discourse and reasoning; and unless two men agree in it, they want a common principle whereby to discourse and reason with one another, unless discourse among men be like discourse among jack-daws and parrots, mere sounds without sense or meaning, (which I own is an opinion I am not very remote from.) And therefore I can think of no better way than to explain the proposition in such a manner as you may understand it and if what I say supposes the thing in dispute, víz. That you must understand what I say, before you can assent to it; I cannot help it, till I can find out a way to inform you without making you understand.

1. All assent whatever is to some proposition.

2. All propositions whatever, whether they relate to speculations or matters of fact, consist of words or terms that have each of them a distinct meaning; and every proposition must at least have three words or terms, the extremes whereof are either denied or affirmed to have some agreement with one another.

3. Assent to a proposition is an assent to the meaning, or the thing signified by the terms of a proposition, and to no more than is signified by the terms.

4. Knowing the meaning of the terms of a proposition, is what I call understanding a proposition.

All this I take to be self-evident with relation to all propositions, whether they proceed from God or man, whether they teach us matter of fact or speculation; and to put you in a way of apprehending it, I will put three cases, which will comprehend the whole dispute about mysteries.

1st. Suppose God, for the information of all mankind, causes a book to be published in Welsh, which among others contains the following proposition, three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (each of which is a perfect God by himself) constitute one God. Now the state of my mind, with respect to this case, while I understand not the sense of the words in Welsh, is, that I am ignorant of the meaning of God's words, and consequently, do not assent to that meaning which is signified by them; but knowing God to be truth itself, as soon as I do understand what God says, I am ready to give my assent to it.

2dly. Let the proposition be in English, the case is just the same. If the terms are used in ten thousand senses, and no two English au thors, agree in putting the same sense of meaning on them, and God does not any where declare what he means by those terms, I am as much at a loss as if he spoke in Welsh, and must only say, that I am ready to assent as soon as I know to what,

3dly, and lastly, let us suppose that God publishes the foregoing proposition, and does at the same time only give us a partial and inadequate conception of the meaning of the terms, in respect of what they signify in the minds of angels, and other beings more enlightened than ourselves: It is evident, that our assent can only be to what God thinks fit to reveal: What he withholds from us is not signified to us by those terms, and as to that dark part, we can only profess our ignorance, and be ready to assent to more whenever he reveals more. And here I think it proper to answer a question you put to me, whether I admit or assent to any thing as true or probable, which is not in all its parts the object of my understanding? To which I answer, that

so much sense and meaning as is conveyed to me about any thing by the terms of a proposition, I may admit or assent to as true or probable: But that part of any thing which is not conveyed to me by the terms of a proposition, is not a part of a proposition to me, and by consequence not the subject of assent.

So that, upon the whole, I take it to be clear, self-evident matter of fact, that a man cannot possibly assent to what he does not understand; and by consequence, all perfectly mysterious propositions, and so much of any proposition as is mysterious, are matters about which we can exercise no other act of our minds but of humility, in professing our Ignorance, and a readiness to be informed about them.

Pursuant to these notions, 1 readily profess to you and I think I may do it without vanity, since it is all men's duty to be Christians, that I think I understand all the fundamental articles of the Christian faith; and that hereby I am ready to give a reason of the hope that is in me, and defend it against all objections, which I think every man is the more able to do, with respect to any cause, the better he understands it: But how any man can think himself a Christian, who owns that he understands not some of the articles necessary to be believed to make him one; how he can preach a religion to others, which he professes not to understand, that is, how he can make others understand what he does not understand himself; and how others can be persuaded to think themselves either the wiser or the better for hearing what they don't understand, (one of which you must allow to be the end of preaching); would be great mysteries to me, did I not by conversing with mankind see, that they generally consist of two sorts, learned parrots, and unlearned parrots: To the first whereof, absurdity is the peculiar privilege; and to the latter ignorance; for they have few or no notions, and no opportunity of taking those academical pains, which are absolutely necessary to make men absurd to any degree.

Another parodox that you fancy I advanced was, that the distinction of things above and contrary to reason, is a distinction without a difference. Whether I said so or no, I remember not: But as to the distinction, I answer briefly, that tell me clearly and distinctly what you mean by the words, (for I understand not your explication of them) and then I will tell you whether it be a distinction without a difference. Till you define the terms, so that I can know what you mean, I can understand nothing by them, and by consequence neither affirm, not deny any thing about that distinction.

Though your letter contains so much which I do not understand, yet for your satisfaction, I will point out some questions started by you' which I do understand.

As,

1st. Whether I am sincere or no, (implied in these words, that you* hope I am sincere.)

2aly. Whether I was in jest or in earnest, (implied in your doubting whether I was serious with you.)

3dly. Whether I believe the scriptures or no, (implied in your saying, if the authority of St. Paul might decide the controversy I must be silenced forever, &c.)

But these matters being purely personal, and no ways relating to the question, I give you no trouble about them. Besides, they are of no

use in a private letter, how good arguments soever they may be thought to clear a point in Divinity, either from the pulpit or the press.

I am, sir,

Your humble servant,

C.

NUMBER 20.

Of Chaplains.

As between the several acts of the most grave and solemn tragedies, it is allowed to divert the company with a dance or a song; so in this paper, I shall descend to entertain my readers with a dissertation upon chaplains, who are a sort of expensive domesticks, which none but great families can entertain. How or when this venerable piece of houshold stuff became first in use, is not certainly determined, that I know of; but it is certain, that he is left entirely out of the roll of ecclesiastical officers mentioned in the new-testament; his use and importance being not thought of, or forgot to be mentioned by St. Paul, thongh not by Mr. Collier, who has supplied the omission of the Apostle, and discovered the same.

It is likely that chaplains were first invented and brought into fashion, in the dark and barbourous ages; and so custom has continued what ignorance began. To these days of darkness is owing the marvellous increase of lazy monks and cheating friars; in which black swarm of reverend idlers, probably, first crept in this supernumerary levite. It is well known, that worthless and designing priests have always advanced and nourished superstition, being very sensible that it would in return nourish and multiply them. Thus priest-craft and bigotry beget each other; and being so near a-kin, perpetually maintain the mutual relation.

The office of a chaplain is, according to Mr. Collier, to pray for, bless, and give absolution to those he is concerned for All which says he, are acts of authority and jurisdiction." If this last assertion be true, it is enough to destroy all charity; since at this rate of reasoning, I ought to be afraid of throwing a farthing to an alms-woman, lest she should be thereby provoked to pray for and bless me, and by that means acquire jurisdiction over me. And who would not rather deny his charity than give away his liberty?

To shew that Mr. Collier is very much in earnest in bestowing this same authority upon this his domestic parson, he puts a rod in his hand against the master of the family himself, whom, it seems, it is his right to counsel, exhort and reprove; which offices, he says, are "inconsist ent with the condition of a servant." The chaplain therefore is, in the first place, a much wiser man, as well as a more holy, than my lord is; and in the second place, it is his duty to owe my lord no duty at all in the capacity of a servant to a superiour.

After he has put the clergy in "joint commission with the angels themselves," as he says God has done; it is no wonder that he will not allow the meanest of them to be any man's servant, how great soever. He therefore reasons against the 13th of Henry VIII. because it calls the patrons of chaplains their masters. If some of them "formerly were stewards and clerks of the kitchen to people of distinction," as he says bishop Latimer complains some of them were forced to be in his time; I cannot see for all that how they could, according to Mr. Collier, suffer by it in their dignity and reputations; because, for as good reasons as before, their gathering the rent and going to market for provision, might give them jurisdiction over the person who employed them. I cannot therefore join with some of the criticks in censuring the author of the scornful lady, for dispatching parson Roger in a morning, with his basket under his arm, to scour the roosts and gather eggs; the same being a primitive branch of his office, if we may believe the aforesaid bishop.

But though "people misapprehending the priest's office, entertain a chaplain upon the same account they do their footmen, only to garnish the table and stuff out the figure of the family;" (Collier's Essays, Part 1. p. 204, 205.) yet "for a patron to account such a consecrated person his priest, as if he belonged to him as a servant, is, in effect, to challenge divine honours, and to set himself up for a God," (p. 207.) Mr. Leslie puts the same thing stronger, in fewer words, and will not suffer any man (prince or subject) to say, my parson, or my chaplain,: in any other sense than we say, my king, or my God.

So that, in the sentiments of these reverend gentlemen, every one who hires a chaplain, hires a master. Take warning then, O ye rich men, nobles, and princes of the earth; and due submission and allegiance pay unto these your spiritual sovereigns, whom you have taken into your service to be your superiours; and to whom you give bread and wages to exercise dominion over you.

After all, Mr. Collier is so good as to allow "the master of the family in the absence of the priest, to supply his place, as far as lawfully he may, that is, in praying and giving thanks at meat," (p. 200.) But he must not pray to God to bless his family, and to forgive them their sins; for this would be to usurp the authority of his lord, the chaplain. Before I have done with Mr. Collier, I would ask him one question, and that is, whether the chaplains of bishops are of the same superiour importance and authority with the chaplains of laymen; because the bishops themselves are qualified to be their own chaplains; if the saying of domestick prayers, and blessing their own table, is allowed by. him to be consistent with their ecclesiastical dignity?

Milton, though otherwise a man of great parts and merit, yet wanting either the sense or the grace to see the usefulness and excellency of these adopted sovereigns, speaks of them with too much contempt. He says, that "in state perhaps they may be listed among the upper serving men of some great household, and be admitted to some such place as may stile them the sewers or the yeomen ushers of devotion, where the master is too resty, or to rich, to say his own prayers, or to bless his own table." (Vol. 2. of his Works in folio, p. 509.)

But this was the case only in his time, for a chaplain now-a-days is. looked upon as a more honourable piece of furniture. After a coach

and six, the next trappings of domestick grandeur, are a page, plate, and a parson. He swells the household pomp and luxury, and is often taken for pride more than prayers. Formerly, his appetite was ubcourteously restrained; he was only permitted to riot in roast beef; and sir Scrape and the first course were removed together. But now he has better luck, having, for the most part, obtained a general toleration for custard.

Nor are the times mended with Mr. Chaplain in one instance only: In days of yore he was humbly content with Abigail, and my lady's woman was thought a suitable match for the household priest, (as Mr. Collier christens him) but now he does not make that use of her, but leaves her, and flies at higher game. If my lady be single, the doct or has a chance for making his fortune; and when he cannot marry her, be can sometimes sell her of which I could give instances, but for the regard which I bear to the quality and the priesthood. If my las dy be already married, he has still happiness and good fortune in his eye, provided she be but young; and even though she be old, provided she be superstitious and bigoted: so that whether her person be agreeable, or her understanding crazy, he has his ends; for he has a parson's barn, and nothing comes amiss.

It must be owned farther, that a chaplain in a great family is a use ful body for most purposes, except that of his function: he is of a facetious person, and his jokes and puns keep the upper part of the family in a good mood; for, as to the inferiour, he deigns not to speak to them, unless to insult them, and thereby teach them the great respect which they owe him. He moreover graciously condescends to pry into all the actions and behaviour of the servants, by which he keeps them in obedience and fear, at least of himself.

Scire volunt secreta domûs, atque inde timeri.

Besides, he is so courteous, that he meddles with all family-affairs, unasked; and interposes with his counsel and authority, unthanked. From hence it comes, that he and the steward can never agree: for the steward (like a sauny layman, as he is) will be pretending to know his own business as well as Mr. Chaplain, who is a consecrated person. The family is therefore eternally divided into two factions between them; but the doctor has the secret of securing the women on his side, and so always gets the better.

The doctor is likewise a considerable person for divers other arts and accomplishments. He throws a bowl with more skill, and follows it with more activity, than any man (not in orders) upon the green. He is also a trusty toper in the family: he has an uncommon palate in the discernment of liquors, and an uncommon zeal for their consumption. Nor is his great dexterity at whisk of trivial moment: his talent in this branch of his duty is so signal, that my lady seldom fails chusing, or rather requiring him for her own partner, if he be not already snapped up by the daughter for hers.

After all this, who can wonder that our houshold-priest holds up his head, and adores himself? He is an hourly witness of his own importance and figure; and finding himself an extraordinary body it is nothing strange that he demands extraordinary treatment. As little to