SIBE
 
 II A 
 
 CONFUTATION 
 
 POPERY, 
 
 In III. PARTS. 
 
 WHEREIN, 
 
 I. The Controverfy concerning the 
 Rule of Faith is determined. 
 
 II. The particular Doctrines of the 
 Church of Rome are Confuted. 
 
 III. The Topijh Objections againft the 
 Church of England are Anfwer'd. 
 
 By THO. BENNET^D.D- 
 
 Vicar of St. Giles'/ Cripplegate. 
 THE FIFTH EDITION. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed by M. JENOUR, and Sold by 
 THO. A s T L E Y, at the Rofe in St. Paul's 
 Church-yard. MDCCXXVHI.
 
 THE 
 
 t 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 Stack 
 Annex 
 
 5" 
 O?D 
 
 THofe Books, which have been writ- 
 ten in our own Language againft the 
 Corruptions of the Church of Rome, 
 are of two forts ; viz. fuch AS treat 
 of fome one or more particular Difpates, 
 and are whollj filent concerning the reft : or 
 Juch as are of a more comprehensive nature, 
 and take in all the material Differences be- 
 tween the Reformed Churches and the Church 
 of Rome. 
 
 Thofe of the frjl fort are very well ftor'd 
 with excellent Learning : but the Treatifes 
 being pngle, and confidently very numerous^ 
 A good, Collection is fcarcely to be found ; nor 
 can they be furchas d at fuch a price, as the 
 
 feneraiity of Readers are able or willing to 
 eftow upon them. Bepdes, it is A matter 
 of fome trouble and difficulty to difpofe a con- 
 jiderable quantity of them in A good order, 
 And digeft them irito A regular body of Popifh 
 fyntroverfes. 
 
 A 2 As 
 
 2063312
 
 The PREFACE. 
 
 As for thofe of the fecond forty they AT 6 
 txtremefy fly or t. The Authors of them have 
 faid fome general things : and rather propo~ 
 fed their Reafons, than driven them home. 
 Such D/fcourfes are fitted for the ufe of the 
 tneaneft Readers, who cannot examin the 
 tnerits of a Caufe, or enter far into it : but 
 Men of greater Capacities are willing to go 
 deeper, and understand the force of an Ar* 
 gument. 
 
 Wherefore, tko* the Nation is plentifully 
 Jurnffid with Books againft Popery, yet 1 
 have thought it advifable to publijb the fol- 
 lowing Confutation of it. Becaufe, though I 
 have omitted fome unneceffary Difputes, and 
 fyoken very briefly of feverai others ; yet 1 
 Am perfuaded, that thefe Papers will give 
 the Reader a full view of all the "material 
 Branches of th& Popifli Controverfy. 
 
 *Tis true, 1 have not (fjewn the 'Judgment 
 of the Ancient Fathers concerning it : but I 
 think I have determined the great queftion 
 concerning the Rule of Faith with fo much 
 flainefs, that the Judgment of the ancient 
 Fathers is for that retfon Juptrflaous, and 
 the Reader ought not to expect it from me. 
 For *twill be readily granted, that if the 
 Scriptures do contain all things ne'ceffary to 
 Salvation, as 1 hope 1 have frov*d in the 
 frfl Part ; then, though the Ancitnt Fathers 
 had really mantaitfd all the Popifh Tenets, 
 
 yet
 
 The PREFACE. 
 
 yet we may and. ought to reject them. Be* 
 caufe 1 hAve [heivn in the fecond Part, that 
 all the particular Doctrines of the Church of 
 Rome, which are worth dtfyuting, are ei- 
 thtr abfolutely falfe, or forbidden in Scri- 
 pture, or not contained in it. 
 
 BtfideSy very jew Perjons are Able to judge 
 of the Opinions of the Antkrtt Fathers. No- 
 thing is more common, than fvr each Party 
 to charge the other with falfe or imperfect 
 Quotations : and *tis impcfjible for any Man 
 to tell who reprtfents an Author j airly , un- 
 lefs hs be skilled in the Original, and have 
 opportunity of confuting it. But the me- 
 thod, / h.vue us^dj will enable even fuch as 
 are not acquainted with the learned Tongues, or 
 cannot have recowje to well-furnifljed Libra- 
 ne ( , throughly to under ft and the prefent -D/- 
 Jputes between us and. our Awer furies. For 
 tf I have faithfully rendered fame few Au- 
 thorities, which I have found it ncoeffgry to al- 
 ledge (and for this 1 dare appeal even to the 
 Popifh Pr lefts thewfelves) then any Per- 
 Jon, who has an ordinary (hare of cowrnon 
 Senfe, and an Englifh Bible , is a competent 
 'Judge of thefe matters. 
 
 Jf it be objected, that thefe Papers are 
 anfeafonable, btcauje we are not now in 
 danger of Popery ; / deftre the Objectors to 
 confider three things. 
 
 a Firft,
 
 The PREFACE. 
 
 Fir ft, That tb<? the danger of Popery 
 may be vaniftfd away ; yet the Popifh Con- 
 troverfies ought not to be utterly forgotten. 
 '//> true, the Church is now more vigoroujly 
 attacked front other Quarters. There are 
 many pernicious Doctrines of a quite diffe- 
 rent nature, which appear barefaced among 
 as, and ought to engross the chiefeft part of 
 our Studies. But yet we are ft ill obliged to 
 examine the Opinions of our Popifh Adver- 
 faries, and to remember the Grounds of our 
 differing from them. Otherwife we (ball 
 not fufficiently value the unfpeakable blefftng of 
 the Reformation : nor (hall we prevent or 
 frttftrate the future attempts of Popifh Emif- 
 faries. 
 
 Now if the Popifh Contr over fie s ought to 
 be looked into, even when the danger of Po- 
 pery is not apparent, and when Difputes of 
 another kind do require the moft considerable 
 fbare of our time ; certainly that Book, which 
 will make us well acquainted with the Po- 
 pifh Controverfes by be f owing only fome lei- 
 fare hours upon them, is not only feafonable, 
 but almoft neceffary. 
 
 Secondly, How Jecare foever we Prote- 
 ftants are from the Popifh Religion j yet cer- 
 tainly *twill ever be a principal part of our 
 Chriftian duty to regard the Souls of others : 
 and we know there are many Perfons in this 
 Nation^ who thd* living And converging with 
 
 Prote-
 
 The PREFACE. 
 
 Proteftants, do neverthelefs adhere to the 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 *Tis matter of juft grief \ that rve have- 
 not as yet effected their Conversion. Would 
 to God we could learn Z^al from our Ene~ 
 mies ; and were as Indujlrious in the propa- 
 gat ion of pure Religion, as they are of that 
 which is miferably corrupted. Certainly the 
 Papifts are not proof again ft all our endea* 
 vors. Let it fljame A Chriftian to draw back^ 
 when Chrift leads him on. Confider that we 
 fight the Caufe of God, that we labor for 
 the gaining of Souls ; and that whether rve 
 fucceed or no, we fljafl be eternal) rewarded 
 for fo great and glorious an Attempt. Let 
 thefe Thoughts fill us with vigor, and force 
 us to proceed. 
 
 Thofe who havje jujl Notions of Popery ^ 
 ought not to reft {atisffd that they themf'elves 
 do abhor it : but they ought alfo to open tin 
 Eyes of their Brethren, and excite the fame 
 abhorrence in others -, that thofe whom Satan 
 has bound for /> many years, may now l& 
 loofed. Efpecially we ought to be diligent 
 at this juncture of Time, when the Jeventy 
 of our Laws do*s ficond our endeavors : and 
 the consideration of their Temporal Intereft 
 will prevail with our Adversaries to lend an 
 Ear to our Reafons, and examine the force 
 of them. Now 'fis poflible that this Book 
 be i fbme meafure ufeful for the Con- 
 a a verjim
 
 The PREFACE. 
 
 verfion of Papifts; and therefore it cannot be 
 thought unfetjonable. 
 
 Thirdly, It may be added, th.it our Jea- 
 loufies of Popery hone been lately revived. 
 We know the relief's Spirit of the Romifh 
 Clergy ; that they will lay hold of every op- 
 portunity of eft.iblifotng their Superstition a* 
 mong us, and that they will fpare no pains in 
 endeavouring to extirpate what they call Here- 
 fy : and therefore we ought not to be over-con- 
 fident of our Security. 
 
 God only knows what changes may happen, 
 and what dangers do threaten our Religion. 
 But without ad doubt it becomes uf Spiritual 
 Mariners fo far at lezjt to think of a. Storm, as 
 to make provifton againft it. tor fboald it 
 fuddenly overtake us, ^tis to be doubted, tbxf 
 many would make, Shipwreck of their Faith. 
 
 Now "*tis pf./fible, that what 1 have writ- 
 ten in the following Papers, may confirm the 
 resolution of fime one or other, and make him 
 more ftedfaft in what he believes. It may in- 
 freafe his knowledge, and, (irexgthen him a- 
 ?ain ft the day of Tryal. And. certainly, 
 whatsoever may Jave a Soul from Death,, 
 ought not to be thought un 
 
 Cplcheflef, 
 ftp. 13. 1700.
 
 2S. J58S. > c 2. jtSil .J25. jeSs 
 . .cy'f tjV A f i_P^ 3Sf S << 
 
 8? g 
 
 THE 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Of the Rule of Faith. 
 
 Chap. I. ' 1 ^Hat tbofe things which are 
 
 not contained in the Scri- 
 
 p fares, vaeie not revealed to the Apoftles. p. i 
 
 chap, ii. That Tradition is utterly uncertain, 
 4d liable to great Corruptions. p. 6 
 
 chap. iii. That we have no remedy again ft the 
 Vncertainty and Corruptions of Traditi- 
 on, p. 20 
 
 cfiap. iv. That the Church is not Infallible. 
 
 P. 22 
 
 chap. v. That the Scriptures do not command 
 us to receive unwritten Traditions, p. $6 
 
 chap. vi. That the Scriptures were written 
 on purpo/e to prevent the mi/chiefs aripng 
 from unwritten Traditions. p 41 
 
 chap. vii. That we ought to receive the Scri- 
 ptures upon the Tejtimony of Tradition, al- 
 thtf we reject unwritten Traditions, p. 5 1 
 
 chap.
 
 The Contents. 
 
 chap. viii. That thofe Doctrines which are 
 not contained in the Scriptures , were not re- 
 veafttfotte the Apojlles times. P- 54 
 
 chap. ix. That the Scriptures do contain all 
 things neceffary to falvation. p. 60 
 
 chap. X. The frft Objection, that the Canon 
 of Scripture is imperfect, anfiver^d. p. 6 1 
 
 chap. xi. The fecond Objection, that the Scri- 
 ptures are obfcure, anjwer^d. p. 6j 
 
 chap. xii. A fbort Summary of what has been 
 J aid, in the former Chapters. P- 74 
 
 M" PART II. 
 
 Of f&e particular 'Dottrines of the 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 Chap, I. ' \ General Argument ag&inft Po- 
 
 XX P er y f r opos'd. P- 77 
 
 chap. ii. That the Doctrine of Tranfubftanti- 
 
 ation is abfolutely falfe. p. 8j 
 
 chap, iii. That the Doctrine of Tranfubftan- 
 
 tiation cannot be proved from the fixth 
 
 Chapter of St. John's Go/pel. p. 1 1 1 
 
 chap. iv. That the fixth Chapter of St. John's 
 
 Gofpal do's not relate to the Lord's Supper. 
 
 p. 1 1 3 
 
 chap. v. Objections againft the former Cha 
 fter Anfaer'd* p. 122; 
 
 chap.
 
 The Contents? 
 
 chap. vi. That alt ho 7 the fxth Chapter of St. 
 John'j Gofpel did relate to the Lord?s 
 Supper, yet it cannot be under ftood in A Li- 
 teral Senfe p. 127 
 
 chap. vii. That, alt ho* the fixth Chapter of 
 St. John'j Go Ip el did relate to the Lord's 
 Supper, and were to be under flood in a Li- 
 teral Senfe ; yet it do*s not prove the Do- 
 Urine of Tranfubftantiation, but direttly 
 contrary. p. 1^4 
 
 chap. viii. That the Doffrine of Tranfub- 
 ftantiation cannot be proved from the Words 
 of the Institution of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 p. i$6 
 
 chap. ix. That the Dcflrine of the Trinity, 
 and the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, 
 are not equally credible. p. 147 
 
 chap. x. Of the Adoration of the Hofl. 
 
 p. 151 
 
 chap. xi. Of Communion in one kind. p. 1 56 
 
 chap. xii. Of Prayers in an unknown Tongue. 
 
 chap. xiii. OJ the Worship of Angds and 
 Saints. p. i8d 
 
 chap. xiv. Of Auricular Confe/fion. p. 210 
 chap. xv. Of Satisfaction. p. 219 
 
 chap. xvi. Of Purgatory. p. 249 
 
 chap. xvii. Of Prayers for the Dead. p. 270 
 chap, xviii. Of Merits. p. 285 
 
 chap. xix. Of Indulgences. p. 289 
 
 chap, xx, Of Extreme Vntfion. p. 299 
 
 chap.
 
 The Contents. 
 
 chap. xxi. Of the Popes Supremacy. p. } i o 
 chap, xxii, Brief Reflections upon feme other 
 
 Popifh Dotfrines. p. ^2 
 
 chap, xxiii. The General Argument agatnft 
 
 Popery concluded. p. $36 
 
 PART III. ; 
 
 Of the Popifh QljeSiws againjl the 
 Church of England. 
 
 Chap. I/ I ^ HE charge of Schifm from the 
 
 Catholic Church, anfrer^d and 
 
 returned. p. ^8 
 
 chap. ii. The pretence of our many Divijioxs 
 anfwet'*d. p. 344 
 
 chap. iii. Of the pretended Novelty of our Re- 
 ligion ; or &n anfiver to the common gue- 
 Jlion a Where was your Religion before 
 Luther? p. 347 
 
 chap. iv. Of the Invalidity of our Orders, p. 352 
 
 chap. v. The pretence of greater fafety in the 
 Roman Communion, than in the Commu- 
 nion of the Church of England, a^faer^. 
 
 P- 354
 
 CONFUTATION 
 
 POPERY- 
 
 PARTI. 
 
 Of the Rule of Faith. 
 
 CHAP. L 
 
 That thofe things which are not contain' d, in the 
 Scriptures, were not reveal'd to the Apoftles. 
 
 BEfore I proceed to the examination of thofe 
 particular Dodrines which are maintained, 
 and impos'd as necelTary to falvation, by the 
 prefent corrupted Church of Rome ; I think 
 it neceflary to fettle that great and fundamental 
 A poinc
 
 2 Of the Rule of Faith. Part. I. 
 
 point of the RULE of FA 1 7 If. In treating 
 ot which, I ihall not meddle with any fubtile nice- 
 ties concerning the nature and properties of aRule : 
 but endeavor to ihew with all poffible plainefs, 
 that the Bilk is a perfeEl Rule of Faith ; or, which 
 is the very fame in other words, that the Holy 
 Scriptures do contain all things mceffary to fal- 
 vation. This I fhall attempt in the following 
 manner. 
 
 Both Proteflants and Papifls are agreed, thatGod 
 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 Revelation, 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 neceflary to falvation. 
 
 Now 'tis certain, that we ought not to receive 
 any thing as a Divine Revelation, without a fuf- 
 ficient proof that it was reveal'd by God : and 
 therefore we ought not to receive any thing as a 
 Divine Revelation, befides thofe things which 
 are contained in the Scriptures ; becaufe we have 
 no fufficient proof that God has reveal'd it- For, 
 if God has reveal'd fome particular things, befides 
 thofe which are contain'd in the Scriptures, then 
 he has reveal'd them either to the Apoftles, or to 
 fome other Perfons : whereas I (hail make it ap- 
 pear, that we have no fufficient proof that any 
 particular things, not contained in the Scriptures, 
 were reveal'd to either of them. - 
 
 FIRST then, I fhall fliew that we hare no 
 fufficient proof that any particular thing, not 
 contain'd in the Scriptures, was reveal'd to the 
 
 Apoftles.
 
 Cfiap. I. Of the Rale of Faith. j 
 
 Apoftles. Now that I may not be mifunderftood;, 
 I defire the Reader to obferve, that I do not fay, 
 thatGod did never revea! any thing to theApoftles, 
 befides what we find in their Writings. For it ap- 
 pears from thofe very Writings, that they knew 
 fome particulars, which they did not think fit to 
 communicate to pofterity : and 'tis probable, that 
 God made many great difcoveries of his Will to 
 thofe firft Planters of the Gofpel, which being not 
 neceflary for us, are for that reafon conceal'd 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 tho' not con- 
 tain'd in the Seriptures,are now a- daiesfaid to have 
 been reveal'd to them, were certainly reveal'd by 
 Almighty God. And therefore, tho* fome things, 
 not contained in the Scriptures, were never fo cer- 
 tainly reveal'd; yet we cannot name thofe particu- 
 lar things. Nor can we affirm upon juft and reafo- 
 nable grounds, that any one Dodrin, which laies 
 claim to the Apoftles Authority, was reveal'd to 
 them by Almighty God, if that Dodrin be not 
 contained in the Scriptures. 
 
 The only argument by which our Adverfaries 
 endeavor to prove, that God did reveal fome 
 particular dodrines to the Apoftles, which are not 
 contained in the Scriptures, is drawn from the te- 
 ftimony of Tradition. By which word, as 'tis us'd 
 in Scripture, we are to underftand that Holy Do- 
 drin, which was immediately delivered 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 Dodrin, which is 
 A 2 (aid
 
 4 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 faid to have been taught by the Apoflles , and is 
 therefore call'd an ApoftnUcal Tradition. Thus, when 
 we ask, whether Tt anfubftantiation, Auricular Con- 
 feffion, Extreme Unfiion, &c- are Afoftolical Tra- 
 ditions, or no ; the queftion is, whether thole par- 
 ticular Doctrines were taught by the Apoflles. 
 
 2. It fignifies the manner or means by which 
 any particular doctrin 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 Vis call'd a 'written Tradition ; 
 or elfe by the report or Writings of other Perfons, 
 and then 'tis call'd an unwritten Tradition. Thus 
 for inftance, thofe Doctrines which the Apoftles 
 or Evangelifts have taught us in their own Wri- 
 tings, I mean, in the New Teftament, are handed 
 down to us by written Tradition : whereas thofe 
 Doctrines which are not fo taught, but are faid to 
 have been deriv'd from them, either by the report 
 of fucceffive generations, or by the Teftimony of 
 ancient Fathers,are handed down to us by unwritten 
 Tradition ; that is, they were never committed to 
 writing by thofe Preachers themfelves, altho* they 
 may have been written a thoufand times by other 
 Perfons. 
 
 And from hence it appears that there are two 
 kinds of unwritten Tradition. For Fir ft, if by un- 
 written Tradition we under/land the bare report of 
 "our Anceftors, fuch as was fpread from Father to 
 Son, or from one Man to another, merely by word 
 of mouth ; then that unwritten Tradition is diftin- 
 guifti'd by the Name of Oral Tradition But Se- 
 condly, if by unwritten Tradition we underfland the 
 Teftimony of the ancient Writers, of the Church, 
 who have deliver'd any particular dodrin in their 
 Books ; then this Tradition (which we do there- 
 fore
 
 Chap. I. Of the Rule of Faith. 5 
 
 fore call unwritten, becaufe it was nor written by 
 the firft fuppos'd Teachers themfelves) is diftin- 
 guim'd by the Name of Hiftorical tradition. Ha- 
 ving thus ex plain 'd the feveral acceptations of Tra- 
 dition, I muft now defire the Reader to obferve, 
 that I ufe the Word in the latter fenfe of the two, 
 that is, it fignifies unwritten tradition in general, 
 comprehending both Oral and Hiftorical, in the 
 following difcourfe. 
 
 Now 'tis fully agreed between us and our Ad- 
 verfaries, that thofe Doctrines which we find in 
 the Scriptures were moft certainly reveal'd to the 
 Apoftles by Almighty God ; becaufe we are af- 
 fur'dof the Revelation of them by the written Tra- 
 diticn of the Apoftles themfe'ves : but then our Ad- 
 verfaries proceed much farther. They teil us, that 
 by the report of all former generations, and 
 by the Writings of the Primitive Fathers (that is, 
 both by Oral and Hiftorical 'Tradition) they have 
 found out other doctrines ; which tho' not con- 
 tain'd in the Scriptures, were neverthelefs taught 
 by the Apoftles, and reveaTd to them by Almighty 
 God,and handed down to us by this unwritten 'Tra- 
 dition. But to this I anfwer, 
 
 Firft, that there is no 'Tradition for thofe do- 
 ctrines which our Adverfaries wouid fain obtrude 
 upon us. But becaufe I cannot juflify 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 
 Doctrines thro' the firft and purefl Ages of the 
 Church ; and becaufe this Method of proceeding 
 is not only tedious > but will alfo oblige me to in- 
 lift upon very many authorities, taken from thofe 
 who have written in the Learned Langnages ? which 
 A 3 many 

 
 6 Of the Rale of Faith. Part I. 
 
 many readers have neither time nor abilites to 
 examin ; therefore I (hall rather chufe to an- 
 fwer, 
 
 Secondly, that tho' they could juftly pretend to 
 an ancient unwritten Tradition ; yet the teftimony of 
 bare Tradition is not a fufficient proof, that any par- 
 ticular Dottrin not contain d in the Scriptures, -was 
 reveal* d to the Apoftles by Almighty God. And this 
 will appear, ifc we confider the following parti- 
 culars ; 
 
 Firft, that Tradition is utterly uncertain, and li- 
 able to great Corruptions. 
 
 Secondly, that -we ha've no remedy agaivft the Un- 
 certainty and Corruptions of Tradition. 
 
 CHAP. IL 
 
 That Tradition // utterly uncertain, ana li~ 
 able to great Corruptions. 
 
 J. I ^Hen, Tradition is utterly uncertain, and liable 
 JL to great Corruptions' The Heathen My- 
 thology is a fufficient demonflration of thisMatter. 
 They received their Religion from the Reports of 
 their Fathers, who were alwaies making fuch ad- 
 dHonstoit, that at length it was loaded with 
 abfurdities, and became both incredible and ridi- 
 culous. I doubt not but their {lories had fome 
 foundation of truth ; but the Folly, Superftition 
 or Knavery of thofe Perfons who convey'd them 
 do wn,had fo much debas'd and increas'd them with 
 Lies and Corruptions, that in procefs of time the 
 whole Hiftory of their Gods was one continu'd 
 
 But
 
 Chap. II. Of the Rule of Faith. 7 
 
 But perhaps our Adverfaries may pretend, that 
 the Heathens being without any revelations from 
 the true God, might be the more eafily dsceiv'd 
 by the falfe ones ; and that their monftrous errors 
 in Religion were not owing to the Natural uncer- 
 tainty of Tradition, but to the Malice of theDevil, 
 who made it his great bufinefs to ruin the'r fouls 
 by the grofieft Idolatry. Now in anfwer to this 
 it muft be granted, that the Devil us'd his utmoft 
 endeavors to corrupt the principles of the Gentile 
 World ; and that they cou'd not fo well withstand 
 his temptations, as thofe who enjoy the affiilance 
 ofDivine Revelation : but yet it mufl be obferv'd, 
 that when the Devil aim'd at their deflruction, 
 he thought Tradition the readied way to compafs 
 it- 'Twas by the help of Tradition that he de- 
 bauch'd their notions concerning God and Reli- 
 gion ; and from thence it appears that Tradition is 
 a moft pernicious inftrument, if managed by the 
 Devil's artifice. 
 
 Nor ought we to imagin our felves fecure from 
 the mifchief of it, becaufe we enjoy the benefit of 
 theGofpeI,and have a greater and clearerlight than 
 the Heathens : for I fhai) fiiew that Tradition has 
 ever been uterly uncertain and liable to great 
 Corruptions, notwithftanding the brighteft Reve- 
 lations that God has ever vouchfaPd to Mankind. 
 And I am fure, we have too many proofs, that the 
 Devil is as able and as willing to deceive and de- 
 ftroy in thefe daies,as he was in thofe of otirFore- 
 fathers. 
 
 I fuppofe our Adverfaries will allow, that God 
 vouchfafd frequent Revelations to the Patriarchs 
 before the Law, and fufficiently inilructed diem 
 in his Will. Nor can we doubt but thofe holy 
 Men us'd their beft endeavors tp propagate the 
 A 4 Do-
 
 8 Of the Rule of Faith. Parti. 
 
 Doftrin they received ; that by being Preachers of 
 Righteoufnefs they might reform theLives of their 
 Brethren. Befides, it appears from Scripture that 
 Methufalemy who was 243 years old when Adam 
 dy'd, liv'd till Sent the fon of Noah arriv'd at the 
 Age of 98 years. So that Sem dying 600 years 
 old, and 502 years after the Flood, which was 
 brought upon the World 1 6^6 years after the Cre- 
 ation of it ; it is manifeft, that thefe three Perfons, 
 Adam, Methufalem and Sem, fill'd up the fpace of 
 2158 years. 
 
 Now in thefe Times it is obfervable, not only 
 -that the Lives of Men were extremely long, but 
 alfo that the principles of their Religion were ex- 
 tremely few ; fo that it might be convey *d with 
 much greater eafe and fafety, than we can expect 
 in our prefentCircumftances. Nay, Sem cou'd re- 
 ceive the moft exact informations from Methufa- 
 lem y who might be aflur'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 refpect to the reft of Noah's Children, 
 who liv'd before the Flood, and were able to fpread 
 an exact account of God's Holy Will, and his ter- 
 rible Judgments, thro* all the World. 
 
 All thefe things meeting together made much 
 more for the fecurity and prefervation of Tradition, 
 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 j infomuch that 
 Idolatry was foon pra&is'd, and God was con- 
 (even during Sems life time) to make 
 
 new
 
 Chap. II. Of tke Rule of Faith. 9 
 
 new and immediate Revelations to the Patriarch 
 Abraham. 
 
 Again, 'tis granted, that the Jewijb Church 
 worfhipp'd the trueGcd, and had excellent oppor- 
 tunities of preferving their Traditions, and preven- 
 ting the Corruptions of them. They had not 
 only the Books or" Mofes, but a fucceffion of Pro- 
 phets alfo, to examm them by. And yet, in 
 fbight of all thefe great advantages, when once 
 they were made to think, that they ought to re- 
 ceive Tiadittcns, tho' faid to be deiiv'd from M^ 
 fes himfelf- ; they entertain'd and taught fuch abo- 
 minable doctrines, that our Savior faid, they did 
 traxfgrtji t!:e Commandment of God by their Tra- 
 dition, Matt. 15-3- Mark 7. 7. Tho' God had 
 exprefly told them, Dc-ut. 12. 32. W/bdtfeever I 
 command }ou y c,bferve to do it; ye Jhall not add to 
 it, nor dimmijh from it ; yet they neglected feme 
 of God's moll important Precepts, and made the 
 Commandments of God of mne effect thro' their Tra* 
 dition, Matt. 15.6. They were led by the autho- 
 rity of tradition to believe that the Meffias fliou'cl 
 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 obflinacy, and hatred of Chrift, 
 their putting him to death, and the perfecutionof 
 his difciples and followers, were the fad eftecls of 
 their adhering to an uncertain and corrupted Tra- 
 dition. 
 
 If we look into the State of the Chriftian 
 Church, we hall find many inftances of the fame 
 nature. Papias, who liv'd in the beginning of the 
 fecond Century, made it his buiinefs to colled 
 Traditions. He convers'd with thofe, wl o were in- 
 timately acquainted with the Apoftles; and wrote 
 
 thofe
 
 io Of the Rale of Faith. Part I. 
 
 thofe Relations which they ddiver'd to him ; and 
 yet we cannot rely upon the credit of his Re- 
 ports. For he vented a parcel of idle (a) Tales; 
 and amongft the reft he delivers the Do&rin of 
 the Millennium for a certain truth. Nay farther, 
 Irenaus who receiv'd this Story from Papias, gives 
 (b) us ( if you'l believe him) the very words of 
 our Savior Chrift concerning it. 'Tis manifefl 
 alfo, that all the Ancient Fathers believ'd it j and 
 even St. Jerome himfelf, who did not want cou- 
 rage, was aimed afraid (c) to write againft it, be- 
 caufe it was fo univerfally receiv'd in his daies, 
 So that we have not half the evidence for any 
 
 ( a) Kou ftva. AXet 
 c/A. 
 
 ff7 ^ >j \SGKSWV fifyttf- Eufcb. Hift. Eccl. 
 lib. 3. cap. 39 Edit. Ptlef. Mogunr. 1672. 
 
 C^)Prxdiaaitquebenediftioadtempora regni fine con- 
 tradiftione pertinet, quando regnabunt jufti furgcntes a 
 mortuis : quando & creatura renovata & liberta, multitu- 
 dinem fruftificabit universe efcse, & rore cxli, & ex fertili- 
 rate terrae : quemadmodum Presbyter! meminerunt, qui Jo- 
 hannem difcipulumDomini viderunt,audiffe fe ab eo, quem- 
 admodum de temporibus illis docebac Dominus,& dicebar, 
 Venient dies,in quibusVineae nafcenter fingulsedecem mil* 
 lia palmicum habentes,8cin uno palmite dena millia brachio- 
 rum^f./rew.adv.Hxref. lib. 5. cap. 33. Edit, Fettarctent.PuriC. 
 1675. 
 
 (c) Ncc ignoro quanta inter homines fententiarumaiver- 
 fitas fit. Non dico de Myfterio Trinitatis, cujus refta con- 
 fefllo eft ignoratio fcientix : fed de aliis ecclefiafticis dogma* 
 tibus j de refurreftione fcilicet, & deanimarum & huma- 
 nx carnis flatu, de repromiiHonibus futurorum ; quo modo 
 debeantaccipi, &quaratione intelligenda fit Apocalypfis 
 fykannit: quam fi juxta litteram accipimus, Judaisandum 
 eft ; fi fpiritualiter, ut fcriptaeft, diilerimus,multorum ve- 
 terum videbimur opinionibus contraire : Latinorum, Tertvl- 
 liani,yiiorini t Laftantii : Graecorum, ut cseteros praetermit- 
 tam, Hirenti tantum, &c. ut prjefaga mente jam cernam, 
 quanrorum in me rabies concitanda fit. Hierw* in Ifaiam, 
 Kb, 18, frocm, Paris. 1613. 
 
 other
 
 Chap. II. Of tie Rule of Faith. n 
 other opinion,that comes recommended by Tradi- 
 tion j which we have for this Millenary Dodrin. 
 And yet the Papifts themfelves do rejed this Do- 
 &rin, which has above all others the greateft ap- 
 pearance of truth, and perhaps the fmalleft Num- 
 ber of ill confequences. Baronius (d) calls it aa 
 error in Papias ; and faies, 'twas afterwards an He- 
 refy in Appollinaris , wifely adding this necedarjr 
 caution, that ( e ) We mujt learn from the example 
 of Papias to make a choice in Traditions, atid net be- 
 lieve any thing, which a Man faies hz receivd from 
 the Tradition of the Ancients. We are alfo told 
 by Du Pin, when he is (peaking of this (/ ) Wri- 
 ter, that We mufl not -wonder if be has made er/ort 
 and falfities pafs for fentiments of the Apojlles, axul 
 related iabukus ftories as real truths. Wi-ich ttacfaf 
 us that there is nothing fi dangerous in matters $ 
 Religion, as rafoly to believe and greedily to embrace 
 every thing -which has the appearance of Piety, -wit/j- 
 out conjidtrivg uhether it be true or no. Now if 
 Men were ib apt to be deceiv'd, and 
 
 (d) Error Hie irrepfit in nonnullos Fideles, au9ore 
 Epifcopo Hierapolitano, dcMilienario j qui tamen non eoisf- 
 que progrefTus eft, ur tranfiretin hsereftm, nift poftquamia 
 Jftllm&rt. quieum pertinaciuspropugnabat, a Dam&fo Papa 
 Cut fuo loco dicemus) damnatus eft. Baron, ad annum nH. 
 jintverp. 1617. 
 
 (e) Ex quibus facile intelligas in Tradttintibut habenduni 
 efle deleftum ; ut non mox ut quis fe aliquid ex majortmt 
 Tradltione accepifle tradit (ut de Papia accidie) fidem iTi 
 omncs adhibeant. B*rtn. ibid. 
 
 (/) II nc faut pas s'etonner, s'il a fait paffcr des erreurs, & 
 des faufletez pour des fentimens des Apotres, 8c s'il a con- 
 te des Hiftoires fabaleufes comme les veritables. Cc qoi 
 nous montre que rich n'eft (i dangereux en matiere de Re- 
 ligion, que de croire legerement, & d'embrafler avidcmei* 
 tout cequi a Tapparence de piete, fans confiderer, s'il en a 
 la verite.Da Pin. Biblioth, Tomeprem. pag. 53. A P*n/,i<S9j. 
 
 were
 
 12 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 were fo much corrupted, immediately after the 
 Apoftles Times ; certainly thofe who live at the 
 diftance of fo many Ages, and have not half fo 
 good opportunities for fearching into the truth of 
 them, may be much more eaiily imposed upon. 
 
 At the latter end of the Second Century there 
 was a great controverfy between theEaftern andWe- 
 ftern Churches concerning the obfervation of Ea- 
 fter ; and there was Tradition on both fides. For 
 we are plainly told by (g) Eufebius, and ( h ) So- 
 z,omeM, that ail the Churches in Afia grounded 
 their practice upon an ancient Tradition receiv'd 
 from Sr. John and St. Philip ; and that all the o- 
 ther Churches in the World us'd another and quite 
 different method, which 'was receiv'd from the A- 
 
 (g) ZtiTHttus Jinx yp ?xrj\i B <r(juKf<y.ivctx.m$&m-, o-n tfu 
 *A<rietf ATxicms cLi 7m^ix,'ia.t us en 
 
 or/ 
 
 ; r a,<mjv 
 
 >X. 'gQ? Of']" 'TA'f^V cmTiK&V <f rffTT 
 
 iAiS) 'J% 'A?n)?B\/K>if 
 
 't%. Eufeb. Hift. Ecclcf. lib. 5. cap. 23. 
 KJ/ (inquic Polycrates, qui praefuit Epifcopis Afianis) 
 ' - 
 
 et<pa.i- 
 
 7- r e4)'T^, 'A7m^'Ayj' - '^77 3 ^ 'lud.vvH< o cm i^ rl?9- 
 <rS Kuefe <tv&'XwSf t oj g-^t/nSw - TB/ mv\^ trim rat ika 
 HHiftur f Tiosv^KD&tfti&TV* TO n'^t ^Ji 70 djafytMov. 
 Eufeb. ibid. cp 24. 
 
 Cy&J 'ET jSoi -a^f cAW ?< wx wot'?'' <^^ ITawAK j^ FtC- 
 Tfa 7^0 '!$$<&<? iv ehifjui^HV' ol 3 ^,-f 'AJpr^'Io^ry^ -r&f gu'aj"- 
 j*Mr? &x.ote$eii> i%ie/{oV7o. Sozomen. Hift. Ecclef. //. 7. 
 cap. 19. Edit. Va'lclf Par//. i6(58.
 
 Chap. IT. Of the Rale of Faith. 15 
 
 fifties St. Paul and St. Peter, and continud doiw to 
 their own T'lmei. I fuppofe our Adverfaries will not 
 fay, that the Apoftles prefcrib'd different Cuftoms 
 in different Countries ; for if they did, I pray what 
 (hall we think of Pope Vitlor, who excommunica- 
 ted thofe that obferv'd the Apoftles Inftituticn; 
 and how (hail we be able to juftify thofe Bifhops 
 who agreed to neglect oneCuftom, and maintained 
 an univerfal obfervation of the other ? And if the 
 Apoftles did not prefcribe different Cuftoms, then 
 it i'eems tradition is a very uncertain thing, which 
 cou'd lead fo many perfons into fo great an en or 
 about fo great an annual Feaft in fo fmall a com- 
 pafs of Time ; and that too, in the pureft Ages 
 of the Church, when no intereft or other worldly 
 consideration cou'd have any fhare in the Cor- 
 ruption of it. 
 
 But were I obliged to number up all the inftances 
 of doubtful and corrupted Traditions y my task wou'd 
 be infinite and impoffible. Every age of theChurch 
 affords too great a plenty of them -, and everyMan's 
 reading and experience will allure him that 1 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, Affection and Intereft do govern, or 
 at leafthave a ftrange influence upon the World ; 
 and that the beft of Men are not exempted from 
 thefe common frailties of Human nature. They 
 may, I confefs, endeavor to correct the Vices of 
 sheir feveral conftitutions ; but 'tis impoffible to 
 be wholly free from them. This is the reafoti 
 that Truth is adulterated, and receives a new tin- 
 cture from every Channel it pafles thro'. Men 
 are apt to fpeak as their inclinations lead them, 
 
 and
 
 14 Of the Rate of Faith. Part I. 
 
 and to give a matter of fact fuch colors as they 
 think 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 obfervM of any Doctrin 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 it, is foon perfuaded that the other a- 
 grees perfectly with him ; and will back his con- 
 ceit with the judgment of one, whofe authority 
 fie thinks fufficient to recommend it. But if the 
 Opinion thwart his inclination, and he wou'd 
 fain be at liberty to reject it j then every argument 
 is nicely examined, and fcarce any thing fhall be 
 thought a fufficient demonfhation of it. 
 
 We have every day moft notorious inftances of 
 this common frailty, even in the beft and fincerefi 
 Chriftians. Where is the Man that is wholly free 
 from prejudice, and that does not find it the mofl 
 difficult thing in nature to be truly and really im- 
 partial ? How many Perfons that are wedded to an 
 Hypothecs, do appeal to the Scripture for the 
 certainty of it ? They feemtoimagin that the 
 Heads of the ApofMes were caft 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 fatten their own follies upon the infallible 
 Spirit of God. On the other fide, when Men 
 are obftinately fee againft an Opinion, the bare 
 
 found
 
 Chap. II. Of the Rule of faith. 15 
 
 found o a Scripture phrafe ftiall be cali'd a con- 
 demnation of it j and thofe that (hall venture to de- 
 fend it, muft exped to be charg'd with nothing lefs 
 than Herefy and opposing the Scripture. This is a 
 matter of daily experience j fo that 'tis impoflible 
 for any Man to be ignorant of it. The difeaie is 
 fo deeply rooted in our nature, that the moft pru- 
 dent and religious Perfons are in fome ineafure af- 
 flided with it. 
 
 The ancient Fathers labor'd under the fame mif- 
 fortune. Tho' they were eminently pious, yet 
 they felt the byafs of corrupted nature. This is 
 evident from their Writings, in which they have 
 fhewn themfelves to be but Men. We that live 
 at a diflance, and are not immediately interefted 
 in their difputes, can obferve diverfe inftances of 
 weaknefs, which we ought to picy, becaufe they 
 are necefTary frailties. They fometimes load 
 their adverfaries with fuch Charges, as we can 
 hardly efteem jufl ; and aggravate fome things, 
 perhaps beyond their due meafure. They do 
 fometimes infift upon the flightcit matters in the 
 heat of their difputes ; and lay great ftrefs upon 
 fome arguments, which we cannot think conclu- 
 five- When they were poiTefs'd of an Opinion, 
 they feem'd as eager in the defence of it, as their 
 Succeflbrs ; and therefore we muft not think it 
 Grange 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 Apoflles might have 
 fpoken many glorious things concerning the future 
 flour ifh ing State of the Church, &c which Pafias 
 being acquainted with, and having an aflfeftion for 
 
 fome
 
 16 Of the Rule of Faith. Part L 
 
 fome earthly promifes, might eafily miftake fora 
 temporal Reign of our Savior Chrift. Others that 
 are pleafed with the fame thoughts, may apply 
 Texts of Scripture in favor of them ; and think this 
 Dcarin contained in God's Word, becaufe it is 
 not exprefly contradicted by it. Si.ch are the efteds 
 of a Warm Fancy, when it heartily efpouies an 
 
 Opinion. . 
 
 I do not now difpute concerning the truth ot 
 the Millenary Doftrin. If the abettors of it have 
 (as perhaps they may have) fubftantial arguments 
 to evince it, I object nothing againft it ; only I 
 contend that Tradition is a very weak proof, fince 
 it might be owing to the temper of an Honeft 
 Chriiiian ; who,becai;fe it pleas'd him well, cou'd 
 eafily think it an Apollolical Truth. This may 
 teach us to be fober and cautious in our aflertions; 
 for tho* we are not forbidden to propofe an Hy- 
 pothefis,and entertain our felves with fuchSchemes 
 as we think probable ; yet we ought not to receive 
 or impoie any thing for truth, which may not be 
 evidently prov'd. 
 
 'Twere eafy to heap up numberlels mitances 
 upon this occafion j but I am unwilling either 
 to weary the Reader, or to difcover the Weaknefs 
 of fuch Venerable Fathers. However, I am per- 
 fuadcd, we may account for the far greater part 
 of their Midakes upon this Principle , and I 
 cou'd heartily wiih, that the much grofler er- 
 rors of fome other Perfons were equally capable 
 
 of excufe. 
 
 Now if the humours and circumftances of Me 
 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 tftofc 
 
 who
 
 Chap. II. Of the Rale of Faith. 1 7 
 
 whohaveajuftefleem for it; if 'tis made to fpeak, 
 what Men are willing to hear : and forcibly bent 
 to that fide which is moil apt to pleafe ; if, I fay 
 thefe things be true, and fo much violence may be 
 done even to the Scripture it felf , how great is 
 the danger of unwritten Traditions ; when not only 
 a prejudic'd under/landing, an excufable fondnefs 
 for an Opinion, an earneft defire to defend what 
 is judg'd right, tho 1 by weak arguments j when, 
 I fay, not only thefe things, but Confidence and 
 Obftinacy, Deceit and Hypocrify, Intereft and 
 Defign, and every wicked Principle which needs 
 a forgery to affift it, has all poflible opportunities 
 of making additions to them ? 
 
 We know what wonderful Cheats have been 
 pafs'd upon the World by Men of intriguing 
 Heads, and hardened Foreheads, and deep Diffimu- 
 lation; and what fbou'd hinder, but that fuch 
 perfonsmay obtrude falfe Do&rines, which it may 
 be utterly impoffible for us to confute, if a bare 
 Tradition be thought fufficient to eftablilha Truth ? 
 When the matter is indifferent, let us if we pleafe, 
 believe a confident Report ; or atleaft not oppofe 
 and contradict it, till we know it to be falfe : but 
 certainly 'tis unreafonable to think that thing ne- 
 ceflary to Salvation, which is grounded upon fuch 
 pitiful proof. The Chriftian Religion wou'd be 
 a very uncertain thing, and the Profeflbrs of it 
 wou'd be reduc'd to great Mifery, and be utterly 
 deftitutc of any reafonable hopes of Heaven ; if 
 their Salvation muft depend upon the belief of 
 Reports. 'Tis poflible they may never come to 
 the knowledge of half of them ; or they may be 
 corruptly deliver'd. 'Tis plain, they cannot have 
 any juft Aflurance, any well feti'd Hope, which 
 is as an anchor of the foul both fure and ftedfaft, 
 B Heb,
 
 xS Of the Rule of Frith. Part I. 
 
 Heb. 6. 19. if they are plung'd into fuch circum- 
 ftances. 
 
 We know how much our Practice is influenced 
 by our Faith ; that 'tis eafy to debauch Men's 
 Morals by debauching their Principles : and there- 
 fore we have too much reafon to believe that the 
 Devil does endeavour it. Now how is it poflible 
 for us to efcape the Wiles of Satan, if we are ob- 
 liged to receive Traditions upon the pain of damna- 
 tion ? Why may not he make ufe of his ufual in- 
 ftruments, and impofe lies upon us ? Why may not 
 he imploy fome Wolves in Sheeps cloathing, whom 
 we my take for fincere and upright Saints ; whilft 
 at the fame time they may teach uamnable Here- 
 (ies, and prove them by a Confident pretence to 
 Tradition? Nay, why may not he abufe the Weak- 
 nefs even of good Perfons, and corrupt the Chri- 
 ftian Doctrine, by inticing them to reprefent 
 Matters with a different Air, to give them another 
 turn and heightening circumflances ; which being 
 increas'd by the next Relator, may at length fwell 
 that which was true in the Original, into a mon- 
 ftrous Abfurdity ? Thus may the Devil deftroy the 
 Vitals of Religion, and overturn the Gofpel by 
 the help of Traditions. 
 
 It cannot be deny'd, but that feveral errors 
 have taken fanduary in 'Tradition. For befides 
 what I have already mention'd, and innumerable 
 other inftances which might be produced, we 
 know that the (i) Valentinians, Carpocratiam, The- 
 cdotiam, and other ancient Hereticks, pretended to 
 Tradition. Nay the very Scriptures themfelves 
 have been in danger of corruption by reafon of 
 
 adv. Hacr. lib. i.a 14. 8c lib. 3.0. r, 2, 3,4. 
 Tertull. de prsfcrip. c. 12, 15, 27. Evfelr- Hift. lib. 5.0. 18. 
 
 thofe
 
 Chap. II. Of the Rale of Faith. 1 9 
 
 thofe Additions, which the Naz,arem and others 
 made upon the Authority of Tradition. From 
 whence it appears, that when Tradition is fet up, 
 it undermines the Truth of the written Word of 
 God. 
 
 I know our Adverfaries will reply, that tho* 'tis 
 poffible for Men to deceive and be deceived, and 
 confequently to propagate miftakes j yet on the 
 other fide it is alfo poffible for them to convey the 
 truth : and that Providence will not fufrer Errors 
 to prevail fo far as to corrupt the truth of the Gof- 
 pel. But 1 defire them to confider, that matters 
 of Faith, and things necetfary to falvation, oughc 
 not to depend upon bare poffibilities. 'Tis poffible, 
 I confefs, that Tradition may be kept pure ; but 
 'tis a thoufand times more probable that 'twill be 
 corrupted. But, I pray, how is it poffible for 
 thofe who live at a confiderable difhnce of time, 
 to know whether it has been corrupted, or no ? 
 The Experience of all Ages forces us to fufpeft it : 
 nay, 'tis hardly poffible to produce an inflance of 
 any Tradition, in which we are not able, even in 
 thefe latter days, to difcover alterations and addi- 
 tions, and to fhew mamfefr, footfteps of the cor- 
 ruption of it. 'Tis in vain to fay, that Providence 
 fUnds engag'd for the perfervation of it ; finceex^ 
 perience contradicts and overthrows this pretence. 
 Nor ought we to depend upon Providence, with- 
 out either a reafon or a promife to ground our ex- 
 pectations upon. 
 
 In a word, no Man can fafely rely upon any 
 one Tradition, unlefs he has reafonable grounds to 
 think, that it has not been deprav'd ; and 'tis ira- 
 poffible for h m to arrive at any tolerable fatif- 
 fadion in this matter, unlefs he can be in fome 
 meafure aflur'd, i . what every one of thofe Perfons 
 B 2 were,
 
 20 Of fa Rtfle of faith. Part I. 
 
 were, thro' whofe hands it has pafs'd. 2. that not 
 one of them was deceived himfelf. 3. that not one 
 of them has deceived his Succeflbrs. But I am 
 fully perfuaded that thofe who contend for the 
 authority of* Tradition, will never be able to make 
 out either aS t or any one of thefe particulars. 
 
 I cannot without fome difficulty reflrain my 
 felf from making further enlargements upon this 
 point. Tradition has been the Parent of fo much 
 mifchief, that it deferves to be fully expos 'd. But 
 I muft not urge the tenth part of what may be 
 faid againft it ,* efpecially fince any (ingle inftance 
 or argument has force enough to weaken it's pre- 
 tended authority. And I hope, what I have 
 very briefly difcours'd, or rather hinted at, has 
 made it plain that we cannot depend upon it ; be- 
 caufe it is utterly uncertain and liable to great cor~ 
 ruption'f. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 That we have no remedy againft the Vncer- 
 taintj and Corruptions of Tradition. 
 
 BUT then, to carry this matter a little higher, 
 I defire it may be confiderM 
 II. That we have no remedy againft the Un- 
 certainty and Corruptions of Tradition- 'Tis 
 pretended by our Adverfaries, that tho* Tradi- 
 tion is utterly uncertain and liable to great cor- 
 ruptions, yet we cannot be deceiv'd by Tradition, 
 if we admit none but what the Church has pro- 
 nounc'd authentic. But I anfwer, that the Church 
 is not able to atfure us, that fome Traditions are 
 
 genuine
 
 Chap. III. Of the Rule of Faith. 2 i 
 
 genuine and pure ; fo that we muft for ever re- 
 main liable ro deceits and impoftures; 
 
 Becaufe, if the Church be able to aflure us, that 
 fome Traditions are genuine and pure , flie muft be 
 able to do it, either by ordinary means, or by an 
 extraordinary affiftance from Almighty God. Now 
 I prefume our Adverfaries will not venture to fay, 
 that the Church can afljure us, that fome Traditions 
 are genuine and pure, by the ufe of ordinary 
 means ; becaufe ordinary means have ever been 
 granted to all Mankind, and yet I have made it 
 plainly appear from the experience of ail Man- 
 kind, that Tradition is utterly uncertain and liable 
 to great Corruptions. 
 
 If therefore on the other hand, the Church pre- 
 tends to affure us, that fome Tt-aditiom are genuine 
 and pure, by an extraordinary affiftance from Al- 
 mighty God i (he wou'd do well to prove, that 
 ihe has fuch an affiftance. Now this muft be 
 prov'd, either by the teftimony of Miracles, or by 
 a Promife granted to the Church in the holy 
 Scriptures. If it be prov'd by Miracles ; thofe 
 Miracles ought to be true, and well attefted and 
 publicly known : but I am perfuaded, our Ad<- 
 verfaries will not infift upon that fort of argu- 
 ments ; and therefore it muft be prov'd from fome 
 Promife of Scripture. 
 
 Now 'tis not pretended by our Adverfaries, that 
 God has made any particular Promife to affift the 
 Church in the diftindion of Traditions: but they 
 fay, that God has Promised in general that his 
 Church fhall be infallible in her determinations; 
 and from hence they conclude, that (he can in- 
 fallibly determin what traditions are genuine and 
 pure, J fhall therefore examine thofe places up- 
 on which the Do&rine of infallibility is ground- 
 B 3 ded,
 
 2 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 ded, and fhew that there is no Promife of the 
 Church's Infallibility contain'd in the Scriptures, 
 This I Ihall do in the following Chapter. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Tb*( the Church is not infallible. 
 
 NOw our Adverfaries endeavour to prove the 
 Infallibility of the Church from diverfe 
 Texts j and 
 
 i. They produce Dent. 17. 8, &c. If there arife 
 a matter too bard for thee in judgment, between bloud 
 and bloud, between flea and flea, and between Jlroak 
 and ftroak, being matters of controverfy within thy 
 gates ; then t bou Jbalt arife, and get the uf into the f lace 
 which the Lord thy God fiafl chuje ; andthoujhalt come 
 unto the Priefts the Invites, and unto the Judge that 
 fhall be in thofe days, and inquire, and they fiatt 'flew 
 thee thejentence of judgment. And thou fhalt do accord" 
 ing to thefentence, which they of that flace (which the 
 LQrdJha.ll chufe) Jhalljhew thee \ and thou Jhalt obferve 
 to do according to all that they inform thee. According 
 to thefeutence of the Law whicb they Jhatt teach thee t and 
 according to the judgment which they jkafl tell thee, thou. 
 /halt do i thou Jha.lt not decline from thefentence which 
 they fhatijbew thee, to the right hand or to the left. And 
 the Man tha.t will dofrefumftuoufly, and will not hearken 
 unto the Priefl, that Jiandetb to minijler there before the 
 Lord, or unto the Judge, even that Manflaft die ; and 
 tfou (halt put away the evil from Ifrael,
 
 Chap. IV. Of the Rule of Faith. * j 
 
 Concerning this Paflage I (hall obferve Four 
 things, i. That the matters to be determin'd are 
 matters of juftice and right between Man and Man; 
 fo that Religious matters are not mentioned. And 
 for the farther confirmation of this, it is to be no- 
 ted, that the Israelites were perpetually oblig'd by 
 this Precept, to abide by the determination o the 
 Perfons here mentioned ; fo that our Savior Chrid 
 was oblig'd (as a Man) to do the fame : and yet 
 I believe our Adverfaries will not fay, that our 
 Savior, who was without doubt ready to fubmit 
 to their authority in matters of right, did ever 
 think them infallible in Religious matters ; efpeci- 
 ally when they condemn'd him as an Impoftor, 
 3. I obferve that the People are commanded to a* 
 bide by the Sentence of the Judge, as well as of 
 the Prieft ; fo that the one has as much infallibili- 
 ty as the other, g. That the Ifraelites are not 
 commanded to believe the Sentence Infallible, but 
 only to fubmit to it, as the proper way to decide 
 Controversies. 4. That the Sentence was to be 
 given according to the prescription of the Law ; 
 (o that the Perfon who gives Sentence, is not for 
 that reafon to be thought infallible, any more 
 than one of our Judges in an ordinary Court or 
 Juftice, 
 
 Thefe things therefore being premis'd, I anfwer, 
 l. That this paflage does not prove that the Jewijb 
 Church was infallible in Matters of Faith. *. That 
 if it does fuppofe the Jewijb Church to have been 
 infallible in matters of Faith, it muft fuppofe the 
 Jewijb Civil Magiftrates to have been infallible 
 alfo ; which our Adverfaries will not grant. 3. If 
 it be good arguing from this cafe of the Jews to 
 that of the Cbriftia&s, then, upon fuppoiition that 
 the Jewijb Church and Civil Magiilrates were in- 
 B 4 fallible,
 
 24 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 fallible, it follows that the Chriflian Civil Ma- 
 giftrates, as well as the Chriftian Church, are in- 
 fallible. But this I fuppofe, will be ftifly deny'd 
 by thole of the Church of Rome. 4. If this 
 Text prove any infallibility at all, then that in- 
 fallibility is lodg'd, not only in the whole Body 
 of the Church, but alfo in every fmall Number 
 or fingle Perfon, that (hall have been appointed to 
 hear a particular Caufe. But the confequences 
 of this Affertion are ridiculous. 5. Tho J this 
 paflage did really prove the Jewifi Church to have 
 been infallible in matters or Faith (which for the 
 jreafons alledg'd can never be (hewn) yet it do's 
 not follow that the Chriftian Church is alfo in- 
 fallible in matters of Faith. For we cannot chal- 
 lenge to our felves feveral of their Privileges ; 
 and we may with as much reafon lay claim to 
 their Urim and Thummim, &c. as to their infal- 
 libility ; unlefs we can (hew by fome Text of 
 Scripture, that our Savior has tranfplanted this 
 particular Gift of Infallibility out of the Jewijh 
 into the Chriftian Church. 
 
 2. They urge our Savior's Promife to the 
 Church, that the Gates of Hett Jkall net prevail a- 
 gainfl it, Matth. 16. 18. In thofe Words our Blef- 
 led Lord afliires us, that his Church (hall not be 
 totally deftroy'd ; but continue either in a prof- 
 perous, or at leaft in an afflicted Stare, to the end 
 of the World. Now 'tis freely granted, thar the 
 perpetuity of the Church is herein plainly fore- 
 told : but furely it will never be prov'd, that the 
 Church cannot be perpetual, unlefs it be alfo in- 
 fallible. They fay indeed, that Herefies may be 
 brought into the Church, and by degrees deftroy 
 all the Articles of the Chriftian Faith, unlefs the 
 Church has infallibility to prevent them, But we 
 
 anfwer.
 
 Chap. IV. Of the Rale of Faith. 2 5 
 
 anfwer, that God can eafily preferve his Church 
 from being totally undermin'd and ruin'd by He- 
 refies (which is all that is here promis'd) with- 
 out the help of Infallibility : and therefore Infal- 
 libility is not neceflary to the perpetual duration 
 of it. 
 
 3. Becaufe our Savior fays, Matth. 18.17. ff 
 be negletl to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as 
 an Heathen Man or a Publican, they think the 
 Church muft be infallible j for otherwife (fay 
 they) a Man wou'd not be obliged to obey it 
 upon pain of fuch a punifhment. But I anfwer 
 this with an inftance more than parallel. I fup- 
 pofe our Adverfaries will allow, that an undutiful 
 Child or a rebellious Subject fhall (unlefs he re- 
 pent) be eternally damn'd ; and that eternal dam- 
 nation is as fevere a punifliment, as being thought 
 an Heathen Man or a Publican : and yet I fuppofe 
 they will not fay that a Parent or a King muft 
 needs be infallible ; as if a Child or a Subjed 
 cou'd not otherwife be damn'd for difobedience. 
 This Text indeed directs to the Cenfure, which 
 ought to be inflicted on thofe who difobey the 
 Churches authority ; but it do's by no means 
 prove the Church infallible, unlefs there can be no 
 authority without infallibility. 
 
 4. Our Savior fays, Matth. 1 8. 20. H/here two 
 or three are gathered together in my Name, there am 
 J in the midfl of them : from whence fome Perfons 
 conclude, that if he be prefent with two or three 
 Perfons, he is much more prefent in a General 
 Council; and if Chrift be prefent in a general 
 Council, that General Council muft be infallible. 
 To this I anfwer, i . that our Savior fpeaks of 
 Men's offering up their Prayers to God, and pro- 
 mifes them that their joint Petitions Ihall be gran- 
 ted :
 
 26 Of the Rate of Faith. Part I. 
 
 ted : but he fpeaks not one word of an infallible 
 determination of Controveriies concerning matters 
 of Faith. This appears from the context ; for 
 after he had fpoken of Church Cenfures, he pro- 
 ceeds to Church Prayers, faying, Again 1 fay 
 Unto yoUy that if two of you Jhatt agree on earth as 
 touching any thing that they jhatt ask, it Jhall be 
 done for them of my Father which is in Heaven. For 
 where two or three are gather d together in my Name, 
 there am I in the Midft of them. 2. Tho* this be 
 moft plainly fpoken of public Prayers ; yet let us 
 fuppofe it fpoken of two or three judges met to 
 consider of Ecclefiaftical affairs. Certainly out 
 Adverfaries will not fay, that every fmali meeting 
 of two or three Ecclefiaftical Perfons is infallible ; 
 as they muft of neceflity be, if infallibility be 
 the confequence of Chrift's being in the midfl of 
 them. 
 
 5. T'he Scribes and Pharifees (fays our Blefied 
 Lord j Matth. 23,1, 2.) Jit in Mofes'j Seat ; all there- 
 fore, whatfoever they bid you obferue, that olferve and 
 do. Therefore in the judgment of fome Perfons the 
 Scribes and Pharifees, and much more the Church 
 of Chrift, muft be thought infallible. But I pray, 
 muft not the People hear their Spiritual Teachers, 
 unlefs thofe Teachers be infallible ? The Scribes 
 and Pharifees were to explain the Law, and as far 
 as they taught the People their duty, they are to 
 be followed, notwithstanding their own wick- 
 ed Lives ; and this we allow alfo with rcfpcft 
 to Chriftian Paftors : for certainly the Jews o 
 old, and the Chriftians now-a-days are obliged to 
 pracWe whatever is prefs'd upon them out of the 
 Word of God ; tho* their Teachers be neither 
 good Men, nor infallible. 
 
 But will our Adverfaries fay, the Scribes and Pha* 
 
 rifees
 
 Chap, IV. Of the Rale of frith. 27 
 
 rifees cou'd not miflead the People ? What then 
 {hall we think of our Savior's Words, when he 
 fays, they taught for doctrines the commandments of 
 men, Matth. 15.3. and calls them blind guides, 
 Matth. 23. 24. fools and blind> v. 17, i p. and blind 
 leaders of the blind, Matth. 15. 14. and fays, v. 13. 
 WQ unto you Scribes and Pharifees, hypocrites, for ye 
 Jbutup the Kingdom of Heaven againft Men: for 
 ye neither go in your fellies, wither fuffer ye them 
 that are entringto go in. And again, v. 15. Te com- 
 fafs Sea and Land to make one Profelyte ', and -when he 
 is made, ye make him twofold more the Child of HeS 
 than your fehes? Nay, they condemn'd our Savior, 
 and taught the People fo to do, and caft thofe that 
 follow cl him out of the Synagogue, John p. and 
 are notthefe infallible Marks of infallible Guides? 
 Now if the Scribes and Pharifees were not in- 
 fallible, as I think I have fufficiently prov'd: 
 then that infallibility, which has been falfly at- 
 tributed to them, do's not prove that the Chri- 
 ftian Church is infallible. Befides, if the Scrites 
 and Pharifees had been truly infallible -, yet it do's 
 not follow that the Chnftian Church is infallible 
 alfo. Becaufe none can enjoy that privilege, un- 
 lefs God beftow it on them : and we muft not 
 conclude that God beftows it upon one body of 
 Men, becaufe (for fome reafons beft known to 
 hirafelf) he did formerly beftow it upon ano- 
 ther ; unlefs we are able to fhew the Promife, or 
 prove the gift of it. 
 
 Nay farther, if the Scribes and Pharifees muft be 
 thought infallible, becaufe the People were to ob- 
 ferve and do whatever they commanded , then 
 every fingle Perfon of them was infallible ; becaufe 
 the People were not taught by the whole Body of 
 them together, but by one fingle Perfon at a time- 
 Now
 
 a8 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 Now if every (ingle Scribe or Pharifee were in- 
 fallible in his .teaching ,- then, according to our 
 Adverfaries way of reafoning, every fingle Chri- 
 ftian Prieft muft be infallible in his Sermons. But, 
 I prefume, no considering Perfon will affirm thefe 
 things. 
 
 6. Some Perfons argue, that the Church is in- 
 fallible, becaufe our Savior promised, Matth. 28. 
 20, to be -with it to the end of the -world. But we 
 (hall think this Paflfage nothing at all to their 
 purpofe, till they can prove it impoffible for our 
 Savior to be with his Church, and Affift it 
 with his Grace and Bleffing (which is all he 
 promjfes in this place) unlefs he make it alfo in- 
 fallible, 
 
 7. Our Savior fays, Luke io. itf. He that heareth 
 you, heareth me ; and he that defpifeth you y defptfeth 
 me ; and he that defpifeth me, defpifeth him thatfent 
 me. Therefore, fay our Adverfaries, the Church 
 js infallible. But, I pray, may not defpifing the 
 Paftors of God's Church, who are Ambaffadors for 
 Chrift, 2 Cor. y. 20. be grievous fin, and an a& 
 of contempt againft his Majefty ; although the 
 Paftors of the Church be not infallible ? Befides, 
 if this Text proves any infallibility, it is to be 
 found in every particular Preacher ; becaufe he 
 that heareth him, health Chrift j and he that 
 defpifeth him, defpifeth Chrift ,' and he that 
 defpifeth Chrift ; defpifeth God, that fent our 
 Savior Chrift. But, as I have already faid, no fo- 
 ber Perfon will think every particular Preacher to 
 be infallible. 
 
 8. Again, our Savior fays to Sr.Pffcr, Luke 
 '32.32. But I have frayd for tbee, that thy faith 
 fail not ; and when thou art converted, ftrengtben 
 thy Brethren. Our Savior forefaw, that St. /toer 
 
 wou'd
 
 Chap. IV- Of the Rule of Faith. 29 
 
 would deny'd him ; he knew that the Devil de- 
 fiY 3 dto have the Apoftles, that he might Jift them 
 as wheat, v. 3 1. and was fenfible ot St. Peter's frail- 
 ty and cowardice, and was troubled at it. This 
 made him pray for the perfeverance of all his Dif- 
 ciples j and particularly, to tell St. Peter, that he 
 had interceded for him, who was in danger of 
 Apoftafy. But I have prayed for thee, that thy 
 faith fail not , I have intreated my Father, that he 
 wou'd give thee fuch a portion of his preventing 
 and affifting grace, as may not permit thee finally 
 to fall away. And when thou art convened, and 
 art fenfible of that grievous fin, into which thy 
 weaknefs fhall betray thee, then do thou ftrengthen 
 thy brethren. Do thou, who flialt then have been 
 a fad example of human frailty, endeavour to con- 
 firm their doubting and wavering fpirits ; do thou 
 ufe all poflible arguments, and imploy all thy Zeal 
 in pcrfuading them to be true to their Mailer, and 
 take warning at thy great calamity. 
 
 But now, which way will any Man be able to 
 prove the Church infallible from this Text of 
 Scripture ? Do's our Savior's Praying to his Fa- 
 ther that St. Peter may not finally Apoftatize, or 
 his advifing St. Peter to flrengthen his Brethren, 
 when he was recovered from the fin of denying 
 his Matter j I fay, do's either of thefe things 
 prove that St. Peter the pretended Head of the 
 Church, or that the whole body of the Catholic 
 Church met together in a general Council, is in- 
 fallible ? But I proceed. 
 
 9. Our Savior being about to leave the World, 
 that he might revive the drooping fpirits of his 
 Difciples, who were fill'd with forrow at the 
 thoughts of his departure, promifes that he will 
 fend them another Comforter, which (hall abide 
 
 with
 
 jd Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 with them forever. If ye love me, fays he, John 
 14. i" 5, 16. keep my commandments. And I will 
 ffay the Fatbery and he Jhatt give you another Com- 
 forter, that he may abide with you forever* This 
 promife was made to the Difciples only, and their 
 experience prov'd the~ performance pf it : but 
 which way it belongs to the fucceeding ages, I 
 am not able to divine. 
 
 However, wee'l fuppofe it made to the whole 
 Church in general, thro* all the future Gene- 
 rations of it ; yet how is it poifible to prove the 
 Church's infallibility from it ,- unlefs all thofe to 
 whom the Holy Ghoft is a Comforter, and with 
 whom he abides, are infallible ? If this be granted ; 
 then every good Man, who is the Temple of the 
 Holy Ghoft, muft be thought infallible. But this 
 Aflertion is fo very abfurd, that no confidering 
 Perfon will maintain it. 
 
 jo. Well i but this Comforter {hall teach them 
 all things, v. 26. and therefore the Church muft 
 needs be infallible. But this is eafily anfwer'd, 
 if we confider that the words (as I have already 
 faid) were fpoken to the Apoftles only ,* who as 
 our Savior tells them, Luke 24. 25. wereyZotuo/ 
 heart to believe all that the Prophets have fpoken* 
 Therefore he promifes them, that the Comfor- 
 ter fhou'd teach them all things , and bring all things 
 to their remembrance, vohatfoever he had faid unti 
 them. The holy Spirit was to open their Un- 
 derftandings, and refrefli their Memories , fo that 
 by comparing what our Savior did and fpake, 
 with the ancient Prophecies, they fhou'd be ful- 
 ly convinc'd of his being the true Mejfiah, 
 and upon that conviction fhou'd boldly preach 
 the Truth to all the World. And I pray, 
 may not this Promife, made to the Apoftles, be
 
 Chap. IV. Of the Rule of Faith. j i 
 
 fulfill'd, unlefs the Church be forever infallible ? 
 However, let us fuppofe this Promife made to 
 the whole Church in general in all fucceeding 
 times ; yet there is no need of the gift of infal- 
 libility for the performance of it : becaufe the holy 
 Ghoft, in teaching the Apoftles, has alfo taught 
 us all things. 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 in- 
 fallible, becaufe God has taught her all things 
 that are, either required to prove the truth of the 
 Chriftian Religion, or neceflary to falvation by 
 the Gofpel-Coyenant. 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 j but tins may be done without making 
 the Church infallible. 
 
 ii. Our Savior fays, John 16. 12, 13. I have 
 yet many things to Jay unto you ; but ye cannot bear 
 them now. ffoiubeit, when He the Spirit of truth 
 is come, he -will guide you into all truth ; and there- 
 tore 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 Savi- 
 or cou'd guide his Apoftles into all truth, and 
 make his will fully known to them by the mini- 
 ftry of the blefled Spirit ; altho' the Church in 
 fucceeding Ages were not infallible. 
 
 If it be faid, that the promife is made to the 
 whole Church in all fucceeding Ages ; I anfwer, 
 i That it appears from the context to be plainly 
 otherwife : but 2. Granting the promi(e made to 
 
 the
 
 7- / 
 
 $2 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 the whole Church ; yet we are well aflur'd, that 
 the holy Spirit can affift the Church in all Ages, 
 and lead thofe who are ready to follow his dire- 
 ctions, into all neceffary truths, altho' the Church 
 be not infallible. 
 
 Belides, the holy Spirit has promis'd 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 beft 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 aflifting us to perform all good acti- 
 ons, do's preferve Men from a poflibility of finning. 
 
 i a. They alledge Afts 15.28. It feemed good to 
 the holy Ghoft and to us t &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 Adversaries 
 no fervice, if the Context be confider'd. 
 
 For when fame Men which came down from Ju- 
 dea, taught the brethren and faid, Except ye be cir- 
 cumcis'd after the manner of Mofes, ye cannot be 
 fai)d\ verfe i. it was at length <&;o7/'^ thatPzul 
 and Barnabas, and certain other of them ftou'd go up 
 to Jerufalem unto the Apoftles and Elders about this 
 queftion; verfe 2. Now when the Apoftles and Elders 
 came together for to conjider of this matter ; and when 
 there had been much difputing, Peter rofe up, v. 6, 7. 
 the fubftance of whofe fpeech was to this effect; viz,. 
 That it was not neceflary for theGentiles to become 
 jfews y before they cou'd be receiv'd into the Church ; 
 for that God had formerly fent him to Cornelius, 
 and thereby plainly declar'd that he put no diffe- 
 rence between Jews and Gentiles, but that in every 
 Nation, he that fearethGod, and worketh righte- 
 oufuefs is accepted of him. 
 
 Then
 
 Chap. IV. Of the Rule of Faith. ? ? 
 
 Then, when each perfon had fpoken what he 
 thought convenient, James the Bifhop of that 
 place determined the queftion, faying, verfe 13, &c. 
 Men and Brethren, hearken unto me. Simeon hath 
 declared (by inftancing in Cornelius) how God at the 
 Jtrftdid'vifnthe Gentiles, to take out oj 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 hadfent Barnaba* and Saul, 
 laying, v. 28. It jeemed good to the Holy Ghoft, who 
 has plainly fignify'd his Will in the Revelation 
 made concerning Cornelius, and to us, who are re- 
 D , 5- . ow his di^ons, 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 inftanc infpire them with their 
 relo ution : but that they gathered what was his 
 Will, from a former revelation, and defign'd in 
 this which was a like cafe, to proceed accordingly. 
 bo 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 vouchfaPd to 
 them; but they direcl themfelves by a former 
 example. 
 
 However, fuppofe it were quite othefwife ; 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- 
 uie there is not the leaft fliadow of a promife in 
 
 C Scri-
 
 24 Of the Rule of Faith. Part L 
 
 Scripture, by virtue of which Ihe may lay claim 
 to it. 
 
 13. Becaufe the Church is call'd the Piflar and 
 Ground of Truth, i Tim. 3.15. fome will haftily 
 conclude, that (he is 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' it be not endu'd with In- 
 fallibility. Ifuppofe, every Member of the Church 
 of Rome do's believe that he profeffes all the Go- 
 fpel truths ; and yet, I prefume, fcarce any Mem- 
 ber of the Church of Rome do's think himfelf infal- 
 lible. 
 
 14. To fuch as argue from Heb. 13.7. Remem- 
 ber them which have rule ovsr you, &c. I return a 
 fliort anfwer, That we may remember and obey our 
 Spiritual Rulers, without thinking them infallible. 
 And thus, I hope it do's fufficiently 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 neceflary, they fay, 
 that there fhould be an infallible Judge of Contro- 
 verfies ; for otherwife God has not fufficiently pro- 
 vided for the peace of his Church : and fince 'tis 
 neceflfary there (hould 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 neceflary that he mould do it. 
 They ought to {hew 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 :
 
 Chap. IV. Of the Rule of Faith. 35 
 
 guments : but they muft not think to prove a mat- 
 ter of fad by faying, // ought to be. "Pis confefs'd 
 by all ProteftantSj 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 becauie we do by experience find 
 that he has made ample provifion for it : but tho* 
 we cou'd imagine fomething, which to our weak 
 undemanding might feem wanting, yet we dare 
 not fay, 'tis neceilary for us. Nay, we rather con- 
 clude, that it is therefore not neceiTary, becaufe it 
 do's not appear that God has given it to us. Thus 
 in the Cafe before us, tho' there were a feeming 
 neceffity of Infallibility ; yet xve believe that there 
 is no real neceffity of it, becaufe we have no fuffi- 
 cient Reafons to perfiiade us., ti^at God has bellow- 
 ed it upon the Church. But, 
 
 2. There is not fo much as a feeming neceflity 
 of Infallibility. For the Holy Scriptures are fuffici- 
 ently plain, and fit to determine all Controverfies 
 concerning Religion , and this is the only end that 
 Infallibility can ferve. If our Adverfaries object, 
 That the Scriptures are obfcure, and that the fenfe 
 of them is uncertain, without the affiflance of an 
 infallible Interpreter j I crave leave to wave this 
 Objection at prefent, becaufe it will better fuit 
 with the latter end of this Difcourfe, wherelfhall 
 give it a full Anfwer. 
 
 Well then; iince we have no fufficient Proof 
 that the Church is infallible ; certainly fhe cannot 
 pretend to give an infallible Sentence. And fince 
 fhe cannot give an infallible fentence' ; fhe cannot 
 infallibly determine which are pure and genuine, 
 and which are corrupted Tradition*. And there- 
 fore, fince the Church cannot furnift us with a 
 Remedy againft the Uncertainty and Corruptions 
 C a of
 
 36 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 of Tradition, and fince there is no Remedy pre- 
 tended to come from another hand -, I may fafely 
 affirm what 1 undertook to prove, vtz,. That W* 
 have no remedy againfl the Uncertainty and Corruptions 
 of Tradition. 
 
 Now if we joyn thefe particulars, which I think 
 have been fairly prov'd ,- if, I fay, Tradition be 
 utterly uncertain and liable to great Corruptions, 
 and we have no remedy againft the Uncertainty 
 and Corruptions of it; then it plainly follows, that 
 the Teftimony of bare Tradition ism fufficient proof t 
 that any particular Doflrine, not contained in the Scri- 
 ptures, was revealed to the Apoftles by Almighty God. 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 That the Scriptures do not command us to 
 receive unwritten Traditions. 
 
 BUT I muft not pafs from this point, before I 
 have anfwer'd two objections. And, 
 
 Firft, It is pretended that the Holy Scriptures 
 do oblige us to receive unwritten Traditions. This 
 our Adverfaries endeavour to prove from feveral 
 Texts, which I fhall examine in their order. 
 
 i. Then, St. Paul fays, i Cor. n. 2. Now I 
 praife you brethren, that you remember me in att things y 
 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 we heartily willing 
 
 to
 
 Chap. V. Of the Rule of Faith. j 7 
 
 to praftife what ever the Apoftles injoyn'd ; but 
 we defire it may be prov'd that they in/oyn'd it, 
 before we be required to praccife it. Now as to 
 the Scriptures we are abundantly fatisfy'd, that 
 they do verily contain the Dodrine of Chrift, as 
 'twas delivered by the Apoftles : but we have no 
 Sufficient proof (as I have already fhewn) that thofe 
 things, which are not contain'd in the Scriptures, 
 were delivered 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 fig- 
 nife Tradition and therefore we mufl receive Tra- 
 ditions as the Corinthian* did ; I anfwer, That we 
 do receive fuch Traditions as the Corinthians did ; 
 thofe things, I mean, which we know to be, ac- 
 cording to the true import of this Phrafe, Traditi- 
 ens from (that is immediately deliver' d by) the Apo- 
 ftles themfelves ; and for this reafon we receive the 
 Scriptures : but certainly we are not oblig'd to re- 
 ceive whatever is pretended to have been delivered 
 by them, without fufficient proof that they did de- 
 liver it. We do receive what is here call'd Tradi- 
 tion (that is the ApoftVs own words) as readily as 
 our Adverfaries : but tho" we ought to receive Tra- 
 ditions in one fenfe, it will not follow that we ought 
 to receive them in another. In a word, the Apo- 
 ftle fpeaks of thofe Traditions which were certain- 
 ly delivered by the Apoftles themfelves : and when 
 our Adverfaries can prove, that their pretended 
 unwritten Traditions were as certainly deliver d by 
 the Apoftles, as thefe of which St. Paul fpeaks, 
 the Proteftants will not dare to rejed them. 
 
 2. In the 1 6. v. of the fame Chapter, tis faid, 
 
 // any man feem to t>e contention*, we have no fuch 
 
 tuftom, neither the Churches of God. St. Paul had 
 
 been fiiewing that 'twas not decent for Men to 
 
 C 3 wear
 
 38 Of the Rule of Faitb. Parti, 
 
 wear long hair, or for Women to pray uncover'd. 
 Judge in your f elves, fay she, v. 13. is it comely, &c ? 
 But becaufe fome pecfons might reply, that it was 
 not finful in it's own Nature, and then-fore they 
 would follow their private humor, he adds, But 
 if any Man, Jeem to he contentious, we have no fnch cu- 
 ftom, neither the Churches of God. Thac is, Let fuch 
 a perfon know, that 'tis not agreeable to our Cu- 
 itom, and therefore he ought to forbear ; becaufe 
 'tis an offence againft Modefty to be fingular or 
 fantaftic in our actions or apparel. Moreover, 
 when an indifferent thing is injoyn'd, 'tis rebellion 
 to neglect the obfervation 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, whichr 
 are faid to have been delivered by the Apoflles, 
 for real and neceffary duties, I cannot imagin. We 
 are very well contented to join in an innocent 
 thing, which pretends to Antiquity, tho' we can- 
 pot trace the original of it, and find from whence 
 it fprang : but certainly we are not oblig'd to think 
 every thing that is handed down, and perhaps cor- 
 rupted, by we know not whom, to be an Apofto- 
 lical injunction. Let Cuftoms remain, where they 
 have obtain'd : but let not a Cuflom be thought 
 $ Command from God. 
 
 3. Again in the 34. v. the Apoflle tells the Car 
 rinthianf) tfa reft luiU / fet in order lul.en I come ; 
 and doubtlefs the Apoftle was as good as his word. 
 But how do's this relate to T'radmons ? Will any 
 Man argue thus j "The dfo/lleSt.Pamlft fome things 
 in order in the Chyrch of Cptinch, and therefore we
 
 Chap. V. Of the Rale of Faith. 3 9 
 
 ntufl receive unwritten Traditions ? Yes, fay our Ad- 
 verfaries , for the Apoftle has not told us in any 
 part 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 inform'd from Scripture, 
 and (what is ftill worfe) we cannot be inform'd by 
 Tradition, what thofe things were ; and we reft 
 fatisfy'd with our ignorance, becaufe we do not 
 conceive it neceffary to falvation for us to be ac- 
 quainted with fuch particulars. 
 
 But if our Adverfaries wou'd prove any thing 
 from this Text, they muft fhew, i. That thofe 
 things which the Apoftle fet in order in the Church 
 of Corinth, muft of neceflity be known to us. 
 
 2. That fince the Scri;vures are filent, therefore 
 Tradition (tho* it be generally never fo uncertain and 
 liable to corruption, yet) muft of neceflity be be- 
 liev'd j becaufe in this cafe we have no better light. 
 
 3. That fince Tradition muft be credited in one 
 (ingle point, becaufe that point is neceffary ; there- 
 fore we muft always credit it, in fpight^of all the 
 ftrongeft objections againft it, and the jufteft fuf- 
 picions of it. Nay farther, that we muft efteem alJ 
 thofe things neceffary to falvation, which are re- 
 ported by it. When our Adverfaries have prov'd 
 thefe Proportions, perhaps we may believe that the 
 Scriptures do oblige us to receive Traditions* 
 
 4. St. Pfl#/fays, 2 Thejf. 2. 15- Therefore brethren 
 ftandfaft, and hold the Traditions which ye have been 
 taught, whether by word or our Efiflle \ and from 
 this Text our Adverfaries endeavour to prove, that 
 we are oblig'd to receive unwritten Traditions. Now 
 to this I anfwer, That whatever is delivered to us 
 by the Apoftles themfelves, as thofe Traditions 
 given to the Theffaknians certainly were, we ac- 
 C 4 knowledge
 
 40 Of the Rule of FM. Part L 
 
 knowledge our felyes 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 deriv'd from 
 the Apoftles j becaufe it do's not appear by fuf- 
 ficient evidence that the Apoftles did deliver 
 them. 
 
 In a word, I defire our Adverfaries to confider 
 (what I have already faid } that by Traditions St . Paul 
 underftands the Chriftian Doctrine, which he had 
 deliver'd to them both by word of Mouth, and in 
 Writing. Thefe Traditions we do moft cordially 
 embrace, as far as they are contain'd in their writ- 
 ten Books ; becaufe when we read thofe books, 
 we read the Apoftles own words, and are fare that 
 we learn their real Dodrine. But as for all other pre- 
 tended Tradition!, we dare not affirm that they are 
 deriv'd from the Apoftles ; becaufe we have no 
 convincing 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 t Timotljj 3 i 'Tim. I. 13. to hold f aft the form of 
 found words ; and we think it an unpardonable pre- 
 fumption to add any thing to them- Whatever ' 
 comesartcnded with fufficient credentials, we thank- 
 fully receive as a meflage from God : but we dare 
 not efteem that as a Meflage from God, which can- 
 not be prov'd to have come from him. 
 
 Therefore we muft intreat our Adverfaries not 
 to infift 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. Paul) whatfoever is immediately an4 
 certainly delivered by the Apoftles, as the contents 
 
 of
 
 Chap. VL Of the Rule of . 41 
 
 of the Scriptures certainly ate ; we contend for Tra- 
 ditint with all poffible ZeaL But if by Tradum 
 they underiland (as all Men do in this Difpute) 
 the delivery of fome things which are not written 
 in the Scriptures ; we make juft exceptions againft 
 it ; bee aufe 'tis not fuch a method of conveyance 
 as we may venture to rely upon. So that they 
 mull not urge us to receive Traditions in this latter 
 acceptation, becanfewe are willing to receive them 
 in the former. For 'tis not good arguing from Tra- 
 dttions in a Scripture fenie, 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 ofTraditi- 
 ouf, and our Adverfaries of another. 'Tis their 
 bufir.efs to prove if they can, by any one place of 
 Scripture, that we are commanded to receive thofe 
 things for necellary and fundamental truths, which 
 tho' not written or i'poken to us by infpir'd Per- 
 fons, areneverthelefs reported to have been taught 
 by them. But I am fully perfuaded that they 
 cannot produce one fingle Text in favor of fucb 
 Trait lions. 
 
 CHAP. VI: 
 
 Thtt the Scriptures were mitten onfurpofe to pre- 
 vent the mifehiefs ariprtg jrom unwritten 
 Traditions; 
 
 N' A Y, the holy Scriptures are fo far from com- 
 manding us to receive unwritten Traditions, 
 that we have aU imaginable reaibn co believe, that 
 
 they
 
 42 Of the R ule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 they were written on purpofe to prevent the Mif- 
 chiefs arifing from them. 
 
 Without doubt Almighty God had well confi- 
 der'd our circumflances ; and the firft planters of 
 Chriftianity knew the fad eftefts of leaving Men 
 without a certain Rule in matters of Faith. The 
 Devil had his Agents in the very beginning of 
 Chriftianity, who endeavour'd tofet up their own 
 Notions in oppofition to what had been Preach'd 
 by our Lord's command. Our Savior had faid, 
 Matth. 24. 24. T'here jhall artfe falfe Chrifls andfalfe 
 Prophets, and jhaUJbew great Jigns and wonders, info- 
 much that (ij it were pojflble) they Jhatt deceive the very 
 ektt. This was verify'd in the times of the Apo- 
 ftles themfelves, who quickly found that an Ene- 
 my 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. Paul's days, that he 
 call's it another Gofpel, Gal- i. 6. And the fame 
 Apoftle was fo fenfible of thofe terrible difficul- 
 ties, which the Church was to encounter with, 
 that he warns the Ephefians, Eph. 4. 14. of their 
 danger of being tojfed to and fro and carry 3 d about with 
 every wind of doftrine, 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 Church, 
 Afts 20. he us'd thefe Expreffions to them, <v. 28, 
 &c. Take heed therefore unto your J elves, and to alt the 
 flock, over which the holy Ghofl hath made you overfeers, 
 to feed the flock of God which he hath purchas'd with bis 
 own bloud. For I know thif, that after my departing 
 /halt grievow wolves enter in among y on y not /paring the 
 fock. Alfo of jour own f elves J&a8 men arife, fpeaking 
 
 ferverfe
 
 Chap. VI- Of the Rule of Faitb. 45 
 
 fervtrfi things to draw difciples after them. Therefore 
 watch, &c. This his Prediction was too plainly 
 fulfilled within the compafs of a few years > 
 and the Church of Ephefm it felf was foon de- 
 flroy'd. T^he myflery of iniquity doth already "work, 
 faith St. Paul in another place, 2 The/. 2. 7. and 
 'twas for this reafon that he charg'd the Philip' 
 pians, Philip. I. 27. to ft and f aft in one fpirit, -with 
 one mind, firming together for the Faith of the Go~ 
 fpel. 
 
 Now fince the holy Apoftles were fo perfectly 
 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- 
 feflion, and not to hearken, tho' themfelves or an 
 Angel from Heaven (hou'd Preach any other Gofpel, 
 than what they had preach'd, and their Converts 
 had receiv'd, Gal. i . 8, 9. fince, I fay, they were 
 fo throughly affected with the miferies that were 
 like to befall the Church by reafon of falfe Tea- 
 chers ; can it be imagined that they would leave 
 the World deftitute of a fufficient rule of Doctrine 
 and Practice , from whence Men might be 
 throughly informed of all things neceflary to Sal- 
 vation ? No ; our Adverfaries themfelves do moft 
 gratefully acknowledge, that they have beftow'd 
 fufficient care upon the Church. They do free- 
 ly and thankfully own, that thofe holy Perfons 
 hare faithfully executed the defign of our Savior 
 Chrift, and made ample provifion for our inftru- 
 ction. 
 
 But alas ! If we examine that method, by which 
 our Adverfaries do fuppofe that the Apoftles have 
 made provifion for the Church ; we ftall foon 
 perceive that it is very imperfect. For tho' we 
 readily own, that as far as the Scriptures teach us, 
 
 we
 
 44 Qf the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 we have all reafonable certainty of the Chriftian 
 Dodrine : yet our Adverfaries do contend, that 
 there are forae things, which tho' not contain'd in 
 the Scriptures, are neceflary to falvation ; and 
 thefe things they fuppofe we muft learn from Tra- 
 dition. But wou'd fuch wife and diligent Perfons 
 as the Apoftles, who were able enough to write 
 a compleat Syftemeofour Religion, give us fuch 
 great aflurance of one part of it,and leave us doubt- 
 full as to the other ? Do's it not appear that Tra- 
 dition is generally uncertain and liable to great cor- 
 ruptions ; and did not the holy Pen-Men know it: 
 and wou'd they then deliver us over to the mif- 
 chiefs of Tradition, without giving us any Scrip- 
 ture command to receive Traditions (as I have 
 prov'd they did not) or direding us to any me- 
 thod of knowing what Traditions we muft re- 
 ceive ? 
 
 Certainly, 'twill be granted by our Adverfaries, 
 that there is no reafon founded upon the Nature 
 of the thing, which obliges us to receive Tra- 
 ditions ; nay, we have the greatefl reafon to fuf- 
 pecl: and rejecl: them : and therefore if it had been 
 the defign of the Apoftles to oblige us to hear- 
 ken to Traditions, and to build a part of our Chri- 
 ftianity upon the credit of them ; they wou'd have 
 been very exprefs in injoyning it, and deliver'd 
 fome rules, by which we might be enabled to a- 
 void corrupted Traditions. If the Church were 
 by the Ordinance of God to be our Guide in 
 diftinguiming Traditions , certainly we Jhou'd have 
 had better proof that fuch a power was lodg'd 
 with her, and that we ought to have recourfe to 
 her, than any our Adverfaries have produc'd. We 
 ftou'd have been plainly told, that fhe is infal- 
 lible, and that we muft obferve thofe Traditions 
 
 which
 
 Chap. VI. Of the Rule of Faith. ^ 
 
 which (he has declar'd authentic. But then on 
 the contrary, fince all their arguments for the 
 Churches infallibility are fo very little to the pur- 
 pofe, as 1 have (hewn ; and fince we are no where 
 commanded to receive thofe Traditions which are 
 handed down from generation to generation, as 
 I have alfo fliewn , nay, fince the Apoftles knew 
 the great reafons we have to fufped and rejed 
 Traditions, and did not command us to receive 
 them notwithftanding ; certainly we may con- 
 clude, that they did never defign, that we 
 their fucceflbrs fhou'd receive any thing as their 
 doctrine, but what is delivered in their written 
 Books. 
 
 Nay farther, the Hiilory of thofe occasions 
 upon which they wrote, do's confirm our opini- 
 on, that their Books were compos J d on purpofe 
 to prevent the mifchiefs arifing from unwritten 
 "Traditions. For, as we are told by St. (a) Chryfo- 
 flonty becaitfe in procejs of time Men were in danger of 
 flumblirig, fome by reafon of their Opinions , and Bikers 
 by reafon of their Life and Actions, fwas nece/far) that 
 theyjhould be admonijl'd by -writing. And as Irenam 
 (b) ipeaks, they did afterwards deliver the Will of 
 God in Writing, that it might be a Foundation and Pil- 
 lar of our Faith. 
 
 (a) ' 
 
 \i&vp.VYi<n6>s. Chrjfoft. flom in Mace. i. Edit. 
 Savil. Tom. a. pag. I. 
 
 (b) Quod quidem tune praeconiaverunt, poftea vero per 
 Dei Voluncacetn in Scripturis nobis tradiderunr, funda- 
 mentum & columnam fidei noftras futurum. irsn- adv. 
 H*re lib. 3- <*. I.
 
 46 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 Eujebitu (c) acquaints us, that St. Matthew bar 
 wing fir ft preach' d to the Hebrews, when he was about 
 to travail (that he might alfo preach) to others, gave 
 them his Gofpelin writing in the Vulgar Tongue ; and 
 by that means fupply 3 d the want of his prefence to thofe 
 from whom he was about to depart. The fame is at- 
 firm'd by (d) Nicephorw alfo, who feems to have 
 copy'd it from Eufebim. >c Tis reported of Matthew t 
 fays St. (e) Chryfoftom, that when the believing Jews 
 came and dejlr'd him, he left thofe things with them in 
 wrttingy which he had delivered by word of Mouth. 
 And a certain (/) Author has thefe Words, ''Its 
 faidy this was the caufe of Matthew'^ writing tis Go- 
 fpel. When there was a gnevom persecution m Pale- 
 ftine, infomuch that all were in danger of being d'fpers'd, 
 
 they 
 
 (c) 
 
 iT4ff Hfat/, 710.7^ y^u-ffif yf 
 '<&ct.fct^io!>i TV hsiTnv TVI OJJTX T? 
 
 Eufeb. Hift- Ecclcf. 
 
 lib. 3 cap 14. 
 
 (d) 'Awri>& 3^5, TffflT- M79a7- o CK 7IXr/8 
 
 f G&Ttl&OV tiy-V MgU^tlf) \TT&7n% Ct-TKtifHV 
 
 Niccphor. Hift. 
 Ecclef. lik. i. cap. 4?. Edjr.Parif. ]<<3c. 
 
 jTW )y 
 
 TU/T <*p<e/ e/)<t yeyjifjuii'mv twTvif. Chryfojl. Horn, in 
 Matt. pag. 3. 
 
 (f) Sicut referunt, Matthaeum confcribere Evangelium 
 caufa compuJic talis. Cum fafta fuiflet in Palcftina perfe- 
 curio eravis, ut periclitarentur difpergi omncs, ut carentes 
 forte doftoribus fidei, non carerent doftrina, petierunt 
 Matthxum, ut omnium verborum & operum Chrifti con- 
 fcribcret eis hiftoriam, ut ubicunque eflent futuri, totius 
 fecum haberent fidei ftatum. Incertw author Comment, iii 
 Matt, inter opera Chrvfoft. Tom. 2. Paris, jo's a. in prologo.
 
 Chap. VI. Of the Ruin of faith. 47 
 
 they defird Matthew to write them an Hiftory of all 
 the Words and Works of Chrifl ; that in wlatfvever 
 place theyjboud be, they might have an account of their 
 whole Faith ; fo that they might not want the Do- 
 ftrine, tho* they might want the teachers of the 
 Faith. 
 
 As for St. Mark's Gofpel, we are told by 
 .(g) Eufebim, that the Romans were not fatisfy'd with 
 one Jingle hearing, or with an unwritten inftruftion in 
 the Divine Preaching , but us'd all manner of arguments 
 with & . Mark, whofe Gofpel we have, and earneftly de~ 
 jird him, as being the companion of Peter, that he 
 would leave them a written memorial of that Doctrine 
 which he had deliver* d to them by word of Mouth. Nor 
 did they defift, till they had prevail' d upon him, and 
 by this means caus'd him to Write that Gofpel, which 
 is catt'd St. Mark'*. This he reports upon the 
 Credit of Clemens Alexandrines Sixth Book of 
 Inftitutions, which is now loft. The fame thing 
 is affirm'd, and upon the fame authority, by 
 (h) Nicephortu, who has, as it were, tranfcrib'd 
 Eufebim. 
 
 St. Luke acquaints us for what reafcn he wrote 
 his Gofpel in the Firft Chapter of it, faying, For- 
 
 afmuch 
 
 (g) ToffKTO eT etT6Ael(*4,2 "'? fOV &X,&tf]$V TO Flirf K eftit- 
 
 ' ' >f- of f*w T>t ei<mmt% - 
 
 TM tyi&W TO -3-K Jtwjyfw*] 
 ARKOV,? TV ' 
 ru, at a.v fy J' 
 -ntf ^7it/ie 
 
 w i&rttycttrtfy T etvJ'fsc, ^ TU>TI diTive 
 x * M*'o^ J dntt^iv f &}(!> 
 
 W W TO 
 
 Hift. Ecclcf. lib. 2. ef. 15. 
 (b) Nieefhor. Hift. Ecclef. lit. a. cap, 15.
 
 48 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 afmucb as many have taken in hand to fet forth 
 in order a declaration of thofe things which are moft 
 furely believ'd among us ; even as they delivered 
 them unto us, which from the beginning were Eye- 
 witneffes and Miniflers of the Word : It feemd good 
 to me alfo, having had perfect under/landing of all 
 things from the Very Firft, to write unto thee in 
 order , mofl excellent Theophilus, that thou mighteft 
 know the certainty of thofe things, wherein thou 
 haft been inftrutted. Whom St. Luke underftands 
 by the word Many ; or whether he were the firfl in 
 order of all the Four Evangeliils, I ihall not 
 (i) determine. Perhaps my argument might re- 
 ceive fome ftrength from a resolution of thofe 
 queries ; but I (hall forbear, becaufe I do not 
 want it. 'Tis plain, that St. Luke's defign was 
 to let Iheofhilm know the certainty of thofe things 
 wherein he had been inftrufled He wrote his 
 Gofpel, faies (k) Eufebiw, that he might free 
 w> from controverted Opinions, and give m cer- 
 tain information of the truth -, or that 7'heophilM t 
 to whom he Addrefles himfelf, might attain to 
 certainty, and continue in it , as St. (/) Chryfo- 
 ftom fpeaks. Nay, as (m) Theophylatt explains it, 
 
 that 
 
 (i) See Beza in Luc. i. I. Genev. 1582. Maldonat. in 
 Luc. I. J. Mogunt. 1602. Bafnagii Exercit. HiJl.Crit. pag. 
 372. Ultrtjcft. 1692. 
 
 (k) ' AvafoetTlav fzf TWJ /afei i% aifaKf etnynelr* 'cawxw- 
 r^gwf, TCI/ cty^otAM \oy>v - J)& TO tJYx 7m(iJb>My' day 
 
 AK. Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. lib. 3. cap. 24. 
 
 (7) "IVA 'i'xys >t), <ptw, /ufe< w v K^Tfi^^tif ^tyw rtw d<r<p&- 
 
 jt,^.')j. Chryfojt. Horn. in Mate. i. 
 (m) TKTB v xj o iwtyfoKbei< vrtfiv, 077 tft TOTB mt 
 TO '<&a,fy,A.iov> "iva. u itypyqit 
 
 ^TEX'PJ* S*va'<tC "&1 /u*Moc vvv, 
 Tots J^o/, eSs* Xj iyfa&V*s TCU/TH &n%veu. Tbeopiy* 
 .in Luc. prsfat, Paris. 1631.
 
 Chap. VI. Of the Rule of Faith. 49 
 
 that he might have greater certainty, than when he 
 heard it preach 'd ; that he might credit St. Luke the 
 more, and be the more fecurefor its being committed to 
 writing, (y) Epiphanim indeed, ,who thinks that 
 by the word Many St. Luke underftands the antienr, 
 Heretics, faics, that 7%e0gtfw had received no 
 certain in formation from otnerx that had pretended 
 to inform him, and therefore St. Luke wrote his 
 Gofpel, that he might know the exatl truth. 
 
 As for Sc John's Gofpel, tho* federal reafons 
 are given for the compoiure of it, yet I fhall men- 
 tion only that which he informs us of himfelf, when 
 he faies to the Readers of it, cap, 20. 31. Thefe 
 (figns) are written, that ye might believe that Jefus is 
 the Chriil the Son of God ; and that believing ye might 
 have Life thro his Name. 
 
 The contents of the A&s of the Apoftles do 
 plainly fhew, for what reafon they were written. 
 And as for the Epiftles, they do chiefly contain 
 confirmations and illuflrations of things which are 
 recorded in tiie Gofpels-, and repeated perfuafions 
 to the practice of that Holinefs which is recomr 
 mended by them. 
 
 Now if 'Tradition were fo certain and fafe a 
 method ct conveying Religion, for what end I 
 pray, did the Apoftles write ? Cou'd they de- 
 fire any thing better than what is truely fuf- 
 D ficient ? 
 
 (y) 
 
 T&O <*/celaV ?//. Epipkan. Hseref. 51. f/?. ? rans, 
 1622.
 
 50 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 ficient ? And if they thought it fufficient for one 
 part of our Religion , why not fpr the other ? 
 But fince thefe things were written that we might 
 be certain ; that Men might have an account of 
 their whole Faith, and be able to give a fatisfado- 
 ry reafon of the Hope that is in them ; fince 
 they were written that we might believe, and that 
 believing we might have eternal life ; fince they were 
 written at the defire of feveral Churches, which 
 were willing, it feems, to have greater fecurity 
 of the truth, than what bare Tradition can afford ; 
 it plainly follows that the ApofMes, who proceed- 
 ed upon thefe reafons, did not think fit to com- 
 mit the concerns of our eternal happinefs or mife- 
 ry to the management of Tradition. They were 
 aware of thofe dangers which Tradition might en- 
 fnare us in ; and penn'd their feveral Books for 
 our perpetual fafeguard, and that we might be 
 without excufe. For they have now given us all 
 reafonable afTurance of the Certainty of our holy 
 Faith j and prevented thofe objections which 
 might have been juflly made againft it, if it had 
 been built upon bare Tradition, which all the world 
 has found to be utterly uncertain and liable to 
 great corruptions. 
 
 CHAP:
 
 Chap. VII. Of the Rule of Faith. 51 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 That we ought to receive the Scriptures upon the 
 Teftimony of Tradition, AIM we rejett Un- 
 written Traditions. 
 
 SEcondly, 'Tis objected by our Adverfaries, that 
 we receive the Scriptures upon the Teftimony 
 of Tradition ; and therefore we confefs, that the 
 Teftimony of Tradition ought to be accepted in 
 fome cafes. Now if Tradition be thought a fuffi- 
 cient Proof, that the Holy Scriptures are the Word 
 of God ,- why may it not be alfo thought a fuffi- 
 cient proof, that fuch particular Doctrines, tho'not 
 contain'd in the Scriptures, were reveai'd by God ? 
 To this I anfwer. That altho' the Teftimony of 
 Tradition concerning a written Book ought to be 
 accepted ; yet we have no reafon to accept it in 
 the behalf of an unwritten Doctrine ; becaufe thefe 
 cafes are widely different. 
 
 The Reafons (as I have already {hewn) why we 
 dare not rely upon Tradition for the delivery of 
 an unwritten Doarine, are chiefly thefe,- i. Be- 
 caufe Men may be fo fond of an Opinion, that 
 they may interpret every thing they hear in fa- 
 vour of it ; and confequently they may believe 
 and affirm, that fuch a Perfon taught what he ne- 
 ver dreamt of. 2. Becaufe an unwritten Doctrine 
 may be mifunderftood, or mifreported, or fome- 
 thing of moment may be added to it ; and the 
 alterations of it may (as experience fhews) be- 
 come at laft fo very confiderable, that the propofi- - 
 tion may be utterly chang'd, or enlarged into a 
 felfhood, or into that which is flatly contradictory 
 D a to
 
 52 Of the Rule of Faith. Parti. 
 
 to it. But a written Book is not equally liable 
 to thefe dangers. Nay, we may be affur'd by fuf~ 
 ficient proo that a Book was written by that 
 Author whofe Name it bears ; and that it has been 
 handed down without any Material Depravations. 
 The Words of a written Book are fix'd ; and there- 
 fore are not fo liable to diminutions, or addition 9, 
 or mifreprefentations, as unwritten Dodrines are. 
 But thofe who live at the diftance often thoufand 
 Years, may be almott as fure that they receive a Do- 
 drine, in the Author's own Phrafes, as thofe that 
 heard it from his own Month, or read it written 
 with his own Hand. Now, if our Adverfaries 
 will be pleas'd to fhew, that we have as good fe- 
 curity againft the Alterations of an unwritten Do- 
 drine, as we can have againft the Alterations of a 
 written Book ; then we (hall grant it to be as rea- 
 fonable to receive the Teftimony of Tradition in 
 behalf of an unwritten Dodrine, as of a written 
 Book : but I am perfuaded, they will never be 
 able to (hew that thefe are parallel cafes. 
 
 If it be faid, That written Books arefometimes 
 corrupted, and that the Holy Scriptures may have 
 been corrupted alfo ; and that 'tis only Tradition 
 that can allure us of the integrity of our prefent 
 Copies ; I anfwer, i. That tho* fome Books may 
 have been, and certainly are corrupted ; yet all 
 Books are not equally liable to the fame misfor- 
 tune. And as for the Holy Scriptures in parti- 
 cular, we have better Arguments to prove that they 
 have not been corrupted, than can be produc'd for 
 at) other Books in the World. But I need not 
 enlarge upon this fubjed ; becaufe our Adverfaries 
 will freely granr, that the Text of the Bible 
 is (incere and genuine, and that nothing of mo- 
 ment has been deprav'd ink. 2. That if a written 
 
 Book
 
 Chap. VII. Of the Rule of Faith. 5 ? 
 
 Book may be corrupted, an unwritten Tradition is 
 infinitely more in danger , fo that this do's net 
 prove Tradition to be a fecure way of conveying 
 an unwritten Doctrine, but gives us {till greater 
 reafon to diftruft it. 3 . Tho' 'tis only Tradition 
 that can affure us of the integrity of our prefent 
 Copies ; yet this Tradition is back'd with fuch 
 circumftances as will conftrain any Man to accept 
 its Teftimony. However, were it a bare Tradi- 
 tion only, without any extraordinary circumftances 
 to enforce it ; yet 'tis the Tradition of a written 
 Book, which, as I have already faid, is not fo 
 liable to Alterations, as the Tradition of an un- 
 written Doctrine. 4. Since Books are the mofl 
 certain means of conveying the knowledge of thofe 
 things which were tranfactcd in former Ages, that 
 Mankind in its prefent circumftances is capable of,- 
 therefore we may juftly depend upon Providence 
 for the Prefervation of thofe Books, upon which 
 our future Happinefs or Mifery do's depend. For 
 tho' it be poffible, that Books may be carelefly 
 written or copy'd ; yet fince they are the beft 
 means we can poffibly enjoy, and fince no lefs 
 than Eternity depends upon them ; we may 
 fairly conclude, that if God has any Goodnefs in 
 his Nature, he will make thofe means truly fafe 
 and effectual, and not fuffer us to be miftaken in fo 
 great a concern. So that the Nature of God do's 
 afford us as good a demonftration of the integrity of 
 the Scriptures, as any modeft and confidering Per- 
 fon can defire. Nay, I freely acknowledg, that if 
 God had oblig'd us by any Text of Scripture to 
 receive unwritten Traditions ; we ought to depend 
 upon his care of thofe Traditions, and to relie upon 
 them with a moft ftedfafl Faith. Becaufe he had 
 by obliging us to receive them, oblig'd himfelf 
 
 D 3 to
 
 54 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 to maintain the Purity of them. But then, fince 
 the 'tradition of unwritten Doctrines has ever been 
 uncertain and liable to great corruptions j and fince 
 we are not fecur'd from the uncertainty and corrup- 
 tions of it, either by the circumltances of the thing, 
 pr by the Promife of Almighty God ; and fince 
 we have no reafon to believe that the Goodnefs 
 of God ftands engag'd for the Prefervation of it, 
 becaufe there are better means already imploy'd 
 for the fpreading of Chriftianity, and we have no 
 particular re'afon to convince us that we ought to 
 receive unwritten Dodrines as a part of our Re- 
 ligion ; therefore we cannot think it reafonable to 
 believe upon the Teftimony of bare Tradition, that 
 any particular unwritten Dodrine was reveal'd to 
 the Apoftles by Almighty God, altho' we receive 
 its Teftimony, as a fufficient Proof that the Holy 
 Scriptures were written by fuch particular Men, and 
 that they are not corrupted, and (by confequence) 
 that they are the Wx>rd of God. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 That thofe Doffrines which are not contained in 
 the Scriptures^ were not reveal'd fince the 
 dfofiles times. 
 
 SECONDLY, I am now to fhew that we have 
 no fufficient Proof, that any particular Do- 
 ctrines, not contained in the Scriptures, were re- 
 veal'd to any other Perfons fince the Apoftles times. 
 And this will appear, if we confider what Proof 
 is fufficient to eftablifli a Revelation upon. The 
 Apoftles prov'd their Million by the Authority 
 
 of
 
 Chap. VIII. Of the Rule of Faith. 5 5 
 
 of frequent and unqueftionable miracles done in 
 the face of the whole World ; and we have the 
 greateft reafon imaginable to expect as good Proof 
 of all the pretended late Revelations, as the Apo- 
 Itles gave , efpecially fince we have ftronger Argu- 
 ments againft the Reception of any new Doctrines, 
 as neceflary to Salvation, than ever cou'd be urg'd 
 againft the Doctrine of Chrift by the Jews or Gen- 
 tiles. For, 
 
 1. If God requires new Conditions of Salvation, 
 he makes a new Covenant with Mankind, and will 
 not fufrer us to be fav'd upon the ancient Gofpel 
 terms. Now J tis certain that God requires new 
 Conditions of Salvation, it he reveals fome Do- 
 .ctrines as neceflary to Salvation in thefedays, which 
 were not neceflary in the Apoftles times , and 
 therefore he muft be fuppos'd to make a new Co- 
 venant with us. Now I leave our Adverfaries to 
 confider, i. Whether God's making a New Cove- 
 nant do's not difannul the Old one, as being lame 
 and imperfect without thefe additional particulars. 
 2. Whether thefe additional particulars do not make 
 the Gofpel falfe : fince the Gofpel promifes Salva- 
 tion to thofe who believe and practife what God 
 reveal'd by the Apoitles ; whereas (if God has 
 reveal'd fome New Doctrines which are now ne- 
 -ceflary to Salvation) Men muft now perform fome 
 other things in order to it, befides what the Apo- 
 illes have taught us. 
 
 2. "Tis an impeachment of the Wifdom of 
 God to fuppofe that he requires new Terms of Sal- 
 vation. For either he reveal'd thofe Terms to the 
 Apoftles, which he is fuppos'd to have fince re- 
 veal'd to the later Saints, or he did not. If he 
 did reveal them to the Apoftles, and the Apoftles 
 have not taken due care to deliver them down to 
 
 D 4 the 

 
 5 6 Of the Rale of Ftitb. Part I. 
 
 the fucceeding Generations of the Church (as I 
 have {hewn they did not, becaufe we have no fujfi- 
 cient proof that any particular Doctrine, not contain d 
 in the Scriptures, TUM reveal'd to the Apoftles fa Al- 
 mighty God then either the Apoftles were negli- 
 gent in the performance of their duty, or they 
 were not. Now our Adverfaries will by no means 
 accufe the Apoftles of negligence ; and therefore 
 we muft fjppofe that they took effectual care to 
 preach whatfoever was injoyn'd them. If there- 
 fore the Apoftles did preach all that God injoyn'd 
 them to preach ; then it follows, that tho' Al- 
 mighty God did reveal thefe pretended Doctrines 
 to them, yet he did not then command them topub- 
 lifii them as neceflary to Salvation. Now if God 
 did not then require the Apoftles to publifh thofe 
 Doctrines as neceflary to Salvation ; or if he did 
 not reveal them to the Apoftles, but only to fome 
 later Saints, and requir'd thofe later Saints to pub- 
 lifh them as neceflary to Salvation ; it is a great 
 impeachment of his Wifdom. For then he muft 
 be fuppos'd to have chang'd his Mind, and to 
 have inftituted a Religion which (tho' he defign'd 
 it for the laft difpenfation, yet) he found good 
 caufe to alter. 
 
 3. Our Savior purchased Redemption for us by 
 his death upon the Crofs , and we may juftly 
 claim Salvation by his Merits, upon the perfor- 
 mance of thofe conditions which were then agreed 
 on. Now the conditions then agreed on were ei- 
 ther the very fame which the Apoftles reveai'd, 
 and none other j or elfe the Apoftles reveal 'd only 
 a part of thofe Conditions, and the Revelation of 
 the other part was deferred, till fome future oppor- 
 tunity fliould offer it felf. If the Apoftles reveal'd 
 all thofe conditions, th,en 'tis unjuft in Almighty 
 
 Go4
 
 Chap. VIII. Of the Rttleof Faith. 57 
 
 God to require fome other Conditions, contrary to 
 his Compact with his Son. But if only a part 
 of thofe Conditions was reveal'd by the Apoftles, 
 and the other part was to be difcover'd in after- 
 ages ; then the firft Chriflians did not perform all 
 the Conditions of the Gofpel Covenant, and con- 
 fequently cou'd not claim Salvation by it. But 
 this is fo abfurd and fo uncharitable a Doctrine, 
 as I hope no good Man will maintain. If it be 
 faid, that tho* God had made an abfolute promife 
 to our Savior, yet there is no injuftice in the al- 
 teration of it, upon fuppofition that our Savior's 
 confent be firft had , and therefore the Father and 
 the Son together may by mutual confent reveal 
 fome New things, and impofe them as neceflary 
 to Salvation ; 1 anfwer, That we cannot fuppofe 
 two Perfons in the Holy Trinity to have made an 
 over-hafty covenant, and afterward to defire each 
 other's confent for the improvement of it. Befides, 
 that this being liable to perpetual alterations, 
 wou'd make the Chriftian Religion the moft uncer- 
 tain thing in the World. 
 
 4. 'Tis an ad of injuftice to Mankind to require 
 New Conditions of Salvation. For tho' our Sal- 
 vation be the Gift of God, yet this Gift is now 
 confitm'd to us by a Divine Charter ; fo that 'tis 
 not in God's power to alter it by adding new Con- 
 ditions, without which we (hall not reap the bene- 
 fits of it. For God is oblig'd to ftand to his Pro- 
 mife, and perform thofe things, which he has given 
 us a legal Title to, and a juft right to require of 
 him. Nay, 
 
 5. St. Paul has plainly forbidden us to receive 
 any new Terms of Salvation, befides what he him- 
 felf has publifh'd to the World ; faying, Gal. i . 8. 
 Ibo uv or an Angel from Heaven preach any other 
 
 Gofpel
 
 <(8 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 Goffelunto you, than that which -we have preach'd unto 
 you, let him be accurs'd. Nay, he is extremely ve- 
 hement in this injunction, as appears by his repe- 
 tition of it in the following Verfe, faying, As we 
 faid before, fo fay 2 now again, if any Man preach any 
 other Gofpel unto you, than that ye have received, let 
 him be accurs'd. Now 'twill be readily granted by 
 our Adverfaries, that St. Paul wrote thefe words 
 by the affiftance of God's Spirit ; and that they 
 are to be underftood as God's Command : and 
 therefore I defire them to confider, whether it can 
 be imagined, that an All-wife and Immutable God 
 wou'd publifli any other Gofpel than what had 
 been preach'd by the Apoftles, after he had for- 
 bidden the whole World to receive any other Go- 
 fpel than what was at firft deliver'd. And yet this 
 muft have been done, if God has reveafd any new 
 things as neceflary to Salvation, fince the Apoftles 
 times. Nay, farther ftill, 
 
 6. We cannot have better proof of any New 
 Doctrine, than the Teftimony of Miracles j and 
 yet our Savior himfelf has warn'd us againft ad- 
 mit ting even that fort of proof; faying, For there 
 {hatt arifefalfe Chrifls, &c. Matth. 24. 24. Behold, 
 I have told you before, fays he, ^.25. that you may 
 not be deceiv'd by them, And St. Paul tells us 
 of one that comes with att power andfigns and lying 
 "Wonders, 2 Thefi. 2. p. So that we have invin- 
 cible Objections againft the Miracles themfelves, 
 and all imaginable Reafon to reject thofe New Do- 
 ctrines which are prov'd by them. 
 
 Thefe, if I miftake not, are very weighty Ar- 
 guments againft the Reception of New Terms of 
 Salvation , and much ftronger than any the Jews 
 or Gentiles cou'd offer againft our Holy Profeflion, 
 For the Gentile Religion was eafily prov'd to be 
 
 abfurd ;
 
 Chap. VIII. Of the Rule of Faith. 59 
 
 abfurd j and the Jewifi Law was to continue but 
 for a time. 'Twas a type of things to come , and 
 they were to expecl: an alteration of it. But we 
 have the fureft Grounds to believe that the Chrifti- 
 an Religion (as 'twas Preach'd by the Apoftles) 
 was to be a /landing and perpetual Rule to the end 
 of the World ; and we are exprefly in joyn'd to hold 
 him accurs'd, that preaches any other Gofpel : 
 and therefore, tho' it were fuppos'd lawful to re- 
 ceive fome novelties, if attefted by Miracles (which 
 neverchelefs we may and ought to diitruit after 
 fuch Cautions ,- yet I fay, tho' it were fuppos'd 
 lawful to receive fome Novelties) certainly we 
 may juftly expect the mod convincing Demonftra- 
 tions to prove the Divine Authority of any Addi- 
 tions to it. 
 
 Therefore let our Adverfaries produce their 
 Credentials ; let them perform Miracles before our 
 Eyes ; and do fuch things in confirmation of their 
 Doftrines, as may at leaft equal what the Apoftles 
 did in former days. But I am fatisty'd, that they 
 will not pretend to fuch Testimonials. Something 
 perhaps that is a little odd, may be faid to have 
 been done in a corner ; or perhaps they may give 
 us an old Story to prove a Revelation by : but 
 we are not to build upon fuch fandy foundations ; 
 or to receive a thing that is faid to come from God, 
 without evident and fubftantialReafonsto afl'ure us, 
 that God did certainly reveal it. Great things are 
 moft juftly required at the hands of thofe, who fet 
 up for new Lights and frefh Revelations : but we 
 find no Performances anfwerable to their Pretences. 
 Wherefore we muft take the freedom of withold- 
 ing our aflent, till fuch mighty Deeds are fhewn, 
 as right Reafon fhall not be able to diftruft. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 60 Of the Rule cf Faith. Part I. 
 
 CHAP. IX; 
 
 Thai the Scriptures do contun all things neceffary 
 to Salvation: 
 
 THUS then I have made it appear, that we 
 have no fufficient Proof, that any particular 
 Doctrines not contain 'd in the Scriptures, were 
 reveal'd either to the Apoftles, or to any other 
 Perfons : from whence it follows that God has not 
 at all reveal'd any particular Doctrines not con- 
 tain'd in the Scriptures. Now fince we are not to 
 receive any thing as a Divine Revelation without 
 a fufficient Proof ; and fince we have no fufficient 
 Proof of any Revelations, befides what we find in 
 the Scriptures; 'tis plain that the Holy Scriptures 
 are the only Divine Revelations, which we ought 
 to receive. And therefore, fince 'tis granted on 
 both fides, that God has reveal'd all thofe things 
 which are neceffary to Salvation ; and fince the 
 Holy Scriptures are the only Divine Revelations 
 which we ought to receive , it follows, that the 
 Holy Scriptures, which are now prov'd to be the 
 only certain Revelations, do contain all things ne- 
 ceflfary to Salvation. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Chap. X. Of the Rule of Faith. 6i 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 The fir ft Objection, that the Canon, of Scripture 
 imperfect, anfmr^d. 
 
 N'O T H I NG DOW remains, but that I an- 
 fwer two Objections. 
 
 Firfl then, It is faid. That if the Holy Scri- 
 ptures do contain all things neceflary to Salvation ; 
 it muft be underftood either of the whole Canon, 
 or of fome one particular Book. Now our Ad ver- 
 faries may juftly conclude, that no one particular 
 Book do's contain all things neceflfary to Salvation; 
 if they can prove that the whole Canon do's not 
 contain them : as they endeavour to make appear, 
 by fhewing, that the prefent Canon of Scripture is 
 imperfect ; becaufe diverfe Books which formerly 
 belong'd to it, are now faid to be loft. To this I 
 anfwer, i . That we can prove, that not one Book, 
 that was once truly Canonical, is now loft , and 
 that feveral of thofe Books which they inftance in, 
 are now extant in our Canon, tho' under different 
 Titles. But 'tis not cecefTary for me to enter up- 
 on that difpute, becaufe this Objection will ap- 
 pear to be of no force, if it be confider'd, 2. That 
 the Queftion at prefent is not concerning the Num- 
 ber of Canonical Books ; whether any of them be 
 loft, or no : but concerning the certainty of Re- 
 velation : whether we have fufficient "reafon to re- 
 ceive any particular Doctrine, not contam'd in the 
 Scriptures, as reveal'd by Almighty God. There- 
 fore our Adverfaries ought not to urge, that our 
 prefent Canon is imperfect : but they ought to 
 prove that we have fufficient reafon to receive 
 
 fomething
 
 62 Of the Rale of faith. Part I. 
 
 fomething that is not in our prefent Canon. Now 
 I have examin'd thofe things, which it may be 
 pretended we havefufficient reafon to receive } and 
 I have prov'd, that we have no diffident reafon to 
 believe, that God has reveal'd any particular 
 things, befides what the Scriptures do teach us : 
 and therefore the prefent Canon of Scripture (which 
 contains all the Revelations that we have juft rea- 
 fon to receive) do's contain all things neceflary to 
 Salvation , becaufe 'tis granted on both fides, that 
 God has reveal'd all thofe things that are necefla- 
 ry to Salvation. Let us fuppofe therefore that 
 fome Books which were once in the Canon, are 
 now certainly loft : yet it do's not follow that we 
 muft fupply the fuppos'd want of them by recei- 
 ving uncertain "Traditions, Efpecially if it be ob- 
 ferv'd, 3. That if any part of the antient Canon 
 be now loft, God will not require the Contents of 
 it at our hands. We mail not be punifli'd for not 
 obeying, what we never cou'd read or learn. Nor 
 are thofe things neceflary to the falvation of Chri- 
 flians, which no Chriftian can attain to the know- 
 ledge of. To this I may add, 4. That our Ad- 
 veufaries cannot argue, that we ought to receive 
 unwritten Traditions, becaufe fome of the Canonical 
 Books are loft ; unlefs they can mew, that by re- 
 ceiving unwritten 'Traditions, we may fupply the 
 Want of thofe B^oks. Now this cannot be made 
 appear, unlefs it be fhewn ; Firft, What the Con- 
 tents of thofe Books were. Secondly, That thofe 
 Contents are prefcrv'd in unwritten Traditions. But 
 how is it poffible for them to prove that the Con- 
 tents 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.
 
 Chap. XL Of the Rule of Faith. 6; 
 
 CHAP. XI. 
 
 The Second Objection, that the Scriptures are 
 obfcure^ anfwer'd. 
 
 SEcondly, 'Tis objected that whatever the Scri- 
 ptures do contain, 'tis certain that they are 
 fb very obfcure, that ordinary perfons cannot un- 
 derftand them. To this I anfwer, i. That our 
 prefent Queftion is not concerning the obfcurity 
 of the Scriptures, but concerning the perfection of 
 them. And therefore it is fufficient for my prefent 
 purpofe, if all things neceflary to Salvation are 
 contain'd in the Scriptures ; whether they be plain- 
 ly taught, or no. But 2. for the full fatisfaction 
 of our Adverfaries I (hall fhew, that the Scriptures 
 are by no means obfcure in thofe points which are 
 neceflary to Salvation. There are indeed fome 
 knotty Texts, fome dark Paffages, which even the 
 Learned are puzl'd with : but our Adverfaries will 
 never be able to feew, that the underftanding of 
 thofe parts of the Bible is neceflary to Salvation. 
 Nay farther,perhaps fome Texts may contain things 
 neceflary to Salvation, tho' the meaning of thofe 
 paflages be not obvious to every capacity, or to 
 a carelefs Reader. But then, when they meet with 
 Intricacies, Men ought to ufe greater application 
 and induftry, 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 neceflary in order to their Happinefs : and 
 fince the welfare of their Souls depends upon it, 
 certainly they ought not to be fparing of their 
 labour. Now if fuch Texts may be underftood 
 
 at
 
 64 Of the Rule of Faith. Part T . 
 
 at all (tho' it coft a Chriflian fome little trouble) 
 the charge of Obfcurity is fairly remov'd. The 
 eaiie\L and moll certain Demonftrations in the 
 Mathematics, do require fome confiderable atten- 
 tion j and yet none can object againft the clearnefs 
 of them. Even fo thofe necelTary points (if any 
 fuch be lefs plainly deliver'd) may with due care 
 be well underltood. 
 
 Now that the Holy Scriptures are in this fenfe 
 fu'fficiently plain and intelligible, will appear if we 
 coniider the following particulars. Fnfi, That all 
 Men are to be judg'd by the Scriptures, Rom. 2. 16. 
 Now can it L>e imagined that Men (hall receive the 
 Sentence of Condemnation to eternal Fire, for not 
 practifing thofe Rules, or believing thofe Doctrines 
 of the Gofpel, which were fo very obfcurely 
 laid down, that they could not poffibiy understand 
 them ? Secondly, 'T\s a reproach call upon the Wif- 
 dom of God, to fuppofe that he wqu'd fend forth 
 a Book containing his Divine Will j and yet fuffer 
 it to be fo myftcrious, that Men fiiou'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 neceflary to 
 Salvation , and can it be thought that God wou'd 
 make thofe things which are not necellary to Salva- 
 tion, plainer than thofe that are ? Fourthly, The 
 Scriptures are defcrib'd as very plain and intelligi- 
 ble. The Ward of Faith which we preach, i:.y s St. Paul, 
 is nigh thee, even in thy month and in thy Heart, Rom. 
 10. 8. it commends it felf to every Mans confci- 
 eme in the fight of Gvd, 2 Cor. 4. 2. But if our 
 
 Gofpel
 
 Chap. IX. Of the Rule of Fiirti 6$ 
 
 Gofpel be hid, faies the fame Apoftle ( 11. 3, 4. )jt 
 is hid to them that are hft ; in whom the god of this 
 World has blinded the eyes of them which believe not. 
 So that the Scriptures cannot be faid to be obfcure 
 in neceflary points ; but thofe who difobey and 
 do not underftand them, are blind. If any Man 
 teach otberwftf and confent net to wholfom "words, 
 even the Words of our Lord Jefus Chrifl, and to 
 the Doftrin which is according to Godlinefs ; he is 
 (not weak, but) proud, &c. and will not be in- 
 form 'd ; i Tim. 6. 3,4- Thy Word (faies David, 
 Pfal. 1 1 p. 105.) is a lamp unto my feet ; and a light un- 
 to my path. The way of the Lord is perfeEl, converting 
 the foul : the Teflimony of the Lord is fure, making 
 wife the Jtmple. The Statutes of the Lord are right, 
 rejoicing the heart : the commandment of the Lord is 
 purej enlightningthe eyes ; Pfal. ip. 7, 8. But certain- 
 ly the word ot" God wou'd not deferve thefe Cha- 
 racters, if it were fo obfcure as our Adverfaries 
 pretend. It is alfo able to make Men wife unto 
 falvation, 2 Tim. 3. 15. and therefore it muft be 
 plain enough in things neceflary 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 
 tp prove all things, and hold faft that which is good, 
 i The(f. 5. 21. and how can we be commanded to 
 judge what the ApoIHe faies, i Cor. 10. i?- if 
 the Scriptures, which are our rule, be fo very ob- 
 fcure even in neceflary matters, that we cannot 
 judge or prove things by them ? Fifthly, We ap- 
 peal to experience, whether the Scriptures be noc 
 very plain in fuch neceflary matters. Let our Ad- 
 verfaries fliew us, if they can, any one thing ne- 
 ceflary to Salvation, whjch is not fairly intelli- 
 gible to thofe, who will beftow a little pains, 
 and
 
 66 Of the Rule of Faith. Part. I. 
 
 and have but an ordinary underftanding. They 
 tell us indeed, that the Doftrines of the Trinity, 
 Incarnation, &c. are very obfcure ; but we reply, 
 thattho' they are obfcure to our conceptions, yet 
 they are very plainly deliver'd to us. We know 
 that there are fuch truths ; but we (hall never be 
 able to comprehend them- Nor is it neceffary 
 to Salvation, that we fliould determin all the 
 School-queftions concerning them. J Tis enough 
 if we acknowledge the things themfelves : and 
 fo much may be eafily gather'd from plain Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 Well, but our Adverfaries fay, the Scriptures 
 do affirm themfelves to be obfcure. Now to this 
 I anfwer, that feveral paflages in the holy Scrip- 
 tures are confefs'd to be obfcure : but the queflion 
 is, whether the Scriptures are not Efficiently plain 
 in matters neceflary to Salvation. If our Adver- 
 faries wou'd prove any thing, let them make out 
 this Propofition, that the Scriptures do declare, 
 that fome things mcejfary to fahation are fo ol>- 
 fcurely deliver'd in them, that even by the help of 
 induftry, Men cannot underftand them. This I am 
 perfuaded, they will never evince by thofe Ar- 
 guments which are produc'd, as any Perfon may 
 perceive by the following examination of them. 
 
 For 
 
 i! When David praies, Open Am mine eyet, 
 that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law, 
 Pfal. i\9' !*- Giue **** underftanding, that 1 may 
 learn thy commandments, v. 73. "Teach me thy fta- 
 twes, v. 26. 135, &c. it muft be fuppos'd that 
 he do's not pray for the knowledge of things ne- 
 ceffary to Salvation in fuch a manner as wou d 
 fuppofe him utterly ignorant of them -, becaufe he 
 who was an infpir'd Perfon at the time of his 
 
 Writing,
 
 Chap. XF. Of the Rule of Faith. 6? 
 
 Writing, cou'd not be a novice in fuch matters, 
 But he defires a clearer infight into the Wifdom 
 and goodnefs of God's Precepts, a greater and 
 fteddier inclination to the practice of them, &c. 
 For thofe Perfons who know things neceffary to 
 Salvation, are ftill capable of improvements in 
 Grace and Virtue ; and may endeavor to obtain a 
 fuller view of the riches of Goa'sMercyin the many 
 excellencies and beautiful contrivance of Religion. 
 
 2. Tho' Chriit expounded to his Difciples in all 
 the Scriptures the things concerning himfelf, Luke 24. 
 27. yet it do's not follow that the Scriptures ave 
 utterly obfcure in matters neceflary to falvation. 
 For Ftrft, tho' the Scriptures of the Old Tefta- 
 ment,which concerned ourSavior's being theMeffiah, 
 might at that time fcem obfcure to the Difciples ; 
 yet now that we find them fo plainly fulfilled, and 
 fince Jefus is fo fully prov'd to be the Chrift, they 
 cannot be thought obfcure to us. Secondly, thofe 
 Scriptures were even then fo plain, that our Savior 
 upbraids the Difciples with their dulnefs and want 
 of underftanding. 6 foolf, faies he, and flow of heart 
 to believe aU that the Prophets have fpoken ! Ought 
 not Chrifti&c? Luke 24. 25, 16. As if he had faid, 
 How ftupid are you, that you do not underftand 
 thefe things ? from whence it appears that they were 
 plain enough to be intelligible. The fame may be 
 faid with refpocl; to the 45th <uerfe t T'heu opened he 
 their underflandings that they might underftand the 
 Scriptures :, that is, not all tjie Scriptures in Gene- 
 ral, but the prophefies concerning the MeQias ; 
 which prophecies are not obfcure to us, becaufe 
 the Apoftles have open'd them to us in their 
 writings. 
 
 3. When St. Philip asked the Eunuch, A3s 8. 
 31. whether he underftood what he read in the 
 
 E ^ Prophecy
 
 68 Of the Rule of Faith, j; Parti. 
 
 Prophecy of Ifaiab, the Eunuch replies, How can 
 /, except fome Manftoud guide me? From whence 
 our Adverfaries argue that the Scriptures are ob- 
 fcure, becaufe a Man muft have a guide to make 
 him under/land them. But I anfwer, i. That this 
 Profelyte Eunuch, who was a great ftranger to 
 the Jewijb Nation, might well be puzled with a 
 Text, which the Jews themfelves did not then 
 feem fully to underftand. 2. Tho J the Eunuch 
 cou'd not find out the true interpretation of this 
 Prophecy, which for many reafons was then obfcure, 
 yet we may be able clearly to explain it, who have 
 the benefit of the Apoitles guidance in their writ- 
 ten Books, by which we can dcmonftrate the 
 meaning of it. 3. Tho* fome certain Prophecies 
 were obfcure to the Eunuch, yet it will by no 
 means follow, that the holy Scriptures are fo very 
 obfcure in matters neceflary to falvation, that a 
 Man may not be able after the ufe of proper means 
 to understand them without an infallible guide, 
 which is the only guide our Adverfaries will be 
 fatisfy'd with. We may and ought to feek the 
 affiftance of a guide that is wifer than our felves, 
 in all doubtful cafes , and the neceflity of fuch 
 a guide do's not prove the obfcurity of the Scri- 
 ptures in general : but we deny that an infalli- 
 ble guide is ever neceflary ; efpecially for the in- 
 terpretation of thofe Texts which contain matters 
 of falvation. 
 
 4. 'Tis true, No Prophecy of Scripture is of any 
 private interpretation. 2 Pet. I. 20. that is, no 
 Scripture Prophecy came by the Witt of Man, or 
 was delivered upon the Prophet's own private au- 
 thority -, For, as the Apoftle adds, the Prophecy 
 came not in old time by the IViU of Mam but holy 
 Men of God fpake as they were wwd by the Holy 
 * Ghoft.
 
 Chap. XI. Of tbe Rule of Faith. 69 
 
 Ghoft. But how will our Adverfaries be able to 
 fhew from this Text, which I have given the 
 true and natural meaning of, that the holy Scrip- 
 tures are obfcure in matters neceflary to falvation ? 
 Is this a good argument, T'he Prophets fpeak not of 
 their own motion, but by the inspiration of God : and 
 therefore thofe Men who read their Prophecies cannot 
 under/land them ? Muft all thofe Prophecies that 
 proceed from God, be unintelligible ? Certain- 
 ly God can exprefs his Will in fuch a manner as 
 he thinks proper to attain his end ,- and when he 
 thinks it convenient, can make himfelf intelligible. 
 However, fuppofe the Prophecies never fo diffi- 
 cult ; yet it would not follow, that the Scriptures 
 in general are obfcure in matters neceflary to fal- 
 vation. 
 
 5. 'Tis true alfo, that in St. Paul's Epiftles 
 there are fame things hard to be under flood, which 
 they that are unlearn 'd and unftable wreft, as they 
 do aljo the other Scriptures, to their own deftruElion, 
 2 Pet. 3.16. But I anfwer, i. thaj: tho'fome things 
 in Sr. Paul's Epiftles are hard to be underftood, 
 yet others may be very eafy. 2. That thofe things 
 which are faid to be hard to be underftood, are not 
 faidto be necejfary to fafo&tion. 3. Tho'fome things 
 neceflary to falvation were hard to be underftood; 
 yet they may be underftood : and therefore it will 
 not follow from hence, that the Scriptures are ob- 
 fcure 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 
 lincere fearchers afterGod's Will, but) the unlearn* d 
 and unftable ; and therefore the Stable and Learned 
 may underftand them. 
 
 If it be faid, that thofe errors which de- 
 ftroy Men, are errors concerning matters necef- 
 
 E 3 fary
 
 70 Of the Rule of Faith, Parti, 
 
 fary to falvation j and therefore, fince thcfe hard 
 things were fo wrefted as to deftroy Men, they 
 muft be matters neceflary to falvation ; I anfwer, 
 that tho' all damnable errors do relate to matters 
 neceflary to falvation,yet a Man mayfali into dam- 
 nable errors, by mifinterpreting a place which do's 
 not contain any thing neceflary to falvation. Ee- 
 caufe, by drawing an heretical confequence from 
 fuch a Text of Scripture, he may be tempted to 
 contradid or deny a great truth, which is really 
 neceflary to falvation. Thus for iniiance, 'tis 
 neceflary to falvation to believe, that Jefus Chrift 
 is God ; but 'tis not neceflary to falvation to be- 
 lieve, that the Father only knoweth the day and 
 hour of the laft judgment, as we read, Math. 24. 
 36. Now tho' this Text, Matth. 24. 36. do's 
 not contain a matter neceflary to falvation ; yet if 
 a Man will wreftthis Text, and from thence con- 
 clude that Jefus Chrift do's not know all things, 
 and therefore cannot be God ; he may fall into a 
 damnable error by fuch wrefting of it. From 
 whence it is plain, that fome hard things in St. 
 Paul's Epiftles or the other Scriptures may be 
 wrefted to Mens deftruftion ; althV the Texts fo 
 wrefted do not contain matters neceflary to falva- 
 tion. 
 
 <5. If it be further urg'd, that there are tropes 
 and figures in the Holy Bible ; I anfwer, that the 
 Bible is neverthelefs fufficiently plain ; even as 
 plain as common difcourfe, which has the fame 
 fort of expreffions. Befides, an ordinary fyftem 
 of Rhetoric will take away fuch difficulties ,- and 
 certainly that Book cannot be thought obfcure, 
 which has fo many fufficient helps, and thofe 
 alwaies ready ajt hand, for the illutotion of
 
 Chap. XI. Of the Rule of Faith. ?I 
 
 7. If it be alfo faid, that Chrift taught in Pa- 
 rables ; I anfwer, that thofe Parables are explain'd 
 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. 5. 4. I anfwer, 
 that by the Book in that place, we are to under- 
 ftand (not the whole Body of the Scriptures, 
 but) the Book of the Revelations only j and 
 therefore that Text will by no means prove, that 
 the holy Scriptures in general are obfcure ; much 
 lefs that they are obfcure in matters necefTary to 
 falvation. 
 
 8. If it be ask'd, from whence controverfies do 
 arife, or whether they do not proceed from the 
 obfcurity of the Scriptures j I anfwer, that the 
 wars and fightings in Divinity do fpring from 
 the fame fource with the wars and fightings in 
 Civil matters, James 4. i. They come hence, 
 even from our lufts, which war in our members. 
 The truth, at leaft all neceflary truth, is eafily 
 found, if Men will carefully feek it : but when 
 Men are refolv'd to pafs that for truth which 
 they wifli to find true ; or when they are preju- 
 diced on the wrong fide, and obilinately perfift in 
 the maintenance of it ; no wonder, if they meet 
 with oppofition and caufe difputes. Religious 
 controverfies are, I confefs, extremely numerous ; 
 but 'tis evident from whence they proceed. 'Tis 
 our own fault, that we do not agree , for cer- 
 tainly God, who fo ftridly injoins it, has en- 
 abled us to pra&ife Unity. The Scriptures, if 
 Men would hearken to them, wouM Toon put an 
 end to all our differences. Matters neceflary to 
 falvation are plainly delivered in them : and as for 
 all other indifferent things or intricate points, the 
 authority of the Church is fufficient to guide us 
 
 4 in
 
 72 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 in them. But when Men are fond of Faction and 
 Rebellion, or have a mind to lord it over others ; 
 then every trifllewill kindle a great flame, and the 
 difputes manag'd by fuch Perfons will never end, 
 till Time (hall be no more. In a word, Conrro- 
 verfies about things neceflary to falvation are plain- 
 ly determin'd in Scripture ,- and the fame Scripture 
 has given us a general Rule for/the determination 
 pf all other Controverfies, w*. Obedience- So 
 that where we do really need a Rule, the Rule is 
 plain : but if Men will enlarge their own neceflr- 
 ties, and then expect to have every thing nicely 
 defined by Almighty God; they are not to expect 
 a fupply of their wants, becaufe they have pervert 
 ly brought them upon themfelves. 
 
 Laftly, If it be objected, that fome perfons are 
 not convinced even of thofe things, which the 
 generality of Chriftians do think neceflary to fal- 
 vation, and therefore the Scriptures muft needs 
 be obfcure ; I anfwer, that thofe Perfons either 
 have fincerely endeavor'd to know the truth, or 
 they have not. If they have not, the fault is their 
 pwn '-, and the Scriptures muft not be charg'd with 
 pbfcurity, becaufe fome Perfons will not endeavor 
 to underhand them. But if they have fincerely 
 endeavored to be rightly informed j then I prefume, 
 they may receive fuch information, or elfe God 
 will pity and pardon their ignorance. Prejudice 
 pr fomething elfe, may have darkned or blinded 
 their minds : and then we cannot juftly fay, that 
 the Scriptures are obfcure, becaufe fuch Perfons 
 $lo not underftand them ; any more than we can 
 juftly fay, that the Sun is a dark body, becaufe 
 fome Perfons have, either a blemiih in their eyes a 
 or utterly loft their fight.
 
 Chap. XL Of the Rule of Faith: 75 
 To conclude, if our Adverfaries wou'd effectu- 
 ally prove, that the Scriptures are fo obfcure in 
 matters neceflary to Salvation, that a Man cannot 
 underftand them after the ufe of proper means ; 
 they ought to do two things. Ftrft, they muft 
 inftance in fome particular, and prove that it is 
 necetfary to falvation. Secondly, they muft prove 
 that that particular is fo obfcurely deliver'd in the 
 Scriptures, that in fpite of his honeft endeavors 
 a Man cannot find it in them. When they have 
 done thefe two things, we fliall be forc'd to ac- 
 knowlege that the Scriptures are really obfcure; 
 and the Enemies of Chriftianity will thank them 
 for dewing, that the Word of God is a riddle, 
 a dark infignifkant Book, and good for nothing. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 7 4 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 CHAP. XII. 
 
 A fhort Summary of what has been fad i* 
 the former Chapters. 
 
 I Have now done with the Controverfy which 
 I thought it neceflary to determin in the firft 
 place ; and fliall only beg leave to prefent the 
 Reader with a fliort Summary of what has been 
 faid concerning it. 
 
 * I have prov'd, that the Tradition of Unwritten 
 ' Doctrines is utterly uncertain, and liable to great 
 ' corruptions ; and that we have no remedy a- 
 ' gainft the Uncertainty and Corruptions of it, 
 e either from the pretended infallibility of the 
 ' Church, or by any other means. And there- 
 ' fore it follows, that the teftimony of Tradition 
 ' is not a fuffieient proof, that any particular do- 
 
 * ctrine, not contained in the Scriptures, was re- 
 
 * vealed to the Apoftles. Now fince the tefti- 
 
 * mony of Tradition is not a fufficient proof, and 
 c fince there is no other proof pretended ; 'tis 
 
 * plain, that we have no fufficient proof that 
 
 * any particular dodrine, not contained in the 
 
 * Scriptures, was reveal'd to them by Almighty 
 < God. 
 
 * I have alfo fhewn, that we have no fufficient 
 ' proof, that any particular doctrine, not con- 
 ' tain'd in the Scriptures, was reveal'd to any o- 
 ' ther Perfons fince the Apoftles times ; Firft 9 be- 
 
 * caufe we have all imaginable reafon to re- 
 jec"i fuch Revelations ; and Secondly, becaufe we 
 1 have no real and undoubted NJirades to attcfc 
 4 them. 
 
 'And
 
 Chap. XII. Of the Rule of Faith. 7S 
 
 f And therefore,fince we have no fufficient proof, 
 
 ' that God has reveal'd any particular do&rines not 
 
 contain'd in the Scriptures, either to the Apoftles, 
 
 or to any other Perfons ; 'tis manifeft, that we 
 
 have no fumcient proof, that God has reveal'd 
 
 them at all. 
 
 * And fince we have no fufficient proof, that 
 God has reveal'd any particular doctrines not 
 contain'd in the Scriptures ; therefore we ought 
 not to receive fuch doctrines as Divine Revela- 
 tions. 
 
 ' And fince we ought not to receive fuch do- 
 ( drines asDivine Revelations, 'tis certain that the 
 1 holy Scriptures are the only Divine Revelations 
 * which we ought to receive. 
 
 ' And therefore, fince 'tis granted on both fides, 
 ( that God has reveal'd all thofe things which are 
 c neceflary to falvation ; 'tis plain, that the Holy 
 f Scriptures, which are the only certain Revela- 
 ' tions, do contain all things necejfary to fafoa- 
 ' tion ; which was the Propofition I undertook to 
 1 prove. 
 
 Now, if the Holy Scriptures do contain all 
 things neceflary to falvation ; then thofe things 
 which cannot t>e prov'd frona Scripture, are not 
 neceflary to falvation. And therefore in our 
 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 reject what- 
 foever the Holy Scriptures do not fairly and fully 
 prove. 
 
 The Papifts 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
 
 7<5 Of the Rule of Faith. Part I. 
 
 them to prove their Religion from it. We are 
 able, 'tis true, to fight at the other Weapon, 
 and to (hew that they have neither Fathers nor 
 Councils on their fide : but becaufe this method 
 of proceeding is utterly needlefs and very tedi- 
 ous : and becaufe ordinary perfons are not com- 
 petent judges of fuch matters ; therefore we infift 
 upon Scripture-proofs. For this reafon in the fol- 
 lowing Chapters, I ihail think my felf obliged to 
 anfwer only thofe Arguments, which they draw 
 from God's Word, to prove their Do&rines by, 
 
 The End of the Ftrji Parti
 
 77 
 
 CONFUTATION 
 
 O F 
 
 POPERY- 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Of the particular 'Dofirines of the 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 A General Argument agrinft Popery propos'4. 
 
 HAviug ihewn in the former Part, that the 
 Holy Scriptures do contain all things ne- 
 ceffary to Salvation, I fhall now proceed to the 
 Confutation of Popery, and propofe this Gene- 
 ral Argument againft it.
 
 78 A general Argument Part II. 
 
 Whatfoever Religion impofes thofe things as 
 neceffary to falvation, which are either abfolutdy 
 falfe, or condemn'd by God's Word, or not con- 
 tain'd in it ; is an unlawful Religion. Now that 
 the Popifb Religion do's impofe fuch things as 
 neceflary to falvation, is manifeft from the Popijb 
 Creed, which was (a) Eftablifh'd by Pope Pius 
 the Fourth and the Council of Trent, and is as 
 follows ; 
 
 1. / Believe in one God the Father Almighty, 
 Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things Vi- 
 fible and Invifible. 
 
 2. And in one Lord Jefus Chrift, the only begot" 
 ten Son of God, begotten of the father before aU worlds, 
 God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, 
 begotten not made, being of one fubftance -with the 
 Father, by whom all things were made. 
 
 3. Who for us Men, and for our Salvation, came 
 down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy 
 Ghoft of the Virgin Mary, and was made Man. 
 
 4. And was Crucify 3 d alfo for us under Pontius 
 Pilate, he fufferd and was buried. 
 
 5. And rofe again the T'hird Day according to the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 6. And ascended into Heaven, and fitteth on the 
 Right Hand of the Father. 
 
 7. And he jhaU come again with Glory to judge 
 both the quick and the dead, whofe Kingdom Jhatt have 
 m end. 
 
 8. And in the Holy Ghojl, the Lord and giver of 
 Life, who froceedethfrom the Father and the Son, who 
 with the Father and the Son is wor/jiff'd and glori- 
 fy 4, who f fake by the Prophets. 
 
 9. And in one Holy Catholic and Apoflolic Church. 
 
 . Condi. Labb, Torn. 14.^.944,94^ 946. 
 
 10. /
 
 Chap. I. AgAinft Popery proposed. 79 
 
 10. / acknowledge one Baptifm for the remiffton of 
 fins. 
 
 1 1 . And I look for tie refurreElien of the dead. 
 
 12. And the Life of the World to come. Amen. 
 i^./ fledfaftly admit and embrace Apoftolical and 
 
 Ecclejiaflical "Traditions, and the reft of the Obfervan- 
 ces and conflitutions of the fame Church. 
 
 14. I do alfo admit of the Holy Scripture in that 
 fmfe which our Holy Mother the Church, to -whom it 
 belongs to judge of the true fenfe and interpretation 
 of the Holy Scriptures, did and doth hold ; nor -will 
 I ever take and interpret it otherwife, than according 
 to the Unanimous confent of the Fathers. 
 
 15. 1 do alfo profefs, that there are truly and pro-* 
 perl) feven Sacraments of the New Law, (which 
 Sacraments were inftituted by Jefus Chrift our Lord, 
 and are necejfary to the fahaticn of Mankind, altho 
 all the Sacraments be not necejfary to every Perfon) 
 viz. Baptifm, Confirmation, the Lord's Supper, Pe- 
 nance, Extreme Unclion, Orders and Matrirmny ; 
 
 13. Apoftolicas 8c Ecclefiafticas Traditiones, reliquafque 
 ejufdem Ecclefiz obfervationes & confticutiones firmiflime 
 admitto & ampleftor. 
 
 14. Item Sacram Scripturam juxta eum fcnfum, quetn 
 tenuit & tenet Sanfta Mater Ecclefia, cujus eft judicare de 
 vero fenfu & incerpretatione Sacrarum Scripcurarutn, ad- 
 mitto ; nee earn urrquam, nifl juxta unanimem confcnfun; 
 Patrum accipiam & interpretabor. 
 
 15. Profiteer quoque feptem efTe vere & proprie Sacra- 
 menta novae legis a Jefu Chrifto Domino noftro inftituta,at> 
 que ad falutem humani generis,Iicet non omnia fingu]is,ne 
 ceflaria ; fcilicet Baptifmum,Cpnflrmationem, Euchar iftiam, 
 Pxnicentiam, Extremam Unftionem, Ordinem & Matrimo- 
 nium ; illaque graciam canferre ; & ex his Bapcifmum, 
 Confirmationem & Ordinem fine Sicrilegio reiterarinon 
 pofle. Receptos quoque & approbates Ecclefiz Catholicas 
 ritus, in fupradiftorum omnium Sacramentorum folennx 
 adminiflratione, recipio & admitco. 
 
 that
 
 8o A General Argument Part II. 
 
 that they do confer Grace ~, and that thrde of them, viz* 
 Eaptifm, Confirmation, and Orders cannot be repeated 
 without Sacrilege. 1 do alfo receive and admit the 
 receivd and approved Rites of the Catholic Church in 
 thefo/emn adminijiration of aU the Sacraments before 
 wentiond. 
 
 1 6' 1 do embrace and receive all and every thing, 
 that hath been defind and declared in the Holy Coun- 
 cil of Trent concerning Original Sin and 'Juftifica- 
 tion. 
 
 17. / do likewife profefs that in the Mafs there is 
 offer 3 d a true, proper and propitiatory facrifice for the 
 living and the dead ', and that the Body and Blond, 
 together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, are truly, really, and fubftantially in the mofl 
 Holy Sacrament of the Lord's fupper -, and that the 
 whole fubftance of the Bread is turnd into the Body, 
 and the whole fubflance of the Wine is turnd intc the 
 Bloud ', which change the Catholic Church calls Tran- 
 fubfiantiation. 
 
 18. / do alfo profefs, that WJiole and Intire Chrift, 
 and a true Sacrament, is received under one kind 
 wly. 
 
 16. Omnia 8c fingula, quse de Peccato Originali & de Ju- 
 ftificatione in Sacro-Sanfta Tridencina Synodo definita & 
 dcclarata fuerunt, ampltftor & recipio. 
 
 17. Profiteer par her in Mifla otferri Deo verum, propri- 
 um & propitiatorium facrificium pro vivis and defunfti*; ac- 
 que MI fantiffimo Euchariflise Sacramento effe vcre, realiter 
 & fubihntialiter corpus & fanguinem, una cum anima & 
 Divinitate Domini noftriJefuChrifti.fieriqueconverfionem 
 toctus fuhftantiae panis in corpus, & totius fubfbmiae vini 
 in fanguinem ; quam conv&rfionem Catholica Ecclefia 
 Tranfubftantiationctn appellar. 
 
 j 8. Fateor etiamfub altera tantuift fpecie, totum atque 
 integrum Chriftum, verumque Sacramencutn fumi. 
 
 19- I
 
 Chap. I. agamft Popery propos'4. 81 
 
 i p. I do firmly believe that there is a Purgatory* 
 and that the Souls detain d therein are help'd by the 
 Prayers of the Faithful. 
 
 20. And I do likewife firmly believe, that the 
 Saints Reigning together with Chrift are to be hc- 
 nor'd and pray'd to ; and that they do fray to God 
 for us ; and that their Reliques are to be had in Ve- 
 neration. 
 
 21. I do mo ft ftedfaftly ajfert^ that the Images o/Ch rift 
 and the Mother of God, "who was alwaies a J/irgin, and 
 of other -Saints alfo, are to be 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 
 was left in the Church by Chrift , and that the ufe of 
 them is very helpful to Chnftian People. 
 
 23. / do acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Afo- 
 ftolic Church of Rome, the Mother and Mtftrefs of 
 all Churches ; and I do prbmife and fwear true Obe- 
 dience to the Bijhop of Rome, the Succejfor of St. 
 Peter the Prince of the Apoflles, and the Vicar of 
 Jefus Chrift. 
 
 19. Conftanter teneo Purgatorium efle, animafque ibi 
 detentas fidelium fuffragiis juvari. 
 
 20. Similiter & fanftos una cum Chrifto regnantes, ve- 
 nerandos atque invocandos efTe ; eofque orationes Deb pro 
 nobis offerre ; atque eorum reliquias efle venerandas. 
 
 ai Firmiflime aflero imagines Chrifti ac Deiparcs fert- 
 per Virginis, necon aliofum Sanftorum, habendas & reti- 
 nendas efle, atque cis debicum honorem ac venerationemi 
 impertiendam. 
 
 22. InduJgentiarum etiam poteftatem a Chrifto in Ecclefia 
 reliftam fuifle, illarumque ufum Chriftiano populo maxime 
 falutarem efle, aiHrrno. 
 
 22. Sanftam, Catholicam <k Apoftolicam Romanarn Ec- 
 clcfiam, omnium Ecclefiarum Matrem & Magiftram agno- 
 fco ; Romanoque Poncifici, Beati Peer! Apoftolorum 
 principis Succeflbri, ac Jefu Chr Jfti Vicario ^ veram obe* 
 dient jam fpondeo ac iuro. 
 
 F i't
 
 82 A general Argument, &c. Part II. 
 
 24. I do alfo without any doubting receive and 
 frofefs att other things that are delivered, defind 
 and declared by ti:e Sacred Canons and General 
 Councils, and chiefly by the Holy Council of Trent ; 
 and att things contrary to them, and all Herefies 
 whatfoever, that are condemn d, rejected and anathe- 
 matized by the Churchy 1 do likewife condemn, reject 
 and anathematize. 
 
 This Creed is the Standard of the Popijh Re- 
 ligion, and contains that Faith which is profefs'd 
 by every Perfon that embraces it. And therefore 
 I fliall endeavor to juftify my Charge againft Po- 
 pery, by producing inftances of fuch falfe, con- 
 demn d, or groundless Doctrines out of this their 
 undoubted Creed -, and this I lhall do in feme fol- 
 lowing Chapters. 
 
 Only I think it convenient to advertife the 
 Reader, that I do not defign to confute all the 
 Articles of the foregoing Creed. The Twelve 
 firft we Proteftants do fincerely profefs and con- 
 tend for , but we reject the other Twelve, as the 
 Errors of Rome. Now out of the twelve laft I 
 fliall felcd fome particulars, which I defign to 
 examine j and I hope to make it appear that they 
 are either falfe, or condemn d, or groundless Do- 
 ctrines. 
 
 24. Cetera item omnia a facris canonibus & cecumenJcis 
 conciliis, ac precipue a Sacro-San&a Tridencina Synodo, 
 tradica, definica & declarata, indubitanter recipio arque 
 profiteer ; fimulque contraria omnia, atque hxrefes quaf- 
 cunquc ab Eccleua damnatas, rcjeftas & anathemacizatas, 
 ego paricer damno, rejicio & anathematize. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Chap. If, OfTranfubftAntiation. 8j 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 That the Doftrine of Tranfubftantiation /V 
 
 abfolutely fa/fe. 
 
 Flrfl then, I fhali inftance in a Doctrine which 
 is abfolutely falfe. 
 
 That the Church of Rome do's maintain the 
 doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, and impofes it as ne- 
 ceflary to falvation, is manifeft from the Seven- 
 teenth Article of her Creed, in which (he requires 
 her Members to believe, that the whole fub ft ance of 
 the Bread is turned into the Body, and the whole fub- 
 ftance of the tVine into the Bloud of Chrifl j 'which 
 change the Catholic Church (meaning her felf) caffs 
 Tranfubftantiation. Now this doctrine is abfolute- 
 ly falfe j becaufe we have moft evident proof, 
 that the fubftances of the Bread and Wine do re- 
 main after the Confecration ; and confequently 
 there is no fuch change wrought as our Adver- 
 faries do pretend. And this will appear, if we 
 confider two things ; i . That the evidence of fenfe is 
 always certain. 2. That we are ajfur'd by the evi- 
 dence of fenfe \ that the fubftances of the Bread and Wine 
 do remain after the Confecration. 
 
 Firft- then I fay, the Evidence of fenfe is alwaies 
 certain. J Tis poffible, I confefs, and very eafy foe 
 iis 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 on object ; or by too great a diftance front 
 it ; and by that means reprefent it in a different 
 F a
 
 84 OfTrtmfubftAntUtion. Part II. 
 
 ftiape or fize. Thus a large fquare Tower may 
 feem round and fmall, if it be a great way off : 
 and a ftreight Stick, if thrufl into the Water, 
 may appear crooked to us. Again, there are fome 
 things, which may be examin'd by feveral fenfes j 
 and then we may be miftaken, if we rely upon one 
 of them. Thus we may diftinguim fome Bodies, 
 not only by the touch, but alfo by the taft and 
 fmell and fight : and therefore, if we cannot cer- 
 tainly know what they are by one method , we 
 muft try another. Nay farther, we may deceive 
 our felves by giving too much credit to a tranfi- 
 tory View or a flight Perception : and therefore 
 in fuch cafes we ought to paufe a while, and to 
 beftow 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 
 impreflions thro' proper Mediums, and we hare 
 had leifure enough to confider of them; when 
 all our fenfes agree in their teftimony ; 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 
 inftance , I fay, when this is the cafe, our fenfes 
 do not and cannot deceive us. Then are we faid 
 to have the evidence of Senfe ; that is, we are as 
 well informed, as our natural fenfes, which are 
 the only tefts of fenfiblc things, can poffibly in- 
 form us. 
 
 Now that this evidence of fenfe is always cer- 
 tain, has been generally granted by all Mankind : 
 and thofe who deny'd it, have ever been thought 
 ridiculous. However, fince our Adverfaries do 
 force us upon it, I fhall endeavor to convince them 
 
 of
 
 Chap. II. OfTranpibftAntiAtton. 85 
 
 of it. And that my argument may proceed with 
 the greater force and clearnefs, I think it necefiary 
 jn the firft place to prove that our (enfes do gene- 
 rally give us certain information. This I Ihall 
 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 ap- 
 peal to any indifferent judge, whether that God 
 who is good and true, can be fuppos'd to have 
 made rational Creatures after fuch a manner, as 
 makes them liable to everlafting delufions : and 
 yet this will unavoidably follow from the general 
 uncertainty of our Senfes. 
 
 For tho* fome things are fo perfectly abftra&ed 
 from matter, that the knowledge and certainty 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 fmce 
 moft of thofe things which we perceive are cor- 
 poreal objeds, '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 fhould act fecurely. Theie things being con- 
 lider'd, it mufl be a great impeachment of the 
 goodnefs of God, to think that he has given rea- 
 fonable Creatures a power of judging, which he 
 expefis they fhou'd ufe aright ; tho' at the fame 
 time he has deliver'd them up to the guidance c 
 fuch Senfes as may caufe almoft all their judgments; 
 to be erroneous. 
 
 Nor do's the general uncertainty of fenftble evi- 
 dence refleft lefs feverely upon the truth of our 
 F 3 Maker,
 
 86 Of frAnfubftintiAtiov. Part II. 
 
 Maker. For fince we are able to think, we muft 
 be fuppos'd to think according to our befl infor- 
 mations. Now if God has fo contriv'cfour Na- 
 ture, that thofe Senfes by which we receive the 
 far greater part of our notices, and by which we 
 are to be directed, 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 
 neceflary for us to act upon fuch principles, and 
 t<3 be mifled by them. So that God muft then 
 be thought a grand Impoftor, and to have pafs'd 
 more 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,' and yet it cannot be avoided by thofe, who, 
 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 punifo Men according to their defervings. 
 But how is this poflible, if the evidence of Senfe 
 be generally uncertain ? For Juftice and Charity, 
 which are the principal virtues of a Chriftian, do 
 wholly depend upon Senfe in the exercifeof them. 
 If my fenfes mifmfprm me, I may take that Man 
 for an object of pity, whom I ought to bring to 
 puniflimeht ; or I may believe that Man worthy 
 of punifliment for a fact, which I thought my 
 eyes had feen, who at the fame time was doing 
 his duty. Tjius may I be betray'd into numberlefs 
 crimes, and commit things worthy of damnation, 
 by an unavoidable rieceffity. And can we be- 
 lieve, that God ' will" judge Men according to 
 their deeds, if their fenfes may betray them to 
 fnch finful actions ? Are Virtue and Vice fuch un- 
 
 kno\*rn
 
 Chap. II. Of Trwfubjtanuation. 87 
 
 known and hidden things, that a Man (who fin- 
 cerely defires to be well inftru&ed) may be a no- 
 torious Villain, at the fame time that he thinks 
 himfelfa Saint ? And is this our condition in this 
 prefent world ? Mult we be forc'd to ad we know- 
 not what, and be utterly uncertain of our condi- 
 tion in another ftate ? Muft we take a great deal 
 of pains to become Virtuous, when perhaps at 
 the end of our daies we may be doomed to hell 
 for our Vices ? "Tis impoffible that any Man 
 fiiou'd know how to live well, uniefs his fenfes 
 may be trufled ; therefore if our fenfes cannot gene- 
 rally be rely'd on, it Refkfts very feverely upon. 
 thejuftice of God. 
 
 3 . Again, why do's our Savior appeal to his 
 Works, John 10. 38. and blame Chorazj* and 
 Btthfaidafor not believing, Manb. u. 21. Luke 
 jo. 13. if the evidence of fenfe 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 7%at which 
 was from the beginning^ which we have heard, 
 which we have feen with our eyes, which we have. 
 look'd upon, and our hands have handled of the Word, 
 of Life, &c. declare we unto you ; i John i. J. I fay, 
 why do's he ufe this argument, if the evidence of 
 fenfe be not generally certain ? Why do the Scrip- 
 tures tell us that the Apoflles were eye-witnejjes of 
 diverfe particulars, Luke 1.2. 2 Pet. i. 16. and 
 why (hall thofe be punifh'd, who do not receive 
 their teftimony concerning the Words and adions 
 of our Bleffed Lord; if the eyes and ears and o- 
 ther organs of fenfe may generally deceive Man- 
 kind, even when they are converfant about then: 
 proper objects ? c , 
 
 4; Nay, what certainty can we have or the 
 F 4 trutft
 
 88 Of TrwfubfttntiAUon. Part II. 
 
 truth of the Chriftian Religion, if our fenfes may 
 generally deceive us ? For how is it poflible for 
 a Man to know, that Jefas is the Me/fid), unlefs 
 he may believe the ancient Prophecies, and the 
 Miracles of Chrift and his Apoflles > But then, 
 if his fenfes may fo frequently deceive him, how 
 fhall he be fure that the ancient Prophecies do 
 not point at another Perfon ? Why may not he 
 be then fuppos'd to have read wrong j and to 
 have fanfy'd that he faw the Characters 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 opened, perhaps his 
 own may deceive him. If the blind Man feem 
 to declare that he fees perfectly well ; perhaps this 
 Perfon's ears may tell him fo, when the blind Man 
 faies the contrary. If Laz,arus be call'd from the 
 grave and come forth ; how can any Man be af- 
 fur'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 
 {tone? 
 
 The Doctrine of our Savior's Refurrection is 
 the great hinge upon which the proof of our Re- 
 ligion turns. If this be true, Chriftianity is infal- 
 libly true ,- but otherwife 'tis precarious and un- 
 certain, if not abfolutely falfe. Now how is it 
 poflible for us to demonftrate our Savior's Refur- 
 rection, if the evidence of fenfe be not generally 
 certain ? The Apoftles felt, heard and Taw him 
 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 Pey fon judge of our Savior's 
 
 Doctrine,
 
 Chap. II. Of TrwfubfttMtUtion. 89 
 
 Do&rine, if the evidence of Senfe be not general- 
 ly admitted for certain ? He may think he heard 
 him teaching purity of heart, humility, meek- 
 nefs, &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 fent by Satan to enfnare and ruin him. 
 
 In a word, faith comes by bearing, faies Sc. Paul, 
 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 (hall I be fure 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 tefti- 
 mony of the Senfes, muflbe at leaft generally cer- 
 tain , for othervvife ChrifHanity, which is prov'4 
 by the Senfes, cannot be certain. 
 
 Thus you fee, that even thcfe who liv'd in the 
 beginnings of the Gofpel, cou'd have no proof 
 of the truth of it, if their Senfes could 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 Succeilbrs ; 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 lei's reafon to 
 truft thofe of other Men ; and therefore we, who 
 depend upon human teftimony, ca*n havfc 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 of Senfe 
 
 is
 
 90 Of TranfubftantiAtioti. Part II. 
 
 is flronger than moral evidence ; becaufe I am 
 more fureof what I perceive my felf, than of that 
 which another perceives. If then the evidence 
 of Senfe be flronger 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 Days 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 founda- 
 tions of Chriftianity. 
 
 5. Nay farther, we are liable to everlafting Scep- 
 tieifm, if the fenfes cannot be generally rely'd up- 
 on. For if they may generally deceive us, why 
 may they not deceive us always ? At leaft it is 
 impoffible for us to diftinguifh, when they do de- 
 ceive us, and when they are faithful to us. If 
 they are capable of impofing fo often on me, how 
 ihall I be fecur'd from the mifchiefs arifing from 
 them ? Nay, why fliou'd one Man write to con- 
 vince his neighbour, or another Man read to con- 
 vince himfelf, of, his errors > if the Senfes may fo 
 feldom be trufted ? For the firft may think Jbe has 
 penn'd a ftrong argument, when he may have o- 
 mitted the beft part of what he thought he had 
 urg'd and the fecond may befo far deceived, as 
 to read directly contrary to what is written. Thus 
 inuft our errors be perpetual ; and our felves are 
 doom'd to eternal doubtings. We muft believe 
 nothing, becaufe we can have no certainty. Now 
 an everlafting Scepticifm is fo abfurd, that all 
 Men have exploded it : and therefore it muft be 
 granted that the evidence of Senfe is generally 
 certain j becaufe Scepticifm cannot be otherwise 
 avoided. 
 
 From what has been faid it may fufRcientiy ap- 
 pear^
 
 Chap. II. Of TranfubftantUtion. <j t 
 
 pear, that the evidence of Senfe is at leafl generally cer- 
 tain , and therefore I fhall now proceed to {hew", 
 that if the evidence of Senfe be generally certain, 
 it muft be always certain* 
 
 For how fhall I be fure, thatthofe Senfes which 
 can deceive me, do not actually deceive me in any 
 particular inftance ? I have reafon to fufpecl: and 
 disbelieve that Man, whom I have once found, 
 or know to be falfe : and then, if I may juftly 
 fufpeft 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 (hew, when they do not, and when they do 
 deceive me ; fince there is the evidence of Senfe in 
 both cafes? Nay, tho' I were infallibly aflur'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 forever uncertain. 
 
 If it be faid, that Tranjubftantiation is that one 
 thing ; and that I may fafely credit my Senfes in 
 all other fenfible matters : I anfwer, that this is 
 a groundlefs Atfertion. 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 
 diyerfe inftances, in which Mens Senfes have bee 
 mjfiaken, even when they were coaverfant about 
 their proper objects ; and from hence they con- 
 clude, that our Senfes, tho' they may be general- 
 ly, yet are not alwaies certain. Thefe therefore 
 I think my felf obliged to examine ; left they 
 fhou'd by an appeal to experience perfuade us out 
 of our Senfes. And, 
 
 i. They fay, that the Angels who appear'dto 
 
 Abraham,
 
 92 Of Trdnfubjtantiation. Part II. 
 
 Abraham, Manoah, &c. feem'd to be real Men ; 
 and yet they were incorporeal fpirits. But I an- 
 fwer, that thofe Angels did either afl'ume real bo- 
 dies, or they did not. If they did ; then cerr 
 tainly the Senfes of thofe Spectators did not de- 
 ceive them. But if they did not ; then I defire 
 our Adverfaries to prove, that the Perfons to whom 
 they appeared, did handle and examine the con- 
 fiftence of thofe apparitions. For unlefs they us'd 
 the help of all thofe Senfes which might affift 
 them in the fearch, they cou'd not pofitively pro- 
 nounce a judgment 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 had 
 informed them. But if they did find them to 
 have real bodies -, our adverfaries will find it a 
 difficult matter to prove that they did not aflume 
 them. And if they did aflume them ; then, as I 
 faid before, the eyes of the Spectators did not de- 
 ceive them. Wherefore it appears, that if the Senfes 
 were fo rightly us'd, as to afford what I formerly 
 call'd the evidence of Senfe, then they did truly 
 and faithfully perform their office. For they 
 were not to determine, whether the bodies of 
 thofe Angels were affum'd or natural ; but whe- 
 ther they had true bodies, or no. 
 
 2. They fay, that the Manna in the Wilder- 
 nefs, tho the natural taft of it -was like wafers 
 made -with homy, Exod. 1 6. 31. did taft never- 
 thelefs according to every Man's humor. For as 
 the Author of the Book of IVifdom fpeaks, C&ap. 
 1 6.1}. 20, 21. T'hou feedefl thine own People luitb 
 Angels Joody and didftfend them from Heaven Bread 
 prefar'd without their labour, atle to content evtry 
 
 Man's
 
 Chap. II. OfTrwfubflAntiAtiofl. 95 
 
 Mans delight, and agreeing to tvery taft. fbr thy 
 fuftenance declar'd thy fweetnefs unto thy Children, 
 and fevuivg to the appetite of the Eater y tempered 
 it. felf to every Mans liking. And therefore 'tis 
 pretended, that the Ifraelites did not relifh it ac- 
 cording to it's intrinfic nature, but were deceived 
 in their Senfe of Tafting, even when it was duly 
 converfant about its proper object. Now to this 
 I fhall return two anfwers, that our Adverfaries 
 may chufe which pleafes them beft. 
 
 Ftrfl then, it may be faid, that the words of 
 the Book of Wifdom are hyperbolical, and muft 
 therefore be underftood in a favorable and lo- 
 wer Senfe. If this be admitted, then it will 
 follow, that the taft of Manna was not really dif- 
 ferent according as Mens palates varied : but that 
 it was only a very delicious food, as Mofes de- 
 fer ibes it, like Wafers made with Honey ; and that 
 rhe taft of it was very agreeable to the Gene- 
 rality of the Jews. Now this explication is nor 
 in the leaft inconfiftent with their loathing the 
 fame Manna, Numb. 21.5. becaufe Solomon tells 
 us, the full foul loatbeth an Honey-comb, Prov. 27. 
 7. Befides, that generation of the Jews was a 
 peevifh and humorfom People ; and were refolv'd 
 to be difpleafed with allGod's mercies ; and thought 
 nothing good enough for their Enjoyment. This 
 their uneafy and difcontented temper made them 
 within a Ihort time to diflike that food, which 
 was truly excellent in it's own nature ; and which 
 had formerly been mod grateful to themfelves up- 
 on their firft tafting 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 ftrifi fenfe ; fo that the Manna muft 
 be thought agreeable to every Man's guft, altho' 
 
 jhe
 
 4 Pf Tranfubjlantiation. Part. ll. 
 
 the palates of Men are fo very different. But 
 then the Text of the Book of Wifdvm cannot be 
 reconcil'd with that of Numbers 21.5. where the 
 jfews are faid to loath Manna. For this was im- 
 poffible for them ; if in a ftrict and proper fenfe the 
 Manna were agreeable to every taft, and temperM 
 it felt" to each Petfons liking. Befides, the Children 
 if Ifrael alfo wept and f aid. We remember the Fi/h 
 which lue did eat in Egypt freely, the Cucumbers, 
 and the Melons, and the Leeks, and the Onions, and 
 the Garlick ; But now our foul is dry'd away ; 
 there is nothing at all bejides this Manna before our 
 eyes, Numb. 11-4, 5, 6. Now if this Manna futed 
 it felf to every Man's liking ,- how came it td 
 pafs, that thofe who did not only like, but alfo 
 long and murmur for Fifli and Cucumbers, &c. did 
 not perceive the delicacies of them in this Won- 
 derful Manna ? For, according to this interpreta- 
 tion of the pafiage in the Book of IPifdom, they 
 muft no fooner have wifh'd for any dainty, butthe 
 Manna furniuYd them with it. 
 
 Now the fir ft of thefe anfwers will allow, that 
 the Text of Mofes may be reconcil'd with that 
 of the Book of Wifdam : 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 Objection. Whereas 
 the latter of thefe anfwers makes the Text of the 
 Book of Wtfdom to contradict that of Mofes ; and 
 confequently it can do our Adverfaries no fervice- 
 For lince the Books are now fuppos'd to contra- 
 dict each other; 'tis plain that one of them muft 
 fpeak falfe- And, fince 'tis granted on both (ides, 
 that Mofes is in the right ; it follows of courfe, 
 that the other muft be in the wrong ; and then, 
 the Book of Pfcfdom is not an infpir'd writing. 
 
 Now
 
 Chap. II. Of Trwfitbjlantiation. 95 
 
 Now We Proteftants, who grant that the Book of 
 Wifdom is not Canonical, are not obliged to ex- 
 cufe the miflakes of it's Author, when he happens 
 to clafh with Mofes : but our Adverfaries being 
 of another Opinion, are therefore conftrain'd in 
 confequence of it, to attempt an impoflibility, in 
 making thefe expreffions agree with Mofes's Rela- 
 tion. For my part, I cannot fee, how our Ad-* 
 verfaries will rid thsmfelves of this great difficul- 
 ty, unlefs they give up the pretended authority 
 of the Book of Wifdom ; and acknowledge, that we 
 are not obliged to believe what is written in it, 
 to be infallibly true, and the Word of God. But 
 then, if this be done, the matter is clear : and we 
 thank them, for this folid anfwer to their own ob- 
 jection . 
 
 3 . They alledge, that Mary Magdalen was de- 
 ceiv'd by her eye-fight, when flie thought that 
 our Savior, as he appeared ro her after his Refiir- 
 rection, had been the Gardener, Jchn 20. 15. But 
 it muft be confider'd, that it was quite dark when 
 fhe went totheSepulcher, v. i. and (he made haft 
 to it again ; fo that at her return 'twas very pro- 
 bably either dark or duskifii ; and confequently fhe 
 might very eafily miftake. Befides, a fudden fur- 
 prize, or a great fear, might amaze her fora while; 
 fo that ihe might not know him immediately. 
 But will our Adverfaries fay, that after Mary 
 Magdalen had recollected her felf, and well con- 
 fider'd and examined the matter, that then fhe was 
 miftaken ? If fo, I defire them to read the eigh- 
 teenth verfe, where they will find her throughly 
 convinced, that it was our Lord himfelf ; for 'tis 
 faid, that fhe came and told the difcifles that fie bad 
 feen the Lord. 
 
 4. They tell us, that Chrift came into the 
 
 Room,
 
 96 Of TrtnfubjlAntiation. Part II. 
 
 Room, when the doors "were Jhut, John 20. ip. 
 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 enrring in. 
 But they will never be all able to prove from St. 
 Jchns words, that the doors were not open'd to 
 our Savior. For tho s the doors are faid to have 
 been Ihut, yet the reafon is plain from the fol- 
 lowing words, where the difciples were ajfembled 
 together for fear of the j?ews. It feems the Difci- 
 ples were apprehenfive of danger, and therefore 
 endeavour'd to keep tbemfelves clofe : but it can- 
 not be gathered from hence, that ,they wou'd 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 occaflon of entring 
 into the Room. 
 
 'Tis true the Text of St John do's not fay 
 thus much : but it muft be obferv'd, that it faies 
 nothing againit it, and the Text of St. Luke feems 
 to imply it. For if we compare thefe following 
 paflages of the two Evangelifts, we have good 
 reafon to believe, that they belong to the fame 
 ftory. 
 
 St. Luke faies, Chap. 24. 
 
 3 3 . And they rofe up the fame hour, and return d 
 to Jerufalem, and found the eleven gather' d together 9 
 and them that were with them, 
 
 34. Saying, the Lord is rifen indeed, and hath ap^ 
 pear'd to Simon. 
 
 3 5. And they told what things were done in the 
 end how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
 
 Chap. II. Of Trattfubftantiation. 97 
 
 3 6. And as they thus fpake, Jefus himfelf flood 
 in the midft of them, and faith unto them, Peace be 
 unto you. 
 
 37. But they were terrify* d and affrighted, and 
 fuppos'd that they had feen a Spirit. 
 
 38. And he f aid unto them, why are ye troubled; 
 and why do thoughts arife in your hearts ? 
 
 35?. Behold my hands and my feet, &c. 
 
 St. John faies, Chap. 20- 
 
 1 9. 'Then the fame day at evening, being the fir ft 
 day of the week, "when the doors were Jbut, where 
 the difciples were affembled for fear of the Jews, 
 came Jefus and flood in the midft, and faith unto 
 them, Peace be unto you. 
 
 20. And when he had fo faid, he fiew'd unto 
 them his hands and his fide. Then were the difciples 
 glad, when they faw the Lord. 
 
 Now if thefe paflages do (as 'tis highly pro- 
 bable) relate to the fame flory, then we ought to 
 explain them one by another. And confequently 
 we may conclude, that tho' the doors were {hut 
 to Grangers, for fear of the Jews, according to 
 St. Johns Relation, v. 19- yet they were open'd 
 to the two friends, who return d to Jerufalem, 
 and found the eleven gather 3 d together, Luke 24. 33. 
 And then, we may fuppofe, that Jefus entered 
 immediately after the other two ; becaufe as they 
 were canvafling the matter which had lately hap- 
 pen'd, even as they thus fpake, Jefus himfelf flood 
 in the midft of them, and faith unto them, Peace be 
 unto you, Luke 24. 36. Which are the very fame 
 words, that St. John reports him to have faid, as 
 foon as he was in the Room, where the doors were 
 {but, John 20. ip 
 
 G But
 
 9 8 Of TrAnfubftantiAtion. Part II. 
 
 But I (hall not farther enlarge upon this Nice 
 difpute, about which the Commentators are divi- 
 ded. What I have faid, I think, is fufficient : 
 but however, if our Adverfaries are of a different 
 opinion, I am willing to grant them all they de- 
 fire, that I may fee what advantage can be made 
 
 of it. 
 
 Suppofe we then, that Jefus did enter into the 
 Room, when the doors were really kept clofe 
 (hut ; and that they were not open'd for him : 
 yet 'twill not follow from hence, that our Senfes 
 are deceiv'd, when they are duly converfant about 
 their proper objeds. Becaufe the Senfes were not 
 at ail iraploy'd in this cafe ; the ground of our 
 Adverfaries objection being this, that the A- 
 poftles did not fee him enter : and therefore we 
 cannot conclude from hence, that the report of the 
 Senfes is falfe ; fince the Senfes of the A pottles 
 made no report at all concerning his entrance. 
 'Tis true, jfefus entered in, they knew not how : 
 but certainly, we are not to give our Senfes the 
 lie, becatife fome matters, which our Senfes fay 
 nothing of, are fo difficult, that we cannot ex- 
 plain the manner of them. 
 
 Nay, formy part, I {hou'd rather conclude from 
 this inftance, that we ought alwaiesto believe our 
 Senfes ; than that we ought ever to diftruft them 
 at all. For it appears, that in fpight of the feem- 
 ing impoffibility of our Saviour's entrance, the A- 
 poftles did immediately and firmly conclude him 
 to be there really prefent ; becaufe they thought 
 it moft unreafonable and abfurd to disbelieve the 
 report of their Senfes in any cafe or circumftance 
 whatfoever. 
 
 But now, fince our Adverfaries do fo earneftly 
 contend, that feveral Perfons have been deceiv'd 
 
 by
 
 Chap. II. OfTranfubftdxtiation. go 
 
 by their Senfes ; and do from thence conclude, 
 that our Senfes cannot always be rely'd on : I de- 
 fire leave to ask them one important Queftion. 
 How do they know, that tLofe Perfons were decewd 
 by their Senfes ? If they reply, that the Scriptures 
 fay fp ; I defire to know, by what means they are 
 aflur'd, that they read right. Perhaps their eyes 
 have betray'd them, and made them pitch upon 
 fuch inftances, as if they cou'd examine them 
 throughly, wou'd evince the contrary. However, 
 'tis certain that the Senfes of our Adverfaries are 
 not fecur'd by any particular privilege; and there- 
 fore they cannot be relied on, any more than thofe 
 of Abraham, Mamab, Mary Magdalen, &c. Now 
 fince 'tis impoflible for them to prove the truth 
 of thefe infrances, otherwifc than from Scripture, 
 that is, by the teftimony of their own Senfes ; 
 and fince 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 etftdual- 
 ly prove by experience, that our fenfes may de- 
 ceive us, even when they are duly converfant a- 
 bout their proper objects ; they muft then do 
 two things, firft, they muft inftance in fome 
 particular object of our Senfes, and demonftrate 
 that when their organs were rightly difpos'd, and 
 that they had impioy'd all imaginable care and 
 circumfpedion in examining the thing before them i 
 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 was 
 moft certainly fuch i yet the object was moft cer- 
 tainly mifreprefented by their Senfes. But then ; 
 I pray, how will they be able to demonftrate, that 
 
 G 2 an
 
 ioo OfTranfuhflantiAtion. Part II. 
 
 an objeft of Senfe is mifreprefented by their OU-H 
 Senfes, otherwife than by the teftimony of their 
 own Senfes ? And I appeal to any confidering Per- 
 fon, whether it be not a very odd thing, for a 
 Man to prove by the authority of his oizn Senfes, 
 that his own Senfes are miitaken. 
 
 Thus then I have examined all thofe inftances, 
 by which our Adverfaries endeavour to prove that 
 our Senfes may fomctimes deceive us; and I think 
 I have (hewn that they are nothing to the purpofe. 
 Wherefore, fince it is impoffible that the evi- 
 dence of our Senfes fhou'd be generally certain, unlefs 
 it be alwaies certain ; and fince there is no inftance 
 that do's or can evince the contrary ,- I (hall pofi- 
 tively affirm, that the evidence of fenfe is alwaies 
 certain* 
 
 But our Adverfaries contend, that tho' the evi- 
 dence of Senfe were absolutely certain in all o- 
 ther inftances, yet we muft not believe our Sen- 
 fes, when almighty God commands us to disbe- 
 lieve them. For they think it more 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 inanfwerto 
 this I defire them to coniider three things. 
 
 i. That if our Senfes may deceive us at all, 
 we cannot be fecure of the truth of any Reve- 
 lation. For how, I pray, fliall this Revelation 
 be made known to us ? How fliall I be cer- 
 tain, that God has infpir'd fuch a Meflenger, if 
 I may at any time disbelieve my Senfes ? He 
 tells me, that God requires fuch a thing at my 
 hands : but how does he prove, that he was com- 
 miflion'd by God to fignify this matter to me ? 
 If he appeals to miracles ; thofe miracles are an 
 
 appeal
 
 Chap. II. Of Tranfubfttwtittion. i o i 
 
 appeal to my Senfes : and therefore if I cannot 
 repofe an abfolute confidence in my Senfes ; I 
 cannot be abfolutely certain of the truth of his 
 Miracles, and confequently I cannot be abfolute- 
 ly aflur'd that he came from God. If he ap- 
 peal to an antient 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 truft my Senfes, I am not 
 fure theie 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 Me- 
 fenger, who fhou'd arife in fuch an age. Nor 
 cou'd I be fecure of his being the Perfon, altho* 
 I were allow'd to underftand the Words. For 
 tho' his very vifage, habit, fpeech, &c. were ex- 
 actly defcrib'd ; tho* his particular adions, and 
 even the number of them, were foretold (which 
 teftimonials were never yet granted to any pro- 
 phet yet I fay) tho' all this were done; I may 
 be deceiv'd in him notwithstanding. For perhaps 
 my eyes may mifreprefent his Features, &c. and 
 therefore I cannot be certain, that I do not miftake 
 him. 
 
 Wherefore, fince the Revelation which obliges 
 me to renounce my Senfes, cannot be prov'd, but 
 by the teftimony of Senfe ,- 'ris plain, that the 
 teftimony of Senfe muft be accounted certain, at 
 leaft in that particular inftance ; for otherwise I 
 cannot be certain, that there is fuch a Revelation. 
 Now I 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 3 w
 
 jo? Of TranfulftAnt'iAtion. Part II. 
 
 to renounce my Senfes rauft 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 them j which is -the very 
 height of abfurdicy. 
 
 2. I cannot be more certain, that God do's not 
 deceive me, than of the perpetual certainty of my 
 Senfcs. For the frame and conftitution of my 
 Nature, is as the Voice of God fpeaking to me : 
 and therefore if I may upon any occafion disbe- 
 lieve my natural Senfes fpeaking to me, why may 
 J not with equal reafon disbelieve thofe pretended 
 Revelations, which oppofe my Senfes. 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 deceive me. I grant indeed, that I 
 have the utmoil demonftration, that God cannot 
 deceive me : but then I 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 
 pf them is moft certain. 
 
 3. 'Tis impoffible, that any Revelation fhou'd 
 command me to disbelieve my Senfes. For fince 
 God proves the truth of his Revelation by the 
 teftimony of my Senfes ; 'tis plain that he fup- 
 pofes my Senfes to be abfolutely true and faith- 
 ful to me, and that he requires me to believe them 
 alwaies. For otherwife he wou'dnot require me 
 to receive his Revelation upon the Credit of them, 
 as infallible witneiTes and demonftrations of the 
 truth pf 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 tp be impoffible j which things cannot be 
 fuppos'd of fp Good and Kind a God. If
 
 Chap. II. OfTranfubJlantiatiort. 
 
 If it be faid, that he requires meto believe mySen- 
 fes in feme particulars, and to renounce them in o- 
 thers , and that this is not irapoffible ; 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 ; then, as I have often faid, the truth of 
 my Senfes 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, up- 
 on the credit of which I receiv'd that Revela- 
 tion : and therefore, unlefs this propofition be al- 
 waies and abfolutely true, that the evidence of Senfe 
 is certain; I cannot befecure of the truth of any 
 Revelation at all. But if this propofition, that 
 the evidence of Senfe is certain, be alwaies and ab- 
 folutely true ; then it can never be falfe. For that 
 which may at any one inftant of time be falle, 
 is not alwaies and abfolutely true. Now if this 
 propofition, that the evidence of Senfe is certain, 
 can never be falfe ; then the evidence of Senfe is 
 alwaies 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 determine, when 
 our Senfes are to be belie v'd, and when we muft 
 renounce them ; and that this will take away the 
 former difficulty ; I anfwer, i. That I have (hewn 
 it to be abfurd, that God fliouM ever command 
 us to renounce our Senfes. 2. That God can- 
 not inform us, when we are to renounce our 
 Senfes ; becaufe the very proof of the truth 
 
 G 4 *
 
 104 Pf Tranfabftantiatioff. Part II. 
 
 of God's Revelations, do's fuppofe the truth of this 
 principle, That we mufl never renounce our Senfes. 
 
 But if our Adverfaries will ftill be urging, that 
 God has actually, commanded us to renounce our 
 Senfes, and that there is no difputing againft mat- 
 te r of fact y I anfwer, that I do moft freely and 
 heartily acknowledge the truth of the Scriptures; 
 and ana throughly perfuaded, that they do con- 
 tain the reveai'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 Tranfubftantiation, which is the Sub- 
 ject of our prefent Difpute, I fhall fhew in it's 
 proper place, that it is not reveal'd ; and confe- 
 quently, that we are not requir'd to renounce 
 our Senfes for it. 
 
 Nay farther, thp' our Adverfaries cou'd prove, 
 that the holy Scriptures do oblige us to renounce 
 our Senfes ; yet we fhou'd not think our felves 
 oblig'd to renounce them, but inuft of neceffity 
 renounce the Scriptures themfelves. Bccaufe they 
 wou'd then teach that, which is notorioufly ab- 
 fur'd, and deftroies the truth of that principle, 
 upon which we have hitherto received them. 
 
 I (hall now fum up what has been faid con- 
 cerning this point. Since io many abfurdities do 
 (as I have plainly fhewn) unavoidably follow up- 
 on the fuppofition of the general uncertainty 
 of Senfible evidence ; particularly, fince 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 generally certain. And, fince the bare pof- 
 fibility of being deceiv'd by the evidence of Senfe, 
 muft utterly deftroy all the certainty generally a- 
 
 rifing
 
 Chap. II. Of TrAnfubftAnthtion. 105 
 
 rifing from our Senfes ; and fince it is impoffible, 
 that God ftiouM ever command us to disbelieve 
 our Senfes ; therefore it is alfo plain, that we ought 
 to believe our Senfes in all inftances whatfoever. 
 And fince we are obliged to believe our Senfes in 
 all inftances whatfoever ; 'tis manifeft, that tbeevi- 
 dence of Senfe h alwaies certain, which was the 
 proportion I undertook to prove. 
 
 But fome Perfons there are, who are pleas'd to 
 tell us, that tho' the evidence of Senfe were al- 
 waies certain, yet it can make known only the ac- 
 cidents of things. Becaufe the fubftances of things 
 are not the proper objects of Senfe, and therefore 
 the evidence of Senle is not cerrain 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- 
 liev'd, 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 Bioud. Now in an- 
 fvver to this I muft confefs, that the fubftan- 
 ces of things are not the immediate objects of our 
 Senfes. We cannot Hear, or See, or Feel, or Taft, 
 or Smell, the inward Eflence of what we perceive 
 by our Senfes: but yet the fubftances of things 
 are the Remote objects of our Senfes, by the me- 
 diation of thofe accidents with which the fubftan- 
 ces are cloath'd ; 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 objects of our Senfes 
 
 are
 
 io5 Of Trarfubftantiittion. Part II. 
 
 are the things we perceive, that is, thofe beings 
 which are compounded of material fubftance and 
 fuch accidents as are proper to ir. 
 
 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 arc we 
 to make a judgment of? Not of the colour or o- 
 ther accidents j but of the fubftance. What am 
 I the wifer or certainer, for knowing whitenefs, 
 hardnefs, &c. unlefs I am able by the obfervation 
 of thofe qualities to diftinguifh one fubftance from 
 another? Now 'tis utterly impoffible, that Ifhou'd 
 determine, 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 fhew that all the 
 foremention'd abfurdities which wou'd have fol- 
 low'd from the general uncertainty of our Senfes, 
 muft ftill of neceflity follow, if our Senfes can 
 perceive the accidents only it being of no tife or 
 advantage for any Man to diftinguilh accidents, 
 but only as they inform him of the fubftance. 
 But becaufe the application of all of them is fo 
 very natural and eafy, therefore I fhall wave the 
 reft, and ufe but one. 
 
 I defire to know therefore, how any Man can 
 be certain of the truth of the Chriftian Religion, 
 if the evidence of Senfe concerning fubftances be 
 not admitted. For fuppofe I wou'd perfwade an 
 infidel to believe, that our Savior came from God ; 
 and urg'd an argument drawn from his Miracles, 
 particularly that of railing Lazarus horn the dead ; 
 
 he
 
 Chap. II. OfTranfubJlAntiAtion. 107 
 
 he can eafily anfwer according to the Doctrine of 
 our Adverfaries, that it do's not appear that La- 
 z,arus was rais'd. 'Tis true, faies he, I fee the 
 accidents of Lazarus , I fee his Figure, Com- 
 plexion, &c. but perhaps thefe accidents may 
 cloath another fubftance. Perhaps the fubftance is 
 that of a Dog, an Horfe, or a Sheep ; and La- 
 Karus, tho' his accidents have the appearance of 
 Life, may in the mean time be as truly dead as 
 ever. 
 
 If I reply, that it appears to be Lazarus him- 
 felf who is now alive, and appeal to the Senfes of 
 this infidel for the truth of it , if I bid him look 
 and examine, 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 of Lazarus ; but I cannot be af- 
 fur'd that Lazarus himfelf is under them, unlefs 
 the fubftance of Lazarus 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 ; yet I am 
 not certain that Lazarus is the Man ; becaufe my 
 eyes cannot diftinguifii the fubftance of Lazarus 
 from that of another Perfon. Wherefore I am not, 
 and cannot be certain, that the dead Lazarus was 
 rais'd to Life ; and why then mou'd I take this 
 thing for granted, and embrace a new Religion 
 upon the account of it ? 
 
 Thus again the Mahometan*, who believe that 
 Symon the Cyrenian was crucify M inftead of Jefas, 
 cannot be convinc'd of the Death and Refur- 
 te&icn of our Lord, unJefs the Senfes may be al- 
 low'd to difcern and diftinguifh fubftances. For 
 how will you prove that Symon was not crucify J d 
 
 under
 
 ic/8 OfTrdnfubjlAntiAtion. Part II. 
 
 under our Savior's accidents ; if one fubftance may 
 be cloath'd with the accidents of another, and the 
 Senfes cannot pafs a judgment between them ? Since 
 we may be fo eafily miftaken in our pretended 
 perception of fubftances, why might not the Jews 
 take Symon for Chrift ; and how cou'd the A- 
 poftlesbe fure, that they con ver^'d with their rifen 
 Lord and Matter ? 
 
 J Tis in vain to alledge other inflances info 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 afTur'd, that 
 any one miracle was ever wrought, if the Senfes 
 can judge of nothing but a few outward "acci- 
 dents? And I defire our Adverfaries to confider, 
 whether that mull not be thought an abfurd and 
 impious opinion, which overthrows the certainty 
 of our moft holy Faith. 
 
 Secondly, I am now to fhew, that we are ajfu-. 
 red by the evidence of Senfe, that the fubjlances of 
 the Bread and IVine do remain after the Confecra- 
 tion. And for the truth of this I appeal to thofc 
 Senfes, the evidence of which I have prov'd tq 
 be alwaies certain. If you ask an infidel, what he, 
 fees after the Confecration ; he will anfwer you, 
 Bread and Wme. Get a Prieft to place the con- 
 fecrated Wafers amongft others that are not con- 
 fecrated - 3 and you*l find it impoffible to difcin- 
 guifh them. Do you not give the lie to your 
 faculties 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 Oath, that they are what they feem to be. 
 Touch, Tair, and View, and Smell of them a thou- 
 fand times ; and you'l find, even after the niceft 
 inquiry and ftri&eft examination, that your Sen- 
 fes
 
 Chap. II. OfTranfubftAntMon. 109 
 
 fes do all agree in their teflimony concerning 
 them. They adure you, that the fubftances or.' 
 Bread and Wine do as certainly remain after the 
 Confecrarion ; 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; fince there 
 is equal evidence of Scnfe in both caufes ? 
 
 Bsfides, not only your own Senfes, but the 
 Senfes of the whole World do atteft the fame } 
 and the thing it felf is extremely common. Nay, 
 there are no things in the World, between which 
 we can moreeafily diftinguifh, than between Flefh 
 and Bloud, and a bit of Bread and a few drops of 
 Wine. So that if the Ssnfes of all Mankind can- 
 not diftinguifh fuch objects, 'tis impoffible to di- 
 fttnguilh any thing by our Senfes ; which I have 
 already fhewn to be abfurd. 
 
 If it be faid, that the Eucharift is an object of 
 Faith, and therefore cannot be examin'd by our 
 Senfes ; I anfwer, that the inward part of the Sa- 
 crament, or the thing fignify'd thereby, (i//&. the 
 Grace of Chrift) is an object of Faith : but the 
 outward part of it, or the thing which fignifies 
 (^iz,. the Elements, which denote and convey the 
 Grace of Chrift) the outward parr, I fay, is an 
 object of the Senfes, and may be examin'd by 
 them. 
 
 If it be alfo faid, that the change of the Elements 
 is miraclous, and therefore muft not be examin'd 
 by our Senfes ; I anfwer, that all Mircales (pro- 
 perly fo call'd ) are fenfible things, and make their 
 appeal to our Senfes. But whatever 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 fhewn that the Evi- 
 dence
 
 no Of Tranfubftantiation. Part. II. 
 
 dence of Senfe is always certain ; 'tis not in the 
 power of a Miracle ever to make it uncertain , be- 
 caufe a thing might then become both true and 
 falfe at the lame time. 
 
 Wherefore, fince the Evidence of Senje is alwaies 
 certain, and fince it appears by the evidence of 
 Senfe, that the Elements do continue Bread and 
 Wine, after the confecration ; 'tis manifeft that 
 we are ajfur'd by the evidence of Senfe, that the 
 fubftances of Bread and IVine do remain after the 
 confecration. 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 Bread and 
 Wine are not turn'd into the Natural Body and 
 Bloud of Chrift ; then the Doftrine of Tranfubftan- 
 tiation is abfolutely falfe, becaufetharDodrine fup- 
 pofes fuch a change. 
 
 I might add, that this Doctrine is repugnant 
 to all the evidence of reafon, and deftroies our 
 very firft principles of knowledge ; that it is loa- 
 ded with innumerable contradictions, and obliges 
 Men to moft abominable and barbarous actions : 
 but I believe our Adverfaries will find fo much 
 ftrength in this fingle Argument, that I need not 
 trouble them with others. 
 
 . 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Chap, III. OfTranfulflantUtion. in 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 That the Doftrim of Tranfubftantiation can- 
 not be frov*d from the Sixth Chapter of 
 St. JohnV Gofpl. 
 
 IMuft now confider, what our Adverfaries al- 
 ledge in favour of I'vanfubftantiation. And 
 
 Fir ft y they pretend, that the Scriptures do teach 
 it; But in anfwer to this I defire them to con- 
 fider three things. 
 
 i. That, if it were barely poffible, yet 'tis in- 
 finitely improbable, that Almighty God wou'd 
 make the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiatiw a part of 
 the Chriftian Religion. For God defigns that 
 Chriflianity (hou'd be univerfally believ'd ; where- 
 as if Irottfyftaattatiott be a part, it muft of necef- 
 fity hinder Men from embracing the Whole of our 
 profeffion. For, fince t franfukfiantiati<M is utter- 
 ly repugnant to our Senfes, and fince 'tis a great 
 piece of folly to renounce our Senfes ; certainly 
 no Wife and confidering Man can embrace, or 
 think it poffible for a gracious God to injoin 
 that Religion upon pain of damnation, the pro- 
 feflion of which obliges him to break all the 
 rules of prudence in believing againft the evidence 
 of Senfe. 
 
 May not an Infidel, when requir'd to believe 
 Tranfubftantiatioih juftly objecV that Chriftianity 
 requires Men to believe thofe Miracles which 
 prove it true, upon the teftimony of their Sen- 
 fes ; and at the fame time requires them to be- 
 lieve a Dodrine, which deftroies the certainty of 
 their Senfes ? May they not fay, it overthrows 
 
 it's
 
 112 Of TrAnfubJlantMon. Part II: 
 
 it's own credibility , and that it's Dodrines can- 
 not be true, unlcis 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 Tranfubftantiation, or any thing elfe which 
 deftroies the certainty of our Senfes ; I cou'd not 
 but think it extremely abfurd and unaccoun- 
 table. 
 
 2. Idefirethem to confider, that if the Scrip- 
 tures did teach it, we muft renounce the Scrip- 
 tures themfelves j it being evidently contrary to 
 the Tefdmony 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 (hew that Tranfub- 
 fiantiaticn is not repugnant to our Senfes ; or elfe 
 to prove that we may, and oiight 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 
 Idefpair of their fuccefs in either of thefe under- 
 takings. 
 
 3. That the holy Scriptures do not teach this 
 Doctrine, as they pretend. And this I (hall make 
 appear by examining thofe places, in which they 
 think it is taught. This I fhall do in fome fol- 
 lowing Chapters. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Chap. IV. Of Trunfubftantiation. nj 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 That the Sixth Chapter of St. JohnV Gofpel 
 do's not relate to the Lord?s Supper. 
 
 FIRST then, they produce the Sixth Chapter 
 ofSt, John, where our Savior ipeaks of his 
 being the Bread of Life, and that the.fi/fW which he 
 will give is his Flejh, and that wkofcever eateth his Flejb 
 and drinkcth his Ehud, hath eternal life, From 
 hence they conclude, that fince thefe expreflions 
 do relate to the Eucharift., and are to be taken in 
 a literal fer.fe ; therefore in the participation of that 
 Sacrament \ve do eat the real Body and drink the 
 real Bioud of Chrift.Whereas I fhali (hew, i. That 
 thefe paflages do not relate to the Lord's Supper. 
 
 2. That altno' they did relate to the Lord's Supper, 
 yet they are not to be underftood in a literal fenfe. 
 
 3 . That tho' they did relate to the Lord's Supper, 
 and were to be underflood in a literal fenfe ; yet 
 they do not prove the Doctrine of Iranfubftami- 
 ation, but directly contrary. 
 
 Fir ft, I fay, thefe paflages 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 great 
 multitude with five barley loaves and twofmall 
 fifties, from verfe the 5th to the 
 
 1 4. Then thofe Men, when they had feen the Mi- 
 racle which Jefus did, faid, this is of a truth that 
 Prophet, which was to come into the world, to deliver 
 us from the Hands of our Enemies, and redeem 
 the Nation from their prefent flavery under the 
 Roman yoke. 
 
 H ij. Whn
 
 ii4 Pf Trwfubjlantiation. Part II. 
 
 1 5 . When Jefus therefore perceiv'd that they "woud 
 come and take him by force to make him a King, 
 bccaufe they expected he wou'd prove a mighty 
 conqueror, and fee them t liberty, he, being re- 
 folv'd againft any temporal greatnefs, departed a- 
 gnin to a mountain himfelf alone, and went over the 
 bea. But when the Multitude had found him 
 again, 
 
 26. Jefus anfwer'd them and faid, verily , wily, 
 / fay unto you, ye feek me not becaufe ye faw 
 the Miracles, but becaufe ye did eat of the leaves and 
 were filfd. You do not follow me to fee the 
 works that I do, and to receive convincing evi- 
 dence of my being the true Meffuih; but to gain 
 a little prefent advantage by me, in living upon 
 this miraculous food. 
 
 Then he reproves their earthly-mindednefs, and 
 advifes them rather to feek for thofe things which 
 wou'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, Luke 14. fo in the cafe before 
 us, becaufe the difcourfe was occafion'd by the 
 Loaves, he carries it under the allegory of 
 eating and drinking, calling the Doctrine of the 
 Gofpel by the Names of Bread and Drink. And 
 becaufe cur whole Religion is built upon the great 
 truths of our Savior's incarnation and death, which 
 he ca'.ls his Fleffj and Ehud ; therefore he fpeaks 
 of the belief of thofe things under the terms of 
 eating his Flejh and drinking his Bloud', by which 
 fort of food they were to be made immortal in 
 glory. Let me intreat you, faies he, not to be- 
 llow all your pains upon this tranfitory world, 
 and the trifling concerns of it. 
 
 27. La^
 
 Chap. IV. Of Trwfubftantiation. 115 
 
 2 7. Labour not for the Meat which perifoeth, but 
 for that Meat which endureth to ever la/ling life ; 
 even that Heavenly Doctrine, -which the Son 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 jhatt -we 
 do, that we might work the works of God ? Thofe 
 works, we mean, which are acceptable and well 
 pkafing to him. 
 
 29. jefus anjwe/d and faid unto them, T^his is 
 the work of God, that ye believe on him 'whom he 
 hathfent, even on me who am a Prophet fent from 
 Heaven. 
 
 30. T^hzy faid therefore unto him, What flgn jlew- 
 eft thou then, th.it we may fee, and believe thee ? 
 What dofl thou work to convince us that thou 
 didft truly come from heaven ? 'Tis true, thou haft 
 lately fed above five thou fan d of us ; but what is 
 this Miracle, if compared with what Mofes did ? 
 He fed a vaftiy greater multitude ; and that in the 
 Defert too, and for the fp*ce of no lefs than forty 
 years. For 
 
 3 i . Our fathers did eat Manna in the defert ; aS 
 it is written, He gave them Bread from heaven 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 you, Mofes gave you not that Bread from 
 heaven which I fhall give you. He gave you in- 
 deed fome Meat to fuftain your mortal lives : but 
 now my father giveth you the true bread from 
 heaven, even me, who am come to inflrucl: you 
 in holinefs, that you may enjoy eternal happi- 
 nefs. 
 
 3 3. For the bread of God which he now giveth you/ 
 H 2 i/
 
 OfTrdnfubftAntiation. Part I!. 
 
 is he that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life 
 unto the "world. 
 
 Now the Jews who were apt to under/land 
 him in the groiler fenfe, thought that our Sa- 
 vior promised them fuch food for their bodies, as 
 wou'd not fuffer them to die, as thofe who eat 
 the Manna dy'd, but make them live forever, or at 
 leaft to a great Age. Wherefore 
 
 34. Then f aid they unto him, Lord, evermore give 
 us this bread. For if thou canft give us fuch 
 bread, without doubt thou canft not only equal, 
 but alfo exceed the deeds of Mofes ; and we mud 
 then acknowledge that thou art a true Prophet 
 fent from God. 
 
 3 5 . And Jefus faid unto them, I am the bread of 
 life : He that cometh to me, /hall never hunger, and 
 he that believeth in me foall never thirft. For 1 (hall 
 fo perfectly inftrud him in the paths of Godli- 
 nefs, and give him fo clear a knowledge of his 
 duty, that he (hall want no other directions. My 
 Precepts mall make him perfectly full of rhofe quali- 
 ties which fit him for heaven, and he need not hun- 
 ger and third after other fpiritual food. 
 
 36. But, whereas you require a fign that you 
 may believe me to be a true Prophet, and receive 
 inftrudions and obey them, I do now fay again, 
 what heretofore I faid unto you, viz. that ye alfo as 
 well as many others, havefeen me working figns 
 and wonders, and yet you believe not. Wherefore 
 'tis in vain to be at the expence of more miracles ; 
 you have had what was enough to afTure you of 
 the truth of my Miflion ,- and I do not think my 
 felf obliged to bring as many proofs, as fome ob- 
 ftinate Perfons are refolv'd to ask for. However, 
 tho' you defpife or withftand me, yet there are 
 others who believe and follow me. For 
 
 37. AU
 
 Chap. IV- Of TranfubftantUtion. 117 
 
 37. All that the Father giveth me, fiafl come to 
 me, and him that cometh to me 1 wiU in no wife 
 cafl out. 
 
 38. For I came down from heaven, not to do my 
 own will, but the will of him thatjent me. 
 
 39. And this is the Patter's will, which hath fent 
 me, that of all which he hath given me, I fioud 
 lofe nothing, but Jhcud raife it up again at the laft 
 day. 
 
 40. And this is the WiUof him that fent me, that 
 every one which feeth the Son and believeth on him, 
 may have everlafting life -, and I will raife him up 
 at the laft day. 
 
 41 . The Jews then, who expected feme Bread 
 from heaven, when they found themfelves difap- 
 pointed, murmur 'd at him, becaufe he faid, I am 
 the bread which came down from heaven. 
 
 42. And they faid, is not this Jefus the Son of 
 Jofeph, whofe father and mother we know ? How is 
 tt then that be faith, I came down from heaven, 
 fmce we are fure that he came of earthly Pa- 
 rents? 
 
 43- J e fa therefore anfwered and faid unto them, 
 murmur not amongft yourfelves, and raife no diffi- 
 culties about ray 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 refused to ac- 
 cept the teftimony of my Miracles, and therefore 
 I do not expect you will come to me. For 
 
 44. No Man can come unto me, except the Fa- 
 ther draw him by the force of Miracles, and con- 
 vince him by fuch fupernatural works that I am 
 the Chrift. Now when my Father has afforded 
 H 3
 
 1 18 Of Tranfubftantiation. Part IL 
 
 fuch proofs, and a Man accepts them, he is faid 
 to be drawn of God, and I -will raife him up at 
 the laft day. And indeed the Father in thus deal- 
 ing with Men, do's but fulfil what he has for- 
 merly promised. For 
 
 45. It is written in the Prophets, and they /halt 
 be all taught of God. . Every man therefore that hath 
 heard of my works, and hath learn d of the Father 
 that I am a true Prophet, cometh unto me. 
 
 4<5. Not that any man hath feen the Father, faiie 
 he -which 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 
 fome to perform Miracles by his power, and by 
 that means has taught the World that they are 
 fent by him, and that they mufl be heard. How- 
 ever, there is one who has feen the Father, even 
 I who came from God ; for he which is of God, 
 hath feen the Father. Wherefore hearken to 
 me, For 
 
 47. Verily ', 'verily, I fay unto you, he that le- 
 lievetk on me hath everlafting life. For 
 
 48- / am that Bread of life, and he that be- 
 lieveth on me, eateth that Bread which (hall make 
 him live forever. For thofe that hear and obey 
 me, fliall be fav'd by Faith in me. 
 
 45?. Tour fathers did eat Manna in the Wilder- 
 nefs, and are dead ; for corporal food cou'd do no 
 more than prolong a corporal life, which muft 
 neverthelefs very fpeedily have an end. But what 
 J offer to you, is of a fublimer nature. 
 
 50. *fhis is the bread which cometh down from 
 faaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. 
 For he that believeth on me and keepeth my fay- 
 ings, hath eternal life abiding in him. I tell you 
 therefore, that
 
 Chap. IV.' Of TranfubflantUtlon. 119 
 
 51. 1 am the living bread which came down from 
 heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he Jball live 
 forever: and the bread that I will give, is'myflefi, 
 which I will give for the life of the World. For I 
 am the Word, and the Word was made Fled, 
 that the World might be fav'd by it. But my 
 bare Incarnation is not iufficient, for I muft alfo 
 fufter Death upon the Crofs, and give my Life 
 a Ranfom for many. He therefore that belie- 
 veth on me, he that believeth my Incarnation 
 and Paflion, and ads accordingly, has a lively Faith 
 and futable Practice ; and fuch Faith and Pra- 
 ctice (hall as certainly nourifli him to eternity, 
 or inflate him in everlafting happinefs, as the 
 Bread which he eats do's fupport his Bodily 
 Life. 
 
 52. 7%e yews therefore, who underftood him in 
 a grofs fenfe, as if he did defign to give them his 
 real Flefh to chew and fwallow, as their forefa- 
 thers did the Manna in the Wildernefs ; and who 
 thought that the eating his real Flefh muft make 
 them Immortal, if he cou'd give them any im- 
 mortality ; the yews, I fay, who had thefe Nc- 
 tions, Strove among themfelves, faying, How can 
 this man give us his flejb to eat ? What ? will he 
 fuflferhis Body to be torn in pieces and devoured 
 by us ? Muft we be guilty of fuch barbarity in 
 order to our immortality ? 
 
 53. Then yefus faid unto them, do not think 
 ftrange of what I fay, for Verily, verily, I fay un- 
 to you, except ye eat the fle/h of the Son of Man, and 
 drink his bloud, by believing on him, ye have no 
 life in you, 
 
 54. IVhofo by faith in me eateth my flejh and 
 drinketh my bloud hath eternal lije , and 1 uill raife 
 him up at the laft day. 
 
 H 4 55
 
 1 20 Of Tratjfubjtaiitiation. Part II. 
 
 55. f]or tofuch as believe, my flefi is meat in- 
 deed, and my b.kud is drink indeed. 
 
 56. Becaufe he that by a true faith eauth my 
 fiefh and drinketb my I; loud, dvcelJeth in me or in the 
 .practice of my Religion, by the perpetual exer- 
 cife of all good works, and 1 alfo do dwell in him, 
 by being perpetually prefent with him, with my 
 preventing and affifling grace. For behold I Hand 
 at the door of every Man's heart and knock. If 
 any Man hear my voice and open the door j that 
 is, if he receive infractions, and obey my mo- 
 tions, and perform my Will ; I will come into 
 him, and take pofleffion of his Soul; and I will 
 Sup with him, and he with me , that is, I will 
 be a perpetual companion to him, and lead him 
 with my counfel here, and conduct him to hap- 
 pinefs hereafter, Rev- ?. 20. For as certainly 
 
 57. As the living father hath feat me, and I live 
 by the father ; fo certainly he that eateth me by 
 faith, even hefiatt live by me. 
 
 58. This therefore is that bread which came down 
 from heaven : not fuch bread as your fathers did eat, 
 viz. Manna, which they did eat in the Wiider- 
 nefs, and are deadaher it ; becaufe that bread cou'd 
 not make them live forever : but this is the Bread 
 of eternal Life, for he that eateth of tbis bread, 
 jhatt live for ever. 
 
 55?. Thefe things faid he in the Synagogue, as he 
 taught in Capernaum. 
 
 do. Many therefore of his difciples, when they 
 heard this, faid, this is an hard faying, Who can 
 bear it ? Who can believe that our Mafler 
 can give us his Flefli and his Bloud to eat 
 and to drink ; and that he came down from hea- 
 ven ? 
 
 '"tfi, Wbenjefus bievj in himfelf, that his difci- 
 
 ptes
 
 Chap. IV. Of Tranfubftantiation. 1 2 
 fits murmur 9 d at it, he faid unto them, doth this of- 
 fend you, and ftagger your faith ? 
 
 62- What and if ye ft aO fee the Son of Man afcend 
 up where he -was 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 fhall have that laft 
 demonftration of my coming from thence. But 
 as for that other matter of eating my Flefh and 
 drinking my Eloud, why fhould you boggle at 
 it ? If you rightly apprehend my meaning, there 
 is no difficulty in it. For miftake me not ; I do 
 not defign to be eaten alive, or to come from Hea- 
 ven after my Afceffion, that the believers may 
 devour me. Nor {hall I leave a piece of my 
 Flefh and a quantity of my Blond co be confiim'd 
 when my Main Body is gone. Nay, I wonder 
 that you can entertain fuch ridiculous Notions. 
 No ; I have hitherto taik'd of a Spiritual eating 
 and a fpiritual drinking. For 'tis not a bit of f my 
 Body and a drop of my Blond that will make 
 you immortal. Nay, if that wou'd really do ir, 
 the whole mafs of my Flefh and Bioud wou'd not 
 fuffice for fo many Ptrfons, as I hope to bring to 
 Heaven by eating and drinking my FiefliandBloud. 
 And therefore obferve, that 
 
 63. It is the f fir it that quickeneth, and maketh 
 you immortal. The grofs flejh profiteth nothing, if 
 I fliould fuffer you to devour me. T'he Words 
 therefore, that I f peak unto you, they are fpirit and 
 they are life ; and if you believe and pracfcife them, 
 they will certainly make you live forever. A while 
 after, when many of his Difciples went back, and 
 jfefus ask'd the Twelve, whether they wou'd go 
 too j Peter anfwer'd, 
 
 68. Lord) to whom /haft -we go ? Thou baft the
 
 Of Tranfubftaatiation. Part II. 
 
 Words > which if they be obferv'd, will be to cur 
 Souls the food of everlafting life. Wherefore we 
 will not depart from thee, as fome others have 
 done ; for we are perfuaded, that thou doft give 
 us thy Flefh and Bloud in a fpiritual fenfe. Thou 
 haft told us, that the Words that thou fpeakeft, 
 they are fpirit and they are life, and we do hear- 
 tily believe thee and confefs, that thou baft 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 Heaven, We 
 believe and are fur e y that thou art the Chrift, the Son 
 of the living God. 
 
 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- 
 faries do produce in favour of Tranfubftantiation, 
 are not at all to their purpofe ; becaufe they do 
 not relate to the Lord's Supper. But becaufe our 
 Adverfaries are fo violently bent to interpret them 
 of the Eucharift, I fliall in the following Chapter 
 confider the Arguments upon which that inter- 
 pretation is grounded. 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 Objections agAtnft the former Chapttr An- 
 foer'd. 
 
 IAm now to anfwer thofe objections, which 
 may be made againft that expofition of the 
 Sixth Chapter of St. John's Gofpel, which I have 
 given in the foregoing Chapter. And, 
 
 i. They
 
 Chap. V. Of TranfubfantiAtion. 12$ 
 j. They fay, our Savior fpeaks of giving his fojh 
 to eat as a thing that was to be done hereafter. 
 / wiS give, faies he, verfe 51. Now if by eating 
 his flejh and drinking his bloud he meant nothing 
 elfe but believing on him -, he wou'd by no means 
 ufe the future tenfe. For the Partriarchs believed 
 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 Spiritual fenfe ; which notwithftanding he feems 
 never to have done, but defigns to give it after- 
 wards. Wherefore, fince thefe expreffions can- 
 not fignify believing on him, but refpeft 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 flefh. 
 But to this I anfwer, 
 
 Fir ft. That if our Savior muft be thought to 
 fpeak of the Eating his Flefh in the Eucharift, 
 becaufe he fpeaks in the future tenfe ; then ic 
 will alfo follow, that he do's not fpeak of the 
 eating his flefh in the Eucharift, becaufe in fome 
 of the verfes he fpeaks in the prefent tenfe. / am 
 the bread, faies he, verfe 48. Except ye do now 
 eat the f eft, c. 53. My fejb is meat indeed, and 
 my bloud is drink indeed, 55. He that now eateth 
 -my flejh and drinketh my blond, 56. He that now 
 eateth me, ^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 flefo and blond he means only be- 
 lieving on him ; becaufe that might be done ei- 
 ther at the time of his Preaching, or after the 
 
 In-
 
 124 OfTranfubftaHtiation. Part II; 
 Inftitudon qf the Lord's Supper- Whereas it was 
 impoffible foranyMan to eat and drink hisNatural 
 Flefh 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 Luke, 14. 14. 
 Whofoever^ drinketb of the Water that I fhall give 
 him. &c. and 'tis very plain, that by drinking of 
 the Water is meant believing on him. Now no con- 
 fidering Perfon will fay, that our Savior never 
 beftow'd Faith upon the Patriarchs in former 
 Ages, 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 promise fomething, 
 which he had not given before , yet thefe words 
 may fignify believing notwithstanding. For tho 1 
 the Patriarchs did believe in Chrift in former daies, 
 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 called eating his flejh and 
 drinking his 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, / wiS Give, by 
 way of promife ; whereas at the Inftitution of the 
 Laft fupper he fpeaks by way of performance in 
 the preter tenfe, is given, Luke 22. ip. and isjled 
 Matth. 26. 28. Mark 14. 34. Luke 22. 20. From 
 whence fome Perfons conclude, that Jefus Chrift 
 do's in this Chapter promife, what he performed in 
 
 the
 
 Chap. V. OfTranfubflanttAtion. 125 
 
 the Inflitution of the Eucharift. But to this I 
 anfwer, i . That I have already fhewn that our Sa- 
 vior ufes the prefent as well as the future tenfe in 
 this Chapter j and therefore what he fpeaks is not 
 by way of Promife for the future, but to be un- 
 derflood indefinitely in refpeft of any Perfon who 
 then did, or ihou'd afterwards believe in him. 
 2. Suppofe thefe words were fpoken by way of 
 Promife, yet our Savior did not perform them in 
 the Inflitution of the Eucharift, but upon the 
 Crofs. For then only he is faid to have given 
 bis life or bimfelf for the Life of the World : 
 thofe Phrafes being never apply 'd to the Eucha- 
 rift. 3- Whereas our Savior Ipeaks in the pre- 
 fent tenfe at the Celebration of the Eucharifr, he 
 means only that his Body and Bioud fhall be 
 fhortly given for them. This is no Grange way 
 of fpeech in the Mouth of him, who being 
 God as well as Man, calkth tbcfe things which be 
 not, as tbo' they were, Rom. 4. 17. 
 
 3. 'Tis obferv'd, that our Savior makes a di- 
 ftinction betwixt eating his Flclh and drinking his 
 Bioud, verfe 53, 55. Which diftindion, they fay, 
 is utterly loft and needlefs, unlefs thefe expreffions 
 fignify the Euchariftical earing and drinking , be- 
 caufe a believing in Chrift requires it not. But 
 I anfwer, that flejh and blcud do (ignify the hu- 
 man Nature, and Chrift taking flejb and bloud fig- 
 nifies his Incarnation ; wherefore it was very con- 
 venient that both Flefli and Bloud fhould be par- 
 ticularly mention'd, becaufe thereby T'he Man Chrift 
 Jefus, the proper objed of our Faith ( of that 
 Faith I fay, which is the food and nourifhment o 
 our Souls) is fully fignify'd. 
 
 4. They fay, that Chrift compares the Manna 
 which the Jfraelites did eat in the Wildernefs, 
 
 with
 
 1 26 Of TranfubftantUtion. Part II 
 
 with the Bread which came down from Heaven, 
 verfe 49. Now Manna, fay they, is compar'd with 
 the Eucharift, i Cor. 10. i, 2, 3. and not wkh 
 eating and drinking Chrift's Body and Bloud after 
 a Spiritual manner, by believing on him. Where- 
 fore by the Flefh and Blond of Chrift, which is 
 the Bread that came down from Heaven, we are 
 to underftand, not Faith on him, but the Elements 
 of the Lord's Supper. Now to this I anfwer, 
 That imce Manna, was a Spiritual Meat, and 
 a type of Chrift to come, who is the true food of 
 the Soul ; St. Paul might well compare it to the 
 Lord's Supper, which is alfo a Spiritual Meat, and 
 a Commemoration of the fame Chrift, the true 
 food of the Soul, as already come. But tho* 
 the Apoftle did for this reafon compare Manna 
 and the Eucharift, yet it will by no means fol- 
 low, that every thing that is compar'd with Man- 
 na, muft fignify the Eucharift. And therefore it 
 will not follow, that Chriit's Flefh and Bloi:d, 
 which are fpoken of in this Chaprer, do figni- 
 fy the Eucharift, becaufe they are compar'd wkh 
 Manna. 
 
 Befides, it muft be obferv'd, that the Jews had 
 challenged our Savior ro fnew align equal to that 
 of Mofes's giving them Manna. Now they did 
 not fpeak of Manna as afpiritual food, but as the 
 fuftenance of their Bodies ; and were defirous that 
 our Savior fhou'd prove his Miffion by feeding 
 as great a number of Perfons by fuch a Miraculous 
 Klethod. Wherefore our Savior endeavors to draw 
 off their Minds from periOiing meat and drink, and 
 auvifes them to Labour for that Bread which 
 xvou'd make them eternally happy ; thereby ac- 
 quainting them, that he was a greater Prophet 
 than ALfes, becaufe he did them a more fubftan- 
 
 tial
 
 Chap. VI. OfTranfubjlantiAtion. 127 
 
 tial kindnefs than feeding them with a little Bodi- 
 ly Victuals i and informing them that as the Man- 
 na fuftam'd their mortal Bodies, fo his Bread from 
 Heaven ( his Fleih and Bicud, by Faith in him 
 the incarnate God and true Mcfliah ) wou'd fu- 
 ftain their immorrai Souls, and make them par- 
 takers of evcrlafting Life in Heaven. Now if we 
 confiderthe occafion and circumfiances of this 
 difcourfe, and our Savior's defign of fixing their 
 minds on fpirkual matters; we cannot imagin that 
 he did compare Manna with the Elements of that 
 Supper which he defign'd to Inftitute; but with 
 Faich in him, which he prefs'd them to, and found 
 they had an averiion from. 
 
 Thus then it appears, that thofe paflages which 
 our Adverfaries alledge out of the fixth chapter 
 of bt. John, do not refped the Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper ; but that the phrafes of eating 
 Chnft's fiejh and drinking h;s blond do fignify Faith 
 in him, who then came into the World to pur- 
 chafe Redemption for us by his Death 
 
 CHAP. VI.- 
 
 That, altho the Sixth Chapter of Si. John'j 
 Go/pel did relate to the Lord?* Supper yet 
 it cannot be under flood in a. Literal 
 
 SEcondljr, I am now to (hew, that altho 1 thefe 
 Paflages did relate to the Lord's Supper, yet 
 they are not to be under/rood in a Literal Scnfe. 
 And therefore we cannot think that they iignify 
 eating and drinking our Savior's real Fleih and 
 Bioudj but only a fpintual eating and drinking 
 
 his
 
 
 1 28 Of Tr*fubJ!antiAtfo. Part II: 
 
 his Flefli and Bloud by receiving the Bread and 
 Wine, to the end that we may be partakers of the 
 benefits of that Holy Myftery, viz,. The flrength- 
 ening and refrefhing our Souls by the Body and Elotid 
 vf Chrift, as our Bodies are by the Bread and IVine j 
 as pur Church fpeaks inherCatechifm. Now that 
 this fpintual eating by faith was really intended by 
 our Lord,if he did at all fpeak thofe paffages of the 
 blefied Eucharift, is very plain for the following 
 Reafons. 
 
 JF/r//, We mud not underfland the Phrafes of 
 eating Chri/t's fiejb and drink his bhud in a Literal 
 Senfe, it" it be made appear, that in the very fame 
 Difcourfe our Savior means nothing elfe by thofe 
 Expreffions, befides the belief of his Doctrine- 
 Now that our Savior do's in the very fame Dif- 
 courfe mean nothing elfe by thofe Expreffions, 
 befides the belief of his Doctrine, is plain from 
 the 47*/2 verfe, where he faies, He that klieveth en 
 inc^ hath everlaflh.g life. For 'tis certain that he 
 makes eating his fiefo the condition of our having 
 everlafling lire, verje 53. faying, Except ye eat the 
 fiejb of the Son of Man, and drink his bhud^ ye havi 
 no life in you. And therefore, fince none can be 
 fav'd without eating Chrijt's flejh, and yet falva- 
 tion is abfolutely Promis'd to him that believeth> 
 we may fairly conclude, that eating his fie/h and 
 believing are the fame thing. 
 
 Bdides, when our Savior had call'd himfelf the 
 bread of life, verfe 35. he immediately adds thefe 
 words j He that cometh to me, jkatt never hunger ; 
 and he that belitveth on me, ft all never thirft. From 
 whence it is manifeft, that coming to Chrift and be- 
 lieving in Chrift are the fame thing, and that both 
 thofe expreffions do fignify the fame as eating hit 
 fle/b, who is there call'd the Bread of life. 
 
 Secondly^
 
 Chap. VI. Of Tranfubftantiation. 129 
 
 Secondly, We muft interpret the Phrafes of eating 
 Cbrift's flejh and drinking his bloud in the fame man- 
 ner, as Chad's flefh is bread, and his bloud is drink. 
 For certainly he cannot be eaten and drunk, other- 
 wife than as he is bread and drink. Now 'tis un- 
 deniably plain, that Chrift's flefli and bloud are 
 bread and drink only in a figurative fenfe (for cer- 
 tainly none will fay that they are truly and pro- 
 perly bread and drink) and therefore Chrifi's fleft| 
 and bloud cannot be eaten and drunk in a Literal 
 Senfe. 
 
 Thirdly, To thefe we may add another reafon, 
 drawn from the barbarity of eating Man's flefh and 
 drinking Man's bloud, which the Literal inter- 
 pretation of thefe Phrafes (if they relate to the 
 Eucharift) muft of neceffity make us guilty of. 
 It may be anfwer'd, I confefs, that God's com- 
 mand will excufe the action , but certainly, if 
 we confider the lovelinefs and goodnefs, the plea- 
 fure and reafonablenefs of every other part of 
 our Holy Religion, we cannot imagin that our 
 Dear God wou'd force us to this horrid thing. 
 What can an infidel (fuppofe he were purfua- 
 ded to embrace Chriftianity) I fay, what can 
 an infidel think of eating Man's flefh and drink- 
 ing Man's bloud in order to falvation ? Will 
 he not dcteft that profeflion, which muft oblige 
 him to fiich a practice, as our very Nature ftartles 
 and is amaz'd at ? Who can think of this inhu- 
 manity without utter abhorrence ; I freely acknow- . 
 ledge, that 1 believe fuch a preeept wou'd be a 
 juft Objection againft any Revelation, and a fuf- 
 ficient Confutation of it. For certainly, God ne- 
 ver defign'd to make us Saints by becoming more 
 Savage than bears. 
 
 But then, when I confider farther, that this is, 
 I not
 
 i jo Of TrAnfubftantUtion. Part II. 
 
 not an ordinary Man, whofe flefli and blond I muft 
 be fuppos'd to eat ; when I confider that I muft 
 devour my Lord and my God ; that (according to 
 this interpretation of the words) Imuft now chew 
 and (wallow that Dear Body, which was Nail'd 
 upon the Crofs, and fo cruelly mangled for me, 
 and drink that precious bloud which ftream'd 
 forth for the pardon of my fins j I fay, when I 
 confider thefe things, I am utterly confounded. 
 
 The very Jews, the fpiteful Jews did not ufe 
 thee, or abufe themfelves, in fo vile a manner. 
 They put thee to Death ; but they did not eat 
 thee. They (bed thy bloud ; but they did not 
 drink it. And can I imagin, that thou haft com- 
 manded thy Difciples to ufe thee with more than 
 Jewijb cruelty ? I tremble upon every remem- 
 brance of thy Crucifixion, and am heartily griev'd 
 for my Crimes which conftrain'd thee to undergo 
 fuch Tortures : but as for loading thee with frefli 
 and greater injuries, and exceeding the malice of 
 thy bittereft Enemies by devouring thee, I cannot 
 bear the apprehenfion of it. 
 
 But I cannot enlarge upon fo difmal a Subject, 
 the bare mention of which is enough to affright 
 every Soul that loves it's dear Redeemer. Only 
 I defire our Adversaries to meditate ferioufly up- 
 on it ; that the uneafinefs of fuch thoughts may 
 change their horrid opinion. Now tho' thefe con- 
 fiderationsdo utterly overthrow the Literal inter- 
 pretation of thefe paffages, yet lam willing to an- 
 fwer what has been faid in favor of it. And 
 
 Fir ft, 'Tis faid, that we muft interpret thefe 
 words in a Literal Senfe, unlefs it appear neceffary 
 to explain them by a figure. But certainly thefe 
 confiderations which I have offer 'd, do make it 
 ncceflary fo to explain them. 
 
 Secondly,
 
 Chap. VI. Of Tranfubfttntirtidn. i j i 
 
 Secondly, J Tis faid, that the Jews underftood 
 our Savior in a Literal Senfe, verfe 52. and our 
 Savior did not correct their miftake, tho' he had 
 a fair occafion of doing it. But I anfwer, 
 
 i. That our Savior did not alwaies explain 
 himfelf to thofe that were obftinate and hardened, 
 as it is evident thefe Perfons were. Thus for 
 inftance, he faid, Deflroy this Temple, and in 
 three dales I will raife it up, John 2. ip. And 
 tho' the Jews did certainly mifunderftand him, 
 verfe 20. becaufe he fpakeof the Temple of his Body, 
 verfe 21. yet he did not endeavor to fet them 
 right. 
 
 Now the reafon of this way of acting is clear 
 frotn Matth. 13.10. where his Difciples ask'd him, 
 faying, Why fpeakefl thou unto them in par able a ? He 
 anfwer'd, verfe ii, 12, 13. becaufe it is given unto 
 you to know the Myfleries of the Kingdom of heaven : 
 but to them it is not given. For whojoever hath (and 
 has made good ufe of thofe things which he has) 
 to himjhallbe given, and he jhaU have more abun- 
 dance : but Whofoever hath not ( that is, whoioe- 
 ver has abus'd thofe things which he has already re- 
 ceiv'd) from himfiall be taken away even that which 
 he hath. Therefore fpeak I to them in Parables; 
 becaufe they feeing fee not, &c. God is by no means 
 obliged to rectify the miflakes of thofe Men who 
 are refolv'd to pervert the means of grace, and 
 have been deaf to his former inftru&ions. But as 
 for thofe who are humble and modett, and willing 
 to be informed, he is alway ready and forward to> 
 make things eafy to them. 
 
 And accordingly our Savior Chriit, as he us'd 
 to do in other inftances, takes care that his Difci- 
 ples {hall underftand him arighr,w^ 62, 63. which 
 raay be confider'd with the former pafaphrafe upon 
 I 2
 
 i?2 O/ TfMfubJlant'ution*. Part IL 
 
 them. Nay 'tis evident, that the Difciples did ap- 
 prehend his true meaning, from verfe 68. where St. 
 Peter faies, thou haft the H/brds of eternal life. For 
 had he dill thought that our Lord fpake of eating 
 bis flefli and drinking his bloud in a Literal Senfe, 
 he would have anfwer'd thus, Lord, tho' it is a hard 
 faying, and we cannot conceive how men can eat 
 and drink thy teal Flejh and Bloud; yet because thou 
 baft f aid it, we believe it. Whereas St. Peter an- 
 fwers in a different manner, faying, Lord, to -whom 
 fbati we go ? Thou haft the Words of eternal lije* 
 That is, We are refolv'd to itay with thee the 
 true Bread of Life, for thou hail the Words or 
 Dc&rine of eternal life. 
 
 2. Altho' our Savior did not alwaies explain 
 his Parables to the obftinate and hardened ^fanr 
 yet foraetimes he was pleas'd to do it. And tho' 
 eur Lrd did fufVer thefe Men to continue in thek 
 naiftake for fome time ; yet it do's not appear from 
 the Text, that they were gone r v/hen he gave 
 the true explication of his Words. And therefore 
 'tis poffible, that he might unfold thofe Myfteri- 
 eus Speeches to them, as well as to his Difciples* 
 However, whether he did unriddle thofe dark fay- 
 ings to them or no ; the argument is fairly folved 
 upon either fuppofkion. 
 
 'Tkridly, 'Tis faid, that the Flefli of Chrift, in a 
 Literal Senfe was to be given on the Crofs for the 
 Life of the World, and therefore the fame Flem is 
 to be eaten by us in a Literal Senfe at the Cele- 
 bration of the Holy Sacrament, But I anfwen, 
 that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was in- 
 flituted in Commemoration of his Death and Paf- 
 fion ; becaufe our Savior faid, Do this in remem- 
 brance (f me, Luke 22. ip. Wherefore it is not 
 et.ilary for us to eat bis Fkfli in a Literal Senfe,- 
 
 but
 
 Chap. VI. Of TranfubftantUtion. 
 but "'tis fufficient if we eatthofe Elements which 
 reprefent and fignify his Body and Bloud. For 
 if we do this, we mall be made partakers of thofe 
 benefits, which he by his fufterings purchased 
 for us. 
 
 Well then ; fincethe evidence of our Senfesdos 
 fo plainly prove, that the fubftances of the Bread 
 and Wine dp {till remain, even after the Confe- 
 cration, which is utterly inconfiftent with explain- 
 ing the Sixth of St. 'John in a Literal fenfe ; and 
 fince that very Chapter (if it be underftood of 
 that Myftery) affords us feveral objeftions againft 
 the literal interpretation of it } and fince the lite- 
 ral interpretation of that Chapter (if underitood 
 of the Sacrament.of the Euchari/t) do's {"uppofe 
 all .Chriftians to be guilty of the greateft barbari- 
 ty imaginable, and that by the Command of God ; 
 and fince thofe arguments which our Adverfaries 
 produce to fhew the reafonablenefs or neceifity of 
 a, literal expofition of it, are (hewn to be of no 
 force ; fince, I fay, theie things are {o ; certain- 
 ly we ought, if we can, to explain -it-otherwjTe. 
 Now fince we ought, if we can, to explain it 
 otherwife ; and fince the Chapter it felf .is not 
 only fairly capable of it, but do's alfo require 
 it; certainly I may juftJy conclude, as I have 
 already aflerted, that this Chapter ( tho' under- 
 flood of the Eucharift) ought not to be inter- 
 preted in a Literal Senfe. 
 
 H A .
 
 1 34 Of Tranfubjlantiation. Part II. 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 That , 4/flfo* the Sixth Chapter of St. JohnV 
 Gofpel did relate to the Lord's Suffer, and 
 were to be underftood in a Literal Senfe; 
 yet it do's not prove the Doftrine of Tran- 
 fubftantiation, but direftlj contrary. 
 
 THirdly, I (hall now make it appear, that al- 
 tho' this Chapter did relate to the Lord's 
 Supper, and were to be understood in a Literal 
 Senfe, yet it do's not prove the Doftrine of 7ra#- 
 fubftamiation, but diredly contrary. And this I 
 (hall do in the following manner. 
 
 The Doctrine of T'ranfubflantiation fuppofes, 
 that the whole fubftance of the Bread is turn'd 
 into the Body, and the whole fubftance of the 
 Wine is turn'd into the Bloud of Chrifl. Now 
 I (halj prove, that if this Chapter be underftood 
 of the Eucharift in a Literal Senfe, then the whole 
 fubftances of the Bread and Wine are not turn'd 
 into the Body and Blood of Chrift : but the 
 whole fubftances of the Body and Bloud of Chrifl 
 are turn'd into Bread and Wine j which is di- 
 re&ly contrary to the Dodrine of Tranfubflami- 
 
 Now that the whole fubftances of the Body 
 and Bloud of Chrifl muft (according to this in- 
 terpretation) be turn'd into Bread and Wine is 
 raanifeft even from the 51 verfe, which is the 
 main pillar of the Literal expofition. For here our 
 Savior faies, / am the living bread which came 
 down from heaven : if any man eat of this bread he 
 
 Shall
 
 Chap. VII. Of Tranfubftantiation . 13$ 
 
 jhall live for ever : and the bread that I will give is 
 my flefhy which I will give for the life of the World. 
 Now if thefe words are literally to be underftood 
 of the Lord's Supper, and there muft of neceffity 
 be a change of one whole fubftance into another ; 
 then the whole fubftance of Chrifts Flefh muft be 
 turn'd into Bread, and not the whole fubftance 
 of the Bread into Chrift's Flefli. 
 
 This is plainly the fenfe of the Text, if there 
 be any fubftantial change at all ; becaufe the thing 
 there fpoken of is to be changed into fomething 
 elfe. Now 'tis plain (according to the literal 
 interpretation) that our Savior there fpeaks of his 
 real Flefh, 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 
 therefore, if that which was then fpoken of muft 
 be chang'd, and made Bread ; then the whole fub- 
 ftance of Cr(/2'sFJem muft be turn'd into Bread. 
 
 Now if the whole fubftance of Chrift's Flefh 
 be turn'd into Bread, then by the fame rea' 
 fon the whole fubftance of Chrift's Bloud muft be 
 turn'd into Wine ; becaufe they are both fpoken 
 of after the fame manner. And confequently, 
 fince this Chapter (according to that literal in- 
 terpretation ) do's prove fuch a change of the 
 whole fubftances of the Body and Bioud of Chrifi 
 into Bread and Wine, it cannot prove, but muft 
 of neceffity deftroy, the Doctrine of Tranfubftan- 
 tiation 3 which fuppofes a change of Bread and 
 Wine into Chriji's Body and Bloud. 
 
 And now I believe our Adverfaries have no 
 great reafon to boaft of this argument from the 
 Sixth of St. John's Gofpel, which upon their own 
 principles overthrows their own Dodrine. 
 
 I 4 CHAP,
 
 136 Of TrAnfabJlwtiation. Part II. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 Thtt the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation 
 cannot be proved from the Words of the 
 Institution of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 SECONDLY; the Second pretended Scripture- 
 proof of the Do&rine of Tranfufrftanttation is 
 drawn from the Words of the Inftitution, This is 
 my body, and This is my bloud. By thefe Words our 
 Adverfaries think our Savior meant, This body is 
 my natural body, and This Ikud is my natural Ikud: 
 and then they argue, that if the Natural Body 
 and Bloud of Chrift are in the Elements, then the 
 whole fubftance of the Elements is chang'd into 
 Chrift'-s natural Body and Bloud ; which change 
 they call Tranfubftantiation. Now in anfwer to 
 this I (hall {hew, that by the Words This is my body, 
 and This is my bloud, we are to underftand, This 
 bread fignifes or reprefents my body, and This wine 
 fignifes or reprefents my bloud. And this will ap- 
 pear, if we confider Four things, i. That the 
 wds are fairly capable of fuch a fenfe. 2. That 
 ilje Scriptures ; and, 3 . That Right reafon require 
 fuch a fenfe. 4. That the Apoftle.* under flood our 
 Savior in this fenfe. 
 
 Fir ft 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'4 
 by it* Thus Jofeph tells Pharaoh, that the feven 
 good kine are feven years, and that the feven good 
 ears of corn are [even years, Gen, 41. 26. that is^ 
 they fignify feven years. Thus alfo the rock which 
 foljow'd the Jfraelitesj i Cor. 10.4. was (or figni- 

 
 Chap. VIII. Of Tranfubjlantiation. i 37 
 
 nify'd) Cbrift. And after the fame manner the 
 feed is the word, Luke 8. u. Thofe by the iuay- 
 Jide ztz they that hear, verfe 12. "They en the rock 
 are they which, &c. verfe 14. That on the good ground 
 ztt they which, &c. verfe 15. See alfo Matth. 15. 
 and Mark 4. Thus again, / am the door, faies our 
 Blefled Lord, John 10. 7, 9. Te are the Salt of the 
 Earth, Matth. 15. 13. and Te are the Light of the 
 World, verfe 14. Nay, tho' our Adverfaries wou'd 
 have thought it a demonftration of the Doctrine 
 of Tranfubflantiation, had our Savior faid, This is 
 my true bcdy, and This is my true bloud, yet when 
 we find him faying, / am the true Vine, and my Fa- 
 ther is the husband-man, we are fure there is a Fi- 
 gure in his Words. Wherefore, if the inftances 
 I have given, be duly confider'd, tis plain, that 
 the Words This is my body, and Thh is my blond, 
 may very fairly import, This breadjignifies ?ny body, 
 and This wine fignifies my bloud. 
 
 Secondly, The Scriptures do require this figurative 
 fenfe. For, 
 
 i. Tis exprefiy faid, that our Savior took 
 Bread ; and when he had given thanks he brake 
 it^izthe bread ; and gave it to his Difciples,fiying, 
 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 
 ard gave them ? And what cou'd that be but the 
 .Bread, the real and true Bread, which he then diftri- 
 Duted ? 
 
 Now,if we think theWord This refers toChrift's 
 Body, 'twill be impoffible to make fenfe of what 
 our Savior fpeaks. For then he muftbefuppos'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 Bread, bjt 
 
 fup-
 
 1 38 Of TrtMfubflAattAtwn. Part II. 
 
 fuppofing it to be fomething of a quite different 
 Nature, to tell his Difciples, that the thing which 
 they had feen him take in his hands, and knew 
 to be true Bread, was not true Bread, but his 
 Natural Body. 
 
 Befides, if that which our Savior gave was his 
 Natural Body j and if every Hoft contains the 
 whole Chrifl y as our Adverfaries teach : then our 
 Savicr himfelf took himfelf; and his hand held 
 his whole body, and confequently held it felf ; 
 and he gave himfelf from himfelf; and was eaten 
 even by thofe Difciples that did not touch him ; 
 and his Blond was drunk by them, even whilft 
 it remained in his Veins. But thefe things are fo a- 
 bominably abfiird, that thofe wko are concern'd 
 for the credit of the Scriptures, dare not fay they 
 are contained in them. Thefe confederations are 
 an abundant proof, that the Word This relates to 
 the Bread. 
 
 If it be objected, that the word This cannot figni- 
 fy this bread, becaufe WTD, which we render this>_ 
 is of the Neuter gender, and cannot agree with, 
 ??! (bread} which is of the Mafculine ; I an- 
 fwer, Firft, that it is a very common thing to put a 
 Pronoun demonflrative in the Neuter gender, al- 
 tho' it betokens fomething of the Mafculine or 
 Feminine gender. I fhall mention but two in- 
 ftances, one of either kind, in both which this 
 very word WJT> is us'd. *Tis plain, that -rfcr*- 
 (place) is of the Mafculin gender, and yet TOT be- 
 tokens it, Gen 28-17. where we read, Horn dread- 
 ful is (o TOT- KT-) this flace ? (WTD) "fins place 
 is no other but the Houfe of God. J Tis plain alfo 
 that yuvn ( 'woman ) is of the Feminine gender ; and 
 yet WTO betokens woman, Gen. 2. 23. where Adam 
 faies, (TUT?) this Woman is now fane of mybone y &c. 
 
 But
 
 Chap. VIII, Of TravfubflantiAtion. 139 
 
 But tho' we cou'd not produce thefe and other 
 inftances of this conftru&ion ; yet, Secondly, the 
 Apoftle plainly determines that sS-re (this) denotes 
 the bread. For that which the Communicants 
 eat, is what our Savior means by This, when he 
 faies, This is my Body. Now 'tis plain, that the 
 Communicants eat realBread, becaufe St. Paul faies, 
 for as oft as ye eat this Bread, &c i Cor- u. 26. 
 in which place the Apoftle do's not fay <JVTO> but. 
 VA$OV n-nv, as if he defign'd to flop the Mouths 
 or thofe, who wou'd criticize fo nicely upon our 
 Savior's Words. 
 
 2. If thefe Words This is my Body, and this is 
 my Bhud, do import a fubftantial change of the 
 Elements into flefh and blond ; then thefe words, 
 We are one head and one body , i Cor. 10. 17. do 
 by the fame reafon import a fubftantial change of 
 all good Chriitians into one real Bread and one 
 real Body, that is, into one breaden Body. But I 
 hope, our Adverfaries will not contend for fuch 
 a Metamorpho/is, as will rob them of thir hu- 
 man nature. But I need not infift upon thefe mas- 
 ters i for, 
 
 3. Our Savior himfelf, and St. Paul 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* 
 faies he, of that one bread y i Cor i o. 17. and as of- 
 ten as ye eat this bread, &c. i Cor. n. 26. and 
 our Savior calls the Wine the fruit of the Vine, 
 even after the Apoflles had drunk it , Mark 
 14. 25. 
 
 Now
 
 140 Of TrAnfubftdatiation. Part II. 
 
 Now if thefe particulars be duly confidered ; 
 i. That by the word I'bis our Savior mull mean 
 the Bread, becaufe he mult otherwife fpeak abfurd- 
 ly. 2. That the fame expreffion, from whence 
 our Adverfaries wou'd infer the fuppos'd change 
 of Bread and Wine into flefh and bloud, muft al- 
 fo force us to acknowledge a change of our own 
 Bodies into bread. 3. That our Savior and Sr. 
 Paul do fo plainly call the Elements Bread and 
 Wine, even after the confecration and participa- 
 tion of them ; I fay, if thefe things be duly con- 
 fider'd, it plainly follows, that the Scriptures do 
 require us to believe, that the words This is my 
 body, and T'his is my bloud, do denote and imply, 
 I'his bread fignifies my Body, and This -wine figmfies 
 my Bloud. Becaufe 'tis impoffible, even in the 
 judgment of our Adverfaries, that the fame things 
 ihou'd be both bread and wine, and flefli and bloud 
 at the fame time. 
 
 I'hirdly, Right Reafon requires this interpretation 
 alfa. For 'tis a known rule, that When a propo- 
 fition is infallibly true, and yet cannot poffibly be true 
 in a Literal Senfe, then lue muft under ftand it figu- 
 ratively. Thus for inftance, thefe Words of our 
 Savior, / am the door, John 10. 7, 9. are infal- 
 libly true : but fince our Savior cannot poffibly be 
 a door in a Literal Senfe ,- therefore thofe words 
 muft be underftood in a Figurative manner. 
 
 Now, that we may apply this Rule to the Cafe 
 in hand ; 'tis granted, that the words are infallibly 
 true -, and therefore the only quefton is y whether 
 they can be true in a Literal Senfe, or no. Now 
 it muft be confider'd, Fir ft, that the evidence o 
 our Senfes, which I have prov'd to be alwaies cer- 
 tain, allures us that 'tis not the Body and Bloud 
 ofChrift, which we eat or drink ; but real Breacl 
 
 and
 
 Chap. VIII. OfTr*f*t>JtdntMon. 141 
 and Wine. Secondly, there are infufferable confe- 
 quences of the Literal interpretation. For, i. It 
 makes us fo barbarous, as to eat Man's Flefii ; and 
 what is infinitely worfe, the Flefh of an incarnate 
 God i which adion is fo very horrid.that a Chriftian- 
 ought to dread it more than death it felf. 2. It 
 fuppofes, that the fame Body may be whole and 
 mtire in different places at the fame time ; this ab- 
 furditywith a thoufand others neceffarily fol- 
 from the D arine 
 
 . 
 
 \\herefore, fince the Literal interpretation do's fo 
 plainly contradift the evidence of our Senfes, and is 
 attended with fo much inhumanity and fo many 
 impoflibihties ; we cannot imagine,that the words 
 are Literally true : and confequently, Right rea- 
 Ion requires us to explain them after a Figurative 
 manner. 
 
 Fourthly, The Afoflks underjlood our Savior in 
 * F r 
 
 *> y faw and knew > rh ^t what he 
 
 call d T/j, was what he took and brake ; and that 
 it cou d be no other, than the real Bread. They 
 cou d not be fo flupid as to imagine, that they 
 did both converfe with, and eat their Lord at the 
 lame time , that what they had already (Wallowed, 
 and what they then beheld with their eyes, were 
 the very fame thing. They did not fufpeft any 
 fecret meaning, as appears by the Hiftory ; nor 
 
 did our Savior declare any change, as appears by 
 ms own words. 
 
 Nay, had the Difciples thought, that our Sa- 
 vior had fpoken what was fo utterly incon- 
 fiftent with Senfe and Reafon, as the Doctrine 
 ot Tranjubftantiation is; certainly they wou'd 
 have ask d him at lead, as they did at other. 
 times, how thefe things cou'd be. And therefore, 
 iince we find no fuch queftions ask'd, we may.
 
 142 Of TrAnftibftant'iAtion. Part II. 
 
 juftly conclude, that there was no occafion for 
 them ; but that they underftood our Savior's words 
 in fuch a Figurative manner, as makes them perfect- 
 ly agreeable to the truth, and to the evidence of 
 fenfe and reafon. 
 
 Nay farther, Let it be fuppos'd (tho* it can- 
 not in any wife be granted) that the Apoftles 
 did really ask our Savior many queftions con- 
 cerning 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; I fay, let all thefe things (tho' without any 
 reafon) be fuppos'd j yet it cannot be imagi- 
 ned, that theDifciples wou'd not objeft againft the 
 reality of his Refurredion upon this very ae- 
 count. 
 
 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 (hew them his 
 Hands and his Feet, and thereby to give them a 
 fufficient demonflration, that it was he himfelf, 
 who convers'd with them. But now if they had 
 been convinc'd, that it was reafonable upon fome 
 occasions to disbelieve the greateft evidence of 
 Senfe, and particularly in that inftance of theLord's 
 Supper; how was it poffible for them not to object 
 in thefe or fuch like words ? Lord, it was not 
 many daies fince, that thou thy felf didft Teach 
 and aflure us, that we are not alwaies to believe 
 our Senfes ; becaufe they may fometimes deceive 
 us, and fliew us one thing for another. How then 
 canft thou require us to believe this feeming im- 
 poflibility of thy Refurredion, upon the credit of 
 our Senfes? If Seeing and Feeling be fubftantial 
 proofs of this Miracle,- then they do alfo clearly 
 
 evince,
 
 Chap. VI. Of TrAnfubJlAnttAtion. 143 
 
 evince, that the fubftances of the Bread and Wine 
 do remain after the Confecration : 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 disbelieve their Senfes only when he comman- 
 ded them fo to do , and that he did now com- 
 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 moft abfurd and unreafcnable) 
 Lord, we are willing either to believe or to dif- 
 believe our Senfes at thy pleafure : but yet we de- 
 fire to be fatisfy'd, that thou thy felf doft now 
 command us. Perhaps we fee a phantom ; and 
 tho' we are heartily ready to obey thy leait in- 
 timation, yet 'twere a fault in us to take that for 
 thee, which is a mere illufion and a dream. Give 
 us therefore, we humbly pray thee, fome convin- 
 cing arguments, that it is thou thy felf who 
 fpeakeft to us ; and we {hall be fatisfy'd. 
 
 If the difciples, when they doubted of Chrift's 
 Refurredion, had argu'd afcer this manner with 
 our Blefled Lord (and truly, if they .had non 
 made fuch objections, I cannot excufe their want 
 ofSenfe) I fay, if they had argued thus, what 
 proofs cou'd our Savior offer ? Evidence of Senfe 
 was not fufficient , and they cou'd not have any 
 other evidence. So that, if the Difciples did believe 
 Tranfubftantiation ; they muft have remained for- 
 ever uncertain of our Savior's Refurreftion. 
 
 Wherefore, fince the Apoftles made no inch 
 fcruples at the firft Celebration of the Euc.harift, 
 and did not urge the belief of Tranful-ftantiation 
 againft the belief of Cbrifi's Refurrection ,- 'tis evi- 
 dent, that they underftood the words of the In- 
 
 ftitution
 
 144 Of Tranfubftantiation. Part IT. 
 
 ftittition after fuch a manner, as was confident 
 with the certainty of Senfe. And therefore, fince 
 a Literal interpretation of thofe words is utterly 
 inconfiftent with the certainty of Senfe ; "tis plain, 
 that our Savior fpake, and the Difciplesunderftood 
 them in a Figurative manner. 
 
 Well then ; fince the words of the Inftitution 
 do fo fairly admit it, and fince both Scripture and 
 Right Reafon do require it, and fince the A- 
 poftles did plainly fuppofe it , certainly We ought 
 to explain them in a Figurative manner- And con- 
 fequently, fince by This is my body, and This is my 
 bloud, we are to underftand, This bread fignifes my 
 body, and This ivine Jignifies my blond > 'tis certain, 
 that the words of the Inftitution are fo far from 
 proving theDodrine of Tranfulflantiation y that they 
 are a demonftration againft it. 
 
 And now,having fo fully and fo fairly con fider'd 
 this great argument of our Adverfaries, I ftippofe 
 it will not be thought an objection againft what I 
 have hitherto difcotirs'd, That a Sacrament admits 
 of no figures, and therefore the words of the Infti- 
 tution cannot admit of fuch a figurative Senie as 
 1 have given them. For this is nor only a ground- 
 lefs aflertion, but is alfo confuted by the very 
 words themfelves ; it being moll evident, that our 
 Savior do's by a figure ufc the Cup for the Wine in 
 the Cup, faying, This cup is the ^levj Teftamem in 
 my bhud, &c. Luke 22. 20. 
 
 Nor do I think our Adverfaries will infift upon 
 our Savior's not explaining his Words, and war- 
 ning his Difciples that they ought to underftand 
 him in a Figurative Senfe. Becaufe thofe confide- 
 rations which I have already ofter'd, do make it 
 plain, that they cou'd not underftand him other- 
 wife. 'Tis true 3 our Lord us'd to explain his pa- 
 rables,
 
 Chap. VIII. Of TranfubflantMon. 145 
 
 rabies, and cannot be fuppos'd to have left his 
 Difciples in the dark concerning fo great and im- 
 portant a matter: but this Jnterpretacion of the 
 words in difpute is fo very natural and neceflary, 
 that our Savior couM not think it needful to di- 
 reft them to it. 
 
 If it be faid, that the Bread and Wine muft be 
 chang'd into Cbrijt's Body and bloud for the be- 
 nefit of Receivers ; I anfwer, i. That we are not 
 to pretend a necemty, and then to fupply it by 
 fuppofinggroiindlefsimpolfibilities.'Tis plain, that 
 Tranfubftantiation is full of contradictions, and has 
 innumerable abfurdities hanging upon it; and there- 
 fore 'tis not a pretended neceffity, that can make 
 it true. 2. There is not the leaft 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 blond. The benefit of Sacraments 
 depends not upon the fubftance of the out- 
 ward part,- but upon the grace annex'd to it 
 by Ckrift's Inftitution. As mean a thing as Water 
 can wafli away our Sins by God's appointment, 
 and why then may not Bread and Wine com- 
 municate to us the Efficacy and Merits of our Sa- 
 vior's Death ? 
 
 If it be alfo faid, that the Natural Body and 
 Bloud of Chrifl muft be prefent in the Sacrament, 
 becaufe Whofoeuer jhall eat this bread and drink this 
 cup of the Lord wrwwthily^ jhall be guilty of the body 
 and bloud of the Lord, i Cor. u. 27. and no Man 
 can be guilty of Chrijfs Body and Bloud, if his 
 Body and Bloud be not prefent ; I anfwer, that 
 the very Text alledged deftroies the objection. 
 Becaufe, fince 'tis bread that is eaten, and the cup 
 that is drunk unworthily ; 'cis impoffible that the 
 K Receiver
 
 146 Of Tranfubftantidtion. Part II. 
 Receiver (hou'd eat natural flefh, and drink natu- 
 ral bloud. Unlefs thofe things, which the Apoflle 
 calls bread and (the cup, or) -wine, may be the na- 
 tural body and bloud of Chrifl ; which we cannot af- 
 firm without charging St. Paul 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 Chrfis Body and Bloud by an unworthy par- 
 ticipation of it, is therefore faid to be guilty of 
 the Body and Bloud of the Lord ; becaufe in the 
 judgment of God he is then guilty of murdering 
 our blefled Savior, by continuing in thofe fins for 
 which he fuffer'd, and defpifing that grace which 
 his fufferings procur'd, and profaning that Sacra- 
 mental Ordinance, by which the Pardon of his 
 own fins might have been Seal'd. For fuch a Per- 
 fon do's, as much as in him lies, by an Obfli- 
 nacy in his Rebellion, Crucify to himfelf the 
 Son of God afre/h; and (hall therefore be ac- 
 counted as truly guilty of our dear Redeemer's 
 Death, as if he had nail'd him to the Crofs with 
 his own hands. But all this heinous impiety may 
 be committed, altho' our Savior be not prefent in 
 body ; juft as conrempt may be ofter'd to the 
 image of a King, and interpreted Treafon by Law, 
 altho' the King's life were not in danger- 
 
 But I (hall add no more upon this head ; it be- 
 ing I hope, abundantly plain from what I have al- 
 ready faid, that the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation 
 cannot be prov'd from the words of the Inflitu- 
 tion of the Lord's Supper, but may be effe&ually 
 confuted by it. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Chap. IX. Of TrAnJubftAntitiion. 147 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 That the Doffrine of the Trinity, and the 
 Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, are not 
 
 equally credible. 
 
 I Shall now examine the laft Plea of our Ad\ r er- 
 faries, who when we object againft thepoffi- 
 bihcy of Tranfubftxntiation, do very readily an- 
 fwer, that we may as well believe the Doctrine of 
 Tranfubftanhation, as that of the Trinity ; fince 
 boch aie in their opinion equally Credible. But 
 the vanity of this pretence will loon appear, if 
 we conhder three particulars. 
 
 1. That the Doctrine cf the Trinity is certain- 
 ly reveal'd ; whereas I have plainly fhewn, that 
 the Doctrine ot 'franfubftantiation is not taught in 
 the Scriptures. 
 
 2. That the Doctrine of the Trinity do's not 
 contradict our Faculties. I confefs, we cannot 
 comprehend the manner cf it : but we cannot 
 affirm, that 'tis falfe or impoffible. Whereas 
 the Doctrine of Tranfubflantiation is not above, 
 and beyond the reacli of our faculties,- but do's 
 moft apparently contradict them. We do not re- 
 ject the Doctrine -of Tranfubftantiation, becaufe 
 we cannot comprehend it, or conceive the man- 
 ner of it : but becaufe we are as certain, that it is 
 falfe and impoffibie ; as that our faculties are, or 
 Can be tru. 
 
 If ir be faid, that the Doctrine of the Trinity 
 
 do's as certainly contradict our faculties,as theDo- 
 
 drine of Tranfubftantjation ; becaufe it is as great 
 
 a contradiction to our rcafon, to fay, that Thee 
 
 K a are
 
 148 Of TrAnfubftant'tAtion. Part II. 
 are one, when our reafon afliires us, that Three 
 cannot be one as it is a contradiction to our Sen- 
 fes, to fay, T'his is not bread ; when our Senfes 
 afliire us, that // is bread j if, I fay, this be ob- 
 jecl;ed> I anfwer, that there is a true and proper 
 contradiction in the one inftance, but not in the 
 other. 
 
 For every contradiction confifts in affirming and 
 denying the fame thing, at the fame time, and in 
 the fame refpect : but when a thing is affirm'd in 
 one refpecl:, and deny'd in another ; or when 'tis 
 affirm'd at onetime, and deny'd at another; then 
 there is no contradiction. Thus for inftance, if 
 any Man fhou'd fay, the Sun doth fhine in Eng- 
 land at fuch a time ; and another fhou'd fay, the Sun 
 doth not fhine in England at the very fame time ; 
 they wou'd flatly contradict one another. But if 
 one Man, fpeaking of England, fhou'd fay, the 
 Sun fhines at fuch a time^ and another Perfon, 
 fpeaking of the oppofite part of the World, fhou'd 
 fay, it do's not fhine at the very fame time ; they 
 wou'd not contradict one another : becaufe in 
 different refpects it may be faid, that the Sun do's 
 {hine, and that it do's not fhine at the fame time. 
 Thus alfo, if one Man fhou'd fay, that the Sun 
 did fhine in England yefterday j and another fhou'd 
 fay, that it did not fhine in England the day be- 
 fore yefterday ; they no not contradict each o- 
 ther : becaufe the Sun may fhine, and not fhine in 
 the very fame place at different times. 
 
 Having thus explain'd the true Nature of a Con- 
 tradiction, which (tho* it be a plain and obvious 
 thing, yet) very few Perfons are willing to take 
 due notice of ; I fhall now apply it to the Do- 
 ctrine of the Trinity. If Revelation fhou'd fay, 
 that Three are one in the fame refpeft, in which 
 
 rcafoa
 
 Chap. IX. Of Tranfubflanthtion. 149 
 
 reafon faies, that Three are not one ; then Reafon 
 and Revelation wou'd certainly contradict each 
 other. But this we do not find ; for Revelation 
 faies, that Three ferfom are one in Eflence ; and 
 Reafon faies, that Three ferfons are not one in Per- 
 fon j and therefore the feveral didates of Reafon 
 and Revelation are very confiftent with each o- 
 ther. 'Tis true, we cannot explain after what 
 Manner a Trinity of perfons is reconcilable with 
 the Unity of God : but tho* we cannot take 
 off the difficulty of conception, yet we can fhew 
 that there is no contradiction ; becaufe it is no 
 contradiaion to fay, That the fame things may 
 be three in one refpect, and one in another. 
 
 But now in the cafe of Tranfubftamiation it is 
 undeniably plain, that the fame thing is affirm'd 
 by our Senfes, and deny'd by a pretended Reve- 
 lation, in the very fame refpect, and at the very 
 fame time. For there is no difpute concerning 
 any different Notions of Bread and Wine ; and 
 yet 'tis moft evident, that our Senfes do af- 
 fure us, that the Elements are real Bread and 
 Wine, even in that very moment, when the pre- 
 tended Revelation faies, that the very fame Ele- 
 ments are not Bread and Wine. And therefore 
 our Senfes and the pretended Revelation do flat- 
 ly contradict each other. 
 
 3. The Doctrine of the Trinity is therefore in- 
 comprehenfible, becaufe the Natiwre of God being 
 infinite, the whole of it cannot be conceived by 
 us. There are depths in the Divinity, which 
 we cannot fathom : and we are obliged to believe 
 them fuch, becaufe God has told us fo. But we 
 have no power tha.t ought to judge of them ; be- 
 caufe God has not made the Myfteries of his Ef- 
 ience the adequate ob/easof any of our Faculties, 
 K j Wherea*
 
 150 OfTrwfubpanttAtion. Part II. 
 
 Whereas the feveral natures of Bread and Wine 
 are finite, and may be fufficiently underftood by 
 us. Tho' there are wonders in the Competition 
 of every Creature, which we cannot explain; as 
 the Divifibility of Matter, &c. yet thqfe things 
 which are the proper objects of our Senfes, we 
 may and ought to judge of, as far as God has 
 enabled our Senfes to inform us. Now there is 
 nothing in the World, that can be more obvious 
 to our Senfes, than bread and wine : and there- 
 fore when our Senfes give a report concerning 
 them, we are to believe our Senfes. 
 
 In a word, we cannot fay, that the Doctrine of 
 the trinity is falfe ,- becauie we have no faculty, 
 that is able to examine it : but we can fay, that 
 the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiatton is falle ; be- 
 caufe we have feveral faculties that are able to ex- 
 amine it, and have found it to be falfe and impof- 
 fible. 
 
 Now if our Adverfaries will fhew, i. That the 
 Doctrine of Tranfubftantiaticn is as plainly re- 
 vcal'd, as that of the Trinity. 2. That the one 
 do's as certainly contradict any one of our facul- 
 ties, as the other. 3. That we are as competent 
 judges of the one, as of the other ; then we (hall 
 be obliged to confefs, that the Doclrine of the 
 Trinity, and that of Tranfubftantiation are equally 
 credible. But till this b.e done, we think it high 
 ly reafonable to believe the Myftery of the Trinity $ 
 altho' we utterly reject the Doctrine of Tranfub~ 
 flantiation, as < r r oundiefs, abfurd, and impious j and 
 therefore ab^lutdy falfe. 
 
 CH A B
 
 Chap. X; Of the Adoration, &c. 151 
 
 C H A P. X. 
 
 Of the Adoration of the Hoft. 
 
 I Shall now prove, that forae Popijb Do&rines 
 are forbidden by the Word of God ; and the 
 firit I (hall inftance in, is that of the Adoration of 
 the Hoft. 
 
 The Church of Rome (a) Decrees thus, If 
 any Man fiatt fay, that in the Holy Sacrament of 
 the Eucharift, Chrifl the only-begotten Son of God 
 is not to be Ador'd even -with the external Worjbip 
 of Latria ; and confequently, that he is not to be 
 worfhifped upon any Feftival Solemnity, and that he 
 is not to be carried about in Procefftons according to the 
 Laudable and Univerfal Manner and Cuflom of the 
 Church i or that he is not to be publicklyftt forth be- 
 fore the People, that he may be ador'd by them ; and 
 that thofe who do adore him, are Idolaters ; Let 
 him be accurfed. From thefe words it appears, 
 that the Church of Rome has Decreed, that the 
 Elements of the Lord's Supper are to be ador'd 
 with Latria, which is the higheft worfhip of the 
 Supreme God , becaufe they do (in their opini- 
 on, delivered in the ijth Article of their Creed 
 and elfwhere) contain the true and real Chrift or 
 
 (M) Siquis dixerit in SanftoEuchariftise Sacramento Chri- 
 ftum unigenitumDeifilium non efle cultuLatrise, etiam ex- 
 terno,Adorandum ;a r que idco nee feftiva peculiar! ceJebrt- 
 Wte venerandum,neque in proceflionibusfecundum laudabi- 
 lem ScUntverfalemEcclefice ritum &confuetudinemfoJenni. 
 ter circumgeftandum j vel non publice.uc adoretur, populo 
 proponendum,8c ejus Adoratores efTeldololatras ; Anathema 
 fa.Conftl. Trident. SefT. 13. can 6. de Eiukarijl. 
 
 K 4 God-
 
 i^2 Of the Adoration Part II 
 
 God-Man, composed of the Divine and Human 
 Nature. 
 
 Now 'tis Manifefl, that flie obliges every Man 
 to approve of this Adoration of the Hoft upon pain 
 of damnation ; Fir/l , becaufe fhe obliges every Man 
 to approve this and all other decrees of the Coun- 
 cil of Irent, in the 24^ Article of her Creed; 
 which as you may find in the id Chapter, runs 
 thus ; / do alfo without any doubting receive and 
 frofefs all other things, that are delivered, defind and 
 declared by the Sacred Canons and General Coun- 
 cils ; and chiefly by the Holy Council of Trent, &c. 
 Secondly, becaufe fhe declares it abfolutely necef- 
 fary to Salvation for a Man to profefs this propo- 
 fition, which is the i $th Article of her Creed, 
 viz.. I do alfo prof eft, &c. / do alfo receive and ad- 
 mit the receiva and approved rites of the Catho- 
 lic Church in the folemn Adminiflration of all the 
 Sacraments before mention d : Whereas 'tis noto- 
 rious, that the Adoration of the Hoft is one of 
 thofe Rites, which attend her Celebration of the 
 Eucharift. 
 
 J Tis plain then, that the Church of Rome tea- 
 ches this Do&rine concerning the Adoration of tfe 
 Hoft ; and that flie obliges every Man to receive 
 the fame as necefiary to Salvation. Wherefore 
 I fhall endeavour to ihew, that the Adoration of 
 the Hoft is grofs Idolatry ; and then it muft 
 be confefs'd, that the Popifo Do^rine concer- 
 ning the Adoration of the Hoft is forbidden in 
 Scripture. 
 
 Now that the Adoration of the Hoft is grofs 
 Idolatry, appears by this Ihort and plain argument. 
 It is grofs Idolatry to worfhip a mere Creature 
 with the Higheft Worfhip, which is due to the 
 Creator only. This truth is fo very dear, that 
 
 I (bail
 
 Chap. X: of th Hft- M? 
 
 I ihall not endeavour to prove it. Now that thofe 
 Perfons who adore the Hoft, dowodhip a mere 
 Creature with the higheft worfhip, 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 worfiif, -which is due to the Crea- 
 tor only. 
 
 Firft, I fay, the Hoft is a mere Creature and 
 this is the neceflary confequence of the foregoing 
 Chapter. For if the Elements after the Confe- 
 cration are not chang'd into the fubftance of 
 Chrrft's Body and Bloud, but retain their former 
 Nature, and continue to be Bread and Wine ; 
 then it cannor 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 worflip 
 which is due to the Creator only. Our Adverfaries 
 do diftinguifh thus between Dulia arid Latria. 
 They fay that Dulia is an inferior kind of wor- 
 fhip, which they- think is due even to Angels and 
 Saints : but Latvia, they tell us, is the higheft 
 worfhip that a Creature can pay, and therefore 
 they allow it to none but the great God of hea- 
 ven. I (hall not examine this diftinction, becaufc 
 it is not neceflary to my prefent purpofe ; let it 
 fuffice therefore to obferve, that Latvia is (by 
 their own Confeffion) the higheft worfhip 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- 
 non of the Council of Trent, which I have al- 
 ready recited j but alfo by thefe words, which (he
 
 1^4 Of the Moration Part II. 
 
 fpeaks in (1} another place , viz,. Therefore it it 
 not to be doubted^ but that all faithful Chriflians, ac- 
 fii ding to that cuftom which has been ever receivd 
 in the Catholic Church, do giv* the worship of La- 
 tria, which is due to the true God y unto thi< mcft 
 holy Sacrament in their Veneration of it. Where- 
 fore it appears, that the Adoration given to the 
 Hoft is the higheft worfliip, which is due to the 
 Creator only. 
 
 Beiides, the reafon for which they adore the 
 Hoft, is their opinion of Chrijt's Divinity and 
 Humanity being prefent in it. They fancy that 
 thek 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 prefent 
 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) 7rent fpeaks, the Sacrament 
 is not to be ador y d ever the Icfs, for Chrift's having 
 appointed it to be taken: for we believe that fame 
 God to be prefent in it, whom when the eternal Fa- 
 ther bringeth into the World, he faies, and let all the 
 Angels of God worfliip him, &c. Now fince I 
 have prov'd, that their notion of T'ranjubftantia- 
 tion is falfe, and that the accidents of bread and 
 
 (b) Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur, quin om- 
 nes rhrifti fideles, pro more in Catholica Ecclefia Temper 
 /ecepto, Latnxcultumqui vero Deo debetur, huicSanHf- 
 iimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant. Ctncil. Trident. 
 SefT. 13. cap. 5. de Eucktrift. 
 
 (c) Neque enim ideo minus eft adorandum, quod faerie a 
 Chrifto Domino utfumatur inftitutum ; nam ilium eundem 
 Dcum prxfentem in eo adeflc credimus,quem Pater xternus 
 introducens in orbem terrarum, dicit, Et tdorent turn omnes 
 *vge\i Dei. Concil, Trident, ibid. 
 
 wine
 
 Chap X. of the Hoft. i $ $ 
 
 wine do cover the real fubilanccs of bread and 
 wine, and not the Divinity and humanity united 
 in the Pcrfon of Chrift ; therefore it is plain, that 
 thofe Men who do worfliip the fpecies of bread 
 and wine, with the fame worfhip which is due to 
 none but Chrift our very God ; do worfliip a Crea- 
 ture with the fame worfhip which is due to none 
 but Chiftour very God. Now 'tis Notorious 
 that the Papifts do, in the Adoration of the ffoft t 
 thus worfliip that which is really nothing more 
 than bare bread ; and therefore it muft of necef- 
 fity follow, that the Adoration which is given to 
 the Hoft is the higheft worfhip, which is due to 
 the Creator only. 
 
 Since then the Hoft is a mere Creature, and fince 
 the Adoration which is given to it is the higheft "wor~ 
 flip, "which is due to the Creator only ; 'tis certain 
 that the Adoration of the HJ$ is grofs Idolatry. And 
 fince the Adoration of the Hojt is grofs Idolatry, 
 'tis certainly condemned by the Word of God ; and 
 confequently, the Popijh Dodrine concerning the 
 Lawfulnefs and neceflity of it is alfo forbidden 
 therein. And therefore, fince I have {hewn, i . That 
 the Church of Rome do's impofe this doctrine of 
 the Adoration of the Hofi as neceflary to Salvation; 
 and 2. That this docorine is forbidden in Scrip- 
 ture ; 'tis too too plain, that the Church of Rome 
 impofesfomethingas neceflary to Salvation, which 
 is fprbidden in the Word of God 
 
 CHAR
 
 i $6 Of HAlf-Ccwmumon. Part II. 
 
 |^ C H A P. XI. -"; /" ,-5 
 
 Of Communion in one kind. 
 
 ANother thing which the Church of Rome im- 
 pofes as neceflary to Salvation, and which 
 we think forbidden in the Word of God, is the 
 Uodrine of Communion in one kind. 
 
 It cannot be deny'd, that the Church of Rome 
 teaches this dodrme, and impofes it as neceflary 
 to Salvation, becaufe the i&A Article of the Po- 
 t'ft Creed runs thus, I do alfo profefs, that vhole 
 find Intire Chnit, and a true Sacrament, is receivd 
 under me kind only. Now that this dodrine of 
 Half-Communion is forbidden in the Scriptures 
 will plainly appear from the words of the Infli- 
 tution of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 i W L a S 2 told ' that our Lord took Bread, 
 that he blefs d, brake and gave it to his difciples 
 faying, Mj, ,,, &c. and that he took, blefs'd' 
 ^id deliver d the Cup, faying, Drink ye all of 
 this, &c. and that he faid to them all, Do this m 
 remembrance of me. From whence ic is plain, that 
 the blefled Jefus delivered both kinds to the A- 
 poftlesi and 'tis granted by our Adverfaries, that 
 thele words do oblige us as well as the Apoftles 
 to receive the Confecrated Bread in remembrance 
 ot our Savior : and therefore we are obliged to 
 receive the Cup, as the Apoftles 4id ; fince we are 
 commanded to Receive the Cup, as much as to 
 Receive the Bread. 
 
 Nay.
 
 Chap. XI. Of Half- Communion. 157 
 
 Nay, 'tis acknowledged by our Adverlarfes,thac 
 the words of the Inititution do oblige the Prieft to 
 Confecrate both kinds : and they confefs alfo, that 
 unlefs both kinds be Confecrated, there is no Sa- 
 crament. Now I deiire them to fhew, that there 
 is any more or plainer reafon for confecrating, than 
 there is for receiving both kinds ; fince the words 
 of the Inftkution do prefcribe the Reception, as 
 much as the Confecration of them both. 
 
 Nay farther, thty readily grant that the Prieft 
 is obliged by the words of the Inftitution, to re- 
 ceive in both kinds : and yet 'tis plain, that thofe 
 words do make no diftinction between Prieft and 
 People. So that if the People are obliged by 
 thcle words to receive the Bread ; they are alfo 
 obliged by them to receive the Cup, as well as the 
 Prieit. 
 
 "Tis true indeed, St. Luke places thefe words, 
 Do this in remembrance of me, after our Savior's 
 delivery of the B:ead, and do's noc repeat them 
 after the delivery of the Cup : but this will by 
 no means prove, that we are not obliged to re- 
 ceive the Cup, as well as the Bread, in remem- 
 brance of him. For, 
 
 j. Tho' Sr. Luke do's not repeat the words, Do 
 this in remembrance of me, after the delivery of 
 the Cup, yet St. Paul exprefly declares, that the 
 Lord Jefm the fame night in which he -was bstray'd, 
 took bread ; and when he had given thanks , be brake 
 it, and faid, lake eat this is my body which is broken 
 for you; "This do in remembrance of me. After the 
 fame mannner alfo he took the Cup, when he had 
 fupp'd, faying, 'This Cup is the New 'Teftament in my 
 blond; This do, as oji as ye drink it, in remem- 
 brance of me y t Cor. u. 23, &c. So that, if we 
 may take tkis Apoilie's word for it, our Savior 
 
 has
 
 158 Of Half-Communion. Part II. 
 
 has injoin'd us to receive the Cup in remembrance 
 of him, as well as the Bread. 
 
 2. St. Matthew and St. Mark have not men- 
 tion'd thefe words, Do this in remembrance of me, 
 after the delivery of either kind ; tho* they tell 
 us^ that Jefus del'ver'd both kinds to the A- 
 poflles ; and St. Matthew afiures us, that he com- 
 manded them all to drink of it ; and St. Mark 
 faies, they did actually drink of it. And yet 'tis 
 confefs'd, that this practice of our Savior, as it 
 flands Recorded by the two Evangelifts, obliges 
 us to the continuance ot this Holy Feaft. Now 
 if we are obliged by Virtue of their Hiflorics 
 to commemorate our Lord's bitter Puffion in 
 the Eucharift ; then we are obliged to receive 
 in both kinds : becaufe we are aflur'd by all 
 three Hiflorians, that our Savior did as certain- 
 ly make them drink of the Cup, as eat of the 
 Bread. 
 
 Befides, the reafon for which our Savior com- 
 manded the Apoflles to drink, obliges us to do 
 the fame. Drink ye all e/ this, faid he, for this is 
 my bloud of the New T'eflamcnt, which is Jked for 
 many for the Remiffion of fens. From whence it 
 plainly follows, that all thofe Perfons, for the re- 
 mnTionof whofe fins our Savior's bloud was fhed, 
 ought to drink of the Cup, that they may be par- 
 takers of his fufferings. Now fince Chrifl dy'd 
 for all Men * and fince all Men that are Baptiz'd 
 and lead futable lives, are thereby made capable 
 of pardon thro* his Merits ; therefore all Men, 
 thus duly qualify 'd, ought to drink his Bloud. 
 So that no Peribn, whether of the Clergy or 
 Layety, can be deny'd a fliare in this great pri- 
 vilege, without horrible injuftice, and a manifeft 
 breach of Cbrift's command. 
 
 We
 
 Chap. XL Of Half-Communion. 
 
 We know, that the Sacraments receive their 
 Virtue, not from the Nature of the outward 
 fign, but from the Inftitution of Chrift. Thus 
 Baptifm wafhes away our fins, not becaufe water 
 do's naturally cleanfe our fouls ; but becaufe Chrif 
 is pleas'd to purge them by a due performance of 
 that action. Thus alfo the .Lord's Supper makes 
 us partakers of Cbrift's death, not Decaufe the 
 eating of Bread and drinking of Wine do naturally 
 make us members of him ; but becaufe God has 
 annex'd fo great a Bleffing to the obfervation of 
 that Ordinance. Wherefore thofe Perfons who 
 delire to receive the benefits of the Holy Eucha- 
 rift, muft ftick clofe to Chnft's Inftitution, and 
 do what he has prefcnb'd in receiving both Bread 
 and Wine. They muft not obey one part of his 
 order, and break the other ; but faithfully pertorm 
 the whole precept : for otherwife they muft not 
 expect to reap the advantages of it. 
 
 Without doubt it was in our Savior's power to 
 have inftituted other Symbols^ or to have annex'd 
 the whole virtue to either of thofe which he has 
 chofen : but we are to confider, not what he 
 might have done, but what he has done ; and 
 fince 'tis plain that both kinds were inftituted by 
 him, 'tis alfo plain that both kinds muft be re- 
 ceiv'd by us. Becaufe no bleflmgs do accompany 
 the reception of the one, without the reception 
 of the other. The Bleflings are annex'd to the 
 whole Ordinance ; and therefore we muft not ex-. 
 pect them upon other terms. 
 
 I grant indeed, that we are not bound to retain 
 every circumftance of the firft Inftitution. For 
 were this fuppos'd neceflary, 'twere utterly ^im- 
 poflible for us to celebrate the Holy Communion ; 
 becaufe we cannot have ic adminiftred by a God 
 
 incarnate.
 
 160 Of Hulf-Communiori. Part If. 
 
 incarnate. Befides, 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 rcafon 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 upper 
 Room, or after the Pafchal Supper, or in a lea- 
 ning pofture ; becaufe thefe are only acciden- 
 tal things, which do not neceflarily belong to the 
 Ordinance it felf. But yet we are flrictly ob- 
 ,liged to retain all the eflfcntial parts of this 
 Feaft; which any Perfon of ordinary under- 
 fhnding may eaiily diftinguifli from the circum- 
 ftances of it. 
 
 The Bleffing of Bread and Wine, and the eat- 
 ing and drinking of them in remembrance of 
 Chrift, are the eflential parts : and therefore, when 
 Chrifl faies, Do this, he do's not mean, Go into an 
 upper Chamber, take unleavened bread^ and fuch a 
 particular fort cf wine, and then fitting in a leaning 
 fofture, bltfs, and break, &c. but Do this action, viz* 
 Blefs bread and wine, eat and drink them in remem- 
 brance of Chrifl. Thus St. Paul fpeaks of the 
 action, without taking notice of the circumilances 
 of it, faying, 'the Cup of bleffing which we blefs, is 
 it not the Communion of tie bh-ud of Chrifl ? The 
 head which we break, is it not the Communion of 
 the body of Chrifl? i Cor. 10. i<5. For as often as 
 ye eat this bread and drink this Cup, ye do jbew the 
 Lord's Death titt he come. Wherefore, whofceve;- foatt 
 eat this Bread, and drink this Cup unworthily, &c. 
 Let a man examine himfelf, and fo let him eat of this 
 Bread, and drink of tins Cup. For he that eateth and 
 drinketh, &c. i Cor. u. 26, 27, 28, 29. But this 
 Apoflle fpeaks not one fyliable of the upper Room, 
 or any other accidental circumftances of thisFeaft. 
 
 In
 
 Chap. XL Of HAlf-ommumon. 
 
 In a wordj Bread and Wine are the Matter of 
 this Sacrament ; and do therefore belong to the 
 fubftance of it. And as we are obliged in Bap- 
 tifm to ufe the Element of Water : fo are we 
 obliged in this Sacrament to ufe the Elements of 
 Bread and Wine, and nothing elfe. 
 
 1 confefs, in cafes of abfolute neceflity, God 
 may be juftly fuppos'd to difpenfe with a po- 
 firive Precept. If Wine may not be had, or the 
 Perfon has an antipathy againft it ; we cannot 
 think that God will condemn any Man for not 
 receiving Cbrift's Bloud in the Holy Sacrament. 
 And we hope, that thofe Pious Members of the 
 Church of Rome, to whom the Cup is dtny'd, 
 will not be deprived of the Bleffings that accom- 
 pany the Worthy reception of it ; becaufe thro* 
 the fault of their Spiritual Governors they are 
 not fufter'd to taft of it. But cafes of neceffiry 
 are widely different from wilful breaches of God's 
 Law. Nor can we imagine, that God will par- 
 don thofe who defpife a plain duty ; becaufe he 
 can difplay the riches of his Mercy upon extra- 
 ordinary occasions. Wherefore we ought to re- 
 ceive both kinds, whenever 'tis in our power fo 
 to do ; becaufe otherwife we do not obey the 
 commands of God. 
 
 Thus have I fhewn you thofe reafons, by which 
 we fiand obliged to receive the Lord's Supper in 
 both kinds j and I think they are fuch, as nothing 
 but prejudice or fomething worfe can anfwer. But 
 yet, tho J this truth is fo very plain, our Adver- 
 faries have found many^ things to objed: againft 
 it, which 1 fliall examine in their order. And, 
 
 I. They pretend, that altho'CMy? did deliver 
 
 both Bread and Wine at the firft inftitution of 
 
 the Lord's Supper ; yet he himfelf did afterwards 
 
 L vary
 
 162 Of Hdlf-Cotonwnion. Part II. 
 
 vary from his own inftitution. For after his Re- 
 furre&ion, they fay, when he Adminiftred this 
 Sacrament to foriie Difciples at Emmaus, he de- 
 li ver'd only the Bread, and omitted the Cup. 
 Now to this I anfwer, 
 
 Fir(t y That tho* our Savior did take Bread and 
 blefs arid break it ; 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. Paul, when he 
 was in the great tempeft, Atts 27. 35. and thus 
 did our Lord alfo, when he fed the 5000, Matth. 
 14. 13. Mark 6. 41. and likewife when he fed 
 the 4000, Mark 8. 6. And yet our Adverfaries 
 will not fay, that either our Savior or St. Paul 
 did then Admiriifter the Lord's Supper. Now the 
 reafon of our Savior's bleffing and breaking bread 
 at Emmaus, was to convince his Difciples of the 
 truth of his Refurreclion ; that by his carriage at 
 the Table and his manner of bleffing the Meat, 
 which were well known to them, and by their 
 familiar converfation with him, they might be fa- 
 tisfy'd that he was the very Perfon, whom they 
 well knew to have been lately Crucify'd. And 
 thus it came to pafs, that their eyes were opend, 
 Luke 24. 31. becaufe he was known of them in 
 breaking of heady v. 35. But, 
 
 Secondly^ If Chrift did at that time Celebrate 
 the Lord's Supper, certainly we are to fuppofe 
 that he us'd the Words of Confecration, This is 
 my body : and yet it is not faid, that he us'd 
 them. Nor is it faid, that he confecrated any 
 wine, which our Adverfaries think neceflary at 
 the Lord's Supper, altho' the Layety do not drink 
 of it : and yet it is not faid, that he perform'd 
 the Confecration of it. Why therefore may we 
 
 not
 
 Chap: XI. Of Hd{-Qommumon. 
 
 hot fuppofe, that he deJiver'd the Cup to thofe 
 Difciples at Entmaus, altho* the Hiftory do's not 
 relate it .- as well as we may and muft 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 ; altho'the Gofpels do not mention either of 
 thofe particulars ? 
 
 2. 'Tis objected, that the Primitive ChrifHans 
 omitted the Cup in the Celebration of the Eucha- 
 rift ; becaufe they are faid to break bread, Afls ^. 
 42, 46. and 20. 7. when no mention is made of 
 the Cup. But I anfwer, 
 
 Fwjt, That altho' by breaking of bread we were to 
 understand the Lord's Supper (which neverthelefs 
 may be juftly queftion'd) yet fince there is not a 
 fyllable fpokcn of the Confecration of the Cup,. 
 I muft beg leave to argue as I did before. Ei- 
 ther we muft fuppofe that they did confccrate the 
 Cup, whenfoever they brake the Bread , or we 
 muft not. If we fuppofe they did , then our Ad- 
 verfaries objection 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 
 from the Wine. But if we muft not fuppofe, 
 that they confecrated the Cup; then they did 
 mtf Celebrate the Lord's Supper. Becaufe, ac- 
 cording to the principles of our Adverfaries them- 
 felyes, both kinds rauft be Confecrated for the 
 Prieft that officiates ; or elfe there is no Sacra- 
 ment. 
 
 Secondly, Tho* nothing is mention'd but breaks 
 
 ing of bread ; yet it muft be confider'd, that bread 
 
 i a comprehensive word, and often fignirles all 
 
 L 2 manner
 
 1^4 Of Hdf.Qommunion. _ Part IL 
 
 manner of Nourishment, whether of Meat or 
 Drink. ' Thus when yofeph's Brethren went to eat 
 *rW with him, Gm 43 . 2J . and our Savior did 
 eat bread at the Pharifee's houfe, Luke 14 i we 
 ate not to imagin, that their entertainment con- 
 Mtedof bare bread, but of other eatables alfo. 
 And furely our Adverfaries will believe, that both 
 the Patriarch and the Pharifee allow'd their guefts 
 forae 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 fince 
 this interpretation is perfedly confident with the 
 firft inftitution , and the other is utterly incon- 
 fiftent with it. But, 
 
 Thirdly Tho' we ihou'd grant, that the Primi- 
 tive Chnftians did wholly omit both the Confe- 
 cration and the delivery of the Cup ; yet it will 
 not follow, that we may lawfully do the fame. 
 For we are not to break a plain and pofitive Law 
 of God, becaufe fome others have done the fame 
 before us. 
 
 3. If it be faid, that tho' the Apoftles did re- 
 ceive in both kinds, and were commanded to con- 
 tinue the fame pradice, yet we are not obliged 
 to do the fame ; I anfwer, that if the command 
 given to the Apoftles do's not oblige us then 
 we have no command at all for the obfervation 
 of that great Chriftian duty of receiving the 
 Lord s Supper , and this I am perfuaded our Ad- 
 verfaries will not grant. But if the command 
 given to the Apoftles do's oblige us , then we 
 are bound to receive in both kinds as the A- 
 poftlesdid : becaufe we are as plainly commanded 
 to receive the one, as the other. 
 
 4. 'Tis pretended, that the Apoftles were or- 
 
 dairui
 
 Chap. XL Of Utlf-Communlon. 16$ 
 
 dain'd Priefls by our Savior's faying, Hoc facite, 
 which they wou'd make to fignify, Sacrifice this, 
 but we do truly render, Do this. And then they 
 wou'd perfuade us to believe, that the Apoftles 
 receiv'd the Cup as Priefls ; and confequently, that 
 tho' the Priefls are now obliged to receive the Cup 
 as the Apoftles did ; yet 'tis fufficient if other 
 Perfons receive the bread only. To this I an- 
 fwer, i. That this is a groundlefs Notwn. For 
 tho' the word Facere do's fomctimes fignify to 
 facrifce, yet the word TO/*? ("which is the origi- 
 nal) is never us'd in that Senfc in all the New 
 Xeftament, or any where elfe. 2. Tho' it were 
 granted againft all truth and reafbn, that -niSv 
 do's fignify to facrifice ; yet it cannot be prov'd, 
 that a Prieft was ever ordain'd by that form. Bur, 
 3 . If Men can be fo extravagant in their fancies, 
 let us fuppofe, that the Apoftles were ordain'd 
 Priefts by the form, Hoc facite ; yet this will not 
 ferve the Caufe of our Adverfaries. For, 
 
 Firfty 'Tis poffible, that our Savior might fay, 
 Hocfacite, before he deliver'd the bread; how- 
 ever, it cannot be iraagin'd, but he fpake thofe 
 words before they had eaten it : and confequently 
 the Apoftles were Priefts, when they eat 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 
 perfuaded, our Adverfaries will not maintain this 
 bold and impious aiTertion. 
 
 Secondly, I have (hewn, that our Lord faid, Hoc 
 facite, which we are to render, Do this, after the 
 Pelivery of the Cup ; and therefore, if the A- 
 poftles were made Priefts by that form, Hocfacite, 
 when they receiv'd the bread ; then they were 
 L alfb
 
 
 i66 Of Half-Co.wmunion. >Part II. 
 
 alfo made Priefts by the fame form, after the de- 
 livery of the Cup: and confequently they were 
 twice made Priefts ; which our Adverfaries will be 
 loth to grant. 
 
 Thirdly, In the .Church of Rome, tho* feveral 
 Priefls 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 confcffion, fince all the Apoftles 
 drank of the Cup as Priefts, they do plainly of- 
 fend againft the or.der of the firft Inftitution, in 
 allowing the Cup to no more than one of all the 
 Priefts that are prefent. 
 
 Fourthly, if trie A.poftles received the Clip, as 
 Priefts, and the Layety were to -,'be deny'd the 
 participation of it ; certainly St. Paul wou'd have 
 taken notice of it. Whereas, when he wrote 
 to the Corinthians about the Lord's Supper, he 
 {"peaks not a fyllable of that matter ; but re- 
 fers them to the firft Inftitution, and tells the 
 whole Church, that they are commanded to re- 
 ceive both kinds in remembrance of Chrifi, i Qw. 
 ii. 23, &c. 
 
 5'Tis faid, that this command is only condi- 
 tional. For St. Paul tells us, that our Savior faid, 
 Do this, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me^ 
 i Cor. 11.25. So that whenfoever.we do drink it, 
 we rauft drink it in Kemembrance of Chrift ; 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 perfor- 
 mance. 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 Alms 
 according to our ability, and the condition of no 
 
 blowip
 
 Chap. XL Of Hdf-Communion. j6j 
 
 blowing the Trumpet refpeets only the manner of 
 our behavior in that adion. Thus alfo 'tis faid, 
 Keep thy foot, "when tbou gceft to the Hoitfe of God, 
 Ecclef. y. i. Now this Precept fuppofes it to be 
 our duty to go to the Houfe of God; and 
 Jhews us after what manner, and with what pre- 
 paration we muft go. Again, when our Savior 
 faies, When ye fray, ufe not vain repetitions, 'tis 
 fuppos'd that we are to perform the duty of 
 Prayer, and the condition or caution annex'd 
 dire&s us in the performance of it. And thus in 
 the Cafe before us, we are fuppos'd to drink of 
 the Cup, and injoin'd to do it in remembrance of 
 Chrift. Nay, 'twas needlefs for our Savior to pre- 
 fcribe a rule concerning that thing, which we are 
 not obliged to perform. 
 
 6. Well, but the Apoftle faies, Wfafoever fia& 
 eat this bread, or drink this cup unworthily, &c. 
 i Cor. ii. 27. Now 'tis plain, fay they, from, 
 the particle or, that the Apoftle puts a difference 
 between eating and drinking, and fuppofes that 
 one may be done without the other. To this I 
 reply, 
 
 Fir ft, *jThat the Alexandrian M S. reads and in- 
 flead of or ; and the Syriac, ALthiopic and Arabic 
 Tranflations do the fame j and how then will our 
 Adverfaries be able to fhew, that and is not the 
 right reading ? Now if we read and inftead of or, 
 then the words runs thus, JPhnfoever {ball eat this 
 bread, and drink this cup, &c. and confequently, 
 this *JText do's evidently prove the nece'fllty of 
 chinking the Wjne, as well as of eating the 
 Bread. 
 
 Secondly, "jfis plain from the z$th verfe, that 
 .we are commanded to receive the Cup in remem- 
 brance of Chrift ; and therefore we have great rea- 
 
 L 4 fou
 
 i68 Of Half-Communion. Part II 
 
 fon to read and inftead of or. Becaufe then the 
 Apqftle is perfectly confonanc to himfelf, and fup- 
 gofes that command of Chrifi, which he had al- 
 ready related : whereas if we fuppofe that he us'd 
 the particle or to insinuate to us, that drinking cf 
 the Cup is not neceffary, J ds plain that he con- 
 tradicts the positive injunction of our Lord, which 
 he had before recited. But, 
 
 Thirdly, Suppofe it certain (tho* it cannot be 
 proved) that we ought to read it or, yet this par- 
 ticle do's not necefl'arily disjoin the Bread and the 
 Cup, and confequently prove that we may law- 
 fully abftain from either kind. For the particle 
 or is put for and in feveral places of Scripture. 
 Thus for inftance, the Hebrew Bible reads thus, 
 When a Ruler hath finned, and done Jomewhat thro' 
 ignorance againft any of the Commandments of the 
 Lord his God, concerning things which Jhould not be 
 done, and is guilty ; ( IN, or ) if his fen -wherein he 
 hath finned, come to his knowledge , he {halt bring, 
 &c. Lev. 4. 22, 23. But the Senfe of the Text, 
 and the authority of the Vulgar Latin, and Scp- 
 tuagint Translations, require us to render it, and 
 if his Jin, &c. Thus alfo, Solomon faies, There 
 be three things which go well ; yea, four are comely 
 in going. A Lion which is ftrongeft among Beafls t 
 an^ uirneth not away for any i A Grey-fxund ; 
 ( 1K> r ) an He-goat ; and a King, againfl whom 
 there is no rifeng up, Prov. 30. 25?, 30, 31. But the 
 Vulgar Latin and the Chaldee Tranflate it, and an. 
 He-goat j and the Senfe requires, and therefore 
 Juftifies, that Tranflation. Thus alfo in the New 
 'j'eftament, the Jews ask*d our Savior, By what 
 authority do ft thou thefe things ; or who is he tha 
 gave thee this authority ? Luke 20. 2. But the 
 other Evangelifts, relating the very fame queftion, 
 
 do
 
 Chap. XL Of Half -Communion. 169 
 
 do ufe the very fame words, only putting and for 
 or ; faying, By what authority do' ft thou thefe things ; 
 and who gave thee this authority ? Match- 21. 23. 
 Mark n. 28. Again, when our Savior faies, 
 Think not that I come to deftroy the Law or the Pro- 
 phets, &c. Matth. 5. 17. 'tis plain, that he means 
 the Law and the Prophets ; becaufe they are alwaies 
 join'd together afcer that manner in other places 
 of Scripture, as for example, This is the Law and 
 the Prophets, Matth. 7. 12. For all the Prophets and 
 the Law prophecied until John, Matth, u. 13. On 
 thefe two commandments hang all the Law and the 
 Prophets, Matth. 22.40. All things muft be ful- 
 filled which were written in the Law of Mofes, and 
 in the Prophets, &c. Luke 24. 44. Nowfinceor 
 is fo often put for and, I defire our Adverfaries 
 to hew, that it is not fo to be underftood in this 
 place. But farther yet, I defire it may be con- 
 fider'd, 
 
 Fourthly, that the Apoftle's own expreffions do 
 plainly teach us, that or is put for and in this 
 verfe. Becaufe he conftantly ufes the particle and, 
 when he fpeaks of the bread and wine in the con- 
 text. Thus we find him faying, For as often as 
 ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, i Cor. n. 26. 
 But let a man examine himfelf, and fo let him eat 
 of that bread, and drink of that cup, verfe 28. For 
 he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and 
 drinketh damnation to himfelf, verfe 29. Kay, that 
 very verfe, upon which our Adverfaries argument 
 is founded, teaches the fame ; becaufe tho' it were 
 granted that we are to read or in the former, yet 
 'tis certain that we muft read and in the latter 
 part of it. For the words of the Apoltle run 
 thus,* Whofoe'ver Jbatt eat this bread or drink this 
 cup of the Lord unworthily, Jhall be guilty of the 
 
 tody
 
 Of Hdf-Comtuumo: Part II. 
 
 bhud of the Lord, verfe 27. and there- 
 fore 'tis plain, that he is fuppos'd to receive 
 both, becaufe he is faid to be guilty of profa- 
 ning both. 
 
 Weil then, if we read it and, as we have fuf- 
 ficient .reafon to do ,* 'tis plain, that our Adver- 
 larJes obje&ion is taken away : but if we read it 
 cr, tfre criticifm will not damage our caufe; be- 
 caufe 6r is fo often us'd for and, and the content 
 requires this acceptation of it. But J have ye,t 
 another .consideration to ofter, Wherefore, 
 
 Fifthly, fuppofe .this Text were much more 
 tioubtful than it is, ye.t jt ,is in any wife to be 
 .explained in fych a. manner, as may render it con- 
 diftent wich other places which refe,r to the fame 
 thing, and are confefledly plainer. Now I ha.v,e 
 Ihewn, that thofe plainer places do injoin com- 
 munion in both .kinds ; and therefore pyr A.dver- 
 faries ought not to fhelter themfelves under .a 
 j^fcemingly) difficult .paflage ; and think ; by that 
 .3neans to obtain a liberty to break God's pofitive 
 3Law. Let them fhew in the firft place, that pur 
 arguments for .Commuuion in bath (kinds are npt 
 convincing : and when this is done, 'twill be time 
 enough for us to difpute about .this A;ce,ty of 
 i^irafe. JBur, 
 
 Sixthly and Laflly, Thgt I may ,put an end 
 ,to this tedious and needlefs piece o.f Criticifm, 
 tho' it were .granted againft aU reafqn, ^h^t one 
 ^Species may be omicted ; yet it do's .n.ot follow 
 ,that the, Cup jnuft :be ta.ken away. Becaufe we 
 -ar.e as plainly commandecl,to drink the Wine, as 
 to eat .the JBread : and the particle or may excufe 
 ; ws from the one, as well as .the other. 
 
 .7. ^Tjs .pretended, that the Cup is aot e.ffen- 
 the ^loly ucharifl ; ;becaufe the
 
 Chap. XL Of HAlf-Cwmunion. 171 
 
 ment is intire without it. For the fame Virtue 
 and Grace is given by one Species, which is given 
 by the other : and therefore, fince the Cup gives 
 no new bleffing, the Layety need not drink of it. 
 But our Adverfaries ought to confider (what I 
 have already faid) that we are not to ftart fubtle 
 notions, but to keep clofe to our Savior's inftitu- 
 tion, from whence alone the Sacraments derive 
 their Virtue. If Chrifl inftituted both kinds, we 
 are to receive both .kinds , for othervvife we are 
 not to expeft the benefit of either kind- Chrift 
 indeed do's not feparate 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 receiv'd, or we 
 muft be deprived of the whole bleffing. Since 
 the Cup was as certainly inftituted as the Bread ; 
 'tis plain that the Cup is as eflential as the Bread: 
 and each of them is abfolutely requir'd to make 
 up a Sacrament. Thofe therefore, who do not 
 receive them both, do not receive the Sacrament 
 of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 8. Our Adverfaries wou'd fain perfuade us, that 
 they do truly receive the Cup by receiving the 
 Bread. Becaufe, the do&rine of Tranfubftantia- 
 tion being fuppos'd true, the Bloud of Cbrjft 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 Dodrine of Comoniitancy. But 
 to this I anfwer, Firft, that fuppofing Tranfubftan- 
 tiationto be true, yet 'tis our duty to follow our 
 aviqr's inftitution : and therefore 'tis in vain for 
 us to hope for the bleffings of the Lord's Sup- 
 per, unlefs we receive what he has commanded to 
 bs receiv'd. If Tranfubftantiation be true, without 
 doubt o^r Savior was not ignorant of it : and yet 
 
 he
 
 172 Of Half-Communion. Part II. 
 
 he appointed both kinds notwithstanding ; and 
 confequently we are not to negleft either of them, 
 But, Secondly, I have prov'd at large, that the 
 Dpftrine of Tranfubftamiation is abfolutely falfe ,- 
 and therefore that pretence which is built upon it, 
 is good for nothing. 
 
 9. If it be faid, that the Church has power to 
 to deny one kind, tho* Chrift has appointed two $ 
 lanfwer, i. That if Chrift faid, Do this ; there 
 is none lefs than Chrift, that can fay, Do it not. 
 We are to obey God's command , till God him- 
 felf difannul it. 2. By the fame Reafon the 
 Church may rake away both kinds ; fince (he has 
 as much power to deny both, as to deny either of 
 them. 3. We defire this Church tofhew by vir- 
 tue of what commiflion (he pretends to cancel the 
 Laws of God y and we defire her Members to 
 confider, whether that can be call'd a found and 
 Orthodox Chriftian Church, which requires Men 
 upon pain of damnation to difobey Chrift. 
 
 Thus then I have examined thofe things which 
 are urg'd in favor of Half-Communion, and found 
 them to be of no force. Wherefore Ifliatl fum up 
 what I have faid againft it in the following manner. 
 
 Since Chrift in/tituted the Lord's Supper, and 
 commanded us to continue it ; and fince in his 
 inftitution he delivered both Bread and Wine, and 
 commanded us to receive the fame; 'tis plain, that 
 we are obliged to drink of the Cup, as well as to 
 eat of the Bread : and confequently, we are fo*r 
 bidden by the Word of God to receive in one 
 kind only. And therefore the Church of Rome, 
 which requires Men to approve and pra&ife Half- 
 Communion upon pain of damnation, impofes that, 
 which is forbidden in the Scriptures, as neceflary 
 to Salvation. 
 
 CHAF-.
 
 Chap, XII. Of Prajers in nn, &c. 
 
 CHAP. XII 
 
 Of Prayers in AH unknown Tongue. 
 
 A Third Inftance of fomething, which the 
 Church of Rome impofes asneceflary to Sal- 
 vation, tho' 'tis plainly forbidden by the Holy 
 Scriptures, is their wicked practice of performing 
 public Prayers in an unknown Tongue. 
 
 I need not prove, that the public Prayers of the 
 Church of Rome are repeated in the Latin Tongue ; 
 or that fhe obliges every Man to profefs this which 
 is the i $th Article of her Creed, viz,. 1 ftedfaft- 
 ly admit and embrace Apoflohcal and Ecclejiaftical 
 Traditions y and the reft of the cbfervances and con- 
 ftitutions of the fame Church ; by which every 
 Member of her Communion do's folemnly ap- 
 prove of this manner of performing God's public 
 worihip. Thefe things therefore being taken for 
 granted, I fhall endeavour to fhew, i . That the 
 Scriptures do command us to perform public Prayers 
 in a known Tongue. 2- That the Church of Rome 
 do's tranfgrefs this command. Now when thefe 
 particulars are fairly prov'd, I {hall find no difE- 
 culty in maintaining this branch of my charge a- 
 gainft Popery. 
 
 I. Then, the Scriptures do cblige us to perform 
 public Prayers in a known Tongue. This appears 
 from i Cor. 14. where St. Paul difcourfes againfl 
 Preaching in an unknown Tongue, and then ufes 
 the very fame arguments againft Praying in an un- 
 known Tongue. For if I -pray, faies he, inanuu-* 
 known Tongue, my Spirit,, that is, the gift of the 
 Spirit by which I fpeak in an unknown Tongue,
 
 174 Of Prayers in Part 1ft 
 
 Prayeth, or uttereth the words of a Prayer : but my 
 underftanding orreafonable foul, is unfruitful. What 
 is it then ? / will pray with the Spirit, and 1 will 
 pray with the Underftanding alfo. 1 wiU fing with 
 the Spirit, and 1 will fing "with the Uuderftanding 
 alfo. Rife, when thou Jhalt blefs with the Spirity 
 how /haft he that occupieth the room of the un- 
 learned, or the unlearned Perfon, fay Amen at thy 
 giving of Thanks , feeing he under ft andeth not what 
 thou faiefl ? For thou verily give ft 'Thanks well; but 
 the other is not edify 3 d. 1 thank my God, I fpeak 
 with Tongues more than you all : yet in the Church 
 I had rather fpeak five words with my under- 
 jlanding, that by my voice 2 might teach others alfo> 
 than ten thoufand words in an unknown Tongue ; 
 verf. 14, 15, 16, ij s 1 8, 19- 
 
 This paflage is a full and pofitive determi- 
 nation of the difpute between us and our Ad* 
 veriaries. For St. Paul declares, i. That the un* 
 demanding of him that praies in an unknown 
 Tongue is unfruitful. 2. That an unlearned Per- 
 fon cannot fay Amen, when the Minifter blefles 
 or gives God thanks in an unknown Tongue, 
 $'. That the reafon of it is planly this, viz,. 
 becaufe the unlearned Perfon underftandeth not; 
 what the Miniiter faies, when he blefles or praies 
 in an unknown Tongue. From whence it fol- 
 lows, that the Congregation ought, in St. Paul's 
 judgment, to underftand what is faid by him, 
 that blefTes God or praies in public, and to join 
 vrith him in it ; and that ft)r this' reafon the 
 public worfiiip is to be perform J d in a known 
 Tongue. 
 
 But our Adverfaries have* reply 'd, that the A- 
 poftle fpeaksnot of a public Form of Prayer, but 
 of luch infpir'd Extempore Prayers as were us'd in 
 
 the
 
 Cbap. XII. *n unknown *Tongut. 175. 
 
 the firft beginnings of Chriftianity ; and that tho' 
 fuch infpir'd Extempore Prayers, were to be pour'd 
 forth in a known Tongue, becaufe otherwife a 
 Man cou'd not fafely join in them, fince he knew 
 not whether they were good and lawful, orno; yec 
 out modern ftated Forms which have been ap- 
 prov'd by the Church may be in an unknown 
 Tongue, becaufe a man may fecurely confide iix 
 the Churches judgment. Now to this I anfwer, 
 i. that the reafon is the fame in both; and there- 
 fore both forts of Prayer muft be perform'd in a 
 known Tongue. St. Paul takes it for granted t)ut 
 the unlearned muft fay Amen ; and that he cannot 
 fay Amen, unlefs he underftands what is faid by 
 the Mmifter : and therefore, whether the Prayer 
 be Extempore or a ftated Form, the moft ignorant 
 Perfon in the Congregation mult know the mea- 
 ning and contents of it. 2. St. Paul faies, Far 
 tbou verily giueft thanks welt, but the other is not 
 edtfy'd, verfe 17. fo that in the Apoftle's judgment, 
 tho' the Prayer be good, yet fince 'tis in an un- 
 known Tongue, and therefore do's not tend to Edi- 
 fication, it muft not be us'd. 
 
 If it be alfo faid, that the ApofUe forbids thcr 
 ufe of Hymns in an unknown Tongue, but that 
 his words do not relate to all Prayers in general j 
 I anfwer, i. That he ufes the word Pray t which 
 is a general term for all forts of Prayer. 2. That 
 the reafon, as I have already faid, is the fame in 
 all forts of Prayer, whether Hymns, Interceffions, 
 or others ; and therefore the Apoftle's injuncti- 
 on comprehends them all. For where the reafon 
 of a command holds good j the command is obli- 
 gatory. 
 
 Let all things be done to edifying, faies the A- 
 poflle, verfe ^6. by which words the Pricft is re- 
 
 quir'd
 
 176 Of Prayers in Part II. 
 
 quirM'foto perform his Office, that the Congre- 
 gation may reap the benefit of it. Whereas he 
 ftiews this co be impoffible either in Preaching or 
 Praying, unlefs thofe Offices be performed in a 
 known Tongue. And for his own parr, that he 
 might fhew how little he efteem'd that which did 
 not edify the Church, he faies exprefly verfe iS- t 
 19. / thank my God, 1 fpeak "with tongues more 
 than you all : yet in the Church I had rather ffeak 
 five "word* with my under/landing, that by my voice 
 I might teach others alfo, than ten thoufand -words in 
 an unknown tongue. But certainly the Apoftle 
 wou'd never have fpoken after this manner, if 
 Prayers in an unknown Tongue cou'd edify the 
 Church. Wherefore, faies he, verfe 12. Foraf- 
 much as ye are Zealous of fpiritual gijts, feck that 
 ye may excel to the edifying of the Church. -And 
 flnce he had already faid that the Church cannot 
 be edify 'd by an unknown Tongue, verfe 2, &c. 
 'tis plain that he commands the ufe of a known 
 Tongue in all public Service. 
 Again, he commands, that all things be done de- 
 cently, verfe 40. Now I appeal to any considering 
 Perfon, whether the faying of Prayers in an un- 
 known Tongue be confluent with decency. For 
 if I know not the meaning of the Voice ^ I foall be 
 unto him that fpeaketh, a Barbarian : and he that 
 ffeahth, frail be a Barbadian unto me, verfe n. 
 What wou'd an Infidel think of fuch a number 
 of People, met together for no other end, than to 
 hear, or perhaps only to fee a Prieft mutter a great 
 many words, which they do not under/land one 
 fy liable cf ? May we not argue againft fuch a 
 practice in. the expreffions of St. Paul? If there' 
 fore the whole Cimrch be come together into one flace y 
 and all ffeak with tongues ; and there come in thofe 
 
 that
 
 I - " - 
 
 Chap. XIL an unknown Tongue] 177 
 
 that are unlearned or unbelievers ; wiU they not fay 
 that ye are mad? verfe 23. Certainly, there can- 
 not be a more ridiculous piece of devotion, than 
 that of fuch a Congregation, as pretends to be 
 very bufy in the worfhip of God, 2nd yet do's 
 not know what they are faying to him. 
 
 Befide^ fuch a practice is contradictory to the 
 natural eiid of fpeakir.g. For why fhou'd any 
 Prieft fpeak at all in the Congregation, if he fpeaks 
 Tuch things as the Congregation cannot under- 
 hand ? For, as the Apoftle argues, from the jth tp 
 the ^th verfe, Even things without life giving found, 
 whether Pipe or Harp, except they give a diflinElion 
 in the founds, how jhatt it be known what is Pip*d 
 Or tietffd ? For if the Trttmpet give an uncertain 
 found, "who foall prepare himfelf to the Eattel ? So 
 iikewife you, except ye utter by the tongue things 
 eafy to be underflood, how. Jhatt it be known what is. 
 fpoken ? For ye Jkalt fpeak into the air. There are 9 
 it may be, fo many kinds of Voices in the World* 
 nnd none of them is without fignification. Therefore 
 if I know not the meaning of the Voice, I fhaU be. 
 unto him that fpeakzth a Barbarian ; and he that 
 fpeaketh foall be a Barbarian unto me. The defign of 
 ufing Vocal Prayer in the Congregation is not to 
 make God Almighty hear, but that our own af- 
 fections 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 upf 
 a joint petition with united affeftions, when they 
 undefftand 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 Worfhip of God, yet the very 
 Mature of Prayer do's plainly require and fuppofeir,' 
 M
 
 178 Of Prjyers i Part II. 
 
 Prayer is a reafotsable Service ; and therefore it is 
 not a Lip-labor only, but an a&ion of the Soul. It 
 confifb indeed of feveral parts, 'viz,. Confeffion, 
 Petition, Interceffion and Thankfgiving : but in 
 each of thefe our mind is concern'd. We do there- 
 by unbofome our felves, and make our Heavenly 
 Father acquainted with the moft retir'd thoughts 
 of our hearts. We open our guilt, and confefs 
 our {hame ; we beg fupply of our own and other 
 Mens wants, and return our humble acknowledg- 
 ments of God's undeferved mercies. And 'tis in 
 the exercife of thefe our inward affections, 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 
 eflence of Prayer do's confifl. 
 
 But ROW, how can any Man perform thefe 
 things in an unknown Tongue ? How can he con- 
 fefs his fins with true contrition, or earneflly beg 
 God's affifling grace with true devotion ; who 
 is fo little acquainted with the Senfe of the 
 words he utters, that for ought he knows, he is 
 repeating fomething to a quite different purpofe ? 
 How can he pray in Faith, that is, with a full 
 perfuafion of God's readinefs to grant that very 
 Petition ; when he knows not what that petition 
 is, which he is perfuaded God will grant him ? 
 Nay, perhaps he cannot tell, whether the Prayer 
 he offers up, be a petition or thankfgiving, or fome- 
 thing elfe ? 'Tis impoflible in fuch a cafe to have 
 proper affections 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- 
 known Tongue : for neither of them is confcious 
 of what is defir'd ; and each of them understands 
 the words alike. We
 
 Chap. XII. an wiknown Tongue. 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 aflfedions : 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 
 find fenfelefs. We inuft then defire of God, we 
 know not what : and pray we know not how. 
 Surely that mnft be a pretty kind of Congrega- 
 tional wor&ip, which the Congregation need net 
 attend to. Why are Leflbns read, but that the 
 People may be inftruded ; and how can thofe be 
 intruded, who do not either mind or underftand 
 what is (poken ? Why do Chriftians meet at 
 Church, but that they may be devout in God's 
 Service; and how can thofe be devout, that un- 
 derftand never a fy liable 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 practice. For it deprives the Congregation of 
 all the benefit of public devotion ,- it is exprefly 
 againft the Apoftle's rule, who requires the Peo- 
 pie to fay Amen, when the Prieft gives thanks 3 
 and befidcs, it muft introduce the gretteft confu- 
 fion. One may be praying for the pardon of 
 (ins, and another for t good harveft, and a third 
 againft thunder and lightning, and a thoufand o- 
 thersforfo many other bieffings, at the fame time. 
 And is this our Chriftian devotion ? Is this the 
 M 2 worlhif*
 
 180 Of Prayers in Part II. 
 
 worfiirp of obr God ? Has our Savior taught us 
 thus to pray ? Certainly, a Chriftian Congregation 
 ought to be a Choke of holy Souls, united in 
 their hearts and tongues, breathing the fame Pe- 
 titions, and Singing the fame praifes to the fame 
 common God. 
 
 But will our Adverfaries infill upon this re- 
 ply > Is it then true ; may every Man be fingle 
 rn his devotions at the time of public Worfhip ? 
 If foj why then do they fay Oremus, that is, 
 Let us fray. To whom do they fpeak, and upon 
 whom do they call to join with them ? Certainly 
 they exhort the People , and why then will they 
 not fufter 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 Subject ; or multiply Arguments in fo 
 plain a cafe. I ihall rather proceed to the Pleas 
 of > our Adverfaries j and confider thofe reafons, 
 by which they endeavour to juftify their moli 
 unreafonable Practice. 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, Lev. id. 17. And accordingly, fay 
 they, aH the People were praying without, whilft 
 Zacharias was offering incenfe, Lukei.io. Now 
 fince the Jewijb 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 I anfwer, Firfl y That it do's not in the leaft 
 appear* that the Prieft did then offer up any Prayer 
 
 at
 
 Chap. XII; w ftnknorw Tongue. 181 
 
 at all ; much lefs that he did it in an unknown 
 Tongue. Secondly, that whac the Prieft then did 
 was peculiar to the Prieft ; 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 wasabfent from them; as 
 appears from Luke i- 10. 
 
 Now if thefe things be duly confider'd, cer- 
 tainly pur 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 Jewifo Church. 
 And I may challenge our Adverfaries to (hew, 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 Chrifiians, in oppofition to the com- 
 mon Senfe and Pradice of all Mankind, in fpite 
 of the very nature of Prayer, and St. Paul's ex- 
 prefs order, to ofter up all their public devotions 
 in an unknown Tongue ; becaufe the High-Prieft 
 under the Law was obliged to perform one finale 
 ceremony ^ in which ('tis probable) there was no 
 praying, in a private part of the Temple, where 
 the People cou'd neither hear nor fee him ? 
 ^ Certainly our Adverfaries will not fay, that the 
 Chriftian Congregation is no more obliged to join 
 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 thofe 
 Prayers, which 'tis our duty to join in ,- becaufe 
 the Jews were not obliged to hear and fee what 
 the Prieft then did, when 'twas not their duty to 
 join with him ? 
 
 M ? 2. They
 
 ,82 Of Prayers in Part II. 
 
 ^. They fay, that our Savior CMR allowed the 
 Children* crying Hofanna to he praifmg God, al- 
 d^thev did not underftand the meanmgof that 
 Hetrew word. But how will our Adverfanes 
 prove, that the Children did not know what 
 Vfanna fienify'd ? It do's not appear, ( as I (hall 
 move hereafter) but that the Jews were even at 
 t at time well acquainted witlv the Hebrew Lw 
 luaVe However, fuppofe they neither did, not 
 cou'd fpeak it ; 'tis plain, that Hofnnna was an 
 ufual form of Acclamation among the '.Jews : anj 
 therefore I cannot imagin, why the Jewfl Mil 
 dren might not underftand that Word j as well as 
 our Children, who are infinitely greater flrangers 
 ^o the Holy Tongue, do underftand the Word 
 Amen : fince the one has as much &hf* m it, 
 
 23 f Vheiell us, that the 3M5 Chnrch, pet- 
 form'd their public Devotions in the /fcfcwLan- 
 aa^e even when they did not underftand it ; . 
 lorn the time of theW^ dptivity to that 
 of m.r bleffed Lord. Bur this pretended example 
 I ^ built upon fuch principles, as our Adverfanes 
 will find it very difficult to prove, tor, 
 
 pfft I fuppofes, that the ftfew, Tongue was 
 uttf y'loft ffthe W^Captiv,.y: whctew
 
 Chap. XII. *n unknown Toxgat, jgj 
 
 concluded from this Chapter, that the People did 
 not underftand the Hebrew Language, in which 
 the Law was written. For by thefe phrafes, aB 
 that cou'd hear with ttnderftanding , and thofe that 
 coud undei-ftand, are meant, not fuch 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, were able neverthelefs to 
 hear and underftand their duty. Thefe Perfons 
 therefore, both Old and Young, were gather'd to- 
 gether to learn the Law ; and the Levites caus'd 
 the People, by reading diligently and diftindly to 
 them, to underftand the Law j for they gave theSenfe, 
 where 'twas difficult or doubtful ; and caus'd them 
 to underftand the reading^ or what was read to them, 
 by a careful and exact expofition of it. 
 
 This being a natural and eafy Comment up- 
 on that Text, which is the only paffage that 
 feems to favor the opinion of our Aclverfaries, 
 it plainly follows, that the Scriptures will not 
 prove, that the Hebrew Language was utterly loft 
 in the Ba&ylottift 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 deflroy'd the purity of 
 the Holy Tongue, wherein the Law was written : 
 but it cannot be made appear, that the Language 
 was fo much altered in the (hort fpacc of 70 
 Years, as to become unintelligible to thofe who 
 had formerly fpoken it as their Mother Tongue. 
 But if it were granted (tho 1 I believe 'twill ne- 
 ver be prov'd) that the knowledge of the Hebrew 
 Tongue were alraoft, or even utterly loft,- yet, 
 
 Secondly, This pretended example of the Je-wifi 
 
 Church fuppofes alfo, that the Priefts did not 
 
 tranflate their Temple-Service for the benefit of 
 
 M 4 the
 
 Of Prayers in Part II. 
 
 the Congregation- Whereas there is not the leaft 
 fiiadow of reafon for this Afifertion ; Nay, we have 
 very good grounds to believe the contrary. For 
 tho* they were very unwilling to communicate 
 tljeir Sacred Writings to other Nations ; yet we 
 have no caufe to fufped, 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, fince 
 the performance of public Prayers in an unknown 
 Tongue is fo very abfurd and impious a practice, as 
 I have 'already fhewri ; and fince God himfeif had 
 delivered them their Prayers in a known Tongue, 
 as appears by the Pfalms, &c. which were the 
 folemn parts of the Jewifi devotion ; therefore 
 they cou'd not but think it to be God's Will, 
 that their Prayers fliou'd be tranflated, if ever the 
 People fliou'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 fince we have not the 
 leaft reafon to fufpect the contrary. 
 
 Thirdly, This pretended example fuppofes alfo, 
 that if the jfeivijb Nation did not underfland the 
 Hebrew Language, and if their Public Service 
 Were not tranflated ; yet they were not guilty 
 of fin 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 cuftpm ; nor do we efteem fuch 
 a practice lefs culpable in the Jews, than in our: 
 Adverfaries of the Church of Rome. And there- 
 fore they muft not hope to juftify their crime, by 
 Shewing that the Jews have committed the fame 
 in former daies. 
 
 If it be faid, that our Savior did not blame 
 
 the
 
 Chap. XII. tin unknown Tongue. 18$ 
 
 the Jews for that pra&ice, and that he therefore 
 thought it innocent ; lanfwer, i. That if it were 
 certain, that the Jews did ufe it, 'tis poffible our 
 Savior might have blam'd them for it ; altho* that 
 paflage be not Recorded in Scripture. For the 
 Scripture do's not Record every paflage'of our 
 Savior's Life , but fuch things only, as the WiC- 
 dom of God thought it convenient to tranfmic to 
 Pofterity. And we defire our Adverfaries to fiiew, 
 if they can, that the Jews had no faults, but what 
 ftand corrected by our Savior in the Hiftory of 
 theGofpel. 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 dictates 
 of common Senfej that it was allowable in the 
 Jews to pray in an unknown Tongue , yet it is 
 not allowable in us, who are fo plainly commanded 
 by St. Paul to pray otherwife. 
 
 Well then ; fince it do's not appear that the 
 Jews did ever pray in an unknown Tongue ; or. 
 that it was an innocent aclion, if they did it ,- 
 certainly our Adverfaries cannot juftify themfelves 
 fey the pretended example of the Jews. And 
 therefore, fince our Adverfaries have not the leaft 
 command or example, which can warrant the ufe 
 9f Prayers in an unknown Tongue ; and fince the 
 words of St. Paul 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 Prayers in a known 
 tongue. 
 
 - II. I am now to fiiew, that the Church of Rome 
 
 do's
 
 1 86 Of the Worfhip of Part II. 
 
 dos tranfgreft this command. But it is fo ve- 
 ry notorious, that the Church of Rome do's ufe 
 the Latin Tongue in her publick Service, which 
 tho* fome few may poffibly underftand, yet the 
 far greater part of the Congregation knows no- 
 thing of ; this, I fay, is fo very notorious, that I 
 (hall not waft any more words upon it. 
 
 To conclude therefore, tfnce the Scriptures do 
 command us to perform public Prayers in a known 
 Tongue ; 'tis plain, that the JPof/Jb Practice of per- 
 forming public Prayers in an unknown Tongue is 
 forbidden in the Scriptures. And fince the Church 
 of Rome requires all Men, upon pain of dam- 
 nation, to approve and ufe this forbidden practice ; 
 'tis too too certain, that the Church of Rome do x s 
 in this, as well as other inftances, impofe fome- 
 thing as neceflfary to Salvation, which is forbid- 
 den by the word of God. 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 
 
 Of the Worfbip of Angels and Saints. 
 
 THE laft inftance which I fhall produce, of 
 fomething impos'd by the Church of Rome 
 as neceflary to Salvation, tho* 'tis forbidden by 
 the Word of God, is their Doctrine concerning 
 the Wwjktf of Angels and Saints. 
 
 In the 20th Article of the Popijb Creed we 
 have thefe words, And I do likewife firmly leli*<ve y 
 that the Saints Reigning together with Chrift are to 
 fa honour d and frajd to. From whence it is ap~ 
 parent, that Saints (or holy Men departed this 
 
 life)
 
 Chap. XIII. Angels and Saints, 187 
 
 life) are to be honoured and pray'd to upon pain 
 of damnation. 
 
 But the Council of 'Trent has not fo expreQy 
 declared it felf concerning the worship of Angels. 
 'Tis true, the Roman Catechifm, publifli'd by the 
 Order of the Council of Trent, fpeaks of Saints, 
 as a common name both for Angels and the Souls 
 of holy Men. For when it Treats profetfedly 
 (a) Of the -wor/htp and honour of Saints, the very 
 firft words are thefe ; (b) Moreover this alfo is to 
 be exattly taught in the Expcfiticn of this (Firft) 
 Commandment^ viz. T'hat the honor and invocation 
 of the holy Angela and bleffed Scuts, -which enjoy 
 the Glory of Heaven, &c. and this pafiage ought 
 in all reafon to explain the words of the Creed \ 
 fo that both Angels and departed Souls may 
 be comprehended in the dime general term ofc" 
 Saints. 
 
 However it cannot be deny'd, that in theft 
 public Services the fame Honours and Prayers arq 
 ofter'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 neceflfary to 
 Salvation, by the 13 th Article of their Cresd, 
 which runs thus, I ftedfafly admit and embrace 
 
 (*) De culm & veneratione Sanftorum. 
 
 (b) Verum illud etiam in hujus prsecepti explication ac- 
 curate docendum eft, Venerationem & invocationem Sane- 
 torumAngelorum acbeatarum animarum, quaeCzlelhWo- 
 ria perfruuntur, &c. Catecbifoi. ex decreto Condi. Tnd(*t. 
 ad parochos, j/Pij V. f. 389- Lugduni 1569- Cum pn- 
 vUe S ioPii.V.Pontif.Maxuni.
 
 i88 Of the Worjbip of Part II. 
 
 Apoftolical and Ecclejiaftical Traditions, and the reft 
 of the Obfervances and Conftitutions of the fame 
 Church. And thus it is plain, that the Church 
 of Rome impofes the worlhip of Angels and Saints, 
 asneceflary to Salvation. 
 
 Now this worfhip 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 a great 
 and juft efleem of them, as they are excellent, 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 (peak of 
 them as fuch- But then we do noV pay them any 
 External honor, by offering incenfe, or bowing 
 our bodies or the like ; becaufe we think it nee4- 
 lefs. 
 
 I confefs, if upon any great occafion Angels 
 or Saints hou'd converfe with Men upon earth, 
 I think it highly reafonable to exprefs a very 
 great refpect for them by fome outward lign : 
 but fo long as we are utterly ignorant or un- 
 certain of their being preient 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 necefTary if it be not 
 fmful. 
 
 Our Ad verfariesthemfelves cannot pretend, that, 
 we are any where commanded to pay External 
 honor to abfent Angels. They tell us indeed, that 
 Abraham^ Lot s Salaam, and Jojhua, bowed to 
 4ngels when prefent with them, Gen. 18. 2. and 
 . -Nmt'22* 31. Jofi. y. 14. bucthisdo's 
 
 not
 
 Chap; XIII: Angels and, Saints. 
 
 not prove, that we are obliged to do the fame, 
 
 when they are not prefent with us. 
 
 Befides, 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 Angel, when ccr^ 
 tunlyprefeut : yet thefe inftances will hardly prove 
 it to be our duty fo to do , much lefs will they 
 prove, what our Adverfaries produce them for, w*,. 
 that we ought to pay External Refpect even to 
 abfent Angels. For, 
 
 i. As for the inftance of Abraham, it feems he 
 took thofe Angels for Men, and accordingly paid 
 them a civil refped. Befides, it appears, that the 
 Second Perfon of the Holy Trinity was then pre- 
 fent. For one of thofe Angels is call'd Jehovah, 
 which is the incommunicable Name of God- And 
 tis plain from the fequel of the Hiftory, that 
 Abraham did afterwards underftand as much. So 
 that this example of Abraham will not warrant 
 the paying any External honor to a created Angel, 
 whether prefent or abfent : becaufe, whiift he was 
 miftaken, he thought them Men; and when 
 his error was removed, he knew that one of 
 them was his God. And therefore it do's not 
 appear, that he did at any time bow to that which 
 he thought a created Angel. 
 
 2. The fame may be faid of Lot, who was 
 miftaken at the firft, and was afterwards better in- 
 form'd, as was his Uncle Abraham. That he was 
 miftaken at the Firft, I think I need not prove ; 
 and that his miftake was reftify'd at the laft is 
 very probable. For, 
 
 Ftrft, If he had thought to the very laft, that 
 they were mere Angels, fent upon fome great 
 'cis probable, he would noc have pre- 
 
 fum'd
 
 190 Of the Worfhip of Part II. 
 
 Cim'cl to intreac them to break that command, 
 which God had entrufted them to txectue. For 
 it is not in the power of a Meflenger to ad as 
 he pleafes j but to perform what is injoin'd by the 
 Perfon that imploy'd him. Whereas Lot defires 
 that his Prayer may be heard for Zoar ; and con- 
 fequently he thought it in the power of fome one 
 prefent to receive and grant it. And accordingly 
 he alters his manner of expreffion ; for whereas 
 in the id verfe, he fpake to them as to perfons of 
 equal power, and us'd the plural number ; he af- 
 terwards faw reafon to fpeak to them in the fin- 
 gular number, verfe 18. And it is obfervable 
 alfo, that when Lot fneaks in the fingular number, 
 he is anfwer'd by one Perfon only in the fame 
 number : Whereas whilfl he had other Notions, 
 and call'd them Lords ; they anfwer'd in the plu- 
 ral number, faying, lue ^vill deflroy, &c. verfe 13. 
 
 Secondly, The Perfon that fpeaks to Lot, faies, / 
 cannot do any thing, till thou come thither, verfe 2 2. 
 from whence it follows, that the Perfon who fpake 
 to Let, did deflroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Now 
 it appears from the 24^ verfe, that the Per- 
 fon who deflroy 'd Sodom, was God himfelf ; for 
 'tis faid in the very next verfe but one, T^hen the 
 Lord raind upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brim- 
 flone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And 
 therefore the Perfon that fpake to Lot, was our 
 Holy Redeemer, the Lord of Hofts 
 
 It it be objected, that the Angels fpeak of the 
 Lord, as of another Perfon, faying, The Cry of them 
 is waxen great before the Lord, verfe 13. and there- 
 fore God himfelf was not among them, but they 
 were only created Angels -, I anfwer, that 'tis ufual 
 in Scripture for God to fpeak of himfelf after this 
 manner. Thus for inftance, when God moft cer- 
 tainly
 
 Chap. XIII. Angtk and Saints. 101 
 
 tainly fpeaks in his own Perfon, he has thefe and 
 the like exprelfions, That it may be a memorial un- 
 to the Children o/Ifrael before the Lord, Exod. 30. 16. 
 That ye may teach the Children of Ifrael aB the fla- 
 tutes, which the Lord hath fpoken unto them, Levit. 
 10. ii. 
 
 If it be alfo objeded, that the Angels fpeak of 
 their being fent by God, faying, The Lord hath 
 few us to deftroy it, verfe 13. I anfwer, that the 
 fending of the Son upon this occafion, is as truly 
 confident with his being the fame with the Fa- 
 ther that fent him ; as the fending of the fame 
 Son to take our Flefli upon him, or the fending 
 the Holy Ghoft to dwell with the Church for- 
 ever, is confident with a Trinity in Unity. Where- 
 fore fince Lot did at fir/I think the Angels to be 
 Men, and afterwards found that one of them was 
 his God ; it cannot be prov'd from this action of 
 Lot, that he did ever pay External honor to that 
 which he thought a created Angel. 
 
 Ifitbefaid, that the Scriptures intimate, that 
 the Son of God himfelf did not go to Sodom ; 
 becaufe we read, Gen. 18. 22. that the Men which 
 communed with Abraham, turned their faces from 
 thence, and -went towards Sodom ; but Abraham 
 flood yet before the Lord. From whence it feems 
 to follow, that tho' the Son of God did really 
 appear to Abraham, with two other Angels, yet 
 thofe two Angels did go towards Sodom, Gen. 19.1. 
 and leave the Son of God talking with Abraham ,and 
 confequently none but created Angels appear'd to 
 Lot. If, I fay, this be objeded, I anfwer, that 
 the particle but do's not intimate, that the two 
 created Angels did then leave the Son of God 
 talking with Abraham, and proceed in their jour- 
 ney towards Sodom, For the Hebrew reads it ) 
 
 which
 
 t^2 Of the Worjhty of Part It. 
 
 which fignifies and, as well as but ; and therefore 
 the words are thus to be underfleod ; "The three 
 Men turnd their faces towards Sodom, and even 
 whilft they were upon their journey towards it, 
 Abraham flood yet before the Lord, that is, he con- 
 tinu'd with him to make {application for Sodom. 
 *Tis true one of the three Angels did not go to 
 Sodom : but fince the Teit do's not fay, or in- 
 timate, that the thtee Angels parted at that time ; 
 and that he in particular, who was the Son of 
 God, was left with Abraham , therefore the 
 Son of God might be one of thofe two, that 
 went to Sodom. And fince he might ; I think 
 I have made it pfbbable that he was, one of the 
 two. 
 
 3 . As for the inflance of Salaam, it is to be ob- 
 ferv'd 3 FHrft, that he was a very wicked Prophet; and 
 therefore his bare example is not a fufficient war- 
 rant, much lefs is it a command, for our imitation 
 of him. Secondly, That the Angel, to whom he 
 bow'd, was the Son of God himfelf. For, i . The 
 Angel faid, Thy -way is perverfe before nie, verfe 32. 
 that is, before the Lord. 2. The Angel faies, 
 I'he word that 1 {halt f peak unto thee, that thou fiah 
 fjpeak, verfe 35. Whereas it is plain that God him- 
 felf fpake unto him, vcrf. 38. and chap. 23.^/3, 
 5, 12, id, 17, ip, 26. 
 
 4. As for the inflance of Jojhua, tifi true, the 
 Man before whom he fell on his face, and did wor- 
 Jhip, was none other than the Captain of the Hofl of 
 the Lord, Jofh. 5. 14. But the next verfe favc 
 one informs us who that Captain is ; for 'tis 
 faid, that the Lord (that Lord who then ap- 
 pear'd to Jofhua , and talked with him) faid 
 UMQ Jofhua, See, I have given into thine hand, &c. 
 And therefore that Captain coii'd be none other 
 
 than
 
 Chap. Xllf. Angels and 5 ^i/itsl 
 
 than the Meffiah ; flnce 'twas none other than God 
 
 himfelf, who fubdu'd Jericho, &c 
 
 If it be objected, that God created all the An- 
 gels, and that the Name of a creature ought not 
 to be given to God the Creator of it ; I anfwer, 
 that we are to account all thofe expreffions very 
 proper, which are warranted by Scripture. Now 
 'tis plain, that the Scriptures do call God by the 
 Name of Angel, not only in thefe controverted in- 
 ftances, but in other places. Thus 'tis faid that 
 the Angel of the Lord appear* d ; Exod. 3. 2. and yet 
 this Angel is exprelly call'd God and the Lord* 
 verfe 4. and faies of himfelf, / am the God of thy Fa~ 
 then, the Gcd of Abraham, &c. vcrfe 6. And when 
 the Hebrew reads thus, neither fay thou before the An- 
 gel, &c. Ecclef. 5. 6. the Septuagint, the Syriac, and 
 the Arabic, read it thus, neither fay thou before God* 
 Again the Prophet Hofea tells us, that the Angel 
 with whom Jacob wreftled, Gen. 3 2. is that very 
 God who appear'd to him at Bethel. For his 
 words are thefe, Tea, he (Jacob) had power over the 
 Angel and prevail' d ; he inept and made fupplication 
 unto him (that is, unto the Angel, over whom he 
 had power and prevail'd) he found him (that is, 
 the fame Angel) in Bethel, and there hefpake with 
 5, Chap. 12. 4. Now 'tis plain, that Hofea calls 
 it an Angel, which appear'd in Bethel ; and yet 
 we are exprefly told, Gen. 28. 13* that it was 
 the Lord God of Abraham and Ifaak, that appear'd 
 to him there. 
 
 If any Man ask the reafon, why I interpret the 
 word Angel, when fpoken of God, of the Second 
 Perfon in the Holy Trinity, rather than of the 
 Firft or Third ; I anfwer, Firfl, becaufe our blefled 
 Lord is exprefly call'd an Angel in diverfe places 
 
 N of
 
 194 Pf tj}e Wovfhty of Part II, 
 
 of Scripture. Thus for inftance, he is Styl'd the 
 Angel of bis Prefeme, If. 63. p. and we are aflur'd, 
 Matth. II. 10. Mark I. 2. Luke. 7. 27. that Chnft 
 is he whom Malachi calls the Mejfenger (or as the 
 word ought to be rendered, the Angel) of the Cove- 
 nant, Mai. 3.1. Secondly, becaufe no man hath feen 
 the Father, fave he which it of Gcd, he hath feen the 
 father^ John 6. 47. And therefore, fince God the 
 Father never appear'd. and it cannot be prov'd that 
 God the Holy Ghoft did ever appear -, I think that 
 when any Perfon-of the Trinity is faid to have 
 appear'd, we ought to underitand it of God the 
 Son, who moil certainly has appear'd. 
 
 From what has been hitherto faid it appears 
 probable, that we have no fufficient proof, that 
 Abraham, Lot, Balaam or Jo/oua, did ever pay 
 any External honor to what they thought a Cre- 
 ated Angel. But yet, if the Cafe were quite other- 
 wife, it cannot be concluded, that we ought to 
 pay External honors to abfent Angels ; becaufe 
 thofe Perfons fhew'd fome outward refped: to fuch 
 as vtere prefetit with them. 
 
 Let us now examine thofe reafons, for which it 
 may be pretended, that we ought to pay External 
 honors to the departed Soulsof holy Men. I have 
 already faid, that I think it highly reafonable to 
 reverence a departed Saint ; if any fuch being 
 fhou'd certainly appear and converfe with us. But 
 it will not follow from hence, that we ought to 
 bow our bodies, or (hew any other marks of out- 
 ward refpefi: to thofe which are abfent from us. 
 And therefore, when our Adverfaries alledge the 
 Practice of Saul, who ftaufd with his face to the 
 ground, and baw'd himfelf, when the Ghoft of 
 Samuel appear'd to him, i Sam. 28. 14. I think 
 it nothing to the purpofe. Befides, it is to be 
 
 confider'd
 
 Ghap. XIII. Angels and Saints. 195 
 
 confider'd, that Saul did at that very time apply 
 himfelf to the Devil ; and therefore the example 
 of fuch a wicked Prince ought not, efpecially 
 upon that occafion, to prevail with us to do like 
 him. 
 
 'Tis true Obadiab was a good and holy Perfon, 
 whofe actions ought to be a pattern to us. When 
 he met Elijah, he fell on bis Face, i Kings 18. 7. 
 and a greater Man than Obadiah ought to pay the 
 fame refpect to fo great and good a Prophet. But 
 how 'tis poflible to prove by this example, that 
 we ought to fail on our faces^ or give External 
 honors to the departed Saints, that are it as great 
 a diitance from us, as from Earth to Heaven, for 
 my part I cannot imagin. 
 
 Thus then we have feen the reafons of this Pra- 
 ctice ; and I think an indifferent judge wou'd hard- 
 ly think them worth Confuting. However, fince 
 our Adverfaries build fo much upon them, I havC 
 been careful in the examination of them. 
 
 Bat 'tis not this External honor, which we do 
 fo much quarrel with. Perhaps 'tis hard to charge 
 this Practice with the guilt of Idolatry ; and there- 
 fore, if Men can be flmple enough to ufe it, let 
 them pleafe themfelves with their own imprudence; 
 provided they do not oblige others to it upon pain 
 of damnation. 'Tis the fecond part of that wor- 
 ihip, which our Adverfaries pay to Angels and 
 Saints, ImcznfrajiBgtotfam, which we Proteflants 
 do utterly abhor. 
 
 Were I not unwilling to engage in that contro- 
 verfy, which the frivolous objections and ground- 
 lefs diftinciions of fome Writers have made in- 
 finitely tedious ; I could fhew that Praying ei- 
 ther to Angels or Saints is grofs Idolatry. But I 
 need not carry this argument as far as 'twill bear* 
 N a Thtf
 
 196 Of theWorfbipof Part If. 
 
 The fin of Idolatry has been too clearly prov'd 
 upon our Adverfaries in the Adoration of the Hoft, 
 which is their avow'd Practice : and were I not 
 a great lover of Truth, I cou'd gladly believe that 
 they are not otherwife to be charg'd with it. But 
 the Matter, I fear, is too plain and evident. Their 
 Liturgies are fiufFd with horrible expreffions j and 
 'tis well for the people that they do not underftand 
 them, and cannot join with the Priefts. For tho* 
 Idolatry is a crying fin ; yet we cannot deny that 
 their public Offices are full of it. However, I 
 fbali lay my accufation as low as 'tis poffible -, and 
 content my felf with a plain proof, Fir ft, that the 
 Scriptures do not encourage us to pray to Angels 
 or Saints. Secondly, That they do command us to 
 pray to God only. 
 
 FIRST I fay, the Scriptures do not encourage 
 us to pray to Angels or Saints. Our Adverfaries 
 cannot produce one fingle Text, in which this 
 Practice is injoin'd. They can only all edge fome 
 few examples, by which they think to juftify 
 and recommend it. But even thefe inftances are 
 generally fo trivial, that they do fcarce deferve an 
 anfwer. 
 
 1 . We are told, that Lot pray'd to Angels to 
 fpare Zoar, Gen. 19. but I have already made it 
 probable, that the Son of God was one of thofe 
 Angels i and 'tis plain that Lot pray'd to him alone, 
 *verfe 18, &c. However, if the Son of God were 
 not prefent, 'tis unreafonable for us to think, that 
 we may make a requeft to an abfent Angel (which 
 is all that we mean by fraying to him) becaufe Lot 
 forfooth made a requeft to an Angel, when moft 
 certainly prefent with him. 
 
 2. We read, that Eliphaz, had been telling Job 
 of a certain apparition, which had /pokcn thus to 
 
 him.
 
 Chap. XIII. 'Angels ^ Saints. 197 
 
 him, Shall mortal Man be more jufl than God, &c ? 
 Chap. 4. verf. 1 6, 17, &c. and then he adds, Chap. 
 5. I. CaU now, if there be any that will anfwer thee. 
 And to which of the Saints (or Angels, if you pleafe) 
 wilt thou turn ? That is, Do thou endeavor, if 
 thou canft, to be intruded better by fome other 
 Vifion. And to which of the Angeis or Saints 
 wile thou apply thy felf ? This is a farcaftical 
 Speech ', and imports that no Vifion wou'd be 
 granted to him, whom Eliphaz, thought a wicked 
 Perfon, and for that reafon unworthy of it. But 
 now, how this Text will prove, that Job was 
 advis'd to pray to a Saint or an Angel, I cannot 
 conceive. 
 
 3. 'Tis faid, that Jacob pray'd to an Angel, 
 when he blefs'd the Sons of Jofeph, faying, God, 
 before whom my Fathers Abraham ^Ifaak did walk, 
 the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the 
 Angel which redeem' d me from all evil, bkfs the Lads, 
 Gen. 48. 15, 1 6. But this pretence muft fall to 
 the gjound, if we confider, that Jacob did not then 
 pray to a Cxeattd Angel, but to God himfelf, who 
 is often calfd an AngeJ, as I have already {hewn. 
 For, 
 
 Firft, 'Tis granted, that Jacob praies to the true 
 God, when he faies, God, before whom my Fathers 
 Abraham and Ifaak did walk, &c. Now, if the 
 word Angel, which follows afterwards, do's figni- 
 fy fome created being ; then 'tis plain, that it can- 
 not mean the fame with the God mentioned before. 
 Whereas the words of Jacob do plainly import, 
 that the God of Abraham and the Angel are the 
 fame. 
 
 For if Jacob fappos'd them to be two Perfons, he 
 wou'dhavejoin'd'em by a conjunction copulative, 
 faying, God before whom my Fathers Abraham and 
 N 3 Ifaak
 
 1 98 Of the Worfhip of Part If. 
 
 Ifaak did walk, the God that fed me all my life long 
 unto this day, and alfo, the Angel -which redeem d me 
 from all evil, blefs the Lads. Whereas he do's 
 not join God and the Angel by any conjunction 
 copulative : but on the contrary, he ufes the par- 
 ticle demonftrative n, which do's fo frequent- 
 ly denote the fame thing expreft another way. 
 Thus for inftance, we read, Deut. 17. 9, 18. 
 CD"^7n ea^HD the Priefts the Levites, that is, the 
 Priefts, even the Levites. And thus in the Cafe be- 
 fore us, God before whom my Fathers Abraham and 
 Jfaak did walk, the God that fed me all my life long un- 
 to this day, even the Angel which redeem d me from aU 
 evil, blefs the Lads, 
 
 Again, the Verb "pDi is in the fingular Num. 
 t>er, and therefore the Nominative Cafe is but one 
 and the fame perfon : whereas if God and the 
 Angel be two different Perfons, there muft be two 
 Nominative Cafes ; and confequentiy the Verb 
 ought to be ip"O' in the plural Number. From 
 thefe confederations it is manifeft, that Jacob meant 
 the fame Perfon, when he pray'd to God and the 
 'Angel ; and therefore the Angel in this Text cou'd, 
 not be a created being. 
 
 Secondly, The Matter of Jacob's Prayer proves 
 the fame. For by being redeem d from all evil, we 
 muft underftand, what he had formerly pray'd for, 
 when he fa id, If God will be with me, and keep me in 
 this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and Rai- 
 ment to put on, fo that I come again to my Father's houfe 
 in peace ; then (hatt the Lord, &c. Now 'tis mani- 
 feft, that this Prayer was not directed to any 
 created being, but to God only ; and 'tis alfo 
 manifeft, that God granted his requeft, and that 
 Jacob acknowledged the Mercy receiv'd, by fer- 
 >ing the Lord as his God. Wherefore, fince it 
 
 was
 
 Chap. XIII. Angels and Saints: 199 
 
 was God alone, whom he defir'd to redeem him 
 from all evil ; and fince it was God aione, that 
 did redeem him from all evil : it plainly follows, 
 that he meant none other but God, when he fpeaks 
 of the Angel that redeemed him from all evil. I 
 may add, 
 
 Thirdly, that Jacob fpeaks of the Angel as his 
 Redeemer, which is the proper Title of the Meffi- 
 ah -, as we may learn from Ifaiah 59. 20. compa- 
 red with Rom. n. 1.6. where St. Paul fhcws, that 
 our Savior is the Redeemer mentioned by that Pro- 
 phet. And 'tis plain, that God is call'd a Redeem- 
 er in many other places of holy Writ -, particular- 
 ly Pfal- 10.15. .#.43. J 4- 
 
 Thefe considerations are a fubitantial proof, 
 that Jacob did not pray to a Created Angel, but 
 to God himfelf : and therefore we cannot pretend 
 the example of that holy Patriarch for Praying to 
 a created Angel. 
 
 4. When St. John Addreflfes himfelf to the Se- 
 ven Churches in Afla, he faies, Grace be unto youj 
 and Peace, from him which is, which was, and which 
 is to come ; and from the Seven Spirits which are before 
 his Throne ; and from JefusChriit, &c. Rev. i. 4, 5, 
 From whence our Adverfaries infer, that fince the 
 Seven Spirits do fignify Seven Angels, St. John 
 himfelf pray'd to Angels. Now this difficult Texc 
 has two interpretations, neither of which can be 
 difprov'd by our Adverfaries ; tho' either of them 
 anfwers their Objection. 
 
 Firft, it may be faid, that by the Seven Spirits 
 we are to underftand the Holy Ghoft, whofe ma- 
 ny gifts have given him the Name of many Spi- 
 rits. Thus for inftance he is call'd the Spirit of 
 H/ifdom and Underftanding, the Spirit of Counfel and 
 Might* the Sfirit of Knowledge and of the fear of 
 N 4 tbff
 
 -goo Of the Worfhifof Part II. 
 
 He Lord t Ifa. n. 2. Tho' ail thefe are one and 
 the fame Spirit, who is call'd the Spirit of the Lord 
 jn the fame verfe. And for a confirmation of this 
 expofition it mnft be obferv'd, that tho' the Beafts 
 and Elders are faid to worfhip and adore him that 
 fitteth upon the Throne ; yet the Seven Spirits are 
 never faid to do the fame. And therefore we ought 
 to fuppofe, that the Seven Spirits are not Seven cre- 
 ated Angels, but God himfelf the Creator of them, 
 even the Third Perfon in the blefl'ed Trinity. 
 
 Now the reafon why St. ^obn was pleas' dt 
 pitch upon the number Seven, calling him Seven 
 Spirits, rather than fix or five or any other number, 
 may poflibly be this. The Number Seven is a mark 
 of perfection ; and therefore fince thofe gifts of the 
 Spirit, which were beflow'd upon the ancient 
 Church, were very many and great, 'twas reafona- 
 ble that the holy Spirit the Author of them, fhould 
 rather be call'd SevenSftrftsjh&n any other Number. 
 Becaufe the Apoftle did not defign to fignify the 
 precife number of the Gifts, but only the plenti- 
 fulnefs of that efrufion which was then made. 
 
 BefideSj there is great reafon to believe, that the 
 Seven Spirits cannot be feven Created Spirits.Becaufe 
 St. jfohn wifhes Grace and Peace from them to the 
 Seven Churches ; whereas St. Paul, St. Peter and 
 St. Jude do very frequently wifli Grace and Peace, 
 but they do always wifli it as from God only. And 
 St. John himfelf do's the fame in his Second Epiftle, 
 ver. 3. but he never joins a Creature with Almighty 
 God. And therefore it is unreafonable to think, 
 that $t. John wou'd in this place vary, not only from 
 himfelf, but alfo from the other Apoftles, in wifh- 
 ing that might proceed from a Creature, which he 
 himfelf and his infpir'd Brethren, who were dire- 
 &ed by the fame Spirit, did ufe to wifli for as from 
 ihe Creator only. I
 
 Chap. XIII. Angels And Saints. 201 
 
 If it be faid, that tho' the Apoftles ufually wifli- 
 ed their Difciples might receive Grace and Peace 
 from God only, yet St. John might wifli the feven 
 Churches the fame Grace and Peace from Created 
 Angels alfo ; not as if the Angels cou'd of them- 
 felves beftow Grace and Peace, which are the Gifts 
 of God only ; but becaufe the Angels might in- 
 tercede for the Churches, and prevail with God 
 to beftow thofe Bleffings upon them , it may be 
 anfwer'd, i . That n inftance can be given in all 
 the Scripture, where any blefling (efpecially the 
 peculiar gifts of the Holy Ghoit, Grace and Peace) 
 is wifli'd for from God the fountain, and the Crea- 
 ture as interceflbr, joined together. 2. The Words 
 of St. John do run thus, Grace be unto you, and 
 Peace from Him "which is, and which was, and which 
 is to come j and from the feven Spirits which are before 
 bis throne ', and from Jefus Chrift, &c. Now 'tis 
 certain, that Grace and Peace are wiihed them from 
 the Father and the Son, as the true givers and pro- 
 prietors of them, in the beginning and end of thefe 
 Words : and therefore 'tis inconceivably ftrange, 
 that the very fame Grace and Peace fliou'd at the 
 very fame time be wim'd them from created in- 
 terceflbrs, placed in the middle between God the 
 Fatherj and God the Son, the one undoubted 
 fountain of thofe Bleffings ; and that this fhovald 
 be done in the very fame Language, without any 
 the leaft note or intimation of a diftindion be- 
 tween the fountain of Grace and Peace, and the in- 
 terceflfors for them. 
 
 Wherefore it feems neceflary for us to believe, 
 that the Seven Spirits are uncreated Spirits ; and 
 fince there is nothing uncreated befides the three 
 Persons in the Bleffed Trinity ; 'tis plain, that if 
 thefe Spirits be uncreated, they muft fignify the 
 
 Holy,
 
 202 Of the Wwjbty of Part II. 
 
 Holy Ghoft, Becaufe the Father and the Son arc 
 cxprcfly mentioned in this place, together with 
 the Seven Spirits, but as diftind: from them. 
 
 If it be objected, that the Seven Spirits cannot 
 fignify the Supreme God, becaufe they are faid to 
 be before the throne, which is the ftation of inferiors j 
 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 before the throne, being rea- 
 dy 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 j any more than the Son may 
 be thought inferior to the Father and the Spirit, 
 becaufe he was fent into the World to redeem us 
 from Damnation, and fo is often represented as 
 doing, not his own Will, but the Will of him that 
 fent him. Each Perfon is equal in Elfence ; tho* 
 in the wonderful method of our Salvador, the one 
 do's by a voluntary aft (as it were) fubjecl him- 
 felf to the other two. 
 
 If it be objected alfo, that the Seven Spirits are 
 named before Jefea Chrift, and therefore they can- 
 not fignify the Holy Ghoft ,- becaufe the Son is 
 the fecond, and the Holy Ghoft is the third Per- 
 fon in the Bleffed Trinity : it may be anfwer'd, 
 
 1 . 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 Angels. 
 
 2. The Order of the Trinity is feveral times inver- 
 ted. Thus for inftance, The Grace of our Lord Je- 
 fus Chrift, and the Love of God, and the Communion 
 of the Holy Ghoft, be with you all, Amen. 2 Cor. 13. 
 1 4. By Jefus Chrift, and God the Father, Gal. i . i 
 / the Kingdom QJ Chrift and of God, Eph, 5.5. 
 
 Secondly]
 
 Chap. XIII. Angels and Saints. 203 
 
 Secondly Others are of opinion, that the Seven 
 Spirits mention'd in this Text, are the fame with 
 the feven Angels, which are faid to fland before 
 God, Rev; 8. 2. which Angels are confefs'd to be 
 Created Spirits. And then they conceive that the 
 fenfe of the Text amounts to this, May you the fe- 
 ven Churches of Ada enjoy Grace and Peace, as the gift 
 of God the Father, for the fake of God the Son, and by 
 the Miniflration of the feven Angels 'which aye before the 
 throne. But yet, thofe that diflike this fecond, 
 and embrace the firft Interpretation, may anfwer, 
 that though the feven Angels are faid to ftand be- 
 fore the throne in one place, yet it do's not follow 
 that they muft be rhe Seven Spirits which are before 
 the throne in the other. For why may not both 
 the Holy Ghoft and the Blefled Angels be ready 
 and willing (in their different Spheres) to execute 
 the Gracious Defigns of God towards his Church? 
 Befides, the considerations already offer'd do per- 
 fuade us to interpret the Seven Spirits in this con- 
 troverted 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. Now if the Seven Spi- 
 rits do fignify the Holy Ghoft, and confequently 
 God hinifelf ,- then this Text cannot favor the 
 worfhip of Angels, although it were granted that 
 St. Johns words are a formal Prayer to the Seven 
 Spirits. Becaufe St. John do's not addrefs himfelf 
 to any created Being, but only to the Lord of 
 Hofts, of whom he begs a plentiful eftufion of 
 fpiritual Gifts upon the feven Churches of AJia. 
 But if by the Seven Spirits we underftand feven 
 created Angels, yet even this Interpretation will 
 noc favor the Caufe of out Adverfaries* Becaufe 
 
 it
 
 $04 Of the Worfbip of Part II. 
 
 it may be deny'd with very juft reafon, that Sr. 
 Jchn's words are a formal Prayer. For i . The 
 words themfelves are fuch as do not neceflarily 
 import any thing more than a bare wifh. 2. 'Tis 
 moft abfurd to fay, that St. John prays to God and 
 to feven Creatures after the very fame manner, and 
 in the very fame expreffions. Nay, our Adverfa- 
 ries themfelves are oblig'd by their own Principles 
 not to think thefe words a formal Prayer. Becaufe 
 they acknowledge, that an Angel cannot be pray'd 
 to oiherwife than as an Interceflor : whereas God 
 xnuft always be pray'd to as the only Fountain of 
 fpiritual Gifts.Now thefe words are plainly apply'd 
 to God and the feven Angels in the very fame fenfe; 
 and confequenrly St. John prayM to both alike, 
 viz,, as to the fountains of fpirkual Gifts, and not 
 to one as the Interceflor only. Now this our Ad- 
 verfaries will not believe of our Holy Apoftle, be- 
 caufe they think it Idolatrous to pray to a Creature 
 in the very fame manner as to the Creator God. 
 
 Thus then our Adverfaries are reduc'd to this 
 extremity. Either they muft grant, that thefe 
 Words do contain a formal Prayer ; and then the 
 Apoftle's Prayer muft be Idolatrous, unlefs the Se- 
 ven Spirits do fignify the Holy Ghoft, which Inter- 
 pretation utterly overthrows the pretended Inftance 
 of St. Johns praying to Angels : or elfe they muft 
 grant, that the Words do not contain a formal 
 Prayer j and then they are impertinently urg'd as 
 an Inftance of a formal Prayer to Angels. 
 
 5. If it be urg'd, that the King Nebuchadnez- 
 zar feO upon his face, and wor/hipped Daniel, and 
 commanded that they fiould offer an oblation, and 
 fiueet odors unto bint, Dan. 2. 46. and that we may 
 as well pray to Saints, as Nebuchadnezzar might 
 offer religious ^orlhip to Daniel -, I anfwcr, x. That 
 
 there
 
 Chap.* XIII: Angels and, Saints. 205 
 
 there is a great deal of difference between Saints 
 in Heaven, and Saints upon Earth. Nor can it be 
 concluded, that we may worfiiip fuch as are, we 
 know not where, and who perhaps know nothing 
 of the Matter ; becaufe we may pay a very great 
 refped to thofe Saints that are prefent with us ; 
 and this is all that Neluch&bttx*ar order'd to be 
 performed towards Darnel. However, Khali not 
 infift upon this difpariry ; nor fhall I examin the 
 force of the Hebrew words, and thereby endeavour 
 to prove, that Daniel received not any religious 
 worfhip, but only fuch extraordinary compliments, 
 as his great perfonal Worth, and his moft remark- 
 able gift of Prophecy, might juftly deferve from 
 the greateft Kings upon Earth. Thefe things, I 
 fay, I fhall not infift upon : but fuppofing that A *- 
 buchadnez,z,ar order'd religious honors to be pay'd 
 him : I anfwer, 2. That it do's not appear, that 
 Daniel accepted of them. "Tis true, the Scriptures 
 do not exprefly fay that he forbad them ; tho j fome 
 fuppofe it fairly intimated : but yet it cannot be 
 concluded that he approved of fuch a performance, 
 becaufe the Scriptures fay nothing to the contrary. 
 For the People of Melita faid that St. Paul was a 
 God,^?j 28.6. and we do not read that St.te/con- 
 tradided it : but it muft not therefore be thought, 
 that St. Paul approved of the Name, or that he did 
 not utterly deteft and abhor it, and undeceive the 
 People too. ^ Even {bit cannot be concluded, that 
 Daniel received religious honors, if any were inten- 
 ded j becaufe the Bible do's not mention his refufal 
 of them. And now I pray, what will become of 
 our Adverf aries Argument ? Daniel had fome undue 
 honors decreed him, and it do's not appear that he 
 received them : Therefore we may give to the de- 
 parted Saints the fame honors which were defign'd 
 
 for
 
 20 6 Of the Worfoip cf Part II 4 
 
 for Daniel. This is fuch reafoning, as I think our 
 Adverfaries cannot boaft of. 
 
 1Mb, '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 fuppos'd, that many 
 eood Chriftians in the Eaft and Weft-Indies do pray 
 lor their Brethren in England ; but it wou'd be a 
 piece of molt unaccountable Madnefs for the - 
 olifh, whilft remaining at home, to pray, or fpeak 
 their requctts, to their Brethren in the Eaft and 
 Weft-Indies. And yet they may with as good rea- 
 fon pray to them, as to the Angels and Saints ; 
 fincc 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 different 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 cf the one as of the other; 
 becaufe God has promised neither of them. And why 
 then may we not pradtife theone,as well as the other? 
 
 'Tis true, we read that the Angels do rejoyce 
 at the Converfion of a Sinner, Luke 15. 7, 10- and 
 that they fire all mini ftr ing Spirits fent forth to wwfter 
 fir them, that {hall be heirs of Salvation, Heb. I. 14. 
 from whence we may gather that Angels have fome 
 knowledge of human affairs. But granting that 
 they have fome knowledge of human affairs, do s 
 it follow that they have an univerlai knowledge of 
 them ; or that they do therefore hear all thofe 
 that call upon them in all places whatfoever ? It 
 not ; then no Man can be fure that his Prayer i* 
 heard by an Angel at any particular time whatfo- 
 
 Before 
 
 ever.
 
 Chap. XIII. dngels and Saints. 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 
 fince we cannot know the Hearts of Men, 'tis im- 
 poffible that we fiiould 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 meec with fuch a Revelation, 'tis our 
 duty to abftain from fuch Prayers. 3. That the 
 poffibility of being heard by them, will juflify our. 
 Prayers to them. Bat this is a matter, that the 
 Scriptures do net inform us of ; and therefore we 
 ought not to run the Rifqtie of offending a jealous 
 God, by performing fuch Prayers. 
 
 However, 'tis certain that there is not the leaft 
 command or encouragement in all the Bible foe 
 the invocation of Saints or Angels. For this Rea- 
 (on it cannot be a Duty ; but it may be dange- 
 rous ; and why then fhou'd we venture upon it ? 
 We may fafely addrefs ou.r 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 feek out other objects of Prayer, without any 
 manner of reafon fo to do ? This looks as if we 
 diftrufted his Mercy ; or thought it neceflary to 
 make fure of fome other Frkhds, if he ihou'd 
 chance ro 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- 
 catile 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 Of the Worfhip of Part II. 
 
 Men, that pray to them upon Earth ? I wou'd 
 fain know from whence they gathered fuch informa" 
 tion ; iince 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 j I am fure we have very juft rea- 
 ifon againft it. Becatife, 
 
 SECOND LY, The Scriptures do command 
 us to pray to God only. This is manifeft from 
 the whole tenor of thofe Holy Writings. Let our 
 Adversaries (hew, if they can, that the Patriarchs, 
 Prophets or Apoftles did ever pray, fave to God 
 only. We are commanded in innumerable places 
 to pray to God ; but never to any other Being. 
 Now iince the Scriptures do appropriate prayer 
 to God only ; with what face can we give his ho- 
 nor to another. 
 
 We pray to Chrift and to the Holy Ghoft, be- 
 caufe they are God ; and we think it a fufficient 
 argument of the Divinity of either of thofe two 
 Perfons of the Trinity, that we are commanded 
 to pray to them, Now I defire our Adverfaries to 
 coniider, whether they do not weaken the Ortho- 
 dox Belief of the Trinity, by taking away thefe, 
 which are fome of the great proofs and fupports 
 of it. For why may not a Socmian fay, We are to 
 fray to Chrift, as to an excellent Creature : but the pray- 
 ers -which iue are commanded to offer to him, are no f roof 
 of his Divinity, becaufe the Sacrifice of Prayer is not 
 appropriated to God only : I fay, why may nota&ci- 
 nian argue thus ? And how will our Adverfaries 
 be able to prove that Chrift is God, by this f9rt 
 of Reaibnmg ; unlefs they believe and take it for 
 granted, thac the Scriptures do command us to pray 
 to God only ? Where-
 
 Chap. XIII. Angds atrd Saints. sea 
 
 Wherefore, as St. Paul faies, Cokff. 2.18. Let no 
 man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary hu~ 
 mility and worfiipping of Angels, intruding into thofe 
 things which he hath not feen, 'vainly pujf'd up by 
 his flefily mind. For as our Savior afiures us, 
 Matth. 4. jo. It is writtc n, I'hcu {halt worjhip the 
 Lord thy God, and him cnly fialt thcu ferve. What 
 St. Paul faies,, Row. 10. 14, 15. concerning praying 
 to Chrifl, may well be apply'd to praying to An- 
 gels and Saints ' How Juali they call on him, in whom 
 they haw not believ'd', and howjhall they believe in 
 him, of whom they have not heard ; and how (hall 
 they hear without a Preacher -, and how {hall they 
 'Preach, except they befent ? Let our Adverfaries 
 therefore prove, that any Man wzsfent by our 
 Lord, to Preach this News, that Men may pray to 
 Angels and Saints. For otherwife it is not poP- 
 fible, in St. Paul's opinion, for Men to call upon 
 them, becaufe they have not heard, that they are 
 the objeds of Prayer. 
 
 But I fliall not enlarge upon this Matter. The 
 filence of Scripture is a fufficient prohibition of 
 fuch a Practice , becaufe if a thing of this Nature 
 had been but barely lawful, we fhou'd at leaft 
 have had fome hint of it. God, who has fo plain- 
 ly told us our duty, wou'd certainly have givea 
 us fome intimation of this part of it ; which mufi 
 be of the greateft concern to us, becaufe it relates 
 to our religious worfliip. But on the contrary we 
 are alwaies commanded to pray to God : ( and 
 therefore Prayer is reflrain'd to him only. "Tis 
 the privilege which his own word has referv'd to 
 him : and how fiiall (infill duft and afiieS dare to 
 infringe it ? 
 
 :uj><3jt.a ',. i. i . ;i ,. , ; tfrsnojji.nr,-! , . , 
 
 O CHAP/
 
 210 Of Auricular Part II. 
 
 CHAP. XIV. 
 
 Of AuricuUr Confeffion* 
 
 I Have hitherto charg'd the Church of Rome with 
 fuch Doctrines, asare either abfolutely falfe, or 
 forbidden by God's Word : but I (hail now pro- 
 ceed to thofe of another kind ; fuch I mean, as are 
 not contain'd in the Scriptures. Tho* I do nor, 
 and dare not fay, that even thefe are not forbid- 
 den alfo : only becaufe I am willing to fpare our 
 Adversaries, as much as 'tis poflible ; 1 (hall con- 
 tent my felf with proving, that they are not de- 
 livcrM in God's Word. Now the firft of that 
 Nature, which I defign to examine, is the Do- 
 ctrine of Auricular Conjefjlon. 
 
 The 24th Article of the Popijh Creed runs thus; 
 1 do alfo without any doubting receive and prof efs aU 
 other things that are deliver'd, defrid and declared by 
 the Sacred Canons and General Councils , and chiefly 
 by the holy Council of Trent ; and all things con- 
 trary to them, and all Herejies whatfoe i ver j that are 
 condemn dt rejected and anathematized by the Church, 
 1 do like-wife condemn, reject and anathematize. From 
 hence it is plain, that every Member of the Church 
 of Rome is obliged upon pain of damnation to be- 
 lieve what the Council of Trent has Decreed con- 
 cerning the pretended Sacrament of Penance. 
 
 Now the Council of Trent has Decreed con- 
 cerning Penance, that (a) thofe are to be accurfed, 
 
 (4) Siquis negaverit ad integram & perfeftam peccato- 
 rum remiflionem rcquiri hos aftus in Paenitcnte, quaft ma- 
 teriam Sacramenti Paeniceneise, videlicet Contritionem ; 
 Confeflionem & Satisfaaionem, quae eres'Psenitentiaj partes 
 dicuntur:' anachema fie- Gwcil. Trident. SeiT. 14. Can. 4.
 
 Chap. XIV. Confeffion* 2 1 1 
 
 who deny , that Contrition, Confejfion and Satif- 
 faftion, which are calfd the three parts of Penance, 
 are necejfary for the Pardon of fas. By Confejfion 
 fhe means Auricular Confejfion, or (b} a private Con- 
 feffion made to aPrieft, whereby the Prieft is ac- 
 quainted with the Number and Nature of every 
 Man's fins. And (he Thunders out (c) a Curfe 
 upon thofe, who do not believe that this Auricu- 
 lar Confeffion is neceflary to Salvation. Whereas 
 I (hall (hew, that Auricular Confeffion is not in- 
 join'd by God, and confequently that it is not 
 neceffary to Salvation, by explaining thofe Texts 
 which they alledge in favor of it. And, 
 
 i. They alledge Numb- 5.6,7. When a Man 
 or Wuman jhatt commit any fen, that Men commit, to 
 do a Irefpafs again/I the Lord, and the Perfon be 
 guilty ; then they JJjall confefs their Jin -which they have 
 done : and he (hall recompenfe his trefpafs with the 
 principal thereof, &c. Now this paflage relates 
 to thofe, who have privily taken away their 
 Neighbour's goods; and God commands them in 
 fuch cafes to confefs the Crime, and make fatiP 
 faction for it, left the Neighbour's lofs be irreco- 
 verable. For if the Neighbour cou'd prove the 
 Theft, the Offender might eaiily be compelled to 
 
 (6) Siquis dixerit modum (Vcrete confitendi foil 
 
 facerdoci, quetti Ecclefia Catholica femper obfervavit & 
 obfervac, alium efle ab tnftitucione & Mandate Chrifti, & 
 inventum efTe humanum, anathema fit. Contil. Trident. SefT 
 14. Can. 6. 
 
 (c) Siquis dixerit in Sacramento PsemtentJae ad remif- 
 fione peccatorum neceflarium non efle jure Divino, con- 
 fiteri omnia & fingula peccata mortalia, quorum memoria 
 cum debita & diligenti prasmeditatione habeatar, etiam 
 occulta & qux func contra duo ultima decalogi praecepta, 
 
 c circumftantias qu peccati fpeciem mutant; : * 
 
 anathema fit. Condi, Trident. Seff. 14. Can. 7, 
 
 O 2 make
 
 212 Of Auriculft Part II. 
 
 make a recompenfe : but this Law obliges even 
 thofe who cou'd not be convided of the Fad j 
 and prefcribes what mult be done in Jfuch cafes. 
 But I cannot perceive, that this Text do's in any 
 wife help our Adverfaries. Becaufe no wife Man 
 will argue thus, 7'he Jews were obliged to acknow- 
 ledge a Theft and make reftitution, altho the FaEt 
 coud not be prov'd againft them : and therefore Chri- 
 flians are obliged in alt cafes, upon pain of damnation^ 
 to confefs all their fens privately to a Prieft. 
 
 2. We are told, that thofe who were Baptiz'd by 
 St. John Baptift confefs'd their fins, Mat. 3. 6. Mark 
 1.5. But how will our Adverfaries prove, that 
 this was a Private Confeffion of all their fins ; 
 or that this Conftffion was injoin'd, and not a vo- 
 luntary a&ion j or that it was even poffible for St. 
 John to hear the Private confeffions of all thofe 
 great Numbers, that were Baptiz'd of him? If they 
 cannot prove thefe things ; then why do they ar- 
 gue from hence, that we are commanded by God, 
 upon pain of damnation, co Confefs all our fins 
 Privately to a Prieft ? Befides, this confeffion was 
 in order to Baptifm ; whereas the Confeffion im- 
 pos'd by our Adverfaries is requir'd after Baptifm ;, 
 and therefore this Confeffion is not the fame with 
 that, which our Adverfaries do contend for. 
 
 To this I may add, that the Council of Trent 
 do's imply, if it do's not aflert and teach, that 
 Confeffion is not neceflary in order to Baptifm. For 
 he tells us, (d) that the Repentance of a Chriftian 
 
 (d) Uncle docendum eft, Chriftiani hominis paenitentiam 
 port lapfum multo aliamefle a baptifmali, eaque contineri 
 nonmodocefTationema peccatis, & eorum deteftarionem, 
 autcor contrirum & humiliatum ; verum etiam eorundem 
 
 Sacramentalem confeffionetn & facerdotalem abfo- 
 
 lutioneo, 6cc. Ctncil. Trident. Seff. 5. Cap. 14. de Juftifi. 
 eatione. 
 
 Man
 
 Chap. XIV. Confeffion. 21 j 
 
 Man after he is relapfed into fin, is very different 
 from his Repentance at Baptifm ; and that m this 
 repentance after fuch relaffe is contain 'd not only a 
 ceafing from fins , and a deteftation of them, or a con- 
 trite and humbled heart , but alfo a Sacramental 
 Confeffion of tfam and Prieftly Jlbfoluticn, &c. 
 In thefe words fhe do's more than intimate, that 
 a Sacramental Confeffion of fins, tho' it be necef- 
 fary after a relapfe, yet is not neceffary before 
 Baptifm : and confequently, this Confeffion of 
 the Perfons Baptiz'd by St. John was not necef- 
 fary according to the Do&rine of the Council of 
 Trent. And how then can our Adverfaries pre- 
 tend to prove from this voluntary and iTnnecefeiry 
 Confeffion of St. Johns Difciples before Baptifm; 
 that a Confeffion of fins after Baptifm is abfo- 
 lutely neceffary to Salvation ? 
 
 In a word, We readily acknowledge, that the 
 People did well inConfeffing their fins, and taking 
 fhame to themfelves : but it cannot be gatherd 
 from hence, that we are requiVd to unbofom all 
 our fecret faults to any Perfon whatfoever upon 
 pain of damnation. 
 
 3 . We read, that many confefs'd and jhevfd their 
 deeds, Afts 19. 18. and it was commendable in 
 them fo to do: but do's it follow from hence, 
 that a Man cannot be fav'd, unlefs he do the 
 fame ? 
 
 4. Becaufe St. James exhorts thofe, whom God 
 for their many and grievous fins had afflicted with 
 difeafes, that beingawaken'd with hispunifliments 
 they wou'd amend their lives ; I fay, becaufe 
 St. James advifes fuch Perfons to confefs their 
 faults one to another, and to pray one for another, 
 that they might be heal'd of their diftempers, James 
 5. itf. our Adverfaries think that their Auricular 
 
 O 3 foj
 
 14 Of JuricuUr Part II. 
 
 CvnfeJJton is commanded. But I defire them to con- 
 lider, that altho' thefe words are a very wholefom 
 direction to fuch as were overtaken by God's 
 Vengeance for fome particular Crimes which they 
 had committed : yet they do direct them to make 
 Confeflion, not privately to a Prieft, but to owe 
 another. Nor is this Confeflion prefcrib'd in or- 
 der to a Prieftly Abfolution ; but only to obtain 
 the benefit of Mutual interceffion. Canfefs your faults 
 cne to another, (faies the Apoftle) and fray one for 
 another. Nor are ^//Perfons directed to this Pra- 
 ctice j but the {ick only. And therefore thefe 
 words do not fo much as intimate, much lefs com- 
 mand all Men in general, to practife chat Auricular 
 Confeflion of all their faults, whatfoever they be, 
 which is requir'd by the Church of Rome. 
 
 5. We are told by St. John, that if we confejs our 
 fins, he is faithful and juft to forgive u ; s our fas, and 
 to deanfe us from attunrighteoufnefs, i John 1.9. that 
 is, if we humbly acknowledge to Almighty God, 
 that we are finners; God will pardon us. But which 
 way will our Adverfaries fhew from this Text, 
 that we are obliged upon pain of damnation, to 
 confefs all our moft fecret (ins to a Prieft ? Forthc 
 Apoftle fpeaksof no other confeflion, but that 
 which is made to God only. 
 
 Thefe are the directScripture-arguments,by which 
 our Adverfaries endeavor to prove the neceffity of 
 ^Auricular Confeffion , and I think I have made it ap- 
 pear, that they are by no means concltifive. But 
 then they draw fome inferences from certain other 
 Texts, which feem at firft blufli to have a fiiew 
 of greater ftrength ; tho' they are quickly found 
 to be as weak as the former. For, 
 
 6. They fay, God gave to the Apoftles the Mi- 
 xiftry andwrd of reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5. 18, ip.
 
 Chap. XIV. Confefflon. 21$ 
 
 and therefore they conclude, that the Apoftles 
 and their fuceffors muft by the mechod of Con- 
 feflion have a particular account of every Man's 
 guilt ; becaufe otherwife they cannot perform 
 their Office of reconciling Sinners. But thefe 
 words are ftrangely mifapply'd, as will appear by 
 the following Paraphrafe of them. 
 
 Verfe 17. If any man be in Chrift, or Chrift' s lin- 
 cere Difciple, he is a new creature, or become a new 
 Man, by entring upon fuch a courfe of living, as 
 is quite different from his ancient practice. Old 
 things are paft away from him ; he has forfaken his 
 former ways, and behold, all things are become new. 
 
 Verfe 18. And all thefe things are of God; they 
 are owing to his Affifting Grace, who hath recon- 
 cil'd us to himfelf by Jefus Chrift, whom he fent in- 
 to the World to fufter Death for our fins ; that 
 we, who thro* the corruption of our Nature were 
 become Enemies to God, might now be made 
 friends and fons by the Virtue of his Sufferings. And 
 God hath gtoen to us tie Mini/try of Reconciliation, 
 making it our bufinefs to fpread the good news of 
 his kindnefs towards Men, by Preaching the Gof- 
 pel throughout the whole World. 
 
 Verfe 19. And this is our Meflage to all Man- 
 kind, this is what we are to declare unto them, To 
 wit, that God was in Chrift Reconciling the Word un- 
 to himfelf -, that he is now pleas'd to accept of us, 
 and receiveusinto his favor, in and thro' the fatif- 
 faction of Chrift ; and that God hath committed to 
 us the Apoftles and our Succeflfors the Word of Re- 
 conciliation, by entrufting us to declare the condi- 
 tions of Salvation by the Gofpel-Covenant. 
 
 Verfe 20. Now then we, being fully inftrufted by 
 
 our Mafter, and having the moft unqueftionable 
 
 Credentials of the gift of Tongues, and working 
 
 Q 4 Miracles^
 
 Of AurlcuUr Part If. 
 
 Miracles, are ambajfadorsfor Chrifl. We declare his 
 good will towards you, as tl:o God did befeecb you 
 by us his Meflengers - 3 we fray you in Chrifl's fiead, 
 be ye reconciled to God. And you know, we have al- 
 ready told you, upon what terms you may be re- 
 concird to him- 
 
 Now I appeal to any indifferent judge, whether 
 Auricular Confejfiw can be prov'd from hence. The 
 Apoftles were to aflure Men of tlie general terms 
 of Salvation : but not one fy liable is fpoken of the 
 neceflky of their applying thefe general terms to 
 every particular Man's Cafe. Much lefs is it faid, 
 that none can be fav'd, uqlefs the Apoftles or their 
 Succeflbrs be intimately acquainted with the Hate 
 of his foul by the Means of Private Confeffion. 
 
 7. 'Tis pretended, that Men are obliged to make 
 a particular Confeffion of their fins, that the Prieft 
 may come to a true knowledge of them ; becaufe 
 otherwife the Prieft cannot exercife that power of 
 forgiving fins, which Chrifl has entrufted him with. 
 Now that Chrifl has entrufted the Prieft with a 
 Power of forgiving fins, our Adverfaries endea- 
 vor to prove from three Texts of Scripture ; viz,. 
 Firft, from Mattk. 16.19. And 1 wilt give unto thee 
 the keyes of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatfoever 
 jhou /halt bind on earthy JJiaU be bound in heaven ; and 
 yjhatfoever thou {halt loofe on earth, JhaH be loofed in 
 leaven. Then Secondly from Mattb. 18". 18. What- 
 foever ye JhaU bind on earthy {hall be bound in heaven; 
 and luhatfoever ye fiall loofe on earthy JhaU be loofed 
 in heaven. But Thirdly and chiefly from John 20.21- 
 Whofefoever Jim ye remit y they are remitted unto them ; 
 and whofefoever fins ye retain^ they are retained. 
 
 Now in anfwer to this their moft plaufible ar- 
 gument for Auricular Confejfion, I fhall not endea- 
 vor to (hew, thatthefe Texts do by no means imply 
 
 fiich
 
 Chap. XIV. Confrfllon: 217 
 
 fuch a power of forgiving tins, as our Adverfaries 
 do pretend to. Bccaufe the disputes arifing from 
 thence muft needs be very tedious ; and there is fo 
 much difference of opinion, even ajnongft thePrc- 
 teflatit Writers, concern ing the Senfe of thefe expref- 
 fions of the two Evangelifts, that I {hall not adven- 
 ture to build an anfwer upon my private Sentiments, 
 tho' I have not much reafon (1 think) to be d.ffa- 
 tisfy'd with them. Wherefore I ihall grant (per- 
 haps, much more than will ever be fairly prcv'di 
 however) as much as our Adverfaries themfeives 
 can defire ; and I am content they fhou'd make 
 the belt advantage of it- 
 
 Suppofe therefore, that thefe expreffions do re- 
 ally imply, that every Cbriftian Pried has an abfo- 
 lute and indifputable power of forgiving (ins ; nay 
 fuppofe (if you think fit) that none can be forgiven 
 by God, unlefs they receive the Prieftlyabfolutiouj 
 yet I deny, that Auricular Confejfion is necefiary 
 for the exercife of this forgiving power. Becaufe a 
 Cbriftian Prieit may forgive fins, aklio' he benotac- 
 quaintedwirhtheNumberandaggravationsofthcm. 
 For 'tis certain, that aPrieft cannot forgive (ins wkh- 
 out the condition of true Repentance : and 'twill be 
 .granted by thefe great aflerters of Prieftly authority, 
 that, if anyPerlon has true Repentance, the. Prieli 
 may forgive him. Wherefore fince a Prieft may for- 
 give a truly penitent Man, 'tis plain, that Auricular 
 Confeffion is not neceflary in order to forgivenefs. 
 
 For true repentance can imply but twothings,wa 
 aforfakingoffin, andarefolutiontolivewell. And 
 certainly, "tis by no means neceflary, that a Prieft 
 Ihou'd be acquainted with theNtimber and circum- 
 fiances of any Man's fins, in order to either of thefe 
 parts of true repentance. For if the Prieft has fully 
 explain'dthePerfon'sduty to him j if he has faith- 
 fully
 
 
 218 Of Auricular, &c. Part II. 
 
 fully inform'd him of the terms of the Gofpel-Cove- 
 nant ; if he has laid before him all thofe rules of Ho- 
 ly Living, which God requires ; if I fay, the Prieft 
 lias done all this, and the Man accept of thefe con- 
 ditions, and refolve to live according to them ,- then 
 the Prieft has reafon to think (as well as a Man can 
 think, who do's not know his Neighbour's heart) 
 that the Perfon is truly penitent, altho' he be not 
 acquainted with all the particular inflances, in 
 which he has formerly broken any of thofe Laws, 
 which he now promifes to obferve. 
 
 'Tis true, if the penitent cannot in fome fpecial 
 Cafes apply a general Rule ,- if he cannot fatisfy 
 himfelf, whether this or that aftion be innocent, 
 or no -> 'tis by any means advifable to ask the Prieft's 
 opinion concerning it. Becaufe the Prieft may rea- 
 fonably befuppos'd tobe better acquainted with the 
 Meafures of Obedience, and an abler judge of fuch 
 matters. But tho' ? tis advifable to have recourfe 
 to the Prieft for the refolution of a nice and diffi- 
 cult Cafe of Confcience; yet the Man may be for- 
 given, altho* he do not confefs jt to be his own. 
 It may be proposed by a friend, or in occafional 
 difcourfe. For the only end of fuch Inquiries is the 
 Parties own fatisfadion > and this may be gain'd 
 tho* the Prieft do not know the Party. 
 
 I do not fpeak this to difcourge any pious Per- 
 fons from acquainting thofe Priefts, in whom they 
 think they may repofe an intire confidence, with t he 
 ftate of their Souls. Nay, perhaps this may be, upon 
 fome occafions,not only convenient, but even necef- 
 fary for their own comfort and fatisfaftion.But I fay, 
 that the Church of Rome has no reafon to require 
 all Men upon painof damnation, to believe and 
 acknowledge, that Confeffion of all our offences, 
 of all the feveral aggravations of them, muft 
 
 of
 
 Chap. XV. Of Satisfaction. 219 
 
 of neceffity be made to a Prieft, if ever we defireor 
 hope for pardon at the hands of God. 
 
 This I think is very evident from what I have dif- 
 cours'd in thisChapter; and confequently it appears, 
 that fomething which the Church of Rome requires 
 Men to believe and acknowledge upon pain of 
 damnation, is not contained in the Scriptures. 
 
 CHAP. XV. 
 
 Of Satisfaction. 
 
 IHave fliewn in the foregoing Chapter, that the 
 Church of Rome obliges every Man upon pain of 
 Damnation to believe,That Contriticn,ConfejJionand 
 Satisfaction, 'which are called the three parts o/Penanc?, 
 are necejfary for the Pardon of Sins. I have already 
 difprov'd the Neceffity ofCwfeffion .- and (hall now 
 confider the Neceffity of StohfaBion. But becaufe 
 the Determination of this Controverfy is a mat- 
 ter of fome Nicety, I think it absolutely necellary 
 for the true (lacing of it, to give the Reader an 
 account of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome 
 concerning Satisfaction, and of what we maintain 
 in op petition to it. 
 
 The Church of Rome declares, that thofe which 
 
 are duly baptized (a} are heirs of God and to- heirs 
 
 with Chrift ; fo that nothing at att can delay (flop 
 
 or hinder) their entrance tnto Heaven. But that 
 
 (*) Quia nihil eft damnationis iis qui vere confeptriri 
 
 funt cum Chrifto per baptifma in mortem : qui non fecun- 
 
 dum carnem ambulant j fed veterem homincm exuentes, & 
 
 novum induentes, qui fecundum Deum creatus eft, inno- 
 
 centes, nnmaculati, puri, itmoxii, ac Deodtledi, ei?e6H 
 
 funt haeredes quidem Dei, cohae redes autem Chrifti, ira ut 
 
 nihil prorfus eosab ingreflu cceli remoretur. Condi Tridsnt. 
 
 SsfT. 5. Can. 5, dsPtfftt. Origin,
 
 220 Of S at is f aft ion. Part II. 
 
 b) for fuch as fall into fins after Baptifm, Chrift 
 efus has inflituted the Sacrament of Penance (or 
 Repentance) -when he faid. Receive ye the Holy Ghofti 
 whofe fewer fens ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; 
 and whcfefoever fens ye retain, they are retained. From 
 whence we are to learn, that the Penance of a Cbriftian 
 Man after a relapfe into fen , is very different from his 
 baptismal Penance , and that it contains not only a 
 ceafing from fens, and a hatred of them, or a contrite 
 and humbled heart ', but atfo a Sacramental Confeffion 
 of them, to be made in defer e at leaft, and when time 
 JhaUferue; and Prieflly Abfoluticn, and Satisfaction 
 alfo, by Fa/tings, Alms, Prayers, and other holy 
 Exercijes of the Spiritual Life, not for the eternal 
 Punifoment, which together with the guilt is remitted by 
 the Sacrament (of Penance) or by thedefere of the Sacra- 
 ment ', but for the temporal punijhment, which as the 
 Scriptures teach, is not always, as in Eaptifm, wholly 
 remitted to thofe, who being unthankful for the Grace 
 of God which they had received, have grieved the Holy 
 Spirit, &c- 
 
 (a) Etenim pro iis, qui port bapcifmutn in peccata la- 
 buntur, (JhriftusJefusSacramesitum infticuic ppenitentiae, 
 Cum dixit, jiccipits Spiritum Santtam : quorum remiferitis 
 peccat*,rcmittuntur; & quorum retinueritis, retentafunt. Unde 
 docendum eft, Chrilliani hominis poeaitentiam poft lapfum 
 multo aliam cfle a baptifmali ; eague continerinon modo 
 cefTationem a peccatis, & eorum deteftationem, aut cor 
 contritum & humiliatum, verum etiam eorundem Sacra- 
 mentalem Confeffionem, faltem in ,voto Sc fuo tempore 
 faciendam, & facerdotalcm abfolutionem, itemque fatis- 
 faftionem per jtjunia, eleemofynas, orationes, & alia pia 
 fpiricualis vitse exercitia, non quidem pro poena seterna, 
 qujevelSacramentovelSacramendvotounacumculparemit- 
 titur ; fed pro poena temporali, quae, ut facrx licerae docenr, 
 nectotafemper, utiabaprifmofic, dimittitur ill u, qui grade 
 Dei, quam acceperant, ingrati, Spiritum Sanftum contri 
 ftavcrunt, &c. Gimcil.Tridmti SefT. <5. cap. 14. de ^uflijicajione. 
 
 She
 
 Chap. XV. Of Satisf Action. 221 
 
 She declares alfo (c) That if any Manftatt fay, 
 that 'when a penitent finner has receivd the grace of 
 Juftif cation, his guilt is fo forgiven, and his obligation 
 to eternal puni/hmem done away, that there remains no- 
 obligation to the payment of Temporal Punifhment, 
 either in this World, or in the World to come in Purga- 
 tory, before he can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven ; 
 let him be accurfed. Again, (d) If any Man Jhall fay, 
 That God always remits the whole punishment, when he 
 remits the guilf, and that the Satisfaction of Penitents 
 is nothing elfe but Faith, by which they apprehend that 
 Chrift has fatisfy'd for them ; let him be accurfed. 
 Again, (e ) If any Man /hall fay, that God, thro' the 
 Merits of Chrift, /*w not fatisfadion made him for 
 the 'Temporal Punijhment of fin by thofe funijhments 
 tuhich are infilled by himfelf, and patiently born by the 
 Penitent ; or by thofe punijhments which tbe Prteft in- 
 joins ; or thofe which the Penitent 'voluntarily under- 
 takes, fuch as faflings, prayers, alms and other works 
 of Piety ; and that therefore the be ft repentance is only a. 
 New Life ; let him be accurfed. 
 
 (c) Si quis poft acceptam Juftifkationis gratiam, cuilibec 
 peccatori pcenitenti culpam ita remitti, & reatum xternae 
 poense deleri dixerit, ut nullus remaneat reatus pcenae tem- 
 poralis exolvendz.vel in hoc faeculo vel infuturo inPurgato- 
 rio, antequam ad regna coelorum aditus patere pnflit, ana- 
 thema fie. Condi. Trident SefT. 6. Can. 30. de J unifications. 
 
 (d) Siquis dixerit totam pceaam fxmul cum culpa remirtt 
 Temper a Deo, fatisfaftionemque poenitentium non tfk 
 aliam quam fidem, qua apprehendunt Chriftum pro eis 
 fatisfecifle, anathema fit, Condi. Trident, Self. 14. Can 12. de 
 faenitentia Sacramento. 
 
 (e) Siquis dixerit pro peccatis, quoad poenam tempora- 
 Jem, minime Deo, per Chrifti Merita fatisfieripoenis ab eo 
 infliftis, & patienter toleratis, vel a Sacerdote injunftis, fed 
 neque fponte fufceptis, ut jejuniis, orarionibus,eleemofynis, 
 vel aliisetiam pietatis operibus ; atque ideo optimam pceni- 
 tentiam efle tantumNovam Vicam; anachema fic./^'</.Can. 1 3 . 
 
 From
 
 222 Of Satisfaction. Part II. 
 
 From thefe Quotations it appears, that the 
 Church of Rome teaches the following Particulars. 
 
 1. That there is a twofold Punifhment due to 
 fin, viz. Temporal and Eternal ; both which muft 
 of neceflity be undergone in order to Salvation. 
 
 2. That alt ho' the Merits of Chrifl have fully 
 farisfy'd the Juft/ceof God, for both the Tempo- 
 ral and Eternal Puniihment of thofe fins which 
 were committed before Baptifm: yet Chrifl has 
 fatisfy'd only for the Eternal punishment of fuch as 
 are committed after Baptifm ; and consequently, 
 that when the eternal punifhment is forgiven for 
 the fake of Cbrifl, the Temporal punifhment ftill 
 remains due for them, and muft be born by the 
 cftend ing party, either in this World or the 
 World to come. 
 
 3. That in this World the Temporal panifk- 
 menc of fin may be born diverfe ways ; either, 
 frft, by enduring afflictions fent from God ; or, 
 Jecmdly, by voluntary Afts of felf-revenge, fuch 
 as rafting, &c. or, thirdly^ by performing what 
 Exercifcs of Mortification the Prieft mail injoin 
 after our ConfeffiOn to him. But in the other 
 World, the Temporal punifhment of fin is not 
 born otherwife, than by enduring the miferiesof 
 Purgatory; out of which a Man's Soul cannot be 
 released, till thofe afflictions, which are due for 
 fins committed after Baptifm, are completed. 
 
 4. That fuch enduring of Temporal Milerics 
 is a SatiifaElion to the juftice of God, for the 
 Temporal punifhment due to thofe fins, which are 
 committed againft him after Baptifm , as the fuf- 
 ferings of our Bleifed Lord, are a fatisfa&ion to 
 the fame Juftice, for the eternal punilhment due 
 to the fame fins. 
 
 Thus
 
 Chap. XV. Of Satisfaction. 225 
 
 Thus have I given the Reader an impartial Ac- 
 count of what the Church of Rome believes con- 
 cerning Satisfaction. But before I acquaint him 
 with our own Doctrine, I muft beg Him diligent- 
 ly to obferve the difference between a J/lndittwe 
 and a Cone&ive Puaifhment ; becaufe this fingle 
 Diftin6tion will make this (otherwife intricate) 
 Controverfy very plain and intelligible. 
 
 Every Punifhment is a Mifery inflicted for the 
 Commiflion of fin. Now according as the Rea~ 
 fons differ for which the Mifery is inflided, fo 
 the PunUhment differs alfo. Thus that Mifery, 
 which is inflicted upon a Sinner, in order to his 
 good, is callM a Corre&ive Punifhment ; becaufe 
 the only end and defign of fuch a Mifery, is that 
 the Perfon may be corrected and amended by it. 
 But that Mifery which is inflicted without any 
 defign of amending the Sinner, but only for to 
 avenge the Evil he has done, is call d a Vindifti've 
 Punifliment. Now this Corrective Punifhment is 
 always the effect of Mercy ; whereas the VindiEtwe 
 Punifliment flows from Juftice only. 
 
 This one thing being premifed, I fhall now fhew 
 as far as I fhall find it neceflary, wherein we as>ree 
 with our Adverfaries, and wherein we differ from 
 them. And, 
 
 j. Whereas our Adverfaries affirm, that there is 
 a twofold Punifliment due to fin, viz. Temporal 
 and Eternal, both which muft of neceflity 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, andconfequently 
 utterly out of his favor ; fo that God wou'd not 
 inflict any Corrective Punifhmenr upon him : part- 
 ly becaufe God, a:s proceeding by the rules of ftrict 
 Juftice, had no merciful defigns towards him ; 
 
 whereas
 
 124 Of Sttisfattiov. fart Ii. 
 
 whereas a Conceive Punifhment is always the ef- 
 fect of Mercy ; and partly becaufe a Corrective Pu- 
 nifhment wou'd be utterly vain and fruitlefs, fince 
 without rheafliftance of SupernaturalGrace(which 
 Man considered 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 CorreHive 
 Punifhment upon Man, when confider'd in fuch 
 circumftances; yet he wou'd and did inflict a Vin- 
 diHive Punifhment, which was the efifed of his 
 Juflice and Indignation againft fin. Man was al- 
 ready become mortal and miferabte in this World ,- 
 and mult have been afterwards plung'd into Hell- 
 fire, had not the Merits of a Savior refcued him. 
 The Miieries that were, and wou'd have been in- 
 flided on him, were both Temporal and Eternal; 
 and confequently the Z^W/#m' p unifhment infl ided 
 by God, wou'd have been both Temporal and Eter- 
 nal. 'Tis agreed therefore, that not a Corrective, bat 
 a P/^z'#/'i< > Punifh.m2nt, both Temporal and Eternal 
 is due to fin, and muft of neceffity be undergone, 
 Qi'fatirfy'd for, in order to Salvation. 
 
 2. Whereasour Adverfaries affirm, that the Me- 
 rits otChrift have fully fatisfy'd the Juftice of God 
 for both the Temporal and Eternal Punifhment of 
 thofe fins which were committed before Baptifm , 
 we do alfo affirm the fame. 'Tis agreed on both 
 fide?, that C/w/coii'd'fatisfy the Juftice of God 
 in our Head ; and 'tis alfo agreed, that he did fa- 
 tisfy both for the Temporal and Eternal Punifli- 
 ment of thofe fins which were committed before 
 Baptifm. But I have already faid, that the Pu- 
 nifhment inflided upon Man, as confidef'd without 
 a Savior, was a VindiEli've Punifoment j and there- 
 fore, fince Chrifi fatisfy'd for the Panifliment then 
 
 in
 
 Chap. XV. Of Satisfaction. 225 
 
 inflicted upon us, he fatisfy 'd for a J/indiElive Pur 
 nifhraent , that is, for that Punifhraenr which the 
 bare Juftice of God required before we cou'd be 
 admitted to his favor ; and confequentlyj uport 
 this Satisfaction made by Chrift, we were reftor'd 
 to God's favor, and made capable of Mercy, and 
 in particular of a ConeElive Punifliment, which, as 
 I have already faid, is the effect of Mercy. 
 
 Now fince Chrift has fatisfy 'd for this VindiEiive 
 Punifliment of fio, "'tis unreafonable and unjuft, that 
 any part of it fhou'd ftill remain inflicted on us. 
 And confequently, fince Worldly Miferies and 
 Death were the Temporal part of our J/inAicli'ue 
 Puniiliment ; 'tis unreafonable and unjufl that fuch 
 as are baptiz'd, and have thereby a claim to the 
 Merits of Chrift, fhou'd fuffer both or either o 
 them, as a VindiElwe Punifliment for their fin. And 
 yet ic is plain, that we do groan under Miferies, 
 and continue Mortal, even after our Baptifm. 
 
 But the Juftice of God, who fuffers us to be 
 miferable in this World, and then to die, notwith- 
 ftanding our Ranfom is pay 'd, will be eafily clear'd, 
 if we confider (what I have already faid) that we 
 are now made capable of Mercy ,- and that what, 
 was once a Punifliment, is now become an Act of 
 Kindnefs. God has now chang'd our great Misfor- 
 tunes into the greateft Bleffings. Our Miferies 
 do increafe our future Happinefs, and our Death 
 is an entrance into the pofleflion 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 Chrift will infinitely reward 
 our Victories. The greater our Natural Imper- 
 fections, and our Temporal Afflictions are, the 
 greater and brighter will our Crown be; if we gee 
 the Maftery over them ,- and as for Death, 'tis 
 
 P .
 
 aa6 Of Satisfatfion. Part II. 
 
 the folideft comfort of a good Chriftian. It is now 
 difarm'd of it's Sting, and become our fureft friend. 
 Wherefore fince our ^W/#m?Punifhmentis turn'd 
 into an invaluable Bleffing, the Juftice of God is 
 fully clear'd, and his Mercy triumphs in this dif- 
 penfation towards us. And thus we are perfectly 
 agreed, that the Merits of Chrifl have fully fatif- 
 fy'd the Juftice of God for both the Temporal and 
 Eternal (Vtmti&rtx) Puniihment of thofe fins, 
 which were committed before Baptifm. 
 
 But whereas our Adverfaries affirm, that Chrift 
 has fatisfy'd only for the Eternal Punifhment of 
 fuch fins as are committed after Baptifm ; and con- 
 fequently, that when the Eternal Punifliment is -< r- 
 given for the fake of Chrift, the Temporal Pui fh- 
 ment flill remains due for them, and muft be boin 
 by the offending party, either in this World, or in 
 the World to come : we think it neceflary to dif- 
 fent from them in this particular. 
 
 *Tis true, if by a Temporal Punifliment our Ad- 
 verfaries mean only a Corrective Temporal Puniih- 
 ment ; we are then ready to grant, that God may, 
 and often do's inflict it on us : nor did Chrifl ever 
 defign to exempt us from it. Nay, it had been 
 a diminution of his Kindnefs to us, if he had not 
 made us fubjcd to it : becaufe, as I have already 
 faid, a Corre&ive Punifhment is the efFed of Mer- 
 cy. And therefore, Whenfoever God perceives^ 
 that any fort of Temporal Evil is neceflary for our 
 Soul's Health, either to recall us from our fin, or 
 to give us a deeper fenfe of it, or the like good 
 purpofe ; we are infinitely oblig'd to him for in- 
 flicYing it. But yet we fay, that even fuch Cor" 
 reftive Punifhments are not always neceflary. When 
 God inflicts them, they are moft certainly necef- 
 ary for fome end of his gracious Providence : but 
 
 God
 
 Chap.JCV. Of Satisfaction* 
 
 God may, and often do's, pardon a fin upon true 
 repentance, without inflicting a Correftive Ptmifti- 
 ment. Becaufe, if thofe Wife ends for which the 
 Corrective Punifhmcnt is defign'd, be ferv'd with- 
 out it i the Punifliment do's then become needlefs. 
 However, fince Chrift never fatisfy'd for Correttwe 
 Punifliments, we are itill liable to them, and oughc 
 to be thankful for them, when they are inflicted. 
 
 But 'tis evident, that when our Adverfaries fpeak 
 of a Temporal PuniQiment due to fins committed 
 after Baptii'm, for which Puniflimenr Chrift has not 
 fatisfy'd, and which we mult therefore fatisfy for, 
 either in this World, or in the World to come ; 
 I lay, when our Adverfaries fpeak of {uch a remain- 
 ing Temporal Puniflunent ; they muftj and do 
 mean noc a Corrective, but ^Vindictive Punifhment. 
 For, 
 
 F/V/2, I have already fhewn, that the Punifliment 
 inflicted upon Man, as conlider'd without a Savi- 
 or, is a Vindiiiive Punifhment ; and therefore that 
 Punifhment for which Chrift has not fatisfy 'd, is a 
 Vtnditlwe Punifliment. And confequently, fince 
 Chrift according to our Adverfaries Opinion, has 
 not ktisfy'd for the Temporal Punilhment of fins 
 commirted after Baptifm ; 'tis manifeft, that the 
 Temporal Punifhment flill due for them a is a Vtnr. 
 di'clive Temporal Punilhment. 
 
 Sicondlj) if they do not mean a ISindiftwe Pu- 
 tiifiiment j 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 falvation ; and that they are not capable 
 of improvement in it. And 'tis plain^ that no 
 P a othet
 
 228 Of Satisfaction. Part II. 
 
 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 or God's Juftice. And as foe 
 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 Purgatory, nor any other Perfons, either 
 groaning in Hell, or living upon Earth, can be 
 corrected by the Punifhments in Purgatory , 'tis 
 plain, that the Puniihment which is there under- 
 gone, muft be, not a Coneftive, but a Vinditli've 
 Punifhment. But perhaps I need not have prov'd 
 this point : For I am perfuaded, our Adverfaries 
 will be far from denying what I have faid. Nay, 
 they will rather contend, that it muft be a Vindi- 
 flive Puniihment ; becaufe it cannot otherwife be 
 neceffary by way of Satirfa&im to the Juftice of 
 God. 
 
 Well then ; 'tis granted on both fides, that when 
 any Man fins after Baptifm, God may, and we 
 hope he always will, inflict a Correttwe Temporal 
 Punifliment: if that be expedient, either before the 
 Eternal Punifhment is forgiven, to recall him to his 
 Duty -, or after the Eternal Punifliment is forgiven, 
 to imprefs a deeper fenfe of the fin upon his Mind, 
 or for any other fpiritual end. But then our Adver- 
 faries pofitively affirm, and we flatly deny, That a 
 Vtndi&ive Temporal Punifhment do's, or can remain 
 due for fins committed after Baptifm , when the 
 Vtndittiwe Eternal Punifhment of them is forgiven. 
 
 Now this naturally leads me 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 
 Vtndiftwe Puniihment is due to fins committed 
 
 after
 
 Chap. XV; Of Satisfaction. 229 
 
 after Baptifm. a. That Chrifl has fatisfy'd for the 
 Eternal part of this yindi&ive Punifhment, as far 
 as concerns thofe Perfons who have a right and ti- 
 tle to his Merits. The Queftion therefore is, 
 Whether Chrifl: has alfo fatisfy'd for the Vindicii-ve 
 Temporal Punifhment of thofe fins, -which were commit- 
 ted after Baptifm, the Vindi&vve Eternal Punishment 
 of "which is already forgiven for his fake. 'Tis grant- 
 ed by our Adverfaries, that if Chrifl has fatisfy'd 
 for the Vindictive TVw/wa/ Punifhment of fuch fins* 
 then we are not oblig'd to undergo any Temporal 
 Miferies by way of Satisfaction for it. And con- 
 fequently, their Doctrine concerning the neceffity 
 of Satisfaction for the Vindictive Temporal Punifh- 
 ment of fuch fins, falls to the ground. J Tis gran- 
 ted alfo by our felves, that if Chrifl has not fatis- 
 fy'd for the Vindictive Temporal Punifhment of fuch 
 fins ; then we our felves, or fome Perfon in our 
 Head, muft undergo or fatisfy for ir, before we can 
 enter into Heaven ; altho' the Vindictive Eternal 
 Punifhment of fuch fins be actually forgiven for 
 Chrift's fake. Here then we muft join iflue, and 
 try whether Chrift has fatisfy'd for the Vindictive 
 Temporal Punifhment of fuch fins, or no. 
 
 'Twere very eafy to prove upon this occafion, 
 that the Scriptures do declare, that God has for- 
 given aU the Vindictive Punifhment of fins com- 
 mitted after Baptifm, if the Penitent be truly re 
 form'd. Becaufe the Remiffion of fins is promi- 
 fed in fuch terms, as make it utterly impoflible, 
 that any part of the Punifhment fliou'd remain. 
 If the wicked will turn from all his Jins that he hath com-* 
 mittedy and keep all my ftatutes, and do that which 
 is lawful and right ; he jhaU furely live, he Jbatt 
 mt die. Att his Tranfgrejjtons that he bat committed^ 
 
 * 3
 
 2 jo Of Satisfaction. Part II, 
 
 they /hall net be mention d unto him : in bis righteoufnefs 
 that he hath done, he flail five, Ezek. 18. 21, 22. 
 And Ifalah, fpcaking of our Savior, faies, Surely 
 he hath torn our griefs, and carried our farrows 
 be wot wounded for our Tranfgreffions, he was bnufed 
 for our iniquities : the Chajiifement of our Peace was 
 upon him, and with his ftripes we are heal'd, Chap. 
 53. 4, 5. Thefe and many other expreffions are 
 Jfo very general and comprehenfive, that a Man 
 cannot read them ferioufly and impartially with- 
 out a firm belief of God's having forgiven all the 
 Vindictive punifiiment of fuch fins, as the finner 
 has forfaken. And if God has forgiven all the 
 Vindictive punifiiment of fuch fins -, then he has 
 certainly forgiven it for Cki'ift's fake ; and confe- 
 quently, Chrift has fatisfy'd as well for the tempo- 
 ral, as for the eternal Vindictive punifhment of fuch 
 fins. 
 
 But I Qiall not proceed in this manner ; becaufe 
 I am willing to ufe a (horter method wirh our Ad- 
 verfaries. They will readily grant, that if their 
 own arguments from Scripture be not a fufficient 
 proof of their own Doctrine, then it is an unfcrip- 
 tural Doctrine, whether I can (hew that the Scrip- 
 tures do contradict it, or no. And if it prove an 
 unfcriptural Doctrine, 'tis as much as I contend for 
 at prefeat ; becaufe for the fake of Peace and Mo- 
 deration, I am not now willing to charge them 
 higher concerning this particular error. Now that 
 it is an unfcriptural Doctrine, I fliall make appear 
 by examining what they alledge out of Scripture 
 in favor of it. 
 
 If it may be prov'd from Scripture, that Chrift 
 has not fatisfy'dfor the Vindictive temporal punifh- 
 ment of fins committed after Baptihn, the Vindi- 
 Itive eternal punifhment of which is already forgi- 
 ven;
 
 Chap. XV. Of SAtisfifiion. *$ i 
 
 vcn ; then it may be prov'd by (hewing either, 
 i. That the vindictive temporal punifliment of fuch 
 fins do's (till remain due ; or, 2. That we are 
 obiig'd to fatisfy for it. But I {hall Evidently 
 prove, that the Scriptures do not teach either, 
 i. That the vindictive temporal punifhment of fuch 
 fins do's remain due ; or, 2. That we may, or 
 ought to fatisfy for it. 
 
 I. T'he Scriptures do mt teach, that the vindictive 
 temporal puni foment of fins committed after Baftifm, 
 tfx vtndicltve ecernal Punifiment of -which is already 
 forgiven for Chrift'j fake, do's ftill remain due. For 
 if the Scriptures do teach it, then it may be made 
 appear, either by fome inftance when it remain d; 
 or by fome Text in which this Dodrine is taught: 
 Whereas neither of thefe methods will ferve. 
 
 Firfly it do's not appear by any inflance. Be- 
 caufe thofe inftances which our Adverfaries pro- 
 duce, are nothing to the purpofe. For no inftan- 
 ces can be aumitted for proof in this cafe, unlefs 
 it appear, i . That the fin was committed after 
 Baptifm, or after forae other fuch-like Covenant 
 with Almighty God. 2. That the punifhment 
 which remain'd due, was not a Correclive, but a 
 V.ndtHtw punifhroent. 3. That the Vindidive 
 eternal pumfhment of that (in was then forgiven, 
 when the Vindictive temporal punifliment remain- 
 ed due. Now thofe inftances which our Adverfa- 
 ries produce, are deficient in fome of thefe refpeds, 
 as will appear upon a ferious examination of them. 
 
 For, 
 
 i. They tell us, that the temporal pummment 
 of Original Sin, viz,. Death and temporal Miferies, 
 do's ftill remain, even after the eternal punifhment 
 is remitted for the fake of Cbrifl. But this is 
 nothing to the purpofe ; becaufe, i . It is not an in- 
 P 4 ftaace
 
 Of Sdtisfatfion: Part II. 
 
 ftance of a fin committed after Baptifm ; but of 
 Original fin. 2. They themfelves do grant, that 
 both the temporal and eternal punifhment of all fins 
 committed before Baptifm is forgiven for Chrtft's 
 jfake : and why then do they contradict themfelves 
 by faying, that the temporal punifliment of Origi- 
 nal (in 9 which was certainly committed before 
 Baptifm, do's ftill remain, even after the eternal 
 punifliment of it is forgiven ? 3 . 'Tis an inftance 
 wherein no temporal punifhment at all remains due. 
 For Firft, they themfelves will confefs, that the 
 Death and temporal Miferies, confequent upon 
 Original fin, are not a Corrective temporal punifli- 
 ment ; and if they were a CorreHive temporal pu- 
 nifliment, 'tis certain that the continuance of a 
 Corrective temporal punifhment after the forgivenefs 
 of the fin, will not prove that a Vinditti've tempo- 
 ral punifliment remains due after the T7mdiEli<ve e- 
 ternal punifhment is forgiven. Secondly, I have al- 
 ready hewn in this Chapter, that Death and tem- 
 poral Miferies are now chang'd from a vindictive 
 punifliment into very great bleffings ; and how 
 then will it follow from this inftance, in which no 
 punifliment remains, that a vindictive punifliment 
 do's remain ? 
 
 2. They tell us, that Three thoufand were flam 
 for worshipping Aaron s Calf, Exod. 32. 28. Now 
 'tis true, that this fin of Idolatry was committed 
 after Circumcifion, which Covenant is parallel with 
 that of Baptifm : but how will our Adverfaries 
 make it appear, i .That this was a Vrndiftive punifli- 
 ment ? 2. That the fin was forgiven, when the 
 punifliment was infli&ed ? For otherwife this in- 
 ftance is impertinent. This Death was undoubt- 
 edly inflided for a terror to others ; that the reft 
 of the Congregation might be terrify 'd from fin
 
 Chap. XV. Of Satisfaction: 2 3 $ 
 
 by this fearful inftance of God's Vengeance ; and 
 'tis Recorded for our profit, for all thefe things 
 happened to them for examples, and they are written 
 for our admonition, upon 'whom the ends of the World 
 are come, i Cor. 10. 1 1. Now if the fin of thofe 
 that dy'd was forgiven by God, 'twas eafy for him 
 to make their Death, not a J/indifti've punifhment, 
 but a blefling to them. For it fecur'd them from, 
 the like Apoitacy for the future ; and if in their 
 laft minutes they were penitent in proportion to 
 their Offence, their reward wou'd be greac in 
 Heaven. 
 
 But granting that the Death then infliaed on 
 them was really a Vindictive temporal punifbment; 
 yet it do's not appear, that the Apoftacy of thofe 
 who were {lain was forgiven by God. When God 
 perceiv'd the wickednefs of the People in worfhip- 
 ping a Golden Calf, he faid to Mojes, verfe 9, io. 
 / have fern this people ; and behold it is a fliffnecked 
 people. Now therefore let me alone, that my -wrath 
 may wax hot againft them, and that I may confume 
 them : and I will make oj thee a great Nation. God 
 had defign'd to root out the whole Nation from 
 off the face of the Earth ; but Mofes intreated him 
 to forgive their fin. Upon this God fpared the 
 Survivors ; but not one fyllable is fpoken of his 
 pardoning the Vindictive eternal punifliment of 
 thofe that were dead already. And why then do 
 our Adverfaries urge this inftance, in which it do's 
 not in the leaft appear thac the Vindictive eternal 
 punifhment was forgiven ; to prove, that the Vin- 
 dictive temporal punifhment do's remain, when the 
 ^Vindictive eternal punifhment is forgiven ? 
 
 3. We are told that Miriam was punifhed by be- 
 ing fhut out of the Camp Seven daies, tho' her fin 
 
 was
 
 Pf S*tisfatfio#. Part II. 
 
 was pardon'd at the requeft of Mofes. But this 
 was a CorreEii-ve punifliment, to the end, that (he 
 might bcajbam'dy verfe 14. and that others being 
 vrarn'd by her example might not offend after the 
 fame manner. Now fince this was a Corrective, 
 and not a Vwdittive punifliment, it proves no- 
 thing. 
 
 4. 'Tis faid, that altho* God pardon'd the fin of 
 the Israelites that murmur'd, Numb.iq. 20. yet he 
 did uoc remit the temporal punilhmenr, but pu- 
 nifti'd them with death in the Wildernefs, verfe 23. 
 Now I confefs, that if God had inflided prefent 
 death upon them, fuch prefent death couM not be 
 a CorreEirve punifliment to thofe who were fen- 
 tenc'd to it, becaufe there is no reformation in the 
 Grave. But the death inflided on them was not 
 prefent death ; only they were to die within a 
 certain time, and fuch a death might well be ac- 
 counted a Corre&iw punifliment, For, i. 'Tis 
 granted, that it was a punifliment ; and therefore, 
 2 'Twas a Correttive punifliment, becaufe they 
 being thus warn'd of it, were thereby naturally 
 led to ferious repentance, and preparation for their 
 latter end. 
 
 Well then , the Perfons on whom this death 
 was afterwards inflided, did either repent befort 
 their death, or they did not. If they did not re- 
 pent, certainly the Vindidive eternal punifliment 
 of their fin was not forgiven ; and confequently, 
 this inftance do's not reach our prefent Cafe. But 
 if they did repent before their death, then their 
 death, that is, the certain expedition of it within 
 a prefixt time was really defign'd, and in the event 
 did truly prove a CorreElwe punifliment to them. 
 And how then doV the continuance of this, 
 which was a Correftive punifliment, prove that a 
 
 Wndifttve
 
 Chap. XV.- Of Satisfaftion. 235 
 
 T/indiElive temporal punifhment do's remain due, 
 after that the Vindictive eternal punifhment is for- 
 given ? 
 
 If it be objeded, that God threaten'd the Peo- 
 ple in thefe words, Etfcietis ultimem meant, verfe 
 34. that is, and ye flail know my revenge ; and con- 
 fequently, that this evil was not defign'd to amend 
 them, but for a truly VindiEkve punifliment ; I 
 anfwer, 
 
 i . That tho' Expositors differ concerning the 
 fignification of the original Hebrew word j yet 
 'tis certain that it do's not fignify Revenge. Our 
 Englifb Trar.flation renders it breach ofprontife ; and 
 truly with very good reafon. For the word will 
 fairly admit of that Senfe, and the context feems 
 to require it. For the People murmur'd againft 
 Mofes and Aaron for bringing them out of Egypt, a 
 moft pleafant country, into a land where they met 
 with numberlefs miferies. Woud God, fay they, 
 that tos had died in tfe land of Egypt ; or woud God, 
 we had died in this fPiUtmeft. And wherefore hath 
 the Lord brought w> unto this land, to fall by the fword, 
 that our wives and our children jhoud be a prey ? were 
 it not better for m to return into Egypt ? And the? 
 faid one to another, Let w> make a Captain, and, return 
 into Egypt; verfe 2, 3, 4. From hence it appears, 
 that they disbeliev'd the Promife of God, who 
 had given them fuch great atfurance of a Land 
 flowing with Milk and Honey, which wou'd abun- 
 dantly recompence all their trouble in travelling 
 towards it. For this Rebellion and Infidelity 
 God fent his Judgments among them ; and amongft 
 other things he tells them, verfe 34. After the 
 Dumber of the daies in which ye fearched the land, 
 even fourty daies ( each day for a year ) flatt ye bear 
 your iniquities, even forty years ; and then he adds 
 
 if
 
 2 $ 6 Of Sdtisfattion. Part II. 
 
 in a farcaftical manner, reproaching them for their 
 unworthy thoughts of his breaking his Word, and 
 ye fiatt know my breach of promife. 
 
 2. Tho* it were granted againft all reafon, that 
 the Word did fignify revenge, yet it muft be confi- 
 der'd, that this revenge was not what we may call 
 pure revenge, merely to fatisfy incenfed Juftice ; but 
 a Judgment, Vengeance, or Revenge upon them, 
 to lead them to a due fenfe of their crimes. Nay, 
 'tis plain, that it was thus intended ; becaufe, i. 
 They are warned of it, that it may have an effect 
 upon them. 2. They muft be fuppos'd capable of 
 being amended by it ; or elfe, if they were given 
 over to a reprobate Mind, the Inftance is imper- 
 tinent. For we are not difcourfing of fuch Perfons, 
 as are incapable of Grace, but of thofe whom God 
 loves and favors ; nay, of thofe, the eternal pu- 
 nifhment of whofe fins is a&ually forgiven. 
 
 5. The fame anfwer may be apply'd to the next 
 Inftance, viz,, that of Mofes and Aaron -, who tho* 
 they were certainly received into God's favor, did 
 neverthelefs undergo the temporal puniihmcnt of 
 Death in the Wildernefs } becaufe they had finned 
 againft God at the Waters of Meribah, Numb. 20. 
 24. Deut. 32. 51. For it appears from Numb. 20. 
 
 1 2. that they were forewarned of their Death ; and 
 confequently, 'twas not a Vtdi8we t but a Corre- 
 Hi've punifhment, for their own good, and for the 
 inftrudion of others. 
 
 6. The fame Anfwer may be apply'd alfo to the 
 Inftance of David ; who, after that the fin of his 
 Adultery with Batkjheba was forgiven, 2 Sam. 12. 
 
 1 3 . was punifh'd with the temporal affli&ion of 
 the Child's Death, ver. 14. For this was a Cone- 
 &we punifhmcnt, to bring him by the love he 
 bore to the Child, and his uncafinefs at the thought 
 
 of
 
 Chap. XV. Of Satisfaction. 237 
 
 of parting with it, to a due fenfe of his great 
 Mifcarriage. 
 
 If it be objected, that David thought the Child's 
 Death a Vindiftive punifhment, becaufe he fafted 
 and pray'd to God, that it might be fpar'd ; where- 
 as he wou'd not have endeavour'd to remove a Cor- 
 reftive puniflimenr, which was defign'd for his own 
 good j I anfwer, that good Men raay, and often 
 do, pray againft thofe evils which are very prefling, 
 altho' they be fully fatisfy'd, that all evils are fent 
 for their advantage. But then they pray with a 
 referve, and do always fuppofe this condition, If 
 God thinks it convenient, that the Calamity be removd. 
 So that a Man's praying againft a thing fuppofes, 
 
 1. His own great affliction under the fuf&ring. 
 
 2. His belief, that God may be intreated to give 
 him eafe, if that eafe may be fafely and wifely 
 granted him : and thefe two things are to be fup- 
 pos'd, when David 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 Vindittive Juftice ; 
 for that muft and will be fatisfy'd j and therefore 
 'tis in vain to pray againft it. 
 
 In a word then, David knew that if the Child 
 muft die, it's death was defign'd for a Corrective 
 punifhmenr, that is, as a mercy to him : but if 
 the Mercy defign'd him, might be brought to pafe 
 as well by the Child's Life, as by it's Death, 
 which wou'd be a great affliciion to him -, he ear- 
 neftly pray'd that the Child might live. 
 
 To this I muft add, that the Child's Death was 
 receflary, net only as a Corrective punilhment upon 
 David j but alfo as a means to enable him to re- 
 pair the injury he had done to Religion by his ex- 
 ample, becaufe he had given great occafion to tfe 
 enemies of the Lord to tlafpheme, ver. 14. Now
 
 2} 8 t Of SatisfAtlion. Part II. 
 
 a Sinner is oblig'd by the rules of Common JufticCj 
 to re&ify the miftakes of thofe, whom he had led 
 into Error and Sin. And therefore, fince Men 
 wou'd be tempted to think, that if God had dealt 
 fo very kindly with David, he wou'd eafily pardon 
 them alfo, it' they fliou'd commit the fame Crime; 
 'twas very fit, that David fhou'd teach them an- 
 other Leffon, by bearing fo great a lofs before their 
 Eyes. Thus the very fame Misfortune was cor- 
 rective to David himfelf, and inftru&ive to others. 
 
 7. They tell us, that when David had finned 
 by numbring the People, he was punifh'd with a 
 Peflilence, even after his fin was pardoned, 2 Sam. 
 24. Bat I anfwer, r. That it do's not appear, that 
 David's fin was forgiven before the punifhment/ 
 was over. 2. That this was alfo a CorreElive pu- 
 nifhment, that by the greatnefs of the Calamity 
 he might fully under/land 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 
 13. did heartily repent, and was forgiven by Godj 
 yet I deny that his being afterwards (lain by the 
 Lion, was a VindiEUve punifhment. For he being 
 aflur'd of his Death by 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 j and therefore the certainty of 
 his Death was a Corrective punifhment 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 1/indiftive punifhment, merely 
 to fatisfy the Vengeance of God. 
 
 9. The laft Inftance is that of the Corinthians^ 
 to whom St. Paul writes thus ; For this caufe (viz. 
 for eating and drinking unworthily) many are weak 
 
 and
 
 Chap. XV. Of Satisfaffiott'. 3 J 9 
 
 andfickly among you, and many fleep, I Cor. n. 50. 
 But the Apofile tells them the reafon of this pu- 
 nifliment in the following verfes, faying, for if we 
 wou'd judge cur fefoes, luejhoud net be judgd. But 
 when we are judgd, we are chaftened of the Lord t 
 that -we fhoud not be condemn d -with the W<rld. From 
 hence it is plain they underwent (not a Pinkftrue* 
 but) a Corrective punifliment. Some were punifh'4 
 with Sicknefs only ; but others dy'd after they had 
 endur'd a Difeafe. And tho' the a&ual ilroke of 
 Death cou'd not amend their Lives ; yet the cer- 
 tainty of it, 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 
 produced by our Adverfaries do not prove, that 
 the Vindictive Temporal punifliment of S ns com- 
 mitted after Baptifm, do's remain due, when the 
 Vindiftive Eternal punifliment of them is forgiven 
 for Chri/fs fake. 
 
 Secondly, There is no Text which teaches this 
 Doctrine : 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 Doctrine at all. 
 
 II. The Scriptures do not teach, that we may, or 
 ought tofatisfyfor the Vindictive Temporal funijhment 
 of fins committed after Baptifm, when the T/indicli've 
 Eternal punijhment of them ts forgiven for Chri&'sfake. 
 This will appear by the Examination of thofe Pla- 
 ces, which are thought to teach it. For, 
 
 i. We read, that By mercy and truth iniquity is 
 f urged : and by the fear of the Lord men depart from 
 evil, Prov. 1 6. 6. That is, by the practice of Mercy 
 and Truth, the Wickednefs of a Man (or the Pu- 
 nilhmeitt due to his Wickednefs,} is done away ; and 
 
 by
 
 246 Of Sttisftftion. Part II, 
 
 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 
 \ve tranflate purgd, is tranflated redeem d by the 
 vulgar Latin ; and if a Man may redeem his fins; 
 certainly he rtiay fatisfy for them. In anfwer to 
 this, I ftiall not (though I juftly might) criticize 
 upon the Hebrew Word, and fliew that it fignifies 
 to cover, or hide, or purge away. But let the Word 
 fignify redeem d ; fmce our Adverfaries can make 
 no advantage of that Signification of it. For what 
 do's redeem us from the Eternal punifhment of 
 Wickedncfs but the Death of Chrift ? And fliall 
 any Man be redeem'd from that punifhment, with- 
 out the practice of Mercy and Truth ? "Tis plain 
 (even upon the greateft conceffions to our Adver- 
 faries) that thefe words cannot poflibly fignify 
 more, than that if we lead good lives, we fhall 
 not be punifh'd for our Iniquity. And for what 
 reafon, I pray ? Even becaufe Chrijt has fatisfy J d 
 for the punifhment of the fins of thofe Perfons who 
 repent and lead good lives. But here is not one 
 fyllable fpoken of our own fatistying for a Tempo* 
 ral punifhment, when the Eternal punifhment is 
 forgiven ; unlefs our Adverfaries will add to the 
 Text, and read it thus, By mercy and truth, the 
 remaining 'Temporal punijhment of iniquity is redeem d 
 by GUY own Satisfaction -, a& the Eternal puntjhment 
 of the fame iniquity was forgiven before for the Jake of 
 Chrift. 
 
 2. God fpeaks to the Children of Jfrael by the 
 Prophet Ifaiah, faying, Wajbye y make you clean, put 
 away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes t 
 ceafe to do evil, learn to do well, feek judgment, re* 
 lie-ve the offrefs'd, judge the father lefs, pie ad for the 
 
 widow. 

 
 Chap. XV. Of Satisfaction. 
 
 widow. Corns now, and let m reafon together, faith 
 the Lord ; tho* your fins be 02 fear let, they Jbatt be as 
 white as fnow ; tho' they le red like crimfcn, they fhaU 
 be as wool ; Ifaiah i. i<5, 17, 18. God promi- 
 feth, that if they wou'd do thofe things mentioned 
 by the Prophet, he wou'd forgive their fins. But 
 do's he fay or fuppofe, that the ?frrt/puni foment 
 is already forgiven, whether they do them, or no; 
 and that thefe things muft be done by way of Sa- 
 tisfa&ion for the 'Temporal puniftiment of their fins? 
 If not y then why do our Adverfaries bring this 
 Text as a proof, that we may fatisfy for the Tem- 
 poral punifiiment of our fins, when the Eternal pu- 
 nifhment is already forgiven ? 'Tis plain, that thefe 
 words are the condition of their Eternal Salvation, 
 and of God's Temporal Mercies to that People ; 
 and that they do not fuppofe the Jews to be alrea- 
 dy pardon'd, and in the favor of God ; asourAd- 
 verhries muft fuppofe, if they think this Argument 
 any thing to the purpofe. 
 
 3 . God fays, At what inflant I fhafl (peak concern-^ 
 ing a Nation, and concerning a Kingdom, to pluck up> 
 and to pull down, and to deflroy it : If that Nation a- 
 gainfl whom I have pronounc* d, turn from their evil, I 
 will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them y Je- 
 rem. 18. 7, 8. That is, When God threatens a 
 Nation tor it's fins, if that Nation artiend and grotf 
 better before the threatning be executed, then God 
 will fpare that Nation, and not execute what he 
 had threatned. But which way will our Adverfa- 
 ries prove from this Text, that when a Man has 
 left his fins, and God has refolv'd not to damn him 
 for them : yet even then the Man may, or muft 
 undergo fome Temporal punifhments to fatisfy 
 God's Juftice, before he can enjoy the benefit of 
 his pardon ? 
 
 Q.
 
 242 OfSattsfattioi*. Part II. 
 
 We are told, I confefs, that the original Words, 
 which fignify Turn from their Evil, are tranflated 
 Pcenitentiam agere, by the vulgar Latin. But fup- 
 pofe that the Original and the Tranflation differ, 
 or that the Expreflions of the one do import more, 
 than thofe of the other j I pray, fhail we ftand by 
 the Original, or by the Tranflation ? However, 
 fuppofe we were to ftand by the Tranflation, yet 
 Pcenitentiam agere do's not fignify, 70 undergo Tem- 
 poral punifoments for Jin y "when the Eternal punifhment 
 is forgiven' Yes, fay they, Pcenitentiam agere figni- 
 fies to repent ; and one part of repentance, is to un- 
 dergo Temporal puni/hment for Jins, even when the Eter- 
 nal punijbment is forgiven. But we never thought 
 that Pcenitentiam agere did in Scripture-phrafe imply 
 fuffering a T'emporalpuni/hmentforfai ; for then how 
 cou'd God Poenitentiam agere, as their belov'd vul- 
 gar 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 Nebuchadnezzar > the 
 Prophet Daniel advis'd him, faying, O King, let 
 my counfel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy 
 fens by righteoufnefs, and thine iniquities by fiewing 
 mercy to the poor ; if it may be a lengthning of thy 
 tranquility ; Dan. 4. 27. From hence our Adver- 
 faries endeavour to prove, that a Man may fatisfy 
 for the Temporal punilhment of his fins. But 
 this Inftance is nothing to the purpofe, unlefs our 
 Adverfaries can fliew, that Nebuchadnez>z.ar's 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 punifliment of his fins, whilft by 
 continuing in his fins, he continues liable to Eternal 
 tprments. And therefore fince Nebuchadnezzar was 
 
 far
 
 . . 
 Chap. XV. VfSafisfttftiifc 
 
 far from being reconcil'd to God's favor, thefe 
 words of the Prophet cannot import, what our 
 Adverfaries 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 fufter, by the juft judg- 
 ment and fiery indignation of God. Therefore he 
 gives him fuch Advice, as was proper in thofe cir- 
 cumftances ; that is, to endeavor by a fpeedy Re- 
 pentance to be reconciled to God, that his Con- 
 verfion might prevent his grievous Calamities. 
 Now Rightecufwjs and jhewing Mercy to the poor, 
 were proper figns of fuch a Man's Reformation ; 
 and therefore Daniel exhorts him to them. But 
 certainly the Prophet wou'd not advife him in the 
 firft place to atone for the Temporal puniihment ; 
 efpecially fince that wou'd not fatisfy the juft wrath 
 of God. No ; he directs him to a better method, 
 to make God his real friend, by entering upon a 
 newcourfe of Life. 
 
 If it be objected, that the word which we render 
 break off^ do's alfo iignify redeem j and confequently^ 
 if a Man may redeem his fins, much more may he 
 fatisfy for them ; I anfwer, that tho' both figni- 
 ficationsbeadmittedj yet, i . our Adverfaries can- 
 not prove, that our Interpretation of it is improper 
 in this place ; and therefore, the bareferife of this 
 word cannot be infifted on by either of us,* a. fince 
 *tis plain, that Nebuchadnezzar 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 Expreflion is an Exhortation to Repentance. 
 But if our Adverfaries wou'd prove their own Do- 
 ftrine from this Text, they ought to mew^ that 
 Daniel told NebuchadnizAar, that after he had 
 QL 2 made
 
 244 Of Sttisfa&iori Part II. 
 
 made his peace with God by becoming a new 
 Man, there was a certain portion of Temporal ca- 
 lamities to be undergone by him, as a Vfadifti** 
 
 Temporal puniihment j not in order to his further 
 amendment, but only to fatisfy God's Jijftice : 
 whereas 'tis plain, that this paflage do's not relate 
 or fuppoie any fuch Matter. 
 
 5. Beca ufe God fpar'd Nineveh, when it repent- 
 ed in fackcloth and afhes, Jonah 3. our Adversaries 
 wou'd perfuade us, that their fafting and mortifi- 
 cation was & fatisfatlion for the Temporal puniih- 
 ment of their fins. Now thefe outward actions 
 were only the figns of that great inward forrow 
 and thorow Reformation, for which God was 
 pleas'd to pardon them. But there is not one word 
 fpoken of any fatufaftion made by them for a pre- 
 tended Vindictive Temporal pumttiment y which ac- 
 cording 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 evil, that he had f:iid he 
 tuoud do unto them, till after they had fafted in fack- 
 cloth and afhes. So that the works of Mortifica- 
 tion were not a. fatisfatlion for ibmething remain- 
 ing after they were pardon'd ; but were all per- 
 form'd before they were pardon'd. Nor do we 
 read, that they continued their Mortifications, af- 
 ter God had forgiven them. 
 
 6. When many Pharifees and Sadducees came to 
 John to be baptiz'd, he knowing their hypocrify, 
 faid unto them, O generation of Vipers who hath war- 
 ned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth 
 therefore, it you defign to obtain the benefits of my 
 Baptifm, fuch fruits as are meet for repentance j I 
 mean, the fruits of good Works, by which a good 
 tree is known, and by which alone you ihall ob- 
 tain
 
 Chap. XV. Of SAtisfAftion: 245 
 
 tain the pardon of your fins. And think not to fay 
 within your fehes, JVe have Abraham to our Far 
 ther, as if your being defended from Abraham* 
 wou'd entitle you to God's favor, without the 
 trouble of an holy Life ; for I fay unto you, that 
 God is able ofthefeftones to raife up children unto A- 
 braham ; Matth. 3. 7, 8, 9. But furely here is 
 nothing faid of Works offatisfafliqn for the Tempo- 
 ral punifhment of fin, after the^K^/punifliment 
 is forgiven , unlefs the good deeds of Juftice and 
 Charity, &c. be fuch works of fitisfa&ion. But 
 'tis plain, that Chriftian Duties are the indifpen- 
 fable conditions of the Pardon of our Eternal punifh- 
 ment : and not works of fatisfaclion for the Tempo- 
 ral punifhment, after that the Eternal punifliment 
 is forgiven. 
 
 7. A certain Pharifee that had invited our Savior 
 to dinner, wcndred that our Lord bad not fir ft iva/b- 
 ed before dinner, Luke 1 1. 38. And the Lord faid un- 
 to htm, Now do ye Pharifees make clean the outfide of 
 the Cup and the platter : but your inward part is full of 
 ravening and wickednefs, ver. 3 9. Then he proceeds 
 to tell him, that true purity do's not cpnftft in 
 warnings and cleanfings, but in inward Righte- 
 oufnefs ; and that whilft the Pharifees continu'd in 
 the pra&ife of Injuftice, 'twas, in vain for them to 
 think to make themfelves pure by the obfervance 
 of fuch outward cuftoms, Te fools, fays he, did 
 not he that made that which is without, make that which 
 is within alfo ? But rather give alms of fuch things as 
 you have j beftow your ill-gotten goods upon the 
 poor, and do not keep the riches which you have 
 unjuftly fcrap'd together :. and then, when you 
 have left this heinous Vice, your darling Sin, be- 
 hold, aS things are clean unto you, ver 40, 41 . The 
 bare mention of the Context is an abundant proo 
 
 Q. 3 thac
 
 246 Of Satisfaction. Part II. 
 
 thatthefe laft words do not, and cannot relate to 
 the Doctrine of Satisfaction for the Temporal punifh- 
 ment of (ins already pardon 'd ; and confequently 
 this Argument is utterly impertinent. 
 
 8. It pleafes God fometimes, by fending a judg- 
 ment upon an obftinate and hardened Sinner, tp 
 awaken him to true repentance ; But, as the Apo- 
 ftle fays, i Cor. u. 31, 32. if we won' d judge 
 our felves, and impartially confider the flate and 
 danger of our Souls, and repent accordingly, we 
 fboud not be judgd. But when we are judgd, we 
 are cbaftened of the Lord , that we Jboud not be 
 condemn d with the World. Which way is it pofll- 
 ble for our Adverfaries to prove their Doctrine 
 of Satisfaction from this Text ? Is this good ar- 
 guing, God fometimes brings a Sinner to Repentance 
 by affliEling him, and this he do's to prevent his damna- 
 tion ': 'therefore when a Mansjins are forgiven and he 
 is fecur' d from damnation, he mufl undergo fome tempo- 
 ral punijbment for his fins, merely to fatisfy God's 
 Jufiice? 
 
 9. What St. Paul had faid in his former Epiftle 
 to the Corinthians, had made them forry after a 
 Godly manner , for they farrowed to repentance^ 
 2 Cor. 7. p. This the Apoftle proves to them by 
 the effects of their forrow, For behold y this f elf-fame 
 thing that ye forrowed after a. Godly for t y what care~ 
 fulnefs it wrought in you ; yea t what clearing of your 
 fehes ; yea y what indignation ; yea, what fear ; yea, 
 -what vehement defire ,- yea, what z,eal , yea, what 
 revenge ? in all thefe things ye have approvd your 
 felves to be now clear in this matter, becaufe 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- 
 pentance^ without which they cou'd not be for- 
 
 givcnj
 
 Chap. XV. Of Satisfaction. 247 
 
 given ; that Men are oblig'd to endure temporal 
 pains after their fins are forgiven ? 
 
 Yes, fay they ; for their forrow wrought revenge*, 
 that is, a revenge upon themfelves by way of Sa- 
 tisfa&ion for the temporal punifhment, after the e- 
 ternal punishment was forgiven. But this Com- 
 ment do's not explain, but add to the Text ; for 
 St. Paul faies no fuch thing. And certainly Men 
 may by Severities and other Ads (if I may fo 
 fpeak) of felf-revenge, endeavor to retrain them- 
 felves from fin more effedually for the future, with- 
 out any opinion of making Sathfaftion for a tempo- 
 ral punifhment, which is vainly fuppos'd to remain 
 after the eternal punifhment is forgiven. 
 
 I may add, that the word Revenge has in all 
 probability a refped to the Church-cenfure infli- 
 ded upon the Sinner ; and confequently, it can- 
 not refped any SatisfaElion made after the Sinner's 
 Reconciliation to the Church, and Pardon from. 
 God. 
 
 10. I muft now proceed to an argument drawn 
 from the Mofaic Sacrifices. Our Adverfaries tell 
 us, that the Legal Sacrifices were Satisfactions to 
 the Juflice of God for the Temporal punifhment 
 of fins ', for otherwife they were inftituted in 
 vain, becaufe 'tis certain that they did not fatisfy 
 for the Eternal punifhment of fins. To this I an- 
 fwer, i. That tho'fome temporal fatisfabm were 
 requir'd by a pofitive Precept under the Mofaic 
 Law j yet it will not foUow, that any fuch Satif- 
 faftiw is now required under the Gofpel, wherein 
 we have no fuch pofitive Precept. 2. The Le- 
 gal Sacrifices were, not Satisfactions for any tem- 
 poral punifliment ; but were injoin'd by God (who 
 may in join what he pleafes -, and whpfe injunctions, 
 0,4 '
 
 248 Of SAtisfAtfion. Part II. 
 
 tho' never fo arbitrary, 'tis a fin to difobey) I fay, 
 jhey were injoin'd by God, as Types and Figures 
 of that full and complete Satisfaction to be made; 
 hereafter by our Savior Chrift. So that the end 
 of their Inftitution was very apparent and ufeful, 
 altho' nothing of Satisfaction were intended by 
 them. 
 
 If it be faid, that different fins had Different 
 Sacrifices, which intimates a different meafure of 
 Satisfaction ; I anfwer, that God might appoint 
 what Sacrifices he thought good for particular 
 Crimes : but this do's not prove, that all thofc 
 Sacrifices were not Types of Chrift's Satisfaction \ 
 much lefs do's it prove, that thofe Sacrific.es were 
 required as Satisfactions to God's Juftice for a tem- 
 poral punifiiment in particular. 
 
 But in a word, this argument is wholly imper- 
 tinent, becaufe thefe Sacrifices were fo neceffary 
 under the Jewijb Law, that the Man wou'd be 
 damn'd who did not perform them , and confe- 
 quently, they mull be performed as a condition of 
 the Pardon of fins : whereas we are now difputing 
 of fuch Satisfactions , as are to be made after the 
 fin is actually forgiven. 
 
 ii. If it be faid, that we may Merit eternal Life, 
 and consequently we may Satisfy for the temporal 
 punifhment of our fins ; I anfwer, That I (hall ex- 
 amin and difprove the Popijb Doftrine of Merit in 
 the 1 8th Chapter, and in the mean while I defire 
 the Reader not to make one falfe Doctrine the, 
 proof of another. 
 
 Thus then I have fhewn, i. That the Scriptures 
 do not teachy that the Vindictive temporal punifoment 
 of fins committed after Baptifm, the Vindictive eternal 
 funijhment of which is already forgiven for Chrifisfake, 
 do's ftitt remain due. a. ^hat the Serif tures do not-
 
 Chap.XVL OfPurgttory. 249 
 
 teach, that we may, or ought iofatisfy for the VtndiEiive 
 temporal funijlment of fins committed after Baptijm t 
 when the Vindictive eternal funifiment is forgiven for 
 Cbiti&'sfake. I (hall not determine, whether we 
 3re able to Satisfy for fuch a temporal puniihment, 
 if it did remain due , becaufe 1 think it needlefs. 
 However, iince we are not commanded to make 
 Satisfattion for it ,- nay, fince there is no fuch pu- 
 niftment remaining due, for which we may pre- 
 tend to Satisfy y 'tis plain, that the Popijh Doctrine 
 concerning the Necejfity of fuch farisfadionis utter- 
 ly groundlefs. And confequently, this is another 
 inftance ot fomething not taught in the Scriptures, 
 which the Church of Rome impofes as neceffary to 
 Salvation. 
 
 CHAP. XVI. 
 
 Of Purgatory. 
 
 IN the J pth Article of the Popifo Creed we hare 
 thefe Words, 1 do firmly believe that there is a 
 Purgacory. From whence it is plain, that every 
 Member of the Church of Rome y is oblig'd to be- 
 lieve that there is a Purgatory, upon pain of damna- 
 tion. Whereas I fhall ihew, that the Belief of 2 
 purgatory is utterly groundlefs, it having no foun- 
 dation either in Scripture or Reafon. 
 
 I fhall not nicely inquire into the Nature of 
 'Purgatory, or endeavor to determine wherein the 
 cleaning virtue of it do's confift, according to the 
 opinion of our Adversaries, or what fort of tor- 
 ment
 
 Of Purgatory] Part II. 
 
 merits the Souls therein detain'd are fuppos'd to 
 undergo, before they can have fatisfy'd for the 
 remaining part of the temporal punifhment of their 
 fins, and be made pure enough for the Kingdom 
 of Heaven. 'Tis fufficient to obferve, that our 
 Adverfaries are all 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 their 
 falvation, are detain'd for fome time, till they have 
 fatisfy'd for that part of the temporal punifhment 
 of their fins, which they did not fatisfy for upon 
 Earth. They tell us indeed, that thofe Perfons, 
 who made a full fatisfaction for (uch temporal pu- 
 rumment. during their Life-time, do go immedi- 
 ately to Heaven : but that thofe, whofe fatisfafti- 
 on was not complete, are conftrain'd to finifh it in 
 Purgatory. 
 
 Now I have already fhewn in the fore-going 
 Chapter, that there is no Vtndi&we temporal pu- 
 nifliment 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 Pur- 
 gatory, for the payment of any part of fuch puniih- 
 ment. The Souls that are fent to Purgatory by our 
 Adverfaries, are reconciled to God through Cfoift; 
 and the time of their farther amendment, it any 
 fuch were needful, is already pafs'd : why then 
 fhou'd they be tormented merely for torments fake ? 
 Cbrifl has fully fatisfy'd for all our Findi&ive pu- 
 nifhment ; and a CorreEtive punifhment is grant- 
 ed to be then impoffible : and why then fhou'd 
 Men be punifh'd at all ? Thus by overthrowing 
 the Pofijb Do&rine of Satisfaction, I have rooted 
 up the main Foundations, and thrown down the 
 Pillars of Purgatory.
 
 Chap. XVI; Of Purgatory. 
 
 But tho' this imaginary place of torments is ut- 
 terly needlefs, for the reafon already aflign'd ; yet 
 our Adverfaries do perfift in averting the reality of 
 it. Nay, they pretend to prove from Scripture, 
 that thofe Holy Souls, which they fuppofe to be 
 not perfectly cleans'd, do fuflfer 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 Doctrine 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 ic appear, 
 that 'tis a groundlefs Notion ; and this I fhall do, 
 by examining the pretended Proofs of it. 
 
 i. They tell us, that the Men QtJabefi-Gilead 
 failed feven days for Saul, i Sam. 31. 13. 'Tis 
 true, when the Philiftines came to ftrip thofe that 
 were flain in the Battel, wherein Saul and Jona- 
 than were kill'd, they found Saul and bis three Sons 
 fallen in mount Gilboa. And they cut off bis head*, 
 and flrift off his armour, and fent into the land of 
 the Philiftines round about, to publi/b it in the Houfe 
 of their Idols, and among the People. And they put 
 his armour in the houfe of Afhtaroth, and they fa- 
 fiened his body to the Wall of Beth-fhan. And when 
 the inhabitants of Jabefli-Gilead heard of that which 
 the Philiftines had done to Saul : all the valiant Men 
 arofe y and went all night, and took the body of Saul, 
 and the bodies of his fons from the Watt of Beth-dan, 
 and came to Jabefh, and burnt them there. And 
 they took their bones, and buried them under a tree 
 at Jabeffc, andjaftedfeven days, viz. to humble them- 
 
 fclves
 
 2 $2 Of Purgatory: Part Hi 
 
 felves before God for their many fins, which had 
 brought fo great an afHidion, and fo much fliame 
 upon the Ifraelites, and particularly upon Saul and 
 his unhappy family, i Sam. 31.8, &c. The bare 
 reading of the context, which gives fuch an exact 
 account of the reafon of this fall, is a demonftrati- 
 on that they did not faft for to redeem Souls out 
 of Purgatory, as our Adverfaries pretend. 
 
 a. The fame may be faid of David's weeping 
 and fading upon the very fame occafion, 2 Sam. i . 
 12. for 'tis exprefly faid, That David and the 
 Men that were with him, mourned and wept and fa- 
 fted until even, for Saul and for Jonathan hisfon, and 
 for the People of the Lord y andjor the Houfe o/Jfrael ; 
 becaufe they were fallen by the fword. 
 
 3. The Pfalmift fays, We went thro fire and wa- 
 ter, Pfal. 66. 12. and our Adverfaries think that /re 
 and water do fignify Purgatory. But David {peaks of 
 thofe dangers which himfelf, and his Nation had 
 pafs'd thro', and from which they were deliver'd by 
 the great Mercy of God ; and fays, that after thefe 
 troubles were over, God brought them out into a 
 wealthy place. And for this reafon he refolves to 
 praife God in the very next words, faying, I wilt 
 go into thine houfe with burnt offerings ; and will fay 
 thee my vow* 9 which Ipromifed with my Lips, andjpake 
 with my Mouth, while 1 was in trouble. 1 wtU offer 
 unto thee fat burnt facrifices with the imenfe of Rams ; 
 JwiS offer thee buttocks and goats. And will our Ad- 
 verfaries fay, that he performed thofe Vows for the; 
 delivery of Souls out of Purgatory * 
 
 Befides, 'tis plain that the Water mcntion'd in 
 the Text, refers to the paffage of the Jfraelites 
 thro* the Red Sea, for whkh the Pfalmift praifes 
 God in the 6th verfe, faying, He turned the feat 
 
 into
 
 Chap. XVI. Of PurgAtory. 2 5 $ 
 
 into dry land, fb that we "went thro* the Water on foot ; 
 there did we re Joyce thereat. And the Fire do's pro- 
 bably relate to the burning of Mount Sinai - y by 
 which thro* the Mercy of God, the Nation was 
 not confum'd j tho' they all trembled at it, Exod. 
 ip. i<5. and were wonderfully afraid of the dan- 
 ger of it ; for when the People faw it, they removed and 
 flood a far of-, Exod. 20. 18. However, the Fire 
 and Water which they went through, may denote 
 any fort of temporal evils, which they had efca- 
 ped. 
 
 But do our Adverfaries believe thetnfelves, when 
 they pretend that by fire and Water the Pfalmift 
 represents the torments of Purgatory ? If fo ,- then 
 let them read the whole Verfe, and think again. 
 The Words are thefe, 'Thou fufferedft hfai to ride 
 over our heads ; we went thro' fire and water ; and thou 
 brougbteft m out into a wealthy place. Do's this look 
 like a defcription of Purgatory ? Are thofe poor 
 Souls to be affrighted with the noife of horfes tram- 
 pling over their heads ? I wonder our Adverfaries 
 do not alfo think this Text an evident proof, that 
 Purgatory lies under the Earth, becaufe Men are 
 faid to ride over the heads of the Souls in Purgatory. 
 But I muft proceed. 
 
 4. When the People of Ifrael had finned very 
 grievoufly, the Prophet Ifaiah threatens that their 
 wickednefs ihou'd be the deftruction of them j and 
 God (hou'd caufe the fruits of their own doings 
 to confume them. For wichsdnefs burneth as the 
 fire : it Jhall devour the briars and thorns, that is, 
 thofe wicked People, who have by their iniquities 
 made themfelves fuel , and {hall kindle in the thic- 
 kets of the Fore/Is 3 and they fiatt mount up like the lift" 
 ing up of fmoak. Through the wrath of the Lord of 
 hofts is the land darkned, and the People $aU be as 
 
 tht
 
 . _ 
 
 254 / Pargatory. Part II. 
 
 the fuel of the fire : no Man fiatt fpare his brother. 
 And he (hall fnatch on the right hand, and be hungry ; 
 and he jhall eat on the te/t hand, and they Jhatt not be fa- 
 tisfy'd : they jhaU eat every man the flejh of his own arm -, 
 Ifai. 9. 1 8, 19, 20. But do's the Prophet here 
 defcribe the pains of Purgatory ? Is it one of the 
 torments of thofe impriioned Souls, to devour 
 Man's Flefli, and to eat themfelves, even when 
 they have no Bodies ? Nay, he tells them that e- 
 ven thefe forrows (hall not excite God's compaffion 
 towards them. For aO this, faies he, his anger is not 
 turnd away, but his hand is ftretch'd out (till, ver. 2 1 . 
 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 may be fatisfy'd ; and 
 will not God be fatisfy'd notwithstanding ? Sure- 
 ly, our Adverfaries are not in earneir, when they 
 ufe fuch Arguments. 'Tis evident, that Ifaiah de- 
 fcribes the calamities of Ifiael, in a figurative man- 
 ner : but how thefe Expreflions do relate to Pur- 
 gatory, I cannot conceive. 
 
 5. Jerufalem, who had finned very grievoufly, 
 and was feverely punifii'd for it, faies to Babylon 
 her profefs'd enemy, Rejoyce not again/I me, O mine 
 enemy , when I fall, Ifiafl arife -, -when 1 fit in dark- 
 nefs, the LordjhaU be a light unto me, I wilt Lear 
 the indignation of the Lord, becaufe I have finned again ft 
 him, until upon my true repentance he become my 
 friend, znd plead my caufe, and execute judgment for 
 me: hewiSthen bring me forth to the light, and ljha.ll 
 again behold his rtghteoufnefr, and fee profperity. 
 Thenjbe that is mine enemy JhaU fee it, andjhamefiatt 
 cover her face which faid unto me in the time of my 
 aiHidion for my fins, Where is the Lord thy God? 
 Mine eyes {hall behold her; ttowjballjhehet felf bs thrown 
 
 down
 
 Chap. XVI. Of Purgatory. 2 $ f 
 
 down as the mire of theftreets ; and then jfhall flie have 
 no reafon to infult over me ; Micah 7. 8, 9, 10. 
 Now can any impartial Reader believe, that the 
 Prophet do's in thefe words defcribe the afflictions 
 of the Souls in Purgatory ? 
 
 6. Zachary fpeaks of the miferable condition of 
 the Children of Zion, under the Name of a fit 
 wherein is no -water, that is, no refreshment or com- 
 fort, Chap. p. ir. and our Adverfaries are refol- 
 ved to think, that he means nothing lefs than Pur- 
 gatory by it. It feems, whenever we meet with 
 Fire or Water, we are to underftand it of Purga- 
 tory y tho' the Writer do not fpeak a Syllable, that 
 may be juftly efteem'd to hint at inch a place. 
 The bare mentioning of this Argument is a confu- 
 tation of it. 
 
 7. Malachi tells us, that the Meflenger of the 
 Covenant fhall fuddenly come to his Temple, Chap. 
 3.1. And he jhall Jit as a refiner of fifoer ', andhejball 
 purify tbefons of Levi, and purge them as gold andfil' 
 ver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righ- 
 teoufnefs, verfe 3 . That is, Chrift (hall teach his 
 followers purity of heart, and fincerity, and purge 
 away the drofs of carnal ordinances, that they 
 may offer to God fuch fervices as are truly accep- 
 table to him. And, Then flail the offering of Judah 
 and Jerufalem bepleafant unto the Lord, as in the dales 
 of old, and as in former years, ver. 4. But the Pro- 
 phet do's not fay, or even intimate, that the Souls 
 of fuch as die in the Lord muft be refin'd in Purga- 
 tory, as our Adverfaries wou'd perfuade us. 
 
 8. Our Savior had been injoining thofe, that 
 heard him upon the Mount, to ufe'ail poffible en- 
 deavors to be reconcil'd to thofe, whom they had 
 offended j and order'd them not to offer up their 
 
 Prayers,
 
 ft ^6 OfPurgAtory* Part II. 
 
 Prayers, till they were actually reconcil'd. And 
 then, that He might fbew the heinoufnefs of giving 
 juft offence, and not making fatisfadion forir, he 
 (peaks thefe words, Agree "with thine Adverfary, 
 that is, him whom thou haft made thine Adver- 
 fary by offending him, ivhilft thou art in the -way 
 with him, travelling indeed towards eternity, but 
 not yet come to the end of thy journey ; left at any 
 time the Adverfary deliver thee to my felf who fhall be 
 the Judge at the day, and the Judge deliver thee to the 
 Officer, even the Devil, who fhali hereafter drag 
 wicked Souls to Hell, and thou be caft mto Prifon, 
 into tnat dreadful prifon which is full of exquifice 
 and eternal torments. Verily, I fay umo the, thou 
 foalt by no means come out thence, till thou haft paid the 
 uttermoft farthing, Match. 5. 25, 16. From thefe 
 laft words our Adverfaries wou'd fain prove a Pur- 
 gamy ; becaufe *cis faid, that the Man fhall not 
 come out of the Prifon, J tiu he has paid the utter- 
 mo/i farthing. Now they fuppofe, that the uttermojl 
 farthing fignifies ail the remaining parr of the tem- 
 poral punifhment due to our fins ; and that the 
 Priion in which the payment is made, is what they 
 call Purgatory ; and that a Soul may be deliver'd 
 out of this Prifon of Purgatory, after fuch payment 
 is made. But this Text is miferably perverted ; 
 for I fhall fhew that the Prifon mention'd by our 
 Savior cannot fignify the pretended Prifon of Pur- 
 gatwy, out of which our Adverfaries dc fuppofe it 
 poffible for the Prifoners to be redeem'd ; but it 
 fignifies the Prifon of Hell, wherein thofe accurfed 
 Souls that die in their fins, muft abide and be tor- 
 mented forever. 
 
 'Tis granted by our Adverfaries, that none do 
 go to Purgatory, but fuch as die in God's favor ; 
 
 and
 
 Chap. XVi Of Purgatory. 257 
 
 and that thofe who die in damnable fin, do go to 
 Hell, and are there irrecoverably loft. Now 'tis 
 confefs'd that uncharitablenefs is a damnable fin, 
 and that thofe who die in the guilt of it, muft cer- 
 tainly perifh. And therefore, fince it is plain, that 
 our Savior fpeaks of fuch a perfon, as died in the 
 guilt of uncharitablenefs, becaufe he had not 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 actually imprifon'd for that fault ; 'tis certain, 
 that the Prifon he is committed to muft fignify 
 Hell, which is the Prifon of ail fueh unrepenting 
 Sinners. 
 
 But how do's all this make for Purgatory ? Do's 
 our Savior fay, that the uncharitable Perfon did re- 
 pent, and was pardoned by that Judge to whom 
 the Adverfary had deliver'd him over ; and that 
 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 the 
 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 detain'd till he fhou'd pay all that was due, 
 not the leaft part of his Debt being difcharged ei- 
 ther 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 j whereas our Adverfaries wou'd 
 perfuade us, that it fpeaks of a good Chriftian, 
 dying truly penitent, and in an abfolute certainty 
 of his Salvation. And confequently* the Parable 
 fpeaks of a Perfon, that cannot poflibly be impri- 
 fon'd in Purgatory, but muft of neceffity be in Hell, 
 according to our adversaries own principles, 
 
 R if
 
 258 Of PurgAtory. Part II. 
 
 If it be objefted, that the Text faies exprefly, 
 thou fhalt by no means come out thence, till thou haft paid 
 'the uttermoft farthing ; and confequently s that the 
 words do imply a poffibility of paying the utter- 
 moft farthing, and being free upon the payment 
 of it : whereas 'cis impoflible that a Man can be 
 freed from Hell , and therefore the Prifon muft 
 denote Purgatory, out of which our Adverfaries 
 think it poffible to be freed. If I fay, this be ob- 
 jected -j I anfwer, that thefe words do not imply 
 a poffibility of efcaping out of that Prifon, but 
 are a declaration of the impoffibility of it. Thou 
 /halt by no means come out thence, 'till thou haft paid the 
 uttermoft farthing, that is, thou fhalt never come 
 out. Becaufe thy Debt is infinite, and thou haft 
 no fhare of a Savior's fufterings, 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 another, which 
 is parallel to it. Our Savior faies, that the Lord 
 of that Man who had not compaffion on his Fel- 
 low-Servant, delivered him to the Tormenters, till he 
 jhouldpay all that was due unto him, Matth. 18. 34. 
 Now 'tis plain, that it was impoflible for him to 
 pay the Debt, becaufe we are told that he had not 
 to pay, verfe 25. And confequently, his being 
 tormented till he (hou'd pay all the debt, fignifies 
 that he fliou'd be tormented for ever, becaufe he 
 ftou'd never pay it. 
 
 9. Our Savior faies, that who/oe^er fpeaheth a- 
 gainft the Holy Gkoftt it Jhall not be forgiven him t 
 neither in this H/orld ) nor in the World to come, 
 Matth. 12. 32. From whence our Adverfaries in- 
 fer, that there are fome fins which may be for- 
 given in the World to come j and fince the fins of 
 thofe that are in Hell fluH not be forgiven, there- 
 fore
 
 Chap. XVI. OfPurgatorj. 
 
 fore by the World to come \ve muft underftand Pur- 
 gatory y in which they think that fome fins may be 
 forgiven. But we appeal to the other Evangelifts 
 for the true explication of this Text. St. Mark 
 faies, He thatjhall blafpheme again ft the Holy Ghoft, 
 bath never forgivenefs, but is in danger of eternal dam- 
 nation^ chap. 3. 29. And Sr. Luke faies, Unto hint 
 that blaffhemeth againft the Holy Ghoft, it /hall not be 
 forgiven, chap. 12. 10. Thefe paffagesof St Mark 
 and Sc. 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 forgi- 
 ven neither in this World, nor in the World to come can 
 fignify no more than net 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 (hall never be forgiven ; I pray, how can 
 they prove a Purgatory ? Surely no body will argue 
 thus i There is a fin which (hall never be forgiven, 
 and therefore there is a place of torment for the 
 Souls of thofe Perfons whofe fins are already for- 
 given. 
 
 But fuppofe this be not the meaning of that 
 Phrafe j fuppofe fome fins may be forgiven after 
 death ; yet this is no proof of a Purgatory. For 
 the queftion between us and our Adverfaries is 
 not, whether God may forgive fome fins after 
 death, or no. But the queflion is this, whether 
 thofe Perfons, whofe fins are already forgiven, and 
 who are reconciled to God by true repentance, 
 are neverthelefs to endure fome pains in Purgatory, 
 as a fatisfaction to the Juftice of God for the tem- 
 poral punifhment of thofe fins which are already 
 forgiven. 'Tis true, both fides have been hi- 
 therto agreed, that none ft all be pardoned here- 
 after, whofe Pardon is not Seal'd in HeavenV be- 
 R 2, fore
 
 260 Of Purgatory. Part II. 
 
 fore they go hence and be no more feen : and if 
 this opinion be falfe, we are equally oblig'd to re- 
 trad it. But be it granted that this opinion is ut- 
 terly falfe, yet it will not follow, that the Do&rin 
 of Purgatory is true. For we cannot conclude, 
 that thofe who die in God's favor, may be, or 
 muft be tormented in a place call'd Purgatory ; be- 
 caufe fome that died in a ftate of rebellion againft 
 him, may be reconcil'd to his favor after death. 
 
 I o. Sr. Paul faies, If any Mans "work fttatt be hurt y 
 be jhafl fuffer lofs : but he kimfelffiaU be fav'd ; yetfo 
 a& by fire, i Cor. 3.15. and in thefe words our Ad- 
 verfaries think they have efpy'd a Purgatory. Be- 
 caufe 'tis exprefly faid, that the Man Jhalt befavdy 
 and yet he mall be fav'd fo as by fire ; that is, fay 
 they, he muft pafs thro* the fire of Purgatory, be- 
 fore he can enter into Heaven, the only place and 
 habication of thofe that fhall be fav'd. But this 
 Text is nothing to the purpofe ; and it may be 
 urg'd with as much reafon for the proof of Tran- 
 fubflantiation, as of a Purgatory. This I fhall make 
 appear by mewing, i. What is the true meaning 
 of thefe Words. 2. That 'tis impoffible to inter- 
 pret them of a Purgatory fire. 
 
 Firfl then, as for the true meaning of the Words, 
 'tis plain that St. Paulpurfu.es one allegory through 
 the whole Difcourfe. For furely none will ima- 
 gin, that he laid Jefw Chrift for the foundation of 
 a building, and that the Difciples otjefw Rai- 
 fed a Building of Gold, Silver, Precious Stones, 
 Wood, Hay and Stubble, upon their Mafter, in 
 a Literal Senfe. The queftion therefore is, what 
 is the plain meaning of thefe Figurative exprefll- 
 ons i and this I think may be learnt from the fol- 
 lowing
 
 Chap. XVI. Of Purgatory: 261 
 
 lowing paraphrafe, which begins at the Ninth 
 rerfe of this Chapter. 
 
 (p) For we who Preach the Gofpel, are laborers 
 together with God : Te are God's husbandry, 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 flourifli under our care ; ye 
 are God's Building, even that Holy Temple of the 
 Church which is Built by the Apoftles and other 
 Preachers of the Gofpel upon the foundation of 
 JefwChrift. 
 
 (10) According to the Grace of God which is given 
 unto me, as a wife Mafter- Builder, I have laid the 
 Foundation by Preaching Jeftu Chrfl among you, 
 and another who fucceeds me in the Office of Prea- 
 ching the Gofpel among you, Buildetb thereon by 
 explaining what I have faid, and enforcing the 
 Belief and Praftice of it, by diverfe arguments 
 drawn from Scripture and reafon to confirm the 
 truth of the Gofpel. But, tho* others muft fuc- 
 ceed me in my Office of Preaching among you, 
 and confequently muft Build upon that Foundati- 
 on, which I have already laid, yet let every Man 
 take heed what he Buildetb thereon ; let him take heed 
 that what he teaches you be found and Orthodox 
 Doctrine ; fuch only as may illuftrate and confirm 
 the truths of Chriftianity, and not corrupt and de- 
 bafe them by the addition of vain Philofophical 
 notions, fuch as thofe that pretend to be wife with 
 worldly wifdom, do endeavor to mix with the 
 Gofpel of Cbrijl. 
 
 (i i) For other true and lading Foundation can no 
 Man lay, than that which is already laid by me, 
 which is Jefus Chrift. 
 
 (12) Now if any Man Build upon this Foundation, 
 by teaching and inculcating either thofe truths, 
 
 R 3 which
 
 262 Of Purgatory. Part II, 
 
 which for the purity and foundnefs of them may 
 be call'd Gold, Silver or Preciow Stones ; or thofe 
 which for the falfhood and corruption of them 
 may be call'd Wood, Hay or Stubble : I fay, if 
 any Man Build upon this Foundation of je[m 
 Chrifl. 
 
 (13) Whatever be built, every Mans work 
 /ball be mafe manifefi. For the laft day jhall dtclare 
 tt y ir fhall then be certainly known, of what Na- 
 ture foever it be, whether Orthodox or otherwife. 
 Becaufe itjball be reveafd by a very Uriel: exami- 
 nation, Tucn *s for the fearching Nature of it 
 may be call'd Fire ; and the Firejhall try every Mans 
 Work, every Doctrine which he has Built upon 
 the foundation of Jejw Chrift, of what fort foever 
 it is. 
 
 (14) Now if any Mans work abide which he hath 
 luilt thereupon, if he has fincerely Preach'd Gofpel- 
 truths, and built you up, not in nice and fubtile 
 notions, but in faving knowledge, he /hall receive a 
 reward for fo doing. 
 
 (15) But if any Mans work flail be burnt, if he 
 has taught unfound and groundlefs Doctrines, fuch 
 as cannot endure a ftrid teft, and may for the bad- 
 nefs of them be call'd Wood, Hay or Stubble, 
 which cannot withftand the Fire ; If I fay, he has 
 taught fuch Doctrines, be flail fuffer lofs, even the 
 lofs of all that reward which is laid up for fincere 
 and Orthodox Preachers of the Word ,- but y.et, if 
 he did this ignorantly, as I am willing to believe 
 of him, be himfelf fiall befav'd. But he fhall not 
 be fav'd without a great deal of difficulty : he fhall 
 be fav'd, 'tis true j yetfo as by Fire. 
 
 Being fav'd fo as by Fire is a proverbial fpeech, 
 which denotes efcaping very na,rrowly,or with the 
 
 utraoft
 
 Chap. XVI. Of Purgatory. 265 
 
 utmoft danger. Accordingly 'tis fa id, I have over- 
 thrown fome of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Go~ 
 morrah : and Te were alfo in the greateft danger of 
 being overthrown, for I fav'd you as a firebrand 
 pluckt out of the burning, Amos 4. n. Thus alfo 
 God faies, Is not this a brand plukt out of the fire ? 
 Zech. 3.2. that is, Is not this Jerufalem a place 
 which I dearly love, and which,! have fav'dfrom. 
 deftrLiction, even when (he was in the greateft dan- 
 ger of it ? Thus again, Others fave with fear, fulling 
 them out of the foe, Jade 12. that is, fnatching them 
 out of the greateft danger of deftru&ion. The 
 fame expreflion 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 interpre- 
 tation, or no , I fhall fhew, 
 
 Secondfy,Tha.t thefe Words cannot poffibly denote 
 a Purgatory Fire. For, i. This fire is defign'd for 
 the trial of Mens 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 approv'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 Purgatory is not 
 fuppos'd to try every Man's work ; becaufe foma 
 Perfons do never go to Purgatory. 3. 'Tis faid, 
 the Man fhall efcape, not by fire, butfoas by fire : 
 whereas thofe that believe a Purgatory cannot fay, 
 that a Man fliaU efcape fo as by fire, but muft aitert 
 
 R 4 tha
 
 264 Of Purgatory. Part II, 
 
 that a Man (hall efcape by fre, that is, by endu- 
 ring the torments of Purgatory. And confequent- 
 ly, this Text do's not fpeak of a real fire of Puv- 
 votary, but muft be underftood to fpeak of a very 
 narrow efcape, an efcape/> ashy fire. 
 
 n. St. Paul, that he might declare the Univer- 
 fal Sovereignty of Chrift, faies that God alfo hath 
 highly exalted him, and given him a Name which is 
 above every name ; that at the Name of Jefus every knee 
 Jhoud bow, of things in Heaven, and things in Earth, 
 and things under the Earth, Philip. 2. p, 10. Now 
 our Adverfaries think, that the things und?r the Earth 
 muft denote the Souls in Purgatory. But why may 
 BOt the things under the Earth fignify the Dead ? 
 Or why may they not fignify the Devils in Hell, 
 who are fubjed to our Savior, and are forc'd to 
 acknowledge his Dominion ? The Apoftle defign- 
 cd only to (hew that Chrifl was Lord of all Crea- 
 tures, in what place foever they be, whether above 
 or below ; all are his, and all (hall obey his pow- 
 er. As well the Dead, whom he ihall raife here- 
 after ; 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 confefs, I think it much more probable, 
 that the things under the Earth do fignify the Dead 
 that lie in their Graves. Becaufe St. Paul feems 
 to refer to the Words of Ifaiah, where the Lord 
 faies, unto me every knee Jbalt bow, chap. 45. 25. 
 and he ufes thefe very words of Ifaiah for the proof 
 of a Refurreftion, faying, for wejbatt attfland be- 
 fore the judgment feat c/Chrift , for it is written, at 
 I Live, faith the Lord, every kneejhatt bow to me, Rom. 
 14. 10, ii. From whence it is plain, that the 
 Dead are part of thofe whofe knees lhall bow to 
 
 God ;
 
 Chap. XVI. Of PurgAtovy. 26$ 
 
 God ; and confequently, fince thefe are the words 
 of the fame St. Paul, why fhou'd we not think that 
 he includes the dead, when he faies, at the Name 
 of Jefus every knee Jhall bow, both of things in Heaven 
 and thing*, on Earth, and things under the Earth ? 
 
 12. Tis faid that Chrift went to preach to the 
 Spirits in Prifon, i Pet. 3. 15?. that is, fay our Ad- 
 verfaries, to the Souls in Purgatory. But there are 
 two interpretations of this difficult Text, each 
 of which is very probable, and overthrows our 
 Adverfaries argument from it. 
 
 Fir fly it may be faid, that by the Spirits in Pri* 
 fon are meant fuch Perfons, as are Priforiers to 
 their lufts, and in bondage to their fins. 'Tis 
 plain, that the Scriptures do often fpeaJk after this 
 manner. Thus Chrift is faid to bring Prifoners out 
 of Prifon, and them that Jit in darknefs cut of the Prifon- 
 houfe, Ifa. 42. 7. Hefiallletgo my Captives, faies 
 God by the fame Prophet, chap. 45. 13. and he 
 {hall fay to the Prifoners, go forth, chap. 49. 9. and 
 proclaim Liberty to the Captives, and the opening of the 
 Prifon to them that are bound, chap. 61. i. Now 
 Chrift did not deliver the World from any real Pri- 
 fon, but from the Prifon of their lufts and the 
 flavery of the Devil, by the Preaching of the 
 Go/pel ; and 'tis acknowledged on all hands, that 
 thefe words rnuft 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. 5. 22. and of 
 the Bond of iniquity, Acts 8. 23. and of Serving fin y 
 Rom. 6. 6. and of fin's having dominion over m t 
 verfe 14. and of being taken Captive by the Devil, 
 at his Will, 2 Tim. 2, 26. And accordingly the 
 Apoftle's words may be thus Paraphrased, Our 
 ILord was quicknedby the Spirit, even by that Spirit, 
 
 by
 
 Of Purgatoty. Part II. 
 
 by which he went alfo and preached to thofe impious 
 wretches of the old World, who were inflav'd by 
 their Lufts, even the Spirits fhut up in the prifon of 
 Sin ; thofe I mean, which were fometime difobedient, 
 viz. at that time, when once the Long-fufferingofGod 
 waited in the dates of Noah, &c. 
 
 Secondly, By the Spirits in prifon may be underftood 
 the Souls of thofe who are now tormented in the 
 other World, for the crimes committed by them 
 during their Life-time j particularly fuch as wou'd 
 not repent at the preaching of Righteous Noah, 
 and are now punifli'd in Hell for their difobedience. 
 For 'tis plain, that Hell is often reprefented as a 
 prifon in the Holy Scriptures ; particularly by 
 St. Peter, who wrote thefe controverted Words, 
 and fpeaks of the Apoftate Angels being cafl down 
 to hellt and deliver* d into chains of darknefs, 2 Pet. 2. 
 4. And St. Jude (aies of God, that the Angeh which 
 kept not their fir ft eftate, but left their own habitation, 
 he hath referred in everlafting chains under darknefs, 
 unto the judgement of the great day, verfe 6. And ac- 
 cordingly the Apoftle's Word's may be thus para- 
 phrafed, Our Lord was quickened in the Spirit, by 
 which alfo he went and preached (in the daies of Noah} 
 to the Spirits now in prifon, even in the prifon in 
 Hell; thofe Spirits, I fay, which fometime were difo- 
 ledient, when once the long-fuffering of God, &c. 
 
 Now if either of thefe Interpretations be admit- 
 ted, then what becomes of the Spirits in Purgatory? 
 Why muft we explain the Words after fuch a fan- 
 ciful Manner ; and that without any neceflity, and 
 againft the higheft probability ? But fuppofing 
 that we have not fufficient reafon to admit of ei- 
 ther of thefe Interpretations (which neverthelefs 
 our Adverfaries will never be able to prove) yet 
 
 'tis
 
 Chap. XVI. Of Purgttory. 267 
 
 'tis manifeft, even upon our Adverfaries own Prin- 
 ciples, that the Spirits in prifon cannot fignify the 
 Souls in Purgatory. For they tell us, that None 
 do go to Pu.gatory, but fuch as die in God's favor ; 
 now 'tis plain that thofe Perfons did not die in 
 God's favor, becaufe, i. they were certainly difo- 
 bedient, as the Text informs us. 2. They did not 
 Repent. For Noah was a Preacher of Righteouf- 
 nefs fent by God to reclaim them, that they might 
 not perifh by the Deluge : whereas they did pcrifh 
 by the Deluge, and confequently did not repent. 
 And how then can thofe impenitent Perfons, who 
 died in obftinate rebellion againft God, be the 
 ouls in Purgatory ? 
 
 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 ; 
 bur fince that cannot be prov'd (nay, fince we 
 have very great reafon to believe the contrary) 'tis 
 impoffible to fhew, that the Spirits in prifon are 
 Souls in Purgatory- 
 
 13. St. John faies, that there Jball in no wife en- 
 ter into it (viz. Heaven) any thing that defileth ; 
 Rev. 21. 27. From hence our Adverfaries argue, 
 that the Souls of Men cannot enter into Heaven, 
 till by paffing through Purgatory they are cleanfed 
 from their fins. But if our Adverfaries wou'd 
 read the next words, they wou'd foon find a con- 
 futation of their own Argument upon their own 
 Principles. For the whole verfe runs thus ; And 
 there Jhatt in no wife enter into it anything that defileth 9 
 neither whatfoever maketh ' abomination , or maketh 
 a lie : but they which are written in the Lamb's book, 
 of Life. From whence it is plain, that that which 
 defiletht fignifies fuch a Man, as is not written in 
 the Lamb's book of Life j that is, a wicked Man, 
 
 dying
 
 268 Of Purgatory. Part IL 
 
 dying without repentance ; for furely our Adverfa- 
 ries will grant, that thofe who die truly penitent, 
 are all written in the Lamb's book of Life. Now if 
 that which defileth fignifies an impenitent Perfon j 
 how is it poflible to prove a Purgatory from thefe 
 words ? Do not our Adverfaries fay, that none 
 can go to Purgatory, but fuch as die in God's favor, 
 and are fure of their Salvation, and are written in 
 the Lamb's book of Life ? And how then can they ar- 
 gue thus ; Impenitent Perfons cannot go to Heaven ; and 
 therefore the Souls of the Penitent cannot go to Heaven, 
 til! they are cleanfed in Purgatory ? Befides, though 
 nothing unclean can enter into Heaven ; yet cer- 
 tainly thofe Souls that are cleanfed by the Merits 
 of Chrift's Bloud, cannot be thought unclean. And 
 therefore, fince thofe that die in God's favor, are 
 cleanfed by the Merits of Chrift's Bloud, they can- 
 not be thought unclean. 
 
 But our Adverfaries are refolv'd, that the Souls 
 of the Penitent, that die in God's favor, (hall be 
 unclean ; becaufe, fay they, there is the obligati- 
 on to temporal Punifhment ftill remaining upon 
 them ; and that obligation makes them unclean. 
 But our Adverfaries ought not to take a falfe Prin- 
 ciple for granted, and then prove a falfe Doftrin 
 by it. Let them Jhew, that fuch an obligation to 
 Temporal punifhment after this Life is ended, do's 
 remain due from penitent Perfons ; and then 'twill 
 be time enough to difprove, or allow the Confe- 
 quence drawn from it. But I have already (hewn, 
 that that pretence is unreafonable and groundlefs, 
 in the fore-going Chapter. 
 
 14. We are told, that fome Sins are Venial, and 
 do not deferve eternal damnation : but yet they 
 muft be punifli'd ; and therefore if the Perfon who 
 commits them, do- not fuffer in this World, he 
 
 muft
 
 Chap. XVI. QfPurgAtory* *6g 
 
 muft fuffer for them in Purgatory. Now I ihall not 
 examin this abfurd Diftinction of Sins into fuch as 
 are Venial, and fuch as are Mortal or deadly, and 
 deferve damnation. Every fin is a tranfgreflion a- 
 gainft God's Law , and if it be a tranfgreflion a- 
 gainft God's Law, it muft deferve eternal punifb- 
 ment. For we Proteftants dare not account it a Ve- 
 nial Thing to offend fo great a God. The Scrip 
 tures do never fpeak of fuch a Diftindion. God's 
 wrath is therein reveal'd againft att unrighteoufnefs ; 
 and certainly all Sin whatfoever is a fort of unrigh- 
 teoufnefs, againft which God's wrath is reveal'd. 
 And where, 1 pray, do we read, that fome Sins 
 can merit only a temporal wrath, and that others 
 deferve both a Temporal and Eternal Wrath ? 
 St. James faies, that whofoever foatt keep the whole 
 Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of aft, 
 Chap. 2. 10. Now he that commits what our 
 Adverfaries call a Venial Sin, offends in one point; 
 and confequently becomes guilty of att, and is there- 
 fore liable to damnation, for that which our Ad- 
 verfaries call a Venial Sin. Let them not tell us 
 of the Actions of the Hebrew Midwives, Rahab, &c. 
 For if they were Sins, they were damnable : and 
 tho' fome Sins are worfe than others, yet all are 
 damnable ; but do not make us liable to the fame 
 degree of Torments. Now if this Diftindion of 
 Mortal and VenialSins be groundlefs (and I am f ure, 
 there is not one fingle Text of Scripture to fupport 
 it) if I fay, this Diftindion be groundlefs , then 
 what will become of our AdverfariesDocfcrin which 
 is built upon it ? 
 
 But I am willing to make the largeft conceffions, 
 Let it then be granted, that there are fome Venial 
 Sins ; yet why muft there be a Purgatory for them? 
 Cannot Chrift's Bloud cleanfe us from Venial, as 
 
 well
 
 2 7 6 Of Prayers Part II. 
 
 well as from Mortal Sins ? Will he deliver us from 
 the punifhment of grofs faults, and exaft a punifh- 
 ment for fmall ones ? This is abfurd and ridiculous, 
 and raifes unworthy thoughts of God ; as if he 
 were a peevifh, humorfom Being, that was not 
 guided by Reafon, but by mere Fancy. Since the 
 Scriptures do promife forgivenefs of all Sins in ge- 
 neral, I wou'd fain know by what authority our 
 Adverfaries can fay, that Venial Sins fhall not be 
 forgiven upon true Repentance. 
 
 1 5. Lafily, '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 
 Purgatory, in which they are tormented. But this 
 Objection is grounded upon a great miftake, as I 
 fliaU fhew in the following Chapter. 
 
 Well then ; fince there is no Argument that 
 proves a Purgatory, 'tis plain that the Do&rin of 
 Purgatory is groundlefs ; and confequently this is 
 another Inflance of a groundlefs Dodrin, the be- 
 lief of which the Church of Rome requires as necef- 
 fary to Salvation. 
 
 CHAP. XVII. 
 Of Prayers for the Dead. 
 
 IN the ipth Article of the Popifi Creed, we have 
 thefe Words, I do firmly believe that the 
 
 Souls detain d therein (viz. in Purgatory) are helped by 
 the Prayers 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 
 Purgatory* 
 
 Now
 
 Chap. XVII. for the Dead. 271 
 
 Now if there be no fuch place as Purgatory, then 
 the Popijh Dodrin concerning the ufefulnefs of pray* 
 ing for the Souls in Purgatory, is utterly overthrown: 
 and if there be any fufficient Reafon to pray for 
 holy Souls in torment after Death, upon the ac- 
 count of the Temporal punifiiment of their Sins, 
 then the Doctrin of Purgatory is fufficiently eftabli- 
 fhed. Thefe Doctrines therefore do prove or de- 
 flroy each other, and muft either ftand or fall to- 
 gether. I have already (hewn, that there is no 
 proof of fuch a place as Purgatory, and confequent- 
 l-y that fuppofition being groundlefs, it cannot e- 
 vince the ufefulnefs of Praying for thofe who are 
 vainly thought to be detair/d therein : andlfhall 
 now proceed to fhew, that we have no fufficient 
 reafon to pray for holy Souls in torment after Death, 
 upon the account of the Temporal punifhment of 
 their Sins ; and confequently, that fuch Prayers 
 for the Dead do not fuppofe 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 poflefs'd of already, and expect 
 to enjoy in a more perfect manner after the day of 
 Judgment. Thus the Church of England prays to 
 God in her moft excellent Office of Burial, faying, 
 Almighty God, with whom do live the Spirits of them 
 that depart hence in the Lord, and -with whom the Souls 
 of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden 
 of the Flejb, are in Joy and Felicity ; we give tbee hearty 
 thanks for that it hath f leafed tbee to deliver this our 
 Brother out of the Miferies of this fitful World, be- 
 feechiug thee, that it mayfleafe thee of thy graciom good- 
 nefs, Jhortly to acccmflrjh the Number of thine Eleft, 
 and to haften thy Kingdom ; that we with all thofe that
 
 4 72 Of Pf dyers PartIL 
 
 are departed in the true Faith of thy Holy Name, may 
 have our perfeft Confummation and Blifs, both in Body 
 and Soul, in thy eternal and everlafting Glory, thro* 
 Jefus Chrift our Lord. Amen. But thofe Prayers 
 for the Dead which we cannot allow of, are fuch 
 as fuppofe the Perfons whom we pray for, to be 
 in a ftate of torments. For this practice we think 
 there is no foundation ,- and this I hope to evince 
 by examining what is alledg'd in favor of it. 
 
 j. We are prefs'd with the words of ToUt, who 
 when he had given his Son many excellent Inftrudti- 
 ons relating to the conduct of his Life, particularly 
 concerning Alms, and Neighborly Offices, amongft 
 the 'reft in joins him to pour his bread upon the burial 
 of the Juftt Chap. 4. 17. Now this was done, fay 
 our Adverfaries, that the Poor who received the 
 Alms, viz,, 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 delivered from them ? Why might not the Poor, 
 who were then relieved, pray as the Church of En- 
 gland do's, for the fpeedy confummation of the Juft 
 Perfon's Bjifs, by God's haftening his coming to 
 Judgment ? Nay, what neceffity is there of fup- 
 pofing, that the poor Perfons pray'd at all ? For 
 why might they not receive a Dole upon that oc- 
 cation, without praying for the dead Perfon ? Nay 
 farther, why muft we fuppofe, that the poor did 
 then receive the Bread ; iince the Text do's not 
 mention either the Poor or the Rich ? Surely 'tis 
 unreafonable for our Adverfaries to feign old Cu- 
 ftoms, and to name the Perfons, and make Reafons, 
 and then buil'd an Article of Faith upon them. 
 
 But, to fj>eak the plain truth, Good old Taint's 
 
 words
 
 Chap. XVII. for the Dexd. 
 
 words have no manner of difficulty in them. For 
 it feems ic was an old Cuftom, which continues to 
 () this day,for the Jews to fend diverfe forts of the 
 beft provifion to theFriends of aPerfon lately dead, 
 and to feaft and alfo make lamentation with them. 
 This was a teftimony of Good- will andCondolance, 
 and an inftance of Neighbourly kindnefs. 
 
 This is plain from the Prophet Jeremy, who 
 fpeaking of thofe that were to die of grievous deaths* 
 fays, they Jhall not be lamented, neither Jhafl they be 
 buried ', but they /La/I be as dung upon the face of 
 the eartk> and they Jhall be confumed by the fword, 
 and by famine ; and their car cafes foatt be meat for 
 the jowls of Heaven, and for the beafts of the earth. 
 For thus faith the Lord, Enter not into the houfe of 
 Mourning, neither go to lament, nor bemoan them : 
 for 1 have taken away my peace from this people^ 
 faith the Lord, even hving-kmdnefs and mercies. Both 
 the Great and the Small Jhall die in this land : 
 they Jhall not be buried, neither JJiall men lament for 
 them, nor cut themfehes, nor make themfehxs bald 
 for them. Neither fhall men tear themfelves for them 
 in mourning, to comfort them for the dead, neither 
 Jhall Men give them the cup of Confolation to drink 
 for their father or for their mother. 'Thou /halt not alfo 
 go into the houfe offeafling, to Jit with them, to eat and 
 to drink. Chap. id. verf. 4, j, 6, 7, 8. Thus alfo the 
 Prophet E^echiel, being commanded not to mourn 
 for the dead, is forbidden to (hew the ufual tefti- 
 monies of forrow ; and amongft the reft, 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 Jeremy, where fpeaking of the actions of the 
 HeathenPriefts he ufes thefe words, T'hey roar and cry 
 
 (a) See Buxtorf's Synag. Jud. cap- 49 Bafil. 1680. and 
 Ltode Modenas Hiftoria degli Riti Hebraic!, fttrte <ja;nfa,cap, 
 9. Parigi 1537. 
 
 S htrt
 
 274 ty ?**)&* Part II. 
 
 before their Gods, as Men do at the Feaft when cm is 
 dead, or as the original reads it, as at the [upper of a 
 dead Man, Baruch 6. 22. 
 
 Now this kmdOffice Tobit commands his Son to 
 perform ; but not upon the death of every Man. 
 He was willing that he fhou'd be a friend to the 
 Righteous only ; and to the Relations of the Righ- 
 teous for his fake. And therefore the aged Father 
 adds, And give not to Sinners j becaufe he wou'd not 
 futfer his Son to keep up any acquaintance with the 
 Ungodly. And now let our Adverfaries prove 
 Prayers for the Dead from thefe words of 7c/>, 
 if they can. 
 
 I might add,that the Book is not Canonical ; but 
 I fliall not infill: upon that, becaufe the Argument 
 is fo very eafily anfwered without entring upon 
 another Controverfy. 
 
 2. Our Savior faies, Make to your f elves friends 
 of the Mammon of unrighteoufnefs , that -when ye 
 fail^ they may receive you into everlafting habitations, 
 Luke 16. 9' By failing, fay our Adversaries, we 
 are to underftand Dying j and by friends we are to 
 underftand the Saints that reign with Chrift : from 
 whence it follows, that the Dead are helped by the 
 Prayers of the Saints. But the Text implies no- 
 thing of this Nature. The moft that can be con- 
 cluded from it, even granting our Adverfaries In- 
 terpretation of it, amounts only to this j viz,. Make 
 the Saints your Friends, by giving Alms of the 
 Mammon of unrighteoufnefs; that when ye die, 
 the Friends you have made, viz,, the Saints inHea- 
 ven, may receive you into everlafting habitations. 
 And is not this an excellent Proof of Prayers for the 
 Dead ? Will our Adverfaries argue thus : The Saints 
 Jball- receive charitable Perfons into Heaven, when they 
 die ; and therefore thofe that are alive mufl pray forfuch 
 .Dead Perfons, asarefiippos'd to be t not in ffeaven^but- 
 m Purgatory ? But
 
 Chap. XVII. for the DetA. 275 
 
 But the true meaning of our Savior's words is 
 barely this ; thar Men ought to give the Mam- 
 mon of unrighteoufnefsy or money unjuftly gotten, 
 toi:he Poor, whom God has made the receivers of 
 fuch ill-gotten goods as cannot be reftor'd to the 
 right owners ; that when they fliall depart this life, 
 they may be happy in the next.But he fpeaks not a 
 fylldbie of the Saints Praying for the Dead ; much 
 lefs do's he fay, that they do pray for the delivery 
 of fuch Souls as are fuppos'd to be in torments. 
 
 3. Sc. Paul faies, If the Dead rife not at afl, why 
 we they then Baptized jor the Dead? i Cor. 15. 2 p. 
 that is, fay our Adverfaries, why are they then 
 afRidvd with many fevere penancei, and forced to 
 make many Prayers for the Dead ? For we are told 
 that being Baptized do's often fignify being ajfliftid. 
 But will our Adverfaries fay alfo,that being aftiz,'d 
 do's often tignify Praying ? If not j why then do 
 they fay,that being baptized for the dead muft fignify 
 fraying for the Dead ? But I fhall not trouble my 
 felt to confute this abfurd Notion. 
 
 This Text, I confeis, 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 manifeil, that it cannot import 
 any Prayers or penance for the Souls in Purgatory. 
 Becaufe the Apoftle is now proving the truth of 
 the Refurrection ; whereas, if being baptized for the 
 Dead figm&s enduring penance or faying Prayers for 
 the Souls in Purgatory, his argument is impertinent 
 and unconclufive. For what Apoftle wou'd argue 
 thus, fame Per fens do endure penance and fay Prayers 
 JOY the Souls in Pugatory, and therefore they believe 
 that we (hall all rife again at the lafl day ? Perhaps 
 this may be call'd re^foning by our Adverfaries; 
 S 2 But
 
 Gf Prayers Part II. 
 
 but I am perfuaded, St. Paul wou'd never have 
 us'd it. 
 
 Now there are feveral other explications of thefe 
 words, each of which makes the Apoftle's argu- 
 ment very ftrong ; and confequendy makes the 
 explication of our Adverfaries utterly needlefs. 
 Some think, that & %f vt^m (ignifies for the Dead 
 Jefus ; others for the Re/urretfion of the Dead ; o- 
 thers becaufe of the Dead ; others upon the Dead, 
 that is the Pkces or Tombs, where theDeadMens 
 bodies lie ; and others have entertained ftill dif- 
 ferent opinions concerning theSenfeof thefe words. 
 Let us therefore try thcfe expotitions, and fup- 
 pofe our Apoitle arguing from any one of them. 
 i. If the dead rife not at aH, ivhy are they then 
 Baptized for ( or hecaufe of they Dead Jefus ? Why 
 do Men receive Baptifm in the Name of Chnft, 
 and profefs his Religion, and hope to be fav'd by 
 it, if there be no Refurredion of the dead ? 2. If 
 the Dead rife not at aS t -why are they then Baptized 
 for the Refurredion of the Dead ? Why do Men 
 pretend at their Baptifm to believe the Refur- 
 redion of the Dead ; if there be no Refurrection 
 of the dead at all ? 3 . If the dead rife not at all, 
 why are they then Baptized becaufe of the Dead ? 
 Why do's the example of thofe Martyrs, who are 
 dead, prevail upon Men to become Chrifttans, and 
 be afflided in this Life, and expofe themfelves to 
 the fame torments ; if there be no Refurredion of 
 the Dead, at the time of which they may be re- 
 warded for ail their Labors ? 4. If the Dead rife 
 not at alt, why are they then BaptizJd upon the Tombs 
 of the Dead ? What tools are thofe that are Bap- 
 tiVd over the Tombs of Martyrs, that they may 
 thereby do honour to the memory of fuch as laid 
 down their Lives in expectation of a blefled Re- 
 
 furrediui ;
 
 Chap. XVII, for the Dead. 277 
 
 furreftion ; whereas they mult have thrown away 
 their Lives in a moft ridiculous manner, if there 
 be no Refurrection of the Dead, at which they 
 fhall 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 feme Jiving 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 Perfbn ; and chat this Baptifm by 
 proxy was thought available for the admiffion of 
 the dead Man into the Church. I {hall not 
 vouch the certainty of this practice , but if it 
 were true, the Apoftle might j lily infift upon it 
 as an argument of the Refurrection. For why 
 fcou'd a :.y Man be Baptiz'd for his dead friend, 
 if the dead Man was never to rife again, and en- 
 joy the benefits of his Baptifm ? But I need not 
 enlarge upon this Text, for fince I have fhewn, 
 that ourAdverfaries cannot make any advantage of 
 it i 1 am not any farther concerned. 
 
 4. Some pretend co prove, that we muft pray for 
 the D-ad from thefe words of St. John, If Any man 
 fee hi* b? r>t her fin a Jin, -which is not uhto death y htfiaH 
 ask, and he Jhallgwe him life for them that fen not unto 
 death. There is a fen unto death : 1 do not fay that 
 be fiall pray for it, i. Epift. 5. id. From hence ic 
 is plain, i confefs that there is a fin unto death, 
 and a fin not unto death j and that the one may 
 be forgiven, but the other muft not be interceded 
 foi. But furely here is nothing faid of praying 
 for Men afcer they are dead ; much lefs is it faid, 
 that the Dead Perfons we are to pray for,are fuch as 
 are truly penitent and in Goci's favor, but are con- 
 ftrain'd notwithstanding to undergo fome pains in 
 Purgatory, by way of Satisjafaou for the temporal 
 pumimnent of the (ins committed in their life-time. 
 83 5. They
 
 278 Of Prayers Part II. 
 
 ?. .They tell that Judas pray'd for the Dead, 
 3 Maccab. 12. Now to this I might reply, that 
 the book isnotCanonical : but I may, tho j (without 
 any reafon) acknowledge the Hiftory to be of 
 Divine authority, and anfwer the argument not- 
 withftanding. For, 
 
 Firfl, it may be (aid, that Judas did not in any 
 wife pray for the Souls of thofe that were Dead. 
 This may appear by a Paraphrafe of the whole 
 paflage. 
 
 OP) Judas and his Company came to take up 
 > bodies of them that -were flam in the late Battle, 
 an d to bury them with their kinfmen in their Fathers 
 Graves. 
 
 (40) Now under the Coats-^of every one that 
 was /lain, they found things confecrated to the Idols 
 of the Jamnites, which is fo> bidden the Jews by the 
 Law, as we may read, Deut. 7. 25, 26. T'hen every 
 ntan faw, that this was the caufe wherefore they were 
 fl&m. 
 
 (41) All Men therefore prnifrig the Lord the 
 righteous judge, who had opend the things that were 
 hid, in difclofing the fin for which thole Men were 
 {lain. 
 
 (42) Betook themfehes unto Prayer, and bef ought 
 him, that the fen committed might wholly be put out 
 of remembrance , left the fault of fome particular 
 Perfons ihou'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 
 fin committed amongft them. For 'tis plain, that 
 God dealt thus with them in the Cafe of Achan, 
 Jofli. 7. and in other Inftances. Beftdes that Noble 
 Judas exhorted the People to keep themfelves "from 
 Jin, forafmuch at they f aw before their eyes the things 
 that came to fafs, for the Jin of thofe that were/lain. 
 
 (43; And
 
 Chap. XVII. for the Dead. 279 
 
 (43) And when he had made a gathering through- 
 out the company, to the fum ofrwo thoufand drachmae s 
 of Silver, he fent it to Jerufalem to offer a Sin-of- 
 fering, doing therein 'very we U and hcmftly, in that 
 he was mindful of the Refurreftion, in which he 
 and all mankind are to give a drift account of 
 their obfervation of God's Laws ,* one of which 
 Laws ('viz,. Lev. 4- i^.)prefcribes, that a Sin-of- 
 fering fliou'd be ofter'd in fuch cafes as this. 
 
 (44) For if he had not hoped ( or rather ex- 
 petted, thought, or been throughly perfuaded, be- 
 caufe the word is Gr&n&xg, ) that they that -were 
 /lain, Jhoud have rifen again; it had been fuper- 
 fiuous and vain to pray for ( or becaufe of ) the 
 dead, who had brought a fin upon the whole Con- 
 gregation. For this reafon therefore he was re- 
 folv'd to offer a Sin-offering, that he might atone 
 for himfelf and the Congregation. Bscaufe if 
 the facrifice had been omitted, they had not 
 only been guilty of the fin of the flain in a le- 
 gal and imputative Senfe : but they had alfo be- 
 come guilty of contempt of God's Law, and 
 muft have anfwer'd for fo great a fin at the laft 
 day. 
 
 (45) And befides this reafon drawn from the 
 dread of Punifhment, there was another alfo drawn 
 from the expectation of a reward for his Piety. 
 Wherefore he offer'd a Sin-offering in that he 
 perceiv'd and very well knew, that there "was great 
 favor laid up for thofe that dy'd godly, viz. fuch as 
 had punctually obferv'd all God's Precepts, an4 
 liv'd and dy'd in the practice 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 becaufe of ) the Dead, that they 
 
 S 4 even
 
 cSo Of Prayers Part II. 
 
 even the whole Congregation, might be delivered 
 from the fen of thofe that were (lain, and not fuf- 
 fer the Vengeance ot God by reafon of it. 
 
 I know of nothing that can be objected againft 
 this Paraphrafe, unlefs it be faid, that &> with 
 a genitive cafe fignifies/or the benefit of; and con- 
 fequemly, that && n^Sv, which we tranflate for 
 the Dead, fignifies for the benefit of the Dead. So 
 that Judas muft be fuppos'd to pray, not becaufe 
 tf the Dead, or becaufe of the lin of thofe that 
 were flain -, left he and the Congregation fhou'd 
 fuflfer for it, as their Fore-fathers did in the cafe 
 of Achan : but for the benefit or pardon of the 
 Dead, that they might be deliver'd from the 
 guilt of that: fin, for which God had flain them. 
 And accordingly, when Judas made Reconciliation 
 for the Dead, the Atonement turn'd to the advan- 
 tage of the Dead , that they, 'viz.. not Judas and 
 the Congregation, but the Dead Perfons them- 
 felves might be deliver* d from fin. Now the whole 
 force of this objedion lies in the fignification of 
 the prepofition vs^, when it governs a genitive 
 cafe. So that if i make it appear, that this par- 
 ticle do's very frequently fignity, not for the bene- 
 fit of, but by reajon of, or becaufe of ; then this 
 objedion falls to the ground, and the paraphrafe 
 which I have given is firmly eftablifh'd. Now 
 that the particle &?, tho 3 it befometimesus'd as 
 our Adverfaries pretend ; do's neverthelcfs very 
 often fignify by reafon of, or becaufe of, when it 
 governs a genitive cafe, is very plain. Thus for 
 Inftance, Jefus Chrift was a Minifler of the Cir- 
 cumcifion for (or becaufe of) the truth of God, to 
 confirm the Promifes made unto the Fathers, Rom. 
 15. 8. And that the Gentiles might glorify God for 
 ( or kcaufe of) his Mercy ^ as it is written^ For this, 
 
 caufi
 
 Chap. XVII. for the Deri. 281 
 
 caufe I willconfefs to thee among the Gentiles, and 
 fng unto thy Name, verfe 9. Where it may be ob- 
 ferv'd, that the Word for is equivalent to for this 
 caufe. Again, Ton alfo helping together by prayer for 
 us, that for ( or becaufe of) the gift beftowd upon 
 us, by the Means of many Perfons, thanks may be 
 given by many on our behalf, ^ Cor. i. n. Thus 
 alfo, / take pleafure in infirmities, in reproaches, in 
 necejfities, in perfections, in diftreffes, \^ Xe<r, for 
 Chrift, 2 Cor. 12. 10. that is, aso u r Bible truly 
 renders it, for Chrift's Jake, or becaufe of Chrift. s 
 and not for the benefit or advantage of Chrift. Buc 
 I am not willing to heap up Inftances in fo plain 
 a cafe, and fliall therefore refer the Reader to the 
 Authors cited in the (b) Margin ; where he will 
 find that the Prepofitioh ^is very frequently us'd 
 in this fenfe, both in the Holy Scriptures, and in 
 the beft Greek Authors. 
 
 Now fmce the Particle & may fignify as I cor/ 
 tend, I think it highly realonable 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 
 interments for the Temporal Puniihmentoftheic 
 fins j and fliewn them to be extremely frivolous. 
 And therefore, fince a different Interpretation of 
 this Particle may feem to countenance a Do&rin, 
 which all the whole body of the Scriptures do's not 
 fo much as hint at ; we ought fo to explain it 
 in this controverted Text, as to make it perfect- 
 ly confonant with what the Scriptures have moft 
 
 O) See Grot, de Satisfafo cap. I. ?. 297- inter opera Theo- 
 log. Lend. 1697. Dr. Erfaw^'sTexts of Script, fart i. j. 19?. 
 Cambridge 169*. bis Authority, Stile, & Perfeft. of Script. 
 fW, firft. Pref. Land. 1693. . 
 
 plainly 

 
 2 8 2 Of Prayers Part jj. 
 
 plainly deliver'd. And this is done by under/land- 
 ing it in that Senfe, upon which the foregoing Pa- 
 raphrafe is built. 
 
 However, 'tis impoffible 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' thefe words 
 may feem to favor their Dcclrin, if underftcod 
 in their Senfe ; yet they cannot (hew, that their 
 Senfe is certainly right, becaufe it cannot be prov'd 
 that the other is wrong. But, 
 
 Secondly, Suppofe that Judas did pray, not be- 
 caufe of, but for the benefit of the Dead ; yet it 
 will not prove what ourAdverfaries mean by pray- 
 ers for the Dead. For they fuppofe, i . That the 
 dead Perfon whom they pray for, did not die in 
 moft grievous fins, without having repented of them . 
 2. That they are in a ftate of Mifery,from whence 
 they (hall certainly be deliver*d at the laft day, 
 whether they be pray'd for, or no. Whereas, if 
 Judas pray'd for the benefit of the Dead, they 
 were fuch dead Perfons, as died even in the fin of 
 Idolatry, without any the leaft mark of Repentance. 
 And befides, he muft be fuppos'd to have pray'd 
 for them,that they (who muft otherwife have been 
 eternally damn'd) might have a blefledRefurrection 
 arnongft 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- 
 nion of our Adverfariqs. For (not to infift upon . 
 their not fhewing any tokens of Repentance) I ar- 
 gue thus } Either they did repent in their very laft 
 Minutes, or they did not. If they did not repent; 
 then they went dire&ly to Hell, according to our 
 Adverfaries ; and all thePrayers and Sacrifices that 
 cou'd be ofter'djwere not able to redeem them from 
 
 thence.
 
 Chap. XVII. for the Dead. 28 ? 
 
 thence. But if they did repent ,* then were they 
 fure of being happy, and numbred amongft thejuft 
 at the day of Judgment ; fo that they wou'd ob- 
 tain a blefled Refurre&ion, whether Judas had fa- 
 crific'd, or no. 
 
 Now 'cis plain ; that tfjudat facrific'd for their 
 advantage, it was to obtain a joyful Refurredion 
 for them ; For, as the Hiftorian argues, if he had 
 not hoped, that they that -were flainjhoud have rifen, 
 again, it had been fuperfluous and vain to fray for 
 the dead, verfe 44. So that his praying for the 
 dead being fuppos'd not fuperfluous and vain, he 
 obtained (not a bare Refurre<5tion,for that all Men 
 muft have ; bur) a Joyful Refurrection for them. 
 Now if Judas obtain'd a Joyful Refurrection for 
 them, then they wou'd not have had a Joyful Re- 
 furreftion without his Sacrifice ; and confequently, 
 they were not fuch Perfons as were fure of a 
 Joyful Refurreftion, whether he facrific'd or no. 
 Befides, Judas did not pray for their delivery out 
 of prefent torments, which is the Practice 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 at that 
 time ; and confequently, Judas his Sacrifice was 
 &\\\ fuperfluom and vain, unlefs he pra/d for a Joy- 
 ful Refurrection. 
 
 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 refurre&ion of 
 damnation rand I leave our Adverfaries to confider, 
 whether fuch a Prayer be juftifiable, or no. We 
 that deny the Authority of this Book, can eaftly 
 ricl our felves of this Difficulty ; but thofe that 
 think it Canonical, are obliged to unfold it. 
 
 Now fince by fuppoling that Judas pray'd for 
 
 the
 
 2?4 'Of P'Wrs, &tt Part IL 
 
 the benefit of the Dead, it muft be alfo fuppos f d,that 
 thofe who are doomed to erernal Miferies,may be 
 refcued from damnation ,- 'tis plain, that our 
 Adverfaries, who deny that fuch Perfons may be 
 refcued, muft allow that Judas pray'd or facrinVd 
 faaufe of the Dead. And if Judas pray'd becaufe 
 cf the Dead, then the former Paraphrafe is a true 
 Expofition of this controverted Paflage ; and con- 
 fequently, that Argument which our Adverfaries 
 draw from it, is fully anfwer'd upon their own 
 Principles. 
 
 Thus then I have examin'd and confuted thofe 
 Reafons upon which our Adverfaries build their 
 Do&rin of the Ufefulnefs of Prayers for the 
 Dead ; and therefore, I think, I may juftly affirm, 
 that this Doctrin, which they impofe as neceilary 
 to Salvation, is vain and groundlefs. 
 
 I fhall conclude what I have faid concerning Sa- 
 tisfaction, Purgatory, and Pmyersfor tie Dead, with 
 one Oafervation ; viz,. That fince the Scriptures 
 are iilent in thefe Matters, 'tis not only reafonable 
 for us to rt jwd fuch Doctrines, but we are virtu- 
 ally commanded fo to do. For if the Apoilles had 
 known of any fuch Torments, which mult be en- 
 dured or fatisfy'd for ; they have moft certainly 
 been wanting to their Duty, becaufe they have not 
 inform 'd us of them, that we might know what to 
 cxpeft, 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 o- 
 ther. But furely we dare not charge the Apoftles 
 with Negligence ; and therefore, fince they have 
 told us only of two flate? , viz,. Heaven and Hell ; 
 we are oblig'd to believe that there are no more : 
 and confequently, we are commanded to reject the 
 groundlefs Fancies of our Adver&ritt. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Chap. XVIII. Of Merits 28 5 
 
 CHAP. XVIII. 
 
 >-. 
 
 Of Meritf. 
 
 Tl S plain from the i<5^and iqth Articles of 
 the Popijb 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 Juftification* Now of th Trent 
 Decrees concerning Jujlification (a) this is one, 
 /f any Man Jbattfay, that the good works of. a jufti- 
 jy'd Perfon are the gifts of God in fuch a manner, 
 that they are not alfo the juftify'd Perfon 9 s Merits ; 
 or that the juftify'd Perfon does not truly deferve in- 
 creafe of Grace, eternal Life, and ( upon condition 
 that he die in the grace of God) the obtaining of 
 eternal Life, and alfo an imreafe of Glory, by thofe 
 good works i^hich he does, by the Grace of God and 
 the Merit of Jefus Chrift, of -whom he is a living 
 Member ; Let him be accurfed. *Tis plain therefore, 
 that every Papift 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 
 
 (V) Siquis dixcrit hominls juftlfcati bom opera ira effe 
 donaDei.ut non fine etiam bona ipfms juftificari Merir a; 
 autipfum juftificatum bonis opcribus, quce ab coper Dei 
 grariam & Jcfu Chrifti Meritum, cujus vivum Membrutn 
 eft.fiunr.non vere mereri augmentum grariae.vicamse'ernam. 
 ipfms vrae xternzCri tamen in gratia decefTerir) confecntio. 
 nem.atque etiam gloris augmentum } Anathema fit. Cencil. 
 Trident. SefT. 6. Can. 32. 
 
 Works
 
 Of Merits. Part II. 
 
 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 properly be 
 called Merit*, or truly deferve increafe of Grace, 
 and eternal Life j 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 orPerfon may be faid properly tcMe- 
 rit, or truly and really to deferve, theMerit or De- 
 fert of which arifes from it's own intrinfic worth : 
 but that thing or Perfon, the Merit or Defert of 
 which arifes, not from it's own intrinfic worth, bun 
 frornfome other confideration,do'sMerit or deferve 
 only in z figurative Senfe. Thus for inftance, when 
 a Subject has won manyBattels,or fav'd hisPrince's 
 Life, or fecur'd the Government by prudent Coun- 
 fels, or performed any other fignal fervice ; he do's 
 properl) Merit or truly deferve a reward at the hands 
 of his Prince : becaufe his actions have an intrin- 
 lic worth in them, from whence his Merit or De- 
 fer c arifes. But if that fubjecl: fhall not accept 
 any reward for himfelf, but recommend a Friend 
 to his Prince's favor, and defire that the Perfon fo 
 recommended by him may receive what is due 
 for his Valor, Faithfulnefs or Counfel ; or if that 
 fubjecl: fhall beg the life of a Criminal, earneftly 
 requefting that what he has done for his Countries 
 good may obtain a pardon for the condemned 
 Perfon, upon condition that the condemned Per- 
 fon {hall ask pardon upon his knees : in either of 
 thefe cafes the Friend or the Criminal may be 
 faid to deferve the reward or his life in a figu- 
 rative Senfe. Becaufe his Merit or Defert do a s 
 not arife from his own intrinfic worth, but from 
 
 fome
 
 Chap. XVIII. Of Merits. 
 
 fome other confederation, viz,, from the other 
 
 Perfon's worth being apply 'd or made over to 
 
 him. 
 
 Let us therefore apply this to the matter in handl 
 TJS granted by ourAdverfaries, that without the 
 Merits of Chrifi we can deferve nothing but infinite 
 wrath at the hands of God. The Queflion therefore 
 is, whether thofe who have a fhare in Chrift'sfaf- 
 ferings, can properly Merit, or truly Deferve that 
 eternal Life which Chrifl has purchafed by his 
 fufterings , or no. And to this 1 anfwer, that fuch 
 Pcrfonsas have a (hare in Cforft's fufterings, may 
 truly deferve eternal Life ; juft as much as a Tray- 
 tor, whofe life is fpar'd at the requeit of a de- 
 ferving Subjeft, ^do's trufy deferve a pardon , that 
 is, not at all. 'tis of God's infinite Mercy only, 
 that our beft deeds are accepted ; nay, that we 
 are not punifhed for them, becaufe they are fo 
 full of fin and imperfection. For we are all as an 
 unclean thing, and all GUY righteoufne/es 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 
 Adverfarles are pleafed to think truly Meritorious, 
 are acknowledged to be the gifts of God ,- and how 
 then can we, as if they were our own adions, truly 
 deferve Heaven as the reward of them ? 
 
 'Tis true, we do deferve Heaven in z figurative 
 Senfe ; becaafe Cbrifl has deferv'd it for us, and 
 we have a right and tide to it thro' his Merits : 
 but {hall we therefore pretend that we do truly 
 deferve it our felves, as the reward of our own 
 aftions ? Shall fmful dufi and ames, that mufthave 
 been damned eternally, had not Chrift redeemed 
 it ; and that cannot think a good thought with- 
 out immediate help from God ; I fay, fhall fuch 
 
 wretches
 
 2 S8 Of Merits. Part II. 
 
 wretches as we a re,be faid properly toMerir,and tru- 
 ly to deferveecernal happinefs at the hands ofGod? 
 No furely. Bleflcd is that Man, who is throughly 
 fen(ible 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 eftablifti this their Doctrin, 
 they are fcarce worth anfwering, becaufe they do 
 not reach the queftion. They tell us, that the 
 reward of a Chnitian is proportioned ro the quan- 
 tity of his good Works : but fhall we therefore 
 conclude, that his good Works do truly deferve 
 it ? Good Works thro' God's Mercy in Cbrtfl are 
 the condition of our Salvation , and the more 
 good works we perform, the greater will our re- 
 ward be : but ail this is done for Chnfl's fake, and 
 not for the intrinfic worth of our good works, 
 and tho* the Scriptures aflert, that God is obliged 
 in juflice to reward our labors; yet 'tis only the 
 Merits of Chrifl apply'd to our labors, and not 
 the intrinfic worth of our actions, that makes a 
 reward duein juftice for them. For God is obliged 
 in juftice 10 reward thofe, for whom Cr///has Me- 
 rited a reward. 
 
 But I (hall not enlarge upon this head; becaufe 
 what I have thus briefly written, is fufficient to 
 explain and determin the whole controverfy, 
 and fully prove, that the Popijh Doctrin of Merit 
 is groundlefe, and for that reafon unjuiily im- 
 pos'd as neceflary to Salvation. Only I think 
 ray fdf obliged, before I conclude this Chap- 
 ter, to confider an Argument for the Do&rin 
 of SatisfaflioK, which I did not formerly an- 
 fwer. 
 
 Our
 
 Chap. XIX, Of Indulgences; 289 
 
 ^ Oar Adverfaries pretend, as Ifaid in the ijth 
 Chapter, that we ma.y fatbfy for the Temporal 
 pimifhment of' our Sins, becaufe we may Merit 
 eternal Life. But I have now fhewn, that we 
 cannot properly Merit eternal Life ; and therefore 
 this argument is built upon a miftake, and is 
 confequently of no force. However, fuppofe we 
 might truly and property Merit eternal Life; yet 
 it will not follow, that we may fatisfy for the 
 Temporal Puniflimenr of our Sins. For 'tis con- 
 fefs'd by our Adverfaries, that good Works are 
 not Meritorious, but as join'd with the Merits 
 of Chrifl : and therefore 'tis abfurd for them to 
 reafon thus, Our good Works are truly Meritori- 
 ous cf eternal Life, when join d with Chrifl / Suf- 
 ferings ; and therefore we may fatitfy for tbofe 
 pains, which Chrift never fuffer'd or fatisfy'd for. 
 For (as I have already faid in the 15/6 Chapter) 
 'tis confefs'd and fuppos'd by our Adverfaries, 
 that Chrifl Suffered nothing for the Temporal 
 Puniftiment of Sins committed after Baptifm. 
 
 As for that Treafure of Merits which is fup- 
 pos'd to be in the Churches keeping, I fhali 
 have occafion to fpeak of it in the next Chapter 
 
 CHAP. XIX. 
 
 Of Indulgences. 
 
 IN the izd Article of the Trent Creed we have 
 thefe words, 1 do a>fo affirm, that the power of 
 Indulgences was left in the Church by Chrift, and 
 that the ufe of them is very helpful to Chriilian 
 People. Thus it appears, that the power and vir- 
 T tue
 
 290 Of Indulgences. Part II. 
 
 tue of Indulgences do make an Article o the Ro- 
 rrtcm faith. 
 
 'Tis granted by our Adverfaries, that the word 
 Indulgence implies a relaxation or remiflion of 
 Come punifliment due for fin. Now there can be 
 no punifhmenc due for fin, but what is due, either 
 Firft to the Church, by way of public example for 
 the fcandal given by the offender, or in order to 
 his reformation by the good effects of Difcipline ; 
 or Secondly, and chiefly to God, for the in- 
 jury ofter'd him by our rebellion. Wherefore 
 an Indulgence mufl fignify the remiflion either of 
 Church-punifhment, or of the punifliment requir'd 
 by God only ; and confequently it may be takea 
 in a threefold Senfr. For, i. It may fignify a 
 remiflion of Church ceafures, which the Church 
 has an undoubted po\rcr to difpenfe with upon 
 juft occafions. 2. It may fignify a remiffion of 
 the Temporal Punifliment, which our Adverfaries 
 do think due to fins committed after Baptifm,even 
 the' they are repented of. 3. It may fignify a 
 remiflion 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 remiflion of Church- 
 cenfures, inflicted for the correction of the offen- 
 ders themfelves, or for the admonition of others ; 
 we do moft readily grant, that the power of Indul- 
 gences was left in the Church by Chrift, and that 
 the ufe of them is very helpful to ChrifUan People. 
 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 under/land 
 it far otherwise, i. Becaufe Indulgences are grant- 
 d fat the Dead, ^s well as for the Living. This- 
 
 is
 
 . XIX. Of 'Indulgence*. 291 
 
 is plain from she very (a) words of the Bulls, and 
 from the ordinary practice of redeeming Souls 
 from Purgatory. Now fince the dead are not 
 capable or Church-cenfures j becaufe they are fup- 
 pos'd to be incapa-bie of amendment in Purgatory^ 
 and Difcipline (if exercifed upon them) cannoc 
 be exemplary to others ; therefore 'cis plain, that 
 Indulgences do (frequently at leaf!) imply the re- 
 miffion of fomethmg elfe, befides the penalties 
 inflicted by the Church- 2. Becaufe thofe who 
 enjoy the benefit of Indulgences, do frequently 
 fubmit to Church-cenfurcs, and perform the pe- 
 nance injoin'd them ; nay, the Indulgence is often- 
 times not valid, unlefs the penance be performed. 
 
 (4) Super gratiis Indulgentlarum & peccatfcrum remifil- 
 one eiiam plenaria, tam pro Vivis quafn defun&is.c*r/i 
 B'ullarium, Rom. 1617. Tom. 2. p. 94. Poftrcmo uc anima- 
 bus quoque Chrifti fidelium inPurgacorio exiftencibus,quce 
 per Cbaritatem Domino Noftrojefu. Chrifto unitae exhac 
 Vita migraverint, quaeque anteaqnamdecedercnt, aliorum> 
 Chrrfti fidelium fuffragiis juvari meruerunt, de cceleftibus 
 ccclefix thefauris, quorum Oifpenfatores a Domino ad anU 
 marum falurem conftituti fumus, paterne fubveniamusjDU 
 rina mife rations confift concedimus,ut quoties quilibet aJi- 
 quod ex hujufmodi Numifmatibus fecum habens, pro di- 
 itarum animarum Salute praemifla eorumve aliqus adim- 
 pleveric, yel quicunque alius ecclefias in quibns eadem nu. 
 mifmata reponi contigeric, diflis feftis diebus inventionis & 
 exaltationis SanQce Crufis vifitaverit, ipfse pro quibus id- 
 fccerit, efficaciffimisjefu Chrifti Domini noftri meritis, ac 
 ejufdem Bears Mariae Temper Virginis, Sandorum Angelo- 
 rura, Apoftolorum.Martyrum^ConfefTorum, Virginurri,om. 
 niumqueSantoruni &Sanftarum precibus&interceffionibua 
 fufFragantibos.eafdem Ihdulgentias & peccatorum remiffio- 
 nes confequantur. ibid. p. 611. See alfo Tom. 3. p. 42, But 
 tkU matter itfo very noforintf, that IfhtU mt trtvblt the fctdtt 
 try vnrt inflarkft tfit. 
 
 T * thii
 
 292 Of Indulgences. Part- II. 
 
 This is alfo apparent from the (b) Bulls, and 
 from ordinary practice. And therefore Indulgences 
 mult (fcmetimes at leaf!) imply more than the 
 remiffion of Church-cenfures or penance : and con- 
 fequently they muft often fignify the remiffion 
 either of the Temporal, or of the Eternal guilt 
 of fin. 
 
 But our Adverfaries will by no means own,that 
 they do ever grant a remiffion of thcEternal guilt of 
 fin. This indeed wou'd be the very height of impu- 
 dence and blafphemy,and they do well to deny it: 
 buc wou'd to God, they did not give us too 
 great reafon to believe, that they do in reality 
 pretend to the practice 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 neceffity import 
 the remiffion of the Temporal guilt of fin. 
 
 Now when an Indulgence fignifies the remiffion 
 of the Temporal guilt of fin, we cannot believe, 
 
 (b) 1 fhall give but one i$ance of this nature, becitvfe this 
 Matter is alfo very not oriouf. Ceterum uc fideles ipfi ad haec 
 omnia peragenda magis idonei efficiantur,de traidta nobis a 
 Domino poteftatis plenitudineEcckiix Thefauros, quorum 
 Divina favente dementia Difpenfatores effefti fumus.copiofe 
 ac benigne aperients,omnibusChrifti fidelibus fupraditis,ut 
 hac vice tantum confeflbres idoneosPresbyterosfeculares,vel 
 cujuivis ordinis regulares,abOrdinariis tamen approbatos,e- 
 iigere,qui eorum confeflionibus diligenter auditis eos a qui - 
 bufvis peccatis, criminibus, exceffibus & de lift is quantum. 
 cumque gravibus & enormibus.etiam in cafibus fedi Apofto- 
 licce refervacis, ac in litteris dieCoenxJDcmini quotannis le- 
 gi ibliris contemis,in foro confcicnticc duntaxat.ac etiam a 
 fententiis,cenfuris & pcenisEcckfiafticis per eos quomodo- 
 libet incurfis,injunfta inde eis proCulps mpdo pcenitentia 
 ilutari,abfolvere,ac quxcunque per eos emifTa Vota (pra?- 
 terquam Cafticatis &|Religionis) in alia pletatis opera com- 
 mutare valeanr.per pretences ConcedimuSiC^#r^.DulJarium, 
 Tom. t. p. 486, 
 
 that
 
 Chap. XIX. Of Indulgences. 293 
 
 that the power of (fuch) Indulgences, aw left in 
 the Church by Chrift, and that the ufe of them is 
 very helpful to Chriftian People. For 'tis acknow- 
 ledged by our Adverfaries, that no Man can have 
 an Indulgence granted him for the Temporal guilt 
 of his (in j unlefs he is reconciled to the favor of 
 God, and the Eternal punifhment of his fin be 
 already forgiven. Now I have fhewn at large in 
 the i-yth Chapter, that when a Man is reconciled 
 to God's favor, and the Eternal ptinimmentof his 
 fin is forgiven, there remains no Temporal guile 
 or obligation to Temporal punifhment for it. So 
 that 'tis abfurd to grant an Indulgence, or to re- 
 mit the Temporal punishment of fuch fins ; be- 
 caufe it is not due. And who then can fay, that 
 fuch a power was left in the Church by Chrift^ and 
 that the ufe and exercife of it is very helpful to 
 Chriftian People? 
 
 But tho' it were granted againft all reafon, that 
 fuch Temporal guilt or obligation to Temporal 
 punifliment do's flill remain, after the Eternal pu 
 nifliment 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 fhall the 
 Church prevent it ? 'Tis faid to be requir'd by 
 way of Satisfaction to God's Juftice ,- and (hall 
 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 portion fhe pleafes. This in- 
 deed feems an excellent contrivance, an admirable 
 way of anfwering our objection .- but upon exa- 
 mination this plaufible Scheme will appear to be 
 what it is, the moft arrant impofture -that ever 
 T 3 poor
 
 294 Pf 'Indulgence. Part H. 
 
 poor Souls were deluded by. For how fhall it 
 be prov'd, that there is fuch a treadire of Merits, 
 as will pay for the Temporarpunidiment of fins f 
 They tdl us indeed, that Chrifl's Merits alone arc 
 infinite, and that the Merits of Numbcrlefs Saints 
 are added to them , and from thence this Mafs 
 of fpiritual wealth arifes. But 'tis ftrange our Ad- 
 verfaries can fo eafily forget themfelves. Is not 
 this the only ground of their Dodrin of Satif- 
 faftion, which I have fo largely confidered in the 
 i $tb Chapter, viz.. that Chrift did not fatisfy for 
 the Temporal guilt or punifhment of fins commit- 
 ted after Baptifm ; and there/ore we our felves arc 
 obliged to undergo fome miferies, eitfcer in this 
 World, or elfe in Purgatory, by way of Satisfaction 
 tp 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 Indulgences ; I 
 lay, are not thofe fins committed after Baptifm ? 
 And why then will our Ad- ver & r i S now pretend, 
 that Chrift 's Merits are repofited in this great 
 bank of the Churches Wealth, and that they may 
 be dispos'd of for the payment of the Tem- 
 poral punifhment due to fins committed after 
 Baptifm ? ^Vhy will they build the Dodrin of 
 Satisfafticn upon this fuppofition, that Chrift has 
 not fatisfy xl for the Temporal punifhment of 
 fuch fins ; and the Dodrin of Indulgences upon 
 the quite contrary fuppofition, viz,, that Cbrifl 
 feas fatisfy'd for the Temporal punifhment of 
 fuch fins ? This is a palpable contradiction for 
 the fupport of two faJfe and and abominable do- 
 ctrines. 
 
 But, fay they, the Saints have merited for fuch 
 fins, tho'<Chrift be fuppos'd not to have done ir, 
 >?ow I ihail not enquire, whether it be poffibls 
 
 for
 
 Chap. XIX. Of Indulgences. 2 9 $ 
 
 for any Man to do more good a&ions, than hs 
 is obliged to perform ; becaufe the Prote- 
 ftant Cafuifts are divided upon this point. But 
 fuppofe a Man may perform fome actions, which 
 are not abfolutely neceflary to his own Salvation ; 
 yet will it fellow, I pray, that fuch actions 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 (hall receive the benefit of what 
 another Man has done. 
 
 But, fay they, befides the "moral duties of Ju- 
 iHce, Charity, &c. 'tis plain, th.it many Saints 
 have endured more and greater hardfhips,thanGod 
 had made neceffary in - order to their Salvation, 
 They have worn hair Shirts, and walked barefoot, 
 and gone to Rome, or Jerufakm, or CompofteHa t 
 or fome other holy place, to vifit fiirines, &c. But 
 what if thefe be the effects of an imprudent Zeal ? 
 What if they be fo far from being commendable a<5ti- 
 ns,thata wifeGod will rather defpife than reward 
 them? Then 'twill be ask'd at the day of Judg- 
 ment, ivho has requir'd thefe things at your hands ? 
 Surely, if God may be fo greatly honor'd or 
 pleas'd with this kind of fervke j he wou'd at 
 leaft have given us a hint of it. But where, I 
 pray, do the Scriptures tell us, that the Difciples 
 went a pilgrimage to our Savior's Sepulchre ,- 
 which they knew to be his much better, than OUK 
 Adverfaries know the two bodies at Rome were 
 St. Peter's ancf St. Paul's ? Shall there be fo much 
 Holinefs and Devotion in keeping and kifling of 
 Relics j and did the Apoftles know nothing of 
 the Matter ? Which of the Difciples cut off a 
 piece of the Crofs, as an amulet againft all forts of 
 evils ? Which of them went barefoot, when they 
 T 4
 
 296 Of Indulgences. Part II. 
 
 had S.hoes to wear ? where .do we read of Sc.jto/-*'s 
 hair Shirt ? We find Sc. Paul had a Cloak to keep 
 him warm ; but we are not inform'd that he 
 wanted Stockings. But Tome are apt to place a 
 great deal of Piety in downright folly. I do not 
 by any means fpeak againft any fort of Morufka- 
 rion in order to the great ends of becoming more 
 humble, chaft, meek, &c. but I heartily pity fuch 
 well-meaning Perfons as think to do God Service 
 by fuch trifling and iidiculous (not to fay, flo- 
 venly ) performances. Certainly (laying at home 
 and minding ones bufinefs, and doing good in the 
 Neighborhood, is much more acceptable to God, 
 than a needleis errand to $ome. However, let 
 fuch Religious whimfies be fuppos'd grateful to 
 him ; why 'tis plain then that the Perfons who did 
 them, fhall be rewarded for them : but I fay a- 
 gain, the Scriptures do not give us the leaft hint, 
 ithat other Perfons fliall be the better for them. 
 
 But farther, if it were granted, that there is 
 fuch a treafure of Works of Supererrogarion, as 
 our Adverfarics pretend ; yet how, I pray, did 
 the Church get this treafure in keeping ? Let 
 them produce one letter of Scripture to jufiify 
 this pretence. What ? will they talk of a trea- 
 fure that never was, and then pretend to be Ma- 
 flers of it ? Will they feign Mountains of Gold 
 in the Moon, and bear the World in hand that 
 they are the Proprietors of: them, and then fell 
 thofe Fairy treafures at a dear rate upon earth ? Is 
 this what they exchange for thcfe large Revenues, 
 which Mafles for Souls and other fuperftitions 
 have enriched them with ? Good God ! what a 
 Corruption of Chriftianity is this ? How little is 
 this like our Savior's Religion, who never fpake 
 
 of Merit s y Purgatory, Indulgences > and a thoufand 
 
 I^I? 
 
 & T-
 
 Chap. XIX. Of Indulgences. 297 
 
 other fables and trinkets, which our Adrerfaries 
 make Merchandize of? 
 
 But I cannot enlarge. A Dodrin like this 
 ftnkes a Man with horror : and I had rather fpend 
 my time in Prayer to God to open our Adver- 
 faries eyes, than proceed to a more particular Con- 
 futation of it. 
 
 Well then , I have ftewn 'that Indulgence can 
 fignify but three things. If it fignifies only a re- 
 miffion of Church-cenfures, we agree w, ; th our 
 Adverfaries. If it fignifiesa remiffion of the E- 
 ternal guilt of our fins, 'tis abhorred by our Ad- 
 verfaries. If it fignifies a remiflion of the Tem- 
 poral guilt of fin, 'tis unreafonable and groundlefs. 
 The only queftion therefore is, what it muft fig- 
 mfy in the 22 d Article of the Popijb Creed: 
 and this cannot be known, but by examining the* 
 Indulgences themfelves. For fince the Council of 
 Irent has not fixed the meaning of the word ; 'tis 
 certain, that it muft fignify fuch Idulgences as are 
 commonly granted. 
 
 I fhall not fearch into all the filly, fuperftitious 
 and fcandalous Indulgence*. Thofe that have lei- 
 fure and patience enough for fuch a task, have too 
 too much matter prepared for them. 'Tis fuffir 
 cient to obferve ( what I have already (hewn ) 
 that the word cannot akuaies fignify ( nay, it do's 
 not generally fignify) aremiffion of Church-cen- 
 fures. And therefore thofe Indulgences which e- 
 very Pafifl is obliged to think the Church has a 
 power of granting, and which he is alfo to believe 
 very helpful to Ckriflian People, are very often fuch 
 as import a remiflion, either of the Temporal or 
 the Eternal guilt of fin. The firft fort is abfurd, 
 andthefecond is impious,- and confequently we 
 ought not to acknowledge either of them. 
 ni But
 
 598 Of Indulgences. Part II. 
 
 But yet I think our Adverfaries ought very 
 ferioufly to confider, to which of thefe forts the 
 following mftances do belong, Boniface the Stb 
 in the year of Jubilee, granted (c) not only a futt 
 find, more large than ordinary, but a moft full pardon 
 of all the fms of the pilgrims. And Clement the 
 Stb granted upon feveral other occafions (d) a 
 plenary pardon of Sins. And the fame Pope at a 
 Jubilee granted (e) a moft full Indulgence, remif- 
 fion and pardon of all fins. What do they think 
 of thefe and nuroberlefs other Indulgences in the 
 fame {train ? Do's the full, more large than ordi- 
 nary, and moft fuB : Indulgence, Remiffion and Par- 
 don of all fins, import nothing more than a remif- 
 iion of fome Temporal puuifhment ? Are not the 
 People grotty cheated by thefe pompous and fwel- 
 ling expreffions, if they contain norhing extraor- 
 dinary in them ? Tis too plain, that in thefe and 
 fych-like Bulls the Pope pretends to forgive the 
 Eternal guilt, or remit the Eternal pun ilh meat- 
 But if I am miftaken in this Matter, I moft ear- 
 neftly wifti that not only my felf, but thofe poor 
 People alfo, who buy up Indulgences at fo dear 
 and fcandalotis a rate might be convinced of our 
 error by our Adverfaries fixing the fenfe of thofe 
 expreffions, which are generally us'd in their Bulls 
 of Indulgence. For I am fully perfuaded, that di^ 
 the Papift* conceive no more virtue to be lodged 
 
 (c) Non folum plenam 8c largioretn, imo plenifllmam om- 
 nium fuorum concedemus & coticecfintus veniam ptccaco- 
 WQ.Cherub. BulIar.Tom. i. p. 145. 
 
 (d) Plenariam pcccatorum fuorum Indulgentiam. ibid. 
 Tom. 3. p. 7. & p. 23. & p. 43. 
 
 (e) Pleniflimam omnium peccatorum fuorum Indulgent!- 
 *m remiflionemac veniam. ttid> Tom. 3. p. 75- 
 
 in
 
 Chap. XX. Of Extreme Vstfio*. 299 
 in Indulge/tees, than our Adverfaries are willing 
 to own, when they are pinched with the Pro- 
 teflant Arguments againft Indulgences ; 'twou'd 
 foon lower the price of fuch Commodities, and 
 deaden the Market at Rome. Nay, farther, 'twou'd 
 not only favea great deal of Money, which might 
 be fpent to much better purpose : but alfo prevail 
 upon Men to make true Provifion fur their Eter- 
 nal intereft by a fpeedy amendment of their lives, 
 and bringing forth fruits meet for Repentance. 
 
 
 CHAP. XX. 
 
 Of Extreme Vntfion. 
 
 TH E next in/lance of a Dodrin which 
 uo ground in Scripture, is that of the Sacra- 
 ment of Extreme Unftion. By Extreme UnHion 
 our Adverfaries mean the anointing of feck Perform 
 in feveral parts of their bodies for the Pardon of 
 their fins : and this Practice they call a true and 
 proper Sacrament in the ijtb Article of their Creed. 
 Now 'tis granted by our Adverfaries, that every 
 Sacrament muft have been inftituted by our Savior 
 Chrift for a perpetual Practice in his Church ,- and 
 that it muft alfo confer grace. Wherefore if I 
 make it appear, that Extreme Un&ion was never 
 Inftituted by our Savior Chrif for a perpetual Pra- 
 ctice in his Church ; and that it do's not confer 
 grace; then it plainly follows upon our Adver- 
 faries own principles, and by their own confcffion., 
 that Extreme UnEiion is not a Sacrament. 
 
 FIRST then, I lhall (hew, that Extreme Vn* 
 clion was never inftituted by our Savior Chrift for 
 
 '*'&*
 
 'Of Extreme Vntfion. Part II. 
 
 a perpetual IraElice in his Church. And this will 
 appear by examining thofe Texts, by which our 
 Adverfaries hope to prove it. And, 
 
 I. They produce Mark 6. 13. where we read 
 that the Difciples whom our Savior fent forth 
 verfe the feventh, cafl out many Devils^ and an- 
 nointed with Oil many that were fick, andheahd them. 
 But this anointing was a Ceremony which atten- 
 ded the Miraculous power of Curing Difeafes, 
 which when our Savior beftow'd upon his Difci- 
 ples, he did not defign (as our experience proves) 
 that it (hou'd continue forever in the Church. 
 Nay, the circumftances of the thing and the whole 
 context do not only not imply any intention of 
 Making it a lafiing Solemnity , but give us the 
 jufteft reafon to believe the contrary. For, 
 
 1 . Let our Adverfaries prove, if they can, that 
 the fick Perfons who receive Extreme Unction, are 
 ever reftor'd to life by their Balfamic Oil. 'Tis 
 notorious, that fcarce any, but thofe whofe re- 
 covery is utterly defpaired of, have it Adminiftred 
 to them. But this anointing of the Difciples was 
 wholly in order to the anointed Perfon's Cure. 
 'Tis faid, they anointed with Oil many that were 
 Jick y and healed them. The Oil indeed did not 
 work theeffecl: by its own natural force ; but 'twas 
 an outward circtimflanceof a Miracle, and alwaies 
 attended with a restoration ef health to the fick 
 Perfon. 
 
 2. If we are commanded in this Text to anoint 
 the fick with Oil, then we are much more com- 
 manded to heal the fick. For certainly we are 
 more ftrongly obliged to praftifethe Adion, than 
 the bare circumilance of the action, {uch as the 
 anointing was. Now 'tis abfurd to faj, that wq 
 are commanded to heal the fick ; fince that- Mira- 
 culous
 
 Chap. XX. Of Extreme Untfion. joi 
 
 culous power is ccafed, and ( as I have faid al- 
 ready) our Adverfaries cannot pretend to it. 
 
 Noty fince every inftitution that was to remain 
 in the Church, muft without all doubt preferve 
 it's efteft, as the Sacraments of Baptifm and the 
 Lord's Supper do now beftow the fame Bleffings 
 as at the firft inftitution of them , and fmce no 
 inftitution is to remain, but what our Savior has 
 commanded us to practife ; and fince by fuppofing 
 our felvcs obliged to pradife this anointing, we 
 muft much more fuppofo our felves obliged to 
 work Miracles in healing the fick, which fuppo- 
 fition is contrary to experience, and abominably 
 abfurd ; therefore it is plain, that the anointing 
 in this Text was not defign'd for a perpetual pra- 
 6tice in the Church of Chrift. 
 
 IL They urge James 5. 14. 15. Is any fick a- 
 mongyou ? Let him cattjor tie Elders of the Church, 
 and let them fray over him, anointing him with Oil 
 in the Name of the Lord. And the Prayer oj Faith 
 Jhfill fave the Jick, and the Lord (hall raije him up ; 
 an d if he have committed fins^ they jhall Is forgiven 
 him. But I anfwer, that this anointing mentioned 
 by St. Jamesy refpe&s the Body, which was fre- 
 quently reftoi'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 bs 
 not only Natural, but alfo Necetfary, if we con- 
 fider the import of the Original. The word 
 *piw7 , which we tranflate/ivfc, do's plainly imply 
 a bodily Difeafe : and the word t>tp do's plainly 
 imply a recovery from it. So that without doing 
 the utmoft violence to the Apoftle's expreflions, 
 we cannot explain them otherwise. 
 
 J know
 
 302 Of Extreme Vnttion. Part IL 
 
 I know our Adverfaries are very willing to fold 
 
 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 ; and for rhis they offer feveral reafons, which 
 
 J Ihall 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 
 lick ; whereas thefe feem to have been utterly neg- 
 lected. 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. Jamtt had good 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 : buttheiame, 
 the blind, &c. might enjoy their lives,and continue 
 longer here, to do God Service and perfect theip 
 Repentance, &c. without any affiftanee from the 
 Miraculous gift of healing ; Arid therefore there 
 was no need of any directions to be given to 
 fuch Perfons. 
 
 2. They fay, that if this place be underflood 
 of a Miraculous Cure, then St. James wou'd not 
 have ordered them to fend for the Elders of the 
 Church ; but for thofe that had the gift of healing. 
 But we are to confider, i. That the gift of 
 healing was more frequently at leaft bellowed up- 
 on the Elders ; and perhaps I may fafely add, 
 that we have no proof of it's being bellowed upon 
 any other Perfons. However, 2. tho' the gift o 
 healing were fometimes beftowed upon Lay-Per- 
 fons, yec 'twas more adyifable to fend for fuch 
 
 Elders
 
 Chap. XX. Of Extreme Untilon. 
 
 Elders as were endued with it , becaufe their 
 Character gives them greater authority, and 
 tkey are fuppos'd to have better skill in thofe 
 Spiritual affairs, which fick Perfor.s are concer- 
 ned in. 
 
 3. 'Tis faid, that if the Cure were Miraculous, 
 St. James wou'd not have appointed the ufe of 
 Oil ; fince the Miracle might have been performed 
 without it. Now, whether St. James fpeaks of 
 the ufe of Oil, as a commanded Ceremony ; or 
 only as a Cuftom ufual at the exercife of the gift 
 of healing ; I {hall not determin. 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 
 actions, which had no real Virtue in them. Thus 
 when our Savior cur'd the blind Man, he us'd 
 Clay ; and whep 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. AEls 28. 8. Now 
 fince anointing appears to have been the ufage of 
 thofe who had the gift of healing, we mult not 
 think to difprove the Matter of Fad, by faying 
 it "was not abfolutely necejfary. Especially, 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; fince 
 the Miracle might have been performed without 
 ir. Nor can our Adverfaries anfwer this objection 
 againft their own interpretation, but upon the 
 ^ime principle which do's fo plainly juftify ours,
 
 304 Of Extreme Vxtfion. Part II. 
 
 i/z,. That Men are not to confider what God may 
 do ; but what they muft do themfelvcs. The 
 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 Apoftlefpeaks of 
 a Miraculous Cure of the Body, then none of 
 the nrft Chriftians wou'd ever have died, as long 
 as that power lafted ,- becanfe there is an abfolute 
 promife made of raifing up the fick Perfbn. 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 acted 
 with Faith, or a full perftiafion of the fuccefs of 
 their endeavors ; and this perfuafion was raifed 
 in them by God's Spirit, which coii'd not, and 
 wou'd not deceive them. 
 
 If it be reply J 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 necefiary reftridion. Our Savior faies, 
 John 1 4. 1 3 , 14. Whatfoever ye /halt ask in my 
 Name, that "wiU I do > that the Fatter may be glo- 
 rifyd in the Son. If )e Jhall ask any thing in my 
 Name, I will do tt. This Promife is as abfolute 
 and general, as 'tis poflible; and yet all our Prayers 
 are not granted. Wherefore there is a conditon 
 underftood j viz,. If it be confiftent with God's 
 Wifdom and the interefl of the Perfon ; then it 
 fhall be performed. 
 
 However, we need not thefe ufual and reafon- 
 able limitations in the prefent Cafe. For we may 
 obferve, that the Apoftle faies, 7%e Prayer of faith 
 JbaHfave the fick \ that is, the Prayer which pro- 
 eeeds from a full perfuafion in that Perfort who has 
 
 the
 
 Chap. XX, Of Extreme "Onclion. j o $ 
 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 Prayer of Faith, they never fail'd. So thar 
 the Promife may be flriftly abfolute and general 
 with refpeft to all that it did concern, becaufe 
 they did never endeavor, but when the fuccefs was 
 infallibly certain. And therefore tho' thefe words 
 do relate to the Miraculous gift of healing, and 
 tho' the Promife be never foabfolure and general ; 
 yet it will not follow from hence, that the firft 
 Race of Chriftians muft then have been im- 
 mortal. 
 
 Nay, this objedion of our Adverfaries, ifpur- 
 fned, will as certainly prove, that there never was 
 any gift of healing at all ; as that thefe words do 
 not relate to it. For we may urge, that if ever 
 fuch a gift wasbeftowed upon the firft Age of the 
 Church, then that Generation xvou'd not have died 
 as long as the gift continued , becaufe it \va^ in the 
 power of thofe holy Men to fpare the lives of their 
 Brethren, and we may fuppofe them willing to 
 doit. But yet our Adverfaries cannot deny," that 
 there was fuch a gift in antient times,- nor can. 
 they anfwer the objection thus retorted upon them- 
 felves, otherwife than by faying, that the Primi- 
 tive 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 pleas 'd , but fuch Per- 
 fons only as the Spirit directed them to heal, to 
 fervc 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 effect was certain j yet that Gene- 
 U ration
 
 306 Of Extreme t Vniion. Part II. 
 
 ration wou'd not be as it were immortal. Becaufe 
 tho' many were to be reftor'd for a confiderable 
 time, yet fome did never receive the benefit of that 
 gift ; and thofe who did, cou'dnotfor ever en joy it, 
 but muft in due feafon fubmit to the ftroke of death. 
 
 y. They urge, that St. James's Words muft 
 needs iignify a fpiritual cure ; becaufe the Apoftle 
 adds, find, if he have committed Jins, they fiall le 
 forgiven him, v. 15. But to this I anfwer, that it 
 pkas'd God in the Primitive Times to punifli fome 
 incorrigible and obftinate Offenders with death , 
 and to inflict Difeafes upon many other Sinners, 
 to the intent that being admoniiiied 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 S. Paul, 
 many are -weak and fickly among you, and manyfleep. 
 For if we woud judge our felves, we jhoud not be 
 judged. But -when we are judged, we are chaftened 
 of the Lord, that we Jbou'd not be condemn d with 
 the World-, i Cor. 11. 30, 31, 32. Wherefore 
 St. James, when he difcourfes of a Miraculous 
 r covery from ficknefs, aflures the fick Perfon, that 
 if he have committed fas as the caufe of his dif- 
 eafe ; then not only the affliction fliou'd be re- 
 moved, but the reafon of it alfo flbou'd be taken 
 away, for they JJjaM be forgiven him. 
 
 This explication agrees perfectly well with the 
 following verfes, wherein the Apofile exhorts them 
 to mutual confeffion, and Prayers for each others 
 health. Confefs your faults, faies he, verfe 16. (or 
 as fome Copies read ic, Confefs your faults therefore') 
 one to another ; that ye may be healed. Since God is 
 often pleas'd to beftow aMiracle upon you for your 
 recovery, and alfo to pardon your fins, upon the 
 Prayer of Faith ; therefore you are obliged by your 
 
 own
 
 Chap. XX. Of Extreme Vntfion. 307 
 own Intereft fo to confcfs and pray, that each Per- 
 fon to whom God will grant the favor, may en- 
 joy the BlefTings of health and forgivenefs. Then 
 he inforces this Argument by afluring them in the 
 very next words, that the effectual fervent Prayer of 
 the Righteous availed much. And this, faies he, 
 the holy Men of Old have ever found true , for 
 Elias was a Manfubjecl to like pajfions .as we are, 
 and he pray'd earneftly that it might net Rain : and 
 it rained not on the Earth by the [pace of three years 
 and fix months. And he pray'd again, and the hea- 
 ven gave Rain, and the Earth brought forth her 
 fru>t. 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 considered the Reafons 
 for our own interpretation of St. James's 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 bellowed upon 
 fome of the firft Chriftians. 
 
 Now this b-ing granted, I -cannot perceive, how 
 our Adverfaries will be able to prove from hence, 
 that Extreme Un&ion was initiruted by Chrift for. 
 a perpetual practice in his Church. Certainly 
 they will not fay thus ; God did once be flow a Mi- 
 raculous gijt of healing upon his Church, and St. 
 James did then advife the Chri/lians to make ufe of 
 it together with the ttfual ceremony of Anointing an- 
 nexed to it, for the recovery of the r health ; and 
 therefore we afs obliged ( tho 1 we can /hew no com- 
 mand for it ) to anoint Jick Perjons, now that the 
 
 U 2 ffft
 
 308 Of Extreme Vntfion. Part II. 
 
 gift is ceafed, and we have no hopes of healing them 
 by it. If our Adverfaries wou'd prove their point 
 from this Text, they ought to fhew, 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 Ftrfl of thefe, I am pcr- 
 fuaded they will not pretend to it ; nothing in 
 the World being more certain, than that their Ex- 
 treme Unclion is not attended with fuch fuperna- 
 tural effects. And as to the Second particular, 'tis 
 plain, that when the reafon is utterly loft and 
 gone, 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 
 obtained by it. 
 
 They tell us indeed, that thofe other particu- 
 lars which St. James fpeaks 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 Ordinance to the end of the World. 
 But to this 1 anfwer, that tho' St. James's di- 
 rections are generally fuch as belong to the whole 
 Church in all fucceding Ages j yet there may be 
 others, which were peculiar to the firft Age of 
 it- Juft as it is ufual with St. Paul to intermix 
 his Epiitles, and deliver Temporary Precepts to- 
 gether with fuch as are perpetual. Thus the Pre- 
 cepts concerning long hair, i Cor. n. and con- 
 cerning Prophecy, i Cor. 14. and his order to 
 bring the Cloak, Books and Parchments, 2 Ttm. 
 4. 13. aw not lafting injunctions, the/ they ae 
 
 penn'd
 
 Chap. XX. Of Extreme Vnttion. 309 
 penn'd in the /ame Epiftles and Pages with the 
 moft Effential Rules and Commands of the Chri- 
 ftian Religion. Wherefore it will by no means 
 follow, that the anointing in St. James is to be 
 continued in the Church, becaufe the other par- 
 ticulars mention'd by St. James, muft forever be 
 obferv'd. 
 
 Well then ; fince the Anointing mention'd Mark 
 6. 14. and James 5. 14. was peculiar to thofe 
 times, and do's not in any wife belong to us ; and 
 iince we have no command or reafon to pra&ife it , 
 therefore thofe Texts do not oblige us to anoint 
 the fick. And fince thofe Texts do not oblige 
 us to anoint the fick, and no other Texts can be 
 urg'd in t'avor 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 anointing of fick 
 Persons was not itiftituted ly our Elejftd Lord for a 
 perpetual practice in his Church. 
 
 S E C O N D L Y, I am now to (hew, that Ex- 
 treme Unttion do's not confer grace. Our Adver- 
 faries pretend that Extreme Untlion is available 
 for the pardon of fins ; and if tins were true, then 
 grace wou'd certainly be cOnferr'd by. it : but we 
 maintain, that it is not available for the pardon of 
 fins i and this we aflert for the following Reafon. 
 None can forgive fins, but God alone ; and there- 
 fore he alone can appoint a Sacrament for the foi- 
 givenefs of them. Now iince I have already 
 prov'd, that God has not Inftituted Extreme Un- 
 tlim\ therefore . Extreme UnElion cannot be a 
 Sacrament for the forgivenefs of fins. Nay, 'tis an 
 inftance of the higheft and moft impardqnable pre- 
 fumption for any mortal Man to pretend, that a 
 rite of Human invention can difpofe of God's 
 U 3 Favors i
 
 $io Of the Popes Part II. 
 
 Favors ; and therefore 'cis a great wickednefs for 
 any Perfon to fay, that Extreme Uafrion (which 
 becaufe it was Instituted by Godasa ftanding 
 Ordinance, is with re/pcd to us and to the mo- 
 dern practice, no more a bare human invention) is 
 available for the Pardon of our fins. 
 
 Now fin ce I have fliewn. Fir ft , that Extreme 
 Untticn was never Instituted by Chrift ; and Se- 
 condly, as a confequence of the former, that it do's 
 not confer grace ; it muft of neccffity follow that 
 it is no Sacrament, becaufe it wants thefe eflential 
 properties of a Sacrament. And fince Extreme 
 Unttion is not a Sacrament, therefore the Popijh 
 Doftrin in the i^tb Article of their Creed, 
 which makes it a true and frofe r Sacrament, is a 
 groundlefs Do<5trin which canno.: be prov'd from 
 Scripture. 
 
 CHAP. XXL 
 
 Of the Popes Supremacy. 
 
 TH E 2 3 d Article of the Popjfi Creed runs thus, 
 / do alfo acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, and 
 Apoftolic Church of Rome, the Mother and Miflrefs 
 of all Churches ; and 2 do Promi/e and Swear true 
 Obedience to the Bifiop of Rome, the Succeffw of 
 St. Peter the Prince of the Apoftles, and tie Vicar of 
 Jefus Chrift. From hence it is evident, that the 
 Popes Supremacy is an Article of Faith, which our 
 Adverfaries impofe as neceflary to Salvation. 
 
 Now thePope of Rome claims a Supremacy over 
 the whole Chriltian Church, becaufe 'tis pre- 
 tended that our Savior made St. Peter the Su- 
 preme
 
 Chap. XXL Supremacy. BII 
 
 preme Head or Governor of all the Apoftles, and 
 that this Right is deriv'd upon his Succeflors the 
 Bifhops of Rome. Here then I might launch in- 
 to many difputes. For, 
 
 i. It has been very juitiy queftion d, whethe j 
 St. Peter was ever Bijhof ot Rome, or no. And 
 if he never was Bilhop there ; I pray, how came 
 the Popes of Rome to be his Succeflors ? 
 ever, 'tis generally acknowledged, that St. Paul was 
 Bifhop of Rome ; and if Sc. Peter was Supreme 
 over ail the Apoftles, then St. Peter was St. Pauls 
 Governor. But then our Adverfaries ought to be 
 cautious how they aflert St. Peter's Supremacy j 
 becaufe unlefs it be certain (as perhaps it will 
 never be) that St. Peter was Bifhop of Rcme.it 
 follows upon their own Principles, that the Bi- 
 fhops of Rome as Succeffors of St. Paul do owe 
 Subjeftion to the Bifliops of Antiocb, as Succeflors 
 of St. Peter who had the Supremacy. For us 
 granted by our Adverfaries, that St. Peter was Bi- 
 ihop of Amioch ; and that even before he was bi 
 fliop of Rome. 
 
 2. Let it be granted that St. Peter was Bifhop 
 of Rome', yet fincc our Adverfaries acknowledge 
 that he was Biftiop of Antiocb, before he was Bi 
 fliop of Rome. I wou'd fain know, why the Su- 
 premacy fhou'd be deriv'd upon the Bifhops ot 
 Rome, and not upon the Bifhops of Antioch. Tis 
 certain, that the Scriptures do not determm this 
 point. We do not learn from thence, that the 
 prerogatives of St. Peter do belong to that bee 
 which he was laft poffeflcd of. And if reafon 
 muft decide the Matter, 'tis fit that the Succeflors 
 in the former See fhou'd be preferr d to thofc in 
 the latter. Nay, if St. Peters bare filling a bee 
 gives it the preeminence over all others j and that 
 U 4 preenu-
 
 3i* Of the Popes Part II. 
 
 preeminence cannot be beflow'd upon more than 
 one See ; 'tis not only probable, but alfo certain, 
 that the Preeminence belongs to the See of An- 
 ticch, and no preeminence at all to that of Rome. 
 For his filling the See of Antiocb muft have be- 
 ftowed that privilege upon it , and confequently 
 { before he coi/d poffibJy come to Rome ) the 
 difpofal of it was out of his Power. But, 
 
 3, 'Tis unreafonable to fuppofe, that the Su- 
 premacy of St. Peter is derivable to any See at all. 
 For, granting that St. Peter had a Supremacy over 
 the Apoftlcs ; yet whatever prerogatives he ob- 
 tained, were beftow'd upon him for his great Zeal, 
 and other excellent endowments. They were not 
 given him as Bifhop of Rome, but as a very de- 
 ferving perfon ; and confequently they are not to 
 be claim 'd by others ; unlefs thofe Perfons can 
 ftew that God has Made St. Peter's prerogatives 
 JSucceffive, or that they are Mailers of as much 
 worth ssSt, Peter. But 'tis plain, that the Scrip- 
 tures do not give us the leafi intimation of St. 
 Peter's prerogatives being Succeffive : and I am 
 perfuaded the Popes of Rome 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 ; even tho* it were granted, that Chrift Ap- 
 pointed St. Peter the Head of the whole College 
 of Apoflles. I might farther enlarge upon thefe 
 heads, and purfue thofe Arguments which I have 
 only hinted at. But I am unwilling to be tedious ; 
 and therefore I fhall rather prove, that St. Peter had 
 no Supremacy at all. For if that one point be 
 made good, the pretended Supremacy of the 
 33i{hops of Rome mud of neceffity fall to the 
 ground, 
 
 In
 
 Chap. XXI. Suprtmacy. 31$ 
 
 In order to this I think it neceflary in the firft 
 place to {hew what is meant by Supremacy ; that 
 1 may not feem to difpute about words and phra- 
 fes. Now a Man may have the Supremacy, or be 
 the Head, the Principal or chief Perfon, diverfe 
 waies, viz in refpect, i. Of Perfonal Worth. 2. Of 
 Order. 3. Of Power. 
 
 Firft, he that is more excellent, more Learned, 
 more Pious, more induftrious, or the like ; has the 
 Supremacy, or is the Head, the chief or principal 
 Perfon in refpect of Perfonal Wunb -, when com- 
 par'd with fuch as have not an equal meafure of 
 the fame endowments. And from ci.is preeminence 
 of Perfonal Worth arifes a preeminence in efteem ; 
 which is ( or at leaft ought to be) proportioned 
 to the degree of thofe excellencies, which arc praife- 
 worthy in each particular Man. 
 
 Secondly, he that takes pLce of another, has the 
 Stipremacy, or is the principal, Head or c id Per- 
 fon in refpecl: of Order $ when compar'd wi:h C'tofe 
 Perfons, who are bound by cuftom, or tor any other 
 reafon to give him place. 
 
 Thirdly, that Perfon who has Authority to Go- 
 vern and command others as his SubjVcts, has the 
 Supremacy, or is the chief, Head or principal Per- 
 fon in refpecl: of Power. 
 
 I need not inquire, whether Sc. Peter had the 
 Supremacy of Worth in refpecl of tiie other A- 
 poftles. Perhaps St. Paul may be juftly thought 
 the more excellent Perfon for jfevera; itafons. But 
 comparifons are odious, particularly when they are 
 not neceffary. Nor need I inquire, upon what 
 account St. Peter obtained the Si-premacy of Ordei. 
 .The Matter of Fad I fhall not deny ; tho' 'tis 
 plain that St. Peter, is not alwaies placed firft in 
 the Holy Scriptures ; particularly John i, 44. we 
 
 read
 
 ^14 Of the Popes Part II. 
 
 cad of the City of Andrew and Peter. However, 
 if we grant him a Supremacy of Order, yet 'tis 
 evident, that as bis Supremacy of Order did not 
 arife from his Supremacy of Power ; becaufe I (hall 
 fliew, that he had no Supremacy of Power ; fo I 
 think it neceilary to obferve before I proceed any 
 farther, that we cannot conclude, that a Man has 
 a Supremacy of Power, becaufe he has a Supre- 
 macy either of Perfonal Worth, or of Order. 
 
 1. It cannot be concluded that aManhas aSupre- 
 macyof ro wer,becaufe he has a CupremacyofPerfnal 
 |jKM&This,I think is the fettled Judgment of the fo- 
 berpartof all Mankind : and the contrary opinion 
 was never maintained but byEnthufiafts, who have 
 fometimes affiim'd, that Dominion is founded inGrace. 
 "Tis true,aSupremacy otPeifcnalWbrth is a juft qua- 
 lification totSLpremacy otPcwer ,-and it were to be 
 wifh'd, that fuch Pcrfons as are truly excellent, 
 were alwaies entrufted with all fores of Gover- 
 ment .- but it will by no means follow from hence, 
 that thofe who have greater endowments, have for 
 that reafonthe power actually 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 the leaft 
 fit forGoverment ; wou'd be thereby prompted and 
 encouraged to raifeeverlaftingRebellions.and wreft 
 the Scepter out of their Princes hands. Wherefore 9 
 tho'it were granted,thatSc. Peter had theSuprema- 
 cy of Pevjonal Worth ; yet it cannot be concluded, 
 that he had the Supremacy of Power alfo : unlefs 
 it may be fliewn, that our Savior himfelf, who a- 
 lone had authority, did inveft him with it. 
 
 2. It cannot be concluded that a Man has a Su- 
 premacy of Power, from his having a Supremacy 
 
 of
 
 Chap. XXI. Supremacy. $i<5 
 
 of Order. 'Tis true, that Perfon who has a Su- 
 premacy of Power, 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- 
 land to take place according to their feveral de- 
 grees,and the ieniority of their Creation : yet none 
 will imagin, that the firft Peer of England has a, 
 Supremacy of Power or authority to govern all the 
 reft. The frme is true concerning rhe Members 
 of all Aiiftocratical or Dcmocratical Goverments. 
 'Tis impoflible that every Man mou'dbe firft ;and 
 therefore fome one or other mtift have the Su- 
 premacy of Order : but if that Supremacy of 
 Order imply 'd a Supremacy of Power ,- then rhere 
 can be no fort of Government in the World be- 
 fides that which is Monarchical. Now this is 
 utterly falfe and abfurd ,- and therefore tho' St.Peter 
 had the Supremacy of Order, yet it cannot be ga- 
 ther'd from thence that he had a Supremacy of 
 Power alfo. 
 
 If ic be faid 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 fuppofethe 
 Supremacy of Power, upon the account of which 
 it was beftow'd -, I anfwer, that our Adverfaries 
 do now take that for granted, which ought to be 
 prov'd. For I ftiall foon make it appear, that Sr. 
 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 Supremacy of Order do's not alwaies imply 
 
 a Su-
 
 316 Of the Popes Part II. 
 
 a Supremacy of power ; and this I think our Ad- 
 verfaries cannot gainfay. So that if there be no 
 other proof of St. Peter's Supremacy of Power 
 than what arifes from his fuppos'd Supremacy of 
 order, then there is no fufficient proof of it at 
 all. 
 
 Well then ; tho* it be never fo freely granted 
 that St. Peter had a Supremacy both of Perfonal 
 Worth and of Order ; yet it will not follow from 
 thence that he had a Supremacy of Power : and con- 
 fequently, we muft confider thofe other arguments 
 upon which St. Peter's pretended Supremacy of 
 Power is founded. Thofe arguments are of two 
 forts; for, i- Our Adverfariesalledgefuch words 
 of our Savior, as feem to give or imply this Su- 
 premacy of Power. 2. They tell us of feme 
 great privileges granted to St. Peter, which do 
 plainly fuppole it. Thefe arguments therefore muft 
 be examin'd. 
 
 i. They alledge fuch words of our Savior as 
 feem to give or imply this Supremacy of Power. 
 The words are thefe, And 1 fay unto thee, that 
 thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my 
 Church ; and the gates of helljhalt not prevail again ft 
 it. 'And I will give unto thee the ke)es of the 
 Kingdom of heaven : and whutfoever thou /bait bind 
 on earth, Jhall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou 
 fhalt loofe en earth, Jhall be loofed in heaven, Matth. 
 1 6. 1 8, 19. And in the nth Chapter of St. John 
 our Lord faies unto him feed my Lambs, verfe i^th, 
 and feed my Sheep, verfe 16,17. 
 
 The greateft difficulty is concerning thefe words, 
 Upon this Rock will I but Id my Church. Tome it 
 feems probable, that by the Rock our Savior 
 means St. Peter's confeffion. For when our Savior 
 had asked the Difdples, But whom fay ye that I 
 
 am
 
 Chap. XXI. Of Supremacy. 
 
 am ? verfe 15. Peter immediately anfwer'd, Thou 
 
 art Chrift the Son of the living God. And Jefus 
 
 an fixer ed and f aid unto him, Blejfed anthou Simon 
 
 Bar- Jon a : for flejh and blood hath not revealed it 
 
 unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And 
 
 I Ja^ alfo unto thee, that thou art Peter, (thy Name 
 
 fignifies a Scone, and thou (halt be a considerable 
 
 ftone in my great building of the Church) and 
 
 upon this Rock of thy confeflion, upon this great 
 
 and fundamental truth upon which all Chriftianity 
 
 is founded, / will build my Church, making ufe of 
 
 thee and thy Brethren the Apoftles, and all other 
 
 Preachers of my Gofpel, as the Stones with which 
 
 I muft build. And the gates of Hell Jhall not prevail 
 
 againfl it y viz. againft that Church, which by thy 
 
 Miniftry,and theMiniflry of thy Fellow-Laborers, 
 
 I defign to build upon this great and fundamental 
 
 Article of Faith. 
 
 This interpretation of the Words is very natu- 
 ral, and agrees admirably well with thofe words 
 of St. Paul, when he faies to his Converts NM 
 therefore ye are no more Strangers and foreigners, 
 lut FeUow-Citi^em with the Saints, and of the 
 Houfiold of God ', and are built upon the founda- 
 tion of the Apoftles and Prophets, Jefus Chrift him- 
 felf being the Chief Corner-Stone ', in whom all the 
 building fitly fram'd together groweth unto an holy 
 Temple in the Lord : in whom you alfo are buil- 
 ded together for an habitation of God thro 3 the Spirit, 
 Eph. 2. 19. &c. 'tis plain, that in thefe words 
 the Church is compared to a building, and the 
 Apoftles and Prophets to the Foundation Stones, 
 and Jefus Chrifl himfelf to the Chief-Corner- 
 Stone. 
 
 Now if I have given the true fenfe of that paf- 
 fage in St. Matthew ( and I think, that nothing 
 
 can
 
 318 Of the Popes Part II. 
 
 can be j'.'ftly objected againft it) then the words of 
 St. Ms.tthew and St. Paul do exactly anfwer, and 
 explain each other. And ib the allegory being 
 purfu'd, the Rock upon which the Church is kid 
 to be built, being a firm and iramoveable bottom, 
 is nothing elfe but the great Article of Chyift's be- 
 ing the Ale/pah, upon which every fyliable of our 
 Religion do's, and muft forever depend ; 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. Peter's Perfon, but his Conreffion is the Rock 
 upon which the Church is built. And confequently, 
 thar Argument which our Adverfariesdraw from 
 St. Peter's being the Rock upon whicu the Church 
 is built, to prove his Supremacy ot 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. Peter's Supremacy of power notwithstanding. 
 For if it be granted, that St. Peter's Perfon was 
 the Rock upon which the Church was built ', then 
 the meaning of the words may probably be this, 
 viz,. That (*h, ift wou'd make St. Peter a very greac 
 and faithful inftrument in planting the Gofpel ; 
 and thi<. St. Peter might very eafily be, without 
 having any the leaft Supremacy or power over the 
 other Apoftles. However, tho' this interpretation 
 alfo (hou'd be rejected . 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 meait by the com- 
 parifon. 
 
 But
 
 Chap. XXI. Supremacy. 3 1 9 
 
 But 'tis plain, that we have not the leaft reafon 
 to believe, that the comparifon of the Rock im- 
 plies a Supremacy of power. For let our Adver- 
 faries give us onefingle inftance, if they can,where 
 a Supremacy of power was ever conferred, or im- 
 ply'd, by comparing any Perfori to a Rock. Surely 
 'tis utterlyunreafonable for ourAdverfaries to take a 
 very difficultText ; and becaufe they know not the 
 true meaning of it, to fuppofe that it implies this 
 or that particular thing, tho' they have not any 
 the leaft proot that the phrafe is fo us'd, either in 
 the Scriptures, or in any other Author. And why 
 then muft the word Rock in this controverted place 
 denote a Supremacy of power ? Efpecially fince, i. 
 It is very natural to underftand it of the truth of 
 that great Article of Chrift's Meffiah-fhip. But if 
 it be allow'd to have beenfpoken of St./toe/sPerfon, 
 yet, 2. It cannot be fhewn, that it did ever fignify 
 a Supremacy of power. 3. There is not the lealt 
 ground or Cuftom in 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. Peter's being compared to a Rock 
 implies his Supremacy of power over the other 
 Apoftles ; bat we have evident proof of the con- 
 trary. For this is certain, that if this (im ilitude did 
 imply a Supremacy of power, then Chrifl fpake 
 it in that fcufe, and the Apoftles alfo, or St. Peter 
 at leaft, did either then or afterwards underftand 
 it in that fenfe. Whereas I (hall prove, that what- 
 ever was meant by that comparifon, yet, i. Chrif 
 himfelf did not fpeak it in that fenfe. 2. The 
 other Apoftles did never underftaad it in that 
 
 fenfe.
 
 320 Of the Popes Part II. 
 
 fenfe. 3. St. Peter in particular did never under- 
 ftand it in that fenfe. 
 
 i. Chrifi himfelf did not fpeak it in that fenfe* 
 For this pretended Promife of Supremacy was made 
 by our Savior upon the occafion of St. Peter's 
 Confeffion, which we find Recorded in Matth. 
 16. i<5. 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 considerable time af- 
 ter, the Difciples had difputed among themfelves, 
 which of them fnould be the greatefl, Mark <? 34. 
 or as the Original tit M'P may (and perhaps, 
 ought to ) be rendred, they difputed among 
 themfelves, which of them -was the greateft ; 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 call'd 
 the Twelve (and confequently St. Peter was among 
 them) and faith unto them. If any man dejire to be 
 fir ft, the fame /ball be laft of all, and fer'vant of all, 
 Mark 9. 35. Nay, farther, he faid unto them, Te 
 know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercife dominion 
 over them, and they that are great exercife authority 
 ufon them, but it Jhallnotbe Jo among you, Matth. 
 20. 25, 26. 
 
 Now I appeal to any unprejudiced Per/on -, 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. Peter ? He 
 pofitively affirms and declares, it jhallnot be fo 
 among you, that is, one of you (hall not be above 
 the other ; and confequently he cannot be thought 
 
 to
 
 
 Chap. XXI. SupremAcy; 321 
 
 to have promis'd St. Peter a power over all the 
 reft. If our Savior had formerly fpoken of a Su- 
 premacy of power under the fimilitude of a Rock ; 
 certainly he did in this place, not only diflemble 
 his former promife, but flatly contradict it : and 
 I defire our Adversaries to (hew that fuch dealing 
 is confiftent with his veracity. Nay, if our Savior 
 had defign'd St. Peter for the Univerfal Paftorof 
 his Church, he wou'd upon this occafion have 
 admonifti'd the Difciples not to contend about 
 Superiority, but to pay an entire fubmiffion to 
 St. Peter, whom he would leave his Vicar upon 
 earth. 
 
 2. The other Apoftles did never underftand 
 oir Saviour in thatfenfe. They did never think, 
 that by comparing St. Peter to a Rock, our Lord 
 had made him a Prince over them. For, 
 
 Firft, It is plain that the other Apoftles did 
 not fo imderftand 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 thofb Perfons, who fo 
 well knew the mind of their Lord and Mafter, wou'd 
 difpute about Superiority notwithstanding ? Be- 
 fides, when the Mother of Zebedec's Children de- 
 fir'd, that her Sons might have the Preeminence : 
 all the other Difciples were mov'd with Indignation. 
 againftthe two Brethren, Matth. 20. 24. Now this 
 Preeminence was defired a great while after our 
 Savior had made this pretended promife to St. 
 Peter i and yet the Difciples were (Dually mov'd 
 with indignation, thinking it an injury to them 
 all; whereas if St. Peter 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 torequeft that Preeminence, if they had 
 X thoughc
 
 $22 Of the Popes Fart II. 
 
 thought that our Lord had already beftow'd it 
 on St. Peter. 
 
 If it be objected, 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- 
 iequently, that tho'the Difciplcsdid not perceive 
 his true meaning before his Afcemion, yet they 
 were afterwards convinced of his giving the Su- 
 premacy to St. Peter : if I fay, this be objected, 
 I anfwer, that I have already fliewn, 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 fo undeiiland him after his Afcen- 
 iion. But farther, I fhail now fhew, 
 
 Secondly, That the other Apoftles did not fo 
 underftand him after his Afcenfion. For if they 
 had known that our Savior had appointed St. 
 Peter his Vicar upon earth, they wou'd have ac- 
 knowledg'd 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 any 
 one inftancc of appealing to St. Peter, 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. Peter was not defir'd to fill it with 
 fome worthy Perfon.'Tis true,we have his Speech 
 upon that occafion Recorded at large, Atts i . 1 6, 
 &c. 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 diftin&ion) agreed 
 
 upon
 
 Chap. XXII. Supremacy: 
 
 upon him that fucceeded Judas. For 7%ey (viz. 
 Peter and all the reft, who were about an Hundred 
 and twenty, verfe 15.) I fiy, They appointed two, 
 Jofeph called Barfabas, who wat jurnam'd Julius, 
 and Matthias ; And they frafd, &c. And they gave 
 forth the Lots, &c. A<5ts I. 23, 24, 26- The lame 
 method of proceeding was obfer'd in the Choice 
 of Deacons, Atfs 6. 2- For the whole bufinefs was 
 concerted bythem al),without anyparticular directi- 
 on ofSt./totr'socany'Tpecial commiffion from him. 
 
 Nay, Si:. Peter himfeif receiv'd a CommifTion 
 from the reft of the Apoflles. For u-hen 
 the Apoflles which were at Jerufalem, heard that Sa- 
 maria had received the word if God, they fent unto 
 them Peter and, John, Ads 8. 14. They fent him, 
 it feems, with as much confidence, as they after- 
 wards fent Paul and Barnabas, and Jadai and Silas, 
 Acts 15. 22. And (hall we believe, that the A- 
 poftles wotul have dar'd to make him their Mef- 
 fenger, whom they knew that Chrifl had made 
 their Prince and Governor ? Nay, I believe our 
 Adverfaries woa'd be very g'ad to find the Scrip- 
 tures faying, that Peter was Chief among the Bre- 
 thren : whereas St. Luke exprdly affirms that 
 Paul and Barnabas, Judas and Silas were Chief 
 Men among the Brethren, verfe 22. And ytt 'tis 
 plain, that they were fent, tho* our Savior tells 
 us, that the Servant is not greater than his Lord ; 
 neither he that if fent, greater than he that fent him, 
 John 13-16. And confequently, St. Peter himfeif 
 was not greater than the Apollles that fent him. 
 
 When St. Peter had conversed with thofe that 
 were uncircumcis'd, fuch as were of the Circum- 
 cifion contended "with him, faying, Thou wenteft in 
 to Men uncircumcis'd, and did ft eat with them, A6ts 
 n. 2, 3. Buc certainly they cou'd not have dar'd 
 
 X a to
 
 5 24 Of the Popes Part II. 
 
 to contend with St. Peter, if they had thought 
 him the Vicar of Chrifl: efpecialiy they would 
 not have a<5ted thus at Jerufalem, where it was 
 impoflible for them to be ignorant of his great 
 dignity, if any fiich had ever been granted to 
 him. Nor did they in this cafe exped or receive 
 a peremptory anfwer from Sr. Peter, as infixing 
 upon his own authority, by which he was ac- 
 countable to God only : but he was fain to fa- 
 tisfy the Brethren, by giving an account of his 
 Action and of the Reafons of it. For he re- 
 bears'd the Matter from the beginning, and ex- 
 pounded it by order unto them, Jaying, &c. And 
 when they heard thefe things they held their peace 
 Afts 11.4, 18. 
 
 Again, when that great queflion concerning the 
 obfervation of the M^aic 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, 
 fiould go up to Jerufalem (not to enquire of St. 
 Peter, but) unto the Apoftles and Elders about this 
 queflion, Acts 15. 2. And accordingly the Apcftles 
 and Elders came together for to confider of this Mat- 
 ter, verfe 6. It feems, they did not wait St. Peter's 
 judgment, but thought it a matter fit for common 
 debate, in which they were all equally concerned. 
 'Tis true, when there had been much difputing^ 
 Peter rofe up and faid unto *them y Men and Bre- 
 thren, ye knew how that a good while ago, &c, 
 verfe 7. Then he declared a Revelation which 
 God had vouchsafed to him, and which was of 
 great ufe in the determination of this great Con- 
 troverf}'. But his Speech and Opinion did not 
 end the difpute ; for when St. Peter had finifh'd 
 his D.fcourfe, aU the Multitude kept Jileme and 
 
 gave
 
 Chap. XXL Supremacy. 325 
 
 gave Audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what 
 Miracles and Wonders Gcd had wrought among the 
 Gentile* by th*m. And after they (viz,. Barnabas 
 and Paul) had held their peace, James anfaered, 
 faying. Men and Brethren, hearken unto me, &c. 
 verfc 12, 13. Then he adds, W/herefae my Sen- 
 tence is, &c. verfe i. How wou'd our Adver- 
 faries have boafkd, had St. Peter fhut up the de- 
 bate by faying, wherefore my Sentence is, &c ? And 
 yet they will noc believe, that thefe words off 
 St. James do import a Supremacy of power, 
 by which he was able to judge of all difputed 
 Matters. But what was the rcfult ? Wty it plea'd 
 the Apoftlet and Elders, and the 'whole ^Church to 
 fend chofen Men to Antiocb, verfe 23. And they 
 wrote Letters by them alter this manner, The A- 
 poftles and Elders and Brethren fend Greeting m;to 
 the Brethren, "which are of the Gentiles, &c. verle 23. 
 Here is noc a fy liable fpoken ofSc. Peer's Authority 
 to decide the difpute : but the whole Epiftle has a 
 quite different air. Whereas, had the Apoflles 
 thought St. Peter their SupremeGovernor,theycou'd 
 not have forborn to iignify it upon this occafion. 
 
 Nay, St. Paul do's plainly intimate, that 
 he was not in any wife fubjed to St Feter; be- 
 eaufe his Province was wholly different from that 
 of St. Peter's, and independant of it. 7%e Gofpel 
 of the uncircumcifion (faies he) was committed un- 
 to me -, as the Gofpel of the Circumcifion was unto 
 Peter, Gal. 2. 7. So that he had a different and 
 feparate work, appointed him by God, without 
 any regard to St. Peter's Authority or infpe&ion. 
 
 Nay farther, the other Apoflles were fo far 
 from, owning St. Peter to be their Governor, that 
 St. Paul exprefly faies, When Peter was come IQ 
 Antioch, / withftwd him to the face, becaufe he was 
 
 X 3 to
 
 325 Of the Popes Part II. 
 
 teb> lamd, Gal. 2. u. And can we iraagin, that 
 Sr. Paul wou'd have demeaned himfelf after this 
 man er towards him, whom Chrif had made his 
 Vicar upon earth ? Tis true, fome Perfons have 
 thought, that this difference between the two 
 Ajroftles was not ferious, but feign'd for Tome 
 good end. But this is a force upon the Text ; 
 however, it cannot be conceived, that St. Paul 
 wou'd for any reafon whatfoever dare to perfuade 
 the People, that St. Peter was to be biam'd and 
 opposed, if he had thought that Chrift had made 
 h.m Univerfal Pan 1 or, to whom ail the Churches 
 in the world were to pay an abfoltite and intire 
 fub million. 
 
 From thefe inftances it is abundantly manifeft, 
 that the Apoftles never thought St. Peter their 
 Prince and Governor- And indeed, it is ft range 
 that our Adverfaries can entertain fo groundlefs a 
 Notion, without producing any one pa ticular Act 
 of St. Peter's, which may imply his Supremacy, 
 during the whole courfe of that Apoftle's Life. 
 
 3. St. Peter himfelf did never believe that he 
 
 was Prince of the Apoilles. This may fufficiently 
 
 appear from what I have already faid. For had 
 
 he believed himfelf the uncontroulable Vicar of 
 
 Chrift, he wou'd not have born St. Paul's rebuke. 
 
 He was apt enough to expreis a warm Zeal ; and 
 
 upon that occasion it was his duty to have af- 
 
 ferted his Supreme Authority. But we never find 
 
 him afluming any greater power, than what was 
 
 common to all the Apoftles. He pleaded an ex- 
 
 cufc to thofe of the Circumcifion, Afts u. As I 
 
 have already noted : but he never prefum'd to in- 
 
 fift upon his pretended Supremacy. His Epiftles 
 
 are Penn'd in the fame ftrain with thofe of the 
 
 btBct Apoftles, without any ftamp of the Vicar of 
 
 Chrift
 
 Chap XXI. Supremacy. 227 
 
 CLrifl imprefled on them. And who can believe, 
 that the whole Hiftory of the New Teflaraent, 
 nay that the occafional Epiflles of St. Peter him- 
 felf, and the other Apoflles, wou'd not furnifli us 
 with fome hint at leaft of this wonderful privi- 
 lege, or with fome Ad: and Exercife of it ; if 
 Chrifl had made that the Foundation of his Church- 
 Government ? 
 
 Well then ; if by the Rock which the Church 
 is built upon, we are to underftand St. Peter's 
 confeffion ; then 'tis gran ted, that thefe controvert- 
 ed words do not prove St. Peter's fupremacy. But 
 if by the Rock we are to underftand St. Peter's 
 Perfon, then I have proved, that whatever be the 
 meaning of thefe words, yet 'tis impoflible that 
 they (hould imply a fupremacy of Power ,- be- 
 caufe I have (hewn, i . That our Savior could not 
 fpeak them in fuch a fenfe. 2. That the other 
 Apoftles never under/rood them in fuch a fenfe. 
 3. That Sr. Peter in particular never underftood 
 them in fuch a fenfe. And therefore upon the 
 wnole matter it is very apparent, that St. Peter's 
 Supremacy cannot be founded upon this Exprefii- 
 on, Upon this Keck I will build my Church. 
 
 The next words which our Adverfaties infift 
 upon, are thefe, Jtuillgive unto thee the fceys of 
 the Kingdom of Heaven. I (hall not be curious in 
 fearching into the meaning of thefe Exprefllo'ns. 
 Let it be granted, that the Keys are a Badge of 
 Authority ; and confequently,that St. Peter had Au- 
 thority to admit Men into the Kingdom of Hea- 
 ven, or exclude them from it. Yet it is not laid, 
 that he alone had this Authority ; fince the other 
 Apoflles had the fame. They were able to exe- 
 cute the fame Office ; for there is not the leaft 
 Jntimution that it was confinM to a fingle oerfon. 
 X 4 But
 
 328 Of the Popes Part II. 
 
 But I fbai! only add, that thefe words were fpo- 
 ken at the fame time with the former ; and thert- 
 io-.e they cannot import a Supremacy of Power 
 for the Reafons already infifted on. 
 
 As for all the other Expreffions, which our Ad- 
 verfaries urge in favor ot' their Opinion, they arc 
 eaiily fhewn to be no proofs of St. Peter's Supre- 
 macy, by the fame method which I have already 
 us'd. But it may be alfo farther added concern- 
 ing them, that our Savior has faid the fame things 
 to all the other Apoflles ; and confequently, they 
 cannot prove a Supremacy of one above all the relt. 
 Thus for inflance, as St. Peter was endued with 
 the power of binding and locfing, fo it was alfo gi- 
 ven to all his Brethren, when our Savior faid, 
 Whatfcever ye Jball bind on Earth, /hall be bound in 
 Heaven ; and whatfoever ye Jhatt loofe on Earth, Jhall 
 be loo fed in Heaven, Matt. 18. 18. And as St. Pe- 
 ter is commanded to feed Chrift's Sheep and Lambs; 
 fo are the other Apoflles indifpenfably bound to 
 do the fame. Nay, not only the Apoftles, but all 
 other Paftors are oblfg'd to feed the Church of God t 
 which he hath purchas'd with his own Blood, Afts 
 20. 28. 'Tis not faid by Chrift, that St. Peter 
 fhould feed att his Flock; tho'if G&r//Sf had us'd 
 that very Expreffion (which would have made our 
 Adverfaries Argument infinitely more plaufible) 
 yet even then it could not be concluded, that St. 
 Peter was conftituted Univerfal Pallor. Becaufe 
 St. Paul preaching to the Elders of Efhefus, has 
 thefe words, T'ake heed therefore unto your felves, 
 find to all the Flock, over the which the Holy Ghoft 
 hath made you Overfeers, A<5ts 20. 28. And yet 
 I am perfuaded, our Adverfaries do not think, that 
 the Elders of Efhefus were thereby made Univer- 
 &1 Pallors. 
 
 I have
 
 Chap. XXI. Supremacy. 329 
 
 I have now confider'd all thofe Expreffions of 
 our Savior, which feem in the judgment of our 
 Adverfaries to give or imply St. Peter's Suprema- 
 cy of power over the other Apoftles. Wherefore, 
 
 II. I muft now confider rhofe great privileges, 
 which were granted to St. Peter, and which our 
 Adverfaries think, do plainly iuppofe his Suprema- 
 cy of power- They tell us that St. Peter's name 
 was chang'd from Simon to Peter. What then ? 
 Can any Man believe that the change of a name 
 does fuppofea Perfon invefted with S -vereignPow- 
 er ? When Daniel's name was chang'd to that of 
 Beltc/ba'Z.z.ar, and Hananiah's to Shadrach, &c. 
 Dan. i. 7. did ever any Man think that they 
 were Univerfal Monarchs ? St. Peter had need to 
 be jealous of his Univerfal Paflorihip, if our Sa- 
 vior's calling James and John by the name of Bo- 
 anerges y Mark 3. 17. fuppos'd them Monarchs 
 of the whole Church. 
 
 But, fay our Adverfaries, Boanerges was not a 
 name, but a furname. Nicely fpoken ! But the 
 Text runs thus, And Simon he furnamed Peter : 
 And James the fon of Zebedee, and John the brother 
 of James ( and hefurnamd them Boanerges, which 
 is the Sons of Thunder) And Andrew, and Philip, 
 &c. Mark 3. 1 6, 17, 1 8. Whom then fhall we 
 believe, our Adverfaries or St. Mark ? Be it name 
 or furname, it matters not : fince the name of the 
 one was changed after the fame manner, as that of 
 the other ; and the phrafe is the (a) very fame in 
 both. 
 
 n 
 
 They
 
 Of the Popes Part II. 
 
 They tell us alfo, that St. Peter is alwaies pla- 
 ced firft, but I have already fhewn the contrary. 
 And I am now willing to add for their further 
 fatisfa&ion, that St. Paul has thefe words, And 
 when James, Cephas, (Peter) and John, &c. Gal, 
 2. 9. and I hope our Adversaries will not think, 
 that St. Paul did ever deny St. Peter his due But 
 tho' St. Peter were firft in order, yet ir will not 
 follow from thence that he was firft in power, as I 
 have already fliewn. There are aifo djvers orher 
 Prerogatives of St. Peter. For Peter, they fay, 
 walk 'd upon the Waters ; but will it follow from 
 thence, that he was Univerfal Paftor ? 
 
 'Tis faid alfo, that St. Paul went to vifit St. 
 Peter 9 and abode with him fifteen days, Gal- i. 
 18. And what then ? Does a vifit from St. Paul 
 fuppofta Man Univerfal Paflor of the Church ? If 
 fojthen St. James was Univerfal Pallor, as well 
 as St. Peter ; and then we have two Univerfal Mo- 
 narchs. For St. Paul went to St. James, when 
 all the Elders were prefent with him, A&sii. 18. 
 And when he hadjaluted them, he declar'd particu- 
 larly what things God had wrought among the Gen- 
 tiles by his Miniflry, ver. 19. Here we find, not 
 only that St. Paul vifited St. James, but alfo that 
 he gave an Account of his Miniftry to him. Tie 
 warrant, had this been done to St. Peter, our Ad- 
 verfaries would have thought it a demonftration of 
 his being the fupreme Judge, and the Vicar of 
 Chrift. But it feems our Adverfaries are mifcra- 
 bly put to their fhifts, when they are forc'd to in- 
 fift uponfuch pretended privileges, as weaken their 
 own caufe. 
 
 'Tis faid alfo, that after his Refurreftion Chrift 
 appeared to St. Peter, before he appear'd to the o- 
 ther Apoftles. But muft the firft perfon that fa w 
 
 our
 
 Chap. XXI. Supremacy, 331 
 
 cur Safrior after his Refurre&ion, be fuppos'd Mo- 
 narch of the whole Church ? Befides, St. Peter 
 was not alone, when he firft faw our Lord, as it 
 appears from Mark 16. 12. compared with Luke 
 24. 13. and confequently, the Church had two 
 Univerfal Paftors ai one tivne. 
 
 There are fome other Prerogatives mention'd by 
 our Adverfaries,which do in their Opinion fuppofe 
 St. Peter's fupremacy : but I feriouily proteft, that 
 I Ihould abufe the Reader's patience by confider- 
 ing them. 
 
 I might now add, that many of the other A- 
 poftles had peculiar privileges, and fome of them 
 perhaps much greater than thofe of St. Peter -, but 
 I (hall not infift upon fuch trifles. 
 
 It thofe words of our Savior to St. Peter, And 
 when thou art converted, ftrengthen thy Brethren, 
 Luke 22. 32. be thought to favor St. Peter's fu- 
 premacy ; I deflre the Reader to confider what I 
 have faid concerning that Text in the 4th Chaptei" 
 of the firft part of this Book, p. 28, 29. 
 
 What I have faid, I hope has convinc'd the 
 Reader, that St. Peter had no fupremacy given by 
 Ckrift in the Hiftory of the New Teflament : 
 and 'tis ridiculous to fuppofe, that a matter of fo 
 great importance would have been pafs'd over in 
 iilence, if there were any ground to believe it. 
 Wherefore the Pope's claiming Supremacy as the 
 Succeffor of St. Peter, is a moft unjuft Ufurpati- 
 on, and ought not to be profefs'd as an Article of 
 Chriflian Faith. 
 
 CHAP
 
 3^2 Of fane other Part II. 
 
 CHAP. XXII. 
 
 Brief Reflexions ufo* fome other Popifh 
 Doflrines. 
 
 THO' I have examined fo great a number of 
 the Popijb Dodrines, yet I might ftill pro- 
 ceed to many more. But becaufe I have enlarged 
 upon thofe that are moft confiderable j therefore I 
 fliall fpeak very briefly of the reft. 
 
 Whether Orders be a Sacrament, or no ; I think 
 we need net much difpute. That it is not a Sa- 
 crament ncceflary to falvation, is granted on all 
 hands : and fince we are agreed concerning the ne- 
 ceflity of a Prieft's being Ordain'd ; why fhould 
 we differ about the name of the Inftitution ? 'Tis 
 very hard, that our Adverfaries mould impofe fuch 
 conditions of Communion, as mult exclude all 
 fuch, as do noc allow every Expreffion 5^ theirs to 
 be proper. 
 
 The like may be faid of Matrimony,, which we 
 do not think a Sacrament. 'Tis certain, that it 
 was not inftituted firft by Chrift under the Chri- 
 /Z/^Difpenfation ; becaufe 'tis as old as the World: 
 and fince we are agreed concerning the Eflence and 
 Duties of Marriage, why fiiould we break Com- 
 munion merely about it's being a Sacrament ? 
 
 OurAdverfaries contend alfo that Confirmation is 
 a Sacrament. But fince we agree well enough in 
 the effential parts of the practice of Confirmation, 
 why Ihould they impofe an improper word upon 
 us, as the condition of our Communion with 
 them, and confequently (in their opinion) of our 
 ecernal falvation ? 
 
 Whether
 
 Chap. XXII. Doctrines. 
 
 Whether the Clergy may be obliged to Celilacy, I 
 fhall not determin. When Legal Authority be- 
 gins to impofe it, 'tis time enough to difpute the 
 cafe ; and I doubt not but the Caufe will find fuf- 
 t icient Patrons. 'Tis plain, that Celibacy is not ef- 
 fentially necefiary in a Clergy- Man : and why then 
 fhou'dourAdverfaries oblige us upon pain of Dam- 
 nation to receive and approve all their Con- 
 /litutions, one of which concerns the Celibacy of 
 the Clergy ? 
 
 The Sacrifice of the Mafs is alfo imposed on our 
 belief, as neceflary to falvation. If our Adverfa- 
 ries wou'd allow us to understand it of a commemo- 
 rative Sacrifice, that is, a Sacrifice in remembrance 
 of Chnjl } we fhould eafily accord. But they in- 
 fift upon it, that it is a true prefer and propitia- 
 tory facrifi^e for the living and the dead, Art. 17. 
 and to this we cannot give our aflent. Becaufe I 
 have (hewn, in difcourfing stTranfubflantiation, that 
 theElemectsin th^Lord's Supper docontinueBread 
 and Wine in a true and proper fenfc j and therefore 
 thofe Elements cannot be the Matter of a true and 
 proper Sacrifice. Our Adverfaries think that a 
 true and proper Sacrifice is ofrer'd in the Mafs, be- 
 caufe they fuppofe that Chrift is there bodily pre- 
 fent, and offered up : but fince I have difprov'd 
 the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiaticn, this other Do- 
 ctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mafs fails of ccurfe. 
 The Worship of Images and Relics is alfo impo- 
 fed upon us. Perhaps I cou'd refpeci the Bones 
 or Picture of a Saint, as well as our Adverfaries: 
 but I would not declare it necefiary to the falvati- 
 on of all Mankind to do the fame, for ail the Trea- 
 fure that fuch Artifices have gain'd to the Church 
 of Rome. What we chiefly quarrel with, is the 
 fuperfh'tious ufe of fuch Images and Relic?. If 
 
 this
 
 Of fane other Part IT; 
 
 this were effectually remov'd, we fhould not deny 
 a fond Perfon the gratification of his Fancy. Buc 
 we cannot think it reafonable to impofe fuch things 
 as neceffary to falvation ; efpecially fince the holy 
 Apoftles and primidve Chriftiam are not in the 
 Holy Scriptures reported to have paid (much 
 lefs have they been commanded to pay) any Ve- 
 neration to fuch Objects. We cannot think it a 
 Chriftian duty to kifs Statues, and old Bones, and 
 dead Mens Teeth, and fuch valuableCuriofities. 
 And as for the Miracles by which our Adverfa- 
 ries endeavour to raife the reputation of this kind 
 of Trumpery ; we beg leave to disbelieve them, 
 till we fee them better prov'd. 
 
 Whether the Pope alone, or the Pope and a Ge- 
 neral Council, or a General Council without the 
 Pope, be poflefs'd of the great gift of Injalhbi- 
 lity, our Adverfaries are not as yet agreed. But 
 they do ail contend that there is an Infallibility in 
 the Church ; and this we muft alfo believe, if we 
 hope for falvation upon thofe terms, which the 
 Church of Rome requires. Now I have prov'd 
 in the 4th Chapter of the firft part, that there is 
 no Infallibility in the Church j but I do not think 
 it neceflary to inquire, in what Perfon or Perfons 
 it muft have been lodg'd, upon fuppofition that 
 there was fuch a thing in nature. 
 
 I have alfo treated of the Doctrine of Traditi- 
 on, and of the pretended imperfe&ien and ebfiurity 
 of Scripture in the firft part of this Book. And 
 as for the Doctrine of Venial Sins, I have Effici- 
 ently difprov'd it in the i <5th Chapter of this part, 
 page 268, 169. But as for the Doctrine of the 
 vifibility of the Church, and the pretended Scbifm 
 of the Church of England, I ihalJ fpeak of them 
 in the third Part. 
 
 I muft
 
 Chap. XXI. Dotfrines. 
 
 I muft add a word or two concerning the Ca- 
 non of the Scriptures. Our Adversaries do receive 
 divers Apocryphal Books, which we cannot think 
 Divinely Infpir'd. "Tis no difficult matter to con- 
 firm our own opinion of thofe Books ; and to 
 difprove that of our Adverfaries : But I have a- 
 cl:cd other wife, becaufe I was willing to fhorten 
 the Controverfy. For I hope, I have fhewn in 
 the proper places, that if the authority of thofc 
 Books were acknowledged ; yet they are far from 
 eftablifhing the Pofijh Doctrines. 
 'Twere eafie to enlarge and multiply Difputes with 
 the Church of Rome ,- fince flae has given us this 
 great advantage againft her, that if any one flaw- 
 may be found in any of her Conftirutions, every 
 Member of her Communion is chargeable with it; 
 becaufe every Papi/tis oblig'd upon pain of Dam- 
 nation to receive and approve^ all her Conflituti- 
 ons. But I feekfor Peace, and not for Diviiion. 
 What I have faid, is fufficient to my prefentpur- 
 pofe ; and therefore, without making unneceflfary 
 additions, I (hall conclude my general Argument 
 againft Popery in the following Chapter. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 Gen. Arg. AgAinft Part IF. 
 
 CHAP. XXIIF. 
 
 The General Argument againft Popery con- 
 clude A. 
 
 WELL then ; I have inftanc'd in a') the princi- 
 pal Doctrines of the Church of Rome; and 
 {hewn that they are either abfolutely falfe, or for- 
 bidden in Scripture, or not contained in it. And 
 consequently, the Popifi Religion, which impofes 
 thofe Doctrines as neceflfary to falvation, is an un- 
 lawful Religion. For I appeal to the Confciences 
 of our Adverfaries themfelves ; Is it lawful to pro- 
 fefs what is falfe, or contrary to Scripture ; and 
 confequently, to practife what is forbidden in it ? 
 Is it not a grievous fin for a Man to declare that 
 none can be fav'd, but fuch as believe what God 
 has not reveal'd ? How (hall he curfe, whom the 
 Lord has not curfed ? Whofhall dare toimpofe fuch 
 terms of falvation, as God has not required? Shall 
 mortal Man (hut up Heaven ? Or (hall he be guilt- 
 lefs, who declares his Brethren damned without 
 caufe ? 
 
 It cannot be pretended by our Adverfaries, that 
 their Governors require this profeffion of Faith ; 
 and that they cannot refufe obedience to their 
 lawful Superiors : becaufe common fenfe informs 
 us, that Governors cannot make that to be true 
 which is abfolutely falfe, or that to be lawful 
 which God has forbidden. Whether it be right in 
 the fight of God, to hearken unto you more than un- 
 to God> judge ye, fa id St. Peter and St. John unto 
 their Governors, ^4^ 4. ip. In like manner muft 
 our Adverfaries fay, that the Scriptures are their 
 
 Rule
 
 Chap. XXIII. Popery concluded. 
 
 Rule, and they muft proceed by it > becaufe no 
 pretence of Obedience to Men will juftifie Difo- 
 bedience to Almighty God. It the matter be in- 
 different, 'tis our Duty to perform what is com- 
 manded : but if it be finful, we muft refufe Obe- 
 dience, and be content to fufter for it. Now 'tis 
 plainly contradictory toGod'sLaws to believewhat 
 he has declar'd to be falfe, or to declare thofe 
 things to be neceiTary to falvation which God has 
 not made neceflary ; and confequently, the com- 
 mands of lawful Superiors will not warrant fuch 
 a practice. 
 
 If it be faid, that our Advet faries do not believe 
 the Popifh Articles tf Faith to be either abfolute- 
 ly falfe, or forbidden in Scripture, or not contain- 
 ed in it ; and confequently, they cannot be blam- 
 ed for continuing in that Communion which they 
 verily think to be lawful ; I anfwer that we do 
 not charge them with acting againfl their Con- 
 fciences. God forbid, that we fhould be guilty 
 of fo great a breach of Chriilian Chanty. All that 
 we urge is this, viz,, that their Religion in it felf 
 is unlawful, and we have endeavoured to make 
 them fenfible of it. If they cannot beconvinc'd 
 by our Arguments, we leave them to the mercy 
 of God, and judge them not. But if they have 
 refufed or withftood the means of Conviction, it 
 will without all doubt be damnable to them. 
 
 The End of the Second 
 
 A
 
 338 
 
 
 
 1 3S 
 
 CONFUTATION 
 
 O F 
 
 POPERY- 
 
 >U PART III. 
 
 / 
 
 Of the Popilh Objections again/I the 
 Church of England. 
 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 The charge of Schifm from the Catholic 
 Church, anfmr^d and returned. 
 
 IN the firft Part of this Book I have fiiewn, 
 that the Scriptures are our Rule of Faith : and 
 in the fecond I have confuted Popery by that 
 Rule. From whence it plainly follows, that the 
 fofifi Religion muft of nece'ffity be forfaken ; 
 
 and
 
 Chap. I. The charge of Schifm, &c. 3 $9 
 
 and confequently, that the Englijh Papifls ought: 
 to join in Communion with the Church of Eng- 
 land. 
 
 But fay they, we have divers Objections 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 
 (hall we turn, or what (hall we embrace ? Where- 
 fore I (hall now with all poflible brevity examin, 
 what may be objected againft our own Communi- 
 on , that thofe who are willing, may receive fa- 
 tisfa&ion, and find reft unto their Souls in the 
 profeffion and practice of theReligion byLaw efta- 
 blifh'd among us. 
 
 FIRST then, it is pretended that the Church of 
 England is guilty of a Schifm from the Catholic 
 Church of Cbrift', and confequently, that the 
 Members of it are divided from Chrift's Body : 
 which divifion is a moil heinous fin, and makes 
 them uncapable of Salvation. This Objection the 
 Popifi Priefts are very apt to enlarge upon ; that 
 they may thereby frighten fuch as are coming o- 
 ver to us, and force them to continue Papifts. 
 
 Now it muft be confefs'd, that Schifm is a fin 
 of the deepeft die ; that it cuts us off from theCom- 
 munion of Saints in this World, and configns us 
 to the portion of Dsvils 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 Schifm, that makes hec 
 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 Eng- 
 land be guilty of it, or no. 
 
 Y 2 'Tis
 
 340 The charge of Sckife Part III. 
 
 "Tis confefs'd on both fides, that Chrifl 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 thefe Nations there are fo 
 many thoufands of Souls,- that they cannot poffi- 
 bly meet together in one place for the worfhip and 
 fervice of God. Wherefore, for the regular ad- 
 miniftration of Difcipline, and for the better or- 
 der and instruction of the Flock, 'tis necerfary, 
 that there be diftinct Congregations, under the in- 
 fpection of their refpective Bifhops, and tne per- 
 fonal care of the Parochial Clergy. But all thefe 
 Churches continuing in the obfervation of the fe- 
 cond or Gofpel-Covenant, that is, profefling the 
 Fundamenal Doctrines of Chriftianity, and agree- 
 ing in the Eflfentials of Chriftian Worfhip, under 
 the Qoverment of theirSpiritualSuperiors,do make 
 up only one great Body, which we call a Na- 
 tional Church. And thefeveral National Churches 
 being united after the fame method, that is, in 
 Chiiftian Doctrine and Worfhip, do make up one 
 greater Body, which we call the Catholic or Uni- 
 verfal Church. Of which Catholic Church it is 
 neceflary for every Man to be a Member, becaufe 
 he cannot otherwife enjoy the benefits of the Go- 
 fpel-Covenant i which is made with none, and con- 
 fequently can benefit none, but fuchas are true and 
 lively Members of Chrifl the Head, by being in 
 perfect 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 Eflentials of Chriftian worfhip, 
 is not a Chriftian, or is not a part of Chrift's My- 
 fticai Body. Whereas he chat profefles and main- 
 tains
 
 Chap. I. avfaer'd and returned. 341 
 
 tains the Fundamental Chriftian Do/ftrines, and the 
 Eflentials of Chriftian Worfiiip, but divides and 
 feparates from other Perfons who profefs and main- 
 tain the fame things ; is a Chriftian, I confefs, or a 
 part of Chrijfs Myftical Body ; but he is a divided 
 part,a Member divided from the Body ; and confe- 
 quently, he has not the benefit of being a true and 
 lively Member of Chrifl r which confifts in his pre- 
 ferving the vital union with his head ; but he is 
 in great danger, nay (unlefs he return to unity) he 
 is in an abfolute neceffity, of perifliing and being 
 utterly loft, for want of that union with the head, 
 wherein the life of every Member do's confift. 
 
 Now a Man that continues in the practice o 
 Church-Communion, cannot be a Schematic. Be- 
 caufe he is at unity with the whole Chriftian World, 
 as far as lies in his power. He' joins in the fame 
 Worfliip upon all occafions. 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 Sckifmatical. 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 opposition 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 unlawful 
 terms of joining with him, or hindring them from 
 being prefent at the performance of Religious Du- 
 ties , or he that declares thofe Men to be noMem- 
 bers of Chrift, or profefles himfelf to be feparate 
 from thofe Men, who are truely and indeed Mem- 
 
 Y 3 bers
 
 342 The charge of Schifm Part III. 
 
 bers of Chrift ; I fay whofoever do's any of thefe 
 things, is a Schematic. Becaufe either he himfelf 
 abftains from that Church-Q)mmunion, which he 
 ought to perform jior he keeps thofe fromChurch- 
 Communion, whom he ought to admit. 
 
 Let us now fee, whether the Church of Eng- 
 land be guilty of aSchifm from the Catholic Church, 
 or no- That the Church of England is a part of 
 the Catholic Church, is very eafily prov'd. For 'tis 
 granted by our Adverfaries, that they themfelves 
 do retain all the Fundamental Chriftian Doctrines, 
 and all the Eflentials of Chriftian WorOiip. Where- 
 in then confifts the difference between the Church 
 of England and the Church of Rome ? Why this 
 is the difference ', the Church of England rejects 
 part of thofe things which the Church of Rome 
 profefles and maintains in the Trent Creed. Now 
 I have abundantly prov'd in the fecond Part of 
 this Book, that thofe things which we reject, are 
 either abfolutely falfe, or forbidden in Scripture, 
 or not contained in it ; and confequently thofe 
 things which the Church of England rejects, are 
 neither Fundamental Chriftian Doctrines, nor 
 Eflentials of Chriftian Worfhip. Now fince our 
 Adverfaries do acknowledge that they do retain 
 all the Fundamentals and Effentialsof Chriftianity,- 
 and fince we do receive whatfoever they maintain, 
 except fome things that are neither Fundamentals 
 nor Effentials : therefore 'tis plain that we profefs 
 and maintain all the Fundamental Chriftian Do- 
 arines, and all the Effentials of Chriftian Worfhip. 
 And confequently, we are a part of Ckrift's Bo- 
 dy the Church ; becaufe, 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, and all the 
 
 EfTen-
 
 Chap. I. anfoefd and returned. 243 
 
 Eflentials of ChrifHan Worfhip, is a part of the 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 Now fince the Church of England is a part of 
 the Catholic Church ; the next queftion is, whether 
 fhe be a divided part, or no. If fhe be at all di- 
 vided, it muft be upon one of thefe accounts ; ei- 
 ther becaufe fhe abftains from that Church-Com- 
 munion, which (he ought to perform : or becaufe 
 fhe keeps thofe Perfons from Church-Communion, 
 whom flic ought to admit. But I (hall (hew, that 
 the Church of England is not chargeable with di- 
 vifion either way. 
 
 1. She do's not abftainfrom that Church- Com- 
 munion which (be ought to perform. She do's 
 not declare thofe Perfons to be no Members of 
 Chrift, or profefs herfelf to be feparate from thofe 
 Perfons, who are truly and indeed Members of 
 Chrift. She profefles and maintains, and upon all 
 juft occafions fhews that fhe earneftly defires to 
 preferve, an intireCommunion andFellowfhip with 
 all the Chriftian World. 'Tis true, (be do's not 
 join with the Church of Rome in receiving falfe, 
 or forbidden, or groundlefs Doctrines ; bur is forc'd 
 fo far to feparate from her for fear of offending 
 God : tho' fhe is heartily willing ar,d defirous that 
 all Papjfts fhouM join in her Worfliip and Sacra- 
 ments. 
 
 2. She do's not drive any Perfons from joining 
 in Communion with her, either by imposing fuch 
 terms of Communion as are unlawful, or otherwife 
 keeping them from the Church. In a word, fhe 
 joins with all thofe whom fhe can lawfully join 
 with ; and hinders none from joining with her. 
 And how then can fhe be guilty of Schifm, who 
 take's all poflible and lawful Methods to preferve 
 the Unity of the Catholic Church ? 
 
 Y 4 There
 
 344 The pretence of our Part III. 
 
 There is, I confefs, a reparation between her 
 and the Church of Rome: but to whom is it ow- 
 ing ? Who is the caufe of the feparation ? The 
 Church ot Rome will not join with her , becanfe 
 fhe will not comply with fuch things, as I have 
 prov'd it unlawlful to comply with : and for this 
 reafon the Church of Rome is divided from her. 
 But in this cafe 'tis plain, that the Church oi 
 Rome is Schifmatical ; and not the Church of Eng- 
 land ; becaufe the Church of England wou'd wil- 
 lingly join in Communion with the Church of 
 Horns , but the Church of Rome by her unjuft and 
 wicked Impositions, has made it utterly impofiible. 
 
 To conclude, the Church of England maintains 
 Communion with all fuch parts of the Ckriftian 
 Church, as impofe no unlawful terms of Commu- 
 nion j and therefore fee is not Schifmatical. Let 
 our Adverfaries therefore, iftheydeflre to prove 
 that the Church of England is Schifmatical, give 
 us an inftance, where we break Communion with 
 any fuch Church, as is willing to maintain Com- 
 munion with us upon lawful terms, 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 The pretence of our many Divifions anfwer*d. 
 
 SECONDLY, 'tis pretended that there are 
 many divi/ions in England, and therefore our 
 Religion cannot be the Religion of Cbrift. Be- 
 caufe the Religion of Chrifl is one and the fame, 
 without any Divifions at all. Now 'tis true, that 
 the Religion of Chrift is one and the fame, with- 
 out any Divifions at all ; if by the Religion of 
 Chrifl we mean only thofe Doctrines and that 
 
 practice
 
 Chap. II. many Divifions wfoer'd. 34$ 
 practice which Cbrijt requires of every Man in or- 
 der to falvation by the Gofpel-Covenant ; for tis 
 certain that Chrift requires the fame conditions of 
 falvation of all Mankind. But then to thefe Ef- 
 fentials of the Chriftian Religion fome things may 
 be added, which are not Eflential, and about 
 which Contentions may arife,- or elfe there may 
 be quarrels concerning the due obfervation and pra- 
 ctice even of the Efifentials themfelves. Thus for 
 inftance, we grant that the Church of Rome do's 
 profefs the Religion of Chrifi ; but then we fay, 
 that flie has added fuch Corruptions, as make ic 
 neceffary for us to forfake her Communion : and 
 thus amongft our felves, who have rejected the Er- 
 rors of Rome, there are certain unjufl and unreafona- 
 bleQuarrelsconcerning the obfervation and practice 
 even of the Eflentials of Chriftianity. For 'tis ac- 
 knowledg'd, that the Public Worfhipof God is an 
 Eflential part of Chriftianity ; and we know that 
 our Quarrels in England do refpect the public wor- 
 JLip of God. 
 
 Wherefore, in anfwer to this objection againft 
 the Church of England, it mufl be confider'd by out 
 Adverfaries, that the queftion at prefent is not, 
 which is the true Religion of Chrift ? But it muft 
 be fuppos'd that both the Pafifts, and all the forts of 
 Proteftants, do profefs the fame true Religion in 
 fubftance jand the queftion is this, Which P any of 
 ChriftiaJis a Man ought to join with in this divided 
 flate of the Chriftian Church ? 
 
 Now I have fhewn, that a Man cannot lawful- 
 ly join with the Church of Rome ; becaufe tho 3 (he 
 do's profefs the Chriftian Religion, yet fhc has 
 made many wicked additions to it, with which a 
 Man cannot comply with a good Confcience. 
 Wherefore, fmce the Chriftian Religion is ftiil to 
 
 be
 
 346 The pretence of our, &c. Part III. 
 
 be retain'd, 'tis neceflary that a Man fhould join 
 with fome other Party of Chrifh'ans. But with 
 whom fhall he join ? Why with thofe Chriftians, 
 who do not impofe any unlawful terms of Com- 
 munion with them. Now the eftablifli'd Church 
 of England do's not impofe unlawful terms of 
 Communion ; and confequently, 'tis his duty to 
 join with the eftablifh'd Church of England. 
 
 But there arc many Divifions in England ; and 
 all the Sefts do condemn each other, and all of 
 them cannot be in the right ; and therefore how 
 lhall a Perfon know to which of them he ought to 
 adhere ? Why the cafe is plain, i. The eftablifti'd 
 Church is eafily known, and may be lawfully com- 
 ply'd with : and therefore 'tis every Man's duty 
 to comply with it. Now if it be every Man's 
 duty to comply with the eftabli&'d Church ; then 
 'tis a fin to feparate from it : and confequently, 
 'tis a fin for one that leaves the Church of Rome, 
 to join in the feparation. 
 
 But may it not be faid, that none of the Parties 
 in England are in the right, becaufe they condemn 
 each other ? No furely , for 'tis poflible for one 
 Party to be in the right, tho' many be in the 
 wrong : and therefore a Man muft endeavor to 
 fearch and examine who is in the right, and who 
 in the wrong. 
 
 In a word, the Papifls themfelves, and the feveral 
 forts of Chriftians in England, do profefs the true 
 Religion ofChrift : but the Pafifts have corrupted 
 the trueReligion jand our feds do fin in aSchifma- 
 tical Practice of the true Religion, as reform'd 
 from thofe Corruptions. Wherefore we muft not 
 join with the Pafifts, nor muft we join with the 
 English Schifmatics : but we may and ought to join 
 with the eftablifh'd Church, which maintainsCMo- 
 lic Communion. CHAP.
 
 Chap. III. Of the Novelty, Sec. 347 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Of the pretendedN'ovelty of our Religion, 
 or an anfwer to the common Queftion^ 
 Where was your Religion before 
 Luther ? 
 
 rpHIRt)LY, 'Tis objeded againft the Church 
 f of England, that (he profefles a new Religi- 
 on : whereas the true Religion, which cur Savior 
 Inftituted, was to continue to the end of theWorld ; 
 and confequently, that Religion which bears date 
 from the Reformation only, cannot be the true Re- 
 ligion. And acordingly, our Adverfaries often 
 ask us, Where was your Religion before Luther ? 
 thinking it a Demonftration againft our Proftffion, 
 that it was not (in their opinion) from the begin- 
 ning. 
 
 Before I anfwerrhis Objection, I fhall 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 promis'd, 
 that the Gates of Hell fhould not prevail againft it; 
 that is, that it (hould never fail, butbe profefs'd 
 in fome Region or other, in every Age of the 
 World. But, 2. We contend that JefusChrifl ne- 
 ver promised, that his Religion fhould not be cor- 
 rupted. 'Tis true it cannot be deftroy'd ; but.'i? 
 may be polluted. 3. Our Savior never promis'd^ 
 that his Church fhould alwaies flourifh. Ic fhould 
 not fail, I confefsj but it might be afflicted ot 
 leflfen'd. It fhould alwaies be received, but not 
 alwaies by the fame number of Perfons. 
 
 Thefc
 
 348 Of the Novelty Part III. 
 
 Thefe things being premised, the anfwer to this 
 Objection is very eafie. For we believe, and are 
 able to prove, that our Religion is as old as our 
 Savior Chrift. For wherein do's our Religion dif- 
 fer from that of our Adverfaries ? I have already 
 fhewn, that we believe whatfoever they believe, 
 excepting fuch Particulars, as I have prov'd to be 
 cither abfolutely falfe, or forbidden in Scripture, 
 or not contain'd in it. And confequently, thofe 
 things, wherein we diflent from them, are not ef- 
 fential to the Chriftian Religion, but palpable cor- 
 ruptions of it. Now thofe things that are cor- 
 ruptions of the true Religion, being thrown away, 
 the true Religion remains pure and intire : and 
 confequently, fince our Adverfaries acknowledge 
 that they profefs the true Religion; 'tis plain, that 
 we who profefs the fame Religion, only without 
 their Corruptions, do profejs the true Reli- 
 gion. And fince the true Religion is by their own 
 confeffion, as old as Ckrifl -, 'tis plain that our Re- 
 ligion being the true Religion, it muft be as old 
 as Chrift. 
 
 Thus alfo it appears, that our Religion has ne- 
 ver fail'd fince the firft Foundation of it, for our 
 Religion is the true Chriftian Religion ; and our 
 Adverfaries dare not fay, that the true Chriftian 
 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- 
 fefs'd fince the firft Inftitution of Chriftianity; 
 then our Religion has been alfo conftantly profef- 
 fed fince the firft Inftitution of Chriftianity ,- and 
 confequently, it has never fail'd fince the firft 
 Foundation of it. 
 
 But our Adverfaries tell us, that the Reformed 
 Religion is known to be of a very late date j whereas 
 
 Popery
 
 Chap. III. of our Religion. 349 
 
 Popery has been the Belief of many Ages. Now 
 I defire fuch Objedors to confider, i. That 
 our Learned Men have often prov'd, that Pcpery is 
 a very new Religion ; that is, the Pofi/h Dodrine?, 
 which 1 have examined 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 (hewn, that ever fince the 
 Popijb Dodrines did firft appear, there has been a 
 Generation of Men, who have ftifly oppos'd them, 
 and declar'd againft 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 opposition of fome few Men, who re- 
 jected and condemned fuch Innovations, and pro- 
 fefs'd the Purity of Chriftianity, was. enough to 
 preferve a pure Church, tho' the generality of 
 Chriftians fubmitted to thofe Pollutions. For 
 God, as I have already faid, has not promised, that 
 his Church (hall always fpread andflourifh, or that" 
 his Religion fhall alwaies be maintained pure by 
 the whole Body of the Profeflbrs of it : but 'tis 
 fufficient to juftify the truth of his Promife, if a 
 fmall, tho' contemptible and obfcure number, have 
 {hick clofe to the Primitive Dodrine ; and deliver- 
 ed it down to us by a lefs vifible fucceffion. 
 
 However, I (hall not infifi upon thefe Particu- 
 lars, which our Adverfaries may poffibly difpute ; 
 but return them another anfwer which they cannot 
 gainfay. Let it be granted, that the Popijh Do- 
 dlrines are very antient -, and that when they firft 
 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 ib ; yet 'tis eafie to 
 
 prove
 
 3$o Of the Novelty Part III. 
 
 prove that the Reform 3 d Religion is truly antient, 
 tho* the Reformation commenc'd but lately. For 
 what, I pray, do our Adverfaries mean by the Re- 
 form d Religion ? 'Tis granted by our Adversaries, 
 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 Reform'd Religi- 
 on and that of our Adverfaries confifts in this , 
 that whereas our Adverfaries do think, that all their 
 Doctrines are eflential to the Chriftian Religion, 
 and ought to be believ'd j thofe of the Reformed 
 Religion think, that only part of the Doctrines of 
 our Adverfaries are eflential to the Chriftian Re- 
 ligion, and that the other Doctrines of our Ad- 
 verfaries are only Corruptions of it. Now if thofe 
 Doctrines wherein we agree with our Adverfaries, 
 be the only eflfential Doctrines of the Chriftian 
 Religion ; then we of the Reform d Religion do 
 profefs all the Effential Doctrines of the Chriftian 
 Religion : and confequently,whenfoeverand where- 
 foever the Chriftian Religion is profefs'd, then 
 and there our Religion is profefled al(o. 
 
 The only Queftion therefore is, whether we of 
 the Reformed Religion do profefs all the Effential 
 Doctrines of the Chriftian Religion, or no. Now 
 our Adverfaries acknowledge, that they do profefs 
 all the Eflential Doctrines of the Chriftian Reli- 
 gion j and I have fliewn that thofe Doctrines of 
 theirs which we reject, are not effential, becaufe 
 they are unlawful Doctrines ; and confequently, 
 we of the Reformed Religion, who profefs all their 
 Doctrines, except the unlawful ones, do profefs all 
 the Eflential Doctrines of the Chriftian Religion. 
 And therefore, whenfoever and where/bever the 
 
 Chriftian
 
 Chap. III. of our Religion. 3 5 1 
 
 Chriftian Religion is profefs'd, then and there our 
 Religion is profefs'd alfo. 
 
 'Tis true, the Errors of the Church of Rome 
 have been but lately rejected ; but our Religion is 
 truly antient notwithstanding. For that confifts, 
 not in rejecting the Errors of Rome, but in retain- 
 ing the Eflentials of Chriftianity, We do not fay, 
 that the Errors of the Papi/is 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 (ub- 
 ftance the fame - 3 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 Adverfariesask,#^m? was your 
 Religion before Luther ? we anfwer them by re- 
 turning the queftion, Where was the Popifh Reli- 
 gion before Luther ? For wherefoever their own Re- 
 ligion was, there was ours : only our Religion was 
 then corrupted > and we have now rejected the 
 Corruptions of our Religion, but our Adverfaries 
 retain them ftill. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 3 $2 Of the Invalidity Part III, 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 Of the Invalidity of our Orders. 
 
 FOURTHLY, 'Tis pretended that we are 
 no Church, becaufe we have no true Bifhops, 
 Priefts and Deacons among us ; the Orders of our 
 pretended Minifters being Invalid. To this Ob- 
 jection I anfwer, that fince our Adverfariesdo ac- 
 knowledge, that their own Ordinations were valid 
 at the time of the Reformation ; 'tis plain, that our 
 Orders which are derived 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 Sehifmatical Re- 
 formation; for I have fufficiently dif p rov'd and re- 
 turned the charge of Schifm in the firit Chapter of 
 this third Part. Nor can it be pretended, that we 
 have forfeited our Orders by any Herefy ; fince I 
 have /hewn that thofe things wherein we differ 
 from our Adverfaries, do not make us Heretics, 
 but Profeflbrs 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 learnedMen ; particularly 
 
 by
 
 Chap. III. of our Orders. 
 
 by Dr. (a) Mafon, Bifiiop (If) Bramhal, and Mr. (c) 
 
 Brown. 
 
 As for the pretended Irregularity of the Con- 
 fecration of fomeof our Bifhops, I defire the Rea- 
 der to confider, what Dr. (d) Saywellhzs faid in an- 
 fwer to it. But if it were granted, that the Con- 
 fecration of them was irregular j yet it was notde- 
 fedive in the Effcntials of Epifcopal Confecration. 
 It was only againft a certain Canon of a General 
 Council : but not againft the Scriptures. And if 
 the Iniquities cf the Times, and the Corruptions 
 of theCinirch, and the perverfenefs of our Ad- 
 verfarics, made fuchfmall Irregularities necedary ; 
 they are not to be charged upon us. However, 
 it do's not and cannot afreet the validity of our 
 Orders ; tho'it might have feera'd an argument a- 
 gainft the manner and fitnefs of oar Proceedings, 
 if it had been poffible tor us to have acted othei^ 
 wife. 
 
 I (hall add no more upon this Head, tho' the 
 matter might eafily lead me to many Deputes : 
 becaufe I am perfuadedj that what I have already 
 oflfer'd, is a fatisfactory anfwer to the whole Ob- 
 jection. 
 
 (a) M*fons Apol. lib. 3. chap. 8. Lvnd. rVSij . (I) 
 Defence of the Church of England, chip. 5. (c) Brown's 
 Condones duae, Cantabr. (dj Say-codCs Viiidication of the 
 Reformation of the Church, &c. 
 
 CHAP. 

 
 3 54 The fretence of Part III. 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 The pretence of greater fafety in the Roman Com- 
 munion, than in the (Communion of the Church 
 of England, anfoefd. 
 
 LASTLY, 3 Tis pretended that there is great- 
 er fafety in the Roman Communion, than in 
 theCommunion of the Church of England ; becaufe 
 we acknowledge that the Papifts may be faved, but 
 the Papifts do not acknowledge that the Proteftants 
 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 
 poflibility of Salvation ; than to forfake Popery, 
 without which one Party thinks it impcffible to be 
 fav'd. But this pretence of greater fafety is eafily 
 anfwer'd, if we confider why, and for what Rea- 
 fons, we Proteflants fay 'tis poflibie for a Pafifl to 
 go to Heaven. 
 
 That Popery is finful, and in its own naturedam- 
 nable, we Proteftants are all agreed ; and I think, 
 I have fufficiently prov'd it : and therefore if a 
 Man perfift in the Roman Communion, when he 
 has had opportunities of difcovering the Errors of 
 Popery, 'tis as utterly impoffible for him to enter 
 into Heaven, as fora Thief or a Murderer, or any 
 other the greateft Villain. But we are heartily wil- 
 ling to believe, that many Perfons are deluded by 
 the Prieft, and are alfo otherwife excufable in 
 their ignorance : and therefore we do not think it
 
 Chap. V. greater fafety, Sec. 
 
 impoflible for God to have pity on them ; and for 
 
 this reafon we hope that a Papift may be fav'd. 
 
 But what will this advantage the prefent Obje- 
 ftors ? If they are not fatisf/d of the unlawful- 
 nefs of continuing in the Roman Communion, we 
 do not defire them to leave it : but if they arefa- 
 tisfy'd of the unlawfulnefs of continuing therein, 
 'cis in vain to pretend a poffibility of being fav'd ia 
 it. For tho' fuch as know no better may be fav'd, 
 altho' they cotitmtttPfyffti : yet fuch as are informed 
 and convinc'd of their Errors, ate 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 act accordingly. If he does not 
 fee reafon to change his Profeffion, yet let him 
 judge charitably of thofe chat differ from him : but 
 if he finds himfelf to have been in the wrong, let 
 him earneitly endeavor to be in the right. And if 
 thefe Papers may have contributed to his difcovery 
 of the truth, I humbly beg him to pray for the 
 unworthy Author of them. 
 
 I (hall conclude with an excellent Collect of the 
 Holy and Charitable Church of England. 
 
 Almighty God, whofieTueft to them that le in error the 
 light of thy truth, to the intent that they may return into 
 the way of righteoufnefs ; Grant unto all them that are ad- 
 mitted into tkefeUowJhip of Chrift's religion, that they may 
 ffcheiu thofe things that are contrary to their profeffeon^ 
 and follow all fuch things as are agreeable to the fame ^ 
 through our Lord Jefus Cbrift. Amen. 
 
 Tw E N 2> 
 
 r .' ' , 
 
 i i
 
 E 
 
 Of the principal TEXTS explain d in 
 this BOOK. 
 
 , . 
 
 GENESIS. JOSHUA. 
 
 CHAP. PAG. CHAP. PAG. 
 
 48. a. -- 9 2 > I8 9- 5- 14. -- - - 192. 
 22. --- 191- 
 
 jp. i, &C. 189, &C.- 196- JUDGES. 
 
 28. I 3 . --- -193; ,3. 3 _ -- - 92 . 
 
 32. 24. - - Ibtd. 
 
 ^8. IJf ,5. - 197, Sec. I SAMUEL. 
 
 16. 31. 
 
 32. 28. 
 
 EXODUS. 
 
 4 .- 193- 
 
 92. 
 
 232,233. 
 
 28. 14. 
 3'- 13- 
 
 194: 
 ' T 
 
 II SAMUEL. 
 
 I. 12. 
 
 .LEVITICUS. "; -'?' 
 
 4- 22, 23. 1*8. 
 
 252. 
 
 236, 237. 
 238. 
 
 NUMBERS. 
 5 . 6, 7- 211. 
 
 Jj. 24. 
 
 18. 7.- 
 
 195. 
 
 2 & 5 ' N E H E M I A H. 
 
 r J * O k ** O - Q * 
 
 ajrf. 8 - 2 > 3 7- .yi 
 
 JOB. 
 
 DEUTERONOMY. 5- ' 
 7. 8, Sec. 22. 
 
 :, 51. ' - 23 6. 
 
 197. 
 
 PSALM s. 
 . 12 252, 253.
 
 The TABLE 
 
 CHAP. PAG. CHAP. PAG. 
 
 Hg. 18. -- 66 
 
 3.6. -- ibid. \V i s D o M of Solomon. 
 
 73 - -- Mid. ,6. 20, 21. -- 92. 
 135. -- Ibid. 
 
 TOBIT. 
 
 PROVERBS. 4 . , 7 . -- 272) a? 
 
 jo. o. -- 239,240. 
 30.29,30,31. - 168. BARUCH. 
 
 6. 32. - ' 273 f 
 
 ECCI. ESIASTES. 
 
 5. 6. - 193- H t MACCABEES. 
 
 ISAIAH. 12 "">' - ay8 ' &c ' 
 
 1.16,17,18. - 241. MATTHEW. 
 
 9 . I8 , 19, 20.- -253, =54. 3 . 6 . -- 2I2 , allf 
 
 7, 8, o. - - 244. 
 
 JEREMIAH. 5.17. --- 169. 
 
 16. 8. - - 2 73- 26 --- 255. 
 
 j8. 7, 8. -- 241,242. I2 . 32> -- 258,259. 
 
 16. 18,19. - 24,216, &c. 
 
 EZ EKIEL. 316, &c. 
 
 24.17,21. -- =73- 18.17. -- 25. 
 
 j8. - - 216, &c. 
 
 DANIEL. 20- -- - #/. 
 
 2. 4 6. - 204, 205. 34- - 2 58. 
 
 4. 27.. --- 242, 243. " *S> l6 ' I8 3' 
 
 23. I, 2 -- 26. 
 
 HOSE A. 2 *' = 6 > a8 ' - '3*; &c ? 
 
 i 50. &c. 
 ' 
 
 J NAH - MARK. 
 
 - -244. 
 
 212,213. 
 6. 13. 
 
 |. 22 &C. - 
 
 7. 8, 9, 10. -- 254. 
 
 .. 6. 13. -- 300. 
 
 MlCAH ' . 22, &C. - 156, & C . 
 
 LUKE 
 ZECHARIAH-. x< I &c> 
 
 . - - -2??- jo. - l8o, l8l.' 
 
 MALACHI. 11.41. -- 245. 
 
 - - - 1 2J5. 16. 9. - - 274- 
 
 20,
 
 The TABLE. 
 
 CHAP. p A G. C H A P. PAG. 
 
 22 . ,>, & c . - I 5 6,'&C. II C O R I N T H I A N S. 
 
 i6<, 166. y . I8 - 215,216. 
 32. -- 28. 7 Ir __ __ " ., 
 
 2 <>- 
 
 45- --- 67 ''- -- 
 
 TOHN. PHILPPIANS. 
 
 . 
 
 ii3,&c. 
 
 . ,. TT -p 
 
 ^4. 15, 16. -- 30. IJ I HESSALONIANS. 
 
 26. --- 7&/W. 2 - *5- -- 39. 
 16. 17,13. --- 3 r - 
 
 io. i j, - - - 95. I TIMOTHY. 
 
 19,20. -- 99. 3 .i S --- . - 34 . 
 *i. 15, id, 17. 316, &c. 
 
 HEBREWS. 
 
 ACTS. ,3. 7 . --- 54. 
 
 2. 42, 4 6. - 163, 164. JAMES. 
 
 16. 
 
 19. jg. 213. 
 
 -163,164. I PETER. 
 
 I/-% *5 , I O, .1 i ..i -.. - -i *io C a on. 
 CORINTHIANS. 
 
 , 5 II PETER. 
 
 3.15. 2 6o,&c. 
 
 ,,. 2 . 3 6. i- *- ^^ mm 6 
 
 23. &C. 156, &r. 
 
 aj . Itf 5. I JOHN. 
 
 27. 145, &c. 5- I<5< 2 77i 
 
 3 -238. _ 
 
 32. ; 4 cj. REVELATIONS: 
 
 34. 38. i. ^ 5 . jpp^ & c . 
 
 15.29. 275,276. 21. 27. - 267,268. 
 
 T H ^V 2).
 
 BOOKS Written ly the Reverend THOMAS BENNET, 
 D. D. Vicar of St. Giles's Cripplegate. 
 
 AN Anfwer to the DifTenters Pleas for Separation, 
 or an Abridgment of the London Cafes ; whereia 
 the Subftance of thofe Bonks is digefted into one 
 fliort and plain Difcourfe. The Fifth Edicion. 
 
 A Difcourfe of Schifm. To which isannex'd, an Anfwer 
 to a Book intitled Thomas againfl Bennet, or the Proteftant 
 DifTenters vindicated from che ( harge of Schifm. 4 Edit. 
 
 A Defence of the Difcourfe of Schifm, in anfwer to thofe 
 Objeciions which Mr. shepherd has made in his three Ser- 
 mons of Separation. The Fourth Edition. 
 
 An Anfwer to Mr. Shepherd's Confederations on the 
 Defence of the Difcourfe of Schifm. The 4th Edit. 
 
 Directions for ftudying, I. A General Syftem or Body 
 of Divinity. II. The Thirty nine Articles of Religion. To 
 which is added, St. Jerotns Epiftle to Ncpotiatius. 3d Ed. 
 
 A Confutation of{ttekerifm ; nr a plain Proof of the Falf. 
 hood of what the principal Quaker Writers (efpecially Mr. 
 R. Barclay in his Apology and other Works /do teach concern- 
 ing the Nectflity of immediate Revelation in order to a fa- 
 ving Chriftian Faith ; the Bting. Nature and Operation of 
 the pretended Univerfal Light within ; its driving with 
 Men, moving them to Prayer, and calling them to the Mi- 
 niftry ; Regeneration, SancKfication, Juftificatinn, Salvation 
 and Union with God ; the N.irure of a Church ; the Rule 
 of Faith; Warer-Baptifm, and the Lord's Supper. Diverfc 
 Queftions concerning Perfection, Cririft's Satisfaction, the 
 Judge of Controverfies, &c. are briefly ftated and refolv'd. 
 The Second Edition. 
 
 A Brief Hiftory of the joint Ufe of precompos'd fet 
 Forms of Prayer. To which is annex'd, a Difcourfe of the 
 Gift of Prayer, Ihewing, that what the Difienters mean by 
 the Gift of Prayer, viz. a Faculty of conceiving Prayers 
 extempore, is not promifed in Scripture. The id Edition. 
 
 A Difcourfe of joint Prayer; fliewing, I. What is meant 
 by joint Prayer. II. That the joint Ufe of Prayers con- 
 ceiv'd extempore hinders Devotion, and confequently difplea- 
 fes God: Whereas the joint ufe of fuch precompos'd fee 
 Forms, as the Congregation is accuftom'd to, and through- 
 ly acquainted with, does moft effectually promote Devoti- 
 on, and confequently is commanded by God. III. That 
 the Lay-DifTenters are oblig'd, upon their own Principles, 
 to abhor the Prayers offer'd in their feparate AfTemblies, 
 and to join in Communion with the eftablilh'd Church, a Ed,
 
 A Paraphrafe with Annotations upon the Book of Comma* 
 Prayer, wherein the Text is explain'd, Objections are an- 
 fwer'd, and Advice is humbly offer'd, both to the Clergy 
 and Laiety, for promoting true Devotion in the Ufe of it. 
 The Second Edition. 
 
 Charity Schools recommended in a Sermon preach'd at 
 St. ;f*ro's Church in Colchcfer, on Sunday March 16. 1710. 
 Publith'd at the Requeft of the Truftees. Price id. ad Edir. 
 
 A Letter to Mr. B. Robinfon, occafion'd by his Review of 
 the Cafe of Liturgies and their Impolition. 
 
 A fecond Letter to Mr. B. Rebinfon on the fame Subjeft. 
 
 The Rights of the Clergy of the Chriftian Church ; or a 
 Difcourfe ihewing, that God has given and appropriated to 
 the Clergy, Authority to ordain, baptize, preach, prefide 
 in Church Prayer, and confecrate the Lord's Supper. 
 Wherein alfo the pretended Divine Right of the Laiety to 
 elect, either the Perfons to be ordain'd, or their own parti- 
 cular Paftors, is examined and difproved. 
 
 An EfTay on the Thirty nine Articles of Religion, agreed 
 on in 1562, and revifed in 1571 ; wherein (the Text being 
 firft exhibited in Latin and EngUJb, and the minuteft Variati- 
 ons of 1 8 the moft ancient and authentic Copies carefully 
 noted,) an Account is given of the Proceedings of Convocati- 
 on in framing and fettling the Text of the Ai tides ; The 
 controverted Claufe of the zoth Article is demonftrated to 
 be genuin ; and the Cafe of Subfctiption to the Articles is 
 coniider'd in Point of Law, Hiftory, and Confcience. With 
 a Prefatory Epiftle to Anthony Collins, Efq; Wherein the 
 egregious Falihoods and Calumnies of the Author of Priffi- 
 craft in Pirfeftim, are expofed. 
 
 The Nonjurors Separation from the Public AfTcmblies of 
 the Church of England examin'd, and prov'd to be Schif- 
 matical upon their own Principles. The Second Edition. 
 
 The Cafe of the Reform'd Epifcopal Churches in Great 
 Poland and Polijl) Prvffi* confider'd, in a Sermon preach'd on 
 Sunday, Nov. 18. 1716. at St. La-annce Jewry, London, in the 
 Morning, and St. Oletiies Sou:hw*rk, in the Afternoon, z Ed. 
 
 A Spittal Sermon preach'd before the Lord Mayor, Alder- 
 men, eW. of London^, in St. Br/X^r's Church on ytyr/7 24 1717. 
 
 A Difcourfe of the EverbSeflTed Trinity in Unity, with an 
 Examination of Dr. Clarke's Scripture Doftrine of theTrinity. 
 
 GrammaticaH<?6r<?0 cum uberrimaPraxi, in ufumTironum, 
 qui linguam Hebr*m abfque Prceceptoris viva voce fidque 
 in brevifllmo temporis compendio,) edifcere cupiunt. Ac- 
 cedit Ccnfilium de ftudio praecipuarum Linguarum Orien- 
 talium, Hebr*<e Ceil. Cbald**, Syr*, Samaritan* C Ar*b:ctt t 
 inftituendo & perficiendo.
 
 A 000032390 7 


 
 A 000032390 7 
 
 I