this earth, which they cannot endure to think of leaving, holds their hearts.

And, (a little to discuss this matter,) what would we have to assure us? Do we expect a vision or a voice? Or are we not to try ourselves; and search for such characters in our own souls, as may distinguish and note us out for heaven? Among these, what can be more clear and certain than this, that we have our hearts much set upon it? They that have their conversations in heaven, may from thence expect the Saviour, who shall change their vile bodies (the bodies of their humiliation, or low abject state,) and make them like his own glorious body. Phil. 3. 20. 21. God, who will render to every man according to his works, will give them that by patient continuance in well-doing seek honor and glory and immortality, eternal life. Rom. 2. 6. 7. They that set their affections (or minds) on the things above, not those on the earth, when Christ shall appear, who is their life, shall appear with him in glory. Col. 3. 2. 3. 4. Mistake not the notion of heaven, or the blessedness of the other world; render it not to yourselves a composition of sensual enjoyments; understand it (principally) to consist in perfect holiness and communion with God, (as his own word represents it, and as reason hath taught even some pagans to reckon of it;) and you cannot judge of your own right by a surer and plainer rule, than the eternal blessedness shall be theirs, whose hearts are truly bent and directed towards it. Admit we then this principle; and now let us reason with ourselves from it: we have a discovery made to us of a future state of blessedness in God, not as desirable only in itself, but as attainable and possible to be enjoyed, (the Redeemer having opened the way to it by his blood, and given us, at once, both the prospect and the offer of it,) so that it is before us as the object of a reasonable desire. Now either our hearts are so taken with this discovery, that we above all things desire this state, or not. If they be, we desire it more than our earthly stations and enjoyments, are willing to leave the world and the body to enjoy it; and so did falsely accuse ourselves of a prevailing aversion to this change. If they be not, the thing is true, that we are upon no terms willing to die but the cause is falsely or partially assigned. It is not so much because we are unassured of heaven, but (as was above suspected) because we love this world better, and our hearts centre in it as our most desirable good.

Therefore we see how unreasonable this is often said, we are nnwilling to change states, because we are unassured. The truth is, they are unassured, because they are unwilling; and what then ensues? They are unwilling because they are unwilling. And so they may endlessly dispute themselves round, from unwillingness to unwillingness. But is there no way to get out of this unhappy circle? In order to it, let the case be

more fully understood: either this double unwillingness must be referred to the same thing, or to divers: if to the same thing, it is not sense; they say what signifies nothing; for being to assign a cause of their unwillingness to quit the body, to say, because they are unwilling, (namely, of that,) is to assign no cause, for nothing can be the cause of itself: but if they refer to divers things, and say, they are unwilling to go out of the body, because they are unwilling to forsake earth for heaven; the case is then plain, but sad, and not alterable, but with the alteration of the temper of their spirits. Wherefore let us all apply ourselves (since with none this is so fully done, that no more is needful) to the serious endeavor of getting our souls purged from the dross of this world, and enamored of the purity and blessedness of heaven, so the cause and effect will vanish together; we shall find that suitableness and inclination in our spirits to that blessedness as may yield us the ground of a comfortable persuasion that it belongs to us; and then, not be unwilling, though many deaths stood in our way, to break through to attain it.

BIOGRAPHY

OF

DR. WILLIAM BATES.

The author of the Discourses on the Four last things, which occupy the remainder of this volume, was DR. WILLIAM BATES. Of his general claims to the remembrance both of scholars and of christians we have abundant evidence, not only in his works, but in the very high estimation, in which he was held by the best men of all parties among his contemporaries. Probably no one of the non-conformist divines of his age was so generally popular, or sustained so high a reputation as a writer, especially in regard to his style and manner; and yet the biographical notices preserved respecting him are peculiarly scanty. The following sketch comprises all the important facts, which I have been able to discover.

Dr. Bates was born Nov. 1625, of respectable parents, his father being a physician and an author of some eminence. We have no farther account of him, except that he received a suitable school education, till his entrance at the university. He was sent to Cambridge and admitted first, though the year is not mentioned, of Emanuel College, from which he removed to Kings in 1644. He commenced Bachelor of Arts in 1647 at the age of 22, and applying himself to the study of divinity, soon became a distinguished and popular preacher. From this time he seems to have enjoyed the favor of all parties, as a man of great learning, talents and piety, till after the restoration of Charles II. At some period during this interval he became fixed as a preacher in the metropolis, being made vicar, and receiving the valuable living, of St. Dunstan's in the West. He continued to discharge the duties of his station till 1662, when the celebrated act of uniformily occasioned his removal. Believing that he could not consistently with his duty conform to the requirements of this act, he surrendered his living and preached a farewell sermon to his

people, Aug. 17th of that year. Of his residence or employments immediately after this event no definite account is given. We find him in 1665 taking the oath required of non-conformists by the five-mile act, and it seems not to have been many years after he left his charge at St. Dunstan's till he became settled over a dissenting congregation at Hackney near London, where he spent the remainder of his life.

Apart from his more ordinary employment and influence as a minister of the gospel, Dr. Bates acted a conspicuous and important part in relation to the more general and public interests of religion. He was among those ministers, who took an active part in the restoration of Charles II. and was so distinguished in the view of that monarch as to be made soon after one of his chaplains in ordinary. By royal mandate, issued in November of the same year, he was admitted to the degree of Doctor in Divinity at Cambridge university. Subsequently the Deanery of Coventry and Litchfield was offered to him, but refused from conscientious scruples; and so high did his character stand at this time, that it is said he might have had any Bishoprick in the kingdom, would his principles have permitted an entire conformity to the established church.

In the various efforts that were made to effect a reconciliation of parties, and comprehend the dissenters within the establishment, Dr. Bates was much consulted, and took a very active part. He was one of the commissioners at the Savoy conference in 1660; and when three of the commissioners on each side were selected to discuss certain points in dispute more particularly, he was chosen on the part of the Presbyterians, together with Mr. Baxter and Dr. Jacomb. During the whole of this debate he is said to have conducted himself with great wisdom and moderation, and to have spoken so "very solidly, judiciously, and pertinently," as to procure great respect from his brethren. When again, in 1667-8, a treaty was proposed, by some of the more moderate in the establishment, for a comprehension of such of the Dissenters as could be brought into the church, and a toleration of the rest, Dr. Bates was one of those appointed by the dissenters to draw up a scheme of the alterations which they desired. In the same year we find him concerned with Drs. Manton and Jacomb in presenting an address to the king, with a view to obtain relief for the non-conformists, but without any ultimate success. He was again engaged in 1674 or 5 in the promotion of peace; and by their request, in company with some of his associates, had an interview with Tillotson and Stillingfleet for this purpose. In these men he found a congenial spirit, and terms were agreed upon; but other bishops opposing, the movement was unsuccessful.

In the mean time the strength of his principles was tried, not only by the loss or abandonment of his higher hopes in the