it will be easy to turn them Papists. The jealousies many discerning people had of this, were considerably increased when it was seen with what violence the abettors of this new divinity appeared against the more moderate part of the church of England, as well as the dissenters, upon the account of some ceremonies, owned by themselves as indifferent in their own nature; while at the same time, they expressed a great deal of tenderness if not respect to the Church of Rome, and made proposals for union with her.

But whatever there is as to this, it is certain that this divinity opens a door, and has given encouragement to that apostacy from Christianity, that has since followed, and still increases under the pame of Deism.

And that

This divinity teaches us, that no more is necessary to be believ ed, in order to salvation, save what is confessed and owned by all that are called christians. Dicunt se non videre unde, aut quo modo, præter pauca ista, quæ apud omnes in confesso sunt, alia plura adhuc necessaria esse ostendi aut elici possit; that is, They see not how it can be made appear, that besides these "few things, which are by them allowed, any others are necessary "to salvation." Consonantly hereto, they expressly deny any thing to be fundamental which has been controverted, or afterwards may be so.† In a word they teach that we are not necessarily to believe any thing, save what is evident to us. only is to be reckoned evident, which is confessed by all, and to which nothing that has any appearance of truth can be opposed. Now after this, what is left in Christianity? The divinity, the pu rity, the perfection and sufficiency of the scriptures; the Trinity, Deity of Christ, his satisfaction, the whole dispensation of the Spirit, justification by faith alone, and all the articles of the Christian religion, have been and are controverted. None of them therefore is necessary to salvation. Are not men left at liberty, without hazard of their salvation, to renounce all, save what is common to Christianity with natural religion? And since even some of its most considerable articles about the attributes of GOD and his providence, future rewards and punishments, have been, or may be controverted, why may we not reckon them unnecessary too? The Deists have borrowed their doctrine of evidence, and opposed it to the Christian religion. One of them tells us, One of them tells us, "If our happiness depends upon our belief, we cannot firmly believe, till our reason "be convinced of a supernatural religion." And if the reasons of it were evident, there could be no longer any contention about religion. How little does this differ from that divinity which tells us,

Remonstr. Apol. Fol. 12.

† Ibi. Cap. 24, Fol. 276; and Cap. 25, Fol. 283.

+ Oracles of Reason, pag. 206. Letter by A. W. to C. Blount.

that GOD is obliged to offer us such arguments to which nothing that has an appearance of truth can be opposed! And if this be wanting, they are not to be received as articles of faith. Now if after this the Deists can but offer any thing that has an appearance of truth against Christianity, they are free to reject it in cumulo. This divinity reduces Christianity to mere morality. Nothing else is universally agreed to, if that be so. "The supposition of sin, (says one that wore a mitre) does not bring in any new reli"gion, but only makes new circumstances and names of old things, "and requires new helps and advantages to improve our powers, "and to encourage our endeavors: And thus the law of grace is "nothing but a restitution of the law of nature."*

And further, lest we should think this morality, wherein they place the whole of Christianity, owes its being to the agency of the sanctifying Spirit, we are told, that "the Spirit of God, and "the grace of Christ, when used as distinct from moral abilities "and performances, signify nothing."+ And a complaint is made of some who fill the world "with a buz and noise of the di"vine Spirit." Hence many sermons were rather such as became the chair of a philosopher, teaching ethicks, than that of one, who by office is bound to know and preach nothing save Christ and him crucified. Heathen morality has been substituted in the room of gospel holiness. And ethicks by some have been preached instead of the gospel of Christ. And if any complaints were made of this conduct, though by men who preached the necessity of holiness, urged by all the gospel motives, and carefully practised what they preached in their lives, they were exposed and rejected, and the persons who offered them were reflected on as enemies to morality; whereas the plain truth of the case was, they did not complain of men being taught to be moral, but that they were not taught somewhat more.

After men once were taught that the controverted doctrines of religion were not necessary to salvation, and that all that was necessary thereto was to be referred to and comprehended under morality, and that there was no need of regeneration, or the sanc tifying influences of the Spirit of Christ in order to the perform ance of our duty, it is easy to see how light the difference was to be accounted betwixt a Christian and an honest moral Heathen. And if any small temptation offered, how natural was it for men to judge that the hazard was not great, to step over from Christianity to Deism, which is Paganism a-la-mode. And to encourage them to it, it is well known how favourably many used to ex

press themselves of the state of the Heathens; little minding that the Christian religion represents them as without God, and with out Christ, and without hope, children of wrath, and dead in trespasses and sins.

I need not stand to prove that this divinity is nearly allied to Socinianism. It is well known that they reckon the Socinians sound in the fundamentals, and therefore think them in no hazard, provided they live morally. Hence men have been emboldened to turn Socinians. And every body may see by what easy removes, one may from Socinianism arrive at Deism. For my part I can zee little difference betwixt the two. The Deist indeed seems the honester man of the two; he rejects the gospel, and owns that he does so The other, I mean the Socinian, pretends to retain it. But I shall not insist any further in discovering the tendency of this new divinity to libertinism and Deism, since others have fully and judiciously done it from the most unquestionable arguments and documents. And more especially, since in fact it is evident, that wherever this new divinity has obtained, Socinians and deists abound, and many who embrace it daily go over to them; which I take to be the surest evidence, if it be duly circumstantiate, of the tendency of this doctrine to encourage those opinions, and least liable to any just exception. And perhaps I might add, that few, comparatively very few, who own the contrary doctrine, have gone into this new way, where that divinity has not been entertained.

But to return whence we have for a little digressed, to the state of religion in England. No sooner were they advanced to power who had drunk in those opinions, but presently the doctrines that are purely evangelical, by which the apostles converted the world, the reformers promoted and carried on our reformation from Popery, and the pious preachers of the church of England did keep somewhat of the life and power of religion amongst their people; these doctrines, I say, began to be decryed; justification by the righteousness of Christ, which Luther called Articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiæ,* that redemption that is in him, even the forgiveness of sins through faith in his blood; the mystery of the grace, mercy and love of God manifested in Christ; the great mystery of godliness; the dispensation of the Spirit for conviction, renovation, sanctification, consolation and edification of the church, by a supply of spiritual gifts, and other doctrines of a like tendency, were, upon all occasions, boldly exposed, and discredited in press and pulpit. The ministers who dared to avow them, from a conviction of the truth, the sense of the obligation of their promises and subscriptions to the Articles, were sure to have no preferment, nay, to be

*"An article by which the Church must either stand or fall.”

branded with the odious names of Calvinists, Puritans, Fanatics, and I know not what.

The doctrines of faith were not regarded as belonging to the foundation of religion. The morality of the Bible was pretended the only thing that was necessary; and as much of the doctrine, as all, even Socinians, Quakers, and all the rest were agreed in, were sufficient. And if any opposed this, though in civil language and by fair arguments, they were sure to be exposed as enemies to morality; although their adversaries durst not put the contest on this issue with them, that he should be reckoned the greatest friend to morality who was most blameless in his walk, and shewed it the greatest practical regard. They could exercise charity, forbearance, and love to a Socinian that had renounced all the fundamental truths of religion; but none to a poor Dissenter, who sincerely believed all the doctrinal articles; nay, even a sober churchman, who could not consent to new unauthorised ceremonies, was become intolerable. So that men, at this time, might, with much more cre it and less hazard, turn Socinian, or any thing, than discover the least regard to truths contained in the articles, owned by most of the Reformed churches, and taught by our own Reformers. This is too well known to be denied by any one who knows how things were carried on at that time and since.*

Further, whereas preachers formerly, in order to engage men to a compliance with the gospel, were wont to press much upon them their guilt, the impossibility of standing before God in their own righteousness, their impotency, their misery by the fall, the necessi ty of regeneration, illumination, the power of grace to make them willing to comply, and that no man could sincerely call Christ Lord, and be subject to him practically, save by the Holy Ghost; care was now taken to unteach them all this, and to shew them how very little they had lost by the fall, if any thing was lost by it, either in point of light to discern, or power and inclination to practice duty. They were told how great length their own righteousness would go, and that it would do their business; they might safely stand before God in it; or if there was any room for Christ's righteousness, it was only to piece out their own, where it was wanting. In a word, the people were told, what fine persons many of the Heathens were, who knew nothing of illumination, regeneration, or what the Bible was, and how little odds, if any at all, there was betwixt grace and morality.

*

Any one that would be satisfied in the truth of this, must peruse the ser. mons and writings published by that party of old and of late, and the histories of those times, particularly Rushworth's Collect, the speeches of the long Parliament, and later writings, and they will find documents more than enough. And they may consult also Honorii Regii's Comment. de statu Ecclesie Angli

And, whereas a veneration of the Lord's day was a mean to keep people under some concern about religion, and that day was spent by faithful ministers, in pressing upon the consciences of their people, those new contemned gospel truths, to the spoiling of the whole plot; care was taken to discredit and bring it into contempt. Ministers, instead of telling them on that day, that they were too much inclined to sin, levity, folly, and vanity, were commanded to deal with them as persons too much inclined to be serious; and instead of preaching the gospel, they were required, under the highest pains, to entertain them with a profane Book of Sports. And for disobedience many were rejected. And that they might be taught by example as well as precept, a Sunday's evening mask was pub licly acted, where were present persons of no mean note.*

Moreover, a state game being now to be played, the pulpit, press, religion and all were made basely to truckle to state designs, and to the enslaving of the nations, by advancing the doctrines of passive obedience, non-resistance, and jure-divino-ship of kings;† whereby men of religion were wounded to see the ordinances of Christ prostituted to such projects, as were entirely foreign, to say no worse, to the design of their institution: And men of no religion, or who were not fixed about it, were drawn over to think it a mere cheat, and that the design of it was only to carry on secular interest under specious pretences.

At length by those means, and some other things, which are not of our present consideration, concurring, confusions ripened into a civil war, whereby every one was left to speak, write, and live as he pleased.

Many who intended no hurt, while they upon honest designs inquired into, and laid open the faults of the topping clergy, did unawares furnish loose and atheistical men with pretences against the ministry. And what in truth gave only ground for a dislike of the persons faulty, was received by many as a just ground of prejudice against the very pastoral as priest-craft, and all who are clothed with it, as a set of self-designing men.

The body of the people, who had been debauched by the example of a scandalous clergy, and hardened in sin by the intermission of all discipline, (which of late had only been exercised against the sober and pious who could not go into the measures that were then taken,) the neglect of painful preaching, the book of sports and pastimes, and who had their heads filled with airy and self-elating notions of man's ability to good, free will, universal grace, and the like, and who now, when they much needed the inspection of their faithful pastors, were deprived of it, many of them, by the iniquity

* Rushworth's Collect. Part 2, Vol. 1, page 459.

Bishop of Sarum on the Articles, Art. 7, page 152.