s.^ ■ -y i. KT?^- DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY FRIENDS OF DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Frank Baker 3f4^ z A n~ CONFUTATION P O P°E R Y, In III PARTS. WHEREIN, I. The Controverfy concerning the Rule of Faith is Determined. IL The Particular Dodtrines of the Church of Kome are Confuted. III. The Tofijh Objedions againft the Church of England are An- fwer'd. By Thomas Bennet, M. A. Reftor of St. "James's in Colchefter. The FOURTH EDITION. LONDON: Printed by M. jf. and fold hy James Knapton at the Crown in St. Paul's Church Yard. 17 14. /' . I i IX I U 'I /iOJ i j .Ci L y't ^ x 1 .ill riiL ' rh V^ Thofe who have jufi Notions of Popery, ought not to reft fat isffd that they themfelves do abhor it : hut they ought alfo to open the Eyes of thei^^ Brethren^ and excite the fame abhorrence in others ;' that thofe 7vhom Satan has hounA for fo wany years ^ may now he loofed. EffeciaHy we ought to be dili^ gent at this juncfure of Time, when the feverity of our Laws dd^s fecond our endeavors: and thecoffJ federation of their Temporal Intereji will prevail jvith our Jdverfaries to lend an Ear to our Reafons, and examine the force of them. Now ^tis poffible that this Book may be in fome meafure ufefut for the Converfton of Papifts ; and therefore it cannot be thought unfeafonMe. Thirdly, It may be added, that our Jealoufes of Popery have been lately revivd. We know the refllefi spirit of the Rcmifh Clergy \ thtt ihey Will lay hold of every opportunity of ejUblifljing their Super fit ion among us, and that they will fp are no pains in endeavoring to extirpate what they call Herefy : a?id therefore we ought not to be over-con- fident of our Securit), God The PREFACE. God only knows what changes may happen^ and what dangers do threaten our Religion. But with* out all doubt it becomes us Spiritual Mariners fo far at leaft to think of a Storm, as to make frovi- fion againfi it. For jbould it fuddenly overtake us^ His to he doubted^ that many would make Shipwreck of their Faith. Now His pofflble^ that what I have written m the following Papers^ may confirm the refolution of feme one or other y and make him more fiedfafi in what he believes. It may increafe his knowledge^ and flrengthen him againfi the day of Tryal. And certainly ^ whatfoever may fave a Soul from Deaths cught not to be thought unfeafonable. COLCHESTER, Foclrtnes of the Church of Rome. Chap. I. \ General Argument againft Popery ^£\ proposed. 77 chap. ii. That the Docfrine (/ Tranfubftantiation ts abfo/utelj falfe. 8 J chap, iii. That the DoBrine c/Tranfubftantiation cannot be provd from the ftxth Chapter of St, JohnV Gofi^el, 1 1 1 chap. iv. That the fixth Chapter of St. John's Gofpel d(fs not relate to the Lord?s buffer, 1 1 j chap. V. Objecfions again fi the farmer Chapter An- faer'^d. 122 chap. vi. That altho^ the fixth Chapter of St. John's Gofpel did relate to the Lord's Supper^ yet it cannot be under food tn a Litiral Senje. 1 27 chap. The CONTENTS. chap. vii. That^ altho' the fixth Chaffer of St. John'/ Gofpel did relate to the Lord's Supper, and m^re to he under flood in a Literal Senfe ; yet it do's not prove the^ Do5lrine of Tranfubftantiation, hut direEtl) contrary, ^ Page ij4 chap. viii. Ihat the D^^Jr/;?^ e?/ Tranfubftantia- tion cannot he prozi^dfrom the Words of the li^* Jlitution of the Lord^s Supper. Ij6 chap. ix. That the Doclrine of the Trinity, and the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, are not equally credible, 147 chap, X. Of the Adoration of the Hojl. 151. chap. xi. Of Communion in one kind. \Kfi chap. xii. Of Prayers in an unknown Tongue. 17 j chap. xiii. Of the Worfhip of Angels and Saints eliap. xiv. Of Auricular Confeffton. ^ . 210 chap. XV. Of Satisfaction. 219 chap. xvi. Of Purgatory. .^^, ^^^^^ , . 249 chap. xvii. Of Prayers for the Dead, 276 chap, xviii. Of Merits. 1^85 chap. xix. Of Indulgences. 289 chap, XX. Of Extreme VnHion. 299 chap. xxi. Of the Popes Supremacy. jio chap. xxii. Brief Reflections upon fome other Vo^'iih Doctrines. . . ... ..„.^- . _. j j 2 chap, xxiii. The General Argument againji Popery concluded. Jj6 b 2 PART The CONTENTS. PART III. Of the Popilh OhjCLlions againft the Church of England. Chap. 1/ I ^HE charge of Schlfm from the 1 Catholic Churchy anfiver'd and returned. Page jj8 ^hap. ii. The pretence of our many Divifwns an* frver'd. ^44 chapo iii. Of the pretended Novelty of our RelU gion ; or an anfwer to the common Quejliony ^^ Where was your Religion before Luther f ' 347 chap. iv. Of the Invalidity of our Orders. J52 chap V. The fretence of greater fafety in the Ro- man Communion^ than in the Communion of the Church of England, anfwer d. J54 Of c ^ | t l it * '».. ■ ■ ■■ I • ' T ;i i Jl-.? CONFUTATION POPERY. P ART! Of the Rule of Faith. CHAP. I. That thofe things which are not contained in the Scriptures^ were not reveaPd to the Jpojlles, EFORE I proceed to the examina- tion of thofe particular Dodrines which are maintain'd^ and impos'd as necef- fary to falvation^ by the prefent corrupted Church of Rome • I think it neceffary to fettle that great and fundamental A point 2 Ch. I. Of the Rule of Fahh. Part I. f point of the RULE of FAITH, rri 'treating * of which^ I fliall not meddle with any fubtile nice-' , tks concerning the nature and properties of a Rule :; ! but endeav^our to (hew vvttb all poffible plainefs^ . th^t the Bible is a ferfeB Rule of Faith 'j or_, which ! is the very fame in other words^ that the Ho- ly Scriptures do contain ^U- things necefjary 'to fal- 'uation. This 1 (hall attempt in the following manner. Both Proteflants andPapifls are agreed^ diat God has reveal'd all thofe things which are neceflary to falvation , and that the Holy Scriptures do con- tain Divine Revelations : and therefore if I make it appear^, that we ought not to receive any thing as a Divine Revelationj befides thofe things' which are contained in the Scriptures ,• it plainly follows, that the Holy Scriptures, which will then appear to be the only Divine Revelations, do_contain all things neceffary to falvation. Now 'tis certain, that vve ought' not to receive any thing as a Divine Revelation, without a fuf- ficient proof, that it was revealed by God : and therefore we ought nor 'to receive any thing as a Divine Revelation, bcfides thofe things which are contain'd in the Scriptures ^ becaufe we have' no fufficient proof that God has revealed it. For, if God has rcveal'd fome particular things, befides thofe which are contain'J in the Scriptures, then he has revcal'd them either to the Apoftles or to fome other Perfcns : whereas I fhall make it ap- pear, that we have no fufficient proof that any particular things, not contain'd in the Scriptures^ were reveard to either of them. FIRST then, I fliall {hew that we have no fufficient • proof that any particular thing, not contain'd in the Scriptures, was reveaFd to the Apoftles. Part T. Of the Rale of Faith. Ch. I. j Apoftles. Now that I may not be mifunderftood, I define the Reader to obferve, that I do not fay, that God never did reveal any thing to the A- poftles^ befides v/hat we find in their Writings. For it appears from thofe very writings, that they knew fome particulars, which they did not think fit to communicate to pofterity : and 'tis probablc_, that God made many great difcoveries of his Will to thofe firfl Planters of the Gofpel, which bei'ng; not necelTary for us, are for that reafon concealed from us. But I fay, that whatever Revelations God was pleas'd to vouchfafe them, it does not appear to us, that any of thofe things, which, the* not contain'd in the Scriptures, are now-a-days faid to have been reveal'd to them, were certainly reveafd by Almighty God. And therefore, tho' fome things, not contain'd in the Scriptures, were never fo certainly revea^d ,• yet we cannot name thofe particular things. Nor can we affirm upon juft and reafonable grounds, that any one Dodrine, which lays claim to the Apoftles Authority, was reveal'd to them by Almighty God, if that do- drine be not contain'd in the Scriptures. The only argument by which our Adverfaries endeavour to prove, that God did reveal fome particular dodrines to the Apoftles, which are not contain'd in the Scriptures, is drawn from the te- ftimony o^ Tradition. By which word, as 'tis us'd in Scripture, we are to underftand that Holy Do- drine, which was immediately deliver'd by the Apoftles to the firft Chriftians, either by word of mouth, or in writing. But in the controverfies between the Reform'd Churches and the Church of Rome ^ the word Tradition has two different meanings. I. It fignifies a particular Doctrine^ which is A 2 faid 4 Ch.I. Of the Rule of Faith. Parti/ faid to have been taught by the Apoftles ^ and ii t)ierefore called an Afofiolkal Tradition. Thus_, when we ask^ whether Tranfuhfiantiation^ Auricu- lar Confeffiofiy Extreme UnBiotj^ &:c. are Afofiolical 'Traditions y or no ,- the queftion isj whether thofe particular Dodrines were taught by the Apoftles. ^yj% f^gnifies the manner or means by which ariy particular doctrine is delivered or handed down from generation to generation. And this may be done^ either by the Writings of the Perfons who teach it^ and then 'tis called a vmtten Tradition ; or elfe by the report or Writings of other Perfons^ and then 'tis call'd an unwritten Tradition, Thus for inftance^ thofe Dodrines which the Apoftles or Evangelifts. have taught us in their own Wri- tingSj I mean, in the New Teftament, are handed down to us by written Tradition : whereas thofe Dodrines which are not fo taught, but are faid to have been deriv'd from them, either by the re- port of fuccefiive generations, or by the Teftimo- ny of ancient Fathers, are handed down to us by unwritten Tradition ,• that is, they were never com- mitted to writing by thofe Preachers themfelves, alrho' they may have been written a thoufand times by other Perfons. And from hence it appears that thqre are two kinds of unwritten Tradition. For Fir fi^ if by un- written Tradition we underftand the barQ report of our Anceftors, fuch as was fpread from Father toi Son, or from one Man to another, merely by word of mouth ,• then that unvMtten Tradition is diftin- guifti'd by the Name of Oral Tradltioij, But Se^ condly^ if by unwritten Tradition we underftand the Teftimony of the ancient Writers of the Church, who have deliver'd any particular docfbrine in their i^ooks^ then this Tradition (which we do there- fore Part I. Of the Rule of Faith. Ch. t. ' ^ fore call unwritten^ becaufe it was not written by the firft fuppos'd Teachers themfelves) is diftin- guifh'd by the Name of Hifiorkal Tradition, Ha- ving thus explain'd the feveral acceptations of Tradition^ I muft now defire the Reader to ob- ferve^ that I ufe the Word in the latter fenfe of the two_, that iSj it fignifies unwritten Tradition in ge- neral, comprehending both Oral and Hifiorical^ in the following difcourfe. ' - Now 'tis fully agreed between us and our Ad- verfarieSj that thole DoArines which we find in the Scriptures were moil certainly reveal'd to th6 Apoftles by Almighty God ,• becaufe we are af- fur'd of the Revelation of them by the written Tradition of the Apoftles themfelves : but then Our Adverfaries proceed much farther. They tell us, that by the report of all forpier generations, and by the Writings of the Primitive Fathers (that is, both by Oral and Hifiorical Tradition) they have found out other dodrines ; which, tho' not contained in the Scriptures,were neverthelefs taught by the Apoftles, and reveal'd to them by Air mighty God, and handed down to us by this «w- written Tradition, But to this I anfwer, F/>/, that there is no Tradition for thofe do- ctrines which our Adverfaries wou'd fain obtrude upon us. But becaufe I cannot juftify this reply^ and prove it to be fufficient, without fearching into the Books of the Ancient Fathers, and fhewing the vanity of this pretence to Tradition^ by deducing the Hiftory of thefe and the oppofite Dodrines thro' the firft and pureft Ages of the Church ; and becaufe this Method of proceeding is not only tedious, but will alfo oblige me to in- firt upon very many authorities, taken from thole who f\ave w;itten in the Learned Languages,which A ; many 6 Ch. II. Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. many Readers have neither time nor abilities to examine ; therefore I ftiall rather chufe to an- fwer_, Secondly^ that tho* they could juftly pretend to an ancient unvmtten Tradition ; yet the tefrimony of hare Tradition is not a fufficient proofs that any far^ ticular Doctrine not contain d in the Scriptures^ was re'veaVd to the Apoflles by Almighty God, And this will appear, if we confider the following parti- culars ; Firft, that Tradition is utterly uncertain^ and U-. able to great corruptions. Secondly, tha-t we have no remedy again fi the Un^ certainty and Corruptions o/^ Tradition. CHAP. IL That Tradition is utterly uncertain^ and liable to great Corruptions, I. f I ^HEI^_, Tradition is utterly uncertain ^ and li^ ' JL able to great Corruptions. The Heathen Mythology is a fufficient demonftration of this Matter. They received their Religion from the Reports of their Fathers, who were always making fuch additions to it, that at length it was loaded with abfurdities, and became both incredible and ridiculous. I doubt not but their ilories had fome foundation of truth ; but the Folly, Superftition or Knavery of thofe Perfons who convey'd them down, had fo much debas'd and increab'd them with Lies and Corruptions, that in procefs of time the whole Hiftory of their Gods was one cominu'd Fable. But Part I. Of the Rule of Faith. Ch. 11. 7 But perhaps our Adverfaries may pretend^ that the Heathens being without any revelations from the true God^ might be the more eafily deceiv'd by the falfe ones 5 and that their monftrous er- rors in Religion were not owing to the Natural uncertainty of Tradition^ but to the Malice of the Devil^ who made it his great bufinefs to ruin their fouls by the grofleft Idolatry. Now in anfwer to this it muft be granted^ that the Devil us'd his ut- moft endeavours to corrupt the principles of the Gentile World 5* and that they coud not fo well withftand his temtations^ as thofe who enjoy the affiftance of Divine revelation : but yet it muft be obferv'd^ that when the Devil aim'd at their deftrudlion^ he thought Tradition the readieft way to compafs it. 'Twas by the hdp of Tradition that he debauched their notions concerning God and Religion ^ and from thence it appears that Tra- dition is a moft pernicious inftrument^ if manag'd by the Devil's artifice. Nor ought we to imagin our felves fecure from the mifchief of it^ becaufe we enjoy the benefit of theGofpel^and have a greater and clearer light than the Heathens : for I fliall fliew that Tradition has ever been utterly uncertain and liable to great Corr ruptions^notwithftanding the brighteft Revelations that God has ever vouchfat'd to Mankind. And I am fure, we have too many proofs, that the Devil is as able and willing to deceive and de- ftroy in thefe days^ as he was in thofe of our Fore- fathers. I fuppofe our Adverfaries will allow, that God vouchfaf'd frequent Revelations to the Patriarchs before the Law, and fufficiently inftru6led them in his Will. Nor can we doubt but thofe holy Men us'd their beft endeavours to propagate the A 4 E)o- 8 Ch. II. Of the Rule of Fatth. Part 1. Doctrine they receiv'd ; that by being Preachers of Righceoufnefs they might reform the Lives of their Brethren. Befides, it appears from Scripture that Methiij'akm^ who was 24:5 years old when Adam dy'd^ liv'd till Sem the fon of Noah arriv'd at the Age of 98 years. So that Sern dying 600 years old^ and ^02 years after the Flood, which was brought upon the World i6j6 years after the Cre- ation of it j it is manifeft, that thefe three Perlbns^ Adam, Meihtfakm and 5t^/;, fiU'd up the fpace of 21^8 years. Now in thefe Times it is obfcrvable^ not only that the Lives of Men were extremely long, but alfo that the principles of their Religion were ex- tremely few ^ {0 that it might be convey'd with much greater eafe and fafety, than we can expert in our prefent Circumftances. Nay, Sem cou'd re- ceive the moft exad informations from Methufa- lem^ who might be affur'd of every particular from the Mouth of Adam himfelf , who liv'd for a while in the State of Innocence, and was the firft Man that God created. The cafe was much the fame with refpe<5t to the reft of Noah's Children, who liv'd before the Flood, and were able to fpread an exad account of God's Holy Will^ and his terrible Judgments, thro' all the World. All thefe things meeting together made much more for the fecurity and prefervation o^Traditiov, and were infinitely better able to maintain the pu- rity of it, than any the fucceeding Ages cou'd ever pretend to. And yet Tradition^ tho' attended with fuch unparallel'd circumftances, cou'd not faithfully convey even the Natural Religion, but mix'd it with numberlefs errors ; infomuch that Idolatry was foon pradis'd, and God was con- ftrain'cf (even during Sm% life time) to make new Part I. Of the Rule oj Faith. CIi, II. 9 new and immediate Revelations to the Patriarch Again, 'tis granted, that the Jev/tjlj Church: worfhipp'd the true God, and had excellent oppor- tunities of preferving their Tr^idifims^ and preven- ting the Corruptions of them. They had not only the Books of Mofes^ but a fucceffion of Pro- phets aUb, to examine them by. And yet, in fpight of all thefe great advantages, when once they were made to think, that they ought to re- ceive Traditions^ tho' faid to be deriv'd from Mo- fes himfelf ; they entertained and taught fuch abo- minable doctrines, that our Savior faid, they did tranfgrejs the Commandment of God by their Tradi- tion, Matth. If. 3. Mark 7. 7. Tho' God had ex- prefly told them, Peut. 12. 52. Whatfoever I com- mand you^ ohferve to do it ; ye jliall not add to ity nor diminijl) from it ; yet they neglected fome ot God's moft important Precepts, and made the Com^ mandments of God of none effect thro their Tradi- tion, Matt. 15". 6. They were led by the autho- rity of Tradition to believe that the Meffias jQiou'd be a Temporal Prince ; and upon this ground they refilled the evidence of thofe Arguments, by which our Savior prov'd himfelf to be the Meffias. So that their final obftiiiacy, and hatred of Chjrift, their putting him to death, and the perfecution of his dilciples and followers, were the iad efFeds of their adhering to an uncertain and corrupted Tra^ dition. If we look into the State of the Chriftian Church, we fhall find many inftances of the fame nature. Papias^ who liv'd in the beginning of the fecond Century, made it his bufinefs to coUedt Traditions, He convers'd with thofe, who were in- timately acquainted with the Apoftles j and wrote thofe 10 Ch. II. Of the Rule' vf Faith, Part F^-^ thofe Relations which the)'- deliver'd to him ; and yet we cannot rely upon the credit of his Re- j^orts; For he vented a parcel of idle (a) Tales ; and amongft the reaft he delivers the Dodrine of the MiUenmum for a certain truth. Nay farther^ Irtnam who received this Story from Fapias^ gives (h) us (if you'l believe him} the very words of OUT Savior Chrift concerning in. 'Tis manifeft alfp^ that all the Ancient Fathers believ'd it ; and even St. Jerome himfelf, who did not want cou- ragCj was almoft afraid (c) to write againft it^ be- caufe it was {o univerfally received in his days. So that we have not half the evidence for any (a) Yicti TivA tt>}.a. (y.v^xJjifjf-* '^v t>J( )y ;)4^fdJ^- Ji^^ p)cnv ^a.fi? fio^ i7n TTivlncfi 7iU ytii varfl0i7D^'«f. Eufch. Hilt. EccleC iiL^.c^p. 39. Edit.VaUf. Mogunt. 1672. (hj Prj:di6la iraque benediftio ad tempora regni fine con- rradi8:ione perciiier,quando regnabunt jufti furgenres a morfuis: cjuando &: crearura lenovara & liberata, multitudinem fruftifi. cabit univerfac ticx, 6c rore caeli, Scex fertiJirateterroe : quem- admodum Piesbyteri meminerunt, qui Johannem difcipulum Domini viderunr, audifTc fe ab eo, quemadmodum de rempori- bus illis docebat Dominus, &:dicebat, Venlent dies, in quibus Vinex nafcentur fingulai decern millia palmitum habentes, & in uno palmite dena milJia brachiorum, &c. Irni. adv. Hxref. lih. 5. cap. 33. Edit. Feuardait. Paris. 1675. {c) Nee ignore quanta inter homines fententiarum diverfitas fit. Non dice de Myft-erio Trinitatls, cujus refta confeffio eft ignoratio fcientix : fed de aJiis ecclefiafticis dogmatibus ; de re- furre£tlone fcilicet, & de animarum & humanoc carnis ftaru, de rcpromiiTionibus futurorum, quo mode debeant accipl, Sc qua ratione intelligenda fit Apocalypfis "Johannis ; quam fi juxta lir- reram accipimus, Judaizandum eft; fi fpiritualirer, ur fcrlpta eft, difterimus, multorum veterum videbimur opinionibus con- traire: Latinorum, Tertulliani, y.'clorini, Lncimtii i Grxcorum, lit cxteros prsttrmittam, Hirev^i rantum, &c ut prxfaga mente j?.m cernam, quantorum in me rabies concitanda fit. Huron. in Ifaijim, //^. 18. proem. Paris. 1(523. Other Part L Of the Rule of Faith. • Ch. U. 1 1 other opinion3 that comes recommended by TradL tion ; which we have for this Millenary Dodrine, And yet the Paflfis themfelves do rejed this Do- (Strine^ which has above all others the greateft ap- pearance of truth, and perhaps the fmalleft Num- ber of ill confequences. Baronius (d) calls it an error in Pcipias ; and faies, 'twas afterwards an He- refy in AfolUnaris ^ wifely adding this neceffary cau- tion, that (^) IVe mufi learn from the exa?»ple of Papias to wake a choice in Traditions_, and not he* lie've euerj thing , which a Man fays he recei'v''d from the Tradition of the Ancients, We are alfo told by Du Pin^ when he is fpeaking of this (f) Writer, that JVe mufi not wonder if he has made errors and faljities pafs for the fentiments of the Jpcfiies^ and related fabulous ftorics as real truths. Which teaches us that there is nothing fo dangerous in matters of Religion^ as rafl}ly to helieve and greedily to ernhrace. every thing which has the appearance of Piety ^ with- out confidering whether it be true or no. Now if Men were lb apt to be deceivM, and Doctrines {d) Error ille irrepfit in nonnullos Fideles, auftore Papia E- pifcopo Hierapolitano, de Millenario ; quitamen non eoufque progrefTus efl-, ut tranfiret in haerefim, nifi poftquam in JpoUi- narcy qui eum perrinacius propugnabar, a Damafo Papa (nt fuo loco dicemus) damnatus eft. Baron, ad annum ii8. ^m- njerp. 1617. (e) Ex quibus facile intelligas in Traditionibm habendum efle deleftum ; ut non mox ut quis fe aJiquid ex majorum Traditione accepiffe tradit(utde Papia accidit^fiiiem illi omnes adhibeant. Baron, ibid. (f) II ne faut pas s'etonner, s'il a fait pafTer des erreurs, & des faufTerez pour des fentimens des Apotres & s'il a con- te des Hiftoires fabuleufes comme les veritables. Ce qui nous montre que rien n'eft fi dangereux en matierc de Re- ligion, que de croire legeremenr, & d'embrafler avidement tout ce qui a I'apparence de piete, fans confiderer, s'il en a la verite. Du Pin Biblioth. Tome. pnm. pag. 53. A Paris i^S>3 were J ;j Ch. 11. Of the Rule of Faith. Part t were fo much corrupted, immediately after th« Apoftles Times j certainly thofe who live ac the diftance of fo many Ages^ and have not half fo gopd opportunities for fearching into the truth of th^n:ij> niay be much moreeafily impos*d upon. ; ,;At the latter end of the Second Century there w^s a great controverfy between the Eaitern and Weftern Churches concerning the obfervation of Eafter j and there was Tradition on both fides. For we are plainly told by (g) Eufebim, and (h) So^ z^otmny that all the Churches in Afia grounded t;heir practice ufon .an ancient Tradition receiv'd frgrX) St. John and St. Thilip ; and that all the o- ther Churches in the World us'd another and quite tiifferent method, v^hich was receivd from the A- TiiV 'Aff/tf^ Ayidoiii At TizL^tyJicu eo^ Iv^ zu^ffMcna^ a.^^io]i^if cV]©- nitv omTiKHV Tvy T^Tnv ToJig ctVct liuu KOl'Ttiuii A-mKTOM OtKH-^ /jijifjiiy ox-x^AMi^V^jc-'S ^ATit^oMKiii 7nifji:J}>a*ai 70 ^ Hi J^tv^ y^etTti' ^nas 7i ajkiTn^Q- »(^ ifA^tf, "i^i vns^ui brnkui^. Euftb. Hift. tcclef lib' 5. cap. 13. 'H^«f iv (inquit Polycrates, qui prxfuit epifcopis Afianis) K«u yi^ .i(p 'jiw *AotW \jt.iydhct 9oiX^^ y^^oiMtizu' Utivcl dvjL- 'AmsnsAay 'in 3 i^^\acLvmi a iym tb ^w^Q- TVi Kygiat :if(icfUftm<.cuS'ii(^T7ii tS Hd^ yj.Tsi 70 tvayyi^iov* Eufeb. ibidv i^^ 24. V&ki\ Paris. 1 66S. ^liuid v Vt\tl. OftheRuleof Faitk) 01.11. if^i jn^fihs St. P^nl ^.ni'St. VcttTi, and-'.comlmy deivk'^t^ the^r 0vn Times. Iiifuppofe oar Adverfaries >'iWifr liot fay^ that the A-poftles prcfcribed difFer&nffGiji ftqins in different Countries; for if they di^^'B pray what fhall we think of Pope Tithr, who^ei^i qotnmunicated thofe that obferv'd the Apoftles'in- ftitution ; and how fliall we be able no jiiftify thofe Bifhops who agreed to negled one cuftotTi^ and maintain'd an univerfal obfervation of the Oi^ ther ? And if the Apoftles did not prefcribe difi ferent Cuftoms^ then it feems Tradition is a ver)^ uncertain thing, which cou'd lead fo many peri- fons into fo great an error about fo great an an-, nual Feaft in fo fmall a compafs of Time ; and that too, in the pureft Ages of the Church, when na intereft or other wordly confideration cou'd have any fliare in the Corruption of it. But were I oblig'd to number up all the in- ftances of doubtful and corrupted Traditionsy my task wou'd be infinite and impoffible. Every age of the Church affords too great a plenty of them ,• and every Man's reading and experience will affure him that I fpeak the truth. Nor is this thing to be wondred at, if we con- fider the Nature of Mankind, and the policies of Satan the Grand Deceiver of it. 'Tis notorious^ that Paffion, AfFedion and Intereft do govern, or at leaft have a ftrange influence upon the World ; and that the beft of Men are not exemted from thefe common frailties of Human nature. They may, I confefs, endeavor to corred the Vices oi their feveral conftitutions : but 'tis impoffible to be wholly free from them. This is the reafon that Truth is adulterated, and receives a new tin- d:ure from every Channel it pafles thro'. Men are apt to fpeak as their inclinations lead them, and 14 Ch.IL Of the Rule of Faifh. Parti. and to give a matter of fad fuch colors as they chink it ought to wear. So that the fame thing is reprefented diverfe waies^ and appears with al- moft as many different Faces_, as there are different Perfons in the World. The fame may be obferv'd of any dodrine that is delivered • for it is drefs'd up after contrary manners^ according as Men are well or ill difpos'd for the reception of it. He that is fond of an Opinion^ and either hears or reads an expreflion, coming from a judicious Perfon^ that may feem to favor k, is foon perfuaded that the other a- grees perfectly with him ,- and will back his con- ceit with the judgment of one^ whofe authority he thinks fufficient to recommend it. But if the Opinion thwart his inclination, and he wou'd fain be at liberty to rejed it ; then every argument is nicely examinM^ and fcarce any thing fhall be thought a fufficient demonftration of it. We have every day moil notorious inftances of this common fraiit}^^ even in the beil and fmcereft Chriftians. Where is the Man that is wholly free from prejudice^ and that does not find it the mofl difiicuk thing in nature to be truly and really im- partial ? How many Perfons that are wedded to an Hypothefis^ do appeal to the Scriptures for the certainty of it ^ They feem to imagine that the Heads of the Apoftles were call in the fame Mould with their own ; that all the infpir'd Writers were throughly acquainted with their Schemes : and then to be fure the Holy Word of God does infallibly teach all their idle fancies. Thus do they unwittingly fall into a very dangerous error^ and faften their own follies upon the infallible Spirit of God. On the other fide^ when Men are obftinately fet againft an Opinion^ the bare found Part T. Of /.fe Ruie. of FM. Gh. II. 15 found of a Scripture phrafe fiiall' be [call'd a con* dernnation of it:-; and thofe^ that fliall venture to defend it, nauft ^exped: to he. charg'd with no- thing lefs than -Herefy and oppofing the Scripture.' This is a matter of daily experience* fo that 'tis impoffible for any Man to be ignorant- of it. The diCeaieis fo deeply rooted in our nature, that the moft prudent and religious Perfohs are in Ibrab meafure afHided with it. The ancient Fathers laboured under the fame misfortune. Tho' they were eminently pious^ yet- they" felt the byafs of a corrupted nature. This is evident from their Writings^ in which they have {hewn themfelves to be but Men. We that live at a diftance^ and are not immediately interefled in their dilputes^ can obferve diverfe inftances of weaknefs, which we ought to pity^ becaufe they are neceffary frailties. They do fometimes load their Adverfaries with fuch Charges, as we can hardly eft eem jull ^ and aggravate fo me things/ perhaps beyond their due meaiure. They do fometimes infift upon the llighteft matters in the heat of the'.r difputes* and lay great ftrefs upon feme arguments, which we cannot think conclu- five. When they were poffefs'd of an Opinion, they feem d as eager in the defence of it, as their Succeflbrs : and therefore we muft not think it flrange if they were fometimes too hafty, and took thofe things for fubftantial proofs, which when narrowly fearch'd by thofe who have more leifure and cooler thoughts, appear to have been little or nothing to the purpofe. Thus 'tis probable, that the Apcftles might have fpoken many glorious things concerning the future fiourifhing State of the Church, &c. which Vafias being acquainted with^ and having an afFedion for fome i6 Ch. ir. Of the Rule of Fauk Part L fome earthly promifes, might eafily miftake for a temporal Reign of our Savior Chrift. Others that are pleafed with the fame thoughts, may ap- ply Texts of Scripture in favor of them , and think this Doctrine contain'd in God's Word, be- caufe it is not exprelly contradicted by it. Such are the efFeds of a Warm Fancy, when it heartily elpoufes an Opinion. I do not now difpute concerning the truth of the Millenary Dodrine. If the abettors of it have (as perhaps they may have) fubftantial argu- ments to evince it, I objed nothing againft it ; only I contend that Tradition is a very weak proof, lince it might be owing to the temper of an Ho-* neft Chriftian ; who, becaufe it pleas'd him well, cou'd eafily think it an Apoftolical Truth. This may teach us to be fober and cautious in our af- fertions ,• for tho' we are not forbidden to pro- pofe an Hypothefis, and entertain our felves with llich Schemes as we think probable ; yet we ought not to receive or impofe any thing for truth, which may not be evidently prov'd. ^Twere eafy to heap up numberlefs inftances upon this occafion ; but I am unwilling either to weary the Reader, or to difcover the Weaknefs' of fuch Venerable Fathers. However, I am per- fuaded, we may account for the far greater part of their Miftakes upon this Principle ; and I cou'd heartily wifli, that the much groffer er- rors of fome other Perfons were equally capable of excufe. Now if the humors and circumftances of Men have fo much influence upon their judgments, and the holy Fathers of the Church were liable to thefe infirmities ,* if the Written Word of God is fo often ftretch'd and wiredrawn, even by thofe who Part I. Of the Rule of Faith. Ch. 11. 1 7 who have a juft efteem for it ^ if 'tis made to fpeak^ what Men are willing to hear : and forcibly bene to that fide which is moft apt to pleafe, if^ I fay^ thefe things be true^ and fo much violence may be done even to the Scripture it felf j how great is the danger of unwritten Traditions ; when not only a prejudic'd undcrftanding, an excufable fondnefs for an Opinion^ an earneft defire to defend what is judg'd right3 tho' by weak Arguments ,• when, I fay^ not only thefe things^ but Confidence and ObftinacV:, Deceit and Hypocrify^ Intereft and Deflgn^ and every wicked Principle which needs a forgery to aflift it^ has all poffibte opportunities of making additions to them ? We know what wonderful Cheats have been pafs'd upon the World by Men of intriguing Heads^ and harden'd Foreheads^ and deep Diflt- mulation ; and what fhou'd hinder^ but that fuch perfons may obtrude falfe Do, I have already faidj were fpoken to the Apoftles only ; who as our Savior tells them, Luke 24. 25-. were flo-iv of heart to believe all that the Fropbets have fpoken. Therefore he promifes them, that the Comforter fliould teach them all things, and bring all things^ to their remembrance, "whatjoever he had faid unto them. The holy Spirit was to open their Vn- derftandings, and refrefh their Memories ,• fo that by comparing what our Savior did and fpake, with the ancient Prophecies, they fhou'd be ful- ly convinced of his being the true Mejfiah, and upon that convidion fhou'd boldly preach the Truth to all the World. And I pray, may not this promife, made to the Apoftles, be fultiird Part I. Of the Rule of Faitk Gh. IV., ji fulfiU'd^ unlefs the Church he for ever infallible ? However^ let us fuppofe this Promife made to^ the whole Church in general in all fucceeding times 3 yet there is no need of the gift of infalli- bility for the performance of it : becaufe the holy. Ghoft^ in teaching the Apoftles, has alfo taught us all th'mgs. For by reading and comparing their Writings with thofe of the old Prophets, we are able to demonftrate the Truth of our Savior's Miffion ^ fo that we need not any farther evi- dence of it. But certainly no Man will ever be able to prove, that the Church is therefore infal- lible, becaufe God has taught her all things that are, either requir'd to prove the Truth of the Chriftian Religion, or neceflary to Salvation by the Gofpel-Covenant. God teaches every Man his duty ^ but by teaching a Man his duty, he do's not make that Man infallible. Even fo God may teach the Church as much as he thinks con- venient ; but this may be done without making the Church infallible. II. Our Savior fays, John 1 6. 12, 13. I ba^jn yet many th'mgs to fay unto you ; hut ye cannot hear them novK Howhelt^ when He^ the. Spirit of truth is co?ney he v'lU guide you into all truth ,• and there- fore fome fuppofe the Church muft be infallible. But I fay again, that thefe words were fpoken to the Apoftles only ; and 'tis certain that our Savior cou'd guide his Apoftles into all truth, and make his will fully known to them by the miniftry of the bleffed Spirit , altho' the Church in fucceeding Ages wxre not infallible. If it be faid, that the Promife is made to the whole Church in all fucceeding Ages ,• I anfvver, I. That it appears from the context to be plainly otherwife ; but 2. Granting the Promife made to the jV Ch. IV. Of the Rule cf Fmh. Part I. the whole Church ; yet we are well affurM^ that' the Holy Spirit can affift the Church in all Ages, and lead thofe who are ready to follow his dire- dionsj into all neceffaryTruths^ altho' the Church^ be not infallible. Befides, the Holy Spirit has promised to lead all' Men into all goodnefs ,* and I hope our Adverfa- ries will acknowledge him to be as good as his word^ altho' the beil of Men do fin every day. So that a promife to lead the Church into all truth, do's not make the Church infallible ,• any more than a promife of affifting us to perform all good adions, do's preferve Men from a poffibility of finning. 12. They alledge ABs 15-. 28. It feemed good to the Holy Ghofi ^nd to us, &c. from whence they in- fer^ that the Holy Ghoft do*s prefide in all the General Councils of the Church, and makes them infallible. But this Text will do our Adverfa- lies no fervice^ if the Context be confider'd. For "when fome Men which cawe down from Ju- dea^ taught the brethren and faid^ Except je he oir- cuwcis^d after the manner of Mofes_, ye cannot be fav'd ^ verfe i. it was at length determmd^ that Paul and Barnabas^ and certain other of them jlwud go tip to Jerufalem unto the Jpofles and Elders about this ^uefiion ; verfe 2. Now when the Afofiks and Elders came together for to confider of this matter _; and when there had been much difputingy Peter rofe up, V. 6, 7. the fubftance of whofe fpeech was to this efFed ; "viz. That it was not necelTary for the Gentiles to become Jeii^s, before they cou'd be received into the Church ; for that God had formerly fent him to Cornelius, and thereby plainly declar'd that he put no difference between Jeous and Gentiles, but chat in every Nation^ he that feareth God, and worketh righteoufnefs is accepted of him. Then, Part L Of the Rule of Fdtk Ch. IV. j J Then^ when each perfon had fpoken what he thought convenient, James the Bifhop of that place determined the queftion^ faying, verle ij^&c. Men and Brethren y hearken unto me. Simeon hath de^ clard (by inftancing in Cornelius) how God at the firfi did zfijit the Gentiles^ to take out of them a people for his Name, &c. Wherefore my fentence is, that we trouble not them which from the Gentiles are turned to God, &c. And accordingly 'twas agreed to write unto the Brethren^ who had fent Barnabas and Saul^ faying^ v. 28. It feemed good to the Holy Ghoft, who has plainly fignify'd his Will in the Revelation made concerning Cornelius, and to us, who are re- folv'd to follow his dire(5i:ions3 and walk by that Rule which he has fet us by his own example^ to lay upon you, &c. This is the Natural Interpretation of the Text : and therefore it do's not appear, that the Holy Ghoft did at that inftant infpire them with their refolution : but that they gather'd what was his Will^ from a former revelation, and defign'd in this, which was a like cafe, to proceed accordingly. So that our Adverfaries cannot conclude from hence, that the General Councils of the Church are guided by the Holy Ghoft ,• i. becaufe this do's by no means appear to have been a General Council. 2. becaufe tho' it were a General Council, yet there is no particular guidance vouchfafd to them ; but they direA themfelves by a formec example. However, fuppofe it were quite otherwife * fup- pofe this were a truly General Council, and that the Holy Ghoft prefided in it : yet our Adverfaries will never be able to prove, that the Church may depend upon the fame privilege in thefe days ,• be- caufe there is not the leaft fhadbw of a promife in C Script ure^ J4 Ch. IV. Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. Scripture^ by Virtue of which fiie may lay claim to it. 15. Becaufe the Church is call'd the Fillar and Ground of Truth ^ i Tim. ;. if. iome will haftily conclude^ that fhe rs infallible. But certainly 'tis poffible for the Church to profefs all the neceflary Truths of the Chriftian Religion (which is all that this Text implies) altho' rt be not indu'd with In- fallibility. I fuppofe^ every Member of the Church of Rome do's believe that he profelFes all the Go- fpel-truths ; and yet, I prefume, fcarce any Member of the Church of Rome do's think himfelf infal- lible. 14. To fiach as argue from Heh. i;.?. Remem^ her them which have rule o-ver you^ &c. I return a fhort anfwer, that we may remember and obey our Spiritual Rulers, without thinking them infallible. And thus I hope it do's fufhciently appear, that the Church cannot claim Infallibility upon the ac- count of any promife made to her in the Holy Scriptures. But I know our Adverfaries will not quit their claim to Infallibility^altho'all their Arguments from Scripture fail them. 'Tis neceffary, they fay, that there fhoud'be an infallible Judge of Controverfies * for otherwife God has not fufficiently provided for the peace of his Church : and fince 'tis neceflary there fhou'd be one,we are fure there is one. Now to this I anfwer, I. That their Argument from the neceffity of an infallible Judge, is by no means conclufive. For we cannot fay, that God has done a thing, merely becaufe we think it necelTary that he fliou'd do it. They ought to fhew that there is fuch a Judge, that there is an infallible Authority in the Church ; and this they ought to evince by fubftantial Ar- guments |. PartL Of tU Rule cf Faith. Cli.'lV/ 35 gunients : but they muft not think to prove a mat- ter of fad by fayingj It ought to he, 'Tis confefs'd by all FrotefiantSy that God has fufficiently provi- ded for'his Church : and this we affirm^ not only becaufe he is naturally good^ and extremely careful of it ; but alfo becaufe we do by experience find that he has made ample prpvifion for it : but tho' we cou'd imagin fomething^ which to our weak underftanding might feem wanting^yet we dare not fay3 'tis neceltliry for us. Nay^ we rather conclude_, that it is therefore not neceffary^ becaufe it do's not appear that God has given it to us. Thus in the Cafe before us^ tho' there were a Teeming ne- cefficy of Infallibility ; yet we believe that there is no real neceffity of it^ becaufe we have no fuf- ficient Reafons to perfuade us, that God has be- ilow'd it upon the Church. But, 2. There is not fo much as a feemJng neceffity of Infallibility. For the Holy Scriptures are fuf- ficiently plain, and fit to determin all Controver- fies concerning Religion ; and this is the only end that Infallibility can ferve. If our Adverfaries ob- jed:. That the Scriptures are obicure, and that the fenfe of them is uncertain, without the affiftance of an infallible Interpreter ,• I crave leave to wave this Objedion at prefent, becaufe it will better fuic with the latter end of this Difcourfe, where I fliall give it a full Anfwer. Well then ; fince we have no fufficient Proof that the Church is infallible ,* certainly {he cannot pretend to give an infallible Sentence. And fince (he cannot give an infallible Sentence ; flie cannot infallibly determin which are pure and genuine, and which are corrupted Traditions. And there- fore, fince the Church cannot furnifli us with a Remedy againft the Uncertainty and Corruptions C 2 o£ ^6 Ch. V. Of the Rule of Fahh. Part t of Tradition, and fmce there is no Remedy pre- tended to come from another hand j I may fafely affirm what I undertook to prove, ^viz,. That JVe have no remedy againft the Uncertainty and Corrupt- ons of Tradition. Now if we Join thefe particulars, which I think have been fairly prov'd ; if, 1 fay. Tradition be ut- terly uncertain and liable to great corruptions, and we have no remedy againft the Uncertainty and Corruptions of it ; then it plainly follows, that the Tefiimony of hare Tradition is no jufficient proofy that any particular Doclrin^ not contain d in the Scriptures^ was re'uealed to the Apoftles by Almighty God, CHAP. V. That the Scriptures do not command us to receive unwritten Traditions. BU T I muft not pafs from this Point, before I have anfwer'd two Objedions. And, Firfly It is pretended that the Holy Scriptures do oblige us to receive unwritten Traditions, This our Adverfaries endeavor to prove from feveral Texts, which I fiiall examin in their order. I, Then, St. Vaul fays, i Cor, ii. 2. Now 1 fraife you brethren^ that you remember me i?; all thi?Jgs, and keep the Ordinances ( or Traditions ) as I deli- vered them to you. It feems the Apoftle did with very good reafon commend the Corinthians for fol- lowing thofe Rules^ which they knew and remem- bred that he had taught them ; but will it follow from thence, that we ought to receive fome other things, tho' we do not certainly know that the Apoftles taught them ? We are heartily willing CO Part L Of the Rule of Faith. Ch. V- ? 7 to pra(^ife whatever the Apoftles injoyn'd ; but we defire it may be prov'd that they injoyn d it^ before we be required to pradife it. Now as to the Scriptures we are abundantly fatisfy'd^, that they do verily contain the Dodrin of Chrift^ as 'twas deliver'd by the Apoftles : but we have no lufficienc proof (as 1 have already (hewn) that thofe things, which are not contain'd in the Scriptures, were de- liver'd by them , and for this reafon we do not think it fit to receive them. If it be faid. That the word in the Original iigniftes Traditions, and therefore we muft receive Traditions as the Corinthians did j I anfwer. That we do receive fuch Traditions as the Corinthians did ; thole things, I mean, which we know to be, according to the true import of this Phrafe, Tra- ditions from (that is, immediately delizfcrd by) the Apoftles themfelves ^ and for this reafon we receive the Scriptures: but certainly we are not obliged to receive whatever is pretended to have been de- livered by them^ without fufficient proof that they did deliver it. We do receive what is here calVd Tradition (that is, the Apoftle's own words) as rea- dily as our Adverfaries : but tho' we ought to re- ceive Traditions in one fenfe, it will not follow that we ought to receive them in another. In ^ word, the Apoftle Ipeaks of thofe Traditions which were certainly deliver'd by the Apoftles themfelves : and when our Adverfaries can prove, that their pre- tended unwritten Traditions were as certainly deli- ver'd by the Apoftles^ as thefe of which St. Vaul fpeaks^che Vrotefiants will not dare to reject them. 2. In the i6 v. of the fame Chapter, 'tis faid. If any man feem to be contentious, we have 7io fuch cufiom, neither the Churches of God. St. Paul had been fhewing that 'twas not decent for Men to C 3 wear 38 Ct. Yi Ofih-Rule of Faith. Part 1. wear long hair^ or for Women to pray uticover'd. Judge in your fehes^ faies he_, 'z^. 15. is it mnely^ &c ? But becaufe fome Perfons might reply, that it was not fmful in its own Nature, and therefore they vvou'd follow their private humor^ he adds. But if any Man jeem to he contentious^ we have vo fucb cufiom^ neither the Churches of , God, That iSj Let fuch a Perfon know, that 'tis not agree- able to our cuftom, and therefore he ought to forbear ^ becaufe 'tis an offence ^againft Modefty to be jfingular or fantaftic in our adions or ap- parel. Moreover, when an indifferent thing is in-, joyn'd,, 'tis rebellion to neglect the oblervation of it. From hence it appears, that we ought to comply with all the prevailing Cuftoms of the. Church or Country in which we live, as far as they are con- fiftent with our Duty: but how it will follow from hence, that we ought to receive thofe things, which are faid to have been delivcr'd by the A- poftles, for real and neceffary duties, I cannot ima- gin. We are very well contented to joyn in an innocent thing which pretends to Antiquity, tho' we cannot trace the Original of it, and find from whence it fprang : but certainly we are not obliged to think every thing that is handed down, and perhaps corrupted, by we know not whom, to be an Apoftolical injundion. Let Cuftoms remain, where they have obtain'd : but let not a Cuftom be thought a Command from God. ;. Again; in the 34. 1/. the Apoftle tells the Co- rinthiansy 'The refi will I fet in order when I come ^ and doubtlefs the Apoftle was as good as his word. But how do's this relate to Traditions ? Will any Man argue thus ; The Afofile St. Paul fct fome things in order in ths Church ^/ Corinth^ and therefore we mufi Part I. Of the Rule of Faith. Cb.V. 59 7»tifi receive unwritten Traditions ? Yes^ fay our Adverfaries ; for the Apoftle has not told us in any pare of his Writings, what thofe things were which he fet in order ; and therefore we cannot learn them otherwife than by Tradition, 'Tis true I confefs ; We cannot be informed from Scripture, and ("what is ftill worfe) we cannot be inforni'd by Tradition^ what thofe things were ; and we reft fa- tisfy'd with our ignorance, becaufe we do not con- ceive it neceffary to Salvation for us to be acquain- ted with fuch particulars. But if our Adverfaries wou'd prove any thing from this Text^ they mud fliew, i. That thofe things which the Apoftle fet in order in the Church oi Corinth^ muft of neceffity be known to us. 2. That fmce the Scriptures are filent,therefore Tradition (tho' it be generally never fo uncertain and liable to corruption, yet) muft of neceffity be believ'd ^ becaufe in this cafe we have no better light. 3. That fmce Tradition muft be credited in one fmgle point, becaufe that point is neceilary ; therefore we muft alwaies credit it, in fpight of all the ftrongeft Objedions againft it, and the jufteft fufpicions of it. Nay farther, that we muft efteem all thofe things neceffary to Salvation, which are reported by it. When our Adverfaries have prov'd thefe Propofitions,perhaps we may believe that the Scriptures do oblige us to receive Traditions^ 4. St. Vaul fays, 2 Thejf. 2. 15*. Therefore brethren ftandfafi^ and hold the Traditions iMch ye have been taught^ v^hether by ivord or our Eft file \ from this Text our Adverfaries endeavor to prove, that we are obliged to receive unwritten Traditions, Now to this 1 anfwer, that whatever is delivered to us by the Apoftles themfelves, as thofe Traditions given to the TheJJalonians certainly were, we ac-- C 4 knowledge 40 Ch.V. Of the Rule of Faith. Parti. knowledge our felves bound to fubmit to : but we deny that this or any other Text do's oblige us to receive thofe unwritten Traditions^ which are faid to have been handed down from Generation to Ge- neration, and to have been originally derived from the Apoflles j becaufe it do's not appear by fuf- ficient evidence that the Apoflles did deliver them. In a word, I defire our Adverfaries to confider (what I have already faid) that by Iraditicns St. Paul underflands the Chriftian Doctrin, which he had deliver'd to them both by Word of Mouth, •and in Writing. Thefe Traditions we do moft cor- dially embrace, as far as they are contain'd in their written Books ^ becaufe when we read thofe Books, we read the Apoflles own words, and are fure that we learn their realDodrin. But as for all other pre- tended Traditions^ we dare not affirm that they are deriv'd from the Apoflles ^ becaufe we have no con- vincing proof of the derivation of them,and we dare not faften that upon an infpir'd Perfon, which we cannot prove to have been taught by him. We are defirous to follow the advice given to liwothyy 2 77?^. I. ig. to hold fafi the form of found iifords ^ and we think it an unpardonable prefumption to add any thing to them. Whatever comes attended with fufficient credentials^we thankfully receive as a MefTage from God : but we dare not efleem that as a MefTage from God, which cannot be prov'd to have come fr^m him. Therefore we rnuft intreat our Adverfaries not %o inlifl upon the bare found of a word ; for 'tis not the Phrafe that we quarrel with, but the thing which is meant by it. If by Tradition they mean (with St. ?aul) whatfoever is immediately and certainly deliver'd by the Apoflles, as the content? of Part I. Of the Rule of Faifh. Ch. VI. 4 1 of the Scriptures certainly are ; we contend for Tram dition with all poffible Zeal. But if by Tradition they underftand (as all Men do in this Difpute) the delivery of fome things which are not writtten in the Scriptures ; we make juft exceptions againft it ; becaufe 'tis not fuch a method of conveyance as we may venture to rely upon. So that they mufl not urge us to receive Traditions in this latter ac- ceptation^ becaufe we are willing to receive them in the former. For 'tis not good arguing from Tra^ ditions in a Scripture-fenfe, to thofe which are ma- nifeftly different from them. We do not deny that we are commanded to receive Traditions ; but we fay that the Apoftle fpeaks of one fort of Tradi^ tionsy and our Adverfaries of another. 'Tis their bufmefs to prove if they cap^ by any one place of Scripture, that vve are commanded to receive thofe things for neceflary and fundamental Truths_, which tho' not written or fpoken to us by infpir'd Per- fonsj are neverthelefs reported to have been taught by them. But I am fully perfuaded that they cannot produce one fmgle Text in favor of [uch Traditions^ CHAR vr. That the Scriptures were written on purpofi to prevent the mjchiefs arifmg from unwritten Traditions. that \ AY, the Holy Scriptures ar^ fo far from com- manding us to receive umvritten Traditions^ we have all imaginable reafon to believe^ thap C f they 42 Ch. VI. ' Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. they were written on purpofe to prevent the Mif- chiefs arifing from them. -io'iii Withoiut doubt Almighty God had well con- fider'd our circumftances ; and the firft planters of Chriftianity knew the fad effeds of leaving Men without a certain Rule in matters of Faith, The Devil had his Agents in >the very begin- ning of Chriftianity,^ who endeavor'd to fet up their own Notions in oppofitioh to what had been Preach'd by our Lord's command. Our Sa- vior had faidj Afatth. 2^. 24. Ther^ pall arife falfe Chrifis and falfe Fhropbets^ and Jhall pew great figns and 7VonderSy iftfomnch that ( if - it were foffihle) they pall decei'ue the ^ery eleB, Thi^' was verify'd in the times of the Apoftles t^emfelves^ who quickly found that an Enemy had fow'd Tares^ and mingled their Dodrines with Errors and Lies. There was fo great a change wrought in the Chriftian Religion even in St. Vauh daies^ that he calls it another Gofpel^ Gal. 1.6. And the fame Apoftle was fo fenfible of thofe terrible difficul- ties^ which the Church was to encounter with, that he warns the Epbefia?^^ Eph. 4. 14. of their danger of being tofs^d 4a and fro and carry* d about 'With ez!ery wind of doclrin^ by the flight of men^ and cunning craftinefs whereby they^ lie in wait to deceive. And when he fent for the Elders of the fame Churchy ABs 20. he us'd thefe Expreflions to them, 'u. 28, &:c. Take heed therefore unto your fel'vesy and to all the flock ^ ever which the holy Ghofl hath made you overjeers.y to feed the flock of God which he hath purchased vnth his own blood. For I know this^ that after my departing pall grievous wolves enter in among you^ , hot fparing the flock, /ilfo. of your own felves pall men arife^ fpeakin^ perverje Part I. Of the Rule of Faith. Ch. VI. 45 perverfe things to draw difciples after them. There- fore 7V at ch^ &c. This his Predidion was too plainly fulfiU'd within the compafs of a few years ; and the Church oi Ephefus it felf was foon deftroy'd. The my fiery of iniquity doth already work^ faith St. Taul in another place, 2 Thejf. 2. 7. and 'twas for this reafon that he charg'd the Thilippans, Philip. I. 27. to fland fafi in one fftrit^ with one ' mind ftriving together for the Faith of the Gofpel. Now fince the holy Apoftles were fo perfed- ly aware of thofe troubles which threatened the Church ; and fince they had exprefs'd fo much Zeal in perfuading Men to be firm in their pro- feffion^ and not to hearken3 tho' themfelves or an Angel from Heaven fhou d Preach any other Gofpel, than what they had preach'd, and their Converts had receivM^ Gal. i. 8^ 9. fmce^ I fay, they were fo throughly afFeded with the miferies that were like to befall the Church by reafon of falfe Tea- chers ; can it be imagin d that they wou'd leave the World deftitute of a fufficient rule of Do.- ^

)i ^rttAjjcTtf^ 70 y^r cLVT^y cOa "t Q/'^?"? tlviT^^tl^^' Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. lib. 3. cap. 24. ozorhexov yoy>v x.«?i/5af> kmiTHf ctTntifeiy 5^* e7?£^ r i^vav J)ct €m^Sy>^ ^i/^t "Tmrelv yhaiJn tv v^t clvtvv Evctf}4^.iov luS /ft iin ^"*^' "^ ^^ ){§MX^^^ Koyav tUjIj di(r(p*' I9 ei(r(pA\H^ (jtivAi. Chryfoft. Horn, in Matt. i. pag. 3. n^ iua^yihiovy 'iv(^ /, Wh?t the Contents of thofe Books were. Secondly^ Tha: thofe Contents are preferv'd in unwritten Tra- iitiom. But how is it poffible for them to prove that the Contents of any Book are preferv'd, when the Book is fo utterly loft, that they are not fure of one Page of the Contents of it ^ CHAP, Part I. Of the Rule of Faitk Ch. XL 6 j C H A P. XL The Second ObjeBion^ that the Scriptures ,^0^^^ ohfcure^ anfrver'^d. ,r hPK SEcovMj, ^is otjec^ed, that whatever the Scri- ptures do contain_, 'tis certain that they are fo very obfcure, that ordinary perfons cannot un- derftand them. To this I anfwer, i. That our prefent Queftiori is not concerning the obfcurity of the Scriptures^ but concerning the perfedion of them. And therefore it is fufficient for my pre- fent purpofcj if all things neceffary to Salvation ai*e contain d in the Scriptures ; whether they be plain- ly taught^ or no. But 2. for the full fatisfadtioii of our Adverfaries I fliall fiiew^ that the Scriptures are by no means obfcure in thofe points which are neceffary to Salvation. There are indeed fomis knotty TextSj fome dark Paffages^ which even the Learned are puzl'd with: but our Adverfaries will never be able to fliew, that the underftanding of thofe parts of the Bible is neceifary to Salvation. Nay farther^perhaps fome Texts may contain things neceifary to Salvation^ tho' the meaning of thofe paifages be not obvious to every capacity, or to ^ carelefs Reader. But then, when they meet with Intricacies, Men ought to ufe greater application and indullry, and to take advice of their Spiritual Guides. Such Methods will enable them to fur- mount all the difficulties of the Sacred Pages, as far as is neceifary in order to their Happinefs : and fmce the welfare of their Souls depends upon it, certainly they ought not to be fparing of their labor. Now if fuch Texts may be underflood at ($4 Ch. XI. Of the Ruie of Faith. Part L at all (tho' it coft a Chriftian fome little trouble) the charge of Obfcurity is fairly remov'd. The eafieft.and moft certain Demonftrations in the Ma- them^itics^ do require fome confiderable attention ; and yet none can objed againft the clearnefs of them. Even fo thofe neceffary Points (if any fuch be lefs plainly deliver'd) may with due care be well underftood. Now that the Holy Scriptures are in this fenfe fufficiently plain and intelligible^ will appear if we confider the following particulars. Flrfi, That all Men are to be judged by the Scri- pturesj Rom. z. i6. Now can it be imagin'd that Men fhall receive the Sentence of Condemnation to eternal Fire^ for not pradifing thofe Rules or believing thofe Docflrines of the Gofpel^ which were fo very obfcurely laid down^ that they could «ot poffibly underftand them ? Secondly^ 'Tis a reproach cafl upon the Wifdom of Godj to fuppofe that he wou'd fend forth a Book containing his Divine Will ; and yet fuffer it to be fo myfteriousj that Men fhou'd not be able to unriddle the meaning of it^ even in thofe mat- ters which do fo nearly concern them. Certainly, when God undertook to inform us by writing, and was fo well able to fute his Expreffions to our capacities , he wou'd by no means leave us utterly in the dark. Thirdly^ Thofe who ftudy the Bible, do learn feveral things which are not neceffary to Salvation ,• and can it be thought that God wou d make thofe things which are not neceffary to Salvation^plainer than thofe that are ? Fourthly^ The Scriptures are defcrib'd as very plain and intelligible. But if our Gofpl he hid, faies Part L Of the -Rule of. Fauk GIi. XI.-^ 65 ' Gofpel he hid'^'hies the fame Apoftle (2 Cor. 4.^ ^4.) it is hid to them that are lofi ; in whom the god of this World has blinded the eyes of them which belie^ve not. So. that the Scriptures cannot-be faid to be obfcure' in neceffary -points • but thofe who dilbbey and' do not underftand them^ are blind. If any-Mair' teach othcrvjtfe y and confenf not to wholefome word's^ even the Words of our Lord fefus Chrifi^' and to' the Doth'ine v^hich is according to Godlinefs ' he is (not weakj but) prcud^ &c. and will not be in-j form'd ; I Tim. 6. ^^ 4. Thy IVord {hxQsDavid'^ Pfal. 1 19. loj*.) is a la?np unto my fect^ and a light un-^"* ta my path. The way of the Lord is perfect ^ convert iitg the foul : the Tefiimony of the Lord is jure^ matting wife the ftmpk. The Statutes of the Lord are right^ rejoycing the heart : the commandment of the Lord is furcy enlightning the eyes ; verf. 7, 8. But certainly the Word of God wou'd not deferve thefe Cha- raders, if it were io obfcure as our Adverfaries* pretend. It is alfo able to make Men wife unto- falvation^ 2 Tim. ;. if. and therefore it muft be plain enough in things neceffary to Salvation. Timothy knew the Scriptures from a Child^ as we read in the fame place ; and furely then they were not fo very dark. Nay, how can we be obliged to prove all things^ and hold fafi that which is goody I Their, f. 21. and how can we be commanded to judge what the Apoftle faies, i Cor. 10. 1^. if the Scriptures^ which are our rule, be fo very ob- fcure even in neceffary matters^ that we cannot judge or prove things by them ^ Fifthly^ We ap- peal to experience, whether the Scriptures be not very plain in fuch necefllirymatters. Let our Ad- verfaries fhew us, if they can, any one thing ne- ceiTary to Salvation, which is not fairly intelH-; ^ible CO thofe, who will 'beftow a little pains, ;;^uiiii'.« J^ and 66 Ch.XI. Of the Rule of Mth. Part I. a?id have but an ordinary underftanding. They tell us indeed^ th^c^ the; Dodrines of th& Trinity ^ Incarnation^ &c. are very obfcure; but we reply,, that tho' they are obfcure to our conceptions, yet-, they are very plainly delivered to us. We know that there are fuch truths ; but we ihall never bo:- able to comprehend them. Nor is it neceffary ' to Salvation^ that we fhou'd determine all the School-queftions concerning them. 'Tis enough, if we acknowledge the things themfelves : and fp much may be eafily gathered from plain Scrip*.. tures. -.'.'-I Weir, but our Adverfaries fay, the Scriptures- do affirm, themfelves to be obfcure. Now to this" \ anfwer, that feveral paflages in the holy Scrip- tares are confefs'd to be obfcure : but the queftion i% whether the Scriptures are not fufficiently plain \ in matters neceffary to Salvation. If our Adver-- Caries .WQu'd prove any thing, let them make out. this Propofition, that' the Scrip urcs do declare ^^ tfjat fome things meajfciry to falz^ation are fo ob'\_ [purely deli'verd in^ \them., that even by the help of ifiduftry Men cannot. . ui^derfiand them. This I 5m perfuaded, they will never evince by thofe Arguments which are produced, as any Perfon; inay perceive by the following examination of them. For, .1.; When r>^7t//V praies. Open thou mine ejeiy that I may behold "wondrous things cut of thy laWy PfaL:.xi9. 1 8. Gkje me under (I an dingy that I may learn thy commandment s^ v. 75. Teach me thy fia^, tutesy V, 26, 1,3 f, &c. it muft be fuppos'd thar he do's not- pray for the knowledge of things ne- ccffin^ itfo iialvation^'-in fuch a manner as wou'd' fu|3pQre hi'm utterly .ignorant of them ; becaufe he» who 'Wa^ij.an infpird iPerfon at the time of his' l-ii^ * a. Writing, Part I. Of the Ruk of Faith. X^\. XI. 67 Writirig, coii'd not be a novice in fuch matters. But he defire's a clearer intight into the Wifdom and goodnefs of God's Precept?, % greater and fteddier inclination to iher^radice of them^ &c. For thofe Perfons who know things neceflary to Salvation^ are ftill capablb of improvements in Grace and Virtue ; and may endeavor to obtain a fuller view of'therriches ofGod's Mercy in the many excellencies and beautiful contrivancle 'of Religion. 2. Tho' Chrift expounded to : his Difciples in all the Scriftttrcs thf things cdncirning hiwfdfy hnk, 24. ij\ yet it^lo's not follow that the. Scriptures are utterly obfcure in nhatters neceflary to falvation. For Firfi^ tho' the Scriptures of the OldTeftament^ which con- cerned our Savior's being the Mefflah^ might at that time feem obfcure to the Difciples ,• yet now that we find them fo plainly fulfill'd^ and fince j^e/k is fo fuU ly prov'd to be the Chrifl:3 they cannot bexhoughti obfcurd tO' us. Secondly y thofe Scriptures were even then fo plain, that our Savior upbraids the Difciples with their dulnefs and want of under- ftanding. O fools ^ fays he, and flow of heart to be^ lieve all that the Prophets have Jpoken I Ought not Chrift^ e^^? Luke 24. 25-, 26. As if he had faid. How ftupid are you, that ycu do not underftand thefe things ? from whence it appears that they were plain enough to be intelligible. The fame may be faid with refped: to the 4yth 'verfe^ Then opened he their underflandings that they wight underfl^and the Scriptures ; that is, not all the Scriptures in General, but the prophecies concerning the Mijpas ,• which prophecies are not obfcure to us, becaufe the Apoftles have opened them to us in their writings. J, When St. Vhilip asked the Eunuch, ABs 8. 31. whether he underftood what he read in the E 2 Prophecy 68 Ch. XI. 0/ the Rule of Faith. Part! Prophecy of Ifaiah^ the Eunuch replies, Hihv can I except fowe Man jlwuJ guide we? From whence our Adverfaries argue that the Scriptures are ob- fcure, becaufe a Man mu ft have a guide to make him underftand them. ? But I anfwer, i. That this Prcfelyte Eunuch;, who was a great ftran- ger to the Jejjjijh Nation^ might well be puzled with a Text, which the Jews tlvemfelves did not then feem fully to urrdei-ftand. li.Tho' the Eu- nuch cou'd dot find out. the true^i'neerpretation of this Prophecy, which sfor itiRny reafons was then obfcure ,• yet we may be able clearly to ex- plain ir^ .who have the benefit of the. Apoftles guidance in their written Books, by which we cao demonflxate the rrieaning of it. 5: 'Tho' fome certain Prophecies were obfcure to the Eu* nuch, yet it will by no means follow, rthat the hoty Scriptures are lb very obfcure in matters ne- ceffary to falvation, That a Man may not be able after the ufe of proper- means to undeiflandnhemp without an infallible, gu^ide, which' is^ t?h6onl9^ guide our Adverfaries wiiU'be fatisfy'd wi(;b. W& may and^ought to feek the -affiftance of a guide' that is wiferthan our felve?, in all doubtful cafes ; sind the neceffity of fuch a guide do's not prove the obfcurity of the Scriptures in general : but we deny that an infallible guide is ever neceffary ; efpecially for the interpretation of thofe Texts which contain matters of falvation. 4. 'Tis true. No Prophecy of Script tire is of any pri'Vute interpntation^ 2 Pet. i. 20. that is, no Scripture prophecy came by the Will of Many or was delivered upon the Prophet's own private au- thority ,• For, as the Apoftle adds, the Prophecy canie not in old time by the Will of Man: hiU holy Men of God Jj^ake as thej7i'ere rnoijd hy the.' ^ Holy: Ghofi, Part IJ Of the Rule 'of Faith. Ch. XL 6g Ghofi. -But how will our Adverfaries be able to fhew from this Texf ^ ' which I have given the true and natural meaning of, that the holy Scrip- tures are obfcure in matters neceffary to falvation ? Is this a good argumentj The Prophets fpake not of their own motion ^ but by the infpiration of God: and therefore thofe Men v>ho read their Prophecies^ cannot underfiand them ? Muft all thofe Prophe- cies that proceed from God^be unintelligible ? Cer- * tainly God can exprefs his Will in fuch a man-* ner as he thinks proper to attain his end ; and when he thinks it convenient^ can make himfelf intelligible. However ^ fuppofe the Prophecies never fo difficult ; yet it will not follow^ that the Scriptures in general are obfcure in matters neceffary to falvation. 5. 'Tis true alfo^ that in St. Paul's Epiftles there are feme things hard to he underfiood^ 7vhich they that are unlearn d and unfable v^'ref^ as they do alfo the other Scriptures^ to their own defiruSlion^ 2 Pet. 3.16. But I anfwer^ i. that xho fome things in St. Fauh Epiftles are hard to be underftood_, yet others may be very eafy. 2. That thofe things which are faid to be hard to be understood ^ are not faid to be neceffary to fahation. ^. Tho' fome things neceffary to falvation were hard to be underftood ; yet they may be underftood : and therefore it will not follow from hence, that the Scriptures are obfcure to thofe that ftudy them carefully, and after due preparations of an honeft mind, &c. For, 4. thofe who are faid to wreft ' them, are (not the fmcere fearchers after God'^ ' Will, but) the unlearned and unfiable ; and there- ' fore the Stable and Learned m?iy underftand them. If it be faid, that thofe errors which de- ftroy Men^ are errors concerning matters necef- E 3 far y 70 Ch. XI. Of tbe^ Rule of F^i(h-, Part I. f^xy to falvation ; and th^refore^ fince; tJi^fe h^rd things were fo wrelted aS: to deftroy M^p^ they muft be matters neceffary tp'^ialvacioq^;) t aj^fwer, that the' all damnable errors- 4o rela<;-^ t;^ nifttcers npceffary to falvation^ yet a Mani^ay fell: into danmab^e errors, by mifinterpreting a plac^ which do's not contain any thing necelfary tO falvati- on. Becaiife, by drawing an heretical confe- qucnce from fuch a Text of Scripture, he may be tempted tp contradict or deny a great ti;'Uth, which is really neceffary to falvation; Thus for inftance, 'tis necelH^ry to falvation to beUeve, that Jefus Chrift is God ^ but 'tis not neqeifary to fal- vation to believe, that the Fcuher cmly knoweth the day and hour of the laft jadginent, as we read, Matth, 24. 36. Now tho' this Te:^t, Aiattb, 24. 56. do's not contain a matter necelfary to falvation ^ yet if a Man will wrelt this Text, and from thence conclude that Jefus Chrift do's not know all things, and therefore cannot be. God ; he may fall into a damnable error by fuch- vvrefting oi it. From whence it is plain, thatf (bme hard things in St. Raul's Epiftl^ or tho~. other Scriptures may i?e wrefted to M^ns; de- flruxStion, altho' the Texts (b wrefted do, nocvcon- tain matters neceftary to f^Jvacion. 6. If it be further urg'd, that th^ere ar^tj'opes, and figures in the Holy Bible ^ I anfwer,. tbRt ,the Bible is nevertiiclcls fufficiently plain- ,* even as plain as common difcourfe, which hai> the fame fort of expreffions. Btfides, an ordinary fyftem of Rhetoric WiVl take away fuch difficulties, and certainly that Book cannot be thought ob- fcure^ which has fo many fufficienc helps, and, thofe al\\:aiies ready at hand, for the illuftracion sPart I. Of the Rule of Faith. Ch. XI. ^71 jf 7. If it be alfo faidj thatCHrift taught in Pa- rables t, I anfwer, that thcfe Parables are explained in the Scriptures. And if it be faid, that No Man was found worthy to open and to read the Book^ neither to look thereon ^ Rev. 9. 4. I anfwer, that by the Book in that place we are to under- ftand inot the whole Body of the Scriptures, but) the Book of the Reer. Perfons fince the Apoftles times ; Firfi^ be- ^cauffe'" "vt^e have all imaginable reafon to re- ' jed fuch Revelations j and Secondly^ becaufe we * have no real and undoubted Miracles to atteft ^ them. ^And. Parti. Of the Rule of Faith. Ch.XIL 75 - And therefore, fince we have no fufficient proof, that God has reveal'd any particular docStrines not contain d in the Scriptures, either to the A-, poftles, or to any other Perfons ; 'tis manifeft,^ that we have no fufficient proof, that God has ffiveaV'd them at all. t ^ And fince we have no fufficient proof, that> God has reveal'd any particular do6lrincs not contained in the Scriptures ; therefore we ought not to receive fuch dodrines as Divine Reve-> lations. i> * And fince we ought not to receive fuch do- Arines as Divine Revelations, 'tis certain that the holy Scriptures are the only Divine Reve- lations which we ought to receive. ^ And therefore, fince 'tis granted on both fides, that God has reveal'd all thofe things which are neccffary to falvation ; 'tis plain, that the Holy Scriptures^ which are the only certain Reve- lations, do contain all things neeeJJ'ary to falva- tion ; which was the Propofition I undertook to prove. Now, if the Holy Scriptures do contain all things neceffary to falvation^ then thofe things which cannot be prov'd from Scripture, are not neceflary to falvation. And therefore in ou^ Difputes with thofe of the Church of Rome we may juftly challenge our Adverfaries to produce Scripture-arguments for all their do- drines *, and we may alfo juftly rejed what^ foever the Holy Scriptures do not fairly and fully prove. The Papifis indeed tell us of Fathers and Coun- cils, which Names do make a great noife in the ears of ignorant People : but we appeal to the Bible as the Rule of our Faith, and challenge them n§ Ch>XID Of the Kfde'bf ¥Ahh\ P^rt'W tlJem; to prove their Religion from it. We'" are able, 'tis-traey to fight at the other Weapon, art9 to fhew that- they have neither Fathers nor Councils on :th'eii^ fide : but b'ecaufe this me- thod of proceeding ' is utterly needlefs and very' tedious 5 and becaufe ordinary Perfons are 'not' competent judges of fuch riiatters-; therefore- we. infift upon Scripture-proofs.- fiOr this reafcfe" in the following Chapters/ I ihall' think my felf obliged to anfwer only thof^iArgumeHts;> which' drines by. ^ ■; O' / 8K aijriiiiQ -VV '' •.'-•"■''^ "'-'"1 ■:•..> ./,iK ;:-27U-5' * ■ '' .,j. J .-.s > .•>f*7 01 -'ff^rfo Vv ^i3n\ ri:rod no onn ''.yrrhj ?,}Yi'.r, .. ■ . . '~) ^vAn ' -r-rferrrn"" -^rV riinnoj '. ; vi^ ibiJ ^ ;:^ Tye%d of the MrJi'^a.'tC^^ ^ : vIoH t ;^;^M' . ■ . ■:^?;VUir -j -v.\: ■o3n ^:^^aidj 3Gr ■' l' ''\17 lU- "T ^u Diufi-J .nj io oibil. •iSjjqiiQ C7 .vbA lUO :. ''^''^ (fjrn 3v/ -0- lis lol 2: aoubo'iq -ii. A\n viiiiii ^ '-^ ^^^<" • ; 2'^aiii^ J.,. .' .....: ...' .. A,.? ., ;-:« •11.. .iii-i ©f^ . ... ...^ . -;.4rm 0' ?'■" " 3ii - ->qL ;;w ^ud ; ^ic - ..: "to ?/(f5^ ijj.:i :i.': ^dn/l ^.UO 1 TT rin'I ^k^'j\*?AV)*<^. .1 .r > 7^. 1 i \,^g^yJS^ tt ^t^^U^i g.^ iV^M^J ^^^m^^mK'' W^vTVj m^ ^^w ^brV^fry ^^-^ .944, 94S, 94(5. .ir 10. I Part II, ag^infi ?oftry p<^Sd. .Cll.J. 7^2 19. 1 acknowledge' one Baftifyj.^^v^^t^e^, ^^^if^\^f\ fmSy < Vivx^.;> V... ^' ^^^^^ ,v^^lv.•■ \ ■ 5.W\m^a IZ, And tkt'Lfifii^ oftbeWad^^X^ ^^^^h<^ Aw^, \^Ar^^\ .. 1:5.. I fiedf^ifily admit and.,^tid»[aci^;'ApofiolkaLya^^ Ecckfiajtical Traditions ^ and the refi of the QffJj^^Wi^pj^ ce4 and confiittttkns 'o/ the J,ame ^hurcl^. .. ^^^^ „\ ^ ,n ^ ' 14. I <^^ ^^//» ^^wi*' \Vs.Ca ' 1^, 1 do ^lfpprofefsythat\ ikere.,'are:tn(if a7t4:frf^-r\ perly Je'ven SacranJent^. of thewNpv haiu^ {which) Sacraments v/era infiituted by Jefus Chrifl our Lord^ and are neceffary to the jalvation of Mankind^ alih(^[. all the Sacraments he not 7iecefjary to every perfon)^ viz. Baptifm^ Confirmation^ the Lord^s Supper^ Pe^. nance y Extreme Unci ion ^ Orders and Matrimony i 13. Apoftolicas & Ecclefiafticas Traditiones, reliquafque e-. jufdem Ecclefiae obfervariones & conftltutiones firmifTime ad- mitto & ampleftor. 14. Item Sacram Scripturam juxta eum fenfum, quern tenuit Sc tenet Sanfta Mater Ecclefia, cujuseft judicare de verb f^nfu 2c interpreratione Sacrarum Scripturarum, admitto ; nee eaiii: unquam, nifi juxta unanimem confenlbm PatrumaccipianijSf: intcrpretabor. • T 15. Profiteer quoque feptem eflTe vere h proprie Sacramenta- novx Icgis a Jefu Clnifto Domino noftro inftituta, atquc adia- lutem humani generis, licet non omnia flngulis, neceflaria j fci-. licet Baptifmum, Confirmationem, Euchariftam, Paenitentiam, t^xtremam Unftionem,Ordinem 6c Marrimonium ; illaque gra^ tiam conferre; & ex his Baptifmum, Confirmationem & Ordi- nem fine Sacrilegio reirerari non pofTe. Receptos quoque & approbates Ecclefiae Gatholicae ritus, in fupradidtorum omnium Sacramentorum folenni adminiftratione, recipio & admitto. that 8o Ch. I. A General Argument Part II.T that they do confer Grace; and that three of them^ viz, Baftlfrrty Confirmation^ and Orders cannot he repeated without Sacrilege, I do alfo receive and admit ' the receivd and approved Rites of the Catholic Church '-;» the folemn admini/lration of all the Sacraments before mentioned, 1 6. 1 do embrace and receive all and every things that h'aih been defind and declard in the Holy Coun^ al of Trent,, concerning Original Sin and Jufiifica^ V;^j^>--j ^0 likewife frofefs that in the Mafs there U ^er^d a true ^ proper and propitiatory facrifice for the Hying and the dead ; and that the Body and Blond ^ together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jefus Chrift, are truly y really^ and fuhfiantially in the moft Boly 'Sacrament of the Lord's /upper; and that the 'whole fuh finance of the Bread is turnd into the Body^ and the whole fuhfiance of the Wine is turnd into the Bloud ; vjhich change the Catholic Church call/ Tranfubftantiation. "^^ •^' B, I do alfo profefs^ that If hole and Intire Chrift, and a true Sacrament ^ is receivd under one kind -"'•^'-' ''""^' ■ ^•'; l.-^ tj)i($w' Omnia & fingula, quae de Pcccato Originali & dejufti- ficatione in Sacro-S^nftaTridentina Synodo definita & declarata fuieninD, ampleftor 6c recipio. 17. Profiteer pariter i;i Mifla ofFerri Deo verum, proprium & propitiatorium facriiicium pro Vivis & defunftis ; atque in fandliflimo Euchariftiae Sacramento efTe vere, realiter Scfubftan- tialiter corpus Si fanguinem, una cum anima & Divinitate Do- mini noftri JefuChrifti, fierique converfionem rotius fubftan- tiae panis in corpus, & totius fubftantix vini in fanguinem ; quam converfionem Catholica Ecclefia Tranfubftantiationcro appellat. .a 18. Fateor etiam iub altera tantum fpecie, totum acque in- tiSgrumChriftum, verumque Sacramentum fumi. Part IL agairj(l Popery proposed. Ch.I. Xi 19; I Jo firmly helie've that there is a Purgatory^ and that the Souls detained therein are helfd by the Frayers of the Faithful 20. And I do Ukewife firmly helie^ve^ that the Saints Reigning together vnth Chrift are to he honor d and frayed to ; and that they do pray to God for us ^ and that their Reliques are to be had in Veneration, 11, I do mofir fleadfaflly ajjert^ that the Im^ages of Chrift and the Mother of God^ who ivas alwaies a Virgin^ and of other Saints aljoy are to he had and retain d ; and that due honor and 'veneration is to be paid to them, 22. / do alfo affirm that the power of Indulgences 7i^as left in the Church by Chrift j and that the ufe of them is uery helpful to Chriftian Teople. 23. I do acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Apo^ folic Church of Rome^ the Mother and Miftrefs of all Churches ^ and I do promlfe and fwear true Obe- dience to the Eijlwp of Rome ^ the SucceJJor of St, Peter the Prince of the ApojHeSy and Vicar of Jefus Chrift. 19. Conftanter teneo Purgatorium efle, animafque ibi de- tentas fidelium fufFragiis juvari ; 20. Similiter & Sanftos una cum Chrlfto regnantes, vene- randos atque invocandos efTe ; eofque orationes Deo pro nobis offerre ; atque eorum reliquias efle venerandas. 21. Firmiflime aflero imagines Chrifti ac Deiparie femper Virginis, necnon aliorum Sanftorum, habendas & retinendas cfle, atque eis debitum honorcm ac venerationem impertien- dam. 22. Indulgentiarum etiam poteftatem a Chrifto in Ecclefia reliftam fuifle, illarumque ufum Chriftiano populo maxime falutarem efle, afiirmo. 23. Sanftam, Catholicam & Apoftolicam Romanam Eccle- fiam, omnium Ecclefiarum Matrem & Magifl:ram agnofco ; Romanoque Pontifici, Beati Petri Apofl:olorum principis Suc- ceflbri, acjcfu Chrifti Vicario veram obedientiam fpondeo ac iuro. F 2^^ 32 Gfik I. A gtnerd Argtemenf^ &c. Part H, 24. J do alfo without any douhting receive anl^ fr^fefs all other things that are deliver dy defind and declard by the Sacred Canons and General Councils, and chiefly by the Hvly Gotmcil of Trent ; and aW things contrary to them ^ and all Herefies "whatfoeijer^ that are condemned y. rejeHed and anathematiz,^d hr the Churchy I do likewije condemn, reje^ and anathe^ matiz»e. This Creed is the Standard of the Toft^i Reli- gion, and contains that Faith which is profefs'd by every Perlbn that embraces it. And therefore 1 fhall endeavor to juftify my Charge againft Popery^ by producing inftances of fuch falfe^ condemn d^ ©r groundlefs Doci:rines out of this their undoubted Creed ,- and this I fliall do in fome following. Chapters. Only I think it convenient to advertife the Reader, that I do not delign to confute all the Articles of the foregoing Creed. The Twelve firil we Vrotej^ants do fincerely profefs and con- tend for ; but we reject the other Twelve as the Errors^ of Rome. Now out ©f the Twelve laft I ihall fele<5t fome particulars, which I defign ta examin ,* and I hope to make it appear that they are either" falfe^ or condemn iy. or groundlefs Do- i^xines. 24. CsEtera item omnia a facris canonibus & oecumenicis conciliis, ac prsecipue a Sacro-San£Va Tridentina Synodo, tra- dita, definita & declarata, indubitanter recipio atque profiteory fimulque contraria omnia, atque hccrefes quafcunque ab Ecclcfa- damnatas, rejeftas & anathemacizatas, ego paritcc damno,. re- aicio U anathemati JO, CHAP, Part II. Of Tranfubfiamm. Ch. II. Sj C H A P. 11. That the Docirin of Tranfubftantiation is d^ folutelj fdfe. Flrfi therij I fhall inftance in a Do(5lrin which is ablblucely falfe. That the Church of Rome do's maintain the Dodrin of Tranfuhfiantiationy and impofes it as ne- ceflary to Salvation^ is manifeft from the Seven- teenth Article of her Creed, in which flie requires her Members to believe, that the whole fuh fiance of the Bread is turnd into the Body^ and the whole fuhfiance of the Wine into the Bloud of Chrifi ; which change the Catholic Church ('meaning her felf) calls Tran- fubftantiation. Now this Dodrin is abfolutely falfe ,' becaufe we have moft evident proof, that the fubftances of the Bread and Wine do remain after the Confecration \ and confequently there is no fuch change wrought as our Adverfaries do pre- tend. And this will appear, if we confider two things; i. That the ezfidence of fenje is alwaies cer- tain. 2. That we are affiir d by the evidence of fenfe^ that the fuhfia?jces of the Bread and Wine do remain after the Confecration, Firfi then I fay, the E'vidence of fenfe is alv^aies certain. 'Tis poilible, I confefs, and very eafy for us to be miftaken about fome things, which our fenfes inform us of. The eye may be difcolour'd by a difeafe ; and make us think that thing to be yellow, which is of a different colour. Or it may be deceiv'd by the Medium, thro' which we perceive an objcd ; or by too great a diftance from it ; and by that means reprelenc it in a different F 2 ftape 84 Ch.II. OfTranfahJimUthn. PartIL fhape or fize. Thus a large fquare Tower may feem round and fmall,^ if it be a great way off; and a ftreight Sticky if tbruft into the Water may appear crooked to us. Again^ there are fome things, which may be examin'd by feveral fenfes,- and thenf we may be miftaken^ if we rely upon one of them. Thus we may diftinguifh fome 13odies, not only by the touchjbut alfo by the taft and fmell and fight: and therefore^ if we cannot certainly know what they are by one method ,- we muft try another. Kay farther,, we may deceive our felves by giving too much credit to a tranfitory View or a flight Perception : and therefore in fuch cafes we ought to paufe a while, and to beilow time enough for a thorough information. But then, when our Organs are rightly dif- pos'd^ and converfant about their proper objects ,• when they are at a due diftance, and receive their impreffions thro' proper Mediums^ and we have had leifure enough to confider of themj when all our fenfes agree in their teflimony ^ .or when we have try'd them all, and find that one do's not contradict the other, tho" one perhaps may be a more proper judge, and yield us a better and more fubftantial proof than the other in that particular inflance y I fay, when this is the caf^, our fenfes do not and cannot deceive us. Then are we faid to have the tuldence of fenfe ; that is, we are as well inform'd, as our natural fenfes, which are the only tefts of fenfible things, can poffibly in- form us. Now that this e'uUence of fenfe is alwaies cer- tain, has been- generally granted by all Mankind : and thofc who deny it, have ever been thought ridiculous. However, fince our Adverfaries do force us upon it, I fhall endeavor to convince them Part II Of Tranfubflantiation. Ch. II. 85 of it. And that my argument may proceed with the greater force and clearnefs^ I think it neceffary in the firft place to prove that our fenfes do gene^ rally give us certain information. This I ftiall make appear by the following Arguments. I. 'Tis granted that there is a God^ and that this God is naturally good and true. Now I appeal to any indifferent judgej whether that God who is good and true^ can be fuppos'd to have made ratio- nal Creatures after fuch a manner, as makes them liable to everlafting Delulions : and yet this will unavoidably follow from the general uncertaiflty ofourSenfes. •• i o^^-' •'-J ^^^^^^ u^iahr^ For tho* fome things are f6'p'erfe<5^iyab ft raided from matter, that the knowledge and uncertainty of them cannot depend upon our Senfes ] yet ex- perience proves, that the far greater part of our concerns do relate to material things. Now fince mofl: of thofe things which we perceive are cor- poreal objefe, 'tis plain, that if the evidence of our Senfes be not generally certain, we cannot certainly know any of thofe things which we are chiefly converfant with. For whatever we may arrive at hereafter, 'tis certain, that at prefent we know very little by intuition. Wherefore, if our Senfes be generally uncertain, 'tis impoffible that ' we Ihould ad fecurely. Thefe things being con- fider'd, it muft be a great impeachment of the goodnefs of God, to think that he has given rea- fonable Creatures a power of judging, which he expeds they fhou'd ufe aright ; tho' at the fame time he has delivered them up to the guidance of fuch Senfes as may caufe almolt all their judgments to be erroneous. Nor do's the general uncertainty of feniible evi- dence refled lefs feverely upon the truth of our F 3 Maker, $6 Ch. II. Of Tr^nfuhpntUtlon. Part II. Maker. For fince we are able to think, we mull be fuppos'd to think according to our beft infor- mations. Now if God has fo contriv'd our Na- ture, that thofe Senfes by which we receive the far greater part of our notices, and by which we are to be direded, are liable to grofs delufions in fpight of all our endeavors to the contrary ; then he do's deceive us himfelf: becaufe he made it neceffary for us to a6t upon fuch principles, and to be milled by them. So that God muft then be thought a grand Impoftor, and to have pafs'd m©re Cheats upon the World, than the Devil himfelf who is the Father of Lies. But this is fuch horrid blafphemy, as ftrikes a Man with hor- ror j and yet it cannot be avoided by thofe, whp think that the evidence of Senfe is generally un- certain. 2. As God is good and true, fo he is alfo juft ; and this is freely acknowledged by our Adverfaries. Now if God be juft, certainly he will reward and punifh Men according to their defervings. But how is it poffible, if the evidence of Senfc -be generally uncertain ? For Juftice and Charity, which are the principal virtues of a Chriftian, do wholly depend upon Serife in the exercife of them. If my fenfes mifinform me, I may take that Man for an Objed of pity, whom I ought to bring to puniiliment ,• or I may believe that Man worthy of punifliment for a fad, which I thought my ^eyes had feen, who at the fame time was doing his duty. Thus may I be betray'd into numberlels crimes, and commit things worthy of damnation, by an unavoidable neceffity. And can we be- lieve, that God will judge Men according to their deeds, if • their fenfes may betray them to fuch fmful adions ? Are Virtue and Vice fuch un- known Part 11. Of Tranfuhjtantidthn: Ch.II; 87 known and hidden things, that a Man (who fin- cerely defires to be well inftru6feed) may be a no- torious Villain, at the fame time that he thinks himfelf a Saint ? And is this our condition in thi« prefent World ? Muft we be forc'd to acS: we know not what, and -be iitterly uncertain of our condi- tion in another ftate ? Muft we take a great deal of pains to become VirtuouSj, when perhaps at the end of our daies we may be doorn'd %o hell for our Vices f 'Tis impoflible that any Man (hon'dJcnow how to live ^ well, (unlefs his fenfes may be trufted ^ therefore if our fenfes cannot gene- rally be rely d on, it R^exSts very feyerely upon che Juftice of God. ^ - 3 . Again^ why do's <>ur. SaTior appeal to his Works, John 10. 38. and blame Ckorazin and Bethfaida for not believing, Matth, n, 21. Luke 10. 13. if the evidence of fonfe concerning his Miracles were not generally certain ? Why do's St. John ufe an argument drawn from his fenfes to eftablifli his credit with Men, faying That which was from tJj£ beginnings which we harue heardy which we have fien with our -eyesy which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life^ &c, declare we unto you; i John i. i. I fay, why do's he ufe this Argument, if the evidence of Senfe be not generally certain f Why do the Scriptures tell us that the Apoftles were eye-witnej]es of di- verfe particulars, Lt4ke i. 2. 2 Vet, i. 16. and why fhall thofe be punifliM, who do not receive their teltimony concerning the Words and -Anions of our Blcffed Lord ; if the eyes and ears and other organs of fenfe may generally deceive Mankind, even when they are converfant about their proper objects ? 4. Nay, what certainty can we have of the F 4 truth 88 Ch.'IlC Of TrAnfuhpnthtwn. Part 11. truth of the Chriftian Religion, if our fenfes may generally deceive us ? For how is it poffible for a Man to know, that Jefus is the MeJJlab^ unlefs he mdy believe the ancient Phrophecies,- and the Miracles of Chrift and his Apoitles ? But then, if his fenfes may fo frequently deceive him, how ihall he he fure that the ancient Prophedies do not point at another Perfon ? Why may not he then be fuppos'd to have read wrong',- and to have fanfy'd that he faw the Charadrers of his Savior, when the infpir'd Pen-Men defcrib'd one that was directly oppofite to him ? Befides, how can he know that any Miracle is wrought, if his fenfes may not be generally trufted ? When he thinks a blind Man's eyes are operi'd,- perhaps his ov/n may deceive him. If the blind Man feem to declare that he fees perfedly well ^ perhaps this PerfOns ears may tell him fo, when the blind Man faies the contrary. U Laz^arns be call'd from the grave and come forth ; how can any Man be af- lur'd, that his fenfes do not reprefent him as mo- ving his limbs and warm to the touch, tho' at the fame time he is in reality as cold and ftiff as a ftone?^^'^!;- Th^ t)0(51:rin of our Savior's Refurre6tion is the great hinge upon which the proof of our Re- ligion turns. If this be true, Chriftianity is infaU libly true ,• but otherwife 'tis precarious and un- certain, if not abfolutely falfe. Now how is it poffible for us to demonftrate our Savior's Refur- rec^ion, if the evidence of Senfe be not generally certain } The Apoftles felt, heard and faw him t after he was rifen ; and if this proof cannot be ■^'rely'd on, I pray, what better Evidence can be brought ? Nay, how can any Perfon judge of our Savior's Doctrin, P^rt II. Of TrAnfuhfiantiation. Ch; II. 89 Dodrin^ if the evidence of Seiife be not generally admitted for certain ? He may think he heard him teaching purity of hearty humility3 meeknefs^ &c. when perhaps Chrift was forbidding them. And thus a Chriftian is uncertain, whether his Savior, who is his Lord and his God, be not an Impoftor lent by Satan to enfnare and ruin him. In a wordj faith comes by hearings faies St. Vauly Rom. 10. 17. but if hearing be generally uncer* tain, how (hall a Man believe ? We are to learn God's Will from his Word ; but if my fight be generally uncertain, how fhall Ibefure that I read right ? If I may not generally credit the reports of my Senfes, I cannot have any certain grounds to build my Religion upon. Now if all the proofs of Chriftianity depend upon the Senfes, then the teftimony of the Senfes, muft be at leaft generally certain ; for otherwife Chriftianity^which is prov'd by the Senfes, cannot be certain. ^ Thus you fee, that even thofe who liv'd ill the beginnings of the Gofpel, cou'd have no proof of the truth of it^ if their Senfes cou'd not ordi- narily be trufted : but then our cafe is infinitely worfe, who are remov'd fo many Ages from them. For if their Senfes might deceive them, then they might deceive their Succeffors; and there is no remedy againft thefe evils. Thus there muft be a perpetual courfe of errors ; and confequently the prefent race of Chriftians cannot have any cer- tainty at all. For if a Man's own Senfes may generally deceive him, he has much lefs reafon to truft thofe of other Men ; and therefore we, who depend upon human teftimony, can have no folid proof of what we believe and profefs. The ut- moft proof of Religion in our circumftances is but moral evidence: now the evidence ofSenfe F f is ^ Ch.IL OfTranfuhJlantlation. Part Hi is dlronger than moral evidence; becaufe I am mere fure of what I perceive my felf, than of that which another perceives. If then the evidence ©f Senfe be ftronger than moral evidence, and if we cannot -generally depend upon the evidence of Senfe ^ I wou'd fain know what arguments we have in thefe our daies to convince us of the cer- tainty of our moft Holy Faith. Thus then it appears, that if we take away the general certainty of the evidence of Senfe, we overthrow the foun- dations of Chriftianity. ; 5.. Nay farthery we are liable to everlafting Scep- ticifm, if the Senfes cannot be generally lely'd up* on. For if the^y may generally deceive us, why Xnay they not deceive us always? At leaft it i$ impoffible for us to diftinguifli, when they do de^ ceive us, and when they are faithful to us. If they are capable of impofing fo often on me^ how (hall I be fecur'd.from the mifchiefs arifing from them ? Nay^ why fhou'd one Man write to con- vince his neighbor, or another Man read to coxv- vince himfelf, of his Errors ,• .if the Senfes may fb feldom be trufted ? For the firft may think he has .penn'd a ftrong argument, when he may have o- mitted the beft part of what he thought he had iirg'd ; and the fecond may be fo far deceiv'd, as to read directly contrary to what is written. Thus muft our Errors be perpetual ; and our felves are doom'd to eternal doubtings. We mufl believe nothing becaufe w>e can have no certainty. Now .an everlafting Scepticifm is fo abfurd, that all Men have exploded it : and therefore it muft be •gr^inted that the evidence of Senfe is generally certain ; becaufe Scepticifm cannot be otherwife avoided. :-.£!? rO^^ what has be^n faid it may fufficiently ap» A pear. Part II. OfTranfuhjhntUtm. Ch.If; 91 pear, that the evidence of Senfe is at leafi generally certain ; and therefore I (hall now proceed to fiiew, that if the evidence of Senfe be generally certaioj it muft be alv^aies certain. For how ftiall I be fure, that thofe Scnfes which can deceive me^ do not adually deceive me in any particular inftance ? I have reafon to fufped and diC. believe that Man^ whom I have once found, or know to be falfe : and then, if I may juftly fufpcdt and disbelieve my Senfes, I pray what is become of my certainty by them ? For how can that be at any time a certain evidence of Truth, which is fometimes liable to Error ? How can any Man fliew, when they do not, and when tliey do deceive me ; ifmce there is the evidence of Senfe in both Cafes ? Nay tho' 1 were infallibly affur'd, that there was but one thing in the World, which it was poffible for my Senfes to deceive me in ,• yet fince I do not know that one thing, I muft remain for ever uncertain. If it be faid, that Tranfuhfiantiation is that one thing ; and that I may fafely credit my Senfes in all other fenfible matters ^ I anfwer, that this is a groundlefs Affertion. For why may I not judge of Bread and Wine, as well as of other corporeal things ? Well, but fome Perfons do pretend to give us diverfe inftances, in which Mens Senfes have been miftaken, even when they were converfant about their proper Objedrs ,• and from hence they con-^ elude, that our Senfes, tho' they may be generally ^ yet are not alwaies certain. Thefe therefore I think my felf obliged to examin ,• left they ftiou'd by an appeal to experience perfuade us out of our Senfes. And I. They fay, that the Angels who appear'd to Ahraham^ ^f Ch. If: Of TranfHbJlantiation. PartlfT Ahraham^ Manoah^ &c. feem'd to be real Men* and yet they were incorpore^^l Spirits. But I an- iw^r^ that thofc Angels did either alTume real bo- diesj or they, did not. If they did^ then oer^ tainly the Senfes of thofe Spedators did not (de- ceive them. But if they did not,- then I defiref ourAdverfaries to prove^that thePerfons to whoTn they appear'dj did handle and examin the conffi ftence of thofe Apf^aritions. For uniefs they us'd the help of all thofe Senfes which might affift them in th-^ fearch^ they cou'd not pofitively pro- nounce a judgr^ent in the cafe. Now if they did try them by all "proper Senfes; then they either found them to have real bodies^ or they did not. If they did not ^ then they might foon be fatif- fy'd^ that they were not Men as their fight ha& informed them. But if they did find them td ^have real bodies' ;;■ our Adverfaries will find it a difficult matter to prove that they did not aifume them. And if they did affume them , then^ as I faid before^ the eyes of the Spedatdrs did not de- ceive them. Wherefore it appears^that if the Senfes were fo rightly us*dj ais to aiFord what I formerly call'd the t^ldenct of Senfe^ then they did >truly ^and faithfully perform their office. For they were not to determin, whether the bodies, or thofe Angels were affura'd or natural i but whether they had. true bodies^ or nO. ^-^'^2. They fay y' that the Manna in the Wilder- riefs, tho' the natural t^fi of it was like wafers rnjade with honey y Exod. i6. 31. did tail never- ihelefs according to every Man's humor. For as the Author of the Book of IV'i fdom {pc^iks^ Chap, 16. T. 2O3 21. Thou feedeft thine own Feople with jinzels foody and didfh fend them from Hea^uen Bread frefard without their . labor ^ able to content e^ery .^ Man's Part II. Of TranfdJlantUtm. Ch.IL 95 Mans delight y and agreeing to ei>ery taft. For thy fufienance declared thy fweetnefs unto thy Children^ and feruing to the appetite of the Eater^ temper 4 it. felf to every Mans liking. And therefore 'tjs pretended^ that the Ifraelites did not relifii it ac- cording to its intrinfic nature, but were deceived in their Senfe of Tailing^ even when it was duly converfant about its proper objed. Now to this I fhall return two Anfwers, thait our Adverfaries may chufe which pleafes them beft. Firfi then^ it may be faid, that the words of the Book of I^rifdom are hyperbolical, and muft therefore be understood in a favorable and lower Senfe. If this be admitted, then it will follow, that the taft of Manna was not really different ac- cording as Mens palats varied : but that it was only a very delicious food, as Alofes defcribes it, like TVafers made 7vith Honey ^ and that the taft of it was very agreeable to the Generality of the Jevjs. Now this explication is not in the leaft inconfiflent with their loathing the fame Man- na, Numb. 21. 5'. becaufe Solomon tells us,, the full foul loatheth an Honey-comhy Prov. 27. 7. Be- fides, that generation of the Jews was a peevifh and humorfom People ,• and were refolv'd to be difpleafed with all God's mercies ^ and thought nothing good enough for their Enjoyment. This their uneafy and difcontented Temper made them within a fhort time to diflike that food, which was truly excellent in its own nature ; and whicli had formerly been mofl grateful to themf elves upon their firfl tailing of it. Secondly^ it may be faid on the other fide,, that the Words of the Book of Wifdom are to be un- derftood in a ftrid fenfe ; fo that the Manna muft be thought agreeable to every Man's guft^ altho'' the 94 Ch.IL OfTrAnfuhfimtUtion. Part II. the palates of Men are fo very different. But then the Text of the Book of Wisdom cannot be reconcird with that of Numbers 21. 5". where the Jtws are faid to loath Manna. For this was im- poflible for them ,- if in a ftrid and proper fenfe the Manna were agreeable to every taft, and temper'd it felf to each Perfons liking. BefideSj the Children of Ifrael alfo v^ejt and faid^ IVe remember the Fifi which we did eat in Egypt freely^ the Cucumbers, and the Melons y and the Leeks ^ and the Onions , tind the Garlick ; But noTif our foul is drfd aivajy there is nothing at all hejides this Manna before our eyes. Numb. 1 1. 4^ 5" J 6. Now if this Manna futed it felf to every Man's liking ^ haw came it to pafs, that thofe who did not only Ukcy but alfo long and mur- mur for Fifh and Cucumbers^ &c, did not perceive the delicacies of them in this Wonderful Manna ? For^ according to this interpretation of the paffage in the Book of Wifdom, they muft no fooner have wifii'd for any dainty^ but the Manna furnifti'd them with it. Now the firft of thefe Anfwers will allow^ that the Text of Mofes may be reconcil'd with that of the Book of Wifdom : but then it fuppofes^ that the report of the Senfes was true and certain in that particular ; and confequently it takes away the ground of our Adverfaries Obje^ion. Whereas the latter of thefe Anfwers makes the Text of the Book of Wifdom to contradi6t that of Mofes ; and confequently it can do our Adverfaries no fervice. .'For fmce the Books are now fuppos'd to contra- did each other ; 'tis plain that one of them muft fpeak falfe. And fince'tis granted on both fides, that Mofes is in the right ; it follows of courfe, that the other muft be in the wrong 5- and then the Book of iVifdom is not an infpir'd writing. Now Part II. Of Tranfuhftuntution. Ch. II. 9 5 Now we VrotefiatitSy who grant that the Book of Wifdom is not Canonical, are not obliged to ex* cufe the miftakes of its Author, when he hapw pens to clafti with Mofes : but our Adverfaries be- ing of another Opinion, are therefore conftrain'd in confequence of it, to attempt an impoffibility, in making thefe expreflions agree with Mofes's Re- lation. For my part, I cannot fee, how our Ad- verfaries will rid themfelves of this great diflRcul- ty, unlefs they give up the pretended authority of the Book oi fViplom ; and acknowledge, that we are not obliged to believe what is written in it, to be infallibly true, and the Word of God. Buc then, if this be done, the matter is clear : and we thank them for this folid Anfwer to their own Ob- jection. 1^, They alledge, that Mary Magdalen was de- ceiv'd by her eye-light, when ftie thought thar our Savior, as he appeared to her after his Refur- redion, had been the Gardener, John 20. 19-. But it muft be confider'd, that it was quite dark when fhe went to the Sepulcher, 1/, i. and flie made haft to it again; fo that at her return 'twas very probably either dark or duskifli ; and confequently fhe tjiighc Tery eafily miftake. Befides, a fudden furprize, or a great fear, might amaze her for a while ; fo that Ihe might not know him immediately. Buc will our Adverfaries fay, that after Mary Magda- kn had recollected her felf, and well confider'd and examin'd the matter, that then fhe was mifta- ken ? If fo, I defire them to read the eighteenth verfe^ where they will find her throughly convin- ced, that it was our Lord himfelf ^ for *tis faid, that fhe came and told the difcifles that fije had feen the Lord. 4. They tell us^ that Chrift came into the Room, g6 Ch. II. OfTranft4bpntUtiofj. Part II. Room, when the doors 7vere jlmt^ John 20. 19. and from thence they conclude, that the Senfes may be deceiv'd. Becaufe they fuppofe, that our Savior entered in a miraculous manner^and that the Difciples did not obferve him entring in. But they will never be able to prove from St. Johns words, that the doors were not open'd to our Sa- vior. For tho' the doors are faid to have been fliut, yet the reafon is plain from the following words, where the difciples were affembled together for fear of the Jews. It feems the Difciples were apprehenfive of danger, and therefore endeavor'd to keep themfelves clofe : but it cannot be gather'd from hence, that they woud not open the doors to thofe, whom they thought their particular and trufty friends. Now 'tis probable, that when fome fuch Perfons were admitted, our Lord was pleas'd to take that occafion of entring into the Room. 'Tis true the Text of St. John do's not fay thus much : but it muft be oblerv'd, that it faies nothing againft it, and the Text of St. Luke feems to imply it. For if we compare thefe following paffages of the two Evangelifts, we have good reafon to believe, that they belong to the fame ftory. St. Luke faies, Chaf. 24. 55. And the J rofe up the fame hour^ and returned to Jerufalem, and found the eleven gather d together, and them that were with them^ 54. Sayings The Lord is rifen indeed, and hath ap" peard to Simon. 5^. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. 56. And Part 11. Of TranfahftantUtiorf. Ch. IL fj 97 56. And as they thus fpake^ Jefus hlmfelf flood in the midfp of thcWj^ and faith unto thew^ Peace be unto you. 57. But they n'ere terrif/d and affrighted^ and fuf- fos'd that they had jeen a fpirit, ;8. And he [aid unto them^ Why are ye troubled ^ and why do thoughts arife in your hearts ? 59. Behold my hands and my feety &C. St. John faies, Chaj. 20. 19. T^hen the fame day at evenings being the firfl Jay of the weeky when the doors were flntty where the difciples were affembled for fear of the Jews, came Jefus and flood in the midfty and Jaith unto them^ Peace be unto you. 20. And when he had fo faidy he jljew^d unto them bis hands and his fide. Then were the difciples glady when they faw the Lord, Now if thefe paffages do (as 'tis highly pro- bable) relate to the fame ftory^ then we ought to explain them one by another. And confequently we may conclude, that tho' the doors were flmt to ftrangerSj for fear of the Jews, according to St. Johns Relation, 1/. 19. yet they were open'd to the two friends, who returnd to Jerufalem^ and found the eleven gather d together y Luke 24. 35- And then, we may fuppofe, that Jefm enter'd immediately after the other two ,• becaule as they were canvaffing the matter which had lately hap- pened, even as they thus fpakcy Jefus himfelf flood in the midfl of thcmy and faith u7ito themy Peace be unto you, L«/;e 24. ;6. Which are the very fame words, that St. John reports him to have (aid, as foon as he was in the Room, where the doors were Jimty John 20. 19. G But 98 Ch 11. Of TrdrjfubflmiAtion. Part If. But I fhall not farther enlarge upon this Nic& ' difpute^ about which the Commentators are divi- ded. What I have faid, I think, is iufficient ; but however, if our Advcrfarics are of a different ©pinion, I am willing to grant them all they de- iire, that I may fee what advantage can be made ©f it. Suppofe we then, that Jefifs did enter into the Room, when the Doors were really kept clofe fliut I and that they were not opened for him : yet 'twill not follow from hence, that our Senfes are deceived, when they are duly converfant about their proper obj.e(^s. Becaufe the Senfes were not at all imploy'd in this cafe , the ground of our' Adverfaries objedion being this, that the Apoftles did Bot fee him enter : and therefore we can- not conclude from hence, that the report of the Senfes is falfe ,• fmce the Senfes of the Apoftles made no report at all concerning his entrance. ''Tis true, jefm entred in, they knew not how : but certainly, we are not to give our Senfes the lie, becaufe fome matters, which our Senfes fa/ nothing of, are fo difficult, that yv'e cannot ex- plain the manner of them. Nay, for my part, Ifiiou'd rather conclude from- this inftance, that we ought alwaies to believe our Senfes ; than that we ought ever to diftruft them at all. For it appears, that in fpight of the feem- m% impoffibility of our Savior's entrance, the A- poftles did immediately and firmly conclude him to be there really prefent j becaufe they thought it moft unreafonable and abfurd to disbelieve the report of their Senfes, in any cafe or circuraftance whatfoever. But now, fince our Adverfaries do fo earneftly contend, that feveral Perfons have been deceiv'd by Pattll. OfTranfubflantUtm. Ch.II. 99 by their Senfes ,• and do from thence conclude^ that our Senfes cannot alwaies be rely'd on : I de- fire leave to ask them one important Queftion. How do they knoiv^ that thofe Verfons were decei'v'd by their Senfes ? If thcy reply^ that the Scriptures fay fo ,• I defire to knovv^ by what means they are affur'd^ that they read right. Perhaps their eyes have betray'd them_, and made them pitch upon fuch inftances^ as if they could examin them throughly^ would evince the contrary. However, 'tis certain that the Senfes of our Adverfaries are notfecur'd by any particular privilege^ and there- fore they cannot be rely'd on^ any more than thofe of Ahraham^ Manaoh^ Alary Magdalen^ &C. NoW iince 'tis impoflible for them to prove the truth of thefe inftancesj otherwife than from Scripture, that is, by the teftimony of their own Senfes ; and (ince their own Senfes cannot be trufted be- yond thofe of their fellow-mortals ^ I pray, what becomes of their pretended experience, by which they hop'd to have gain'd their point ? In a word ; if our Adverfaries wou'd efFedually prove by experience, that our Senfes may de- ceive us, even when they are duly converfant a- bout their proper objeds , they muft then do two things. Firjty they muft inftance in fome particular objed of our Senfes, and demonftrate that when their organs were rightly difpos'd, and that they had imploy'd all imaginable care and circumfpedion in examining the thing before them; that then the report of their Senfes was exadly fuch, and no other. Secondly^ they muft demon- ftrate, that tho' the report of their Senfes wa^ moft certainly fuch ,- yet the objed was moft cer- tainly mifreprefented by their Senfes. But then ; 1 pray, how will they be able to demonftrate, that G 2 an loo Ch. II. Of Trmfubfiam'mion. Part 11. an objed of Senfe is mifreprefented by their oivn Senfes^ othervvife than by the tefliniony of their own Scnfes ? And 1 appeal to any confidering Per- fon^ whether it be not a very odd thing, for a Man to prove by the Authority of hU own Senfes, that his C7rn Senies are miftaken. Thus then I have cxamin'd all thofe inftances, by v/hich our Adverf^^ries endeavor to prove that our Senfes may fometimes deceive us ; and I think I have fhewn that they are nothing to the purpofe. Wherefore fince it is impoflible that the evi- dence of our Senfes fhou'd be generally certain, unlcfs it be alwaies certain ; and fince there is no inftance that do's or can evince the contrary j I fliali pofitively affir^Hj that the e^-jidence of Sciije is ^hi\iic5 certain. '''/''^i " But our AdverfaVies contend^ that tho' the evi- dence of Senfe were abfokitely certain in all o- ther inftances, yet we mufl not believe our Sen- fes, when Almighty God commands us to disbe- lieve them. For they think it mpre certain, that God cannot deceive us, than that the evidence of Senfe is then certain. And therefore, when the one contradicts the other, we muft believe our God, and renounce our Senfes. But in anfwer to this I dehre them to confidcr three things. I. That if our Senfes may deceive us at all, we cannot be fccure of the Truth of any Reve- lation. For how, I pray, fhall this Revelation be made known to us } How fhall I be cer- tain, that God has infpir'd fuch a Meffenger, if I may at any time disbelieve my Senfes ? He tells me, that God requires fuch a thing at my hands : but how do's he prove, that he was com- miflton'd by God to ilgnify this matter to me ? If he appeals to Miracles ,• thofe Miracles are an appeal Partir. OfTranfuhfidntUtion. Cb.IL loi appeal to my Senfcs : and therefore if I cannot repofe an abfolute confidence in my Senfes ; I cannot be abfolutely certain of the truth of his MiracleSj and confequently I cannot be abfokite- ly afTur'd that he came from God. If he ap- peal to an ancient Prophecy, which declares that in future times a Man fhall be fent from Heaven to pronounce God's Will ,• and if he pretend to be the Perfon therein defcrib'd : I may reply ^ that unlefs I may alwaies trull my Senfes, I am not fure there is fuch a Prophecy, or that he is the Perfon fignify'd by it. For perhaps I may read it wrong,- and the words, if my Senfes wou'd in- form me faithfully, may fignify the contrary , and command me not to receive that pretended Mef- fenger, who fliou'd arife in fuch an Age. Nor cou'd I be fecure of his being the Perfon, altho' 1 were allow'd to underftand the Words. For tho' his very vifage, habit, fpeech, &:c. were ex*- adtly defcrib'd ,• tho' his particular aclions, and even the number of them, were foretold (which Teflimonials were never yet granted to any Pro- phet j yet I fay) tho' all this were done j I may be deceived in him notwithftanding. For perhaps my eyes may mifreprefent his features, &c. and therefore I cannot be certain, that I do not mi- ftake him. Wherefore, fmce the Revelation which obliges me to renounce my Senfes, cannot be proved, but by the tcftimony of Senfe^ 'tis plain, that tlie teftimony of Senfe mud be accounted certain, at lead in that particular inilance ; for otherwife I cannot be certain, that there is fuch a Revelation. Now 1 have prov'd, that if the teftimony of Senfe is at any time certain, it muft be alwaies certain ,• and therefore that Revelation which obliges me G 2 to 102 Cb . II. Of TranfubflmUtion. Part. XL to renounce my Senfes muft be uncertain : unlefs a Man will fay, that we may be alwaies certain of the truth of our Senfes, and at the fame time be obliged to disbelieve tiiem j which is the very height of abfurdity. 2. I cannot be more certain, that God do's not deceive me, than of the perpetual certainty of my Senfes. For the frame and conftitution of my Nature, is as the Voice of God fpcaking to me; and therefore if I may upon any occafion disbe- lieve my natural Senfes fpeaking to nie, why may I not with equal reafon disbelieve thofe pretended Revelations, which oppofe my :5enfes ? If I may rely upon God's Veracity, I may alwaies truft my Senfes : and if I may not rely upon God's Vera- city, I cannot be certain that the fuppos'd Reve- lation do's not deceiv^e me. I grant indeed, that I have the utmoft demonftration, that God cannot deceive mc : but then 1 have alfo the utmoft demon- ftration that my Senfes do not deceive me. So that the one is not more certain than the other : but each of them is moft certain. 5. 'Tis impoflible, that any Revelation (hou'd command me to disbelieve my Senfes. For fmce God proves the Truth of his Revelation by the teftimony of my Senfes ,• 'tis plain that he fup- pofes my Senfes to be abfolutcly true and faithful to me, and that he requires me to believe them, alwaies. For otherwife he wou'd not require me to receive his Revelation upon the Credit of them^ as infallible witneffes and demonftrations of the truth of it. Now if he requires me both to be- lieve, and to renounce my Senfes ^ then he re- quires contradictions of me ,• and confequently he proves himfelf to be unjuft, and his Creatures; duty to be impoflible , which things gannot be fup- pos'd of fo Good and Kind a Go4, {f Part II. Of TrmfuhJlmUtm, Ch.II. loj If it be faid^ that he requires me to believe my Senfes in fome particulars^ and to renounce them in others 5 and that this is not impoflible ; I anfwer, that if he requires me to renounce them at all j then he affirms that they may fometimes deceive me^and muft not alwaies be rely'd on. Now if my Senfes may fometimes deceive me^ and muft not alwaies be rely'd on , thenj as I have often faid^ the truth of mySenfes can never be a fufficient proof of the truth of any Revelation. For I do not know^ but that my Senfes did deceive me in thofe very Miracles, upon the credit of which I received that Revela- tion : and therefore^ unlefs this propofition be al- waies and abfolutely true^ that the evide7tce of Senfe fs cert am , I cannot be fecure of the truth of any Revelation at all. But if this propofition, that the evidence of Senfe ts certain ^ be alwaies and ab- folutely true , then it can never be falfe. For that which may at any one inftant of time be falfe, is not alwaies and abfolutely true. Now if this pro- pofition, that the e'vidence of Senfe is certain^ can never be falfe ^ then the evidence of Senfe is al~ waies certain. And therefore if God command me to renounce the evidence of Senfe, he com- mands me to believe that to be for the prefent falfe, which can never be falfe, but is alwaies and abfolutely true. Now this is an impoflible com- mand, and implies a contradiction. If it be faid-, that God muft determin, when our Senfes are to be believ'd, and when \vc muft renounce them , and that this will take away the form.er difficulty ; I anfwer, i. That 1 have fliewn it to be abfurd, that God fiiou'd ever command us to renounce our Senfes. 2. That God can- pot inform us, when we are to renounce our 3^nfes ; begaufe the very proof of the Truth of G 4 God's 104 Ch. II. Of Tranfubflantiation, Part II. God's Revelations^ do's fuppofe the truth of this principle^ That v^e mu^ never renounce our Scnfes. But if our Adverfaries will ftill be urging^ that God has adually commanded us to renounce our Senfes^ and that there is no difputing againfl mat- ter of facft ,• I anfwcr^ that I do mofi; freely and heartily acknowledge the Truth of the Scriptures, and am throughly perfuaded^ that they do con- tain the reveal'd Will of God : but I deny that any one Text of Scripture do's oblige me upon any pretence to renounce my Senfes. And as for the matter of Tranjubj^antunion^ which is the Sub- jed of our prefent Difpute, I (ball fhew in its proper place^ that it is not revealM j and confe- quently^ that we are not requir'd to renounce our Senfes for ir. Nay farther^ tho' our Adverfaries cou'd prove, that the Holy Scriptures do oblige us to renounce our Senfes ^ yet we fhou'd not think our felves obliged to renounce them, but muft of neceflity renounce the Scriptures themfelves. Becaufe they wou'd then teach that, which is notorioufly ab- furd, and dcftroies the Truth of that principle, upon which we have hitherto receiv'd them. I {hall now fum up what has been faid con- cerning this Point. Since fo many abfurdities do (as I have plainly (hewn) unavoidably follow up- on the fuppolkion of the general uncertainty of Senfible evidence -^ particularly, fmce we can- not be fure of the Truth of any Revelation, but muft renounce our Chriftian Religion, and be- come downright Sceptics^ if our Senfes are fo fre- quently deceitful ; it appears, that the evidence of Senfe is gcjierally certain. And, fincc the-bare poili- bility of being deceiv'd by the evidence of Senfe, muit utterly deftroy all the cerraiiuy generally a- rifing Part II. Of Tr/infuhftantution. Ch.II. 105 rifing from our Senfes ; and fince it is impoflible, that God (liou'd ever command us to disbelieve our Senfes ^ therefore it is alfo plain, that we ought to believe our Senfes in all inftances whatfoever. And fmce we are obliged to believe our Senfes in all in- ftances whatfoever, 'tis manifeft, that the e'vidence of Senfe is alivales certain^ which was the propofition I undertook to prove. But fome Perfons there are, who are pleas'd to tell us, that tho' the evidence of Senfe were aU waies certain, yet it can make known only the ac- cident of things. Becaufe the fubftances of things are not the proper objects of Senfe, and therefore the evidence of Senfe is not certain concerning them. Thus they fay, that tho' the Senfes may be believ'd, when they inform us of the accidents of Bread and Wine : yet they muft not be be- livM, when they pretend to acquaint us what fubftances lie under them. Becaufe the Senfes are not able to judge, whether the fubftances, that are cloath'd with fuch accidents, are Bread and Wine, or human Flefh and human Bloud. Now in an- fwer to this I muft confefs, that the fubftances of things are not the immediate objeds of our Senfes. We cannot Hear, or See, or Feel, or Tafte^ or Smell, the inward Effence of what we perceive by our Senfes : but yet the fubftances of things are the Remote objeds of our Senfes, by the me- diation of thofe accidents with which the fubftan- ces are cloath'd j that is, our Senfes do perceive the fubftances of things by perceiving the acci- dents of them. Thus for inftance, we may know by our Senfes, that Bread is not a Stone, or that a Man is not a Horfe, by looking upon the out- ward accidents, and difcerning the fubftance by them. So that the adequate objeds of our Senfes arQ io5 Ch.II. Of Tra-^fubftantUtion. Part II, are the things we perceive^, that is^ rhofe beings which are compounded of material fubftance and fuch accidents as are proper to it. And indeed, unlefs this be admitted, the evi- dence of our Senfes is good for nothing ,• but we are left in as bad a condition as if the evidence of Senfe were utterly uncertain. For what are we to make judgment of? Not of the color or o- ther accidents ; but of the Subftance. What am I the wifer or certainer, for knowing whitenefs, hardnefs, &c. unleis I am able by the obfervation of thofe qualities to diftinguifh one fubftance frorn another ? Now 'tis utterly impoffible, that I fhould determin, that this thing is a Man, the fecond a Tree, the Third a Horfe,&c. unlefs my Senfes can diftinguifh not only the accidents, but alfo the fubftances of things. Here then I might refume all my former Argu- ments, by which I prov'd that the evidence of Senfe is generally certain ,• and fliew that all the foremention'd abfurdities which wou'd have fol- low'd from the general uncertainty of our Senfes, muft (till of neceffity follow, if our Senfes can perceive the accidents only , it being qf no ufe or advantage for any Man to diflinguilh accidents, but only as they inform him of the fubftance. But becaufe the application of all of them is lb very natural and eafy^ therefore I fhall wave the reft, and ufe but one. 1 defire to know therefore, how any Man can be certain of the truth of the Chiiftian Religion, if the evidence of Senfe concerning fubftances be not admitted. For fuppofe I vv^ou'd perfuade an infidel to believe, that our Savior came from God ; and urg d an argument drawn from his Miracles, particularly that of railing Laz.r,r!fs from the dead ; he Tart II. Of Trmfuhflmtiation. Ch. 11. 107 he can eafily anfwer according to the Dodrin of our AdverfarieSj that it do's not appear that La^ z.artfs was rais'd. 'Tis true, faies he, I fee the accidents of Laz^arus ; I fee his Figure, Com- plexion, &c. but perhaps thefe accidents may cloath another fubilance. Perhaps the fubftance is that of a Dog, an Horfe, or a Sheep ; and La^ z^artis, tho' his accidents have the appearance of Life, may in the mean time be as truly dead as ever. It I reply, that it appears to be Laz»artts him- felt, who is now alive, and appeal to the Senfes of this infidel for the truth of it ; if I bid him look and examin, and ask his own eyes, whether it be not the fame Perfon whom he faw lying dead in the grave ,- he may tell me that his Senfes can- not judge of fubftances. 'Tis true, faies he, I fee the accidents oi Laz^arus ^ but I cannot be af- fur'd that Laz>arus himfelf is under them, unlefs the fubftance of Laz^arus be difcernible by the eyes. However, faies he, fuppofe thefe which I call, and believe to be the accidents of Laz.arus^ do really cover the fubftance of a Man j yet I am npt certain that Laz>arus is the Man ; becaufe my eyes cannot diftinguifli the fubftance of Laz^arus from that of another Perfon. Wherefore I am not, and cannot be certain, that the dead Laz^ams was rais'd to life ; and why then fhou'd I take this thing for granted, and embrace a new Religion upon the account of it ^ Thus again the Mahometans^ who believe that Sywon the Cyrenui?} was crucified inftead of Jefus^ cannot be convinc'd of the Peath and Refur- redion of our Lord, unlefs the Senfes may be allow'd to difcern and diftinguifli fubftances. For how will ypu prove that Symon was not crucify'd under j^ ai.II. Of Tranfubjlantutton: Part IL iiTi'd6r our Saviors accidents ; if one fubftance may be cloath'd with the accidents of another, and the Senfes cannot pafs a judgment between them ? Since wic'may be fo eafily miftaken in our pretended per- ception of fubftances, why might nor the Jews take Spnon for Chrift ,- and how cou'd the Apoilles be fure, that they convers'd with their Rifen Lprd and Mafter ? 'Tis in vain to alledge other inftances in fo plain a cafe. 'Tis evident^ that all the other proofs of the Chriftian Religion may be evaded after the fame manner. For how can we be aiTur^d, that any one Miracle was ever wToughr^ if the Senfes can judge of nothing but a few outward accidents } And I de- fire our Adverfaries to conllaer^ whether that muft not be thought an abfurd and impious opinion^ which overthrows the certainty of our moft holy Faith. SecofiMy^ I am now to fhew, that we are aj[u- red by the evidence of Senfe^ that the fubfiances of the Bread and Wine do remain after the Confecratio7j, And for the truth of this I appeal to thofe SenfeSj the evidence of which I have prov'd to be alwaies certain. If you ask an infidel, what he fees after the Confecration ; he will anfwer you^ Bread and IVine, Get a Prieft to place the con- fecrated Wafers amongft others that are not con- fecrated ; and you'l find it impoffible to diftinguidi them. Do you not give the He to your fa- culties^ when you fay that the Elements are not Bread and Wine ? If you were to meet with them upon any fudden occafion ; you wou'd depofe up- on Oarh, that they are what they feem to be. Touch, ']^aft, and View, and Smell of them a thou- f^nd times ; and you'll find, even after the niceft inquiry and ftrirfeft examination^ that your Sen- --- •• fes Part II. Of Tranftibjlantiatiom Gh. II. 109 fes do iiU agree in their teffimohy concerning, them. They affure you^ that the fubdances of Bread and Wine do as certainly remain after the Confecration ; as the Elements were Bread and Wine before the Confecration. And if ye will not believe your Senfes after the Confecration ; why did you believe them before it ,* fmce there is equal evidence of Senfe in both Cafes ? BefideSj not only your own Senfes^ but the Senfes of the wiiole World do atteft the fame ; and the thing it felf is extremely common. Nay, there arc no things in the World, between which wc can more eafily diftinguifli, than between Flefli and Bloud, and a bit of Bread and a few drops of Wine. So that if the Senfes of all Mankind can- not diftinguifh fuch objeds, 'tis impoffible to di- ftinguifh any thing by our Senfes j which I have already fliewn to be abfurd. If it be faid^ that the Eucharift is an object of Faithj and therefore cannot be examined by our Senfes; I anfwer, that the inward part of the Sa- cramenCj or thing fignify'd thereby {'vlz,, the Grace of Chrift) is an objed of Faith: but the outward part of it, or the thing which fignifies (x'izs. the Elements, which denote and convey the Grace of Chrift) the outward part, I fay, is an objed: of the Senfes, and may be examin'd by them. If it be alfo niid,that the change of the Elements is miraculous, and therefore rnuil not be examin'd by our Senfes ; I anfwer that all Miracles (pro- perly fo call'd) are fenfible things, and make their appeal to our Senfes. But w^iatever be the no- tion of a Miracle, 'tis certain, that no Miracle can make that to be falfe which is really true. And therefore, fince I have fliewn that the E^ji- dence I io Ch. 11. Of TranfuhftAnttAtion. Part IL dtnct of Senfe is alwaies certain ; 'tis not in the power of a miracle ever to make it uncertain * becaufe a thing might then become both true and falfe at the fame time. Wherefore^ fince the e'uidence of Senfe is al'waies certain, and fince it appears by the evidence of Senfe^ that the Elements do continue Bread and Wine, after the Confecration ; *tis manifeft that ^e are ajfur^d hy the evidence of Senfe, that the fuhjtances of Bread and Wine do remain after the Consecration. And therefore 'tis plain, that the fubftances of the Bread and Wine are not turn'd into the Natural Body and Bloud of Chrift. Now if we are certain, that the fubftances of the Bread and Wine are not turn'd into the Natural Body and Bloud of Chrift : then the DoBrin <)/Tranfub- ftantiation is ahfolutely falfe, becaufe that Dodrin fuppofes fuch a change. I might add, that this Dodrin is repugnant to all the evidence of reafon, and deftroies our very firft principles of knowledge ,• that it is loaded with innumerable Contradictions, and obliges Men to moft abominable and barbarous adions ,* but I be- lieve our Adverfaries will find fo much ftrength in this fmgle Argument, that I need not trouble them with others. CHAP. tart II. OfTrmfuhftrntUtioH.' GLlII.' lifct CHAP. III. *;Ji' That the DoEirin of TtMnfubftantiation cm-iJOt he f roved from the Sixth Chapter of St. JohnV Goffel. IMuft now Gonfider^what our Adverfaries alledgc in favor of Tranfnhflantlation, And Firft^ they pretend^ that the Scriptures do teach it. But in anfvver to this I defire them to confidet three things. I. That^ if it were barely poflible, yet 'tis in^ finitely improbable^ that Almighty God wou*d make the Dodrin of Travfuhpantlation a part of the Chriftian Religion. For God defigns that Chriftianity fhou'd be univerfally believ'd j where- as {{Travftibficwtiation be a pari:^ it muft of neceffity hinder Men from embracing the Whole of our profeffion. For^ fince Tranjuhfiantiatlon is utter- ly repugnant to our Senfes^ and fince 'tis a great piece of folly to renounce our SenfeSj certainly no wife and confidering Man can embrace^ or think it pcffible for a gracious God to injoin that Religion upon pain of damnation^ the pro- feffion of which obliges him co break all the rules of prudence in believing againft the evidence of Senfe. May not an Infidel, when requir'd to believe Tranfubfiantiatmj^ juftly objed, that Chriftianity requires Men to believe thofe Miracles which prove it true, upon the teftimony of their Senfes ; and at the fame time requires them to believe a Dodtrin, which deftroies the certainty of their Senfes ? May they not fay, it overthrows its own credi- 112 ChJII. Of TranfubjlantUtion. Part II. credibility 5 and that it's Dodrines cannot be true, unlefs the proofs of it be falfe ? For my part, I ever thought the belief of Chriftianity moft highly reafonable : but if it requir'd us to believe Traii- fuhfiantiation^ or any thing elfe which deftroies the certainty of our Senfes j I cou'd not but think it extremely abfurd and unaccountable. 2. I defire them to confider, that if the Scri- ptures did teach it, we mufl renounce the Scri- ptures themfelves ; it being evidently contrary to the Teftimony of our Senfes, and a thing which God cannot command ; as I have already prov'd. Wherefore I defire our Adverfaries to do one of thefe two things , either to fhew that Tranfuh- fiantiation is not repugnant to our Senfes ; or elfe to prove that we may, and ought to receive the Scriptures upon the teftimony of thofe Miracles, which are appeals to our Senfes, altho' the evi- dence of our Senfes be not alwaies certain. But I defpair of their fuccefs in either of thefe under- takings. 3. That the holy Scriptures do not teach this Dodrin, as they pretend. And this I fhall make appear by examining thofe places, in which they think it is taught. This I fliall do in fome fol- lowing Chapters. CHAP, i Part II. Of TranfubjlantiAtion. Ch.IV. iij CHAR IV. ThAt the Sixth Chafer of St. John'^ Gofpel do's not relate to ths Lord's Supper. FIRST then, they produce the Sixth Chapter of St. John^ where our Savior fpeaks of his being the Bre^d of Life^ and that the Bread which he will give is his Flejh^ and that whofoever eateth his Flefi and drinketh his Bloud^ hath eternal life. From hence they conclude^ that fince thefe expreffions do relate to the Eucharift, and are to be taken in a literal fenfe ; therefore in the participation of that Sacrament we do eat the real Body and drink the realBloudofChrift. Whereas I fcall fliew, i.That thefe paffages do not relate to the Lord's Supper. a. That altho' they did relate to the Lord's Sup- per, yet they are not to be underftood in a literal lenle. ;. That tho' they did relate to the Lord's Supper^and were to be underftood in a literal fenfe ; yet they do not prove the Dodrin of Tranfubfian-- tiatiorty but diredly contrary. Firjir^ I fay, thefe paffages do not relate to the Lord's Supper, as will appear by the following Paraphrafe of the greateft part of that Chapter. We read that our Savior Chrift had fed a greac multitude with five barley loaves and two fmall fifhes, from verfe the jth to the 14. Then thoje Men^ when they had feen the Ml^ rack which Jejus did^ faid^ this is of a truth that Frofhety which was to come into the world^ to deliver us from the Hands of our Enemies, and redeem the Nation from their j)refent flavery under the Roman yoke. H I J. rn^n 114 Cb.IV. Of Tranfuhflantiation. Part 11/ 17. When Jefm therefore fercei'v^d that they Tvoud come and take him by force to make him a King^ becaufe they expeded he wou'd prove a mighry conqueror^ and iet them at liberty^ he, being re- folv'd againfl: any temporal greatnefs^ departed a-' gain to a mountain himfelf alone ^ and went over the Sea. But when the Multitude had found him again, ^ • 26. Jefus anf-iverd them and faid^ Verily y 'uerily^ I fay unto youy ye feek me not becaufe ye faw the Miracles^ hut becaufe ye did eat of the loaves and oi'ere fiWd. You do not follow me to fee the works chat I do, and to receive convincing evi- dence of my being the true Mejjiah -^ but to gain a. little prclent advantage by me_, in living upon this miraculous food. . Then he reproves their earthly-mind ednefs, and advifes thera rather to feek for thofe things which vvou'd make them happy in the World to come. Now as in his Converfation with the Woman of Samaria^ he took an occafion from her drawing of Water, to carry on his difcourfe under the alle- gory of Water, Johtj 4. fo in the cafe before us, becaufe the difcourfe was occafiOn'd by the Loaves, he carries it on under the allegory of eating and drinking, calling the Dodrin of the Gofpel by the Names of Bread and Drink, And becaufe our whole Religion is built upon the great trunhs of our Savior's incarnation and death, which lie calls his Flejh and Blcud ^ therefore he fpeaks of the belief of thofe things under the term of eating his Fleflj and drinking his Bloud • by which fort of food they were to be made immortal in glory. Let me increat you, faies he, not to be- ftow all your pains upon this tranfitory World_, and thoi trifling concerns of it^ 27. La^ Part IL Of Trmfuhpntiation. Ch. IV. 115 27. Labor not for the Meat jvhlch prtfljcth^ hut for that Meat ivhicb endureth to everlajtittg life ^ even that Heavenly Dodrin, which the So?t of Man jhall give unto you ; For him hath God the Father fealed for a true Prophet^ by giving him a power of working Miracles among you. 28. Then faid they unto him^ What jliall tub ipy that we might work the works of God ? Thofe works, we mean^ which are acceptable and well pleafing to him. 29. Jef/is anfwerd and faid unto them^ This is the vK'vk of Gody that ye believe on him whom he hathfeiit^ even on me who am a Prophet fent from Heaven. 30. They faid therefore unto him^ What fign pewej^ thou theny that we may Jee^ and believe thee ? What dofi thou work to convince us that thou didft truly come from Heaven ? 'Tis true^ thou haft lately fed above five thoufand of usj but what is this Miracle^ if compared with what Mofes did ? He fed a vaftly greater multitude ^ and that in the De- fert toOj and for the fpace of no lefs than forty years. For 2 1. Our fathers did eat Manna in the defert ^ as it IS written^ He gave them bread from heave?} to eat. Do thou therefore perform fomething equal to that great Miracle of his. 32. Then Jefus faid unto them^ Verily ^ verily I fay unto yoUy Mofes gave you ?wt that bread from heaven y which I fliall give you. He gave you indeed fome Meat to uiftain your mortal lives : hut now my father giveth you the true bread from heaven^ even me^ who am come to inftrud you in holinefs, that you may enjoy eternal happi- nefs. II. For the Bread of God which he now giveth you. Hi is 1 1 6 Cb. I V. Of TranfMantution. Part II. is be that ccweth down from heaven ^ and giveth life unto the -wcrld. Now the Jeivs who are apt to underftand him in the groffer fenfe^ thought that our Savior pro- mised them fuch food for their bodies^ as wou'd not fufFer them to die^ as thofe who ate the Manna dy'd^ but make them live for ever^ or at leaft to a great Age. Wherefore 34. Then faid they unto hinty Lordy evermore give m this head. For if thou canft give us fuch bread, without doubt thou canft not only equals but alfo exceed the deeds of Mofs -^ and we muft then acknowledge that thou art a tru© Prophet fent from God. 35'. And Jefiis fald unto thew, I a?n the bread of life : He that cometh to me, fljall never hunger ^ and he that heUeveth In me pall v ever thlrfi : For I fliall fo perfedly inftru(fl^ him in the paths of Godlinefs, and give him fo clear a knowledge of his duty^ that he ftiall want no other diredions. My Precepts (hall make him perfedly full of thofe qualities which fit him for heaven^ and he need not hunger and thirft after other fpiritual food. 36. Biity whereas you require a fign that you may believe me to be a true Prophet^ and receive inftru- d:ions and obey them^Ido now fay again^what here- tofore I j aid unto you^ viz. that je alfo as well as many others, have feen me working figns and wonders, and yet jou believe riot. Wherefore 'tis in vain to be at the expence of more Miracles j you have had what was enough to affure you of the truth of my Mif- fion ; and I do not think my felf obligM to bring as many proofs, as fome obftinate Perl'ons are re- folv'd to ask for. However, tho' you defpife or withftand me, yet there are others who believe and follow me. For j7. AS Part 11. Of TranfiihflantiAtion. Ch. IV. 117 57. All that the Father giveth me^ ^Jall come to me^ and him that cometh to me I will in no wife caft ent. 38. For I came down from heaven^ not to do my awn 'ivilly hut the will of him that fent me. 59. And this is the Father s will^ which hath fent me J that of all which he hath given me y I jl)0tid loje nothings hut jhoud raife it up again at the lafi day. 40. And this is the IVill of him that fent mCy that tvery one which feeth the Son and helie'veth on him^ may have everlafiing life ^ and 1 7vill raife him up at the lafi day, 41. The Jews then^ who expeded fome Bread from heaven, when they found themfelves dif- appointed, murmur'^d at him^ becaufe he faid^ I am the bread v^hich came down from heaven, 42. And they faid ^ is not this Ji'ftis the Son of yojephy whofe father and mother we know ? How is it then that he faith _, I came down from heaven^ fince we are fure thac he came of earthly Pa- rents ? 45. Jefus therefore anfwered and faid unto them, murmur not amovgfi your felves^ and raife no diffi- culties about my original. You have feen Mi- racles enough to convince you that I am fent from God, and therefore you ought to believe me ; and not to think you are excufable in your unbelief, becaufe you can't underftand how I can be faid to come from heaven. But you have refus'd to ac- cept the teftimony of my Miracles, and therefore I do not exped you will come to me. For 44. No man can come unto me y except the Fa- ther draw him by the force of Miracles, and con- vince him by luch fupernatural works that I am the Chrift. Now when my Father has afforded H } fuch 1 1 8 Ch. IV. Of TrnnfuhpntUtion. Fait IL fuch proofs^ and a Man accepts them^ he is faid to be drawn of God^ and I ii^ill raife bim up at the lafi day. And indeed the Father in thus deal- ing with Men^ do's but fulfil what he has for- inerly promis'd. For 45". It is written in the VrofhetSy And they jliall h all taught of God. E'very man therefore that hath heard of my works, and hath learn'd of the Father that I am a true Prophet, cometh unto me. 46. Nbf that any man hath feen the Father^ fa've he -ivhich is of God ; he hath feen the Father. For the Father did not defign to teach Men imme- diately in his own Perfon : but he has permitted Ibme to perform Miracles by his Power, and by that means has taught the World that they are fent by him, and that they muft be heard. How- ever, there is one who has feen the Father, evert I who came from God; for he which is of God, hath feen the Father. Wherefore hearken to me, For . ^7. Verily y eerily ^ ^ f^J ^^^^ y^^y ^^^ ^^^^ believeth en me hath everlasting life. For 48. I am the bread of life ^ and he that believeth on me, eateth that Bread which fhall make him live for ever. For thofethat hear and obey me, fhall be fav'd by Faith in me. 49. 'Tour fathers did eat Manna in the Wildernefs^ end are dead J for corporal food cou'd do no more than prolong a corporal life, which muft neverthe- iefs very fpeedily have an end. But what I offer tp you is of a fublimer nature. ^o. This is the bread 7vhich cometh down from hea- *ven^ that a man may eat thereof and not die. For he tbat believeth on me and keepeth my fayings, hath eternal life abiding in him^ I tell you therefore, that SI. i PartIL Of Tr^nfubpmittion, Ch.IV. 119 5" I. I am the living bread v^hkh, came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread ^ he jJjall live for ever : and the bread that I will give, is my fle^y which I will give for the life of the U^orld. For 1 am the Word^ and the Word was made Flefli^ that the World might be fav'd by it. But my bare Incarnation is not fufficientj for I muft alio fuiFer Death upon the Crols, and give my I^ife a Ranfom for many. He therefore that belie- veth on me^ he that believeth my Incarnation and Paffion^and ads accordingly, has a lively Faith and futable Practice; and fuch Faith and Pra- dice fhall as certainly nourifh him to eternity^ or inflate him in everlafting happinefs^ as the Bread which he eats do's fupport his Bodily Life. 52. TJoe Jews therefore y who underftood him in a grofs fenie^ as if he did defign to give them his real Flefh to chew and fwallow^ as their forefa- thers did the Manna in the Wjldernefs ; and who thought that the eating his real Flefh muft make them Immortal^ if he could give them any im- mortality : the Jews^ I fay, who had thefe No- tions, Strove among themfelves^ J^jl^^^ How can this man give m his fiep to eat ? What ? will he fufFer his Body to be torn in pieces and devoured by us ? Muft we be guilty of fuch barbarity in order to our immortality ? ^3. Then Jejus [aid unto them^ do not think flrange of what I fay, for Verily ^ verily ^ I fay un^ to yoUy except ye eat the flep of the Son of Man, and drink his bloud, by believing on him, ye have no life in you. ^4. Whofo by faith in me eateth my fieJJj and drinketh my blond hath eternal life ^ and I will raije kirn up at the lafi day, H 4 ^S^For 1 20 Ch. IV. Of Tranfubflantiation. Part II. ^5". For to fuch as believe, my fiejli is meat indeed^ and my bloud is drink indeed. 5" 6. Becaufe he that by a true faith eateth my flejl] and drinketh my blottdy dwelkth itt me or in the pradice of my Religion^ by the perpetual exer- cife of all good works^ and 1 alfo do dwell in hinty by being perpetually prefent with him, with my preventing and affifting grace. For behold I ftand at the door of every Man's heart and knock. If any Man hear my voice and open th& door ; that is^ if he receive inftrudions, and obey my mo- tions, and perform my Will ; I will come into him, and take poffeflion of his Soul ; and I will Sup with him, and he with me j that is, I will be a perpetual companion to him, and lead him with my counfel here, and condud him to happinefs hereafter, Re-u, 3. 20. For as certainly 97. As ths living father hath fent me, and I live by the father ; fo certainly he that eateth me by faith, even he jljall live by me, J 8. This therefore js that bread 7vhich came doivn from heaven : not fuch bread as your fathers did eat^ viz. Manna ^ which they did eat in the Wildernefs, and are dead after it ^ becauie that bread cou'd not make them live for ever : but this is the Bread of eternal Life, for he that eateth of this bread^ jhall live for ever, ^9. Thefe things faid he in the Synagogue y as he taught in Cafernaum, 60, Many therefore of his difciples^ when they heard this^ faid^ This is an hard faying. Who can hear it ? Who can believe that our Mafter can give us his Flefli and his Bloud to eat and to drink ^ and that he came down from Heaven ? 6u When Jefus kn/ew in himfelf ^ that his difci- Part II. Of TrdnfuhftantUtion. CIi. IV. 121 fles murmur d at it^ he [aid unto them. Doth this of* fend youy and ftagger your faith ? 62. What and if ye {hall fee the Son of Man afcend up -xvhere he jvas before ? Will you then believe that I came down from Heaven^ when you (hall with your own eyes fee me return thither ? If fo ; then in convenient time you fliall have that laft demonftration of my coming from thence. But as for that other matter of eating my Flefli and drinking my Bloud^ why fliou'd you boggle at it ? If you rightly apprehend my meaning, there is no difficulty in it. For miftake me not ; I do not dellgn to be eaten alive, or come from Hea- ven after my Afcenlion, that the Believers may devour me. Nor fliall I leave a piece of my Flefli and a quantity of my Bloud to be confum'd when my Main Body is gone. Nay, I wonder that you can entertain fuch ridiculous Notions. No ; I have hitherto talk'd of a Spiritual eating and a Spiritual drinking. For 'tis not a bit of my Body and a drop of my Bloud that will make you immortal. Nay, if that wou'd really do it, the whole Mafs of my Flefli and Bloud wou'd not fuffice for fo many Perfons, as I hope to bring to Heaven by eating and drinking my Flefli and Bloud. And therefore obferve, that 6 '3^, It is the ffirit that quickneth and maketh ou immortal. The grofs fiefij frofiteth nothings if flioud fuffer you to devour me. The IVords therefore, that I fpeak unto you^ they are ffirit and they are life ; and if you believe and pradife them, they will certainly make you live for ever. A while after, when many of his Difciples went back, and Jefus ask'd the Twelve, whether they wou'd go X6o ; Peter anfwer'd, 68. Lord, to whom fiall ive go ? Thot^ hafi tb& Wor4$ I 122 Ch. V; Of TranfuhftantUtion. Part II. Wordiy which if they be obferv'd, will be to our Souls the ioodi. of ^.erkfiifig life. Wherefore we will not depart from thee^ as fome oibers have done; for we are- peri'uaded, that thou doft give us thy Flefti and.BLoud in a Spi:itual fenfe. Thou haft told us, that the Words that thou fpeakeft^ jbiy are ffirit and they are life^ and. we do hear- tily believe thee and confefs^ that that haft the Words of eternal life. Wherefore that faying- is no longer hard to us | but we are- well able: to bear it. .•'.:• 69, And as for thy coming from Heaveny Ws hdkve and are fure^ that thou art the Curifi^ the Son of the living God, r Thus have I given you a Paraphrafe of the greateft part of this Chapter ; from whence it may appear, that thofe expreffions which our Adver- iaries do produce in favor of Tranfubfiantionicn^ are not at all to their purpofe ; beca-ufe they do not relate to the Lord's Supper. But becaufe our Adverfaries are fo violently bent to interpret them of the Eucharift, I fhall in the following Chapter confider the Arguments upon which xhat interpret tation is ^rounded. -^x o\ - CHAP. V. Objections againfi the former Chapter Jnfwer'^d. 3f iVm novy to Anfwer thofe Objedions, which t may be made a^ainft that Expofitipn of the ixth Chapter of St. Johns Gofpel, which 1 have given in the foregoing Chapter. And, I. They Part 11. Of TrmfuhjlantUthn. Ch. V. 1 2 J I. They fay^ our Savior fpeaks of gloving his fiejli to eat as a thing that was to be done hereafter. / 71^111 gi've, faies he_, "verfe 5:1, Now if by eating -his flejl} and drinking his bloud he meant nothing elfe but believing on him ; he wou'd by no means ufe the future tenfe. For the Patriarchs helie'ued on him to come^ and were nourifli'd unto eternal life by faith in him ,• fo that it feems he muft then have already given them his flefh to eat in a Spiritu- al fenfej which notwithftanding he feems never to have done, but defigns to give it afterwards. Wherefore, fmce thefe expreflions cannot fignify believing on him^ but refped the time to come, in which he will do what he had not done before ; 'tis plain that they muft relate to the Eucharift, in which Men were to eat his flefti. But to this I anfwer, Firfi^ That if our Savior muft be thought to fpeak of the Eating his Flefh in the Eucharift, bccaufe he fpeaks in the future t^enfe ; then it will alfo follow, that he do's not fpeak of the Eating his Flefh in the Eucharift, becaufe in fome of the 'uerfes he fpeaks in the prefent tenfe, I ant the bread ^ faies he, 'verfe 48. Except ye do now cat the flejljy Szc, f^. My flejh is meat indeed^ and my hloud is drink indeed^ ^^, He that now eateth my flejlj and drinketh my bloud^ ^6. He that now eateth we, 5-7. So that no argument can be drawn to favor the interpretation of our Adverfaries, from the tenfe our Savior fpeaks in ; becaufe he ufes the prefent or future tenfe indifferently. Nay, Secondly^ His ufing the prefent or future tenfe in fuch a manner, do's rather prove that by eating and drinking his fleJl) and bloud he means only be- lieving on him ^ becaufe that might be done ei- ther ^t the time of his Preaching, or after the In* 1 24 Ch. V. Of TrAnfuhftmtution, Part 11. Inftitution of the Lord's Supper. Whereas it was impoflible for any Man to eat and drink his Natural Flefli and Bloud at the very time of this Difcourfe^ which was a long time before the firft Celebration of that Holy Myftery . Befides, Thirdly^ Our Savior fpeaks in the future tenfe to the Woman of Samaria^ faying John 4, 14. IVhofoever drinketh of the Water that I fi^l! give hiwy &c. and *tis very plain, that by drink:?fg of the TVater is meant belie'ving on him. Now no con- fidering Perfon will fay, that our Savior never be^ ftow'd Faith upon the Patriarchs in former Agesj, becaufe he fpeaks of giving Water to drink ( that is. Faith to believe on him ) in the future tenfe. But, Fourthly^ Tho' it were granted, that by fpeaking in the future tenfe Chrift do's promife fomething, which he had not given before ; yet thefe words may lignify helievlng notwithftanding. For tho' the Patriarchs did believe in Chrift in former dales, and had fome general notions of the Gofpel : yet they did not clearly underftand the Myfteries of our Faith ,• and therefore the Revelation of fuch great Truths, as thofe of the Death of Chrift, &c. the belief of which is call'd eating his ftejh and drinking hts blond , I fay the Revelation of thefe things may well be accounted New^ and what had not been granted before. 2. 'Tis pretended, that in this Chapter our Sa- vior fpeaks in the future tenfe, 1 will Give^ by way of promife ,• whereas at the Inftitution of the Laft Supper he fpeaks by the vv^ay of performance in the preter tenfe, is given ^ Luke 22. 19. and is (bed, Matth. 26. 28. Mark 14, 24. Luke 22. 20. From, whence fome Perfons conclude, that Jefus Chrifi 'ite- ral interpretation of that Chapter (if underftood of the Sacrament of the Eucharift) do's fuppofe all Chriftians to be guilty of the greateft barbarity imaginable^ and that by the Command of God ; and fmce thofe Arguments which our Adverfaries produce to fliew the reafonablenefs or neceffity of a Literal Expofition of it, are fliewn to be of no force ; fince, I fay, thefe things are fo j certain- ly we ought, if we can, to explain it otherwife. Now fmce we ought, if we can, to explain it otherwife ,• and flnce the Chapter it felf is not only fairly capable of it, but do's alfo require it ; certainly I may juftly conclude, as I have already afferted, that this Chapter (tho' under- ftood of the Eucharift) ought nqt to be inter- preted in a Literal Senfe, I } CHAP. 134 Ch.VII. OfTranfuhpntixtton. Part II. CHAP. VIL Thxt^ althd* the Sixth Chapter of St. JoIinV Goffel did frUte to the Lord's Suffer^ and were to he underjlood ia a Literal Se/7je ; yet it do's not prove the Dochbi of Tranfubftantiation, but direoflj contrary. THlrdh'y I ftiall now make it appear^ that altho* this Chapter did relate to the Lord's Supper, and were to be underftood in a I-ireral Senfe, yet it do's not prove the Do<5trin o^ Tranfubfiantiatlon^ but directly contrary. And this 1 fliall do in the following manner. The Do6trin of Jranfuhfiantiation fuppofes, that the whole fubflance of the Bread is turn'd into the Body, and the whole fubftance of the Wine is turn'd into the Bloud of Chrifi. Now I fliall pro\rej that if this Chapter be underftood of the Eucharift in a Literal Senfe, then the whole Subftances of the Bread and Wine are not turn'd into the Body and Bloud of Chrifi : but the whole Subftances of the Body and Bloud of Chrifi are turn'd into Bread and Wine ,• which is di- rectly contrai-y to the Do6trin of Tranfuhfiantla- tion. Now that the whole Subftances of the Body and Bloud of Chrilt muft (according to this in- terpretation) be turn'd into Bread and Wine, is manifeft even from the n ^^^^fe^ which is the main Pillar of the Literal expofition. For here our Savior faies, J am the living bread ^ which came down from heaven : if any ma?t eat of this bread he M Part II. Of Tranfubpntiation. Ch. VII. i j 5 ^all live for ever : and the bread that I will give is my flejhy which I vnll give for the life of the TVorld Now if thefe words are literally to be underftood of the Lord's Supper3 and there muft of neceflity be a change of one whole fubllance into another ; then the whole fubftance of C/jn/'s Flefh muft be turn'd into Bread, and not the whole fubftance of the Bread into Chrifs Flefh. This is plainly the fenfe of the Text^ if there be any fubftantial change at all j becaufe the thing there fpoken of is to be chang'd into fomething elfe. Now 'tis plain (according to the Literal interpretation) that our Savior there fpeaks of his real Flefli^ which he then carried about with him ; and 'tis plain that there was no Sacramental Bread that cou'd be chang'd, becaufe the Lord's Supper was not inftituted till a long time after : and there- fore, if that which was then fpoken of muft be chang'd^and made Bread -y then the whole fubftance of Chrift's Flefh muft be turn'd into Bread. , Now if the whole fubftance of Clmfi^s Flefli be turn'd into Bread, then by the fame reafon the whole fubftance of Chrifi's Bloud muft be turn'd into Wine ,• becaufe they are both fpoken of after the fame manner. And confequently, fmce this Chapter (according to that Literal in- terpretation) do's prove fuch a change of the whole fubftances of the Body and Bloud o^'Chrifi into Bread and Wine, it cannot prove, but muft of neceflity deftroy, the Dodrin of Tranfuhfian^ tiation^ which fuppofes a Change of Bread atid Wine into C/jr//'s Body and Bloud. And now I believe our Adverfaries have no great reafon to boaft of this Argument from the Sixth of St. Johns Gofpel, which upon their own principles overthrows their own Do6tr5n.' I 4 C H A P. 136 Ch.VIIL OfTranfublUntiitiofi. Part II. CHAP. VIIT. That the Docirin 0/ Tranfubftantiation cannot he frov'd from the Words of the hjlttution of the Lord^s Supper, SECONDLY ; the fecond pretended Scripture- proof of the Docirin of Tranfuhfiantiatlon is drawn from the Words of the Inftitution, This is my Body^ and This is my Bloud, By thcfe Words our Adverfaries think our Savior meant^ This body is my natural body, and This blcud is my natural bloud : and then they argue, that if the Natural Body and Bloud oiChrifi are in the Elements, then the whole fubftance of the Elements is changed into Cbrifi's Natural Body and Bloud ; which change they call Tranfubfiantiatiov, Now in anfwer to this I fliall fliew, that by the Words This is my body^ and This is my blond^ we are to underftand. This hread Jignifes or rtfrefents my body^ and This wine fig'f^'ifies or refrefents my bloud. And this will ap- pear, if we confider Four things, i. That the Oi^ords are fairly cafable of Juch a Jti^fi. z. That tj^e Scriptures ; and, 3 . That Right Reafon require fuch a fenfe, 4. That the Apofiks underfiood our Savior in this fenfe, Firfi then I fay, the words are fairly capable of fuch a fenfe, 'Tis a common thing in Scripture to give a thing the Name of what is fignify'd by it. Thus Jofeph tells Tharaoh^ that the feven good kine are [even years ^ and that the feven good ears of corn are ftven years , Gen. 41, 26. that is, they fignify feven years. Thus alfo the Rock which foUow'd the ifraeU^f^ .1 Cor. 10, 4., was (or fig- nifyd) i- I Part II. OfTr^infuhflantUtion. Ch.VIII. 1J7. nify'd) Chrifi, And after the fame manner the feed is the ivord^ Luke 8. 11. Thofe by the v^ ay -fide are they that heaVy verfe 12. They on the rock are they which y &c. verfe 14. That on the good ground are they -which, &c. verfe ly. See alfo Matth, 15. and i\^^ry& 4. Thus again^ I 2im the door^ faies our BlefTed Lord^ John lo, 7, 9. Te are the Salt of the Earthy Matth. 15-. 13. and Ye are the Light of the World y verfe 14. Nay, tho' our Adverfaries wou'd have thought it a demonftration of the Dodrin of Tranfuhflantiationy had our Savior faid. This is my true hody^ and This ts my true hloud • yet when we find him faying, 1 am the true Vine^ and my Father is the hushand-man^ we are fure there is a Figure in his Words. Wherefore, if the inftances I have given, be duly confider'd, 'tis plain, that the Words This is my Body^ and This is my bloud^ may very fairly import. This bread fignifies my body^ and This wi>je fgnifies my bloud, Secojjdlyy The Scriptures do require this figurative fenfe^ For, I. 'Tis exprefly faid, that our Savior took Bread; and when h^ had given thanks he brake ity viz. the bread ; and gave it to his Difciples, fay- ing. Take eat^ This is my body^ &c. But what I pray, did our Savior fpeak of ? Was it not Bread ? Did he not fpeak of that thing, which he took and brake and gave them i And what cou'd that be but the Bread y the real and true Bread ^ which he then di- ftributed ? Now, if we think the V^oxAThis refers to Chriffs Body, 'twill be impoffible to make fenfeofwhat our Savior fpeaks. For then he muft be fuppos'd to have taken true Bread^ and to have broken and diftributed this true Bread; and yet at the fame time^ without taking any notice of the j^r^^//, but fup- 138 Gh.VIIL OfTranftihftmimon. Part 11, fuppofing it to be fomething of a quite different Tvlacure to tell his Difcip^es^ that the thing which they had feen him take in his handSj and knew to be true hnad^ was not true B-fecid^ but his Kathral Body. Befides^ if that which our Savior gave was his Natural Body ; and if every Hoft contains the \vhole Chri^^ as our Adverfaries teach : then our Savior himfelf took himfelf • and his hand held >iis whole Body^ and confequently held it felfj and he gave himfelf from himfelf j and was eaten even by thofe Difciples that did not touch him ; 51 nd his Bloud was drunk by them^ even v/hilft nremain'din his Veins. But thefe things are fo nbpminably abfurd^ that thofe who are concerned Tor the credit of the Scriptures, dare not fay they are. contain'd in them. Thefe confiderations are an abxindant proof^ that the Word This relates to the bread. ^ • If it be objeded^ that the word This cannot fig- nify this hreacly becaufe 7^70^ which we render this^ IS of the Neuter gender^ and cannot agree with a^7& (bread) which is of the Mafculine ; I anfwer, JFiT^^.that it is a Very common thing to put a Prdnoun demonftrative in the Neuter gender^ al- tho' 'it betokens fomething of the Mafculine or teminine gender. I fhall mention but two irl- i^lances, one of either kind^ in both which this Very word n-m is us'd. 'Tis plain, that tot®* {place] is of the Mafculine gender and yet tv-p) be- \o\ltt\s k/Gen. 2S. 17. where we read. How dreads ^pl -Is' {I tottQ- »t©-) this flac'e? (q^to) This place :"kf m other hut this 'houfe of' God, 'Tis plain alfo ttiat'^vvM (woman^ is of the Feminine gender ; and yqt T«To betokens woman, Gen. 2. 23. where Adam "ra^Sj X't^^) thh^Srm'xn k now bone of my bom^ &c. fj ,1 But Part II. OfTrdnJuhflantiation, Ch.VIII. 1J9 But tho' we cou'd not produce thefe and other inftances of this conftrudion ; yet Secondly^ the Apoftle plainly determines that 'tStd (th^'s) denotes the bread. For that which the Communicants eat, is what our Savior means by Thts^ when he faieSj This is my body. Now 'tis plain, that the Communicants eat real ^r^^^^ becaufe St. P^w/faies, for as oft as ye eat this Bread, &;c. i Coy, ii, 26. in which place the Apoftle do's not fay wto but -r aprci/ T6T^Vy as if he defign'd to flop the Mouths of thofe that wou'd criticize fo nicely upon our Savior's Words. 2. If thefe Words This is my Body^ and 7his is my Bloud^ do import a fubftantial change of the Elements into flefti and bloud ; then thefe words, IFe are one bread and one body^ i Cor. 10. 17. do by the fame reafon import a fubftantial change of all good Chriftians into one real Bread and one real Body, that is, into one hreaden body. But I hope our Adverfaries will not contend for fuch a Metamorphofis, as will rob them of their human nature. But I need not infift upon thefe matters ^ for, 3. Our Savior himfelf, and St. Vatil his Apoftle, do exprefly call the Elements Bread and Wine, even after the Confecration is perform'd. For 'tis certain, that the Elements are not to be eaten or drunk, till they are Confecrated ; and that we are not partakers of the Elements, till we eat and drink them : whereas the Apoftle faies 'tis bread even at or after the participation ,* for we are partakers^ fliies he, of that one bread, i Cor. 10. 17. and as of-- ten as ye eat ri?/j bread, &c. i Cor. 11. 26. and our Savior calls the Wine the fruit of the Vine^ even fift^r the Apoftles had drunk it, Mark 14. 29. Now I40. Ch. Vlir. OfTrmfuhJltntUtion, Partly Now if thefe particulars be duly confidered ; I. That by the word Tots our Sa\^ior muft mean the Breads becaufc he mufl: othervvifc fpeak abfurd- ly. 2. That the fame expreflion^ from whence our Adverfaries wou'd infer the fuppos'd change of Bread and Wine into Flefh and Bloud, muft aU' fo force us to acknowledge a change of our own Bodies into hreai. ;. That our Savior and St. Vaul do fo plainly call the Elements Bread and Wine, even after the confecration and participation of them J I fay, if thefe things be duly confider'd, it plainly follows, that the Scriptures do require us to believe, that the words Tins Is my hody^ and This is my hloud^ do denote and imply. This bread fgnifes my hody^ and This 'wine fignifies my bloud. Becaufe 'tis impoffible, even in the judgment of our Adverfaries, that the fame things fhou'd be both bread and wine, and fleih and bloud at the fame time. Thirdly y Right Reafon re (Quires this interpretation aJfo, For 'tis a known rule, that When a frofofition is infallibly true, and yet cannot fojfibly be true in a Literal Senfe^ then 7?^e mufi underfland it figurati've^ ly. Thus for inftance, thefe Words of our Savior, 1 am the door ^ John lo. 7,9. are infallibly true: but fmce our Savior cannot poffibly be a door in a Literal Senfe ,• therefore thofe words muft be un- derftood in a Figurative manner. Now, that we may apply this Rule to the Cafo in hand ; 'tis granted, that the words are infallibh'' true ; and therefore the. only queftion is, whether they can be true in a Literal Senfe_j or no. Now it muft be confider'd, Firjh^ that the evidence of our Senfes, which I have prov'd to be alwaies cer- tain, aflures us that. 'tis not the Body and Blo\id of Chrifly which we eat or drink j but real Bread and Part 11. Of TYanfuhllantiation. CH.VlIL 141 and Wine. Secondly^ there are infufFe^able confe- quences of the Literal interpretation. For, i. It makes us fo barbarous, as to eat Man's Flefti i and what is infinitely worfe, the Flefh of an incarnate God ; which adion is ib very horrid, that aChri- ftian ought to dread it more than death it felf. 2. It fuppofes, that the fame Body may be whole and intire in different places at the fame time ; this ab- furdity with a thoufand others neceifarily follow- ing from tht Dotinn oiTravfuhfiantiatlon. Where- fore_, fince the Literal interpretation do's fo plainly contradict the evidence of our Senfes, and is at- tended with fo much inhumanity and fo many im- poffibilities , we cannot imagin, that the words are Literally true : and confequently. Right reafon requires us to explain them after a Figurative manner. Fourthly^ The A^ofiles underfiocd our Sa'vior in this Senfe, For they faw and knew, that what he call'd This^ was what he took and brake ,• and that it cou'd be no other, than the real Bread. They cou'd not be fo ftupid as to imagin, that they did both converfe with, and eat their Lord at the fame time , that what they had already fwallowed, and what they then beheld with their eyes, were the very fame thing. They did not fufped any fecret meaning, as appears by the Hiftory • nor did our Savior declare any change, as appears by his own words. Nay, had the Difciples thought, that our Sa- vior had fpoken what was fo utterly inconfiftent with Senfe and Reafon, as the Dodrin of Tran- fiihfiantiation is , certainly they wou'd have asked him at leaft, as they did at other times, how thefe things cou'd be. And therefore fince we find no fuch queftions ask'd, we may juftly conclude, that 142 Ch.Vril. Of Trmfcibpntiation. Part IL that there was no occafion for them j but that they underftood our Savior's words in fuch a Figu- rative manner^ as makes them perfectly agreeable to the truth, and to the evidence of fenfe and reafon. Nay farther. Let it be fuppos'd (tho' it cannot in any wife be granted) that the Apoftles did really ask our Savior many queftions concerning the poffibility of fuch a change of the Elements into his Natural Body and Bloud ^ and that our Savior . had aflur'd them of the truth of it, and taught them to renounce their Senfes for it 5 I fay, let all thefe things (tho' without any reafon) be fuppos'd ; yet it cannot be imagi- ned, that the Difciples wou'd not objed: againft the reality of his Refurredion upon this very account. For when they were amaz'd at our Savior's ap- pearance to them, and thought they had feen a Spirit, our Lord was pleas'd to fhew them his Hands and his Feet, and thereby to give them a fufficient demonftration, that it was he himfelf, who convers'd with them. But now if they had been convinc'd, that it was reafonable upon fome occafions to disbelieve the greateft evidence of Senfe^and particularly in that inftance of the Lord's Supper 3 how was it poffible for them not to objed: in thefe or fuch like words ? Lord^ it was not many daies fmce, that thou thy felf didft Teach and affure us, that we are not alwaies to believe our Senfes i becaufe they may fometimes deceive us, and fhew us one thing for another. How then canfl thou require us to believe this feeming im- poffibility of thy Refurredion, upon the credit of our Senfes ? If Seeing and Feeling be fubftantial proofs of this Miracle j then they do alfo clearly evince. tattll. Of TranfuhJldntUtm. Ch. VIIL 14J evince^ that the fubftances of the Bread and Wine do remain after the Confecraticn : but if they cannot demonftrate the one , we muft be utterly uncertain of the other. Now if our Savior had reply'd^ that they were to disbelive their Senfes only when he comman- ded them fo to do ^ and that he did now'C^- mand them to accept the evidence of their Senfes : 'twas natural for them to anfwer thus ^ Lord^ we are willing (tho' I have prov'd in the Second Chapter, that 'tis moll abfurd and unreafonable) Lord, we are willing either to believe or to dif- believe our Senfes at thy plcafure : but yet we de- fire to be fatisfy'd, that thou thy lelf doft now command us. Perhaps we fee a Phantom ,• and tho' we are heartily ready to obey thy leaft in- timation, yet 'twere a fault in us to take that for theejj which is a mere illulion and a dream. Give us therefore, we humbly pray thee, fome con- vincing arguments, that it is thou thy felf, who fpeakeit to us ^ and we fliall be fiuisfy'd. ''^ "' ^ If the difciples, when they doubted of ChrijF'i Relurredion, had urg'd after this manner with our Bleffed Lord (and truly, if they had not made fuch objedions, I cannot excufe their want of Senfe) I fay, if they had argued thus, what proofs cou'd our Savior ofi'er ? Evidence of Senfe was not fufficient ^ and they cou'd not have any other evidence. So that, if the Difciples did believe Tranfuhftantiatiofi ; they muft have remain'd for ever uncertain of our Savior's P.efurredion. Wherefore, fince the Apoftles made no fuch fcruples at the firft Celebration of the Eucharift, and did not urge the belief of Tranfuhfiantiation againft the belief Q^Clm[t\ Refurredion ; 'tis evi- dcntj that they underftood the words of the In- ftitution 144 Ch.VIIf. OfTranfubflantiation. Part IF. ftitution after fuch a manner^ as was confiftent with the certainty of Senfe. And therefore fincc a Literal interpretation of thofe words is utterly inconfiftent with the certainty of Senfe ; 'tis plain, that our Savior fpake, and the Difciples underftood them in a Figurative manner. Well then j fince the words of the Inftitution do fo fairly admit it^ and fince both Scripture and Right Reafon do require it^ and fmce the A- poftles did plainly fuppofe it ^ certainly We ought to explain them in a Figurative manner. And con- fequently^ fmce by This is my bodj^ and This is my hloud^ we are to underftand^ This bread fignifies my body^ and This wine Jignifies my blond ; 'tis certain_, that the words of the Inftitution are fo far from proving the Do6i:rin of Tranfubfiantiation^ that they are a demonftration againft it. And now_, having fo fully and fo fairly confider'd this great argument of our Adverfaries^ I fuppofe it will not be thought an objedion againft what I have hitherto difcours'd^ That a Sacrament admits of no figures^ and therefore the words of the In- ftitution cannot admit of fuch a Figurative Senfe as I have given them. For this is not only a ground- lefs affertion^ but is alfo confuted by the very words themfelves ; it being moft evident^ that our Savior do's by a figure ufe the Cup for the Wine in the Cup, faying. This cup ts the New Tefiament in my hloud^ &c. Luke 22. 20. Nor do I think our Adverfaries will infift upon our Savior's not explaining his Words, and warning his Difciples that they ought to underftand him in a Figurative Senfe. Becaufe thofe confiderations which I have already ofFer'd, do make it plain, that they cou'd not underftand him otherwife. 'Tis true, our Lord us'd to explain his parable5,and cannot be fup- PartIL Of TrmfubjlantUtion. Ch.VIIL 145 fiippos'd to- have left Iiis Difciples in the dark con- cerning lb great and important a matter : but this interpretation of the words in difpute is fo very natural and neceffary^ that our Savior cou'd not think it needful to dired them to it. If it be laid, that the Bread and Wine muft be chang'd into Cbrlfi's Bod)'' and Bloud for the be- nelic of Receivers ^ I anfvver, t. That we are not ' to pretend a necellity, and then to fupply it by fuppofmg groundlefs impoffibilities. 'Tis plaiiii that Tranfubfiantiation is full of contradidions, and has innumerable abfurdities hanging upon it : and rhcrefore'tisnot a pretended necellity^that can make it true. 2. There is not the lead neceffity of fuch a change for the benefit of the Receivers ,• fince the Communicants wou'd not be better Chriftians, or receive more grace, by eating and drinking hu- man flefh and bloud. The Benefit of Sacraments depends not upon the Tub fiance of the outward part,- but upon the grace annex'd to it by Chrifi's Inftitu- tion. As mean a thing as Water can wafli away our Sins by God's appointment ; and why then may not Bread and Wine communicate to us the Efficacy and Merits of our Savior's Death ? If it be alfo faid, that the Natural Body and Bloud of C^ri/ muft be prefent in the Sacrament, becaufe lVhofo€ver fljall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily ^ fimll he guilty of the body and blcud of the Lord^ \ Cor. IT. 27. and no Man can be guilty of Chrifi's Body and Bloud, if his Body and Bloud be not prefent , I anfwer, that the very Text alledg'd deftroies the objection. Becaufe, fince 'tis bread that is eaten, and the cup that is drunk unworthily ; 'tis impollible that the Receiver ftiou'd eat natural flefli, and drink natural bloud. Unlefs thofe things, which the Apoftle calls K bread 146 Ch.VIII. OfTranfuhpntUtion. Part II. hnad and (the cup or) wlve^ may be the natural body and blond of Chrift ,• which we cannot affirm without charging St. Find with an untruth. However, that I may not feem to cut the knot which I ought to untie, I defire our Adverfaries to confider, that whofoever defpifes the Sacrament of Chrifi's Body and Bloud by an unworthy par- ticipation of it, is therefore laid to be guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord j becaule in the judgment of God he is then guilty of murdering our Bleffed Savior, by continuing in thofe fins for, which he fufFer^dj and defpifing that grace which his fuiFerings procured, and profaning that Sacra- mental Ordinance, by which the pardon of his own fins might have been Sealed. For fuch a Per- fon do's, as much; as in him lies, by an Obftinacy in his Rebellion, Crucify to himfelf the Son of Godjrfrefh; and fhall therefore be accounted as truly guilty of our dear Redeemer's Death, as if he had nail'd him to.the Crofs with his own hand.s^ But all this heinous impiety ma^rbe cpnim.irted, >ai-^ tJio'oueiSavior be-not -prcfent inib^dy ,• jult as cQn- t^jzipj:: inay be ofFer'd to the. im-^ge/of a King, and interpreted Treafon by Law, altho^ the KLng^s life Wi^reifot in: danger. . ^ , ■ .;,; _• -:,Eiit'I;fliari add np mdre.upon tjVvi^^heijd'f^k being, I hope,, abuadancl^'. pUin fvom wh^^t Jjiave already l^iA, >that the DoilriovVof Tra7i}}tbJ^a>^ti^ition ,cannQt folpfroy'd frpm-tjic words of the InftitU'tion of th^ lieirdis Supper, ^bwt may; be efFedu^lly, confuted by tt^il : ^^jy^iiii] i ^ ji:^... .UuiKi •'...;, /jx»ci .::cn'^S(do sHi ae^ioij; ... ^//yV Vi;7 t>i\l Vn Sflj fj/l jrjJK3 ?! ,i.iij •^ eh* tiOlUi l . :/^'j WunC H A ft olodi>' Partll. Of Trunfiihpniiathn. X3i.IX. 147 CHAP. IX. . , Th^'^'thk Doarin ^^W;T\m^f^-M "the 6l^ Brin of TiaQfubftaiitia|:ion, are mt equallj 16Hall now examin'^tKe laft Mea of our Ad- verfaries, who when we ohjed: againft the pgiBbility of TmnfiiihfianPiatidn^ dtt- very readily anfwer^ that we may :^s'fCvell believe the Dod:rin of Tranfubfidntiationy ras that of the T'r'mitj ^ fince both are in their opinion equally credible. But thi3 Vanity of this pretence will foon ajipear^ if we confider three particulars. '> I. That the Dodr in of the Trinity is certainly xC~ veal'd ^ whereas J have plainly fhewn^ that the Do&in of Tranftihjtantiation is not taught in the Scriptures. :• >> ion : \l. That the DoArin of the Tttnity do's not contradid our Faculties. I confeftj we cannot comprehend the manner of it : but we cannot affirm, that 'tis falfe or impoffible. Whereas the Dodrin of TranfubJhntiatio?j is not above^ and beyond the reach of our faculties ; but do's mgft apparently contradid them. We do not reje(51: the Dodrin of Tranjuhjtantiation^ becaufe wc cannot comprehend it^lor conceive the manner of iit : but becaufe we are /as certain, that it is falfe and impoffiblsxjas that •QKr facu^tiei are or can be true. -7 /ifiidi ■ Ifdt'befaidj That the Dodrin of the tnntty dc6s , as'cdrcainVy contradi jA^hifih fcho' it b^ ja plain and obvious thing, yec) very few, Perr. I do alfo profefsy 8zc, I do alfo receive and adr^ wit the receivd and approved Rites of the Catho- lie Church in the fclemn Admini juration of all the Sacraments befort n?ention d : whereas 'tis noto- rious, that the Adoration of the Hofi is one of thofe Rites, which attend her Celebration of the Eucharill. 'Tis plain then, that the Church of Rome teaches this Do6trin concerning the Adoration of the Hofi; and that fhe obliges every Man to receive the fame as neceffary to Salvation. Wherefore I fliall endeavor to fhew, that the Adoration of the Hofi is grofs Idolatry ^ and then it muft be confefs'd, that the ?opi\h Do6trin concerning the Adoration of the Hofi is forbidden in Scri- pture. Now that the Adoration of the Hofi is grpfs Idolatry, appears by this fhort and plain argument. It is grofs Idolatry to vvorfhip a mere Creature with the Higheft Worfhip, which is due to the /Creator only. This truth is fo very clear, that 1 fliall Pari: II. cf the Hoft. Ch.X. 155 I fliall not endeavor to prove it. Now that thofe Perfons who adore the Hoft, do worfhip a mere Creature with the higheft Worlhip, which is due to the Creator only, will be very manifeft, if we confider two things ; i . That the Hoft is a mere Creature, 2. That the Adoration which is given to it^ is the higheft IForfliip^ which, is due to the Creator only. Fir ft ^ I fay, the Hoft is a mere Creature ; and this is the neceffary confequence of the foregoing Chapter. For if the Elements after the Confe- cration are not chang'd into the fabftance of thrift's Body and Bloud, but retain their former Nature, and continue to be Bread and Wine ; then it cannot be faid, that the Hoft, which is one of thofe Elements, viz,, the Bread, is any thing more than a mere Creature. Secondly therefore, I am to prove that the Ado^ ration which is given to it is the higheft IVorjlnf^ which is due to the Creator only. Our Adverfaries do diftinguifh thus between Dulia and Latria, They fay that Dulia is an inferior kind of Wor- fhip, which they think is due even to Angels and Saints : but Latria^ they tell us, is the higheft Wor- (liip that a Creature can pay, and therefore they allow it to none but the Great God of Heaven. I fhall not examin this diftindion, becaufe it is not neceflary to my prefent purpofe ; let it fuffice therefore to obferve, that Latria is (by their own confeffion) the higheft Worfliip that can be paid by us, and due to none but the Su- preme God and Maker of all things. Now this Worfhip of Latria they give to the Hoft in the Adoration of it ; as appears not only by that Ca- pon of the Council of Trent^ which I have al- ready recited ^ but alfo by ^hefe wprds^ which fhe fpeaks tfdf Ch. X-^ Of the Adomuon Part IH fpeaks ia W another place ; tnx.. Therefore it is fk^t^ be' doubt ed^yat that all faithful Chrifiians^^a'dl eordiiig to tb^t ciifiom V'blch has been e'vtr receivi in the C^holic Chureb, do give the iiforfljip of La-f tTi'Sty ^hich is due to the true God^ unto this mofi holy Sacrawent in their Veneration of- it. Wherefore it appears, that the adoration given to the Hoft is the higheft Worfhip^ which is due to the Cre- ator only. Befides, the reafon for which they adore the Hoft, is their opinion of Chrlft's Divinity and Humanity being prefent in it. They fancy that their Savior^ who is very God_, is as certainly pre- fent under the fpecies of Bread and Wine^ as he is in the higheft Heaven ,• and therefore they think they are obliged to adore him thus prelent upon Earth, with the fame Worfhip that is due to him as fitting at the Right hand of God. For^ as the Council of (c) Trent fpeaks, the Sacramtnt is net to be adord e'ver the lejs^ for ChrijFs having appointed it to be taken : for we believe that famC Ood'to he frtfent in it^ whojn v^hcn the eternal Fa- ther brh drink of th$i: Cup, as .ft^i 4)f."th& Jiread. . , ■ v ■ •; .-O. jr.: Be fides, the reafon for which oujr S^viof:,^fClOiiv manded the Apoftles to drink, obliges ;U$, tO;.do .the fame.; Drink ye all, of .t hi f^ faid he,, /er jffe.ix wj hlou^,jhfi J.he, New Tffinm^t^ which is'-pf^d for many for the Remijjion of fins,. , From whence ic plainly follows, that alL^hofe Perfons, (f^r^the re- raiffion of: vyhpfe. fins o.ursSavior's bloud.was fhed, ought to drink of the Cup, that they may be pai?- takers of his fufFerings. Now fmce Ghfifi dy'd for all Men j and fmce all Men that are>Baptiz,'d and lead futable lives, are thereby made capable of pardon thro' his Merits; therefore allMeri, ithus duly qualify 'd, ought to drink his .Blotwi. So that no Perfon, vv'hether of the Clergy -or Xayety, can be deny'd a (hare, in this great^ pri^ vilege, without horrible injuftiee, and-d twanifeft breach of C/jri/'s command. ' >" m. ;; ..u. We Tart IL Of Halj-Comwmhn. Ch. XI> ^59 Y,We know that the Sacraments re ceiv,^.^. their Virtue^ not from the Nature of the outwarct Sign^ but from the Inftitution oi ChriJL Thus Ba-ptirnti wafhes away our Sins^ not becaufe W ateif. dp V na- turally cleanfe our Souls ,- but becaufe Chrijt is .pleas\l tO;_purge them by a due performance of thatj adipn* Xhus alfo the Lord's Supper makes; us,, parti^I^eti Qt ChrijFs deaths not becaufe the eating of Bi"ea4 and drinking of Wme do naturally make us menf- be^is of him ; but becaufe God has annexM ip greai ;^B1 effing to the obfervation of that Or^inanc^ Wherefore thofe Perfons-.who defire to, receive the benefits of the Holy Eucharift^ muft^ Iti^^ clofe to Chrifi^ Inftitution^ and do what" he;h^ .prefcrib'd in receiving both Bread and Wine. They ')aiuft not obey one part of his Order, and' br^aj^ the other ^ -but feichfully. perform the whole Pre^ ^v:ept : for othcrwiie they muft not exped to reap the advantages of ir. .,',..^ ■ . Without doubt it was in our Savior's power to ."fetave inftituted otI;er Symbols^ or to have annexed .the whole Virtue to either of thofe which he has xjhofen : but v/e arc to confider^ no*- what hp ^ight have done^ bu^: what he has done ^ ancj vfjnce^tis plain tli?t both kii.ds were inftituted by rilirn, 'tis aUo pkin that both kinds muft: be re- 'ijgeiv'd by us. Bi.*caufe no Bleffings do accompany f-he, reception of the Ciie, without the receptioa 0f the other. The Bleffing? are annex'd to the whole Ordinance ^ and therefore we muft; not eXr .^d them upon other terms. ^^ ■•.\1 grant indeed, that we are not bound to r.etaifi v^very circumftance of the firft Inftitution. For .were this fuppos'd neceftary^ 'twere utterly im- ^poffible for us to celebrate the Holy Communion ; .becaufe wc cannot have it adminiftred by a GotJ \ incarnate. 1 60 Ch. Xt Of Half 'Communion. Part It incarnate. Befldes^ it do's not appear that any Women were at that time mixt with the Holy Apoftles ; and yet our Adverfaries do with very good reafon think it abfurd to confine the Eucha- rift to the Male Sex. Nor do we think our felves in duty bound to receive in an uppei* Room, or after the Pafchal Supper^ or in a lean- ning pofture ; becaufe thefe are only accidental thin,G:s, which do not neceflarily belong to the Ordinance it felf. But yet we are ftridly ob- liged to retain all the effential parts of this Feaft ; which any Perfon of ordinary underftand- ing may eafily diftinguifh from the circumltances of It. The Blefling of Bread and Wine^ and the eat- ing and drinking of them in remembrance of Chrifi^ are the effential parts : and therefore^ when Chri(t faies. Do thts^ he do's not mean^ Go into an tipper chamber^ take unlea'veved bread ^ and fuch a particular fort of wine^ and then fitting in a leaning pofture, blefsy and break^ &c. but Do this aEiion^ viz. Blefs bread and wlne^ eat and driitk them in remem^ hrance of Chrifi: Thus St. Taul fpeaks of the a6ti- on, without taking notice of the circumftances of it, faying. The Cup of blejfing which we blefs ^ is 'it not the Communion of the bloud of Chrift ? The ifead which v-'e break, is it not the Communion of the body of Chrift ? i Cor. 10. 16. For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do jhew the Lord^s Death till he come. Wherefore, whofoever Jljall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unvwrthily, &C. Let a man examine himftlf, and fo let him eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, For he that eMeth and drinketh, &c. I Cor. 11. 263 ^^, 28, 29. But this Apoftle fpeaks not one fyllable of the upper Room^ or any other accidental circumftances of this Feaft. In Part ir. Of Half-Communion. Ch. XI. 161 In a Wordj Bread and Wine are the Matter of this Sacrament , and do therefore helong to the fubftance of it. And as we are obliged in Bap- tilin to ufe the Element of Watery ^o are we ob- liged in rhisSacrament to ufe the Elements of Bread and Wine, and nothing elfe. I confcfs^ in cafes of abfolute ncceffitVj God may be juftly fuppos'd to difpenfe with a pofi- tiv^e Precept. If Wine T\2y not be had^ or the Pcrfon has an antipathy agaii.it i: -^ we cannot think that God will condemn any Man for not receiving Chrifi's Bloud in the Holy Sacrament, And wc hope^ that tholb Pious Members of the Church of Rome^ to whom the Cup is dcny'd, will not be deprived of the Bleflings that accom- pany the Worthy reception of it ; becaufe thro' the faultVt)f.i their Spiritual Governors they are not fulFerM t6 tafte of it. But cafes of neceffiry are widely different from wilful breaches of God's Law. Nor can we imagin^ that God will par- don thofe who defpife a plain duty ; becaufe he can difplay the Riches of his Mercy upon extra^ ordinary occafions. Wherefore we ought to re- ceive both kinds^ whenever 'tis in our power fp to do 5 becaufe otherwife we do not obey th^ commands of God. Thus have I lliewn you thofe reafons^ by which we ftand obliged to receive the Lord's Supper in both kinds , and I think they are fuch^ as nothing bpt prejudice or fomething worfe can anfwer. But yet, ;ho' this Truth is fo very plain, our Adver- laries b^ive found many things to objed 'againft itj^ which 1 (hall examin in their order. And^ 1. They pretend, that altho' Chrifi did deliver both Bread and Wine at the firft inftitution of the J-Of^'s Supper j yet he himfelf did afterwards h vaty i62 Ch. XI. Of Half Communion. Part 11. vary from his own inftitution. For after his Refur- rettion^ they i'ay^ when he Adrainiftred this Sacra- ment to Ibme Difciples at ^mmaus^ he deliver'd only the Breads and omitted the Cup. Now to this I anfwer^ F/r/^ That tho' our Savior did take. Bread and blefs and break it j yet it do's not follow, that he did then celebrate the Holy Eucharift. -' For bleffing and breaking of Bread was ufual at their ordinary Meals. Thus did' St. Vaul^ when he was in the great Tempeft_, v^^^ 27. 35-. and" thus did our Lord alfo, when he fed the 9000, Matthi 14. i;. Marks. 41. • ai^d likewife when he fed the 4000^- ^hrk 8. 6. And yet our Adverfaries^ will not Xay^ that either our Savior or St.' Vaul, did the^n'Adminifter the Lord's Supper. Now the ^^eafon of our Savior's bleffing and breaking Bread, at Emmam^ was to convince his Difciples of, th^Q Truth of his Refurrediqn f that by his carriage at the Table .and his mannpf./pf blciling.jtl|\^ Meat, which , wei?e. well knovv'ii,. tO; them, j^nd -by : their famDiar converfation with him, they might -be iar- tisfy'd that he was the very P^rfon, .wpafnj^hey, well. knew, to have been lately Crucify'.4^i And thus ittCaaie. to paft^ that t.hclr tjis.w.^re. cpend^ Lulceii. 31. becaufe he ivas known of them in^^reak' mg fffhL£j,,x>i^i Bxjfj, .,^Y ^^,;,^ ; -y^^^'^.^v \' SeconVJy,: If Chrifi did at any time Geleorate the Lord's Supper, certainly we are to fupppfe that he us'd'the Words of Confecration, . This 1$ mj hody : and yet it .is not faid, that 'fip us'd them.' Nor is it faid,- tlia the confecrateci/any Wine, which our Adverfaries think jicjceflliry a^ the Lord's Supper, altho' the Layety do,-no^ drink of it; and yet it is. no^ faid, that he^perjfor^n'd the Confecration of it. Why therefpr^f^paj we not Part II. Of H'XlfCommunmi. Ch. XL 1 6 J not fuppofCj rhat he dcliver'd the Cup to thofe Difciples at Emmans^ altho' the Hiftory do's not relate it : as well as we may and niuft fuppofe^ ac- cording to their own principles^ that he us'd the proper words in the Confecration of the Bread, and that he did not omit the Confecration of the Cup j altho' the Gofpels do not mention either of thofe particulars ? 2. 'Tis obje^led, that the Primitive Chriftians omitted the Cup in the Celebration of the Eu- charift ; becaufc they are faid to hreak hread^ Ads 2. 42j 46. and 20. 7. when no mention is riiade of the Cup. But I anfwer^ Firfi, That altho' by breaking of bread we were to iinderftand the Lord's Supper (which neverthelefs has been queftion'd) yet fmce there is not a fyllable fpoken of the Confecration of the Cup, I muft beg leave to argue as I did before^ Ei- ther we mull fuppofj that they did Confecrate the Cup, whenfoever they brake the Bread , or we muft not. If we fuppofe they did ,• then our Ad- verfaries' Obje6lion falls to the ground. Becaufe we have as much reafon to fuppofe, that they drank of the Cup ^ as we have to fuppofe the Confecration of it : and confequently the filence of Scripture will not prove, that they abftain'd frorn the Wine. But if we muft not fuppofe, that tli^y Confecrated the Cup ^ then they did not Celebrate the Lord's Supper. Becaufe, ac- cording' to"; the Principles of our Adverfaries thera- ffelves, both kinds muft be Confecrated for the Prieft tliat officiates 3- or elfe there is no Sacra- ment. ^. Secondljy Tho' nothing is mention'd but break- ing of bread ; yet it muft be confider'd, that bread i-s jj .cpmprehejnfive word, and often fignifies all manner 164 Ch XI. Of Hdf'Communion. Part II. manner of Nourifhment, whether of Meat or Drink. Thus when Jojefh\ Brethren went to eat bread with him^ Gc7i, 4:;. 25". and our Savior did eat bread at the Pharifee's houfe^ Luke 14. 1. we' are not to imagin^ that their Entertainment con- fided of bare breads but of other eatables alfo.. And furely our Adverfaries will believe, that both the Patriarch and the Pharifec allowed their guefls feme drink at their Meals. Now fince bread is fo often put both for bread and drink, why may we not juftly conclude, that in thefe places *tis put both for Bread and Wine ? Efpecially, fmce this interpretation is perfectly confiilenc with the firft Inflitution ,• and the other is utterly inconfw ftent with it. But, Thirdly^ Tho' we fliould grant, that the Primi^ tive Chriftians did wholly omit both the Confe- cration and the Delivery of the Cup j yet it will not follow, that we may lawfully do the lame» For we are not to break a plain and pofitive Law of God, becaufe fome others have done the fame before us. ;. If it be faid, that tho' the Apoftles did re- ceive- in both kinds, .and \verc commanded to con- tinue- the fame pra6l:ice, yet wc are not obliged to do the fame ; I anfwer, that if the command given, to the Apoftles do's nor oblige us, then we have, no conrnVaiid at all for the obfervation 'of that .great Chriftian duty of receiving the Lord's Supper j and thisl am perfuaded our Ad- verfariesvvill not grant. But if the command given x6 the Apoftles do's oblige us ,• then we are. bound to receive in both kinds as the Apoftles • ^id j 'becaufe we are as plainly commanded to re- ceive the one, as the other. 4. 'Tis pretended, that the Apoftles W-re or- dained Part II. Of Hdf -Communion. Ch.XI. 165 dain'd Priefts by our Savior^s faying^ Hoc facite^ which they wou'd make to llgnify. Sacrifice this^ but vvc do truly rendcr_, Do this. And then they wou'd perfuade us to believe, that the Apoftles receiv'd the Cup as Priefts ^ and confequently^that tho' the Priefts are now obliged to receive the Cup as the Apoftles did j yet 'tis fuflicient if other Perfons receive the Bread only. To this I an- Iwer^ 1. That this is a ground! efs Notion. For tho' the word h\iccre do's fometimes ilgnify to fucrifice^ yet the word mt^v (which is the Origi- nal) is never us'd in that Senfe in all the New Teftamcnt^ or any where elfe. 2. Tho' it were granted againft all Truth and Reafonj that iiztm do's lignify to facrifice ,- yet it cannot be prov'd, that a Prieft was ever Ordain'd by that Form. But, 3. If Men can be To extravagant in their fancics^let us fuppofe that the Apoftles were Ordain'd Priefts by the Form^ Hoc facite ,• yet this will not ferve the Caufe of our Adveriaries. For, F/>/?j 'Tis poflible, that our Savior might fay. Hoc facite^ before he deliver'd the Bread ,- how- ever, it cannot be imagin'd, but he fpake thofe words before they had eaten it : and confequently the Apoftles were Priefts, when they ate the Bread ; as well as when they drank the Wine. So that they muft have receiv'd both kinds in the quality of Priefts, and therefore the Layety are not bound to receive either of them. But I am pcrfuaded, our Adverfiiries will not maintain this bold and impi- ous AlTertion. Secondly^ I have flievvn, that our Lord fa id. Hoc fdcite^ which we are to render. Do this^ after the Delivery of the Cup ,• and therefore, if the A- poftles were made Priefts by that Form, Hoc f ache ^ when they receiv'd the Bread ; then they were L -1 alfo 1 6/5 Ch. XT. Of Half^Communion. Part II. alfo made Priefts by the fame Form^ after the De- livery of the Cup : and ccnfequently they were twice made Priefts , which our Adverfaries will be loth to grant. Thirdly y In the Church of Rowe^ tho' feveral Priefts aflift at the Celebration of the Lord's Sup- per^ yet he only who Confecrates the Elements, do's drink the Wine ; and therefore by our Ad- verfaries own confeffion, fmce all the Apoftles drank of the Cup as Priefts^ they do plainly of- fend againfl the Order of the firft Inftitution, in allowing the Cup to no more than one of all the Priefts that are prefent. Fcurthly^ If the Apoftles receiv'd the Cup as Prieftsj and the Layety were to be deny'd the participation of it ^ certainly St. PW wou'd have taken notice of it. Whereas^ when he wrote to, the Corinthiavs about the Lord's Supper, he fpeaks not a fyllable of that matter; but refers them to the firft Inftitution, and tells the whole Church, that they are commanded to receive both kinds in remembrance of Chrifiy i Cor, ii. 23. &c. y. 'Tis faid, that this command is only condi- tional. For St. Vaul tells us, that our Savior faid. Do this^ as oft as ye drink it ^ tn rcrncmhranct of me^ I Cor. 11.25-. So that whcnfoever we do drink it, we muft drink it in Remembrance of Cimfi : but then, we are not abfolutely obliged to drink it at all. To this I anfwer, that fuch conditions as this, do not take away the abfolute neceffity of the duty, but only regard the manner of the per- formance. Thus when we are commanded not to blow a Trumpet when we give Alms, 'tis fup- 'pos'd that we are abfolutely bound to give Alrhs according to our ability, and the condition erf not ' * blowing Part II; Of Half-Commumort. Cb. XI. • 1 67 blowing the Trumpet refpeds only the manner of our behavior in that adion. Thus alfo 'tis faid^ Keef thy foot^ when thou goefi to the houfe of God^ Ecclef. f. I. Now this Precept fuppofes it to be our Duty to go to the Houfe of God ; and (hews us after what manner, and with what preparation we muft go. Again, when our Savior laies. When ye prajy ufe not ^uain repetitions ^ 'tis fuppos'd that we are to perform the Duty of Prayer, and the condition or caution annex'd directs us in the per- formance of it. And thus in the cafe before us^ we are fuppos'd to drink of the Cup, and in- ioin d to do it in remembrance of Chrifi. Nay, twas needlefs fcr cur Savior to prefcribe a Rule concerning that thing, which we are not obliged to perform. 6. Well, but the Apoftle fanes, Whofever jliall eat this bread y or driiik this Cup unworthily^ &c. I Cor. II. 27, Now 'tis plain, fay they, from the particle cr, that the Apoftle puts a difference between eating and drinking, and fuppofes that one may be done without the other. To this I reply, Firfiy That the Alexandrian MS. reads and in- ftead of or ; and the Syriac^ jo Ch.52I. OfHalf^o^munhn, Bart II. hdy and hlvad of tioe Lord,' ycrfi .'27, and there* fore 'tis plain, that he is luppos'd to receive both^ becaufe..he;.is' faid, to be' guilty of profaning both. , '".'•: 1 V j'<; •: • K > n ■ ' • v' , n I r ^:_ /^ Well then, if we read itv ^nd, as we have fuf. ficient reafon to doj 'tis plahi^.that our A^ver* faries objection is taken away r but if we read it cTy the criticifm will not damage our caufe ; be^ caufe cr is fo often us d {or .andy and the context requires this acceptation of itv But I have yet another confideration to offer. Wherefore, Fifthly, Suppofe this Text were much more doubtful than it is, yet it is in any wife to be explain d in fuch a manner, as may render it con- iiftent with other places which refer to the fame thing, and are confelTedly plainer. Now I have .fliewn, that thoie plainer places do in join com- munion in both kinds ,• and therefore our Adver- faries ought not to fhelter thcmfelves under a .(feemingly) difficult paffage j and think by that -hieans to obtain a liberty to break God's pofitive ,Law. Let them, (hew in the firfl: place, that our arguments for Communion in both kinds are not convincing : and when this is done, *twill be time enough for 413 todifpute about this Jaicety of Phrafe. Bur, •tiiH Sixthly and Laftly , That I may put an end to this tedioiis and neediefs piece of Criticifm, -tho'.it were granted againft all reafon, that one .Species may be; 'omitted ; yet it do's not follow that the Cu!p; muft be taken away. Becaufe we are as plainly, commanded to drink the Wine, .as to: cat the Bread :' and the particle or may excufe fus from the one, as well as the other. vJ:'^j, 'Tis pretended, that the Cup is not effen- tial to the Holy Eucharift ; becaufe the Sacra- \ ment Part II. Of Hdf'Commumon, Ch. XI. 17 1 ment is intire wichout it. For the fame- Virtue and Grace is given by one Species^ which is given: by the other: ai:J. therefore^ lince the Cup gives no new Bieffing, the Layety need not drink of ic^ But our Adveriaries ought to confider (what I have already laid) that we are not to ftart fubtile notions, but to keep clofe to our Savior's iilftitu- tion,' from whence alone the Sacraments derive their Virtue. It Clmjh inftituted both kinds^ we are to receive both kinds ; forotherwife we are not to expeci: the benefit of either kind. Chri^ indeed do's not feparats the benefit of his body from that of his bloud ; nor do's one kind give us a bleffing, which the other do's not impart : but the whole Sacrament muft be received, or we niuft be depriv'd of the whole blefiing. Since the Cup was as certainly inftituted as the Bread ,• 'tis plain that the Cup is as effential as the Bread : and each of them is abfolutely requir'd to make up a Sacrament. Thole therefore, who do not re-r ceive them both, do not receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. • 8. Our Adveriaries wou'd fain perfuade us, that they do truly receive the Cup by receiving the Bread. Becaufe, the Dodrin of Tran[uh[lantia^ ticn being fuppos'd true, the Bloud of Chrifi muft accompany, or be contain'd in his body, into which they fay the bread is turn'd ,• and this is what they call the Dodrin of Ccncomitancy, But to this I anfwer, Firfi^ that fuppofing Tranfuhfiantiation to be true, yet 'tis our duty to follow our Saviof's inftitution : and therefore 'tis in vain for us to hope for the bleffings of the Lord's Supper, un- lefs we receive what he has commanded to be receiv'd. If Tranfuhfiaijttation be true, without doubt our Savior was not ignorant of it ; and yet •r /. .. he 172 Ch. XL Of Hdf -Communion, Part If, he appointed both kinds notwithftanding ; and con- fequently we are not to negle6b either of them. But^ SecorJly, I have prov'd at large^ that the Dodrin of T;\mjiibfiaiitiaticn is abfolutelv falfe ,- and there- fore that pretence which is buih upon ic^ is good for nothing. 9. If it be faid^ that the Church has power to deny one kind^ tho' Chrifi has appointed two , 1 anfwer^ i. That if Cbnfi faid^ Do this; there is none lefs than Chrifi^ that can fay^ Do it nor. We are to obey God's command ,• till God him- felt difannul it. 2. By the fame Reafon the Church may take away both kinds ; fmce fhe has as much power to deny both^ as to deny either of them. 3. We defire this Church to fhew by vir- tue of what commiflion ihe pretends to cancel the Laws of God ; and we defire her Members to confider^ whether that can be call'd a found and Orthodox Chrifiian Churchy which requires Meii npon pain of damnation to difobey Cbrijt, Thus then I have examin'd thofe things which are urg'd in favor of Half-Communion ^ and found them to be of no force. Wherefore I fhall fum up what I have faid againfl: it in the following manner. Since Chrij} inftitutcd the Lord's Supper^ and commanded us to continue it ; and fince in his in- ftitution he deliver d both Bread and VVine^ and commanded us to receive the fame • 'tis plain^thac we are obliged to drink of the Cuppas well as to eat of the Bread : and confequently^ we are forbidden by the word ot God to receive in one kind only. And therefore the Church of Ro?77e which requires -Men to approve and pracfciie Half^Communion upon pain of damnationjimpofes that^which is forbidden in the Scriptures^ as neceffary to Salvation. C H A P. Part II. OfPraj&s in an^ &c." Ch.XII. 17J CHAP. XII. 0/ Prayers in an unknown Tongue, A Third indance of fomething^ which th^ C\\\^vc\\\)i Rcmc impofes as neccllary to Sal- vation^ tho* 'tis phiinly forbidden by the Holy Scripture, is their wicked pradrice of perform- ing public Vviiyers in an unkno'U'n Tongue. \ need not prove^ that the public Prayers of the Church o\ Rom^^vt repeated in the Latin Tongue J or that die obliges "every Man to profefs this which is the i^r/j Article of her Creed^ ^vi-z,, I fiedfafily admit and embrace Jpofiolical and .Zcclefiafiical Tra^ ditions^ and the refi of the cbfewances and conjl'ltitttcns cf the fame Church ; by which every Member of her Communion do's folemnly approve 'Of this manner of performing God's public wbr-^- fliip. Thefe things therefore being taken for granted, 1 fiiall 'endeavor to fheWj i. That; the Scnvtures dp Cu7r.mand tfs to perform public Ptafers in^ a knLWn. Tonpicl 2. That tht Church ^/ Rome dos tranfgrcfs this command. Now when thefe particulars are fairly prov'd, I fliall find no' difficult ty.in maintaining this branch c^f my charge againft f'cferf. , '-^ :' /- - ; T /lfT\i en, ' ^f ' 'Scriftttres do oblige us to perfdrh '^fuhlic Vrayers in a' known Tongue. Thjs appSilts fyoVn' T-C'or.'-i^. where St. Vatd difcourles 'agaiilft ^P^:ea'ching in an unknown Tongue, and then lifes ■ tHp;very lame arguments againft Praying in an uh- ,' known Torigue. For if 1 vray^ laies he, in an unknov^n ;^Tongue, my Sjiirit^ that is, the gift o'f the Spirit by •yvhichlfpeal^inna unknown Tongu^^ frayeth', or uttereth 174 Ch. XII. 0/ Pr^jfi /> . Partis Uttereth the words of a Prayer: htdt my under p-anding^ fenfe or meaning^ is unfruitful. What is it then ? I will fray with the fpirit-^ -and hvjill-fray^with the underfiand- ing alfo. I will fing with the fpirit^ a7ul I will [ing vnth the under fiaTfding -atf-o.' - "Elfe^ when thoit ffalt Ueji^ith the Spirit^ hovj jloall he that occupieth the room of the un^ lear?jedy or. th,e i^i^kafxied Perfon^ /^ Amen at^hy gi'vhg of ThaTiks^ fi^f^^^^ b^ undcrjl^ndcth not '^fhyit thou jaieji < Jppr ^tffOiH, ^-v^riiy : gi'ue,Ji T^ian^s. pvellj'^ hM the other is not ,edify,J. •, I thank my God^. I fpeak with Tongues pjpre ^ than you all : yet in the Cbtirch I ^■})a4, rather fpakfve >words wifh .nfj under fla^nd - ■^ngy ,that hy my "voice I might teach others alfoy than,,tef} 'thcfiifand words in an ,unk?io7vn Tongue * verf. 14^ I J. i(^^ .This paiiage is a tQil and politive determi- .liation of the difpute between U5 and our Ad- .vertaries. For Sc. P^;/// d eel ares^ i. That the un- .^rftanding of. him that praies in an unknown . Tongue is unfruitful. 2. That an ^unlearned Per- .jTon cannot fay /Imtn^ when the Minifter bleires_, or -gives God thanks in an unknown Tongu^. J, That the.reafon of it is plainly this^ ^vlz., "jb^papfe the unlearned Perfon underftandeth not ,'viji'jat the Minifter faies^ when he bleffes or praies lW4fi unknown Tongue. Frx?m whence it fol- .|ows, that the Congregation ought^ in St. Vauh 'jticlgment^ to underlfand what is faid by him, ^th;^t blefles God or praies in public^ and to join /with him in it ; and that for this reafon the public fWQrihip is to be perform'd in a known Tongue. ' But our Adverfaries have rcply'd,. that the A- poftle fpeaks not of a public Form pf.Prayer, but of fuch infpir'd Extempore Prayers as were us'd 'i^n the firft beginnings of Chriftianity ^ 'and that tho* ..fych, infpir'4 -^^f ^^/i*. Pr*^}' ^^^^ ; NVgf 9^ !?9 ,\>^ rPP^^^ PartIL; an u^knomTiOrjgaf, j^ji. JXII. 175 ^ forth in a kno^wn^ Tongue, rf^^ufe .otherwife ^ Man cou'd not^feiy join in tt\9,mj, ^ppe he k^ew ^^ n£).t whether the^ w^r^good aip,^lawfuJ,6r h^i.^'j^^^^^ our iiioderji lijat^^^orms w()^9]) ,hafe b^eh';^p^* proy'S, by ,|:he,.Ch^rfiif nifiy,:be, ii) zn unknpN^^ii* rfongue;, because. a M^n may f^purefy_ confide ifi^ the Churches jiidgii^ent. Now ;to this I anfw^eiji^j I. that the reafon 15 the fame ^n both 3 and ther^-^ far^ both forts of Prayer mujt.b.c perform'd in a,^ knoyy^ti; Tongue. ;;.^t.,P^i/ fake;s^,i£ foj; granted tlia^-^ t^i^ unlearned mpft fay 4?^vgw ^lahd that he^ canpjoc) i'^LjAffj^nj unlef^ h^,Vi?idei;ft,a^ds;,what is' faid'ljy; the A^inifier :-^and ^^erefq^e^ xy^f^fchef fhe Prayer^ hc,^xt^mpore or a 'i^^ped Fpnh^ the moil ignorant Ije^fon in the Congregation mi^f|: know the mea- n}i9,g,'aiidvcontentS:^Qf;iit/f.:,:^.y6^^^^ faies^ ^p^]' th^H^'verlly givefi shanks ymly .iut; the. other is noit €^{^y^ verfe 17. fo that in the Apoftle's j-udgQient^' tho' the Prayer be good^ yet fince 'tis in an i^^^ known Tongue^ and therefore do's not tend -to" Edification^ it muft not be us'cL [:li it.be alfo faid, that the Apoftle forbids the* ufe. of Hymns in an unknown Toiigue^ but that; his words do not relate to all IPrayers in general ; I anfwer^ I. That he ufes the word Fraj^ which, is a general term for all fcrts of Prayer. 2. That the ireafon as I have already faid^, is the fame in, j^ll forts of Prayer^ whether Hymns^ , Interceffions,, c^ Others 3* and, therefore the Apoflie's Injundion; co^nprehends them all. For where the reafon of a QO^Timand holds good ,* the command is obli- gatory. , ;> . : Let all things :h^.4om- t^o .e.^'ifylngy. faies the A- poftl^^ -vfj/e 26. by which words the Prieft is re- quir'd fo to perform his Office^ th^t the Congre-, gajCion may r^^pit^p benefit; pf it.\. Whereas hc^ .Oil fliew's 176 Ch.XII. OfVray&sin PartIL fhews this to be impoflible either in Preaching or. Praying, unlefs thofe Offices be perform'd in a known Tongue. And for his own part, that he' might fhew how little he efteem'd that which did not edify the Church, he faies exprefly ^rfe 183 19, I thiwk my God ^ I J peak with tongues more than you all ':' pt \ in . the Churcfj I -had rather ■ fpeak five words with my under fianding^ that by my ^voice 1 might teach others alfo^ than ten thot'tjand words in an unknown tongue. But certainly the Apoftle wou'd never have Ipoken after this manner, if Prayers in an unknown Tongue cou'd edify the Church. Wherefore, faies he,:, 't^e^/e 12. For^/^ much as ye are Zealous of ffiritual gifts ^ feek that fe may excel to the edifying of the Church. And ilnce he had already faid that the Church cannot beedify'd by an unknown Tongue, ^uerfe 2, .&c. 'ris plain th^it he commands the uie of a known Tongue in all public Service. ' Again, he commands, that all things he done dc-^ cenply^.VQi'i^c 40. Now 1 appeal to any confiderjng Perlon, whether the laying of Prayers in an un-- known Tongue be confiftent with decency. For if J knc7v not the rr. waning of the Voice ^ I jhall be unto him that ■ fpeaketh ^ a Ea^Aarian : and he that fpeaketh ^ (loall be- n Barbarian unto wc, verfe 11, What wxu'd ah Infidel think- of fuch a number of People^ met together for no other end, than to hear, or perhaps on^y to lee a Prieft mutter a great many worcis, which they do ndt underftand one fyllable of i May we not argue againft fuch a pradice in the expreffions ot St. Taul ? If rhere-. fore the whole Church be come together into one P^ce^ and all J peak with tongues ; and there come in thoft^ fijat are unlearned or unbelievers -y will t Bey not jay' tlat ye are wad ? YQi'^Q 23. Certainly, there ckn-J Part II. nn unknown Tongue. Ch, Xll. 177 not be a more ridiculous piece of devotion _, than that of fuch a Congregation^ as pretends to be very bufy in the worfliip of God^ and yet do's not know what they are faying to him. BefideSj fuch a pradice is contradictory to the natural end of fpeaking. For why fliou'd any ,Prieft fpeak at all in the Congregation^ if he fpeaks fuch things as the Congregation cannot under- Hand ? For^ as the Apoltle argues^ from the qth to the 9//> verfe. Even things without lift giving found ^ •whether Fipe or Hiirp^ exctft they give a difi-in^ion in the founJs_y how jlnill it he known 7vhat is Vif^ or Harp d ? For if the Trumpet give an uncertain foundy who (Ijall prepare himfelf to the Battel ? So likewife you^ except ye utter hy the tongue things eajy to he underjtood^ how ^mll it be known what is fpoken ? For ye JJjall [peak into the air. There are^ it may be^ fo many kinds of Voices tJt the Worldy and none of them is without fignification. Therefore. if I know not the meaning of the Voice^ I jljall be unto him that fpeaketh a Barbarian ; and he that fpeaketh jljall he a Barbarian unto me. The defign of ufmg Vocal Prayer in the Congregation is not to make God Almighty hear, but that our own afFedions may be united by it, and that the whole Congregation may be enabled to fend up one joint petition. But how the Congregation can fend up a joint pe-tition with united affedions, when they underftand nothing of the Matter^ for my part I cannot imagin. But tho' we had not the Apoftle's exprefs com-* mand and arguments for the ufe of a known Tongue in the Worftiip of God, yet the very nature of Prayer do's plainly require and fuppol'e it. Prayer is a r.eafonable Service ^ and therefore M ic 17S Ch.XII. Of Prayers m Part.II. *c is not a Lip-labor only^ but an adion of the Soul. It confifts indeed of feveral parts^ *uiz,. Confeffion^ Petition, Intercetlion and Thanks- giving : but in each of thefe our mind is con- cern'd. We do therefore unbofom our felves, and make our Heavenly Father acquainted with the moft retir^'d thoughts of our hearts. We open our guiltj and confefs our fhame ; we beg fupply of our own and other Mens wants, and return bur humble acknowledgments of God^s undeferved mercies. And 'tis in the exercife of thefe our in- ward affedions, of our Love and Fear, our hope and truft, our forrow, fubmiffion, gratitude and charity, &c. I fay, 'tis in the exercife of thefe Divine Graces that the effence of Prayer do's conflft. But now, how can any Man perform thefe things in an unknown Tongue ? How can he con- fefs his ilns with true contrition, or earneftly beg God's ailifting Grace with true devotion ,* Who is fo little acquainted with the Senfe df the words he utters, that for ought ,he, knows, he is re- peating fcmething tb a" quite' different purpoie ? How can he pray in Faith, that is, with a full 'perfuafion of God's readinefs to grant that very Petition ,* "^vhca he knovv^s not what that petition is, which he is perfnaded God will grant him'? IS] ay, perhaps he cannot tell, whether the Prayer he offers up, be a petition or thankfgiving, or fome- thing elfe. 'Tis impoffible in fuch a cafe to have proper afFedions in our worfhip : and therefore we cannot but offer the facrifice of fools. Nay, a Parrot may as well pray for any Chriftian grace^ as that Perfon, who faies his Prayers in an un- icnown Tongue : for neither of them is confcious of what is defir'd ^ and each of them underftands the words alike. We Partir. af2 unknown Tongue. Ch. XII. 179 We have been told^ I confefs, that tho' the People are obliged to offer up public Prayer ,- yet they are not obliged to follow or accompany the words with their affedions : but that 'tis fuffi- cient^ if they fay Amen at the end of the Prayer^ tho' they know not to what they fay Amen. But certainly this Notion is a reproach to our Religion^ and makes all our devotions ridiculous and fenfelefs. We muft then deHre of God^ we know not what : and pray we know not how. furely that muft be a pritty kind of Congrega- tional worfhip, which the Congregation need not attend to. Why are Leflbns read^ but that the People may be inftruAed ;; and how can thofe be inftrudedj who do not either mind or underftand what is fpoken ? Why do Chriftlans meet at Churchy but that they may be devout, in God's Service : and how can thofe be devout that un- derftand never a fyllable of their Prayers ? But this opinion is fo very abfurd, that I muft not enter upon a folemn confutation of it. If our Adverfaries fay, that the People may offer up their private Prayers in their Mother Tongue, whilft the Prieft is offering others in a different and unintelligible Language ^ I befeech them to confider the wickednefs and folly of fuch a pradice. For it deprives the Congregation of all the benefit of public devotion , it is exprefly againft the Apoftle's rule, who requires the Peo- ple to fay Amen^ when the Prieft gives thanks ; and befides, it muft introduce the greateft confu- fion. One may be praying for the pardon of iins, and another for a good harveft, and a third againft thunder and lightning, and a thoufand o- thers for fb many other bleffings, at the fame time. And is this our Chriftian devotion ? Is this the M 2 worfliip i8o Ch. XII. Of Prayers in Part II. worfhip of our God ? Has our Savior taught us thus to pray ? Certainly^ a Chriftian Congrega- tion ought to be a Choire of holy Souls^ united in their hearts and tongues, breathing the fame Pe- titionSj ?.nd Singing the fame praifes to the fam© common God. But will our Adverfaries infift upon this reply ? Is it then true j may every Man be fmgle in his devotions at the time of public Worftiip ? If fo ; why then do they fay Orewus^ that is. Let us Fray, To whom do they fpeak, and upon whont do they call to join with them ? Certainly they exhort the People ,• and why then will they not fufFer the Service to be fuch, as that the People may follow their exhortation^ and pray together with them ? But I fliall not make any farther enlargements- upon this Subjed ; or multiply Arguments in fo plain a cafe. I fliall rather proceed to the Pleas of our Adverfaries ; and confider thofe reafons, by which they endeavor to juftify their moft nnreafonable Pradice. And^ I. They tell us, that by the Command of God no Man was to be in the Tabernacle^ when the High Prieft made an Atonement in the Holy Place, for himfelf and his family, and the whole Congregation, Le^. i6. in. And accordingly, fay they, all the People were praying without, whillt 'Zacharias was ofPeiing inccni'e, Luke i, lo. Now fmce the JnvY^n People cou'd not fee or hear, what the Prieft did during his retirement ,* there- fore they think, that the public Service of the Chriftian Church may be performed in fuch a Tongue as the People know nothing of. But to this 1 anfwer, F/>/?, That it do's not in the leaft appear^ that the Prieft; did then offer up any Prayer at Part II. an unkno)vn\ Tongue. Ch. XII. 1 8 1 at all 5* much lefs that he did it in an unknown Tongue. Secondly^ that what the Priefl: then did was peculiar to the Prieft j and the People were not to bear any part in that Ceremony ^ for they had certain Prayers wherewith to imploy them- felves^ whilft the Prieft was abfent from them ; as appears from Luke i. lo. Now if thefe things be duly confider'd^ cer- tainly our Adverfaries argument falls to the ground. For 'tis plain^ that public Forms of Prayer in their own Mother Tongue were us'd both by the Prieft and the whole Congregation of the Jewi^j Church. And I may challenge our Adverfaries to iflieWj that either the Jews^ or any other Nation under hea- ven^ did ever pray together in fuch a Language, as they who join'd in the Prayer did not under- ftand. And therefore who wou'd imagin that 'tis Lawful for Chriftians, in oppofition to the com- mon Senfe and Pradice of all Mankind^ in fpite of the very nature of Prayer^ and St. Vaul^ ex- prefs order^ to offer up all their public devotions in an unknown Tongue ; becaufe the High-Prieft under the Law was obliged to perform one fingle ceremony in which ('tis probable) there was no prayings in a private part of the Temple, where the People cou'd neither hear nor fee him ? Certainly our Adverfaries will not fay^ that th« Chriftian Congregation is no more obliged to joiit in their public Service than the Jews were ob- liged to join in that Myfterious Rite of making Atonement. And why then will they argue, that we Chriftians are not obliged to underftand thofg Prayers, which 'tis our duty to join in ,• becaufa the Jnvs were not obliged to hear and fee what the Prieft then did, when 'twas not their duty ta join with him ? M 5 2. They 1 82 Ch. XII. Of Prayers in Part II. 2. They fay^ that our Savior C/jri/ allow'd the Childrens crying Hofanva to be praifing God^ al- tho' they did not underftand the meaning of that Hebrew word. But how will our Adverfaries prove, that the Children did not know what Hofanna lignify'd ? It do's not appear, (as I fhall prove hereafter) but that the Jews were even at that time well acquainted with the Hchrew Lan- guage. However, fuppofe they neither did, nor cou'd fpeak it ; 'tis plain, that Hofanna was an ufual form of Acclamation among the Jeivs : and therefore I cannot imagin, why the Jewijh Chil- dren might not underftand that Word ; as well as our Children, who are infinitely greater ftrangers to the Holy Tongue, do underftand the Word j4rf7en ^ fmce the one has as much Hebrew in it, tLs the other. ;. They tell us, that the Jewifi Church per- formed their public Devotions in the Hebrew Lan- guage, even when they did not underftand it , 'viz. from the time of the Babjlonijl Captivity to that of our blelied Lord. But t^is pretended example is built upon fuch principles, as our Adverfaries will find it very difficult to prove. For, Firfi^ It fuppofes, that the Hcbrevj Tongue was utterly loft in the Babylonian Capiivity : whereas they have no fufficient argument to ground this Aflertion upon. 'Tis true, Ezra the Prhfi brought .the Law before the Congregatiofi both of Men a?jd iVornen^ and thofe that coud undei'fiand^ 8lC. and he read therein^ &C. before the Alen and the Women^ and thofe that coud undtrfiand^ &c. And the Levites caused the People to underfiand the Law^ &C. So they read in the Book^ in the Law of God ^ difrinBI)^ and ga'ue the Senfe^ and caused them to underfiand the %eading^ Nehem, 8. 2, 3, 7, 8. But it cannot be concluded Part 11. m unknown Tongue, Ch. XII. i S j. concluded from this Chapter^ that the People did not underftand the Hebrew Language^ in which the Law was written. For by thcle phrafes^ all that coud hear with undcrfianding^ and thofe that coud tmdcrfiand^ are meant^ not luch perfons as cou'd underftand the Language in which the Law was written -^ but fuch as tho' they were not at the age of Men and Women, are able ncverthelefs to hear and underftand their duty. Thefc Perfons therefore, both Old and Young, were gathered to- gether to learn the Law ^ and the Le^uites caused the- Fecple^ by reading diligently and diftindly to them, to. underftand the Law ,• for they ga'ue the Senfe^ where 'twas difficult or doubtful , and caus\l them to under fiand the readings or what was read tO them, by a careful and exa6t expoficion of it. This being a natural and eafy Comment upon that Text, which is the only pallage that leems to favor the opinion of our Adverfaries, it plainly follows, that the Scriptures will not prove, that the Htbrevj Language was utterly loft in the Baby^ lonijl) Captivity. 'Tis probable indeed, that by fo long continuance in a ftrange Land, the People might have learnt many forein words, and by that means have deftro}/'d the purity of the Holy Tongue, wherein the Law was written : but it cannot be made appear, that the Language was fo much alter'd in the fliort fpace of 70 Years, as to become unintelligible to thofe who had formerly fpoken it as their Mother Tongue. But if it were granted (tho' I believe 'twill never be prov'd) that the knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue were almoft, or even utterly loft , yet. Secondly, This pretended example of the Jewijh Church fuppofes alfo, that the Priefts did not tranflate their Temple-Service for the benefit of M 4 the iS4 Ch.XII. Of Prajers rrf Fart IT. the Congregation. Whereas there is not the leaft ftiadow of reafon for this Affertion ; Nay^ we have very good grounds to believe the contrary. For tho' they were very unwilling to communicate their Sacred Writings to other Nations ; yet we have no caufe to mfpcdij that they wou'd keep their own People in Ignorance of their own Law^ or that they wou'd lock up their public Prayers in an unknown Tongue. And therefore^ fmce the performance of public Prayers in an unknown Tongue is fo very abfurd and impious a pra6tice_, as I have already fliewn ,• and fmce God him felt had deliver'd them their Prayers in a known Tongue^ as appears by the Pfalms^ &c. which were the Solemn parts of the Jevj'ijh Devotion ,* therefore they cou'd not but think it to be God's Will, that their Prayers fhou'd be tranflarcd^ if ever the- People fhou'd chance to forget the Tongue in which they were firft Penn'd. Wherefore we ought in charity to believe^ that they did thus tranflate them ; efpecially fmce we have not the leaft reafon to fufped the contrary. Thirdly^ This pretended example fuppofes alfo, that if the Jt7vi\h Nation did not underftand the Hehrevj Language, and if their public Service were not tranllated ,• yet they were not guilty of fm in offering fuch ridiculous Service to their God, as Prayers in an unknown Tongue moft cer- tainly are. But it will never be prov'd, that this was an innocent cuftom j nor do we efteem fuch a pradice lefs culpable in the Jews^ than in our Adverlaries of the Church of Rome. And there- fore they muft not hope to juftify their crime, by fhewing that the Jews have committed the fame in former dales. JLjf it be faid^ that our Savior did not blame the Pa rt II. ^n unknown Tongue. Ch. XII. 185 the Jews for that practice, and that he therefore thought it innocent; I anlwer^ i. That if it were certain, that the Jews did ufe it, 'tis poflible our Savior might have blam'd them for it ; altho' that paffage be not Recorded in Scripture. For the Scripture do's not Record every paffage of our Savior's Life ; but liich things only, as the Wif- dom of God thought it convenient to tranfmit to Poiterity. And we defire our Adverfaries to fhew, if they can, that the Jews had no faults, but what ftand correded by our Savior in the Hiftory of the Gofpel. 2. That I am the rather inclin'd to believe, that the Jews did not ufe it, becaufe it do's not appear, that our Savior blam'd them for it. However^ we are by no means fure, that ever it was us'd ; and therefore we cannot conclude from the filence of Scripture, that our Lord ap- prov'd it. Nay, 3. Suppofe (againft the diAate^ of common Senfe) that it was allowable in the Jews to pray in an Unknown Tongue ,* yet it i5 not allowable in us, who are fo plainly command- ed by St. ?aul to pray otherwife. Well then ,• fmce it do's not appear that the Jeivs did ever pray in an Unknown Tongue ; or that it was an innocent a(5):ion, if they did it ; certainly our Adverfaries cannot juftify chemfelves by the pretended example of the Jews. And therefore, fince our Adverfaries have not the leaft command or example, which can warrant the ufa of Prayers in an Unknown Tongue ; and fince the words of St. ?aul and the very nature of public Prayer do fo plainly require a known Tongue ; I think I may fafely conclude, that the Scriptures do command us to perform public Trayers in a known Tongue. II, I am now to Ihew, that the Church of Rome 1^6 Ch.XIII. Of the Worfl/tp of Part 11. do^s tranfgrefs that command. ■ But it is fo very notorious^ that the Church of Rome do's ufe the Latin Tongue in her public Service^ which tho' feme few may poffibly underftand^ )fet the far greater part of the Congregation knows nothing of; this^ I fay, is fo very notorious, that 1 fhall not waft any more words upon it. To conclude therefore, fmce the Scriptures do command us to perform public Prayers in a known Tongue ; 'tis plain, that the ?ofi^^ Pradice of per- forming public Prayers in an Unknown Tongue is forbidden in the Scriptures. And fmce the Church of Rome requires all Men, upon pain of Damna- tion, to approve and ufe this forbidden practice ;• 'tis too too certain, that the Church of Rome do's in this, as well as other inftances, impofe fome- thing as neceffary to Salvation, which is forbid- den by the Word of God. c H A P. xnr. Of the Worjhip of Angels mi Saipjts. ry^HE laft Inftance which I (hall produce, of JL fomething impos'd by the Church of Rome as neceffary to Salvation, tho' 'tis forbidden by the Word of God, is their Do6trin concerning the- Wor^iif of Angels and Saivts, ■ In the 1.0th Article of the Pop I flj Creed we have thefe words, And I do Ukevnfe firmly helic'vey that the Saints Reigning together with Chrift are to be honor d and fra/d to. From hence it is ap- parent, that Saints (or holy Men departed this life) Part II. Angels and Saints. Ch.XlII. 18-7 life) are to be honor'd and pray'd to upon pain of Damnation. But the Council of Trent has not fo exprefly declared it felf concerning the Worfhip oi Angels, 'Tis true^ the Roman Catechifm^ publifh'd by the Order of the Council of Trent^ (peaks of Saints^ as a common name both for Angels and the Souls of holy Men. For when it treats profeffedly (a) of the worjhip and honor of Saints^ the very firft words are thefe ; (h) Moreover this alfo is to he cxiittly taught in the Expojttion of this (Firft) Commandment y viz. That the honor and invocation of the holy Angels and blejfed Souls ^ which enjoy the Glory of Heaven^ &c. and this paffage ought in all realbn to explain the words of the Creed ; fo that both Angels and departed Souls may be comprehended in the fame general term of Saints. However it cannot be deny'd^ that in their public Services the fame Honors and Prayers are ofFer'd to the Angels, as to the departed Saints, and' that the Catechifm teaches the one as well as the other. And therefore the Worfhip of An- gels muft be accounted one of thofe particulars, which all the Members of the Church of Rome are obliged to admit and embrace as neceffary to Salvation 3 by the 15?^ Article of their Creed, which runs thus^ I fiedfaftly admit and embrace (a) De culru Sc veneratlone Sanftorum. {b) Verum illud etiam in hujus prxcepti explicatione accu- rate docendum eft, Venerationem 6c invocationem Sanftorum Angcloium ac beataruni animarum, quae Coelefti Gloria per- fruuntur, &c. Catechifm. ex decreto Concil. Trideyit. ad paro- chos, jujfu Pij V. p. 389. Lugduni 1 569. Cum privilegio Pij V. Pontif, Maximi. Apofolical iS8 Ch.XriL Of the Worjhip of PartlL j^pofiolical a?hl Ecclefiafiical TraduionSy and the refi of the Ohferi;ance5 and Conjtitutions of the fame Church, And thus it is plain, that the Church of Rome impofes the Worfhip of Angels and Saints, as ne- ceffary to Salvation. Now this Worfliip confifts of two parts, i. Of Reverence or Honor. 2. Prayer. The Reverence or Honor is twofold, either Internal or External. The Internal Honor of Angels or Saints confifts in ^ great and juft efteem of them, as they are excel- lent, and worthy of admiration for their purity of Mind and other wonderful perfections. Now this fort of Reverence we are moft heartily willing to pay them. We believe them to be good and glorious Beings, and are alwaies ready to think and fpeak of them as fuch. But then we do not pay them any External Honor, by offering Incenfe, or bowing our Bodies or the like ^ becaufe we think it needlefs. .;• I confefs, if upon any great occafion Angels or Saints fhou'd converfe with Men upon Earth, I think it highly reafonable to exprefs a very great refpecl for them by fome outward fign : but fo long as we are utterly ignorant or un- certain of their being prefent with us after an invifible manner, 'tis abfurd to give them any marks of External Reverence. However, we are fure there is no Precept for it ^ and therefore it is very far from being neceffary ,• if it be not finful. Our Adverfaries themfelves cannot pretend, that we are any where commanded to pay External Honor to ahfent Angels. They tell us indeed, that Abraham y Lot ^ Balaam and Jofljua, bowed to Angels when prefent with them. Gen. 18. 2. and 19. 1. Nnmb. 22. ^i, JoJIk ^. 14. but this do's not Part II. Jngels and Saints. Ch. XIII. 1S9 not prove^ that we are obliged to do the fame, when they are not prefent with us. BefideSj our Adverfaries feem to be unluckily miftaken in every one of their inftances. For tho', as I have already faid^ I think it highly reafonable to pay External Reverence to an An.p;elj when cer-r t2i\n\y frefent : yet thefe inftances will hardly prove it to be our duty fo to do ; much lefs will they provCj what our Adverfaries produce them for, viz., that we ought to pay External Refped even to /jbfent Angels. For, 1. As for the inftance of Ahrahaw^ it feems ho took thofe Angels for Men, and accordingly paid them a civil reiped:. Befides^ it appears that the Second Perfon of the Holy Trinity was then pre- fent. For one of thofe Angels is calfd Jehoe7i Spirits are not Seven crea- ted Angels^ but God himfelf the Creator of them, even the Third Perfon in the Bleffed Trinity. Now the reafon w\\ySt,John was pleas'd to pitch upon the number Seven ^ calling him Seven Spirits^ rather than fix or five or any other number^ may poffibly be this. The number Sei>en is a mark of perfection ; and therefore fince thofe Gifts of the Spirit J which were hti^ov/d upon the ancient Churchy were very many and great^ 'twas reafona- ble that the H0I31 Spirit the Author of them^ fhou'd rather be call'd Seven Spirits^ than any other Num- ber. Becaufe the Apoitle did not defign to fignify the precife number of the Gifts^ but only the plen- tifulnefs of that eiflfufion which was then made. - Befides, there is great reafon to believe, that the Se-ven Spirits cannot be Seven created Spirits.Becaufe St. John wifhes Grace and Peace from them t6 the Seven Churches : whereas St. Paul^ St. Peter and St. Jude do very frequently wifh Grace and Peace^ but they do always wifli it as from God only. And St. John himfelf do's the lame in his Second Epiftle_, verfe ^.lat he never joins a Creature with Almighty God. And therefore it is unreafonable to think^that -St, John wou'd in this place vary, not onlyfronj himfelf, but alfo from the other Apoftles, in wifhing that might proceed from a Creature^which he him- felf and his infpir'd Brethren, who were directed by the fame Spirit, did ufe to wiili for as from the Creator only. If Part 11. Jngels and Saints. Ch. XIII. 2ot If it be faid, that tho' the Apoftles ufually wifh- ed their difciples might receive Grace and Peace from God only, yet St. John might wifh the feven Churches the fame Grace and Peace from Created Angels alfo ; not as if the Angels couM of them- felves beftow Grace and Peace^ which are the Gifts of God only ,- but becaufe the Angels might inter- cede for the Churches, and prevail with God to beftow thofe Blellings upon them ; it may be an- fwered, i. That no inftance can be given in all the Scripture, where any bleffing (efpecially the peculiar Gifts of the Holy Ghoft, Grace and Peace) is wifli'd for from God the fountain, and the Crea- ture as intercefibr, joynM together. 2. The Words of St. John do run thus, Grace he unto you^ and Peace from Him ivhich is^ and which "ivas^ and which is to come ; a7id from the fe^ven Sprits which are be^ fore his throne ,• and from Jefus Chrift, &c. Now *cis certain, that Grace and Peace are wifh'd them from the Father and the Son, as the true givers and proprietors of them, in the beginning and end of thefe Words : and therefore 'tis inconceivably ftrange, that the very fame Grace and Peace fhou'd at the very fame time be wifhed them from created intercelTors, placed in the middle between God the Father, and God the Son, the one undoubted fountain of thofe Bleflings ^ and that this ftiou'd be done in the very fame Language, without any theleaft note or intimation of a diftin6i:ion between^ the fountain of Grace and Peace^ and the intercelTors for them. Wherefore it feems necejGTary for us to believe, that the Seven Sprits are uncreated Spirits ^ and fince there is nothing uncreated befides the three Perfons in the Bleffed Trinity ; 'tis plain, that if ^hefe Spirits be uncreated, they muft fignify the .Holy 202 Ch. XIII. Of the Worjhip of Part II. Holy Ghoft. Becaufe the Father and the Son are exprcfly mentioned in this place^ together with tiie Se^en Spirits^ but as diftindl from them. It it be objedledj that the Se-ven Spirits cannot ilgnity the fupreme God^ becaufe they are faid to be hcfore the throne ^ which is the ftation of in- feriors 5 it may be anfwer'd that the Holy Spirit cannot be thought inferior to the Father and the Son^ becaufe he is faid to be hefore the throne, being ready as it were to be fent to particular Men^ and to be given to them by the Father and the Son, who fit. upon the throne ; any more than the Son may be thought inferior to the Father and the Spirit^ becaufe he was fent into the Worlds to redeem us from Damnation^ and fo is often re- prefented as doings not his own will^ but the Will of Him that fent him. Each Perion is equal in Effcnce j tho' in the Wonderful method of our Salvation, the one do's by a voluntary ad: (as it were) fubjcd himfelf to the other two. If it be objeded alfo, that the Seven Spirits are named before Jejus Chrifi^ and therefore they cannot fignify the Holy Ghoffc ; becaufe the Son is the feeond, and the Holy Ghoft is the third Perfon in the BlelTed Trinity : it may be anfwered, I. That if it be abfurd to place the third Perfon of the Trinity before the fecond, it is much more abfurd to place feven created Angels before him. And yet this muft be done, if the Seven Spirits are not the Holy Ghoft, but feven Created An- gels. 2. The Order of the Trinity is feveral timej inverted. Thus t^^r inftance, 'The Grace of our Lord Jefus Chrift, and the Lo^e of God^ and the Com- tnunion of the Holy Ghofi be with you all^ Anftn, 2 Cor, 1:5. 14. JBj- Jefus Chrift, njul God the Fa- ther^ Q'yX, \, If In iJK Kingdom of Chrift and of God, Eph. ^. f. Se. Part 11. Jngels md Saints. Ch.XIII. 20} Secondly y Others are of opinion^ that the Se^en Spirits mention'd in this Text are the fame with the feven Angels^ which are laid to fiand before God^ Rev. 8. 2. which Angels are confefled to be Created Spirits. And then they conceive that the fenfe of the Text amounts to this_, May you the [even Churches of Aiia enjoy Grace and Peace^ as the gift of God the Father^ for the Jake of God the Son^ and by the Minifiration of the fe'ven Angels which are before the throite. But yet^ thofe that diflike this fecondj and embrace the firft Interpretation^ may anfwer that tho' the feven Angels are faid to ftand before the throne in one place^ yet it do's not fol- low that they mult be the Seven Sprits which are before the throne in the other. For why may not both the Holy Ghoft and the Bleffed Angels be ready and willing (in their different Spheres) to execute the Gracious Defigns of God towards his Church ? Befides^ the confiderations already of- fer'd do perfuade us to interpret the Seven Spirits in this controverted place^ not of the feven Angels, but of the Holy Ghoft. Well then ,• we have two very different Expofi- tions of thefe Words ; and our Adverfaries may embrace either of them. ISlow if the Seven Spi^ rits do fignify the Holy Ghoft^ and confequently God himielf, then this Text cannot favor the worfliip of Angels^ altho'it were granted that St. Johns words are a formal Prayer to the Seven Spi^ rits. Becaufe St. John do's not addrefs himfelf to any created Beings but only to the Lord of Hofts^ of whom he begs a plentiful effufion of ipiritual Gifts upon the k'vtn Churches of Afia, But if by the Seven Spirits we underftand feven •created Angels^ yet even this Interpretation will not favpr the Caufe of our Adverfaries. Becaufe 2C54 - Ch. XIIL Of the Worfhif of Part II: it may be deny'd with very juft reafon^ that Sr. JrGhn\ words are a formal Prayer. For, i. The words themfelves are fuch as do not neceffarily import any thiiig more than a bare wifh. 2. 'Tis nioft abfurd to fay^ that St. John prays to God and to feven Creatures after the very fame manner^ and in the very fame exprellions. Nay our Adverla- ries themfelves ajce obliged by their own Principles not to think thefe words a formal Prayer. Becaufe they acknowledge^ that an Angel cannot be pray'd to otherwife than, as an Interceffor : whereas God niuft always be pray'd to as the only fountain of fpidtual Gifts. Now thefe words are plainly apply'd to God and the feven Angels in the very fame fenfe ; and confequently St. John pray'd to both alikCj 1/iz,. as to the fountains of fpiritual Gifts^ and not to one as the Interceffor only. Now this our Ad- verfaries will not believe of our Holy Apoftle ; becaufe they think itldolatrous to pray to aCreature in the very fame manner as to the Creator God. Thus then our Adverfaries are reduc'd to this ex- tremity. Either they muft grant^ that thefe Words do contain a formal Prayer ; and then the Apoftle's Prayer muft be Idolatrous, unlefs the Seven Spirits do fignify the Holy Ghoft, which Interpretation Utterly overthrows the pretended Inftance of St, *Johh praying to Angels : or elfe they muft grants t.har the words do not contain a formal Prayer , and then they are impertinently urg'd as an Inftance of ^ formal Prayer to Angels. ';.:j. If it be urged, that the .^/>^ Nebuchadnez,* ^ar fell tipon bis face^ and vorjljipp'd Daniel^ and commanded that they jhoud offer an oblation , and foi/eet odors unto him , Dan. 2. 46. and that we may as well pray to Saints, as Nebuchadnez.z.ar might offer religious vvorfhip to Da7iid ; 1 anfvver, i.That there Part 11. Angeh moi Saints: Ch.XlII. 205 there is a great deal of difference between Salats in Heaven^ and Saints upon Earth. Nor can it be concluded^ that we may worfhip fuch as are;, we know not where^ and who perhaps know nothing of the Matter ; becaufe we may pay a very great re- fped to thofe Saints that are prefent with us; and this is all that Nebuchadnezzar order'd to be perform'd towards Daniel. However, I fhall not infift upon this difparity ; nor fhall I examin the force of the Hebrew words, and thereby endeavor to prove, that Dankl received not any religious worfhip, but only fuch extraordinary complements^ as his great perfonal Worth, and his mofl remark- able gift of Prophecy, might juflly deferve from the gVeatefl Kings upon Earth. Thefe things, I fay^ I fhall not infift upon : but fuppofmg that Nehu^ chadnezzar order'd religious honor to be pay'd him : I anfwer, 2. That it do's not appear, thac Daniel accepted of them. 'Tis true, the Scriptures do not exprelly fay that he forbad tliem ,• tho' (bms fuppofe it fairly intimated : -but yet it cannot be concluded that he approv'd of fuch a performance_, becaufe the Scriptures fay nothing to the contrary. For the People of Melita faid that St. Faul was a God, AHs 28. 6. and we do not read that St.P^zw/con- tradided it : but it muft not therefore be thought, that St. Tad approv'd of the Name, or that he did not utterly deteft and abhor it, and undeceive the People too. Even fo it cannot be concluded, that Daniel receiv'd religious honors, if any were inten- ded ,• becaufe the Bible do's not mention his refufa;! of them. And now I pray, what will become of our Adverfaries Argument .^ Daniel had fome undue ho- nors decreed him, and it do's not appear that he receiv'd them: therefore v/e may give to the de- parted Saints the fame honors which were defign'd- for 2o6 Ch. XIII. Of the JVorf/jip of Part IL for Daniel, This is fuch reafoning, as I think our Adverfaries cannot boaft of. Lafily, 'Tis pretended^ that we may and ought to pray to Angels and Saints^ becaufe they do pray for us in Heaven. But taking it for granted, that Angels and Saints do really pray for us in Heaven ,• will it follow from thence, that we ought to pray to them upon Earth ? 'Tis fCippos'd,that many good Ghriftians in the Eafi and IVejh-hidies do pray for their Brethren in England ^ but it wou'd be a piece of moft unaccountable Madnefs for the£w^///Jj,whilft remaining at home, to pray, or fpeak their requefts, to their Brethren in the Eafi and tVefi-Indies, And yet they may with as good reafon pray to them, as to the Angels and Saints ; fince the one can hear them as much as the other. For how can the Angels and Saints know the Hearts or Prayers of all thofe Perfons, that may call upon them in diffe- rent Parts of the World ; unlefs God Almighty reveal fuch fecrets to them ; And why may not God reveal fuch fecrets to the Indians ? We have as much proof of the one as the other ; becaufe God has promised neither of them. And why then may we not pradife the one, as well as the other ^ 'Tis true, we read that the Angels do rejoycc at the Converfion of a Sinner, Luke 15-. 7, 10. and that they are all minifiring Sprits fent forth to minifier for them ^ that jliall be heirs of Salvation^ Heb. 1.14. from whence we may gather that Angels have fome knowledge of human affairs. But grant- ing that they have fome knowledge of human af- fairs, do's it follow that they have an univerfal knowledge of them ; or that they do therefore hear all thofe chat call upon them in all places whatfoever? If nor ; then no Man can be fure that his Prayer is heard by anAngel at any particular time whatfoever. Before Part II. Jngels and Saints. Ch. XIIT. 207 Before we pray to Angels or Saints^ we ought to be well affur'd of three things, i. That thofe we pray to^ are really in Heaven. 'Tis true^ we make no doubt of the Angels being there : but lince we cannot know the Hearts of Men^'tis impof- fible that we fliou'd know what Men are fav'd ; and confequently^ we may pray to fome^ who for ought we know, are groaning in Hell. 2. That thofe we pray to^ can and do hear us. This we cannot know, but by Revelation only : and there- fore till we meet with fuch a Revelation, 'tis our .duty to abftain from fuch Prayers. 3. That the poffi- bility of being heard by them, will juftify our Prayers to them. But this is a matter, that the Scriptures do not inform us of,- and therefore we ought not to run the Rifque of offending a jealous God, by performing fuch Prayers. However, 'tis certain that there is not the leafl: command or encouragement in all the Bible for the invocation of Saints or Angels. For this Rea- fon it cannot be a Duty, but it may be dange- rous 'y and why then fhou'd we venture upon it ? We may fafely addrefs our felves to God, who is ready to hear and accept our Prayers : and is it not then a great reproach to his Goodnefs, for us to feck out other objecfts of Prayer, without any man- ner of Reafon fo to do ^ This looks as if we diftru- fted his Mercy ; or thought it neceifary to make fure of fome other Friends, if he fhou'd chance to fail us. ^ If it be asked, why we may not defire the An- gels and Saints in Heaven, as we defire holy Men upon Earth, to pray for us ; the reafon is, be- caufe we are fure that we hear one another, when we defire this favor. But are our Adverfaries fure, that the Angels or Saints in Heaven do hear thofe Men, 2o8 Ch.Xm. OftheWorfhipof Part IT. Men, that pray to them upon Earth ? I wou'd fain know from whence they gather'd fuch information; fmce the Scriptures do not aflert it. Thus then I have examin'd all the pretended Reafons for the Invocation of Angels and Saints ,• and I am perfuaded they appear extremely frivo- lous. But if it cannot be pretended, that we have juft reafon for it ,• I am fure we have very juft rea- fon againft ir. Becaufe, SECONDLY, The Scriptures do command us to pray to God only. This is manifeft from the whole tenor of thofe Holy Writings. Let our Adverfaries fhew, if they can, that the Patriarchs, Prophets or Apoftles did ever pray. Cave to God only. We are commanded in innumerable places to pray to God ,• but never to any other Being. Now fmce the Scriptures do appropriate prayer to God only , with what face can we give his honor to another ? We pray to Chrljh and to the Holy Ghoft, be- caufe they are God ; and we think it a fufficient ar- gument of the Divinity of either of thofe two Per- Ions of the Trinity, that we are commanded to pray to them. Now I defire our Adverfaries to confider, whether they do not weaken the Orthodox Belief of the Trinity, by taking away thefe, which are ibme of the great proofs and fupports of it. For why may not a Socwian fay, TVe are to pray to Chrift^ as to an excellent Creature : hut the Prayers which Tve are commanded to offtr to him are no proof of his Divinity^ be- caufe the Sacrifice nfVrayer is not appropriated to Gcd only : I fay, why may not a Sodnian argue thus.'* And how will our Adverfarit:; be able to prove that Chrifi is God, by this fort of Reafoning ; unlefs they be- lieve and take it for granted, that the Scriptures do command us to pray to God only .'* Where^ Part II. A)Jgels and Sdnts,^ Ch. XIII. 209 Wherefore^ as St. Taul faies, Colojf. 2. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a 'voluntary hu- ntility and worjhipping of Angels^ intruding into thofs things which he hath not feen^ ^vainly fuff d up by his JlejJdy wind. For as our Savior aflures us^ Matth. 4. 10. It js written^ Thou jhalt worfiiip the Lord thy Gody and him only jhalt thou fer and receive us intp his favor, in and thro' the fatifr fadion of Chrifl ,• and that God hath committed to us the Apoftles and our SuccelTors the IVord of Reton^ ciliatlon^ by entrufting us to declare the conditip^^ of Salvation by the Gofpel-Covenant. '' .^ -^ Verfe zo. Nov; then we^ being fully inftrucied by our Mafter, and having tl'ie moft unqueflioj;iabl^ Credentials of the Gift of Tongues, and vyorliin^ O 4 Miracles^ 2 i6 Ch. XIV. 'Of AuricuUr Part 11; Mlracles^ are Amhajfaddrs for Chrifi, ^t declare his' Good- will towards ' you^ as tho' God did befeech you hj us hisM.ti^tngttS'^'ivc fray you hi Clmfi^s Jhad^^ he'ye reccn'cud to God,' And you know^* we have al-' ready told youj upDji what terms' ^you, iliay be fe-' ccncil'd to him. " ■ ' • ' ' '■ ' ' ' ; '^ Now LappeaLtp any. indifferent judge_, whether Auricular CorfJJlon can be prov'd from hence. The Apoftles were to allure Men of the general terras' of Salvation : but not one fyllable is fpoken of the neceifity of their applying thefe general terms to every particular Man's Cafe. Much lefs is it faid, that none can be fav'd^ unlefs the Apoftles or their Succeffors b^ intimately acquainted with the ftate of his S.oul by the Means of Private Confeffion. 7. 'Tis pretended^ that Men are obliged to make a particular Confeffion of their fms, that the Prieft may come to a true knowledge of them j becaufe otherwife the Prieft cannot exercifc that power of forgiving fins^ which Chrijt has entrufted him with. Now that Chrifi has entrufted the Prieft with a Power of forgiving fms^ our Adverfaries endea- vor to prove from three Texts of Scripture j i;/2s. Firfiy. from Matth, 16. ly. And I will gfue unto thee the keys of the kingdom of he a'V en '^ a^id'whatfoe^ver thot^ ^}alt bind on earthy JJjall be hcimd if) hea'ven , and ivhatfo-^ e'XJev thou Jhalt looje on earthy Jljall be loofed in heazren, The"ri Secondly from Matth, 18. 18. Whatfce^er ye jhalt hind on Earthy fijall be bound in heaven ^ and whatfoever ye jhrJl hofe on earthy Jloall he loofed in heaven. But Thirdly and chiefly from John 20. ^3. IFhofefoever fns ye remit y they are rdnitted unto them -^ a,nd ii^hojefoever fns ye x^tain^ they are fetain ,d, . ' ^• Now In anfwer to this their' Hidrft plaiifible Ar- .. gument for Auricular : Confeflon ^ I^IItj^II not endea- Ybr to fhewjthat thefe Texts do by no merrns impl^j' 1 ■ ^ fuch^ PartIL Confeffton. Ch.XIXT. ^{j fuch a power of forgiving finSj as bur Adverfaries do pretend to. Becaufe the difputes arifing from thence muft needs be very tedious ,• and there is fo much difference of opinion^ even amongft the Vro- tefiant Writers, concerning the Senfe of thefe ex- preffions of the tv^o Evangelifts, that I fhall not acj^ venture to build an Anfwer upon my private Seiiti- ments, tho' I have not much reafon (I think) to bo diflatisfy'd vi^ith them. Wherefore I fliall grant; (perhaps, much more than will ever be fairly prov'd ; however) as much as our Adverfaries them- felves can defire ; and I am content they fliou'd ipake the beft advantage of it. Suppofe therefore, that thefe expreffions do re- ally imply, that every Chrifiian Priell has an abfo- lute and indifputable power of forgiving fins ; nay, fuppofe (if you think fit) that none can be forgiven by God, unlefs they receive the Prieftly Abfoluti- on ; yet I deny, that Auricular ConfeJJion is neceffary for the exercife of this forgiving power, Becaufe a Chrifilan Prieft may forgive fms, altho' he be not acquainted with the number and aggravations of them. For 'tis certain, that a Prieft cannot forgive fms without the condition of true Repentance : and 'twill be granted by thefe great Afferters of Prieftly authority, that, if any perfon has true Re- pentance, the Prieft may forgive him. Wherefore fmce a Prieft may forgive a truly penitent Man^ 'tis plain, that Auricular ConfeJJion is not neceffary in order to forgi venefs, ' "/ ^ ^, " " " ' ^" , For true Repentance can imply but two things., "VIZ,, a forfaking of fin, and a refolution to live well. And certainly, 'tis by no means neceffary, that a Prieft fliou'd be acquainted with the Number and Circumftances of any Man's (ins, in order to either of thefe parts of true Repentance'. For if the Prieft has fully explain'd the Perfpn's duty to him i if he has. 2i8 Ch. XIV. Of Auricular, &c. Part IL has faithfully inform'd him of the terms of the Go- fpel- Covenant ^ if he has laid before him all thoft RuLes of Holy Living^, which God requires ; if^ I fiiy^ the Prieft has done all this_, and the Man accept of rhefe conditipns, and refolve to live according to tHem ; then the Prieft has reafon to think (as well as a Man can thinks who do's not know his Neigh- bor^ heart) that the Perfon is truly penitent^ altho' he be not acquainted with all the particular inftan- ces^in which h'e.faas formerly broken any of tjiof^ tawSj which he ;iow promifes to obferve. ^Tis true^ if the penitent cannot in fome fpecial Cafes apply a general Rule j if he cannot larisfy himfelf, whether this or that adion be innocent, or no j 'tis by any means advifable to ask the Prieft's opinion concerning it. Becaufe the Prieft may rea- sonably be fuppos a tobe better acquainted with the Meafures of Obedience, and an abler judge offuch ;iiatters. But tho* 'tis advifable to have recourfe to the Prieft for the refolution of a nice and diffir cult Cafe of Confcience j yet the Man may be for- given, altho' he do not confefs it to be his own, Ip. may be propos'd by a friend, or in occafional djfcourfe. For the only end offuch Inquiries is th? j^arties own fatisfac^lion j and this may be gained t^p' the Prieft do not know the Party. ^ 1 do not fpeak this to difcourage any pious Per- sons from acquainting thofe Priefts^ in whom they think they may repofe an intire confidence,with the fliate of their Souls. Nay, perhaps this may be, upon fome occallons,nQt only convenient,but evennecefl fary for their own comfort and fatisfadion. But I 'jray,that the Church o^Romelrds no reafon to require ill Men upoji pain of Damnation^to believe and ac- jk'hbwledge, that CpAf^ffion of all our offences, and Part IL Of SatisfASiion. Ch. XV. 2 1 9 ceffity be made to a Prieftj if ever we defire or hope for pardon at the hands of God. This I think is very evident from what I have dit cours'd in thisChapter j and confequently it appears^ that fomething which the Church of Rome requires Men to believe and acknowledge upon pain of dam-, nation, is not contain'd in the Scriptures. CHAP. XV. Of Satisfaction. I Have fhewn in the foregoing Chapter^ that the Church of Rome obliges every Man upon pain of Damnation to believe. That Contrition^ Confeffion ^nd Satisfatiion y which are called the three farts of Penance, are necejfary for the Pardon of Sins, I have? already difprov'd the Neceffity of Confejfion : and fliall now confider the Neceffity of SatisfaBion, Buc becaufc the Determination of this Controverfy is a matter of fome Nicety, I think it abfolutely ne- ceflary for the true ftating of it, to give the Reader an account of the Doc^rin of the Church of Rorm concerning SatisfaSiion^ and of what we maintain in oppofition to it. The Church of Rome declares, that thofe which are duly baptized (a) are heirs of God^ and co-heirs with Chrift ; fo that nothing at all can delay (flop or hinder) their entrance into Hea'ven, But tha^ {a) Quia nihil eft daninationis iis qui v^re confepyiti funt cum Chriilo per baptifma in mortem : qui non fecundum carncm ambulant \ fed veterem hominem exuentes, & novum induen- t?s, qui fecundum Deum creatus eft, innoccntes, immaculati, puri, innoxii, ac Deo dilefti, eiFefti funt haeredes quidem Dei, cohoeredes autem Chrifti,ita ut nihil prorfus cos ab ingreflu cceli rfmoretur. ConciLTridmt . S^i£, $. Can. 5. dc Pscatt. Origin. (b)fof: 220 Ch.XV; Of Satisfaction. Part 11. (hj for fuch as fall into fins after Baptfrn^ Chrift Jefus has infiitutcd the Sacrame?it of PQn9.ncQ (or Repen- tance) 7vhen be faid^ Receive ye the Holy Ghofi : whofe^ fdever fins ye remit ^ they are remitted unto them • and wbojefoever [tns ye retain^ they are retained. From whence 7ve are to learn^ that the Penance of a Chrifiian Man after a relajfe into fin ^ is very different from his haftifmal Penance ; and that it contains not only a ceafing from fins^and a hatred of them ^or a contrite and humbled heart • but alfo a Sacramental Confeffion of them^ to he made in defire at leaft^ and when time jhiill ferve ; and Friefily Ahfolution^ and Satisfadion alfo^ by Faftings^ Alms^ Trayers^ and other holy Exercifes of the Spiritual Life^ not for the eternal Funifiment^ which^ together with the guilty is remitted by the Sacrament (of Penance) or by the defire of the Sacrament ^ hut for the temporal punijli^ menty which as thz Scriptures teach^ is not alwaies^ as in Baptifm, wholly remitted to thofe^ who being unthankful for the Grace of God 7vhich they had received ^ have grieved. the Holy Spirit ^ &;c. ^ ^^^ (^) Etenim pro iis, qui poft baptlfmum in peccata labuntur, Chriftus Jefus Sacramcntum inftituit poenitentiae, cum dixit, j^ccipite Spirit urn Sar.cfum I tjiiorum remifcritis peccata^ remittuntur^ C^ quoruin reti7iu<.ritis, retenta funt . Unde docendum eft, Chrifri* ani hominis pcenitentiam poft lapfum multo aliam efTc a baprif. mail ; eaque contineri non modo ced'ationem a peccatis, &: eo- rum deteftationem, aut cor contrirum &: humiJiatum, verum etiam eorundem Sacramentalem Confeflionem, falrem in voto & fuo tempore faciendam, & faceidotalem abfolutionem, item- qu€ fatisfaftionem per jcjunia, eleemofynas, oratlones, & alia pia fpiritualis vit® exercltia, non quidem pro poena ceterna, quae vel Sacramento vel Sacramenri voto una cum culpa remittitur ; fed pro poena temporali, quoe, ut lacrx literx docent, nee tota fcmper, ut in baptifmo fit, dimittitur illis, qui gratix Dei, quam-acceperant, ingrati, Spiritum Sanftum contriftaverunt, &Cv Concil. Trident. ^q{^. 6. cap. 14. de JufiiJicatio?ie. $he part IL Of Satisfa^ion. Ch. XV. 2 2 1 She declares alfo (c) That if my Man jljall faji that when a penitent /inner has recei'vd the grace of ^ufiification^ his guilt is fo forgi'veny and his ohliga^ tion to eternal punijliwent done awaj^ that there re- ^ * mains no obligation to the payjnent of Temporal Fu^ ni^imenty either in this World^ or in the World to come in Purgatory^ before he can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; let him be accurfed, Again_, {d) If any Man fljall fay^ That God always remits the 7vhole j)nnijhment^ when he remits the guilt ; and that the Satisfaction of Tenitents is nothing elfe but Faithy by which they affrC" bend that Chrift has fatisfy^d for them ^ let him be ac- curfed. Agairij (e) If any Man jliall fay^ that Gody thro'' the Merits of Chrift^ Lm not fatisfadion made him for the Temporal Funijl}me?it of fin by thofe punishments which are infliBed by himfelf and patiently born by the Tenitent ; or by thofe punipments which the Priefi injoins j or thofe which the Tenitent voluntarily undertakes ^ juch as FafiingSy Vrayersy Alms and other works of Piety ; and that therefore the bejl repentance is only a New Life ; let him be accurfed. (c) Si quis pofl: acceptam Juftiiicatlonis gratiam, cuillbet pec- catori poenitenti culpam ira remitti, & reatum seternae poenae deleri dixerit, ut nullus remaneat reatus poenae temporalis cxfol- vendsc, vel in hoc fxculo vel in futuro in Purgatorio, antequam ad regna coelorum aditus patere pofur, anathema fit. Concil. Trident. SefT. 6. can. 30. dcjuj^ifaatione. (d) Siquis dixerit totam pcenam fimul cum culpa remitti fem- per a Deo, fatisfaftionemque poenitentium non efCc aliam quam fidem,qua apprehenduntChriftum pro eis fatisfecifTe, anathema fit. Concil. Trident. S'efT 14. can. 12. de Panitenti^e Sacramento. (e) Siquis dixerit, pro peccatis, quoad poenam temporalem, minime Deo per Chrifti Merita fatisfieri poenisab eo infliftis, & patienter toleratis, vel a Sacerdote injunftis, fed neque fponte fufceptis, ut jejuniis, orationibus, eleemofynis, vel aliis etiam pietatis operibus ; atque ideo optimam pcenitentiam ei^c tantum NovamVitamj anathema fit. iHd, can. 13. From i^t Ch.XV. Of Satis famo/7. Part IL From thefe QutTtations it appears, that the Church of Rome teaches the following particu- lars. 1. That there is a twofold Punifhment due to fillj viz. Temporal and Eternal ; both which muft of neceffity be undergone in order to Salvation. 2. That altho' the Merits of Chrifi have fully fatisfy'd the Juftice of God, for both the Tempo- ral and Eternal Punifhment of thofe fms which were committed before Baptifm : yet Chrifi has fatisfy'd ■only for the Eternal punifliment of fuch as are committed after Baptifm ^ and confequently, that when the Eternal punifhment is forgiven for the fake of Chrifi^ the Temporal punifhment ftill re- mains due for them, and mufl be born by the of- fending party, either in this World or the World to come. 5. That in this World the Temporal punifh- ment of fin may be born diverfe ways ; either, frft^ by enduring afflidions fent from God; or, fecondly^ by voluntary ads of Self-revenge, fuch as Fafling, &c. or, thirdly^ by performing what Exercifes of Mortification the Priefl fhall injoin after our Confeffion to him. But in the other W^orld, the Temporal punifhment of fin is not born otherwife, than by enduring the Miferies of Turgatorj ; out of which a Man's Soul cannot be rele?.s'd, till thofe afHi6tions, which are due for fms committed after Baptifm, are completed. 4. That fuch enduring of Temporal Miferies is a Satisfaction to the Juflice of God, for the Tem- poral punifliment due to thofe fms, which are com- mitted againfl him after Baptifm ; as the Sufferings of our Blelfed Lord, are a fatisfadion to the fame Juflice, for the Eternal punifhment due to the fame fms. Thus Part II. Of Sansfa5iiori. Ch. XV. n 2 j Thus have I given the Reader an impartial Ac- count of what the Church of Rome believes con- cerning Satisfatiion, But before I acquaint hint With our own Doc^rin, I muft beg hirn diligently CO obferve the difference between a VindicH've and a Correttive Punilhment ; becaufe this fingle Diftin- dion will make this (otherwife intricate) Contro- Verfy very plain and intelligible. Every Punifliment is a Mifery infli(51:ed for the Commiflion of fin. Now according as the Rea- fons differ for which the Mifery is inlH(5led^ fo the Punifhment differs alfo. Thus that Mifery, which is inflided upon a Sinner, in order to his goodj is call'd a CorreBive Punifhment , becaul'e the only end and deilgn of fuch a Mifery, is that the Perfon may be corre(5led and amended by ir. But that Mifery which is inflicted without any defign of amending the Sinner^ but only for to avenge the Evil he has done, is calfd a VinditH've Punifhment. Now this CorreBi^e Punifhment is always the effed of Mercy ; whereas the FindiBive Punifliment flows from Juftice only. This one thing being premifed, I fhall now fhcw as far as I fhall find it neceffary^ wherein we agree with our AdverfarieSj and wherein we differ from them. And, I. Whereas our Adverfaries affirm that there is a twofold Punifhment due to fin_, viz. Temporal and Eternal^ both which muft of necefEcy be un- dergone in order to Salvation ; we do alfo affirm that Man, confider'd in his corrupted ftate, with- out a Savior, is a rebel to God, and confequently utterly out of his favor ,• fo that God wou'd not infliA any CorreBi've Punifhment upon him : partly becaufe God, as proceeding by the Rules of ftrid JufticCj had no merciful defigns toward him ; whereas 224 Ch.XV. OfSatisfaBion, PartIL whereas a CorreBi^ue Punifhment is alwaies the ef- kdi of Mercy ; and partly becaufe a CorreBi've Pu- pifliment wou'd be utterly vain and fruitlefs^ fince- without the afliftance of Supernatural Grace (which Man confider'd without a Savior cou d not have), I fay^ without the affiftance of Supernatural Grace> he cou'd not amend and grow better. But tho' God would not inflid any CorreBii/9 Punifhment upon Man, when confider'd in fuch circumilances ; yet he wou'd and did inflid a K/'w- MHie punifliment for their fin. And yet it is plain, that we do groan under Miferies, and continue Mortal, even after our Bapcifm. But the Juftice of God, who fufiers us to be miferable in this World, and then to die, notwith- ftanding our Ranfom is pay 'd, will be eafily ciear'd^ if we confider (what I have already faid) that we are now made capable pf Mercy ,• and that what was once a Punifhment, is now become an Ad: of Kind- nefs. God has now chang'd our great Misfortunes into the greateft Bleffings. Our Mifcries do in- creafe our future Happinefs, and our Death is an entrance into the poffcffion of it. 'Tis true^ we have many difficulties to ftruggle with : but we are able to fight againft, and in a great meafure to conquer them ; and Chrlfi will infinitely reward our Vidories. The greater our Natural Imper- fedions, and our Temporal Afflidions are, the greater and brighter will our Crown be, if we get the Maftery over them ; and as for Death, tis P the 226 Ch. XV. 0/ Satisfaction. Part II. the folideft comfort of a good Chriftian. It is riow difarm'd of its Sting, and become our fureft mend. Wherefore fince oiir VindiBivt Punifhment is turn'd into an invaluable Blefling, the Juftice of God is fully clear'd, and his Mercy triumphs in this difpenfation towards us. And thus we are per- fectly agreed;, that the Merits of Chrift have fully fatisly'd the Juftice of God for both the Temporal and Eternal (Vindicii've) Punifhment of thofe fins^ which were committed before Baptifm. But whereas our Adverfaries affirm, that Chrifi has fatisfy'd only for the Eternal Punifhment of fuch fms as are committed after Baptifm ,• and con- lequently, that when the Eternal Punifhment is forgiven for the fake of Chrifiy the Temporal Pu- nifliment ftill remains due for them, and mufl be born by the offending party, either in this World, or in the World to come : we think it necefTary to diffent from them in this particular. 'Tis true, if by a Temporal Punifhment our Ad- verfaries mean only a CorreBivc Temporal Punifh- ment ,* we are then ready to grant, that God may, and often do's inflid it on us : nor did C/jrifi ever deflgn to exempt us from it. Nay, it had been a diminution of his kindnefs to us, if he had not made us fubjed to it : becaufe, as I have already faid, a CorreHive Punifhment is the effect of Mer- cy. And therefore, Whenfoever God perceives, that any fort of Temporal Evil is necefTary for our Soul's Health, either to recal us from our fin, or to give us a deeper fenfe of it, or the like good purpofe ,• we are infinitely obliged to him for in- fiidling it. But yet we fay, that even fuch Cor^ reBi'ue Punifhments are not alwaies necefTary. When God infiids them, they are moft certainly necef- fary for fome end of his gracious Providence : but God Part II. Of Smsfdaion. Ch. XV. 227 God may, and often do's, pardon a fin upon true repentance, without inHiding a CorretHve Punifli- ment. Becaufe, if thofe Wife ends for which the CorretH've Punifhment is defign'd, be ferv'd with- out it ,• the Punifhment do's then become neediofs. However, fince Chrifi never fatisfy'd for CorretHve Punifliments, we are ftill liable to them, and ought to be thankful for them, when they are infiidled. But 'tis evident, that when our Adverfaries fpeak of a Temporal Punifhment due to fins committed after Baptifm, for which Punifhment Chrlfl has not fatisfy'd, and which we muft therefore latisfy for, either in this World, or in the World to come ^ I fay, when our Adverfaries fpeak of fuch a re- maining Temporal Punifliment,' they muft, and do mean not a Corre^ive^ but a VindiBi've Punifhment. For, Flrfi^ I have already fhewn, that the Punifhment inflicted upon Man, as confider'd without a Savior, is a Vindiilive Punifhment j and therefore that Pu- nifhment for w^hich Chrifi has not fatisfy'd, is a VtndiBive Punifhment. And confequently, fince Chrifiy according to our Adverfaries Opinion, has not fatisfy'd for the Temporal Punifliment of fins committed after Baptifm ; 'tis manifefl, that the Temporal Punifhment ftill due for them, is a Vin- dlBive Temporal Punifhment. Secondly y If they do not mean a VindiBive Punifhment ,• why then do they talk of the Necef- fity of enduring Miferies in Purgatory ? Whatfo- ever Miferies Souls can endure in that place of Tor- ments, cannot ferve either for the Reformation of thofe Souls, or for the Terror of others : becaufe 'tis granted, that the Souls in Purgatory are fecure of their Salvation ; and that they are not capable of improvement in it. And 'tis plain, that no P 2 other 2 28 Cb.XV. Of Sntisf action. PartIL other Souls can be advantaged by it ; becaufe the. Damned in Hell are irrecoverably loft, and confe-, quently cannot be affrighted into Goodnefs, by the fevereft Examples of God's Juftice. And as for. the Living, 'tis certain, that they do not either fee or hear any thing of the Matter. Now fince neither the Souls themfelves which are fuppos'd to be in Vurgatory^ nor any other perfons_, either groaning in Hell, or living upon Earth, can be correded by the Punifhments in Vtirgatory ,• 'tis plain, that the Punifhment which is there under- gone, muft be, not a Cotre^ivCy but a Vinditli've Punifhment. Eut perhaps I need not have prov'd this point : for I am perfuaded, our Adverfaries will be far from denying what I have fi^id. Nay, they will rather contend, that it muft be a Vlndi- Bi've Punifliment ,• becaufe it cannot otherwife be neceflary by v/ay of SatUfattion to the Juftice of God. Well then ; 'tis granted on both fid^is, that when any Man fms after Baptifm, God may, and we hope he alwaies will, inflid a Corr^<^//%'i'; Temporal Punifhment : if that be expedient, either before the Eternal Punifhment is forgiven, to recall him to his Duty ; or after the Eternal Punifliinent is forgiven, to imprefs a deeper fenfe of the hn upon his Mind, or for any other Ipiritual end. But then our Adver- faries politively atfirm, and we flatly deny. That a Vmdi'dive^^m^oxA Punifhment do's, or ,can remain due for fins committed after Baptiiin ; when the VindiSlive Eternal Punifhment of them is forgiven. Now this naturally leads mc to the Determina- tion of that Controverfy, which is depending be- tween us and our Adverfaries. Both Parties are agreed, i. That both a Temporal and an Eternal Vindiciii;e Punifhment is due to fins committed after Part 11. Of SMisfxaion, Ch. XV. 229 after Baptifm. 2. That Cbrlji has facisfy'd for the Eternal part of this Vimllbil^e Punifliment^ as far as concerns thofe Perfons who have a right and title to his Merits. The Queltion therefore is. Whether Chrift htis alfo fatisfy'd for the Vindlciiuc Temporal PunijlimenC of thofe fins ^ which 7vere committed af- ter Baftifm J the Vindia.ive Eternal T imif.iment of vjhicb is already forgive?} for his Jake. 'Tis granted by our AdverfaricSj that \i Chrift has latisty'd for the VindidHve Temporal Punifliment . of luch Tins ,• then we are not obliged to undergo any Tempo- ral Miferies by way of Siitisficiion for it. And confequently, their Dodrin concerning the Ncr- ceffity of Scitisfatiicn for the Vindictive Temporal Punifhment of fuch fins, falls to the ground. ' Tis granted alfo by our lelves, that if Clmft has not fatisfy'd for thq Vindictive Temporal Punifli- ment of fuch fins 5 then we our felves, or fome per- fon in our ftead, mufl: undergo or fat isfy for it, be- fore we can enter into Heaven ; akho' the Vindi- ctive Eternal Punifliment of fuch fins be aCtually forgiven for Chnfth fake. Here then we mufl: join iflue^ and try whether G^ri/r has fatisfy'd for the Vindii;' even after the -EtfYnal puJ nifhmenc' Of ir r^ ilbrgiV^ti ? ;. "^IV- air, inftyas a One^7;V^ puniflimentj to the end^ that (he iTjight be tJpamdj. Ycr. 14. and that others being warned by her example might not offend after the f^n)^ manner. IS ow ilnce this was a Corre^ivey ajri'4 liot a FW/^rive pimifhment^'.ai proves no- thing, ' ,'■/ 4. 'Tis faid, that altho' God pardon'd the fin of the Ifraelites that niurmijr'd^ Numb. 14, 20, yet. he did not remit the temporal puntfhmentj but pu- iT^fh'd them with d,Q^ih in the Wildernefs^ ^er. 25. " T^ow I confefs;; that if God had inflided m-efant-death upon them^ fuch prefent death cou'd iVqp, "he.; a CcrreSHve punifhment to thofe who ^1^^ Sentenced to it_, becaufe there is no reforma- tion 'in the Grave. But the death inflicted on tF^^m'^.W^.s not prefent death ; only they were to Aic wtthin a certain time^ and fuch a death might well be accounted a Corr^ c7/i/(? punifhment. For J, 'Tis granted^, that it wa? a punifhment ; and therefore, 2. 'Twas a CorreBive puniftiment^ be- caufe they being thus warn'd of it, were thereby naturally led to feripus repentance, and preparation for their latter end. Well then ; the Perfons on whom this death was afterwards inflided, did either repent before tJieir death, or they did not. If they did not re- pent, certainly the Vindidive eternal punifhment Qf their fm was not forgiven j and conlequently^ this inftance do's not reach our prefent Cafe. But if they did repent before their aeath, then their death, that is, the certain expcclacion of it within a-pref)xt time was really dcllgn'd, and in the event 'did truly prove a Corrective punifliment to them. And how then do's the continuance of this, whigh was a Ccirrc^ferpunifhn^ient. prove that a ful :,f: c,., ,-..!.. .....c.rr.. ... vindidive ^J>V/ Part 11. Of Satisfaciion. Ch. XV. 2 j 5 Vindi f. The fameanfwer may be apply 'd to the next Inftance, i^iz.. that oi- Moi'es s^nd J.^rcn ; who tho' they were certainly receiv'd into God's faVor, did nevertheiefs undergo the temporal punilliment of Death' in the Wildernefs ; becaufe they had finned againft God at the Waters of xMerlbah^ Numb. 20, 24. Deut. 32. p. For it appears from Numb, 10. 12. that they were forewarned of their Death ; and confequentiy 'twas not a Vhidu-tiuej but a Cornt'.^i-ve puniftiment, for their own good, and for the inftru* ^li on of others. •' a;: •. s 6. The fame Anfwer may be apply'd alfo to the Inftance of ^David; who after chat the fin of his Adultery with Bathftjcba was foi-given, 2 Saw. 121 'i;. was punifti'd vv^ith the temporal affliction of 4rhe Child's Death, ver. 14. For this was a Corre^ ■U'yve punifliment, to bring him by the love he 4i4re to the Child, and his vmeahnefs at the thought .ii of Partll. OfSatisfa^m, eteXy., 2'J7 of parting with;>it>-to a due, fen(|:;,Q.f,his grea,c Milcarriage.^ ; :;-%^ .,^fj ' , ;^r^ If it be objed;ed, that />^i;/^ thought the Clijllfl^ Death a Vindittinje punifliment^ becaufe he faftecj and pray'd to God_, that it might be.fpar'd ^whereas he wou'd not have endeavor'c} to remove a Qor'T reilive punifhrnent^ which was defign'd for his own good ; I anfwer, that good Men may^ and ofteii do^ pray againft thofe Evils which are very prpC- fingj akho' they be (My fatisfy'd_, that all evits are fent for their advantage. But then they pray with 51 referve^ and do alwaies fuppofe this condi- tion. If God thinks it cofiZ)enienty that the Cal-amity be remo'vd. So that a Man's praying againft a thing fuppofes, i. His own great, Afflidion under the iufFering. 2. His belief, that God may be in- treated to give him eafc, if that eafe may be Fafely and wifely granted him : and thefe two things are to be fuppos'dj when Da^id pray'd. But certainly ,a Man's praying againft a thing do's not fuppofe^ that he thinks it an Evil fent by God's Vindiclive Juftice ^ for that muft and will be latisfy'd ; and therefore 'tis in vain to pra) againft it. ■in a word xhcn^Da^uid knew that if the Child .muft die^ its Death was deiign'd for a Correflive punifhment_, that is^ as a Mercy to him : but if the Mercy defjgn'd him^ might be brought to pafs as 'Wcll by the Child's Life^ as by its Deaths which wou'd be a great Afflidion to' iiim j he earneftly • pray'd that the Child might live. ".:i.>To this I muft add, that the Child's Death was ifj^'^ffary, not only as a CorreBiuc puniftimenc upon David; but alfo as a means to enable him- to re- pair the iiijury he had done to Religion by his ex- a,mple_, bccauie he had give?} great occafion to the .(mwies of the Lord do hlafphe?}7e ^ ver. 14. Now •,*u a Sin- ij8 Ch. XV. Of Sathfamon. ^artlf* a Sinner is obliged by the Rules of Common Juftice; to redify the miftakes of thofe^ whom he had led into Error and Sin. And therefore, fmce Men wou'd be tempted to think, that if God had dealt fo very kindly with Da^id, he wou'd eafily pardon them alfo, if they fhou'd commit the fame Crime ; 'twas very fit, that Da^vid fliould teach them an- other Lenbn, by bearing fo great a lofs before theii* Eyes. Thus the very fame Misfortune was cor- redive to Da^vid himfelf, and inftrudive to others. 7. They tell us, that when Da^id had fmned by numbring the People, he was punifh'd with a Peftilence, even after his fin was pardoned, 2 Saw. 24. But I anfwer, i. That it do's not appear, that David's fm was forgiven before the puniftiment was over. 2. That this was alfo a Corre^ive punifh- ment, that by the greatnefs of the Calamity he might fully underftand the greatnefs of his Crime, and be proportionably forrowful for it. 8. Tho' I grant, that the Prophet who dar'd to eat and drink contrary to God's Command, i Kings i;. did heartily repent, and was forgiven by God; yet I deny that his being afterwards flain by the Lion, was a VindiEHnje punifliment. For he being affur'd of his Death bv the old Prophet, was there- by acquainted with the greatnefs of the fin he had committed, and alfo led to a greater and more ferious Repentance ; and therefore the certainty of his Death was a CorreBive punifliment to him. Be- fides, his Calamity was alfo inftrudive to others ; and therefore it cannot be faid, that it was brought upon him, only as a Vindiciive punifliment, merely to fatisfy the Vengeance of God. 9. The laft Inftance is that of the Corinthians^ to whom St. Vaul writes thus , For this caufe (viz. for eating and drinking unworthily) many are weak I ■part II. OfSdiisfdiiorr Ch.XV. '^^ and fickly among you ^ and many Jlee'py i Cor. tl. 50. But the Apoftle tells them the reafon of this t)il- nifhment in the following Vcrfes^ faying, For tfrwe VJotid judge our [elves ^ ive [hcud not he judg'd,' But "v^hen we are jttdgd^ ive are chafiend of the' LorJ, that we jhould not he condemn d with the World, Fr'Otn hence it is plain they underwent (not a V'mdiSiive but) a Corre^ive punifliment. Some were purlifh'd with Sicknefs only ; but others dy'd after they hail endur'd a Difeafe. And tho' the adual ftroke qf Death cou'd not amend their Lives ; yet the cer- tainty of ic^ and the Sicknefs which brought them to it, did : and then their Death became a Mercy ^to them. Thus then it appears, that the inftances produc'd by our Adverfaries do not prove, that the Vindidive Temporal Punifliment or Sins com- mitted after Baptifm, do's remain due, when the Vindictive Eternal Punifliment of them is forgiven for Chrifs fake. Secondly^ There is no Text which teaches this Dodrin : nor indeed is there any Text alledg*d by our Adverfaries for that purpofe. And there- fore I conclude, that the Scriptures do not teach this Dodrin at all. II. The Scriptures do not teach ^ that we tnay^ or ought to fatisfy for the VlndiBtve Temporal punijh^ went of (ins committed after Baptifm^ when the Vin^ diBive Eternal punijlnnent of them is forgiven for Chrift'x fake. This will appear by the Examina- tion of thofe Places, which are thought to teach it. For, I. We read, that hy Mercy and Truth iniquity is furg^d : and hy the fear of the Lord men depart from evil^ Prov. 16. 6. That is, by the pradice of Mercy and Truth, the Wickednefs of a Man (or the Pu- nifliment due to his Wickednefs) is done away : and by ^4P CIi.XV. Of Satisfacfjon. Partly. by fearing God, or being afraid to difpleafe him. Men leave thofe evil courfes, which if they conti- nue in, they will certainly difpleafe him. Now /tis urg'd by our Adverfaries, that the word which we tranllate ftirgd^ is tranllaied redeemed by the 'Vulgar Latin ^ and if a Man may redeem his Sins^ 'certainly he may fatisfy for them. In anfwer to jthis, I fhall not (tho' 1 juftly might) criticize up- ion the Hebrew Word, and fhew that it fignifics tp ■ cover^ or hlde^ or furge away. But let the word '{\gm{y redeem' d 'j fince our Adverfaries can make 'no advantage of that Signification of it. For what ^do's redeem us from that Eternal punifliment of ,Wickednefs, but the Death of Chrlfi ? And fhall" 'any Man be redeemed from that punifhment, with- ^out the pradice of Mercy and Truth ? 'Tis plain (even upon the greateft Conceflions to our Adver- Taries) that thefe words cannot poffibly fignify more, than that if we lead good lives, we ihall not be punifh'd for our Iniquity. And for what rea- fon, I pray ? Even becaufe Chrift has fatisfy'd for the punifliment of the Sins of thofe perfons who repent, and lead good lives. But here is not one fyllable fpoken of our own fatisfying for a Tem- poral punifliment, when the Erem^il punifliment is forgiven , unlefs our Adverfaries will add to the "Text, and read it thus, By Mercy r.nd Truth^ the remaining Temporal punijlr,ncnt of iniquity is redeerrid by our own SatisfaUion ,• as the Eternal punijliment of the fame iniquity was forgiven before for the fake of Chrift.' "'"'' ' ' • . 2. God fpeaks to the Children of Ifrael by the Trophet Ifaiah^ faying, Wi.jl-) ye^ make you cltan^ put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes^ ceafe to do evil^ learn to do wcllj feek judgment^ rf- lieve the cpprejjed^ jf^dge the fatherlejs^ plead for the '" ^" ' widow. Part II. Of SatisfaUion. Ch.XV. 241 wdoiv» Come no^iv^ a^d le^ us reafon together^ faith the Lord; tho' jour fi^:s be as fcarkt^ they jhall be «7j v:>hite as fiiow ; tho they be red like cri-mfon^ they jliall be as wool; Ifaiah i. 163 17, x8. God pro- mifeth, that if they wou'd do thofe things rnen- tion'd by the Prophet, he wou'd forgiv-^ their fins. But do's he fay or fuppoic, that the Eternal punifh- ment is already foi >.^;iven_, whether rhey do theni_, or no j and that thelb things muft be done by way of Satisfa(5tion for the Tewpor^/ punifhment of their (ins ? If not ; then u hy do our Adverfaries bring this Text as a Proofs that we may iatisfy for the Temporal punifliment of our fins^ when the Eternal punifliment is ah'cady forgiven ? 'Tis plain^ that thefc words are the condition of their Eternal Sal- vation^ and of God's Temporal Mercies to that People ; and that they do not fuppofe the Jeivs to be ah'eady pardon'd^ and in the favor of God ^ as our Adverfaries muft fuppofe^ if they think this Argument any thing to the purpofe. 3. God faies^ At what Infiant I jlmll [peak concern^ ing a Nation^ and concernwg a Kingdom^ to pluck up^ and to pull downy and to defiroy it : If that Nation againfl whom I ha^ue pronouncd^ turn from their evily I will repent of the e'vil that I thought to do unto thewy Jerem. 18. 7^ 8. That is^ When God threatens a Nation for its fms, if that Nation amend and grow better before the threatning be executed^ then God will fpare that Nation^ and not execute what he had threatned. But which way will our Adverfaries prove from thisText^ that when a Man has left his fms^ and God has refolv'd not to damn him for them : yet even then the Man may^or muft undergo fome Temporal punifiiments to fatisfy God's Juftice, before he can enjoy the benefit of his pardon ? Q We 2-42^ Ch. XV. Of Satisfd5tion. Part II. We are told^ I confefs3 that the original Words which fignify Turn from their E'vil^ are t ran dated Tanitentiam agere^ by the vulgar Latin. But fup- pofe that the Original and the Tranflation differ, or that the Expreffions of the one do import more, than thofe of the other ,• 1 pray, fliall we ftand by the Original, or by the Tranflation ? However, fuppofe we were to ftand by the Tranflation, yet Txnitentiam agere do'i not fignify. To undergo Ttm- foral punijl)wents for fin^ when the Eternal funijhnjent IS forgiven. Yes, fay they, Tcenitentiam agere fig- nifies to repent ; and one part of repentance, is to undergo Temporal punijhment for fins ^ e^uen v^hen the Eternal punijhment if forgiven. But we never thought that Vcenitentiam agere did in Scripture phrafe im- ply fufftring a Teryiporal Tunifliment for fin ; for then how cou'd God Vanitentiam agere^ as their belov'd vulgar Latin fays He may, in this verfe, and in the next but one of the fame Chapter ? 4. When the judgments of God were about to fall upon that wicked Prince Nebuchadnez^zjiry the Prophet Daniel advis'd him, faying, O King^ let my cotmfel he acceptable unto thee^ and break off thy fins by righteoufnejsy and thine iniquities by jewing mercy to the poor ^ if it may be a lengthning of thy Tranquillity ; Dan. 4. 27. From hence our Adver- faries endeavor to prove, that a Man may fatisfy for the Temporal punifhment of his fins. But this Inftance is noching to the purpofe, unlefs our Adverfaries can (hew, that Nehuchadnez^zars Eter- nal punifhment was already pardon d, for that is always to be fuppos'd ; becaufe our Adverfaries themfelves do grant, that no Man can fatisfy for the Temporal punifhment of his fins, whilft by continuing in his fins, he continues liable to Eternal torments. And therefore fince Nebuchadnez,z>ar was far Part II. Of Satisfaction. Ch. XV. 24 j far from being reconcii'd to God*s favor^ thefe words of the Prophet cannot import, what our Ad- verfaries wou'd willingly underftand by them. Now the plain fenfe of Daniel was this. He knew the King's Vices^ and was aware of the great Mi- feries he was now about to fuffer, by the juft judg- ment and fiery indignation of God. Therefore he gives him fuch Advice^ as was proper in thofe cir- cumftances j that is^ to endeavor by a fpeedy Re- pentance to be reconciled to God^ that his Conver- lion might prevent his grievous Calamities. Now Right eoufnefs and flieiving Mercy to the poor^ were proper figns of fuch a Man's Reformation; and therefore Daniel exhorts him to them. But cer- tainly the Prophet wou'd not advife him in the firft place to atone for the Temporal punifliment ; efpecially fince that wou'd not fatisfy the juft wrath of God. No; he directs him to abetter method, to make God his real friend_, by entering upon a new courfe of Life. If it be objededj that the word which we render break off^ do's alfo fignify redeem ; and confequently, if a Man may redeem his fins, much more may he A^n/7 for them ; I anfwer, that tho' both fig- nifications be admitted, yet, i. our Adverfaries can- not prove, that our Interpretation of it is improper in this place ; and therefore, the bare fenfe of this word cannot be infifted on by either of us ; 2. fince *tis plain, that Nebuchadnez,z,ar had not repented, I wou'd fain know, by what method he cou'd redeem or fatisfy for the punifliment of his fins. Certainly, by Repentance only ,* and confequently this Expreffion is an exhortation to Repentance. But if our Adverfaries wou'd prove their own Do- <5trin from this Text, they ought to fhew, that Daniel told Nchuchadne'z,z,ar , that after he had Q 2 made 244 Ch.XV. Of Sathfa[iior7. PartIL made his peace with God by becoming a new Man, there was a certain portion o( Temporal ca- lamities to be undergone by him^ as a Vindi^ivt Temporal punifhment j not in order to his further amendment^ but only to fatisfy God's Juftice : whereas 'tis plain^ that this paffage do's not relate or fuppofe any fuch Matter. 5:. Becaufe God fpar'd NineveJo^ when it repented in fackcloth and afhes^ Jonah o^. our Adverfaries wou'd perfuade us^ that their failing and mortifi- cation was a fatisfanion for the Temporal punifti- ment of their fins. Now thefe outward actions were only the figns of that great inward forrow and thorow Reformationj for which God was pleas'd to pardon them. But there is not one word ipoken of any fatisfaBion made by them for a pretended Vindictive Temporal punifhment, which according to our Adverfaries^ remain'd due after God had feal'd ' their Pardon. Befides^ it is worth obferving^ that God is not faid to have repented of the e'vil^ that he had [aid he 7voud do unto them^ till after they had failed in fackcloth and afhes. So that the works of Mortifica- tion were not. 2. fatlsfaBion for fomething remaining after they were pardon'd ; but were all perform'd before they were pardon'd. Nor do we read^ that they continu'd their Mortifications^ after God had forgiven them. 6. When many Vharlfccs and Saduces came to fohit to be baptized, he knowing their hypocrify, laid unto them^ O generatm% of 'vipers^ ivho hath war^ ned you to fee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth therefore^ if you defign to obtain the benefits of my Baptifm^ fuch fuits as are 7?7eet for repentance 'y I mean the fruits of good Works^ by which a good tree is known^ and by which alone you (liall ab- tain Partir. Of Satisfaction. Ch.XV. 245 . tain the pardon of your fins. And think not to fay 'ivit bin your [elves ^ We have Abraham to our Father^ as if your being defcended from Ahraha?f7^ wou'd entitle you to God's favor^ without the trouble of an holy Life ^ for I fay unto you^ that God 15 able of thefe fiones to raije up children unto Abraham , Matih. 3. 7^ 85 9. But furely here is nothing faid of Works of fatisfaElion for the . Temporal punifh- ment of lln^ after the Eternal puniQiment is for- given I unlefs the good deeds of Juftice and Cha- rity^&c. be fuch works o^ jatisfiBion. But 'tis plain3 that Chriftian Duties are the indil'penfable condi- tions of the Pardon of our Eternal punifhment : and not works of fatisfiBion for the Temporal pu- nifhment^ after that the Eteritd punifliment is for- given. 7. A certain Vharifee that had invited our Savior to dinner, wondred that our Lord had not fir jh vjajlo'd before dinner ^ Luke ii. 7,^, And the Lord j aid unto hiWy Now do ye Pharifees make clean the outfide of the Cup a7jd the platter: but. your in7Vard part is full of ravening and v/tckednefs^ verf. 39. Then he pro- ceeds to tell him^ that true purity do's not confift in wafhings and cleandngs^ but in inward Righteouf- nefs ; and that whilft the Vharifees continu'd in the practice of Injuftice, 'twas in vain for them to think to make themfelves pure by the obfervance of fuch outward cuftoms. Te fools ^ faies he, did -not he that made that which is vjithcut^ make that which is 7uithin alfo i But rather give alms of fuch things as you have-^ beftow your ill-gotten goods upon the poor^ and do not keep the riches which you have un- juftly fcrap'd together : and then, when you have left this heinous Vice, your darling Sin, behold^ all things are clean unto jou^ verf. 40, 41. The bare mention of the Context is an abundant proof, Q 3 that 246 Ch.XV. Of Satisfaction. Part IL that thefe laft words do not, and cannot relate to the Dod:rin of Satisfaction for the Temporal pu- nifhment of fins already pardon'd, and confequent- ly this Argument is utterly impertinent. 8. It pleafes God fometimes, by fending a judg- ment upon an obftinate and hardened Sinner, to awaken him to true repentance ; But^ as the Apo- file faies, i Cor. 11. 31, 52. // v;e woud judge our fehesy and impartially confider the ilate and danger of our Souls, and repent accordingly, Tve jlwud not he j^idgd. But when ive are judgd^ we are chafiened of the Lord^ that 7ve [bond not be condemn d 7vith the World, Which way is it poffi- ble for our Adverfaries to prove their Dodrin of SatisfaBicn from this Text ? Is this good ar- guing, God fometimes brings a Sinner to Repentance by affliBing him , and this he do s to fre'vent his damnation : Therefore when a Maii s fins art for-' given and he is fecurd from damnation^ he mujt undergo fome temporal punifljment for his fins ^ mere^ ly to fatisfy God's Jufiice ? 9. What St. Tatil had faid in his former Epiftle to the Corinthians^ had made them forry after a Godly manner y for they fcrrowed to repentance^ 2 Cor. 7. 9. This the Apoftle proves to them by the effects of their forrow. For behold^ this (elf- fame thing that ye Jorrowed after a Godly forty what care^ fulnefs it wrought in you ; yea^ what clearing of pur felves y yea^ what indignation ^ yea^ what fear ; yea^ what vehement defire • yea^ what z,eal ; jea^ what revenge ? in all thefe things ye have approved your felves to be now clear in this matter^ becaufc ye have fo heartily repented of it, verfe 1 1 . And how then can our Adverfaries argue from this place, which fpeaks of the inftances and figns of true re- pentan-ce, without which they cou'd not be for- given { P^rtll. Of SAtisfamon. Ch.XV. 247 given ,• that Men are obliged to endure temporal pains after their fins are forgiven? Yes^ fay they, for their forrow wrought re- 'venge^ that is^ a revenge upon themfelves by way of SatisfaBion for the temporal punifhment^ after the eternal punifhment was forgiven. But this Comment do's not explain^ but add to the Text : for St. Vatil faies no fuch thing. And certainly Men may by Severities and other Ads (if I may fo fpeak) of felf- revenge, endeavor to reftrain themfelves from fin more effectually for the fu- ture, without any opinion of making Satisfa^ion for a temporal punifhment, which is vainly fup- pos'd to remain after the eternal punifhment is for- given. I may add, that the word Revenge has in all pro- bability a refped to the Church-cenfure infli- ded upon the Sinner ; and confequently, it can- not refped any Satiifa^ion made after the Sin- ner's Reconciliation to the Church, and Pardon from God. 10. I muft now proceed to an Argument drawn from the Mofak Sacrifices, Our Adverfaries tell us, that the Legal Sacrifices were SatisfaBions to the Juftice of God for the Temporal punifhment of fms j for otherwife they were Inftituted in vain, becaufe 'tis certain that they did not fatisfy for the Eternal punifliment of fins. To this I an- fwer, I. That tho' fome temporal Sat'ufaBion were required by a pofitive Precept under the Mofaic Law 5 yet it will not follow, that any fuch Satif. fatUon is now requir'd under the Gofpel, wherein we have no fuch pofitive Precept. 2. The Le- gal Sacrifices were not Satisfatlions for any tem- poral punifhment ; but were injoin'd by God (who may injoin what he pleafes j and whofe ipjundions Q4 tho* 248 Ch:XV. Of Sawfac^iorj. Part II. tho' never fo arbitrary," 'tis' a fin to difobey) I fay, rhey \yere injoin'd.l)y God, as Types and Figures of 'that full and complete ^atisfaStion to be rniide hereafter by our Savior Chrifi, So that the end"- of their Inftitution was very apparent and ufefuly altho' nothing of ^atjsf action- were intended by them. . - ry'^^'^^^ ^ - r^i.in. ^^ If it be 'faid, that different fms had Different Sacrifices, which intimates a differerir meafure of SiijhfjBhn ; • I anfwer, that God might appoint what Sacrifices he thought good for particular Crimes: buf this, do's not prove, that all thofe Sacrifices 'Were not Types ' of Cbrifi^s Sathfacl'ion ; much lefs'do*s ir prove, that' thofe Sacrifices were required as Satiifaciions to God's Juflicc^ for a tcm-^ poral punifhment in particular. ^ ' ■>'• ■: But in a word, this argutilent is wholly imper- tinent, becaufe thefe Sacrifices were fo neciellary under the Jewifli Law, that the Man wou'd be damn'd who did not perform them ,• and confe- quently, they mufb be perform'd as a condition of the Pardon of fms : whereas we are now difputing of fnCh.SatisfacIionsj as* are to be made after the fin is actually forgiven. ii» if it' be faid, th^.t we m2.y Merit eternal Life, and confequently we may Satisfy for the temporal punifhment of our fins ; I anfwer. That I fhall examin and' difprove the Popijh DocStrin of A4erip in the-i8;/j Chapter, and in the mean while I de- fire-the-R'eader not to make one falfe Dodrin the proof oFanother. Thus then I have ihewn, i. Th^t the Scriptures Jo not tedch y- that the VindiB I've temporal funijli- ■rnent of [ins committed after Baptifm^ the Viiidiftive eternal fmi^ment of 'ivhich is already forgi^uen for ChnA^^fike^ do's ft ill remain due, 2v That the V . -^ Scriptures Part II. Of Purgatory. Ch. XVL 249 Scriptures do not tencJj , that we may 3 or ought to fatisfy for the Vindi^ive Temporal funijiiment of fins committed after Baptijm 3 when the Vin- di^ive Eternal pu^ii^iment is forgi'uen for Chrift'j fake, I fhall not Jetermin^ whether we are able to fatisfy for fuch a Temporal punifhmentj if it did remain due ,• becaufe I think it needlefs. How- ever, fmce we are not commanded to make /^//P faEiion for it , nay^ fmce there is no fuch punifli- ment remaining due, for which we may pretend to fatisfy ; 'tis plain, that the Foftfl) Dodrin concern- ing the Necejfity of fuch facisfadion is utterly groundlefs. And confequently, this is another in- -ftance of fomething not taught in the Scriptures, which the Church of Rome impofes as neceflary to Salvation. CHAP. XVL Of Purgatory. IN the 19?^ Article of the P^/J/jfc Creed we have thefe Words, I do firmly believe that there is a Purgatory. From whence it is plain, that every Member of the Church of Rome, is obliged to be- lieve that there is a Purgatory^ upon pain of Dam- nation. Whereas 1 fhall fhew that the Belief of a Purgatory is utterly groundlefs, ic having no foun- dation either in Scripture orReafon. I fhall not nicely inquire into the Nature of Purgatory^ or endeavor to determin wherein the cleanfing Virtue of it do's confift, according to the Opinion of our Adverfaries, or what fort of Tor- ments 5 50 Ch. XVI. Of Purgatory. Part II. ifients the Souls therein detained are fuppos'd to undergo, before they can have fatisfy'd for the re- maining part of the Temporal puniihment of their Sins, and be made pure enough for the Kingdom ' of Heaven. 'Tis fufficient to obferve, that our Adverfaries are agreed, that Purgatory is a cer- tain place in which the Souls of thofe Men, who die in God's favor, and have a certainty of cheir Salvation, are detain'd for fome time, till they have latisfy'd for that part of the Temporal punifhment jof their Sins, which they did not fatisfy for upon Earth. They tell us indeeed, that thofe perfons, who made a full fatisfa^lion for fuch Temporal pu- nifhment during their Life-time, do go immedi- ately to Heaven : but that thofe,whofe fatisfadion was not complete, are conftrain'd to finiiji ic in Turgatory. Now I have already fhewn in the forSr^omg Chapter, that there is no VtndiBi^e Temporal pu- niihment due to Sin, after the Eternal punifhment of it is forgiven : And confequently there is no manner of neceffity, that Souls fhou'd go to Turgatoryy for the payment of any part of fuch punifhment. The Souls that are tent to Vurgntory by our Adverfaries, are reconciled to God tltro* Chrlfi ,- and the time of their farther amendment, if any fuch were needful, is already pafs'd : why then fiiou'd they be tormented merely for Tor- ments fake \ Chrifi has fully fatisfy'd for all our V'lnd'tBive punifhment ,* and a CorreBi^e . punifh- ment is granted to be then impoffible : and why then Ihou'd Men be punifh'd at all ? Thus by overthrowing the Popijh Dodrin of SatisfaBlon^ I have rooted up the main Foundations, and thrown 4own the Pillars of Purgatory. Eut Part 11. Of Purgatory. Ch. XVI. 2 5 1 But tho' this imaginary place of Torments is ut- terly needlefs, for the reafon already affign'd ; yet our Adverfaries do perfift in afferting the reality of it, Nay^ they pretend to prove from Scripture, that thofe Holy Souls^ which they fuppofe to be not perfedrly cleans'd^ do iiiffer pains^ before they are admitted into Heaven. But we utterly deny, that the Scriptures do inform us of any fuch place, wherein thofe who die in the Lord, are forc'd to undergo Torments by way of preparation for their future Happinefs. I fhall not endeavor to prove^ that the Holy Scriptures do condemn this Dodrin of Purgatory : becaufe it may juftly feem ridiculous for a Man to labour with a train of ferious Arguments to con* fute a Dream. 'Tis fufficient if I make it appear, that 'tis a groundlefs Notion ; and this I fliall do^ by examining the pretended Proofs of it. I. They tell us, that the Men of Jahejlj-Gilead fafted feven days for Saul^ i Sam. 31. 13. 'Tis true, when th^ Vhilifiines c^mt to ftrip thofe that were flain in the Battel, wherein Saul and Jona-- than were kill'd, they found Saul and his three Sons fallen in mount Gilboa. And they cut off his head^ and fiript off his armour^ and fent into the land of the Philiftines round about ^ to publijh it in the Houje of their Uols^ and among the Feople. And they put his armour in the HouJe of Afhtaroth, and they far fiened his body to the Wall ealthy place. Do's this look like a defcription of Purgatory ? Are thofe poor Souls to be affrighted with the noife of horfes trampling over their heads ? I wonder our Adverfaries do not alfo think this Text an evi- dent proof, that Purgatory lies under the Earthy becaufe Men are faid to ride over the heads of the Souls in Purgatory. But I muft proceed. 4. When tiie People of Ifiael had finned very grievouily, the Prophet Ijaiah threatens that their wickednefs fhou*d be the dcftrudion of them ; and God fliou'd caufe the fruits of their own doings to confume them. For wickednefs bnrneth as the fire : it fiiall devour the briars and thorns^ that iSj thofe wicked People, who have by their iniquities made themfelves fuel ,• and jhall kindle in the thickets of the Forefls^ and they jhall ?k2omit up like the lift- ing up of fmoak. Thro the wrath of the Lord of hofls is the la?}d darkncd^ and the People jiiall be as the -254 Ch.XVr. Of Purgatory. Part If. the fuel of it be fire : no Man jhall fpare his brother. And he Jl)all [natch on the right hand^ and be htmgry 5* and he jhall eat on the left hand^ and they fljall not ie fatisfy d : they jlmll eat e'uery man the fieflj of his own arm ; Ifai. 9. 18^ 19,20. But do's the Pro- phet here defcribe the pains of Vurgatory ? Is it one of the torments of thofe imprifoned Souls^ to devour Man's Flefh, and to eat themfelves, even when they have no Bodies ? Nay, he tells them that even thefe forrovvs fhall not excite God's compaffion towards them. For all this^ fays he, his anger is not turn d away^ but his hand is fir etched cutfiilly ver. 21. But will not the miferies of the Souls in Purgatory appeafe God's wrath ? Muft they be fent thither to fufFer, that God's Juftice imay be fatisfy'd ; and will not God be fatisfy'd notwithftanding .'* Surely, our Adverfaries are not in earneft, when they ufe fuch Arguments. 'Tis evi- dent, that Ifaiah delcribes the calamities of Ifrael, in a figurative manner : but how thefe Expreffions do relate to Purgatory ^ I cannot conceive. ^. Jerufaltm^ who had finned very grievoufly, and was feverely punifli'd for it, fays to Babylon her profefs'd enemy, Rejcyce not againfi me^ O mine enemy ; V'hcn I fally I floall arife ,• when I fit in dark- tie fs^ the Lord Jluill be a light mito me, I will bear the indignation of the Lordy becaufe I have finned a^ gain(t him^ until upon my true repentance he be- come my friend, and plead my caufe^ and execute judgment for me : he will then bring me forth to the light J and I jhall again behold his righteo4ifnefs ^ and fee profperity. Then jhe that is mine enemy fhall fee ity and jliame jimll co'vtr her face which faid un- to me in the time of my afiiiilion for my fins. Where is the Lord thy God? Mine eyes fhall behold her ; nj-u^ fiull jh: her felf be thrown down as the mtrc Part II. Of Purgatory. Cli.XVI. 25$ wireofthefireets; and then fliall Ihc have no rei^ fon to infult over me ,- Mlcah 7. 8^ 9^ 10. Now can any impartial Reader believe^ that the Pro- phet do's in thefe words defcribe the afflidions of the Souls in Purgatory ? 6. Zachary fpeaks of the miferable condition of the Children of Ziotiy under the Name of a fit wherein is rto water ^ that is^ no refrefliment or com- fortj Cbap,^, II. and our Adverfaries are refolv'd to think, that he means nothing lefs than Purga^ tory by it. It feems, whenever we meet with Fire or Water^ we are to underftand it of Purgatory ; tho' the Writer do not fpeak a Syllable, that may be juftly efteem'd to hint at fuch a place. The bare mentioning of this Argument is a confutation of it. 7. Malachi tells US, that the Meffenger of the Covenant (hall fuddenly come to his Temple, Chap. 3. I. And he fjall fit as a refiner of fil'ver ,* anct he jlrall furify the fans of Levi, and purge them as gold and filver^ that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteoufnefs , verf. :;. That IS, Chrifi ftiall teach his followers purity of heart, and fince- rity, and purge away the drofs of carnal Ordinan^ ces, that they may offer to God fuch fervices as are truly acceptable to him. And, Then fliall the offering of Judah and Jerufalem be fleafant unto the Lordy as in the dates of oldy and as in former years ^ ver. 4. But the Prophet do's not fay, or evert intimate, that the Souls of fuch as die in the Lord muft be reftn'd in Purgatory^ as our Adverfaries wou'd perfuade us. 8. Our Savior had been injoining thofe, that heard him upon the Mount, to ufe all poffible en- deavors to be reconciled to thofe, whom they had oifendcd ^ and ordered them not to offer up theif Prayers. 256 Ch. XVI. Of Purgatory. Part IT. Prayers till they were adually reconcil'd. And then, that He might ihew the heinoufnefs of giving juft offence, and not making fatisfadion formic, he fpeaks thefe words, Agree with thine Adwfary^ that is, him whom thou haft made thine Adver- fary by offending him, whilllr thou art in the way with him^ travelling indeed towards eternity, but not yet come to the end of thy journey ,• lefi at any time the Adz'erfary deli'ver thee to my feif who Ihall be the Judge at the laft day, and the Judge deliver thee to the Officer^ even the Devil, who Ihall hereafter drag wicked Souls to Hell, and thou he cafi into prifony into that dreadful prifon which is full of exquifite and eternal torments. Veril/^ I fay unto thee^ thou jhalt by no means come out thence y till thou hafi paid the utter mofi farthings Matth. ^.25',26. From thefe laft words our Adver- faries wou'd fain prove a Purgatory • becaufe 'tis faid, that the Man fiiall not come out of the Pri- fon, till he has paid the uttermojt farthing. Now they fuppofe, that the uttermofi farthing fignifies all the remaining part of the temporal punifhment due to our fins ; and that the Prifon in which the payment is made, is what they call Purgatory; and that a Soul may be delivered out of this Pri- fon oiVurgatoryy after fuch payment is made. But this Text is miferabiy perverted ,• for I fliall fhew that the Prifon mention'd by our Savior cannot fignify the pretended Prifon of Furgatory^ out of which pur Adverfarles do fuppofe it poflible for the Prifonersto be redeem'd j but it fignifies the Prifon of Helly wherein thofe accurfed Souls that die in their fins, muft abide and be tormented for- e.yer. r i'Tis granted by our Adverfaries, that none do go to Turgatorj^ but fuch as die in God's favor ; and Partir: 0/P/^^^^gV/i^ CFi.Xvr.) 2 57 and tk^t thofe who die- in' damnable 'frrr^ do go to Hell^ nnd are there irrecoverably loft. Now 'cis contefsM that uncharitablenefs-is a. damnable iln^ and that thofe who die ia the. guilt of: iir, rnuft certainlv perifli. And therefoce^dncc lit. is plain, that uui Savior fpeaks, of fuci-ua iPcrfonj as died iti the guilt of hncharkabltjnefs, rbe-clufe he had hot made Peace with his Neighbor, before his death ; and fince. the guilty Perfon': is faid to" be deliver'd over to the Judge^ and by him to the Officer, and to be adlually imprifon'd for that fault ; 'tis certain, that the Prifon he is commit- ted to mufl fignify H^'^^ which is the Prifon of all lucii unrepenting Simiers. But how do's all this make for Furgatory ?, Do's our S-avigr fay, that the uncharitable Perfon did re-: pent, and was pardon'd by that Judge, to whom' the Adverfary had deliverd him oyer^ anid than the Judge deliver'd him over to the Officer, only for the. payment of fome fmall remainder of tem- poral pains ? No; 'tis manifeft^ that he faies th& contrary. He fuppofes the Perfon to be condemn'd by the Judge, and that He was deliver'd to the Officer, and caft into Prifon, that he might be there idetain'd till he fhou'd pay all that was due, not the lead part of his Debt being difcliarged either by himfelf, or by another Perfon. So that the Parable points at an obftinate Sinner dying without repentance, and utterly deftitute of any hopes of mercy ; whercfas our Adverfaries wou'd perfuade us, that it fpeaks of a good Chriftian, dy-* ing truly penitent, and in an abfolute certainty of his SlWation. And confcquently, the Parable fpeaks of a Perfon, that cannot pollibly be. impri- fon'd lia P^r^^^or;, but muft of neceffity be in Hell,^gQording to our Adverfaries own principles. : ■ K If 258 Ch.XVI. Of Purgatory. Partll. If it be objeded, that the Text faies exprefly, thou fihih by no means come out thence^ till thou haft ^aid the Httermoft farthing ; and confequently, that the words do imply a poflibilicy of paying the uttermoft farthings and being free upon the payment of it : whereas 'tis impoffible that a Man can be freed from Hell ; and therefore the Prifon muft denote Purgatory ^ out of which our Adver- faries think it poffible to be freed. If I fay, this be objeded ; I anlwer^ that thefe words do not imply a poffibility of efcaping out of that Prifon, but are a declaration of the impofiibility of it. Thou pah by no means come out thence ^ till thou haft faid the utter?r.oft farthings that is, thou ftialt never come out. Becaufe thy Debt is infinite, and thou haft no fhare of a Savior's fufferings, and thou thy felf canft not fatisfy for it , and therefore it can never be paid>, but thou fhalt be tormented for- ever for it. This place may be explained by ano- ther, which is parallel to it. Our Savior faies, chat the Lord of that Marn wlio had not : corapaf- fion on his 'Fellow-Servant, deiizfered him to the Torment ers, till he Jliotdd fay all that was Auennto bim, Matth. 18. 34. Kow ^tis plain^ thatit was impoflible for him to pay the' Debt, becaufe we are told th2Lt he' had not to pay, verfe 25". And confequently, his being torinented till he fliou'd pay all the debt, (igniftes that he fhou'd be tor- mented forever, becaufe he jfhou'd never pay it. 9. Our Savior faies, that '^vhofoever Jpeaketb if- gainft. the Holy Ghoft, it jlmll not be forgi'ven him^ neither in this WWld^ nor in the fP'orld to come^ Matth. 12. 52. From whence our Adverfaries in- fer, that there are fome (rns which may be for^ given in the World to come ,' and fmce the fms of thofe that are in Hell fliall not be forgiven, there- fore Part IL Of Pf4rgatoyy. Ch. XVL 2 59 fore b)'' the World to come we muft underfland Purgatory, in which they think that fome fins may- be forgiven. But we appeal to the other Evan- gelifts for the true explication of this Text. St. Mark faieSj He that f,}all blaffheme againfi the Ho- ly Ghofiy hath never forglvenefs^ hut is in danger of eternal damnation, chap. 3. 29, And St. Luke faies_, Unto him that hlaffhemeth agaiiifl the Holy Ghofi, it jhall not be forgiven^ chap. 12. 10. Thefe paffages of St. Mark and St. Luke do plainly relate to the very fame thing with that of St. Matthew ; and by comparing them together we cannot but fee, that being forgiven neither in this World, nor in the World to €ome can llgnify no more than mt being forgiven at all. Now if our Savior's words as related by St. Matthew do import no more, than that the fin againft the Holy Ghoft fhall never be for- given ^ I pray^ how can they prove a Turgatory ? Surely no body will argue thus ; There is a fin which (hall never be forgiven^ and therefore there is a place of torment for the Souls of thofe Per- fons whofe fins are already forgiven. But fuppofe this be not the meaning of that Phrafe ^ fuppofe fome fins may be forgiven after death ,• yet this is no Proof of a Turgatory, For the queftion between us and our Adverfaries is not, whether God may forgive fome fins after deathj or no. But the queftion is this^ whether thofe PerfonSj whofe fins are already forgiven, and who are reconciled to God by true repentance^ are neverthelefs to endure fome pains in Purgatory^ as a fatisfadion to the Juftice of God for the temporal punifhment of thofe fins which are al- ready forgiven. 'Tis true, both fides have been hitherto agreed, that none fhall be pardoned here- after, whofe Pardon is not Seal'd in Heaven, be- R 2 fore 26o Ch.XVf. Of Purgatory. Part II. fore they go hence and be no more feen : and if this opinion be falle^ we are equally obliged to retrad it. But be it granted that this opinion is utterly falfe^ yet it will not follow^ that the Do- d:rine of Furgatory is true. For we cannot con- clude^ that thofe who die in God's favor, may be, or mud be tormented in a place call'd Furgatory ; becaulc fome that died in a (late of rebellion a- gainil him, may be recon.cil'd to his favor after death. _ _ 10. St. Tcid faies,, If_,$ny M^ns work'flhill he humt^ Joe fiull jtifftr lofs : hut ke , kimfelfftjall he fuz'\l ; Jit Jo as hj fircy i Cor. 5- ^ 5"- ^^^ ^" thefe words our Adverfaries think they have efpy'd a Furga^ tory, Becaufe 'tis cxprefly laid, zh-Atthe' Ahn jhuli he /..i;*^,, and yet he fhal.l be fav'd Co as.hy fire ; that is, fay they, he mull pafs thro' the fire of Furgcttry^ before he can enter into Heaven, the only place and habitation of thofe that ihall be fav'd. But this Text is; nothing to the purpofe ; ard k may be uig'd with as much reafon for the proof of Tranjuhftf-iyitidtio?}^ as of, a Furgatory, This^ I fhall make appear by fhewing, i. What is the true meaning of thefe Words, 2. That 'tis v-iipcllible. to, interpret chem ofa Furgatory fire.,/;.^~v[7i • f, ' r.f. . . ■ Flrji then, as for the true meaning of the W^ords, 'tis plain that St. Fi-ul purfues one alle- gory thro' the whole Difccurfe. For furely none will imagin, that he laid J(^jifs Chrjfi for the foun- dation of a building, and that the Difciples of Jf^f^s Rais'd a Building of Gold^ ^Silver, Precious Stones, Wood, :Hay and Stubble, upon' their Ma- iler, in a Literal Senfe. The queilion therefore is, Vvhat is the plain meaning of thefe Figurative exprefiions j and thi^ I think may; be learnt from the TartIL Of Purgatory. Ch.XVt> 261 the following paraphrafe^which begins at theNinth verfe of this Chapter. ( 9 ) For we who Preach the Gofpel^ are la- hottrcrs together iPitb God ; Te are God^s hushjvdry^ ye are the plants which are planted and watered by us in the Vineyard of God^ and which God is pleas d to blefs and caufe to floiirifli under our care ,♦ ye are God's Bmlding^ even that Holy Tem- ple of the Church which is Built by the Apoftles and other Preachers of the Gofpel upon the foun- dation ofjefifs Chri(l. C 10 ) According to the Grace of God iMch is ^l-ven unto mc^ as a wije Ahfia'-Btiildcr^ I ba've laid the Foundation by Preaching Jefts Chrifi a- mong yoUj aitd another who fucceeds me in the Office of Preaching the Gofpel among you^ BuiL deth thereon by explaining what I have faidj and enforcing the Belief and Pradice of it, by divcrfe arguments drawn from Scripture and reafon to con- firm the truth of the Gofpel. Bia^ tho' others muft fucceed me in my Office of Preaching a- mong you^ and confequcntly muft Build upon that Foundation, which I have already laid, yet let every Man take heed what he Buildeth thereon ;' let him take heed that what he teaches you be found and Orthodox Dod:rine , fuch only as may illuftrate and confirm the truths of Chriftianity^ and not corrupt and debafe them by the addition of vain Philofophical notions^ fuch as thofe that pretend' CO be wife with worldly wifdom, do endeavor to mix with the Goipcl of Chrifi. ( II ) For other true and lading Foundntion cafi no Man Liy^ than that which is already laid by me_, -which is Jel'us Chrift. (12) Now if any Man Build upon this Foundc^ ticp^h)' teaching vand inculcating either thofe truths, R 3 which 262 Ch.XVI. Of Purgatory. Part U, which for the purity and foundnefs of them may be caU'd Gold^ Siher or Vreciom Stones ; or thofe which for the falfhood and corruption of them may be call'd Wood^ Hay or Stuhhk : I fay_, if any Man build upon this Foundation of Jefm Chnfi, (13) Whatever be built^ every Mans work jhall he made manifefi. For the laft day jJiall declare it^ it fhall then be certainly known^ of what Na- ture foever it be^ whether Orthodox or other- wife. Becaufe it jhall he reveaPd by a very ftri6t examination^ fuch as for the fearching Nature of it may be call'd Fire ^ and the Fire flmll try every Alans Work^ every Dodrine which he has Built upon the foundation of Jefm Chrifi^ of 'what fort ibever it ts, (14) Now // cny Mans work abide which he hath built thereupon^ if he has fincerely Preach'd Gofpel-truthSj and built you up^ not in nice and fubcile notions^ but in faving knowledge^ he jljall receive a reward for fo doing. (15*) But if any Mans work jhall be burnt ^ if he has taught unfound and groundlefs Dodrines, fuch as. cannot endure a ftrid teft, and may for fhe badnefs of them be calFd Wood^ Hay or Stub- ble^ .iVj4iich cannot withftand the Fire ; If I fay, he K?is taught fuch DodlrineSj he jljall fuffer lofs^ even the lofs of all that reward which is laid up for fmcere and Orthodox Preachers of the Word ^ but yet, if he did this ignorantly, as 1 am willing to believe of him, he himfelf jhall be favd. But he fhall not be fav'd without a great deal of dif- ficulty : he fliall be fav'd, 'tis true ^ yet fo as by Fire, Being fav*d fo as by Fire is a proverbial fpeech, which denotes efcaping very narrowly or v;ith the utmoft PartIL Of Purgatory. Ch. XVI. 263 utmoft danger. Accordingly 'tis faid^ I have over- thrown Jome of jouy as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah : and Te were alfo in the greatefl; dan- ger of being overthrown^ for I fav'd you as a freha?jd fluckt out of the burnings Anios 4. 11. Thus alio God faies. Is not this a brand fluckt out of the fire ? Zech. 5. 2. that is^ Is not this Jeru^ falem a place which I dearly love, and which I have fav'd from deftrudion, even when flie was in the greatefl danger of it ? Thus again. Others fave with fear^ fulling them out of the fire, Jude 21. that is, fnatching them out of the greatefl: dan- ger of deftrudion. The fame expreilion is us'd in the very fame fenfe by many Heathen Writers. There are, I confefs, diverfe other expofitions of this Text ; but I have given that which in my opinion feems moft probable. Now if this inter- pretation be true, then it is apparent, that the A- poftle did not dream of Purgatory ^ when he wrote it. However, whether this be the true inter- pretation, or no ^ I fhall fliew. Secondly y That thefe Words cannot poffibly denote a Purgatory Fire. For i. This fire is defign'd for the trial of Men's works, and not for the torment of their Souls : whereas the fire of Purgatory is faid to be defign'd to torment the Souls of thofe^ whofe works have been already try'd and ap- prov'd. 2. This fire is to try every Mans work, even thofe that Build Gold, as well as thofe that Build Hay and Stubble : whereas the fire of Pur^ gatory is not fuppos'd to try every Man's work ,• becaufe fome Perfons do never go to Purgatory. 3.'Tisfaid, the Man fhall efcape, not by fire, but jo as by fire : whereas thofe that believe a Purga- tory cannot fay, that a Man fhall efcape fo as by fre^ but muft aitert that a Man fhall efcape by fire, R 4 that 264 Ch. XVL Of Purgatory. Part If. that isj by enduring the torments of Purgatory. And confequently^ this Text do's not ipeak of a real fire of Purgatory ^ but muft be underftood to fpcak of a very narrow efcape, an elcape /o as h fire, II. St.Pauly that he might declare the Univer- fal Sovereignty of Chrifi^-{'a.\Q.s that God aljo hath highly exalted him^ a?jd given him a Name which is above every name; tb:it at the Name (?/Jefus every knee fhoud how^ of th'mgs in Heaven^ and things in Earthy and things under [he Earthy Philip. 2. % 10. Now our Adverfaries think^ that the things under the Earth muft denote the Souls in Purgatory, But why may not the thijigs unda the Earth fig- nify the Dead .'* Or why may they not fignify the Devils in Hell^ who are lubject to our Savior^ and are forc'd to acknowledge his Dominion ? The Apoftle dengn'd only to fhew that Chrijl- was Lord of ail Creatures^ in what place foever they be, whether above or below ; all are his^ and all fhall obey his power. As well the Dead^ whom he fiiall raife hereafter , or the Devils whom he has conquer'd by his Death : as the Angels in Heaven^ and Men that are at prefent alive upon Earth. But I confefsj I think it much niore probable, that the . things under the Earth do fignify the Dead that lie in their Graves. Becai^fe St. Paul feems to refer to the words of Ijliah^ vv/here the Lord faies, .u7Jto r,ie every knee fiall bow^ chap. 45". :. 23. and he ufes thefe very words of Ijaiah for . the proof of a Relurredion, faying, for we fiiall all fiand kefore the judgment feat of Chrift ; for it is written^ as I live^ faith the Lord^ every knee Jlull fhow to meyV^Qva. 14. 10, n. Fromvvhence it is . pl^inj. chacahe-Dead are pare of thofewbofe knees yf. ' fhall Part II. Of Purgatory. Ch.XVI. 265 ihall bow to God , and confequently^ fince thefe are the words of the fame St. Vaul^ why fliou'd we not think that he includes the dead^ when he faies_, at the Name of Jefus every knee fljall how, both of things in Hca'vat and things on Earthy and things under the Earth. 12. 'Tis faid that Chrifi went to Preach to the Spirits in Trifon^ 1 Pet. 3. 19. that iSj fay our Ad- verfaries, to the Souls in Purgatorj, But there are two interpretations of this difficult Text, each of which is very probable^ and overthrows our Adverfaries argument from it. Fir/, it may be faid, that by the Spirits in Tri* fan are meant fuch Perfons, as are Prifoners to their luftsj and in bondage to their fins. 'Tis plain^ that the Scriptures do often fpeak after this manner. Thus Chriji- is faid to bring the Frifoners out of Trifon^ and them that fit in darknefs out of the Pri-^ fonJwufe^ Ifa. 42. 7. He Jluill let go my Captives^ faies God by the fame Prophet, chap. 45-. 13. and he fliall fay to the Prifoners^ go forth^ chap. 49. 9. and proclaim Liberty to the Capti^ves^ and the opening of the Prifon to them that are hound ^ chap. 6r. I. Now Chrijl did not deliver the World from any real Prifon, but from the Prifon of their lufts and the flavery of the Devil, by the Preaching of the Gofpel 'y and 'tis acknowledged on all hands, that thefe words muft be fo explain'd. Sin is alfo re- prefented as a ftate of Captivity. Thus we read of the Cords of a Mans fins^ Prov. 9. 22. and of the Bond of ini^tdtj^ Ads 8. 2;. and oi Ser'vingjin^ Rom. 6. 6. and of fin's having dominion over us^ verfe 14. and of being taken Captive ky the De^ui} at his Willy 2 Tim. 2. 26. And accordingly the Apoftle's words may be thusParaphras'd, Our Lord was quickned by the Spirit^ even by that Spiri^^ %6f!t Ck XVI. Of FuYgatory. Part II. hy 'which he wznt alfo and preached to thofe impious wretches of the old Worlds who were inflav'd by their Lufls, even the Spirits fhut up in the prifon of Sin ; thofe I mean^ 'which 7vere fometime difohe- dienty viz. ac that time^ 7i^hcn ofjce the Long-fuffering of God waited in the days of Noah^ &c. Secondly^ By the Spirits in prifon may be under- ftood the Souls of thofe who are now tormented in the other Worlds for the crimes committed by them during their Life-time ; particularly fuch as wou'd not repent ac the preaching of Righteous Noah^ and are now punifh'd in Hell for their dif- obedience. For 'tis plain, that Hell is often repre- fented as a prifon in the Holy Scriptures ; particu- larly by St. Veter^ who wrote thefe controverted Words, and fpeaks of the Apoftate Angels being caj} down to Helly and deliver d into chains of dark- nefsy 2 Pet. 2.4. And St.Jude faies of God, that the Angels which kept not their firfi e(tate^ but left their own habitation^ he hath referved in cverlafiing ' chains under darknefs ^ unto the judgment of the great day^ verf 6. And accordingly the Apoftle^s Words may be thus paraphrafed, Our Lord was quickned in the Spirit^ by which alfo he went and preached (in the days of Noah) to the Spirits now in prifon^ even in the prifon in Hell ; thofe Spirits, I fay, which fometime were difobedient^ when once the long-fujfering vf Gody &C. Now if either of thefe Interpretations be admit- ted, then what becomes of the Spirits in Purgatory ? Why muil we explain the Words after fuch a fan- afut Manner; and that without any necefficy, and "againft the higheft probability ^ But fuppofing that we have not fufficient reafon to admit of ei- ther of thefe Interpretations (which neverthelefs pur Adverfaries will never be able to prove) yet ris PartJI. Of Purgatory. Ch.XVI. 267 'tis manifeft^ even upon our Adverfaries own Prin- ciples^ that the Sfirits in prifon cannot fignify the Souls in Furgatory. For they tell us^ that None do go to Purgatory^ but fuch as die in God's fa- vor ; now 'tis plain that thofe Perfons did not die in God's favor, becaufe, i. they were certainly dif^ chedient^^s the Text informs US. 2. they did not Repent. For Noah was a Preacher of Righte- oulnefs fent by God to reclaim them, that they might not perifh by the Deluge : whereas they did perifh by the Deluge, and confequently did not repent. And how then can thofe impenitent Perfons, who died in obftinate rebellion againft God, be the Souls in Furgatory ? If our Adverfaries wou'd prove any thing from this Text, they ought to fhew in the firft place, that the Spirits in prifon did die in God's favor ; but fmce that cannpt be prov'd (nay, fince we have very great reafon tp believe the contrary) 'tis im- poffible to ftiew, that the Spirits in prifon are Souls in Furgatory, 1^. St. j^f?^« faies, that there jhall in no wife en^ ter into it (viz. Heaven) a7ty thing that defileth j Rev. 21. 27. From hence our Adverfaries argue, that the Souls of Men cannot entef into Heaven, till by paffing thro' Furgatory they are cleanfed from their fins. But if our Adverfaries wou'd read the next words, they wou'd foon find a confuta- tion of their own Argument upon their own Prin- ciples. For the whole verfe runs thus ,• Jnd there jhall in no wife enter into it any thing that defileth^ neither whatfaver maketh abomination^ or maketh a lie : hut they which are 7vritten in the Lamb^s hooky pf Life, From whence it is plain, that that v^hich 4efil€thy fignifies fuch a Man, as is not written in the Lamb's book of Life j that is, a wigked Man, dying 26S Ch. XVI. Of Purgatory. Part IL' dyihgvvithout. repentance ; for furely our Adverfa- ries v/ill grajnr^ thac thofe who die truly penit^nt^. are all written in ,the Lamh\ hook of Life. Novy it tb^t 71^'hich dcfileth fignines an impenitent Perfon ^ how.is k poffible to prdve a Fargatory from thefe words? Do not our Advcrfaries fay^ that none can go to Purgatory^ but fuch as die in God's fa- vor^ and are fure of their Salvation^ and 2.rQ /wrinen in the Lamh^s hook of Life ? And how then can they argue thus ; Iwf^nittnt Perjons cannot go to Heaven ; and therefore the Souls of the Penitent cannot go to Hea'ven ^ till they are cleanjed in Purgatory ? Be- fides^ tho' nothing unclean can enter into Hea- ven ; yet certainly thofe Souls that are cleanfed by the Merits of ChrijFs Bloud^ cannot be thought unclean. And therefore^ fince thofe that die ia God's favor^ are cleanfed by the Merits of Chrijl's Bloud, they cannot be thought ur.ciean. But cur Adverfaries are refolv'd^ that the Souls of the Penitent^ that die in God's favor^ fhall be un-r clean ; becaufe, lliy they^ there is the obligation to temporal Punifhmentflill remaininguponthem ; and (hat cbiigauua iiiuk^> ihz-^^. i:nclean. But our Adver^ jaries ought not to take a falieiiixiCiple for granted, and, then prove a faife Doctrine by it. Let them fliew^ that fuch an obligacion coTemporal Punifti^ ment after this Life is ended, do's remain due from penitent Perfons ,- and then 'twill be time enough to difprove, or allow the Confcquence drawn from it. But I have already lliewnj that that pretence is unreafonable and grQundicfs^ in the fQre.Tgoin^ Chapter. . , 14. We are ro!d, that fgme Sins are VtrnJ^ an4 do not deferve eternal damnation : bat }'ec rhey inuft be punifhed; and therefore if the Perfon who commits .them, do's not fuffcr in this World, he gnrv, muft Fart IT. Of Purgatory, Ch. XVI. '^S^ mult fuifcr for them in Vurgatory. Now I 'ftiaTl nor examine this abfurd Diftindrion of SiriS'irf^^ -fuch as are f^'enlnl^ and Tuch <^s are Mortal or d^^dly, and deferve damnation. Every fin is a trahfgrel^ Hon againft God's I;aw ; and if it be a tranfgreffion againft God's Law^! it muftdefetvci -eternal punift- - ment. For we Protefiants dare riot account Tkl^Ve- ■jtiid Thing to oifend To great a Grod. ThdSGr}- ;,ptures do never fpeak of (uch-a Diftindion. God's wrath is therein revealed againft all unrlgbtedufnefhi and certainly all Sin whatfoever is a fort of un- rrighteoufnefs^ againft which God's wrath isreveat- : ed. And where- I pray^ do we read^ that fome Sins can merit only a temporal wrath^ and that others A deferve .both:' a Temporal and Eternal Wrath ? Sc James fays^ that whofoezfer fl):!!! keep the ivhoie jlJoipy. and y It -offend in one pointy he' Is guilty \ of .all. Chap; ' 2; lo. ' Now he' that commits ;'what cur Adverftfies call a Venial Sm, offends in -ohe pointy and confcqucntly becomes guilty of ail -^ ■ and is therefore liable to damnation^ for that which our Adverlaries call a Vernal Sin. Let them not tt\\ us of. the Adions of the Hebrew Midwiy^es, ^ Rjh.ib, Szc. For if they were Sin.j they were dam- nable : and tho' fome Sins are worfe than others^yet all are damnable ,• but do net make us liable to the fame degree of Torments. Now if this Diftindion of Mortal and Venial Sins be groundlefs (and I am ' furc, there is not one fingle Text of Scripture • • to fupport it) if I fty^ this Diftindlion be ground- lefs ; then what will become of our Adverfaries . iDodrine which is built upon it .^ • - But i am willing to make the largeft concefiions. ■..rliet it then be granted^ that there are fome Veiiial Sins^ yet why muft there be a Vurgatory for them ? Cannot Chrifi's Bloud cleanfe us from Venicd^ as -•-/■ well 270 Ch.XVIi. Of Prajers PartiL well as from Mortal Sins ? Will he deliver us from ti\c punifhment of grofs faults, and exadt a punifh- ment for fmall ones ? This is abfurd and ridicu- lous, and raifes unwonhy thoughts of God ,- as if he were a peevifli, humorfom Being, that was not guided by Reafon, but by mere Fancy. Since the Scriptures do promife forgivenefs of all Sins in ge- .iieral, I wou'd fain know, by what authority our Adverfaries can fay, that Venial Sins fhall not be forgiven upon true Repentance. i^. Laftly, 'tis pretended that the Scriptures do teach us to pray for the relief of Souls in torment -after Death ,• and confequently there muft be a Turgatory^ in which they are tormented. But this 'Gbjedion is grounded upon a great miftake, as I Ihall iliew in the following Chapter. , Well then,- fince there is no Argument that proves a Turgatory^ 'tis plain that the Doctrine of Purgatory is groundlefs ; and confequently this is another Inftance of a groundlefs Dodrine, the be- lief of which the Church of Rome requires as tieceflary to Salvation. CHAP. XVIL Of Prayers for the Dead. IN the icfth Article of the Vofi^ Creed, we hare thefe Words, I do firmly believe^ that the Souls detain d therein (viz. in Turgatory) are helped by the Frayers of the Faithful. From whence it is plain, that every Member of the Church of Rome is obliged upon pain of damnation to believe, that the Prayers of the Living do help the Souls in Pur^ gatorj. ;ir// Now Part II. for the Dead. Cli. XVII. 271 Now if there be no fuch place as Purgatory ^ then the Topijh Dodrine concerning the ufefulnefs of praying for the Souls in Vurgatory^ is utterly over-^ thrown : and if there be any fufficient Reafon to pray for holy Souls in torment after Death, upon the account of the Temporal punifhment of their Sins, then the Dodrine of Purgatory is fufficiently eflablifhed. Thefe Dodrines therefore do prove or deftroy each other, and muft either ftand or fall together. I have already fliewn, that there is no proof of fuch a place as Purgatory^ and confe- quently that fuppofition being groundlefs, it cannot evince the ufefulnefs of Praying for thofe who are vainly thought to be detain'd therein : and I fliall now proceed to fliew, that vve have no fuffi-^ cient reafon to pray lor holy Souls in torment af- ter Death, upon the account of the Temporal pu- nifhment of their Sins'; and confequently, that fuch Prayers for the Dead do not fuppofc a Purgatory. 'Tis true, there is one fort. of Prayers for the Dead, concerning which our Adverfaries and our felves are well agreed ; 'viz.. Prayers for the fpeedy confummation of that Blifs, which the departed Saints are partly poffefs'd of already^ and exped to enjoy in a more perfed manner after the day of Judgment. Thus the Church of England prays to 'God in her moft excellent Oftice of Burial^ fay- ing. Almighty God^ with ivhom do live the Spirips of them that depart hence in the Lord^ and ifjtth vjhom the Souls of the Faithful ^ after they are delivered front the burden of the Flejh^ are in Joy and Felicity • ot^e ^give thee hearty thanks for that it hath flea fed thee to deliver this our Brother out of the Miferies of .this fmful World^ befeechi77g thce^ that it may fleafi thee of thy gracious goodnejs^ flwrtly to accomplijl) the Number of thine Ele^, and to hajlen thy Kingdom ) that 272 Ch.XVII. Of Prayers Part IL that we with all thofe that are departed in the true Faith of thy Holy Name^ may have our ferfeci con-i fummation and Blifs^ both in Body and Sotdy in thy eternal and everlafting Glory ^ thro^ Jefus Ghrift out Lord, Amen. 13ut thofe Prayers for the Dead which we cannot allow of, are fuch as fuppofe the Perfons whom we pray for3 to be in a ftate of tor- ments. For this pradice we think there is no foun- dation ; and this I hope to evince by examining what is alledg'd in favor of it. I. We are prefs'd with the words of T'^^^if^ who when he had given his Son many excellent Inftru6bi-* ons relating to the condud of his Life, particularly concerning Alms^ and Neighborly Offices^ amonglt> the reft injoins him to four bts bread upon the ba- rial of the J u (I- ^ Chap. 4. 17. Now this was done^ fay our Adverfaries^ that the poor who received the Alms, njiz.. the Bread pour'd upon the Burial of the Juft^ might pray for his Soul. But will it follow from hence^' that the Soul of the Juft was then in torments^ and wanted the affiftance of the Poor to be deliver'd-from them ? Why might not the Poor, who were then reliev'd^ pray as the Church oi Eng- land do's, for the fpeedy confummacion of the Juft Perfon's Blifs, by God's haftening his coming to Judgment ? Nay^ what neceffity is there of fup- pofmg^ that the poor Perfons pray'd at all ? For why might they not receive a Dole upon that oc- <:arionj without praying for the dead Pcrfon ? Nay farther^ why muft vv-e fuppofe^ that the foot did then receive the Bread 5* fnice the Text do's not •Tnention either the Poor or the Rich ? Surely 'tis tinreafonable for our Adverfaries to feign old Cuv ftoms, and to name thePerfons^ and make Reafons_> 'and then build an Article of Faith upon them. ^^•Butj to fpeak the plain truths Good o\^Tohit\ tr.'jii words Part IL for the Deal Ch. XVII. 275 words have no manner of difficulty in them. For it feems it was an old Cuftomj which continues to C^jthis day/or the Je7vs to fend diverfe forts of the beft provifion to the Friends of a Perfcn lately dead^ and to feaft and alio make lamencatici} with them. This was a teftimony of Good-will andCondolance, and an inftance of Neighbourly kindnefs. This is plain from the Prophet Jercfny^ who fpeaking of thofe that were to die of grie%om deaths^ faics_, They fijull not he lamented^ neither jhall they be buried ; hut they fljall be as dung upon the face of the earthy and they jhall be conjumed by the fword^ and by famine ^ and their car cafes jliall be meat for the foivls of Heaven^ and for the beafis of the earth. For thus jaith the Lord ^ Enter not into the houfe of Mournings neither go to lament ^ nor bemoan them : for I ha've take?} av^ay my peace from this people y faith the Lord^ ezfen loz^ing-kifidnejs and mercies. Both the Great and the Small jljall die in this land : they jloall not be buried^ neither jhall men lament for them^ nor cut themfdves^ nor make themfelves bald for them. Neither jhall men tear themfelves for them in mournings to comfort them for the dead^ neither Jhall men gi've them the cup of Confolation to drink for their father or for their mother. Thou jhah not alfo go into the houfe of feafiing^ to fit with them^ to eat and to drink. Chap. 1 6. verf. 4^ f^ 6^ j, 8. Thus alfo the Prophet Ez>echiely being commanded not to mourn for the dead, is forbidden to fhew the ufual tefti- monies of forrow j and amongfl; the reit he is for- bidden to eat the bread of Men ^ Chap. 24. 17, 21. There is mention alfo made of this cuftom in theE- piftle of jFerew/^where fpeaking of the anions of the Heathen Priefts he ufes thefe words. They roar and cry (a) See Baxtorf s Synag. Jud. cap. ^9. Bafil. i6%o. and Leo deModc n0*$ Hiftoria de gli Riti Hthinici.parte quintaycap.S . Parigi 163 7. S before 274 Ch.XVII. Of Prayers Part II. before their Gods^ as Aien do at the Feaft: when one is deady or as the original reads ir^ as at the [upper of a dead A'lan^ Baruch. 6. 32. Now this kind Otfice Tvhlt commands his Son to perform -^ but not upon the death of every Man. He was willing that he fliou'd be a friend to the Righteous only ; and to the Relations of the Righ- teous for bis fnke. And therefore the aged Father adds. And giue not to Sinners • becaufe he wou'd not fufFer his Son to keep up any acquaintance with theUngod- ly. And now lee our Adverfaries prove Prayers for the Dep.d from thefe words oiTohit^ if they can. 1 might add^ that the Book is not Canonical ; but I fliall not infift upon that^ becaufe the Argu- ment is To very eafily anfwered without cntring upon another Controverfy. 2. Our Savior fays^ Make to your felves friejjds of the Mammon of unrlghtCGiifnefs • that when ye fciilj they may receive you into everlafilng hahitationsy Luke 16. '9. By filling^, fay our Adverfaries^ we are to underftand I)//w^ , and hy friends w^t are to underftand the Sahits that reign with Chrlfr : from v/nence it follows^ that the Dead are helped by the Prayers of the Saints. But the Text implies no- thing of this Nature. The mofi: that can be con- cluded from it, even granting our Adverfaries In- terpretation of itj amounts only to this ^ viz.. Make the Saints your Friends^ by giving Alms of the Mammcii of unrighceoufnefs , that when ye die_, the Friends you have niade^ viz,, the Saints in Hea- ven^ may receive you into cverlafting habitations. And is noc this an excellent Proof of Prayers for the Dead ? Will our Adverfaries argue thus : The Saints jhdl receive charitable Perfons .into Heaven^ when they die y and rhtrefore thofe that are alive mti(i^ pray for fuch Dead Verfonsy as are fuppos\l to be^ not in Heaven^ hut in Purgatory i But Part II. for the Deal Ch. XVII. 27 5 But the true meaning of our Savior's words is barely this j that Men ought to give the Mam^ won of ttnrighteoufnefs^ or money unjuftly gotten^ to the Poor^ whom God haf5 made the receivers of fuch ill-gotten goods as cannot be reftor'd to the right owners , that when they fhall depart this life'^ they may be happy in the next. But he fpeaks not ^ fyllable of the Saints Praying for the Dead , much lefs do's he fiiy^ that they do pray for the delivery of fuch Souls as are fuppos'd to be in torments. :;. St. Paul faies. If the Dead rife not at all ^ why are they then Baftiz^d for the Dead '^ 1 Cor. 15-. 29, that is^ fay our Adverfaries^ why are they then afflided Vv^th many fevere penances^ and forced to make many Prayers for the Dead ^ For we are told that king Bafti'zJd do's often fignify being afflicted. But will our Adverfaries fiy alfo^ that being bap^ tiz,'d do's often fignify Praying? If not ,• why then do they fay^ that being baptiz/d for the dead muft fignify praying for the Dead ? But I ftiall not trouble my felf to confute this abfurd Notion. This Textj 1 confefs^ is generally thought ob- fcure ; and our Adverfaries feem refolv'd to prove what they pleafe^ whenever they find a Text which they cannot explain. But whatever be the meaning of it_, 'tis manifeft_, that it cannot imporc any Prayers or penance for the Souls in Purgatory. Becaufe the Apoftle is now proving the truth of the Refurredion ^ whereas^ {[being Baptiz^^d for the Dead fignifies enduring penance or faying Prayers for the Souls in Purgatory :, his argument is impertinent and unconclufive. For what Apoftle wou'd argue thus_, jome Perjlns do endure penafice and fay Prayers for the Souls in Purgatory^ and therefore they believe that wc fiall all rife again at the lafi day ? Perhaps this may be call'd reafoning by our Adverfaries ; S 2 but 276 Ch. XVir. Of Fryers Part II. but I am perfuaded^ St. Taul wou'd never have us'd it. Nov^^ there are feveral other explications of thefe wordSj each of v^^hich makes the Apoftle's argu- ment very ftrong ,• and confequently makes the explication of cur Adverfaries utterly needlefs. Some thinkj that vzref iziv viy^av fignifies/^r the Dead Jefus 3 others for the RefurreBion of the Dead j o- thers becaufe of the Dead ^ others ufon the Dead^ that is^ the Places or Tombs, where the dead Men's bodies lie ; and others have entertain'd ftill diffe- rent opinions concerning the Senfe of thefe v^rords. Let us therefore try thefe expofitions, and fap- pofe our Apoftle arguing from any one of them. I. If the dead rife not at ally why are they then Bap'tT^d for (or becaufe of) the dead Jefus ? Why do Men receive Baptifm in the Name of Chrif^ and profefs his Religion, and hope to be Tav'd by it, if there be no Refurre6lion of the dead ? 2. If the dead rife not at ally why are they then Baftlzjd for the RefurreBion of the dead ? Why do Men pretend at their Baptifm to believe the Refur- redion of the Dead ^ if there be no Refurredion of the dead at all ? 3. i/" the Dead rife not at ally why are thty then B::vtiz,ed becaufe of the Dead ?. Why do's the example of thofe Martyrs, who are dead, prevail upon Men to become Chrlfiiansy and be affiided in this Lifc^ and expofe themfelves to the fame torments,- if there be no RefurrecStion of the Dead, at the time of which they may be re- warded for all their Labours ? 4. If the dead rife not at ally why are they thtn Baptit^d upon the Tombs of the Dead ? What fools are thofe that are Bap- tiz'd over the Tombs of Martyrs, that they may thereby do honour to the memory of fuch as laid down their Lives in expedation of a blclTed Re- furredion ,• Part IL for the Dedl Ch. XVII. 277 furredion ; whereas they mufl; have thrown away their Lives in a moft ridiculous mannerj if there be no Refurredion of the Dead, at which they fliall live again, and be rewarded for their con- ftancy in their Religion ? Some indeed do think, that in the Primitive Times there was a Cuftom, that fome living friend fhou'd be Baptiz'd in the place of him, who dy'd before he cou'd be Bap- tiz'd in his own Perfon ; and that this Baptifm by proxy was thought available for the admiffion of the dead Man into the Church. I fhall not vouch the certainty of this pradice ; but if it were true_, the Apoftle might juftly inlift upon it as an argu- ment of the Refurredion. For why fhou'd any Man be Baptiz'd for his dead friend, if the dead Man was never to rife again, and enjoy the bene- fits of his Baptifm ? But I need not enlarge upon this Text, for lince I have fliewn, that our Adver- faries cannot make any advantage of it ^ I am not any farther concern'd. 4. Some pretend to prove, that we mufl: pray for the Dead from thefe words of St. John, If any man fee his brother fin a fin, which is not unto death, he fltall ask, and he Jljall give him life for them that fin not unto death. There is a fin unto death : I do not fay that he Jiiall fray for it, i Epifl:. 5". 16. From hence k is plain, I confefs, that there is a fin unto death, and a fin not unto death ; and that the one may be forgiven, but the other m.uft not be interceded for. But furely here is nothing faid of praying for Men after they are dead ; much lefs is it laid, that the Dead Perfons we are to pray for, are fuch as are truly penitent and in God's favor, but are con- ftrain'd notwithfl:anding to undergo fome pains in Furgatory, by way of Saiisfatiion for the temporal pu- niihment of the fins committed in their life-time. S ; S' They 278 Ch. XVII. Of Prayers Part II; 9. They tell us that Judas pray'd for the Dead, 2 Maccab, 12. Now to this I might reply, that the book is not Canonical : but I may, (tho* without any reafon) acknowledge the Hiftory to be of Divine authority^ and anfwer the argument notwithftanding. For, Firft^ it may be faid, that Jud^Ts did not in any wife pray for the Souls of thofe that were Dead. This may appear by a Paraphrafe of the whole palTage. ( 59 ) Judas and his Comfany cajne to take u^ the bodies of the?n that v^ere fljin in the late Bat- tel, and to bury them with their kinjmtn in their Fathers Graves, ( 40 ) No72J under the Coats of every one that 'ii^as jlain^ they found things confecrated to the Idols of the Jamnites, oMch is forbidden the Jews by the Lav;^ as we may read Deut. 7. 25*, 26. Then every man faw^ that this was the caufe wherefore they were Jlain. ' ( 41 ) Ml' Men therefore fraifing the Lord the righteous judgc^ who had opend the things that were hidy in difclofmg the fm for which thofe Men were flain, ( 42 ) Betook themfelves unto Frajer^ and befought bim^ that the fin committed might wholly be pit out of remembrance ^ left the fault of fome particular Perfons fnou'd draw down the Vengeance of God upon the whole Congregation, who are all ac- counted finful by God, when there is fo great a fm committed amongft them. For *tis plain, that God dealt thus with them in the Cafe oi Achan^ Jo(h. 7, and in other inftances. Bfides that Noble Judas exhorted the Feople to keep themfelves from fin^ forafmuch as they faw before their eyes the things that came to fafs^for the fin of thofe that were fiain. Part II. for the Deal Ch. XVII. 279 (43) And when he had made a gathering through- cut the company y to the jum of two thoufand drachmaes of Silver^ he fent it to Jerufalem to offer a Sin-of fringe doing therein "Very well and honejHy, in that he vjos mindfd of the RefurreBion ^ ill which he and all mankind are to give a ftrid accounc of their obfervation of God's Laws ^ one of which Laws (i/i^.. Lei/. 4. i;.) prefcribcs^ that a Sin-of- fering fhou'd be offer'd in fuch cafes as this. (44] (For if he had not hoped (or rather ex^ feBedy thought y or l^^en throughly perfuadedy be- caiife the word is ^o^s^^k^) that they that were Jlain^ jlwud have rifen again ; it had been fuper- fiuous and ^uain to pray for (or hecaufe of) the deady who had brought a fin upon the whole Con- gregation. For this reafon therefore he was re- I'olv'd to offer a Sin- offering, that he might atone for himfelf and the Congregation. Becaufe if the facriftce had been omitted _, they had not only been guilty of the fin of the (lain in a le- gal and imputative Senfe : but they had alfo be^ come guilty of contempt of God's Law, and mufl have anfwer'd for lb great a fin at the lafl day. (49) And befides this reafon drawn from the dread of punifliment, there was another alfo drawn from the expedation of a reward for his Piety. Wherefore he ofFer'd a Sin-offering in that he perctivd and very well knew, that there was great favor laid up for thofe that d/d godly ^ viz. fuch as had pundually obferv'd all God's Precepts, and liv'd and dy'd in the pradice of them. (And cer- tainly it was an Holy and Godly thought ^ for the Noble Judas fo to think) Whereupon (or for which reafon,) he made a reconciliation or propi- tiation for {or hecaufe of) the Dead ^ that they^ $ 4 even 2So Cli.XVII. Of Prayers Part 11. even the whole Congregation, might he delivered from the/w of thofe that were (lain, and not fufFer the Vengeance of God by reafon of ic. I know of nothing that can be objected againft this ParaphrafCj unlefs it be faid^ that vVi? with a genitive cafe fignifics for the benefit of; and con- fequently_, that <^is viKpar, which we tranflate for the Dead^ fignifies for the benefit of the Dead, So that Judas mufi: be fuppoo'd to pray, not becjufi of the De<;id^ or becaule of the fin of thofe that were flain : left he and the Congregation fhou'd fufFer for it^ as their Forefathers did in the cafe of Achan : bat for the benefit or pardon of the Dead^ that they might be delivered from the guilt of that fin^ for which God had Qain them/ And accordingly^ when Judas made Reconciliation for the Deady the Atonement turn'd to the advan- tage of the Dead ; that thej, 'viz.. not Judas and the Congregation^ but the Dead Perfons them- felves might be delivered from (in. Now the whole force of this objedtion lies in the fignification of the prepofitioi. vsrsf, when it governs a genitive cafe. So that if I make it appear^ that this par- ticle do's very frequently fignify, not for the bene- fit of^ but by reajon of or bccaufe of ; then this objedicn fails to the ground^ and the paraphrafe which I have given is firmly eftablifhcd^ Now that the particle vsrtfi tho' it be fometimes u5*d as our Adverfaries pretend j do's neverthelefs very often fignifie by reafon of or becatfe of^ when it governs a genitive cafe^ is very plain. Thus for inftancCj Jefus Chrift was a Minljter of the Cir^ cumcifion for (or becaufe of) the truth of Gcd^ to confirm the Promifes made unto the Fathers^ Rpm, J 5. 8. And that the Gentiles might glorify God for (pr bccaufe of) his Mercy ^ as it is ivritten^ For th\s cau Part 11. for the Dead. Ch.XVII. 281 caufe I 7i>ill confefs to thee among the Gentiles y and Jivg unto thy Name^ vcrf. 9. Where it may be ob- ferv'd^ that the Word for is equivalent to for this caufe. Again J Tou alfo helping together by prayer for usy that for ( or be caufe of ) the gift befiov/d upon usy by the Means of many Ferfons^ thanks may be gi'uen by many on our behalf ^ z Cor. i. 11. Thu$ alfOj 1 take pleafure in infirmities^ in reproaches^ in necejfitieSy in perfecuticnsy in difircjjes^ w^P Xetr*, for Chrift^, 2 Cor. 12. 10. that is^ as our Bible truly renders it^ for Chrift's fake^ or becaufe of Chrifi ; and not for the benefit or advantage of Chrijl-, But 1 am not willing to heap up Inftances in fo plain a cafe^ and fhall therefore refer the Reader to the Authors cited in the (b) Margin ; where he will find that the Prepofition varftp is very frequently us*d in this fenfe, both in the Holy Scriptures_, and in the beft Greek Authors. Now fince the Particle -^ip may fignify as I con- tendj I think it highly reafonable to interpret it fo in this place. Becaufe I have examin'd all other tolerable pretences for Purgatory and Prayers for the benefit or relief of the Dead, as fuppos'd to be in torments for the Temporal Punifhment of their fins ; and fhewn them to be extremely frivolous^ And therefore, fince a different Interpretation of this Particle may feem to countenance a Doctrine, which all the whole body of the Scriptures do's not lb much as hint at ; we ought fo to explain it in this controverted Text, as to make it perfqd:- ly confonant with what the Scriptures have moft (h) See Grot, de Satlsfaft. cap. i./>. 297. inter opera Theologt Lond. 1679. Dr. Edwards's Texts of Script, part i. p. 195. Cambridge 1692. his Authority, StiJ^, & Perfeft. of Script. Vol, grl>. Pr^f. Lond. 1(^93. plainly 282 Ch.XVil. Of Prayers PartlL plainly deli'ver'd. And this is done by underftand- ing it in that SenfCj upon which the foregoing Pa- raphrafe is built. However_, 'tis impollible for our Adverfaries to prove^ that the Particle is not^ or cannot be us'd thus in this place^ and confequently my Paraphrafe cannot be difprov'd. , So that^ tho' thele words may feem to favor their Dodrine^ if underftood in their Senfe , yet they cannot fhew, that their Senfe is certainly right^ becaufe it cannot be proved that the other is wrong. But^ ^cconMjj Suppofe that Judas did pray, not he- 'i'Wf^ ^fj f^^t for the benefit of the Dead , yet it i$\\\ not prove what our Adverfaries mean by Pray- jers for the Dead. For they fuppofe^ i. That the dead Perfons whom they pray for^ did not die in hioft grievous fins3 without having repented of them. 2. That they are in a ftate of Mifery^ from whence tfiey fhall certainly be deliver'd at the laft day, whether they be pray'd for, or no. Whereas, if jiidas pray'd for the benefit of the Dead, they \vere fu-ch dead Perfons, as died even in the fin of .Ijdolatry,without any the leaft mark of Repentance. And befides, he muft be fiippos'd to have pray^'d ■for them_y that they (who mull otherwife have been eternally damn'd) might have a bleffed Refurredion Wmongft the' Juft, the fin they had committed be- ing forgiven them for the fake of his Sin-offering. Now this is utterly inconfiftent with the Opi- ^ton pf our Adveriarics. For (not to infin: upon tfieir not fhewing any tokens of Repentance) I ar- gue thus ^ Either they did repent in their very laft .^inutes, or they did not. Ir they did not repent ; •then, they went diredly to Hell, according to our 'Adverfaries ^ and all the Prayers and Sacrifices that 90u'd be ofFerM, were not able to redeem them from thence. Part II. for the Deal Ch. XVII. 28 j thence. But if they did repent ; then were they lure of being happy ^ and numbred amongft the Jull at the day of Judgment ; fo that they wou'd ob- tain a blelTed Relurredion, whether Judas had fa- criftc'dj or no. ISiow'tis plain^ that if Judas facrific'd for their advantage^ it was to obtain a joyful RefurreAion for them ; For^ as the Hiftorian argues, // he had not hoped^ that they that were Jlain jhotdd ha'ue rifen agairfy it had been fuferfluom and 'vain to fray for tie deady verf. 44. So that his praying for the dead being fuppos'd not fuperfluous and vain_, he obtain'd (not a bare Refurredion, for that all Men muft have ; but) a Joyful Refurredion for them. Now if Judas obtain'd a Joyful Refurredion for them, then they wou'd not have had a Joyful Re- furredion without his Sacrifice ; and confequently, they were not fuch Perfons as were fure of a Joyful Refurredion, whether he facrific'd or no. Befides, Judas did not pray for their delivery out of prefent torments, which is the Pradice of our Adverfaries ; but only that they might be happy at the Day of Judgment : whereas all that our Ad- verfaries pray for, are fure of being happy all that time ; and confequently, Judas his Sacrifice was ftill Juperfluous and 'uain^ unlefs he pray'd for a Joy- ful Refurredion. Thus then it appears, that if Judas pray'd for the benefit of any dead Perfons, it was for fuch as wou'd otherwife have rifen to the refurredion of damnation : and I leave our Adverfaries to confider^ whether fuch a Prayer be juftifiable, or no. We that deny the Authority of this Book, can eafily rid our felves of this Difficulty ; but thofe that think it Canonical, are oblig'd to unfold it. Now fince by fuppofing that Judas prayed for tbt 284 Ch. XVII. Of Prajers^ &c. Part IT. the benefit of the Dead^ ic muft be alfo fuppos'd, that thafe who are doomed to eternal Milerks, may be, refcued from damnation ,• 'tis plain^ that our Adverlaries, who deny that Tuch Perfons may be refcuedj muft allow that Judas pray'd or facrific'd becaufe of the Dead. And if Judas pray'd becaufe of the Dead, then the former Paraphrafe is a true Expofition of this controverted PaiTage ; and con- fequently, that Argument which our Adverfaries draw from it, is fully anfwer'd upon their own Principles. iThus then I have examined and confuted thofe Reafons upon which our Adverfaries build their Dodrine of the Ufefulnefs of Prayers for the Dead ,• and therefore, I think, I may juftly affirm, .that this Do(5lrine, which they impofe as neceffary to Salvation, is vain and ground lefs. I fhall conclude what I have faid concerning Sa~ tisfatiion^ Vurgatorj^ and Prayers for the Dead^ with one Obfervation j viz,. That fince the Scriptures are filent in thefe Matters, 'tis not only reafonable for us to rejed fuch Doctrines, but we are virtu- ally commanded fo to do. For if the Apoftles had known of any fuch Torments, which muft be en- dur'd or fatisfy'd for ,• they have moft certainly been wanting to their Duty, becaufe they have not informed us of them, that we might know what to ^xped, and make provifion for our felves , that by enduring a little Penance in this World, we might be fecured from the dreadful Torments of the other. But furely we dare not charge the Apoftles with Negligence ,• and therefore^ lince they have told us only of two ftates, ^vlz.. Heaven and Hell ; we are cblig'd to believe that there are no more : and confequently, we are commanded to reject the groundlefs Fanfies of our Adverfaries. CHAP. Part IL Of Merits. CIi. XVIII. 28 5 CHAP. XVIII. Of Merits. > rip IS plain from the 16th and 24^^ Articles of X the Vofi\h Creed, that every Member of the Church of Rome is obliged upon pain of damna- tion to believe what the Council of Trent has De- creed concerning Jufilficatlcn, Now of the Trent Decrees concerning Jufiificatkn (a) this is one^. If any Man jhall jay^ that the good works of a jufii- fy'd Perfon are the gifts of G'jd in fuch a m.'^nner^ that they are not aljo the jnftfy^d Perfon s Merits ; or that the ji^fiify'd Perjon does not truly deferve in-- creafe of Grace , eternal Vf^ and (upon condition that he die i7i the Grace of God ) the chaining of eternal L'lfe^ and alfo an increafe of Glory ^ by thofe good works ivhkh he do^s by the Grace of God and the Merit of Jefus Chrift^ of 7vhcm he is a li'uing Member ; Let him be accurjcd. 'Tis plain therefore, that every Pafift is obliged to believe the truth of this Decree. Now we may obferve in this Decree, i. That the good Works here fpoken of are the good Works of a Juftify'd Perfon. 2. That the good (a) Siquis dixerit hominis juftificati bona opera ita efle dona Dei,ut non fmt etiam bona ipfius juftificati Merifa ; aut ipfum juftificatum bonis operibus, quoe ab eo per Dei gratiam & Jefu Chrifti Mericum, cujus vivum Membrum eft, fiunr, non vere mereri augmentum graria?, vitam aeternam, & ipfius vitae seter- ns {^\ tamen in gratia deceflTerii) confecutionem, atque etiam glorJJE augmentum ; Anathema fit. ConciL Trident. ScfT. 6. Can. 32. Works 286 Ch. XVIII. Of Merits. Part 11; Works of a Juftify'd Perfon are faid to be the gifts of God. The queftion therefore is^ whether the good Works of a Juftify'd Perfon^ which are confefs'd to be the gifts of God^ can froperly be called MeritSy or truly deferve increafe of Grace^ and eternal Life ; or no. And this point may foon be determined^ if we mark the difference be- tween meriting in a proper ^ and in a figurative Senfe. That Thing or Perfon may be faid properly to Me- rit^ or truly and really to deferve^the Merit or Deferc of which arifes from it's own intrinfic worth : but that thing or Perfon^ the Merit or Defert of which arifeSj not from it's own intrinfic worthy but from fome other confideration^ do's Merit or deferve only in 2i figurative Senfe. Thus for inftance^ when a Subjedlhas won many battels^ or fav'd his Princes Life^ or fecur'd the Goverment by prudent Coun- felSj or performed any other fignal fervice ; he do's froperly Merit or truly deferve a reward at the hands of his Prince : becaufe his adions have an intrin- fic worth in them^ from whence his Merit or De- fert arifes. But if that fubjed fhall not accept any reward for himfelf^ but recommend a Friend to his Princes favor^ and defire that the Perfon fo recommended by him may receive what is due for his Valor^ Faithfulnefs or Counfel j or if that fubjecSt fhall beg the life of a Criminal^ earneflly requefling that what he has done for his Countries good may obtain a pardon for the condemned Perfon^ upon condition that ^he condemned Per- fon fhall ask pardon upon hi^ knees : in either of thefe cafes the Friend or tne Criminal may be faid to deferve the reward or his life in a figu^ rutiruc Senfe, Becaufe his Merit or Defert do's not arife from his own intrinfic worthy but from- fome Part II. Of Merits. Ch. XVII|, ;. 2%%^ fome other confideration^ i^it,. from the other- Perlbn's worth being apply'd or made^y^er.,co\ him. ../ .lo/l Let us therefore apply this to the matter in h'a^4> 'Tis granted by our Adverfaries^ that without tjhsr Merits of Chrijt we can deferve nothing but infinite; wrath at the hands of God. The Queftion therefore is^ whether thofe who have a fhare in ChrijFs fufo feringSj can frcferly Merit^ or truly Deferve that; eternal Life which Chri[t has purchafed by hi,^ lliiFerings j or no. And to this I anfwer^ that fuci> Perfons as have a fliare in ChrijFs fufFerings^ may tri{ly deferve eternal Life ; juft as much as a Tray- tor^ whofe life is fpar'd at the requeft of a de- i'erving Subjed^ do's truly deferve a pardon ; that is^ not at all. 'Tis of God's infinite Mercy only^ that our bed deeds are accepted ; nay, that we are not punifhed for them^ becaufe they are fo full of fin and imperfedjion. For v/e are all as an unclean things and all our righteoufnejjes are as filthy rags^ Ifa. 64. 6. and he who never did a good thing, may as truly deferve a Crown of Glory as our felves. Nay, thofe very things which our Adverfaries are pleafed to think truly Meritorious^ are acknowledged to be the gifts of God ,- and how then can v^e^ as it they were our own adions, truly deferve Heaven as the reward of them ? 'Tis true, we do deferve Heaven in 2, figurative Senfe ; becaufe C/jr// has deferv'd it for us, and we: have a right and title to it thro' his Merits : but fhall we therefore pretend that we do truly deferve it our felves, as the reward of our own -adions ? Shall finful dufl and afhes, that muft have been^ damned eternally, had not Chrifir redeemed it ^ and that cannot think a good thought with- out immediate help from God j I fay^ ftiall fuch wretches 288 Ch.XVIIL Of Merits. Vmll. wretches as we are^ be faid properlj to Merit,and rr«- ly to deferve eternal happinefs at the hands of God ? No furely. Elefled is that Man^ who is throughly fenfible of his own unworthinefs^ and wholly relies upon the Merits of a Savior, without pretending to any Merits of his own. As for thofe Arguments by which our Adver- faries endeavor to eftablifh this their Do(5lrine, they are fcarce worth anfwering^ becaufe they do .not reach the queftion. They tell us^ that the reward of a Chriftian is proportioned to the quan- tity of his good Works : but (hall we therefore conclude^ that his good Works do truly deferve it ? Good Works thro' God's Mercy in Chrifi are the condition of our Salvation ; and the more good works we perform^ the greater will our re- ward be : but all this is done for Chrifi's fake_, and not for the intrinfic worth of our good works. And tho' the Scriptures alTert^ that God is ob- liged in juftice to reward our labors ; yet 'tis only the Merits oi Chrlfi apply'd to our labors, and not the intrinfic worth of our adions, that makes a reward due in juftice for them. For God is obliged in juftice to revvard thofe, for whom Chrifi has Me- rited a reward. But I fhall not enlarge upon this head ; becaufe what I have thus briefly written, is fufficient to explain and determine the whole controverfy, and fully prove, that the Tofijli Dodrine of Merit is groundlefs, and for that reafon unjuft- ly impos'd as neceifary to Salvation. Only I think my felf obliged, before I conclude this Chapter, to confider an Argument for the Do- drin oi SathfaLlion^ which ^ did not formerly anfwer. Our J PartlL Of Indulgemes. Ch.XIX. 289 Our Adverfaries pretend, as I faid in the i^th Chapter, that we may fithfy for the Temporal punifliment of our Sins, becaufe we may Merit eternal Life. But I have now fliewn, that we cannot properly Merit eternal Life ; and therefore this argument is built upon a miftake, and is confcquently of no force. However, fuppofe we might truly and properly Alerit eternal Life ; yet it will not follow, that we may fatisfy for the Temporal Punifliment of our Sins. For 'tis con- fefs'd by our Adverlaries, that good Works are not Meritorious, but as join'd \vith the Merits of C/jri/: and therefore 'tis abfurd for them to reafon thus. Our good Works are truly Meritori- ous of eternal Life^ when joind with Chrift*^ Suf ferings ; and therefore 7ve may fatisfy for thofe fains , which Chrift nenjer fufftrd or fatisfy d for. For (as I have already faid in the i^th Chapter) 'tis confefs'd and fuppos'd by our Adverfaries^ that Chrifi Suffer'd nothing for the Temporal Punifliment of Sins committed after Baptifm. As for that Treafure of Merits which is fup- pos'd to be in the Churches keeping, I fhall have occafion to fpeak of it in the next Chapter. CHAP. XIX. Of Indulgences. IN the 7.id Article of the Trent Creed we have thefe words, 1 do aljo affirm^ that the power of Indulgences was left in the Church by Chrift, and that the ufe of them is very helpful to Chriftian Vecple^ Thus it appears, that the power and vir- T tue 29.0 Ch. XIX. Of InMgences. Part II. tue of hnlulg€7iccs do make an Article of the Ro- man Faith. 'Tis granted by our Adverfaries, that the word JnJiilgence implies a relaxation or remiffion of fome punifliment due for fin. Now there can be no punifliment due for fin^ but what is due^ either Fir ft to the Churchy by way of public example for the fcandal given by the offender^ or in order to his reformation by the good effeds of Difcipline ; or Secondly^ and chiefly to God ^ for the in- jury oiFer'd him by our rebellion. Wherefore an Indulgence muft fignify the remiffion either of Church-punifhment3 or of the punifhment required by God only : and confequentiy it may be taken in a threefold Senfe. For^ i. It may fignify a remiffion of Church-cenfureSj which the Church has an undoubted power to difpenfe with upon juft occafions. 2. It may fignify a remiffion of the Temporal Punifhment^ which our Adverfaries do think due to fins committed after Baptifm^ even tho' they are repented of. 3. It may fignify a remiffion of the eternal punifliment^ which is con- fefs^d on both fides to be due to fins not repent- ed of. Now if our Adverfaries^ when they fpeak of Indulgences^ do mean only the remiffion ofChurch- cenfures^ innided for the correction of the offen- ders themfelvesj or for the admonition of others; we do moft readily grant^ that the fonder 0/ Indul- gences 'U^as left in the Church by Chril^^ and that the ufe of them is 'very helpful to Chriftian Veople^ But alas I tho' our Adverfaries do often fly to ■this fignification of the word Indulgence^ yet it is very apparent^ that they do frequently underftand it far otherwife. i. Becaufe Indulgences are grant- ed for the Deadj as well as for the Living. This is Partir. Of hdul^ences. Ch. XIX. 291 is plain from the very (a) words of the Bulls^ and from the -ordinary pra(5lice of redeeming Souls from Purgatory. Now llnce the dead are not capable ot Church-cenfures ,• becaafe they are fup- pos'd to be incapable of amendment in Purgatory^ and Difciplinc ( if exercifed upon themj cannot be exemplary to others, therefore 'cis plain, that Indulgences do (frequently at leaft) imply the re- miffion of Ibmething elfe^ befides the penalties inflicted by the Church. 2. Becaufe thofe who enjoy the benefit of Indulgences ^ do frequently fubmit to Church-cenfureSj and perform the pe- nance injoin'd them ,• nay, the Indulgence is often- times not valid, unlefs the penance be performed. (a) Super gratiis IndulgentJarum &: peccatorum remifll- one etiam plenaria, tarn pro Vivis cjuam defundtis. Cherubini Bullarium. Rom. 1617. Tom. 2. p. 94. Poftremo ut anima- bus quoque Chrifti fidelium in Purgatorio exiftentibus, quae per Charitatem Domino Noftro Jefu Chrifto unitae ex hac Vita migraverint, quseque anteaquam decederent, aliorum Chrifti fidelium fuffragiis juvari meruerunt, de coeleftibus cccleliac thefauris, quorum Difpenfatores a Domino ad ani- marum falutem conftituti fumus, paterne fubveniamus; Di- vina miferationc confiii concedimus, ut quoties quilibet ali- quod ex liujufmodi Numifmatibus fecum habens, pro di- ftarum animarum Salute prxmifTa eorumve aliqua adim- pleverit, vel quicunque alius ecclciias in quibus eadem nu- mifmata reponi contigerit, diftis feftis diebus inventionis 6c cxaltationis San8:x Crucis vifitaverit, ipfje pro quibus id fecerit, efficacidimis Jefu Chrifti Domini noftri meritis, ac ejufdem Beatae Mariac Temper Virginis, Sanftorum Angelo- rum, Apoftolorum, Martyrum, ConfefTorum, Virginum, om- niumque Sanftornm & Sanftarum precibus 8c interceflionibus fufFragantibus, eafdem Indulgentias & peccatorum remiflioncs confcquantuf. ibid. p. 611. Set alfo Tom. 3. p. 42. But this mat' ter is fo fvery notorious , that I jhall not trouble the Reader with any more injiamcsofit. T 2 This 292 '- Ch. XIX. Of Indulgences Part 11. This is alfo apparent from the (h) Bulls ^ and from ordinary pradice. And therefore Indulgences mail (fometjmes at leaft) imply more than the remiffion of Church-cenfures or penance : and con- fequently they muft often lignify the remiffion either of the Temporal^ or of the Eternal guilt of fm. But our Adverfaries will by no means own^ that they do ever grant a remiffion of the Eternal guilt of fin. This indeed wou'd be the very height of impu- dence and blafphemy^ and they do well to deny it : but wou'd to God^ they did not give us too great great reafon to believe_, that they do in reality pretend to the pradHce of it. However^ fince in words they abhor it ; 'tis plain^ that when an Indulgence do's not fignify the remiffion of a Church-cenfure^ then it muft of necefficy import the remiffion of the Temporal guilt of fm. Now when an hidulgejice llgnifies the remiffion cf the Temporal guilt of fin^ we cannot believe. {b) I jhall gi'-je hut one inj}mice of this vattire^ becaufe this Matter is alfo njery -notorious. Ceterum ur fideles ipfl ad hsec omnia peragenda magis idonei efficiantur, de tradita nobis a Doiirino poreftatis plenitudine Ecclefice Thefauros, quorum Di- vina favente dementia Difpenfarores efFefti fumus, copiofe ac benigne aperienre.s, omnibus Chrifti fidelibus fupradiftis, ut hac vice tantum eonfefTores idoneos Presbyteros feculares, vel cujuH. vis ordinis regulares, ab Ordinariis ramen approbaros, cligere, qui eorum confeflionibus diligenrer auditis eos a quibufvis pec- catis, criminibus, excelTibus &: deliftis quantumcumque gravibus & inormibus, etiam in cafibus fedi Apoftolicse refervatis, ac in litteris die Ccense Domini quotannis legi folitis contenris, ia foro confcientise duntaxar, ac etiam a fententiis, cenfuris & poe- nis Ecclefiafticis per eos quomodoljbet incurfis, injunfta inde eis pro Culpoe modo poenitentia falutari, abfolvere, ac quaecun- que per eos emifTa Vota (praeterquam Caftitatis & Religionis) in alia pietatis opera commutare valeant, per prsefentes conce- dimus. Chcmb. Bullarium, Tom, 2. p. 48*5. thas Partir. Of Indulgences. Ch.XIX^ 25)} that the power of ( fuch ) Indulgences^ was- left in, the Church by Chrift, and that the ufe of them is tfery helpful to Chriilian Veofle, For 'cis acknow- ledged by our Adverfaries^ that no Man can have an Indulgence granted him for the Temporal guilt of his fm 'y unlefs he is reconcil'd to the favor of God, and the Eternal punifhment of his fin be already forgiven. Now I have fliewn at large in the i^th Chapter, that when a Man is reconcil'd to God's favor, and the Eternal punifhment of his fm is forgiven, there remains no Temporal guilt or obligation to Temporal punifhment for it. So that 'tis abfurd to grant an Indulgence^ or to re- mit the Temporal punifhment of fuch fins ; be- caufe it is not due. And who then can fay, that fuch a power was left in the Church by Chrifi^ and that the ufe and exercife of it is very helpful to Chrifiian People ? But tho' it were granted againfl: all reafon, that fuch Temporal guilt or obligation to Temporal punifliment do's llill remain, after the Eternal pu- nifhment of our fins is forgiven ; yet this will not prove that the Church has a power of remitting it. If it do's remain, the Sinner muft undergo it, and there is no help for it ; for how fliall the Church prevent it ? 'Tis faid to be requir'd by way of Satisfaction to God's Juftice,- and iliall the Church dare to deny God his right ? No, fay they ^ but there is a certain treafure of Merits, and the Church has this treafure in keep- ing ; and fhe can difpofe of it to whom, and when, and in what portions fhe pleafes. This in- deed leems an excellent contrivance, an admirable way of anfwering our obje(5lion : but upon exa- mination this plaufible Scheme will appear to be whaf it is, the mofi: arrant impofture that ever T ; poor 294 Ch. XiX. Of Indulgences. Part II. poor Souls were deluded by. For how {hall ic be prov'dj that there is fuch a treafure of Merits, srs will pay for the Temporal puniihment of iins ? They tell us indeed, that Chrijt\ Merits alone are infinite, and that the Merits of Numberlels Saints are added to them ,• and from thence this Mafs of fpiritual wealth arifes. But 'cis flrange our Ad- verlaries can fo eafily forget themfelves. Is not this the only ground of their Dodrine of Satif^ fa^tlon^ which I have fo largely confidered in the I'^th Chapter, ^uiz,, th^t CLrifi did not fatisfy for the Temporal guilt or punifhment of fins commit-, ted after Baptifm ,* and therefore we our felves are obliged to undergo fome miferies, either in this World, or elfe in Furgatory^ by way of Sathfa^ion to God's Juftice, before we can enter into heaven ? And are not thofe fins, the Temporal punifhment of which is faid to be remitted by h^dulgences ; I fay, are not thofe fins committed after Baptifm i A^nd why then v/ill our Adverfaries now pretend, that CbrijFs Merits are repofited in this great bank of the Churches Wealth, and that they may be difpo's'd of for the payment of the Tem- poral puniihment due to fins committed after Baptifm ? Why will they build the Do(5lrine of SatisfaBicn upon this fuppofition, that Cbrifi has not fatisfyM for the Temporal punifhment of fuch fins ; and the Dodrine of Indulgences upon the quite contrary fuppofition, i;/^. that Cbriji- has fatisfy'd for the Temporal punifhment of fuch fins ? This is a palpable contradicftion for the fupport of two falfe and abominable do- brines. But, fay they, the Saints have merited for fuch fins, tho' Cbrifi be fuppos'd not to have done it. Now I fliall not inquire, whether it be poffible . for Part II. Of Indulgences, Ch XlX. 295 for any Man to do more good adions, than he is obliged to perform ^ becaufe the Frotefiavt Cafuifts are divided upon this point. But fuppofe a Man may perform fome anions, which are not abfolutely necelTary to his own .Salvation ; yet will it follow^ I pray^ that fuch adions are meritorious of other Mens pardon ? The more good Men do^ the greater will their reward be : but there is not the leaft intimation in all the Scriptures^ that I Hiall receive the benefit of what another Man has done. Butj fay they, befides the moral duties of Ju- fticCj Charity, &c. 'tis plain, that many Saints have endured more and greater hardfliips, than God had made necelTary in order to their Salvation. They have worn hair Shirts, and walked barefoot, and gone to Rome, or Jerufakmy or Compofiella, or fome other holy place, to vilic fhrines, &c. Buc what if thefe be the efFee liclc'Perfpns who receive Extreme tfntVmf-^t^ ever reftor'd' to life by their BJfamic Oif. "tis ^lotorious, tliat Tcarce any, but thofe whofeTre- jcovery is utterly defpaired of, have it Adminiffire^ to them. But this anointing of the Difciples wa§ jivholly iQ order . to the anointed Perfon's Cure.. *ttis (aid, they anointed Dpith Oil many that were Sh^ 9 ^;zi healed them/ The Oil . indeed did not jtfi^ork the effecTt by it's own natural force ; but *twas gp outward cirpumiiance of a Miracle, and alwaies tittended with-'a reftoracion of healtli to the fick i^erfon. , , j %!.'2j. If we are commanded in this Text to anoint ^lie fick Wi^th Oil, then we are much more com- Jijianded to heal the fick. For certainly we are "more ftrongly obliged to pradife the adion, than the bare circumftance of the adion, fuch as th^ anpinting. was. Now 'cis abfurd to fay, that we 'itrecomamidedto'heal the fick j fiqce thacMira- culous Tart II. Of Extreme Vriclio£ Gli;''XX? foi culous power is ceafedj and (as I have faid al- ready) our Adverfaries cannot pretend to if. > Mow iince every inftitutionthat was to remaiif in the Churchy mull without' all doubt prefcFve' it's efFed, as the Sacraments of Baptifm and the Lord's Supper do now beftow the fame Blellirigi as at the firfl: inftitucion of them , and fince no inftitution is to remain, but what our Savior has commanded us to pradife ,- and fince by fuppofing our felves obliged to pradife this anointings we muft much more fuppofe our felves obliged to work Miracles in healing the fick, which fuppo- fition is contrary to experience, and abominably abfurdj therefore it is plain/that the anointing in this Text was not defign'd for a perpetual pra- ctice in the Church of Chrift. II. They urge James 5-. 14, 15-. If any fick a^ mong jQii ? Let him call for the Elders of the Churchy and let them pray over him^ anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord, And the Prayer of Faith jhall fa've the fick^ and the Lord jJjall raife him uf • and if he have committed fins^ they jliall be forfriven him. But I anfwer, that this anointing mentioned by St. James^ refpeds the Body, which was fre- quently reftor'd to health by that Miraculous gift of healing, which God was pleas'd to be- ftow upon the Church in the firft beginnings of it. And this interpretation will appear to be not only Natural, but alfo Neceffary, ifwecon- fider the import of the Original. The word KAiAvovldi, which we tranflate fick^ do's plainly imply a bodily Difeale : and the word l>if« do's plainly imply a recovery from it. So that without doing the utmoft violence to the Apoftle's exprefEons_,. we cannot explain them othervvife, I knovy i J02 Ch. "XX. Of Extreme Vnciion. Part II, I know our Adverfaries are very willing to find out another meaning. They cannot allow thefe words to fignify a Miraculous Cure of the Body : but think they denote a Spiritual Cure of the Soul 5* and for this they offer feveral reafons^ which I ftiall examin in their order. 1. They fay, if this place be underftood of a Miraculous Cure, then care wou'd have been alfo taken of the lame and blind, &c. as well as of the fick r, whereas thefe feem to have been utterly neg- leded. To this I anfwer, i. That the gift of healing the fick was certainly very common in the ancient Church ^ but the gift of reftoring fight to the blind, &c. was not fo frequently granted. And therefore St. James had gooi reafon to give a general advice for the ufe of the one \ but not of the other, which fo feldom appear'd. 2. The gift of healing was bellowed for the fake of thofe^ whofe ficknefs endangered their lives: but the lame, the blind, 8z:c. might enjoy their lives, and continue longer here, to do God Service and perfect their Repentance, &c. without any affiftance from the Miraculous gift of healing. And therefore there was no need of any dired:ions to be given to fuch Perfons. 2. They fay, that if this place be underftood .of a Miraculous Cure, then St. James wou'd not have ordered them to fend for the Elders of the Church j but for thofe that had the gift of healing. E^t we are to confider, i. That the gift of healing was more frequently at leaft beftowed up- on the Elders ^ and perhaps I may fafely add, that we have no proof of it's being beftowed upon any other Perfons. However, 2. tho' the gift of healing were fometimes beftowed upon Lay-Per- fons, yet 'twas more advifable to fend for fuch Elders Part II. Of Extreme VnBion. Qi. XX. goj Elders as were endued with it ^ becaufe thei^ Character gives them greater authority _, ^nd they are fuppos'd to have better skill in thofe Spiritual affairs^ which fick Perfons are concer- ned in. .3. 'Tis faid, thatif the Cure were Miraculous^ St. James wou'd not have appointed the ufe of Oil ; fince the Miracle might have been perforra'd without it. Now^ whether St. Jama ipeaks of the ufe of Oil^ as a commanded Ceremony ; or only as a Cuftom ufual at the exercife of the gift of healing ; I fliall not determine. However I return our Adverfaries this double anfwer. i. Since it pleas'd God by the mouth of his Apoftle to mention this Ceremony of the performance of the Miracle^ we are to look no farther. 'Tis certain, that many Miracles were attended with outward adionSj which had no real Virtue in them. Thus when our Savior cur'd the blind Man, he us'd Clay ,• and when he cur'd the Perfon that was* both deaf and dumb, he put his Fingers into his. Ears, &c. Thus alfo fome were cur'd by impofi- tion of hands, Mark 16. 18. ABs 28. 8. Now fince anointing appears to have been the ufage of thofe who had the gift of healing, we muft not think to difprcve the Matter of Fad, by faying it was not uhjolutely ruejjary. Efpecially, our Ad- verfaries ought not to argue after this manner ,• becaufe, 2. This overthrows their own opinion concerning a Spiritual Cure. For we may alfo alledge, that if the Cure were Spiritual, St. James wou'd not have appointed the ufe of Oil ; fmce the Miracle might have been performed without it. Nor can our Adverfaries aniwer this objedion againft tl^ir own interpretation, but upon the . fanje principle which do's fo plainly juftify ours. 304 Ch.XX. Of Extreme Vnciion. Part II. vix,. That Men are not to conflder what God may do ^ but what they niuft do themfelves. Ther ancient Chriftians were to follow St, James's ad- vice in the ufe of Oil j and to truft to God for the expediency of it. 4. 'Tis pretended^ that if the Apoftle fpeaks of a Miraculous Cure of the Body, then none of the firft Chriftians wou'd ever have died, as long as that power lafted ^ becaufe there is an abfolute promife made of raifing up the fick Perfon. But I anfwer, that the Elders who had the gift of healing, did never pretend to heal thofe, whom God had appointed for death. They always aded with Faith ^ or a full perfuafion of the fuccefs of their endeavors ; and this perfuafion was raifed in them by God's Spirit, which cou'd not, and wou'd not deceive them. If it be reply 'd, that the promife is abfolute and general, and therefore all fick Men muft be healed ; I defire our Adverfaries to confider, that the moft abfolute and general Promifes in the Scripture will admit of neceffary reftridion. Our Savior faies3 John 14. 13, 14. TVhatfoever ye jhall ask in my NawCy that VJiU I do ,• that the Father may he glo^ rify^d in the Son. If ye fiiall ash. any thing in my Name^ I will do it. This Promife is as abfolute and general, as 'tis poffible ; and yet all our Prayers are not granted. Wherefore there is a condition underftood ; ^viz. If it be confiftent with God's Wifdom, and the intereft of the Perfon ,• then it fliall be perform'd. However, we need not thefc ufual and reafon- able limitations in the prefent Cafe. For we may obferve, that the Apoftle faies. The Prayer of Faith jliall [a've the fick ; that is, the Prayer which pro- -ceeds from a full perfuafion in that Perfon who has *' the Part 11. Of Extreme VnBion, Ch. XX. j o 5 the gift of healing. Now fince the Perfons who had that mighty power, knew what Cures they ought to attempt^ and never made experiments up- on others ,• therefore when they did attempt^ and us'd the Frayer of Faithy they rever faii'd. So that the Promife may be (triBly abfolute and general with refpe<5i: to all that it did concern^ becaufe they did never endeavor^ bur when the fucccfs v/as infallibly certain. And therefore tho' thcfe words do relate to the Miraculous gift of healings and tho' the Promife be never fo abfolute and general ; yet it will not follow from hence^ that the firfl Race of Chriftians muft then have been im- mortal. Nay, this objection of our Adverfarles, if pur- fued, will as certainly prove, that there never was any gift of healing at all , as that thefe vv^ords do not relate to it. For we may urge, that if ever fuch a gift was bellowed upon the firft Age of the Church, then that Generation wou*d not have died as long as the gift continued ,• becaufe it was in the power of thofe holy Men to fpare the lives of their Brethren, and we may fuppofe them wil- ling to do it. But yet our Adverfaries cannot deny, that there was fuch a gift in ancient times ; nor can they anfwer the objedion thus retorted upon themfelves, otherwife than by faying, that the Primitive Saints us'd their gift in Subordination to the Will of God. In a word, the Elders of the Church did not heal whom or when they pleased ; but fuch Per- fons only as the Spirit directed them to heal, to ferve the great Ends, and promote the Glory of Almighty God. And therefore, tho' the Promife is Abfolute and General to all that were capable of it, and the effed was certain ; yet that Gene- U ration jc6 Ch. XX. Of Extreme Unci ion. Part II. ration wou'd not be as it were immortal. Becaufe tho' many were to be reilor'd for a confiderable time^ yet fome did never receive the benefit of that gift ^ and thofe who did^ cou'd not forever enjoy it, but muft in due feafon fubmit to the ftroke of death. f. They urge^ that Saint Jameses Words muft needs fignify a fpiritual cure ; becaufe the Apoftle addSj and if he ha^ue committed fins^ they Jhall he forgiven hlm^ V. 1 9. But to this I anfwer^ that it pleas'd God in the Primitive Times to punifh fome incorrigible and obftinate Offenders with death ; and to inflid Difeafes upon many other Sinners, to the intent that being admonimed by his judg- ments, they might amend their lives. This is very plain in the Cafe of thofe Corinthians^ who abus'd the Lord's Table. For this caufe^ faies St. Taul^ many are weak and (ickly among you^ and many Jleef, For if 7ve woud judge our felz>esy 'ive jhotid not be judged. But 7Phen oi'e are judged^ ii^e are chafiened of the Lordy that 'ive Jhoua not be condemn d with the World '^ I Cor. ii. go, 51, 32. Wherefore St. James, when he difcourfes of a Miraculous recovery from ficknefs, affiires the fick Perfon, that if he ha've committed fins as the caufe of his dif- eafe ; then not only the afflidion fhou'd be re- moved^ but the reafon of it alfo fhou*d be taken away, for they fiall be forgiven him. This explication agrees perfectly well with the following verfeSj wherein the Apoftle exhorts them to mutual confeffion, and Prayers for each others health. Ccnfefs your faults y faies he, verfe 16. (or as fome Copies read it, Confefs your faults there f re) one to a7tother * that ye may be healed. Since God is often pleas'd to beftow a Miracle upon you for your recovery, and alfo to pardon your fins, upon the Vrayer of Faith ^ therefore you are obliged by your own Part It. Of Extreme Vnction. Ch. XX. J07 own intcreft fo to confefs and pray, that each Per- fon CO whom God will grant the favor, may en- joy the bleffings of health and forgivenefs. Then he inforces this Argument by affuring them in the very next words, that the effdlml feri'em Prajer of the Rigbteom availtth ryiHch, And this, faies he_, the holy Men of Old have ever found true ; for Elias was a Man fuhjefl to like pajjions as we are^ and he fra/d earnefily that it might not Rain : and it rained not oft the Earth by the [pace of three years and fix months. And he prayed again ^ and the hea-* *ven gave Rain ^ and the Earth brought forth her fruit. By which he informs them of the great power of Prayer, and encourages them to make ufe of fo powerful a means of procuring God's Favor. Thus then I have fairly confidered the Reafons for our own interpretation of St. Jamcs\ words^ and for that of our Adverfaries alfo : and upon the whole Matter, I think we may juftly conclude, that the Anointing mentioned by that Apoftle^ was only an outward ceremony perform'd upon the bodies of thofe, who were to be reftor'd to their health by the Miraculous power beftowed upon fome of the firft Chriftians. Now this being granted, I cannot perceive, how our Adverfaries will be able to prove from hence_, that Extreme UnBion was inftituted by Chrift for a perpetual pradice in his Church. Certainly they will not fay thus i God did once beftow a Mi^ raculous gift of healing upon hjs Churchy and 5f. James did then advife the Chrijfians to make ufe of ity together with the ufual ceremony of Anointing an- nexed to ity for the recovery of their health ; and therefore we are obliged (tho^ we can jhew no com- mand for it) to anoint fick FerfonSj ?iow that the y 2. s.ifi 3o8 Ch.XX. Of Extreme VnBion. Part II. gift is ceaJecJy and ive have vo hopes of heiding them hy it. It our Adverfaries wou'd prove their point from this Text^ they ought to fliew, either, I. That this Miraculous power of healing Difea- fes is now remaining in the Church ^ or^ 2. That tho' this Miraculous power is not now remaining, yet we are obliged to anoint the fick^ as thofe Pri- mitive Chriftians did^ with whom it was an ordi- nary thing. As to the Firft of thefe, I am per* fuaded they will not pretend to it --^ nothing in the World being more certain, than that their Ex- treme UrBicn is not attended with fuch fuperna- tural efFecfls. And as to the Second particular, 'tis plain, that when the reafon is utterly loft and gon^ the advice ceafes to oblige us. Nor can we imagin, that St. James^ who directed thofe Men to fuch a practice for fuch an end, do's alfo direct us to the fame practice, when the end cannot be obtain'd by it. They tell us indeed, that thofe other particu- lars which St. janjesip^2ks of in this Chapter, are fuch as do perpetually oblige the Church ,• and therefore we muft fuppofe, that this anointing of the fick is of the fame nature, and was defign'd for a ftanding Or-dinance to the end of the World. But to this I anfwer, that tho' St. James's di- rections are generally fuch as belong to the whole Church in all fucceeding Ages ^ yet there may be others, which were peculiar to the firft Age of it. juft as it is ufual with St. ?aul to intermix his Epiftles, and deliver Temporary Precepts to- gether with fuch as are perpetual. Thus the Pre- cepts concerning long hair, i Cor. 11. and con- cerning Prophecy, i Cor. 14. and his order to bring the Cloak, Books and Parchments, 2 Tim. 4. 13. are not lafting injundions, tho* they are penn'd Part II. Of Extreme VnBlon, Ch. XX. '^09 penn'd in the fame Epiftles and Pages with the moft Effential Rules and Commands of the Chri- ftian Religion. Wherefore ic will by no means follow^ that the Anointing in St. Jamts is to be continued in the Church_, becaufe the other par- ticulars mention'd by St. Jamts^ muft forever be obferv'd. Well then ^ fmce the Anointing mention'd Mark 6. 14. and James j. 14, was peculiar to thofc times, and do's net in any wife belong to us ; and fmce we have no command or reafon to pradlife it ; therefore thofe Texts do not oblige us to anoint the Tick. And fince thofe Texts do not oblige us to anoint the Tick, and no other Texts can be urg'd in favor of it ^ therefore we are not at all obliged by the holy Scriptures to anoint the fick. And fince the holy Scriptures do not oblige us to anoint the fick, 'tis plain, that the amhit'mg of fick Verfons was not ijj/I-ituted hy our Blejftd Lord fur a ferpetual fraBice in hts Church, SECONDLY, I am now to fliew, that £x- trcme Un^ion do^s not confer grace. Our Adver- verfaries pretend that Extreme UnBion is available for the pardon of fins ; and if this were true, then grace wou'd certainly be conferr'd by it : but we piaintain^ that it is not available for the pardon of fins ; and this we affert for the following Reafon. None can forgive fins, but God alone ; and there- fore he alone can appoint a Sacrament for the for- givenefs of them. Now fince I have already prov'd, that God has not Infticuted Extreme Un^ clion ; therefore Extreme Unci ion cannot be a Sa-- .crament for the fprgivenefs of fins. Nay, 'tis an inftance of the highcfl: and moft impardonable pre- fumption for any mortal Man to pretend, that a. rite of Human invention can diipofe of Gods U I Favors j Jio - Ch.XXI. Of ^he Popes PartlL Favors^ and therefore 'ci5 a great wickednefs for any Perfon to fay^ that Extreme Untlion (which becaufe it was not Inftituted by God as a Handing Ordinance_, is with refped to us and to the mo* dern pradice^ no more than a bare human inven- tion) is available for the pardon of our fins. Now fmce I have (hewn, Flrft^ that Extreme UrMion .was never Inftituted by Chrift ,• and Se- condly^ as a confequence of the former^ that it do*s not confer grace ,- it muft of neceffity follow that it is no Sacramentj becaufe it wants thefc eff^ntial properties of a Sacrament. And fince Extreme. UntHon is not a Sacrament^ therefore the Vofi^t Do(5lrine in the i^th Article of their Creeds which makes it a true and frofer Sacrament^ is a groundlefs Dodrine vyliich cannot be proved froni, bcripture. CHAP. XXL Of the Popes Supremacy, THE 25 J Article of the Vop^) Creed runs thus^ J do alfo acknowledge the Holy^ Catholic^ and Jpofiolic Church of Rome^ the Mother and Mifirefi of all Churches ; and I do Fromife and Su'ear true Obedience t-o the^Bifiop o/Rome, the Succejfor of St, Pe- ter the Prince of the Jpofiles^ and the Vicar o/ Jefus Chrift. From hence it is evident^ that the Pofes Supremacy is an Article of Faith^ which c^r Adver- faties impofe as neceffary to Sah^tion. '.' 'Now the'Pope of Rome claims a Supremacy over the -whole Chriftian Churchy becaufe 'tis pre- tended that our Savior made St. Teter the Su* preme Part Hi Sapremacy. Ch. XXL jil preme Head or Governor of all the Apoftles^ and that this Right is deriv'd upon his Succeflbrs the Bifhops o^Rome, Here then I might launch into many difputes. For^ I. It has been queftioned^ whether St. Veter was ever Bifhop of Rome^ or no. And if he never was Bifhop there ; 1 pray, how came the Popes of Rome to be his Succeflbrs i However, 'tis generally acknowledged 3 that St. Taul was Bifhop of Rome ; and if St. Veter was Supreme over all the Apoftles, then St. Veter was St. VauVs Go- vernor. But then our Adverfaries ought to be cautious how they alTert St. Veter s Supremacy ; becaufe, unlefs it be certain (as perhaps it will never be) that St. Veter was Bifliop of Rowe^ it follows upon their own principles, that the Bi- fhops of Rome as Succeflbrs of St. Vaul^ do owe Subjedion to the Bifhops oiAntiochy as Succeflbrs of St. Veter who had the Supremacy. For 'tis granted by our Adverfaries, that St. Veter was Bi- fliop of Antioch ^ and that, even before he was Bi- fliop of Rome, 2. Let it be granted that St. Veter was Bifliop of Rome ; yet fince our Adverfaries acknowledge that he was Bifliop o^ Antioch^ before he was Bi- fliop of Rome^ I wou'd fain know, why the Su- premacy fliou'd be derived upon the Bifhops of Rome^ and not upon the Bifliops q{ Antioch, 'Tis certain, that the Scriptures do not determine this point. We do not learn from thence, that the prerogatives of St. Vettr do belong to that See which he was lafl: pofleffed of. And if reafon muft decide the Matter, 'tis fit that the Succeflbrs in the former See fliou'd be preferr'd to thofe in the latter. Nay, if St,Vetey's bare filling a Sec gives it the preeminence over all others ^ and that U 4 preemi- J 1 2 Ch. XXI. Of the Popes Part II. preeminence cannot be beftowed upon more than one See , 'tis noc only probable^ but alfo certain^ that the preeminence belongs to the See of An-^ tiochy and no preeminence at all to th2.t oi Rome, For his filling the See of Antioch muft have be- flowed that privilege upon it ; and confequently C before he cou'd poffibly come to Rome ) the difpofal of it was cut of his power. Eur^ 3. 'Tis unreafonable to luppofe, that the Su- premacy of St. Perer is derivable to any See at all. ror_, granting that St. Veter had a Supremacy over the Apoftles j yet Whatever prerogatives he ob- tainedj were beftowed upon him for his great Zeal, and other excellent endowments. They were noc given him as Bifhop of Rome^ but as a very de- ferving perfon ; and confequently they are not to be claimM by others ; unlefs thofe Perfons can ftiew that God has Made St. Vcter's prerogatives Succeffive^ or that they are Mafters of as much worth as St. Peter. But 'tis plain^ that the Scrip- tures do not give us the leaft intimation of St, Pcte/s prerogatives being Succeflive : and I am perfuaded the Popes of Ronie will not pretend to St. Peter's Perfonal Excellencies. Thus then it appears,, that-the Supremacy of the Bifliops of Rome is built upon a very Sandy Foun- dation 3- even tho' it were granted^ that Chrifi Ap- pointed St. Peter the Head of the whole College ofApoftles. I might farther enlarge upon thefe headsj and purfue thofe arguments which I have only hinted at. But I am unwilling to be te- dious ; and therefore I fhall rather prove, that St. Peter had no Supremacy at all. For if that one point be made good ,• the pretended Supre- macy of the Bifliops of Rome muft of neceffity fall to the ground. Part !!• Supremacy' Ch. XXI. } 1 5 In order to this I think it neceflary in the firft place to fhew what is meant by Syprewacy ; that 1 may not feem to difpute about words and phra- fes. Now a Man may have the Supremacy^ or be the Headj the Principal or chief Perfon^ diverfe waieSj 'viz,, in refpe6t_, i. Oi Terfonal IVorth, 2, Of Order, 3. Of Power, Firfi^ he that is more excellent, more Learned, more Pious, more induftrious, or the like ; has the Supremacy y or is the Head, the chief or principal Perfon in refped of Perfonal Worth ; when com- pared with fuch as have not an equal meafure of the fame endowments. And from this preeminence oiPerfonal Worth arifes a preeminence in efteem ^ which is (or at leaft, ought to bej proportioned to the degree of thofe excellencies, which are praife-worthy in each particular Man. Secondly^ he that takes place of another, hasj the Supremacy^ Or is the principal,Head or chief Per- fon in rcfped of Order ^ when compar'd with thofe Perfons, who are bound by cuftom, or for any other reafon, to give him place. Thirdly y that Perfon who has Authority to Go^ verp and command others as his Subjeds, has the Supremacy y or is the chief, Head or principal per- fon in refped of Power, I need not inquire, whether St. Peter had the Supremacy of Worth in refped of the other Apo- ftles. Perhaps St. Paul may be juftly thought the more excellent Perfon for feveral reafons. But comparifons are odious, particularly when they are not neceflary. Nor need I enquire, upon what account Sc. Peter obtained the Supremacy of Order, The Matter of Fad I (hall not deny ,- 'tho 'tis plain that St. Peter is not alwaies placed firft in the Holy Scriptures 5* particularly John i, 44. we read 3 14 Ch. XXI. Of the Popes Part IT. read of the City of Andrew and Peter. However, if we grant him a Supremacy of Order^ yet 'tis evident^ that as his Supremacy of Order did not arife from his Supremacy of ?07ver ; becaufe i fhaU ftieWj that he had no Supremacy of Voiver : fo I think it neceiTary to obferve before I proceed any farther^, that we cannot conclude, that a Man has a Supremacy of Vower^ becaufe he has a Supre- mSiCy tithQV O^Ferfonal Worthy or of Order, : I. It cannot be concluded that a Man has a Supre- macy of power^becaufe he has a fupremacy ofPerfind Worth, This, I thinkjis the fetled Judgment of the fo- ber part of alt Mankind: and the contrary opinion was never maintained but by Enthufiafts^whohavefome- times affirm'd, that Dominion is fomtded in Grace, 'Ti$ true, a Supremacy oiVerfnal Worth is a juft qualifica- tion for Supremacy of Vov^er i and it were to be wiftied, that fuch Perfons as are truly excellent^ were alwaies entrufted with all forts of Gover- ment : but it will by no means follow from hence, that thofe who have greater endowments, have for that reafon the power adually committed to them: This notion wou'd turn the World upfide down, and open a Door to all manner of Diforder and Confufion. Becaufe thofe who have the greateft con- ceits of themfelves,and are for that reafon theleaftfit jbrGoverment j wou'd be thereby prompted and en- couraged to raifeeverlaftingRebellions,andwreft the Sceptre out of their Princes hands. Wherefore, tho* it were granted, that St. Veter had the Supremacy of Perfonal Worth ; yet it cannot be concluded, that he had the Supremacy of FovJer alfo : unlefs it may be fhewn, that our Savior himfeif, who alone had authority, did invelf him with it. i 2., It cannot be concluded that a Man has a Su- premacy of Pov/^r^ from his having a Supremacy of PaitlL Supremacy. Ch XXT. 515 of Order. 'Tis true, that Perfon who has a Su- premacy of Tower^ has (or ought to have) a Su- premacy of Order : but it is not true on the other hand, that whofoever has a Supremacy of Order^ has the Supremacy of Power alfo. This is plain from experience. For inftance, the Peers of Eng- lavd do take place according to their feveral de- grees, and the feniority of their Creation : yet none will imagin, that the firft Peer of England has a Supremacy of Tovjer or authority to govern all the reft. The fame is true concerning the Mem- bers of all Ariftocratical or Democratical Gover- ments. 'Tis impoffible that every Man fhou*d be firft 5 and therefore fome one or other muft have the Supremacy of Order : but if that Supre- macy of Order imply '4 a Supremacy of Tower ^ then there can be no fort of Goverment in the World befides that which is Monarchical. Now this is utterly falfe and abfurd ; and therefore tho* St. Teter had the Supremacy of Order^ yet it can- not be gathered from thence that he had a Supre- macy of Po:wer alfo. If it be Taid, that St. Peter had the Supremacy of Order beftow'd on him, becaufe he was endu'd with a Supremacy of Power ; and therefore the Supremacy of Order do*s in this inftance fuppofe the Supremacy oi Power ^vi)pon the account of which it was beftow'd 5 I anfwer, that our Adverfaries do now take that for granted, which ought to be prov'd. For I fhall foon make it appear, that St. Peter had no Supremacy of Power over the other Apoftles. However, till the contrary be made appear, our Adverfaries ought not to fuppofe it, and to argue from it, as from an undoubted Prin- ciple. All that I contend for at prefent is this, that a fupremacy of Order do's not alwaks imply a Su- I J 1 6 Ch. XXI. Of the Popes Part \t a Supremacy o^ fower ; and this I think our Ad- verfaries cannot gainfay. So that if there be no other proof of St. Teters Supremaicy of Power ^ than what arifes from his fuppos'd Supremacy of crJiTy then there is no fufficient proof of it at all. Well then ; tho' it be never fo freely granted that St. Teter had a Supremacy boch of Perfonal Worth and of Order j yet it will not follow from thence that he had a Supremacy ofPov>er : and con- fequently, we muft confider thofe other arguments upon which St. Peters pretended Supremacy of Tower is founded. Thofe arguments are of two forts ^ for, I. Our Adverfaries alledge fuch words of our Savior, as feem to give or imply this Su- prefnacy of Power. 2. They tell us of fome great privileges granted to St. Peter^ whigh do Elainly fuppoie it. Thefe arguments therefore muft e examin'd. I. They alledge fuch words of our Savior as feem to give or imply this Supremacy of Pojver, The words are thefe. And I fay unto thee ^ that thou art Peter, and ufon this Rock I will build my Church : and the gates of hell jhall not jfrei'ail againji" if. And I will gi'ue unto thee the keys of the King-- dom of hea'ven : and whatjoever thou jhalt hind on tarthy jhall he hound in heaven': and whatfoe/uer thoH jhalt loofe on earthy jhall he luojed in heavtn^ M^tth. 16.18, 19. And in the 21//; Chapter oibt,John our Lord faies unto him feed my Larnhs^ verfe if^/^j ZT\^ftedmy Sheep , verf. 16, 17. The greateft difficulty is concerning thefewords, Jlfon thu Rock vHll I build my Church. To me it feems probable, that by the Rock our Savior pieans St. Peter s confellion. For when our Savior t^ad asked the Difciples, But whom fay ye fhat I ajn ? Part 11. Supremacy. Ch. XXL ? ! 7 am? verfe 19. Feter immediately anfwered. Thou a-'t Chriit the Son of the llvitig God. And Jefus avfwered and [aid unto him, BleJJcd art thou Simon Bar-Jon a : for flejh and hloud hath not reveaVd it unto thee^ but my Father which Is in heaven. And I fay alfo unto thee ^ that thou art Peter (thy Name Hgnifies a Scone^ and thou fhalt be a con- fiderable ftone in my great building of the Church) and upon this Rock of thy confeffion, upon this great and fundamental truth upon which all Chri- ftianity is founded ^ I will build my Churchy making ufe of thee and thy Brethren the Apcftles^ and all other Preachers of my Gofpel_, as the Stones with which I muft build. And the gates of Hell jliall not prevail agair^fi it, viz. againft that Church, which by thy Miniftry, and the Miniftry of thy Fellow-LabourerSj I dcflgn to build upon this great and fundamental Article of Faith. This interpretation of the Words is very natu- ralj and agrees admirably well with thofe words of St. Pauly when he faies to his converts,, Noiv therefore ye are ?io more Strangers and Foreiners^ but FelloW'Citiz.ens with the Saints ^ and of the Houfhold of God ^ and are built upon the founda- tion of the Avofiks and Prophets^ JefuS Chrifl him^ felf being the Chief Corner-Stone ,• in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy Ttmple in the Lord : in whom you alfo are buildtd together for an habitation of God thro the Spirit, Eph. 2. 19:, &c. 'Tis plain^ that in thefe w^ords thefe Church is compared to a building, and the Apoftles and Prophets to the Foundation Stones, and Jefus Chrift himfelf to the Chief-Cor- ner-Stone. Now if I have given the true fenfe of that paf- fage in St. Matthew (and I thinks that nothing can 3 1 8 Ch. XXI. Of the Popes Pare fi. can be juftly objeded againft it) then the words of St. Matthew and St. Taut do exadtly anfwer^ and explain each other. And lb the allegory be- ing piirfu'd^ the Rock upon which the Churcii is faid to be built^ being a firm and immoveable bottom^ is nothing elfe but that great Article of Chrifi's being the Mejjiah^ upon which every fyl- lable of our Religion do's^ and muft forever de- pend j becaufe otherwife our Lord's Miffion is a fable^ and the Apoftles Preaching was vain^ and our Faith is alfo vain. Now if this Expofition be admitted^ then not St.Ttte/s Perfon_, but his Confeffion is the Rock upon which the Church is built. And confe- quently^ that Argument which our Adverfaries draw from St. Vettrs being the Rock upon which the Church is built, to prove his Supremacy of Power over the other Apoftles^ is founded upon a miftake, and muft therefore fall to the ground. But whether this Expofition be true^ or no ; yet I cannot imagin^, that thefe words will prove St.Teter's Supremacy of power notwithftanding. For if it be granted, that St. Veters Perfon was the Rock upon which the Church was built ; then the meaning of the words may probably be this^ ^Iz,, That Chrifi wou'd make St. Veter a very great and faithful inftrument in planting the Gofpel ; and this St. Veter might very eafily be, without having any the leaft Supremacy of power over the other Apoftles. However, tho' this interpretation alfo ftiou'd be rejeded , yet our Adverfaries will gain nothing by it. For what will follow ? No- thing but that the Text is very obfcure, and we cannot yet tell what is meant by the com- parifon. 5ut Tart II. Sufremacy. Ch. XXI. jY^ But 'tis plain^ that we have not the leaft regfoni to believCj that the comparifon of the Rock' im- plies a Supremacy of powrr. For lee our Adver- faries give us one nnu,le inltancej if they can^ where a Supi-emacy of power was ever conferr'd, oriiil- ply'd^ by comparing any Perfon to a !lock. Surely 'tis utterly unrealonable for our Adverfarics to take a very difficult Text ; and becaufe they know not: the true meaning of ic, to fuppofe that it implies this or that particular thing, tho' they have not any the leaft proof that the phrafe is fo us'd^ either in the Scriptures^ or in any other Author. And why then mult the word Rock in this controverted place denote a Supremacy 'of power ? Eipecially fmcc^ I. It is very natural to underftand it of the truth of that great Article of CfmjFs Meffiah-fliip. But if it be allow'd to have been fpoken of St. Veters Perfon^ yet^ 2. It cannot be fhewn^ that it did everfignify a Supremacy of power. ;. There is not the leaft ground in Cuftom or Nature for this comparifon. For when was it ever known that a King was call'd the Rock of his Kingdom ? Or can it be fanfied, that there is any likenefs between a Rock and a Supreme Governor ^ Nay farther^ we have not only no reafon to be- lieve, that St. Reters being compared to a Rock implies his Supremacy of power over the other Apoftles : but we have evident proof of the con- trary. For this is certain^ that if this fmiilitude did imply a Supremacy of power, then C/jr//fpake it in that fenfe, and the Apoftles alfo, or St. Veter at leaft, did either then or afterwards underftand it in that fenfe. Whereas I ihall prove^ that what- ever was meant by that comparifon, yer^ i. Chrijt himfelf did not fpeak it in that fenfe. 2. The Other Apoftles did never underftand ic in that fenfe. J 20 Ch. XXI . Of the Pop^s Part II. fenfe. ;. St. Teterm particular did never under- ftand it in that fenfe. I. Chrift himfelf did not fpeak it in that fenfe. For this pretended Promife of Supremacy was made by our Savior upon the occafion of St. Fete/s Confeffion, which we find Recorded in Matth, i6. i6. Mark 8. 29. Luke 9. 20. Now ^tis plain that our Savior did not think^ that what he faid upon that occafion did import any fuch Promife ,• becaufe we find, that fome confiderable time af- ter^ the Difciples had difputed among themfelves^ which of them jlwnd he the great e ft ^ Mark 9. 34. or as the Original m f/«^®r may (and perhaps, ought to) be rendred , they difputed among themfelves, vhich of them was the greatefi ; that is_> which of them was the greateft at that very time, when they difputed about it. In anfwer to which queftion our Savior do's not fay, that he had al- ready determined that point, and given his Supre- macy to St. Peter : but he fate down and calld the Tvjel-ve (and confequently St. Feter was among them) and faith unto them^ If any man defire to he firfr^ the fame fljall he lafi of ally and fervant of all, Mark 9. 5f. Nay farther, he faid unto them, Te know that the Fri^ues of the Gentiles exercife domi^ nion over them^ and they that are great exercife authority upon them y hut it Jhall ?iot be fo among you ^ Matth. 20. Now I appeal to any unprejudiced Perfon ,• can there be any fuller and clearer proof of an equality among the Apoftles? And how then cou'd our Savior fpeak thefe words, if he had already pro- mifed a Supremacy of power to St. Feter I He pofitively aflRrms and declares, it fjall not he fo among you ; that is, one of you fiiall not be above the other i and confequently he cannot be thought to Part II. Supremicj. Ch. XXI. 321 to have promifed St. Peter a power over all the reft. If our Savior had formerly fpoken of a Su- premacy of power under the fimiiitude of a Rock ; certainly he did in this place^ not only diffemblc his former promife^ but flatly contradid it : and I deiire our Adverfaries to fliew that fuch dealing is confiftent with his veracity. Nay, if our Savior had defign'd St. Teter for the Univerfal Pallor of his Church, he wou'd upon this occafion have admonifh'd the Difciples not to contend about Superiority, but to pay an intire fubmiffion to St. Veter^ whom he wou'd leave his Vicar upon earth. 2. The other Apoftles did never underftand our Savior in that lenfe. They did never think, that by comparing St. Veter to a Rock, our Lord had made him a Prince over them. For, Firfiy It is plain that the other Apoftles did not fo underftand him during his abode upon earth. This appears from the difpute concerning Superiority, which I have already mention'd. For can it be imagin'd, that thofe Perfons, who fo well knew the mind of their Lord and Mafter,wou'd difpute about Superiority notwithftanding ? Be- fides, when the Mother of Zebedets Children de- fir'd, that her Sons might have the Preeminence ; all the other Difciples ivere movd with indignation ngainftr the fwo Brethren, Matth. 20. 24. Now this Preeminence was defir'd a great while after our Savior had made this pretended promife to St. ?et€T ; and yet the Difciples were equally mov'd with indignation, thinking it an injury to them all ,- whereas if St. ?eter had the promife of the Supremacy, he was the only Perfon that cou'd take it ill. Nor wou'd thofe two Difciples have prefum'd to requeft that Preeminence, if they had X thought J22 Ch. XXI. Of the Popes Part If. thought that our Lord had already beftow'd it on St. Piter, If ic be objecTied, that our Savior fpake many things to the Difciples^ which tho' they did not fully underftand during his continuance upon earth, yet they did afterwards fully underftand : and con- sequently^ that tho' the Difciples did not perceive his true meaning before his Afcenfion^ yet they were afterwards convinced of his giving the Su- premacy to St. Feter : if I fay3 this be obje<5ked, I anfvver^ that I have already fhewn, that our Sa- vior did not fpeak the words in fuch a fenfe as our Adverfaries pretend ; and therefore the Difci- ples cou'd not lb underftand him after his Afcen- fion. But farther, I fliall now fhew. Secondly^ That the other Apoftles did not fo underftand him after his Afceniion. For if they had known that our Savior had appointed St. Veter his Vicar upon earth, they wou'd have ac- knowledge him their Governor in all their pro- . ceedings relating to fpiritual matters : whereas it is manifeft, that they did never in the leaft ac- knowledg any fuch thing. We do not find ^ny one inftance of appealing to St. Teter^ even in Matters of the greateft difficulty and importance ; but the Apoftles conftantly behav'd themfelves towards him, as towards the reft of their Brethren,, without any difference. When there was a vacancy in the College of Apoftles, St. Veter was not defir'd to fill it with fome worthy Perfon. 'Tis true, we have his Speech upon that occafion recorded at large, ABs i. i6^ &€. but there is not the leaft air of authority in it. And the Hiftory tells us, that the whole Af- fembly (St, Peter himfelf being numbred amongft them without any mark of diftindion) agreed upon Part If. ^ Supremacy. Ch.XXi;;^ J2J upon him chat fucceeded Judas, For Tljey ^ (viz, Vetcr and all the reft, who were about an Hundred and twenty_, i/^r/t' ij.) I fay They af pointed two^ Jofeph called Barfabas, who was furnaTr/d Juftus, and Matthias ; And they fra/d^ &C. And they ^ave forth the Lots ^ &c. Ac5ts I. 23, 24, 26. The. fame method of proceeding was obferv'd in the Choice of Deacons^ Acts 6. 2. For the whole buiinefs was concerted by them all^without any particular diredi^ on of St.Pfr^r's, or any fpecial commiffion from him, Nay^ St. Veter himfelf received a Commiffion from the reft of the Apoftles. For when the Apoftles which were at Jerufalenij heard that Sa-^ maria had recei^v'd the If^ord of God^ they fent unto them Peter ^W John, Ads. 8. 14. They fent him, it feems^ wich as much confidence, as they after-> wards fent Vatd and Barnabas^ and Judas and Silas^ Acts 19. 22. And fliall we believe, that the A-. poftles wou'd have dar'd to make him their Mef^ fenger , whom they knew that Chrifi had made their Prince and Governor ? Nay, I believe our Adverfaries wou'd be very glad to find the Scrip^ tures faying, that Peter was Chief amono^ the Bre-. thren : whereas St. Luke exprefly affirms thac Paul and Barnabas^ Judas and Silas , were Chief Men among the Brethren^ verfe 22. And yet *tis plain, that they were fent, tho' our Savior tells us, that the Servant is not greater than his Lord ^ neither he that is fent ^ greater than he that fent him ^ John I ;. 16. And confequently, St. Feter himfelf was no; greater than the Apoftles that fent him. When St. Peter had convers'd with thofe thac were uncircumcis'd, fuch as were of the Circum-r cifion contended with him^ I^y^^Sy Thou wentefi in to Men uncircumcis'd, and didfi eat with them, A(5ls ;i. 2y 3. But certainly they cou'd not have darM X 2 CQ 324 Ch. XXI. Of the Popes Part IL to contend with St. Peter ^ if they had thought him the Vicar of Chrifi : efpecially they wou'd not have a6ted thus 2it J erufalem^ where it was impoffible for them to be ignorant of his great dignity, if any fuch had ever been granted to him. Nor did they in this cafe exped or receive a peremptory anfwer from St. Petevy as infilling upon his own authority, by which he was ac- countable to God only : but he was fain to fa- risfy the Brethren, by giving an account of his Adion and of the Reafons of it. For he re^ hearsed the Matter from the beginning y anci ex- foundtd it by order unto them^ J^ji^g, &C. And 7/jhen they heard thefe things^ they held their feace^ Ads 1 1. 4, 1 8. Again, when that great queftion concerning the obfervation of the Mofaic Ceremonies was in agi- tation ,• there was no Appeal made to St. Peter as the Judge of Controverfies : but they determind that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, ffjoit'd go up to Jerufalem (not to inquire of St. Peter^ but) unto the Apofiks and Elders about this queftion^ Ads 19.2. And accordingly the Jpofiles and Elders came together for to confider of this Mat* ter^ verfe 6. It feems, they did not wait St. Pete/s Judgment, but thought it a matter fit for common debate, in which they were all equally concerned. 'Tis true , v^hen there had been much difputing , Peter rofe up and [aid unto them^ Men and Bre^ thren , ye know how that a good while agOy &c. verfe 7. Then he declared a Revelation which God had vouchfaf 'd to him, and which was of great ufe in the determination of this great Con- troverfy. But his Speech and Opinion did not end the difpute ^ for when St. Peier had finifli'd his Difcourfe, all the Multitude kept fiknce and gave Part II. ' Supremaiy:: Ch.XXi? ^25 gave Audience to Barnabas ^w^ Paul, declaring -what Miracles and Wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles hy them. And after they (viz,, Barnabas and Paul) had held their feace^ JameS atifwered'^ faying^ Men and Brethren^ hearken unto mt^ ^zl verf. iiy i;. Then he addsj Wherefore my Sen^ tence is^ &c. verfe 19. How wou'd our Advert faries have boafted^ had St. Peter fhut up the de- bate by fayingj wherefore my Sentence is^ &c ? And yet they will not believe, that thefe words of St, James do import a Supremacy of power, by which he was able to judge of all difputed Matters. But what was the refult ^ Why it fleas' d the Afoftles and Elders, and the whole Church to fend chofen Men to Ant loch, verfe 23. And they wrote Letters by them after this manner^ The A* fofiles and Elders and Brethren fend Greeting unto the Brethren, v)hich are of the Gentiles, &c. verfe 23. Here is not a fy 11 able fpoken of St. Pef. that their Religion in it felf is unlawful^ and we have endeavor'd to make them fenfible of it. If they cannot be convinc'd by our Arguments^ we leave them to the mercy of God, and judge them not. But if they have refus'd or withftood the means of Convidion^ it will with- out all doubt be damnable to them. The 'End of the Second Tart, A CONFUTATION O F POPERY. .c'joaoi PART III. Of th Vop\(h OijeSlions againji the Church of England. C H A P. I. The charge of Schijm from the Catholic Churchy anfmr^d and returned, N the firft Part of this Book I have {hewn, that the Scriptures are our Rule of Faith : and in the fecond I have confuted Foperj by that Rule. From whence it plainly follows^ that the Tc0} Religion muft of neceffity be forfaken; and Part in. Tfie Charge ofy^chifm^ hz. Clr.!. J39 and cbftftqiientlyj that- 'the EngUjh Papifis ought to join iil G'ommuniGn with the Church o{ Eng- land. But lay they, we have divers Ohjedions againft the Church of England^ which make us believe that her Religion is unlawful alfo. We muft in- deed forfake the Church of Rome ; but whither fhall we turn, or what fhall we embrace ? Where- fore I fhall now with all poflible brevity examin, what may be obje<5ted againft our own Communi- on y that thofe who are willing, may receive fa- tisfadtion, and find reft unto their Souls in the pro- feffion and pradice of the Religion by Law efta- blifh'd among us. FI/?5Tthen, it is pretended that the Church of England is guilty of a Schifm from the Catholic Church of Chrift ^ and confequently, that the Members of it are divided from clrifi\ Body: which divifion is a moft heinous fin, and makes them uncapable of Salvation. This ObjeAion the Popijh Priefts are very apt to enlarge upon ,* thac they may thereby frighten fuch as are coming over to us, and force them to continue Paplfis, Now it muft be confefs'd, that Schifm is a fin of the deepeft die ,• that it cuts us off from the Com- munion of Saints in this World, and configns us to the portion of Devils in the other. So that all Men have juft reafon to dread the charge,but much more to avoid the guilt of it. But then it is not charging a Church with Schifiii, that makes hei^ guilty of it ; becaufe a fault may be unjuftly charg'd upon her. Wherefore we muft enter into the Me- rits of the Caufe, and look into the true nature of Schifm, and confider whether the Church of£»^-' land be guilty of it, or no. Y 2 'Tis J40 Ch.I. The charge of Schifm Part III. 'Tis confefs'd on both fides, that C^ny? has but one Church. 'Tis true, there are many particu- lar Nations which profefs the Chriftian Religion, and thefe Nations have Church- Governors among them. And in each of thclb Nations there are fo many thoufands of Souls ,• that they cannot polli- bly meet together in one place for the worfhip and fervice of God. Wherefore^ for the regular ad- miniilration of Difcipline^ and for the better or- der and inftrudion of the Flock, 'tis neceffary, that there be diftind: Congregations, under the in- fpedion of their refpedive Bifliops, and the per- fonal care of the parochial Clergy. But all thefe Churches continuing in the obfervation of the fe- cond or Gofpel-Covenant, that is, profelling the Fundamental Do(5trines of Chriftianity, and agree- ing in the Effentials of Chriftian Worfliip, under the Goverment of their Spiritual Superiors, do make up only one great Body, which we call a Na- tional Church. And the feveral National Churches being united after the fame method, that is, in Chriftian Doctrine and Worfhip, do make up one greater Body, which we call the Catholic^ or Uni- verfal Church. Of which Catholic Church it ' is neceffary for every Man to be a Member, becaufe he cannot otherwife enjoy the benefits of the Go- fpel-Covenant ; which is made with none, and con- fequently can benefit none, but fuch as are true and lively Members of Chrift: the Flead, by being in perfe<5t Union with his Body, the Catholic Church. From hence we may eafily learn,wherein the true nature of Schifm confifts. He that does not pro- fefs and maintain the Fundamental Chriftian Do- ctrines, and the Effentials of Chriftian VVorfiiip, is not a Chriftian, or is not a part of Chrifi's My- ftical Body. Whereas he that profeffes and main- tains Part rif.' ar^fiver^d and returifL Ch. I. \\\ tains the Fundamental Chriftian Dodrines^ and the Effentials of Chriftian Worfhip^ but divides and feparates from other Perfons who profefs and main- tain the fame things ; is a Chriftian/I confefs^ or a part of C^r//A My ft ical Body ; but he is rent and di- vided from other pares of the fame Body; and con- fequently^he has not the benefit of being a true and lively Member Q{Cbrijh\ which confifts in his pre- fervirig the vital union witli his head ; but he is in gre^t danger, nay(unlefs he return to unity) he is in an ablblute neceffity, of p.erifhing and being utterly loft, for want of that union with the head,^^ wherein the life of every Member do's confiftJ ". ' -** ' Now a Man that continues in the pra(9:ice "of Church-Communion^ cannot be a Scfjilhatic. Be- caufe he is at unity with the whole Chriftian World, as far as lies in his power. He joins in the fame ' Worfhip upon all occallons. Whilft he is at home_, he communicates with thofe of his own Congrega-' tion ; and when he is abroad, he Communicates with that Congregation wherein he then lives, pro- vided that Congregation be not Schifmatkal, But he that will not perform the Duties of Church- Communion with his own Congregation, whilft he is at home, but frequents a feparate Congrega- tion in oppofition to his own ; or he that com- municates when he is from home, with thofe that feparate from their own Congregations, and confe- [ quently approves and encourages their feparation ; or he that will not fuffer other Perfons to join in Communion with him," either impofing unla\t^^ul ' terms of joining with him, or hindring them front being prel'ent at the performance of Religious Du- . ties ;' or he that declares thofe Men to be no Mem- bers of Chrifiy or profell'es himfelf to be feparate from thofe Men, who are truely and indeed Mem- Y ; bers 34.2. Qh.I^ The Charge of Schifm Part III.: bers of Qhrifi ; I fay, whofoever do's any of thsfe things, is k Schlfmafic, B.Qcaufe either he himfelf abftains ffbm tliar Chuixh-jComniunion^, w,l>,ich he ought to perfprm ; or he keeps thofe from Ct>ofch- Cohirnui)prj, whom he ought to admit. Let us now fee, whether the Church pf Eng- land be guilty, of a Schifm from the Cathokc Chprch, or no. That the Church of England \% a part of the Cail^olk Church, is very eafily prov'd. For 'tis grante^lby our Adverfaries, that they themfelves dp retam all the Fundamental Chriftian Dotftrines, and all the Effentials of Ch^riftian Worfhip. Where- in then cdnfifts the difference between the Church of England^ and the Church, of Roiml Why this is the difference ; the Church of England rejeds part of thofe things which the Church of Rome profelfes and maintains in the Trewf Creed. Now I have abundantly prov'd in the fecond P^rt of this Book, that thofe things which we rejed:, are either abfolutely falfe, or forbidden in Scripture, or not contained in it ,• and confequently thofe things v/hich the Church of England rejects, are neithe;-" Fundamental Chriftian Do6trines, npr Effentials of Chriflian Worihip. Now fmce our Adverfaries do acknowledge that they do retain all the Funda.i^entals and Effentials of Chriftianity ; and fmce we^d'o receive \y.hatfoever they maintain, except fome things that, arc neither Fundamentals nor Elfe.^pals : therefore 'tis plain that we profefs and YkXd^nx^im all the ^fundamental Chriflian^ Do- <^rines,.^ and all the Eil.ntials of Chriftian VVOirftiip. And cQnfequently, we a^e. a part of Chrifi's Bq- dy the* Church ^ becaafe, as I have already faid, whatfoever Perfon or Church (for a Church is a number of Perfons) retains all the Fundamental Doctrines of the Chriftian Religion, .^nd; all the Effen- Part HI. dnfmr^d and retunU: Ch. I J 4 }• Eflentials of Chriftian Worfliip^ is a pai^t i\^v^ v In a word, the P^p'/)?} themfelves, and the feveral' forts of Chriftians in England^ do profefs the true* Religion ofC^r//: but thQ Pa^ifis have corrupted the true Religion ,• and our fedts do fm in a Schif- niatical Pradice of the true Religion, as reformed from thofe Corruptions. Wherefore we muft not join with thQ Pap ifis, nor muft we join with the Englijij Schifmatics : but we may and ought to join with the eftablifti'd Church, which maintains Catho-- Ik Communion. CHAP. Part III, Of the Novelty, &c. ai.III. J47 CHAP. Ill Of the fret ended Novelty of our Religion y or an anfiver to the common Queflion \ Where was youf Religion before Luther ? THIRD LY, 'Tis objeaed againft the Church oi England, that ftic profeffes a new Reljgil^ on : whereas the true Religion, which our Savior Inftituted^was to continue to the end of the World ; and confequently, that Religion which bears date from the Reformation only^ cannot be the true Re- ligion. And accordingly, our Adverfaries often ask us. Where ivas your Religion before Luther ?•' thinking it a Demonftration againft ourProfeffion^ that it was not (in their opinion) from the begin- ning. Before I anfwer this Gbjedion, I fliall premife three things, i. We readily acknowledge, that the true Religion was to continue from the firft Foundation of it to the end of the World. Our Lord Inftituted but one Church, and he promised, that the Gates of Hell fliould not prevail againft it; that is, that it fliould never fail, but be profefs'd in fome Region or other, in every Age of the World. But, 2. we contend that Jefus Chrift ne- ver promis'd, that his Religion fliould not be cor- rupted. 'Tis true it cannot be deftroy'd ,• but it may be polluted. 3. Our Savior never promis'd, that his Church fliould alwaies flourifli. It fliould not fail, I confefs ,• but it might be affided or lefTen'd. It fliould alwaies be received, but not al- ^ waies by the fame number of Perfons. Thefc 348 Ch.llh Of the Nortjehy ' ParMII.'T Thefe things being premis'd, the anfwer to this Objection is very ealie. For'we believe^ and are able to provcj that our Religion is as old as our Savior Chrift. For wherein do's our Religion dif- fer from that of our Advcrfaries ? I have already flievvn, that we believe whacfoever they believe, excepting fuch Particulars, as I have prov'd to be either abfolutcly fail^^, or forbidden in Scripture, or not contain'id in it. And confequently, thole^ things, whejr€in.we.diffenrfrom them, are not ^f- fential to thq.Chriftian Religion, but palpable cor-- ruptions of it. ' ilslgw thofe things, that are cor-? ruptions oftheitxue Religion,. being thrown. away^^ the true Religion remains pure and intire : and* confcquently,,, flnce- our Adverfaries acknowledge that they profefs the true Religion ; 'tis plain thac-^ we who profefs the fame Religion, only without' their Corruptions, do profefs the true Religion. And fmce the true Religion is by their own oonfedion;, a's old as Chrifi ; 'tis plain, that our Re- ligion being the, true Religion, it muft be as old as Thus alfo, it appears, that our Religion has ne- ver fail'd fiiiCe the firft Foundation of it, for our Religion is the true Chriilian Religion ,• and our Adverfaries .dare not fay, that the. true Chriflian Religion did ever fail. Befides,; our Religion be- ing in fubftance the fame with their own,'tis plain, that if their own Religion has been conftantly pro- fe/s'd fmce the firft inftitution of Chriftianity ; thfcn our Religion has been alfo conftantly profef- fed fmce the hrft Inftitution of Chriftianity ; and cgnlequently, it has never taii'd lince the firft Foundation of it. But our Adverfaries tell us, that.the Re for me J Kq- ligion is known to be of a very late date j whereas PartllT. of of^r. Religion, Ch. III. ^49 Popery h^s been the. Belief of many Ages. Now" I now de fire fiich Objedors to confider, i. That' our Leprned Men have often prov'd^ that Popery is a very new Religion ; that is, the Popip) Dodrines, which I have examin'd by the Rule of the Holy' Scriptures in the fecond Part of this Book^ were not known in the Primitive Times, but have late-' ly crept into the Church. 2. That the fame Learn-' ed Men have alfo often fhewn, that ever fince the Popilh Doctrines did firft appear, there has been a Generation of Men, who have ftifly oppos'd them, and declar'd againfl: them ,* tho' the Enemy did un- happily prevail, and was in fpite of their Endea- vors, able to fow Tares amongft the Wheat. 3.- That the oppofition of fome few Men, who re-; jested and condemn td fuch Innovations, and pro- fefs'd the purity of Chriftianity, was enough to preferve a pure Church, tho' the generality of Chriflians iiibmitted to thofe Pollutions. For God, as I have already faid, has not promisM, that his Church fhall alwaiesfpread and flourifh, orthad his Religion (hall alwaies be maintain'd pure by the whole Body of the Profeffors of it : but 'tis lufficient to juftify the truth of his Promife, if a fmall, tho' contemtible and obfcure number, have ftuck clofe to the Primitive Dod:rine ; and deliver- ed it down to us by a lefs vifible fucceffion. However, I fliall not infill upon thefe Particu- lars, which our Adverfaries may poffibly difpure ; but return them another anfwer which they cannot gainfay. Let it be granted, that the Popiflj Do- brines are very ancient ; and that when they firfl appear'd, they were not oppos'd, but univerfally receiv'd ; and that there has not been a fucceffion of Chriftians, who never profefs'd them ,• I fay, be it granted that thefe things are fo ^ yet 'tis eafie to prov^ J50 Ch. III. Of the Novelty Part III: prove that the Reformed Religion is truly ancient, the' the Reformation commenced but lately. For what, I pray^ do our Adverfaries mean by the Re- forrnd Religion ? 'Tis granted hj our Adverfaries, that their own Religion is the Chriftian Religion ^ and 'tis plain, that our Adverfaries and thofe of the Reform d Religion, do agree in many things, which are eflential to the Chriftian Religion. The difference therefore between the Reformed Religi- on and that of our Adverfaries confifts in this ; that whereas our Adverfaries do think, that all their Dodrines are eflential to the Chriftian Religion^ and ought to be believ'd ^ thofe of the Reformed Religion think, that only part of the Dodrines of our Adverfaries are eflential to the Chriftian Re- ligion, and that the other Dodrines of our Ad- verfaries are only Corruptions of it. Now if thofe Dodrines wherein we agree with our Adverfaries, be the only eflential Doctrines of the Chriftian Religion ; then we of the Reformed Religion do profefs all the Eflential Dodrines of the Chriftian Religion: and confequently,whenfoever and where- foever the Chriftian Religion is profefs'd, then and there our Religion is profeffed alfo. The only Queftion therefore is, whether we of the Reformed Religion do profefs all the Eflential Dodrines of the Chriftian Religion, or no. Now our Adverfaries acknowledge, that they do profefs all the Eflential Dodrines of the Chriftian Reli- gion ; and 1 have fhewn, that thofe Dodrines of theirs which we rejed, are not eflential, becaufe they are unlawful Dodrines ; and confequently, we of the Reformed Religion, who profefs all their Dodrines, except the unlawful ones, do profefs all the Eflential Dodrines of the Chriftian Religion. And therefore, whenfoever a;id wherefoever the Chriftian Part III. of our Religion. Ch. III. 5.5^, Chriftian Religion is profefs'd_, then and there our Religion is profefs'd alfo. 'Tis true^ the Errors of the Church of Rom^ have been but lately rejected ; but our Religion is truly ancient notwithflanding. For that confifts, not in rejecting the Errors of Rome^ but in retain- ing the Effentials of Chriftianity. We do not fay, that the Errors of the Paftfis do make them to be- come no Chriftians : but we fay, and I think I have fairly prov'd, that they are corrupted Chriftians. Our Religion and theirs is in fub- ftance the fame ; for both do profefs the Chriftian Religion : but theirs is corrupted, and ours is Re^ formed^ not into another Religion, but from their Corruptions of the only true Religion. And now, if our Adverfaries ask. Where was your Religion before Luther ? we anfwer them by re- turning the queftion. Where was the Popifh Rtli^ gion before Luther ? For wherefoever their own Re- ligion was, there was ours : only our Religion was then corrupted ; and we have now rejeded the Corruptions of our Religion, but our Adverfaries retain them ftill. CHAP. 352 Ch.IV. Of the Uvalidtty Part III. CHAP. IV. Of the Invdiditj of our Orders, FOURTHLY, 'Tis pretended that we are no Church, becaufe we have no true Biftiops, Priefts and Deacons among us ,* the Orders of our pretended Minifters being Invalid. To this Ob- jedion I anfwer, that fince our Adverfaries do ac- knowledge, that their own Ordinations were valid at the time of the Reformation ; 'tis plain, that our Orders which are deriv'd from them, muft alfo be valid , unlefs we have forfeited our Or- ders by the Reformation. Now 'tis plain that we did not forfeit our Orders by a Schlfmaticd Re^ formation ; for I have fufficiently dilprov'd and re- turned the charge of Schifm in the firft Chapter of this third Part. Nor can it be pretended, that we have forfeited our Orders by any Herefy ,• fince I have fhewn that thofe things wherein we differ from our Adverfaries, do not make us Heretics, but Profeffors of the Purity of the Chriftian Religion. Nor have we forfeited our Orders by> making a Reformation ; unlefs the removal of a- bufes, and reftoring the purity of Religion, can be thought fufficient to null our Orders. Wherefore 'tis plain, that our Orders are not forfeited, but continue in full, or rather in fuller force than ever; As for the pretended Nags-head Fable, 'tis abun- dantly confuted by many learned Men i particularly by I Part III. of our Orders. Ch.IIL j^j by Dr. (a) Mafon^ Bifliop (h) Bramhaly and Mr. (c) Brown/ ' ^ As for the pretended Irreguhrity of the Con- fecration of fome of our BifliopSj I defire the Rea- der to confider^ what Dr. (d) Sajwdl has faid in an- fwer to it. But if it were granted^ that the Con- fecration of them was irregular • yet it was not de- fedive in the EiTentials of Eplfcopal Confecration. It was only againft a certain Canon of a General Council : but not againft the Scriptures. And if the Iniquities of the Times^ and the Corruptions of the Churchy and the perverfenefs of our Ad- verfarieSj made fuch fmall Irregularities necefTary i they are not to be charged upon us. However^ it do's not and cannot afFed: the validity of our Orders ^ tho' it might have feem'd an argument a- gainft the manner and fitnefs of our Proceedings^ if it had been poffible for us to have a6l:ed other- wife. I fhall add no more upon this Head^ tho' the matter might eafily lead me to many Difputes : becaufe I am perfuaded^ that what I have already ofFerMj is a iatisfadory anfwer to the whole Ob- jedion. (a) Majons Apol. lib, 3. chap. 8. Lond. 162^. (b) Byamhafs Defence of the Church of Ejiglandy chap. 5. (c) Brown s Con- dones duoe, Cant ah: (d) Say welt % Vindication of the Refor- mation of the Church, &c. CHAP. J* 554 Ch.V. The pretence of PartllL CHAP. V. 7he pretence of greater fafety in the Roman Com^ munion^ than in the Communion of the Church of England, anfver'd, LASTLY^ 'Tis pretended that there is great- er fafety in the Roman Communion, than ill the Conimunionof the Church of £w^/jW^ becaufe we acknovvledge that the Papijh may be faved, but the Papifis do not acknowledge that the Protefiants may be fav'd. And therefore 'tis more advifable for a Man to continue in the profeffion of Popery^ wherein 'tis granted on both fides_, that there is a poflibiliry of Salvation *, than to forfake Popery^ without which one Parry thinks it impoilible to be fav'd. But this pretence of greater fafety is eafily anfwer'd, if we confider why, and for what Rea- fons, we Proteflravs fay 'tis poffible for a Papifi to go to Heav^en. That Popery is finful, and in its own nature dam- nabk, we Prctefiants are all agreed ; and I think, I have fufficiently prov'd it : and therefore if a Man perfift in the Rowan Communion, when he bar had opportunities of difcovering the Errors of Popery^ 'tis as Utterly impcilibie for him to enter into Heaven, as for a Thief or a Murderer, or any other the greateft Villain. Bir we are heartily wil- ling to believe, that maiiy Perfons are deluded by the Priefts, and are alio ocherwife excuf^ble in their ignorance : and therefore we do not think it im- Part III. grcAter fafety, he. Ch.V. ?SS impoffible for God to have pity on them ; and for this reafon we hope that a Vaftft may be fav'd. But what will this advantage the prefent Obje^ iftors ? If they are not fatisfy'd of the unlawful- nefs of continuing in the Roman Communion, we do not defire them to leave it : but if they are fa- tisfy'd of the unlawfulnefs of continuing therein, *tis in vain to pretend a poffibility of being fav'd in it. For tho' fuch as know no better may be fav*d, altho'they continue Fafifis : yet fuch as are informed and convinc'd of their Errors, are incapable of fal- vation, if they ftill profefs and maintain them. Let each Perfon therefore fit down, and confider ferioufly. Let him carefully weigh the Arguments on both fides, and judge impartially : and then let him determine, and ad accordingly. If he does not; fee reafon to change his Profeffion, yet let him judge charitably of thofe that differ from him : but if he finds himlelf to have been in the wrong, let him earneftly endeavor to be in th^ right. And if thefe Papers may have contributed to his difcovery of the truth, I humbly beg him to pray for theun^ worthy Author of them. 5^3H I fliall conclude with an excellent Colled of the Holy and Charitable Church of England. Almighty Gody vjho jliewefi to them that be in error the light of thy truth yto the intent that they may return into the V^ay of right eouj nefs ,• Grant unto all them that are admitted into the fellowjhip ofChrifi^s religion, that they may efchew thofe things that arc contrary to their profejjlony and follow all fuch things as are agreeable to the fame ^ through our Lord Jefus Chrifi, Amen. The^E N Z^, TABLE Of the principal Texts e^phind in this Book rn^O V? Genesis. Chap. I8. 2. — Pag. •92, 189 Joshua. Chap. Pag. 5. 14. 22, — — 191. 19. J, Sec. 189, 6cc.'— 196. Judges. 28. 13. 32. 24 i9?. 13' 3. ^ r- T- 48. J 5, 16. J97, &c, I Samuel. 28. 14. : •194' Exodus. 3i. is-— —■ — —251. 3.2,4.- 193. ■, ^ ^ 1(5. 3 J... 92. II 'SKU't'UfeL. 32. 28. 232, 233. I. 12. ^— ^ -252. 12. i3j 14. ~23^> 237. Leviticus. ^4- ^J- ^ — -S^* 4. 22, 23. j<58. 16. 17. ^ 180, 181. 1 Kings. 1 3 . 24. • ' ■ — — — Ibid. Numbers. j8. 7. ' ;; ' ^'; i95- .5. 6, 7. ' 211. 12.14.-^ 233. Nehemiah. 14. 20. 234, &c. 8. 2, 3, 7, 8.— 182, 183. 20; 24. • — 23(3. 22. 31. 192. Job: 5. I. 197. Ueuteronomy. 17. 8, &c. 22. Psalms. 32. SI. 236. d^. 12. 252> 2J3. ' * 119. The T A B L E. Chap. i?AG. Chap. Pag. ir^. 1 8. ' 66. 26. ■ Jlfid. W I s D o M oi Solomon, 73. '■ : ' /W. 16. 20, ii.^— -— -. 92. 135- '■ ■^^'^• ToBIT. Proverbs. 4. 17.. — rr-*- — 272, 273. 16. 6. i39, 240- 30. 29, 30, 31. j68. BaRUCH. 6.32. .273- ■ : LCCLESI ASTES. 5.6. 193- II Maccabees. 12. 44, 45. -378,.&c: Isaiah. 1. i(?, 17, 18. 241. Matthew. 9. 18, 19, 20. — -25:3, 254- 3. (5. .212, 213. 7, 8, 9. — 244. Jeremiah. 5. ,7. . ■ 169. ,6. 8. 273. 25. 25 s, 18. 7, 8. 241, 242. 12. 32. 258, 259. id. 18, 19.— 24. ai6, Sec. . EzECHIE L. 316, &C. 24. 17, 21. '■ 273. 18. 17. • ^5. 18. — -" 2ld,.&C. Daniel. 20. —— Jbid, i. 46. 204, 20^. 34* ^ '.p. - 27. M2, H3. -; ;j'j!iz:i=z:^1^: Hose a. ^^--^> ^^- jf,; |,^: 12. 4. 193. ,8. 20. -.28. Jonah. Mark. .■ 3. ,0. 244. ^ ^^ ^2I2,-^I3. ,-. 6. 13. -" 3oo» Micah. i^. 22, 8cc. i5<5, &c. 7-, 8, 9, 10. ^.^ ^254- .. ^ ,. L U K e. Z/ECHARIAH. ,. ,^ ^C, 47. 9 i^ 255. ,!, _J 180, j8r. 10. 6. 28. MaLACHI. II. 41 " 24J. 3, 3.-— 255. 16, 9. 274. 20. The T A B L E. Chat. Pag. Chap. Pag. ,,. ,. &c. i5<^, &c. 11 Corinthians. i6y, 166. y ^8. 19. 215, ^^C. 32. 28. 7. • '73, Sec. f. 4. , . 34- — 38. I. 4, 5. I99> &c. »4- '73, &c. 5. 4.. , . 7,. If. 29. « 275, 276. 21. 27. ^ 267, 268. r J/ £ £ A^ A BOOK,S Written by the Reverend Mr. Bennet, and fold by James Knapton, at the Crown i» 6Y. Paul'x Church^Tard. AN Anfwer to the DilTenters Pleas for Separation, or an Abridgrtient of the London Cafes ; wherein the Subftancc of thofe Books is digefted into one fhort and plain Di{^ courfc. I'he Fifth Edition. Devotions ; viz.. Confefllons, Petitions, IntercefTions and Thankfgivings, for every Day of the Week: and alfo before, at, and after the Sacrament ; with occafional Prayers for all Pcrfons whatfoever. A Difcourfe of Schifm, fliewing, I. What is meant by Schifm. n. That Schifm is a Damnable Sin. III. That there is a Schifm between the Eftablifti'd Church of Engl and ^ and the DiiTenters. IV. That this Schifm is to be charged on the DifTenters fide. V. That the Modern Pretences of Toleration, Agreement in I^undamentals, &c. will not excule the Diflenters from being guilty of Schifm. Written by way of Letter to three Diflcn- ting Mlnifters in Effex, viz. Mr. Gilfon and Mr. Glcdhil of Co/- chcfier^ and ^Ar. Shepherd of Braintree. To which is annex'd, An Anfwer to a Book intituled Thomas againfl Benncty or the Prote-^ ftant Di (Tenters Vindicated from the Charge of Schifm. The Third Edition A Defence of the Difcourfe of Schifm, in Anfwer to thofe Objeftions which 'i^r. Shepherd has made in his Three Sermons of Separation, &c. The Third Edition. An Anfwer to Mr Shepherd^ Confiderations on the Defcnfc of the Difcourfe of Schifm. The Third Edition. A Confutation of^iakerifm ; or a plain Proof of the Falfliood of what the principal Quaker Writers (efpecially Mr. R Barclay in his Apology and other Works) do teach concerning the Ne« celTity of immediate Revelation in order to a faving Chriftian Faith ; the Being, Nature and Operation of the pretended Uni- verfal Light within ; its llrivlng with Men, moving them to Prayer, and calling them to the Miniftry ; Regeneration, San- ftification Juftification, Salvation and Union with God ; the Nature of a Church ; the Rule of Faith ; Water- Baptifm, and the Lord's Supper, l^lverfe Quedions alfo concerning Perfe- ftion. Chrift's Sitisfaftion, the Judge of Controverfies, &c, are briefly dated and refolved. The Second Editioo. A A Dlfcourfe of the NeceHlty of being Baptized with Water, and Receiving the Lord's Supper ; taken out of the Confuta- tion oi ^'^uakcrifm. pr. 3^/, or 20 /. a 100. - A Brief Hiftory of the joint Ufe of precompofed fet Forms of Prayer, fliewing, i. That the ancient ;?£»/, our Savior, his ApoftJes, and the primitive Chriftians, never joinM in any Prayers, but precompos'd fet Forms only. 2. That thofe pre- compos'd fet Forms in which they joined, were fuch as the refpe6live Congregations were accuftomed to, and throughly acquainted with. 9. That their Praftice warrants the Impo- sition of a National precompos'd Liturgy. To which is an- nexed, a Dlfcourfe of the Gift of Prayer, fhewing, that what the DifTenters mean by the Gift of Prayer, njiz,. a Faculty of Conceiving Prayers extcwporej is not promifcd in Scripture. The vSecond Edition. A Difcourfe of joint Prayer ; fhewing, I. What is meant by joint Prayer. XI. That the joint Ufe of Prayers conceiv'd 'extempore hinders Devotion, and confequently difplcafes God : ^whereas the joint \J^c of fuch preccmposM fet Forms, as tht "Congregation is accuftom'd to, and throughly acquainted with, does mofl: effectually promote Devotion, and confequently is commanded by God. IIL That the Lay Diflenrers are obliged, .upon their own Principles, to abhor the Prayers ofFer'd in their feparate Afremblies,.and to join in Communion with the-Efta- blifh'd Church. The Second Edition. AParaphrafe with Annotations upon the Book oiCowwonPray' •cr, wherein the Text is explain'd, Objeftions are anfwer'd, and Advice is humbly ofrcr'd, both to the Clergy and Layety, for ' promoting true Devotion in the Ule of it. The Second Edition. Charity Schools-recommended in a Sermon preach'd at St. 7/7Wi/s Church in CoUheJl.r,on Sunday March 16. 1710, Pub- •lifli'd at the Requeft ,of the Truflees- Price id. A Letter to Mr. />, Rohinfon, occadon'd by his R<:i;;Vbj of the Cafeof Liturgies and their Inpofition, A lecond Letter to Mr. B. Rol-infon on the fame Subject. The Rights of the Clergy cf the Chrifllan Church ; or. a Dlfcourfe iliewing^ :\.\t God has given and appropriated to the Clergy, Authority- to, jrciain, l-^ntiLe, preach, prefide in Church- Prayer, a.. J confccur^ the 1 ord's Supper Wherein alfo the pretended Divine Right of -^ ; Layery to ele61:, either the Per- fons to be ordained or xhc'.i cv^n particular Paftors, is exami- ned and difproved. DiieCl'Ions for Studying I. A General Syflem or Body of rDiviniry. IF The Thirty nine Articles of Religion. To * which is added St. 'jcrcm\ EpilHe to Nepotianui, ^Ifcilill r: •'feaitf'"