Light in a Candlestick, to all that are in the House: Or, ― THE Impartial Churchman, Considering The Celebrated Discourses on the 30th of January, of the Right Reverend the Bishop of Bristol, before the House of Lords; of the Reverend Dr. Croxall, before the House of Commons; and of the Reverend Dr. Trap, before the Lord Mayor, and Court of Aldermen. WHEREIN, With a just Praise of their Merits, Respect to their Characters, and Deference to the Church; their Matter, Method, Explanations of, and Deductions from Scripture, are observ'd. especially as to Dr. Trap's Notion of visiting the Sins of the Fathers on the Children. WITH Readings in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Arabick, and Vulgate, noted: And to take in what is most remarkable on this Head, a Reflection on a Principle of the Right Reverend the Bishop of Sarum, and the Dispute of Milton and Salmasius, Mr. Milbourn and Mr. Bradbury: With a Rule to judge and apply all Sermons on that deplorable Occasion. ― By J. HENLEY, M.A. Founder of the Oatory. ― LONDON: Printed for J. Roberts, near the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane. MDCCXXX. [Price Six-pence.]

EXOD. XXV.31,32. &horfill; Thou shalt make a Candlestick of pure Gold; of beaten Work shall the Candlestick be made; his Shaft and his Branches, his Bowls, his Knops, and his Flowers shall be of the same: And six Branches shall come out of the Sides of it, three Branches of the Candlestick out of the one Side, and three Branches of the Candlestick out of the other Side.

&Wic;HATEVER was written afore&rehy;time, was written for our In&rehy;struction, that we thro' Pati&rehy;ence and Comfort of the Scrip&rehy;tures, might have Hope: What God has cleansed, that call not thou common: What the Divine Spirit, the Oracle of Sacret Scripture, has been pleas'd to dwell upon in a particular Man&rehy;ner, that call not thou unworthy of thy se&rehy;rious Attention; Despise not Prophecyings, and lean not too much to thine own Wisdom: What can be more mean, and ought to be more humble, than Man that is a Worm, and the Son of Man, that is a Worm? The best are only Vessels fashion'd out of the same Lump by the Hand of the Potter; and it is God, who sheweth Mercy, not Man, lest he should boast, that hath made some to honour, and others to dishonour.

The Lord himself, (according to whose Pattern in the Mount, a Figure of good Things to come, Moses fram'd the Taberna&rehy;cle, and the holy Things of the Sanctuary) condescended to the Infirmities of his Peo&rehy;ple, by appointing the most minute Cir&rehy;cumstances of the Jewish Law; the six Branches and Ornaments of the Golden Candlestick, to teach us, that his Word is our Supreme Law, that nothing is trivial or abject, which he ordains; that the Lord's Testimony is the Light of our Paths; that Doubts are to be search'd, and Obscurities clear'd by the Lamp of Heavenly Intelli&rehy;gence; that he, who is the Lustre of Israel, and turneth the Shadow of Death into the Morning, is our Star in the East, pointing our where we are to offer the Myrrh of our Submission, the Gold of our peculiar Vows, and the Incense of our Devout Ac&rehy;knowledgment.

This was the Original of St. John's Vi&rehy;sion of the Son of Man, Rev. i.13,20. in the midst of the Seven Candlesticks, which were the Churches; for the Lamps were seven, He the Centre, from whom the six Branches were illuminated; not mention'd here by Moses, because the Sun of Righteous&rehy;ness was not yet arisen with Healing in his Wings: Therefore at first the Mediation&rehy;Lamp was not spoken of; the Branch of Jesse, call'd emphatically, the Man, the Branch, was not enumerated among the rest, till the Veil should be taken away, and the Glory over the Mercy-Seat should be&rehy;come a Light to lighten the Gentiles, as well as the Splendor of the Sons of Jacob, the universal Shechinah of Mankind.

The Prophet Zachariah mentions this Candlestick, with the two Olive-Trees on each Side, to instruct us, that the Wisdom which is from above is first pure, then peace&rehy;able: The Golden Materials are the Truth of the most High, in the Scripture, directing and opening the Way of the Just to a perfect Day; the beaten Work is the repeated Meditation of Man on the same Argu&rehy;ment; the Knops and Flowers are the Di&rehy;visions and Embellishments, by every holy Bezaleel, each Spiritual Workman, rightly dividing the Word of Truth; the six Branches are the Principal Lights, that extend equally their Force to all, tho' on opposite Sides of the same Candlestick; and the seventh is the Son of God, not to be mention'd with the Inferior Branches; but the Standard and Fountain of all Know&rehy;ledge; whose Words are as fine Gold, more precious, as Silver try'd seven Times in the Furnace; and who shall sit to purify the Sons of Levi, as a Refiner of Gold and Silver.

In the mean time, till his final Judg&rehy;ment, till he shall be the Light and Sun of that City, into which the Kings of the Earth, those who have been made to him Kings, and Priests, shall bring their Glory; Let us consider those Sons of Levi, those main Branches of the same Candlestick, Sub&rehy;jects of one and the same Nation, Profes&rehy;sors or Teachers of the same Common Chri&rehy;stianity, as to their various Sentiments, and Model of discoursing on the Unhappy Oc&rehy;casion of the Thirtieth of January; to weigh the beaten Gold in the Balance of the San&rehy;ctuary, and kindle the Sacred Fire, like Elijah, by a Ray from Heaven, unpollu&rehy;ted by the Smoke of the nether Furnace, where their Belief is trembling, and their Light is outer Darkness.

Be the two Right Reverend Bishops of Bristol and Sarum, the two first Branches, like Olive-Trees, as they should be the Mi&rehy;nisters of Peace, on either Hand of the Son of Man.

The Scheme of the Bishop of Bristol begins with a Text from Rom. xiii.5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience&rehy;sake: That is, because the Powers that be are ordain'd of God: Though the Bishop does not there explain what is meant by the Powers that be, whether the King only, or King, Lords and Commons, or Lords and Commons without the King, (a famous case of which is well-known,) or any Powers that be, for the Time being. His Lordship should have divided the Word to us, on that Head, according to the Ex&rehy;ample of Christ, Apollo, and St. Paul, who expounded the Scriptures, that those Things were so; and left all Pastors a Rule to be mighty in them. This is one Defect in any Schemes of the 30th of January Sermons, to preach on a Text, without explaining the Terms of that and the Con&rehy;text, by which we are undirected as to our own Conscience and Practice in the Ap&rehy;plication of the Sermon; as the Bishop ve&rehy;ry well urges Conscience, and Conscientiously, Pag. 6 but unless he had told us the Meaning of the Powers that be, how can we be Conscientious of our Duty to them?

The Right Reverend the Bishop of Sa&rehy;rum has written many Books, and preach'd many Sermons to shew, that "it is the Civil Magistrate's being the Minister of God to us for Good," that is the Measure of our Consciences in applying St. Paul's Rule; by which that Bishop makes the People Judges of their Consciences in that Particular, and Judges of Him, how far he is the Minister of God for Good; which is giving them a Judicature, a Judgment of the Ministry of the Civil Magistrate. Now these two Bishops, who are opposite Lights on the same Candle&rehy;stick, should both give the People a deter&rehy;minate Rule of Conscience on this Point; otherwise the word Conscience, will be us'd at Large, as it has been; and the Bi&rehy;shop of Sarum's Conscience will be no Law to the Bishop of Bristol, nor either of them to the Consciences of others. I remark it therefore as the second Defect in the 30th of January Sermons, not to give the Peo&rehy;ple a distinct Rule of Conscience to act by, on a Scripture Footing, in this Affair: leaving, by that Omission, a Latitude for two Consciences, different and repugnant to each other, and therefore, for two Thousand, or more, indefinitely.

The Bishop of Bristol proceeds, Pag. 7, 8, and 9. to rehearse the personal Virtues of his Majesty King Charles the First, that he was a Gracious, Merciful, and Pious King; Pag. 9. he professes not to enter into the Causes of Rebellion. Truth can never suffer, and the whole Truth might have been gloriously laid forth on the Panegyrick before; for half the Truth is not the whole: I remark it as a third Defect, not to exhibit to us the main of the entire Question; for how can a Christi&rehy;an's Conscience be fully informed, by let&rehy;ting him only into a part of his Informa&rehy;tion? And how can the People rightly dis&rehy;charge their Obligation, if their Conscien&rehy;ces be not compleatly instructed?

Pag. 11 The Bishop of Bristol, instead of looking back, would prevent the like Calamities for the future, not by explain&rehy;ing the Scripture, regulating surely, and fully informing the Conscience, but by his own Use of the Text; shewing from that, 1. That a conscientious Regard to the Principles of Religion, is the firmest Sup&rehy;port of Civil Government.

Pag. 5. He shew'd first from the Text, "The Duty of Subjection from God's or&rehy;daining the Powers that be:"

Pag. 11. He has a Second First, "To shew the Support of Government from the Principles of Religion in general," which is neither in the Words, nor in the Sense of the Text: The single Duty of Subjection for Conscience Sake, is not a con&rehy;scientious Regard to the Principles of Reli&rehy;gion at large for the Support of Government: That is Conscience for the sake of the Go&rehy;vernment; the Text is Subjection for the sake of Conscience; which is the direct contrary: For Conscience, in the Text, is the Rule or Subjection to Government for its firmest Support, not the Support of Government the Rule of Conscience.

His first Head is shewn indeed, as he speaks, from the Text, because it is not in it. The Text does not guide him to com&rehy;pare what is more or less for the Support of Government, but it gives two Motives of Subjection, one for Wrath, the other for Conscience, in regard to Obedience on&rehy;ly, without the least Handle to compare them, for the Support of Government. There is not a Word in the whole Chapter of the Support of Government, which is a distinct Idea, another Proposition, from that of Subjection for the sake of Consci&rehy;ence. That Support might have been made a remote Inference, it could not na&rehy;turally and immediately be made the first Head from the Text; the first Head ought not to be of what may be thought imply'd in a Text, but of what is there im&rehy;mediately; otherwise it denies any Head to be first, by making any to be equally so. St. Paul makes no Comparison, the Bishop does; and shews it from his Words: St. Paul speaks of Subjection for the sake of Conscience; the Bishop of Conscience, or religious Principles, for the sake of Go&rehy;vernment: One says, you ought to be sub&rehy;ject, as you are conscious, the Magistrate is the Minister of God for Good to you; the other, you ought to be a Man of Consci&rehy;ence and Religion, because it is the firmest Support of Government; which inverts the Proposition; for that Reason is not Consci&rehy;ence, being only a human Motive, and go&rehy;vern'd by a temporal Consideration.

I remark it as a fourth Defect in the 30th of January Sermons, to shew from the Words of the Text in the first Head, what is not in the Words at all, and if suppos'd to be imply'd, must have come under a more distant Article: Unless my Lord Bishop had an Eye to that Passage, the first shall be last, and the last first; for many are call'd, but few are chosen.

From Pag. 12, to 23, which is the Bo&rehy;dy of the Sermon, the Bishop of Bristol enlarges on his first Head (leading him still farther out of the way, the longer he fol&rehy;low'd a wrong Path at setting out) about the Rise of Government, "from Violati&rehy;ons of the Laws of Nature, by the Con&rehy;sent of Man only; no Form of Govern&rehy;ment, as he says, Pag. 16. being prescrib'd by God above another. He is enforcing Obedience from Conscience, and yet he tells us, God does not prescribe any Go&rehy;vernment at all more than another; by which he puts Conscience out of the Que&rehy;stion: So that he makes Religion the firm&rehy;est Support of Government, and yet af&rehy;firms it has not the Support of Religion, it is not founded upon that, but on breach&rehy;es of the Laws of Nature, and is a meer human Institution. Conscience to God for a human Institution, and from secular Mo&rehy;tives for the Peace and Order of Society, is a Contradiction in Terms; it is not St. Paul's Doctrine. St. Paul says we are to be subject, as we are conscious the Ma&rehy;gistrate is the Minister of God to us for Good. That was St. Paul's Conscience; he did not make the Interest, or firmest Sup&rehy;port of the Government, his Conscience, his God; his Persuasion of the Powers being the Minister of God to him for Good, was the Rule of his Conscience.

Pag. 23. The Bishop of Bristol proceeds, "That this leads him to his second Head;" Pag. 12. he was to shew all three Heads from the Words of the Text, and the second is, "that the Christian Religion lays the strongest Obligation of Obedi&rehy;ence on the Consciences of all Christi&rehy;ans:" This is true, but not in the Text: It might have been also a remote Inference, but more properly a fifth, than a second Head; for that ought to have been, what in the Words is the second Consideration.

He tells us here, that the Christian Re&rehy;ligion lays us under the strongest Ties of Subjection to Government; whereas before he told us, that Government was founded on human Consent, not God's Appoint&rehy;ment: Subjects are Subjects to a Form of Government; no Form of it, says the Bi&rehy;shop, is prescrib'd by God, nor therefore by the Christian Religion, above another; yet he insists, you are to be subject to a Form of Government, for Conscience Sake, by applying it at last to the present Government. His Discourse is a proper Image of the Rebel&rehy;lion, it fights with it self: God orders you to be subject to a Form of Government; yet God, he avers, order'd no Form of it, Man order'd the whole.

Pag. 24. He builds the Right of the Ma&rehy;gistrate to Tribute, and Obligation of others to pay it, on Christ's Answer to the Question, Matth. xxii.16. Whether it was lawful to pay Tribute? Observe, the Question is not, whether a Man was oblig'd to pay it, but whether it was even so much as lawful; Christ did not say it was lawful, or a Duty to pay Tribute, but in general Terms, Render to Cæsar the Things that are Cæsar's? What Things are Cæsar's? Christ did not resolve that Question. In another Text Christ said, the Children are free from Custom or Tribute. The Bishop quotes St. Paul as an Example of Subjection, Pag. 25. St. Paul would not submit once to the Ma&rehy;gistrate, Is it lawful, says he, for you to scourge a Man that is a Roman, and uncon&rehy;demn'd?

Pag. 27. He comes to his Third and last Head, That it is our Duty to be subject to the present Government. Pag. 11. he ex&rehy;presses it, how much it is our Duty; and he proposes there to shew that from the Words of the Text, that is, the Bishop asserts, that St. Paul, near 1700 Years ago, (though no Form of Government, as he declares, was ever prescrib'd by God above another,) made it our Duty to God, for Conscience Sake, to be subject to the present Govern&rehy;ment. His Expression, How much, Pag. 11. was his Guide. He concludes with an En&rehy;comium upon his Majesty, the Royal Fa&rehy;mily, and the Blessings of the present Situ&rehy;ation of Affairs; all shewn from the Words of the Text.

I remark, that the Scheme of the Bi&rehy;shop's Sermon was to celebrate the present Government, and to turn his Text and Ser&rehy;mon to that Point; whereas his Text should have been, as he propos'd, the Fountain of his Discourse; he has made the Conclusion of the Discourse the Beginning of the Text, and has put St. Paul's Words in Subjection to his own Speculations.

That of the Reverend Dr. Croxall claims our next Attention: His Text is, "Take away the Wicked from before the King, and his Throne shall be establish'd in Righteousness." The Doctor professes, p. 6. to chuse these Words, because they may not be found improper to a Scheme he had form'd before he chose his Text, to shew the Agreement of the 5th of Novem&rehy;ber, which commemorates our Deliverance from Popery and Slavery, (the Doctor sup&rehy;posing we are deliver'd from Slavery,) with the 30th of January, appointed to implore God's Pardon for the Martyrdom of King Charles the First. This teaching us, that the Persons of Kings are inviolable; the o&rehy;ther, that something should be done, when they are oppressive; not upon their own Per&rehy;sons, but Taking the Wicked from before Him. That Doctrine, of the Persons of Kings being inviolable, the Doctor finds strongly imply'd in his Text; and he adds Reasons for it, from the Dignity of their Office; de&rehy;claring Kings to be Officers: From the Cares and Ills they are subject to; from the Obligation we owe them for accepting so difficult an Employment, declaring that Kings have an Employment; from the Gene&rehy;ral Practice, that, in the worst of Cases, the Persons of Kings have been untouch'd. The Doctor does not suppose those Cases to be unknown, and therefore does not mention them.

He proceeds, p. 10. to assure us, that among all Nations, Christians, as well as Heathen, Kings have been look'd upon as God's Vicegerents: He supposes the Hea&rehy;then Instances of that Sentiment to be too familiarly known to require a Mention. He produces St. Paul, as styling Kings the Ministers of God: St. Paul speaks of the Powers that be, and of the Minister, which is, the Servant, of God, in that Chapter, not of Kings.

I wou'd not be misunderstood to dislike Dr. Croxall's Sentiments, any more than Dr. Trap's hereafter, but to observe upon their Discourses with that Enquiry after Truth, which is my singular Profession. He comments on the allow'd Meaning of that Law, Honour thy Father and Mother, in this Light; a Meaning may be currently al&rehy;low'd, and not just; and no Meaning of an Old Testament Text ought to be allow'd a Divine Meaning, that is, a Religious Do&rehy;ctrine, that is not declar'd to be that pre&rehy;cise Meaning in some other Texts of the Old or New Testaments. For the Mean&rehy;ings of Interpreters are various, and disal&rehy;low'd by others.

Pag. 11. He quotes the Case of David at Hachilah, abhorring to stretch forth his Hand against the Lord's Anointed, Saul, appoint&rehy;ed King by a Prophet; supposing that Case of David to be that of a Nation in regard to a King anointed by a Bishop, or a Pastor of the Church, as Dr. Croxall styles a Bishop, p. 3. It is remarkable, that the First Book of Samuel, c. 8. on the People's asking a King gives a very particular Character of one; and that Book was written by a Prophet, and is call'd The First Book of Kings.

Pag. 12. He quotes the Law of Moses, Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the Ruler of thy People; it is Exod. xxii.28. But Israel had then no Kings, and the Word 'lwhym, Gods, is any Rulers, or Magistrates, or Leaders of a People.

The Doctor has not shewn us here the Dif&rehy;ference between reviling Kings, and saying, as he does, p. 5. "That they violate the Initial Compact, substitute their own Wills for the Laws, and pursue Courses oppo&rehy;site to the People's Interest;" for some may interpret a just Complaint of iniqui&rehy;tous Facts to be reviling; and they may in&rehy;sist, that if a Ruler of the People is not to be revil'd, then an Administration, tho' Wicked, is not to be call'd Wicked. There shou'd have been a Definition of reviling, and a Distinction on the Word, Rulers of the People: Let me supply this; To revile is to propagate false Facts instead of true Ones, with Malice prepense; or to use op&rehy;probious Language, Words conveying a Reproach, without, or beyond a real Foun&rehy;dation.

To express what we conceive true Facts, in their exact Light, of the Rulers of a People, is not to revile them; but is the Do&rehy;ctrine and Practice of the Bible, especially of the Prophets, St. John the Baptist, and Christ Himself.

The Doctor goes on to his second Head, "To take away the Wicked from be&rehy;fore the King;" He speaks of the Com&rehy;mentators, and the Greek Version of the Septuagint, kteine asebeis, Kill the Wicked: The Doctor words it, Cut off: He omits to give the Hebrew Original 'shr wh, Remove wicked; it may be, wicked Thing, or Action, as well as wicked Man; the Word is the Singular Number, and is not con&rehy;fin'd to a Person; it may be, Remove Wicked&rehy;ness, Unrighteousness: The Chaldee Paraphrase has it 'wshd nwdttg Let Wicked be cast out: The Arabick begins this Chapter remarkably thus; In the Name of the Eter&rehy;nal Everlasting God: And before that, it is noted, The Proverb of Solomon are ended; his Instructions follow; very difficult to be ex&rehy;plain'd; which the Friends of Hezekiah wrote out.

So likewise the Syriac places the End of the Proverbs of Solomon before the Be&rehy;ginning of this Chapter: This the Doctor might have observ'd, when he spoke his Text out of the Proverbs.

In the Arabick, it is the 5th Verse; the Hebrew, the Original, is Remove; the Vul&rehy;gar Latin is Aufer: The Doctor might have remark'd the Original, and other Readings, and the Latitude of the Acceptation.

Pag. 17. He tells us, we ought to en&rehy;quire who are the Higher Powers. Before, p. 10. he had said, that Kings are the Mi&rehy;nisters of God. P. 17. he affirms, the Higher Powers, which are the same in St. Paul, as the Ministers of God, are the Legislative Power, the King, Lords, and Com&rehy;mons; so that here he extends Passive Obedience to the King, Lords and Commons; and they are all according to Him inviolable, by an equal Reason, either a&rehy;mong one another, or to the People.

He has omitted to prove, that St. Paul means the King, Lords, and Commons, by the Higher Powers, or the Powers that be. He, under whom St. Paul wrote, was indeed a Tyrant, but St. Paul had no Law on his Side; for the Chistian Reli&rehy;gion then was not legally tolerated in the Roman Empire. When St. Paul had Law, he pleaded it; witness the Instance pro&rehy;duc'd before.

The Doctor tells us, that Kings obsti&rehy;nately persisting in Tyranny should be ci&rehy;villy disabled from it: The Word Civil, from Civis, a Citizen, a Free Subject, im&rehy;ports, that the Cives, Citizens, Subjects, may disable him from being a Tyrant; in what manner he is to be civilly disabled, he does not express.

In a Sermon on the 30th of January, an important Doctrine should be built on a fix'd Meaning of a Text, and the Discourse should flow from it. It is an Honour to the Doctor, that being the King's Chaplain, and preaching before the House of Com&rehy;mons, He declar'd his Judgment with so much Spirit and Fortitude, becoming an Englishman, a Divine, and a Christian. But it is to me inconsistent, that he meant, by the Wicked, the Chief of the Ministry; be&rehy;cause he tells us, that the Legislative, of which they are a Part, being Members of the Houses of Lords and Commons, is In&rehy;violable; so that he has left us destitute of a Clue to judge, who or what Wicked are to be removed: I do not here examine the Truth of his Doctrine, that a Legislative, or Kings, are Inviolable.

The Reverend Dr. Trap, in the Dedi&rehy;cation of his Sermon, excuses the Severity of his Expressions upon the Day, by the like in an Act of Parliament. He needed not that Excuse for being severe upon it; and they that would dislike his Expres&rehy;sions, would object to those of the Act, for the same Reason. Acts of Parliament may be producible for and against the same Things.

His Text is extremely moving, and adapt&rehy;ed to affect the Passions; Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for your selves, and for your Children. Tho' King Charles the First acquitted the Par&rehy;liament, and thereby, in his Judgment, the Nation represented by it, of the Guilt of this Fact; tho' many, that acted in Oppo&rehy;sition to some of his Measures, protested a&rehy;gainst this Extremity; yet we know not how far in the secret Counsels of God, who maketh Inquisition for Blood, this may be imputed to the Nation; and therefore it may concern the Nation to deprecate it. I enter not here into the Question, of the Reasons for and against the Abolition of that Day; it may be an Immortal Caveat to admonish all of their Duty, from the Throne to the Cottage.

Dr. Trap's Observation is very just, that the King's Concessions gave his Adversaries Power against him.

Pag. 8. He speaks of the King's being his People's natural Sovereign; that is, born their King; intimating, that Nature is an additional Tye to all other Obligations: And he is a Moral Sovereign, who observes the Tyes of natural Justice, Equity, and Love, to all his Subjects.

Pag. 9. He repeats the Maxim, that the Person of the King is by our Laws inviola&rehy;ble. The Doctor has not shewn us, how that Rule was kept at the Revolution, as to the Person of James the Second at White&rehy;hall, the Battel of the Boyne, and other Junctures, by the Interpreters of our Laws at that Time: And we still want an Adjustment of the Point, as stated by Dr. Croxall, how far we may cut off wicked Ministers, and civilly dis&rehy;able a Tyrannical King, without Violence to his Person. For if that be among those Ministers, and Force be lawful for their Removal, that Force may terminate on the King's Person. Therefore he should have instructed us, how making War with the Wicked to take them away from the King, may not be taking the King away at the same Time, and a Violation of his Person. Dr. Trap owns that the King's Ministers were Accountable. All Rulers under the King are his Ministers; the Scripture speaks of the same Obedience to all Rulers, the Powers that be, without Distinction. If Passive Obedience is due to one, it is due to all; if not to all, then not to any, for the same Reason.

Pag. 9. Dr. Trap remarks, that God punishes the Sins of the Fathers on their Posterity in the Scripture; he omits the main Reason of that Oeconomy in the Old Testament, which is, that God was King of the Jews, in a temporal Covenant with them and their Children; and could Dis&rehy;seize either by a legal Forfeiture of his Rights vested in them, on certain Defaults. They forfeited his Grants, not their own Property; for no Creature, especially in Covenant, is a Proprietor in Bar of the Creator, who is Lord Supreme. As to any other positive Stipulation of God with the Jews, exposing their Children for their Father's Sins, it does not hold out of that Nation, and that Covenant; it is not applicable to any other Country.

Pag. 11. The Doctors offers a Reconcile&rehy;ment of the two places of Scripture, Exod. xx.5. God visits the Sins of the Fathers upon the Children; and Ezek. xviii.20. The Soul that sinneth, it shall die; the Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father. The Doctor recon&rehy;ciles this, by supposing that Ezekiel means the next Life, When the Soul that sinneth shall die; that is, be punish'd with the se&rehy;cond Death, of eternal Misery.

There is no Contradiction in those Places. Exod. xx.5. God visits the Sins of the Fa&rehy;thers upon the Children, to the third and fourth Generation, of those that hate him; that is, Idolators were obnoxious to be cut off with Death, to the third and fourth Generation. This was to be by God's Exe&rehy;cution of his own Law, as he pleas'd. The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Fa&rehy;ther; that is explain'd, Deut. xxiv.16. of Man's Execution of God's Law, that he was not to kill the Son for the Father's Sins.

Consult that Text: The Fathers shall not be put to Death for the Children, nor the Chil&rehy;dren for the Fathers: Every Man shall be put to Death for his own Sin. It is transcrib'd by Ezekiel, and means in both a human Execution, not a divine Visitation. 2. Kings xiv.6. The Children of the Murderers he slew not: According to the Law, the Fathers shall not be put to Death for the Children, nor the Children for the Fathers; Every Man shall be put to Death for his own Sin: Which is spoke of Joash killing the Servants that slew his Father, and not their Sons; pro&rehy;ving that this of Ezekiel refers to human Executions only, as directed in Deutero&rehy;nomy.

Another Proof of this is 2 Chron. xxv.4. where Amaziah is said not to slay the Chil&rehy;dren of Murderers, as the Law command&rehy;ed, saying The Fathers shall not die for the Children, nor the Children for the Fathers, but every Man shall die for his own Sin. The same as in Ezekiel, a human Execu&rehy;tion.

And ver. 2. of that Chapter of Ezekiel, you read of a popular Complaint, The Fa&rehy;thers have eaten sowre Grapes, and the Chil&rehy;dren's Teeth are set on Edge; you shall have, saith the Lord, no more Occasion for that Proverb, &horfill; all Souls are mine; the Soul that sinneth, it shall die. There God repeals the Penalty in Exodus, which he threaten'd, that he would visit the third Generation: And Jerem. xxxi.30. prophesies, in the very Words of Ezekiel, that the Days shall come, when every Man shall die for his own Iniquity.

Dr. Trap avers, that the only true way of reconciling these Places (which want no Reconcilement but to understand them, that Ezekiel repeals the Penalty in Exodus, as to any suppos'd divine Visitation on Posterity, and refers to human Executions only, as to a distinct Law of not killing the Sons for the Fathers Sins;) the Doctor's only true way is by explaining Ezekiel of a Future State, which is out of the Jewish Covenant, out of their Law, though known to, and be&rehy;liev'd by most of them. The Children's Teeth are set on Edge; did not mean that the Children dy'd in another World; but present Inconveniencies, which they complain'd they suffer'd unequally, not ac&rehy;cording to their Law, for their Fathers Sins. Whence God answers them, Are not my Ways equal, just by my Covenant, in your Law? They cou'd not complain of Ine&rehy;quality as to another Life, because it was never stipulated to them; it was a present Grievance which they then knew and felt, not the Apprehension of one to come.

The Doctor is more just in his History than his Divinity; he well paints the mise&rehy;rable Consequences of the Civil Wars to this Day; P. 16. he ascribes to them the most corrupt Religion of King James II. as he speaks; the Canon-Law still retain'd in England, founded much on the spurious Isidore, is Part of that, which is two thirds of another Church, and numerous other Corruptions are producible on a Challenge.

The Doctor puts some Blame on King Charles and King James II. What Prince is without it? Yet King Charles II. encourag'd Learning; Trade was not sunk in his Time, nor Taxes so burthensome. Their Faults ought not, cannot be defended. May we see no greater. And, as the Doctor quotes the Text, Let the Ministers, the Priests of the Lord, weep between the Porch and Altar, lest a Share in the Guilt of that Day should be laid to their Charge.

I will not now dwell upon what Salma&rehy;sius, a Great Master of Critical Learning in France, has written in Defence of the King in the Civil Wars; or of what Milton has reply'd to him; that may be the Mat&rehy;ter of another Lecture: It was said, that Salmasius dy'd of secret Uneasiness at the Answer of Milton.

The Reverend Mr. Milbourn, has been distinguish'd for his Zeal, and repeated Dis&rehy;courses on this Subject; and particularly for his Preface against the Reverend Mr. T. Bradbury; who retorted upon him, Fenwick, Friend, Parkins, Charnock, Rookwood, Ash&rehy;ton, and others, declaring a Design to mur&rehy;der King William, as agreeable to Con&rehy;science, and the Doctrine of the Church of England; and that in the Case of King Charles, no Proof could be given, when the King would not plead. I wou'd remark on that, that a King pleading is not in the Laws of England. The Word Pleas, is from Placita, the King's Sentences or Pleasure; which is against his Pleading.

I will conclude at present with a Method of Judging all Sermons on the 30th of Ja&rehy;nuary. The first Step is to resolve on form&rehy;ing an entire View of the Occasion. He that is imperfectly acquainted with the History and Foundation of the Original Controversy, which produc'd the Civil Wars, and ended in this fatal and deplorable Event, must have an imperfect Notion of the Discourses preach'd on the Anniversary: If on either Side, for or against it, he is determin'd to judge according to his Passions, and Preju&rehy;dices, taken for granted, he cannot under&rehy;stand a Sermon on the Subject.

For this Purpose, he is to consult all the Lights of Historians possible, neglecting none of either Party; weighing their Au&rehy;thentickness, their Honesty, their Knowledge of Persons and Incidents, and build&rehy;ing, not upon their Opinions, Characters, Representations, and Reflexions, as theirs, but as Facts vouch'd by them; comparing them with one another, and passing a very slow, deliberate Sentence on the whole Comparison.

When he had laid this Bottom, a Hearer is to consider, on the 30th of January, what is the Audience, what is the known Byass of the Major Part, what they desire, wish, or expect, shall be preach'd, and guard his Judgment on that Quarter: Who is the Preacher, what his Abilities, Study, and Party; what is the Interest weav'd into the Argument; hear nothing implicitly, for or against the Day, and attend closely to the Application of it.

Then when the Text is nam'd, let him reflect, how proper it is to that Point; whe&rehy;ther it be explain'd at all, or justly; whether the Doctrine arises from it; whether the Heads be regular, branching of themselves in order from the Propositions of the Text, and one another, or made to issue from it; whether the Proofs be alledg'd for Asserti&rehy;ons, from Facts, Witnesses, and Scripture, and taking the Scheme and Tenor of the Discourse, the most probable View and In&rehy;clination of the Preacher and the Audience, with the Reasons and Consequences of them, impartially deduc'd; and the Share of the present Times in the Affair.

By this Method he will be able to judge clearly the Merits of such Discourses, and separate the Truth from other Mixtures: And as to the pious Turn he is to give to it, he is to make the Scripture his Test; the Word of God, in the midst of the seven Lamps, his Guide; proportion his Submis&rehy;sion to the higher Powers, to their Exercise of their own Duty; enquire how far diffe&rehy;rent Persons intend the same Thing, in se&rehy;veral Methods and Circumstances; in the Changes of earthly Kingdoms, look at that Inheritance which fadeth not away; and adore that immortal Potentate, Jesus Christ, who has the Sovereign Right to the Heart, and whose Sceptre is a Sceptre of Righteousness.

I cannot take Leave of this Considera&rehy;tion, without doing Justice to the Vir&rehy;tues of the three Preachers above-men&rehy;tion'd: The Loyalty of the Bishop to his Prince; the Zeal and Vivacity of Dr. Trap; the Publick Spirit of Dr. Croxall. Let us apply the whole to the Culture and Im&rehy;provement of all worthy Qualities, which we esteem in others; the Discernment and Cure of our own Defects; our mu&rehy;tual Edification and Good-will, as Fellow&rehy;Christians; and modelling this, and all Ar&rehy;ticles of Thought and Conduct, to our ultimate End, the Salvation of the never&rehy;dying Soul, and the Glory of the Eter&rehy;nal King; To whom be all Obedience, Love and Praise, through endless Ages.

FINIS.