he proceeded to the great and prominent errors of the day. The first great and prominent error was that of making opinions articles of faith, and of making them at the same time the bond of Christian communion. By opinions he meant propositions formed by men from their own interpretation of the Scriptures, but which were neither expressly laid down in Scripture, nor yet often well deducible from it; that is, not so evidently deducible from it, as not to be doubtful to many who were yet sincere believers of the text. These propositions, he said, were expressed, not in the language of Scripture, but often in the sophistical terms of the schools, so that they were frequently unintelligible, and became therefore a bone of contention to many, and unhappily according as men received or denied them they were honoured or disgraced. Here he noticed, among other things, the great noise which had been made about the Greek word Episcopos. He who maintained that it signified a higher office than the Greek word Presbuteros, was to have no fellowship with one party; and he who maintained the contrary, was considered as a degrader of epi scopal scopal dignity, and was to be punished by the other. From hence he passed to the divisions, heats, and animosities, which the debates about free will, election, and reprobation had produced in the kingdom. Under Archbishop Abbot one set of ideas had prevailed upon these subjects, and under Archbishop Laud another, so that men had been reputed Heretics in turn, and fit only for excommunication as they received the one or the other. He proceeded then to the Synod of Dort; then to the flame kindled in Holland between Arminius and Episcopius for the Remonstrants, and Gomarus, Sibrandus, and others, for the Predestinarians; then to disputes about Easter Day, as if men's eternal happiness had been involved in this question; then to the tragical story of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and Arius his priest; and then to the anathemas, banishments, wars, and bloodshed, which followed upon the question, whether the Greek word Homousia or Homoiousia should be received for faith. Among the observations made upon some of the foregoing points, I shall notice the following: "We must do violence to our under standings, standings, if we can think that the men who bated their brethren and shed one another's blood, could be true followers of that Jesus who loved his enemies, and gave his blood for the world." "But how easily might all these confusions have been prevented, if men's faith about Christ had been delivered in the words of Scripture, since all sides pretend to believe the text? And why should any man presume to be. wiser or plainer in matters of faith than the holy Spirit?" "Are not things come to a sad pass, that to refuse any other terms of expression than those which the holy Spirit hath given us, and which are confessed to be the rule or form of sound words, is to expose a man to the censure of being unsound in the faith, and unfit for the Christian communion? Will nothing do but man's comment instead of God's text? or man's consequences and conclusions in the room of sacred revelation?"- "All this while (says he) the head is set at work, not the heart; and that which Christ most insisted upon is least concerned in this sort of faith and Christianity, and that is keeping his commandments; for it is opinion, not obedience, it is notion, not regenera tion, which some men pursue. This kind of religion leaves them as bad as it finds them, and worse, for they have something more to be proud of. Here is a creed indeed, but of what? of the conclusions of men. But what to do? to prove that they believe in Christ, who it seems never made them. It had been happy for the world, if there had been no other creeds than what Christ and his apostles gave'and left; and it is not the least argument against their being needful to Christian communion, that Christ and his apostles did not think so, who were not wanting to declare the whole counsel of God to the Church." The second great and prominent error was that of mistaking the nature of true faith, or of taking that for faith, which was not Gospel-faith. Here he laid down what he conceived the Gospel-faith to consist of. He then entered into a long discussion in behalf of his own position; but as this was a regular dissertation in a connected chain, I cannot give one part of it without another, and to give the whole of it, would be tɔ take up all the remaining part of this volume. The third great and prominent error was that that of debasing the true value of morality, under the pretence of higher things. It was the custom, he said, to decry men of moral lives, even those who feared God and worked righteousness, because they were not of a particular Such men were considered as mere faith. Their faith was thought not to be properly circumscribed, but to be too much at large. He inveighed against this custom. He ridiculed the notion that a man who repeated his creed by heart was sure of being within the pale of salvation, however profane his life, while another was denied and esteemed dead, whose life was upright, if he happened not to be so well skilled in what may be called the mysteries of the Christian religion. They who maintained this notion denied in fact that morality was a part of Christianity, or that virtue had any claim to grace. They mistook one of the great ends of Christ's coming, which was, as St. Paul to the Romans says, to deliver from actual sinning, and to give newness of life to the souls of men; or, as the same apostle to Titus has it, to redeem men from all iniquity. The fourth great and prominent error was |