Court  of  Rome  there  were  Pre-  us  de  u- 
rogative  Unions  adVitam,  which  were  very  fcandalous,  and  areov/ned  g""^"^'' 
by  the  beft  Canonifts  to  be  deftruftive  of  all  Order,  and  invented  tOAzor.'p.z. 
defeat  the  Canons  againft  Pluralities.     But  the  Unions  which  the  Law  pjg^'^pa: 
allows,  are  only  thofe  where  two  diftind  Benefices  are  made  one  for  a  nf.  de  Re- 
competent  Subfiftence  ;^  and  then  if  the  Union  be  reafonable,  the  Dif- fig" '•  i«- 
penfation  within  due  Diftance  is  fo  too.     Balfamon  faith,  In  the  Greek  ''^' "'  ^^° 
Church  Pluralities  are  not  forbidden,  if  they  be  near,  and  under  the  fame 
Bifhop -J  but  they  did  not  allow  the  fame  Man  to  be  under  two  Bifhops.  ^ddir.  j. 
In  the  Capitulars  that  Claufe  is  added,  that  no  Man  fhall  have  more  "'  ''"" 
Livings  than  one,  fi  Facultas  ff(ppetit,  if  it  affords  a  reafonable  Subfi- 
ftence. 

And  therefore  in  cafe  of  Incompetency  of  Maintenance,  of  a  good 
Provifionfor  Curates,  and  of  publick  Service,  the  feverity  of  the  An- 
cient Canons  is  with  Reafon  abated,  and  a  perfon  is  fuppofed  to  un- 
dertake the  Cure,  with  thofe  Meafures  which  the  Law  and  Canons  al- 
low. But  every  Man  who  regards  the  doing  his  Duty  out  of  Confci- 
ence,  will  confider  how  much  lies  upon  himfelf ;  and  that  the  original 
Intention  of  the  Church  and  Laws  was.  That  no  Man  (bould  under- 
take more  than  he  was  willing  and  ready  to  difcharge,  as  far  as  one 
Man's  Abilities  could  go.  For,  in  great  Cities,  one  great  Parifh  re- 
quires more  than  feveral  Churches  in  the  Country  ;  and  in  fuch  afes 
an  equitable  Conftruftion  muft  be  put  upon  fuch  Canons,  which  re- 
quire perfonal  performance  of  thefe  Duties. 


OF 


Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


O  F    T  H  E 

MAINTENANCE 

O  F    T  H  E 

PAROCHIAL    CLERGY, 

B  Y 


LAW. 


T 


HE  Subjeft  I  intend  now  to  confider,  is  the  Incouragment 
which  the  Parochial  Clergy  have  by  Law  for  the  doing  their 
Duties  :  Which  are  the  Manfe,  the  Ohlatiotts,  and  the  Tithes. 
I.  The  Manfe,  or  Houfe  and  Glebe.     In  the  Canons  of  Egbert  it  is 
Baluz.  ad  faid,  Can.  2  5.     That  an  entire  Manfe  ought  to  belong  to  every  Church,  with' 
^^le'      ^*'  ''"y  ^*^^*'  *^''*"  Ecclepajiical  Service.     By  a  Manfe,  Mr.  SeUen  faith 
Seiden  of  in  the  o!d  Charters  the  fame  is  meant  as  a  Cafat  or  Hyde  of  Land.  Big' 
Tythes,    nonius  and  Sirmondiu  fay,  So  much  Glebe  as  was  an  Intployweat  for  an 
Bfgnon.    Husbandman  and  two  Servants.     Spelman  faith,  It  takes  in  the  Houfe  too, 
ad  Form.  Lynwood  faith.  As  much  Land  as  would  imploy  a  Toke  of  Oxen  5  and  fo 
M|rc.  p.   j.j^g  Glofs  on  the  Canon  Law.     But  in  another  place  the  Glofs  faith,  The 
Sirmond.  Manfe  is  the  original  Endowment  of  the  Church,  without  which  if  cannot  be 
^  y^Q^' ffpplied :  And  without  which  it  could  not  be  confecrated.     For  the 
Lynvv.y.   Endowment  was  firft  to  be  produced  before  the  building.     Collate  pri- 
V'c^^f'h  '^'^^^  donatione  folenni,  are  the  Words  of  the  Canon  Law.     And  the 
c.  I.         fanie  appears  by  Cone'il.  Valent,  3.  c.  9.  Concil.  Bracar.  2.  c.  5.  Vit.  TJdal- 
C.23.Q.  rici  c.  7.  Regino  I.  i.e.  23,  24.  which  is  there  explained  to  be  a 
l/con'.  f»f'fi<i»tiAl  Sttfienance  for  thofe  who  were  to  attend  the  Service  of  that 
fecr.  Dirt.  Church.     And  in  the  Afts  of  Confecration  of  a  Parochial  Church  in 
^-     Baluxius,  the  Bifliop  in  the  firft  place  declares  himfelf  fatisfied  with  the 
26.'  Endowment,   nnde  digne  domus  dei  fuftentaretur.    And  upon  this  the 
Baiuz. Ap- o^yigi»al  Right  of  Patronage,  was  founded,  not  upon  the  Soil,  which 
Regttiou.  §3^^  ^^  Title,  where  there  was  not  a  Church  built  and  endowed  with 
p.  ^22.     a  competent  Subfiftence.     So  that  all  Advowfons  or  Rights  of  Prefenta- 
Ecckr     *^^"  ^^  private  Patrons,  were  at  firft  Appendant  to  Manors,  and  not  in 
adific.'f.  Grofs-j  becaufe  the  Right  came  from  the  Endowment  out  of  the  Ma- 
ad  Audi-   nor  :  And  the  Name  of  Patron  in  the  fenfe  of  the  Feudal  Law,  is  the 
fame  with  Lord  of  the  Fee,  and  fo  Beneficiiim  is  a  Feudal  Term  5  and 
till  the  feudal  Law  prevailed,  the  Name  of  Patron  is  rarely  ufed  in  this 
Senfe.     And  when  it  came  to  be  ufed,  the  Patrons  in  France  would 
have  brought  thofe  who  had  their  Benefices  to  a  kind  of  Feudal  Service, 
^^}f'  ^''  and  to  have  received  Inveflitureivom  them.     This  Mr,  Seiden  drives  ar, 
as  though  the  Patrons  had  the  Right  of  Inveftiture  belonging  to  them, 
becaufe  feme  fuch  Pradice  is  often  complained  of  in  the  French  Ca- 
nons, and  as  often  condemned,  not  raeerly  by  Ecclefiaflical  Canons, 
but  by  as  good  Laws  as  any  were  then  made.     Ic  cannot  be  denied  that 

bad 


J.  c. 
C.  16. 


of  the  Yaroc hid  Clergy.  ^75 


bnd  Pradices  are  the  occafion  of  making  good  Laws;  but  doth  it  fol- 
low that  thofe  Praftices  which  were  againft  Law,  were  the  Law  of  that 
time  ?  Yet  this  is  Mr.  Seldea's  way  of  arguing  ^  he  grants,  That  there  were  ''•  ^9- 
Laws  made  hut  they  were  little  obeyed.  Muft  we  therefore  conclude  thofe  il- 
legal Praftices  to  have  been  the  ftanding  Law,  and  the  Laws  themfelves  to 
be  illegal  ?  There  were  two  things  aimed  at  by  thofe  Patrons,  i.  To  keep 
theClergy  in  a  foledependance  on  themfelves,  without  Regard  to  the  Bi- 
fhop's  Authority.  2.  To  make  fuch  Bargains  with  them  as  they  thought, 
fit,  both  thefe  were  thought  necelTary  to  be  redrefl'ed  by  Laws,  fince 
the  Cinons  were  flighted  by  them.     And  if  the  Pra6lice  be  good  againft 
Law  in  one  cafe,  why  not  in  the  other  alfo?  Why  is  not  Simony  juftified, 
as  well  as  the  Patrons  abfolute  Power  over  the  Incumbents?  But  the  Laws 
were  fevere  againft  both.     For  in  the  time  of  Lud.  Pius^  A.  D.  816. 
there  was  a  folemn  Aflembly  of  the  Eftates  of  the  Empire,  where  fe- 
veral  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  were  pafTed,  and  among  the  reft,  thefe  two  : 
I.  That  MO  Presbyters  fhoidd  he  put  in  or  pnt  out  of  Churches,  without  the  Au-^^V^'^- 
thority  and  Confent  of  the  Bifl^ops  ;  and  that  the  Bifiops  fldould  not  refufe  thofe  capit'^'f ' 
who  were  prefented,  if  they  were  probabilis  Vits  &  Doftrinse,  ;.  e,  fuch  as  84, 141.' 
the  Bifhops  could  not  objeft  againft  either  for  Life  or  Learning.  2.  That 
every  Church  fhould  have  an  entire  Manfe  belonging  to  it,  free  from  any 
Feudal  Service  ;  but  if  they  had  other  Eftates  of  their  own,  for  them  they  ivo  p.  3. 
were  to  anfwer   to  the  Lords  of  the  Manor,  as  others  did.     And  ^^^^'^^''^aoU 
hence  this  came  into  the  Colleftions  of  Ivo,  Regino,  Bunharduf^  and  i.e.  24.* 
Gratian,  and  pafled  for  a  Law  generally  received.    As  to  the  former,  a  E"'^'^''-  '■ 
new  Sanation  was  added  to  it  in  another  Aflembly  at  Worms,  A.  D.  829.  c.  23^.^^. 
c.  I.  and  repeated  in  the  Capitulars,  /.  5,  c  98.  Addit.  4.C.  95.  and  the  8.c  241 
like  to  the  latter,  /.  5.  c.  ico.  Capit.  A.  829.  t,  4.  ^5- 

But  it  feems  there  were  fome  ftill  continued  obftinate  in  their  former 
Praftices,  and  therefore  thefe  Laws  were  re-inforced  in  another  Aflem- 
bJy,  A.  D.  86(^.  in  the  time  of  Carolus  Calvus,  who  mentions  the  Laws 
of  his  Father  and  Grand-father  to  the  fame  purpofe,  c.  9.  and  there 
takes  notice  of  the  Contrivances  made  ufe  of  to  defeat  the  Intention  of 
thofe  Laws  5  and  the  bottom  of  all  is  there  faid  to  be  abominable  Simony. 
Which  fliews,  what  it  was  which  thefe  Patrons  aimed  at,  by  cKiiming 
/»wy2/V«re  without  the  Biflio p.  And  it  was  then  judged  neceflary,  that  the 
Bifliop's  Confent  was  required  to  prevent  this  Mifchief.     But  ftill  fome 
Tatrons  required  Feudal  Service  for  the  Glebe  they  had  given  to  the 
Church  ;  but  the  Law  commands  them  to  reftore  it  free  from  fuch  Ser- 
vice, Capit.  I.  5.  c.  100.  Addit.  I.  4.  c.  98.  1 63.     And  after  much  ftrug-Concii. 
gling,  Hincmarus,  who  lived  at  that  time,  faith,  That  thefe  Laws  ti>ere  ^^  {9,^^. 
obferved.     Tiie  Patrons  Right  by  Virtue  of  the  Endowment,  was  not 
difputed  j  but  an  Arbitrary  Power,  as  to  the  Incumbents,  was  utterly 
denied  them  ,  and  they  were  put  under  the  Bifliop's  Care,  who  was  to 
receive  Complaints  againft  them,  and  to  proceed  according  to  the 
Churches  Canons.    But  I  am  apt  to  think  that  all  this  ftir  in  France  did  fiiefaci 
not  arife  from  the  pretence  of  original  Donation  and  Endowment  of  gj^^^"^,.^ 
Churches,  but  from  thtln^Qodaiioxx  oi  Church-Lands  and  Tithes,  byFragmenr« 
Charles  Martel  (as  an  old  Af 5.  in  Filefacuf  faith)  and  others  in  France '^^^^^^^^^ 
whofe  cuftom  it  was  to  give  them  in  Recompence  to  their  Souldiers,  who  DuChcfn, 
then  looked  on  them  as  their  own,  and  were  hardly  brought  to  any  t.  i-  ^ 
reafonable  allowance  for  theClergy  which  fupplied  them.    Thefe iJ'^,^.' 
were    called    Beneficia    in   the   Capitulars,    and   they    were   to    pay  R«gin.  /. 
Nona  &  Decim^,  i.  e.  a  Fifth  part  out  of  them,    which  was  oh- '^^■^^^^^'^^* 

taiaed 


5-75'  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 

tained  with  much  Difficulty,  as  appears  by  the  many  Laws  made  about 
them.  In  the  Council  at  Leptins,  A.  D.  743.  CarclomaMms,  Son  to 
Charles  Martel,  owns  the  letting  out  fome  of  the  Church-Lands  fub 
Precario  &  Cenfu,  upon  a  referved  Rent,  Can.  2.  Capit.  I.  5.  c.  3.  but 
then  it  was  barely  for  Life.  But  the  confequence  was.  That  it  was  ve- 
ry hard  to  recover  either  the  Lands  or  the  referved  Rents,  and  they 
put  in  Clergymen,  and  put  them  out  as  they  pleafed,  becaufe  they  held 
thefe  Lands  as  beneficiary  Tenures  from  the  Crown.  So  that  it  was  the 
Work  of  more  than  an  Age  to  put  the  Church  there  in  any  tolerable 
Condition.  But  this  feems  to  be  very  much  miftaken,  when  it  is 
brought  to  prove  the  Right  of  Patronage  from  the  Endowment,  as  to 
the  Difpofal  of  Benefices. 

But  the  Right  of  Patronage  by  the  firft  building  and  endowing  the 
Church,  is  owned  by  the  Civil  Law  in  Jufiiman's  Novels,  123.^.  18. 
and  two  things  were  there  required;  i.  A  fufficient  Maintenance  for 
the  Clergy  who  were  nominated.  2.  The  Bifhop's  Satisfaftion  as  to 
their  Fitnefs,  about  which  he  fpeaks  in  another  N^t/e/,  56.  Tit.  12.  c. 
2.  And  he  elfewhere  requires,  that  before  any  Churches  were  built, 
the  Bifhop  fhould  fee  that  there  were  fufficient  Maintenance  for  thofe 
who  were  to  officiate.  Novel.  66.  Tit.  22. 

The  fame  Right  obtained  here  upon  the  fame  Grounds,  as  appears 
by  the  Baron's  Anfwer  to  Gregory  IX.  who  affirm.  That  they  had  it  e- 
ver  fince  Chriftianity  was  founded  here.  They  mean,  ever  fince  pa- 
rochial Churches  were  endowed  by  their  Anceftors  ^  for  there  could  be 
no  fuch  Right  of  Patronage  before.  And  fuch  Patrons  were  here  called 
iltitt.ij.b.Advocati  Eccle/i<e,  as  appears  by  Job.  Sarishnr.  Ep.  6.  119.  and  the  Jhs 
Advocationis,  as  our  Lawyers  tell  us,  is  a  Right  which  a  Perfon  hath 
to  prefent  to  a  vacant  Benefice  in  his  own  Name  ^  which  is  agreeable 
to  what  BraUon  and  Fleta  had  faid  long  before. 

But  it  doth  not  appear  by  them  how  the  Names  of  )?atrott  and  Ad- 
ijocate  came  to  be  fo  applied.     Among  the  Romans,  faith  Afconius  Pedi- 
■  aniu,  the  Patron  was  he  that  pleaded  the  caufe  of  another  ^  the  Advo- 
cate, he  that  appeared  in  Court  on  his  behalf     But  this  doth  not  reach 
to  the  Jits  Advocationis  which  we  are  now  about.    In  the  Ninety  fe- 
venth  Canon  of  the  African  Code,  an  Allowance  is  made  for  theChur- 
capic./.    ches  to  have  Advocates  to  folicite  their  Caufes  at  Court.     From  hence 
7.C.  392-  the  greater  Churches  and  Monafteries  had  their  proper  Advocates  ap- 
mI "cuiph.  pointed  them  by  the  King,  as  Bignonius  obferves ;  and  in  the  old  Char- 
/.  I.  c.  II.  ters  of  Aub.  Mirms,  feveral  fuch  Advocates  are  appointed  5  and  it  ap- 
Aiib.  Mi-  pears  to  have  been  an  honorary  Title,  and  great  Men  were  pleafed 
Donac!  /.  ^^ith  it.     Minetts  faith,  it  was  accounted  a  conjiderable  Honour  at  that 
I.  c.  135.  time.    And  fo  by  degrees  the  Founders  of  Parochial  Churches  came 
Romanus"  f°  ^^^  ^^''^  '^'^^^  °^  Patrcns  and  Advocates  of  them  ;  and  the  Right 
p.  614.  '  they  en  joy 'd,  the  Right  of  Advoirfon  as  well  asPatronage  (  not  as  fome 
De  Foro    tidiculoufly  talk  of  Advocatfe,  or  Advocat  alium)  becaufe  thetruft  and 
Comre-.    care  of  thofe  Churches,  endowed  by  their  Anceftors,   was  fallen  to 
^<,6°q.^!    them,  and  they  were  bound  to  look  after,  and  to  defend  the  Rights  of 
«.32.       them  5  and  fo  Lynvpood  explains  it. 

H.  The  next  thing  to  be  confidered  is  the  Oblations  of  the  People, 
B^a'c^''*  which  in  thofe  elder  times  were  fo  free  and  large,  that  (  which  may 
c."?'"  feem  incredible  now)  there  were  Perfons  who  would  build  Churches 
Dt  coa-  on  their  own  Land  to  have  a  Share  in  the  Oblations,  as  is  affirmed  in 
io7*  ^*  ''  one  of  tthe  Spanifj  Councils,  and  there  forbidden  with  great  Seve- 
rity. 


f 


of  the  Varocbial  Clergy.  677 

rity.  It  was  not,  as  the  Glofs  on  the  Canon  Law  underftatlds  ir, 
to  make  a  Bargain  for  the  Right  of  Patronage,  but  it  is  exprclTed 
to  have  an  equal  Share  with  the  Clergy  in  the  Oblations  of  the  Peo- 
ple. 

It  is  obferved  by  Agobardus,  That  the  Devotion  of  Ferjons  in  the  firji  ^goha^, 
Jges  was  fo  great',  that  there  rras  no  need  to  make  Laws  or  Canons  for  the  ^„f'  ] 
Supplies  of  Churches,  fince  they  were  fo  amply  provided  for  by  the  hiieralitj  20. 
of  the  People.     Thence  we  read  of  the  Depojita  pietatis  in  Tertullian,Tertu^' 
which  were  voluntary  Oblations-^  and  out  of  which  were  made  Divi/io-  ^p°''  ''' 
wes  Menfurnie  in  S.Cyprian,  and  the  SporttiU,  which  were  the  Allow- cypr.Ei), 
ances  made  to  the  Clergy  out  of  the  common  Stock;  and  they  who  re-  ^^^ 
ceived  them,  and  not  thofe  who  gave  them  (as  Mr.  ^cWe/? fanfies ) 
were  called  Sportulantes  Fratres-.^  and  the  Allowances  were  then  ftiled  ^•^^'. 
Stipes  ^  Oblationes,  which  were  fo  confiderable,  that  S.C^/jr/rfw  blamed    ^' 
fome  for  their  fetting  their  Hearts  too  tnuch  upon  them  ;  Stipes,  ObU- 
iiones,    Lucra.  defiderant,    quihus  prius   infatiabil'et  inmbabant '^    which 
could  not  be  faid  of  any  raeer  neceffary  Subfiftence  x,  thefe  they  recei- 
ved tnnquam  Decimas  exfrH&ibiis,  as  S.  Cyprian  fpeaks,  in  lieu  of  Tithes 
at  that  time,  when  the  moft  of  the  Chriftian  Church  inhabited  the 
Cities,  and  gave  out  of  their  Stock  to  maintain  the  Church,  and  thofe 
who  attended  upon  the  Service  of  it.     But  when  Chriftianity  came  to 
fpread  into  the  Countries,  then  a  more  fixed  and  fettled  Maintenance 
was  required,  but  fo  as  to  retain  fomewhat  of  the  Ancient  Cuftom  in 
voluntary  Oblations. 

No  fooner  was  Chriftianity  fettled  in  Frame,  but  we  read  oi  Lands 
given  to  the  Church  by  Clodov£us  after  his  Converfion  j  thefe  are  own- 
ed by  the  firft  Council  of  Orleans  called  in  his  time,  A.  D.  511.  and 
xcere  put  into  the  Bifiops  Hands,  and  to  be  dijlributed  by  him  for  Repairs 
of  Churches,  Maintenance  of  the  Clergy,  and  other  pious  Ufes,  Can.  5.  14, 
15.  but  befides  thefe,  we  read  [till  o^  Oblations  made  by  the  People 
on  the  Altar,  both  in  the  Mother-Churchy  and  in  Parochial  Churches.  If 
in  the  Blather-Church  one  Moiety  went  to  the  Bi/bop,  the  other  to  the  Cler- 
gy ;  if  in  the  other,   only  the  third  part  to  the  BiJJjop. 

In  the  fecond  Council  of  Mafon,  Can.  4.  we  find  it  required,  That 
all  the   People   make  an  Oblation  of  Bread   and  Wine  at  the  Altar  5  and 
this  was  A.  D.  585.  but  befides,  the  next  Canon  infifts  on  the  Payment 
of  Tithes,  as  founded  on  the  Law  of  God,  and  the  Ancient  Cujiom  of  the  ^^^^^^"f 
Church,  which  is  thereby  reinforced;  unde  fiatuimus  d^  decernimus  ut  /,  n.^ri 
f»os  antiquus  reparetur  \  v.'hich  Words  are  not  fairly  left  out  by  Mx.Sel-  58. 
den,  becaufe  they  (hew  that  there  was  only  in  this  Canon  a  renewing 
of  an  Ancie?2t  Cujiom,  which  had  obtained,  but  was  now  growing  into 
Difufe.     For  this  Council  of  Mafon  was  called  on  purpofe  to  reffore 
what  they  found  too  much  declining,  as  to  Religion  ;  and  they  begin 
with  the  Obfervation  of  the  Lord's-day,  and  after,  add  this,  whereiri 
they  complain   of  the  Negle^  of  that  which  their  Predeccffors  obferved,   ''  . 
as  founded  on  the  Law  of  God.     So  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the 
Cuftom  of  paying  Tithes  in  France,  from  the  time  of  receiving  Chri- 
ftianity; and  that  this  Cuftom  declined  as  their  Religion  did.     In  the 
Council  of  Nantz,,  about  A.D.  658.     Oblations  and  Tythes  are  men- 
tioned together,  c  10.  as  making  up  the  Churches  Stock;  which  was 
to  be  divided  into  four  Parts,  to  the  Bifliop,  and  to  the  Clergy,  and 
to  Repairs,  and  to  the  Poor. 

R  r  r  r  But 


^78  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 

But  befides  the  oblations  of  the  Living,  it  was  then  common  to  make 
Oblations  at  their  Death  ^  and  thefe  were  calld  ObUtiones  defunHorum, 
and  fevere  Canons  were  made  againft  the  Detainers  of  them,  Comil. 
Vaf.  I.  c.  4.  Agath.  c,  4,  1 9.  ,;^,  2,  9,  10,  1 1.     And  fo  much  appears  by 
tbofe  Canons  which  forbid  Exaftions  at  Funerals,  ConciL  Trihur.c.  16. 
Nannet.  c.  6.  where  an  Exception  is  made  as  to  voluntary  Gifts,  either 
by  the  Parties  deceafed,  or  by  the  Executors.    But  here,  in  the  Saxon 
times  there  was  a  Funeral  Duty  to  be  paid  called  l^ecuma  fepnlchralh  €^ 
S^mbolnm    Amnne^  and  a  Saxon  Sonlfldot'^  this  is    required    by    the 
Speim.     Council  at  JEnham,  and  inforced  by  the  Laws  of  Canutus,  c.  14.  tfml 
5°"/'     was  due  to  the  Church,  the  Party  deceafed  belonged  to,  whether  he 
were  there  buried  or  nor.    Some  take  this  for  the  Foundation  of  Mor- 
Gianvii.    tuarics ;  but  then  the  Money  muft  be  turned  into  Goods.     For  in  Glan- 
1-7-C.5'  ^ii'^  fjt^g^  3  Freeholder  is  allowed  to  make  his  Will  of  other  things, 
provided  that  he  give  his  firft  beft  thing  to  his  Lord,  and  his  fecond  to 
the  Church.     And  this  was  not  originally /7r<?  anima  defnn&i,  as  Lyn- 
vpood  thinks,  from  the  Modern  Canonifts  De  Confuetud.  f.  12.  but  it 
was  a  Right  of  the  Church  fettled  on  the  Deceafe  of  a  Member  of  it, 
as  appears  by  the  Law  of  Canutus.     Others  have  faid,  That  it  was  in 
lieu  of  Tythes  fubftra<!>ed,  and  Oblations  not  duly  made.     So  Simon 
Laf/gham  in  hisConftitution  about  Mortuaries,  which  was  made  to  ex- 
plain a  former  Conftitution  of  Robert  Winchelfee,  becaufe  the  People 
were  obferved  not  to  pay  their  Tithes  and  Oblations  as  they  ought. 
But  he  did  not  go  about  to  fettle  a  Right  which  had  not  been  before, 
but  to  prevent  Suits  about  that  which  was  to  be  taken  for  a  Mortuary -^ 
and  he  declares.  That  where  there  was  a  choice  of  three  or  more,  the 
fecond  was  to  be  for  the  Mortuary,  De  Sepult.f.  93.  ^.     So  that  Richard 
Winchelfee  fuppofes  it  to  be  an  Ancient  Right.     Indeed  in  the  Cotton 
Speim.     MS-  of  the  Council  of  Merton,  where  this  Conftitution  is  extant,  the 
Concii.     Reafon  is  given.  That  it  was  required  by  way  of  Compenfation  for  the 
■  ^""^^^'Negled  of 'Tithes  and  Oblations.     In  the  Synod  of  Winckejier,  in  his 
time,  a  Conftitution  is  made  for  the  uniform  Payment  of  Mortuaries  in 
that  Diocefs,  the  fecond  beft  of  the  Goods  or  Chattels  was  to  be  paid 
P'  453-    in  lieu  of  Tithes  unpaid.     In  the  Synod  of  Exeter  of  Pet.  ^uivil,  15 
^'  '^''    E.  I.  the  reafon  is  given  for  the  Negleft  of  all  Parochial  Duties  5  but 
there  it  is  faid.  That  fome  pleaded  Cuftom  againft  the  Payment  of 
them,  and  others,  as  to  the  Manner  ^  and  although  this  Council  en- 
deavoured to  fettle  an  uniform  Payment,  yet  the  Statute  of  cinum- 
fpeQe  agatis,  leaves  the  whole  Matter  to  Cuftom,  ubi  Mortuarium  dari 
1  inft.     '^onfuevit.     From  whence  my  Lord  Cohe  infers.  That  there  is  no  Mortn- 
49t.        'f'y  ^«<?  h  Lavp,  but  only  by  Cufiom.    The  true  Inference  was.  That  the 
contrary  Cuftom  had  altered  the  Law  from  what  it  was  in  the  times  of 
Canutus  and  Gl anvil.     But  that  the  prevailing  Cuftom  became  the  ftand- 
ing  Law,  ^s  to  Mortuaries,  appears  by  the  Statute  of  21  H.  8.  r.  6. 
which  limits  the  Payment  where  the  Cuftom  continued,  but  allows 
Liberty  for  free  Oblations  :  And  this  free  Oblation  was  then  called  Cors 
prefente,  and  was  diftindl:  from  the  Mortuary  in  lieu  of  Tithes  as  appears 
by  the  Inftances  in  Sir  W.  Dugdalc.    But  I  return  to  other  Oblations, 
fhi?r?  ^^'^^^  Lynwood  diftinguiflieth  into  thofe  by  way  ofOift,  and  fucb  »9 
47o.'e5r<;.  became  due.-    For  thefe  latter,  he  infifts  on  c.Oninis  Chrifiianus  in  the 
Canon  Law,  De  Confecr.  D.  i.  c.  6^.  which  requires  that  every  one 
who  approaches  the   Altar,  makes  fome  Oblation.    Where  the  Glofs 
faith,  it  is  but  Counfel  at.  other  times,  but  a  Command  on  the  Fefti- 

vals. 


of  the  Varochial  Clergy,  6 


■"^  ( 


yalsi  For  this  i6  ^  \.  c.  55.  is  produced,  qnas  pjpttlns  dare  debet  ^ 
but  it  is  there  interpreted  of  the  cafe  of  Necefiity:  Hofiknfis  thinks  all 
are  obliged  on  great  Feftivals,  and  that  the  general  Cuftom  lays  an  Ob- 
ligation i,  but  Lyttwood  thinks  the  Cuftom  of  particular  Churches  is  to 
be  obferved. 

In  the  Synod  of  Exeter  before  mentioned,  Ohlathftsare  faid  to  be  of  Speim.  IL 
Divine  Right,  and  that  every  Pariftiioncr  is  obliged  to  make  them  5  but  P'  ^'^' 
the  time  is  limited  to  Chrijimas,  Eajier,  the  Saints  day  of  the  Chttrch  and 
the  Dedication,  or  All-Saints.    So  that  four  times  in  the  Year  they  were 
required  to  make  Obligations  after  the  Age  of  Fourteen.     And  fo  Giles^ 
bifhop  of  Sarum  debent  offerre  ex  dehito  qttater  in  anno. 

In  the  Synod  of  Wimhejier,  none  were  fo  obliged  till  Eighteen,  andp-soj- 
having  Goods  of  their  own. 

But  I  obferve,  that  in  the  Ancient  Canons  here,  by  the  Oblations^?-  4J2- 
fuch  things  were  then  underftood,  as  were  for  the  Support  of  the  Cler- 
gy :  Thence  feveral  Canons  were  made  againfl:  thofe  who  turned  thern 
another  way.     So  in  the  Council  of  London  under  Archbiftiop  Strat- 
ford, Oblations  are  declared  to  belong  only  to  Ecdejiajiical  Perfons.   And 
fo  Lynword  faith.  The  Goods  of  the  Church  are  called  Oblations.  And  p*  ♦''^•, 
in  cafe  the  Mother-Church  were  appropriated,  the  Oblations  and  Ob-  Lynw!  f. 
ventions   made  in  the  Chapel  of  Eafe,  did  not  belong  to  the  Con-  ^^^• 
vent,  but  to  the  Perfons  who  officiated  there.     Thefe  were  called  p'l'^j^'"* 
by  the  Name  of  the  Altarage,   and  were  generally  exprefled  under 
that  Name  in  the  Endowment  of  Vicarages;  but  when  thefe  were 
too  fmall  for  the  Maintenance  of  the  Vicar,  thofe  fmall  Tithes  which 
were  joyned    with   them,   were  comprehended    under  that   Name ;  |?o(^.  p. 
and  fo  it  hath  been  refolved  in  the  Courts  of  Law  upon  a  folemn  Altarage. 
Hearing. 

John  de  Burgo,  in  his  Pupilla  Oadi,  fpeaking  of  Oblations,   faith. 
That  perfons  may  be  bound  to  them  four  Ways : 

1.  By  Contraft  upon  the  Foundation  of  the  Church,  which  amounts 
only  to  a  Penfion  upon  Endowment. 

2.  By  Promife  either  living  or  dying. 

9.  By  Neceffity,  when  the  Parochial  Minifter  cannot  be  fupported 
without  it. 

4.  By  Cuftom,  in  the  greater  Solemnities;  but  he  faith,  tl^e  Pro- ^^^p^. 
portion  and  Kind  are  left  to  Difcretion  ;  which  made  Oblations  fink  fo  piii.  ocu- 
low,  that  the  Parochial  Clergy  muft  have  ftarved,  if  they  had  had  no-  ''■  /•  '^^• 
thing  elfe  to  fupport  them. 

But  befides  thefe,  he  mentions  Occafional  Oblations  upon  particular 
Services,  as  at  Marriages,  Chrijinings,  Funerals,  &c.  concerning  which  we  Speim.  if, 
have  feveral  C  onftitutions  againft  thofe  who  went  about  to  hinder  them,  tulhVo- 
or  to  reduce  them  to  a  fmall  Quantity.    The  Eafter-OfFerings  are  nonecuii,  part. 
of  thefe  voluntary  Oblations,  but  a  Compofition  for  Perfonal  Tithes  ^■'^'  ^•'* 
payable  at  that  time  ;  of  which  I  may  have  occafion  to  fpeak  more  af- 
terwards.    But  in  the  Saxon  times  here  were  other  forts  Oblations  5 
As  (i. )  the  Cyrycfceat  or  Firft  fruits  of  Corn  payable  at  St.  Martins  Day^ 
Ina  LL.  4.  67.  Edmund,  c.  2.  and  is  often  mentioned  in  Doomefday-book^ 
and  in  Fletal.  7.c.  47.  Malmesb.  I.  2.  c.  ii.  and  the  Oblation  of  PouU 
try  at  Chrijimas  is  mentioned  in  Doomefday,  under  that  Title.  (2.)  There 
was  here  another  kind  of  Oblation  called  Plow-Alms,  which  was  a 
Peny  for  every  Plow  between  Eafter  and  Whitfoittide.     This  is  menti- 
oned in  the  Laws  of  King  Ethelred,  and  required  to  be  paid  Fifteen  ^^^^'^  f^ 

R  r  r  r  a  d^ysj.y,   ji?.- 


6So  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 

days  after  Eafter,  although  it  be  called  Eleemofyua  Aratralk.     In  the 

Mon.  r.    Endowment  of  the  Vicarage  of  S.  Ives^  Flow- Alms  is  mentioned  be- 

*'  ■        fides  the  Altarage  and  Obventions. 

But  all  thefe  Oblations  made  a  very  poor  Subfiftence  for  the  Paro- 
chial Clergy. 

III.  And  therefore  I  come  to  the  main  Legal  Support  of  the  Parochial 
Clergy,  which  is  in  Tithes.  Concerning  which  I  (hall  proceed  in  this 
Method  5 

I.  To  confider  the  Foundation  in  Law  which  they  ftand  upon. 
IL  The  Rules  of  Law  which  are  to  be  obferved  about  them. 

2  inft,  I.  As  to  the  Foundation  they  ftand  upon  in  point  of  Law.     My  Lord 

*42.  Coh  not  only  faith.  That  the  Parochial  Right  of  Tithes  is  efiahlijlied  by 
divers  Ads  of  I' arliament ;  but  he  mentions  the  Saxon  Lavps  before  the 
Conqueft  for  the  Payment  of  Tithes  of  Edward  and  Guthrun,  Etheljian, 
°^-^  ■  Edmund,  Edgar,  Canutus,  and  King  Edward's  confirmed  by  William  I. 
Hobart  faith,  That  Tithes  are  things  of  common  Right,  and  do  of  Right 
belong  to  the  Church,  and  fince  PariJJjes  were  eredted,  they  are  due  to  the 
Farfon  (^except  in  fpiritual  regular  Cafes  )  or  Vicar  of  the  Parifh. 

Regift./.  In  fjje  Regifier  of  Writs,  a  Book  of  great  Authority,  there  is  a  Writ 
of  Confultation  for  Tithes,  wherein  they  are  owned  to  be  of  common 
Right,  as  well  as  immemorial  Cujiom,  due  to  the  Redor  within  the  Limits 
of  his  Parijl). 

Moor  /.        Lord  chief  Juftice  Dyer  faith,  That  Tithes  can  never  be  extinguiped^ 

^°'  becaufe  they  are  of  common  Right. 

Buiftrod.       The  fame  is  affirmed  by  Juftice  Dodderige  in  the  Cafe  of  Foffk  and 

In  Pieddle  and  Napper's  Cafe,  Tithes  are  faid  to  be  an  Ecclefiaftical 
Inheritance  collateral  to  the  Eftate  in  Land,  and  of  their  own  Nature 
due  to  an  Ecclefiaftical  Perfon ;  And,  That  all  Lands  of  common  Right 
Hob.  2^8  are  to  pay  Tithes.  Therefore  it  is  faid  by  Hobart  in  Slade's  Cafe,  That 
no  Land  can  be  discharged  of  Tithes  although  it  may  be  difcharged  of  the  <«♦ 
dual  Payment. 
Rolls R.  In  Popham's  Reports  we  read.  That  it  is  a  Maxim  in  Law,  that  aU 
Poph.  R.  Pe^fons  ought  to  pay  Tithes,  and  all  Lands /hall  be  charged  with  them  of 
i5<?.  common  Right.  So  that  if  the  Judgment  of  fome  of  the  greateft  Men 
of  the  Profefllon  may  be  taken,  nothing  can  be  more  clear  and  evident 
than  the  Legal  Right  of  Tithes.  But  \t  falls  out  unhappily  among  us, 
that  nothing  hath  been  the  Occafion  of  fo  much  Difference  and  Con- 
tention between  the  Incumbents  and  their  Parifhioners,  as  the  Point  of 
the  Payment  of  Tithes.  So  that  fome  have  wifhed  them  changed  into 
fome  other  way  of  Maintenance  -.,  but  I  cannot  fee  any  Reafon  why  fo 
antient,  fo  legal,  fo  juft  a  Maintenance  ftiould  be  changed  into  any  o- 
ther,  which  would  lefs  anfwer  the  End,  and  be  liable  to  as  many  Dif- 
ficulties, if  not  far  more ;  but  every  Change  of  this  kind,  where  we 
cannot  be  fecured  of  the  Event,  is  very  dangerous,  efpecially  whea 
it  proceeds  from  want  of  Judgment  or  Ill-will  to  the  Profefljon  5  both 
which  are  to  be  fufpefted  in  this  cafe.  If  the  ill  Humors  of  fome  Peo- 
ple could  be  changed,  it  would  fignifie  far  more  to  the  Quiet  of  the 
Clergy,  than  altering  their  legal  Maintenace. 

Therefore  the  beft  way  is  to  enquire  into  the  Reafons  of  this  DifTa- 
tisfaftion,  that  we  may  find  out  the  proper  Methods  to  remove  it,  and 
thereby  to  prevent  the  troublefome  and  vexatious  Suits  about  them, 
which  make  the  Parochial  Clergy  fo  uneafie,  and  their  Labour  often 
unfuccefsful  with  the  People.  And 


of  the  faro  chid  Clergy,  ^  8 1 


And  there  is  a  twofold  Diflatisfadlion  which  lies  at  the  bottom  of  moft 
of  thefe  Contentions  about  Tithes. 

1.  In  Point  of  Confcience. 

2.  In  Point  of  Law. 

1 .  In  Point  of  Confcience.  There  is  a  fort  of  People  among  us,  who 
are  very  obftinate  in  this  Matter,  and  will  rather  chufe  to  go  to  Prifon 
and  lie  there,  than  pay  their  Tithes.  I  have  often  thought  whence 
fuch  a  StifFnefs  ftiould  arife  in  a  matter  of  legal  Right.  If  they  had  op- 
pofed  all  Determinations  of  Property  by  Law,  they  had  been  more 
confiftent  with  themfelves  ^  but  to  allow  the  Law  to  determine  the 
Right  as  to  nine  Parts,  and  not  as  to  the  tenth,  is  net  to  be  reconciled. 
For  if  the  Queftion  be  concerning  the  other  Parts,  to  whom  they  do 
belong,  may  not  Men  as  well  difpute  the  matter  of  Dominion  and  Pro- 
perty in  them?  May  they  not  fay,  that  the  Seed  is  our  own,  and  the 
Labour  and  Charges  our  own  ^  why  then  (hall  I  anfwer  to  another  for 
the  Profit  which  arifes  from  my  Pains  and  Expence  >  If  it  be  replied. 
That  the  Law  hath  given  the  Property  of  the  Land  to  one,  and  the  ufc 
to  another,  why  may  they  not  pretend  this  to  be  an  unreafonable  Law 
to  feparate  one  from  the  other,  fince  Land  was  given  for  the  ufe  ^  and 
the  original  Right  of  Dominion  was  from  what  was  neceffary  for  ufe; 
therefore  the  feparating  Right  and  Ufe,  is  an  Incroachment  on  the  Na- 
tural Rights  of  Mankind.  And  there  feems  to  be  more  Colour  for 
this,  than  for  any  to  allow  the  Laws  to  determine  the  Right  of  nine 
Parts  to  belong  to  the  Lord  of  the  Soil,  but  the  tenth  by  no  means  to 
go  that  way,  vvhich  the  Law  of  the  Land  hath  long  fince  determined 
it.  So  that  the  Lord  of  the  Soil  either  by  Defcent  or  Purchafe,  caa 
claim  no  Right  to  it ;  for  neither  did  his  Anceftors  enjoy  it,  nor  thofe 
who  fold  the  Land  to  a  Purchafer  confider  it  as  his  own,  for  then  he 
would  have  had  the  Value  of  it.  The  tenth  part  then  is  fet  afide  in 
Valuation  of  Eftates,  as  alreadydifpofedof  5  and  the  Queftion  is,  whe- 
ther the  fame  Law  which  fettled  the  Right  to  the  other,  (hall  determine 
this  likewife  ?  Is  it  not  a  part  of  natural  Injuftice  to  detain  that  which 
by  Law  belongs  to  another?  And  is  not  theLawtheMeafure  of  Right 
in  Cafes  of  Difference  between  Man  and  Man  5  Why  then  (hould  not 
the  Law  fairly  and  equally  determine  this  matter,  to  whom  the  tenth 
of  the  Profits  belongs  ? 

But  ftill  they  (ay,  //  is  againjl  their  Confcience^  and  they  cannot  doit.  Is 
it  againft  their  Confcience  to  do  Afts  of  Natural  Juftice,  not  to  detain 
that  from  another,  which  of  Right  belongs  to  him?  But  it  is  in  vain  to 
argue  with  People,  who  do  not  judge  of  things  by  the  common  light  of 
Reafon  and  Juftice,  but  by  an  unaccountable  Light  within  them,  which 
none  can  judge  of  but  themfelves;  and  in  matter  of  Intereft  Men  are 
the  worft  Judges  in  their  own  Cafe. 

2.  Therefore  I  come  to  thofe  who  are  capable  of  being  argued  with  ^ 
fuch,  I  mean,  who  are  unfatisfied  in  the  Point  of  Law,  not  in  gene- 
ral, but  in  particular  Cafes,  from  whence  Suits  arife,  and  thofe  are  of- 
ten from  thefe  Caufes  : 

1.  Not  duly  confidering  the  juft  Meafure  and  Extent  of  the  Rules 
of  Law  for  the  Payment  of  Tithes. 

2.  Not  attending  to  the  Exemptions,  or  Difcharges  by  Law  from 
the  Payment  of  Tithes. 

The  beft  way  I  know  to  prevent  troubiefome  fuits  about  Tithes,  is 
to  enquire  diligently  into  thefe  two  things; 

I.  The 


682  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


i.  The  Rules  of  Law  for  the  Payment  of  Tithes,  One  might  have 
juftly  expefted,  that  in  a  matter  of  common  Right  and  daily  Praftice, 
and  wherein  the  Peace  and  Quiet  of  the  People  is  fo  much  concerned, 
as  well  as  of  the  Clergy,  the  Rules  of  Law  fhould  have  been  plain, 
and  clear,  and  liable  to  as  few  Exceptions  as  poflible ;  but  inftead  of 
this,  there  is  not  one  general  Rule  in  this  matter,  but  hath  feveral  Ex- 
ceptions, and  different  Opinions  have  been  about  them  by  the  great 
Men  of  the  Law,  which  hath  given  too  much  occafion  to  the  Multi- 
tudes of  fuits  which  have  been  in  the  matter  of  Tithes  5  fo  that  the 
Clergy  are  not  fo  much  to  blame,  if  they  are  unavoidably  involved  in 
fuits  by  the  Perplexity  of  the  Law,  and  the  different  Refolutions  which 
have  been  made  about  the  Cafes  reported  by  them. 

This  I  (hall  make  appear  by  examining  fome  of  the  raofl:  general  Rules 

of  Law,  and  comparing  them  with  the  Refolutions  which  have  been 

made  in  particular  Cafes. 

Law  of         I.  One  of  the  moft  (landing  Rules  of  the  Law,  is.  That  Titket  are 

Tithes,  c.  o^ilj,  to  be  paid  of  things  vphich  do  annually  increafe,  ex  annuatis  renovan- 

•  p.2 14 •  ^•Jy^^^  fimitl  C^  fentel. 

But  is  this  Rule  allowed  in  all  Cafes  ? 
2inft.  I.  From  hence  Coke  concludes.  That  no  Tithes  are  to  he  paid  of  Mi^ 

Seleft       fterals,  or  of  what  is  of  the  Subjlance  of  the  Earth -^  and  fo  Stone,  ^'"1^ 
Cafes j  16. 71f»»,  Lead,  Coals,  Chalk,  Pots  of  Earth,  are  denied  to  be  titheable. 
But  I  find,  5  H.  4.  ».  65.  a  Petition  of  the  Commons  was  denied  about 
being  fued  in  the  Eccle(ia(\ical  Courts  for  Tithes  of  Stone  and  State  ta- 
ken out  of  their  Quarries.    The  Petition  was  renewed,  8  H.  4.  and  then 
the  King's  Anfwer  was.  That  the  former  Cufiont  Jhould  continue.     And  fo 
about  Tithes  for  Sea-Coals,  51  fi.  5.  n.  57.     From  whence  it  appears, 
that  thefe  things  might  be  tithed  by  ancient  Cuftom,  and  that  was  not 
thought  fit  to  be  altered.     But,  54  Eli%.  it  was  refolved  in  the  King's- 
Mooi- 908.  Bench,  That  no  Tithes  are  due  of  ^tarries  of  Slate  or  Stone,  in  the  Cafe 
C.EI.177.  of  i-yJ^e  and  Wats.     Here  was  no  Regard  toCuftom,  and  a  Reafon  is 
given,  which  deferves  to  beconfidered,  vi%.    Th^^t  he  may  have  Tithes 
of  the  Grafs  or  Corn  which  grotveth  upon  the  Surface  of  the  Land  where  the 
^iarries  are.    But  how  if  there  be  none  ?  As  Lands  where  Quarries  are, 
feldom  afford  Tithes.    But  the  Note  on  the  Regifter  faith.  That  if 
J^fg-  54-  »•  Corn  doth  grow  there.  Tithe  of  it  would  be  due  however.     So  that  here  wc 
have  a  Rule  againft  an  ancient  Cuftom  and  Rule  too.    But  it  cannot  be 
F.N  B.    denied,  thdii  hit%-Herbert  zxiA  Brook  iay,  Th^t  there  is  no  Tithe  of  ^ar- 
53.B.241.  yigj^  gy.  Coals,  or  fuch  things  5  and  it  was  fo  adjudged,  ii.  Jac.  and  14. 
f^o\\%  6^-].Jac.  and  in  other  Cafes  fince.     And  yet  after  all,  i^^?/// yields.  That  a 
March  5^-CuJiom  in  thefe  cafes  is  to  be  allowed-^  fo  that  the  general  Rule  is  to  be 
underftood  fo,  as  there  be  no  Cuftom  to  the  contrary.     And  as  to  Mi- 
nerals, it  is  determined  by  a  late  Writer,  That  by  Cufiom  Tithes  may  be 
Law  of     due  of  them,  although  they  do  not  annually  increafe.     And  my  Lord  Coke 
Tithes,     mentions  King  'john%  Grant  to  the  Bifhop  of  Exeter  of  the  Tithe  of  his 
^7nrf.     Tinn-Farm.     And  a  good  Author  affures  us.  That  in  Places  of  Lead' 
231.         Mines,  the  Tithe  of  Lead  is  the  chief  Part  of  the  Minifters  Maintenance, 

1  Rolls,  Therefore  my  Lord  Coke  concludes  his  Difcourfe  of  Tithes  with  this  ge- 
Cofin's  A- neral  Rule,  That  by  Cufiom  a  Parfon  may  have  Tithes  of  fuch  things  at 
P°'-  P-      are  not  titheable  of  common  Right. 

2  inft.  2.  From  hence  it  is  concluded,  That  no  Tithe  can  be  due  for  Hou' 
662.  fet,  becanfe  they  have  no  annual  Increafe.  This  was  folemnly  debated  in 
!1  Roik '  ^'"*  Gfant'%  Cafe,  1 1  Jac.  and  that  there  was  no  Tithe  due,  was  proved 
1. 6jis.  by 


of  tbe  parochial  Clergy.  683 

by  the  Counfel  from  the  Regtjier^  Fitz.  H.  N.  B.  Brook,  8cc.    But  it 
was  refolved  by  the  Court,  That  although  Houfesof  themfelves  were 
not  titheable,  yet  there  might  be  a  Modus  decimandi  on  the  Ground  on 
which  the  Houfes  ftood,  and  the  Houfes  did  not  take  away  the  Right 
before;  and  in  moft  ancient  Cities  and  Burroughs  there  was  fuch  a  Mo- 
dus for  the  Maintenance  of  their  Minifter.     I  grant  that  there  was  a  cer- 
tain Modus  decimandi  upon  Houfes,  but  not  upon  the  Account  of  the 
Ground  they  ftood  upon  j  but  there  was  a  cuftomary  Duty  upon  Hou- 
fes in  lieu  of  Tithes,  and  were  accounted  a  fort  of  Predial  Tithes,  al- 
though they  were  called  Oblationes  de  domibus^  as  Lynwood  faith,  and  Lynw.  de  ' 
were  diftinft  from  perfonal  Tithes,  for  the  Jews  were  bound  to  pay^g'^'™^-^ 
Tithes  of  Houfes,  but  not  perfonal.     Such  was  the  Kate  on  Houfes  in  Negociac." 
Lofjdon  :  But  in  Dr.  Layjicld's  Cafe  it  was  denied,  that  there  could  be 
a  Prefcription  of  Tithes  upon  Houfes,  becaufe  they  are  to  be  paid  on-seWen  of 
ly  for  the  Increafe  of  things.     What  is  now  become  of  the  former  Mo-  Tithes, 
dus  de.jfftandf,  when  a  Prefcription  was  here  infifted  upon  and  denied  ?  crfcar. 
So  that  here  were  different  opinions,  a  fpecial  Cuftom  was  allowed  up-  596. 
on  good  Reafon  ;   and  here  a  Prefcription  difallovved  upm   fuch  a"°''-'* 
Reafon  as  would  have  overthrown  the  former  Cuftom,  and  yet  the 
Law  was  the  fame  ftill. 

3.  From  hence  it  would  follow.  That  if  this  Rule  hold,  things  which 
have  not  an  annual  Increafe  would  not  be  titheable  :  Then  no  Tithe  of 
Saffron  would  be  due,  whofe  Heads  are  gathered  but  once  in  three 
years,  nor  of  Sylva  c£diia,  under  twenty  years;  and  yet  this  was  al- 
lowed in  Parliament  at  Sarum,  faith  the  Reglfler,  notwithftanding  it^ofif"*'' 
was  not  renewed  every  year.  And  RoUs  faith.  That  T»7Aej- ftiall  bc640. 
paid  of  Beeches,  Hazle,  Willows,  Holly,  Alder,  Maple,  even  after 
twenty  Years,  becaufe  they  are  not  Timber.     But  what  if  Willows  be 

ufcd  for  Timber?  Then  Hobart  faith,  they  ought  to  be  excepted,     if  Hob.  29, 
young  Trees  grow  in  a  Nurfery,  and   be  fold,    it    is  allowed    that  cr. car. 
Tithes  ftiall  be  paid  of  them,  and  thefe  are  not  renewed  every  year.  5-^6. 
And  wh:^.t  becomes  now  of  th'x'i general  Ride,  when  fo  many  Exceptions  L°|'' '" 
are  made  to  it  ?  |one54!5. 

4.  If  this  Rule  hold,  there  can  be  no  Tithes  of  J//er-p/?//re,  for  the  ^^^^^'■" 
K\Aq\s  fimnl  &  femel.     And  my  Lord  Ctf^e,  faith.  It  was  adjudged,  8. '    ' 
Jac.     That  a  Parfon  Jhall  not  have  two  Tithes  of  Land  in  one  year  ;  and  2  Inft. 
he  inftances  in  the  Hay   and  After-paflitre,  5cc.     And  yet  Rolls  affirms,  ^5^' 
That  it  is  due  by  Lavo,  twlefs  there  be  a  Prefcription  to  the  contrary  1  and  Rolls  r. 
he  faith,  the  Judgment  was  given  upon  the  Prefcription.  And  therefore  he  ^*"" 
refolves  it  into  a  Modus  decimandi.  But  he  mentions  feveral  Judgments  6.< 9. 
That  no  Tit  he  is  due  for  After-pajhre,  where  Tit  he- Hay  hath  been  paid  be- 
fore 'j  which  muft  be  where  there  was  no  Cuftom  to  the  contrary,  or 

elfe  he  muft  contradift  himfelf.     And  fo  Yelvertqn  faith  in  the  Cafeof  Veiv.gd?. 
Green  and   Aujlen^  That  of  common    Right,  Tithe-Hay    df charges   the 
Tithe  of  the  After-p^/iure.  But  Crook  faith.  That  in  that  cafe  the  Court  went  Cr.  Jic 
upon  the  Prefription,  and  allowed  it  to  be  good.     How  could  it  go  upon  "'^• 
both  ?     And  Sir  S.  Degge  is  pofitive,  that  if  a  Meadow  affords  two  Crops,  Law  of 
the  Parfon  fliall  have  Tithe  of  both.    How  can  thefe  things  confift?    OrT'ches, 
what  Authority  may  we  rely  upon  in  fuch  Difference  of  Opinions?       '?<^  '^•?- 
2.  Another  Rule  in  Law  is,  That  things  which  are  ferae  Natur.^,  ^^^l]^\.^: 
not  titheable.     But  here  we  are  to  feek  what  things  are  fer£  N<«///r^  .<?  „/ f ,ji,g,_ 
Whether  fuch  things  as  may  be  tamed  and  kept  under  Cuftody,  and  c  8. 
become  a  Man's  Property,  ^xtfer<e  NutHr£  ^    Is  it  not  Felony  to  fteal 

RMets 


684  .  Of  the  Duties  and  Rjgbts 


Rabbets  or  Pigeons  .<?    If  it  be,  they  muft  be  fome  Man's  Property  5  and 
if  they  be  a  Man  s  proper  Goods,  how  can  they  be  faid  to  he  fer<e  Na- 
ture .<?     For  the  meaning  was.  That  no  Man  was  to  pay  Tithes  for  that 
which  was  not  his  own.     Are  not  Bees  fer£  NatHr£,  as  much  as  Pige- 
ons and  Rabbets  .■?     But  the  Tithe  of  Bees  is  allowed  to  be  paid  by  the 
Cr.Car.    tenth  of  the  Honey  and  Wax.     But  Rolls  faith,  That  it  was  doubted 
559-        Tphether  a  tenth  Swarm  were  a  good  Modus /^ir  the  Tithe  of  Bees^  becaufe 
447!*'      t^^y  'ire  ferae  Naturae.  The  Reafon  is,  becaufe  they  are  left  wild,  and  un- 
F.  N.  B.    der  no  Cuftody ;  but  if  they  went  into  feveral  Hives  belonging  to  the 
J.'dsi*!'^  Proprietor,  they  might  be  titheable  by  the  Hives.     And  fofor  Pigeons 
under  Cuftody  in  a  Dove-houfe,  they  are  a  Man's  Property,  and  there- 
fore titheable :  As  it  hath  been  feveral  times  refolved  in  Courts  cf  Law, 
Rolls  I.     14.  J^c.  in  Whately  and  Fanbor's  Cafe,  in  Jones  and  Gajii  ill's  Cafe,  a 
^^'        Prohibition  was  denied  5  and  Juftice  Dodderidge  dedared,  to  whom 
Rolls  R.    the  Court  alTented,  that  Tithe  was  due  both  of  young  Pigeons  and 
^•2.       Conies.     But   the    prevailing   opinion    hath  been.  That  if  are   con- 
147.  Lit-  ftffiedin  the  Hotifc,  they  are  not  titheable^  but  if  they  fold ^  they  are.     But 
tietcn.g.  are  they  not  fer<e  Nature  as  well  when  they  are  fold  at  Market,  as 
KoHs  I     w^en  they  are  eaten  at  home?     Why  then  are  they  titheable  in  one 
644.   '    Cafe,  and  not  in  the  other  ?     If  they  are  titheable  at  all,  they  are  fo 
where-ever  they  are  fpent  ^  for  in  tithing,  the  Nature  of  the  thing  is 
to  be  confidered,  and  not  the  Place  of  fpending  it.     For  upon  the  fame 
Reafon  there  would  be  no  Tithe  of  Corn  fpent  at  home,  or  Pigs, 
Calves,  c^c.  and  therefore  I  look  on  the  Reafon  as  of  worfe  Conse- 
quence, than  the  total  denying  the  Payment.     For  who  can  tell  how 
far  this  Reafon  may  be  carried  in  other  Cafes  > 

But  it  is  refolved  in  many  Cafes,  that  though  they  arefer£  Nature, 
HeYie'y  13!  T^^  ^y  Cuftom  they  may  be  tithed  ^  and  fo  for  Fifli.  Cuftom  it  feems 
Koiis  ,.  hath  the  Power  of  reducing  things  fera  Nature  to  the  fame  Condition 
Palmer*^  with  Other  things.  But  as  far  as  I  can  find,  thefe  things  by  our  old 
527.  cr.  Conftitufions,  were  as  titheable  as  other  things^  but  the  notion  of  their 
Car.  164,  being /er^  7V^/«r<e  being  ftarted,  ferved  as  a  Plea  againft  them,  where 
L^^'jy,  the  Cuftom  was  not  continued  ^  and  where  it  was  beyond  all  Dif- 
lor.Spei.  pute  then  they  faid  they  were  not  titheable  in  themfelves,  but  only 
Hardr^  by  Cuftom  ^  or  not  by  Law,  but  by  Cuftom ;  and  yet  fuch  Cuftoms 
1S8.  Kebi.  make  a  part  of  our  Law. 


2.452.         jn  feveral  ancient  Appropriations,  Fifti,  and  Pigeons,  and  Rabbets 
i,j' 6.     are  exprefly  mentioned,  as  given  together  with  other  1  ithes ^  fo  that 
244-        in  thofe  times  both  Law  and  Cuftom  went  together.     For  the  Lords  of 
^°"^^'J'Manours  were  not  wont  to  give  Tithes  which  were  not  otherwife  due. 
I002.    '      5.  But  what  is  to  be  done  with  thofe  Lands  which  might  afford 
ir.  4.  ■?;?•  Tithe,  if  the  Increafe  of  Grafs  were  fuffered,  but  the  Owners  feed  Cat- 
tel  upon  it,  and  fo  there  can  be  no  Tithes,  what  remedy  doth  the  Law 
afford  in  this  Cafe? 
Lynw./.       I.  It  is  agreed  that  no  Tithe  is  due,  if  no  other  Cattel  be  fed,  but 
99-  F-N.  fQch  as  the  Owner  pays  Tithe  for,  or  are  imployed  in  plowing,  or  any 
inft?<55K  otber  way  which  is  for  the  Benefit  of  the  Incumbent  of  that  Parifh 
where  they  are  fed.     For  otherwife  they  are  but  as  barren  Cattel  to 
him. 

2.  That  there  is  a  certain  Rate  due  for  the  Agiftment  of  barren  Cat- 
Iiadrc^     ^^^'  J"''^ '^'^'^"^""^^  3nd  fo  delivered  by  H^i/ej- then  chief  Baron,  accor- 
184.    '    ding  to  the  Value  of  the  Land,  unlefs  Cuftom  hath  determined  other- 
wife.     And  fo  for  Gueft-Horfes,  &f.  unlefs  the  Innkeeper  had  paid 

Tithe- 


of  the  Varochid  Clergy.  68^ 

Tithe-Hay,  (liy  fotiie,  or  the  Cuftom  be  otherwife  :  But  none  for  Sad-  2s  '*^' 
dle-Horfes  for  the  ufe  of  the  Owner.    One  of  the  Judges  diflenting,64i^<55o. 
becaufe  not  intended  for  Husbandry.     But  for  unprofitable  Cattel  the^uift.!. 
tenth  part  of  the  Bargain  is  due,  or  according  td  the  Value  of  the  Land,  roJi's,  ,. 
and  the  Owner  of  the  Cattel  is  compellable  to  pay.  64,.Foph. 

3.  If  profitable  and  unprofitable  be  mixed,  fo  as  the  latter  be  the  |j'^^^J^7- 
greater  Number,  then  Herbage  mufl:  be  paid  for  them,  and  Tithe  in  1S4. 
kind  for  the  profitable ;  but  if  the  profitable  be  the  greater  Number,  it  Law  of 
is  queftioned  whether  the  other  are  not  excufed  5  but  no  Law  or  prece-  Tithes 
dent  is  produced  for  it :  And  there  feems  to  be  no  Reafon,  if  Pafturage  ^°°' 
be  due  for  unprofitable  Cattel,  why  they  (hould  be  excufed  becaufe  there 

are  more  profitable,  unlefs  their  Nuber  be  inconfiderable. 

Thefe  things  I  have  only  briefly  touched  at,  that  you  niay  the  bet- 
ter govern  your  felves  in  Difputes  of  this  Nature  5  and  as  you  are  not 
to  lofe  the  juft  Rights  of  the  Church,  fo  neither  is  it  for  your  Intereft 
or  Honour  to  be  ingaged  in  them,  where  the  Law  will  not  bear  you 
out. 

If.  The  next  thing  neceflary  to  be  confidered,  is,  the  legal  difchar- 
ges  from  the  Payment  of  Tithes.  For,  although  the  Reafon  of  the 
Payment  of  them  be  founded  on  the  Law  of  God,  and  the  Settlement 
of  Tithes  among  us  hath  been  by  ancient  and  unqueftionable  Laws  of 
the  Land,  yet  the  Recovery  of  Tithes  when  unjuftly  detained,  can  be 
no  otherwife  than  by  the  Law  of  the  Land,  as  it  is  now  in  force.  And 
if  thefe  do  allow  feveral  Difcharges  and  Exemptions  not  to  be  found 
in  the  ancient  Laws  of  Praftice,  we  fliall  but  involve  our  felves  in 
fruitlefs  Contentions,  if  we  difpute  thofe  Limitations  which  the  Law 
hath  put  upon  the  Paymisnt  of  Tithes.  And  therefore  our  Bufinefs  is 
to  enquire  and  fatisfie  our  felves,  as  well  as  we  can,  about  the  Naturd 
and  Extent  of  thefe  Limitations. 

Now  there  are  four  forts  of  Difcharges  of  the  Payment  of  Tithes 
allowed. 

1.  By  Appropriations  to  Monafleries. 

2.  By  Privileges  of  particular  Orders. 

g.  By  Prefcription  and  real  Compofitions. 

4.  By  Unity  and  PolTeflion. 

Of  thefe  I  (hall  difcourfe  in  order,  fo  as  to  clear  the  greateft  Difficul- 
ties, with  refpeft  to  them. 

I.  As  to  Appropriations.  By  the  Statute  of  Diffolution,  gi  H.8.  ig; 
the  new  PoffefTors  are  to  enjoy  their  Parfonages  appropriated.  Tithes, 
Penfions,  and  Portions,  and  all  other  Lands  belonging  to  them,  dif- 
charged  and  acquitted  of  the  Payment  of  Tithes,  as  freely,  and  in  as 
ample  a  manner  as  they  were  enjoyned  before. 

32  H.  8.  7.  It  is  Enafted,  That  no  Perfons  (hall  be  compelled,  or  o- 
therwife  fued  to  yield,  give  or  pay  any  manner  of  Tithes  for  any  Ma- 
nors, Lands,  Tenements,  or  other  Hereditaments,  which  by  Laws  or 
Statutes  of  this  Realm  or  difcharged,  or  not  chargeable  with  the  pay- 
ment of  any  fuch  Tithes.  So  that  we  mu(V  enquire  into  the  State  of  Par- 
fonages appropriated  before  the  Diffolution,  and  how  the  Payment  of 
Tithes  ftood  then. 

I  will  not  deny  that  there  were  Churches  appropriated  to  Monafteries 
in  the  Saxon  times  5  but  if  Mr.  Selden's  Dodtrine  hold  good,  as  to  the 
Arbitrary  Confecration  of  Tithes  till  the  tmlfik  Century,  thofe  Churches 
cannot  carry  the  Tithes  along  with  them,  but  only  fuch  Glebe  and  Ob- 

Sfff  lati-^ 


6^6  Of  the  Duties  md  R ights 

larions  as  belonged  to  them.     For  how  could  the  Tithes  pafs  with  the 
TifhK^    Churches,  if  they  were  not  then  annexed  to  them  ?     But  be  confelTes, 
370.        That  the  mention  of  Tithes  with  Churches  in  Appropriations^  was  rare,  or 
not  at  all  till  after  the  Normans.    The  Reafon  might  be,  that  the  Se- 
paration of  Tithes  from  the  Churches,  was  not  known  till  the  Norman 
times.     For  the  Norman  Nobility  took  little  notice  of  the  Saxon  Laws 
about  Tithes  5  but  finding  Tithes  paid  out  of  the  Lands  within  their 
Manors,  they  thought  they  did  well,  if  they  gare  the  whole  Tithes, 
or  a  Portion  and  (hare  of  them,  as  they  thought  fit,  to  fome  Monafte- 
ry  either  abroad  at  home.    And  this  I  take  to  be  the  true  accountof  the 
beginning  of  Appropriations  among  us.     It  were  endlefs  to  give  an  ac- 
^°"^"^'-count  of  the  Appropriations  made  by  the  Normans^  for  the  Momifi'icon 
is  full  of  them.     William  \.  gave  feveral  Churches  with  their  Tithes 
to  Battle-Abhy.    William  Rufus  added  more.  H.  1.  to  the  Monaftery  of 
4i7-     I?e4«/z»^,  feveral  Churches  in  like  manner^  and  if.  2.  more.     Hugh^zxl 
oi  Chejier,   gave  the  Tithes  of  feveral  Manors  to  the  Monaftery  of 
"^"     St.  Werburgh,  in  the  time  of  William  \.     Of  which  kind  the  Inftances 
are  too  many  to  be  mentioned ;  inftead  thereof,  I  (hall  fet  down  the 
'     State  of  the  Parochial  Clergy  under  thefe  Appropriations,  which  was 
very  mean,  and  intended  fo  to  be,  bemg  fupplied  by   the  Englifii 
CJergy. 

I.  Where  the  Churches  and  Tithes  were  appropriated  to  a  Monafte- 
ry, the  Vicar  had  only  fuch  a  Competency  as  the  Bifliop  thought  fit  to 
allow,  till  Vicarages  came  to  be  endowed :  For  right  underftanding  this 
matter  of  Appropriations,  as  it  ftood  here  in  England^  thefe  things  are 
to  be  confidered. 

I.  That  there  was  a  Parochial  Right  of  Tithes  fettled  in  the  Snxon 

times :  Which  I  infer  from  the  Laws  of  Edgar  and  Canutm^  where  the 

t.  L.  Sax-  Tithes  are  required  to  be  paid  to  the  Mother-Church  5  and  if  the  Lord 

d".s^eim.  °^  ^  Manor  have  a  Church  on  his  own  Free-land,  he  may  retain  a  third 

Conc.444.  part  of  the  Tithes  for  the  ufe  of  it.    Thefe  Laws  are  fo  plain  and  clear, 

nu'^'c^s    ^^^^  ^^'  ^^^^^"  ^oss  not  deny  them ;  and  he  confelTes,  thefirji  Limi- 

10'  II. '  tation  of  Profits  to  he  coatjiined  in  them.    But  what  is  to  be  underftood 

^id.of ,  by  the  Mother-Church  to  which  the  Tithes  were  given?     Mr, Selden 

p.'adz.'    vvould  have  it  the  Monaftery  or  Mother-Church  ;  but  afterwards  he 

264      grants.  That  a  Parochial  Right  to  Incumbents  was  hereby  fettled :,  Which 

is  the  firft  legal  Settlement  of  Tithes  in  a  Parochial  Manner :  But  thefe 

P*  ^-4-    Laws  of  Edgar  and  Canutus  were  fo  folemnly  enafted,  that,  as  Mr.  Sel- 

2  R.  44.  den  obferves  they  were  particularly  called.  Leges  A}!glic£,  the  old  En- 

a  inft.     glijl)  Laws  in  the  old  Latin  MSS.     It  is  a  commonly  received  Opinion 

Dyer,  84.  ^™°"S  *^^  Lawyers  of  the  beft  Rank,  That  before  the  Lateran  Council 

Brook,     there  was  no  Parochial  Settlement  of  Tithes  here.     My  Lord  Cohe  found 

Car.' 4^2.  "°  ^^^^  decree  of  the  Lateran  Council  under  Alexander  g.  5  H.  2.  A.D. 

Palmer,  *  1 179.  3"^  therefore  he  refers  it  to  a  Decretal  of  Innocent  5.    As  to  the 

229.  sei-  Lateran  Council  which  Lynwood  mentions,  it  plainly  fpeaks  of  Feudal 

Lynw?^'  Tithes,  which  a  Perfon  enjoyed  by  the  Churches  Grant,  .and  fuch  might 

81.  b.      before  that  Council,  be  given  to  what  Church  the  Perfon  pleafed.  But 

is  there  no  difference  between  Feudal  and  ParochialTithes  <?  And  what 

Seidell,    Proof  is  there  of  any  ancient  Infeodations  of  Tithes  here  ?    Mr.  Seldett 

404.        himfelf  thinks  Lynwood  applies  the  Cuftom  of  other  Countries  to  his 

own.     But  as  to  the  Parochial  Right  of  Tithes  among  us,  it  ftands 

thus ;  By  the  Saxon  Laws  the  Parochial  was  fettled.     Afrer  the  Norman 

•-   Invafion  thefe  Laws  were  negledted  and  flighted  by  the  Normals  x  H.  I. 

by 


of  the  ?arochial  Clergy.  68-; 


by  bis  Charter  reftored  them,  H.  i.e.  ii.  and  the  very  words  of  the 
Laws  of  Edgar  and  Canutta  are  repeated.    The  Normant  went  on  not- 
withftanding,  and  fo  tbefe  Laws  were  difcontinued  in  Pradice.    But 
Hadrian  4.  who  was  an  Englijlyman  by  Birth,  obferving  the  diforderly 
Payments  of  Tithes  here,  publiftied  a  Conftitution  to  require  the  Paro- 
chial Payment  of  thcra,  as  is  obferved  by  F.  Pitkeus,  a  very  learned 
and  impartial  Man.     After  him  Alexander  3.  in  a  Decretal  diredted  to 
the  Archbiftiop  of  Canterbury  and  hi$  Suffragans,  complains.  That  where^  Deere"  / 
as  the  Parijhioners  had  formerly  paid  their  Tithes  entirely  where  they  ought  ?.  c.  30. 
to  pay  thefa,  the  contrary  Otflom  had  obtained  5  and  fame  withdrew  the  "•  ^■ 
Tithe  of  Wool,  Fifh,  and  Mills  5  therefore  he  requires  the  jiriB  Payment 
of  them  to  the  Churches  to  which  they  were  due.     The  latter  part  only  is 
in  the  Canon  Law,  but  the  former  is  added  from  the  ancient  Copies  by 
PithiCfff. 

As  to  the  Decretal  of  Innocent  IH.  to  which  my  Lord  Coke  refers, 
and  Mr.  Selden  thinks  was  miftaken  for  the  Lateran  Council,  being  brought  mnocenr. 
into  England  with  it^  there  is  fuch  an  Epiftle  extant  in  the  Colleftion  l\  Ji,^^ 
of  his  Epifties,  but  not  put  into  the  Canon  Law,  and  vvas  nothing  but 
an  Inforcement  of  the  former  Laws,  and  a  declaring  the  contrary  Cu- 
ftom  void,  which  had  too  much  obtained  fince  the  Norman  times.  But 
in  a  Decretal  extant  in  the  Canon  Law,  De  Decim.c.  29.  he  acknow- 
ledges the  Parochial  payment  of  Tithes  to  be  due  by  common  Right, 
Cum  ^erceptio  Decimarum  ad  Parmciales  Ecclefias  de  "Jure  communi  per- 
tineat.  Can  any  thing  be  plainer  than  that  the  Parochial  Right  could 
not  depend  upon  his  Decretal  Epiftle,  when  himfelf  confeiTes  that  they 
were  due  by  common  Right  > 

We  do  not  deny  that  he  inforced  the  Payment  which  had  been  fo 
grofly  neglefted  in  the  Norman  times,  and  the  moft  they  would  be 
brought  to  in  many  places,  was  to  pay  only  a  third  part  to  the  Parilh- 
Prieft  who  officiated,  and  gave  the  reft  to  Monafteries,  and  often  ap- 
propriated the  whole  Tithes  to  them,  either  at  home  or  abroad,  as  will 
abundantly  appear  by  the  Monafiicon  ;  from  whence  it  is  plain,  that  ^^°"^^-  ^ 
they  looked  on  Tithes  in  general,  as  due  to  the  Church,  as  appears  by  ,01'  jot,' 
very  many  of  their  ancient  Charters;  but  they  thought  they  did  very  327,  59<^, 
well  when  they  appropriated  them  to  Monafteries  of  their  own  Ere- u.'^jl, 'sr. 
ftion,  or  others,  as  they  thought  fit.    But  this  Humour  took  fo  much 
among  the  Norman  Nobility,  and  ferved  fo  many  purpofes  of  Honour 
and  Devotion,  as  they  thought  (befides  Reafon  of  State)  that  the 
Parochial  Clergy  were  reduced  to  fo  poor  a  Condition,  that  Alexander  ^^  p^.^^-^^ 
IV.  complained  of  it  as  the  Bane  of  Religion,  and  DeJiruSion  of  thecAp^ra- 
Church,  and  as  a  Poifon  which  had fpread  over  the  whole  Nation.     And?''' 
it  muft  be  very  fcandalous  indeed,  when  the  Pope  complained  of  it :  For 
the  Monks  that  were  a|)le,  generally  got  their  Appropriations  confirmed 
in  the  Court  of  Rome. 

2.  There  was  a  Competency  to  be  fettled  on  the  Parochial  Clergy  by 
the  Bifhop's  Confent,  which  was  required  in  order  to  the  confirming  an 
Appropriation  5  as  may  be  feen  in  Multitudes  of  them  in  the  Monafiicon,  Monafi.  / 
befides  thofe  which  are  preferved  in  the  Churches  Regifter.    Sometimes  369.  39^! 
the  Endowment  is  exprelfed,  and  at  other  times  it  is  referved  in  the  Bi- 1'- 5^'^^^' 
fbop's  Power  to  do  it  as  he  fees  Caufe.    But  the  Bifhop's  were  either  fo  111.32.36! 
remifs  in  thofe  times,  or  the  Monks  fo  powerful  at  Rome,  that  the  poor  EJ^fr-  cc 
Vicars  fared  fo  hardly,  that  in  the  time  of  H.  2.  Alexander  IIL  fent  SL^^fj^^^^. 
Reprimand  to  the  Bifhops  for  favouring  the  Monks  too  much,  and  thechis< 

S  f  f  f  2  Clergy 


688  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 

Clergy  too  little  5  and  therefore  requires  the  Bifbops  to  take  care  that  the 
Vicar  had  a  competent  Subfiftence,  fo  as  to  be  able  to  bear  the  Burden 
of  his  Place,  and  to  keep  Hofpitality.    This  was  direded  to  the  Bi- 
(hop  of  Worcefier  ^  for  it  feems  fo  long  fince  the  poor  Vicars  here  were 
hardly  provided  for.     And  yet  I  have  feen  feveral  Forms  of  Appropri- 
ations mad»  by  the  Bifhops  here,  after  the  Conqueft,  wherein  there  is 
a  twofold  Salvo -^  one  for  the  Biftiop's  Right,  and  another  for  a  fuffi- 
cient  Maintenance  for  the  Curate,  although  the  Church  were  appro- 
priated ad  communem  tifitm  Monachorum,  as  of  IVoljia/!,  Roger^  and  of 
William  in  the  time  of  Hen.  II.  when  Alexander  III.  lived,  and  of  Wal- 
EKt.  de    ter  de  Grey,  Sylvejier,  &c.    But  it  feems  where  a  competent  Subfiftence 
Prab.  c.    jj3(j  been  decreed,  the  Monks  took  the  firft  Opportunity  to  lefien  it  5 
which  occafioned  another  Decretal  in  the  Canon  Law,  wherein  any 
Exc.  de    fuch  thing  is  forbidden,  without  theBiftiop's  Confent.     In  other  Places 
ElSrp!'    f  ^isy  pleaded  Cuftom  for  it  -^  thence  came  another  Decree  of  the  Late- 
ran  Council,  to  void  all  fuch  Cuftoms  by  whomfoever  introduced, 
where  there  was  not  a  competent  Subfiftence  for  him  that  ferved  the 
Cure. 
Mon'chis      ""^^^^  Monks  were  ftill  refraftary  in  this  matter  -^  and  becaufe  the  Bi- 
ubrfupra!  ft^ops  had  Powcr  to  refufe  any  Perfon  prefented  by  the  Monks,  unlefs 
they  did  confent  to  fuch  a  reafonable  Allowance  as  the  Biftiop  thought 
Suppfend.  fit  '■>  therefore  they  grew  fullen,  and   would  not  prefent  5  in  which 
Negiifj.    Cafe  another  Decretal  was  made  to  give  the  Biftiop  Power  to  pre- 

cufliobh   ^^"^• 

And  after  all,  Clement  V.  De  Jure  Patron,  c.  i.  reinforced  the  former 
Decretals,  and  injoyned  the  Diocefans  in  the  ftridtefl:  manner,  not  to 
admit  any  perfon  prefented  to  a  Cure,  where  the  Church  was  ap- 
propriated, unlefs  fufficient  Allowance  were  made  by  the  Biftiop's  Con- 
fent and  Approbation,  and  all  Cuftom  and  Privileges  to  the  contrary 
are  declared  to  be  void. 

But  how  far  doth  this  hold  among  us  now,  fince  the  Appropriations 
are  become  Lay- Fees,  and  the  Biftiop's  Power  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
Statute  of  Diffolution?  To  this  I  fliall  give  a  clear  Anfwer,  but  I 
doubt  not  fatisfaftory,  to  all  Parties  concerned.  For  as  Necefllty  and 
Power,  fo  fome  Mens  Intereft  and  Reafon  live  very  near  one  another. 

1.  The  Statute  of  Diflblution  leaves  all  matters  of  Right  as  to  per- 
fons  interefted  juft  as  they  were  before.  For  by  the  Surrender  the  Ring 
was  to  have  the  Monafteries  and  Tithes  in  as  large  and  ample  a  man- 
ner as  the  Abbots  then  had  them  in  Right  of  their  Houfes,  and  in  the 
fame  State  and  Condition  as  they  then  were,  or  of  Right  ought  to  have 

■  been :  And  fo  res  tranfit  cum  fuo  onere.  But  this  is  not  all :  For  there  is 
an  Exprefs  Salvo  for  all  Rights,  Claims,  Interefts,  &c.  of  all  Perfons 
and  Bodies  Politick.  So  that  if  by  the  Law  of  England  there  was  fuch 
an  Antecedent  Right  in  the  Vicar  to  his  Allowance,  and  in  the  Biftiop 
to  aflign  it,  it  is  not  taken  away  by  this  Statute,  nor  any  other. 

2.  by  the  Law  of  England  the  Biftiop  had  a  Right  to  provide  a 
competent  Maintenance  for  fupplying  the  Cure  upon  an  Appropriation. 
We  are  told  by  an  unqueftionable  Authority  in  point  of  Law,  that 

Rolls* :•    i^Car.  I.  this  Point  was  brought  before  the  Kings-Bench,  in  the  Cafe 

of  Thrnburgh  and  Hitchcot.    The  Vicar  complained,  that  the  Church 

was  appropriated,  and  that  he  wanted  a  competent  Maintenance 5  a 

Prohibition  was  prayed,  but  denied  upon  this  Reafon,  That  the  Vicar 

,    had  Reafon  for  his  Suit,  and  that  the  ordinary  might  compel  the  Im- 

pro- 


of  the  Faroe bial  Clergy, 


propriator  to  make  it  greater  ^  becaufe  in  all  Appropriations  that  Pow- 
er was  referved  to  the  ordinary.    And  fo  in  the  Tcar-Booh  it  is  allow- 
ed. That  the  ordinary  may  increafe  or  diminijlo  the  Vicar  s  Portion,  40  E» 
3.  Caf.  1 5./  28.     By  our  Provincial  Conftitutions,  the  Biftiop  is  to  take  ProConft/ 
care  that  the  Vicar  have  a  competent  Allowance  ^  which  at  that  timerfeofic. ' 
was  fet  at  Five  Marks  5  but  Lynwood  obferves,  that  as  the  Price  of^'*^'''- 
things  rofe,  fo  the  Allowance  was  increafed,  and  in  Stipendiaries  it  was '^"''""'" ' 
then  advanced  to*  Eight  or  Ten  Marks  ^  which,  according  to  Sir  H.ot  tithes, 
Spdntm's  Computation,  comes  to  above  Sixty  Pounds  per  Annum.  But  p-.i53- 
fome  have  told  us,  That  by  fome  old  Statutes,  eve}2  beneficed  Perfims  rvere^^l^i\Q-2s 
not  by  Law  to  have  above  Six  marks  per  Annum ;  for  this  was  the  Sum 
allowed  to  Pariflj-PrieJis-j  which  is  fo  grofs  a  Miftake  in  any  that  pre- 
tend to  Law  or  Antiquity,  that  it  is  to  be  wondred  how  they  could  fall 
into-ir. 

The  Truth  of  the  Cafe  was  this  •,  the  Parochial  Chaplains  or  Priefts 
were  complained  of,  36  E.  3.  ».  23.  that  they  could  not  be  gotten  to  Birching. 
attend  after  the  Plague,  but  atexceffive  Rates  5  upon  this  a  Provincial  con,/.  42. 
Conftitution  was  made,  extant  in  the- Parliament  Rolls,  wherein  they 
are  obliged  to  demand  no  more  than  Six  Marks.     But  who  were  thefe  ^ynw. /. 
PariCh-Priefts ?     Not  fuch  as  had  the  legal  Endowments,  but  thofe  who  3^-  Sacer- 
depended  on  the  Good-will  of  the  Parfon  or  People,  and  were  hired  ^^J3[j^'[j"", 
to  officiate  in  Chapels  of  Eafe,  or  to  perform  Offices  for  the  Dead,  pofed  to 
which  were  fo  frequent  at  that  time.     And  thefe  were  called  Annual  senefici- 
Chaplains,  or  Ma^e  Chaplains,  and  were  diftinguiffied  from  Domejiick^^^^' 
Chaplains  who  officiated  in  great  Mens  Houfes  in  their  private  Orato-  Lynw./: 
ries,  and  homBeneficed  Perfons,  as  appears  by  many  Conftitutions.  But'^^* 
whatever  was  underftood  by  the  Aft  of  Parliament  then,  it  was  repealed 
21  Jac.  I.  28. 

3.  The  Law  of  England,  as  to  a  competent  Subfiftence  for  the  Vicars 
or  Curates  in  appropriated  Churches,  is  founded  on  very  good  Rea- 
fon.    For  the  Tithes  were  originally  given  for  the  Service  of  the  Church, 
and  not  for  the  ufe  of  Monafteries.    And  this  was  a  hard  Point  for 
the  Monks  to  get  over,  fince  the  Tithes  were  given  for  the  Maintenance 
of  the  Clergy,  and  they  were  none  of  the  Clergy,  how  they  came  to 
have  a  Right  to  the  Tithes.  It  is  certain,  that  the  State  of  the  Clergy  and 
the  Monaftick  State  were  different^  and  the  Offices  of  the  Clergy  and 
of  the  Monks  were  inconfiftent,  if  they  held  to  their  Rules ;  how  then 
came  the  Monks  to  take  the  Maintenance  which  belonged  to  the  Clergy 
for  other  Offices,  as  though  they  were  originally  intended  for  them  ? 
For  which  there  is  no  Colour  or  Pretence.    This  Point  was  debated 
between  two  great  Men  of  their  times,  S.  Bernard  and  Petrus  Cknia- 
cenfis :  The  former  a  Cifiertian  Monk,  declared  himfelf  unfatisfied  with 
the  Monks  taking  the  Maintenance  of  the  Parochial  Clergy  from  tbera, 
which  was  given  on  purpofe  to  attend  the  Cure  of  Souls.    But,  faid  P".  cIu- 
yetrus  Cluniacenfis,  do  we  not  pray  for  their  Souls  ^  But  the  Cure  of  Souls  °^\l'^^' 
is  another  thing;;  and  by  the  Canons  of  the  Church  the  Monks  were  ' 
forbidden  to  meddle  in  Parochial  Offices  of  Preaching,  Baptiung,  P/'-d.  jj.c 
fiting  the  Sick.    So  that  it  might  bear  a  Queftion  in  Law,  whether  a*^-'*^  Q- 
Monaftery  were  capable  of  an  Appropriation,  fince  by  the  Ecclefiafti-^' g'^lo^* 
cal  Law,  they  are  not  an  Ecclefiaftical  Body?     And  for  that  Reafonu* 
Hohart  faith,  a  Nunnery  is  not  ^  and  the  fame  Reafon  will  hold  for  the 
other.  «• 

the 


.^J. 


i-r    B   , ; 

6^0  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 

The  Cijiertian  order  was  atfirft  very  fcrupulous  in  this  matter,  when 

Mon.  L    they  came  hither  and  prietended  to  live  only  on  their  own  Lands,  and 

Rolls  R.  dijliked  Appropriations^  as  great  Injuries  to  the  Clergy,  and  called  it  Sacri- 

2.480.     lege  to  take  their  T/V^ex  away  from  them.    This  was  wifely  done  of 

them  at  firft  to  ingratiate  themfelves  with  the  Clergy,  and  to  get  as  good 

Mon.  I.    Lands  as  they  could.    But  after  a  while  they  abated  their  Zeal,  and 

73<?-        then  they  pretended  to  do  nothing  without  the  BiftiopsConfent ;  till  at 

laft  they  were  as  ready  as  any,  and  got  as  large  Privileges  to  exempt 

their  Lands  from  Payment  of  Tithes,  under  which  the  Clergy  fufFer  to 

this  day. 

But  to  return  to  the  beginning  of  Appropriations  among  us. 
After  the  Normans  coming,  they  ftood  upon  no  Niceties  of  Law,  or 
original  Grants,  but  they  took  Poffeffions  of  the  Tithes  of  their  Ma- 
nours,  and  difpofed  them  as  they  pleafed.  The  poor  Parochial  Cler- 
gy were  EngUfi,  whom  they  bated,  and  cared  not  how  poor  they 
were  5  the  Biftiops  were  Ntfr«/4»/,  asfaft  as  they  could  make'them^  and 
the  bufinefs  of  the  great  Men,  was  to  incourage  the  Norman  Monks  that 
came  over,  and  to  build  and  endow  Monafteries  for  them  to  pray  for 
their  Souls,  which  they  minded  fo  little  themfelves ;  and  this  I  take  to 
be  the  true  Account  of  the  beginning  and  increafe  of  Appropriations  in 
England,  which  at  firft  were  only  permitted,  but  are  confirmed  by  the 
Law  fince  the  Statute  of  Diffolution. 

ir.  In  fome  Appropriations  there  were  Vicarages  endowed,  and  here 
the  Difficulty  lies  in  diftinguifhing  the  Tithes  which  belong  to  one  from 
the  other ;  Before  the  Statutes  for  Endowment  of  Vicarages,  in  cafe  of 
Appropriations,  15  iJ.  2.  6.  4  H.  4. 12.  there  were  Endowments  made, 
where  the  Bilhops  took  care  of  it ;  but  they  were  generally  fo  remifs  in 
it,  that  thofe  Statutes  were  thought  very  neceffary  ^  and  one,  it  feems, 
was  not  fufficient.  For  they  eluded  the  former  by  appointing  Vicars 
out  of  their  own  Body  5  but  the  latter  Statute  requires,  That  the  Vi-- 
car  (hall  be  a  Secular  Perfon,  and  made  Spiritual  Vicar,  and  have  fuch 
an  Endowment  as  the  ordinary  fhould  think  fit,  otherwife  the  Appro- 
priation to  be  void. 

The  Scandal  of  the  Appropriations  was  made  fo  great  by  the  greedi- 
nefs  of  the  Monks,  and  Eafinefs  of  the  Biflaops,  that  I  find  in  the  Par- 
liament Rolls  2  H.4..  51.  a  Petition  of  the  Commons,  that  no  Appro- 
priations (liould  be  made  for  the  future  5  but  afterwards  they  came  to 
that  Temper  which  is  exprefled  in  the  Statute  4  i/.  4. 
And  that  before  thofe  Statutes,  there  was  no  neceftity  of  the  Endow- 
Roiis,  R.  luent  Qf  3  Vicarage,  is  plain  from  the  occafion  of  making  them ;  and  fo 
Cr.  a.  ji8.it  hath  been  agreed  in  the  Courts  of  Law  in  the  Cafe  of  Britton  and 
Ward.    But  the  main  Difficulty  is,  to  ftate  the  Tithes  which  belonged 
to  the  Vicarage  and  to  the  Appropriation  5  becaufe  there  was  no  cer- 
tain Limitation  either  as  to  quantity  or  kind,  although  generally  the 
great  Tithes  of  Corn  and  Hay  went  with  the  Parfonage,  and  the  fmall 
Tithes  and  Obventions,  and  Altarage  with  the  Vicarage. 
Yeiv.  86.      The  beft  Rules  I  can  find  to  be  fatisfied  in  this  matter,  are  the  En- 
dowment, or  Prefcription,     And  where  the  Endowment  is  found,  yet 
there  may  be  a  Prefcription  of  Tithes  not  mentioned ;  becaufe  the  Bi- 
(hop  had  a  Power  referved  to  increafe  the  Allowance:  As. in  the  Cafe 
of  the  Vicar  of  GiUmgham,  who  fued  for  cuftomary  Tithes  not  menti- 
Hirdi.     oned  in  the  Endowment ;  and  he  recovered  them  on  this  Prefumption, 
i'8-       That  the  Vicarage  might  be  augmented  with  thofe  Tithes  5  and  in  cafe 

of 


\ 


of  the  Faroe  hid  Cle7'gj.  6^i 

oi  long  Pofleffion,  it  is  there  faid  to  hav6  been  often  fo  held  and  ru- 
led.   Sometimes  there  is  a  Difficulty  in  the  Senfe  of  the  Words  of  the 
Endowment,  as  in  the  Cafe  of  Bark/dale  and  Stttith,  whether  Dedma  Cr.  el 
Garbartim  /'«  ff.  implied  Tithe-Hay  ;  but  it  was  refolved,  that  although  "^B?. 
Garba  feeras  to  relate  to  Corn,  de  ontm  Amionci  decwta  Garha  Deo  red- 
dendo efl.     L.  Edtp.  Confijf.  c.  8.  at  leaft,  to  fomething  bound  up  •  and 
fo  Lynxv!>od  applies  it  to  Faggots 5  yet  the  Cuftom  was  thought  fuffici- ^""^'^-  '• 
ent  to  extend  it  to  Tithe-Hay ;  and  for  Tithe- Wood  in  Remulds  and*^' 
Greens  Cafe.     But  the  greateft  Difficulty  hath  been  about y^^Z? Tithes^ 
which  is  the  common  Endowment  of  Vicarages.    In  the  Cafe  of  Ward     - 
and  Brittoff,  pne  Point  was,  whether  Lambs  were  fmal/  Tithes  or  not. 
Noy  pleaded  Cuftom  for  it.    The  Councel  on  the  other  fide  faid.  That  ^I'^cr. 
ffftallTithes  were  fuch  as  grew  in  Gardens  5  but  Lambs  were  a  fort  of  Jic.si^. 
Predial  Tithes-^  however,  it  was  yielded,  that  Cuftom  might  bring 
it  under  f/aal/  Tithes. 

Another  Point  2hout  f mail  Tithes,  was  about  Saffron  growing  in  a^'^'Eiiz. 
Corn- Field,  in  the  Cafe  of  Bedif;gfield  and  Freak,  and  it  was  refolved |o9:f"Hut- 
to  hsfmall  Tithes.     But  the  Ground  of  that  Refolution  was  queftioned  con,' 78, 
in  the  Cafe  oiVdal  and  Tyndal  5  fome  faid  it  was,  becaufe  Saffron  was^"'^"'^'*' 
fiaall  Tithes  whcre-ever  it  grew  :  Others,  that  by  the  Endowment,  the  cr.  Car. 
Parfon  had  only  referved  the  Tithe  of  Corn  and  Hay.  ^^v 

But  fuppofe  whole  Fields  be  planted  with  Woad,  which  gfpws  in  the 
Nature  of  an  Herb,  is  this  to  be  reckoned  avacmgfmall  Tithes  .<?     Crook 
feems  to  deliver  the  fenfe  of  the  Court  fo,  in  the  former  Cafe :  But 
HftttoH  reports  it,  that  it  might  come  to  be  majores  Decim£  and  Pr^di-  Hutcon, 
al,  if  it  came  to  be  the  main  Profits  of  the  Place.     And  the  like  may  ^^* 
hold  as  to  Hemp,  Hops,  Wool  and  Lambs.     It's  there  faid,  that  all 
thcfe  new  things,  as  Saffron,  Hemp,  Woad,  Tobacco,  &c.  are  to  be 
reckoned  among  ffftall  Tithes,  unlefs  there  be  fome  material  Circum- 
ftance  to  the  contrary.    But  who  is  to  be  Judge  of  that?  And  what 
Proportion  changes  fmaS  Tithes  into  greater^  But  what  if  the  Endow- 
ment be  fo  expreffed,  that  only  Tithes  of  Corn  and  Hay  be  referved  to 
the  Parfon?  '  Then  Rolls  thinks  all  the  reft  fall  to  the  Vicar  by  Con-  roIIs,  a; 
ftrudlion  of  Law.  2. 331- 

By  the  Word  Altarage,  it  was  refolved  in  the  Exchequer,  upon  a  fo- 
lemn  Hearing,  21  Eliz,.  and  after  confirmed  in  the  Cafe  of  iVood  and 
Greenwood,  not  meer  Oblations  are  to  be  underftood,  but  whatever 
Cuftom  hath  comprehended  under  it.  And  I  find  in  the  Settlement  of 
the  Altarage  of  Cokerington  by  Rob.  Grofthead,  Biftiop  of  Lincoln,  not  Littleroa 
only  Oblations  and  Obventions,  but  the  Tithes  of  Wool  and  Lamb  H4- 
vwere  comprehended  under  it.  11^!^^' 

n.  The  next  Difcharge  of  Tithes,  is  by  the  Privileges  of  particular  Mon.  11. 
Orders  allowed  by  our  Law.     For  it.is  to  be  obferved,  that  no  Bulls  ^°^^'j^ 
of  Popes  make  a  legal  Difcharge  5  but  in  fuch  Cafes  where  the  Law  653.  * 
allows  them,  and  my  Lord  Coke  thinks  it  cannot  be  infifted  upon  with- 
out danger  of  a  Pnemunire.    For  when  the  Cifiertians  bad  procured  new 
Bulls  to  inlarge  their  Privileges  as  to  their  Lands  in  the  Hands  of  Far- 
mers, a  Law  was  palTed  againft  it,  2  H.  4.  c.  4.  which  was  grounded  i^o^  Pari, 
on  a  Petition  in  Parliament  ftiewing  the  Novelty  andMifchief  of  it.     2.  h.  4'- 
It  was  affirmed  by  our  great  Lawyers,  that  the  Pope's  Aft  in  diflbl-  ^""'J/'j, 
ving  the  Body  of  the  Templars,  which  was  done,  5  E.  2.  had  no  effeft  578.' 
here  till  the  1 7  E.  2*  when  the  Parliament  gave  their  Lands  to  the  Ho^  I';''"'-'*?' 
ipitallers,  a,  ij,*. 

And 


6^2  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


And  that  the  Pope  could  not  by  his  Bull  dilTolve  a  Vicarage  after 
cr.2.j,7.(jjgy  yfQjQ  made  perpetual  by  the  Statute^  fo  that  our  own  Law  is  to 
govern  in  this  matter. 

But  what  Orders  had  Exemption  from  Tithes  by  our  Law?    At  firft 

moft  of  the  Orders  of  Monks  had  it  for  Lands  in  their  own  Hands. 

Extr.de   This  by  Hadrian  IV.  was  reftrained  to  the  GJiertiani,  Templars  and 

^^10.™^'  Hofpitallers,  which  is  owned  in  the  Canon-Law,  by  a  Decretal  of  ^Z- 

.  *'  '       exander  IIL  who  declares  it  not  to  be  intended  for  Lands  let  out  to 

farm. 

Innocent  lU.  reftrains  it  to  fuch  Lands  as  they  were  then  in  Poffeffioti 
iinfl.  of  5  but  my  Lord  Coke  makes  the  Grant  to  htfrom  Innocent  IIL  in  the 
^^^'  Council  of  Lateran,  1 7  John  5  but  he  adds.  That  it  extends  only  to  the 
Lands  which  they  had  before  5  which  was  all  that  was  done  then.  But 
he  faith.  That  this  Privilege  vpas  allowed  by  the  general  Confent  of  the 
Realm  -^  however  that  were,  it  is  certain  that  the  Lateran  Council  made 
no  Reftridlion  to  the  three  orders. 

But  what  thall  we  fay  to  the  Vramonjiratenfes,  of  whom  he  faith. 
That  they  were  difcharged  by  a  Bull  0/ Innocent  III.    This  point  was  dif- 
Pophami  puted  in  the  Cafe  of  Dickenfon  and  Greenhow.    It  was  not  denied,  that 
's^'        they  had  obtained  fuch  a  Bull,  but  it  was  denied  that  it  was  ever  recei- 
ved here.     On  the  other  fide,  it  was  faid,  that  their  Bulls  were  con- 
firmed 1  which  doth  not  appear,  nor  that  any  Judgment  was  given  in 
the  Cafe.    There  is  a  Bull  extant  in  the  Colleftion  of  Innocent's  Epi- 
ftles,  to  exempt  the  Prantonfiratenfes  from  the  Tithes  of  Lands  in  their 
Innocent,  own  Hands  5   but  this  was  granted  in  the  firfl:  Year  of  Innocent  IIL 
3.  Epift.   fometime  before  the  Lateran  Council,  and  they  might  enjoy  the  fame 
331!  ^'  Privileges  with  the  Cijiertians,  if  it  could  be  proved,  that  they  were 
as  generally  received,  which  hath  not  yet  been  done.    As  to  the  CV- 
Jiertians  themfelves,  there  are- confiderable  Limitations  of  their  Privi- 
leges. 

1.  They  muft  relate  to  Lands  in  their  Poflefilon  before  the  Lateran 
Council,  /4.  D.  1 2 1 5.  1 7  of  King  John.  And  in  matters  againft  common 
Right,  the  Proof  in  Reafon  ought  to  be  on  thofe  who  pretend  to  par- 
ticular Privilege.  But  it's  certain  the  Cifiertian  Order  hath  had  many 
Lands  in  England  fince  that  time  (and  it  were  no  hard  matter  to  find 
them  out.)  But,  fuppofe  they  were  aftually  difcharged  at  the  Diflb- 
lution,  and  the  Proprietaries  were  to  enjoy  them  in  the  State  they  found 
them,  is  not  this  a  fufficient  Difcharge  ?  Yes,  if  it  be  a  legal  Dif- 
charge ;  for  the  Statute  only  puts  them  into  the  fame  legal  Capacity 
they  were  in  before ;  but  if  they  were  Lands  given  fince  the  Lateran 
Council,  they  were  not  in  a  Capacity  to  be  difcharged  by  Law;  for  it 
was  not  otherwife  received. 

2.  This  Privilege  doth  not  exclude  ancient  Corapofitions,  as  to  their 
bemefn  Lands.  For  thefe  Privileges  did  not  go  down  fo  eafily,  but 
where  there  were  Reftors  able  to  conteft  it,  they  brought  even  the  Ci- 
ftertians,  to  Compofitions.  And  the  Pope  himfelf  appointed  Commif- 
fioners  here  to  compound  the  matter :  And  between  the  Monaftery  of 
Pipewel  and  Hugh  Patesbul  Reftor  of  Eltyndon,  which  ended  in  Compo- 
fition  of  fix  Marks  per  Annum  for  the  Tithes  of  their  Demefns.  And  ano- 
ther between  the  Vicar  of  Dunchurch  and  the  fame  Monaftery ;  and  be- 
tween the  Reftor  of  Wynfwick  for  the  Tithes  of  Ten  Yard-Lands  in  Colds 
Abby.  All  which  I  have  perufed  in  the  Regifter  of  that  Monafte- 
ry M5. 

9.  The 


of  the  Varochml  Clergy,  ^93 

5.  The  Privilege  doth  not  hold  where  the  Monafteries  were  under  Va-^"'^^  ^• 
liie,  and  came  to  the  King  by  the  Statute  27  H.  S.unlefs  they  were  moot, 
continued,  and  came  within  the  Statute  of  Diffolution,  51  H.8.   And  42=.  cr. 
it  ought  to  be  proved  that  they  continued  feparate  ;  for  if  their  Lands  *'"'**'^' 
were  given  to  the  greater  Monafteries,  they  did  not  retain  the  Privilege 
upon  Diffolution. 

But  there  is  a  much  harder  Point  concerning  the  Hofpitallers  (  who 
had  the  Lands  of  the  Templars  after  17 E.  2.)  Their  Lands  were  not  gi- 
ven to  the  King  by  the  Statute  of  Diffolution,  31  tt8.  but  32H.  8.r.  24. 
and  the  Claufe  of  Exemption  was  left  out  of  the  Grant.  Upon  which  a 
great  queftion  hath  rifen,  whether  their  Lands  are  exempt  or  not  > 
And  Judgment  was  given  againft  them  in  the  Cafe  of  Conmaiiis,  orcr.  2.  58. 
glories  and  Spurlittg.     But  in  the  Cafe  ot  Whijion  and  Wefiott,  it  wasMoor.pig. 
argued,  that  the  King  had  the  fame  Privileges  which  the  Hofpitallers  |g^"' 
bad.     But  it  was  replied.  That  other  Lands  given  to  the  King  after  that 
Aft,  had  not  thofe  Privileges,  as  Chanteries,  &c.    It  was  faid,  that  it 
was,  becattfe  they  were  not  regular  Ecclejia^ical  Bodies :  Which  was  a  Bridgm. 
ftrange  Anfwer,  confidering  what  fort  of  Ecclefiaftical  Bodies  the  Ho-  ^'  .  g 
fpitaUers  made,  when  only  the  Grand  Matter  and  two  Chaplains  areRoii^sk.^' 
bound  to  be  Ecclefiaftkks  5  and  in  foreign  Judicatures  they  were  denied  ^-  f- 
to  be  any  part  of  the  Clergy,  being  only  an  order  of  Knights  under  xkhes," 
fome  particular  Regulations.  122. 

But  fuppofe  them  capable  of  Appropriations  of  Tithes,  yet 
when  the  Body  is  dilTolved,  the  Appropriation  falls  of  it  felf,  unlefs 
continued  by  Ad  of  Parliament,  asthofeof  the  Templars  were  to  them  5 
and  thofe  of  the  Monafteries  by  31  H.  8.  but  where  there  is  no  Claufe 
to  continue  the  Appropriation,  it  muft  be  underftood  to  be  left  to  the 
natural  courfe  of  things  5  and  (o  the  Appropriation  finks. 

IIL  The  third  legal  Exemption  is  from  Prefcription,  and  ancient 
Cqmpofitions.     This  feems  a  diflficult  Cafe,  becaufe  fomething  lefs  than 
the  real  value  is  to  be  taken,  and  the  Rule  in  Lynreood  is,  »<?;?  z»<?/e^i-ynw./. 
co/;fHetHdo,  ut^mhrus  qnam  Decima  fohatur  -^  but  in  all  fuch  Prefcriptions  *'"' 
and  Compofitions  there  is  lefs  than  the  true  Value* 

To  clear  this  matter,  I  (hall  (hew, 

1.  That  by  our  Ecclefiaftical  Law,  all  Compofitions  are  not  con- 
demned. 

2.  That  by  the  common  Law  all  Prefcriptions  are  not  allowed.  And 
if  thefe  things  be  made  out,  it  will  follow,  that  where  the  Compofiti- 
ons and  Prefcriptions  are  legal,  the  Clergy  may  with  good  Confcience 
fubmit  to  them,  as  they  do  in  other  matters  of  Law. 

I.  As  to  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law,  Lynveood  himfelf  makes  thefe  Limi- 
tations 5 

1.  In  cafe  of  perfonal  Tithes.    He  grants  that  as  to  them,  a  Man  may  Lynw.f. 
with  a  good  Confcience  obferve  the  Cuftom  although  it  be  under  the  97- ^-  •^■ 
Teal  Value.    Now  thefe  are  founded  on  the  fame  Laws  that  Pnedlal  f^^^^^ ' 
and  mlxt  Tithes  are  5  and  by  the  Stat.  2  E.  6.  c.  15.  they  are  redu- 
ced to  a  cuftomary  Payment  before  Eafier,  as  it  had  been  ufed  Forty 
Years  before  :  But  befides  thefe  there  were  Offerings  to  be  compound- 
ed for,  and  the  Eajier  Duties  are  a  kind  of  Compofition  for  perfonal 
Tithes. 

2.  In  fmall  Tithes,  the  cuftomary  Payment  is  allowed.  The  Payment 
in  Lynwood's  time,  was  6  oh.  for  fix  Lambs,  becaufe  it  was  the  Tenth  of 

the  Value  at  that  time  of  a  Lamb  of  a  year  old  5  the  feventh  Lamb  Lynwi/, 

Tt  tt  *va»* 


^^4  Of  the  Duties-  and  Rights 

was  to  be  paid  in  kind,  for  which  3  oL  were  to  be  paid  back,  becaufe 
three  Lambs  were  wanting  of  the  number  Ten.  But  can  any  one  be- 
lieve that  5  d.  was  the  true  Value  then  of  a  Lamb  of  a  year  old  ?  And 
Lynwood  doth  not  fuppofe  it  to  be  the  exaft  Value  ^  but  it  was  fucb  as 
the  provincial  Conftitution  determined,  and  he  allows  Compofitions 
o7"b.'  ^*  y*/"-'*'  ffi'^fftttis  decjmis. 

3.  Compofitions  were  allowed  with  the  Bi(hop's  Confent  with  Lay- 
perfons  for  their  Tithes.  As  to  what  is  pad:,  there  was  no  doubt  5 
but  for  the  future  he  faith,  it  doth  not  hold/»e  Judicis  auSoritate  ^ 
which  implies,  that  by  his  Confent  it  may.  And  if  fo,  then  a  Modus 
decimandi  fo  qualified,  is  allowed  by  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law.  Such  Com- 
pofitions as  thefe  were  entred  into  the  Bifhop's  Regiftries,  and  if  th^y 
were  then  made  upon  a  valuable  Confideration  at  that  time,  I  doubt 
the  Force  of  Cuftom  will  get  the  better  of  the  Reafon  that  may  be  taken 
from  the  great  Difference  of  Valuation  of  things. 

2.  Let  us  now  confider  what  Prefcriptions  and  Compofitions  are  not 
allowable  at  Common  Law. 

I.  No  Prefcription  de  non  decimando^  is  allowed  among  Lay-per- 
fons,  becaufe  none  but  fpiritual  Perfons  are  by  the  Law  capable  of 
xfches  °*  '^"^^s  in  their  own  Right.     A  Layman,  faith  Mr.  Selden,  cannot  be 
p.  409*.     difcharged  of  all  Payment  by  meer  Prefcription,  nnlefs  he  begins  by  Pre- 
Coke  R.   fcription  in  a  fpiritual  Per  fan.     And  to  the  fame  purpofe  our  great  Law- 
cr.^?.*47.  y^''s  fpeak.     But  in  the  famous  Cafe  of  Pigot  and  Hem,  z  Diftinftion 
Roii5,6s3.  was  found  out,  which  may  prove  of  dangerous  Confequence,  vi%. 
«T%25.^^^^  although  the  Lord  of  a  Manour  cannot  prefcribe  for  Tithes,  be- 
Hob!  197.  caufe  he  is  not  capable  of  them  by  our  Law,  yet  he  may  prefcribe  for  a 
Cr.  El.     tenth  Shock,    as  a  profit  apprendre,  as  a  thing  appurtenant  to  his  Ma- 
^^^'        nour  5  and  fo  he  may  have  decimam  garbam,  but  not  decimat  garbarum. 
UjX)n  which  Refolution  it  is  faid  in  the  Bifliop  of  Wimhefier'$  Cafe, 
i  R.45.    that  the  Lord  of  a  Manour  may  have  Tithes  as  appurtenant  to  his  Ma- 
nour ;  For  which  there  is  no  Foundation  in  our  ancient  Laws  or  Cu- 
ftoms  that  I  can  find  that  is  inconfiftent  with  what  is  before  acknowled- 
ged, that  none  but  fpiritual  Perfons  are  capable  of  Tithes.  "  But  in 
plain  Truth,  this  Cafe  is  not  truly  reprefented  5  and  ray  Lord  chief 
Hob,  500.  Juftice  Hobart,  a  perfon  of  great  Judgment  and  Learning  in  the  Law, 
hath  told  the  World,  That  this  famous  reporter  hath  fometimes  given  his 
own  opinion,  and  that  fudden,  inftead  of  the  Refolution  of  the  Court, 
which  mufl  take  much  off  from  the  Authority  of  his  Reports;  efpeci- 
ally  when  the  Cafe  is  differently  reported  by  others  5  as  it  falls  out  in 
this  Cafe.    For  Serjeant  M(?(?r,  who  was  of  Counfel  in  that  Cafe,  faith, 
^93/'     That  the  Defendant  pleaded  a  Modus  decimandi  in  Satisfadion  for 
Tithes,  which  was  6  s.  per  Annum :  But  as  to  the  other  point,  w.hether 
fuch  an  ancient  Modus  being  made  with  the  Lord  of  a  Manour,  binds 
the  Copy-holders,  it  is  out  of  our  way  5  but  furely  there  ought  to  be 
good  Proof,  that  the  Modus  was  made  before  the  Copy-holds  were 
granted,  which  is  not  offered,  but  only  that  it  might  befo-^  which  de- 
ferves  no  other  Anfwer,  but  that  it  might  not  be  fo.    And  it  is  hard  in- 
deed, when  Judgments  are  given  upon  Poflibilities.    And  for  the  dt- 
ftinftion  of  Decima  Garba  and  Decim£  Garbarum,  in  a  Compofition  for 
Moor,      Tithes,  is  the  fame  thing.     Mr.  Selden,  as  to  this  Cafe  of  Pigot  and 
Seld.  p.     Hern,  faith.  It  was  an  inheritance  of  Tithes  from  immemorial  time,  by 
398.        virtue  of  an  ancient  Compofition :  And  he  would  not  underfVand  the 
Judges  in  any  other  Senfe;  For  no  kind  of  Infeodation  of  Tithes  is 

allow- 


of  the  Parochial  Clergy.  ^^5 

allowable  here,  he  faith,  fo  as  to  create  in  Lay-men  a  perpetual  Right 
to  them  (except  only  by  the  Statute  ot  Diflolution  of  Monafteries ) 
unlefs  it  be  derived  from  iome  ancient  Grant  of  Difchargefrom  the  Par- 
fon.  Patron  and  Ordinary,  with  a  Confideration  of  Recompence  to 
the  Parfon  ^  and  that  either  from  time  immemorial,  or  ancient  Cotiipo- 
fition.  And  to  the  famS  purpofe  he  fpeaks  in  another  place,  where  he  p*  ^^^' 
owns,  that  by  our  Law  every  Parfon  had  a  common  Right  to  the 
Tithes  of  all  annual  Increafe  (  Pr<edial  or  Mixt )  within  the  limits  of 
his  Parifh  5  and  any  Title  or  Difcharge  muft  be  fpecially  pleaded. 

2.  Where  a  Prefcription  is  pleaded  de  modo  decima»di,  the  adt'ual  Re- 
compence by  Compofition  muft  be  (hewed.  For,  as  my  1  ord  Coke  faith, 
a  Moduf  dcLtmandi  is  intended  as  a  yearly  Sum  in  way  of  Satista^i- 
on  for  the  Tithes  to  the  Parfon  5  which  Rolls  calls  the  adml  Recotft-  ^^^^^  ^'' 
■pence. 

In  the  Regijier  the  Account  of  the  Modus  dedmavdi  is  thus  (et  down : 
I.  There  was  a  real  Compoftion,  as  pur  Acres  of  Land  for  fotne  Cwall^'^^'^^"' 
Tithes.     2.  There  vpas  an  Agreement  in  Writings  by  the  Confent  of  Ordi-     '• 
nary  and  Patron. 

But  ray  Lord  Coke  faith,  the  Modus  may  as  vpetlbe  for  a  Sum  of  Money  2  inft. 
as  for  Land.  49o. 

Suppofe  no  ancient  Compofition  in  Writing  can  be  produced,  how 
far  doth  a  Prefcription  hold  ? 

1.  It  muft  be  in/memorial,  or  time  out  of  mind.     Here  a  great  Point  Buift. 2; 
arifes  fit  to  be  confidered:  Suppofe  the  thing  it  felf  hath  been  within  ^5^* 
Memory,  as  Improvements  by  Hops,  Fruit-trees,  &c.  doth  not  a  Com- 
pofition bind  in  this  Cafe  ? 

I  anfwer,  that  we  are  to  diftinguifti  perfohal  Contra&s  from  real  Com- 
pofitions.     In  the  Cafe  of  Hitchcock  and  Hitchcock^  there  was  a  Contraft  March,87. 
between  the  Vicar  and  Pariftiioners,  but  it  was  denied  to  be  a  real 
Compofition,  although  confirmed  by  the  Ordinary,  and  aflSrmednotto 
be  binding  to  the  Succeflbrs. 

A  Compofition  by  a  meet  verbal  Agreement  in  the  Cafe  oi  Howies  \{oh.  ij6. 
and  Bayfield  was  declared  to  be  neither  binding  to  the  Party  nor  his 
SucceflburSi,    But  in  the  Cafe  of  T<?»»er  and  Small  it  was  declared  to  Yeiv.94> 
hold  for  Years,  but  not  for  Life.  "  ^^* 

My  Lord  Coke  feems  to  be  of  Opinion,  that  if  it  be  a  Prefcription,  ^  ^"^• 
it  muft  be  time  out  of  Memory  of  Man;  but  that  a  real  Compofition seie'ft  Ca- 
may be  either  before  or  within  Memory  of  Man  ,•  but  then  it  muft  be  by  fes,  40, 
Parfon,  Patron,  and  Ordinary.  ^^5°'^' 

It  is  well  obferved  by  Sir  Simon  Degge  in  l^is  ufeful  Book  about  thefe  Leon.  i. 
matters,  that  although  real  Compofitions  are  fuppofed  in  Law  iobe^^^^^^.^ 
the  Foundation  of  Prefcriptions  de  Modo  decimandi,  where  the  Patron,  coun.  * 
Ordinary  and  Parfon  did  confent  to  them ;  yet  that  the  moft  of  them  P»«-  »•  ^^ 
have  grown  up  by  the  Negligence  and  Carelefnefs  of  the  Clergy  them-^°' 
felves;  which,  I  am  afraid,  is  too  true. 

And  he  is  of  opinion,  that  no  real  Compofition  can  be  made  nowr 
to  bind  the  Succeflbur,  fince  the  Statute,  15  Eliz.  c.  10.  which  re- 
ftrains  all  binding  Grants  to  one  and  twenty  Years,  or  three  Lives; 
and  if  fo,  then  the  Confent  of  Patron  and  Ordinary  cannot  make  it 
good. 

2.  It  muft  be  reafonable,  and  therefore  it  hath  been  rejedted  in  thefe 
Cafes : 

Tttt  2  I.  If 


Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


1.  If  it  be  a  Prefcription  to  pay  a  certain  Tithe  without  the  Parfon's 
Ss  547'^*^^  °^"  ^^^  "^"^  P^*"^^'  becaufe,  faith  Hobart,  it  is  againft  the  Law  of 

'     'Partition,  in  the  Cafe  oiWilfon  and  the  Biihopof  Cadijle. 

2.  If  there  be  no  Recompence  to  the  Parfon,  as  in  the  Cafe  of  Scory 
c°EU7d  ^^^  Barber,  the  Prefcription  was  founded  on  the  Pariftiioners  finding 
March^dj!  Straw  for  the  Body  of  the  Church. 

5.  If  it  be  for  paying  what  was  due  in  lieu  of  other  Tithes  ^  as  in 
^E^'c"  ^^^^  ^^^^  °^  Iftgoldsby  and  'johnfon,  that  they  paid  their  other' Tithes  in 
Sekaca-  I'^u  of  Tithes  of  dry  Cattel  5  or  in  cafe  a  Load  of  Hay  be  prefcribed 
fes,  45.    for  in  lieu  of  Tithe- Hay,  or  ten  Sheafs  of  Corn  for  the  Tithe  of  all  the 

Bulfl.  2.        n. 
238,  ^^^^' 

4.  If  it  be  not  for  fomething  certain^and  durable.    For  thi*,  faith 
Hob.  40.  Jiobart^  (hews  original  Weaknefs  in  Compofition ;  beingof  a  thing  cer- 
tain and  durable  for  that  which  is  not  fo. 

IV.  The  laft  Exemption  or  Difcharge  that  is  pleaded,  as  to  the  pay- 
ment of  Tithes,  is  unity  of  Poffeffion:  This  is,  where  a  Monaftery 
had  the  Right  of  Tithes  by  Appropriation,  and  had  other  Lands  which 
did  not  pay  Tithes,  becaufe  the  owners,  were  to  receive  them,  thefe 
were  aftually  free  at  the  time  of  Diflblution  5  and  the  queftion  is,  whe- 
ther they  are  legally  fo  by  virtue  of  the  Statute  >    It  cannot  be  deni- 
ed, that  unity  of  PofTeflion  is  in  it  felf  no  legal  Difcharge 5  but  whe- 
ther by  the  Words  of  the  Statute  the  Judges  were  divided  in  Opini- 
on.    But  afterwards  in  the  Cafe  of  Green  and  Bofekin  the  Judges  al- 
Moor,  47.  lowed  it,  fo  it  were  not  a  meer  unity  of  Eftate,  but  of  Occupation. 
Hobart  faith,  that  after  it  had  been  long  controverted,  it  was  received 
c.  R.  2.    as  the  common  Opinion.     Coke,  that  where  unity  of  PoffeiEon  gives  a 
^l^'^jjp^l'^ifcharge,  the  Title  muft  be  clear,  the  Non-payment  general,  and  the 
198.  II R.  Prefcription  time  out  of  Memory  5  but  if  the  Appropriation  were  made 
M-         in  the  time  of  Ed.  4.  H,  6.  it  could  not  be  difcharged  by  unity  3  nor  if 
it  were  a  late  Abby-prefcription. 

Thus  I  have  endeavoured  to  lay  this  matter  before  you  as  briefly  and 
clearly  as  I  could,  from  the  beft  Light  I  could  get,  that  I  might  give 
you  fuch  Direftions,  that  you  may  neither  run  into  needlefs  and  vex- 
atious Suits,  nor  be  run  down  by  frivolous  Pretences.  It  is  your  great 
Advantage  that  you  have  the  Law  of  your  fide,  if  you  underftand  it  a- 
right^  but  have  a  care  of  being  fet  on  by  fuch,  whofe  Intereft  it  is  to 
promote  Suits ;  and  I  am  fure  it  is  yours  to  prevent  them,  if  it  bepojjjble, 
and  as  much  as  lies  in  you.  The  Churches  Right  is  not  to  fufFer  by 
your  Negligence  ^  and  you  are  not  to  make  the  Church  to  fufFer  by 
your  Contentions.  He  that  loves  going  to  Law,  feldom  fails  of  ha- 
ving enough  of  it  5  he  fuffers  in  his  Purfe,  in  his  Reputation,  in  his 
Intereft,  and  the  Church  fuffers  by  his  Means.  Endeavour  to  gain,  as 
much  as  may  be,  the  Love  of  your  People  by  a  kind,  modeft,  courte- 
,  ous  and  peaceable  Behaviour,  which  is  the  beft  way  to  prevent,  or  to 
compofe  DifiFerences.  If  you  are  forced  to  fue  for  your  Maintenance 
let  them  fee  that  you  are  forced  to  it,  and  that  you  are  always  willing 
to  put  an  end  to  all  fuch  Difputes,  if  the  Churches  Right  be  fecured, 
which  you  are  bound  to  preferve. 


OF 


of  the  Faroe bial  Clergy. 


Of  the  Obligation  to  obferve  the  Ec- 
clefiaftical  Canons  and  Conftitutions,  at 
a  Vifitation  O^okr  2^th.  i6^S, 

1H  fpeaking  clearly  and  diftindly  to  this  cafe,  there  are  thefe  two' 
things  to  be  confidered  5 
I.  By  what  Authority  they  do  oblige. 
II.  In  what  way  and  Manner  they  oblige. 

I.  The  firft  thing  to  be  confidered  is  the  Authority  by  which  Ecclefiafti- 
cal  Canons  and  Conftitutions  do  oblige.  For,  if  there  be  not  fufficient  Au- 
thority, there  cannot  be  that  Obligation  on  Confcience,  which  fuppofes  a 
legal  Exercife  of  Power,  or  a  juft  Right  to  command.  Our  obedience  to  the 
orders  of  our  Super iours,  is  due  by  virtue  of  that  divine  Law  which 
requires  us  to  be  fubjep  for  Confcience-fake :  But  our  obedience  is  to  be 
regulated  by  the  order  ofjujiice,  i.  e.  it  ought  to  be  according  to  Law. 
Therefore  it  is  neceffary,  in  the  firft  place,  to  enquire  whether  there 
be  among  us  any  fuch  things  as  Ecclefajlical  Larvs^  i.  e.  fuch  Rules, 
which  according  to  the  Conftitution  of  our  Governmentj  we  are  bound 
to  obferve. 

For  we  are  Members  of  a  Church  eftablilbed  by^Law5  and  there  are 
legal  Duties  incumbent  on  us,  with  refpeft,  not  only  to  the  Laws  of 
God,  but  of  the  Realm.  For,  although  our  Office  and  Authority,  as 
Church-men,  hath  a  higher  Original ;  yet  the  Limitation  of  the  Exer- 
cife  of  it,  is  within  fuch  Bounds  as  are  allowed  and  fixed  by  the  Law 
of  the  Land. 

It  is  therefore  a  matter  of  great  Confequence  to  us  to  underftand  how 
far  our  Ecclefiaftical  Conftitutions  are  grounded  upon  the  Law  of  the 
Land,  which  cannot  be  done  without  fearching  into  the  Foundati- 
ons of  our  Laws. 

Which  lie  in  three  things:  i.  Immemorial  Cuftom.  2.  General 
Praftice  and  Allowance.     9.  Authority  of  Parliamenf; 

And  I  (hall  endeavour  to  fliew  how  far  our  Ecclefiaftical  Conftituti- 
ons are  founded  on  thefe. 

I.  Immemorial  Cuflom.    Our  greateft  Lawyers  allow  ancient  Cuftom  iinft.ir* 
to  be  one  of  the  Foundations  of  our  Laws  5  and  my  Lord  Cohe  calls  it^-  "^''° 
one  of  the  main  Triangles  of  the  Lavps  of  England.     I  fuppofe  he  means  ^'^^' 
Foundation f.     And  another  faith,  That  the  common  Lan>  i?/ England  zV  Preface  to 
nothing  elfe  but  the  common  Cnjiom  of  the  Realm.     My  Lord  chief  Juftice  jo^l,  pj. 
Hales  faith.  That  the  common  Z)fage,  Cnjiom  and  Pra^ice  of  the  K/?7g-yh?rei. 
dom,  is  one  of  the  main  Conjiituents  of  our  Law.     Coke  quotes  Bra^onS^^^^^K 
Authority  to  prove,  That  Cuflom  obtains  among  us  the  force  of  a  Lavp,  Anaiyfis 
where  it  is  received  and  approved  by  long  ufe.     And  of  every  Oijlom,  he°f^h^ 
faith,  there  be  trvoeffential  Parts,  time  and  ufage -^  time  out  of  mind,  and^ii^^, 
continual  and  peaceable  ufage  without  Interruption.     But  in  cafe  of  Pre-  no.  b. 
fcription  or  Cuftom,  he  faith.  That  an  Interruption  often  or  twenty  years  ^  inft. 
hinders  not  the  Title,  but  an  Interruption  in  the  R'ght^  the  Other  is  only  114- 1>. 
an  aftual  Sufpenfion  for  a  time. 

It  may  be  asked,  how  time  and  ufage  come  to  make  Laws,  fince  time  Grot,  de 
hath  no  operation  in  Law,  faith  Grotius  .<?  j  ^'^^^'' 

Scft.  I. 
Not 


^^  g  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 

Not  ofitfelf^  2i%Grotitfs  there  faith,  but  with  the  Concurrence  of  o- 
ther  Circumftances  it  may. 
Braft./.  I.      Bra&on  faith,  lo>!ga  poffejjlo  pant  jus  pojjldeitdi -^  and  by  a  long  and 
L.2'.c.22.P^3C^3^1^  Poffeffion  Dominion  is  transferred,  without  either  Title  or 
n.  I.  L.  4.  Delivery  ^  which  he  founds  on  this  good  Reafon,  that  all  Claims  of 
c.  ij-»-5.Right  ought  to  have  a  certain  limitation  of  time,  and  length  of  time 
Litcl.Ten.  takes  away  any  Proof  to  the  contrary.    Littleton  faith,  that  time  out 
Sea.  170-0/  Memory  ofMan^  is /aid  to  give  Right,  hecaufe  no  Proof  can  he  brought 
heyond  it.     And  this    he  calls    Prefcription    at  common   Lave,  as  it  is 
diftinguifhed  from    Prefcription    by  the  feveral   Statutes  of  Limita- 
tions. 

But  whence  is  it  then,  that  an  immemorial  Poffeffion  gives  Right? 
Is  it  from  the  meer  Silence  of  the  Parties  concerned  to  claim  it  ?  No, 
Silence  gives  no  Confent,  where  Ignorance  or  Fear  may  be  the  Caufe  of 
it.  And  is  it  a  Punifhment  upon  the  Negleft  of  the  Party  concerned  ? 
So  Bra&on  faith,  time  doth  it,  per  patientlam  &•  negligentiam  veri  Da- 
mini.  But  meer  Negledf  doth  not  overthrow  Right,  unlefs  there  be  an 
antecedent  Law  to  make  that  Negleft  a  Forfeiture.' 

Is  it  from  a  prefumptive  DereliS,on?  But  that  fuppofes  not  bare  con- 
tinuance of  time,  but  fome  kind  of  voluntary  Aft,  which  implies  a  fort 
of  Confent  which  doth  not  appear  in  this  Cafe.  And  it  is  a  great  Miftake 
in  thofe,  who  think  there  is  no  prefumtive  Dereliilion,  where  there  is 
not  a  full  Confent;  for  it  may  be,  where  there  is  the  Confent  oi amixt 
Will,  i.  e.  partly  voluntary^  and  partly  involuntary  ^  when  the  Circum- 
ftances are  fuch,  as  the  Perfon  rather  chufes  to  leave  his  Right,  than 
fubmit  to  the  lawful  Conditions  of  enjoying  it:  As  if  a  Man  would 
rather  quit  his  Fee  than  perform  the  Service  which  belongs  to  it. 

Is  it  from  the  common  Intereft  of  Mankind,  that  fome  Bounds  be  fixed 
to  all  Claims  of  Right?  Becaufe  otherwife  that  Man  will  be  liable  to 
perpetual  difturbance,  if  the  Right  be  permitted  to  be  claimed  beyond 
any  pofCbility  of  Proof 

Or  is  it,  laftly,  that  in  fuch  Nations  where  immemorial  Cuftora  ob- 
tains the  force  of  a  Law,  it  feems  agreeable  to  the  Foundations  of  Law, 
that  a  long  continued  Poffeffion  (hould  carry  Right  along  with  it  > 
And  this  was  the  cafe  here  in  England,  as  not  only  appears  by  what 
Gianv.      Bra&on  hath  faid,  but  Glanvil  makes  a  great  part  of  our  Law  to  confift 
Proi.       ofreafonableCufloms  of  long  Continuance.  And  St.  G^rw^r/z  affirms  anci- 
St?c!7.     cnt  general  Cuftoms  to  be  one  of  the  principal  Foundations  of  our  Law  5 
and  that  they  have  the  force  of  Laws,  and  that  the  King  is  bound  by 
his  Oath  to  perform  them.     And  it  is  worth  our  while  to  obferve  what 
general  Cuftoms  he  doth  inftance  in  5  as  the  Courts  of  Equity  and  Law, 
the  hundred  Court,  the  Sheriffs  Turn,  the  Court-Baron,  &c.  which 
depend  not  upon  Afts  of  Parliament,  but  the  ancient  Cuftom  of  Eng- 
land, which  he  calls  the  common  Law.     And  among  thefe  ancient  Cu- 
ftoms, he  reckons  up  Rights  of  defcent,  Efcheats,  the  different  forts 
of  Tenures,  Freeholds,  and  the  Laws  of  Property,  as  they  are  recei- 
ved among  us. 

We  are  now  to  enquire,  how  far  any  of  our  Ecclefiaftical  Conftituti- 
ons  can  be  faid  to  be  built  upon  this  Foundation ;  and  upon  immemo- 
rial Cuftom  generally  received. 

I.  I  place  (i.)  the  Diftribution  of  this  national  Church  into  two 
Provinces,  in  each  whereof  there  is  an  Archbifhop  with  Metropolitical 
Power,  which  lies  chiefly  in  thefe  things,  (i.)  the  right  of  Confecra- 

tioa 


of  the  Yarocbid  Clergj,  6  j?  9 


tion  of  his  Suffragans.  (2.)  The  Right  of  Vifitation  of  every  Diocefs 
in  fuch  way  and  manner  as  Cuftom  hath  fettled  it.  (5.)  The  right 
of  receiving  Appeals  from  inferiour  Courts  of  Judicature  in  Ecclefiafti- 
cal  Matters.  (4.)  The  right  of  prefiding  in  provincial  Councils  of  the 
Suffragans  of  his  Province ;  which  by  the  moft  ancient  Conftitutions  of 
this  Church,  were  to  be  held  once  a  Year 5  fo  it  was  decreed  in  the 
Council  under  Theodore,  J.D.6j^.  butby  the  Difficulties  of  the  times, 


Con. 


they  were  difcontinued  5  and  fo  the  Authority  of  examining  things  ^p"^'- ^ 
through  the  Province,  came  by  a  kind  of  Devolution  to  the  Archbi-  '  '^"  *^'° 
(hop  and  his  Courts.    (5.)  The  Cuftody  of  vacant  Sees,  by  the  Cuftom 
of  England,  falls  to  the  Metropolitan,  if  there  hath  been  no  Cuftom 
or  Compofition  to  the  contrary.    And  fo  it  hath  been  upon  folemn  De- 
bates refolved  in  our  Courts  of  common  Law.    C<7/^e  thinks  that  of  Rolls  z. 
common  Right  it  belongs  to  the  Dean  and  Chapter,  but  by  Cuftom  ?^*-^""^- 
to  the  Archbifhop.     But   'Pamrmitan  faith.  There  was  no  Pretence  i?/Browni.  i, 
coptmon  Right  for  them,  till  the  time  of  Boniface  VIII.  43-  Kebi. 

2.  The  ordinary  Jurifdiftion  of  every  Riftiop  over  the  Clergy  of  his|.g^,o'r  ;„ 
own  Diocefs,    This  is  as  ancient  as  Chriftianity  among  us.    For  noc.  Cumo- 
fooner  were  Churches  planted,  but  there  were  Biftiops  fet  over  themj''"™* 
who  had  from  the  beginning  fo  much  Authority,  that  none  of  the 
Clergy  could  either  receive'or  quit  his  Benefice  without  their  Confent 
and  Approbation  5  and  they  were  all  bound  to  give  an  account  of  their 
behaviour  at  their  Vifitations  5  and  in  cafe  of  Contempt,  or  other  Mif- 
demeanours,  they  were  to  proceed  againft  them  according  to  the  Ca- 
nons of  the  Church.     I  do  not  fay  the  Diocefles  were  at  firft  all  model- 
led alike,  or  with  the  fame  bounds  which  they  now  have  5  which  was 
unreafonable  to  fuppofe,  confidering  the  gradual  Converfion  of  the  Na- 
tion.   For  at  firft  there  was  but  one  Bifhop  in  every  one  of  the  Saxon 
Kingdoms,  except  Kent,  where  was  but  one  Suffragan  to  the  Metropo- 
litan for  fome  time,  till  the  Kingdoms  came  to  be  united  5  or  the  Kings 
confented  to  an  Increafe  of  feveral  Diocefles,  and  uniting  them  under 
one  Metropolitan,  which  was  a  work  of  time.     But  in  all  the  Saxon 
Councils  we  find  no  mention  of  any  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdiftion,  but  what 
was  in  the  Biftiops  themfelves,  Concil.  CloveJJjoe  Can.  i,  4,  5.  Concil.  Ce- 
alchyth.  Can.  I.  Egbert  Canon,  c.  45,  62.    The  firft  who  began  to  feek 
for  Exemptions,  were  the  Abbots,  who  were  under  the  Biftiops  Jurif- 
diftion,  who  was  too  near  them  5  and  therefore  they  endeavoured  to 
get  under  the  Pope's  immediate  Jurifdiftion  by  Charters  of  Exemption, 
wh  ich  the  great  Abbies  either  procured  or  made  5  and  the  more  ancient  „      « 
the  more  fi^picioiis.  But  the  Lord  Chancellor  and  three  chief  Judges  de-  783. ' 
Glared,  that  by  the  common  Law  of  England,  every  Biftiop  in  his  Dio- 
cefs, and  the  Archbiftiops  in  Convocation  may  make  Canons  to  bind 
within  the  Limits  of  their  Jurifdidion. 

5.  The  fubordinate  Jarifdiftion  which  was  lodged  in  the  Bodies  of 
the  Clergy  refident  in  Cathedral  Churches,  and  of  Archdeacons  in  the 
feveral  Dioceffes :  I  cannot  find  either  of  thefe  to  have  had  any  Jurif- 
diftion  here  before  the  Conqueft,  neither  were  there  any  Courts  of  Ju- 
ftice  out  of  the  feveral  Counties  before;  for  all  Caufes  were  tranfa^ed' 
in  the  County  Courts  and  Sheriffs  Turns,  and  Appeals  lay  from  them  to 
the  Supreme  Judicature  of  the  King  and  the  Lords.  But  this  doth  not 
hinder  but  thefe  Courts  may  be  founded  on  the  Law  of  England.  And 
fo  the  original  Jurifdiftion,  which  of  Right  belonged  to  the  Biftiop, 
might  by  decrees,  and  a  gradual  Confent,  come  to  be  committed,  as  to 

fome 


\       f  >  I         .  1 1  ^ 

7GO  Of  the  Duties  and  Kights 


fome  parts,  to  the  Bodies  of  Cathedral  Churches,  and  to  the  Archdea- 
i^in(l.p4.  cons,  who  are,  faith  my  Lord  Coke,  fixty  \n  England.     We  are  told  in 
II.  189.'    a  late  Cafe  of  Woodvpard  and  Fox,  That  there  are  Archdeaconries  in  Eng- 
a^9'         land  by  Frefcription,  which  have  no  dependency  on  the  BiJI^op,  hut  are  to- 
Godoi.61,^^^^^  ea:m;>/.     And  for  this  Qodohhin  is  cited,  who  refers  to  the  Glofs 
on  the  Legatine  Conjiitutions,  f.27.  where  we  read  of  fome  Archdeacons 
having  a  cujiomary  and  limited  Jurifdi^lion  feparate  from  the  Bijloop,  for 
which  a  Prefiription  lies.     But  this  is  only  for  iomefpecial  JurifdiSion^ 
as  the  Archdeacon  of  Richmond  for  Injiitutions,  which  came  firft  by 
Grant  from  the  Bifhops;  but  that  not  being  to  be  produced,  they  in- 
fiftupon  Cuftom  and  Prefcription,  as  the  Deans  and  Chapters  do,  where 
the  ancient  Compofitions  are  loft,  but  none  who  underftand  the  ancient 
Conftitutions  of  this  Church,  can  fuppofe  either  of  them  to  have  been 
original,  fince  the  Right  to  the  Jurifdiftion  of  the  Diocefs  was  in  the  Bi- 
fhop,  before  there  were  here  either  Archdeacons  or  Chapters  with  Jurifdi- 
RoiisR.2  ^^on.    In  the  cafe  of  Chiverton  andTrudgeon,  it  was  declared,  that  an 
150.   *  *  Archdeacon  might  have  a  peculiar  Jurifdiftion,  as  to  Adminiftration, 
€^f.  as  the  Dean  of  S.  Paul's  had  at  S.Pancras  5  and  fo  the  Archdeacon  of 
Cornwall,  as  to  Wills.     In  the  cafe  of  Gajiril  and  Jones  the  chief  Ju- 
ftice  declared,  that  the  Archdeacon  is  the  Bilhop's  Officer,  and  his  Au- 
thority fubordinate  to  the  Bifhops,  and  granted  by  them^  but  if  fpecial 
Cuftom  be  pleaded,  that  muft  be  well  proved 5  to  which  Dodderige  a- 
greed. 

But  we  muft  diftinguifti  between  Archdeaconries  by  Prefcription,  for 
which  I  can  find  no  Foundation  (being  all  derived  by  Grant  from  the 
Biftiop  )  and  Archdeacons  having  fome  kind  of  JurifdiHion  by  Prefcrip- 
tion, which  others  have  not  ^  which  cannot  be  denied.    All  the  Power 
which  the  Archdeacons  have  by  virtue  of  their  Office,  is  per  modum 
De  offic.  fcrutationis  pmplicis,    as  Lynwood  fpeaks,  tanquam  Vicarius  Epifcopi  .* 
Archdiac.  Whatever  Power  they  have  beyond  this,  is  not  Jure  communi,  but  Jure 
Gioff.  in  fpeciali,  and  depends  either  upon  Grant  or  Cuftom ;  which  the  Glofs 
Conft.      on  the  Legatine  Conjiitutions  calls  a  limited  Jirifdiction. 
oth.p.27.      ^J<j^g  Archdeacons  Court  is 'declared  by  the  Judges  in  Woodward's 
Veneris     Cafe  to  have  been,  time  out  of  Mind,  fettled  as  a  dijiinct  Court,  from 

ir.  269!    xchich  there  lies  an  Appeal  to  the  B'ljhofs  Court^  by  the  Statute,  24  H.  8. 

4  Inft. 

320.  •        • 

And  fo  the  Archdeacons  Jurifdiftion  is  founded  on  an  immemorial 
Cuftom,  in  fubordination  to  the  Biftiops. 

As  to  the  Deans  and  Chapters,  I  obferve  thefe  things: 

1.  That  although  Ecclefiaftical  Bodies  in  Cathedrals  were  very  anci- 
ent, yet  we.read  not  of  any  Jurifdiftion  peculiar  to  themfel  ves,  during  the 

a  J^  _j  Saxon  times.  My  Lord  Coke  faith,  there  were  Chapters,  as  the  Bi/hops  Coun- 
cil, before  they  had  dijiinct  poffejfions.  And  by  their  Books,  he  faith,  it  op-' 
pears,  that  the  Btjhops  parted  with  fome  of  their  Poffejfions  to  them,  and  fo 
they  became  Patrons  of  the  Prebends  of  the  Church  :  Such  were  London, 
Tork  and  Litchfield. 

2.  That  feveral  of  our  Chapters  were  founded  and  endowed  by  the 
Biftiops  fince  the  Conqueft :  Such  was  that  of  Salisbury  and  Ofmund  out 
of  his  own  Eftate,  as  appears  by  his  Chapter,  and  the  Confirmation  of 
H.  2,  So  was  that  oi Lincoln  by  Remigius,  who  removed  the  See  from 
Donhejier  thither,  and  placed  there  a  Dean,  Treafurer,  Prsecentor, 
and  feven  Archdeacons,  as  Henry  of  Huntingdon  faith,  who  lived  near 
the  time.  And  in  following  times  thofe  of  Exeter  and  Wells  were  fet- 
tled 


of  t/Js  faro  chid  Clergj.  701 


tied  as  Dean  and  Chapter-^  for  they  were  Ecclefiaftical  Bodies  before, 
but  not  under  that  Denomination. 

3.  That  fome  had  the  legal  Rights  of  Dean  and  Chapters,  as  to  E- 
leftion  of  BiOiops,  and  Confirmation  of  Leafes,  &c.  but  were  a  Mo- 
naftick  Body  confifting  of  Prior  and  Convent:  Such  were  Canterbury^ 
Wimhejicr,  fVorceJier,  after  the  Expulfion  of  the  fecular  Canons 5  for 
the  Monks  not  only  enjoyed  their  Lands,  but  were  willing  enough 
to  continue  the  Name  of  Dean  among  them :  As  at  Canterbury,  after 
Dunftan's  time,  Agelmothas  is  called  Dean  ;  in  Worcejler  Wolfton  is  cal- Mom  r. 
led  Dean  vih&nhQwzs  Prior -^  andWinfiis,  upon  the  firft  change,  is'"^'^* 
faid    to  be  placed  loro  Decani,  by  Florence  of  Worcejler.     At  Norrvich,^\oxtTiu 
Herbert  the  Bifhop  founded  the  Prior  and  Convent  out  of  his  own  Pof-^"  ^'^^* 
feflions  in  the  time  of  William  II.  and  they  became  the  Chapter  oi  the 
Bifhop  by  their  Foundation.     Now  as  to  thefe,  it  is  refolved  in  the 
Dean  and  Chapter  oi  Norwich's  Cafe,  that  when  the  King  transferred  Ander- 
them  from  a  Prior  and  Convent,  the  legal  Rights  remained  the  fame.  ^°"'  "" 
And  in  Hayward  and  Fitlcher's  Cafe,  the  Judges  declared,  that  <?»  Ec- 1  inh.ioi. 
clej/ajiical  Body  may  furrender  their  Lands,  hut  the^i  cannot  di/folve  their^;  ^^'^^' 
Corporation,  but  they  fit  1 1  remain  a  Chapter  to  the  Bipop.     And  it  was  not  5c  i. 
only  then  delivered,  but  finceinfifted  upon  in  a  famous  cafe,  that  it  was  h'^^^^'^^' 
the  Refolntion  of  the  Judges,  that  a  furrender  cannot  be  made  by  a  Dean  and  Quo  War- 
Chapter,  without  confent  of  the  Bi^iop,  becanfe  he  hath  an  interejt  in  them,     ""'^'^"-''i' 

4.  That  H.  8.  endowed  fome  as  Chapters  to  new  erefted  Bifhopricks, 
as  Chefler,  Brijiol,  Oxford,  &c.  51  H.  8,  9.  54  //.  8.  17.  and  united  o- 
thers,  as  Bath  and  Wells,  and  Coventry  and  Litchfield,  33  //.  8.  30.  54 
H  8.  1 5. 

5.  That  where  the  Cuftom  hath  fo  obtained,  there  may  be  a  legal 
Chapter  without  a  Dean:^  as  in  the  Diocefles  of  S.David's  and  Landaff, 
where  there  is  no  other  Head  of  the  Chapter  but  the  Bifhop  5  but  they 
muft  ad  as  a  diftinft  Body  in  Elections  and  Confirmations  of  Grants  by 
the  Bifhops. 

6.  That  by  the  ancient  Cuflom  of  England,  there  are  fole  Ecclefia- 
ftical  Corporations  as  well  as  aggregate.  A  fole  Ecclefiaftical  Corpo- 
ration, is,  where  a  fingle  Perfon  reprefents  a  whole  Succeflion,  and 
under  that  Capacity  is  impowered  to  receive  and  to  convey  an  Eftate 
to  his  SuccefTors :  As  Bifhops,  Deans,  Archdeacons,  Parfons,  &c.  But 
Parfons  and  Vicars  are  feized  only  in  Right  of  the  Church,  but  as  to 
a  Bifhop,  he  may  have  a  Writ  of  Right,  becanfe  the  Fee-fimple  abideth  in 
him  and  hk  Chapter  ;  and  fo  may  a  Dean  and  Mafier  of  an  Hofpital  :  And  i  infl. 
thefe  are  called  Bodies  FoUtick  by  L'tthton.  '.  341- b. 

That  the  Exercife  of  the  Bifhop's  Power  may  be  reflrained  by  anci-|ert.  ^45, 
ent  Com  pofii  ions,  as  is  feen  in  the  two  ancient  Ecclefiaflical  Bodies  of  Sett.  4.13. 
S.  Pauls  and  Litchfield.    Concerning  which,  it  is  to  be  obferved,  that 
where  the  Compofitions  are  extant,  both  Parties  are  equally  bound  to 
obferve  their  parts.    Thus  by  the  Remifnefs  and  Abfence  of  the  Bi- 
fhops of  Litchfield  from  their  See,  by  going  to  Chefler^  and  then  to 
Coventry,  the  Deans  had  great  Power  lodged  in  them,  as  to  Ecclefia- 
ftical Jurifdiction  there.     Alter  long  Contefls,  the  matter  came  to  a 
Compofition,  A.  D.  1428.  by  which  the  Bifhops  were  to  vifit  them  but 
once  in  feven  Years,  and  the  Chapter  Jiad  Jurifdidion  over  their  own 
Peculiars.     So  in  the  Church  of  Sarum  the  Dean  hath  very  large  Jurif- 
didion,  even  out  of  the  Bifhop's  Diocefs:;  v/hich  makes  it  probable  to 
have  been  very  ancient  5  but  upon  conteft  it  was  fettled,  by  Compofi- 

U  u  u  u  tion 


702  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


tion  between  the  Bifhop,  Dean,  and  Chapter,  AD.  1391.  But  where 
there  are  no  Compofitions,  it  depends  upon  Cuftom,  which  limits  the 
Exercife,  altho'  it  cannot  deprive  the  Biftiop  of  bis  Diocefan  Right. 

4.  The  delegate  Jurifdiiftion  which  was  committed  to  the  feveral  Of- 
ficers of  the  Bifhops  Courts,  and  the  manner  of  their  Proceedings,  is 
founded  upon  immemorial  Cuftom.  In  the  Saxon  times  I  find  no  De- 
legation of  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdiftion  ^  for  the  Bifhops  fate  in  Perfon  in 
in  the  County-Courts,  and  there  heard  Ecclefiaftical  Caufes,  as  appears 
by  the  Charter  of  H.  i.  when  he  pretended  to  reftore  the  Saxon  Laws, 
c.  7.  But  William  I.  had  fettled  the  Confifiory  Court  by  as  good  a  Law  as 
any  that  was  made  at  that  time,  diftinft  from  the  County-Court,  and 
required  all  Ecclefiaftical  Caufes  to  be  there  heard;  and  his  Son  H.  i. 
did  but  make  a  ftiew  of  reftoring  the  Saxon  Laws,  and  the  former  Law 
came  to  be  generally  receceived,  and  fo  Mr.  Selden  yields,  that  it  grew 
to  he  a  general  Law  5  which  ftiews  that  it  obtained  the  force  of  a  Law 

Selden  of  by  Confent,  as  well  as  by  Authority.    The  Confftory  Courts  being  thus 
Tithes,    fettled,  and  Numbers  of  Caufes  there  depending,  and  the  Biftiops  be- 
^'  '^^^*     ing  then  by  H.  2.  in  the  Conftitutions  of  Clarendon  ftriftly  tied  to  At- 
tendance upon  the  Supreme  iCourts  of  Judicature,  with  other  Barons, 
there  came  a  Neceflity  of  taking  in  other  Perfons  with  a  delegated  Pow- 
er to  hear  Caufes,  and  to  do  fuch  other  A6i:s  of  Jurifdiftion  as  the  Bi- 
ftiops ftiould  appoint.    For  it  was  allowed  that  Jure  communi,  the  Ju- 
rifdiftion  was  in  the  Bithop;  but  Jure  fpeciall,  <d^  in  auxilium  Epifcopi, 
nave /"(5    "  niiglit  be  delegated  to  others.     And  fo  it  hath  been  here  received, 
nave,;.  9,  ^^^  ^^^  ^^^^  hctt,  but  it  hath  been  the  general  Praftice  of  Chriften- 
dom.    As  to  the  manner  of  proceeding  in  the  Ecclefiaftical  Courts,  it 
is  the  fame  in  all  Parts,  and  built  on  the  fame  Grounds  with  thofe  of 
our  Courts  of  Equity  and  Admiralty,  which  are  as  different  from  thofe 
of  the  Common  Law. 

5.  The  fettling  parochial  Rights,  or  the  Bounds  of  Parilhes  depends 
upon  an  ancient  and  immemorial  Cuftom.  For  they  were  not  limited 
by  any  Aft  of  Parliament,  norfet  forth  by  fpecial  Coramilfioners;  but 
as  the  Circumftances  of  Times  and  Places,  and  Perfons  did  happen  to 
make  them  greater  or  lefler. 

In  fome  places  Parifhes  feem  to  interfere,  when  fome  place  in  the 
middle  of  another  Parilh  belongs  to  one  that  is  diftant ;  but  that  hath 
•  generally  happened  by  an  unity  of  Poffeffion,  when  the  Lord  of  a  Ma- 
nour  was  at  the  charge  to  ereft  a  new  Church,  and  make  a  diftinft  Pa- 
rifli  of  his  own  Demefns,  fome  of  which  lay  in  the  compafs  of  ano- 
ther Parifti.  But  now  care  is  taken  by  annual  Perambulations  to  pre- 
ferve  thofe  Bounds  of  Parifties,  which  have  been  long  fettled  by  Cu- 
ftom. But  the  Bounds  of  Parilhes  is  nqt  allowed  to  belong  to  the  Ec- 
clefiaftical Jurifdiftion. 

II.  The  next  Foundation  of  Law,  is  a  general  Practice,  and  JHow- 
ance,  i.  e.  when  things  of  themfelves  do  not  oblige  by  the  Authority 
"of  thofe  that  made  them  5  yet  being  generally  received  and  allowed, 
they  thereby  become  Law  to  us.  This  we  have  in  an  Ad  of  Parlia- 
ment, 25  H.  8.  c.  71.  wherein  it  is  faid,  that  the  People  of  Eng- 
land are  only  bound  to  fuch  Laws  as  are  properly  their  own,  be- 
ing in  Subjedion  to  no  Foreign  Legiflative  Power.  Bur  were  not 
many  things  here  received  for  Laws,  which  were  enabled  by  foreign 
Authority,  as  the  Papal  and  Legantlne  Conflltutions  ?  True,  fay  they, 
but  it  is  not  by  virtue  of  their  Authority,  but  by  the/z-ee  Consent  of  the 

People 


of  tk  Parochial  Clergj-  763 


People  in  the  TJfe  and  Allowance  of  them  :  Andfo  they  an  not  ohferved  as 
the  Laws  of  any  foreign  Prince,  Potentate,  or  Prelate,  hut  as  the  cujiomed 
and  ancient  Laws  of  this  Pie  aim,  originally  eflabU(hed  as  Laws  of  the  fame, 
by  the  [aid  fufferance,  Confent  and  Cufiom,  and  no  otherwife. 

So  that  here  we  have  a  full  and  exprefs  Declaration  by  Parliamehf, 
that  fuch  Canons  as  have  been  received  and  allowed  by  ancient  Cuftom, 
make  a  part  of  our  Laws,  and  continue  to  oblige,  provided  that  they 
be  not  repugnant  to  the  King's  Prerogative,  nor  to  the  Laws,  Statutes, 
and  Cuftoms  of  the  Realm,  as  it  is  exprelTed  in  another  Aft  of  the 
fame  Parliament,  25  H  8.  c  19. 

The  Ecdefiafiical  Laws,  faith  my  Lord  Cohe,  are  fuch  as  are  not  again  ft  i  inft. 
the  Laws  of  the  Realm,  viz.  the  common  Law,  and  the  Statutes  dnd  Cu-  344- 
jioms  of  the  Realm :  And  according  to  fuch  Laws  the  ordinary  and  other 
Ecclefiajiical  Judges  do  proceed  in  caufes  xpithin  their  Conufance. 

So  that  by  the  Acknowledment  of  this  great  Oracle  of  the  common 
Law,  there  are  Latps  Eccle/iajiicat  in  forCe  among  us,  and  Caufes  to  be 
judged  by  thofe  Laws,  and  Officers  appointed  by  the  Law  to  proceed 
according  to  them. 

The  Ecclefiajiical  Laws  and  Ordinances  are  owned  by  the  Statute,  27 
H.  8.  c.  20.  52  H.  8.  c.  7.  55  H.  8.  c.  19.  after  the  Commiflion  appoint- 
ed for  the  Review  of  them,  i  E.  6.  c.  2.  The  Ecclefiaftical  Courts 
are  appointed  to  be  kept  by  the  King's  Authority,  and  procefs  to  be 
iflued  out  in  his  Nam^  in  all  Suits  and  CaufeS  of  inftance  between  Par- 
ty and  Party,  where  the  Caufes  are  particularly  mentioned,  which  be- 
long to  thofe  Courts,  and  no  Alteration  is  made  in  them,  as  to  their 
Powers,  but  only  that  the  procefs  fhould  be  in  the  King's  Name. 

But  fome  Perfons  in  our  Age,  Who  love  to  be  always  ftarting Difficul- 
ties to  humour  fuch  as  bear  Ill-will  to  out  Conftitution,  have  (uggefted, 
that  although  this  Aft  was  repealed,  i  Q.M.  2.  yet  that  Repeal  was  ta- 
ken off,  I  Jac.  2  5.  n,  48.  therefore,  fay  they,  this  Stat.  1 E.  6.  is  revived; 

But  the  plain  and  Ihort  Anfwer  is  this,  that  there  was  no  need  of 
any  Debate  about  the  Repeal  of  the  Statute  of  £.  6,  after  the  firft  of  Q. 
Eli%.  becaufe  then  the  Statute,  25  H.  8.  c.  20.  was  exprefly  revived, 
wherein  the  Bifhops  were  impowered  to  act  as  befoH  they  might  have 
done,  according  to  the  Laws  and  Cujloms  of  the  Realm.  By  which  no 
lefs  Men  of  the  Law  than  Cohe,  Popham,  and  other  Judges  did  think /y^e  c,  12,  & 
Stile  of  the  Court,  and  manner  of  their  Proceedings  roas  comprehended. 
And  the  ancient  Epifcopal  Jurifdiction  is  declared  to  he  according  to 
Law,  by  the  Stat.  l  El.  c  l.  and  all  foreign  Jurifdiction  is  aholifhed^ 
and  the  Ecclejiaflical  Jurifdi^ion  annexed  to  the  Crown  of  this  Realm  5 
which  is  owned  by  every  Biftiop  when  he  takes  the  Oath  of  Su- 
premacy. How  then  can  it  be  imagined,  that  he  (hould  do  any  more 
to  the  Prejudice  of  the  Crown,  by  the  procefs  being  in  the  Bi- 
fliop  s  Name,  than  the  Lord  of  a  Manour  doth,  wheri  he  keeps  his 
Courts  in  his  own  Name?  To  fuppofe  that  it  is  owning  a  foreign  Ju- 
rifdiction, is  ridiculous ;  for  the  Bifhops  of  England  never  pretended  . 
to  aft  as  Ordinaries,  by  virtue  of  a  Jurifdiftion  from  the  Pope,  but  by 
virtue  of  their  Original  Authority  which  they  had  by  the  Laws  of  the 
Realm,  as  to  their  exterior  Jurifdiftions.  And  the  Authority  they  then 
afted  by  from  the  Pope,  was  in  Cafes  extraordinary,  when  they  were  de- 
legated by  particular  Commiflion.  And  if  there  had  been  a  real  Dero- 
gation from  the  King's  Prerogative,  in  the  procefs  being  in  the  Bilhop's 
Name,  can  any  Mm  of  Senfe  imagine,  that  it  would  have  been  per- 
il u  u  u  2  mi(-' 


704  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 

tnitted  in  fuch  jealoos  times  as  to  Supremacy,  as  the  latter  end  of  H.  8. 
and  the  whole  Reign  of  Q.  Elizabeth  wtxt,  wherein  the  Bilhops  want- 
ed not  Enemies,  but  their  Malice  would  have  been  too  apparent,  if 
they  had  infiftedon  fuch  Objedlions?  But  to  proceed  in  fhewingthat 
the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  have  been  owned  by  Ads  of  Parliament  fince  the 
Reformation,  2  E.  6.  c.  \7,.  n.  13.     The  Ealefiajiical  Judges  are  required 
to  proceed  according  to  the  Kings  Ecclejiajtical  Laws. 
And  to  the  fame  purpofe,  i  £.  c.  2.  «.  23. 
iinft!""     Accordingly  my  Lord  Co^e  frequently  owns  the  Ecclejtafiical  Laws 
321.         dftdjurifdiction,  Co  they  be  bounded  by  the  Larvs  of  the  Realm -,  of  which 
^'^°^l"'(i   there  can  be  no  queftion.     For  deciding  of  Controverfies,  and  for  dijiri' 
^      *  hfition  of  Jufiice,  faith  he,  there  be  within  this  Realm  two  dijiinct  Jurif- 
t  lnn.^6.  dictions  Sf  the  one  Ecclefafikal,  limited  to  certain  fpiritnal  and  particular 
Cafes  5  the  other  fecular  and  general^  for  that  it  is  guided  by  the  common 
and  general  Law  of  the  Realm. 

And  to  the  fame  purpofe  my  Lord  chief  Juftice  Bales  in  feveral  pla- 
ces in  a  MS.  difcourfes  of  the  Biftory  and  Analyjis  of  the  common  Lave^ 
ch.  I.  and  2.  But  here  the  great  Difficulty  lies  in  finding  out  what  thefe 
Canons  and  Conjiitutions  are  which  have  been  fo  received  and  allowed 
by  our  Laws. 

For  it  is  certain,  that  feveral  Canons  made  by  Popes,  were  not  re- 

Stat.  de    ceived  here,  as  in  the  Statute  of  Merton,  about  Legitimation  of  Chil- 

Merton.    j^^jj  ^^^  before  Marriage,  Stat.  Mer.-c.  9.  where  the  Lords  declared 

they  vponld  not  alter  the  old  Lanes  for  a  neve  Cation.    For  Alexander  III. 

in  the  time  of  Hen.  IL  had  made  a  Canon  to  that  purpofe  5  but  as 

T.'clTi.' ''  ^''^»^'^  faith,  it  was  contra  )m  &  confuetudinem  Regni. 

Stat,  de         The  Canon  to  take  away  the  benefit  of  the  Clergy  from  Bigami^  was 

Bigamis,   debated  in  Parliament  how  far  it  ftiould  be  received,  and  the  fenfe 

*^*  *•       there  declared,  which  was  complained  of,  51  £.  3.  and  taken  away, 

t  E.  6.  c.  1 2. 

The  Canon  againft  Inveftiture  of  Bifhops  by  a  Lay-hand,  was  never 
here  received  5  for  although  H.  1.  after  a  long  Conteft  gave  it  up,  yet 
it  was  refumed  by  his  Succeffors. 

The  Canons  for  Exemption  of  the  Clergy,  were  never  fully  received 
Popham.  Jiere.  Some  Lawyers  fay,  it  was  never  cbferved^  I  fuppofe  they  mean 
'^^'  according  to  the  Canons,  but  that  they  had  legal  Privileges  here,  al- 
speim.  though  not  a  total  Exemption,  cannot  be  denied  by  any  one  verfed  in 
542!^' '     oi^r  Laws  from  the  Saxon  times. 

The  Pope's  Canon  for  the  Clergy,  not  being  taxed  without  his  con- 
fent,  was  never  received,  as  appears  by  the  Contefts  about  it  in  the 
time  of  £.  I .  and  their  Submiffion  afterwards. 

^  The  Pope's  Canons  about  Appeals,  Provifoes,  Difpenfations,  &c. 
were  never  received  by  fuch  a  general  Confent  as  to  make  them  Laws ; 
they  were  fometimes  pradifed  by  Connivance,  and  the  Kings,  when 
it  ferved  their  purpofes,  let  them  alone  5  but  as  often  as  there  was  oc- 
cafion,  they  were  contefted  and  denied,  and  Statutes  made  againft  the 
Execution  of  them. 

Some  Canons  I  find  difputed,  whether  they  were  received  by  the 
Law  of  England  or  not. 
DeFiliis  ^g  (.jjg  Canon  againfi  Clergy  mens  Sons  fucceeding  their  Fathers  in  their 
camniurel's/iefices  immediately,  without  a  papal  Difpenfation,  is  not  only  a  part  of 
fit  inhibit,  the  Canon  Law,  but  enter'd  in  our  provincial  Conftitutions.  But  in  the 
Lynw.  .  Q^^g  ^^  ^^^j^^  againft  Sykes,  it  was  held  by  Dodderidge  and  Jones,  two 

learned 


of  tbe  Yarochial  Clergy.  705? 


learned  Judges,  that  this  Canon  rvas  not  received  here.     And  Dodderidge  L"*^*^- 
inftanced  in  two  other  Canons  not  received5  as  agai»ji  a.  Mens  marry-^'^^' 
ing  a  Woman  he  had   commited  Adultery  with;:,  and  a  Lay- man's  not  re- 
voking his  firfi  Prefentation.    And  Sir  jftf^»  D<?z/w  mentioned  reikoning^ophzm. 
the  Alonths  for  Prefentation  by  Weeks,  and  not  by  the  Calendar.  But  botb"^^' 
thefe  are  difputable  Points. 

For  fome  fay,  as  to  tbe  former,  that  none  hut  the  King  can  revoke  a\^°^' '' 
Presentation.    But  the  Canonifts  think  a  private  f  atron  may  vary  with  Hugh's 
the  Bifhop  s  Confent.  f-rf- 

And  as  to  the  way  of  computing  the  Months^  it  hath  been  differently  Ljnw!*ff° 
refolved;  but  in  Catesbie's  Cafe,   it  was  determined  to  be  Calendar ^i9Leoa. 
Months  for  many  Reafons.  But  in  the  ancient  Refolution  in  the  time  of  ^"r^^,^ 
E.  IL  tbe  Temptu  femejlre  was  reckoned  from  notice  to  the  Patron,  and 
not  from  the  death  of  tbe  Incumbent.    Rol/s  faith.  By  our  Law  it  is^°\^' 
from  the  time  the  Patron  might  have  notice,  jvith  regard  to  the  diftance  of    ^ 
the  Place  where  the  Incumbent  died :  Which  leaves  the  matter  uncertain. 
But  the  Regijler  reckons  from  the  Vacancy. 

In  many  other  cafes  the  foreign  Canons  were  not  received,  for  they  ^^^■*'*  ' 
allow  but  fottr  Months  to  a  Lay-Patron,  but  our  Law  fix  Months  ^  they  ^  '"'^• 
deny  any  Sale  of  a  Right  of  Advowfon,  but  our  Law  allows  it,  andaSepa-^  ^' 
ration  of  it  from  the  Inheritance,  which  the  Canon  Law  allows  not  5 
and  fo  in  other  particulars,  but  thefe  are  fufficient  to  my  purpofe. 

It  is  obfervable,  that  after  the  Council  of  Lions,  where  the  Pope  was 
prefent,  I'eckham,  Archbilhop  of  C<i»/erWj»,  called  a  provincial  Coun-pP^''?"„, 
cil,  wherein  he  mentions  the  difference  ot  our  CufVomsfrom  all  otbsrs,  519," ' 
and  a  Temperament  to  be  made  fuitable  to  them.    And  our  Judges  in  J°""» 
the  great  Cafe  of  Evans  and  Ayfcough,  declared,  that  no  Canons  bind  here,  "^°* 
but  fuch  as  are  received  by  the  Realm.     And  Dodderidge  faid,  that  our  t-acch. 
Ecclefiafiical  Law  doth  not  confiji  of  the  Pope's  Decretals,  but  is  an  ExtraB  '^^^  .^g^ 
out  of  the  ancient  Canons,  General  and  National.     But  the  Judges  agreed,     4<59. 
that  when  they  are  received,  they  become  part  of  our  Law. 

Lord  Chief  Juftice  Vaughan  faith,  that  if  Canon  Law  be  made  a  part  of^^'^^^-^'' 
the  Law  of  the  Land,  then  it  is  as  much  the  Law  of  the  Laitd,  and  as  weBy 
and  by  the  fame  Authority,  as  any  other  part  of  the  Law  of  the  Land. 

In  another  place,  that  the  ancient  Canon  Law  received  in  this  King-     ^^^' 
dom,  is  the  Law  of  the  Kingdom  iti  fuch  Cafes. 

In  a  third,  that  a  lawful  Canon,  is  the  Law  of  the  Kingdom,  as  weU     ^^'^' 
as  an  Acl  of  Parliament. 

III.  I  now  come  to  the  third  thing,  viz,.  The  Power  of  making  Ca- 
nons by  AB  of  Parliament. 

This  is  founded  on  the  Statute  25  H.  8.  c.  19.  The  Words  are,  that 
no  Canons^  Confiitutions  and  Ordinances,  Provincial  or  Synodal,  jhall  be 
made,  fromulged  and  executed  without  the  King's  Royal  Ajfent  or  Licence^ 

Canons  fo  made,  and  authorized  by  the  Kings  Letters  Patents,  accord- 
ing to  the  form  of  the  Statute,  are  faid  by  Lord  Chief  Juftice  Vaughan,  vaugh. 
to  be  Canons  warranted  by  A&  of  Parliament.    And  fuch  he  affirms  the  5^7- 
Canons  of  A.  D.  1603.  to  be. 

But  fome  have  objefted. 

That  thefe  are  only  Negative  Words,  and  are  not  an  Introdn^ioti  of  a  Bagfiaw's 
new  Law,  but  a  Declaration  of  what  the  Law  was  before.  the^Ca- " 

But  ray  Lord  Coke  with  far  greater  Judgment,  limits  that  Expreflion,  nons,  p. 
that  what  was  then  fa/fed,  was  declaratory  of  the  common  Lan>,  to  that^^"^'"  ' 
Claufe,  that  no  Canons  (hould  be  in  Force,  which  were  repugnant  to '   ' 
the  Laws  of  the  Realm.  But 


■I       J  J  —       '     ■ 

qo6  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 

But  as  to  the  making  of  nevp  Cano>js,  he  only  faith,  that  their  Jurif- 
diSion  and  Power  is  much  limited,  becaufe  they  mujl  have  licence  to  make 
them,  and  the  Kings  Royal  Ajfent  to  aUove  them,  before  they  he  put  in  Ex- 
ecution. But  he  never  imagined  the  Senfe  of  the  Statute  to  be,  that  no 
Canons  could  be  made  but  in  Parliament,  or  that  the  King  had  not  a 
Power  to  conifirm  new  Canons  made  by  the  Convocation. 

As  to  the  Law,  as  it  ftood  before,  we  liiuft  diftinguifh  thefe  two 
things  5 

1 .  Convocations  called  by  the  Kings  Writ  to  the  Biftiops,  and  the 
body  of  the  Clergy,  could  never  affemble  without  it.  But  the  Writ 
for  the  Convocation  to  fit  with  the  Parliament,  (not  together  in  Place, 
but  at  the  fame  time)  is  contained  in  the  Writ  to  the  Biftiop,  and  begins 
with  the  claufe  Pramunientei.  And  it  is  moft  probable,  that  it  began  on 
the  fame  Ground  that  the  Attendance  of  Burgeffes  did,  viz.  That 
when  they  were  brought  into  the  Payment  of  Subfidies,  they  ought 

Annai      to  give  their  Confent.    For  I  find,  that  in  the  time  of  H.  g.  A.  R. 
3j6.°       ?9'  the  inferiour  Clergy  complained.  That  they  were  taxed  without  their 
Confent. 

2,  Convocations  called  by  the  Kings  Writ  to  the  ArchbiJJjops  5  and  in 
this  Province  the  Archbifhop  fends  his  Mandate  to  the  Bijhop  of  Lon- 
don, who  is  to  futnraon  all  the  Biftiops,  &c.  to  appear  at  a  certain 
Time  and  Place,  and  to  aft  as  they  receive  Authority  from  the  King. 

The  not  diftinguiftiing  thefe  two  Writs,  hath  caufed  fo  much  Con- 
fufion  in  fome  Mens  Minds,  about  the  Rights  of  the  Convocation ;  For 
they  imagine  that  the  Convocation,  as  it  treats  of  Ec cleft afiical  Matters, 
fits  by  virtue  of  the  firft  Writ,  which  is  in  the  Biftiops  Summons  to 
Parliament  5  but  that  related  to  them  as  one  of  the  three  Efiates  of  the 
Realm,  whofe  Confent  was  then  required  to  their  own  Subfidies,  which 
were  diftindly  granted,  but  confirmed  by  the  other  Efiates. 

But  the  other  Writ  was  direfted  to  the  Archbiftiop,  by  which  the 
Biftiops  and  Inferior  Clergy  were  flriftly  required  to  appear,  and  then 
to  underftand  the  King's  further  Pleafure,  as  appears  by  the  moft  an- 
cient Writs  for  a  Convocation.  Which  fliews,  that  the  Convocation, 
properly  fo  called,  is  an  occafioned  Aftembly  for  fuch  purpofes  as  the 
King  (hall  direft  them  when  they  meet.  And  this  was  the  true  Founda- 
tion upon  which  the  Statute,  25  H.  8.  was  built.  For  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied, that  in  Faft  there  had  been  Convocations  for  Ecclefiaftical  Pur- 
pofes called  without  the  King's  Writ,  by  virtue  of  the  Archbifliop's 
Legatine  Power,  which  was  permitted  to  be  exercifed  here,  although 
it  were  an  Ufurpation  upon  the  King's  Right.  So  even  in  the  time 
of  H.  8.  although  there  were  a  Convocation  fummoned  by  the  King's 
Writ  to  the  Archbiftiop  of  Canterbury,  yet  Cardinal  Wolfley,  by  virtue 
of  his  Legatine  Power,  fuperiour  to  that  of  the  Archbiftiop,  removed 
the  Convocation  to  another  place,  and  prefided  in  it:  Which  was  as 
great  an  Affront  to  t^  King's  as  well  as  the  Archbiftiop's  Authority, 
as  could  well  be  imagined.  But  this  was  then  patiently  born :  Where- 
fore the  Statute  is  to  be  underftood  of  Legal,  and  not  oi Legatine  Con- 
vocations. 

But  when  H.  8.  was  fufficiently  provoked  by  the  Court  of  Rome,  he 
refolved  to  refume  the  ancient  and  legal  Rights  of  the  Crown,  howfo- 
ever  difufed  by  modern  Ufurpations.  And  among  thefe  he  claimed 
this  of  fummoning  the  Convocation,  and  directing  the  Proceedings 
therein. 

The. 


'of  the  far ocbial  Clergy.  '?o7 

The  difference  of  thefe  Writs  will  beft  appear  by  the  Inftance  of  the 
Convocation,  A.  D.  1640. 

In  the  Year  1659.  about  the  firft  of  February  the  Parliament  Writ 
was  iffued  out  to  the  Biftiops  for  calling  their  Clergy  to  Parliament  5 
and  this  is  only  ad  co»fentiendnm  lis  qn£  tunc  ibidem  de  communi  Concilio 
Rcgni  noftri  contigerint  ordinari. 

The  other  Writ  for  the  Convocation  to  the  Archbilliops  was  iffued 
out  the  twentieth  of  February^  and  had  his  Claufe,  ad  traStandum,  con- 
fenticndum,  &  coticluderidHm  fuper  pr£m!jps  d"  alik  qti£  Jibi  clartus  ex- 
pofientur  ex:  parte  mea. 

The  Parliament  at  that  time  being  diffolved,  it's  certain  the  Convo-  . 
cation  fitting  by  virtue  of  the  Writ  to  the  Bifiops  muft  fall  with  it :  But 
a  great  Queftion  arofe,  whether  the  Convocation  fitting  by  the  Writ  to 
the  ^rchbipops,  was  diffolved,  or  not?  And  the  greateft  Judges  and  Law- 
yers of  that  time  were  of  Opinion  it  was  not.  But  thofe  were  not 
times  to  venture  upon  fuch  Points,  when  People  were  difpofed  to  fitid 
fault,  «s  they  did  to  purpofe,  when  the  next  Parliament  met ,  who  made 
ufe  of  the  fitting  of  this  Convocation^  and  the  Canons  then  pafs'd,  as 
one  of  the  popular  Themes  to  declaim  upon  againft  the  Biftiops,  and 
to  inflame  the  Nation  againft  the  whole  Order. 

The  greateft  objeftion  in  Point  of  Law,  was,  that  the  Commiffion 
had  a  Refpsd  to  the  Convocation  fitting  in  Parliament  time,  which  be-  , 

gan  15  April  1640.  and  the  Commiflion  bore  Date  j^pril  15.  the  Par- 
liament was  diffolved  May  5.  and  the  12th  of  May  a  new  Commifllon 
vi7as  granted,  \yhich  made  void  that  of  the  fifteenth  of  Jpril  5  and  fo 
what  was  done  by  virtue  of  that,  muft  be  done  out  of  Parliament,  fo 
and  not  in  Convocation,  according  to  25  H.  8.  19.  although  thefe  Ca- 
nons were  confirmed  by  the  King's  Authority  the  thirtieth  of  Jnne  the 
fame  Year. 

After  the  King's  Reftoration,  an  Aft  of  Parliament  paffed  for  Refto-  ,j  c^r  -, 
ring  the  Biftiop's  ordinary  Jurifdidion^  wherein  a  Claufe  is  added.  That  c.  12. 
this  A3  did  not  confirm  thofe  Canons  of  164G.  but  left  the  Ecclefiaftical 
Laws  as  they  ftood  1639.  which  Aft  being  paffed  by  the  King's  Affent, 
it  voids  the  former  Confirmation  of  them,  and  fo  leaves  them  without 
Force.     But  the  Alteration  of  our  Law  by  the  Aft,  25  H.  8.  c.  19.  lay 
not  in  this,  that  the  Convocation  by  the  King's  Writ  to  the  Archbi- 
fhop,  could  not  fit  but  in  Parliament  time  (  although  that  in  all  re- 
fpefts  be  the  moft  proper  time)  for  there  is  not  a  Word  4:ending  that 
way  in  the  Statute  ^  hut  provincial  Councils  having  been  frequently  held 
here,  without  any  Writ  from  the  King,  and  therein  treating  of  Matters 
prejudicial  to  the  Crown,  by  virtue  of  a  Legatine  Power,  there  was 
great  Reafon  for  the  King  to  refume  the  ancient  Right  of  the  Crown. 
For  fo  William  L  declared  it  in  Eadmer/fs,  that  nothing  Jhould  ke  done  in  Eadm. 
proviniial  Councils  without  his  Authority.     But  afterwards  we  find  Hn-^^^'  P"*^* 
bert,  Archbiftiop  of  Canterbury,  holding  a  provincial  Council  againft  the  Hoveden, 
Kings  Prohibition'^  and  feveral  Writs  were  fent  to  them  to  prohibit p-^°'^"jj 
their  medling  in  Matters  of  State  in  prejudice, to  the  Crown,  18  H.  5.  n^^' 
under  penalty  of  the  Biftiop's  forfeiting  their  Baronies*  and  to  the  like 
purpofe,  35  £.  I.  1 5  E.  2.  6  E.  3.  which  feems  to  be  a  tacit  Permiffion 
of  thefe  provimial  Councils,  provided  they  did  nothing  prejudicial  to 
the  Crown.     And  irom  fuch  Councils  came  our  provincial  Conjiitutions, 
which  Lynwood  hath  digefted  according  to  the  Method  of  the  Canon 
Law,  and  hath  therein  ftiewed  what  part  of  the  Canon  Law  hath  any 

Force 


7o8  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights  ' 

Force  here  ^  not  by  virtue  of  aqy  Papal  or  Legatine  Power,  but  by 
the  general  Confent  oj  the  Nation,  by  which  they  have  been  received  a- 
mong  us. 

But  my  bufinefs  is  not  now  with  Canons  fo  received,  but  with  Canohs 
made  according  to  the  Statute,  25  H.  8:  19.  for  it  is  ridiculous  to  imagine 
thofe  are  only  negative  Words,  for  then  they  exclude  the  Ring's  Power 
of  calling  a  Convocation,  as  well  as  confirming  the  Afts  of  it.  For 
to  what  purpofe  is  the  King's  Writ  to  call  them  together,  if  being  af- 
fembled  they  can  do  nothing? 

But  I  have  already  mentioned  my  Lord  Chief  Juftice  Vaughan's  Opi- 

ventris     nion,  that  the  Canons  made  A.  D.  1603.  ^^^  vparranted  by  2^  H.  8.  c.  19. 

Rep.  II,    jt  ^35  urged  by  the  Council  in  the  cafe  of  Grove  and  Eliot,  22  Carol.  7. 
That  no  Canons  can  alter  the  Law,  vphich  are  not  confirmed  by  Atl  of  Par- 
liament.    But  it  was  faid  on  the  other  fide,  that  thefe  Canons  had  been 
always  aUovped,  having  been  confirmed  by  the  King.     One  of  the  Judges 
faid,  that  the  King  and  Convocation  cannot  make  Canons  to  bind  the 
Laity,  bnt  only  the  Clergy.    But  Vaughan  faid,  that  thofe  Canons  are  of 
Force,  although  never  C07ifirmed  by  AU-  of  Parliament,  as  no  Canons  are  5 
and  yet,  faith  he,  they  are  the  Laws  which  bind  and  govern  in  Ecclefia- 
ftick  Affairs.     The  Convocation,  with  the  Licence  and  Sff'ent  of  the  King^ 
under  the  Great  Seal,   may  make  Canonsy^^r  Regulation  of  the  Church,  and 
that  as  well  concerning  Laicks  as  Ecclefiafticks ;    and   fo  is  Lynreood. 
There  can  be  no  queftion  in  Lynwood's  time,  but  Ecclefiaftical  Conftitu- 
tions  were  thought  to  bind  all  that  were  concerned  in  them  5  and  the 
Ecclefiaftical  Laws  which  continue  in  Force  by  Cuftom  and  Confent, 
bind  all  5  the  only  Queftion  t^en  is  about  making  new  Canons,  and 
the  Power  to  make  them,   is  by  virtue  of  an  Aft  of  Parliament,  to 
which  the  Nation  confented  5  and  fo  there  need  no  Reprefentatives  of 
the  People  in  Convocation,    And  no  fuch  thing  can  be  inferred  from 
Moor,  755.  for  the  Judges  declared  the  Deprivation  of  the  Clergy  for  not 
conforming  to  the  Canons,  to  be  legal -^  but  they  fay  nothing  of  others. 
But  in  the  Cafe  of  Bird  and  Smith  f  785.  the  Chancellor  and  three 
Chief  Judges  declared,  that  the  Canons  made  in  Convocation  by  the 
King's  Authority,  without  Parliament,  do  bind  in  Ecclefiaftical  Matters, 
as  an  Aft  of  Parliament.    And  therefore  I  proceed  to  ftiew, 

n.  In  what  manner  we  are  obliged  to  the  obfervation  of  thefe  G- 
nons-^  concerning  which  I  ftiall  premife  two  things. 

1,  That  I. meddle  not  with  fuch  Canons  as  are  altered  by  Laws;  for 
all  grant,  that  unlefs  it  be  in  Moral  Duties,  their  force  may  be  taken  a- 
way  by  the  Laws  of  the  Land. 

2.  There  are  fome  Canons,  where  the  general  difufe  in  matters  of 
no  great  Confequence  to  the  Good  of  the  Church,  or  the  Rights  of 
other  Perfons,  may  abate  the  Force  of  the  Obligation  ^  efpecially 
when  the  difufe  hath  been  connived  at,  and  not  brought  into  Articles 
of  Vifitation,  as  Can.  J^.  about  Gowns  with  Jianding  Collars,  and  Cloaks 
with  Sleeves.  But  the  general  Reafon  continues  in  Force,  viz.  That 
there  ftiould  be  a  decent  and  comely  Habit  for  the  Clergy,  whereby 
they  fbould  he  known  and  difiinguified  by  the  People^  and  for  this,  the 
ancient  Cuftom  of  the  Church  is  alledged. 

But  here  a  very  material  Queftion  arifes,  how  far  Cuftom  is  allowed 
to  interpret  and  alter  the  Force  of  Canons  made  by  a  lawful  Authority; 
For  where  Cuftom  prevails  againft  a  ftanding  Rule,  it  amounts  to  this, 
whether  Praftice  againft  Law,  is  to  have  more  Force  than  the  Law. 

And 


of  the  Varocbial  Clergj.  'jo^ 


And  bow  can  there  be  a  reafonable  Cuftom  againft  a  Law  built  upon 
reafonable  Grounds  ?  But  on  the  other  fide,  if  Cuftora  hath  no  power 
in  this  cafe,  then  all  the  ancient  Canons  of  the  Church  do  ftill  bind 
in  Confcience,  and  fo  we  muft  not  kneel  at  our  Prayers  on  Sundays, 
nor  between  Eiifier  and  Hhitfontide,  which  were  thought  to  be  made 
upon  good  Reafon  at  firft^  and  fo  many  other  Canons  which  have 
long  grown  into  a  difufe.     So  that  if  we  do  ftriftly  oblige  perfons  to 
obferve  all  Ecclefiaftical  Canons  made  by  lawful  Authority,  we  run 
Men  into  endlefs  Scruples  and  Perplexities;  and  Gerfo»  himfelf  grants, 
lAat  many  Canons  of  General  Comicils  have  lofi  their  Force  by  difufe,  'iW'^xft  Sui 
that  the  obfervation  of  them  7i0VP  would  be  ufelejs  and  injpojjible.     But  on  lic  Lea. 
the  other  fide,  if  meer  difufe  were  fufficient,  what  would  become  of  a- "i' *-°'"- '  ^ 
ny  Canons  and  Conftitutions,  where  Perfons  are  refraclary  and  difobe- 
dient> 

This  is  a  Cafe  which  deferves  to  be  ftated  and  cleared.  And  we  are 
to  diftinguifh  three  forts  of  Cuftoms. 

1.  Cuftoms  generally  obtaining  upon  altering  the  reafon  of  ancient 
Canons. 

2.  Cuftoms  allowed  upon  the  general  Inconveniency  of  modern  Ca- 
nons. 

3.  Cuftoms  taken  up  without  any  Rules  or  Canons  for  them. 

1.  As  to  general  Cuftoms  againft  ancient  Canons  where  the  Reafon 
is  altered;  I  fee  no  Ground  for  any  to  fet  up  thofe  Canons,  as  ftill 
in  Force,  among  us :  For  this  muft  create  Confufion  and  diforder, 
which  thofe  Canons  were  defigned  to  prevent;  and  the  Laws  of  the 
Land  do  certainly  fuperfede  ancient  Canons,  wherein  the  neceflary  Du- 
ties of  Religion  are  not  immediately  concerned.  For  we  muft  have  a 
care  of  fetting  up  ancient  Canons  againft  the  Authority  of  our  Laws, 
which  cannot  be  confiftent  with  our  national  Obligation,  nor  with 
the  Oath  of  Supremacy. 

2.  As  to  Cuftoms  relating  to  modern  Canons,  if  it  hath  any  Force,    . 
as  to  altering  the  Obligation. 

1.  It  muft  be  general ;  not  taken  up  by  particular  difafifeded  Perfons 
to  our  Conftitution ;  for  the  Cuftom  of  fuch  Men  only  Paews  their  wil- 
ful Difobedience  and  Contempt  of  Authority  ;and  allCafuiftsare  agreed, 
that  Contempt  of  lawful  Authority,  is  a  wilful  Sin :  Which  fuppofes^ 
a  wilful  Negleft  upon  knowledge  and  Admonition  of  their  Duty.     For 
Contempt  is,  NoUe  fubjici  cm  oportet  fubjici  -^  and  a  leffer  fault  commit- Cajcc. 
ted  with  it,  is  a  greater  Sin  than  a  greater  Fault  in  it  felf  committed  vc^b]" 
without  it,  i.  e.  by  meer  carelefnefs  and  inadvertency.     But  where  there    ' 

is  an  open  and  cuftomary  Negleft,  there  is  a  Prefumption  of  Contempt, 
unlefs  fome  great  and  evident  Reafon  be  produced  for  it.  I  do  not 
fay  the  bare  Negled:  doth  imply  Contempt  in  it  felf,  but  where  there 
is  admonition  and  a  continuance  after  it,  there  is  a  down-right  and  po-^ 
fitive  Contempt.  But  where  the  difufe  is  general,  not  out  of  Con- 
tempt, but  upon  other  Reafons;  and  there  is  no  Admonition  by  Supe- 
riours,  but  a  tacit  Connivence;  there  is  a  Prefumption  of  a  Confent 
towards  the  laying  afide  the  ftridt  Obligation  of  the  Canons  relating 
to  it. 

2.  It  muft  be  reafonable  ;  i.  e.  on  fuch  Grounds  as  may  abate  the 
Force  of  the  Obligation.  For  there  is  a  difference  between  a  Cuftoui 
obtaining  the  Force  of  a  Law,  and  a  Cuftom  abating  the  Force  of  a  Ca-^ 
non  :  In  the  former  cafe  the  Cuftom  muft  be  grounded  on  more  evident 

X  X  X  X  rea- 


71  o  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights 


Tuft  U   reafonthan  isneceflary for  thelatter.  WhereintheCafuiftsallowaPermif- 
Q.  7,    '  fion  of  Superiours  joyned  with  reafonable  Circumftances,  to  be  fufEcient. 
Art.  2.  ad      But  how  can  afts  of  difobedience  make  a  reafonable  Cuftom  > 
ciavls^Reg.     Cajetan  faith,  they  are  to  blame  who  began  it,  but  riot  thofe  who 
1.  3-c-      follow  it,  when  the  Cuftom  is  general. 
ca';."ad  ^"     ■^"'^  Suarez  faith,  it  is  the  common  Opinion. 
I.  3.Q.       The  Canonifts  fay,  if  a  Cufiom  be  againft  a  Rule,  the  reafon  mufl: 
slaf  d'e^'^^  plain  5  if  only  befides  the  Rule,  and  be  not  repugnant  to  the  end 
-Leg. "1.4.  and  defign,  the  reafonablenefs  when  it  becomes  general,  is  prefumed. 
c.  16.11.9.  But  if  the  Superiours  take  notice  of  it,  and  condemn  it,  it  lofes  the 
Curt!de    ^^^^^e  of  Cuftom,  unlefs  a  new  reafon  or  higher  Authority  appear  for  it. 
Statue.  3.  But  what  is  to  be  faid  for  Cuftoms  taken  up  without  Rules  or  Ca- 

Seft.  7.  n-nons,  of  what  force  are  they  in  point  of  Confcience  ? 
Sehfj'.n.      I.  It  is  certain,  that  no  late  Cuftoms  brought  in  by  fuch  as  have  no 
5. 1'j  i2j  Authority  to  oblige,  can  bind  others  to  follow  them.     For  this  were  to 
'^'         lay  open  a  Gap  to  the  introducing  toolifh  and  fuperftitious  Cuftoms  in- 
to the  Church,  which  would  make  diftindions  without  caufe,  and  make 
way  for  Differences  and  Animofities,  which  all  wife  and  good  Men  will 
avoid  as  much  as  may  be. 
q"^7  Art'      '^  '^  ^  ^"^^  among  the  Cafuifts,  that  voluntary  Cuftoms,  although 
2.'  '     "introduced  with  a  good  Mind,  can  never  oblige  others  to  obferve  them. 
And  Snarez  yields,  that  a  bare  irequent  Repetition  ot  Ads  cannot  bind 
j^i^i^jc.  others,  although  it  hath  been  of  long  continuance. 
15.10,11.      2.  If  the  Cuftoms  be  fuch  as  are  derived  from  the  primitive  times, 
>^  and  continue  in  praftice,  there  is  no  reafon  to  oppofe,  but  rather  to 

comply  with  them  ;  or  if  they  tend  to  promote  a  delight  in  God's  Ser- 
vice.    As  for  inftance  ; 

1.  Wor/fi'ppiftg  towards  the  Eaji,  was  a  very  ancient  Cuftom  in  the 
Numer.  *"  Chtiftian  Church.    I  grant  that  very  infufficient  reafons  are  given  for 
Horn.  J.    it ;  which  Origen  would  not  have  Men  to  be  too  bufie  in  inquiring  in- 
to, but  to  be  content  that  it  was  a  generally  received  Praftice  even  in 

Ai^x  Str  ^'^  *^'"^^ '  ^"^  ^°  ^^^^  Clemens  AhxAndr'tnus  before  him,  who  thinks 
J.  7.'  *  it  relates  to  Chrift,  as  the  Sonof  Righteoufnefs.  TertuUian  scndS.BaJil 
Tertui.     own  the  Cuftom,  and  give  no  Re; fon. 

J°'^'  But  of  all  Cuftoms  that  of  Contention  and  Singularity,  where  there 
Eafii.  de  IS  no  plain  reafon  againft  them,  doth  the  leaft  become  the  Church  of 

Sp.SaaaoGoJ 
c.  a7, 

2.  The  ufe  of  organical  Mufich  in  the  publu  k  Service.  If  it  tends  to 
compofe,  and  fettle,  and  raife  the  Spirits  of  Men  in  the  Ads  of  Wor- 
fliip,  I  fee  no  reafon  can  be  brought  againft  it.  If  it  be  faid  to  be  on- 
ly a  natural  Delight,  that  reafon  will  held  againft  David,  who  ap- 

2  chron.  pointed  it  by  God's  own  Commandment.     They  who  call  it  Levitical 
»?.  s5.     Service,  can-never  prove  it  to  be  any  of  the  Typical  Ceremonies,  un- 
lefs they  can  ftiew  what  was  reprefented  by  it. 

I  come  now  to  the  Meafure  of  the  Obligation  of  the  Canons  in  Force. 
And  therein  a  great  Regard  is  to  be  had  to  the  Intention  of  that  Au- 
thority which  enjoyns  them;  and  that  is  to  be  gathered  from  three 
things ;  ' 

I.  The  matter.  2.  The  Words  and  Senfe  of  the  Church,  g.  The 
Penalty. 

I.  As  to  the  matter.  If  it  be  in  it  felf  weighty,  and  tends  to  pro- 
mote that  which  is  good  and  pious,  and  for  the  Honour  of  God,  and 
Service  of  Religion,  it  cannot  be  denied  but  thefe  Canons  do  oblige  in 
Confcience.  Bellar- 


of  the  Varochial  Clergy.  7 1 1 

BeUarm'in  diftinguifhes  between  Laws  of  the  Church,  which,  he^^'i-^'^ 
faith,  are  very  few  and  pious  Admonitions  and  good  Orders,  which c.is.'^*  - 
are  not  intended  to  oblige  Men  to  fin,  but  only  in  cafe  of  Contempt 
and  Scandal,  And  as  to  the  Feafts  and  Fafts  of  the  Church,  which  be- 
long to  the  Laws,  he  faith,  tbey  have  mtijpmavt  obllgatmiem -^  fo  any 
one  would  think,  who  confiders  how  many  are  exempted,  and  for 
what  Reafons. 

Gerfon  faith,  that  no  human  Conftitutions  bind  as  to  Moral  Sin,  un-OeVic 
lefs  it  be  founded  on  the  Law  of  God^  as  he  confeffes  the  Church's  ^^co,!;^! 
Authority  is,  as  to  Circumftances  ^  and  then  he  thinks  it  obliges  in  coroii.  6. 
Confcience.    The  Subftance  of  his  Opinion,  which  hath  been  much 
difputed  and  controverted  by  modern  Cafuifts,  lies  in  thefe  things: 

1.  That  where  Ecclefiaftical  Conftitutions  do  inforce  any  part  of  the 
Law  of  God,  although  it  be  not  exprefly  contained  therein,  they  do 
immediately  bind  theConfciencesof  Men. 

2.  That  where  they  tend  to  the  good  of  the  Church,  and  the  Pre- 
fervation  of  Decency  and  Order,  they  do  fo  far  oblige,  that  the  con- 
tempt of  Authority  therein,  is  a  Sin  againft  the  Law  of  God. 

9.  That  where  the  Injunftions  of  Authority  are  for  no  other  end, 
but  to  be  obeyed,  he  doth  not  think  that  there  is  any  ftrid  Obligation 
in  point  of  Confcience. 

And  fo  far  Cajetan  agrees  with  him.  cajet. 

And  although  the  other  Cafuifts  feera  to  be  very  angry  with  him,  yet  coniemp. 
when  they  require  a  publick  Good,  and  the  Order  of  the  Church  to&c.ckri- 
be  the  reafon  of  Ecclefiaftical  Laws,  they  do,  in  effefl:,  agree  with  him.^oru"^ 

Now  as  to  the  matter  of  our  Canons  which  refpeft  the  Clergy,  there 
are  two  efpecially  which  bind  them  ftriftly. 

I.  The  Canon  about  Sobriety  of  Converfation,  Can.  7^.  Yes,  fome 
may  fay,  as  far  as  the  Law  of  God  obliges,  i.  e.  to  Temperance  and  So- 
briety 5  but  the  Canon  forbids  reforting  to  Taverns,  or  Alehoufes,  or 
flaying  at  Dice,  Cards,  or  Tables '^  doth  this  Canon  oblige  in  Confci- 
ence in  this  manner?  If  it  were  a  new  thing  that  were  forbidden,  there 
were  fome  Plea  againft  the  feverity  of  it  ^  but  frequenting  publick 
Houfes  is  forbidden  by  the  Apoftolical  Canons,  which  areof  great  An-  can.  a- 
t|quity,  by  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  and  in  Trullo^  and  many  others  p°'^- 54- 
fince.  ^4.  In 

Truilo,  9.  Carthag.  45.  Did.  44.2,5,4.  Aquifgr.  c.  14.    Fraticf.  c.  I9.   Aquifgr.  2.  c,  do.  Extr  de  Vic.Sf 
Honeft.  Cleric,  c.  15.  Cone,  Weftmon,  c.  a.  Spelm,  II.  192.  Lynw.  1.  ;.  c.  i. 

And  by  the  Apoftolical  Canon  any  Presbyter  playing  at  Dice,  and 
continuing  fo  to  do  after  Admonition,  is  to  be  deprived.    The  lUihe-  Hr^^can 
ritan  Council  makes  it  Excommunication  to  play  at  Dice.     Not  meerly  79. ' 
for  the  Images  of  the  Gentile  Gods  upon  them,  as  Albafpn^us  thinks,  cicero 
but  becaufe  the  thing  it  felf  was  not  of  good  Report,  even  among  the  y|d'*de  a." 
Gentiles  themfelves^^  as  appears  by  Cicero,  Ovid^  Suetonius,  &c.  as  giv-A.  1. 3. 
ing  too  great  occafion  for  indecent  Paffions,  and  of  the  lofs  of  time,  ^""'^'"j , 
Hoflienfis  reckons  up  fixteen  Vices  that  accompany  it,  which  a  Clergy-  Hoitienf. 
man  efpecially  ought  to  avoid.    And  playing  at  Dice  was  infamous  by  Suf"-  ^-l' 
the  C  ivil  Law.   ^  ^  ,>,^,,,.  p, 

Jujiinian  forbids  Clergymen  not  only  playing,  but  being  prefent  atdeAieac. 
it.     It  was  forbidden  in  the  old  Articles  of  Vifiration  here,  and  in  fe-  ^Jj^^,  q^, 
veral  Diocefan  Synods,  Spelm.  W.  192,  252,298,  567,450.    So  thatferv.  1.  9- 
there  can  be  no  reafon  to  complain  of  the  feverity  of  this  Canon,  ^-  '^^• 
which  fo  generally  obtained  in  the  Chriftian  Church.  piVcop. ' 

1  X  X  X  X   a  II.  The  AndieftJ. 


712  Of  the  Duties  and  Rights  . 

n.  The  Canons  which  relate  to  Minifters  difcharging  the  feveral 
Duties,  of  their  Fundion,  in  Preaching,  Praying,  Adminiftrlng  Sacra- 
ments, Catechizing,  vifiting  the  Sick,  d"c.  which  are  intended  to  in- 
force  an  Antecedent  Duty  5  which  we  can  never  prefs  you  too  much 
or  too  earneftly  to  5  confidering  that  the  Honour  of  Rehgion,  and  the 
Salvation  of  your  own  and  the  Peoples  Souls  depend  upon  it. 

(2,)  The  next  way  of  judging  the  Churches  Intention,  is  by  the 

caj.  &     Words  and  Senfe  of  the  Church.    Cajetan  thinks  the  general  Senfe  is 

Praecept.  thebeftRule.    Nrfz^^rr  faith  to  the  fame  purpofe,  although  fome  words 

Mmc.i?.^'"^  ftrider  than  others.    Stiarez,,  that  the  main  obligation  depends  on 

n.  50,  Sec!  the  matter,  but  the  Churches  Intention  may  be  more  exprefied  by  fpe- 

de^L  I  *-'^^  Words  of  Command. ,  Tolet  relies  moft  upon  the  Senfe  of  the 

4fc.',8.  'Church;  But  the  Senfe  of  the  Church  muft  be  underftood,  whether  it 

Toiec.      be  approving,  or  recommending,  or  ftridly  commanding,  according  to 

g"c."l'p.*  the  Obligation  of  affirmative  Precepts,  which  makes  a  reafonable  3I- 

n.  3.       lowance  for  Circumftances.    And  fo  our  Church  in  fome  Cafes  exprefly 

allows  reafonable  Impediments.    And  in  Precepts  of  Abftinence,  we 

muft  diftinguifh  the  Senfe  of  the  Church,  as  to  Moral  Abftinence,  i.  e. 

fubduing  the  Flefti  to  the  Spirit;  and  a  Ritual  Abftinence  in  a  meer 

difference  of  Meats  which  our  Church  lays  no  Weight  upon  ;  and  a 

Religious  Abftinence  for  a  greater  Exercife  of  Prayer  and  Devotion, 

which  our  Church  doth  particularly  recommend  at  particnh;r  Seafons, 

which  I  need  not  mention. 

(3.)  By  the  Penalties  annexed,  which  you  may  find  by  reading  over 
the  Canons,  which  you  ought  to  do  frequently  and  ferioufly,  in  order 
to  your  own  Satisfaction  about  your  Duties,  and  the  Obligation  to  per- 
form them. 

But  fome  may  think,  tha.t  fuch  Penal  Canons  oblige  only  to  undergo  the 
Vunijhment. 

To  which  I  anfwer,  that  the  cafe  is  very  different  in  an  Hypothetical 
Lavp,  as  Suarez,  calls  it  5  when  Laws  are  only  conditional  and  disjunftive, 
either  you  muft  do  fo,  or  you  muft  undergo  fuch  Penalty,  which  is  thea 
looked  on  as  a  legal  Recompence;  and  Ecclefiaftical  Conftitutions,  where 
Obedience  is  chiefly  intended,  and  the  Penalty  is  annexed  only  to  in- 
force  it,  and  to  deterr  others  from  difobedience.  For  no  Man  can  i- 
magine  that  the  Church  aims  at  any  Man's  Sufpenfion  or  Deprivation 
for  it  felf,  or  by  way  of  Compenfation  for  the  Breach  of  its  Confti- 
tutions, 

And  now  give  me  leave  not  only  to  put  you  in  mind,  but  to  prefs 
earneftly  upon  you  the.  diligent  Performance  of  thofe  Duties,  which 
by  the  Laws  of  God  and  Man,  and  by  your  own  voluntary  Proraifes 
when  you  undertook  the  Cure  of  Souls,  are  incumbent  upon  yop.  It 
is  too  eafie  to  obferve,  that  thofe  who  have  the  Law  on  their  fide,  and 
the  Advantage  of  a  national  Settlement,  are  more  apt  to  be  reraifs  and 
carelefs  when  they  have  the  Stream  with  them,  than  thofe  who  row  a- 
gainft  it,  and  therefore  muft  take  more  pains  to  carry  on  their  Defigns, 
As  thofe  who  force  a  Trade  muft  ufe  much  more  Diligence,  than  thofe 
who  go  on  in  the  common  Road  of  Bufinefs.  But  what  Diligence  o- 
thers  ufe  in  gaining  Parties,  do  you  imploy  in  the  faving  their  Souls; 
Which  the  People  will  pever  believe  you  are  in  earneft  unlefs  they  ob- 
ferve you  are  very  careful  in  faving  your  own  by  a  confcientious  Dif- 
charge  of  your  Duties.  They  do  not  pretend  to  finenefs  of  thoughts, 
and  fubtilty  of  reafoning,  but  they  are  fhrewd  Judges  whether  Men  mean 

what 


The  PREFACE.  713 

what  they  fay,  or  not ;  and  they  do  not  love  to  be  impofed  upon  by 
fuch  3  fort  of  Sophiftry,  as  if  they  could  think  that  they  can  have  fuch 
a  Regard  to  their  Souls,  who  fhew  fo  little  to  their  own.    Therefore 
let  your  unblameable  and  holy  Converfations,  your  Charity  and  good 
Works,  your  Diligence  and  Conftancy  in  your  Duties,  convince  them 
that  you  are  in  earneft  ^  and  they  will  hearken  more  to  you,  than  if  you 
ufed  the  fineft  Speeches,  and  the  moft  eloquent  Haranges  in  the  Pul- 
pit to  them.    Thefe,  the  People  underftand  little,  and  value  lefs ;  but 
a  ferious,  convincing,  and  affeftionate  way  of  Preaching,  is  the  moft 
likely  way  to  work  upon  them.    If  there  be  fuch  a  thing  as  another 
World,  as  no  doubt  there  is,  what  can  you  imploy  your  time,  and 
thoughts,  and  Pains  better  about,  than  preparing  the  .Souls  of  your 
People  for  a  happy  Eternity  ?  How  mean  are  all  other  laborious  Tri- 
fles, and  learned  Impertinencies,  and  bufie  Inquiries,  and  reftlefsthoughtts 
in  comparifon  with  this  moft  valuable  and  happy  imployment,  if  we 
difcharge  it  well?  And  happy  is  that  Man,  who  enjoysthe  Satisfacti- 
on of  doing  his  Duty  now,  and  much  more  happy  will  he  be  vphom  our 
Lord,  iXihen  he  cometh,  (Ijal/fi»d  fo  doing. 


ADiscouRSE  concerning  Bonds  of  Refig- 
nation  of  Benefices,  in  Point  of  Law  and 
Conicience. 


The  PREFACE. 

**  I  ^  }iE  Intention  of  Writing  and  Publifljtng  the  fol/oxving  Difcourfe,  was 
^     to  give  a  flop,  if  pojjible,  to  a  dangerous  and  prevailing  PraSice  5 
andfo  much  the  more  dangerous,  becaufe  it  is  managed  tpithfo  much  Secre- 
cy, and  Ferfons  are  often  drawn  into  it,  before  they  are  aware  of  the  Mif- 
.  €h:efof  it.     They  are  told.  That  there  is  no  Law  againft  it^  and  that 
there  are  adjudged  Cafes  and  Precedents  in  Law  for  it ;  and  that  there 
is  nothing  araifsin  the  Bond  of  Refignation  it  felf :  But  if  there  be  any 
corrupt  or  evil  Pradice  after  it,  that  makes  it  fit  to  be  condemned  in  E- 
quity,  but  not  in  Law.     But  a  general  Bond  of  Reftgnation  of  a  Benefice 
upon  Notice,  in  order  to  the  obtaining  a  Prejentation  to  that  Benefice,  hath 
fuih  a  Simoniacal  Appearance,  that  any  Perfon  who  pretends  to  Confcience, 
cannot  but  think  it  neceffary  to  examine,  how  far  fuch  a  PraHice  can  be  con- 
fifient,  not  only  with  the  Law,  but  with  the  Oath  which  he  is  to  take  a* 
gainji  all  Simoniacal  Contracts  and  Promifes,  diredly  or  indireftly,  &c. 
for  or  concerning  the  procuring  or  obtaining  the  Reftory  or  Vicarage 
of,  df'c.     How  can  any  Man  that   enters  into  thefe  Bonds,  fay  that  he 
doth  it  not  in  order  to  the  obtaining  a  Prefentation  ."?  And  doth  not  futh  a 
Bond  amount  to  a  Contrafl:  ?  How  then  can  they  fatis fie  themfelves  in  tak- 
ing this  Oath  after  fuch  a  Bond  .<?  All  they  can  pretend,  is,  that  although 
it  be  a  Contract  for  fuch  an  End,  yet  it  is  no  Simoniacal  Contract.    Bui 
which  way  are  we  able  to  befatisfied  in  Point  of  Confcience,  what  is  a  Si- 
moniacal Contraft,  andwhatnot^  Is  it  only  from  the  Statute,  31EIJZ.C.6. 


714 The  PREFACE. 

fo  that  v^hat  is  there  forbidden  is  Simon iacal,  attd  nothitig  elfe  .<?  But  where 
hath  that  Law  deferm'ned  what  Simony  is,  vehen  it  is  never  mentioned  in 
it  ?  It  feverely  prohibits  fome  corrupt  Pra&ices  as  to  Benefices,  hut  it  never 
goet  about  to  reflrain  the  Notion  of  Simony  to  them  (^as  will  appear  in  the 
following  Difcourfe^  «?»<5^?/)eEcclefiafl:ical  I^ws,  as  to  this  matter^  are  left 
as  they  were  before.  If  therefore  there  he  fitch  a  true  Notion  ii/^Simoniacal 
Contraft,  as  is  allowed  by  our  Laws,  which  is  not  confined  to  that  Sta' 
tutBj  then  it  muft  follow,  that  there  may  he  a  Simoniacal  Contraft,  which 
is  not  condemned  by  that  Law  ^  and  therefore  all  Perfons  who  underfiand 
the  Nature  and  Extent  of  our  Laws,  will  have  a  care  of  refiraining  the  Na- 
ture of  a  Simoniacal  Contraft  to  the  Letter  of  that  Statute. 

It  may  he  faid^  That  a  Simoniacal  ContraB  is  an  ill  Name  put  on  we 
know  not  what,  if  we  go  beyond  the  Law  of  the  Land  ;  and  that  there 
muft  be  fome  certain  Bounds  fet  to  fuch  hard  Words,  or  elfe  the  Snare 
may  be  greater  another  way^  and  that  there  is  no  fuch  thing 
as  real  Simony  in  the  cafe  5  but  the  Word  is  applied  to  fome  indirect 
Praftices  in  obtaining  Benefices,  but  what  thofe  are,  the  Law  muft  de- 
termine. To  which  I  anfwer.  That  I  am  very  far  fiom  going  beyond  the 
Law  of  the  Land  for  determining  this  matter.  For  I  do  acknowledge,  that 
fince  the  Notion  p/Simony  is  extet/ded  beyond  thefirfi  Occafion  of  the  Name, 
there  muft  be  a  certain  Rule  to  determine  it  5  and  that  1  do  freely  grant 
/r  the  Law  of  the  Land.  But  by  it  I  do  not  mean  a  particular  Statute 
made  with  refpeB  to  fome  more  notorious  A&s,  which  are  puni(hable  in  the 
Courts  of  Common  Law  ^  but  I  under  ft  and  by  the  Law  of  England  that 
comprehenfive  Body  of  Laws,  which  have  been  here  received  as  the  Meafure 
of  our  Judgment  and  Anions  in  thofe  things  which  are  to  be  determined  by 
them. 

If  a  ^eflion  be  made.  Whether  a  Contra^  made  at  Sea,  he  a  good  Coh- 
tra&  .<?  It  will  be  no  good  Anfwer  to  fay.  It  mufi  be  a  good  Contra&,  becaufe 
there  is  nothing  in  it  contrary  to  the  Rules  of  the  Common  Law.  For  if 
our  Common  Law  Jhould  happen  to  allow  fuch  Contracts,  which  the  Civil 
Law  doth  not,  will  it  be  Ground  enough  to  affirm.  That  it  is  *good  Contra^, 
becaufe  our  Common  Law  doth  not  condemn  it  .<?  No  certainly  :  But  it  mufi 
be  determined  by  that  Law  which  is  proper  for  it,  and  being  here  receiv'dfor 
fuch,  is  in  fuch  Cafes  the  Law  of  the  Land. 

So  I  fay  here  ;  the  Fcclefiafiical  Law,  fofar  as  it  is  receivdand  allow  d 
hy  the  Common  Law,  is  the  Rule  and  Meafifre  whereby  the  Nature  of  Simo- 
ny is  to  be  determined  ;  and  that  is  allowed  by  our  moft  learned  and  jw 
dicious  Interpreters  of  our  Common  Law,  to  be  <?/ Ecclefiaftical  Cognifmce  5 
only  fuch  A&s  as  come  under  Statutes  belong  to  the  Courts  of  Common  Law, 
And  there  was  a  general  Prefumption  in  Law  before.  That  no  Patron  was 
to  make  any  Advantage  to  himfelf  of  a  Right  of  Prefentation.  And  there- 
infi.  i$6.fi""^  ^y  ^ord  Coke  faith.  That  a  Guardian  in  Socage  of  a  Manor  where- 
unto  an  Advowfon  is  appendant,  (hall  not  prefent  to  the  Church,  be- 
caufe he  can  take  nothing  for  the  Prefentation  for  the  which  he  may 
account  to  the  Heir  5  from  whence  he  infers.  That  Simony  is  odious  in 
the  Eye  of  the  Common  Law.  And  it  is  very  well  if  it  fo  continues  5 
which  I  can  hardly  imagine,  if  thefe  Bonds  of  Refignation  prevail.  But 
if  by  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law,  as  received  here,  fuch  Bonds  are  Simoniacal, 
being  a  Cbntracl  in  order  to  the  obtaining  a  Prefentation,  then  it  can  give 
little  Satisfa&ion  to  any  Mans  Confidence  to  be  told.  That  they  are  not  a- 
gainftLaw,  i.e.  againfi  the  StatuK,  SiEliz.  c.6. 

Mv 


The  PREFACE.  715 


M)'  Bitfinefs  is  77ot  here  to  give  a  full  Account  of  the  matters  contained 
in  the  follon\ng  Difcofirfe,  but  only  to  remove  fome  general  Prejiidi.  es  a- 
gainji  the  Defgn  of  it.  Which  is  truly  no  other  than  to  bring  this  fecret 
Pra&ice  into  open  Vierv,  and  to  have  it  fairly  examind  and  difcufs'd. 
For  while  it  is  managed  in  this  manner^  there  is  not  only  Mifchief  done 
to  the  Churchy  but  to  the  Confciences  of  Men  -^  who  are  very  apt  to  fufpeH 
a  Snare  in  all  fuch  Bonds,  and  are  very  uneafy  at  the  Thoughts  of  them 
afterwards.  If  there  be  any  better  Reafons  to  be  given  for  them  than  I  have 
yet  feen,  I  fJmdd  be  glad  to  be  convinced  of  the  Lawfulnefs  of  fuch  indire^ 
Pra£fices  and  private  Contrails  :  But  at  prefent  I  think  (if  they  be  not  time- 
ly prevented)  they  will  end  in  ufufpeakable  Mifchief  to  //)e  Parochial  Cler- 
gy, who  are  the  main  Ecclejiajiical  Body  of  the  Church  of  Englaiid,  and  in 
Tphofe  Welfare  we  ought  to  be  all  concerned. 

And  truly  I  cannot  but  be  very  tender  in  what  relates  to  their  Rights  5 
for  their  Work  and  Duty  is  great  and  laborious  ,  if  it  be  performed  cu  it 
ought  to  be  ;  and  they  ought  not  to  have  any  new  Burdens  impofed  upon 
them,  under  a  Pretence  of  Law,  which  neither  they  nor  their  Succeffors  will 
be  able  to  bear. 

I  am  very  fenjible  how  much  in  this  Age  depends  upon  the  Faithfulnefs^ 
and  Diligence,  and  good  Reputation  of  the  Parochial  Clergy  of  England. 
For  I  am  not  much  aftaid  of  any  Defigns  of  our  open  Enemies  (^or  which 
may  be  worfe,  of  our  pretended  Friends^  if  we  be  true  to  our  felves,  i.  C. 
if  we  ferioufly   and   confientioufly  do  our  Duties  with  refpeil  to  God,  the 
People,  and  our  own  Souls.     If  we  do  not  give  way  to  unreafonable  Sufpici- 
ons,  and  caufelefs  Jealoufies  of  one  another  ;  if  we  mind  the  Intereji  of  Re' 
ligion  more  than  our  own,  and  ferve  God,  and  not  our  own  Lufis  5    if  we 
fincerely  promote  the  beft  Ends  in  the  World,  thefaving  Souls,  and  doing  good 
to  Mankind,  God  will  not  be  wanting  toufx,  but  he  ^hat  hath  favd  us  from 
the  Lion  and  the  Bear,  w':ll  l.kewife  fave  us  from  the  Fox  and  the  Viper ;  / 
mean  fuch  who  under  fair  and  plaufible  Pretences  eat  through  the  Bowels  of 
their  Mother,  and  by  fecret  and  indire&  Pra&ices  go  about  to  ruin  the  Church 
they  profefs  themfelves  to  be  of  althd  by  their  Works  they  deny  it. 

If  I  had  not  fome  more  than  ordinary  Reafon  to  bel.  eve  fuch  things  to  be 
not  only  pra&ifed,  but  encouragd  by  fuch  who  pretend  not  only  io  under/land 
our  Law,  but  to  dire^  the  Nation  in  it,   I  psuld  hardly  have  undertaken  a 
Task  of  this  Nature.     Bui  having  fo  jufi  an  occapon  to  fearch  into  this  mat' 
ter,  (h  well  as  I  could,  and  finding  fo  much  Caufe  ofDiffatisfadion  as  to  thefe 
Bonds,  I  thought  it  my  Duty  to  do  what  lay  in  me  to  prevent  that  Mifchief 
which  is  hajlning  upon  our  Church  by  them.     If  I  am  mijiaken  in  any  part 
of  the  following  Difcourfe,    I  fiall  be  glad  to  be  better  informed  ^  and  if  I 
am  not,  I  hope  that  our  Church  may  receive  no  difadvantage  by  it.     And  as 
I  honour  the  Profejjion  of  the  Law,  and  the  many  worthy  Perfons  who  are 
and  have  been  of  it  ^  fo  I  cannot  but  be  concerned  to  find  fome  Pretences  of 
Law  made  ufe  of  to  fuch  ill  Purpofes  and  Defigns  ^    that  if  the  number  of 
Patrons  that  are  againft  our  eflablifked  Religion  Jhould  happen  to  exceed 
thofe  that  are  for  it,  by  the  help  (f  thefe  Bonds  of  Refignation,  the  Title 
to  mofi  of  our  Parochial  Cures  would  in  a  little  time  fall  into  the  hands 
<?/Popifh  Priefts  ^  which  would  much  facilitate  the  introducing  their  Reli- 
gion, when  fo  many  Vtott^znt.\x\c\JiXrk)Qx\ti  would  fo  eafly  be  turned  out, 
by  no  other  means,  but  by  thefe  Bonds  of  Refignation.    And  therefore  it  is 
not  merely  the  Intereft  of  our  Parochial  Clergy,  but  of  our  Religion  which 
lies  at  jiake  ^  and  this,  1  fuppofe^  vpill  be  fufftiient  tojujlify  this  ZJndertakingt 
U'eftminfler,  July  10.  165)5.  E.    W. 

A 


qi6  A  Difcourfe  t oncer ning 

A  Difcourfe  concerning  Bonds  ofKefgnation,  &c. 

THE  Defign  of  this  Difcourfe,  is  to  enquire  into  a  Cafe,  too 
commonly  praftifed  among  us,  and  too  little  examin'd  5  which 
is  concerning  Bonds  ofRefgtiation  given  by  Clergymen  to  Pa- 
trons in  order  to  the  obtaining  a  Prefentation  to  a  Benefice  with  Cure 
of  Souls.     This  is  a  Cafe  which  refpefts  both  1/^2^  and  0»yt/V»re.*  And 
it  is  not  fo  eafie  a  matter,  as  fome  feem  to  take  it  for  granted,  to  re- 
folve  It  as  to  either  of  them.    For  if  I'uch  a  Pradlice  be  wirhin  the 
Reafon  and  Intention  of  the  Law,  which  forbids  all  corrttpt  Prefentati- 
ons  and  Refignations,  5 1  Eli%.  c.  6.  then  it  cannot  be  juftified  by  Law; 
and  if  it  be  againft  the  Scope  and  Defign  of  the  Oath  againft  Simonia- 
cal  ContraBs,  then  it  can  much  lefs  be  juftified  in  Point  of  Confcience. 
And  whether  it  be  or  not,  is  the  Subjeft  of  this  prefent  Difcourfe ; 
which  I  am  forry  there  is  fo  much  occafion  for:  But  fince  there  are  too 
many  that  praftife  it^  and  others  too  ready  to  defend  it^  and  fince  it 
is  of  fo  mifchievous  Confequence  to  the  Intereft  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, if  it  prevails,  I  think  it  highly  necelTary  to  enquire  more  ftriftly 
into  this  matter,  than  hath  been  hitherto  done.     Which  I  (hall  do  in 
fuch  a  manner,  as  to  make  it  appear  that  no  Confiderations  whatfoever 
have  fwayed  me,  but  thofe  of  haw  and  Confiiemex,  and  I  hope  thofe 
who  have  been  drawn  into  fuch  Snares,  will  fee  caufe  to  repent,  (if  they 
do  it  not  already)  and  others  take  care  how  they  run  themfelves  into 
fuch  Perplexities,  which  no  Precedents  in  Point  of  Law,  and  no  Au- 
thority in  Point  of  Confcience  can  give  them  Satisfaftion  in. 

But  I  intend  no  Reflexions  on  particular  Perfons ;  and  I  cannot  be- 
lieve that  any  who  have  impartially  weighed  thefe  things,  can  main- 
tain the  lawfulnefs  of  them  fo,  as  to  wilh  them  generally  pra& i fed.  For 
however  there  may  be  fome  Cafes  wherein  fuch  Bonds  may  be  thought 
far  more  reafonable  than  in  others  ^  yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that  there 
are  far  more  Cafes,  wherein  fuch  a  Praftice  muft  be  deftruftive  to  the 
legal  Rights  of  the  Churth.    Suppofe  fome  Patrons  to  be  Perfons  of 
great  Piety  and  Integrity,  who  do  require  thefe  Bonds  only  to  bind 
the  Clergy  the  more  ftriftly  to  do  their  Duty  :  Suppofe  others  have  no 
Regard  to  their  own  Intereft,  but  only  take  care  of  Minors,  bred  up 
with  a  Profpeft  of  fuch  Benefices  which  they  are  not  yet  capable  of; 
(  which  are  the  moft  reafonable  Confiderations  infifted  upon  in  the  ad- 
judged Cafes :)  but  what  are  thefe  to  the  multitude  of  moft  unjuft  and 
unreafonable  Confiderations,  which  may  be  made  the  Conditions  of 
thefe  Bonds  ?  For  the  Bonds  are  fuppofed  to  be  general,  and  fo  the  Pa- 
trons left  at  liberty  to  impofe  their  own  Conditions.     And,  are  there 
no  fuch  kind  of  Patrons  among  us,  who  may  be  too  JLiftly  fufpefted 
to  mind  their  own  Interefts  above  the  Churches  Good  ?  And  therefore 
will  take  all  waystoleflenthe  Profits  of  Benefices  in  their  Difpofal,  as 
far  as  they  are  told  that  the  Law  permits  them  ?  Such  I  mean,  who 
have  no  Reftraint  but  what  the  Law  lays  upon  them,  having  no  Senfe 
of  Honour  or  Confcience  in  thefe  matters.    And  if  it  once  pafs  for  an 
allowed  Doftrine  in  Law,  that  Bonds  of  Re/ignation  are  lawful,  what 
fhall  ftop  fuch  Men  from  putting  very  unreafonable  Conditions  upon 
their  Incumbents,  or  elfe  they  may  prefently  call  them  to  an  Account 
for  the  Forieiture  of  the  Bonds?  If  then  there  be  no  effedual  courfe  fo 

nuich 


Bonds  ef  Kefignation,  S^c,  qil 


much  as  ofler'd  againft  very  hard  and  nnreafonable  Terms  5  how  can 
fuch  Bonds  be  thought  Juft  and  Reafonable? 

It  may  be  faid.  That  if  the  Conditions  be  fuch  as  are  allowed  by  Law^ 
then  the  Bonds  are  Uvpftd,  otherwife  not.  But  this  by  no  means  clear^ 
the  Difficulty.  For  the  main  Queftion  is,  whether  fuch  Bonds  be  law- 
ful, where  the  Conditions  are  not  exprefled,  but  raeer  notice  of  three 
or  fix  Months?  And  thefe  are  the  general  Bonds  of  Refignation  :  And 
fuch,  I  think,  I  may  with  Reafon  affirm  to  be  againft  both  Law  and 
Confcience.  But  fuppofe  there  may  be  Conditions  of  both  kinds  re- 
quired, but  it  is  not  exprefled  in  the  Bonds  what  they  are:  What  a 
miferable  Slavery  muft  the  Clergy  "be  under,  who  give  general  Bonds, 
and  know  not  what  Conditions  will  be  required  ?  And  then  they  muft 
go.  to  Law,  and  be  at  greater  Charge  and  Trouble  rhan  they  can  well 
bear,  to  know  whether  the  Conditions  required  of  them  be  fuch  as  the 
Law  allows  or  not?  So  that  the  general  allowance  of  Bonds  of  Resig- 
nation upon  Notice,  although  the  Law  be  left  to  determine  the  parti- 
cular Conditions,  is  that  which  we  have  Reafon  to  look  upon  as  very 
hard  and  unjuft,  and  inconfiftent  with  the  Nature  and  Defign  of  that 
Relation  which  the  Law  fuppofes  between  Patrons  and  Incumbents,  aS 
will  appear  more  afterwards. 

There  are  two  things  chiefly  infifted  on  by  thofe  who  plead  for  thefe 
IJonds  of  Refignation. 

I.  That  there  is  no  Law  againft  them. 

II.  That  there  have  been  Cafes  adjudged  for  them :  And  both  thefe 
I  ftiall  carefully  examine. 

I.  That  there  is  no  Law  againft  them.  There  are  two  Laws  to  be 
confider'd  in  this  matter. 

1.  The  Law  againft  Simoniacal  Contracts,  31  E//z>. 

2.  The  Law  which  requires  every  Incumbent  to  make  ah  Oath  againft 
Simony. 

I.  As  to  the  Law  againft  Simoniacal  Contrads:  The  Statute  is  ex- 
prefly  ag^\n{{  prefenting  to  a  Benefice  for  a  Sttmnt  of  Money ^  Reward,  Gift, 
Profit,  or  Benefit,  dire&ly  or  indirectly,  or  entring  into  Bond  or  Covenant 
for  that  Purpofe,  31  Eliz.  c.  6.  n.  5.  Wherein  thefe  things  are  obfer- 
vable : 

(i.)  That  it  is  not  a  meer  Summ  of  Money  which  is  here  forbidden, 
but  any  Benefit  vphatfoever  direHly  or  indire&ly. 

(2.)  That  not  meer  doing  the  thing  but  entring  into  Bond  or  Covenant 
to  do  it  is  within  the  Reach  of  this  Law. 

(5.)  That  the  Penalty  is  againft  fuch  rvho  do  prefentfor,  or  by  Reafon 
of  any  Promife  or  Agreement  for  any  Benefit  whatfoever  :  Or  thofe  who  do 
accept  fuch  Prefentations  on  thofe  terms  :  i.  e.  fo  as  it  becomes  the  Motive 
of  fuch  Prefentation  or  Acceptance. 

(4.)  That  the  fame  Law  declares,  n.  8.  againft  corrupt  Refigning  or 
Exchanging  the  Benefice  he  enjoys,  for  any  Shmm  of  Money  or  Benefit  what- 
foever. 

(5.)  That  the  Ecclefiaftical  Cenfures  ftill  remain  in  Force  againft  thefe 
Offences  :  Which  fuppofes  that  this  Law  doth  not  fuperfede  the  Eccle- 
fiaftical Laws  here  in  being,  n.  9. 

So  that  here  are  two  material  Queftions  to  be  refolved  upon  this  Sta- 
tute. 

[1.3  Whether  fince  the  making  this  Statute,  there  be  any  Simoniacal 
Conitadi,  but  what  is  againft  the  Purport  of  it? 

Yyyy  MWhc^ 


7 1 8  'A  Difcoarfe  concerning 

[2.]  Whether  a  Bond  of  Refignation,  upon  which  a  Benefice  is  gi- 
ven and  accepted,  be  within  the  Defign  of  it> 

[i.]  As  to  the  former ;  it  is  obfervable,  that  the  words  Siiftonj  or 
S'lmoniacd  Cotttra&y  are  never  mentioned  in  this  Statute.  For,  if  they 
had,  the  Judges  would  have  had  fufficient  Reafon  to  have  declared  what 
was  Simony^  and  what  not.  We  are  told  indeed  by  the  Reverend  and 
Learned  Judges  in  the  Cafe  of  M<?i^rf//cr  and  Toddenck,  That  the  Co»/i- 
g^j^  '  deration  to  have  Money  to  procure  one  to  be  Re&or  of  a  Church,  if  a  Simema- 
cal  Contra  i,  and  an  unllawful  AB  condemned  by  all  Laws  :  And  that  the 
Common  Law  before  the  Statute,  31  Eliz.  tack  notice  of  it.  But  they  do 
not  declare  how  far  the  Common  Law  could  take  notice  of  it,  before 
that  Sti'tute,  any  farther  than  that  it  was  not  a  thing  allowed  by  if. 
For  certainly  it  was  then  of  Spiritual  Cognifance  ^  and  the  Pcrfons 
guilty  of  it  were  to  be  proceeded  againfl:  by  the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws.  And 
confequently,  the  Notion  of  Simony  is  to  be  taken  from  thence,  and 
not  meerly  from  this  Statute :  So  that  if  accepting  a  Benefice  upon  giv- 
ing a  Bond  of  Refignation  were  Simoniscal  before,  it  doth  not  ceafe  to 
be  fo  by  this  Statute. ,  Indeed  corrupt  Refignation  oi  a  Benefice  bath  not 
the  fame  Penalty  by  this  Statute  with  corrupt  Aceepance  oi  it  at  firft: 
For  that  is  a  Difability,  and  the  other  double  the  Value.  But  hereby 
we  fee  that  the  one  isagainft  the  Law,  as  much  as  the  other.  So  far 
then  it  is  clear  by  this  Statute,  that  any  corrupt  Refignation  is  againft 
Law;  And  if  the  enquiry  be  after  the  Penalty,  the  Statute  muft  deter- 
mine that.  But  if  the  Qeieftion  be,  whether  Refignation  upon  a  Bond 
given  before  hand  in  order  to  a  Prefentation,  be  a  Simoniacal  ASt  or 
not,  as  done  in  Purfuance  of  a  Simoniacal  ContraU?  In  that  the  Statute 
gives  no  Rule,  but  only  declares  the  Penalties  of  fome  particular  Afts, 
which  are  there  exprefled. 

Thofe  who  would  have  nothing  now  to  be  Simony,  but  what  is  there 
forbidden,  muft  firft  prove  that  the  Intention  of  the  Law  was  to  limit 
and  determine  the  Nature  of  Simony  5  which  (as  is  already  obferved) 
is  not  fo  much  as  mentioned  in  it.    The  Reafon  of  the  Law  as  to  Pe- 
nalties is  one  thing,  and  the  Nature  of  a  Simoniacal  Contract  another. 
If  a  Queftion  be  put,  whether  a  Simoniacal  Contrail  be  void  in  Law  or 
5  inft,      not?  My  Lord  Coke  faith,  that  the  Statute  doth  not  make  the  Bond,  Co- 
Marg.       ""^fi^fit,  Promife,  or  other  Affurance,  void,  but  the  Prefentment,  &c.  and 
fo  it  was  adjudged,  40  Eliz.    This  is  fomewbat  ftrange  Doftrine,  that 
a  Prefentment  fhould  be  void  by  reafon  of  a  Simoniactl  Bond,  and  yet 
that  Bond  not  be  void  in  Law.^    For  that  which  makes  another  thing 
void,  one  would  think  ftioulc   be  void  in  it  felf  ^  efpecially  fince  he 
faith  in  the  fame  Chapter,  that  Simony  is  odious  in  the  Eye  of  the  Common 
Law.    But  not  fo  very  odious,  if  a  Simoniacal  Contract  be  a  good  Con- 
tradt  according  to  the  Common  Law.  But  he  diftinguiftieth  between  Ma- 
lum in  fe  againfl  the  Common  Law,  and  Malum  prohibitum  by  Statute  Law. 
How  doth  this  clear  the  Point?  The  Prefentation  is  void,  being  pro- 
hibited by  the  Statute:  But  is  not  a  Simoniacal  Contraft  Malum  in  fe, 
againft  the  Common  Law  >  How  then  comes  this  not  to  be  void  ?  Efpe- 
cially fince  it  is  contractus  ex  turpi  causa  :  And  for  that  reafon  my  Lord 
Hob.  f.      llobart  held  it  void  in  Law;  and  fo  the  Court  held  in  Makaller's  Cafe. 
167-        Butfuppofe  my  Lord  Coke  in  the  right,  as  to  a  Simoniacal  Contract,  that 
361.  ^^'    ^^  ^^  ^^^  ^o^^  ^t  Common  Law:  it  follows  from  thence,  that  the  con- 
fideration  of  Law  and  Confcience  is  different  in  this  matter.     For  I  fup- 
pofe  none  will  deny  that  a  Simoniacal  Contract  is  unlawful  in  point  of 

Con- 


Bonds  of  Kefignation,  7 1  f 


Confcience  5  and  yet  he  afferfs  it  not  to  be  void  in  Law.     Why  then 
may  not  Bonds  of  Refignation,  although  not  within  the  compafs  of 
this  Statute,  yet  be  unlawful  in  point  of  Confcience,  as  well  as  a  Si- 
moniacal  Contraft  be  unlawful  in  point  of  Confcience,  and  yet  be  good 
by  the  Common  Law  ?  Either  therefore  Simony,  as  odious  as  it  is  in 
the  Eye  of  the  Law,  muft  not  be  Malutfi  in  fe  againji  Common  Law,  as 
my  Lord  Coke  fpeaks  ^  or  if  it  be,  there  muft  be  another  Rule  of  Con- 
fcience in  this  matter  from  this  Statute.    I  would  fain  know  what  was 
Simony  at  Common  Law  before  this  Statute  ^    and  vvhether  that  which 
was  fo  before  doth  not  continue  fo  ftill,  if  it  be  not  taken  away  by  it  ? 
For  if  there  be  no  Simony  now,  but  what  is  exprefled  in  that  Statute, 
then  it  muft  declare  what  is  Simony,  and  what  not.    Simony,  faith  my 
LordC<7/^e,  is  defcribedby  this  A3,  31  Eliz,  and  he  faith  in  his  Margin, 
Injkjltim  ejl  ilia  vendere,  mie  gratis  difiribui  debent -^   which  is  a  very 
good  Illuftration  of  it.     But  the Queftion  is,  What  is  meant  hy Selling? 
Whether  it  be  merely  for  a  Sum  of  Money  paid  down,  or  fecured  by 
Bond  or  Covenant  ?  Or  whether  it  doth  not  take  in  any  kind  of  Bene- 
fit or  Emolument  accruing  to  the  Perfon  who  beftows  it,  which  hin- 
ders it  from  being  a  free  Gift  ?  The  Cafuifts  fay.  Nomine  emptionis  ^Syiveft.  y. 
venditionis  intelligititr  omnii  contra&us  non  gratuituf.     But  can   that  be 
called  a  free  Gift,  where  there  is  a  Bond  of  Refignation  of  fuch  a 
thing,  whereof  the  Poffeffion  and  Reverfion  bear  a  Price,  and  have  a 
real  Value  >   We  need  not  run  to  Simon  Magus  to  underftand  what 
turpe  Commerchtm  is.     There  were  many  Laws  among  the  old  Romans,s\gon.  de 
againft  purchafing  any  publick  Offices;    and  they  thought  it  a  great {"^q*;" '*^* 
Reproach  to  them  for  any  Price  to  be  fet  upon  them  ;    as  the  great 
Roman  Mafter  faid,  Pretium  quod  habei,  hoc  ipfo  vilefclt.     By  the  Laws  Q-l""''- 
Acila  and  Calpurnia,  all  that  were  convift  of  giving  Money  for  Offi- /.ciceron 
ces,  were  under  a  Difability  or  Incapacity  of  any  for  the  future  ;  and  P'".o i''^""* 
the  Mercati,resPoteflatum  were  infamous  by  their  Laws.  ^r///<7//e  thought  Lan"prid.* 
it  a  matter  of  very  ill  Confequence  to  any  Government  to  have  any  in  Aiex. 
thing  of  Money  given  for  Offices,  becaufe  it  taught  Men  to  fet  a  great- ^^j.^^^"pQ,^ 
er  Value  on  Money  than  Vertue.     Thefe  Confiderations,  fetting  afide /.  2. c.  ii« 
the  Story  of  Simon  Magus,  were  great  enough  to  induce  the  Chriftian 
Church  to  be  extremely  nice  and  tender  in  this  matter  of  Benefices  ^ 
and  not  only  to  forbid  the  Uireft  Sale  of  them  for  Money,  but  any  in- 
direct Trafficking,  which  might  take  off  the  entire  Freedom  of  the  Pre- 
fentation  of  Perfons  to  them.     I  know  to  how  little  purpofe  it  would 
be.  to  reckon  up  all  the  Canons  which  have  been  made  in  the  Chriftian 
Church  from  the  Apoftles  Times  downwards  againft  Simony,  becaufe 
fome  will  fay.  That  the  Ecclejiafiitks  were  always  true  tatheir  own  Intereji. 
But  let  us  fet  afide  all  Prejudice  in  this  matter,  and  confider  it  impartial- 
ly.    If  any  Offices  in  the  World  ought  to  be  free  from  the  Sufpicion  o'f 
fordid  Trafficking,  certainly  thofe  of  the  Church  ought,  from  the  Na- 
ture and  Defign  of  their  Imployments.    The  Queftion  then  will  come 
to  this,  Whether  giving  a  Bond  of  Refignation,  in  order  to  the  pro- 
curing a  Benefice,  be  fuch  a  Ti:afficking  or  rot  ?    And  we  have  three 
Rules  to  judge  by. 

I.  The  Nature  and  Reafon  of  the  thing:  Whether  fuch  A&ings  be 
not  inconfiftent  with  that  Freedom  which  ought  to  be  ufed,  both  in 
Giving  and  Taking  Ecclefiaftical  Benefices  ?  So  that  if  there  were  no 
Laws  either  Ecclefiaftical  or  Civil  in  the  cafe,  whether  there  be  not 
fomething  in  thefe  Tranfadions  unbecoming  the  Defign  and  Dignity  of 
the  Employment  .>  ^  X  y  y  2  2.  Tfag 


720  A  Difcourfe  concerning 


2.  The  Ecclefiaftical  Law  of  England,  which  hath  been  from  rime 
to  time  received  here,  and  allow'dby  a  general  Confent,  and  ftill  con- 
tinues in  force,  where  it  is  not  repugnant  to  any  Laws  of  the  Realm  5 
which  cannot  be  pretended  in  this  cafe. 

3.  The  Statute-Law,  which  doth  not  abrogate  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law 
as  to  Simony  5  it  only  enacts  fome  particular  Penalties  on  fome  more 
remarkable  Simoniacal  Afts  as  to  Benefices  and  Orders,  but  never  once 
goes  about  to  repeal  any  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  about  Simony,  or  to  deter- 
mine the  Nature  and  Bounds  of  it. 

[2,]  But  let  us  come  more  clofely  to  the  Statute  it  felf,  to  fee  whe- 
ther thefe  Bonds  of  Elefignation  be  not  againft  the  Defign  of  it.  The 
Words  are.  If  any  Ferfon  for  any  Sum  of  Money,  Remard,  Gft,  Profit 
or  Benefit,  dire&ly  or  indiretlly,  or  for  or  by  reafon  of  any  Promife,  Agree- 
ment, Grant,  Bond,  Covenant,  or  other  Afiurance  of  or  for  any  Sum  of  Mo- 
ney, Gift,  or  Profit  whatfoever,  direSly  or  iadireBly^  (hall  prefent ,  &c. 
Now  we  fuppofe  a  Patron  to  prefent  one  to  a  Benefice  without  any 
Money,  or  Bond  for  Money  5  but  he  declares  before  his  prefenting 
him.  That  he  muft  enter  into  a  Bond  to  Refign  his  Benefice  upon  Six 
Months  Notice,  under  a  fevere  Penalty  ;  to  which  he  fubmits  on  the 
Condition  of  obtaining  his  Benefice.  After  this,  the  Patron  demands 
fuch  a  Portion  of  Tythes  5  or  a  Confent  for  him  to  inclofe,  to  the  ap- 
parent Benefit  of  the  Patron,  and  Diminution  of  the  Profits  of  the 
Living.  The  Queftion  is.  Whether  fuch  a  Bond  be  within  the  Defign 
of  this  Statute  ?  All  that  can  be  faid  is.  That  no  fuch  Confideration  is 
exprefled  in  the  Bond,  which  is  in  general  Terms  ^  which  implies. 
That  if  the  Confideration  had  been  exprefled  in  the  Bond,  it  had  been 
plainly  againft  the  Law.  But  fuppofe  it  be  left  out  of  the  Bond,  is 
not  the  penal  Sum  of  the  Forfeiture  of  the  Bond  fufficient  to  make  the 
poor  Incumbent  comply  with  the  Terms  propofed  afterwards  ?  If  none 
but  juft  and  reafonable  things  had  been  intended,  why  were  they  not 
clearly  exprefled  in  the  Bond  it  felf,  fo  as  to  prevent  any  Fear  or  Jea- 
loufy  of  worfe  Defigns  ?  Have  no  fuch  things  ever  been  pradifed,  or 
heard  of  among  us  ?  If  there  had  not,  doth  it  not  look  like  a  Contri- 
vance to  deceive  the  Law,  and  to  hamper  the  Confciences  of  thofe 
who  take  Benefices  ?  And  Whatever  is  done  infraudem  Legis,  is  againft 
Law^  for  it  fruftrates  the  main  Intention  and  Defign  of  a  Law  without 
breaking  the  Letter  of  it;  which  is  the  worft  way  of  defeating  a  Law. 

But  we  are  told.  That  our  Courts  of  Lavp  are  to  Judge  according  to  the 
Law,  and  not  according  to  an  equitable  Confiru&ion  of  the  Intention  and 
Defign  of  it.  If  it  be  really  fo,  it  doth  only  fhew  that  fuch  Courts  are 
under  a  ftrange  Limitation,  which  are  tied  up  to  the  Letter  of  a  Law, 
againft  the  main  Scope  and  principal  End  of  it.  But  by  the  Judges 
Oath,  18  £.  3.  n.  2.  20  E.  :?.  n.  I.  they  are  bound  to  do  equal  Lave  and 
Execution  of  Right  to  all  the  King's  Subje^s,  &c.  What  is  here  meant 
by  equal  Law  .<?  Is  it  to  purfue  the  Letter  of  the  Law  againft  the  Reafon 
and  Defign  of  it  ?  '  • 

There  are  two  forts  of  Equity  to  be  confider'd  among  usi 

1.  An  Equity  founded  upon  a  reafonable  Conftruftion  of  Law,  ac- 
cording to  the  Intention  of  it. 

2.  An  Equity  for  which  the  Common  Law  hath  made  no  Provifion^ 
as  in  Cafes  of  Fraud,  Accident  and  Trujl  5  which  is  the  true  Founda- 
tion of  the  Court  of  Equity  in  Chancery^  viz.  to  fupply  the  Defers  of 
our  Law  in  thofe  Cafes. 

The 


Bonds  of  Kefignation,  721 

The  Queftion  now  is.  Whether  the  judges  at  Common  Law  are  fo 
tied  up  to  the  bare  Letter  of  it,  that  they  cannot  take  in  fuch  Cafes, 
which  are  according  to  the  Reafon  of  a  Law,  but  not  within  the  Words 
of  it  ?  And  my  Lord  Cohe  allows  this  fort  of  Equity.    For,  faith  he. 
Equity  is  a  ConjlruHion  made  by  the  Judges,  that  Cafes  out  of  the  Letter  of\\n{{.z^M 
a    Statute,    yet  being  rfithin  the  fame  M/fchief  or  Caufe  of  making  the 
fame,   {hall  be  xoithin  the  fame  Remedy   that    That    Statute  providethi 
Thefe  are  remarkable  Words  of  this  great  Oracle  of  the  Law,  and  ought 
to  be  well  weighed  and  confidered  in  all  fuch  Cafes  as  this.     And  he 
afterwards  faith.  That  Equity  is  the  Reafon  of  the  Larv,  which  weighs  Ca- 
fes according  to  their  due  Meafures  5  and  fo  gives  in  paribus  rationihus  pa- 
ria  Jura  &  Judicia.    If  then  thefe  Bonds  of  Refignation  are  within  the 
Reafon  of  this  Law,  and  tend  to  the  fame  Mifchief,  they  ought  to  have 
the  fame  Remedy  ^  and  it  cannot  be  made  any  juft  Plea  for  them,  that 
they  are  not  within  the  Letter  of  the  Law. 

If.  I  now  come  to  cdnfider  the  Oath  againft  Simony,  which  every 
Incumbent  is  bound  to  take,  which  runs  in  thefe  Words  j  "  I,  A.  B.  do  ' 

"  fwear  that  I  have  made  no  Simoniacal  Payment,  Contraft  or  Promife, 
"  direftly  or  indireftly,  by  my  felf  or  by  any  other,  to  my  Knowledge 
"  or  with  my  Confent,  to  any  Perfon  or  Perfons  whatfoever,  for  or 
"  concerning  the  procuring  or  obtaining  of  the  Reftory  or  Vicarage  5 
"  nor  will  at  any  time  hereafter  perform  or  fatisfy  any  fuch  kind  of 
"  Payment,  Contraft  or  Promife  made  by  any  other  without  my  Know- 
"  ledge  or  Confent. 

Simory,  faith  my  Lord  Coh,  is  the  mtre  odiottt,  becaufe  it  is  ever  ^ic-sinft.ijiJ. 
compan'ied  with  Perjury  ;  for  the  Prefintee  is  fvporn  to  commit  no  Simony. 

Here  are  too  things  fit  to  be  confidered. 

1.  That  the  Oath  is  not  meerly  againft  direft  Simony,  but  againft  any 
Simoj/ia  al  Contra^  for  obtaining  a  Benefice. 

2.  That  this  Oath  is  not  limited  to  the  Statute,  31  Eli%.  nor  made 
in  purfuance  of  it,  but  was  in  being  long  before  ^  and  therefore  muft    , 
have  its  Interpretation  from  the  Ecclefiafiical  Law,  as  it  was  here  recei- 
ved, and  not  from  the  Words  of  the  Statute,  which  do  not  mention  Noy,  25* 
a  Simoniacal  ContraS.     We  muft  then  enquire  what  was  a  Simoniacal 
Contra^  by  onr  Eccle/iajiical  Law. 

In  our  Provincial  Conftitutions,  which  were  received  as  part  of  cure.  de. Ju- 
Law  relating  to  Ecclefiaftical  Matters,  there  is  one  about  an  Oath  to  be  fei,"^"s''ta^J 
taken  by  every  one  prefented  before  the  Bifhop,  That  for  the  obtain- 
ing  the  Prefentation,  he  had  neither  promt  fed  nor  given  any  thing  to  him 
that  prefented  h'lm  i,  nee  aliquam  propter  hoc  inierit  pactionem,   nor  enter  d 
into  any  Band  or  Covenant  for  that  end  5   not  a  Covenant  to  pay  a  Sum 
of  Money,  but  to  obtain  the  Prefentation.    Propter  hoc,  faith  Lynwood,  Lynw/.^ 
/'.  tit  pr<ffentetur  5  and  he  declares  it  before,  that  whatever  is  done  with 
an  Intention  to  induce  the  Patron  to  prefent,  is  Simoniacal ;  and  what* 
ever  Compaft  any  enter  into  for  that  purpofe,  is  a  Simoniacal  Contrail, 
Nay  he  goes  fo  far  as  to  fay,  the  doing  any  thing  with  that  Defign  to 
obtain  a  Benefice,  makes  it  a  Mental  Simony  ^  (which  reaches  not  to  the 
Oath,  and  requires  no  more  but  Repentance)  but  if  there  be  a  Bargain 
between  the'Patron  and  the  Party  to  be  prefented,  he  declares  it  to  be 
a  Simoniacal  Contra^.     He  puts  the  Queftion,    If  a  Perfon  offers  to 
ferve  a  Patron  for  a  Year  or  two,  with  that  Intention  to  obtain  the  Pre- 
fentation to  fuch  a  Benefice  by  it.  Whether  fuch  a  one  can  with  a  fafe 
Confcience  take  the  Oath  ?  He  anfwers.  Negatively.    If  this  were  his 
principal  Defign,  and  there  were  a  Bond  or  Covenant  between  them 

to 


'722  ^  Difcourfe  concerning 


to  that  purpofe;  for  this  were  Simony.  From  whence  it  follows,  that 
any  Bond  or  Covenant  enter'd  into  for  that  End,  to  obtain  a  Prtfenta- 
tion,  was  Simoniacd  according  to  the  Senfe  of  our  Law  Ecclefi  ftical. 

In  the  time  of  Archbi(h6p  Courtney^  the  Form  of  the  Oath  was  more 
full  andexprefs,  as  it  is  extant  in  the  Archbi(hop's  Regifter  called  Mar- 
ton^  and  in  Spelmans  Councils:  For  there  is  this  Claufe  added,  That 
neither  themfelves,  nor  any  Friends  of  theirs  are  under  any  Bo/^ds  abmt 
the  Refignation  or  Exchange  of  their  Benefices.  Here  the  Oath  is  expref- 
fed  againft  any  Bonds  of  Refignation.  But  why  is  this  Ciaufe  left  out 
fince?  Becaufe  it  was  fuppofed  to  be  fufficiently  implied  in  the  other 
Words ;  fince  this  was  at  leafl:  an  indireft  Simoniacal  Contract. 

It  may  be  faid,  "  That  Men  are  not  now  tied  up  to  the  Canonifts 
'  Opinions  about  Mental  andConventional  Simony:  For  our  Law  owns 
'  nothing  but  Real  Simony^  i.  e.  either  aftual  Payment,  or  a  Bond  to 
'  pay  fuch  a  Summ  of  Money  to  obtain  a  Prefentation  :  And  if  there 
'  be  no  Contraft  for  that  end,  it  is  no  Simoniacal  Contract  according  to. 
'  our  Law. 

This  is  all  that  can  be  faid  in  this  Cafe ;  but  I  think  it  can  give  no 
confidering  Man  Satisfadion.  For  the  Intention  of  the  Law,  in  being 
fo  drift  and  fevere  againft  all  Simoniacal  Contracts,  was  twofold\" 

I.  To  preferve  the  Dignity  of  the  facred  Funftion;  which  could  ne- 
ver be  upheld,  if  mean  and  fordid  Trafficking  were  allowed  as  to  Bene- 
fices. For  the  People  can  never  have  any  due  Refpedt  or  Veneration 
for  a  Perfon,  whom  they  fufpeft  to  have  come  into  his  Place  among 
them  by  indireft  Praftices  5  altliough  it  be  not  the  Payment  of  fo  much 
Money.  For  they  have  fo  much  Senfe  as  to  know,  that  what  is  valu- 
able by  Money,  is  as  good  as  Money,  according  to  its  Proportion : 
And  if  a  Man  gives  a  Bond  to  Refign  his  Living  upon  Notice  5  they 
know  how  much  this  abates  of  the  Value  of  it  to  him,  when  he  holds  it 
on  fuch  a  precarious  Title ;  and  that  he  gives  fo  much  to  obtain  the  Li- 
ving as  it  is  of  lefs  Value  to  him/han  if  he  had  it  without  any  fuch  Bond. 
He  that  is  forced  by  a  Bond  to  refign  his  Benefice,  muft  part  with  what 
is  really  valuable  to  him,  as  much  as  thePolIeflaonof  it  for  fo  many 
years,  as  he  might  otherwife  enjoy  it,  would  come  to :  And  he  that 
gives  a  Bond  to  that  purpofe  to  obtain  a  Prefentation,  doth  oblige  him- 
felf  to  give  to  the  Patron  fo  much  as  that  Intereft  can  be  valued  at.  Is 
not  a  free  unconditional  Intereft  in  a  Benefice  really  more  valuable,  than 
that  which  depends  on  the  Pleafure  of  another  ?  If  it  be,  then  he  that 
gives  a  Bond  of  Refignation,  doth  give  fomething  really  valuable  in 
Money,  to  obtain  the  Prefentation.  And  how  can  this  be  excufed  from 
Simony^  Yes,  fome  may  fay;  Simony  is  only  a  frightful  word  ufed  by 
Ecclefiaflicks  to  deterr  People  from  making  the  beft  of  their  own  : 
whereas  the  true  Notion  of  Simony  is  only  buying  the  Gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghofi  :  But  what  Relation  is  there  between  the  Gifts  of  the  holy  Ghojl 
and  a  Benefice  <^ 

I  do  not  think  there  are  any  fo  weak,  as  to  imagine  the  Gifts  of  the 
Holy  Ghofi  can  be  purchafed  with  Money  given  to  Patrons^  and  if  they 
could,  the  dealers  in  fuch  Bargains  would  not  think  them  worth  their 
Money  5  which  they  could  lay  out  upon  things  of  greater  value  to 
them.  But  here  lies  the  true  State  of'  the  Cafe.  It  hath  been  the  Wif- 
dom  «nd  Charity  of  Princes  and  other  Perfons  of  Eftates,  to  make  En- 
dowments of  Parochial  Churches  for  the  Support  and  Incouragment  of 
thofe  in  Holy  Orders  to  attend  upon  the  Service  of  Cod  in  them ;  And 

the 


Bonds  of  Refig/iatio/i,  &c.  723 


the  Law  of  the  Land  hath  fo  annexed  the  Spiritual  Duty  with  the 
Temporal  Advantage,  that  no  one  can  be  capable  cf  the  latter,  that  is 
not  obliged  to  the  other.  So  that  the  Right  of  difcharging  a  Spiritual 
Truft,  and  the  Right  ofenjoying  the  Profits  go  together.  But  to  prevent 
the  unfpeakable  Mifchief  of  purchafing  the  Profits  which  are  devoted 
"to  fuch  a  Spiritual  life,  this  hath  been  called  by  thedeteftable  Name  of 
Simony  5  and  very  fevere  Laws  have  been  made,  not  on}y  againfl: 
the  giving  of  Money,  but  the  ufing  of  any  indireft  Means  to  obtain  a 
Prefentation.  Becaufe  fuch  things  do  leflen  the  Efteem  of  thofe  who 
ufe  them ;  and  not  only  thereby  make  them  more  uncapable  of  doing 
Service,  but  expofe  the  Sacred  Fundion  it  felf  to  Contempt. 

2.  Another  great  end  of  thefe  Laws,  is  to  keep  the  Clergy  from  Op- 
preffion  and  Slavery.  I  am  far  from  going  about  to  leflen  the  Juft 
and  legal  Rights  of  Patrons,  who  by  our  Laws  enjoy  fome  Privileges, 
which  are  not  allowed  them  in  other  Countries,  where  the  Ecclefiafti- 
cal  Law  is  (Vrifter  than  here  in  England :  As  in  the  Liberty  of  felling  > 

the  Rights  of  Advowfons ;  their  Trial  at  Common  Law  5  the  fix  Months 
for  Patrons,  d>'.  But  for  our  right  underftanding  the  prefent  matter, 
it  muft  be  confider'd,  as  to  the  Rights  ot  Patrons,  that  it  was  not  an 
Original  and  Abfolute  Right  to  difpofe  of  Benefices  as  they  pleafed  5 
but  a  limited  Truft  repofed  in  them,  to  put  in  fit  Perfons  to  difcharge 
the  Duties  of  their  Places.  It  is  very  well  known  to  all  Perfons  who 
have  looked  into  thefe  Matters,  that  in  the  firft  Settlement  of  this 
Church  of  England,  the  Biftiops  of  the  feveral  Dioceffeshad  them  un- 
der their  own  immediate  Care  5  and  that  they  had  the  Clergy  living  in 
a  Community  with  them,  whom  they  fent  abroad  to  feveral  Parts  of 
their  Diocejfes,  as  they  faw  occafion  to  imploy  them  ^  but  that  by  De- 
grees, they  faw  a  neceffity  of  fixing  Presbyters  within  fuch  a  Compafs, 
to  attend  upon  the  Service  of  God  among  the  People  that  were  the  In- 
habitants :  That  thefe  Precin6is,  which  are  fince  called  Parifhes,  were 
at  firft  much  larger,  and  caft  into  fuch  Divifions  in  each  Diocefs,  as 
probably  make  up  the  feveral  Deanariet  fince :  That  when  Lords  of 
Manours  were  inclined  to  build  Churches  for  their  own  Conveniencies, 
they  found  it  neceffary  to  make  fome  Endowments,  to  oblige  thofe  who 
officiated  in  their  Churches  to  a  diligent  Attendance:  That  upon  this, 
the  feveral  Biftiops  were  very  well  content  to  let  thofe  Patrons  have 
the  Nomination  of  Perfons  to  thofe  Churches,  provided  they  were  fa- 
tisfied  of  the  fitnefs  of  thofe  Perfons,  and  that  it  were  not  deferred  be- 
yond fuch  a  limited  time.  So  that  the  Right  of  Patronage  is  really  but 
a  limited  Truft  5  and  the  Bi(bops  are  ftill  in  Law  the  Judges  of  the  fit- 
nefs of  the  Perfons  to  be  imployed  in  the  feveral  parts  of  their  Diocef- 
fes.  But  the  Patrons  never  had  the  abfolute  difpofal  of  their  Benefi- 
ces upon  their  own  Terms ;  but  if  they  did  not  prefent  fit  Perfons  with- 
in the  limited  time,  the  Care  of  the  places  did  return  to  the  Bifhop, 
who  was  then  bound  to  provide  for  them.  Some,  pretend,  that  before  2  inft; 
the  Lateran  Council,  there  was  no  tifxeof  Lapfe  to  the  B'tjbop,  if  the  Patron  3^>- 
did  not  prefent  5  but  that  the  Bifiop  was  to  provide  one  to  ferve  the  Cure 
in  the  mean  time,  and  the  Patron  might  prefent  when  he  would.  But  this 
is  certainly  a  miftake,  however  it  be  afTerted  by  perfons  of  great  Autho- 
rity. My  Lord  Coke  cites  Bra^on  and  Fleta  for  it :  But  I  can  find  no- 
thing like  it  in  either  of  them.  Bra&on  indeed  fpeaks  of  the  time  ofBraft.  1,4, 
lapfe  by  the  Council  of  Lateran,  which  was  to  be  after  fix  Months,  ifa^-l-'* 
Difpute  hapned  about  the  Title ;  and  this  Conftitution  is  extant  in  the 

Dare- 


724  -^  Difcoiirfe  concerning. 


Ve  Pa-  ■^^^'"^^'^^^  •*  -And  the  fame  Words  are  ufed  by  Fleta :  but  not  a  Word  in 
iron,  c;  either  of  them  df  any  unlmited  Power  ivhh  h  Patrons  had  before,  as  far 
22.  Fieca  as  I  Can  find.  Which  made  me  wonder  at  fuch  a  Maxim,  as  I  find  by 
Selden  of  i^veral  fathct'd  on  Bra&on,  Ante  Concilmm  Lateranenfe  mtUum  currebat 
Tithes,  c.  tempus  contra  Fnefent antes.  But  Rolls  very  iairly  reports  it  juft  as  it  is 
AbrfeJ-  ^"  Bra&onz,  yet  afterwards  he  recites  Mr.  .SeWew's  Words.  Before  this 
menc,  c.  Lateran  Council  Alex,  had  fent  a  Confticution  hither,  which  allow'd 
1^4-  the  Bifhops,  in  cafe  any  difference  hapned  about  the  Patronage, 
Officio^  fo  fequefter  the  Profits,  without  fixing  the  Time:  Which  is  all  the 
Jud.  Or.  Foundation  I  can  meet  with  for  this  famous  Maxim.  But  before  this  wfe 
Sgeli'.t.  ™^y  obferve  feveral  Canons  of  Councils,  which  limited  the  Patrons  to 
in  Synod,  three  Months.  Thefe  Canons  were  never  receiv'd  in  England  5  which, 
^""lco  ^^  '  tniftake  not,  had  always  the  Privilege  of  fx  Months  for  Patrons. 
4*'in  Sy.  This  I  ground  upon  the  Regj/ier,  a  Book  of  great  Authority,  and  con- 
nod,  Rom.  fiderable  Antiquity,  where  it  is  faid  exprefly.  That  the  Bi(l:iops  have  not 
Horn.'  '  '^^  Right  of  Lapfe  till  fix  Months  are  pajfedi,  which  is  faid  to  hefecundunt 
Regiftr.  i.  legem  d>  confuetudinem  Regni  Anglic,  according  to  the  ancient  Cujlont 
Cuft.        ^"^  ^"^  of  tnghnd.    And  the  like  was  obferved  in  the  old  Cuftoms  of 

Norm.       Normandy. 

Art.  6p.        But  by  the  ancient  Law  of  England,  notwithffanding  the  Ri^ht  of 
Patronage,  the  bifhop  of  the  Diocefs  had  thefe  Rights  referved  to  him  : 

1.  The  Right  of  Admijjion  of  the  Perfon  prefented. 

2.  The  Right  of  Lapfe,  or  beftowing  the  Benefice,  if  the  Patron 
fail'd  his  fix  Months. 

5.  The  Right  of  making  an  Avoidance,  by  Deprivation  or  Refignatiott. 
I.  The  Bifliop  hath  by  Law  the  Right  of  Admijjion  of  the  Perfon 
prefented  by  the  Patron.  For  here  from  the  time  of  Chriftianity  being 
received  among  the  Saxons,  at  leaft  as  far  as  we  can  trace  any  Footfteps 
of  the  Settlement  of  a  Parochial  Clergy,  it  was  exprefly  provided  for 
That  no  Presbyter  (Ijould  be  fixed  in  any  Place,  vpithout  the  Confent  of  the 
Bifhop.  For  this  we  have  a  Canon  o{  Theodore  Archbilhop  of  Canter- 
bury, preferved  by  Egbert  Archbifhop  of  Tork  (  each  the  Seventh  in 
their  Sees,  but  at  fome  diftance  of  time)  in  his  CoUeftion  of  Canons: 
Condi'.  *'^^  words  are,  Statutum  eft  ut  fine  Authoritate  &  Confenfu  Epifcoportm, 
Presbyteri  in  quibuflibet  Epclefiis  non  confiituantw,  nee  inde  expellantur 
&  fi  tjiik  hoc  facere  tentaverit^  Synodali  Sententia  feriatur.  So  that  by 
the  Original  Conftitution  of  this  Church  the  Bilhops  had  the  Power  of 
fixing  Presbyters  in  Churches,  and  of  removing  them  if  there  were  occa- 
fion,  and  no  other  perfons  could  do  it  without  them.  This  doth  by  no 
means  infringe  the  Flight  of  Nomination  or  Prefentation  ot  fit  Perfons 
to  the  Bi(hop  :  but  it  implies  that  no  fuch  Prefentation  was  fuflBcient, 
unlefs  the  Bifhop  did  firfl:  approve  and  confent  to  the  Perfon.  Where- 
in the  ancient  Right  of  Patronage  here  in  England  did  confift,  we  ean- 
not  have  a  better  account,  than  from  the  Words  of  all  the  Nobility  of 
England  in  their  Remonftrance  to  Gregory  IX.  when  he  attempted  to  in- 
Match.Pa-  croacK  upou  them  by  Papal  Provifions :  Cum  igitttr  a  prima  Chriftianita- 
7i2o'p  '"  Fundatione  in  Anglia,  tali  fnertnt  hactenus  progemtores  nofit'i  gavifi 
3 1  J.  liber  tate,  quod  decedentibuf  Ecclcfiarum  Rectoribus,  Ecclefianim  Vatroni 
Perfonas  idoneas  eligentes  ad  eafdem,  Diocefanis  prtcfentaverunt  ab  eifdem 
Ecclcfiarum  Regimini  pr^ficiendas.  Thefe  are  Words  of  great  Weight, 
and  do  plainly  (hew,  that  the  Right  of  Patronage  confifted  in  the  No- 
mination of  fit  Perfons  to  the  Bilhop  of  the  Diocefs  for  any  vacant 
places .'  But  that  the  Bifhops  were,  if  they  approved  them,  to  put 

thenj 


Bo?i/Is  of  Kefignatim.  725 


them  into  the  pofTeffion  of  them.     In  the  time  of  InnornMt  III.  the  King  innocen^ 
wrote  to  the  Pope,  That  the  Nobility  and  Bifliops  of  England  did  inpfl  ^P'^"  '" ' 
upon  it,   as  their  Right  by  the  ancient  Ctiflom,  to  build  Churches  on  their 
own  Lands  :  And  the  Pope  yielded  it  to  the  Laity,  provided  that  they  had 
the  Confent  of  the  Bijhop  of  the  Diocefe,  and  that  the  Rights  of  former  Chur- 
ches were  not  prejudiied  thereby.    But  faith  Mr.  Selden,  they  challenged  it  ^g\^f.^^f 
Tfiithont  Licence.    What  to  do  ?    To  build  Churches  on  their  own  Lands  j2>f/;ej,563 
but  not  a  Word  of  putting  in  any  Incumbents  by  their  own  Power, 
without  the  Biftiop's  Confent  and  Approbation.  Nay  it  appears  that  they 
could  not  build  Churches  on  their  own  Lands  without  the  Bifbop  s  allow- 
ance. Mr, Selden  would  fain  have  it  believed.  That  the  Right  ofPrefenta-    38-. 
tion  to  the  Bifhop  of  the  Diocefe  came  in  by  the  Canon  Law  about  A.D.  1 200. 
But  the  Infinuations  of  that  kind,  as  they  are  frequent  in  his  Book  of 
Tythes,  fo  they  do  (hew  his  want  of  Skill  or  Ingenuity  at  that  time,  as 
much  as  any  one  part  of  ir.     But  I  need  go  no  farther  than  this  Let- 
ter of  the  Nobility  to  the  Pope,  who  were  extreamly  jealous  of  theic 
Rights  of  Patronage,  and  yet  they  challenged  nothing  thereby,  but 
a  Right  of  Nomination  of  a  fit  Perfon  to  the  BiQiop  of  the  Diocefe, 
not  a  word  of  Inveftiture  or  Collation  by  the  Patron,  which  Mr. Selden 
talks  of.     He  doth  not  deny.  That  after  A.D.  1100.  it  was  the  mdoubt-     85, 85, 
ed  Law  of  England  for  the  Patrons  to  prefent  to  the  Bifliops.     But  I  fay,    'S?* 
it  was  the  Law  of  England  before  ever  the  Decretals  were  made  5   it 
was  the  Original  and  Fundamental  Law  of  the  Englifl)  Church,  and  as 
ancient  as  the  Right  of  Patronage.    In  the  fame  Epiftle  they  defire  the 
Pope  to  leave  them  to  their  ancient  Liberty,  which  was  Perfonas  Ido- 
neas  pr£fe/.'tare.     But  who  is  to  be  Judge  of  the  Fitnefs  of  the  Perfons? 
For  that  we  have  a  full  Declaration  of  the  ancient  Law  and  Cuftom  of 
Engla;:d,  in  Artie.  Cleri,  c.  13.  De  Idoneitate  Perfofi£  pr£fentat<e  ad  Be- 
ueficium  Ecclefiaflicum,  pertinet  Examinatio  adjudicem  ^cclefiafiicum,  & 
it  a  eji  haBenm  uptatum,  &  fiat  in  poflerum.     Upon  which   my  Lord 
Coke  faith.  That  the  Examination  of  the  Ability  and  Sufficiency  of  the  Perfon  2 111(1.532; 
belongs  to  the  Bifhop,  who  is  the  Ecclefiaflical  Judge  3  and  in  this  Examina- 
tion he  is  a  Judge,  and  not  a  Minifier,  and  may  and  ought  to  refufe  the 
Perfon  prefented,  if  he  be  not  Perfona  idonea.     And  that  this  was  no  new 
Law,  appears  by  the  Words,  That  it  had  been  hitherto  foufed,  and  fljould 
he  fo  for  the  time  to  come.     And  fo  Coke  truly  faith,  That  this  J&  was 
hut  a  Declaration  of  the  Common  Law  and  Cuflom  of  the  Realm.     So  that 
the  Bifhops  Power  oi  Examining  and  Judging  the  Fitnefs  of  the  Perfon 
prefented,  is  a  part  ot  the  Common  L<ii»  <?/ England. 

1 5  H,  7.  8.  It  is  declared  by  all  the  Judges,  That  the  Bifhop  in  the  Ex- 
amination of  a  Clerk,  is  a  Judge  and  not  a  Minifier :  And  if  he  misbehaves 
himfelf  he  is  to  bepunifhed  as  a  Judge. 

\8  H.  7.  Keilway  faith,  That  the  Bifhop  may  refufe  for  Infuffleiency,  and 
is  to  give  notice  to  the  Patron. 

It  was  refolved  by  the  Court  in  Specot's  Cafe,  That  the  Court  is  to  ^  r.  jy. 
give  C'edit  to  the  Bifhop  aciing  Judicially:^  but  then  it  is  faid.  That  the 
plea  mufi  be  fpecial  and  certain. 

And  fo  Coke  faith.  That  in  a  ^are  Impedit  brought  againft  the  Bi- 
fhop for  Refufal  of  bis  Clerk,  he  mujifjew  the  caufe  of  his  Refufal  Jpe- 
(ially  and  dire&ly. 

But  it  was  the  Opinion  of  Lord  Chief  Juftice  Anderfon,  That  in  things  Anderf. 
not  triable  at  Common  Law,  a  General  Plea  was  fuficient.     But  when  the  193.  Leon. 
Cafe  came  to  ihQ  ^teens-Bench,  32  Eli%,.  it  was  there  faid,  That  the?.  200. 

Zzzz  Ar- 


^26  ^  Difcourfe  concerning 


Articuli  Cleri  mention  a  reafonahle  Caufe  ;  which,  fay  they,  muft  be  Spe- 
cial 5  for  caufa  vagad^  incerta  non  efi  ratio nahilis.  But  the  main  point 
is.  Who  is  to  judge  what  is  a  reafonahle  Caufe  .<?  And  I  cannot  but  think 
that  Afiderfons  Opinion  is  the  trueft  and  moft  reafonable.  If  it  be  for 
a  matter  triable  at  Common  Law,  that  Court  is  to  judge  5  but  if  not, 
I  do  not  fee  how  it  can  be  avoided,  but  the  Biftiop  muft  judge  5  and 
his  Judgment  of  Infuffickncy  muft  be  taken,  as  well  as  in  any  Certificate 
whatfoever.  For  if  the  Law  truft  him  with  the  Judgment  of  a  matter 
proper  for  him  tp  judge  of,  other  Courts  which  have  no  Cognizance 
of  it,  muft  give  Credit  to  fuch  a  Certificate  ^  or  elfe  they  muft  take  Up- 
on them  to  judge  in  matters  that  are  not  of  their  Cognizance,  which  is 
to  confound  the  Jurifdidtion  of  Courts.  I  grant  the  Judgment  of  the 
Biftiop  is  not  conclufive^  but  the  Appeal  then  lies  to  the  Supreme  Ec- 
clefiaftical  Court,  and  the  Metropolitan  is  to  be  Judge  of  the  Sufficiency 
of  the  Perfon. 

"  But  is  not  this  a  great  Prejudice  to  the  Right  of  Patrons,  if  theBi- 
"  ftiops  are  to  judge  of  the  Fitnefs  of  Perfons  prefented  5  and  fo  the 
"  Patrons  Prefentation  may  fignify  nothing,  if  the  Biftiop  pleafes? 

This  is  a  Truft  which  the  Law  repofes  in  the  Biftiop,  and  it  lies  up- 
on his  Confcience  to  aft  fincerely  in  this  matter ;  and  in  cafe  of  Exami^ 
nation  of  fit  Perfons,  a  Truft  muft  be  placed  fomewhere  5  and  in  whom 
more  properly  than  in  the  Biftiop  of  the  Diocefe,  to  whom  the  Care 
of  it  doth  efpecially  belong,  and  that  by  as  plain  Law  as  any  we  have. 
Are  not  all  Judges  trufted  in  matters  that  come  before  them  >  But  this 
is  no  decifive  Judgment  5  for  an  Appeal  lies  according  to  the  Nature  of 
the  matter.     And  this  is  no  other  Truft  than   hath  been  allowed 
in  all  other  Chriftian  Natipns,   where  the  Rights  of  Patronage  are 
'Novel.  53.  owned.     Jujiinian  owns  it  feveral  times  in  his  Novels,  not  only  that 
r?M;.c.2.  tije  Biftiops  are  tft  examine  and  approve  thofe  who  are  nominated  by 
"Founders  of  Churches^    but  if  they  find  them  nnvforthy,  they  may  pttt 
Czpj.i.c.'^f^ers  in  their  room.    By  the  Capitulars,  or  old  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  of 
84. 1.5 '9^- France,  the  Lay. Patrons  are  not  only  to  prefent  to  the  Biftiop  fuch  as 
Addit.4.  ^gj.g  -pyQiabilis  Vit£  &  DoBrina,  but  if  upon  Examination  they  found 
them  otherwife,  it  was  in  their  power  to  rejeft  them.     As  to  the  Ca- 
Exr.deju-  non-Law  there  can  be  no  Difpute  in  this  Point :   feut  if  the  Biftiop  re- 
^29^'    ^"^^<^'  3"  Appeal  did  lie  to  the  Pope  5  and  if  he  were  unjuftly  refufed- 
the  Biftiop  was  bound  to  provide  for  him :  but  during  the  Appeal,  the. 
Patron  might  prefent  another  ^  whom  if  the  Biftiop  approved,  the  Ap- 
Rebuff.  de  P^^'  ^'^  f^''*     Re^'iffiiJ-,  a  notcd  Lawyer,  faith.  That  it  is  a  damningSin 
Nomin.  n.in  a  Bijhop,  not  to  examine  the  Fitnefs  of  thofe  who  are  prefented  by  Patrons, 
P°^  j^    And  a  late  learned  French  Canonift  faith,  Thofe  are  to  blame  who  lay  the 
Roye  de  Fault  of  fo  many  unworthy  Men  being  in  Places  on  the  Lay-P atrons  5  For^ 
Jure  Patr.  faith  he,  the  Bifjops  an  to  blame,  who  are  bound  to  examine^  and  if  they 
^roeg.  c.y^^  Caufe,  to  reJeS  them.    So  that  we  have  not  only  our  own  Law,  but 
the  General  Confent  of  the  Chriftian  World,  where  the  Right  of  Pa- 
tronage is  allow'd,  as  to  the  Biftiop's  Right  of  Examining  and  Judging 
the  Fitnefs  of  Perfons  prefented  to  Benefices. 

2.  The  Right  of  Collation  upon  Lapfe  belongs  to  the  Biftiop,  notwith- 
Hob.  154.  ftanding  the  Right  of  Patronage.  It  is  faid  by  Lord  Hobart,  That  a  Lapfe 
is  not  an  Intereji  naturally,  but  a  mecr  Tru(l  in  Law  :  And  afterwards. 
That  the  Ordinary,  or  he  that  is  to  prefent  by  Lapfe,  is  as  a  kind  of  Attor- 
ney made  by  Law,  to  do  that  for  the_  Patron,  which  it  is  fuppofed  he  would 
do  himfelf  if  there  were  not  fame  Lett  5    and  therefore  the  Collation  by 

Lapfe 


Bonds  of  Kejignation^  &c.  727 

Lapfe  is  in  the  Right  of  the  Patron,  and  for  his  Turn,     This  feems  to  me 
to  be  a  miftaken  Notion  of  a  Lapfe  5  for  the  true  Queftion  is.  Whether 
upon  a  Lapfe  the  Ordinary  doth  collate  Jure  pleno,   or  Jure  devoluto  ?  De  Roye 
Some  French  Lawyers  held  the  latter  ^  but  Car.Molin£us  and  others  ut-  ^,^  J"'^^ 
terly  rejefl:  that  Opinion,   for  this  Reafon  ^  becaufe  Churches  and  Dio-  i4j'j^'^  ' 
ceffes  were  Jure  communi  under  the  Care  of  the  Biftiops  5    but  it  was  by 
particular  Indulgence,    that  the  Patrons  had  the  Right  of  Prefentation  : 
which  being  neglefted,  things  do  return  to  common  Right  5   and  there- 
fore the  Bilhop  hath  a  true  Intereft,  and  afts  not  in  the  Right  of  the  Pa-    ^ 
tron,  but  his  own. 

It's  true,  there  is  a  Devolution  afterwards  by  our  Law :    for  as  the     . 
Author  of  the  Doff  or  and  Student  faith.    The  Latb  of  the  Realm  is,    that  Dr  ScSmd. 
if  a  Benefice  falls  void,  then  the  Patron  fJuUprefentrvi  thin  fix  Months  ^  and  '^•'^'  "*' 
if  he  do  not,  that  then  the  Ordinary  Jhall  prefent  4  but  yet  the  Law  is  farther 
in  this  cafe.     That  if  the  Patron  prefent  before  the  Ordinary  put  in  hk  Clerk^ 
that  then  the  Patron  /hall  enjoy  his  frefentment  ^    and  fo  it  is,    though  the 
tifne  Jhould  fall  to  the  Metropolitan.     For,  as  he  faith,  by  our  Law,  if  the 
Bifiop  doth  not  col/ate  within  fix  Months,    then  the  Metropolitan  prefent s. 
But  this  is  by  a  Right  of  Devolution,   and  then  why  not  the  other  > 

The  Anfwer  is.   That  the  Biftiop  is  Ordinary  of  the  Diocefs,  and 
therefore  it  comes  to  him  of  common  Right  5    but  it  falls  to  the  Archbi- 
fhop,  not  as  Ordif^ary,  hut  as  Superior  ;,  to  whom  the  Right  of  Devoluti- 
on falls  upon  the  Inferior's  Negleft.    For,    although  in  fome  refpefts, 
and  in  the  excepted  Cafes,  the  Archbijkop  may  be  faid  to  be  Ordinary  of 
the  whole  Province-^  yet  that  is  not  fomuch  in  refpeftof  Immediate  Ju- 
rifdiHion,    which  Hohart  and  others  fay,  was  by  Virtue  of  the  Legatine  uoh.  a. 
Power  which  was  annexed  to  hit  See.     But  the  Archbifhop  hath  a  Power  Srowni. 
as  Metropolitan,  to  fupply  the  Defeds  of  the  Sufiragans  of  his  Province  ^^'  •  *^* 
and  fo  this  Right  of  Collating  upon  defeft  of  the  Ordinary,  comes  to  him 
by  Rght  of  Devolution. 

But  hotv  then  comes  the  King  to  hit  Right  after  the  Metropolitans  Neg- Dr.&Scud. 
leff  ?    That  is,  fay  our  Lawyers,  Becaufe  the  King  is  Patron  Paramount  ']4-     ^ 
of  all  the  Benefices  within  the  Realm.     The  meaning  is.    That  the  King  12,498. 1 
by  Right  of  his  Crown  is  to  fee  that  all  Places  be  duly  fupplied  with 
Perfons  fit  for  them  5   and  if  all  others  whom  the  Law  hath  entrufted, 
do  neglcd  their  Duties,   then  by  the  natural  Order  and  Courfe  of  Go- 
vernment it  falls  to  theSupreme  Power,  which  is  to  fupply  Defers,  and 
toretorm  Abufes. 

5.  The  Bifhop  hath  the  Right  of  making  an  Avoidance  by  Deprivati- 
on or  Refignation.  For,  as  be  hath  the  Power  of  putting-in,  fo  the 
Law  hath  lodged  in  him  the  Judicial  Power  of  proceeding  againft  Of- 
fenders, and  hath  not  left  that  to  the  Judgment  of  the  Patron,  If  we 
enquire.  Who  by  our  Law  is  made  the  proper  Judge  of  a  beneficed  Per- 
fon,  whether  he  behaves  himfelffo  as  to  deferve  to  lofe  his  Benefice? 
Will  any  one  fay,  that  the  Law  hath  put  this  into  the  Patron's  hands  ? 
Yet  all  thofe  who  juftifie  thefe  Bonds  of  Refignation,  muft  in  efFeft  fay, 
that  the  Patrons  are  the  proper  Judges  ^  for  they  have  the  real  Power 
of  Deprivation  in  their  hands,  and  may  execute  it  when  they  pieafe. 
Which  is  fuch  an  Arbitrary  Jurifdiftion,  as  would  be  thought  intolera- 
ble in  other  Hands. 

In  all  Caufesof  De/)riz/rf*/<j«of  a  Perfon  aftually  poffelfed  of  a  Bene- 
fice, thefe  things  muft  concur. 

1.  A  Monition  or  Citation  of  the  Party  to  appear. 
a.  A  Charge  given  him,  to  which  he  is  to  anfwer,  called  the  Libel. 

Z  z  2  z  2  5.  A 


m      III"  i  I '    I  I    •-  ■"  '■— '    ,,_^  "'[  ^      '""      J 

!^  'Difcoiirfejmerimg 


§.  A  Competent  Time  affigned  for  the  Proofs  and  Anfwers. 

4.  A  Liberty  for  Counfel  to  defend  his  Caufe,  and  to  except  againft 
the  Proofs  and  Witnefies. 

5.  A  Solemn  Sentence  after  hearing  all  the  Proofs  and  Anfwers. 
Thefe  are  the  Fundamentals  of  all  Judicial  Proceedings  in  the  Ecle- 

/fajiical  Court:,  in  order  to  a  Deprivation  5  and  if  thefe  things  be  not  ob- 
ferved,  the  Party  hath  jufl:  Caufe  of  Appeal,  and  may  have  a  Kemedy 
by  a  Superior  Court.  And  thefe  Proceedings  are  agreeable  to  the  com- 
mon Juftice  and  Reafon  of  Mankind  5  becaufe  the  Party  accufed  hath 
the  liberty  of  Defence,  and  the  Right  of  Appeal.  But  there  is  nothing 
of  all  this,  inBondsof  Refignation  5  for  the  Patron  takes  the  Advan- 
tage of  the  Forfeiture  of  the  Bond,  and  fo  without  any  Trial,  or  Proof, 
or  Sentence,  deprives  him  of  his  Benefice. 

Some  who  afe  no  Friends  to  the  Ecclefiaftical  Courts,  would  have  no 
Deprivation  of  a  Benefice,  hut  by  Proceedings  at  Common  Law  5  becaufe  it  is 
d  Freehcid.  Suppofe  that  it  were  fo  (  which  feems  contrary  to  the 
Courfe  of  the  Law  5  for  the  BiChop  in  a  Plea  to  a  Quare  Impedit,  fairh. 
Nihil  clamat  pr£ter  Infiitutionem  df"  Dejiitutlonem  Clericerutn  ^  and  Ec- 
dejiaflical  Deprivations  have  been  ftill  allow'd  at  Common  Law,  if  they  • 
have  been  according  to  the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  )  but  taking  it  for  grant- 
ed, that  a  Deprivation  of  a  Freehold  ought  to  be  at  Common  Law  :• 
what  then  ?  What,  without  an  Indidment,  and  without  a  Trial  by  a 
Jury  ?  No  hearing  of  the  Caufe,  no  Witnefies  examined,  no  Coun- 
fel to  be  heard,  no  Judgment  by  his  Peers  ?  And  can  this  be  agreeable 
to  theFundamentalLawsof  £'»^/^»(:/,  to  have  Men  forced  out  of  their 
Freeholds  in  fuch  an  Arbitrary  manner  ?  What  would  they  think,  if  o- 
ther  Free-hold-Efiates,  which  hold  of  a  Superior  Lord,  were  made  Co 
Arbitrary,  as  to  depend  upon  the  Will  of  the  Lord  fo,  as  to  be  turned 
out  upon  fix  Months  notice  ?  Let  us  fee  Bo!;ds  ofRefignation  praftifed 
upon  fuch  EfVates^  and  then  we  (hall  foon  find  what  Clamours  will  be 
made  againft  them,  as  overthrowing  the  Fundamental  Rights  and  Liber- 
ties of  the  People.  Is  there  not  the  fame  Reafon  in  this  Cafe  ?  Is 
there  not  greater  >  Becaufe  thefe  Benefices  are  not  Freeholds  which  are 
held  of  the  Patrons,  but  they  have  only  a  Right  to  prefent  fit  Perfons 
to  them.  But  it  may  be,  that  the  Defenders  of  thefe  Bonds  will  deny 
Benefices  to  be  Freeholds  by  the  Law  of  England.  It  is  eafie  to  guefs 
what  fome  Men  would  have  them  to  be,  by  thefe  Bonds  ;  I  am  fure  far 
enough  from  Freeholds.  But  fuch  private  Tranfaftions  cannot  alter  the 
Nature  of  Things  5  and  we  are  now  enquiring.  What  Benefices  are,  by 
I  iuft.j4i.  the  Law  of  England^  It  is  difputed  at  Common-Law,  in  whom  the 
t*reehold  of  the  Glebe-land  of  a  Benefice  is,  during  the  Voidance  ?  And 
it  is  agreed,  That  it  is  neither  in  the  Patron  nor  Ordinary  ^  becaufe  it 
was  given  to  the  Incumbents  and  their  Succeflbrs.  And  therefore  they 
tell  us,  it  is  thenm  Abeyance-.^  which  is  a  pretty  way  of  exprefling. 
That  the  Law  takes  care  that  it  (hall  come  to  the  next  Incumbent,  not- 
withftanding  the  Difcontinuance  by  Death  of  his  Predeceffor  ^  and  I 
think  it  had  been  as  well  faid.  That  it  was  in  the  Law,  although  not 
in  any  Perfon.  But  it  is  not  difputed,  but  that  as  foon  as  another  In- 
cumbent is  in  poiTeflion,  the  Freehold  is  in  Him  ,  for  thofe  are  Lit- 
tleton'sWords,  Setl.6^j.  And  my  Lord  (r<j^'e  faith,  That  the  Inctimhent 
cannot  be  look'd  on,  as  a  meer  Tenant  for  L'fe  :  becaufe  he  may  have  fuch 
Writs,  which  notie  can  have  but  ^'Tenant  iri  Fee-fimple  or  Fee- tail;,  and  he 
,.,  .,  ^  may  receive  Homage,  which  a  Tenant  for  Life  cannot  do.  And  for  this  he 
13,  f.  2o.'goes  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  E.  i.    But  long  before  that  in  GlanvH's 

time. 


Bonds  of  Rejignation,  &c  729 

time,  which  was  of  H.  2.  it  is  faid.  That  he  that  kpojfeffed  of  a  Benefice 
by  Injihittion  from  theBi/hop,  and  judged  fit  by  him^  fljall  enjoy  it  for  his 
Life,  although  the  Right  of  Jdvovpfon  be  difputed.  Which  is  feveral  times 
affirmecTby  my  Lord  CokeM^on  good  Reafon.  In  one  place  he  faith, ,  inft. 
That  at  the  Common  Law,  if  a  Church  be  once  full,  the  Incuf^bent  could  not  ^'^^'^^ 
be  removed  (  excepting  juft  Caufe  of  Deprivation  )  and  Plenarty  gene- 
rally w  IS  a  good  Flea  in  a  Qpare  Impedit,  or  Afife  of  Dire  in  Prefent- 
nient :  And  the  Reafon  of  this  jvas,  to  the  intent  the  Incumbent  might  ap- 
ply hi  mf  elf  fo  his  Spiritual  Charge.  2.  The  Law  intended.  That  the  Bi/fjop 
that  had  Cure  of  Souls  within  his  Diocefs  would  admit  and  inftitute  an  able 
Man  for  the  Difcharge  of  his  Duty  and  his  own  ;  and  that  the  Bifiop  would 
do  right  to  every  Patron  in  his  Diocefs.  In  another  place  he  faith.  That  jinft.gj;, 
by  the  Order  of  Common  Law,  if  one  had  prefented  unto  a  Church  whereto 
he  had  no  Right,  and  the  Bi/Ijop  had  admitted  and  infiituted  his  Clerk, 
this  Incumbent  could  not  be  removed  for  divers  Reafons  .*  I .  For  that  he 
came  into  the  Church  by  a  Judicial  A6f  of  the  BiJIjop.  2.  That  by  the  Com- 
mon Law,  in  every  Town  and  Paf-ifh  there  ought  to  he  Perfona  Idonea  :  and 
when  the  Bifloop  had  admitted  him  able,  which  implied  that  he  was  idonea 
perfona,  then  the  Law  had  his  final  Intention,  viz.  That  the  Church  jhould 
be  fufflciently  provided  for.  5.  That  the  Incumbent  having  dwzm  ani- 
marum,  might  the  more  efieSually  and  peaceably  intend  fo  great  Charge  5 
the  Common  Law  provided,  "that  after  Injiitution  he  jljould  not  befubjeSl  to 
any  A^ion,  to  be  removed  at  the  Suit  of  any  common  Perfon,  without  all 
refpeS  of  Age,  Coverture,  Imprifonment,  (jrNon- fane- memory  -^  and  with- 
out regard  of  Title,  either  by  Defcent  orPurchafe,  or  of  any  EJiate.  Are 
thefe  things  confiftent  with  Bonds  of  Refignation  .<? 

But  it  may  be  faid.  That  here  is  no  Deprivation  fuppofed,  but  a  voluntary 
Refignation  ;  and  what  hurt  is  there,  if  it  be  a  Mans  own  A&-  .«* 

I  anfwer.  That  we  are  not  only  to  confider  the  A6t  of  the  Perfon, 
but  the  Intereft  and  general  Concernment  of  the  Church  in  it.  For  in 
all  matters  of  fuch  a  publick  Nature,  we  are  not  to  regard  fo  much  the 
Confent  of  the  Party,  as  the  Nature  and  Confequenceof  the  Act  it  felf. 
If  it  be  an  illegal  thing,  and  tend  to  fubvert  the  Rights  of  the  Church, 
it  cannot  make  it  legal  to  fay,  that  it  was  bis  own  kOi.  Now  as  to  this 
kind  of  Refignation,  we  are  to  confider  thefe  two  things : 

1.  That  ii  the  Refignation  be  not  into  the  hands  of  the  Bifliop,  it  is 
an  illegal  Aft,  and  void  of  it  felf. 

2.  That  if  it  be  into  theBifhop's  hands,  he  hath  the  Power  in  Law 
to  accept  it  or  not. 

r.  That  the  Refignation  rauft  be  into  the  hands  of  theBifhop.  For  a 
Refignation  into  the  hands  of  the  Patron,  is  by  i\\t  Canon  Lim?  declared 
to  be  null  and  void  of  it  felf.     So  Innocent  IV.  ad  c.  6.  de  rerum  per. 
And  this  is  grounded  on  the  Text  of  the  Canon  Law,   C.  17.  Q.  2.  c. 
Gonfaldus  •  and  on  the  Appendix  to  the  LateranCou?jcil  under  Alex.  lU.v.Fhmin: 
De  fienunt.  tit.  1 5.  c.  pen.  where  it  is  declared,  to  be  an  unworthy  thing,  Refjgna^'" 
and  contrary  to  the  Canons,    to  refign  into  the  Hands  oj  Patrons.     And?. ci.w.?. 
Alex.  III.  forbids  it  abfolutely  under  an  Anathema.   De  Remint.  c.  4. 
which  is  confirmed  by  Innocent  III.  c.  8.  in  the  Decretals.    But  we  are  to 
confider  efpecially,    how  far  this  part  of  the  Canon  Law  was  receiv'd  ; 
and  we  can  have  no  better  a  Judge  in  this  Cafe  than  Lynwood,    whoLynw./. 
faith  pofitively,    that  Renuntiatio  fa&a  in  manus  Laid  etiam  fponte  non  55-  ^  Ne 
tenet  ;  i.  e.  a  Refignation  made  into  the  hands  of  a  Lay-Patron,   if  it '"^P"" 
be  never  fo  free,   doth  not  hold  :  and  therefore  he  faith,  it  rauft  be 
made  into  the  hands  of  him  who  hath  the  Ordinary  JurifdiSion^   and 
therefore  hath  power  to  admit.  He 


730  A  T)i[coiir[e  concerning 

,  Heobferves  two  things  very  material  as  to  the  point  of  Refignation : 

I.  That  a  voluntary  Refignation,  though  not  to  the  Ordwary,  de- 
prives the  party  of  the  Pofleffion  5  fo  as  he  cannot  recover,  although 
he  be  not  wholly  devefted  of  the  Property,  or  Right  to  the  thing : 
Sijiia.  fine  confenju  Superioris  non  tenet  Rejignatio  :  And  this  is  founded 
on  that  Fundamental  Reafon,  that  the  Care  of  the  Diocefs  belongs  to 
him,  who  hath  the  ordinary  Jurifdiftion,  v^^ho  was  the  Bifhop ;  But 
as  Lynwood  obferves,  by  Cuftom  and  Compofition,  this  is  put  into  other 
hands  5  as  in  places  of  exempt  Jurifdiftion.     And  fo  where  the  power 
of  granting  Inftitution  is  lodged  by  the  Bifliop's  Confent,  and  a  Prefcrtp' 
tion  upon  it 5  there  is  a  Power  likewife  of  receiving  a  Refignation :  But 
not  in  any,  who  have  only  a  delegated  Power  from  the  Bifhop.    For 
^    there  is  a  difference  in  Law  and  Reafon  between  an  ordinary  Poroer  de- 
pending on  an  ancient  Prefcription  and  Compofition  (  as  it  is  in  feveral 
places  in  the  Deavs  and  Chapters  within  certain  Precindts )  and  an  or- 
C.De  Ap.  d'-nary  Povper  in  a  Subfiitute^  as  a  Chancellor  or  Vicar-General.     For  al- 
ram  ■  ^°  though  fuch  an  Officer  hath  the  fame  Court  with  the  Bilhop,  fo  that 
lynw.  f.  the  legal  A6l:s  of  the  Court  are  the  Biflbop's  Afts,  by  whofe  Authority 
H'         he  fits  there  5  fo  that  no  Appeal  lies  from  the  Bifbop's  Officer  to  hira- 
felf,  but  to  the  Superiour:  And  although  a  Commiffary  be  allowed  to 
have  the  power  of  the  Ordinary  in  Teflamentary  Cattfes,  which  were  not 
originally  of  Spiritual  Jurifdifiion,  as  it  is  faid  in  lienflows  Cafe,  with 
9.  R.  41.  which  Lynwood  agrees:  Yet  in  Ad:s  of  Spiritual  and  voluntary  jurifdi- 
ftam^vi    ^^^'^  ^^^  ^^^^  ^s  otherwife.     For  the  Bilhop  by  appointing  a  Chancellor, 
Stat,V.     doth  not  divert  himfelf  of  his  own  ordinary  Power ;  but  he  may  dele- 
Approbat.  g^jg  f^^^g  ^2xts  of  it  by  Comtnijjion  to  others,  which  goes  no  farther  than 
64  De  Of-  is  exprefTed  in  it.    For  it  is  a  very  great  Miftake  in  any  to  think,  that 
ficjo  vica-  fuch  who  Aft  by  a  delegated  Pomr,  can  have  any  more  Power  than  is  gi- 
'"'  ^'^'  ven  to  them,  where  afpecial  Commijjion  is  required  for  the  Exercife  of 
it.    For  by  the  general  Commijfion  no  other  Authority  pafles,  but  that 
of  hearing  Caufes :  But  all  Afts  of  voluntary  Jurifdidion  require  2i  fpe- 
cial  Commiffion,  which  the  Bilhop  may  reftrain  as  he  fees  Caufe,     For 
as  Lynivood  Caith,  nothing  pajfes,  virtute  officii,  hut  the  hearing  of  Caufes^ 
^o  that  other  Afts  depend  upon  the  Bifhop's  particular  Grant  for  that 
purpofe.    And  the  Law  no  where  determines  the  bounds  of  a  Chancellors 
Power  as  to  fuch  Afts  j    nor  can  it  be  fuppofed  fo  to  do,  fince  it  is  but  a 
delegative  Power:  And  it  is  in  the  Right  of  him  that  Deputes,  to  Circura- 
fcribe  and  Limit  it.    Neither  can  L)fe  or  Cujiom  inlarge  fuch  a  Power, 
which  depends  upon  another's  Will.    And  however,  by  modern  Pra- 
ftice,  the  Patents  for  fuch  places  have  pafled  for  the  Life  of  the  Per- 
fon  to  whom  they  were  firft  granted  5  yet  it  was  not  fo  by  the  ancient 
De  Seque-  Eccle/iajiical  Law  of  England.     For  Lynwood  affirms,  that  a  grant  of  Ju- 
ficiaies.  'rifdiftion  ceafes  by  the  Death  of  him  who  gave  it:  per  mortem  depu- 
tantis  cejfat  Poteftas  OJficialium  :  (  or  elfe  it  could  never  pafs  into  the 
Dean  and  Chapter  fedevacante  5  or  to  the  Guardian  of  the  Spirituali- 
ties.) And  he  gives  a  good  Reafon  of  it  5  Neinvitus  habeat  Officialem 
fibifortaffis  odiofum.    It's  true,  that  by  the  Statute  ^7  H.8.  c.  17.  meer 
Doftors  of  Law  are  made  capable  oi  Ey.erci(ing  all  manner  ofEcclefia" 
EtiRon,\.fi^'^^^  Jurifdiction.     But  it  doth  not  affign  the  Extent  of  their  Jurifdi- 
5.  c.  a.     ftion,  but  leaves  it  to  the  Bilhops  themfelves,  from  whom  their  Autho- 
c.'"?.  '■^''"ify  is  derived.    And  the  Law  ftill  diftinguilhes  between  Poteftas  Ordi-^ 
1  lad.  ^6.  naria  and  Delegata  :  For  the  former  fuppofes  a  Perfon  to  aft  in  his 
ordim '^'  o^'^n^igbt,  and  not  by  Deputation  5  which,  I  fuppofe,  no  Chancel- 
lors or  Officials  will  pretend  to.    But  how  far  now,  a  Coramiffion  to 

exer- 


Bonds  ofKefignation,  731 

exercife  Jurifdiftion  doth  hold,  when  fhe  Perfon  who  gave  it  is  dead, 
is  not  ray  prefent  bufinefsto  enquire:  But  in  Sutton sCz^e  it  feems  to 
be  taken  for  granted  by  the  Counfel,  that  a  Chancellor's  Patent,  con- cr. Car. 
firmed  by  Dean  and  Chapter,  doth  give  a  Man  a  Freehold  for  Life,  if  ^J* 
he  be  capable  of  doing  his  Duty  ^  otherwife  he  may  be  deprived  for 
Infufficiency,  as  Dodtor  SuttoK  was.    But  Noy  faith,  That  the  Court  was  ^°y»  ^f- 
j/r  doubt,  hove  far  the  Act  of  the  Predecejfor  could  bind  the  Succejfor  as  to  the 
Profits.     And  in  the  Prebend  of  Hatcherl/s  Cafe,  Dodderidge  declared^    ,j2. 
That  Ecclejiajiical  Jurifdiction  i»  judicial  Acts  May  be  executed  by  Subfii- 
tute  :  But  a  Grant  of  it  is  not  good,  hut  during  the  BiJIjop's  Life  ;  and  fhall 
not  hind  the  Succejfor.     And  Coke  thought  it  a  very  hard  thing,  That 
the  Succejfor  /hould  not  remove  him,  but  be  bound  to  anfa>er  for  the  Acts  and 
Offences   of  a  Cotnmiffary,  which  he  never  put  in.     But  tliefe  things  be- 
long not  to  our  prefent  bufinefs,  any  farther  than  to  (hew,  that  how- 
ever in  fome  Cafes  the  Biftiops  may  fubftitute  others,  yet  as  lo  Re/ig- 
nations  of  Benefices,  for  all  that  I  can  find,  the  Law  only  takes  notice  of 
the  Biflsop  himfelf. 

Lynvpood  obferves,  that  there  is  a  difference  to  be  made  between  the 
Refignuiion  of  a  fimple  Benefice,  i.  e.  where  there  is  no  cure  of  Souls, 
and  of  fuch  a  one  that  hath  fuch  a  Cure  going  along  with  it.  In  the 
former  Cafe  he  faith.  That  a  Rejignation  may  be  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
Party,  without  the  Bifjop's  Confent :  But  in  the  latter,  where  it  may  be 
to  the  prejudice  of  others  as  well  as  of  himfelf,  it  hath  no  force  without 
the  Bijbops  Ratification  :  In  hoc  cafu  necejfaria  eji  Ratihabitio  Epifcopi.  So 
that  no.  Refignation  of  a  Cure  of  Souls  can  be  of  any  Validity  without 
the  Bifijop's  Acceptance.  In  the  fame  Cafe  of  Smith  againft  Foanes,  \t 
was  refolved  and  agreed  by  all  upon  Evidenceat  Bar,  T0kt  a  Refignation 
to  a  Proctor,  does  not  make  the  Church  void,  until  it  be  accepted  by  the  Bi'  ^°y'  ^57" 
(l)0p,  and  af  knowledge d  before  him. 

2.  But  fuppofe  the  Refignation  be  made  into  the  hands  of  the  Biftiop, 
is  he  bound  to  Accept  it?  by  what  Law?  For  whatReafon?  Mufthe  not 
enquire  into  the  Reafon  and  Inducements  of  the  Refignation,  whether  it 
be  corrupt  or  not  ?  No  Bifliop  can  be  bound  to  accept  a  corrupt  Refignati- 
on:^ and  whether  it  be  fo  or  not,  he  is  bound  to  enquire :  And  if  he  be 
not  fatisfied,  by  what  Law  can  he  be  required  to  do  that,  which  he  can- 
not do  with  a  good  Confcience  ?  If  the  Law  hath  trufted  hijn  with  ac- 
cepting a  Refignation,  it  hath  likewife  trufted  him  with  judging,  whe- 
ther it  be  fit  to  be  accepted  or  not.  In  Gay  ton's  Cafe  it  is  plain,  That 
the  Bijhop  may  refufe  a  Refignation  before  a  Public  k  Notary,  when  there  Owen,  i»; 
was  a  Condition  annexed  to  it,  which  the  Law  doth  not  annex.  For  in 
(his  Cafe,  the  Condition  was.  That  if  fuch  or  fuch  a  Perfon  were  not  pre- 
fented  within  fix  Months,  the  Refignation  [ioould  be  null:  Which  Coke 
then  faid,  made  it  void,  becaufe  Refignations  ought  to  be  free  :  And  this 
is  a  Judicial  Aft,  to  which  a  Condition  cannot  be  annexed,  no  more 
than  an  ordinary  may  admit  upon  Condition. 

But  it  may  be  objefted,  that  in  cafe  of  Donatives  the  Refignation 
muftbe  into  the  Patron's  Hands,  asinG^^r's  and  Fairchild's  Cafe:  Why  YeWdr.do. 
then  may  not  a  Refignation  be  good  to  a  Patron  in  other  Benefices,  finceMoor, 
thofe  are  as  really  Benefices  as  the  other  ?  "^^^^ 

The  difference  is,  that  there  is  no  Prefentation  to  the  Bifhop  in  Dona- 
tives.     For,  it  is  agreed  by  the  Judges  in  that  Cafe,  That  if  there  were^\  j\"*^^- 
a  prefentation  once  made  to  the^  Bifjop,  it  ceafes  to  he  a  Donative,  and  be- 
comes  always  Prefent  able.  So  that  the  Cifeoi  Donatives,  is  vefy  different  ^ 
for  we  fay, that  where- ever  the  Biftiop  hath  a  Right  to  adraitjit  is  his  Right 

to 


_    r 

•732  A  Difcourfe  concerning 

to  accept  of  a  ReJ/gnatio^.  But  in  this  Cafe,  the  Biftiop  is  fuppofed  to 
have  nothing  to  do  in  the  AdmJJioft  ox  InjlitHtion  of  the  Perfon.  If  it 
be  asked,  Hovp  the  Bijhops  came  to  lofe  their  R'ght  of  receiving  the  Prefert- 
tattonto  thefeBe)iefices?  I  anfwer.  That  they  feem  to  me  to  have  come 

iin(L344.  one  of  thefe  two  ways :  \.  By  Royal  Licence  5  So  my  I  ord  Coke  faith. 
That  the  King  may  not  only  found  aChurch^  or  Free  Chapel  Donative  himfelf 

Rcgift.40.  but  may  Licence  any  Subject  to  do  the  fame.     But  the  Regifter  fuppofes  a 

3'  Royal  Foundation,  and  not  a  meer  Royal  Licence,  and  that  it  muft  be 

proved  to  be  ancient  too ;  and  therefore  a  new  Licence  will  not  come  up 
to  the  Regifier.  2.  By  peculiar  Privilege  5  as  when  a  Lord  of  a  Manor  in  a 
great  Parifti,  having  his  Tenants  about  him  at  a  remote  diftance  from 
the  Parifti-Cburch,  offers  to  build  and  endow  a  Church  there,  provi- 
ded that  it  fhould  belong  entirely  to  him  and  his  Family,  to  put  in  fuch 
Perfons  as  they  (hould  think  fit,  if  they  were  in  Holy  Orders.  It's  ve- 
ry poffible  that  the  Bifhops  at  that  time,  to  encourage  fuch  a  Work, 
might  permit  them  to  enjoy  this  Liberty  ;  which  being  continued  time 
out  of  mind,  is  turned  into  a  Prefription.  If  thefe  Donatives  had  been 
common,  the  Mifchief  would  have  been  more  vifible  5  but  being  fo 
few  in  comparifon,  they  have  been  lefs  taken  notice  of.  And  they  are 
to  be  diftinguiOied  from  thofe  called  Sine-Cures  and  Exempt-Jurifdic^ions. 
For  Sine-Cures  in  Truth  are  Benefices  prefentable,  but  by  means  of  Vi- 
carages endowed  in  the  fame  places,  the  Perfons  who  enjoy  them  have 
by  long  Cuftom  been  excufed  from  Refidence,  which  is  the  moft  can 
be  faid  for  them.  And  fuch  Sine-Cures^  if  they  be  refigned,  it  muft  be 
into  the  Bifhop's  hands. 

Exempt- Jurifdi&ions  are  not  fo  called,  becaufe  under  no  Ordinary  ; 
but  becaufe  they  are  not  under  the  Ordinary  of  the  Diocefe,  but  have 
one  of  their  own.  Thefe  are  therefore  called  Peculiars,  and  they  are 
of  feveral  forts. 

I.  Royal  Peculiars,  which  are  the  King's  Free  Chapels,  and  are  exempt 
from  any  Jurifdiftion  but  the  King's  ;    and  therefore  fuch  may  be  Re- 

Lynw.     _^gned  into  the  King's  hands  as  their  proper  Ordinary,  either  by  ancient 

/.iS4,83.  Privilege  ox  inherent  Right,     "^tmhov!  idX  Refignations  may  be  made  to 

Abrid. 2.  tbe  King  as  Supreme  Ordinary,  as  in  Goodmans  Cafe,  it  is  not  here  a 

35<J-        place  to  examine. 

^i^^li^'      2,  Archbijhops  Peculiars ;  which  are  not  only  in  the  Neighbour  Dio- 
ceffes,  but  difperfed  up  and  down  in  remoter  places:  For  it  appears  by 

Ead.  Hift.  Eadmerus,  That  vphere-ever  the  ArchbiJJoop  had  an  EJIate  belonging  to  him, 

InAnfelm  ^^  ^^^  ^^^  ^-^/^  JurifdiBion  OS  Ordinary. 

3.  Deans  and  Chapters  Peculiars  ^  which  are  places  wherein  by  </«- 
«V»fC<7«;/?(?/?it/tf»j  the  Bi(hops  have  parted  with  their  Jurifdi&ion  as  Or- 
dinaries to  thok  Societies,  whofe  Right  was  not  Or/gjW,  but  derived 
from  the  Biflbop^  and  where  the  Compofitionsaxe  loft,  it  depends  upon 

^°  ^^jj'  Prefcriptioa,  as  in  the  Deans  and  Chapters  of  St.  Paul's  and  Litchfield^ 
which  are  mentioned  in  the  Books,  11  H.  4.  9. 

4.  P(?f«//<?r J- belonging  to  Monajieries  5  for  the  richer  Monajieries 
were  very  uneafy,  until  they  had  obtained  either  from  the  Bifljops  or 
from  thePopes  (which  proved  the  moft  effeftual,  but  more  chargeable 
way}  an  £xew/?^/o»  from  Ordinary  Jurifdiftion.  Tho^e  Churches,  which 
the  Monajieries  had  gotten  to  be  annexed  tothemfelves,  were  caWeA  Ap- 
propriations ;  but  howfar  thefe  were  exempt  from  the  Or£/j»<?r;exJurifdt- 
ftion  is  not  fully  underftood,  and  therefore  I  ftiall  endeavour  to  explain  it. 

c.<6.Q.2.      1.  Appropriations  did  not  at  firft  imply  any  Exemption  from  the  Ordi- 
cSanc.    ftary.  For  it  wasexprefly  provided  in  the  Canon  Law,  That  no  Perfons 

(hould 


Bonds  df^Kefignarion^  &c.  733 


fhould  be  put  into  fuch  Churches  without  Infiitutlon  from  the  Blfhop  5 
to  whom  the  Incsimhents  were  to  be  anfwerablein  all  spiritual  Matters, 
as  in  all  Temporal  to  the  Abbots.  And  in  the  oldeft  Appropriations  which  I 
have  feen,  there  is  a  Salvo  per  omnia  'jure  Epifcopali ;  which  Words  are 
inconfiftent  with  on  Exemption. 

2.  The  Forms  of  Appropriation  were  different  afterwards.  For  altho' 
none  could  be  made  without  the  Blfhop  s  Confent,  yet  that  Confent 
was  exprelfed  in  different  ways,  and  had  different  Effefts. 

If  the  Bifhop  only  confirmed  the  L^y-Patron's  Gift,  then  nothing  but 
the  i?/^A/ tf/P<«/r<7»rfgepaired,3nd  his  Jurifdiftion  remained.  If  theBilhop 
joined  in  theDonmon  'mthtkWordsX<'"(:edimuf vohis  talem  EcclefiamiEat.  de 
then  he  pafled  away  his  Temporal  Rights  as  to  that  Church.  If  the  Bifliop  ^onat.  c. 
granted  the  Church  Plez/o  Jure,  then  the  Canonijis fay,  be  paffed  bis  Dio-  Lynw./.So 
cefanRight'^  which  confifted  in  Rights  which  the  BiQiop  had  diftinftfi'otn 
his  Epifcopal  JurifdiCtion ;  which  it  was  thought  he  could  not  part  with 
by  any  Aft  of  his,  for  that  were  to  divefl:  himfelf  of  his  Order. 

3.  Appropriations,  conRrmedby  the  Papal  Authority,  were  allowed  to 
carry  with  them  Exemptions  from  the  Ordinary.  And  therefore  the  Mo' 
naileries  which  could  bear  the  Charge,  did  not  think  themfelves  free 
from  their  Ordinaries,  till  they  had  obtained  Bulls  for  that  purpofej 
and  then  they  took  rhemfelves  to  be  free  in  their  Conventual  Churches, 
as  well  as  their  Chapels,  or  Oratories  on  their  own  Lands. 

4.  All  Papal  Exemptions  are  taken  away  by  Aft  of  Parliament,  3 1H.8. 
c.  15.  and  the  Churches  fo  exempted  are  put  under  the  Jurifdi&ion  of  the 
Ordinary  of  the  Diocefe,  or  fuch  CommiJJione's  as  the  K  ing/Jjall  appoint.  So 
that  no  Papal  Exemption  can  now  be  pleaded  as  to  appropriated  Churches, 
how  clear  and  full  foever  the  Charters  of  Exemption  were.  This  is  a 
thing  fo  little  taken  notice  of,  that  I  fhall  kt  down  the  Words,  §.  23; 
Be  it  further  enabled.  That  fuch  of  the  faid  Monafieries,  See.  and  all  Chuf' 
ches  and  Chapels,  to  them,  or  any  of  them  belonging,  which  before  the  Diffo- 
lution.  Sec.  vpere  exempted  from  the  Vifitation  or  Viftations,  and  all  other 
JurifdiSion  of  the  Ordinary  or  Ordinaries  reithin  whofe  Diocefe  they  rvere/t- 
tuate  or  fet,  fjjall  from  thenceforth  be  vpithin  the  Jurifdidion  and  Vifitation 
of  the  Ordinary  or  Ordinaries,  within  whofe  Diocefe  they  or  any  of  them  be 
fituate  and  fet  ^  or  within  the  Vifitation  and  JurifdiClion  of  fmh  Perfon  or 
Perfons,  as  by  the  King's  Highnefs  fhall  be  limited  or  appointed,  this  Atl  or 
any  other  Exemption,  Liberty  or  Jurifdi&ion  to  the  contrary  notvcithflanding. 

Therefore  no  Perfons  who  enjoy  the  Eftates  belonging  to  Monajieries, 
can  now  plead  an  Exemption  by  virtue  thereof  from  the  Ordinary's  Ju- 
rifdidion 5  nor  that  they  have  a  Power  to  put  in  and  put  out  as  they 
pleafe,  without  any  regard  to  the  liifhop's  Authority. 

But  fuppofe  there  were  no  Endowment,  and  that  the  Churches  were 
built  on  the  Site  of  the  Mon after ies,  and  fo  were  fupplied  by  their  own 
Body  ;  then  fuch  Perfons  are  wholly  at  their  Will,  and  they  may  turn 
them  out  as  they  pleafe.    1  anfwer  ; 

I  confefs  the  Condition  of  fuch  Stipendiaries  is  as  bad  as  of  thofe  who 
hold  their  Benefices  under  Bonds  of  Rejignation  -^  for  Tenures  at  the  Will 
of  the  Lord,  are  the  worfl  of  any.  But  it  is  to  be  hoped,  that  fuch  Per- 
fons who  enjoy  fuch  Eflates  as  were  originally  defigned  for  the  Suppont 
of  the  Paro.hial  Clergy,  (however at  firft  fraudulently  perverted  by  tm 
Combination  of  the  Monks  2ind  Popes)  will  at  the  kafl  take  Care  that 
the  Cure  of  Souls  be  duly  provided  for  in  fuch  places*  For  that  Bur-^ 
then  goes  along  with  the  Churches  Revenue,  in  whofe  Hands  foevef 
it  be  5  and  fo  they  are  both  in  Law  and  Confcience  to  fee  the  Places 

A  a  a  a  a  weU 


734-  ^  Difcourj}  cone  truing 


well  fupplied.  And  by  the  Statutes  of  DilTolution,  as  they  do  injoy  the 
Rights,  fo  they  are  bound  to  provide  for  the  Churches  ^  and  where  they 
were  Parochial^  to  fee  that  there  were  a  fixed  Incumbent  with  a  compe- 
tent Maintenance  5  which  the  Law  always  took  a  particular  care  of. 

II.  It  is  time  now  to  confider  the  Frecede/rts,    which  have  been 
produced  to  (hew  that  thefe  Bonds  ofRefigttation  are  not  againft  Law. 

The  firft  is  of  Jones  and  Laurence,  8  Jac.  A  Bond  was  given  to  re- 
fign  the  Benefice  he  was  prefented  to,  within  three  Months  upon  Re- 
Cr.  2.248.  queft :  and  it  was  alledged  in  Court,  That  it  was  a  Simoniacal  Contra^ ^ 
and  againfl  have.  On  the  Other  fide  it  was  faid.  That  then  doth  not  ap- 
pear any  Simony  upon  the  Condition  ;  and  therepre  Judgment  was  given 
for  the  Bond.  But  a  Writ  of  Error  was  brough  t  in  the  Exchequer-Cham- 
ber;  and  the  principal  Error  infifted  on,  was,  That  this  Condition  was 
againfl:  Law.  But  the  Judges  of  the  Common  Bench,  and  Barons  of  the 
Exchequer  held.  That  the  Obligation  and  Condition  are  good  enough.  For 
a  Man  may  bind  himfelfto  re  fign  upon  good  and  valuable  Rcafons,  without 
any  Colour  of  Simony  5  as  to  be  obliged  to  refign,  in  cafe  of  Plurality  or  Non- 
rejidence  ^  or  if  his  Son  be  at  Age.  But  if  it  had  been  for  a  Leafe  of  the  Glebe 
or  Tythes,  or  a  Sum  of  Money,  that  had  been  Simony,  8cc.  and  fo  the 
Judgment  was  affirmed. 

To  this  Precedent  I  anfwer,  That  the  Reafon  of  the  Judges  is  infuf- 
ficient.  For  it  comes  to  this :  The  Bond  is  good  becaufe  there  may  be 
good  Reafon  for  it.  May  it  not  be  faid  on  the  other  fide,  The  Bond  is 
naught,  becaufe  there  may  be  a  very  bad  Reafon  for  it  ?  And  a  Bond 
that  may  be  turned  to  fo  very  ill  Ufes,  it  cannot  but  feem  ftrange  to 
me,  that  the  Judges  (hould  affirm  it  to  be  a  good  Bond.  If  the  parti- 
cular Reafons  had  been  made  the  Conditions  of  the  Bond,  they  might 
have  judged  upon  them  5  but  the  Bond  was  general,  and  no  Condition 
in  it  but  Notice.  Therefore  the  Judgment  muft  be.  That  a  Bond  is 
reafonable,  if  no  bad  Conditions  appear  in  it  5  which  makes  the  Incum- 
bent a  Slave  to  the  Patron,  and  overthrow  the  juft  Rights  and  Liber- 
ties of  the  Clergy  ^  and  lays  them  open  to  Perjury,  when  they  give 
fuch  a  Bond  raeerly  to  obtain  a  Prefentation.  And  they  very  well  knew 
that  none  could  be  poflefled  of  a  Benefice  without  an  Oath  againft  all 
Simonidcal  Contra&s,  either  dire£lly  or  indire&ly.  Why  did  not  the  Jud- 
ges declare,  that  it  was  Simony  within  their  Oath  ?  But  they  were  only  to 
Judge  of  the  Law.  And  how  could  they  judge  this  not  to  be  a  Simoniacal 
Bargain  ?  Becaufe  there  was  no  Simoniacal  Condition  in  it.  But  what  is  3 
Simoniacal  Condition?  Where  hath  the  Corhmon  Law  determin'd  it  > 
And  by  what  Rule  }  Yes,  fay  they,  A  Leafe  for  Tythes,  or  a  Bargain 
for  Money,  had  been  Simony.  But  how  come  they  to  determine  that  no 
other  Contrafts  are  Simoniacal  5  when  they  own,  That  Simony  is  not 
under  their  Cognifance  .<?  Did  they  ever  offer  to  advife  with  the  Civili- 
ans .<?  What  was  a  Simoniacal  Contra^,  according  to  the  Ecclefiafti- 
cal  Law  ?  Not  the  leaft  mention  of  this  :;  and  therefore  I  can- 
not but  think  this  a  Judgment  without  fufficientReafon  to  fupport 
if. 

The  fameCaufe  came  on  again  the  next  Year;   and  there  it  is  decla* 

«d.  That  it  was  not  Simony,  but  ^ood  Policy  to  tie  him  torefign^  and  if  it 
•re,  tt  is  not  material.  Here  are  two  good  Points  declared :  i.That 
BondsofRcftgnation  are  good  Policy.  To  what  End?  To  infnare  Men's 
Confciences ;  to  make  the  Church  a  Prey  to  corrupt  Patrons  ^  to  keep 
Men  from  doing  their  Duties,  leaft  they  (hould  difpleafe  their  Patrons, 
If  this  be  good  Policy,  let  it  rather  pafs  for  that,    than  for  good  Law.. 

2.  That 


Bonds  of  Re(ignation,  &c.  735 

2.  That  it  is  not  material  as  to  thegoodnefs  of  the  Bond,  whether  it  he  Simo- 
ny or  not.  Then  ic  feems  a  Simoniacal  Contrad  holds  good  in  Law  5 
which,  I  think,  was  no  good  PoUij  for  Judges  to  declare. 

But  we  are  told,  That  1 5  Jac.  in  the  Cafe  of  Pafchal  and  Clerk,  it  was 
faid  by  the  Court  upon  Evidence,  That  if  the  Patron  takes  a  Bond  of  Re-  Noy,  2:. 
Jignation  at  three  Months  Teaming,  it  was  Simony  within  the  Statute.  And 
tor  this  we  are  referr'd  to  the  Roll.  2051.  I  wonder  this  Judgment  is 
not  hitherto  difproved,  iftheRoUbefaljiJied:^  and  if  not,  here  is  Judg- 
ment againft  Judgment. 

But  again,  in  the  Cafe  oiBabington  and  Wood^  it  was  refolved  on  the  Cr.car. 
fame  Grounds  with  that  oi  Jones  and  Laurence,   and  fo  defervesno  new  '^° 
Confideration  :   and  feveral  other  Judgments  are  faid  to  have  been  gi-  ,i"o.°  ' 
ven  fince  on  the  fame  Grounds.  Jones, 

But  let  us  compare  this  Cafe  with  fuch  as  have  been  adjudged  to  be  Kebie  2. 
Simony  iv  the  Courts  of  Common  Law.  44.6.  ' 

In  the  Cafe  of  Byrte  and  Manning,  The  Court  held.    That  if  a  Man  Cr.Car. 
enterd  into  a  Contract  toprocure  a  Prefentation,  in  Confideration  of  the  Mar-  ^ 
riage  of  his  Son,  that  had  been  a  Simoniacal  ContraB.  Why  is  not  a  Bond 
ofRefignation,  as  much  Simony,    as  a  Confideration  of  Marriage  ^   when 
both  are  made  equally  the  C  onditions  oi' obtaining  a  Prefentation  > 

If  aSimoniacal  Contra^  be  made,  and  the  Perfon prefented  not  at  all  pri-  ^r*  ^''^ 
vy  to  it,  he  is  t»  incur  the  Penalty  of  it  ;  but  it  a  Man  be  privy  to  a  Bond  c.  i  j.ioa. 
ofRefignation  in  order  to  a  Prefentation,  he  (hall  not  be  guilty.  And  yet  cr.  2.385. 
in  the  one  Cafe,    a  Man  (wears  with  a  good  Confcience,   which  I  think  BuifiVod! 
he  cannot  in  the  other.  3.90. 

In  the  Cafe  of  WinchcombandPuHefion,    it  was  declared  to  be  Simo-^°^'^^^' 
My,   to  purchafe  the  next  Prefentation,    when  the  Incumbent  was  ftill  alive, 
hut  in  a  Fit  of  the  Strangury.    And  yet  this  was  not  within  the  Letter  of 
the  Law  i  for  the  Living  was  notaftually  void.   Therefore  fuch  Afts, 
as  are  againft  the  Defign  and  Reafon  of  the  Law,  are  forbidden  by  it. 
And  the  like  was  affirmed  by  Jujiiie  Button  in  the  Cafe  of  Sheldon  and  winch, 
Bret.  In  a  late  Judgment  in  Chancery,    Bonds  ofRefigvation  at  pleafure  ^^' 
to  Patronsiby  their  Clerks,  are  damned  in  Equity,  when  any  jllVfe  kmade  Rep.chan- 
of  them.    But  why  fhould  any  fuch  Bonds  be  allowed  in  Law,    which  are  "p^' "' 
liable  to  fuch  ill  llfes? 

I  conclude  with  the  Words  of  ray  Lord  Coke,  That  the  Common  L</a»nn^- 
doth  detefl  Simony,  and  all  corrupt  Bargains  for  Prefentation  to  any  Bene-  '^' 
fice  ;  and  its  dejign  is,  that  a  fit  Perfon  for  theDifcharge  of  the  Cure  Jliould 
he  prefented  freely  without  Expeilation  of  any  thing.      How  then  can  Bonds 
ofRefignation  be  agreeable  to  Law  .> 

Having  thus  difpatch'd  the  main  Point  againft  all  General  Bonds,  which 
are  made  the  Conditions  of  obtaining  a  Prefentation  ;  there  remain  on- 
ly fome  ^iccry's  to  be  refolved. 

Ci.)  Suppofe  a  Bond  be  required  only  to  tie  Men  up  to  do  their  Duties^ 
and  to  keep  thenffrom  Noit-Rcfideme.  lanfwer,  (i.)  That  the  Patron  is  to 
blame  to  pitch  upon  a  Perfon  to  discharge  fuch  a  Cure,  of  whom  at 
the  fame  time  he  difcovers  fuch  a  Miftruft  as  to  need  a  Bond  to  make  him 
do  his  Duty.  And  if  a  Man  makes  no  Confcience  of  his  Duty  without 
a  Bond,  I  doubt  he  will  make  very  little  with  it.  If  he  could  make  him 
a  good  Man  by  his  Bond,  it  were  of  great  Ufe ;  but  if  he  be  not,  he  may 
do  the  more  Mifchief  by  continuing  in  his  Place  by  the  force  of  a  Bond. 
So  that  I  look  on  fuch  Bonds,  as  apt  to  raife  Scruples  in  good  Men's 
Minds,  and  to  do  no  good  upon  bad  ones. 

2.  That  all  wife  and  good  Patrons  will  confider  the  general  Mifchief, 

A  a  a  a  a  2  more 


'73^  A  Difcoarfe  concerning 

more  than  a  particular  Inconvenience.  And  what  greater  Mifchief  can 
come  to  our  Church,  than  to  have  Bonds  ofRefignation  brought  into  re- 
quefl:  ?  For,  befides  corrupt  'Patrons  as  to  Bargains  ^  what  Advantage  will 
corrupt  Patrons  as  to  Religion  make  of  it  ?  who  by  that  means  will  be  able 
to  turn  out  the  Incumbents  upon  notice  given,  when  opportunity  ferves 
them  5  as  is  before  obferved  in  the  Preface. 

(2.)  Suppofe  it  be  averj  equitable  Cafe  as  for  a  Minor,  is  a  Bond  of  Re- 
fignation  unlajvful  i 

I  anfwer.  That  there  may  be  a  lawfid  Trufi,  in  fuch  a  Cafe  I  do  not 

queftion ;  but  whether  the  Perfon  Who  takes  this  Tntfl^  can  enter  into  a 

Bond.'anA  take  the  Oath,  I  very  much  queftion,  upon  the  Reafons already 

mentioned.  For  there  may  be  a  confidential  Simony,  as  the  Cafuijis  call  it  5 

Navarr.     and  the  way  to  prevent  it,  is,  fay  they,  That  the  Truji  he  fine  pretH,  patli, 

Man.  C.23.  fjjo^i^  ^gi  conditiottis  interventu.  For  the  taking  of  a  Bond  argues  a  Mifirufi-^ 

"'  ^°^'     and  is  therefore  contrary  tothe  Nature  of  a  Trufi. 

(5.)  Suppofe  the  BifiDop  himfe If  requires  a  Bond  of  Refignatton,  as  to  a 
Prebend  of  his  Church,  If  the  Prebendary  quit  the  Diocefs  ,  is  fuch  a  Bond 
juftifiable,  or  not  ? 

The  Bifhop  is,  no  doubt,  bound  to  take  all  poflible  care  of  the  Good 
of  his  Diocefs,  and  to  make  his  Preferments  ferviceable  to  that  End.  But 
if  a  Man  knows  beforehand,  that  without  this  Condition  he  cannot  ob- 
tain it,  and  with  it  he  may,  he  runs  into  a  Snare  by  giving  a  Bond  for 
that  End  ;  and  after,  taking  the  Oath  againft  any  Simnniacal  Contra^^ 
dire&ly  or  indire&ly.  I  do  think  thefe  Bonds  of  fo  bad  a  Nature  and 
Tendency,  that  I  do  wifti  that  no  Countenance  or  Incouragement  be  given 
to  them ;  efpecially  by  fuch,whofe  Example  may  encourage  others  to  do 
that  for  bad  Defigns  which  they  do  for  good.  And  Wife  and  Good  Men 
will  always  (hew  the  greateft  Regard  to  that,  which  ferves  the  moft 
Publick  Intereft,  and  prevents  the  moft  growing  Mifchief. 

C4.)  Suppofe  the  Incumbent  of  a  Living  maizes  an  Agreement  with  ano- 
ther Clergyman,  that  helhall  have  a  Leafe  of  his  Benefice  from  three  Years  to 
three  Years  5  upon  which  he  takes  a  Sum  of  Money,  and  gives  a  Bond  ofRe- 
fignation  before  Harvefi,  and  is  to  procure  a  Prefentation  from  the  Patron  5 
is  this  Simony,  or  not,  by  our  Law  ? 

Here  the  Patron  is  only  fuppofed  barely  to  know  and  to  confent, 
(  which  is  hardly  to  be  fuppofed  in  fuch  kind  of  Cafes)  and  that  the 
Terms  are  only  between  the  two  Parties,  (for  I  will  not  fuppofe  the  Bi- 
fi]op  acceffary  to  fuch  Bargains )  the  Queftion  is,  Whether  the  Incum- 
bent can  with  a  fafe  Confcience  part  with  his  Benefice  on  fuch  Terras  ? 
and  whether  the  other  can  give  a  valuable  Confideration  Tol:  his  Inte- 
reft in  it,  if  the  Patron  confents? 

I  anfwer,That  the  Law  is  as  exprefs  againft  corrupt Refignation,  as  agaln/f 
corrupt  Bargains  for  a  Prefentation  y  only  the  Penalty  is  not  fo  great.  The 
Words  of  the  Aft  are.  That  if  any  Incumbent  of  any  Benefice  with  Cure  of 
Souls  ^  [hall  corruptly  refign  or  exchange  the  fame,  or  corruptly  take  for,  orin 
refpeB  of  the  Refigning  or  Exchanging  of  the  fame  directly  or  indireBh  any 
fenfion  or  Sum  of  Money  or  Benefit  whatfocver  ;  that  then  as  well  the  Gi- 
ver as  the  Taker,  8cc.  (hall  lofe  double  the  Value  of  the  Money  fo  given,  and 
double  the  Value  of  one  Years  Profit.  31  Eliz.  c.  6. 

It  may  poffibly  be  faid.  That  this  is  a  diftinft  Claufe  from  the  other, 
and  hath  another  kind  of  Penalty  ;  and  fo  cannot  reach  Perfons  in  point 
of  Confcience  as  the  other  doth.  But  this  is  a  ftrange  way  of  dealing 
with  Laws.  For  there  is  the  fame  Penalty  in  the  former  Claafe  ^  only 
there  is  added  a  prefect  Avoidance,  and  a  D  fibility  in  Law  ^    fuppofing 

thefe 


Bonds  of  Refgnrttion,  &c.  737 


thefe  two  left  out,  the  one  ftands  upon  the  fame  Foot  with  the  o- 
ther.  And  I  would  know.  Whether  if  thefe  were  gone,  they 
could  not  as  well  make  a  Bargain  for  a  Prefentation,  as  for 
fuqh  a  Refignation  ?  And  is  there  nothing  of  Confcience,  or 
Honour,  or  a  Regard  to  the  Dignity  of  the  Sacred  Funftion  in  the  Cafe? 
No  Reverence  to  Laws  made  on  purpofe  to  deter  Men  from  fuch  fordid 
Praftices  >  Is  a  Benefice  to  be  look'd  on  as  a  meer  Livelihood,  to  be 
bought  and  fold  as  other  Eftates  are  ?  Is  there  no  Senfe  of  any  Spiritual 
Employment  going  along  with  it  ?  No  Regard  to  the  Charge  and  Truft 
that  attends  it  ?  If  nothing  of  a  Spiritual  Nature  is  to  be  confidered  in 
a  Benefice,  then  there  can  be  no  fucn  thing  as  Simony^  and  then  their 
Hearts  are  at  eafe,  and  they  may  publifti  Papers  for  ^  refentations  as  well 
as  for  Re/ignatioa  of  Incumbents.  But  I  will  not  fuppofe  fuch  hard  thin^^s 
of  Perfons  who  pretend  to  be  in  Holy  Orders  j  but  this  I  muft  put  them 
in  mind  of,  that  there  is  an  Oath  to  be  taken,  and  a  very  ftrift  one, 
againfl:  all  Simoniacal  Contracts,  either  directly  or  indirectly.  And  is  wil- 
ful Perjury  a  thing  to  be  flighted  by  any,  efpeciilly  by  Church- men, 
and  in  order  to  a  Cure  of  Souls  ?  I  have  already  mentioned  my  Lord 
Coke's  Saying,  That  Simony  k  the  more  odious,  becattfe  it  is  ever  accompa-  3lnft.ij5, 
nied  with  Perjury,  for  the  Prejentee  is  faorn  to  commit  no  Simony  -  and 
for  this  he  refers  to  Lynwood.  And  I  have  already  Ihewed  how  Simony 
is  to  be  underftood  according  to  him.  Ifafolemn  Oath  comes  to  be 
flighted,  and  made  little  or  nothing  of,  how  can  fuch  Men  pretend  to 
Religion  or  Confcience  >  But  it  may  be  faid,  That  Simony  is  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  Law  5  and  the  Law  makes  a  Bargain  with  the  Patron  to  he  Si' 
many,  and  not  with  the  Incumbent.  I  have  faid  enough  already  to  fhew 
that  the  Statute  doth  not  determine  what  Simony  is,  but  only  inflids  a 
fevere  Penalty  on  fome  forts  of  it  5  and  therefore  it  may  be  Simony,  al- 
though not  exprefly  againfl:  the  Words  of  the  Law.  But  the  Words  of 
the  Law  are  exprefs  againft  corrupt  Refignations  5  and  I  would  fain 
know,  whether  a  Refignation  for  Money  be  not  a  corrupt  Refignation  ? 
And  fuppofing  tha  Patron  innocent,  can  any  Man  of  common  Senfe  or 
Honefty  take  the  Oath,  who  comes  in  upon  fuch  Terms,  That  he  hath 
made  no  Simoniacal  Contra^  or  Promife  to  any  Per/on  or  Perfons  whatfoe- 
ver,  concerning  the  procuring  or  obtaintKg  the  ReCfory  orVicaraq^e,  &C.  Is 
not  this  Bargain  in  order  to  the  procuring  or  obtaining  the  Prefentati- 
on >  Let  it  be  with  whom  it  will,  if  it  be  for  this  end,  it  is  Simoniacal  5 
or  elfe  it  will  be  hard  to  determine  ^NhztSimony  is.  And  as  to  fuch  kind 
of  Bonds  of  Refignation  between  Parties,  without  the  Patron's  Privity, 
how  can  they  fignify  any  thing,  if  the  Bifliop  do  not  accept  the  Refi- 
gnation }  Which  I  have  (hewed  before  mufl:  be  into  his  Hands.  But 
thefe  Men  feem  to  fet  the  Bilhop  quite  afide,  or  to  fuppofe  him  very  weak 
and  ingjnfiderate.  All  they  look  at  is  the  point  of  Law  5  and  they  may 
fay.  They  have  advifed  with  Council,  and  they  have  told  them,  that  there  is 
nothing  againft  Law  in  this  Pra^ice.  How  ?  Not  againft  Law  ?  Did 
they  ask  them,  whether  this  were  not  a  corrupt  Refignation  within  the 
Statute  ?  No  5  but  whether  it  were  Simony  or  not  ?  I  hardly  fuppofe  any 
Man  that  underftands  what  Simony  is  by  our  Law,  would  go  fo  far  5 
but  they  might  fay.  It  doth  not  -void  the  Living,  nor  bring  a  Difability  on  - 
the  Perfon  ^  and  fo  far  they  faid  as  the  Statute  doth.  But  is  this  all 
which  Men  of  Confcience,  and  who  take  the  Care  of  Souls,  are  to  en- 
quire after  >  What!  nothing  but  whether  the  Benefice  will  be  void  or 
not  .<?  Or,  whether  the  King  may  prefent  or  not  .<?  Are  thefe  all  the  Confi- 
derations,  even  of  Clergymen,  in  fuch  Cafes?  Such  kind  of  Praftices, 

which 


738  A  Difcourfe  concerning 


which  favour  only  of  this  World,  are  thofe  which  give  fuch  Advan- 
tages againft  our  Profeffion,  in  fuch  an  Age  of  Infidelity  as  ours.  Do 
not  you  fee,  fay  they,  that  they  mind  nothing  but  their  bare  Intereft 
as  to  this  World,  and  have  no  regard  to  Law  or  Confcience,  where  they 
contradift  it  ?  I  am  fenfible  how  unreafonable  it  is,  to  charge  a  Profef- 
fion with  the  Faults  of  a  few  ;  and  thofe  in  Comparifon,  I  hope,  not 
confiderable  in  it.  But  we  ought,  if  poflible,  to  avoid  any  Scandal  of 
this  kind ;  for  itftrikes  at  the  whole  Body  of  the  Clergy  of  our  Church, 
and  at  Religion  it  felf  ^  which  if  we  have  any  our  felves,  we  [ball  be 
very  tender  of  the  Honour  of.  Some  Men  have  a  mighty  Prejudice  a- 
gainft  any  Church-men  meddling  In  Secular  Affairs,  although  they  be 
Matters  of  Juftice  and  Mercy,  which  the  Law  of  the  Land  calls  them 
to  ;  but  my  great  Prejudice  is  againft  fuch  Church-men,  who  bring 
Secular  Ways  of  Trafficking  into  Church-matters,  as  though  nothing 
were  really  minded,  hm  buying,  and  Jelling,  and  gettingGain.  Advan- 
cing of  Trade  is  a  noble  Defign  in  a  Nation,  and  that  which  makes  it 
confiderable  at  Home  and  Abroad  5  but  God  forbid  that  fuch  a  way  of 
Trading  fbould  ever  be  brought  into  the  Church,  or  be  fuffered  to  go 
unpuniOied  in  it ;  for  it  will  certainly  ruin  the  beft  Church  in  the 
World,  by  leflening  the  Reputation  of  Church-men,  by  taking  off  the 
good  AfFeftions  of  the  People,  and  making  them  to  run  into  Faftion 
and  Infidelity. 

There  is  certainly  fomething  more  to  be  regarded  in  thefe  things  be- 
fides  our  own  Intereft  ;  there  is  that  of  Religion,  of  our  Church,  and 
of  the  Laws  of  the  Land,  which  ought  to  over-rule  it.  Suppofe  there 
were  nothing  but  the  bare  Law  in  the  cafe,  which  exprefly  forbids  all 
corrupt  Refignations ;  is  it  not  fit  for  thofe  who  are  to  preach  Obedi- 
ence to  Laws,  to  obferve  them,  in  what  relates  to  themfelves?  Ought 
they  not  to  be  Examples  to  others  in  every  thing  of  good  Report^  and 
to  abftain  from  whatever  tends  to  take  off  from  the  Influence  of  their 
Dodlrine  upon  the  People?  And  nothing  doth  it  more,  than  when  they 
are  fufpeded  to  come  among  them  by  unlawful  an4  indireft  means. 

I  have  taken  the  Liberty  in  this  Difcourfe,  to  fpeak  my  Mind  freely 
about  Matters  which  touch  upon  Law?  av.d  Confcience,  the  Duties  of  Pa- 
trons and  Incumbents ;  but  I  have  done  it,  without  any  other  Defign, 
than  of  doing  fome  Good,  or  at  leaft  preventing  fome  Mifchief  to  the 
Church  I  live  in,  and  which  I  have  a  true  and  a  juft  Value  for.  If  I  had  not 
thought  that  this  kind  oi  Simoniacal  ContraQs  were  a  great  and  growing 
Mifchief,  and  had  not  had  too  much  Reafon  to  think  fo,  I  fliould  have 
fpared  my  pains  as  others  have  done  5  for  I  do  not  love  to  be  uneafy  to 
my  felf  or  others.  I  know  very  well,  how  ill  fuch  Difcourfes  are 
apt  to  be  taken  by  all  that  are  concerned  in  them,  viz.  Patrons,  In- 
cumbents, and  all  fuch  Lawyers  that  go  about  to  defend  them.  But  be- 
fore I  conclude  this  Difcourfe,  I  niuftrequeft  fome  things  of  alf  thefe^ 
and  then  let  them  judge  as  they  pleafe,  fo  it  be  without  Prejudice  and 
Partiality. 

I.  That  Patrons  would  confider.  That  the  Right  of  Patronage  is  a 
Truft  committed  to  them,  of  which  they  muft  give  an  account  to  God  ^ 
for  there  is  an  Obligation  in  point  of  Confcience,  going  along  with  it. 
It  is  hard  to  believe  what  is  commonly  reported,  how  flight  many  great 
Patrons  make  of  their  beftowing  of  Benefices,  by  letting  Servants  make 
their  beft  Advantage  of  them  5  who  fcandaloufly  expofe  the  Li- 
vings, and  themfelves,  and  the  Honour  of  thofe  they  depend 
upon.    If  Servants  delerve  to  be  gratified,    for  Gods  fake,   let  it 

not 


Bonds  of  Kefignation,&Lc.  739 


not  be  at  the  Price  of  Souls.  If  there  were  no  fuch  thing  as  Reli- 
gion, but  that  the  pretended  Care  of  Souls  is  nothing  but  an  Artifi- 
clal  way  of  Maintaining  a  Sett  of  Men,  to  keep  the  People  in  a  little  bet- 
ter Order,  by  telling  them  of  Moral  Duties,  and  another  World  5  then 
there  were  fome  Colour  for  fuch  an  affefted  Negligence  in  thefe  Mat- 
ters :  But  I  do  not  believe  that  any  of  thefe  Perfons  can  fatisfie  them- 
felves  in  fuch  abfurd  and  unreafonable  Imaginations,  againft  theSenfe 
of  all  the  Wifer  and  more  confiderate  part  of  Mankind.  ,But  it  cannot 
be  denied,  that  the  things  which  they  are  to  teach  the  People  in  point 
of  Morality,  are  very  good  things,  and  necefftry  to  be  told  them.  This 
is  all  I  defire  at  prefent.  And  is  it  of  no  Confequence  what  fort  of 
Men  thofe  are,  who  are  entrufted  with  the  teaching  People  their  Du- 
ties to  God  and  Man  >  If  Religion  were  only  to  be  regarded  in  point 
of  Policy;  thofe  muft  be  far  from  Politicians^  who  have  no  regard  to 
the  Qualifications  of  the  Perfons  they  put  into  fuch  places.  For  Igno- 
rant and  Illiterate  Men  can  never  give  them  goodlnftrudions  5  Scanda- 
lous and  debauched  Perfons  will  certainly  do  abundance  of  Mifchief, 
making  the  People  more  loofe  and  debauched  than  otherwife  they 
would  be.  Men  of  ill  Principles  will  inftill  them  into  the  Heads  of  the 
bufie  part  of  thofe  they  converfe  among,  and  take  upon  them  to  guide  5 
and  make  them  far  more  ungovernable  than  otherwife  they  v.'ould  be. 
I  have  no  very  great  Opinion  of  the  World  as  it  is  5  but  I  cannot  but 
think,  that  it  would  be  yet  mxxth  worfe,  if  an  Ignorant,  Vicious,  Tur- 
bulent, Seditious  Clergy  were  put  into  all  fuch  places  as  Patrons  dif- 
pofe  of:  And  they  know  not,  but  they  may  be  all  fuch  whom  they  pre- 
fent, if  they  take  no  more  care  about  tiiem^  but  fiifFer  their  Servants  to 
make  what  Bargains  they  think  fit ;  who  mind  not  they  Men,  but  the 
Advantage  they  are  to  get  by  them.  And  there  is  a  juftPrefumption,  that 
thofe  are  not  very  deferving,  who  are  ready  to  drive  fuch  Bargains  for 
themfelves:  And  fuch  Men  are  not  to  be  valued,  asCattel  in  a  Market, 
by  the  Money  they  will  yield. 

2.  That  Lawyers  would  not  encourage  their  Clients  in  indireft  me-  *^ 
thods  of  obtaining  Prefentations.  For  here  lies  a  great  part  of  our  pre- 
fent Mifchief:  The  Clergymen  who  want  Benefices,  they  fay;  we  are 
ignorant  of  the  Law ;  but  we  go  to  thofe  whofe  bufinefs  it  is  to  under- 
ftand  it:  And  they  tell  us,  they  have  Cafes  and  Precedents  in  their 
Books,  for  fuch  Bonds;  and  they  have  been  many  times  adjudged  in 
the  Courts  of  Law  to  be  good ;  and  therefore  why  are  we  to  blame  if 
we  fubmit  to  them?  fiut  here  lies  the  great  Miftake:  The  point  is  real- 
ly a  point  of  Confcience  as  to  the  Oath ;  but  the  Qaeftion  to  put  them, 
can  be  only  a  point  of  Law  ;  who  are  to  give  Judgment  upon  the  Sta- 
tute, and  according  to  the  Rules  of  Judgment  allowed  in  their  Courts. 
But  I  cannot  but  obferve,  that  there  is  no  Precedent  offer'd  before 
8  Jac.  I.  and  in  the  1 5th.  was  a  contrary  Judgment.  In  the  beginning 
oiCharles  I.  the  former  Judgment  was  affirmed  ;  and  from  hence  it  hath 
come  to  be  fuch  a  prevailing  Opinion.  I  confefs,  that  I  am  not  fa- 
tisfied,  bow  far  fuch  Precedents,  or  one  or  two  judicial  Sentences  make 
a  thing  to  pafs  for  Law  ;  nor  whether  the  Authority  of  fuch  a  Sentence, 
or  the  Reafon,  is  to  give  the  force  of  Law  to  it.  I  obferve  that  my 
Lord  Ct-ke,  when  he  fpeaks  ot  the  Laws  of  England-^  he  reckons  up 
Common  Lam^  Statute  Lan>j,  Cnjioms  reafofrahle,  Sec.  but  he  never  men- 1  inft.  li.' 
tions  the  Judgment  of  the  Courts,  as  any  part  of  our  Law;  they  being  ^'-*  j^; 
no  more  but  a  Declaratory  Sentence  of  the  Majority  of  the  Judges, 
when  it  may  be  the  other  differ  upon  better  Reafons ;  and  when  fuch 

Rea-- 


^Ao  A  Difconrfe  concerning 


Reafons  come  to  be  thought  better  by  one  more  at  another  time,  then 
the  contrary  muft  pafs  for  Law  on  the  fame  Grounds.    How  often  do 
we  hear  that  the  Judges  were  divided  in  their  Opinions  in  point  of 
Law?  How  often,  thatthe^reater  number  went  one  way,  but  Law  and 
Reafon  on  the  other?  Suppofe  a  Lord  Chief  Juftice  of  great  Skill  and 
Knowledge  in  the  Law,  to  be  unequally  yoked  with  others  of  far  lefs 
Judgment  5  how  is  it  poflible  to  prevent  that  Judgment  (hall  not  be  gi- 
ven on  the  wrong  fide,  if  the  three  happen  to  be  of  an  Opinion  ag-^inft 
him  -J  or  one  be  abfent,  and  two  be  againft  one  ?  In  a  late  great  Caufe, 
viz.  of  Commendam ;  although  three  Judges  concurred  in  Opinion,  and 
the  general  Praftice  was  allowed  to  be  of  that  fide;  yet  becaufe  one 
Judge  differ'd  from  the  reft,  his  Authority  was  produced  againft  the 
Sentence  of  the  Court :  And  for  what  Caufe  can  this  be,  but  the  Suppo- 
fition,  that  it  is  not  the  Sentence,  but  the    Reafon  which  makes  the 
Law.    My  Lord  Chief  Juftice  Hales  in  a  MS.  Difcourfe  of  the  Hiflory 
and  Analyfs  of  the  Laws  of  England,  Chap.  4.  makes  three  Conftituents 
of  the  Common  Law  of  England:   t.  The  Common  IJfage  and  Cuflom: 
2.  The  Authority  of  Parliament :  3.  The  judicial  Decifions  of  Courts  ofju- 
jiice  :  But  how  ?  Confonant  to  one  another  in  the  Series  and  Succe^ion  of 
Time.     This  is  fpoken  with  great  Judgment :  For,  no  doubt,  a  might- 
ty  Regard  ought  to  be  ftiewed  to  a  Concurrent  Senfe  of  fo  many  Per- 
fons  of  Ability  in  the  Law,  in  the  different  times  wherein  fuch  Mgtters 
have  been  before  them  5  and  this  is  the  higheft  Authority  for  expoun- 
ding the  Law  ^  but  it  cannot  amount  to  the  making  of  a  Law.    For,  as 
the  fame  excellent  Perfon  adds;  It's  true,  the  Decifions  of  Courts  ofju- 
Jihe,  although  by  the  flrength  of  the  Law  of  this  Kingdom,  they  do  hind  as 
a  Lavp  between  the  Parties  to  it  in  that  particular  Cafe  in  ^te^ion ,  till  Re 
verfed  by  Error  or  Attaint ;  yet  they  do  not  make  a  Law :  For  that  only 
the  King,  by  the  Ajfent  of  Parliament,  can  do.     All  that  I  aim  at,  is  not 
in  the  leaft  to  take  off  from  the  Authority  and  Reverence  due  to  judi- 
cial Decifions,  built  upon  a  General  Agreement  from  time  to  time;  or 
upon  Evident  Reafon  in  point  of  Law :  But  only  that  things  ftiould  not 
be  fo  pofitively  afferted  to  be  Law,  which  are  built  only  on  a  few  Mo- 
dern Precedents,  without  any  convincing  Evidence :  Which  I  take  to 
be  the  prefentCace. 

5.  That  the  Clergy  would  mind  their  own  Honour  and  Intereft,  and 
that  of  the  Church  and  Religion  fo  much  as  not  to  accept  of  Benefi- 
ces upon  fuch  Enfnaring  Terms,  as  thofe  of  Bonds  of  Refignation. 

If  what  I  have  faid  on  this  Argument  be  true;  I  am  fure  they  have 
all  the  Reafon  in  the  World  to  refufe  them,  when  they  know  not  what 
the  Confequence  of  them  may  be ;  and  they  do  know  what  kind  of 
Oath  they  are  to  take.  And  no  Man  can  honeftly  take  an  Oath,  that 
is  not  fatisfied,  that  fuch  Bonds  are  no  Simoniacal  ContraU  in  the  Senfe 
of  that  Law,  by  which  he  is  required  to  take  the  Oath.  Now  the  Oath 
is  not  impofed  by  the  Courts  of  Common  Law  in  purfuance  of  the  Sta- 
tute; for  then  it  were  to  be  underftood  according  to  the  Senfe  and 
Meaning  of  it ;  but  that  very  Statute  leaves  the  Ecclejiafiical  Laws  as  they 
were  ;  by  which  Simony  is  of  a  larger  Extent  than  it  is  underftood  at 
Common  Law  ;  and  by  thofe  Laws  this  Oath  is  required.  Therefore  my 
Requeft  is  to  all  fuch  Clergymen,  as  are  in  danger  of  having  fuch  put 
upon  them;  thatthey  would  ftudy  the  Cafe,  and  fatisfie  their  Minds 
before  they  venture  upon  taking  an  Oath,  which  may  afterwards  rob 
them  of  that  Peace  and  Tranquility  of  Mind,  which  every  Good  Man 
will  Efteem  above  any  Benefice  in  the  World. 

THE 


741 


THE 

SECOND    PART 

O  F 

ECCLESIASTICAL  CASES, 

Relating  to  tlie 

Exercife  of  Ecclejiaftical  JmfdiSion^  as  far  as 
it  is  allowed  by  LAW. 

To  which  are  added, 

Tm  SPEECHES   in  the  Houfe  of  Lords. 

I.  The  Cafe  of  Exeter  College  in  Oxford. 

II.  The  Cafe  of  Commendams. 

WITH 

A  D I S C O U  R S E  of  the  True  Antiquity  oi  LONDON, 
and  its  State  in  the  Roman  Times. 

THE 

BOOKSELLER 

T  O    T  H  E 

R  E  A  D  E  R. 

TtlE  Firjl  ofthefe  D'lfcourfes  was  fent  to  me  by  the  Right  Reverend. 
Author,  at  the  fame  time  that  the  Ftrfi  Part  of  the  Ecclefiaftical 
Cafes  relating  to  the  Duties  and  Rights  of  the  Parochial  Cler- 
gy vpere  fent  up  5  and  he  itjtended  to  have  added  this  and  the  tvpo  fol- 
loTPing  Difcourfes  formerly  printed  to  that  Volume  5  but  that  firfi  Pari 
fvpcUing  to  too  great  a  Bulk,  thefe  VPere  laid  afide,  and  might  pojjibly  have 
been  attended  with  other  Difcourfes  of  the  fame  Nature,  if  it  had  pleafed 
God  to  have  contimid  hk  hife.  The  two  Speeches  in  the  Houfe  of  Lords, 
and  the  Difcourfe  concerning  the  Antiquity  oi  London y  1  received  from  hk 
Son,  the  Reverend  Mr.  SiiWmg^QQt. 

B  b  b  b  b  D  I  S- 


742  Of  the  foundation  of 

■  II  I  ■■!"  '■■■  ■■■mpM^  iBii  II  III    I  II  ^  _ . ,    ■  -I    -  -  —  „■  ■  .  ■  ■■  ■        I  LI 

DISCOURSE    I. 

Of  the  Nature  of  our  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdidion, 

and  the  Laws  on  which  it  ftands, 

BY  the  Statute  for  Rejiraiftt  of  Appeals,  7\  H.  8.  c.  12.  we  under- 
ftand  what  that  Jurifdi&ion  was,  which  our  Laws  did  not  allow, 
and  what  it  was,  which  was  founded  upon  them.  It  begins  with  a  Re- 
cital, that  it  appears  from  Ancient  Hifiories  and  Authentick  Records, 
that  the  Realm  of  England,  is  an  Empire  governed  by  one  Supreme  Head 
and  King,  to  whom  the  whole  Nation  owes  a  natural  and  humble  Obedi- 
ence 5  but  the  People  are  divided  in  Terms,  and  by  the  Names  of  the  Spi- 
ritualty and  Temper altj.  However  that  there  k  fuficient  Power,  Au- 
thority and  Jurifdi&ion  within  the  Realm  to  end  allCaufes  that  arife,  with' 
out  any  Appeal  to  a  foreign  Court  5  the  Body  Spiritual,  ufually  called  the 
Engli/h  Church,  judge  all  fuch  Matters  as  belong  to  them  ;  and  the  Lares 
Temporal  are  for  trial  of  Property  of  Lands  and  Goods,  and  for  the  pre- 
fervation  of  Peace  and  Unity,  according  to  which,  there  are  Judges  of 
the  Temporalty  appointed  to  adminifier  and  execute  Jujiice,  and  both  thefe 
do  conjoin  together  the  one  to  help  the  other. 
From  whence  thefe  things  do  naturally  follow  : 

1.  That  an  External  and  Foreign  Authority  and  Jurifdiftion  is  incon- 
fiftent  with  the  original  Conftitution  of  our  Government,  and  the  De- 
fign  of  our  Laws. 

2.  That  there  are  two  feveral  forts  of  Jurifdiftion  owned  by  our 
Laws,  the  one  Spiritual,  and  the  other  Temporal  ;  and  that  both  thefe 
concur  to  the  due  Adminifiration  of  Jujiice,  as  the  Words  of  the  Sta- 
tute are. 

But  the  Statute  proceeds  to  fhew,  Ar.  2.  that  notwithftanding  the 
Statutes  of  Provifors  and  Framunire  in  the  times  of  JS.  i.  &  3.  and  R.  2. 
&  H.  4.  there  had  been  many  Encroachments  made,  efpecially  in  Cafes 
of  Appeal  as  to  fuch  Matters,  which  by  the  Goodnefs  of  the  Princes  ofthk 
Realm,  and  by  the  Laws  and  Cujioms  of  the  fame,  did  appertain  to  the 
Spiritual  Jurifdi&ion  of  this  Realm.  And  thefe  Matters  are  exprefled  to 
be  Caufes  Tejlamentary,  Caufes  of  Matrimony  and  Divorces,  Rights  of 
Tithes,  Oblations  and  Obventions  :  Therefore  it  is  enaded,  that  all  fuch 
Caufes  /ball  be  finally  determind  within  the  JCings  Jurifdi^ion  and  Autho- 
rity, and  not  elfewheres  in  fuch  Courts  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  as  the  Na- 
tures, Conditions,  and  Qualities  of  the  Cafes  Jhall  require.  From  whence 
It  follows, 

1.  That  the  Intention  of  our  Laws  before  was  to  reftrain  theExercife 
of  the  Pope's  exorbitant  Jurifdiftion  here  in  matters  which  belong'd  to 
©ur  own  Spiritual  JurifdiH ion,  according  to  the  Laws  and  Cujioms  of  the 
Realm. 

2.  That  the  particular  Defign  of  this  Law  is  to  reduce  things  to  their 
ancient  and  legal  Methods  which  had  been  fo  much  fubverted  by  the 
Pope's  gradual  Encroachments  and  Ufurpation  s. 

9.  That  our  own  Laivs  and  Cujioms  are  the  beft  Means  to  fet  the 
Bounds  and  Meafures,  as  to  Spiritual  and  Temporal  Jurifdi&ion. 

4.  That 


the  Ecclefiaftical  Jiinfditiion.  745 


4.  That  the  fame  Statute  which  takes  away  the  Pope's  Jurifdidtioii 
in  matter  of  Appeals,  dotheftablifli  the  Authority  of  our  Spiritual C(?«r// 
in  fuch  things  as  by  the  Cujioms  and  Laws  of  England  belong  to  their 
Jurifdiiflion. 

5.  That  fince  no  other  Law  hath  taken  away  this  Power  and  Jurif- 
diftion  from  the  Spiritual  Courts,  they  remain  ftill  in  the  fame  Force 
and  Authority  from  this  particular  Statute,  as  well  as  from  the  ancient 
Laws  and  Cuftoras  of  the  Realm. 

It's  true  that  by  the  Aft  17.  Car.  \.  c.  12.  the  Exercife  of  the  ordi- 
nary Spiritual  Jurifdidtion  feem'dtobe  taken  away  5  but  by  the  Ad  13. 
Car.  2.  c.  12.  that  Claufe  is  wholly  repealed,  and  the  Ecclefiaftical  Ju- 
rifdiftion  reftored  to  the  fame  Condition  it  was  in  before,  in  all  Caufes 
and  Matters  belonging  to  the  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdiftion,  according  to 
the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  ufed  andpraftifed  in  this  Realm  in  as  ample  man- 
ner and  form,  as  they  did  and  might  lawfully  have  done  before  the 
making  of  the  faid  Aft. 

And  it  is  obfervable,  that  although  there  vvas  a  defign  to  have  re- 
formed the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  by  virtue  of  the  Statutes  25  H.  8,  c.  19. 
27  H.  8.  CAS-  35/7.  8.f;i6.  3  £. 6.  c.ii.  and  Commifiions  were  iffued 
out  to  that  purpofe,  and  a  Draught  agreed  upon  ^  yet  thefe  never  paf- 
fing  into  a  Law,  the  old  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  of  England  continued  ftill 
in  force,  which  were  not  contrariant  or  repugnant  to  the  Laws,  Statutes 
and  Cuftoms  of  the  Realm,  nor  to  the  damage  and  hurt  of  the  Kings  Pre- 
rogative. And  from  hence  the  Ecclefiaftical  Laivs  are  mentioned  in  fe^ 
Veral  Aftsof  Parliament,  as  ftill  in  being  after  the  Statute  25  H.  8.  c. 
19.  So  27  H.  8.  c.  20.  Tithes  are  required  to  be  paid  according  to  the 
Eccle/raftical  Laws  and  Ordinances  of  the  Church  »/  England,  5a  H.  8.  c. 
7.  Detainers  of  Tithes  are  to  be  proceeded  againft  according  to  the 
Courfe  and  Procefs  of  the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws,  55  H.  8.  c.  19.  Perfons 
are  fuppofed  to  be  convict  according  to  the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws,  I  E.  6.  c.2. 
An  Alteration  was  made  as  to  the  Name  and  Authority  by  which  the 
Summons,  and  Citations,  and  other  Procefs  was  fent  out  5  for  inftead 
of  the  Bilhops  Names,  they  were  to  be  in  the  King's  Name  as  in  Writs 
at  Common-Law,  but  with  the  Tefls  of  the  Biftiops.  Which  was  oc- 
cafion  d  by  the  Jealoufy  ftill  remaining,  that  fome  Biftiops  afted  by  Au- 
thority from  Rome  5  (which  Jealoufy  is  removed  by  the  Aft  of  Supre- 
macy, 10  £//z.)  yet  we  find  all  the  fame  Proceedings  allowed  in  the 
Ecclefiaftical  Courts  as  are  mention'd  in  the  Statute,  24  H.  8ic.  1 2.  and 
fome  more  mention'd,  zs  Caufes  of  CorretUon  and  Inquiries  de  Jure  Pa- 
tronatus,  8cc.  There  hath  been  a  great  Difficulty  made  by  fome  con- 
cerning this  Aft  ^  becaufe  it  was  repealed  i  Q..  M.  2.  and  that  Repeal 
taken  off  i  Jac.  25.^  ;/.  48.  Therefore,  fay  they,  this  Aft  is  revived, 
and  confequently  the  Ecclefiaftical  Procefs  muft  be  in  the  King's  Name^ 
and  not  in  the  Biftiops. 

But  we  are  to  confider,  that  the  Aft  25  H.  8.  c,  20.  gives  theBifhops 
confecrated  after  the  Manner  there  prefcribed.  Power  to  execute  in  all 
things  touching  the  fame,  as  any  Arch-B//hop  or  Bifhop  of  this  Realm, 
without  ofiinding  of  the  Prerogative  Royal  of  the  Crown,  and  the  Laws  and 
Cuftoms  of  this  Realm,  might  at  any  time  heretofore  do  :  Now  the  Afting 
in  their  own  Names,  was  according  to  the  anient  Cnflomsofthe  Realm, 
and  not  then  look'd  on  as  any  diminution  of  the  Prer<>grf^7tie^  for  then 
it  would  never  have  been  fufFered  in  fo  jsalous  a  time  as  the  Remain- 
der of  the  Reign  of  H.  8.     For  as  long  as  they  difowned  the  Pope's 

B  b  b  b  b  2  Power, 


'7^^  Of  the  Voundation  of 

Power,  and  owned  the  King's  Supremacy,  by  25  H  8.  c.  19.  they  did 
not  regard  in  whofe  Name  the  Procefs  went  out,  the  Difpute  not  being 
between  the  King  and  the  Bifhop,  but  between  the  King  and  the  Pope, 
and  when  the  Bifhop  owned  the  Ring  2t.i  Supreme  Head,  the  Procefs  muft 
run  in  the  Name  of  one  who  owned  no  other  Supreme  Head  but  the 
King  ^  and  what  greater  Injury  was  this  to  the  Prerogative,  than  eve- 
ry Lord  of  a  Manor  calling  a  Court  in  his  own  Name  ?  And  this  feems 
to  me  a  very  unreafonable  Objeftion,  unlefs  it  be  Ibppofed  that  the  Bi- 
Ihop  had  no  other  Power  of  Jurifdiftion  but  what  he  derived  from  the 
Pope,  which  is  a  ridiculous  Suppofition;^  for  the  Bifhops  did  exercife 
a  Spiritual  Jurifdiftion  here,  by  virtue  of  their  Office,  and  the  Laws 
of   the  Land,   before  the  Pope's  Ufurpation  here.    If  then  the  old 
Kings  of  England  did,  by  Confent  of  the  Eftates  of  the  Realm,  allow 
the  Bifhops  to  exercife  a  Spiritual  Jurifdiftion  without  Regard  to  the 
Pope's  Authority,  how  can  this  be  fuppofed  to  be  any  Diminution  to 
the  Kings  Prerogative /  It  is  poflible  that  the  Popifh  Bifliops  in  the  time 
of  E.  6.  might  in  the  Height  of  their  Bigotry  aflert,  that  the  Bifhops 
had  no  Jurifdiftion  but  what  they  derived  from  the  Pope ;  but  this 
was  not  the  ancient  Dodrine  of  the  Bifliops  oi~ England,  whoexercifed 
a  Spiritual  Jurifdi<3:ion  by  Virtue  of  their  Office,  without  any  Autho- 
rity derived  from  a  foreign  Bifliop.    Therefore  we  are  to  take  the  Pra- 
ftice  of  the  Bifliops  Jurifdiftion  from  the  ancient  Cufloms  here  re- 
ceiv'd,  and  not  from  any  late  and  novel  Opinions  5  and  thefe  twoAGts 
of  the  fubmifTion  of  the  Clergy,  c  19.  and  this  of  the  Bifliop's  Autho- 
rity, c.  20.  as  going  together.    But  now  i  Eliz.  i.  both  thefe  Afts  are 
revived,  ».  6,  7.    And  fo  if  there  had  been  no  Repeal  of  Q.  Mary  of 
the  Statute  i  E.  6.    when  thefe  Ads  were  revived,    the  Bifhops  had 
Power  to  aft  as  formerly ;  for  this  Revival  was  a  virtual  Repeal  of  that 
Ad.     And  the  Repeal  of  Q.  Mar/s  Ad,  i  Jac.  25.  doth  but  leave 
that  Ad  as  it  ftood  in  Competition  with  25  H.8.  c.  20.     But  the  Ad 
of  E.  6,  not  being  revived,  but  the  other,  it  puts  the  State  of  Epifco- 
pal  Jurifdidion  then  jufl:  as  it  was,  when  the  Ad  of  .25  H.8.  paffed. 
Why  was  not  this  Repeal  taken  away  i  Eliz.  as  well  as  i  Jac.  1  }   It 
feems  they  then  thought  the  Revival  of  25  //.  8.  would  fetthe  matter 
right  without  any  Refledion  upon  i  £.  6.    And  the  Bifliops  all  Queen 
Elizabeth's  Reign  aded  by  virtue  of  the  Statute  25  H.8.  and  no  Pre- 
judice to  the  Prerogative  then  :  How  can  we  then  imagine  it  to  fufFer 
by  I  Jac.  I.  when  the  fame  Laws  as  to  the  Prerogative  were  in  force  > 
And  Q.  Eliz,.  took  care  to  fecure  it  by  the  Ad  of  i  EUz.  which  efFe- 
dually  abolifhed  all  foreign  Jurifdidion,  n.  16.  and  annexed  Ecclefiafl:i- 
cal  Jurifdidion  to  the  Crown  of  this  Realm,  ».  17.     If  they  had  then 
thought  the  Bifhops  ufing  their  own  Names  had  been  contrary  there- 
to, it  is  not  to  be  imagined,  that  it  would  have  been  permitted  at  that 
time.     For  they  were  then  as  jealous  of  the  Prerogative,  as  any  have 
been  (ince,  and  did  take  as  much  Care  to  preferve  it  5   but  this  they 
thought  not  worth  any  Notice  being  taken  of  it.    And  it  ferves  only 
for  a  Pretence  to  quarrel  at  the  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdidion,  when  they 
have  nothing  material  to  alledge  againft  it. 

But  there  are  others  who  go  much  farther  than  this  Objedion  reach- 
es 5  for  they  pretend  that  the  very  Notion  of  Ecclejiaflical  Laws  is 
vi^rong  5  for  it  fuppofes  a  diflind  Law  from  the  Common  Law  of  Eng- 
land, which,  fay  they,  is  inconfiftent  with  the  Rights  and  Liberties  of 
the  People  of  England. 

This 


the  Ecclefiafiical  J  an  [diet  ion.  745 


This  ftrikes  at  the  root  of  all  Ecclejiajlical  Jurifdiction  and  therefore 
muft  be  fully  anfvver'd,  before  I  proceed  ;  and  that  fhall  be  done  by 
thefe  fteps  5 

1.  By  (hewing  that  it  proceeds  upon  a  very  falfe  fuppo(ition,«f/2:;.  that 
it  is  one  of  the  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  Nation,  to  have  fuch  a  Cof»- 
mon  Lan>as  excludes  the  Ecclefiaftical. 

2.  That  the  Ecclefiafiical  Laves  of  England  are  built  on  the  fame 
Foundations  with  other  parts  of  the  Common  Law.  And  that  thefe 
Laws  are  allow'd,  and  owned,  by  the  greateft  Aflerters  of  our 
Common  Law. 

I.  This  mighty  Objeftion  argues  great  Ignorance  of  our  Fundamen- 
tal Conftitution,  as  though  it  depended  upon  having  one  Common  Larv^ 
by  which  they  bring  all  things  under  the  Cognifance  of  what  they  call 
Common  Law,    fo  that  all  Caufes  (hould  be  heard  and  determined  by 
the  Rules  and  Methods  ufed  in  thofeCourts,  which  proceed  according 
to  it.     This  Term  of  Common  Law  feems  to  favour  the  Pretenfions  of 
thofe  who  would  bring  all  Matters  to  be  tried  by  it ;  but  if  they  would 
look  into  the  Origif/al  ot  Grounds  of  it,  they  would  find  themfelves  de- 
ceived.    For  the  Common  Law  had  not  its  Denomination  from  the  Uni- 
verfality  of  its  Extent  j  as  though  all  things  were  under  its  Jurifdidion; 
and  all  other  Methods  were  but  Encroachments  upon  it.     But  the  true 
Notion  of  the  Common  Law  extends  to  all  thofe  Cuftoms,    which  have 
obtained  the  Force  of  Laws,    although  the  Method  of  Proceeding  be 
very  different  in  them.      And  although  the  Modern  Acception  of  it 
feems  to  Reftrain  it  to  the  Municipal  Laws  of  the  Kingdom,    as.diflin- 
guifhed  from  the  more  General  Laws  and  Cuftoms  here  receiv'd,   which 
are  grounded  on  the  Civil,  Canon  or  Maritime  Laws ;  yet  I  fee  no  Rea- 
fon  why  thofe  Laws  which  ftand  upon  one  Common  Bottom,  as  being 
receiv'd  by  Immemorial  Cuftom,    (hould  not  pafs  under  the  fame  De- 
nomination.    For  the  Original  Common  Law  of  England  was  that  which 
is  commonly  called,    the  Laws  of  Edward  the  Confefifor,    which  was  a 
Collection  made  in  his  time  of  the  beft  of  thofe  Laws  which  had  been 
difufed  by  the   Danifl)  Irruptions,    and  were  then  thought  fit  to  be 
brought  together  for  the  common  life  of  the  Nation.     For  it  appears 
from  our  beft  Hiftorians,    that  there  were  different  Laws  in  the  feveral 
Parts  of  the  Nation  ;    tht  Mercian  Laws  were  in  many  things  different 
from  the  reft  ;  the  Laws  of  the  Eaft  Angles  were  Danifij,    and  fo  were 
the  Northumbrian  ;  and  the  Laws  of  the  Wefi  Saxons  diiler'd  from  both 
the  other  ^    and  were  collefted  by  :i4(y^e<^,  who  made  ufe  ofthe  Afem- 
an  and  Kenti/J}  Laws.    But  although  he  defigned  great  Matters  as  to  the 
Laws,  as  well  as  to  Religion  and  Learning  5    yet  his  time  was  fo  very 
troublefome,  that  no  lafting  Effeftfollow'd  his  Endeavours,  (notwith- 
ftandingall  that  is  faid  of  him  in  the  Book  called  the  Mirror  of  Juftices, 
faid  to  be  written  in  the  time  of£.  i. )  in  King  Edgar's  time  there  was 
a  fre(h  Attempt  to  fettle  the  Laws  5  but  he  was  taken  off  in  the  Flower 
of  his  Years,    and  a  very  tempeftuous  time  followed.  After  King  Ed- 
TPard  was  fettled  in  the  Throne,  there  happen'd  a  confiderable  time  of 
Pea'ce  ^  and  then  a  Colleftion  of  our  Laws  was  again  thought  of  i,   and 
many  of  them  were  put  together,  which  were  of  moft  general  life,  un- 
der his  Name.     And  thefe  faith  Brompton  and  Ranttlph  Higden  were  script,  p. 
called  the  Common  Law  of  England  :,    not,    that  thefe  Laws  were  then  957. 
made,   but  that  they  were  then  made  common  to  the  Nation  ;    as  thee.  5c, ' 
Paraphrafton  the  ConfefTors  Laws  confeffes,  c,  35. 

Thefe 


Of  the  Vomdation  of 


Thefe  Laws  being  thus  publiftied  and  commonly  receiv'd,  the  Peo- 
ple of  Etjgland  grew  extremely  fond  of  them  ^  in  fo  much,  that 
when  William  1.  found  there  was  no  Governing  this  People  with- 
out Laws,  he  would  fain  have  put  the  Law  of  the  Eafl  Angles  upon 
them  5  but  they  would  not  hear  of  any  but  King  Edward's  Laws  5 
which  he  promifed  with  his  own  Amendments ;  but  kept  them  as  he 
fawCaufe.  After  him  William  U.  regarded  no  Laws  at  all.  Henry  I. 
took  an  Advantage  by  this,  and  promifed  to  reftore  King  Edward's 
Laws,  upon  which  he  was  Receiv'd;  but  he  kept  not  his  Word.  When 
his  Daughter  treated  with  the  Londoners,  they  infifted  upon  King  Ed' 
noard's  Laws ;  which  (he  refufing  they  deferted  her,  as  Florentim  Wi- 
k\).\\i^\,gornienps  relates.  Her  Son  Henry  \\.  faw  no  fatisfadion  would  be  given 
to  the  Nation  without  thefe  Laws,  and  therefore  he  Reftored  them  as 
they  are  in  Hoveden.  His  Son  Richard  L  was  moft  abroad,  and  left 
things  at  home  in  the  Hands  of  Others.  His  Brother  Joh»  had  very 
little  Contentment  here,  becaufe  he  preferr'd  his  own  Will  and  Plea- 
fure  above  the  Law,  which  the  Nation  would  not  bear  5  and  fo  at 
laft  he  confented  to  the  Reftoring  the  Amicnt  Laws,  but  new  di- 
gefted  under  the  Name  of  Magna  Charta  ;  which  was  confirmed  by 
following  Rings,  and  juftly  look'd  on  as  the  Standard  of  our  Laws  and 
Liberties. 

Now  it  ought  to  be  obferved,  that  in  all  thefe  feveral  Colle(5li- 
ons  of  our  Ancient  Common  Law,  the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  are  fo  far 
from  being  Excluded,  that  the  firft  Care  is  taken  of  them.  In  the 
Laws  of  King  Edward,  the  Churches  Rights  and  Liberties  are  fecured 
in  the  firft  Place  5  and  the  EccleJ/aJiical  JurifdiSion  in  the  following 
Seftions. 

It's  true,  that  the  Ecclefiaftical  Caufeswere  then  heard  in  the  Kings 
Courts ;  but  how  >  Not  according  to  the  Municipal  but  the  Ecclefia- 
aftical  Laws  ;  as  appears  by  the  Saxon  Laws  and  the  Charter  of  King 
William,  when  he  (eparated  the  Courts  ;  of  which  hereafter.  But  in 
the  Laws  of  King  Edward  it  is  provided  for,  that  the  Ecclefiaftical 
Caufes  were  to  be  firft  Difpatched.  In  the  Laws  of  Henry  i.  c.  5.  the 
Diftinftion  of  Caufes  is  fet  down,  and  fome  are  faid  to  be  Eccleji- 
aftical  and  fome  Secular  ^  and  the  Method  of  Proceedings  in  the  former, 
as  to  Accufation  and  Witnefles,  is  at  large  fet  down. 

In  the  great  Charter,  the  firft  Article  is,  that  the  Church  fhould  en- 
joy all  its  Rights  and  Privileges  entire,  i.  e.  faith  my  Lord  Cooke '^  all 
their  lawful  JurifdiBions,    and  other  their  Rights  without  any  diminution 
ilnft.  3.  or  fubflra&ion  whatfoever. 

But  fay  thefe  Men,  the  moft  Fundamental  Rights  of  an  Englifh  Man 
by  Magna  Charta  is  to  be  tried  by  his  Peers,  c  29.  which  is  not  done 
in  the  Ecclefiaftical  Courts,  and  therefore  the  Proceedings  there  are  in- 
confiftent  with  our  Rights  and  Liberties. 

This  is  the  main  Strength  of  the  Argument  againft  the  Ecclefia- 
ftical Laws  and  Courts,  to  which  I  fhall  give  a  clear  and  diftindi 
Anfwer. 

I.  How  is  this  poflible  to  be  the  meaning  oi  Magna  Charta,  when 
the  Churches  Liberties  and  Jurifdidion,  were  fecured  before  ?  And 
no  Man  ever  pretended  that  the  Ecclefiaftical  Proceedings  were  at  any 
time  in  the  way  of  Juries.  The  Common  Law  of  England,  was  Origi- 
nally a  Mixt  Law,  and  confifted  partly  of  old  Saxon  Cufioms,  partly  of 
the  Rules  of  the  Civil  and  Canon  Law  ;  and  partly  ot  the  Feudal  Law  re- 
lating 


the  Ecclefiaflical  Jiirifdittion.  747 


laliing  to  Tenures,  8cc.  No  one  of  thefe  can  pretend  to  be  the  old 
Common  Law  of  England-^  and  altogether  do  make  up  the  Body  of  iC- 
Now  as  to  Trials  which  related  to  Mens  Legal  Eftates,  the  Saxon  Cu- 
ftoms  and  the  Feudal  Law  did  agree,  viz,.  That  no  free  Man  (houldbe 
difleifed  of  his  Liberty  and  Rights  but  by  the  Trial  of  his  Peers.  The 
Occafion  of  the  Renewing  this  Law,  was  this,  King  Johnhexng  a  Man 
who  took  great  Liberties  himfelf,  was  not  willing  that  his  People 
ftiould  enjoy  any  under  him  ;  For  he  feized  upon  Mens  Perfons  and  - 
took  away  their  Eftates,  without  any  Procefs  at  Law,  but  meerly  at 
his  own  Will  and  Pleafure.  This  may  be  feen  at  large  in  Matt.Parft 
and  others  ^  and  therefore  the  People  of  England  had  great  Reafon  to 
infift  upon  this  as  a  Fundamental  Right.  But  there  was  no  fuch  Com- 
plaint againft  another  Method  of  Proceeding  in  Ecclefiaftical  Caufes, 
which  went  upon  different  Rules  as  to  Judicial  Proceedings,  viz.  by 
Accufation  and  Depofition  of  Witnefles  5  For  if  this  had  been  the 
thing  meant,  there  would  have  been  fomething  in  Magna  Charta  a- 
gainft  them,  but  here  the  whole  relates  to  the  King's  Proceedings  by 
himfelf  againft  Men,  f/ec  faper  eumibimuj,  nee  fuper  eum  mittemus '^  my 
hovA.  Cooke  faith,  this  is  to  be  nnderftood  of  the  King's  Suit -^  I  rather  ^inft  4.9, 
think  it  relates  to  the  King's  ufing  no  Suit  at  all,  but  meer  Arbi- 
trary Power  in  his  own  Caufe.  For  the  Intention  of  Magna  Charta. 
was  to  fettle  the  Juft  Meafures  of  Proceedings  between  the  King  and 
People. 

2.  The  Expreflions  there  ufed  do  not  exclude  any  other  cuftomary 
way  of  Trial  allow'd  by  the  Law  of  the  Land  5    for  the  words  are,  nifi 
per  legale  judicium  Farium  fuornm  vel  per  Legem  terr<£.     Can  any  who 
underftands  the  Nature  of  our  Conftitution  think  the  latter  to  be  only 
an  Explication  of  the  former  ?     But  the  Lex  terra  was  a  diftinft  way  of 
Trial  at  Law  ;   therefore  Mr.  Selden  renders  it  thus  5    Neither  will  we  ^"f" "" 
enter  into  his  Pofleffion,    nor  convift  him,    but  by  legal  Judgment  of  ^^"^^'^"^ 
his  Peers,  or  by  Jury  -y  or  by  Trial  of  him  by  Oath,  or  Wager,  or  do- 
ing his  Law.    For  vadiare  Legem  is  to  offer  the  Oath  or  Trial ;  facere 
Legem  to  make  Oath.     Bra&on  faith  of  Perjured  Jurymen,  Legem  terra  Braft.  i.^. 
amittunt ;  i.  e.  nonerttnt  Othefworth  nee  ad  Tejiimonium  admit tcntur.  This '''  ^' ''  ^' 
was  an  ufual  way  of  Trial  in  the  Saxon  times,  and  was  called  Atha ;  in 
the  Privileges  of  Glafenhury  the  King  grants  Athas  &  Ordelat,  i.  e.  the 
Trial  by  Oath  and  by  Ordeal  5    this  faith  Sir  H.  Spelman  is  often  menti-  concii. 
ondinthe  Aneient  Lavps -^   and  it  is  likewife  in  Domefd ay  Book.     This'- 33^' 
way  of  Trial  was  not  by  the  fingle  Oath  of  the  Party,   but  by  fuch  a 
Number  of  Compurgators  as  the  Judge  thought  fit  5  generally  two  be- 
fides  the  Perfon :    And  this  was  anciently  allow'd  in  other  Cafes  be- 
fides  Aftions  of  Debt  ^    for  Mr.  Selden  faith,    in  the  old  Rolls,   nothing  Dherfity 
is  more  ufual  than  in  Criminal  Anions  (not  Capital^  and  Civil  of  any  kindi  ^!^^*'^ 
to  admit  Leygager^    as  in  Attachments  upon  Prohibitions,  ^are  impedits^      ib.* 
and  the  like.     But  this  PafTage  of  MagnaCharta  doth  certainly  relate  to 
the  King's  Profecution  and  not  to  Matters  of  Appeal  at  the  Suits  of 
the  Party  ^  fo  my  Lord  Cooke  confeffes,  and  he  affirms,  that  there  are  fe-9^.  30. 
veral  Trials  allorv'd  by  the  Common  Lave,  without  Juries.     And  among  o-  '  ^^^'  74' 
thers  he  mentions  two  forts  of  Trials  by  Certificates  5  fome  in  Temporal 
Caufes,  as  the  Certificate  of  the  lord  Marftial,  of  the  Judges  upon  Re- 
cords ^  and  of  the  Sheriffs  upon  Privilege  5  and  for  Spiritual  Caufes, 
he  inftances  in  Marriage,    Bafiardy,  Excommunication,  &c.  which  he 
faith  are  regularly  to  be  tried  by  the  Certificate  of  the  Ordinary.     And 

9re 


^aS  Of  the  Foundation  of 


are  not   all  thefe  equally  againft  MagMa  Charta  ?    And  elfewhere  he 

faith,  that  the  Trial  of  Things  done  out  of  the  Realm  before  the  Cori- 

I  inft.26i.  ftable  and  Marlhal   of  England^    is  by  Witmffes  or  by  Combat^    and 

their  proceeding  is  according  to  the  Civil  Law,  and  not  by  the  Oath  of 

Twelve  Men.     So  that  the  plain  meaning  of  Magna.  Charta  is  not  to  o- 

verthrow  any  other  Legal  Ways  of  Trial,    which  had  been  fettled  by 

Cuftom  and  Confent  5    but  that  in  all  Indiftments  and  Profecutions  at 

the  Suit  of  the  King,  thePerfon  indited  (hall  be  tried  by  his  Peers,  or 

by  a  Jury  of  trcelve  Men.    And  fo  the  Author  of  the  Diverfity  of  Courts 

J).  324.    in  the  time  of  H.  8.  ftates  the  Matter  :  Upon  an  Indiftment  faith  he,  the 

Common  Trial  by  our  Law  is  by  the  Verdift  of  twelve  Men  upon  their 

Oaths ;    but  fometime  faith  he,  the  matter  (hall  be  tried  by  the  Bifliop, 

and  not  by  Verdift  of  twelve  Men,  as  generally  Baftardy,  &c. 

g.  If  this  Argument  be  good  againft  Ecclefiaftical  Proceedings,   it 
rauftlikewife  hold  againft  all  Proceedings  in  other  Courts,  which  make 
no  more  ufe  of  a  Trial  by  Juries,  than  the  Ecclefiaftical  Courts  do.    So 
in  Courts  of  Equity  and  Confcience.     For  they  are  as  fully  againft  this 
Paffage  of  Magna  Charta,   as  the  other  can  be  fuppofed  to  be  5   and  fo 
much  more,   becaufe  the  Churches  Jurifdiftion  is  preferved  therein, 
but  there  is  no  Salvo  for  the  Courts  of  Chancery  or  Admiralty,  which 
proceeds  upon  Depofition  of  Witneffes  after  the  manner  of  the  Civil 
Law,   and  not  according  to  the  ordinary  Courfe  of  the  Common  Law  5 
which  allows  of  no  fuch  Proceedings.    What  fhall  be  faid  now  ?   Are 
all  Courts  of  Equity  to  be  run  down,  becaufe  they  take  Depoft'ions,  and 
require  Anfwers  upon  Oath  to  Interrogatories  .<?      The  very  fame  Argu« 
ments  have  indeed  in  our  time  been  urged  againft  this  Court,   and  that 
H.  o/L.L.by  knowing  Perfons  in  the  Common  Law  5   and  the  Anfwer  given. 
No.  12.90.  yyas,   that  Magna  Charta,  by  the  Law  of  the  Land  doth  allow  all  anci- 
ent Cuftoms  and  Praftices,    although  different  from  the  Proceedings  of 
the  Common  Law.     But  it  was  faid  on  the  other  fide,  that  there  could 
be  no  Proof  of  fuch  ancient  Cuftoms  and  Praftices  as  to  the  Court  of 
Equity.     The  Court  of  Record  in  Chancery  as  it  was  Oftctna  Brev'mm  was 
,  allow'd  to  be  very  Ancient  5    but  theCw/rf  o/E^/«Vj' was  faid  to  be  no 

older  than  H.  4.  when  Feoffments  came  in,  or  it  may  be  later.     And 
the  Greatnefs  of  the  Jurifdiftion  of  that  Court  my  Lord  Cooke  attributes 
iinn  53  *°  three  Cardinals,  Beaufort,  KempzxxA  Woolfey^  others  more  probably 
'^     to  the  Defeats  of  the  Common  Law,  as  to  the  Cafe  of  Fraud,  Accident, 
and  Trujl.     However,  if  this  Argument  from  Magna  Charta  hold,  thefe 
can  never  juftifie  the  Proceedings  of  a  Court  of  Equity  againft  a  Funda- 
mental Right,  if  it  be  fo  ftriftly  underftood.  But  if  allowance  be  made 
for  Ancient  Cuftoms  of  the  Nation  as  to  other  Trials  5    then  there  will 
appear  greater  Evidence  of  the  Proceedings  in  the  Ecclefiaftical  Courts 
than  in  any  fuch  Courts  of  Equity,  which  yet  are  now  the  moft  pre- 
vailing Courts  of  the  Nation.    And  the  fame  Reafon  will  hold  againft 
the  Proceedings  in  the  Court  of  Admiralty  5    which  are  known  and  al- 
lowed to  be  according  to  the  Methods  of  the  Civil  Law,    which  hath 
been  the  Occafion  of  feveral  Controverfies  between  the  Courts  of  CoKt- 
monLaw  and  the  Court  of  Admiralty  as  concerning  Contraftsmade  be- 
yond Seas :    For,  on  the  one  iide,   Littletons  Authority  is  produced, 
Se&.  440.  that  a  thing  done  out  of  the  Realm  may  not  be  tried  within  the 
Realm  by  a  Jury  of  twelve  Men  -^    On  the^  other  fide  it  is  faid,    that  the 
Trial  of  Contra^ s  belongs  to  the  Common  Lan>,    where- ever  they  are  made 
4lnft.i43'  and  that  the  Admiralty  cannot  take  Cognifance  of  any  thing  but  what  is  done 
upon  the  Sea.  Let 


tbeEcclefafiicdlJunf diet  ion,  74^ 


Let  us  fake  that  for  granted  ^  but  how  comes  a  thing  done  beyond 
Sea  to  be  capable  of  being  tried  by  a  Jury  in  Evghind,  who  arc  to  be 
of  the  Neighbourhood  >  For  that  my  Lord  Cooke  hath  told  us  of  an 
admirable  Expedient  at  Common  Law  ^  which  is.  That  at?  Ol)ligatioHjx„{\2,su 
made  beyotid  Seas  may  be  fiied  here  in  England  i»  vehiat  Place  the  PUintiffo. 
teili.  What  then  ?  If  it  bear  date  at  Bourdeaux  in  France,  rvhere  JJjal/ it 
befited.^  And  Anfwer  is  made,  that  it  may  be  alledged  to  be  made  in  quo- 
ddm  loco  vo.ato  Rourdeaux  in  France.  Very  well :  Then  a  thing  done 
beyond  Sea  may  be  tried  by  a  Jury  here.  No  5  for  it  follows.  In 
Iflington  in  the  County  of  Middlefex.  How  can  thefe  two  be  honeftly 
put  together  >  No  matter  for  that  5  for  he  adds  very  peremptorily, 7/^4^ 
there  it  fhall  be  tried.  By  what  Colour  }  Bji  a  certain  Fi&ion  at  Law. 
And  what  Reafon  can  be  given  for  fuch  an  extravagant  Fidion  ?  The 
only  thing  pretended  is,  to  prevent  a  Failure  of  Jufiice.  But  the  bottom 
of  all  feems  to  be,  to  bring  all  things  to  a  Trial  at  Common  Law,  as 
though  there  were  no  Juftice  to  be  expefted  in  any  other  Court.  But 
why  then  may  not  fuch  kind  of  FiSions  remove  Gaufes  out  of  all  other 
Courts  proceeding  by  other  Methods  to  prevent  a  Failure  of  Juftice: 
For  my  Lord  Cooke's  Reafon  will  hold  as  well  from  IV.  2.  Ne  Curia  Regis  iinft-joj; 
deficerct  in  Jujiitia  exhibenda.  And  truly  it  feeras  very  hard  to  chal- 
lenge a  Right  of  Jurifdiftion  from  a.  Fiftion  at  Law,  and  fuch  as  was 
never  known,  till  a  Bill  for  that  purpofe,  as  we  are  told,  was  rejefted 
in  the  Houfe  of  Lords  in  the  latter  end  of  H.  8.  But  what  Foundation 
in  Law  is  there  for  fuch  a  kind  of  Fi&ion  in  matters  of  Fadt  ?  And  if 
there  be  none,  what  Bounds  can  be  fet  to  them  ?  AH  that  is  faid  to  any 
purpofe  is,  That  Contrails  in  general  belong  to  Common  Law  ^  and  the 
Place  !S  not  material  to  the  Contrast.  Very  true,  if  the  Queflion  be  not 
about  Jurifdiftion  5  for  then  the  Place  is  material.  As  if  the  Admiral 
exercife  Jurifdiftion  upon  Land  for  things  which  are  under  his  Cogni- 
zance at  Sea,  will  they  fay  the  Place  is  not  material  ?  And  upon  this 
Point  the  Controverfy  began.  For  the  Admiral  in  the  time  of  R.  2. 
without  any  Fidion  of  Law,  affumed  a  Jurifdidl-ion  within  the  Bodies 
of  Counties  5  upon  which  a  Complaint  was  made  in  Parliament,  which 
was  the  occafion  of  the  reftraining  Statutes,  I  ^i?.  25.  15^.2,3.  Notwith- 
ftandingthi8,fre(h'"omplaints  were  made,  \H./\.  ?/.  47.1  iH4.w.6i.and 
Care  taken  to  reftrain  the  Admiral's  Power  to  things  done  upon  the 
Seas,  and  other  matters  upon  the  Land  here  were  left  to  be  tried  at 
common  Law.  But  ftill  the  Qtieftion  remained  about  Contrafts  be- 
yond the  Seas,  which  thofe  Laws  took  no  notice  of,  fhe  Admirals 
challenged  the  Jurifdidtion  to  themfelves,  beciufe  the  Lord  Marfkal 
judged  ot  all  things  relating  to  War  beyond  the  Seas,  and  therefore  the 
Admiral  look'd  on  all  other  Caufesthat  arofe  there  to  belong  to  him, 
becaufe  in  his  Patent  all  manner  of  Jurifdiftion  is  comprehended  5  which 
Cuftom  had  interpreted  not  barely  of  things  done  upon  the  Seas,  but 
of  fuch  matters  which  no  other  Court  could  pretend  to.  Now,  fay 
they,  the  Courts  of  Common  Law  have  a  liraitted  Jurifdidion  to 
matters  done  within  fome  County  o'i  England,  where  the  King's  Writ<;eiden,. 
doth  come.  And  fo  much  feems  to  be  confefled  on  the  other  fide^waie  d. 
when  they  yield  that  the  Adion  muft  be  laid  here  at  home,  although'  ^-  ^^'*" 
it  was  done  abroad.  And  it  is  impoffible  to  fuppofe  a  Jury  of  the 
Neighbourhood  to  try  it,  which  is  certainly  a  part  of  our  Conflitu- 
tion,  as  well  as  a  Trial  by  Juries.  But  it  is  more  didionourable  to  our 
Laws  to  make  ufe  of  fuch  Fidlions  to  maintain  Its  Jurifdidion,  than 

C  c  c  c  c  to 


7  5  o  Of  the ,  Found  at  ion  of 

to  leave  things  to  fuch  Methods  of  Trial  which  our  Anceftors  al- 
low'd. 

I  do  not  go  about  to  affert  the  Authority  or  Jurifdiftion  of  one  Court 
againft  another  5   nor  in  the  leaft  to  difparage  the  Juftice  of  Proceed- 
ings in  Trials  at  Common  Law,  which  have  in  fome  refpeds  the  Ad- 
vantages of  any  other  5  but  all  that  I  argue  for  is,  that  all  Meafures  of 
Juflice  be  not  confined  to  the  Courts  of  Common  Law  5  for  that  were 
really  to  charge  forne  of  the  wifeft  Nations  of  the  World  with  the  not 
underftanding  the  right  Methods  of  juftice.     It  is  very  hard  to  fup- 
pofe,  either  that  the  Rowans  wanted  the  jnft  Methods  of  Proceeding 
in  Trials,  or  that  other  Nations  (hould  be  fo  deceived,  as  to  take  up 
their  Methods  when  their  Power  was  gone,  unlefs  there  had  been  fome- 
rhing  in  their  way  which  gave  them  Satisfaftion  in  Point  of  Juftice, 
which  all  civilized  Nations  are  very  careful  about.     Now  the  Method 
of  Proceedings  ufed  in  other  Courts  befides  thofe  of  the  Common 
preface  to  Law,  are  taken  from  the  old  Rowan  Laws  ^   and  when  our  VVav  of 
^Kep.      Xrial  by  Jiirks  is  magnified  as  fo  peculiar  to  our  felves,  if  looks  like  a 
tacit  Reproach  of  the  far  greateft  part  of  the  Pretenders  to  Juftice  in 
the  World.     And  yet  thofe  who  have  look'd  more  narrowly  into  thefe 
Matters  have  found,  that  the  Trial  by  Juries  even  among  us  is  not  of 
that  wonderful  Antiquity  which  fome  imagine.     It's  true  th^itEtkelred 
before  the  Conqueft,  did  appoint  twelve  in  every  Hundred  to  hear 
Caufes,  but  thefe  were  Judges  of  Law  and  Fad  too.     The  way  of 
Trial  by  Affize  of  twelve  fufficient  Perfons,  was  look'd  on  as  a  great 
Gianvii,    Novelty,  and  a  Favour  too  in  GlanvH's  time,  to  avoid  Trial  by  Com- 
i"f  iz'iy'^^^'  but  was  very  different  from  our  modern  Juries.    Bra&on  h'nb, 
Eiaa.'4.,  that  in  his  time,  if  the  twelve  differ'd,  then  others  were  to  be  added 
^9-         till  the  Judge  could  find  out  twelve  agreeing,  and  then  their  Verdid 
Fiet.  4. 2.  ftood.     In  Bleta's  time  the  Judge  might  keep  them  together  till  they 
Br.  Jurifd.  agreed.    And  Brook  faith,  the  Judges  might  carry  them  about  in  Carts  with 
"•  '°5*     them  till  then  -^  but  I  know  not  what  Authority  he  had  for  it. 

But  my  bufinefs  is  not  to  find  fault  with  this  Way  of  Trial  by  Ju- 
ries ;  for  I  do  freely  confefs,  that  if  the  Law  be  obferved,  as  to  the 
Return  and  Qualifications  of  the  Perfons,   and  the  Evidence  be  fully 
delivered  in  Prefence  of  the  Judges  and  Parties,  by  fufiicient  WirnefTes, 
it  is  one  of  the  faireft  Methods  of  Trial  in  the  World.     But  it  cannot 
Afcon.     be  denied  that  the  Romans  a1  low'd   more  Time  for  the  Party   ac- 
Fed.  79.  cufed  to  prepare  himfelf  for  Anfwer,  after  he  knew  the  Matter  of  bis 
jH^dic!''^  Accufation  ^  and  that  he  had  greater  liberty  as  to  Counfel  and  Advice 
Rom.       for  his  Defence,  than  our  Law  feems  to  do  in  the  higheft  criminal 
Caufes  5  and  if  we  would  judge  impartially  of  our  Methods  of  Trial, 
we  mufl:  take  all  together,  and  not  fingle  out  fome  Particulars,  and  leave 
nil  the  red:.     And  we  ought  not  for  the  fake  of  fome  Advantages  in  the 
Way  of  Common  Law,  to  condemn  all  others  as  inconfiftent  with  our 
Rights  and  Liberties. 

I  am.  apt  to  think  that  other  Northern  People  were  as  fond  of  their 
own  cuftomary  Laws  as  we  can  be  ^  but  after  long  Trial  they  found  it 
convenient  to  take  in  the  Rules  of  the  Civil  Law  in  many  Cafes.  And 
were  it  not  for  the  Benefit  they  expededby  the  ufe  of  that  Law,  it  is 
hard  to  imagine  how  the  feveral  Northern  Nations,  -after  they  hadcafi: 
off  the  Roman  Toke,  fliould  yet  at  lafl:  fubmit  in  great  meafure  to  their 
Lavvs.  It  is  very  well  known  what  Numbers  and  Varieties  of  Laws- 
the  Lombards,  and  feveral  forts  of  Qoths,  and  other  Northern  Nations 

brought 


tlje^Ecclefiafbcal  J  tin  [diction.  751 


^T!^:^ 


brought  into  the  feveral  Parts  of  Enrope,  upon  the  Decay  of  the  Ro- 
man Empire,  ^  but  it  is  as  well  known  that  after  long  Ufage  of  their 
own  Cuftoms,  they  were  glad  to  take  in  the  Affiftance  of  the  Rofnan 
L?ws. 

.   No  People  feem'd  more  averfe  to  any  Life  of  the  Civil.  Law  than  the 
Goths,  which  fettled  in  Spain  ;  for  in  the  time  of  Chindafwindus  theyL.r.wifi. 
made  an  entire  Body  of  Laws  for  themfelves  chiefly  out  of  their  oldf°J'|"':  ^' 
Cuftoms,  and  forbad  any  other.     But  it  is  obfervable,  (i.)  That  they  lo.'    '"'^' 
took  many  things  out  of  the  Civil  Law,  and  put  them  into  ft.     (2.)^"<^-'^J^ 
That  their  Biftiops  were  allow'd  by  General  Confentof  King  and  thefiscivih 
Eftates,  to  make  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  or  Canons  at  that  time  5  which  ^^.i-^-cd.  n, 
pears  by  the  SpaniJJ)  CoHKcih.     (3.)  That  after  all,  Alphon fm  jo.  tran-'"*" 
flated  the  Civil  Laws  into  SpaniJ/j ;  which,  with  the  Additions  of  later 
Times,  make  up  the  Common  Law  of  Spain,  although  there  be  parti- 
cular Cuftoms  obferved  for  Laws  in  the  feveral  Kingdoms  of  Catalonia^ 
Navarre  and  Arragon  ^    becaufe  they  were  not  united  as  Members  of 
the  fame  Kingdom,  but  as  feveral  Kingdoms  making  up  one  Body. 

Neither  the  Goths  nor  Lombards  in  Italy  could  wholly  extinguifli  the 
Ufe  of  the  Roman  Law  there.     And  altho'  the  Feudal  Law  were  firfl: 
colleded  there,  and  put  into  fome  kind  of  Order  ^  yet  the  Author  of  F<fud.  i.z. 
that  Col leftion  confeffes,  that  Caufes  were  determin'd  by  the  Roman*'^-^' 
Law,  as  well  as  by  the  Feudal  Laws  and  Cuftoms.     And  the  Reafon 
given  by  learned  Men,  why  the  Civil  Law  came  to  be  in  fo  much  Re-  Linden- 
queft  about  the  13th  Century,  was  not  any  Command  of  Lotharif^,\!°^l^  ^^ 
but  the  People  were  willing  to  have  the  Rigour  of  the  Feudal  Law  a-  Cod.  Leg. 
bated  by  the  Equity  and  Temper  of  the  Roman.     For  the  Feudal  !'<?»' connii 
was  found  to  be  very  ftrift  and  fevere,  being  intended  for  keeping  the  tie  or'ig! 
People  under  a  Military  Service,  (which  was  the  true  Reafon  of  the-'"''^*^^''' 
ancient  Tenures)  this  by  Degrees  began  to  be  found  very  uneafy  to™""'^*^*' 
them  ;  and  they  found  no  way  of  Relief  in  many  Cafes  from  the  Rigor 
of  it,  but  by  the  Courts  of  Equity,  proceeding  by  more  general  Rules, 
and  fupplying  the  Defeds  of  thofe  Laws. 

There  are  feveral  things  which  are  look'd  on  as  fundamental  Maxirtis 
of  our  Common  Law,  which  are  nothing  but  the  Effefts  of  the  Rigour 
of  the  Feudal  Law  :  As, 

1.  That  all  Land  muji  be  held  of  a  Superiour  Lord,  and  fo  there  can  iinn.i.^j 
be  no  Allodium,  i.  e.  Land  held  free  from  Dependance  on  another, 
which  the  Romans  called  Jure  Optimo  ;    as  the  Roman  Citizens  held 
fheirs. 

2.  That  there  is  no  Tenure,  but  there  is  fome  Service  belonging  to  it'; 
Otherwife,  faith  my  LordC^/i'e,  it  would  be  againfi  Reafon,  and  the  Com- 1  inft.97, 
mon  Law  is  nothing  but  Reafon  5  which  it  feems  the  Romans  did  not  un- 
derftand. 

3.  7  hat  Lands  of  Inheritance  do  lineally  defcend,  and  not  afcend.    And 

the  Common  Law  being  nothing  but  Reafon,  a  very  fubftantial  one ,  jnft  10. 
is  given  for  this^  becaufe  Land,  is ponderofum quid  ;  which,  I  think,  isRatcUff't 
no  peculiar  Reafon  to  Land  in  England.    But  the  true  Reafon  was,  i£^''^f>40' 
was  to  go  that  way,  where  there  was  moft  probability  of  doing  the 
Service. 

4.  That  none  can  be  Heir  in  Fee  Simple  by  the  Common  Law,  but  he  that  \  infl.  14. 
is  of  the  whole  Blood.     Which  was  the  Rule  of  the  Feudal  Law,  where-  ^'^^^'  '•  *' 

■'..,,  '  c,  19. 

Qver  It  prevailed, 

Ccccc  2   -  thefe      - 


752  Of  the  foundation  of 


Ripuar.34.  Thefe  things  I  only  mention,  to  (hew  how  (he  Feudal  L(?n?  was  here 
Burguid.  rcceiv'd  in  its  Rigor,  which  is  what  forae  Men  call  the  Common  Law^ 
I.  i.tit.i.  and  when  they  often  fay,  fnch  a  thing  is  fo  at  the  Common  Law,  no 
"' ''  more  is  really  meant  by  it,  but  that  it  was  fo  according  to  the  Feudal 
^Cftfioms,  as  they  were  here  receiv'd ;  for  they  were  not  in  all  Places  a- 
Jike.  So  that  here  we  have  two  Notions  of  the  Common  Law  5  1.  For 
the  Saxon  Cyftoms  which  were  generally  eafy  and  well-liked.  2.  For 
the  Norman  Tenures,  which  were  much  harder,  and  required  a  ftrif^er 
Obfervance.  And  this  Striftnefs  is  fuitable  to  what  they  call  Proceed- 
ing at  Common  Caw.  And  although  there  were  fome  kinds  of  Servi- 
ces in  the  Saxon  times,  yet  they  were  much  eafier  than  thofe  brought 
in  by  the  Normans,  who  put  the  whole  Kingdom  into  military  Service, 
and  added  very  hard  Conditions  to  it.  But  by  Degrees  they  obtained  a 
Releafe  from  many  of  them  by  their  Great  Charters  ^  which  reduced 
things  to  a  Certainty,  efpecially  as  to  Impofitions  and  Trials,  as  to 
their  Perfons  and  Eftates.  But  yet  there  was  fomething  of  Rigour  ia 
the  common  Courfe  of  the  Law,  which  called  for  Equity,  and  was  to 
be  expedied  only  in  fuch  Courts  as  proceeded  by  the  Meafures  of  the 
Roman  Laws,  as  in  the  Courts  of  Chancery  in  matters  of  Contrafts, 
and  a  Regard  to  the  Circumftances  and  Reafon  of  Actions  ^  for  the 
Common  Law  proceeding  upon  the  Terras  of  the  Feudal  Tenures  had 
a  Rigidnefs  in  the  Nature  of  it,  which  was  found  neceflary  to  be  abated 
by  Courts  of  Equity.  It  hath  been  v^^armly  debated  in  our  time,  how 
far  a  Court  of  Equity  is  any  part  of  our  Conftitution  ?  Which  in  other 
Terms  is  to  enquire,  Whether  our  Nation  were  governed  by  the  ftridt 
Feudal  Law,  or  by  equitable  Conftruftions,  according  to  the  more  ge- 
neral Laws  and  common  Reafon  of  Mankind. »  There  is  a  remarkable 
Difference,  between  our  profound  Sages  of  the  Law  about  this.  Hobarf 
Hob.  6^.  faith  pofitively.  That  Courts  of  F.quity  are  as  ancient  as  the  Kingdom  it 
felf,  and  that  the  Chancery  is  a  Fundamental  Court,  as  reell  (U  that  of  the 
King's  Bench  and  Common  Fle»s  5  for,  faith  he,  all  Kingdoms  in  their 
Conflitution  are  endued  with  the  Power  of  Jujiice,  both  according  to  the 
Rule  of  Law  and  Equity,  both  which  being  in  the  King  as  Sovereign,  were 
after  fettled  in  feveral  Courts,  But  Equity  being  oppofte  to  Regular  Law, 
is  a  fpecial  Truji  committed  to  the  King  ^  which  he  exercifcs  by  one  whom 
2inft.js2.^5  appoints  for  that  Office.  But  on  the  other  fide,  Cohe  is  as  pofitive,  That 
there  was  anciently  no  other  Court  in  Chancery  but  of  Common  Law,  and  that 
the  Chancellor  was  to  adminifier  Jujlice  according  to  the  Common  Law  5 
and  that  Equity  then  was  no  more  than  doing  Judice,  and  that  whatever 
Notion  of  Equity  hath  been  taken  up  fince,  is  a  Novel  Invention, 
and  no  older  than  the  Differences  between  the  Houfes  of  Tork  and 
Lancajier. 

Here  we  find  a  fundamental  Difference  between  two  great  Perfons  of 
the  Law,  concerning  one  of  the  greatefV  Courts  of  the  Kingdom.     But 
1  muft  obferve  that  my  Lord  Cooke  is  not  fo  confident  with  himfelt  in 
4lnfi,  79.  this  Matter  as  the  other  is.    For  in  another  Place  he  faith,  That  Equity 
is  a  Jufi  Corre^ion  of  the  Law  in  fome  Cafes  ;   and  that  Robert  Paring^ 
I')  E.T.  was  made  Lord  Chancellor.     What,  to  adminifter  Juflice  accor- 
•    ding  to  Law  in  that  Court?  No  5  but  fuch  Equity,  as  was  a  Corre^ion 
of  the  Law  in  fome  Cafes.     How  could  this  be,  if  this  Notion  oi  Equity 
were  no  older  than  H.  4.  >  But  if  it  was  neceflary  to  have  a  juft  Cor' 
region  of  the  Law  in  fome  Cafes  in  Point  of  Equity,  then  fuch  a  Court 
was  founded  upon  neceffary  Reafon  s,  and  then  the  Common  Law  can- 
not 


the  Eccle(ia(lical  Jurifdiclion.  753 

not  be  the  Supreme  and  Abfolute  Rule ;  for  then  it  were  not  ca- 
pable of  a  JHJi  CorrcUion  in  Vohit  of  Equity.  But  to  fpeak  freely  in 
this  matter,  I  do  not  think  it  fufficiently  cleared  by  either  of  them. 
For  Hobart  is  in  the  Right  as  to  the  Fundamental  Conftitution, 
that  it  implies  a  Power  of  doing  Juftice  according  to  the  Rules 
of  Law  and  Equity  :  But  then  he  doth  not  fufficiently  clear  the 
Pradiice  as  io  this  Nation  5  which  I  think  is.  very  capable  of  being 
done;  for, 

(i.)  In  the  Saxon  times  there  was  certainly  a  Court  of  Appeal  from 
thQ  Rigour  of  the  Law,  and  from  falfe  Judgments  5  which  werefuch  as 
were  paffed  in  the  Hundred  Courts,  before  the  Eftablilliment  of  the 
Courts  in  Wefiminjier  Hall  -^  which  all  know,  was  not  before  the  Time 
of  £.  I.  This  Court  of  Appeal  in  Cafes  of  Equity,  was  then  to  the 
King  in  h\s,  Court  of  the  Lords  ;  as  appears  by  the  Laws  oi  Edgar,  Canu- 
tf(s,  and  Edward  the  Confeffor. 

(2.)  After  the  Norman  Conquejl  there  were  two  Supreme  Courts  5  one 
reljting  chiefly  to  the  King's  Revenue,  which  William  \.  brought  out 
of  Normandy,  and  had  its  Name  of  fix^^e^«er  from  thence  5  in  this  the 
great  Officers  of  State  and  other  Barons  fat  ^  the  other  was  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Juftice,  commonly  called  Curia  Regis,  where  all  greater  Caufes 
and  Matters  of  Appeal  were  heard  ^  and  the  King  was  not  only  often 
prefent,  but  there  judged  with  his  Minifters  and  Lords  fitting  in  Courtc 
This  was  then  the  Supreme  Court  bothof  Law  and  Equity. 

(5.)  After  the  Courtsof  Juftice  came  to  be  for  fome  time  fettled  in 
fVeJiminJier  Hall,    the  King  would  ftiil  have  the  Chancellor  to  attend 
his  Perfon,  with  the  Judges  of  the  King's  Bench.    Artie,  fup.  Chart,  c.  5. 
28.  E.  I.     This  feemsftrange  ;    but  my  Lord  Coke  faith.  That  they  all  ^it^^-^^i- 
were  required  to  attend  the  King  about  Matters  of  Law.     Was  there  no 
occafion  for  a  juji  CorreBion  of  the  Law  in  fome  Cafes  then  ?     And  if 
there  were,  who  fo  proper  as  the  Chancel  lor,  who  was  to  moderate  the  Hie  eft 
Rigour  of  Law  before  that  time,  as  appears  by  the  Verfes  of  Thomas  a  ||,"'  ^^^"^ 
Becket's  being  Chancellor  by  John  Sarisburienjts.     While  the  Curia  Regis  celiac  ini- 
continued,  the  Chancellor  had  the  great  Direftion  in  Appeals,  as  Chief  q"as,Ec 
Minifter  in  that  Court,  as  the  Chief  Jufticiary  was  in  the  other  Court,  ^,'rHnci- 
and  fo  Matters  ot  Equity  came  to  him,   as  Matters  of  Law  to  the  C/6/V/pis  zqua 
Jufiiciary ;    whofe  Place  was  leffen  d  in  its  Power  in  the  beginning  of '^'^'^■ 
Edvp.  L  and  alter  confined  to  a  certain  Place,   called  Me  King's  Bench. 
C  The  Exchequer  ftill  remaining  as  to  the  King's  Revenue. )     And  the 
dividing  of  thefe  Places  was  the  Foundation  of  the  two  Courts  of  King's 
Bench  and  Chancery,  as  to  Law  and  Equity,  and  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Appeal  remained  in  the  Houfe  of  Lords,  who  fucceeded  the  Curia  Regis 
in  that  Point.     For  a  Court  of  Appeal  fomewhere,  is  certainly  a  Part 
of  our  Conftitution;  and  the  Kings  giving  Judgment  by  the  Judgment 
of  his  Peers  is  in  King  Edward's  Laws,   and  was  therefore  one  of  our 
moft  ancient  Cuftoms. 

(4.)  There  being  diftinft  Courts  fixed  for  Law  and  Equity,   it  is  no 
wonder,  if  they  fell  into  different  Methods  of  Proceedings,    according 
to  the  Nature  of  Things.    For  Matters  of  Law  require  a  ilridter  Pro- 
ceeding ;  and  the  Oath  of  the  Judges  was  to  proceed  ftriflly.  Secundum 
Legem  &  C;/f/fuetudinem  Regvi,   in  the  time  of  H.  3.   and  fo  in  Fleta,  ^-^^1 
and  by  this  the  general  Oath,  18.  &  20.  £.3.  hath  been  interpreted  and  ^""^']'' 
is  ftill  fo  underftood,  as  to  bind  the  Judges  at  Common  Law,    to  proceed  Het. /.  <• 
according  to  the  ftrift  Rules  of  it.     Which  is  moft  agreeable  to  the''-  >§i7- 

Con- 


'^54  Of  the  foundation  of 

Conftitutioti  of  thofe  Courts,  and  the  Cuftorn  and  long  continued 
Courfe  of  it.  ButbecaufetheCircumftancesof  Aftions,  andthe  Nature 
of  Contrafts  and  DefeftinFormsof  Law  do  often  require  Relief,  where 
the  Common  Law  doth  not  give  it  ^  therefore,  left  there  ftiould  be  a 
failure  of  Juftice  in  fuch  Cafes,  a  Court  of  Equity^  proceeding  by  o- 
ther  Methods,  was  neceffary  to  be  Eftabliftied  and  Continued. 

Thus  tHuch  I  thought  neceffary  to  fhew,  how  fatal  the  Confequence 
will  be,  from  fuch  a  fence  of  Magna  Chart  a,  as  to  Trial  by  Peers  necef- 
fary in  all  Cafes,  for  it  not  only  overthrows  the  Ecciefiaftical  Courts, 
but  all  others,  which  proceed  not  by  the  Methods  of  the  Common 
Law. 

Thus  much  in  Anfwer  to  this  great  Objeftion  5  I  now  proceed, 
II.  To  (hew  that  the  Ecciefiaftical  Laws  ftand  on  the  fame  Bottom 
with  other  Parts  of  the  Common  Law  of  England,  and  that  is  Immemo- 
rial Cuftom. 
preface  to      The  Common  Law  of  England,  faith  Sir  John  Davis,    is  nothing  elfe 
Rep.         hut  the  Common  Cuflomofthe  Realm  .-  a>7d  Citjiom  rvhich  hath  obtained  the 
Force  of  a  Law  is  always  fa'td  to  be  Jiis  non  Scriptum.     The  Liw  of  En' 
ilaR.^^. gland,  faith  my  Lord  Coke,  conjijis  of  three  Parts.     l.  Judicial  Records. 
2.  AilsofParliamefit.     5.  Cujloms grounded  upon  Reafon,  and  time  out  of 
iinft.iio.  f^iind.     Elfewhere  he  divides  the  Law  into  three  Triangles^  (  he  means 
<5.  Angles  )  and  faith,  that  Ciijlom  is  one  of  the  main  Triangles  of  the  Laws  of 

England.  And  in  another  place,  that  the  Laws  of  England  confijl  of  three 
Parts  ^  the  Common  Law^  Cufioms,  and  A&s  of  Parliament.  By  Com- 
mon Law  here  he  means  Judgments  at  Common  Law  ;  for  otherwife 
Cuftoms  are  owned  by  him  to  be  part  of  the  Common  Law  ^  and  in  a* 
J  inft.  ii.nother  place  he  makes  them  to  be  a  Law  oi  England,  but  of  a  different 
<5'  fort  ;    For,   among  the  Laws  which  obtain  in  England,    he  reckons. 

Common  Law,  Statute  Law,  and  Cujloms  Reafonable,  8cc.  And  yet 
1inft.1i5.in  another  place  he  faith,  General  Cujiom  is  part  of  the  Common 
^-  Law. 

My  Lord  Chief  Jujlice  Hales  in  a  MS.  Difcourfe  of  the  Laws  of  En- 
gland, ch.  4.  fpeaks  more  diftinftly  :,  for  he  faith,  that  there  are  three 
Principal  Conjlituents  of  the  Laws  of  England.  And  thofe  are,  (i.)  The 
common  ZJfage,  and  Cujiom,  and  Pra&ice  of  (he  Kingdom.  (2.)  The  Au- 
thority  of  Parliament.  (5.)  Judicial  Decifions  of  Courts  of  Jujiice  confor 
nant  to  one  another  in  the  Series  and  Succefjion  of  Time.  Now  it  cannot 
be  denied,  that  the  Method  of  Proceeding  in  the  Ecciefiaftical  Courts 
hath  been  an  Immemorial  Cuftom,  and  pra&ifed  time  out  of  mind  here  ; 
and  much  longer  and  more  conftantly  than  of  thofe  Feudal  Cujloms 
vi'hich  make  fo  great  a  part  of  the  Common  Law,  For  it  is  certain  that 
many  of  thofe  things  which  pafs  for  undoubted  Parts  of  the  Common 
h^w  oi  England,  have  not  had  fuch  a  conftant  and  uninterrupted  Cu- 
ftorn, which  the  Ecciefiaftical  Proceedings  have  had.  As  (i.)  The 
Tetrures  were  not  the  fame,  after  William  I.  that  they  were  in  the  Sa-, 
xon  times :  For  although  there  was  a  fort  of  Service  due  upon  Thane-j 
Lands ;  yet  it  was  of  a  very  different  Nature  from  the  Norman  Knight- 
Service.  The  Bocland  then  was  Land  of  Inheritance,  but  not  under  fuch 
Reftriftions,  as  the  Feudal  Tenures  afterwards  were.  And  there  was 
Bocland  m  Free-Socage 'amon^  the  Saxons '^  which  were  Partible  Eflates, 
or  Gavel  kind,  where  there  was  a  Divifion  as  among  Equals  ^  but  ac- 
cording to  the  Feudal  Cujloms  the  Land  defcended  to  the  Eldeft,  who 
was  to  do  the  Service.     I  cannot  find  fufficient  Evidence  in  Alfred's 

Laws, 


the  EcclefiajlicalJii*'ifdictioii.  75c; 


Laws,   that  the  Service  then  carried  wit  ft  it  Ward,    Marriage  and  Reliefs'  '"^•76. 
but  I  rather  think  they  came  in  with  the  Norman  Tenures -^    for  they  "  '^"*" 


uer. 


are  phin  in  the  ancient 0//?<'»/.'c>-  oi  Normandy.     (2.)  Can  anyone  fay,confuc 
that  there  were  the  fame  Cuftoms  as  to  Proceedings  in  Criminal  Can-  Norm. 
k%  which  are  aUow'dfor  Law  at  this  Day  ?     Who  knows  not,    that'"''^ 
in  the  Saxon  time!,  moft  Faults  were  redeemable  by  Pecuniary  Compen- 
fations  ?     How  came  the  Commjn  La,^  to  be  fo  much  alter'd  ?     It  is 
faid,  that  Felony  xcas  made  Cap.tal  by  H.  I.    My  Lord  ftfo/Y' faith,  it  n^^jlnft-iS- 
donein  Parliament  :    But  I  could  neve^  find  any  footfteps  of  fuch  an 
Aft  of  Parliament  in  our  Hiftorians  -^    there  might  be  fuch  wlilch  are 
now  loH:.     After  all,  there  appears  fome  Reafon  ro  qqeftion^    whe.her 
in  the  time  of  H.  2.  ordinary  Theft  were  Capital,    for  it  was  left  to  the  Glanvii.  /. 
Sheriffs  Court,    and  was  there  ended  according  to  the  Cuf^om  of  the^'^*-^  g 
Country:,  and  Indiftments  of  Thefts  did  continue  there,  Weft.  2.^.13.21,1^2. 
but  my  Lord  Cooke  faith,  the  Sheriff  hadno  Jurifdi^iion  in  Capital  Crimes.'^^^l-     , 
But  Robbery,  and  burning  Ho/ifes,    znd  open  Murder  and  Treafon  had  no 
WW^?7(af  among  the  Saxons  ^  thefe  things  were  then  accounted  Felonies 
at  Common  Law;  butthe  Notion  of  it  is  fince  much  inlarged,  and  yet 
the  Common  Law  continues  the  fame. 

In  the  Cafe  oi  Homicide,  although  the  Law  was  that  Vijlunttts  reputa-  3  ii)n.5,6> 
latur  pro  fa^o^    yet  Cooke  faith,  that  Will  mnji  be  proved,  not  by  Word     ^^'^■ 
or  Writing,    but  by  fome  Overt- Ad  tending  to  the  ExciUtion  of  his  Intent. 
But  doth  this  Rule  of  Common  Law  hold  in  Cafe  of  Treafon  }     No, 
he  faith,  before  the  Statute  2^  E.  3.  a  Declaration  of  the  Intent  by  Words 
or  Writing  wai  fuffiiettt,    which  he  offers  to  prove  from  the  ancient 
Books.     Which  are  plain,  that  if  the  Defign  or  Intention  be  mil  proved,^^-^'^-  '•  '• 
although  the  EfFeft  do  not  follow,  the  Party  is  guilty  01  High  Treafon  '''^'  ^'*'^' 
at  Common  Law  :   But  the  Qiieftion  (till  remains  about  the  Proof  ^Eraa  3. 
what  is  fofficient  at  Common  Law.    For  my  bufinefs  is  not  to  give  thel^.^^   ^g 
Senfeof  the  Statute,    but  only  to  fhew,  that  there  were  then  very  diffe-  Merc  21. 
rent  Opinions  about  fo  great  a  Point  as  Treafon  ;    and  the  uncertainty  ^'^'^'  '•^'* 
of  the  Judges,  was  the  true  Pveafon  of  that  famous  Aft  of  Parliament, 
asappears  by  the  Parliament  Rolls  of  that  Year.     Now  if  the  Common 
Law  oiEnglaud  be  fo  cert^n  and  unchangeable  a  t!jing,    as  my  Lord 
Cooke  often  affirms  5    how  came  the  Judges  to  be  fo  much  to  feek  what 
was  Treafon  at  Commort  Law  ^    for  one  would  think  they  (hould  have 
known  this  the  eafieft  of  any  one  Point,  being  a  matter  of  fo  great  con- 
fequence^  and  whih  they  hadfo  often  Occafion  to  give  Judgment  in. 
But  the  firft  Words  of  the  Aft  are.  Where  n  divers  Opinions  have  been  be- 
fore this  time,    in  what  Cafe  Treafon  fiall  be  faid  and  in  ivhat  not.    How 
came  thefe  divers  Opinions  in  fuch  a  Point  of  Common  Law  >     But  my 
Lord  Cooke  takes  no  notice  of  this,    but  only  faith,   that  the  Law  is  for 
the  moji  part  Declaratory  of  the  ancient  Law.   How  came  the  ancient  Law 
to  beget  fuch  different  Opinions,  as  to  need  fuch  a  Declaration  ?  And 
yet  even  his  Declaratory  Aft  hath  not  cleared  the  Doubts  as  to  the 
Proof  at  Common  Law.      For  he  faith,    that  before  i  e.larjng  by  WViS^j-^inn.s-^- 
or  Writing  the  it.ward  Intention,    was  fi/jfltient  Overture  by  Common  Law. 
And  again,  by  allwhichis  manifefl,  that  Compaiflng,  Machinating,  Conn- 
felling,  &c.  to  kill  the  Kirg,     though  it  hath  no  other  Declaratio/2  but  by 
Words,    was  High  Treafon  at  Common  Law.    But  is  the  Common  Law  al- 
ter'd as  to  this  or  not  by  this  Statute?     It  faith,  the  Perfon  muji  be  prove- 
ably  attainted  of  the  Overt- AiJ.     tut  it  doth  not  clear  the  meaning  0/  an 
Overt- Aif.  He  fairli,  it  is  an  open  A&  which  miiji  be  manifejlly  proved.  This    /•  ^*' 

is 


j^^  Of  the  Voundatioii  of 


is  not  clearing  the  Point  at  all  :  For  what  is  an  open  A^  in  this 
Cafe  ?  Not  every  Ad  which  can  be  proved,  but  fuch  an  A6t  as  mani- 
feftly  proves  the  Intention.  And  after  ali,  he  confefTes,  that  bare 
Words  cannot  do  it  xpithout  anO-Vert-A{i  ;  by  which  he  feems  to  diftin- 
ftuifh  Words  from  an  Overt- aH  ^  but  he  adds,  that  if  the  Words 
be  fet  down  in  writing  by  the  Delinquent  himfelf  this  is  a  fitfficient  Overt 
A£f  within  this  Statute.  But  how  come  Words  not  to  be  fufEcient  with- 
out an  Overt  A^  ^  and  yet,  when  thofe  Words  come  to  be  written 
they  become  an  Overt  AU  .-?  The  Words  written  are  not  the  Overt 
Aft,  but  the  bare  writing  muft  make  them  fo,  or  elfe  they  are  no  more 
an  Overt  A£i  than  they  were  before,  fo  that  the  Alteration  of  the  Law, 
as  to  this  matter,  comes  at  laft  to  this,  that  before  the  Ad,  the  mani- 
fei  ing  the  Intentio/r  by  Words  or  Writing  was  fuffiient  5  but  fince  Words 
when  they  are  fpoken  are  no  Overt  Afts,  but  if  thofe  Words  be  written 
by  the  Party,  then  they  become  an  Overt  Aft  :  But  how  far  this  is 
Law  or  not,  I  take  not  upon  me  to  determine. 

I  only  mention  thefe  things  to  (hew,  that  there  are  feveral  Material 
Points  relating  to  the  Common  Law  and  Cuftom,  which  are  not  fo 
clear  and  fatisfadory  to  all  that  enquire  into  them.  And  therefore,  if 
there  be  any  Difficulties  ftarted,  as  to  the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws,  there  is 
no  Reafon  from  thence  to  Rejeft  them  from  being  any  Part  of  our 
Laws. 

But  it  may  be  others  will  Objeft,  that  a  meer  Immemorial  Cuftom  is  no 
fufficient  Ground  for  Laws  without  A£fs  of  V*arliament  to  confirm  them.  I 
cannot  imagine  that  any  who  pretend  to  underhand  the  Common  Law 
of  England  in  any  meafure  can  make  fuch  an  Objedion  5  but  if  they  dd, 
I  need  but  to  refer  them  to  the  Ads  of  Parliament  already  mention'd, 
which  own  and  allow  the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws.  But  how  comes  an  Imme- 
morial Cuftom  to  make  a  Law,  (ince  Time  hath  no  Operation  ofitfelfon  Mo- 
ral Things  ;  therefore  a  Leg/Jlative  Power  muft  be  fuppofed,  or  elfe  a  Cnfiont 
cannot  pafs  into  a  Law. 

To  this  I  anfwer,  that  there  are  two  ways  of  making  Things  to  pafs 
into  Laws.  i.  By  the  Exprefs  Ad  of  thofe  who  have  the  Power  to 
make  Laws.  2.  By  the  Tacit  Confent  ofttofe  who  are  to  make  Laws 
and  to  keep  them.  And  thus,  thofe  Things  which  are  not  paffed  at 
firfir,  by  fuch  who  have  the  Legiflative  Power  in  them,  may  by  a  gene- 
ral Confent  become  part  of  our  Laws.  As  the  Feudal  Cuftoms  which 
had  their  Rife  abroad  are  become  part  of  the  Common  Law  of 
England  ^  not  by  Ads  of  Parliament,  but  by  a  general  Reception 
of  them.  And  thus  feveral  Canons  made  out  of  our  Land  may 
become  part  of  the  Law  of  it ;  not  by  Virtue  of  that  Foreign  Pow- 
er, but  by  their  being  fo  long  Receiv'd  and  allow'd  to  pafs  for  Law  a- 
mong  us.  And  fo  it  is  exprefled  in  the  Ad  of  Parliament  in  thefe 
Words,  25//.  8.  21.  "  For,  where  this  your  Realm  recognizing  no 
*'  Superiour  under  God,  hath  been,  and  is  free  from  Subjedion  to  any 
"  Man  s  Laws,  but  only  to  fuch  as  have  been  devifed,  made  and  ob- 
"  tained  within  this  Realm  for  the  Wealth  of  the  fame  5  or  to  fuch 
"  other,  as  by  Sufferance  of  your  Grace,  and  Progenitors  the  People  of 
"  this  your  Realm,  have  taken  at  their  free  Liberty  by  their  own  Con- 
"  fent,  to  be  ufed  among  them  5  and  have  bound  themfelves  by  long 
"  Ufe  and  Cuftom  to  the  Obfervance  of  the  fame,  not  as  to  the  Obfer- 
"  vanceof  the  Laws  of  any  Foreign  Prince,  Potentate  or  Prelate,  but 
**  as  to  the  Cuftomed  and  Ancient  Laws  of  this  Realm  j    originally  E- 

"  ftabliOied 


the  Ecclejiaftical  JanJ'diti^ion. 


"  ftabJifhed  as  Laws  of  the  fame  by  the  faid  Sufferance,   Confents  and 
*  Cuftom,  and  none  otherwife.     Here  we  have  three  forts  of  Laws  5 
(i.)  Laws  of  the  Realm  made  by  onr  Kings,  with  Cortfent  and  at  the 
Defire  of  the  People.    (2.)  Foreign  Laws  made  by  fuch  Power  as  we 
have  no  Reafon  to  fubmit  to.     (:^.)  Foreign  Rules,  which  are  not 
Laws  by  the  Authority  which  pafTed  them,  but  by  a  general  Confenc 
both  of  King  and  People  in  receiving  them  ;    and  fo  they  become 
Liiws,  not  by  the  meer  Acceptance  of  the  People,  nor  by  the  bare  Will 
of  the  Prince,  but  by  a  general  Confent  of  all  thofe  who  are  concerned 
in  the  pafling  of  Laws.    So  that  whatever  Canons  were  anciently  made 
by  Provincial  Councils  at  home,  and  received  by  a  general  Confent  j 
or  fuch  which  have  pafled  abroad,  but  have  been  here  received,  not 
by  Virtue  of  Foreign  Power,  but  by  free  Confent,  they  do  make  up 
the  more  ancient  part  of  the  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  of  this  Realm.    And 
fo,  as  my  Lord  Chief  J»flrce  Hales  hath  well  obferved,  life  and  Cuftom  ^S-hijio- 
among  us  generally  receiv  d  doth  obtittere  vim  Legis  \    and  this  is  th?Lt*l^iyfis  of 
which  gives  Power,  fometimes  to  the  Canon  Law,  as  in  Ecclefiaftical  the  com- 
Courts  '^  fometimes  to  the  Civil,  as  in  the  Admiral's  Courts ;  and  again  """"  ^'"^' 
controlls  both,  when  they  crofs  other  Cuftoms  which  are  receiv'd  in 
this  Kingdom. 

And  in  another  Place  he  exprefles  his  Mind  more  fully  as  to  this 
matter,  ch.  2.  He  divides  the  Law  of  the  Land  into  Written  Law,  or 
Afts  of  Parliament,  and  Dtmritten  Lan> ;  under  which  he  compre- 
hends, 

1.  The  Common  Law,  according  to  its  ufual  Acceptation,  vl%: 
that  by  which  Proceedings  and  Determinations  in  the  King's  ordinary 
Courts  of  Juftice  are  direfted  and  guided. 

2.  Thofe  particular  Laws  which  are  applicable  to  particular  Matters 
and  Courts  5  by  which  he  means  thtLavps  Ecclejiajiical  and  Civil,  which 
although  they  be  written  Laws,  yet  he  reckons  them  as  unwritten,  be- 
caufe  they  lay  no  Obligation  on  us  here,  but  as  they  are  received  and 
admitted  in  this  Kingdom,  either  by  Confent  of  Parliament,  or  by  im- 
memorial Ufage  and  Acceptation  in  fome  particular  Courts,  Cafes  and 
Matters,  and  no  otherwife. 

And  after,  tresiting  of  the  Ecclejiajlical  Courts,  he  faith.  They- are  ei- 
ther fuch  as  were  derived  immediately  from  the  King's  Authority  by 
Commiflion,  as  the  Court  of  High  Commifllon,  &c.  (2.)  Such  as  were 
not  fo  derived,  but  the  Law  of  England  had  annexed  to  certain  Offices 
Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdiftion  as  incident  to  them  :  Thus  every  Biftiop,  by 
his  F  ledtion  and  Confirmation,  even  before  Confecration,  had  Ecclefia* 
ftical  Jurifdidion  annexed  to  his  Office,  as  Judex  Ordinarius  within  his 
Diocefe  ^  and  divers  Abbots  anciently,  and  moft  Arch-deacons  at  this 
Day,  by  Ufage,  had  the  like  Jurifdi^lion  within  certain  Limits  and 
Precinfts. 

But  he  adds,  that  although  the  ordinary  Jurifdiftion  of  the  Biftiop 
is  annexed  to  his  Office,  yet  in  foro  exteriori  it  is  derived  from  the  Crown 
of  England. 

And  although,  faith  he,  the  Procefs  runs  in  the  Name,  and  under 
the  Seal  of  the  Biftiops,  yet  that  is  no  Impediment  but  that  their  Jurif- 
diftion  is  derived  from  the  Crown  ^  for  till  the  Statute  27  //.  8.  the 
Procefs  in  Counties  Palatine  run  in  the  Names  of  the  Counts  Palatine^ 
yet  no  Man  ever  doubted  but  the  Palatine  Jurifdiftion  was  derived  from 

the  Crown. 

Ddddd  T/JS 


Of  the  Foundation  of 


iinft.34,4.     ffjg  Ecclefiaflkal  Laws,  faith  my  Lord  Chief    Juftice  Coke,    are  thofe 
xch'ich  are  aUoxod  by  the  Lam  of  the  Realm,  viz.  which  are  not  againjl  the 
Common  Law  (whereof  the  Kings  Prerogative  is  a  principal  part)  nor  a- 
gainji  the  Statutes  and  Cuftoms  of  the  Realm,  and  regularly  according  to 
fuch  Ecclefaftical  Laws,  the  Ordinary  and  other  Ea  le/iajiical  Judges  do 
proceed  in  Caufes  within  their  Conufance  -j    and  this  Jurifdi&ion  was  fo 
bounded  by  the  ancient  Common  Laws  of  the  Realm,  and  fo  declared  by 
I  inft.  II.  AS  of  Parliament.     And  in  other  Places  he  owns  the  Ecclefiafiical  Jurif- 
*^'^^'^^^' di&ion  and  Laws  ;  but  ftill  faith,   that  they  are  bounded  by  the  Laws  of 
the  Realm.    Of  which  there  is  no  Queftion.     Of  Jurifdi&ions,  faith 
PToism.to  he  in  his  Preface  to  4  Injl.  fame  be  Ecclefiafiical,  and  fome  Civil  and  Tem- 
4  inft.      poral.     Of  both  thefe,  jomebe  Primitive  or  Ordinary^  fome  derivate  or  dc' 
I  Inft.  p5.  legate  by  Commifpon.     For  deciding  Cuntroverfies,  and  for  difiribution  of 
Jnfticewithin  this  Realm,  there  be,  faith  he  in  another  place,  twodifiindl 
Jurifdi&ions  5   the  one  Ecclefiafiical,  limited  to  certain  Spiritual  and  Par- 
ticular Cafes  ;  the  other  Secular  and  General,  fur  that  it  is  guided  by  the 
Common  and  General  Law  of  the  Kingdom. 
4  infl.321.      But  doth  he  not  fay.  That  thofe  who  have  Spiritual  Jurifdi&ion,   at 
Arch-bijhops,  Bifhops,  Deans,  &c.    are  the  King's  Judges  within  his  Realm, 
and  that  this  may  be  proved  from  our  Books  .<? 

Who  goes  about  to  deny  this  ?  For  as  Judge  Hales  faid,  in  Ftro  Ex- 
teriori  the  Ecclefiafiical  Jurifdiftion  js  derived  from  the  Crown  ;  and 
therefore  they  may  be  properly  enough  called  the  K  ing's  fudges.  But 
he  doth  not  fay,  the  Kings,  as  fuch,  have  Ecclefiafiical  Jurifdidion, 
which  he  never  thought.  For  faith  he,  of  what  things  the  Clergy  have 
Jurifdi^ion,  is  evident  in  our  Books,  whereof  there  is  no  Quejiion.  And 
certain  it  is  that  this  Kingdom  hath  been  befi  governed,  and  Peace  and 
^let  befi  preferved  when  both  Parties,  i.  e.  when  the  Jufiice  of  the  Tempo- 
ral Courts  and  the  Ecclefiafiical  Judges  have  kept  themfelves  within  their 
proper  Jurifdi&ion,  without  incroaching  or  ufurping  one  upon  another. 

Did  not  the  Bifhops  before  the  Reformation  derive  their  Spiritual  fnrif- 
diction  from  the  Tope  .<?  How  then  could  my  Lord  Coke  prove  by  good  Au- 
thority from  the  old  Books,  that  they  were  the  Kings  '^judges  > 
I  anfwer  that  the  Jurifdiftion  then  was  two-fold. 

1.  Delegate  and  Extraordinary,  which  they  had  by  particular  Com- 
miffion,  and  this  they  had  from  the  Pope,  whom  they  look'don  as  Su- 
preme Ordinary  5  and  therefore  he  might  in  particular  Cafes  be  the 
Fountain  of  Jurifdidion  to  them. 

2.  Ordinary  and  Common  ^  and  this  had  by  virtue  of  their  Office,  and 
was  not  derived  from  the  Pope,  but  annexed  to  their  Office  by  the  Law 
of  the  Land  as  to  Exteriour  Jurifdiction  ;  and  therefore,  on  that  Ac- 
count, they  might  even  then  be  look'd  on  as  the  Kings  fudges.  But 
in  matters  of  Ordinary  "jurifdiction,  if  they  exceed  their  Bounds,  they  are 
faid  to  offend  again fi  the  Crown  and  Royal  Dignity,  when  they  draw  things 
ad  aliud  examen,  therefore  only  the  Temporal  furifdidion  is  by  our  Law, 
derived  from  the  Crown.  In  the  Bifhop's  Ordinary  Jurifdiiiicn,  thefe 
things  are  to  be  diftinguifiied.  i.  The  Original  Right  belonging  to 
his  Office  5  which  we  do  not  pretend  to  be  derived  from  the  Crown, 
but  from  the  Fountain  of  Spiritual  Jurifdiftion,  the  Founder  and  Head 
of  the  Church.  2.  The  Authority  to  execute  fuch  a  Jurifdiftion  with- 
in the  Realm,  and  the  Rules  and  Meafures  of  doing  it  5  and  this  is 
derived  "from  the  Laws  of  the  Land  ;  which  have  given  fuch  Autho- 
rity, and  fixed  thofe  Bounds  5  and  therefore  to  tranfgrefs  them  is  an 
Offence  againft  the  Crown  and  Royal  Dignity,  Did 


the  Ecclefiaflical  Jurifdi^ion.  759 

Did  not  the  ICings  of  this  Realm,  in  the  very  Forms  of  Prohibitions^ 
challenge  only  Temporal  Catifet  as  belonging  to  their  Crovpn  and  Dignity  .<? 
Hovp  then  could  the  "Judges  in  Ecclejiajiical  Ca/ifes  derive  their  Jurifdi&ion 
from  the  Crown  ? 

The  Kings  Cromn  and  Royal  Dignity  may  be  confider'd  two  way?. 
i.  As  to  what  was  of  Right  belonging  to  it^  and  fo  all  external  Jurif- 
didion  doth.     2.  As  in  Fade  our  Kings  had  limited  their  own  juft  Au- 
thority, and  given  too  much  leave  to  the  Pope  to  ufurp  upon  them. 
And  this  being  inconfiftent  with  the  inherent  Rights  of  the  Crown^ 
tLe  Pope's  ufurped  Power  was  juftly  caft  off,  and  then  the  ancient  Right 
returned.     And  it  is  to  be  obferved,  that  the  main  Encroachments  and 
Ufurpations  of  the  Popes  were  in  Points  of  extraordinary  Jurifdidtion  ; 
as  in  Cafes  of  Difpenfarions,  Commendams,  Prbvifions,  Appeals,  &c. 
But  even  thefe  were  not  carried  without  many  Rubs  and    Difficulties 
by  the  Laws  of  the  Land,  as  appears  by  the  Statutes  of  Provifors  and 
PnemHnire,  which  were  no  more  than  neceflary.     For  after  the  Popes 
came  to  Avignon,  they  were  more  greedy  than  when  they  enjoy'd  the 
Profits  of  the  whole  See  of  Rome,    and  weje  farther  from  England. 
They  then  bethought  themfelves  of. a  nerp  Invention,  which  was  very 
profitable  to  them.     Being  Spiritual  Head  of  the  Church,  was  a  thing 
of  great  Sound,  but  of  little  Advantage;  but  the  new  Device  was,  to 
make  themfelves  a  kind  of  Feudal  Lords  over  the  Benefices  of   the 
Church.     For  they  found  that  the  old  Fees  were  caWed  Benefcia -j  and 
fo  they  made  a  pretty  artificial  Turn  of  the  Churches  Benefices  into 
Ecclefiaftical  Fees  held  of  the  Pop6  as  Chief  Lord.     Boniface  8.  in  the 
time  qf  E,  i.  firft  flatted  the  Doftrine  of  the  Popes  ZJniverfal  and  Ab-  Petr.de 
foUtte Dominion  in  Beneficiary  Matters,  but  he  was  vehemently  oppofed.  ^arcade 
But  his  Succeflbrs  meeting  with  fairer  Opportunities,  and  being  upon^"j°d.f. 
better  Terms  with  Princes,  by  Degrees  fet  up  and  exercifed  this  kind  i^-  "-i-' 
of  Feudal  Authority  in  Benefices.     And  as  the  confequence  of  this  Do- 
drine,  the  Pope  challenged  the  Fir ji  Fruits,  as  a  Year's  Profits  on  the 
Beneficiary  Fee  to  the  chief  Lord.    This  was  demanded  here  in  England 
then  ;  but  the  Parliament  at  Carlifle  put  it  into  their  Complaints  as  a 
thing  before  unheard  of,  and  therefore  forbad  the  Pope's  Officers  to  ga- 
ther them,  35"  £.  I.     And  fo  this  Bufinefs  fell  for  the  prefent  5  but  af- 
ter the  Popes  came  to  Avignon,  they  infifted  more  ftridly  upon  the 
Va'^xntnt  q1  Annates,  or  Firfi:  Fruits.     John  22.  ovvfied  the  Demand, Excr. 
and  goes  about  to  defend  it  from  their  prefent  Neceflities  ^  but  toihew  ^°^^^^^ 
their  Moderation,  he  faith,  That  they  took  but  one  Tear's  Profits  at  a  rea-  ^Dignir, 
fonable  Valuation,  as  appears  by  the  Bull  it  felf,  which  only  mentionsa^^-  '^^^ 
Moiety  of  the  firft  Year's  Profits,  where  the  Taxation  was  not  delivered  "°"^"" ' 
into  the  Pope's  Exchequer  before. 

Fagnanuf^  a  late  Canonift,  faith,  that  the  full  value  was  never  ex-Fagnan.ia 
acted  by  the  Pope  ;  but  the  Taxation  of  Boniface  is  follow'd  at  Rome.'-'>-^^"^^' 
But  Platina  faith,  his  Demand  of  Firft  Fruits  was  rejected  in  England /i"^:'.  '  ^' 
except  only  for  Bifhopricks  and  Abbies  ^  and  Fagnama  confefl'es,  Thai 
the  inferiour  Clergy  did  not  here  pay  that  Moiety.     But  the  Pope  flill  in- 
fifted on  the  Firji  Fruits  as  their  due,  according  to  fuch  a  Taxation  as 
was  then  receiv'd;  but  even  that  would  not  go  down  with  the  Coun- 
cils of  that  time.     In  the  Council  of  ^cz/we,  it  was  propofed,  Thdt  the 
Pope  (tjould  have  a  ttventleth  part  in  lieu  of  them  ;    but  they  were  then 
afraid  both  would  have  been  put  upon  them,  fcrthen  the  Firft  Fruits 
were  adifcharge  from  any  Payments  aftervi^ards,  the  Rule  being  Impo-^ 
•^'\'-  •  bdddd  2  fitis 


q^o  Of  the  foundation  of 


Con.Confl. yjy^  ^»/;a/^-  Dec'iK}£  abohntur.    In  the  Council  oi Co/tjiance,  Tenths  were 
SfJ-  43-    abfolutely  forbidden  ^  but  the  Annats  were  kept  up  as  far  as  the  Pope's 
Power   prevailed,  notwithftanding  that  the  Council  of  Bajil  and  the 
Fragmatkk  SanSion  had  condemned  them.     Piuf  II.  publifhed  a  Bull  to 
deprive  Perfons  of  their  Benefices  who  did  not  pay  their  Annats  5   and 
it  appears  by  his  Epiftle  to  Meyertfs,  they  made  them  pay  them  at  Rome 
before  Pofleflion.    Here  in  England  they  went  down  very  hardly,  as 
appears  by  the  Complaints  in  Parliament  about  them,  25  E.  g.  r.  i. 
47  E.  3.  51  £.5.  42^.2.  6  R.2.  10  R.  2.  6  H.4.  1.   But  after  all,  the 
Pope's  Intereft  prevailed,  and  Firji  Fruits  and  Tenths  were  both  paid, 
until,  for  better  Reafon,  they  were  fettled  on  the  Crown,  in  the  fame 
Manner  as  they  had  been  paid  before,  as  appears  by  the  Statute  i  EUz. 
c.  4.  n.  22.  where  the  fame  Efiate,  Title  and  ^lantity  is  mention'd,  which 
was  fettled  on  H.  8.     When  the  Popes  would  have  raifed  them  above 
the  accuftomed  Payment,  the  Parliament  would  not  hear  of  it,  6/7,4. 
c.  I.    For  they  look'd  on  the  Payment  but  as  an  Acknowledgment,  and 
not  as  any  valuable  Confideration  5    and  therefore  ought  not  to  be 
ftretched  to  the  full  Value.  By  the  Statute  Weft,  ^ia  Emptores  terrarum^ 
Payment  was  to  be  made  Secundum  ^antitatem  :    In  Mar/h  and  Jones 
his  Cafe,  the  Qpeftion  was,  whether  it  was  the  value  at  that  time,  or 
the  improved  value  fince,  and  it  was  refolved  that  it  was  to  be  taken  as 
at  that  time.  And  fo  17  E.  2.  the  King  was  to  have  a  Year's  value  of  the 
Leonard    Tenants  in  Capite  at  firft  Admiffion  ;  but  it  turned  to  a  cuftomary  Pay- 
^' '/^*     ment,  and  not  at  the  full  value.     But  this  was  not  all  the  Advantage 
the  Popes  challenged  by  this  new  Device  ;    for  Benedi&  1 2.  who  fuc- 
ceeded  John  22.^1  Avignon  by  his  Bull,  AD.  1335.  makes  a  Refervation 
to  himfelf,  among  many  other  Preferments,  of  all  fuch  as  fhould  be 
void  by  Promotion  5  which,  as  the  Canonifts  tell  us,  was  then  look'd 
on  as  only  the  Change  of  a  Life  in  a  Feudal  Efiate,  of  which  the  Lord 
of  the  Mannor  may  expeft  an  Advantage,  becaufe  he  promotes  the  Per- 
fon  whom  the  Patron  had  prefented.    But  becaufe  the  Pope  had  a 
Power  of  difpenfing  with  the  Canons,  which  made  one  Benefice  void 
by  accepting  another,  therefore  when  he  pleafed  he  prevented  the  A- 
voidance,  upon  a  Promotion  by  a  Difpenfation  before-hand  5  and  fo 
it  paffed  into  a  Commendam,  as  it  was  then  called.     And  by  his  abfo- 
■  Jute  Power  he  gave  away  the  beft  Preferments  before  they  were  void, 
which  v/as  called  by  Vrovipon.    Thefc  things  were  often  complained 
of,  and  many  Afts  of  Parliament  were  made  againft  them,  which  were 
very  little  regarded,  for  the  Pope  went  on,  and  exercifed  this  extra- 
vagant Power  as  he  thought  fit.     But  fometimes  they  met  with  Rubs 
in  Point  of  Law,  as  in  the  Cafe  of  the  Bifliop  of  St.  David's,  11  H.  4. 
where  the  main  Point  urged  againft  the  Pope's  Power  was,  that  it  over- 
''  threw  the  Law  of  the  Land,  which  voids  a  Benefice  upon  Confecration. 

No,  faid  the  other  fide,  here  is  no  Avoidance,  for  the  Pope  prevented 
it  by  a  Difpenfation  before-hand.  But  in  the  Bilbop  of  Winchefiers 
Cafe,  4  H.  6.  the  Difpenfation  coming  too  late,  his  Biftioprick  was 
declared  void  by  accepting  the  Cardinalftiip  before  it.  But  the  Praftice 
of  thefe  things  continued  till  H.  8.  reftored  the  ancient  Rights  of  the 
Crown,  by  cafting  off  the  Pope's  Ufurped  Power  5  by  the  Statutes 
made  25  //.  8.  wherein  the  King  is  declared  Supreme  Head  of  the 
Church.  But  a  Doubt  ftill  remained  about  fuch  Privileges  which  the 
Pope  had  challenged  as  Head  of  the  Church,  and  been  in  quiet  Pof- 
feffion  ot,  as  particularly  Firfi  Fruits  and  Tenths  5  and  thefe  being  no 

an- 


the  Ecclefiajtical  Jurifdi^tion.  '^Si 


ancient  Right  of  the  Crown  were  fettled  upon  the  King  by  A(5l  of  Par- 
liament 26  I  J.  8.  3.  And  the  Power  of  Difpenfation  in  feveral  Cafes  5 
25 //.8.  21.  28H.  8. 

But  ftill  there  remained  fome  Perquifites  of  the  Head  of  the  Church, 
which  were  not  provided  for  by  thefe  Statutes  as  beftowing  Benefi- 
ces by  Right  of  Promotion,  granting  Commendams,  giving  Commiffi- 
ons  of  Review,  &c.  As  to  thefe,  there  is  nothing  exprefsly  menti- 
on'd  5  but  by  the  Statute  76.  H.  8.  i.  it  is  enailed,  that  the  King  fhall 
have  and  enjoy,  annexed  and  united  to  the  Imperial  Crown  of  this 
Realm,  as  well  the  Stile  and  Title  of  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  of 
E/7gland,  as  all  Honours,  Dignities,  Preeminences,  Jurifdiftions,  Pri- 
vileges, Authorities,  Immunities,  Profits  and  Commodities  to  the  faid 
"Dignity  of  Supreme  Head  of  the  fame  Church  belonging  and  apper- 
taining. Now  the  Qiieftion  is,  what  is  underftood  by  all  thefe  Words  5 
Whether  only  fuch  things  which  of  Right  belong  to  the  Crown  ^  and 
thefe  were  already  Reftored  by  his  being  Recognized  as  Head  of  the 
Church  5  or  whether  fuch  other  Privileges  and  Commodities,  as  the 
Pope  had  peaceably  and  aduallyEnjoy 'das  Hejd  of  the  Church?  which 
feems  the  more  probable  Opinion,  becaufe  the  Crown  hath  fince  En- 
joy *d  the  fame  Privileges  as  to  Right  of  Promotion,  Commendams  and 
Commiffions  of  Review  ;  which  (hews  that  they  were  then  fo  under- 
ftood, and  have  continued  ever  fince  ;  although  there  have  been  fome, 
who  have  been  unfatisfied  about  them  ;  but  their  Authority  is  of  no 
Weight,  compared  with  the  General  Opinion  and  Praftice  fince  the 
time  of  making  thefe  Statutes. 

It  is  another  Point,  whether  the  Kings  of  England  had  not  thefe 
Privileges  of  Right  before  ;  and  fome  Authorities  are  produced  to 
prove  it,  but  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  General  Praftice  and  the 
Prevailing  Opinion  had  been  otherwife;  and  there  was  not  fo  great  E- 
vidence,  as  to  overthrow  the  Pope's  Ufurpations  from  the  Contrary 
Cuftom^  therefore  the  cleareft  Refolution  as  to  thefe  Matters  is,  that 
they  are  Eftablifhed  in  the  Crown  by  the  Statute,  26  H.  8.  i.  and  the 
confequent  Practice,  even  in  the  time  of  H.  8.  andfo  continued  to  this 
Day. 

There  are  two  things  faid  by  Coke  upon  thefe  Matters  which  ought 
not  to  be  pafled  over. 

(l.)  That  it  is  apparent  by  many  Authorities^   that  the  King    C  be-^inft.j^y. 
fore  the  Reformation  )     had  no  fitch  Prerogative^     as  to  Prefent  in 
Right  of  Promotion  5    but  that  he  did  it  on   the  Account  of  the 
Temporalties  being  in  his  Hands  5    or  on  the  Account   of  Ward- 
Ihip,  &c. 

(2.)  That  in  the  Cafe  of  the  Commiflion  of  Review,    he  faith,    that  ^^a^-W' 
fitch  Authority  as  the  Pope  had  claiming  as  Supreme  Head,  doth  of  Right  be- 
long fo  the  CroTvn,   and  if  annexed  thereunto  by  the  Statutes^    26  H.  8.  i. 
&   I  Eli%.  I .  and  fo  it  was  Refolved  in  the  King's  Bench  3  9  Eliz.  after 
afolemn  Debate  in  Holingworth's  Cafe* 

Thus  I  have  endeavour'd  to  clear,  as  well  as  I  could,  the  Nature  of 
the  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdiftion  among  us,  and  the  Laws  on  which  it  is 
founded. 


O  F 


7^2 


O  F    T  H  E 

Ecclefiajlical  Jtmfdi£fion 

with  Refped  to  the 

LEGAL  SUPREMACY. 

A  N 

ADVERTISEMENT. 


THk  Difcourfe  coMcem'wg  the  Illegality  of  the  /^/c  Ecclefiaftical  Com- 
raiffion,  was  written  when  the  Author  of  it  was  fummoneii  to  appear 
before  it  5  and  was  in  continual  ExpeBation  of  undergoing  its  Cenfure,  for 
ttot  complying  with  the  Orders  of  it.  This  put  him  upon  an  Enquiry  into  the 
Grounds  on  which  it  flood. 

From  whence  he  proceeded  to  fearch  into  the  True  Notion  of  the  Legal 
Supremacy ;  and  finding  it  very  imperfe&ly  fet  down  in  the  famous  Fifth  Re- 
port, De  Jure  Regis  Ecclefiaftico,  he  took  the  Pains  to  Examine  it  through 
every  Reign,  there  mentioned  5  and  upon  the  whole  Matter  he  finds  him 
afid  his  Adverfary  F.  P.  equally  miflaken.  But  in  the  Management  of  it  he 
hath  rather  endeavoured  to  give  Light  to  the  Thing,  than  to  difcover  any 
Man's  Erro>'s.  And  it  is  hardly  pojjihle  to  fettle  the  "Notion  of  it  aright 
without  confidering  the  Praftice  of  other  Countries,  as  well  as  our  own  :  Of 
both  which  the  Reader  will  find  a  fliort  but  impartial  Account  5  which  I 
believe  the  Author  could  more  eafily  have  inlarged,  than  have  brought  it  into 
fo  narrow  a  Compafs. 

By  this,  I  hope  the  World  will  fee.  That  it  was  not  Humour  (jr  Faftion, 
but  a  real  and  well  grounded  Diffatisfadlion,  which  made  thofe  of  the 
Church  of  England  oppofe  the  Proceedings  of  that  Time-^  and  that  fuch, 
have  as  great  and  real  a  Zeal  for  the  Ancient  and  Legal  Conftitution  of  our 
Government^  as  thofe  who  make  a  greater  Noife  and  Clamour  about  it  5 
and  that,  not  upon  any  new  Notions  or  Phrafes,  but  upon  the  very  fame 
Grounds  which  our  Anceflors  made  ufe  s/5  and  carry  in  them  the  true  Bafis 
ofourY,r\^\^Government.  It  is pojfible  fome  worthy  Men  may  have  car' 
ried fome Notions  beyond  our  legal  Conftitntion  i,  but  the  more  they 
fearch  into  it,  the  better  Opinion  they  will  have  of  it.  Which,  1  think,  is  fo 
n>ell  fittled,  that  every  Deviation  from  it  tends  to  our  Ruin. 

As  to  the  Difpenfing  Power,  the  Author  hath  inlarged  that  Part,  fince 
fome  late  Difcourfes  have  been  puhli/hed,  both  pr  and  again fl  it.  He  hath, 
negleSled  nothing  which  hath  been  mofl  plaufihly  pleaded  for  it  ;  but  hath 
given  a  full  Anfwer  to  the  mofl  material  Injiances  which  haije  been  infified 
on,  in  behalf  of  it.  And  after  all,  I  caitnot  but  conclude,  T.^^/- /Ae  Difpen- 
fing Power  is  a  kind  <)/ Mental  Refervation,  which  quite  alters  the  Mean- 
ing ((nd  Difign  of  a  Law.        ^ 

When 


Of  theEcclefiaflicalJarifdi^ioJi.  &c.  7^5 


When  the  late  Ecclefiaftical  Comraiflion  vcas  fuperfeded  (  if  not  dif- 
folved  )  the  Author  laid  by  thefe  Papers  as  ZJfelefr,  but  having  commnm- 
catedthem  to  one  particular  Friend,  (^whofe^yi^gmt^m and  Authority  he 
h*d  a  great  Regard  to  )  he  hath  been  prevailed  veith  by  him,  to  make  them 
Fnblick  at  th  s  Time  :  It  being  Jiill  neceffary  to  fierv,  with  what  Jujiice  and 
Reafon,  tve  refufed  to  own  the  Jurifdiftion  of  it.  And  it  feems  to 
me  as  hard  to  reconcile  it  to  our  Laws  as  Liberty  <>/Confclence  to 
the  Principles  of  Popery,  or  the  Worftiip  of  Images  to  the  Second 
Commandment. 

1689. 


DISCOURSE    II. 


l^    H    A    P.     i. 

The  State  of  the  Qaeflion  concerning  the  Court  of 
the  late  Ecclefiaftical  Commiflion. 

The  Ofe  ftands  thus, 

BY  the  A^  of  I  EHz.  i.  it  was  ejiablifhed  and  ena&ed.  That  fnch 
Jurifdi&iotis,  Privileges,  Superiorities  and  Preheminencies,  Spiritual 
and  Eccle/tajiical,  as  by  any  Spiritual  or  Ecclejiafiical  Power  or  Authority, 
have  heretofore  been  or  may  lawfiilly  be  exercifed  or  ufed  for  the  Viftation  of 
the  Ecclejiajlical  State  and  Perfons,  and  for  Reformation,  Order  and  Cor- 
re&ionof  the  fame,  and  of  all  manner  of  Errors,  Herefies,  Schifms,  Abufes, 
Offences,  Contempts  and  Enormities,  fball  for  ever  by  this  prefent  Par- 
liament, be  United  and  Annexed  to  the  Imperial  Crown  of  this 
Realm. 

And  that  the  Kings  and  ^eensofthis  Realm /hall  have  full  Power  and 
Authority  by  virtue  of  this  A^  by  Letters  Patents  under  the  great  Seal  of 
England,  to  Ajfign,  Name  and  Authorize,  w he n^  and  as  often  as  they  fhall 
think  meet  and  convenient,  and  for  fuch  and  fo  long  time  as  they  Jhall  think 
meet  to  exercife,  itfe,  occupy  and  execute  all  manner  of  Jurifdi&ions,  Privi- 
leges and  P/eheminences  in  any  wife,  touchitig  or  concerning  any  Spiritual  or 
Ecclejiafiical  Jurifdi£fion  within  thefe  Realms  5  and  to  vifit,  reform,  redrefs, 
order,  corre^  and  amend  all  fuch  Errors,  Herefies,  Schifms,  Abufes,  Of- 
fences, Contempts  and  Enormities  whatfoever,  which  by  any  manner  of  Spi^ 
ritual  or  Ecclefiaftical  Power,  Authority  or  Jurifdi^ion,  can  or  may  laW' 
fully  bv  reformed,  ordered,  redreffed,  corrected,  refirained  or  amended  to , 
thePleafiire  of  Almighty  God,  the  increafe  of  Virtue,  and  theconferUation  of 
the  Peace  and  Unity  oft  his  Realm  :  And  that  fuch  Perfon  and  Perfons  fo 
to  be  Named,  Authorized  and  appointed  after  thefaid  Letters  Patents  to 
him  or  them  made  and  delivered,  (ImH  have  full  Power  and  Authority,  by 
Virtue  of  this  Aci,  and  of  the  faid  Letters  Patents  to  exercife,  ufe  and  exe' 
cute  all  the  Premifes,  according  to  the  Tenour  and  Effe^  of  the  faid  Letters 
Patents,  any  Matter  or  Caufe  to  the  contrary,  in  any  wife,  notwithltanding. 

Mi 


7<^  4-  ^/  ^^^  Ecclefiaflicl  Jurijdi^ion 


But  in  the  A&  ij  <:ar.  i.  c  i  r.  after  the  recital  of  this  latter  Claufe, 
thefe  Words  follow.  And  vehereas  by  colour  of  fome  Words  in  the  afore/aid 
Branch  of  the  /aid  A^,  whereby  Cor/imijjioners  are  Authorized  to  execute 
their  Commijfion,  according  to  the  tenour  and  Effc&-  of  the  K.ings  Letters 
Patents,  and  by  Letters  Patents  grounded  thereupon  the  faid  Comraijfioners 
have,  to  the  great  and  unfufferable  Wrong  and  Opprejfion  of  the  King's  Sub- 
jeSts,  ufed  to  fine  and  imprifonthem,  atjd  to  exerc'ifc  Authority  not  belong- 
ing to  Ecclefiaflical  JurifdiSfion  refioredby  that  Act  5  and  divers  other  great 
Mifchiefs  and  Inconveniencies  have  alfo  enfued  to  the  Kings  Subjects  by  oc^ 
cafion  of  the  faid  Branch  and  Commifftons  iffued  thereupon^  and  the  Execu- 
tions thereof  I,  therefore  for  the  Reprejfing  and  Preventing  of  the  aforefaid 
^bufes,  Mifchiefs  and  Inconveniencies  in  time  to  come.  Be  it  enacted  by 
the  Kings  Moft  Excellent  Majejiy,  and  the  Lords  and  Commons  in  thk 
■prefent  Varliament  affembled,  and  by  the  Authority  oj  the  fame.  That  the  a- 
forefaid  Branch,  Claufe,  Article  or  Sentence  fhall  from  henceforth  be 
repealed,  annulled,  revoked,  annihilated  and  made  void  for  ever,  a- 
vy  thing  in  the  faid  Act  to  the  contrary,    in  any  wife,    notvoithfiand- 

Then  after  a  Claufe  relating  to  ordinary  furifdiction,  repealedi^  Car.7: 
C.  12.  the  Aft  concludes  thus.  And  be  it  further  Enacted,  That  from  and 
aftertbefaidfirfl  Day  of  Augufi,  no  new  Court  fl)all  be  erected,  ordained  or 
appointed  within  this  Bealm  of  England,  or  Dominion  of  VVales,  which 
fhall  or  may  have  the  like  Power,  Jurifdiction  or  Authority,  as  the  faid  High 
Commiffton  Court  now  hath  or  pretendeth  to  have,  but  that  all  and  every 
fuch  Letters  Patents,  Commijfions  and  Grants  made  or  to  be  made  by  his 
Majejiy,  hk  Heirs  and  Succeffors  5  and  all  Powers  and  Authorities  granted 
vr  pretended,  or  mentioned  to  be  granted  thereby,  and  all  Acts,  Sentences 
and  Decrees  to  be  made  by  virtue  or  colour  thereof,  fljall  be  utterly  void  and 
of  none  effect. 

By  the  Act,  13  Car.  2.  c.  12.  This  Repeal  (lands  good  in  the  firft 
Provifo  ^  and  in  the  fecond  Claufe,  where  that  which  concerns  ordina- 
ry Jurifdiction^  is  repealed,  an  Exception  is  put  in,  in  thefe  Words, 
Excepting  what  concerns  the  High-Commiffion-Court  or  the  new  erecting  fame 
fuch  like  Court  by  Commiffton. 

The  Cafe  which  arifes  from  hence,  is,  Whether  thefe  Ads  of  Parlia- 
ment only  take  away  the  Power  of  Fining  and  Imprifoning,  from  any 
Ecclefiaflical  Commiffton  granted  by  the  King  5  fo  that  notwithftanding 
thefe  Repeals,  the  King  may  ftill  conftitute  a  Commijjion  proceeding  by 
Ecclefiaflical  Cenfures ;  And  for  the  fame  Ends  which  are  exprefly  men- 
tioned  in  the  Statute  repealed,  viz,.  Toexercife,  ufe,  occupy  and  execute 
all  manner  ofjurifdictions.  Privileges  and  Preheminences,  in  any  wife 
touching  or  concerning  any  Spiritual  or  Ecclefiaflical  Jurifdiction  within  this 
Realm  <5/ England,  and  Dominion  of  Wales,  and  to  vifit,  reform,  order, 
correct  and  amend  all  Abufes,  Offences,  Contempts  and  Enormities  whatfoe- 
ver,  which  by  the  Spiritual  and  Ecclefiaflical  Law  of  this  Realm,  can  or  may 
lawfully  be  reformed,  ordered,  redreffed,  corrected,  reflrained,  of  amen- 
ded, to  the  P  leafure  of  Almighty  God,  the  Increafe  ofVertue,  and  the  Cott' 
fervatton  of  the  Peace  and  Unity  of  this  Realm.  Thefe  are  the  Powers  of 
the  prefent  Commijfion,  and  are  the  fame  which  are  mentioned  in  the 
Adi  of  Repeal,  17  Car.  l.  c.ll.  only  Errors,  Here fies  and  Schifms,  being 
left  out. 

It  cannot  be  denied.  That  the  Power  of  Fining  and  Imprifoning,  is 
moft  exprefly  taken  away,  and  that  isaffigned  as  oneReafon  and  Occa- 

fion 


with  KefpeCl  to  the  Legal  Siipremac).  16 j 


fion  of  repealing  the  Claufe  of  i  Elie..  i.  which  eftablifhes  the  Court  ^ 
but  I  cannot  be  fatisfied,  that  this  was  all  that  was  Intended  by  the  Aft 
ly  Car.  I.  i.  II.  And  that  for  thefe  Reafons : 

I.  If  no  more  had  been  intended,  then  it  had  been  fufficient  to  have 
deftroyed  the  Letters  Patents,  by  which  the  Power  of  Fining  and  Im- 
prifon'ing  was  granted,  without  mentioning  the  ASi  ot  Parliament,  which 
gives  no  fuch Power.  But  the  Ad  of  Repeal,  17  Car.  i.  c.i7.  begins 
with  the  A^  o{ Parliament'.  Whereas  in  the  Parliament  holden  in  the  firji 
Year  of  Queen  Eliz.  there  veas  an  A&  made  and  ejiablified,  &C.  In  rphich 
AS,  among  other  things,  there  is  contained  one  Claufe,  Branch,  Article  or 
Sentence,  whereby  it  was  enaSed  to  this  EffeS,  &c.  Then  follows  all  the 
enafting  Claufe  5  and  after  it,  the  Abufes  of  the  Power  by  the  Letters 
Patents  are  reckoned  up,  viz.  Fining  and  Imprifoning,  and  other  great 
Mifchiefs  and  Inconveniences  :  Therefore,  for  the  reprejjing  and  prevent- 
ing of  them,  not  merely  the  Power  to  fine  and  imprifon,  but  the  whole 
Claufe,  and  all  things  contained  in  it,  are  from  thenceforth  repealed, 
annulled,  revoked,  annihilated,  and  utterly  made  void  for  ever.  What, 
need  all  this,  if  no  more  were  defigned  than  to  take  away  the  Powa-  of 
Fining  and  Imprifoning. 

It  is  plaufibly  argued  by  the  Lord  Cohe,  That  the  Power  to  Fine  andt^^'^  f 
Imprifon  n>as  not  agreeable  to  the  Dejign  of  the  A^L     I.  Becaufe  the  Title 
of  it  if.  An  Afl  refioring  to  the  Crdwn  the  ancient  JurifdiSion  ;    but  the 
ancient  Jnrifdi&ion  Ecclefiaflical  had  not  a  Power  to  Fine  and  Imprifon, 
but  proceeded  only  by  Ecclefiaflical  C^nfures.     2.  Becaufe  the  Power  to  re- 
form^  order  and  correS  all  Errors,  Herefies,  &c.  nvas  to  be  fuch  as  may 
be  lawfully  reformed,  corrected,  refirained  or  amended  by  any  Manner  of 
Spiritual,  Ecclefiaflical  Power,  Authority  or  Jurifdu  tion,  which  did  not 
extend  to  Fine  and  Imprifon  men  t.     9 .  The  Tenor  of  the  Letters  Patents 
■was  to  exercife,  ufe  and  execute  all  the  Premifes.     Since  therefore  the  Fre- 
mifes  go  no  farther  than  Ecclefiaflical  Jurifdiction,    the  Letters  Patents 
could  give  no  fuch  Power,  being  in  purfuance  of  the  Act.     But  tt  is  agreed^ 
faith  he.  That  before  this  Act  no  Man  could  be  puni/hed  by  Fine  and  Im- 
prifonment  by  any  Ecclefiafiical'P ower,  unlefs  it  were  by  force  of  fome  Act  of 
Parliament.     But  becaufe  the  Aft  faith.  They  are  to  ufe  aad  execute  all 
the  Premifes  according  to  the  Tenor  and  Effect  of  the  Letters  Patents.     O- 
thers  have  thought,  That  the  Power  to  Fine  and  Imprifon  being  within 
the   Letters  Patents,    the  Act    of  Parliament  did  bear   them  out  in 
purfuing  what  was  in  the  Tenor  of  them. 

But  in  my  Opinion,  this  Matter  ought  to  be  a  little  further  cleared  5 
and  therefore  we  muft  diftinguifti  between  the  Original  Commijfion,  and 
the  Supplemental  Power,  added  to  enforce  it.  TheOriginal  Commifpon  ex- 
tended no  farther  than  Ecclefiaflical  Jurifdiction,  as  is  plain  from  the 
reading  of  the  Statute  ;  and  that  of  it  felf  could  go  no  further  than 
Eccle/iajiical  Cenfure.  But  becaufe  of  the  Circumftance  of  that  Time, 
when  (as  the  Lord  Hobart,  in  a  MS. Difcourfe  of  the  High  Commiffion,^^^^^^^^ 
obferves)  The  Perfons  mofl  concerned  did  flight  the  Ecclefiaflical  Cen-  ton! 
fures  5  therefore  if  was  thought  neceflary,  in  the  Letters  Patents,  to 
grant  them  a  new  Commijfion  to  enforce  the  former,  and  that  extended 
to  Fine  and  Imprifonment ;  for  in  the  High  Commijfion  for  the  Province 
of  York,  (which  is  pre(erved)  diftinft  Powers  are  granted,  which  are 
not  in  the  Act.  For  whereas  the  Act  goes  no  further  than  the  Eccle- 
fiafiical  Jurifdiction,  the  Commijfion  gives  them  Power  to  proceed  after 
another  manner  than  by  Ecclefiaflical  Cenfures  -.^  for  the  Words  are,  Con- 

E  e  e  e  c  iumaces 


Of  the  Ecclepafiical  Jarifdi^ion 


tuntaces  ant  em  &  Rehelles,  fiquosinvenerint,  tarn  per  Cenfitras  Ecdefiajii' 
cos,  quam  Perfonarum  apprehe»fo»em,  d^  h7c*rcerationef»,  &c.  ac  qutie- 
cH/tque  alia  Juris  Regm  noftri  Remedia  compefcettdum,  &c.  Here  we  fee 
plainly  a  Conjunftion  of  the  Povcer  of  Common  Lan>  added  to  that  of 
the  High  Commijjion,  by  virtue  of  the  Act  of  Parliament,  and  fo  in  all 
probability  it  was  in  the  Letters  Patents  for  the  High  Commijjion  in 
this  Province,  which  bore  equal  Date  with  the  former. 

And  although  the  Date  of  the  High  Commijjion  was  before  the  De- 
priving of  the  Bijhops,  i  Eliz.  Yet  I  fee  no  ground  for  my  Lord  Coke's 
Aflertion,  which  the  Defendant  takes  for  granted,  p.  13.  That /A/r 
Commiffion  xvas  firjl  granted  for  depriving  the  Popijh  Bifhops,  and  that  a- 
boHt  Twenty  were  deprived  by  it ;  whereas  in  Faft,  there  were  but  Four- 
teen deprived,  and  that  for  not  doing  what  they  had  done  before  in 
Henry  the  8th's  Time,  vi%.  fur  refujing  to  take  the  Oath  of  Supremacy^ 
which  they  had  all  taken  in  the  time  of  H.  8,  And  as  far  as  I  can  learn,  they 
were  not  deprived  by  the  High  Commijjion,  but  by  a  particular  Commif- 
fion  for  that  purpofe,  as  appears  by  the  beft  Account  we  have  of  it  in 
the  Hijlortans  who  lived  neareft  the  time.  In  the  Month  of  July,  fajs 
Stow,  the  old  Bijijops  of  England  then  living  were  called  and  examined 
by  certain  of  the  ^teen's  Majejiy's  Council,  where  the  Bifjops  of  York, 
Ely,  and  London,  with  others,  to  the  Number  of  Thirteen  or  Fourteen, 
for  refujing  to  take  the  Oath  touching  the  Uneen  s  Supremacy,  and  other  Ar- 
ticles, were  deprived  from  their  Bi^wpruhs.  What  he  means  by  the  0- 
iher  Articles,  I  know  not  5  for  there  feem  to  be  no  other  at  that  time 
for  which  they  could  be  deprived  by  Law,  but  refufing  the  Oath  of  Su- 
Sand,  de  premacy,  (and  fo  much  Saunders  himfelf  owns)  for  the  other  faults 
Schif.  4.  were  not  punifliable  with  deprivation.  The  Bifhops  being  deprived 
'^'''  by  a  fpecial  Ct?«?»ifi/7?(?»  of  the  Council,  then,  hxthStow,  Commijjioners 
were  appointed  for  <?/? England:  For  London,  Sir  Richard  Sackvile,  Dr. 
Horn,  Dr.  Huick  and  Mr.  Savage,  who  called  before  them  divers  Perfons 
of  every  Parijh,  and  fivore  them  to  enquire  and  prcfent  upon  certain  Injun- 
ctions. With  him  Hollingjhead  agrees,  only  adding.  That  th^e 
Commijjioners  were  fent  according  to  an  Act  puffed,  and  confirmed  laji 
Parliament, 

This  was  the  Adi  for  the  High  Commijjion,  which  then  extended  to 
particular  Parifhes,  with  fuch  Powers  of  the  Common  Law  as  are*  al- 
ready mentioned,  but  are  not  of  the  Ejjence  of  the  Commijjion  accord- 
ing to  the  Aft  of  Parliament,  and  therefore  the  taking  away  thofe  ad- 
ditional Powers  doth  not  deftroy  the  High  Commijjion,  but  the  repeal- 
ing the  Act  of  Parliament,  on  which  it  was  built,  takes  away  any  fuch 
Court-Proceeding  by  Ecclefiaftical  Cenfures. 

To  make  this  more  plain  by  a  Parallel  InfVance  :  The  Court  of  Star- 
Chamber  was  taken  away  at  the  fame  time  the  High  Commijfton  was,  and 
both  determined  the  fame  day,  17  Car.  i.  Aug.  i. 

This  Court  was  erefted  for  extraordinary  Civil  Jurifdiction,  as  the 
High  Commijjion  was  for  Spiritual-^  but  by  the  Aft  17  Car.  i.  r.  10.  it  was 
taken  away  much  in  the  fame  manner  with  the  Court  of  High  Commif- 
fion:  For  there  is  a  Recital  of  the  Statutes  on  which  it  was  grounded, 
3  H.y.  C.I.  21  H.  8.  c.  20.  And  then  it  is  alledged,  That  they  had  ex- 
ceeded the  Bounds  which  the  Law  had  given  them,  in  thefe  Words  ;  But 
the  faid  Judges  have  not  kept  themfelves  to  the  Points  limited  by  the  ftid 
Statute,  but  have  undertaken  to  punifl}  where  no  Law  doth  warrant,  and 
to  tnake  Decrees  for  things  having  no  fuch  Authority,  and  to  inflict  hea- 
vier 


with  Kefpect  to  the  Legal  Supremacy.  7^J 


'uier  Vuniffmtcnts  than  by  any  Law  is  warranted.  And  fo,  by  this  very- 
fame  way  ot  Reafoning  which  the  Vindicator  ufes,  another  Court  of 
StarChamber  may  be  fet  up,  \i  it  keeps  it  felf  within  the  Bounds  of 
the  Statutes.  But  we  are  not  to  judge  of  the  force  of  a  Law  by  the 
particular  Eveafon  afligned,  but  by  the  Enabling  Claufe  :  Be  it  Ordained 
and  Ena&ed  by  the  Authority  of  this  prefent  Parliament,  That  the  faid 
Court,  commonly  called  the  Star-Chamber,  and  all  Jurifdi^ions,  Power 
and  Authority  belonging  unto,  or  exeroifed  in  the  fame  Court,  &C.  he  from  the 
firji  of  AugoU,  1 641.  clearly  and  abfolntely  dijfolved,  taken  away  and  dc 
termined.  If  another  Star-Chamber  cannot  be  fet  up  with  fome  Limi- 
tation for  extraordinary  Civil  Jurifdi&ions,  how  can  another  Ecclejiajii- 
cal  Court  for  extraordinary  Jurifdi&ion,  which  is  taken  away  after  tfafe 
fame  manner  ?  Only  the  Aft  againft  the  High  Commijfion  is  more  ex- 
prefs  in  the  Conclufion  againft  Setting  up  any  other  Court  with  like 
Power,  JurifdiSion  or  Authority  ;  for  it  was  then  forefeen,  that  fome 
other  Court  might  be  fet  up  with  fome  Alterations  ^  and  to  prevent  a- 
ny  thing  of  that  Nature,  the  laft  Claufe  was  annexed. 

2.  The  prohibiting  Claufe,  17  Car.  i.  c.  11.  is  very  confiderable  to 
the  purpofe.     For  the  Force  of  the  former  Aft  was  taken  away  by  the 
Repealing  Claufe  5  but  that  was  not  thought  fufficient  to  prevent  ano- 
ther Court  riling  up,  which  might  be  like  to  it.    A  Court  may  ha  like, 
although  not  altogether  the  fame  :   It  may  be  like  in  Jurifdiifion,  al- 
though not  in  a  Power  to  fine  and  imprifon.     But  the  Aft  faith.  That  no  \ 
new  Court  /hall  be  erected  which  Jljall  or  may  have  the  like  Power,  Jurifdi- 
ction  or  Authority,  as  the  faid  High  Commijfion  now  hath,  or  pretendeth  to 
have  ;  but  that  all  and  every  fuch  Letters  Patents  made  or  to  be  made  by 
his  Majefiy  or  Suaeffors,  and  all  lowers  and  Authorifies  granted,  or  pre- 
tended,  or  mentioned  to  be  granted  thereby  ;  and  all  Aits,  Sentences  and 
Decrees  to  be  made  by  virtue  or  colour  thereof,  /hall  be  utterly  void,  and  of 
none  effect.     Was  all  this  meant  only  of  fuch  a  Court  as  (hould  proceed 
to  Fine  and  Imprifon  .<?  Why  was  not  this  fet  down  in  as  plain  a  manner 
as  fuch  a  Law  required  ?  But  we  are  to  obferve, 

1.  It  not  only  voids  tht  Letters  Patents,  but  declares  the  C"<7«/?//«/w» 
of  thtCourt  it  felf  robe  illegal-^  but  that  doth  not  depend  upon  the 
lower  to  Fine  and  Imprifon.  If  it  had  been  faid.  No  new  Court  /hall  be 
erected  with  aPower  to  Fine  and  Imprifon i  the  Matter  had  been  clear ;  for 
a  new  Court  might  have  been  erefted  proceeding  by  Ecclejiafiical  Cen- 
fures,  without  a  Power  to  Fine  and  Imprifon.  But  the  Aft  takes  no  no- 
tice here  of  any  fuch  Power,  but  abfolutely  forbids  any  Court  with  the 
like  Power,  Jurifdiction,  or  Authority.  Had  the  High  Commi/fion  no 
Power,  "jurifdiction  or  Authority,  but  only  to  Fine  and  Imprifon?  Their 
Power  and  Authority  by  Aft  of  Parliament  was  general,  to  reform  Abu- 
fes,  &c.  In  cafe  there  had  been  no  fuch  Claufe  as  Fining  and  Impri- 
foning  in  the  Letters  Patents,  had  there  been  no  Court,  no  Power,  Jurif- 
diction ox  Authority  belonging  to  it  ?  If  then  there  be  a  Power,  Jurifdi- 
ction or  Authority  of  a  High  Commijfion  Court,  without  a  Power  to  Fine 
and  Imprifon,  then  all  fuch  Power  and  Authority  is  takea  away  by  Jhe 
prohibiting  Claufe.  )•  r  T   =  ■.-..j  ".u  •,!'' 

2.  It  forbids  the  Jttrifdii  tion  of  fuch  a  Court :    But  Jurifdiction  is 
quite  another  thing  from  a  Power  to  Fine  and  Imprifon.     Jurifdiaion,^^^^  j  .■ 
faith  Bracton,  'isAuthoritas  judicandi, /ive  juris  dicendi  inter  partes  :^  and'   ' 


.  C.   I. 


to  the  fame  purpofe  Fleta  :  They  both  diftinguilh  two  kinds  of  ?«n/- ^'"^l"  ^'' 
diction,  Ea I (fiajiical  and  Civil.      Ecclefia/iical,  faith  Bracton,    is  thatc.ii 

E  e  e  e  e  2  which 


7^8  Of  the  Ecciefiafticd  Jiirtfdiltton 

which  belongs  toEcclejiaflical  Caufes-^  which  (liews,  That  they  looked 
/•  l<i>%-  5-  on  Ecclejiaflical  Proceedings  hy  Cenfurcs  as  part  of  the  Ecclefiaftical  '}urif- 
diction.  The  firft  General  Exception,  faith  Fleta^  is  againft  the  Jurifi 
diction  of  a  Court,  which  is  allowed  to  be  made  to  thofe  qulbtfs  deficit 
authoritas  judicandi.  From  hence  it  appears.  That  the  Power  and  Au- 
thority of  meddling  in  Ecclefiaftical  Caufes,  is  that  which  is  implied  in 
the  Jurifdictfdn  of  the  Court  ^  if  it  hath  no  jHrifdiction  it  is  no 
Court;  if  it  have  Jurifdiction^  it  is  void  in  Law  5  for  the  Aft  of  Par- 
liament takes  away  all  Povoer^  Jurifdiction  and  Authority,  from  any  fuch 
Court. 
,\^  ^5.  The  Explanatory  Aft,  13  Car.  1.  c.  12.  makes  this  more  evident  5 
for  there  being  a  Claufe  inferted,  17  CaK  i.  c.  11.  which  feemed  to 
take  away  the  ordinary  "jurifdiction  of  the  Ecclefiafiiral  Courts,  it  was 
thought  fit  to  make  that  Aft  on  purpofe  to  clear  that  Matter,  by  re- 
pealing that  Claufe.  But  that'Claufe  being  part  of  the  A6t  which  took 
away  the  High  Commijfion  Court,  left  by  fuch  Repeal  the  Aft  it  fel'f 
fhould  be  thought  repealed,  therefore  there  is  only  an  Exception  put 
in,  not  barely  as  to  the  old  High  Commijjion,  but  as  to  the  new  erecting 
fome  fuch  like  Court  by  Commijfion.  And  a  particular  Provifo  is  added. 
That  neither  this  Act,  nor  any  thing  herein  contained,  flull  extend  or  be 
confirued  to  revive  or  give  fierce  to  the  /aid  Branch  of  the  [aid  Statute^  made 
in  the  faid  firji  Tear  of  the  Reign  of  the  J  aid  late  ^een  Elizabeth,  men~ 
tioned  in  the  fa'id  Act  of  Parliament,  made  in  the  feventeenth  Tear  of  the 
Reign  of  the  faid  King  Charles  5  but  that  the  faid  Branch  of  the  faid  Sta- 
tute made  in  the  faid  firfi  Tear  of  the  Reign  of  the  faid  late  ^een  Eliza- 
beth, /&«//  fiand  and  be  repealed  in  fuch  fort,  as  if  this  Act  had  never 
been  made.  Now  it  ought  to  be  confidered.  That  even  this  Parliament 
doth  not  fix  upon  the  Power  to  Fine  and  Imprifon,  to  take  that  away  5 
but  upon  the  Original  Claufe  in  the  Aft,  which  gave  Power  to  ereft  fuch 
a  Court.  And  this  Parliament  was  izealous  to  affert  the  Ordinary  Jurif- 
diction, and  as  zealous  to  prevent  any  fuch  extraordinary  Jurifdiftiorts 
as  was  in  the  High  Commijfion  ^  which  it  (hewed,  by  continuing  the  Re- 
peal of  that  Power  by  which  it  was  eftabliftied. 


Chap.   II. 

The  Ki^^i's  Supremacy  by  Common  Larf>,  enquired  into  ; 
Coke'5  fifth  Report^  dc  Jure  Regis  Ecck{iailico>  ex- 
amineJ. 

of  Ecde   1-^  ^^  againft  this  it  is  pleaded  with  fome  Appearance  of  Reafon, 

fiafticaf'    O  That  in  Caudry'j  Cafe  the  Judges  refolved.  That  the  Act  of  the  firfi 

CommifTt'  Tear  of  the  late  Queen  was  not  introductory  of  a  new  Law,  but  declaratory 

^"*^'^' of  the  old  ;   and  that  the  King  by  the  ancient  Law  might  make  fach  an 

Ecclefiafiical  Commiffion.     And  fin ce  the  Act   15  Car.  2.    c.  14.    faith. 

That  we  are  not  to  abridge  or  diminifl)  the  Kings  Supremacy  in  ^cciefi- 

afiical  Matters  and  Affairs  :  Therefore  we  are  fiill  to  fuppofe.  That  the 

King  hath  a  Power  by  Law  to  appoint  fuch  a  Commijfion  for  Ecclefiafiical 


Matters, 


This 


with  KefpeU  to  the  Legal  Supremacy.  7^^ 

This  is  the  Subftance  of  what  is  pleaded  for  the  Legality  of  the 
Cvttrt  :  And  fince  the  Argument  is  confined  to  Matter  of  Law,  to 
clear  this  Matter,  it  will  be  necelTary  to  give  an  account  of  thefe 
two  things, 

I.  What  the  ^»ae»/ L«n?  was  to  this  Matter. 

II.  How  far  the  Legd  Supremacy  is  abridged  by  thefe  Statutes. 

I.  As  to  the  Af7cient  Law  in  this  matter,  lt"s  true  that  the  Lord  Coh, 
in  CaHdry  sCdi^Q  hath  endeavoured  to  prove,  That  the  Statute,  r  Eliz,. 
was  not  introduHory  of  a  New  Larv,  but  declaratory  of  the  Old  j  but  the 
InfVances  he  produces  fall  very  fliort  of  being  Demonflrative  Proofs^  as 
hecalls  them: 
For  the  trueCafe  is  not,  '' 

(i.)  Whether  the  King  ought  not  to  interpofe  in  Eccle/iajitcal  Mat- 
ters, fo  far  as  the  Peace  and  good  Government  of  his  Realm  was  con- 
cerned.   Nor, 

(2.)  Whether  he  might  not  order  things  which  concerned  the  Right 
of  Ecclejfa/i/cal  PoJ/ifioMS -J  as  in  BiJ/jopricks,  Commendams,  Right  of  Pa- 
tronage.  Pleas  of  Tythcs^  &c.  Nor, 

(5.)  Whether  the  Ring,  by  his  Supreme  Authority  might  not 
limit  the  Proceedings  of  ordinary  Ecclcfiaftical  Courts  in  Matters 
concerning  his  Croxon  and  Dignity,  by  granting  Prohibitions*    Nor, 

(4..)    Whether  the  King  by  Common  Lan>  cannot  grant  a  Commif- 
fion  of  Revietf,    after  the  Proceedings   of  the  Ecclejia/fical  Courts  5 
which  Judge  Hutton  affirmed.  Was  all  that  vpjs  determimd  in  CaudryV  Lictleron'i 
Cafe.     Nor;  ^^f"^^- 

(5.)  Whether  the  King  in  Parliament  may  not  make  Lam  for  Refor- 
mation of  Religion,  and  eftablifbing  good  Order  therein.    Nor, 

(6.)  Whether  the  Supreme  Coatlive  Jurifdi£iion  were  not  always  a 
Right  of  the  Crown  ^  however  it  were  in  a  great  Meafure  ufurped  by  the 
Pope  after  King  John'/  Rejignation. 

But,  whether  our  Ancient  Law  doth  give  the  King  a  Power,  by  vir- 
tue of  his EccleJ/aJlical  Jurifdiclion,  to  appoint  Commijfioners  by  an  ex- 
traordinary way  of  Jurifdiftion  to  proceed  in  prima  injiantia,  againft 
Perfons  by  Ecclefiajiical  Cenfures  ?  And  to  prove  this  I  cannot  find  one 
fufficient  Example,  as  I  (hall  make  appear  by  a  fliort  Account  of  the/»- 
fiances  he  produces,  and  the  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdiiiion  exercifed  at  that 
time. 

In  the  time  oftheS^yons. 

In  the  Saxon  Times,  he  brings  firft  an  Inflance  o/Kenulphus,    King  of 
Mercia,   granting  an  Exemption  to  the  Abbot  of  Abingdon  :     But  what 
does  this  fignifie  to  Eccle/iajiical  JurifdiSion,  to  prove.    That  the  King 
gave  the  Abbot  an  Exemptionfrom  the  Temporal  Jurifdi&ion  of  the  Bi- 
jhops  ?    For,  in  thofe  D.iys  there  were  great  Difputes  between  the  Bi- 
jhops  and  Abbots  about  the  Temporal  Jurijdi^ion  over  the  Lands  of  their 
Abbies  ;    which  the  BiJIoops  claimed,    and  the  Abbots  refufed,    and  put 
themfelves  under  the  Protefl-ion  of  Princes  and  Great  Men,    as  appears 
by  the  Councils  of  Clove/hoe  and  Becanceld,   in  the  time  of  Kenulphus. 
But  Stamford  puts  this  Matter  out  of  Difpute,  in  the  Confirmation  of  the  Stamford,' 
Charter  of  Kenulphus,  by  Edwin^  for  the  Words  are,  ^od  preefatumi.^.f.iitt 
Monafierium  omnis  terreme  fervitntk  tffet  liberum  :  And  what  is  this  now 
to  Ecclejiaftical  Jnrifdi^/OH  .<? 

But  we  have  manifeft  Proof  in  the  Saxon  Times,  That  the  Ecclejiafti- 
cal Jurifdi^ion  was  never  exercifed  by  fuch  a  Commiffion,  but  that  all 

ex* 


Of  the  Ecclefiaflical  Jiirifdiclion 


extraordinary  Cafes  were  difpatched  in  Parliamentary  AJftmblks,   and 

the  Ordinary  JurifdiBion  was  exerclfed  by  the  Archbijloop  of  Canterbii- 

ry,  in  Chief,   and  by  the  reft  of  the  Bifhops.    The  firft  extraordinary 

Inftance  of  proceeding  againft  an  Ecclefiaftical  Perfon,    in  the  xSaxon 

Times,    was  that  of  Wilfred,    Archbifhop  of  Tork,    who  becaufe  he 

would  not  confent  to  the  making  three  B:Jhoprichs inhis  Province,  was 

depofed  by  Theodore  Archbiftiop  of  Crf«/er^«/-^,    the  King  hi wfelf  being 

prefent,   and  the  great  Council  of  the  Nation  :     For  fo  King  Alfrith  faith, 

that  he  was  bk  a  toto  Anglornm  Concilio  damnatus,  as  the  Words  are  in 

Maimesb.  Malmesbury  5    and  Eddius,    who  lived  at  that  time,  faith,   That  King 

gl^-^^^j^^"  Alfrith  gave  this  Reafon  aga'mft  reftoring  him,  becaufe  he  had  been  condent- 

wilfred.c.  ned  by  the  Kings  his  Predeceffors,    with  their  Council,    the  Archbifhop  affi- 

55'  fting,     and  himfelf  had  judged  him,    cum  ommbuf  pene  Britannia  vejir£ 

Prafulibuif,  all  the  Bifhops,  almofi,  being  prefent. 
ibid.c.4j.  In  the  Council  of  Nejierfield,  in  his  Cafe,  it  is  faid,  The  King  r»as 
c.  57.  prefent  and  Berthwaldus,  Archbtfiop  (^/Canterbury,  cum  totius  pene  Bri- 
tannia Epifcopis.  In  the  Council  at  Nid,  it  is  faid,  fedentibus  Rege  d^ 
Epifcopk,  cum  Prlncipihiis  eorum  in  loco  Synodali ;  which  was  a  Parliw 
mentary  Affembly. 

Not  long  after  Tunbertwai  depofed  from  his  BiQioprick,  but  it  was, 

wTo^^V.  ^^^^^  Florentius  Wigornienfts,  congregata  Synodo  fub  prtefentia  Regk  Egfi-i- 

2sf!^^  '  di.     The  Archbifhop   Theodore  likewife  depofed  Winfred  BiQiop  of 

the  Mercians,    faith  the  fame  Author  after  Bede,    for  fome  Difobe- 

dience,   and  confecrated  Saxulphus,  the  firft  Abbot  of  Peterborough,  in 

his  Place. 

Speira.         This  Winfred  had  been  prefent  at  the  Council  at  Herudford,   and 

Con.M54. there  confented  to  the  Canons  then  firft  received  in  the  Englifti  Church  5 

and  there  they  fubmitted  to  Ecclefiaftical  Cenfures,   upon  the  Violati- 

Mat.wefi.  on  ofthem.     At  thk  Council,    (aith  Matt.  Wejiminjier,    were  prefent  not 

A.  C,  <573.  ^^^i^  ^ji  f^^  Biffiops,  but  all  the  Ki/rgs  and  Great  Men  of  the  Nation  5   fo 

that  the  firft  Canons  were  received  in  a  full  Parliament.     One  of  thefe 

Canons  was  for  increafing  the  Number  of  Bifhoprichs,  as  the  Number  of  Be- 

lievers  increafed  .•    And  upon  this  Canon  Theodore  proceeded  againft 

both  fVilfrediud  Winfred:    For  not  long  after  T/6etf(^ore  divided  his 

Fioient.p.Biftioprick  intoy?ye;  but  it  was  done,  {aith  Florentius,  confenfu  ejufdent 

ll^^yj^^^Regis  &  Principumillius,  as /«/2  divided  the  Wejieru  Province  into  two 

A.C.711. Bifljopricks,  Synodali  Decreto,  faith  Mat.  Wejiminjier,    which  then  was 

the  fame,  ashy  A&  of  Parliament.     And  the  oppofing  fuch  a  Divifion 

feems  to  have  been  the  Crime  of  Difobedience,  for  which  he  was  deprived 

Bed./. 4.  by  the  Archbiftiop:    For  as  Bede obCerves of  him,  Hefirfi  exercijed  Ec- 

'•  ^-        clepajlicAl  Jurifdi&ion  over  all  England. 

In  the  great  Council  at  Becanceld,  where  King  Withred  was  prefent, 
A.  D.  694.  with  his  Nobles  (  Ducibus  &  Satrapis  in  unum  glomeratis) 
together  with  the  Clergy  :  He  there  difowns  any  Ecclefiaflical  Jurifdicti- 
Speim.  o„_^  and  leavesit  tothe  Archbift]opof  C<?;;ferW;'.i  MetropolianiEpif- 
copi  efl  Ecclefas  Dei  regere,  gubernare,  ^C.  and  then  follows.  Presbyter 
ros,  Diaconos  eligere,  Jiatuere,  fanctijicare,  firmare  d^  amovere.  And  he 
makes  this  an  inviolable  Law,  as  far  as  his  Words  could  make  it,  Si 
quis  autem  Rex  pofl  nos  levatus  in  Regnum,  aut  Epifcopu,  aut  Abbas,  vcl 
Comes,  vel  ulla  potejias  hominum  contradicat  huic  Chart ul£,  aut  infringere 
tentaverit,fciat  fequejlratum  a  Corpore  C^  SanguineDomini,  Sec.  And  after  it 
follows,  Htcc  Lex  inviolabilis  ufque  ad  confummationem  S£culi  perma- 
maty  &c. 

Mr. 


with  Refpe^  to  the  Legal  Supremacy,  77 1 


Mr.  Prymt^  out  of  his  old  Rindnefs  to  the  Archbifljops  <»/Canterbury,  chronoi: 
in  his  vaft  Heap  oi CoI/e&io»s,    would  have  this  rejefted  as  fpurious  jd'ication" 
batSir  H.Spelman,  whofe  Judgment  was  far  beyond  the  others,  faith,  To.i/.ip^ 
He  had  perufed  five  M.SS.  of  it,   rohereof  one  was  with  a  fnixture  of  Saxon 
Letters,    and  he  had   no  Miuruft  of  its  Sincerity.      And  the  Learned 
and  Judicious  Editors  of  the  Decern  Siriptores,    Sir  Roger  Tmfde/t  Deccm. 
and  Mr.  Selden,    have  thousht  fit  to  infert  it  after  them,    out  of  a^^'P^*-^- 
MS.  in  CCC.  '^''- 

But  Mr.  P.  thinks  it  is  contradi^ed  by  the  Coiwcil  of  Bergam  ftead, 
about  Eiclefiaftical  /Affairs,  under  King  Withred  :  But  I  can  find  no- 
thing like  it.  It  is  true,  there  are  Laws  made  concerning  Ecclefi- 
aftical  Matters,  by  common  Confent  of  the  Khig,  the  Nobles  and 
Bifhops  \  but  the  very  firft  is,  Ecclefia  libera  fit  fruaturque  fnis  judi- 
ciis.  Sec. 

But  befides,    in  the  Great  Council  at  Clovefhoe,    where  JEthelbalduf,A.c.7i2. 
King  of  iVler^M,    was  prefent,    andCuthbert,  Archbilliop  of  Crf///er/>«ry,  ^^^^^ 
with  the  other  BiJIjops,    this  Charter  of  Withred's,    was  read,    and  ap-script.p, 
proved,  and  confirmed,  with  the  like  Sanftion  annexed  to  it.  "^9- 

In  the  Council  at  Clove/hoe,  J.  C.  ySj.     The  extent  of  the  Jurifdi- 
dion  of  the  Archbiftiop  of  Cajiterbury  was  very  much  leffened  by  the 
means  of  King  Offa,  who  caufed  another  Archbifhoprick  to  be  fet  up 
in  Mercia:,    and  the  Archbiftiop  of  Canterbury  gave  his  Confent,    faith 
Matt.  Paris :     But  his  former  Jurifdidion  was  reftored  in  the  Council 
of  Clovefi)oe,  A.D.  805.  by  a  general  Confent.  .  But  in  the  former  Coun- 
cil  the  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdiftion  was  ftrenuoufly  afferted,    in  thefe 
Words  5    SicHt   Rcges  omnibuj  dignitatibus  pr/efunt,    it  a  d^  Epifcopi  in  Spelm.  f. 
his  qti£  ad  Deum  attinent.     And  in  the  latter,    there  is  a  fevere  denun-  ^^^' 
ciation  againft  all  that  /honld  lefien  the  Honour^  or  take  away  the  Jurifdi^i-     p-  324. 
on  of  that  See. 

From  henceforward  I  find  no  diminution  of  the  Jrchb/Jhop's  Ordinary 
Jurifdiction  through  the  Saxon  Times.  The  King  had  the  Political  Sh^ 
premacy  in  him,  by  which  he  eref^ed  and  divided  Btflmprirks,  and  no- 
minated BZ/Zjc/)/,  and  fumraoned  C(?«»;  i7/,  and  confirmed  their  Proceed- 
ings as  he  faw  Caufe  3  but  the  immediate  E.  clefiafi-'tal  Jurifdlction  was 
left  to  the  Archbiftiop  of  Canterbury  in  the  firft  place,  and  to  the  reft  of 
the  Biftiops  as  to  any  Public k  Acts  which  related  to  Etclefiafiical  Affairs, 
they  were  not  difpatched  by  particular  Commifftons,  but  in  the  Parlia- 
mentary  Affemblies ;  In  which,  the  Cuftom  was,  to  begin  with  what 
related  to  the  Church,  and  then  to  proceed  to  other  Bufinefs.  Of  this 
Jngulphus  gives  us  an  Inftance  in  Ceolnothm  Archbiftiop  of  Canterbury  ^logaiph, 
for  in  the  Parliament  AfTembled  at  Kingsbury,  /i.  C.  851.  in  Hebdomadal'  499- <^- 
Pafch.  (  which  was  chiefly  aflembled  pro  Regni  negotiis)  yet  even  then, 
he  propofed,  That  Church  Affairs  might  be  firji  difpatched  ;  Divina  Ne- 
gotia  debere  primitus  proponi  ^  to  which  they  all  aftented.  And  fo  Ber- 
ttdphm  his  Charter  of  Cropland  then  pafTed  ;  as  Withlafiuf  his  did 
before,  at  a  time  when  the  Biftiops  and  Nobles  attended  the  King  at 
London,  to  confult  about  the  Danifi)  Pyrates,  which  very  much  infefted 
our  Coafts. 

Thus  Mthelwolfus'  paffed  his  famous  Grant  of   the  Tenth  of  all  the 
Lands  to  the  Church,  in  a  Council  at  Winchefter  ;  himfelf,  and  the  Kings 
of  Mercia  and  Eaji-Jngles,  being  prefent,    and  all  the  Nobility  and  Bi- 
fijops  giving  their  free  Confent  3    as  Tngulphus  relates  it.     Several  others  inguiph. 
might  be  produced  j  but  thefe  are  fafficient.     And  the  Saxon  Laws  are  ii>- 

a 


772  Of  the  Ecclefiafticl  Jurifdi^ion 

a  plain  Evidence,  Thzt.Church  Matters  were  in  thofe  times  determined 
in  the  fame  Affemblies,  wherein  the  other  Laws  of  the  Kingdom  were 
pafled. 

In  the  Reign  of  King  Edward  the  Confejfor. 
c.  s-  R.  The  next  Inftance  is  of  Edward  the  Confeffor,  who  faith  in  his  Laws, 
That  he  is  Vicar  of  the  highefi  King,  and  he  is  ordained  to  this  end,  that  he 
/hoitld  Govern  and  Rule  the  People  of  the  Land,  and  above  all  things,  the 
Holy  Church,  and  that  he  defend  the  fame  from  Wrong-doers,  and  root  out 
Workers  ofMifchief. 

F.  Parfons  faith,  AH  this  was  by  Commijjion  from  the  P«pe,  fuch  as  the 
Kings  of  Sici\y  had. 
^r  f^         But  in  my  Opinion,  this  is  a  very  bad  Anfwer  :    For  it  fuppofes 
coke'f     Perfons  otherwife  uncapable,  to  be  made  capable  of  the  fame  Jurifdi- 
<;th  Rep.   <aion,  which  follows  Orders,   provided  they  have  a  Delegation  from 
f-  J.  n-io-  f  jjg  pQpg .  Which  is  in  effed,  to  confound  all  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdiftion 
in  any,  but  the  Popehimfelf,  dnd  thofe  to  whom  he  commits  it.     But 
thofe  who  affert  the  Right  of  Jurifdiction  to  follow  the  Ponver  of  Order^ 
muftfirft  fuppofe  a  Perfon  duly  qualified, before  he  can  receive  from  the 
Popehimfelf  the  Power  of  Ecclefiaftical  jurifdictionAf  therefore  a  Prince 
hath  not  an  inherent  Right  to  it,  he  cannot  receive  it  by  Commijfion  from 
the  Pope.     And  the  Powers  which  the  King  of  Stdly  challenges,   rela- 
ting  to  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdiftion,   are  either    fuch  as  other  Princes 
have  an  equal  Right  to;  or  elfe  they  muft  imply  fuch  a  proper  EccleJ/a' 
jlical  Jurifdiction  as  follows  the  Power  of  Order  ^    and  then,    how  can 
the  Pope  give  the  one  without  the  other  >    Such  a  Gift  is  like  an  Appro' 
Koh.Rep  P^'^^^ou  of  a  Benefice  rt>ith  a  Cure  to  a  Nunnery,    which  the  Lord  Hobart 
I.  148.  '  faith,  is  void  in  Law,  by  reafon  of  the  incapacity  of  the  Perfons.    But 
the  Supremacy  which  our  Law  gives,  is  not  any  proper  immediate  fpiri' 
tual  "Jurifdiction,  like  that  of  Bilhops,    but  an  Authoritative  and  Legifiit' 
tive  Supremacy  without  any  foreign  appeals,   as  will  appear  afterwards. 
But  the  Rights  which  the  Kings  oi  Sicily  challenge,  are  thefe,    i.  That 
they  have  the  fame  Powers  which  Legates  a  Latere  have,   and  may  judge  of 
the  fame  Caufes,    and  proceed  in  the  fame  manner  with  Ecclefiaftical  Cen- 
fures.     2.  That  no  Appeal  lies  from  the  Kings  Commifftoner,  even  to  Rome 
itfelfiy  and  it  is  common  to  Appeal  from  the  Cenfure  of  the  Bifliop  to 
him.    The  former  is  a  Power,  which  our  Kings  never  pretended  to,  by 
virtue  of  their  Supremacy  ^  for  it  is  a  Delegation  of  the  Power  of  the  Keyst, 
which  the  Legates  a  Latere  exercife  by  virtue  of  their  Function,  as  well 
as  their  Commiffion :    But  the  Legal  Supremacy  with  us.    is  a  Right  to  Go- 
vern all  forts  of  Men  by  our  own  Laws,without  any  foreign  Jurifdiction,  and 
that  with  refpe^  to  Ecclefiaftical  Matters  as  well  as  Temporal. 

But  to  prevent  Mifkakes  and  Cavils  about  this  Matter,  it  will  be  ne- 
ceffary  to  clear  the  Notion  of  Supremacy  ;  as  it  hath  been  owned  and  re- 
ceived in  the  Church  of  England. 

And  for  this  we  have  two  authentic  Declarations  of  it  to  rely  upon. 
Thefirft  is  mentioned,  5  Eliz,.  c.  i.  14.  Where  theSupremacy  is  de- 
clared to  be  taken  and  expounded  in  fuch  form  as  is  fet  forth  in  the  Ad- 
monition annexed  to  the  Slueens  Injunctions,  publifhed  in  the  firft  Year 
of  her  Reign.  And  the  Words  there  are.  That  the  ^leen  neither  doth 
nor  will  challenge  any  Authority,  but  fuch  as  was  of  ancient  time  due  to  the 
Imperial  Crown  of  this  Realm,  that  is,  under  God  to  have  the  Sovereign- 
ty and  Rule  over  all  manner  of  Perfms,  born  within  thefe  her  Realms, 
Dominions  and  Countries,  of  what  Eftates,  either  Ecclefiaftical  or  Tem- 
poral 


with  Refpeti  to  the  Legal  Supremacy.  775 


foralfoever  they  be^  fo  as  no  other  foreign  Povoer  fljall  or  ought  to  have  any 
fuperiority  over  them. 

The  Second  is  in  the  37th  Article,  wherein  it  is  declared.  That  by 
the  Supremacy  is  meant ^  that  only  Prerogative  which  we  fee  to  have  been  al- 
ways given  to  all  Godly  Princes  in  Holy  Scriptures  by  God  himfelf  that  is, 
that  they  fhould  rule  over  allEflates  and  Degrees  committed  to  their  Charge 
by  God,  whether  they  be  Ecclefiajiical  or  Temporal^  and  rejirain  with  the 
Civil  Sword  the  Jiubborn  and  evil  doers. 

So  that gravt/ng  a  CommiJ/ion  for  proceedinghy Ecclejiajfical Cenjures, 
is  no  part  of  that  Supremacy  which  our  Church  owns.     And  thus  the 
Divines  of  our  Church  have  underftood  if.     By  the  Supremacy,  faith 
Bifbop  Andrews,  we  do  not  attribute  to  the  King  the  Power  of  the  Keys,  Tott\,  v, 
or  Eccle/iajiical  Cenfures.  38c. 

R.  Thomfon,  in  his  Defence  againft  Becanus,  faith,  The  Supremacy  is  11.}"^'^"* 
not  to  be  defined  by  Ecclejiajiical  Jurifdi^ron,  but  by   Supream  Govern-  Tort.  Tor* 
ment.  ''» t-  8o- 

Becanuf  urged  this  as  an  Argument  againft  the  King's  Supremacy,  c.  Marc. 
That  he  had  no  Ealefiajilcal  Jurifdi&hn.     Dr.  Burrhil  anfvver'd,  That  ^'^^-  Pf^ 
the  Supremacy  implied  many  other  things  ;  as,   the  Power  of  calling  Convo-  c,  c\x\., 
cations,  of  confirming  Canons,  of  giving  CommiJJtons  of  Delegate's,  of  td-h  234. 
king  Cognizance  of  the  Mifdemeanors  of  Church-men,  (^as  well  as  others) 
but  for  proper  Ecclefiafllcal  Jurifdi&ion,  he  denies  it  to  belong  to  Supremacy. 
And  after  afTerts,  That  the  Kings  Supremacy  is  preferved,  if  he  takes  care  ^-  ^*'  P* 
that  thofe  who  have  the  Power  of  Ecclefiafllcal  Cenfures  do  exercife  them  5 
and  not  as  tho'  it  belonged  to  the  Supremacy  to  give  an  immediate 
Power  to  proceed  by  Ecclefiaftical  Cenfures,  which  was  not  fuppofed 
to  belong  to  it,  but  a  fupreme  Right  of  governing  all  forts  of  Perfons 
by  our  Laws. 

The  King's  Supremacy  in  Ecclefiafllcal  Matters  doth  not,  faith  Mafon,  Mifon  de 
imply  the  Power  of  the  Keys,  which  the  King  hath  not  5  but  he  may  com-  ^J,g'|_  \  ^^ 
tnand  thofe  who  have  them  to  ufe  them  rightly.  C.3.P.2714 

All  thefe  wrote  in  King  James  I.  his  Reign,  when  the  Point  of  Sh- 
premacy  was  throughly  fifted  on  both  fides.     And  the  King  himfelf, 
who  very  well  underftood  rhefe  Matters,  faith.  That  the  Oath  of  Su-ff'ff^^^^ 
fremacy  only  extended  to  the  King's  Power  of  Judicature,  over  all  Per- 
fons as  well  Civil  as  Eiclefiaftical,  excluding  all  foreign  Powers  and  Poten- 
tates to  be  'judges  within  his  Dominions.    Not  as  though  the  Ring  here- 
by challenged  to  himfelf  a  Power  of  inflicting  Ecclefiafllcal  Cenfures  on 
Ferfons  -.  but  leaving  the  Spiritual  Jurifdi&ion  to  thofe  who  have  the 
Power  of  the  Keys,  it  belonged  to  him  to  exercife  his  Supreme  Authority 
over  Ecclefiaftical  Perfons  and  Caufes,  as  he  did  over  Temporal.     For, 
faith  Archbifhop  Bramhal,  our  Laws  never  invefted  the  King  with  any  Bramhal's 
Spiritual  Power  or  Jurifdi&ion,  wltnefs  the  Injun&ions  of  Q^  Eliz.  witnefs  j^°[  '''"' 
the  publiik  Articles  of  our  Church,  wltnefs  theProfejfions  of  King]3mes, 
witnefs  all  our  Statutes  themfelves. 

The  King  of  England,  faith  he,  by  the  Fundamental  Conflitution  of  the  ^*  '^^' 
Monarchy,  hath  plenary  Power,  without  the  Licence,  or  Help,  or  Concur- 
rence of  any  Foreign  Prelate  or  Potentate,  to  render  final  Jujiice,  that  is,  to 
receive  the  laji  Appeals  of  his  own  Subje&s,  without  any  Fear  of  any  Review 
from  Rome,  or  at  Rome,  f.r  allMatters  Ecclefiafllcal  and  Temporal'^  Ec- 
clefiafllcal by  his  Bifipops,  Temporal  by  Judges. 

And  thus  our  Laws  were  in  the  right,  when  they  called  the  A^  of  Su- 
premacy, Refioring  the  Rights   of  the  Crown  3   for    if  we  take  away  aU 

Fffff  th« 


'774  ^f  the  Ecclefiafiical  JarifdiBion 


the  Papal  TJfurpatioMS  as  to  Appeals,  Exemptions  of  Per  fans,  Difpenfationf^ 
Prov'ifions,  making  Canons,  fending  Legates  to  hold  Courts,  to  call  Con- 
vocations, &c.  we  may  eafily  underfiand  what  the  Supremacy  «•,  viz.  a  Power 
of  Governing  all  forts  of  Men  according  to  the  Laws  Ecclefiaflical  and  Tern- 
poralf  without  any  Foreign  Jnrifdi^ion. 

But  as  in  Temporal  Matters  the  King's  Supreme  Authority  is  exercifed 
in  his  ordinary  Courts,  fo  likewife  in  Ecclefiaflical  ^  which  de- 
riving their  Jurifdidion  from  the  King  as  Supreme,  his  Supremacy  is 
preferved  in  the  ordinary  Ecclefiaftical  Courts :  But  as  to  extraordinary 
furifdiBion  that  depends  on  the  Legiflative  Power  ^  and  whether  that 
be  not  now  taken  away  by  it  is  the  thing  in  Queftion. 

Having  endeavoured  to  fet  this  Matter  in  as  clear  a  Light  as  I  could, 
I  now  return  to  the  Inftance  of  Edward  the  Confejfor. 

And  thofe  Words  of  his,  as  they  are  in  Hoveden,  fignify  no  more 
than  a  general  Right  of  prote&ing  and  defending  the  Church,  which  is  not 
denied  to  belong  to  Kings,  where  the  Pope's  Authority  is  the  moft 
owned. 

I  cannot  but  take  notice  of  a  different  Reading  in  the  Lord  Coke's 
Copy  from  all  that  I  have  feen  i,  for  where  he  hath  it,  SanHam  Eccle" 
fiam  regat  ^  defendat  ,  Lambard,  veneretur  d>^  reg  at  ^  but  Hoveden,  re- 
vereatur  d^  ah  injuriatoribus  defendat  ;  which  is  that  Right  of  ProteSioH 
^o^ami-^  which  is  allowed  by  all.     The  Spanifl)  Lawyers  hold.  That  there  lies  an 
Quzft. c.   appeal  to  the  Kings  Courts,  by  hk  Right  of  Prote&ion,  in  cafe  of  any  vi- 
3  J.  n.  3.    oletit  proceedings  in  the  Ecclefiajiical  Courts.     Which  Violences  are  fo  ma- 
ny, as  make  fuch  Appeals  fo  frequent  and  neceflary,  that  whole  Vo- 
deRe^gia  '""les  Iiave  been  written  about  them.    And  this,  they  fay.  Is  not  in- 
Prot.  ^art  trodu&ory  of  a  new  Law,  but  0r?ly  declaratory  of  a  natural  Right.     The 
p^f'"*^^;iv'e«(rA  Lawyers  aUow  Appeals  from  the  Ecclefiajiical  Courts,  tanquam  ab 
Cher.  J.  3.  abufu  ;  which  muft  be  founded  on  an  Original  Right  in  the  King,  to 
'•  33.       defend  the  Church  both  from  Injuries  and  Abufes.  And  as  to  the  Church 
it  felf,  it  is  fully  exprefled  in  the  Writ  de  Excommunicato  capiendo,  in 
the  Words,  ^ia  vero  potejias  Regia  Sacrofanctte  Ecclef<e  in  querclk  fuk 
deeffe  non  debet.  But  fuch  a  Right  of  ProteBion  and  Affifiance  is  different 
from  that  of  'jurifdi£lion  ;   unlefs  it  be  that  which  is  only  Coadtive, 
which  is  not  the  Jurifdiftion  we  now  enquire  into. 

But  it  is  moft  confiderable  that  King  Edward  faith,  Be  is  God's  Vicar^ 
and  therefore  could  not  look  on  himfelf  as  a^ingby  Commijpon  from  thePope. 
It  is  true,  that  in  the  third  Charter  of  ff'eftminjier,  there  is  a  Bull  ot  Ni- 
cholas the  Second,  wherein  he  gives  to  the  King  and  his  Succeffors,  the 
protection  and  defence  of  that  Place,  and  of  all  the  Churches  of  England, 
and  a  Power  in  hk  fiead  to  make  good  Laws,  with  the  Advice  of  the  Bi- 
fi^ops  and  Abbots  :  But  I  do  not  find  that  King  Edward  owned  that  he 
adfed  in  thefe  Matters  by  any  Commiflion  from  the  Pope,  but  from 
God  himfelf. 

And  this  Law,  in  Hoveden  dindt.  others,  overthrows  any  fuch  pretend- 
ed Commijflon  5  and  yet  the  Pope  himfelf  doth  not  give  him  a  Power  to 
delegate  his  Authority  to  others,  but  to  aft  in  it  himfelf,  and  that  only 
with  the  Advice  of  Bijhops  and  Abbots. 

The  Point  then  which  was  to  be  proved,  was  not  that  the  King  had 
Right  to  protea  the  Church  from  Injuries,  but  fuch  an  inherent  Right 
oi Eiclefajiicaljurifdiilion,  which  he  m\2,ht  delegate  X.0  others,  whether 
Bifjops  or  not,  and  impower  them  to  proceed  by  Ecclefiaftical  Cenfures 
agaiuft  Offenders,  fummoned  to  appear  before  them.   And  the  Queftion 

now 


with  Kefpe^  to  the  Legal  Supremacy.  77  s 


now  is  not^  Whether  by  the  Supreme  Legijlative  Foxver  oftheNation  fuch 
an  Authority  might  not  in  an  extraordinary  Cafe  be  committed  to  par- 
ticular Perfons^^  AQ  of  Parliament -^  but.  Whether  fuch  an  AilofPar- 
liameMt  being  granted  to  be  taken  away,  the  King  by  the  ancient  Law 
of  the  Realm  may  appoint  fuch  Commijfioners  as  he  thinks  fit,  Laymen 
or  Biftiops,  to  proceed  againft  the  Ring's  Subjefts  by  Ecclefajlical  Cen- 
fures  .<? 

And  this  very  dating  of  the  Cafe  as  it  ought  to  be,  (hews  how  im- 
pertinent the  remainder  of  his  Examples  are.  But  to  proceed. 
In  the  Reign  of  King  WilHam  the  Firji. 
In  the  time  of  William  the  Conqueror,  he  only  mentions  a  Cafe  out 
of  Fitz-Herhert,  That  he  made  an  Appropriation  of  Churches  with  Cure  to 
Ecclefiafiical  Perjfons,  viz.  to  a  Prebend  of  the  Church  o/York.  Nove  this^ 
faith  he,  -was  agreed  by  all  could  not  be  done  without  Ecclefiajlical  Jurif- 
di3ion. 

It  is  too  common  a  Fault  in  fome  great  Lawyers,  that  what  they 
find  once  fettled  for  Law  in  their  Books,  they  imagine  was  never  other- 
wife.  Thus  Appropriations  after  Dioceffcs  were  fettled,  being  looked  on 
as  chiefly  the  Aft  of  the  Ordinary,  who  is  to  take  Care  of  the  whole 
Diocefe ;  From  hence  they  infer.  That  in  all  Times  an  Appropriation- 
muft  argue  Eccle/iajiical  JurifdiSion.  But  before  the  Parochial  Rights 
were  eftablilhed,  there  were  many  voluntary  Appropiations  made  by  par- 
ticular Perfons,  who  thought  there  was  no  more  Ecclefiaftical  Jurif- 
didion  in  the  Appropriation  of  Churches,  than  in  the  Endowments  of 
them,  and  in  the  Right  of  Patronage  ^  only  the  one  is  fettled  on  a  Spi- 
ritual Corporation  as  perpetual  Incumbent,  and  the  Other  on  particular  Per- 
fons in  Succeffion.  It's  true,  fince  the  Afts  for  reftoring  JurifdiBion  to 
the  Crown,  the  Power  of  making  Appropriations  in  the  King  is  faid  to 
be  from  his  Supreme  Ecclefiafiical  Authority,  Grindon's  Cafe,  in  IP.  f.^^B. 
But  then  we  are  told,  It  was  becaufe  the  Pope,  as  Supreme  Ordinary^ 
had  fuch  a  power  without  the  Bifhops :  Which  Reafon  will  not  hold  as 
to  fuch  times  when  the  Pope  was  not  owned  to  be  Supreme  Ordinary^ 
as  he  was  not  in  the  Conqueror's  Time,  the  Canon  Law  not  being  then 
receiv'd  in  England. 

But  what  a  mean  Proof  is  this  in  fuch  a  bufy  Time  as  that  of  Wil- 
.  Ham  the  Firjl,  when  fo  many  great  Churchmen  were  deprived  of  their 
Biftiopricks,  being  EngUfh,  and  the  Normans  put  in  their  Places  >  Was 
this  done  by  any  Commiffion  from  William  to  his  great  Lords  and  o- 
thers,  to  proceed  againft  them  by  Ecclefiafiical  Cenfures  .<?  Nothing  like 
it.  Stigand,  Archbifhop  of  Canterbury,  (if  Spot's  Story  be  true)  was 
too  great  a  Friend  to  the  Enghjf}  Liberties  to  be  endured  by  him,  but  he 
was  too  great  a  Diflembler  to  fecm  to  have  any  thing  to  do  in  it  him- 
felf,  and  therefore  knowing  he  was  of  the  oppofite  Party  to  the  pre- 
vailing Pope,  he  privately  fends  to  him,  to  fend  a  Legate  for  that 
purpofe,  (wherein  the  Pope  and  he  had  their  feveral  Ends)  and  then 
in  Parliament  Time,  the  Ring  keeping  his  Eafier  at  Winchefier,  Stigand 
was  depofed,  and  Agilmanis,  Biihop  of  the  Eafi  Angles,  and  feveral  o- 
thers,  without  any  evident  Reafon,  faith  Hoveden,  but  only  to  make  way  Hovederi. 
for  thelAoxmans.  This  was  in  Cf^wa/jo  Magno,  faith  he  and  the  reft  ^Z- ^5?- ?■ 
for  E^afier  was  one  of  the  three  Seafons  for  the  Parliamentary  Meet- 
ing in  the  Year  ,  which  Wilham  kept  up  in  Imitation  of  the  Saxons^ 
who  at  Chriflmas,  Eafier,  and  Pentecofi,  held  their  publick  Courts,  and 
'did  wear  their  Crowns  till  the  Times  of  //.  2.  and  then  they  did  di- 

F  f  f  f  f  2  fpatch 


Of  tbe  Ecciefiaftical  Jurifdt^ion 


fpatch  Publick  Affairs.  Thus  far  he  complied  with  the  Saxon  Cuftoms, 
but  he  had  a  new  Work  to  do  :  The  Archbifhop  he  could  not  rely  up- 
on, and  therefore  was  put  to  find  out  a  new  way,  by  fending  for  a 
Legate  from  the  Pope  to  ferve  his  turn.  And  thus  William,  for  his 
own  Ends,  having  fo  hard  a  Game  to  play  here,  called  in  the  Pope's 
Afliftance,  who  knew  well  enough  how  to  draw  his  own  Advantage 
out  of  it.    But  William  would  go  no  further  than  his  Intereft  carried 

Ead./  6.  him  5  for  afterwards  he  declared,  That  he  would  maintain  his  ovpn  Rights 
which  he  enjoyed  in  Normandy,  viz,.  That  nothing  flmild  be  done  without 
him  in  Convocation  ;  no  Legate  come  hut  as  he  pleafed,  &c.  But  ftill  he 
feemed  to  let  them  enjoy  their  Saxon  Liberties  in  Matters  of  Ecciefiafti- 
cal Proceedings,  fo  far  as  to  have  them  debated  in  Parliament.  Thus 
the  Controverfy  between  the  two  Archbifhops  was  referred  to  Parlia- 

Hoveden,  ment,  the  King  and  the  Great  Men^  as  well  as  the  Bifiops,  being  prefent. 

f.  i<59.  _  The  Controverfy  between  Lanfrank,  Archbifiiop  of  Canterbury,   and 

Eadm./.p.  ^^^^  Bifhop  of  Baieux,  was  referred,  faith  Eadmeruf,  to  a  Conventits 
principum  at  Pinnedenen  ;  and  when  the  King  heard  their  Refolution, 
cum  confenfu  omnium  Principum  fuorum  confirmavit,  faith  the  Textiis  l^of- 
fenjis.     He  likewife  confirmed  Charters  as  the  Saxons  had  done  ;    that 

Selden.  ad  tO  Battel  Abby  was  Confilio  Epifcoporum  &•  Baronum  meorum.     But  the 

Eadmer./".  moft  confiderable  thing  he  did  as  to  Ecclejiajiical  Jurifdi&ion,  was  fe- 

^^^'  parating  the  Courts  Ecciefiaftical  from  the  Hundred  Courts,  by  his 
Charter  to  Remigitu  and  others ;  which,  he  faith,  was  granted  in  a 
great  Council,  and  by  the  Advice  of  the  Archbifiops,  Bijhops,  and  all 
the  Great  Men  of  his  Kingdom.  So  that  ftill  extraordinary  Afts  re- 
lating to  Church  Matters  were  pafled  in  Parliament  by  General 
Confent. 

And  what  now  doth  the  Appropriation  of  a  Church  with  a  Cure  of  Souls 
fignify  to  prove  his  Ecciefiaftical  Jurifdiftion  ?  When  thofe  things  in 
his  Time  were  not  brought  under  fuch  ftrift  Rules  as  they  were  after- 
wards 5  but  Appropriation  might  have  been  made  by  any  Lay-Perfon, 
that  never  pretended  to  the  leaft  Ecciefiaftical  Jurifdiftion  ^  and 
he  might  as  well  have  brought  his  demolifhing  fo  many  Churches 
in  the  New  Foreji,  for  an  Inftance  of  his  Ecciefiaftical  Jurifdi- 
61;ion. 

In  the  Reign  of  William  the  Second. 

In  William  Rufus  his  time,  a  great  Heat  arofe  between  him  and  An- 

felm,  kxcnhx^opoi Canterbury,  about  owning  the  Pope,  Whether  the 

Archbifiiop  could  do  it  without  the  King's  Confent  ?  TheBufinefs  was 

reierred  to  Parliament,  which  the  King  called  on  purpofe  at  Rocking- 

Eid.f.'iS'^^''*^  faith  Eadmeruf,  who  was  there  prefent;  The  Bifhops  declared  they 
could  not  deprive  him  Qis  the  King  would  have  had  them^  to  whom  they 

/.  30, 31.  had  promfed  Obedience.     After  which  it  was  again  referred  to  Parlia- 
38'       ment  5  but  Anfelm  not  yielding,  he  went  out  of  the  Land. 

In  the  Reign  of  King  Henry  the  Firfl. 
In  the  Reign  of  Henry  the  Firft,  a  new  Controverfy  arofe  between 
the  King  and  the  fame  Archbifhop  about  the  ancient  Right  of  the 
Crown,  as  to  Invejllture  of  B'fiops.     The  King  calls  a  Parliament  a- 

td./(5y,  bout  it,  wherein  the  Bi/Jjops  and  Lords  Joined  with  the  King.  After- 
wards Anfelm  defired,  The  Advice  of  the  Bifhops  and  Nobles  might  be 
heard  at  Eafter  5  which  fliews  that  both  Sides  referred  it  to  the  Par- 
liament, 

la 


M 


with  Refpe^  to  the  Legal  S&premacy.    ■         777 

In  his  time  a  Council  was  called,  and  feveral  Canons  pafled,  and  the 
Archbifhop  defired  of  the  King,  That  the  Primates  Regni  rpight  fit  with     67, 
them  5  that  all  things  might  pafs  utriufque  Ordinis  concordi  cura^    with 
the  Confent  of  bothEjiates.     The  King  afterwards  takes  the  Advantage  of 
thefe  Canons,  and  profecutes  the  Breakers  of  them,   and  raifes  Money    /.ss, 
upon  pretence  of  Forfeitures,    to  the  great  Grievance  of  the  Clergy. 
Atifelm  although  then  in  Disfavour,    writes  to  the  King  about  it,   and 
tells  him.  This  was  a  new  Method  of  Proceeding,  becmfe  it  belonged  to     86, 
the  Bifhopi  in  their  Diocejjes  to  call  the  Clergy  to  an  Account ;    or  if  they 
neglefted,  to  the  Archbifhop  and  Primate.     The  King  Anfwers,  That  hit 
Barons  were  to  meet  hita  en  Afcenfion-day,  and  by  their  Advice  he  would     <)q^ 
give  an  Anfwer  5  but  upon  Anfelm's  fveturn  this  Profecution  ceafed.  O- 
ther  AfFairs  of  the  Church  were  then  referred  to  the  Parliament  at  Ea- 
Jier^  from  thence  to  Pentecofl,  and  by  reafon  of  Anfelm's  Sicknefs  to  Au-     91. 
gyfi  5  and  then  the  Bif)vps,  Abbots  and  Lords  of  the  Kingdom,  met  in  the 
King's  Palace  at  London,  and  by  Confent  of  i  arliament,    Invejiiture  was 
turned  into  Homage;  ^ 

In  his  time  the  B'lfljoprich  of  Ely  was  erefted  by  the  King's  Confent  in     95, 
Parliament,  Regt,   Archiepifcopo,  aeterifque  Principibus  Regni  vifum  fuit, 
faith  Eadmeruf.     The  Confecration  of  an  eleft  Archbilhop  of  Tork, 
was  tranfaded  in  Parliament,    the  Kmg  adviftng  with  the  Btfhops  and    102, 
Nobles  about  it ;  for  Anfelm,  before  his  Death  had  fent  an  Inhibition  to 
the  Bifhops,  not  toConfecrate  him  unlefs  he  made  the  Profeflion  ofO- 
bedience  to  the  Archhiihop  of  Canterbury :    The  Bifhops  refolved  to 
adhere  to  ^«/e/z^'s  Inhibition,    and  the  King  yielded.      After  Anfelm's 
Death,    the  King   advifed  with  his  Parliament  at  Windfor,    about  a     icp, 
SuccefTor  to  him  ;   and  the  Bilhop  of  Rochejier,    at  the  Requeft  of  the 
Bifliops,    was  agreed  upon ;    And  the  King  filled  the  Abbies  before 
he  went  into  Normandy,    confilio   Principttm  C^  Epifcoporum  fttorum.       ""• 

In  the  latter  End  of  jtfe»rj»  the  Firft,  thany  Difputes  hapned  about 
Ecclefiajiical  Jurifdi&ion,    as  between  the  Bifhops  of  St.  David's  and 
Glamorgan,     which  were  debated   in    magna  Placito   apud  London  , 
faith  Henry  of  Huntingdon  :     And  for  juch  Caufes,    faith   he,    ano'  Hen.Hunt,' 
ther  Affembly  was  held  in  the  beginning  of  Lent,     and   again  in  Roga- ^^  •^' ^^°' 
tion  Week. 

In  all  this  time,  when  the  Norman  Kings  afferted  all  the  Rights  of 
Sovereignty  with  great  Zeal,  yet  they  never  pretended  to  appoint  a- 
ny  Commijfioners  for  Ecclefiafiical  Caitfesy  but  [fill  referred  them  to  Par- 
liament. 

In  the  Reign  of  King  Henry  the  Third. 

The  next  Inftance  the  Lord  Coke  brings,    fairs  as  low  as  the  Time  of 
Henry  the  Third.     The  firft  whereof  is,    the  King's  granting  a  Writ  of 
Prohibition,    if  any  Man  fued  in  the  Ecciefafiical  Court  for  any  thing,    of 
which  by  Allowance  and  Cujiom,  it  had  not  Lawful -lOgnizance.     But  how- 
doth  the  Kings  Power  ot  granting  Prohibitions^    prove  his  Ecrlefiafiical 
Jurifdiition }^  It  efFeftually  proves  the  Kings  Right  to  preferve  his 
Crown  and  Dignity ,  as  the  Prohibition  implies  ^i   buc  how  doth  it  hence 
appear,  that  the  Ecclefiafiical  JurifdiQiot  comes  from  hisCrown  and  Dig- 
nity ^     Thecoiur-iryfeems rather  to  follow,  Wz..    Th^t  the  Ecclefiafii- 
cal Courts  were  held  from  another  Power  5  but  all  Matters  of  Temporal  ' 
Cognizance  did  belong  to  the  Crown.    There  is  no  Qiicftion  but  fince 
the  Aftsfor  re^oringjurifdidion  to  the  Crown,   the  Supreme  Jurifdi- 
etioa  both  in  the  Ecclefiajiical  and  Civil  Courts,    is  derived  from  the 

Crowm 


qq^        ■  Of  the  Eccle(iaftudl  Jarifdi^ion 


Crown.     And  in  who fe-foever  Nrfwe/ the Ci'wrf rare  kept,  the  Aitthori- 
ty  of  keeping  them  is  from  the  King.    For  it  is  declared  by  Aft  of  Parli- 
ament, I  E/ia.  I.  17.  That  all  Eccle/iajiical  Porver  k united  and  annexed 
to  the  Imperial  Crown  of  this  Realm  ;  which  all  Bilhopsdo  own,  in  talcing  - 
the  Oath  of  Supremacy ;    and  therefore  the  old  Form  continuing,  can  fig- 
nifie  nothing  elfe  againfl:  the  Latv  of  thk  Realm  and  their  ownOathf. 
But  as  long  as  the  main  Points  were  fecured  by  the  Laws,  there  was  no 
neceffity  apprehended  of  altering  the  Forms;    for,  on  the  other  fide, 
it  was  objefted,  that  fince  the  Laws,  had  placed  all  Jurifdiftion  in  the 
Crown,  it  feemed  as  unreafonable  to  continue  the  old  Form  of  Prohibi- 
tions in  l£ponem  Corona  &  Dignitatis  Regime  ;     how  can  this  be,    fay 
they,  when  the  Jurifdiction  Ecclejiafiii  at  as  well  as  Civil,   is  owned  to 
be  frorg  the  Crown  ?     Itisfaid  in  Anfwer,  That,  a  Prohibition  implies 
that  the  thing  is  drawn  into  aliudExamen  than  it  ought  to  be,    and  this 
19  contra  Cor  onam  &  Dignitatem  Regiam.    Why  not  then  as  well  when 
an  Ecclefaftical  original  Caufe  is  brought  into  a  Temporal   Court  >    for 
that  is  aliud  Examen  then,  by  Confeffion  on  that  fide  5  and  if  Ecclejia- 
Jiical  Jurifdiction  be  derived  from  the  Crown,  the  aliud  Examen  muft 
relate  only  to  the  Court,   and  not  to  the  Crown,     All  that  I  infer  from 
hence  is.   That  the  old  Forms  were  thought  fit  to  be  continued  ;    and 
both  Parties  reconciled  them  as  well  as  they  could  to  the  Laws  in  force. 
Coke  »     But  the  Judges  confefTed,    That  although  de  jure  both  the  Jurifdiifions 
lnn.f.6o2.  ^gyg  g^^f,  i„  ffjg  Crovpn,   yet  the  one  teas  fometimes  ufurped  by  the  See  of 
Rome,  which  is  a  plain  acknowledgment,    that  by  the  Matters  of  Fac^: 
in  thofe  times,    the  Right  could  not  be  proved ;   and  efpecially  in  the 
times  of  H.  5.  when  the  Pope's  Ufurpations  here,  were  at  fo  great  a 
height,  that  the  King  upon  Writs  of  Enquiry  fent  into  the  feveral  Coun- 
ties, found,  That  the  Revenues  of  the  Roman  Court,  b)  Provi/ions,  Ex- 
tortions, &c.  exceeded  the  Kings.     And  the  King  had  fo  little  Authori- 
ty^ left,    that  the  Pope  put  Bilhops  upon  him  Rege  penitus  irrequijito^ 
Mat.wefl.  faith  Mat.  Wejlm.  fo  that  he  was  fo  far  from  Ecclefiuftical  Junfdi^iotr, 
^*  ^^°'     that  he  had  not  the  Nomination  of  his  Bifl}ops,  nor  fo  much  as  a  Confent 
to  their  Ele&ion,    unlefs  the  Pope  thought  fit  fometimes  to  gratifie  hitn 
in  it.    For  the  Pope  pretended  to  the  Right  of  Difpofal  of  Church  Pre- 
ferments, by  Vertue  of  his  Ordinary  Jurifdi^ion,  which  was  faid  to  be 
twofold.     I.  Voluntary,  in  the  Collation  of  Benefices.    2.  Judicial,  in 
the  hearing  of  Caufes ;  the  former  might  be  done  at  Rome,   but  the  o- 
Braft./.  5.  ther  in  the  Ordinary  Ecclefiaflical  Courts.     And  Bra&on,    who  was  a 
p.  5.  c- 15- Judge  in  his  time,  owns  the  Pope  as  much  to  have  the  Ecclefaftical  Ju- 
rifdi&ion,  as  the  King  had  the  Temporal  5   but  yet  he  adds.    That,  if 
an  Ecclejiajiical  Judge  did  meddle  with  Matters  out  of  their  Cognizance, 
the  King's  Prohibition  did  lie  agaif7/i  him,  and  he  ought  to  fuperfede  his  Pro' 
ceedings  till  it  were  tryed  in  the  Kings  Court,  to  whom  the  Jurifditlion  be- 
.    longed.     But  it  is  ftill  harder  to  prove  the  King's  Eccle/iaftical  Jurifdi&i- 
on,  becaufe  the  Spiritual  Courts  were  to  certifie  the  Kings  Courts,  in  cafe  of 
B'gamy,  Baftardy,    and  fuch  like.    For  the  Queftion  is  not  about  their 
Temporal  Subje&ion  to  the  King  in  fignifying  the  Sentence  of  the  Court ^ 
but  whence  they  derived  their  Authority  of  holding  the  Ecclejiajiical 
Courts-^  over -which  Br  a^  on  ^aith,  the  Popehad  the  ordinary  JurifdiSiorr, 
and  the  Power  to  delegate  others  to  execute  it. 

What  doth  it  fignifie  to  the  Kings  Eccle/iaftical  Jurifdi&ion,  that  the 
Barons  ^/England  would  not  receive  that  part  of  the  Canon  Lavp  which  con- 
cerned    the  Legitimation   of  Children  born  before  Wedlock  ?      For   it 

de- 


with  Refpe^  to  the  L^gal  Supremacji  77^ 


depended  upon  the  Barons  Confent^  Whether  a  Canon  of  the  Church 
ihould  be  made  th&  Law  of  the  Land  concerning  the  Rights  of  Inhe^- 
ritance. 

In  the  Reign  ofKng  Edward  I. 

In  the  Time  oiEd.  I.  we  may  expeft  fome  brisker  Sallies  towards 
the  Kingdoms  Deliverance  from  the  Pope's  Ufurpations,  which  were 
thought  fo  intolerable  even  by  the  MonkijJj  Hifiorians,  in  his  Fathers 
Reign. 

What  that  Bull  was,  the  bringing  whereof  the  Law-Boohs  fay,  was  theft  i.  AfTii". 
adjudged  Treafon,  it  would  have  been  worth  our  while  to  have  known.  joM-^-ph 
For  it  is  hard  to  imagine  that  at  that  time,  the  meer  bringing  a  Bull,  xu^p^'' 
fljould  be  fo  Capital  a  Crime,  when  fo  many  were  brought  without  dan-p/.  "lo.  * 
ger  both  before  and  after.     But  it  feems  by  the  Certificate  of  the  Judges 
concerning  it  (  ftill  in  the  Tower  )  the  Matter  of  it  was  very  prejudici- 
al to  the  Crown.     And  if  argues  no  Spiritual  Jurifdidion  for  Princes  to 
examine  and  refufe  (when  they  fee  Caufe)  Bulls  that  come  from  Rome. 
For  this  is  pra^ifed  in  thofe  Countries  which  profefs  Obedience  to  the 
Trope's  Jnrifdi&ion.     Covarruvias  affirms  it  of  Spain.     In  Portugal,    when  covarruv. 
John  the  Second  would  have  given  up  that  Right  to  the  Pope,    the  E-  Part.Q.c. 
fiates  of  the  Kingdom  would  not  permit  him.     Peter  the  Second,   Duke  of  ^*"  "'  '''^' 
Britain  forbad  receiving  any  Bull  before  Examination  by  his  Council,  un-  Jus  Bel- 
der  pain  of  Corporal  Vtinifhments,  and  Conjifcation  of  Goods,     Ant.  Faber^^'f'^?^ 
faith,  in  Savoy,  No  Bulls  have  Authority  there,    till  they  are  approved  by  ad  Tit. 
the  Senate,    and  an  Appeal  lies  from  them,   tanquam  ab  Abufu.     Even  in  ^°''*  f^  ^ 
Naples  it  felf,  Ferdinand  the  Catholick  King,    gave  a  fevere  Reprimand  ^^^fi 
to  his  Vice-Roy^    for  not  hanging  up  a  Perfon  who  would  have  executed  Dei.  3,  <ti 
a  Bull  without  his  Authority.     The  Letter  it  felf  is  Publi(hed  in  the 
Juf  Belgarum  ;  where  many  other  things  may  be  feen  to  the  fame  pur-  p.  72, 
pofe. 

The  Right  of  Patronage  is  a  Civil  Right  in  Princes  as  well  as  others  5 
and  therefore  E.  i.  without  pretending  to  Ecclef/ajiical  Jurifdi^ion, 
might  juftly  punifli  the  Archbijhop  of  York  for  his  obftinate  refufing  to 
admit  the  Rings  Clerk  becaufe  of  a  Papal  Provifion. 

The  Statute  of  B  gamy  might  very  well  be  interpreted  in  Parliament, 
and  yet  the  Ring  have  no  Ecclefiafiical  Jurifdi&ion.  For  it  was  no  more! 
than  declaring  in  what  fenfe  a  Law  fhould  be  taken,  i.  e.  Whether  it 
(hould  extend  to  Bigamy  before  the  Conftitution  of  the  Council  of  Lyons^ 
or  after. 

The  Adl  of  Parliament  made  at  Carlifle,    35  E.  i.  againft  Aliens  pof- Covu.  __ 
fejfing  Benefices,    is  no  more  than  hath  been  done  in  Countries  where  ^'■"•St 
the  Popes  Jurifdiftion  is  the  mod  owned.     As  in  Spain,    Covarruvias  sut^'po- 
faith,  They  have  Prefription  and  pragmatical  San^ions  againft  Aliens  pof-^on.p.ioii 
fefmg  Benefices.    The  Laws  of  Poland,    and  many  Ediiis  in  France  ex'  ^e  Liber"- 
i^W^Q.  Strangers.  tesdel'Eg- 

But  I  fhall  now  produce  forae  confiderable  Precedents  in  the  time  of '^•*^*'' 
Ed.  I.  to  (hew,  that  the  Proceedings  againft  the  .(4rcAZ'//7j^/»/ and  £j/7w/jj'^'''*"'^°' 
for  Mifdemeanors  or  Contempts,    was  in  Parliament,  and  not  by  Com- 
miffioners    (  the  inferior  Clergy  being  left  to  the  Jurifdiftion  of  their 
Ordinaries.) 

5  Ed.  I.  E.Warren  complained  to  the  King,    That  the  Anhbijloop  of 
Canterbury  had  contemned  his  Orders  in  not  taking  off  Excommunication 
fromfome  of  his  Servants:   The  King  fends  to  him  to  proceed  nofurther 
againft  the  Earl  or  his  Servants  ufqtie  ad  Parliamentum,  where  the  Mat- 
ter 


780  Of  the  Ecciefeafticl  Jiirifdi^ion 


ter  of  Contempt  rtiight  be  debated.  But  in  the  mean  time  the  Arch- 
bifhop  fends  to  the  Ring  a  true  Account  of  the  Matter,  and  how  far 
he  was  from  Contempt  ^  which  is  ftill  extant  in  the  Records  of  the 
Tower. 

ciau.  7E.     7  E.i.JohftPeckam,   Archbifhop  of  C^w/cr^wr;/,    was  fummoned  to 

'•  Parliament,  to  anfwer  to  a  Charge  ofMifdemeanors  againft  him,  for  fome 

PaiTages  in  the  Council  at  Reading  ^  which  he  was  fain  to  revoke,  and 
to  declare  that  no  Articles  there  pafled,  ftiould  create  any  Prejudice 
to  the  Crown  or  Kingdom. 

8  E.  I.  The  Archbiftiop  went  about  to  Vifit  the  King's  Free  Chap- 
pels  :  The  King  hearing  of  it,  fent  a  Writ  to  him,  to  forbear,  «y^«c 
ad  proximum  Parliamentum  5  ut  tunc  ex  unanimi  d^  mutuo  confenfn  provi' 
deamus  quid  fieri  debeat  in  Pr^miffis. 

piacit.  2 1  £.  I .  'John  Roman,  Archbifliop  of  Torh,  was  Attached  upon  a  Con- 

i*!*/ ijj^  tempt  for  Excommunicating  the  Bithop  of  Durham,  while  he  was  in 
the  King's  Service.  And  after  a  full  Hearing  in  plena  Parliamento,  he 
was  condemned,  and  upon  Submiflion,  was  Fined  to  the  King  four 
thoufand  Marks 

28  £.  I.  A  Controverfie  arofe  between  the  King  and  the  Bifhop  of 
Chichejier,  about  his  refufing  to  admit  a  Perfon  prefented  to  a  Prebend 
in  the  Free  Chappel  of  Hayings  5  the  King  fends  his  Writ  to  the  Warden 
of  the  Cinque-Ports  (  extant  in  the  Tower  among  the  Writs  of  that 
Time  )  to  enquire  into  this  Matter,  and  to  bring  an  Account  next  Par- 
liament,  ad  quod  pr^di^um  Epifcopum  adjornavimus,    are  the  Words  of 

FarilaS-E.  the  IVrit :    And  that  the  Bufinefs  was  heard  in  Parliament,  appears  by 

I.  /.  2j7.  the  Records. 

ciauf.  31       31  £.  I.  The  King  feized  on  the  Temporal  ties  of  the  Bifhop  of  Dur- 

E.i.m.6.^am,  upon  a  Judgment  given  againft  him  in  Parliament,  for  extending 
his  Spiritual  Jurifdiftion  too  far  5    as  appears  by  the  Record  of  the 
Concord  made  between  the  King  and  him. 
In  the  Reign  ofKingEdward  the  Second. 

In  the  Reign  of  K.  E.  2.  nothing  is  produced  but  the  Statute  9  E.  2. 
for  Regulating  the  Proceedings  between  the  Civil  and  Ecciefiafiical  Courts, 
But  how  the  King's  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdiftion  is  proved  hereby,  is  ha  rd 
to  underftand.  It  appears  indeed,  that  the  Ecciefiafiical  "^urifdi&ion  \% 
allowed  and  limited  by  Parliament.  But  from  hence,  faith  he,  it  fol- 
lows, that  thefe  Laws  may  be  called  the  King's  Ecciefiafiical  Laws,  or  the 
Ecclefiaftical  Laws  <?/England. 

There  is  no  queftion  but  they  may  ;  But  there  is  a  Difference  be- 
tween Laws,  fo  called  by  Acceptation  and  Allowance  ;  and  fuch  as  have 
their  whole  Force  and  Authority  from  the  King.  For  otherwife,  where 
the  Pope's  Jurifdiftion  is  owned  and  received,  the  Pope  muft  receive 
his  Authority  from  the  King.  But  a  Liberty  to  exercife  Authority,  and 
deceiving  Authority  are  two  Things. 

In  the  Time  of  H.  3.  many  things  are  alledged,  and  to  no  purpofe  5 
but  yet  a  fhort  Anfwer  will  ferve.  If  the  firft  Inftance  doth  hold,  viz,. 
That  the  Sentence  of  Excommunication  by  the  Archbifliop,  holds  againft  the 
Sentence  of  the  Pope  or  his  Legae,  it  only  proves  that  the  Ecclefiajiical 
Jurlfdi&ion  here  by  Law  is  in  the  Archbiftiop,  and  not  in  the  Pope  or 
his  Legate.    But  there  may  be  another  Reafon,  mentioned  by  Fitz.  Her- 

16E.  ?.     l,ert,  viz.  That  the  Certificate  of  the  Archbijhop  might  be  more  authentick 

com.  4I  '  f^<^"  '^^  ^^^f^  ^f^  Legate, 

The 


with  Refpeti  to  the  Legal  Supremacy.  7  8 1 


The  fecond,  fixth,  and  eighth  or\\y  ^provQtht  K.ingSuprehtePatyo», 
and  a  Right  of  Patronage  is  diftinft  from  a  Right  of  Ecdefiajllcal  Jurif- 
diHion  5  and  fo  it  was  refolved  in  Grendons  Cafe,  PI./  498.  That  the 
King  prefents  by  Lapfe  as  fupre/ae  Patron,  and  not  as  fupre/he  Ordinary : 
For  this  belongs  to  him  as  King,  the  Land  on  which  Churches  are  built 
being  originally  held  of  him^  and  this  Right  the  King  enjoyed  when 
the  Pope  was  owned  to  be  Supreme  Ordinary.  But  in  the  Cafe  of 
his  own  free  Chapels,  Fitz-Herberi  faith  right,  ThatinCaje  of  Lapfe  by 
the  Dean,  the  King  prefents  as  Ordinary ^  the  Archbilhop  and  Biftiop  ha- 
ving no  Authority  there  as  Ordinaries. 

The  third,  fourth  and  fifth  are  about  Exemptions  from  Epifcopal  Jh- 
rifdiSions  granted  by  the  King,  efpecially  in  hisownjS-e^  Chapels,  which 
are  only  vifitable  by  Comm'ijfton  from  the  Ring.  But  this  Very  Pretence 
of  Exemptions  from  Epifcopal  Jurifdi£iion  was  founded  uport  the  Belief 
of  the  Pope's  being  Supreme  Ordinary  5    for  exempt  Places  were  not 
fuppofed  to  be  free  from  all  Ordinary  JurifdiSion,  but  from  that  of 
Inferior  Ordinaries,  being  immediately  fubjeft  to  the  Pope.     A  B/Jhop^ 
by  the  Carn^n  Lavp,  may  grant  an  Exemption  from  his  Right  of  Jnrifdi-^^^^^'^^ 
Uion,  but  not  from  his  Right  of  Vifitat'ion,   but  the  Pope  from  both. ^^^„"'y'" 
And  in  the  Grant  of  Exemption  the  immediate  Subjeftion  to  the  Ro- 
man See  is  exprelTed.     As  to  the  Kings  free  Chapels,  their  Exemption 
was  by  an  exprefs  Bull  <?/ Innocent  ///.  to  King  John-j    and  in  the^^^'^Jj^'^" 
Cafe  of  the  free  Chapel  of  St.  Mirtins,  Henry  III.  granted  a  Prohibition,hix.\z.H'i 
wherein  it  is  inferted,  That  it  was  a  free  Chapel,  8c  ab  omni  Jurifdidione  3'  ">•  i®* 
Epifcopali  per  Sedem  Apoftolicam  exempta.     And  45  Hett.  3.  in  a  Pro- 
hibition concerning  the  free  Chapel  of  Wolverhampton,   the  Grant  of 
Innocent  III-  is  repeated. 

The  Right  to  extra-parochial  Tithes  is  prov'ifional,  and  not  by  way  of 
Inheritance-^  and  fo  it  may  belong  to  the  King,  although  he  have  no 
Ecclejiajiical  Jut-ifdiction. 

As  to  the  fevere  Pro.  eeding  aboUt  Bulls  from  Rdnle,  I  haVe  given  an 
Account  of  that  already  in  E.  i. 

The  anointing  of  Kings  proves  no  more  their  Capacity  of  Spiritual 
Jurifdiction,  than  it  proves  the  Kings  of  Ifrael  to  have  been  High' 
Priefts. 

There  is  no  doubt  the  Ecdefiajiical  Courts  may  be  limited  by  the  Laves 
of  the  Land  5  and  there  are  fome  Caufes  which  belong  to  them  not  o- 
riginally  of  a  Spiritual  Nature,  but  they  have  been  a  long  time  pof- 
k^td  of  them  by  Ciijhm,  and  are  allowed  by  Law  ;  which  is  well  ex- 
prefledin  24.  Hen.  8.  c>  12.  where  it  is  laid.  That  aS  Caufes  Tejiamenta- 
rj,  Caufes  of  Matrimony  and  Divorces,  lights  ofTythes,  Oblations,  and 
Obventions,  (the  Knowledge  vehereof,  by  the  Goodnefs  of  PriHces  of  this 
Realm,  and  by  the  Laves  and  Cujioms  of  the  fame,  appertaineth  to  the  Spi- 
ritual Jurifdi&ion  of  this  Realm)  fiaU  be  determined  voithin  the  King's  Jw 
rifdi&ion  and  Authority. 

It  doth  not  feem  probable.  That  the  King  by  his  own  Authority  would 
remove  Se.  ular  Canons,  and  put  in  Regular  ::,  when  fJoveden  faith,  irt  the  Hovedeiij 
fame  CafCj  H.  2.  did  it  by  the  Pope's  Authority,  and  with  the  free  Con-^'  3**- 
fent  of  the  Parties. 

The  Statutes  of  Provifofs  were  ejccellent  Statutes  5  but  ate  faid  to  be 
enafted  for  the  Good  and  Tranquility  of  the  Realm,  which  no  doubt 
the  Ring  and  his  Parliament  were  bound  to  take  Care  of.  But  they 
prove  no  more  Ecclefiaflical  Jurifdi^/on,  than  the  Pragmatick  Sanctons 

G  g  g  g  g  of 


782  Of  tk  Ecckfiaftical  Jarifdi^ion 

of  Lewis  IX.  and  Charles  VII.  in  Frat^ce  did,  which  were  of  the  fame 
nature. 

The  following  Inftances  in  other  Reigns,  are  many  of  them  of  the 
fame  kind  with  thofe  already  anfwered  3  but  what  feems  to  have  any- 
new  Force  fliall  beconfidered. 

In  the  Reign  of  King  Henry  the  Fourth. 
1  H.  4.  c.  1 5.  is  urged  to  prove.  That  the  King,  by  Confent  of  his 
Parliament,  did  dire^  the  Proceedings  of  the  Spiritual  Courts  in  Cafes  of 
Herefy,  and  other  Matters  mare  Spiritual  ;  but  it  is  evident  by  the  A&  it 
felf.  That  the  Spiritual  JurifdiBion  was  left  wholly  to  the  Ordinaries, 
and  only  an  Inforcement  of  it  by  the  Civil  Power  was  added  by  the  Law 
then  made  5  for  the  Words  are,  Whereas  the  Diocefans  ofthefaid  Realm 
cannot  by  their  Jurifdi^ion  Spiritual,  reithout  Aid  of  the  faid  Royal  Ma- 
jejiy,  fuficiently  correS,  &C.  Therefore  a  Porver  to  Imprifon  and  Fine  was 
given  to  the  Ordinaries  ^  who  might  before  have  proceeded  by  Ecclefi- 
ajiical  Cenfures  :    but  thefe  being  contemned  by  them,  the  Ordinaries 
called  in  the  Ajji^ance  of  the  Civil  Porver.     If  there  had  been  a  Power 
before  to  have  proceeded  againft  Hereticks  by  Common  Lan>,  when  con- 
vi£t  by  their  Ordinaries,  I  cannot  fee  any  Reafon  why  that  Law  (hould 
Braft.  /.  3.  |5g  njade.     In  Cafe  of  Apofiacy,  i.  e.  Renouncing  Chriftianity,  Bra&on 
Flee,  i.i.V  faith,  the  Perfon  convict  is  to  be  burned  ^  and  he  inftanceth  in  the  Dea- 
29.  n.  7.  con  Toho  turned  Jerp,  in  the  Council  of  Oxford :  And  Fleta  fpeaks  only  of 
Hor'n.cVz.  Apojiates,  whether  Clerks  or  others,  and  thofe  are  the  Mifcreants  in  Bri- 
seii.  2a.  ton  ;  and  in  Horn,  Herejy  was  then   the  fame  with  renouncing  Baptifm, 
or  turning  Jem>  or  Turk,  or  ufing  Sorcery.     But  after  Wickliff's  Time,  the 
Ordinaries  enlarged  the  Notion  of  Herefte,  and  took  upon  themfelves 
to  be  fole  Judges  in  it  5  and  for  all  that  I  can  fee,  the  Aft  2  H.  4.  owns 
this  to  be  part  of  their  Spiritual  Jurifdiction.    And  this  is  one  Rea- 
fon alledged  for  the  Repeal  of  this  Aft,  25'  H.  8.  c.  14.  becaufe  there 
is  no  Declaration  of  HereJ)  made  in  it,  but  it  is  left  to  the  Judgment  of 
the  Ordinary.     And  therefore  this  Aft  was  ill  thought  upon  to  prove 
the  King's  Ecclefiajlical  Jurifdiction. 

In  Henry  the  Seventh's  time  the  King  is  faid  to  be  perfona  mixta,  be- 
caufe he  hath  both  Ecclefiafiical  and  Temporal  Jurifdiction.  But  this  Ar- 
gument is  drawn  only  from  fome  occafional  Talk,  mentioned  in  the 
Year  Books,  10  Hen.  8.18.  Brian  faid.  That  a  fage  Doftor  of  Law 
.  faid  one  time  to  him.  That  Priefts  might  be  tried  at  Common  Law, 
Car  it  dit,  mod  Rex  eji  perfona  mixta,  car  eji  perfona  unit  a  cum  facerdoti- 
bus  faint  Eglyfe.  If  all  this  be  granted,  it  proves  no  more,  than  that 
the  King  hath  Jurifdiftion  by  his  Law  over  Ecclefiaftical  Perfons  5  which 
is  not  difputed. 


Chap. 


with  Kefpect  to  the  Legal  Siiprematj,  783 


Chap.   III. 

Whether  the  KJngs  Supremacy  by  Law  extends  to  the  Vifpen- 
fing  with  Lavps  5  Of  the  Nature  and  Original  of  the  ^ower  ; 
The  Incenfiftency  of  Juch  a  Difpenfing  Power  with  the 
Frame  of  our  Government. 

HAving  thus  far  proceeded  in  clearing  the  ancient  Legal  Supremacy, 
1  am  now  come  to  an  Inftance  of  greater  Weight  an^  Difficulty, 
and  which  will  therefore  require  more  Pains  and  Care  in  the  Examina- 
tion of  it,  viz. 

il  H.y,   12.  Bj  the  •Ecilefiafikal  Laws  allovped  within  this  Realm,  a. 
Prieji  cannot  have  fwj  Benefit  es,  nor  a  Baflard  can  be  a  Priefi  j    but  the 
King  may  by  his   EccleJiaJJical  Power  and  Jurifdi&ion  difpenfe  with  both 
thefe,  becaiife  they  be  mala  prohibita,  and  not  mala  per  fe. 
Here  we  are  to  enquire  into  thefe  things. 

(i.)  How  far  the  Ring's  Vower  and  Jarifdi&ion  did  extend  in  the  Ca- 
fes mentioned. 

(2.)  How  far  the  Reafon  here  given  will  juftify  a  Power  of  di^en- 
fing  with  Laws. 

(1.)  As  to  the  Cafes  here  mentioned  ^  there  is  no  doubt  but  theC<«- 
fionifls  made  the  Vower  of  Difpenfing  in  thefe  to  be  an  Argument  of  the 
Pope's  Supremacy,  or  the  Plenitude  of  hk  Power'.  But  doth  it  hence  fol- 
low. That  what  Princes  did  to  their  own  Subjefts,  as  to  the  qualifying 
them  for  a  Legal  Pojfejfton  of  Benefiics,  muft  argue  a  Supremacy  in  them 
over  Ecclefiaftical  Perfons  and  Caufes  ?    And  there  is  difference  to  be 
made  between  not  receiving  the  Pope's  Canons  in  particular  Cafes,  and 
a  Pffwer  of  d'fpcnfing  with  Ecclefiaflical  Laws.     If  the  Law  were  fo 
then,  as  isnoted  by  i*V«e«x,  in  ii  H.7.  12.  the  plain Confequence  is. 
That  the  contrary  were  no  part  of  ths  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  allowed 
within  this  Realm.     As  in  the  famous  Cafe  about  the  Canon  Law  con- 
cerning Baftardy,  when  the  Barons  faid,  Nolumm  leges  Anglia:  mutari  5 
No  Man  can  fay.  That  the  Barons  d/fpenfed  with  the  Pope's  Ecclefiafti- 
cal Laws;  but  that  they  refufed  to  execute  them  ;  for,as  itis  well  ob» 
ferved  in  Standijh's  Cafe,  in  Kelivays  Reports,  7  H.  8.  Ecclefiaflical  Laws 
have  no  force,  where  the  General  Pratli^e  hath  been  contrary.   If  this  were 
no  more  than  a  private  Opinion  of  Fineux,  of  what  he  thought  the 
King  might  do,  altho*  there  were  no  Precedent  for  it,  then  it  fignifies 
little  ;  but  if  from  hence  it  appears  what  the  Common  Law  of  England 
was,  then  it  follows,  That  this  was  not  received  at  that  time  for  the 
Ecclefiafitcal  Law  of   this  Kingdom.  And  fo  Hobart'm  Colt  and  Glover's 
Cafe  underftands  it,  /  i^j.  for  he  produces  this  as  an  Inftance,  That 
the  Crown  always  kept  a  p'JfeJJion  of  its  Natural  Power  :    And  to  this  he 
adds,  a  power  of  Commendam,  or  retaining  a  Benefiie  with  a  BiJJjoprick, 
11  H.  4.  6c^.     This  he  calls  a  Power  of  Difpenfation  in  Spiritualibtff  z 
But  with  fubmiiifion  to  two  fuch  great  Men  in  the  Law,  If  the  Crowtt 
always  kept  a  Pojfejfion  of  thefe  Rights,  there  could  be  no  Difpenfation 
with  the  Ecclefiajiical  Law  in  thefe  Matters,  but  an  Exclufion  of  it. 


b 


ggg  2  hi 


Of  tbe  Ecc/efiaftka/  Jurifditiwi 


As  for  Inftance,  The  Kings  of  France  do  challenge  many  Privileges 
to  themfelves  in  their  Kingdoms,  in  plain  Derogation  to  the  Canon  Law  5 
and  for  thefe  Privileges  they  plead  an  ancient  Right  of  the  Croven^  or 
an  immemorial  Cuftom  :  As  in  the  great  Confroverfy  of  late  Years,  a- 
■t.  12.  ?•  bout  the  Rf^^/e,  the  Canon  Law  is  exprefs.  That  upon  Paht  of  ExcommH- 
^'"^'^'^^'  nication,  no  Lay  Per/on  whatsoever  /hull prefume  to  meddle  with  the  Pro- 
fits of  vacant  Bifjopricks -^  which  was  decreed  by  two  Popes  in  feveral 
Councils ;  Vrhan  11.  in  a  Council  at  Aitvergne^  MXCV.  ^nALlnocent\l. 
in  a  Lateran  Council  MCXXXIX.  both  entred  in  the  Body  of  the  Ca- 
non Law:  And  yet  the  Kings  of  France  infift  to  this  Day  on  the  Rights 
of  vacant  Sees,  as  belonging  to  them.  But  can  this  be  pleaded  as  a  Dif- 
penfing  with  the  Ecclefiaflical  Laws  allowed  in  that  Realm  .<?  No  ;  but 
that  this  part  of  the  Ecclefiaflual  Law  was  not  received  there  ^  for  that 
partly  by  the  Feudal  Right,  partly  by  the  Right  of  the  Crown,  partly 
by  immemorial  Cujiom,  the  Profits  of  vacant  Bifliopricks  accrue  to  the 
King. 

It  is  a  harder  Point  to  defend  the  Regale,  where  the  Cuftom  hath 
gone  along  with  the  Canon  ;  but  if  the  Flights  of  the  Crown  bd  de- 
fended in  France  againft  Cu/iom  and  Canon  too,  our  Kings  cannot  be 
blamed  for  refuming  other  Rights  after  fo  long  Ufurpation  by  the 
Popes.  But  where  the  Canon  Law  was  not  receiv'd  in  any  part  of  it,  there 
it  hath  no  Force  to  oblige  ;  and  where  there  is  no  Ecclefiaftical  Law 
in  Force,  there  can  be  no  difpenfwg  with  it ;  for  although  the  latter 
e.  cierici.  Canon  Law  doth  void  all  Cufioms  againft  the  Liberties  and  Privileges  of 
dejudici-  jj^g  Church,  Non  debet  in  hac  parte  Canonibus,  ex  aliaua  confuetudine 

IS.  C.  cum  '  .  ii-y^  •/I  ^       1    •      •        1 

cem  de  pr£judictum  generari,  yet  when  thele  Canonuts  come  to  explam  it,  they 
eleft.  c.  I.  tell  us^  j'fj^t  an  immemorial  Cnjiom  hath  Force  againft  a  Canon  5  but  how? 
Confiier.  Not  OS  a  Cuftom,  but  as  it  is  a  Proof  of  an  ancient  Privilege  granted  by 
the  Pope,  although  there  be  not  the  leaft  Footfteps  of  it;  And  fo  this 
Inftance  of  H.  7.  will  prove,  according  to  this  Way,  only  fome  an- . 
cient  Privilege  our  Kings  had,  and  noEcclefiafiical  jurifdiction  by  the 
Right  of  the  Crown. 

But  wiiether  the  King  could  difpenfe  with  the  Ecclefiaflical  Laws  m 
thefe  Cafes  or  not,  it  is  certain  the  Pope  challenged  to  himfelf  the 
Power  of  doing  it. 

For  after  that  the  Third  Council  of  Lateran  had  ftridly  forbidden 
Pluralities  (which  were  then  fo  common  and  fcandalous)  upon  pain 
of  Forfeiture,  Innocent  the  Third  complained  in  the  Fourth  Lateran, 
That  he  faw  little  or  no  Benefit  come  by  that  fever e  Canon  ;  and  therefore 
he  feems  to  make  one  more  fevere,  That  Whofoever  takes  another  Bene- 
fice, Jhal/ be  deprived  of  the  formeripi^o  jure '^  and  if  he  feel's  to  keep  it,  to 
loje  the  other.  Yet  after  all,  this  ends  only  in  the  Pope's  Power  to  di- 
fpenfe as  he  faw  Caufe,  with  Ferfons  of  greater  Rank  or  Merit^  and  greater 
Preferments. 
De  Muita  The  Words  are.  Circa  fubllmes  tamen  €^  liter  at  as  Perfonas,  qu£  ma- 
i^nA^'  J'^'''^"^  Beneficiis  funt  honorand£,  cum  ratio  poftulaverit,  per  Sedem  Apo- 
ftolicam  poterit  difpenfari.  Here  the  difpenfing  Power  is  fairly  owned 
in  the  Canon  it  felf. 

And  in  the  other  Cafe,  of  the  Incapacity  of  Priefthood  by  lUegitima- 

tion,  the  fame  ftout  Pope  declares,  That  it  was  in  his  Power  to  difpenfe 

with  that  too. 

c.innotuic     The  Cafe  was  this ;  The  Church  of  Worceftcr,  upon  the  Vacancy 

deEieft.  ^f  ^.j^g  g^^^  j^^j  chofen  the  Arch-Deacon  of  T'ork  for  their  Biftiop  5  he 

comes 


with  Kefpetl:  to  the  Legal  Supremacy.  785 

conies  to  the  kxc]\h\9aopoi Canterbury  for  Confirmation  •  but  fecretly 
ronfefies  to  him  his  Illegitimacy  -^  (which  came  to  the  Pope's  Ear.). 
Upon  Application  to  the  Pope  for  his  Confirmation,  he  demurs  upon 
it.  He  could  not  deny  that  he  had  all  other  Qualifications :  Butthere 
was  a  Canon  of  the  former  Lateran  Council^  which  voided  the  Ele6)-ion 
of  all  Perfons  Illegitimate.  So  then  the  Bufinefs  is  at  at  end.  Not  fo  nei- 
ther. His  Predecejjhr  could  not  hinder  him  fiom  Dif^enfing  in  thh  Cafe  5 
Toho  had  equal  Power  with  hintfelf.  And  there  were  many  Reafoni  to  i/rduce 
him  to  grant  him  a  D'fpenfttion.  Why  then  did  he  not  give  one  > 
There  was  fomething  elfe  to  be  done  firft.  The  Difpenjing  Power  muft  be 
owned  by  the  Church  of  Wonejier  :  And  therefore  they  muft  firfl:  in- 
treat  the  Pope  to  Difpenfe  with  him,  by  a  humble  Supplication  :,  and 
then  expeft  his  Favour  by  Poflulation.  And  fo,  for  the  prefent  he 
voids  his  Eledion. 

Matt.  Park  takes  particular  Notice,    That  in  the  Publication  of  the  Mat.  Paris, 
Decretals  by  Gregory  9.     This  Power  ofDifpenfng  in  thefe  two  Cafes,    was  ^^  '^'  ^' 
looked  on  as  a  great  Innovation^  but  fuch  as  brought  great  Advantages  '^^ 
to  the  Court  of  Ro/f!e. 

And  the  f.imePope,  fiith  Matt.  Weftminfler,  voided  theEIe(5lion  of^^"- 
John  Blond  to  the  See  o{  Canterbury,    becaufe  he  had  enjoyed  two  Benefices  ad  a.  D. 
with  Cure  of  Souls,  without  a  Difpenftt/on,     And  Stephanus  de  Segrave  ob-  '233- 
tained,  he  faith,  of  that  Popes  Nuncio  here,  a  Difpenfation  of  Tot  quot  5 
bnt  it  came  to  nothing  by  his  Sons  Death. 

Here  we  fee  a  Power  of  Difpenfing  with  Ecdejiajlical  Laws,  publickly 
owned  and  entred  in  the  Body  of  the  Canon-Law  5  and  that  by  virtue 
of  the  Plenitude  of  the  Pope's  Power,  which  could  not  be  bounded  by  the 
Canons  of  the  Church,  nor  by  the  Laws  of  his  Predeceflbrs ;  nor  by 
the  foleran  ProfefTion  every  Pope  makes  at  his  Entrance,  to  preferve  in- 
violably the  Canons  and  Conftitutions  of  his  Predeceflbrs. 

This  made  fo  great  an  Alteration  in  the  State  of  the  Church,  that 
it  is  no  wonder  great  Complaints  were  made  of  it  5  confidering  that 
the  Confequence  of  fuch  a  Power,  could  be  nothing  lefs  than  a  fubver- 
fion  of  all  Orders,  and  Canons,  and  Privileges  5  for  there  could  be 
no  Security  of  any  of  them  any  longer  than  it  confided  with  the  Pope's 
Pleafure. 

Hence  came  all  the  Complaint  of  Non-objiante's,  by  the  whole  EngUJh  iVTat.Paris, 
Nation  in  Parliament,    That  by  their  means  Oaths,    Cujioms,    Charters, pg.g^^^p'^ 
Grants,  Privileges  fignified  nothing  ^  for  the  Pope  could  Difpenfe  with  1251.?- 
hisownOaths  and  Promifes,  as  well  as  other  Mens;  and  fo  there  could  ^'^• 
be  no  Trufl:  in  any  thing  he  faid  or  promifed  in  never  fo  folemn  a  man- 
ner.    Which  is  an  effedual  courfe  to  overthrow  any  Government  in 
the  World.     And  it  is  a  wonder,  that  after  fuch  grofs  and  avowed  Vi- 
olations of  the  mofl:  foleran  Engagements,    Mankind  did  not  renounce 
all  kind  of  Society  with  him  :    For  that  is  founded  upon  Truft  in  Comi- 
pafts  and  Promifes ;  and  if  thofe  may  be  dilTolved  at  Pleafure,  there  is 
no  foundation  of  mutual  Society  left  5   there  being  no  reafon  to  expedt 
the  Performance  of  that  from  others,   which  they  do  not  think  thera- 
felves  obliged   to  do.     And  fo  fuch  a  Power  of  Difpenfing  with 
Obligations,    naturally  tends  to  a  Diffolution  of  Government.     For 
it  is  linking  the  m  'in  Pillars  on  which  the  whole  Fabrick  ftands  5 
which  will  tumble  down  fooner  or  later,    upon  the  heads  of  thofe 
who  do  it* 

But 


\ 

'■JS6  Of  the  Ec  deli  aft  ical  J ur  if  diction 


But  the  great  Argument  then  was,  That  Sup'eme  ^ower  cafinot  be  bound  ^ 

and  therefore  the  Popes  pleaded,    whatfoever  Canons  or  Laws  their 

Predeceflbrs  made,  they  could  not  tie  up  them  5    becaufe  Par  in  Farem 

non  habet  imperium  :    So  we  find  Innocent  5.  argued  in  the  Canon-Law. 

Mat.Paris,  ^^^  jq  jj^g  fgme  putpofe  Matt.  Paris  faith,    That  his  Succeffor  Innocent 

tSiV^^.  4-  did.    But  they  did  not  attend  to  their  own  Profeffions,    ftill  extant 

Diurnus    in  the  Liber  Diumui,  wherein  they  did  declare  in  the  moft  folemn  man- 

^°°^  •^°"ner.  That  theji  rvould  maintain  the  Canons  and  Conflitutions  of  their  Pre- 

decejjors.     Which  was  an  abfolute  Bar  to  M  Non- objiante's,   if  they 

aded  upon  Principles  of  common  Honefty  among  Men. 

But  befides  this,  in  Privileges  granted  to  others  upon  valuable  Confi- 
derations  (  which  the  Popes  took  care  of)  the  Perfons  to  whom  they 
are  granted,  become  Parties,  and  have  a  real  Intereft  in  them  5    fo  that 
they   become  of  the  Nature  of  Contra&s  ^     which  cannot  be  bro- 
ken without  plain  Injuftice,  and  diflblving  that  Obligation  between 
them. 
Ferrand.       It  is  agreed  by  the  moft  Learned  and  Judicious  Lawyers,    That  when 
Vafq.       Grants  or  Promifes  do  pafs  into  the  Nature  of  Contra&s^  they  are  irrevocable 
S^.fS  h  *^^  Parties  that  made  them.     And  this  the  beft  French  Canonifts  do 
2.  Pec.  de*  plead  againft  the  Pope's  Power  of  revoking  the  Gallican  Liberties,  fup- 
Concord^^  pofing  them  at  firft  to  have  come  from  the  Pope's  Condefcenfions  to 
Saceni.  &  them.    And  the  fame  Reafon  will  hold  as  to  other  Liberties. 
Imperii,        guj  here  lies  the  main  Difficulty,   to  (hew.    When  the  Grants  that  art 
1. 3.C.  10,  ^^^^  ^^  Superiors,    do  pafs  into  the  Nature  of  C antral s  ;    fo  that  they 


n.  2 


cannot  be  Revoked  or  Difpenfed  mth. 

The  fhort  of  it  is.  When  they  are  rather  Capitulations  than  Lan>s.  For 
Laws  are  properly  the  Commands  of  thofe  who  have  Authority  to  ob- 
lige ;  and  the  Reafon  of  the  Obligation  is  drawn  from  the  Authority  of 
the  Perfons :  But  Capitulations  proceed  upon  Confent  of  Parties  ha- 
ving differing  Interefts;  and  thefe  among  private  Perfons,  are  called 
Contrafts  ;  and  no  one  queftions,  but  that  fuch  all  Men  are  by  natural 
Juftice  bound  to  perform. 

But  the  Popes  infifted  on  the  Plenitude  of  their  Power  5  and  a  Que- 
ftion  is  put  among  the  Canonifts,  and  varioufly  debated  :  Whether 
//  the  Pope  fwear  to  fame  things  in  the  Conclave,  as  that  he  will  hold 
a  General  Council  within  fuch  a  Time,  he  can  Difpenfe  with  himfelf, 
or  not  .<? 

Some  fay,  he  is  guilty  of  Perjury,    and  cannot  abfolve  himfelf,  al- 
though he  ftiould  apprehend  that  a  greater  Good  would  come  by  not 
keeping  it.     For  thTt  both  Pope  and  Emperor  are  bound  by  their  own  Con- 
tra&s ;    the  keeping  of  them  being  a  part  of  Natural  Juftice,  which  no 
Plenitude  of  Power  can  Difpenfe  with  ;  fince  all  Contrafts  give  a  Right  to 
the  Perfons  with  whom  they  are  made  ^   infomuch,   that  Baldus  his 
Baidus,  in  Authority  is  cited  by  them  for  thefe  Words,    Contra&us  qui  fiunt  cum 
c.  2.  §.  Si-  'Pfi„Q]p^^  hahent  naturam  bon£  Fidei  contra  Dominum  ^    and  he  goes  fo 
de  Pace    far  as  to  fay,That  the  Sovereign  Power  kfo  obliged  by  the  Contia&s  made  by 
Conft.  In.  Prifjces  with  their  own  SubjeUs,  that  they  are  not  revocable  by  themfelves  or 
yo^^^^  I.  their  Succejfors  :     And  if  they  were  not  obliged  by  their  own  Contra^ s,  no 
I.  F.  De    M.an  could  trufi  them  5    and  confequently  all  Society  with  them,    would  he 
PHncip.    dtjfolved.     And  whatever  Supreme  Power  may  do,  as  to  fuch  Afts  as  are 
jjcobac.   properly  its  own,  yet  where  there  is  Jus  quajitum  alteri  (as  in  all  Con- 
be  conci-  jf^Q-g  ji^g^g  jg-)  j|.jgj  cannot  be  taken  away  by  it. 

j|is,  /  7»7* 

3J0.  C.  ■      ^ 

But 


with  Kefpe^  to  the  L^gal  Sapremacj.  787 

But  all  this  was  anfwered  on  the  other  fide,  by  the  Plenitude  of  the 
Pope's  Power  5  for  it  was  a(  ontradiftion,  they  (aid,  to  own  that,  and 
to  fay,  That  there  was  any  E?;gagetftent  by  Oath,  or  ctherwife,  tvhich  he 
could  not  D.fpertfe  with.  For,  as  Hank,  ii  //.  4.  37.  fays,  Papa  omnia  Hoh.  R 
poteff.  And  therefore  all  fuch  Oaths  and  Promifes  as'Jirait  the  Pope's/- 14<5- 
Difpenfing  Power,  are  void  in  themfelves.  And  as  to  EccleJiajUcal  Latvs 
or  ConftitHtions,  they  eafily  refoived  all  Difficulties  about  them,  upon 
fuch  Principles  as  thefe. 

T.  That  the  Popet  have  thefupreme  Power  in  the  Church. 

2.  That  the  Ecclejiaji/cal  Laws  were  the  Pope's  Lawx. 

g.  That  it  is  an  infeparahle  Prerogative  in  the  Pope  to  Difpenfe  with  Ec" 
defiajiical  Laws  upon  JSleceJJity  and  urgent  Occasions. 

4.  That  the  Pope  n  the  fole  "judge  of  that  Necejjity. 

5.  That  this  was  not  a  Truji  given  to  the  Pope  by  Councils  or  Coti- 
clavei,  but  by  God  and  St.  Peter,  dnd  therefire  cannot  be  taken  d- 
TPay  from  her. 

But  I  (hall  endeavour  to  give  a  clearer  Light  into  this  Matter,  by 
fliewing  the  feveral  Steps  and  Degrees  how  this  Difpenfing  Power  c^ms 
info  the  World,  and  how  it  pafled  from  the  Ecclefiaftical  to  other 
Laws,  when  Princes  afTumed  fuch  a  Plenitude  of  Power  in  Civ.ls,  which 
the  Popes  praftifed  in  Ecdefiafiicals. 

The  firft  time  we  read  of  Difpenfations  was  with  refpedt  to  the  An-  ^  r  ?.  r 
dent  Canons  of  the  Church  5  and  it  implied  a  Relaxation  of  the  Rigour  kit.  mii  ' 
of  them  5  not  with  refped  to  their  Force  or  binding  Power,  but  as  to^sof- 
the  Penance  which   Perfons  were  to   undergo  for    the   Violation 
of  them.  And  herein  the  Notion  of  Difpenfing  was  very  different  from 
what  the  Canonifts  made  it  afterwards,    when  they  declared  it  to  be  a 
Relaxation  of  the  Law  it  felf-^  fothatitlhould  not  have  that  Force  upon 
the  Confcience  which  it  otherwife  had  ;     For,    a  Difpenfation  with 
them,    is  a  Licence  to  do  that  which  they  cannot  lawfully  do  without  it  j 
and  that  with  a  non-objlante  to  that  which  otherwife  makes  it  Unlaw- 
ful.    De  Jure  illiiitHm  fit  ex  Difpenfatione  licitum,    d^  hie  efi  proprie  ef-  Praxis 
fectt4s  Difpenfationis,  faith  Pyrrhm  Corradus  5  who  gives  a  large  Account  ? '^^n"v 
of  the  Praftice  of  Difpenfations  in  the  Court  of  Rome,  which  conclude  carum° ' 
with  a  non-obfiante  to  any  former  Conftitutions  or  Canons  of  Councils :  Auftore 
But  no  fuch  thing  can  be  found  in  the  Ancient  Praftice  of  the  Church,  corrado, 
becaufe  the  Popes  themfelves  were  then  believed  to  be  under  the  Ca- 
nons.    But  when  it  was  fuppofed,    That  the  fevere  Execution  of  the 
Canons  would  rather  hinder  than  advance  the  Good  of  the  Church, 
the  Governoursof  it  thought  they  had  fufficient  Authority  to  abate  the 
rigorous  Execution  of  them  :    As  about  the  Times  of  Petinance,   the 
Tranfiation-of  Bifijops  from  one  See  to  another,  the  Intervals  of  Orders, 
and  fuch  like.    But  the  Popes  then  pretended  to  be  ftrift  Obfervers  of  c.  7.  q.  1^ 
the  Canons,  when  the  particular  Bifhops  took  upon  them  to  Difpence  '^-  p^"'^'- 
with  the  Execution  of  theni^  as  appears  by  Ivo's  Preface  to  h'lsCollecti- 
on  of  Canons, whcTehedi(\\ngu'i{hetb  the  Immoveable  or  Moral  Precepts 
from  the  Canonical  5  which  he  calls  Moveable.    In  the  former,   faith 
he,  no  Difpenfation  is  to  be  all  ©we'd  ^    But  in  thofe  things  which  of.ly  con' 
fer»Difcipline,  theBifliops  may  difpenfe,  provided  there  he  a  Compenfati- 
on,  i.e.  That  the  Church  s  Intereft  may  be  better  fecured  or  advanced 
thereby,  as  he  there  difcourfes  at  large  5   And  his  Rule  is,  Ibi  Difpenfa-  i^o  Epift; 
tio  admit  tend  a  efi,  ubi  rigor  periculofuselt :    But  by  this  means  the  Severi- 1^(>. 
ty  of  the  Primitive  Difcipline  was  quite  loftj 

The 


788 


Of  the  Eccleliaftical  Jiirifditlioii 


feernard 
de  confi 
der.  ad 
Eugeni. 


feernard 


The  Bifhops  of  Rome  obferving  this,  thought  it  a  proper  time  for 
them  to  appear  zealous  for  the  ancient  Canons,  which  gained  them  a 
great  Reputation  in  the  World  3  and  by  this  means  the  Cuftody  of  the 
Canons  was  looked  on  as  their  particular  Province  ;  Which  they  im- 
proved fo  well,  that  at  laft  they  turned  the  Guardianftiip  of  the  Canons 
into  a  Power  over  them  5  and  then  they  found  Fault  with  the  Biftiops 
Difpenfing  with  thera,  for  another  Reafon,  viz..  Becaufe  the  Difpen- 
fing  Power  was  a  Prerogative  of  the  Roman  See,  and  inferiour  Bilhops 
could  aft  no  farther  in  it  than  they  had  Authority  from  it. 

We  find  that  in  St.  Bernard's  time,  the  Pope  did  take  upon  him  to 
Difpenfe  too  far,  to  his  great  Diflatisfaftion  ;  for  bj  hu  Difpenfing 
Fower,  he  faith,  he  overthrew  the  Order  of  the  Church  5  Murmur  Lo*- 
quor,  faith  he^  &querimoniam  Ecclefiarum.  The  Pope  difpenfed  with 
the  Ecclefafiical  Laws,  in  Exemptions  of  Abbots  and  others  from  that  Sub- 
drdination  they  ftood  in  to  their  proper  Superiors :  He  faith.  He 
could  not  fee  how  thiie  Difpenfing  Power  could  be  jnflified  :  Tou  do  in- 
deed fl)ew  a  plenitude  of  Power,  but  it  may  be  not  of^ttjiice  5  you  JJjcw  what 
you  can  do,  but  it  is  a  ^ejiion  whether  you  ought  or  not  \  and  you  ought  to 
confider,firft,Whether  it  be  lawful '^  then.  Whether  it  be  decent'^  and  laji' 
ty.  Whether  it  be  expedient.  At  laft,  he  allows  a  Difpenfing  flower  in 
two  Cafes,  Urgent  Necejfity,  and  Common  Good  ;  otherwife  he  faith. 
It  is  not  fidelfs  Difpenfatio,  fed  crudelis  Dijfipatio,  an  overthrow  of  all 
Order  and  Government.  In  one  of  his  Epiftles  he  fpeaks  iharply  a- 
gainft  getting  a  Difpenfation  to  do- that  which  it  was  not  lawful  to  do 
without  one:  And  he  thinks  he  hath  difproved  it  by  invincible  Rea- 
fon, for  a  Licence  from  the  Pope  can  never  make  that  Lawful,  which 
without  it  were  Unlawful. 

WhenthePrafticeofthe  Difpenfing  Power  gr^^movQ  common,  there 
were  two  great  Queftions  raifed  concerning  it  5  whether  if  a  Difpenfa- 
tion were  granted  without  "Juji  Caufe,  it  were  Lawful  or  not  >  And 
whether  if  it  were  not  Lawful,  yet  it  was  valid  ^  There  were  fome 
who  fiattered  the  Difpenfing  Power  fo  much,  that  they  allowed  it  in  all 
Cafes,  whether  there  were  a  juft  Caufe  or  not :  Thefe  were  the  high 
flown  Canonifts,  who  refolved  all  Laws  into  Will  and  Pleafure  :  But 
others,  who  allowed  a  Difpenfing  Power  upon  a  JuftCaufe,  yet  thought 
it  repugnant  to  the  Original  Defign  of  Government,  for  thofe  who 
are  entrufted  with  Cafe  of  the  Laws  to  Difpenfe  with  them,  without 
fuch  a  Caufe  as  anfwers  the  End  of  Government  :  And  fome  went  fo 
far,  as  to  deny  any  Validity  in  a  Difpenfation  granted  upon  Pleafure  5 
for  as  an  unjuft  Law  hath  no  Force,  fo,  faid  they,  an  unjaft  Difpenfa- 
tion of  a  Good  Law  hath  none. 

Upon  this  Point  two  great  School-men  differ.    Suarez,  .whom  the 

'fg^'^g*''-  Lord  Chief  Juftice  Vaughan  commtnA^  for  his  Learning  in  this  Matter, 

vkughanl'  goes  upon  thefe  Grounds, 

Suar.c.18.  1.  That  2iPnncQ  is  not  Dominus,  fed  Difpenfator  Legum  i  although 
the  Force  of  a  Law  depends  upon  his  Authority  ;  and  therefore  in 
Difpenfing  with  a  Law  he  doth  not  A£l:  by  Abfqlute  Power^  but 
by  Adminflration :  For  he  is  not  Lord  over  the  Community,  but 
Governour. 

2.  That  for  him  to  Difpenfe  in  a  Law  made  for  the  Community,  with- 
out dijufi  Caufe,  is  not  only  malum  quia  prohibitum,  fed  exfe,  €^  ex  natu- 
ra  rei&  femper  malum:  Therefore  Suarez.  was  far  from  thinking  a 
PrincemightDifpenfe  with  any  thing  that  was  not  maUtmmfe-^  for  he 

makes 


Suarez  de 


n.6, 


tii  16. 


with  Kefpett  tu  the  Legal  Sapremacy.  -789 

makes  it  to  be  ^o,  for  him  to  difpenfe  with  a  mahm  qnia  prohibitum,  if 
it  be  prohibited  by  a  Law  made  for  a  publick  Good,  and  there  be  no 
juft  Caufe  for  it. 

T,.  That  although  a  Prince  fins  in  difpenptig  with  fuch  a  Law,  yethis^"^9-«'<^- 
rifpenfation  holds  as  to  the  Force  of  the  Law  t^  which  he  fuppofes  to 
depend  on  the  Will  of  the  Prince  5  and  therefore  his  Will  being  altered, 
the  Obligation  ceafeth  as  to  the  Perfons  difpenfed  with. 

4.  Thataltho'  fuch  a  Difpenfation  holds  as  to  the  Law,  yet  he  thinks    «•  ?• 
a  Prince  bound  in  Confcience  to  revoke  fuch  a  Difpenfation^  becaufe  it 

is  unlawful  for  him  to  perfift  in  fuch  a  Will,  it  being  repugnant  to  the 
Common  Good,  and  the  Obligation  of  his  Duty. 

5.  That  if  fuch  a  Difpcnfafion  be  to  the  Injury  of  a  third  Perfon,    u.  lo, 
then  it  is  void  in  it  felf,  as  being  repugnant  to  Jufiice. 

Vafquez,  faith,  They  are  all  agreed.  That  no  Prince  hath  a  Power  to  di-Y^p'^'^^ 
fpenfc  with  hk  haws  according  to  his  Pie  a  fur  e,  or  becaufe  they  are  his  Laws  :  c,  4,  n.j^* 
But  he  faith.  There  is  a  Difpute,  Whether  an  unlarvful  Difpenfation  be  va- 
lid or  not  .<?  And  he  thinks  not  ;  and  that  a  Man's  Adion  after  the  Df- 
penfation  is  as  faulty  af  if  there  had  been  none.  His  Reafon  is,  Becaufe  a 
Prince  is  bound  by  his  own  Laws,  fo  that  he  cannot  djpenfe  with  him  felf  en 
to  the  Obligation  of  them  5  for  if  he  could  at  Pleajure  difpenfe  with  himfelf, 
he  could  never  be  bound  ;  for  how  can  a  Man  be  bound  to  keep  a  Law,  in 
which  he  can  difpenfe  with  him  felf  when  he  pleafes  .<?  And  if  he  cannot  di- 
fpenfe with  himfelf,  much  lefs  with  any  under  him. 

Having  thus  endeavoured  to  clear  the  Nature  and  Original  of  the 
difpenfing  Power,  I  now  come, 

(2.)  To  the  Reafon  afligned  by  Sir  E.  Coke,  from  the  Tear  Books,  why 
the  Ring  may  difpenfe  with  Laws,  becaufe  they  be  mala  prohibita^  and 
not  mala  per  fe. 

My  Lord  Vaughan  faid  right  concerning  it.  That  this  Rule  had  more  Vaugh.  R. 
confounded  Mens  "judgments  on  thisSubJeS  than  re&ified  them.  ■'■  ^^^' 

Which  I  (hall  make  appear  by  (hewing, 

I.  That  it  alters  the  Frame  of  our  Government. 

n.  That  it  takes  away  all  Security  by  Law. 

IIL  That  it  contradids  the  Senfe  of  our  Nation  in  former  Ages. 

IV.  That  the  Rule  is  contrary  to  the  Precedents  in  Law. 

I.  That  it  alters  the  Frame  of  our  Government. 

For  it  goes  upon  a  very  falfe.  Ground,  viz..  That  the  King  may  di- 
fpenfe with  any  thing  which  is  not  evil  in  its  own  Nature,  or  antecedently 
to  any  Human  Laws  5  which  is  to  fuppofe  the  whole  Legiflative  Power 
to  be  lodged  in  the  Perfon  of  the  King. 

For  all  who  underftand  thefe  Matters  do  agree.  That  a  Power  to  di- 
fptnfe  with  Laws,  is  the  fame  with  a  Power  to  make  them. 

Difpenfare,  hoc  efl,  lege  folvere  k  folm  potejl ^  qfti  fcrend£  abrogandaq:,^^^^  ^^ 
legis  poteflatem  habet,  faith  H.  Grotius.  aquir.  In- 

Suarez.  faith.  He  hath  the  Power  of  difpenfing,  qui  legem  tulit,  f«"*'^'f|fg^^^/ 
ab  ejus  voluntate  C^  potentia  pendet.  2.  n.  10. 

Vafquez,  That  the  difpenfing  Power  lies  in  him,  qui  habet  potejiatem  Suarez  de 
condendi  C^  abrogandi  legem.  ^^^  „*  ^ 

Pufendorf  That  none  can  difpenfe  with  a  Law,  but  fuch  as  hav^  the  Pow-  vafquezr, 
er  of  making  if .  ^  sd^ifpna 

But  we  need  no  Authorities  in  this  Matter  :  For  to  difpenfe  (in  the  pufendorf 
Jenfe  it  is  here  taken)  is  to  take'  away  the  Obligation  of  a  Law ;  and  who-  dejurena- 
ever  takes  it  away,  mu(t  have  the  Power  of  laying  it  on.     And  there  'g^*"*'  ^  ,, 

H  h  h  h  h  isc.6.'r>.i7. 


7^0  Of  the  Ecclefiaflical  Jiirifdi^ioJi 

is  no  Difference  between  the  Difpcnfation  with  a  Law,  and  the  Abroga- 
tion of  it^  but  that  a  D;fpe»fafJoK  is  an  Abrogation  of  it  to  particular 
Perfons,  while  others  are  under  the  Force  of  it  ;  and  an  Abrogation  is 
a  general  Dijpenfation,  that  being  no  more  than  a  Relaxation  of  the 
whole  Law,  to  thofe  Perfons  who  were  bound  by  it  before  :  But  if  a 
part  of  the  Law  be  taken  away,  as  to  the  whole  Community,  then  it 
is  called  a  Derogation  of  it  5  but  if  the  Law  be  relaxed  only  for  a  limi- 
ted Time,  and  under  certain  Conditions,  then  it  is  not  an  Abrogation^ 
but  an  Indulgence  or  Siifpenjion  of  the  Law. 

To  difpenfe  with  a  Law  is  more  than  to  give  an  equitable  Senfe,  or  a 
favourable  Interpretation  of  a  Lawj  for  he  that  interprets  a  Law,  fup- 
pofes  his  Interpretation  to  agree  with  the  Senfe  and  Defign  of  the  Law  5 
he  that  difpenfes,  owns  that  which  he  difpenfes  with  to  be  againft  the 
Intention  of  the  Law,  but  that  he  hath  Power  to  take  away  the  Force 
of  it,  fo  far  as  he  thinks  fit. 

He  that  faith.  Thou  JImU  not  hill,  doth  not  reach  to  Legal  Executio- 
ners of  Juftice,  interprets  the  Law  according  to  Beafon  and  Equity  : 
But  when  God  faid  to  Abraham,  Go  and  facrifice  thy  Son,  he  muft  be 
fuppofed,  by  virtue  of  his  Supreme  Authority,  to  difpenfe  with  the  Law 
in  his  Cafe,  fo  as  to  make  that  lawful  upon  his  Command,  which  would 
not  have  been  fo  without  it. 

Some  will  not  allow  this  to  be  called  a  Difpenfation,  but  an  Alteration 
of  the  Matter  of  the  Law  ^  but  when  that  Alteration  comes  from  the 
Authority  of  the  Law  Makers,  it  is  the  fame  5  fo  that  to  ifiterpret  a  Law 
is  an  A6I;  of  Difretion  and  Judgment,  but  to  difpenfe  with  it  of  Autho- 
rity and  JurifdiSion.  And  none  can  therefore  difpenfe  in  the  Law  of 
God,  but  he  that  made  it  5  all  that  the  wifeft  and  greateft  Men  can  juftly 
pretend  to,  is  no  more  than  to  give  the  true  Senfe  of  it;  and  it  is  in- 
tolerable Prefumption  for  any  Creature  to  pretend  to  more. 

An  equitable  Senfe,  as  to  Human  Law,  is  not  always  that  which 
feems  to  be  moft  favourable  to  thofe  who  go  againft  the  Letter  of  it,  but 
that  which  moft  enforces  the  End  and  Defign  of  the  Law,  although  it 
be  not  comprehended  in  the  Words  of  it. 

If  a  Law  mentions  a  Crime  of  a  lelTer  nature,  in  regard  of  Circum- 
ftances  ,  and  in  regard  of  thofe  Circumftances,  promifes  fome  Favour, 
(as  Benefit  of  the  Clergy)  it  can  be  no  equitable  Senfe  to  extend  it  to 
fuch  A6i;s  which  have  worfe  Circumftances,  becaufe  the  Ground  of  the 
Favour  was  the  extenuation  of  the  Faft  by  the  Circumftances :  So  that 
the  chief  Rule  of  Equity  in  the  Interpretation  of  a  Law,  is  to  attend 
to  the  Intention  and  Defign  of  it,  more  than  to  the  bare  Words. 

The  Intention  and  Defign  of  the  Law  is  not  to  be  meafured  by  par- 
ticular and  accidental  Cafes,  wherein  fome  Inconveniences  are  to  be 
born,  but  by  the  Publick  and  General  Good,  which  more  than  makes 
amends  for  them  5  which  is  the  Reafon  of  that  Maxim,  Better  a  Mif- 
chief  than  an  Inconvenience  ;  which  is  falfe,  unlefs  taken  in  fuch  an  e- 
quitable  Senfe, 

There  are  certain  Ways  of  Reafon,  which  Mankind  do  allow  in  the 
equitable  Interpretation  of  Laws,  as.  That  no  pofitlve  Law  muft  be  inter- 
preted againfl  Natural  and  Divine  Laws  :  That  //  Laws  contradi^  each 
other,  one  or  the  other  muft  lofe  its  Force  '.  That  jio  Cafe  which  overthrows 
a  Law  by  ne.effary  Confequence,  w.u  ever  intended  to  be  allowed  by  it  ^  For 
that  were  to  make  a  Law,  and  to  give  a  Liberty  to  break  it  at  the 
fame  time. 

If 


with  Kefpeli  to  the  Legal  Siiprematy,  7  9  r 


If  a  Law  be  defigned  for  a  PMick  Good,  and  an  Exception  be  after- 
wards made  againft  it,  as  to  the  Incapacity  of  fome  Perfons  by  it 
for  pithliik  Service,  which  could  not  but  be  forefeen  and  con/i- 
dercd  at  the  time  of  making  the  Law,  there  is  no  Reafon  that  (hould 
be  allcdged  as  a  Reafon  for  Dijpet^png  with  the  Law,  which  was  intend- 
ed at  firft  by  the  Law  :  For  however  the  Cafe  may  be  put,  as  to  fuch 
things  which  could  not  be  forefeen  at  the  making  of  a  Law,  yet 
what  was  intended  to  be  prevented  by  the  making  it,  cannot  in  Rea- 
fon be  alledged  againft  it  ;  becaufe  if  there  had  not  been  other  things 
to  have  over-balanced  that  Inconvenience  the  Law  had  never  been 
pa fled. 

There  is  no  doubt  but  the  fame  Power  which  makes  a  Law,  may 
Difpe/.fe  with  it  if  it  fees  Caufe  ^  for  if  it  can  Abrogate  a  Law,  as  to  the 
whole  Comnnwity^  it  may  as  well  Difpenfe  with  it  as  to  particular  Per- 
fons, and  leave  it  in  Force  to  all  others. 

The  Queftion  then  is,  Whether  a  Prince  affuming  to  himfelf  a  Tiif- 
fenfing  lower,  doth  not  thereby  aflume  the  Legiflative  too  ?  Since  it 
appears.  That  there  can  be  no  Power  to  take  off  the  Obligation  of  a 
Law,  but  that  which  caufes  it,  although  it  be  with  refpeft  to  par- 
ticular Perfons  ^  but  if  it  amount  to  a  General  Sufpenfion  of  a  Law, 
there  can  be  no  Queftion  to  thofe  who  underftand  what  thele  things 
mean. 

Our  prefent  Bufinefs  was  tofhew,  that  if  the  King  can  difpenfe  with 
Mala  prohibit  a,  as  (iich,  the  Legijlative  Power  muft  be  refolved  into  him, 
becaufe  a  Difpenfing  Power  can  be  referred  to  no  other  :  And  if  the  King 
may  difpenfe  with  all  Mala  prohibita,  he  may  difpenfe  with  all  juft 
humane  Laws.  For  no  Law  can  be  juft  which  requires  Malum  in  fe  ; 
and  therefore  fuch  a  Law  being  void  of  it  felf,  there  can  be  no  Exer- 
cife  of  a  difpenfing  Power  but  concQxnm^  Mala  prohibita.  And  if  the 
King  can  therefore  difpenfe  becaufe  they  are  only  prohibited,  then  from 
a  Parity  ot  Reafon  he  may  difpenfe  with  all  Laws  that  concern  only  fuch 
things  J  and  we  cannot  be  fecure  of  any  Laws,  but  fuch  as  forbid  things 
that  are  evil  in  themfelves. 

II.  And  this  is  my  Second  Reafon  againft  it,  That  it  takes  away  all 
Security  by  our  Laws,  both  as  to  our  Religion  and  Liberties. 

I.  As  to  our  Religion  :  I  grant,  that  to  take  away  all  Religion  is 
Malum  in  fe  ;  to  take  away  the  true  Religion  is  Malum  in  fe  5  but  in  a 
Nation  tlivided  about  the  true  Religion,  and  where  the  Prince  is  of  one 
Opinion,  and  the  main  Body  of  the  Nation  of  another,  concerning 
it,  what  Security  can  the  People  by  this  Rule  have,  as  to  the  enjoying 
that  which  they  account  the  true  Religion,  but  the  Prince  doth  not  > 
The  utmoft  we  can  fuppofe  in  this  Cafe  is,  for  fuch  Laws  to  be  made, 
as  they  apprehend  to  be  moft  effeftual  for  this  Purpofe.  But  what 
Security  can  thefe  Laws  afford,  if  the  Prince  aflume  a  Power  of  Dif- 
penfing with  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  ?  It  is  not  pofllble  they  can  have  any, 
unlefs  they  can  be  fecure  he  ftiall  never  exercife  this  Difpenfing  Power  5 
for  by  it  he  may  equally  fufpend  all  Laws  which  relate  to  it  ;  he  may 
give  a  Difpenlation  to  fuch  as  are  unqualified  by  our  Laws,  and  put 
them  not  only  into  Places  of  Authority  and  Truft,  but  into  all  Eccle- 
fiaftical Preferments  as  foon  as  be  thinks  fit,  and  that  without  any 
Check  upon  his  Confcience,  becaufe  thofe  whofe  Office  it  is  to  inter- 
pret the  Laws,  tell  him,  he  hath  fuch  a  Power  by  Law  to  difpenfe  with 
'Ecctefiafiical  Laws,  although  pafled  in  the  folemneft  manner,  and  with! 

H  h  h  h  h  2  a 


7^2  Of  the  Ecc/efiaflical  Jurifdiclion 


a  Defign  to  give  Security  to  the  People  concerning  the  preferving  their 
Religion. 

And  the  higher  this  Point  is  carried,  ftill  the  lefs  Security.  For  if 
it  be  thought  fuch  a  Frerogatlve  of  the  Cromn,  ^f  voids  all  that  is  made 
againft  it,  then  Laws  fignify  juft  nothing  :  For  every  Law  is  a  Limita- 
tion of  unbounded  Will  and  Power  ^  and  therefore  Laws  afford  no 
manner  of  Security  5  for  either  they  are  void  of  themfelves,  or  may 
be  made  void  when  a  Sovereign  Prince  pleafes.  And  I  think  (as  Men 
are)  meer  Will  and  Pleafure  will  never  be  taken  for  an  infallible  Se' 
curity. 

But  it  may  be  faid.  That  taking  avpay  the  true  Religion  is  Malum  in  fe, 
and  therefore  by  this  Rule  fuch  Laws  cannot  be  difpe^fed  with. 

Very  true^  we  think  fo  :  But  fuppofe  a  King  of  another  Opinion, 
and  that  he  (hould  think  it  good  Service  to  deftroy  Herefy  and  Schifm, 
and  thofe  are  Mala  in  fe  ;  what  Security  can  there  be  tjaen  from  this 
Rule  ?  For  the  fame  Perfons  who  aflert  the  Difpenfing  Power,  make 
the  Ring  to  be  Judge,  not  meerly  of  the  Neceffity  and  urgent  Occafi- 
ons,  but  of  what  isMalum  infe,  and  what  not }  Suppofe  then  he  (hould 
look  on  our  Religion  as  Herefy  and  Schifm,  what  pofTible  Security  can 
this  Diftinftion  afford  us  ? 

2.  As  to  our  Civil  Liberties^  which  are  founded  upon  our  Laws,  made 
by  the  Confent  of  King  and  t'eople.  But  if  there  be  fuch  an  infepara- 
ble  Prerogative  in  the  Crown,  as  enables  the  Ring  to  difpenfe  with  all 
Mala  prohibita,  what  becomes  of  all  the  ancient  Charters  of  Liberties? 
For  no  one  can  pretend  that  the  contrary  to  them  all  are  Mala  in  fe. 
And  if  there  be  no  farther  Security  than  what  this  Diftinftion  affords, 
we  are  in  a  very  precarious  Condition,  as  to  all  our  Liberties. 

I  confefs  the  Cafe  is  different  as  to  the  EaleJ/afiical  Laws  mentioned 
in  1 1  H.  7.1 2.  and  as  to  our  Civil  Liberties  ;  becaufe  thefe  Ecclejiajii- 
cal  Laws  had  their  Force  as  fuch  from  a  foreign  Power  5  and  as  far  as 
they  were  the  Laws  of  the  Kingdom,  it  was  by  a  Tacit  Confent  and  Ac- 
ceptation, and  not  by  any  folemn  enafting  of  them.  And  as  to  fuch  as 
thefe,  where  the  Laws  were  not  received,  and  the  things  were  no  far- 
ther evil,  than  as  they  were  prohibited  by  fuch  a  foreign  Power,  there 
is  nothing  but  what  is  reafonable  in  the  Cafe  of  1 1  H.  7. 1 2.  as  it  is  in 
the  Books. 

But  when  this  hath  been  extended  to  Laws  which  have  pafled  in  the 
moft  folemn  manner  by  the  K.ing  in  Parliament,  it  is  time  not  only  to 
take  notice  of,  but  to  fet  forth  the  mifchievous  Confequences  of  this  Di- 
ftindion,  as  it  is  fo  applied  5  for  it  leaves  us  under  no  manner  of  Secu- 
rity by  our  Laws. 

?.  It  contradifts  the  Senfe  of  our  own  Nation  in  former  Ages.  Which 
1  fball  (hew  in  a  remarkable  Inftance  about  the  Statutes  of  Provifors^ 
35  £.  I.  25  £.  3.  13  i^.  2,  which  were  prohibitory  Statutes,  And  it 
cannot  be  fuppofed  that  at  that  time,  when  the  Pope  was  allowed  to  be 
Head  of  the  Church,  and  confequently  Supreme  Patron  of  the  Benefices  of 
it,  that  the  Acceptance  of  a  Title  to  an  Ecclefiaflical  Benefice  from  him 
ftiould  be  thought  Malum  in  fe.  But  thefe  Statutes  being  in  force,  I 
fliall  make  it  appear,  that  the  King  did  own  he  had  no  Power  to  difpenfe 
with  them,  but  as  the  Parliament  thought  fit  to  allow  ir. 

I  begin  with  15  R.7,  at  a  time  when  the  Kingdom  was  in  quiet,  and 
however  could  not  be  in  any  difturbance  on  the  Account  of  the  Statute 
of  Provifors,  which  the  Nation  defired,  and  only  thofe  who  depended 

on 


with  Kefpeti  io  the  he  gal  Supremacy,  7^93 

on  the  Court  of  Rome  oppofed.     But  the  Court-Bifhops  rue;gefted  that  it 
was  for  the  King's  Interelt  in  dealing  with  theCourtof  i^^/A?e,  to  have  a 
Power  to  Relax  2iV\A  to  D/fpenfe  with  thefe  Statutes  as  he  faw  Cau/e. 
,  Therefore  the  Archbifhop  of  York,    then  Chancellor,    propofed  it  in 
the  opening  of  the  Parliament,    as  one  of  the  things  for  which  it  was  Rof-  ?■>>"• 
called,  v'z.    To  find  out  a  Temperament  in  that  Matter,   fo  as  the  Pope  ''j,^,\*° 
might  not  lofe  his  Right,  nor  the  King  his.     After  this  Matter  was  debated 
the  Commons  declare  their  AfTent  en  plein  Parliament,  That  nvithout  pre-     „,  g„ 
judice  to  the  Rights  of  thofe  vcho  were  in  pojfejfton  by  virtue  of  the  Statute, 
the  King  by  the  Jdvice  and  Confent  of  the  Lords,  might  difpenfe  rvith  the- 
/aid Statute,  fo  ai  flwuldfeem  reafonable andufefultiUthe  next  Parliament, 
but  fo  as  the  faid  Statute  be  repealed  in  no  Article  of  it.     And  they  re- 
ferve  to  themfelves  the  Liberty  of  dif agreeing  the  next  Parliament.     And 
they  conclude  with  a  folemn  i  roteftation.    That  this  tioas  a  Novelty  not  , 

praciifed  hefre,  and  ought  not  to  be  drawn  into  Example  and  Precedent  for 
the  future  ;  and  they  dejire  this  Proteftation  might  be  Entred  and  Recorded 
z»/^e  Rolls  of  Parliament  ^  which  the  Kingcommanded  to  be  done.  Doth 
this  now  look  like  a  Declaratory  A^,  and  made  in  Affirmance  oft  he  Kings 
Difpenfing  Power  }  It  might  as  well  be  faid.  That  an  Atl:  tor  Reflrain- 
ing  the  Prerogative,  is  made  in  Affirmance  of  it.  It  is  true,  there  is  a 
Difpenfing  Power  granted,  but  with  fuch  Reftriftions  and  Limitations 
as  fliew,  that  fuch  a  Power  was  not  then  thought  to  be  inherent  in  the 
Crown.     For, 

1.  Why  fhould  it  be  propofed  to  the  Parliament  to  grant  it,  if  the 
King  had  it  before  ?  Did  the  King  ever  put  it  to  the  Parliament  to 
grant  him  a  Power  to  Pardon  Mdefa&ors  .<?  But  in  the  cafe  of  Difpen- 
fing with  a  Law,  it  was  not  only  propofed  but  affigned,  as  one  Reafon 
of  calling  the  Parliament, 

2.  Why  till  the  next  Parliament,  if  it  were  owned  to  be  an  inherent 
Right  of  the  Crown  ?  Would  the  Parliament  go  about  to  bound  and  li- 
mit an  infeparable  Prerogative  in  fuch  a  manner  ? 

g.  Why  is  it  called  a  Njvelty,  and  a  thing  not  to  be  drawn  into  exant' 
pie  ?  Was  ever  any  thing  like  this  faid  oi  a  Declaratory  A^  ?  The 
Natural  Confequence  whereof  is  juft  contrary  5  that  whereas  fome  Juft 
Right  of  the  Crown  hath  been  contefted  and  denied,  for  the  future  it 
ought  to  be  owned  and  fubmitted  to  by  all  Perfons.  It  is  hard  to  think 
of  Words  more  inconfiftent  with  3  meer  Declaratory  AEi  than  thofe,  Ne 
foit  trait  en  enfample  nen  Confequem  e  en  temps  avenir. 

4.  If  this  were  <z  Declaratory  Act,  what  need  it  be  repeated  fo  often    - 
in  Parliament  afterwards  }     Were  the  Commons  fo  forgetful  of  the 
King's  Prerogative,    as  to  need  making  fo  many  Declaratory  A&s  about 
the  fame  thing  ?   Yet  thus  we  find  it  about  this  Difpenfing  Power,  as  to 
the  Statutes  of  Pro  vfors. 

For  16  R.  2.  The  Archbifhjp  ofTork  again  declared  in  the  opening  of  Rot.  vah 
the  Parliament,  That  oneCaufe  of  calling  it,  was  ta  fettle  th/s  Matter  rf-j|^g^-  *' 
iout  Frovifors.     And  the  Commons  again  yielded.  The  Kingfloould  have 
fuch  a  Power  to  moderate  it,    as  he  fhottld  with  hk  Council  judge  expedient^ 
but  fo  as  it  be  all  laid  open  before  the  next  Parliament,  that  they  might  up- 
OH  good  Advice  agree  to  it. 

17  R.  2.  Tydeman,    Abbot   of  Beauley,    was  by  the  Pope's  Provi- j,^^  p^^,.- 
fion,    made  Bifiop  of  Landaf.      But  the  Ring,   notwithftanding  the,  7.  r.  2. 
former  Proceedings,    did  not  take  upon  him  to  Difpenfe  with  the"^-- 
Statute,  but  left  it  to  the  Parliament  5    and  his  Difpenfation  was  paf- 

fed 


7^4-  0/  ^^^^  Ecclefiaflical  Jurijdi^tion 


fed  by  A6t  of  Parliament,   the  King,   Lords  and  Commons  aflenting 
thereto. 
Rot.  Pari.       20  R.  2.  The  Commons  in  Parliament  do  again  AlTert,  de  bongre  de 
20.  R.  2.    i^fty.  parte  en  pleitt  Parliament,    That  the  Ki/fg  with  his  Council  may  dif- 
penfe  with  the  Statute  of  Provifors,    as  PmU  feem  fit,  fo  m  the  fame  be 
heard  and  examined  the   next  Parliament,    and  fo  corrected  as  ff}all  be 
thought  convenient  by  the  King,    with  the  Advice  of  his  Council  in  Par- 
liament. 
Rot.  Pari.      I  H.  4.  The  Commons  in  like  manner  give  their  Aflent,   That  the 
1H.4.B.85.  X-ing  flwuld  have  the  fame  Power  of  Difpenfing  with  the  Statute,  which  his 
Predecejfors  had,  and  to  Repeal  and  Annul  it,  as  jhonld  feem  expedient  to 
him.     Which  was  no  more  than  a  General  Difpenfation.    Yet  notwith- 
ftanding  this  was  recorded  in  Parliament. 
Rfct.  Pari.      2  H.  4.  The  Commops  appearing  before  the  King  and  the  Lords,   it 
2H.4.n.26.  was  declared.    That  the  Difpenfation  fhould  not  extend  to  Cardinals  or 
other  Strangers.     At  the  fame  Parliament  a  Petition  was  prefented  to 
''■*^'    the  King,  That  if  any  one  did  accept  a  Benefice  by  f*?/)^/ Provifion,  a- 
gainft  ihQ  Statute,   and  had  his  Pardon  from  the  King  for  it  ^    yet  if  he 
went  about  to  difturbthe  prefent  PofTeffor,  by  virtue  of  his  Provifion, 
then  his  pardon  ftiouldbe  void,  and  he  (hould  incur  the  Penalty  of  the 
Statute,  to  which  the  King  gave  his  Affent. 
Rot.  Pari.       7  H.  4.  The  King  having  granted  particular  Licences  for  Difpenfa- 
7H.4.  n.  figjjj  gg  j-Q  f j^ j g  Stutuie,   SiwA  A u d { u g  t h e  gr e 3 1 1 ttco u v c n Je u CCS  w h Ich 
'''       came  by  them,    he  generally  and  univerfally  revoked  them,    and 
promifed  in  Parliament  to  find  out  fome  proper  Remedy  in  this 
Matter. 

7  H.  4.  The  King  was  moved  in  Parliament  to  Confirm  that  Revoca- 

ib?'  ^^'  tion'^    but  he  then  took  time  to  confider.    But  9  H.  4.  c.  8.   the 

King  reinforced  in  Parliament  all  the  Statutes  againft  Provifors^  as 

it  is  in  Print. 

Rot.  Pari.       I  H.  5.  The  Commons  pray.  That  the  Statutes  may  fiand  in  full 

iH.5.n.22.^y^g  againfl    Provifors  5    and   that  no    Prote&ion  or  Grant   made  by 

the  King  to   hinder   the  Execution  of  the  faid   Statutes,     /hall  be    al' 

lowable,    or  of  any  force  5    and  whatever  is  done  contrary   to  them,  /hall 

be  null. 

The  Anfwer  is.  Let  the  Statutes  be  obferved  and  kept.  But  if  the  Sta- 
tutes were  to  be  ftriftly  obferved,  whaty^w»(^can  there  be  to  the  King's 
Prerogative  .■?  fince  the  Statutes  were  TJniverfal,  and  the  King's  parti- 
cular Grants  in  this  Cafe  were  the  great  Motive  of  the  Commons  Defire 
to  have  them  reinforced,  in  the  beginning  of  this  King's  Reign ;  And 
thefeiy^^i/a/ex  continued  in  full  Force  to  the  Time  of  H.  8.  infomuch, 
that  Cardinal  Woolfey  was  profecuted  by  the  King's  Attorney,  for  of- 
fending againft  them  by  his  Legatine  Power,  although  he  had  the 
King's  Affent  to  it,  and  he  exercifed  it  feveral  Years  by  his  Permifljon. 
Stephen  Gardiner  \v\  his  Letter  to  tht  Pro&or,  faith,  That  he  obtained  hk 
Legatine  Power  by  the  King's  Ajfent :  From  whence  he  obferves,  ^hat 
Danger  they  may  fall  in,  who  break  the  Law  with  the  Kings  Confent  5  for  in 
the  C^r^j'Ws  Cafe,  he  faith.  That  becaufe  his  Legatine  Power  was  againji 
the  Laws  of  the  Realm,  the  Judges  conclude  the  Offence  to  be  fttch  as  incur- 
red the  Pr^munire  :  And  this  he  Averts  was  the  Senfe  of  the  Ldwyers  of 
that  Time  ^  and  for  confirmation  of  if,  he  brought  the  Cafe  of  the 
Lord  Tiptoft,  vohofnffered  on  Tower-Iiill,  becaufe  in  Execution  of  the 
Kings  C'jmmi/fion,  he  had  offended  againji  the  Laws  of  the  Realm :     And 

of 


with  Kefpei^  to  the  L^gal  Sfipremacj.  795 

of  many  Judges  who  had  Fines  fet  on  their  Heads  in  Hie  Cafe,  for  ading  A- 
gainji  the  Law  of  the  Realm  by  the  Kings  Commandment. 

But  it  is  pleaded  on  the  other  fide.  That  the  Commons,    i  H,  5.  n.  22.  S'-^^-^c- 
put  in  thefiving  the  King's  Prerogative  into  their  Petition  toncernit.'g  the  25," '  ''* 
Statute  ofFrovifors,    that  it  may  fiand  in  full  Force  :    And  this  was  an 
owning  the  King's  Difpenjing  t  ower  by   all  the  Commons  in  Parliament, 
when  they  were  in  a  high  Debate  with  the  Crown. 

This  feems  to  have  a  good  (hew  of  Reafon  to  any  one  that  doth  not 
confider  thePraftice  of  thofe  Times,  in  Afts  of  Parliament  5  for  the  Pe- 
titions of  the  Commons,  before  2  H.  5,  were  not  taken  entire  and  juft 
as  they  delivered  them  ^  but  feveral  Clanfes  were  inferted  by  the  Court, 
efpecially  fuch  as  Teemed  to  preferve  the  King's  Prerogative  ;   which  ruHi- 
the  Commons  found  fo  inconvenient.   That  the  next  Year,    as  Serjeant  worch'f 
GUnvil   obferved,    (  and  prob.ibly  on  the  Occafion  of  thefe  Savifigs,^"^!^^""'' 
1  H.  5.  n.  15,    and  n.  22.)   the  Gourfe  was  altered,  and  hath  fo  con- ^ .  57^". 
tinued. 

Therefore  methinks  fo  great  Weight  fhould  not  be  laid  on  thefe  5'<2- 
«;i»gx,  as  if  they  implied  the  owning  the  Difpenfing  Power,  when  the 
Defign  of  the  Law  was  againft  it.  And  the  King's  Anfwer  is.  Let  the 
Statutes  be  held  and  kept. 

I  appeal  to  any  Man's  Underftanding,  whether  the  faving  the  Kings 
Trerogative  can  be  any  other  than  a  General  Claufe  put  in,  without  re- 
fped:  to  the  DifpenfingVower  x,  fince  the  Petition  is  againft  the  Exercife  of 
it,  and  the  Anfwer,  That  the  Statutes  f)onld  be  obferved.  If  they  were 
obferved,  what  life  of  the  Difpenfing  Power  ^  for  that  lay  in  giving 
leave  not  to  obferve  them?  What  ftrange  Senfe  is  this,  The  King  pro- 
mifes,  The  Statutes  fliall  be  kept ^  faving  his  Prerogative,  that  they  may  not 
be  kept  ^  For  they  feared  the  not  keeping  them  from  fuch  a  Prero- 
gative :  and  when  the  King  therefore  yields  that  they  Jhall  be  kept, 
he  doth  give  up  fuch  a  Prerogative,  or  elfe  he  doth  not  anfwer  their 
Petition. 

The  Truth  is,  when  the  Kings  had  got  this  Power  into  their  Hands, 
tho*  it  were  with  fuch  Limitations  at  firft,  yet  they  found  Arts  from 
time  to  time  to  keep  it,  till  at  laft  they  were  unwilling  to  part  with  it ; 
as  appears  by  H.  4.  but  upon  the  reftlefs  Importunity  of  the  Commons 
it  was  laid  down  by  him.  And  now  in  the  beginning  of  H.  5.  the 
Commons  took  Care  to  prevent  its  Rifing  in  a  new  Reign  5  but  he  be- 
ing a  Prince  not  ready  to  part  with  any  thing  which  looked  like  Power, 
was  in  probability,  not  eafie  to  be  brought  to  confirm  the  Statutes  of 
Provifors,  without  fome  general  Words  oi faving  his  Prerogative,  which 
the  Co«/«/^»j- might  yield  to,  that  they  might  gain  the  main  Point ;  fince 
thofe  Words  could  fignifie  nothing  againfl:  the  very  intention  and  dejign 
of  the  Law. 

IV.  The  Precedents  in  Law  do  contradiO:  this  Rule  5   as  will  appear 
by  thofe  which  are  produced  by  the  Lord  Chief  Juftice  Vaughan,  m  the  vauoh. 
Cafe  of  Thcmas  and  Sorrel.  Rip'f.ii-s 

I.  The  King  cannot  Difpence  with  a  Common  Nufance,  for,  The 
Kng,  he  faith,  cannot  pardon  continuing  Niiftnces  5  but  the  Penalty 
he  may. 

The  King  cantiot  difpenfe  with  a  Ntifance  to  the  High-Ways,  by  1 1  H.  7.  /.  335). 
he  cannot  pardon  or  difcharge  the  Nufance,    or  the  Suit  for  the  fame,    the 
High-Ways  being  neceffliry  for  fmh  as  Travel  ^    but  Common  Niifances  are 
not  mala  in  fe,   which  are  not  Evils  at  Common  Law,    (  as  fome  under- 

ftand 


q^6  Of  the  Ecclefiajiical  Jurifdi^ion 

ftand  them  )  but  things  fo  intrinfecally  Evil,    that  no  Circumftances  can 
mah  them  lawful.     Malum  iff  fe  is  a  Moral  Evil,    in  its  own  Nature  5 
and  therefore  can  never  be  dtfpenfed  with  5    but  a  Nufance  at  Common 
Law  is  but  a  Natural  Evil,  and  all  the  Moral  Evil  of  it  lies  in  the  Pro- 
hibition by  Law :    And  yet  in  thefe,  it  is  granted,    That  the  King  can- 
not ^///)e«/e  .•     hndithtTear  Booh  faith,    That  a  Licence  to  make  a  Nu- 
fance in  the  High-Way  were  void :     For  what  Reafon  >     Is  it  a  thing 
forbidden  by  the  Natural  or  Divine  Law  >    Cannot  the  King,   for  his 
Will  and  Pleafure,  Licence  the  making  a  Nufance  ?    and  yet  is  it  poffible 
for  Men  of  Senfe  to  imagine,    That  he  can  by  his  Difpenfing  Power 
give  leave  to  do  fuch  things,    as  in  confequence  overthrow  our  Laws 
and  Religion?    Doth  the  Law  take  greater  Care  o'ithe  High-Way  than 
of  our  Liberties  and  Religion  .<?    This  would  feem  Arrange  Doitrine  to 
People  of  another  Country,  vi%.  That  by  'he  Law  o/ England  the  King 
hath  no  Power  over  the  High-Way,    fo  d'fpenfe  with  a  Common  Nufance 
therein,  but  he  hath  over  the  Laws  made  for  the  mojl  Publick  Ggod  and  Se- 
curity of  the  Nation.    And  truly  this  cannot  but  feem  ftrange  to  as  many 
among  our  felves,  as  allow  themfelves  the  Liberty,  of  thinking  5    Doth 
the  Law  only  take  care  of  Oxen  and  High-Ways  j? 
y- j;g.         But  it  is  well  obferved  by  the  Learned  Chief  Juflice  Vaughan,   Thaf 
Publick  Nufances,    are  not  mala  in  fe,    but  mala  politica  e^  introduSa  5 
and  when  a  thinq  is  faid  to  be  prohibited  by  the  Common  Law  the  mean- 
ing is  no  more  but  that  the  Ancient  Record  of  fuch  a  Prohibition  is  not  ta 
he  found, 
f-  333-        ^*  ^^^  ^^"g  cannot  pardon  the  Damage  done  to  particular  Perfons^  faith 
/•  334-    the  fame  Chief  Juflice,  where  the  Suit  is  only  the  Kings,  but  for  the  Bene- 
fit  and  Safety  of  a  third  Perfon,  the  Kiffg  cannot  d/fpenfe  with  the  Suit,  but 
by  Confent  and  Agreement  of  the  Party  concerned.     And  again, 
f.  335.        Penal  Laws,    the  Breach  whereof  are  to  Mens  particular  Damage^  can- 
not be  difpenfed  with. 
f.  59.        And  the  Chief  Jujiice  Herbert  owns.    That  the  King  cannot   dif- 
penfe  with  Laws  which  vefi  the   leaji  Right  or   Property  in  any  oj  his 
Subje&s. 

Here  we  fee,  the  Prerogative  bounded,  where  the  Interejl  of  particu- 
lar Perfons  is  concerned  ;  but  doth  the  Law  take  more  Care  of  them 
than  of  the  Publick  Intereji,  and  the  Concernment  of  the  whole  Na- 
tion ? 

But  I  find  another  Diftinflion  in  this  Cafe,  viz.    "  There  is  Bonuof 
count,]>.2i. "  Publicum  •  and  Laws  made  for  that  may  be  difpenfed  with  ;  And  there 
"  is  Bonum  Jingularem  Populi  5  and  with  Laws  that  concern  that  the  King 
cannot  difpenfe. 

Thisis  admirable  Learning,  if  it  be  brought  out  of  thefe  Terms:  And 
the  meaning  is,  The  King  can  do  nothing  to  the  prejudice  of  the  People 
in  their  private  Capacities,  but  he  can  do  what  he  will  with  the  Publick. 
I  had  thought,  a  Prince  had  been,  in  the  firft  place,  bound  to  regard 
the  good  of  the  Publick,  and  to  take  Care  of  the  faluf  Populi  compUcati^ 
(  as  it  is  called)  i.  e.  as  they  are  imbodied  together,  and  not  of  the  pri- 
vate 7«/ere/?j- of  particular  Men,  which  can  never  be  preferved,  when 
the  Publick  Safety  is  not  fecured. 
VR.f,-42.  ^*  It  is  granted,  That  in  Penal  Laws,  by  A^  of  ?zt\\m\2nt,  where  the 
Offenders  are  pHniJJjable  at  the  Kings  Suit,  but  where  the  Offence  is  to  the 
immediate  Wrong  of  particular  Perfons,  and  for  which  the  Law  gives  then* 
fpccial  Anions,  the  King  cannot  difpenfe. 

Never 


witl)  RefpetJ  to  the  Le^al  Suprtmacy.  797 


Never  was  Law;  more  tender  of  the  Interefi  of  particular  fei-fons  than 
ours :  Buf  fuppofe  a  penal  Laiv  Ly  Act  of  Parliament  relates  immediatel7 
to  the  Publick,  and  gives  no  particular  Perfons  any  [pedal  Anions  ;  is 
fuch  a  Larv  therdoTc  difpenfable,  becaufe  only  the  puhl it k  Good,  and  the 
Safety  of  the  Nation  are  concerned  ?  Which  are  not  Tit  feenis)  to  be 
valued  with  the  private  Intere^s  of  particular  Men.  They  who  affirm 
fuch  things  may  be  very  learned  in  Book  Cafes,  but  they  do  not  feem  to 
have  ftudied  the  Jus  PHblicum,  ?isBra&on  calls  it,  which  concerns  A^- Graft. /.  r; 
turn  Reipub.  or  the  political  Lrfu' of  this  Nation  ^  which  (hews  thegreat  ^'  "'  *' 
RefpeiS:  which  the  Good  of  the  Community  ought  to  have  above  private 
I»tere(ls  :  But  when  Perfons  take  up  their  Notions  and  Maxims  from 
Laws  relating  to  Meiim  and  Tuum,  they  are  very  apt  to  judge  of  publick 
Laws  according  to  thofe  Meafitres. 

4.  It  is  granted,  That  the  King  cannot  licenfe  a  Baker,  Brewer,  or  Vi-f'  5^^* 
Qualler  to  Lreah  the  AJJize  of  Bread  or  Ale,  nor  a  Miller  to  take  more  Toll 
than  the  Larv  appoints,  (therefore  thefe  are  malaprohbita)  nor  aTaver- 
ner  to  break  the  AjJize  of  Wine  ^  nor  a  Butcher  to  jell  meaJJed  Sivines  Flefh, 
or  Murrain  Flefi  •  nor  any  Man  to  forejial  the  Market^  by  a  Non-obftante 
of  the  Statute  de  Piftoribus,  tvhich  prohibits  all  thefe  Uhder  feveral  Pe- 
nalties. 

Nor  can  he  licenfe  Butchers,  Fifjmongers,  Poulterers,  or  other  Sellers  of 
J^Suals,  nor  Uojilers,  to  fell  Hay  and  Oats  at  what  Price  they  pleafs^  by  a 
Non-obftante  of  the  Statute  ^/  23  E.  5.  c.  6.  and  1 5  El,.  2.  c.  8. 

Still  the  Law  is  extreamly  tender  of  us,  as  to  Meat  and  Drink,  and. 
not  only  for  our  felves,  but  for  our  Horfes  too^  fo  that  the  Kitig  can- 
not difpenfe  with  the  Laws  about  them:  And  yet  can  we  think  fo  mean- 
ly of  the  Wifdom  of  our  Anceftors,  that  they  would  take  fuch  Care  of 
Bread,  and  IVine,  and  Horfe-Meat,  that  the  King  himfelf  could  not  in- 
hance  the  Price  of  them ;  but  that  as  to  their  Lan>s,  which  relate  to  the 
Fubl/ck,  they  were  content  to  leave  them  to  the  Will  and  Pleafure  of 
their  Prince  ?  No  one  that  reads  the  Hifiory  of  our  Anccjiors,  and  the 
Contejls  they  had  with  Kings  to  obtain  their  publick  Liberties,  could 
ever  entertain  fuch  a  Thought  concerning  them. 

5.  If  Foreign  Manufatlures  or  Foreign  Corn  be  prohibited  for  fupport  of  /•344' 
the  Natives,  a  Licence  to  one  or  more  to  bring  them  in,  if  general,  is  void 
by  the  Cafe  of  Monopolies,  notvpithflanding  a  Non-obftante. 

This  is  certainly  Malum  prohibitum,  and  yet  the  King  cannot  di- 
fpe?;fe  with  it.  And  it  is  feally  a  very  hard  Cafe,  if  the  King  cannot  di- 
fpenfe  with  a  Monopoly  in  Trade,  and  may  difpenfe  with  a  Monopoly  in 
Religion,  i.  e.  That  notwichftanding  all  the  Laws  for  fettling  our  Reli- 
gion at  Home,  he  may  gr.int  a  Licence  to  Foreigners  to  introduce  ano- 
ther, although  never  fo  repugnant  to  our  Laws  5  for  none  who  under- 
ftood  our  Affairs,  could  imagine,  'Xh2itt\\\»difpenfingPoTx;er'W2iS  fet  up 
for  any  other  End. 

But  what  ftiall  we  fay  to  the  Precedents  on  the  other  fide  ?  I  (hall  pafs 
by  others,  which  have  been  fu(Bciently  anfwered  already,  and  only 
fpeak  to  that  vyhich  above  all  others  hath  been  declared  to  be  the  Foun- 
dation of  the  difpenfing  Power,  and  therefore  deferves  to  be  further 
cleared,  and  that  is. 

The  Cafe  of  difpen/tz/g  with  the  Statutes  about  Mens  continuing, Sheriff's  Short  Ac- 
more  than  a  Tear:,  which  is  urged  as  plain  and  concluding,  becaufe  rV*^'""''^"^' 
»>.'!  for  a  public  k  Good,  and  preventing  great  Mifheefs  ;    yet  the  King's 
Power  of  difpenfing  in  this  Cafe  was  allowed  by  all  the  "Judges  0/ England, 
2  H.  7.  and  this  hath  been  cited  as  adjudged  in  feveral  Books  of  great  Au- 

li  i  i  i  thority. 


798  Of  the  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdi^ion 


thority,  Fitz- Berbert,  Plowden,  Coke,  &c.  and  tke.Pra&ice  Bath  ever 
jince  been  accordingly. 

This  is  the  whole  ftrength  of  the  Argument.  And  I  (hall  not  re- 
peat what  others  have  already  faid,  to  Ihew  that  this  was  not  the  Rea- 
Jon  of  the  Judicial  Sentence  then  given  ;  but  the  particular  Ground  of 
'  one  of  the  Judges^  after  they  had  declared  the  Patent  to  be  good.  But 
however  that  were,  it  cannot  be  deny'd,  that  great  Lawyers  fince  that 
time  have  taken  it  to  have  been  the  Senfe  of  the  Judges  then.  For  Coke's 
•7  R.  14.  Words  are  exprefs  in  Calvin's  Cafe,//  is  en'a&ed by  theParliament  of  2^  H.6. 
That  no  Man  Jlwuld  ferve  the  King  as  Sheriff  of  any  County  above  one  Tear^ 
and  that  notvpithftanding  of  any  Claufe  of  Non-obftante  to  the  contrary^ 
that  is  to  fay,  notvpithftanding  that  the  K'f'g  Jliould  exprejly  difpenfe  with 
the  faid  Statute  5  hoivbeit  it  is  agreed  in  2  H.  7.  That  againji  the  exprefs 
purview  of  that  AB,  the  King  may  by  afpecial  Non-obftante  difpenfe  with 
that  A3:. 

Here  it  is  plain,  that  in  Cokes  Opinion  at  leaft,  the  Judges  did  agree, 
that  although  the  King  and  Parliament  had  made  an  Ad  which  made 
void  any  Grant  with  a  Non-obftante,  yet  that  {uch  a  Grant  made  after- 
wards, with  a  fpecial  Non-obfiante,  was  good. 

I  am  not  much  concerned,  whether  it  were  their  Opinion  or  not,  be- 
caufe  I  think  there  is  much  gxQaXQvReafon  and  ftronger  Authority  on  the 
other  fide. 

I.  As  to  Reafon :  If  a  Non-obftante  from  the  King  be  good,  when  by 
AB  of  Parliament  a  Non-obftante  is  declared  void,  what  doth  an  AB  of 
Parliament  fignifie  in  fuch  a  Cafe  >  Muft  we  fay.  It  is  a  void  Claufe  .<? 
But  then  to  what  purpofe  was  it  put  in  ?  Did  they  who  made  the  AB, 
underftand  it  to  be  a  vaid  Claufe  when  they  put  it  in  >  'Certainly,  it  was 
then  thought  otherwife ;  and  if  it  were  fo,  we  have  the  Authority  of 
the  Parliament  againft  the  Opinion  of  the  Judges.  If  it  were  not  a  void 
Claufe  th^n,  how  came  it  to  be  fo  afterwards?  What  Alteration  was 
made  in  the  Law  of  England  in  that  Interval,  and  by  whom  >  How 
comes  a  Claufe  that  had  force  in  23  H  6.  to  have  none,  2  H.7}  Could 
Radiliff  or  the  reft,  by  their  Opinions  deftroy  the  Force  of  anAB  of 
Parliament .«" 
liR./.ig.  No  5  But  Coke  faith,  No  AB  can  bind. the  King  from  any  Pre>ogative 
which  is  fole  and  infeparable  from  his  Ferfon  ;  but  he  may  difpenfe  with  it 
by  a  Non-obftante,  as  a  Sovereign  Power  to  command  any  of  his  Subjects 
to  ferve  him  for  the  Publick  Weal,  and  this  folely  and  infeparably  is  an- 
nexed to  his  Perfon  5  and  this  Royal  Power  cannot  be  reftrained  by  any  AH 
of  Parliament^  neither  in  Thefi,  nor  in  Hypothefi  ;  but  that  the  King  by 
his  Royal  Power  may  difpenfe  with  it  z,  for  upon  the  Commandmejit  of  the 
King,  and  Obedience  of  the  Suhjecl,  does  his  Government  conftfi,  as  it  is 
provided  by  the  Statute  of  '5^li.  6.  c.  8.  That  all  Patents  made  or  to  be 
made  of  any  Office  of  a  Sheriff,  &c.  fir  Term  of  Tears,  or  for  Life,  in 
Fee  Simple  or  in  Tail,  are  void  and  of  none  effeB,  any  Claufe  or  Parole  of 
Non-obftante  put  or  to  be  put  into  fuch  Patents  to  be  made  notvpithftand- 
ing. And  further,  Whofoever  fljall  take  upon  him  or  them  to  accept  or  oc- 
cupy fitch  Offi  e  of  Sheriff,  by  virtue  of  fuch  Grants  or  Patents,  ffjall  ftand 
perpetually  difabled  to  be  or  bear  the  Office  of  Sheriff  ivithin  any  County  of 
England,  by  the  fame  Authority.  And  notwithftanding  that  by  this  Aft, 
I.  The  Fat  en  t  is  made  void.  0.  The  King  is  refi  rained  to  grant  a  Non- 
obftante.  5,  The  Grantee  di fabled  to  take  the  OffiLe -^  yet  the  King  by  his 
Royal  Sovereign  Power  of  commanding,  may  command  by  his  Patent  (^for 
fuch  Caufes  as  he  in  his  Wifdom  doth  think  meet  and  profitable  for  himfclf 

and 


with  Kefpe^  to  the  Legal  Supremacy.  795? 


and  the  Comtnotireealth,  ofvohich  he  himfelf  is  fole  Judge)  to  ferve  him  and 
the  Weal  Puhluk,  as  Siteriff  for  fuch  a  County,  for  Tears  or  for  Life,  &C. 
And  fo  vpos  it  rcfolved  by  all  the  Jujiices  of  England  in  the  Exchequer- 
Chamber,  2  H.J. 

Here  the  Point  is  refolved  into  an  infeparable  Prerogative  in  the  K.tng^ 
which  no  Ail  of  Parliament  can  reftrain,  although  made  with  his  own 
Confent.  Is  these  no  A^  of  Parliament  then,  which  this  great  Law- 
yer will  allow  to  reftrain  the  King's  Prerogative,  fo  as  he  cannot  dijpenfe 
with  it  ?  What  faith  he  to  the  Cafe  of  Buyitig  Offices  at  Court  .<?  Cannot 
the  King,  by  virtue  of  his  Prerogative,  order  his  Houfhold  as  he  plea- 
fes,  to  difpofe  of  Offices  about  him  as  he  thinks  fit?  No.  The  fame  iinft.?34. 
Lawyer  faith,  That  no  Non-obftante  could  difpenfe  with  the  A£i  againji 
buying  of  Offices.  And  yet  one  would  think  that  the  King  had  as  great 
a  prerogative  in  the  Cmrt,  as  over  the  Kingdom. 

But  how  comes  he  to  fay.  That  the  King  can  difpenfe  notvpithfland- 
ing  the  Difubility,  when  el fe where  he  faith,  The  King  cannot  difpenfe  in 
the  Cafe  of  a  Difubility  by  Law  .<?  For  the  Reafon  he  gives  why  the  King  iinft-no. 
cannot  pefent  a  Man  to  a  Living  who  is  convift  of  Simony,  is  becaufe^  "  ''^' 
the  Larv  hath  d'Jabled  him.  Very  well.  And  yet  in  this  Cafe,  although 
the  La7v  hath  di fabled  him,  the  Ki;!g  may  difpenfe.  Where  are  we  now? 
The  King  can  difpenfe  with  a  Difabihty,  and  he  cannot  difpenfe  with 
it.  This  is  indeed  a  very  dark  learning  of  Difpenfations,  as  Chief  Ju- 
ftice  Vaughan  well  called  it  5  for  we  cannot  yet  find  the  way  through 
it. 

Can  the  King  d'fpenfe  with  fuch  a  Difability  in  Law  or  not  ?  If  not, 
the  Cafe  of  Sheriffs  is  gone.  If  he  can,  then  why  not  in  the  cafe  of  Simony? 
Why  not,  as  to  fitting  in  Parliament  without  tah'ng  the  Oaths  .<?  No  5 
here  is  a  Difabil-ty  in  Law.  What  then  ?  Cannot  the  King  difpenfe 
with  a  Difability  in  one  Cafe  as  well  as  the  other  .<?  But  the  fame-Per- 
fon  faith,  That  in  that  Cafe,  becaufe  the  Words  amount  to  a  Difability,  ^lnR.i}4. 
the  King  cannot  difpe/;fe  5  and  here,  where  the  Difability  is  expreffed, 
he  may. 

But  we  are  lately  told,  there  are  two  forts  of  Difabilities  ^    one  is  Shore  ac- 
aBually  incurred,  as  that  upon  the  Members  who  fit  without  taking  the  Oaths  •^'i°^^^* 
and  the  other  is  a  Difability  annexed  to  the  Breach  of  a  Law  as  a  penalty, 
and  that  p^2aliy  not  to  be  incurred  before  a  Legal  Conviilioa  ;  and  in  this 
Cafe  the  Kings  Difpcnfation  coming  bepre  the  Convi^ion  doth  prevent  it^ 
by  making  that  lawful  which  would  not  have  been  fo  without  it.      But  when  ^-  ^°' 
a  Difability  is  aSually  incurred,  it  cannot  be  taken  off  but  by  A&  of  Par- 
liament. 

I  anfwer.  That  if  the  Law  which  makes  the  Difability,  doth  allow  of  - 
a  D'ifpenfation  antecedent  to  the  Convi&ion,  then  I  grant,  that  the  Dif- 
penfation  before  ConviBion  prevents  the  Difability.  As  in  D/g^/sCafe  5 
if  the  Difpenfation  had  come  before  Inflitution,  the  Difability,  as  to4^-'P" 
holding  the  former  Living,  had  been  prevented,  becaufe  the  Law  doth 
exprefly  allow  of  a  Difpenfation  in  the  Cafe.  But  here  is  no  fuch  thing. 
The  Aft  of  Parliament  fuppofes  no  Difpenfation,  but  makes  an  utter 
Difability,  as  to  the  holding  the  Office  in  Sir  Edward  Hales  his  Cafe ; 
but  a  difpenfng  Power  Js  fet  up  againft  the  AB  of  Parliament,  and  fuch 
aD///>e;//4/row  neither  before  nor  after  ConviBion  can  prevent  a  Difability. 
If  it  could,  I  can  by  no  means  fee  why  it  might  not  as  well  hold  as 
to  Members  of  Parliament,  (at  leaft  as  to  the  Oath  of  Supremacy)  if 
they  take  their  Difpenfation  before  fitting  in  the  Houfe.    For  the  Difa- 

I  i  i  i  i  2  bility 


8oo  Of  the  Ecclefia(iicdl  Jiirifdiliion 

^j/jV)/ doth  not  take  place  till  they  enter  the /'rfr/Mz«/e»f,  5  EHz.c,  i.  And 
he  that  entreth  the  Parliament  without  taking  the  f^  Oath,  flull  be  deemed 
no  Knight,  Citizen,  Burgefs  or  Barofi,  nor  fliall  have  any  Voice^  but  (haB 
be  m  if  he  had  been  mver  returned  or  eleSfed. 

The  Intention  of  the  Law  for  the  Tefi  was  a  difabiUty  to  hold  the  Of- 
fice ;  but  it  allows  time  for  Perfons  to  qualify  thetnfelves,  as  appears 
by  the  A^  for  the  Tejl.  Is  not  this  plain  overthrowing  the  defign  of  the 
Law,  for  Perfons,  inftead  of  doing  what  the  Law  requires,  to  take  out 
a  Difpenfation  for  not  doing  it,  and  fo  prevent  the  Difabiiity  >  And 
what  doth  a  Law  fignify,  when  the  very  defign  of  it  is  overthrown  > 
And  what  is  the  Power  .of  making  Laws  by  common  Confent  in  Parli- 
ament, if  without  fuch  Confent  the  whole  force  of  the  Law  may  be 
taken  away  by  a  difpenfing  Power  ?  So  that  this  doth  not  merely  make 
Laws  to  fignily  nothing  but  according  to  Will  andVleafure,  but  it  makes 
our  very  Confiitution  infignificant,  which  requires  to  every  Law  the 
Confent  of  the  People  in  Parliament. 
Dioiiyf.  As  for  Inftance,  By  the  firfk  Conjiituioa  of  the  Roman  Government, 
Halycarn.  ^^^  j-^.^^  ^^^  ^^^  Cu(iody  of  the  Laws,  but  no  Laws  were  to  be  made  but  by 
the  Confent  of  the  Roman  People  in  the  Curiae,  (thence  called  Leges  Curl- 
at£.  Would  any  one  have  thought  this  any  Privilege,  if  after  thefe 
Laws  were  paffed,  the  King  ftiould  claim  an  infeparable  Prerogative  of 
difpenfing  with  them  as  he  fees  Caufe  >  For  it  is  implied  in  fuch  a  Fun- 
damental Coutrad  as  this,  that  Laws  when  made  (hould  not  lofe  their 
Force  without  their  Confent  who  made  them.  Elfe  it  is  no  Contra^ia 
bon<e  Fidei. 

I  will  not  difpute  whether  this  were  the  Origi?;al  Contra&'oi  our  Na- 
tion or  not  5  but  this  I  may  fay.  That  when  our  Government  came  to 
a  Settlement  after  long  ftrugglings,  this  was  one  of  the  Fundamental 
Articles  of  it.  That  no  Laws  jJoould  pafs,  or  Burdens  flwuld  be  laid  upon 
Er-ift./.  I.  *^^  People  but  by  their  own  Confent  in  Parliament.     Bra&on  faith.  That 
cr.  C.J.I,   a  Law  among  us  fuppofesthe  Authority  of  the  Prince  and  Council,  and  Con- 
fent of  the  great  Men,  and  Agreement  of  the  Common-wealth. 
L.  I.  c.  2.     And  he  adds  further,  That  our  Laws  being  thus  made  and  eftablifhed, 
"•  ^'        jnutari  non  poterunt,  nee  defirul  fine  communi  Confenfit  d^  ConfiUo  eorunt 
, ,  omnium  quorum  Confilio  €^  Confenfu  fuerunt  promulgatte :  Which  are  very 
remarkable  Words  againft  a  difpenfing  Power.    For  that  doth  imply  a 
Power  to  change  the  Law,  and  in  effeft  to  dejiroy  it,  without  the  Advice 
or  Confent  of  thofe  that  made  if.    He  faith  indeed.  The  Law  may  be 
improved  without  their  Confent,  i.  e.  by  the  Judges  Interpretation  as  to 
parallel  Cafes  not  exprefl'ed.     But  if  any  new  or  hard  Cafe  happens,  it 
ought,   he  faith,  to  be  refpited  ufque  ad  magnam  Curiam,   i.  e.  to  the 
Parliament,  ut  ibi  per  ConfiliumCuri£terminetur,  that  being  the  Supreme 
Judicature  of  the  Nation. 
Foitefcuc,     Fortefcue,  who  very  well  underftood  our  Confiitution,  faith.  That  the 
2-^c-  ^i- J'  King,  although  he  be  the  Head  of  the  Political  Body,  can  neither  change 

our  Laws,  nor  take  away  Property  without  Confent. 
C.18./.40.  And  that  our  Laws  are  made,  not  by  /^e Princes  Will,  but  by  theGe- 
neral  Confent  •  Totius  Regni  Affenfu  :  He  faith.  They  may  be  changed,  but 
it  muji  be,  Non  fine  Communitatis  d^  procerum  Regni  Affenfu,  qufli  ipfcepri- 
mitus  emavarunt. 
C.  34,35.  ^^  takes  notice,  That  fever al  of  our  Kings  did  not  like  our  Confliiw 
tion,  but  Affe&ed  a  more  Arbitrary,  and  therefore  approved  the  Civil  Law 
for  that  Maxim,  ^od  Principi  placuit  Leges  habet  v':gorem.  But  he  fhews 

our 


with  Kefpe^t  to  the  Legal  Supremacy.  Sbl 

our  Conftitution  to  be  better  for  King  and  People.    For  here  he  f^itb. 

The  Kifig  levies  no  Taxe^,  nor  alters  Lan^f,  nor  makes  f;eiy  ones,  fine  Coh-^'^^^-^^' 

cejjiiine  vel  Ajfenfu  t otitis  Regni  fui  in  parliamento  fuo  exprejfo. 

But  certainly  difpenfing  with  Laws,  is  alteringthem  ^  not  as  to  their 
Words,  but  as  to  the  Intention  and  Defign  of  them,  which  is  the  main 
thing  in  a  Law;  and  he  that  alters  the  Law,  as  to  any  one,  whofe 
Cafe  is  common  with  others,  may  alter  it  as  to  all  others  in  equal 
Circumftances.    And  what  doth  fuch  a  Law  theti  fignifie  ? 

In  the  Charter  of  Y>\x\gJohn,  the  Contmune  Confilium  Regni,  was  topafs 
all  Aids  ;  a»d  bejides  particular  Summons  to  the  Great  Men,  general  Sunt' 
mons  -were  to  he  given  toothers,  to  appear  within  forty  days  z^  and  if  they 
did  7wt,  Matters  veere  to  go  on  however.  This  very  Charter,  as  appears 
by  Matt. Paris,  was  renewed,  9  H.  :^.  But  he  had  learned  the  Trick  of 
a  Non  oh  ante  from  his  good  Friend  the  Pope  -.^  and  when  he  was  urged 
with  his  own  Grants,  be  faid.  Doth  not  the  Pope  void  his  Grants  with  ^^"-  p«-  , 
a  Non-obftante  .•'  Why  may  not  I  do  the  fame  hy  the  Grants  of  my  StMand  "''^"  ^^^' 
my  PredecefTors  ?  To  whom  a  (harp  Reply  was  made.  As  long  as  he 
ohferved  Jfffiice  in  hk  Agings,  he  rvould  he  King,  and  no  longer.  Which 
I  only  mention  to  (hew,  that  the  Ufe  of  a  Non  ohjlantc  was  then  looked 
on  as  a  Violation  of  Juftice. 

And  fo  it  raufl:  needs  be,  if  our  Laws,  as  Bratlon  faith,  be  Communis 
Reipub.Sponfio  -^  ^ot  thtnth^y  2itQ  ciihQ  Nature  of  Contra^s,  and  when 
Laws  are  fo,  it  is  agreed  by  tbofe  who  write  of  thefe  Matters,  although 
otherwife  no  Eenemies  to  a  difpenfing  Power,  That  they  are  not  fo  be 
difpenfed  with  by  a  non  ohfiante. 

If  a  Prince  makes  a  Grant  of  any  thing  wherein  he  hath  power  to  oblige  ^.^^^1,^°^' 
himfelf  in  Juflice,  it  becomes,  faith  Bafel'ius  Pontius,  of  the  nature  of  a  Matr.  /.  5.- 
Contra^,  which  qivcs  a  Rieht  to  thofe  to  whom  it  is  made,  and  lays  an  Obit-  ^^  difpen^ 
gattnojjujttie  Hpm  htm. 

Where  a  Grant  is  made  for  the  Benefit  of  others,  and  is  accepted  by  them,  Sanchez 
//  is  not  in  the  Granters  power  to  revoke  it,  as  Sanche%  (hews  from  many  Y^^i- 
Authorities.  ,       pcnir.e.iy. 

And  the  Lawyers  are  of  the  fame  mind,  as  appears  by  what  is  alrea- 
dy produced  out  oi  Baldus  and  others  ;  but  I  (hall  mention  fome  who 
declare  the  Opinion  of  others. 

Explorati  juris  eji  eas  Conflitutiones  qu£  in  contra^um  tranfeunt  ita  ligare  „^  jp, 
J'rinc/pes  ut  is  derogare  nequeant,  faith  Geil.  Buxtorffius.  BuxtorfF. 

Gail  faith,  That  Princes  are  hound  by  all  Grants  made  per  modum  COn-  b"i?a"^°*°* 
traftus  de  Jure  Communi ;  and  that  is  the  general  Opinion.  c.i.fea.j. 

One  of  the  latefV  Writers,  de  Jure  Gentium,  faith.   That  Princes  are 'f^^^-^^- 
more  fir  ongly  bound  by  Lawt,  which  pafs  byway  of  ConttaBs,   than  by  anYnb(  \'\.n.(l 
pofitive  Laws  made  byahfolute  Power,    although  they  relate  to  the  weight icfi  JohAVolf. 
points  of  Government,  juregenr. 

That  a  Prince  cannot  grant  a  non-obftante  to  fuch  Laws  as  he  hathfworn  c.n.nz6. 
to  ohferve  is  not  only  the  Opinion  of  other  Lawyers,  butof  fomeofthef^.""f-.  . 
higheft  Canonilts  :  And  it  is  a  Rule  among  them,  That  no  Claule  oi  rubr.7.n  4. 
»on-ohfiante  can  take  away  Conftitutionem  Jnratam.  HierCrat, 

Where  there  is  therefore  not  only  a  Contrad  with  others  in  the  paf-  2°"  '^^'"' 
fingof  a  Law,  but  an  Oath  toobferve  the  Laws,  I  do  not  fee  how  a  non- Roi  a  vai- 
ohjiante  or  a  difpenfing  Power  can  take  place.  ^^f°lohli 

2.  We  have  the  the  advantage  in  point  of  Authority  as  well  as  Rea- ceifus  hu- 
fon,  as  to  this  very  Cafe  of  difpen(ing  with  the  Statute  of  25  //  6.       l°^J^y^^ 

For 


8o2  Of  the  Ecclefiaftical  Jarifdi^ion 


For  I  take  it  for  granted,  That  the  Authority  of  Parh'ament  is  more 
to  be  regarded  than  the  Opinion  pf  Judges  :  And  I  think  we  have  good 
Reafon  to  believe.  That  the  Parhament  did  not  think  this  Aft  could  be 
voided  by  a  non-objlante. 

(i.)  The  Parliament  that  declared,  any  noK-ohJIante  agaitjjlthe  Acito 
be  void,  was  certainly  of  that  Opinion  ;  or  elfe  they  did  a  ridiculous 
thing,  to  put  in  a  Claufe  which  was  void  ofitfelf. 

(2.)  The  Parliament,  28  H.  6.  c.  g.  was  of  that  mind  ;  for 
what  need  an  Indemnity  by  AS  of  Farliament,  if  the  Ring  could 
by  his  Difpenfing  Power  have  made  it  lawful  for  the  Sheriffs  to 
continue  ? 

(3.)  The  Parliament,  8  jE.  4.  4.  continued  in  the  fame  mind,  for, 
whereas  in  the  beginning  of  his  Reign  Sheriffs  were  continued  more  than 
aTear,  by  reafon  of  the  Trouble,  it  was  not  then  thought,  ( tho'  in  a  Cafe 
of  fuch  Necefllty  )  That  the  King  could  difpenfe  with  this  Law  ^  but 
they  were  indemnified  b)/  A£f  of  Parliament,  and  the  J£f  declared  tojland 
in  full  Force. 

(4.)  The  Parliament,  6  H.  8.  c.  18.  after  the  fuppofed  Judgment, 
2  H.  7.  And  in  the  time  of  a  Prince  who  would  lofe  none  of  his  Prero- 
gatives, was  ffill  of  the  fame  Judgment  5  for  it  not  only  recites  the 
Statute,  but  particularly  takes  notice  of  the  voiding  all  Pardons  and 
n OH- obji ante's  ;  and  by  an  AS  ofParliament  indemnifies  the  TJnder- Sheriffs 
e/Briftol,  and  gives  them  the  fame  Vrivilege  which  thofe  of  London  had. 
What  need  all  this,  if  it  had  been  thought  good  Law  at  that  time,  that 
the  King  might  by  his  difpenfing  Power  have  given  Sheriffs  leave  to  havs 
aSed  againfl  that  Statute  ? 

And  now  I  leave  any  Man  of  Reafon  to  judge.  Whether  this  famous 
Cafe  be  a  fufficient  Foundation  for  the  fetting  up  a  difpenfing  Power,  ei- 
ther as  to  a  particular  Statute  made  for  the  Security  of  our  Religion,  or  for  a 
Sufpenfion  of  our  EccleJ/afiical  Laws. 


HAP. 


IV. 


0/  the  Alteratio?is  viade  in  the  Supemacy,  hy  the  Statutes 
0/ Henry  the  Eighth  j  whith  an  ANSWER  to  the 
OBJECTIONS. 

1  Now  come  to  the  Alterations  made  in  our  Laws,  about  the  King's  Su- 
i   premacy  in  the  time  of  Henry  the  Eighth. 

24  Hen.  8.  c.  12.  An  A^l  pafled,  for  taking  away  all  Appeals  to  Rome, 
which  is  founded  on  the  IQng's  Natural  and  Independent  Right  of  Govern- 
ing, and  doing  Jujiice  to  all  his  People:,  and  the  Sufficiency  of  his  own  Cler- 
gy, for  Hearing  and  determining  fuch  Matters  as  belonged  to  their  Fun&i- 
on  ;  and  therefore  all  Caufes  are  to  be  Heard,  Difcuffed,  Examined,  finally 
and  definitively  Adjudged  and  Determined  within  the  Kings  Jurifdidi- 
012  and~ Authority,  and  not  elfewhere  in  the  Courts  Spiritual  and  Temporal  : 
But  if  the  King  he  concerned^  then  it  is  refeferred  to  the  Vpper  Houfc  of 
Convocation. 

*  The 


with  Refpetl  to  the  L^gal  Snpremacj.  '    803 


The  Preamble  of  this  AcVagainft  Appeals  to  Rome,  h  confiderable  : 
Whereas  by  divers  authent'uk  Hijiories and  Chroniilcs,  it  is  manifejily  de- 
clared and  exprejfcd^  That  this  Realm  /^/England  is  an  Empire  governed 
by  one  Supreme  Mead  and  ICing,  6iC.  veith  plenary,  whole,  and  entire 
Porver,  Preheminence,  Authority,  Prerogative  and  Jurifdi&ion,  &c.  fir 
final  detertni nation  ofCaitfes,  &c.  fo  that  here  is  an  Appeal  to  ancient 
Hiftory  in  this  Matter,  and  we  have  ftill  fufficient  Evidence  of  it  before 
the  Pope's  Enchroachments  prevailed. 

The  Biftiops  and  Barons  told  Anjelm  in  IVilUani  Rnfud^  his  time,  It  was 
a  thing  unheard  of,  and  contrary  to  the  Cvfiom  of  his  Realm,-  for  any  one 
to  go  to  Rome  rvithont  the  Kings  Leave  ^  which  is  after  explained  by  way 
of  Appeal  :  Anfelm  made  but  a  (huffiing  Anfwer  to  this,  although  he  had 
fworuio  ohferve  the  Ciifloms  of  the  Realm,  and  he  conld  not  deny  this  to  be 
one^  but  he  pretended.  It  ivas  againji  St.Peter's  Authority,  and  therefore 
could  not  obferve  it  -^  for  this  were,  fiith  he.  to  abjure  St.  Peter.  From 
whence  I  infer.  That  the  Cuftom  of  the  Realm  was  tlien  thought  by 
Anfelm  to  be  inconfiftent  with  the  Pope's  Authority :  For  whatever  they 
talk  of  St  Peter,  it  is  the  Pope  they  mean. 

In  the  Reign  of  H.  i.  the  Pope  complains  grievoufly.  That  the  /V»^  Eadmer. 
would  fitfer  no  Appeals  to  be  made  to  h'.m  ^  and  that  due  Reverence  was  not^'^^^'^^^' 
fiewed  to  St.  Peter  in  his  Kingdom -^  and  that  they  ended  Ecdefiafiical  Caufes 
at  Home,  even  where  B  fjops  were  concerned  5  and  very  learnedly  quotes  the 
decretal  Epifiles  againfi  them. 

Afterwards,  the  Pope  fent  his  Legate,    and  the  King  denied  him  En-r^g  ^^^ 
trance,  and  the  whole  Parliament  rejected  it,  as  contrary  to  the  ancient  C«- 
fiom  and  Liberty  ^/England. 

That  PalTagein  the  Laws  of  H.  1.  c.  5.  which  feems  to  allow  of  Ap- 
peals, is  a  mere  Forgery,  the  whole  Chapter  being  a  Rhapfody  taken  out 
of  the  Canonifts. 

H.    Huntingdon   faith,     That  Jppeals  were    brought   in    King  Ste-  Hunt./. 
-  y>hens  time,  by  tienry  Bi[l:>op  of  Winche^er^  his  Brother  being  the  Popes^^''    - 
Legate. 

By  the  Conflitutions  of  Clarendon,  c.  8.  the  Appeal  lay  from  the 
Archbijhop  to  the  King,  which  Is  well  exprelTed  by  Robert  of  GIoh- 
cefier. 

And  the  K.  amend  folde  the  Archbijh  ps  deed, 
And  he  as  in  the  Pope'j  jied,  and  5"/.  Thomas  it  withfteed. 
'And  although  H.  2.  in  his  Purgation  for  the  Death  of  the  Archbi- 
ihop,  did  fwear.   That  he  would  kinder  no  Appeals  to  Kome  in  E.clefiajii- 
cal  Caufes  5  and  that  he  would  quit  the  ancient  Cujloms  of  the  Realm  :    Yet 
Hoveden  faith.  The  Conflitutions  <?/ Clarendon  ii'erc  renewed  in  the  Parli- 
ament at  Northampton,    and  the  Juflices  in  Eyre  were  fworn  to  obferve 
them,  and  to  make  others  obferve  them  inviolably  :    And  for  thofe  who  went 
out  of  the  Kingdom  C  in  cafe  of  Appeals)  the  "juflices  were  to  enquire 
per  confuetudinem  Terrx,    a.  cording  to  the  Ancient  Cuflom  5    and  ;/ 
they  did  not  return  and  fiand  to  the  King's  Court,  they  were  to  be  out- 
lawed. 

In  the  time  of  R.  i.  the  Popes  complained  much  of  Geojfry,  Arch-  Hoveden 
bifhop  of  lljr^',    for  flighting  Appeals  made  to  Rome,    and  imprifon-).\^6,Mi, 
ing  thofe  that  made  them.      Celefiine  doth  it  twice,    and  in  the  fame  4^5- 
Words:    And  Innocent  the  Third,    in  YSng  John's  time,    renews  the 
fame  Complaint  of  him,    That  he  f^ewed  no  regard  to  Appeals  made  to 
the  Apofiolich  See. 

But 


804.  Of  the  Ecckfiaftical  Jiirifdi^ion 


But  when  the  Rights  of  the  Crown  were  given  up  by  King  "^oh.^t 
to  the  Pope,    no  wonder  if  the  Liberties  of  Appeals  were  granted 
by  him ;     But  yet,    in  the  fucceeding  Reigns,   we  have  feveral  In- 
ftances  upon  Record,  of  Perfons  imprifoned  by  the  King  for  making 
Appeals  to  Rome. 
K.James      John  o{  Ibftock,  in  thttimQ  oiEdvp.  \.    The  Abbot  of  Walden,   and  a 
mm^p      Prebendary  of  Banbury,  in  the  Keign of  Edtv.  2.   The  Parfon  oiLighe, 
300!        Harwoden,  and  the  Prior  of  Barnwel,  in  the  time  of  £.  3.  So  that  this 
Right  was  ftill  owned  by  our  Princes,  when  the  Matter  came  into  con- 
teft,  and  therefore  the  Ad  of  H.  8.  againft  Appeals  was  but  a  jaft  Re- 
fuming  of  the  ancient  Rights  of  the  Crown. 

2$H.8.c.  1 9.  A  Commiffion  is  appointed  for  reviewing  the  Canons : 
And  it  is  obfervable.  That  becaufe  it  could  not  be  done  in  Parliament 
■  time,  the  ^/»g  hath  Fower  given  him  by  Att  of  Parliament  to  nominate 
the  thirty  two  Perfons  to  a&  in  this  Matter,  in  thefe  Words :;  Be  it  there- 
fore Ena^ed  by  the  Authority  aforefaid.  That  the  King's  Highnefs  fiall  have 
Power  and  Authority  to  nominate  and  ajfign  at  his  pleafure  the  faid  thir- 
ty two  perfons  of  his  Subjetls ,  whereof  fixtcen  to  be  of  the  Clergy, 
and  fixteen  to  he  of  the  Temporality  of  the  ZJpper  and  Neither  Ho  fife 
of  Parliament. 

And  becaufe  the  lafl:  Refort  was  to  the  Archbifhop  in  the  former 
Afts  of  Appeals;  therefore  to  prevent  any  Inconveniences  thereby,  a 
new  Power  is  granted  by  this  Aft,  i.  e.  upon  an  appeal  to  the  King  in 
chancery,  a  Commiffion  is  to  be  dire&ed  to  fuch  Perfons  as  the  King  jhall 
appoint,  who  are  to  hear  and  determine  fuch  Appeals,  and  the  Caufes  con- 
cerning the  fame. 

25  H.8.  r.  21.  After  the  Submlfion  of  the  Clergy,  and  the  King  being 
owned  Supreme  Head,  yet  the  Power  of  difpenfing  with  the  Canons  in 
particular  Cafes,  did  not  pafs  by  Commiffion  from  the  King,  but  by 
AB  of  Parliament.  The  Words  are.  It  ftandeth  therefore  with  natural  E- 
quity  and  good  Reafon,  that  all  and  every  fuch  Laws  humane,  made  with- 
out this  Realm,  or  induced  into  this  Realm  by  the  faid  Sufferance^  Confents 
and  Cujiom,  your  Royal  Majefly,  your  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and 
Commons  reprefenting  the  whole  State  of  your  Realm,  in  this  your  High  Court 
of  Parliament,  have  full  Power  and  Authority  not  only  to  difpenfe,  butal' 
fo  to  Authorize  fome  elei3  Peffon  or  Perfons,  to  difpenfe,  &c.  So  that  the 
Power  of  granting  Faculties  at  a  time  when  the  Prerogative  was  high- 
eft,  was  not  executed  by  Commiffion  from  the  King  by  v  irtue  of  his  Su- 
premacy and  Prerogative  Royal,  but  was  granted  to  the  Archbifhop  of 
Canterbury,  in  the  manner  expreffed  in  that  ASt, 
vifitatori-  A  late  Author  has  ftretched  this  Statute  to  a  Power  of  difpen/Ing  in 
d-o  2(5^'  of'^e*"  Cafes,  befides  thofe  which  depended  on  the  Canon  Law.  For,  faith 
he,  the  Pope  ufurped  fuch  a  Power  in  derogation  of  the  Authority  Royal,  and 
then  that  Fower  muji  be  originally  in  the  King  :  otherwife,  in  the  Conjiru- 
Bion  of  the  A£f,  it  could  be  noTJfurpation,  But  this  is  a  very  falfe  way 
of  Reafoning;  The  Pope  ufurped  fuch  a  Power  on  the  Crown,  therefore 
the  Crown  hath  it  of  Right  :  For  the  Pope's  Ufurpations  were  many  of 
them  unreafonable  (his  Primacy,  according  to  the  Canons,  being  al- 
lowed) and  our  Law  did  reftore  to  the  King  the  antient  Right  and  Ju- 
rifdi61:ion  of  the  Crown,  and  not  put  him  into  the  poffeffion  of  all  the 
extravagant  Power  which  the  Pope  ufurped.  For  this  Law  charges  the 
Pope  with  intolerable  Exaciions  of  great  Sums  of  Money,  in  Pcnfions,  Cen- 
fnres,  Peter-Pence,  Proumt/ons,  Fruits,  Suits  for  Provifions  and  Expe- 
ditions 


with  Refpeti  to  the  Legal  Supremacy.  805 


ditions  of  Bulls,  for  Arch-kifhoprich  and  Bt/hoprich,  and  for  Delegates 
and  Refcripts  in  Caufes  of  Contentions  and  Appeals^  jMrifdi£f/ons  Legan- 
tine,  as  well  as  Difpenfations,  Licences,  Faculties,  Grants,  Relaxations^ 
Writs,  called  Perinde  y^lere.  Rehabilitations,  Abfolutions,  8cc.  Now  all 
thefe  were  Z)furpations  in  Derogation  of  the  Crown  5  but  doth  it  there- 
fore follow  that  the  Crown  hath  a  Right  to  them  all  ?  But  to  go  no 
further  than  the  Bufinefs  of  Difpenfations,  Hath  the  King  a  Right  by 
this  Statute  to  difpenfe  as  far  as  the  Pope  >  The  Pope  ufurped  a  Power 
of  difpenjing  in  Matrimonial  Contra&s,  in  Oaths,  in  Fows,  in  fome  poji- 
tive  Divine  Laws,  which  I  fuppofe  H.  8.  by  virtue  of  the  Supremacy, 
never  pretended  to.  So  that  it  is  a  very  ralftaken  Notion  of  fome 
Men,  That  the  King  had  all  the  Power  which  the  Pope  ufurped.  And  as 
to  the  A&,  it  is  plain  by  the  Words  of  it,  That  the  Original  Power  of 
difpenfing  was  lodged  in  the  King,  Lords  and  Commons,  and  the  M'sni- 
Jierial  Execution  ot  it  with  the  Arch-bijhop  of  Canterbury  even  with  refpedt 
to  the  King  himfelf.  But  if  the  King  bad  pretended  to  all  the  Power 
which  the  Pope  ufurped,  he  muft  have  difpenfed  with  himfelf. 

But  this  Author  offers  to  prove,  That  there  k  <«  Power  in  the  Crown  P- 166. 
to  difpenfe  with  A&s  of  Parliament,  even  fuch  as  concern  the  Confecration 
of  Bijloops,  hecattfe  it  is  faid,  8  Eliz.  That  theSlueen  by  her  Supreme  Au- 
thority had  difpenfed  with  all  Caufes  or  Doubts  of  any  Imperfe^ion  or  Difn- 
bility  in  the  Perfons,  &C. 

To  give  a  clear  Anfwer  to  this,  we  muft  confider  thefe  Things  : 

1.  That  I  Eliz.  I.  The  Aft  of  25  H.  8.  for  the  Order  and  Form  of 
Eleding  and  Making  Archbifiops  and  Bijhops^  was  revived,  as  appears  by 
the  fame  Aft,  8  Eliz.  1.7. 

2.  That  by  another  Aft,  i  Eliz.  2.  The  Book  of  Common-Prayer,  and 
Adminiflration  of  Sacraments,  and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  th& 
church  of  England,  which  were  in  ufe  in  the  time  of  6  E.  and  repealed 
by  QneenMary,  were  re-inforced,  \  Eliz.  z.i.  andthe  Repeal  annulled. 
But  by  the  Aft  5  and  6  E.  6.  c.  i.  §.  5'.  the  Form  and  Manner  of  mi- 
king Archbi//:iops,  B'fJiops,  Priefts,  and  Decons,  was  added  to  the  Book  of 
Prayer,  as  of  like  Force  and  Authority  with  it. 

g.  That  the  A&  of  E.  6.  being  revived  with  the  exprefs  mention  of 
the  Alterations  and  Additions  made  to  it,  there  was  no  Neceffity  ap- 
prehended, I  Eliz.  to  make  a  diftinft  Act  for  that  which  was  in  force 
already  by  the  Name  of  Additions  therein  added  and  appointed  by  that 
Statute.  And  this,  I  conceive,  was  the  true  Reafon  why  a  Bill  did  not 
pafs  I  Eliz.  to  that  purpcrfe  :  For  I  find  by  the  Journals  of  the  Houfe, 
a  Bill  was  prepared  and  read  the  third  time  in  the  Houfeof  Lords^  but 
upon  Confideration,  it  was  laid  afide  as  fuperfluous. 

4.  That  the  Popif}  Party  took  Advantage  of  this,  and  pretended, 
that  the  Book  of  Confecration,  &c.  wof  not  ejiablifljed  bj  Law,  being  not 
expre^y  mentioned,  and  therefore  the  Biffjops  made  by  it,  were  not  Legal  Bi~ 
/hops.  And  upon  this  Bonner  refolved  to  ftand  the  Trial  againft  Horn^ 
Bilhop  of  Winchefter,  as  may  be  feen  in  Dyer,  R.  f.  234.  So  that  the 
Papifts  then  ftood  upon  it.  That  the  Crown  could  not  difpenfe  with  Laws ^ 
otherwife  Bonner's  Plea  fignified  nothing.  For  if  there  were  fuch  an 
inherent  Right  in  the  Crown  to  difpenfe  with  Laws  in  Ealefiajiical  Mat- 
ters, then  thefe  were  Legal  Bifiops,  having  all  the  Queen's  difpenfing 
Power  for  them. 

5.  The  Claufein  the  Queen's  Letters  Patents  for  difpenjing  with  Im^ 
perfections  and  Difability  was  put  in  out  oi  abundant  Caution,  and  not  for 

Kkkkk  any 


Of  the  Ecclefiaftical  Jarifdi^ion 


any  Necejfity  that  we  can  find:  But  it  was  cuftomary  in  the  Pope's  Bulls 
to  pat  in  fuch  kind  oi  Clanfes,  and  theretore  they  would  omit  no  Potver 
in  that  Cafe  which  the  Pope  did  pretend  to,  which  the  Aft  faith,  was 
for  avoiding  all  Ambiguities  and  Uuefiions. 

6.  But  after  all,  left  there  (hould  be  any  Colour  for  difputi»g  this 
Matter  left,  according  to  the  exprefs  Letter  of  the  Law,  therefore  it 
was  declared,  8  Eliz.  i.  3.  That  not  only  the  Book  of  Common-Prayer^ 
but  the  Form  of  Confecrating  Archhifloops,  Bijhops,  &c.  rvhich  vp as  fet  forth 
in  Edward  the  Sixths  Time,  and  added  to  the  Common-Prayer,  (lull  ji and. 
and  be  in  full  Force  and  Effect  :  And  all  Acts  done  by  it  are  declared  to 
be  good  and  perfect  to  all  Intents  and  Purpofes  :  So  that  this  Act  of  Par- 
liament doth  rather  overthrow  a  difpenfing  Power  5  for  if  there  were 
then  fuch  a  Supreme  and  Abfolute  Power  in  the  Crown,  as  to  Ecclejiajiical 
Matters,  what  need  fuch  an  Act  of  Parliament  to  confirm  and  ratify 
what  our  Author  fuppofes  done  by  virtue  of  it. 

But  to  return  to  the  25th  of  H.  8.  in  the  ^ame  Act  oi  Parliament  c^re 
is  taken  for  the  vifting  exempt  Places,  as  Monajieries,  Colleges  and  Hofpi- 
tals,  by  a  particular  Commiffion  under  the  Great- Seal. 

But  that  which  comes  nearefl  to  our  Bufinefs,  is.  That  26  H.  8.  c.  i. 
another  Ad  paffed,  wherein  the  Kings  Supremacy  is  acknowledged,  and 
a  Power  given  by  Act  of  Parliament  for  him  to  vifit,  redrefs,  and  amend 
all  Errors,  Herefies,  Abufes,  Contempts,  and  Enormities  whatfoever,  which 
by  any  manner  of  Spiritual  Authority  or  Jurifdiction  ought  or  may  law- 
fully be  reformed  in  any  TJfage,  Cufiom,  Foreign  Laws,  Foreign  Authori- 
ty, Prefcription,  or  any  Thing  or  Things  to  the  contrary  hereof  notwith- 
fianding. 

If  the  King  had  this  Power  by  virtue  of  his  Supremac)  and  Preroga- 
tive Royal,  can  we  imagine  H.  8.  fo  weak  a  Prince,  and  fo  little  a.  va- 
luer of  his  own  Prerogative,  as  to  have  that  given  him  by  Act  of  Par- 
liament, which  was  acknowledged  to  be  in  him  before?  But  the  Words 
are  exprefs.  And  that  our  Sovereign  Lord,  &c.  flull  have  full  Power  and 
Authority  from  time  to  time  to  vifit,  &c.  From  whence  it  follows. 
That  in  the  Judgment  of  H.  8.  and  the  Parliament,  fuch  a  Power  was 
not  perfonally  inherent  in  him,  but  that  it  did  belong  to  the  Legiflative 
Power,  and  therefore  an  Act  of  Parliament  was  required  for  it  :  So  that 
the  Supremacy,  as  then  fettled  by  Law,  lay  in  a  total  rejefting  any  Ft- 
reign  Jurifdiction,  and  governing  this  Church  and  Kingdom  by  our  own 
Laws ;  which  is  well  exprelTed  in  the  Preamble  to  the  Ad  againft  Ap- 
peals, viz.  That  this  Realm  <?/ England  k  an  Empire  governed  by  one  Su- 
preme Head  and  King,  having  the  Dignity  and  Royal  Ejiate  of  the  Impe- 
rial Crown  of  the  fame,  unto  whom  a  Body  Politick,  compact  of  all  forts 
and  degrees  of  People,  divided  in  Terms  and  by  Names  of  Spiritualty  and 
Temporalty.,  been  bounden  and  ought  to  bear,  next  to  God,  a  natural  and 
humble  Obedience. 

By  virtue  of  this  Ad  Cromwel  was  made  Vicegerent  and  Ftcar  General^ 
(for  both  are  in  the  fame  Commijfion)  and  the  King  gave  to  him  omnem 
d^  omnimodam  Jurifdictionem,  Authoritatem  five  potefiatem  Ecclefiajiicam, 
qu£  nobis  tanquam  fupremo  Capiti  hu'jufmodi  competit,  8cc.  Which  are  the 
Words  of  his  Commijfion. 

It's  true.  That  the  Power  of  granting  a  Commiljion  to  exercife  this 
Power,  is  not  expreffed  in  the  Act  of  Parliament,  but  it  being  vefied  in 
the  King  by  the  Act,  he  might  appoint  one  or  more  Commijfioners  to 
do  it  in  his  Name  ;   but  the  Cafe  is  very  different  where  that  very 

Power 


with  Kefpeci  to  the  Legal  Supremacy.. 


807 


Power  of  Delegation  is  taken  away  by  Act  of  Parlia/ftent,  for  that  is  the 
prefent  Cafe. 

To  make  this  clear,  we  mnft  confider  the  Words  of  this  Aft,  and 
compare  them  with  i  Eliz.  i.  the  17  Car.  i.  12.  and  the  prefent  Com- 
mijjion. 

The  Words,  26  H.  8.  i.  are  the  fame  in  effedl  with  thofe  i  Eliz.  i. 
but  with  this  obfervable  Difference,  That  whereas  the  Statute  of  H.  8. 
gives  the  Kif!g,  Im  Hcirs^  and  Sttccejfors,  fall  Power  and  Authoritji  from 
time  to  time  to  vifit,  &r.  That  I  Elt%.  i.  unites  the  Jurifdiftion  to  the 
Imperial  Crown  of  this  Realm,  but  then  it  doth  not  proceed  as  the  other 
did.  To  give  full  Power  and  Authority  to  her,  her  Heirs,  and,  Suceffors^ 
to  vijit,  &c.  But  the  Words  are.  And  that  your  Highnefs,  your  Heirsy 
and  Succeffors,  Kings  or  ^teens  of  this  Realm,  fhall  have  full  Power  and 
Authority  by  this  A3,  by  Letters  Patents  under  the  Great-Seal  <?/ England 
to  aifign,  7iame  and  authorize,  when  and  as  often  as  your  Highnefs,  your 
Heirs,  and  Succeffurs  fliall  think  meet  to  exercife,  ufe,  occupy  and  execute 
under  your  Heighnefs,  your  Heirs  and  SuccefforSy  all  manner  of  Jurifdi^i- 
ons.  Privileges  and  PrehemJnences,  in  any  wife  touching  or  concerning  any 
Spiritual  or  Ecclefiajiical  Jurifdi^ion,  8ic.  So  that  the  Adminiftration 
of  this  extraordinary  Jurifdidion  is  by  this  Aft  limited  to  fuch  who  are 
nominated  and  appointed  by  the  Letters  Patents.  The  Fountain  of  all 
Jurifdiftion  is  acknowledged  to  be  ///  the  Imperial  Crown  of  this  Real  m,hiit 
the  Adminiftration  is  two-fold;  Ordinary,  in  theArchbifhops,  Biftiops, 
and  Ecclefiaftical  Courts  ;  and  to  fecure  their  Dependance  on  the 
Crown,  the  Oath  of  Supremacy  is  required  by  this  Aft  to  be  taken  by 
every  Archbifhop,  Bifliop,  and  all  Ecclefiaftical  Perfons  and  Officers. 
But  befides  this,  it  was  then  thought  fit.  That  there  (hould  be  an  Ex- 
traordinary Adminiftration  of  it,  which  is  limited  by  this  Aft  to  fuch 
as  fhould  he  nominated  and  appointed  in  Letters  Patents,  8cc.  and  no  o- 
ther  Reafon  can  be  given  ot  the  Change  from  what  it  was  in  the  Time 
of.  Henry  the  Eighth  ^  for  it  is  not  now  placed  abfolutely,  as  then,  in 
the  Queen,  her  Heirs,  and  Succeffors,  but  the  Jurifdiftion  is  annexed  to 
the  Crown,  and  the  extraordinary  Adminiftration  to  be  by  Commiffion 
under  the  Broad-Seal. 

Now  fince  this  Power  of  nominating  Commijfloners  for  Extraordinary 
Jurifdiction  is  taken  away  by  Aft  of  Parliament,  the  only  Queftion' 
is.  Whether  notwithftanding  the  Right  of  Jurifdiftion  being  ftil!  in 
the  Crown,  a  new  Commiflion  may  not  be  granted  for  Extraordinary 
Jurifdiftion  ? 

There  had  been  no  Queftion  in  this  Cafe,  if  the  Adminiftration  of 
Extraordinary  Jurifdiftion  had  not  been  fettled,  i  Eliz,.  i.  to  be  by 
Commiffion,  and  that  very  Power  of  granting  fuch  a  Commiffion  had 
not  been  taken  away  by  Aft  of  Parliament. 

But  as  the  Matter  now  ftands,  the  only  Pretence  left  for  it,  is,  That 
the  fame  Act  which  confirms  the  Repeal,  hath  a  Salvo  for  the  Kings  Supre- 
macy, in  thefe  Words,  Provided  always.  That  this  Act  floall  not  extend^ 
or  he  conjlrued  to  extend  to  abridge  or  diminijh  the  King's  Supremacy  in 
Ecclefiafiical  Matters  or  Affairs.  If  thefe  Words  be  taken  ftriftly,  with 
refpeft  to  the  fame  Matter,  they  make  the  Aft  inconfiftent  with  it  felf; 
for  then  the  Meaning  would  be.  The  King's  Supremacy  fhall  not  extend 
to  the  fettingup  fuch  a  Court,  always  provided.  That  his  Supremacy, 
notwithftanding  this  Aft,  may  extend  to  the  fetting  up  fuch  another 
Court.     Is  it  confiftent  with  the  Wifdom  o{  a  Parliament  to  make  fuch 

Kkkkk  2  de- 


8o8  ,  Of  the  Ecclefiaflical  Jiirifdi^ion 


delufory  Afts  ?  Therefore  we  muft  underftand  the  Kings  Supremacy  in 
other  Matters.  And  there  was  this  Reafonfor  it,  All  theAfts  of  Par- 
liament touching  the  Supremacy  in  Uetiry  Eighth's  Time,  wererepealed 
by  Queen  Mary,  and  the  Reftoring  the  Supremacy  to  the  Crown,  was 
by  the  fame  Aft  which  fet  up  the  High  Commijjion  ^  and  therefore  when 
part  of  that  Aft  was  repealed,  and  that  Repeal  confirmed,  it  was  fir- 
ting  to  add  a  Claufe,  That  there  was  no  Intention  to  abridge  or  di- 
rainiCh  the  Supremacy  fettled  by  Law,  efpecially  fince  by  that  Aft  the 
Ordinary  Jurifdiftion  of  the  Bifhops  in  their  Courts  was  revived  5  and 
it  is  very  well  known,  what  Clamours  had  been  made,  as  though  the 
Bifhops  Courts  being  held  in  their  own  Names  were  inconfiftent  with 
the  Ring's  Supremacy :  And  although  the  Judges  had  declared,  July  the 
fir  ft,  1637.  That  there  was  no  necejfity  that  Procejjes  Ecclefiaflical  fi)ould 
be  in  the  Kings  Name  5  and  the  King^  Auguft  the  eighteenth,  in  t^  Car.  I. 
publifhed  a  Proclamation  to  that  purpofe  5  yet  all  this  did  not  fatisfy  fome 
but  the  Bifhops  were  ftill  thought  by  them,  in  their  Ordinary  Jurifdi- 
ftion, to  ufurp  upon  the  King's  Supremacy,  and  to  abridge  and  diminifb 
it -J  therefore  when  this  Aft  paffed  to  revive  their  Jurifdiftion,  it  was 
no  more  than  reafonable  to  add  fuch  a  Claufe  to  prevent  Mifconftru- 
ftion,  viz..  That  this  Act,  nor  any  thing  in  it,  be  conflrued  to  extend  to 
abridge  or  diminijh  the  Kings  Supremacy  in  Ecclefiaflical  Matter  s  ,  as  the 
Ordinary  Jurifdiftion  of  the  Bifhops  had  been  thought  to  do. 
vindicati-  And  the  Vindicator  of  the  Ecclefiaflical  Commijjion  could  not  forbear 
on  Eccief.  a  Marginal  Note  to  that  purpofe  5  The  Court  held  by  his  Majeflys  Ec- 
Comp.19.  f-igjiaflical  CommiJJioners  is  more  legal  than  the  Bifljops  Court  5  This  in  the 
Kings  Name,  theirs  in  their  own  Name  only  :  As  though  the  new  fet- 
ting  up  a  Court  forbidden  by  Law  did  not  make  it  illegal,  in  whofe 
Name  foever  it  were  3  and  as  though  Courts  exprefly  owned  and  ab 
lowed  by  Law,  were  illegal,  merely  becaufe  the  Forms  of  their  Pro- 
ceedings do  not  run  in  the  King's  Name.  But  I  defire  him  to  take  an 
Co.  5,  R.  Anfwer  from  his  own  Oracle  the  Lord  Chief  Juftice  Coke,  Now  albeit  the 
/•  39'  Proceedings  and  Procefs  in  the  Ecclefiaflical  Courts  be  in  the  Name  of  the 
Bifhops,  &c.  it  followeth  not  therefore,  that  either  the  Court  is  not  the 
Kings,  or  the  Law,  whereby  they  proceed,  is  not  the  Kings  Law.  For 
taking  one  Example  for  many,  every  Leet  or  View  of  Fra;ik  Fledge  holden 
'by  a  Subject,  is  kept  in  the  Lord's  Name,  and  yet  it  is  the  Kings  Court, 
and  all  the  Proceedings  therein  are  directed  by  the  Kings  Laws ^  and  ma- 
ny Subjects  in  England  have  and  hold  Courts  of  Record,  and  other  Courts, 
and  all  their  Proceedings  be  according  to  the  Kings  Laws  and  Cufloms  of 
the  Realm. 

But  there  is  a  material  Objeftion  or  two  yet  to  be  anfwered. 
2C1./.37.      !•  It  is  objefted.  That  2  Jac.  the  Judges  declared  in  the  Star-Chamber, 
Moor.  /.   That  the  Deprivation  of  Non-  conformifts  was  lawful,  becaufe  the  King  had 
liJyf^^^fupreme  Ecclefiaflical  Power,  which  he  hath  delegated  to  the  Commijfloners, 
whereby  they  had  Power  of  Deprivation  by  the  Canon-Law  of  this  Realm  5 
and  the  Statute  of  I  Eliz.  doth  not  confer  any  new  Power,  but  explain  and 
declare  the  ancient  Power  :  And  therefore  they  held  it  clear,  that  the  Sing 
without  a  Parliament  might  make  Orders  and  Conjiitutions  for  the  Govern^ 
went  of  the  Clergy,  and  might  deprive  them  if  they  obeyed  not. 
To  which  I  anfwer, 

I.  OurQueftion  is  not.  Whether  the  Ring,  without  a  Parliament, 
may  not  require  the  Obfervation  of  Canons  paffed  the  Convocation,  fo 
as  to  deprive  the  Obftinate,  by  virtue  of  his  Supreme  Power  in  Eccle- 
fiaflical 


with  Kefpeti  to  the  Legal  Supremacy.  805 

Jiafticd  Matters  >  But  whether  he  may  appoint  a  Commifion  with  'Povoer 
to  deprive  againft  an  Aft  of  Parliament  5  which  hath  taken  away  the 
Legal  Power  of  any  fuch  Commiffion. 

2.  In  matters  ot  this  nature,  it  is  fafer  trufting  the  Supremb  Judica- 
ture of  the  Nation  in  Parliament ,  than  the  Extrajudicial  Opinion  of  ttie 
Judges. 

And  in  this  Cafe  the  Parliament  hath  declared  it  felf  another  way  5 
as  appears  by  the  Canons,  1640.  which  were  not  only  condemned  in 
Parliament  afterwards  (  which  then  might  be  imputed  to  the  heat  of 
the  Times)  but  in  the moft Loyal  Parliament  after  the  Kings-Return, 
particular  Care  was  taken,  that  neither  the  Canons  of  1 640.  /Jjould  be  con- 
firmed, nor  any  other  Ecclefiaftical  Laws  or  Canons,  not  formerly  confirmed, 
allowed,  or  enatled  by  Parliament,  Or  by  the  efiablified  Laws  of  the  Land 
as  they Jlood  in  thr^Ye^ir  of  theLord,  16^^.  Which  implies,  that  the 
Senfe  of  the  Parliament  then  was,  that  we  are  not  to  own  any  Canons 
but  fuch  as  were  confirmed,  al/oweH,  or  ena£fed  by  Parliament,  or  by  the 
ejiablified  Laws  of  the  Land  before  1639.  And  therefore  no  new  Injun- 
ftions  without  a  Parliament  or  Convocation,  can  make  the  Clergy  liable 
to  a  Legal  Deprivation.  No,  not  that  which  the  Defender  is  fo  plea- 
fed  with  the  thoughts  of,  vi%.  to  give  their  Affent  and  Confent  to  the  ^'  '4 
King  s  Declaration,  on  pain  of  Deprivation. 

3.  TheTemporalties  of  the  Clergy,  efpecially  theBifhops,  are  fe- 
cured  by  feveral  Afts  of  Parliament  without  a  Tryal  at  Law.  Which, 
becaufe  I  fee  none  of  our  great  Lawyers  take  notice  of,  I  (hall  here  fet 
down. 

I /[.Edward  the  Third,    c.  3.  We  Will  and  Grant  for  us  and  for  tfK^f  Scatut.  pro 
Heirs,  that  from  hem  eforth  We  nor  our  Heirs  (hall  not  take  ?tor  r  aufe  to  be  ^'^f°* 
taken  im'o  Ofir  Hands,  theTemporaliiesof  ArchbijJjops,  Bijh  ps,  &c.  or  o- 
ther  People  ofHsly  Church,  of  what  Ejiate  or  Condition foever  they  be,  with- 
out a  true  andjuji  Caufe,  according  to  the  Law  of  the  Land  and  Judgment 
thereupon  given. 

2  j  Edward  the  Third,  c.  6.  The  Title  of  the  Statute  is,  A  Bijhop's 
Temporal  ties  fljall  not  be  fei%ed  pr  a  Contempt.  And  this  was  received 
for  good  Law,  9  E.  4.  28.  Br.  Ord.  1 2.  Reg.  /  32. 

But  a  very  late  Writer  tells  the  World,    That  the  Pofieftons  ofEcclefi-  v;fitatorU 
affical  Ferfons  are  but  Conditional  Freeholds^  and  although  Abfolute  Free-  '^cTzl\ 
holds  require  a  due  Courfe  of  Law,    yet  Conditional  do  not  ^     fo  that  if  a 
Man  chance  to  be  deprived  of  his  Office,  his  Freehold  is  gone. 

This  is  touching  Clergymen's  Freeholds  to  purpofe^  and  no  doubt  out 
of  pure  Zeal  to  the  Church  oiEtigland:  But  fee  the  Equity  and  I»/par- 
*M//7yofthisMan ! 

He  had  undertaken  before  to  givepublick  Ajfurance  of  Abby-Lands  to  ^f^rance 
theprefent  Pojfeffors  :    And  for  what  Reafon  ?     Becaufe  the  Pope  granted  °[atds%. 
a  Difpenfation  with  a  non-obftante  to  the  Canon  Law  :    And  yet  in  this  16^,  18^. 
Book  he  proves^  That  a  non-obftante  is  no  ways  binding  to  the  Supreme 
Power -^  fo  that  no  Man  could  more  efFeftually  overthrow  his  own  Af- 
furance  than  he  hath  done  himfelf:     For,  faith  he,  Prefent  Sovereigns ,^v''ftt'Hori- 
whether  King  or  Pope,   cannot  bind  their  Succefihrs.     And  again,  A^sof*^^"!!^"! 
Graces  and  Favours,  are  alterable  and  fufpendable  at  the  pleafure  of  the  Sue-  258. 
ceeding  Sovereign :      Why  then  (hould  any  be  fo  weak  as  to  think  the 
Plenitude  of  the  Pope  s  Power  as  to  Abby-Lands,   can  be  bound  up 
by  the  Aft  of  any  former  Pope  ?    I  confefs  the  comparing  thefe  two 
Books  together  hath  extreamly  lelTened  his  Affurance  of  Abby-Lands 
with  me*  And 


g  I  o  Of  the  Ecclefiafiicd  Jiirifdt^ion 

p.  500.  And  his  Anfwers  to  the  Power  of  Revocation  are  fo  weak,  that  they 
come  at  laft  to  no  more  than  this.  It  is  a  thing  vphich  cannot  well  he  done 
at  prefent  therefore  there  is  no  fear  it  ever  (Jjoulcl  he  done.  Here  is  fome 
Security, '  at  lead  till  it  can  be  done.  But  as  to  the  Poffeffiofis  of  the 
Ecclefiaftical  Perfons  of  the  Church  of  England,  he  endeavours  to 
prove  That  they  can  have  no  Security  at  all  of  their  prefent  Pofledi- 
ons,  notwithftanding  any  Promife,  or  a  Legal  Title  :  For  if,  as  he 
faith  The  King  by  his  Paramount  Jurifdi^ion  can  make  any  Exceptions  nuU-^ 
p.2j7,298-^^^y2^  ^,<,;^  A  folemn  Oath:,  not  to  accept  a  Difpenjation  from  that  Oath  5 
why  fldould  he  not  as  well  make  void  any  Promife  of  his  own,  when  he  ben- 
ders (as  he  thinks)  a  greater  Good,  efpecially  if  the  Prerogative  cannot 
be  bound  ?  But  then,  as  to  a  Legal  Title,  that  is  the  vaineft  thing  ima- 
ginable, as  to  fuch  conditional  Freeholds  which  Clergymen  have  ;  for 
if  the  Commiffioners  deprive  them  by  their  Power  ah  Officio  &  Benejicio^ 
their  Attendant  Freehold,  faith  he,  is  gone,  without  any  Courfe  of  Law. 
Defence,  And  the  Defender  faith,  The  Commijfmiers  may  deprive  if  Clergy  men  Jhould 
t'  *4'  not  affent  and  confent  to  all  contained  in  the  Kings  Declaration,  ij  he  re- 
quired it.  But  it  is  to  be  hoped,  That  Princes  will  not  take  the  Mea- 
fures  of  Juftice  and  Wifdom,  and  Honour  from  fuch  Men  :  We  will 
therefore  fet  afide  the  Omnipotent  Engine  of  a  Non-Obfiante,  which  doth 
.  not  batter  fo  much  as  it  undermines,  and  confider  the  Legal  Security  of 
thefe  Conditional  Freeholds. 

I.  All  Freeholds  are  in  fome  Senfe  Conditional,  or  elfe  they  could 
never  be  forfeited :  Which  fhews,  that  there  are  none  Abfolute,  with 
Refpea  to  the  Law.  And  as  to  their  Original  among  us,  it  is  agreed. 
That  by  the  Ancient  Right  of  Tenures,  all  Fees  are  Conditional  ^  for 
they  fuppofe  Fealty,  the  non-performance  whereof  is  Felony  :  Which 
is  not  that  which  is  done  felleo  ammo,  as  Sir  Edward  Coke  trifles,  but  it 
is  the  fame  with  Fallhood  or  Treachery.  The  Laws  of  H.x.c.  5.  St 
Domintfs  de  Felonia  vel  Fide  mentitus  compellat  hominem  fuum  :  And  in 
another  Law;  the  PunilhmentofFelony  is  Forfeiture  of  the  Land,  f.4g. 
and  therefore  the  Feudtfis  fay,  That  Felony  is  deliBum  Vafalli  adverfus 
Domimm-^  From  the  Gothick  Fell  or  Fehl,  which  fignifies  in  general,  a 
Fatdt  ;  And  in  this  Cafe,  the  Breach  of  Trufi  towards  hit  Lord  :  Of 
which  fort  of  Felonies  the  Feudijis  reckon  up  fome  twenty,  fome  thir- 
ty, any  of  which  makes  a  Forfeiture :  So  that  here  is  no  fuch  mighty 
difference,  that  the  poor  Clergymen  muft  only  have  Conditional  and  At- 
tendant Freeholds,  as  though  other  Men's  were  Abfolute,  whereas  Sir 
Rep-  Angl.  Thomas  Smyth  affirms,  all  in  England  are  Fiduciary,  i.  e.  Conditional  Free- 
1. 3.  c.  10.  hgi^^y.j^  lefide  the  King:  It  is  eafie  enough  for  any  one  to  frame  fuch  a 
Diftind^ion  of  Freeholds  5  and  to  fay.  That  thofe  who  have  but  fuch 
a  Freehold  may  be  ejefted,  without  ^ny  Tryal  at  Common  Law :  But 
he  ought  to  have  (hewed,  That  MagnaCharta  or  the  ancient  Laws  made 
fuch  a  difference  between  Ecclefiaftical  Freeholds  and  others  ^  which 
he  hath  not  pretended  to  do  5  and  therefore  fuch  a  Diftinftion  ought 
inflic.  ji.  not  to  be  allowed,  efpecially  fince  I  have  produced  an  A&  of  Parliament 
14  Edward  3.  c.  5.  which  faith,  that  Clergymen  Jhall  not  be  eje^cd  out 
of  their  Temper alties  without  a  true  andjufl  Caufe,  according  to  the  Law  of 
the  Land:  This  was  none  of  thofe  Statutes  which  are  in  Print,  but 
Cotton'y  never  enrolled,  for  Sir  jR<>k>"fC(?^^tf«  owns  the  Enrolment  of  it,  and  that 
^Af.p.>3.  jf  ^gg  mzdQ  into  a  Statute  5  and  Mr.  Prynn  himfelf  had  nothing  to  ob- 
jed  againft  it :  But  now  it  feems  their  Conditional  Freeholds  may  be 
taken  from  them  without  any  due  Courfe  of  Law. 

II.  There 


.  with  Rejpetl;  to  the  L^gal  Si/premacj.  8 1 1 


II.  There  is  more  to  be  faid  concerning  the  Rights  of  Eccte/iajiicai  ^"^^  ^(f' 
FcrfoMs  in  Colleges,   bec^uk  they  are  Lay  Corporatio^ts.    For  in  Wp/j/e-    ^' 
prd'sCafe  it  was  declared  to  be  the  Opinion  of  all  the  Judges  ;«  Patrick'/ 
Caje^     That  a  College  voas    a  Temporal    Corporation :      And    therefore 
fome  notable  Diflference  in  point  of  Law  muft  be  (hewed,  vshy  Men  may- 
be deprived  of  fome  Freeholds  without  due  Courfe  ofLavo,   and  not  of 
others;;  for  I  cannot  imagine.    That  Colleges  being  founded  for  the 
Encouragement  of  Learning,    fliould  lay  Men  more  open  to  Arbitrary 
Proceedings,  than  any  other  Legal  Societies  are  :     However  Deprivati-  Dier,  f. 
on  in  Covene'y\  Cafe,  was  agreed  to  be  a  Temporal  Things  and  for  that  ^°9- 
Reafon  his  Appeal  was  rejected,  /"  not  relating  to  a  Matter  ofEccleJiaftical 
JurifdiBion,  which  rvas  only  provided  for  la^and  25  Henr.  8.  But  it  was   .  ^^^ 
allowed,  That  he  might  bring  an  Aclion  at  Common  harp.    Our  Author  fe- 
veral  times  mentions  this  Cafe  ^  but  puts  it  off  till  he  comes  to  Treat  of 
Appeals,  i.  e.  to  the  Place  he  knew  it  to  be  improper  in.   For  the  Qje- 
ftionis  not.  Whether  an  Appeal  doth  lie  to  the  King  in  Chancery,    in 
Cafeof  Deprivation  ?  but.  Whether  there  be  not  a  Remedy  at  Common 
Law,  if  a  Perfon  be  deprived  ot  a  Freehold  without  due  Form  of  Law  .<?  ^'  ^^^' 
And  after  a  great  deal  ot  Impertinency,  about  the  manner  of  Appeals, 
he  at  laft  concludes,  Tj^c  Remedy  had  been  at  Common  Laro  only  5     which 
is  clear  giving  up  the  Point.     For  then,  in  cafe  a  Perfon  be  deprived 
without  due  courfe  of  Law,  of  his  Freehold,  he  grants,    that  he  is  to 
have  his  Remedy  at  Law  ;   and  confequently,    that  a  Deprivation  of 
fuch  a  Freehold  without  due  courfe  of  Law,    is  not  fufficient.    For 
the  Law  provides  no  Remedy  where  there  is  no  Injury   done,    nor 
juft  Caufe  to  feek  for  Redrefs.    And  fo  I  come  to  the  fecond  Objefti- 
on  5  which  is  this  5 

2.  That  to  deny  the  Jurifdiction  ofthk  Court,  is  to  deny  the  Kings  Su- 
premacy ;  and  that  is  a  dangerous  thing  by  the  Law, 

The  Cafe  was  this  ;'  Dr.  F.  of  Magdalen  College  in  Oxford,  being  ^'iftitiri. 
fummoned  before  the  Commiffioners,  denied  the  Authority  of  the  Court ^'^^/^^"^^ 
and perjijied  in  fo  doing  ;  which  our  Author  faith,  in  another  Kings 
Reign  perhaps  might  have  been  interpreted  a  ^tefiioning  the  very  Suprema- 
cy it  felfi,  which,  how  fatal  it  was  to  John  Filher,  Bifhop  of  Rochefter, 
4 W  A>  Thomas  Moore,  is  worthy  to  be  conjidered,  both  as  a  Demonfirati- 
on  of  our  Kings  Clemency,  and  that  the  Doctor  hath  not  fo  much  reafon  to 
complain  of  his  hard  Ofage. 

The  Meaning  whereof  is  this.  That  if  they  had  proceeded  in  Juftice 
againfl:  him,  he  ought  to  have  fuffered  as  Bifhop  Fifl^er  and  Sir  Thomas 
Moore  did.  This  is  more  than  a  bare  In/lnuation,  That  to  deny  the  Ju- 
rifdidtion  of  this  Court,  is  to  deny  the  King's  Supremacy  ;  and  that  it 
is  meer  Clemency  not  to  deal  by  them  who  do  it,  as  Henry  the  Eighth 
did  by  Bifhop  i^.^j^r  and  Sir  Thomas  Moore. 

But,  I.  It  is  by  no  means  evident.    That  thofe  two  Perfons  fuffered 
meerly  on  that  Account.    For  their  Attainder  in  Parliament,    was  for 
refufmg  the  OathofSucceffton  ^    and  King  James  the  Firff,  mentions  the  Ki„s 
Words  of  Sir  Thomas  Moore  to  that  purpofe,    which  he  fpake  to  f  he  James /;// 
Lords  when  he  was  condemned.     And  their  Attainder,    if  I  miftake^  "^gj. 
not,  was  in  the  fame  Parliament  which  made  it  Treafon  to  dreprive  the 
King  of  his  Dignity,   Title  or  Name  of  his  Royal  Eftate,    and  there- 
fore could  not  be  by  an  Aft  not  then  paffed. 

But,  2.  Suppofe  that  they  were  at  laft  proceeded  againft  on  the  Aft 
then  pafTed,  what  is  this  to  the  prefent  Cafe?    when  Ct^/^e  faith,   This 

Act 


8 1 2  Of  the  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdiclioii 

^^'^^'f-^*- Act  was  ttvice  repealed.     And  it  is  no  extraordinary  Clemency,   not  to 
be  proceeded  againftby  a  Law  that  hath  no  force. 

3.  The  Statute  in  Force,  5  Eliz.  c.  i.  is  againfl:  thofe  who  defend  or 
maintain  the  Authority,  J urif diction,  or  Power  of  the  Bi/hop  of  Kome,  or 
of  his  See,  heretofore  claimed,  ufed,  or  ujiirped  within  this  Realm,  or  by  a- 
ny  Speech,  open  Deed,  or  Act^  advifedly,  wittingly  attribute  any  ^uch  man- 
ner ofjurifdiction.  Authority,  or  Preheminence  to  the  faid  See  of  Rome, 
or  any  Bijhop  of  the  fame,  for  the  time  being  within  this  Realm.  So  that  it 
cannot  be  denied,  that  there  is  occafion  for  his  Majefty's  Clemency  5 
but  it  is  to  another  fort  of  Men. 

4.  It  is  very  hard  (training  to  make  the  denying  the  Jurifdiction  of 
this  Court,  to  be  denying  the  Kings  Siipremacy,  when  a  Perfon  hath 
done  all  which  the  Law  requires  him  to  do  towards  owning  the  Supre- 
macy. If  he  had  faid  Dr.  F.  had  taken  PoiTeffion  of  his  Fellowfhip 
there,  without  taking  the  Oath  of  Supremacy,  which  the  Law  requires, 
he  had  then  indeed  given  ground  to  fufpeft  him  for  denying  the  King's 
Supremacy  5  but  to  take  no  notice  ot  thofe  who  refufed  to  do  as 
the  Law  requires,  and  to  talk  thus  of  what  Severity  might  be  ufed 
to  one  that  hath  done  it,  looks  in  him  neither  like  Clemency  nor 
Juftice. 

5.  It  was  always  looked  on,  as  a  Legal  Right  to  make  Exception  to 
the  JurifdiBion  of  a  Court,  efpecially  when  newly  eftabli(hed,  without 
A3  of  Parliament,  and  to  any  ordinary  Underftanding,  in  flat  Contra- 
didion  to  it.  It  is  very  new  Doftrine  that  in  a  Legal  Government  Ex- 
ceptio  Fori  (hall  be  interpreted  a  Denial  of  Supreme  Authority,  which  was 
not  only  allowed  by  the  Canon  and  Civil  Laws,  but  by  the  moft  ancient  , 
Common  Lawyers  we  have. 

Bra&on  ohkr\eskven\  things,  which  are  material  tothispurpofe. 
_    „   .  I.  The  drd general  Exception  vphichis  allowed,  he  faith,  is  contra  Jurlf- 

deKKc'ep'.didionem.  Exceptions  are  either  dihtory  or  peremptory.  Some  that  are 
«•  '•        only  dilatory,  as  to  the  Aftion,  may  be  peremptory  as  to  the  Jurifdi£iion. 
And  thefe  are  to  be  put  in  ante  Litem  conteftatam,  adperimendum  Judici- 
um, ne  procedat.  And  the  firft  of  this  fort,  are  the  Exceptions  contra  Ju- 
rifdictionem,  €^  contra  Perfenasjudicantium,  quibus  deficit  Autoritas  judi- 
candi.  So  that  he  fuppofes,  that  fuch  who  do  not  deny  the  King's  Supreme 
Authority, may  have  a  legal  andjujlException  againfl  the  Authority  of  a  Court. 
1..  a.  c.  8.      2.  It  was  an  allowable  Exceptio  Fori  then,  if  any  Lay-Perfons  did  take 
^  "•  9-        upon  them  to  proceed  by  Ecclefiaftical  Cenfures. 

-  ■■';■  v  Iq  Ecclefiafiical  Cafes,  faith  he,  a  Secular  Judge  hath  no  Cognizance,  be- 

caufe  he  hath  not  the  Power  of  Coercion  proper  to  them,  viz.  by  Ecclefiaftical 
Cenfures-^  therefore,  he  faith,  in  hisCaufis  pertinet  Cognitio  ad  Judi- 
ces  E  cclefiafticos.  His  Reafon  is,  Becaufe  thofe  only  are  the  competent  Jud~ 
ges,  who  have  the  Rower  of  Coercion  proper  to  the  Court.  And  for  the  fame 
iCaufe,  Ecclefiafiical  Judges  are  not  to  interpofe  in  Secular  Caufes,    cum 
jura  fint  feparata  d^  limitata.  And  although  the  Exemption  of  Ecclefiafiical 
Perfons  from  the  Civil  Courts,    be  certainly  taken  away  by  the  Acts  of 
Supremacy  ;   yet  it  hath  been  ftill  alledged  by  our  Divines,   That  the 
Ecclefiafiical  Cenfures  were  flill  referved  to  the  Ecclefiafiical  Functions  ;  ei- 
ther in  the  way  of  Ordinary  or  Delegate  Jurifdidion.     If  the  High  Com- 
mijjion  did  feem  to  go  further,  then  that  Power  being  taken  away  by  Aft 
ot  Parliament,  it  mufl:  return  to  the  ancient  Courfe. 


L  5.  de        3,  There  muft  be  a  Legal  Authority  to  conftitu.e  a  Legal  Jurifdiction, 


Ad 


with  Refpe^  to  the  Legal  Supremacy.  8 1 3 

Ad  hoc  qiiod  rata  fintjttdicia  v'ldere  oportet  an  Jujiic.  Warrantum habeat 
a  Rege  qitodjudkare  fojfit.  Si  Warrantam  non  hahuer'it,  non  vdebit  quod 
cordm  eo  actum  fnerit,  quafi  coram  »on  fitojudice,  quia  primolegi  debet  Bre- 
ve Originale^  &'  poflraodum  Breve  per  quod  JuJiLiar.  conjlitutuf  eji,  d^  Ji 
nullum  omn'ino  habuerit^  ant  ji  habuerit  non  tamen  ad  fHanum^  non  trit  ei 
parendum  ni/s  it  a  forte  fit,  quod  Breve  Originate  de  Jujiiciaria  fua  faciat 
mentionem,  Bradon,  I.  5.  De  Except,  c.  14. 

I.  There  muft  be  a  Commiffion  from  the  King,  which  muft  be  read  5 
and  if  either  they  have  it  not,  or  it  be  not  at  hand,  the  Jurifdiftion  is 
not  to  be  owned,  unlefs  it  be  mentioned  in  the  Original  l^'rit:    For 
Com-m':jJtins  in  thofe  days  were  moft  commonly  granted  by  Writ,  faiih  2  inft.  /. 
the  Lord  Gy^e.  _  4'8- 

But  by  Bra^onsMVovAs  it  appears.  That  commonly  there  was  anO- 
rightal  Writ  and  a  Commijftcn  befides  ^  but  fometime  the  Commijjlon  was 
in  the  Original  Writ,  and  then  the  reading  of  that  was  fufficient. 

The  Mirror  faith.  That  the  Jurifdi&ion  may  he  denied,  if  the  feeing  or  Mirror  d« 
hearing  the  Commiffion  he  denied.  Juftic.c.j. 

3.  The  Bounds  of  the  Jurifdiftion  muft  be  expreffed  ;  and  if  thofe 
be  exceeded,  he  faith  an  £xcc/>/w»  lies :  Which  (ignifies  nothing  un- 
lefs the  Commiffion  be  known. 

5.  The  Commiffion  muji  be  according  to  Law ;  for  that  is  Bra&on's  ftand-  ^'ft^on.'^f. 
ing  Rule :  Nihil  aliud  poteji  Rex  in  Terrk,  cum  fit  Dei  Minifter  C^  Vica-  9.  n.  3. 
riut,  nifi  id  folum  quod  Jure  poteji.     So  that  a  Commiflion  agaitift  Law 
is  void  in  Law.     He  mentions  the  Common  Saying  in  the  Civil  Law, 
SiuodPrincipi  placet,  Legis  habetVtgorem  :^   and  anfwers  it  thus,  ^od 
Princi  placet  is  not  to  be  underftood  of  his  Prefumptive,  but  hk  Legifiative 
Will  (Animo  condendi  Jura)  and  with  the  Advice  of  his  Magiftrates^  the 
King  himfelf  giving  Authority  ;  which  is  the  Defcription  of  an  Aft  of 
Parliament,  as  we  now  call  it. 

Which  he  more  fully  expreffes  elfewhere.  Legit  vigor  em  habet,  quic-^-  '°f''' 
quid  de  Confilio  d^  de  Confenfu  Magnatum  C^  ReipHblic£  Communi  fponfione  "'  *'      , 
Authoritate  Regis,  fine  Principis  pr£cedente^  y«J?C  fuerit  defihitum  ^  ap- 
probatum. 

If  this  were  the  ancient  Law  of  England,  how  comes  the  Exception 
againft  a  Conrt  to  be  a  Denial  of  the  King's  Supremacy,  unlefs  it  be  fup- 
po(ed  impoflible  that  there  (hould  be  an  illegal  Court  with  the  King's 
Commiffion. 

But  we  may  fuppofe  it  poffible  for  a  new  kind  of  Sfar-Chamber,  or 
Court  of  Wards  to  be  fet  up ;  muft  no  Man  queftibri  the  Legality  of  fuch 
a  Court,  without  denying  the  King's  Authority  ?  For  this  is  a  Queftion 
in  Point  of  Law  ^  and  the  King's  Authority  always  goes  with  the  Law: 
And  therefore  to  fuppofe  it  to  be  in  any  thing  againft  Law,  is  to  fup- 
pofe it  to  be  contradiftory  to  it  felf. 

But  our  Author  faith,  It  is  neceffary  for  every  Court  to  affert  its  own^-  i^i- 
Jttrifdiction.  Very  true,  and  to  clear  it  too,  if  it  be  liable  to  a  juft 
Exception.  I  am  very  far  from  denying  the  King's  Supremacy  ;  yet  I 
maybe  as  far  from  thinking  fuch  a  Court  to  be  Legal,  if  an  Ad  of  Par- 
liament can  make  a  Court  illegal :  And  to  fay  no  more  for  it,  but  thate- 
very  Court  mujl  affert  its  own  Jurifdiction,  is  to  level  it  with  the  infamous 
High  Court  of  Juftice,  which,  when  King  Charles  the  Fit  ft,  of  Bleffed 
Memory,  denied  their  Authority,  all  the  Reply  was,  That  the  Court  was 
faiisfied  of  its  own  Authority  ;  which  could  give  Satisfaction  to  no  body  elfe; 
■  '  And  if  this  be  all  can  be  faid  for  the  Legality  of  it,  for  all  that  I  can 
fee,  there  is  jufl  Rcafon  to  deny  it.  L 1 1 1 1  OF 


814- 

O  F    T  H  E 

JURISDICTION 


O  F    T  H  E 


BISHOPS 


I  N 


Capital  Caufes. 

DISCOURSE    III. 

C  H  A  p.    I. 
The  Qiieftion  ftateJ^  and  General  Prejudices  removed. 


f  M    '  H  E  ^efiioft  in  debate,  as  it  is  ftated  by  the  Author  of  the 
-         ),        8       Letter^  is,  Whether  the  Bi/hops  vtay  be  prefent,  and  Vote  judici- 
12.    '    '      jL      <illy  i»  Capital  Cafes^  which  come  to  be  judged  in  Parliament^  ei- 
ther in  giving  the  Judgment  it  felf^  or  in  refolving  and  determining  any 
Circumftance  preparatory,  and  leading  to  that  Judgment? 

For  our  better  proceeding  towards  a  Refolution  of  this  Qoeftion, 
it  will  be  neceffary  to  take  notice  of  fome  things  granted  on  both  fides, 
which  may  prevent  needlefs  Difputes,  and  be  of  great  ufe  in  the  fol- 
lowing Debate. 
p  p^.  I.  It  is  granted,  That  the  Bifhops  do  fit  in  Parliament  by  virtue  of  their 

Baronies,  and  are  bound  to  ferve  the  King  there.  And  one  part  of  the 
Service  due  to  the  King  there,  is  to  lit  in  Judgment  ^  for  the  Author  of  the 
Book  entitled.  The  Jurifdiction  of  the  Houfe  of  f'eers  afftrted,  proves  at 
large.  That  the  Right  of  Judicature  belotjgs  to  the  Barons  in  Parliament ; 
and  that  the  Lords  Spiritual  have  a  confiderable  (hare  therein,  appears 
by  this  PalTage  in  the  Title-Page  of  that  Book,  tranflated  into  EngUfij. 

The  Judgment  of  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal  is  according  to  the 
ufe  and  Cufiom  of  Parliament. 

The  ZJfe  and  Cufiom  of  Parliament  is  the  Law  of  Parliament. 

The  Law  of  Parliament  is  the  Lave  of  England. 

The.  Law  of  England  is  the  Law  of  the  Land. 

7 he  Law  of  the  Land  is  according  to  Magna  Charta. 

Therefore  the  Judgment  of  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal  is  according 
to  Magna  Charta. 

Some 


Of  the  BiJJjops  jurifdiUion^  &c.  8l^ 


Some  Right  then  of  Judicature  in  Parliament  the  Bidiops  have  by 
Magna.  Charta  5  which,  whatever  it  be,  is  as  much  theirs  by  that 
Charter  as  any  Right  of  Temporal  Perfons,  and  cannot  be  intaded  or 
taken  from  them  without  breach  of  that  Charter,  any  more  than  the 
Rights  of  the  Lords  Temporal,  or  of  any  other  Perfons  whatfo- 
ever.  But  how  far  that  Right  doth  extend,  is  now  the  thing  iri 
Queftion. 

2.  It  is  not  denied.  That  the  Bijhops  do  fit  in  Parliament  by  the  fame 
hind  of  Writs  that  other  Barons  do.     They  are  fummon'd  to  advife  and 
debate  about  the  great  and  difficult  Affairs  of  the  Kingdom  -^  cum  rras- 
latis,  Magnatibus  d^  Proceribus  dicti  Regni  noflri  Angli<e  colloquium  ha- 
bere &  tractatum,  i.e.  to  join  therein  with  theBifhops  and  other  Lords 
of  the  Kingdom.     So  that  by  the  King's  fVrit  of  Summons  they  are  im- 
power'd  and  required  to  confer  and  treat  of  all  the  weighty  Affairs 
that  fhall  be  brought  before  them.     And  no  Inftance  is  fo  much  asof- 
fer'd  to  be  produc'd  of  any  Writ  wherein  the  King  doth  limit  and  re- 
ftrain  the  Bilhops,  any  more  than  any  other  Lords  of  Parliament,  a§ 
to  any  matter  of  Confultation,  or  Point  of  Judicature,  belonging  to 
that  Houfe.     They  have  then  by  their  Writ  of  Summons  as  good  right 
to  fit  in  all  Cafes  as  in  any  :  And  fince  the  other  Lords  by  their  Writs 
are  fummoned  id  advife  with  the  Prelates  in  all  matters  that  (hall  come 
before  them,  without  limitation,  it  is  not  to  be  conceived  how  this  can 
be  done,  if  the  Bilhops  in  fome  of  the  moft  important  Debates  be  ex- 
cluded. 

3,  It  is  yielded,  That  if  the  Houfe  proceeds  in  a  Legijlative  tvaji  by  p-  i'^- 
paffing  Bills  of  Attainder.,  the  Biflaops  have  a  Right  to  fit  and  vote 
therein  as  well  as  other  Lords  5  at  thefe  it  is  faid.  That  the  Bifljops  are 

or  fbould  be  all  prefent  at  the  pajjing  of  them,  for  then  they  atl  as  Members 
of  the  Houfe  of  Lords  in  their  Legiflative  Capacity.  But  Men  do  as  cer- 
tainly die  that  are  condemned  in  the  Legiflative,  as  in  the  'judicial  way. 
Is  not  this  then  really  as  much  a  Cafe  of  Blood  as  the  other  ?  If  the 
Bilhops  (hould  give  their  Votes  in  the  Legiflative  way  to  condemn  a 
Perfon  for  Treafon,  and  yet  think  they  had  not  Voted  in  a  Cafe  of 
Bloody  they  would  then  indeed  be  like  Chaucer's  Fryar,  mentioned  by 
the  Author  of  the  Letter,  that  would  have  of  a  Capon  the  Liver,  and  of^'  ^^• 
a  Pig  the  Head,  yet  rvould  that  nothing  for  him  floould  he  dead.  Doth  a 
Bill  oi  Attainder  cut  off  a  Man's  Head  without  making  it  a  Cafe  of  Blood? 
There  can  be  then  no  Objeftion  now  made  againfl:  the  Bi/hops  Right 
from  any  Canons  of  the  Church  i  for  thofe  allow  no  fuch  diftindion 
of  proceeding  in  the  Legijlative  or  Judicial  way.  And  the  ]ate  Author?,  a,- 
of  the  Peerage  and  JurifdiBion  of  the  Lords  Spiritual  doth  grant,  That 
the  Canons  do  prohibit  the  Bi/hops  voting  in  Bills  of  Attainder,  as  much  M 
in  any  Cafe  vohatfoever. 

•  But  we  are  not  to  fdppofe  a  Perfon  of  fuch  Abilities  as  the  Author  of 
the  Letter,  would  go  about  to  exclude  the  Bijh.ps  from  their  Right  of 
Voting  in  a  Judicial  way  in  Cafes  Capital,  unlefs  there  were  fome  great 
appearance  oi  Law  on  his  fide  ;'  becaufe  he  profeffes  fo  great  a  Defire^.  a,  3. 
that  Right  may  prevail  5  and.  That  his  Defign  in  writing  was,  to  fatisfy 
hlmfelf  and  others  where  that  Right  is.  The  difcovery  whereof  is  our 
prefent  bufinefs.  Yet  before  the  Author  of  the  Letter  comes  to  a  clofe 
Debate  of  the  matter  of  Right,  he  lets  fall  fome  general  Infinuations  to 
create  ?l' Prejudice  in  the  Reader's  Mind,  as  to  the  BijJjops  meddling  at 
all  in  fecular  Affairs,  as  though  it  were  inconfiftent  with  their  Fun&ioh, 

L 11 II  2  and 


Si6 


Of  the  Bi/bops  Jiirifdi^ton 


p.  s 


p.  85. 


and  with  fome  Paflages  in  the  Imperial  Law.  And  becaufe  Men  may 
fometimes  do  more  harm  by  what  they  tell  us  they  will  not  [ay,  than  by 
^what  they  do  fay  ^  it  will  be  fit  to  prevent  the  danger  of  ^nchlnjinuatiottt 
before  we  come  to  confider  his  Arguments. 

I.  The  firfl  is,  That  meddlitig  at  all  in  Secular  Ajfairs  feems  to  be  the 
doing  that  which  the  Apojlles  declared  they  would  not  do,  viz.  leave  the 
Word  of  God,  andferve  Tables.  But  are  all  Perfons  of  Eftates  now  bound 
to  part  with  them  as  the  Chriftians  then  did  ?  The  ferving  of  Tables  was 
a  full  Employment  f  and  they  who  attended  that  Office  were  the  Trea- 
furers  of  the  Church,  to  diftribute  to  every  one  as  they  judged  fit,  out 
of  the  common  Stock.  \%\tno  Service  to  God,  to  do  Juftice,  and  to  (hew 
Mercy  ?  To  attend  upon  the  publick  Affairs  of  the  Kingdom,  when  they 
are  called  to  it  by  their  Sovereign  >  Or  are  all  Bifiops  now  in  the  fame 
Circumftances  the  Apojlles  were  when  the  Chriftian  Church  was  to  be 
planted  in  theWorld,  and  fo  few  Perfons  as  the  1 2  Apoftles  made  choice 
of  for  that  Work  ?  Is  there  no  difference  to  be  made  between  a  Church 
conftituted  and  fettled  and  incorporated  into  the  Commonwealth,  and 
one  not  yet  formed,  but  labouring  under  great  Difficulties,  and  making 
its  way  through  conflant  Perfecutions  >  May  it  not  be  as  well  argued, 
that  Bifhops  are  not  to  ftay  in  one  Country,  nor  to  have  any  fixed  Ha- 
bitation, becaufe  the  Apoftles  paffed  from  Place  to  Place  preaching  the 
Word  of  God  >  Doth  not  the  Author  of  the  Letter  himfelf  confefs, 
That  the  Clergy  are  one  of  the  Three  Eftates  of  the  Kingdom  .<?  And  by 
the  A^  8  Eli%.  I.  the  Clergy  are  called  one  of  the  greateft  States  of  this 
Realm.  And  is  there  not  then  great  Reafon,  that  thofe  who  are  the 
chief  part  of  if,  as  he  confelTeth  the  Bijhops  to  be,  (hould  have  a  (hare 
in  Affairs  that  concern  the  whole  Nation  >  And  would  it  not  feem 
ftrange  to  the  Chriftian  World,  that  we  alone  of  all  the  Kingdoms  of 
Europe  (hould  exclude  the  Bifhops  from  having  an  equal  Intereft  with 
the  other  Eftates  in  Parliament  >  For  it  were  eafy  to  prove  from  un- 
queftionable  Teftimonies,  that  as  foon  as  the  Chriftian  Religion  was 
well  fettled  in  any  of  thefe  Northern  Kingdoms,  the  Bifhops  were  admit- 
ted into  all  the  publick  Councils  5  and  have  fo  continued  to  this  Day, 
where  the  Convention  of  the  Eftates  hath  been  kept  up,  Bohemia  only 
excepted  fince  the  Days  of  Sigifmond. 

I  begin  with  France,  where  Hincmaruf  faith.  There  were  two  great 
Epift.  de  Councils  every  Tear  :  One  of  the  States  of  the  Kingdom,  for  ordering  the 
Palacii.  -^ffi^'^^  of  the  enfuing  Tear,  and  redrejjing  of  Grievances  5  and  in  thefe  the 
Bifhdps  were  always  prefent :  and  the  other  of  the  Kings  Council^  which 
managed  the  intervening  Affairs:^  and  into  this  the  chief  of  the  Bifhops  were 
always  chofen.  It  were  endlefs  to  repeat  the  feveral  Parliaments  in 
France  in  the  time  of  the  Merovingian  and  Caroline  Race,  wherein  Laws 
were  pafTed,  and  the  great  Affairs  of  the  Kingdom  managed  by  the Bi- 
ftdops,  Noblemen,  and  others.  Thofe  who  have  looked  into  the  ancient 
Annals  and  Capitulars  of  France  cannot  be  ignorant  of  this.  There  is 
one  thing  remarkable  to  our  purpofe  in  the  famous  Council  of  Franch- 
ford,  which  oppofed  the  Worfhip  of  Images  fo  ftoutly,  viz..  that  after 
the  matters  of  Religion  were  agreed,  then,  according  to  the  Cuftom 
of  that  Age,  the  other  Eftates  being  prefent,  they  proceeded  to  other 
matters  5  and  then  Tajfilo,!^^^^  oi  Bavaria,  was  brought  upon  his  Knees 
forTreafon;  and  theCaufe  of  Peter,  Bifhop  of  Verdun^  was  heard, 
who  waslikewife  accofed  of  Treafon,  and  there  purged  himfelf.  Con- 
cerning both  which  Cafes  there  are  2  Canons  ftill  extant  among  the  Ca- 

iions 


Hincmar. 


in  Capital  Caaj'es.  817 

ftousoi  that  Council  ^    and  \n  another^    the  BiQiops  are  appointed,    by^°""'- 
confenc  of  the  King,  to  do  Juftice  in  their  feveral  Dioceffcs.    And  that  ^"p!"**^' 
they  had  not  only  a  (hare  in  the  Legijlative,  but  in  the  Judiciary  part, 
appears  by  one  of  the  ancient  FormtU  in  Marculphut,  where  it  is  faid,  ^^^"'fj - 
that  the  King  fat  in  Judgment,  una.  cum  Dominrs  C^  Patribus  nojiris  B-c.  25.' 
pifcopk,  vel  cum  plur-mis  Optimatibui  nojiris  5   (  vel,  in  the  Language  of 
that  Age,  is  the  fame  with,  &.  )     This  was  the  Palatine  Court ^  where 
Bignoniia  faitb,    the  greater  Caufes  were  heard,   the  King  himfelf  being  ^^' '" 
prefent^    (_  or  the  Contes  Palatii,)    Epifopis  C^    ^ roceribus  adj/dentibus^iij.' 
the  Bifhops  and  Lordt  fitting  in  Judicature  together  with  him.     And  this 
was  not  only  the  Original  oi the  Parliament  of  Park,  as  a  ftanding  Court 
of  Judicature  5    but  the  like  in  England  was  the  true  foundation  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Judicature  in  the  Houfe  of  Peers.     So  that  in  the 
eJdeft  and  beft  Times    of  France,    after  Chrifiianity    had  prevailed 
there,     neither   Confultation  about  publick  Affairs,   uor  Adminifim- 
tion  of  Jullice  were  thought  inconfiftent  with  the  Funftion  of  Bi- 
(hops. 

In  5prf/;/ during  the  Gothick  Poxoer,   all  the  great  Affairs  of  the  King-    • 
dom,  and  even  the  Rights  of  their  Princes,  were  debated  and  tranfafted 
by  the  greateft  of  the  Clergy  and  Nobility  together  5  as  may  be  feen  in 
the  feveral  Councils  of  Toledo  in  that  time,  in  the  Cafe  of  Suintilas,  SP"'^''- 
Sifenandits^  and  others.    And  in  one  of  them  it  is  faid,    that  after  they  c.  75.  '^'.c, 
had  difpatched  Matters  of  Religion,   they  proceeded  ad  cater  arum  Can-  7-  ^.c  17. 
farum  negotia,    to  the  handlitig  of  other  Caufes.     In  the  13  Council  of  To-  ^^^c.^l■^. 
ledo,  the  Cafe  oi Impeachments  of  Treafon is  brought  in  ;   and  Rules  fet  c  i.Con- 
down  for  the  due  proceedings  therein.    And  yet  from  one  of  thefe  j'";  J"'^"^' 
Councils  of  Toled^o  it  is,  that  all  the  ftir  hath  been  made  in  the  Canon- 
Laxp  about  Bifhops  not  being  prefent  in  cafes  of  blood.  * 

In  Germany,    the  firft  Laws  that  were  ever  publifhed  were  thofe  by 
Lothario  II.  in  Comitik  Regni,    faith  Goldajius  ;    and  there  were  pre-  ^"li.To  2, 
fent  35  Bifhops,  ^4  Dukes,  72  Counts,  befides  the  People.  And  by  the  cod.' Leg. 
Matriculation-Roll  oi  the  States  of  the  Empire,    it  appears  what  a  great  ^^^}'l-  ^• 
Intereft  the  Clergy  have  preferved  therein,  from  the  firft  times  of  the  ^  ^ 
prevalency  of  Chrifiianity  there.    And  Arumaus,  a  confiderable  Prote-  comTcTh  ^ 
ftant  Lawyer  of  the  Empire  faith,  the  Bifhops  of  Qtrm^ny  fit  in  a  double  n.^^  c.4. 
Capacity  in  the  Xyitts,  both  as  Bifhops,    and  as  Princes  of  the  Empire."- ^^ 
And  he  commends  the  prudence  of  that  Conftitution  tvith  refpect  both  to  ju- 
Jiice,  and  the  Honour  a/^d  Safety  of  Religion. 

For  the  Kingdom  of  Bohemia,  Goldafittf,  a  learned  Proteftant,  faith,  ^°j^^/jj- ^^ 
that  there,    as  in   all  other  well'confiituted  Kingdoms  among  Chrijiians,  5.  c.  i. 
there  were  3  Ejiates,   of  Prelates,    Nobles,     and  Commons  h    and  this 
continued,  be  faith,  from  the  time  Chrifiianity  xoas  receivd,  till  the  days  of 
Sigifmojid. 

No  fooner  was  Chrifiianity  received  in  Hungary,  but  their  Princes, 
Stephanus  and  Ladiflam,  called  their  great  Councils  of  their  Prelates  Bonfin. 
and  Nobles  i    and  the  Laws  made  in  the  Concilium  Zabolchiamm  were^^*^-  '•'♦ 


paffed  by  the  King,  with  all  his  Bifhops  and  Nobles,  and  with  the  con-  Ladin.'p. 
lent  of  the  whole  Clergy  and  People.  ii* 

In  Poland,  Starovolfcius  faith,  that  their  Ancefiors,  after  they  received~ ^l\°l'^ 
Chrijlianily,  out  of  regard  to  Religion,  gave  /^e  Bifhops  the  firji  place  in  p.  265. 
the  Senate:,    and  admitted  the  Clergy  to  the  great  Offices  of  the  Kingdom.^^-^"'^ 
And  S'gifmond  in  his  Conjiitution  faith,  the  States  of  Pohnd  conJiH  of  the  ^l^^'^^^^^' 
Bifliops,    Barons,  and  Delegates,  called  Nuncii  terrejlres.  p.  253. 

In 


8i8  Of  the  Bi/bops  Jurtfdt^ion 


Adam  In  the  Northern  Kingdoms,  AdamtiT  Bremenfis  izlth,    th^t  the  Bifhapit 

litu  Dan.  (ifi^f  the  People  received  Chrijlianity,  vpere  receivd  into  their  publick  CoHft^ 
n-85.  cils.  And  LocfewiAT  reckons  up  among  the  feveral  Eftates,  the  Bifliops> 
aS°*  Nobles,  Knights,  and  Deputies  of  the  Country  and  Cities.  And  it  ap- 
Sueco-  pears  by  the  Hirdfiraa,  or  the  ancient  Laws  of  Norway,  the  Bijhops  as  well 
Goth.  c.  8.  ^y  Mobility  toere  prefent  in  the  Convention  of  the  States,  and  all  publick 
cum  Nor-  Councils. 

veg.  c.  3.       The  like  might  be  proved  here  in  the  Saxon  times,  from  the  Conver- 
'^\  ^^'       fion  of  Ethelbert  downward.  This  is  fo  very  evident,  that  be  rauft  blind 
his  Eyes  that  doth  not  fee  it,  if  he  doth  but  caft  them  on  the  Hiftory  of 
thofe  times. 

Thefe  things  I  have  laid  together  with  all  poffible  brevity  and  clear- 
nefs,  that  in  one  view  we  may  fee  a  confent  of  all  thefe  parts  of  the 
Chriftian  World,  in  calling  Bifhops  to  their  publick  Councils,  and  moft 
folemn  Debates;  and  how  far  they  were  from  thinking  fuch  Imploy- 
ment  inconfiftent  with  their  Sacred  Funftion,  and  charging  them,  that 
thereby  they  left  the  Word  of  God  to  ferve  Tables.  Neither  can  this 
be  looked  on  as  any  part  of  the  Degeneracy  of  the  Church,  or  the  Po- 
licy of  the  Papacy  5  fince  as  the  fore-cited  Arnmxiu  faith,  they  were  ad- 
mitted to  this  Honour  before  the  Papal  Power  was  advanced  5  and  were  fo 
far  from  carrying  on  the  Pope's  Defgns^  that  they  were^  in  pioft  Countries, 
thegreatefi  Oppofers  of  them.  And  when  the  Popes  began  to  fet  up  the 
Monarchy,  their  bufinefs  was,  to  draw  them  off  from  meeting  in  thefe 
Councils,  under  feveral  pretences  of  Cafes  of  Blood,  and  other  things  ^ 
the  better  to  keep  them  in  a  fole  Dependency  on  themfelves.  As  will 
appear  by  the  following  Difcourfe. 
Lett.f.5,4,  2.  The  next  thing  fuggefted  is,  that  the  Imperial  Law  doth  forbid  Clerr^ 
gy-men  having  any  thing  to  do  with  Secular  Matters.  And  for  this  a  jRe»' 
fcript  of  Honorius  and  Theodoflus  is  mentioned,  and  a  Decree  of  Jujiinian. 
.  To  which  I  anfwer, 

1.  The  Imperial  Edidtsare  not  the  Law  of  England.  Our  difpute  is 
about  a  Right  by  our  own  Laws  ^  which  a  Refcript  of  Honorius  and 
Theodoftus  can  neither  give  nor  take  away.  What  would  become  of 
the  whole  frame  of  our  Government,  and  of  our  juft  Rights  and  Prb- 
perties,  if  the  producing  of  Imperial  Edifts  would  be  fufficient  to  over- 
throw them  ?  When  the  Biftiops  once  pleaded  hard  in  Parliament' 
in  behalf  of  an  Imperial  Conftitution,  lately  adopted  into  the  Canon*)' 

Stat.  Mer-  Law  ;  the  Anfwer  given  by  all  the  Temporal  Lords  was,   Nolumiis  Ic 
^20' H.  a.  S.^^  A»gli£  mutare,  qu£  hue  ufque  ufitat£  funtdf  approbat£.  They  did  not 

mean  they  would  make  no  Alterations  in  Parliament,  for  that  very  Part'^ 
pidercad  Iiament  did  fo  in  feveral  things  ^  but  their  meaning  was,  as  Mr.  5e/<5^e*tf  ■ 
Fiet.  c.  9.  obferves,  that  they  owned  neither  Canon  nor  Imperial  Laws  here,  any 

farther  than  they  were  agreeable  to  the  Laws  of  the  Land. 

2.  The  Imperial  Conftitutions  do  give  liberty  to  Church-men  to-' 
have  to  do  in  Secular  Affairs.    The  Emperor  Conjiantine,   whofe  Con- 

f  ftitutions  deferve  as  great  regard  as  thofe  of  Honorius  and  Theodojius,  to' 
fhew  his  refped  to  the  Chriftian  Religion,  permitted  all  Men  to  bring 
j.„  their  Caufes  before  the  Bilhops,  without  ever  going  to  the  other  Tri-^'- 
/.  ,'.c.  p"  bunals,  as  Sozomen,  aLzwyer  of  Cof/Jiantinople,  relates.  And  this  is 
capitui.  the  true  foundation  of  the  Conftitution  De  Epifcopali  Judicio  5  as  Gotho- 
Ludov.A6.A^^  confeffeth.  Which  is  at  large  inferted  into  the  Capitulars,  with  a 
c  28 ! .  ed.  more  than  ufual  Introduction  ^  and  made  a  Law .  to  all  the  Subjefts  of 
J;'"^g"^j  the  Empire,    Franks,  Saxons,  Lombards,  Britaim,  &c.   and  therefore 

Baluz*  is 


in  Capital  Cnujes, 


is  more  confiderable  to  thefe  parts  than  a  bare  Refcript  o^Homrius  and 
Thtodoftus.    And  yet  thefe  very  Emperors,   in  a  Conil  itution  of  theirs,  ^^\'  J"^- 
do  fo  far  ratifie  the*  Judgment  of  Biftiops  upon  Trial  by  confent  before S*}*!' 
them  that  no  Appeal  doth  lie  from  their  Decree.  What  Refcript  then  is  tit.  i.c.  s, 
this  of  theirs  which  fo  utterly  forbids  Clergy-men  having  any  thing  to 
do  with  publick  Fundions,  or  things  appertaining  to  the  Court  >  I  fup- 
pofe  that  Conftitution  of  Homrlui  is  meant,  which  confines  the  Bifhops 
Power  to  what  concerns  Religion  5   and  leaves  other  Caufes  to  the  or- 
dinary Judges  and  the  Courfe  of  Law.  But  two  things  are  well  obferved 
by  y^o-.  6o/^tfyye<^  concerning  this  Re/rri/'^  oi  Hofioriuf:     i.  That  irisCod.Thc- 
meant  of  abfoluteand  peremptory  Judgment  without  Appeal ;  2.  That°i^°/''"[f; 
whatever  is  meant  by  it,    not  many  Years  after,  this  Conftitution  was 
repealed  by  Honorittf  himfelf,    and  theBifhop's  Sentence  made  as  abfo- 
lute  as  before.  So  that  Honorius  is  clearly  againft  him,  if  a  Man's  fecond 
Judgment  and  Thoughts  be  better. 

5.  The  Pradice  of  the  beft  Men  in  thofe  Ages  fliews,   that  they 
thought  no  Law  in  force  to  forbid  Church- men  to  meddle  in  Secu- 
lar Affairs  5  as  might  be  at  large  proved  from  the  praftice  of  Gregory  Qng.'^i?;. 
Thanmaturgus  and  Jit.  Bajil in  theEaJ}  ;    of  Silvanus  liiftiop  oiTroas^  of ^'Yp/^S-" 
St.  Ambrofi,  St.  Angufline,   and  others  of  the  greateft  and  moft  devout  soc'r."/"%c'. 
Church-men  of  thofe  times.     And  St.  Jugujiwe  was  fo  far  from  think-  37  Am- 
ing  it  unlawful,  that  in  his  Opinion  St.  Faul  commanded  the  Bilhops  to  offic//!  z. 
do  it.     Conflituit  enim  talibtts  Caujit  Ecclejiajiicos  Apojidlm  Cognitores.  c.24.  Aug. 
And  the  learned  Gothofred  of  Geneva  faith,  Mos  hie  f-equens  &  legttimtfs  '\^'^^^'^\^ 
eundi  ad  Judices  Epifcopos.     It  was  then  a  common  and  legal  practice  to  go  cone.  24. 
to  Bifhops  as  to  their  Judges,    Which  would  never  have  been  if  there  J^'^^^^'^- 
had  been  a  Law  in  force  to  forbid  Bilhops  meddling  in  Secular  Af-'xheoiad 

fairs.  ■'        ■     Extrav.de 

4.  The  Emperors  ftill  referved  to  thcmfelves  the  Power  of  difpertfing  ^^'i^';,, 
with  their  own  Refcripts,  and  the  Canons  of  the  Church.  Therefore  the  Concii. 
Council  of  Sardica^  when  it  prohibits  Bilhops  going  to  Court,excepts  the  J^ar'i'c.cT. 
Princes  calling  them  thither.    Upon  which  B<«/^)w^»  hath  this  2Vt>/e  5 
that  althoHgh  the  Canons  prohibit  it,  yet  if  the  Emperor  commands,  the  Bi- 
fhops are  bound  to  obey,  and  to  do  what  he  commands  them  \  without  any 
fault  either  in  the  Emperor  or  them.     And  in  other  places,  he  afferts  the 
Emperor's  Power  of  difpenfing  with  the  ftrideft  Canons  againft  Church- 
luens  meddling  in  Secular  Affairs :    Thence  he  faith,   the  Metropolitan  Baifam.in 
of  Side  was  chief  Minifter  of  State  under  Michael  Ducas  5  and  the  Biftlop  ^^^^\( 
of  Neodefarea  made  the  Laws  of  the  Admiralty  for  Greece.  And  theG/^chjiced. 
upon  Jftfiinians  Novels^  obferves  thatBiflhops  may  meddle  with  the  Af-  Auth.coi- 
fairs  of  the  Commonwealth,  when  their  Prince  calls  them  to  it.     And  ^f  Novdi, 
this  is  the  prefent  Cafe  5    for  the  Bifhops  are  fummon'd  by  the  King's  6.  c  z. 
Writ  to  ferre  him  in  the  publick  Council  of  the  Nation  5  and  there- 
fore no  Imperial  Refcript,   if  it  were  of  force  in  England,    could 
have  any  in  this  Cafe,    which  was  allowed  by  the  Imperial  Laws 
themfelves. 

5.  There  is  a  great  Miftake  about  Jujiinian's  Decree.    For  the  Bi-Jaftin.cod. 
Ihops  are  not  fo  much  as  mention 'd  in  it  5    but  the  Defenfores  Ecclefia-'-  y^'  ?' 
rnm  ^  who  were  Lawyers,  or  Advocates  of  the  Church :  as  appears  by 
a  Conftitution  of  Honorius  r    where  Gothofred  proves  they  were  not  fo  Cod-  jhe- 
much  asm  Orders.     It  is  true,  Jufiintan doth  appropriate  the  Probate  of  2.  „.  gg. 
Willsio  the  Mafter  of  his  Revenue  5    but  the  Law  and  Cuftom  of  En-  Lynwood 
gland,  as  Lynvpood  obferves,  hath  alter'd  that  Conftitution  ;  and  which '-^^J^^,^, 
muft  we  regard  more,  Jt^iman,  or  out  own  Laws  ^  1 


^  ;  ■ 

g2o  OftheBiJhops  JarifdiBion  ^ 

I  find  one  thing  more  fuggefted  by  way  of  Prejudice  to  the  Caufe  in 
Lett.^4.  hand,  viz,,  the  Common  Law  of  E»g/^»c^,  which  hath  provided  a  Writ 
upon  a  Clergy-man's  being  chofen  an  Officer  in  a  Mannor,  faying  it  was 
contra  Legettt  &  Confuetuditiem  Regni,  &  non  confanum.  The  Argu- 
ment had  been  altogether  as  good,  if  it  had  been  taken  from  a  Minl- 
fter  of  a  Parifti  not  being  capable  of  the  Office  of  Conftable^  andit  had 
as  efifeftually  proved,  that  Clergy-men  ought  not  to  meddle  in  Secular 
Affairs. 


HAP 


.    11. 


rhe  RIGHT  in  <Pointof  LAW  Mated.  Concerning 
the  Conftitution  of  CLARENDON  and  the 
PROTESTATION,  II  i?.  2. 


H 


Aving  removed  thefe  general  Prejudices,  I  now  come  to  debate 
_L  more  clofely  the  main  Poinr.  For  the  Author  of  the  Letter  un- 
^"•^•^^'  dertakes  to  prove,  that  Bijhops  cannot  by  Law  give  Votes  in  Capital 
Cafes  in  Parliament.  Which  he  doth  two  ways,  i .  Ey  Statute- Law -^ 
2.  By  life  and  Cuftora,  which  he  faith  is  Parliament-Law  5  and  for  this 
he  produceth  many  Precedents. 

1.  For  Statute-Lan>\  two  Ratifications,  he  faith,  thdre  have  been 
of  it  in  Parliament  5  by  the  Conftitutions  of  Clarendon,  and  the  ii 
'Bi.i. 
letr.t.So.  '•  T^^Q  Confiitutions  of  Clarendon '^  which  he  looks  Ort  ds  the  more 
confiderable,  becaufe  thej/  were  not  the  enacting  of  new  Laws,  but  a  decla- 
ration of  what  was  before.  And  for  the  fame  Reafon  I  value  them  too, 
and  (hall  be  content  thisCaufe  ftand  or  fall  by  them. 

The  Conflitution  in  debate  is  the  1 1  th,  which  is  thus  repeated  and  trari- 
flated  in  the  Letter.  Archiepifcopl,  Epifcopi^  C^  ttniverf<e  Perfona:  Regni  qui 
de  Rege  tenent  inCapite,  habeant  poffeffiones  fuas  de  Rege,  ficut  Baronianty 
^  inde  Refpondeant  Jujliciarik  &•  Minijlrk  Regis,  ^  fequantur  (^faciant 
omnes  confuetudines  Regias  :  Et  ficut  cseteri  Barones,  debent  interefle 
(judiciis  Curix  Regis,  quoufqueperveniaturad  diminutionem  membro- 
rum,  vel  ad  mortem. 

The  Archbifhops,  Bijhops,  and  all  the  dignified  Clergy  of  the  Land  that 
hold  of  the  King  i//Capite,  JJmU  hold  their  Poffeffions  from  the  King,    as 
a  Barony,  and  anfwer  for  their  ejiates  unto  the  Kings  Jnfiifices  and  Mi- 
.  nifters,  andfliall  obferve  and  obey  all  the  Kings  Laws  :  And  together  with 
1  the  other  Barons,    they  are  to  be  prefent  at  all  Judgments  in  the  Kings 
Courts,  till  it  come  to  require  either  lofs  of  Member  or  Life. 
Lett.f.71,     The  Argument  from  hence  he  entorceth  from  the  folemn  Recognition 
■  H'         and  publick  Confirmation  of  thefe  Conftitutions,    and   the  Oath  taken 
to  obferve  them,  ^    from  whence  he  concludes  this  to  be  Teflimont- 
nium  irrefragabile  5    An  irrefragable  and  invincible  Teftimony.     And  fo 
I  forefee  it  will  prove,   but  to  a  quite  contrary  purpofe  from  what 
he  intended  it. 
The  whole  ^eftion  depends  upon  the  meaning  of  the  latter  Claufe  of 
Lettip,6i.  this  Conftitution.  The  meaning  he  gives  of  it  is  this,  that  the  Prelates  of 

the 


in  Capital  Caufes.  821 

the  church  (hould  not  he  prefent  at  the  Judgfaettts  given  in  the  Kings 
Courts^   vchen  lofs  of  Member  or  Lifi  war  in  qttejiion. 

The  meaning  of  it,  I  conceive  to  be  this,  that  the  Bifhops  are  re- 
quired to  be  prefent  in  the^ng's  Courts  as  "other  Barons  are,  till  they 
come  to  give  Sentence  as  to  difmembring,  or  lofs  of  Life. 

Whether  of  thefe  is  the  true  meaning  is  now  to  be  confidered  5  and 
that  will  beft  be  difcovered  thefe  three  ways ;  i.  By  the  Occafion.  2, 
By  the  plain  Senfe  of  the  Words,  according  to  their  true  Reading. 
5.  By  the  fabfequent  Praftice  upon  this  Conjiitution  in  the  Parliament 
2it  Northampton  foon  after. 

I.  By  theOccaJion.    The  Author  of  the  Letter  affigns  that  Occafioil 
for  this  Conftitution,  for  which  there  is  not  the  leaft  Colour,  vi%. 
That  the  Prelates  of  that  time  were  ambitious  of  a  kind  <)/Omnipotency,  Lett,  p.73- 
(in  Judicature  I  fuppofe  he  means)   and  that  to  reftrain  their  Power  of 
Judging  Capital  Cafes,  thk  Conftitution  vpjs  made  :  And  becaufe  this 
feemed  to  be  a  Diminution  of  their  Power^  therefore  Matt.  Paris  ranks  it 
amongji  the   Confuetudines  iniquas,    the  wicked  Cuftoms  of  the  for- 
mer  times.       For   all    which    there    is    riot    the    leaft   Shadow    of 
Proof.     Befides  that,  it  is  fo  repugnant  to  the  Hiftory  of  thofe  Times, 
that  I  can  hardly  believe  a  Perfon  of  fo  much  Learning  and  Judgment, 
as  is  commonly  faid   to  be  the  Author  of  the  Letter,  could  betray  fo 
much  Unskilfulnefs  in  the  Affairs  of  thofe  Times.    For  this  is  fo  far 
from  being  true,  that  the  Bifljops  did  then  affeft  fuch  a  Power  of  Jndg- 
inq^  in  all  Secular  Caufes,  that  they  looked  on  their  Attendance  in  the 
King's  Court  in  the  Trial  of  Caufes,  as  a  Burthen  which  they  would  fain 
have  been  rid  of  ^  becaufe  they  accounted  it  a  Mark  of  Subje^ion  to  the 
Civil  Power,  and  contrary  to  that  Eccle/iafiical  Liberty,  or  Independency 
on  Princes,  which  from  the  Days  ofGregory  Vll.  they  had  been  endea- 
vouring to  fet-  up.     Which  H.  IL  being  very  fenfible  of,  refolved  to  tie 
them  to  the  Service  of  their  Barof;ies,znd  to  an  attendance  on  the  King's 
Courts  together  with  other  Barons.    But  left  they  fhould  pretend  any 
force  on  their  Confciences,  as  to  the  Canons  of  the  Church,  thisC"o«- 
ftitution  doth  not  require,  but  fuffers  them  to  withdraw  when  they  came 
to  Sentence  in  matters  of  Blood.      And  that  this  was  the  true  occafion, 
I  prove  by  thefe  two  invincible  Arguments. 

1.  By  the  C  ompLiint  which  they  made  of  the  Baroniet  as  too  great  d 
Mark  of  Subje&ion  to  the  Civil  Power.    This  is  plain  from  Matt.  Paris ^I'f^^^^J- 
hirafelf,  to  whom  the  Author  of  the  Letter  refers^  for  when  he  fpeaks  ,070.* 
of  William  the  Coi-cfuerors  bringing  the  Temporalties  of  the  Bifhops  into 
the  Condition  of  Baronies,  i.  e.  forcing  them  to  hold  them  of  him 
in  Chief  upon  certain  Duties  and  Services,  he  calls  itConJiitutionem  pef- 
fimam,  a  moji  wicked  Conftitution  :^  juft  as  he  CdW^thtCnflomsoi Claren- 
don, Confuetudines  iniquas,  wicked  Cufioms.    And  he  adds,  That  many 
were  banifhed  rather  than  they  would  fubmit  to  that  Confiitution.    For 
their  Privileges  were  fo  great  with  the  Frank- almoign  they  enjoyed  in 
the  Saxon  times,  and  their  DeOres  fo  hearty   (efpecially  among  the 
Monks,  who  from  Edgar's  time  had  gotten  into  moft  Cathedral  Chur- 
ches) to  advance  tht  Papal  Monarchy,  that  they  rather  chofe  to  quit 
all,  than  to  give  up  the  Canfe  of  the  Church's  Liberty,  by  accepting  of 
Baronies.    Therefore  Matt.  Fa^is  calls  the  RoZ^j-  that  were  made  of  the 
Services  belonging  to  thefe  Baronies,  Rotulas  Ecclefiajiic£  Servitutjs,  the  . 
RjUs  of  Ecclefiaflital  Slavery  ^  than  which  nothing  could  benlore  con- 
trary to  that  Ec/e/w^iV^/  Liberty  which  was  then  fetting  up  by  Pope 

M  m  m  m  ra  .  Hil* 


82  2  OftbeBiJhops  Jurijdiction 


Bilbebravd.     And  to   put  this  out  of  all  difpute,   Petrut  Blefettfis,  a 

Name  well  known  in  this  difpute,  in  that  very  Book  where  he  complains 

of  the  Bijhops  Hypocrify  about  Cafes  of  Blood,  in  being  prefent  at  hearing 

and  trying  Caufes,  but  going  out  at  Sentence,  complains  likewife  of 

thoix  Baronies  as  thofe  which  gave  occafion  to  that  Hypocrify^  and  as 

Pet.  Elef.  tks  Marks  of  the  vHeJi  Slavery.     Et  in  occafion  e  iftrpijfim£  Scrvitutk  feipfos 

deinaitur.  Barones  appellant.  They  may  think  it  an  Honour  to  be  called  the  Kmg'f 

pi  c.  ^  Q^j.^,.^^  ijm-  i^g  accounts  it  the  greateji  Slavery  5  and  applies  that  Place 

of  Scripture  to  them,  They  have  reigned  but  not  by  me  j  they  are  become 

Princes,  and  I  know  them  not.     Now   Vet,  Blefenfis  lived  TfP  the  Time 

of  H.  II.   and  knew  the  whole  Proceedings  of  the  Cortfitiaions  of 

Clarendon,  and  was  a  zealous  Maintainer  of  Bechet'si  aufe,  *or,  which 

was  all  one,  of  the  Liberties  of  theChunh,  as  they  call'd  them,  againft 

the  Civil  Power. 

2.  By  the  fierce  Conteft  between  the  Civil  and  Ecdejiajiical  Power, 
about  theLiberties  of  Church-mcn.This  was  carried  on  from  the  time  that 
William  I.  brought  them  into  Subjeftion  by  thenBaronies :  Wis  Sons  flood 
upon  the  Rights  oi  the  Crown,  whilft  Anfelm  and  his  Brethren  ftruggled 
all  they  could,  but  to  little  purpofe,  till  after  the  Death  of  H.I.  Then 
Stephen,  to  gratify  the  great  Prelates,  by  whofe  favour  he  came  to  the 
Grown,  yielded  all  they  defired;  but  he  foon  repented,  and  they  were 
Maimesb.  even   with   him  for  it.    Malmesbury  takes  particular   notice,  that  he 
Hift.  No-  yielded  they  fhould  have  their  Poffeffions  free  and  abfolute  ^    and  they 
Y/     °  'promifed  only  a  conditional  Allegiance  to  him  as  long  as  he  maintained 
the  Liberties  of  the  Church.     When  Ring  Stephen  broke  the  Canons,  as 
they  faid,  by  imprifoning  2  Bifhops,  the  Bifhop  of  Winchefler  and  his 
Brethren  fummoned  him  to  anfvver  it  before  them  in  Council ;  and  there 
declared  that  the  King  had  nothing  to  do  with  Church-men,  till  the 
Caufe  was  firfl:  heard  and  determined  by  themfelves.     All  his  Time  they 
had  no  regard  to  his  Authority  when  it  contradiiited  their  Wills  5 
and  when  the  Peace  was  made  between  Him  and  H.  II.  Radulphm  de 
Dketo^i-  ^'^^^^  ^^^^^  notice.  That  the  Power  of  the  Clergy  increafed  by  it.    In 
mag. Hift. fbis  ftate  H.W.  found  Things,  when  Gul.  Neuburgenps  faith.  The  great 
/..5og,57  8  BajhiefsoftheChurch-men  waj  to  preferve  theirLiberties.llpon  this  the  great 
bu1-g.'^/!i.  Q.''^'"'"^'  between  Him  and  Becket  began  :    This  made  the  King  fearch 
c.  16.       what  the  Rights  of  the  Crown  were  which  his  Anceftors  challenged  ^  to 
the(e  he  was  refolved  to  make  Becket  and  his  Brethren  fubmit.     For 
this  purpofe  the  Parliament  was  called  at  Clarendon  5   and  after  great 
•    Debates  the  16  Confiittttions  were  produced,  which  were  thofe  the  King 
.was  refolved  to  maintain,  aud  he  made  the  BiJJjops  as  well  as  others 
fwear  to  obferve  them.     Now  when  the  refl:  of  them  relate  to  fome 
Exemptions  and  Privileges  which  the  Church-men  challenged  to  them- 
felves about  their  ftfarfj-.  Excommunications,  Appeals,  and  fuch  like,  and 
which  the  King  thought  fit  to  reftrain  them  in.     (From  whence  in 
Bar.  ad  A.  Becket' s  Ep'Jiles  it  is  faid,  thofe  Cof/pitutions  were  framed  ad  amillandant 
II.  3.^  ^    -Ei^-f/e/^^ew,  to  bring  the  Church  in  fuhjc&ion,  as  Baronitfs  ihewsout  of  the 
FitzSte-   Vatican  Co\iy .     And  Fitz-Stephen  laith,  ^11  the  Conjiitutions  of  Claren- 
Th"BeIk"^'"^  ^"'^  fi*"  f'PP^^If^"S,  *^^  Liberty  of  the  Chunh,  and  opprelfing  the  Clcv 
MS.'        gy  •■)  I  fay,  confidering  this,  is  there  not  then  great  Reafon  to  under- 
ftand  t\m  yithConJiitution  after  the  fame  manner,  viz.  That  notwith- 
(i^ndm§,Kmg  Stephen's  Grant,  f/.ll.  would  make  them  hold  by  Baro- 
nies,, and  do  all  the  Service  of  Barons  in  the  King's  Courts  as  other  Ba- 
rons  did  ;  and  he  vvoqld  allow  them   no  other  Privilege,  but  that  of 

with' 


in  Capital  Caufes,  8:23 


withdrarewg  vohcK  they  came  to  Sentence  in  a  Cafe  of  Blood  .<?  What  is  there 
in  this  fenfe,  but  what  is  eafy  and  natural,  and  fully  agreeable  to  the 
ftate  of  thofe Times?  Whereas  there  is  riot  the  leaft  foundation  for  the 
pretence  of  jhe  Bifiops  afFefting  to  be  prefent  in  all  Caufes,  which  the 
King  muft  reftrain  by  this  Conjiitntion. 

This  fenfe  of  it  is  not  only  without  ground,  but  abfolutely  repug- 
nant to  all  the  Hijlory  of  that  Jge.     For  if  this  Conflittition  was  intend- 
ed to  rejlrain  the  Bi/l?ops  from  trying  Caufes  of  Blood,  then  the  Bijhops 
did  defire  to  be  prefent  in  thofe  Caufes,  and  the  King  would  not  fufFer 
them.     Whereas  it  is  evident  that  the  Bipops  pretended  fcruple  of  Con- 
fcience  from  the  Canons  that  they  could  not  be  prefent;   but  in  truth 
ftood  upon  their  Exemption  from  the  Service  oi  Barons,  which  they 
caird  Ecclefiaflical  Slavery.     And  therefore  that  could  not  be  the  fenfe 
of  the  Conjiitution,  to  reftrain  them  in  that  which  they  defired  to  be 
freed  from,  and  which  by  this  Conjiitution  of  Clarendon  was  plainly 
forced  upon  them  againft  their  Wills.     For  Lanfranc  had  brought  the 
Canon  of  the   iith  Council  of  Toledo  into  England,  That  no  Bifhop  or  Spelm, 
Clergy-man  fjould  condemn  a  Man  to  Death,  or  give  Vote  in  the  Sentence   °f^^Q  /,' 
of  Condemnation  :  At  which  Council  were  prefent  2  Archbi(hops,  12  Bi- 
fijops,  and  21  Abbots.     And  before  H.  II's  Time  this  Canon  of  Toledo 
was  received  into  tHe  Body  of  the  CanonLavo,  made  by  Ivo,  Burchardus, 
JS.egino,  and  Gratian,  who  lived  in  the  Time  of  King  Stephen.     And 
when  they  faw  fuch  a  Canon  fo  generally  received,  is  there  not  far 
greater  Reafon  to  think  they  defired  to  withdraw,  than  that  they  fliould 
prefs  to  be  prefent,  and  the  King  reftrain  them  ?  But  the  Conjiitution  is 
fo  framed  on  purpofe  to  let  them'underftand,  that  the  King  expefted 
in  all  Judgments  they  fhould  do  their  Duty  as  other  Barons  :    But  left 
they  ftiould  think  he  purpofely  defigned  to  make  them  break  the  Canons, 
he  leaves  them  at  liberty  to  withdravp  when  Sentence  was  to  be  given. 
So  that  I  can  hardly  doubt  but  the  Author  of  the  Letter,  if  he  pleafe 
calmly  to  refleft  upon  the  whole  Matter,  will  fee  Reafon  to  acknow- 
ledge his  miftake  ^  and  that  this  Conjiitution  was  fo  far  from  intending 
to  reftrain  the  BiJIjops  from  all  Judicature  m  Cafes  of  Blood,  that,  on  the 
contrary,  it  was  purpofely  framed  to  oblige  them  to  be  prefent,  and 
to  ad  in  fuch  Caufes  as  the  other  Barons  did,  at  leaft  till  the  Caufe  was 
ripe  for  Sentence  ^  which  laft  Point  the  King  was  content  to  yield  to 
them,  out  of  regard  and  reverence  to  the  Canons  of  the  Church.    For 
the  Words  of  the  Law  are  not  Words  oi  Prohibition  and  Rejiraint  from 
any  thing,  but  of  Obligation  to  a  Dutj^  which  was,  to  be  prefent  and 
ferve  in  the  King's  Courts  of  Judicature,  in  like  manner  as  the  other  Ba- 
rons did. 

From  all  which  it  is  evident,  I  think,  beyond  contradiftion,  Thaf 
the  Occajion  of  this  Larv  was  not  the  Ambition  of  the  Prelates,  (as  the 
Author  of  the  Letter  fuggefts)  to  thruji  themfelves  into  this  kind  of  Judi-  P-  7?- 
cature  5  but  an  Ambition  of  a  worfe  kind,  (though  quite  contrary)  i)i&. 
under  a  pretence  6i  Ecclefiaflical  Liberty  and  Privilege,  to  exempt  them- 
felves from  the  Service  of  the  King  and  Kingdom,  to  which  by  virtue 
of  their  Baronies  they  were  bound,  Jicut  cateri  Barones,  as  well  as  the 
other  Barons.  And  therefore  it  is  fo  far  from  being  true,  that  the  Bi- 
Jl)ops  exercjfe  of  this  Jurifdi&ion  together  with  the  Temporal  Lords  is 
a  Relique  of  Popery,  and  one  of  the  Encroachments  of  the  Clergy  in 
thofe  Times  of  Ignorance  and  Ufnrpation,  as  fome  well  meaning  Pro- 
tejiants  are  now  made  to  believe  ,   that,  on  the  contrary,  the  E:^emp-^ 

M  m  m  m  m  2  ticti 


824.  __     OftheBijhopsJmifdi^ton 

- -  .,1  ■  —  — ■ ■ : ""  ■  '  ■■        '  ■■  ii  ■ 

tlon  of  the  Ciiirgy  from  this  kind  of  Serular  Judicature  was  one  of  thtT; 
.  highefi  Points  of  'Popery,  and  that  which  the  Pope  and  his  Adherefttj 
contefted  for  with  more  Zeal  than  for  any  Arti-le  of  the  Creed,  ThiV 
was  one  of  thofe  Privileges  which  Thomas  Becket  faid  Chriji  purrhafed 
for  his  Church  with  hk  Blood,  and  in  the  obftinate  defence  whereof  a- 
gainft  the  King,  he  himfelf  at  laft  loft  his  Life.  And  now  to  put  the 
matter  beyond  all  doubt,  I  appeal  to  any  Man  skilled  in  the  Hijiory  of 
thofe  Tif;ies,  whether  Thomas  Becket  oppofed  the  Co.^jiitutions  of  ■■  la- 
rendon  to  the  Death,  and  broke  the  Oa.th  he  had  taken  to  obferve 
them,  becaufe  by  them  (among  other  things)  the  Bijhops  were  excluded 
from  'judicature  in  Cafes  of  Blood  .-?  Or  for  the  quite  contrary  reafon. 
(among  others)  becaufe  this  Service  of  the  King  in  his  Courts,  itti- 
pos'd  on  them  by  virtue  of  their  Baronies,  was  look'd  upon  by  him  as 
a  violation  of  the  Privileges  of  the  Church,  -and  a  Badge  of  Efclejiajii- 
cal  Slavery,  which  by  all  means  he  defir'd  tocaft  off  And  if  the  latter 
be  the  true  Reafon,  I  leave  it  to  the  impartial  Reader,  and  everi 
to  the  Author  of  the  Letter  himfelf  upon  fecond  Thoughts,  whe- 
ther he  have  not  widely  miftaken  both  the  Occafion  and  Meanittg  of 
this  Law. 

2.  Let  us  confider  the  plain  Senfe  of  the  Words  according  to  the  true 
reading  of  them.  The  Author  of  the  Letter  hath  made  ufe  of  the  moft 
iraperfed  Copy,  v';%.  that  in  Matt. Park  ^  I  cannot  tell  for  what  reafoii,' 
unlefs  it  be  that  in  the  lafk  Claufe  {i?z  Judicio"]  is  there  left  our,  which 
is  put  in  the  Copy  extant  in  Gervafi,  and  in  the  Vatican  Copy,  and  in 
feveral  MSS.  in  all  which  it  runs  thus,  Et  ficut  Barohes  cateri  debent  in-^ 
tereffe  judicik  Curi£  Regk  cum  Baronibus,  nfque  perveniatur  in  judicio 
ad  diminutionem  membrorum,  i>el  ad  mortem.  Now  here  are  two  things 
to  be  diftinguiftied. 

I.  Something  exprefly  required  of  the  Bijhops  as  to  their  Prefence  in 
the  King's  Courts,  viz.  That  they  muji  attend  as  other  Barons,  and  fit  tcfi^y 
gether  with  them  ;  and  therefore  it  is  expreifed  twice,  Et  ficut  caeteti 
Barones,  in  the  beginning  of  that  Claufe,  and  cum  Baronibus  again  af- 
ter, and  debent  inferejfe  in  the  middle.  And  can  any  one  foberly  thinfc, 
that  the  meaning  of  all  this  is,  they  muft  not  be  prefent  in  Cafes  of 
Blood  }  No  :  the  Conflitution  faith,  they  ought  to  be  prefent  as  other  Bit' 
rons,  and  ^itpith  other  Barons  in  the  Trials  of  the  King's  Courts.  And 
yet  the  Author  of  the  Letter  doth  (to  fpeak  mildly)  very  unfairly  repr6-> 
lent  this  Conflitution,  as  if  it  did  forbid  the  Prelates  to  be  at  all  prefent 
in  the  Judgments  of  the  Kings  Courts  in  Cafes  of  Blood,  and  that  in  ex^ 
prefs  Words.  For,  fpeaking  oi  the  Confiitutions  of  Clarendon^  he  hath- 
P-  ^''  this  Paflage,  And  one  of  thefe  Conjiitutions  roas.  That  the  Prelates  of  the 
Church  Jhould  not  interejffejudicik  Curi<e  Regis,  be  prefent  at  the  Judgments 
given  in  the  King's  Courts.  Whereas  this  Conflitution  (as  he  bimfelft 
cites  it  afterwards)  runs  thus,  Debent  interejffe  JudicikCurix  Regk.,  quo' 
ufque,  d^c.  They  ought  to  be  prefent  in  the  Judgments  of  the  Kings  Courts 
till  it  come  to  lofs  of  Members  or  Life.  So  that  this  Law  exprefly  fays. 
That  they  ought  to  be  prefent  in  the  Judgments  of  the  King's  Courts,  till 
it  come,  d^c.  And  when  it  comes  to  Lofs  of  Members  or  Life,  it  doth 
not  fay,  (as  the  Author  of  the  Letter  affirms)  that  they  Jhould  not  be 
prefent  then,  nor  do  the  Words  of  the  Conflitution  imply  any  fuch 
thing  ^  but  only  require  (as  I  fhall  evidently  make  appear )  their  Vxt- 
fence  fo  far,  and  when  it  fhould  come  to  Sentence,  leaves  them  at  libefP 
ty  to  withdraw  in  obedience  to  the  Canons  of  the  Church,  which  they 

pre- 


in  Capital  Caufes. 


pretended  themfelves  bound  in  Confcicnce  to  obferve.  And  this  is  the 
true  Pveafon,  why,  among  the  1 6  Conflittttiofis  of  Clarendon^  (  whereof  ^^'^°°*1J' 
lovitxe  cmdemned,  6  tolerated,  hut.  none  approved,  hy  Pope  Alex.  III.  ^  ii6^' 
tbjs  1 1  was  one  of  the  6  which  efcaped  with  an  Hoc  toleravit,  this  the 
Pope  ivas  content  to  tolerate  5  becaufe  in  the  laft  Claufe  of  it  there  was 
regard  had  to  the  Canons  of  the  Church.  Of  this  mifreprefentation 
of  the  Conftitution  under  debate,  though  it  might  have  deferved 
a  more  fevere  animadverfion,  I  fliall  fay  no  more,  becaufe  I  have 
no  defign  to  provoke  the  Author  or  any  body  elfe,  but  only  to  cooip 
vince  them. 

2.  Something  allowed  to  tht  Bi(hops  zs  peculiar  to  themfelves,  viz. 
that  when  the  Court  hath  proceeded  fo  far  in  Judido,  in  a  particular 
Trial,  for  before  it  is  jHdicHs'm  general  that  Sentence  was  to  be  given 
either  as  to  difmembring,  -or  lofs  of  life,  then  they  are  at  liberty  ;  but 
till  then  th'ey  are  required.  As  fuppofeC/w/e/  V.  had  required  the  fro- 
tefiant  Princes  to  attend  him  to  Majfe,  as  other  Frinces  did  ^  only  when 
the  Mrf/f-^e// tinWed  they  might  withdraw  5  would  not  any  reafona- 
ble  Man  underftand  by  this,  that  they  were  obliged  to  their  Attendance 
till  then  ?  So  it  is  here :  The  King  commands  their  Attendance  till  it 
comes  to  fuch  a  point  5  therefore  before  it  comes  thither,  their  Prefence 
is  plainly  required,  by  this  Conftitution.  And  fo  inftead  of  there  be- 
ing a  StatHte-Law  to  exclude  the  Bijbops  at  fuch  Trials^  there  is  one  to 
require  their  Prefence  injudicio,  in  the  Proceedings  of  fuch  a  Trial, 
till  it  comes  to  Sentence.  All  that  can  be  faid  in  this  Cafe  is.  That  the 
la/i  Claufe  is  not  to  be  underftood  of  the  Sentence,  hut  of  the  kind  or  quality 
of  the  Caufe  5  i.  e.  they  are  to  be  prefent  in  the  Kings  Courts^  till  thejf 
come  to  a  Caufe  wherein  a  Man's  Life  or  Members  are  concerned.  But  that 
this  cannot  be  the  meaning  will  appear. 

V  I.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  difference  between  qnoujque  perveniatur  ad 
jttd  cium  mntilationk  membrorum,  vel  mortis,  that  might  have  been  un- 
derftood of  a  Caufe  of  Blood  ;  and  quoufque  perveniatur  injudicio  dd  muti- 
lationem  membrorum,  -vd  ad  mortem,  for  this  fuppofeth  a  Trial  already 
begun,  and  the  Bifhops  prefent  fo  far  in  it  ^  But  when  it  comes  to  the 
point  of  mutilation  or  death,  then  they  have  leave  to  withdraw.  So  that 
this  laft  Claufe  muft  either  be  underftood  of  Execution,  which  no  one  can 
think  proper  for  the  Kings  Courts  ;  or  for  the  Sentence  given  by  the 
Court,  which  is  moft  agreeable, 

2.  The  Senfe  is  beft  underftood  by  the  Pradice  of /^4/4s^.     For,  if 
the  meaning  of  the  Confiitution  had  been,   they  muft  not  be  prefent  in 
any  Caufe  of  Blood,  and  the  Bifljops  had  all  fworn  to  obferve  ic^  can  we 
imagine  we  fhouldfind  them  praftifing  the  contrary  fo  foon  after  >  And 
tor  this  I  appeal  to  f'etrifs  Blefenfis,  whofe  Words  are  fo  material  to  this  Pet.Biefi 
purpofe,  that  I  (hall  fet  them  down.     Principes  Sacerdotum  & Seniores^^}^^'^' 
Populi,  licet  non  dicfent  Judicia  fanguinis,  eademtamen  tratlant  difputan-p.^-^^. 
do  &  difceptando  de  illk  -^  fequc  ideo   immunes  a  culpa  reputant,    quod 
mortis  aut  truncationis  membrorum  judicium  decernentes,   'a  pronuncratione 
dmtaxat  ^  executione  penalis  fententi<efe  abfentent.     Whereby  it  is  evv-     • 
dent  that  the  Bifiops  were  prefent  at  all  Debates,  and  gave  Fotes  in  Cau- 
fes  of  Blood -^  but  they  abfented  themfelves  from  the  Sentence,  and  the 
Execution  of  it.     It's  true.  Pet.  Blefenfis  finds  fault  with  them  for  this. 
But  what  is  that  to  the  Law,    or  to  the  practice  of  that  Age  .<?  ,  I  do  not 
queftion,    but  fet.  Blefenfis  condemned  the  obfervation  of  the  other 
C&njiitHtions  of  Clarendon,    as  well  as^his ;  and  in  all  probability  this 

pafTagf? 


S26  Of  the  Bifiops  Jurifdittioii 


paifage  of  his  was  levelled  at  thofe  Bijhops  who  did  obferve  this  i  iXon- 
jiitution. 

3.  We  have  a  plain  way  to  underftand  the  meaning  of  thk  Conjlifuti- 
en,  by  what  happen'd  foon  after  in  the  Parliament  at  Northampton, 
which  wasfummond  upon  Becket's  Obftinacy  and  Contempt  of  t&e 
king's  /Authority  5  where  Fit%-Stephen  faith,  he  was  accufed  of  Treafon  5 
and  the  Bifhopsfate  together  with  other  Barons  ;  and  becaufe  it  did  not 
come  to  a  Sentence  of  Death,  after  great  debate  between  the  other 
Lords  and  the  Bifiops  about  pronouncing  the  Sentence,  the  Bij'hop  of 
Wine hejier  did  it.  Wherein  we  have  as  plain  evidence  as  can  be  defired, 
that  the  Bijhops  did  fit  with  the  other  Barons,  and  vote  with  them  in  i* 
cafe  of  Treafon. 

To  this  Frecedent  the  Author  of  the  Letter  anfwers  feveral  things. 
I.  That  none  of  the  ancient  Hiftorians  of  thofe  Times,    fay  any  thing  of 
pl^g.' iz°'  his  being  accufed  of  Treafon  :    and  therefore  he  thinks  one  may  modejlly 
affirm,    that  it  was  a  mtjiake  in  Fitz-Stephen  to  fay  fo.     But  what  if  H. 
II.  and Becket  himfelfboth  confefs  that  he  was  charged  with  Treafon} 
Vol.Epift.  H.  II.  in  his  Letter  to  Reginaldus  faith,  that  by  confent  of  his  Barons  and 
Ifb'^Co'"  C/er^;>  he  had  fent  Ambaffadors  to  p<7;>e  Alexander,  with  this  Charge,  That 
ton.  MS ./.  ^f  he  did  not  free  him  from  that  Traitor  Becket,  he  and  hk  Kingdom  would 
I.  ep.  65.  renounce  all  Obedience  to  him.     And  Becket  did  not  think  tliis  a  bare  term 
of  reproach ;  for  in  one  of  his  Letters  he  faith,    that  defending  the  Lid 
Ep.  j2.     berties  of  the  Church,    lafe  Majefiafir  reatuffub  perfecutorenojiro  eji,    was 
Gervaf.     looked  on  asTreafon  hy  thcKing.     And  even Gerz;(?/e  himfelf,    to  Whom 
p^itgi^'   *^^  Author  of  the  Letter  appeals,    faith,   fome  of  his  Friends  came  to  him, 
at  Northamptom,  and  told  him,  if  he  did  notfubmit  to  the  King,  he  would 
Fitz-Sre-  be  proceeded  againji  as  aTraitor,  for  breaking  the  Allegiance  he  .had  promt' 
t'^b"  V^'fi     '"  ^^^  ■^'*'<?>    ivhen  he  did  fwear  to  obferve  the  ancient  Cufioms  at  Cla- 
de  Conci- rendon.     And  P^'/zi-iS'/ep^ew  faith,    the  Ki>!gs  Council  at  Clarendon  y^i/f^ 
lio  apud    it  wasTreafon,  or  taking  the  Kings  Crown  from  his  Head,  to  deny  him  the  ■ 
don.         Rights  of  his  Ancejiors. 

Lett.;  ^3.      2.  That  it  was  ajirange  kind  of  Treafon  Becket  was  charged  with  at 
Northampton,  viz.   for  not  coming  when  the  King  fent  for  him  ;     whicll' 
at  the  mojl  was  only  a  high  Contempt  ;  and  Fitz-Stephen,  ivhj  was  a  Crea^^: 
ture  of  the  Archbi/Jjop's,    might  reprefent  it  fo,    to  draw  an  odium  on  the 
King.     And  therefore  he  looks  on  this  as  a  weak  precedent  for  the  BiJImps 
to  lay  any  weight  upon,  being  at  beji  out  of  a  blind  MS.  of  a;/  Author  juji-^ 
ly  fufpeiied  of  partiality,  againji  the  tenor  of  all  the  ancient  Writers  that  give 
Ait  account  of  the  fame  bujinefs.     What  truth  there  is  in  this  laft  faggefti-' 
on  appears  in  part  already,  and  will  domoreby  whatfollows.  Muftall' 
the  unprinted  Records  be  anfwered  with  faying,  they  are  blind  MSS  ? 
I  cannot  but  take  notice  how  unreafonable  a  way  of  anfwering  this  is. 
It  is  like  turning  of  that  preffinglnjiance  oftheBifhops  making  a  Proclor 
in  Capital  Cafes,  by  faying  it  was  Error  temporis  ;  which  becaufe  it  will' 
anfwer  all  Inflames  whatfoever  as  well  as  that,  is  therefore  an  anfwer  id' 
none.     Jufl:  fo  it  is  equally  an  anfwer  to  all  MSS,  to  fay  they  are  blind  ^ ' 
•    and  to  all  printed  Books  too,  becaufe  they  were  once  MSS,  and,  for  a- 
ny  thing  that  appears  to  the  contrary,    as  blind  as  Fitz-Stephen  s.     Fof 
furely  no  Authority  is  added  to  a  Book  by  its  being  printed  5  unlefs  in 
the  Opinion  of  the  Common  People,    who  are  faid  to  take  all  fir  true 
that  is  if/ print.     I  do  not  go  about  to  parallel  Fitz  Stephen  with  Parlia- 
ment Rolls  5  but  I  fay,  his  Authority  is  very  good  ^  being  prefent  up- 
on the  Place,  and  the  beft  we  haf  e,  of  all  the  Proceedings  in  the  i^'arll- 

ament 


•  ; ^ • ' ^     ^  ■" 

in  Capital  Cnafes. 8  ?7 

anient  at  Northampton.     And  if  the  Author  of  the  Leitcy  Had  taken  the^ 
pains  to  perufe  him,    he  would  not  have  contemned  the  Frei-edent . 
drawn  from  thence  5  which  being  fo  near  the  Parliament  at  Clarendon^ 
(that,  as  himfelf  confeffeth,  the  one  was  in  February,  the  (j^^e^-  in  0£t<f-^  ^^g.  61. 
her  following,  )  it  gives  the  beft  Light  into  this  matter  of  any  thing  ifl[ 
that  Age;  andbeingnot  yet  fully  printed,  it  will  be  worth  our  while 
to  fet  it  down.     Mr.  Selden  hath  indeed  printed  very  exaftly  the  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  firfl  Judgment  upon  Betket  about  the  Caufe  of  Con-  titles  of 
tempt,  for  not  coming  upon  the  King's  Summons,    at  the  complaint  ofi/5M«r,^2. 
Joh»  the  Marfjall  ^    wherein  the  Bijfjops  did  certainly//  in  Judgment'^'  5-  "'Co- 
upon him  with  the  other  Barons  ^  but  there  is  a  farther  ftrength  in  this 
Precede}!/-,  not  yet  taken  notice  of     Which  is,  that  after  this  Judgment 
pafTed  Bet/te*  behaved  himfelf  withfo  great  infolency  towardsthe  King 
and  the  Bijhops,  upon  the  King's  calling  him  to  farther  account,    for 
many  other  things  laid  to  his  Charge,  as  diverting  the  King's  Treafure 
and  applying  it  to  his  own  ufe,   and  great  Accounts  to  the  King  while  Ae 
jvoi  chancellor,  8ic.  that  the  King  required  him  to  ftand  to  the  Judg- 
ment  of  hisCoitrt.     Bciket  gave  a  dilatory  Anfwef :    the  Kirg  fummons 
the  Bifiops  and  Earls  and  Barons  to  give  Judgment  againft  him  3    the 
Bijhops  te\l  the  King,.  Becket  had  appealed  to  the  Pope,    and  prohibited' 
them  to  give  any  farther  Judgment  upon  any  Secular  Complaint  againft 
him.     Whereupon  the  King  fent  fome  Earls  and  Barons  to  him  toex- 
'poftulate  the  matter,  fince  he  was  the  /Cing's  SnbjeB,   and  had  fo  lately 
fworn  to  the  ConfiituPons  at  Clarendon:^  and  to  know  whether  he  would 
give  Security  to  the  King  about  making  up  his  Accounts,   and  ftand  to 
the  Judgment  of  his  Court.    Becket  refufeth   to  give  anfwer  to  any 
thing,  but  the  Caufe  of  John  the  Marfjal,  for  which  he  was  fummoned 
to  appear,  flights  his  Oath,  as  contrary  to  the  Rights  oftht  Church,  and 
confirms  his  Appeal  to  the  P'ope.  And  fmh  an  owning  of  the  Pope's  Porver, 
in  derogation  to  the  Rights  of  the  Crown,  Sir  Edrpard  Coke  faith,  teas  Trea- 
fon  by  the  ancient  Common- fjarv,  before  any  Statutes  were  made. ,    However, 
the  King  charges  the  Bifliops  by  virtue  of  their  Allegiance,  that,  together 
with  the  Barons,  they  would  give  Judgment  upon  the  Archbiflwp.    They 
excufed  themfelves  <7«  fi?ie  account  of  the Archbifhop  s  Prohibition.     The 
King  replied,  That  had  no  force  againfi  the  Conftitntion  «/ Clarendon,   fo 
lately  made  aud  acknowledged  by  them.     The  Words  of  Fitz-Stephei^  are 
the(e  :    Rex,  refp.mfo.  Archiepifcopi  accepto,  injiat  Epifcopff,  pr£cip'ens  C^ 
obtejlans  per  homagnrnt  &  fidelitatem  fbi  debitam  ^Juratam,  ut  fimul  cum 
Baron  bin  de  Archiep  fcopofibi  dictent  Sentent/am.  fl/i  fe  excufare  cceperunt 
per  interpofitam  Archiepifcopi  prohibitionem.     Rex  non  acquievit,  afferens, 
qmdnon  teneat  htec ejus  (imple^Prohibitio contra  hoc  quod  Clarendons  faButA 
^initum  fucrat.     So  that  H.  \\.  in   the  Parliament  at  Northampton  de- 
clared, that  Bijhops  were  bound,  by  virtue  of  the  Conjfitution  of  Chrendon^ 
ta  be  prcfent,    and  to  give  their  Votes  in  cafes  ofTreafon.     And  the  Bijhops 
did  not  deny  this,    but  ufed  prudential  Arguments  todifTwade  the  King 
from  proceeding  any  farther,    the  Appeal  being  made  ;    and  that  it  was 
for  the  Good  of  King  and  Kingdoms,  for  them  tofubmit  to  the  Prohibition. 
And  the  Bifhop  of  Chichejier  told  Becket,     he  made  them  go  againfi  th^' 
Conjiitutions  of  Chrendon,  which  they  had  fo  lately  fworn  toobferve^ 
in  thefe  remarkable  Words  ^  ^0  contra  nosvenhre  compellitis,  inferdicen- 
do^  ne  ei  quod  de  nobif  cxgit  adeffe  poffumus  Judicio.     By  which  we  fee 
this  ConJiitHt ion  is  indeed  an  irrefragable  Ten mony^    but  it  is  to  prove 
that  Bijhops  are  bound  to  be  prefent  even  in  Cafes  of  Treafon,    when  the 

King 


8  28  "    Of  the  Bifiops  JurifditTion 

KtMg  fummons  them.     And  as  to  the  cafe  of  Becket's  Treafon,  the  fame 
Bijhop  told  him,   it  lay  in  breaking  his  Oath  about  thofe  Conjiitutiotts, 
wherein  the  Rights  of  the  Crown  were  declared^     And  if  this  be  not  Trea- 
fott  by  the  Common  Law,    Sir  Edward  Coke's  Preface  to  his  fifth  Book  of 
Reports  fignifies  nothing. 

p*i.  14.  The  late  Author  of  the  Peerage  and  Jurifdi^lion  of  the  Lord's  Spiritual 
takes  it  for  granted,  that  by  the  Conftitution  <j/Clarendon,  the  Jur'fdi- 
Hion  of  Bifhops  was  limited,  that  it  (hould  not  extend  ad  diminutionem 
membrorum,  vel  ad  mortem.  But  the  foregoing  Difcourfe  hath,  I  fup- 
pofe,  made  it  evident,  that  thofe  Words  contain  no  Limitation  but  a 
Privilege  or  Indulgence  to  them  with  refpeft  to  the  Canon-Law.  And  he 
takes  very  needlefs  pains  to  prove  this  to  be  declarative  of  the  Common 
Law  ;  and  that  the  Meeting  at  Clarendon  was  a  full  Parliament ;  which 
are  very  much  befides  the  bufinefs. 

All  that  looks  towards  this  matter  is,  that  he  faith,  this  Statute  was 
confirmed  by  a  Council  at  Weftminfter  i,  for  which  he  cites  Rog.  Hoveden's 
Authority.  But  I  wifh  he  had  produced  the  Canon  entire  as  he  there 
found  it  ^  for  then  the  fenfe  of  it  would  have  been  better  underftood. 
In  this  Synod  at  We/lminjier,  Richard,  Archbijhop  of  Canterbury,  prodii- 
ceth  feveral  ancient  Canons,  which  he  thought  fit  to  be  obferved  here. 
Among  the  reft  he  mentions  that  of  the  Council  of  Toledo.  .The  Words 
are  thefe  :  His  qui  in  Sacris  Ordinibus  cohflituti  funt,  'judicium  fanguinis. 
agitare  non  licet.  Here  he  makes  his  &c.  and  leaves  out  the  Prohibition 
which  declares  the  meaning  and  extent  of  this  Canon  .•  Vnde  prohibe* 
mus,  ne  aut  per  fe  membrorumtruncationes  faciant,  aut  inferendas judicent  5 
tfherefore  we  forbid  them,  either  to  difmember  any  Per  fans  themfelves,  or 
to  give  Judgment  for  the  doing  of  it.  Both  which  were  praftifed  in  Spain 
in  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Toledo,  which  was  the  occafion  of  this 
Canon.  And  then  follows  the  Sancton  of  Deprivation  if  Men  did  other- 
wife.  And  what  now  doth  this  fignifie  more  to  the  Conftituti- 
on of  Clarendon,  than  that  the  fame  Canons  were  now  revived  :, 
which  gave  the  occafion  to  that  Permiffion  of  withdrawing,  when 
the  Sentence  came  to  be  pronounced  as  to  difmembring  or  lofs  of 
Life. 

rug- 18.  But  he  urges  farther  about  this  Conftitution,  that  it  muft  be  fo  un- 
derftood,  as  to  exclude  the  Biftiops  from  all  antecedent  and  prteliminary 
things  which  do  relate  or  tend  ad  diminutionem,  &c.  or  elfe  faith  he, 
it  mujl  be  only  the  exemption  of  the  Prelates  from  doing  the  Office  of  Execu- 
tioners, which  is  Nonfenfe.  Why  fo  ?  Though  it  be  not  the  whole 
fenfe  of  the  Canon,  yet  furely  it  is  Senfe.  But- he  might  have  thought 
o{  giving  Sentence,  which  tha  Canons  forbid,  and  is  different  from  Ex- 
ecution, and  doth  not  exclude  the  Bifhops  prefence  at  preliminaries. 
The  Conftitution  of  Weftminfter,  he  faith,  is  plainer,  Non  debent  agitare 
judicium  fanguinis  ^  which  he  faith,  excludes  the  exercife  ot  any  Judi- 
cial Power  in  Cafes  of  B/W.  Whereas  it  appears  by  ^\q  Prohibition 
there  extant,  nothing  is  forbidden  but  giving  Sentence  ;  at  which  the 
Conftitution  of  Clarendon  allows  them  to  withdraw. 

L«c  p.73.  2.  The  fecond  time  we  are  told  that  the  Exclufion  of  the  Bifhops  in  Ca- 
fes Capital  received  a  confirmation  in  Parliament,  was  the  1 1,  of  R.  //. 
when  the  Archbifldop  and  the  other  Bifiops,  upon  their  withdrawing  then 
from  the  Parliament,  in  regard  matters  of  Blood  were  there  to  be  agitated 
and  determined,  in  quibus  non  licet  alicui  eorum  perfonaliter  inte>effe,  as 
they  fay,  in  which  it  was  not  lawful  for  any  of  them  to  be  prefent  in  Perfo>?^ 

did 


in  Capital  Caufes.  82^ 

did  therefire  eater  a  Proteflatioti,  with  a  Salvo  to  their  Right  of  Sitting 
and  Voting  in  that  and  all  other  Parliaments,  when  fmh  matters  were  not 
in  S^tejiion  :,  which  Proteftation  of  theirs  was  at  their  defre  enrolled  in 
full  t^arliamcnt  by  the  King's  Command,  with  the  Ajfent  of  the  Lords 
Temporal  and  Commons,  So  that  \t  is  here  faid  to  be  a  perfe^  and  coni- 
pleat  A^  of  Parliament  ^  and  if  it  had  mt  been  a  Law  before,  would  then 
have  been  made  one.  This  is  the  fubftance  of  what  is  more  largely  in- 
fifted  on  in  another  Place  ;  and  what  ftrength  is  there  added  (hall  be 
duly  confidered. 

To  underftand  this  bufinefs  aright,  it  will  be  neceflfary  to  fet  down 
the  Protejiation  it  felf  at  large,  as  it  is  taken  out  of  Courtney's  Regiftef,  roc.  Pari^. 
and  the  Parliament-Rolls  ;  and  then  examine  the  Points  that  do  arife  ^ '•*•*• 
from  thence.    The  Protejiatian  runs  thus :  "'  ^* 

In  Dei  nomine  Amen.     Cum  de  jure  C^  confuetudine  Regni  Angli^e^  ad 
Archiepifcopum  Cantuarienfem,  qui  pro  tempore  fuerit,  ??ecnon  c£teros  fuos 
Suffragan  eos,   Confratres  €^  Coepifopos,  Abbatefque,  d^  prior es^   aliofque 
Pr^latos  quojcunque^  per  Baroniam  de  Domino  Rege  tenentes,  pertineat  in 
Parliamentis  Regis  qwbufcunque,  ut  Pares  Regni  pr£diSli,  perfonaliter  in- 
terejfe,  ibidemque  de  Regni  Negotiis,  .  d^  aliis  ibidem  tradari  confuetis, 
cum  ceteris  di^i  Regni  Paribi0,  df"  aliis  ibidem  jus  intereffendi  habentilxff, 
confulere,  tra&are,  ordinare,   Jiatuere,  &  definire,  ac  c£tera  facere  qu£ 
Parlamenti  ten/pore  ibidem  imminent  facienda  t,  in  qu'ibus  omnibus  &  fin- 
gulis,  Nos  Willielmus  Cantuar.  Anhiepifopus,  totius  Anglia  frimcu,  d* 
Apojlolicte  fedk  Legatus,  pro  nobis,  noftrifque  Suffraganeis,  Co-epifcopk,  d^ 
Confratribus,  nee  non  Abbatibus,  Prioribus,  ac   Pr<elatis  omwbm  fupra- 
diSfs,  protejiamur,  d^  eorum  quilibet  proteftatur,  qui  per  fe,  vel  per  pro- 
cur  at  orem  hie  fuerit  modo  pr^fens,  publice,  d^"  exprejfe,  quod  intendimuiy 
df"  intendit^  volumus,  ac  vult  quilibet  eorum,  in  hoc  prtefenti  Parlamento, 
d^  aliis,  ut  pares  Regni  pr^ditti,  more  folite  inter effe,  confulere,  tra&are, 
ordinare,  jiatnere,  d>"  definire,  ac  c£tera  exercere,  cum  ceteris  jus  inter- 
effendi habentibus  in  eifdem,  fiatu  d^  ordine  nofiris  d^  eorum  cujujlibet  itt 
omnibus  femper  falvis.     Verum  quia,  in  prafenti  Parlamento  agititr  de  non- 
nuUis  materiis  in  quibus  not  licet  nobis,  aut  alicui  eorum,  juxta  Sacro- 
rum  Canonum  inftituta  quomodolibet  perfonaliter  interefle,  ea  propter 
pro  nobis  d"  eorum  quolibet  protejiamur  ^  eorum  quilibet  hicpr^fens  etiam 
protejiatur,  quod  non  intendimus,  nee  volumus,   ficuti  de  jure  non  pop- 
fumus,  nee  debemus,  intendit,    nee  vult  aliquis  eorundem,    in  prtefenti 
Parlamento,    dnm  de  hujufmodi  materiis  agitur,  vel  agetur,  quomodolibet 
interejfe  ^  fed  nos  d^  eorum  quemlibet  in  ea  parte  penitus  abfentare,  jure  pa- 
ritatis  d'  cujuflibet  eorundem  intereffendi  in  diSo  Parlamento,  quoad  om- 
nia d^  fingula  mlhi  exercenda,  nofiris  d"  eorum  cujuflibet  fiatu  &  ordine 
congruentia,  in  omnibus  femper  falvo.     Ad  h£c  infuper  proteflamur,  d'  eo- 
rum, quilibet  proteftatur,  quod  propter  hujufmodi  ahjentiam,  non  intendi-' 
mus,  nee  volumus,  nee  eorum  aliquis  intendit  vel  vult,  qmd  proceffus  ha- 
biti  d^  habendi  in  pr<efenti  Parlamento  fuper  materiis  antedi&is,  in  quibus 
non  poflbmus,  nee  debemus,  ut  praemittitur,  interefle,  quantum  ad  nos  d" 
eorum  quemlibet  attinet,  futuns  temporibus  quomodolibet  impugnentur^  in- 
firmentur,  feu  etiam  infringentur. 

This  Proteffation,  fetting  afide  the  legal  Formalities  of  it.  confifts  of 
^  Parts  ^  I.  A  Declaration  of  their  undoubted  Right  as  Peers  of  the 
Realm,  by  virtue  of  their  Baronies,  to  Sit  and  Vote  in  all  Debates  of 
Parliament.  2.  Of  their  intention  to  withdraw  this  Parliament,  becaufe 
fevera!  matters  were  to  be  handled,  at  which  it  was  not  lawful  for  them^ 
according  to  the  Canons,  to  be  prefent.     3.  That  by  this  abfentitig  them- 

N  n  n  n  n  felv§» 


Of  the  Bijhops  Jurifdiclion 


felves  they  did  not  intend,  as  far  as  concerned  them,  to  null  the  Pro- 
ceedings of  that  Varliament. 

Here  now  arife  three  main  Wwts  to  be  difcufTed. 

li  Upon  what  Grounds  the  Prelates  declared,  it  was  not  lawful  for 
them  to  be  prefent  in  'Parliatfient^  at  fuch  matters  ? 

2.  How  far  the  Parliament's  receiving  that  Protejiation  makes  it  a 
Latp ."? 

3.  Whether  on  fuppofition  it  were  a  part  of  Canon- Law  then  in  force, 
it  continues  fo  ftill  fince  the  Reformation. 

I.  Upon  what  Grounds  they  declared  it  unlawful  for  them  to  be 
prefent  in  Parliament  at  fuch  matters  ?  One  would  think  the  very 
reading  the  Protejiation  were  fufficient  to  convince  any  Man  5 
for  the  Bijljops  declare  as  plainly  as  Men  could  do,  that  it  was  out  of 
regard  to  the  Canons  of  the  Church,  and  not  from  any  Law  of  the  Land. 
,  For  how  was  it  poffible  that  the  fame  Men  fhould  declare,  That  by 
Reafon  of  their  Baronies,  they  had  full  Right  to  be  perfonally  pre- 
fent in  all  Debates  of  Parliament,  if  there  were  fome  Law  in  force 
which  made  it  unlawful  for  them  to  be  perfonally  prefent  ?  The  great- 
er force  there  is  in  the  Proteftations  being  receiv'd  in  Parliament,  the 
greater  ftrength  there  is  in  this  Argument.  For  if  the  Proteflations  be- 
ing allow'd  by  Kit7g,  Lords,  and  Commons,  make  it  (as  the  Author  of 
the  Letter  affirms)  a  perfeft  and  compleat  Law,  then  their  Right  to  be 
prefent  in  all  Debates  in  Parliament  is  a  Law  ^  and  fo  much  the  more 
confiderable,  becaufe  it  is  no  enading  Law,  making  that  to  be  fo  which 
was  not  before,  but  declarative  of  what  was  confeffed  to  be  their  un- 
doubted Right  by  King,  Lords,  and  Commons.  And  therefore  I  do 
not  wonder,  that  the  Author  of  the  Letter,  fo  conveniently  to  his  pur- 
pofe,  left  out  all  the  beginning  of  the  Protejiation,  which  fo  tully  clears 
the  fenfe  of  the  reft.  For  the  very  fame  thing  which  afterwards  the 
Bifhops  fay  they  are  forbid  to  do  by  the  Canons,  that  is,  perfonaliter  in- 
terejje,  to  give  their  perfonal  Attendance,  they  fay  at  fiirft,  by  Right  of 
their  Peerage,  as  Barons  hy  tenure,  did  belong  to  them  ;  for  there  the 
Words  are  perfonaliter  interejje  too.  Therefore  that  perfonal  Attendance 
in  fuch  matters,  which  they  faid  was  unlawful  to  them  by  the  Canons, 
they  challenge,  to  themfelves  as  their  juft  Right  by  virtue  of  their  Ba- 
ronies. But  is  it  poffible  to  imagine,  if  they  had  been  precluded  from 
fitting  by  any  antecedent  Law,  that  ever  fuch  a  publick  avowing  their 
Right  would  have  paffed  the  King  and  both  Houfes  .<?  So  unfuccefsful 
hath  the  Author  of  the  Letter  been  in  his  Statute-Laws,  that  there  can 
be  no  ftronger  Evidence  of  the  Bifhops  Right  to  fit  in  fuch  Cafes,  than 
thofe  which  he  produceth  againft  them. 
Letter, p.  ^^^  ^^  go^s  about  to  prove,  this  Prohibition  cannot  be  underftood 
21,  32,  only  of  the  Canon-Law  5  for  the  Canon- Law,  faith  he,  was  to  them  above 
all  Laws  5  and  what  was  forbidden  by  that  Law,  they  could  not  have  a 
Thought,  that  it  could  in  any  fort  be  lawful  for  them  to  challenge  as  their 
R'ght,  upon  any  Account.  I  confefs  I  can  fee  no  force  in  this  Reafoning : 
For  when  a  thing  is  forbidden  to  Men  raeerly  by  a  pofnive  Law  of  the 
Church,  and  the  Penalty  of  it  is  a  bare  Irregularity  by  the  Canons,  why- 
may  not  fuch  Men  challenge  their  own  Right  notwithftanding  thofe 
Canons,  becaufe  the  Irregularity  might  be  difpenfed  with,  when  the 
(Conft.o-  Pops  faw  convenient  >  And  by  the  Confiitutions  of  Othobon,  which 
gob  c.  m  were  made  in  the  Time  of  H.  IIL  we  find,  that  if  an  inferiour  Clergy- 
f- '""'  man  tranfgrefled  this  Canon,  it  was  in  the  Power  of  the  Dlocefan  to 
abfolve  him  from  his  Irregularity.    And  this  Canon  was  received  and 

en- 


VI  Capital  Caufes.  831 


etiforced  mod:  here  in  England  on  the  inferiour  Clergy,  as  appears  by 
the  Canons  of  Stephen  Langton  in  the  Council  of  Oxfjrd,  and  other  Speiman. 
Synodal  Corrfiitutio'/s  here.  For  it  is  a  Ride  'mLynveood,Clcricus  exvi  vcrbi  is"  ."l^.; i'. 
nort  comprehendit  Epifcopum,  fed  cum  adjnn&o,  fie  in  quantum  illud  adjun-  Lynwood 
3um  pote/i  toncernere Epifcopum.     That  by  Clerici  we  are  not  to  under- lqc^^cot^ 
ftand  Bi(hops,  unlefs  there  be  fome  adjundb  that  implieth  it.    And  a-c.venden- 
mong  the  Decretals,  there  is  one  i'rom  Alexander  III.  to  the  An kl^i^op^^,^^^}'^^^^^ 
of  Canterbury,  under  the  Title  Ne  Clerici,  to  the  fame  purpofe.  Where  Decretal* 
the  Gloff,  I  grant,   comprehends  Prelates  5   therefore  I  will  not  deny,  3-  f'f-  '>°- 
but  they  were  to  be  irregular  by  the  Canon-Lave  as  well  as  others.    But*^'  ^' 
then  we  are  to  confider  how  far  the  Legatine  Power,  vefted  in  the  Arch- 
hijhop  oi  Canterbury,  might  extend  in  fucha  Cafc-^  and  that  there  was  the 
fame  Severity  in  the  Canons  againft  Clergy-men's  taking  upon  them  any 
Secular  Office  5    and  yet  in  this  very  Parliament,  Thorn  is  Arundel,  Bl- 
(hop  of  Ely,  was  Lord- Chancellor  -^    and  after  him  Willi  am  of  Wukham^ 
BiJJjop  of  Winchejier  :,  and  before  them,  R.  Baybrohe,  Bijhopoi  London:, 
and  the  BijJjvps  of  Dwham  and  Exeter  were  Lords-Treafurers  under  R\\. 
And  in  H.  Ill's  Time  we  find  3  Clergy-men  Lords  Chief  Jtifltces,  Patefl.ull, 
Lovell,  and  Manfell^  notwithftanding  ^^f/eD»o?/j-:  And  in  fi^i/zy^r^  Ill's 
Time  almoft  ail  the  great  Offi.es  of  the  Court  were  executed  by  Clergy- 
men. By  which  we  fee  they  did  not  think  themfelves  fo  ftriftly  bound  to 
qbferve  thokCanons  5  or  it  was  fo  eafy  to  be  difpenfed  with,  that  they 
had  great  Reafon  to  infift  upon  the  challenge  of  their  own  Right,  not- 
withflanding  the  Canon-Iaaw. 

The  Truth  is,  The  Canon- Lart^,  as  it  was  managed  in  thofe  Days, 
was  one  of  the  moft  myfterious  pieces  of  Eccle/iajiical  Policy  :  It  was 
an  Engine,  which  the  artificial  Church-men  could  fcrew  up  or  let  down 
as  they  pleafed.  If  it  were  in  a  matter  likely  to  be  prejudicial  to  their 
Intereft,  (as  it  was  moft  apparently  the  Cafe  in  11  R.  II.  when  mat- 
ters grew  fo  high  between  R.  11.  and  the  pjwerful  Lords,  and  fo  many 
Favourites  were  to  be  impeached,  and  among,  them  Alexander  Archbi/I.'op 
of  TorkJ  then  it  was  a  time  to  quote  the  Canons,  and  to  enter  a  Pro- 
ieflation,  and  to  withdraw  :  If  the  Times  were  calmer,  and  more  fet- 
tled, or  fome  great  Reafon  moved  them,  then  they  could  (lick  to  their 
Right  of  Feerage,  and  make  ufe  of  it,  either  in  Perfon  or  by  Proxy,  as 
they  thought  convenient.  Nor  was  it  fo  eafy  a  matter  to  refolve  what 
was  Canon-Law  in  England,  but  they  might  with  fome  Colour  make  ufe 
of  either  of  thefe  Pleat.  For  in  this  very  Parliament  ii  R.  II,  theRoc.Par- 
Commons  defire  that  thofe  may  be  reputed  Traitors  who  brought  in  the  ^f^' "  ^/ 
Pope's  Bulls  of  Volumm  &  Imponimtfs  ^  which  fhews  that  they  did  not 
think  all  Canon-Law  that  paffcd  for  fuch  at  B.ome.  And  1 5  R.\\.  Sir  Will. 
Brian  was  fent  to  the  Tower,  for  bringing  a  B«//  from  Rome  which  was 
judg  d  prejudicial  to  the  JG//^,and  derogatory  to  hisLdWj.  And  in  1 6  RA\. 
Will  Courtney,  Archbiffjop  of  Canterbury,  (the  fame  who  enter'd  the  Pro- 
tefiation  before-mentioned)  makes  another  of  a  different  kind,  owning 
the  Rights  of  the  Crown  in  oppofition  to  the  Pope's  Encroachments. 
Now,  by  the  fame  reafon,  no  Canon  made  at  Rome,  no  Legatine  or 
Synodal  Conflttutions  could  have  any  force  againft  the  King's  Authority. 
But  the  King  himfelf  being  under  a  force  at  that  time,  as  he  always  • 
declared  afterwards:  and  that  being,  as  Knighton  faith,  it  was  called, '^'"'S'lcon,' 
Parlamentum  fine  Mifericordia,  the  King  having  tied  himfelf  up,  not^"^  °^' 
to  pardon  any  without  Confent  of  the  Lords ,  he  might  be  willing  to 
let  the  B 'fl}ops  exc\i[e  themfelves,  becaufe  that  might  give  fome  colour 

N  n  n  n  n  2  to 


832  Of  the  Bi  flops  Jurtfdi^ion 


to  call  in  queftion  the  Proceedings  then,  as  it  did  11  R.  II.  when  all 
the  Afts  of  this  Parliament  were  nulled  5  and  the  Lords  and  Commons 
might  be  very  willing  to  let  the  Bi/lwps  withdraw,  that  their  bufinefs 
might  proceed  with  lefs  difficulty  againft  all  the  King's  Minijiers.  So 
that  here  was  a  concurrence  of  many  circumftances,  which  made  the 
Bifhops  think  fit  not  to  appear  in  the  Houfe  this  Parliament ;  and  the 
King^  Lords  and  Commons  to  be  willing  to  receive  their  Proteftation. 
But  in  the  Anti-Parliament  to  this,  that  I  mean  21  R.  II.  the  Commons 
pray  the  King,  That  fince  divers  Judgments  were  undone  heretofore,  for 
that  the  Clergy  were  not  prefcnt,  they  might  appoint  fome  ^common  Pro&or 
with  fufficient  Authority  to  that  purpofe.  This  is  a  Pajfage  which 
deferves  Confideration,  and  tends  very  much  to  clear  the  whole 
Matter. 

For  the  Houfe  of  Commons  declare.  That  divers  'judgments  had  been  un- 
done for  want  of  the  Prefence  of  the  Clergy.    Therefore  their  Concurrence, 
in  the  Judgment  of  the  Houfe  of  Commons,  was  thought  necefl'ary  to 
make  a  Judgment  valid.     A  very  late  Author  finds  himfelf  fo  perplexed 
A  Dif^     with  this,  that  he  knows  not  how  to  get  off  from  it.     He  cannot  de- 
th"'^Pee°/  "^  '^^^  ^^       ^"  ^^^^  ^^^^^  °^  Parliament,  and  to  be  the  firfi  Petition  of 
age,  and  the  Commons  5    but  then  he  blames  them  for  Raflmefs  and  Error,  and 
jurifdifti-  xvant  of  due  Examination  of  frecedents  5   as  though  it  were  poffible  for 
Lords  spt  any  Man  now  to  underftand  the  Law  and  Praftice  better  than  the  whole 
ritual,       Houfe  of  Commons  then  did.     He  faith,  They  were  mijiaken  palpably  de 
f  *^'       fafto  in  faying  that  divers  Judgments  have  been  heretofore  undone  5   and 
yet  prefently  confelTeth,  That  the  tvpo  Judgments  againjl  the  two  Spencers 
were  reverfed  for  this  Caufe  5  but  he  faith.  There  are  no  more  to  be  found. 
Where  doth  he  mean  ?  In  his  Study  .<?  Or  not  now  extant  in  the  Par- 
liament-Rolls }  But  have  we  all  the  Rolls  of  Parliament  that  were  then 
in  being  ?    Or  mufl:  Men  fo  boldly  charge  the  Houfe  of  Commons  with 
Ignorance,  Error,  breaking  the  Laws,  becaufe  they  fpeak  againft  their 
Fancies  >  But  this  Gentleman  very  peremptorily  concludes  the  Houfe  of 
Commons  then  guilty  of  a  very  flrange  and  unaccountable  Over  fight.     It 
is  great  pity  a  certain  Gentleman  had  not  been  there  to  have  fearched 
Records  for  them,  and  to  have  informed  them  better.    But  we  think 
a  Judgment  of  the  whole  Houfe  of  Commons  in  fuch  a  Cafe,  declared  in 
fo  folemn  a  manner,  without  the  leaft  contradiction  from  the  King  or 
the  Lords,  might  deferve  a  little  more  refpeft  5   and  it  had  certainly 
had  it,  if  it  had  made  for  the  other  fide.     But  we  fee  the  Houfe  of  Com- 
mons it  felf  is  reverenced  or  not,  as  the  Judgment  of  it  ferves  Mens 
purpofes.     And  yet  this  was  more  than  the  bare  "judgment  of  the  Houfe 
of  Commons  ;  for  a  Petition  was  made  upon  it,  and  that  Petition  grant- 
ed 5    and  confequently  a  Common  ProBor  appointed,  and  that  Fro&or 
allowed  by  King,  Lords  and  Commons.    So  that  this  was  a  Judgment 
ratified  by  Confent  of  the  King  and  the  whole  Parliament.     For  if  a 
Pe/?7/fl«  were  made  on  a  falfe  ground,  what  had  been  more  proper  than 
for  the  Lords  to  have  open'd  this  to  the  Commons,  and  to  have  told 
them  how  unadvifed  and  falfe  their  Judgment  was  ?  Whereas  the  Lords 
confented,  and   the  FroUor  was  admitted,    and  gave  his  Vote  in  the 
Name  of  the  Clergy.  But  there  is  fomething  more  to  confirm  this^w^^- 
ment  of  the  Commons,  and  that  is,  the  Parliament  1 1  R.  II.  making  Pe- 
tition to  the  King,  That  all  "judgments  then  given  might  be  approved,   af- 
firmed., and  Jiablijhed,  as  a  thing  duly  made  for  the  Weal  and  irofit  of  the 
King  our  Sovereign  Lord,  notwithjianding  that  the  Lords  Spiritual  and 

theif 


in  Capital  Caufes.  B  3  3 

their  Procurators  were  abfent  at  the  time  of  the  faid  Judgments  given. 
What  means  this  Petition,  if  there  bad  been  no  doubt  at  that  time,  that 
thefe  Judgments  might  be  reverfed,  as  not  duly  made,  by  reafon  of  the 
abfence  of  the  Prelates  ?  The  only  anfwer  in  my  mind  is,  that  it  was 
Error  temporu,  they  were  of  that  mind  then,  but  feme  are  refolved  to  be 
of  another  now. 

But  from  hence  we  plainly  fee,  that  even  in  R.  Il'stime  the  Concur- 
rence of  the  Bifiops  was  thought  fo  neceiTary,  that  one  Parliament  de- 
clared Judgments  had  been  reverfed  for  want  of  it  ;  and  that  very  Parlia- 
ment wherein  they  abfented  themfelves,  got  a  Claufe  inferred  on  ptir- 
pofe  to  prevent  the  nulling  ofthofe  Judgments  ,  which  fignified  nothing 
to  the  Parliament  21  R.  II.  which  reverfed  them  all. 

There  is  fomething  more  confiderable  to  our  purpofe  in  this  Padia-^'f'ourff 
meat ;  viz..  that  the  fame  Author  produceth  the  Teftimony  of  a  MS.  "pierage. 
Chronicle,  which  largely  handles  the  Affairs  oi  that  Parliament,  where-S<:c.p.z;. 
in  it  isconfefled,   that  the  Bifisps,    by  concurring  with  the  Lords  in  the 
Revocation  of  the  Earl  oi  Arundel's  Pardon,   did  give  Vote  in  a  Cafe 
Capital  5  for  fo  the  Words  are  there-cited,  Dederunt  ergo  locum  Prtelati 
judicio  Sanguinis  in  hoc  faBo.     Which  (hews  that  the  Bifijps  did  tli^n 
give  their  Votes  about  the  validity  of  the  Pardon  :  Which  the  Author  of 
that  Chronicle  indeed  condemns  them  for,    and  tells  us  fome  thought 
they  incurred  Irregularity  by  it.     From  whence  it  follows,    that  all 
the  Penalty  fuppofed   to  be  incurred  was  only  Canonical  j    but  he 
never  charges  them  with  going  aj^ainft  the  Law  or  Cuftom  oi  Parli- 
ament therein. 

But  the  Author  of  the  Letter  faith.  Whatever  was  done  this  Parliament  Lett.  f.30. 
ffgnifies  nothing,  hecaufe  the  whole  Parliament  Jiands  repealed  by  I  H.  IV. 
and  all  done  in  it  declared  null  and  void.     Yet,    to  our  comfort,    the    ?•  79- 
fame  Author  tells  us,   the  three  Henrys  were.TJfurpers  ;   and  therefore  I 
defire  to  be  fatisfied,    whether  an  ZJ/^r/?er,   by  a    rfr/r'^^e/;^  of  his  cal- 
ling, can  null  and  repeal  what  was  done  by  a  King  and  his  Parliament. 
If  he  may,   then  the  King  loft  his  Title  to  the  Crown  by  the  late  Vfur- 
pers  ;  if  not,    then  the  Parliament  21  R.  II.  could  not  be  repealed  by 
that  I  H.  IV,    If  the  Author  of  the  Letter  had  confidered  this,    he  is  a 
Perfon  of  too  great  Judgment  and  Loyalty,    to  have  mentioned,   more 
than  once,    the  Repeal  of  that  Parliament,  by  the  fubfequent  Parlla-    P-  ^°- 
ment,  i  H.IV.  ^■"'' 

From  all  this  we  fee,  that  by  the  Judgment  of  the  whole  Parliament^ 
both  II  R.  IL  and  21  R.  U.  the  Bi^ops  had  a  Right  to  fit,  fo  far  that 
Judgments  were  reverfed  where  they  were  not  prefent  ^  and  therefore 
all  the  pretence  they  could  have  for  withdrawing  muft  be  from  the 
Canon-Law :  which  although  not  fufficient  to  bind  them,  if  the 
matter  had  been  contefted,  yet  it  ferved  them  for  a  very  colou- 
rable pretence  of  abfenting  themfelves  in  fuch  dangerous  times,  as 
thofeofii.ii.il. 

Here  the  Author  of  the  Peerage  and  Jurifdidion  of  the  Lords  Spiritual  ^  ^9- 
thinkshebringsfeafonablerelief  to  the  Crir»/e,  when  he  undertakes  to 
prove,  that  the  Bijhops  withdrawing  was  not  meerly.on  the  account  of 
the  Canon-Law.  This,  I  confefs,  is  home  to  the  bufinefs,  if  he  can 
make  it  out.  (i)  He  faith,  there  was  an  A^  of  Parliament  hdoxQ,  that 
did  exprefly  prohibit  them  to  exercife  JurifdiSion  in  thofe  Cafcs.ThlS  we  ut- 
terly deny.  And  the  Conftitutiori  of  C/<«rc«^tf»,  to  which  hereferrs, 
proves  the  contrary.     (2.)  Jhe  Btfiops  made  bold  with  the  Canons  when    p.  jo. 

they 


834-  ^/  ^^^^  Bi/hops  Jurifdiciioii 

they  thought  fit,    as  21  i^,  11.    But  how  could  they  do  that,    unlefs 
they  had  a  Parliamentary  Right  to  be  prefent  >     He  faith,   the  conjlitu- 
titig  a  Proxy  was  as  great  a  violation  of  the  Canons,  as  being  ferfonally  pre- 
fent:  and  what  then  ?  therefore  the  Parliament  would  not  have  fufiPer'd 
them  to  do  that,  if  there  had  been  z  La:w  to  exclude  them.    How  doth 
this  prove  that  the  Bi/hops  did  not  withdraw  on  the  account  of  the  Ca- 
nons II  R.ll.  becaufe  they  made  a  Proxie  21  i^.  11?     But  why  did 
they  not  appear  perfonally,  if  they  had  no  regard  to  the  Canons ;  when 
the  receiving  their  Proxie  (hewed  they  had  a  legal  Right  to  appear  > 
But  he  grievoufly  miftakes  the  meaning  of  the  Canon  of  Stephen  Lang- 
ton  xnLynrpood,  when  he  interprets  IJteras  pro  pirna  fangmns  infligenda 
fcrihere  vel  d/^lare,  againft  making  of  Proxies  ^    which  is  only  meant  of 
p.  21.-  giving  or  writing  the  Sentence  for  Execution.     (5.)  He  faith,  they  were 
excluded  by  ancient  Cujlom ;  which,  by  a  very  fubtle  way  of  reafoning, 
he  proves  to  have  been  p^r^  of  the  Fundamental  Contra^  of  the  Nation, 
as  he  fpeaks.     Seeing  then,    faith  he,    it  is  without  doubt  that  there  wjs 
fuch  a  Cuftom,    that  the  Prelates  Jloould  not  exerrife  Jurifdi&ion  in  Capital 
Cafes ;   (  not  fo  altogether  without  doubt,   unlefs  it  were  better  proved 
than  we  have  yet  feen  it ; )    and  there  is  no  Record  that  doth  mention 
Tphen  it  did  begin,  nor  any  time  when  it  could  be  faid  there  never  was  fuch 
anZ)fage  ^  (  yes,  before  the  Council  of  Toledo  being  publifhed  in  Spain, 
and  receiv'd  here  ^  (  it  mufi  ofnecejfity  befuppofed,  that  it  is  as  ancient  as 
the  Government  it  felf,  and  part  of  the  Fundamental  ContraU  of  the  Nati- 
on.    Which  looks  fo  like  a  Jefuitical  Argument,  that  one  would  have 
thought  he  had  been  proving  Tranfubftantiation  by  it.    For  juft  thus 
the  Argument  runs  at  this  day  among  the  Party  5  There  was  a  time  when 
it  was  receiv'd,    and  no  time  can  be  inftanced  in  wherein  it  was  not, 
therefore  it  was  a  part  of  the  Fundamental  Religion  ofjefus  Chriji. 
The  plain  Anfwer  in  both  Cafes  is  the  fame :    If  we  can  produce  un- 
queftionable  Authority  to  which  a  Doftrine  or  Praftice  is  repugnant^ 
we  are  not  obliged  to  affign  any  punftual  time  in  which  it  muft  firft 
come  in.    But  in  this  cafe,  we  do  affign  the  very  time  and  occafion  of 
the  Bifhops  abfenting  themfelves  in  Capital  Judgments,    and  that  was 
from  the  receiving  the  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Toledo  here :    For  no 
fuch  praftice  can  ever  be  proved  before.     And  therefore  this  can  never 
be  proved  to  be  any  part  of  the  ancient  Common  haw  of  England.     And 
that  this  came  in  by  way  of  imitation  of  other  Countries,   appears  by 
the  citingthe  Council  of  Toledo  both  by  Lanfranc  and  Richard  in  the 
^.  23.    Council  of  Winchefier.  (4.)  He  faith  the  Praftice  is  ancienter  than  any  of  the 
Canons  of  the  Church,     But  how  doth  that  appear  ?  The  eldeft  Canon  he 
can  find  is  that  of  Stephen  Langton, in  Lynwood,   which  was  made  a- 
bove  50  Years  after  the  Parliament  at  Clarendon.    But  we  have  made  it 
evident,  there  was  a  Canon  receiv'd  here   in  Lanfanc's  time,   long 
before  the  Confiitution  of  Clarendon.    And  fo  a  full  Anfwer  is  given  to 
thefe  Objeftions. 

But  we  are  told,  by  the  Juthcr  of  the  Letter,  that  the  Bifjops  Prote- 
fiation  being  receiv'd  and  enter  d  in  the  RoUor  Journal-Book,  makes  it  to 
ipafs  for  a  Law,  it  being  agreed  to  by  the  King  and  two  Houfes:^  fo  as 
whatever  was  the  Law  before,  if  it  were  only  the  Canon-Law,  it  is  now 
come  to  be  the  Law  and  Rule  of  Parliament,  and  the  Law  of  the 
Land. 

2.  This  is  therefore  the  fecond  Point  to  be  examined.  Whether 
the  receiving  this  Protejiation  amounts  to  a  Law  of  Exclujion  >  which 

it 


/;/  Capital  Caufes.  835 


deConftic. 

p.s4. 


it  can  by  no  means  do  for  thefe  two  Reafons:  i.  From  the  nature 
oi  Protejlations  in  general  5  2,  From  the  particular  nature  oith^  Pro- 
iefiation. 

2.  From  the  nature  of  ProteJiatio»s  in  general.  For  a  Protejiation  is 
only  a  Declaration  of  their  Minds  that  make  it,  and  not  of  theirs  who 
receive  it,  or  fufFer  it  to  be  enter'd  in  the  Aifs  or  Records  of  the  Court  5 
unlefs  it  be  receiv'd  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  implies  their  confent.  For  the 
very  next  Parliament  after  this,  1 3  R.  II.  the  two  Archbijhops^  in  the 
name  oithe  whole  Clergy,  enter  a  Protejiation,  That  they  gave  no  affent  to 
any  haw  or  Statute  made  in  rejiraint  of  the  Pope's  Authority  ;  and  it  is  faid 
in  the  Rolls  of  Parliament,  that  at  their  requejis  thefe  Protejiarions  were 
enrolled.  Will  any  Man  hence  inferr,  that  thefe  Protejiarions  were  made 
A^s  of  Parliament  ?  If  the  Caufe  would  have  born  any  better,  a  Per- 
fon  of  fo  much  Skill  in  Proceediugsoi  Parliament  would  never  have  ufed 
fuch  an  Argument  as  this.  Befides,  it  is  aRulein  Pr^fe/^^f/Wj,  SiPro- 
tefiatio  in  Judiciofiat,  femper  per  contrarium  aBum  toUitur,  faith  Hofiiea-  S""'-  ^ 
fis  '^  A  Proteflat'ion,  although  allowed  in  Court,  is  taken  off  by  a  fubfequent  „\%  ^ 
Ad  contrary  to  it.  Which  (hews,  that  a  ProteJiat:on  can  never  have 
the  force  of  a  Law  ^  /becaufe  it  may  be  deftroy'd  by  the  A&  of 

the  Parties  themfelve^.  If  therefore  the  Bi{l)ops  did  afterwards 
aft  contrary  to  this  Protejlation,  they  took  away  all  the  force  of 
\t^ 

3.  The  particular  nature  of  this  fr^^e/yrf^t^w  is  fuch,  asdothmofte- 
vidently  preferve  their  Right  to  be  perfonally  prefent  on  the  account 
of  their  Peerage  and  Baronies  ;  and  the  great  defign  of  a  Proteffation  is, 
to  preferve  a  Right,  notwithfianding  fome  AB  which  feems  to  dejlroy  it  5 
as  their  abfenting  themfelves  on  the  account  of  the  Canons  might  feem  to 
do:   fiut  of  this  already. 

5.  We  are  now  to  confider  the  third  Ptfz>f,  Whether,  on  fuppofiti- 
on  that  on  the  account  oi  the  Canon-Law,  the  B^/Zio/?/ had  always  with- 
drawn in  the  time  of  Popery,  that  had  continued  in  force  ftill  fince  the 
Rsforwat'ion  ?     I  think  not,  upon  thefe  Reafons, 

I.  Becaufethe  Canon-Law  was  founded  upon  a  Su per ftitious  Fancy, 
v'tzi.  that  if  Clergy-men  be  prefent  in  Caufes  of  Blood,    they  contraft  Irre-       ' 
gularity  ex  defeSlu  perfe&ie  Lenitatis,  as  the  excellent  Canonift,  N-iz/^rr  Manual 
faith,    becaufe  it  argues  a  waM  of  perfeB  Lenity.     But    if,  we  confi-  '^'  ^^' 
der  the  Cafes  they  allow,   which  do  not  incur  Irregularity,    and  thofe 
they  do  not  allow,  which  do  incurr  it,    we  (hall  find  all  this  ftir  in 
the  C,an0}i-Law  about  this  matter,    to  be  only  a  Superftitious  kind  of 
Hyjjocrify. 

1 .  If  a  Man  in  Orders  gives  another  Man  Weapons,  without  which 
he  could  not  defend  himfelf,  and  by  thofe  Weapons  he  maims  him  that 
affaulted  him  '■>  this  doth  not  make  him  irregular ;  but  if  he  kills  him,  i( 
doth  :  and  yet  the  Canons  make  the  cafe  of  Difmembring  and  Death 
the  fame. 

2.  It  makes  a  Man  aft  againft  the  Law  of  Nature  to  prevent  Irregula- 
rity. For  they  fay,  if  it  be  for  the  defence  of  Father  or  Mother, 
or'  prevent  the  ruin  of  his  Country,  although  the  Caufe  be  never  fo 
jud,  a  Clergy-man  that  difmembers,  or  takes  away  another's  Life,  is 
irregular. 

3.  If  a  Clergyman  difcovers  Treafon,  or  accufes  another  for  Trea- 
fon,  without  a  Proteftation,  that  he  doth  not  do  it  with  a  defign  td 
have  him  punifhed  5  he  is  irregulur  ^  but  if  he  makes  that  Proteftation, 
although  death  follows,  he  is  not,  4.  If 


83^  Of  the  Bifiops  JiirifdMon 


4.  If  a  Clergy-man  be  in  an  Army,  and  perfwades  the  Soldiers  to  fight 
manfully,  and  kill  as  many  as  they  can  ^  this  doth  not  make  him  irregu- 
lar i  nay,  although  he  beats  them,  if  they  will  not  fight  :  But  if  he 
happens  to  kill  an  Enemy  himfelf,  then  he  is. 

5.  If  he  gives  a  Soldier  a  Sword  or  a  Gun,  by  which  he  difpatches  his 
Enemies,  if  he  did  it  with  a  particular  intention  that  he  (hould  flay  or 
maim  them,  he  is />reg«/<zr  5  if  only  with  a  general  Intention,  that  he 
fliould  overcome,  he  is  not.  This  being  fomewhat  a  nice  Cafe,  the 
Canonifts  take  more  than  ufual  pains  to  prove  it.  And  from  hence 
they  defend  their  Priefis  and  Jefnits  in  the  Indies,  who  carry  the  Crofs 
before  their  Armies  into  the  Field,  and  encourage  them  to  kill  all  they 
can  ;  and  yet  Navarr  faith,  they  are  fo  far  from  being  irregular,  that 
they  are  regnlarijfimi,  as  his  Word  is. 

6.  If  a  Man,  to  gain  an  Indulgence,  carries  a  Faggot  to  burn  an  He- 
•    retick,  if  it  be  with. a  defign  to  takeaway  his  life,   he  is  irregular  5   but 

if  he  be  hanged  firft,  or  dead  before  it  be  throve  n  into  the  fire,   then  he 
is  not. 

7.  If  a  Man  in  Orders  helps  a  Chirurgeon  in  cutting  off  a  Man's 
Leg,  he  is  not  irregular  :  but  if  a  Man  be  juftly  condemned  to  have  his 
Leg  cut  off,  if  he  then  gives  any  affiftance,  he  is  irregular  :  becaufe  the 
one  is  moved  out  of  Mercy,  and  the  other  out  of  Juftice. 

8.  If  the  Bijhops  fit  and  condemn  a  Man  for  Herefy,  and  deliver  hitn 
over  to  the  Secular  Power  for  Execution  5  yet  they  free  this  from  Irre- 
gularity, or  elfe  the  pradice  of  the  Inquifuion  were  loft.  This  feems  a 
very  difficult  Cafe  5    but  the  Canonifts  falve  this,   by  faying,   that  the 

*d  ciemfi  ^"l^^fi^^^^i  "^hzn  they  deliver  them  over  to  the  Secular  Pomr,  do  pray 

furiof.f.2. '^'^^  ^^^y  '^^y  ffot  be  hurt  either  Wind  or  Limb:,  as  it  appears  by  the 

S.  s-  «•  6.  Forms  ufed  in  the  Dire^orium  hquijitorum.     And  if  this  be  not  the 

height  of  Hypocrifie,     let  the  World  Judge.      And  therefore  this 

part   of  the  Canon  Larv  is  not  confiftent  with  the  Sincerity  of  the 

Reformation. 

2.  This  part  oi  Canon  Law  is  inconfiftent  with  the  Kings  Power  over 
Ecclejiafiical  Perfons.  For  it  fuppofeth  them  liable  to  the  Penalty  of  a 
Law,  which  he  hath  no  cognifance  of,  and  derives  no  force  or  autho- 
rity from  him  5  which  tends  to  the  diminution  of  the  King's  Prerogative 
Royal,  and  therefore  it  is  nulled  by  the  Stat.  2  5  H  VIII.  c.  1 9.  I  do  ve- 
ry much  queftion  whether  this  ever  were  any  part  of  the  Canon-Law  oi 
England,  notwithftanding  the  Pope's  Decretals  5  i.  e.  Whether  thefe 
Canons  ever  received  Confirmation  by  the  Royal  Authority,  either  in 
Synodal  Conjiitutions,  or  elfewhere.  And  it  would  be  a  very  hard  cafe, 
if  our  Kings  had  not  the  fame  Privileges  which  are  allow'd  in  Popifi 
Countries,  viz.  that  nothing  pafles  for  Canon- Law  within  their  Territo- 
ries, till  it  pafs  the  examination  of  the  King's  Council,  and  approbation 
by  h\s  Authority,  Thence  in  France  nothing  pafles  without  the  Kings 
Pareatk  5  nor  in  Spain  or  Flanders,  without  the  King  oi Spain's  Placet-^ 
no  nor  in  the  Kingdom  ot  Naples,  without  the  Royal  Exequatur.  It  is 
well  known,  that  the  6.  Book  of  Decretals  was  not  allowed  in  France, 
becaufe  of  the  quarrel  betwen  the  King  and  Boniface  VUl.  and  thate- 
ven  the  Council  of  Trent  it  felt  was  not  allowed  by  Philip  II.  till  it  bad 
been  ftriftly  examined  by  the  King's  Council,  that  nothing  might  be 
allowed  which  tended  to  the  diminution  of  his  Prerogative.  How 
then  will  Men  juftifie  the  making  that  part  of  the  Canon-Law  of  En- 
gland, which  was  repugnant  to  the  Rights  of  the  Crown,  and  de- 
prives 


tJi  Capital  Caufes,  837 


prives  the  K-jng  of  the  l^oroer  of  taking  Advice  of  thofe  of  his  Subjefts 
whom  he  hath  fummon'd  for  that  end  ?  ,  ■ 

5,  ThQ  San&'tofj  oi  this  Law  h  ct^{tA,  Vihich  vjzs  Irregularity ?  And 
feme  of  our  moft  Learned  j^wc/ge/  have  declared,  that  is  taken  away  by 
the  ReforKtation.     But  in  cafe  any  be  of  another  Opinion,  I  (hall  urgs 
them  with  this  Inconveniency,  viz,.  That  the  great  Inftrument  of  dif- 
covering  the  Plot  falls  under  Irregularity  by  it.     For  it  is  moft  certain, 
by  the  Canon-L.tw,  that  a  Man  in  Orders  accufing  others  of  Treafon^ 
without  making  his  due  Protejlation  in  Court,  is  irregular.     But  if  this 
be  now  thought  unreafonable,  as  it  is  in  the  Perfon  of  an  Acfufer,  why 
fhould  it  not  be  fo  in  the  cafe  of  Judges  .<?    And  if  the  Irregularity  be 
taken  away,  then  the  San&ion  is  gone ;  and  if  thzSancsi'jn  be  t  ken  off 
in  a  meer  po/i/ive  Lavp,  the  force  of  the  Law  is  gone  too.     And  therefore 
lh\S  Canon- Law,  which  forbids  Clergymen  being  prefent  in  Capital  Cafes, 
andgiviirg  Votes  therein,  is  wholly  taken  away  by  the  Reformation.    And 
we  do  not  find  any  mention  of  it  for  80  years  and  more  affcr  thei^e^r- 
mation,  till  about  the  Time  of  the  Earl  of  Strafford'%  Trial,  a  Book  being 
printed  about  the  Privilege  of  Peers,  wherein  this  Protcftation  was  men- 
tion'd,  hold  was  prefencly  taken  of  it,  by  Men  who  thought  they  could 
rot  compafs  their  ends  without  removing  the  BiJJjops  out  of  the  Honfe ; 
And  when  the  Bifhops  infifted  on  their  Right,  and  could  not  be  heard, 
but  at  laft  were  willing  toy^/z;etheir  jR%i?'^by  Proxies,  the  Lords  oi the 
Cabal  prevailed  with  their  Friends,  to  declare  they  would  Kx^enoProxies 
themfelves,  and  fo  by  that  artifice  (hut  the  B'iP:iops  out  of  Doors. 

4.  The  Praftice  hath  been  fo  contrary  fince  the  Reformation,   th:it  I 
find  no  manner  of  regard  hath  been  (hewed  to  it.     Fdr  the  Archbifiop 
of  Canterbury  was  the  firft  nominated  in  the  Commiifiou  for  the  Trial  of 
the  Qjeen  of  &<?//,  as  appears  by  the  Commijjim  it  felf  in  C ambden  :,Cambien. 
which  is  direftly  contrary  to  the  Canon-Law.     Some  diftinguilh  the  Bi-  d""^5S6.' 
Jhjps  ading  by  Commijfio??,  from  their  being  Judges  in  Parliament.    For 
which  there  is  no  manner  of  Reafon  with  refpedt  to  the  Canon- Law, 
which  is  rather  more  exprefs  againft  any  kind  oi  Commijftons  in  Cafes  of 
Blood;  as  appears  by  the  Council  of  Toledo,  the  Synodal  ConJi^tution,^^..^  ^ 
and  the  Pope's  De.  retals.     And  there  hath  never  been  any  fcruple  about  wood  m 
D  vines  fitting  on  the  Crown  fide  as  Juffices  of  the  Peace,  when  Sentence  (?/'S°,"'',''^' 

,       ,  ^        ,  •        1      /^     I.  ,      1      I      •         t      •  -KT       T      ■     Othob.  c. 

death  K  pronounced  ;  nor  in  the  Ordinary  s  declaring  Legit  or  Non  Legit,  ^.  cieri- 
when  a  Man's  Life  depends  upon  it.     But  which  is  yet  more  to  our  pre-  ci.  v.  in 
fent  purpofe,  in  the  Parliament '77  May,  1626.  upori  the  Impeachment  "^'^^"'' 
of  the  Earl  of  Brifiol  of  High  Treafon,    ic  Bi/hps,   10  Earls,   lO  Barons, 
were  appointed  to  examine  the  Evidence  5   and  upon  their  Pveport  he 
was  fent  to  the  Tower  by  the  wh-de  Houfe.     All  which  (hews,  that  there 
hath  been  no  regard  had  to  the  force  of  the  Canon- Law  in  this  matter 
fince  the  Reformation:,  that  being  a  Spirit  lay'd  long  fince  by  the  Prin- 
ciples of  our  Church  :  and  it  would  be  ftrange,  if  fome  Mens  Zeal  a- 
gainft  Poperji  (hould  raife  it  again. 


Ooood  Chap. 


Of  the  Bijhops  Jurifdi^wn 


Chap.   III. 

The  Precedents  on  both  fides  laid  down:  thofe  againji  the  Bi- 
ppops  examined  and  anfwerecf. 

II.  T  Now  come  to  examine  the  Precedmtfy  and  (hall  proceed  therein 
I   according  to  due  Order  of  Time. 

Lett.  ^57.  And  fo  the  /ir(i  is  taken  from  the  Saxon  times,  viz.  from  Bromptons 
Relation  about  Edward  the  Confeffor's  appealing  to  the  Earls  and  Ba- 
rons about  Ea>  I  Godwin's  murthering  of  his  Brother  Alfred.    Here  we 

P*  5p.  fee,  faith  the  Author  of  the  Letter,  it  was  only  ad  Comites  &  Barones, 
that  he  appealed,  and  they  were  only  to  judge  of  it,  and  not  Bijhops  or 
Prelates. 

I  have  2  things  to  anfwer  to  this  Vrecedent  5  i.  That  we  have  great 
reafon  to  fufpeft  the  Truth  of  it.  2.  That  if  it  were  true,  we  have  no 
reafon  to  fufped  the  Bifliops  to  be  excluded. 

I.  For  the  Truth  of  the  Story.  That  there  is  great  reafon  to  fufpeft 
it,  appears,  in  that  it  is  the  fingle  relation  of  Brompton  againft  the  con- 
fent  of  the  other  Hijiorians,  (and  fome  of  them  much  aricienter,  and 
nearer  to  that  time)who  mention  K.Edward'schzxgmg  Earl  Godwin  with 
the  Death  of  his  Brother,  not  m  Parliament,  hut  as  they  were  at  Table 
together  at  Winchejier,  upon  the  occafion  of  a  Sa.y^^goi  Earl  Godwins, 
upon  the  King's  Cup-bearer  ftumbling  with  one  Foot,  and  recovering 
with  another  5  See,  faith  he,  how  one  Brother  helps  another.  Upon 
which  Matth.  Wefiminjier,  Knighton,  and  others  fay,  that  the  King 
charged  him  about  the  Death  of  his  Brother  Alfred.  Whatever  the 
occalion  was,  our  beft  Hijiorians  of  that  time,  Malmesbury  and  Ingul- 
phus  fay,  k  was  at  an  Entertainment  at  Winchefter,  and  th^itEarl  God- 
win died  upon  the  Place,  being  choaked,  as  they  fay,  with  a  Morfel 
of  Bread  he  took  with  a  great  Execration  upon  himfelf  if  he  were  not 
innocent.  Knighton  faith,  he  was  queftioned  for  the  Death  of  his  Bro- 
ther by  Hardeknute,  and  that  he  cleared  himfelf,  by  faying,  he  did  no- 
thing but  by  the  King's  Command.  But  fuppofe  Edward  to  be  never 
fo  weak  a  Prince,  is  it  likely  this  ftiould  be  done  by  an  Appeal  in  Par- 
liament by  the  King  himfelf;  and  that  afterwards,  by  the  Judgment  of 
his  Earls  and  Barons,  he  and  his  Sons  and  1 2  Kinfmen  (hould  make  the 
King  amends,  by  as  much  Gold  and  Silver  as  they  could  carry  between 
their  Arms  ?  Befides,  Brompton  faith,  this  was  done  by  Godwin  when 
he  returned  to  England,  after  King  Edward's  coming  to  the  Throne  ; 
whereas  Malmesbury  (hews,  that  it  was  through  Eiarl  Godwins  Intereft 
that  ever  he  came  to  it,  and  fo  the  marrying  his  Daughter  would  make 
any  one  believe. 

"  2.  But  fuppofe  it  true.  What  reafon  is  there  to  conclude  the  Bilhops 
not  prefent,  who  were  never  abfent  through  all  the  Saxon  Times,  af- 
ter Ethelbert's  Converfion,  in  any  publick  Councils  of  the  Nation  > 
They  had  no  Canon  then  to  be  afraid  of ;  for  that  of  the  Council  of 
Toledo  was  brought  in  by  Lanfranc.  And  it  was  not  again(t  the  Praftice 
of  thofe  Times.  For  if  we  believe  as  true  a  Story  as  this  of  Brompton, 
the  Archbifbop  of  Canterbury  himfelf  condemned  King  Edward's  Mother 
Emma  to  a  Trial  by  hot  Irons,  which  was  prefent  Death  without  a 

Mi- 


in  Capital  Caufes.  839 


Miracle  :  and  this,  it  is  faid,  was  done  by  the  confent  ofthe  King  and 
the  Bifljops  ^  which  is  as  good  a  }  recedent  againft  Temporal  Lords^  as  the 
other  is  againft  the  £//Z)tf;>j.     However,  this  is  certain,  that  the  Bifhops 
then  fate  in  the  Couniy  Court  at  all  "judgments.     And  whereas  the  Au- 
thor of  .the  Letter  would  avoid  this,  by  faying  that  no  Capital  Crimes  ^-  "°'' 
were  tried  there  ^    the  contrary  is  moft  certainly  true.    For  the  Laves 
of  King  Edward,  as  they  were  fet  forth  by  H.  I.  c.  51.  mention  the 
Capitalia  Placifa  that  were  there  held.    And  the  Author  of  the  MS.  Life 
of  S.  Cmhbert  faith,  that  when  one  of  Earl  Godwins  Sons  was  Earl  of 
Northu^mherla/id,  and  one  f/amel,  a  very  bad  Man,  was  imprifon"d  by 
him,  his  Friends  interceeded  earneftly  with  him,  Ne  capite  pleSeretur, 
that  he  flimld  not  lofe  hk  Head,  by  which  it  appears.  That  Cafes  Capital 
were  heand  and  detetrain'd  in  thofe  Cottrts,  the  Bipjop  and  Earl  fitting 
together  in  Judgment.     And  here  the  Point  is  plainly  gain'd,  becaufe 
the  Author  of  the  Letter  grants  that  the  Bijhops  fate  in  ell  Judgments  in 
the  County  Court (,  and  then  puts  the  matter  upon  this  Iffue,  whether 
Capital  Crimes  were  there  tried  or  not  -^  which  I  have  clearly  proved 
that  they  were.     But  I  fhall  make  another  Advantage  of  this  againft  the 
^uthi/r  of  the  feerage,  &c.  for  it  plainly  overthrows  that  confident  Af- 
fertion  of  his.  That  mthout  doubt  there  was  a  Negative  Cujlom,  That?.  21,' 
the  Prelates  fljould  not  exercife  Jurifdi&ion  in  Capital  Cafes,  fo  ancient  as 
to  be  part  of  the  fundamental  Contrail  of  the  Nation.     It  were  a  thou- 
fand  pities,  dhat  fuch  well-founding  Words,  fo  handfomely  put  toge- 
ther, (hould  fignify  nothing.    1  dare  not  be  fo  pofitive  as  he  is,  but  am 
of  Opinion,  that  if  he  could  be  perfwaded  to  produce  this  Fundamen- 
tal Contra^  of  the  Nation,  which  1  perceive  he  hath  lying  by  him,  it 
would  not  amount  to  fo  much   as  a  blind  Manufript.     If  it  be  faid, 
that  Bnmptan  on^y  mentions  Earls  and  Barons,  and  Bifljops  were  not 
then  made  Barons  :  I  anfwer.  That  Baronies  were  brought  into  England 
by  the  Cmquerer,  and  therefore  Brompton  muft  fpeak  improperly,  and 
confequently,  txiking  it  only  for  a  Title  of  Honour,  he  means  no-more 
than  thofe  who  were  the  great  Men  of  that  time,  and  fo  may  take  in 
the  Jfliopsitoo,  of  which  more  afterwards.  But  there  is  one  thing  more 
in  the  Laws  of  H.  I.  (wJiich  were  only  a  reftoring  K.  Edward's  Laws) 
that  implies  that  Bifliops  had  then  a  Power  of  Judging  in  Cafes  Capital  ; 
which  is,  c.  58.    Sjti  occiderit  Epifcopum  fit  in  arbitrio  Primipk  <&  Epi- 
fcoporum.  He  that  killed  a  Bi/hop  was  to  be  left  to  the  Will  ofthe  King  and 
the  Bijbops.  Which  (hews  that  they  were  to  hear  and  examine  the  whole 
Evidence,  and  to  give  Judgment  according  to  it. 

After  the  Saxon  times,  xhefirji  Precedent  produced  is  of  the  35  Edw.  P.  js^' 
I.  concerning  Nicholas  Segrave,  who  was  fummon'd  to  appear  in  Par- 
liament, and  after  his  Offences  were  open'd,  the  King  advifes  only  with 
the  Temporal  Lords,  who  declared,  fuch  a  Man  deferved  to  lofe  his 
Life.  But  is  he  fure  the  Bifi7ops  were  not  prefent  ?  No:  he  faith,  that 
doth  not  appear  by  the  Record  ;  but  it  appears  clearly  they  were  not  to  med- 
dle with  it.  How  fo  ?  The  King  'declares,  that  he  would  have  the  Ad-  < 
vice  Comitnm,  Baronum,  Magnatum,  &  aliorum  de  Cotifilio  fuo.  But  is 
he  fure  they  are  not  comprehended  under  Magnates,  and  that  there 
were  no  Clergy-men  at  that  time  of  the  King's  Council  ?  What  thinks 
he  of  IViS/am  de  Hamilton,  Dean  of  York,  who  was  made  Lord- Chan- 
cellor, Ja>7.  16.  3;  Edw.  \.  and  this  Parliament  was  held  the  next  Sun- 
day after  St.  Matthias,  which  was  the  latter  end  of  February  ?  And  iri 
the  3  5/^  Year,  Ralph  de  Baldock,  Bifliop  of  London,  was  made  Lord- 

O  o  o  o  o  2  Chan- 


84.0  Of  the  Bi/hops  Jurifdiciion 

chancellor  5  and  fcarce  any  othet"  but  Church-men  had  that  Office  all  bfsv>' 
Days.    The  BifI)op  oi  Bath  and  Wells  vizsChanceUor  near  twenty  Yearsiil 
of  bis  Reign  5  after  him  the  Bifhop  ot  Ely,  after  him  the  Dean  of  Ch^^- 
chejier,  and  then  comes  the  Dean  of  Tork.     And  among  the  Lords-Tred- 
fnrers  of  his  Time  were  the  Arch-deacon  oi  Dorfet,  the  Jbhot  of  Wejlmirt- 
fier,  two  Bi/hops  of  Bath  and  Wells,  whereof  one  was  Treafurer  at  this  * 
time.     Thefe  two,  I  hope,  we  may  fuppofe  to  be  of  the  Kings  Coun- 
cil in  this  bufinefs,  who  we  are  certain  were  both  Church-tnen.    And 
if  they  adjudged  N/c.  de  Segrave  worthy  of  Death,  who  fo  likely  to 
deliver  that  Judgment  as  the  Chancellor  ?   But  fuppofe  thefe  were  not^iL 
there,  whom  doth  he  mean  by  the  Magnates  then  diftinft  tVom  Earhd 
and  Barons,  who  were  of  the  Houfe  of  Peers  .<?  Mr.  Selden  will  intorrttb 
him,  if  he  need  it,  that  there  were  no  Dukes  till  the  1 1  of  Edw.  IlL  • 
nor  the  Title  of  Marquefs  till  R.  II.  nor  of  Vi count  till  H.  VI.    And,- 
yet  here  viere<  Magnates  in  Parliament,  who  were  neither  Earls  nor 
Barons  5    and  therefore  we  muft  in  all  reafon  underftand   the  great 
Church-men^  who  were  not  fo  nice  of  meddling  with  Criminal  Caiifes  in 
Parliament  of  the  higheft  nature  in  the  time  of  Edw.  I.  as  appears  by  * 
the  great  Catife  fo  much  agitated  in  Parliament  20  Edvp.  I.  concerning 
the  Earls  of  Hereford  and  Gloucefter  5  where  this  latter  is  charged  with 
raifing  Arms  without  Commiffion,  and  committing  Murthers  and  hoMl ' 
rible  Devaftation  in  the  Lands  belonging  to  the  other  ^  and  the  King 
in  Parliament  appoints  the  Bifhop  of  Ely  with  others  to  be  a  Coinmittte 
for  examination  of  this  matter.    And  when  they  had  both  fubmitted 
to  the  King's  Pleafure,  we  have  thefe  remarkable  Words  in  the  Placita 
Par  lament  aria.    Per  Con/ilium  Archiepifcoporum,   Epifcoporum,   Comitum(' 
Baronum,  C^eterorumque  de  ConftUo  fuo  exifisntium,  facers  volens  in  pr^e-^' 
ntijps  d^  Ht  voluntas  fua  jujia  fit  C^  rationabilis,  prout  decet,  eorumque  afi  < 
fcnfum  in  pr^mlffiis  petiit,  &•  Confilium.     Propter  quod,  habito  tra&atu  di*  ^^ 
ligenii  coram  ipfo  Domino  Rege  C^  Confilio  fuo  fuperpr^tediHis,  tarn  ipfi Do- 
mino Regi  quain  c£teris  Pr^elatis  d^  Magnatihus,  d' fingulis  deConfilio  fito, 
videtur  quoad  Comit.  Glocejir.  and  that  follows  the  Sentence-^    which  I 
confefs  did  not  extend  to  Life,  but  to  a  Forfeiture  of  his  Eftate  to 
the  King.     However,  we  fee  hereby  that  the  Bifiops  were  prefent  at-  i 
all  the  preliminary  Debates,  and  the  King  asked  their  Advice  :    fo  that- 
they  had  their  Votes  in  the  Sentence^  whether  it  ftiould  extend  to  LiteA, 
or  not.  >^ats,cs^ 

In  the  Reign  of  Edw.  II.  we  m^et  with  a  remarkable  Precedent  in  be«^^ 
half  of  the  Bifhops  Right^  which  is  of  a  Judgment  reverfed,  made  byi 
the  Lords  without  the  Prelates,  viz.  the  Judgment  againft  the  two  Spen-'i 
ciauf.  15  ''''^^^■>  ^  5  E'll.  which  "Judgment  is  fJd  to  be  paffed  at  Oxford  that  year, 
Ed.  2-  n.  but  in  tbeParliament  at  York  the  fame  year  it  was  nulled  and  made  void 
^orf\%%  before  the  King,  Lords  and  Commons  ^  and  one  of  the  Reafons  given 

for  it  is,  becaufe  the  Lords  Spiritual,   who  were  Peers,  ajfented  not  to  it'J ' 
Plea  for    This  Precedent  had  been  cited  and  allowed  by  Mr.  Pry«,  in  his  Plea  far 
the  Lords,  ;^e  Lords,  and  therefore  it  is  to  be  wonder'd  the  Author  of  the  Letter 
Difcomfe  f^^es  no  notice  of  ir.     But  the  later  Author  of  the  Difcourfe  about  the 
of  the  Q\- Bifljops  Peerage  and  Jurifdi&ion,  owns  the  truth  of  the  thing,  faying, 
age'Vs®'  ^'^'^^  ^^^  ^^"  7'^'^S''^^"*^  againft  the  two  Spencers  were  reverfed,  I  ^  Edw.//ii 
for  this  Caufe,  through  the  great  Favour  and  Intereji  they  then  had  at  Court. 
But  then  he  thinks  he  hath  taken  off  the  force  of  this  Precedent,  by 
fay  wo  that  I  Edw.IIL  c.  l.  this  Judgment  is  declared  good,  and  there- 
fore the  faid  Reverfd  null  and  void  ;  and  the  two  Spencers  upon  this  affir- 
mance 


in  Capital  Caufes.  §41 

piance  of  the  Judgment  were  executed.  This  laft  Aflertiorl  every  one 
knows  to  be  a  grievous  miftake,  that  hath  but  looked  into  our  Hiflory  .- 
for  the  Spencers  were  executed  before  Edvp.  III.  came  to  the  Crown  ^  ^ 
the  elder  in  OSober,  19  Edw.  11.  the  other  the  latter  end  of  November  ' 
20  Ed.  II.  And  whereas  he  infifts  upon  the  Affirmance  of  the  Judgment 
I  Edw.  III.  he  had  done  well  to  have  look'd  a  little  farther,  and  then 
he  would  have  found  that  Aft  alfo  repealed  21  R.  II.  So  that  if  the 
Aft  of  I  Ed.  III.  which  affirms  the  firfl:  Judgment  may  feem  to 
take  off  the  force  of  this  Precedent,  the  repealing  of  that  Ai^  in  the  21 
R.  II.'  reftoresit  again,  and  leaves  it  in  its  full  force.  Efpecially  if  it 
be  confidered,  that  the  J/?  of  i  Ed.  III.  waSnot  barely  repealed,  but 
declared  in  Parliament  to  be  unlawful,  becaufe  Ed.  11.  was  livings  and 
true  Kinz^  and  impr'ifond  by  his  Stihje&s  at  the  time  of  that  very  Parliament  ^°'^- *%• 

of  I  Ed.  in.  '    ''° 

Thus  far  this  Precedent  is  good.  But  I  will  conceal  nothing  that 
may  with  any  colour  be  objefted  againft  it.  And  I  cannot  deny  but 
what  the  Author  of  the  Letter  objefts  againft  the  Bifhops  conftituting 
a  Proof  or  to  reprefent  them  in  Capital  Caufes,  feems  to  be  of  equal  force 
againft  this  Precedent,  viz.  That  this  Parliament  of  the  21  R.  II.  and  all 
that  was  done  in  it,  was  repeal d  in  the  I  H.  W^.  And  if  that  be  fo,  (and 
thofe  Afts  of  State  which  then  paifed  had  not  again  been  repealed 
1  Ed.  IV.}  then  the  Elepealing  of  that  of  i  Ed.  III.  fignifies  nothing, 
and  confequently  the  Affirmance  of  the  Jirfl  Judgment  againft  the  two 
Spencers  is  good  notwithftanding  that  Repeal.  And  therefore  that  we 
may  examine  this  rhatter  to  the  bottom,  I  ftiall  fet  down  the  very 
Words  of  the  Author  of  the  Letter  concerning  it.  Speaking  of  the  De- 
claration made  by  the  Lawyers  in  the  10  Ed.  IF.  concerning  the  Biftiops 
making  a  i'rocurator  in  Capital  Caufes,  he  hath  thefe  Words ;  It  is  hl9'' 
true,  here  u  mention  made  of  their  making  a  Pro^or,  which  was^tvox  tem- 
poris,  the  Error  of  thofe  Times,  grounded  upon  what  was  fo  lately  done,  (^as 
they  looked  upon  it )  though  irregularly  done,  in  the  laji.  Parliament  of  R.  II. 
whum  they  conjider'd  as  their  lawful  King  ^  and  in  truth  he  was  fo,  the  three 
Henry's  that  came  between  being  but  TJfurpers.  And  again,  fpeaking  of 
the  famebufinefs  of  a  Pro&or  in  the  21  R.  II.  he  hath  this  remarkable  P-  "^^ 
paffage  :  /  have  already  (hewed,  that  this  whole  Parliament  was  repeal' d 
for  the  extravagant  things  that  were  done  in  it,  of  which  this  was  one.  And 
therefore  nothing  that  was  theti  done  can  fgnifie  any  thing  to  a  leading  cafe 
any  ways  to  be  followed  5  and  this  as  little  as  any ;  except  it  could  be  made 
appear,  which  lam  confident  it  cannot,  that  fome  Judgment  had  been 
reverfcd  upon  that  account,  becaufe  the  Prelates  were  not  prefent,  and 
had  not  given  their  aftent  to  it. 

Now  if  I  can  make  out  thefe  two  things,  l .  That  the  Patliament  of 
R.  II.  was  not  legally  repeal'd  ^  2.  That  the  Judgment  againft  the 
two  Spencers  was  revers'd,  and  that  the  repeal  of  that  Reverfal  in  i 
Ed.  HI.  was  revok'd  in  21  jR.  //.  upon  this  very  account,  becaufe  the 
Prelates  were  not  prefent,  and  had  not  given  their  affent  to  it  t,  I  hope' 
the  Author  of  the  Letter  will  be  fatisfy'd,  that  both  this  Precedent^ 
and  the  Cafe  of  a  Pro^or,  are  very  fignificant  in  this  Caufe ;  and 
that  there  is  a  great  difference  between  being  confident  amd  certain  of 
any  thing. 

I.  That  the  Parliament  of  21  j^.  //.  was  not  legally  repeal'd.     And 
for  this  I  take  the  Authors  own  acknowledgment  that  i^.  II.  was  in    ■ 
truth  lawful  Kina^,  and  that  H.IF.  was  but  an  Vfurper:  Nay,  I  addiar- 

thef; 


84.2  Of  the  Bijhops  Jiirifdi^ion 

ther,  that  R.  11.  was  alive  and  in  Prifon  when  H.  IF.  repeal'd  the  Par- 
liament of  21  R.  II.  For  fo  it  is  faid  in  the  very  A&  of  Repeal,  that 
R.  II.  lateKwg  <?/ England  vpaspurfiied,  taken.,  put  in  ward,  and  yet 
remaineth  in  ward.  And  now  I  leave  it  to  the  Author  of  the  Let- 
ter, whether  a  Parliament  call'd  by  a  Lawful  King,  and  the  Afts  of 
it,  ought  to  be  deem'd  legally  repeal'd  by  a  Parliament  that  was  call'd 
by  an  Ufurper,  and  held  whilft  the  lawful  King  was  alive  and  detain'd 
in  Prifon. 

2.  That  the  Judgment  againft  the  two  Spencers  was  reverfed  and  the 
Repeal  of  the  Revcrfal  of  it  in  1  Ed.  III.  revok'd  in  21  R.  II.  and  that 
upon  this  very  account,    becanfe  the  Prelates  voere  not  prefent,    and  had 

.  p.  15.  ^ot  given  their  ajfent  to  it  ^  which  the  Author  of  the  Letter  !S  confident 
cannot  be  made  appear.  That  this  Judgment  was  reverfed  for  this  Rea- 
fon  I  have  already  (hewn,  vi%.  in  the  Parliament  at  Torh,  1 5  Ed,  11. 
And  I  (hall  now  (hew,  that  the  Repeal  of  that  Reverfal  in  i  Ed.  III. 
was  revok'd  in  21  J^. //.  and  that  upon  the  account  mentioned.  For 
in  this  Parliament,  Tho.de  Spencer,  E^tr]  of  Glocejier,  exhibited  two 
Bills,  in  which  he  prayeth,  that  the  Revocation  of  the  Exile  of  the 
two  Spencers  in  1 5  Ed.  II.  might  be  brought  before  the  King  and.con- 
firraed,  and  that  the  i^epe^/ of  the  fame  made  in  the  i  Ed.  ///.might  be 
revoked.     Of  which  ASi  of  Repeal  thefe  Errors  3re  afTigned,    among  o- 

Rot.  5j.    thers :    becaufe  the  Prelates,    who  are  Peers  of  the  Realm,    did  not  af- 

^6.2iVi..2.  j^„f  f(f  tfjg  Judgment  5  and  becaufe  it  was  made  only  by  the  Earls  and  Ba- 
rons, Feers  of  the  Realm,  &c.  and  becaufe  it  was  made  againji  the  form  of 
the  Great  Charter  <>/ England,  in  which  it  is  contain  d,  that  no  Man  /hall 
be  exil'd,  or  otherwife  dejiroyed,  but  by  the  lawful  Judgment  of  his  Peers,  or 
by  the  Law  of  the  Land.  So  that  it  feems  it  was  look'd  upon  as  a  breach 
of  the  Great  Charter,  for  the  Temporal  Lords  to  condemn  a  Peer  with- 
out the  Aflent  of  the  Bifhops,  and  that  fuch  a  Judgment  was  not  e- 
fteem'd  a  lawful  Judgment  by  his  Peers.  And  thofe  firr^wj-  of  the  firji 
Judgment  afRgn'd  in  the  Revocation  of  it  in  1 5  Ed.  II.  are  allowed  in 
this  Parliament  of  21  /?.  //.  and  that  Revocation  confiirm'd  and  the  Re- 

R.  :.  21.  peal  of  it  in  i  Ed.  III.  revok'd  upon  the  fame  account.  I  fhall  only 
obferve,  that  in  this  Parliament  (as  before  in  1 5  Ed.  II. )  the  Bifliiops 
are  declared  to  be  Veers  5  Peers  of  the  Realm,  Rot.  5  5.  Peers  in  Par- 
liament, Rot.  56.  &  5i  5  but  moft  fully  and  diftinftly  in  the  Roll  laft 
cited,  Peers  of  the  Realm  in  Parliament.  Of  which  farther  ufe  may  be 
made  in  the  lafl  Chapter  concerning  the  Peerage  of  the  Bifl^ops. 

And  now  to  fum  up  the  force  ot  this  Precedent  for  the  Jur  fdlBion  of 
the  Bifhops  in  Cafes  of  Tre^fon.  Here  is  a  Reverfal  of  a  Judgment,  be- 
cause made  without  the  Affent  of  the  Prelates,  by  the  Parliament  at  Tork  m 
1 5  Ed.  II.  And  whereas  it  is  faid,  this  Reverfal  was  Repealed,  and  the firjl 
Judgment  affirm  d  in  I  Ed.  III.  I  hove  fhew'd,  that  this  was  no  legal  Repeal 
hecavkEd.  II.  was  alive  andlaipful  Kit/g,  orelfe  Ed.  III.  could  never  have 
been  fo)  in  the  time  of  that  firft  Parliament  of  E^n?.  ///.  and  confequently 
Ed.  III.  at  that  time  was  an  Ufurper,  and  the  Proceedings  of  that  Parlia- 
ment null  and  void.  So  that  the  Reverfal  in  1 5  Ed.  II.  fi-ands  good  not- 
withftanding  the  Repeal  in  1  Ed.  III.  Befides  that  this  Repeal  (what- 
ever it  was)  is  folemnly  revoked  in  11  R.  II.  And  H.  IF.  who  revcrs'd 
all  the  Proceedings  of  the  Parliament  of  71  R.  11.  during  the  Life  of 
R.  II.  is  acknowledg'd  by  .the  Author  of  the  Letter  to  have  been  an  Z^- 
furper  and  JR.  //.  to  have  been  a  lawful  King.  And  now  I  think  that 
this  Precedent  hath  all  the  advantage  that  can  be,   and  that  the  Jurifdi- 

&ion 


in  Capital  Camjes. 


iiion  of  the  Bijhops  in  Cafes  ofTreafon  could  not  have  been  alTerted  in  a 
lygher  ^nanner,  than-to  have  a  udgment  in  CafeoiTrcafon  folemnly  re- 
vers'din  two  Parliaments  for  this  very  caufe,  hecaufe  theBilhopt,  who  are 
Peers,  affented  vot  to  it.  And  this  Precedent  own'd  by  the  Monfe  of 
Commons^  in  their  Petition  to  have  a  Common  Prodor  appointed  by  the 
Clergy,  in  this  very  Parliament  of  21  R.  11.  as  is  acknowledgd  by  the 
Author  of^  the  Letter. 

To  conclude  this  matter  ;  whether  the  Afts  of  Parliament  which  con- 
tain this  Declaration  of  the  Peerage  of  Biftiops,  and  their  Jurifdidton 
itt  Cafes  ofTreafon^  were  fufficiendy  repeal'd  or  not  ^  this  folemn  Afler- 
tion  of  it  in  two  feveral  Parliaments,  together  with  tS\t  Petit] ott  of  the 
G7«f«»tf«j mentioned  before,  are  a  moft  clear  evidence,  that  in  the  gene- 
ral Opinion  of  the /C?^^,  Lords,  and  Cof;imo//s,  this  Jurifdidion  did  of 
right  belong  to  the  BiQiops.  And  I  amfiire  they  are  a  Demonftration 
againftthe  Author  of  the  Peerzge  his  Aflertion,  of  a  Negative  Cuftom,  an- 
cient as  the  Cvnfkitution  of  the  Nation,  that  Prela'es  fhould  not  exercife  Ju- 
rifdi^ion  in  Capital  Cafes.  For  had  this  been  a  clear  and  undoubted 
Cuftom  from  the  firft  Original  of  this  Nation,  it  is  morally  impofllble  it 
could  have  entred  intotheminds  of  two  Parliaments,  folemnly  to  have 
raifed  this  doubt,  whether  a  Judgment  given  in  a  cafe  of  Treafon  by 
the  Temporal  Lords  without  the  Affent  of  the  Bilhops  were  valid,  and 
to  have  determined  that  it  was  not^  when  yet  there  was  no  manner  of 
reafon  to  imagine  that  the  Bifhops  ever  had  any-  Jurifdidion  in  fuch 
Cafes,  nay,  when  there  was  an  immemorial  Cuftom  and  Ufage  to  the 
contrary,  namely,  that  the  Temporal  Lords  had  in  all  times  exercifed 
this  Jurifdiftion  alone,  and  the  BiOiops  had  been  excluded  from  any 
fhare  in  it. 

And  in  the  Apology  oi  AdamD'Orleton,  Bifliop  of  Hereford,  and  after 
oiWinchefler,  for  hisim'pxi^onin^R.  de  Baldock,  a  great  Confident  of 
Hugh  de  Spencer's,  he  declares,  that  the  reafon  why  he  was  carried  to 
Newgate  ■wdi^  through  the  violence  of  the  People^  although  faith  he,  the 
Parliament  then  fitting,  there  was  no  caufeof  fear  but  Juftice  would  be 
done.  His  Words  are,  Domino  Rege,  FrAatk,  Comttibus,  ac  aVm  ter- 
ra Optimatibuf  Lundonia  tunc  congregate  &  pr^fentibm,  pro  Jujiitia  ibi- 
dem in  Parlamento  coKvocatis  omnibtaexhibenda.  Which  (hews  that  the 
Prelates  then  did  fit  in  Matters  oi  Juftice  in  the  Houfe  of  Lords,  and  in 
Cafes  Capital-^  ioT  this  R.  de  Baldock  was  arraigned  at  Hereford  for  the 
fame  Crimes  that  Hugh  de  Spencer  was. 

But  the  main  itrength  of  the  Caufe  is  fuppofed  tolie  in  the  Precedents 
produced  out  of  the  Rolls  of  Parliament  from  the4  £^.  ///.  to  the  38  H. 
VI.  The  force  of  thefe  Precedents  will  be  better  underftood,  if  we  con- 
fiderthefe  things. 

I.  That  many  of  them  are  meer  Negative  Teftimonies.   So  4  Ed.  IIL 
at  the  Trial  of  Roger  Mortimer,    it  is  faid,  the  Earls^    Barons  and  Peers  Letc.  p.  6, 
of  the  Realm  were  prefent,  therefore  the  Bifiops  were  not  5  Ed  IIL  only  the    p-  9. 
Great  ones  returned,     therefore  the  Bijhops  did  not.     So  in  the  Cafe  of  Sir 
John  Grey.     From  whence  he  infers,    that  the  Bijhops  were  not  to  Judge 
fo  much  as  of  a  Battery.     25  Ed.  III.  in  Sir  William  Thorp's  Ca.k,    the    p.  tc 
Granlz,  de  Parliament  were  asked  their  advice,  therefore  not  the  BiJI)ops.     ^,,,. 
I  R.  11.  in  the  Cafeoi  Wejlon  d.nd  Gomenitz^,    the  Bijlijps  not  mention  d  ^ 
but  other  Lords,  Barons  and  Bannerets,  Sir  Ralph  de  Ferrers  Cafe  4  R.  11.    ^  '^^ 
the  Bifl}ops  not  prefent,  hecaufe  not  comprifed  under  Ics  Seigneurs  de  Parli- 
ament.    The  like  in  Sir  7(>^»  0/<s/frt/?/e's  Cafe,    5//.^     The  ^ejiion,    p.^^. 

he 


844  •  Of  the  Bijhops  Jiirifditlion 

he  faith  is,  whether  Bipops  he  comprehended  under  les  Seigneurs  de  cejipre- 
^I.5I•  fent  Parliament.    In  the  Earl  o'^  Devonpire's  Cafe  31  H.  FI.  the  ftrength 
lies  in  this,  that  the  Peers  are  only  mention  d  ;  and  hefuppojes  no  Man  will 
Jur'ifdim- fay,  theBifhops  were  hk  Peers  or  Lords  of  the  Realm.     So  that  here  are 
°Houffof    ^ig^'  Precedents  that  are  no  more  than  Negative  Teflimonies  3   concern- 
Peers  af-  ing  which  in  general,  the  Author  of  the  Jt/rifdiSion  of  the  Houfe  of  Peers 
ferted,      ajferted,   hath  a  good  Obfervation  ^    viz.    That  one,  or  two,   or  twenty 
^•9''       i^xectdtnts  in  the  Negative,   nay,    I  fay  more,   were  the  mimber  equally  as 
many  in  the  Negative  as  in  the  Affirmative,  yet  it  cculd  not  difprove  their 
Jurifdiilion  :    It  would  only  f jew,    their  Lordfiips  were  free  Agents,    to  do 
it,  or  not  to  do  it,  as  they  faw  Caufe  5    but  their  jurifdi&ion  remained  en- 
tire Jim,  to  do  it  whenfoever  they  would.     So  I  fay  here  3    fuppofing  that 
the  Spiritual  Lords  were  not  prefent  in  thefe  Cafes,    it  only  (hews 
that  they  were  free  Agents,   and  might  withdraw  at  fome  times,    and 
be  perfent  at  others ;   which  cannot  overthrow  their  Right,  for  thefe 
Reafons. 

(i.)  Several  of  his  Negative  Precedents  if  they  prove  any  thing, 
prove  the  Bijhops  were  not  there,  when  he  confeffes  they  might  have 
been  there.  As, 
Lett. p.  J  I,  !•  In  Cafes  of  Mifdemeanours.  At  the  Trial  of  Sh  John  de  Lee,  42 
£6^.  7//.  being  charged  with  feveral  Mifdemeanours,  the  Record  (akh, 
p.  12.  the  Prelates  were  prefent,  50  Ed.  IIL  Several  Perfons  were  accufed  by 
the  Commons  for  Mifdemeanours,  and  the  Bifhops  he  confelTeth  were  pre- 
fent 5  as  Rich.  Lions,  John  Lord  Latimer,  William  Ellis,  John  Peecher^ 
Lord  John  Nevil  ^  at  all  thefe  Tm/j-  the  BiJIiops,  faith  he,  were  prejent^ 
and  no  body  fays  but  they  might.  So  in  the  Cafe  of  Alice  Ferrers,  50 
j>.  14.  Ed.  in.  the  Record  faith,  the  Prelates  were  prefent,  and  gave  Judgment 
as  toBanifhment,  and  Forfeiture  of  her  Efiate.  10  R.  II.  Mich,  de  la 
Pool,  Lord  Chancellor,  was  accufed  by  the  Commons  for  feveral  Mifde- 
j.  ,8  meanours  before  the  JC/»^,  Prelates  and  the  Lords.  Here  he  yields  the 
Prelates  were  Judges  of  Mifdemeanours,  together  with  other  Lords. 
And  yet  if  feveral  of  his  Negative  Precedents  do  prove  any  thing  they 
prove  too  much,  viz^.  that  the  bifhops  ought  not  to  be  prefent  at  the  Tr'nl 
of  Mifdemeanours  :  For,  he  faith,  the  Bijhops  were  not  prefent  at  the  Tri- 
al of  Wefton  and  Gomenitz,  i  R.  II.  nor  at  the  Trial  of  the  Bijhop  of 
Letf,^, O.Norwich,  7  R.  II.  nor  at  fuch  Judgments  as  that  oC  Sir  WJliam  de 
Thorp,  25  Ed.  III.  who  was  condemned  for  Bribery  :^  and  yet  he  yields 
they  were  at  the  Trial  of  Mich,  de  la  Pool,  10  R.  II.  But  if  they  ought 
not  to  be  prefent  at  thofe  of  25  Ed.  III.  and  i  R.  IL  and  7  R.  II.  nei- 
ther ought  they  to  have  been  prefent  at  the  Trial  of  M  ch.  de  la  -ool. 
Either  therefore  his  Argument  doth  not  prove  they  were  not  prefent  at 
the  former,  being  only  from  general  Words  ^  or  they  ought  not  to  ha\'e 
been  prefent  at  the  latter,  .which  he  confeffes  they  were.  This  will 
beft  appear  by  comparing  the  Cafes  together,  i  R.  II.  the  Commons  de- 
liver in  a  Schedule  to  the  Lords  of  rheir  Demands,  before  they  would 
proceed  to  a  Subfdy  5  among  which  one  was.  That  all  fuch  who  without 
caufe  had  lojl  or  given  upany  CaJlle,  or  Town.,  or  hortrefs.  to  the  dijfionour 
of  the  K^ing,  or  damage  of  the  People,  may  be  put  to  their  Anfwer  before  the 
Lords  and  Commons  that  Pharliament.  Here  was  no  particular  Im- 
peachment of  thefe  Perfons ;  but  upon  this  the  Lords  fent  for  thefe 
two  Perfons  who  were  Prifonersin  theTower-upon  this  account  5  and 
the  Charge  againft  them  was,  delivering  two  Towns  in  Flanders  with- 
out Commiffion.    Wejhn  made  along  and  plaufible  Defence,  to  which 

no 


in  Capital  Caufes.  84.5 


no  Anfwer  was  given  i  yet  both  were  condemned  to  die.    The  Bifi op 
of  Norrvich  was  charged  with  feveral  Mifcarriages  and  M.ifdemeanors,  faith  p.  1 7, 
he  5  why  might  not  the  Bilhops  be  prefent  at  this  Tr.ial  .<?  To  that  he 
faith,  he  was  charged  with  one   Capital  Crime,  viz.   betraying  Graveling 
io  the  French  5    but  he  confelfeth,  he  cleared  himfelf  df  this  before  they 
came  to  Judgment ;  And  yet  he  would  have  the  B/fl}ops  excluded  at  this 
Judgment,    and  that  of   Sir  William  Elmham,    Sir  Thomas  Trivet  and 
others  5   but  confefles  they  were  prefent  at  the  Trial  and  Judgment  of 
Mich,  de  la  Pool.     Let  US  then  fee  what  kind  of  Trial  this  was.     He 
was  impeached  in  the  Name  of  the  Commons  of  England,  and  6  Articles 
were  exhibited  againft  him.     The  main  were,  concerning  defrauding  the 
King,  and  mifemploying   the  Aids  granted  to  the  K.ing  laji  Parliament, 
whereby  much  Mifchief  happen  d  to  the  Kingdom  ^  as  may  appear  by  the 
Ro^s,  and  the  Articles  prmted  in  Knighton.     Upon  thefe  Articles,  thcKnighror 
Record  faith  that  the  Commons  prayed  that  Judgment  of  Death  might  pafs^^  E^^"- 
upon  him,  as  it  did  upon  Sir  William  de  Thorp  for  receiving  20  1.  by  way     ' 
of  Bribery.     And  yet  this  Judgment  of  Sir  William  de  Thorp  is  one  of     • 
the  Precedents  zgzm^  the  Bifhops  being  prefent  ^  when  he  allows  they 
were  prefent  at  the  whole  Trial  of  this  Mich,  de  la  Pool,  when  a  great 
Minijier  of  State  was  fo  hotly  charged  by  the  Commons,  for  offences 
of  fo  great  a  nature,  and  which  in  their  Judgment  deferved  no  lefs  than 
Death.     From  whence  it  follows,  by  his  own  confeffion,  that  the  Bi- 
Jljops  may  be  prefent  when  the  Minijiers  of  State  are  impeached  by  the 
Commons  of  fuch  Crimes  which,  in  their  "judgment,  deferve  no  lefs  than 
Death. 

2.  In  AUs  of  Attainder,  when  the.Houfes  proceed  in  a  Legiflative  way, 
he  grants  the  Bifhops  may  be  prefent  5  and  yet  if  fome  of  his  Precedents 
fignify  any  thing,  they  prove  they  ought  not  to  be  prefent  at  the  paf- 
fing  of  them.     As,  Letr.  p.  <?, 

I.  In  the  Cafe  of  Roger  Mortimer  and  others  accufed  and  tried  in 
Parliament,  4  Edw.  III.  He  confefleth  the  J^oZ^  cannot  be  read,  and 
therefore  refers  to  28  Edw  III.  where  Roger  of  Wigmore  defires  that  the 
Attainder  may  be  examined,  which  was  reverfed  by  AB  of  Parliament  i, 
and  therefore  we  may  juftly  fuppofe  the  Judgment  given  againft  him 
was  ratified  iti  Parliament.  And  fome  of  our  Hiflor/ans  fay,  he  was  ceftrenr. 
condemned  Judicio  Parlamenti.  And  in  the  petition  of  Roger  Wigmore,  ^inilhtov' 
he  prays  that  the  faid  Statute  and  Judgment  may  be  reverfed  and  annul- ^  2,-58. 
led.  If  therefore  the  Prelates  could  not  be  prefent  here,  then  they  are 
not  to  be  prefent  in  the  Legiflative  way  :  If  they  werp  prefent  in  Ads 
of  Attainder,  then  this  general  Negative  way  of  arguing  proves  nothing^ 
for  then  the  Bifhops  were  comprehended  under  the  Name  of  Peers  • 
which,  without  any  reafon,  he  faith  the  Bifljops  cannot  pretend  to  be, 
when  it  is  notorious  that  they  challenged  it  in  Parliament,  \\R.  II.  and 
it  was  then  allowed  as  well  as  their  proteflation. 

In  cafe  of  the  Murther  oi  John  Imperial,  3  R.  //.  an  AB  cfParlia-^-  n- 
ment  pajfed  to  make  it  Treafon  5  and  he  proves  the  Bifhops  had  no  vote  in 
it,  nor  were  prefent  at  the  preparing  it.     And  yet  he  confeiTes  that  theP-'i,^^^ 
Biffjops  have  a  right  to  fit  in  all  A^s  of  Attainder,  becaufe  they  fit  theti 
in  their  Legiflative  Capacity.     Therefore  thefe  Negative  Precedents  prove 
nothing. 

(2.)  The  Infufficiency  of  thefe  Negative  Precedents  appears  by  this, 
that  we  can  make  it  appear  by  good  Teftimonies,  that  the  Bifhops  have 
been  often  comprehended  under  the  generalTitles  #of  Gratitz,  Peers, 

P  p  p  p  p  and 


ton, 


Of  the  Bijhops  Jurifdi^ion 


and  Lords  of  Parliaments  without  any  exprefs  mention  made  of 
them. 

And  becaufe  the  great  force  of  many  of  his  Teftimonies  lies  wholly 
in  this,  that  the  Bifhops  are  not  comprehended  undei-  the  Names  of 
Grants,  Seigneurs,  and  Feers,  I  (hall  endeavour  to  make  it  clear  beyond 
Exception,  that  if  the  Precedents  muft  be  determined  by  the  general 
Words,  all  the  advantage  lies  on  the  B.fjops  fide. 

It  is  certain  that  in  elder  times  the  Baroragmm  Anglic  did  tak&  in  all 
the  Lords  of  Parliament,  both  Spiritual  and  Temporal.  Bat  I  betake  my 
felf  to  the  Expreflions  ufed  in  xht Records-^  and  becaufe  the  matter  of 
the  Debate  is  confined  within  the  Times  of  Edrv.  II.  and  IV.  I  (hal!  take 
notice  of  the  Language  of  Parliament  within  that  time  ;  refervingthat 
of  their  Peerage  to  the  proper  place  for  if. 

I  begin,  as  the  Author  of  the  Letter  doth,  with  4  Edw.  III.  and  in 
that  year,  «.  6.  the  Record  runs  thus ;  El  eji  alfentu  <df  accorde  per 
nojire  Seigneur  le  Roi,  d>  tout  le  Grantz,  en  plevn  Parlement,  where  a 
Law  was  paffed  concerning  Trial  by  Peers  5  and  in  the  pafilng  of  a  Law 
our  Author  allows  the  Bijhops  to  he  prefect.  But  it  is  more  plain,  «.i  2. 
Acorde  per  nojire  Seigneur  le  Roi,  ®  les  Grantz.  de  mefme  le  pArlement  5 
It  is  agreed  by  the  King^  and  the  Great  ones  in  Parliament.  But  that  the 
BiJljDps  are  comprehended  under  thefeGr^w/z.  is  evident;  for  it  is  there 
faid.  That  the  Petitions  (j/Edmund  Earl  o/Kent,  and  Margaret  Countefs 
o/Kent,  to  which  that  Agreement  refers,  vpere  read  before  the  King,  the 
Prelates,  the  Counts,  the  Barons,  and  other  Grantz  of  the  Parliament.  In 
the  fame  year,  ».  14.  we  meet  with  les  Prieres,  des  frelatz  &  autres 
Grantz,  the  petition  of  the  Bifhops  and  other  Great  Men  5  and  then  it 
follows,  Nojire  Seigneur  le  Roi  en  pleyn  Parlement,  per  ajfent,  accord, 
prieces  C^  confeil  des  ditz  Prelatz  d^  autres  Grantz  ;  Our  Lord  the  King 
in  full  Parliament,  by  the  ajfent,  accord,  petition  and  advice  of  the  faid 
Prelates  and  other  Grantz.  Which  (hews  that  they  are  fome  of  the 
Grantz  of  Parliament. 

5  Ed.  III.  ft.  3.  Touz  les  Prelatz  C^  autres  Grantz:  n.  13.  Grantz  in 
general  is  ufed  in  the  Debate  between  the  Abbot  of  Crorvland  and  Sir 
Thomas  Wake  :  and  ».  1 5.  le  Roi  &  as  aufres  Grantz  en  pleyn  Parle- 
ment'. n.  16.  Itemfu  accorde  per  le  Roi  ^  touz  le  Grantz  en  mefme  le 
Parlement,  auxibien  per  Prelatz  come  per  autres  5  It  vpas  agreed  by  the 
King  and  the  Great  Men  of  the  Parliament,  as  well  by  the  Prelates  as  0- 
thers.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  the  Bifhops  are  called  Grantz, 
as  well  as  the  other  Lords  of  Parliament. 

6  Ed.  III.  ».  i.  Devant  nojire  Seigneur  le  Roi,  ^  touz  le  Prelatz,  d^ 
autres  Grantz  ;  The  Articles  rvere  read  before  the  King,  the  Prelates,  and 
other  Great  Men.  If  the  Bifhops  had  not  been  comprehended  under 
Grantz,  the  Record  would  have  only  ufed  Grantz,  and  not  autres 
Grantz.  But  the  fame  Expreflion  is  again  ufed,  ».  5.  In  the  fecond 
part  of  the  Rolls  of  that  year,  ».  i,  we  find  three  feveral  ways  of  ex- 
prefling  the  Perfons  then  prefent :  The  firft,  les  Prelatz,  Countes,  Ba- 
rons, d^  autres  Grantz  du  Parlement :,  the  next  is,  queux  Prelatz  d^  au- 
tres Grantz  5  the  third  is,  touz  le  Grants  en  mefme  le  Parlement :  and 
all  thefe  are  ufed  tp  exprefs  the  fame  Perfons.  And  again,  n.  3.  touz 
le  Grantz  du  dit  Parlement,  which  are  there  oppofed  to  Chivalers  des 
Countes  ;  and  are  more  diftinftly  mention'd  before  in  thefe  Words,  les 
ditz  Prelatz,  Countes,  Barons,  &  autres  Grantz,  d"  les  Chivalers  des 
Countes^  &  tote  la  (^ommune.  Sometimes  the  Grant%  are  taken  in  gene- 
ral 


ift  Capital  Caufes.  84.7 

ral  for  all  of  the  Houfe  of  Peers,  and  the  Commons  for  the  Lower  Hbufe. 
So  21  Ed.  III.  n.  63.  il  aJfcnUtz,  per  htijes  Grants,  ^  la  dit  CommuMalte 
a  fon  Parlement  5  and  again,  dilz,  Grantz  &  de  tote  la  Come  fufditz  5 
and,  /(?  Roj  per  ajfent  des  Grantz  commanda  a  la  ditz  Come.  From  thefe 
Examples,  and  many  more  which  might,  if  it  were  needful,  be  pro- 
duced, it  evidently  appears  that  the  Bifhops  were  Grntit%  in  Parliament, 
according  to  theLanguage  of  that  Time  ;  and  therefore  the  Precedents 
produced  wherein  only  the  Grantz  are  mentioned,  are  of  no  force  at 
all  againft  the  Prefence  of  the  Bifhops.  And  that  AfTertion  of  the -i^«- 
thor  of  the  Peerage,  &c.  appears  to  be  without  any  ground,  viz.  that^-  '5. 
the  Bi/hops  are  never  fpoken  of  in  any  Record^  but  by  the  Name  ofBiffjops 
or  Prelates^  or  fome  fiich  Name,  to  diftingui[l]  them  from  the  Laity.  Thefe 
general  Negatives  are  very  bold  and  dangerous  things  ^  and  one  Affir- 
mative overthrows  them.  But  I  have  produced  many  Inftances  to  the 
contrary,  and  might  do  many  more.  Such  Men  who  dare  venture  up- 
on fiich  bold  Sayings,  muft  be  prelumed  to  have  read  over  all  the  Re- 
cords themfelves,  and  muft  prefume  that  none  elfe  ever  fo  much  as 
looked  into  them.  But  that  Author  difcovers  too  much  his  Second-hand 
Learning  in  thefe  matters  5  and  we  might  have  wanted  feveral  of  his 
Precedentff  had  it  not  been  for  Mr.  Seldens  Baronage. 

AstotheTitleof5'e%;;fKrj-  duParlement,  being  common  to  the  Bi-^khtfoj  ^ 
pops,  I  am  prevented  by  another  hand.  *p%^'li, 

I  fhall  only  add  two  Precedents  more,  not  taken  notice  of  by  others,  ere  ' 
The  one  7  R.  II.  The  Anfwer  of  Mich,  de  la  Pool  is  faid  to  be  cora/^ 
Magnatihus  &  Communitate  in  Parlamento ;  where  the  Author  of  the  Let- 
ter confeffeth  the  Bijhops  were  prefent,  and  therefore  comprehended  un- 
der the  Magnates.  The  Other  1 5  H.  VI.  One  Phillips  complained  againji 
the  Biffjop  of  London  to  the  Houfe  of  Commons  5  they  fent  the  Complaint 
Hp  to  the  Lords'^  the  Bi/hop  asks  the  Advice  of  the  Houfe,  who  gave  this 
Anfvper,  Non  confentaneum  fuit  aliquem  Procerum  alicui  in  eo  lo- 
co refponfurum.  Which  had  fignified  nothing,  if  the  Biftiops  had 
not  been  allowed  to  be  Proceres  Regni.  So  much  for  his  Negative 
Precedents. 

II.  Some  of  his  Precedents  were  condemned  in  Parliament  to  be  irre- 
gular and  erroneous  in  other  refpedts  j  and  therefore  it  is  no  wonder  if 
they  (bould  be  fo  in  this. 

1.  The  Judgment  upon  Roger  Mortimer^  Earl  of  March,  4  Ed.  III. 
was  reverfed  in  Parliament  28  Ed.  IIL  as  defe&ive  and  erroneous  in  all 
Points,  being  without  any  Proof  or  Witnejfes,  or  bringing  the  Perfon  to 
anfwer  for  himfelf  And  therefore  it  was  an  Honour  for  the  Bifhops  not 
to  be  prefent. 

2.  The  Judgment  upon  Haxey,  20  R.  11.  is  confeffed  by  the  Author  imer,  p . 
to  be  moji  unjuji,  and  would  not  only  have"" p^aken,  but  wholly  defiroyed^'^ 

the  very  Foundation  of  Parliament  5  and  reverfed  i  H.  IV.  as  againji  Right 
and  Courfe  of  Parliaments.  And  he  confeffeth  the  Bifhops  were  prefent 
at  condemning  it^  but  not  at  pafjing  it.  Which  alfo  makes  much  for 
their  Honour. 

III.  Some  of  his  Precedents  prove  that  when  the  Bifhops  did  withdraw, 
they  did  it  voluntarily,  and  took  care  to  preferve  their  Right,-  either  by 
protejiation  or  appointing  a  pi-oxyi 

[i.]  That  they  withdrew  voluntarily.    So  5  Ed.  III.  it  is  faid.  That  p.  8. 
the  BiJJjops  did  withdraw  at  that  time,  being  of  Opinion  that  it  did  not 
properly  belong  to  them  to  give  Counfel  about  keeping  the  Peace,  attd  pnnijh- 

P  p  p  p  p  2  ing 


- A.  . 


Of  the  Bi flops  Jurifdi^ton 


ing  ofMalefa^ors  5  and  fo,  faith  he,  they  went  atvay  by  themfehes,  and 
returned  no  more.  But  altho'  this  proves  nothing  but  a  voluntary  A^ 
of  the  Bi^ops  in  mthdramng ;  yet  the  Reprefentation  made  of  this 
matter  is  fo  partial,  and  different  from  the  Record,  that  I  cannot  but  take 
a  little  more  notice  of  it. 

I.  He  faith,  That  the  Prelates  being  ofOprnion  that  it  belonged  not  properly 
to  them  to  give  Counfel  about  keeping  the  peace,  or  punijh  ngfuch  Evils,  they 
Tpent  away  by  themselves,  and  returned  no  more.  Tnereby  infinuating, 
that  they  looked  on  this  matter  as  wholly  unfit  for  them  to  meddle  in, 
and  thereupon  left  the  Houfe.  Whereas  the  Words  ot  the  Record  are. 
Si  alerent  mefmes  les  Prehtz,  &  les  Procurators  de  la  Clergie  per  eux  mef- 
mes  a  confeiler  de  chofes  fufdites,  &.les  ditz  Cou»  es,  Barons  &  autres 
Grantz,  per  eux  mefmes  ^  So  the  Prelats  and  Pro&ors  of  the  Clergy  went 
by  themfelves  to  confult  about  the  aforefaid  matters,  and  the  Earls,  Ba- 
rons, and  other  Great  Men  by  themfelves  So  that  this  withdrawing  was 
but  into  feveral  Committees,  as  was  ufual  at  that  time,  by  which  the 
Senfe  of  the  Three  EJiafes  was  beft  underftood  ;  and  then  they  met  to- 
gether, and  agreed  upon  what  was  fit  to  be  made  a  Law.  This  ap- 
pears by  6  Edvp.  III.  A  queu  jour  de  Joedi  eu  one  tret,  d^  deliberation^ 
ceji  ajfavoir  les  ditz,  Prelatzper  eux  mefmes,  &  les  ditz  Countes,  Barons^ 
C^  autres  Grantz,  per  eux  mefmes,  df  auxint  les  Chivalers  des  Countes 
per  eux  mefmes  ;  upon  which  Thurfday  they  enter  d  upon  debate,  (con- 
cerning the  News  from  Scotland^  the  I  relates  by  themfelves,  the  Lords 
and  other  Great  Men  by  themfelvef,  and  fotheK  wghts  of  Counties  by  them- 
felves. The  Houfes  being  then  not  wholly  feparate,  not  always  toge- 
ther, but  dividing  into  Committees,  and  not  into  Houfes^  ^s  occafion  re- 
quired, and  then  joining  together  to  exprefs  their  common  Senfe.  So 
40  Ed.  III.  when  the  occafion  of  their  meeting  was  deliver'd,  which 
was  an  extraordinary  MefTage  from  Rome,  the  Pope  fending  for  Tribute 
and  Homage,  it  is  faid.  The  Bifhops  went  by  themfelves,  and  the  other 
Lords  by  themfelves,  and  the  Commons  by  themfelves  5  and  then  met  to- 
gether, and  declared  their  unanimous  Refolution  to  oppofe  to  the  ut- 
termoft  any  fuch  Demand.  Such  a  withdrawing  of  the  Bifljops  it  was 
in  this  cafe.  For  they  and  the  Protlors  of  the  Clergy  (whether  by  them 
we  underftand  the  Procttratores  Cleri,  who,  according  to  the  Modus  te- 
nendi  P arlamentum,  made  a  part  of  the  Parliament,  or  the  proxies  of 
the  abfent  BiJIiops,  who  were  allow'd  to  fupply  their  places,  as  appears 
by  3  5  Ed.  I.  and  the  Cafe  of  the  Bifhops  of  Durham  and  Carlifle  in  the 
Parliament  at  Wejiminjier,  Ed.  II.  and  17  R.  II.  and  many  other  In(kn- 
ces  afterwards)  thought  fit  to  confider  in  this  matter  what  was  mofi 
proper  for  them.  And  accordingly  we  findEcclefiafticalCenfures  added 
to  the  Civil  Sanftions,  and  brought  in  by  the  Prelates  at  that  time, 
which  are  ftill  extant  in  the  Record. 

2.  Whereas  he  faith,  the  Bijbops  returned  no  more,  the  Record  faith 
the  contrary.  For  it  exprefly  faith.  That  the  Orders  for  keeping  of  the 
Peace  agreed  on  by  the  Committee  of  Lords  were  read  before  the  King,  the 
Bifkops,  the  Kn/ghts  of  Counties,  and  the  Commons,  and  did  pleafe  them 
all  5  &  per  noftre  Seigneur  le  Roi,  Prelatz,  Countes,  Barons,  &  autres 
Grantz,  Sc  auxint  per  les  Chivalers  de  Countes  8c  gentz  de  Commun, 
furent  pleynment  aflentuz.  8c  accordez.  And  the  fame  is  immediately 
faid  of  the  Cenfures  brought'  in  by  the  Bijhops.  Which  made  me  ex- 
tremely wonder  at  his  faying,  that  the  B/Jhops  returned  no  more:,  where- 
as it  is  very   plain,     they    did  not  only  return,    but  the  Orders 

were 


in  Capital  Caiifes. 


were  read  before  them,    and  they  did  give  their  ajjcnt  to  the  pajpng  of 
them.  ';V^  \ 

In  the  Parliament  1 1  /?.  //.  that  it  was  Only  a  voluntary  withdraw- 
ing, I  prove  from  the  Conceffions  of  the  Author  of  the  Letter  ^  viz. 
that'they  might  be  prefent  in  all  A^s  of  Attainder.  For  it  is  evident  frofn 
the  printed  Statutes,  that  they  proceeded  by  way  of  Attainder  againft 
the  Minifters  of  State^  and  therefore  they  might  have  been  prefent,  if 
they  pleafed,  upon  the  Author's  own  grounds.  How  is  it  then  poffible 
for  him  to  underftand  de  Jure  non  poJfHmiu,  in  their  Frotejiation  1 1  R.Il. 
of  the  Lam  of  the  Land^  when  he  grants  that  in  all  Afts  of  Attainder, 
they  may  de  jure  be  prefent  and  give  their  Votes  ? 

[2.3  When  they  did  folemnly  withdraw  they  took  care  to  preferve 
their   Right  two  ways  5    (i.)  By  Protejiation,    (3.)  By  Proxy. 

I.  Ey  Frotefiation,  {sLv'mg  their  Right '^    which  was  received  by  the 
Hottfe,  and  enter'd  ;  of  which  before.     The  late  Author  cf  the  Peerage    t'^\- 
and  Jurtfdiilion  of  the  Lords  Spiritual  will  not  allow  the  Proteftation  to 
be  an  Argument  of  any  Right ;    neither,  faith  he,    doth  the  permjjion  or 
allowance  of  any  Frotejiation  yield  the  Right  which  the  Frotejior  is  dejirous 
to  fave,    but  only  faves  the  Right  vohich  he  had  bef/re,    if  he  had  any. 
Whereas  the  Author  of  the  Letter  makes  it  as  good  as  a  Law,   being  en-^ett.p.j? 
tred  in  the  Journal-Booh,  that  fuch  a  thing  was  agreed  by  the  King  and 
the  two  Hoitfes.    I  will  not  deny  that  the  former  Author  fpeaks  more  rea- 
fonably  in  this  matter,  when  he  faith,  That  the utmoft  a  Pro  eftation  can 
do  if,  to  anticipate  a  Conclufion,  or  Efioppel  ;  i.  e.  to  provde  that  the  do' 
ifig  of  any  fuch  AB  as  is  contained  in  the  P/ otejiation,  (hall  not  be  conjirned 
to  the  prejudice  of  the  Party,  fo  its  to  bar  or  conclude  him  from  claiming  af- 
terwards that  which  in  truth  is  his  Right.     It  is  true,    this  Proteftation 
pafled  with  greater  Solemnity  than  ufually  5    for  it  was  with  the  Con- 
fent  of  the  Ktng  and  both  Houfes ;  but  however  it  rerained  the  nature  of  a 
Proteftation.      And  there  was  no  diftindion  at  that  time  between  a 
Journal-Book  and  the  RoSf  of  Parliament.    For  a  good  Author  aflbres  us,  Leiden's 
the  Journals  of  the  "Upper  Houfe  began  I  H.  VIIL  and  therefore  the  Ah-  ^"if^^."  ^ 
thor  of  the  Peerage,  &c.  deferved  no  fuch  fevere  Reproof  on  that  ac-  tbeBifhops; 
count.     But  this  is  all  I  plead  for,  viz.  That  this  Proteftation  was  a.^''^'^' 
Salvo  to  their  Right  5    which  meeting  with  no  Conteft  or  Oppofition 
in  the  Houfes,  but  palfing  with  unanimous  Confent,  is  a  certain  Argu- 
mentthe  Houfet  did  not  think  there  wasany  Law  toexclude  them.  And 
therefore  the  Author  of  the  Judicature  very  well  faith,   That  had  it  not 
hcen  for  the  Canon-Law,  (for  which  he  refers  to  the  Synodal  Conjiitutions 
It  Wejiminjier  21  H.  II.  which  is  only  reviving  the  Council  of  Toledo's 
''.anon  )    they  might  have  been  prefent  both  by  Common  Law,    and  by  the 
Law  of  Cod. 

1.  By  Proxy,  or  one  common  Procurator  to  appear  in  Parliament 
for  them,  and  to  vote  in  the  name  of  the  whole  Body.  This  was  receiv'd 
and  allow'd  1.1  R.  II.  upon  the  Petition  of  the  Houfe  of  Commons, 
becaufe  Judgments  had  been  reverfed  without  their  concurrence.  Againft 
this  the  Author  of  the  Letter  objeds  many  things  which  are  eafily  an- 
fwer'd. 

1.  That  hence  it  appears  they  could  not  be  perfonally prefent.     On  the !-="•  P^S- 
contrary,  from  hence  it  follows  they  had  a  Parliamentary  Right  to  be 
prefent  ^   although  they  faid  by  Canon-Law  they  could  not. 

2.  That  it  was  never  pra3ifed  but  in  this  one  Parliament.  That  is 
ftrange,  when  hirafelfconfcfletb,  that  it  paffed  for  good  Law,   10  Ed.    P-78« 

IF. 


850  Of  the  Bi/hops  Jurifdi^ion 


JV.  term.  Vafch.n.  35.  and  the  fame  is  cited  by  StamfordPlacit.  Cor.  t.  5. 
f.  1 5g.  To  which  Judgment  of  the  Lawyers,  and  the  greateft  of  their 
time,  (  for  Littleton  was  then  Judge  10  Ed.  IV.  )  we  have  a  very  ex- 
»  _.^  traordinary  Anfwer  called  Error  Temporis  ;  which  will  equally  make 
void  the  Latv  or  Judgment  of  any  Age.  But  is  itpoffible,  that  fHould 
pafs  for  Lavp  10  Ed.  IV.  which  was  never  praftifed  but  once  11  R.  //. 
and  the  contrary  praftice  had  been  only  allowed  all  the  intermediate 
times }  Thus  a  ftiort  Anfwer  may  be  given  to  the  ConftitutioH  oi  Cla- 
rendon^ it  was  Error  Tempork  5  to  the  allowing  the  Protej^ation,  1 1  R.  11^ 
it  was  Error  Temporii  ^  and  fo  on  to  the  end  of  the  Chapter.  If  there 
were  any  Error  Temporis  in  this  matter,  it  lay  in  this,  that  they  took 
this  Precedent  71  R.  11.  for  a  fufficient  Ground,  that  the  Bijhops  fhould 
only  appear  by  Proxy  in  fuch  Cafes  5  whereas  the  Canon-Law  being  taken 
away  finee  the  Reformation  as  to  thefe  matters,  their  Right  of  Perfo- 
nal  appearing  doth  return  to  them  of  courfe. 

Lett.  f. 79.  3'  That  this  Parliament  n?"  repealed  I  H.IV.  But  this  t  have  an- 
fwer'd  already  from  his  own  Words,  wherein  he  acknowledges  him  to 
be  an  Dfurper,  and  confequently  the  Repeal  not  m.ide  by  a  legal  Parlia- 
ment.   And  this  Repeal  was  again  taken  off  i  Ed.  IV. 

'  4.  That  it  is  not  at  all  Parliamentary^  for  one  or  two  Men  to  reprefent  a 
whole  Body.    The  Confequence  then  is,  that  they  ought  to  enjoy  their 

'  own  Perfonal  Right.    All  that  we  urge  from  hence  is,  that  the  S/'/Jopi- 

kept  up  their  Right  ftill  by  their  Proxies,  when  they  thought  the  Ca- 
nons would  not  allow  voting  in  their  own  Perfons. 

IV.  Some  of  his  Precedents  do  prove,  that  after  the  Proteftations 
and  Proxies,  they  did  aflert  their  own  Perfonal  Right,  and  were  prefent 
both  at  Examinations,  and  at  the  whole  Proceedings. 

Lett.j.31.  !•  f^t  Examinations.  As  in  the  Cafe  of  Sir  William  Rickill  1  H. 
IV.  who  was  brought  to  Parliament  before  the  Kjng  and  the  trt>a 
Houfes^  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal  and  the  Commons  then  af- 
fembled  together.  And  he  grants  the  Bijhops  were  prefent  at  his  Ex- 
amination. 
^  41.^0  2.  At  the  whole  Proceedings,  28  H.VI.  where  he  confefletb,  the 
/>•  48.  Bijhops  were  not  only  perfonally  prefent,  but  did  a^  and  bear  a  principal 
part  in  a  Judicial  proceeding  in  Parliament,  in  a  Cafe  that  was  in  it  felf  Ca- 
pital, viz.  <?/ William  de  la  Pool,  Duke  of  Suffolk.  Which  is  very  ful- 
ly related  by  the  Author,  and  needs  no  repetition.  All  that  he  hath  to 
fay  to  this,  is,  that  the  whole  proceedings  were  irregular,  and  not  to  be 
drawn  into  Precedent.  Whereas  a  great  Lawyer  in  his  time.  Sir  E.  C. 
made  ufe  of  this  as  a  fufficient  Precedent  in  a  Cafe  of  great  moment,  a- 
bout  Commitment  upon  a  general  Accnfation.  But  there  is  not  any  Irregu- 
larity expreffed  or  intimated  in  the  Bijhops  appearing  and  judging 
as  other  Lords  did  :,  and  the  Judgment  was  not  reverfed  becaufe  of 
their  being  there,  as  we  have  (hewed  others  have  been  for  their  being 
abfent. 

V.  None  of  all  his  Precedents  do  prove  that  the  Bijhops  were  ever 
excluded  from  fitting,  by  any  Vote  of  the  Houfe  of  Lords  or  Commons. 
That  they  might  voluntarily  withdraw,  we  deny  not  5  or  not  be  prefent 
at  giving  of  Jidgment  out  of  regard  to  the  Canons  ;    which  is  all  that  is 

]K  32.    proved  by  the  Precedent  of  John  Ball  i  U.  IV.  of  the  Earls  of  Kent^ 

P-34.    Huntington,   &c.    2  H  IV,  of  Sir  John  Oldcafile,    5  H.  V.   and  of  Sir 

p.\^.'    John  Mortimer,  2  H.  VI.     And  this  we  have  made  appear  was  done  by 

them  out  of  regard  to  the  Canon-Law  j  the  force  of  which  being  taken 

away 


in  Capital  Caajes,  851 


away  by  the  Reformation,  the  BiJIjops  are  thereby  reftored  to  their  juft 
Parliamentary  Right.  Neither  can  any  Difufage  be  a  bar  to  rhatRight^ 
fince  the  ground  of  that  Difufage  was  forae  thing  then  fuppofed  to  be 
in  force,  which  is  now  removed  by  the  Reformation.  And  t  fear,  if 
this  kind  of  arguing  be  fufficient  to  overthrow  the  Bifhops  Rights,  much 
ftrongerof  the  fame  kind  may  beufed  to  overthrow  the  King's  Suprema- 
cy in  matters  of  Religion.  So  great  care  ought  Men  to  have,  left  under 
the  colour  of  a  mighty  zeal  againft  Popery,  they  do  not  overthrow  the 
very  Principles  of  our  Reformation. 

VI.  There  are  Precedents  upon  Record  in  the  Rolls  of  Parliament, 
which  are  not  mention'd  by  the  Author  of  the  Letter,  which  'do.  prove 
that  theBiJIjDps  were  prefent  at  the  Examination  oiTreafon  and  Capital 
Offences  in  Parliament.  And  thjt  within  the  time,  wherein  he  pretends  .  ..  5  j, 
to  give  an  account  of  all  the  Trials  recorded  in  the  Rolls.  Which 
Ihews  how  eafily  Men  pafs  by  thofe  things  they  have  no  mind  to 
fee. 

I  begin  with  4  Ed.  III.  and  I  muft  do  him  that  right,  as  to  fay,  that 
he  doth  not  only  mention  the  Trial  of  Roger  Mortimer,  but  of  Sir  Si-  t-  ^' 
mon  Bereford  and  others  rvho  were  accufed  and  tried  in  Parliament.  But 
pretending,  that  the  Roll  of  that  Parliament  isfo  defaced  that  it  cannot  be 
read,  he  runs  to  that  of  28  Ed.  III.  and  fo  gently  pafles  over  all  the  0- 
ther  Trials  which  are  in  the  Record,  and  are  more  plain  and  exprefs  as  to 
this  matter,  kmongthe  Articles  zgzin^i  Roger  Mortimer,  Earl  of  March, 
one  is,  that  after  he  knew  certainly  the  death  ofEdw,  II.  he  made  tife  of 
Infiruments  to  perfwade  Edward  Earl  of  Kent,  that  King's  Brother,'  that 
he  was  ft  ill  living,  andfodrewhimintoade/ignforhisRefcue^   for  which  ' 

he  was  attainted  at  Winchefter,    and  there  fufferd  death  for  it.     Among 
thefelnftruments  the  chief  was  one  Mautravers,    who  for  that  Reafon 
was  attainted  this  Parliament  5  and  the  Words  of  the  Record  are,  TVe-Rgc  PaiL 
flou%  les  Pr teres.    Counts  d^  Barons  affemblez  a  cefi  Parliament  a  Weft.  fiti,.M.  5, 
ont  examine  efiraitement,    C^  fur  ce  font  affentuz,  ^  accordez,    que  John";  ^■ 
Mamravers,  ^efi  culpable  de  la  mort  Cimon  Count  de  Kent,    BiC.    Al/ the 
feers.  Counts  and  Barons  affembled  in  this  prefent  Parliament,    upon  firill 
examination  do  affent  and  agree,   that  John  Mautravers  is  guilty  of  the 
death  o/Edmund  Earl  ofKtnt.    Here  we  have  the  ftrift  Examination  of 
a  Capital  Cafe  in  Parliament,   and  all  the  Peers  are  faid  to  be  prefent  at 
it.    It  is  ufed  as  an  Argument  by  the  Author  of  the  Letter,  that  in  the 
cafe  <i»/Roger  Mortimer,    the  Bifhops  could  not  be  comprized  under  the  ge- 
neral tiame  of  Peers,  fince  the  Barons  arefirfi  in  Rank.     But  here  the  Peers 
are  mentioned  before  Counts  and  Barons  ^  and  it  will  be  impoffible  for 
him  to  affign  any  other  Peers  at  that  time,    that  were  named  before 
them,  but  the  Prelates  ;  who  frequently  are  fo  put  in  the  Records  of 
that  time:  as  in  the  fame  Parliament,  n.  12.  Prelatz,  Countes,  Barons, 
n.i^.  Et  per  ajfent  des  ditz Prelatz,  Countes,  Barons -j    fo  again,  n.  14. 
15,  17,  24,  25.     But  the  Author  of  the  Letter  faith,   theji  cannot  pretend    p,  7, 
to  be  Peers  of  the  Realm.    Let  him  name  then  other  Peers  of  the  Realm  at 
that  time,  who  were  neither  Counts  nor  Barons,  and  were  before  them. 
But  if  we  are  to  judge  who  are  Peers  of  the  Realm  by  the  Records  of 
Parliament,    I  do  not  queftion  but  I  fhall  make  it  evident,     that  the 
Bifhops  were  fo  efteemed,  and  that  forae  Perfons,  who  pretend  to  great 
Skill  in  Records,  either  have  not  fearched  fo  diligently,  or  have  not 
obferved  fo  carefully  about  this  matter  as  they  might  have  done.    But 
of  this  afterwards. 

Iri 


8^2        "  ^  OftheBifiops  Jarifditlion 

In  the  fame  Parliament  Judgment  was  palTed  upon  Boges  de  Boyons^ 
'John  Deveril,  Thomas  Gurtiay,  William  Ode  ^  but  being  by  way  of  At- 
tainder, and  not  upon  particular  examination,  which  is  mentioned  in 
the  cafe  of  Mautravers,  I  pafs  them  over. 

In  the  Pleas  of  the  Crown  held  before  the  King  in  this  Parliament, 
we  find  another  Cafe  which  relates  to  our  prefent  debate,  viz.  o-f  Tho- 
mai  Lord  Berkley  and  Knight,  who  was  arraigned  for  the  death  of  King 
Ed.U.  who  came  before  the  King  in  plenoParhmento,  infill  Parliaments 
and  there  pleaded  Not  guilty  ;  and  declared  he  n>as  ready  to  clear  himfclf 
as  the  Kings  Court  fjould  advife.  Then  they  proceeded  to  particular  Exa- 
mination ofh'.m,  hovp  he  could  acquit  himfelf  being  Lord  of  the  Caftle  where 
the  King  was  murthered,  he  being  committed  to  his  Cujiody  and  John 
Mautravers.  He  pleaded  for  himfelf  *that  he  was  then  Jich  at  Bradley, 
and  knew  nothing  of  it.  They  charged  him,  that  the  Keepers  of  the  Cajile 
were  of  his  own  appointing,  and  therefore  he  was  bound  to  anfwer  for  them. 
He  anfwer  d,  that  -hey  with  Mautravers  havingrecevd  the  King  into  their 
/  cuflody,    he  was  not  to  be  blamed  for  what  they  did  :   arid  for  this  he  put 

himfelf  upon_  his  Country.  At  the  day  appointed  for  his  Trial,  he  appears  a- 
gain,  coram  Domino  Rege  in  pleno  Parlamento ;  and  the  Jury  return- 
ed him  Not  guilty.  But  be(aufe  he  appointed  Gurnay  and  Ocle  to  keep  his 
Cafile  tf/Berkely,  by  whom  the  King  was  murthered,  the  King  appoints  him 
a  day  the  next  Parliament  to  hear  his  Sentence  :;  and  in  the  mean  time- he 
was  committed  to  the  Cujiody  fl/Ralph  Nevil,  Steward  of  the  King's  Houfe. 
In  the  next  Parliament  5  Ed.  III.  n.  18.  The  Prelates,  Earls  and  Barons 
petition  the  King,  that  he  might  bedifharged  of  his  mainprifors  :  the  which 
was  granted,  and  a  firther  day  given  him  to  appear  next  Parliament.  But 
we  read  no  more  of  him,  till  the  Summons  he  had  14  Ed.  III.  as  one 
of  the  Lords  in  Parliament.  The  great  force  of  this  Precedent  lies  in 
underftanding  what  is  meant  by  appearing  before  the  King  in  full  Paf- 
'Hament.  If  under  this  the  Bifhops  be  comprehended,  then  this  will  be 
an  uncontroulable  Precedent  of  the  prefence  of  the  BijJjops  in  the  Exa- 
mination of  a  Cafe  Capital. 

What  the  importance  of  this  phrafe  of  fiill  Parliament  is,  will  beft 
appear  by  the  ufe  of  it  in  the  Records  of  that  time.  4  Ed.  III.  n.  6.  Et 
ejiaffentu  d^  accardeper  noflre  Seigneur  le  Roi,  €^  touz  les  Grantz,  en  pleyn 
Parlement.  Where  it  was  agreed,  that  the  proceedings  at  that  time  by 
the  Lords  againjl  thofe  who  were  not  Peers  Jhould  not  be  drawn  into  confe- 
quence  5  and  that  the  Peers  Jhould  be  charged  only  to  try  Peers.  Which 
hath  all  the  formality  of  an  A^  of  Parliament :  and  therefore^//  the  E- 
fiates  were  prefent,  n.  8.  Accorde  eft  per  noftre  Seigneur  le  Roi  &  fon 
Confeil  en  pleyn  Parlement.  Which  was  an  Aft  of  Pardon  concerning 
thofe  who  followed  the  Earl  of  Lancajier,  5  Ed.lU.  n.  10.  we  have 
the  particular  mention  of  the  Bifiops,  as  fome  of  thofe  who  do  make  a 
full  Parleament.  Accorde  efl  per  noflre  Seigneur  le  Roi,  Prelatz,  Coutt- 
tes.  Barons,  d^  autres  Grantz,  du  Royalm  en  pleyn  Farlement  5  and 
n.  17.  En  pleyn  Parliment  fi  prierent  les  ?relat%,  Countes,  Barons ^ 
d^  autres  Grantz,  de  mefme  le  Parlement,  a  noftre  Seigneur  le  Roi,  &c. 

6.  Ed.  II.  n.  5.  the  Archbifhop  of  Canterbury  made  his  Oration  en 
pleyn  Parlement,  which  is  explained  by  en  la  prefence  nailre  Seigneur  le 
Roi,  df'  de  touz  les  Prelatz,  d^  autres  Qrantz,.  n.  9;  Si  eji  accorde  d^  af- 
fentu  per  touz  en  pleyn  Parlement  ^  who  thofe  were,  we  are  told  before 
in  the  fame  number,  viz.  Les  Prelatz,  Countes,  Barons,  d^  t:mz  les  au- 
tres fomons  a  mefme  le  Parlement.     Which  is  the  cleareR  explication 

■      of 


in  Capital  Cau[es>  853 

of  fuJl  Parliament,  in  the  pre  fence  of  all  thofe  who  xcere  fummond  to  Par- 
liament. From  whence  \t  follows,  that  where  a  fuU  Parliament  v/as 
mention'd  at  that  time,  the  Bifhops  were  certainly  prefent,  and  confe- 
quently  did  aflifl:  at  the  Trial  of  Thomas  Lord  Berkeljf,  who  appeared 
before  the  Jiing  in  full  Parliament -^  as  Nich.  de  Segrave  did  55  Ed.l. 
and  there  the  Bifliops  are  exprefly  mention'd  as  prefent  5  as  appears  by 
what  hath  been  faid  before  concerning  bis  Cafe, 

5  H.  IV.  Henry  Hotfpur..  Son  to  the  Earl  of  Northumberland^  was 
declared  a  Traitor  by  the  King  and  Lords  in  full  Parliament  5  and  the 
fame  day  the  F^^^er  was,  upon  examination,  acquittedofTreafonbythe 
'Peers.     It  is  not  faid  that  this  was  done  in  full  Parliament,  as  the  other 
was  ;  but  there  are  feveral  Circunjftances  which  make  it  very  probable 
theBiJhops  were  then  prefent.     (i.)  When  the  Earl  o{  Northumberland 
took  his  Oath  of  Fidelity  to  the  ^ing,  he  did  it,  faith  the  Elecord,  upon 
the  Crofs  ef  the  Archbifljopj  which  was  to  be  carried  before  him,  if  he 
went  out  of  the  Houfe.     (2.)  The  Archbifljop  of  Canterbury  prafd  the 
K-ing,  that  forafmuih  as  himfelf  ahd  other  Bijhops  were  fufpeSfed  to  be  in 
PiercieV  Confpiracy,  that  the  Earl  might  upon  his  Oath  declare  the  Truths 
who  thereupon  did  clear  them  all  5    which  fhews  that  the  Archbifloop 
was  then  prefent  in  the  Houfe.     And  for  the  fame  reafon  that  he  was 
prefent,  we  may  juftly  fuppofe  the  other  Bifl)ops  to  have  been  fo  too. 
(5.)  The  Earl  of  Northumberland  befeeched  the  Lords,  and  Earls,  and 
Commoners,  that  if  he  brake  this  Oath,  they  would  intercede  no  more  with 
the  King  for  him.    Now  the  better  fo  underftand  this,  we  are  to  confi- 
der.  that  H.  IV.  takes  notice  in  his  Declaration,  upon  the  Rebellion  ofwaifingh 
Sir  H?iry  Piercy,  That  the  Earl  of  Northumberland  and  his  Son  gave  ^f^-  ^^^^ 
out.  That  they  could  have  no  accefs  to  the  King,  hut  by  the  Mediation  vf° ' 
the  Bifhops  and  Earls,  and  therefore  did  befeech  them  to  intercede  with  the 
King  for  them.    It  is  not  then  probable,  that  thofe  fliould  be  now  left 
out,  when  the  Words  are  large  enough  to  comprehend  them,  and  no 
one  Circumftance  is  brought  to  exclude  them.  For  that  general  one,  of 
their  not  being  Peers,  will  be  fully  refuted  afterwards. 

But  that  which  puts  this  out  of  difpute  is,  (4.)  that  the  Record 
faith,  ».  1 7.  the  Commons  not  only  gave  the  King  Thanks  for  the  Par- 
don of  the  Earl  of  Northumberland,,  but  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Tem- 
poral, in  thefe  remarkable  Words,  Et  aux  mefmes  les  Coes  remercierment 
le  Seigneurs  Efpirituelx  &•  Temporelx  de  lour  bon  df  droiturel  judgment 
qui  Is  voient  fait  come  fiert  du  Parlement  ^  And  likewife  the  Commons 
gave  Thanks  to  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal  for  the  good  and  right 
Judgment  which  they  had  given  in  this  Cafe  as  Peers  of  Parliament. 
Which  is  a  clear  Precedent  of  the  Bifhops  judging  in  a  Capital  Cafe,  and 
that  as  Peers. 

2  H.  VI.  ».  9.  John  Lord  Talbott  had  accufed  "^ames  Boteler,  Earl  of 
Ormond,  of  fundry  Treafuns  before  the  King  and  his  great  Council  5  and 
after,  before  John  Duke  of  Bedford,  Conjlable  of  England.  The  King  takes 
advice-  of  his  Parliament  about  it,  and  then  it  is  exprefly  faid  in  the  jRe- 
cord,  De  avifamento  ^  "Jfenfu  Dominorum  Spiritualium  ^  Temporalium 
ac  Communitatir  Regni  Anglic,  in  eodem  Parlamento  exijient',  fa^a  fuit 
quadam  aboUtio  delationir,  nuntiationis  C^  dete&ionis  pr<iedid\  ^c.  Here 
the  Ring  advifeth  with  the  Lords  Spiritual  in  an  Accufation  of  Treafon  5 
and  therefore  they  muft  be  prefent  in  the  Debates  concerning  it. 

I  leave  now  any  confiderate  Perfon  to  judge  impartially  on  which  fide 
the  Right  lies.    For  on  the  one  fide, 

Q  q  q  q  q  t.  There 


Of  the  Bi/Jjops  J ur  if  diction 


1.  There  is  the  Conjlitution  oi Clarendon  interpreted  by  H,  II.  and  the 
Bipjops  at  Northafftpton.  '  ' '-    i  •   ''  -      V'< 

2.  A  Protefiation  of  their  Right  entered  and  allowed  by  King,  Lords 
and  Commons,  1 1  R.  II. 

3-  A  Reverfing  oi  Judgments  owned  by  Parliament  for  want  of  their 
Prefence,  21  R.  II. 

4.  A  preferving  of  their  Right  by  Proxy,  when  they  thought  their 
perfonal  Attendance  contrary  to  the  Canons. 

5.  A  Bar  to  a  total  difcontinuance  of  their  perfonal  Right,  by  an 
a]\owed  Precedent,  28H.VI. 

6.  A  reftoi-ing  them  to  their  former  ii?^^^,  by  removing  of  the  force 
of  the  Canon-Law  upon  the  Reformdtion. 

7.  No  one  Law  or  Precedent  produced  for  excluding  them,  even  in 
thofe  Times,  when  they  thought  jhe  Canons  did  forbid  their  Pre- 
fence. 

8.  Several  Precedents  upon  Record,  wherein  they  were  prefent  at  JGjc- 
aminations  and  Debates  about  Cafes  Capital. 

On  the  other  fide, 

1.  The  Precedents  are  General  and  Negative. 

2.  Or  relating  to  fuch  Cafes  wherein  they  are  allowed  to  be  prefent. 

3.  Or  of  Judgments  condemned  as  erroneous  by  Parliament. 

4.  Or  of  voluntrary  withdrawing,  with  Proteftation  of  their  Right, 
and  making  of  Proxies. 

5.  Or  of  not  being  prefent  at  the  paffing  of  Judgment  out  of  regard  to 
the  Canon-Law. 

And  now  on  which  fide  the  Right  lies,  let  the  Author  of  the  Letter 
himfelf  judge. 


Chap.   IV. 

The  Peerage  of  the  Btfhops  cleared :  How  Jar  they  make  the 
Third  Eftate  in  Parliament.  Obje(5tions  againjl  it  an- 
fwered. 

THERE  remain  Two  things  to  be  confidered,  which  are  pujt  in  by 
way  of  Poftfrlpt  by  the  Author  of  the  Letter :  The  one  con- 
cerns the  Peerage  of  the  Bijhops,  the  other  their  being  a  Third  Efiate  in 
Parliament. 

I.  Concerning  their  Peerage.  To  prove  this  Two  Statutes  had  been 
alledged,  x$  £5.  III.  c.  6.  and  4  Hen.  V.  c.  6.  and  the  Opinion  of 
Judges  and  Lawyers  out  of  the  Tear- Books.  But  although  thefe  had  beert 
very  fignificant,  if  they  had  been  againft  them  ;  they  have  the  hard 
fortune  to  fignify  nothing,  when  they  are  for  them.  A  meer  Protefia- 
tion becomes  good  Law,  very  fubftantial  Law,  if  it  be  fuppofed  to  make 
againft  the  Bi/hops  ;  and  yet  in  that  very  Proteftation  the  Right  of  Peer- 
age is  exprcQy  challenged  (as  well  as  it  is  afferted  and  taken  for  gran- 
ted in  the  Statutes  mention  d.)  Is  that  part  of  the  Proteftation  invalid  ? 
And  muft  nothing  pafs  for  Law  but  what  is  againft  them  ?  Is  it  credi- 
ble that  a  Right  of  Peerage  Ihould  be  owned  and  received  in  A&s  of 

Par- 


VI  Capital  Caufes .  8  5  $ 


Parliament,  in  Proteftations,  in  Year-Books,  time  after  time,  and  no 
Oppofition  made  againft  it  by  the  Temporal  Lords  all  that  time,  in  cafe 
they  believed  the  Btlhops  had  challenged  that  which  by  no  means  did 
belong  to  them  >  Did  not  the  Temporal  Lords  underftand  their  own 
Privileges  .<?  Or  were  they  willing  to  fufFer  the  Bijhops  to  aflurae  their 
Titles  to  themfelves  without  the  leaft  Check  or  Contradiftion,  and  let 
their  Proteftations  be  enter'd  in  the  Rolls  of  Parliament  without  any 
contrary  ProteflaUon  }  I  do  not  queftion  but  the  Author  of  the  Letter 
did  read  the  Bifiops  Proteftation  at  large  in  the Parliament-RoUs^  iiR. 
II.   And  can  any  thing  be  plainer,    than  that  therein  they  challenge  a 

Right  of  .Peerage  to  themfelves,    ut  Pares  Regni cum  ceteris  Regnt 

Paribui,   ^t  ?     And  this  Proteftation,    he  faith,   was  enter'd  by  confent 
of  the  King,    Lords  Temporal,   and  Commons  5    aS  is  exprefled  in  the 
Rolls.     Were  the  Temporal  Lords  awake?  Or  were  they  mean  and  low- 
fpirited  Men?    No,  they  were  never  higher  than  at  this  tiriie,    wheri     • 
the  King  himfelf  durft  not  withftand  them.    What  could  it  be  then  but 
meer  Conviftion  of  their  juft  Right  of  Peerage,  which  ihade  them  fuf- 
fer  fuch  a  Proteftation  as  that  topafs,  after  fofolemrt  and  ufual  a  man-' 
ner,  and  to  be  enrolled  par  Commandment  dn  Roy,  d^  a/fent  des  Seignenri 
Temporels  &  Communs  4  as  it  is  in  the  Rolls  .«■   Was  all  this  only  Com- 
plement to  the  potent  Clergy  at  that  time  ?     But  who  can  imagine,   that 
King,  Lordsy  and  Commons,  (hould  Complement  at  that  rate,  as  to  fuf- 
fer  the  Bi/hops  to  challenge  a  Peerage  to  themfelves  in  Parliament,  if 
they  had  not  an  undoubted  Right  to  it  >    This  one  Argument  is  fuffici- 
ent  to  convince  any  reafonable  Man.    Efpecially  when  we  confider, 
that  in  the  fame  Parliament,  before  the  Proteftation  was  brought  in,  A 
Motion  was  made^  ».  7.  by  all  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  which 
they  claimed,  conle  leur  libertez  &  franchife,  as  theif  Liberty  and  Privi- 
legCy  that  all  weighty  matters  moved  in  this  Parliament,  or  to  be  moved  iti 
any  to  come,    touchant  Pieres  de  la  Terre,    concerning  the  Peers  ofthd 
Realm,  (hould  be  determined,,  adjudged,  and  difcujfed  by  the  courfe  of  Par- 
liament ;  and  not  by  the  Civil,  nor  by  the  Common-Law  of  the  Land,  ufed 
in  inferior  Courts  of  the  Realm.      The  which  Claim,  Liberty,  and  Franchijti, 
the  King  moji  willingly  allowed  and  granted  in  full  Parliament.     Froiri 
whence  it  is  evident,  that  the  King  and  Parliament  did  allow  the  Right 
of  Peerage  in  the  Lords  Spiritual  5    for  it  is  faid  exprefly  in  the  Record; 
that  all  the  Spiritual  as  well  as  Temporal  Lords  joyned  in  this  Claim  i 
Which  being  allowed  them  in  full  Parliament,    is  an  evidence  beyond 
contradiftion  of  their  Right  of  Peerage.  ''' "  ^-  '  ^    ' 

But  againft  this,  no  lefs  is  pretended  than  MMrg»^C^4r/rf,  viz..  thate- 
very  Man  who  is  tried  at  the  King's  Suit,  muft  be  tried  by  his  Peers. 'l-e«'t'^5' 
Now  if  a  Bijhop  be  tried  for  any  Capital  Offence,  he  is  tried  by  the  Commo- 
ners, and  that  is  the  Common'Law  ^/England  ;  it  hath  ever  beenfo,  never 
otherwife  ^  then  mnfl  Commoners  be  his  Peers,  and  he  and  Commoners  muji 
he  Pares.  ' 

To  this  Argument,   fiow  ftrotig  foeVer  it  appears^  thefe-  two  things 
may  be  juftly  anfwered.  ;].pt  f-^.t  : -n 

-P:*<  That  the  matter  of  Faft  cannot  be  madedut,  that  a  Bijhop  hath  al- 
ways been  tried  by  Commoners. 

2.  That  if  it  could,  it  doth  not  overthrow  their  Peerage  in  Par  Ha- 
titept. 

( I.).  That  the  matter  of  Faft  cannot  be  made  out,  vi%.   That  ifaBi' 
/hop  be  tried  for  a  Capital  Offence,   he  is  tried  by  the  Commoners  5   that  it 

Q.qq  q  q  2  hath 


Of  the  Bijhops  JmifdiBion 


Ant.  Brit.  ^^^^  ever  bee K  fo,  never  othermfe.  For  in  15  EdAW.  John  Stratford^ 
?-^23.  jirchbifljop  oi  Canterbury,  was,  at  the  King's  Suit,  accufed  of  Capital 
Crimes,  viz,,  of  no  lefs  than  TreaCon,  and  Conjpiracy  with  the  French 
King.  He  put  himfelf  upon  his  Tryal  in  Parliament.  A  Parliament  was 
called  ;  and  he  at  firft  refufed  Admiffion  into  the  Boiife  t,  which  he 
challenged  tanquam  major  par  Regni  poft  Regem,  d^  Vocem  primam  in 
Parlamento  habere  debens.  As  thefirjt  Peer  of  the'  Realm  after  the  King^ 
and  having  the  firfl  Votein  Parliament.  Upon  which,  and  the  Intercef- 
fion  of  his  Friends,  he  is  admitted  into  the  Honfe  ;  and  there  he  put 
himfelf  upon  the  Tryal  of  his  Peers.  At  which  time  a  great  D  bate  arofe 
in  the  Houfe,  which  continued  a  whole  Week  5  and  it  wasrefolved, 
that  the  ' Peers  Jhould  be  tried  only  by  Peers  in  Parliament,  Whereupon 
the  Archbifhop  had  twelve  Peers  appointed  to  examine  the  Articles  a- 
gainft  him  :  Four  Bifhops,  vi%,  i^ondon,  Hereford^  Bath,  and  Exeter:^ 
.  Four  Earls,  Arundel,  Salisbury,  Huntingdon,  and  Suffolk  5  and  four 
Barons,  Percy,  Wake,  Bajfet,  and  Nevil.  Here  we  have  all  that  can 
be  defired  in  the  Cafe.  Here  is  a  Bifldop  tried  at  the  King's  Suit,  and 
for  a  Capital  Crime  5  and  yet  not  tried  by  Commomrs,  but  by  his  Peers, 
and  that  after  long  debate  in  the  Houfe  concerning  it.  If  it  be  faid,  that 
he  was  tried  by  the  Lords  as  'fudges  in  Parliament,  and  not  as  his  Peers  5 
it  is  anfwer'd,  i.  Then  Biftiops  are  Judges  in  Parliament  in  Cafes  Capi- 
tal^  for  fo  this  was  5  and  4  Bifiops  appointed  to  examine  it.  2.  The 
Debate  in  the  Houfe  was  about  Tryal  of  Peers  by  their  Peers  5  and  upon 
that  it  was  refolved,  that  the  Archbi(hop  (hould  be  tryed  by  the  f/oufe. 
For  the  Ring  defigned  to  have  him  tried  in  the  Exchequer  for  the  mat- 
ters objefted  againft  him,  and  the  Steward  of  the  King's  Houfe  and  Lord 
Chamberlain  would  not  fuffer  him  to  enter  into  the  Houfe  of  Lords,  till 
he  had  put  in  his  Anfwer  in  the  Exchequer.  Upon  which  the  great  De- 
bate arofe  ^  and  therefore  the  Refolution  of  the  Houfe  is  as  full  a  Prece- 
dent in  this  Cafe  as  can  be  deHred. 

I  do  not  deny,  that  the  Rolls  of  Parliament  of  that  Year  feem  to  re- 
ptefent  the  12  Peers,  asBirchinton  calls  them,  not  as  appointed  toexa* 
mine  the  particular  Cik  of  Stratford  ^  but  to  draw  up  in  form  the  de- 
fire  of  the  Peers,  as  to  a  Trial  by  their  Peers,  in  Parliament  5  the  which 
is  extant  in  the  Record,  15  Ed.  lU.  n.  7.  However,  this  Argument 
doth  not  lofe  its  force,  as  to  the  Peerage  of  the  Bifliops ;  but  it  is  ra- 
ther confirmed  by  it.  For  there  they  pray  the  King,  by  the  Affent  of 
the  Prelates,  Counts  and  Barons,  that  the  Peers  of  the  Realm  may  not 
be  judged  but  in  Parliament,  &  per  lour  Piers,  and  by  their  Peers  :^  and 
after  it  follows,  that  they  may  not  lofi  their  Temporaries,  Lands,  Qoods 
...ir.  and  Chattels,  8cc.  Who  were  capable  of7<j/?»g  their  Temporalties,  but 
the  Prelates  ?,  Therefdre  this  Law  muft  refpeft  them  as  well  as  others!; 
As  farther  appears  not  only  by  the  Occafion,  but  by  the  Confequent  of 
it.  For  it  follows,  ».  8.  thdXtht  Archb'ijhop  of  Canterbury  mas  admitted 
into  the  Idngs  Prefence:^  and  to  an  facer  for  himfelf  in  Parliament  devant 
les  Piers,  before  his  Peers -^  which  the  Ring  granted.  So  that  the  Rolls 
of  Parliament  put  this  matter  beyond  contradidtion. 

In  2 1  R  U.  Thomas  Arundel,  Archbifhop  of  Canterbury,  was  impea^ch- 
ed  of  High  Treafon  before  the  King  and  Lords  in  Parliament.  The  King's 
Anfwer  was.  That  for af much  as  this  Impeachment  did  concern  fo  high  a 
Perfon,  &  Pier  de  fon  Royalm,  ( it  is  in  the  Record,  but  left  out  in  the 
Abridgment)  and  a  Peer  of  the  Realm,  The  King  would  be  advifed.  But 
foon  after  he  was  condemned  for  Treafon  by  the  Houfe,   the  Proxie 

of 


in  Capital  Caafes,  857 


of  the  Bijhops,  Sir  Tho.  Percy,  giving  his  Fote-.  The  force  of  this  doth 
not  he  barely  in  his  being  impeach'd  before  tke  Houfe  of  Peers  in 
time  of  Parliament  j  but  that  the  King  called  him  in  his  Anfwer  a 
Peer  of  the  Realm. 

Andbecaufetwo  Laws  were  already  pafled,  the  one,    that  Peers  were 
to  try  none  but  Peers,  4  Ed.  III.  n.  6.  the  other,  that  Peers  were  to  be  tri- 
ed only  by  their  Peers,  1 5  Ed,  III.  n.  7.  the  former  of  thefe,    the  Author 
of  the  Jurisdi^ion  oft  he  Houfe  of  Peers  afferted  (  one  well  known  to  the    p.  192, 
Author  of  the  Letter  )    would  have  only  looked  on  as  a  Temporary  Order  of 
the  Houfe.     But  our  greateft  Lawyers  are  of  another  Opinion.    And  an  coke  2. 
eminent  Lawyer  ftill  living  urged  this  as  an  AB  of  Parliament,  hecaufe  it  inft-  cap- 
rrfaid,    that  the  King  in  full  Parliament  ajjhnted  to  it  5    and  he  added,  ^*,y°T  ivj^ 
that  the  Words  are  both  Affirmative  and  Negative  ;  they  fiall  not  be  bound,  Arg.  Con- 
or charged  to  try  any  other  than  Peers,  but  be  thereof dtfcharged  1    and  that'- "'PA. ^.^ 
therein  they  declare  tt  to  be  agatnjt  Jbaw  for  them  to  exercije  jurtfaiction  on  on  of  the 
thofe  who  were  not  their  Peers.     From  whence  it  follows,  that  fince  Strat-  ^^^r^'  '> 
ford  and  Arundel,  Archbifhops  oi  Canterbury,  were  allow'd  to  be  tried  c^/e."" * 
by  the  Houfe  of  Peers,   (  without  Impeachment  from  the  Commons  ) 
they  were  looked  on  as  Peers  by  the  whole  Houfe. 

The  latter  Aft,  the  fame  Author  cannot  deny  to  be  a.  binding  Law  5  h  >93- 
but  he  hath  a  ftrange  fetch  to  avoid  the  force  of  it  ^  wz.  that  thifLaw 
was  made  with  refpedt  to  the  Cafe  of  Roger  Mortimer,  4  Ed.  III.  and  not 
io  the  Cafe  <?/ Stratford  then  in  Agitation  :  which  is  without  all  colour  of 
Reafon.  For  the  Cafe  then  was  of  a  different  nature,  viz.  about  the 
Peers  trying  thofe  who  were  not  Peers,  as  Sir  S/mon  Bereford,  ^c.  but 
here  the  Cafe  was,  whether  Peers  fl^ould  be  tried  by  any  others  than  their 
Peers  ^  and  the  King  granted  they  jhould  not.  Now  upon  this  Stratford 
was  allowed  to  be  tried  by  his  Peers  in  Parliament  3  and  there- 
fore this  Trial  upon  thefe  Ads  is  an  invincible  Argument  of  the  Pee- 
rage of  the  Bijhops. 

>  In  i^H.Vl.  when  William  de  la  Pool,  Duke  of  Suffolk,  waved  being 
tried  by  his  Peers,  and  fubmitted  to  the  King's  Mercy  5  the  Record  faith,  p.  ^% 
(  as  the  Author  of  the  Letter  himfelf  confeffeth  )  that  Vifcount  Beau- 
mont, on  '  he  behalf  of  the  L(?r^j  Spiritual  and  Temporal^  and  by  their 
advice,  affent  and  defire,  moved  the  King,  that  a  Protejlation  might  be 
enter  d  in  the  Parliament  Roll,  that  this  Jfjould  not  be,  nor  turn  in  preju- 
dice nor  derogation  of  them,  their  Heirs,  nor  of  their  Succeffors  in  time  com- 
"ing  5  but  that  they  may  have  and  enjoy  their  Liberties  and  Freedoms  as 
largely  as  ever  their  Ancejiors  and  Predecejfors  had  or  enjoy  d  them  before 
th's  time.  Which  Sir  R.  Cotton  more  briefly  exprefleth,  «.  52.  that  nei- 
ther they  nor  their  Heirs  ffiould  by  this  example  be  barred  of  their  Peerage* 
The  Author  of  the  Letter  more  fully  puts  in  Succeffors,  as  well  as  Heirs  ^ 
for  this  Proteftation  was  made  in  behalf  of  the  Lords  Spiritual  as  well  as 
Temporal.  But  very  unfairly  leaves  out  the  mofl:  material  Words  in 
the  Kecord,  vicz.  [aiter  Freedoms^  in  cafi  of  their  Peerage.  And  I  ap- 
peal to  the  Author  himfelf,  whether  thefe  Words  be  not  in  the  Re- 
cord 5  and  with  what  ingenuity  they  are  left  out,  I  cannot  underftand. 
I  do  not  charge  the  Author  of  the  Letter  himfelf  with  this^  but  whofo- 
ever  fearched  the  Records  for  him,  hath  dealt  very  unfaithfully  with 
him.  And  I  fuppofe,  if  he  had  feen  this  pafiage  himfelf,  he  would 
never  have  fo  peremptorily  denied  the  Peerage  of  the  Bi(hops  5  nor 
afferted  with  fo  much  affurance,  that  they  are  only  to  be  tried  by  the 
Commoners^  and  that  it  was  always  fo,  and  never  otherw^e, 

(2O  Sup- 


Of  the  Bifiops  Jurifdi^ion 


(2.)  Suppofe  the  Biftiops  have  been  tried  by  CoMmomrt  out  of  Parli- 
ament, this  doth  not  take  away  their  Right  of  Peerage  in  Parliament, 
tor  all  our  difpute  is,  concerning  the  Right  of  their  Peerage  in  Parlia- 
ment 5  and  if  that  be  allowed,  we  are  not  to  difpute  concerning  the 
difference  that  in  fome  refpefts  may  arife  by  Cuftom,  or  Praftice  of 
Common  Law,  between  Peers  by  Defcent,  and  Peers  by  Tenure  in 
Right  of  their  Baronies.  And  therefore  the  Author  of  the  Peerage  of 
p  3,4,  &c.thQ  Lords  Spiritual  might  have  fpared  all  the  needlefs  pains  he  takes  a- 
boutthis^  for  we  do  not  contend  that  they  have  an  Inheritable  Pee- 
i-age,  but  that  they  are  Peers  in  Parliament,  h'aving  a  Right  to  fit  and 
judge  there  by  virtue  of  their  Baronies. 

But  from  hence  he  undertakes  to  prove,    that  by  Magna  Charta  they 
p.  4.    cannot  he  Judges  of  fitch  who  are  ennohled  in  Blood.     This  comes  home  to 
our  prefent  bufinefs,  and  therefore  muft  be  confidered, 

1.  Hefaith,  that  he  who  had  only  a  Predial  or  Feudal,  and  not  Per- 
fonal,  Peerage,  can  have  no  JurifdiHiott  hut  fuch  as  is  fuitable  to  the  na- 
ture of  his  Peerage  5  and  therefore  can  only  extend  to  matters  of  proper- 
ty and  poffejfion,  and  not  to  matters  of  blood.  But  that  this  is  a  very  tri- 
fling and  ill-confider'd  Argument  appears  by  this,  that  he  grants  a  Lord 
Keeper,  Lord  Privy  Seal,  Lord  Treasurer,  to  be  Veers  by  their  Offi- 
ces t^  for,  as  he  fpeaks,  after  Regradation  their  Peerage  is  ended  :^  and  he 
will  not  deny  that  thefe  may  fit  as  Judges  in  Capital  Cafes,  although 
they  be  Peers  only  by  their  Offices.    Thofe  that  are  Peers  in  !  arlia- 

f.  J.     ment  have  Right  to  judge  in  all  Cafes  that  belong  to  the  Judicature  of 
Parliament. 

2.  Hefaith,  thztthtkeafonoi  Magna  Charta  is,  that  the  Judges  and 
Prifoner  may  be  under  the  fame  Circumjiances,  But  this  kind  of  arguing  as 
well  excludes  a  Lord  Keeper,  who  is  no  Baron,  as  a  Bi^op  5  and  fup- 
pofeS  that  Mens  Capacity  for  Judgment  depends  upon  perfeft  equality 
of  Circumftances,  whereas  Knowledge  and  Integrity  go  farther  towards 
conftituting  one  that  is  a  Peer  but  in  one  refpeft,  a  jiift  Judge,  than 
bare  Inheritance  of  Honour  can  do.  But  to  give  a  full  Anfwer  to  this 
Argument,  on  which  that  Author  lays  fo  much  weight,  and  challen- 
ges any  Perfon,  to  give  a  rational  account  wherein  the  Advantage  of  a  Man's 
heifig  tried  by  his  Peers  doth  conjiji^  I  (hall  (i.)  (hew  that  this  was  not 
the  Reafon  of  Trial  by  Peers  ;  (2.)  give  a  brief  account  of  the  true  and 
original  Reafon  of  it.  .!;    .  • 

1^1.3  That  this  was  not  the  Reafon. 
\  t.  Not  in  the  Judgment  of  the  Peers  themfelves,  astbat  Author  hath 
bimfelf  fufficiently  proved,  when  he  takes  fo  much  pains  to  prove,/*.  5. 
that  a  Writ  of  Summons  to  Parliament  doth  not  ennoble  the  Blood  5  and 
confequently,  doth  not  put  Perfons  into  equality  of  Circum(tances  with 
thok  whofe  Blood  is  ennobled 'y  arid  yet  he  grants,  that  thofe  who  fat  in  the 
Hoftfe  of  Peers  by  virtue  of  their  Summons,  did  judge  as  Peers  ^  as  is 
manifefl  from  his  own  Precedents,  p.  1 5.  from  the  4  Ed.  5.  From  whence 
it  follows,  that  this  was  not  thought  to  be  the  Reafon  by  the  Peers 
themfelves  in  Parliament. 

-'2.  That  this  was  not  the  Reafon  in  the  Judgment  of  our  greateft 
Lawyers  5  becaufe  they  tell  us,  that  where  this  Reafon  holds,  yet 
it  doth  not  make  Men  Judges.  As  for  inftance,  thofe  who  are  enno^ 
bled  by  Blood,  if  they  be  not  Lords  of  Parliament,  are  not  to  be  Judges 
in  the  cafe  of  one  ennobled  by  Blood.  Only  a  Lord  of  the  t^arliament 
2infl.p.  ofExighndy    faith  Coke,  Jhal/  he  tried  by  his  Peers  being  Lords- of  Parlia- 

meftt  J 


in  Capital  Caiifes.  819 


tfte»t  5  and  neither  Noblemen  of  any  other  Country^  nor  others  that  are  cal- 
led Lords,  and  are  no  Lords  of  Varliament,  are  accounted  Pares  Peers 
within  this  Statute.  Therefore  the  Parity  is  not  of  Blood,  but  of  Privi- 
lege in  Parliament. 

5.  ThePrafticeit  felf  (hews  that  this  wasnot  the  Reafon.    For  this 
Reafon  would  equally  hold,    whether  the  Trial  be  at  the  King's  Suit, 
or  the  Suit  of  the  Party  5  but  in  the  latter  cafe,  as  in  an  Appeal  for  M«r-Coke2in- 
der,    a  Man  whofe  Blood  is  ennobled  muft  be  tried  by  thofe  whofe5^[j''.'J'" 
Blood  is  not  ennobled  5    even  by  an  ordinary  Jury  of  1 2  Men.    And  I  rnk^af 
defire  our  Author  to  confider  what  becomes  of  the  inheritable  quality  '^<""«^4• 
of  Blood  in  this  Cafe,  when  Life  and  Fortune  lies  at  the  mercy  of  12^^°^'^'*^' 
Subftantial  Freeholders?  who,  it  is  likely,  do  not  fet  fucha  valueupon 
Nobility  as  Noble-men  themfelvesdo  5  and  yet  our  Law,  which  furely 
is  not  againft  Magna  Charta,   allows  an  Ordinary  Jury  at  the  Suit  of  the 
Party  to  lit  in  Judgment  upon  the  greateft  Noblemen.    Therefore  this 
Reafon  can  fignifie  nothing  againft  the  Biftiops,  who  are  Lords  in  Parli- 
ament, as  I  have  already  proved. 

[2.3  I  (hall  give  a  brief  account  of  the  true  and  original  Reafon  of 
this  Trial  by  Peers  5  without  which,  that  Author  it  feems  is  refolved  to 
conclude,  that  the  Jurifdidion  of  the  Bi/hops  in  Capital  Cafes  is  an  4- 
hufe  of  Magna  Charta,  and  a  Violation  offer  d  to  the  Liberties  of  Englijb 
Subjeds. 

As  to  the  general  Reafon  of  the  Trial  by  Peers,  it  is  eafie  to  conceive 
it  to  have  rifen  from  the  care  that  was  taken,   to  prevent  any  unfair 
Proceedings  in  what  did  concern  the  Lives  and  Fortunes  of  Men.   From  De  Morib. 
hence  Tacitus  obferves  of  the  old  Germans,  that  their  Princes,   who  tvere  ^^'"'"*  *^' 
I'hofen  in  their  great  Councils  to  do  jujiice  in  the  feveral  Provinces,    had 
fome  of  the    eoplejoyned  with  them,  both  for  Advice  and  Authority.    Thefe 
were  Afleflbrs  to  the  Judges  5  that  Mens  Lives  and  Fortunes  might  not 
depend  on  the  pleafure  of  one  Man  3   and  they  were  chofen  out  of  the 
Chief  of  the  People,  none  but  thofe  who  were  born  free  being  capable 
of  this  Honour.     In  the  latter  times  of  the  German  State,    before  the!^-  ^^^ 
iah^lumgiihy  Charlemaign,    fome  learned  Men  fay,   their  Judges  n'ereirmenfula^ 
chofen  out  of  the  Colleges  of  Priejis,    efpecially  among  the  Saxons.     After  ^-  4- 
their  being  conquer'd  by  him,  there  were  2  Courts  of  Judicature  eftabli- 
(hed  among  them,  asin  otherparts  of  the  Ger/«<i»  Empire* 

i»  One  ordinary  and  popular,  vi%.  by  the  Comites,  or  great  Officers 
fent  by  the  Emperor  into  the  feveral  Diftrifts ;  and  the  Scabini,  who 
were  Affiftants  to  the  other,  and  were  generally  chofen  by  the  People. 
The  number  of  thefe  at  firft  was  uncertain ;  but  in  the  Capitulars  they 
are  required  to  be  feven,  who  were  always  to  affift  the  Comesin  paffing 
Judgments.  But  Lk^<>z;/c/«- F/^if,  in  his  fecond  Capitular,  J.  I).  819. 
C.I.  enlarged  their  number  to  12.  And  if  they  did  not  come  along 
with  him,  they  were  to  be  chofen  out  of  the  mod  fubftantial  Free-hol- 
ders oi  thQ  Cownty -.y  for  the  Words  are,  De  melioribus  illius  Comitatus 
fuppleat  numerum  duodenarium.  This  I  take  to  be  the  true  Original  of 
our  Juries.  For  our  Saxon  Laws  were  taken  very  much  from  the  Laws 
of  the  Chriftian  Emperors  of  the  Caroline  Race,  as  I  could  at  large  prove, 
if  it  were  not  impertinent  to  our  bufinefs  5  and  thence  difcover  a  great 
miftake  of  our  Lawyers,  who  make  our  ancient  Laws  and  Cuftoms  pe- 
culiar to  our  fel  ves.  As  in  this  very  cafe  of  Trial  by  Peers,  which  was  ()ao  Fri- 
the  common  praftice  of  thefe  parts  of  the  World.  Therefore  Otto  Fri-  fing-  de 
fingenfis  takes  notice  of  it  as  an  unufual  thing  in  Hungary  ;   Nulla  fen-  I'^J^^^  ^^  ^^ 

tentiac.'ix. 


S6o  Of  the  Biflops^  Jurifdi^ion 

tentia  a  Vrincipe,  ficut  apnd  nos  mork  eji,   per  pares  fuos  expofcitur fola 

fed  Priftcfpis  voluntas  apud  omnes  pro  ratione  habetur  ^    thar  they  were  not 

judged  by  their  Peers,  but  by  the  Will  of  their  Prince.  Which  (hews,  that 

this  way  of  Trial  was  looked  on  as  the  praftice  of  the  Empire,    and  as 

Leg.  Lon-  preventing  the  inconveniences  of  arbitrary  Government.     And  it  was 

|?^"8. '  eftablifhed  in  the  Laws  of  the  Lombards,   and  the  Conftitutions  of  Sici- 

§•4.        ly.   In  the  one  it  isfaid  to  be  Judic'tum  Parium  ;  in  the  other,  proborum 

Sidi^'/'  I  ""'^^orum.    In  the  Saxon  Laws  of  Ring  Ethelred  at  Wanting,  c.  4.  Twelve 

tic.  44.*     Free-men  are  appointed  to  be  fveorn  to  do  Jujiice  among  their  Neighbours  i» 

Alfred,     g^g^y  Hundred.     Thofe  in  the  Laws  of  Alfred  are  rather  1 2  Compur- 

J.'Vi-^    gators  than  Judges ;  however  fome  make  him  the  Author  of  the  Trial 

by  Peers  in  England.    But  by  whomfoever  it  was  brought  into  requeft 

here,    it  was  no  other  way  of  Trial,    than  what  was  ordinary  in  other 

parts  of  Europe;    and  was  a  great  inftance  of  the  Moderation  of  the 

Government  of  the  Northern  Kingdoms. 

2.  There  was  an  extraordinary  or  Royal  Court  of  Judicature  :    and 
that  either  by  way  of  Appeal,  which  was  allowed  from  inferior  Courts ; 
or  in  the  Caufes  of  Great  Men,    which  were  referved  to  this  Supream 
Court.     In  which  either  the  King  himfelf  was  prefent,    or  the  Comes 
Almoin.    fil^tH-,  who  was Lord  High  Steward:^    and  all  the  Great  Perfons  were 
/.  4.  c.  I.  AfleiTors  to  him.  In  fuch  a  Court  Brunichildk  was  condemned  in  France  5 
Rhegin./.  gj^j  Tajjilo  Duke  of  Bavaria  in  the  Empire ;   and  Ermfuf^   and  other 
Great  Men,  A.  D.  85 1.  and  Erchingerus  and  Bartoldus  under  Conraduf, 
the  laft  of  the  French  Race.     And  among  the  Caufes  exprefly  referved 
Capit.i.  3.  for  this  Supreme  Court,  were  thofe  which  concerned  the  Prelates  as  well 
'^' ''^"        as  the  Nobles.     Z)t  Epifcopi,  Abbates,  Comites,    C^  potentiores  quique,  jt 
caufam  inter  fe  habuerhtt,    ac  fe  pacificare  noluerint,  ad  nojiram  jubeantur 
venire  prafentiam  :  neque  illorum  contentio  alicubi  Judicetur.     But  in  this 
Court  they  challenged  that  as  their  Privilege  to  be  tried  by  their  Peers  5 
Sigifm.o-  ^^°  were  called  Pares  Curiae.    So  the  Emperor  Sigifmund,    in  his  Prote- 
rar.  A.  D.  Jiation  before  the  States  of  the  Empire  ;    Cum  feiundum  juris  communis 
'434-       difpoftionem,  nee  non  ufum,  morem,  fiylum  (^  confuetudinem  facri  Roma- 
ni  Imperii,  feudalis  conteritio  per  Dominum  feudi,  ac  Pares  Curi^  terminan- 
Tiiiusde  da  fit,  Scc.    And  again,  nijf  Parium  noJir£  Cur i<e  arbitrio.     Solikewifein 
has!  ^'^'  ^^^^<^^->  3S  Tilius  faith,   H£c  Judiciorum  ratio,   ut  de  caujis  feudalibus  ju~ 
Fuiberc,    dicent  Feudales  Pares,   in  Gallia  eji  perantiqua.     So  in  Fulbertus  one 
«P'  9<5.      Count  fends  word  to  another,    that  their  Caufe  Jhould  not  be  determind, 
nifi  in  Conventu  Parium fuorum.    And  many  other  Examples  might  be 
produced ;  but  thefe  are  fufficient  to  make  us  underftand  the  trueOri- 
•  ginal  of  this  Right  of  Peerage  ;  which  was  from  the  Feodal  Laws ;  and 

all  thofe  who  held  of  the  fame  Lord,  and  by  the  fame  Tenure,  were 
faid  to  be  Pares,  Peers.  And  therefore  fince  the  Bifhops  in  England 
were  Barons  by  Tenure  ever  fince  William  I.,  by  confequence  they  were 
Peers  to  other  Barons:,  and  had  the  fame  original  Right  of  Trial  by  other 
Barons  as  their  Peers,  holding  by  the /d«reTe««re,  and  fitting  in  the  yStwe 
Court.  And  thus  I  hope  I  have  given  (  what  that  Author  fo  impatient- 
ly defired,  viz.  )  a  rational  account  of  the  Trial  by  Peers  5  and  have 
,  thereby  (hewed,  that  this  is  fo  far  from  being  any  difadvantage  to  the 
Bijhops  Caufe,  thar  it  adds  very  much  to  the  Juftice  of  it. 

And  that  this  is  fo  far  from  being  a  violation  of  Magna  Charta,  that  it 
is  within  the  intention  and  meaning  of  it,  I  thus  prove.  In  the  14..  cb., 
of  Magna  Charta  we  read,  Comites  &  Bar  ones  non  amercientur  nipper 
Pares  fuos  :   but  by  the  Common  Law  the  Amerciament  of  a  Bi(hop  is 

the 


in  Capital  Caufes,  •  8^i 


the  fame  with  that  of  a  Lay-Baron  5    and  therefore  in  the  fenfe  of  the 
Law,   they  are  looked  on  as  Peers.    And  all  the  Farlamentary  Barons^ 
whether  BiJJjops  OS  Ahbots,  were  amerced  as  Barons.  Thence  15  Ed.  7.  a^''*"'^^  ^''• 
Writ  was  diredted  to  the  Juftice  of  the  Common  Pleas,  that  they  fhould  "'"■''' 
not  amerce  the  Ahbot  oi  Crowland  tanquam  Baro,    becaufe  he  did  not 
hold  per  Baromam  ant  partem  BaroiiU.    And  it  is  confefled  by  the  raoft  Seiden  0/ 
learned  Lawyers,  that  the  Lords  Spiritual  do  enjoy  the  fame  legal  Privl^"°"'P- 
leges,    in  other  refpefts,    which  the  Temporal  Barons  do  ^    as  in  real^^^' 
Adions  to  have  a  Knight  returned  in  their  Jury  5   as  to  a  day  of  Grace  ;  T'if/w  of 
hunting  in  the  King's  Foreft  ^    Scandalum  Magnatum,  8cc.     Now  fince  5""*  i'  *" 
the  Law  o{  England  allows  only  a  double  Party,  viz.  a?  to  Lords  of  Par- 
liament, znd  Commons,  whether  Knights,  Efquires,  Gentlemen,  or  Yeo- 
men, without  any  Confiderationof  the  great  inequality  of  Circumftan- 
ces  among  them  ;   (  Yeomen  having  as  little  fenfe  oi  Gentility,    as  Com- 
mons can  have  of  the  Privileges  of  Nobles -^  )    it  is  apparent  that  this 
Trial  by  Peers  was  not  founded  upon  equality  ofCircumJiances  5  and  that 
in  all  reafon,  thofe  who  do  enjoy  the  legal  Privileges  ofPeers^  are  to  be 
looked  on  as  (uch  by  Magna  Charta. 

But  the  great  Objection  is,  that  the  Lawyers  are  of  another  Opinion,  as 
to  this  Xyi^l  by  F  eers '^  and  not  only  the  common  fort,  who  take  all  up- 
on Truft,  which  they  find  in  the  modern  Law  Books,  bat  thofe  who 
have  fearched  mofi  into  Antiquity,  fuchas  Mr.  Seiden  and  Sir  Ed.  Coke. 

To  this  therefore  I  anfwer, 

1.  The  Author  of  the  Peerage,  &c.  proves  the  BiJJjops  are  not  Peers,    f-  <5- 
becaufe  not  to  be  tried  by  Peers.    This  confequence  Mr.  Seiden  utterly  de-  PrivU.of, 
iiies  5    for  he  faith,    it  is  true  and  plain  that  the  Bifhops  have  been  Peers.  S"""^^^' 
For  which  he  quotes  the  BifJjop  ofWinchejiers  Cafe,  who  was  queftiond  in 

the  King's  Bench  for  leaving  the  Parliament  at  Salisbury  in  the  beginning  of 
Ed.  in.  and  he  pleaded  to  the  declaration,  quod  ipfe  efl:  unus  e  Paribus 
Regni,  that  he  was  one  of  the  Peers  of  the  Realm  ^   which,  he  faith,  was 
allowed  in  Court.  And  from  other  Book-cafes  and  Parliament-Rolls  he  there 
evidently  proves,  that  the  BiJJjops  were  Peers  :^    which  he  not  only  a^- Titles  of  ' 
ferts  in  that  confufed  Rhapfody,    which  went  abroad  under  his  name  5  ^'"°'"'' 
but  in  his  elaborate  Work  of  the  laft  Edition  of  his  Titles  of  Honour,    in  cL  5.  %.  ' 
which  he  corrected  and  left  out  the  falfe  or  doubtful  pafTages  of  his  firft  32-  '»• 
Edition.     And  among  the  rell,    that  paffage  wherein  this -(^«/^(?r  tri- '*^'""'^' 
umphs,    ABifliopfjallnot  be  tried  by  Peers  in  Capital  Crimes.     The  fame 
thing  I  confefs  is  faid  in  the  Privileges  of  the  Baronage  t,  which  he  there 
calls  a  point  of  Common  Law  as  it  is  dijiinguilhed  from  ABs  of  Parliament  5  p.  155. 
i.  e.  the  cujiom  andpra&ice  hath  been  fo.    And  the  only  evafion  he  hath 
for  Magna  Charta  is  this  :,    that  it  is  now  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the 
currentpra^ice,  and  not  by  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  Words.     Which 
is  an  admirable  anfwer,  if  one  well  confiders  it,  and  juttifies  all  violati- 
ons of  Magna  Charta,   if  once  they  obtain  and  grow  into  Cujiom.    For 
then,  no  matter  for  the  exprefs  Wordsof  Magna  Charta,  if  the  contra- 
ry praftice  hath  been  received  and  allowed  in  legal  Proceedings.    This 
is  to  dohy  Magna  Charta,  as  the  Papifts  do  by  the  &r//?/«rej-,  viz.  make 
it  a  meer  Nofe  of  Wax,  and  fay,  it  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  pra- 
Siceofthe  Church. 

2.  Some  things  are  affirmed  about  this  matter  with  as  great  alTu-?.  loft. 
ranee  as  this  is,  which  have  not  been  the  conftant  praftice.     Coke  is  po-  ''•  *°' 
fitive,  that  Bifljops  are  not  to  be  tried  by  their  Peers  ^    but  fo  he  is  in  the 
fame  page,   that  a  Nobleman  cannot  wave  his  Trial  by  his  Peers^    and  put 

R  r  r  r  r  him- 


8^2  Of  tk  Bifiops  Jurifdii^ion 


himfelfupon  the  Trial  of  the  Ceuntrey  :    Whereas  it  is  faid  in  the  Record, 
4  Ed.  III.  that  Thomas  Lord  Berkelj,   ponit  fe  fuper  Patriam,    puts  himfelf 
upon  his  Countrey^  and  was  tried  by  a  Jury  of  1 2  Knights.  And  28  H  Vf. 
the  Duke  of  Suffolk  declined  the  Trial  of  his  Peers,  and  fubmitted  to  the 
King's  Mercy.    By  which  it  appears,    that  this  was  a  Privilege  which 
was  not  to  be  denied  them,  if  they  challenged  it  ^    but,    at  leaft  before 
1 5  Ed.  III.  they  might  wave  it  if  they  pleafed,    and  after  that  too,  if 
they  were  tried  out  of  Parliament.  For  this  Trial  by  Peers  was  intended 
for  a  Security  againft  arbitrary  Power  in  taking  away  Mens  Lives ;   and 
therefore  it  was  allowed  at  the  Kiftgs  Suit,    but  not  at  the  Suit  of  the 
Godwin,  farty.    But  if  Bifhops  were  tried  out  of  Parliament,  and  did  voluntari- 
vic.Rich.  ly  decline  the  challenge  of  this  Privilege,  this  is  no  argument  at  all  a- 
ArcWep.  g^infl:  their  Right  of  Peerage -^  and  fo  I  find  fome  fay  it  was  in  the  Cafe  of 
Eborac'  Fijher.,  Bipop  ofRochefier,  in  H.  VIII's  time  ;  which  is  the  great  Prece- 
dent in  the  Law- Books. 

5.  The  method  of  Proceeding  as  to  the  Trial  of  Bifhops  by  Common 
Juries,    while  the  Pope's  Power  continued  in  England,   is  not  fo  clear, 
that  any  forcible  Argument  can  be  drawn  from  thence.    Becaufe  the 
Bifhops  then  looked  on  themfelvesas  having  no  Peers  out  of  Parliament, 
in  point  of  Judgmeni,  hut  Bifhops,  As  in  the  famous  Cafe  of  Adam  Ei- 
(hop  of  Hereford,  under  Ed.  H.  who  was  refcued  from  the  King  s  Bench 
by  his  Brethren  the  Bifhops,  becaufe  they  looked  on  his  appearing  there 
as  a  Violation  of  the  Liberties  of  the  Church.  I  do  not  go  about  to  defend 
thefe  Proceedings;  but  I  am  fure  the  Author  of  the  Peerage,  e:^c.  very 
much  mifreprefents  this  bufinefs  5  for  he  makes  it  as  if  the  Bifhops  were 
^7.     legally  convi&ed  in  Court  by  a  common  Jury,   and  that  after  convidlion  he 
rpas  deliver  d  to  the  Archbifloop,  to  the  intent,  as  he  fuppofes,  that  he  ftoould 
be  degraded.    Whereas,   in  truth,    the  Biftiops  carried  him  out  of  the 
Court,  without  his  giving  any  Anfwer  to  the  Indidment  5   and  when 
he  wasabfent,  the  King  commanded  the  Jury  to  bring  in  their  Verdift; 
and  without  ever  being  heard  to  make  any  Defence  for  himfelf,   they 
waifmgh.  found  him  guilty  in  all  the  Articles  laid  to  his  Charge.  That  Author  ve- 
p-  up-     fy  freely  beftows  the  terms  of  Impudence  on  the  Bifhops  of  that  time, 
and  Ignorance  on  thofe  who  go  about  to  defend  them  5    but  I  defire  to 
know,  whether  of  thefe  two  makes  a  Man  thus  mifreprefent  a  matter  of 
fafl:  >  For  it  was  fo  far  from  being  true,  that  upon  ConviBlon  he  was  deli- 
ver d  to  the  Archbifhop  to  be  degraded  ;  that  he  never  appeared  in  Court 
after,   but  continued  under  the  Archbiftiop's  care,   till,  after  a  while, 
he  fully  reconciled  him  to  the  King  ;   notwithftanding  the  Jury  found 
him  guilty  of  Treafon.    I  defire  to  be  informed,  whether  we  are  to  un- 
Antiq.     detftaud  Magna  Charta  by  fuch  a  Trial  as  this  ?    Whether  he  werejudg- 
^^walt    ^'^  ^^  ^^  Peers,  I  know  not,  but  I  am  fure  he  was  not  by  the  Law  of  the 
Raynoids  Land  5    which  I  think  is  as  good  a  part  of  Magna  Charta  as  the  other. 
p.  2is.ed.  And  this,  our  Hiftorians  tell  us,    is  the  Firfi  Infiance  of  any  Trial  of  this 
kind, '  of  any  Bifhop  in  England ;  which  hathtoo  much  of  force  and  vio- 
lence in  it,  to  be  a  good  Interpreter  of  Magna  Charta. 

The  Second  Precedent  is  verbatim  out  of  Mr.  Selden,  concerning  John 
de  Ifle,  and  the  Bifhop  of  Ely  his  Broher  5  which  concerns  fuch  matters, 
wherein  himfelf  contelTes  the  Privlleglum  Clerlcale  was  allowed  ^  and  the 
Record  faith,  the  Archblfljop  entring  his  plea,  that  he  was  to  be  deliver  d  to 
him  as  a  member  of  his  Church,  he  was  accordingly  deliver  d,  after  the  Ju- 
ry had  given  in  their  Verdid.  Which  fhews,  indeed,  the  good  will  that 
was  then  ufed,  to  take  away  even  the  allowed  Privileges  of  the  Clergy  by 

com- 


in  Capital  Caiifes.  8(^5 

— —^ _- 

common  Juries.     And  this  is  another  ftoutlnterpreter  of  Magna  Charta^ 
when  BraC^off,  Briton,    Fleta,  Stat.  WeJL    I  Arttculi  Cleri,    c.  1 5.    are 
confeffed,  even  by  Sir  Edrv.  Coke,  to  be  fo  clear  in  the  Clergy's  behalf  in  2  innit./. 
thefe  matters.  633. «^«. 

The  Third  Precedent,  which  is  likewife  out  of  the  fame  Author,  is 
of  Thomas  Merks,  Bijhop  of  Carlijle  5  who,  for  his  fidelity  to  i^.  II.  and 
the  true  Heirs  of  the  Crown,  againft  thellfurpationof  H.  IV.  was  found 
guilty  of  Treafon  by  a  common  Jury.  But  Mr.  Selden  is  fo  ingenuous 
as  to  take  notice,  that  the  Writ  direfted  to  the  Juftices  had  in  it  a  'Non- 
ohflante  to  a  Statute  lately  made  at  Weftminfter  -.,  Lich  in  St  at.  apud  Weflm. 
nuper  edito  inter  c<etera  continetur,  qmd  miUus  Archiep.  nee  Epifcopus  coram 
Jujliciarik  nojiris  occa/^one  alicujus  crim'ink  impetatur,  abfque  Cpeciali pr£- 
ceptonoftro,  qnoufqite jSic.  Which  was  read  in  Court :  But-the  Judges  urging. 
That  theLiherties  of  the  Church  did  net  extend  to  High-Treafon,  then  it  is  faid  ■ 
he  did  ponere  fe  fuper  Patriam  ;  jaft  as  Thomas  Lord  Berkely  did,  4  Ed.  III. 
This  is  the  only  Prec^lent  that  proves  that  a  Biftiop,  before  the  time 
of  H.  VIII.  did  put  himfelfupon  a  common  Jury ;  and  yet  we  find  as  good 
a  Precedent  of  this  fort,  concerning  an  allowed  Peer  of  the  Realm.  Ar>d 
whether  this  fingle  Precedent  be  fufficient  to  interpret  Magna  Charta,  'a- 
gainft  the  plain  Senfe  of  thefe  Words,  and  to  make  a  conftant  Pra^ice, 
I  leave  any  rational  Man  to  judge. 

But  if  this  were  yielded  in  Cafes  of  High-Treafon,  wherein  the  Pri- 
vilege ot  Clergy  holds  not,  (efpecially  fince  the  Statutes  25  fi<^.  III.  c, 
4.  and  4  H.  IV.  c.  2,  3.)  Mr.  Selden  tells  them,  that  there  is  no  confe- 
quence  from  hence,  becaufe  they  are  not  to  he  tried  by  Peers^  therefore  they 
are  not  Peers ;  fince  the  Common  Law  may  limit  this  Privilege  of  Peers 
in  one  particular  Cafe,  which  may  hold  in  all  others.  As  it  is  no  di- 
minution to  the  Peerage  of  the  Temporal  Lords  to  be  tried  by  a  common 
Jury  at  the  Suit  of  the  Party.  I  conclude  the  Anfwer  to  this  Argument, 
as  Mr.  Camden  doth  his  Difcourfe  about  this  Subjeft  ^  who  having  pro-  camden.- 
ved  that  the  Bilbops  do  enjoy  all  other  Pririleges  of  Peers,  except  this^*^""^*"'- 
of  being  tried  by  them,  (which  he  feems  to  attribute  to  a  kind  of  Re- 
venge upon  them,  for  pleading  fuch  Exemptions  by  the  Canon-Lave^ 
After  all,  he  leaves  it  to  the  Lawyers  to  determine,  whether  this  be  juris 
explorati.  The  meaning  of  which  I  am  fure  is  not,  as  the  Author  of 
the  Letter  expreffeth  it,  that  it  rvas  always  fo,  and  never  other  wife. 

But  the  great  difficulty  to  fome  is,  That  a  Predial  or  Feudal  Barony 
doth  not  ennoble  the  Blood,  and  therefore  can  give  no  Right  of  Peerage. 
Whereas  it  is  well  known,  that  all  the  Baronies  of  England  were  fuch 
from  the  Conquerors  time  till  after  the  Barons  Wars,  when,  for  Reafon 
of  State,  it  wa^  thought  neceffary  to  make  the  Nobility  more  depen- 
dant on  the  Crown.     And  all  that  were  Barons  were  Pares,  i,  e.  Peers. 
So  dn  Frefne  quotes  an  old  Poem  of  the  Common  Laws  <?/ England, 
Barons  nous  appellons  les  Piers  del  Realm. 
In  France,  from  whence  our  Baronies  firft  came,  Eeclefiaflical  Per- 
fons  with  predial  Baronies  are  thought  as  capable  of  Peerage  as  any. 
For,  there  at  firft  all  the  Barones  Regni  (who  both  in  France  and  Eng-  cioffar.  v. 
land  were  the  fame  with  the  Barones  Regis,  however  fome  of  late  have  P"«. 
diftinguiftied  them)  fate  in  the  great  Council,  and  all  publick  Affairs 
pafied  through  them,  and  they  were  judged  by  their  own  Order  5  and 
thefe  were  called  Pares  Regni,  among  whom  the  Bijhops  were  compre- 
hended.  At  laftLeir^-VII.  A.  D.  ii  79.  (as  moft  Authors  agree)  chofe 
Twelve  out  of  the  great  number  of  the  Peers  of  France^  of  which  half 

R  r  r  r  r  2  the 


8^>4  0/  ^^^^  Bi/Jjops  Jiirifdiclion 


the  number  were  Bifhops  who  held  Feudal  Baronies  of  the  King  ^  and 
the  Archbifiop  of  Rheims  is  the  firft  of  the  whole  Number,     And  be- 
eaufe  thele  enjoyed  greater  Privileges  than  other  Peer/,  their  number 
was  increafed  by  particular  Favour^  but  the  ancient  Right  of  Peerage 
waifingh.  remained  to  all  the  BizriPWJ' of  the  Realm.     In  Scotland,  when  they  ap- 
ad  A.  D.   pointed  Twelve  Peers  for  the  Kings  Council,  thev  were  4  Bifiops,  4  Earls^ 
w/t. '      4  Barons.     So  that  in  the  neighbour  Nations  Feodal  Baronies  were  ne- 
weft,  A.  ver  thought  inconfiftent  with  Peerage -^  and  we  have  as  little  Reafon  to 
'^9^'      think  them  fo  with  us,  fince  to  this  Day  the  Bi/Jjops  do  enjoy  not  on- 
ly the  great  Right  of  Peerage,  of  fitting  and  voting  in  the  Houfe  of 
Peers,  but  have  fome  perfonal  Privileges  of  Peers  allowed  them  by  the 
Common  Law,  as  is  already  fliewed. 

II.  The  lafl  thing  to  be  confidered  is,  the  Capacity  in  which  they  fit 
in  the  Houfe,  whether  as  a  Third  Ejiate  or  not  ?  Ths  Author  of  theLe^- 
ter  not  only  denies  it,  but  oppofes  it  with  great  Vehemency,  and  .of- 
fers mnny  Authorities  and  Reafons  agiinft  it.  All  which  muft  be  weigh'd 
with  the  fame  Calmnefs  and  Impartiality  which  hath  been  hitherto  u* 
fed  in  this  Difcourfe.  And  there  are  three  things  to  be  diftindly  han- 
>  died  for  the  clearing  of  this  Matter:  i.  Uis  Foundation.  2.  His  Autho- 
rities. 5,  His  Reafous. 
p.  93.  (i.)  His  iva»<^4^«W  whereupon  he  builds,  which  is,  That  the  B/Jhops 

fit  in  the  Houfe  only  in  the  Capacity  ofTemporal  Barons,  William  the  Con- 
queror having  brought  the  Temporalties  of  Bifljops  under  the  Co^idition  of 
Baronies.    That  they  do  fit  there  in  the  Right  of  their  Baronies,  was 
yielded  at  firft ;  but  whether  they  fit  there  only  in  that  Capacity,  is  the 
thing  in  Queftion. 

And  here  I  crave  leave  to  make  ufe of  this  Authors  difiindion,  and 
to  apply  it  to  this  purpofe,  viz.  of  the  Bijhops  fitting  in  the  Houfe  in  a 
Judicial  way,  and  in  the  Legiflatlve  way.  When  they  fit  in  the  Judicial 
way,  as  Members  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  judicature,  I  grant  that  they  fit 
only  in  the  Capacity  of  Temporal  Barons,  as  appears  by  the  Conflitution 
of  Clarendon  5  where  the  King  requires  their  Attendance  in  judicature 
as  his  Barons  :  But  that  in  the  Legtflatlve  way  they  have  a  further  Capa- 
city, as  reprefenting  a  Third  Efate  in  Parliament^  I  prove  by  thefe  Ar. 
guments. 

£1.]  During  the  Vacancy  6f  Bifwpricks,  Writs  vscte  {tnt  to  the  Guar- 

Titiesof    dians  of  the  Spiritualties,  to  attend  the  Parliament.    Which  Mr. Selden, 

ffmur,  p.  vs^ho  cannot  be  fufpeded  for  partiality  in  this  matter,  faith  is  obvwtff 

b!  17.  23.  i'"^  the  Rolls  of  Parliament ;  and  which  he  cannot  deny  to  be  an  evidence 

of  the  Bifhops  fitting  in  Parliament  as  Bifhops,  and  as  Spiritual  only,  as 

they  did  in  the  Saxon  times,  in  the  Wittena  gemot.'    So  likewife,  theVi- 

cars  General  had  Writs  when  the  Bifhops  were  beyond  Sea.     But  neither 

of  thefe  could  fit  in  Parliament  asTemporal  Barons. 

But  becaufe  fomuch  depends  on  the  Proof  of  this,  and  no  Man  hath 
yet  undertaken  it,  I  (hall  bring  clear  Teftimonies  of  the  conftant  Pra- 
£tke  of  it,  from  the  Records  of  the  Tower. 

24  Edw.  I.  Writs  were  direftfed  Cufiodi  Archiepifcopatus  Eborum,  fede 
vacante  \  C^  EleUo  Menevenfi,  vel  ejm  vices  gerenti,  ipfo  agente  in  par- 
tibus  tranfmarims. 

27  Ed.  I.  Cufiodihtfs  Epifcop.  Lincoln,  fide  vacante  5  C^  Capitulo  Ecclef. 
B.P.  Eborum,  Cufiodihus  Spiritual,  ejufdem  Diocef.fede  vacante. 

5  £<^.  II.  Vica> to gener all  Archicp. Eborum,  ipfo  Archiepifcopo  in  remotis 
agente. 

6  Ed. 


in  Capital  Caajes. 


6  Ed.  V.  Ciijlodi  Archiepifopatus  Canttiar.fede  vacante. 

7  Ed.  II  To  the  fame,  d^  Cufiodi  Epifcop.  London,  fede  vacante. 

I  Ed.  III.  Cufiodi  Spiritualitatis  Archiep.  CanUtar.  fede  vacante:  and 
twice  the  fame  2  Ed.\\\. 

7  Ed  \\\.  Rex  dilecfojibl  in  Chrifto  Priori  Ecclef.  Chrijli  Cantuar.  Cu- 
fiodi Spiritualit.  Archiep.  Cantuar.  fede  vacante. 

10  Ed.  III.  Cufiodi  Spirit.  Epifcop.  Normc.fede  vacante. 

II  Bd.lW.  Cufiodi  Spirit.  Epifcop.  Cicefier.  fede  vacante :,  &•  H.  Epi- 
fiop.  Lincoln,  vel  ejus  Vicario  generali,  ipfo  Epifopo  in  remotis  agente. 

12  Ed.  IK.  A  more  general  Writ  to  tiae  Archbifh.  &c.vel  Vicariisve- 
firis  generalibiis,  vobk  in  partibiis  tranfmarinis  agentibus. 

14  Ed.  III.  T.  Epifcop.  Hereford,  vel  ejus  Vicario  generali,  ipfo  Epifcopo 
iff  Yemotk  agente. 

20  Ed.  III.  Cufiodi  Spiritualit.  Epifcop.  Ajjaphenfis,  &C. 

T  he  liice  we  find  20  E.  (3.)  34.  36.  58.  44.  5  R.  (2.)  6.  7*  9.  10. 
12.  13.  18.  20.  7.  H.  (4.)  8.  2  H.  (5.)  3.  4.  5.  7.  8.  9.  2  H.  (6.) 
4.  5.9.  10.  II,  15.18.20.  25.  29.  12  Edvp.  ^.  In  all  thefe  years,  there 
are  Writs  diredied,  either  to  the  Guardians  of  the  Spiritualties  in  the 
Vacancies  of  the  Sees,  or  to  the  Vicars-general  or  Chamellours  in  their  ab- 
fence  beyond  the  Seas.  Which  are  fufficient  to  prove  this  to  have  been 
the  conftant  Praftice  of  Parliaments  in  thofe  times. 

£2.3  Some  Church-men  were  fummon'd  to  Parliament  who  could  have 
no  pretence  to  (it  there  as  Temporal  Barons.  For  49  H.  III.  the  Deans 
of  Torky  Exeter.,  Wells,  Salisbury  and  Lincoln  were  fummon'd  with  the 
like  Writ  as  the  reft.  And  Mv-Selden  obferves,  that  in  the  times  ofib.„.  ,2. 
Edrv.  I.  Edvp.  II.  Edw.  III.  where  the  Claufe  Pramunientes  is  omitted 
in  the  Writ  to  the  Biftiops,  their  particular  and  feveral  Writs  were 
Tent  to  fome  Deans  and  Priors  of  Cathedral  Churches,  to  appear  in  Par- 
liament. 

But  to  prove  more  fully  the  intereft  the  Clergy  had  then  in  Parlia- 
ments, it  is  worth  our  obferving,  that  in  the  ancient  Records  there  are 
4  feveral  forts  of  Writs  wherein  the  Clergy  were  concerned. 

I.  In  the  common  Writs  of  Summons  to  Parliament  Cent  to  the  Arch- 
bijhops  and  Bijfiops,  with  the  Claufe oi  I  r<emunientes,  which  runs  thus; 
Frsmunientes  Priorem  C^  Capitulum,  or  Decan.  &•  Capit.  Eccle/i£  vefir£, 
Archidiaconos,  totumque  Clerum  veftr£  Diocef.  facientes,  quod  idem  Prior 
d^  Archidiaconi  in  propriif  perfonis  fufs,  ac  didum  Capitulum  per  unum, 
idemque  Clerus  per  duos  Procuratores  idoneos,  plenam  df  fufficientem  po- 
tefiatem  ah  ipfis  Cupitnlo  (&  Clero  habentes,  pr£diBis  die  &loco  inter fint., 
ad  confentlendum  hiis  qu£  tunc  ibidem  de  communi  confilio  ipfius  Regni  no- 
firi,  divina  favente  Clement  ia,  contigerint  or  dinar  i.  So  Mr.  Selden  repre- 
fents  it  from  the  50  Edw.  III.  member.  6.  And  with  him  Sir  EdvD.  Coke  Konou°, 
agrees ;  who  faith,  by  this  Claufe  in  the  Writ  of  Summons  to  the  Bijhops,p.  spv 
they  are  required  to  fnmmon  thefe  perfons  to  appear  perfonally  at  the  Parlia-^i  ^  "^* 
ment :  But  he  proves  7^e/  had  no  Voices  there,  becaufe  they  had  required 
only  ad  confentiendum,  &c.  Which  is  a  very  weak  argument.  For, 
Ci.)  His  own  great  Authority,  Modus  tenendi  Parlamentum,  faith  ex- 
prefly,  they  were  called  ad  traftand.  &  deliberand.  and  that  their  names 
were  called  over  in  the  beginning  of  Parliament :,  and  that  they  had  a  voice 
there,  and  did  make  up  part  of  the  Commons  of  England.  Not  that  the 
Procuratores  Cleri  did  fit  together  with  them,  after  they  had  a  Speaker 
of  their  own 5  of  which  I  find  no  Precedent:  But  they  fate  by  them- 
felves,  having  a  Irolocutor  of  their  own ;  which  is  the  very  fame  name 

ufed 


^66    ,  '  Of  the  El  [bops  Jurifdiciion 

ufed  in  the  Rolls  for  the  Speaker  of  the  Houfe  of  Contmont.  (2.)  Thefe 
words  do  not  exclude  them  from  being  part  of  the  commune  Conciliuttt 
Regni,  but  only  (hew,  that  their  Confent  was  required,  according  to 
the  Cuftom  of  that  time.  And  23  Ed.  I.  the  Clanfe  is  more  full,  ad 
tra&and.  ordinand.  &  pcknd.  the  like  24  Ed.  I.  But  in  27  Ed.  I.  the 
words  are,  adfacknd.  &  confentiend.  (3.)  The  fame  argument  would 
exclude  the  Commons  from  any  Voices:  for  in  25  Ed.  I.  the  Writ  for 
chufing  Knights  and  Bu^gefles  ran  after  the  fame  manner  5  ita  quod  diSi 
milites  plenum  &  fufficientem  poteftatem  pro  fe  &  Commun  Comit'  pradid' 
C^  di&i  Gives  (^  Bnrgenfes  pro  fe  &  Communit'  Civif  d^  Burg  tunc  ibidem 
habeant,  ad  faciend'  tunc  quod  de  communi  Concilio  ordinabitur  in  pnemif- 
fis.  Would  any  man  be  fo  unreafonable  to  infer  from  hence,  that  the 
Houfe  o{ Commons  have  no  Votes?  The  fame  form  is  ufed  26  Ed.\. 

30  of  the  fame.    In  5  Ed.W.  it  is,  ad  confentiendum,  &c.  6  Ed.  II. 

it  is,  ad  fuiiend.  quod  de  communi  Confilio  contigerit  ordinari.  7  Ed.W. 
ad  faciendum  &  confentiend.  and  fo  it  continued  to  the  16  Ed.  III. 
when  firft  came  in,  ad  tra&and.  confulend.  faciend.  but  44  Ed.  I.  it  was 
only,  ad  confulend.  d>^  confentiend.  46  Ed.Ul.  it  was,  ad  faiiendum  df 
confentiendum  his  qua  tunc  de  communi  Confilio  Regni  contigerit  ordinari : 
fo  47  Edw.  III.  Which  hath  been  the  general  form,  ever  fince  obfer- 
ved,  and  would  exclude  the  Houfe  of  Commons  from  any  Votes  in  Par- 
lament,  as  well  as  the  Clergy. 

2.  There  were  other  Writs  of  Summons  to  Parliament  wherein  the 
Claufe  Pr£munientes  was  left  out;  and  then  particular  Writs  were  fent 
to  fuch  Deans  and  dignified  Clergy-men  as  the  King  thought  fit.    So  it 

.  was  not  only  49  H.  III.  but  there  were  two  Summons  a^fi^/.  I.  and  in 
one  of  them  the  Claufe  Pnemunientes  was  inferted,  in  the  other  not.. 
It  was  left  out  2  5  E^/.  I.  and  in  one  27  E<5^.  I.  and  put  in  in  another,  and 
left  out  again  28.  and  ^o.  of  Ed.\.  Inferted  i  Ed.W.  in  one  Writ,  and 
omitted  in  others  5  and  fo  in  the  3  following  years :  But  afterwards  ge- 
nerally inferted,  except  6  Ed.W.  13.  16.  18.  In  '^Ed.lW.  it  was  o- 
mitted,  and  fo  in  6.  and  fome  few  years  afterwards:  But  then  it  gene- 
rally obtained,  that  the  Claufe  Pr^munientes  was  put  into  the  Writs  of 
the  Bifhops  Summons  to  the  Parliament. 

3.  There  were  Writs  of  Summons  to  great  Councils,  which  were  no 
J£emblies  of  theEJiates-^  and  then  only  fome  great  Bifhops  and  Lords, 
or  other  Great  Men  were  fummon'd,  without  any  Writs  to  others,  or 
any  notice  taken  of  them.  In  fuch  a  Summons  2  Ed.  II.  only  4  Bifhopt 
are  named;  18  Ed.W.  only  6;  19  only  5;  2  Ed.  III.  only  2.  and  the 
Guardians  of  the  Spiritualties  of  the  See  of  Canterbury  :  and  fo  4  Ed. 
III.  and  in  another  the  fame  year,  3  befides  the  Archbipop  of  Canterbu- 
ry. ■  5  Ed.  III.  Summons  were  fent  to  the  Archblfhop  of  York,  and  19 
BffJjops  more.  1 1  Ed.  III.  the  Writ  was  direfted  to  the  Archbilhop  of 
York,  and  fuch  Bifloops,  Earls,  and  Great  Men  as  xoere  of  the  King's 
Council :  And  two  more  were  fummon'd  the  fame  year.  The  form  of 
the  Writ  differs  little  from  that  to  the  Parliament,  only  the  Claufe 
Pramunientes  is  always  left  out,  and  only  fome  particular  Bifhops  and 
Nobles  are  called,  and  no  Writs  for  Eledions  of  Knights  or  BurgelTes. 
In  the  1 6  Ed.  III.  the  Writ  is  fent  to  the  AnMi/Iiop  and  7  Biffjjps  more  5 
but  none  to  ^^^(j/ J,  Priors,  Sheriffs,  &c.  Which  (hews  that  this  was 
Magnum  Concilium,  as  it  is  fometimes  called,  but  no  larliament. 

4.  There  were  Writs  to  fummon  a  Convocation  diflin(S  from  the  Writ 
oi  Summons  to  the  Parliament  with  the  Claufe  Prsmunientes.  This  will 

appear 


/;/  Capit  at  Caiifes .  86  7 


appear  by  the  firft  Writ  of  Summons  to  a  Convocation^  which  I  have   . 
feen  5  which  bears  date  at  Lincoln  17  Feb.  9.  Ed.  II.  but  the  Parliament 
was  fummon'd  1 6.  of  OSober  before,  to  meet  at  Lincoln  in  quinde/2^ 
S.  Hilarii  ^  with  the  Claufe  Pr£mnnientes  in  the  Writ  to  the  Bijhops. 
In  which  Summons  to  Convocation  it  is  exprefled,  that  tkofe  Bijhops  and 
others  of  the  Clergy^  vpho  were  fummond  to  Parliament,  did,  as  far  as  they 
were  concern  d,  unanimoujly  yield  to  a  Subfidy  ;  but  fo,  that  others  of  the 
Clergy  who  were  not  fummon  d  to  Parliament  Jhould  meet  in  Convocation,  and 
confent  thereto.  Therefore  the  King  fends  his  Writ  to  the  Archbijhop  to  fum- 
mon all  the  Prelates,  whether  Religious  or  others^  and  others  of  the  Clergy  of  his 
Province,  to  meet  at  London  poji  1 5.  Pafch.  ad  tratland.  df'  conjentiend. 
&c.     Here  we  have  the  plain  difference  between  the  Writs  to  Parlia- 
ment, and  to  Convocation.    The  Writs  to  the  Parliament  were  fent  to 
the  Archbifljops  and  all  the  Bijhops,  with  the  claufe  Pr£munientes,  &c. 
fummoning  thofe  of  the  Clergy  who  were  then  thought  neceflary  to 
the  Ajfembly  of  the  three  Ejia/es  in  Parliament :  But  when  a  Convocation 
was  called,  then  the  Writs  were  only  direded  to  the  two  Archbijhops, 
who  were  to  fumraon  the  reft  of  the  Clergy,  and  not  only  thofe  who 
held  by  Baronies,  but  others  of  the  dignified  Clergy,  tarn  exemptos 
(jueim  nan  exemptos,   with  the  ProUors  of  the  Chapters  and  Clergy  of  the 
Diocefe,  ad  tradand'Sc  confulend  fuper  praemiffis  una  vobifcum  &  aliis 
per  Nos  tunc  mittendis.     So  it  is  exprefled  in  the  Writ  for  Convocation 
1 1  Ed.  III.  29  Ed.  III.  31  Ed.  III.  7  R.  II.  28  H  VI.  23  Ed.  IV.  only 
thefe  two  laft  have  this  difference,  ad  tractand',  conjentiend',  conctud' 
fuper  pr£mijjis,  ^  aliis  qH£  Jjbi  clarius  exponentur  tunc  ibidem  ex  parte 
nojlra. 

Thefe  things  I  have  laid  together,  not  barely  to  clear  this  intricate 
matter,  (as it  hath  been  made)  of  the  intereft  the  Clergy  then  had  ia 
Parliaments  as  well  as  Convocation-^  but  chiefly  to  prove  from  hence, 
that  all  the  intereft  they  had  in  Parliaments  was  not  meerly  on  the  ac- 
count of  the  Temporal  Baronies  which  the  Bifhops  and  many  of  the  Ab- 
bots then  had.  Which  is  the  great,  but  common  miftake  of  the  Au- 
thor of  the  Letter. 

[3.3  After  the  Bijhoprich  were  made  Baronies,  the  diftinftion  even 
in  Parliament  is  kept  up  between  the  feveral  EJiates  oi  thQ  Clergy  and 
Laity.    For  although  Baronagium  doth  often  taken  in  all  5  yet  fome- 
times  they  are  fo  remarkably  diftinguiftied,  that  we  may  fee  they  were 
looked  on  as  two  diftindl  Eftates  in  Parliament.    So  Eadmerus,  (fpeak- 
ing  of  what  pafTed  in  Parliament  3  H,  I.)  faith  it  was  done  utriufque  Or-  Eadmer. 
dinis  concordi  euro,  d^  folicitudine,  by  the  confent  of  both  EJiates.     Sol-P'^1' 
Matt.  Paris,  fpeaking  of  the  Summons  to  appear  in  the  beginning  of^^^^'^^', 
H.  I.  comprehends  all  under  thofe  2  Eftates,  Clerus  Anglia,  &  Pop.  uni- 
verfus  :  And  again,  Refpondente  Clero,  &  Magnatibus  cunctis.    Speak- 
ing of  a  Parliament  under  H.  II.  he  faith,  Convocato  Clero  Regni,  ac  Po-    p.  14. 
pulo.    In  39  K,  III.  defcribing  a  Parliament,  he  calls  thofe  alTembled 
Mobiles  Angli£,  tarn  viri  Ecclejiajlici  quam  Seculares.     And  in  the  Writs 
of  Summons  the  diftinftion  hath  been  always  preferved  between  the 
Pr£lati  and  the  Magnates  :  For  in  thofe  to  the  BiJIoops  it  is,  cum  c£te- 
rk  Pr£latis,  Magnatihus,  &c.  in  thofe  to  the  Temporal  Lords,  cum  Pr£- 
latis,  Magnatibus,  &c.    In  thofe  to  the  BiJJjops  they  were  commanded, 
in  Fide  d^  Dile&ione  quihus  nobis  tenemini :  in  thofe  to  the  Temporal 
Lords,  in  Fide  d^  Homagio:,   or,  fince  Ed.  III.  in  Fide  ^  Ligeancia. 
Which  fliews  that  they  were  not  fummon'd  meerly  as  Temporal  Barons. 

[4.]  The 


8^8  Of  thcBifbops  Jurifdiclion 


^  86.        i^^Q  T [le  Author  of  the  Letter  confefl'eth,   the  Clergy  to  be  one  of  the 
three  Eflates  of  the  Kingdom  5    but   denies  them  to  be  "One  of  the  three 
Ejiates  in  Parliament.     From  whence  I  argue  thus.    Either  the  Clergy 
muft  be  reprefented  in  Parliament,  or  one  of  the  Ejiates  of  the  Kingdom 
is  not  at  all  reprefented  there.     And  if  one  ot  the  Ejiates  of  the  King- 
dom be  not  there  reprefented,  how  can  it  be  a  perfeft  Reprefentative  > 
So  that  this  diftinftion  of  theThree  Ejiates  of  the  Kingdom,  and  the  Three 
Ejiates  in  Parliament,  unavoidably  overthrows  the  Farliaments  being  a 
compleat  Reprefentative.    But  in  23  H,  VIII.  ».  35.  ^s  Mr.  Petyt  oh- 
jheancient  ferves,  there  is  this  paffage  in  the  Parliament  Rolls.  It  is  conjidered  and 
Riil>f  of    declared  hy  the  whole  Body  of  this  Realm,  now  reprefented  by  all  the  EJlatet 
mm  p.Ti.  ^  '^^  f"^^^  affembled  in  this  prefent  Parliament.     Therefore  all  the  Ejiates 
of  the  Kingdom  mui{  he  reprefented  in  Parliament.    And   i  Eliz.  c.  3. 
"The  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  the  Commons  are  faid  to  reprefent 
in  Parliament  the  Three  Ejiates  of  the  Realm.     From  whence  it  follows, 
that,  according  to  the  fenfe  of  the  Parliament,  if  the  Clergy  be  an  E- 
ftate  of  the  Kingdom,  as  he  faith  they  are,  they  muft  be  reprefented  in 
Parliament,  or  the  whole  Body  of  the  Realm  cannot  be  there  reprefented. 
(2.)  We  now  come  to  confider  the  weight  of  Authority  in  this  matter. 
For  which  I  fhall  premife  two  things. 

1.  That  the  whole  Parliament  affembled  are  the  beft  Judges,  which 
are  the  Three  Eflates  in  Parliament ;  and  their  Authority  is  more  to  be 
valued,  than  that  of  any  particular  Perfons,  whether  Lawyers  or  others. 

2.  That  no  Parliaments  can  give  better  Teftimony  in  this  matter, 
than  thofe  which  have  affumed  moft  to  themfelves.  For  if  there  be 
Three  Ejiates  in  Parliament,  and  the  Bi(hops  be  none,  then  the  King 
muf^he  One  of  the  Three  •■)  as  the  ^«/^(?roftheLe//er  infinuates,  through- 

■  cut  this  Difcourfe  5  and  the  natural  confequence  from  hence  feems  to 
be  a  coordination  ^  or  that  tivo  joyning  together  may  over-rule  the 
third.  Therefore  in  all  Reafon,  it  any  Parliaments  wou]d  have  made  the 
King  one  of  the  Three  Ejiates,  it  would  have  been  either  the  Parltameat 
I  H,  IV.  which  depofed  one  King,  and  fet  up  another  3  or  that  i  R.  III. 
which  difinherited  the  Children  oiEd.  IV.  and  fet  up  their  Uncle. 

I  fliall  therefore  firft  from  the  Rolls  of  thefe  two  Parliaments  (hew, 
which  are  the  Three  Ejiates  in  Parliament  3  and  from  them,  evidently 
prove  that  the  King  is  none,  but  the Bifliops  are  the  Third  Ejiate. 

I  begin  with  the  Parliament  i  H.  IV.  by  the  Rolls  k  appears,  (i.) 
That  R.  II.  appointed  two  Procurators  to  declare  his  Refignation  of  the 
Crown,  coram  omnibus  Statibus  Regni,  before  all  the  States  of  the  King- 
dom. From  whence  it  unavoidably  follows,  i.  That  the  King  was  none 
of  them ;  2.  That  the  Eftates  of  the  Kingdom,  and  the  Eftates  in  Par- 
liament are  the  fame  thing,  (2  )  Among  the  Articles  againft  i?.  II.  one 
is  concerning  the  Impeachment  of  Tho.  Archbijljop  ot  Canterbury,  coram 
Rege  &  omnibus  Statibus  Regni,  before  the  King  and  all  the  Ejiates  of  the 
Realm.  The  King  then  was  none  of  the  Eftates.  (3.)  The  Commiffi- 
oners  for  the  Sentence  of  Depofition  are  faid  to  be  appointed  per  Pares 
&Proceres  Regni  Anglis  Spirituals  (^  Temporales,  &  ejufdem  Regni  Com- 
Munitates,  omnes  Status  ejusdem  Regni  repr^efentantes^  by  the  Peers  and  Lords 
Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  the  Commons  oft  he  Kingdom,  reprefent  ing  all  the 
States  of  the  Kingdom.Where  obferve,  i.  The  Bi/hops  are  called  Peers,  as 
well  as  the  Temporal  Lords.  2.  The  Ejiates  ot  the  Parliament  are  to  repre- 
fent  alltheEflatesofthe  Kingdom.  3.  The  Three  Ejiates  in  Parliament  are 
the  Lords  Spiritual^  the  Lords  Temporal,  and  the  Commons  of  the  Realm:, 

and 


■■      ■ ■       ■■     —     ■  I  I.I  ,  — ^^M^i— ^i^j  III  II 

///  Capital  Caafes.  %6$ 


and  Frf^/«j»exprefly  calls  them  the  Three  EJiatcs  ofthitprefetit  Parliament,  Pal^'^n*  7. 
reprefentit/g  the  ivhole  Body  of  the  Realm.  foK  158.* 

In  the  Fvolls  ot"  Parliament  i  R.  111.  it  is  recorded,  that  before  his  Co- 
ronation, certain  Articles  were  delivered  unto  him  in  the  name  of  the  Three 
Ejlates  of  the  Realm  of  England  :,  that  is  to  fay,  of  the  Lords  Spiritual  and 
Temporal,  and  of  the  Commons  by  Name,  &c.  Now  forafmuch  as  neither 
the  faid  Three  Efiates,  neither  the  faid  Perfons  which  in  their  name  prefent- 
ed  and  deliver  d  (  as  it  is  afore  faid  )  the  faid  Roll  unto  our  faid  Sovereign 
Lord  the  King,  were  ajfembled  in  form  of  Parliament,  divers  Doubts  have 
been  moved,  &c.  Now  by  the  faid  Three  Efiates  ajfembled  in  this  prefent 
Parliament,  and  by  /Authority  of  the  fame,  be  it  ratified,  and  enrolled,  &c. 
Upon  which  Mr.  Pryn  himfelf  makes  this  Marginal  Note,  The  Three  E-  Abridg' 
Jtates  mu't  concur  to  «;<7^'e<«  Parliament  ^  no  one  er  two  of  them  being  a  full  >»«»'<'/ 
or  real  Parliament,  but  all  conjoyned.  fqio.'it'^' 

But  left  I  (hould  feem  to  take  advantage  only  of  thefe  two  Parliaments^ 
I  (hall  now  Ihew  this  to  have  been  the  conftant  fenfe  of  the  Parlia- 
ments ;  as  will  appear  by  thefe  following  Records. 

In  I  H.  VI.  n.\i.  All  the  Efiates  of  the  Realm  are  faid  to  be  ajfembled 
in  Parliament,  3  H.VL  n.  19.  the  Three  Eftates  ajfembled  in  this  prefent 
Parliament. 

6H.  VL  V.  24.  the  Duke  of  Gloucejier  defired  an  explanation  of  his 
Power  as  Proteftor^  in  the  Anfwer,  drawn  up  by  the  Lords  appointed 
for  that  purpofe,  it  isalledged  that  H.  V.  could  not  by  his  laji  Will,  nor 
otherwife,  alter,  change,  or  abroge,  without  the  Affent  of  the  Three  Eftates  5 
nor  commit  or  grant,  to  any  P  erf  on.  Governance  or  Rule  of  this  Land,  lon- 
ger than  he  lived.  Neverthelefs  they  add,  Jt  was  advtfed  and  appointed, 
by  the  Authority  of  the  King,  ajfenting  the  Three  Efiates  of  this  Realm. 
Which  (hews  how  far  the  King  was  from  being  thought  one  of  the 
Three  Efiates  in  Parliament  at'that  time. 

10  H.  VL  n  I-].  Ralph  Lord  Cromwell  put  in  a  Petition  to  the  Parlia- 
ment, that  he  was  difcharged  the  Office  of  King's  Chamberlain  in  a  way  con- 
tray  to  the  Articles  for  the  Council  fworn,  8  H.  VL  coram  tribus  Regni 
Statibus,  before  the  Three  Eftates  of  the  Realm,  as  they  were  aflembled  in 
Parliament  ^  which  appears  by  the  Record  8  H.  VL  n.  27. 

11  H.VLn.  10.  The  Duke  of  Be(5(/<jr(^  appeared  in  Parliament,  and  de- 
clared the  Reafons  of  his  coming  coram  Domino  Rege  &  tribus  Regni 
Statibus,  before  the  King  and  the  Three  EJiatesofthe  Realm  5  as  it  is  in  the 
Record,  but  not  mention'd  in  the  Abridgment. 

».  II.  Domino  Rege  &  tribusRegni  Statibusin  praefenti Parlatnento 
exiftentibus,  the  King  and  the  Three  EJiafes  of  the  Realm  beingprefent  in 
Parliament.  Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  the  King  is  none  :^  and 
that  the  Three  EJiates  of  the  Kingdom  are  the  Three  EJiates  in  Parliament. 

n  H.VL  n.  24.  Lord  Cro«»iue// Tre<i/«rer  exhibits  a  Petition  in  Parli- 
ament, wherein  he  faith,  The  Efiate  and  Necejjtty  of  the  King  and  of  the 
Realm,  have  been  notified  to  the  Three  Eftates  of  the  Land  aflembled  ia 
Parliament. 

In  an  Appendix  annexed  to  the  Rolls  of  Parliament  that  Year,  the 
X!)nk.t  oi  Bedford  ^dXth,  in  his  Petition  to  the  King,  how  that  in  your 
lafi  Parliament  yit  liked  your  Highnefs,  by  yadvis  of  Three  Eftates  of  yis 
Land,  to  will  me. 

25  H.VL  II.  ?r£fente  Domino  Rege  (^  tribus  Regni  Statibus  in  pra- 
fenti  Parlamento  exiftentibus,  &C. 

28  H.  Vl,  n.  9.  Domino  Rege  d**  tribus  Regni  Statibus  inpleno  Parla- 
mmto  comparentibus,  &c.  S  f  f  f  f  After 


87 o  Of  theEifbops  Jiirifdiciion 


f.8d.  After  thefe  I  (hall  infift  upon  the  Precedents  cited  by  the  Author  of  the 
Letter  hXvaitM  I,  viz.  the  RatificatJon  of  the  Peace  n>/th  Trainee  hytheThree 
Eftates  9  //.  /^  and  ii  H.  VII.  which  he  ailed ges  as  an  extraordinary 
thing,  that  the  Three  Eflatesjoyned  in  thefe  TranfaBions  ^  whereas  in  truth 
it  was  nothing  but  a  Ratification  of  the  Peace  in  Parliament  5  and  confe- 
quently,  thofe  Three  Efiatet  of  the  Kingdom,  are  the  Three  Ejlates  ofPzT" 
Bacon,  ft;  Hament.  For  the  Parliament  was  then  fitting  at  both  thefe  Ratificati- 
7.  p-  144.0ns;  and  no  other  Affembly  of  the  Three  Eftates  was  ever  known  in 
"'404?^'* England.  Walftngham  faith,  that  H.  V.  called  ^Parliament,  vchich  was 
fitting  at  that  time '.^  for  the  King  kept  St.  Ge^^r^e  s  Feaft  at  I'FxWy^r  that 
Year,  from  thence  he  went  to  the  Parliament  at  London,  which  ended 
within  a  Month  5  and  the  ratification  of  the  Peace  bears  date  May  2.  Judge 
then,  whether  thefe  were  not  the  Three  Elates  in  t'arliament  ?  But  to 
prove  this  more  fully,  it  feems  by  25  H.  VL  n.  24.  that  a  Statute  vpas 
Made  in  the  time  of  H.  V.  that  no  Peace  fljould  be  made  with  France  without 
the  confent  of  the  ThreeEfiates  of  both  Realms ;  which  was  then  repealed. 
But  whom  they  meant  by  the  Three  Eftates  here  in  the  time  of  H.  FI.  ap- 
pears by  28  H.  VL  n.  9.  when  the  Chancellor  in  the  prefence  of  the  King^ 
gave  thanks  to  the  Three  Efiates,  at?d  prorogued  ^Ae  Parliament  5  wherein 
it  is  plain,  the  Three  Efiates  in  Parliament  were  meant,  and  that  the 
King  could  be  none  of  theoi.  In  58  H.  VI,  n.  38.  the  Chancellor  again, 
in  the  prefence  of  the  King  and  of  the  Three  Efiates,  having  given  thanks 
to  all  the  Efiates,  diffolvedthe  Parliament.  But  that  which  puts  this  mat- 
ter out  of  doubt  is,  that  in  the  Parliament  i  H.  VL  the  ^een  Dowager 
in  her  Petition  mentions  the  Ratification  made  in  Parliament,  "9  H.  V. 
and  faith,  it  was  not  only  fworn  by  the  King,  but  by  the  three  Efiates  of 
the  Kingdom  o/England  :  Cefi'  affavoir,  les  Prelate,  Nobles,  &  Grands, 
d^  per  lesComuns  de  mefm  kRoialm  D'engleterre  :  that  is  to  fay,  bji  the 
•  J^ relates.  Nobles^  and  other  Grandees,  and  by  the  Commons  of  the  Realm  of 
England  5  as  appears  more  fully,  faith  that  Petition,  by  the  Records 
and  J^r  of  the  faid  Parliament.  And  the  King  there  declares  in  four 
feveral  Inftruments,  that  the  faid  Articles  of  Peace  were  approved  and 
ratified  by  Authority  of  Parliament,  in  thefe  Words,  ^i  quidem  Pax, 
TraBatm,  conclufio  &  concordia,  om/refque  Articuli  content i  in  eifdem,  in 
Parlamento  ditii  Patris  nojiri  apud  Weftm.  2°  die  Mail  A.  R.  9.  tento, 
AuBofitate  ejufdem  Parlamenti  approbati,  laudati,  au&orizati  df  acceptati. 
Nothing  can  be  plainer  from  hence,  than  that  the  Three  Eftates  of  the 
Kingdom  were  no  other  than  the  Three  Efiates  in  Parliament.  And  the 
fame  appears  by  another  Petitionof  the  fame  ^teen,  2  H.  VI.  n.  1 9. 

For  latter  Times  I  (hall  inftance  only  in  the  Parliament  i  Eliz,  c.  5. 
wherein  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal  and  Commons  declare,  that 
they  do  reprefent  in  Parliament  the  Three  Eftates  of  the  Realm.  From 
whence  it  follows,  i.  That  the  Three  Eftates  of  the  Kingdom  muft  be 
reprefented  in  Parliament.  2.  That  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal, 
and  the  Commons  do  reprefent  thofe  Three  Eftates  of  the  Kingdom,  and 
therefore  are  thtThree  Eftates  in  Parliament.  5.  That  the  liing  can  be 
none  of  the  Efiates  in  Parliament,  becaufe  he  doth  not  reprefent  any  of 
the  Eftates  of  the  Kingdom. 

And  it  is  a  wonder  to  me,  that  any  Man,  who  confiders  theConftitu- 
tion  of  the  Government  of  £«rtfpe,  and  how  agreeable  it  was  in  all  the 
Kingdoms  of  it,  as  to  the  AlTemblies  of  the  Three  Eftates,  could  ever 
take  the  King  to  be  one  of  thcThree  Efiates  in  Parliament.  For  theQae- 
ftion  would  feem  ridiculous  to  Perfons  of  any  other  Nation,    if  we 

(hould 


in  Capital  Caicfes.  871 


(hould  ask  them  whether  the  T^'tng  was  reckon'd  among  the  tres  Ordinei 
Regain  For  by  the  Three  EJiates  they  all  mean  the  Three  Ranks  oi M^n^ 
the  Clergy^  Nobility,  and  Commottalty.  But  the  Author  of  the  Le/^er  p.  88 
coald  not  deny  that  the[e  were  the  three  Eftates  of  the  Kingdom ;  but  he 
faith,  the  Three  Ejiates  oj  Parliament  are  clean  another  thing  ^  which  I 
may  reafonably  fuppofe,  is  fufficiently  difproved  by  the  foregoing 
Difcourfe. 

But  he  quotes  feveral  Authorities  for  what  he  faith,  which  rauft  now 
be  examined,  and  will  appear  to  be  of  no  weight,  if  compared  with 
the  evidence  already  given  on  the  other  fide. 

The  firfl:  Authority  is  of  King  James,  in  hk  Speech  at  the  Prorogation  op-  ^^' 
the  Parliament  1605.  wherein  he  faith,  The  J  arliament  confifis  of  d  He  ad 
and  a  Body  5  the  King  is  the  Head,  the  Bjdy  are  the  Members  of  the  Parlia- 
ment.     This  Body  is  fubdivided  into  two  parts,  the  Upper  and  the  Lower, 
Houfe.     The  ZJppcr  confijis  of  the  Nobility  and  the  Btfiops,  the  Lower  of 
Knights  and  Burgeffes.     The  force  of  the  Argument  lies  in  King  James 
his  making  the  Bifljops  but  a  part  of  theVpper  Houfe:  But  that  this  doth 
not  exclude  their  being  a  Third  Eftate,  I  prove  by  a  parallel  Inftance. 
In  5  H.  IV.  the  Bilhop  of  London  being  Chancellor  compared  the  Far- 
liament  to  a  Body,  as  King  James  did  ;  but  he  made  the  Church  the  Right 
Hand,  the  Temporal  Lords  the  Left  Hand,  and  the  Commonalty  the  otheir 
Members  ^  yet  prefently  after,  he  calls  the(e  the  feveral  Efiates  vehuh  the 
King  had  called  to  Parliament.     But  that  the  Bilhops  fitting  in  the  fame 
Houfe  with  the  Temporal  Lords  doth  not  hinder  their  being  a  diflinB  E- 
jiate,  will  appear  when  we  come  to  anfwer  his  Reafons.    And  for  King 
James  his  fenfe  as  to  this  matter,  we  may  fully  underftand  it  by  this 
Paflage  in  his  Advice  to  his  Son,     As  the  whole  SubjeSs  of  our  Country  Bafilic. 
Cby  the  ancient  and  fu^rdamental  policy  of  our  fClngdom)  are  divided  into  ^°^'  '•  ^' 
Three  Ejiates,  &c.    Thefe  Words  are  fpoken  of  the  Kingdom  of  Scot  ^h^Woril. 
land,  but  the  fncient  and  fundamental  policy  of  that  is  the  fame  with 
England  ;  and  he  that  believed  the  Sub'jeBs  made  the  Three  Efiates  there, 
could  never  believe  the  King  to  be  one  of  them  here. 

The  next  Authority  is  of  King  Charles  /.  in  his  Anfwer  to  the  19  Pro-  p.  100. 
fofitions,  June  2,  1642.  wherein  he  tells  the  two  Houfes,  that  neither  one 
Efiate  fhould  tranft&  what  is  proper  for  two,  nor  two  what  is  proper  far 
three.  To  which  I  anfwer,  that  the  Penner  of  that  Anfwer  was  fo  in- 
tent upon  the  main  bufinefs,  vi%.  that  the  two  Houfes  could  do  nothing 
without  the  King,  that  he  did  not  go  about  to  difpute  this  matter  with 
them,  whether  the  King  were  one  of  the  Three  Eflates  or  not  ?  But  taking 
their  Suppofition  for  granted,  he  (hews  that  they  could  have  no  Autho- 
rity to  aft  without  the  Kings  Concurrence.  But  the  unwary  Concelfions 
in  that  Anfwer  were  found  of  dangerous  Confequence  afterwards,  when 
the  Kings  Enemies  framed  the  Political  Catechifm  out  of  them,  which 
is  hitely  reprinted,  no  doubt,  for  the  good  of  the  People. 

In  2  H.  4,  ».  3^.  he  makes  the  Houfe  of  Commons  to  declare  to  the  King  p.  15,1. 
and  Lords, That  theThree  Ejiates  of  the  Farliament  are  the  King,  the  Lords 
Spiritual  and  Temporal.  Whereas  the  Truth  of  that  matter  is  this ;  A 
difference  had  happen'd  in  the  Houfe  of  Lords,  between  the  Earl  of 
Rutland  and  Lord  Fitz>-Walter  ^  whereupon  the  Houfe  of  Commons  go 
up  to  the  King  and  the  Lords,  and  having,  it  feems,  an  eloquent  Speaker^  > 
who  ventured  upon  dangerous  Metaphors,  he  makes  bold  with  the  Si- 
mlitude  o(  the  Trinity,  becaufe  that  would  help  him  toperfwade  them 
toTJnity;  but  if  he  had  left  the  King  out,  he  might  have  been  fufpe- 

Sffff2  fted 


II  —  ■       ■    ^— ^— 

Of  the  Btjhps  Jurijdi^ion 


died  to  have  fet  up  an  independattt  Pomr  in  the  Three  Elates -^  therefore 
left  he  fhould  lofe  his  Similitude,  (which  goes  a  great  way  with  an  elo- 
qnentMan)  he  ftrains  another  point,  and  draws  the  King  into  his  Tri- 
nity. And  is  fuch  an  Expreflion  to  be  mention'd  in  comparifon  with 
the  exprefs  Declaration  but  the  Year  before,  i  H.  IV. of  both  Houfes  con- 
cerning the  Three  Ejiates  in  Parliament  ? 

Next  to  this  Similitude,  that  of  Stephen  Gardiner  ought  to  be  men- 
tion'd, who  compared  Faith,  Hope  and  Charity  concurring  to  Jujiljjcation, 
to  the  Concurrence  of  the  Three  Ejiates  in  Parliament,  i.  e.  the  King  and 
two  Houfes  to  the  making  of  Laws.     But  I  wonder  the  Author  of  thtLet' 
ter,  who  expreffeth  fo  much  diflike  of  his  Divinity,  would  take  his 
Judgment  in  Politicks.    But  this  Notion  of  making  the  King  one  of  the 
Three  Ejiates,  how  valuable  foever  it  be  to  fome  Men,  is,  it  feems,  on- 
ly to  be  met  with  in  fome  grave  ancient  Similitudes.     But  of  what  Au- 
thority thefe  are  againft  the  conftant  Senfe  of  Parliaments  fo  fully  de- 
clared, I  leave  any  Man  of  UnderftandJ.ng  to  judge. 
p.  103.        For  the  Judgment  of  eminent  Lawyers,  he  quotes  but  one  in  King 
James  his  Time,  z>/z..  Finch,  in  his  Book  of  Law,  1.  2.  ch.  i.  who  doth 
indeed,  in  the  Words  quoted  by  him,  make  the  King,  Lords  and  Com- 
mons to  be  the  Three  Ejiates.     But  I  can  hardly  imagine  how  a  learned 
Lawyer  could  fall  into  fuch  a  grofs  Miftake,  unlefs  the  Modus  tenendi 
Parlamentum  fhould  giveoccafion  to  it^  which  was  accounted  no  blind 
MS.  in  thofe  Days,  but  a  very  great  Treafure,  as  appears  by  Sir  E.Coke, 
who  cites  it  on  all  occafions.     And  very  few  Lawyers  had  the  Judg- 
ment in  Antiquity  which  Mr.  Selden  had,  who  firft  difcovered  the  jufl 
Age  and  Value  of  that  MS.    This  Author  indeed,  towards  the  conclu- 
fion  of  his  Treatife,  makes  the  King  thejirjl  of  the  Ejiates  5  but  then  he 
makes  Six  Ejiates  in  Parliament,  or  Degrees,  as  he  calls  them  ;  and  de- 
livers this  for  good  Doftrine  at  the  very  end  of  his  Treatife,  That  if 
any  one  of  all  thefe  be  fummoned,  and  do  not  appear^  yet  with  him  it  w* 
notwithjianding  a  full  Parliament  i,  nay,  he  exprefly  faith.  The  King  may 
hold  a  Parliament  without  a  Houfe  of  Lords.    But  there  are  fo  many  o- 
ther  fuch  Pofitions  difcoverd  by  others  in  that  Treatife,  that  I  need  to 
fay  no  more  of  it.     And  as  to  this  point  of  the  Kings  being  one  of  the 
Ejiates  in  Parliament,  Sir  Ed.  Coke,  who  otherwife  too  much  admired 
that  Treatife,  declares  againft  it  in  the  very  beginning  of  his  Treatife  of 
the  Parliament.     Thk  Court,  faith  he,  tonfjieth  of  the  Kings  Majejiy, 
fitting  there  as  in  his  Royal  Politick  Capacity,  and  of  the  Three  Ejiates  of 
the  Realm,  viz.  of  the  Lords  Spiritual,  Archbifhops  and  Bijhops,  the  Lords 
p.  u.      Temporal,  and  the  Commons  of  the  Realm.     And  however  the  Author  of 
the  Letter  may  flight  Mr.  Selden's  Judgment  in  this  matter  5   yet  thefe 
two  may  be  fufficient  to  weigh  down  the  Scales  againft  any  one  Law- 
yers  Authority  to  the  contrary,  efpecially,  fince  they  were  never  fufpedl:- 
cd,  I  dare  fay,  for  any  partiality  towards  the  Clergy. 

(5.)  But  the  Author  of  the  Letter  thinks  to  carry  this  Point  by  meer 
ftrength  of  Reafon.    We  muft  therefore  diligently  confider  the  Force 
of  his  Arguments, 
p.  8p.  I-  If  BlJhops  were  one  of  the  Ejiates  in  Parliament,  Reafon  would  they 

jhould  vote  by  themfelves  feparately  from  other  Lords,  which  would  make 
another  Ejiate  :  But  they  do  not  only  not  vote  apart  by  themfelves,  the 
whole  Body  of  them  together  ^  but  that  Body  is  divided  and  fepa- 
rated  within  it  felf  one  part  from  another.  If  both  Houfes  ever  fate  to- 
gether, as  fome  imagine,  (and  as  they  do  in  a  Neighbour  Kingdom) 

this 


/;/  Capital  Caiifes,  873 

this  way  of  Reafoning  will  make  but  one  EJiate  in  Parliament  all  that 
Time.  But  to  give  a  clear  Anfwer  to  this  Objedion  ^  I  diftinguiOi  two 
things  in  the  Btjhops^  their  Spiritual  Capacity,  by  which  they  reprefent  5 
and  their  Civil  Capacity  as  Barons,  in  which  thty  vote,  according  to  the 
Rules  of  the  Houfe.  For  the  manner  of  giving  their  Votes  is  a  thing 
under  the  Regulation  of  the  Houfe,  and  depends  upon  Cuftom  ^  but  their 
Spiritual  Capacity  as  B/fiops,  in  which  they  reprefent,  doth  not.  And 
the  Reafon  of  their  fitting  together  with  other  Lords,  is  upon  the  ac- 
count of  their  Writs  of  Summons  5  which,  as  Mr.  Selden  confefleth, 
ever  fince  the  latter  end  of  Edw.  II f.  hath  been,  for  the  Bifhops  cum 
ceteris  Pr<elatis,  Magnatibus  ^  Proceribus,  colloquium  habere  (&•  tra&atnm  ^ 
and  therefore  they  are  bound  to  fit  together  in  the  fame  place  with  the 
Temporal  Lords,  or  elfe  they  cannot  advife  and  confer  together.  And  I 
leave  the  Author  of  the  Letter  to  confider,  whether  his  Reafon  or  the 
Kings  Writ  ought  to  take  place. 

2.  If  the  Bifiops  were  a  Third  EJiate,  they  mujl  have  a  negative  Voice  to  P.  89. 
all  that  pajfeth  there  :  but  the  Bifiops  are  intermingled  with  the  Temporal 
Lords  in  making  up  the  Majority,  as  a  part  of  it.  Since  I  have  evidently 
proved  the  Clergy  to  be  one  of  the  Three  EJiates  in  Parliament,  if  he  be 
fure  that  every  EJiate  ought  to  have  a  negative  Voice,  then  I  am  fure  that 
this  Objjftion  lies  more  upon  him  to  anfwer,  than  upon  the  Biflyops. 
But  to  prevent  any  new  Difputes,  I  (hall  return  this  Anfwer  to  it.  Since 
it  is  agreed  on  both  fides,  that  the  Biftiops  do  fit  in  the  Houfe  as  Tempo- 
ral Barons,  and  in  that  refpeft  do  make  up  the  Majority  of  Votes  in  the 
Houfe  of  Lords,  it  could  not  but  feem  unreafonable,  that  they  who  vo- 
ted di  Barons  in  the  Houfe  ftiould  have  a  negative  Voire  in  another  Capacity  5  - 
and  by  this  means  they  loft  their  diftinct  negative  Voice,  becaufe  by  the 
K  ing's  Writs  they  were  to  fit  and  vote  with  the  Temporal  Lords.  Juft 
as  it  is  in  the  Diets  oi  Germany  :  Since  thediftribution  of  that  Ajfembly 
of  the  Efiates  of  the  Empire  into  the  feveral  Chambers,  the  Prelates  vote 
according  to  their  Ranks  5  the  Three  EleSors  in  the  Ele&oral  College ;  the 
other  Bi/liops,  that  are  Princes  of  the  Empire,  in  the  Chamber  of  Princes  5 
and  thofe  who  are  not  Princes,  with  the  Counts  and  Barons.  So  that 
here  the  Votes  of  the  Bi(hops  are  mingled  with  the  reft,  without  a  di-  ^ 
JiinS  negative  Voice,  and  yet  no  one  queftions  but  the  Biftiops  do  repre- 
fent a  diftin^  EJiate  of  the  Empire. 

g.  This  is  a  Difparagement  to  the  Houfe  of  Lords,  that  another  EJiate  P-  9o« 
muji  be  joined  with  them  to  make  up  their  Negative.  No  more  than  to 
the  Princes  of  the  Empire  to  have  the  Bijhops  joined  with  them,  when 
the  Imperial  Cities  vote  by  themfelves.  But  what  Difparagement  is  this, 
for  thofe  to  make  up  the  Majority  of  the  Votes  of  the  Baronage,  who  fit 
there  as  Barons  by  Tenure,  by  a  Right  as  ancient  as  Will,  the  Conqueror, 
by  the  Author's  own  Confeflion. 

4.  If  the  Bi/h»ps  make  a  Third  Eft  ate.  then  a  Parliament  could  not  be  t'.  9.. 
held  without  them  :  but  a  Parliament  hath  fate  exclufo  Clero,  as  that  of 
Ed.  I.  and  that  it  may  do  fo  in  point  of  Law  appears  by  the  Refolution  of 
the  Judges  in  Reilway  x  Reports,  becaufe  the  BiJJjops  fit  in  Parliament  by 
reafon  of  their  Baronies.  This  is  the  great  Objeftion,  to  which  I  fliall 
give  a  full  Anfwer.  , 

[\7\  It  is  dangerous  arguing  from  ejc/r<?or^?/?<irj»  C<?/ex,  to  the  exclu- 
ding any  one  of  theEftates  of  the  Kingdom  from  being  reprefented  in 
Parliament  ^  becaufe  no  one  can  tell  where  this  way  of  arguing  will 
ftop.    If  a  Parliament  may  be  good  without  one  Eftate,  why  not  with- 
out 


b  74.  Of  the  Bi/hops  Jurifdi^ion 

out  another?  And  we  have  feen  an  Houfe  of  Lords  excluded  as  unne- 
cefiary,  upon  fuch  kind  of  Arguments  5  hecaufe  they  fit  in  their  cvon  Per- 
fons,  and  reprefent  none  but  tkemfelves.  If  we  once  depart  from  the  an- 
cient and  legal  Conftitution  of  Parliaments,  there  will  be  no  end  of 
Alterations.  Every  new  Modeller  of  Government  hath  fomething  to 
offer  that  looks  like  Reafon,  at  leaft  to  thofe  whofe  intereft  it  is  to  car- 
ry it  on.  And  if  no  precedents  can  be  found,  then  they  appeal  to  a 
certain  invifible  thing  called  the  Fundamental  Contrail  of  the  Nation  : 
which  being  a  thing  no  where  to  be  found,  may  fignifie  what  any  one 
pleafetb.  Suppofe  one  extraordinary  cafe  happens  through  the  difor- 
der  of  Times,  that  the  Clergy  have  been  left  out  in  a  Parliament  ;  what 
doth  this  fignifie  towards  altering  the  legal  ConflHution  and  conftant 
Courfe  of  Parliaments,  which  from  the  beginning  of  Parliaments  in 
this  Nation,  have  had  the  Eflate  of  the  Clergy  reprefented  in  them? 
as  fijfficiently  appears  by  Mr,  Petyt's  learned  Preface  to  his  late  Dif- 
p.  7,&c.  courfe  of  the  ancient  Right  of  the  Commons.  The  firft  after  K.ing  E- 
thelhert's  Converfion  was,  Commune  Concilium  tarn  Cleri  quam  Populi. 
That  under  Ina  was,  omnium  Epifcoporum,  <^  Principum^  Procerum^ 
Comitum,  €^  omnium  Sapientium,  Seniorum  d^  Populorum  totiui  Reg- 
ni.  That  under  Edmund  the  elder  was.  Concilium  magnum  Epi- 
fcoporum,  Ahbatum,  Fidelium  Procerum  &•  Populcrum,  I  might  add 
Goncii.  many  more :  as  that  at  Becanceld  under  J^ing  Withred  A.  D.  694. 
1^82.  189.  Epifopis,  &;c.  Ducihus  C^  Satrapfs  in  unum  glomeratis.  At  Clove fhoo 
318.327-  under  Kenulphus  of  Merciai,  at  Calecyth,  at  London,  at  Kingflon. 
244!  42°8'  ^^7'  "°^  °"^  c^"  ^^  found  by  me  in  the  Saxon  times,  wherein  the  Bi- 
534-  P^opj  are  not  exprefly  mention  d.  SJo  that  if  there  be  fuch  a  thing  to 
be  found  as  the  Fundamental  Contra^  of  the  Nation  about  the  Conjiitntioft 
of  Parlaments,  I  do  not  queftion  but  thev  have  their  (hare  in  it.  Info- 
much  that  Sir  H.  Spelman  makes  it  his  defcription  of  the  Wittena  Gemot, 
that  in  it,  as  Mr.  Petyt  obferves,  Convenere  Regni  Principes,  tam  Epifcopi 
tfuam  Magifiratus,  liberique  homines  ^  i.  e.  it  was  an  Affemhly  of  the  three 
Efiates.  So  that  before  there  were  any  fuch  things  as  Baronies,  they 
were  an  EJfential  part  of  the  Englifl)  Parliament.  And  muft  all  this  clear 
and  undoubted  evidence  from  the  firft  mention  01  Parliaments  berejedted, 
becaufe  once  upon  a  time,  a  certain  King  called  a  certain  Parliament, 
wherein,  upon  fome  Diftaft  between  the  King  and  the  Clergy,  the  o- 
ther  Efiates  continued  fitting  without  them  ? 

[2.3  This  fingle  'nftance  about  the  Parliament  under  Ed.L  is  much 
mifunderftood,  as  will  appear  by  thefe  confider  itions. 

I.  That  the  Clergy  excluded  themfelves  and  were  not  (hut  out  by  the 
Ac}  of  the  King  and  the  other  Eftates.  For  upon  the  Bull  of  Pope  Boni- 
face VIII.  forbidding  the  Clergy  giving  any  more  Subfidies  (  which  was 
procured  by  Archbiflio^  Winchelfee,  as  our  Hiftorians  relate)  a  Parliament 
being  called  by  Ed.  I.  at  Saint  Edmondsbury  on  purpofe  for  Subfidies, 
the  Clergy  refuje,  upon  the  Pope's  prohibition,  till  they  had  confulted  the 
Court  of  Rome ;  and  go  away  every  one  to  their  own  homes  :  notwithftand- 
ing  which,  the  King  proceeds  with  the  other  two  Efiates,  and  gets 
Subfidies  from  the  Laity.  So  that  the  exclufion  of  the  Clergy  came  from 
the'ir  own  voluntary  Alf :,  when  the  King  defired  no  fuch  thing,  nor  the 
other  two  Ejlates,  but  were  all  extremely  provoked  at  this  withdrawing 
of  the  Clergy.  That  this  Parliament  was  called  purpofely  for  the6«^- 
fidy,  appears  by  the  Writ  ftill  upon  Record ;  wherein  the  Archbifiiop 
is  fiimmon'd  to  appear,  ad  ordinandum  de  quantitate  &  niodo  fuhfidii  me- 
morati.  '  2.  Where- 


///  Qapitai  Caujes. 


2.  Whereas  it  is  infinuated,  that  great  matter f  were  done,  and  good^^^^^'  *+• 
Lavps pajfed,  when  the  Clergy  were  excluded-^  1  find  no  fuch  thing.     It  187. dorfo. 
true,  the  confirmation  ot  Magna  Charta  by  Ed.  I.  (which  was  a  great 
thing  indeed)  is  faid,  in  the  Statute-Books,  to  be  done  the  fame  year, 
viz.  25  Ed.  I.    But  that  it  could  not  be  done  in  that  Parliament^  I  thus 
prove.    That  Parliament  was  czWedicraji.  Animarum ;  the  King  appoints 
another  at  London  craft,  Hilarii:  where  the  difference  ftill  continuing,  waJfing. 
he  appoints  a  new  Parliament  on  the  day  of  S.  Peter  ad  VincuU,  orphorn!ad 
Lammas-day,  wherein  he  was  reconciled  to  the  Archbifljop  and  Clergy. a.  1296. 
Then  Fealty  is  fworn  to  his  Son,  before  his  going  into  Flanders:  and'^^'shton 
the  King  excufed  himfelf  as  to  the  great  Taxes  and  Sitb/idies,  on  tbcMat'c 
account  of  his  Wars.     While  he  was  about  Winchelfea,  a  Remonflrance^^^-^- 
is  fent  to  him  of  tlie  Grievances  of  the  Nation,  in  the  name  of  the  Arch-'^^  ' 
bfhops,   Bljhops,    Earls,    Barons,  and  the  whole  Commons  of  England,    • 
wherein  they  complain  of  iUegal  Taxes,  and  the  breach  of  Magna  Charta. 
The  King  gives  a  dilatory  anfwer,  and  paffes  over  into  Flanders.    In 
his  abfence  the  people  refufe  to  pay  the  Taxes,  and  the  Lords  com- 
bine together,  and  all  things  tend  to  an  open  Rebellion.    His  Son  Ed. 
II.  calls  a  Parliament  at  London,  and  promifes  a  Confirmation  of  the 
Charter,  and  that  no  Taxes  jhould  hereafter  be  raifed,  either  on  Clergy  or 
Laity,  without  their  confent.     Which  being  fent  over  Ed.  f.  confirmed 
it  with  his  own  Seal:  which  was  all  done  within  the  compafs  of  this 
year.     But  he  again  ratified  it  in  the  Parliament  27  Ed.  I.     So  that  no- 
thing was  done  in  that  Parliament  at  S.  Edmundsbury,  but  granting  a  1 2 
of  the  Laity  to  the  King.     And  when  the  great  Laws  were  paffed,  the 
King  and  Clergy  were  reconciled,  and  they  fate  in  Parliament.     And  the 
Archhijhop  of  Canterbury  fell  into  the  King's  difpleafure  afterwards,  for 
being  fo  adive  a  promoter  of  them.    The  fumm  then  of  this  mighty 
argument  is,  that  the  Lords  and  Commons  once  granted  their  own  Stthfi-   . 
dies,  without  the  concurrence  of  the  Clergy ;  therefore  the  Clergy  are  no 
effential  part  of  the  Parliament. 

V  The  Reafon  affigned  in  Keiltva/s  Reports,  why  the  King  may 
hold  a  Parliament  without  the  Bijhops,  is  very  infufficient:  viz.  becauje 
they  have  no  place  in  Parliament  by  reafon  of  their  Spiritualty,  but  by  Rea- 
fon  of  their  Temporal  poffejftons.  The  infufficiency  of  which  reafon  will 
appear  by  two  things.  • 

1.  That  it  is  not  true :  as  appears  by  this,  that  the  Clergy  are  one  of 
the  Eftates  of  the  Kingdom ;  and  all  the  Eftates  of  the  Kingdom  muft  be 
reprefented  in  Parliament. 

2.  Were  it  true,  it  is  no  good  Reafon.  For  why  may  they  be  ex- 
cluded beeaufe  they  /it  on  the  account  of  their  Baronies?  Where  lies  the 
force  of  this  Reafon  ?  Is  it  beeaufe  there  will  be  Number  enough  with- 
out them  ?  That  was  the  Rump's  Argument  againft  the  Secluded  Mem' 
hers.  And  1  hope  the  Author  of  the  Letter  will  not  juftiiie  their  Caufe. 
Or  is  it  beeaufe  they  hold  their  Baronies  by  Tenure  .<?  fo  did  all  the  an- 
cient Barons  oi England:  and  why  may  the  King  hold  his  Parliament 
with  the  other  Barons,  without  the  Bijloops:^  and  not  as  well  with  the 
Bifliops,  without  the  other  Barons?  Which  1  do  not  fee  how  it  can  be 
anfwer'd  upon  thofe  grounds.  Suppofe  the  queftion  had  been  thus  put, 
fince  all  the  ancient  Lords  of  Parliament  were  Barons  by  Tenure,  and 
Parliaments  were  held  for  many  Ages  without  any  Barons  by  Patent 
or  by  Writ,  why  may  not  the  King  hold  his  Parliament  after  the  an- 
cient way,  only  with  Barons  by  Tenure?  1  do  not  fee,  but  as  good  a 

Rea- 


'8  J 6  Of  the  Bljlops  Jurifdiclion,  &C. 


Reafon  may  be  given  for  this,  as  that  in  Keilway's  Reports.     All  that  I' 
plead  for  is,   that  our  good,    ancient  and  Legal  Conftitution  of  Par- 
liament may  not  be  changed  for  the  fake  of  any  fingle  Precedents,  and 
rare  Cafes,   and  obfcure   Reports  built  upon  weak  and  infufficient 

f.<J8.  Reafons.  For,  as  the  Author  of  the  Letter  very  well  faith,  Confue- 
tudo  Part  amen  ti  ejl  Lex  Parlamentt,  The  conjiant  pra&ice  of  Parliaments 
(and  not  one  fingle  Inftance  )  is  the  Lavo  of  Parliaments.  And  fup- 
pofe  that  Precedent  of  25  Ed.  I.  as  full  as  could  be  wifhed  in  this  cafe  5 
yet  I  return  the  Anfwer  of  the  Author  of  the  Letter  in  a  like  cafe  ; 

/,49.  Thk  if  but  one  fingle  Precedent^  (  of  a  Parliament  without  Bi- 
fhops,  )  again fl  multitudes  wherein  they  were  prefent  :;  it  was  once 
fo,  and  never  but  once.  .  And  can  that  be  thought  fufficient  to  alter 
and  change  the  conflant  courfe  and  pra£fice  of  Parliaments,  which  hath 
been  otherwife  } 

Nothing  now  remains,  but  a  fevere  refledion  on  the  Popifh  Bifhops 

T'99.  fof  '>PP<'fi"S  '^^  Statute  of  Provifors,  and  the  fever  al  good  Ads  for  the  Re- 
format/on. But  what  this  makes  againft  the  Fotes  of  Proteftant  Bifliops 
is  hard  to  underftand.  If  he  thinks  thofe  could  not  make  a  good  third 
Eflate  in  Parliament,  who  took  Oaths  to  the  Pope  contrary  to  their  Al- 
legiance, and  theintereft  of  the  Nation,  fo  do  we.  If  he  have  a  great 
Zeal  for  the  Reformation,  fo  have  all  true  Members  of  the  Church  of 
England,  who,  we  doubt  not,  will  heartily  maintain  the  Caufeof  our 
Church  againfi  the  Ufurpations  of  Rome,  though  the  heat  of  others 
fhould  abate.  For  did  not  our  Proteftant  Bifliops  feal  the  Reformation 
with  their  Blood,  and  defend  it  by  their  admirable  Writings .«?  What 
Champions  hath  the  Protejiant  Religion  ever  had  to  be  compared  in  all 
refpefts  with  our  Cranmer^  Ridley,  Jewel,  Bilfin,  Morton,  Hall,  Davenant^ 
and  many  other  Bijhops  of  the  Church  of  England  .<?  And  notwithftand- 
ing  the  hard  fortune  Archbifhop  Laud  had  in  other  refpefts,  not  to  be 
well  underftood  in  the  Age  he  lived  in^  yet  his  Enemies  cannot  deny 
his  Book  to  be  written  with  as  much  ftrength  and  judgment  againft  the 
Church  of  Rome,  as  any  other  whatfoever.  I  (hall  conclude  with  fay- 
ing,  that  the  Clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  have  done  incomparably 
more  Service  againft  Popery,  from  the  Reformation  to  this  day,  than  all 

'  the  other  Parties  among  us  put  together :  And  that  the  Papifts  at  this 
time  wifti  for  nothing  more,  than  to  fee  Men,  under  a  pretence  of  Zeal 
againft  Popery,  todeftroy  our  Church  ;  and  while  they  cry  up  Magna 
Charta,  to  invade  the  legal  Rights  thereof,  and  thereby  break  the  firft 
Chapter  of  it  5  and  from  difputing  the  Bifhops  prefence  in  Cafes  Capital^ 
to  proceed  to  others;  and  fo  by  degrees  to  alter  the  ancient  Conftituti- 
on of  our  Parliaments,  which  will  unavoidably  bring  Anarchy  and 
Confufion  upon  us  :  From  which,  as  well  as  Popery,  Good  Lord  de- 
liver us. 


The 


877 


The  Cafe  of  ViCtation  of  Colleges,    in  the 
Houfe  of  Lords,    in  Exeter^CoUege  Cafe. 

My  Lordf, 

THE  Noble  Lord  who  fpake  laft,  hath  put  us  into  the  right  Me- 
thod of  purfuingthis  Debate,  foas  to  bring  it  to  a  good  Iflue. 
For  the  Point  before  Your  LordQiips  is  not  about  the  whole 
Proceeding  of  theBiftiopof  fixe/er,  as  Vifitor  of  Exeter-CoUege  ;  but 
whether  his  Judicial  Proceedings  againft  the  Reftor  of  that  College,  may 
be  Examined  and  Reverfed  by  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  >  For  it  comes 
hither  by  a  Writ  of  Error  ^  which  relates  to  the  Judgment  there  given  ^ 
and  the  main  Error  is.  That  they  gave  Judgment  in  a  matter  which  did 
not  legally  come  before  them.  If  this  can  be  made  out,  then  the  Judg- 
ment is  to  be  Reverfed,  and  the  matter  to  remain  as  it  was  before  it  was 
brought  thither.  But  I  am  fenfible  of  a  very  great  prejudice  which  lies 
in  the  way,  before  I  enter  upon  the  Debate,  which  is.  That  if  the 
Judgment  of  the  Bifhop  be  not  Reverfible  at  Common  Law,  then  his 
Power  is  Abfolute  and  Conclufive,  being  without  any  farther  Appeal  5 
which  feems  to  be  the  fetting  up  an  Arbitrary  Power  among  us,  which 
is  againft  Law. 

Truly,  my  Lords,  I  think  this  Objeftion  ought  to  be  removed  in  the 
firft  place  5  for  I  would  not  be  fo  mifunderftood,  as  if  I  were  for  fetting 
up  a  Power  againft  Law  5  for  the  Law  is  the  greateft  fecurity  of  our  Re- 
ligion, and  Lives,  and  Liberties.  But  there  is  a  great  difference  to  be 
made  between  an  Arbitrary  Power  againft  Law,  and  a  Conclufive  Power 
by  Law.  I  cannot  underftand  how  a  Power  given  by  the  Law,  (hould 
be  a  Power  againft  Law.  And  the  Qiieftion  before  Your  Lordftiips  is. 
Whether  the  Law  hath  not  given  fuch  a  Power  to  Vifitors,  as  to  deters 
mine  matters,  without  the  liberty  of  Appeal,  and  if  there  be  no  Appeal, 
their  Judgraentmuft  be  Final. 

But  that  fuch  a  Power  in  Vifitors  is  not  againft  our  Law,  appears  by 
that  excellent  5'^!«f«/e,  43  Q.  EUz,.  c.  4.  concerning  CommifGons  for  Cha- 
ritable Ufes,  where  Vifitors  have  fuch  a  Power  given  them  by  Law,  that 
they  are  not  liable  to  be  called  to  an  account,  by  any  Commiffion,  or 
by  Court  of  Lawor  Chancery.  So  that  our  Law  doth  think  fit  on  fome 
occafions,  efpecially  as  to  Eleemofynary  Foundations,  to  lodge  fuch  a 
Power  in  fome  Perfons,  and  this  furely  cannot  be  called  an  illegal  Power, 

But  it  hath  been  urged  with  great  plaufiblenefs.  That  the  Vifitor's 
Power  is  no  other  than  the  Founder's  Power,  for  he  afts  as  Founder, 
and  by  his  Right  5  but  no  Founder  can  eftablift»fuch  an  Arbitrary  Pow- 
er, and  therefore  it  is  Illegal. 

I  confefs,  my  Lords,  I  am  of  Opinion,  that  if  the  Vifitor  hath  no  o- 
ther  Power  but  the  Founders,  he  could  not  fettle  fuch  an  Arbitrary  Me- 
thod of  Proceeding,  that  the  Vifitors  Judgment  ftiould  not  be  called  in 
queftion  by  the  Courts  of  Law.  For  the  Founder  was  but  a  private  Sub- 
jed  in  the  prefent  Cafe  ^  and  I  do  not  fee  how  the  Founder  of  Exeter- 
College,  by  an  inherent  Power  in  himfelf  can  debar  any  Perfon  from  an 
Appeal,  in  cafe  of  Injury  done  to  him,  in  a  Society  fettled  by  Law.  I 
know  very  well  how  much  it  hath  been  pleaded,  and  what  weight  hath 
been  laid  upon  it  by  the  learned  Council  at  the  Bar,  viz..  That  the  Right 

T  1 1 1 1  of 


878  'the  Cafe  of  E  xeter  College. 


of  Ownerfhip,  or  the  Property  of  the  Lands  in  the  Founder,  gives  him 
a  Vifitatorial  Power  in  Law^  which  he  may  leave  to  fuch  as  he  (hall 
think  fit  to  intruft  with  it,  and  that  this  Power  comes  not  from  any  Ec- 
clefiaftical  Canons,  (  which  I  freely  grant)  but  from  the  Common- 
Law,  which  placeth  it  in  the  Founder  and  his  Heirs,  unlefs  he  fettle  it 
upon  others.  And  although  Corporations  for  publick  Government,  be 
fubjeft  to  the  Courts  in  Wejlminfter-Hall -^  which  have  no  particular 
Founders,  or  fpecial  Vifitors,  yet  Corporations  for  Charity,  founded 
and  endowed  by  private  Perfons,  are  fubjeft  to  the  Rules  and  Govern- 
ment of  thofe  that  ered  them.  But  where  the  Perfons  to  whom  the 
Charity  is  given  are  not  incorporated,  there  is  no  fuch  Vifitatorial 
Power,  becaufe  the  Intereft  of  the  Revenue  is  not  invefted  in  them  5  but 
where  they  are,  the  Right  of  Vifitation  arifes  from  the  Foundation, 
and  the  Founder  may  convey  it  to  whom,  and  in  what  manner  he  plea- 
fes ;  and  the  Vifitor  afts  as  Founder,  and  by  the  fame  Authority  which 
he  had,  and  confequently  is  no  more  accountable  than  he  had  been. 
'  This  feems  to  be  a  very  fair  and  reafonable  Account  of  this  matter  5 

but  if  we  look  narrowly  into  it,  we  (hall  find  that  it  will  not  clear  the 
difficulties  of  the  prefent  Cafe  5  which  relate  to  a  Society  incorporated 
by  Law,  and  not  to  a  meer  Arbitrary  Society,  depending  on  the  Will 
of  the  Founder.  Now  if  a  private  Founder  cannot  by  his  own  Pow- 
er Incorporate  fuch  a  Society,  then  I  cannot  fee  how  he  can  give  fuch  a 
power  to  a  Vifitor  to  remove  any  one  out  of  it  5  fo  as  not  to  be  accoun- 
table to  any  other  Court. 

We  muft  therefore  go  farther  than  the  meer  power  of  the  Founder  in 
this  matter.    And  I  take  it  for  granted,   that  every  fuch  Corporation 
muft  have  a  Legal  Authority,  befides  the  Will  of  the  Founder,  and  that 
10  R,29.  muft  be  either  by  Common-Law  or  by  Prefcription  (which is  notpre- 
,  tended  in  the  Cafe  of  Colleges)   or  by  Aft  of  Parliament,   as  Hofpitals 

are,  39  £/;z..  c.  5.  or  by  Royal  Charter  ;  for  the  King  by  his  Authority 
can  make  a  Society  to  be  Incorporated  fo,  as  to  have  the  Rights  belong- 
ing to  Perfons  as  to  Legal  Capacities.  So  it  isexprefTed  in  the  Words 
Mon.  II.  of  the  Charter  of  the  Foundation  of  a  Charitable  Society,  Ut  fini  u- 
4.83.  rmmcoryus^  habeantque  Succcjjionem  perpetuam,  acjint  Perfons  habiles^ 
capaces  in  lege. 

In  the  Foundation  of  ^eens-College  in  Oxford,  Ed.  5.  by  his  Charter 
iS  Jan.  ^.  D.I  540.  makes  the  Provoft  and  Fellows,  Verum  Collegium^ 
C^*  ut  Collegium  ltd  turn  ^  approhatum  agnofcimufj  Authoritate  noftrk  plena 
qua  pojjttttus,  ratificamuf  ^  confirmamus. 

In  the  Charter  of  the  Foundation  of  Lincoln-College,  A.  D.  1427.  H.  6. 
gave  the  Founder  Authority  to  found  a  College,  confi(ting  of  a  Reftor, 
Scholars,   and  Chaplains. 

So  All-Souls  was  founded  by  the  King's  Authority,  A.  D.  1437.  16  of 
H.  6.  although  Archbilhop  Chichely  gave  the  Revenues. 

Corpm  Chrifti  College  had  not  only  a  Charter  of  Foundation  from  the 
King,  A.D.  1 5 1 6.  but  Bifhop  jF^jc  the  Founder  had  firft  a  Licence  from 
the  Crown  to  found  a  College,  confi(ting  of  a  Prefident,  and  90  Scholars, 

If  the  Founder  changed  his  mind  after  the  fir{t  Grant,  then  he  obtain- 
/  .        eda  new  Grant  from  the  Crown,  as  in  the  Cafe  of  Corpus  Chrijii  :  The 

Founder  at  firft  intended  a  Seminary  for  Monks,  but  altering  his  mind, 
that  Grant  was  brought  into  Chancery,  and  there  voided,  and  then  ob- 
tained a  new  Grant. 

The  like  happened  as  to  St.  John's  College  there,  A.D.  1557. 


The 


The  Cafe  of  Exeter  College.  879 


The  laft  College  founded  in  Oxford  was  Pembroke-College,  A.  D.  1614. 
and  that  had  a  Charter  from  the  Crown  for  its  Incorporation  5  and  for 
enjoying  all  the  Privileges  belonging  to  fuch  a  Body. 

So  this  College  (which  had  not  the  Name  of  Exeter  College  at  firft) 
but  the  Society  was  incorporated  by  a  Charter  under  the  Broad  Seal,  10 
May,  7  E.  II.  Ann.  1 3 14.  But  although  the  feveral  Kings,  made  the 
Colleges  to  be  fuch  in  Law,  /.  e.  legal  Corporations,  yet  they  left  the 
particular  Founders  Authority  by  their  Charters  to  appoint  what  Sta- 
tutes they  thought  fit  for  the  Regulation  of  them. 

So  ArchbiQiop  Chichely  fent  the  Body  of  his  Statutes  under  his  Hand 
and  Seal  to  All-Souls  5  fo  did  Wickham  before  to  New-College  ^   fo  did 
iVaynflet  to  Magdalen  College,  and  Fox  to  Corpus  Chrijii^  and  fo  did  the 
Founders  of  St.  John's,  Brafen-Nofe,  Trinity,  and  Wadham:    Lincoln 
College  wanted  Statutes  by  the  Death  of  their  Founder.     Wolfey  fent 
Statutes  to  his  Foundation,  but  that  being  difTolved,  and  a  new  one 
erefted  by  the  King,  thofe  Statutes  were  fuppos'd  to  have  loft  their 
Force.    In  Magdalen  College,  the  Founder  had  Liberty  to  keep  the 
Government  of  the  College  for  fome  time  in  his  own  Hands,  and  when 
he  was  about  making  Statutes,   he  changed  them  feveral  times.    So 
Walter  de  Merton  fent  Statutes  under  his  Seal  to  Merton  College,  Ann. 
1278.  which  he  afterwards  revoked,  and  fent  others  A D.  1275.  But 
ftill  we  fee,  although  the  Corporation  was  made  by  the  King's  Charter, 
yet  the  Statutes  were  left  to  the  particular  Founders. 

And  not  only  the  Statutes,  but  the  appointing  of  Vifitors  was  left  to 
them,  and  the  manner  of  Government,  and  the  feveral  Conditions,  oa 
which  any  Perfons  were  to  be  made  or  to  continue  Partakers  of  their 
Bounty. 

By  the  firft  Statutes  of  Exeter  College,  the  Reftorfhip  was  to  be  from 
Year  to  Year  ;  but  upon  a  Review  of  the  Statutes,  A.  D.  i  $66.  it  was  to 
continue  as  others  did.  But  that  which  I  particularly  obferve  is,  that 
thefe  Founders  of  Colleges  did  take  fpecial  Care  to  prevent,  as  much 
as  poffiWe,  all  Law  Suits  among  the  Members  of  their  Societies,  as  moft 
deftruftive  to  the  Peace  and  Unity  of  their  Body,  and  the  Tranquility 
neceflary  for  their  Studies :  For  they  knew  very  well,  that  if  any  Incou- 
ragement  were  given  to  Suits  at  Law,  thofe  places  would  in  time  become 
Nurferies  for  Attorneys  and  Solicitors,  which  were  to  pervert  the  main 
Defign  of  their  Foundation.  Walter  de  Merton,  the  firft  Founder  of  a 
College  in  Oxford,  with  Revenues  to  fupport  it,  took  fuch  care  about 
this,  that  he  puts  the  Cafe  in  his  Statutes,  of  a  Wardens  being  depri- 
ved, and  knowing  that  Men  are  apt  to  complain  when  they  fuffer,  and 
to  endeavour  one  way  or  other  to  be  reftored,  (which  caufes  great 
Heats  and  Animofities  among  the  contending  Parties)  therefore  to  pre- 
vent thefe  mifchievous  Confequences,  he  puts  in  a  Chapter  onpurpofe, 
c.  41.  in  his  Statutes,  that  if  fuch  a  Cafe  happen'd,  Nulla  A^io,  nul- 
lum Jurif  Remediunt  Canonici  vel  Civilis  haheat,  &c.  This  you  may  fay, 
is  a  very  hard  Cafe  5  may  not  a  Man  fee  himfelf  righted  by  proper  Re- 
medies at  Law  ? 

But  this  wife  Founder  look'd  on  the  Confequence  as  to  the  Society, 
more  than  the  perfonal  Injury  of  him  that  fuffer'd  5  and  he  preferred 
the  Peace  of  his  College,  before  the  reftoring  a  particular  Perfon  to 
his  Place.  And  he  thought  the  Injury  to  the  College  by  Law-fuitswould 
be  far  greater,  and  fitter  to  be  confider'd  by  him,  than  the  Injury  and 
Mifchief  which  one  Man  fuffer'd. 

T  1 1 1 1  z  And 


88p  -  The  Cafe  of  h  xeter  College. 

An4  fa  in  the  Statutes  of  fixc/er  College  it  is  exprefly  mention'd,  that 
if  the  Reftor  be  depriv'd  by  the  Commiffary,  he  may  appeal  to  theBi- 
ftiop  as  Vifitor,  But  if  he  be  depriv'd  by  the  Vifitor  hirafelf,  then  no 
fartl^er  Appeal  is  allovv'd,  nor  any  Remedies,  Juris  aut  FaSi. 

If  the  Statutes  did  allow  of  Defeftfioaes  legitim£,  as  thofe  of  Magda- 
len College  do,  c.  59.  no  doubt  they  may  make  ufe  of  theni,  within 
thofe  bounds  which  the  Statutes  allow  :  But  here  it  is  otherwife  5  for 
the  Perfons  depriv'd  are  bound  to  acquiefce  in  the  Sentence  pafled  up- 
on them  5  and  that  with  a  regard  to  the  good  of  the  College  more  than 
to  their  own. 

But  it  hath  been  faid  with  great  appearance  of  Reafon,  That  what- 
ever the  Intentions  and  Defign  of  thefe  Founders  of  Colleges  might  be, 
yet  the  Law  of  the  Land  is  to  fet  all  things  right  which  are  amifs;  and 
if  f uch  things  do  come  before  the  King's  Judges,  they  are  to  do  Right 
in  all  Cafes;  and  for  this  Particular  of  Deprivation,  we  have  been 
tpld  of  a  notable  Precedent  in  Dr.  Coveae/s  Cafe  in  D/er,  often  men- 
tioned by  my  Lord  Coke,  who  was  depriv'd  of  the  Prefidentlbip  of 
Magdalen  College  by  the  Vifitor,  and  he  made  his  Appeal,  and  the 
Caufe  was  referred  to  two  Judges,  who  declar'd  tfaat  he  had  no  Reme- 
dy by  an  Appeal  in  Chancery,  but  Deprivation  being  a  Temporal  thing, 
he  might  have  an  Affize  or  Suit  at  Common  Law.  This  is  the  Force 
of  all  that  has  been  urged  from  this  Precedent ;  To  which  I  rauft  beg 
leave  to  give  a  full  Anfwer. 

I  cannot  deny  that  my  Lot6.Cohe  feveral  times  refers  to  it,  and  feems 
to  infinuate  it  as  a  Foundation  that  the  Courts  might  proceed  upon  ^ 
but  he  never  mentions  one  Affize  that  was  brought  upon  this  Ground. 
But  he  had  that  Property  of  a  good  Judge,  ampUare  JurifdiHioHem ;  and 
every  one  knows  that  in  his  time,  there  were  great  Endeavours  ufed  to 
T I R.  enlarge  the  Jurifdidion  of  the  Courts  in  Weflmwder-Hall ;  and  Sir  Jams 
^l^'  g'^j  Baggs  his  Cafe  is  an  evident  Proof  of  it,  which  fome  great  Lawyers  have 
denied  to  be  Law.  But  how  come  Dr.  Covene/s  Cafe  to  be  called  a  Pre- 
cedent, and  fo  much  infifted  on  as  a  Precedent  in  this  Cafe  >  Whereas 
in  Truth  it  is  no  Precedent  at  all  relating  to  it.  All  that  it  can  be  a  Pre- 
cedent for,  is  only  that  in  matters  of  Deprivation  there  lies  no  Appeal 
in  Chancery  5  but  what  follows  upon  it,  is  nothing  but  an  Inference 
made  by  the  Judges,  ex  hoc  fequitur. 

Can  that  make  a  Precedent?  What  if  they  fliould  be  miftaken  in  their 
deduftion  ?  Can  a  falfe  Confequence  make  a  true  Precedent?  I  had 
thought  a  Precedent  in  Law  had  been  grounded  upon  a  Judicial  Sentence, 
and  a  fullhearingof  a  Caufe.  But  here  is  nothing  like  it,and  yet  this  muft 
p^fs  for  a  Precedent  as  to  the  prefent  Cafe,which  (hews  a  very  great  want 
o^  them.  But  however  two  Judges  declared  their  Opinion,  that  Depri- 
vation was  a  Temporal  thing,  and  that  an  Affize  did  lie  at  Common  Law 
in  fuch  a  Cafe. 

Their  Opinion  was,  That  Deprivation  was  a  Temporal  thing  :  This 
with  Submiffion  is  a  very  crude  and  obfcure  way  of  expreffing  a  thing, 
fo  as  to  ground  fuch  an  Inference  upon  it.  For  a  Temporal  thing  may 
either  mean  fuch  a  thing  as  is  not  under  the  Spiritual  Jurifdidion,  fo  as 
an  Appeal  doth  lie  according  to  the  Statutes  24  ^  25  H,  8.  and  this 
was  all  the  meaning  of  it,  as  to  Dr.  Coveneys  Cafe.  Or  a  Temporal 
thing  may  imply  fuch  a  matter  as  properly  belongs  to  the  Temporal 
Courts,  which  by  no  means  follows  from  the  former  5  for  if  this  In- 
ference be  allow'd,  then  ex  hoc  fequitur  will  hold  as  to  all  Sentences  in 

the 


7 he  Cafe  of  Exeter  College..  881 


the  Courts  of  Chancery  and  Admiralty,  as  well  as  to  this  Cafe  of  De- 
privation. For  no  doubt  they  are  about  Temporal  things  5  and  fo  this 
will  prove  an  admirable  Precedent  for  enlarging  Jurifdiftion. 

But  did  Deprivation  begin  to  be  a  Temporal  thing  at  that  time  >  Was 
it  not  as  much  fo  before  and  after  as  it  was  then  >  How  came  this  Infe- 
rence not  to  be  made,  and  no  Ailizes  brought  in  fuch  Cafes  ?  Was  there 
never  fuch  an  Occalion  before  ?  That  cannot  be  pretended.  For  A.  D. 
1379.  upon  a  Quarrel  about  the  Provoftftiip  of  keen's  College  in  Ox- 
fordy  the  Archbifhop  of  Tork  being  Vifitor,  deprived  the  Provoft  and 
three  Fellows.  Was  not  this  a  Temporal  thing  >  And  they  were  very 
unquiet  Men  who  were  depriv'd,  but  they  brought  no  Affize.  But  the 
King  as  Supreme  Founder,  fent  a  Coramiffion  to  examine  the  matter, 
and  upon  hearing,  the  Provoft  ftood  deprived,  and  a  new  one  confir- 
med. But  to  come  nearer  our  own  Times,  A.  D.  1 562.  4  EUz.  the 
Archbiftiop  ofCauterbury  as  Vifitor  proceeded  againft  Hawles,  and  other 
Fellows  o\  Merton  College,  for  oppofing  the  Admifljon  of  a  Warden, 
nominated  by  the  Archbilhop  as  Patron  upon  a  Devolution  5  and  he 
proceeded  as  Vifitor  to  their  Deprivation.  Was  not  this  a  Temporal 
thing?  yet  no  Aflize  fo  much  asthought  upon  at  that  Time. 

A.  D.  1 568.  The  Bifhop  of  Winchefter  being  Vifitor  of  Corpus  Chrifti 
College,  deprived  thofe  Fellows  who  oppofed  the  Admiflion  of  Cole, 
nominated  by  the  Queen,  after  the  Election  of  Harrifon,  which  was 
faid  not  to  be  Statutable.  Now  both  thefe  Cafes  had  Difficulties  in 
them,  and  were  Temporal  things  as  much  as  Dr.  Coveneys,  yet  we  read 
of  no  Afljze  brought,  even  foon  after  this  Inference  of  the  two  Judges, 
which  (hews,  that  there  was  little  regard  had  to  it.  \^  EUz.  happen'd  a 
remarkable  Cafe  about  the  Headfhip  oi LincolnCoIIege '^  one  Will.Wilfon 
pretended  to  be  chofen  by  the  Society,  and  had  the  College  Seal  for  his 
Eledion,  with  which  he  goes  to  the  Bifhop  of  Lincoln  to  be  confirmed. 
The  Biihop  refufes,  he  appeals  to  the  Arches  5  and  the  Archbiftiop  of 
Canterbury  appoints  a  Commifljon  to  examine  and  judge  this  matter  5 
and  then  the  llniverfity  complained  to  the  Queen  of  the  Breach  of  their 
ancient  Privileges  :  Upon  which  the  Queen  grants  a  Coramiffion  ex 
plenitudine  Voteflatis  »oftr<e  (are  the  very  Words)  to  fome  Biftiops, 
Judges,  and  Civilians,  to  fummon  the  Parties  before  them,  and  to  de- 
termine the  Caufe,  without  any  farther  Appeal.  Which  Commiflion 
is  ftill  extant  in  the  Rolls,  and  bears  date  23  Apr.  19  EUz,.  Here  we 
have  no  Affize  or  Suit  of  Law  once  thought  of,  altho  it  had  been  as 
proper  then  as  any  time  afterwards. 

But  how  hath  this  Matter  ftood  fince,  and  how  came  fuch  Caufes  to 
he  brought  into  Wejintinjier-Hall  ^  T  will  give  your  Lordfhips  the  true 
Account  of  it  as  far  as  I  can  trace  it. 

Soon  after  his  late  Majefty's  Reftauration,  13  Car.  11.  one  Dr.  fVith- 
rington.  Fellow  of  Chriji'3  College  in  Cambridge,  was  deprived  of  his 
Fellowftiip  by  the  Matter  and  Fellows,  he  appealed  to  the  King's  Bench, 
and  craved  a  Mandamus  to  be  reftored. 

In  the  Arguments  in  that  Caufe,  one  of  the  learned  Judges  of  that  Kebi.i.i. 
Court  affirmed.  That  the  firft  Precedent  of  that  kind  was  not  above  10 
Years  before  5  and  that  was  the  Cafe  of  one  Hern,  who  obtained  a 
Mandamus  to  reftore  him  to  a  Place  he  was  deprived  of  in  the  llniver- 
fity, when  Olyn  was  Chief  Juftice.  And  the  Reafon  given  was,  be- 
caufe  there  was  then  no  fpecial  Vifitor,  for  the  Archbilhop  of  Canter' 
bury  was  local  Vifitor.    Can  this  Precedent  hold,  when  there  is  a  local 


882  The  Cafe  of  Exeter  College, 


'  Vifitor  to  whom  it  belongs  to  give  Judgment  in  fucli  Cafes  ?  after  this 
styles  A.  D.  1655.  one  Craford  made  Application  to  the  Kings-Bench^  to  be  re* 
'*''^'  ftored  to  the  Place  of  School-Mafter  in  Cambridge,  of  which  he  was 
deprived  by  the  proper  Vifitors,  the  Mafter  and  Fellows  of  GonviUe 
and  Gaius-GoUege.  Upon  feveral  Arguments  it  was  denied,  and  it  was 
Refolved,  that  no  Writ  of  Reftitution  (hould  be  granted,  but  the  mat- 
ter was  referr'd  to  the  Chancellor,  &c. 

So  the  Court  of  Kings-Bench  in  Dr.  Witherington's  Cafe,  declared, 
he  could  have  no  Reftitution  from  thence,  becaufe  his  Appeal  lay  to 
siderfin.   the  proper  Vifitor  who  was  FideiCommiJ[ariu&,  i.e.  the  Law  truftedhim 
71.  Kebi.  with  the  difcharge  of  his  Duty. 

*^^*  14.  Car.  II.  Dr.  Patrick  was  chofen  Mafter  of  ^teens-College  by  a 

Majority  of  Fellows  5  but  another  was  admitted,  upon  which  he  ap- 
pealed to  the  Kings-Bench,  but  fome  of  the  Judges  faid  pofitively,  that 
no  Writ  ought  to  have  been  ever  granted  upon  differences  in  Colleges, 
K.  1. 289,  and  that  the  Appeal  lay  to  the  local  Vifitor  and  not  to  the  Kings-Bench. 
It  was  then  urged,  that  it  was  a  matter  of  Freehold,  and  that  it  was  no 
Spiritual  Corporation,  but  the  declaring  of  a  Mafter  was  a  Temporal 
thing.  Notwithftanding,  the  Chief  Juftice  declared,  that  it  would 
fhake  the  whole  Government  of  Colleges,  to  give  Remedy  in  that 
Court. 
Mod.  R.  ^^'  ^^^'  ^^'  °"^  Daniel  Jppleford,  was  deprived  by  the  local  Vifitor 
80,  of  his  Place  in  New-College -^  he  brings  the  matter  to  the  Kings-Bench, 
where  my  Lord  Chief  Juftice  Hales  then  fat  5  the  Cafe  was  argued  by 
learned  Council  on  both  fides.  But  my  Lord  Chief  juftice  faid,  if  there 
be  a  Jurifdiftion  in  the  Vifitor,  and  he  hath  determined  the  matter, 
how  will  ye  get  over  that  fentence?  And  at  this  Rate,  faith  be,  we 
may  examine  all  Sufpenfions  and  Deprivations,  and  fo  where  will  there 
be  an  end?  Which  words  have  a  great  deal  of  Weight  in  them,  for 
they  fliew  where  the  Jurifdidion  lies,  and  what  Confufion  and  Difor- 
der  would  follow  the  altering  the  fettled  Courfe  of  Jurifdiftions.  It  is 
a  great  Argument  to  me,  that  the  Law  was  far  from  being  clear  in  this 
matter,  that  the  learned  Judges  were  fo  much  divided  in  their  Opinions, 
when  thofe  Cafes  were  brought  before  them,  foon  after  the  Reftaurati- 
on  they- could  produce  no  Precedents  about  10  years  ftanding,  one 
Judge  remembred  a  Controverfie  about  a  Provoftftiip  of  Oriel  5  but  then 
there  was  no  Appeal  thought  of  to  the  Kings- Bench -^  but  theQueftion 
was,  whether  it  lay  to  the  local  Vifitor,  or  to  the  Archbiftiop,  and  it 
Refolved  for  the  Vifitor,  in  Dr.  Lewis  s  Cafe.  But  there  had  been  a 
a  Precedent,  when  there  were  no  Vifitors,  and  therefore  fome  were  for 
going  upon  that  Precedent;  although  there  were  Vifitors,  for  one 
Precedent,  is  a  very  tempting  thing  in  Cafe  of  Jurifdidion,  where  there 
is  not  a  mind  that  values  Right  more  than  Power.  But  fome  fuch  there 
were  among  the  Judges  of  that  time,  who  refufed  to  concurr  in  fuch 
Proceedings  that  had  no  Warrant  from  ancient  Pradice,  and  tended  to 
fo  apparent  a  Mifchief  in  the  Government  of  Colleges :  for  all  petty 
Controverfies  among  them  muft  then  be  brought  to  Wejimin^er-Hall  : 
.Which  might  bring  fome  Advantage  to  the  Lawyers,  but  certainly  none 
to  the  Univerfities. 

It  is  worth  our  while  now  to  confider  on  what  Grounds  thofe  went, 
who  would  have  fuch  Caufes  brought  to  the  Cognifance  of  the  Court 
of  Sings-Bench,  and  the  weaknefs  of  them  will  ftiew  what  little  Rea- 
fon  they  had  for  this  new  Praftice.    Some  would  go  fo  far  back  as  to 

found 


The  Cafe  of  Exeter  College. 


found  it  upon  Magna  Qjurta,  c.  29.  That  no  man  (hall  be  diffeifed  of 
his  Freehold,  but  by  his  Peers.  But  they  forget  that  it  is  added,  velper 
Legem  terr£,  which  words  eftabli(h other  legal  Proceedings,  which  have 
been  receiv'd  as  part  of  the  Law  of  the  Land,  for  other  wife  not  only 
all  the  Proceedings  of  the  Ecclefiaftical  Courts  muft  be  illegal  5  but  in 
the  Court  of  Admiralty  and  Chancery,  which  I  fuppofe  was  not  in- 
tended by  them.  y 

Others  faid,  that  if  Colleges  were  Ecclefiaftical  Corporations,  an  Ap- 
peal would  lie  to  the  Chancery,  as  from  other  Ecclefiaftical  Courts,  but 
being  lay  Corporations,  they  are  under  the  Cognifance  of  the  King's- 
Bench  5  which  according  to  Sir  James  Baggss  Cafe  is  to  Judge  of  all  Op- 
preffions  and  Injuries  in  Corporations.  But  with  fubmiffion,  I  think  the 
Refolution  of  this  cafe  doth  not  depend  upon  the  Nature  of  the  Corpo- 
rations, whether  they  be  Lay,  or  Ecclefiaftical,  orMixt;  bnt  upon  the 
ancient  Right  of  Jurifdiftion  over  them.  There  is  no  Queftion  but 
Colleges  as  well  as  other  Schools  of  Learning  were  generally  efteemed 
as  parts  of  the  Ecclefiaftical  Body.  For  they  were  fet  up  in  thefe  We- 
ftern  Parts  by  the  Biftiops  in  their  feveral  Churches,  as  appears  by  ma-  a  capic. 
ny  Decrees  of  Councils  to  that  purpofe  about  the  time  of  Charles  thef"'^^^^^ 
Great,  and  a  little  after.    It  is  generally  thought,  and  not  without  1!  2.  ci  5. ' 


Ground,  that  Jlcninus  who  was  bred  up  here  in  Learning  under  Egbert  ^°^'^'g, 
Archbifliop  of  Tork  (  in  fuch  a  kind  of  College  for  Learning  under  him,  c.V  a-''' 
which  he  mentions  in  his  Epiftles  and  the  Library  he  founded  there  )  qu'fgr^"' 


did  firft  put  Charles  the  Great  upon  this  Noble  Defign  of  Reftoring^^j.pjrif. 
Learning,  and  it  had  confiderable  fuccefs  for  fome  time.    But  when  6.  i,  3.  c. 
tbofe  Schools  began  to  fail  for  want  of  Incouragement,  fotoe  of  the  g^'/c  ^a 
greater  Monafteries  undertook  to  fet  them  up,  which  brought  great  Re-  conc.a- 
putation  to  them  abroad.    But  here  in  England,  Incouragement  had  p"<i  la- 
teen given  by  fome  of  the  Saxon  Kings  for  the  Scholars  to  Unite  toge-  c°[o.  car. 
tber,  efpecially  in  two  ancient  Cities,  which  lay  moft  convenient  forCaiv.Cap. 
fuch  a  purpofe,  and  there,  by  degrees  their  Numbers  fo  much  increa-  p  ^.^^1^°* 
fed,  that  they  became  confiderable  Bodies.    For  we  are  told,  that  at  214. 
one  time,  there  were  300  Halls  and  Inns  for  the  abode  of  Scholars  in  ?{g""' 
Oxford.     Such  Bodies  of  Men  of  Parts  and  Aftivity  were  not  to  be  let  1.  "c°  43. 
alone  without  due  care  of  them,  as  to  Difcipline  and  Jurifdiftion.        Hirt.  Unu 
They  had  long  fince  great  Privileges  given  them  by  our  Kings,  as  to  l"^j°^' 
Caufes  arifing  among  themfelves  (  excepting  Murder,  Felony  and  Free-  Hift.  Univ. 
hold  5  not  fuch  a  kind  of  Freehold  as  depends  upon  the  Founders  Will,°^''°°' ^^' 
but  the  Freeholds  of  the  Halls  or  Inns  or  PoiTeffions  of  the  Colleges  ) 
but  for  all  other  Caufes,  they  were  to  be  under  no  Civil  Jurifdiftion, 
but  what  was  lodged  in  the  Officers  belonging  to  their  own  Body.    I 
need  not  to  recite  the  particular  Charters  of  //.  5.  Ed.  I.  &c.  fince  the 
Commiffion  1 9  EUz.  clears  the  whole  Matter.  For  therein  it  is  not  only 
faid  that  the  Univerfity  of  Oxford  had  time  out  of  mind  large  Privileges, 
Exemptions  and  Immunities,  granted  by  Kings,  and  confirmed  Parlia- 
ments i  but  this  particularly,  that  the  final  Decifion  of  all  Caufes  ari- 
fing among  themfelves  were  to  be  determin'd  in  their  own  Body.     And 
which  is  very  obfervable,  this  Recital  is  made  upon  occafion  of  a  Com- 
plaint concerning  the  Title  to  a  Headfliip  over  a  College.    So  that,  at 
that  time,  it  was  believed,  long  after  Dr.  Covenejl  Cafe,  that  not  Relief 
was  to  be  had  in  fuch  Cafes  by  an  Afljze  at  Law  ;  and  that  the  Univer- 
fity had  been  time  out  of  Memory,  in  quiet  and  peaceable  Poffefllon  of 
thefe  Privileges,    by  virtue  of  which,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Univer-r 

fity 


884  '^^^  ^^-/^  ^f  Exeter  Colltge, 

fity  had  Ecclefiaftical  Jurifdiftion  over  the  Members  of  that  Body,  and 
could  grant  a  Writ  De  excommunicato  capiendo^  ( for  the  Chancellor 
^vas  an  Ecclefiaftical  Perfon  till  Sir  John  Mafon's  time)  and  fince  that  it 
became  an  Honourary  place  for  Perfons  of  great  ^alhy.  The  Vice- 
Chancellor  Afts  as  his  Commiffary.  And  in  this  Refpeft,  the  Univer- 
fity  Jurifdiftion  is  a  Branch  of  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law,  and  it  is  obferva- 
ble,  that  in  the  ancient  Writs  fent  to  the  Univerfity,  they  are  all  cal- 
led the  Clerks  of  our  Univeruty,  5JS/iz,.  3.  I'^Ed.s,.  i$Ed.^.  12  R, 
waifingh.  2.  and  fo  in  the  time  of  H.  7.  iValfiugham  mentioning  the  Difference 
ch.  69.  between  the  Univerfity  and  Townfinen,  calls  it  inter  Clerkos  &  Laicos. 
For  the  general  Rule  was,  that  a  Corporation  took  its  Denomination 
from  the  greater  Number,  and  therefore  the  Univerfities  were  account- 
ed part  of  the  Ecclefiaftical  Body ;  although  a  confiderable  Number  of 
the  Members  were  not  Ecclefiaftical  Perfons.  But  as  to  particular 
Colleges,  we  muft  obferve  that  they  are  included  in  the  Gene- 
ral Privileges  and  are  to  enjoy  the  Benefit  of  them  according  to 
their  own  Statutes.  For  our  fever  al  Kings  having  given  the  Foun- 
ders a  Power  to  make  Statutes  for  their  own  Societies,  and  to  ap- 
point Vifitors  with  fuch  Powers  as  they  thought  fit,  they  enjoy  their 
Privileges  under  the  fame  Grants  and  Prefcriptions,  which  the  Univer- 
fity itfelf  doth.  And  thefe  Vifitors  are  the  Ordinaries  of  the  feveral 
Col  leges  over  which  they  are  appointed,  and  are  to  Exercife  their  Jurif- 
diftion  according  to  the  Limitations  of  the  feveral  Statutes.  And  if  they 
tranfgrefs  their  Bounds,  I  do  not  fee  how  they  can  be  brought  into 
Wedminfler-Hall.  For  it  is  agreed,  that  where  there  is  an  ordinary  Ju- 
rifdiftion,  there  lies  no  Appeal  to  the  Courts  of  Common  Law ;  elfeall 
Ecclefiaftical  Cenfures  might  be  there  Examined  over  again.  For  this 
/re»»'sCafe  is  plain,  and  Huntley  sCzCe,  or  Allen  and  Name's  Cafe,  and 
Soils.  before  them  Cawdrie's  Cafe,  which  it  is  not  fo  fitting  for  me  in  this  place 
"9-  to  recite  as  to  refer  to  them.  And  no  pretence  of  collateral  Aftions  can 
be  afufficient  plea  for  examining  what  belongs  to  another  Jurifdidion. 
For  then  the  Right  of  peculiar  Jurifdiftion  fignifies  nothing,  if  under  a- 
nother  colour  the  fame  thing  may  be  done  as  if  there  had  been  no  fuch 
Jurifdiftion  at  all. 

The  ftiort  of  it  is,  that  by  Charters  and  Privileges  and  length  of  Time, 
thejurifdiftionsof  the  feveral  Courts  are  fettled  ;  fo  that  now,  it  would 
not  bethought  legal  for  the  Common-pleas  to  try  criminal  Matters,  or 
the  Chancery  Matters  oi  Law  5  but  every  Court  hath  a  limited  Power 
and  Jurifdiftion. 

The  Kings  Bench  is  the  Supreme  Court ;  but  it  is  not  fo  unlimited  a 
Court  as  the  ancientC«m  Regis  was  before  the  time  of  £.  i.  That  was 
indeed  a  Sovereign  Court,  wherein  the  King  himfelf  was  prefent  and  all 
his  great  Lords,  and  they  had  the  Right  of  Appeal  in  all  Great  Caufes, 
and  there  the  Capital,   General,   and  Perpetual  Juftices  attended  the 
King  and  gave  Judgment,  as  Bra&on  fpeaks.     And  the  Remainder  of 
Eraft  /.J.  this,  is  in  the  Supreme  Judicature  of  this  Noble  Houfe.    Which  is  not 
^^^'        derived  from  any  later  precedents  of  Appeals,  as  fome  have  weakly  ima- 
gined,   but  from  the  Fundamental  Conftitution  of  this  Government, 
which  always  had  a  Suj>reme  Court  of  Appeal  5   which  as  the  Laws  of 
Edward  the  Confeflbr  fay,  was  in  the  King  and  his  Nobles.  But  for  the 
Court  of  King's  Bench  ;    altho  its  Dignity  and  Authority  be  great  as  to 
Breaches  of  the  Peace,  correfting  the  Errorsof  other  Courts,  &c.  (and 
I  have  not  the  leaft  defign  to  leffen  the  juft  Honour  and  Privileges  which 
•  be- 


The  Cafe  of  Exeter  College.  885 


belong  to  it  )  yet  it  hath  bat  a  limited  Power,  and  cannot  extend  its 
Jurifdiftion  as  far  as  it  pleafes,  and  break  in  upon  other  Jurifdidions 
which  are  equally  derived  from  the  Crown,  and  fettled  by  the  ancient 
Law  and  Cuftom  of  EngUnd. 

But  this  is  not  all,  for  the  peculiar  Jurifdidion  of  Univerfities  hath 
the  general  Confent  of  the  moft  Civilized  Nations,  ever  fince  Univer- 
fities have  been  fet  up  in  them,  as  appears  by  the  famous  Conftitution 
to  that  piupok  oi  Frederhk  L  A.  D.  1158.  by  which  all  DiflFerences  a- 
mong  the  Scholars  were  to  be  decided,  either  by  their  own  proper  Offi- 
cer, or  by  the  Bi(hop  of  the  place.  Which  Conftitution  hath  not  only 
been  generally  received,  but  fo  underftood,  as  to  exempt  them  from  the 
Jurifdiftion  of  Temporal  Courts,  as  appears  by  ^Baldus,  f  Arwr/wr,  *  Said.  ia 
il  Sciph  Gentilff,    f  Rebuffut  and  Others.    And  Rebttffas  gives  the  true  c."f  °"' 


4- 


Reafon,  Ne  ajindmavocentur  propter  lites  alibi  motM.    In  the  Univerfl-  Tic  13.    , 
ty  of  Paris  he  faith,    That  he  was  looked  upon  as  a  Movjier,    rvho being  a\^'^^''^- 
Member  of  the  t)niverfty  appealed  to  other  Courts  ^  and  it  was  then  thought  \\  Scipio 
Perjury  in  any  fuch  to  do  fo,  efpecially  where  Appeals  are  forbidden  j  as  they  ^^"h'*^ 
are  by  the  Statutes  of  Exeter  College.  {"",  c.ti. 

A  learned  *  German  Lawyer  hath  brought  no  fewer  than  42  good  Au- 1  Rebuff. 
thorities  in  Law,  to  prove  thBlVniverfties  have  a  peculiar  and  diftinft  wf5J.^j,o,_ 
Jurifdiftion  within  themfelves,   and  that  other  Judges  have  nothing  to  /.i  57,1 58. 
do  with  their  judicial  Sentences.  man°Refp. 

How  then  come  our  Univerfities  and  Colleges  to  be  in  a  worfe  condi-  Acad.  i. 
tion  than  any  abroad  ^  when  there  are  not  greater  Privileges  given  to 
any,  nor  enjoyed  for  a  longer  time  than  have  been  by  ours  ?  Shall  the 
Noble  Endowments  of  our  Colleges,  which  are  the  Honour  of  our  Na- 
tion, the  Nurferies  of  our  Church,  the  Envy  of  Foreigners,  and  the  Eye- 
fore  of  none  but  fuch  as  hate  Learning  ^and  ingenuous  Education,  make  • 
them  become  an  eafier  Prey  to  fuch  unquiet  Spirits,  as  by  Law-fuits  and 
unftatutable  Appeals,  would  overthrow  that-Pomr  which  preferves 
them  in  a  ftate  of  Peace  and  Tranquility,  without  which  they  aan  ne- 
ver attain  the  end  of  their  InjUtution. 

If  then  your  LordQiips  would  confult  (as  I  know  you  will)  the  good 
ofthofe  Societies,  which  have  an  influence  on  the  whole  Kingdom  5  if 
you  would  promote  Learning,  and  Vertue,  and  Unity  among  them, 
there  muft  be  a  timely  check  given  to  thefe  tedious,  expenfiveand  trou- 
blefome  Suits  at  Law,  which  difquiet  the  Thoughts,  eat  out  the  Time, 
exhauft  the  Purfes  of  all  that  are  concerned  in  them,  and  lay  the  Foun- 
dation in  Colleges  of  perpetual  Feuds  and  Animofities.  And  therefore 
although  it  be  poffible  for  a  Vifitor  to  go  beyond  his  Bounds,  (for  none 
are  infallible  )  yet  if  fuch  a  Cafe  be  put,  it  is  better  that  one  Perfon  fuf- 
fer,  than  that  the  Difcipline,  Government,  and  Peace  of  the  College 
be  in  danger  of  being  utterly  dejiroy'd.  For  one  frorvard  contentious  Man 
going  to  Law  with  the  College,  upon  a  Cenfure  inflifted  upon  him,  and 
being  incouraged  fo  to  do,  may  put  the  College  into  fuch  Heats  and 
Animofities,  as  are  of  far  worfe  Confequence  than  his  continuing  to  fuf- 
fer  linder  a  Sentence  of  Deprivation.  And  therefore  I  humbly  move 
that  the  Judgement  of  the  Kings  Bench  may  be  Reverfed. 


U  u  u  u  u  The 


88^ 

"IhQC9,k of  Comme?idams in  theHoufe  oi Lards, 

A.  D.  i6^]. 

THere  are  Three  Points  in  the  prefentCrf/e  before  us. 
1.  The  King's  Prerogative  in  Right  of  Promotion. 
IL  The  Power  of  granting  a  Commendata. 

IIL  The  Aft  of  Parliament  made  about  St.  James's  Church. 

I.  As  to  the  King's  Prerogative  \  two  things  are  to  be  enquired  into. 

I.  ThePraftice.     2.  The  Reafon  of  it. 

I .  The  Praftice.     2.  Advantages  in  Proof  of  a  Pradice. 

I.  If  owned  upon  folemn  Trial.     2;  If  the  fame  Judgment  hath 
continued  afterwards. 

I.  Upon  folemn  Trial,  when  the  matter  hath  been  debated.  As  in 
Wright's  Cafe  37  Eliz.  Moor,  iol  399.  where  it  is  faid.  That  it  was  ad- 
judged by  many  Precedentt  [hewed  in  Court,  that  the  Siueen  was  to  have 
the  Right  of  Prefeatation  upon  Promotion,  and  not  the  Patron.  Here  was 
9  full  view  of  Books  and  Precedents  in  Court  ;.and  upon  it  a  folemn 
judgment  given.  What  Books  ?  Not  the  Tear-Books  5  where  this  Point 
is  rarely  mention  d,  and  not  judicially  determin'd:  But  the  proper  Books 
are  the  Regijiers  of  the  feveral  Bifhops,  where  the  Inftttutions  are  re- 
corded, and  the  Avoidances,  whereby  it  would  be  feen  who  prefented 
upon  Promotion.  And  out  of  thefe  were  the  Precedents  taken  by  Noy, 
who  produced,  /igS.R.  no  fewer  than  18  Precedents  within  the  com- 
pafs  of  40  Years,  from  21  Eliz.  to  14  Jac.  i.  where  the  Prerogative 
had  obtained  by  determination  of  Commendams  retinere  5  the  laft  is  of 
.  Dr.  Donne  to  the  Reftory  of  Sevennock  in  Kent,  by  Promotion  of  Dr. 
Mllburn  to  St.  David's,  who  held  it  in  Commendam  retinere  for  a  Year. 
And  from  fuch  Books  the  Praftice  is  to  be  gather'd.  Indeed  if  a  Di- 
fpute  j,n  Law  happen'd,  and  that  brought  into  PVeliminfier-Hall,  then 
the  Tear-Books  are  to  be  fearched  ;  but  where  is  there  any  judicial  Opi- 
nion in  |hem  againft  the  King's  Prerogative  .<?  It  is  not  enough  to  bring 
inftances  where  the  King  did  not  prefent,  for  the  King  might  let  the 
Patron  prefent  on  particular  Reafons  5  but  the  true  point  is,  where  the 
Patron  challenged  the  Right  upon  Promotion,  and  the  Judges  gave  for 
the  Patron  againft  the  King.  No  one  Inftance  of  this  kind  is  produced, 
but  feveral  againft  it,  fince  the  time  of  Reformation,  and  thofe  ground- 
er, i:/?^  ed  on  Precedents  before.  In  Wentvporth  and  Wright's  Cafe,  99  Eliz. 
^27-  the  Point  was  folemnly  debated  in  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  ^  Went- 
vporth  was  Patron,  Wright  Incumbent  by  the  Queen's  Title  upon  Davis's 
being  made  Biftiop  of  St.  Jfaph.  There  it  was  alledged  by  the  Queen's 
Council,  that  it  was  the  common  Experience  orVtzQdcQ  then  for  the  ^eea 
to  prefent  upon  Promotion,  and  that  they  had  many  Precedents  of  it,  Cr." 
Ei.  527.  And  on  the  other  fids,  the  main  thing  infifted  upon  was  the 
Silence  of  the  old  Books ;  of  which  an  Account  is  to  be  given. 

In  the  O.\ieoi  Armiger^nA  FI oil  and,  (Cr.  £//zi.  39.  f.  542,  601.)  the 
fame  matter  was  debated.  Holland  was  prefented  by  the  Queen, upon 
the  Failing  of  a  Commendam  granted  to  tir.May,  made  Bilhop  of  Car- 
lifle-^  and  then  my  Lord  C(?^'s  faid  to  the  Judges,  lean  fnw  you  the  Re- 
folntion  of  all  the  JufUces,  that  the  ^leen  in  this  cafe  JhalJ prefent.  And 
Chief  Juftice  Popham  faid.  So  is  ihexonnnon  Experience  at  this  Day, 

In 


Cafe  of  Commendams.  887 

In  the  Cafe  o^BaJfet  and  Gee,  (Cr.  Eliz:  42,  790.)  the  Incumbent  her 
ing  made  a  Bifhop  in  Ireland,  the  Judges  declared,  T^at  in  cafe  of  fnch 
an  avoidanee  the  ^een  Jhould  have  it  by  her  Prerogative  5  but  if  fhe  loft 
her  Turn  (he  could  hot  have  it  afterwards. 

But  it  may  be  objefted.  That  ali  the  Judges  have  not  been  fince  of  this 
Opinion :  For  in  the  Cafe  of  Wentworth  and  Wnght,  upon  another  Ar-: 
gument,  the  Judges  were  not  fatisfied,  as  appears  by  Owen,  R.  144.  and 
fo  Juftice  Button  upon  another  Cafe  in  Winch.  9  5. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  that  thefe  Judges  did  vary  in  their  Opinions  5 
but  we  muft  confider  that  thefe  were  Doubts  rather  than  Judgments, 
and  no  fuch  Doubts  ought  to  be  hearken'd  to  againft  the  general  Senfe 
and  Opinion  of  others,  even  fince  their  Time.  Rolls  confefies.  That 
the  Law  ts  taken  to  be  for  the  derogative,  2  Abridg.  349.  Vaughan,  who 
never  followed  the  common  Opinion  of  Judges  againft  his  own  Reafon, 
iaith,  /  19.  That  he  takes  it  for  granted,  that  upon  an  avoidance  by  PromO' 
tion,  the  King  and  not  the  Patron  is  to  prefent. 

But  the  beft  way  to  ani"wer  the  Doubts  gn  the  other  fide,  is  to  exa- 
mine the  Grounds  of  them  ;  and  thofe  are  two. 

1.  The  Silence  of  the  Year- Books. 

2.  The  want  of  fufficient  Reafon  for  the  Pradice. 

I.  As  to  the  Tear- Books -J  ]uMcq  Button  in  Winch.  ^'^.  faith.  That  for 
any  thing  he  can  fee  in  their  Books,  the  King  had  not  any  Title  to  prefent^ 
except  that  he  himfelf  wm  Patron.     And  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  there 
are  Cafes  in  the  Books  where  the  King  prefented  by  the  Temporalties  be- 
ing in  his  hands.    Fol  5.  Abr.  ^larelmpedit.  n.  35.  4  Inft.  356.  where 
there  is  a  particular  Cafe  on  which  Coke  relies  much,  becaufe  it  feems 
to  come  home  to  the  point  5  for  it  is  there  faid  that  when  the  Temporal- 
ties  of  the  Biftiop  of  Exeter  were  in  the  King's  hands,  and  the  Arch- 
deaconry of  Cornwall  became  void  by  the  Archdeacon's  Promotion  to 
Dublin,  the  King  prefented  by  virtue  of  the  Temporalties,  and  not  by 
Prerogative,  faith  Coke:,   to  which  purpofe  he  cites  many  Authorities 
which  I  fee  no  reafon  to  queftion.     But  on  the  other  fide.  Brook  faith,  Br.  Abr. 
Prefent.  n.6i.   That  5  Marine,  the  Bijhop  (?/Ely  told  him.  That  he  had 
feen  a  Prefentation  made  by  King  Ed.  III.  to  a  Benefice  which  was  in  ano- 
ther's Patronage  ratione  Praerogativae  fuse,  becaufe  the  Benefice  wn  void 
by  the  King's  making  the  Incumbent  a  Bifiop.     To  this  Juftice  Button  an- 
fwers,  That  it  was  but  the  Report  of  the  Chancellor  who  had  that  in  Pre- 
fentation 5  which  Anfwer  will  overthrow  all  Precedents  where  Parties 
are   concerned.     But  this  is  grounded  on  a  raiftake,    for    the  Bi- 
Ihop  of  Ely  was  not  Chancellor,    but  Beath   Archbifhop  of  Tork. 
But  if  the  Extrafts  out   of   No/s  MSS.    may  be  believed,   in   the 
Margin  of  Dyer  228.  the  very  fame  Year,    24  E.  g.  the  King  re- 
cover'd  upon  Trial  the  Prefentation  to  a  Prebend  of  Exeter,  becaufe 
the  Prebendary  was  made  Archbifhop  of  Dublin  5    and  on    the  fame 
account  that  he  prefented  to  a  prebend  in  the  Church  of  Lincoln.    How 
can  thefe  things  confift  ?   It  feems  moft  probable,  that  the  King  made 
ufe  of  feveral  ways  to  juftify  his  Title  ;  by  Wardftiip,  by  the  Tempo- 
ralties, and  by  Prerogative  ;  but  this  laft  was  moft  tenderly  infifted  on, 
becaufe  the  Pope  about  that  time  did  moft  openly  begin  to  take  upon 
him  the  difpofal  of  Church  Preferments  by  Refervation,  Collation,  and 
Provifion,  againft  all  which  the  Statute  of  Frovifors  was  made,  25  £.  5. 
And  among  other  Pretences  the  Pope  did  challenge  to  himfelf  the  Right 
of  Promotion  ;  for  which  end  he  publifh'd  a  folemn  Ball,  Extr.  Com. 

U  u  u  ui  u  2  ae 


888  Caje  of  Commendams. 


de  Pr£b.  &  Dlgnit.  ad  Regimen-^  wherein  he  referved  to  himfelf  the 
Collation  of  all  Benefices  void  by  promotion  to  BiQiopricks.  This  in 
probability  was  one  great  occafion  of  the  Statnte  of  Vroviforf.  As  to 
which  thefe  things  areobfervable. 

1.  That  thereby  all  Collations  at  Rom,  as  to  Benefices  of  Ecclefia- 
ftical  Patronage  were  put  into  the  King's  hands,  and  fo  from  time  to 
time,  as  is  expreffed  in  the  Statute  ;  and  the  Reafon  given  is,  becaufe 
the  King  is  Patron  paramount  immediate. 

2.  That  although  the  King  had  this  Power  by  Law,    yet  he  did  not 
^    Execute  it,  but  let  the  Pope  make  Collations  at  Rome,  as  appears  by  the 

Tear-Books,  41  £.  g,  5.  n  H.  4.  where  it  is  faid,  That  the  Statute  of 
Provifors  was  grown  out  ofufe  ;  and  the  Pope's  Power  is  owned  by  the 
judges,  and  the  King  gave  up  the  Caufe  at  laft. 

3.  That  thePope's  gxdXitmgCoUations  upon  promotion  were  allowed 
and  permitted  here  till  the  Statute  25  H.  8.  In  11  H.  4.  a  confiderable 
Cafe  is  put,  viz,,  whether  thePope's  gxzniinga.  Commendam  to  a  Bifhop 
before  Confecration  could  fuperfede  the  Law  of  the  Land  which  makes 
I3enefices  void  which  were  enjoyed  before  Confecration  ?  And  it  is 
looked  on  as  the  better  Opinion  of  Thirring  Chief  Juftice  and  Hanhford 
by  Davis  77.  and  Vaughan  21.  that  the  Pope's  Commendam  did  prevent 
the  Avoidance  being  before  Confecration  5  but  if  it  came  after,  it  could 

DavisR.  not.  And  fo  Cardinal  Beaufort's  Difpenfation  for  the  Biftioprick  ofWin- 
77.4.8c.  chejiei"  coming  after  his  being  made  Cardinal  was  void;  but  Cardinal 
fi^oolfe/s  for  holding  his  Archbi(hoprick  oiTork  being  before  was  held 
good.  Lynvpood  faith,  that  in  his  time  no  one  queftion'd  the  Pope's 
power,  of  granting  Commendams  and  Difpenfations,  f.  60.  and  this  being 
fo  generally  received  here,  it  paft  for  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law  at  that  time, 
till  thi«;  power  was  taken  from  the  Pope  by  Statute,  28  H.S.  c.  16. 

4.  Thaf  the  Pope's  granting  Benefices  vacant  by  promotion  by  him- 
felf, was  looked  on  as  a.  Pre-eminence  and  Privilege  belonging  to  him  as 
owned  to  be  Head  of  the  Church  at  that  time.  And  the  Reafon  the 
Canonifts  give  for  it  is,   that  no  patron  hath  a  Right  to  prefent  but 

Fi.de Roy  when  the  Benefice  is  void  5    and  in  this  Cafe  of  promotion  it  becomes 
PatroMt   '^o'<^  "Of  by  Death  or  Rcfignation,  which  the  Right  of  Patronage  extends 
Pooi.c.  24..  to,  but  by  the  Aft  of  a  Superior  in  whofe  power  it  was  to  hinder  any 
^sTb.^'  ^  ^^^^^  vacancy  5    and  the  Patron  hath  the  lefs  Reafon  to  complain,   be- 
caufe the  Superiour  follows  and  approves  his  Judgment  in  the  perfbn 
Latch.  R.  promoted.     Befides,    fay  they,  how  comes  a  Benefice  to  be  void  by 
^^24c?^*  Confecration  }     Sortie  fay,    //  is  by  Common  Law  5   but  Chief  Juftice 
Davis  68.  Vaughan  laughs  at  that,  /  21.  22.  and  faith,  that  it  appears  from  11  ff. 
windi     ^"  fhatit  was  by  the  Ecclefiaftical  Law;  then,  fay  they,  the  Pope  may 
95.     '    difpenfe  with  that  in  Commendam,  and  when  he  makes  avoidance  by  his 
Davis  77.  own  Aft,    he  may  give  away  the  Benefices  fo  vacant.    All  the  injury 
the  Patron  can  pretend  to,   is  the  lofs  of  his  hopes  upon  the  next  Avoi- 
dance ;    but  fay  they,   this  is  thought  no  hard  thing  in  like  Cafes.     In 
the  Civil  Law,  if  a  Man  had  a  rich  Slave,  and  expeftation  of  hisEftate 
by  his  Death,  yet  the  Emperor  might  give  him  power  to  difpofe  of  his 
Eftate,  and  the  Patron  had  no  caufe  to  complain.  In  the  Common  Law, 
if  a  Man  gives  an  Eftate  for  another  Man's  Life,  he  can  have  no  reafon 
to  complain  of  it,  if  it  be  difpofed  to  another  while  that  Perfon  lives  5 
but  here  is  fomething  more,  for  it  may  be  for  another's  Life  ;  however 
this  is  not  to  be  thought  hard  when  the  Supreme  Patron  doth  it ;    who 
may  reaTonably  be  allowed  fuch  a  privilege  above  others.    And  we  are 

told 


Cafe  of  Commendams.  889 

told  by  the  French  Canonifts,  that  even  in  France  fince  the  pragmatick 
Sandlion,  this  privilege  of  the  Fopes  in  cafe  of  promotion  obtains  there, 
even  as  to  Lay-patrons. 

5.  By  the  Aft  of  Supremacy   16  H.  8.  c.  i.  all  Privileges,    Authori- 
ties,  Frofits  and  Commodities  to  the  /aid  Dignity  of  the  Supreme  Head  of 
the  Church  belonging  and  appertaining  are   annexed  and  united  to  the 
Imperial  Croton  of  this  Realm.    So  that  the  King  muft  have  the  fame 
Privileges  vi^hich  the  Pope  had  as  Supreme  Head,   and  foch  in  other  Ca- 
fes are  allowed  by  the  Judges  at  Common  Law.   As  for  inftance  5  In  the 
Cafe  of  Royal  Difpenfations  as  to  pluralities,  the  Judges  in  Armiger  and  c*"-  El'- 
Holland  s  Cafe  declared  their  Opinion,  that  the  King  had  the  fame  pow-  ufch^'n; 
er  which  the  Pope  had  before.  Mar.  543.    And  in  cafe  of  Appropriati- 144- 
ons,  the  King  had  the  fame  power  which  the  Pope  had  before  by  Cu- 

ftom  and  Ufage,  as  is  declared  in  GrandonS  Cafe,  Plovod.  498.  and  no 
other  Reafon  iJ  given,  but  that^Ae  Pope  had  accuftomed  fo  to  do.  But 
beyond  thefe,  is  the  Inftance  in  a  Comniiffion  of  Review  upon  Appeals  : 
For  by  the  Statutes  of  Appeals,  24  H.  8.  and  25  //.  8.  the  Sentence  of  the 
Court  of  Delegates  is  faid  to  be  definitive,  but  my  Lord  Coke  faith,  4  Inff. 
341.  that  the  King  may  grant  a  Commiffion  of  Review.  For  what  Rea- 
fon >  Becaufe  the  King  by  the  Statute  26  H.  8.  i.  and  i  Eli%.  i.  hath 
all  the  Authority  which  the  Pope  had  by  virtue  of  his  Headfhip,  and  the 
Pope  did  grant  fuch  Commiffions  of  Review.  This  I  am  fure  is  much 
harder  than  the  prefent  Cafe  5  for  here  the  A^  of  Parliament  makes  the 
Sentence  Definitive,  which  is  a  legal  Reflraint  although  not  in  words ; 
but  in  the  prefent  Cafe,  here  are  no  Reftraints,  no  faving  the  Rights  of 
Patrons  in  fuch  Cafes  5  but  the  fame  Privileges  are  allowed  which  the 
Pope  then  enjoyed  by  virtue  of  his  Head/hip  5  and  the  Bulls  of  Confirma- 
tion, Commendams  and  Collation  on  Promotion,  were  then  looked  on  as 
belonging  thereto.  I  do  not  f ly,  as  fome  have  done.  That  the  Kings  Heb.  14^^ 
have  all  the  powers  which  the  Popes  had  ;  for  they  exercifed  fome  extra-  ''*^' 
vagant  Powers  againft  the  Laws  of  the  Land  ^  but  I  fay,  that  in  Benefi- 
ciary Matters,  where  there  were  Privileges  then  allowed  to  the  Pope 
as  Head  of  the  Church,  and  no  Law  before  or  fince  doth  limit  or  re- 
Jirain  them,  thence  I  fee  no  reafon  but  that  the  Crown  may  ftill  enjoy 
fuch  Privileges ;  for  fomething  certainly  was  meant  by  them,  befides 
the  excluding  foreign  J urifdiftion  ^  which  was  done  before. 

6.  Thepraftice  of  following  times  will  heft  explain  the  meaning  of 
thefe  Privileges  granted  to  the  King  as  Head  of  the  Church.  And  we  find 
that  in  the  Cafe  of  Wentworth  and  Wright  in  Owen  144.  Williams  of 
Councel  for  the  King  produced  8  or  9  Precedents  oi  the  Kings  prefent  ing 
upon  promotion  in  the  time  of  H  8.  which  were  a  great  many  front 
the  Aft  of  Supremacy  26  H.  8.  to  the  end  of  his  Reign.  But  what  did 
the  Judges  fay  to  them?  Why  truly,  they  were  between  Spiritual  Perfons 
and  thofe  were  the  Pope's  Servants,  and  therefore  they  regarded  them  not. 
This  is  a  very  ftrange  Anfwer.  For,  were  all  thefe  Precedents  before 
the  Aft  of  Supremacy  ?  Then  they  (hewed  that  they  were  not  the  Pope's 
Servants  if  they  came  in  upon  the  King  s  Right :  If  after,  how  could 
they  be  the  Pope's  Servants  in  difowning  the  Supremacy  >  But  they 
were  between  Ecclefiaflical  Perfons.  What  then  ?  Have  not  they  Rights 
like  other  Men  ?  Or  is  it  no  matter  what  becomes  of  them,  fo  others 
be  fecured  ?  It  is  a  hard  cafe,  when  their  peculiar  Rights  are  taken  off 
as  the  Popes  Servants,  that  they  (hould  not  be  allowed  the  fame  com- 
mon Rights  with  other  Men* 

ll.  Ut 


8^0  Cafe  of  Commendanis. 


II.  Let  us  now  come  to  the  point  of  Reafon,  and  confider  how  far 
that  will  determine  this  matter.  Which  is,  whether,  fince  the  Popes 
enjoyed  this  Privilege,  and  our  Rings  have  been  folong  in  poffeffion  of 
it,  there  be  now  fufficient  Reafoti  to  lay  it  afide?  For  this  is  the  true 
Point;  for  it  is  granted,  that  fince  21  EUz.  the  pradice  hath  been  foj 
which  had  been  thought  a  very  confiderable  time  the  other  way.  Why 
(hould  fuch  a  Prerogative,  fo  long  owned  and  fubmitted  to,  be  now 
renounced  and  caft  off  as  an  unreafonable  Ufurpation  ?  Were  not  others 
fenfible  of  their  own  Rights  and  Liberties  in  all  this  time  ?  Hath  the 
King  no  intereft  in  any  Patronages  but  his  own  >  Hath  be  not  the  Right 
of  Lapfe  in  all  Livings?  How  comes  he  by  this?  Is  it  not  as  Supreme 
Patron  by  our  Law  ?  This  is  a  Term  not  taken  up  to  ferve  this  bufinefs, 
but  is  owned  by  our  Judges  in  Point  of  Law.  In  cafe  of  Lapfe  to  the 
King  he  prefents  as  Supreme  Patron,  fay  the  Judges  in  C.  2.  651.  and 
Coke  faith  it  hath  been  often  fo  determined.  5  R.  E.  9.  Dj/er  in  Fren- 
den's  Cafe  Plowd.  498.  f.  faid  the  fame  thing  5  and  Harper,  and  the  o- 
ther  Judges,  called  the  King  Supreme  Patron  as  King  ^  and  not  on  the 

Moor 900.  Account  of  the  A£t  of  Supremacy  ^  and  for  this  Reafon  the  King's  Con- 
fent  was  neceflary  to  an  Appropriation,  becaufe  he  loft  his  TTitle  by 
Lapfe ;  and  withal  it  is  there  faid,  that  every  Patron  hath  his  original 
Right  of  Patronage  by  Virtue  of  the  Land  which  he  held  of  the  King, 
on  which  the  Church  was  built  ^  which  might  come  to  him  be  Efcheaf. 
,  So  that  the  King  had  not  only  the  fame  Privilege  by  the  Ad  of  Parliament, 
which  the  Pope  had  before,  but  he  had  a  Superiour  and  Antecedent 
Ground  as  Supreme  Patron.  But  not  as  if  this  gave  him  always  the  fame 
Title  by  Promotion;;  but  that  it  makes  it  more  unreafonable  to  take  it  a- 
way  from  the  Crown,  when  it  hath  been  fo  long  in  Poffeffion  of  it.  But 
the  great  Objeftion  is,  as  to  the  Patron's  Right  which  we  ought  to  be 
concerned  for,  being  a  part  of  the  Liberty  of  the  Subjed,  which  muft 
be  taken  care  of  as  well  as  the  Prerogative  of  the  King.  The  true  An- 
f  wer  to  this,  is,  from  confidering  the  Patron's  Right  to  prefent  5  which 
is  no  doubt  a  juft,  legal  and  ancient  Right.  But  it  is  not  an  abfolute 
Right,  but  liable  to  feveral  Limitations.  For  (i)  the  Patron  is  not 
Lord  of  the  Fee  Simple  of  the  Benefice  5  as  Littleton  owns  S.  649.  i  /»/?. 
341.  but  hath  only  a  Fiduciary  Right,  or  a  Truft  put  in  him  to  Nomi- 
nate or/1Prefent  a  fit  Perfon.  (2)  This  truft  is  limited  to  a  certain  time, 
within  6  Months  5  for  then  by  the  Law  there  is  a  Lapfe  to  the  Ordina- 
ry ;  if  he  fails  to  the  Metropolitan  5  and  then  if  he  fails  to  the  King. 
This  is  a  truft  provided  by  the  Law  in  Cafe  the  Patron  fails;  not  in 
Right  of  the  Patron,  as  fome  think,  but  by  Devolution  and  Compad. 

{iob.  154- (2)  The  Patron's  Right  ftill  fuppofes  a  Vacancy;  but  there  is  nothing 
in  Law  which  hinders  the  King's  Aft  either  to  prevent  an  Accidence 
by  a  Commendam  ret  in  ere -^  or  to  prefent  in  an  extraordinary  Cafe, 
when  he  promotes  the  Incumbent,  and  makes  the  Benefice  void  by  his 
own  Aft.  And  a  Prerogative  by  Law  is  not  inconfiftent  with  the  Liber- 
ty of  the  Subjcft  by  Law.  For  the  Law  is  the  moft  equal  Meafure  of  both. 
II.  As  to  the  Power  of  granting  a  Commendam  in  the  King  ;  we  muft 
diftingulQi  between  what  is  really  a  Commendam-^  and  what  is  called  fo; 
but  is  truly  nothing  but  a  Difpenjfation  to  hold  a  Benefice  with  a  Bijhoprick 
for  a  limited  Term.  A  real  Commendamis  that  which  is  given  for  Term 
of  Life,  and  taken  after  Confecration.  I  do  not  mean  that  it  was  original- 
ly fo;  for  a  Commendam  then  was  only  a  Temporary  Cafeof  a  Church, 
till  the  Patron  did  proceed ;  and  was  nothing  but  the  Guardian-ftiip  of  a 

Church 


C^y^  <?/ Commendams.  891 


Church  during  the  Vacancy.  This  was  only  for  the  Profit  and  Conve- 
nience of  the  Churches,  without  Regard  to  the  Benefit  of  the  Perfon. 
But  afterwards  Commandants  were  grapted  by  the  Pope  for  Term  of  Life, 
for  the  better  Support  of  the  Dignity  of  the  Perfon,  whofe  Revenues 
were  not  fuitable  to  his  Honour.  And  this  was  the  chief  Reafon  of 
retaining  the  ufe  of  Commendam  here,  after  the  Reformation.  For  ma- 
ny of  the  old  Bilhopricks  being  reduced  very  low  5  and  new  one  ereft- 
ed  with  fmall  Revenues  5  it  was  found  neceffary  to  grant  to  the  Bifliops 
a  Power  to  hold  other  Benefices  in  Commendam  by  the  King's  Grant  be- 
fore Confecration. 

The  beft  Light  we  can  have  as  to  the  Senfe  of  our  Law  in  this  matter, 
will  be  to  take  a  view  of  the  moft  remarkable  Cafes,  which  have  been 
in  the  Courts  of  Law,  and  the  Judgments,  and  Reafons  which  have 
been  given  upon  them ;  which  are  of  fargreater  Confequence  than  mere 
Precedents,  than  were  never  queftioned. 

The  firft  of  this  kind  which  we  find  debated,  was  a  Commendam  grant- 
ed to  the  Eiihop  of  Offory  in  Ireland^  33  Eli%.  which  was  to  take  as 
many  Benefices  as  fliouldbe  vacant,  not  exceeding  the  Value  of  40  per- 
petu£  Commend£  titulo  5  fome  Years  after  a  Vicarage  became  void  in  his 
Diocefe,  which  he  took  by  virtue  of  his  Commendam ;  and  the  Quefti- 
on  came  into  the  Common  Pleas  9  'jac  whether  this  were  a  good  Ti- 
tle or  not,  which  was  folemnly  argued  by  Counfel  and  the  Judges. 
Thofe  againft  it  pleaded,  that  the  Form  was  too  general,  and  iregular, 
and  that  there  ought  to  have  been  an  exprefs  Claufe  of  Derogation  to  Davis  74. 
the  Patrons  Right  5  or  his  Confent  expreffed.  For  of  herwife  this  were 
a  real  Injury  to  the  Patron's  Right,  which  is  an  evil  in  it  felf,  and  can- 
not be  difpenfed  with.  But  the  main  Argument  was,  that  there  was  a 
great  difference  between  a  Commendam  retinere,  which  fuppofes  an  aftu- 
al  Incumbent  according  to  Law  5  and  fuch  a  Commendam  as  gives  a  Bi- 
fhop  Power  to  take  Benefices  without  a  legal  Admiffion.  But,  as  to  the 
former,  it  isconfefled  that  feveral  Judgments  had  been  given  for  them  in 
the  Courts  of  Juftice  in  England.  As  of  Parhhurjl  Biftiop  of  Norwich 
la  the  beginning  of  Q.  Elizabeth's  Reign,  who  obtained  a  Commendam 
retimre  of  the  Redory  of  Cleve  for 3  years ;  the  Point  in  Law  was,  whe- 
ther the  Living  was  void  by  Creation,  or  not 5  i.e.  whether  fuch  a 
Commendam  were  good  in  Law  ;  and  it  was  refolved  that  it  was  not  Dyer  233. 
void  by  Creation,  but  by  Refignation  within  three  Years.  ^^^^  ^J^ 

Dr.  May  had  a  Benefice  called  North-creak  above  8  /.  and  takes  a  no- Lace.  239." 
ther  of  this  value,  whereby  the  firft  became  void  ;  he  was  after  made  "°.'''  •5^' 
Biftiop  of  Carlijle,  and  put  the  firft  Benefice  into  his  Commendam ;  but  ^]°'^''' 
it  was  adjudged  againft  him  5  becaufe  he  was  not  then  legal  Incumbent  5 
but  if  he  had  been,  there  had  been  no  Difpute. 

It  is  allowed  by  the  other  fide,  that  fuch  kind  of  Commevdams  were 
frequently  granted  by  the  Popes,  as  appears  by  41  E.  3.  and  11  H.  4.Dav.8o  6- 
and  in  the  time  of  H.  6.  and  H.  8.  and  that  fuch  Commendams  were  not 
within  the  Statute  of  Provifors.  -  '  ' 

As  to  the  other  fort  of  Commendami,  the  main  Argumerit  for  them 
was  the  Poornefs  of  Biftiopricks,  and  the  Neceffity  of  fupporting  them 
that  way.  And  it  is  hard  to  conceive  that  thefe  ftiould  be  more  un- 
lawful than  Vicars,  and  Appropriations  ad  Mcnfam  5  which  are  part  of 
the  ancient  Endowments  of  fome  Biftiopricks,  as  Winchefier  and  Salis- 
lury^  and  there  is  no  great  difference  between  a  Commenda  perpetua,  and  . 
an  Jpprapriation -^  only  one  is  for  a  fingle  Life,  and  the  other  for  a 
Perpetuity.  The 


892  Cafe  of  Commendams. 


The  next  remarkable  Cafe  was  that  of  Colt  and  Glover,  againfl:  the  Bi- 
Moor898.^Qp  ^f  £if(.^j^gi4  and  Coventry^  lo  Jac.  I.  who  had  obtained  a  Com- 
mendam  under  the  broad  Seal,  for  as  many  Benefices  as  (hould  not  ex- 
ceed 2C0  Marks  ^  which  Cafe  was  folemnly  debated  by  the  Judges  in^ 
the  Exchequer-Chamber  5  fome  of  the  Judges  were  wholly  againft  the 
CoMmendam,  as  unlawful;  whofe  BLeafons  were  anfwered  by  Dodde- 
ridge,  but  he  thought  that  Commendam  void,  becaufe  it  was  too  large 
Hob.  140.30^1  indefinite.     Hobart  Chief  Juftice,  made  an  elaborate  Argument  in  * 
*  this  Cafe,  which  is  to  be  feen  in  his  Reports.    The  fubftance  of  it  is, 
that  he  meddles  not  (i)  with  the  King's  Supreme  Power;  but  with  the 
ordinary  Power  by  the  Statute  25  H.  8.  <:.  21.  nor  (2)  s^'nhzi  Commendam 
retihere-^  which  he  faith  is  no  Commendam  '^  for  a  Man's  own  Benefice 
{55.;     cannot  be  commended  to  him :  nor  (5)  with  a  Commettda  perpetua,  which 
this  is  not,  but  fo  long  as  he  lives  and  continues  Bi{h(|p  of  that  See.  But 
he  condemns  this  fort  of  Commendam  for  the  uncertainty  of  it,  the 
Churches  being  full,  and  defeftioufnefs  as  to  the  Patron's  Confent,  and 
as  to  the  Term  of  it.     For,  he  allows  Commenda  perpetua^  if  it  be  abfo- 
lutely  for  Term  of  Life;  but  he  will  not  allow  this  Condition  fo  long 
as  he  continues  Biftiop;  becaufe  the  Perpetuity  of  the  Incumbent  can- 
not be  diminiflied  ;  fo  as  to  take  a  Benefice  for  5  or  4  years,  or  fo  long 
as  he  (hall  remain  Bilhop  of  fuch  a  Diocefs.   But  the  Lord  Chief  Juftice 
Sriagh.  27.  Vaitghan  in  the  caCe  of  Edes,  and  the  BiJJjop  of  Oxford  faith,  that  the 
King  may  grant  a  Commendam  retinere,  as  long  as  a  Man  continues  Bi- 
fhop  there;  becaufe  no  Property  is  alter'd  by  a  Difpenfation,  but  if  he 
takes  a  Prefentation  to  a  new  Living  by  his  Commendam,  and  doth  fuch 
things  whereby  the  Property  is  changed,  then  he  thinks  it  muft  be  for 
Lite.    But  according  to  Holart's  Opinion  this  feems  fomewhat  ftrange 
to  me ;  that  a  Commendam  for  Life  fhould  be  good,  that  a  Commendam 
for  retaining  a  Benefice  for  years  (hould  be  allowed;  but  .a  Commendam 
for  Life,  or  fo  long  as  the  Perfon  continues  Bi(hop  of  fuch  a  Place 
fbould  be  void,  where  lie   the  Incongrmties  and  Abfurdities  in  Law^ 
which  cannot  be  born  >  It  is  that  there  ought  to  be  Vinculam  Conjugate^ 
bettveen  the  Ke&or  and  ReSory  ?  Then  no  Commendam  can  be  good ;  for 
the  Vinculum  lies  in  the  InfVitution  and  Induftion  ;  and  he  is  not  feized 
in  Fee  in  one  Cafe  more  than  the  other.     But  the  words  are  ample  enough 
to  make  a  full  Incumbent.    What?   Without  committing  the  Paftoral 
Care  by  Inftitution?  In  the  Cafe  of  Appropriations  it  is  allowed  to  be 
good  Law,  that  by  the  words  the  Grant  of  the  perpetual  Incumbency 
pafles  without  Infl:itution.     Why  then  may  not  ^Temporary  Commendam 
be  as  good  in  Law,  if  it  pafs  by  good  Authority?  Were  not  fuch  al- 
lowed before  25  H  8?  And  how  comes  the  King's  Power  to  be  fo  a- 
bridged  ?  Hobart  doth  not  deny,  but  the  Pope  might  grant  fuch  by  the 
Canon^  Law,  but  from  thence  he  obferves  the  Fallibility  of  Foreign  Ah- 
'      ihors,  and  Foreign  Pra^ice.     How  doth  it  appear  in  this  Cafe?    Hath 
our  Law  any  where  declared  the  contrary?  No,  but  it  requires  Injii- 
tution  and  Indii&ion,  and  thefe  muji  he  executed  according  to  the  Form 
prefcribed  by  Larv,  and  cannot  be  modified.     Then,  all  Appropriations  and 
Commendams  for  Term  of  Life  muft  be  void  in  Law;  and  I  can  fee  no 
Reafon  why  thofe  fhould  be  good  without  Inftitution,  and  the  other 
void  for  the  want  of  it.     But  the  Nature  of  Freeholds  by  Law  cannot  be 
alter  d  by  the  Popes  Authority.   Very  true,  but  that  is  not  the  Queftion ; 
but  whether  the  Profits  of  a  Free-hold  cannot  be  afligned  by  legal  Au- 
thority for  a  Term  of  Years  ?    Which  is  the  fame  kind  of  Provifion, 

as 


Ctif'e  of  Commendams.  893 

—     --     -  ■— -  —   —    ...     —    -  ■■  — —  ■     ■  ■  I        I  ■   I  ■■  ■■  ■  ■    ,  i, 

\. 

as  in  a   Commenda  perpetua,  but  only  differs  in   the  Expiration  of 
it. 

But  MO  fuch  Commend  a  is  to  be  found  in  the  Books  of  Law.  That's 
ftrange,  when  it  is  confeffed,  that  ii  H.  4.  Thinning  and  Hankford  a- Hob.  ijj. 
gree,  that  the  Pope  may  grant  to  a  Bifhop  to  take  Benefices  de  Novo, 
which  is  the  Power  of  granting  Commendams  ^  and  there  is  no  Limita- 
tion, whether  for  Years,  or  for  Life.  And  in  common  Reafon  the 
former  is  the  better,  becaufe  it  beft  ferves  the  Churches  Neceffities  in 
fmaller  Bifhopricks.  And  Neceflity  is  the  beft  Ground  for  any  Commen- 
dams. But  as  to  Commendams  retinere,  his  Words  are  full  and  clear  ; 
If  an  Incumbent  takes  a  Bifhoprick,  and  obtains  a  Difpenfation  to  hold  Hob.  ijS. 
his  Benefice  for  3  Years,  he  faith,  there  is  no  Injury  done  either  to  the 
Church  or  Patron  ;  for  altho'  it  be  Damnum  it  is  abfque  injuria  Which 
is  fufficient  for  our  prefent  purpofe. 

In  the  Cafe  of  Hoodly  and  Alanvparing,  the  Cafe  of  a  Commendam  re- 
tinere was  conlldered  by  the  Judges.    For  the  Incumbent  was  made  Bi-  winch94. 
(hop  in  Ireland^  37  Eliz,.  but  before  Confecration  obtained  a  Commen-  ^^°°'^-  *• 
dam  of  his  former  Benefice  for  6  Years  ^  this  Cafe  was  argued  by  the       ^  ' 
Judges,  22  Jac.  I.  faith  Crook     But  in  this  Cafe  the  Judges  differed. 
Button  faid,  that  he  would  not  deliver  his  Opinion  about  the  King's 
Prerogative,  but  gives  Intimations  enough  againft  it ;  and  withal  faith, 
that  if  the  King  had  it,  he  thought  his  Turn  ferved  by  that  Commendam, 
becaufe  he  thought  the  Limitation  for  Years  void,  and  that  he  had  a 
Title  for  Life.     Winch  alTerted  the  Prerogative,  and  produced  Prece-  winch95. 
dents  for  it,  where  the  King  had  prefcnted  in  England,  upon  his  ma-, 
king  a  Bifhop  in  Ireland.    Hobart  concurred  as  to  the  Prerogative :  But 
it  is  obfervable  as  to  Juttice  Button,    that  although  he  queflioned  the 
King's  Title  to  prefent  upon  Creation  ^  yet  he  doth  not  deny  that  the 
King  may  difpenfe  before  Confecration,  but  he  can  never  have  a  Title 
after  he  hath  difpenfed.    For  this  he  faith  is  difpenfing  with  his  Pre-- 
rogative  -^  becaufe  the  Commendam  according  to  him  muft  be  for  Life, 
becaufe  he  that  hath  it  is  free  Incumbent :    And  for  this  he  alledgeth  winched 
Parkhurji's  Cafe  ;  which,  faith  he,  proves  that  the  Ring  may  difpenfe, 
and  that  the  Commendatory  hath  full  Power  to  refign  ^  and  wichal,  that 
the  King's  Turn  is  fatisfied  with  the  Difpenfation.    This  comes  home 
to  the  Cafe,  if  it  will  hold.    But  I  am  not  fatisfied  as  to  the  maih  point, 
viz..  That  a  Difpenfation  for  Years  is  all  one  with  a  Commendam  for 
Life,     Hobart  we  fee  was  quite  of  another  Opinion  ;  and  the  Reafon 
of  the  Miftake  was  not  diftinguifbing  the  Right  of  Incumbency  before 
his  Creation,  and  after  by  virtue  of  i^t  Commendam.    For  Button  grants  winchpSi 
that  when  an  Incumbent  is  made  Bifhop,  his  Benefice  is  void  by  Com- 
mon Law,  then  the  firft  Title  is  gone,  and  all  his  Right  after  is  only 
by  his  Commendam  ;  but  by  that  he  hath  a  Right  only  for  a  Term  of 
Years.     But  as  his  Opinion  is  delivered  by  Cr.  "jac.  692.  he  thought 
any  fuch  Limitation  void  in  it  felf,  and  that  he  had  a  permanent  Eftate 
for  Life.   Which  Opinion  mu(\  overthrow  all  fuch  Difpenfations  which 
himfelf  allows  ;  for  an  Incumbency  for  Life  mufl  by  our  Law  be  by 
Inflittition  and  Induftion  ;   and  that  can  fignify  nothing  here,  becaufe 
the  Benefice  is  good  by  Creation.    The  main  Difficulty  is  as  to 
feparating  the  Profits  and  the  Cure  which    the  Law   fuppofes  to 
go     ffill    together,    and    fo    they    ought   to  do  in   all  common 
and   ordinary    Cafes  5     but  the   Queftion    is.    Whether     the    Su- 
preme  Power    may   not   difpenfe   with   Refidence  for    a    Publick 

X  X  X  X  X  Good 


8^4  C^fi  ^f  Commendams. 

Good.  For  which  we  are  to  confider,  (i.)  That  Church  Revenues 
were  at  firft  in  common,  and  the  Bifhop  had  his  fhare  out  of  the  com» 
mon  Stock,  and  he  allotted  to  the  Presbyters  as  he  faw  convenient. 
(2.)  The  Settlement  of  Parochial  Duties  was  not  done  by  any  Law  at 
firft,  but  according  to  the  Difcretion  and  Judgment  of  the  Bilhops.  For 
when  the  Tythes  were  firft  granted,  it  was  here  by  the  Laws  of  the 
feveral  Kingdoms  in  the  Heptarchy,  without  any  formal  Divifion  of 
Parifties,  which  was  a  Work  of  Time  and  Difcretion.  (5.)  The  Bi- 
Ihopricks  being  fufficiently  endowed  in  thofe  times,  the  Biftiops  did  then 
part  with  their  ftiares  in  the  other  Revenues  of  the  Church,  and  left 
Moorpoj.  them  to  the  Parochial  Clergy.  (4.)  Where  Bifliopricks  are  mean  and 
infuflScient,  it  is  no  unreafonable  thing  to  make  a  Provifion  for  them, 
out  of  vacant  Places  in  their  Diocefles,  or  to  continue  their  former 
Benefices  for  that  End.  (5.)  The  King  hath  by  the  Law  a  Power  to 
difpenfe  in  fuch  a  Cafe,  even  before  the  Afts  oi Supremacy.  WhichHo- 
Hob.  i/fj.bart  calls  hk  natural  Power  of  difpenpng  in  Splritualihifs^  which  he  makes 
Latch.  3 2.  jQ  confift  in  two  Afts.  i.  A  Power  to  retain  a  Benefice  with  a  Bilhop- 
Noy  94.'  rick,  1 1  /y.  4. 60.  2.  To  hold  more  Benefices  at  the  fame  time,  1 1  H. 
Jones  160.  j^  1 2,  ^,5.^  If  the  King  hath  a  Prerogative  by  Promotion,  that  is  not 
ierved  by  fuch  a  Difpenfation.  For  the  Power  of  difpenfing  is  not  by 
the  Right  of  Promotion,  being  inherent  in  the  Crown ;  and  therefore 
what  accrues  by  Promotion,  muft  be  fubfequent  to  it.  Juftice  Huttofi 
went  upon  that  Ground,  that  every  Commendam  was  for  Life  however 
expreffed  ^  but  Hdart  fo  well  faw  the  Diftinftion  between  them, 
that  he  looked  on  a  Commendant  retinere,  but  as  a  Difpenfation  in 
Law. 

All  the  Difficulty  lies  in  a  Commendam  for  Life,  whether  that  be  not 
inftead  of  the  King's  Turn  to  prefent.    But  here  we  muft  diftinguilh 
between  the  preventing  an  Avoidance,  and  the  filling  it  up.    In  the 
Commendam  retinere,  there  is  only  an  Avoidance  prevented  by  the  King's 
Difpenfation  :  But  in  a  Commendam  to  take  a  vacant  Benefice,  there  is 
an  aftual  Avoidance,  and  the  Place  is  to  be  filled  with  an  Incumbent, 
which  makes  the  Cafe  much  harder  5  for  the  Patron  lofes  a  Turn  upon 
^*"s'^*^'*  an  adual  Vacancy  ;  but  in  the  other  Cafe,  as  F<?«gA4«  well  faith,  a  Dif- 
penfation gives  no  Property,  nor  takes  away  any  :    But  if  a  Man  hath  a 
Difpenfation  to  hold  his  Benefice  for  three  Tears,  when  that  time  is  expired^ 
^^'    the  Benefice  voids,  as  it  would  have  done  at  the  firfi,  if  there  had  been  no 
Difpenfation. 
Latch.  31.     The  laft  Cafe  I  (hall  mention  is  that  of  Evans  and  Jyfcongh  5  which 
Jones  1 58. g^gfg  uponThornhergh,  Dean  of  York,  being  made  aBiOiop  in  Ireland, 
36  Elie.,  upon  which  he  obtained  a  Commendam  retinere  iot  his  Dean- 
ry  :  Some  Years  after  he  was  removed  to  Brifiol,  i  Jac.  and  then  gets 
another  Commendam  for  the  fame  Deanry.  The  point  in  Queftion  was, 
iitc.zjo.^hgfjjgr  a  Commendatory  Dean  could  confirm  a  Leafe  or  not  >  And 
Noy  54.  after  a  folemn  Debate,  and  feveral  Arguments,  the  Judges  agreed  that 
the  Commendam  was  good  as  to  the  Deanry,  and  not  meerly  as  to  the 
Profits  5  becaufe  the  King  had  the  Power  by  Law  to  difpenfe  with  hold- 
ing it  together  with  his  Biftioprick.    And  Montague  Ch.  Juftice  faid  in 
Maor  304.  ^^^  former  Cafe,  that  all  the  Judges  were  agreed  that  the  King  had 
in.    Power  to  grant  a  Commendam. 

As  to  the  Aft  of  Parliament,  in  this  Cafe  I  can  fee  no  Difficulty  there- 
in 5  for  the  Intention  oi  \t  was  not  to  found  a  Donation,  but  to  con- 
tinue the  former  Incumbent  in  his  own  Right,   but  as  it  was  made  a 

new 


J  

Cafe  of  Commendims.  8  ^^ 

new  Parifh  ^  and  Co  it  is  but  a  kind  oi  Commendam  rethere  by  Ad  of 
Parliament.  But  it  is  unreafdnable  to  fuppofc  that  an  Ad  of  Parliament, 
which  only  defigns  to  fettle  theOrdinary  Turns  of  prefenting  (hould  ex- 
clude the  king's  Right  upon  promotion.  For  whether  the  Parifh  be 
new  or  old  fignifies  nothing  in  this  Cafe  -^  for  the  King's  Right  doth 
not  arife  from  prefcription  on  particular  Pari(hes,  but  from  a  general 
Reafon  which  takes  hold  of  every  new  PariQi  as  well  as  old  ;  For  as 
foon  as  it  becomes  a  Parifh  it  is  liable  to  all  the  common  Incidents  of 
parochial  Churches.  Of  which  this  Right  of  prefenting  upon  promo- 
tion is  one. 

There  are  twoObjeftions  remain  ftill  to  be  anfwered, 

1.  That  if  this  Prerogative  be  allowed,    it  jviU  hold  toties  qaoties,   and  WMgh.id: 
fo  the  Patron  mil  lofe  his  Right  vpithout  his  Faidt.     To  this  may  be  an- 
fwered,    that  a  poffible  Inconvenience  in  particular  Cafes,  which  rarely 
happens,  doth  not  take  away  a  General  Kight.     The  Queftion  is,  whe- 
ther the  2<Cr/;^harh  fucha  Rightor  not  ^  it  is  nor,  what  wijlfollowup- 

on  it  5  but  whether  it  be  fo,  or  not.  There  are  many  things  allowed 
in  Law,  which  are  never  to  be  brought  in  Queftion  for  Inconveniencies 
that  may  poflibly  happen.  But  all  the  Inconvenience  in  this  Cafe  is 
only  poflGble,  and  not  certain  ^  and  poffible  only  as  to  Turns,  and  not 
as  to  the  Right  it  felf. 

2.  That  St.  James'j  Church  is  a  Donative  by  ASf  of  Parliament,  andfo 
tiotfubjecl  to  the  Prerogative.  But  this  proceeds  upon  a  Miftake,  as  though 
a  Benefice  fubjefl:  to  Inftitution,  and  Induftion,  could  be  made  a  Dona- 
tive 5  whereas  the  very  Injiitut/on  and  Indu3ion,  takes  away  the  Na- 
ture of  a  Donative;  as  Coke  and  others  pofitively  affirm.    Now  in  this 

Cafe  the  Right  of  Advowfon  goes  along  with  the  Aft,  and  by  it  the  i  inft.344. 
Patrons  are  invefled  with  a  Right  to  preknt  ^  how  is  this  confident  ^'^'^'^^' 
with  a  Donative  .<?  If  there  be  a  Right  of  Prefentaiion,  and  the  Incum- 
ic//*  be  liable  to  hfiitution  and  Indu3ion,  and  the  Living  to  a  Lapfe,  it 
is  impoffible  that  it  (hould  be  a  Donative  created  by  Aft  of  Parliament, 
But  if  it  be  made  z  Benefice  like  others,  as  appears  by  the  Aft,  for  what 
Reafon  (hould  it  not  be  liable  to  the  fame  Rights  of  promotion  that  o- 
f hers  are  > 

But  the  Kingconfented  to  the  Aft.  What  then  >  He  gave  his  Con- 
fent  to  make  it  a  new  Parifh  5  and  to  fettle  the  Rights  of  Advowfon  5 
but  he  did  not  as  to  the  taking  away  any  Right  belonging  to  himfelf 
in  Right  of  his  Crown  3  and  therefore  cannot  be  excluded  from  it  by 
this  Aft. 


Xx  X  X  X  2 


S96  A  Difcourfe  of  the  true 

A  DISCOURS  E  of  the  "true  Antiquity 
of  LONDON,  and  its  State  in  the  Ro- 
man Times. 


Tacit.An-  §•  !•  ^  B  "^  H  E  firft  mention  we  find  of  London  is  in  Tacitta,    where 
nai.  14.  I       he  fpeaks  of  Suetonius  Paiilittus  returning  from  the  Af- 

'^'^^'  JL      faults  of  Mona^  (i.  e.  Anglefey)  upon  the  Revolt  of  the 

Britains,  and  making  his  way  thither,  through  the  midft  of  his  Enemies. 
Londini.  On  which  Occafion  he  takes  notice,  That  London  had  not  the  Honour  of 
urn  per-    yei„g  called  a  Roman  Colony,    hut  yet  it  was  even  then  famous  for  its 
nomenio'  Number  of  Merchants,    and  all  forts  of  Accommodations.     He  doth  not 
quidem     celebrate  it  for  its  Antiquity,  as  Ammianus  Marcellinus  doth  long  after  5 
^fntt    i'Ut  fof  ifs  great Conveniency for  Trading,  and  the  Pleafantnefs  of  its 
figne.  fed  Situation.     For  immediately  after,    giving  an  Account,    how  Suetonius 
copia  Ne-  ^^g  forced  to  forfake  the  place,   for  want  of  fufficient  Number  of  Sol- 
fu°m^&"    diers  to  defend  it,  he  adds.  That  he  took  away  as  many  of  the  Inhabitants 
Commea-  ^^  xvould  remove  into  the  Charge  of  his  Army  ;  hut  thofe  whom  either  Weak- 
nwxime    nefs  or  Age,    or  the  Smeetnefs  of  the  Place  kept  behind,    were  dejirojed  by 
ceiebrc,    the  Enemy.    This  Enemy  was  the  Britijh  Army  under  the  Command  of 
mmv^'  Boadicea,  theReliaofP/-<z/«^tf_gwrf  Kingof  the /rewi;  who  being  very  ill 
///"c.'s.  ufed  by  the  Romans,  to  whofeProte£l:ion  their  dying  Ring  had  left  them, 
Londoni-  (.qqJ^  yp  ^^ j^g  under  the  Condudi  of  Boadicea  ;   and  foon  drew  in  the 
opp'idum  Trinvbantes  to  join  with  them.     For,   now  they  difcerned,   that  the 
is^c-    .    Roman sY^e'agn  was  to  reduce  them  to  Slavery,  under  the  pretence  of 
bdiis°sex"  making  them  a  Roman  Province  -^  and  to  this  end  they  had  lately  fettled 
us,auc  lef.  a  Colony  oiVeterans  at  Camalodunum,  where  they  drove  out  the  Britains, 
vei^Loci    ^"'^  ^'^^^  poffeffion  of  their  Houfes,  and  Lands,  and  ere^ed  aTemple  to 
Duicedo    Claudiuf,    and  fet  up  the  Image  oi  Vt£fory,    and  made  fuch  Priejis,    as 
detinue-    ^jgfjf  exhauji  the  Britains  under  ajhew  of  Religion.    Thefe  things,  toge- 
hoAe^p-  tber  with  the  infolent  Behaviour  of  the  Veterans,    and  the  Roman  Sol- 
prein  >    diers  towards  the  ^habitants,  fo  highly  provoked  them,  that  they  re- 
^""'^'       folved  to  fell  their  Liberties  at  a  dearer  rate  than  the  Roman  Governours 
imagined.     And  fo  taking  Advantage  of  the  Abfence  of  the  Roman  Ar- 
my,   and  the  Security  of  the  New  Colony,    the  Britains'  in  great  Mul- 
titudes fell  upon  it,  and  burnt  down  the  greatefl:  part  of  it  5    only  the 
Temple  efcaped,  whither  the  Soldiers  fled,    which  after  two  days  Siege 
was  taken.    Then  they  marched  againft  PetHius  Cerealk,  and  beat  the 
<^th  Legion  5    killing  the  Foot,    and  making  the  Horfemen  fly  to  their 
Camp  ;  the  noife  of  which  Overthrow  had  a  very  different  EfFedl  on 
two  Roman  Officers  :     For,  k  m^xde  Decianuf  Catus,    the  Procurator,  ha- 
ften  into  Gaul,  and  Suetonius  PauUnus  to  return  with  all  pofiible  fpeed 
to  London.    Being  come  thither  with  great  DifiBculty,  he  debated  with 
faimfelf,   whether  he  fhould  make  London  the  Seat  of  the  War,    or 
not.    Bat  upon  confideration,  he  found  his  Forces  not  great  enough  to 
defend  it ;   and  therefore  giving  notice  to  as  many  to  depart  as  had  a 
mind  to  it,  he  abandoned  the  City,  choofing  rather  to  facrifiie  that,  than 
to  hazard  all.      And  fo  London  fell  under  the  fevere  nfage  of  the  in- 
raged  Britains  :     For  as  many  as  were  left  ivere  deflroyed.     The  fame 
Difafler  befell  the  Roman  Mitnicipiumsit  Verulam  ,    for  the  Britains  in 

that 


Antiqmtj  <?/"  L  O  N  D  O  N.  8^7 


that  Heat,  did  not  ftay  to  befiege  Cafiles  and  Fortificatioftr,  but  ran  thi- 
ther, where  the  greatefl:  Prey  wasf  not  fparing  the  Lives  of  any  who 
came  under  their  Pomr,  who  were  fomany,  that  Tacituf  reckons  feven- 
ty  thoufand  Citi%ens   and   Confederates  vpho  were  killed  in  thefe   Places. 
But  Dio  faith,  that  in  thk  InfurreSion  the  Britains  dejiroyed  two  Cities,  D'o  in  Xi. 
and  80000  Men.    And  by  comparing  Dio  and  Tacitus  together,   it  ap-  ^'^'^g'"'" 
pears  that  London  was  one  of  thefe  Cities,    and  very  well  inhabited  ^' ' 
then  ;   which  was  above  1622  Years  ago.    From  hence  we  may  rea- 
fonably  conclude,    that  London  was  at  that  time  a  Roman  City  5    and 
inhabited  either  by  Citizens  of  Rome,    or  fuch  as  were  confederated 
with  them.     But  it  was  of  a  different  Nature  from  the  Roman  Colony  at 
CamalodHHum  5    or  the  Municipium  at  Verulam ;    and  yet  no  Pr£fe&ure, 
as  Mr.  Camden  fuppofes.    For  that  was  a  State  of  hardlhip  and  fervi-  Britan.p. 
tude,   the  People  having  no  Laws,   or  Magiftrates  of  their  own  -.,    to  ^°'^' 
which  feveral  Cities  in  Italy  were  reduced  for  their  Falfenefs,  or  Ingra- 
titude  to  the  Roman  State,  as  Sigonius  hath  truly  obferved  5  but  I  fee  no  sigon.  dc 
ground  tofufpeft,  that  London  was  treated  otherwife  than  with  great  J""^^  '"'* 
Kindnefs  by  the  Romans  ;   all  the  Hard/hip  it  then  fuffered,   being  from  '  '*  ** "" 
the  Britains. 

But  becaufe  this  may  look  like  a  ^r^LngQVaradox  to  thofe,  who  from 
our  common  Hiftorians  believe  London  to  have  been  an  ancient  Britijh 
City,  long  before  C^far's  coming,  I  (hall  therefore  endeavour  to  clear 
ihis  Matter,  by  an  Enquiry, 

.    00  Into  the  true  Original  of  I<?«(^<7». 

(2.)  Into  its  5/<«^e  and  C<?»£////<;«  during  the /?<>;»/<»  Government. 

And  when  I  have  difpatched  thefe  two  1  fhall  confider, 

(5.)  Whether  there  were  any  Temple  of  Diana  ftanding  in  that 
part  of  the  City,  where  the  Foundations  of  St.  PWs  Cathedral 
are  laid. 

This  is  the  Method  which  I  intend  to  purfue  in  the  following 
Difcourfe. 

I  begin  with  the  Original  of  the  City  of  London  h  which  I 
defign  to  prove  to  have  been  firft  built  by  the  Romans,  and  that 
by  (hewing, 

(i.)  That  there  was  no  fucbCi^^  when  the  Romans  came  firft  to  con- 
quer Britain. 

(2.)  That  the  other  Britijh  Cities  mentioned  by  the  Britijh  Hijiori- 
ans,  were  no  elder  than  the  Ramans  fettling  here  5  and  therefore 
it  is  not  probable  that  London  alone  (hould  be  of  greater  Antiquity. 

(i.)  To  prove  that  there  was  no  fuch  City,  when  the  Romans  came 
to  conquer  Britain  :  I  need  no  more  than  to  (hew,  that  there  is  not 
theXQA^mtntionoiit,  mthQ  Expedition  oiCafar  ox  Claudius,  and  yet 
it  was  impolTible  to  have  avoided  it,  if  there  had  been  fuch  a  City 
then.  When  Csjar  came  over  into  Britain,  he  faith,  he  defigned  to 
underftand  as  much  as  he  could  concerning  it  ^  and  then  he  was  cer- 
tainly able  to  give  an  Account  of //6e  Cities  and  Towns  here.  And  both 
thefe  are  mentioned  by  him :  In  one  place  he  fpeaks  of  the  feveral  Ci- 
ties 


8^8  A  Difcoiirfe  of  the  True 


ties  of  Britain,  vehichfettt  their  EmbaJ^dours,  and  cffered  Hojiages  to  him  i 
Czfar.  ^  and  in  another,  that  at  his  goii^  amty  the  Princes  met,  and  commended 
comraenr.  ff^^^j-^i^^^^  ^„^  ffj^-^  Qf^^^  fg  f,i^  prote&ion-^  again  he  mentions,  the  Ma- 

143.  Ed.  ritime  Cities  of  Britain  ;  the  Cities  Claffivelaun   had  war  with  5  and  the 
^"'^^f-^-firong  City  of  the  Trinobantes :  So  that  one  would  think  Britain  had  ra- 
p!!'6(5.  p.  ther  more  Cities,  than  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth  gives  it.    But  all  this  a- 
174        rifes  from  want  of  confidering  the  Propriety  of  C^y^r's  Expreffions ;  for 
he  doth  not  take  a  City  for  a  l?lace,  but  for  a  People,  united  under 
v.Bergier  one  Government,  having  Laws  and  Privileges  peculiar  to  themfelves. 
deol-' Chi-  ^"'^  ^  ^°  "°'  remember  one  Paflage  in  Ca]ar,  where  he  ufeth  civitas  in 
minsdci'  another  Senfe.    But  if  a  People  fo  united  had  othef  lefler  Divifions  5 
Empire.  I  fhofe  were  called  Pagi  by  him  ;  fo  he  faith,  the  City  of  the  Helveti- 
'^'  '^'  '     ans  was  divided  into  4  Pagi,  i.  e.  fo  many  Cantons,  and  fo  the  Pagu* 
Tigurinus  is  fatd  by  him  to  be  a  part  of  the  City  of  the  Helvetians. 
Thence  Jofeph  Scaliger  obferves  the  French  word  Fats  to  be  taken: 
L-  I.    And  thence  the  Germans  ufe  Paguus  for  the  fame,  which  we  mean  by  a 
Lefiion     Co*f"fj>-  So  Antmianus  h/larctUinus  fpeaks  of  the  Pagi  Alamannorum^  which 
Aufon.i.  among  the  Germans,  faith  Freherus  were  generally  divided  by  Rivers^ 
I.  c.  23.   for  by  ([^gQ^  as  J'atitus  takes  notice,  the  o\AGermans  were  wont  to  feat 
cell!].  18.  themfelves  not  in  any  Cities;  for,  faith  he,  they  would  not  bear  any 
c.j.Marq.Houfes  being  joined  together  5  but  they  had  feparate  Habitations  near 
PaTtt°c.'f!  ^^^  Head  of  a  River,  a  Wood,  and  a  Plain.    Meibomius  and  others, 
T.icit.  de  after  Fejius,  derive  the  Name  Pagi  from  the  Dorjck,  -Jraj^  a  Fountain  5 
worU).     aj^ J  ^Q  fi^Q^g  ^I^Q  drank  together  of  the  fame  Fountain  were  Pagani ; 
Meib.de  which  Name  at   laft  remain'd  to  thofe  who  worfhiped  the  Foh»- 
Sax.  I'ag.  tains:,  and  fo  Came  to  be  applied  to  the  Heathens-^  which  is  focal- 
led  Irom  the  German  Heiden,  which  fignifies  a  Heathy  Ground,  where 
they  worftiipped  the  Trees -^  thefe  two  being  the  laft  Monuments  of 
Heathen  Idolatry  in  thefe  parts  of  the  World.    The  Pagi  among  the 
Li  d  nb    ^'*^  Saxons  were  called  Schyres,  faith  the  (ame  Meibomius :,  for  which 
Gioii.  ad*  Lindenhrogius  quotes  the  old  Saxon  MSS.  Gloffaries  5  and  thefe  Pagi  as 
Cod.  LL.  Bignojiius  obferveSy  had  generally  the  Comites  prefiding  over  them  5 
bif;non.    ^hofe  refidence   was,  faith  Freherus,   in  Burgo:    i.  e.  in  a  fortified 
ad  Mai-cui- /'/rffe  5   for  fo  in  CyriVi  Glojfary  -roe^©*  is  rendred  Burgos '^  and  here 
t'^  c°'i8'  ^^"^  ^^^  publick  Hall,  or  Meeting  for  Juftice.    Which  in  time  was  the 
''  '  ^    Original  of  many  Cities,  when  Perfons  thought  it  moft  convenient  to 
live  near  the  Place  of  Bufinefs  and  Government,  promifing  themfelves 
greater  Security  and  Proteftion,  under  the  Eye  of  the  Magiftrate.  And 
niofl:  of  the  Cities  of  Europe  have  rifen  one  from  of  thefe  5  Caufes  either 
from  Roman  Colonies,  as  the  moft  confiderable  Cities  in  Gaul  and  Spain 
Dio.i.  54.  have  come  from  them  ^  when  Aifgujius  as  D/o  faith,  fent  fo  many  Colo- 
nies thither  I  or  from  Merchandice  -^  when  Perfons  for  theConveniency 
of  Trading,  found  it  neceffary  to  live  together  upon  fome  great  River, 
or  near  the  Sea  5  which  was  the  Rife  of  thofe  Cities  called  Emporia,  or 
'  Trading  Colonies ;  or  laftly,  for  Security,  when  they  found  themfelves 

expofed  to  fo  many  Hazards  in  their  fcattered  anddifperfed  Habitations, 
and  therefore  thought  fit  to  live  together  under  Laws  and  Government. 
Such  a  fortified  Place  among  the  Britains,  Ctcfar  calls  by  the  Name  of 
CzUr.i ^.Opidum,  or  Oppidum-^  which  according  to  Farro and  Fejius  had  its  Name 
p-  I7J.  frcm  the  mutual  help  Men  gave  to  one  another  and  the  works  made  for 
its  Defence.  Such  an  Opidum  Ctefar  faith  Cajfivelaun's  was:  v'lz,.  a  large 
Comp'ifs  of  Ground  with  Cattel  and  Hutts  in  if,  and  furrounded  with 
Woods  and  Boggs,  or  fenced  with  a  Mound  and  a  Ditch.    This  Cafft- 

velaun^ 


Antiquity  ^/LONDON. 


nelautt,  whom  Dio  calls  Suellan,  leaving  out  the  firft  part  of  his  Name, 
and  faith,  he  was  the  greateft  of  the  Princes  of  Britain,  and  was  at 
that  time  Ring  of  the  Trinobantes,  after  his  deftroying  If»ma.nMentita  ^ 
and  the  Thames  was  the  Boundary  of  his  Kingdom,  as  C£far  tells  us. 
If  therefore  there  was  then  fuch  a  City,  as  London  is  defcribed  by  Geof- 
fery,  how  came  Cajfivdaun  not  to  retreat  thither  when  he  was  purfued 
by  C^far  ?  For,  if  Geoffreji  fays  true,  Lud  repaired  the  Walls  of  !,<?»- GaifV.Mo- 
don,  and  compaffed  it  about  with  innumerable  Towers  5  and  command-  Brh 'i"i?° 
ed  the  Citizens  to  build  their  Houfes  in  fuch  a  Manner,  as  there  wasc  22.' Ed. 
not  a  fairer  City  in  many  Countries,  and  it  was  from  him  called  Caer-fl^'-  ^f' 
lud^  and  by  Corruption  of  the  word  Caerlondon^  (  but  in  Nennius  and  de"  nfi.' 
Huntingdon,  it  is  Cair  Lundein.)   A  late  learned  Man  conjeftures  that 85""* °', 
this  was  called  by  defar  Trinohantes,  becaufe  the  Name  of  London  was"^'^"  ^'  ^^' 
not  yet  received ,  there  being  a  Quarrel  between  Lud  and  Nennitft  about 
the  Change  of  the  Name;  or  Lud  being  Brother  to  Cafjivelaun,  he 
would  not  make  ufe  of  it.    I  contefs,  if  thofe  ancient  MSS.  of  this  Nen- 
niuf,  or  of  Gitdas  Cantbrim  about  this  difpute  could  be  once  brought 
to  light,  (  although  Bofton  of  Bury  and  Leland,  never  had  the  Fortune  ' 

to  hear  of  them  )  there  might  be  fome  hopes  to  obtain  greater  Satisfa- 
fadion  about  thefe  remote  Antiquities  of  London  ;  but  as  things  are,  t 
cannot  be  convinced  that  Ctefar  could  be  fo  wonderfully  miftaken  about 
Cajjivelauns  Town,  as  not  to  diftinguifh  between  a  Wood  and  a  City  5 
and  between  Boggs  and  Towers.     The  truth  is,  Geoffrey's  Relation  and 
Cafar's  can  never  ftand  together  ;  not  only  as  to  London,  but  as  to  his 
whole  Expedition :  For  he  not  only  makes  CaJJiveUun  to  beat  C£far  out 
of  Britain  the  firft  time,  butthefecond  alfo.   For,  faith  he,  upon  thecaifrei 
firft  notice  of  his  fecond  coming,  he  fortified  his  Cities,  and  repaired    ^-  *?' 
the  Walls,  and  placed  Souldiers  in  the  Ports,  and  put  Iron  Stakes  in  the 
Thames,  (  not  to  hinder  his  Paflage  over,  as  Cafar  faith  )  but  his  com- 
ing up  the  Thames  to  Ternovant,  (  fo  he  calls  London")  which  did  fuch 
mifchief  to  his  Ships  that  he  was  forced  to  land  his  Men  ^  and  there 
was  fo  over-powred  by  CaJJivelaun,  that  he  fled  to  his  Ships,  and  re- 
turned to  the  Coaft  ot  the  Morini.     Upon  this,  CaJJivelaun  appoints  a 
Iblemn  day  of  Triumph  in  the  City  oiTernovant  with  his  Nobles;  where    ^  ^^. 
a  quarrel  happened  between  Androgeus  Son  to  Lud  and  CaJJivelaun ;     '  ''' 
which  proceeded  fo  high  that  the  former  invited  C<efar  over  again,  and 
Tent  his  Son  as  a  Hoftage  to  him,  and  the  other  laid  Siege  to  Ternovant  5 
then  Csfar  came,  and  by  the  help  of  Androgens  had  the  better  of  CaJJi- 
veUun, who  by  his  means  was  reconciled  to  Cafar,  and  fo  Britain  was 
brought  under  Tribute  to  the  Romans.    This  is  the  (hort  of  Geoffreys 
Account  of  thefe  Matters.    Here  we  find  Cajar  attempting  to  furprize 
London,  and  CaJJivelaun  s  Triumph  in  it,  and  that  he  afterwards  befieg- 
ed  it,  but  upon  C^efars  landing,  marched  off  to  meet  him.    And  it  is 
reafonable  to  fuppofe,  if  London  were  fo  great  a  City  then,  that  the 
great  Scene  of  War  and  Peace  muft  be  afted  there.    But  how  then  comes 
it  to  pafs,  that  Cafar  himfelf  takes  not  the  leaft  notice  of  any  fuch  Ci- 
ty ?    He  tells  us,  he  came  up  to  the  Thames,  crofled  over  it  with  his 
Army,  purfued  CaJJivelaun  to  his  Faftnefs,  which  he  called  a  Town, 
beat  him  out  of  it,  brings  him  to  Submiflion,  charges  him  not  to  med- 
dle with  Mandrabatius,  or  theTrinobanles,  takes Hoftages^  and  fo  leaves 
Britain.     How  could  all  thefe  things  happen  fo  near  the  Thames,  and 
when  CaJJivelaun  was  forced  to  retreat,  and  yet  no  mention  at  all  of 
fuch  a  ftrong  City  fo  near  at  hand  as  Lud  had  made  Loudon^  Sup^ 


^06  A  Difcotirfe  of  tin  true 


pofe  CaJJtvelafiff  Tpmpokiy  withdrew  to  prevent  the  Spoil  of  fo  fine  a  Ci- 
ty •  yet  how  came  C^far  not  to  vifit  it  in  his  Return,  nor  once  to  fpeak 
of  it,  to  heighten  the  Glory  of  his  Enterprize  >  For  he  was  concerned 
in  point  of  Reputation  to  make  as  mnch  of  it  as  he  could ;  fince  fome 
of  the  great  Men  at  Rome  wonder'd  at  his  Defign  in  going  over  into 
Britain,  and  hazarding  the  Roman  Legions  upon  fo  flender  a  Pretence  5 
as  the  Sufpicion  that  fome  Britains  affifted  the  Gauls.    What  could 
more  vindicate  his  Honour  in  it,  than  to  let  the  Romans  underftand 
how  many  Cities  there  were  in  Britain,  and  above  all  the  reft,  one 
that  did  outvy  moft  other  Cities  in  the  World  ^  which  had  been  newly 
fortified  and  adorned  with  many  beautiful  Towers  but  a  little  before 
his  going  for  Britain  .<?    They  who  confider  how  pundlual  C<efar  is  in 
giving  Account  of  all  the  confiderable  Places  he  met  with  in  Gaul^ 
their  Camps,  Fortifications,  and  fuch  Cities  as  they  had,  cannot  ima- 
gine that  he  fhould  wholly  leave  out  fuch  a  City  as  London^  if  it  had 
been  then  in  being?    So  that  C<efars  Silence  fignifies  far  more  in  his 
Circumftances  againft  London  at  that  time,  than  all  the  Teftimonies  yet 
produced  can  do  for  it.     But  this  is  not  mere  filence  in  C<efar-^  for  he 
tells  us,  what  kind  of  Towns  the  Britains  then  had,  viz.  nothing  but 
fome  Fortifications  by  Woods,  and  Boggs,  and  Ditches,  wherein  they 
endeavoured  to  fecure  themfelves  in  Cafe  of  War  5  but  at  other  times 
Cafaub.  in  they  had  fcattered  Houfes  like  the  Germans  and  Gauls -j  and  as  If.  Ca- 
Diod.' sic.y^'^^^^  obferves  from  C^efar^  the  Houfes  of  the  Gauls  were  then  nothing  hut 
1.4.         thatched  Cottages.     And  Diodorus  Siculus  faith,  the  Habitations  ojf  the 
Strab,       Britains  confijled  of  Reeds  and  Sticks  put  together.    Strabo  gives  an  ele- 
eogr.  .4.  ggj^^  Defcription  of  the  Cities  of  the  Britains,  when  he  faith,  they  in- 
dofed  a  large  Piece  of  Ground  with  the  Bodies  of  Trees,  and  therein  they 
fet  up  their  Cottages  and  Stables  for  their  Cattle,  which  were  intended  for 
Herod.  1.7.  f^o  long  Contimiance.     For  as  HerodioM  faith  of  the  Germans,  their  Ha- 
p.5pi.ed.  bitations  were  fo  mean,  becaufe  they  did  not  underjiand  the  way  of  building 
^^"'*       hy  Stone  or  Brick :  Which  the  Romans  inftrufted  thefe  parts  of  the 
World  in,  and  fo  became  the  great  Inftruments  of  building  Cities  and 
Tacit  in    Temples.     And  Tacitus  in  the  Life  of  Agricola  takes  notice,  that  where- 
ic  Agnc.gg  jj^g  Britains  lived  rude  and  difperfed,  he  injiru&ed  and  ajjijied  thent 
in  building  Temples  and  Houfes,  and  Forums,  or  Places  ofPublick  Refort. 
But  what  need  all  this  Care,  if  the  Britains  had  fo  many  Cities,  and  fo 
well  built,  before  ever  the  Romans  fet  foot  in  Britain  .<?     And  if  that 
be  true,  not  only  Cafar,  but  all  the  other  Roman  Hiftorians  carried  on 
the  fame  uniform  Defign  to  make  Pofterity  believe  the  Old  Britains  li- 
ved rude  and  difperfed,  as  other  Neighbouring  Nations  did,  whereas  in 
truth  they  had  28  famous  Cities,  and  London  in  the  Head  of  them  5 
which  in  thofe  times  was  called  Troymvaunt  -^  the  place  being  chofen 
out  by  Brutus  as  the  fitteft  to  build  'New  troy  in,  becaufe  of  its  admi- 
rable Situation. 

The  next  confiderable  Expedition  into  Britain  was  that  of  Claudius, 
For,  after  Cafari  Attempt  rather  than  Conqueji,  (  having  gone  no  far- 
ther than  thofe  he  calls  The  Maritime  Cities,  which  were  peopled  from 
Sfrab.  !.^.G<j«/,  among  whom  Comius  King  of  the  Atrebates  had  fo  great  fway  ) 
JgJ'l'^'^' the  following  Emperours  would  not  concern  themfelves  about  the  Af- 
Dio.i.'  53.  fairs  of  Britain.     Auguftus,  as  Di(?  tells  us,  once  gave  out  at  Rome,  that 
he  intended  an  Expedition  into  Britain,  and  great  preparation  was 
made  for  it,  but  being  come  into  Ganl,  Embafiadors  went  from  the  j5rr- 
tains  to  him,  who  accepted  their  Terms  ofSubmiffion,  his  chief  defign 

being 


Anti(juhj  of  LONDON.  501 


being  to  fettle  the  Provinces  of  Gaul  and  Spain.  And  afterwards Strabo ^^''^'^'  M- 
faith,  That  there  was  a  fair  Correfpondency  in  his  time,  between  the 
Kings  oi Britain  and  AugHJluj  -.^  they  courting  his  Favour  by  Prefents 
which  they  fent  to  the  Capitol.  It  is  certain,  there  was  no  Roman  Gar- 
rifon  here,  and  Strabo  gives  two  reafons  for  it^  one  is.  That  it  would 
hardly  quit  coft^  for  at  the  leaft,  there  muft  be  a  whole  Legion  befides 
Horfe,  which  v«ould  more  than  eat  out  the  Pirofit  that  came  by  it;  ano- 
ther is.  That  it  would  but  provoke  and  exaQ)erate  the  Brltains  more  ; 
And  therefore  the  Romans  accepted  a  very  eafie  Tribute  from  them  ^ 
fuch  as  lay  in  thofe  fmall  Commodities  of  Ivory  and  Amber,  and  fuch 
like,  which  they  fent  over  into  Gaul. 

It  feems  that  when  Auguftus  fet  Bounds  to  the  Roman  Empire,  Britain 
was  left  out  of  it;    and  therefore  little  notice  was  taken  of  it  in  the 
Reign  ot  Tiberiiu,    who  as  Tacitus  oblerves,    followed  Augnjlus  his  Tacic.vit. 
Judgment  therein,  and  made  it  a  Rule  to  himfelf.    But  in  the  time  of  s|."'^vij: 
CalignUj   Adminius  San  ol  Cunobelin,    being  driven  out  by  his  Father  caiig.c' 
made  Application  to  him,  who  thereupon  undertook  his  ridiculous  Ex- 1** 
pedition,  remarkable  for  nothing  but  the  famous I'T^zfcA /"^rre/-,    which  u"  c.Vo. 
he  built  on  the  Shore  :     Which  fome  Learned  Men  take  to  be  the  Arx  camden. 
Britunnica  formerly  ftanding  on  the  Banks  of  the  Rhine.     Others,   the  fj^'^"  ^^* 
Tower  on  the  Fort  ^/Bolein,  which  Bucher'ius  faith,    he  examined  with  Seiden. 
great  care,  and  found  it  to  be  a  Roman'V^oxkt^    and  he  thinks  it  the^"^^*''' 
moft  noble  Monument  oi Roman  Antiquity  on  this  fide  the  Alps.    Mai-  BuVhen" 
branch  faith,     The  French  call  it  Tour  d'Ordre  5    which  by  the  middle  ^^'g-  ^°' 
Age  Writers  was  called  Odrans,  and  before  that  Ordans^  which  he  fup-  ^7o/'„f" 
pofes  to  be  taken  from  Turrk  ardens,  becaufeit  was  a  Pharus,  or  Watch-  '3.  h- 
Tower  for  thofe  who  failed  upon  thofe  Coafts.  d^  M'Jrkds 

But  Claudius  began  the  moft  memorable  Expedition  into  Britain  in  his  Tom.  1. 
4th  Year,  asOrofius  cpmputes  it,  'which  gave  a  mighty  turn  to  the  Af-  p^'/-,*" 
fairs  o{  Britain.    It  happen'd  that  Clauditff  was  very  ambitious  of  acT. '    ^ 
Triumph,  but  wanted  a  good  Occafion  for  it  5  and  there  being  then  in 
Rome  one  Beticus,  as  Dio  relates  it,    who  was  a  Britain,    and  banilhed  ^^°>  ''^°- 
forSedition,   he  perfwades  C/<r«<s/r*sf  to  undertake  the  Conqueft  of  fin- Sue  con.  in 
tain:^  the  Britains  being  then  tumultuous,  becaufe  the  Romans  did  not^'*"^-  ^' 
fend  back  their  Fugitives,  fuch  as  Bet/cus  himfelf  was.    Claudiuf  not  a  ' 
little  glad  of  the  Opportunity,    fends  away  A.  Plautius,    then  Pretor^ 
with  a  go6d  Army  into  Gaul ;  and  not  without  great  difficulty  he  per- 
fwades  his  A»rmy  to  venture  into  Britain,    where  defar  had  much  adoe 
to  maintain  his  Reputation,  and  returned,  as  Dio  faith,  with  the  Glory  Dio,/.  30, 
of  having  made  an  Expedition  into  Britain,  having  rather  frighted  the  Tact.  vie. 
J5r/V<i/»r  than  fubdued  them,  asboth  D;<;and  Tka/«j  infinuate^    how-   ^"*^' 
ever,    the  Romans  in  great  civility,   decreed  him  a  Supplication  of  29 
Days,  for  the  Honour  rather  of  a  Difoverer  than  of  a  Conqueror.    The 
Brita/ns  hearing  of  the  Diforders  in  the  Roman  Army,    thought  thera- 
felves  fecure^    and  therefore  when  A.  Plautius  landed  with  his  For- 
ces, being  not  in  a  condition  to  refifl:  them,  they  thought  it  Wifdom 
to  retire  into  their  Woods  and  Boggs,   hoping  by  that  means  to  tire 
them  out,    as,    faith  Dio,  they  had  done  Julius  C^efar. 

The  State  of  the  Britains,   as  he  tells  us,    then  was  Monatchical,  but 
under  divers  Kings ;  who  bad  fuch  fmall  Principalities,  that  C£far  him-  csefar./.j. 
felf  faith,  there  were  Four  in  Kent  alone,  Cingetorix,  Carnilius,  Taxi- 
magalus,  and  Segonax  ;   but  all  thefe  at  that  time  were  in  fubjeftion  to 
CaJJJvelaun,    who  commanded  in  chief  for  that  War,  and  fent  his  Or- 

Y  y  y  y  y  ders 


^o2  A  Difcourfe  of  the  true 

derstothera,   which  they  readily  obeyed.     But  at  this  time,    they  had 
Tacit. vit  not confulted  or  could  not  agree  upon  a  Supreme;  which,   as  Tacitut 
Ag"c.      obferves,  proved  at  laft  the  Ruin  of  the  Britains^  not  being  united  un- 
der one  common  Head  5  for  while  each  fought  for  himftlf,   they  were 
Strab./.4.alldeftroyed.    Straboiaxih^  tht  Br  it  ainsWvQdi  under  feveral  Dynafties; 
Diod.  /.4.and  Diodorus  Si  cuius  to  the  fame  purpofe,    that  they  had  many  Kings 
Mela.  /.  3.  and  Lords  among  them ;  and  fo likewife  Pontpon'ms  Mela 5  but  thefe  two 
'^''^'        differ  very  much  in  the  Confequences  of  this  Government :    For  Diodo- 
rus faith,  they  generally  lived  peaceably  together  5    and  the  other  juft 
jornand.  Contrary,   with  whom  Joruandes  agrees ;    and  which  is  more,    Tacittts 
de  rebus  confirms  it ;  who  adds,  that  it  was  a  rare  thing  for  them  to  unite  their 
Get.c.  a.  (>Qyjj^.j]g  Qj  Forces  5  all  little  Governments  being  weak  and  diftruftful  5 
and  although  unable  to  defend  themfelves,    yet  had  rather  perifh  than 
yield  to  an  Equal. 

This  was  too  much  the  Gafe  of  the  Britains,  upon  the  Invafion  of 
the  Roman  Army  5  all  their  bufinefs  was,  not  to  unite  together  to  make 
Headagainfta  common  Enemy,  but  to  (hift  for  themfelves,  by  which 
means  they  were  conquered  almoft  as  foon  asdifcovered  5  as  appeared 
by  the  flying  of  Carat acus  and  Togodumnus,  Sons  oiCunobelin  5  and  ai- 
ter  the  Battle  mth  C.  SidiusGeta,  D/V  faith,  the  Britains  made  as  fa^  as 
they  could  towards  the  Mooth  of  the  Thames^  where  they  fecured 
themfelves  in  the  Marfties  for  a  time,  till  at  laft  the  Romans  found  a 
way  to  them,  and  made  great  flaughter  among  them,  not  without  a 
confiderable  lofs  to  themfelves.  But  the  Britains  being  now  made  de- 
fperate,  were  fo  far  from  beirag  difcouraged  by  the  Death  of  Togodum- 
\  ms  that  they  were  refolved  to  revenge  his  Death,  and  to  make  a  ftand- 

ing  War  of  it.  And  now,  according  to  his  Inftruftions,  A.  Plautius 
fends  word  to  Claudius  of  the  prefent  State  oi  his  Affairs  here,  and  that 
it  would  be  a  feafonable  time  for  hirfl  to  appear  in  the  Head  of  his  Ar- 
my. Who  immediately  difpatches  all  things  in  order  to  a  folemn  Ex- 
pedition, and  coming  into  Britain  finds  the  Roman  Army  waiting  for 
him,  on  the  fide  of  the  Thames,  and  the  Britains  on  the  other  fide  5  and 
then,  faith  Dio,  crofiing  the  Thames  he  fought  the  Britains  and  over- 
came them,  and  then  took  in  Camalodunum  the  Royal  Seat  of  Cunobelin. 
Suetonius  very  fpitefully,  will  not  allow  one  Blow  to  be  given,  nor  a 
drop  of  Blood  to  be  (bed  while  Claudius  was  here  5  but  he  grants  he 
made  a  magnificent  Triumph  upon  the  Vi^ory  over  the  BritaiJts.  Whe- 
ther the  Battle  wis  fought  before  or  after  Claudius's  coming  is  not  materi- 
al to  my  Bufinefs  ;  but  I  fee  no  reafon  to  miftruftDw,  who  is  fo  parti- 
cular in  his  Relation,  and  had  feen  what  Suetonius  had  faid.  But  that 
which  I  obferve  is.  That  all  this  while,  \^hen  the  Seat  of  the  War  vf as 
about  the  Thames,  there  is  not  the  leafi  intimation  given  of  fuch  a  City 
as  London  ;  which  could  not  have  been  avoided,  if  it  had  been  then 
built.  For  why  (hould  not  the  Britains  h'aye  retreated  thither  -^  and  the 
Romanshave  laid  S/ege  to  it  >  Why,  after  the  Battle  (hould  not  that 
much  rather  have  been  mentioned  than  Camalodunum  as  the  Royal  Seat 
of  Cunobelin.  And  fince  Vanity  and  Ojientation  led  Claud/us  hither,  why 
(hould  we  imagine  the  Name  of  the  greateft  City  in  Britain  (hould  be 
concealed  ?  What  an  Addition  had  this  been  to  the  Pomp  of  his  Tri' 
umph^  to  have  had  the  Rreprefentation  of  fo  famous  a  City  as  London  h 
Scrab. /.  3.  f^i j  fQ  j^^yg  i^eej^  at  tj-^at  ^\^q  >     Yot  fo  Strabo  fliith.  The  Cuflom  was  in 

Triumphal  Pomps  to  fet  forth  in  glorious  Scenes  the  Places  they  hadfubdued. 
And  befides,  there  is  not  the  leafl:  mention  of  it  in  the  foUovping  Prefecur 

tion 


Antiquity  ^/LONDON.  903 


tion  of  this  War  under  the  Roman  Lieutenants^     although  Fefpajian 
tojaght,    2i%  Sneton'tus  confefleth,  thirty  Battles  with  the  Britains,  tookSuer.  in 
io  of  theiir  Towns  (  or  fortified  Places)  and  fubdued  (n>o  whole  Nations  ^^^p*^- 
and  the  Ideof^f/^^;.  '"*• 

The  only  confiderable  Ohje&ion  againfl:  the  former  Difcourfe  is  from 
a  certain  Coin  mentioned  by  Camden,    among  thofe  oi  Claudius  relating  Briran. 
to  Britain  ^    wherein  on  one  fide  is  nothing  legible  but  Britannicus,  inP<55. 
great  Letters  ^  and  on  the  other,  Metropolis  Etyminli  Regk^  as  he  reads 
it  ^   and  then  there  are  two  Syllables  on  the  Reverfe,  BA  7\0.  in  that  Nero  c*- 
oi  O^avius  Strada,  which  fomehave  ingenioufly  conjeftured  to  ftandf"•^'34• 
i^/Ae  Greek  for  BA:5:IA.  AON  A.   and  fo  to  be  a  plain  Evidence  that  Anto°n!p." 
London  was  then  a  Metropolis,  and  this  Etyminius  King  of  it.    But  there  158. 
are  feveral  things  which  keep  me  from  being  fo  tranfported  with  this 
Conjedure,  as  the  Authors  I  mention  are.    For  (i.)   The  reading  of 
the  Reverfe  is  very  uncertain.    Camden  %  Coin  had  not  fo  much  as  that 
ofO^aviusStrada-j    and  thofe  Readings  produced  by  Oao,    Ortelius, rTif\3n. 
Trijian  and  Spanhemius  are  very  different.  Triftan  refers  it  to  tniNION  commenc. 
BAAOinN,   £/>zwe/««»  being  a  Maritime  Cky  o{  Macedonia -^   but  faith  "oo^  ^' 
Spanhemius,  he  hath  joined  two  mean  Cities  of  Macedonia  to  make  one 
Metropolis.     But  that  Learned  and  Judicious  Antiquary  obferving  other  spanhem. 
Letters  in  Strada's  Coin,  which  are  not  in  Camden's,  RO  being  put  be-  de  ufu 
fore  MH  TPOnO  AEas,  and  the  following  Words  being  Eni  MlN  AIOT  Nwn^fm. 
B  AAO,  he  conceives  it  to  relate  to  the  Metropolis  of  Corinth,  and  to  one''*  "*  ' 
Mindius,  then  Proconful  of  Achaia  under  Claudius.     But  becaufe  Occo's 
Coin  hath  N  before  KO  he  therefore  thinks  it  may  as  well  relate  to 
the  Metropolis  ofNicomedia,  thisMtW/»jbeinglikewife  Proconful  oiBi- 
thynia.    But  however  this  be,  we  fee  what  a  very  uncertain  Foundation 
this  Coin  affords  to  build  the  Metropolis  of  London  upon.     Efpecially 
(2.)    When  the  whole  Series  of  the  Roman  Hiflory  at  that  time,  with 
refpeft  to  the  Affairs  of  Britain,  have  no  ground  for  fuch  a  Con  jedure. 
For,   why  (hould  not  Dio  have  mentioned  this  Etyminius  being  placed 
by  Claudius  in  the  Metropolis  of  London,  as  well  as  his  taking  Camalodti- 
nnm  for  the  Royal  Seat  of  Cnnobdin  .<?    If  this  Etyminius  were  the  fame 
with  Adminius  (  as  Camden  conjeftures  )  who  fled  over  to  Caligula,  no 
doubt  he  would  have  been  placed  in  the  Royal  Seatof  his  Father  at  C<f- 
tnalodunum  5    but  there  was  the  firfi  Roman  Colony  fettled,   without 
any  regard  to  the  Son  of  Cunobelin,  all  the  Britains  Eftates  being  takea 
from  them.    And  this  Colony  was  deduced  in  Claudius's  time,  as  appears 
by  one  of  Claudius  s  Coins  in  Camden  ;    where,  on  one  fide  is  the  Effi- 
gies oi  Claudius,  with  all  his  Tj/Zei- 5  and  on  the  other,  21  Plowman,  dri- 
ving a  Bull  and  a  Cow,  according  to  the  Roman  Cuflora  in  fetting  out 
Ground  for  a  Colony^    and  over  it, 

COL. 
CAMALODON 
AUG. 
From  hence  I  proceed  to  confider  the  other  Britiflj  Cities,  whether  a* 
ny  of  them  can  be  found  elder  than  the  Roman  Times.  A  Catalogue  of 
thefe  we  have  in  Nentfius,  and  Huntingdon,  and  others  ^  but  the  leairn- 
ed  and  accurate  Archbifhop  of  Armagh  having  tranfcribed  a  Copy  of 
them  out  of  twoMSS.  in  the  Cotton  Library,  and  compared  it  with  9  o-  mrer.  vtu 
thers  j  I  (hall  generally  keep  to  the  Readings  that  are  in  him,  although  mord.  p. 
not  to  the  Method  he  fets  them  down  in  ;    but  take  them  according  to  ^^* 
the  Roman  Provinces  then. 

Yyy y y  2  I 


^o4  A  Difcourfe  of  the  time 

'■  ■■ '  ' ■"-■■-  I  I    II         I  - ■'  -I _. — — — —  -  ■■ ' '  ■-■    >  ■■ 

I  begin  therefore  with  the  Province  of  Britannia  prima  ^  and  therein 
Tacit.An.  ^1^  Caer  Mincip  or  Municip,  which  was  old  Ferula/^,  Called  by  Tacit»f 
'''         a  MumciptHm,  and  Caer  Mnnicipittnt  in  an  old  Infcription  fet  forth  by 
Goltzius.    That  it  was  a  Roman  Town  appears  by  the  Rage  of  Boadicea 
and  the  Brltains  againft  it  5  who  from  London  went  immediately  thi- 
ther, and  fack'd  it,  and  deftroy'd  the  Inhabitants ;  and  they  were  the 
more  provoked  by  its  being  a  Municip'mm,  becaufe  this  was  a  Device  to 
draw  the  Britains  in  to  betray  their  Country,  by  making  them  capable 
Eritan.;.  of  Roman  Privileges.     Camden  thinks  that  Verulam  flood  in  that  very 
Leiand.ad  p'ace  where  Cajjivelaun's  Totvn  was  5  which  agrees  well  enough  with 
cygn.      Cafar's  Defcription  of  it,  there  being  no  other  Marfh  fo  confiderable 
Fragm.     '"  ^^^^^  P^*"^^  ^^  the  great  Pool  formerly  near  Verulam  5  where,  as  JLc- 
£)efcript.  land  and  Humphry  Llhuyd  fay.  Anchors  have  been  taken  up  5  but  it  was 
Briran.     drained  in  the  Saxon  times,  and  turned  into  Meadows,  as  Vernlam  it 
SpenVerV  felf  at  laft  was,  according  to  that  of  Spenfer  ; 

Rums  of 

^'"^*  Verulam  1  was,  nehat  boots  it  that  I  was, 

Sith  now  I  am  but  Weeds  and  Wajiful  Grafs. 

Poiychro       (2.)  Cair  Ceint.    This  Ranulphut  Higden  faith  from  Alphred  of  Be-- 
^^'  ''''^'verly^  was  Canterbury  5  called  Dorovernum  in  Ptolemy,  Durovernum  in 
Leiand  in  the  Itinerary.    This,  as  feveral  other  places  in  Kent,  as  Leland  and 
P^"*/*^' Pg  !*/%«/ obferve,  had  the  Name  from  the  Britifi  Word  Dwr  or  D^ur^ 
fcript.Bri-  which  figuifics  Water  5  as  Durobrevum,  Dorolenum,  Durovernum,  Dork^ 
tan.M3.*.  as  he  calls  Dove^.    That  Canterbury  was  a  City  in  the  time  of  the  Ro*- 
mans,  there  is  no  queftion  ;  for  it  appears  by  the  Itinerary,  that  the 
way  to  9  Ports  lay  through  it,  to  Rutupia,  not  Richborough  (hut  Sand' 
tpich)  to  Dubrk,  Clover)  Ad  portum  Lemanjf,  (to  Lim  or  Lomen  near 
Hith)  from  whence  to  Canterbury  was  one  of  the  Via  Strata,  or  old 
Roman  Military  Ways,  as  appears  by  the  Peutinger  Tables.   But  Mr.  Som- 
Mu  Som-  ner  thinks,  that  the  Roman  Watch-Tower  was  near  Lim-hill,  where  the 
pfe'ofTbe  R'""""  Garrifon  was  5  but  the  Portus  Lemanis  he  thinks  was  at  Romney, 
Roman     where  he  fhews  the  River  Lomen  did  anciently  run  into  the  Sea,  and 
%l7s  Ttf  ^^^^  3  convenient  Haven  at  the  Mouth  of  it.    Four  Roman  Forts  be- 
Kenc  fmce  fides  there  were  in  Kent  5  Richborough,  where  the  Garrifon  was  upon 
iHhD^t.    the  Hill  Northward  from  Sandwich,  (which  he  juftly  fuppofes  to  have 
been  the  Port-Town.)     Reculver,  where  the  Tribunus  Cohortk  Vetafiano- 
rum  lay  in  Garrifon,  and  where  Roman  Coins  were  frequently  taken  up, 
and  the  Roman  Brick  or  Tile  is  ftill  difcernable:  Dover,  where  lodged 
the  Prapofitus  Militum  Tungricanorum  x,   and  the  Watch-Tower  there, 
as  Mr.  Somner,  after  a  diligent  Survey,  concludes,  was  the  Square  Tower 
in  the  midft  of  the  Church  or  Chapel,  where  he  found  great  ftore  of 
Roman  Bricks  5  and  the  like  in  the  Caftle-Hill  at  Folkfton,  whence  C^w- 
den  proves  it  to  have  been  a  Roman  Fort.     Thus  we  find  the  Romans 
had  Ways,  and  Ports,  and  Forts  InKent.    The  Queftion  now  is,  Whe- 
ther the  City  of  Canterbury  were  built  by  the  Romans,  or  a  long  time 
Geofrj.i.  before  ?  li  Geoffrey  may  be  believed,  it  was  built  by  Hudibras  fometime 
^*       after  Salomon  i  but  no  manner  of  i^rcof  is  offered  for  it,  not  fo  much 
as  Agreement  in  the  Name,  which  Annius  Viterbienfis  generally  took 
^n»/?«jf;?;  Care  of.    But  I  have  one  great  Argument  to  prove,  that  Canterbury 
buov  p"  ^^^  ^'^'''  ^y  *^^  Romans,  not  from  the  Roman  Coins  found  almoft  in 
C2fir,/-5.  all  paits  c;f  the  City,  as  Mr.  Somner  affirms  ^  but  from  Cacfars  Account 
of  his  2d  Landing,  which  is,  that  he  marched  1 2  Miles  before  he  e- 

fpied 


Antiquity  <?/  L  ( )  N  D  O  N.  ^05 

fpied  the  Britaius  Army,  and  then  a  River  parted  them,  where  they 
began  to  fight,  the  Britains  having  the  Advantage  of  the  upper  Ground, 
but  being  beaten  back  by  the  Roman  Horfe,  they  retired  into  a 
Wood,  very  well  fortify *d  both  by  Nature  and  Art,  having  all  the 
Entrances  (hut  with  great  Trees  cut  down  on  piirpofe.  Here  we  have; 
juft  fuch  another  as  Cajfivelaun's  town  5  which,  as  C/nfar  faith,  was  rea- 
dy made  upon  occafion  of  fome  Quarrel  among  themfelves.  Now  if 
there  had  been  fuch  a  City  as  Canterbury  in  C<efar%  time,  it  muft  have 
been  mentioned  here.  For  near  the  very  place  where  Oyer's  Army  firft 
efpied  the  Britains,  Canterhnry  ftands,  being  at  that  diftance  ixom  Deal^ 
where  C^far  landed  ^  there  runs  the  River  which  parted  the  Armies^ 
and  on  this  fide  was  the  rifing  Ground  and  the  great  Wood  where  the 
Britains  hid  themfelves,  only  fometimes  appearing  in  fmall  Parties  5 
but  the  Seventh  Legion  at  laft  beat  them  out  of  this  Fortification.  Bnr 
if  there  had  been  any  thing  like  a  City  at  Canterbury  then,  C^far  could 
not  have  avoided  the  mention  of  it  5  for  there  muft  have  been  fome 
confiderable  Aftion  about  it. 

(5.)  Cair  Colun  OX  Colon,  which  by  the  Interpretation  of  H.  Hunting- 
don  and  Alfred  is  fa  id  to  be  Colchejier,  called  in  the  Roman  Itinerary, 
Colomia,  as  appears  by  the  Diftances  and  Scope  of  the  filth  Iter  5  which 
is  from  London  to  Carlifle,  not  direft,  but  with  a  great  compafs  to  the 
Eafi,  and  then  to  Lindum.     And  the  fixth  Iter  from  London  to  Lindnm 
is  very  different.    So  that  the  Itinerary  doth  not  (hew  the  (horteft 
Ways,  but  the  Roads  which  lay  fitteft  for  Bufinefs,  efpecially  for  the 
Roman  Magiftrates  taking  their  Progrefs  through  the  feveral  Cities  and 
Colonies  inhabited  by  the  Romans,  or  Natives  of  the  Country,  for  the 
Adminiftration  of  Juftice  among  them ;  fo  thek  Itineraries  feem  to  be 
framed  here  in  Britain,  to  fhew  the  feveral  Stages  and  Diftances  be- 
tween them,  much  like  our  Circuits  for  the  Itinerant  Judges;     Thus 
from  London  to  Lindum  they  fet  out  Eajiward/,  and  fo  went  into^^x-, 
Pitt  of  Suffolk,  Cambridge,  Huntingdon,  Sind  (b  by  Cajierton  to  Lindum  ^ 
but  being  there,  the  fixth  Road  fhews  how  they  might  pafs  from  thence 
by  /incajhr  to  Leicejier,  and  thence  by  feveral  places  mentioned  to  Vc 
rulam,  and  fo  back  to  London.    So  that  the  Defign  of  the  Itinerary  is 
to  (hew,  what  Places  were  vifited  in  the  feveral  ProgrelTes  ^   and  no 
doubt  there  were  Roman  Ways  then  to  all  thefe  Places,  and  therefore  they 
were  moft  convenient  for  travelling,  although  the  great  Roads  called 
Via  Strata  were  more  remarkable  than  the  reft  ;  which  Hieron,  Surita  Hieron. 
faith,  ought  to  be  reckoned  among  the  greateft  Works  of  Mankind,  Anton^n. 
being  made  through  all  the  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire.    To  this  p.  168. 
purpofe  the  Romans  made  ufe  of  their  own  Soldiers,  and  the  Inhabi- 
tants of  the  feveral  Provinces:   So  G<i/e<?f«f  complains,  that  the  i?o-Tacir.vit. 
mans  did  wear  out  the  Bodies  of  the  Britains  in  paving  of  Boggs  and  g^r- 
Woods ;    and  Bede  faith,  the  Romans  were  known  here  by  their  Ci-c.^i'i.' 
ties,  and  Temples,  and  Bridges,  and  High-ways.    It  feems  Bede  had 
not  heard  of  the  four  famous  Ways  made  by  Belinus  the  Son  of  Mai-  Gaif.  hift. 
mutiut,  called  Watling-flreet,  the  Foffe,  Ermin-fireet,  and  Ickneld-jlreet,^' ''  *^""° 
about  which  our  Antiquaries  have  been  fo  puzzled,  that  they  know  not 
where  to  begin  or  end  them  5  for  in  truth  they  were  no  other,  but 
fuch  as  led  from  one  RomanTown  to  another.     And  although  Cam- 
den faith,  he  could  find  no  Footfteps  of  fuch  Ways  in  Ejfex,  time  ha- 
ving worn  them  out  ^  yet  it  is  certain,  according  to  thecourfeof  the 
Itinerary,  and  the  Feutinger  Tables,  there  had  been  fuch  3  for  according 

tcy 


,  ■-  I  'l        I  -  -     - -  ■  ■■     .  ■      ■■  I  ■!     ■ 

006  A  Difcourfe  of  the  true 


Brican. 
p.  3J5. 


to  both  of  them,  there  was  a  Road  from  Vent  a  Lettorum  to  London  by 
Sitontagiis^  CombretOMJHm,  CamalodHnum,  Cafaromagus^  &c.  and  again 
from  London  to  CmfaromaguSy  Colonia,  Villa  FaHJiim,  Liani,  Cambori- 
cum,  and  fo  to  Lindum.  In  the  Fifth  Iter,  we  find  Colonia.  mentioned, 
in  the  Ninth  CamalodunuM,  but  not  Colonia  j  which  makes  me  think 
the  fame  place  is  meant  in  both,  becaufe  they  both  lie  atalmoft  an  e- 
qual  diftance  in  the  Itinerary  from  Ccefaromagm,  and  all  Perfons  yield 
the  Numbers  to  be  much  corrupted  ^  and  in  the  Peutinger  Tables,  Ca' 
tffalodunum  is  fet  down  but  not  Colonia  5  upon  which  Reafons  I  am  ve- 
ry inclinable  to  Leland's  Opinion,  that  Colchefler  was  bot  h  Colonia  and 
Camalodunum.  I  know  Mr.  Camden,  whofe  Sagacity  and  Judgment 
were  extraordinary,  hath  pitched  upon  Maldon,  rather  than  Colchefler^ 
becaufe  of  the  Affinity  of  the  Name  ;  which  is  a  very  deceitful  way  in 
fuch  a  Corruption  of  Languages  in  Britain,  to  judge  of  the  Original 
ojf  a  Town.  But  which  is  far  more  obfervable,  at  Maldon,  Camden 
takes  no  notice  of  any  Roman  Antiquities,  but  fuch  as  fuppofe  it  to 
have  been  the  Colony  ^  but  at  Colchefler,  he  faith,  an  infinite  Number 
of  Roman  Coins  were  found  5  and  as  to  the  Name  Colchefler  hath  as 
much  remaining  of  Colonia,  Chefter  being  the  Saxon  Addition,  as  Mal- 
don of  CamaloduKum.  And  there  can  be  no  queftion,  if  it  were  a  Ro- 
man Colony,  that  it  was  originally  no  Britifh  City. 

(4.)  Cair  Granth,  al.  Grant,  which  Alphred  of  Beverly  calls  Canti- 
hriggi,    H.  Huntingdon  Cantehrigia,  and  in  fome  Copies  Grantebrigia. 
But  Cair  Grant  being  the  Britiflj  Name,  it  is  certain  it  could  not  be  de- 
Britati.  p.  rived,  as  Mr.  Camden  fuppofes,  from  Gron  a  Saxon  Word,  fignifying  a 
ij^„e^^' fe»»y  or  mooriflj  Place:,  which  however  doubtfully  fpoken  by  him,  is 
oxon.i.i.  applauded  by  others.    And  the  Monks  of  Crotpland  calling  the  River 
se.  ^6.     Gronta,  difcovers  that  even  they  dia  not  take  it  in  the  Senfe  of  Gron  5 
for  they  plainly  diftinguilh  between  the  River  and  the  Fens  which 
arife  from  it.    And  fuppofe  Gron  to  fignifie  a  Moorifh  Ground,  yet 
how  comes  the  River  to  be  fo  called,  and  the  Town  from  the  River sf 
But  what  is  all  this  to  the  Britifl)  Cair  Grant. ^    Was  that  from  Gron 
too  ?     I  wonder  Mr.  Camden  took  no  notice  here  of  the  Britiflt  Name, 
as  he  doth  fo  often  elfewhere  >    Had  he  no  mind  to  confute  his  Saxo/t 
Derivation  ?  But  Mr.  Camden  grants  that  Cambridge  was  either  a  Part  of, 
or  fprung  from  the  Roman  Camboritum  mentioned  in  the  Itinerary ;  yet 
he  feems  puzzled  about  the  two  Names  Cam  and  Grant,  it  being  very 
caiic'coii*^^'^^  to  derive  one  from  the  other.     Leland  thinks  Cambridge  is  only  a 
vo).  2.    *  Corruption  of  the  Word  Cantebrige,  and  that,  of  Grantbrigge,  as  it  is 
P-  'Pi-     called  in  the  old  Chronicle  of  S.  Neots.    That  which  feems  to  me  moft 
probable  is,  that  the  River  confiding  of  two  Branches,  which  fall  into 
one  before  they  come  to  Cambridge,  the  one  by  reafon  of  its  many 
turnings  and  windings,  was  by,    the  Britains  therefore  called  Cam, 
and  the  other  Grant -^  and  fo  after  their  Union  it  did  bear  either  Name. 
In  Camden's  Map  of  Efex,  that  Branch  which  rifes  in  Newport  Pond, 
and  runs  by  Waldon,  Cheflerford,  &c.  is  called  Grant  5  and  the  other 
from  Jfljwel  doth  deferve  the  Name  of  Cam,  from  its  winding  Courfe, 
as  well  as  Camel  in  Cornvpall.     But  that  Cair  Gra>7t,  or  Grancejier  was  the 
Roman  Camboritum,  or  as  moft  Copies  have  it,  Camboricum  (^Cambric^ 
Mr. Camden  proves  not  only  from  the  Name  and  Diftance,  but  from  the 
Number  of  Roman  Coins  there  taken  up.  As  for  thofe  who  have  fetch- 
ed the  Original  of  it  from  Cantaher  and  Chembrigia,  Daughter  to  Gur- 

gun- 


Antiquity  «?/  L  O  N  D  O  N.  507 

gttntius,  I  leave  them  to  the  grave  and  learned  Confutation  of  fuch  who 
have  taken  great  pains  to  difprove  it. 

(5)  Catr  Guent.  agreed  by  Alfred  of  Beverley^  and  H.  Huntingdon  to 
be  Winc&ejier,  called  Venta  Belgarum  in  the  Roman  Itinerary,  ten  Miles 
froni  CUufentum,  (  Southanton  )  which  was  a  Roman  Port,  as  Mr.  Cam-  ^""''• 
den  proves  from  the  Coins  there  taken  up  5  and  likewife  he  found  the^*'  ^° 
Ruins  of  a  Fort  near  it  built  by  the  Romans  upon  the  Sea-coafts,  as 
Gildas  teftifies  they  ufed  to  do  againft  the  Infolencies  of  the  Saxon  Py- 
rates  who  infefted  them;  asthofe  were  in  Kent  already  mentioned.  As 
to  the  Name  of  Venta,  Camden  follows  Leland  in  deriving  it  from  the 
Britijb  Gueriy  which  fignifies  White '^   all  the  ii<7«;<;»  Cities  with  that 
Name,  as  Venta  SilurHm  and  Venta  Icenorum,  being  fituate  in  a  white 
chalky  Soil,  In  this  City  a  Roman  Procurator  had  his  Refidence,as  appears 
by  the  Notitia  Imperii  5  who  was  overfeer  of  the  Work-houfe  (  called 
Gjinacixm)  for  making  Sailsfor  Ships  and  Garments  for  Souldiers ;  which 
were  provided  at  the  publick  Charge,  as  appears  by  feveral  Edifts  in 
the Theodofiaa  Code  '^  and  is  there  called  Canon  Vejiium.     And  in  order  Cod  The- 
to  the  providing  thefe,  there  were  15  Gynacia,  or  publick  Work-houfes^-^ip: 
in  the  Weftern  Empire ;  2  m  lUyrtcum,  4  m  Italy,  i  m  Africa^  2  m* 
Gtf«/,  5  in  Belgium,  and  i  in  Britain'^  over  all  which  were  fo  many  Notic  Pro. 
Vrocurators,  who  were  to  provide  Materials,  and  at  certain  times  to  make  »inc- imp; 
returns  to  the  feveral  Governours  of  the  Provinces ;  and  the  Procura-  ^^T    '^* 
tor  Gyn<ecii  Ventenfis  in  Britain,  had  fuch  a  Work-houfe  at  Winche- 
ster x,  from  whence  the  Sails  might  be  conveniently  fent  to  the  Roman 
Ports ;  and  the  Military  Vefts  to  London  ^  where  the  Governours  of 
the  Province  had  their  chief  abode.     As  to  Geofferys  making  this  Cair 
Guent  another  of  King  Hudibras  his  Cities,  it  is  as  true,  as  that  he  built  ^aifr.  i.r; 
the  Town  upon  Mount  Palado^  or  Shafisbury,  where  the  Eagle  fpake*^"  '*" 
while  the  Walls  were  building :  But  J.  Bale  underftands  it  of  a  Druyd 
at  that  time  called  Aqitila  Septonim ;  whofe  Prophecies  were  preferved  saf.  de 
in  great  Efteem  among  the  Britaim,  and  he  affirms  that  he  had  feen  BHcan"^ 
fome  Fragments  of  them.  It  is  true,  that  Geoffery  affirms  that  in  the  lat-  n.  ir.. 
ter  end  of  the  Britijh  Government,    Cadvpallader  was  perfwaded  to  9*'[j^* '•  ?' 
give  over  all,  becaufe  by  the  Prophecies  of  the  Eagle,  as  well  as  by  * 
Merlins  and  the  Sibyls  there  was  an  end  now  come  to  the  Britains 
Kingdom.     But  he  never  intimates  that  this  Aquila  was  any  more  than 
gn  Eagle.     But  here  Bale  followed  the  Steps  of  Leland,  who  being  a- 
(bamed  of  Geofferys  Tale,  turned  the  Eagle  into  a  famous  Druyd -^  and 
Leland  gave  the  intimation,  where  the  Eagles  Prophecies  were  to  bejcJ.^^ 
found.     But  Geoffery  hath  fometing  more  particuhr  of  Wine hefter,  viz.  Aqmia. 
that  Claudius  landing  near  Port/mouth,  having  demolilhed  Cair  Perk,  or 
Portcefter  purfued  Arviragiu  to  Winchejier,  and  there  befieged  him  j  and 
by  perfvvafion  of  the  Britains,  Arviragus yielded  the  City  to Claudius,^^^^'^-^^ 
and  married  his  Daughter  Geniffa ;  and  the  place  of  their  Marriage  in  ^•''•*^'^°* 
honour  of  ilaudius  was  caHed  Caerglou,  or  Gloucefter.    «S«e/tf»/«j- faith Sueton. in 
indeed,  that  Claudius  had  three  Daughters,  Claud-ia  whorr\  he  difown-^^^^^' '^' 
ed,  Antonia  married  to  Pompey  and  SylJa^  and  0£iavia  to  Nero.     But 
this  Geniffa  is  vvtfolly  a  ftranger  to  the  Roman  Writers  as  likewife  Ar- 
viragus  at  that  time,  who  lived  in  the  Reign  of  Domitian.     So  that,  as 
we  have  a  clear  proof  that  Winchejier  was  a  Roman  City,  fo  there  is  no 
Evidence  of  its  being  a  City  before,  much  lefs  that  it  was  befieged  by 
ilavdius,  who  fpent  but  fix  Months  in  bis  whole  Expedition,  and  his 

Bufi- 


Leland.  de 
p.  in 


^68  ^  Difcoiirfe  of  the  True 

Bufinefs  lay  about  the  Thames  ^  if  Dlo  a  Perfon  of  great  Authority  in 
Ronie^  being  both  Senator  and  Cotiful,  may  be  believed  before  Geoffrey 
oi  Monmouth,  i 

(6.)  Next  to  this,  is  Calr  Peris  ;  which  H.  Huntingdon  and  Ranulphus 
Ceftrenfis  from  y4//re<5i  fay,  was  Fortcepr,    the  ancient  Port  within  the 
Britan.     Ifland  of  Portfey,   at  the  Entrance  whereof  Portfmouth  now  ftands,  i.  e. 
f-  «39-     faith  Camden^  the  Mouth  or  Entrance  of  the  great  Port,   for  fo  Ptolemy 
calls  it,  Miycii  AifjiYiv  the  great  Port ;  which  (hows  the  Efteem  it  was  of 
Pcoi.Geog.in  the  Roman  Times :   For  Ptolemy  lived  in  the  time  oi  Antoninus  -^  and 
/.  2.C.  ?.   i-,e  placeth  it  not  far  from  the  JJle  of  Wight,    and  diftinguifheth  it  from 
the  Mouth  oiTrifanton-^  or,  as  Camden  isiith,    the  J5r//»/5  words  fignifie, 
the  Mouth  of  Anton,    (^  Tr  ait  h  Anton)    fmce  CiWed  Southanton.     but  it 
feems  uncertain,    whether,    notwithftanding  what  Mr.  Camden  faith, 
Portfmouth  might  not  have  its  Name  from  Port  the  5rfa:o»,    who  as  the 
Saxon  Annals  tell  us,  landed  at  that  Place,  A.  D.  501.  with  his  two 
Sons,    Bleda  and  Magla,   efpecially  being  joined  with  the  Saxon  Word 
Muth,  which  fignifies  an  Entrance  into  a  Haven.     However,   it  is  not 
improbable,  after  Vefpafian  had  fubdued  the  Ifle  of  Wight,  that  he  (hould 
take  care  oithe  Ports  which  lay  oppofite  to  it  5  and  therefore  in  the  Ro- 
maf?  Times  there  might  be  fuch  a  Place  fortified,    as  Cair  Peris,    al- 
though there  be  no  Roman  Antiquities  there  mentioned,     as  there 
were  at  Claufentum,    neither  is  it  mentioned  in  the  Itinerary  as  the  o- 
thef  is. 

(7.)  CairCaratauc,  v^hiththQ  o\6.  Gloffer  on  Nennius,  znA  Geoffrey  in- 
terpret  Salisbury,  which  was  a  Roman  Fortification,  then  called  Sorbio- 
dunum.  as  it  is  in  the  Itinerary.  But  why  Cair  Caratauc  §  Humphry 
Llhayd  would  have  it  Cair  Caradoc  in  Shropfhire,  fo  called  from  CaraBa- 
cus,  who  there  fought  with  OJiorius  5  but  this  was  a  Hill  and  no  City. 
Why  not  as  well  Catara&onium,  a  noted  Roman  Station  >  But  that  was 
ill  another  Province. 

(8.)  Cair  Dauri ;  fo  H  Huntingdon  and  Alfred  read  it,  and  interpret 
it  Dorche/ler  ^  but  Archbifhop  Vfier  reads  it  Cair  Daun,  and  fo  makes  it 
Donca/ler.     But  I  fee  no  reafon  to  rejeft  the  former  Reading  and  Inter- 
pretation ;  DorcheJierhem^caWedDorniumm  fome  Copies  of  Ptolemy, 
and  the  Inhabitants  Durotriges-^   which  fignifies  the  fame  with  the  Are- 
p/orici  and  Morini'm  the  oppofite  Coafts,  all  which  imply  their  Habita- 
tion to  be  near  the  Sea.      And  at  this  Place  Mr.  Camden  found  evident 
Remainders  of  the  Roman  Ways,   and  many  Roman  Coins  5    and  its 
Name  in  the  \x\x\Gxary  h  Dumovaria. 
Galfr./.i.      ^9-^  Cair  Penfavelcoit,   called  by  Geoffrey  Cair  Penvelcoit -.,    which  he 
p.  32.'  *    interprets,  and  Matt.WeJiminJier  after  him,  Exonium-^  however  in  i3<?- 
Lihuyd.    dius\\\s  Edition  it  was  mif-printed  Oxonium,     but  William  of  Worcefler^ 
DdTmpc.  quoted  by  the  learned  Oxford  Antiquary,    makes  it  to  be  Exeter  too. 
Bricainr   Camden  Kh'mks  \x  to  he  xead  Pont  Ivel  Coit,  which  he  renders  a  Bridge 
Apobg.    upon  Ivel  in  a  Wood  j  and  by  it  underftands  Ivelchejhr,  Ptolemy's  Ifcha- 
Anciq.ox. /«•,  where  many  jR<7«?(?»  Antiquities  are.found.  Archbifhop  ZJ/Z)er  rather 
BrVtaTn'^^  thinks  it  to  be  Pemfey  in  Suffex,  which  fome  Hiftorians  call  Vevenfellum^ 
p.  \6z!    and  Coit  fignifies  a  \4'ood,  there  having  been  fo  very  much  in  thofe  Parts. 
I'riiiioid.   {^yf  I  do  not  find  thisPc//w»/c/ mentioned  before  the  Norman  Writers  5 
^'  ^'       nor  any  Footfieps  of  Roman  Antiquities  there:     And  therefore  I  either 
think  it  to  be  the  Ifca  Danmoniorum,  in  the  Itinerary,  fince  called  Exe- 
ter,   being  the  laft  Wejiem  Station  therein  5    or  that  thofe   Copies 

which 


Antiquity  ^/LONDON.  5/0^ 

which  Alfred  and  Huntingdon  faw,  were  the  truer,  wherein  it  is  whol- 
ly left  out. 

(lo.)  Cair  Celemon^  or  Celemion  in  H.  Huntingdon  ^    but  he  gives  no  ^""a- 
light  to  it.     Camden,  whom  Archbifhop  ZJ/Ser  follows,  thinks  it  (hould ''*  ^  ** 
be  Camelion^  and  fo  takes  it  for  Camalet  in  Somerfetfhire,    where  are  the 
Remainders  of  an  old  Roman  Caftle,  with  Regular  Fortification,  and  a 
great  Number  of  Roman  Coins  have  been  there  taken  up.    The  Hill, 
faith  Leland,    is  more  than  a  Mile  in  compafs,   and  in  divers  places  Lei.  itim 
Foundations  of  Walls  are  to  be  feen  ;  and  many  Gold,  Silver  and  Cop-  P-  •  >  3- 
per  Coins,  have  been  found  there  in  plowing  ^   and  likewife  in  the 
Fields  thereabouts,   with  many  other  J»//^e  things,  and  efpeciallyby 
EJi,   the  Place  he  calls  Camulatte,    and  faith,  it  was  foraetime  a  famous 
Tolxm^  ox  Caftle. 

(II.)  Cair  Segent.  Alfred^  Huntingdon,  Camden,  Z)jher,  all  agree  it 
to  be  Silcefier  :  But  Camden  would  have  it  re^d  CairSegont,  as  coming 
nearer  to  Civitas  Segontiorum.  Archbilhop  Ujher  thinks  Cair  Sejont  dif- 
ferent from  it,  being  the  fame  with  Cair  Cufteint  in  Nennius,  i.  e,  the 
City  oiConftantius  near  Carnarvan  5  but  Camden  applies  all  this  to  Sil- 
cefier  :,  from  whence  to  Venta  Belgarum  the  Roman  way,  he  faith,  is  yet  Britan. 
unfeen^  and  fo  he  concludes  it  to  be  the  Vindonum  in  the  Itenerary.?-  '95' 
Thefe  Segontiacisne  a  People  mentioned  by  Cafar  ^  and  when  they  be- 
gan to  inhabit  together,  the  chief  City  did  bear  the  Name  of  the  People  5 
as  when  the  Parifti  dwelt  together,  their  City  was  called  Lutetia  Farifio- 
rum^  and  the  chief  Town  of  the  Segufiani,  Forum  Segupanorum ;  and 
from  hence  London  might  well  be  called  Augufta  Trinobantum,  being  the 
chief  City  of  the  Trinobantes,  but  with  no  more  relation  to  Troy,  than 
the  City  of  R/r»  to  ihe  Son  of  Priamus. 

(12.)  Cair  Britthou.  Huntingdon  calls  it  Cair  Briftou  -j  and  Leland is 
earneft  to  make  it  Fenta  Belgarum  5  but  Camden  by  no  means  allows  it. 
Who  differs  fo  much,  and  fo  often  from  Leland,  that  nothing  but  Spite 
and  Envy  could  raife  that  Calumny  upon  him,    that  he  was  Leland's  PU' 
giary,  as  any  one  may  difcern  who  hath  compared  them  both.    And       ^ 
when  it  was  objeded  againft  him  in  his  Life-time,  he  faith,  he  thought  fen.  p.  16. 
it  a  Calumny  more  deferving  Laughter  than  Confutation  ^  and  he  de-         »> 
fires  no  better  Anfwer,  than  to  compare  Leland's  Works  with  his  ^  which 
are  extremely  different  both  in  their  Defign,    and  the  Accomplifhment 
of  it.    This  I  here  mention,   becaufe  a  late  Hiftorian  hath  inferred  a 
Copy  ofVerfes  to  that  purpofe,   caWed  Leland's  Ghoft,   and  concludes  c6wcA- 
that  Camden  ^  not  to  be  excufed.     A  very  unjuft  Cenfhre  5   and  abun-  f^^jf^ 
dantly  refuted  hy  Camden  \n  a//«/cTr4fi?hewroteinhi3  ownDefence.p.  jja 
But  as  to  BriJioTD,  he  declares  hecan  find  no  Teftimony  at  all  of  itscom- 
ing  near  the  Roman  Times  5  and  he  thinks  it  built  not  long  before  the  Britan.  1 
Normoji  Conqueft.     But  how  comes  it  then  into  this  Catalogue  of  Bri-  ^'  ^^'* 
/i^  Cities  ?    It  is  certain,  the  Copies  do  not  agree  :     For  in  all  which 
Archbifhop  Z)(her  compared  fome  are  left  out,  which  are  in  thofe  which 
H.  Huntingdon  faw  t^  and  he  puts  in  others,  as  Cair  Glou   (  called  Gle- 
vum  in  the  Itinerary^  and  a  Colony  is  here  mentioned  in  an  Infcription 
at  Bath,  by  Camden  and  others.     But  Humphry  Llhuyd  thinks  it  was  not  Fragm. 
known  to  the  Romans,  but  built,  as  Ne»»/«/  faith,  (whom  he  Calls  Gil-  ^^^''^\'^^ 
das)  after  their  Times  by  one  G/<7»;r  Anceftor  toVortigem -^  {hnt  the  Iti- 
nerary and  L/fcr/ption  are  much  (Wronger  Arguments  to  prove  it  a  Roman     a. 
City.  )  kn^LairCeri,  Chichejier,  called  Corinium  in  Ptolemy,  and  Dw 
rocornovium  in  Antoninus  :  Humphrey  Llhuyd  reads  it  Cair  Cori,  which 

Z  z  z  z  z  agrees 


\ 


^10  A  Difioiirfe  of  the  true 


p.  14.  agrees  beft  with  Corinium  5  and  he  calls  Chich'efier,  Cair  Ceri ;  but  Caf»- 
den  and  Vjher,  Cair  Cei.  It  feems  to  have  been  a  Miftake  in  making 
tbefe  diftinft,  there  being  no  Evidence  to  prove  Qiichefler  a  Rot/tan  or 
Britijh  City  :  But  befides  thefe,  there  was  Cair  Dortt,  called  Durobriv^ 
m  the  Itinerary,  the  Remainder  of  it  ftill  called  Dornford  5  here  Cam- 
den takes  notice  of  abundance  of  Reman  Coins  found  in  the  Fields, 
and  plain  Tokens  of  the  Roman  ways.  Thefe  I  mention  to  (hew  how 
different  the  Copies  were  in  Huntingdons  Time  from  what  they  are 
now,  and  how  they  came  to  be  filled  up  with  fome  Cities  of  a  later 
Original. 

(15.)  Cair  QaHiragon,3il.Guorango»,  or  Cair  Hrangon^  which  is  agreed 
to  be  Worcefter,  called  in  the  Itinerary  Branonium,  for  BrannoniKm  j  by 
Britan. /.  Rtolemy^  Brannogenium.    Camden  quotes  an  ancient  MS.  to  prove  that 
*''*■        it  was  walled  about  by  the  Romans  ^  which  is  not  at  all  improbable  by 
its  Situation  on  the  Eaftern  fide  of  the  Severn,  it  being  the  Roman  Cu- 
ftom  to  place  their  Garrifons  on  Rivers  which  parted  them  and  their 
Enemies,  as  appears  by  the  Number  of  Caftles  and  Fortreffes  built  by 
Am.  Mar.  Valentinian  along  the  Rhine,  as  Amtnianus  Marcellinttr  faith  ;    which 
/.zs.       ^£j.g  jjjg  Occafions  of  fo  many  Cities  and  Towns  there  afterwards. 
Thefe  were  called  Burgi  by  the  Romans,  i.  e.  limitum  Caflella,  as  Vignier 
r/£.cAro«.  obferves;    and  Orofnts  faith.  That  the  Name  of   Burgundians  came 
alf.ij!'  ^^^^  thofe  who  were  placed  in  the  Burgi  of  Germany,  to  defend  the 
c.  31.       Borders,  by  Drufus  and  Tiberius  :  But  Pontus  Heuierus  thinks  them  fo 
rTbIT  ^^''^'^  jf'"^'"  ^^^  German,  Baurhwoonders,  from  living  difperfedly,  as 
1.7.  ''^^'  all  the  old  Germans  did  5  and  therefore  that  feems  to  be  no  Reafon  for 
Zofim.  1.2.  a  particular  Denomination.     Zofimus  obferves  that  the  Romans  were 
wont  to  fettle  their  Military  Colonies,  upon  the  Rivers  which  bounded 
Tacit.fiifl.  the  Roman  Provinces.     And  as  to   the  Severn,  Tacitus  faith,  that  P. 
i.iz.c.^i.Qj^^^-^^  did  fortify  it  againft  the  Incurfion  of  the  Silures,  who  lived 
on  \he  other  fide,  and  were  not  fubdued  till  Vefpajians  Time,  and  then 
the  Legions  removed  beyond  the  Severn.    It  feems  therefore  very  pro- 
bable that  Worcefter  was  firft  a  Burgus,  or  Caftle  on  the  Borders,  then 
a  Colony  as  Gloucefter  on  the  fame  River  was,  and  fo  became  a  Roman 
City. 

(14.)  Cair  Guaricon,  which  is  not  explained   by  Huntingdon,  nor 
Britan.  f.  Dientioned  in  fo  much  of  Alfred  zsRamlphus  hath  preferved.    Camden 
425.       reads  it  Cair  Guaric,  and  fo  derives  it  from  the  BritiJIj  Guarth,  the  fame 
with  the  Roman  Rr^/idium,  which  the  Notitia  Imperii  mentions,  and 
here  he  fuppofes  the  Prsefeft  of  the  Dalmatian  Horfe  to  have  had  his 
Quarters:  This  being  in  the  Middle  of  the  Land,  as  the  Rrsfidium  in 
Corfica  was,  and  conveniently  feated  for  a  Garrifon  upon  a  Rock  on  the 
fide  of  the  Avon.     Which  is  far  more  probable,  than  jF.  Rous  his  at- 
tributing the  Building  of  it  to  King  Guithelin,  and  fays,  that  it  had  its 
Name  afterwards  from  a  Britifi  Prince  called  Gwayr,  Coufin  to  King 
TacH.ffifl.  Arthur.    For  Tacitus    mentions   the    Cajiella,    that  were    built  by 
'^^'^"^°'Didius  Gallus,     upon    an   Incurfion  of    the   Silures  5    which    was 
a  very  probable  Seafon  for  the   firft  building  the  Caftle  at   War- 
jvick. 

( 1 5.)  Cair  Maunguid,  which  Archbifhop  Vp^er  thinks  to  be  the  Man- 
duejfedum  in  the  Itinerary,  ftanding  on  the  Roman  Way  between  Eto- 
I  etunQAT  Stafford,  and  Bennones  in  Leicejierfhire,  but  upon  the  Edge  of 
Warvpickfiire  -^  and  by  the  Diftances  and  V*,  ay,  Camden  happily  found 
it  ioht  Mancejier  -^  which,  he  faith,  in  Ne«»/«/ his  Catalogue  is  called 
Mancegued,  ("^0 


J. 


Antiquity  <9f  L  ^  >  N  D  (J  N.  ^  1 1 


(l6.)  Cair  Ler'tott^  which  Alfred  and  Huntingdon  agree  to  be  Leirc- 
fter.     But  here  Geoffrey  hath  found  out  a  King  Lear  for  the  Builder  df  •^^'f"-^°"' 
this  City  long  before  the  Romans  came  hither.     It  is  an  eafy  matter  to  *  '*'^'  '' 
make  Rings  and  Builders  nfter  their  Names,  without  any  Proof  or  Mo- 
nument to  confirm  it,  by  a  mere  Similitude  of  Name."    And  yet  oi^^^'^^^^' 
this  Leland  gives  a  better  Account,  viz.   that  Le/V  was  the  ancient  529.' 
Name  of  the  River  that  runs  by  it  5    which  is  confirmed  by  Burtons Of/'^P^-"/ 
Obfervation,  that  there  is  a  Place  near  the  firft  rifing  of  it  ftill  called  (hi're^"*. 
Leire.  That  it  was  a  Roman  City  is  made  evident,  by  the  Remainders  of 
an  old  Temple  of  "Janus,  and  Roman  Antiquities,  Medals  and  Coins  here 
found  in  great  Abundance.     What  the  Name  t>f  it  was  among  the  Ro-  id.?,  idi. 
tftans  is  not  ag^lbd,  but  very  probably  fuppofed  by  Camden  to  be  JRd^<e  ^^|-*"'  ^• 
in  the  Intinerary,  which  in  Ptolemy  is  placed  next  to  Lindum,  which  ^ 
follows. 

(17.)  Cair  Luitcoitj  which  the  fame  Authors  aiiirnl  to  be  Liticolti. 
Camden  faith,  it  (hould  be  Lindcoit,  and  was  anciently  called  Lindecoln^ 
juftly  fuppofed  to  be  Lindum  iti  Antoninus.     R.  Talhott,  in  his  Notes  on 
jifitoninuf,  thinks  the  Name,  Diftance  and  Situation  of  Lindum  agree  better 
to  Lento/2  or  Lanton,  near  Nottingham,  than  to  Lincoln  -^  but  Iconfefs, 
Camden's  Argument  from  the  Courfe  of  the  Road,  convinces  me  that 
Lincoln  was  the  Lindum  of  the  RomaHs.     For  between  Rat£  and  Lin- 
dnm  are  Verometum,   M.  P.  XIII.     Margidnnum,  M.  P.  XIII.     Ad  Pon- 
tem,  M.  P.  VII.  Crococalanum,  M.  P.  VII.    Lindum,  M.  P.  XII.  Which 
Diftances  are  irreconcilable,   with  making  Rat£  to  be  Leicefier^  and 
Lenton  by  Nottingham  tohe  Lindum  :  hut  Camden  hath  very  well  clear- 
ed it  as  to  L/»ctf/»,  making  Verometum'to he BftrroHgh,  Margidunum neur 
Beavoir^  ad  Pontem  to  be  Daunton  ;  Crococalana,  Ancajier,Vfhere  feveral 
Monuments  of  Roman  Antiquity  were  found ;    and  the  Roman  Way 
from  thence'lo  Lincoln,  at  the  Diftance  between  the  Manfion  in  Anto- 
ninus  and  L$fdum.  If  any  objed,  that  this  is  a  great  Way  about  in  the 
Road  from  JLondon  to  Tork  ^  I  anfwer.  That  the  Romans  did  not  mea- 
fure  the  Roads  by  a  Line,  but  by  the  Conveniency  of  Stations  and  Man- 
fions  5  and  it  is  very  queftionable  whether  there  were  any  Paffage  thro' 
the  Foreft  of  Shirewood  in  the  Roman  Times,  there  being  no  Footfteps 
of  any  Roman  Ways,  or  Manfions,  or  Coins  in  thofe  Parts,  unlefs  at 
a  Place  caHed  Littlebnrgh  ^   which  therefore  Camden  thinks  to  be  the  ^"l^^''^'-^ 
Segelocum  in  Antoninus,  the  Stage  between  Lindum  and  Danum^  i.  e. «.  ^i^. 
Lincoln  and  Dancajicr. 

(18.)  Cair  GuintgNic,  the  firft  in  the  Catalogue  of  ArchbiftiopZJ|/^er, 
which  he  thinks  may  be  Normch,   or  rather  Winmck  in  Lancapnre. 
Here  we  have  no  light  from  the  ancient  Interpreters  of  Nennins  ^  but 
as  to  fVintpiih  here  is  no  Colour  for  it,  but  a  bare  Similitude  in  the 
Name,  which  is  not  certain  5  for  fome  think  it  ought  to  be  rather  Cair 
Guntum,  which,  they  fay,  was  the  Briti/lj  Name  of  Normch  ;   a  late 
Name  not  known,  hith(^  amden,  before  the  Dani/h  Wars,  and  the  Word  ^''"n-  P. 
is  wholly  Saxon.     Some  have  found  out  a  brave  old  Britijh  King  forNtvii, 
the  Builder  of  this  City,  called  Gurguntius -^  hat  Geoffrey  himfelf  is  fi-noTwk.p;- 
lent  in  this  matter.    Camden  and  Leland  agree,  that  there  is  fome  re-  L°jJ'itin. 
mainder  of  Guntum  in  the  Name  of  the  River  Wentfum,  as  Leland  faitflp.  ^js. 
it  is  called  in  the  old  Donations  of  the  Cathedral  in  Norwich.    It  is 
certain  there  was  an  old  Roman  City  hereabouts,  caWedFenta  Ice>7orum. 
Lela/;d  affirms  it  was  Norwich  5    Camden  finding  no  Roman  Antiquities 
there,    but    many  not   far  off  at  a  Place  called  Cajier,   concludes 

Z  z  z  z  z  2  that 


^12  A  Difcoiirfe  of  the  true 

that  to  be  the  old  Venta  of  the  Leni  ^  from  whence  the  Road  went  by 

Sitomagus  (Thetfortl)  to  Catftalodunum,  and  fo  to  London.     Thas  I  have 

gone  through  the  Britifl)  Cities  of  the  firft  Province  ;  the  other  will  be 

Eritan.  p.  "lore  eafily  difpatched.    I  come  now  to  the  Province  of  Britannia  «Sc- 

III.        cunda^  whereof  Caerleon  upon  Z)sk  was  the  Metropolis  ^  and  according 

to  Mr.  Camden^  Rule,  the  Province  extended  as  far  as  the  Jurifdiftion 

of  the  Archbifhop  of  Caerleon  did  ;    who,  according  to  Ranulphus  Ce- 

Polych.  l.Jirenfis,  had  feven  Bifhops  under  him  5  and  the  Severn  was  the  Boun- 

idnicam.  ^^''Y  ^^  ^^^^  Province  ;  Giraldus  Cambrenfis  affirms  the  fame.    Which 

/.  a.c.r.  Sees  in  probability  were  befide  the  four  ftill  known,    S.  Patern^  Cair 

Went,   and  Henfort  5    and  this  Number  of  feven  went  to  meet  Aw 

Bei.  Lz-cS^fi'"'  when  he  challenged  Jurifdiftion  over  all  the  §khops  of  Bri~ 

2.  tain. 

•    Ci.)  I  begin  with  the  Metropolis^   Cair  Legion  guar  1)fic^  as  it  is  in 
Nennius,  but  commonly  called  Caer  Leon  ar  Usk,    This  was  a  known 
Station  and  Colony  of  the  Romans^  where  the  fecond  Legion  had  its 
Quarters,   as  evidently  appears  from  the  Diftances  in  Antoninus  ;   al- 
though ftolemy  placeth  the  fecond  Legion  at  the  Ifca  Danmonionum.  But 
there  are  feveral  things  in  Ptolemy  mifplaced  with  relation  to  Britain, 
either  by  the  fault  of  Tranfcribers,  or  want  of  good  Information  fo 
early,  and  at  fuch  a  Diftance.    There  feems  far  greater  Reafon  to  fol- 
low the  Itinerary,  being  of  a  later  time,  however  it  bears  the  Name  of 
,  Antoninus  5  and  there  was  more  Caufe  to  fettle  a  Legion  among  the 
Stlures,  than  among  the  Danmonii,  who  were  never  fo  troublefome  to 
Gaif.  /.  I.  the  Romans  as  the  other.    Geoffrey  doth  not  deny  the  Roman  Legions 
''  ^^*      being  here,  and  that  it  was  called  from  thence  Urbs  Legionum  5  but  he 
faith  the  City  was  built  long  before  by  Belinus,  and  then  it  was  called 
Caer  Dsk,  from  the  River  Z)sk.    Here  were  found  very  remarkable 
Monuments  of  Roman  Antiquities,  Ruins  of  Roman  Temples,  Baths, 
^         Theatres,  Infcriptions,  as  may  be  feen  in  QWew  and  others.    But  what 
evidence  is  there  of  any  City  before  the  Roman  Colony  >  And  it  was 
truly  obferved  by  a  very  learned  Man,  that  the  Roman  Stations  gave 
the  occalion  of  building  moft  of  the  ancient  Cities  and  Towns  of  Eu^ 
i(.CiU\xh.  ropQ  .    So  that  the    Civilizing  and  Improvement    of  thefe  Parts 
Sparc,  vit.  o^    the  World  is  very  much  due  to  the  Pre  valency  of  the  Roman 
Hadrian.  Empire^  Only  the  more  Southern  People  of  old  Gaul  had  learnt  the 
.     .      way  of  Building  near  together,    and  walling  their  Towns  from  the 
/."^^"V    ^"^'^^  Colony  at  Marfei/ks,  as  Jujiin  faith  out  of  Trogus.    But  when 
Polybius  fpeaks  of  300  Cities  in  Spain  overthrown  by  Tiberius  Gracchus, 
Strab.  i.2.Strabo  explains  it  only  of  Towns  and  Caftles ;  other  kind  of  Buildings, 
faith  he,  not  agreeing  with  the  Barbaroufnefs  of  the  Inhabitants.   And 
it  is  no  difgrace  to  the  Britains  to  have  been  like  the  reft  of  their  Neigh- 
bours,  full  of  Superftition,  and  Barbarifm,  living  rude  and  difperfed 
among  Woods  and  Marflies,  frequently  changing  their  Habitations  for 
Conveniency.    For  all  the  barbarous  People,  till  they  were  improved, 
.    lived  much  after  the  fame  manner,  being  Nomades,  divided  into  little 
Governments,  full  of  Quarrels  and  Animofities  among  themfelves,  and 
therefore  eafily  conquer'd  by  a  greater  and  more  united  Force.    Of 
which  before. 

(2  )  Cair  Meiguod,   or  Meguaid,  as  it  is  in  Huntingdon  5    in  other 

J."  „^,^|'/j' Copies  Me/«/?,^.    Dr.  P<>jre/ mentions  a  Place  called  Myvot,  where  the 

C.4.  '    "Princes of  that  part  of  Wales  were  buried  5    not  far  from  Matraval, 

where  fome  think  the  Mediolanum,  mentioned  by  Antoninus  and  Ptoh* 


Antttjaity  <9/^  L  C)  N  D  O  N.  511 3 


afjf,  ftood  5  and  which  he  faith,  is  difcover'd  by  many  Monuments  of 
Antiquity  there  found.    Camden  undertakes  to  demonftrate,  from  the 
Diftance  in  the  Itinerary  lying  between  Boniatn  and  Rutunlum  in  the 
Itinerary,  i.  e.  Bangor SinA  Rowton,  that  it  muft  be  thereabouts^  but  he  Em.p.iz^ 
will  not  determine  whether  at  Matraval  or  Lanvethlin.     AMnins  faadAnniusin 
cunningly  found  oat  too  notable  Men,  called  Olanttt  and  Medus,  fof^^ton. 
Mediolanum  in  Italy  ^  it  is  pity  Geoffrey  had  not  heard  of  them,  for  he  ^"5^ ''' 
could  have  made  them  Kings  of  Britain,  or  at  leaft  Princes  of  Wales^ 
and  have  founded  this  Mediolanum.    But  in  truth,  Geoffrey's  Invention 
could  not  hold  out  with  Nemiius  his  Catalogue  5  which  makes  him  o^ 
mit  fo  many  Britiflj  Cities.    But  we  have  a  better  Account  from  Taci- 
tHs^  who  faith,  when  the  Ordovices  were  fubdued  by  JuVms  AgricoU,  Tacit  vit. 
among  whom  tiiis  Mediolamim  ftood,  he  built  Caftles  and  Fortrefles  for  H-  c.  20. 
Security  of  the  Province,  which  by  degrees  were  made  Towns  and 
Cities. 

(3.)  Cair  Went  ;j  how  it  comes  to  be  omitted  in  the  Copies  of  Nen- 
nius^  I  know  not,  unlefs  it  be  meant  by  Cair  Gnorthigim,  which  he 
faith  was  built  in  the  Region  of  Guenrnp-^    which  Archbi(hop  X)lher 
thinks  is  the  fame  with  Gnent  in  Monmoitthflnre  5  which  Name  was  'ta- 
ken from  Cair  Went  near  Chep^ovp^  which  hath  rifen  out  of  its  Ruins. 
Whidi  was  the  Venta  Silurum  in  the  Itinerary,  and  is  ftill  difcerned, 
faith  Ca/ftden,   by  the  Fragments  of  Roman  Antiquities  there  found.  Bricj-.^S? 
Geoffrey  faith,   that  Vortigern's  Caftle  was  bDilt  upon  the  River  Wye, 
which  runs  into  the  Sea  at  Chepfiow.     But  how  came  Vortigern's  Caftle  '^^^^^'  '•  J" 
among  the  Bn>i/&  Cities,  and  fo  noted  a  Place  as  Cair  Went  to  be  left*^*  ^' 
out?  '-• 

(4.)  Cair  Merdin,  which  is  in  Huntingdon's  Catalogue,  and  keeps  its 
Name  to  this  day  5  and  is  the  Maridunum  of  Ptolemy,  but  called  Muri- 
dunum  in  the  Itinerary,  and  is  the  fartheft  Roman^i2X\on  mention'd  that 
Way. 

(5.)  Cair  Sejont,  called  Cair  Cujieint  in  Nennitii,  where  he  faith  G?;^- 
fianttMs  lay  buried,  as  he  faith  was  known  by  the  Infcription  on  his 
Monument.  Mat.  Wejiminfier  faith  it  was  the  Father  of  Confiantine,mt.-wea. 
who  died  at  Tork  -.,  but  why  his  Body  ftiould  be  carried  hither  is  hafd^-^'''"^^° 
fo  underftand,  if  he  had  the  Apotheofis  of  the  Roman  Emperors.  Pro- 
bably it  was  only  an  Infcription  to  his  Memory,  which  by  Nennius  his 
Time  might  pafs  for  a  Funeral  Monument.  This  was  Segontjum  in  the 
Itinerary,  being  a  Roman  Station  on  the  Frith,  which  divides  Anglefey 
and  Britain ;  and  from  whence  Suetonius  Paulinus  paffed  over  with  his 
Army  thither. 

.  (6.)  Cair  Drnach,  mentioned  in  Nenmus  5  which  is  fuppofed  to  be 
the  Uriconium  of  Antoninus  and  Ptolemy,  called  Wroxefer,  being  built 
at  firft  as  a  Roman  Fortrefs  on  the  Severn  5  where  Camden  fougd  great 
Remainders  of  the  Roman  Building  and  Way. 

(7.)  Cair  Draiton  ;  which  ArchbiftiopZ^yJer  thinks  to  he  Drayton  in 
Sbroppire,  which  hath  nothing  of  memorable  Antiquity  in  it.  More 
probably  Rutunium,  ftanding  on  the  Weftfide  of  the  Severn,  which  was 
a  noted  Station  of  the  iJtfw^^wj-,  ftill  called /?tfB'/(7»,  near  the /?^«f4«  Way 
which  went  into  iPales. 

From  hence  I  proceed  to  the  3d  Province  of  Maxima  C^farienfis^ 
which  I  (hall  take  in  Camden's  Latitude,  as  far  as  the  Archbi(hop's  Jurif- 
diftion  extends. 


-        -.  ■!*      -  ■  .-      ■  -  ■  — .  I         ■■  -  I  ■       -I 

014.  A  Difcoarfe  of  the  true 


Gaifr.  /.        (^j_^  (;aiy.  Eitranc,  which  Alfred  and  Htt>7ti»gdon  agree  to  be  Torh. 

^"  '  '^*  Here  Geoffery  hath  found  a  King  Ebranc,  who  built  it  in  the  time  of 
Ring  David.  But  in  ail  the  Battels  Petilius  Cerealis  fought  with  the  Bri- 
gantes,  we  meet  with  not  one  word  of  any  fuch  City  5  which  is  after- 
wards fo  much  fpoken  of  in  the  Wars  of  thofe  Parts,  both  in  the  Ro" 
man  and  Saxon  times  5  it  is  mention'd  by  Ptolemy  among  the  Cities  of 
the  Brigantes,  where  the  Legio  VI.  ViQrix  had  its  Winter  Quarters  : 
Which  was  brought  hither  out  of  Germany  by  Hadrian.    Here  Severus 

s^m.vit.  and  ConJiantiHs  died,  and  Conjiantine  was  declared  C^far  by  the  Legi- 

Sevet.  Qris  here.  Spartianus  calls  it  a  City  and  faith  that  Severus  went  to  the 
Temple  oi  Bell  on  a  in  it;  which  was  hardly  built  by  King  Ebranc  s^  be- 
caufel  think  Bellona  was  no  Brltijl)  Deity. 

(2.)  CairLigualid,  and Legeuit  and  Lualid-j  caWcd  Lugiwallumhy  the 
Bomans,  as  in  the  Iiinerary:  Which  fignifies  a  Tower  built  ad  Valium, 
as  CrfWe// proves :  And  R^»«//)Zi«j  Ce^re»/f  cannot  deny  that  part  of 
the  Roman  Wall  went  through  the  City  5  but  yet  he  would  have  it 
built  by  one  King  Le>/;  who  according  to  Geoffery  was  7th  King  of 
the  Britains.  Then  Carleyl  muft  be  the  Br/Vi/Z*  Name  ^  and  foall  the 
Copies  of  Nenniut  were  ftrangely  miftaken  ;  but  that  this  was  an  an- 
cient Roman  City,  is  evident  from  the  Monuments  of  Roman  Antiqui- 
ties both  in  and  near  it 5c as  at  Morbium,  (Moresby')  Arbeia,  (lerhy^ 
and  all  the  places  that  were  ad  UneamValli  ^  on  both  fides  the  Roman 
Wall,  as  will  appear  to  thpfe  that  will  take  the  pains  to  compare  them : 
and  no  County  affords  fo  ample  a  Colleftion  of  Roman  Antiquities,  as 
Cumberland.  \  :• 


Bed.  /.  2.     C3-)  ^^if  Legion,  Called  Civitas  Legionum  by  Bede,  add  interpreted 
c.  2.        by  Alfred  of  Beverly  Chefier.    Here  the  20th  Legion  had  its  Winter 
Quarters.     Ramdphus  himfelf  confefleth  the  Work  in  the  old  Monu- 
ments, looks  more  like  Romans  Work  than  Britains.    So  that  one  of 
\fu^\%P^.^ff^^y^  trueft  Difciples  is  almoft  content  to  give  this  up  for  a  Roman 
City.    This  is  called  Deva  in  the  Itinerary  5  and  it  appears  by  the  Coin 
Maimsb.de  of  Septimius  Geta,  to   have   been  a  Roman  Colony :  And  William  of 
•p^^'f  /     Malmsbury  faith,  the  Emeriii  Legionum,  \.  e.  the  Veterans  refided  here, 
onti .  .4;  g^^  ^^  madQ  a  Military  Colony. 

Thus  I  have  gone  through  all  the  noted  Britifh  Cities,  and  particu- 
larly proved  them  to  have  been  founded  by  the  Romans ;  and  therefore 
when  Gildas  and  Bede  fay,  that  Britain  was  famous  for  its  28  Cities, 
it  is  to  be  underftood  of  the  Roman  times  and  of  Cities  here  -built  by 
their  Means. 

11.  The  next  thing  I  propofed  was  the  State  and  Condition  of  Lon- 
don during  the  Roman  Government  here. 

^  To  underftand  this  we  muft  confider  the  different  Conditions  of  Ci- 
ties within  the  Roman  Empire.    For  all  were  not  Colonies  or  Municipia, 
or  Emporia  5  neither  did  thofe  which  were  once  fo  always  continue  in 
the  fame  State.     For  a  Colony  might  be  turned  into  an  Emporium ;  as 
veifer.     Strabooh^ctvQso^  Sevilm  Spain '^  and  an  £«»/>m«/!«  might  be  advanced  to 
i.  3?Scrab.  ^^^  Dignity  of  a  Colony  ^  and  fo  Colonies  might  be  turned  into Munici- 
/.  3.        pia  and  on  the  contrary.     P/iny  who  lived  in  the  time  when  the  diffe- 
rent Condition  of  the  Roman  Towns  was  well  underftood,  doth  under- 
take 


Antwum  of  L  O  N  D  D  N.  915 


take  to  give  a  particular  Account  of  them  in  fome  Provinces.    In  Hif- 
pania  ulterior^  he  faith,  there  were  275  Roman  Towns  5  whereof  were  , 
8  Colonies^  as  many.  Mnnicipia,  28  that  had  the  Jus  LatiJ,  (of  which  P''"-  '♦  i' 
hereafter)  6Free Cities,  4 Confederate,  above  20 Stipendiaries.  In  the '^■'* 
other  Province  oi  Hifpania.  nVerwr  were  294  Towns  ;j  whereof  were, 
12  Colonies,   13  Mnmcipja,  17  that  had  the  Jus  LatiJ,  i.  Confederate, 
the  reft  Stipendiaries.    In  the  Province  of  Narbon^  befide  the  Colonies    c.  4. 
he  reckons  up  the  Latin  Towns,  the  confederate  Cities,  &c.  and  fo 
in  Sicily,  Sardinia,  lyfitania,  &c.     From  hence  it  appears,  that  it  was  '^' ^'  ' 
well  faid  by  Siculus  FUcchs,  that  the  Titles  of  Colonies,  AI«/;/rj/>/<i  and  !>'cui.Fiac. 
VrsfeSurs,  did  arife  from  the  carriage  and  deferts  of  the  People  to-  Ag^o"*^''' 
wards  the  Roman  State.     If  any  Cities  upon  the  Invafion  of  a  Province 
readily  joyn'd  with  the  Roman  Forces  they  were  called  confederate  Ci- 
ties, and  were  by  virtue  of  the  Compaft  between  them  to  enjoy  all 
their  former  Rights  and  Privileges,  without  paying  any  Tribute.    Of 
which  fort  were  many  Cities  in  Italy  5  but  fometimes  fuch  Cities  parted 
freely  with  their  own  Liberties,  to  make  themfelves  capable  of  the 
Privileges  of  the  Roman  City  5  and  fometimes  upon  misbehaviours,  they 
were  taken  from  them.     Thus  Suetonius  faith,  that  Angujius  deprived  ^"^^' ^"S* 
feveral  confederate  Cities  of  their  former  Liberties  for  the  ill  ufe  they  Dio^'/,  54, 
made  of  them.     Dio  mentions  Cj%icHm^  Tyre  and  Sidon^  for  the  fedi- 
tious  carriage  of  the  Citizens  5  hmCyzicum  had  theirs  foon  reflored  up- 
on their  Submifiion,  as  Dio  faith,  not  long  after.    Vefpajian  too  away  Suer. 
the  Freedom  of  Achaia^  Lycia,  Rhodes^  Byzantium,  and  Samos ;  and  ^^  ^' '"  ' 
likewife  reduced  Thracia^  Cilicia  and  Comagena,  into  the  Form  of  Pro- 
vinces, which  had  hitherto  obey'd  their  own  Prince.    For  there  were 
fome  Nations  accounted  it  as  great  a  Privilege  to  live  in  Subjedion  to 
them  as  others  did  to  caft  them  ofF^  as  appears  not  only  by  thefe  In- 
ftances  of  rAr<?«X  Citici a  and  Comagen a,  but  Strabo  faith,  of  Cappado-^"^^-^^^' 
cia,  that  when  the  Royal  Line  failed,  the  Romans  gave  them  Liberty 
to  choofe  their  own  Government,  not  doubting  that  it  would  be  a  ^'  '^' 
Common-wealth,  as  theirs  was  then  at  Rome^  but  they  fent  Embaffa- 
dors,  to  Rome,  to  defire  they  might  live  under  a  Monarchy  ftill ;  and 
fo,  to  the  wonder  of  the  Romans  they  chofe  Ariobarzanes  King, 

Bat  Strabo  faith,  there  were  2  forts  of  free  Cities  in  the  Roman  Em- ^'^^^^'^■^'^' 
pire^  fuch  as  were  fo  by  original  Compaftsj  or  fo  made  by  enjoying 
their  own  Laws  and  Magiftrates,  upon  certain  terms.     Of  this  fort  we 
have  many  Inftances  in  the  Roman  Hiftory  ^  as  all  the  Cities  of  Greece 
by  a  Decree  of  the  Senate;  Amifus  a  City  oiPontus,  as  Strabo  calls  it,  l»v./.  33' 
had  a  ftrange  Revolution  5  having  its  Liberty  given  by  Cafar,  taken  "^^  '^' 
away  by  Anthony,  reftored  by  Augujius,  and  in  the  time  of  the  youn- 
er  FUny  faid  to  be  a  Free  and  confederate  City  1  and  the  like  change  ^^"''i' '^■ 

T-    •,         ur  •      c/    J  Plin.  Ep. 

J^acttus  ODierves  m  Rhodes.  I,  ,0.  Ap« 

But  thefe  were  Cities  made  free,  i.  e.  were  admitted  to  the  Privileges  of  9?.  Tacit< 

the  City  of  Rome^  although  no  Colonies  deduced  from  thence.  Which  ^g"" ''  '^' 

being  very  great  both  in  a  publick  and  private  Capacity,  were  fparing- 

ly  granted,  efpecially  in  the  remoter  Provinces.   .Such  a  City,  1  fup-B^i^ci- 

pofe  Tarfus,  where  S.  Paul  was  born,  was,  having  its  Liberty  given  by  vii.  /.  5. 

Antony,  and  confirmed  by  Auguftus  5  and  S.  Paul  pleads  the  Privilege  ^'o.  chrjfi 

of  being  born  a  Roman  Citizen.    Spanhemius  produces  a  Coin  of  Gor-  span,  dif^ 

diauus,  wherein  it  is  faid  to  be  a  Colony  ^  but  that  was  of  later  times,  fert.  de 

For  why  (hould  Antony  and  Auguftus gwe  Liberty  to  a  RomanCoXony  '^If^'^' 

Which  according,  to  Cicero,  is  Civitas  a  Matrice  Civ/tate  dedft^a,  and 

fo 


^i^  A  Dijcoiirfe  of  tk  true 


fo  their  Freedom  was  the  fame  with  that  of  the  City  of  Rome.  Among 
thefe  Cities  made  Free,  there  were  2  lorts  ^  one  of  thofe  who  enjoy'd 
their  own  MHHicipal  Laws,  but  had  honorary  Privileges,  that  is  a 
Capacity  of  the  fame  Dignities  which  the  Citizens  of  Rome  had  5    and 
thefe  were  properly  Municipia.    Which  Mn»icipal  Laws  fome  Cities  va- 
lued above  all  the  other  Privileges  of  Roffte-^^    and  therefore  defired 
to  be  reduced  from  being  Colonies  to  be  Municipia  5    of  which  Hadri- 
■  A  Geii.  /.  an  gives  an  Inftance  in  Pr£nejie  ;  not  called  therefore  a  Colony  but  Opi'. 
16.  c.  13.  dftm,   in  Frontinus  his  ^ookoi Colonies  in  Nerva's  time,  as  Jof.  SHorefius 
ATdq."'    obferves :    But  on  the  other  lide  many  of  the  Municipia  were  impatient 
/.  1.  c.ji.till  they  obtained  the  Privileges  of  Colonies,  as  Hadrian  there  ob- 
ferves,  and  inftances  in  Italica  and  Dtica.    Now  thefe  Cities  which 
parted  with  all  their  own  Laws  and  Cuftoms,  add  were  incorporated  in- 
to the  Roman  State,   were  faid  to  be  Populi  Fundi  Fa£fi,  among  whom 
Cicer.pro  the  Roman  Law  is  fettled  tanquam  in  Fundo,    as  Cicero  explains  it. 
Eaibo.     Upon  which  happen'd  a  great  Cafe  in  Rotne^  whether  a  Native  of  a  Con- 
federate City,  notheing  populus  fundus  faliuT,  could  partake  of  the  Pri- 
vileges of  the  Roman  City  ?     Which  was  the  Cafe  of  Cornelius  Balbus, 
born  at  Gades,  but  had  the  Privilege  of  a  Roman  Citizen  given  by  Pom- 
pey  ^  the  City  pleaded  that  he  was  uncapable  by  their  Exemption  as  a 
free  City.  Cicero  on  the  other  fide,  that  the  RomanState  did  not  abridge 
their  own  Power,    but  could  give  the  Privilege  of  the  CUy  to  whom 
they  thought  fit.    But  it  is  plain  by  his  Difcourfe  that  the  Confederate 
Cities  were  far  from  being  pleafed,    when  their  Citizens  forfook  their 
own  Privileges  and  became  Members  of  the  City  of  Rome.    And  in  fe- 
veral  of  the  Original  Compafts  this  Claufe  was  inferted,    that  none 
fhould  be  allowed  fo  to  do  without  the  Confent  of  the  City  5   but  then 
Cicero  urges,   that  where  that  Claufe  was  not  mention'd,     they  might 
make  any  one  a  Roman  Citizen  whom  they  pleafed ;  which  Authority 
was  given  to  Pompey,  by  a  Law.    But  thofe  Cities  which  could  not  be 
admitted  to  an  equal  participation  of  the  Privileges  of  the  City  of  i?<7«*e, 
yet  were  defirous  of  fome  (hare  of  them  5  which  was  called  the  Jus  La- 
Sigon  de  t'j,  and  was  diftinft  feom  the  Jus  ^tritium,  which  as  5Vg(?«/»j  explains 
antiq.  jure  it^  moft  probably  was  that  which  no  Strangers  were  admitted  to,  who 
c?!.  '  ''  ^^f^  "Of  Fundi  Populi,   i.  e.  not  incorporated  into  the  Roman  City. 
But  the  jus  Latij,  lay  only  in  a  Right  of  Suffrage,  but  without  a  Tribe 
Antiq.  ve-  faith  Onuphrins  Panvinius  5   and  in  a  capacity  of  being  Roman  Citizens 
J.°""'/"  ^'  upon  bearing  Offices  in  their  own  Bodies.    Afconius  Pedianus  faith  C. 
Afcon.     Fompeius  obtained  this  Privilege  for  the  Colonies  beyond  Po  ;   and  he 
J^Ji^jP^  calls  it  7«x  !«//>•. 

The  J«f  Italicum,  was  lefs  than  this,  confifting  only  in  the  Liberty  of 
choofing  their  own  Magifirates  ^   and  afterwards  carried  with  it  an  ex- 
emption from  Tribute ;  which  Italy  was  freed  from  by  the  Law  of  C^eci" 
t»io,  /,5'37.  liuf  Metellm  as  Dio  faith. 

Thofe  Places  which  had  none  of  thefe  Privileges  were  faid  to  be  re- 
duced into  the  Form  of  a  Province,  and  were  governed  wholly  by  Of- 
ficers fenttrom  Rome^  who  had  different  Names  and  Titles,  according 
to  the  Extent  and  Nature  of  their  Jurifdiftion  ^  as  Prxtors,  Queftors, 
Legats,  &c.  But  where  the  Power  extended  only  to  one  place,  they 
were  called  Pr^j^^fi,  and  the  Government  i'rcf^^^wM  ^  of  which  fort 
there  were  many  in  Italy^  which  are  reckon 'd  up  by  Fejltft. 

As  to  the  Government  oi  the  Roman  Provinces,  they  that  were  under 
the  immediate  Care  of  the  Emperor,    after  the  Divifion  made  by  AugU' 

M 


Antiquity  /;/  L  O  N  D  O  N.  91^ 


y?«f,  (  as  this  Province  of  Bnlain  vvas  )   had  a  Governour  in  chief  6- 
ver  the  whole  Province  fent  among  them,  whofe  Title  commonly  was, 
Legatas  Aug.  pro  Pr<eton  Prov.     Of  fuch  here  in  Britai»  there  are  two 
Infcriptions  in  Grttter  ;    and  one  lately  found  fince  the  Fire  near  Lud- 
gate,  being  faidto  be  a  Funeral  Monument  iox  Vivius  Marcianus,  Legatfe  Marmor- 
to  Hadrianhere  in  Britai».     That  it  was  an  Infcription  to  his  iWemo- O'^""  P- 
ryis  plain,  and  it  is  probable  he  vvasC^y^r's  Legate  here,  although  not 
exprefied  at  large.     Thefe  Legates  had  their  chief  Refidence  in  the  Me- 
tropolis of  the  Province  ;  and  therefore  this  Infcription  to  the  Memory 
of  C<efar's  Legate  was  properly  fixed  in  the  Metrepolif  at  London  ;    but 
the  Burying- place  was  not  within  the  City,   that  being  contrary  to  the 
Roman  Cuftom  ^  but  in  the  Fields,  hot  far  from  the  Roman  Way.  And 
(b  here  the  BHry'wg-pUce  was  on  the  North-Eafi  and  Eajl-jfide  of  the 
Suburbs,  where  many  Urns,  Funeral  VelTels,  little  Images,  and  Earthen  weaverv 
Pots  have  been  taken  up,  and  Coins  of  Claudius,  Nero,  Vefpafia^,  &c.  Monument^ 
which  is  fully  fet  forth  by  Mr.  Stow,    whom  I  do  not  intend  to  tran-srowv 
fcribe.     But  it  deferves  to  be  remembred,    that  Sir  Robert  Cotton  had  survey,  p. 
difcovered  the  Monument  of  a  Proprxtor's  Wife  in  Ratclif  Field.    As  wlaver 
the  Legate  or  Propnetor  had  his  chief  Refidence  in  the  Metropolis,   fop.30.    ' 
the  great  Bufinefs  of  the  Province,  as  to  civil  Matters  was  brought  thi- 
ther to  him;  and  the  Power  of  Life  and  Death  belong'd  to  him  ;  which 
the  Procurator  C^faris  had  not,    unlefs  he  were  Governour  of  the  Pro- 
vince too  ;  as  in  fmaller  Provinces  it  often  happen'd,  fo  in  Jud£a,  he 
that  was  Procurator  Cafaris,  as  Pilate  was  no  more,   had  the  Jurifdidi-  v.  Noris 
on  too,  but  under  the  Prefident  oi  Syria -^   for  Vitelliudr  km  Pilate  to^.^"°"P.^- 
Rome  upon  complaint  of  his  ill  Government  5   but  in  greater  Provinces  rert!2,%% 
the  Procurator  only  minded  the  Revenue.    This  Diftinftion  was  ob- 
ferved  in  Britain  ^    as  the  Brjtains  in  Tacitus  Cadly  reprefented  their  Tack.  Vic, 
Condition  to  each  other,  that  whereas  before  they  were  under  one  King  ^^"'^" 
of  their  own,   now  they  had  two  put  upon  theili,  the  Legate  that  dif- 
pofed  of  their  Blood,   and  the  Procurator  of  their  Eftates:   So  that  all 
Capital  Caufes  belong'd  to  the  Legate's  Court ;   and  thofe  of  the  Ex- 
chequer to  C^far's  Procurator.    The  Legate  had   his  Praterium  in  the 
Metropolis,  which  at  firftfignified  the  General's  Tent  5  but  as  the  Name 
came  from  the  Camp  to  the  City,    fo  the  Rr^toritim  was  the  Manfion- 
Houfeof  the  Governour  5.  altho'  in  AHguJht's  time  itfignified  anyftate-Succon, 
ly  Palace.     Near  the  Pnetorium  was  the  Bafilica  or  Court  of  Juftice,^"^-''-?*. 
where  he  fat  in  his  Sella  Curulk^  and  difpatched  publick  Bufinefs  rela- 
ting to  the  Province  5  for  particular  Caufes  he  either  heard  them  him- 
felf  with  the  Judges  appointed,  or  left  thetti  to  their  Examination,  who 
were  to  be  taken  out  of  that  Conventusor  Divifion,  wherein  the  Par- 
ties lived,  and  to  whom  they  confented,  as  appears  by  Cicero's  proceed- 
ing againfl:  Verres.     Thefe  were  called  Recuperatores  in  the  old  Roman  Ciccr.  pro 
Writers  ^  and  might  be  challenged  by  the  Parties,   without  alledging  a  p,^"^"' 
Caufe,  foit  were  done  ante  Legem  contefiatam  ^   and  it  was  enough  tOchid. 
fay,  Htt»c  IStolo,  as  C  uiacius  obferves.  a  Gel/.  /, 

■'  20.  C.I. 

Butbecaufe  the  whole  Bufinefs  of  the  Province  could  not  te  difpatched  fcrv.  /.  9,' 
in  one  Place,    therefore  in  the  fitteft  Seafon  they  appointed  a  Solemn'^-^'i' 
Conventus,  as  they  called  it  ^    i.  e.  a  Meeting  of  fuch  a  Divifion  of  the cker'y' m 
Province,    at  a  place  by  them  appointed  for  Adminiftration  of  juftice.  Verr.  Ber- 
This  they  called  Conventus  agere.    Thofe  who  lived  within  the  Conven-  ^[atr'^''' 


A  a  a  a  a  a  tns,  c. 


JV 


$>• 


A  Difcotirfe  of  the  true 


Ciccr.  E. 
pift.  /.  13. 
Ep.  SB- 
Ad  Atti- 
cum,  L6, 
Ep.  z. 

PliQ.  /.  3. 
e.  I,  (!yc- 
Feft.  V. 
Forum. 
H.  Valef. 
Not.  Gall. 
;>.  zco. 


Fcft.  V. 
Praefea: 


Pithan. 
Diacr.  /.i. 
r.  10. 


Brit.  |>. 
504. 


A  Gell.  /. 
16.  c.  i;. 


Spanhem. 
de  Ufu 
Numifm. 
p.  y6^,. 
Onuph. 
Panvin, 
Antiq.Ve- 
Ton.l.i.  c. 

Jul.Capac. 
Hift.  Nea 
pol.  /.  2. 
c.  24. 
Cicer.  ad 
Attic./.  5. 
Ep.  1. 
M.  Velfer. 
Aug.  Vin- 
dcl.  /.  7. 


/«/,  were  faid  to  make  up  the  Diocefe.  So  Ckero  ufes  the  Word  feveral 
times  5  from  whence  it  appears,  that  a  Diocefe  was  originally  lefs  than 
a  Province,  although  in  the  New  Diftribution  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
it  comprehended  feveral  Provinces.  Sometimes  the  Governour  called 
feveral  Conventuss  to  one  Place,  as  Cicero  faith  he  did  at  Laodicea. 
?//»/ faith,  that  in  one  Province  of  iS/?<«j// there  were  ^  ConventHs's,  in 
another  7,  in  another  5.  The  Place  where  the  Convefttns  ufed  to  be 
kept,  was  called  Forum  as  Fejlus  faith  5  thence  Forum  Segufianorum  in 
Gaul.  But  the  Forum  Flamimum^  and  Forum  Julii  were  fo  called  from 
being  Places  of  Trading. 

The  Stipendiary  Cities  were  fueh  as  were  cited  to  the  Cortventus,  be- 
ing governed  by  the  Romaff  Magiftrates,  and  paying  Tribute  5  and  fb 
were  of  the  Nature  of  the  Pr£fedur<em  Italy  5  only  they  had  not  Magi- 
ftrates fent  to  them  annually  from  the  People  of  Rome,  or  the  Pr<etor 
as  thofe  had.  And  I  cannot  underftand  by  Fejius^  that  there  were  any 
Vr£feSur£  out  of  Italy  ;  nor  to  what  purpofe  Frafecls  (hould  be  fent 
from  Rome  into  remote  Provinces,  when  the  Governours  of  them  were 
to  adminifter  Juftice  in  all  the  Stipendiary  Cities  at  the  feveral  Convents. 
And  if  there  were  occafion  for  a  Fr£feil  to  be  fent,  the  Prefident  of 
the  Province  was  to  take  care  of  it  ;  and  thefe  were  called  Vtcarii  d^ 
Judices  Locorum,  as  Berterius  obferves  ^  only  at  Alexandria  the  Prince 
himfelf  did  appoint  the  Governour.  Since  then  that  Britain  was  redu- 
ced into  the  Form  of  a  Province,  and  had  a  Legate  appointed  as  Gover- 
nour over  it,  who  had  his  Refidence  in  the  Metropolis  at  London,  there 
can  be  no  probability  in  Mr.  Camden's  Opinion,  that  it  was  in  the  Con- 
dition of  a  Pr£fe&ure  and  not  ofaColony.  But  Mi".  Camden  urges,  TAat 
itvpas  not  for  the  Itttereji  of  the  KomznGovernment  to  make  fucb  a  Place  of 
Trading  as  London  rvas^  a  Roman  Colony.  Therefore,  to  clear  this, 
we  rauftconfider  that  there  were  feveral  forts  of  Colonies,  (i.)  Civil 
Colonies,  i,  e.  fuch  as  confifted  only  of /?<>«;</«  Citizens,  drawn  out  from 
the  City,  and  planted  in  fuch  places  out  of  which  the  former  Inhabi- 
tants were  removed.  Thefe  had  all  the  Privileges  of  the  City  of  Rome, 
the  fame  kind  of  Magiftrates  and  Government  5  thence  A.  Gellius  calls 
them,  The  little  Imager  and  Beprefentations  of  the  City  of  Rome.  Many 
Rites  and  Cuftoms  belong'd  to  the  drawing  out  and  fettling  fuch  a  Co- 
lony, which  are  befide  ray  purpofe.  (2.)  Military  Colonies,  when 
the  Veteran  Soldiers  for  a  Reward  of  long  Service  were  fettled  together 
by  way  of  a  Colony.  Of  which  fort,  from  SyOa's  time,  there  were 
very  may  both  in  Italy  and  the  Provinces  abroad.  Thefe  generally  took 
their  Name  from  the  Legions  they  belong'd  to.  Ezek.  Spanhemitts  men- 
tions about  1 20  of  thefe,  which  he  had  obferved  from  Coins,  Infcrip- 
tions,  and  other  good  Authorities.  Of  this  kind  here  were  the  Colony 
of  Veterans  at  Camaloduiium,  (he  Colonies  of  York,  Chejier,  Caerleon, 
&c.  But  befides  thefe  two,  there  were,  (9.)  Mixt  Colonies,  where  the 
Roman  Citizens  and  the  Natives  joyned  together  ;  and  although  they 
had  not  the  Name,  yet  had  the  Privileges  of  a  Colony.  Of  this  fort 
Onuph.  Panvinius  reckons  up  many  in  Italy  it  felf  5  and  fuch  a  one  Ju- 
lius Capacius  faith  Puteoli  was,  which  Cicero  calls  an  Emporium  5  Livy 
and  others  a  Colony  ^  Lipfius  faith,  it  had  the  Right  of  a  Colony  be- 
fore it  obtained  a  mix'd  Colony  :  And  the  like  M.  Velferus  faith  of 
Augufta  Findelicorum  andColonia  Agrippina  j  and  of  this  kind  I  conclude 

\  London 


— M^—      ■  ■!»■■  »»  I        II  I  ■         ■■■■■■  II-..  I   ■  ■       I    I    .■■■    .     ■    I      I.    M        »  III         I     ■■^■^W^M^^iMb^^^1^^M^,g 

Antiquhj  ^/'  L  O  N  D  D  N.  ^  i  $> 


London  to  have  been  ^    which  was  Noblle  Emporium^    in  Tacitus's  time,  '-'p'^^  ^'^ 
a  Pjace  of  mighty  advantage  by  its  Situation  for  Trade,    and  therefore  naL'/4^4, 
apt  to  draw  both  Romans  and  Natives  together,  where  they  had  all  the 
Encouragement,  which  the  Roman  Governours  Refidence  could  give  it. 
Which  would  foon  make  the  City  info  little  time,  grow  fo  great,   that 
although  it  were  firft  built  in  Claudius's  time,  yet  in  Nero's,    it  might  be 
too  large  for  Suetoniuf  Pahlinus  to  hazard  his  Army  to  defend  it.    For 
where-ever  there  was  a  new  Province  made,   there  was  great  occafion 
tor  fuch  an  Emporium  or  place  of  Trading  to  be  fet  up.     For  the  Citi- 
zens of  Rome  made  mighty  Improvement  of  their  Eftates  by  fending 
their  Money  into  new  Provinces  ^    and  one  Perfonin  Rome  had  at  one 
time  fo  much  Money  atlntereft  here,  (even  Seneca)  that  Dio  faith,  T/^e  xiphii.  ia 
calling  of  it  in,  voas  one  of  the  cccafinns  of  the  f^evolt  of  the  Br  itains.     But^"' 
befidcs  the  Roman  Bafikers,    they  had  great  Traders  among  them  5    and 
very  early  there  was  Collegium  Mercatormn  at  Rome  5    they  were  called  Liv.  /.  a. 
Mercurialif  in  ThII\\  becanfe,   as  Fejius  faith,    they  looked  on  Merfwr;)  ciwr.' Epi 
as  the  God  of  Trading.     Thefe  lived  at  Rowe  and  traded  abroad  :    but  ad  q.Frac. 
there  were  others,  who  went  themfelves  into  the  Provinces,  and  were'*  ^-  ^p* 
called  Negotiatorcs,    of  whom  Cicero'Cakh,  Gaul  rvas  full  in  all  places  ^cicer.pro 
and  all  bufinefs  of  Trade  and  Money  was  difpatched  by  them  :    and  the  P°"t^'o. 
like  he  mentions  in  the  Provinces  oi  Afia-^    and  he  faith,    their  Stock  pro  uge 
was  fo  great,  that  a  Blow  could  not  be  given  them,    but  it  would  be  Man. 
felt  at  Rome. 

But  all  the  Trade  oi  Britain  did  not  depend  upon  the  New  Province  ; 
for  C£far  confeffes,    that  before  his  coming  there  was  a  fettled  Com- 
merce between  the  Parts  of  Gaul  ^x\<i  Britain.     C^far  faith,  the  Mer-CxtirJui 
chants  could  tell  him  little  of  the  Country  '■>  it  is  far  more  probable  they 
would  not.     For,  he  after  faith,  he  fent  over  word  of  his  coming.     And 
how  came  theG<?«//to  be  fuch  Strangers  here,  if  D/z^/z/'^fw/ commanded 
a  great  part  of  it,  as  himfelf  faith,  if  they  fent  over  Supplies  into  Gaul-^ 
if  Comiusoi  Arras\\a^(nch  Authority  among  the  Britalns^   if  Perfons 
were  fent  over  from  Gaul  hither  to  be  inftrufted  in  the  Druids  Doftrine  ? 
All  which  being  affirmed  by  C^far,   evidently  prove  a  conftant  Corref- 
pondency  between  Britain  and  Gaul.    And  the  Trade  was,    not  for  tri- 
fling Commodities,  as  ^/rrf^o  infinuates,  viz.  of  Knacks  made  of  lvorj/sttab.1.4. 
and  Amber  J  &c.    but  for  Lead  and  Tin  ;    which,     as  Diodorus  Sicultis 
obferves,  th^  Merchants  bought  here  and  tranfported  into  Gaul ,  and^'J"^-^'" 
fo  by  Land  to  Marfeilles  ,    which  is  likewife  affirmed  by  Pojidonius  in*^* '  '  *" 
Strabo  5    and  from  thence  it  was  called  the  Celtic k  Tin  by  the  Greeks. ^"^^^'^' 
But  fomeof  them  had  learnt  it  came  from  certain  Iflands  called  Cajjite-netod.i.s. 
rides,   but  where  they  lay  f/er^ji/tf^ftsf  confefTeth  he  knew  not.     Strabo  ^"^^  '"i- 
faith,   the  Phoenicians  traded  to  them,  and  conceal'd  the  PafTage  to  that 
degree,  that  one  of  theMafters  rather  chofe  to  ftrand  his  Ship  than  dit- 
cover  it  to  the  Romans^  for  which  he  was  reimburfed  out  of  the  publick 
Stock.    But  after  many  Attempts,  he  faith,    the  Romans  found  the  way 
of  Trading  thither,  and  he  mentions  P.CraJfus  who  was  upon  the  Place 
and  faw  the  way  of  digging  and  preparing  their  Metals,    and  taught 
the  People  the  Art  of  Navigation.     But  vSVr^^tf  diftinguifheth  between 
the  Cajftterides  and  Britains.     And  Mr.  Camden  hath  very  well  proved.  Brie  ^.• 
that  the  Iflands  of  ^/V/y  were  the  Gj^/er/Wej- of  the  Greeks -^  and  the  Oe-^^''' 
jlrymnides  in  Fejius  Avienus. 

Am  ana  2  Whe- 


^20  A  Dijcourfe  of  the  true 


Whether  the  P-^^fw/VMw/ Trade  did' extend  any  farther  than  thofe 
Iflands  is  uncertain,  after  all  the  Attempts  which  have  been  made  of 
iate  to  make  them  almoft  the  Peoplersof  Britain.    A  very  learned  Per- 
Boch.  ca-fonhadingenioufly  conjeftured,  that  the  Name  Britannia  was  derived 
na.  /.  I.e. from  two  Oriental  Word,  n"i3  Barath,  which  in  the  Syriack  fignifies  a 
^^'         Field,  and  "13H  Anac,  which  in  the  Hehrexv  fignifies  Tin  or  Lead  5  from 
hence  he  prefumes  the  fame  Signification  continued  in  the  Phanician 
Language;  and  from  thence  the  Name  Britannia  came,  as  Siraho  and 
others  call  it.    This  may  pafs  among  the  better  fort  of  Conjcdluresj 
but  a  bare  Similitude  in  the  Sounding  of  Words,  where  there  are  not 
fufficient  Teftimonies  to  prove,  that  the  People  which  ufed  that  Lan- 
guage did  firfl:  give  it,  affords  but  a  flender  Foundation  to  build  upon. 
It  is  pollible  the  Pkwnicians  might  give  names  to  thofe  Places  abou^ 
iSr?>^7»  which  they  traded  to  in  their  own  Language,  as  the  Englijh  have 
in  Hitdfof/s-Baji,  and  the  Spaniards  in  America,  but  the  Dutch  may 
give  other  names  to  the  fame  Places;  whereby  they  are  called  among 
them.     Therefore  to  juftifie  this  Etymology,  it  is  not  enough  to  (hew, 
that  in  fome  parts  of  the  Eaji,  thofe  Words  bear  fuch  a  Senfe,  but 
that  the  Ph/enicians  ufed  them  fo,*and  applied  them  to  Britain ;  and  that 
other  Nations  did  take  this  Name  from  their  Books,  or  Commerce  with 
them.     But  it  appears  by  Strabo  they  concealed  their  Trade  to  the  Caf- 
fiterides  to  the  utraoft,  and  therefore  would  not  acquaint  other  Nati- 
ons with  fuch  a  Name,  as  would  be  moft  apt  to  draw  other  Traders 
thither.  For,  what  was  this,  but  to  boaft  to  the  World,  that  they  had 
found  out  a  whole  Country  of  Lead  and  Tin  .<?     Which  is  far  from  the 
Praftice  of  that  Mafter  of  the  Ship  who  chofe  rather  to  lofe  his  Ship 
than  to  difcover  the  Trade.    So  that  the  Phcsnicians  would  have  cal- 
led it  by  any  other  Name,  rather  than  that,  if  thefe  Words  did  figni- 
fie  fo  among  them.    But  I  fee  no  ground  to  believe,  that  the  Ph^nui- 
cians  did  trade  hither,  before  the  flouriftiing  of  the  Carthaginian  State, 
tlin. /.  7.  For,  who  that  Midacritus  was  that  firft  brought  Lead  from  the  Cajjite- 
^'^  '       rides,  Pliny  doth  not  inform  us,  nor  at  what  time  he  lived.     Bochartuf 
reads  it  Meltcarthus  or  Melcarthus  the  Phcenician  Hercules  in  Sanchoni- 
athon.     But  he  confelles  Midacritus  to  be  a  Greek  Word;  and  Pin^ 
faith  nothing  to  prove  he  was  a  Phcenician ;  and  juft  before  fpeaking 
of  the  refining  of  Gold  he  attributes  it  to  Cadmus,  and  calls  him  the 
Phcenician.    It  is  certain  Strabo  gave  little  credit  to  the  Phcenicians  Sto- 
ries of  their  Navigations  in  the  elder  times;  and  he  blames  Eratofthenes 
Strib  /.  I.  for  believing  them;  and  by  Hanno's  Voyage  it  appear  how  little  they 
had  then  difcovered  beyond  Herculcs's  Pillars.     For  Cerne  was  no  far- 
ther beyond  them  on  the  African  Coaft,  than  it  was  from  Carthage  to 
them.   I  will  not  deny  that  Himilco  came  farther  this  way,  at  the  fame 
Piin.  /.  2.  time,  being  fent  out  for  Difcoveries ;  but  all  the  account  we  have  of 
Feft^A-  '^  what  is  preferved  in  Fefius  Aviemts,  who  profeffeth  to  folIoHr 

vien!dc    tbe  Pmich  Annals ;  where  he  mentions  the  Oeftrymnides  rich  in  Lead 
ora  Mari  and  Tin,  full  of  People  who  were  skilful  in  Trading,  near  the  lOaod 
"s™?^'^   of  the  Hiberni  and  that  of  Albion -j  and  that  it  was  four  Months  Voy- 
age from  Carthage  thither.     Now  if  Fejius  Avienus  may  be  credited, 
Himil.o  firft  difcovered  thefe  Iflands  which  were  diftant  from  Bri' 
tain,  and  Albion  was  the  Name  ufed  in  the  Pnniik  Anmlt. 


It 


Antiquity  of  L  O  N  D  O  N.  ^it 

It  is  aflerted  by  a  late  learned  Writer  of  our  own,  that  Britain  was  ^''^''"§' 
wholly  unknown  of  old  to  the  Greeks  -.  and  that  the  very  Name  of  Bri-  Angi.Gen- 
tain  cannot  be  found  in  any  Greek  Writings  before  Cafars  time.     AntisOig. 
Aflertion  I  could  not  read  without  wonder,  confidering  the  Gree,^  Au-^"^"^'^^° 
thors  mentioned  by  Strabo  and  Fliny  who  had  writ  concerning  it  jStrab./.h 
fuch  as  Tim£us,  Ifidorus^  Characenus,  Pjthas,  Diceearchus,  Erato/I henes,  ^.  '•. 
Po/ido»ius,  andPolybius.    It  is  true,  their  Works  are  now  loft;  and  c.',*^.'** 
Strabi?  finds  fault  with  feveral  things  faid  by  them  ?     But  what  then  ? 
Doth  this  prove  that  Britain  was  not  then  known  to  the  Greek/,  be- 
caufe  their  Works  are  nnt  now  to  be  found?    Did  they  fay  nothing 
true,  becaufe  they  faid  fomething  that  was  not?     And  yet  even  Py- 
theat  of  Marfe'iUes  is  now  juftified  in  what  Strabo  moft  accufes  him  of, 
viz.  his  Defcription  of  Thuh'^  whereas  a  prefent  ingenious  and  lear- 
ned Perfon  hath  undertaken  fo  far  to  juftifie  Pytheas  therein  that  he 
faith,  one  might  have  fufpeded  fome  modern  Geographer  had  inferted  P'^"'^"*^" 
it  into  Strabo.     But  from  hence  it  appears,  that  Britain  was  knowniancic.  « 
to  the  Greeks  before  C^efar's  time  ;  and  therefore  it  feems  to  be  a  piece  '9- 
of  Artifice  in  defar  to  pretend  fo  great  Ignorance  of  Britain  when  he 
came  thither,  thereby  to  heighten  the  Glory  of  his  Enterprife. 

Having  thus  fhewed  that  there  was  a  fufficient  Trade  even  in  Bri- 
tain  to  found  fuch  a  mixt  Colony  of  Rotaans  and  Natives  at  London^ 
and  that  it  was  the  Metropotk  where  the  Roman  Governour  had  his 
Refidence  5  I  proceed  to  the  Third  Enquiry. 

in.  Concerning  the  Temple  of  Diana  foppofed  to  ftand  where  the 
Foundations  of  S.  Paul's  are  fince  laid.     Which  Mr. Camden  gives  coun-  BHr.  p. 
tenance  to,  from  the  Camera  Diana  not  far  from  it,  and  from  the3o'5. 
Number  of  Oxes  Heads  taken  up  in  Ed.  I's  time ;  and  from  the  Ceremo- 
ny of  bringing  the  Stags-Head  to  S.  Paul's  by  the  Family  of  Bawds 
in  Ejfex.    Of  which  laft  a  true  Account  is  given  in  the  Hiftory  of 
S.  Paul's.    As  to  the  Camera  Diaȣ^  which  appears  ftill  in  the  Books, 
Mr.  StoTP  bath  given  the  beft  account  of  it;  viz..  That  they  weresrowV 
only  Lodgings  for  Rofamond  in  H.  II's  time,  from  whence  there  was  Survey,  p, 
a  fccret  Paifage  to  the  King's  Palace  at  Baynard's  Cafile ;  which,  as  ^^^* 
Mr.  Camden  faith,  fome  thought  was  only  a  part  of  the  ofd  Royal  Pa-  Brit.  p. 
lace  which  ftood  on  the  Weft-fide  of  the  City.     This  Leland  and  Cam-  3°5. 
den  both  fay,  was  that  which  Fitz  Stephen  calls  the  Palatine  Tower  on  coiieft! 
the  Weft  fide  of  the  City  5  and  in  the  place  where  that  ftood,  the  two  To.  2.  p, 
Caftles  called  Baynard's  and   Mount  Fitchet  were  afterwards  boilt.^^'* 
For  when  by  the  Charter  of  4  £.  i.  extant  in  Stow,  z  Licence  was  gi- 
ven to  R.  Kilxvarby  by  the  Archbiftiop  of  Catiterbury,  to  pull  down  the  stow** 
Tower  of  Mount- Fitchet^  it  was  that  he  might  build  the  Church  or  Survey,  p. 
.  Convent  of  Black  Friars  in  the  fame  place.    And  withal  it  is  there  ex-  ^'" 
prefled,  that  the  Biftiop  of  London  had  obtained  the  Stones  of  William 
theConquerour  to  reedifie  the  upper  part  of  S.  P aul's-Church.     But  a  lit- 
tle after,  through  great  Incogitancy,  Mt.Stow  makes  the  fame  Tower  p.  61,  ^j.- 
to  ftand  on  the  other  fide  the  Fleet,  where  Bridewell  ftands :  For  he 
mentions  the  fame  Gift  of  King  William  to  Mauritius  of  the  choice 
Stones  of  his  Caftle  ftanding  near  the  Thames,  at  the  Weft  end  of  the 
City;  but  in  that  very  place  Black-Friars  was  built  by  Kilwarby,  and 
therefore  it  muft  ftand  where  that  didT 

But 


'^22  ^  Dlfcoiiife  of  the  true 

But  to  take  away  all  Sufpicion  of  any  Temple  to  Diana  being  built 
where  S.  Pauls  ftands  5  I  (hall  a  little  farther  examine  the  Truth  of 
this  Tradition,  and  that  will  be  by  confidering  by  whom  Diana  (hould 
be  worftiipped  in  that  place.  For  it  muft  have  been  either  by  the 
Britains,  or  by  the  Romans,  or  by  the  Saxons -^  but  if  by  none  of  thefe, 
then  it  will  be  allow'd,  there  was  no  fuch  Temple  here.  The  Saxous 
are  not  fufpefted  to  have  had  any  particular  kindnefs  for  Diana,  and 
therefore  it  belongs  to  the  other  too. 

As  to  the  Britains  1  fhall  prove,  both  that  they  had  no  fuch  Deity  5 
and  if  they  had,  they  would  not  have  worftiip'd  her  in  that  manner. 

It  will  hardly  be  thought,  that  the  Worlhip  of  D/ana  Perfa  (hould 
be  propagated  among  the  Britains,  which  beft  agrees  with  this  Fancy  5 
Plutarch  for  Plutarch  faith,  Oxen  were  [acred  to  her.     But  we  never  read  that 
in  Lucutto.  Brutus  travelled  fo  far  as  Perfia,  to  bring  a  Diana  from  thence :  For  the 
Diana  he  worfhipped  was  among  the  Greek  IJles,  from  whom  he  re- 
Merod  I4  ceived  his  Oracle.     Therefore  it  cannot  be  DianaTaurica,  which  was 
j!m.  Mar- a  Scythian  Deity,  and  worfhipped  with  Human  Sacrifices.     Lucan  doth 
eel.  I.  22.pgj.pj]|g]  fjjg  Worlhip  of  Taranis  and   of  Diana  -.^  and  Taranis  was  a 
i«!i.  I.  Britiflj  Deity     But  Taranis  was  not   the  fame  with  Diana  5     fo  far 
from  it,  that  he  feems  moftlike  to  tht Roman's  JupiterTonans,  and  the 
Thor  of  the  Goths  and  Saxons.    Neither  can  it  be  underftood  of  the 
Greek  Diana,  the  Huntfmen's  Deity,  the  Daughter  of  Jupiter  of  Crete, 
called  Britomartis  by  the  Cretians  ^  for  Brutus  himfelf  wor(hipped  her 
with  the  Sacrifice  of  a  White  Doe-.,  and  the  offering  up  fo  many  Oxen 
was  very  improper  to  her.    There  remains  yet  another  Diana,  called 
Diana  Lucifira  in  many  Infcriptions,  and  Diana  Cceleftk,  i.  e.  the  Moon. 
But  it  is  agreed,  that  the  Worihip  of  the  Gauls  and  Britains  was  the 
CAfar,  1.6.  fame  ^  and  defar  therein  places  the  difference  between  the  Religion  of 
the  Germans  and  Gauls,  that  theGerw4;/.f  worfhip'd  only  the  Gods  they 
faw,  the  5"//??,  and  Vulcan,  and  the  Moon  ^   but  the  Gauls  worfhipped 
^  Apollo  againft  Difeafes,  Minerva  as  the  inventrefs  of  artificial  Works, 
&%-'  ^'  Jup^fer  as  having  the  Power  of  the  Heavens,  Mars  as  God  of  War. 
yiin.  1.16.  ijut  here  is  no  p^ice  for  Diana-^  which  Cafar  would  not  have  omitted, 
y^j'^^„,^  being  (o  cilebrated  a  Deity  among  the  Romans  5  and  if  they  had  wor- 
Max'.  7>>^.  (hipp'd  the  Moon,  why  doth  he  fet  it  down  fo  exprefly  as  to  the  Ger- 
Claud  f"  "^'^"^■'  ^"'^^  \^'A^^  her  quite  out  among  the  Gauls  ?    And  if  they  did 
W  .sfV  worfhip  the  Moon,  as  xh^Germans  did,  wherein  lay  the  mighty  Dif- 
ik.  1. 1,    ference,  between  thofe  who  worfhipped  vi(ible  Deities  and  them  > 
S'.^'cer.      But  fuppofing  the  Britains  did  worihip  Diana,  yet  how  come  they  to 
ciu'ier.     build  a  Temple  to  '-  iana,_  when  it  is  fo  notorious,  that  the  Druids  per- 
Mti"*]'i  formed  all  their  Superffitious  Worfhip  in  Sacred  Groves,  which  were 
C.V4- '     all  the  Temples  in  Life  among  them.    Lucan,  Pliny,  Tacitus,  Maximu9 
Loccen.An-  Tyrius,  and  Claiidian,  all  atteft  this.     And  in  this  all  the  Northern  Na- 
Goff  "c.^?.  tions  feem'd  to  have  agreed.     So  Tacitus  faith  of  the  Germans  5    that 
Tacit.Hijh  they  neither  h:.d  Temples  nor  Images,  but  only  confecrated  Groves. 
!rfiL.      Cliiverius  faith,  the  Temple  of  Hertha  was  only  her  Grove  5  and  Loc- 
BtemA.i.  cenius  (hews,  Tanfana  mentioned  by  Tacitus  is  no  more  than  Luci  Do- 
*^-  ^-   J    ffiinus,  the  God  worfhipped  in  the  Grove.     Fan  is  Lord,  and  Tan  is 
cllsdav.  the  Fir-tree.     Tacitus  mentions  the  Sacred  Groves  among  the  Batavi  5 
'•  I-  c.  I.  Jdamus  Bremenfis  faith,  the  old  Saxons  worfhipped  well-Cpred  Trees. 
"its'yL  Helmoldus  faith,  the  Sdavi  and  Prujfians  worlliipped  in  Woods  and 
Comment.  Groves.     JEncos  Sylvius  faith  the  fame  of  the  Lithuanians.     Pet.  de 
JJi;""-      Diiysberg  faith,  that  the  Crive,  or  Chief  of  the  Pruipan  Druids,  dwelt 
varts'.c.y.  .  under 


Antiqiiiij  ^/  L  O  N  D  O  N.  $2^ 


under  the  great  Oak  of  Romove,  of  an  incredible  Thicknefsj  and  they 
could  not  be  removed  from  it  till  BoUflatts,  firft  King  of  Poland,  caufed 
it  to  be  cut  down.     So  that  it  would  have  been  very  (tranche  for  the 
Britip)  Druids  to  have  built  a  Temple  to  Diatia.     It  remains  therefore 
that  if  there  were  any  fuch  Temple,  it  muft  be  built  by  the  Rowans., 
among  whom  Diana  was  in  great  Requeft  ^  and  had  been  fo  very  foori 
after  the  Foundation  of  their  City,  as  is  obferved  by  Dionyfius  Halt-  Di.r.yfHa- 
(Arnaffkus  and  Feflus.     But  it  is  as  evident  thit  S  ags  were  the  proper  ''c'".!.!.' 
Sacrifices  to  Diana  j,  but  if  they  could  not  be  had,  Sheep  were  allowed,  ^/'^ 
and  a  Sheep  was  then  called  Cervaria  Ovk.  vwiZd^u 

But  Mr.  Camden  faith,  the  Tauropolitt  were  kept  in  Honour  of  Diana.  ^'^"'' 
But  they  had  no  relation  to  Oxen,  but  to  the  Worfhip  of  Diana  Tau- 
rira,  as  Mr.  Selden  hath  (hewed' at  large  5  and  there  werQ  TaurohoUa  of-  ^^''^^''-  ^' 
ten  mention'd  in  Gruters  Infcriptions,  which  were  Rights  of  Initiation  ^."cf','^.' 
to  the  Mater  Deorum,  and  are  defcribed  at  lai;ge  by  Salma./ius.     So  that  §  9- 
we  can  find  no  Ground  at  all  for  any  Temple  to  Diana -^    and  the  kx-^Hifi^^M 
guments  hitherto  produced  for  it,  rather  make  againft  it.  p.'  I'yp."^* 

But  if  any  fhould  ask.  Whether  fo  remarkable  a  part  of  the  Gity  of  ^^°; 
London  could  be  fuppofed,  in  the  Roman  times,  to  have  been  without  Magnit.  ' 
any  Temple  at  all  ?  I  anfwer,  not  ;   and  if  I  may  propofe  my  Conje-  ^'""•'-  ?• 
fture,  I  rather  think  there  ftood  a  Capitol,  and  that  for  thefe  R.eafons:Lf<J.T;5. 
(r.)  Moft  of  the  noted  Golonies  had  Capitols  erefted  in  them,  in  Imi-<^'  ho" 
ration  of  Rome  ^  which  not  only  Lipjius  affirms  to  have  been  the  com-  pfi//*  V' 
mon  Guftom,  but  the  feveral  Capitols  are  mention'd  by  good  Authors,  ollm^'m 
That  at  Capua  and  at  Beneventum  by  Suetonius  5  at  PompeiJ  by  Vitruvius-  ^f!"^' 
and  of  later  times,  at  Florence  by  PoUtian  5    at  Ravenna  by  Hier.  Ru-\"l[  '* ^' 
heus  5  at  Milan  by  CafieUion£us  ;  at  Narbo  Martius  by  Sidonius  Jpollona-  ^''^'*'  E^ 
ris'^  at  Tdoloufe  by  Greg.  Turonen/fs  ^  at  Auran  by Fumenius '^  at Fepntio^fflh^l'^^l 
hj  C  hiffletius  ^  and  at  Colonia  Agrippina  by  Hadr.ValeJ/us,  who  mentions  '•  <p.  21^ 
it  as  a  general  Guftom.    (2.)  The  Situation  of  the  Place  makes  it  '^"'im- 
probable i  it  being  the  Rule  in  Fitruvius,  that  Capitols  were  to  be  ere-  '..  f^/^c'* 
died  in  the  higheft  and  mofl:  confpicuous  Part  of  the  City,  as  that  is 7;  p  '57. 
where  St.  Pauls  ftands.     As  the  Temples  to  Mercury  were  to  be  built  in S^;'"'"^ 
the  Forum  or  Emporium  ^    to  Apollo  by  the  Theatre  5    to  Mars  without  Oreg\tmn 
the  City  ;  and  fo  to  Ceres  ^    to  Venus  at  the  Gates.    (5.)  The  Agreea- '^*/'"''* 
blenefs  of  the  Sacrifices     For  Oxen  were  accounted  the  moft  noble  Sa-  cf^s.  * 
crifices,  and  fo  mofl:  proper  for  the  Worfhip  performed  in  the  Capitol,  ^'""^n.  m 
Et  waxima  Taurus  Fi^ima,  Caith  Firgil.    Servius  obferves,  that  thofe  ctiffllt'. 
who  went  up  to  the  Capitol  in  Triumph  facrificed  white  Oxen,     And  '^^/""t-  - 
again.  Unique  Jovijnvencum  legimus  immolafum.     Ar)d  Fejius,  in  Opi-^^^i'^' 
maSpolia,  Jovi  Feretrio  Bovem  c^dito,  which  he  faith  was  a  Law  oivaief.  Nc 
Numa.    In  the  Columna  Trajani,  there  are  Oxen  ready  to  be  facrificed  '"'^'^"•p- 
when  he  went  up  to  the  Capitol.     And  Jok  Sarfsburienffs,  upbraiding  A-tm^x,.].,. 
Gilbert  Bifliop  of  London  for  attempting  to  reftore  the  Metropolitan  See  <^-  7. 
to  London,  becaufe  it  was  there  in  the  Roman  times,  he  faith,  Cultum c''l'- ''  ^* 
Jovis  injiaurare  difponit  ^  he  makes  as  if  he  would  fet  up  theWorJlnp  of  Ju-'HrgGearg. 
piter  again  -^  which  fhews,  that  he  believed  a  Temple  to  fupiter  to  have':  '*,  . 
been  here  in  the  Roman  Times  ^  and  hisTefliraony  is  more  confiderable  ^ne'd.  3. 
than  that  of  the  Monks,  who  being  poflelTed  with  the  Story  of  Brutus  ^"''i'""-^- 
and  his  Troy  novant,  could  think  of  nothing  but  his  fetting  up  a  Tern-  n.'lZ', 
pie  to  Dian.i,  in  remembrance  of  her  Oracle,  whodireded  him  firft  to24i' 
Britain.  IV.  ^*  '/f' 


^24  ^  Difcourfe  of  the  True 

IV*  I  novVcome  to  the  laft  part  of  my  defign,  which  is,  to  give  an 
Account  of  the  firft  Foundation  of  the  Cathedral  Church  of  St.  FauPs 
by  King  Ethelbert, ' 

After  that  by  the  Influence  of  his  Queen  Bertha,  and  the  Perfuafions 

of  Auguftin  the  Monk,  (fent  hither  on  purpofe  by  Gregory  the  Great) 

Ethelbert  had  embraced  the  Chriftian  Faith,  the  firft  thing  he  took  care 

of  was  to  have  Churches  erefted  for  the  publick  Worftiip  of  God.  For 

fierf.i.i.  ''^hen  Augujiin  came  firft  over,  Bede  faith,  that  he  and  his  Brethren 

c.  26.     performed  all  Offices  ot  Religion  in  the  Queen's  Church,  called  the 

Church  of  St.  Martins  on  the  Eaft  fide  of  the  City  of  Canterbury, 

which  had  been  built  in  the  time  of  the  Roma»s  :  But  when  there  was 

fo  great  Progrefs  made  towards  the  Converfion  of  the  People,  as  to 

have  the  King  own  himfelf  a  Chriftian,  then  a  new  Cathedral  Church 

was  fitted  up  at  Canterbury,  being  the  Place  defigned  for  the  Archbi- 

fhop's  See.    To  this  end,  he  obtained  from  the  King  the  Grant  of  the 

c,  55.      Ruins  of  an  old  Church  in  the  i?o«/<?«  times  5    which  being  by  the 

Leland.    Kiug's  Muuificcnce  raifed  to  a  greater  Splendor,  was  dedicated  to  the 

j'p^.'^ji/' Honour  of  our  Blefled  Saviour,  and  defigned  to  be  the  Metropolitical 

See.     For  although,  according  to  Pope  Gregorys  Model,  London  was 

ftill  to  have  been  the  chief  See,  as  it  had  been  in  the  Briti/h  times  5 

yet  Canterbury  being  then  the  Royal  Seat  of  King  Ethelbert,  it  is 

moft  reafonable  to  fuppofe,  that  by  his  Authority  it  came  to  be  fixed 

there.    For  otherwife  what  Reafon  had  Augujiin  to  vary  from  the  In- 

ftruftions  of  his  Mafter  ?  Gregory  having  declared  London  and  Tork  to 

be  the  two  Metropolitan  Sees,  and  feveral  times  calling  him  Biftop  of 

Bed.  I.I.  London  :  And  yet  foon  after  the  Receipt  of  thofe  Letters  brought  by 

*^'  *^'      Mellitus    (after  Biftiop  of  London)  the  Metropolitical  See  was  fixed  at 

Canterbury.    Which  either  fhews  Augujiin  s  Difobedience  to  the  Pope's 

Authority,  or  the  Kings  Power  to  order  what  concerns  the  external 

Polity  of  the  Church.    For  the  Monks  who  fay,    the  See  was  fixed 

^J^^'^'^l^'^'  there  afterwards  out  of  Honour  to  AvguHin,  do  not  confider  that  Bede 

cantuar.   faith  thzt  Auguflin  fixed  the  See  in  Chriji's  Church  for  himfelf  and  his  Suc- 

^"5'-      ceffors.     Which  (hews,  that  it  was  not  done  by  others  after  his  Death, 

deGefl.  ^^^  ^y  himfelf,  while  as  yet  Pope  Gregory  was  living  ^   as  appears  by 

Pot?//.  I.I.  comparing  the  latter  end  of  the  firft  with  the  beginning  of  the  2d  Boofe 

De'ceji.   °^  ^^^^'   ^^^  ^^^  ^^^^  before  Gregorys  Death,  he  had  confecrated  M«/- 

Reg.i.i.  litus  Bifliop  of  London,  which  Bede  faith  was  done  A.  D.  604.  and 

c.7o-^"     Gregory  died  not  till  A.  D.  605. 

This  Mellitus  was  fent  with  Juftus,  Faulinus,  Rufinianus,  and  others, 

to  affift  in  the  great  Work  of  converting  the  Saxons  from  their  Idolatry  ; 

and  he  was  pitched  upon  as  the  fitteft  Perfon  to  be  employ'd  in  fettling 

Chriftianity  among  the  Eaft  Saxons,  over  whom  King  Ethelbert  had  at 

that  time  great  Power,not  only  becaufe  Sebert  theirKing  wasJiis  Nephew, 

being  his  Sifter's  Son,  but  becaufe  he  had  brought  all  the  other  Saxo» 

I.  I.e.  25. Kings  on  this  fide  Humber,  to  own  a  Subjeftion  to  him,  as  Bede  feveral 

I'ehl'c.i  *™^®  affirms.  .  Mellitus  was  very  kindly  receiv'd  by  Sebert,  and  Chri- 

afaim.i2.  ftianity  for  the  time  embrac'd  by  his  People,  and  efpecially  at  London, 

^eGeif.    which  then  continued  (as  Bede,  Malfusbury,  and  Huntingdon  all  fay)  a 

ffTtingd.  noble  En/poriumjamous  for  the  Trade  which  it  ftill  maintained  into  fo- 

1.  3.       reign  Parts. 

Here 


Antiquity  ^/LONDON.  925 

Here  by  the  incouragement  of  Sehert  and  of  Ethelkrt,  two  Churches 
were  defigned  (as  is  faiJ)  by  MelUtus  ;  the  one  within  the  City  to  the 
Memory  of  St.  Paul,  and  the  other  at  a  diflance  from  it,  in  an  Ifland 
then  called  Thomej,  to  St.  Peters.     Both  thefe  are  called  Mhjlers,  i.  e. 
Monafteries;  for  from  Sx..  Auguftins  time  the  Clergy    living  together 
with  their  Bilhop,  do  bear  the  Name  of  a  Monafiery.     But  thefe  were  of 
two  difFerent  kinds ;  that  which  flood  in  a  place  of  Retirement,  as  Wefl- 
minfler  then  did,  was  intended  for   a  Nurfery  to  the  Church,  wherein 
Perfons  might  be  bred  up  in  a  way  of  Devotion  and  Learniiig,  to  fie 
them  for  farther  fervice,  when  they  ihould  be  taken  out;  but  the  other 
was  made  up  of  fuch  who  were  adtually  imploy'd  in  the  daily  Offices  ; 
or  fent  up  and  down  by  the  Bifhop  to  fuch  Places  as  he  thought  fir,  for 
inftruding  the  People.    This  feemed   to   have  been  Gregorys  defign, 
when  he  lent  Mellitus  and  t!ie  reft  over,  that,  where-ever  they  fsrtled  a 
Church  they  (hould  take  care  of  both  x.\\tk  Foundations.     So  Gotfelin  inGotfelin, 
his  Life  of  St.  Augu(iin  faith,  that  Ethelhert  after  his  Converfion  took^'Jj^""  , 
care  to  eftablifli  two  things,  Epifcopia  &  Monafieria ;  which  he  prefent- 
ly  after  calls  Ecckfice,  &  Ccenohia,  i.e.  Cathedral  Churches  and  N'urferies ^-Thorn. 
of  Religion  and  Learning,  to  fit  Men   for  the  Service  of  the  Church.  ^'^^°"'^" 
And  that  the  firft  Monafteries  here  were  lb  defigned,  appears  by  the"^"'* 
Education  of  Perfons  therein  for  the  Service  of  this  Church.    For  al- 
though at  firft  they  were  forced  to  make  ufe  of  Foreigners,  yet  after 
a  reafonable  time  the  Englijh  were  bred  up  fo,  as  to  be  capable  of  the 
higheft  Dignities  in  the  Church.    For  immediately  after  the  Death  of 
Gregorys   own  Difciples,   viz.  Auguflin,  Laurentius,   Mellitus,  Jujlm 
and  Honorius  ,  who  were  fuccefllvely  Archbidiops  of  Canterhury,  the 
next  who  fucceeded,  was  an  Englishman  born  among  the  We(i  Sasons, 
who  was  called  by  a  Latin  Name  Deufdedit  j  and  after   him    by  Bede.  /.  5. 
the  confent  of  the  Rings  of  J^orthumlerland  and  Kent,  Wighardus  ano-  ''•  »•• 
ther  Englijhman   was  chofen  in  his  Place,    one  highly  commended /.^".c;"!. 
by  Bede  for  his  Learning:    and  fo  at   Rochefter ,    Ithamar   a  Kentijh-  i^^^ci^.- 
wan  fucceeded  Paulinus,  and  comparable,  faith  Bede^  to  his  Predecef- 
fors,  either  for  Life  or  Dodlrine.     He  was  the  firft  Engli^man  advanced 
in  the  Church,  faith  Malmslury,  and  brought  a  Reputation  to  the  Na- De  Gefiis 
tion  by  his  Excellent  Learning;  to  ^hamDamianus  fucceeded  who  waSg"^"/''"^' 
a  South  Saxon.    Thefe  I  inftance  in  to  ftiew  that  before  the  coming  ofc^  *  '^' 


c.  20. 


Theodore,  care  was  taken  to  breed  up  Perfons  in  Learning,  for  the  Ser- 
vice of  the  Church :  and  Bede  takes  great  care  to  fliow  how  well  the 
Monaferies  were  furnilhed  to  that  ptirpofej  and  how  he  was  brought 
up  himfelf  fo,  under  Ceolfrid  from  feven  years  old.     He  tells  how  many  gg^^  Hjf^ 
Journeys  to  Rome,  Benediii  Bifcop  took  to  provide  the  beft  Books  for  Abbar. 
their  Library  ;  and  he  fpeaks  of  the  Divifion  of  his  time,  between  Pray-  '^^'rem. 
ing,  Studying,  Writing,   and   Inftruding  others.     And  where  BedeBed.'mih 
fpeaks  of  Sigehert's  appointing  a  School  among  the  Eafl  Angles  for  the'-?*  ^^'^^^ 
Education  ot  Youth,  he  faith,  that  Felix  Bilhop  of  %he  Diocefe,  provi- 
ded Ma  !ers  and  Tutors  for  them,  according  to  the  Cuftom  at  Canter- 
hury     Now  this  Sigelert  was  contemporary  with  Eadbaldus  Son  to  E- 
thelbert ;  and  Felix  was  BiHiop  of  the  Eafl  Angles  while  Honorius  was 
Archbifliop  and  Paulittus  Biftiop  of  Rechefler  .-  From  whence  it  follows, 
that  at  Canterbury,  there  was  care  taken  in  the  Monaftery  there  founded, 
for  Maiters  ard  Tutors  ;  in  order  to  the  Education  of  fit  Perfons  for  the        ' 
Churches  Service.     And  Bede  mentions  the  great  Number  of  Books ;.  r.  c.  j^,, 

B  b  b  b  b  b  which 


^26  A  Difcourfe  of  the  true 

which  Gregory  fent  to  Auguftin,  as  foon  as  he  heard  of  his  Succefs; 
which  were  laid  up  in  the  Monaftery  of  St.  Auguflln ;  but  the  M  S. 
Chronicle  of  that  Abby  gives  a  very  ilender  account  of  them  :  the  chief 
whereof  are,  the  Bihlia  Gregoriana,  Pfalterium  Auguflini^  wherein  was  con- 
tained the  ordinary  Offices  then  ufed  of  Pfalms  and  Hymns  ;  Textus  E- 
vaKgeliorum  with  Ten  Canons  in  the  beginning.  Another  Pfalter  divi- 
ded into  Five  Books ;  with  Notes  and  Diredions  for  the  ufing  and  ub- 
derflanding  it:  and  Hymns  at  the  end.  Another  Text  of  the  Gofpels, 
with  a  Prologus  Camnum;  feveral  Lives  of  the  Apoftles.  An  Expofition 
of  the  Gofpels  and  Epiftles.  And  then  it  is  faid,  Hce  funt  primitm  Li- 
Chorum  totius  Ecclefia  Anglicana :  but  certainly  thefe  could  not  be  the 
Codices  plurimi,  which  Bede  faith,  were  fent ;  but  we  know  what  di- 
flindlion  there  was  made  of  Monafteries  and  Libraries  in  the  time  of  the 

Chronic.  Danes  ;  and  Thorn  takes  notice  of  the  lofs  of  many  Books  by  a  Fire,  A»»o 
w. Thorn.  pgf„_  1 1 68, 

*"■  "•  The  hke  care  we  have  reafon  to  believe  was  taken  in  other  Diocefes  as 

well  as  that  of  Canterhury  and  the  Bad  Angles  j  eCpecially  where  we 
have  I'uch  evidence  of  the  building  a  Cathedral  Church  and  a  Monaftery^ 
Bed.  1. 2.  as  there  was  by  Alellitus^  in  the  Diocefe  of  London.     Bede  indeed  faith 
'^-  3-        no  more  than  that  Bthelhert^  caufed  the  Church  of  St.  Paul'j  to  be  built 
H.  Hun-    in  London  for  an  Epifcopal  See^  for  Mellitus  and  his  Succeflbrs.     H.I/uit' 
t^ngd.  1.3.  fifig^o„  keeps  dole  to  Bede,  and  takes  notice  only  of  St.  Paul's  being 
built  by  Ethellert,  for  a  Biihop's  See,  which  he  faith,  was  richly  en- 
dowed by  him.     And  Gotfelin  of  St.  Bertins,  who  lived  before  Malms- 
/ary,  and  was  efteemed  by  him  next  to  Bede,  mentions  only  an  Epifco- 
w.Maimf.  psl  5^e,  as  (cttlcd  by  Etbelhert  at  London.    But  William  of  Malmshury^ 
degefi.    not  only  faith,  that  the  BiHiop  of  London  had   his  See   fixed   in  the 
^°""^-'-'- Church  of  St,  Paul,  which  was  built  by  King  Ethelherf,  but  that  Mel- 
litus built  a  Monaftery  to  St.  Peter  in  the  Weftern  Part  of  the  City, 
being admonidied,  as  is  faid,  to  do  it  by  a  Meflage  from  Sx.  Peter;  and 
then  follows  the  Legend  of  St.  Peters  being  fcen  to  confecrate  the 
Church  himfelf  by  a  Filherman,  who  brought  him  over  the  River  in  his 
Ferry-boat:  which,  he  faith,  was  fo  firmly  believed,   that  it  had  no 
Florent,    Other  Confecratiort.    Florence  of  Worce^er  takes  no  notice  of  Weftmin- 
a!d?5o  .•^^'■'  ^"^  °"'y  ^^'^^  ^^^^  Ethelkrt  built  the  Church  of  Su  Paul  in  this 
°  'Metropolis  of  London,     But  others  fay,  that  Ethelhert  built  thePhurch 
of  St.  PW,  and  Sehert  his  Nephew  that  of  St.  Peter  at  Thorney,  now 
Monaftic.  Called,  (from  the  Church)  Wefiminfler ;  fo  Sparely  the  Monk  of  IVeJf- 
f-  55.      minjler  j  and  another  old  Chronicle  ,•  and  Sulcardus  who  lived  in  the 
Conqueror's  time,  makes  Sehert  alone  the  Founder  of  that  Church.    To 
Reyner  A-which  the  Charter  of  Ring  Edgar  the  Confeflbr  agrees;  but  in  that  of 
nedift.^!  £'(fi^w^/'^  the  Confeflor,  it  is  only  faid,  that  it  was  built  in  the  time  of  Mel- 
72.       '  litus ;  but  Ailredus  where  he  gives  an  account  of  King  Edward'^  Founda- 
^^-       tion,  faith  that  Sehert  built  the  Church  of  St.  Paul  wfthin  the  Walls  of 
Aiired,     London  and  honoured  it  with  the  Epifcopal  See  of  Mellitus ;  and  with*- 
vit.  Ed-   out  the  Walls  Weftward  he   founded  a  Monaftery  to  the  Honour  of 
Sur.sJan.' ^^-  ^^'^''  ^^^  richly  endowed  it.     But  when  the  New  Church  was  built 
at  Wefttninfter  by  Henry  III.  (the  Old  Church  of  King  Edward  being 
Stow's      pulled  down  )  which  Stow  faith,   was  Fifty  Years  in   building  j   then 
Lond^on"^  Walfngham  tells  us,  the  Body  of  King  Selert  was  tranflated  from  his 
;..  498. '   Sepulchre  in  the  Old  Chutch  into  the  New ;  he  being  the  firft  Foun- 
waifingh. jjgy  q{  jj  Church  there:  and  his  Body  having  been  buried  there  about 

/«Edvv.  I.  '  J  JD 

p.  93.  700  Years 


Antiquitj  ^/LONDON.  $>  1 7 

700  Years  before.  So  that  upon  the  whole  matter  it  appears  moft  pro- 
bable that  King  Etbelhert  founding  the  Church  of  St.  Paul  in  the  City 
and  eftabliihing  the  Epifcopal  See  therein  ;  Sehert  to  flievv  his  readinefs 
to  promote  Chriftianity  here  complied  with  Mellitus  his  defires  in 
founding  a  Monaftery  at  Wefim'mfier  for  a  Seminary  to  the  Church  of 
Eafi  Saxons,  over  which  he  was  Biftiop.  So  Baronius  rightly  under-  Earort.  To. 
ftands  it  wiien  he  calls  it  amplum  SemtHarium  a  large  Nurfery  for  the  ^j^'^'^f  j, 
Church  of  EnglaHii ',  which  fhews,  that  he  believed  it  to  have  been  firft 
defigned  for  the  Education  of  Perfons  for  the  Service  of  the  Church  ; 
and  not  for  a  Monaftery  of  Benedi^in  Monks,  whofe  bufinefs  it  was  to 
work  with  their  Han  Js,  when  their  Offices  were  performed  in  the  Choire; 
as  appears  by  the  Benedi^in  Rule,  which  they  are  flri(SHy  bound  to  ob- 
ferve. 

The  Church  of  St.  Paul  being  thus  built  by  King  Etbelhert  and  the 
Epifcopal  See  eftabliOied,  the  next  thing  was  to  lettle  a  Society  of  his 
Clergy,  who  were  to  live  together,  under  his  care  and  infpeilion,  and 
to  attend  the  publick  Offices  of  Religion  in  the  Cathedral,  or  where 
the  Bilhop  Ihould  appoint  them.  And  that  there  was  fuch  a  Body  of 
the  Clergy  here  fixed  by  Etbelhert^  appears  by  a  Charter  of  William  the 
Conqueror,  wherein  he  grants  to  God  and  St.  Paul  and  his  Servants  the 
Twenty  four  Hides  of  Land,  which  Ethelbert  gave  to  the  Church  of  St. 
Faul  when  he  founded  it;  and  therein  large  Privileges  are  confirmed 
and  granted  to  them.  The  meaning  of  this  Charter  is  beft  underftood 
by  Doom/day- Book,  wherein  a  particular  Account  is  given  of  the  Lands 
then  held  by  the  Canons  of  St.  Paul ;  which  for  the  moft  part  are  the 
fame  which  they  enjoy  to  this  day.  In  the  Charter  of  King  EtheUert 
mentioned  in  the  Appendix,  the  vJannor  of  Tillingham  is  given  ad  Mo- 
Hofterii  fui  folatium.  King  Athelfian  in  his  Charters  mentions  the  Lands 
given  to  the  Monaftery  of  St.  Paul  and  the  Privileges  by  King  Sehha^ 
which  are  confirmed  by  him.  King  Edgar  in  his  Charter  beftovvs  Land 
in  Monafterium  S.  Paitli :  and  fo  doth  Egelfeda  his  Queen.  King  Ethel- 
red  Father  to  Edward  the  Confejfor  gives  Land  to  St.  Paul  ejufque  Ec- 
clefits  Fratrihus,  and  to  the  Brethren  of  his  Church.  In  another  Char- 
ter of  his  they  are  called  Term  Monaflerii  B.  Fault,  the  Lands  belong- 
ing to  the  Monaftery  of  St.  Paul's.  In  a  Charter  of  King  Cnute  all  the 
Lands  were  confirmed  which  were  given  ad  augmentum  Monaflerii  B. 
Fault,  &c.  In  a  Charter  of  William  the  Conqueror  he  reftores  fome 
Lands  which  had  been  taken  from  the  Church  of  St.  Paul's  and  calls 
them  Terras  Monaflerii  S.  Faulty  &c.  Thefe  things  I  mention  to  fhew 
that  there  was  a  Society  of  the  Clergy  upon  the  firfl  building  of  the 
Church  who  lived  together  under  the  Government  of  the  Bilhop,  and 
had  Lands  given  them  by  feveral  Kings  before  the  Conqueft  (or  the 
building  of  the  great  Church  begun  by  Mauricitu)  and  appropriated  to 
their  u(e. 

This  Body  of  the  Clergy  fo  living  together  went  then  under  the  Title 
of  a  Monaftery.    And  fuch  a  one  was  called   Monafterium  Epifcopale  by  Marian. 
Marianus  Scot  us ;  and  Monafterium  Canonicorum  in  the  Capitulars ;  fuch  chron. 
Clergy  being  then  called  the  Canons  of  the  Church.     Of  which  a  two-    '  *^°  '* 
fold  Reafon  is  given  ;  either  firft  from  their  inrollment  among  the  Mem- 
bers of  the  Church,  which  Roll  was  called  Canon  ;  or  from  their  having  Capicuiar. 
their  (hares  out  of  a  common  Stock.    Canon  fignifying  a  certain  payment  '!°l'J'' 
and  fo  uicd  among  the  RomanSy  as  appears  by  Afconius  Pedianus;  thence  Afc.i?ed. 

B  b  b  b  b  b  ^  the  '"  verr.  ?. 


>       II 

^28  ADifcoiirfe  of  the  true 


Cod.rhe- the  Canon  Framentarius  in  xhtTheodofian  Code ;  Canon  Veflium,   Canonkd 
od.  xi.    penfitatio ;  and  the  Canonici  Titull  in  a  Law  of  Valent'tnian  :  and  Agehar- 
Tit.Ki.jo,  ^^  mentions  the  Canonkum  which  was  a  certain  proportion  of  Corrt, 
Agobard.  which  fotTie  People  paid  to  Perfons,  whom  they  believed  could  fecure 
de  Grand,  jj^g  ^^(^  uhilc  growings  from  the  force  of  ill  Weather.     And  fo  Prahen- 
*^"  '^*       i^fignified  a  certain  allowance  of  Diet  among  the  Romans,  to  Souldiers 
and  others ;  and  the  Proportions  of  Bread  allow'd  by  the  Imperial  Laws 
to  the  Citizens  of  Rome  and  Conjiantinople  were  called  Panes  Prahenda- 
rii;  which  were  fee  out  according  to  the  Canon  Frumentarius.     Both 
which  words  came  afterwards  into  the  ufe  of  the  Church ;  when  there 
came  to  be  allowances  made  out  of  the  Common   Stock  to  particular 
cypr.  Ep.  Perfons.     In  St.  Cyprians  time  we  read  of  the  Sportulantes  Fratres,  and 
1.39.  ed.  the  Divifiones  menfurnce^  which  fliews  that  the  Clergy  had  their  ftiares 
°^°"'      then  allow'd  them,  which  the  Bifhop   had  the  diftribution  of.    This 
Stock  did  in  thofe  times  of  Perfecution  arife  out  of  the  Benevolence  of 
the  Chriflians;  but  when  Chriftianity  came  to  be  fettled,  Conflantine 
did  make  a  large  allowance  to  the  Clergy  of  the  Cities,  by  a  legal  Efta- 
Sozom.  I.  bliflimenr,  befides  the  Donations  of  particular  Perfons.     This  is  exprefly 
5.f.  s.     aiErmed  by  Sozomen,  viz.  that  Conflantine  did  fet  apart  a  Hiareof  the 
Piiblick  Revenue  to  the  Clergy  of  every  City,  which  he  confirmed  by 
a  Lnw:  which  Law,  faith  he,  remains  ftill  in  force,  being  only  repea- 
led in  the  time  of  Julian.    By  vertue  of  which  Law,  the  City  Clergy 
Greg.Reg.  wcrc  Well  provided  for,  throughout  the  Roman  Empire ;  and  in  Gregory's 
i.i.EP.d4.  time,  there  were  annual  Vrxhends  paid  to  them  ;  as  appears  by  an  Epi- 
ftle  of  his  to  the  Bi(hop  of  Meftna;  wherein  he  charges  him  to  pay  to 
Bed.  1.1.  the  Clergy  their  (j«»«a/ allowance,  according  to  Cuftora.     But  when  a 
c.  27.      New  Church  was  to  be  founded  here  among  the  Saxons^  Gregory  advi- 
fed  Auguflin  to  follow  the  Primitive  pattern  m  the  Church  of  Jerufalent^ 
viz.  for  the  Biiliop  and  his  Clergy  to  have  all  things  in  Common.     It 
feems  by  Auguflin  %  QuelHon,  his  defire  was  to  know  what  fhaie  was  to 
be  referved  to  the  Bifhop  out  of  the  Common  Stock;  Gregory  tells  him 
that  at  Rome  indeed,  the  Bilhop  had  his  ihare  diftindt  from  the  Clergy- 
but  he  could  not  advife  fuch  a  Diftribution  in  the  beginning  of  a  Church, 
as  the  cale  was  then  in  England.     And  it  is  plain  from  hence,  that  he 
defigned  to  let  up  here  that  Courfe  of  Life,  as  to  the  Bijhop  and  his  Cler- 
gy,  which  had  been  firft  brought  into  the  Weftern  Church  by  Eufehius 
of  P'ercelles,  and  follow'd  by  Siwplicianus  at  Milan  and  St.  Auguflin  3C 
Hippo.     And  the  Clergy  Men  fo  living,  from  adding  a  particular  Rule 
Hift.de    to  the  general  obligation  of  Church- men,  were  in  after-times,  called 
^t^'i^\\.%- Canonici  Regulares^  which  as  Petrus  de  Marca  obferves,  is  no  fuch  im- 
"         '  propriety,  as  is  commonly  thought ;  fince  the  former  only  relates  to 
their  being  in  Canone,  i.  e.  among  the  Clergy ;  and   the  latter  to  their 
obligation,  to  live  together  after  a  peculiar  Rule.    But  I  do  not  find  that 
Auguflin  did  follow  this  Counfel  j  and  the  Reafon  I  fuppofe  was,  becaufe 
he  tound  Ethelhert  in  fo  good  a  Difpofition  to  make  a  fettlement  of  fuf- 
ficient  Revenues  to  maintain  both  the  Bilhop  and  Clergy  as  diftindl 
from  each  other.     So  that  the   Original  Endowment  of  the  Englifh 
Church,  is  not  to  be  conllrued  according  to  the  quadripartite  or  tripar- 
tite Divifion,  fo  often  mention'd  in  other  Churches  of  the  Oblations  of 
the  Faithful :  but  according  to  the  intention  and  defign  of  fuch  pious 
Founders  of  Cathedral  Churches^  as  King  Ethelhert  was.     Who  not  only 
built  i\\tChurch  of  St.  Pauly  and  gave  Lands  to.  maintain  the  Billiop ;  but 

he 


c.  10.  n.  I. 


Antiquity  <?/  L  O  N  D  O  N.  51 2  9 


he  made  a  fettlement,  for  the  maintance  of  the  Clergy,  as  a  diftinca  Bo- 
dy, (but  ander  the  Government  of  the  Bifliop)  as  appears  by  the  Char- 
ters already  mentioned.  But  before  I  conclude  this  Difcourfe,  I  fhall 
briefly  endeavour  to  make  outthe  ufefulnefs  oi  Cathedral  Churches  in  a 
Chriftian  Kingdom,  in  a  three-fold  Refpeta. 

(i.)  To  theBilhop  ofthe  Diocefe. 
(1.)  To  the  Publick  Worlhip  of  God. 
Q%.)  To  the  Propagation  of  Religion. 

(i.)  As  to  the  Bifliop  of  the  Diocefe. 

The  Clergy  being  fettled  under  the  Eye  and  Care  of  the  Bidiop,  were 
not  only  ready  to  attend  the   Fuhlick  Service  in  the  Church,  but  to 
affift  as  an  Ecclefiajlical  Senate  to  him  in  the  great  affairs  of  his  Dio- 
cefe.    Thence  Ignatius  calls  the  Presbyters  of  the  Church  (in  cor\]unSt{.  ignacEp. 
on  with  the  BilhopJ  a  Divine  Council;  and  Origen^  a  Senate  in  every  ^"^  ^""• 
City  of  God s  own  appointing;  anCwering  to  t\\Q  Collegium  Decuriommiivom.' 
in  every  Roman  Corporation.     St.  Cyprian  very  frequently  mentions  his°"S-'^'  ' 
Compreihyters  as  fitting  with  him.     At  Reme^  the  College  of  Presbyters  5^',2q  ^' 
not  only  governed  the  affairs  of  the  Church  in  the  vacancy  of  the  See  Cypr.  Ep.  ^ 
as  appears  by  St.  Cyprians  Epifties ;  but  he  faith,  that  the  Clergy  there'  ^\^^-  '^°' 
fat  all  together  with  the  Bifliop,  and  made  up  a  holy  and  venerable  Se-  ^.^i!^^! 
nate.     Et  nos  hahemus  in  Ecclefia  Senatum  no^rum,  as  turn  Preihyterorum  '°''7iS5, 
Caith,  St.Jerom:  where  he  writes  without  provocation.    The  Author  nteron  in 
of  the  Commentary  on  the  Epifties  in  St.  Awhrofe's   Works,  wonders  ifai.  c.\. 
how  in  fome  Places,  the  Council  of  Presbyters  came  not  to  be  fo  much^"  ^^^'^' 
regarded ;  which  he  imputes  to  floth  on  one  fide,  and  Pride  on  the  ^' 
other:  But  that  it  was  not  commonly  fo,  appears  by  St.  JerornsVfoxds  Confiir, 
who  faith  the  Chriftian  Church  had  ftill  fuch  a  Senate  of  Presbyters.  The  ^p°'^°'  '■ 
4th  Council  of  Carthage^  voids  the  Sentence  of  a  Bilhop,  if  he  gave  it  CondK 
without  the  Advice  of  his  Clergy.     St  Chryfoftom  faith,  the  Presbyters ^ar.  4.'  c. 
had  their  (hare  in  the  Government  of  the  Church.     And  therefore  it  isrl,' 
no  wonder  if  the  Deans  and  Chapters  of  this  Church,  have  had  time  outHoZ'  ii, 
of  Mind,  any  part  of  the  Ecckfiaftical  Jurise/i^ioft  committed  to  them.'"  ^  ^^' 
And  by  the  Canon  Law,  the  Dean  or   Archipreshyter  hath  a  Right  of'"°^''' 
Vifitation  of  the  Churches  within  his  Jurifdidtion,  as  Alteferra  proves. DiiTerr. 
For  the  Ancient  Power  of  the  Presbyters,  under  the  Bifliop,  upon  theJu^'sCa- 
great  increafe  of  the  Clergy,  came  to  be  fixed,  by  a  kind  of  devolution  "°"^'"  '* 
upon  thofe  who  were  neareft  to  the  Bifliop,  and  fo  more  capable  of  Af- 
fifting  in  the  affairs  of  the  Diocefe.     So  Claudius  Fonteius^  a  late  learned  p^  Anti 
Divine  of  Turin  having  undertaken  to  clear  the  Ancient  Right  of  Pres-quo  jure 
byters  in  the  Government  of  the  Church  in  fubordination  to  the  Bi-  Ff^'^yfer- 
Ihops,  he  intended  to  ftiew,  if  he  had  lived,  how  that  Right  came  to  bcEcdefi™' 
devolved  upon  the  Deans  and  Chapters  oi  Cathedral  Churches.  "Joh.  /yi>.  Taurini. 
/a»w  laith,  the  Clergy  who  refide  in  Cathedral  Churches  are,  Epifcopi^{l^J^' 
Confratres,  Confiliarit  &  Apjfores,  and  prefently  after  he  calls  them  Se-  de  Cano- 
ftatum  Ecclefia.    Thence  tiie  Canon  Laws  calls  the  Dignities  and   Pre-  "''^'^  '•  ^' 
lends  oi  the  Cathedral  Churches  memlra  Epifcopatus ',  of  which   Mo/a.Decr.'p.u 
Mb  gives  this  Account,  becaufe  by  their  firlt  Inftitution,  they  were  de-*^-*-*!-  3- 
ffgncd  for  fuch,  who  were  to  heopitnlatores^  co-operarii  Epifcopalis  T^-Moian  de 
licitt'.diHu :  and   io  Card.  Paleotiu  calls  them  in  the  Difcourle  he  madeCanon.  l 


ro'-'-^ 


^30  A  Difcmrfe  of  the  true 

^aiasot.de  jq  the  Canons  of  his  Church  of  Bononia ;  and  he  proves,  that  they  are 
Sd^^' the  Bi/hops  Counfelby  the  Canon  Law,  as  well  as  by  the  Teftimonies  of 
Eonon".  the  Fathers.  TheCe,  as  Hallier  obferves,  are  faid  to  be  a  latere  Epifcopi ; 
^*"'  2'  as  the  Legats  a  latere  were  thofe  which  the  Bilhop  of  Rome  fent  from 
J.' 51 3  his  own  Clergy,  or  Confiftory ;  for  none  but  fuch,  as  the  Canonifis  tell 
Haiiier  de  y^^  ^an  be  faid  to  be  a  latere  though  fent  by  the  Pop?,  and  his  own  At- 
fea&or-tendents.  And  thofe  of  his  Confittory  do  plead  that  the  Pope  cannot 
diniit.'p.  difpatch  any  great  affairs  of  the  Church  without  their  Advice,  as  ap- 
1I0.II4-  pegrs  by  the  Claufe  in  his  Bulls  de  Fratrum  nofirorum  Conftlio.  But  it  is 
tT4^c"'  warmly  debated  among  the  Canonifts  how  far  the  Pope  is  bound  to 
3-  9-  5-  take  and  to  follow  their  Advice.  Card.  Palaotus  faith,  fome  went  fo 
Fr"m:"es  far  as  to  null  all  Ads  that  are  done  without  it ;  chiefly  for  this  Reafon, 
de  Eccie.  becaufc  thofe  who  deny  theNeceffity  ol  it,  yet  all  grant  it  to  be  de  honefla- 
cathedr.  ^^^  ^^^  therefore  the  aiding  without  \\.\%  contra  bonefiatem,  which,  fay  they, 
Pafiot.d*e  renders  the  Adt  void  in  Law.  But  although  he  denies  the  Confequence, 
sacri.  yet  he  grants  that  there  is  an  Obligation  on  the  Pope  to  take  the  Ad- 
CoS  viceot  his  Confiftory;  which  he  proves  by  many  Arguments  in  the 
Part.i.^"-  fore-going  Sedions  ;  and  the  firfl  is  from  the  Parity  of  Reafon  as  to  a 
3.  Art.  7.  Bidjop  and  his  Chapter;  who,  faith  he,  Jure  Commm't  is  bound  to 
^""  *'  make  ufe  of  it ;  and  the  College  of  Cardinals  hath  the  fame  refped  to 
the  Pope,  which  the  Chapter  hath  to  a  Bilhop;  who  are  by  the  Canon 
Barb.dc  Law  (Uled  Concilium  and  Senatui  Epifcopi,  as  Barhofa^nA  Ant onius  Fran- 
©'"'i^c  *■"  confefs.  But  that  which  is  far  more  material  to  us,  is,  that  by  our 
c.  42.'nM.  Common  Law ;  it  is  faid,  that  the  Dean  and  Chapter  were  appointed  as  a 
Aiit.¥Tia.  Cffif^cil to  the  Bijhop  ;  with  whom  he  is  to  confult  in  Cafes  of  Difficulty^  to 
cathedraf.  ^^hich  purpofe  every  Bi(hop  habet  Cathedram  ;  and  who  are  to  confent  to  e- 
c.i^.n.9i.  very  grant,  &c.  And  in  the  Cafe  of  the  Dean  and  Chapter  of  Norwich, 
Co'  ^Rc  ^^^"'  ^^^"?>  "  ^^<^^^'^^^to  he  fo  necejfary,  that  although  they  jhould  depart 
Deaii  and  with  their  PoffeffioMS,  yet  Jor  neceffity  the  Corporation  doth  remain,  as  well 
Chapter    jg  ^jjia  ffjg  gjfhop  in  his  Calling,  as  to  zive  their  Affent,  &c. 

(x.)  The  Cathedral  Churches  being  thus  eftablifhed  in  the  BiPtop,  and 
his  Clergy,  all  things  were  to  be  fo  ordered  as  might  the  moft  tend  to 
the  folemn  Performance  of  the  Publick  Worihip  of  God  ;  which  was  a- 
nother  End  of  the  firft  Inftitution  of  them,  and  an  Argument  of  their 
Uffcfulnefs.  For  in  the  beginning  of  a  Church  it  was  nece0aty  for  the 
Bidiops  to  have  an  Eye  to  two  things ;  firft  to  fet  up  the  publick  Wor- 
ihip in  the  moft  decent  and  folemn  Manner,  and  in  the  P  aces  of  grea- 
teft  Refort ;  and  this  was  the  Foundation  of  Cathedral  Churches ;  the  fe- 
cond  was  to  gain  as  many  Converts  as  they  could  in  difperfed  Places, 
and  to  let  them  want  nothing  that  was  necefTary  to  the  Chriftian  Pro- 
feftion,  and  this  was  the  Foundation  of  Parochial  Churches:  which  were 
as  the  Synagogues  to  the  Temple  at  Jexufalem;  being  built  for  the  Con- 
veniency  ot  thofe  who  could  not  attend  the  folemn  Worihip  of  God  in 
the  Temple.  So  it  was  in  the  Chriftian  Church;  every  Cathedral  in 
its  firft  Inftitution  was  as  the  Temple  to  the  whole  Diocefe,  where  the 
Worfhip  was  to  be  performed  in  the  moft  decent,  conftant  and  folemn 
Manner ;  for  which  End  it  was  necefiary  io  have  fuch  a  Number  of 
Ecclefiaftical  Perfons  there  attending,  as  might  ftill  be  ready  to  do  all 
the  Offices  which  did  belong  to  the  Chriftian  Church.  Such  as  Con- 
ftant Prayers,  and  Hymns,  and  Preaching,  and  Celebration  of  Sacra- 
ments; which  were  to  be  kept  up  in  fuch  a  Church  as  the  daily  Sacri- 
fice 


wicb. 


Antiquity  ^/LONDON.  5131 

-  ,  '  - 

fice  was  in  the  Temple.  Not  only  for  the  fatisfadiion  of  all  Perfons 
who  dcfire  to  know  what  the  Manner  of  our  Worfliip  is,  byt  that  all 
devout  Perfons  may  certainly  know  whither  to  go  at  certain  Hours  to 
offer  up  their  Prayers  and  Thankfgivings  to  God,  and  that  in  the  moft 
publickand  folemn  Manner.  And  upon  this  Ground  the  Inftitution  of 
Cathedral  Churches  among  Chriftians  was  a  very  pious  and  reafonnble 
thing.  For  granting  that  all  that  is  meerly  necefTary  to  Salvation  may  be 
had  in  Parochial  Churches,  yet  muft  thofe  who  profefs  themfelves  Chri- 
ftians, look  at  nothing  in  the  Worfhip  of  God  beyond  what  is  plainly 
ncceflary  ?  It  can  never  be  proved  neceflary  to  Salvation  to  have  Paro- 
chial Churches  well  built,  or  decent  Pulpits  or  Pews  in  them,  or  to 
go  to  thofc  Churches  in  a  more  orderly  Drefs  than  they  fit  in  at  home, 
or  to  have  the  Pfalms  fet  to  the  beft  Tunes,  or  to  have  their  Bibles 
handfomely  bound ;  yet  there  is  (uch  a  becoming  Decency  in  thefe 
things,  as  argues,  that  what  relates  to  God  and  his  Worfhip,  ought  to 
have  fomething  above  what  is  barely  neceffary.  For  to  give  God  no 
more  than  juft  what  is  neceflary,  is  as  if  we  thought  we  had  a  hard  bar- 
gain of  it,  when  we  were  required  to  ferve  him.  Shall  Ingenuity,  Gra» 
titude,  Generofity,  Beneficence  have  no  Influence  on  what  relates  to 
the  Publick  Worftiip  of  God  in  the  World  .>  But  if  the  greater  Solemni- 
ty of  Divine  Worlhip  makes  for  the  greater  Honour  of  Religion,  then 
there  arifes  an  Obligation  to  promote  it  proportionable  to  the  Concern- 
ment we  have  therein.  It  is  certain  the  Worfliip  of  God  in  his  Temple 
might  have  been  performed  after  a  fort  by  a  far  left  Number  of  Men, 
without  the  Courfes  of  Singers  and  Levites,  and  Priefts  of  feveral  Ranks, 
who  were  required  to  attend  it.  But  God  vi'ould  be  worflilped  in  a  way 
becoming  his  Greatnefs  and  Majefty.  It  is  true  he  hath  not  laid  fuch 
a  ftri<9:  Law  upon  the  Chriftian  Church,  as  to  the  Solemnities  of  Wor- 
fliip, but  we  are  obliged  to  do  whatfoever  things  are  orderly,  decent, 
and  of  good  Report.  So  that  we  are  only  to  enquire,  whether  fuch  a  fo-  phu.  4  g 
leran  way  of  worfliipping  God  be  of  this  Nature,  and  if  it  appear  to  be 
fo,  we  are  obliged  to  promote  and  maintain  it.  And  who  is  fo  fit  a 
Judge  of  what  becomes  his  Service  as  God  himfelf?  Would  he  have 
fuffered  any  Indecency  in  his  Worfliip,  becaufe  there  were  Types  and 
Shadows  among  >he  Jews  ?  What  did  the  Pfaltery,  and  Harp,  and  Or- 
gans, and  Ten-ftringed  Inftruments,  and  loud  founding  Cymbals  fig- 
nifie  ?  Why  fliould  the  harfli  unpleafing  Voices  and  unskilful  Singing 
of  common  People  be  thought  more  agreeable  to  Gofpcl- worfliip,  than 
grave  and  melodious,  vocal  and  inftrumentalMufick.-*  And  why  fliould 
the  beft  Harmony  in  the  Worfliip  of  God  be  thought  a  Jewifh  Difpen- 
fation  ?  It  is  a  great  miftake  in  thofe  that  look  on  ail  things  pradifed  in 
the  Jewifli  Church  as  Ritual  and  Ceremonial,  which  related  to  the  Wor- 
fhip of  God.  For  there  were  many  Circumftances  ufed  and  allow'd, 
which  had  no  relation  to  the  Ceremonial  Law,  but  were  taken  up  as 
fit  Expreflions  of  Natural  Decency,  and  helping  to  fet  forth  the  Solem- 
nity of  Divine  Worfliip.  Of  this  kind  I  fuppofe  the  Mufick  of  the  Tem- 
ple to  have  been,  for  there  was  no  Inftitution  of  it  in  the  Ceremonial 
Law ;  which  was  fo  complete  in  its  kind,  that  there  was  a  Command  not  !>£„  ..  g 
to  add  to  it ;  w  hich  extended  to  Princes  and  Prophets  as  well  as  others,  iz,  3a. 
And  although  God  by  his  Prophets  did  lay  other  Commands  on  the 
People,  yet  he  added  not:  to  the  Ceremonial  Law ;  but  rather  fuch  as 
interpreted  and  mollified  the  ftridnefs  of  it,  and  made  the  Ritual  Service 

more 


^32  A  Difcoiirfe  of  the  true 


1  chron.  more  eafie  to  them.     And  for  this  End  in  probability  it  was,  that  when 

^'  5^'      the  Pubhck  Worfhip  came  to  be  fettled  in  Da-vids  time  by  the  refting 

of  the  Arl<,  then  it  is  faid,  that  David  appointed  the  conliant  Service 

of  the  Choire  ;  for  the  words  are,  And  thefe  are  they  whom  David  fet 

over  the  Service  of  Song  in  the  Houje  of  the  Lord  after  the  Ark  had  refl, 

32.  And  they  miniflred  before  the  Dwelling- Place  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
Congregation  with  finging,  until  Solomon  had  built  the  Houfe  of  the  Lord 
in  Jeruialem,  and  then  they  waited  on  their  Office  according  to  theic  Order. 
Here  is  the  plain  Inftitution  of  the  Service  of  the  Choire,  with  the  Na- 
ture of  their  Duty,  and  the  Order  ufed  in  the  Performance  of  it ;  and 
the  Number  of  thole  who  were  firft  appointed  for  it,  is  faid  to  be  two 
hundred  faurfcore  and  eight ;  who  were  diflributed  into  Twenty  four 

25.7.  Courfes  for  the  more  convenient  Attendance;  over  whom  Afaph,  and 
•^^  Jeduthun,  and  Heman  were  as  the  Pracentors,  whofe  bufinefs  was  to 
take  care  of  thofe  who  were  to  be  brought  up  to  the  Service  of  finging 
in  the  Houfe  of  the  Lord ;  and  therefore  David  diredis  his  Pfalms,  as 
Anthems  compofed  for  the  Ufe  of  the  Tabernacle,  to  thefe  as  the  chief 
Maflers  of  the  Church-Mufick.  But  fome  of  thefe,  efpecialJy  Afaph^ 
did  himfelf  compofe  Anthem,  which  were  conilantly  ufed  with  thofe 
of  David  in  the  Publick  Service  :  For  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah  it  is  faid, 

29,30.  that  the  Levites  were  commanded  Jo  fing  praife  unto  the  Lord^  with  the 
words  of  David  and  of  Afaph  the  Seer ;  and  this  Attendance  was  fo  con- 

zj.  30.  ftant,  that  they  were  tofland  every  Morning  to  thank  and  praife  the  Lord^ 
and  likewife  at  Evening ;  and  their  full  Number  at  the  End  of  David's 
5.    Reign  was  increafed  to  4000,  who  praifed  the  Lord  with  the  Infiruments 
that  David  made.    So  extremely  careful  was  he  about  it.'  And  it  is  faid 
of  Solomon^  that  he  appointed  according  to  the  Order  of  David  his  Fa- 
1  Chron.  ther^  the  Courfes  of  the  Friers  to  their  Service.,  and  the  Levites  to  their 
8-  >4'       Charges  to  praife  and  minifier  before  the  Priefls,  as  the  Duty  of  every  Day 
required.    And  it  is  obfervable  afterwards,  in  the  Reformations  fpoken 
ot,  there  was  not  only  a  great  Regard  had  to  the  Levitical  Service  ap- 
pointed by  the  Law,  but  to  this  particular  Inditution  of  David.    So  of 

23. 18.  "jehoiada,  that  he  appointed  the  Offices  of  the  Houfe  of  the  Lord  by  the 
Hand  of  the  PrieSis ,  the  Levites  whom  David  had  diflributed  in  the 
Houfe  of  the  Lord  -^  to  offer  the  Burnt-Offerings  of  the  Lord.,  as  it  is 
written  in  the  Law  of  Moles,  with  rejoicing  and  finging  as  it  was  ordain- 

20.  25.  ^<^  h  David.  And  of  Hezekiah.,  that  he  fet  the  Levites  in  the  Houfe 
of  the  Lord  with  Cymbals.,  Pfalteries.,  and  Harps,  according  to  the  Com- 
mandment of  David,  and  Gad  the  Kings  Seer,  <i»^/ Nathan  the  Prophet  ^ 
for  fo  was  the  Commandment  of  God  by  his  Prophets.  Which  words  are 
on  purpofe  added,  leaft  all  this  Ihould  be  thought  an  illegal  Impofition, 
by  virtue  of  David's  Royal  Authority,  without  God's  particular  Ap- 
probation. And  after  the  Return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Captivity,  this 
was  one  of  the  firft  things  fet  up  with  refpedl  to  the  Worlhip  of  God  ; 

Ezr.3.io.for  we  read,;  when  the  Builders  laid  the  Foundation  of  the  Temple  of  the 
Lord,  they  fet  the  Priefls  in  their  Apparel  with  trumpets,  and  the  Le- 
vites the  Sons  of  Afaph,  with  Cymbals  to  praife  the  Lord,  after  the  Ordinance 
'  of  David  King  of  Ifrael.  And  they  fmg  together  by  courfe  in  praifing 
and  giving  thanks  unto  the  Lord,  becaufe  he  is  good,  for  his  mercy  endu- 
rethfor  ever  towards  Ifrael.  And  this  Cuftom,  as  far  as  we  can  learn, 
continued  as  long  as  the  Jewif)  Temple  flood,  and  therefore  was  con- 
ftantly  obferved  in  our  Saviour's  time;  who  was  frequently  piefent  at 

the 


Antiquity  ^/LONDON.  933 

the  Temple  Mufick,  which  begun  in  Courfe  as  foon  as  the  Oblation  was 
over.  In  the  time  of  offering  the  Tncenfe  the  Solemn  Prayers  began, 
both  Morning  and  Evening;  and  when  the  Daily  Sacrifice  was  at  an 
end  the  Choir  began  their  Service.  The  fornier  no  one  queftions,  was 
a  part  of  Natural  Religion  added  to  the  Ceremonial  Worlhip,  and  there 
is  no  Reafon  to  queftion  the  latter  to  have  been  of  the  fame  kind  ;  but 
had  more  exprefs  Divine  Approbation  by  the  Prophets  than  in  being  at 
the  time  of  David's  firft  Inflituticn  of  it.  By  whom  the  Publick  and 
Solemn  Prayers  were  firft  appointed,  we  have  no  certainty ;  but  we 
know  that  the  ufe  of  the  Quire  was  firft  appointed  by  no  lefs  a  Perfon 
than  David,  a  Man  after  God  s  own  Heart ;  who  would  therefore  never 
fet  up  a  Way  of  Worfliip  any  ways  unfuitable  to  the  Divine  Nature. 
And  it  Teems  very  unreafonable  to  think  David's  Pfalms  ftill  fit  to  be 
ufed,  and  the  way  of  fmging  them,  which  hjmfelf  appointed,  viz.  in 
Inflrumental  as  well  as  Focal  Mufick,  to  be  unbecoming  the  Chriftian 
Church;  for  how  comes  one  to  be  Typical  and  Ceremonial  and  not  the 
other?  If  there  be  any  thing  indecent  in  the  former,  /.  <?.  it  be  light 
and  vain,  on  that  account  it  ought  to  be  rejedted  as  unfuitable  to  Di- 
vine Worfhip;  but  if  it  be  grave  and  folemn,  apt  to  compofe  or  elevate 
the  Mind  in  A&s  of  Devotion  towards  God,  it  is  not  eafie  to  under- 
ftand,  why  it  fliould  not  be  very  agreeable  to  the  blature  and  Defign  of 
Puhlick  Worlhip.  And  a  very  learned  Perfon  had  undertaken  to  make  out  J^*^-  "^°''- 
that  the  ufing  both  thefe  forts  of  Mufick  in  the  Worfliip  of  God  is  oneajeiS 
of  thofe  things  which  are  common  to  all  Religion  (as  he  particularly  dc  org«n'. 
defigned  to  prove  out  of  the  Oriental  Books)  and  therefore  ought  to  be^*'^^* 
look'd  on  as  a  Di<3ate  of  Reafon  and  Natural  Religion ;  not  ftridly  ta- 
ken for  the  Neceflary  Duties  of  it,  but  for  what  is  naturally  Decent  and 
becoming  the  Worfliip  of  God.  And  fo  much  at  prefent  may  fuffice  as 
to  this  part  of  the  Cathedral  Service  j  as  to  others  I  have  occafion  to  give 
an  account  of  them  in  another  place. 

(3.)  As  to  the  Propagation  of  Religion.  For  the  Bifliop  and  his 
Clergy  being  united  together  in  one  Body,  he  knew  better  how  to  di- 
rtGt  and  imploy  them  in  feveral  Places  abroad  in  order  to  their  Con- 
verfion  and  Eftabiilhment ;  and  by  their  retijrning  back  to  him,  he 
had  a  conflant  and  certain  Account  of  the  Affairs  of  his  Diocefe.  And 
this  was  generally  the  means  whereby  moft  Countries  were  converted 
to  the  Chriftian  Faith ;  the  Bifliop  and  his  Clergy  leading  very  Regu- 
lar Lives  together,  and  when  they  went  or  were  fent  abroad,  it  was 
with  a  defign  only  to  do  Good  among  them,  and  fo  to  return  to  their 
Society  again.  And  this  continued  till  fuch  time  as  Pariflies  were  divi- 
ded; which  was  not  near  fo  foon  as  is  commonly  thought.  It  is  gene- 
rally faid,  that  Pariflies  were  divided  in  the  Saxon  Churches  in  the  time 
of  Honorius  Archbifliop  of  Canterbury^  who  was  one  of  Gregory's  Di- 
fciples ;  and  the  learned  Author  of  the  Antiquitates  Britamica,  is  pro-  Ant.  Brit. 
duced  for  it.  Mr.  Camlden  follows  his  Authority  :  for  he  alledges  none'?"°"°- 
elfe.  But  whofccver  confiders  the  Circumftances  of  that  time  will  find  cam.  Brlr. 
no  Reafon  to  believe  it;  this  Church  being  fo  little  fettled  before  Theo-t.  "<5. 
Jores  coming,  and  hardly  capable  of  a  Divifion  into  Pariflies  then  ;  fo 
that  had  it  not  been  for  the  Cathedral  Foundations,  there  had  been  no 
tolerable  Subfiftence  for  thofe  who  were  to  carry  on  that  difficult  Work 
of  Converting  the  Saxon  Idolaters;  but  the  great  Advantage  was,  that  the 
Cathedral  Churches  being  firft  endow'd  by  the  Munificence  of  the  firft 
Chriftian  Princes,  they  were  thereby  enabled  to  conquer  the  many  Dif- 

C  c  G  c  c  c  ficulties 


^34  4  Difcoi^rfe  of  the  true 


ficukies  they  otherwife  met  with.     As  will  beft  appear  by  a  brief  Ac- 
count of  the  State  of  the  Churches  here  in  thofe  times.     I  begin  with 
the  Diocefe  of  London ;  while  Ethelhert  and   Sehert  lived,  by  the  afD- 
flance  of  Mellitus  and  his  Clergy,  the  Face  of  Chriftianity  was  kept  up 
Bed  /  2    in  London  and  other  parts  of  the  Eafi  Saxon  Kingdom.     But  after  their 
c.  J*  '      death  Sehert  s  5  Sons  returned  to  Paganifm,  and  affronted  Mellitus  in  the 
publick  Celebration  of  the  Eucharift,  and  becaufe  he  refufed  to  give  it 
them  without  Baptifm,  they  banifhed  him  and  his  Clergy.    Upon  the 
I.  6.    Converfion  of  Eadhaldas  Son  to  Ethelhert,  Mellitus  was  recalled  and  fent 
back  to  London,  but  the  Londoners  would  not  receive  him,  and  perfifted 
in  their  Idolatry ;  although  the  Sons  o^ Sehert  were  all  deftroyed.    After 
which  the  Bifhoprick  of  London  was  vacant  about  40  years  till  after  Ho- 
norius  his  death ;  how  then  could  Parilhes  be  divided  in  this  Diocefs  in  his 
/.5.c.22.time?  But  in  the  time  oi  Sigehert,  by  the  perfwafion  of  Oftvi,  King  of 
the  Northern  Saxons,  Chriftinity  was  again  received  in  thefe  parts,  and 
Cedda  was  made  Biftiop  of  the  Eafl  Saxons ;  and  of  him  it  is  faid  in- 
deed that  he  built  Churches,  and  ordained  Priefts  and  Deacons  for  his 
Adiftance,  chiefly  at  a  place  called  Ithancefter  (not  far  from  Maldon  in 
Efjex,  faith  Radulphus  t^iger,  and  Camden  thinks  it  yNSiSOthonavn  the  Ro' 
man  times)  and  at  Tilahurg  now  Tilhury  on  the  Thames.     But  in  the  time 
of  Siger  and  Sehhi  there  was  a  new  Apoftafie  in  the  Dominions  of  the 
Florent.    former,  as  Florentius  Wigornienjis  faith  ;  whereupon  Wolfere  King  of  the 
Id  a°'d.  Mercians  fent  Jarumannus  to  convert  them,  and  he  effeded  his  defign, 
554.'    *  faith  William  oi  Malms hury  and  H.  Huntingdon,  who  lucceeded  Tnmhere 
w.Maimf.jjj  j.[jg  Biftioprick  of  the  Mercians.     But  Wolfere  fent  Wina,  driven  out 
ponnf./!2.from  the  Weft  Saxon  Bifhoprick  by  Kenwalch,  to  the  Biihoprick  of  the 
H.Huntin.  ^^(^  Saxons,  whcrc  he  continued  Bifhop  as  long  as  he  lived,  fay  Bede  antj 
Bc/'m-'  P^orentius ;  but  not  rcckon'd  among  the  BiOiops  of  London,  faith  Matf. 
c^i.  Flo-  Wejlminjler,  becaufe  he  came  in  by  Simony :  which  fliews  that  the  En- 
rent.  3d    jowments  of  the  Biihoprick  were  then  recovered. 
^'^'      '      After  him  Erkenwald  was  made  Biftiop  of  London  by  the  favour  of  K. 
Lefand.    Sehha,  faith  Leland,  out  of  an  old  Author  of  his  Life,  (who  was  Canon 
Col.  W/.2.  Qf  3j.  p^^/'s  in  the  time  of  Gilhertus  Vniverfalis.')    This  Erkenwald .  was 
^'  ^^'      one  of  the  Difciples  of  Mellitus,  and  confecrated  Biftiop  of  London  by 
Theodore,  who  lived  and  died  with  great  Reputation  for  Sanctity,  and 
was  buried  in  St.  Paul's;  to  the  Strudure  whereof  he  had  given  freely, 
and  out  of  his  own  Pofleffions  increafed  the  Revenue  of  the  Church,  and 
obtained  large  Privileges  for  it,  faith  Biftiop  Godwin.     It  is  pity  he  did 
not  cite  his  Authorities,  that  we  might  learn  what  Alterations  were 
made  in  the  Church  of  St.  Paul  by  Erkenwald;  for  the  Author  of  his  Life 
affirms,  that  it  continued  the  fame  to  the  time  of  the  horrible  Fire  in 
the  Conquerour's  time,  which  burnt  it  to  the  Ground.    He  defcribes  it  as 
a  Timber-Building,  and  faith,  they  did  not  then  underftand  the  way  of 
Building  with  Stone  Arches;  which  was  brought  in  by  the  Normans. 
From  whence  fome  have  concluded,  that  our  Churches  before  the  Nor- 
somners  mans  were  all  made  of  Wood;  but  if  I  miftake  not,  this  new  way  of 
Antiq.  0/  Building  relates  only  to  the  Roof,  and  not  to  the  Walls,  i.  e.  they  did 
p.""!"  '  not  underftand  the  way  of  turning  fuch  great  Arches  with  Stone,  as 
Scow.  Sur- were  in  the  New  Church  of  St.  Paul's  begun  by  Mauricius.     For  the 
v«y  »/    Saxons  did  know  the  v^ay  of  building  Churches  with  Stone,  as  appears  by 
^"^°"'   what  Matt.  Weftminjler  faith  of  King  Edwins  building  a  Church  of  Stone 
Mat.weft.lor  PauUnus  at  Tork.    I  confefs  Bede  faith  not  fo  much,  but  only  that  a 
t'^'^.^^^Bafilica  was  built  by  him,  which  was  after  burnt  by  the  Pagans-,  but 

Bed.  1.2.  J  •'  '  ry  t 

c.  14.  Stepkanus 


Ant  I  pit  J  &/  L  O  N  D  O  N.  935 


Stephanas  Fleddius,  who  lived  before  Bede^  in  xhe  Sdhhury  MS.  (for  that 
part  is  dere(9:ive  in  the  Cotton  MS,)  affirms  that  Edwin  did  build  at  Tork  a 
Church  of  Stone,  which  was  afterwards  repaired  by  IVilfr  id,  znd  the  Win-  vic.  wiif. 
dows  adorned  with  Glafsthen  newly  brought  into  England  hy  Benedi^%-  is. 
Bifcop.  And  Bede  himfelf  faith,  that  Paulinas  having  converted  Blecca  the  Bed.  /.  i. 
Governour  oi  Lincoln  let  up  there  Ecclefiam  operis  egregii  delapide,^  famous  c  i6. 
Church  of  Stone^  the  Wallls  whereof  flood  in  histime,but  the  Roof  was  de- 
cayed; in  which  Church  Paulinus  confecrated  Honorius  Archbilhopof  Tork. 
And  there  is  no  reafon  to  fuppofe  the  Church  of  St.  Paul'Sy  being  found- 
ed by  King  £/^W/fr/,  the  richeft  King  of  the  5<7X(7»j-,  Ihould  fall  fhort  of 
the  Churches  built  at  Tork  and  Lincoln  not  long  after.    But  as  to  Paro- 
chial Churches,  I  can  find  no  certain  evidence  of  any  one  that  was  built 
la  London  in  the  Saxon  times  :  For  what  Matt.  IVeflmhfler  faith  of  St.  Mac. Weft. 
Martins'-^  Ludgate  being  built  by  the  Britaius  for  the  hktoi  Cadwj/Iader^^A^  ^• 
is  very  improbable,  confidering  the  great  hatred  between  the  Britaius 
and  Saxons  at  that  time,  even  after  they  both  profefled  to  be  Chriftians, 
u'hich  Bede  fpeaks  of  with  great  refentmeut.    As  to  the  Tradition  of  St. 
Peter's  Cornhill,  that  depends  upon  the  credit  of  an  obfcure  Table  hung 
up  in  the  old  Church,  without  fufficient  Authority  to  atteft  it ;  and 
if  it  prove  any  thing,  it  only  proves,  that  the  old  Cathedral  flood  there 
in  the  time  of  the  Romans^  and  not  that  there  was  any  Parochial  Church 
there  after  the  building  of  St.  Paul's.     So  that  the  main  care  of  prefer- 
ving  and  propagating  Religion  in  the  City  of  London,  if  not  through     * 
the  whole  Diocele,  did  in  thole  elder  times  of  the  Saxon  Churches  de- 
pend upon  the  Bilhop  and  his  Clergy,  who  were  then  fettled  in  the  Ca- 
thedral Church  of  St.  P<i«/'s.     And  to  it  the  City  reforted,  to  attend  on 
the  publick  Offices  of  our  Religion;  and  efpecially  to  the  celebration  of 
the  Holy  Sacraments.     For  even  after  the  time  that  for  the  multiplicity 
of  Converts  in  great  Cities,  there  was  a  neceffity  of  having  other  places 
for  the  People  to  meet  in  for  Prayers,  &c.    I  much  queftion  whether 
the  Adminiftration  of  Sacraments  were  commonly  allowed  to  the  Paro- 
ehial  Churches,  unlefs  the  Btihop  and   his  Clergy  went  thither.     Andonuphr. 
Onuphrius  Panvinius  and  Jofephus  Ficecomes  have  proved  that  there  was  ^'^^'f'-.  ^^ 
for  fomc  time  but  one  BaptiRery  in  a  City,  and  that  by  the  Cathedral  Eccirfjo- 
Church  ;  and  the  One  Altar  relating  to  the  Bilhop  doth  imply  that  thofe  feph.  vi- 
who  were  under  the  care  of  the  Bilhop  did  communicate  with  him.'""*""'^^ 
Which  Notion  is  fo  far  incorporated  into  the  Canon  Law,  that  it  is  aBapnfm. 
Maxim  ftill  received,  that  the  Cathedral  Church  is  the  Parifh  to  the^'""^  '• '• 


whole  Diocefe  ;  fothatthofe  who  adminifter  there,  may  give  to  thofe^ 


8. 


Anton. 


of  any  Parilh,  and  thofe   who  receive  there  do  anfwer  the  Canons  asF".deEc- 
muchasif  they  did  it  in  their  own  Parochial  Churches  ;and  that  Magi(trateSj|,gj^^^' 
on  folemn  Days  are  bound  to  go  to  the  Cathedral  Churches ;  which  fay  ij.n  lyj. 
the  Canoniftsj  doth  not  arife  from  the  Prefence  of  the  Bilhop,  but  from  Ef'^'^^^  - 
the  very  Notion  and  original  Right  of  a  Cathedral  Church,  which  theyy^^f^ofl 
call  ]us  Cathedralitatis :  which,  fay  they,  can  no  more  be  taken  away  fiOum.  v. 
from  it  by  the  Bilhop,  than  a  Parochial  Minifter  can  take  away  the[°"*j.jj 
Right  of  a  Parilh  from  his  Church.    All  thefe  Privileges  are  the  remain- vari^  Ln- 
ders  of  the  ancient  Pradice,  and  the  Teftimonies  of  that  Right  which  <="'""Tit. 
accrues  by  them;  and  is  not  loft  by  the  frequency  of  Parochial  Chur-^'j!""*"* 

ches.  Barbofa 

But  to  proceed  in  Ihewinghow  the  Chriftian  Religion  was  here  P^'O'cic&'Db- 
pagated  by  the  means  of  the  Cathedral  Churches  at  Hrft  eredJed.    Sige-  nit^c.  6. 
/fr/ King  of  thQ  Ea/i  Angles  fixed  theEpifcopal  See  for  /^e//x  who  came  ^j^'^^^^^ 

CUtCatalGio 


^^6  ADifcourfe  of  the  true  Antiquity,  &c. 

Mundi,     Qy^  ^f  Burgundy  zt  Dumnoc  cY  Dunwich ;  where  he  refided  17  years,  and 
confi-V- ^^^  ^'"'^  means  of  converting  the  whole  Province.     Birinus  was  fixed  at 
Anton.      Dorcefler  as  his  Epifcopal  See  by  the  Gift  of  Cynigilfus  King  of  the  Weft 
Ecde/^    Saxons  and  OfwaU  K\ngoh\\Q  Northumhers  ;  and  by  ihat  means  much 
Cathedr.   People  was  converted  and  fcvera)  Churches  built  in  his  own  lime.     The 
c.ij.n.  54.  Kingdom  of  Mercla,  or  the  Middle  Angles,  fecm  to  owe  their  Conver- 
lii/"^'  fion  to  Four  Presbyters,  Cedda,  Adda^  Beffi,  and   Diuma,  the    3    firft 
Bed. /.I.  Englifh,  and  the  laft  a  Scot;  but  this  was  while  Penda  lived,  who  was 
/is.'c.?.  no  Chriflian;  but  he  was  no  fooner  dead  but  a  Cathedral  Church  was 
c.  21.      ercdled  and  Diuma  was  made  Biftiop  of  the  Middle  Angles^  and  was  very 
/•  4  C'3- fuccefsful!  in  converting  much  People  in'a  little  time.     In  the  time  of 
Wulphere  Cedda  was  by  Theodore's  means  made  Bifliop  of  the  Mercians, 
and  the  Cathedral  Church  was  fixed  at  Litchfield;  who  befides  the  Body 
of  his  Clergy  had,  faith  Bede,  7  or  8  of  his  Brethren,  with  whom  in  his 
retirement  as  often  as  he  had  leifure  from  his  work  of  Preaching,  he  was 
wont  to  Pray  and  to  Study ;  and  after  his  death  Winfred  one  of  his  Cler- 
gy fucceeded  him     Laflly,  as  to  the  5<'«//,'  Saxons  Wiljrid  the  Biftiopof 
Tork,  but  then  driven  out,  was  the  chief  Inftrument  of  their  Converfi- 
on,  bur  he  had  the  afTidance  of  his  Clergy  who  are  mentioned  by  Bede: 
and  King  Edilmakh  fixed  the  Cathedral  Church  for  them  at  Selfefey  and 
very  liberally  endowed  it.    From  which  it  appears  how  extremely  ufe- 
full  the  firR  Cathedral  Churches  among  \\\€  Saxons  were  for  the  Conver- 
fion  of  the  Nation ;  and  upon  what  great  Confiderations  the  firft  Chriftian 
Kings  of  the  Saxons  did  beftow  their  Endowments  upon  them :  which 
in  fome  meafure  they  have  ever  fince  enjoyed,  and  there  is  Reafon  to  hope 
they  will  do,  as  long  as  Chriftian  Princes  and  the  due  fenfe  of  our  Con- 
verfion  to  Chriftianity  remain  among  us :  which  I  hope  will  be  to  the 
Worlds  End. 


<•.  I? 


THE 


9^1 


DISCOURSE 

Concerning  the 

Unreajonablenefs  of  a  New  Separation^ 

On  account  of  the  O  a  t  h  s ;  With  an  ANSWER  to 
the  Hiftory  of  Passive  Obedience^  fo  far  as  re- 
lates to  THEM. 

SIR, 

Your  former  Letter  gave  me  an  Account  of  Your  own  and  others 
Diflatisfadtion  about  the  Oaths;  but  your  fecond  carries  the 
Point  a  great  deal  farther ;  for  therein  you  tell  me,  Thofe  who 
are  mfatisfied)  think  themjelves  hound  to  feparate  from  the  Com- 
munion  of  thofe  who  have  taken  them;  and  that  if  Eaje  he  not  given  to  the 
Scrupulous,  new  Congregations  will  he  immediately  formed ;  and  therefore 
you  heg  my  Ajfifiance  in  clearing  thefe  Points,  in  order  to  the  preventing  a 
New  Separation. 

I  was  not  a  little  furprizcd  at  the  reading  thefe  Pafliges;  and  I  foon 
apprehended  the  mifchievous  Confequence  of  a  new  Schifm,  efpecially 
among  the  Members  of  the  Church  oi  England.  But  I  can  hardly  think 
it  pofTible  that  thofe  who  have  exprefled  fo  great  a  Senfe  of  the  Mifchief 
of  it  in  others,  (hould  be  fo  ready  to  fall  into  it  themfelves,  and  that 
upon  the  meer  Account  of  5cra^/« ;  when  the  Difference  is  only  about 
the  Refolution  of  a  Cafe  of  Confcience,  wherein  Wife  and  Good  Men 
may  eafiiy  differ :  But  it  cannot  be  a  Mark  either  of  Wifdom  or  Goodnefs, 
to  feparate  from  thofe  whodofo.  Some  think  the  Oi*Jis  lawful,  and 
therefore  take  them  ;  others  do  not,  and  therefore  forbeai ;  But  is  taking 
the  Oaths  made  a  Condition  of  Communion  with  us?  Is  it  required  of 
all  who  join  in  our  Worfliip,  at  leall,  to  declare,  that  they  think  the 
taking  of  them  to  be  lawful?  If  not?  what  Colour  can  there  be  for 
breaking  Communion  on  the  Account  of  the  Oaths  ? 

Suppofe  thole  who  take  the  Oaths  are  to  blame ;  If  they  adl  accor-' 
ding  to  their  Confciences  therein,  what  Ground  can  there  be  of  Separa- 
tio!^  iVom  them  for  fo  doing,  unlefsit  be  lawlul  to  feparate  from  all  fuch 
who  follow  the  Didtateot  an  Erroneous  Confcience?  And  fo  there  can 
be  no  End  of  Separations,  till  all  Men's  Confciences  judge  alike:  for  a 
Man's  Confcience  ib  his  pradical  Judgment  concerning  Moral  Adions; 
and  thtre  are  fo  many  CircuraHances,  which  vary  the  Nature  of  fuch 
Moral  Adions,  as  Oaths,  that  I  do  not  wonder  to  fee  Men  ditfer  about 
them  ;  but  I  fhould  wonder  and  lament  to  fee  them  feparate  from  each  o- 
ther  for  the  fake  of  fuch  a  Difference. 

But  there  is  a  great  deal  of  EJifference  between  a  Tendernefs  and  a 
Sowrenefs  of  Confcience,  There  is  a  natural  Tendernefs  in  the  Eye, 
v\  hich  makfs  it  apt  to  be  offended  with  Motes  ;  and  in  that  Cafe  it  is  to 
be  gently  dealt  with  ;  But  when  an  ill  Humour  falls  into  it,  there  leems 
to  be  greater  Tendernefs,  but  from  a  worfe  Caufe  j  and  then  the  befl: 

D  d  d  d  d  d  way 


1  .      . . I  ■■--T»  ■■■IMIlllll 

^38  The  UnreafonaHenefs 


way  of  Cure  is  to  fwceten  or  remove  the  bad  Humour  which  caufed  it. 
I  cannot  imagine  why,  becaufe  Tome  Men's  Confciences  are  fo  tender  in 
the  Point  of  Loyalty,  that  they  cannot  take  the  Oaths,  that  they  muft 
be  fo  tender  too,  as  not  to  joyn  in  Communion  with  thofe  who  do  it. 
This  feems  to  come  from  another  Caufe,  and  not  from  the  Original 
Scruple.  Are  they  afraid  of  joyning  with  others,  notfo  tender  as  them- 
felves?  This  is  the  Scruple  about  mixt  Communion,  which  hath  been  fb 
long  exploded  among  us.  What  then  >  Have  we  hereby  changed  the 
Standard  of  our  Communion,  or  are  there  in  this  Cafe  impofed  any  new 
Terms  of  Communion  with  us?  How  then  comes  a  Scruple  about  the 
Oaths  to  lead  men  to  think  of  a  Separation  ?  How  come  they  to  make 
fo  much  Confcience  of  one,  and  fo  little  of  the  other  ?  Is  a  Separation 
from  our  Church  become  a  Duty  with  thofe,  who  fo  lately  looked  on  it 
as  fo  great  a  Fault  in  others?  But,  I  perceive,  a  tender  Confcience  is  like 
a  tender  Conftii^tion,  itisfoon  put  out  of  Order:  So  much  greater  Care 
then  ought  thofe  to  have  who  forfake  any  woi'ldly  Advantages  for  the 
fake  of  their  Confciences,  left  that  which  begun  with  a  Scruple,  at  laft 
6nd  in  Humour  and  Fadion,  and  the  Ruine  of  that  Church,  which  they 
have  always  pretended  to  value. 

But  to  leave  thefe  general  Reflexions,  I  (hall  now  apply  my  felf  to 
the  main  Point,  Whether  there  be  any  Reafon  for  thefe  Scruples  about 
the  Oaths  ?  for  if  there  be  not,  it  will  be  granted  that  there  can  be  no 
Reafon  for  a  Separation  on  the  Account  of  them.  If  there  be  any  Reafon, 
it  mufl  arife,  either  from  the  continuing  Obligation  of  the  former  O'ths, 
or  from  the  Nature  of  the  prefent  Oaths :  And  therefore  I  ftiall  enquire 
into  two  things : 

Firft,  The  Nature  and  Meafure  of  the  Obligation  of  Political  Oaths  in 
general. 

Secondly^  The  Difficulties  which  relate  to  our  Oaths  in  particular. 

Firfl,  As  to  the  Nature  and  Obligation  of  Political  Oaths;  by  which 
1  mean  fuch  as  have  immediate  and  particular  refpedl  to  Humane  Soci- 
ety, and  the  Government  we  live  under ;  as  a'i  Oaths  of  AUegiame  do. 

And  herein  the  Difference  lies  between  thofe  and  the  common  Oaths 
between  Man  and  Man ;  becaufe  thefe  aie  founded  on  an  Equality  of  Right, 
but  the  other  on  the  general  Security  of  Humane  Society. 

In  Political  Oaths  we  muft  diftinguilh  the  particular  /»/<f«;'7f'«  and  De- 
figm  of  the  Perfons  to  whom  they  are  made,  from  the  general  End  and  Scope 
ot  the  Oaths  themfelves.  I  do  not  deny  but  fuch  Oaths  at  firft  came 
from  the  Miftruft,  which  thofe  in  Power  had,  of  fuch  as  were  at  prefent 
in  Subjedion  to  them.  And  becaule  the  Fears  of  a  Deity  made  the  ftrong- 
eft  Impreffions  on  People's  Minds,  therefore  they  were  not  contented 
with  bare  Promifes,  but  they  added  the  Solemnities  of  Oaths,  that  they 
might  look  on  God  as  concerned,  both  as  a  Witnefs  and  a  Judge. 

But  if  wefearch  narrowly  into  this  Matter,  the  Obligation  comes  not 

from  the  bare  Oath,  but  from  fomething  antecedent  to  it,  or  from  the 

Promife  dbntained  in  it,  to  which  the  Oath  adds  greater  Solemnity  ori 

the  Account  of  Religion.     And  therefore  it  is  generally  refolved  by  the 

^f/T-  fl'^    Civilians  as  well  as  CafuiflSy  That  an  Oath  follows  the  Nature'of  the  thing 

^itre^l  1  ^^"'^^  ^^^'^^  ''  "  converfant;  for  that,  4ay  they,  is  the  Principal,  and  the 

c.l^.n.^l'.  other  u  hut  the  Accejfary ;  and  the  Acceffary  (I  ill  follows  the  Nature  of  the 

principal. 
Molina  de     Even  Molina,  who  is  noted  for  finguhrity  in  this  matter,  (for  aflerting 
7«/?.  fy   -j-jjat  an  Oath  added  an  Obligation  of  Jultice  befides  that  of  Religion; 

Jure,tr.l.  .^p^ 


of  a  New  Sepaf'ation,  51 3  ^ 


yet  when  he  comes  ro  explain  himfelf,  he  founds  it  on  the  Promife  inclu- 
ded in  the  Oath,  and  not  in  the  Oath  it  felf:  For  after  an  Oath  taken, 
fuch  as  the  Obligation  was  before,  fuch  is  it  after,  and  the  Promife  con- 
tained in  an  Oath  admits  of  the  fame  Conditions,  which  it  would  have 
had,  if  no  Oath  had  been  joyned  with  it. 

If  there  be  a  Law,  which  makes  a  Contradi  void,  on  the  Account  of 
the  Publick  Good,  the  adding  an  Oath  to  fuch  a  Contrad;  doth  not  make 
it  valid :  As  for  Inftance,  if  the  Law  of  the  Country  makes  void  all  clan- 
deftine  Marriages ;  if  a  Man  marries  a  Woman  after  fuch  a  manner,  al- 
though this  be  an  Obligation  of  the  ftridieft  Nature:  Yet  fuch  is  the  Force 
and  Power  of  Laws  made  for  a  Publick  Good,  that  although  the  Intenti- 
on of  one  Perfon  was  to  tie  the  other  in  an  indiflbluble  Bond ;  yet  the 
Law  fuperfedes  that  Obligation,  or  elfe  it  is  made  to  no  purpofe,  at  leafl, 
ib  far  as  it  relates  to  the  Civil  Contrary  which  is  as  much  as  is  necefTary 
to  my  purpofe ;  for,  even  that  hath  an  obligation  of  Confcience  going  a- 
long  with  it,  which  however  in  this  Cafe  is  fuperfeded  for  the  Publick 
Good. 

1  do  not  deny,  that  the  chief  Intention  of  thofe  who  require  Oathi  of 
Allegiance  to  themfelves,  is  to  bind  Men  as  faft  as  may  be  to  them,-  and 
there  is  a  Perfonal  Obligation  confequent  upon  it.  But  then,  I  fay,  that 
the  Kule  and  Meafure  of  it,  is  not  to  be  taken  from  fucii  Intention  of  the 
Perfons,  but  from  the  General  Good,  which  was  chiefly  intended  in  fuch 
things.  For,  there  is  a  Common  Good  of  Humane  Society,  which  Man- 
kind have  an  obligation  to,  antecedent  to  that  obligation  they  are  under 
to  particular  Perfons.  For,  as  Magiftrates  were  defigned  for  a  general 
Good,  fo  the  obligation  to  them  muft  be  underflood  fo,  as  to  be  Itili  \a 
fubordination  to  the  main  end. 

And  it  is  agreed  on  all  hands,  That  an  Antecedent  and  Superiour  Obli- 
gation doth  void  that  which  is  fubfequent  and  inferiour,  when  they  con- 
tradidl  each  other  ,  elfc  an  Oath  might  bind  a  Man  to  fin ;  which  no 
Man  will  aflert. 

Therefore  whatfoever  the  Intention  of  the  Perfons  was,  how  ftrid  fo- 
ever  the  ExprelTions  may  be,  if  the  keeping  of  the  Oath  be  really  and 
truly  inconfiilent  with  the  welfare  of  a  People,  in  fubverting  the  Funda- 
mental Laws  which  fupport  it;  I  do  not  fee  how  fuch  an  Oath  continues 
to  oblige :  For,  there  is  no  Relation  of  Mankind  one  to  another,  but  there 
is  fome  good  antecedent,  which  is  the  juft  meafure  of  that  Obligation 
they  fland  in  to  each  other.  Thus  it  is  between  Parents  and  Children, 
Husbands  and  Wives,  Matters  and  Servants;  and  therefore  it  is  mod  rea- 
fonable  to  be  fo  between  Princes  and  their  Subjeds. 

A  Vow  to  God  is  as  folemn  a  thing  as  an  Oath;  but  our  Saviour  de- 
clares, if  it  hinders  that  Good  which  Children  are  bound  to  take  care  of 
with  refped  to  Parents,  it  ceafeth  to  oblige.  If  Parents,  inftead  of  re- 
garding the  Good  of  their  Children,  do  openly  defign  their  Ruin,  and 
contrive  ways  to  bring  it  about;  none  will  fay  but  that  they  are  bound 
to  take  care  of  their  own  welfare,  although  fuch  Parents  may  call  it  Oh- 
flinate  DiJohedieHce.  For,  even  the  Government  of  Parents,  as  natural  as  it 
is,  is  not  abfolute,  but  is  limited  by  Reafon  and  the  Good  of  their  Chil- 
dren. And  when  they  are  of  age,  they  are  allow'd  to  judge  of  what 
concerns  their  welfare,  and  (if  it  be  necefTary)  to  withdraw  from  their 
Parents  immediate  care,  but  prelerving  a  due  Reverence  and  Refped  to 
them. 


Dddddd  i  the 


940  Tte  Unreafonablenefs 

The  hardeft  Gafe  we  can  (uppofe,  is  that  of^/^jwry,  i  e.  o{  DomtTfion 
by  Force  ;  but  although  the  Law  of  Nations  allows  if,  yet  it  is  with  fuch 
limitations,  as  {lillfhew,  That  whatever  the  condition  of  Men  be,  with 
refped  to  one  another,  there  is  ftill  a  regard  to  be  had  to  the  Benefit  of 
thofe  who  are  in  fubjedion  to  others. 

The  only  thing  which  makes  a  ftate  of  Slavery  reafonabie,  is,  That 
when  Men  are  taken  Captive  by  others,  they  are  at  their  Mercy ;  and 
the  giving  of  life  is  fo  great  a  benefit,  as  cannot  be  compenfated  by  any 
thing  lefs  than  a  perpetual  Service;  and  in  confideration  of  it,  the  Mailer 
is  to  afibrd  Protedlion  and  Maintenance,    Still  we  fee  all  reafonabie  fub- 
jedion  is  in  order  to  fome  Good  of  thofe  who  are  under  it;  and  without 
It,  as  Ariftotle  faith,  Ihey  are  not  ufed  as  Men^  hut  as  Tools.     And  it  is 
agreed  by  the  beft  Writers  on  this  Subjed:,  That  if  the  Slave  be  kept  in 
Chains,  he  is  under  no  obligation  of  Confcience  to  him  that  keeps  him ; 
but  he  may  find  his  own  way  to  efcape,  becaule  he  is  treated  as  an  Ene- 
my, and  therefore  hath  all  the  Right  of  War  on  his  fide.     But  if  he  yields 
upon  Terms,  then  he  is  under  Obligation,  but  it  is  according  to  the 
Terms  upon  which  he  yielded  himfelf. 
De  Give        Mr.  Hobhs  indeed  faith.  That  thofe  who  fuhmit  upon  Compact,  are  capable 
C.8.  n.y.  oj  fio  Injury  afferwarels ;  hecatife  they  have  given  up  their  Wills  already^ 
and  there  can  he  no  Injury  to  a  willing  mind.     But  this  is  very  falfe  reafon- 
ing ;  for  himfelf  grants,  That  where  there  is  fuch  a  Compad,  there  goes 
fome  Liberty  or  I'riviledge  along  with  it.     And  it  is  not  to  be  imagined, 
that  fuch  who  entred  into  compadi  for  their  Benefit,  (hould  renounce  all 
right  to  it  when  they  have  done  it;  and  if  they  have  right  they  may  be 
wronged.     And  in  the  Cafe  of  the  greateft  Slavery,  Natural  Equity  was 
Arift. Nic. required,  and  a  Common  Right  was  ftill  due  to  Slaves,  as  Men:  So  that 
Se^ii  de'^'^^''"'^^  owns  no  fuch  thing,  as  meer  Ahfolute  Power  in  fome  over  others, 
ciein.  I.I.  meerly  for  their  own  advantage;  but  all  Reafonabie  Power  fuppofes  Con- 
c.  i8.       fcnt,  and  a  Good  to  be  attained  by  it.     But  when  it  is  carried  to  a  con- 
trary end,  it  is  againft  the  Intention  of  Nature,  which  lays  an  obligati- 
on on  fome  Men  towards  others,  with  regard  to  a  Common  Good,  which 
cannot  othcrwife  be  attained. 

It  is  not  denied  by  the  ftrideft  Cafuifts  in  thefe  matters,  but  that  a»- 
der  a  ft  ate  of  ufurpation,  notwithflanding  their  Oaths  to  the  Rightful  Frince, 
men  are  bound  to  do  thofe  things  which  tend  to  the  Fublick  Sajety  as  well  as 
their  own.  But  then  they  found  it  upon  a  prefumptive  Confent  of  the  ah' 
fent  Prince;  whereas,  the  true  Reafon  is.  That  Men  are  in  the  firft  place 
bound  to  promote  .the  PublickGood,  and  confequently,  and  with  refped: 
to  it,  to  regard  the  Will  of  their  Princes,  who  are  appointed  by  God  and 
Nature  for  that  end.  And  if  fuch  be  rendred  uncapable  of  doing  it,  yet 
the  Obligation  on  others  remains.  Whereas,  if  it  depended  on  the  VVill 
of  the  abfent  Prince,  his  prefumptive  Will  would  not  be  fufficicnt;  for 
that  can  lay  no  obligation. 

But,  that  the  PublickGood  is  the  true  and  juft  meafure  of  the  Obligati- 
on in  thefe  Oaths,  doth  further  appear,  in  that  the  Oaths  are  reciprocal. 
Whereas,  if  only  the  Good  of  the  Perfons  to  whom  Oaths  of  Allegiance 
are  made,  were  to  be  our  Ru'e,  then  there  would  be  no  mutual  Oaths.  I 
am  not  now  enquiring  how  far  in  reciprocal  Oaths  one  Party's  failing  dil- 
obliges  the  other,  but  I  am  fhewing,  That  it  mufl  be  a  General  Good 
that  is  aimed  at  when  both  Parties  are  fworn  to  each  other ;  fo  it  was  in 
the  ftrideli  Feudal  Allegiance,  the  Lord  was  as  mu;  h  fworn  to  the  Tenant 
to  proted  and  defend  him  in  his  Rights,  as  the  other  was  to  attend  him  in 

his 


of  a  New  Separation,  ^  ^^t 

his  Wars  for  the  fccurity  of  his  Perfon.    And  this  was  certainly  founded  on 

a  mutual  Contract,  called  by  the  old  Feudifts  /./^^,  and  thence  Ligeas 

and  Lheantia.  and  fo  our  Jlleqiance.     The  words  of  Glan-       .,         •>      ^  ,      ^ 

•/       jn     XI  J  »u     x-  /2  ^c  \r  J  1   •  Mutiiaquidcm  debet effe 

vti  and  BraCtoH  and  the  Cu[tomary  ot  mrmandy^  are  plain,    Dominii  &  Homagii  fidelita- 

to  ihew  the  Reciprocal  Ohliqation  in  this  Cafe,  and  the  t'sconnexio,  itaquod  quan- 
meafures  on  both  fides  were'to  be  the  Rights,  and  CujUms,  Zi^g!;"  ."JL'^iTdeb'e'^ 
and  Lavoi  of  the  Land.  So  that  Allegiance  originally  im-  Dominus  ex  Dominio  prater 
plies  a  Compa(2-,  and  is  to  be  meafured  by  the  Lam,  which  [° 9"c^*'''^B'"'^'|^•,^'''"^''• 
are  the  Standard  of  the  fuhlkk  Good  oS.  a  Country.  c«(:/f.  aw  c.  43."  '  '  '^' 

xdly.  Having  thus  in  general  fixed  thefe  grounds  to  proceed  upon,  I 
come  to  the  particular  examination  of  the  di^culties  which  relate  to  the 
prefent  Oaths ;  and  becaufe  we  are  charged  with  Apoflacy  from  the  Prin- 
ciples of  the  Church  of  England,  and  that  is  made  the  main  ground  of  the 
defigned  Separation,  I  would  fain  know  what  this  Charge  is  built  upon, 
with  refpedi  to  the  Oaths,  for  that  is  all  we  are  concerned  in.  If  any 
particular  Perfbns  .have  advanced  new  Hypothefes  of  Government^  con- 
trary to  the  Senfe  of  our  Church,  let  them  anfwer  for  themfeives.  The 
Cafe  of  the  Oaths  is  quite  of  another  Nature. 

Here  is  no  Renouncing  the  Do^irine  of  Paffive  Ohedience,  or  averting  the 
Lawfulnefs  of  Refill ance;  but  the  fingle  Point  is,  "  Whether  the  Law  of 
*'  our  Nation  doth  not  bind  us  to  Allegiance  to  a  King  and  Queen  in  zGt\i- 
*'  al  Pofleflion  of  the  Throne,  by  confent  of  the  Three  Eftates  of  the 
**  Realm?  and  whether  iuch  an  Oath  may  not  lawfully  be  taken,  noc- 
"  withftanding  any  former  Oath? 

And  by  this  very  flating  of  the  cafe,  any  one  may  fee  how  imperti- 
nent to  this  purpofe  the  Book  called  the,  Hiftory  of  Paffive  Ohedience  is ; 
the  truth  is,  there  are  not  many  paflages  in  it  which  come  near  the  bufi- 
nefs;  but  thofe  that  do,  contain  in  them  the  main  difficulties  which  relate 
to  the  Oaths,  and  tl^erefore  I  Ihall  impartially  confider  them.  Which 
are  thefe. 

I.  That  they  are  to  the  prejudice  of  a  third  Perfon. 

IF.  That  they  are  contradictory  to  a  former  Oath. 

III.  That  the  Perfon  to  whom  they  were  made,  hath  given  no  releafe 
or  difcharge  from  them. 

For  the  firll:  we  have  thefe  Teflimonies;  Biftiop  Hall,  p.  46.  faith. 
That  a  Tromiffory  Oath,  which  is  to  the  certain  Prejudice  of  another  maris 
Right,  cannot  he  attended  with  Jujlice. 

Biihop  Sanderfon,  p.  61.  An  Oath  impofei  hy  one  that  hath  not  a  jufi 
Authority,  is  to  he  declined  as  much  as  we  can ;  if  it  he  forcihly  impo/ed,  it 
is  te  he  taken  with  re/uclancy,  upon  this  condition,  that  the  ivords  imply  no- 
thing unlawful  or  prejudicial  to  the  Rights  of  a  third  Perfon  ;  for  if  Jo,  we 
muji  rejufe  the  Oath  at  the  peril  of  our  lives. 

I  grant,  it  is  a  Rule  among  the  Cafuifls,  That  an  Oath  ought  not  to 
be  taken  to  the  Prejudice  of  a  third  Perfon',  but  fo  it  is  like  wife.  That  it 
ought  not  to  he  taken  againji  the  Puhlick  Good ;  and  thefe  two  are  often  put 
together.     It  is  a  fin,  faith  Zoefius,  to  make  acompati  to  the  puhlick  pre-  xo^i,  in 
judice  and  injury  of  another  ;  and  an  O.iththat  is  converfant  ahout  fuch  a  mat-  Dig.  1. 1^' 
ter,  is  unjuji,  and  not  to  he  kept.     So  that  the  Right  of  a  Third  Perfon  is  ^^|'  ^' 
not  to  be  taken  as  dilHnd  from  the  Puhlick  Good ;  for,  if  it  be  inconfi- 
ftent  with  it,  there  is  no  ground  to  fet  up  zperfonal  Interefi  againft  a  Gs- 
heral  Good.     And  fo  far  a  Mischief  is  hetter  than  an  Inconvenience  ;  for 
it  is  a  {landing  Rule  in  Reafcn  as  well  as  Law,  The  puhlick-  Right  can- 
not 


^42  The  Unreafondleneff 


Jus  pubii-»o/  he  changed  hy  the  Contra^i  of  particular  Per  fans,  ff  /.  i.  tit.  14.     If  a 
cum  pri-  Man  takes  ail  Oath  to  3  ^^W  Fer/i>«,  to  do  fomething  which  the  Law 
utemu-  forbids;  zXihoM^he fuffers  hy  tt^  yet  it isconcludtd,  Thatfuchan  Oath 
parinon   doth  not  bind,  becaufe  the /'w^Z/ci'  GW  is  to  be  preferred.    Ai  often  as  a 
P""*^-      Compact  doth  depart  from  the  Common  Eighty  it  ought  not  to  he  kept ;  nor  is 
an  Oath  requiring  it  to  he  ohferved.  ff  /.  z.  tit.  14.    "Juris  Gentium  S    16. 
And  again,  An  Oath  againjl  the  Force  of  Law  and  Authority  of  Right  is  of 
no  moment.     What  is  the  Reafon  that  an  Oath  doth  not  bind  againft  the 
Law  ?  Is  not  the  Authority  of  God  above  that  of  Men  ?  No  doubt  of 
it;  but  fmce  God  hach  eftabliilied  Government  and  Laws  for  a  Puhlick 
Good,  their  meaning  is.  That  Men  cannot  by  any  K&.  of  their  own  be 
bound  to  overthrow  it,  in  what  folemn  manner  foever  it  be  done. 
It  is  refolved  in  the  Text  of  the  Canon  Law,  in  the  King  of  Hungary V 
'  Cafe.,  That  an  Oath  taken  againfi  the  good  of  the  Kingdom,  doth  not  ohligCy 
de  jurejur.  c.  3;.  inteUe^lo;  although  it  were  to  the  Prejudice  of  others, 
becaufe  it  was  in  Prajudicium  Regni  fui,  to   the 'Prejudice   of  his  King- 
dom ;    which  was  more  to  be  regarded ;  and  becaufe  it  was  contrary  to 
the  Oath  which  he  took  at  his  Coronation,  Jura  Regni  fui  illihata  fervor 
rey  That  the  Rights  of  the  Kingdom  were  to  he  preferved  invtolahle. 

Sylvefler  in  f urn.  6.  juram.  4.  ».  16.  faith  roundly,  That  an  Oath  doth 
mt  hind  againfi  the  Puhlick  Good  in  the  firfi  Place ;  hut  if  it  he  for  a  Pri- 
vate  Benefit  principally  and  confequentially  for  the  Puhlick,  then  the  Oath 
holds ;  becaufe  ftill  the  publick  Good  is  to  overrule  in  all  fuch  Oaths. 

If  a  Man  fwears  to  keep  a  Secret,  and  that  be  to  the  Prejudice  of  a 
third  Perfon^  the  Cafuifis  fay,  That  Oath  doth  not  oblige ;  how  much 
lefs,  where  the  Publick  Intereft  and  Safety  is  concerned  ? 

And  it  is  generally  agreed  by  our  Divines,  That  an  Oath  of  Secrecj'^j 
where  the  Puhlick  Safety  is  in  Danger,  doth  not  bind ;  as  in  Garnet's 
Cafe,  who  pleaded  his  Oath  for  not  difcovering  the  Gun- Powder  Treafon. 
Now  if  an  Oath  doth  oblige  againft  the  common  Good,  Garnet  made  a 
good  Plea;  for  his  Difcovery  was  to  the  Prejudice  of  others:  but  if  his 
Plea  was  naught,  then  the  Puhlick  Good  doth  make  the  Obligation  of  an 
^  Oath  to  ceafe. 

Suppofe  a  Man  makes  a  Contra^  with  another,  who  therehy  acquires  a 
Right :  yet  if  that  Contra^  he  againfi  the  common  Good,  and  he  confirmed 
with  an  Oath;  that  Oath  doth  not  ohlige^  faith  Bonacina,  de  contrail,  difp. 
3.  q.  I.  />.  I. 

There  are  two  forts  of  Laws,  faith  Suarez,  which  refpe^  the  Puhlick 
Good;  fome  which  concern ///aw /?a/«»»  Reipuh.  ^  utilitatem  communita- 
tis ;  the  general  State  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  Benefit  of  the  Commu- 
nity: Others  which  concern  Bonum  commune  medianteprivato;  that  com- 
mon Good  which  refults  from  every  Man's  Good :  Againfi  the  former,  he 
faith,  an  Oath  cannot  ohlige ;  but  in  the  latter,  it  may,  as  far  as  concerns 
his  own  Benefit.  Suarezde  juram.l.  z.  c.  16.  No  Obligation,  though  fworn 
to,  is  of  any  Force  againfi  thofe  things  which  are  owing  to  God  and  the  King- 
dom, faith  Zeiglerui  in  his  Notes  on  Grotius  de  jure  B.  &  P.  I.  2.  c. 

13- ^-  7- 

From  all  this  it  appears.  That  if  the  Right  of  a  third  Perfou  be  incon- 
fiflent  with  the  puhlick  Good,  fuch  an  Oath  doth  not  oblige.  And  it  is 
to  be  obferved,  That  thofe  Perfons,  whofe  Teftimonies  arealledged,  ne- 
ver put  the  Cafe  of  the  Right  in  a  third  Perfon  and  a  Publick  Good  (land- 
ing in  Competition ;  and  therefore  they  do  not  reach  our  prefent  Cafe. 

11.  It 


/  of  a  New  Separation.  ^43 

*— —        -— — ■ I 

II.  It  isalledged,  That  this  Oith  is  contradidory  to  a  former  Oath. 

Bi/hop  Hall  again,  Hiftory  of  t'afive  Ohedience,  p.  ^  6.  iSTo  Qath  is  or  can 
he  of  Force  that  is  made  againjl  a  lawful  Oath  formerly  taken ;  fo  that  he  that 
hath  fivorn  Allegiance  to  his  Sovereign,  and  thereby  hound  himfelj  to  main- 
tain the  Eighty  Power  and  Authority  of  his  faid  Sovereign,  cannot  hy  his  Je- 
cond  Oith  he  tied  to  do  ought  that  may  tend  to  the  infringement  thereof  •,  and 
if  he  hath  fo  tied  him felf  the  Obligation  is,  ipfo  fad:o,  void  and  fru- 
flrate. 

No  doubt,  if  the  firfl:  Oath  continues  in  Force,  the  fecond  is  void,  fo 
far  as  it  contradids  it.  But  we  fay,  The  former  Oath  is  not  in  Force,  as 
it  is  repugnant  to  the  Publick  Good,  and  fo  the  fecond  may  be  taken 
without  any  Contradi(9'ion ;  And  if  the  Dodrine  there  laid  down  holds  in 
our  Cafe,  1  cannot  fee  how  it  is  confident  with  the  former  Oaih,  for  any 
fuch  Perfons  to  continue  under  the  Protection  of  the  prefent  Government, 
or  to  enjoy  the  Benefit  of  the  Laws ;  or  to  take  out  a  Writ  in  their 
Names,  any  more  than  to  pray  for  them ;  the  one  being  owning  their  Au- 
thority as  much  as  the  other. 

III.  BecaufethePerfon  whohad  the  Right  hath  given  no  Releafe. 

For  this  Dr.  i^iJ>^>»«o«</ is  quoted,  in  his  P radical  Catechifm,  Hifiorj  of 
Pajfive  Ohed.  p,  54.  S.  hut  iv.u  not  Tiberius  an  Vfurper^  and  yet  Chrifi 
faith.  Render  to  Caefar  the  things  that  are  Cxfar's.  C.  Juhus  Cxfar  vorefl- 
ed  the  Power  out  of  the  Hand  of  the  Senate  j  hut  before  the  Time  of  Tiberi- 
us the  Bufinefs  was  accorded  between  the  Senate  and  the  Emperors,  That  the 
Emperors  now  reigned  unguefiiond,  without  any  Competition  from  the  Senate  • 
which  Cafe,  he  faith,  if  diftant  from  other  forcible  V fur  pat  ions -^  where  the 
Legal  Sovereign  doth  flill  claim  his  Right  to  his  Kingdoms,  and  to  the  Alle- 
giance of  bis  Subjects  J  tto  ivay  acquitting  them  from  their  Oaths,  or  laying 
down  his  Pretenfions. 

To  dear  this  Matter,  I  (hall  enquire  into  two  things, 

I.  How  far  a  Difcharge  is  neceflary  froni  the  Perfon  concerned. 

X.  How  far  our  Saviour's  Rule  holds  in  our  Cafe  ?   • 

As  to  the  former,  I  fay,  The  Refolution  of  Confcience  in  this  Cafe  doth 
not  depend  upon  the  Will  and  Pleafure  of  the  Perfon  to  whom  the  former 
Oath  was  made,  but  upon  the  Grounds  on  which  it  was  made,  and  from 
which  it  had  its  force  to  oblige  :  And  if  thofe  ceafe,  th£  Obligation  of 
the  Oath  ceafes  together  with  them.  And  whether  they  do  or  not,  no 
particular  Perfon  is  fo  fit  to  judge  as  the  Three  Ellates  of  the  Realm ;  as  I 
Ihall  now  prove  from  feveral  remarkable  Inftances  to  this  purpofe  in  our 
Hiflories  and  Parliament  Records;  whereby  I  ihall  make  it  appear,  That 
when  a  Difpute  hath  happened  about  the  Right  of  Smceffion,  and  to  whom 
the  Oaths  of  Allegiance  were  to  be  made,  they  have  looked  on  it  as  their 
proper  Right,  to  limit  the  Succeflion,  and  to  determine  the  Oaths. 

Under  the  Britifh  Government,  we  find  a  confiderable  Inllance  to  our 
Purpofe  ;  Vortigern  the  Britifti  King  had  entered  into  a  Secret  League,  To  ^^^^^^ 
bring  over  the  Saxons;  upon  which  the  Great  Men  of  the  Nation  deferted^m.  Re- 
him,  and  chofe  Vortimer  in  his  room.     Here  it  is  plain.  They  thought  the  g^™  ^°''" 
introducing  a  Foreign  Power,  a  fufficient  Difcharge  of  their  Obligation  pSs™ 
to  him,  it  being  fo  diredlly  contrary  to  the  puhlick  Good  of  the  Nation,  dcferen- 
although  Vortigern  gave  them  no  Difcharge.  n?mite7fi- 

lium  fuum  in  Regem  fublimaverunt.  Mat.  PFeft.   f.Sj. 

In  the  Saxon  Times,  Sii^ebert  King  of  the  Wefi  Saxons,  was  complained 
of  for  Mifgovernment,  and  for  changing  their  Laws  for  his  own  Endsj  but 
when  heperfifted  in  his  Way,  there  was  a  Convention  of  the  Nobility 

and 


^^^  The  Unreafonablenefs 

Cum  au-  and  People,  (convenermt  Proceres  Regni  cum  Populo  umverfo,  faith  Matt. 
itmmoii\%^reftmin}ler)  and  they  declared  themfelves  free  from  Allegiance  to  hira, 
St^'trl  and  chofe  Kmeulfus  in  his  room. 

aarei  eos,  Icgefque  antecelTornra  fuoruni  propter  coininodum  fuum,  vel  depravarer,  vel  mutaret.  Mat.Wefl. 
A.  D.  756.  ■        JU.  HuMingd.  /.4.  p.  196. 

A.G.  758.  In  the  Kingt^om  of  Mercia  Beomredus  for  not  governing  by  the  Laws, 
Gens  de  vv'as  by  a  Convention  of  the  Nobility  and  People  (et  afide  from  the  Go- 
M?rdo-  vernment,  and  Offa  cbofen  King ;  who  was  of  the  Royal  Stem,  but  not 
rum,  con.  the  next  Heir  ,•  and  fo  iVilliam  of  Malmshury  obferves,  in  the  Weft  Saxon 
traRegem  j(i„g^om  after  /«;?,  That  no  lineal  Succejfion  was  then  ohjerved;  but  ftilljome 
ornKdum  of  the  Royal  Line  fat  in  the  Throne.  And  of  Ina  himfelf,  That  he  was  ra- 
infurgens,  f/^gf  pm  mto  the  Throne  for  his  Virtue^  tbanhy  Right  of  Succeffion. 

pro  eo  ,  ,    .  .  ■ 

quod  Populura  non  jcquis   legibus,  fed  tyrannidem  gubernaret,  convenerant  in  unum  omnes,  tarn  nobiles 
•  quam  ignobiles,  &  Offa  Ducc  ipfum  a  Regno  eKpulerunt.     Mutth.  Weft. 

Nam  &  ipfe  Erithricus  &  casteri  infra  Inam  Reges  licet  Natalium  Jplendore  glonances,  (quippe  qui  de  Cer- 
dicio  originem  traherencj  non  parum  tamen  a  linea  regise  ftirpis  exorbitaverant.   Wia.  Mdmsb.  de  Qeflit 

iieg.  AnrJ.  I.i.c.z.  .  .  ^  . 

Regnum  per  Inam  novatum  qui  Cinegifli  ex  Fracre  Cuthbaldo  pronepos  magis  pro  iniitivi  virtutis  indu- 
ftria,  quam  fuccelTivx  fobolis  profapia  in  Principatum  afcitur.  id.  lb. 

Matth.  ^thelulphus,  King  of  the  Wefi  Saxons,  went  to  Rome,  and  there  crown- 
weft.  A.  g(j  ^Ijred,  his  youngeft  Son,  King,  and  married  the  King  of  Fra^ce\' 
Sd?/^*  Daughter  in  his  Return,  and  made  her  Queen  againfl  their  Laws,-  for 
which  Reafons  he  was  excluded  his  Kingdom:  His  eldeft  Son  and  Alfian^ 
Biftiop  of  Shirehurn  being  at  the  Top  of  this  h&.  of  Exclufion ;  and  he 
came  back  only  upon  the  Terms  of  receiving  his  Son  into  a  Share  of  the 
Kingdom :  Which  fliews,  That  they  looked  on  the  Laws  as  the  Meafure 
of  their  Allegiance ;  and  where  thofe  were  openly  broken,  that  it  was  ia 
their  Power  to  transfer  it. 

If  our  Allegiance  cannot  be  transferred  by  the  States  of  the  Realm,  it 
muft  be  becaule  (as  fonie  think)  by  the  fundamental  Conftitution  of 
this  Kingdom  we  are  bound  in  Allegiance  to  the  next  right  Tieir  in  a  LU 
neal Succeffion  -^  but  I  find  no  (uch  thing  in  \hs  Saxon  Times :  for  although 
generally  they  kept  to  the  Royal  Line,  yet  not  fo,  but  that  when  it  ap- 
peared to  be  much  more  for  the  Puhlick  Good,  they  did  not  flick  upon 
the  Point  of  Proximity.     I  Ihall  not  meddle  with  the  Kingdom  of  the 
Mat  Weft.  Northumlers,  which  alone  was  originally  Ele£iive,  as  appears  by  Matt. 
p.  loi.     Wefiminfler',  and  wherein  there  happened  fo  great  Diforders  and  Confu- 
p'"g^"°"  fions,  that  at  laft  William  of  Malmslury  faith,  None  could  he  perfwadedto 
wMa\m.{- accept  of  the  Kingdom  i^  and  fo  it  contmued  thirty  three  Years,  till  at  laft 
bur.  i.i.c.  p^igff  (Qo}j  it  into  his  Hands;  and  fo  it  became  a  part  of  the  Englifb  Mo- 
^'^'  *'   «<jr<:^*j  which  was  eftabliflied  in  him. 

But  if  by  the  fundamental  Conditution,  Allegiance  were  indifpenfably 
due  to  the  next  Rightful  Heir  in  this  Monarchy,  how  came  Athelfian  to  be 
crowned  magna  confenfu  Optimatum,  faith  Malmslury,  when  he  was  not 
the  rightful  Heir  ?  Some  fay  (^from  an  old  Monk  in  Malmshury^  That  his 
Father  left  him  the  Crown  hy  his  Teflament;  (^which  doth  not  clear  the 
Difficulty  as  to  the  inviolable  Right  of  Succeffioii  by  i\\t  Conftitution?)  But 
this  cannot  be  true,  for  his  elder  Brother  Blwardus  died  after  his  Father,* 
and  none  pretend  that  his  Father  difmhented  him:  And  \{  Athelfian  wtiQ 
Mat. Weft,  lawful  Heir,  what  made  him  todifpatch  his  Brother  £//«;/«  out  of  the  way, 
A.D.'o^-'t.^n'^  to  build  two  Monafteries  for  Expiation  of  that  Guilt  ?  How  came  /4/- 
fred  to  OTppofe  bis  Eleil ion,  as  being  illegitimate,  as  Malmslury  confeiksi 
but  Matt.  Wefiminfler  gives  the  Realon,  the  Times  were  then  difficult, 
and  Edward's  other  Sons  were  too  young  to  manage  the  Government,  and 
therefore  they  fet  up  Athel/lan,  as  one  ht  for  Bufinefs. 

How 


of  a  New  Separation,  94.5 


How  came  Edred  to  fucceed  Edmonds  and  not  his  Son  Edwin  and  Ed- 
gar i  Matt.  Weflminfler  and  Bromtoi  give  the  fame  Reafon  ;  They  "xexQ  Mat. weft. 
uncapable  by  reafon  of  their  Age,  Repu^nante  illegttma  at  ate,  Patri  fx-t'^^^' 
cedere  tton  valehant.     Florence  of  Worcefier  faith.  The  Northumhtrs  fware  p.  862. 
Allegiance  to  Edred',  and  he  faith,  He  was  next  Heir^  and  yet  there Fi°'''  w>- 
were  two  Sons  of  Edmond beiore  him;  for  he  confedes,  That  they  were|°^"^9. 
the  Sons  of  £</»jW  and  /4lgiva  his  Queen. 

After  the  Death  of  Edred,  the  eldeft  Son  of  Edmond  fucceeded  ;  but 
being  found  under  a  Moral  Incapacity,  (for  in  Florentius  his  Words,  and  a.  957- 
Matt.  lVeftmin(ler,  In  commijfo  Regimine  infipienter  egit')  he  was  fet  afide, 
as  to  all  the  Government  beyond  Thames,  and  Edgar  put  into  it :  And 
not  long  after  into  the  whole  Kingdom,  by  general  Confent. 

How  came  a  Difpute  to  happen  about  the  Ele(fiion,  after  the  Death 
of  Edgar,  between  his  e'defl  Son  Edward,  and  Ethelred  his  youngeil  ? 
I  lay  no  Force  on  his  Mother's  Endeavours  to  advance  him  ;  but  if  there 
had  been  fuch  an  unalterable  Right  of  Succeflion,  there  had  not  been 
any  Colour  or  Pretence  for  it  ,•  efpecially  finceit  is  faid.  That  his  Father 
declared  his  Mind,  That  the  elder /hould  fucceed.  But  faith  Florentius  ^•yih 
Wigorn.  there  was  a  great  Contention  among  the  great  Men  about 
the  Choice  of  the  King :  How  could  there  be  any  Difpute,  if  they  knew 
the  Confiifution  of  the  Kingdom  to  be,  That  the  next  Heir  muft  i  iheric 
the  Crown  J  and  that  thofe  are  perjured  who  transfer  their  Allegiance  .■» 

After  the  Death  of  Ethelredy  the  Nobility  and  People  were  divided,  Fiorenr. 
feme  chufing  Canutus  the  Dane,  and  fwearing  Allegiance  to  him  ;  others  r'if"'^"',, 
to  Edmund  the  Son  of  Ethelred.  '  *'°    ' 

The  former  pleaded  for  themfelves,  that  Ethelred  had  Broken  his  w-  '^3'™- 
Faith  with  them,  and  therefore  they  dejerted  him,  fo  as  he  was  fain  to  flf  '^'P'^'*^* 
into  i^ormandy  ;  and  that  Edmund  was  not  his  legitimate  Son. 

Matt.  Weflminfler  faith,  That  the  greatefl  part  of  the  Nation^  Clergy  as  MacWefl. 
well  as  Laity,  didfwear  Allegiance  to  Canutus,-  without  any  Difcharge from  ^^'^°^^' 
Ethelred,  while  living,  or  his  Son  after  him.  ,oi<5.* 

After  the  death  of  Canutus,  a  new  difTerpnce  arofe  about  the  SuccefTi-  a.  iojj. 
on  ;  fome  were  for  Harold  his  fuppofed  Son  by  Algiva,  others  for  Harde-  '^ 
cnute,  his  Son  by  Emma.  If  the  lineal  Succeilion  were  a  part  of  our  Con- 
flitution.  How  come  fuch  perpetual  Difputes  to  be  concerning  it  ?  For  if 
it  had  been  owned  as  a  Fundamental  Law,  the  Right  of  Succeflion  mud 
have  been  dear  beyond  Difpute.  But  Reafon  of  State  and  the  Fuhlick  In- 
terefl  ftill  over-ruled  this  matter,  and  fo  Ethelred's  Sons  by  Emma,  who 
were  the  true  Heirs  by  Legal  Succefion,  were  fet  afide,  and  Harold,  be- 
ing upon  the  Place,  and  fo  belt  able  to  manage  the  Affairs  of*  the  King- 
dom, carried  it. 

Hardecnute  being  dead,  how  came  the  banlfht  Sons  of  Edmund  Ironftde, 
if  he  were  lawful  Heir,  not  to  be  fent  for  to  fucceed  ?  If  Edmund  had  no 
good  Titlej  how  was  the  Right  of  Succeflion  then  pi  eferved  >  How  could 
Allegiance  on  thefe  Principles  be  fworn  to  him  ?  If  he  had  a  good  Title, 
How  could  the  Oaths  betaken  to  Edward  the  Confeffor,  when  the  Heits 
o{  Edmund Ironfide  were  living?  I  perceive  fome,  to  falve  the  Succeflion, 
make  the  Mother  of  Edmund  to  have  been  Ethelred  s  firft  Wife,  and  call 
her  Elgiva  Duke  Thored's  Daughter ;  but  IViHiam  Malmsbury  faith.  She  ^y"- 
ivas  fo  ohfcure  a  perfon,  that /he  was  not  known  ;  and  that  Edmond  Ironfide  j.  p  40. 
made  up  what  was  wanting  in  the  management  of  his  Father,  and  the  ^4a-  „    .^  /i 
lity  of  his  Mother.  And  the  fame  is  laid  by  Matt.  H'eflminfier.  Florentius  ^  1015.' 
Wigorn.     ihews  the  reafon  of  the  miflake;  for  he  faith,  Tbzt  Emma,  £-Fiorent. 

Eeeeee  the/red's^ '°  ^' 


The  Unreafonablenefs 


thelred's  Queen,  was  in  the  5jxo»  Linguage  called  ^/^ii/a;  andfo,  out  of 
A    end    two  Names,  they  have  made  two  Queens.    5ro»»w«  leaves  the  matter  in 
7.'?d%it.  Difpute,  and  faith  fome  affirm,  The  Mother  <?/Edmond  was  betrothed  to 
Aif.Brom-  ^.     £tj^elred,  and  ivas  the  Daughter  of  Count  Egbert :  Others,  That  Ihe 
Script,  was  a  Stranger  and  a  Concubine.     Now,  if  a  Man's  Confcience  be  Qria- 
p.  877.     ly  tied  in  fuch  Oaths  of  Allegiance,  to  the  Right  Heir  in  a  lineal  Succefton^ 
what  fatisfacStion  can  he  have  as  to  the  taking  them,  fince  he  is  then 
bound  to  fatisfie  himfelf  in  the  llridl  Juftice  of  a  Title  ?  For,  if  Edmond's 
Mother  was  not  married,  he  had  no  Title,  and  no  Oath  of  Allegiance 
could  be  taken  to  him;  and  whether  he  was  married  or  not,  for  all  that 
we  can  perceive,  there  was  a  great  doubt  at  that  time,  and  fo  continued. 
And    it  is  not  eafie  to  determine  what  is  to  be  taken  for  Marriage  in  a 
Prince,  unlels  the  Law  be  the  Rule.    And,  if  the  Law  determines  the 
nature  of  Contrads  in  Princes,  why  not  as  well  the  Obligation  of  Sub- 
jeds?  For,  if  there  be  no  Rule,  It  is  not  poffibleto  fatisfie  Confcience  in 
the  Niceties  of  Titles ;  if  there  be  a  Rule,  the  general  Confent  of  the 
People,  joined  with  the  Common  Good,  feems  to  have  been  that  which 
our  Anceftors  proceeded  by. 

I  do  not  hereby  go  about  to  fet  up  the  Power  of  the  People  over  Kings y 
which  is  in  efFed  to  overthrow  Monarchy ;  for  then  the  whole  Soveraign- 
ty  lies  in  the  People,  and  Kings  are  but  their  Servants :  And  fo  there  is 
but  one  fort  of  Ueafonable  Government,  viz.  that  of  a  Conimomvealth, 
Whereas,  from  the  eldeft  times,  the  Rights  of  Soveraignty  have  been  i^Xn' 
Ctd  in  fingle  Perf ens,  before  any  Popular  Governments  were  known;  and 
Monarchy  hath  been  ever  efleemed  a  diftindt  and  a  reafonable  Govern- 
ment, efpecially  where  it  is  limited  by  Laws,  and  thofe  Laws  made 
by  the  Confent  of  the  People,  i.  e.  ly  the  Three  EJlates  of  the  Realm  ; 
which  are  together  the  true  Reprefentatives  of  the  People. 

1  fee  no  neceffity  of  going  about  to  undermine  the  Monarchy,  that  I 
may  come  at  a  refolution  of  the  prefent  cafe  ;  for,  I  take  ours  to  be  a  true 
Original  Monarchy,  efpecially  after  the  Rights  of  the  lefler  Monarchs  were 
fwallowed  up  or  delivered  into  that  of  the  Weft-Saxon  Kings.  And  far- 
ther, I  do  not  (lick  to  affirm.  That  it  was  Hereditary,  where  the  Right 
of  Succefton  and  the  Puhlick  Good  (fid  not  interfere ;  i.  e.  where  there  was 
*  not  a  Natural  or  Moral  Incapacity  :  a  Natural,  as  in  the  Sons  of  the  elder 

Edmond,  when  Edred  was  made  King  before  them  ;  a  Moral,  as  when 
Edgars  elder  Brother  was  fet  afide  for  his  ill  Government,  by  one  half 
of  the  Nation,  and  the  other  never  difputed  the  matter  with  them ;  and 
when  Ethelred  was  fofar  deferted,  that  he  went  into  Normandy,  and  was 
recalled  up«n  Promife  of  better  Government.  Si  ipfe  vel  reilius  guler- 
Fiorentin.  ware,  vel  mitius  eos  tra&are  vellet,  are  the  words  in  Florentius;    and 


fliew.  That  although  this  were  a  true  and  fuccef/ive  Monarchy  in  ordinary 
courfe  ;  yet  where  the  Puhlick  Good  was  by  the  Eftates  of  the  Realm  judg- 
ed to  require  it,  they  thought  it  no  Perjury  or  Breach  of  Faith,  to  trans- 
ferr  their  Allegiance,  although  it  were  without  the  Confent  of  theadual 
Governour,  or  the  next  lineal  Heirs. 

Having  thus  far  cleared  this  Point,  as  to  the  Saxon  Conflitution  of  our 
Government,  I  come  to  that  of  the  Norman  ;  and  here  i  ihallnot  go  about 
to  lliew  how  broken  the  Succefllon  was  by  Force  and  Fa^/on,  but  what 
the  Judgment  of  the  Nation  was,  as  to  the  transferring  Allegiance. 

And, 


of  a  New  Separation,  ^4.7 


And  the  firfi  Inftance  I  (liall  bring,  is  in  the  Cafe  of  the  Oathtakeri 
to  y^a^^the  Daughter  of  Henry  the  Firft,  in  the  One  and  Thirtieth  year 
of  his  Reignj  and  there  is  no  queflion,  but  he  defigned  her  to  fucceed 
hipi ;  Legitime  ^  perennifuccejfione,  as  Malmshurys  words  are  ;  but  Ste-  Malmsb. 
phen,  (who-had  before  Iworn  Allegiance  to  her)  watched  his  opportuni-  ygfi^^" 
ty,  and  by  the  help  of  a  Party  made  by  his  Brother,  (the  Bi(hop  of  fFiw-Ioo/ioj.' 
chefler)  he  was  Crowned  KING;  and  although  at  firft,  Malmslury'^- 
faith,  hut  three  Bifhops,  and  very  few  Nohlemen,  joined  with  him,  yet  he 
foon  after  faith.  That  mofl  if  them  went  in  to  him:  And  even  Robert  of 
Gloucefler,  King  Henry  the  Firft's  natural  Son,  took  an  Oath  to  him, 
but  with  the  condition   of  his  preferving  his  Honour  and  Covenants. 
There  are  feveral  things  worthy  our  obfervation  in  this  Affair,  with  re- 
fped:  to  Oaths  of  Allegiance. 

(i.)  That  thofe  who  excufe  them  from  Perjury,  who  had  Sworn  Al- 
legiance to  Maud  before,  do  it  upon  this  account,  Becaufe  it  is  faid  by 
Rad.  de  Diceto,  That  Hugh  Bigod  fware,  that  King  Henry  the  Firfi,  on 
his  Deathbed,  dijinherited  his  Daughter,  and  made  StQph^n  his  Heir.  Sup- 
poling  the  Story  true,  what  is  this  to  the  Difcharge  of  the  Oath  as  to 
Maitdi  (for  the  Oath  was  not  made  to  Henry  the  Firft,  but  to  his  Daugh- 
ter, and  her  Right  was  chiefly  concerned  in  it.)  If  this  hold,  an  Oath  of 
Allegiance  may  ceafe,  without  difcharge  from  the  Party  to  whom  it  is 
made.  And  fo  the  Archhifhop  of  Canterbury,  and  the  Bilhops  of  Winche- 
fler  ind  Salisbury,  as  well  as  the  Nobility,  thought  themfelves  at  liberty 
to  take  a  New  Oath  of  Allegiance,  without  a  Releafe  from  the  Party  con- 
cerned in  the  former  Oath. 

(i.}  That  upon  the  Agreennent  between  K.  Stephen  and  H.  z.  Maud 
her  felf  was  fet  afide,  and  Stephen  was  to  continue  King  for  his  Life,  and 
H.  z.  to  fucceed  him.     Now  if  Oaths  of  Allegiance  muft  not  be  inter-     ■< 
prcted  by  the  Publick  Good,  here  are  infuperable  Difficulties  as  to  the  Ob- 
ligation of  thefeOiths.    For  the  Allegiance  was  transferr'd  from  the  right 
Heir  to  an  Uiurper,  as  Stephen  muft  be  owned  to  have  been  by  thofe  who 
deny  that  Allegiance  can  be  transferr'd  from  the  right  Heir.    And  they 
muft  continue  Allegiance  to  the  Ufurper  for  his  Life;  which  is  repug- 
nant to  the  Nature  of  our  Conftitution,  if  it  be  founded  in  a  Lineal  and 
Legal  Succeffion.    And  again,  Maud,  to  whom  they  had  fworn,  is  fet  a- 
fide,  and  the  Reverfion  of  the  Crown  is  entailed  on  her  Son,  although 
Ihe  was  living,     fortefcue^  in  a  Manufcript-Difcourfe  about  the  Title  of 
the  Houfe  of  Lancafler,  faith,  this  was  done  in  Parliament,  Communi  Con- 
fenfu  Procerum,  ©  Commmitatis  Regni  Anglia.     Rad.  de  Diceto,  who  li-  feco  a!d. 
ved  nearer  the  time,  faith  no  fuch  thing ;  but  Fortefcue  appeals  not  only  1155. 
to  xht  Chronicles,  but  to  the  Proceedings  of  Parliament,  for  it.     And  Matt.Matc. 
Weflminfier  and  Paris  fay.  The  Right  of  H.  %.  was  declared  by  K.  Ste-  weftm.A.- 
phen  in  Conventu  Epifcoporum,  ^  aliorum  de  Regno  Optimatum  ;  which  Matfparif. 
was  the  Defcript^onofa  Parliament  of  that  time  ;  for,  as  yet,  the  Baro-ib. 
nage  reprefented  the  Nation.     Gervafe  faith,  The  Great  Men  were  fummo-  Gervaf.A. 
ned  to  per  fet}  the  Agreement,  by  giving  their  Affent  to  it,  and  confirming  //  D.  1153- 
by  their  Oaths,     Fo'rtefcue  faith  further,  that  H.  x.  was  crowned  King  in 
the  Life  of  his  Mother,  (who  lived  to  the  i^  of  H.  i.)  by  the  general  Con- 
fent  of  the  Kingdom.     Which  Ihews  how  far  the  Publick  Good  was  thought 
to  be  the  Mealure  of  the  Obligation  of  thefe  Oaths.     For  Guil.  Neuburgen-  GuiiiNeo-^ 
fis  jaith,  That  the  Benum  Publicum  was  the  Fourtdation  of  this  Agree-  (..^^jo.  * '' 
mcnt.     And  Matt.  Weflminfier,  That  the  King  and  the  Lords  did  all  [wear  ^^^^^ 
toity  and  a  folemn  Charter  was  made  of  it,  and  kept  in  a  mofl  fecure  Place:  Wedm.S.' 

E  e  e  e  e  e  2  And  "Js- 


94-8  The  Unreafondlenefs 

And  thus  the  Oaths  of  Allegiance  were  continued  to  one  that  had  no 
Right  for  his  Life;  and  rpade  to  one  who  pretended  to  no  Right,  but  af- 
ter his  Mother,  who  was  fet  afide  in  this  Agreement.  So  that  here  were 
three  Oaths  of  Allegiance  at  once,  that  to  Maud  the  Emprefs,  that  to  K. 
Stephen,  and  to  H.  z.  and  yet  the  General  Good  of  the  Nation  muft  give 
an  equitable  fenfe  of  thefe  Oaths,  or  there  muft  be  Perjury  on  all  fiJes. 
For  thofe  who  had  firft  fworn  to  Maud,  could  not  transfer  their  A'legi* 
ance  on  any  other  account,  either  to  Stephen,  or  H.x.  during  her  Life. 
For  we  never  read  that  flie  was  prefentat  the  Agreement,  or  refigned  her 
Right  to  the  Crown. 

The  next  Inflance  I  (hall  produce,  is  in  the  Oaths  that  were  taken  du- 
ring the  Controverfies  between  the  Houfes  of  Tork  and  Lancjjler.  Which 
was  not  fo  plain  a  Cafe  as  Men  commonly  imagin ;  and  in  Truth,  if  the 
juft  legal  Title  be  the  only  Rule  of  Confcience  in  this  Cafe,  it  was  hard  to 
take  the  Oaths  on  either  fide.  For,  as  on  the  one  fide,  a  lineal  Defcent 
was  pleaded  from  the  Daughter  of  the  Duke  oi  Clarence ^  who  was  elder 
Brother  to  "John  Duke  of  Lancafter,  from  whom  by  Marriage  the  Duke  of 
Tor/t  claimed  his  Title;  fo,  on  the  other  fide,  it  was  objected,  that  there 
was  no  fufficient  Evidence  of  the  Legitimacy  of  Philippa  Daughter  to 
the  Duke  of  Clarence ;  becaufe,  as  Fortefcue  obferves,  the  Duke  of  Cla- 
rence was  abroad  from  before  the  time  of  her  Conception  till  a^ter  her 
Birth,  and  that  he  never  owned  her  Mother  after ;  that  flie  never  aflumed 
the  Arms  of  the  Duke  as  her  Father,  nor  thofe  defcended  from  her,  till  rhe 
Duke  of  Tork  pretended  to  the  Crown ;  that  E.  3.  made  an  Entail  ot  the 
Crown  upon  his  Heirs  Male;  (of  which  I  have  feen  a  written  Account  as 
old  as  the  time  of  H,  6.  which  not  only  affirms  the  Abfence  and  Divorce 
of  the  Duke  o{  Clarence',  but  that  E.  ^.  fcized  all  his  Lands  into  his  Hands, 
,  and  in  Parliament  foon  after  entailed  the  Grown  on  his  Heirs  Male,  and 
that  his  Daughters  there  prefent  agreed  to  the  fame.)  But  befidcs  they 
pleaded,  that  folong  a  Prefcription  as  the  Houfe  oi Lancafter  had  of  a- 
bove  threefcore  years,  was  allowed  by  the  fus  Gentium,  to  purge  the  De- 
fe<3:s  of  the  firft  Title ;  Thefe  are  things  which  defcrved  Confideration  a- 
gainft  fuch  a  meer  lineal  Defcent  as  the  Houfe  of  Tork  infifted  upon.  And 
againft  the  Houfe  of  Lancafter,  the  Intrufion  of  H.  4.  upon  the  Depofiti- 
oii  of  R.  z.  is  an  invincible  Objedion  to  fuch  as  found  Allegiance  on  the 
Right  of  Succeflion. 

But  that  which  I  lay  the  greateft  weight  upon,  is  the  way  of  ending 
this  Difference  in  Parliament,  whic  h  hath  feveral  remarkable  things  in  it: 
(i.)  That  theDukeoflflril,  notwithftanding  his  Title,  takes  znOath 
Rot.  Pari,  of  Allegiance '\nV3it\\zmtn.i  to  H.  6.  during  his  Life;  referving  to  himfelf 
39.  H.6.  the  Right  of  Succeffion  after  him.    For  he  fwears  to  do  nothing  to  the  Pre- 
^'  ^'      judice  of  his  Reign  or  Dignity- Royal,  nor  againft  his  Life  or  Liberty ;  and 
that  he  would  to  the  utmoft  of  his  Power,  withftand  all  Attempts  to  the  con- 
trary.   The  fame  Oath  was  taken  by  his  Sons  Edward  E^rl  of  March  (af- 
terward £.4.)  and  Edward  Eitl  of  Rutland.     Was  this  a  lawful  Oath  or 
not?  To  fay  it  was  unlawful,  is  to  refled:  on  theWifdom  of  theThree  Efiates, 
who  looked  on  this  as  the  beft  Expedient  for  the  Publick  Good,  as  being 
the  way  to  prevent  the  EfFufion  of  Chriftian  Blood.     And  it  is  not  eafieto 
prove  fuch  an  Oath  unlawful ;  as  containing  nothing  unlawful,  nor  to  the 
Prejudice  of  a  third  Perfon,  when  he  who  was  chiefly  concerned  volunta- 
rily took  it.     If  it  were  a  lawlul  Oath,  then  an  Oath  of  Allegiance  oa 
the  account  of  Poftefion,  is  a  lawful  Oath.     For  the  matter  of  Right  is 
not  mentioned  in  it,  and  Richard  Duke  of  Tork  did  not  renounce  the  opi- 
nion 


of  a  New  Separation.  ^a^ 

nion  of  his  own  Right  hereby,  (whether  true  or  falfej  but  did  bind  up 
himfelf  lo  do  nothing  to  the  Prejudice  of  the  Royal  Dignity  of //.6.  and 
yet  he  look'd  on  hira  as  meer  PoflelTor  of  it ;  therefore  in  his  Judgment 
and  the  Parliament's,  an  Oath  of  Allegiance  may  lawfully  be  taken,  on 
the  account  of  the  Pojfefion  of  the  Crowtty  although  Perfons  be  not  fatisfi- 
ed  of  the  Right  of  ir. 

The  Words  of  his  Agreement  are  remarkable  to  this  Purpofe,  as  they 
are  to  be  found  in  the  Parliament-Rolls.  The  [aid  Title  »otwith/iane/ing,  n.  jo^^ 
and  without  Prejudice  of  the  fame,  the  faid  Kxch^xtt  Duke  of  York  tenderly 
de firing  the  Weal,  Red  andProJperity  of  this  Land^  and  to  fet  apart  all  that 
might  he  troulleto  the  fame ',  and  confidering  the.PoJfeJfton  oj  the  faid  King 
Henry  the  Sixth,  and  that  he  hath  for  his  time  he  named,  taken,  atid  repu- 
ted King  <?/ England  and  France,  and  Lord  of  \rGhnd,  is  content,  agreeth 
and  confenteth,  that  he  he  had,  reputed  and  taken  KingofEnghnA  and  of 
France,  with  the  Royal  Eflate,  Dignity  and  Preeminence  helonging  thereto, 
and  Lord  of  Ireland,  during  his  Life  natural ;  and  for  that  time  the  faid 
Duke,  without  hurt  or  prejudice  of  his  faid  Right  and  Title,  fhall  take,  wor- 
Jhip  a»d  honour  him  for  his  Sovereign  Lord.  Here  was  certainly  an  Oath 
taken  to  a  King,  whom  the  Perfon  taking  it  looked  on  only  as  a  King  de 
faSo,  and  not  de  jure ;  and  yet  this  Oath  was  taken  and  allowed,  nay 
contrived  in  Parliament ;  and  that  for  no  lefs  an  end,  than  for  the  Wealy 
Refl,  and  Profperity  of  the  Land^  i.  e.  for  the  Publick  Good. 

It  may  be  faid.  That  the  Cafe  is  different ;  for  Richard  Duke  of  York 
parted  with  his  own  Right ;  but  we  cannot  with  another Sy  which  we  have 
ftoortt  to  preferve. 

I  anfwer,  That  he  did  not  look  on  fuch  an  Oath  as  parting  with  his 
Right,  but  as  a  thing  fitting  to  be  done  on  the  account  of  Poffefion  for 
the  Publick  Good.  And  fo  may  others  take  (uch  another  Oath  of  Alle- 
giance, wherein  there  is  no  Declaration  as  to  Right,  but  the  fame  things 
required,  which  the  Duke  of  Tork  promifed  in  his  Oath  to  Hen  6. 

But  Allegiance  is  not  due  hut  where  there  is  a  Right  to  claim  it ;  and  that 
cannot  he,  where  there  is  no  Right  to  the  Crown. 

I  anfwer,  That  an  Oath  of  Allegiance  may  be  twofold :  i.  Declarative 
of  Right ;  and  in  that  cafe  none  can  be  owned  to  have  Right,  but  he 
that  hath  it. 

X,  SuhmiJJive  Allegiance;  where  no  more  is  required  than  is  contained 
in  the  Duke  of  Tork's  Oath,  and  yet  he  declared  this  wasj^  prejudice  to 
his  Right.     But  it  may  he  faid.  He  declared  fo  much  hefore  Mtook  the  Oathy 
and  fo  gave  the  Senfe  in  which  he  took  it. 
1  anfwer,  That 

His  putting  in  his  Claim,  and  his  Title  being  allow'd  after  the  King  in 
being,  had  been  fufficient;  but  in  our  cafe  there  is  no  need  of  a  Declara- 
tion, fince  the  declaratory  part  is  left  out  •  which  is  a  fuller  Declaration 
of  the  fenfe  of  the  Oath,  than  our  Words  can  make. 
But  to  proceed  j 

(x.)  The  firft  Objedion  the  Parliament  made  to  the  Duke  of  Tork's 
Claim  was,  from  the  Oaths  they  had  taken  to  H.  6.  To  which  the  Duke  of 
Tork  gave  a  large  Anfwer,  that  Oaths  muft  net  hind  againfi  Truth  andjuflice. 
But  this  was  to  take  it  for  granted,  that  he  had  the  Truth  and  Ju  'ice  of 
his  fide,  whereas  there  was  a  long  Pofleflion  of  threefcore  Years  againft 
him;  furely  matters  of  Fad:  which  were  neceflary  to  the  difproving  his 
Title,  were  then  fo  far  out  of  Memory,  that  it  was  impoflible  to  make 
dear  Evidence  about  them ;  and  others  were  not  examin'd,  as  whether  the 

Duke 


^5o  The  llnreafondienefs 


Duke  of  Clarence  were  abfent  fo  long  from  his  Wife  abroad,  when  Philippa 
was  born  ?  Whether  one  Sir  James  Awdely  fuffer'd  about  it?  Whether  he 
was  divorced  from  her  upon  it?  Whether  £.3.  after  the  Death  of  the 
Duke  of  Clarence,  did  entail  the  Crown  on  his  Heirs  Male  ?  Whether  up- 
on the  Depofition  of  R.  a.  the  Claim  of  Right  on  behalf  of  the  Duke  of 
Clarences  Heir  ought  not  to  have  been  made ?  How  far  Edmond  Mortu 
wf/s owning  the  Title  of  H.-y.  and  the  Duke  oi  Camhridges  Attainder 
did  affedl  him?  Whether  he  had  not  renounced  his  own  Pretentions,  by- 
owning  H.  6.  to  be  his  Supream  and  Sovereign  Lord,  as  he  had  olten  done 
in  a  moft  folemn  manner,  particularly  in  his  Oaths  at  the  Altar  at  St. 
Paul's,  which  is  to  be  feen  in  the  Book  of  Oaths,  p.  146.  and  el  few  here. 
But  at  that  time,  H.  6.  was  under  the  Power  of  the  Duke  of  Tork  -  and 
that  was  a  very  unfit  time  to  clear  a  finking  Title, 

But  however  the  Lords  in  Parliament  were  concerned  for  their  Oaths  to 
H  6.  and  propofed  the  former  Expedient,  not  only  for  the  publick  Wei-. 
fare,  but  in  regard  to  their  Oaths,  notwithftanding  that  they  allow'd  the 
Duke's  Tit  le  to  be  good .  Their  Words  are.  It  was  concluded  and  agreed  by 
all  the  faid  Lords,  that  fince  it  was  fo,  that  the  Title  of  the  f aid  Duke  of 
York  cannot  he  defeated,  and  in  efchewtng  the. great  Inconvenience  that  might 
enfue,  to  take  the  Mein  above  rebearjed,  the  Oaths  that  the  faid  Lords  had 
wade  unto  the  Kings  Highnefs  <j/ Coventry  and  other  places  faved. 

From  whence  it  is  plain,  that  they  look'd  on  their  Oaths  to  Hen.  6.  as 
tonftftent  with  owning  the  Right  to  be  in  the  Duke  of  Tork ;  and  that 
Poffeffion  was  a  fuflicient  Ground  for  continuing  their  Oaths. 

(:?.)  In  I  £.4.  where  the  Right  and  Title  of  the  D.  of  Tork  is  mofl: 
amply  fet  forth,  there  this  Agreement,  ^9  H.  6.  is  recited,  and  the 
Proceedings  againft  H.  6.  are  grounded  upon  his  Breach  of  it.  Which 
Ihews  farther  that  thok  Parliaments  which  did  aflert  the  Right  of  Succeffh- 
on  higheft,  (among  which,  this  of  E.4  ought  to  be  reckon  d)  yet  it  was 
never  difputed,  whether  thofe  who  had  taken  the  Oaths  to  H.  6.  were 
perjured;  for  they  look  on  the  Poffeffton  of  the  Crown  as  a  fuilicient 
Ground  for  the  Allegiance  required. 

But  it  may  be  faid.  That  from  hence  we  fee  that  he  was  look  d  on  as  having 
the  heji  Title,  who  had  the  befl  Right  by  lineal  Succeffton.  I  anfwer,  that  we 
are  not  enquiring  into  Titles,  but  fearching  into  the  Reafons  and  Mea- 
fures  oi  Oaths  of  Allegiance;  and  whether  thofe  do  require  full  Satisfacfti- 
on  about  the  befl  Title  ?  Or  fuppofing  one  unfatisfied  about  that,  he  may 
not  yet  be  fatisfied  in  taking  fuch  an  Oath  as  the  D.  of  Tork  and  his 
Sons  did  ? 

But  fuch  Precedents  prove  nothing,  mlefs  they  he  agreeable  to  our  Laws 
and  Conflitutions.  Yes,  a  great  deal,  while  we  are  enquiring  into  our  Le- 
gal Coffiitution  ;  and  we  find  fuch  things  allowed  in  Parliaments-^  and  not 
only  fo,  but  in  (uch  Parliaments  which  allow'd  not  the  Title  of  the  King 
to  whom  ihofe  Oaths  were  made. 

But  it  may  be  faid.  Our  Law  owns  no  King  meerly  as  in  Poffeffion,  hut  the 
Right  Heir  is  the  legal  King,  whether  in  Poffeffion  or  not.  Our  Law  does 
own  a  King  in  Poflcflion,  if  Treafon  may  be  committed  againft  Him ;  and 
for  this  we  have  not  only  the  Authority  of  Sir  E.  C.  but  ot  the  Tear-Booksy 
9  £.4.  where  it  is  deliver'd  for  Law  at  that  time ;  and  with  a  particular 
Refped  to  H.  6.  Et  home  fera  arraigne  de  Treafon  fait  a  dit  Roy  H.  and 
therefore  Sir  E.C,  had  good  Authority  for  what  he  faid,-  and  that  not  in 
the  Reign  of  a  King  de  faBo,  but  when  a  King  thrult  out  another  for 
want  of  Right,  and  derived  his  whole  Right  from  a  lineal  Succeffion.    Ba- 

got's 


&f  a  New  Separation.   '  ^c^t 


gofs  Cafe  goes  farther  than  Grants  and  Judicial  'Proceedings  of  a  King  de 
fa^o;  for  therein  it  is-declared  Treafon  to  compafs  the  Death  of  a  King 
de  fa^o;  and  it  is  very  abfurd  to  imagine  Treafon  againft  one  whom  the 
Law  doth  not  own :  for  Treafon  is  a  high  Violation  of  the  Law,  and 
how  can  the  Law  be  violated  againft  one  whom  the  Law  doth  not  own  ? 
Befidcs,  in  Bagot's  Cafe  there  is  a  diftindiion  made  between  a  meer  Vfur- 
per,  and  one.  on  whom  the  Croivn  is  fettled  hy  Parliament ;  and  fo  H.  6.  js 
denied  to  be  a  meer  Ufurper.  Et  ftx  le  dit  Roy  H.  de  fait  Merement^ 
come  Vfurper^  Car  le  Corone  fuit  taille  a  luy  per  Parliament.  So  that  by 
o«r  Conftitution  a  great  Deference  is  to  be  fhew'd  to  the  Judgment  of 
the  Three  Eflates  in  matters  that  concern  the  Right  of  the  Crown;  Or  elfe 
an  Entail  made  by  them  could  malce  no  difTercnce  •  but  the  whole  Refo' 
lution  mud  be  into  the  lineal  Defcent.  And  thus  1  look  on  the  Statute 
XI  H.  7.  as  agreeable  to  our  Conjlitution;  for  if  it  be  Treafon  to  compafs 
the  Death  of  a  King  de  failo,  there  is  great  Reafon  there  fhould  be  Indem- 
nity for  thofe  who  ad  for  Him. 

But  what  doth  this  fignifie  to  the  Confciences  of  Men  >  Very  much,  if  they 
are  to  be  fatisfied  by  our  Conftitution.  I  grant  meer  Indemnity  doth  not 
clear  a  Man's  Mind ;  but  its  agreeablenefs  to  former  Froceedings  and 
Judgments  fhews  how  far  our  Conftitution  allows  us  to  go,  and  that 
there  is  no  Argument  from  thence  which  can  hinder  the  Satisfaction  of 
Confcience  (o  far. 

But  fuppofe  a  King  de  jure  le  in  Pojjeffion  of  this  A^,  and  another  comet 
and  difpojfejfes  Him,  and  fo  is  King  de  facSo,  Doth  this  Law  indemnifie 
thofe  whofifjjt  againft  the  King  de  jure  for  the  King  de  hSto  ? 

Whofoever  is  in  adlual  and  quiet  Poflellion  of  the  Crown,  by  Confent 
of  'Parliament,  hath  the  Right  to  challenge  the  Benefits  of  this  Ad;  for 
thofe  who  ferve  Him.  But  I  do  not  fay,  that  this  AGt  gives  any  Man 
Right  to  oppofe  a  Rightful  King;  but  it  only  provides  for  the  Indemnity 
of  thofe  who  affift  the  prefent  Follcflbr,  although  another  had  the  Right 
by  Defcent.  For  after  the  D.  of  tork\  challenging  the  Crown  by  Right 
of  Succeflion  againft  the  Pofleffor,  there  were  two  Parties  in  the  Nation, 
the  one  was  for  the  Right  of  Succefton,  and  the  other  for  the  Right  of 
Toffeffton  by  a  National  Confent.  And  the  Difputes  between  thcle  two 
continued  as  long  as  the  Difierences  between  the  Houfcs  of  Tork  and 
Lancafter  lafted.  When  H.  7.  was  fettled  in  the  Throne,  without  re- 
gard to  the  Right  o'i  SuccefioHy  although  there  was  a  general  Submiffion, 
yet  there  was  Hill  a  great  Diflatisfadion  in  the  Tork  Party ;  which  occa- 
fioned  all  the  Diilurbances  of  H.  nth\  Reign,  from  fetting  up  an  Heir  of 
the  Houfe  of  Tork.  (And  Sir  William  Stanly  was  gained  to  that  Party, 
which  coft  him  his  Life.)  And  they  went  lo  far  as  to  conclude  it  Trea- 
fon to  ftand  by  the  Poflellbr  againft  the  next  lineal  Heir.  Which  I  take 
to  have  been  the  true  occafion  of  the  Statute  11  H.y.  which  doth  cer- 
tainly Indemnify  thofe  who  adhere  to  the  Pofleflbr,  although  another 
may  claim  a  better  Right ;  and  thereby  declares  a  Pojfeffory  Right  to  be  a 
fufficient  Ground  of  Allegiance,  as  far  as  that  Ad  goes. 

There  are  three  forts  of  Perfons  may  be  faid  to  have  PofTeffion  of  the 
Crown,  an  ZJfurper,  a  Kvngde  jure,  and  a  King  de  fa£lo;  and  becaufe 
the  diftindion  between  thefe  doth  not  feem  to  be  well  underflood,  I 
fhall  briefly  explain  it. 

An  Ufurper  is  one  who  comes  in  by  Force,  and  continues  by  Force. 

A  King  de  jure  is  one,  who  comes  in  by  lineal  Defcent,  as  next  Heir,  and 
whofe  Right  is  owned  and  Recognized  by  the  Eftates  of  the  Realm. 

A  King 


^^2  '    'ibe  Unreafonabknefs 

A  King  de  fa£lo  is  one,  who  comes  in  by  Co'nfent  of  the  Nation,  but 
not  by  Vertue  of  an  Immediate  Hereditary  Right ;  but  to  fuch  aone  being 
owned  and  receiv'd  by  the  Eftatesot  the  Realm,  the  Law  oi  England,  as 
far  as  I  can  fee,  requires  an  Allegiance.     Or  elfe  the  whole  Nation  was 
perjur'd  in  moft  of  the  Reigns  from  the  Conqueft  to  H.  8.  For  the 
two  Williams,  fix  at  leaft  of  the  feven  Henries,  King  Stephen,  and  King 
John  were  all  Rings  de  fa^o,  for  fome  time  at  leaft,   for  they  came  not 
in  as  next  Hein  in  a  lineal  Defcent.     But'  ftill  Oaths  of  Allegiance  were 
taken  to  them;  and  no  fuch  Scruples  appear  to  have  been  made  all  that 
time ;  nor  any  charge  of  Perjury,  on  thofe  who  did  what  ^ur  Law  and 
Conflitution  required.    Was  the  Nation  perjured  in  the  Time  of//.  7. 
who,  as  all  know,  had  no  Pretence  of  an  Hereditary  Right  >  Yet  being 
received  and  Crowned,  the  Oaths  of  Allegiance  were  taken  to  Him,  be- 
fore he  was  Married  to  the  Daughter  of  £.  4.  For,  he  was  Crowned 
OHoh.  30.  1485-.  Had  the  Crown  entailed  in  Parliament  tJov.  7.  and  was 
Married  Jan  18.  But  the  ftrft  Parliament  of  i?.  3.  endeavoured  to  make 
void  the  Title  of  the  Children  of  E.  4.  upon  pretence  of  a  Frecontra^  with 
the  E.  of  Shremhuries  Daughter ;  and  of  George  Duke  of  Clarence  by  his 
Attainder,  thereby  to  makei?.  3.  Right  Heir  to  the  Crown;  but  lefl  thefe 
things  ftiould  fail,  to  his  Claim  of  Inheritance,  they  join  their  own  Ele5liott^ 
and  defire  him  to  accept  the  Crown,  as  to  him  of  Right  helonging,  as  well  hy 
Inheritance  as  hy  lawful  Ele^ion.    It  feems,  they  would  have  made  him 
SiKingde  jure  as  well  as  defa^o ;  but  the  excluding  the  Children  of  £.  4. 
never  gave  Satisfadlion  fmce  the  Lady  Lucy  her  felf  difowned  it  to  the 
Mother  of  £.  4.  And  if  fuch  an  Allegation  would  hold,  the  whole  Suc- 
ceflion  both  of  Tork  and  Lancafler  might  be  queftioned  ;  for  both  derive 
Mat.weft.from  H.  3.  whofe  Mother  was  believed  at  that  time  to  have  been  pre- 
A.  izoo.  contraded  at  leaft  to  Hugh  le  Brun,  before  fhe  was  married  to  K.  John^ 
and  was  married  to  Him,  whilft  his  former  Wife  was  living.     And  if  Q." 
Eleanors  Divorce  from  the  K.  of  Prance  were  not  Good  (as  it  is  hard  to 
prove  it  fo)  what  becomes  of  all  the  Line  of  H.  2.  who  married  Her, 
after  fhe  had  two  Children  by  her  former  Husband  ?  But  if  Mens  Confci- 
ences  are  tied  to  a  ftrid  legal  and  lineal  Defcent,  they  muft  be  fatisfied  in 
all  thefe  Points. 

But  fuppofing  the  Right  of  the  Children  of  E.  4,  to  have  been  never  fo 
Good ;  what  doth  this  make  towards  the  juftifying  the  Oaths  of  Allegi- 
ance, which  were  made  to  H.  7.  whom  fome  will  not  allow  to  have  any 
Claim  by  theHoufe  o^ Lancafler,  fince  they  fay,  the  fame  Ad  which  legi- 
timated John  of  Gaunt's  Children  by  Kathi  Swinford,  did  exclude  them 
from  any  Title  to  the  Crown  ?  Yet  xheOaths  of  Allegiance  were  taken  by 
the  whole  Nation  in  the  time  of//.  7  .and  no  Difpuie  was  then  made  a- 
bout  it ;  becaufe  it  was  then  believed,  that  quiet  PofleflTion  was  a  fufficient 
Ground  for  Allegiance. 

It  is  objedled,  That  it  cannot  he  agreeahle  to  the  Law  of  England  to  fveear 
Allegiance  to  a  KHg  de  fa<5to,  when  the  Duke  of  Northumberland  fuffered 
h)  the  Law  for  adhering  to  a  ^teen  de  fa(^o. 

A  King  de  fa^o  according  to  our  Law  (as  I  faid)  is  one  in  quiet  Pof^ 
feflion  of  the  Crown,  by  Confent  of  Parliament,  without  Hereditary 
Right;  fuch  as  //  4,  5,  6,  7.  were  all  thought  to  be,  by  thofe  who 
made  this  Diftinilion.  For,  as  far  as  I  can  find,  the  Diftindion  of  a  King 
de  fatlo  and  de  jure  was  then  ftarted,  when  the  Houfe  of  Tork  fo  much 
infifted  on  their  Hereditary  Right  ;  andfo  manv  of  our  Kings  had  gover- 
ned the  Kingdom  by  Content  without  it.    Therefore  the  Lawyers,  to 

find 


•^ r  j. 

of  a  New  Separation.  ^5^ 

find  a  fufficient  Salvo  for  the  Kings  of  the  Houfe  of  LaMcafier,  framed 
this  Diftind^ion  of  Kings  Je  faSio  and  de  jure ;  but  ftill  they  meant  Kings 
Regnant,  as  they  called  thtm,  or  in  full  Pofleffionof  the  Royal  Dignity 
by  a  National  Confent.  (The  Diftincaioo  had  been  better  of  a  two- fold 
Right,  viz.  Poffejfory  znd  Hereditary.')  But  this  was  far  from  being  the 
Cafe  of  ^leen  Jane,  who  was  fet  up  by  a  particular  Party  againft  the  Ge- 
neral Senic  of  the  Nation,  as  focn  appear  'd  ;  for  the  main  Point  h?r  Ti- 
tle flood  upon  was  this,  Whether  the  King  by  his  Grant  cou.'d  dit- 
pofe  of  the  Crown  againft  an  k&  of  Parliament  which  fettled  theSuccef- 
fion?  and  that  this  was  the  true  Point,  appears  evidently  by  Judge  Moun- 
/tf^w's  Papers,  w'10  Wis  ira)  loved  againfl  his  Will,  i-t  drawing  up  the 
Grant.  So  that  the  Duke  of  Notthumherland's  Cafe  doth  by  no  means 
reach  tlx  Point  of  a  King  de  fa^o. 

But  it  is  further  urged  from  our  Homilies^  That  our  Ch»rch  therein  con- sixth  Part 
Jemns  thoje  Englifh  who  did  [wear  Fidelity  to  the  Dauphine  of  France,^;/**  5*' 
Breaking  their  Oath  of  Fidelity  to  their  Natural  Lord  the  King  of  England. ^«».n/f  wU' 
To  which  lanfwer.  fui  Rebel- 

C «.)  Tiiat  King  John  was  only  a  King  de  faclo  himfelf,  if  a  Legal  Suc- 
ceffion  makes  a  King  de  jure.     Fcr,  (i.)  H.s  eldeft  Brnther's  Son  Arthur 
was  then  living,  as  all  confefs.    (i.)  Hewasconvidtd  of  Trcafon  againft 
his  Brother  i?.  x.  and  the  Sentence  pronounced  againft  him  by  Hugo  ^/^  Mat. Paris. 
Vudfey  Bi{}iopor£>ar«dff7,  as  theKingof /rJwce  pleaded  to  the  Pope's  Le- ^*  *^°' 
gat  who  came  to  folicit  for  him.     (3.)  Hubert  ArchbiHiop  ofCanterlury  Matr. 
declar'd  at  his  Coronation,  thac  he  came  not  in  by  Hereditary  Right, ^^^^'^' 
but  by  Ele£lion;  and  he  accepted  of  it  fo.     (^4.)  What  Right  he  had  af  Mat.  Paris. 
ter  the  Death  of  his  Nephew,  he  gave  up  by  the  Refignation  of  his  Crown  ^'  ^^99' 
to  the  Pope.     He  could  have  no  Hereditary  Right  while  Arthurs  S'iUzr 
lived,  who  furvived  him,  and  was  kepr  in  the  Callie  at  Briflol.    Bur  fup- 
pofingir,  I  do  not  underftinJ  how  he  that  gave  up  his  Right  of  Domi- 
nion to  the  Pope,  could  ftill  retain  it  ?  And  if  he  was  Feudatary  to  the 
feme,  he  could  not  challenge  Allegiance  as  due  to  him,  buf  to  the  Pope 
as  Lord  Paramount.     And  it  was  pleaded  againft  him.  That  although  )?)f  Mat.  Paris. 
could  not  difpofe  of  his  Crown  without  Conjent  of  his  Barons,  yet  he  might  ^o^^^ 
demife  it.     And  upon  his  Refignation  he  ceafed  to  he  King ;  and  fo  the  Throne 
was  vacant.     And  hy  that  means  there  ivas  a  devolution  ff  R.'ght  to  the 
B  A  RONS  to  fill  up  theVacam.)  •  who  made  choice  of  LEWIS  hy  th: 
Right  of  his  Wife,  who  was  Heir  to  King  Jolin.     If  after  all  this,  an  Oath 
oi  Allegiance  to  him  was  lawful,  then,  1  lay,  an  Oath  to  a  King  de  faHo 
is  lb,  for  King  John  was  no  more. 

(z.)  As  to  the  £d/<7»x  calling  in  Lewis,  and  forfaking  K.  John,  it  isne- 
celfary  to  obferve  on  what  Reafon  it  is  that  our  Homilies  condemn  it. 
For. the  whole  defign  of  that  Homily  is,  to  fhew  the  Popes  Vfurpations  0- 
ver  Princes,  and  their  flirring  up  Suhje£ls  to  Rebellion  againft  them^  hy 
difcharging  them  from  their  Oaths  ;  and  for  thofe  the  Inflance  of  King  John 
is  produced  -^  as  appears  by  the  words  juft  before.  Now  had  Englifh  men 
at  that  time  known  their  Duty  to  their  Prince  fet  forth  in  God's  Word, 
would  a  great  many  Nobles,  and  other  Englifh-men  natural  SubjeEls,  for  this 
foreign  and  unnatural  V fur  per  his  vain  Curfe  of  the  King,  and  for  his  feign- 
ed difcharging  them  of  their  Oath  and  Fidelity  to  their  Natural  Lord,  upon 
f offender,  or  yio  Ground  at  all,  have  rebelled  againfl  their  Sovereign  Lord 
the  King  >  Would  Engli(h  Subje£is  have  taken  part  againfl  the  King  of  Ef^g- 
land,  and  againfl  Englifh  Men,  with  the  French  King,  and  French  Men,  be- 
ing incenfed  againfl  this  Realm  by  the  Bifhop  of  Rome  > 

Fffftf  ^  (3.)  This 


^54  T^^^  IbireafonaHenefs 


(5.)  This  doth  not  concern  the  prefent  Cafe.  For  Men  may  condemn 
thofe  Englifli  Men  who  fent  for  Lewis,  and  yet  may  lawfully  take  the 
prefent  Oaths.  By  which  Men  are  not  bound  to  juftify  fuch  Proceedings, 
but  to  promife  Faith  and  Allegiance  to  fuch  as  are  in  actual  Pofleffion  of 
the  Throne.    Which  the  Oaths  taken  to  K.  John  will  juftify. 

Thws  I  have  confidered  the  greateft  DiiEculties  I  have  yet  met  with 
about  taking  the  Oaths,  and  have  not  difTembled  the  firength  of  any  of 

them. 

There  is  only  one  thing  remains,  and  that  is  the  Anfwer  given  to  the 
Cafe  of  Tiler  his,  who  was  an  V fur  per,  an  J  yet  our  Saviour  [aid.  Give  unto 
Cefar  the  things  that  are  Cefar'j.  The  Anfwer  is,  That  although  it  were  a 
forcible  TJfurpationin  Julius  Cefar,  yet  lefore  that  time  the  Matter  was  ac- 
corded between  the  Senate  and  the  Emperors^  and  they  reined  unqueftioned 
without  any  competition  jrom  the  Senate. 

So  that  it  was  not  lawful  to  fwear  Allegiance  to  "Julius  Cefar ^  who  had 
the  full  Poffeffion  of  the  Power,  but  it  was  to  Tiberius  :  And  why  fo? 
Where  was  the  Right  of  Government  in  the  time  of  Julius  Cefar  ?  In  the 
Senate  and  People.  And  fo  it  continued  all  Juliets  Cefar  %  time:  But  how 
came  the  Senate  and  People  to  lofc  their  Right  in  the  time  of  Tiberius  > 

(r.)  Had  they  given  it  up  by  any  folemn  Adl  of  theirs,  as  many  fay 
they  did  by  the  Lex  Regia^  which  Juflinian  confidently  affirms ;  Then 
all  the  Right  which  the  Emperourhad,  was  by  Devolution  from  the  Peo- 
ple ;  and  fo  they  a<9:ed  by  vertue  of  that  Power  which  the  People  gave 
them;  (Populus  comprehends  both  Senate  and  Community.)  And  then 
the  Emperors  had  their  Rights  of  Sovereignty  from  the  People,  and  not 
from  God.  For  here  was  no  other  Ad:  but  that  of  the  People  giving  up 
their  Right,  And  then  the  Cafe  of  Obedience  to  the  Roman  Emperors 
will  be  found  very  different  from  that  of  the  Northern  Kingdoms,  where 
the  People  never  gave  up  their  Rights  in  fuch  a  manner :  but  in  Cafes  of 
Difficulty  concerning  Succeffion,  the  three  Eflates  did  look  on  themfelves 
as  particularly  concerned ;  as  might  be  eafily  proved,  if  it  were  needfuJ, 
in  all  the  Northen  Kingdoms. 

(2.)  But  fuppofe  they  did  not  formally  give  up  their  Right,  but  were 
partly  wheedled  and  partly  forced  out  of  it ;  Doth  this  give  a  good  Title  ? 
Suppofe  Auguflus  had  by  his  Ads  procured  the  Content  of  the  People, 
as  to  his  own  Government ;  What  was  this  to  Tiberius  t  Did  they  give 
him  a  Power  to  make  whom  he  pleafed  his  Succeflbi-?  Something  may 
be  faid  from  Dion  and  Strabo  as  to  the  former ;  but  there  is  no  Pretence 
as  to  the  latter :  For  it  was  a  meer  Arbitrary  Ad  in  Juguftus  to  nomi- 
nate Tiberius ;  and  all  the  Title  he  had  at  firft  was  from  the  Praetorian 
Tacit,  1. 1.  Band  and    Legions :  Afterwards   the  Confuls,  and  Senate,  and  Souldiersy 
and  People  did  fwear  Allegiance  to  him,  as  the  HiDorians  tell  us.    Now 
here  I  defire  to  know,  whether  Tiberius  was  any  more  than  Emperor 
de  fa^o,  when  they  did  thus  fwear  to  him?  For  all  the  Right  he  had 
was  from  their  voluntary  Submiffion  to  him  at  Rome. 
Tacit,  ib.      As  to  the  Roman  Provinces,  Tacitus  faith,  They  were  content  with  the 
prefent  change  of  Government,  becaufe  theyfuffered  by  the  Fastens  and  Ava- 
rice of  the  great  Men ;  which  made  them  weary  of  the  Government  by  the  Se- 
nate and  People.    But  this  only  fliews  that  they  were  wilhng  to  change 
their  Maflers,  hoping  they  might  mend   their  Condition,  but  fignihes  ■ 
little  to  the  matter  of  Right.     Since  after  they  were  mide  Province Sy 
they  owned  their  Subjedion  to  the  Roman  Government,  by  paying  Tri- 
bute, 


of  a  New  Separation.  955 

lute,  and  receiving  Magiflratei  from  it,  however  that  Government  was 
managed,  whether  by  Senate  or  People,  or  by  one  who  had  the  Impe- 
rial Power »  whatever  Name  he  were  called  by.  But  as  to  the  Pro- 
vince of  Judea  in  particular,  there  are  feveral  Conditions  of  it  to  be 
confidered. 

CiO  While  it  was  tributary  to  the  Kings  of  Perjia  and  Syria.    Jaddus 
the  High  Prieft  told  Alexander  that  they  had  taken  an  Oath  of  Fidelity  to  Jofeph.  I. 
Darius,  and  therefore  could  not    hear  Arms  again(l  him  while  he  lived.    But  "'  ^'  ^' 
was  Darius  King  de  jure  or  de  fa£io  over  the  Jeivi }   He  was  not  King 
over  them  by  a  lineal  SucceiTion  from  their  own  Princes  ,•  nor  by  the 
Fundamental  Conftitution  of  their  Government,  which  owned  x\^  legal^^^'^'^' 
King  that  was  not  of  their  Brethren  :  I  do  not  fay  they  were  not  to  fub-  ''* 
mit  to,  but  not  to  chufe  any  other.    But  what  Right  had  Darius  over 
the  jFnw,  any  more  than  fucceeding  in  the  ?er[ian  Monarchy  gave  a 
Right  to  the  Chaldean  Conquefts?  I  grant,  the  Jews  did  ad  under  the 
/'fr/?<j»  Monarchs,  3s  Nehemiah  ^^^s  Governour  un6tr  Artaserxes,  and '^^'^' ^' 9* 
that  they  did  fwear  to  them,  appears  by  Jaddus ;  but  the  Qiicftion  is. 
On  what  Right  that  Oath  was  founded  ?  and  whether  upon  Alexander's 
Conqueft,  they  could  not  as  well  take  a  new  Oath  to  him?  For  why 
fhould  not  prefent  adual  Dominion  give  as  much  Right,  as  fuccce  iing 
into  anothers  Right  of  Dominion,  which  was  at  firft  gained  by  Conquefl? 
If  Pofleflion  gives  Right  in  one  cafe,  why  not  in  the  other ;  fince  there 
is  more  reafon  for  Allegiance,  where  there  is  a  Power  of  Protedion,  than 
where  there  is  none.     And  fo  we  find  Jaddiu  and  the  Jews  did  fubmit 
to  Alexander  afterwards,  and  lome  of  them  went  into  his  Army,  al- 
though Darius  was  flill  living;  which  Ihews,  that  as  they  were  not  for- 
ward to  break  their  Allegiance  fworn  to  Darius  ;  fo  they  were  not  obfti- 
nate  in  oppofing  Alexander^  but  yielded  to  the  over-ruling  Hand  of 
Providence. 

(2.)  When  the  Jews  had  their  Liberty  granted  them  by  the  Kings  of 
Syria.     For  Antiochus  Eupator  made  Peace  with  them^  hy  which  they  ivfrf  Joseph. 
to  have  the  Liberty  of  their  own  Laws  ;  and  although  he  ioon  brake  his  ^^'  '^''^' 
Agreement  with  them ;  yet  the  Lacedamonians  and  Romans  owned  them 
as  a  Free  People,  and  treated  with  them  as  fuch.     And  Simon  pleaded  to 
Athenohius  in  this  War ;  We  have  neither  taken  other  Mens  Land,  nor  ^  Maccab. 
holden  that  which  appertaineth  to  others-,  hut  the  Inheritance  of  our  Fa-^'^'^  "^°' 
thers,  which  our  Enemies  had  wrongfully  in  Poffejfion  a  certain  time.  Where- 
fore we  having  Opportunity,  hold  the  Inheritance  of  our  Fathers.     Which 
plainly  (hews,  that  they  look'd  on  thofe  who  ruled  over  them  as  unjufl:^5-3?-34- 
PolTeflbrs ;  at  that  time  when  they  were  fo  far  under  them,  as  to  fwear 
Allegiance  to  them.     After  this  Antiochus  Pius  did  grant  them  their  Li- 
berty upon  Compofition ;  which  they  enjoyed  as  their  Neighbours  did, 
and  fuffered  not  as  Slaves  to  the  Kings  of  Sjria^  but  as  fometimes  op- 
prefled  by  them. 

C3-)  When  they  were  reduced  into  the  form  of  a  Rom.m  Province ; 
which  was  done  by  Pompey.  And  from  that  time  they  were  m  Subje<fii- 
on  to  the  Roman  State ;  being  only  permitted  to  enjoy  the  Liberty  of 
their  Religion. 

But  I  Ihall  take  notice  only  of  the  cafe  of  the  Jews  Subjedion  to  the 
Roman  Emperor  in  our  Saviour's  time.    Suetonius   takes  notice  of  the 

F  f  f  f  f  f  z  flrange 


^5^  7 he  Unreafonablenefs 

ftrange  Impudence  of  Tiberius,  in  feeming  fo  long  to  decline  the  accepting 
the  Soveraignty,  when  from  the  very  firfl  he  had  affUmed  the  Soveraign 
*  Princi-  Power,  without  asking  the  Leave  either  of  Senate  or  People.  *  Tacitus 
patum,  (^ijj^^  ffj^f  fjg  fook  upon  him  the  Government  immediately  upon  the  Death  of 
neq;'occu- Auguftus;  and  did  exercife  the  Imperial  Power  every  where ;  only  when  he 
pare  con-  i^as  in  the  Senate  he  feemed  to  demur^  for  fear  fl/ Germanicus  and  his 

Ju'e'aTre' Legions. 

dubitaffet,  &  ftacione  milicum,  hoc  eft,  vi  &  fpecie  dominacionis  affumpta,  dm  tamen  recufavic  impuden- 

tiffimoanimo.    5«efon.  c.  24. 

t  Sed  de.  f  Djo^  That  he  exercifed  all  the  parts  of  the  Government^  having  fecu- 
^""^lo^^.  red  the  Italian  Forces  to  himfelf;  but  he  declined  the  Name,  till  he  un- 
num  pr«-  dcrftood  the  Defign  of  Germanicus. 

toriis  CO-  .  ,   ,      ,,.,     .     -  ., 

hortibus,  ut  Imperator  dederat,  Excubiae,  Arma,  cxtera  Aula?;  Miles  in  torum,  miles  in  curiam  comita- 
bat  ■  lite'ras  ad  Esercicus,  tanquam  adepto  Principatu  Hiifi: ;  nufquam  cunftabundus  nifi  cum  in  Senatu 
loqueretur.    Tacit.  l.i.DioLsj. 

So  that  here  we  have  a  plain  Original  Ufurpation  in  Tiherius ;  there  be- 
in*^  no  confent  of  Senate  and  People  to  his  afliiming  the  Soveraign  Power. 
And  3  et  Tacitus  faith,  Firfl  the  Confuls  and  great  Officers^  then  the  Senate 
and  People  did  fwear  Allegiance  to  him.  Which  was  before  he  had  their  - 
Confent.  For  he  ufed  his  own  Art  afterwards,  that  he  might  leeoi  to  be 
chofen  by  them  ;  and  not  to  come  to  his  Power  by  the  force  of  Arms, 
or  the  Intrigues  of  his  Mother.  But  what  Appearance  of  confent  foever 
afterwards  he  gained  from  the  Senate^  it  was  extorted  from  them  by 
Force  or  Fraud ;  as  is  evident  from  the  fame  Hiftorians.  But  what  Right 
can  fuch  a  Confent  give  ?  And  he  took  away  the  Remainder  of  the  Peo- 
ples Liberties  in  their  Comitia,  and  never  asked  their  Confent. 

What  then  was  the  Right  of  Tiherius  to  the  Government  founded  up- 
on ?  Auguftus  had  feveral  repeated  Ads,  whereby  they  continued  his  Go- 
vernment from  time  to  time,  and  thereby  Hiewed  their  Confent,  as  Dion 
and  Straho  affirm,  That  the  whole  Government  was  committed  to  him  front 
the  Senate  and  People :  But  what  is  there  like  this  in  the  Cafe  of  Tiheri- 
us ?  He  was  Auguftus  his  Wifes  Son,  and  he  made  him  his  Heir  hy  his 
Teflament :  And  what  was  that  to  the  Roman  State?  Was  not  Agrippa 
Pofihumusy  then  living,  much  nearer  to  Auguftus,  who  was  his  own 
Grand-child  ?  And  by  the  Story  in  Tacitus  of  Fahius  Maximus,  feemed  de- 
figned  by  him  to  fucceed  him ;  but  upon  the  Difcovcry  of  it,  firll  Auguftus, 
and  then  Agrippa,  was  fent  out  of  the  World  to  make  way  for  Tiherius, 
who  had  before-hand  engaged  the  Italian  Legions.  So  that  he  trufted 
to  no  Teftamentary  Right,  as  appears  by  all  his  Collufions  with  the  Se- 
nate, which  there  had  been  no  place  for,  if  he  had  aflumed  the  Govern- 
ment by  virtue  of  Auguftus  his  Teflament  or  Adoption. 

Here  we  have  then  a  plain  Inftance  of  one  who  was  in  the  PofTeflion 
of  Power  without  Colour  of  Right,  and  yet  Oaths  of  Allegiance  were  ta- 
ken to  him,  both  by  the  Senate  and  People.  And  when  thefe  Oaths 
were  taken,  there  was  no  adjufting  the  matter  between  him  and  the  Se- 
nate ;  fof  he  had  newly  affumed  the  Government  by  Force  when  they 
took  thefe  Oaths.  Here  was  no  unqueftioned  Authority  from  the  Senate 
(whatever  Fell.  Paterculus  pretends;  but  when  he  had  gotten  the  Power 
into  his  Hands,  he  required  them  to  own  it. 

Auguftus  was  fo  wife,  as  when  they  offered  him  their  Oaths,  he  re- 

Dio,  1. 54.  fufed  them  for  this  Reafon ;  He  confidered  well-,  faith  Dio,  that  if  they 

gave  their  free  Confent^  they  would  do  what  they  promifed  without  fwear- 


df  a  New  Separation,  ^i^-j 


ing  ;  and  if  they  did  not,  all  the  Oaths  in  the  World  would  not  make  them. 
But  Tiherius  was  of  another  mind,  and  he  required  their  Oaths  in  the 
firft  place  j  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  fame  were  required  in  fe- 
vera]  Provinces. 

When  our  Saviour  appeared  in  fudea,  Ttlerim  was  in  pofleflion  of 
this  Power,  over  the  Roman  Empire  j  and  becaufe  x\\tjews  were  more 
fcrupulous  than  other  People,  on  account  of  their  Fundamental  Laws 
as  to  the  owning  any  ufurped  Jurifdidion  over  them ;  fome  among  them' 
put  the  Queftion  to  him  about  paying  Tribute  to  Cisfar^  i.  e.  about 
owning  any  Ad  of  Subjedion  to  an  Ufurped  Power.  For  there  were 
plaufible  Arguments  on  both  fides ;  one  was  from  the  Stridtncfs  of  their 
Laws ;  the  other  was  from  the  Benefit  they  received  from  the  Roman 
Protedlion,  The  former  feemed  to  have  more  of  Confcience,  and  the 
latter  of  Humane  Prudence.  Our  Saviour  takes  a  wife  Method  to  an- 
fwer  the  Doubt ;  he  asks  for  the  Currant  Tribute-Money,  and  finding 
it  had  Cafars  Superfcription,  faith.  Give  to  Csefar  the  things  that  are 
Cxfar's.  They  might  have  replied,  they  are  his  de  fa^o,  but  not  de 
jure.  Why  did  not  our  Saviour  anfwer  this  Difficulty,  but  leave  them 
to  colledi  their  Duty  from  the  ufe  of  Ca:fars  Com  among  them  ?  Might 
not  one  that  had  no  Right,  have  the  Power  of  coining  Money,  and  di- 
fperfing  it,  fo  that  it  lliould  be  in  common  ufc  ?  And  was  not  Tilerius 
fuch  an  one  ?  What  then  doth  he  mean  by  this  Anfwer  ?  Either  we  mull 
fay,  that  he  declines  the  main  Queflion,  or  that  he  refolved  it  to  be 
lawful,  upon  general  Reafons,  to  fhew  Ads  of  Subjedion  to  fuch  a 
Power,  which  we  may  not  be  fatisfied,  is  according  to  our  Laws.  For 
fo  it  is  plain  the  Roman  Power  was  not  .agreeable  to  the  Jewifh  Con- 
llitution  ,•  and  although  that  were  from  God,  yet  our  Saviour,  who 
gives  the  beff  Diredions  for  Confcience,  would  by  no  means  have  Men 
to  be  peevilh  or  obftinate  in  fuch  Matters. 

But  paying  of  Tribute  is  quite  another  thing  from  Oaths  of  Allegiance. 
It  is  fo,  as  to  the  manner  of  teftifying  our  Subjedion  j  but  the  maia 
Queflion  is,  Whether  any  A€t  of  Subjedion  be  lawful  or  not  ?  If  it 
be  lawful  to  teftifie  it  one  way,  why  not  another?  If  in  paying 
Tribute,  why  not  in  folemn  promifing  to  pay  it  ?  If  in  promifing, 
why  not  in  fwearing,  i.  e.  in  calling  God  to  witnefs  that  I  do  it? 
Thus  far  then  we  may  goj  ive  may  [wear  to  pay  tribute -,  but  on 
what  account  ?  L  it  not  as  a  token  of  Allegiance,  /.  e.  of  a  Duty 
owing  on  the  account  of  Protection?  Then  we  have  gained  one  flep 
farther,  viz.  that  we  may  fwear  to  perform  fome  parts  of  Allegiance. 
But  why  then  may  we  not  do  fo  as  to  all  that  fuch  an  Oath  implies, 
if  it  refpedJs  no  more  than  the  Duty  which  we  owe,  with  refped  to 
the  Publick  ?  And  that  is  certainly  the  meaning  of  an  Oath,  when  all 
Declarations  of  Right  are  left  out,  and  only  thofe  of  Duty  exjjjrefled,  as 
it  is  in  our  prefent  Cafe. 

As  to  the  dreadful  Charge  of  Perjury  and  Apoflacy^  which  fome,  of 
much  greater  Heat  than  Judgment,  have  made  ufe  of  againft  thofe  who 
hold  it  lawful  to  take  the  Oaths ;  if  what  I  have  faid  be  true,  it  is 
little  lefs  than  ridiculous:  And  it  would  have  had  more  appearance  of 
Reafon,  if  the  Pharifees  had  urged  it  againfl  our  Saviour's  Refolution 
of  the  Cafe  about  Tribute-Money.  For  had  not  God  by  his  own  Law 
fettled  the  Government  among  them  ?  And  was  it  not  a  Fundamental 
Article  of  fliat  Law,  that  none  fhould  rule  over  them,  but  one  of 
their  Brethren  ?    Was  the  Roman  Emperor,  or  Pontius  Pilate  fuch  ? 

Have 


^1 5  8  The  U  nreafondlene[s ,  &C. 


Have  not  all  the  ancient  Zealots  of  the  Law  oppofed  any  fuch  Foreign 
Power  ?  What  can  it  be  then  lefs  than  Perjury  and  Apoflacy  to  give  any 
Countenance  to  fuch  an  open  Violation  of  this  Law,  and  to  incourage 
Men  to  renounce  it ;  when  they  find  fuch  Liberties  allowed  by  fuch  a 
Teacher  >  But  I  forbear. 

To  conclude  then  ;  I  have,  at  your  earnefl;  Defire,  taken  this  Matter 
into  ferious  Confideration,  and  have  impartially  weighed  the  mofl  pref- 
fing  DiiBculties  I  have  met  with  ;  I  cannot  promife  to  g:veyou  Satif- 
fedtion,  but  I  have  fatisfied  my  felf,  and  have  endeavoured  to  do  tlie 
fame  for  you.  I  am  heartily  forry  for  any  Breaches  among  us  at  this 
time,  and  it  is  eafie  to  forefee  who  will  be  the  Gainers  by  them.  But 
I  am  glad  to  underfland  that  the  chiefeft  of  thofe  who  fcruple  the  Oaths, 
have  declared  themfelves  againft  the  Attempts  of  -fuch  an  Vnfeafonalle 
Separation^  and  I  hope  others  will  be  fo  wife  as  to  follow  their  Ex- 
ample. 

I  am,  Sir, 


oM.ii.  ♦  Tours. 

UB9. 


9')9 


VINDICATION 

O  F 

Their  MAJESTIES  Authority 

TO  FILL  THE 

S E E S of  the  Deprived  BISHOPS- 

In  a  Letter  out  of  the  Country.  Occafioned  by  Dr.  ©-'s 
Refufal  of  the  Bifhoprick  of  B  a  t  h  and  Wells. 

SIR, 

THE  Account  we  have  received  here  of  Dr.  B s  Refufal 
of  the  Bifhoprick  of  Bath  and  lVe//s^  hath  occafioned  great 
Talk  and  different  Cenfures,  as  men  are  divided  in  their  Inte- 
reftsand  Opinions.  I  know  not  what  to  think  of  it,  becaufe 
I  know  not  the  Reafons  for  which  he  did  it ;  but  it  is  an  unliappy  amufe- 
mentat  fuch  a  time  as  this,  to  which  a  Wife  Man,  wlio  had  well  confi- 
dered  Confequences,  would  not  have  given  the  occafion.  I  hope  it 
may  end  all  in  noife,  without  any  mifchievous  Effefls  ;  but  confidering 
how  many  there  are,  who  are  very  watchful  to  improve  every  Accident 
to  the  Difturbance  of  the  Government,  and  to  unfetile  mens  minds  I 
cannot  forbear  giving  you  my  Thoughts  about  it ;  tho'  my  tender  re- 
gard for  the  Perfon  concerned,  would  have  made  me  filent  at  any  other 
time. 

I  can  eafily  apprehend  feveral  Reafons  which  might  move  Wife  and 
Good  men,  where  there  are  no  greater  and  more  prefling  Obligations  to 
the  contrary,  rather  to  chule  an  Ecclefiaftical  Preferment  void  by  Death 
or  Ceffioa  than  by  Deprivation;  but  our  prefent  Circumflances are  fuch 
as  ought  to  over-rule  all  Niceties ;  the  mifchiefs  of  fueh  a  Refufal  being 
fo  intolerable,  as  nothing  can  excufe,  muchlefs  juftifie  it,  but  the  abfo- 
lutcunlawfulnefs  of  fucceeding  in  fuch  Preferments,  while  tjie  Deprived 
Bilhop  lives ;  which  would  be  very  odd  for  them  to  pretend,  who  have 
fubmitted  to  the  prefcnt  Government.  To  fatisfie  you  in  this  matter  I 
Ihall  briefly  confider  the  firft  fort  of  Reafons,  and  fiiew  that  they  are  no 
Reafons  in  our  Circumftances ;  and  then  examine  the  Lawfuinefs  of  the 
thing  it  felf. 

As  for  the  firft.  It  may  fo  happen,  that  the  perfon  Deprived,  and  the 
perlon  to  be  Promoted,  have  been  old  and  intimate  Friends  ,•  and  this  may 
grate  hard  upon  the  perfon  to  be  Promoted,  to  fucceed  in  the  Chair  of ' 
one  whom  he  loves,  whofe  Misfortune  he  pities;  whom  he  greatly  va- 
lues for  his  other  many  Good  Qualities':  Now  if  to  refufe  fuch  a  Prefer- 
ment, would  keep  my  Friend  poflefled  of  it,  there  were  fome  fenfe  in 
ihis;  but  I  know  no  other  cafe,  wherein 'tis  thought  a  Breach  of  Friend- 
Ihip  to  fucceed  a  Friend  in  a  Preferment  which  he  has  loft,  and  which  the 
Law  fays,  is  not,  and  (hall  not  be  his;  when  there  is  nofufpicion  of  foul 
play  in  fupplanting  him,  any  more  than  to  fucceed  a  dead  Friend;  Friend- 
ihip  15  (o  far  from  being  any  Reafon  againft  it,  that  it  /hould  make  it  de- 

firable 


^6o  Their  Majejlies  Authority  Vindicated 

firable  to  both  ;  to  one,  That  his  Friend  may  get  what  he  has  loft;  to 
the  other,  That  he  may  have  opportunity,  if  there  be  occafion  for  k,  to 
make  hisVriends  Misfortune  more  eafie,  than  a  Stranger  would  do. 

And  if  Friendihip  be  no  Objedbion,  What  Ihould  hinder  any  Man  from 
taking  a  Preferment,  which  another  is  legally  deprived  of?  for  I  muft 
take  the  Legality  of  it  for  granted  now,  and  argue  upon  that  Suppofition. 
We  muft  not  take  away  what  is  another's ;  but  furely  what  is  not  his, 
we  may  accept  from  thofe  who  have  Power  to  give  it.  If  one  may- 
give,  the  other  may  receive  ;  for  let  the  Objediion  be  what  it  will, 
it  lie's  as  much  againft  the  Giver  as  the  Receiver.  They  who  have  loft 
it,  wnnt  It ;  And  what  then  ?  fo  d6  a  great  many  Men  what  is  not  theirs, 
what  they  never  had,  as  well  as  what  they  have  loft  :  And  muft  no  Man 
take  a  Preferment  in  Church  or  State  which  another  wants?  Muft  the 
good  Order  and  Government  of  Church  and  State  be  facrificed  to  the 
Wants  and  Misfortunes  of  private  Men  ? 

But  there  is  a  more  material  Confideration,  which  may  inBuence  pru- 
dent and  cautious  Men,  who  are  well  preferred  already.  The  Experi- 
ence of  the  Revolution  in  1660  hath  taught  them,  how  dangerous  it 
may  be  in  cafe  fuch  a  Revolution  fhould  happen,  to  change  their  old  Pre- 
ferments for  new  ones,  which  may  be  challenged  again  by  their  old  Pro- 
prietors. But  in  our  Cafe  there  is  the  lead  to  be  (aid  for  this  Cautioo, 
that  can  poflibly  be  in  any  Revolution ;  for  it  is  as  vain  a  thing  to  hope  to 
lecureour  (elves  in  fuch  a  Revolution,  by  Prudence  and  Caution,  as  it  is 
for  a  Man  to  fortify  his  Houfe  againft  the  breaking  in  of  the  Sea :  If  he 
takecare  of  the  Banks,  and  keep  out  the  Sea,  hisHoufcjwill  efcape;  but  if 
the  Sea  break  in  upon  him,  he  muft  perifti  with  his  Neighbours.  If  there 
ever  be  fuch  a  Revolution  as  can  unfettle  what  this  hath  done,  God  be 
merciful  to  this  miferable  Nation  ;  the  prudent  and  the  cautious  Sinner, 
and  the  zealous  Defenders  of  the  prefent  Government,  will  fare  much  a- 
like:  Nay,  howeverthey  may  flatter  themfelves,  the  deprived Bifliops  will 
not  long  triumph  over  their  new  Succeflbrs. 

Thus  in  fome  Caies  it  may  be  a  good  Reafon  not  to  do  a  very  lawful 
and  innocent  thing,  if  it  be  greatly  miftaken  and  mifreprefented,  and 
give  a  general  Offence  and  Scandal :  But  when  it  appears,  that  there  is 
nothing  but  Miftake  and  Paflion,  and  private  Interelt,  or  ill  Defigns  on 
one  Side,  and  a  real  Scandal,  and  great  and  publick  Mifchief  on  the  o- 
ther  •  no  wife  Man  will  deliberate  long  which  fide  to  take  :  None  but 
the  Enemies  of  the  Government  can  take  offence  at  any  Man's  fucceed- 
ing  the  deprived  Bifhops ;  and  I  think  thofe  who  have  fubmitted  to  the 
Government,  and  fworn  Allegiance  to  their  prefent  Majefties,  ought  not 
to  be  concerned  at  that :  They  have  offended  thefe  Men  already,  and  are 
no  better  in  their  Opinion  than  Perjured  Rebels ;  and  all  that  they  can 
now  gain  by  humouring  them,  is  to  be  flattered,  and  to  be  laugh'd  at. 
They  may  tor  a  while  give  them  (bme  good  words,  as  our  DifTenters  did 
thofe  honeft  Men,  who,  as  they  thought,  conformed  againft  their  Con- 
fciences  ;  but  they  will  either  leoetly  abhor  them  as  Knaves,  for  fwea» 
ring  againft  their  Confciences,  or  deipife  them  as  Fools  for  refafing  Bi- 
Ihopricks.  And  this  is  no  very  good  Reafon  for  a  wife  Man  to  court 
their  Favour. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  what  an  unpardonable  Scandal  does  fuch  a  Re- 
fufal  give,  both  to  the  Enemies,  and  to  the  Friends  of  the  Government, 
and  to  the  Government  it  felf  ? 

What- 


in  filing  the  Vacant  Sees,  ^6i 

Whatever  may  be  pretended,  the  World  will  not  believe  that  Dodor 

B refufed  a  Bifhoprick,  but  either  out  of  Fear  or  Confcience :  The 

firfl  calls  in  queftion  the  Stability  or  Continuance  of  the  prefent  Govern- 
ment ;  the  fecond  the  Authority  of  it.  Now  this  confirms  the  Enemies  of 
the  Government  in  their  Opinion  of  the  uniawfulnefs  to  fubmit  to  it,  and 
encourages  them  to  attempt  its  overthrow;  it  weakens  the  Hands  of 
Friends,  and  makes  them  cautious  of  embarking  in  a  finking  Intercft,  and 
fills  them  with  new  Jealoufies  of  the  lawfulnefs  of  it ;  and  what  juft  of- 
fence this  mull  give  to  the  Government,  I  need  not  fay. 

The  truth  is,  were  I  not  better  perfwaded  of  the  good  Inclinations  of 
their  Majefties  to  the  Church  of  England,  and  the  general  Inclination  of 
the  Nation  to  fupport  the  Government,  I  fhould  dread  what  might  be  the 
fatal  Confcquence  of  fuch  a  mifcarriage  as  this  both  to  Church  and  State. 

There  are  always  too  many,  who  are  glad  of  fuch  an  opportunity  to 
reproach  the  Church,  and  to  poflefs  their  Majeflies  with  an  ill  Opinion  of 
the  Clergy,  notwithftanding  their  Oaths  of  Allegiance  5  and  I  confefs 
this  gives  too  great  an  Advantage  to  fuch  Mifreprelentations,  were  not 
the  Zeal  and  good  Affection  of  wiler  Men  too  well  known  to  be  fufpetiled ; 
and  then  I  hope  a  fingle  Inftanceof  Folly  can  do  no  great  hurt;  for  that 
is  the  fofie(\  Name  I  can  give  it,  on  which  fide  foever  I  view  it. 

This  plainly  proves,  that  fuppofing  it  lawful  to  have  taken  the  Bi- 
Ilioprick,  no  other  Confideration  whatfoevercanjuftifie  the  refufalin  our 
Circumfiances;  and  I  know  not  how  to  fuppole  that  Dr.  B  could 

think  it  unlawful. 

He  fubmitted  to  the  Government,  and  took  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  as 
early  as  any  Man ;  and  never,  that  I  heard,  had  the  leaft  fcruple  about  it; 
and  yet  this  was  the  time  to  have  been  Scrupulous,  if  he  would  have  been 
lb;  for  it  feems  a  little  of  the  lateft,  when  he  is  become  a  fworn  Subje<9: 
to  King  William  and  Queen  Mary,  to  queftion  their  Authority  to  make  a 
Biftiop.  And  if  the  former  Bilhops  were  Deprived,  and  New  Bifhops 
made,  by  fiich  an  Authority  as  he  can  fwear  Allegiance  to,  I  cannot  un- 
derfland,  that  it  can  be  unlawful  to  accept  a  Bifhoprick  from  the  Hands  of 
thofe  whom  he  owns,  by  his  fwearing  Allegiance  to  them,  to  have  Autho- 
rity to  give  it ;  for  this  is  an  Authority  which  belongs  to  the  Imperial 
Crown  of  England. 

Befides  this,  Dr.  E was  one  of  thofe,  who  by  Commiflion  from  the 

Dean  and  Ch^^ier  oi  Canterbury ^h^ih  exercifed  Archi-Epifcopal  Authority, 
during  the  Vacancy  of  the  See,  by  the  deprivation  of  the  A.  B.  as  it  is  ex- 
prefled  in  the  Qommiffion ;  and  I  take  this  to  be  altogether  as  unlawful 
(if  either  of  them  were  unlawful)  to  feife  upon  the  Authority  of  the  A.  B. 
upon  the  Account  of  his  deprivation,  as  to  take  the  Charad:cr,  and  cxer- 
cife  the  Authority  of  a  Bifhop  in  the  See  of  a  deprived  Bifhop.  To  receive 
the  Confecration  of  a  Bifliop,  I  fuppofe,  is  not  the  thing  he  accounts  un- 
lawful, nor  to  exercife  the  Authority  of  a  Bifliop;  and  then  there  is  no- 
thing he  can  think  unlawful,  but  to  exercife  the  Authority  of  a  Bilhop  in 
the  See  of  a  deprived  Bifhop ;  and  then  it  feems  to  me  as  unlawful  for  a 
■  Presbyter  to  do  this,  as  for  a  Bifhop  to  do  it ;  unlefs  a  Pre?byter  may  do 
it  without  the  Revenues  of  the  Bifhoprick;  but  a  Bifliop  muft  not  do  it 
with  them  ;  but  this  can  be  no  Ecclefiaflical  Scruple,  as  fo  great  a  Cano- 
nift  muft  needs  know ;  for  if  the  Civil  Power  cannot  difpofe  of  (uch  Tem- 
poral Matters,  it  can  do  nothing. 

But  whatever  he  thought,  his  refufing  a  Bifhoprick  upon  great  delibe- 
ration, after  an  appearing  forwardnefs  to  take  it,  hath  tempted  People  to 

Gggggg  think, 


9^2  Their  Majesties  Authority  Vindicated 

think,  that  he  judges  it  unlawful;  and  to  let  him  fee  how  inconfiftent  this 
is  with  his  owning  the  prefent  Government,  and  his  exercifing  the  Archi- 
epifcopai  Authority,  I  iliall  explain  the  meaning  of  it  to  him,  .which,  I 
.      *       believe  he  never  thought  of.  / 

If  it  be  unlawful  to  fucceed  a  deprived  Bifliop,  then  he  is  the  BiOiop  of 
the  Diocefs  flill ;  and  then  the  Law  that  deprives  him  is  no  Law,  and  con- 
fequently  the  King  and  Parliament,  that  made  that  Law,  no  King  nor  Par- 
liament; and  how  can  this  be  reconciled  with  the  Oath  of  Allegiance, 
unlefs  the  Dodor  can  fwear  Allegiance  to  him,  who  is  no  King,  and 
hath  no  Authority  to  govern  ? 

If  the  deprived  Biftiop  be  the  only  lawful  Bifliop,  then  the  People  and 
Clergy  of  his  Diocefs  are  bound  to  own  him  and  no  other;  then  all  Bi- 
ihops,  who  own  the  Authority  of  a  new  Arch-bilhop,  and  Hve  in  Commu- 
nion with  him,  are  Schifmaticks;  and  tiie  Clergy,  who  live  inComrbuni- 
on  withSchifmatical  Biftops,  are  Schifmaticks  therafelves;  and  the  whole 
Church  of  England  now  eftabliflied  by  Law  is  Schifmarical,  and  Dodtor 

£ himfelf  a  Schifmatick,  if  he  communicate  with  ir.     And  thus  we 

have  no  Church,  or  only  a  Schifmatical  Church,  as  well  as  no  King;  and 

all  that  Dr.  B- •  has  got  by  refufing  a  BiOioprick,  is  to  prove  himleif 

a  Schifmatick,  if  he  live  in  Communion  ;  or  to  make  a  Schifm,  if  he  fe- 
parate  from  it. 

Now  will  the  Dodor  fay  this  ?  ot  if  he  dare  not  fay  it,  will  he  dare  to 
think  it?  and  yet  if  the  deprived  Bilhops,  though  they  retain  their  Epifcp- 
pal  Charader,  have  no  Authority  or  Jurifdidion  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land^ then  it  muft  be  lawful  for  other  Bilhops  to  exercife  that  Authority, 
which  they  have  loft;  and  to  fucceed  in  the  Government  of  fuch  vacant 
Sees,  unlefs  fuch  Churches  muft  be  deprived  of  the  Epifcopal  Authority, 
while  their  deprived  Bilhops  live. 

And  this  brings  me  to  confidcr  the  lawfulnefs  of  the  thing  it  fdf,  which 
is  fo  evident  when  fet  in  a  clear  light,  that  it  will  admit  of  no  d;fpute 
with  Men  of  Senfe. 

In  a  late  Letter  faid  to  be  fent  to  Dodor  B and  now  printed  on 

the  Backfideof  a  Icandalous  Rhyming  Libel  upon  his  Sermon  of  Reflituti- 
on,  he  is  threatned  in  cafe  he  ihould  accept  the  Bifhoprick,  with  the  Fate 
of  thofe  Ecclefialiical  Schifmatical  Vfurpers^  Gregory  and  George  c/Cappa- 
docia,  voho  mjuflly  invaded  the  See  of  Alexandria  upon  the  depojing  of  Atha- 
nafius  the  Orthodox  Bijhop  there.  What  effed  this  might  have  on  Dr.fi — 
1  know  not ;  but  thofe  who  have  u(ed  themlelves  to  good  Senfe ^  as  well  as 
to  ancient  Canons,  eafily  perceive  a  vaft  difference  between  thefe  two 
Cafes,  as  will  prefently  appear.  But  to  reprefcnc  this  matter  plainly  and 
eafily,  1  (hall  briefly  ftate  the  Cafe,  and  that  I  believe  will  fatisfie  under- 
ftanding  Men,  without  difputing. 

1.  Firft  then  in  a  Chriftian  Nation  and  Goverriment,  the  Church  is  in- 
corporated into  the  State,  and  the  Soveraign  Power  has  a  Supremacy  in  all 
'  EcdefiafticalCaufes.  To  deny  this,  is  eitiier  Popery  or  Fanaticifm :  It  is 
plain,  the  Reformation  of  this  Church  was  tounded  on  this  Principle;  and 
it  is  the  conrtant  Dodrine  of  our  Articles,  Homilies,  and  Canons,  and  they 
are  our  Rule  confidered  as  Memberspt  the  Church  of  England. 

z.  This  Supremacy,  though  it  do  not  extend  to  the  adminiftration  of 
Holy  Offices  or  Church  Cenfures,  yet  it  reaches  the  Perfons  and  external 
Jurifdidlion  of  Bilhops  and  the  other  Clerg\ ,  and  the  Regulating  and  Or- 
dering the  Externals  of  Religion:  As  the  making  and  depofing  Bifliops, 
when  there  is  juft  caufe  for  it,  belongs  to  the  Supremacy ;  which  Autho- 
rity 


I  —  ,..  -    ,  ^ 

in  filling  the  Vacant  Sees^  ^6^ 


rity  was  exercifed  by  the  Jewi^  Kings  over  the  High  Priefl:  himfelf :  and 
to  refolve  all  this  into  a  meer  Ecclefiaftical  Authoritv,  is  to  fer  up  a  Pope, 
or  a  Presbytery,  or  a  National  Synod,  above  the  Supream  Power  •  and 
We  may  as  well  fay  at  this  day,  that  the  Supream  Power  has  no  Autho- 
rity to  make  a  Bifliop,  becaufeby  the  ancient  Canons  and  Prat^iceof  the 
Church,  a  Bifliop  ought  to  be  freely  and  canonically  eleded  by  the  other 
Bifliopsof  the  Province,  or  by  the  Clergy  and  People  of  the  Diocefs;  as 
that  itcannotdepofea  Bifhop  from  the  exercife  of  his  Epifcopal  Authori- 
ty within  their  Dominions,  without  a  Synod  or  Council. 

3.  When  a  Church  is  incorporated  into  the  State,  an  offence  againft 
the  State  is  a  juft  reafon  to  depofe  a  Bifliop  from  the  exercife  of  his  Epif- 
copal Authority  in  fuch  a  State  :  Efpeciaily  if  fuch  Bifliop  or  Biftiops 
wholly  difown  the  Authority  and  Government  of  the  State,  and  refufe  to 
fubmit  to  it :  The  denial  of  the  King's  Supremacy  in  Ecclefiallical  Caufes 
was  thought  a  good  Reafon  to  depofe  Bifliops;  and  to  deny  their  Civi{ 
Authority,  is  fomewhat  more  than  that.  This  is  as  certain  and  evident, 
as  that  the  Church  is  and  muft  be  Incorporated  into  the  State;  for  if  Bi- 
fliops,  who  oppofe  and  difown  the  Authority  of  the  State,  muft  not  be 
depofed  from  the  Exercife  of  their  Authority  in  fuch  a  State,  then  the 
Church  mufl  be  divided  from  the  State,  and  be  independent  on  it;  fuch 
Men  may  be  Bifliopsof  the  Church  who  are  no  Subjeds  of  tht  State- 
which  is  a  contradidlion  to  the  very  Notion  of  a  Church  incorporated  with 
the  State. 

4.  And  therefore  we  muft  diftinguifli  between  an  Ecelefiaftical  and  Ca- 
nonical depofitlon  of  a  Bifliop  forHerefie,  or  other  Ecelefiaftical  Crimes ; 
and  a  State- deprivation.  The  fir  ft  concerns  the  Charadlcr,  and  Ecelefi- 
aftical Communion ;  it  is  the  Cenfure  of  the  Church,  which  concerns  him 
as  a  Bifliop;  and  when  it  is  ratified  and  confirmed  not  only  by  a  Provin- 
cial or  National  Synod,  but  by  a  General  Council,  fuch  a  depofed  Bifliop 
is  no  longer  a  Bilhop  of  the  Catholick  Church,  and  no  Chriftian  muft 
Communicate  with  him  as  a  Bifliop :  But  a  State-deprivation  does  not 
concern  the  Character;  fuch  a  Man  may  be  a  Bifliop  of  the  Catholick 
Church  ftill,  if  he  do  not  fall  under  Church-Cenfures,  for  Herefieor  other 
Crimes ;  but  it  only  concerns  the  Exercife  of  his  Epifcopal  Authority  in 
any  Diocefs  within  the  Dominions  of  that  State,  or  enjoying  any  Ec- 
elefiaftical Benefice  in  it.  And  if  we  will  not  allow  the  Supreme  Power 
of  a  Nation  to  judge,  who  Ihall  be  Bifliops  in  their  Dominions,  and  en- 
joy the  Revenues  of  the  Church,  which  are  the  Gift  ofthe  State,  you  leave 
the  Supream  Power  no  Authority  or  Jurifdidiion  over  Ecelefiaftical 
Perfons. 

5.  And  this  makes  a  great  difference  between  fucceeding  an  Orthodox 
Bifhop  uncanonically  depofed,  and  fucceeding  an  Orthodox  Bilhop  depri- 
ved by  an  Ad;  of  State.  If  a  Bifhop  be  depofed  by  an  Heretical  Synod 
upon  falfe  fuggeftions,  and  publickly  known  to  be  falfeand  malicious, 
and  be  own'd  and  acquitted  by  a  Council  of  Orthodox  Bifliops,  it  is  Ufur- 
pation  to  invade  his  See,  a  breach  of  Catholick  Communion^  and  a  Schifm 
in  the  Catholick  Churchy  which  was  the  Cafe  of  Athanafius  and  George  of 
Cappadocia,  whofucceeded  him  :  But  if  a  Bifliop  otherwife  Orthodox,  is 
gu:lty  of  fuch  an  Offence  againft  the  State,  that  he  is  deprived  of  the 
Exercife  of  his  Epifcopal  Office,  neither  the  faith  nor  the  Communio»o( 
ibe  Church  is  concerned  in  it,  but  only  the  Authority  of  the  State,  which 
obliges  both  ihe  Clergy  and  the  Laity  in  fuch  cafes;  and  when  neither 
the  C<itholick  faith  nor  Catholick  Communion  are  concern'd,  it  can  be  no 

G  g  g  g  g  g  *  Ecclefi- 


9^4-         "^^^^^  Mtijefties  Authority  Vindicated 

Ecclefiaftlcal  Offence  to  fucceed  in  fucha  Biflioprick,  but  a  due  fubminion 
and  compliance  with  that  Authority,  to  which  the  Church  in  a  Chriftian 
Nation  ought  to  be  fubjed:. 

The  reafon  why  thefe  Matters  are  not  fo  accurately  diftinguiflied  by 
fome  Men,  is  becaufe  they  were  not  at  firfl:  diftinguiflied  when  the  Em- 
pire became  Chriftian,  and  the  Church  was  at  firft  Incorporated  into  the 
State,  The  Zeal  of  the  Chriilian  Emperors  for  the  Service  of  the  Church, 
and  that  great  Opinion  which  at  that  time  they  defervedly  had  of  the  Pie- 
ty and  Prudence  of  the  Governours  of  the  Church,  made  them  leave  the 
Government  of  the  Church  in  the  fame  ftate  they  found  it  in,  when  the 
Church  was  a  diftin(5l:  Society  from  the  St^te  ;  and  in  confequenccof  this, 
they  referved  all  Caufes  relating  to  Bifliops  to  the  Cognizance  of  their  owa 
Synods,  without  diftinguilliing  between  Offences  againllthe  State,  which 
properly  belong  to  a  Civil  Cognizance,  and  thofe  which  were  of  a  pure  Ec- 
clefiaOical  Nature.  This  foon  created  great  trouble  to  Princes,  and  by 
degrees  grew  into  the  Omnipotent  Power  of  the  Bifliop  of  Romey  which 
domineered  over  Emperors  themfelves,  and  let  the  Church  above  the 
State. 

The  Reformation  of  our  Church  began  with  the  Reformation  of  this 
Abufeand  Church-Ufurpation,  and  reftored  our  Princes  to  that  Suprema- 
cy, which  both  the  Laws  of  God  and  the  reafon  and  nature  of  Soyereign 
Power  gives  them  over  all  Perfons,  in  all  Caufes,  as  well  Ecclefiafiical  as 
Civil :  And  now  an  Offence  againft  the  State,  is  as  juft  a  Reafon  for  a 
State-Deprivation  by  the  fole  Authority  of  the  State,  without  the  Au- 
thority of  Synods  or  Councils ;  as  Herefie  and  Schifm,  and  other  Crimes 
are  of  Ecclefiaftical  Cenfures, 

This  Authority,  as  I  obferved  before,  the  Jewifti  Kings  exercifed  even 
over  their  High-Priefts,  as  Solomon  depofed  Ahiathar  for  following  Adom 
nijah  to  make  him  King,  and  placed  Zadock  in  his  ftead ;  which  was  a 
pure  State-Qwarrel,  and  done  by  his  fole  Authority,  without  confulting 
the  Sanhedrim  in  it.  Thus  when  Judea  was  under  the  Government  of  the 
Romans,  they  changed  the  High-priefts  every  Year ;  tho'  by  the  Inftitu- 
tion  6fGod  it  was  for  Life;  and  this  in  our  Saviour's  Days,  who  never 
reproved  them  for  it,  nor  feparated  himfeif  or  his  Difciples  from  the  Com- 
munion of  fuch  Schifmatkal  V fur  ping  High-Priefts,  who  fucceeded  in 
the  places  of  their  living  Predecefiors  without  a  Canonical  Depofitioij. 
The  Grand  Signior  at  this  Day  makes  and  unmakes  the  Patriarch  of  Con- 
jlantinople  at  pleafure,  and  no  man  blames  the  Patriarch  who  fucceeds. 

Dr.  Sherlock  in  liis  Preface  to  the  Cafe  of  Allegiance,  took  notice  of 
this  as  matter  of  Fad,  without  enquiring  into  the  Reafons.  His  Anfwe- 
rer  had  nothing  to  return  to  it,  but  by  denying  the  legal  Authority  of  this 
Government;  which  is  juft  nothing  to  the  purpofe:  For  if  a  legal  Go- 
vernment, by  their  Authority  and  Supremacy,  can  depofe  Bilhops,  and 
promote  New  ones ;  then  all  their  Arguments  againft  fucceediag  in  the 
Sees  of  fuch  Biftiops  as  are  not  Canonically  depofed  by  an  Ecclefiaftical 
Authority,  are  utterly  loft;  and  befides  that,  if  this  Anfwer  be  good,  no 
man  ought  to  queftion  thefe  new  Promotions,  who  owns  the  Authority 
of  the  prefent  Government. 

The  Truth  is,  the  fame  Objedtions  which  are  now  made  againft  the 
Promotion  of  thefe  new  Bifliops,  arc  equally  ftrong,  and  as  eagerly  urg'd 
at  this  Day  by  the  Papifts  againft  our  firft  Reformers :  For  they  were 
promok  ,d  to  Bidiopricks  while  the  former  Popifli  Bifliops  were  hving, 
and  noi  Canonically  depofed  by  any  Ad  of  the  Churchy  but  only  by  the 

Authority 


in  filling  the  Vacant  Sees.  ^^5 


Authority  of  the  State-,  and  their  denying  the  Supremacy  of  the  King, 
wasone,  and  none  of  the  leafl;  of  thofeDoi^rines,  which  they  were  depo- 
fed  for  ;  and  yet  that  only  reje<as  the  King's  Ecclefiaftical  Authority  ; 
and  therefore  as  it  js  only  an  IPFifencc  againft  the  State,  fo  it  is  a  much 
lefs  Oilence,  than  utterly  to  r^ounce  their  Authority  in  Civil  and  Eccle- 
fiaftieal  Caufes,  as  our  deprived  Biftiops  now  do.  \. 

1  (hall  not  need  to  enlarge  on  thcfe  things,  which  are  plain  and  obvi- 
ous at  the  firft  Propofal;  It  you  have  any  opportunity  of  feeing  Dr.  B — , 
defire  him  toconfider  again  of  it;  and  though  he  may  repent  toolate 
to  do  himfelf  any  good,  yet  if  he  dilcover  hismiftake,  common  Juftice 
to  the  Government,  under  whofe  Protection  he  lives,  and  to  Their  Ma- 
jefties,  to  whom  he  has  fworn  Allegiance,  -and  who  had  placed  fuch  a 
Mark  of  Favour  and  Honour  on  him,  had  he  known  how  to  value  it,  ob- 
liges him  publickly  to  own  his  Miftake,  which  is  the  only  lecompence 
he  can  now  make.    I  am,  . ,      ,  .     ^ 


.^  Sour  Humble  Servant. 


A  N 


■A 


^66 


ANSWER 

T  O     T  H  E 

PAPER 

Delivered 

By  Mr.  Af^ton  at  his  Execution  to  Sir  Francis  Chiic/,  Sheriff 
of  Lonc/on,  &c.    Together  with  the  Paper  it  fclf. 

Mr.  ASHTON's  Paper. 

Mr.  Sheriffj 

HA  VI NG  ohferved  that  the  Methods  of  making  Speeches  at  the 
place  of  Execution  was  not  always  attended  with  the  defined  Suc- 
cefs ;  and  thinking  it  better  to  imploy  my  lajl  Minuses  in  Devoti' 
on  and  Holy  Communion  with  my  God ;  /  have  prepared  this  Paper 
to  leave  in  your  Hands^  as  well  to  ajfert  my  Principles,  as  to  tedifie  my  In*o- 
cency.  As  to  my  Religion  J  profefs,  hy  God's  Grace ,  I  dye  in  the  Faith  into 
which  I  was  baptized,  that  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  whofe  Communion 
(nothing  doubting  of  my  Sjfvation  thro'  the  Merits  of  my  Saviottryi  have 
always  thought  my  felf  fafe  and  happy ;  according  to  her  Principles  and  late 
much  efleemed  DoHrines  (tho  now  unhappily  exploded^  I  have  regulated  my 
Life,  believing  my  felf  obliged  by  my  Religion  to  look  upon  my  rightful  lawful 
Prince  (whatever  his  Principles  were,  or  his  Pra^ifes  might  be)  as  God's 
Vicegerent,  and  accountable  t^if  guilty  of  Male- adminifi ration^  to  God  only, 
from  whom  he  received  his  Poiver ;  and  always  believing  it  to  be  contrary  to 
the  Laws  of  God,  the  Church,  and  the  Realm,  upon  any  pretence  whatfoever  to 
take  up  Arms  againfl  him,  and  let  all  the  World  take  notice,  i>t  this  Belief  I 
dye.  But  I  have  more  particular  Obligation  to  the  King  my  Mafier,  whom  I 
have  had  the  honour  to  ferve,  and  received  many  fignal  Favours  from  him^ 
for  fixteen  years  pajl,  fo  that  Gratitude  (a  thing  not  much  efleemed  at  this 
time)  as  well  as  Duty  and  Religion  commanded  the  utmofi  Service  I  could  pay 
him',  and  when  I  add  thefe  Confiderations,  that  we  were  born  his  Liege-Sub' 
je^s,  that  we  have  Jolemnly  pro/ejfed  our  Allegiance,  and  often  confrmed  it 
with  Oaths,  That  his  Majefly's  Vfage  after  the  Prince  of  Orange's  arrival 
tviii  very  hard,  fever  e,  (^and  if  I  may  fo  fay)  Vnjufl  ,•  and  that  all  the  new 
Methods  of  fettling  this  Nation  have  hitherto  made  it  more  miferable,  poor, 
and  more  expofed  to  Foreign  Enemies  ;  and  the  Religion  we  pretend  to  be  fo 
fond  of  prejerving,  now  much  more  than  ever  likely  to  be  deflroyedi  There 
feemi  to  me  no  way  to  prevent  the  Impending  Evils,  and  fave  thefe  Nations 
from  poverty  and  defiruftion,  but  the  Calling  home  oar  Tfured  Sovereign,  who 

at 


Mr.  AJkon\  Paper.  ^^7 


iu  a  true  Father  of  kis  Country  has  (^notmthjlanding  all  hu  Provocations  and 
Injuries)  a  natural  love  and  tenJernefs  for  all  his  SahjeSls  ;  and  I  am  fa  jar 
from  repining  at  the  lofs  of  my  life,  that  had  I  ten  thoufand  I  fhould  thinkmy 
felf  obliged  to  facrifice  them  all  rather  than  omit  any  jujl  and  honelt  means  to 
promote  fo  good  and  neceffary  a  work ;  and  I  advife  and  defire  all  my  fellow 
Suhjeih  to  think  of  their  Duty  and  return  to  their  Allegiance,  before  the  fe- 
vere  Judgment  of  God  overtake  them,  for  their  Perjury  and  Rebellion^  but 
certainly  the  Good  and  Interefl  of  thefe  Nations,  abfi railed  from  all  other 
Confiderations,  voill  ere  long  convince  them  of  the  neceffjty  of  doing  it. 

Having  thiis  frankly  declared  my  Principles,  I  know  the  Inference  will  be, 
that  Ihave  a^ed  accordingly.^  and  confequently,  that  I  am  n  w  jujlly  condem- 
ned; but  as  I  inger.uottjly  own  the  Premifes,  fo  I  pofitively  deny  the  Con- 
fequence  -,  for  whatever  my  Inclinations  or  AHions  have  been,  yet,  as  to  the 
Matter  I  was  fenlenced  to  dye  for,  I  declare  my  jelf  innocent,  and  wilt  appeal 
even  to  the  Judges  themfelves,  whether  or  no,  upon  my  Tryal,  there  appeared 
the  leafl  proof  that  I  knew  a  tittle  contained  in  the  Papers,  but  Prefumption 
was,  with  rije  fury,  thought  f undent  to  find  me  guilty,  tho  I  am  told,  lam  the 
firfl  Man  that  ever  was  condemned  for  High  Treafon  upon  bare  Sufpicion  or  Pre- 
fumption^and  that  contrary  to  my  L.  CokeV  and  other  eminent  Lawyers  Opi- 
nions. The  knowledge  of  my  own  Inmcency,  as  to  the  Indictment  and  Charge  <i- 
gainfi  me,  was,  that  that  armed  me  with  fo  much  affurance,  and  occafjoned  my 
calling  my  Life  upon  the  firfi  Twelve  Men  of  the  Panne  I  without  challenging 
any.  But  tho  Ihave,  Ithink,jufl  reafon  to  complain  of  the  fevere  Charge  given 
hy  the  Judges,  and  hard  meafure  I  have  received,  not  to  mention  my  clofe  Im- 
prifonment,  tie  hafiy  and  violent  Proceedings  agai»fi  me,  nor  the  Induflry  ufed 
in  the  Return  of  fitting  Peifons  to  pafs  upon  me,  the  denying  me  a  Copy  of  the 
Pannet.  &c.  Tet,  as  I  hope  for  pardon  and  forgivenefs  at  the  hands  of  my  Gody 
fo  do  I  mofl  heartily  pray  for,  »nd forgive  them,  and  all  my  Enemies,  all  the 
World,  nay  even  that  Judge  and  Jury  man  who  did  fo  fignally  {contrary  to 
common  Jufl ice)  expofe  themfelves  to  deflroy  me.  But  let  the  Will  of  God  he 
done :  I  rely  wholly  upon  tm  Mercy  and  the  Merits  of  my  bleffed  S-iviour  for 
Salvation,  I  do  chearfutty  and  entirely  refign  my  f el]  into  his  Hands,  as  into 
the  Hands  of  a  faithful  Creator,  in  fure  and  certain  hopes  of  a  happy  Refur- 
reSion.  Blefs,  proteEl,  and  firengthen,  0  Lord  God.  my  good  and  gracious 
King  and  Mafter ;  in  thy  due  time  let  the  Virtue,  Goodnefs  and  Innocency  of 
the  Queen,  my  Miflrefs,  make  all  t^er  Enemies  blufh,  and filence  the  wick- 
ed and unjufl  Calumnies  that  Malice  and  Envy  have  raifed  againfl  her;  make 
her  and  thefe  Nations  happy  in  the  Prince  0/ Wales,  whom  from  unanfwerable 
and  undoubted  Proofs  I  know  to  be  her  Son ;  reft  ore  them  all  when  thou  feefl 
fit  to  tloeir  jufl  Rights,  and  on  fuch  a  Bottom  as  may  fupport  and  eflablifhthe 
Church  of  England,  and  once  more  make  her  flourifh,  notwithflanding  the 
Wounds  fhe  hath  received  of  late  from  her  prevaricating  Sons. 

Forgive,  forgive,  0  Lord,  all  my  Enemies,  blefs  all  my  Friends,  comfort 
and  fupport  my  dear  affli£led  Wife,  and  poor  Bales,  be  thou  a  Husband  and  a 
Father  to  them ;  for  their  fakes  only  I  could  have  wifhed  to  live ;  But  par  dot* 
ihatWifh,  0  good  God.,  and  take  mj  Soul  into  thy  everlafiingGlory.  Amen. 

Jn"  Ashton. 


The 


5)68 


>\  •.'. 


The   ANSWER. 

TH  E  Paper  which  pafleth  under  the  Name  of  Mr.  Afljtons 
SPEECH  feems  to  tne  to  be  compofed  with  too  much  Art 
and  Care  to  be  the  Work  of  one  who  profefleth,  he  thought  it 
better  to  employ  his  lafi  minutes  in  Devotion:  And  if  he  v/zs  fo 
illiterate  and  unskilled  in  the  Law,  as  he  laid  at  his  Tryal,  Fol.  m.  one 
may  juftly  wonder  not  only  at  fuch  Terms  as  Impending,  Prevaricating^ 
Premifes,  and  Confequence,  &c.  but  at  fuch  a  peremptory  Judgment  as 
he  gives  about  the  Laws  of  the  Realm,  in  a  Cafe  that  muft  be  acknow- 
ledged by  all  ingenious  men  of  his  own  Party  to  have  a  great  deal  of 
Difficulty  in  it. 

But  there  are  fome  Men  who  think  to  bear  down  all  others  by  their 
Confidence,  and  would  have  it  taken  for  granted  that  the  whole  Nation 
(themfelves  excepted)  is  under  the  guilt  of  Perjury  and  Relellion. 

Thefe  are  the  modeft  Terms  in  this  Speech,  which  at  lead  do  not  be- 
come the  Charity  of  one  juft  going  out  of  the  World .  Therefore  I  ra- 
ther believe  it  to  be  drawn  up  by  fome  Perfons  of  more  Art  and  Leifure  j 
who  thought  it  bed  to  convey  their  own  Sentiments  (as  they  call  them) 
under  the  more  popular  Name  of  one  who  fuffered  for  their  Caufe. 

But  the  Weight  of  what  is  faid  doth  not  depend  on  the  Perfon,  and 
therefore  I  Ihall  calmly  and  impartially  confidcr  the  Things  themfelves, 
and  (hew  how  unjuft  and  unreafonable  the  Infinuationsare  which  refpedt 
the  prcfent  Government,  and  all  fuch  who  ad:  in  Obedience  to  it. 

There  are  two  Things  this  Paper  is  faid  to  be  defign'd  for,  toaffert  his 
Principles,  and  to  teftify  his  Innocencyi  For  his  Principles  he  profeffeth,  that 
he  dyes  in  the  Faith  and  Communion  of  the  Church  of  England.  And  he 
might  have  lived  longer  in  both  if  he  had  pleafed ,  for  I  cannot  fee  how 
the  Faith  and  Communion  of  the  Church  of  England  ohW^td  him  to  do  that 
for  which  he  fuffered  :  But,  by  the  Faith  of  the  Church  of  England  he 
means  the  Do^rine  of  Paffive  Obedience.  Be  it  fo :  however  he  luffered 
not  for  his  Pajftve  Obedience,  but  for  the  want  of  it :  If  he  had  regulated 
his  Life  hy  this  Principle,  he  had  preferved  it ;  yet  he  laith  he  did  fo,  and 
dyed  for  it.  There  muft  be  certainly  then  fome  great  Miftake  about  the 
Do^rines  and  Principles  of  our  Church,  I  always  thought  thofe  are  to  be 
found  in  the  Articles  and  Conjlitutions  of  ir.  W  hich  of  thele  did  he  fuffer  for  ? 

They  are,  he  faith,  her  Principles  and  late  much  efteemed  Doctrines  thd 
MOW  unhappily  exploded.  I  know  of  no  Doctrines  or  Principles  of  the  Church 
of  England  which  are  exploded  among  us  ;  and  therefore  this  is  unhappily 
infiited  on  by  a  dying  Man,  unlefs  he  had  given  fome  Proof  of  it. 

Well ;  but  he  believed  himfelf  obliged  by  his  Religion  to  look  upon 
his  Rightful,  Lawful  Prince  {whatever his  Principles  were,  or  hisPra^ices 
might  be^  as  God  s  Vicegerent,  and  accountable  to  God  only,  from  whom  he 
received  his  Power.  AH  this  he  might  have  done,  and  have  been  alive 
fiill;  for  the  Matter  in  difpute  is  not  whether  Rightful,  Lawful  Kings  are 
to  be  obeyed,  but  who  incur  prefentCircumdances  is  our  Rightlul,  Law- 
ful Sovereign  ;  not  whether  Kings  be  not  God  s  Vicegerents,  but  whether 
God  doth  not  fometimes  confer  the  Right  of  Sovereignty  by  a  Law  fupe- 
riour  to  the  Laws  oi particular  Countries,  that  is  by  the  Law  of  J^ations, 
which  eftablifheth  fuch  a  Right  upon  thsfuccefs  of  a  jull  War;  not  whe- 
ther Sovereign  Princes  are  not  accountable  only  to  God^  but  .whether  Alle- 
giance 


An  Anjwer  to  Air.  AiiitonV  Vaper.  ^6^ 


giance  be  not  due  where  the  Rights  of  Sovereignty  are  placed,  hy  an 
extraordinary  AB  of  'Providence  and  tlie  concurrent  Confent  of  the  l^atlort. 
But  he  goes  on  ;  And  always  helieving  it  to  he  contrary  to  the  Laws  of  Gody 
the  Church  and  the  Realm^  upon  any  Pretence  whatfoever  to  take  up  Arms 
againji  him,  and  let  all  the  IVorld  take  notice  in  this  Belief  I  dye.  I  had 
much  rather  have  taken  notice  that  in  this  Belief  he  lived;  for  I  fee  no 
Reafon  of  his  dying  for  it.  For,  why  muft  a  Man  be  faid  to  die  for  not 
taking  up  Arms,  who  was  Condemned  to  die  for  a  Defign  juft  contrary, 
viz.  for  the  fubverting  the  prefent  Government  by  Domeftick  Infurredli- 
ons  and  Foreign  Power  ? 

So  that  the  Qiieftion  is  not  about  Pafive  Ohedience,  but  to  whom  it  is 
due ;  I  grant  that  the  Laws  of  God  and  of  the  Realm  are  td  determine  the 
Meafures  of  our  Obedience ;  but  here  lies  the  only  Point,  whether  the 
Rights  of  Sovereignty  may  not  be  transferred  by  the  fuccefs  of  a  juft  War 
and  the  Confent  of  the  People :  For  if  they  may,  then  according  to  his 
own  Principles  he  fuffered  juflly.  And  if  the  Directors  of  his  Corifcience 
did  not  fpeak  to  this  Point,  they  led  him  into  a  dangerous  Error,  and 
have  been  too  much  the  Occafion  of  his  fufTering. 

Therefore  to  clear  this  whole  Matter,  and  to  prevent  the  like  Miftake$ 
in  others;  I  fliall  endeavour  to  ftate  the  prefent  Cafe  of  our  Government, 
fo  as  as  to  rtiew  both  that  it  is  our  Duty  to  fubmit  to  it,  and  that  no 
Principles  orDo^rines  of  the  Church  oi  England  ate  violated  thereby. 

To  do  this,  we  muft  of  neceflity  look  back  to  the  Occafions  of  this 
great  Revolution :  And  there  were  two  principal  Occafions  of  it. 

Firft,  Great  and  violent  Prefumptions  of  an  Injury  to  the  Right  of 
Succeffion. 

Secondly,  Too  great  Evidence  of  a  formed  Defign  to  fubvert  the  efta- 
blifhed  Religion  and  Civil  Liberties  of  the  Nation. 

Now  there  are  two  very  material  Queftions  which  arifefrom  hence. 

Firft,  Whether  thefe  were  the  jufi  Occafions  of  a  War  > 

Secondly,  Whether  upon  the  fuccefs  of  this  War  the  Rights  of  Sove- 
reignty were  duly  transferred? 

If  thefe  were  jufi  Occafions  of  a  War,  and  upon  the  Succefs  thereof  the 
Sovereignty  was  duly  transferred,  then  there  can  be  no  Difpute  left  to 
whom  our  Allegiance  is  due. 

It  is  taken  for  granted  by  all  who  underftand  thefe  Matters,  that  there 
is  a  Law  of  Ufature,  which  determines  the  Rights  and  Properties  of  particu- 
lar Nations  ;  and  that  all  private  Perfons  are  bound  to  fubmit  to  the  mu- 
nicipal Laws  of  thofe  Societies  for  their  Peace  and  Security :  So  there  are 
^  other  Laws  which  concern  thofe  Nations,  as  they  make  up  feveral  inde- 
pendent Governments  upon  each  other.  And  there  are  feveral  Rights  which 
belong  to  them  with  refped  to  one  another,  which  do  not  belong  to  pri- 
vate Perfons  as  they  live  in  fubje<9:ion  to  any  particular  Government. 

And  as  there  are  fuch  Rights,  fo  there  muft  be  a  juft  and  lawful  way  for 
Reparation  of  Injuries.  In  particular  Governments,  the  thing  is  plain  by 
eftablilhed  Laws  and  Courts  of  Judicature,  whofe  Sentence  is  Execined  by 
theCivil  Power ;  but  in  Separate  Nations  and  Independent  GovernmentSj 
although  there  be  Laws  by  confent  called  the  Law  of  Nations ;  yet  there 
is  no  commmon  Judicature  to  determine  of  Right  and  Wrong,  and  there- 
fore in  cafe  of  Injury  there  is  an  allowance  for  the  injured  Party  by  this 
Law  of  Nations  to  Right  himlelf  by  Force,  as  there  would  be  to  every 
particular  Perfon,  if  there  were  no  Laws  nor  Power  to  fee  them  executed. 
There  is  then  a  Right   in  every  Sovereign  and  Independent  Prince  to 

H  h  h  h  h  h  exercife 


^70  An  Anfvoer  to  Mr.  AlbtonV  Vaper. 


exercife  Force  againft  another  Prince,  who  detains  any  Right  from  him,  or 
doth  any  Injury  to  hini,  or  to  thofe  he  is  bound  to  defend. 

The  Quertion  then  comes  to  the  jF«/?  Occafiom  of  fuch  a  War,  and  here 
are  two  afligned. 

Firft,  great  and  violent  Prefumptions  of  an  Injury  to  the  Right  of  Suo- 
ceffion.    This  is  exp^efly  ijpentioned  and  infilled  on,  in  the  Declaration  of 

the  then  Prince  of  Orange  (our  prefent  King)  in  thefe  Words "  But 

*'  to  crown  all,  there  are  great  and  violent  Prefumptions  inducing  us  to 
"  believe  that  thofe  evil  Counfellors,  in  order  to  the  carrying  on  of  their 
"  ill  defigns,  and  to  the  gaining  to  thcmfelves  the  more  time,  for  the  ef- 
"  fed  ing  of  them,  for  the  encouraging  their  Complices,  and  for  the  dif- 
"  couraging  of  all  good  Subjeds,  hath  pubiilhed  that  the  Queen  hath 
"  brought  forth  a  Son ;  tho' there  have  appeared  both  during  the  Qpeen's 
"  pretended  Bignefs,  and  in  the  manner  in  which  the  Birth  was  managed, 
"  fo  many  juft  and  vifibic  grounds  of  Sufpicion,  that  not  only  we  our 
"  felves,  but  all  the  good  Subjedls  of  thefe  Kingdoms  do  vehemently 
"  fufped  that  the  pretended  Prince  of  Wales  was  not  born  of  the  Queen  t 
*'  and  it  is  notorioufly  known  to  all  the  World,  that  many  both  doubted 
*'  of  the  Queens  Bignefs  and  of  the  Birth  of  the  Child,  and  yet  there  was 
"  not  any  one  thing  done  to  fatisfie  them  and  to  put  an  end  to  all  Doubts. 
*'  And  finceour  Dearell  andmofteptirely  beloved  Confort,  the  Princefs, 
"  and  likewife  we  our  felves  have  fo  great  an  Intereft  in  this  matter,  and 
"  fuch  a  Right  as  all  the  World  knows  to  the  Succeflionto  the  Crown — 
*'  An^d  fince  the  Engli(h  Nation  hath  ever  tellified  a  moft  particular  Af- 
"  fedion  and  Efleem  both  to  our  Deareft  Confort  and  to  our  Selves;  We 
"  cannot  excufe  our  Selves  from  efpoufmg  their  Interefts  in  a  matter  of 
*'  fuch  high  Confequence,  and  from  contributing  all  that  lies  in  us,,  for 
"  maintainingboth  of  the  Proteflant  Religion,  and  of  the  Laws  andLiber- 
*'  ties  of  thofe  Kingdoms,  and  for  the  lecuringto  them  the  continual  En- 
''  joymentofall  their  jufl  Rights. 

Here  we  have  an  Hereditary  Right  to  the  Crown  aflerted  both  remo- 
ter in  HiiTifelfand  nearer  in  the  Qiieen,  who  wasunqueftionably  theneur, 
if  there  were  no  Heir  Male  :  It  was  poflible  this  Right  might  be  really  de- 
feated by  a  Prince  of  (Vales,  and  it  was  pofTibleit  might  be  pretended  to 
be  fo  when  it  was  not:  For  there  have  been  many  Inftancesin  Hiflory  of 
fuborned  and  fuppofititious  Princes,  and  therefore  there  was  reafon  that 
fufScient  Evidence  fhould  be  given  in  a  Cafe  of  fuch  Importance, 
and  which  was  under  fo  great  Sufpicion.  But  if  there  was  no  reafonable 
care  taken  to  prevent  or  remove  thefe  Sufpicions,  then  the  Parties  mofl 
concerned  have  a  Right  to  affert  their  own  Pretenfions  in  fuch  a  way  as 
the  Law  of  Nations  doth  allow. 

And  in  this  Cafe  no  private  Depofitions  or  confident  Affirmations  of 
fuch  as  are  Dependents  or  otherwife  liable  to  Sufpicion,  can  in  Reafon  be 
taken  for  fatisfadory  Evidence ;  for  let  any  one  confider  what  the  Lam 
of  Nations  have  thought  fitting  Evidence  in  a  Cafe  of  this  Nature,  and  he 
will  foon  fiad  how  very  much  fliort  fuch  proofs  are  of  what  the  Nature 

of  the  Thing  has  been  thought  to  require The  Civil  Law  is  very 

llrid  where  there  is  any  occafion  of  Sufpicion. 
^  _.  "  it  requires  notice  to  be  given  twice  a  Month  to  the  Parties  concerned 
^•»J*  '^-it  that  they  may  receive  full  faiisfa<3:ion.  That  the  Mother  is  to  be  kept 
"  in  a  Houfeby  it  felf :  That  thirty  Days  before  fhe  expeds  to  be  deli- 
*'  vered,  ihe  muft  give  notice  of  it  to  thofe  who  are  moft  concerned, 
"  that  they  may  fend  fuch  as  they  can  truft  to  be  prefent :  that  there 

"  ought 


An.  Anfwer  to  Mr  Alhton'j  Paper.  971 


2. 


"  ought  to  be  but  one  Door  where  (he  is  to  lie  in,  and  if  there  be  more, 
"  they  muft  be  done  up;  that  at  that  Door  there  are  to  be  Three  Men 
*fjand  Three  Women  and  Two  Afliftants :  That  all  Perfons  are  to  be 
"  fearcht  who  go  in,  efpecially  at  the  Labour,  at  which  time  there  muft 
"be  fufficient  Light  in  the  Room.  When  the  Child  is  born  it  ought  to 
*^  be  firft  fliewn  to  the  Parties  concerned,  and  great  care  is  taken  about 
•*  the  Perfons  in  whofc  Hands  he  is  put,  and  SatisfadJion  muft  be  given 
*'  from  time  to  time  that  it  is  the  fame  Child,  and  if  Satisfadtion  be  not 
^*., given  as  to  thefe  things,  the  Roman  Law  doth  not  allow  any  Rieht  of 
"  Poffeffion. 

Bv  the  Old  Common  Law  of  England^  in  cafe  of  Sufpicion,  a  Writ  of 
Infpediion  was  allowed,  the  Form  whereof  is  in  the  Books,  and  if  there  Bt^s.  \ 
were  any  doubt,  the  Woman  was  to  be  put  into  a  fafe  place,  where  no*^-?** 
Sufpicious  Perfons  were  to  come  near  her  till  (he  was  delivered.     This 
was  then  thought  fo  reafonable  a  thing,  that  the  Old  Law-Books  have  a  met  a.  i.r. 
Chapter  on  purpofe,  De  Paratu  Suppofito^  wherein  Diredions  are  given  to  ^'  '«• 
prevent  and  difcover  a  Subornation. 

Thefe  things  I  mention  to  Ihow  what  Satisfadllon  Is  neceflary  to  be 
given  in  cafe  of  Sufpicion,  and  the  higher  the  Perfons  are,  and  of  fo  much 
greater  Importance  as  the  Succeffion  is,  fo  much  clearer  ought  the  Evi. 
dence  to  be,  that  no  occafion  of  Doubt  may  remain  :  But  if  no  fuch  care 
was  taken,  If  the  principal  Perfons  concerned  had  not  the  leaft  Satisfadi- 
cn  given  them ;  If  the  whole  thing  were  managed  with  Secrecy  and  (ufpi- 
ciousCircumftances,  then  I  can  tee  no  Reafon  to  exclude  thofe  who  are 
moft  concern'd  from  a  Right  of  demanding  Satisfadlion  by  force  of  Arms. 

But  Mr.  jpjton  thinks  he  hath  cleared  this  matter,  when  he  affirms  that 
he  kmm  there  was  no  Suppofititious  Birth  hy  unanfwerahle  undoubted 
Proofs^  and  this  is  put  into  his  Prayer,  that  it  might  look  like  an  appeal  to 
God  as  to  the  Truth  of  what  he  faid.  This  is  one  of  the  boldeft  and  moft 
artificial  Strokes  of  the  Penner  of  this  Speech,  not  barely  to  make  him  af- 
firm it  with  fo  much  afturance,  but  to  do  it  in  his  Prayer  too.  But  a  mat- 
ter of  fo  great  Confequence  is  not  to  be  determined  upon  the  Teflimony 
of  any  fingle  Witnefs,  although  he  were  the  moft  competent  Witnefsas  to 
fuch  a  matter,which  doth  not  in  the  leaft  appear  as  to  Mr.  Afhton:  For  how 
could  he  know  it  by  unanfvoerahle  and  undoubted  Proofs ;  when  confidering 
the  Circumftances  that  were  in  this  Cafe,  it  was  hardly  polfible  to  produce 
hch'Froofs,  as  would  pafs  for  unexceptionable  Evidence  upon  a  Legal  Tri- 
al ?  For  there  hath  been  fuch  a  Trial  here  in  England  within  the  Memory  i„the  cafe 
of  Man,  wherein  the  Father,  and  Mother,  and  Midwife  have  all  fworn  to «/'"'«  Ro- 
the  Truth  of  the  Birth  of  a  Son,  and  yet  the  Jury  upon  hearing  the  whole  c^"/}  at 
Evidence  have  given  Judgment  that  it  was  Suppofititious.  Hereford 

Therefore  bare  Affirmations  of  fome  Perfons  concerned  are  not  Evi-  ^^'"j  "" 
dence  fufficient  in  cafe  of  ftrong  and  vehement  Prefumptions  to  the  con-  ,<!s8.  " 
trary  ;  and  fuch  Evidence  ought  to  have  been  given  as  might  have  either 
prevented  or  removed  any  jult  grounds  of  Sufpicion. 

But  fince  no  luch  unanfwerable  undoubted  Proofs  were  made  to  thofe  who 
were  moft  concerned,  the  fanie  juft  Right  doth  remain  to  the  undoubted 
Heir  of  the  Crown,  as  it  did  in  the  former  Cafe  to  the  next  Heir  at  Law,who 
upon  a  fair  Trial  and  the  Verdidt  of  the  Country,  recovered  the  Eftate. 
But  between  Princes  there  are  no  fuch  ways  of  Trial  or  Courts  of  Judica- 
ture, and  therefore  in  fuch  Cafes  the  Right  of  War  is  allowed  by  the  ge- 
neral Conlent  of  Mankind. 


H  h  b  h  h  h  a  Secondly, 


^72  An  Anfvoer  to  Mr,  Aihron'j  Vaper. 


Secondly,  There  was  a  further  juft  Occafion  for  that  Expedition,  which 
was  the  Defign  to  fubvert  our  Religion  and  Civil  Liberties.  As  to  the 
Particulars  they  are  fully  fet  down  in  the  Declaration,  and  need  not  to  be 
repeated ;  that  which  I  am  to  make  out  is,  that  the  then  Prince  of  Orange 
by  his  Relation  to  the  Crown  had  a  juft  Right  to  concern  himfelf  in  the 
Vindication  of  both,  and  that  this  is  not  repugnant  to  the  Dodlrinea  and 
Principles  of  the  Church  of  England. 

It  was  not  thought  difagreeable  to  them  for  Q^Elkaleth  to  aflift  the 
Dutch again^  the  King  oi Spain;  yet  ftie  had  no  (uch  reafon  for  it  as  our 
King  and  Queen  had  to  prevent  the  fuppreffion  of  their  own  Religion  here, 
and  the  Rights  of  that  People  to  whom  they  were  io  nearly  related.  For 
there  was  nothing  in  her  Cafe  fo  confiderable  as  the  growing  Power  ofSpatH^ 
Aiberk.  and  the  danger  of  overturning  the  Religious  and  Civil  Liberties  of  a  Ncigh- 
Gent.de  bour-Pcoplc.  The  Queen's  Profeflbr  of  Law  in  Oxford  at  that  time  faith, 
ri?c.  U.  that  it  was  then  made  a  Qyeftion  by  fome,  whether  Q^  Eliz.  had  juft  Rea- 
fon for  that  War  in  affiftance  of  the  Dutch,  and  he  refolves  the  Lawfulnefij 
of  it  upon  3  Grounds:  Firft,  That  it  was  to  prevent  enfuing  Mifchief;  Se- 
condly, From  the  ancient  Alliance  between  the  two  Nations;  Thirdly, 
That  if  the  Dutch  were  totally  vanquifhed  by  xhe  Spaniard,  they  would  be 
made  Slaves  under  an  Arbitrary  Power.  The  Queen  her  felf  owned  this 
as  the  Ground  of  her  Refolution,  That  it  was  Cbri(iian  Piety  to  relieve  them 
who  were  of  the  fame  Religion  which  (he  profeffed,  and  Wifdom  to  prevent 
the  pernicious  de/igns  of  her  Enemies.  And  in  her  Declaration  fhe  publifh- 
ed  this  as  the  Reafon  of  her  fending  Forces  to  the  Aid  of  the  Netherlanders^ 
That  they  might  peaceahly  enjoy  their  ancient  Freedom. 

In  the  latter  end  of  the  Reign  of  King  James  L  the  War  broke  out  in 
Germany,  wherein  the  Emperor  ufed  his  utmoft  endeavour  to  eftablifh  ahfo- 
lute  Power  and  Popery  together.  There  was  occafion  offered  to  try  whether 
the  giving  Afliftance  againft  thefe  were  againft  the  Principles  and  Dotlrines 
of  the  Church  of  England.  For  the  Prince  Eledor  Palatine  was  chofen 
King  of  Bohemia,  and  fent  over  for  King  James\  Advice  about  it :  But  his 
Defigns  lay  then  fo  much  another  way,  that  he  had  no  mind  he  Ihould  en- 
gage in  it :  But  the  Archbifhop  of  Canterbury  in  his  Letter  to  Sir  R.  Maun- 
ton,  then  Secretary  of  State,  faith.  That  God  had  fet  up  this  Prince  his  Ma- 
fiers  Son  in  Law,  as  a  Mark  of  Honour  throughout  all  Chrifiendom,  to  pro- 
pagate  the  Go f pel  and  to  protetl  the  Opprejfed;  that  for  his  own  part  he  dares 
not  hut  give  Advice  to  follow  where  God  leads,  apprehending  the  Work  of  God 
in  this  and  that  of  Hungary ;  that  he  wasfatisfied  in  Confcience  that  the  Bo- 
hemians had  a  jufl  Caufe ;  that  the  Kings  Daughter,  theEleilort  Lady,  had 
profeffed,  fhe  would  not  leave  her  felf  one  Jewel,  rather  than  not  maintain  fo 
Religious  and  fo  Righteous  a  Caufe. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  Reign  of  King  CW/w  the  Firft,  when  I  fuppofe 
it  will  be  granted,  That  the  Doctrines  and  Principles  of  the  C/5'«rc;E' of  £»g- 
land  were  underfiood  and  followed ;  the  King  of  Denmark  had  taken  up 
Arms,  to  fettle  the  Peace  and  Liberty  of  Germany  y  as  he  declared:  But  he 
met  with  a  great  Defeat.     Whereupon  King  Charles  the  Firft  thought  him- 
felf concerned  to  give  Afliftance  to  him :  And  Archbifhop  Laud^z.%  then 
Life  of    employed  (as  Dr.  Heylin  confefleth}  by  the  King's  Command  to  draw 
tt\o^L^' d  "P  ^  Declaration,  to  be  publifhed  in  all  the  Parifhes  of  England',  which 
ioli6i.  'was  read  by  the  King,  and  approved  by  the  Council,  wherein  the  Greaf- 
nefs  of  the  Danger  they  were  in  is  fit  forth,  and  the  People  are  exhorted  to 
ferve  God  and  the  King,  and  to  labour  by  their  Prayers  to  divert  the  Dan- 
ger.    Wherein  lay  this  Danger  ?  It  is  there  laid  to  be,  That  by  the  Defeat 

of 


An  Anfwer  to  Mr.  Afhton  j  Vaper.  ^73 

of  the  King  of  Denmark,  there  was  little  or  nothing  left  to  hinder  the  Houfe 
fl/Auftria  from  leing  Lord  and  Mafler  <>/ Germany.  And  what  then? 
Why  then  there  will  he  an  open  way  for  Spain  to  do  what  they  pleafed  in 
all  the'Weft  part  of  Chriflendom.  It  feems  then,  it  was  not  thought  dif- 
agreeable  to  the  Principles  and  Dodlrines  of  our  Church,  to  hinder  the 
growth  of  a  Weftern  Monarchy,  altho'  it  be  by  aflifting  Subjeds  againft 
ilieir  Princes  who  promote  it :  And  then  follow  thefe  remarkable  Words. 

"  You  are  to  know  therefore,  that  to  prevent  this  is  the  prefent  Care  of 
"  the  King  and  State;  and  there  is  no  probable  way  left,  but  by  fending 
*'  of  Forces,  and  other  Supplies,  to  the  faid  King  of  Denmark^  to  enable 
"  him  to  keep  the  Field,  that  our  Enemies  be  not  Mafiers  of  all  on  a  fud- 
*'  den.  And  not  long  after — "  If  he  be  not  prefently  relieved,  theCaufe 
"  of  Religion  is  not  only  like  to  fufter  by  it  in  (brae  one  part,  (as  it  hath  al- 
"  ready  in  a  fearful  manner  in  the  Palatinate)  but  in  all  places  where  it  hath 
*'  got  any  footing.  So  that  if  we  fupply  not  prefently  our  Allies  and  Con- 
*'  federates  in  this  cafe,  it  is  like  to  prove  the  Extirpation  of  true  Religi- 
"  on,  and  the  Replanting  of  Romifh  Superflition  in  the  Neighbouring  parts 
"  of  CKriftendom.  And  the  Coldnefs  of  the  State  lliall  fuffer  in  all  places, 
*'  as  the  Betrayers  of  that  Religion  elfewhere,  which  it  profefleth  and  ho- 
"  noureth  at  home;  which  will  be  an  Imputation  never  to  be  wadied  off": 
"  And  God  forbid  this  State  (hould  fuffer  under  it. —  And  in  the  laft  place ; 
"  You  are  to  call  upon  God  your  felves,  and  to  incite  the  People  to  joyn 
"  with  you  in  humble  and  hearty  Prayers  unto  CTod,  That  he  will  be  plea- 
**  fed  now,  after  long  Afflidionof  his  deai^Pfople  and  Children  to  look  in 
"  mercy  both  upon  them  and  us;  and  in  particular  for  the  Safety  of  the 
"  King  of  Denmark,  and  that  Army  which  is  left  him.  That  God  would 
"  blefs  and  profper  him  againft  his  and  our  Enemies.  Thus  far  Arch- 
bifhop  Laud. 

Let  thole  who  now  with  as  much  Ignorance  as  Confidence,  upbraid  Men 
with  Renouncing  the  DoQrines  and  Principles  of  the  Church  of  England^ 
read  and  confider  thefe  Paffages ;  and  if  any  thing  will  make  them  more 
wife  and  humble,  this  will.  Did  Archbifhop  Laud  go  off  from  the  Church 
of  England^  or  KingC^^Jr/w  the  Firft,  who  both  luffered  for  the  (ake  of  it  ? 
But  lome  Men  have  never  throughly  penetrated  into  the  Doctrines  and 
Principles  of  our  Church,  but  look  only  on  fome  Principles  in  oppofition  to 
the  late  Times  of  Rebellion,  and  think  there  is  nothing  farther  to  be  look- 
ed after.  Whereas  the  Confideration  is  very  different  as  to  our  Duties, 
with  refpedl  to  our  own  Princes,  and  thofe  of  a  more  general  Concern- 
ment as  to  the  ftate  of  Religion  and  Government  in  the  World.  But  from 
hence  it  is  plain,  that  it  was  then  thought  not  only  Lawful,  but  a  Duty, 
topreve  t  the  dangerous  growth  of  fuch  a  Monarchy,  which  defigns  to 
fupprefs  Religion  and  Civil  Liberties;  and  not  only  to  give  Affiflance  to 
thofe  who  joyn  in  the  fame  Defign,  but  to  pray  God  to  blefs  and  profper 
it.  And  accordingly  a  Form  of  Prayer  was  then  appointed  for  thofe 
Dangerous  Times. 

Not  long  after  this  a  Breach  with  France  happened,  and  the  King  pub- 
lilhed  a  Declaration  of  the  ground  of  the  War;  wherein  it  is  laid  down 
as  the  firft  Ground,  "  That  the  Houfe  of  Auflria  confpiring  the  Ruin  of  all 
*'  thofe  of  the  Reformed  Religion  (as  plainly  appeared  m  the  Affairs  of 
*'  Germany)  had  fuch  an  Influence  on  the  Councils  of  France,  as  to  make 
"  them  break  Promile  in  fuch  a  manner,  as  hazardtd  the  lofs  of  the  whole 
*'  Party  in  Germany.  The  next  is,  "  That  he  had  broke  his  Articles  with 
"  his  Protejiant  Sul^jeSls^  when  he  had  been  a  Mediator  of  Peace  between 

"  them. 


^14-  ^^  Anfwer  to  Mr.  Afliton'i  taper. 

"  them,  and  they  had  done  nothing  to  violate  them.  So  that  a  Defign 
to  fupprefs-the  Protejlant  Religion^  in  a  Neighhur-Country,  was  looked  on 
as  a  juft  Caufe  of  War,  when  he  was  concerned  to  preJerve  it.  And  then 
another  Form  of  Prayer  was  appointed  to  be  ufcd  fuitable  to  that  Occa- 
fion;  which  plainly  evidence,  That  fuch  a  Defign  was  no-ways  thought 
repugnant  to  the  Doctrines  and  Principles  oj  the  Church  <?/ England. 

But  fince  the  French  ConJuii  feems  to  be  novn^  admired  by  this  fort  of 
Men,  I  (hall  bring  fomc  remarkable  Inftances  from  them. 

It  is  Notorious  to  the  World  what  Powerful  Afliftance  the  French  gave  to 

the  Confederate  Princes  of  Germany,  againft  the  Emperour,  their  Lawful 

Motifs  de  Prince,  and  what  Defence  they  made  for  this.    They  Publiflied  an  Ac- 

la  France  count  to  the  World  of  the  Reafons  of  it,  and  the  Chief  was  this,-  viz. 

gume'li'  "  That  they  had  Reafon  to  fufpe<a,  that  from  CW/«  the  Fifth's  Time 

Aiemagnc,"  the  differenceof  Religions  had  been  fecretiy  fupported  by  theEmperours, 

94.  9h    "  in  order  to  their  making  themlelves  Abfolute;  and  that  the  Changing 

"  ,the  Form  of  Government  in  the  Empire,  wasfuificient  for  a  Neighbour 

"  Prince  to  interpofeby  force  of  Arms. 

In  the  Revolt  of  Catalonia  from  the  King  of  Spain,  their  Lawful'Prince, 
the  French  King  accepted  of  the  Sovereignty  over  them,  being  offered 
him  by  the  States  of  that  Country,  and  caufcd  Difcourlcs  to  be  written 
in  juftification  of  their  Transferring  their  Aliegiancd :  And  yet  their  Com- 
plaint was  nothing  but  the  Severity  of  the  Spanijh  Government,  and  a 
defire  of  fome  greater  Liberties  than  they  enjoyed  under  ir.  Why  then 
fhould  it  be  now  thought  aAjnjuft  thing,  for  a  Sovereign  Prince  (fo 
nearly  related  to  the  Crown  &i  England)  to  efpoufe  the  Caufe  of  our  Re- 
ligions and  Civil  Jnterefts,  when  the  Defign  was  fo  apparent  for  the  Sup- 
prcfling  them  ?  If  that  Opportunity  had  been  loft,  they  might  before  this 
time  have  been  pad  all  reaf^nable  hopes  of  Recovery. 

II.  But  fuppofe  this  were  allowed ;  yet  here  is  another  DiiEcuIty  arl- 
feth,  concerning  the  transferring  Allegiance  from  a  Lawful  Prince,  to 
him  that  met  with  unexpedted  Succefs  in  his  Defign. 

And  here  I  fliall  endeavour  to  make  it  plain.  That  this  is  not  againft 
the  Doctrines  and  Principles  of  the  Church  of  England.  If  we  allow  the 
Church  of  England^  to  have  declared  its  Senfe  in  the  Matter  of  Govern- 
ment, it  can  only  be  with  refpedl  to  Suhje£ls.  But  I  think  the  Meafures 
of  our  Obedience,  are  not  to  be  taken  from  the  Rules  of  the  Church ;  but 
from  the  Laws  of  the  Realm:  Becaufe  they  are  not  the  fame  in  all  Coun- 
tries where  the  fame  Religion  is  Profefled ;  as  is  plain  in  the  Cafe  of  Prance 
and  Poland :  The  Reafon  of  the  different  Meafures  in  thefe  Countries  is 
not  from  the  Church,  but  from  the  different  Conftitution  of  the  Kingdoms. 
And  I  do  not  fee  how  the  Rules  of  the  Church  can  alter  the  Fundamen- 
tal Laws:  For  the  Church  only  enforceth  the  Duty  of  Obedience  on  the 
Confciences  of  Men  ;  but  it  doth  not  prefcribe  or  Umit  the  Bounds  of  it. 
Whether  our  Monarchy  be  AhfolutCy  or  Limited ;  or  if  Limited,  whe- 
ther in  its  Exercife  of  Power,  or  in  the  Right  of  Sovereignty;  how  far  the 
Limitation  gives  a  Right  of  Refiftance,  in  cafe  of  the  Breach  of  it,  are  nice 
Queftions,  but  not  to  be  refolved  by  the  Rules  of  the  Church,  but  by 
our  Legal  Conff  itution  and  the  General  Realbn  of  Mankind :  And  there- 
fore in  luch  Cafes,  where  the  Right  of  War  and  a  Foreign  Power  are  con- 
cerned, we  are  not  to  judge  meerly  by  Municipal  Laws;  but  we  are  to 
proceed  by  a  more  General  Law,  viz,  tint  oi Nations,  which  takes  in  the 
Effedls  of  a  juft  War,  which  the  particular  Laws  of  a  Country  have  no 
regard  to.  j 

But 


An  Anfvoer  to  Mr.  Afhton  j  Faper,  ^75 

But  where  hath  the  Church  oi England  d^chxt^  its  fenfe  about  the /?iv/jr 
of  War. >  The  ^r/ic/w  of  our  Church  declare,  that  the  chief  Government  of 
allEfiates  of  this  Realm,  doth  appertain  to  the  Civil  Magifirate  :  But  they 
no  where  fay,  that  in  a  juft  War  the  Supream  Power  cannot  be  acquired  • 
or  that  God  doth  never  confer  it  in  an  extraordinary  method.  * 

The  Book  of  Homilies  is  very  fevere  againfl  Difoledieuce  and  wilful  Re. 
tellioni  but  it  is  no  where faid,  that  where  the  Right  of  Sovereignty  is 
transferred  by  a  fuccefsful  War,  there  is  no  Allegiance  due  to  thofe  who 
poflefs  it :  "  On  the  contrary  it  is  faid  in  the  firft  Part,  That  if  God  for 
*'  their  wickednefs  had  given  them  an  Heathen  Tyrant  to  Reign  over 
"  them,  they  were  by  God's  Word  bound  to  obey  him,  and  to  pray  for 
*  him.  Canitlhen  be  agreeable  to  the  Do^rines  and  Principles  of  our 
Church,  to  refufe  Allegiance  to  good  Religious  Princes,  whom  God  hath 
made  the  happy  Inftruments  of  prelerving  our  Religion  and  Liberties? 

In  tiie  fame  Part,  the  "jews  are  commended  for  praying  for  the  King  of 
Bahylon,  when  they  were  in  Captivity,  that  they  might  live  under  his  Pro- 
te^ion,  and  do  him  Service,  and  find  Favour  in  his  fight.  And  what  is  this 
/hort  of  Allegiance  to  one,  who  had  nothing  but  bare  Succefsin  War  to 
plead  for  his  Title  to  it  ?  If  any  Princes  of  their  own  Religion  had  refcu- 
ed  them  from  that  Captivity,  would  they  have  fcrupled  Allegiance  to 
them,  when  we  fee  how  far  the  Maccabees  went  in  the  Defence  of  their 
Religion  and  Laws  ? 

In  the  Second  Part,  the  obedience  of  the  fewifh  Nation  to  Auguflus  is 
commended ;  and  it  is  evident  that  he  had  no  Authority  over  them,  but 
by  the  Right  of  War.  And  our  BlefTed  Saviour's  #xample  is  mentioned, 
who  being  brought  before  the  Roman  Prefident,  acknowledged  his  Tower  and 
Authority  to  be  given  him  from.  God.  And  how  was  this  Authority  con- 
veyed to  him,  but  by  the  fuccels  of  War  ? 

So  that  we  can  find  nothing,  in  the  certain  eflabl iflied  Do^riw  <7W 
Principles  of  our  Church,  which  is  repugnant  to  our  Allegiance  to  the  pre- 
fcnt  Government.  I  might  eafily  produce  confiderable  Teftimonies  of 
(bme  of  the  greatefl  Divines  of  our  Church,  which  a/Iert,  that  Sovereign- 
ty may  be  transferred  by  a  juft  War ;  but  I  leave  that  to  others,  and 
proceed. 

Mr,  Aflrton  faith.  That  wt  were  born  leige  SubjeBs  to  another;  that  we 
have  fokmnly  prof efjed  pur  Allegiance,  and  often  confirmed  it  with  Oaths.  I 
know  no  body  denies  it.  But  is  this  all  ?  Is  our  Allegiance  fo  infeparable 
from  the  Perlon  we  have  once  fworn  to,  that  no  Cafe  whatfcever,  can  al- 
ter it  ?  Not  the  Cafe  !of  plain  voluntary  Derelidiion  ?  Not  the  Cafe 
of  putting  the  Kingdom  under  a  Foreign  Power  ?  Not  the  feeking  the 
utter  Ruin  and  Deftrudion  of  the  People  ?  Ts  Allegiance  infeparable  in 
the{e  Cafes,  becaufe  we  were  Born  Subjeds  and  did  fwear  Allegiance? 
If  not,  then  it  is  not  always  fo,  notwithftanding  the  Oaths.  For  thefe 
and  feveral  others  are  allowed,  by  fuch  who  have  written  the  moft 
warmly  againft  the  Republican  Principles.  But  we  need  not  run  to  a- 
ny  difficult  Cafes:  Ours  is  only  the  cafe  of  a  jufl:  Warj  which  is  al- 
lowed by.all  forts  of  Cafuifls,  who  do  agree,  that  Allegiance  is  due  to 
the  Party  that  prevails  in  it ;  and  if  it  be  due  to  one,it  cannot  be  due  to 
another,  at  the  fame  time ;  altho'  he  be  living  and  do  not  difcharge 
Pcrfons  from  their  Oaths ;  for  the  obligation  of  Oaths,  depends  on  the 
Nature  and  Realon  of  things,  and  not  upon  the  Pleafure  of  thofe  to  whom 
they  are  made.  But  where  there  is  a  Right  to  govern,  there  muft 
tea  Duty  of  ^lllegiance:  And  that  Succeis  in  a  juft  war,  doth  give 

Ittclv 


5>7^  ^^  ^/^/wr  to  Mr.  AfhtonV  Paper. 

fuch  a  Right,  1  could  produce  fo  many  Te.Hmonies,  of  all  kinds  of 
Writers,  as  would  rrake  the  Reading  of  them  as  tedious  as  of  thofe  in  the 
Hiftory  ofPajive  Ohedience:  Nay,  feme  go  fo  far,  as  to  aflert  a  Right  of 
Sovereignty  to  be  acquired  by  fuccefs,  even  in  an  Vajuft  War  :  But  we 
need  none  of  thefe  Teftimonies. 

But  doth  not  all  this  refolve  this  whole  Controverfy  into  a  Right  of  Con- 
quefi,  which  is  not  fo  much  as  pretended  in  our  prefent  Cafe  f 

I  Anfwer,  That  we  muft  diftinguifli  between  a  Right  to  the  Govern- 
Plenty  and  the  Manner  of  Afuming  it.  The  Right  was  founded  on  the  Jufi 
Caufes  of  the  War,  and  the  fuccefs  in  it ;  But  the  afluming  of  it  was  not 
by  any  wavs  of  force  or  violence,  but  by  a  Free  Conjent  of  the  People^ 
who  by  a  voluntary  Recognition,  and  their  Majeflies  acceptance  of  the  Go- 
vernment, as  it  is  fettled  by  our  Laws,  take  away  any  pretence  to  a  Con- 
queft  over  the  People,  or  a  Government  by  Force. 

Thus  I  have  endeavoured  to  fet  this  matter  in  as  clear  a  light,  and  in  as 
little  a  compafs  as  1  could  ;  I  now  return  to  Mr.  JfhtonsS'^eech. 

Next  to  his  Obligation  on  the  Point  of  Religion,  he  mentions  that  of 
Gratitude  to  the  Ki»ghis  Mafier,  whom  he  hadferved  1 6  years,  '—ButthiSy 
he  adds,  is  a  thing  not  much  efteemed  at  this  time.  As  little  as  it  is  efleem- 
ed,  I  know  no  body  would  have  blamed  his  Gratitude,  if  it  bad  not  car- 
ded him  beyond  the  bounds  of  his  Duty.  But  it  is  ftrange,  he  fhould  be 
fo  much  for  Gratitude,  and  yet  fliould  allow  none  for  fo  great  a  Delive- 
rance. What  is  i6  years  ferviceto  the  Prefervation  of  a  Nation  from 
the  imminent  danger  of  Popery  and  Arbitrary  Power  ?  Such  men  look 
but  a  very  little  way,  who  talk  at  this  rate:  And  can  they  imagine  a 
French  Power,  under  our  Circumftances,  could  fecure  any  thing  to  us 
but  Ruin  ? 

As  to  his  Mafter's  ufage,  which  he  faith,  after  the  Prince  of  OrangeV 
Arrival,  was  very  hard,  fevere;  and,  if  he  ma)  fay  it,  unjufi.  I  would  de- 
fire  his  Friends  to  confider  a  little  better,  and  to  think,  if  any  fuch  thing 
as  Severity  had  betn  intended,  how  eafy  it  had  been  to  have  Executed  it, 
and  to  have  prevented  his  going  away  j  and  confequently,  a  great  deal 
of  the  charge  of  the  War  he  complains  of  immediately  after.  Let  them 
name  anyone  Perfon  in  fuch  CircumiUnces,  who  was  allowed  fo  great 
freedom  as  he  had,  of  difpofing  of  himfelf :  But  this  is  very  far  from  Mr. 
■?       AfhtOHS  occafion  of  Suffering. 

Well,  But  all  the  new  Methods  of  Settling,  have  hitherto,  he  faith,  made 
the  Nation  more  miferahle^  poor,  and  expofed  to  Foreign  Enemies.  It  is 
polfible  (uch  ,raay  believe,  that  the  Nation  would  be  lels  miferalle  and 
poor  under  the  French  Power;  than  it  is  now .  But  no  man  who  obferves 
the  vafl  defigns  of  frame,  and  the  incredible  induftry  of  the  French  Mo- 
^  narch)  to  inlarge  his  own  Power  and  Dominions,  can  think  (if  he  thinks 
twice)  -that  ever  he  fliould  undertake  fo  great  a  Work,  out  of  kindnefs 
to  any  but  himfelf;  much  lefs,  out  of  perted  goodwilltothe^w^/z/JNtf- 
Z/ow.  Harh  he  given  fb  much  evidence  to  the  World  of  his  Sincerity  in  his 
Promties,  when  the  keeping  of  them  hath  been  prejudicial  to  his  Intereft  ? 
Suppofe  he  fliould  compafs  bis  end  upon  us,  and  under  fo  fair  a  Colour, 
make  Provinces  of  thefe  Kingdoms ;  what  pofljble  remedy  would 
there  be  for  this,  then  indeed,  poor  and  miferahle  Nation?  What 
comfort  will  it  then  be  to  fay,  they  did  not  think  he  would  have  broken  his 
wordfo  with  them  }  In  the  mean  time,  Is  it  not  great  iVifdom  and  Policy, 
to  venture  our  Religion,  and  all  our  Liberties  on  the  fincerity  and 
kindnels  of  France  .^  but  if  there  be  any  prefent  hardfliip,  it  is  no  more 

than 


An  Afifwer  to  Mr  Afhton'i  Taper.  ^7-7 

than  a  neceflary  War  involves  our  Neighbours  in  as  well  as  our  felves ; 
and  that  in  a  common  Caufe,  for  preferving  the  Liberty  of  Europe^  a- 
gainft  the  growing  Power  of  France,  as  it  did  formerly  of  Sptia. 

But  there  is  another  Infinuation  of  a  higher  nature,  viz,  that  the  Reli- 
gion we  pretend  tohe  fo  fond  of  preferving,  is  now  niuch  more  than  ever,  like- 
ly to  he  defiroyed.  What  isthe  meaning  of  this  ?  What !  iVlore  in  danger 
than  when  Penal  Laws  and  Tefts  were  taking  away  in  order  to  the  taking 
away  our  Religion  after  them?  When  thedefign  was  as  plain  and  open 
as  a  thing  of  that  nature  could  be,  in  fuch  a  Nation  ?  When  (ome  of  the 
Fadtors  themfelves  complained,  they  made  too  much  hafte,  and  were  too 
eager  and  forward  to  accomplilh  it.  And  altho'  nothing  was  then  pre- 
tended but  the  fettling  Lilerty  of  Confcience  Upon  a  new  Magna  Charta, 
yet  all  wife  Men  faw  through  thefe  pretences,  and  that  nothing  was 
really  defigned  but  Popery  ;  which  the  Jefuits  did  not  conceal  in  their 
Letters  to  each  other ;  One  of  the  which  hapned  to  be  intercepted  ,•  and 
the  thing  itfelf,  is  now  fully  owned  in  the  Kings  own  Letter  to  the  Pope, 
printed  at  the  end  of  the  lace  Trials.  So  that  there  muftbe  a  defign,  ei- 
ther to  deceive  the  Pope,  or  the  Nation  ;  and  which  is  the  more  proba- 
ble, let  any  man  of  fenfe  judge. 

But  where  lies  the  danger  of  our  Religion  now  ?  Have  we  not  the  fame 
Laws,  the  fame  Proted:ion,  the  fame  Encouragement,  which  we  ever 
had,  at  any  time  fince  the  Reformation  ?  If  our  Religion  be  now  in  dan- 
ger, it  is  by  fuch  men  who  would  bring  in  the  French  Power  to  eftablifh 
It ;  however  it  be  difguifed  under  another  Pretext. 

After  this  follows  a  Charge  of  no  lefs  than  Perjury  and  Rebellion  upon 
his  Fellow  Subjects ;  whom,  he  advifeth  to  return  to  their  Allegiance,  he- 
fore  the  Judgments  of  God  overtake  them,  for  their  Perjury  and  Rebellion. 
This  is  a  heavy  Charge  indeed,  upon  the  Body  of  the  Nation,  which  hath 
taken  the  Oaths  of  Allegiance  to  their  Majefties:  But  if  it  be  true,  it  is 
accufing  the  greatefl  part  of  Mankind  of  thefe  Sins,  who  have  hapned  to 
live  in  the  time  of  any  great  Revolutions,  or  changes  of  Government. 
Was  the  Nation  Forfworn  in  the  times  of  William  the  Conqueror,  and 
his  two  Sons,  and  his  Nephew  ?  Was  it  Forfwom  all  the  time  of  King 
John,  and  the  feveral  Reigns  of  the  4th,  ftb,  6th  and  7th  Henries?  One 
would  think  it  better  became  a  dying  man  to  judge  more  charitably  of 
his  Fellow  Subjeds.  Had  he  never  heard  of  the  Law  of  England,  requi- 
ring Aljcgiance  to  the  King,  on  accourit  of  the  PoffefTion  of  the  Crown ; 
and  that  our  mofl  eminent  Lawyers,  in  peaceable  and  quiet  Times,  have 
been  of  that  Opinion  ?  Methinks  at  leaft,  that  ihould  make  modeft  men 
not  fo  peremptory  in  fuch  a  Charge;  for  it  is  to  make  fuch  an  Oath  un- 
lawful, which  the  Law  makes  not  only  lawful,  but  a  Duty.  And  when 
the  greateiT:  Lawyers  this  Nation  hath  had  thought  this  a  part  of  our  Law ; 
Ihall  luch  who  confefs  themfelves  unskilful  in  the  Law,  charge  the  Nation 
with  Perjury,  for  taking  an  Oath,  which  the  Law  requires  ? 

But  if  our  Law  did  not  require  it,  there  is  fuch  a  general  confent  in 
Mankind  about  it,  that  it  feems  to  me,  to  be  a  Law  of  Nations,  That  an 
Oath  of  Fidelity  fhould  follow  PofleflTion  ;  becaufe  otherwife,  there  would 
be  infinite  fnares  to  the  Confciences  of  all  fuch  who  are  required  to  obey, 
but  are  not  bound  to  enquire  into  the  Rights  of  Wari 

Is  it  Perjury  and  Rebellion  in  the  new  French  Conquefts,  for  the  In- 
habitants to  take  Oaths  of  Fidelity  to  the  French  King  ?  If  not,  how  comes 
It  to  be  fo  here  ?  Is  there  not  the  fame  Right  of  War  here  as  abroad  ? 

I  i  i  i  i  i  Was 


An  Anfwer  to  Mi\  Afhton  j-  Vaper, 

Was  it  Perjury  and  Rehellion  in  the  Subjeds  of  the  King  of  Spain  in 
"Portugal,  to  take  a  new  Oath  of  Allegiance  to  the  Duke  of  Bragama,  when 
he  was  declar'd  King  ?  And  yet  they  were  all  fworn  before,  nor  only  to 
the  King  o^  Spain i  but  to  his  Heirs:  And  even  the  Duke  himfelf  had  not 
only  taken  this  Oath,  but. the  Spaniard  psiticularly  charged  him  with 
Perjury,  and  great  Ingratitude:  Yet  the  Obligation  to  his  Countries  good 
was  then  thought  to  over-rule  that  Perfonal  Obligation  to  the  King  of 
Spain. 

But  if  they  were  all  guilty  of  Perjury  and  Rehellion ;  how  came  the  o- 
ther  Princes  of  Europe  fo  frankly  and  readily  to  own  his  Government ; 
and  ^hz  French.,  as  much  and  as  early  as  any,  fending  Affiftance  by  Sea 
and  L^nd  to  fupport  it?  But  in  this  Revolution  of  Portugal,  the  belt  Title 
was  the  Succefs  of  War,  founded  on  a  remote  Title  to  the  Crown,  when 
the  King  of  Spainhzd  enjoyed  the  PofTeffion  of  that  Crown  to  the  Third 
Generation. 

But  it  may  be  faid,  That  the  Pra^ices  of  other  People  are  to  he  no  Rule  to 
us ;  and  that  we  are  not  to  he  guided  hy  h.id  I'recedents  ahroad,  hut  hy  the 
Principles  and  Dodrines  of  our  own  Church.  This  were  to  the  purpofc,  if  our 
Church  had  any  where  declared  taking  fuch  an  Oath  to  be  Perjury.  But 
where  is  thit  done?  Iconfefs,  J  can  find  no  fuch  thing:  And  if  Mr.  ^y^- 
ton  tor  his  Friends)  had  made  fuch  a  Difcovery,  they  ought  to  have  told 
the  World  of  it.  But  if  there  be  no  fuch  Declaration  to  be  met  with,  then 
we  are  left  to  the  general  Rules  of  Confcience,  and  the  common  Reafon 
of  Mankind ,-  according  to  which,  I  fee  no  ground  for  this  heavy  Charge 
oi  Perjury  and  Rehellion  in  our  prefent  Cafe. 

But  although  Mr.  Ajhton  be  fo  abundantly  fatisfied  in  the  De/ign  he 
mentions,  that  if  he  had  ten  t  houf and  Lives  t  he  would  facrifice  them  all  in  Jo 
good  and  neceffary  a  Work  ;  yet  the  Rf miinder  of  his  Speech  is  fpent  in 
clearing  his  Jnnocency,  as  to  the  Fadt  for  which  he  was  Condemned.  If 
it  was  io  Meritorious  an  A<S  to  die  in  fuch  a  Caufe,  a  Man  might  have 
been  itmpted  to  be  thought  Guilty. 

But  before  he  couid  think  fit  to  die  in  Charity  with  all  the  World,  he 
faith  feveral  things  with  a  defign  to  blacken  the  'judges.,  the  jFarjr,  and 
the  Government. 

The  "judges  he  accufes  of  a  Severe  Charge,  and  the  Hard  Meafure  be 
received. 

As  to  the  latter,  it  is  a  very  odd  kind  of  Hard  Meafure,  when  he 
was  fo  very  little  fenfible  of  it  then,  that  he  faid,  He  did  not  complain  of 
the  Court.,  tol.  1 1  z.  and  more  fully  afterwards,  fol.  115./  cannot  hut  own  I 
have  had  a  fair  trial  for  my  Life.  Where  was  the  Hard  Meafure  then  > 
Therefore  this  could  not  be  Mr.  Afhton  s  Senfe,  unlefs  he  would  contradi<9; 
himlelf;  and  thofe  who  would  free  him  from  it,  muft  take  thefe  Words  to 
have  been  written  by  others,  who  thought  to  ferve  another  End  by  it ; 
and  wtr"  not  (o  near  giving  an  Account  lor  fuch  Calumnies. 

The  feverity  of  thcCharge  lay  in  appi}  ing  the  Statute  x^  Ed.  t,.  to  his 
FacSl.  Which  was  a  Dejtgn  to  carry  into  France  a  Treafonable  Scheme  and 
Projed  of  an  Invafion,  in  order  to  the  depojing  the  King  and  Queen.  This 
lafl  the  Judges  declared,  had  heen  always  held  to  he  High  Treafon.  All  the 
Queftion  was  then,  Whether  fuch  a  Fadt  were  an  Overt- Ad  of  fuch  a  De- 
lign  ;  and  fo  it  was  left  to  the  jury,  whether  Mr.  ^y^/c»  intended  to  go 
over  with  iuch  a  Defign  or  not.  If  there  be  any  Severity  here,  it  muft 
be  in  the  Law;  and  that  all  thofe  who  fuffer  by  a  Law,  are  apt  to  com- 
plain of. 

He 


An  Anjwer  to  Mr.  Afhton'j  Paper,  57^ 

He  pirticularlv  chargeth  that  "JuJge,  and  that  Juryman,  who  did,  he 
faith,  fignally,  contrary  to  common  Juflice^  expofe  thetnf elves  to  defiroy  him. 
This  is  a  very  hard  Charge  from  a  Dying- man,  and  ought  to  have  great 
Evidence  to  reconcile  it  to  common  Charity,  but  he  offers  none.  The  Jury 
were  tozGt  according  to  their  Confciences ;  and  if  they  did  fo,  how  could 
tliey  expofe  themfelves  contrary  to  common  Jufiice  to  defiroy  him}  But  what 
Evidence  doth  he  give,  that  they  did  not  fo?  Some  have  told  him,  that 
he  wa$  the  firfi  man  that  was  ever  Condemned  for  High  Treajon  upon  hare 
Sufpicion  or  Frefumption,  and  that  contrary  to  my  Lord  Cook  and  other  E- 
minent  Lawyers  Opinions. 

The  main  point  as  to  the  Jury,  was,  Whether  they  were  fatisfied  in  their 
Conlciences,,  that  Mr.  /4jhton  intended  to  go  into  France  with  fuch  a  De- 
fignJ  And  where  the  Fad:  lies  in  the  Intention  there  can  be  no  direct  E- 
vidence  (without  feeing  the  Heart;)  but  it  muft  be  gathered  from  a 
Concurrence  of  Circum (lances,  ftrong  enough  to  determine  an  honed 
man's  Judgment :  And  fuch  the  Jury  beUeved  to  be  in  hihCife.  My  Lord 
Cook's  words  are  on  the  Cafe  of  Treafon,  That  the  Compafing,  Intent  or  I- 
magination,  thofecret,  is  to  he  tried  hy  the  Peers,  and  to  he  difcovered  hy 
Circumjlances  precedent,  concomitant  and  fuhfequent,  with  all  endeavour 
evermore  for  the  fafety  of  the  King. 

It  is  true,  he  laith  afterwards,  Fol.  \%.  That  conjeSural  Prefumptions,  or 
Inferences,  or  Jl rains  of  Wit,  are  not  fufficient,  but  there  muft  be  good  and 
maitijell  Proof ;  but  flill  this  Proof  muft  be  fuch  as  the  thing  will  bear ;  for 
there  an  be  no  direil  and  plain  proof  of  a  fecret  Intention;  Either  there- 
foie  no  man  can  be  juRly  condemned  for  a  fecret  Intention,  manifeftcd 
by  anOvert-Acl,  or  there  muft  be  fuch  a  Proof  allowed,  as  is  fufficient  to 
fatisfie  a  man's  Confcience,  although  it  come  not  up  to  plain  and  diredt  E-  * 
vidence,  as  it  is  oppofed  to  the  higheft  degree  of  Prelumption. 

But  it  may  be  faid,  that  the  Frefumption  lies  in  judging  the  Intention 
from  the  Overt-Adt,  hut  that  Overt- Ail  mufl  he  manifejlly  proved.  The 
Overt- Ad  in  this  cafe  was  the  carrying  over  Treafonahle  Papers  into  Franccj 
in  order  to  an  Fnvafion,  The  foleQueilion  then  was,  Whether  there  was 
mamifefl  proof  as  to  thefe  Papers.  That  the  Papers  were  found  about  him 
vwasmanifeftly  proved;  and  he  owns, /^j/.  no.  that  they  were  unfortunate- 
ly f«und  upon  him;  but  he  faith  that  he  knew  not  the  Importance  of  them. 
It  was  manifeltiy  proved,  that  he  had  an  extraordinary  Concernment  to  ' 
havetheJe  Papers  thrown  O^'er-board;  which  he  faith  was  perfectly  out  of 
Friendfhip,  and  whether  that  was  a  true  Anfwer,  was  left  to  the  Confciences 
of  the  Jury,  who  were  to^udge  of  this  by  a!l  the  Circumflances  antecedent, 
concomitant  and  fuhfequent,  by  which  they  did  conclude  him  Guilty.  And 
I  cannot  fee  how  they  went  againft  Common  Ju/iice  therein ;  efpecially  fince 
Mr.  Afhton  well  knew,  that  one  of  the  moft  material  Papers  taken,  was  of 
his  own  Handwriting;  not  the  firft  Draught,  but  the  Copy  which  was 
ihew'd  him  in  the  Court ;  and  w  hen  it  was  lb,  hedefired,  Fol.106.  that  the 
Original  may  he  read,  and  not  the  Copy  ;  and  he  had  good  reafon  for  it;  For 
as  lar  as  I  can  judge,  upon  perufal  of  both,  it  is  the  very  fame  Hand  in 
which  this  Speech  was  written.  But  what  faid  Mx.Ajhton  10  xht  Jury, 
to  clear  this  matter  ?  He  (aiih,  Fol.  1x9.  That  his  Hand  was  not  proved  ta 
any  of  the  Papers,  and  therefore  there  was  nothing  hut  SuppoJitioH  or  Sufpici- 
on  againll  htm.  It  is  true,  there  was  no  dired  and  plain  proof  of  the 
Hand,  as  there  was  in  the  Cafe  of  my  Lord  Preflon;  (and  it  is  a  wonder 
It  was  omitted,  tor  that  would  have  been  plain  proof  of  his  knowing  what 


An.Anfwer  to  Mr.  Afilton'j  taper. 


tvas  in  thofe  Papers:)  However,  all  the  other  Circumftances  put  together, 
were  a  iufficient  proof  of  his  Privity  to  the  Contents  of  them. 

And  I  wonder  how  Mr.  Afl^ton  could  fo  confidently  in  his  Paper  declare 
himfelf  Innocent^  as  to  the  matter  for  which  he  was  Sentenced  to  Die^  when 
he  knew  the  Paper  was  of  his  own  Hand» writing,  and  plain  proof  hath 
been  fince  made  of  his  own  delivery  of  it  to  a  third  Perfon.  Can  a  Man 
be  Innocent  and  Guihy  of  the  fame  thing? 

The  only  thing  to  be  taken  notice  of,  which  remains,  is,  a  Refle(9:ion 
on  the  Government  for  his  Clofe  Imprifonment^  and  the  haft)  and  "violent 
Proceedings  againfl  hint.  If  there  were  any  thing  more  than  ufual  in  fuch 
Cafes,  as  to  his  Imprifonment ^  he  ought  to  have  mentioned  the  particu- 
lars; for  ocherwife  it  is  to  Arraign  the  Common  Jufticeoi  the  Nation.  As 
to  the  hafiy  and  violent  Proceedings  of  his  TriaJ ;  it  was  then  told  him. 
That  the  greateft  Advantage  he  had,  was  in  putting  off  his  Trial:  For  , 
by  that  he  knew  how  to  lay  the  Papers  on  my  Lord  Prefton  ;  which  yet 
could  not  clear  him,  as  to  thofe  Papers  which  were  not  written  with  my 
Lord's  Hand,  nor  related  any  ways  to  him;  but  one  of  them  was  writ- 
ten with  his  own  Hand. 

Upon  the  whole  matter,  I  cannot  fte  how  he  hath  either  proved  his 
Innocency,  or  that  he  aded  according  to  the  Principles  and  Doiirines  of 
the  Church  of  England. 

As  to  his  Concluding  Prayer,  I  cannot  bufobferve,  That  in  the  Begin- 
ning of  the  Speech,  the  Reafon  he  gives  why  he  would  not  make  any  to  the 
People,  was,  hecaufe  he  would  employ  his  lafl  Minutes  in  Devotion  and  holy 
Communion  with  God :  Which  I  hope  he  did.  But  thofe  who  contrived 
the  Speech,  were  to  make  a  Prayer  for  him  too  ;  but  not  a  Prayer  of 
Devotion,  but  rather  of  Fa^ion  and  Sedition .-  For  it  hath  no  other  mean- 
ing, than  that  GoJ  would  overturn  this  Prefent  Government,  and  re- 
ftore  the  Former,  in  order  to  the  Flourijhing  of  the  Church  of  England ; 
notwithfianding  the  Wounds  fhe  hath  received  from  her  PrevaricatingSons. 

I  cannot  imagine  how  a  Man  could  joyn  thefe  things  together  in  a 
Prayer,  unlefs  he  could  think  all  thofe  are  Prevaricating  Sons^  who  arc  a- 
gainfl  Popery.  For  I  know  no  Bottom  large  enough  for  Popery^  and  the 
Church  tf  England,  to  (land  upon  together. 

But  this  I  do  not  think  of  Mr.  Afhton,  and  therefore  conclude,  as  I 
began,  That  this  feems  rather  the  Speech  of  a  Party,  than  of  Mx.Afbtoa ; 
who  made  ufe  of  his  Name  and  Hand,  to  convey  into  the  Minds  of  the 
People,  the  moft  malicioiis  Infinuations  againft  this  Prefent  Government, 
and  all  who  live  in  Obedience  to  it. 


FINIS. 


t* 


A^  "■■  ■'.-^w'.'iS' 


'Wt"'ySi 


rw'^B' 


.  X 


•'      '