An exposition of the Thirty-nine articles of the Church of England written by Gilbert Bishop of Sarum.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE XXXIX ARTICLES OF THE Church of England.

TITLE. Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Archbishops and By∣shops of both Provinces and the whole Cleargie, in the Convocation holden at London in the yeare of our Lorde GOD 1562. according to the computation of the Church of Englande, for the avoiding of the diversities of opinions, and for the stablishing of consent touching true Religion. Put forth by the Queens authoritie.

The INTRODUCTION.

THE Title of these Articles leads me to consider, 1. The Time, the Occasion, and the Design of Com∣piling them. 2dly. The Authority that is stampt upon them both by Church and State, and the Obli∣gation that lies upon all of our Communion to Assent to them, and more particularly the Importance of the Subscription to which the Clergy are obliged. As to the 1st, It may seem somewhat strange to see such a Collection of Tenets made the Standard of the Doctrine of a Church, that is deservedly valued by reason of her Moderation: This seems to be a departing from the Simplicity of the First Ages, which yet we pretend to set up for a Pattern. In those times, the owning the Belief of the Creeds then received, was thought sufficient: And when some Here∣sies had occasioned great Enlargements to be made in the Creeds, the Third General Council thought fit to set a Bar against all further Ad∣ditions; and yet all those Creeds, one of which goes far beyond the Ephesine Standard, make but One Article of the Thirty nine of which this Book consists. Many of these do also relate to subtile and ab∣struse Points, in which it is not easy to form a clear Judgment; and much less can it be convenient to Impose so great a Collection of Tenets upon a whole Church, to Excommunicate such as affirm any of them to be erroneous, and to reject those from the Service of the Church, who cannot Assent to every one of them. The Negative

Articles of No Infallibility, No Supremacy in the Pope, No Transub∣stantiation, No Purgatory, and the like, give yet a further Colour to Exceptions; since it may seem that it was enough, not to have men∣tioned these, which implied a tacit rejecting of them. It may there∣fore appear to be too rigorous, to require a positive condemning of those Points; for a very high degree of Certainty is required, to af∣firm a Negative Proposition.

In order to the explaining this matter, it is to be confessed, that in the beginnings of Christianity, the Declaration that was required even of a Bishop's Faith, was conceived in very general Terms. There was a Form setled very early in most Churches. This St. Paul in one place calls, The Form of Doctrine that was delivered; in another place The Form of Sound Words,* 1.1 which those who were fixed by the Apostles in particular Churches, had received from them. These words of his do import a Standard, or fixed Formulary, by which all Doctrines were to be examined. Some have inferred from them, that the Apo∣stles delivered that Creed which goes under their Name, every where in the same Form of Words. But there is great reason to doubt of this, since the first Apologists for Christianity, when they deliver a short Abstract of the Christian Faith, do all vary from one another, both as to the Order, and as to the Words themselves; which they would not have done, if the Churches had all received one setled Form from the Apostles. They would all have used the same Words, and neither more nor less. It is more probable, That in every Church there was a Form setled, which was delivered to it by some Apostle, or Companion of the Apostles, with some Variation; of which at this distance of time, considering how defective the History of the First Ages of Christianity is, it is not possible, nor very neces∣sary for us to be able to give a clear Account. For Instance; In the whole Extent or Neighbourhood of the Roman Empire, it was at first of great Use to have this in every Christian's mouth, That our Savi∣our suffered under Pontius Pilate; because this fixed the Time, and carried in it an Appeal to Records and Evidences, that might then have been searched for. But if this Religion went at first far to the East∣ward, beyond all Commerce with the Romans, there is not that reason to think that this should have been a part of the shortest Form of this Doctrine; it being enough that it was related in the Gospel. These Forms of the several Churches were preserved with that Sacred Re∣spect that was due to them: This was esteemed the Depositum or Trust of a Church, which was chiefly committed to the keeping of the Bishop. In the First Ages, in which the Bishops or Clergy of the several Churches could not meet together in Synods to examine the Doctrine of every new Bishop, the Method upon which the Circum∣stances of those Ages put them, was this; The New Bishop sent round him, and chiefly to the Bishops of the more Eminent Sees, the Pro∣fession of his Faith, according to the Form that was fixed in his Church: And when the Neighbouring Bishops were satisfied in this, they held Communion with him, and not only owned him for a Bi∣shop, but maintained such a Commerce with him, as the state of that Time did admit of.

But as some Heresies sprung up, there were Enlargements made in several Churches, for the condemning those, and for excluding such as

held them from their Communion. The Council of Nice examined many of those Creeds, and out of them they put their Creed in a fuller Form. The Addition made by the Council of Constantinople, was put into the Creeds of some particular Churches several Years before that Council met. So that though it received its Authority from that Council, yet those Fathers rather confirmed an Article which they found in the Creeds of some Churches, than made a New one. It had been an unvaluable Blessing, if the Christian Religion had been kept in its first Simplicity. The Council of Ephesus took care that the Creed by which men profess their Christianity, should receive no new Additions, but be fixed according to the Constantinoplitan Stan∣dard; yet they made Decrees in Points of Faith; and the following Councils went on in their steps, adding still new Decrees, with Ana∣thematisms against the contrary Doctrines; and declaring the Asser∣ters of them to be under an Anathema, that is, under a very heavy Curse of being totally excluded from their Communion, and even from the Communion of Jesus Christ. And whereas the New Bi∣shops had formerly only declared their Faith, they were then required besides that to declare, That they received such Councils, and re∣jected such Doctrines, together with such as favoured them; who were sometimes me••tioned by Name. This increased daily. We have a full Account of the special Declaration that a Bishop was obliged to make, in the First Canon of that which passeth for the Fourth Coun∣cil of Carthage. But while by reason of new Emergencies this was swelling to a vast Bulk, General and more Implicit Formularies came to be used, the Bishops declaring that they received and would ob∣serve all the Decrees and Traditions of Holy Co••••cils and Fathers. And the Papacy coming afterwards to carry every thing before it, a Formal Oath, that had many loose and indefinite words in it, which were very large and comprehensive, was added to all the Declarations that had been formerly established. The Enlargements of Creeds were at first occasioned by the Prevarications of Hereticks; who ha∣ving put Senses favouring their Opinions, on the simpler Terms in which the First Creeds were proposed, it was thought neces∣sary to use more express words. This was absolutely necessary as to some Points; for they being obliged to shew that the Christian Religion did not bring in that Idolatry which it condemned in Hea∣thens, it was also necessary to state this matter so, that it should ap∣pear that they worshipped no Creature; but that the Person to whom all agreed to pay Divine Adoration was truly God: And it being found that an Equivocation was used in all other words except that of the same Substance, they judged it necessary to fix on it, besides some other words that they at first brought in, but which were afterwards made more doubtful by the Glosses that were put on them. At all times it is very necessary to free the Christian Religion from the Imputation of Idolatry; but this was never so necessary, as when Christianity was engaged in such a Struggle with Paganism: And since the main Article then in dispute with the Heathens was Idolatry, and the Law∣fulness of worshipping any besides the Great and Eternal God, it was of the last Importance to the Christian Cause, to take care that the Heathens might have no reason to believe that they worshipped a Creature. There was therefore just reason given to secure this main

Point, and to put an end to Equivocation, by establishing a Term, which by the Confession of all Parties did not admit of any. It had been a great Blessing to the Church, if a Stop had been put here; and that those nice Descantings that were afterwards so much pursued, had been more effectually discouraged than they were. But men ever were, and ever will be men. Factions were formed, and Interests were set up. Hereticks had shewed so much Dissimulation when they were low, and so much Cruelty when they prevailed, that it was thought necessary to secure the Church from the Disturbances that they might give them: And thus it grew to be a Rule to enlarge the Doctrines and Decisions of the Church. So that in stating the Doctrines of this Church so copiously, our Reformers followed a Me∣thod that had been used in a course of many Ages.

There were, besides this common Practice, two particular Circum∣stances in that time, that made this seem to be the more necessary. One was, That at the breaking out of that Light, there sprang up with it many impious and extravagant Sects, which broke out into most violent Excesses. This was no extraordinary thing, for we find the like happened upon the first spreading of the Gospel; many de∣testable Sects grew up with it, which tended not a little to the defa∣ming of Christianity, and the obstructing its Progress. I shall not ex∣amine what Influence Evil Spirits might have both in the one and the other: B••t one visible occasion of it was, That by the first Preaching of the Gospel, as also upon the opening the Reformation, an Enquiry into the Matters of Religion being then the Subject of mens Studies and Discourses, many men of warm and ill-govern'd Imaginations, presuming on their own Talents, and being desirous to signalize them∣selves, and to have a Name in the World, went beyond their Depth in S••udy, without the neces••ary degrees of Knowledge, and the yet more necessary dispositions of Mind for arriving at a right understand∣ing of Divine Matters. This happening soon after that the Reforma∣tion was first set on foot, those whose Corruptions were struck at by it, and who both hated and persecuted it on that account, did not fail to lay hold of and to improve the Advantage which these Se••ts gave them. They said, That the Sectaries had only spoke out what the rest thought; and at last they held to this, That all Sects were the Natural Consequences of the Reformation, and of shaking off the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church. To stop those Calum∣nies, the Protestants in Germany prepared that Confession of their Faith which they offered to the Diet as Ausburg, and which carries its name. And after their Example, all the other Churches which separated from the Roman Communion, published the Confessions of their Faith, both to declare their Doctrine for the Instruction of their own Members, and for covering them from the Slanders of their Ad∣versaries.

Another reason that the first Reformers had for their descending into so many Particulars, and for all these Negatives that are in their Confessions, was this: They had smarted long under the Tyranny of Popery, and so they had reason to secure themselves from it, and from all those who were leavened with it. Those here in England had seen how many had complied with every Alteration both in King Henry and King Edward's Reign, who not only declared themselves to have been

all the while Papists, but became bloody Persecutors in Q. Mary's Days: Therefore it was necessary to keep all such out of their Body, that they might not secretly undermine and betray it. Now since the Church of Rome owns all that is positive in our Doctrine, there could be no Discrimination made, but by condemning the most important of those additions that they have brought into the Christian Religion, in express words: It is true that in Matters of Fact, or in Theories of Nature, it is not safe to affirm a Negative, because it is seldom pos∣sible to prove it; yet the Fundamental Article upon which the whole Reformation, and this our Church depends is this,

That the whole Doctrines of the Christian Religion are contained in the Scripture, and that therefore we are to admit no Article as a part of it till it is proved from Scripture.

This being laid down, and well made out, it is not at all unreasonable to affirm a Negative upon an Examination of all those places of Scripture that are brought for any Doctrine, and that seem to favour it, if these are found not at all to support it, but to bear a different and sometimes a contrary sense to that which is offered to be proved by them. So there is no weight in this cavil, which yet may look plausible to such as cannot distinguish common Matters from Points of Faith. This may serve in general to justify the largeness, and the particularities of this Confession of our Faith. There were some steps made to it in K. Henry's Time, in a large Book that was then published under the Title of The Necessary Gru••ition, that was a Treatise set forth to instruct the Nation. Many of th•• Errors of Popery were laid open and condemned in it: but none were obliged to assent to it, or to Subscribe it. After that, the Wor∣ship was Reformed, as being that which pressed most: And in that a Foundation was laid, for the Articles that came quickly after it. How or by whom they were prepared, we do not certainly know. By the remains of that time it appears, that in the alterations that were made, there was great precaution used, such as indeed matters of that Nature required, Questions were framed relating to them, these were given about to many Bishops and Divines, who gave in theit several Answers; those were collated and examined very carefully, all sides had a free and fair hearing before Conclusions were made.

In the fermentation that was working over the whole Nation at that time, it was not possible that a thing of that nature could have passed by the methods that are more necessary in Regular Times: And there∣fore they could not be offered at first to Synods or Convocations. The Corruptions complained of were so beneficial to the whole Body of the Clergy, that it is justly to be wonder'd at, that so great a num∣ber was prevailed with, to concur in Reforming them: But without a Miracle they could not have been agreed to by the Major part. They were prepared, as is most probable, by Cranmer and Ridley, and published by the Regal Authority. Not as if our Kings had pre∣tended to an Authority to judge in Points of Faith, or to decide Con∣troversies: But as every private man must chuse for himself, and be∣lieve according to the convictions of his Reason and Conscience (which is to be examined and proved in its proper place) so every Prince (or Legislative Power) must give the publick Sanction and Au∣thority according to his own Persuasion; this makes indeed such a Sanction to become a Law, but does not alter the Nature of Things,

nor oblige the Consciences of the Subjects, unless they come under the same Persuasions. Such Laws have indeed the Operation of all other Laws, but the Doctrines Authorised by them have no more truth than they had before, without any such Publication. Thus the part that our Princes had in the Reformation was only this, that they being satisfied with the Grounds on which it went, received it them∣selves; and enacted it for their People. And this is so plain and so just a consequence of that liberty which every man has of believing and acting according to his own Convictions, that when the one is well made out, there can be no colour to question the other. It was also remarkable, that the Law which stood first in Iustinian's Code, was an Edict of Theodosius's; who finding the Roman Empire under great di∣stractions, by the diversity of Opinions in Matter of Religion, did appoint that Doctrine to be held which was received by Damasus Bi∣shop of Rome, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria; such an Edict as that being put in so conspicuous a part of the Law, was a full and soon-observ'd Precedent for our Princes to act according to it.

The next Thing to be examined is the Use of the Articles, and the Importance of the Subscriptions of the Clergy to them. Some have thought that they are only Articles of Union and Peace; that they are a Standard of Doctrine not to be contradicted, or disputed; that the Sons of the Church are only bound to acquiesce silently in them; and that the Subscription to them amounts only to a general Compromise upon those Articles, that so there may be no disputing nor wrangling about them. By this means they reckon, that though a man should differ in his Opinion from that which appears to be the clear sense of any of the Articles; yet he may with a good Conscience subscribe it, if the Article appears to him, to be of such a nature, that though he thinks it wrong, yet it seems not to be of that consequence, but that it may be born with, and not contradicted. I shall not now examine whether it were more fit to leave men to the due freedom of their thoughts, and that the Subscription did run no higher, it being in ma∣ny cases a great hardship to exclude some very deserving persons from the Service of the Church, by requiring a Subscription to so many particulars, concerning some of which they are not fully satisfied. I am only now to consider what is the Importance of the Subscripti∣ons required among us, and not what might be reasonably wisht that it should be.

As to the Laity, and the whole Body of the People, certainly to them these are only the Articles of Church-Communion; so that every person, who does not think that there is some proposition in them that is Erroneous to so high a degree, that he cannot hold Communion with such as profess it, may and is obliged to continue in our Com∣munion: For certainly there are many Opinions held in Matters of Religion, which a man may believe to be false, and yet he may esteem them to be of so little Importance to the chief design of Religion, that he may well hold Communion with those whom he thinks to be so mistaken. Here a necessary distinction is to be remembred between Articles of Faith, and Articles of Doctrine: The one are held ne∣cessary to Salvation, the other are only believed to be true; that is, to be revealed in the Scriptures, which is a sufficient Ground for ac∣knowledging them true. Articles of Faith are Doctrines that are so ne∣cessary

to Salvation, that without believing them no man has a foederal Right to the Covenant of Grace: These are not many, and in the Establishment of any Doctrine for such, it is necessary both to prove it clearly from Scripture, and to prove its being necessary to Salvation, as a mean setled by the Covenant of Grace in order to it. We ought not indeed to hold Communion with such as make Doctrines that we be∣lieve not to be true, to pass for Articles of Faith; though we may hold Communion with such as do think them true, without stamping so high an Authority upon them. To give one Instance of this in an undeniable particular. In the days of the Apostles there were Judaisers of two sorts; some thought the Iewish Nation was still obli∣ged to observe the Mosaical Law; but others went further, and thought that such an Observation was indispensably necessary in all men to Sal∣vation: Both these Opinions were wrong, but the one was tolerable, and the other was intolerable: Because it pretended to make that a necessary condition of Salvation, which God had not commanded. The Apostles complied with the Judaisers of the first sort,* 1.2 as they be∣came all things to all men, that so they might gain some of every sort of men: Yet they declared openly against the other, and said, that if men were Circumcised, or were willing to come under such a Yoke, Christ profited them nothing; and upon that supposition he had died in vain. From this plain Precedent we see what a difference we ought to make be∣tween the holding Errors in Doctrinal Matters,* 1.3 and the Imposing them as Articles of Faith. We may live in Communion with those who hold Errors of the one sort, but must not with those of the other. This also shews the Tyranny of that Church, which has imposed the belief of every one of her Doctrines on the Consciences of her Vo∣taries, under the highest pains of Anathema's, and as Articles of Faith. But whatever those at Trent did, This Church very carefully avoided the laying that weight upon even those Doctrines which she received as true; and therefore though she drew up a large Form of Doctrine; yet to all her Lay-Sons, this is only a Standard of what she teaches, and the Articles are to them only Articles of Church-Communion. The Citations that are brought from those two great Primates, Laud, and Bramhall, go no further than this: They do not seem to relate to the Clergy that subscribe them, but to the Laity and Body of the People. The People who do only join in Communion with us, may well continue to do so, though they may not be fully satisfied with every Proposition in them; Unless they should think that they struck against any of the Articles or Foundations of Faith; and as those Great men truly observe, there is a great dif∣ference to be observed in this particular between the Imperious Spirit of the Church of Rome, and the modest freedom which ours allows.

But I come in the next place to consider what the Clergy is bound to by their Subscriptions. The meaning of every Subscription is to be taken from the design of the Imposer, and from the words of the Subscription it self. The Title of the Articles bears, That they were agreed upon in Convocation, For the avoiding of diversities of Opi∣nions, and for the stablishing consent touching true Religion. Where it is evident, that a Consent in Opinion is designed. If we in the next place consider the Declaration that the Church has made in the Ca∣nons, we shall find, that though by the Fifth Canon, which relates to

the whole Body of the People, such are only declared to be Excom∣municated ipso facto, who shall affirm any of the Articles to be Erro∣neous, or such as he may not with a good Conscience Subscribe to; yet the 36th Canon is express for the Clergy, requiring them to Sub∣scribe willingly, and ex animo; and acknowledge all and every Article to be agreeable to the word of God: Upon which Canon it is that the Form of the Subscription runs in these words, which seem expresly to declare a man's own Opinion, and not a bare consent to an Arti∣cle of Peace, or an Engagement to silence and submission. The Statute of the 13th of Queen Elizabeth, cap. 12. which gives the Legal Au∣thority to our requiring Subscriptions, in order to a man's being capable of a Benefice, requires that every Clergyman should read the Articles in the Church where he is to serve, with a Declaration of his Unfeigned Assent to them. These things make it very plain, that the Subscriptions of the Clergy must be considered as a Declaration of their own Opi∣nion, and not as a bare Obligation to silence. There arose in K. Iames the First's Reign, great and warm Disputes concerning the Decrees of God, and those other Points that were setled in Holland by the Synod of Dort against the Remonstrants. Divines of both sides among us appealed to the Articles, and pretended they were favourable to them: For though the first appearance of them seems to favour the Doctrine of Absolute Decrees, and the Irresistibility of Grace; yet there are many expressions that have another face, and so those of the other Persuasion pleaded for themselves from these. Upon this a Royal Declarations was set forth, in which after that mention is made of those Disputes, and that the men of all sides did take the Articles to be for them; order is given for stopping those Disputes for the future: and for shutting them in God's promises, as they be generally set forth in the Holy Scriptures, and the general meaning of the Articles of the Church of England, according to them; and that no man thereafter should put his own Sense or Comment to be the meaning of the Article, but should take it in the Literal and Grammatical Sense. In this there has been such a general acquiescing, that the fierceness of these Disputes has gone off, while men have been left to Subscribe the Articles according to their Literal and Grammatical Sense. From which two Things are to be inferred: The one is, that the Subscription does import an Assent to the Article; and the other is, that an Article being conceived in such general words, that it can admit of different Literal and Grammatical Senses, even when the Senses given are plainly contrary one to another, both sides may Subscribe the Article with a good Conscience, and without any Equivocation. To make this more sensible, I shall give an in∣stance of it in an Article concerning which there is no Dispute at present.

The Third Article concerning Christ's descent into Hell is capable of Three different Senses, and all the Three are both Literal and Grammatical. The First is, that Christ descended locally into Hell, and preached to the Spirits there in prison; and this has one great ad∣vantage on its side, that those who first prepared the Articles in K. Edward's Time were of this Opinion, for they made it a part of it, by adding in the Article those words of St. Peter as the Proof or Explanation of it. Now though that period was left out in Q. Eli∣zabeth's Time; yet no Declaration was made against it: so that this Sense was once in possession, and was never expresly rejected: Besides

that it has great support from the Authority of many Fathers who understood the descent into Hell, according to this Explanation. A Second Sense of which that Article is capable, is, That by Hell is meant the Grave, according to the Signification of the Original Word in the Hebrew; and this is supported by the words of Christ's descending in∣to the lower parts of the Earth; as also by this, That several Creeds that have this Article, have not that or Christ's being buried: and some that mention his Burial, have not this of his Descent into Hell. A Third Sense is, That by Hell, according to the Signification of the Greek Word, is to be meant the Place or Region of Spirits separated from their Bodies: So that by Christ's descent into Hell is only to be meant, that his Soul was really and entirely disunited from his Body, not lying dead in it as in an Apoplectical Fit, nor hovering about it, but that it was translated into the Seats of departed Souls. All these Three Senses differ very much from one another, and yet they are all Senses that are Literal and Grammatical; so that in which of these soever a man conceives the Article, he may Subscribe it, and he does no way prevaricate in so doing. If men would therefore understand all the other Articles in the same largeness, and with the same equity, there would not be that occasion given for unjust Censure that there has been. Where then the Articles are conceived in large and gene∣ral words, and have not more special and restrained terms in them, we ought to take that for a sure Indication, that the Church does not in∣tend to tie men up too severely to particular Opinions, but that she leaves all to such a liberty as is agreeable with the Purity of the Faith. And this seems sufficient to explain the Title of the Articles, and the Subscriptions that are required of the Clergy to them.

The last thing to be setled is the true Reading of the Articles; for there being some small diversity between the Printed Editions, and the Manuscripts that were signed by both Houses of Convocation; I have desired the assistance both of Dr. Green, the present Worthy Ma∣ster of Corpus Christi College in Cambridge, and of some of the Learned Fellows of that Body; That they would give themselves the trouble to collate the Printed Editions, and their Manuscripts, with such a scrupulous exactness as becomes a Matter of this Importance; which they were pleased to do very minutely. I will set down Both the Collations as they were transmitted to me; beginning with that which I had from the Fellows four Years ago.

These words, said to be left out, are found in the Original Articles, Sign'd by the Chief Clergy of Both Provinces, now extant in the Manu∣script Libraries of C.C.C.C. in the Book call'd Synodalia: but distin∣guish'd from the rest with Lines of Minium; which Lines plainly ap∣pear to have been done afterwards, because the Leaves and Lines of the Original are exactly numbred at the end; which number without these Lines were manifestly false.

In the Original these words only are found, Testamentum vetus no∣vo contrarium non est, quando∣quidem, &c.

The Latin of the Original is, Et quanquam renatis & credenti∣bus nulla propter Christum est condemnatio.

This Article is not found in this Original.

This is not found.

This is not found.

This Article agrees with the Origi∣nal; but these words, The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and Authority in Controversies of Faith, suppos'd to begin the Article, are not found in any part thereof.

In the fourteenth Line of this Ar∣ticle, immediately after these words, (But yet have not like nature with Baptism and the Lord's Supper) follows, quomodo nec penitentia, which being mark'd under∣neath with Minium is left out in the Translation.

This Article agrees with the Ori∣ginal, as far as these words (and ••ath given occasion to many Superstitions) where follows, Christus in coelum ascendens, corpo∣ri suo immortalitatem dedit, natu∣ram non abstulit, humanae enim na∣turae veritatem (juxta Scripturas) perpetuo retinet, quam uno & de∣finito loco esse, & non in multa vel omnia simul loca diffundi oportet; quum igitur Christus in coelum sublatus, ibi usque ad finem faeculi sit permansurus, atque inde, non aliunde (ut loquitur Augustinus) ven∣turus sit, ad judicandum vivos & mortuos non debet quisquam fide∣lium, carnis & ejus & sanguinis realem, & corporalem (ut loquuntur) praesentiam in Eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri. These words are mark'd and scrawl'd over with Minium, and the words immediately follow∣ing, (Corpus tamen Christi datur, accipitur, & manducatur in coena, tantum coelesti & spirituali ratione) are inserted in a different Hand just before them, in a line and half left void, which plainly appears to be done afterwards, by reason the same Hand has alter'd the first number of Lines, and for Viginti quatuor, made quatuordecem.

The Three last Articles, Viz. The 39th, Of the Resurrection of the Dead; the 40th, That the Souls of men do neither perish with their Bo∣dies, (neque otiosi dormiant) is added in the Original. And the 42d, That all shall not be saved at last, are found in the Original, distinguish'd only with a Marginal Line of Minium: But the 41st of the Millenarians is wholly left out.

The number of Articles does not exactly agree, by reason some are inserted, which are found only in King Edward's Articles, but none are wanting that are found in the Original.

ARTICLE III.

Of the going down of Christ into Hell·

AS Christ Died for us, and was Buried; so also it is to be believ'd, That he went down into Hell.

[For his Bo∣dy lay in the Grave till his Resurrection; but his Soul being separate from his Bo∣dy remain'd with the Spi∣rits which were detain••d in Prison; that is to say, in Hell, and there preached unto them.]

ARTICLE VI.

The Old Testament is not to be rejected as if it were con∣trary to the New, but to be re∣tained. Forasmuch, &c.

ARTICLE IX.

And although there is no Condemnation to them that believe, and are Baptiz'd, &c.

ARTICLE X. Of Grace.

The Grace of Christ, or the Holy Ghost, which is given by Him, doth, &c.

ARTICLE XVI. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

The Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is then committed when, &c.

ARTICLE XIX.

All men are bound to keep the Precepts of the Moral Law, although the Law gi∣ven from God, &c.

ARTICLE XX. Of the Authority of the Church.

It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Words written, &c.

ARTICLE XXVI. Of the Sacraments.

Sacraments Ordain'd of Christ, &c.

ARTICLE XXIX. Of the Lord's Supper.

The Supper of the Lord's is not only a Sign of, &c.

Corpus Christi Col. Feb. 4th, 1695/6.

UPON Examination we judge these to be all the material dif∣ferences, that are unobserv'd, between the Original Manu∣scripts, and the B. of Salisbury's Printed Copy.

Witness our Hands.

• Io. Iaggard, Fellow of the said College.
• Roh. Mosse, Fellow of the said College.
• Will. Lunn, Fellow of the said College.

After I had procured this, I was desirous likewise to have the Printed Editions Collated with the Second Publication of the Articles in the Year 1571. in which the Convocation reviewed those of 1562. and made some small Alterations: And these were very lately procured for me by my Reverend Friend, Dr. Green; which I will set down as he was pleased to communicate them to me.

[Note, MS. stands for Manuscript, and Pr. for Print.]

Art. 1.	MS.	and true God, and he is everlasting, without Body.
	Pr.	and true God, everlasting, without Body.
Art. 2.	MS.	but also for all actual sins of men.
	Pr.	but also for actual sins of men.
Art. 3.	MS.	so also it is to be believed.
	Pr.	so also is it to be believed.
Art. 4.	MS.	Christ did truly arise again.
	Pr.	Christ did truly rise again.
	MS.	until he return to judge all men at the last day.
	Pr.	until he return to judge men at the last day.
Art. 6.	MS.	to be believed as an Article of the Faith.
	Pr.	to be believed as an Article of Faith.
	MS.	requisite as necessary to Salvation.
	Pr.	requisite or necessary to Salvation.
	MS.	In the name of holy Scripture.
	Pr.	In the name of the holy Scripture.
	MS.	but yet doth it not apply.
	Pr.	but yet doth not apply.
	MS.	Baruch.
	Pr.	Baruch the Prophet.
	MS.	and account them for Canonical.
	Pr.	and account them Canonical.
Art. 8.	MS.	by most certain warranties of Holy Scripture.
	Pr.	by most certain warrant of Holy Scripture.
Art. 9.	MS.	but it is the fault.
	Pr.	but is the fault.
	MS.	whereby man is very far gone from his original righteousness.
	Pr.	whereby man is far gone from original righ∣teousness.
	MS.	in them that be regenerated.
	Pr.	in them that are regenerated.
Art. De Gratia, non habetur in MS.
Art. 10.	MS.	a good will and working in us.
	Pr.	a good will and working with us.
Art. 14.	MS.	cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety.
	Pr.	cannot be taught without arrogancy and ini∣quity.
	MS.	we be unprofitable Servants.
	Pr.	we are unprofitable Servants.
Art. 15.	MS.	sin only except.
	Pr.	sin only excepted.

	MS.	to be the Lamb without spot.
	Pr.	to be a Lamb without spot.
	MS.	but we the rest, although baptized, and born again, in Christ, yet we all offend.
	Pr.	but all we the rest, although baptized, and if born in Christ, yet offend.
Art. De Blasphemia in Sp. Sanct. non est in MS.
Art. 16.	MS.	wherefore the place for Penitence.
	Pr.	wherefore the grant of Repentance.
Art. 17.	MS.	so excellent a benefit of God given unto them, be called according.
	Pr.	so excellent a benefit of God, be called according.
	MS.	as because it doth fervently kindle their love.
	Pr.	as because it doth frequently kindle their love.

Art. Omnes Obligantur, &c. non est in MS.

Art. 18.	MS.	to frame his life according to the Law and the light of Nature.
	Pr.	to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature.
Art. 19.	MS.	congregation of faithful men in the which the pure Word.
	Pr.	congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word.
Art. 20.	MS.	The Church hath Power to decree rites or ceremo∣nies, and authority in controversies of Faith. And yet.
		These words are not in the Original MS.
	MS.	ought it not to enforce any thing.
	Pr.	it ought not to enforce any thing.
Art. 21.	MS.	and when they be gathered together (forasmuch.
	Pr.	and when they be gathered (forasmuch.
Art. 22.	MS.	is a fond thing vainly invented.
	Pr.	is a fond thing vainly feigned.
Art. 24.	MS.	in a Tongue not understanded of the People.
	Pr.	in a Tongue not understood of the People.
Art. 25.	MS.	and effectual signs of grace and God's good will to∣wards us.
	Pr.	and effectual signs of grace and God's will to∣wards us.
	MS.	and extream annoyling.
	Pr.	and extream unction.
Art. 26.	MS.	in their own name, but do minister by Christ's Com∣mission and authority.
	Pr.	in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his Commission and authority.
	MS.	and in the receiving of the Sacraments.
	Pr.	and in the receiving the Sacraments.

	MS.	and rightly receive the Sacraments.
	Pr.	and rightly do receive the Sacraments.
Art. 27.	MS.	from others that be not christned, but is also a sign.
	Pr.	from others that be not christned, but it is also a sign.
	MS.	forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption.
	Pr.	forgiveness of sin, of our adoption.
Art. 28.	MS.	to have amongst themselves.
	Pr.	to have among themselves.
	MS.	the bread which we break is a partaking Communion of the body of Christ.
	Pr.	the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Thrist.
	MS.	and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking Communion of the blood of Christ.
	Pr.	and likewise the Cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
	MS.	or the change of the Substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood can∣not be proved by holy Writ, but is repugnant.
	Pr.	or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the supper of the Lord cannot be proved by holy Writ, but it is repugnant.
	MS.	but the mean whereby the body of Christ is received.
	Pr.	and the mean whereby the body of Christ is re∣ceived.
	MS.	lifted up or worshipped.
	Pr.	lifted up and worshipped.
Art. 31.	MS.	is the perfect redemption.
	Pr.	is that perfect redemption.
	MS.	to have remission of pain or guilt were forged Fables.
	Pr.	to have remission of pain and guilt were blas∣phemous Fables.
Art. 33.	MS.	that hath authority thereto.
	Pr.	that hath authority thereunto.
Art. 34.	MS.	diversity of countries, times, and mens manners.
	Pr.	diversity of countries and mens manners.
	MS.	and be ordained and appointed by common autority.
	Pr.	and be ordained and approved by common au∣thority.
	MS.	the consciences of the weak brethren.
	Pr.	the consciences of weak brethren.
Art. 35.	MS.	of Homilies, the Titles whereof we have joined un∣der this Article, do contain.
	Pr.	of Homilies, the several Titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain.
	MS.	wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for this time, as doth the former book which was set forth.
	Pr.	wholesome Doctrine, necessary for these times, as doth the former book of Homilies which were set forth.

	MS.	and therefore are to be read in our Churches by the Ministers, diligently, plainly, and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.
	Pr.	and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understood of the people.
	MS.	ministred in a tongue known.
	Pr.	ministred in a known tongue.
Art. De Libro Precationum, &c. non est in MS.
Art. 36.	MS.	in the time of the most noble K. Edward the Sixth.
	Pr.	in the time of Edward the Sixth.
	MS.	superstitious or ungodly.
	Pr.	superstitious and ungodly.
Art. 37.	MS.	whether they be Ecclesiastical or not.
	Pr.	whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil.
	MS.	the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended.
	Pr.	the minds of some dangerous folks to be of∣fended.
	MS.	we give not to our Princes.
	Pr.	we give not our Princes.
	MS.	or of Sacraments.
	Pr.	or of the Sacraments.
	MS.	the Injunctions also lately set forth.
	Pr.	the Injunctions also set forth.
	MS.	and serve in the Wars.
	Pr.	and serve in lawful Wars.
Art. 38.	MS.	every man oughteth of such things.
	Pr.	every man ought of such things.
Art. 39. Edw. 6. & qui sequuntur, non sunt in MS.

WE Th' archbishops and Bishops of either Province of this Realm of England, lawfully gathered together in this Provincial Synod holden at London with Continuations and Prorogations of the same, do receive, profess and acknowledge the xxxviii Articles before written in xix Pages going before, to contain true and sound doctrine, and do approve and ratify the same by the subscription of our hands the xi^•h day of May in the year of our Lord 1571. and in the year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lady Elizabeth by the Grace of God of England, France and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c. the thirteenth.

• ...Matthue Cantuar.
• ...Rob. Winton.
• ...Jo. Heref.
• ...Richarde Ely.
• ...Nic. Wigorn.
• ...Jo. Sarisburien.
• ...Edm. Roffen.
• ...N. Bangor.
• ...Ri. Cicestren.
• ...Thom. Lincoln.
• ...Willhelmus Exon.

From these Diversities a great difficulty will naturally arise about this whole Matter. The Manuscripts of Corpus Christi are without doubt Originals.

The hands of the Subscribers are well known, they belonged to Arch∣bishop Parker, and were left by him to that College, and they are Signed with a particular care; for at the end of them there is not only a Sum of the number of the Pages, but of the Lines in every Page. And though this was the Work only of the Convocation of the Province of Can∣terbury; yet the Archbishop of York, with the Bishops of Duresme and Chester, Subscribed them likewise, and they were also Subscribed by the whole Lower House. But we are not sure that the like care was used in the Convocation Anno 1571. for the Articles are only Subscri∣bed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ten Bishops of his Pro∣vince; nor does the Subscription of the Lower House appear. These Articles were first Printed in the Year 1563. conform to the present Impressions which are still in use among us. So the Alterations were then made while the thing was fresh and well known, therefore no Fraud nor Artifice is to be suspected, since some Objections would have been then made, especially by the great Party of the Complying Papists, who then continued in the Church: They would not have failed to have made much use of this, and to have taken great ad∣vantages from it, if there had been any occasion or colour for it; and yet nothing of this kind was then done.

One Alteration of more Importance was made in the Year 1571. Those words of the 20th Article, The Church hath power to Decree Rites or Ceremonies, and Authority in Controversies of Faith, were left out both in the Manuscripts, and in the Printed Editions, but were af∣terwards restored according to the Articles Printed Anno 1563. I cannot find out in what Year they were again put in the Printed Copies. They appear in two several Impressions in Queen Elizabeth's Time, which are in my hands: It passes commonly that it was done by Arch∣bishop Laud; and his Enemies laid this upon him among other things, That he had corrupted the Doctrine of this Church by this addition; but he cleared himself of that, as well he might; and in a Speech in the Star-Chamber, appealed to the Original, and affirmed these words were in it.

The true account of this difficulty is this. When the Articles were first setled, they were Subscribed by Both Houses upon Paper; but that being done, they were afterward Ingrossed in Parchment, and made up in Form to remain as Records. Now in all such Bodies, many Alterations are often made after a minute or first Draught is agreed on before the matter is brought to full Perfection; so these Alterations as most of them are small and inconsiderable, were made between the time that they were first Subscribed, and the last Voting of them. But the Original Records, which if extant would have cleared the whole matter, having been burnt in the Fire of London, it is not possible to Appeal to them; yet what has been proposed, may serve, I hope, fully to clear the difficulty.

I now go to consider the Articles themselves.

ARTICLE I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.

There is but one living and true God, everlasting without bodie parts or passions, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the maker and preserver of all things both vi∣sible and invisible; and in the unity of this godhead there be three persons of one substance, power and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

THE Natural Order of Things required, That the First of all Articles in Religion should be concerning the Being and Attri∣butes of God: For all other Doctrines arise out of this. But the Title appropriates this to the Holy Trinity; because that is the only part of the Article which peculiarly belongs to the Christian Reli∣gion; since the rest is Founded on the Principles of Natural Re∣ligion.

There are Six Heads to be Treated of, in order to the full opening of all that is contained in this Article.

• 1. That there is a God.
• 2. That there is but One God.
• 3. Negatively, That this God hath neither Body, Parts, nor Pas∣sions.
• 4. Positively, That he is of Infinite Power, Wisdom, and Good∣ness.
• 5. That he at first Created, and does still Preserve all things, not only what is Material and Visible, but also what is Spiritual and In∣visible.
• 6. The Trinity is here Asserted.

These being all Points of the highest consequence, it is very ne∣cessary to state them as clearly, and to prove them as fully as may be.

The First is, That there is a God. This is a Proposition which in all Ages has been so universally received and believed, some very few Instances being only assigned of such as either have denied or doubted of it, that the very consent of so many Ages and Nations, of such dif∣ferent Tempers and Languages, so vastly remote from one another, has been long esteemed a good Argument, to prove that either there is somewhat in the Nature of Man, that by a secret sort of Instinct does dictate this to him; or that all Mankind has descended from one common Stock; and that this belief has passed down from the first Man to all his Posterity. If the more Polite Nations had only received this, some might suggest, that wise men had introduced it as a mean to govern human Society, and to keep it in order: Or if only the more barbarous had received this, it might be thought to be the effe••t of their Fear, and their Ignorance; but since all Sorts, as well as all Ages of men, have received it, this alone goes a great way to assure us of the Being of a God.

To this Two things are Objected, 1st. That some Nations, such as S••ldania, Formosa, and some in America, have been discovered in these last Ages that seem to acknowledge no Deity. But to this, Two things are to be opposed: 1st. That those who first discovered these Countries, and have given that account of them, did not know them enough, nor understand their Language so perfectly as was necessary to enable them to comprehend all their Opinions: And this is the more probable, because others that have writ after them, assure us, that they are not without all sense of Religion, which the first disco∣veries had too hastily affirmed: Some prints of Religion begin to be observed among those of Soldania, though it is certainly one of the most degenerated of all Nations. But a 2d Answer to this, is, That those Nations of whom these Reports are given out, are so extremely sunk from all that is wise or regular, great and good in human Nature, so rude and untractable, and so incapable of Arts and Disci∣pline, that if the Reports concerning them are to be believed, and if that weakens the Argument from the common consent of Mankind of the one hand, it strengthens it on another, while it appears that Hu∣man Nature, when it wants this Impression, it wants with it all that is great or orderly in it; and shews a brutality almost as low and base as is that of Beasts. Some men are born without some of their Senses, and others without the use of Reason and Memory: And yet those exceptions do not prove that the imperfections of such persons are not irregularities against the common course of Things: The mon∣strousness as well as the miseries of persons so unhappily born, tend to recommend more effectually the perfection of human Nature. So if these Nations which are supposed to be without the belief of a God, are such a low and degenerated piece of human Nature, that some have doubted whether they are a perfect Race of Men, or not; this does not derogate from, but rather confirms the force of this Argument, from the general consent of all Nations.

A Second Exception to this Argument is, That men have not agreed in the same Notions concerning the Deity: Some believing Two Gods, a Good and Bad, that are in a perpetual contest together: Others holding a vast number of Gods, either all equal or subaltern to one another: And some believing God to be a corporeal Being, and that the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and a great many other Beings are Gods: Since then, though all may acknowledge a Deity in general, they are yet subdivided into so many different conceits about it, no Argument can be drawn from this supposed Consent, which is not so great in reality, as it seems to be. But in Answer to this we must observe, That the constant sense of Mankind agreeing in this, That there is a Superior Being that governs the World, shews that this fixed Persuasion has a deep Root: Though the weakness of several Nations being practised upon by designing men, they have in many things corrupted this Notion of God. That might have arisen from the Tradition of some true Doctrines vitiated in the conveyance. Spirits made by God to govern the World by the Order, and under the Direction of the Supreme Mind, might easily come to be lookt on as subordinate Deities: Some evil and lapsed Spirits might in a course of some Ages pass for evil Gods. The Apparitions of the Deity under some Figures might make these Figures to be adored: And

God being considered as the Supreme Light, this might lead men to Worship the Sun as his chief Vehicle: And so by degrees he might pass for the Supreme God. Thus it is easy to trace up these mistakes to what may justly be supposed to be their first Source and Rise. But still the Foundation of them all, was a firm belief of a Superior Na∣ture that govern'd the World. Mankind agreeing in that, an occasion was given thereby to bad and designing men to graft upon it such other Tenets as might feed Superstition and Idolatry, and furnish the Mana∣gers of those Impostures with advantages to raise their own Authority. But how various soever the several Ages and Nations of the World may have been as to their more special Opinions and Rites; yet the General Idea of a God remain'd still unalter'd, even amidst all the changes that have happened in the particular Forms and Doctrines of Religion.

Another Argument for the Being of God, is taken from the Visi∣ble World, in which there is a vast variety of Beings curiously fra∣med, and that seem designed for great and noble ends. In these we see clear Characters of God's Eternal Power, and Wisdom. And that is thus to be made out. It is certain, that nothing could give Being to it self; so the things which we see, either had their Being from all Eternity, or were made in time: And either they were from all Eter∣nity in the same State, and under the same Revolutions of the Hea∣vens, as they are at present, or they fell into the Order and Method in which they do now rowl, by some happy chance; out of which all the Beauty and Usefulness of the Creation did arise. But if all these suppositions are manifestly false, then it will remain, That if things neither were from all Eternity as they now are, nor fell into their present State by chance, then there is a Superior Essence, that gave them Being, and that moulded them as we see they now are. The First Branch of this, That they were not as now they are from all Eternity, is to be proved by two sorts of Arguments; the one Intrinsical, by demonstrating this to be impossible; the other Moral, by shewing that it is not at all credible. As to the first, it is to be considered, that a successive duration made up of Parts, which is called Time, and is measured by a successive Rotation of the Heavens, can∣not possibly be Eternal. For if there were Eternal Revolutions of Sa∣turn in his course of Thirty Years, and Eternal Revolutions of Days as well as Years, of Minutes as well as Hours, then the one must be as infinite as the other; so that the one must be equal to the other, both being infinite; and yet the latter are some Millions of times more than the other; which is impossible. Further; Of ev'ry past du∣ration, as this is true, That once it was present; so this is true, That once it was to come; This being a necessary affection of every thing that exists in time: If then all past durations were all once future, or to be, then we cannot conceive such a Succession of Durations Eter∣nal, since once every one of them was to come. Nor can all this, or any part of it, be turned against us, who believe that some Beings are im∣mortal, and shall never cease to be; for all those future durations have never actually been, but are still produced of new, and so continued in being. This Argument may seem to be too subtile, and it will re∣quire some attention of mind to observe and discover the force of it; but after we have turned it over and over again, it will be found to

be a true demonstration. The chief Objection that lies against it, is, That in the Opinion of those who deny that there are any indivi••••∣ble points of Matter, and that believe that Matter is infinitely divisi∣ble, it is not absurd to say, That one Infinite is more than another: For the smallest crumb of Matter is Infinite, as well as the whole Globe of the Earth: And therefore the Revolutions of Saturn may be infinite as well as the Revolutions of Days, though the one be vastly more numerous than the other. But there is this difference be∣twixt the Succession of Time, and the Composition of Matter; That those who deny Indivisibles, say, That no one Point can be assigned: For if Points could be assigned or number'd, it is certain that they could not be Infinite: For an infinite Number seems to be a contra∣diction; but if the Series of Mankind were Infinite, since this is vi∣sibly divided into single Individuals, as the Units in that Series, then here arises an Infinite Number composed of Units or Individuals, that can be assigned. The same is to be said of Minutes, Hours, Days, and Years: Nor can it be said with equal reason, that every portion of Time is divisible to Infinity, as well as every parcel of Matter. It seems evident, that there is a present time; and that past, present and to come, cannot be said to be true of any thing all at once: Therefore the Objection against the assigning points in Matter, does not overthrow the truth of this Argument. But if it is thought that this is rather a slight of Metaphisicks that intangles one, than a plain and full conviction; Let us turn next to such Reasonings as are more obvious, and that are more easily apprehended.

The other Moral Arguments are more sensible as well as they are of a more complicated Nature; and proceed thus. The Hi∣story of all Nations, of all Governments, Arts, Sciences, and even instituted Religions; the peopling of Nations, the progress of Com∣merce and of Colonies, are plain Indications of the Novelty of the World: No sort of Trace remaining by which we can believe it to be Ancienter than the Books of Moses represent it to be: For though some Nations, such as the Egyptians and the Chineses have boasted of a much greater Antiquity; yet it is plain, we hear of no series of History for all those Ages; so that what they had relating to them, if it is not wholly a Fiction, might have been only in Astronomical Tables, which may be easily run backwards as well as forward. The very few Eclipses which Ptolomy could hear of, is a remarkable in∣stance of the Novelty of History; since the observing such an extra∣ordinary Accident in the Heavens, in so pure an Air, where the Sun was not only observed, but adored, must have been one of the first effe••ts of Learning or Industry. All these Characters of the Novelty of the World have been so well considered by Lucretius, and other Atheists, that they gave up the Point, and thought it evident that this present frame of Things had certainly a beginning.

The Solution that those men who found themselves driven from this of the World's being Eternal, have given to this difficulty, by saying that all things have run by chance into the Combinations and Channels in which we see Nature run, is so absurd, that it looks like men who are resolved to believe any thing, how absurd soever, rather than to acknowledge Religion. For what a strange conceit is it, to think that Chance could settle on such a regular and useful frame of things, and

continue so fixed and stable in it; and that Chance could do so much at once, and should do nothing ever since? The Constancy of the Celestial Motions; the Obliquity of the Zodiack, by which different Seasons are assigned to different Climates; the Divisions of this Globe into Sea and Land, to Hills and Vales; the Productions of the Earth, whether latent, such as Mines, Minerals, and other Fossils; or visi∣ble, such as Grass, Grain, Herbs, Flowers, Shrubs, and Trees; the small beginnings, and the curious Compositions of them: The Varie∣ty and curious Structure of Insects; the disposition of the Bodies of perfecter Animals; and above all, the Fabrick of the Body of Man, especially the curious Discoveries that Anatomy and Microscopes have given us; the strange beginning and progress of those; the Wonders that occur in every Organ of Sense, and the amazing Structure and Use of the Brain, are all such things, so Artificial, and yet so regular, and so exactly shap'd and fitted for their several Uses, that he who can believe all this to be Chance, seems to have brought his mind to di∣gest any Absurdity.

That all Men should resemble one another in the main things, and yet that every Man should have a peculiar Look, Voice, and way of Writing, is necessary to maintain Order and Distinction in Society: By these we know men if we either see them, hear them speak in the dark, or receive any Writing from them at a distance; without these, the whole Commerce of Life would be one continued course of Mistake and Confusion. This, I say, is such an Indication of Wisdom, that it looks like a Violence to Nature to think it can be otherwise.

The only Col••ur that has supported this monstrous Conceit, That things arise out of Chance, is, That it has long passed current in the World, That great Varieties of Insects do arise out of corrupted Matter. They argue, That if the Sun's shining on a Dunghil can give Life to such Swarms of curious Creatures, it is but a little more extraordinary to think that Animals and Men might have been formed out of well-disposed Matter, under a peculiar Aspect of the Heavens. But the exa••ter Observations that have been made in this Age by the help of Glasses, have put an end to this Answer, which is the best that Lucre∣tius and other Atheists found to rest in. It is now fully made out, That the Production of all Insects whatsoever, is in the way of Generation: H••at and Corruption do only hatch those Eggs, that Insects leave to a prodigious quantity every where. So that this, which is the only specious thing in the whole Plea for Atheism, is now given up by the Universal Consent of all the Enquirers into Nature.

And now to bring the force of this long Argument to a head: If this World was neither from all Eternity in the state in which it is at present, nor could fall into it by Chance or Accident, then it must follow, That it was put into the state in which we now see it, by a Being of vast Power and Wisdom. This is the great and solid Argu∣ment on which Religion rests; and it receives a vast accession of strength from this, That we plainly see Matter has not Motion in or of it self: Every part of it is at quiet till it is put in motion, that is not natural to it, for many Parts of Matter fall into a state of rest and quiet; so that Motion must be put in them by some Impulse or other. Matter, after it has pass'd through the highest Refinings and Rectifyings possible, becomes only more capable of Motion than it

was before, but still it is a Passive Principle, and must be put in Mo∣tion by some other Being. This has appeared so necessary even to those who have tried their utmost Force to make God as little needful as is possible in the Structure of the Universe, that they have yet been forced to own, That there must have been once a vast Motion given to Matter by the Supreme Mind.

A Third Argument for the Being of a God, is, That upon some great Occasions, and before a vast Number of Witnesses, some Per∣sons have wrought Miracles: That is, they have put Nature out of its Course, by some Words or Signs, that of themselves could not produce those extraordinary Effects: And therefore such Persons were assisted by a Power superior to the Course of Nature; and by con∣sequence there is such a Being, and That is God. To this the Atheists do First say, That we do not know the secret Virtues that are in Na∣ture; The Loadstone and Opium produce wonderful Effects; there∣fore unless we knew the whole Extent of Nature, we cannot define what is Supernatural and Miraculous, and what is not so. But though we cannot tell how far Nature may go, yet of some things we may without hesitation say they are beyond Natural Powers. Such were the Wonders that Moses wrought in Egypt and in the Wilderness, by the speaking a few Words, or the stretching out of a Rod. We are sure these could not by any Natural Efficiency produce those Won∣ders. And the like is to be said of the Miracles of Christ, particu∣larly of his raising the Dead to life again, and of his own Resur∣rection. These we are sure did not arise out of Natural Causes. The next thing Atheists say to this, is to dispute the Truth of the Facts: But of that I shall treat in another place, when the Authority of Re∣vealed Religion comes to be proved from those Facts. All that is necessary to be added here, is, That if Facts that are plainly Super∣natural, are proved to have been really done, then here is another clear and full Argument, to prove a Being superior to Nature, that can dispose of it at pleasure: And that Being must either be God, or some other Invisible Being, that has a Strength superior to the setled Course of Nature. And if Invisible Beings, superior to Nature, whether good or bad, are once acknowledged, a great Step is made to the Proof of the Supreme Being.

There is another famed Argument taken from the Idea of God; which is laid thus: That because one frames a Notion of Infinite Perfection, therefore there must be such a Being, from whom that No∣tion is conveyed to us. This Argument is also managed by other Methods, to give us a Demonstration of the Being of a God. I am un∣willing to say any thing to derogate from any Argument that is brought to prove this Conclusion; but when he who insists on this, lays all other Arguments aside, or at least slights them as not strong enough to prove the Point, this naturally gives Jealousy, when all those Rea∣sons that had for so many Ages been considered as solid Proofs, are neglected, as if this only could amount to a Demonstration. But besides, this is an Argument that cannot be offered by any to another Person, for his Conviction; since if he denies that he has any such Idea, he is without the reach of the Argument. And if a man will say that any such Idea which he may raise in himself, is only an Aggre∣gate that he makes of all those Perfections, of which he can form a

Thought, which he lays together, separating from them every Im∣perfection that he observes to be often mixed with some of those Perfections: If, I say, a Man will affirm this, I do not see that the In∣ference from any such Thought that he has formed within himself, can have any great force to persuade him that there is any such Being. Upon the whole, it seems to be fully proved, That there is a Being that is Superior to Matter, and that gave both Being and Order to it, and to all other things. This may serve to prove the Being of a God: It is fit in the next place to consider with all humble Modesty, what Thoughts we can or ought to have of the Deity.

That Supreme Being must have its Essence of it self necessarily and Eternally; for it is impossible that any thing can give it self Being; so it must be Eternal. And though Eternity in a Succession of Deter∣minate Durations was proved to be impossible, yet it is certain that something must be Eternal; either Matter, or a Being superior to it that has not a Duration defined by Succession, but is a simple Essence, and Eternally was, is, and shall be the same. There is nothing con∣tradictory to it self in this Notion: It is indeed above our Capacity to form a clear Thought of it; but it is plain it must be so, and that this is only a defect in our Nature and Capacity, that we cannot distinct∣ly apprehend that which is so far above us. Such a Being must have also necessary Existence in its Notion; for whatsoever is infinitely per∣fect, must necessarily exist; since we plainly perceive, that necessary Existence is a Perfection, and that contingent Existence is an Imper∣fection, which supposes a Being that is produced by another, and that depends upon it: And as this Superior Being did exist from all Eternity, so it is impossible it should cease to be; since nothing that once has actually a Being, can ever cease to be, but by an Act of a Superior Being annihilating it. But there being nothing superior to the Deity, it is impossible that it should ever cease to be: What was self-existent from all Eternity, must also be so to all Eternity; and it is as impossible that a simple Essence can annihilate it self, as that it can make it self.

So much concerning the First and Capital Article of all Religion, The Existence and Being of a God; which ought not to be proved by any Authorities from Scripture, unless from the Recitals that are given in it concerning Miracles, as was already hinted at. But as to the Authority of such Passages in Scripture, which affirm, That there is a God; it is to be considered, that before we can be bound to submit to them, we must believe Three Propositions antecedent to that. 1. That there is a God. 2. That all his Words are true. 3. That these are his Words. What therefore must be believed before we acknowledge the Scriptures, cannot be proved out of them. It is then a strange Assertion, to say, That the Being of a God cannot be proved by the Light of Nature, but must be proved by the Scriptures; since our being assured, That there is a God, is the First Principle up∣on which the Authority of the Scriptures depends.

The Second Proposition in the Article is, That there is but one God. As to this, the common Argument by which it is proved, is the or∣der of the World; from whence it is inferred, That there cannot be more Gods than one, since where there are more than one, there must happen diversity and confusion. This is by some thought to be no

good reason; for if there are more Gods, that is, more Beings infi∣nitely perfect, they will always think the same thing, and be knit to∣gether with an intire love. It is true, in things of a Moral Nature this must so happen: For Beings infinitely perfect must ever agree: But in Physical things, capable of no Morality, as in creating the World sooner or later, and the different Systems of Beings, with a thousand other things that have no Moral Goodness in them, different Beings infinitely perfect might have different Thoughts. So this Argument seems still of great force to prove the Unity of the Deity. The other Argument from Reason to prove the Unity of God, is from the No∣tion of a Being infinitely perfect. For a Superiority over all other Beings comes so naturally into the Idea of infinite Perfection, that we cannot separate it from it. A Being therefore, that has not all other Beings inferior and subordinate to it, cannot be infinitely per∣fect; whence it is evident, That there is but one God. But besides all this, the Unity of God seems to be so frequently and so plainly asserted in the Scripture, that we see it was the chief Design of the whole Old Testament, both of Moses and the Prophets to establish it, in opposition to the false opinions of the Heathen, concerning a diversity of Gods. This is often repeated in the most solemn Words, as Hear O Israel,* 1.4 the Lord our God is one God. It is the First of the Ten Com∣mandments, Thou shalt have no other Gods but me. And all things in Heaven and Earth are often said to be made by this one God. Negative words are also often used,* 1.5 There is none other God but one: be∣sides me there is none else, and I know no other; the going after other Gods is reckon'd the highest, and the most unpardonable act of Ido∣latry. The New Testament goes on in the same strain. Christ speaks of the only true God, and that he alone ought to be worshipped and served;* 1.6 all the Apostles do frequently affirm the same thing: They make the believing of one God in opposition to the many Gods of the Heathens, the chief Article of the Christian Religion; and they lay down this as the chief ground of our Obligation to mutual Love and Union among our selves,* 1.7 That there is one God, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. Now since we are sure that there is but one Messias and one Doctrine delivered by him, it will clearly follow, that there must be but one God.

So the Unity of the Divine Essence is clearly proved both from the Order and Government of the World, from the Idea of Infinite Per∣fection, and from those express Declarations that are made concerning it in the Scriptures; which last is a full proof to all such as own and submit to them.

The Third Head in this Article, is that which is negatively ex∣pressed, That God is without Body, Parts, or Passions. In general, all these are so plainly contrary to the Ideas of Infinite Perfection, and they appear so evidently to be Imperfections, that this part of the Article will need little Explanation. We do plainly perceive that our Bodies are clogs to our Minds: And all the use that even the purest sort of Body in an Estate conceived to be glorified, can be of to a Mind, is to be an Instrument of local Motion, or to be a repository of Ideas for Memory and Imagination: But God, who is every where, and is one pure and simple Act, can have no such use for a Body. A Mind dwelling in a Body, is in many respects superior to it; yet in some

respects is under it. We who feel how an Act of our Mind can so di∣rect the Motions of our Body, that a thought sets our Limbs and Joints a-going, can from thence conceive, how that the whole extent of Matter, should receive such Motions as the Acts of the Supreme Mind give it: But yet not as a Body united to it, or that the Deity either needs such a Body, or can receive any trouble from it. Thus far the apprehension of the thing is very plainly made out to us. Our thoughts put some parts of our Body in a present Motion, when the Organization is regular, and all the parts are exact; and when there is no Obstruction in those Vessels or Passages through which that heat, and those Spirits do pass that cause the motion. We do in this per∣ceive, that a thought does command matter; but our Minds are li∣mited to our Bodies, and these do not obey them, but as they are in an exact disposition and a fitness to be so moved. Now these are plain Imperfections; but removing them from God, we can from hence apprehend that all the Matter in the Universe may be so in∣tirely subject to the Divine Mind, that it shall move and be what∣soever, and wheresoever he will have it to be. This is that which all men do agree in.

But many of the Philosophers thought that Matter, though it was moved and moulded by God, at his pleasure, yet was not made by him, but was self-existent, and was a Passive Principle, but coexistent to the Deity, which they thought was the Active Principle: From whence some have thought, that the belief of two Gods, one good and another bad, did spring: Though others imagine that the belief of a bad God did arise from the corruption of that Tradition con∣cerning fallen Angels, as was before suggested. The Philosophers could not apprehend that things could be made out of nothing, and therefore they believed that Matter was co-eternal with God. But it is as hard to apprehend how a Mind by its Thought should give Mo∣tion to Matter, as how it should give it Being. A Being not made by God, is not so easily conceivable to be under the acts of his Mind, as that which is made by him. This conceit plainly destroys infinite Perfection, which cannot be in God, if all Beings are not from him, and under his Authority; besides that successive duration has been already proved inconsistent with Eternity. This Opinion of the World's being a Body to God, as the Mind that dwells in it, and actuates it, is the foundation of Atheism: For if it be once thought that God can do nothing without such a Body; then, as this destroys the Idea of Infinite Perfection, so it makes way to this conceit, That since Matter is Visible, and God Invisible, there is no other God, but the vast extent of the Universe: It is true God has often shewed himself in visible Appearances; but that was only his putting a spe∣cial quantity of Matter into such Motions, as should give a great and astonishing Idea of his Nature, from that Appearance: Which was both the effect of his Power, and the symbol of his Presence. And thus what glorious Representations soever were made either on Mount Sinai, or in the Pillar of the Cloud, and Cloud of Glory, those were no Indications of God's having a Body; but were only Manifestations, suited to beget such thoughts in the Minds of Men, that dwelt in Bodies, as might lay the Principles and Foundations of Religion deep in them: The Language of the Scriptures speaks to the

Capacities of men, and even of rude men in dark times, in which most of the Scriptures were writ: But though God is spoke of as having a face, eyes, ears, a smelling, hands and feet, and as coming down to view Things on Earth, all this is expressed after the manner of men, and is to be understood in a way suitable to a pure Spirit. For the great care that was used even under the most imperfect State of Revelation, to keep men from framing any Image or Similitude of the Deity, shewed that it was far from the meaning of those expres∣sions, that God had an Organized Body. These do therefore signify only the several Varieties of Providence. When God was pleased with a Nation, his face was said to shine upon it; for so a man looks towards those whom he loves. The particular care he takes of them, and the answering their Prayers, is expressed by Figures borrowed from Eyes and Ears: The peculiar Dispensations of Rewards and Pu∣nishments are expressed by his hands; and the exactness of his Justice and Wisdom, is expressed by coming down to view the State of human Affairs. Thus it is clear that God has no Body: Nor has he Parts, for we can apprehend no Parts but of a Body: So since it is certain that God has no Body, he can have no Parts: Something like Parts does indeed belong to Spirits, which are their Thoughts distinct from their Being, and they have a Succession of them, and do oft change them. But Infinite Perfection excludes this from the Idea of God; successive Thoughts as well as successive Duration, seem inconsistent both with Eternity, and with Infinite Perfection. Therefore the Es∣sence of God is one perfect Thought, in which he both views and wills all Things: And though his Transient Acts that pass out of the Divine Essence, such as Creation, Providence, and Mira∣cles, are done in a Succession of time; yet his Immanent Acts, his Knowledge and his Decrees are one with his Essence. Distinct Thoughts are plainly an Imperfection, and argue a Progress in Know∣ledge, and a Deliberation in Council, which carry Defect and Infirmi∣ty in them. To conceive how this is in God, is far above our Capa∣city: Who though we feel our imperfection in successive Acts; yet cannot apprehend how all things can be both seen and determined by one single Thought. But the Divine Essence being so infinitely above us, it is no wonder if we can frame no distinct Act concerning its Knowledge or Will.

There is indeed a vast difficulty that arises here; for those Acts of God are supposed free; so that they might have been otherwise than we see they are: And then it is not easy to imagine how they should be one with the Divine Essence; to which necessary Existence does certainly belong. It cannot be said that those acts are necessary, and could not be otherwise: For since all God's Transient Acts are the certain Effects of his Immanent ones, if the Immanent ones are ne∣cessary, then the Transient must be so likewise, and so every thing must be necessary: A Chain of necessary Fa••e must run through the whole Order of Things: And God himself then is no free Being, but acts by a necessity of Nature. This some have thought was no Absurdity: God is necessarily just, true, and good, not by any ex∣trinsick Necessity, for that would import an outward limitation, which destroys the Idea of God; but by an Intrinsick Necessity that arises from his own Infinite Perfection; some have from hence thought that

since God acts by Infinite Wisdom and Goodness, things could not have been otherwise than they are: For what is infinitely wise or good cannot be altered, or made either better or worse. But this seems on the other hand very hard to conceive: For it would follow from thence that God could neither have made the World sooner nor later, nor any other way than as now it is: Nor could he have done any one thing otherwise than as it is done. This seems to establish Fate, and to destroy Industry, and all Prayers and Endeavours. Thus there are such great difficulties on all hands in this matter, That it is much the wisest and safest course to adore what is above our Apprehensions, rather than to enquire too curiously, or determine too boldly in it. It is certain that God Acts both freely and perfectly: Nor is he a Being subject to change, or to new acts; but he is what he is, both Infinite and Incomprehensible: We can neither apprehend how he made, nor how he executes his Decrees. So we must leave this difficulty, without pretending that we can explain it, or answer the Objections that arise against all the several ways by which Divines have endeavoured to resolve it.

The Third thing under the Head I now consider, is, God's being without Passions. That will be soon explained. Passion is an Agitation that supposes a Succession of Thoughts, together with a Trouble for what is past, and a fear of missing what is aimed at. It arises out of a Heat of Mind, and produces a Vehemence of Action: Now all these are such manifest imperfections, that it does plainly appear they cannot consist with Infinite Perfection. Yet after all this, there are several Passions, such as Anger, Fury, Iealousy, and Revenge, Bowels of Mercy, Compassion and Pity, Ioy and Sorrow, that are ascribed to God in the common Forms of Spe••ch, that occur often in Scripture, as was form••rly observed, with relation to those Figures that are ta∣ken from the Parts of a Human Body. Passion produces a Vehemence of A••tion; So when ther•• is in the Providences of God such a Vehe∣mence as according to the manner of men would import a Passion, then that Passion is ascribed to God: When he punishes men for Sin, he is said to be Angry: when he does that by severe and redoubled Strokes, he is said to be full of Fury and Revenge: When he pu∣nishes for Idolatry, or any dishonour done himself, he is said to be Iealous: When he changes the Course of his Proceedings, he is said to Repent: When his Dispensations of Providence are very gentle, and his Judgments come slowly from him, he is said to have Bowels. And thus all the Varieties of Providence come to be expressed by all that Variety of Passions, which among men might give oceasion to such a Variety of Proceeding.

The Fourth Head in this Article is concerning the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, of God, that he is Infinite in them. If he can give Being to things that are not, and can also give all the possibilities of Motion, Size and Shape, to Beings that do exist, here is Power without bounds. A Power of Creating must be Infinite; since nothing can resist it. If some things are in their own nature impossible, that does not arise from the want of Power in God, which extends to every thing that is possible: But that which is supposed to be impossible of its own nature, can∣not actually be: Otherwise a thing might both be and not be; and it is pe••ceptible to every man that this is impossible. It is not want of

Power in God that he cannot lye nor sin: It is the Infinite Purity of the Divine Nature that makes this impossible, by reason of his Infi∣nite Perfection. Nor is it a want of Power in God, That the Truth of Propositions concerning things that are past, as that Yesterday once was, is unalterable. Among Impossibilities, one is, To take from any Being that which is essential to it. God can annihilate every Being at his Pleasure; for as he gave Being with a Thought, so he can destroy it with another: And this does fully assert the Infinite Power of God. But if he has made Beings with such peculiar Essen∣ces, as that Matter must be extended and impenetrable, and that it is capable of peculiar Surfaces and other Modes, which are only its different Sizes and Shapes, then Matter cannot be and yet not be ex∣tended; nor can these Modes subsist, if the Matter of which they are the Modes, is withdrawn. The Infinite Power of God is fully believed by those who acknowledge both his Power of Creating and Annihilating; together with a Power of disposing of the whole Crea∣tion, according to the possibilities of every Part or Individual of it; though they cannot conceive a possibility of separating the essential Properties of any Being from it s••lf; that is to say, That it may both be, and not be, at the same time; since an essential Property is that which cannot be without that Substance to which it belongs.

The Wisdom of God consists first in his seeing all the possibilities of things, and then in his knowing all things that either are, or ever were or shall be: The former is called the knowledge of simple Intel∣ligence or Apprehension; the other is called the knowledge of Vision. The one arises from the Perfection of the Divine Essence, by which he apprehends whatever is possible; the other arises from his own De∣crees, in which the whole Order of things is fixed. But besides these two Ideas that w•• can frame of the Knowledge of God, some have imagined a third Knowledge; which because it is of a middle Order b••twixt Intelligence and Vision, th••y have called a middle Knowledge; which is the knowing certainly how, according to all the possibilities of Circumstances in which Free Agents might be put, they should chuse and act. Some have thought that this was a vain and needless Conceit; and that it is impossible that such Knowledge should be cer∣tain, or more than conjectural; and since Conjecture implies Doubt, it is an Imp••rfect Act, and so does not become a Being of Infinite Per∣f••ction. But others have thought, that the Infinite Perfection of the Divine Mind must go so far as to foresee certainly what Free Creatures are to do; since upon this Foresight only they imagine that the Justice or Goodness of God in his Providence can be made out or defended. It seemed fit to mention this upon the present occasion; but it will be then proper to enquire more carefully about it, when the Article of Predestination is explained.

It is necessary to state the Idea of the Goodness of God most carefully; for we naturally enough frame great and just Ideas of Power and Wisdom, but we easily fall into false Conceits of Goodness. This is that of all the Divine Perfections in which we are the most concerned, and so we ought to be the most careful to frame true Ideas of it: It is also that, of all God's Attributes, of which the Scriptures speak most copi∣ously. Infinite Goodness is a Tendency to communicate the Divine Perfections to all created Beings, according to their several Capaci∣ties.

God is Original Goodness, all perfect and happy in himself, acting and seeing every thing in a perfect Light; and he having made Rational Beings capable of some degrees of his Light, Purity, and Perfection, the first and primary Act of Goodness is to propose to them such Means as may raise them to these, to furnish them with them, to move them oft to them, to accept and to assist their sincere Endeavours after them. A second Act of Goodness, which is but in order to the first, is to pity those Miseries into which men fall as long as there is any Principle or Possibility left in them of their be∣coming good; to pardon all such sins as men have committed, who turn to the purposes of becoming seriously good, and to pass by all the fralities and errors of those who are truly and upon the main good, though Surprize and strong Temptations prove often too hard for them. These two give us as full an Idea as we can have, of per∣fect Goodness; whose first Aim must be the making us good, and like to that Original Goodness; Pity and Pardon coming in but in a subsidiary way, to carry on the main design of making men truly good. Therefore the chief Act and Design of Goodness, is the making us truly good; and when any person falls below that possibility, he is no more the Object of Pity or Pardon, because he is no more capa∣ble of becoming good. Pardon is offered on design to make us really good; so it is not to be sought for, nor rested in, but in order to a further End, which is the reforming our Natures, and the making us Partakers of the Divine Nature. We are not therefore to frame Ideas of a feeble Goodness in God, that yields to importunate Cries, or that melts at a vast degree of Misery. Tenderness in Human Nature is a great Ornament and Perfection, necessary to dispose us to much Benignity and Mercy: But in the common Administration of Justice, this Tenderness must be restrained; otherwise it would slacken the Rigor of Punishment too much, which might dissolve the Order and Peace of Human Societies. But since we cannot see into the truth of mens hearts, a charitable Disposition and a compassionate Temper are necessary, to make men sociable and kind, gentle and human. God, who sees our hearts, and is ever assisting all our Endeavours to be∣come truly good, needs not this Tenderness, nor is he indeed capa∣ble of it; for after all its Beauty with relation to the State wherein we are now put, yet in it self it implies Imperfection. Nor can the Miseries and Howlings of wicked Beings, after all the Seeds and Pos∣sibilities of Goodness are utterly extinguished in them, give any Pity to the Divine Being: These are no longer the Objects of the Primary Act of his Goodness, and therefore they cannot come under its Se∣condary Acts. It is of such great Consequence to settle this Notion right in our minds, that it well deserves to be so copiously opened; since we now see in what respects God's Goodness is without bounds, and Infinite; that is, it reaches to all men, after all Sins whatsoever, as long as they are capable of becoming good. It is not a Limitation of the Divine Goodness to say, that some Men and some States are beyond it; no more than it is a Limitation of his Power, to say that He cannot sin, or cannot do Impossibilities: For a Goodness towards Persons not capable of becoming good, is a Goodness that does not agree with the Infinite Purity and Holiness of God. It is such a Goodness, that if it were proposed to the World, it would encourage

men to live in Sin, and to think that a sew Acts of Homage offered to God, perhaps in our last Extremities, could so far please him, as to bribe and corrupt him.

This is that which makes Idolatry so great a Sin, so often forbid by God, and so severely punished, not only as it is injurious to the Majesty of God, but because it corrupts the Ideas or Notions of God. Those Ideas rightly formed, are the Basis upon which all Religion is built. The Seeds and Principles of a new and a Godlike nature spring up in us, as we form our selves upon the true Ideas or Notions of God. Therefore when God is proposed to be adored by us un∣der a Visible Shape or Image, all the Acts of Religion offered to it are only so many pieces of Pageantry, and end in the flatterings and the magnifyings of it, with much Pomp, Cruelty, or Lasciviousness, according to the different Genius of several Nations. So the forming a false Notion of the Goodness of God, as a Tenderness that is to be overcome with Importunities and Howlings, and other Submissions, and not to be gained only by becoming like him, is a Capital and Fun∣damental Error in Religion.

The next Branch of this Article is, God's creating and preserving of all things; and that both Material Substances, which are Visible, and Immaterial and Spiritual Substances, which are Invisible. God's crea∣ting all things, has been already made out: If Matter could neither be Eternal, nor give it self a Being, then it must have its Being from God. Creating does naturally import Infinite Power; for that Power is clearly without bounds, that can make things out of nothing: A bounded Power, which can only shape and mould Matter, must sup∣pose it to have a Being, before it can work upon it. We cannot in∣deed form a distinct Thought of Creation, for we cannot apprehend what nothing is. The nearest approach we can bring our selves to a true Idea of this, is the considering our own Thoughts; especially our Ideas of Mathematical Proportions, and the other Affections of Bodies: Those Ideas are the Modes of a Spiritual Substance; and there is no likeness nor resemblance between them, and the Modes of Material Substances, which are only the occasions of our having those Ideas, and not in any wise the Matter out of which they are formed. Here seems to be a sort of Beings brought out of nothing; but after all, this is vastly below Creation, and is only a faint resemblance of it.

With the Power of Creating we must also join that of Annihilating, which is equal to it, and must necessarily be supposed to be in God, because we plainly perceive it to be a Perfection. The recalling into Nothing, a Being brought out of Nothing, is a necessary consequence of Infinite Power, when it thinks fit so to exert it self. There is a common Notion in the World; That things would fall back into No∣thing of themselves, if they were not preserved by the same Infinite Power that made them: But without question it is an Act of the same Infinite Power to reduce a Being to Nothing, that it is to bring a Being out of Nothing: So whatever has once a Being, must of its Nature continue still to be, without any new Causality or Influence. This must be acknowledged, unless it can be said, That a Tendency to Annihilation is the Consequent of a Created Being: But as this would make the Preservation of the World to be a continued Violence to a

Natural Tendency that is in all things; so there is no more rea∣son to imagine that Beings have a Tendency to Annihilation, than that Nothing had a Tendency to Creation. It is absurd to think that any thing can have a Tendency to that which is essentially opposite to it self, and is destructive of it.

The Preservation of things, is the keeping the Frame of Nature and the Order of the Universe in such a state as is suitable to the Purposes of the Supreme Mind. It is true, Natural Agents must ever keep the Course in which they are once put; and the great Hea∣venly Orbs, as well as all smaller Motions, must ever have rowled on in one constant Channel, when they were once put into it; so in this respect it may seem that Conservation by a special Act is not necessary. But we perceive a Freedom in our own Natures, and a Power that our Minds have, not only to move our own Bodies, but by them, and by the help of such Engines as we can invent, we make a vast change in this Earth from what it would be, if it were left unwrought. In a course of some Ages, the whole World, by the Natural Progress of things, would be a Forest: Both Earth and Air are very much diffe∣rent from what they would be, if Men were not Free Agents, and did not cultivate the Earth, and thereby purify the Air. The work∣ing of Mines, Minerals, and other Fossils, makes also a great change in its Bowels; it gives Vent to some Damps which might much affect the Air, and it frees the Earth from Earthquakes. Thus the Industry of Man has in many respects changed both Earth and Air very sensibly from what it would have been, if the World had not those Inhabitants in it. Nor do we know what Natural Force other Spirits inhabiting in or about it, or at least using subtiller Bodies, may have, or in what Influences or Operations they may exert that Force on Material Sub∣stances. Upon all these accounts it is, that the World could not be preserved in a constant and regular state, if the Supreme Mind had not a direction both of mens Wills and Actions, and of the Course of Nature: For unless it is thought that Man is really no Free Agent, but a••ts in a Chain as certainly as other Natural Agents do, it must be acknowledged, that by the Interposition of mens Minds, together with their Power over Matter, the Course of the first Motion that was given to the Universe, is so changed, that if there is not a con∣stant Providence, the Frame of Nature must go out of the Channel into which God did at first put it. The Order of Things on this Earth, takes a great Turn from the Wind, both as to the Fruitfulness of the Earth, and to the Operations on the Sea, and has likewise a great In∣fluence on the Purity of the Air, and by consequence on mens good or ill Health; and the Wind, or the Agitation of the Air, turns so often and so quick, that it seems to be the great Instrument of Providence, upon which an unconceivable variety of things does naturally depend. I do not deny, but that it may be said, that all those Changes in the Air arise from Certain and Mechanical, though to us unknown Causes; which may be supported from this, That between the Tropicks, where the Influence of the Heavenly Bodies is stronger, the Wind and Weather are more Regular; though even that admits of great Exceptions: Yet it has been the common Sense of Mankind, That besides the Natural Causes of the Alterations in the Air, they are un∣der a particular Influence and Direction of Providence: And it is in

it self highly probable, to say no more of it. This may either be managed immediately by the Acts of the Divine Mind, to which Na∣ture readily obeys, or by some subaltern Mind or Angel, which may have as Natural an Efficiency over an Extent of Matter proportioned to its Capacity, as a Man has over his own Body, and over that compass of Matter that is within his reach. Which way soever God governs the World, and what Influence soever he has over Mens Minds, we are sure that the governing and preserving his own Work∣manship is so plainly a Perfection, that it must belong to a Being infi∣nitely perfect: And there is such a Chain in things, those of the greatest consequence arising often from small and inconsiderable ones, that we cannot imagine a Providence, unless we believe every thing to be within its Care and View.

The only difficulty that has been made in apprehending this, has arisen from the Narrowness of Mens Minds, who have measured God rather by their own Measure and Capacity, than by that of Infinite Perfection, which as soon as it is considered, will put an end to all further doubtings about it. When we perceive that a vast Number of Objects enter in at our Eye by a very small Passage, and yet are so little jumbled in that Crowd, that they open themselves regularly, though there is no great space for that neither; and that they give us a distinct apprehension of many Objects that lye before us, some even at a vast distance from us, both of their Nature, Colour, and Size; and by a secret Geometry, from the Angles that they make in our Eye, we judge of the distance of all Objects both from us, and from one another. If to this we add the vast Number of Figures that we receive and retain long, and with great order in our Brains, which we easily fetch up either in our Thoughts or in our Discourses; we shall find it less difficult to apprehend how an Infinite Mind should have the Universal View of all things ever present before it. It is true, we do not so easily conceive how Free Minds are under this Pro∣vidence, as how Natural Agents should always move at its direction. But we perceive that one Mind can work upon another: A man raises a sound of Words, which carry such signs of his inward Thoughts, that by this Motion in the Air another Man's Ear is so struck upon, that thereby an impression is made upon his Brain, by which he not only conceives what the other Man's Thought was, but is very pow∣erfully inclined to consent to it, and to concur with it. All this is a great way about, and could not be easily apprehended by us, if we had not a clear and constant Perception of it. Now since all this is brought about by a Motion upon our Brains, according to the force with which we are more or less affected, it is very reasonable for us to apprehend that the Supreme Mind can, besides many other ways to us less known, put such Motions in our Brain, as may give us all such Thoughts as it intends to impress upon us, in as strong and ef∣fectual a manner, as may fully answer all its purposes.

The great Objection that lies against the Power and the Goodness of Providence, from all that Evil that is in the World, which God is either not willing, or not able to hinder, will be more properly considered in another place; at present it is enough in general to observe, That God's Providence must carry on every thing according to its Nature; and since he has made some Free Beings capable of Thought,

and of Good and Evil, we must believe, That as the Course of Na∣ture is not oft put out of its Channel, unless when some extraordi∣nary thing is to be done, in order to some great End; so in the Go∣vernment of free Agents, they must be generally left to their liberty, and not put too oft off of their Biass: This is a hint to resolve that difficulty by, concerning all the Moral Evil which is, generally speak∣ing, the occasion of most of the Physical Evil that is in the World. A Providence thus setled, that extends it self to all things both natural and free, is necessary to preserve Religion, to engage us to Prayers, Praises, and to a dependence on it, and a submission to it. Some have thought it was necessary to carry this further, and so they make God to be the first and immediate cause of every Action or Motion. This some Modern Writers have taken from the Schools, and have drest it in new Phrases of General Laws, Particular Wills, and Occasional Causes; and so they express or explain God's producing every Motion that is in Matter, and his raising every Sensation, and by the same parity of Reason, every Cogitation in Minds: This they think arises out of the Idea of Infinite Perfection, and fully answers these words of the Scriptures, That in God we live, move, and have our being. To others all this seems first unnecessary; for if God has made Matter capable of Motion, and capable of receiving it from the Stroke or Impulse that another piece of Matter gives it, This comes as truly from God, as if he did immediately give every Motion by an act of his own Will. It seems more suitable to the Beauty of his Workmanship, to think that he has so framed things that they hold on in that course in which he has put them, than to make him perpetually produce every new Motion. And the bringing God immediately into every thing, may by an Odd Reverse of Effects, make the World think that every thing is done as much without him, as others are apt to imagine that every thing is done by him. And though it is true that we cannot distinctly apprehend how a Motion in our Brain should raise such a Thought as Answers to it in our Minds; yet it seems more reasonable to think that God has put us under such an Order of Being from which that does naturally follow, than that he himself should interpose in every Thought. The difficulty of apprehending how a thing is done, can be no prejudice to the belief of it, when we have the Infinite Power of God in our Thoughts, who may be as easily conceived to have once for all put us in a method of receiving such Sensations, by a general Law or Course of Nature, as to give us new ones at every Minute. But the greatest difficulty against this is, That it makes God the first Physical cause of all the Evil that is in the World: Which as it is con∣trary to his Nature, so it absolutely destroys all Liberty, and this puts an end to all the distinctions between Good and Evil, and consequently to all Religion. And as for those large Expressions that are brought from Scripture, every word in Scripture is not to be stretched to the utmost Physical sense to which it can be carried: It is enough if a sense is given to it, that agrees to the Scope of it: Which is fully Answered by acknowledging, That the Power and Providence of God is over all things, and that it directs every thing to Wise and Good Ends, from which nothing is hid, by which nothing is forgot, and to which nothing can resist. This Scheme of Providence fully agrees with the Notion of a Being Infinitely perfect, and with all that the

Scriptures affirm concerning it; and it lays down a firm Foundation for all the Acts and Exercises of Religion.

As to the Power and Providence of God with relation to Invisible Beings, we plainly perceive that there is in us a Principle capable of Thought and Liberty, of which, by all that appears to us, Matter is not at all capable; After its utmost Refinings by Fires and Furna∣ces, it is still passive, and has no Self-Motion, much less Thought in it. Thought seems plainly to arise from a single Principle, that has no Parts, and is quite another thing than the Motion of one subtle piece of Matter upon another can be supposed to be. If Thought is only Motion, then no part of us thinks, but as it is in Motion: So that only the moving Particles, or rather their Surfaces, that strike upon one another, do think: But such a Motion must end quickly, in the Dissipation and Evaporation of the whole thinking-Substance; nor can any of the quiescent Parts have any Perception of such Thoughts, or any Reflection upon them. And to say that Matter may have other Affections unknown to us besides Motion, by which it may think, is to affirm a thing without any sort of Reason: It is rather a flying from an Argument, than an Answering it: No man has any reason to affirm this, nor can he have any. And besides, all our Cogitations of Immaterial Things, Proportions, and Numbers, do plainly show that we have a Being in us distinct from Matter, that rises above it, and commands it: We perceive we have a freedom of Moving and Acting at pleasure. All these Things give us a clear Perception of a Being that is in us distinct from Matter, of which we are not able to form a compleat Idea: We having only four Perceptions of its Nature and Operations. 1. That it thinks. 2. That it has an inward Power of Choice. 3. That by its Will it can move and command the Body. And 4. That it is in a close and intire Union with it, That it has a dependance on it, as to many of its Acts, as well as an Authority over it in many other Things. Such a Being that has no Parts must be immortal in its Nature, for every single Being is immortal. It is only the Union of Parts that is capable of being dissolved; that which has no parts, is indissoluble. To this Two Objections are made: One is, That Beasts seem to have both Thought and Freedom, though in a lower Order; if then Matter can be capable of this in any Degree, how low soever, a higher Rectification of Matter may be capable of a higher Degree of it. It is therefore certain, That either Beasts have no Thought or Liberty at all, and are only pieces of finely Organised Matter, capable of many subtile Motions, that come to them from Objects without them, but that they have no Sensation nor Thought at all about them; or, since how prettily soever some may have dressed up this Notion, it is that which Human Nature cannot receive or bear; there being such evident Indications of even high degrees of Reason among the Beasts; it is more reasonable to imagine, That there may be Spirits of a lower order in Beasts, that have in them a capacity of Thinking and Chusing; but that so intirely under the Impressions of Matter, that they are not capable of that largeness either of Thought or Liberty, that is necessary to make them capable of Good or Evil, of Rewards and Punishments: And that therefore they may be perpetually rouling about from one Body to another. Ano∣ther Objection to the belief of an Immaterial Substance in us, is, That

we feel it depends so intirely on the Fabrick and State of the Brain, that a Disorder, a Vapour, or Humour in it, defaces all our Thoughts, our Memory, and Imagination; and since we find that which we call Mind, sinks so low upon a disorder of the Body, it may be reasonable to believe, That it Evaporates, and is quite Dissipated upon the Dissolution of our Bodies: So that the Soul is nothing but the livelier Parts of the Blood, called the Animal Spirits. In Answer to this, we know that those Animal Spirits are of such an Evanid and Subtile Nature, that they are in a perpetual Waste, new ones always succeeding as the for∣mer go off; but we perceive at the same time that our Soul is a Stable and Permanent Being, by the steddiness of its Acts and Thoughts: We being for many Years plainly the same Beings, and therefore our Souls cannot be such a Loose and Evaporating Substance, as those Spirits are. The Spirits are indeed the inward Organs of the Mind, for Memory, Speech, and bodily Motion; and as these flatten or are wasted, the Mind is less able to Act: As when the Eye or any other Organ of Sense is weakned, the Sensations grow feeble on that side: And as a Man is less able to work when all those Instruments he makes use of are blunted; so the Mind may sink upon a decay or disorder in those Spirits, and yet be of a Nature wholly different from them. How a Mind should work on Matter, cannot, I confess, be clearly comprehended. It cannot be denied by any that is not a direct Atheist, That the Thoughts of the Supreme Mind give Impressions and Motions to Matter. So our Thoughts may give a Motion, or the Determination of Motion to Matter, and yet rise from Substances wholly different from it. Nor is it unconceivable, That the Supreme Mind should have put our Minds likewise under such a Subordinati∣on to some material Motions, that out of them peculiar Thoughts should arise in us. And though this Union is that which we cannot di∣stinctly conceive; yet there is no difficulty in it, equal to that of our imagining that Matter can think or move it self. We perceive that we our selves, and the rest of Mankind have thinking Principles within us; so from thence it is easy enough to us to apprehend, That there may be other thinking Beings, which either have no Bodies at all, but act purely as Intellectual Substances; or if they have Bodies, that they are so subtilised as to be capable of a vast quickness of Motion, such in proportion as we perceive to be in our Animal Spirits, which in the Minute that our minds command them, are raising Motions in the remotest parts of our Bodies. Such Bodies may also be so thin as to be invisible to us; and as among Men some are Good and some Bad, and of the Bad some seem to be determinedly, and as to all appear∣ance, incurably Bad: so there may have been a Time and State of Liberty, in which those Spirits were left to their choice, whether they would continue in their Innocency, or fall from it; and such as con∣tinued, might be for ever fixed in that State, or Exalted to higher Degrees in it: And such as fell from it might fall irrecoverably into a state of utter Apostacy from God, and of Rebellion against him. There is nothing in this Theory that is incredible: Therefore if the Scrip∣tures have told us any thing concerning it, we have no reason to be prejudiced against them upon that account: Besides that, there are innumerable Histories in many several Countries and Ages of the World, of extraordinary Apparitions, and other unaccountable Per∣formances

that could only have been done by Invisible Powers. Ma∣ny of those are so well attested, that it argues a strange pitch of Ob∣stinacy, to refuse to believe a Matter of Fact when it is well vouched, and when there is nothing in reason to oppose it, but an unwilling∣ness to believe Invisible Beings. It is true, this is an Argument in which a fabulous Humour will go far, and in which some are so cre∣dulous as to swallow down every thing: Therefore all wise men ought to suspend their belief, and not to go too fast; but when things are so undeniably attested, that there is no reason to question the exact∣ness or the credit of the Witnesses, it argues a Mind unreasonably prepossessed to reject all such Evidence.

All those Invisible Beings were created by God, and are not to be considered as Emanations or Rays of his Essence, which was a gross Conceit of such Philosophers as fancied that the Deity had Parts. They are Beings Created by him, and are capable of passing through various Scenes, in Bodies more or less refined: In this Life the State of our Minds receives vast Alterations from the State of our Bodies, which ripen gradually: And after they are come to their full growth, they cannot hold in that condition long, but sink down much faster than they grew up; some Humours or Diseases discomposing the Brain, which is the Seat of the Mind so entirely, that it cannot serve it, at least so far as to Reflex Acts. So in the next State it is possible that we may at first be in a less perfect condition by reason of this, that we may have a less perfect Body, to which we may be united between our Death, and the General Resurrection; and there may be a time in which we may receive a vast Addition and Exaltation in that State, by the raising up of our former Bodies, and the reuniting us to them, which may give us a greater compass, and a higher Ele∣vation.

These things are only proposed as Suppositions, that have no Ab∣surdity in them: So that if they should happen to be the Parts of a Revealed Religion, there is no reason to doubt of it, or to reject it on such an Account.

The Last Branch of this Article is, The Assertion of that great Doctrine of the Christian Religion concerning the Trinity, or Three Persons in one Divine Essence. It is a vain attempt to go about to prove this by Reason: For it must be confessed, That we should have had no cause to have thought of any such thing, if the Scriptures had not Revealed it to us. There are indeed Prints of a very Ancient Tradition in the World, of Three in the Deity; called the Word, or the Wisdom, and the Spirit, or the Love, besides the Foun∣tain of both these, God: This was believed by those from whom the most Ancient Philosophers had their Doctrines. The Author of the Book of Wisdom, Philo, and the Chaldee Paraphrasts, have many things that shew that they had received those Traditions from the former Ages; but it is not so easy to determine what gave the first rise of them.

It has been much argued, whether this was Revealed in the Old Testament or not; some from the Plural Termination of Elohim, which is joined to Singular Verbs, and from that of the Lord Raining Fire from the Lord upon Sodom (Iehovah from Iehovah); from the Description of the Wisdom of God in the 8th of the Proverbs, as a

person with God from all Eternity; and from the mention that is of∣ten made of the Spirit, as well as the Word of God that came to the Prophets; they have, I say, from all these places, and some others, concluded, that this is contained in the Old Testament. Others have doubted of this, and have said, that the Name Elohim, though of a Plural Termination, being often joined to a Singular Verb, makes it reasonable to think it was a Singular: which by somewhat pecu∣liar to that Language, might be of a Plural Termination. Nor have they thought, That since Angels carry the Name of God, when they went on special Deputations from him, the Angels being called Iehovah, could be very confidently urged: That Sublime Description of the Wisdom of God in the Proverbs, seems not to them to be a full proof in this Matter: For the Wisdom there mentioned seems to be the Wisdom of Creation and Providence, which is not personal, but belongs to the Essence: Nor do they think that those places in the Old Testament, in which mention is made of the Word, or of the Spirit ofGod, can settle this Point; for these may only signify God's Revealing himself to his Prophets. Therefore whatever secret Tradition the Iews might have had among them concerning this, from whom perhaps the Greeks might have also had it; yet many do not pretend to prove this from passages in the Old Testament alone: Though the Expositions given to some of them in the New Testament prove to us who acknow∣ledge it, what was the true meaning of those Passages; yet take the Old Testament in it self without the New, and it must be confessed, That it will not be easy to prove this Article from it.

But there are very full and clear proofs of it in the New Testa∣ment; And they had need be both full and clear before a Doctrine of this Nature can be pretended to be proved by them. In order to the making this Mystery to be more distinctly Intelligible, different Methods have been taken. By one Substance many do understand a Numerical or Individual Unity of Substance; and by Three Persons they understand Three distinct Subsistences in that Essence. It is not pretended by these, that we can give a distinct Idea of Person or Sub∣sistence, only they hold it imports a real diversity in one from another, and even such a diversity from the Substance of the Deity it self, that some things belong to the Person, that do not belong to the Substance: For the Substance neither begets, nor is begotten; neither breathes, nor proceeds. If this carries in it somewhat that is not agreeable to our Notions, nor like any thing that we can apprehend; to this it is said, That if God has Revealed that in the Scripture which is thus expressed, we are bound to believe it, though we can frame no clear apprehension about it. God's Eternity, his being all one single Act, his Creating and Preserving all things, and his being every where, are things that are absolute riddles to us: We cannot bring our Minds to conceive them, and yet we must believe that they are so; because we see much greater Absurdities must follow upon our conceiving that they should be otherwise. So if God has declared this inexplicable thing concerning himself to us, we are bound to believe it, though we cannot have any clear Idea how it truly is. For there appear as strange and unanswerable difficulties in many other things, which yet we know to be true; so if we are once well assured, that God has Revealed this Doctrine to us, we must silence all Objections

against it, and believe it: Reckoning that our not understanding it, as it is in it self, makes the difficulties seem to be much greater than otherwise they would appear to be if we had light enough about it, or were capable of forming a more perfect Idea of it while we are in this depressed State.

Others give another view of this Matter, that is not indeed so hard to be apprehended: But that has an Objection against it, that seems as great a prejudice against it, as the difficulty of apprehending the other way is against that: It is this; They do hold, That there are Three Minds: That the first of these Three, who is from that called the Father, did from all Eternity by an Emanation of Essence beget the Son, and by another Emanation that was from Eternity likewise, and was as Essential to him as the former, both the first and the se∣cond, did jointly breathe forth the Spirit; and that these are Three di∣stinct Minds, every one being God, as much as the other: Only the Father is the Fountain, and is only self-originated. All this is in a good degree Intelligible, but it seems hard to reconcile it both with the Idea of Unity, which seems to belong to a Being of Infinite Perfecti∣on; and with the many express Declarations that are made in the Scriptures concerning the Unity of God. Instead of going farther in∣to Explanations of that which is certainly very far beyond all our ap∣prehensions, and that ought therefore to be let alone; I shall now con∣sider what Declarations are made in the Scriptures concerning this Point.

The First and the Chief is in that Charge and Commission which our Saviour gave to his Apostles, to go and make Disciples to him among all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.* 1.8 By Name is meant either an Authority derived to them, in the virtue of which all Nations were to be Baptized: Or that the Persons so Baptized are Dedicated to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Either of these Senses, as it proves them all to be Persons; so it sets them in an equality, in a thing that can only belong to the Divine Nature. Baptism is the receiving Men from a State of Sin and Wrath, into a State of Favour, and into the Rights of the Sons of God, and the Hopes of Eternal Happiness, and a calling them by the Name of God. These are things that can only be offered and assured to Men in the Name of the Great and Eternal God; and therefore since with∣out any Distinction or Note of Inequality, they are all Three set together as Persons in whose Name this is to be done, they must be all Three the True God; otherwise it looks like a just Prejudice against our Saviour, and his whole Gospel, That by his express Direction the first entrance to it, which gives the Visible and Foederal Right to those great Blessings that are offered by it, or their Initiation into it, should be in the Name of Two Created Beings (if the one can be called properly so much as a Being, according to their Hypothesis) and that even in an equality with the Supream and Increated Being. The plainness of this Charge, and the great occasion upon which it was given, makes this an Argument of such Force and Evidence, that it may justly determine the whole Matter.

A Second Argument is taken from this, That we find St. Paul begins or ends most of his Epistles with a Sa∣lutation in the Form of a Wish,* 1.9 which is indeed a Prayer or a Benediction in the Name of those who are so Invocated; in which he wishes the Churches Grace, Mercy, and Peace, from God the Father, and the Lord Iesus Christ; which is an Invocation of Christ in con∣junction with the Father, for the greatest Blessings of Favour and Mercy: That is a strange Strain, if he was only a Creature; which yet is delivered without any mitigation or softning in the most remarkable parts of his Epistles. This is car∣ried further in the Conclusion of the Second Epistle to the Corinthi∣ans; The Grace of the Lord Iesus Christ, the Love of God,* 1.10 and the Fel∣lowship of the Holy Ghost be with you. It is true, this is expressed as a Wi••h, and not in the nature of a Prayer, as the common Salutations are: But here Three great Blessings are wished to them as from Three Fountains, which imports that they are Three different Persons, and yet equal: For though in order the Father is first, and is generally put first; yet here Christ is first named, which seems to be a strange reversing of things, if they are not equal as to their Essence or Sub∣stance. It is true, the Second is not named here, The Father, as else∣where, but only God; yet since he is mentioned as distinct from Christ and the Holy Ghost, it must be understood of the Father; for when the Father is named with Christ, sometimes he is called God simply, and sometimes God the Father.

This Argument from the Threefold Salutation, appears yet strong∣er, in the Words in which St. Iohn addresses himself to the Seven Churches in the beginning of the Revelations:* 1.11 Grace and Peace from him which is, which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spi∣rits which are before his Throne; and from Iesus Christ. By the Seven Spirits must be meant one or more Persons, since he wishes or declares Grace and Peace from them: Now either this must be meant of An∣gels, or of the Holy Ghost. There are no where Prayers made, or Blessings given, in the Name of Angels: This were indeed a wor∣shipping them; against which there are express Authorities not only in the other Books of the New Testament, but in this Book in parti∣cular. Nor can it be imagined that Angels could have been named before Iesus Christ: So then it remains, that Seven being a Number that imports both Variety and Perfection, and that was the Sacred Number among the Iews, this is a Mystical Expression; which is no extraordinary thing in a Book that is all over mysterious: And it im∣ports one Person from whom all that variety of Gifts, Administrations, and Operations that were then in the Church, did flow: And this is the Holy Ghost: But as to his being put in order before Christ, as upon the supposition of an Equality, the going out of the common order is no great matter; so since there was to come after this a full Period that concerned Christ, it might be a natural way of Writing, to name him last. Against all this it is objected, That the Desig∣nation that is given to the first of these in a Circumlocution that im∣ports Eternity, shews that the Great God, and not the Person of the Father, is to be meant: But then how could St. Iohn, writing to the Churches, wish them Grace and Peace from the other Two? A few

Verses after this, the same Description of Eternal Duration is given to Christ, and is a strong Proof of his Eternity, and by consequence of his Divinity: So what is brought so soon after as a Character of the Eternity of the Son, may be also here used to denote the Eternal Father. These are the Chief Places in which the Trinity is mentioned all together.

I do not insist on that contested Passage of St. Iohn's Epistle: There are great doubtings made about it:* 1.12 The main ground of doubting being the Silence of the Fathers, who never made use of it in the Disputes with the Arians and Macedonians. There are very considera∣ble things urged on the other hand, to support the Authority of that Passage; yet I think it is safer to build upon sure and undisputable grounds; So I leave it to be maintained by others who are more fully persuaded of its being Authentical. There is no need of it. This matter is capable of a very full Proof, whether that Passage is believed to be a part of the Canon, or not.

It is no small Confirmation of the Truth of this Doctrine, that we are certain it was universally received over the whole Christian Church long before there was either a Christian Prince to sup∣port it by his Authority, or a Council to establish it by Consent: And indeed the Council of Nice did nothing but declare what was the Faith of the Christian Church, with the addition only of the Word Con∣substantial: For if all the other Words of the Creed settled at Nice are acknowledged to be true, that of the Three Persons being of one Sub∣stance will follow from thence by a just consequence. We know both by what Tertullian and Novatian writ, what was the Faith both of the Roman and the African Churches. From Irenaeus we gather the Faith both of the Gallican and the Asiatick Churches. And the whole pro∣ceedings in the Case of Samosatenus, that was the solemnest business that past while the Church was under Oppression and Persecution, give us the most convincing Proof possible, not only of the Faith of the Eastern Churches at that time, but of their Zeal likewise in watching against every Breach that was made in so Sacred a part of their Trust and De∣positum.

These things have been fully opened and enlarged on by others, to whom the Reader is referred: I shall only desire him to make this Reflection on the state of Christianity at that time: The Disputes that were then to be managed with the Heathens, against the Deifying or Worshipping of Men, and those extravagant Fables concerning the Genealogies of their Heroes and Gods, must have obliged the Chri∣stians rather to have silenced and supprest the Doctrine of the Trinity, than to have owned and published it: So that nothing but their being assured that it was a Necessary and Fundamental Article of their Faith, could have led them to own it in so publick a manner; since the Ad∣vantages that the Heathen would have taken from it, must be too visi∣ble not to be soon observed. The Heathens retorted upon them their Doctrine of a Man's being a God, and of God's having a Son: And eve∣ry one who engaged in this Controversy, framed such Answers to these Objections, as he thought he could best maintain: This, as it gave the Rise to the Errors which some brought into the Church, so it furnishes us with a Copious Proof of the common Sense of the Christians of those Ages, who all agreed in general to the Doctrine, though they had many different, and some very Erroneous ways of explaining it among them.

I now come to the special Proofs concerning each of the Three Per∣sons: But there being other Articles relating to the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Proofs of these Two will belong more properly to the Ex∣planation of those Articles: Therefore all that belongs to this Article is to prove that the Father is truly God; but that needs not be much insisted on, for there is no dispute about it: None deny that he is God; many think that he is so truly God, that there is no other that can be called God besides him, unless it be in a larger sense of the word: And therefore I will here conclude all that seems necessary to be said on this first Article; on which if I have dwelt the longer, it was because the stating the Idea of God right, being the Fundamental Article of all Religion, and the Key into every part of it, this was to be done with all the Fulness and Clearness possible.

In a word, to recapitulate a little what has been said; The live∣liest way of framing an Idea of God, is to consider our own Souls, which are said to be made after the Image of God. An attentive Re∣flection on what we perceive in our selves, will carry us further than any other thing whatsoever, to form just and true Thoughts of God. We perceive what Thought is, but with that we do also perceive the advan∣tage of such an easy Thought as arises out of a Sensation, such as Seeing or Hearing, which gives us no trouble; we think without any trou∣ble of many of the Objects that we see all at once, or so near all at once, that the progression from one Object to another is scarce per∣ceptible; but the labour of Study, and of pursuing Consequences wea∣ries us; though the Pleasure or the Vanity of having found them out, compensates for the Pain they gave us, and sets men on to new Enqui∣ries. We perceive in our selves a love of Truth, and a vexation when we see we are in Error, or are in the dark; and we feel that we act the most perfectly, when we act upon the clearest Views of Truth, and in the strictest pursuance of it; and the more present and regular, the more calm and steady that our Thoughts of all things are, that lye in our compass to know, present, past, or to come, we do plainly perceive that we do thereby become perfecter and happier Beings. Now out of all this we can easily rise up in our Thoughts to an Idea of a Mind that sees all things by a clear and full Intuition, without the possibility of being mistaken; and that ever acts in that Light, upon the surest Prospect, and with the perfectest Reason; and that does therefore always re∣joice in every thing it does, and has a constant Perception of all Truth ever present to it. This Idea does so genuinely arise from what we perceive both of the Perfections and the Imperfections of our own Minds, that a very little Reflection will help us to form it to a very high degree.

The Perception also that we have of Goodness, of a desire to make others good, and of the pleasure of effecting it; of the joy of making any one wiser or better, of making any one's Life easy, and of rai∣sing his Mind higher, will also help us in the forming of our Ideas of God. But in this we meet with much difficulty and disappointment. So this leads us to apprehend how diffusive of it self Infinite Good∣ness must needs be; and what is the Eternal Joy that Infinite Love has, in bringing so many to that exalted state of endless Happiness. We do also feel a Power issuing from us by a Thought, that sets our Bo∣dies in motion: The Varieties in our Thoughts create a vast Variety

in the state of our Bodies; but with this, as that Power is limited to our own Bodies, so it is often check'd by Disorders in them, and the Soul suffers a great deal from those painful Sensations that its Union with the Body subjects it to. From hence we can easily apprehend how the Supreme Mind can by a Thought set Matter into what Mo∣tions it will, all Matter being constantly subject to such Impressions as the Acts of the Divine Mind give it. This Absolute Dominion over all Matter makes it to move, and shapes it according to the Acts of that Mind; and Matter has no Power by any Irregularity it falls into, to resist those Impressions which do immediately command and govern it, nor can it throw any uneasy Sensations into that Perfect Being.

This conduces also to give us a distinct Idea of Miracles. All Matter is uniform; and it is only the variety of its Motions and Tex∣ture, that makes all the variety that is in the World. Now as the Acts of the Eternal Mind gave Matter its first Motion, and put it in∣to that Course that we do now call the Course of Nature; so another Act of the same Mind can either suspend, stop, or change that Course at pleasure, as he who throws a Bowl may stop it in its Course, or throw it back if he will; this being only the altering that Impulse which himself gave: So if one Act of the Infi∣nite Mind puts things in a regular Course, another Act interposed may change that at pleasure. And thus with Relation to God, Mira∣cles are no more difficult than any other Act of Providence: They are only more amazing to us, because they are less ordinary, and go out of the Common and Regular Course of Things. By all this it appears how far the Observation of what we perceive concerning our selves, may carry us to form livelier and clearer Thoughts of God.

So much may suffice upon the First Article.

ARTICLE II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.

The Son which is the Word of the Father, begotten from Everlasting of the Father; the very and Eternal God, of One Substance with the Father, took Man's Nature in the Womb of the Blessed Uirgin of her Substance; so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is, the God∣head and Manhood were joined together in one Person; never to be divided: whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man; who truly suffered, was dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a Sacrifice not only for Original guilt, but also for actual Sins of Men.

THERE are in this Article Five Heads to be Ex∣plained:

• I. That the Son or Word is of the same Substance with the Fa∣ther, begotten of him from all Eternity.
• II. That he took Man's Nature upon him in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin, and of her Substance.
• III. That the Two Natures of the Godhead and Manhood, both still perfect, were in him joined in one Person never to be di∣vided.
• IV. That Christ truly suffered, was Crucified, Dead and Bu∣ried.
• V. That he was our Sacrifice to Reconcile the Father to us, and that not only for Original Guilt, but for Actual Sins.

The first of these leads me to prosecute what was begun in the former Article: And to prove, That the Son or Word, was from all Eternity begotten of the same Substance with the Father. It is here to be noted, That Christ is in Two respects the Son, and the only be∣gotten Son of God. The one is, As he was Man; the Miraculous overshadowing of the B. Virgin by the H. Ghost, having without the ordinary course of Nature, formed the first beginnings of Christ's Human Body in the Womb of the Virgin. Thus that Miracle being instead of a Natural begetting, he may in that respect be called the begotten, and the only begotten Son of God. The other sense is, That the Word or the Divine Person was in and of the Substance of the Father, and so was truly God. It is also to be considered, That by the Word one Substance, is to be understood that this second Person is not a Creature of a Pure and Excellent Nature, like God, Holy and Per∣fect as we are called to be; but is truly God as the Father is. Be∣getting is a term that naturally signifies the Relation between the Father and the Son: But what it strictly signifies here is not possible for us to understand till we comprehend this whole Matter: nor can we be able to assign a Reason why the Emanation of the Son, and not that of the H. Ghost likewise is called begetting. In this we use the Scrip∣ture

Terms, but must confess we cannot frame a distinct Apprehension of that which is so far above us. This begetting was from all Eter∣nity: If it had been in time, the Son and H. Ghost must have been Creatures; but if they are truly God, they must be Eternal, and not produced by having a Being given them, but educed of a Substance that was Eternal, and from which they did Eternally spring. All these are the Natural Consequences of the main Article that is now to be proved, and when it is once proved clearly from Scripture, these do follow by a natural and necessary deduction.

The first and great proof of this is taken from the words with which St. Iohn begins his Gospel.* 1.13 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. Here it is to be observed, That these words are set down here, before St. Iohn comes to speak of Christ's being made in our Nature: This passage belongs to another Precedent Being that he had. The beginning also here is set to import, That it was before Creation or Time: Now a Duration before Time is Eternal. So this beginning can be no other than that Duration which was before all things that were made. It is also plainly said over and over again, That all things were made by this Word: A Power to Create must be Infinite; for it is certain, That a Power which can give Being, is without Bounds. And although the Word make may seem capable of a larger Sense, yet as in other places of the New Testament, the stricter Word Create is used and applied to Christ, as the Maker of all things in Heaven and Earth, Visible and Invisible; so the Word Make, is used through the whole Old Testament for Create; so that God's making the Heaven and the Earth is the Character frequently gi∣ven of him to distinguish him from Idols and false Gods. And of this Word it is likewise said, That he was with God, and was God. These words seem very plain, and the place where they are put by St. Iohn, in the Front of his Gospel, as it were an Inscription upon it, or an Introduction to it, makes it very evident, That he who of all the Wri∣ters of the New Testament has the greatest Plainness and Simplicity of Stile, would not have put words here, such as were not to be understood in a plain and literal Signification, without any Key to lead us to any other sense of them. This had been to lay a Stone of Stumbling in the very Threshold; particularly to the Iews, who were apt to cavil at Christianity; and were particularly jealous of every thing that savoured of Idolatry, or of the Plurality of Gods: And upon this occasion I desire one thing to be observed, with relation to all those Subtile Expositions which those who oppose this Doctrine put upon many of those places by which we prove it: That they represent the Apostles as magnifying Christ in words that at first sound seem to Import his being the True God; and yet they hold that in all these they had another Sense, and a Reserve of some other Interpretation, of which their words were capable. But can this be thought fair dealing? Does it look like honest Men to write thus; not to say, Men Inspired in what they Preached and Writ? and not rather like Impostors, to use so many Sublime and Lofty Expressions concerning Christ as God, if all these must be taken down to so low a Sense, as to signify only that he was miraculously Formed, and Endued with

an Extraordinary Power of Miracles, and an Authority to deliver a New Religion to the World. And that he was in consideration of his Exemplary Death which he underwent so patiently, raised up from the Grave, and had Divine Honours conferred upon him. In such an Hypothesis as this, the World going in so naturally to the excessive Magnifying, and even the Deifying of Wonderful Men, it had been necessary to have prevented any such mistakes, and to have guarded against the belief of them; rather than to have used a continued strain or Expressions, that seem to carry Men violently into them, and that can hardly, nay very hardly be softened by all the Skill of Criticks, to bear any other Sense. It is to be considered further, That when St. Iohn writ his Gospel, there were Three sorts of Men particu∣larly to be considered. The Iews, who could bear nothing that sa∣voured of Idolatry; so no Stumbling-block was to be laid in their way, to give them deeper Prejudices against Christianity. Next to these were the Gentiles; who having Worshipped a variety of Gods, were not to be indulged in any thing that might seem to favour their Polytheism: In Fact we find particular caution used in the New Te∣stament, against the Worshipping Angels or Saints: How can it there∣fore be imagined, That words would have been used, that in the plain Signification that did arise out of the first hearing of them, imported that a Man was God, if this had not been strictly true? The Apostles ought, and must have used a particular care to have avoided all such Expressions, if they had not been literally true. The Third sort of Men in St. Iohn's Time were those of whom Intimation is frequently gi∣ven through all the Epistles, who were then endeavouring to corrupt the Purity of the Christian Doctrine, and to accommodate it so, both to the Iew, and to the Gentile, as to avoid the Cross and Persecution upon the account of it. Church-History, and the Earliest Writers af∣ter St. Iohn assure us, That Ebion and Cerinthus denied the Divinity of Christ, and asserted that he was a mere Man. Controversy na∣turally carries men to speak exactly; and among Human Writers those who let things fall more carelesly from their Pens, when they appre∣hend no danger or difficulty, are more correct both in their Thoughts, and in their Expressions, when things are disputed; therefore if we should have no other regard to St. Iohn, but as an ordinary, cautious, and careful man, we must believe that he weighed all his words in that Point, which was then the Matter in Question; and to clear which, we have good Ground to believe both from the Testimony of Ancient Writers, and from the Method that he pursues quite through it all, that he Writ his Gospel: And that therefore every part of it, but this Beginning of it more signally, was Writ, and is to be un∣derstood in the Sense which the Words naturally Import: That the Word which took Flesh, and assumed the Human Nature, had a Being before the worlds were made, and that this Word was God, and made the World.

Another eminent Proof of this is in St. Paul's Epistle to the Phi∣lippians; in which when he is exhorting Christians to Humility,* 1.14 he gives an Argument for it from our Saviour's Example. He begins with the dignity of his Person, expressed thus; That he was in the form of God, and that he thought it no robbery to be equal with God: Then his Humi∣liation comes, That he made himself of no reputation, but took on him

the form of a servant (the same Word with that used in the former Verse); after which follows his Exaltation, and a Name or Authority above every Name or Authority is said to be given him; so that all in Heaven, Earth, and under the Earth (which seems to Import Angels, Men, and Devils) should bow at his Name, and confess that he is the Lord. Now in this Progress that is made in these words, it is plain That the Dignity of Christ's Person is represented as Antecedent both to his Humiliation, and to his Exaltation. It was that which put the value on his Humiliation, as his Humiliation was rewarded by his Exaltation. This Dignity is expressed first, That he was in the Form of God, before he humbled himself: He was certainly in the form of a Servant, that is, really a Servant as other Servants are: He was obedient to his Parents, he was under the Authority both of the Romans, of Herod, and of the Sanhedrim: Therefore since his being really a Servant is expressed by his being in the form of a Servant, his being in the form of God, must also import, That he was truly God, But the ••ollowing words, That he thought it not robbery to be equal, or be held equal (for so the word may be rendred) with God, carry such a natural Signification of his being neither a Made nor Subordinate God, and that his Divinity is neither precarious, nor by concession, that fuller words cannot be devised for expressing an entire Equality. Those who deny this, are aware of it; and therefore they have put another sense on the words, in the form of God. They think, That they sig∣nify his appearing in the World, as one sent in the Name of God, re∣presenting him, Working Miracles, and delivering a Law in his Name: and the words rendred, he thought it no robbery, they render, he did not catch at, or vehemently desire to be held in equal honour with God. And some Authorities are found in Eloquent Greek Authors, who use the words rendred, he thought it not robbery, in a figurative sense, for the earnestness of desire, or the pursuing after a thing greedily, as Robbers do for their Prey. This rendring represents St. Paul, as Treating so sacred a Point in the Figures of a high and seldom-used Rhetorick, which one would think ought to have been expressed more exactly. But if even this sense is allowed, it will make a strange Pe∣riod, and a very odd sort of an Argument, to enforce Humility upon us, because Christ, though Working Miracles, did not desire or snatch at Divine Adorations, in an Equality with God. The Sin of Lucifer, and the cause of his Fall, is commonly believed to be his desire to be equal to God; and yet this seems to be such an extravagant piece of pride, that it is scarce possible to think, That even the Sublimest of Created Beings should be capable of it. To be next to God, seems to be the utmost heigth, to which even the Diabolical Pride could aspire: So that here by the Sense which the Socinians put on those words, they will import, That we are persuaded to be humble from the Example of Christ, who did not affect an Equality with God: The bare repeating of this seems so fully to expose and overthrow it, that I think it is not necessary to say more upon this place.

* 1.15The next head of Proof is made up of more particulars. All the Names, the Operations, and even the Attributes of God, are in full and plain words given to Christ. He is called God; his Blood is said to be the Blood of God; God is said to have laid down his life for

us; Christ is called the true God, the great God, the Lord of Glory, the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords; and more particularly the Name Iehovah is ascribed to him in the same word in which the LXX Inter∣preters had Translated it throughout the whole Old Testament.* 1.16 So that this constant Uniformity of Stile between the Greek of the New, and that Translation of the Old Testament which was then received, and was of great Authority among the Iews, and was yet of more Authority among the first Christians, is an Argument that carries such a weight with it, that this alone may serve to determine the Matter. The Creating, the Preserving, and the Governing of all things, is al∣so ascribed to Christ in a variety of plac••s, but most remarkably, when it is said, That by him were all things created, that are in hea∣ven, and that are in earth, Visible and Invisible: Whether they be Thrones,* 1.17 or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers; all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things con∣sist. He is said to have known what was in man, to have known mens se∣cret thoughts, and to have known all things: That as the Father was known of none, but of the Son; so none know the Son but the Father. He pardons Sin, sends the Spirit, gives Grace and Eternal Life, and he shall raise the dead at the last day. When all these things are laid together in that variety of Expressions in which they lie scattered in the New Testament, it is not possible to retain any reverence for those Books, if we imagine that they are writ in a Stile so full of approaches to the Deifying of a mere Man, that without a very Critical studying of Languages and Phrases, it is not possible to understand them otherwise. Idolatry, and a Plurality of Gods, seem to be the main things that the Scriptures warn us against; and yet here is a pursued Thread of Pas∣sages and Discourses, that do naturally lead a man to think that Christ is the True God, who yet according to these men, only acted in his Name, and has now a high Honour put on him by him.

This carries me to another Argument to prove that the Word that was made Flesh, was truly God. Nothing but the True God can be the proper Object of Adoration. This is one of those Truths that seems almost so evident, that it needs not to be proved. Adoration is the humble Prostration of our selves before God, in Acts that own our dependance upon him, both for our Being, and for all the Blessings that we do either enjoy or hope for, and also in earnest Prayers to him for the continuance of these to us. This is testified by such outward Gestures and Actions as are most proper to express our Humility and Submissi∣on to God: All this has so clear a••d so inseparable a Relation to the only True God, as its proper Object, that it is scarce possible to ap∣prehend how it should be separated from him, and given to any other. And as this seems evident from the Nature of things, so it is not possi∣ble to imagine how any thing could have been prohibited in more ex∣press and positive, and in more frequently-repeated Words, and lon∣ger Reasonings, than the offering of Divine Worship or any part of it to Creatures. The chief design of the Mosaical Religion was to banish all Idolatry and Polytheism out of the Minds of the Iews, and to pos∣sess them with the Idea of One God, and of One Object of Worship. The Reasons upon which those Prohibitions are founded, are univer∣sal; which are, The Unity of God's Essence, and his Jealousy in not giving his Honour to another. It is not said that they should not wor∣ship

any as God, till they had a Precept or Declaration for it. There is no Reserve for any such time; but they are plainly forbid to wor∣ship any but the Great God,* 1.18 because he was One, and was Jealous of his Glory. The New Testament is writ in the same Strain: Christ when tempted of the Devil, answered, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,* 1.19 and him only shalt thou serve. The Apostles charged all Idolaters to forsake those Idols, and to serve the living God. The Angel refused St. Iohn's Worship, commanding him to worship God. The Christian Faith does in every particular raise the Ideas of God and of Religion to a much gr••ater Purity and Sublimity than the Mosaical Dispensation had done; so it is not to be imagined that in the chief Design of Re∣vealed Religion, which was the bringing men from Idolatry to the Worship of One God, it should make such a Breach, and extend it to a Creature. All this seems fully to prove the first Proposition of this Argument, That God is the only proper Object of Adoration. The next is, That Christ is proposed in the New Testament as the Object of Divine Worship. I do not in proof of this urge, the Instan∣ces of those who fell down at Christ's Feet and worshipped him, while he was on Earth; for it may be well answered to that, That a Prophet was worshipped with the civil Respect of falling down before him, among the Iews; as appears in the History of Elijah and Elisha; nor does it appear that those who worshipped Chris••, had any appre∣hension of his being God; they only considered him as the Messias, or as some eminent Prophet. But the mention that St. Luke makes in his Gospel,* 1.20 of the Disciples worshipping Christ at his Ascen∣sion, comes more home to this matter. All those Salutations in the beginning and conclusion of the Epistles, in which Grace, Mercy, and Peace are wished from God the Father, and the Lord Iesus Christ, are implied Invocations of him. It is also plain, that it was to him that St. Paul prayed, when he was under the Temptations of the Devil; as they are commonly understood;* 1.21 Every knee must bow to him: The An••els of God worship him: All the hosts in heaven are represented in St. Iohn's Visions, as falling down prostrate before him, and worship∣ping him as they worship the Father. He is proposed as the Object of our Faith, Hope, and Love; as the Person whom we are to obey, to pray to, and to praise; so that every Act of Worship, both Ex∣ternal and Internal, is directed to him as to its proper Object. But the Instance of all others that is the clearest in this Point, is in the last Words of St. Stephen, who was the first Martyr, and whose Mar∣tyrdom is so particularly related by St. Luke: He then in his last Mi∣nutes saw Christ at the right hand of God; and in his last Breath he worshipped him in two short Prayers, that are upon the matter the same with those in which our Blessed Saviour worshipped his Father on the Cross; Lord Iesus, receive my spirit: Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.* 1.22 From this it seems very evident, that if Christ was not the True God, and Equal to the Father, then this Protomartyr died in two Acts that seem not only Idolatrous, but also Blasphemous; since he worshipped Christ in the same Acts in which Christ had worshipped his Father. It is certain from all this deduction of Particulars, That his Human Nature cannot be worshipped; therefore there must be another Nature in him, to which Divine Worship is due, and on the account of which he is to be worshipped.

It is plain that when this Religion was first published, together with these Duties in it as a part of it, the Iews, though implacably set against it, yet never accused it of Idolatry; though that Charge of all others had served their purposes the best, who intended to blacken and blast it. Nothing would have been so well heard, and so easily apprehended, as a just Prejudice against it, as this. The Argument would have appeared as strong as it was plain: And as the Iews could not be ignorant of the Acts of the Christian Worship, when so many fell back to them from it, who were offended at other parts of it; so they had the Books in which it was contained, in their hands. Notwith∣standing all which, we have all possible reason to believe that this Ob∣jection against it was never made by any of them, in the First Age of Christianity: Upon all which, I say, it is not to be imagined that they could have been silent on this head, if a mere Man had been thus pro∣posed among the Christians as the Object of Divine Worship. The Silence of the Apostles in not mentioning nor answering this, is such a Proof of the Silence of the Iews, that it would indeed disparage all their Writings, if we could think that while they mentioned and an∣swered the other Prejudices of the Iews, which in comparison to this are small and inconsiderable matters, they should have passed over this, which must have been the greatest and the plausiblest of them all, if it was one at all. Therefore as the Silence of the Apostles is a clear Proof that the Iews were silent also, and did not object this; and since their silence could neither flow from their Ignorance, nor their undervaluing of this Religion, it seems to be certain that the first opening of the Christian Doctrine did not carry any thing in it that could be called the Worshiping of a Creature. It follows from hence that the Iews must have understood this part of our Religion in such a man∣ner as agreed with their former Ideas. So we must examine these: They had this settled among them, That God dwelt in the Cloud of Glory, and that by virtue of that Inhabitation, Divine Worship was paid to God as dwelling in the Cloud; that it was called God, God's Throne, his Holi∣ness, his Face, and the Light of his Countenance: They went up to the Temple to worship God, as dwelling there bodily, that is, substan∣tially, so bodily sometimes signifies, or in a Corporeal Appearance: This seems to have been a Person that was truly God, and yet was distinct from that which appeared and spake to Moses; for this seems to be the Importance of these words: Behold,* 1.23 I send an Angel before thee to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee to the place which I have prepared: Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my Name is in him. These words do plainly import a Person to whom they belong; and yet they are a pitch far above the Angelical Dignity. So that Angel must here be understood in a large sense, for one sent of God; and it can admit of no sense so properly, as, That the Eternal Word which dwelt af∣terwards in the Man Christ Jesus, dwelt then in that Cloud of Glory: It was also one of the Prophecies received by the Iews, That the Glory of the second Temple was to exceed the Glory of the first.* 1.24 The chief Cha∣racter of the Glory of the first, was that Inhabitation of the Divine Presence among them; from hence it follows that such an Inhabita∣tion of God in a Creature, by which that Creature was not only called God, but that Adoration was due to it upon that account, was a No∣tion

that could not have scandalized the Iews, and was indeed the only Notion that agreed with their former Ideas, and that could have been received by them without difficulty or opposition. This is a strong Inducement to believe that this great Article of our Religion was at that time delivered and understood in that sense.

If the Son or Word is truly God, he must be from all Eternity, and must also be of the same Substance with the Father, otherwise he could not be God; since a God of another Substance, or of another Duration, is a Contradiction.

The last Argument that I shall offer, is taken from the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews: To the apprehending the Force of which, this must be premised, That all those who acknowledge that Christ ought to be honoured and worshipped as the Father, must say that this is due to him either because he is truly God, or because he is a Person of such a high and exalted Dignity, that God has upon the con∣sideration of that appointed him to be so worshipped. Now this second Notion may fall under another distinction; that either he was of a very sublime Order by Nature, as some Angelical Being, that though he was created, yet had this high Priviledge bestowed upon him; or that he was a Prophet illuminated and authorized in so particular a manner beyond all others, that out of a regard to that, he was exalted to this Honour of being to be worshipped. One of these must be chosen by all who do not believe him to be truly God: And indeed one of these was the Arian, as the other is the Socinian Hypothesis. For how much soever the Arians might exalt him in words, yet if they believed him to be a Creature made in time, so that once he was not; all that they said of him can amount to no more, but that he was a Creature of a Spiritual Nature, and this is plainly the Notion which the Scri∣pture gives us of Angels. Artemon, Samosatenus, Photinus, and the Socinians in our days, consider our Saviour as a great Prophet and Lawgiver, and into this they resolve his Dignity. In opposition to both these, that Epistle begins with Expressions that are the more se∣vere, because they are Negative, which are to be understood more strictly than Positive words. Christ is not only preferred to Angels, but is set in opposition to them, as one of another Order of Beings. Made so much better than angels,* 1.25 as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the Angels said he at any time,* 1.26 Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? When he bring∣eth in the first-begotten into the world,* 1.27 he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.* 1.28 Of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.* 1.29 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. And, Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth;* 1.30 and the heavens are the works of thy hands. Thou art the same,* 1.31 and thy years shall not fail. But to which of the an∣gels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?* 1.32 Are they not all ministring spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? This opposition is likewise carried on through the whole second Chapter; one Passage in it being most express to shew both that his Nature had a Subsistence before his In∣carnation, and that it was not of an Angelical Order of Beings, since he took not on him the nature of Angels,* 1.33 but the seed of Abraham. Thus in a great variety of Expressions,* 1.34 the Conceit of Christ's being of an

Angelical Nature, is very fully condemned. From that the Writer goes next to the Notion of his being to be honoured, because he was an Eminent Prophet; on which he enters with a very solemn Preface, inviting them to consider the Apostle and High-priest of our Profession:* 1.35 Then he compares Moses to him,* 1.36 as to the point of being faithful to him who had appointed him: But how eminent soever Moses was, above all other Prophets, and how harshly soever it must have sounded to the Iews to have stated the difference in terms so distant as that of a Servant and a Son, of one who built the house, and of the House it self: yet we see the Apostle does not only prefer Christ to Moses, but puts him in another Order and Rank; which could not be done according to the Socinian Hypothesis. From all which this Conclusion naturally follows, That if Christ is to be worshipped, and that this Honour be∣longs to him neither as an Angel, nor as a Prophet, That then it is due to him because he is truly God.

The Second Branch of this Article is, That he took man's Na∣ture upon him in the Womb of the Blessed Uirgin, and of her Substance. This will not need any long or laboured Proof, since the Texts of Scripture are so express, that nothing but wild Extrava∣gance can withstand them. Christ was in all things like unto us, ex∣cept his miraculous Conception by the Virgin: He was the Son of Abraham and of David. But among the Frantick Humours that ap∣peared at the Reformation, some in opposition to the Superstition of the Church of Rome, studied to derogate as much from the Blessed Virgin on the one hand, as she had been over-exalted on the other; So they said, that Christ had only gone through her. But this Impiety sunk so soon, that it is needless to say any thing more to refute it.

The Third Branch of the Article is, That these two Natures were joined in one Person, never to be divided. What a Per∣son is that results from a close Conjunction of Two Natures, we can only judge of it by considering Man, in whom there is a Material and a Spiritual Nature joined together. They are Two Natures as different as any we can apprehend among all created Beings; yet these make but One Man. The Matter of which the Body is composed, does not subsist by it self, is not under all those Laws of Motion to which it would be subject, if it were mere inanimated Matter; but by the Indwelling and Actuation of the Soul, it has another Spring within it, and has another Course of Operations. According to this then, to subsist by another, is when a Being is acting according to its Natural Properties, but yet in a constant dependance upon another Being; so our Bodies subsist by the Subsistence of our Souls. This may help us to appre∣hend how that as the Body is still a Body, and operates as a Body, though it subsists by the Indwelling and Actuation of the Soul; so in the Person of Jesus Christ the Human Nature was entire, and still act∣ed according to its own Character; yet there was such an Union and Inhabitation of the Eternal Word in it, that there did arise out of that a Communication of Names and Characters as we find in the Scriptures. A man is called Tall, Fair, and Healthy, from the state of his Body; and Learned, Wise, and Good, from the qualities of his Mind: So Christ is called holy, harmless, and undefiled; is said to have died, risen, and ascended up into Heaven, with relation to his Human Na∣ture: He is also said to be in the form of God, to have created all things,* 1.37

to be the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person, with relation to his Divine Nature. The Ideas that we have of what is Material and what is Spiritual,* 1.38 lead us to distinguish in a Man those descriptions that belong to his Body, from those that be∣long to his Mind; so the different apprehensions that we have of what is created and uncreated, must be our Thread to guide us into the Resolution of those various Expressions that occur in the Scri∣ptures concerning Christ.

The design of the Definition that was made by the Church con∣cerning Christ's having one Person, was chiefly to distinguish the na∣ture of the Indwelling of the Godhead in him, from all Prophetical Inspirations. The Mosaical degree of Prophecy was in many respects superior to that of all the subsequent Prophets: Yet the difference is stated between Christ and Moses, in terms that import things quite of another nature; the one being mentioned as a Servant, the other as the Son that built the House. It is not said that God appeared to Christ, or that he spoke to him; but God was ever with him, and in him;* 1.39 and while the Word was made flesh, yet still his glory was as the glory of the only begotten Son of God. The Glory that Isaiah saw, was called his Glory; and on the other hand God, is said to have purchased his Church with his own Blood. If Nestorius in opposing this, meant only, as some think it appears by many Citations out of him, that the Blessed Virgin was not to be called simply the Mother of God, but the Mother of him that was God; and if that of making Two Persons in Christ, was only fasten'd on him as a Consequence, we are not at all concerned in the Matter of Fact, whether Nestorius was misunderstood and hardly used, or not; but the Doctrine here asserted is plain in the Scriptures, That though the Human Nature in Christ acted still according to its proper Character, and had a peculiar Will; yet there was such a constant Presence, Indwelling, and Actuation on it from the Eternal Word, as did constitute both Human and Divine Nature one Person. As these are thus so entirely united, so they are never to be separated. Christ is now exalted to the highest degrees of Glory and Honour; and the Characters of Blessing, Honour, and Glory, are represented in St. Iohn's Visions as offered to the Lamb for ever and ever. It is true, St. Paul speaks as if Christ's Mediatory Office and Kingdom were to cease af∣ter the Day of Judgment,* 1.40 and that then he was to deliver up all to the Father. But though when the full number of the Elect shall be gathered, the full End of his Death will be attained; and when these Saints shall be glorified with him and by him, his Office as Mediator will naturally come to an end; yet his own Personal Glory shall never cease: And if every Saint shall inherit an everlasting Kingdom, much more shall he who has merited all that to them, and has conferred it on them, be for ever possessed of his Glory.

The Fourth Branch of the Article is concerning the Truth of Christ's Crucifixion, his Death and Burial. The Matter of Fact con∣cerning the Death of Christ is denied by no Christian; the Iews do all acknowledge it; the first Enemies to Christianity did all believe this, and reproached his Followers with it. This was that which all Christians gloried in and avowed; so that no question was made of his Death, except by a small number called Docetae, who were not esteemed Christians, till Mahomet denied it in his Alcoran, who pre∣tends

that he was withdrawn, and that a Iew was crucified in his stead. But this corruption of the History of the Gospel came too late afterwards, to have any shadow of credit due to it; nor was there any sort of Proof offered to support it. So this Doctrine concerning the Death of Christ is to be received as an unque∣stionable Truth. There is no part of the Gospel writ with so copious a Particularity, as the History of his Sufferings and Death; as there was indeed no part of the Gospel so important as this is.

The Fifth Branch of the Article is, That he was a true Sa∣crifice to reconcile the Father to us, and that not only for Original, but for Actual Sins. The Notion of an Ex∣piatory Sacrifice, which was then, when the New Testament was writ, well understood all the World over, both by Iew and Gen∣tile, was this, That the Sin of one Person was transferred on a Man or a Beast, who was upon that devoted and offered up to God, and suffered in the room of the offending Person; and by this Oblation the Punishment of the Sin being laid on the Sacrifice, an Expiation was made for Sin, and the Sinner was believed to be reconciled to God. This, as appears through the whole Book of Leviticus, was the design and effect of the Sin and Trespass-Offerings among the Iews, and more particularly of the Goat that was offered up for the Sins of the whole People on the day of Atonement. This was a piece of Religion well known both to Iew and Gentile, that had a great many Phrases belonging to it, such as the Sacrifices being offered for, or instead of Sin, and in the name, or on the account of the Sinner; its bearing of Sin, and becoming Sin, or the Sin-offering; its being the Reconciliation, the Atonement, and the Redemption of the Sinner, by which the Sin was no more imputed, but forgiven, and for which the Sinner was accepted. When therefore this whole set of Phrases in its utmost extent, is very often, and in a great variety, applied to the Death of Christ, it is not possible for us to preserve any Re∣verence for the New Testament, or the Writers of it, so far as to think them even honest men, not to say Inspired men, if we can imagine, That in so Sacred and Important a Matter they could exceed so much as to represent that to be our Sacrifice which is not truly so: This is a Point that will not bear Figures and Amplifications; it must be treated of strictly, and with a just exactness of Expression. Christ is called the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world; he is said to have born our sins on his own body; to have been made sin for us;* 1.41 it is said, That he gave his life a ransom for many. That he was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world: and that we have re∣demption through his blood, even the remission of our sins: It is said That he hath reconciled us to his Father in his cross, and in the body of his flesh through death: That he by his own blood entred in once into the Holy place, having obtained Eternal Redemption for us: That once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put a∣way sin, by the sacrifice of himself: That he was once offered to bear the sins of many: That we are sanctified by the offering of the bo∣dy of Christ once for all: And, That after he had offered one sa∣crifice

for sin, he sate down for ever at the right hand of God. It is said, That we enter into the holiest by the blood of Christ, That is the blood of the New Covenant,* 1.42 by which we are sanctified: That he hath sanctified the people with his own blood: and was the great shepherd of his people, through the blood of the everlasting Co∣venant: That we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot. And, That Christ suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. In these and a great many more passages that he spread in all the parts of the New Testament, it is as plain as words can make any thing, That the Death of Christ is proposed to us as our Sacrifice and Re∣conciliation, our Atonement and Redemption. So it is not possible for any man, that considers all this, to imagine, That Christ's Death was only a Confirmation of his Gospel, a Pattern of a holy and pa∣tient suffering of Death, and a necessary preparation to his Resurrecti∣on; by which he gave us a clear proof of a Resurrection, and by consequence of Eternal Life, as by his Doctrine he had shewed us the way to it. By this all the high commendations of his Death, amount only to this, That he by dying has given a vast Credit and Authority to his Gospel, which was the powerfullest mean possible to redeem us from Sin, and to reconcile us to God: But this is so contrary to the whole design of the New Testament, and to the true Importance of that great variety of Phrases, in which this Matter is set out, that at this rate of Expounding Scripture, we can never know what we may build upon, especially when the great Importance of this thing, and of our having right Notions concerning it, is well considered. St. Paul does, in his Epistle to the Romans, state an opposition be∣tween the Death of Christ,* 1.43 and the Sin of Adam; the ill effects of the one being removed by the other; but he plainly carries the Death of Christ much further, than that it had only healed the Wound that was given by Adam's Sin; for as the judgment was of one (sin) to Condem∣nation, the free gift is of many offences to justification; but in the other places of the New Testament, Christ's Death is set forth so fully, as a Propitiation for the Sins of the whole World, that it is a very false way of arguing to inferr, That because in one place That is set in op∣position to Adam's Sin, that therefore the virtue of it was to go no further, than to take away that Sin. It has indeed removed that, but it has done a great deal more besides.

Thus it is plain, That Christ's Death was our Sacrifice, The meaning of which is this, That God intending to reconcile the World to himself, and to encourage Sinners to repent and turn to him, thought fit to offer the pardon of Sin, together with the other Bles∣sings of his Gospel, in such a way as should demonstrate both the Guilt of Sin, and his Hatred of it; and yet with that, his love of Sinners, and his compassions towards them. A free Pardon without a Sacrifice had not been so agreeable neither to the Majesty of the Great Governor of the World, nor the Authority of his Laws, nor so proper a method to oblige men to that strictness and holiness of Life that he designed to bring them to: And therefore he thought fit to offer his Pardon, and those other Blessings through a Mediator, who was to deliver to the World this new and ho∣ly Rule of Life, and to confirm it by his own unblemisht Life:

And in conclusion, when the Rage of Wicked men who hated him for the Holiness both of his Life, and of his Doctrine, did work them up into such a fury, as to pursue him to a most Violent and Ignominious Death, he in compliance with the secret design of his Father, did not only go through that dismal series of Suf∣ferings, with the most intire Resignation to his Father's Will, and with the highest Charity possible towards those who were his most Unjust and Malicious Murderers; but he at the same time underwent great Agonies in his Mind; which struck him with such an Amazement and Sorrow even to the Death, that upon it he did sweat great drops of Blood, and on the Cross he felt a withdraw∣ing of those comforts, that till then had ever supported him, when he cried out, My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me? It is not easy for us to apprehend in what that Agony consisted: For we understand only the Agonies of Pain, or of Conscience, which last arise out of the Horror of Guilt, or the Apprehension of the Wrath of God; It is indeed certain, That he who had no Sin could have no such horror in him; and yet it is as certain, That he could not be put into such an Agony only through the Apprehension and Fear of that violent Death, which he was to suffer next day: Therefore we ought to conclude, That there was an inward Suffering in his Mind, as well as an out∣ward visible one in his Body. We cannot distinctly apprehend what that was, since he was sure both of his own spotless Innocence, and of his Father's unchangeable love to him. We can only imagine a vast sense of the heinousness of Sin, and a deep Indignation at the Dishonour done to God by it, a melting Apprehension of the Cor∣ruption and Miseries of Mankind by reason of Sin, together with a never-before-felt withdrawing of those Consolations that had always filled his Soul. But what might be further in his Agony, and in his last Dereliction, we cannot distinctly apprehend; only this we perceive, That our Minds are capable of great pain as well as our Bodies are. Deep horror, with an inconsolable sharpness of Thought, is a very intoler∣able thing. Notwithstanding the Bodily or Substantial Indwelling of the fulness of the Godhead in him; yet he was capable of feeling vast pain in his Body: So that he might become a compleat Sacrifice, and that we might have from his Sufferings, a very full and amazing appre∣hension of the Guilt of Sin; all those Emanations of joy with which the Indwelling of the Eternal Word had ever till then filled his Soul, might then when he needed them most be quite withdrawn, and he be left merely to the firmness of his Faith, to his patient Resignation to the Will of his heavenly F••ther, and to his willing readiness of drinking up that Cup which his Father had put in his hand to drink.

There remains but one thing to be remembred here, though it will come to be more specially Explained, when other Articles are to be opened; which is, That this Reconciliation which is made by the Death of Christ, between God and Man, is not absolute and without conditions. He has Established the Covenant, and has performed all that was Incumbent on him, as both the Priest and the Sacrifice, to do and to suffer; and he offers this to the World, that it may be closed with by them, on the terms on which it is proposed; and if they do not accept of it upon these conditi∣ons, and perform what is enjoined them, they can have no share in it.

ARTICLE III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell.

As Christ died for us and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

THIS was much fuller when the Articles were at first prepa∣red and published in King Edward's Reign: For these words were added to it, That the body of Christ lay in the Grave untill his Re∣surrection; but his Spirit which he gave up, was with the Spirits which were detained in Prison, or in Hell, and preached to them, as the place in St. Peter testifieth. Thus a determined sense was put upon this Article, which is now left more at large, and is conceived in words of a more gene∣ral Signification. In order to the explaining this, it is to be premi∣sed, That the Article in the Creed, of Christ's descent into Hell is men∣tioned by no Writer before Ruffin, who in the beginning of the Fifth Century does indeed speak of it: But he tells us, That it was neither in the Symbol of the Roman, nor of the Oriental Churches; and that he found it in the Symbol of his own Church at Aquileia. But as there was no other Article in that Symbol that related to Christ's Burial; so the words which he gives us, descendit ad Inferna, he des∣cended to the lower parts, do very naturally signify Burial, according to these words of St. Paul,* 1.44 He ascended; what is it but that he also des∣cended first to the lower parts of the Earth? and Ruffin himself under∣stood these words in that sense.

None of the Fathers in the first Ages, neither Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens, nor Origen, in the short Abstracts that they give us of the Christian Faith, mention any thing like this: And in all that great variety of Creeds that was proposed by the many Councils that met in the Fourth Century, this is not in any one of them, except in that which was agreed to at Arimini, and was pretended, though falsly, to have been made at Sirmium: In that it is set down in a Greek word that does exactly answer Ruffin's Inferna, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: And it stood there instead of Buried. When it was put in the Creed that carries Athanasius's Name, tho' made in the Sixth or Seventh Century, the word was changed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Hell: But yet it seems to have been un∣derstood to signify Christ's Burial, there being no other word put for it in that Creed: Afterwards it was put into the Symbol of the We∣stern Church: That was done at first in the words in which Ruffin had expressed it, as appears by some Ancient Copies of Creeds which were published the Great Primate Usher. We are next to consider, what the Importance of these words in themselves is; for it is plain that the use of them in the Creed is not very Ancient nor Universal. We have a most unquestionable Authority for this, that our Saviour's Soul was in Hell. In the Acts o•• the Apostles, St. Peter in the first Sermon that was preached after the wonderful Effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost, applies these words of David, concerning God's not leaving his Soul in Hell, nor suffering his Holy one to see corruption, to the Resurrection of Christ. Now since in the composition of a Man, there is a Body and a Spirit, and since it is plain that the raising of

Christ on the Third day, was before that his Body in the course of Nature was corrupted. The other Branch seems to relate to his Soul; though it is not to be denied, but that in the Old Testament Soul in some places stands for a dead Body: But if that were the sense of the word, there will be no opposition in the two Parts of this period: The one will be only a redundant repetition of the other: Therefore it is much more natural to think, that this other Branch concerning Christ's Soul's being left in Hell, must relate to that which we com∣monly understand by Soul; if then his Soul was not to be left in Hell, then from thence it plainly follows, that once it was in Hell, and by consequence that Christ's Soul descended into Hell.

Some very Modern Writers have thought, that this is to be under∣stood Figuratively of the Wrath of God due for Sin, which Christ bore in his Soul, besides the Torments that he suffered in his Body: And they think, that these are here mentioned by themselves, after the Enumeration of the several steps of his bodily Sufferings: And this being equal to the Torments of Hell, as it is that which delivers us from them, might in a large way of Expression be called a descending into Hell. But as neither the word descend, nor Hell, are to be found in any other place of Scripture in this sense, nor in any of the An∣cients, among whom the Signification of this Phrase is more likely to be found, than among Moderns; So this being put after Buried, it plainly shews that it belongs to a period subsequent to his Burial: There is therefore no regard to be had to this Notion.

Othets have thought, That by Christ's descent into Hell▪ is to be un∣derstood his continuing in the State of the Dead for some time: But there is no Ground for this conceit neither, these words being to be found in no Author in that Signification.

Many of the Fathers thought, That Christ's Soul went locally into Hell, and preached to some of the Spirits there in Prison;* 1.45 that there he triumphed over Satan, and spoiled him, and carried some Souls with him into Glory. But the account that the Scriptures give us of the Exaltation of Christ, begins it always at his Resurrection: Nor can it be imagined, That so memorable a Transaction as this, would have been passed over by the Three first Evangelists, and least of all by St. Iohn, who coming after the rest, and designing to supply what was wanting in them, and intending particularly to magnify the Glory of Christ, could not have passed over so wonder••ul an In∣stance of it. We have no reason to think, that such a matter would have been only insinuated in general words, and not have been plainly related. The Triumph of Christ over Principalities and Powers, is ascribed by St. Paul to his Cross, and was the Effect and Result of his Death. The place of St. Peter seems to relate to the Preaching to the Gentile World, by virtue of that Inspiration that was derived from Christ; which was therefore called his Spirit; and the Spirits in Prison were the Gentiles, who were shut up in Idolatry as in Prison,* 1.46 and so were under the Power of the Prince of the Power of the Air, who is called the God of this World; that is, of the Gentile World; It being one of the ends for which Christ was Anointed of his Fa∣ther, to open the prisons to them that were bound. So then, though there is no harm in this Opinion, yet it not being Founded on any part of the History of the Gospel, and it being supported only by passages

that may well bear another sense, we may lay it aside, notwithstand∣ing the Reverence we bear to those that asserted it; and that the ra∣ther, because the first Fathers that were next the Source, say nothing of it.

Another Counceit has had a great course among some of the latest Fathers and the Schoolmen: They have fancied that there was a place▪ to which they have given a peculiar name, Limbus Patrum, a sort of a Partition in Hell, where all the Good Men of the Old Dispensation, that had died before Christ, were detained; and they hold that our Sa∣viour went thither, and emptied that Place, carrying all the Souls that were in it, with him to Heaven. Of this the Scriptures say nothing; not a word either of the Patriarchs going thither, or of Christ's deli∣vering them out of it: And though there are not in the Old Testa∣ment express Declarations and Promises made concerning a Future State, Christ having brought life and immortality to light through his Go∣spel; yet all the Hints given of it, shew that they looked for an Imme∣diate Admission to Blessedness after death. So David, Thou wilt shew me the path of life,* 1.47 in thy presence is fulness of joy, and at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore. Thou shalt guide me here by thy counsel, and afterwards receive me to glory. Isaiah says, That the righteous when they dye enter into peace. In the New Testament there is not a Hint given of this; for though some Passages may seem to favour Christ's delivering some Souls out of Hell, yet there is nothing that by any management can be brought to look this way.

There is another Sense of which these words [descended into Hell] are capable:* 1.48 by Hell may be meant the Invisible Place to which de∣parted Souls are carried after their death: For though the Greek word so rendred, does now commonly stand for the Place of the Damned, and for many Ages has been so understood; yet at the time of writing the New Testament it was among Greek Authors used indifferently for the place of all departed Souls, whether good or bad; and by it were meant the Invisible Regions where those Spirits were lodged: So if these words are taken in this large sense, we have in them a clear and literal account of our Saviour's Soul descending into Hell; it imports that he was not only dead in a more common acceptation, as it is usual to say a man is dead when there appear no signs of life in him; and that he was not as in a deep Extasy or Fit that seemed Death, but that he was truly dead; that his Soul was neither in his Body, no•• hovering about it, ascending and descending upon it, as some of the Iews fancied Souls did for some time after death; but that his Soul was really removed out of his Body, and carried to those unseen Regions of departed Spirits, among whom it continued till his Resurrection. That the Regions of the Blessed were known then to the Iews by the name of Paradise, as Hell was known by the name of Gehenna, is ve∣ry clear from Christ's last Words, To day thou shalt be with me in Para∣dise;* 1.49 and into thy hands do I commend my spirit. This is a plain and full account of a good Sense that may be well put on the Words; though after all, it is still to be remembred, That in the first Creeds that have this Article, that of Christ's Burial not being mentioned in them, it follows from thence, as well as from Ruffin's own Sense of it, that they understood this only of Christ's Burial.

ARTICLE IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ.

Christ did truly rise again from Death, and took again his Body, with Flesh, Bones, and all things appertaining to the Perfection of Man's Nature, wherewith he ascended in∣to Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the Last Day.

THere are Four Branches of this Article: The First is concerning the Truth of Christ's Resurrection. The Second concerning the Compleatness of it, That he took to him again his whole Body. The Third is concerning his Ascension and Continuance in Heaven. And the Fourth is concerning his returning to judge all men at the Last Day. These things are all so expresly affirmed, and that in so parti∣cular a manner in the New Testament, that if the Authority of that Book is once well proved, little doubting will remain concerning them.

It is punctually told in it, That the Body of Christ was laid in the Sepulchre: That a Stone was laid to the Mouth of it: That it was rolled away, and upon that Christ arose and left the Death-Cloaths behind him: That those who viewed the Sepulchre, saw no Body there: That in the same Body Christ shewed himself to his Disciples, so that they all knew him, he talked with them, and they did eat and drink with him, and he made Thomas feel to the Print of the Nails and Spear. It is as plainly told, That the Apostles look'd on, and saw him ascend up to Heaven, and that a Cloud received him out of their sight. It is also said very plainly, that he shall come again at the Last Day, and judge all men both the Quick and the Dead. So that if the Truth of the Gospels is once fully proved, it will not be necessary to insist long upon the special Proof of these Particulars: Somewhat will only be necessary to be said in Explanation of them.

The Gospel was first Preached, and soon after put in Writing; in which these Particulars are not only delivered, but are set forth with many Circumstances relating to them. The Credit of the Whole is put on that Issue concerning the Truth of Christ's Resurrection; so thar the overthrowing the Truth of That, was the overturning the whole Gospel, and struck at the Credit of it all. This was transacted as well as first published at Ierusalem, where the Enemies of it had all possible Advantages in their hands; their Interest was deeply concern∣ed▪ as well as their Malice was much kindled at it. They had both Power and Wealth in their hands, as well as Credit and Authority among the People. The Romans left them at full liberty, as they did the other Nations whom they conquered, to order their own Concerns as they pleased. And even the Romans themselves began quickly to hate and persecute the Christians: They became the Objects of Po∣pular Fury, as Tacitus tells us. The Romans look'd upon Christ as one that set on the Iews to those Tumults that were then so common among them, as Suetonius affirms: Which shews both how ignorant they were of the Doctrine of Christ, and how much they were preju∣diced against it. Yet this Gospel did spread it self, and was believed by great multitudes both at Ierusalem and in all Iudea; and from thence

it was propagated in a very few Years to a great many remoteCountries.

Among all Christians the Article of the Resurrection and As∣cension of Christ was always look'd on as the Capital one, upon which all the rest depended. This was attested by a considerable number of men, against whose Credit no Objection was made; who affirmed that they all had seen him, and conversed frequently with him after his Resurrection; that they saw him ascend up into Heaven; and that according to a Promise he had made them, they had received extraordinary Powers from him to work Miracles in his Name, and to speak in divers Languages. This last was a most ama∣zing Character of a Supernatural Power lodged with them; and was a thing of such a nature, that it must have been evident to every man whether it was true or false: So that the Apostles relating this so positively, and making such frequent Appeals to it, that way of proceeding carries a strong and undeniable Evidence of Truth in it. These Wonders were gathered together in a Book, and published in the very Time in which they were transacted: The Acts of the Apostles were writ two Years after St. Paul was carried Prisoner to Rome; and St. Luke begins that Book with the mention of the Gospel that he had formerly writ, as that Gospel begins with the mention of some other Gospels that were writ before it. Almost all the Epistles speak of the Temple of Ierusalem as yet in being; of the Iews as then in Peace and Pro∣sperity, hating and persecuting the Christians, every where: They do also frequently intimate the Assurance they had of a great Deliverance that was to happen quickly to the Christians, and of terrible Judgments that were to be poured out on the Iews; which was soon after that accom∣plish'd in the most signal manner of any thing that is recorded in History.

These things do clearly prove, That all the Writings of the New Testament were both Composed and Published in the Age in which that Matter was transacted: The Iews, who from all the places of their Dispersion went frequently to Ierusalem, to keep the great Festivities of their Religion there, had occasion often to examine upon the place, the Truth of the Resurrection and Ascen∣sion of Christ, and of the Effusion of the Holy Ghost: Yet even in that Infancy of Christianity, in which it had so little visible Strength, no Proof was so much as ever pretended in opposition to those great and essential Points; which being Matters of Fact, and related with a great Variety of Circumstances, had been easily confuted, if there had been any ground for it. The great Darkness at the time of Christ's Death, the rending the Veil of the Temple in two, as well as what was more publick, the renting of the Rocks at his death: His being laid in a new Sepulchre, and a Watch being set about it; and the Watchmen reporting, That while they slept, the Body of Christ was carried away: The Apostles breaking out all of the sud∣den into that variety of Tongues on Pentecost; the Miracles that they wrought, and the proceedings of the Sanhedrim with them, were all things so publickly done, that as the discovery of Falshood in any one of these was in the power of the Iews, if any such was; so That alone had most effectually destroyed the Credit of this Religion, and stopt its Progress.

The Writings of the New Testament were at that time no Secrets, they were in all mens hands, and were copied out free∣ly by every one that desired it. We find within an Hundred Years

after that time, both by the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, by Iu∣stin, and Irenaeus, not to mention Clemens of Rome, who lived in that time, or Ignatius and Polycarp, who lived very near it; That the Au∣thority of these Writings was early received and submitted to; That they were much read, and well known; and that they began very soon to be read at the Meetings of the Christians for Worship; and were esteemed by the several Churches as the great Trust and Depositum that was lodged with them. So that though by the Negligence of Co∣piers some small Variations might happen among some of the Copies; yet as they do all agree in the main, and most signally in those Parti∣culars that are mentioned in this Article; so it was not possible for any that should have had the wickedness to set about it, to have cor∣rupted the New Testament by any Additions or Alterations; it being so early spread into so many hands, and that in so many different places.

When all this matter is laid together, it appears to have as full an Evidence to support it, as any Matter of Fact can possibly have. The Narration gave great scope to a variety of Enquiries; it raised much Disputing, Opposition, and Persecution; and yet nothing was ever pretended to be proved, that could subvert its Credit: Great Multitudes received this Doctrine, and died for it in the Age in which the Matters of Fact upon which its Credit was built, were well attested, and in which the Truth or Falshood of them might have been easily known; which it is reasonable to believe that all men would carefully examine, before they embraced and assented to that which was like to draw on them Sufferings that would probably end in Death. Those who did spread this Doctrine, as well as those who first received it, had no Interest beside that of Trut•• to engage them to it. They could expect neither Wealth nor Greatness from it: They were obliged to Travel much, and to Labour hard; to wrestle through great Difficulties, and to endure many Indignities. They saw others die on the account of it, and had reason to look for the like usage themselves.

The Doctrine that they preached related either to the Facts concerning the Person of Christ, or to the Rules of Life which they delivered. These were all pure, just, and good; they tended to settle the World upon the Foundations of Truth and Sincerity, and that sublime Pitch of Righteousness, of doing as they would be done by; they tended to make men Sober and Temperate, Chaste and Mo∣dest, Meek and Humble, Merciful and Charitable; so that from thence there was no Colour given for suspecting any Fraud or Design in it. The Worship of God in this Religion was Pure and Simple, free from Cost or Pomp, from Theatrical Shews, as well as Idolatrous Rites, and had in it all possible Characters becoming the Purity of the Supreme Mind. When therefore so much concurs to give Credit to a Religion, there ought to be evident Proofs brought to the contrary, before it can be disbelieved or rejected. So many men forsaking the Religion in which they were born and bred, which has always a strong Influence even upon the greatest Minds; and there being so many par∣ticular Prejudices both upon Iews and Gentiles, by the Opinions in which they had been bred, and the Impressions which had gone deep in them, it could be no slight matter that could overcome all that.

The Iews expected a Conqueror for their Messias, who should have raised both the Honour of their Law and their Nation, and so were

much possessed against one of a mean Appearance; and when they saw that their Law was to be superseded, and that the Gentiles were to be brought in to equal Privileges with themselves, they could not but be deeply prejudiced both against the Person and Doctrine of Christ.

The Philosophers despised Divine Inspiration, and secret Assistances, and had an ill Opinion of Miracles: And the Herd among the Gen∣tiles were so accustomed to Pomp and Shew in their Religious Perfor∣mances, that they must have nauseated the Christian Simplicity, and the corruption of their Morals must have made them uneasy at a Religion of so much strictness. All sorts of men lay under very strong Prejudices against this Religion; nor was there any one Arti∣cle or Branch of it, that f••attered any of the Interests, Appetites, Passions, or Vanities of Men, but all was very much to the contrary. They were warned to prepare for Trials and Crosses, and in particular for a severe and fiery Trial that was speedily to come upon them.

There was nothing of the way or manner of Impostors that appeared in the Methods in which the Gospel was propagated. When the Apostles saw that some were endeavouring to lessen them and their Authority, they took no fawning ways: They neither flat∣tered nor spared those Churches that were under their care: They charged them home with their faults, and asserted their own Character in a strain that shewed they were afraid of no discoveries. They appeal'd to the Miracles that they had wrought, and to those Gifts and Divine Virtues of which they were not only possessed themselves, but which were by their Ministry conferred on others. The demonstration of the Spirit, or Inspiration that was in them, appeared in the power, that is,* 1.50 in the Miracles which accompanied it, and those they wrought openly in the sight of many Witnesses. An uncontested Miracle is the fullest Evidence that can be given of a Divine Commission.

A Miracle is a Work that exceeds all the known Powers of Nature, and that carries in it plain Characters of a Power Superior to any Human power. We cannot indeed fix the bounds of the Powers of Nature; but yet we can plainly apprehend what must be beyond them. For In∣stance, We do not know what secret Virtues there may be in Plants and Minerals; But we do know that bare words can have no Natural Virtue in them to cure Diseases, much less to raise the Dead: We know not what force Imagination or Credulity may have in Critical Disea∣ses; but we know that a Dead man has no Imagination: We know also, That Blindness, Deafness, and an Inveterate Palsey, cannot be cured by Conceit: Therefore such Miracles as the giving Sight to a Man born Blind, Speech to the Deaf and Dumb, and Strength to the Paralytick; but most of all, the giving Life to the Dead, and that not only to Persons laid out as Dead, but to one that was car∣ried out to be Buried, and to another that had been four days Dead, and in his Grave; all this was done with a bare Word, without any sort of External Application; This, I say, as it is clearly above the Force of Imagination, so it is beyond the Powers of Nature.

These things were not done in the dark, nor in the presence of a few, in whom a particular confidence was put; but in full day-light, and in the sight of great Numbers, Enemies as well as Friends, and some of those Enemies were both the most enraged, and the most capable of making all possible Exceptions to what was done. Such were the Ru∣lers

of the Synagogues, and the Pharisees in our Saviour's Time: And yet they could neither deny the Facts, nor pretend that there was any Deceit or Juglary in them. We have in this all possible reason to conclude, That both the things w••re truly done as they are related, and that no just Exception was or could be made to them.

If it is pretended, That those wonderful things were done by the Power of an Evil Spirit; That does both acknowledge the Truth of the Relation, and also its being Supernatural. This Answer taken from the Power of Evil Spirits, is sometimes to be made use of, when extraordinary things are well attested, and urged in proof of that which upon other Reasons we are assured is false. It is certain, That as we have a great power over vast quantities of gross and heavy Mat∣ter, which by the motion of a very subtile Body, our Animal Spirits we can master and manage: So Angels Good, or Bad, may by virtue of subtile Bodies, in which they may dwell, or which upon occasion they may assume, do many things vastly above either our Force to do, or our Imagination to apprehend how it is done by them. Therefore an Action, that exceeds all the known Powers in Nature, may yet be done by an Evil Spirit that is in Rebellion against its Maker, and that designs to impose upon us by such a mighty performance. But then the measure by which we must judge of this, is by considering what is the End or Design driven at in such a wonderful Work: If it is a good one, if it tends to reform the Manners of Men, to bring them off from Magick, Idolatry and Superstition, to the Worship of one Pure and Eternal Mind: And if it tends to Reform their Actions, as well as their Speculations, and their Worship; to turn them from Immorality, Falsehood, and Malice, to a Pure, a Sincere, and a Mild Temper; if it tends to Regulate Society, as well as to Perfect the Nature and Faculties of every single man; Then we may well con∣clude, That no evil Spirit can so far depart from its own Nature, as to join its Forces, and co-operate in such a Design:* 1.51 For then the King∣dom of Satan could not stand, if he were thus divided against himself, according to what our Saviour said, when this was Objected against the Miracles that he wrought.

These are all the General Considerations that concur to prove the Truth of the History of the Gospel, of which the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ are the Two main Articles; for they being well proved, give Authority to all the rest. As to the Resurrection in par∣ticular, it is certain the Apostles could not be deceived in that mat∣ter: They saw Christ frequently after he Rose from the Dead; they met him once with a great Company of Five hundred with them: They heard him Talk and Argue with them; he opened the Scriptures to them with so peculiar an Energy, that they felt their Hearts set on fire, even when they did not yet perceive that it was He himself: They did not at first either look for his Resurrection, nor believe those who reported him risen: They made all due Enquiry, and some of them went beyond all reasonable bounds in their doubting: So far were they from an easy and scon-imposed-on Credulity. His Sufferings and their own Fears had so amazed them, that they were contriving how to separate and disperse themselves, when he at first appeared to them. Men so full of Fear, and so far from all Hope, are not apt to be easy in believing. So it must be concluded, That

either the account which the Apostles gave the World of Christ's Re∣surrection is true, or they were gross Impostors: since it is clear, That the Circumstances and Numbers mentioned in that History, shew there could be no deception in it. And it is as little possible to con∣ceive, that there could be any Imposture in it: For not to repeat again, what has been already said, That they were under no Temp∣tations to set about any such Deceit, but very much to the contrary; and that there is no reason to think they were either bad enough to enter upon such a design, or capable and skilful enough to manage it; they being many of 'em illiterate Fishermen of Galilee, who had no Acquaintance at Ierusalem to furnish them with that which might be necessary for executing such a contrivance. The Circumstan••es of that Transaction are to be well examined, and then it will appear, that no Number of bold and dextrous men, furnished with all Advantages whatsoever, could have effected this matter.

Great Numbers had been engaged in the procuring our Saviour to be Crucified: The whole Sanhedrim, besides Multitudes of the People, who upon all occasions are easily drawn in to engage in Tumultuary Commo∣tions: All these were concerned to examine the Event of this matter. He was Buried in a New Sepulchre lately hewed out of a Rock, so that there was no coming at it by any secret ways: A Watch was set; and all this at a time, in which the Full-Moon gave a great Light all the Night long: And Ierusalem being very full of People, who were then there in great Numbers to keep the Passover, that being the se∣cond Night of so vast a Rendevouz, it is reasonable to think, That great Numbers were walking in the Fields, or at least might be so, some later, and some earlier. Now if an Imposture was to be set about, the Guard was to be frighted or mastered, which could not be done without giving the Alarm, and that must have quickly brought a Multitude upon them. Christ's Body must have been disposed of: Some other Tomb was to be lookt for to lodge it in: The Wounds that were in it would have made it to be soon known if found.

Here a bold Attempt was to be undertaken, by a company of poor irresolute Men, who must trust one another intirely, otherways they knew all might be soon discovered. One of their Number had be∣trayed Christ a few days before: Another had forsworn him, and all had forsaken him: And yet these men are supposed all of the sudden so firm in themselves, and so sure of one another, as to venture on the most daring thing that was ever undertaken by men, when not a Circumstance could ever be found out to fix upon them the least suspi∣cion. The Priests and the Pharisees must be thought a strange stupid fort of Creatures, if they did not examine where the Apostles were all that Night: Besides many other particulars, which might have been a thread to lead them into strict Inquiries, unless it was because they believed the Report that the Watch had brought them of Christ's Rising again. When they had this certain reason to believe it, and yet resolved to oppose it, the only thing they could do, was to seem to neglect the Matter, and only to decry it in general as an Impo∣sture, without going into Particulars; which certainly they would not have done, if they themselves had not been but too sure of the Truth of it.

When all this is laid together, it is the most unreasona∣ble thing imaginable, to think that there was an Imposture in

this Matter, when no Colour nor shadow of it ever appeared, and when all the Circumstances, and not only probabilities, but even Mo∣ral possibilities are so full to the contrary.

The Ascension of Christ has not indeed so full a proof: Nor is it capable of it, neither does it need it; for the Resurrection well pro∣ved, makes that very credible. For this we have only the Testimony of the Apostles, who did all attest that they saw it, being all toge∣ther in an open Field: When Christ was Walking and Discoursing with them; and when he was Blessing them, he was parted from them: They saw him Ascend, till a Cloud received him, and took him out of their sight. And then Two Angels appeared to them, and assured them,* 1.52 That he should come again in like manner as they had seen him Ascend. Here is a very particular Relation, with many Cir∣cumstances in it, in which it was not possible for the Apostles to be mi∣staken: So that there being no reason to suspect their Credit, this rests upon that Authority. But Ten days after, it received a much clearer Proof: When the Holy Ghost was poured out on them in so visible a manner, and with most remarkable effects. Immediately upon it they spoke with divers Tongues, and wrought many Miracles, and all in the Name of Christ. They did often and solemnly disclaim their doing any of those wonderful things by any power of their own: They owned that all that they had or did was derived to them from Iesus of Nazareth,* 1.53 of whose Resurrection and Ascension they were ap∣pointed to be the Witnesses.

Christ's coming again to judge the World at the last day, is so of∣ten affirmed by himself in the Gospel, and is so frequently mentioned in the Writings of his Apostles, that this is a main part of his Do∣ctrine: So that his Resurrection, Ascension, together with the Effusion of the Holy Ghost, having in general proved his Mission, and his whole Doctrine, this is also proved by them. Enough seems to be said in Proof of all the parts of this Article; it remains only that somewhat should be added in Explanation of them.

As to the Resurrection, it is to little purpose to Enquire, whether our Saviour's Body was kept all the while in a compleat Organisati∣on, that so by this Miracle it might be preserved in a Natural State for his Soul to re-enter it: Or whether by the Course of Nature the vast Number of the inward Conveyances that are in the Body were stopt; and if all of a sudden, when the time of the Resurrection came, all was again put in a vital State, fit to be animated by his Soul. There must have been a Miracle either way: So it is to little purpose to enquire into it. The former, though a continued Miracle, yet seemes to agree more fully to these words, Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. It is to as little purpose to enquire how our Saviour's new Body was supplied with Blood; Since he had lost the greatest part of it on the Cross. Whether that was again by the power of God brought back into his Veins, or whether as he himself had for∣merly said, That Man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, Blood was supplied by Miracle: Or whether his Body that was then of the Nature of a Glorified Body, though yet on Earth, needed the supplies of Blood to furnish new Spirits, for serving the natural Functions; He Eating and Drinking so seldom, that we may well believe it was done rather to satisfy his

Apostles, than to answer the Necessities of Nature: These are Curio∣sities that signify so little, if we could certainly resolve them, that it is to no purpose to enquire about them, since we cannot know what to determine in them. This in general is certain, that the same Soul returned back to the same Body; so that the same Man who died, rose again; and that is our Faith. We need not trouble our selves with enquiring how to make out the Three Days of Christ's being in the Grave; Days stand in the common acceptation, for a Portion of a Day. We know the Iews were very exact to the Rest on the Sabbath, so the Body was without question laid in the Grave before the Sun-set on Friday; so that was the First day; the Sabbath was a compleat one; and a good part of the Third day, that is, the Night, with which the Iews began to count the day, was over before he was raised up.

As for his stay on Earth forty days, we cannot pretend to give an account of it; whether his Body was passing through a slow and Phy∣sical Purification, to be meet for Ascending; or whether he intended to keep a proportion between his Gospel and the Law of Moses; that as he suffered at the time of their killing the Passover, so the Effusion of the Holy Ghost was fixed for Pentecost, and that therefore he ••ould stay on Earth till that time was near, not to put his Apostles upon too long an expectation without his Presence; which might be ne∣cessary to animate them, till they should be endued with Power from on high. As to the manner of his Ascension, it is also questioned whether the Body of Christ as it asc••nded, was so wonderfully chan∣ged, as to put on the Subtility and Purity of an Ethereal Body; or whe∣ther it 〈…〉〈…〉 same Form in Heaven that it had on Earth; or i•• it pu•• on a new one: It is more probable that it did; and that the wonderful Glory that appeared in his Countenance and whole Person at his Tr••••s••••gur••tion, was a manifestation of that more permanent Glory to which it was to be afterwards exalted. It seems probable from what St. Paul says,* 1.54 (That flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, which relates to our glorified Bodies, when we shall bear the Image of the second and the heavenly Adam) that Christ's Body has no more the modifications of Flesh and Blood in it; and that the Glory of the Celestial Body is of another Nature and Texture than that of the Terrestrial. It is easily imagined how this may be, and yet the Body to be numerically the same:* 1.55 For all Matter being uniform, and capable of all sort of Motion, and by consequence of being either much grosser or much purer, the same Portion of Matter that made a thick and Heavy Body here on Earth, may be put into that Purity and Fineness as to be no longer a fit Inhabitant of this Earth, or to breath this Air, but to be meet to be transplanted into Ethereal Regions.

Christ as he went up into Heaven, so he had the whole Government of this World put into his hands, and the whole Ministry of Angels put under his Command, even in his Human Nature. So that all things are now in subjection to him. All Power and Authority is derived from him,* 1.56 and he does whatsoever he pleases both in Heaven and Earth. In him all fulness dwells. And as the Mosaical Tabernacle being filled with Glory, the Emanations of it did by the Urim and Thum∣mim enlighten and direct that People; so out of that Fulness that dwelt Bodily in Christ, there is a constant Emanation of his Grace and Spirit descending on his Church. He does also intercede for us

at his Father's Right-hand, where he is preparing a place for us. The meaning of all which is this, That as he is vested with an unccncei∣vable high degree of Glory, even as Man, so the Merit of his Death is still fresh and entire; and in the virtue of that, the Sins of all that come to God thro••gh him, claiming to his Death as to their Sacrifice, and obeying his Gospel, are pardoned, and they are sealed by his Spi∣rit until the day of Redemption. In conclusion, when all God's design with this World is accomplished, it shall be set on Fire, and all the great Parts of which it is composed, as of Elements, shall be melted and burnt down; and then when by that Fire probably the Portions of Matter which was in the Bodies of all who have lived upon Earth, shall be so far refined and fixed, as to become both Incorruptible and Immortal, then they shall be made meet for the Souls that formerly animated them, to re-enter every one into his own Body, which shall be then so moulded as to be a Habitation fit to give it everlasting Joy or everlasting Torment.

Then shall Christ appear visibly in some very conspicuous Place, in the Clouds of Heaven, where every Eye shall see him; He shall ap∣pear in his own glory, that is, in his Human glorified Body:* 1.57 He shall appear in the glory of his angels, having vast Numbers of these about him, attending on him: But which is above all, he shall appear in his Father's glory, that is, there shall be then a most wonderful Mani∣festation of the Eternal Godhead dwelling in him; and then shall he pass a final Sentence upon all that ever lived upon Earth, according to all that they have done in the Body, whether it be good or bad. The Righteous shall ascend as he did, and shall meet him in the Clouds, and be for ever with him; and the Wicked shall sink into a state of Darkness and Misery, of unspeakable Horror of Mind, and everlast∣ing Pain and Torment.

ARTICLE V. Of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one Substance, Majesty, and Glory with the Fathei and the Son, very and Eternal God.

IN order to the explaining this Article, we must consider, First, The Importance of the Term Spirit, or Holy Spirit. Secondly, His Pro∣cession from the Father and the Son. And Thirdly, That he is truly God, of the same Substance with the Father and the Son. Spirit signifies Wind or Breath, and in the Old Testament it stands frequently in that Sense: The Spirit of God, or Wind of God, stands sometimes for a high and strong Wind; but more frequently it signifies a secret Impression made by God on the Mind of a Prophet: So that the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Prophecy are set in opposition to the vain Imaginations, the false Pretences, or the Diabolical Illusions of those who assumed to themselves the Name and the Authority of a Prophet, without a true Mission from God: But when God made Representations either in a Dream, or in an Extasy, to any Person, or imprinted a sense of his Will on their Minds, together with such necessary Characters as gave it Proof and Authority, this was an Illapse from God, as a Breathing from him on the Soul of the Prophet.

In the New Testament this word Holy Ghost stands most commonly for that wonderful Effusion of those Miraculous Virtues that was poured out at Pentecost on the Apostles; by which their Spirits were not only exalted with extraordinary degrees of Zeal and Courage, of Authority and U••∣terance, but they were furnished with the Gifts of Tongues and of Mira∣cles. And besides that first and great Effusion, several Christians received particular Talents and Inspirations, which are most commonly ex∣pressed by the word Spirit or Inspiration. Those inward Assistances. by which the Frame and Temper of Mens Minds are changed and re∣newed, are likewise called the Spirit, or the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost. So Christ said to Nicodemus,* 1.58 That except a man was born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God; and that his heavenly Father would give the Holy Spirit to every one that asked him. By these it is plain, that extraordinary or miraculous Inspirations are not meant, for these are not every Christian's Portion; there is no question made of all this.

The main question is, Whether by Spirit, or Holy Spirit, we are to understand one Person, that is the Fountain of all those Gifts and Operations; or whether by One Spirit is only to be meant the Power of God flowing out and shewing it self in ma∣ny wonderful Operations. The Adversaries of the Trinity will have the Spirit or Holy Spirit to signify no Person, but only the Divine Gifts or Operations. But in opposition to this it is plain, that in our Saviour's last and long Discourse to his Disciples,* 1.59 in which he promised to send them his Spirit, he calls him another Comforter, to be sent in his stead, or to supply his Absence; and the whole Tenor of the Discourse runs on him as a Person:* 1.60 He shall abide with you: He shall guide you into all truth; and shew you things to come: He shall bring all things into your remembrance: He shall convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. In all those places he is so plainly spoken

of, not as a Quality or Operation, but as a Person; and that without any Key or Rule to understand the Words otherwise, that this alone may serve to determine the matter now in dispute. Christ's Commis∣sion to Preach and Baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, does plainly make him a Person, since it cannot be said that we are to be called by the Name of a Virtue or Operation. St. Paul does also in a long Discourse upon the Diversity of Gifts,* 1.61 Administra∣tions, and Operations, ascribe them all to one Spirit, as their Autho•• and Fountain; of whom he speaks as of a Person, distributing these in order to several Ends, and in different Measures.* 1.62 He speaks of the Spirit's searching all things, of his interceeding for us, of our grieving the Spirit, by which we are sealed. This is the Language used concern∣ing a Person, not a Quality. All these, says he, worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. Now it is not to be conceived, how that both our Saviour and his Apostles should use the Phrase of a Person so constantly in speaking of the Spi∣rit, and should so critically and in the way of Argument pursue that Strain, if he is not a Person: They not only insist on it, and repeat it frequently, but they draw an Argument from it for Union and Love, and for mutual Condescension and Sympathy. Upon all these grounds it is evident, that the Holy Spirit is in the Scripture proposed to us as a Person, under whose Oeconomy all the various Gifts, Administrations, and Operations that are in the Church, are put.

The Second Particular relating to this Article, is the Procession of this Spirit from the Father and the Son. The Word Procession, or as the Schoolmen term it, Spiration, is only made use of in order to the naming this Relation of the Spirit to the Father and Son, in such a manner as may best answer the sense of the word Spirit: For it must be confessed that we can frame no explicite Idea of this matter: and therefore we must speak of it either strictly in Scripture-Words, or in such Words as arise out of them, and that have the same Signification with them. It is therefore a vain Attempt of the Schoolmen, to undertake to give a reason why the Second Person is said to be generated, and so is called Son, and the Third to proceed, and so is called Spirit. All these Subtil∣ties can have no Foundation, and signify nothing towards the clearing this matter, which is rather darkned than cleared by a pretended Il∣lustration. In a word, as we should never have believed this Myste∣ry if the Scripture had not revealed it to us, so we understand no∣thing concerning it, besides what is contained in the Scriptures: And therefore, if in any thing, we must think soberly upon those Subjects. The Scriptures call the Second, Son, and the Third, Spirit; so Gene∣ration and Procession are words that may well be used, but they are words concerning which we can form no distinct Conception. We only use them because they belong to the words Son and Spirit. The Spirit, in things that we do understand, is somewhat that proceeds, and the Son is a Person begotten, we therefore believing that the Holy Ghost is a Person, apply the word Procession to the manner of his Emanation from the Father; though at the same time we must acknowledge that we have no distinct Thought concerning it. So much in general con∣cerning Procession. It has been much controverted whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, or from the Father and the Son.

In the first Disputes concerning the Divinity of the Holy Ghost with the Macedonians who denied it, there was no other Contest, but whe∣ther

he was truly God, or not. When that was settled by the Coun∣cil of Constantinople, it was made a part of the Creed; but it was on∣ly said that he Proceeded from the Father: And the Council of Ephesus soon after that, fixed on that Creed, decreeing that no Additions should be made to it: Yet about the end of the Sixth Century, in the Western Church an Addition was made to the Article, by which the Holy Ghost was affirmed to proceed from the Son as well as from the Father. And when the Eastern and Western Churches in the Ninth Century fell into an humour of quarrelling upon the account of Juris∣diction, after some time of Anger, in which they seem to be searching for matter to reproach one another with, they found out this difference: The Greeks reproached the Latins for thus adding to the Faith, and corrupting the Ancient Symbol, and that contrary to the Decree of a General Council. The Latins on the other hand, charged them for detracting from the Dignity of the Son: And this became the chief Point in Controversy between them.

Here was certainly a very unhappy Dispute; inconsiderable in its Original, but fatal in its Consequences. We of this Church, though we abhor the Cruelty of condemning the Eastern Churches for such a difference, yet do receive the Creed according to the usage of the West∣ern Churches; And therefore though we do not pretend to explain what Procession is, we believe according to the Article, That the Ho∣ly Ghost proceeds both from the Father and the Son: Because in that Discourse of our Saviour's that contains the Promise of the Spirit, and that long Description of him as a Person, Christ not only says, That the Father will send the Spirit in his name, but adds, That he will send the Spirit;* 1.63 and though he says next, who proceedeth from the Father, yet since he sends him,* 1.64 and that he was to supply his room, and to act in his Name, this implies a Relation, and a sort of Subordination in the Spirit to the Son. This may serve to justify our adhering to the Creeds, as they had been for many Ages received in the Western Church: But we are far from thinking that this Proof is so full and expli∣cite, as to justify our Separating from any Church, or condemning it, that should stick exactly to the first Creeds, and reject this Addition.

The Third Branch of the Article is, That this Holy Ghost or Per∣son thus proceeding, is truly God, of the same Substance with the Fa∣ther and the Son. That he is God, was formerly proved by those Passages in which the whole Trinity in all the Three Persons is affirm'd: But besides that, the lying to the Holy Ghost by Ananias and Saphira, is said to be a lying not unto men,* 1.65 but to God. His being called another Comforter; his teaching all things; his guiding into all truth; his telling things to come; his searching all things, even the deep things of God; his being called the Spirit of the Lord, in opposition to the spirit of a man; his making intercession for us; his changing us into the same image with Christ; are all such plain Characters of his being God, that those who deny that, are well aware of this, That if it is once proved that he is a Person, it will follow that he must be God; therefore all that was said to prove him a Person, is here to be remembred as a Proof that he is truly God. So that though there is not such a variety of Proofs for this, as there was for the Divinity of the Son, yet the Proof of it is plain and clear. And from what was said upon the First Article concerning the Unity of God, it is also certain, that if he is God, he must be of one Substance, Majesty, and Glory, with the Fa∣ther and the Son.

ARTICLE VI. Of the Sufficiency of Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salva∣tion: So that whatsoevet is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any Man, that it should be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation. In the Name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books,

Genesis	The First Book of Samuel	The Book of Hester
Exodus	The Second Book of Samuel	The Book of Iob
Leviticus	The First Book of Kings	The Psalms
Numbers	The Second Book of Kings	The Proverbs
Deuteronomy	The First Book of Chronicles	Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Ioshua	The Second Book of Chronicles	Cantica or Song of Solomon
Iudges	The First Book of Esdras	Four Prophets the greater
Ruth	The Second Book of Esdras	Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierom saith) the Church doth read for Example of Life, and Instruction of Manners, but yet it doth not apply them to Establish any Doctrine: Such are these following.

• The Third Book of Esdras
• The Fourth Book of Esdras
• The Book of Tobias
• The Book of Iudith
• The rest of the Book of Esther
• The Book o•• Wisdom
• Iesus the Son of Syrach
• Baruch the Prophet
• The Song of the Three Children
• The History of Susanna
• Of Bel and the Dragon
• The Prayer of Manasses
• The First Book of Maccabees
• The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly re∣ceived, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

IN this Article are Two important Heads, and to each of them a proper consequence does belong. The First is, That the Holy Scriptures do contain all things necessary to Salvation; The Nega∣tive Consequence that ariseth out of that, is, That no Article that is not either Read in it, or that may not be proved by it, is to be re∣quired to be believed as an Article of Faith, or to be thought necessary to Salvation. The Second is, The settling the Canon of the Scripture both of Old and New Testament; and the consequence that arises out of that, is, The rejecting the Books commonly called Apocryphal, which though they may be Read by the Church, for Example of Life, and Instruction of Manners; yet are no part of the Canon, nor is any Do∣ctrine to be Established by them.

After the main Foundations of Religion in General in the belief of a God, or more specially of the Christian Religion in the Doctrine of the Trinity, and of the Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, are laid down; The next Point to be settled, is, What is the Rule of this Faith, where is it to be found, and with whom is it lodged? The Church of Rome and We do both agree, that the Scriptures are of Di∣vine Inspiration: Those of that Communion acknowledge, That eve∣ry thing which is contained in Scripture, is true, and comes from God; but they add to this, That the Books of the New Testament were occasionally written, and not with the design of making them the full Rule of Faith, but that many things were delivered Orally by the Apostles; which if they are faithfully Transmitted to us, are to be received by us with the same Submission and Respect that we pay to their Writings: And they also believe, That these Traditions are conveyed down infallibly to us, and that to distinguish betwixt true and false Doctrines and Traditions, there must be an infallible Autho∣rity lodged by Christ with his Church. We on the contrary affirm, That the Scriptures are a compleat Rule of Faith, and that the whole Christian Religion is contained in them, and no where else; and al∣though we make great use of Tradition, especially that which is most Ancient and nearest the Source, to help us to a clear understanding of the Scriptures; yet as to Matters of Faith we reject all Oral Tra∣dition, as an incompetent mean of conveying down Doctrines to us, and we refuse to receive any Doctrine, that is not either expresly con∣tained in Scripture, or clearly proved from it.

In order to the opening and proving of this, it is to be considered, what God's design in first ordering Moses, and after him all Inspired Persons to put things in Writing, could be: it could be no other than to free the World from the Uncertainties and Impostures of Oral Tra∣dition. All Mankind being derived from one common Source, it seems it was much easier in the first Ages of the World, to preserve the Tra∣dition pure, than it could possibly be afterwards: There were only a few things then to be delivered concerning God; as, That he was one Spiritual Being, That he had Created all things, That he alone was to be Worshipped and Served; the rest relating to the History of the World, and chiefly of the first Man that was made in it. There were also great advantages on the side of Oral Tradition, the first men were very long-liv'd, and they saw their own Families spread extreamly, so that they had on their side both the Authority which long Life al∣ways has, particularly concerning Matters of Fact, and the credit that Parents have naturally with their own Children, to secure Tra∣dition. Two Persons might have conveyed it down, from Adam so Abraham; Methuselah lived above Three hundred years while Adam was yet alive, and Sem was almost an hundred when he died, and he lived much above an hundred years in the same time with Abraham, according to the Hebrew. Here is a great period of Time filled up by Two or Three Persons: And yet in that Time the Tradition of those very few things in which Religion was then comprehended, was so Universally and Intirely corrupted, that it was necessary to correct it by immediate Revelation to Abraham: God intending to have a pecu∣liar People to himself out of his Posterity, commanded him to for∣sake

his Kindred and Country, that he might not be corrupted with an Idolatry, that we have reason to believe was then but beginning among them. We are sure his Nephew Laban was an Idolater: And the danger of mixing with the rest of Mankind was then so great, that God ordered a Mark to be made on the Bodies of all descended from him, to be the Seal of the Covenant, and the Badge and Cognisance of his Po∣sterity: By that distinction, and by their living in a wandring and un∣fixed manner, they were preserved for some time from Idolatry: God intending afterwards to settle them in an Instituted Religion. But though the Beginnings of it, I mean the Promulgation of the Law on Mount Sinai, was one of the most amazing things that ever happened, and the fittest to be Orally conveyed down, the Law being very short, and the Circumstances in the delivery of it most astonishing; and though there were many Rites, and several Festivities appointed chiefly for the carrying down the Memory of it; though there was also in that dispensation, the greatest advantage imaginable for securing this Tradition, all the main Acts of their Religion being to be performed in one Place, and by men of one Tribe and Family; as they were al∣so all the Inhabitants of a small Tract of Ground, of one Language, and by their Constitutions oblig'd to maintain a constant Commerce among themselves: They having further a continuance of Signal Characters of God's Miraculous Presence among them, such as the Operation of the Water of Jealousy, the Plenty of the Sixth Year to supply them all the Sabbatical Year, and til•• the Harvest of the fol∣lowing Year: Together with a Succession of Prophets that followed one another, either in a constant course, or at least soon after one ano∣ther; but above all, the Presence of God which appeared in the Cloud of Glory, and in those Answers that were given by the Urim and Thummim, all which must be confessed to be advantages on the side of Tradition, vastly beyond any that can be pretended to have been in the Christian Church. Yet notwithstanding all these, God command∣ed Moses to write all their Law, as the Ten Commandments were by the Immediate Power or Finger of God, writ on Tables of Stone. When all this is laid together and well considered, it will appear, That God by a particular Oeconomy intended then to secure Re∣vealed Religion from the doubtfulness and uncertainties of Oral Tradition.

It is much more reasonable to believe, That the Christian Religion, which was to be spread to many remote Regions, among whom there could be little Communication, should have been fixed in its first be∣ginnings by putting it in▪ Writing, and not left to the looseness of Re∣ports and Stories. We do plainly see, That though the methods of knowing and communicating Truth, are now furer and better fixed, than they have been in most of the Ages which have passed since the be∣ginnings of this Religion; yet in every Matter of Fact such additi∣ons are daily made, as it happens to be Reported, and every Point of Doctrine is so variously stated, that if Religion had not a more assu∣red bottom than Tradition, it could not have that Credit paid to it that it ought to have; If we had no greater certainty for Religion, than Report, we could not believe it very firmly, nor venture upon it: So in order to the giving this Doctrine such Authority as is ne∣cessary for attaining the great ends proposed in it, the conveyance of

it must be clear and unquestionable; otherwise as it would grow to be much mixed with Fable, so it would come to be looked on as all a Fable. Since then Oral Tradition, when it had the utmost Advan∣tages possible of its side, failed so much in the conveyance both of Natural Religion, and of the Mosaical, we see that it cannot be relied on as a certain method of preserving the Truths of Revealed Re∣ligion.

In our Saviour's Time, Tradition was set up on many occasions against him, but he never submitted to it: On the contrary he re∣proached the Iews with this, That they had made the Laws of God of no effect by their Traditions;* 1.66 and he told them, That they worshipped God in vain, when they taught for Doctrines the Commandments of men. In all his Disputes with the Pharisees, he appealed to Moses and the Prophets, he bade them search the scriptures, for in them, said he, ye think ye have eternal life, and they testify of me. Ye think is by the Phraseology of that time, a word that does not refer to any particular Conceit of theirs; but imports, That as they thought, so in them they had Eternal Life. Our Saviour justifies himself and his Doctrine oft∣en by words of Scripture, but never once by Tradition. We see plainly, That in our Saviour's Time, the Tradition of the Resurre∣ction was so doubtful among the Iews, that the Sadducees, a formed Party among them, did openly deny it. The Authority of Tradition had likewise imposed two very mischievous Errors upon the strictest Sect of the Iews, that adhered the most firmly to it: The one was, That they understood the Prophecies concerning the Messias sitting on the Throne of David literally: They thought that in imitation of Da∣vid, he was not only to free his own Country from a Foreign Yoke, but that he was to subdue, as David had done, all the Neighbouring Nations. This was to them a Stone of Stumbling and a Rock of Offence; so their adhering to their Traditions proved their ruin in all Respects. The other Error, to which the Authority of Tradition led them, was their preferring the Rituals of their Religion to the Moral Precepts that it contained: This not only corrupted their own Man∣ners, while they thought that an Exactness of Performing, and a Zeal in Asserting, not only the Ritual Precepts that Moses gave their Fathers, but those Additions to them which they had from Tradition, that were accounted hedges about the Law: That this, I say, might well excuse or atone for the most heinous Violations of the Rules of Justice and Mercy: But this had yet another worse effect upon them, while it possessed them with such prejudices against our Saviour and his Apostles, when they came to see that they set no value on those practices that were recommended by Tradition, and that they pre∣ferred pure and sublime Morals, even to Mosaical Ceremonies them∣selves, and set the Gentiles at liberty from those observances. So that the ruin of the Iews, their rejecting the Messias, and their persecuting his followers, arose chiefly from this Principle that had got in among them of believing Tradition, and of being guided by it.

The Apostles in all their Disputes with the Iews, make their Ap∣peals constantly to the Scriptures; they set a high Character on those of Berea for examining them, and comparing the Doctrine that they preached,* 1.67 with them. In the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians and Hebrews, in which they pursue a thread of Argument, with relation

to the Prejudices that the Iews had taken up against Christianity, they never once argue ••rom Tradition, but always from the Scriptures; They do not pretend only to disparage Modern Tradition, and to set up that which was more Ancient: They make no such distinction, but hold close to the Scriptures. When St. Paul sets out the Advanta∣ges that Timothy had by a Religious Education, he mentions this, That of a Child he had known the holy Scriptures,* 1.68 which were able to make him wise unto Salvation, through Faith which was in Christ Iesus: That is, the Belief of the Christian Religion was a Key to give him a right understanding of the Old Testament; and upon this occasion St. Paul adds, All Scripture (that is, the whole Old Testament) is given by Divine Inspiration; (or as others render the words) All the divinely In∣spired Scripture is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. The New Testament was writ on the same design with the Old; that as St. Luke expresses it, We might know the certainty of those things wherein we have been instructed:* 1.69 These things were written, saith St. Iohn, that ye might believe, that Iesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his Name. When St. Peter knew by a special Revelation that he was near his End, he writ his Second Epistle,* 1.70 that they might have that as a mean of keeping those things always in remembrance after his death, Nor do the Apostles give us any hints of their having left any thing with the Church to be conveyed down by an Oral Tradition, which they themselves had not put in writing: They do sometimes refer themselves to such things as they had delivered to particular Churches; but by Tradition in the Apostles days, and for some Ages after, it is very clear, that they meant only the conveyance of the Faith, and not any unwritten Doctrines: They reckoned the Faith was a sacred depositum which was committed to them; and that was to be preser∣ved pure among them. But it were very easy to shew in the conti∣nued Succession of all the first Christian Writers, That they still Ap∣pealed to the Scriptures, That they Argued from them, That they Condemned all Doctrines that were not contained in them; and when at any time they brought human Authorities to justify their Opinions or Expressions, they contented themselves with a very few, and those very late Authorities: So that their design in vouching them seems to be rather to clear themselves from the Imputation of having innovated any thing in the Doctrine, or in the ways of expressing it, than that they thought those Authorities were necessary to prove them by. For in that case they must have taken a great deal more pains than they did, to have followed up, and proved the Tradition much higher than they went.

We do also plainly see that such Traditions as were not found∣ed on Scripture, were easily corrupted, and on that account were laid aside by the succeeding Ages: Such were the Opinion of Christ's Reign on Earth for a Thousand years; The Saints not seeing God till the Resurrection; The necessity of giving Infants the Eucharist; The Divine Inspiration of the 70 Interpreters; besides some more important Matters, which in respect to those Times are not to be too much descanted upon. It is also plain, That the Gnosticks, the Valentinians, and other Hereticks, began very early to set up a Pre∣tension to a Tradition delivered by the Apostles to some particular

persons, as a Key for understanding the secret meanings that might be in Scripture; in opposition to which, both Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others,* 1.71 make use of Two sorts of Arguments: The one is the Au∣thority of the Scripture it self, by which they confuted their Errors. The other is a Point of Fact, That there was no such Tradition. In asserting this, they appeal to those Churches which had been founded by the Apostles, and in which a Succession of Bishops had been con∣tinued down. They say, in these we must search for Apostolical Tra∣dition. This was not said by them as if they had designed to establish Tradition, as an Authority distinct from, or equal to the Scriptures: But only to shew the falshood of that pretence of the Hereticks, and that there was no such Tradition for their Heresies as they gave out.

When this whole Matter is considered in all its parts, such as, 1st, That nothing is to be believed as an Article of Faith, unless it appears to have been Revealed by God. 2dly, That Oral Tradition app••ars both from the Nature of Man, and the Experience of former Times, to be an incompetent conve••er of Truth. 3dly, That some Books were written for the conveyance of those Matters, which have been in all Ages carefully preserved and esteemed sacred. 4thly, That the Writers of the First Ages do always Argue from, and Appeal to these Books: And 5thly, That what they have said without Autho∣rity from them, has been rejected in succeeding Ages; the Truth of this Branch of our Article is fully made out.

If what is contain'd in theScripture in express words, is theObject of our Faith; then it will follow, That whatsoever may be proved from thence, by a just and lawful consequence, is also to be believed. Men may indeed Err in framing these Consequences and Deductions, they may mistake or stretch them too far; but though there is much Sophistry in the World, yet there is also true Logick, and a certain Thread of Rea∣soning. And the sense of every Proposition being the same, whether expressed always in the same or in different words; then whatsoever appears to be clearly the sense of any place of Scripture, is an Object of Faith, tho it should be otherwise expressed than as it is in Scripture, and every just Inference from it must be as true as the Proposition it self is: Therefore it is a vain cavil to ask express words of Scripture for every Article. That was the Method of all the Anci••nt Hereticks: Christ and his Apostles Argued from the words and passages in the Old Testament, to prove such things as agreed with the true sense of them, and so did all the Fathers; and therefore so may we do.

The great Objection to this, is, That the Scriptures are dark, That the same place is capable of different Senses, the Literal and the Mystical: And therefore since we cannot understand the true Sense of the Scripture, we must not Arguefrom it, but seek for an Interpreterofit, on whom we may depend. All Sects Argue from thence, and fancy that they find their Tenets in it: And therefore this can be no sure way of finding out sacred Truth, since so many do err that follow it. In Answer to this, it is to be considered, That the Old Testament was delivered to the whole Na∣tion of the Iews; that Moses was read in the Synagogue, in the hearing of the Women and Children; that whole Nation was to take their Doctrine and Rules from it: All Appeals w••re made to the Law and to the Prophets among them: And though the Prop••••cies of the Old Testament were in their Stile and whole Contexture dark,

and hard to be understood; yet when so great a Question as this, Who was the true Messias? came to be examined, the proofs urged for it, were Passages in the Old Testament. Now the Question was, How these were to be understood? No Appeal was here made to Traditi∣on, or to Church-Authority, but only by the Enemies of our Savi∣our. Whereas he and his Disciples urge these passages in their true sense, and in the consequences that arose out of them. They did in that, Appeal to the rational Faculties of those to whom they spoke. The Christian Religion was at first delivered to poor and simple Multitudes, who were both illiterate and weak; the Epistles, which are by much the hardest to be understood of the whole New Testament, were Ad∣dressed to the whole Churches to all the Faithful or Saints; that is, to all the Christians in those Churches. These were afterwards read in all th••ir Assemblies. Upon this it may reasonably be asked, Were these Writings clear in that Age, or were they not? If they were not, it is unaccountable why they were addressed to the whole Body, and how they came to be received and entertained as they were. It is the End of Speech and Writing, to make things to be understood, and it is not supposable, That Men Inspired by the Holy Ghost, either could not or would not express themselves so as that they should be clearly understood. It is also to be observed, That the New Dispensation is opposed to the Old, as Light is to Darkness, an Open Face to a Veiled, and Substance to Shadows. Since then the Old Testament was so clear, that David both in the 19th, and most copiously in the 119th Psalm, sets out very fully, the Light which the Laws of God gave them in that darker State, we have much more reason to conclude, That the New Dispensation should be much brighter: If there was no need of a certain Expounder of Scripture then, there is much less now. Nor is there any Provision made in the New for a sure Guide: No Intimations are given where to find one: From all which we may conclude, That the Books of the New Testament were clear in those days, and might well be understood by those to whom they were at first addressed. If they were clear to them, they may be likewise clear to us: For though we have not a full History of that Time, or of the Phrases and Customs, and particular Opinions of that Age; yet the vast Industry of the succeeding Ages, of these two last in particular, has made such discoveries, besides the other collateral advantages which Learning and a Niceness in Reasoning has given us, that we may justly reckon, that though some Hints in the Epistles, which relate to the particulars of that Time, may be so lost, that we can at best but make conjectures about them; yet upon the whole matter, we may well understand all that is necessary to Salvation, in the Scripture.

We may indeed fall into Mistakes as well as into Sins; And into Errors of Ignorance, as well as into Sins of Ignorance. God has dealt with our Understandings as he has dealt with our Wiils: He proposes our Duty to us, with strong Motives to Obedi∣ence; he promises us inward Assistances, and accepts of our sincere Endeavours: And yet this does not hinder many from perish∣ng Eternally, and others from falling into great Sins, and so running great danger of Eternal Damnation; and all this is because God has left our Wills free, and does not constrain us to be good: He deals with our Understandings in the same manner; he has set his Will, and

the knowledge of Salvation before us, in Writings that are framed in a simple and plain Stile, in a Language that was then common, and is still well understood, that were at first designed for common Use: They are soon read, and it must be confessed that a great part of them is very clear: So we have reason to conclude, that if a man reads these carefully and with an honest Mind; if he prays to God to direct him, and follows sincerely what he apprehends to be true, and practises diligently those Duties that do unquestionably appear to be bound upon him by them, that then he shall find out enough to save his Soul; and that such Mistakes as lye still upon him, shall ei∣ther be cleared up to him by some happy Providence, or shall be for∣given him by that Infinite Mercy, to which his Sincerity and Diligence is well known. That bad men should fall into grievous Errors, is no more strange, than that they should commit heinous Sins: And the Errors of good men, in which they are neither wilful nor insolent, will certainly be forgiven, as well as their Sins of Infirmity. There∣fore all the ill use that is made of the Scripture, and all the Errors that are pretended to be proved by it, do not weaken its Authority or Clearness. This does only shew us the danger of Studying them with a biassed or corrupted mind, of reading them too carelesly, of being too curious in going farther than as they open matters to us; and in being too implicite in adhering to our Education, or in Sub∣mitting to the Dictates of others.

So far I have explained the First Branch of this Article. The Con∣sequence that arises out of it is so clear, that it needs not be proved: That therefore nothing ought to be esteemed an Article of Faith, but what may be found in it, or proved from it. If this is our Rule, our entire and only Rule, then such Doctrines as are not in it, ought to be rejected; and any Church that adds to the Christi∣an Religion, is erroneous for making such Additions, and becomes Tyrannical if she imposes them upon all her Members, and requires positive Declarations, Subscriptions, and Oaths concerning them. In so doing she forces such as cannot have Communion with her, but by affirming what they believe to be false, to withdraw from that which cannot be had without departing from the Truth. So all the Additi∣ons of the Five Sacraments, of the Invocation of Angels and Saints, of the worshipping of Images, Crosses and Relicks; of the Corpo∣ral Presence in the Eucharist; of the Sacrifice offered in it, for the dead as well as for the living, together with the Adoration offered to it, with a great many more, are certainly Errors, unless they can be proved from Scripture; and they are intolerable Errors, if as the Scripture is express in opposition to them, so they defile the Worship of Christians with Idolatry: But they become yet most intolerable, if they are imposed upon all that are in that Communion, and if Creeds or Oaths in which they are affirmed, are required of all in their Communion. Here is the main ground of justifying our form∣ing our selves into a distinct Body from the Roman Church, and there∣fore it is well to be considered. The further discussing of this will come properly in, when other Particulars come to be examined.

From hence I go to the Second Branch of this Article, which gives us the Canon of the Scripture. Here I shall begin with the New Te∣stament; for though in order the Old Testament is before the New,

y••t the Proof of the one being more distinctly made out by the con∣curring Testimonies of other Writers, than can possibly be pretended for the other, and the New giving an Authority to the Old, by assert∣ing it so expresly, I shall therefore prove first the Canon of the New Testament. I will not urge that of the Testimony of the Spirit, which many have had recourse to: This is only an Argument to him that feels it, if it is one at all; and therefore it proves nothing to ano∣ther person; besides, the utmost that with reason can be made of this, is that a good man feeling the very powerful Effects of the Chri∣stian Religion on his own Heart, in the reforming his Nature, and the calming his Conscience, together with those Comforts that arise out of it, is convinced in general of the Whole of Christianity, by the happy Effects that it has upon his own Mind: But it does not from this appear how he should know that such Books and such Pas∣sages in them should come from a Divine Original, or that he should be able to distinguish what is Genuine in them from what is Spurious. To come therefore to such Arguments as may be well insisted upon and maintained.

The Canon of the New Testament as we now have it, is fully pro∣ved from the Quotations out of the Books of the New Testament, by the Writers of the First and Second Centuries; such as Clemens, Ig∣natius, Iustin, Irenaeus, and several others. Papias, who conversed with the Disciples of the Apostles, is cited by Eusebius in confirmation of St. Matthew's Gospel, which he says was writ by him in Hebrew:* 1.72 He is also cited to prove that St. Mark writ his Gospel from St. Peter's Preaching; which is also confirmed by Clemens of Alexandria; not to mention later Writers. Irenaeus says St. Luke writ his Gospel accord∣ing to St. Paul's Preaching,* 1.73 which is supported by some Words in St. Paul's Epistles that relate to Passages in that Gospel; yet certain∣ly he had likewise other Vouchers; those who from the beginning were Eye-witnesses and Ministers of the Word; though the whole might re∣ceive its full Authority from St. Paul's Approbation. St. Iohn writ later than the other Three; so the Testimonies concerning his Gospel are the fullest and the most particular.* 1.74 Irenaeus has laboured the Proof of this matter with much Care and Attention: He lived with∣in an Hundred years to St. Iohn, and knew Policarp that was one of his Disciples: After him come Tertullian and Origen, who speak very copiously of the Four Gospels;* 1.75 and from them all the Ecclesiastical Writers have without any doubting or Controversy acknowledged and cited them, without the least shadow of any Opposition, except what was made by Marcion and the Manichees.

Next to these Authorities we appeal to the Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament, that are given us in the Third and Fourth Centu∣ries, by Origen a Man of great Industry, and that had examined the State of many Churches; by St. Athanasius, by the Council of Laodicea and Carthage;* 1.76 and after these we have a constant Succession of Testimo∣nies, that do deliver these as the Canon universally received. All this laid together, does fully prove this Point; and that the more clearly when these Particulars are considered. 1. That the Books of the New Testament were read in all their Churches, and at all their As∣semblies, so that this was a Point in which it was not easy for men to mistake. 2dly, That this was so near the Fountain, that the Origi∣nals

themselves of the Apostles were no doubt so long preserved. 3dly, That both the Iews, as appears from Iustin Martyr, and the Gen∣tiles,* 1.77 as appears by Celsus, knew that these were the Books in which the Faith of the Christians was contained. 4thly, That some questi∣on was made touching some of them, because there was not that clear or general knowledge concerning them, that there was concerning the others; yet upon fuller enquiry all acquiesced in them. No doubt was ever made about Thirteen of St. Pauls Epistles; because there were particula•• Churches or Persons to whom the Originals of them were directed:* 1.78 But the Strain and Design of that to the Hebrews being to remove their Prejudices, that high one which they had taken up against St. Paul as an Enemy to their Nation, was to be kept out of view, that it might not blast the good Effects which were intended by it; yet it is cited oftner than once by Clemens of Rome: And though the Ignorance of many of the Roman Church, who thought that some Passages in it favoured the Severity of the Novatians,* 1.79 that cut off Apostates from the hopes of Repentance, made them question it, of which mention is made both by Origen, Eusebius, and Ierome, who frequently affirm, that the Latin Church, or the Roman, did not receive it; yet Athanasius reckons both this and the Seven General Epistles among the Canonical Writings. Cyril of Ierusalem, who had occasion to be well informed about it, says, that he delivers his Catalogue from the Church, as she had received it from the Apostles, the An∣cient Bishops, and the Governors of the Church; and reckons up in it both the Seven General Epistles, and the Fourteen of St. Paul. So does Ruffin, and so do the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage;* 1.80 the Canons of the former being re∣ceived into the Body of the Canons of the Universal Church.* 1.81 Irenaeus, Origen, and Clemens of Alexan∣dria, cite the Epistle to the Hebrews frequently. Some question was made of the Epistle of St. Iames,* 1.82 the Second of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. Iohn, and St. Iude's Epistle. But both Clemens of Rome, Ignatius, and Origen, cite St. Iame's Epi∣stle: Eusebius says it was known to most, and read in most Christian Churches: The like is testified by St. Ierom. St. Peter's Second Epistle is cited by Origen and Firmilian; and Eusebius says it was held very useful even by those who held it not Canonical; But since the First Epistle was never questioned by any, the Second that carries so many Characters of its Genuineness, such as St. Peter's Name at the Head of it, the mention of the Transfiguration, and of his being an Eye-witness of it,* 1.83 are evident Proofs of its being writ by him. The Second and Third Epistles of St. Iohn are cited by Irenaeus, Cle∣mens, and Dennis of Alexandria, and by Tertullian. The Epistle of St. Iude is also cited by Tertullian. Some of those General Epistles were not addressed to any particular Body or Church, that might have preserved the Originals of them, but were sent about in the nature of Circular Letters; so that it is no wonder if they were not received so early, and with such an Unani∣mity,

as we find concerning the Four Gospel's, the Acts of the Apo∣stles, and Thirteen of St. Paul's Epistles. These being first fixed up∣on by an unquestioned and undisputed Tradition, made that here was a Standard once ascertained to judge the better of the rest: So when the matter was strictly examined, so near the Fountain that it was very possible and easy to find out the Certainty of it, then in the beginning of the Fourth Century the Canon was settled, and universally agreed to. The Stile and Matter of the Revelation, as well as the designation of Divine given to the Author of it, gave occasion to ma∣ny Questions about it: Clemens of Rome cites it as a Prophetical Book:* 1.84 Iustin Martyr says it was writ by Iohn, one of Christ's Twelve Apo∣stles: Irenaeus calls it the Revelation of St. Iohn the Disciple of our Lord, writ almost in our own Age, in the End of Domitian's Reign. Melito writ upon it; Theophilus of Antioch, Hyppolitus, Clemens, and Dennis of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen do cite it▪ And thus the Canon of the New Testamentseems to be fullymade outbythe concurrent Testimony of the several Churches immediately after the Apostolicaltime.

Here it is to be observed, that a great difference is to be made between all this and the Oral Tradition of a Doctrine, in which there is nothing fixed or permanent, so that the whole is only Report carried about and handed down. Whereas here is a Book, that was only to be copied out and read publickly, and by all Persons, between which the difference is so vast, that it is as little pos∣sible to imagine how the one should continue pure, as how the other should come to be corrupted. There was never a Book of which we have that reason to be assured that it is genuine, that we have here. There hapned to be constant Disputes among Christians from the Se∣cond Century downward, concerning some of the most important Parts of this Doctrine; and by both sides these Books were appealed to: And though there might be some Variations in Readings and Translations, yet no question was made concerning the Canon, or the Authenticalness of the Books themselves; unless it were by the Manichees, who came indeed to be called Christians, by a very enlar∣ged way of speaking; since it is justly strange how men who said that the Author of the Universe, and of the Mosaical Dispensation, was an Evil God; and who held that there were Two Supreme Gods, a Good and an Evil one; how such men, I say, could be called Christians.

The Authority of those Books is not derived from any Judg∣ment that the Church made concerning them; but from this, That it was known that they were writ, either by men who were themselves the Apostles of Christ, or by those who were their As∣sistants and Companions, at whose Order, or under whose Direction and Approbation it was known that they were written and published. These Books were received and known for such, in the very Aposto∣lical Age it self; so that many of the Apostolical men, such as Igna∣tius and Polycarp, lived long enough to see the Canon generally recei∣ved and settled. The suffering and depressed state of the First Chri∣stians was also such, that as there is no reason to suspect them of Imposture, so it is not at all credible that an Imposture of this kind could have passed upon all the Christian Churches. A man in a Cor∣ner might have forged the Sibylline Oracles, or some other Pieces which were not to be generally used; and they might have ap••••ared

soon after, and Cr••dit might have been given too easily to a Book or Writing of that kind: But it cannot be imagined, that in an Age in which the belief of this Doctrine brought men under great Troubles, and in which Miracles and other extraordinary Gifts were long con∣tinued in the Church, that, I say, either False Books could have been so early obtruded on the Church as True, or that True Books could have been so vitiated as to lose their Original Purity, while they were so universally read and used; and that so soon; or that the Writers of that very Age and of the next, should have been so generally and so grosly imposed upon, as to have cited Spurious Writings for True. These are things that could not be believed in the Histories or Re∣cords of any Nation: Though the Value that the Christians set upon these Books, and the constant use they made of them, reading a par∣cel of them every Lord's Day, make this much less supposable in the Christian Religion, than it could be in any other sort of History or Record whatsoever. The early spreading of the Christian Religion to so many remote Countries and Provinces, the many Copies of these Books that lay in Countries so remote, the many Translations of them that were quickly made, do all concur to make the Impossibility of any such Imposture the more sensible. Thus the Canon of the New Testament is fixed upon clear and sure Grounds.

From thence without any further Proof, we may be convinced of the Canon of the Old Testament. Christ does frequently cite Moses and the Prophets; he appeals to them; and though he charged the Iews of that time, chiefly their Teachers and Rulers, with many Dis∣orders and Faults, yet he never once so much as insinuated that they had corrupted their Law, or other Sacred Books; which if true, had been the greatest of all those Abuses that they had put upon the Peo∣ple. Our Saviour cited their Books according to the Translation that was then in Credit and common Use amongst them. When one asked him which was the great Commandment, he answered, How readest thou? And he proved the chief things relating to himself, his Death and Resurrection, from the Prophecies that had gone before; which ought to have been fulfilled in him: He also cites the Old Te∣stament,* 1.85 by a Threefold Division of the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms; according to the Three Orders of Books into which the Iews had divided it. The Psalms, which was the first among the Holy Writings, being set for that whole Volume. St. Paul says, That to the Iews were committed the Oracles of God:* 1.86 He reckons that among the chief of their Privileges, but he never blames them for being un∣faithful in this Trust; and it is certain that the Iews have not cor∣rupted the chief of those Passages that are urged against them to prove Jesus to have been the Christ. So that the Old Testament, at least the Translation of the LXX Interpreters, which was in common use and in high esteem among the Iews in our Saviour's time, was as to the main, faithful and uncorrupted. This might be further urged from what St. Paul says concerning those Scriptures which Timothy had learned of a Child; these could be no other than the Books of the Old Testament. Thus if the Writings of the New Testament are acknowledged to be of Divine Authority, the full Testimony that they give to the Books of the Old Testament, does sufficiently prove their ••uthority and Genuineness likewise. But to carry this matter yet further:

Moses wrought such Miracles both in Egypt, in passing through the Red-Sea, and in the Wilderness, that if these are acknowledg'd to be true, there can be no question made of his being sent of God, and au∣thorized by him to deliver his Will to the Iewish Nation. The Rela∣tion given of those Miracles represents them to be such in themselves, and to have been acted so publickly, that it cannot be pretended they were Tricks, or that some bold Asserters gained a Credit to them by affirming them. They were so publickly transacted, that the Rela∣tions given of them are either downright Fables, or they were clear and uncontested Characters of a Prophet authorized of God. Nor is the Relation of them made with any of those Arts that are almost necessary to Impostors. The Iewish Nation is all along represented as froward and disobedient, apt to murmur and rebel. The Laws it con∣tains, as to the Political part, are calculated to advance both Justice and Compassion, to awaken Industry, and yet to repress Avarice. Li∣berty and Authority are duly tempered; the moral part is pure, and suitable to Human Nature, though with some Imperfections and To∣lerances which were connived at, but yet regulated: And for the Re∣ligious part, Idolatry, Magick, and all Human Sacrifices were put away by it: When we consider what remains are left us of the Idola∣try of the Egyptians, and what was afterward among the Greeks and Romans, who were Polite and well constituted as to their Civil Laws and Rules, and may be esteem'd the most refin'd Pieces of Heathenism, we do find a Simplicity and Purity, a Majesty and Gravity, a Modesty with a De∣cencyin the Iewish Rituals, to which the others can in no sort be compar'd.

In the Books of Moses, no design for himself appears; his Po∣sterity were but in the Crowd, Levites, without any Character of Distinction; and he spares neither himself nor his Brother, when there was occasion to mention their Faults, no more than he does the rest of his Countrymen. It is to be further considered, that the Laws and Policy appointed by Moses, settled ma∣ny Rules and Rites that must have perpetuated the Remem••rance of them. The Land was to be divided by Lot, and every Sha••e was to descend in an Inheritance: The frequent Assemblies at Ierusalem on the Three great Festivals, the Sabbaths, the New Moons, the Sabba∣tical Year, and the great Jubilee, the Law of the double Tythe, the Sacrifices of so many different kinds, the distinctions of Meats, the Prohibition of eating Blood, together with many other Particulars, were all founded upon it. Now let it be a little considered, whether the Foundation of all this, I mean the Five Books of Moses could be a Forgery or not. If the Pentateuch was delivered by Moses himself to the Iews, and received by them as the Rule both of their Religion and Policy, then it is not possible to conceive, but that the Recital of all that is contained from the Book of Exodus to the End of Deutero∣nomy, was known by them to be true; and this establishes the Credit of the whole. But if this is not admitted, then let it be considered in what time it can possibly be supposed that this Imposture could have appeared. There is a continued Series of Books of their History, that goes down to the Babylonish Captivity; so if there was an Impo∣sture of this sort set on foot in that time, all that History must have been made upon it, and an account must have been given of the disco∣very of those Books; otherwise the Imposture must have been too

weak to have gain'dCredit. Whereas on the contrary, thewholeThread of their History represents these Books to have been always amongst them.

The discovery made in the Reign of Iosias, cannot be sup∣posed to be of this sort; since how much disorder soever the long and wicked Reign of Manasses might have brought them under, and what havock soever might have been made of the Writings that were held Sacred among them, yet it was impossible that a Series of Forged Laws and Histories could have been put upon them; of which there was still a conti••ued Memory preserved among them, and that they could be brought to believe that a Book and a Law full of so much History, and of so many various and unusual Rites founded up∣on it, had been held Sacred among them for many Ages; if it was but a new Invention. Therefore this is an extravagant Conceit: So that the Book that was then found in the Temple, was either the Ori∣ginal of the Law written by Moses's own hand;* 1.87 for so the Words may be rendred; or it may be understood of some of the last Chapters of Deuteronomy,* 1.88 which seem by the Tenor of them to have been at first a Book by themselves, tho afterwards joined to the rest of Deuteronomy; and in the Collection that Iosias was making, these might be wanting at first; and in these there are such severe Threatnings, that it was no wonder if aHeart so tender as Iosias's,* 1.89 was verymuch affected at the readingthem.

Upon the whole matter there is no Period in the whole Hi∣story of the Iews, to which any suspicion of such an Imposture can be fasten'd before the Babylonish Captivity: So it must be laid either upon the tim••s of Captivity, or soon after their Return out of it. Now, not to observe that men in such Circum∣stances, are seldom capable of things of that nature, Can it be imagi∣ned that a Series of Books that run through many Ages, could have been framed so particularly, and yet so exactly, that nothing in any concurrent History could ever be brought to disprove any part of it? That such a thing could pass in so short a time upon a whole Nation, while so many men remembred or might well remember what they had been before the Captivity, if they had not all known that it was true, is a most inconceivable thing. These Books were so far from being disputed, though we see their Neighbours the Samaritans were inclined enough to contest every thing with them, that all acquiesced in them, and in that second beginning of their being a State, as it is opened in the Books of Esdras and Nehemiah, and in Daniel, and theThree Prophets of the second Temple, all the other Books were received among them without dispute: And their Law was in such high esteem, that about Two hundredYears after that, theKing of Egypt did with much Entreaty. and at a vast Charge, procure a Translation of it to be made in Greek.

The Iewish Nation, as they live much within themselves, where it is safe for them to profess their Religion, so they have had the Divine Authority of their Books so deeply infused into them from Age to Age, that now above Sixteen hundred Years, though it is not poss••ble for them to practise the main parts of their Religion, and though they suffer much for professing it, yet they do still adhere to it, and practise as much of it as they can by the Law it self, which ties the chief Performances of that Religion to one determinate Place. This is a Firmness which has never yet appeared in any other Religion be∣sides the Iewish and the Christian: For all the several Shapes of Hea∣thenism

have often changed, and they all went off as soon as the Go∣vernment that supported them fell, and that another came in its place. Whereas these have subsisted long, not only without the support of Civil Power, but under many severe Persecutions: which is at least a good Moral Argument to prove, that these Religions had another Foundation, and a deeper Root than any other Religion could ever pretend to. Yet after all, it is not to be denied, but that in the Colle∣ction that was made of the Books of the Old Testament after the Captivity, by Ezra and others, or after that burning of many of the Books of their Law under Antiochus Epiphanes mentioned in the Book of Maccabees, that some disorder might happen;* 1.90 that there might be such regard had to some Copies, as not to alter some ma∣ni••est faults that were in them, but that instead of that, they might have marked on the Margent that which was the true Reading: And a Superstitious conceit might have afterwards crept in, and continued in After-Ages of a mysteryin that matter, upon their first letting theseFaults continue in the Text with the Marginal Annotation of the Correction of them. There might be also other Marginal Annotations of the Modern Names of Places set against the Ancient ones, to guide the Reader's judgment; and afterwards the Modern Name might haue been writ instead of the Ancient one. These are things that might natural∣ly enough happen: And will serve to resolve many Objections against the Text of the Old Testament. All the Numbers of Persons as well as of Years might also have been writ in Numerical Letters, though af∣terwards they came all to be set down in words at large: And while they were in Letters, as some might have been worn out, and lost in Ancienter Copies, so others were by the resemblance of some Letters, very like to be mistaken: Nor could Mens Memories serve them so well to correct mistakes in Numbers as in other Matters. This may shew a way to reconcile many seeming differences between the Accounts that are variously stated in some of the Books of the Bible, and between the Hebrew and the Septuagint. In these Matters our Church has made no Decision; and so Divines are left to a just freedom in them.

In general we may safely rely upon the Care and Providence of God, and the Industry of Men, who are naturally apt to preserve things of that kind entire, which are highly valued among them. And there∣fore we conclude, That the Books of the Old Testament are preserved pure down to us, as to all those things for which they were written; that is, in every thing that is either an Object of Faith, or a Rule of Life: And as to lesser Matters which visibly have no Re∣lation to either of these, there is no reason to think that every Copier was so divinely guided, that no small Error might surprize him. In Fact, we know that there are many various Readings, which might have arisen from the haste and carelesness of Copiers, from their guessing wrong that which appeared doubtful or imperfect in the Copy, and from a superstitious adhering to some apparent Faults, when they found them in Copies of a Venerable Antiquity. But when all those vari∣ousReadings are compar'd together, it appears that as theyare inconside∣rable, so they do not concern ourFaith, nor ourMorals; the setting which right was the main end of Revelation. The most important diversity re∣lates to Chronology; But the account of time, especially in the first Ages, is of no Consequence to our believing right, or to our living well:

And therefore if some Errors or Mistakes should appear to be among those different Readings, these give no just cause to doubt of the whole: And indeed, considering the many Ages through which those Books have past, we have much more reason to wonder, that they are brought down to us so entire, and so manifestly genuine in all their main and important parts, than that we should see some prints of the frailty of those who copied and preserved them.

It remains only upon this Head to consider what Inspiration and an Inspired Book is, and how far that Matter is to be carried. When we talk with one another, a Noise is made in the Air that strikes with such Vibrations on the Ears of others, that by the motion thereby made on the Brain of another, we do convey our Thoughts to ano∣ther person: So that the Impression made on the Brain is that which communicates our Thoughts to another. By this we can easily ap∣prehend how God may make such Impressions on mens Brains, as may convey to them such things as he intends to make known to them.

This is the General Notion of Inspiration; in which the manner and degree of the Impression, may make it at the least as certain that the Motion comes from God, as a Man may be certain that such a thing was told him by such a person, and not by any other. Now there may be different degrees both of the Objects that are revealed, and of the manner of the Revelation. To some it may be given in charge to deliver Rules and Laws to men: And because that ought to be expressed in plain words without Pomp or Ornament, therefore up∣on such occasions the Imagination is not to be much agitated; but the impression must be made so naked, that the Understanding may clearly apprehend it; and by consequence that it may be plainly ex∣pressed. In others, the design may be only to employ them in order to the awakening men to observe a Law already received and owned: That must be done with such pompous Visions of Judgments coming upon the Violation of those Laws, as may very much alarm those to whom they are sent: Both the Representations and the Expressions must be fitted to excite men, to terrify, and so to reform them. Now because the Imagination, whether when we are Transported in our Thoughts being awake, or in Dreams, is capable of having those Scenes acted upon it, and of being so excited by them, as to utter them with pompous Figures, and in a due Rapidity; This is another way of Inspiration that is strictly called Prophecy in the Old Testament. A great deal of the Stile used in this must relate to the particulars of the time to which it belongs: Many Allusions, Hints, and Forms of Speech must be used, that are Lively and Proverbial; which cannot be un∣derstood, unless we had all those concurrent helps which are lost even in the next Age, if not preserved in Books, and so they must be quite lost after many Ages are past, when no other Memorials are left of the time in which they were transacted. This must needs make the far greater part of all the Prophetick Writings to be very dark to us: Not to insist upon the peculiar Genius of the Language in which the Prophets wrote, and on the common Customs of those Climates and Nations to this day, that are very different from our own.

A Third degree of Inspiration might be, when there were no dis∣coveries of Future Events to be made; but good and holy Men were

to be inwardly excited by God, to compose such Poems, Hymns, and Discourses, as should be of great use both to give men clearer and fuller apprehensions of Divine things, and also insensibly to charm them with a pleasant and exalted way of Treating them. And if the Pro∣vidence of God should so order them in the management of their Composures, that it may afterwards appear that Predictions were in∣termixed with them; yet they are not to be called Prophets, unless God had revealed to them the mystical intent of such Predictions: So that though the Spirit of God Prophesied in them, yet they them∣selves not understanding it, are not be accounted Prophets. Of this last sort are the Books of the Psalms, Iob, Proverbs, Eccle∣siastes, &c.

According to the different Order of these Inspirations was the Old Testament divided into Three Volumes. The Inspiration of the New Testament, is all to be reduced to the first sort, except the Revela∣tion, which is purely and strictly Prophetical. The other parts of the New Testament are writ after a softer and clearer Illumination; and in a Style suitable to it. Now because Enthusiasts and Impostors may ••alsly pretend to Divine Commissions and Inspirations, it is ne∣cessary (both for the undeceiving of those who may be mis-led by a hot and ungoverned Imagination, and for giving such an Authority to men truly Inspired, as may distinguish them from false Pretenders) that the man thus Inspired should have some evident Sign or other, either some miraculous Action that is visibly beyond the Powers of Nature, or some particular discovery of somewhat that is to come, which must be so expressed, that the accomplishment of it may shew it to be beyond the Conjectures of the most sagacious: By one or both of those a Man must prove, and the World must be convinced, that he is sent and directed by God. And if such men deliver their Message in Writing, we must receive such Writings as Sacred and Inspired.

In these Writings some parts are Historical, some Doctrinal, and some Elenchtical or Argumentative. As to the Historical part, it is certain that whatsoever is delivered to us, as a matter truly transacted, must be indeed so: But it is not necessary when Discourses are reported, that the Individual words should be set down just as they were said, it is enough if the effect of them is reported: Nor is it necessary that the Order of Time should be strictly observed, or that all the Conjunctions in such Relations should be understood severely according to their Gram∣matical meaning: It is visible that all the Sacred Writers, write in a diversity of Style, according to their different Tempers, and to the va∣rious Impressions that were made upon them. In that the Inspiration left them to the use of their Faculties, and to their previous Cu∣stoms and Habits: The design of Revelation as to this part of its Subject, is only to give such Representations of Matters of Fact, as may both work upon, and guide our belief: But the Order of Time, and the strict words having no influence that way, the Writers might dispose them and express them variously, and yet all be exactly true. For the Conjunctive Particles do rather import that one passage comes to be related after another, than that it was really transacted after it.

As to the Doctrinal parts, that is, the Rules of Life which these Books set before us, or the Propositions that are offered to us in them,

we must entirely acquiesce in these, as in the Voice of God who speaks to us by the means of a Person, whom he by his Authori∣zing him in so wonderful a manner, obliges us to hear and believe. But when these Writers come to Explain or Argue, they use many Figures that were well known in that Age: But because the Signifi∣cation of a Figure is to be taken from common use, and not to be car∣ried to the utmost extent that the words themselves will bear, we must therefore enquire as much as we can, into the Manner and Phraseology of the time in which such Persons lived, which with Re∣lation to the New Testament will lead us far: And by this we ought to govern the Extent and Importance of these Figures.

As to their Arguings, we are further to consider, that sometimes they Argue upon certain Grounds, and at other times they go upon Principles, acknowledged and received by those with whom they dealt. It ought never to be made the only way of proving a thing, to found it upon the concessions of those with whom we deal; yet when a thing is once truly proved, it is a just and usual way of confirming it, or at least of silencing those who oppose it, to shew that it follows naturally from those Opinions and Principles that are received among them. Since therefore the Iews had at the time of the writing of the New Testament, a peculiar way of Expounding many Prophecies and Passages in the Old Testament, it was a very proper way to convince them, to al∣ledge many places according to their Key and Methods of Exposition. Therefore when Divine Writers argue upon any point, we are always bound to believe the Conclusions that their Reasonings end in, as parts of Divine Revelation: But we are not bound to be able to make out or even to assent to all the Premises made use of by them in their whole extent; unless it appears plainly that they affirm the Premises as expresly as they do the Conclusions proved by them.

And thus far I have laid down such a Scheme concerning Inspiration and Inspired Writings, as will afford, to such as apprehend it aright, a Solution to most of these difficulties with which we are urged on the ac∣count of some passages in the Sacred Writings. The laying down a Scheme that asserts an immediate Inspiration which goes to the Stile and to every Tittle, and that denies any Error to have crept into any of the Co∣pies, as it seems on the one hand to raise the Honour of the Scriptures very highly, so it lies open on the other hand to great difficulties which seem insuperable in that Hypothesis; whereas a middle way as it set∣tles the Divine Inspiration of these Writings, and their being conti∣nued down genuine and unvitiated to us, as to all that, for which we can only suppose that Inspiration was given; so it helps us more easily out of all difficulties, by yielding that which serves to an∣swer them, without weakening the Authority of the whole.

I come in the last place to examine the Negative Consequence, that arises out of this Head, which excludes those Books commonly cal∣led Apocryphal, that are here rejected, from being a part of the Ca∣non: And this will be easily made out. The chief reason that presses us Christians to acknowledge the Old Testament, is the Testimony that Christ and his Apostles gave to those Books, as they were then received by the Iewish Church; to whom were committed the Oracles of God. Now it is not so much as pretended, that ever these Books were received among the Iews, or were so much as known to

them. None of the Writers of the New Testament cite or mention them; neither Philo nor Iosephus speak of them. Iosephus on the con∣trary says, they had only 22 Books that deserved belief, but that those which were written after the time of Artaxerxes, were not of equal credit with the rest: And that in that Period they had no Pro∣phets at all. The Christian Church was for some Ages an utter Stranger to those Books. Melito, Bishop of Sardis, being desired by Onesimus to give him a perfect Catalogue of the Books of the Old Testament, took a Journey on purpose to the East to examine this matter at its Source: And having as he says made an exact En∣quiry, he sent him the Names of them just as we receive the Canon; of which Eusebius says, that he has preserved it,* 1.91 because it contained all those Books which the Church owned. Origen gives us the same Catalogue according to the Tradition of the Iews, who divided the Old Testament into 22 Books,* 1.92 according to the Letters of their Al∣phabet.

Athanasius reckons them up in the same manner to be 22, and he more distinctly says that he delivered those,* 1.93 as they had re∣ceived them by Tradition,* 1.94 and as they were received by the whole Church of Christ, because some presumed to mix Apocryphal Books with the Divine Scriptures: And therefore he was set on it by the Or∣thodox Brethren, in order to declare the Canonical Books delivered as such by Tradition, and believed to be of Divine Inspiration.

It is true, he adds,

That besides these there were other Books which were not put into the Canon, but yet were appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who first come to be instructed in the way of Piety: And then he reckons up most of the Apocryphal Books.

Here is the first mention we find of them, as indeed it is very probable they were made at Alexandria, by some of those Iews who lived there in great Numbers. Both Hilary and Cyril of Ierusalem give us the same Ca∣talogue of the Books of the Old Testament, and affirm that they de∣livered them thus according to the Tradition of the Ancients. Cyril says, That all other Books are to be put in a Second Order.* 1.95 Gre∣gory Nazienzen reckons up the 22 Books, and adds that none besides them are genuine. The words that are in the Article are repeated by St. Ierom in several of his Prefaces. And that which should determine this whole matter, is,* 1.96 That the Council of Laodicea by an express Ca∣non delivers the Catalogue of the Canonical Books as we do, decree∣ing that these only should be read in the Church. Now the Canons of this Council were afterwards received into the Code of the Ca∣nons of the Universal Church; so that here we have the concurring sense of the whole Church of God in this matter.

It is true, the Book of the Revelation not being reckoned in it, this may be urged to detract from its Authority: But it was al∣ready proved, that that Book was received much Earlier into the Ca∣non of the Scriptures, so the design of this Canon being to establish the Authority of those Books that were to be read in the Church, the darkness of the Apocalypse making it appear reasonable not to read it publickly, that may be the reason why it is not mentioned in it, as well as in some later Catalogues.

Here we have four Centuries clear for our Canon, in Exclusion to all Additions. It were easy to carry this much further down, and to shew that these Books were never by any express definition received

into the Canon, till it was done at Trent: And that in all the Ages of the Church even after they came to be much esteemed, there were divers Writers, and those generally the most learned of their time, who denied them to be a part of the Canon. At first many Writings were read in the Churches, that were in high reputation both for the sake of the Authors, and of the Contents of them, though they were never lookt on as a part of the Canon:* 1.97 Such were Clemens's Epistle, the Books of Hermas, the Acts of the Martyrs, besides seve∣ral other things which were read in particular Churches. And among these the Apocryphal Books came also to be read, as containing some valuable Books of Instruction, besides several Fragments of the Iewish History, which were perhaps too easily believed to be true. These therefore being usually read, they came to be reckoned among Cano∣nical Scriptures: For this is the reason assigned in the Third Council of Carthage, for calling them Canonical, because they had received them from their Fathers as Books that were to be read in Churches: And the word Canonical was by some in those Ages used in a large sense, in opposition to spurious; so that it signified no more than that they were genuine. So much depends upon this Article, that it seemed necessary to dwell fully upon it, and to state it clearly.

It remains only to observe the Diversity between the Articles now Established, and those set forth by K. Edward. In the latter there was not a Catalogue given of the Books of Scripture, nor was there any distinction stated between the Canonical, and the Apocryphal Books. In those there is likewise a Paragraph, or rather a Parenthesis added after the words proved thereby, in these words, Although some∣times it may be admitted by God's faithful People as Pious, and conducing unto Order and Decency: Which are now left out, because the Authority of the Church as to matters of Order and Decency, which was only intended to be asserted by this Period, is more fully explained and stated in the 35th Article.

ARTICLE VII. Of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: For both in the Old and New Testament Everlasting Life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the Old Fathers did look only for Transitory Promises.

Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian Men, nor the Civil-Precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any Commonwealth, yet notwithstanding no Christian Man whatsoever is free from the Obedience of the Com∣mandments which are called Moral.

THIS Article is made up of the Sixth and the Nineteenth of King Edward's Articles laid together: Only the Nineteenth of King Edward's has these words after Moral: Wherefore they are not to be heard, which teach that the Holy Scriptures were given to none but to the weak; and brag continually of the Spirit, by which they do pretend that all whatsoever they Preach is suggested to them; though manifestly contrary to the Holy Scriptures. This whole Article relates to the Antino∣mians, as these last words were added by reason of the Extravagance of some Enthusiasts at that time; but that Madness having ceased in Queen Elizabeth's time, it seems it was thought that there was no more occasion for those words.

There are Four heads that do belong to this Article: First, That the Old Testament is not contrary to the New. Secondly, That Christ was the Mediator in both Dispensations, so that Salvation was offered in both by him. Thirdly, That the Ceremonial and the Judi∣ciary Precepts in the Law of Moses do not bind Christians. Fourthly, That the Moral Law does still bind all Christians.

To the first of these, The Manichees of old, who fancied that there was a Bad as well as a Good God, thought that these Two Great Principles were in a perpetual struggle; and they believed the Old Dispensation was under the Bad One, which was taken away by the New, that is the work of the Good God. But they who held such monstrous Tenets, must needs reject the whole New Testament, or very much corrupt it: since there is nothing plainer, than that the Prophets of the Old foretold the New with approbation; and the Writers of the New prove both their Commission and their Doctrine from Passages of the Old Testament. This therefore could not be affirmed without re∣jecting many of the Books that we own, and corrupting the rest. So this deserves no more to be considered.

Upon this occasion it will be no improper Digression, to consider what Revelation those under the Mosaical Law, or that lived before it, had of the Messias: This is an Important Matter: It is a great Con∣firmation of the Truth of the Christian Religion, as it will furnish us

with proper Arguments against the Iews. It is certain they have long had, and still have an Expectation of a Messias: Now the Chara∣cters and Predictions concerning this Person must have been fulfilled long ago, or the Prophecies will be found to be false; and if they do meet and were accomplish'd in our Saviour's Person, and if no other Person could ever pretend to this, then that which is undertaken to be proved, will be fully performed. The first Promise to Adam after his Sin, speaks of an Enmity between the Seed of the Serpent and the Seed of the Woman:* 1.98 It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel: The one might hurt the other in some lesser Instances, but the other was to have an entire Victory at last; which is plainly sig∣nified by the Figures of bruising the Heel, and bruising the Head, which was to be performed by one who was to bear this Character of being the Woman's Seed. The next Promise was made to Abraham, In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed:* 1.99 This was lodged in his Seed or Posterity, upon his being ready to offer up his Son Isaac: That Promise was renewed to Isaac, and after him to Iacob: When he was dying, it was lodged by him in the Tribe of Iudah, when he prophesied, That the Scepter should not depart from Iudah, nor the Law∣giver from between his feet, till Shiloh should come; and the gathering of the people, that is, of the Gentiles, was to be to him. It is certain the Ten Tribes were lost in their Captivity, whereas the Tribe of Iudah was brought back, and continued to be a political Body under their own Laws, until a Breach was made upon that by the Romans first redu∣cing them to the Form of a Province, and soon after that destroying them utterly: So that either that Prediction was not accomplished, or the Shiloh, the Sent, to whom the Gentiles were to be gathered, came before they lost their Scepter and Laws.

Moses told the People of Israel, That God was to raise up among them a Prophet like unto him,* 1.100 to whom they ought to hearken, otherwise God would require it of them. The Character of Moses was, That he was a Lawgiver, and the Author of an entire Body of Instituted Religion, so they were to look for such a one.* 1.101 Balaam prophesied darkly of one whom he saw as at a great distance from his own time; and he spoke of a Star that should come out of Iacob, and a Scepter out of Israel: Some Memorial of which was probably preserved among the Arabians. In the Book of Psalms there are many things said of David, which seem ca∣pable of a much Auguster Sense than can be pretended to be answered by any thing that befel himself. What is said in the 2^d, the 16^th, the 22^d, the 45^th, the 102^d, and the 110^th Psalms, afford us copious In∣stances of this. Passages in these Psalms must be stretched by Figures that go very high, to think they were all fulfilled in David or Solo∣mon: But in their Literal and largest Sense they were accomplished in Christ, to whom God said, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. In him that was verified, Thou wilt not leave my Soul in hell, nei∣ther wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see Corruption. His hands and his feet were pierced, and lots were cast upon his vesture. Of him it may be strictly said, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. To him that be∣longed, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my Right-hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. And, The Lord sware and will not re∣pent, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck.

The Prophets gave yet more express Predictions concerning the Messias. Isaiah did quiet the Fears of Ahaz, and of the House of Da∣vid, by saying, The Lord himself shall give you a sign, Behold,* 1.102 a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son. It was certainly no Sign for one that was a Virgin, to conceive afterwards and bear a Son; therefore the Sign or extroardinary thing here promised as a signal Pledge of God's Care of the House of David, must lie in this, That one still remaining a Virgin, should conceive and bear a Son; not to insist upon the strict signification of the Word in the Original. The same Prophet did also foretell, That as this Messiah, or the Branch,* 1.103 should spring from the Stem of Iesse, so also he was to be full of the Spirit of the Lord; and that the Gentiles should seek to him.* 1.104 In another place he enumerates many of the Miracles that should be done by him: He was to give sight to the Blind, make the Deaf to hear, and the Lame to walk.* 1.105 He does further set forth his Character; not that of a Warrior or Conqueror; on the contrary, He was not to cry nor strive,* 1.106 nor break the bruised reed, or quench the smoking flax;* 1.107 he was to bring forth judg∣ment to the Gentiles, and the Isles were to wait for his Law. There is a whole Chapter in the same Prophet,* 1.108 setting forth the Mean Appear∣ance that the Messias was to make, the Contempt he was to fall un∣der, and the Sufferings he was to bear; and that for the Sins of others, which were to be laid on him; so that his Soul or Life was to be made an Offering for Sin, in reward of which he was to be highly exalted. In another place his Mission is set forth, not in the Strains of War, or of Conquest, but of Preaching to the Poor,* 1.109 setting the Pri∣soners free as in a Year of Jubilee, and comforting the afflicted and such as mourned. In the two last Chapters of that Prophet mention is made more particularly of the Gentiles that were to be called by him, and the Isles that were afar off, out of whom God was to take some for Priests and Levites: Which shewed plainly, that a new Dis∣pensation was to be opened by him, in which the Gentiles were to be Priests and Levites, which could not be done while the Mosaical Law stood, that had tied these Functions to the Tribe of Levi, and to the House of Aaron. Ieremy renewed the Promise to the House of Da∣vid, of a King that should reign and prosper;* 1.110 in whose days Iudah and Israel were to dwell safely, whose name was to be, The Lord our Righteous∣ness. It is certain this Promise was never literally accomplished; and therefore recourse must be had to a Mystical Sense. The same Pro∣phet gives a large Account of a new Covenant that God was to make with the house of Israel,* 1.111 not according to the Covenant that he made with their fathers when he brought them out of Egypt. We have also Two Characters given of that Covenant: one is, That God would put his Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; that he would be their God, and that they should all be taught of him: The other is, That he would forgive their iniquities, and remember their sin no more. One of these is in opposition to their Law, that consisted chiefly in Rituals, and had no Promises of Inward Assistances; and the other is in opposition to the limited Pardon that was offered in that Dispensa∣tion, on the condition of the many Sacrifices that they were required to offer. There is a Prediction to the same purpose in Ezekiel. Ioel prophesied of an extraordinary Effusion of the Spirit of God on great Numbers of Persons, Old and Young,* 1.112 that was to happen before the

great and terrible Day of the Lord, that is, before the Final Destruction of Ierusalem. Micah, after he had foretold several things of the Dis∣p••nsation of the Messiah,* 1.113 says that he was to come out of Bethlehem Ephratah.* 1.114 Haggai encouraged those who were troubled at the mean∣ness of the Temple which they had raised after their return out of the Captivity. It had neither the outward Glory in its Fabrick that Solo∣mon's Temple had, nor the more real Glory of the Ark, with the Ta∣bles of the Law; of Fire from Heaven on the Altar; of a Succession of Prophets; of the Urim and Thummin, and the Cloud between the Che∣rubims, which last, strictly speaking, was the Glory; all which had been in Solomon's Temple, but were wanting in that. In opposition to this, the Prophet in the Name of God promised, That he would in a little while shake the heavens and the earth, and shake all Nations; words that import some surprizing and great Change; upon which the desire of all nations should come, and God would fill the house with his Glo∣ry; and the Glory of this latter house should exceed the Glory of the for∣mer, for in that place God would give Peace. Here is a plain Prophecy, That this Templs was to have a Glory, not only equal but superior to the Glory of Solomon's Temple: These Words are too August to be believed to have been accomplished, when Herod rebuilt the Temple with much Magnificence; for that was nothing in comparison of the real Glory, of the Symbols of the Presence of God, that were want∣ing in it, This cannot answer the Words, That the desire of all Na∣tions was to come, and that God would give Peace in that Place. So that either this Prophecy was never fulfilled, or somewhat must be as∣signed during the Second Temple, that will answer those solemn Ex∣pressions, which are plainly applicable to our Saviour, who was the Expectation of the Gentiles, by whom Peace was made, and in whom the Eternal Word dwelt in a manner infinitely more August than in the Cloud of Glory. Zechary prophesied, That their King, by which they understood the Messias,* 1.115 was to be meek and lowly, and that he was to make his Entrance in a very mean Appearance, riding on an Ass; but yet under that, he was to bring Salvation to them, and they were to rejoyce greatly in him. Malachi told them, That the Lord whom they sought,* 1.116 even the Messenger of the Covenant in whom they delighted, should su••denly come into his Temple; and that the Day of his coming was to be dreadful; that he was to refine and purify, in particular, the Sons of Levi; and a terrible Destruction is denounced after that. One Character of his coming,* 1.117 was, That Elijah the Prophet was to come before that great and dreadful Day, who should convert many, Old and Young. Now it is certain that no other Person came, during the Se∣cond Temple, to whom these Words can be applied; so that they were not accomplished, unless it was in the Person of our Saviour, to whom all these Characters do well agree.

But to conclude with that Prophecy which of all others is the most particular: When Daniel at the End of the Seventy Years Cap∣tivity was interceeding for that Nation,* 1.118 an Angel was sent to him to tell him, That they were to have a new Period of Seventy Weeks, that is, Seven times Seventy Years, 490 Years; and that after Sixty two Weeks, Messiah the Prince was to come, and to be cut off; and that then the People of a Prince should destroy the City and the Sanctuary; and the end of these was to be as with a Flood or Inundation, and Desolations

were determined to the end of the War. They were to be destroyed by Abominable Armies, that is, by Idolatrous Armies: They were to be made desolate, till an utter End or Consummation should be made of them. The Pomp with which this Destruction is set forth, plainly shews, that the Final Ruin of the Iews by the Roman Armies is meant by it. From which it is justly inferred, not only that if that Vision was really sent from God by an Angel to Daniel, and in consequence to that was fulfilled, then the Messiah did come, and was cut off du∣ring the continuance of Ierusalem and the Temple; but that it hap∣ned within a Period of Time designed in that Vision. Time was then computed more certainly than it had been for many Ages before. Two great Measures were fixed; one at Babylon by Nabonassor, and another in Greece in the Olympiads. Here a Prediction is given almost Five hun∣dred Years before the Accomplishment, with many very nice Reckon∣ings in it. I will not now enter upon the Chronology of this matter, on which some Great Men have bestowed their Labours very happily. Archbishop Usher has stated this matter so, that the Interval of Time is clearly Four hundred eighty six Years. The Covenant was to be confirmed with many for one Week, in the midst of which God was to cause the Sacrifice and Oblation for Sin to cease; which seems to be a Mystical way of describing the Death of Christ that was to put an end to the Virtue of the Iudaical Sacrifices; so Sixty nine Weeks and a half make just Four hundred eighty six Years and a half. But without going further into this Calculation, it is evident, That during the Second Temple, the Messias was to come, and to be cut off, and that soon after that a Prince was to send an Army to destroy both City and Sanctuary. The Iews do not so much as pretend that during that Temple the Messias thus set forth did come, or was cut off; so either the Prediction fail'd in the Event, or the Messiah did come within that Period.

And thus a Thread of the Prophecies of the Messias being carried down through the whole Old Testament, it seems to be fully made out, That he was to be of the Seed of Abraham, and of the Poste∣rity of David: That the Tribe of Iudah was to be a distinct Policy, till he should come: That he should work many Miracles: That he was to be Meek and Lowly: That his Function was to consist in Preaching to the Afflicted, and in comforting them: That he was to call the Gentiles, and even the remote Islands, to the knowledge of God: That he was to be born of a Virgin, and at Bethlehem: That he was to be a New Lawgiver, as Moses had been: That he was to settle his Followers upon a New Covenant, different from that made by Moses: That he was to come during the Second Temple: That he was to make a mean, but a joyful Entrance to Ierusalem: That he was to be cut off: That the Iniquities of us all were to be laid on him, and that his Life was to be made an Offering for Sin; but that God was to give him a glorious Reward for these his Sufferings; and that his Doctrine was to be internal, accompanied with a free Offer of Pardon, and of Inward Assistances; and that after his Death the Iews were to fall under a terrible Curse, and an utter Extirpation. When this is all summed up together; when it appears, That there was never any other Person to whom those Characters did agree; but that they did all meet in our Saviour, we see what Light the Old Te∣stament

has given us in this matter. Here a Nation that hates us and our Religion, who are scattered up and down the World, who have been for many Ages without their Temple, and without their Sacrifices, with∣out Priests, and without their Genealogies, who yet hold these Books amongthem in adue Veneration, which furnish us with so full aproof, that the Messiah whom they still look for, is the Lord Jesus whom we worship.

We do now proceed to other matters.

The Iews pretend, That it is a great Argument against the Authority of the New Testament, because it acknowledges the Old to be from God, and yet repeals the far greater part of the Laws Enacted in it; though those Laws are often said to be Laws for ever, and throughout all Ge∣nerations. Now they seem to argue with some advantage, who say, That what God does declare to be a Law that shall be perpetual by any one Prophet, cannot be abrogated or reversed by another, since that other can have no more Authority than the former Prophet had: And if both are of God, it seems the one cannot make void that which was formerly declared by the other in the Name of God. But it is to be considered, That by the Phrases of a Statute for ever, or throughout all Generations, can only be meant, that such Laws were not transient Laws, such as were only to be observed whilst they marched through the Wilderness, or upon particular occasions; where∣as such Laws which were constantly and generally to be observed, were to them perpetual. But that does not Import that the Lawgi∣ver himself had parted with all the Authority that naturally belongs to him, over his own Laws. It only says, That the People had no power over such Laws to repeal or change them: They were to bind them always, but that puts no limitation on the Lawgiver himself, so that he might not alter his own Constitutions. Positive Precepts which have no real value in themselves are of their own nature alte∣rable: And as in human Laws the words of Enacting a Law for all fu∣ture times do only make that to be a perpetual Law for the Subjects, but do not at all limit the Legislative power, which is as much at li∣berty to abrogate or alter it, as if no such words had been in the Law. There are also many hints in the Old Testament, which shew that the Precepts of the Mosaical Law were to be altered: Many plain Intimations are given of a time and state, in which the know∣ledge of God was to be spread over all the Earth: And that God was every where to be worshipped. Now this was impossible to be done without a Change in their Law and Rituals: It being impossible that all the World should go up thrice a Year to worship at Ierusalem, or could be served by Priests of the Aaronical Family. Circumcision was a distinction of one particular Race which needed not to be con∣tinued after all were brought under one denomination, and within the same common Privileges.

These things hitherto mentioned belong naturally to this part of the Article; yet in the intention of those who framed it, these words relate to an extravagant sort of Enthusiasts that lived in those days; who abusing some ill-understood Phrases concerning Justi∣fication by Christ without the works of the Law, came to set up ve∣ry wild Notions, which were bad in themselves, but much more per∣nicious in their Consequences. They therefore fancied that a Chri∣stian was tied by no Law, as a Rule or Yoke; all these being taken away by Christ: They said indeed, That a Christian by his renova∣tion

became a Law to himself, he obeyed not any written Rule or Law, but a new inward Nature: And thus as it is said that Sadocus mistook his Master Antigonus, who taught his Disciples to serve God, not for the hope of a Reward, but without any expectations, as if he by that Affectation of Sublimity had denied that there was any Reward, and from thence sprung the Sect of the Sadducees: so these men, perhaps at first mistaking the meaning of the New Testament, went wrong only in their Notions; and still meant to press the necessity of true Holiness, though in another set of Phrases, and upon other Motives; yet from thence many wild and ungovern'd Notions arose then, and were not long ago revived among us: All which flowed from their not understanding the Importance of the Word Law in the New Testament, in which it stands most commonly for the complex of the whole Iewish Religion, in opposition to the Christian; as the Word Law when it stands for a Book, is meant of the Five Books of Moses.

The maintaining the whole frame of that Dispensation, in opposition to that Liberty which the Apostles granted to the Gentiles, as to the Ritual parts of it, was the Controversy then in debate between the Apostles and the Judaizing Christians. The stating that matter aright is a Key that will open all those difficulties, which with it will appear easy, and without it insuperable. In opposition to these, who thought then that the Old Testa∣ment, having brought the World on to the knowledge of the Messias, was now of no more use, this Article was framed.

The Second Part of the Article relates to a more Intricate Matter; and that is, whether in the Old Testament there were any promises made, other than Transitory or Temporal ones, and whether they might look for Eternal Salva∣tion in that Dispensation, and upon what account? Whether Christ was the Me∣diator in that Dispensation, or if they were saved by Virtue of their Obedience to the Laws that were then given them. Those who deny that Christ was truly God, think that in order to the raising him to those great Cha∣racters in which he is proposed in the New Testament, it is necessary to assert that he gave the first assurances of Eternal Happiness, and of a free and full pardon of all Sins, in his Gospel: And that in the Old Testa∣ment neither the one nor the other were certainly and distinctly understood.

It is true, That if we take the words of the Covenant that Moses made between God and the People of Israel strictly and as they stand, they Im∣port only Temporal Blessings: That was a Covenant with a Body of Men and with their Posterity as they were a People engaged to the Obedience of that Law. Now a National Covenant could only be establish'd in Temporal promises of Publick and Visible Blessings, and of a long continuance of them upon their Obedience, and in Threatnings of as signal Judgments upon the Violation of them: But under those general promises of what was to happen to them Collectively, as they made up one Nation, every single person among them might, and the good men among them did, gather the hopes of a future State. It is clear that Moses did all along suppose the Being of God, the Creation of the World, and the promise of the Messias, as things fully known and carried down by Tradition to his days: So it seems he did also suppose the knowledge of a future State, which was then gene∣rally believed by the Gentiles as well as the Iews; though they had only dark and confused Notions about it. But when God was establishing a Co∣venant with the Iewish Nation, a main part of which was his giving them the Land of Canaan for an Inheritance, it was not necessary that Eternal Rewards or Punishments should be then proposed to them: But from the Tenor of the promises made to their Forefathers, and from the General Principles of Natural Religion, not yet quite extinguished among them,

they might gather this, That under those Carnal promises, Blessings of a higher nature were to be understood. And so we see that David had the hope of arriving at the presence of God, and at his right hand, where he be∣lieved there was a fulness of joy, and pleasures for evermore: And he puts him∣self in this opposition to the wicked,* 1.119 That whereas their portion was in this life, and they left their substance to their Children; he says, That as for him, he should behold God's Face in righteousness, and should be satisfied when he awaked with his likeness; which seems plainly to relate to a state after this Life, and to the Resurrection. He carries this opposition further in another Psalm, where after he had said, That men in honour did not continue, but were like the beasts that perished:* 1.120 That none of them could purchase immortali∣ty for his brother, that he should still live for ever and not see Corruption: They all died and left their wealth to others, and like sheep they were laid in the grave, where death should feed on them. In opposition to which he says, That the upright should have dominion over them in the morning: Which is clearly a Poetical Expression for another day that comes after the night of Death: As for himself in particular, he says, That God shall redeem my Soul (that is, his Life, or his Body, for in those senses the word Soul is used in the Old Testament) from the power of the grave: That is, from continuing in that state of death: for he shall receive me. This does very clearly set forth David's belief, both of future Happiness, and of the Resurrection of his Body. To which might be added some other passages in the Psalms, Eccle∣siastes,* 1.121 Isaiah, and Daniel: In all which it appears, That the holy men in that Dispensation, did understand, That under those promises in the Books of Moses that seemed literally to belong to the Land of Canaan, and other Temporal Blessings, there was a Spiritual meaning hid, which it seems was conveyed down by that Succession of Prophets, that was among them, as the mystical sense of them.

It is to this that our Saviour seems to appeal, when the Sadducees came to puzzle him with that question of the seven Brethren, who had all married one Wife: He first tells them, They erred, not knowing the Scriptures; which plainly Imports, That the Doctrine which they denied, was contained in the Scriptures;* 1.122 and then he goes to prove it, not from those more express passages that are in the Prophets and Holy Writers, which as some think the Sadducees rejected; but from the Law, which being the Source of their Religion, it might seem a just prejudice against any Doctrine, especially if it was of great Consequence, that it was not contained in the Law. There∣fore he cites these words that are so often repeated, and that were so much considered by the Iews, as containing in them the Foundation of God's love to them; that God said upon many occasions, particularly at his first appearance to Moses, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob. Which words imported, not only that God had been their God,* 1.123 but still was their God: Now when God is said to be a God to any, by that is meant, that he is their Benefactor, or exceeding rich reward, as was promised to Abraham.* 1.124 And that therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob lived unto God, that is, were not dead: But were then in a happy state of life, in which God did reward them, and so was their God. Whether this Argument rests here, our Saviour designing only to prove against the main error of the Sadducees, that we have Souls distinct from our Bodies, that shall outlive their separation from them; or if it goes further to prove the rising of the Body it self, I shall not determine. On the one hand our Saviour seems to apply himself particularly to prove the Resurrection of the Body; so we must see how to find here an Argument for that, to Answer the Scope of the whole Discourse: Yet on the other hand it may be said,

that he having proved the main Point of the Soul's subsisting after death, which is the Foundation of all Religion; the other Point, which was chiefly denied, because that was thought false, would be more easily both acknow∣ledged and believed.

As for the Resurrection of the Body, all that can be brought from hence as an Argument to prove it, is, That since God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and by consequence their Benefactor and Rewarder, and yet they were Pilgrims on this Earth, and suffered many Tossings and Trou∣bles, that therefore they must be rewarded in another State; or because God promised that to them he would give the Land of Canaan, as well as to their Seed after them, and since they never had any Portion of it in their own possession, that therefore they shall rise again, and with the other Saints reign on Earth, and have that Promise fulfilled in themselves.

From all this the Assertion of the Article is as to one main Point made good, That the Old Fathers look'd for more than Transitory Promises: It is also clear, That they looked for a further Pardon of Sin, than that which their Law held forth to them in the Expiation made by Sacrifices. Sins of Ignorance, or Sins of a lower sort, were those only for which Sin or Trespass-offerings were appointed. The Sins of a higher Order were punished by Death, by the Hand of Heaven, or by cutting off; so that such as sinned in that kind were to dye without Mercy:* 1.125 Yet when David had fallen into the most heinous of those Sins, he prays to God for a Par∣don, according to God's Loving-kindness,* 1.126 and the Multitude of his tender Mercies: For he knew that they were beyond the Expiation by Sacrifice. The Prophets do often call the Iews to repent of their Idolatry and other crying Sins, such as Oppression, Injustice, and Murder; with the Pro∣mise of the Pardon of them; even though they were of the deepest Dye, as Crimson and Scarlet. Since then,* 1.127 for lesser Sins an Expiation was ap∣pointed by Sacrifice, besides their confessing and repenting of it; and since it seems by St. Paul's way of arguing, that they held it for a Maxim, That without shedding of blood there was no remission of sins; this might naturally lead them to think that there was some other consideration that was inter∣posed in order to the pardoning of those more heinous Sins: For a greater degree of Guilt seems by a natural Proportion to demand a higher degree of Sacrifice and Expiation. But after all, whatsoever Isaiah, Daniel, or any other Prophet might have understood or meant by those Sacrificatory Phrases that they use in speaking of the Messiah,* 1.128 yet it cannot be said from the Old Testament, That in that Dispensation it was clearly revealed that the Messias was to die, and to become a Sacrifice for Sin: The Mes∣sias was indeed promised under general terms, but there was not then a full and explicite Revelation of his being to dye for the Redemption of Mankind: Yet since the most heinous Sins were then pardoned, though not by virtue of the Sacrifices of that Covenant, nor by the other means prescribed in it, we have good reason to affirm, that according to this Ar∣ticle, Life was offered to Mankind in the Old Dispensation by Christ, who was with relation to the obtaining the Favour of God, and Everlasting Life, the Mediator of that as well as of the New Dispensation. In the New Testament he is set in opposition to the Old Adam, that as in the one all died, so in the other all were made alive: Nor is it any way incon∣gruous to say, That the Merit of his Death should by an Anticipation have saved those who died before he was born: For that being in the view of God as certain, before, as after it was done, it might be in the Divine Intention the Sacrifice for the Old, as well as it is expresly declared to be the Sacrifice for the New Dispensation. And this being so, God might

have pardoned Sins in consideration of it, even to those who had no di∣stinct Apprehensions concerning it. For as God applies the Death of Christ by the secret Methods of Grace, to many Persons whose Circumstances do render them incapable of the express Acts of laying hold on it, the want of those (for instance, in Infants and Ideots) being supplied by the good∣ness of God: So though the Revelation that was made of the Messias to the Fathers under the Old Dispensation, was only in general and Prophe∣tical Terms, of which they could not have a clear and distinct knowledge; yet his Death might be applied to them, and their Sins pardoned through him, upon their performing such Acts as were proportioned to that Dispen∣sation, and to the Revelation that was then made: And so they were re∣conciled to God even after Sins, for which no Sacrifices were appointed by their Dispensation, upon their Repentance and Obedience to the Foederal Acts and Conditions then required, which supplied the want of more ex∣press Acts with relation to the Death of Christ, not then distinctly revealed to them. But though the Old Fathers had a Conveyance of the Hope of Eternal Life made to them, with a Resurrection of their Bodies, and a Con∣fidence in the Mercy of God, for pardoning the most heinous Sins; yet it cannot be denied, but that it was as a light that shined in a dark place, till the day-star did arise,* 1.129 and that Christ brought life and immortality to light by his Gospel; giving us fuller and clearer discoveries of it, both with relation to our Souls and Bodies; and that by him also God has declared his righteous∣ness for the remission of sins,* 1.130 through the forbearance of God, through the re∣demption that is in Christ Iesus, and through Faith in his blood.

The Third Branch of this Article will not need much Explanation, as it will bear no dispute, except with Iews, who do not acknowledge the New Testament. The Ceremonial Parts of the Mosaical Law, which compre∣hends all both the Negative and the Positive Precepts, were enjoined the Iews either with relation to the Worship of God and Service at the Temple, or to their Persons and course of Life.

That which is not Moral of its own nature, or that had no relation to Civil Society, was commanded them, to separate them not only from the Idolatrous and Magical Practices of other Nations, but to distinguish them so entirely as to all their Customs, even in the Rules of Eating and of Cleanness, that they might have no familiar Commerce with other Nati∣ons, but live within and among themselves; since that was very likely to corrupt them, of which they had very large experience. Some of those Rituals were perhaps given them as Punishments for their frequent Revolts, and were as a Yoke upon them, who were so prone to Idolatry. They were as Rudiments and Remembrances to them: They were as it were sub∣dued by a great variety of Precepts, which were matter both of much Charge and great Trouble to them: By these they were also amused; for it seems they did naturally love a Pompous Exterior in Religion: They were also by all that Train of Performances which were laid on them, kept in mind both of the great Blessings of God to them, and of the Obligati∣ons that lay on them towards God; and many of those, particularly their Sacrifices and Washings, were Typical. All this was proper and necessary to restrain and govern them, while they were the only People of the World that renounced Idolatry, and worshipped the true God: And therefore so soon as that of which they had anEmblem in the Structure of theirTemple (of a Court of the Gentiles separated with a middle Wall of Partition, from the place in which the Israelites worshipped) was to be removed, and that the House of God was to become a House of Prayer to all Nations, then all those distinctions were to be laid aside, and all that Service was to determine and

come to an end. The Apostles did declare that the Gentiles were not to be brought under that heavy Yoke, which their Fathers were not able to bear; yet the Apostles themselves, as born Iews, and while they lived among the Iews, did continue in the Observance of their Rites, as long as God seemed to be waiting for the Remnant of that Nation that was to be saved, before his Wrath came upon the rest to the uttermost. They went to the Temple, they purified themselves; and in a word, to the Iews they became Iews; and in this compliance, the first Converts of the Iewish Na∣tion continued till the destruction of Ierusalem; after which, it became impossible to observe the greatest part of their most important Rituals, even all those that were tied to the Temple. But that Nation losing its Genealo∣gies, and all the other Characters that they formerly had of a Nation under the Favour and Protection of God, could no more know after a few Ages, whether they were the Seed of Abraham or not, or whether there were any left among them of the Tribe of Levi, or of the Family of Aaron. So that now all those Ceremonies are at an end; many of them are become impossible, and the rest useless; as the whole was abrogated by the Autho∣rity of the Apostles, who being sent of God, and proving their Mission by Miracles, as well as Moses had done his; they might well have loosed and dissolved those Precepts upon Earth, upon which according to our Savi∣our's words, they are to be esteemed as loosed in Heaven.

The Judiciary Parts of the Law were those that related to them as they were a Society of Men, to whom God by a special Command gave Autho∣rity to drive out and destroy a wicked Race of People, and to possess their Land; which God appointed to be divided equally among them, and that every Portion should be as a Perpetuity to a Family; so that though it might be mortaged out for a number of Years, yet it was afterwards to re∣vert to the Family. Upon this bottom they were at first set; and they were still to be preserved upon it; so that many Laws were given them as they were a Civil Society, which cannot belong to any other Society: And therefore their whole Judiciary Law, except where any parts of it are founded on Moral Equity, was a complicated thing, and can belong to no other Nation, that is not in its first and essential Constitution made and framed as they were. For instance; The Prohibition of taking Use for Money, being a Mean to preserve that Equality which was among them, and to keep any of them from becoming excessively rich, or others from becoming miserably poor, this is by no means to be applied to other Con∣stitutions, where men are left to their Industry, and neither have their In∣heritance by a Grant from Heaven, nor are put by any special Appointment of God all upon a level. So that it is certain, and can bear no debate, That the Mosaical Dispensation, as to all the parts of it that are not of their own nature Moral, is determined and abrogated by the Gospel. The Descisions which the Apostles made in this matter are so clear, and for the Proof of them, the whole Tenor of the Epistles to the Galatians and the Hebrews is so full, that no doubt can rest concerning this, with any man who reads them.

The last Branch of the Article that remains to be considered, is con∣cerning the Moral Law, by which the Ten Commandments are meant, to∣gether with all such Precepts as do belong to them, or are Corollaries arising out of them. By Moral Law is to be understood, in opposition to Positive, a Law which has an antecedent Foundation in the nature of things, that arises from Eternal Reason, is suitable to the Frame and Powers of our Souls, and is necessary for maintaining Human Society. All such Laws are commanded, because they are in themselves good, and suitable to the

sta••e in which God has put us here. The two Sources out of which all the Notions of Morality flow, are first the considerations of our selves as we are single Individuals, and that with relation both to Soul and Body; and next, the consideration of Human Society, what is necessary for the Peace and Order, the Safety and Happiness of Mankind. There are two Orders of Moral Precepts; some relate to things that of their own nature are in∣flexibly good or evil, such as Truth and Falshood; whereas other things by a variety of Circumstances may so change their nature, that they may be either morally good or evil: A merciful or generous Temper is always a good Moral Quality, and yet it may run to excesses: There may be ma∣ny things that are not unalterably Moral in themselves, which yet may be fit Subjects of perpetual Laws about them. For instance; in the Degrees of Kindred with relation to Marriage, there are no degrees but direct Ascendents or Descendents, that is, Parents and Children, that by an Eternal Reason can never marry; for where there is a Natural Subordina∣tion, there can never be such an Equality as that state of Life requires: But Collateral Degrees, even the nearest, Brothers and Sisters, are not by any Natural Law barred Marriage, and therefore in a case of necessity they might marry: Yet since their intermarrying must be attended with vast Inconveniences, and would tend to the Defilement of Families, and hinder the Conjunction of Mankind by the Intermixture of different. Fa∣milies; it becomes therefore a fit Subject for a perpetual Law, to strike a horror at the thought of such Commixtures, and so to keep the World pure, which considering the Freedoms in which those of the same Family do live, could not be preserved without such a Law. It is also the Inte∣rest of Mankind, and necessary for the careful Education of the rising Ge∣neration, that Marriages should be for Life; for if it were free for married Persons to separate at pleasure, the Issue of Marriages so broken would be certainly much neglected: And since a Power to break a Marriage would naturally inflame such little quarrelings as may happen among all Persons that live together, which will on the contrary be certainly repressed, when they know that the Marriage cannot be dissolved, and when by such a Dissolution of Marriages, the one half of the Human Species, I mean Womankind, is exposed to great Miseries, and subject to much Tyranny, it is a fit Subject for a perpetual Law; so that it is Moral in a Secondary Order. It were easy to give Instances of this in many more Particulars, and to shew, That a Precept may be said to be Moral, when there is a Na∣tural Suitableness in it to advance that which is Moral in the first Order, and that it cannot be well preserved without such a Support. It will ap∣pear what occasion there is for this distinction, when we consider the Ten Commandments; which are so many Heads of Morality, that are instanced in the highest act of a kind; and to which are to be reduced all such acts as by the just Proportions of Morality belong to that Order and Series of Actions.

The Foundation of Morality is Religion. The Sense of God, That he is, and that he is both a Rewarder and a Punisher, is the Foundation of Religion. Now this must be supposed as Antecedent to his Laws, for we regard and obey them from the persuasion that is formed in us concerning the Being and the Justice of God; The two first Commandments are against the two different sorts of Idolatry; which are, the worshipping of False Gods, or the worshipping the True God in a Corporeal Figure: The one is the giving the Honour of the True God to an Idol, and the other is the depre••••ing the True God to the resemblance of an Idol. These were the two great Branches of Idolatry, by which the true Ideas of God were

corrupted. Religion was by them corrupted in its Source. No body can question but that it is Immoral to worship a False God; it is a transferring the Honour which belongs immediately and singly to the Great God, to a Creature, or to some Imaginary Thing which never had a real Existence. This is the robbing God of what is due to him, and the exalting another thing to a degree and rank that cannot belong to it. Nor is it less immo∣ral to propose the Great and True God to be worshipped under Appearan∣ces that are derogatory to his Nature, that tend to give us low Thoughts of him, and that make us think him like, if not below our selves. This way of worshipping him is both unsutable to his nature, and unbecoming ours; while we pay our Adorations to that which is the work of an Ar∣tificer. This is confirmed by those many express Prohibitions in Scripture, to which Reasons are added, which shew that the thing is Immoral in its own nature: It being often repeated, that no Similitude of God was ever seen: And to whom will ye liken me: All things in Heaven and Earth are often called the work of his hands: Which are plain Indications of a Moral Precept, when Arguments are framed from the Nature of Things to enforce Obedience to it. The Reason given in the very Command it self, is taken from the Nature of God, who is jealous; that is, so tender of his Glory, that he will not suffer a diminution of it to go unpunished; and if this Precept is clearly founded upon Natural Justice, and the proportion that ought to be kept between all Human Acts and their Objects, then it must be perpetual: And that the rather, because we do plainly see that the Gospel is a refining upon the Law of Moses, and does exalt it to a higher pitch of Sublimity and Purity: And by consequence the Ideas of God, which are the first Seeds and Principles of Religion, are to be kept yet more pure and undefiled in it, than they were in a lower Dis∣pensation.

The Third Precept is against false Swearing: For the Word Vain is often used in the Scripture in that sense:* 1.131 And since in all the other Com∣mandments, the Sin which is named is not one of the lowest, but of the chief Sins that relate to that Head; there is no reason therefore to think, That Vain or Idle Swearing, which is a Sin of a lower Order should be here meant, and not rather false Swearing, which is the highest Sin of the kind. The Morality of this Command is very apparent; for since God is the God of Truth, and every Oath is an Appeal to him, therefore it must be a gross Wickedness to Appeal to God, or to call him to vouch for our lies.

The Fourth Commandment cannot be called Moral in the first and highest sense; for from The Nature of Things no reason can be assigned, Why the Seventh day, rather than the Sixth, or the Eighth, or any other day, should be separated from the common business of Life, and ap∣plied to the Service of God. But it is Moral that a man should pay homage to his Maker, and acknowledge him in all his works and ways: And since our Senses and sensible Objects are apt to wear better things out of our Thoughts, it is necessary that some solemn Times should be set apart for full and copious Meditations on these Subjects: This should be universal, lest if the Time were not the same every where; the Business of some men might interfere with the Devotions of others. It ought to have such an eminent Character on it, like a cessation from Business: Which may both awaken a curiosity to enquire into the rea∣son of that stop, and also may give opportunity for Meditations and Dis∣courses on those Subjects. It is also clear, That such days of rest must not return so oft, that the necessary Affairs of Life should be stopt by them,

nor so seldom that the Impressions of Religion should wear out, if they were too seldom awakened: But what is the proper proportion of Time, that can best agree both with mens Bodies and Minds, is only known to the great Author of Nature. Howsoever, from what has been said, it ap∣pears that this is a very fit matter to be fixed by some sacred and perpe∣tual Law, and that from the first Creation; because there being then no other method for conveying down Knowledge, besides Oral Tradition, it seems as highly congruous to that State of Mankind, as it is agreeable to the words in Genesis, to believe That God should then have appointed one day in seven for commemorating the Creation, and for acknowledging the great Creator of all things. But though it seems very clear, that here a perpetual Law was given the World for the separating the Seventh day; yet it was a meer Circumstance, and does not at all belong to the standing use of the Law, in what end of the Week this day was to be reckoned, Whether the first or the last: So that even a less Authori∣ty than the Apostles, and a less occasion than the Resurrection of Christ, might have served to have transferred the day. There being in this no Breach made on the good and moral design of this Law, which is all in it that we ought to reckon sacred and unalterable: The degree of the Rest might be also more severely urged under the Mosaical Law, than either before it or after it. Our Saviour having given plain Intimati∣ons of an Abatement of that rigour, by this general Rule, That the Sabbath was made for man,* 1.132 and not man for the Sabbath. We who are called to a state of freedom, are not under such a strictness as the Iews were. Still the Law stands for separating a Seventh day from the common Business of Life, and applying it to a Religious rest, for ac∣knowledging at first the Creator, and now by a higher Relation, the Re∣deemer of the World.

These Four Commandments make the first Table, and were generally reckoned as four distinct Commandments, till the Roman Church having a mind to make the Second disappear, threw it in as an Appendix to the First, and then left it quite out in her Catechisms: Though it is plain that these Commandments relate to two very different Matters, the one being in no sort included in the other. Certainly they are much more different than the coveting the Neighbour's Wife is from the coveting any of his other concerns: Which are plainly two different Acts of the same Species: And the House being set before the Wife in Exodus (though it comes after it in Deuteronomy,* 1.133 which being a repetition, is to be governed by Exodus, and not Exodus by it) stands for the whole Substance, which is afterwards branched out in the particulars; and so it is clear that there is no colour for dividing this in two: But the first two Commandments relating to things of such a different sort, as is the worshipping of more Gods than one, and the worshipping the true God in an Image, ought still to be reckoned as different: And though the reason given from the Jealousy and Justice of God, may relate equally to both, yet that does not make them otherwise one, than as both might be reduced to one common Head of Idolatry, so that both were to be equally punished.

In the Second Table this Order is to be observed. There are Four Branches of a man's Property to which every thing that he can call his own may be reduced: His Person, his Wife and Children, his Goods, and his Reputa∣tion: So there is a Negative precept given to secure him in every one of these, against Killing, committing Adultery, Stealing, and bearing false Witness: To which as the chief acts of their kind, are to be reduced all those acts that may belong to those Heads: Such as Injuries to a man in his person, though not carried on nor designed to kill him; every Tempta∣tion

to uncleanness, and all those excesses that lead to it; every act of In∣justice, and every Lye or Defamation: To these Four are added two Fences; the one Exterior, the other Interior. The Exterior is the settling the Obedience and Order that ought to be observed in Families, according to the Law of Nature: And by a parity of Reason, if Families are under a Constitution, where the Government is made as a common Parent, the establishing the Obedience to the Civil Powers, or to such Orders of Men who may be made as Parents, with Relation to Matters of Religion: This is the Foundation of Peace and Justice, of the security and happi∣ness of Mankind: And therefore it was very proper to begin the Second Table, and those Laws that relate to human Society, with this: without which the World would be like a Forest, and Mankind like so many Sa∣vages running wildly through it.

The last Commandment, is an inward Fence to the Law: It checks Desires, and restrains the Thoughts: If free Scope should be given to these, as they would very often carry men to unlawful Actions, for a man is very apt to do that which he desires, so they must give great disturbance to those that are haunted or overcome by them. And therefore as a mean both to secure the quiet of mens minds, and to pre∣serve the World from the ill effects which such desires might naturally have, this special Law is given; Thou shalt not covet. It will not be easy to prove it Moral in the strictest sense, yet in a Secondary Order it may be well called Moral: The Matter of it being such both with relation to our selves and others, that it is a very proper Subject for a perpetual Law to be made about it. And yet as St. Paul says,* 1.134 he had not known it to be a Sin, if it had not been for the Law that forbids it; for after all that can be said, it will not be easy to prove it to be of its own nature Moral. Thus by the help of that distinction, of what is Moral in a primary, and in a se∣condary Order, the Morality of the Ten Commandments is demonstrated.

That this Law obliges Christians as well as Iews, is evident from the whole Scope of the New Testament. Instead of deroga∣ting from the Obligation of any part of that Law, our Saviour af∣ter he had affirmed, That he came not to dissolve the Law, but to fulfil it, and that Heaven and Earth might pass away,* 1.135 but that one tittle of the Law should not pass away; he went through a great many of those Laws, and shewed how far he extended the Commentary he put upon them, and the Obligations that he laid upon his Disciples, beyond what was done by the Iewish Rabbies: All the rest of his Gospel, and the Writings of his Apo∣stles agree with this, in which there is not a Tittle that looks like a slackning of it, but a great deal to the contrary: A strictness that reaches to idle Words, to passionate Thoughts, and to all impure Desires, being enjoined as indispensably necessary; for without holiness no man can see the Lord.

And thus every thing relating to this Article is considered, and I hope both explained and proved.

ARTICLE VIII. Of the Three Creeds.

The Three Creeds, Nice Creed, Athanasius Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed, ought throughly to be recei∣ved and believed; for they may be proved by most certain War∣rants of Holy Scripture.

ALthough no doubt seems to be here made, of the Names or Designa∣tions given to those Creeds, except of that which is ascribed to the Apostles, yet none of them are named with any exactness: Since the Ar∣ticle of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and all that follows it, is not in the Nicene Creed, but was used in the Church as a part of it; for so it is in Epiphanius,* 1.136 before the Second General Council at Constantinople; and it was confirmed and established in that Council: Only the Article of the Holy Ghost's proceeding from the Son, was afterwards added first in Spain, Anno 447. which spread it self over all the West: So that the Creed here called the Nice Creed, is indeed the Constantinopolitan Creed, together with the Addition of Filioque made by the Western Church. That which is call∣ed Athanasius's Creed is not his neither: ••or as it is not among his Works, so that great Article of the Christian Religion having been settled at Nice, and he and all the rest of the Orthodox referring themselves always to the Creed made by that Council, there is no reason to imagine that he would have made a Creed of his own; besides, that not only the Macedonian, but both the Nestorian and the Eutychian Heresies are expresly condemned by this Creed, and yet those Authorities never being urged in those Disputes, it is clear from thence, that no such Creed was then known in the World; as indeed it was never heard of before the Eighth Century; and then it was given out as the Creed of Athanasius, or as a Representation of his Doctrine, and so it grew to be received by the Western Church; perhaps the more early, because it went under so great a Name, in Ages that were not Critical enough to judge of what was genuine, and what was spurious.

There is one great difficulty that arises out of several Expressions in this C••••ed, in which it is said, That whosover will be saved, must believe it; That the Belief of it is necessary to Salvation; and that such as do not hold it pure and undefiled, shall without doubt perish everlastingly: Where many Ex∣planations of a Mystery hard to be understood, are made indispensably ne∣cessary to Salvation; and it is affirmed, That all such as do not so believe, must perish everlastingly. To this two Answers are made: 1. That it is only the Christian Faith in general that is hereby meant, and not every Pe∣riod and Article of this Creed; so that all those severe Expressions are thought to import only the necessity of believing the Christian Religion: But this seems forced; for the words that follow, And the Catholick Faith is, do so plainly determine the s••gnification of that word to the Explanation that comes after, that the word Catholick Faith, in the first Verse, can be no other than the same word, as it is defined in the third and following Verses; so that this Answer seems not natural. 2. The common Answer in which the most Eminent Men of this Church, as far as the Memory of all such as I have known, could go up, have agreed, is this, That these Condemna∣tory Expressions are only to be understood to relate to those who having the Means of Instruction offered to them, have rejected them, and have stifled their own Convictions, holding the Truth in Unrighteousness, and chusing darkness rather than light: Upon such as do thus reject this great Article of the Christian Doctrine, concerning One God and Three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that other concerning the Incarnation of Christ, by

which God and Man were so united as to make one Person, together with the other Doctrines that follow these, are those Anath••maes denounced: Not so as if it were hereby meant, that every man who does not believe this in every tittle must certainly perish, unless he has been furnished with sufficient means of conviction, and that he has rejected them, and hardned himself against them. The Wrath of God is revealed against all sin, and the wages of sin is Death: So that every Sinner has the Wrath of God abiding on him, and is in a state of Damnation; yet a sincere Repentance delivers him out of it, even though he lives and dies in some sins of Ignorance; which though they may make him liable to damnation, so that nothing but true Repentance can deliver him from it; yet a general Repentance, when it is also special for all known sins, does certainly deliver a man from the guilt of unknown sins, and from the Wrath of God due to them. God only knows our hearts, the degrees of our knowledge, and the measure of our obstinacy, and how far our Ignorance is affected or invincible, and therefore he will deal with every man according to what he has received. So that we may believe that some Doctrines are necessary to Salvation, as well as that there are some Commandments necessary for Practice; and we may also believe that some Errors as well as some Sins are exclusive of Salvation; all which imports no more than that we believe such things are sufficiently revealed, and that they are necessary Conditions of Salvation; but by this we do not limit the Mercies of God towards those who are under such darkness as not to be able to see through it, and to discern and acknowledge these Truths. It were indeed to be wished, that some express Declaration to this purpose were made by those who have Authority to do it: But in the mean while this being the Sense in which the Words of this Creed are universally taken, and it agreeing with the Phraseology of the Scripture upon the like occasi∣ons, this is that which may be rested upon. And allowing this large Ex∣planation of these severe words, the rest of this Creed imports no more than the Belief of the Doctrine of the Trinity, which has been already proved, in treating of the former Articles.

As for the Creed called the Apostles Creed, there is good reason for speak∣ing so doubtfully of it as the Article does, since it does not appear that any determinate Creed was made by them: None of the first Writers agree in delivering their Faith in a certain Form of Words; every one of them gives an Abstract of his Faith, in Words that differ both from one another, and from this Form. From thence it is clear that there was no common Form delivered to all the Churches: And if there had been any Tradition after the Times of the Council of Nice, of such a Creed composed by the Apostles, the Arians had certainly put the chief strength of their Cause on this, That they adhered to the Apostles Creed, in opposition to the Innovations of the Nicene Fathers: There is therefore no reason to believe that this Creed was prepared by the Apostles, or that it was of any great Antiquity, since Ruffin was the first that published it. It is true, he published it as the Creed of the Church of Aquileia; but that was so late, that neither this nor the other Creeds have any Authority upon their own account. Great Respect is in∣deed due to things of such Antiquity, and that have been so long in the Church; but after all, we receive those Creeds, not for their own sakes, nor for the sake of those who prepared them, but for the sake of the Doctrine that is contained in them; because we believe that the Doctrine which they declare, is contained in the Scriptures, and chiefly that which is the main In∣tent of them, which is to assert and profess the Trinity, therefore we do re∣ceive them; tho we must acknowledge that the Creed ascribed to Athanasius, as it was none of his, so it was never established by any General Council.

ARTICLE IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.

Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pela∣gians do vainly talk) but it is the fault or corruption of the na∣ture of every man, that naturally is engendred of the Offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from Original Righte∣ousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the Flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit, and therefore in every Person born into the World it deserveth God's Wrath and Damnation: And this Infection of Nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated, whereby the Lust of the Flesh, called in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which some do expound the Wis∣dom, some Sensuality, some the Affection, some the Desire of the Flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And though there is no Condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, That Concupiscence and Lust hath of it self the nature of Sin.

AFter the First Principles of the Christian Religion are stated, and the Rule of Faith and Life was setled; the next thing that was to be done, was to declare the special Doctrines of this Religion; and that first with re∣lation to all Christians, as they are single Individuals, for the directing eve∣ry one of them in order to the working out his own Salvation; which is done from this to the Nineteenth Article: And then with relation to them as they compose a Society called the Church; which is carried on from the Nineteenth to the End.

In all that has been hitherto explained, the whole Church of England has been all along of one mind. In this and in some that follow, there has been a greater diversity of Opinion; but both sides have studied to prove their Tenets to be at least not contrary to the Articles of the Church. These different Parties have disputed concerning the Decrees of God, and those Assistances which pursuant to his Decrees are afforded to us. But because the Foundation of those Decrees, and the Necessity of those Assistances, are laid in the Sin of Adam, and in the Effects it had on Mankind, therefore th••se Controversies begin on this Head. The Pelagians and the Socinians agree in saying, That Adam's Sin was Personal: That by it, as being the first Sin, it is said that Sin entred into the World: But that as Adam was made mortal,* 1.137 and had died whether he had sinned or not; so they think the liberty of Human Nature is still entire; and that every man is pu∣nished for his own sins, and not for the sin of another; to do otherwise, they say, seems contrary to Justice, not to say, Goodness.

In opposition to this, Iudgment is said to have come upon many to condemnation through one (either Man or Sin.* 1.138) Death is said to have reigned by one, and by one man's offence; and many are said to be dead through the offence of one. All these Passages do intimate that death is the consequence of Adam's Sin; and that in him, as well as in all others, Death was the Wages of Sin, so also that we dye upon the account of his Sin. We are said to bear the Image of the first Adam, as true Christians bear the Image of the second: Now we are sure that there is both a derivation of Righteousness,* 1.139 and a Communication of Inward Holiness transferred to us through Christ: So it seems to follow from thence, that there is somewhat both transferred to us, and conveyed down

throughMankind, by the first Adam; and particularly that by it we are all made subject to Death; from which we should have been freed, if Adam had continued in his first state, and that by virtue of the Tree of Life:* 1.140 in which some think there was a natural Virtue to cure all Diseases, and relieve against all Acci∣dents; while others do ascribe it to a Divine Blessing, of which that Tree was only the Symbol or Sacrament; through the words said after Adam's sin, as the reason of driving him out of Paradise, lest he put forth his hand and take of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever, seem to import that there was a Physical Virtue in the Tree, that could so fortify and restore Life, as to give Immortality. These do also think that the Threatning made to Adam, That upon his eating the forbidden Fruit he should surely dye, is to be taken literally, and is to be carried no further than to a Natural Death. This Subjection to Death, and to the Fear of it, brings men under a slavish Bondage, many Terrors, and other Passions and Miseries that arise out ofit, which they think is a great Punishment; and that it is a Condemnation and Sentence of Death passed upon the whole Race; and by this they are made sinners, that is, treated as guilty Persons, and severely punished.

This they think is easily enough reconciled with the Notions of Justice and Goodness in God, since this is only a Temporary Punishment relating to mens Persons: And we see in the common methods of Providence, that Children are in this sort often punished for the sins of their Fathers; most men that come under a very ill habit of Body, transmit the Seeds of Diseases and Pains to their Children. They do also think that the Communication of this liable∣ness to death is easily accounted for; and they imagine that as the Tree of Life might be a Plant that furnished men with an Universal Medicine, so the forbidden Fruit might derive a slow Poyson into Adam's Body, that might have exalted and inflamed his Blood very much, and might, though by a slower operation, certainly brought on death at the last. Our being thus ad∣judged to Death, and to all the Miseries that accompany Mortality, they think may be well called the wrath of God, and damnation: So Temporary Judgments are often expressed in Scripture. And to this they add, That Christ has entirely redeemed us from this, by the Promise he has given us of raising us up at the Last Day: And that therefore when St. Paul is so copiously discoursing of the Resurrection, he brings this in, That as we have born the image of the first Adam, who was earthy, so we shall also bear the image of the heavenly; and since by man came death,* 1.141 by man came also the resurrection from the dead; and that as in Adam all dye, so in Christ shall all be made alive; and that this is the Univesal Redemption and Reparation that all mankind shall have in Christ Jesus. All this these Divines apprehend is conceivable, and no more; therefore they put Original Sin in this only, for which they pretend they have all the Fathers with them before St. Austin, and particularly St. Chrysostom and Theodoret, from whom all the latter Greeks have done little more than copied out their words. This they do also pre∣tend comes up to the words of the Article; for as this general adjudging of all men to dye, may be called, according to the Stile of the Scriptures, God's wrath and damnation; so the fear of Death, which arises out of it, cor∣rupts mens Natures, and inclines them to evil.

Others do so far approve of all this, as to think that it is a part of Original Sin, yet they believe it goes much farther; and that there is a Corruption spread through the whole Race of Mankind, which is born with every man. This the Experience of all Ages teaches us but too evi∣dently; every man feels it in himself, and sees it in others. The Philo∣sophers, who were sensible of it, thought to avoid the difficulty that ari∣ses from it, when it might be urged, That a good God could not make

men to be Originally depraved and wicked; they therefore fancied that all our Souls pre-existed in a former and purer state, from which they fell, by descending too much into Corporeal pleasure, and so both by a lapse and for a punishment, they sunk into grosser Bodies, and fell differently ac∣cording to the different degrees of the Sins they had committed in that state: And they thought that a Virtuous Life did raise them up to their for∣mer pitch, as a Vicious one would sink them lower, into more depraved and more miserable Bodies. All this may seem plausible: But the best that can be said for it, is, That it is an Hypothesis that saves some difficulties; but there is no sort of proofs to make it appear to be true. We neither perceive in our selves any remembrances of such a state, nor have we any warning given us either of our fall, or of the means of recovering out of it: So since there is no reason to affirm this to be true, we must seek for some other source of the Corruption of human Nature. The Manichees imputed it to the Evil God, and thought it was his work, which some say might have set on St. Austin the more earnestly to look for another Hypothesis to reconcile all.

But before we go to that, it is certain, that in Scripture this general Corruption of our Nature is often mentioned. The Imaginations of man's thoughts are only evil continually:* 1.142 What man is he that liveth and sinneth not? The just man falleth seven times a day: The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it? All that are in Christ must become new Creatures, old things must be done away, and every thing must become new. God made man upright, but he sought out to himself many Inventions. The Flesh is weak; The Flesh lusteth against the Spi∣rit; The carnal mind is enmity to the law of God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be: And they that are in the Flesh cannot please God: Where by Flesh is to be meant the natural State of Mankind, ac∣cording to those words, That which is born of the Flesh, is Flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is Spirit. These, with many other places of Scripture to the same purpose, when they are joined to the universal Ex∣perience of all Mankind, concerning the Corruption of our whole Race, lead us to settle this point, that in Fact it has over-run our whole kind, the contagion is spread over all. Now this being setled, we are next to enquire, how this could happen; We cannot think that God made men so: For it is expresly said,* 1.143 That God made man after his own Image.

The surest way to find out what this Image was at first, is to consider, What the New Testament says of it, when we come to be restored to it. We must put on the new man,* 1.144 after the Image of him that created him; or as elsewhere, the new man in righteousness and true holiness. This then was the Image of God, in which man was at first made. Nor ought the Image of God to be considered only as an Expression that imports only our representing him here on Earth, and having Dominion over the Creatures: For in Genesis the Creation of Man in the Image of God, is expressed as a thing different from his Dominion over the Creatures,* 1.145 which seems to be given to him as a consequent of it. The Image of God seems to be this, That the Soul of Man was a Being of another Sort and Order than all those material Be∣ings till then made, which were neither capable of Thought nor Liberty, in which respect the Soul was made after the Image of God. But Adam's Soul being put in his Body, his Brain was a Tabula rasa, as White Paper, had no Impressions in it, but such as either God put in it, or such as came to him by his senses. A Man born deaf and blind, newly come to hear and see, is not a more Ignorant and Amazed-like Creature than Adam must have been, if God had not conveyed some great impressions into him;

such as first the acknowledging and obeying him as his Maker, and then the managing his Body so as to make it an Instrument, by which he could make use of and observe the Creation. There is no reason to think that his Body was at first inclined to Appetite, and that his Mind was apt to serve his Body, but that both were restrained by supernatural Assistances: It is much more natural and more agreeable to the words of the Wise-man, to think that God made man upright, that his Body craved modestly, and that his Mind was both Judge and Master of those cravings; and if a natural Hypothesis may be offered, but only as an Hypothesis, it may be supposed, That a Man's blood was naturally low and cool, but that it was capable of a vast Inflam∣mation and Elevation, by which a man's powers might be exalted to much higher degrees of Knowledge and Capacity: The Animal Spirits receiving their Quality from that of the Blood, a new and a strong Fermentation in the Blood, might r••ise them, and by consequence exalt a man to a much greater sublimity of Thought: But with that it might dispose him to be easily inflamed by Appetites and Passions, it might put him under the power of his Body, and make his Body much more apt to be fired at outward Ob∣jects, which might sink all Spiritual and pure Ideas in him, and raise gross ones with much Fury and Rapidity. Hereby his whole frame might be much corrupted, and that might go so deep in him, that all those who descended from him, might be defiled by it, as we see Madness and some Chronical Diseases pass from Parents to their Children.

All this might have been natural, and as much the Physical effect of Eating the forbidden Fruit, as it seems Immortality would have been that of Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Life: This might have been in its na∣ture a slow poison, which must end in Death at last. It may be very easy to make all this appear probable from Physical Causes. A very small Acci∣dent may so alter the whole Mass of the Blood, that in a very few Minutes it may be totally changed; so the Eating the forbidden Fruit might have, by a natural chain of things, produced all this. But this is only an Hypothesis, and so is left as such. All the Assistance that Revealed Religion can receive from Philosophy, is to shew, That a reasonable Hypothesis can be offered upon Physical Principles, to shew the possibility, or rather probability of any particulars that are contained in the Scriptures. This is enough to s••op the mouths of Deists, which is all the use that can be made of such Schemes.

To return to the main Point of the Fall of Adam: He himself was made liable to Death. But not barely to cease to live: for Death and Life are terms opposite to one another in Scripture. In Treating upon these Heads it is said, That the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.* 1.146 And though the addition of the word Eternal, makes the Signification of the one more express, yet where it is mentioned without that addition, no doubt is to be made, but that it is to be so meant: As where it is said, That to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace: And believing, we have life through his Name:* 1.147 Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life. So by the rule of Opposites, Death ought to be understood, as a word of a general Signification, which we who have the Comment of the New Testament to guide us in understanding the Old, are not to restrain to a natural Death; and therefore when we are said to be the servants of sin unto death, we unders••and much more by it, than a natural Death: So God's threatning of Adam with Death, ought not to be restrained to a natural Death. Adam being thus defiled, all Emanati∣ons from him must partake of that vitiated State to which he had brought himself. But then the Question remains, How came the Souls of his Po∣sterity to be defiled; for if they were created pure, it seems to be an unjust

Cruelty to them, to condemn them to such an Union to a defiled Body, as should certainly corrupt them? All that can be said in Answer to this, is,

That God has setled it as a Law in the Creation, That a Soul should inform a Body according to the Texture of it, and either conquer it, or be mastered by it, as it should be differently made; and that as such a de∣gree of Purity in the Texture of it, might make it both pure and happy; so a contrary degree of Texture might have very contrary effects. And if with this, God made another general Law, that when all things were duly prepared for the propagation of the Species of Mankind, a Soul should be always ready to go into, and animate those first Threads and Beginnings of Life; those Laws being laid down, Adam by corrupting his own frame, corrupted the frame of his whole Posterity, by the general course of Things, and the great Law of the Creation. So that the suffering this to run through all the Race, is no more (only different in degrees and extent) than the Suffering the folly or madness of a man to infect his Posterity. In these things God acts as the Creator of the World by general Rules, and these must not be altered because of the Sins and Disorders of men: But they are rather to have their course, that so Sin may be its own punishment. The defilement of the Race being thus stated, a Question remains, Whe∣ther this can be properly called a Sin, and such as deserves God's Wrath and Damnation? On the one hand an opposition of Nature to the Divine Nature, must certainly be hateful to God, as it is the root of much ma∣lignity and sin. Such a Nature cannot be the Object of his Love, and of it self it cannnot be accepted of God: Now since there is no mean in God, between Love and Wrath, Acceptation and Condemnation, if such persons are not in the first order, they must be in the second.

Yet it seems very hard on the other hand to apprehend, how persons, who have never actually sinned, but are only unhappily descended, should be, in consequence to that, under so great a misery: To this several an∣swers are made: Some have thought that those who die before they commit any actual Sin, have indeed no share in the favour of God, but yet that they pass unto a state in the other World, in which they suffer little or nothing. The stating this more clearly, will belong to another Opinion, which shall be afterwards Explained.

There is a further Question made, Whether this Vicious Inclination is a Sin, or not? Those of the Church of Rome, as they believe that Original Sin is quite taken away by Baptism, so finding that this corrupt Dispositi∣on still remains in us, they do from thence conclude, that it is no part of Original Sin, but that this is the Natural State in which Adam was made at first, only it is in us without the restraint or bridle of Supernatural Assistances; which was given to him, but lost by Sin, and restored to us in Baptism. But as was said formerly, Adam in his first state was made after the Image of God, so that his bodily powers were perfectly under the com∣mand of his mind; This Revolt that we feel our Bodies and Senses are always in, cannot be supposed to be God's Original Workmanship. There are great Disputings raised concerning the meaning of a long Discourse of St. Paul's the 7th of the Romans, concerning a constant struggle that he felt within himself; which some, arguing from the Scope of the whole Epi∣stle, and the beginning of that Chapter, understand only of the state that St. Paul represents himself to have been in, while yet a Iew and before his Conversion: Whereas others understand it of him in his converted and regenerated state. Very plausible things have been said on both sides, but without arguing any thing from words, the sense of which is under debate;* 1.148 there are other places which do manifestly express the struggle that

is in a good Man: The flesh is weak, though the spirit is willing: The flesh lusteth against the spirit, as the spirit lusteth against the flesh: We ought to be still mortifying the deeds of the body; and we feel many Sins that do so ea∣sily bese•• us, that from these things we have reason to conclude, that there is a Corruption in our Nature, which gives us a biass and propensity to Sin. Now there is no reason to think that Baptism takes away all the Branches and Effects of Original Sin: It is enough if we are by it delivered from the Wrath of God, and brought into a State of Favour and Accep∣tation: We are freed from the Curse of Death, by our being Entitled to a Blessed Resurrection: And if we are so far freed from the Corruption of our Nature, as to have a foederal right to such Assistances as will enable us to resist and repress it, though it is not quite extinct in us, so long as we live in these frail and mortal Bodies, here are very great Effects of our Admission to Christianity by Baptism; though this should not go so far as to root out all Inclinations to Evil out of our Nature. The great Disposition that is in us to Appetite and Passion, and that great heat with which they Inflame us; the Aversion that we naturally have to all the Exercises of Religion, and the Pains that must be used to work us up to a tolerable De∣gree of Knowledge, and an ordinary Measure of Virtue, shews that these are not natural to us: Whereas Sloth and Vice do grow on us without any care taken about them; so that it appears, that they are the natural, and the other the forced growth of our Souls. These ill Dispositions are so universally spread through all Mankind, and appear so early, and in so great a Diversity of ill Inclinations, that from hence it seems reasonable and just to infer, That this Corruption is spread through our whole Nature and Species, by the Sin and Disobedience of Adam. And beyond this a great many among our selves think that they cannot go, in asserting of Original Sin.

But there is a further step made by all the Disciples of S. Austin, who be∣lieve, That a Covenant was made with all Mankind in Adam, as their First Parent: That he was a Person Constituted by God to represent them all; and that the Covenant was made with him, so that if he had obeyed, all his Po∣sterity should have been happy, through his Obedience; but by his Diso∣bedience they were all to be esteemed to have sinned in him, his Act being Imputed and Transferred to them all. S. Austin considered all Mankind as lost in Adam, and in that he made the Decree of Election to begin: There being no other Reprobation asserted by him, than the leaving Men to con∣tinue in that state of Damnation, in which they were by reason of Adam's Sin; so that though by Baptism all Men were born again, and recovered out of that lost state, yet unless they were within the Decree of Election they could not be saved, but would certainly fall from that state, and perish in a state of Sin: But such as were not Baptized were shut out from all hope. Those words of Christ's, Except ye be born again of the water and of the Spirit,* 1.149 ye cannot enter into the kingdom of God, being Expounded so as to Import the Indispensable Necessity of Baptism to Eternal Salvation. All who were not Baptized were reckoned by him among the Damned: Yet this Damna∣tion, as to those who had no Actual Sin, was so mitigated, that it seemed to be little more than an Exclusion out of Heaven, without any Suffering or Misery, like a state of Sleep and Inactivity. This was afterwards dressed up as a Division or Partition in Hell, called the Limbo of Infants; so by bring∣ing it thus low, they took away much of the horror that this Doctrine might otherwise have given the World.

It was not easy to Explain the way how this was propagated: They wished well to the Notion of a Soul's propagating a Soul, but that seemed

to come too near Creation: So it was not received as certain. It was th••refore thought, That the Body being propagated defiled, the Soul was created and infused at the time of Conception: And the though God did not Create it impure, yet no time was interposed between its Creation and infusion: So that it could never be said to have been once pure, and then to have become impure. All this, as it afforded an easy Foundation to Establish the Doctrine of Absolute Decrees upon it, no care being taken to shew how this Sin came into the World, whether from an Absolute De∣cr••e or not, so it seem'd to have a great Foundation in that large Discourse of St. Paul's; where in the 5th of the Romans, he compares the Blessings that we receive by the Death of Christ, with the Guilt and Misery that was brought upon us by the Sin of Adam. Now it is confessed, That by Christ we have both an Imputation or Communication of the Merits of his Death, and likewise a Purity and Holiness of Nature convey'd to us by his Doctrine and Spirit. In opposition then to this, if the comparison is to be closely pursued, there must be an Imputation of Sin as well as a Corruption of Nature, transfused to us from Adam. This is the more considerable as to the Point of imputation, because the chief design of St. Paul's Discourse seems to be levelled at that, since it is begun upon the Head of Reconciliation and Attonement: Upon which it follows, That as by one man sin entred into the world,* 1.150 and death by sin, and death passed upon all men, for that (or as others render it, in whom) all have sinned. Now they think it is all one to their Point, Whether it be rendered, for that, or in whom: For though the later words seem to deliver their Opinion more precisely, yet it being affirm'd, That according to the other rendring, all who die have sinned; and it being certain, That many Infants die who have never actually sinned, these must have sinned in Adam, they could sin no other way. It is afterwards said by St. Paul, That by the offence of one many were dead: That the judgment was by one to Condemnation: That by one man's offence death reigned by one. That by the offence of one, judgment came up∣on all men to Condemnation: And that by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. As these words are positive, and of great importance in themselves, so all this is much the stronger, by the opposition in which every one of them is put to the Effects and Benefits of Christ's Death; particularly to our Justification through him, in which there is an Imputation of the Me∣rits and Effects of his Death, that are thereby transferred to us; so that that the whole Effect of this Discourse is taken away, if the Imputation of Adam's Sin is denied. And this Explication does certainly quadrate more entirely to the words of the Article, as it is known that this was the Tenet of those who prepared the Articles, it having been the generally-received Opinion from S. Austin's days downward.

But to many other Divines, this seems a harsh and unconceivable Opi∣nion; it seems repugnant to the Justice and Goodness of God, to reckon Men guily of a Sin which they never committed, and to punish them in their Souls Eternally for that which was no Act of theirs: And though we easily enough conceive how God in the Riches of his Grace, may transfer Merit and Blessings from one Person to many, this being only an Oecono∣my of Mercy, where all is free, and such a method is taken as may best declare the Goodness of God: But in the Imputation of Sin and Guilt, which are Matters of strict Justice, it is quite otherwise. Upon that Head God is pleased often to Appeal to Men of the Justice of all his ways: And therefore no such Doctrine ought to be admitted, that carries in it an Idea of Cruelty,* 1.151 beyond what the blackest Tyrants have ever invented. Be∣sides, that in the Scripture, such a method as the punishing Children for

their Fathers Sins, is often disclaimed, and it is positively affirmed, that every man that sins is punished. Now though in Articles relating to the Nature of God, they acknowledge it is highly reasonable to believe, That there may be Mysteries which exceed our Capacity; yet in Moral Mat∣ters, in God's foederal dealings with us, it seems unreasonable and con∣trary to the Nature of God, to believe that there may be a Mystery con∣trary to the clearest Notions of Justice and Goodness; such as the condemn∣ing Mankind for the Sin of one Man, in which the rest had no share; and as contrary to our Ideas of God, and upon that to set up another Mystery that shall take away the Truth and Fidelity of the promises of God; Justice and Goodness being as inseparable from his Nature, as Truth and Fidelity can be supposed to be. This seems to expose the Christian Religion to the Scoffs of its Enemies, and to Objections that are much sooner made than answered: And since the foundation of this is a supposed Covenant with Adam as the Representative Head of Mankind, it is strange that a thing of that great consequence, should not have been more plainly Re∣ported in the History of the Creation: But that men should be put to fetch out the knowledge of so great and so extraordinary a thing, only by some remote Consequences. It is no small prejudice against this Opinion, That it was so long before it first appeared in the Latin Church; that it was never received in the Greek; and that even the Western Church, though perhaps for some Ignorant Ages it received it, as it did every thing else, very implicity, yet has been very much divided both about this, and ma∣ny other Opinions related to it, or a rising out of it.

As for those words of St. Paul's, that are its chief, if not its only Foundati∣on, they say many things upon them. First it is a single Proof. Now when we have not a variety of places proving any point, in which one gives Light, and leads us to a sure Exposition of another, we cannot be so sure of the meaning of any one place, as to raise a Theory, or found a Doctrine upon it: They say further, That S. Paul seems to argue, from that Opinion of our having sinned in Adam, to prove that we are justified by Christ. Now it is a piece of Natural Logick not to prove a thing by another, unless that other is more clear of it self, or at least more clear by its being al∣ready received and believed. This cannot be said to be more clear of it self, for it is certainly less credible or conceivable, than the Reconciliation by Christ. Nor was this clear from any special Revelation made of it in the Old Testament: Therefore there is good reason to believe, that it was then a Doctrine received among the Iews, as there are odd things of this kind to be found among the Cabbalists, as if all the Souls of all Mankind had been in Adam's Body. Now when an Argument is brought in Scripture to prove another thing by, though we are bound to acknowledge the Con∣clusion, yet we are not always sure of the Premises; for they are often founded upon received Opinions. So that it is not certain that S. Paul meant to offer this Doctrine to our belief as true, but only that he intended by it to prove our being reconciled to God through the Death of Christ; and the Medium by which he proved it might be, for ought that appears from the words themselves, only an Opinion held true among those to whom he writes. For he only supposes it, but says nothing to prove it: Which it might be expected he would have done, if the Iews had made any doubt of it. But further they say, that when Comparisons or Oppositions, such as this, are made in Scripture, we are not always to carry them on to an exact Equality: We are required not only to be holy as God is holy, but to be perfect as he is perfect:* 1.152 Where by the as is not to be meant a true Equa∣lity, but some sort Resemblance and Conformity: Therefore those who

believe that there is nothing imputed to Adam's Posterity on the account of his Sin, but this Temporary punishment of their being made liable to Death, and to all those Miseries that the fear of it, with our other con∣cerns about it, bring us under, say that this is enough to justify the com∣parison that is there stated: And that those who will carry it on to be an exact parallel, make a stretch beyond the Phraseology of the Scripture, and the use of Parables, and of the many comparisons that go only to one or more points, but ought not to be stretched to every thing.

These are the things that other great Divines among us have opposed to this Opinion. As to its Consonancy to the Article, those who oppose it do not deny, but that it comes up fully to the highest sense that the words of the Article can Import: Nor do they doubt, but that those who prepared the Articles, being of that Opinion themselves, might perhaps have had that sense of the words in their Thoughts. But they add, That we are only bound to sign the Articles in a Literal and Grammatical Sense: Since therefore the words God's wrath and damnation, which are the highest in the Article, are capable of a lower sense, Temporary Judgments being often so expressed in the Scriptures,* 1.153 therefore they believe the loss of the Favour of God, the Sentence of Death, the Troubles of Life, and the Corruption of our Faculties, may be well called God's wrath and damnation. Besides they observe, That the main point of the Imputation of Adam's Sin to his Posterity, and its being considered by God as their own Act, not being expresly taught in the Article, here was that moderation obser∣ved, which the Compilers of the Articles have shewed on many other occasions. It is plain from hence, that they did not intend to lay a Bur∣then one Mens Consciences, or oblige them to profess a Doctrine that seems to be of hard digestion to a great many. The last prejudice that they offer against that Opinion, is, That the softening the terms of God's wrath and damnation that was brought in by the followers of St. Austin's Doctrine to s••ch a moderate and harmless Noti••n, as to be only a loss of Heaven, with a sort of unactive S••••ep, was ••n effect of their apprehending that the World could very ill bear an Opinion of so strange a sound, as that all Mankind were to be Damned for the Sin of one Man: And that therefore to make this pass the be••ter they mitigated Damnation far below the Representa∣tion that the Scriptures generally give of it, which propose it as the be∣ing adjudged to a place of Torment, and a state of Horror and Misery.

Thus I have set down the different Opinions in this point, with that true Indifference that I intend to observe on such other occasions, and which becomes one who undertakes to explain the Doctrines of the Church, and not his own: And who is obliged to purpose other Mens Opinions with all Sincerity, and to shew what are the Senses that the Learned Men of different persuasions in these matters, have put on the words of the Arti∣cle. In which one great and constant Rule to be observed, is, To represent mens Opinions candidly, and to judge as favourably both of them and their Opinions as may be: To bear with one another, and not to disturb the Peace and Union of the Church, by insisting too much and too pe∣remptorily upon matters of such doubtful Disputaion; but willingly to leave them to all that liberty, to which the Church has left them, and which she still allows them.

ARTICLE. X. Of Free-Will.

The Condition of Man after the Fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to Faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the Grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.

WE shall find the same Moderation observed in this Article, that was taken notice of in the former; where all disputes concerning the degrees of that feebleness and corruption under which we are fallen by the Sin of Adam, are avoided, and only the necessity of a preventing and a co∣operating Grace is asserted, against the Semipelagians and the Pelagians. But before we enter upon that, it is fitting first to state the true Notion of Free-Will, in so far as it is necessary to all rational Agents, to make their Actions morally good or bad; since it is a Principle that seems to rise out of the Light of Nature, That no man is accountable, rewardable or punishable, but for that in which he acts freely, without force or compulsion; and so far all are agreed.

Some imagine, That Liberty must suppose a freedom to do or not to do, and to act contrariwise at pleasure. To others it seems not necessa∣ry that such a liberty should be carried to denominate Actions morally good or bad: God certainly acts in the perfectest liberty, yet he cannot sin. Christ had the most exalted liberty in his Human Nature, of which a Crea∣ture was capable, and his Merit was the highest, yet he could not sin. An∣gels and glorified Saints, though no more capable of Rewards, are perfect Moral Agents, and yet they cannot sin: And the Devils, with the damned, though not capable of further Punishment, yet are still Moral Agents, and cannot but sin: So this Indifferency to do or not to do, cannot be the true Notion of Liberty. A truer one seems to them to be this, That a Rati∣onal Nature is not determined as mere Matter, by the Impulse and Motion of other Bodies upon it; but is capable of Thought, and upon considering the Objects set before it, makes Reflection, and so chuses. Liberty there∣fore seems to consist in this inward capacity of thinking, and of acting and chusing upon Thought. The clearer the Thought is, and the more constant∣ly that our choice is determined by it, the more does a Man rise up to the highest Acts, and sublimest Exercises of Liberty.

A question arises out of this, Whether the Will is not always determined by the Understanding, so that a Man does always chuse and determine himself upon the account of some Idea or other? If this is granted, then no liber∣ty will be left to our Faculties. We must apprehend things as they are pro∣posed to our Understanding; for if a thing appears true to us, we must as∣sent to it; and if the Will is as blind to the Understanding, as the Under∣standing is determined by the Light in which the Object appears to it, then we seem to be concluded under a Fate, or Necessity. It is after all, a vain attempt to argue against every man's experience: We perceive in our selves a liberty of turning our Minds to some Ideas, or from others; we can think longer or shorter of these, more exactly and steadily, or more slightly and superficially, as we please; and in this radical freedom of directing or di∣verting our Thoughts, a main part of our Freedom does consist: Often Objects as they appear to our Thoughts do so affect or heat them, that they

do seem to conquer us, and carry us after them; some Thoughts seeming as it were to intoxicate and charm us: Appetites and Passions, when much fired by Objects apt to work upon them, do agitate us strongly; and on the other hand, the Impressions of Religion come often in our Minds with such a secret force, so much of Terror and such secret Joy mixing with them, that they seem to master us; yet in all this a Man Acts freely, because he thinks and chuses for himself: And though perhaps he does not feel himself so entirely balanced, that he is indifferent to both sides, yet he has still such a remote liberty, that he can turn himself to other Objects and Thoughts, so that he can divert, if not all of the sudden resist the present impressions that seem to master him. We do also feel that in many Trifles we do Act with an entire liberty, and do many things upon no other ac∣count, and for no other reason, but because we will do them; and yet more important things depend on these.

Our Thoughts are much governed by those impressions that are made up∣on our Brain: When an Object proportioned to us appears to us with such advantages as to affect us much, it makes such an impression on our Brain, that our Animal Spirits move much towards it; and those Thoughts that answer it, arise oft and strongly upon us, till either that Impression is worn out and flatted, or new and livelier ones are made on us by other Objects. In this depressed state in which we now are, the Ideas of what is useful or pleasant to our Bodies are strong; they are ever fresh, being daily renewed; and according to the different Construction of Mens Blood and their Brains, there arises a great variety of Inclinations in them. Our Animal Spirits that are the immediate Organs of Thought, being the subtiler parts of our Blood, are differently made and shaped, as our Blood happens to be Acid, Salt, Sweet, or Phlegmatick: And this gives such a Biass to all our Incli∣nations, that nothing can work us off from it, but some great strength of Thought that bears it down: So Learning chiefly in Mathematical Scien∣ces, can so swallow up and fix ones Thought, as to possess it entirely for some time; but when that amusement is over, Nature will return and be where it was, being rather diverted than overcome by such Speculations.

The Revelation of Religion is the proposing and proving many Truths of great importance to our Understandings, by which they are enlightened, and our Wills are guided; but these Truths are feeble things, languid and unable to stem a Tide of Nature, especialy when it is much excited and heated: So that in fact we feel, that when Nature is low, these Thoughts may have some force to give an inward Melancholy, and to awaken in us Purposes and Resolutions of another kind; but when Nature recovers it self, and takes fire again, these grow less powerful. The giving those Truths of Religion such a Force that they may be able to subdue Nature, and to govern us, is the Design of both Natural and Revealed Religion: So the Question comes now according to the Article to be, Whether a Man by the Powers of Nature and of Reason, without other inward Assistances, can so far turn and dispose his own Mind, as to believe and to do works plea∣sant and acceptable to God. Pelagius thought that Man was so entire in his liberty, that there was no need of any other Grace but that of Pardon, and of proposing the Truths of Religion to Mens knowledge, but that the use of these was in every Man's power. Those who were called Semipelagians thought that an assisting inward Grace was necessary to enable a Man to go through all the harder steps of Religion; but with that they thought that the first Turn or Conversion of the Will to God, was the effect of a Man's own free choice.

In opposition to both which, this Article asserts both an Assist∣ing and a preventing Grace. That there are inward Assistances

given to our Powers, besides those outward Blessings of Providence, is first to be proved. In the Old Testament, it is true, there were not express Promises made by Moses of such Assistances; yet it seems both David and Solomon had a full persuasion about it. David's Prayers do eve∣ry where relate to somewhat that is Internal:* 1.154 He prays God to open and turn his eyes; to unite and incline his heart; to quicken him; to make him to go; to guide and lead him; to create in him a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within him. Solomon says, That God gives wisdom; that he directs mens paths, and giveth grace to the lowly.* 1.155 In the Promise that Ieremy gives of a New Covenant, this is the Character that is given of it; I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts: They shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest. Like to that is what Ezekiel promises,* 1.156 A new heart also will I give, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh; and I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them. That these Prophecies relate to the New Dispensation, cannot be question'd, since Ieremy's words, to which the o∣ther are equivalent, are cited and applied to it in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Now the opposition of the one Dispensation to the other, as it is here stated, consists in this, That whereas the Old Dispensation was made up of Laws and Statutes that were given on Tables of Stone, and in writing, the New Dispensation was to have somewhat in it beside that External Revelation which was to be Internal, and which should dispose and inable Men to observe it.

A great deal of our Saviour's Discourse concerning the Spirit which he was to pour on his Disciples, did certainly belong to that extraordinary Effusion at Pentecost, and to those wonderful Effects that were to follow upon it: Yet as he had formerly given this as an Encouragement to all Men to Pray,* 1.157 That his heavenly Father would give the Holy Spirit to every one that asked him; so there are many parts of that his last Discourse, that seem to belong to the constant Necessities of all Christians. It is as unrea∣sonable to limit all to that time, as the first words of it, I go to prepare a place for you; and because I live, ye shall live also. The Prayer which comes after that Discourse,* 1.158 being extended beyond them to all that should believe in his Name through their word, we have no reason to limit these words, I will manifest my self to him; My Father and I will make our abode with him; In me ye shall have peace; to the Apostles only; so that the Guidance, the Conviction, the Comforts of that Spirit, seem to be Promises which in a lower order belong to all Christians. St. Paul speaks of the love of God shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost. When he was under Temptation,* 1.159 and prayed thrice, he had this Answer, My grace is sufficient for thee,* 1.160 my strength is made perfect in weakness. He prays often for the Churches in his Epistles to them, That God would stablish, comfort, and perfect them,* 1.161 enlighten and strengthen them; and this in all that variety of Words and Phrases that im∣port inward Assistances. This is also meant by Christ's living and dwelling in us, and by our being rooted and grounded in him;* 1.162 our being the Temples of God, a holy habitation to him through his Spirit; our being sealed by the Spirit of God to the day of Redemption; by all those directions to pray for grace to help in time of need, and, to ask wisdom of God that gives liberally to all men; as also by the Phrases of being born of God, and the having his seed abiding in us. These and many more places which return often through the New Testament, seem to put it beyond all doubt, that there are inward Commu∣nications from God, to the Powers of our Souls; by which we are made both to apprehend the Truths of Religion, to remember and reflect on them, and to consider and follow them more effectually.

How these are applied to us, is a great difficulty indeed, but it is to lit∣le purpose to amuse our selves about it. God may convey them imme∣diately to our Souls, if he will; but it is more intelligible to us to ima∣gine that the Truths of Religion are by a Divine direction imprinted deep upon our Brain; so that naturally they must affect us much, and be oft in our Thoughts: And this may be a Hypothesis to explain Regeneration or habitual Grace by. When a deep Impression is once made, there may be a direction from God, in the same way that his Providence runs through the whole Material World, given to the Animal Spirits to move towards and strik upon that Impression, and so to excite such Thoughts as by the Law of the Union of the Soul and Body do correspond to it: This may serve for a Hypothesis to explain the Conveyance of Actual Grace to us: But these are only proposed as Hypotheses, that is, as methods or possible ways how such things may be done, and which may help us to apprehend more distinctly the manner of them. Now as this Hypothesis has nothing in it but what is truly Philosophical, so it is highly congruous to the Na∣ture and Attributes of God, That if our Faculti••s a•••• fallen under a de∣cay and corruption, so that bare Instruction is not like to prevail over us, he should by some secret methods rectify this in us. Our Experience tells us but too often, what a f••eble thing Knowledge and Speculation is, when it engages with Nature strongly assaulted; How our best Thoughts fly from us and forsake us; whereas at other times the sense of these things lies with a due weight on our Minds, and has another effect upon us. The way of conveying this is invisible; our Saviour compared it to the wind that bloweth where it listeth;* 1.163 no man knows whence it comes, and whither it goes. No man can give an account of the sudden changes of the Wind, and of that vast force with which the Air is driven by it, which is other∣wise the most yielding of all Bodies; to which he adds, so is every one that is born of the Spirit. This he brings to illustrate the meaning of what he had said, That except a man was born again of Water and of the Spirit, he could not enter into the kingdom of God: And to shew how real and internal this was, he adds, That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that is, a Man has the Nature of those Parents from whom he is descended, by Flesh being understood the Fabrick of the Human Body, animated by the Soul: in op∣position to which, he subjoins, That which is born of the Spirit is spirit; that is to say, a Man thus regenerated by the Operation of the Spirit of God, comes to be of a Spiritual Nature.

With this I conclude all that seemed necessary to be proved, That there are inward Assistances given to us in the New Dispensation. I do not dispute whether these are fitly called Grace, for perhaps that word will scarce be found in that Sense in the Scriptures; it signifying more largely the Love and Favour of God, without restraining it to this Act or Effect of it. The next thing to be proved is, That there is a preventing Grace, by which the Will is first moved and disposed to turn to God. It is certain that the first Promulgation of the Gospel to the Churches that were gathered by the Apostles, is ascribed wholly to the Riches and Freedom of the Grace of God. This is fully done in the Epistle to the Ephesians, in which their for∣mer Ignorance and Corruption is set forth under the Figures of blindness, of being without hope,* 1.164 and without God in the world, and dead in trespasses and sins, they following the course of this world, and the prince of the power of the Air, and being by nature children of wrath; that is under Wrath, I dispute not here concerning the meaning of the word by Nature, whether it relates to the Corruption of our Nature in Adam, or to that general Corruption that had overspread Heathenism, and was become as it were another Nature

••o them. In this single Instance we plainly see, that there was no previous disposition to the first preaching of the Gospel at Ephesus: Many expressions of this kind, though perhaps not of this force, are in the other Epistles. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, puts God's chusing of Abraham up∣on this, That it was of grace, not of debt,* 1.165 otherwise Abraham might have had whereof to glory. And when he speaks of God's casting off the Iews, and grafting the Gentiles upon that Stock from which they were cut off, he, ascribes it wholly to the Goodness of God towards them,* 1.166 and charges them not to be high-minded, but to fear. In his Epistle to the Corinthians, he says, That not many wise, mighty, nor noble were chosen, but God had chosen the foolish, the weak, and the base things of this world,* 1.167 so that no flesh should glory in his presence: And he urges this further, in words that seem to be as applicable to particular Persons, as to Communities or Churches: Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou,* 1.168 that thou didst not re∣ceive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not re∣ceived it? From these and many more passages of the like nature, it is plain, that in the Promulgation of the Gospel,* 1.169 God was found of them that sought not to him, and heard of them that called not upon him; that is, he prevented them by his Favour, while there were no previous dispositions in them to invite it, much less to merit it: From this it may be inferred, That the like method should be used with relation to particular Persons.

We do find very express Instances in the New Testament, of the Con∣version of some by a Preventing Grace: It is said,* 1.170 That God opened t••e heart of Lydia, so that she attended to the things that were spoken of Paul. The Con∣version of St. Paul himself was so clearly from a Preventing Grace, that if it had not been miraculous in so many of its Circumstances, it would have been a strong Argument in behalf of it. These words of Christ seem also to assert it; Without me ye can do nothing; ye have not chosen me, but I you; and no man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.* 1.171 Those who received Christ, were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. God is said to work in us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure: The one seems to import the first beginings, and the other the progress of a Christian Course of Life. So far all among us, that I know of, are agreed, though perhaps not as to the force that is in all those places to prove this Point.

There do y••t remain Two Points in which they do not agree; the one is the Efficacy of this Preventing Grace; some think that it is of its own nature so Efficacious, that it never fails of Converting those to whom it is given; others think that it only awakens and disposes, as well as it enables them to turn to God, but that they may resist it, and that the greater part of Mankind do actually resist it. The examining of this Point, and the stating the Arguments of both sides, will belong more properly to the Se∣venteenth Article. The other Head in which many do differ, is concern∣ing the Extent of this Preventing Grace; for whereas such as do hold it to be Efficacious of it self, restrain it to the number of those who are Elected and converted by it; others do believe, That as Christ died for all Men, so there is an Universal Grace which is given in Christ to all Men, in some degree or other, and that it is given to all Baptized Christians in a more eminent degree, and that as all are corrupted by Adam, there is also a ge∣neral Grace given to all Men in Christ. This depends so much on the for∣mer Point, that the discussing the one is indeed the discussing of both; and therefore it shall not be further entred upon in this place.

ARTICLE. XI. Of the Justification of Man.

We are accounted Righteous before God, only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own Works or Deservings. Wherefore that we are justifi∣ed by Faith only, is a most wholsome Doctrine, and very full of Comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Iu∣stification.

IN order to the right understanding this Article, we must first consider the true meaning of the Terms of which it is made up; which are, Iu∣stification, Faith, Faith only, and Good Works; and then when these are rightly stated, we will see what Judgments are to be passed upon the Que∣stions that do arise out of this Article. Iust, or Iustified, are words capa∣ble of two senses; the one is, a Man who is in the Favour of God by a mere Act of his Grace, or upon some Consideration not founded on the Holiness or the Merit of the Person himself. The other is, a Man who is truly holy, and as such is beloved of God. The use of this word in the New Testament was probably taken from the term Chasidim among the Iews, a designation of such as observed the external parts of the Law strictly, and were believed to be upon that account much in the Favour of God; an Opinion being generally spread among them, that a strict observance of the external parts of the Law of Moses, did certainly put a Man in the Fa∣vour of God. In opposition to which, the design of a great part of the New Testament is to shew, that these things did not put Men in the Fa∣vour of God. Our Saviour used the word saved; in opposition to condemn∣ed;* 1.172 and spoke of Men who were condemned already, as well as of others who were saved. St. Paul enlarges more fully into many Discourses; in which our being justified, and the righteousness of God, or his grace towards us, are all terms equivalent to one another: His design in the Epistle to the Romans, was to prove that the observance of the Mosai••al Law could not justifie, that is, could not put a Man under the grace or favour of God, or the righ∣teousn••ss of God, that is, into a state of acceptation with him, as that is opposite to a state of wrath or condemnation: He upon that shews that Abraham was in the Favour of God before he was Circumcised, upon the account of his trusting to the Promises of God, and obeying his Commands; and that God reckoned upon these Acts of his, as much as if they had been an entire course of Obedience;* 1.173 for that is the meaning of these words, A••d it was imputed to him for righteousness. These Promises were freely made to him by God, when by no previous Works of his he had made them to be due to him of debt; therefore that Covenant which was found∣ed on those Promises, was the justifying of Abraham freely by grace; upon which St. Paul in a variety of Inferences and Expressions assumes, That we are in like manner justified freely by grace, through the redemption in Christ Iesus.* 1.174 That God has of his own free Goodness offered a new Covenant, and new and better Promises to Mankind in Christ Jesus, which whosoever believe as Abraham did, they are justified as he was. So that whosoever will observe the Scope of St. Paul's Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, will see that he always uses Iustification in a sense that imports our being put in the Favour of God. The Epistle to the Galatians was indeed writ upon the occasion of another Controversy, which was, Whether, supposing Christ to be the Messias, Christians were bound to observe the Mosaical

Law, or not: Whereas the Scope of the first part of the Epistle to the Ro∣mans, is to shew that we are not justified nor saved by the Law of Moses, as a Mean of its own nature capable to recommend us to the Favour of God, but that even that Law was a Dispensation of Grace, in which it was a true Faith like Abraham's, that put Men in the Favour of God; yet in both these Epistles, in which Iustification is fully treated of, it stands always for the receiving one into the Favour of God.

In this the Consideration upon which it is done, and the Condition up∣on which it is offered, are two very different things. The one is a Dispen∣sation of God's Mercy, in which he has regard to his own Attributes, to the Honour of his Laws, and his Government of the World: The other is the Method in which he applies that to us; in such a manner, that it may have such Ends as are both perfective of Human Nature, and suitable to an infinitely Holy Being to pursue. We are never to mix these two together, or to imagine that the Condition upon which Justification is offered to us, is the Consideration that moves God; as if our Holiness, Faith, or Obedience, were the moving Cause of our Justification; o•• that God justifies us, because he sees that we are truly just: For though it is not to be denied, but that in some places of the New Testament, Iustification may stand in that Sense, because the word in its Signification will bear it; yet in these Two Epi∣stles, in which it is largely treated of, nothing is plainer, than that the de∣sign is to shew us what it is that brings us to the Favour of God, and to a state of Pardon and Acceptation: So that Iustification in those places stands in opposition to Accusation and Condemnation.

The next Term to be explained is Faith; which in the New Testament st••nds generally for the Complex of Christianity, in opposition to the Law, which stands as generally for the Complex of the whole Mosaical Dispen∣sation. So that the Faith of Christ is equivalent to this the Gospel of Christ; because Christianity is a Foederal Religion, founded on God's part, on Promises that he has made to us, and on the Rules he has set us; and on our part, on our believing that Revelation, our trusting to those Promises, and our setting our selves to follow those Rules: The believing this Reve∣lation, and that great Article of it, of Christ's being the Son of God, and the true Messias that came to reveal his Father's Will, and to offer himself up to be the Sacrifice of this New Covenant, is often represented as the great and only Condition of the Covenant on our part; but still this Faith must receive the whole Gospel, the Precepts as well as the Promises of it, and receive Christ as a Prophet to Teach, and a King to Rule, as well as a Priest to Save us.

By Faith only, is not to be meant Faith as it is separated from the other Evangelical Graces and Virtues; but Faith, as it is opposite to the Rites of the Mosaical Law; for that was the great Question that gave occasion to St. Paul's writing so fully upon this Head; since many Judaizing Christians, as they acknowledged Christ to be the true Messias, so they thought that the Law of Moses was still to retain its force: In opposition to whom St. Paul says, That we are justified by Faith, without the works of the Law.* 1.175 It is plain that he means the Mosaical Dispensation, for he had divided all Mankind into those who were in the Law, and those who were without the Law: That is, into Iews and Gentiles. Nor had St. Paul any occasion to treat of any other Matter in those Epistles, or to enter into nice Abstracti∣ons, which became not one that was to Instruct the World in order to their Salvation: Those Metaphysical Notions are not easily apprehended by plain Men, not accustomed to such Subtilties, and are of very little value, when they are more critically distinguished: Yet when it seems some of

those Expressions were wrested to an ill sense and use, St. Iames treats of the same matter, but with this great difference; that though he says expresly, That a man is justified by Works, and not by Faith only; yet he does not say, by the Works of the Law;* 1.176 so that he does not at all contradict St. Paul; the Works that he mentions not being the Circumcision or Ritual Observances of Abraham, but his offering up his Son Isaac, which St. Paul had reckoned a part of the Faith of Abraham: This shews that he did not intend to con∣tradict the Doctrine delivered by St. Paul, but only to give a true Notion of the Faith that justifies; that it is not a bare believing, such as Devils are capable of, but such a believing as exerted it self in Good Works. So that the Faith mentioned by St. Paul is the Complex of all Christianity; whereas that mentioned by St. Iames, is a bare believing, without a life suitable to it. And as it is certainly true, that we are taken into the Fa∣vour of God, upon our receiving the whole Gospel, without observing the Mosaical Precepts; so it is as certainly true, that a bare professing or giving credit to the Truth of the Gospel, without our living suitably to it, does not give us a right to the Favour of God. And thus it appears that these two Pieces of the New Testament, when rightly understood, do in no wise contradict, but agree well with one another.

In the last place, we must consider the signification of Good Works: By them are not to be meant some voluntary and assumed pieces of Severity, which are no where enjoyned in the Gospel, that arise out of Superstition and that feed of Pride and Hypocrisy: These are so far from deserving the name of Good Works, that they have been in all Ages the Methods of Imposture, and of Impostors, and the Arts by which they have gained Cre∣dit and Authority. By Good Works therefore are meant Acts of true Holi∣ness, and of sincere Obedience to the Laws of the Gospel.

The Terms being thus explained, I shall next distinguish between the Questions arising out of this Matter, that are only about Words, and those that are more Material and Important. If any Man fancy that the Remissi∣on of Sins is to be considered as a thing previous to Iustification, and di∣stinct from it, and acknowledge that to be freely given in Christ Jesus; and that in consequence of this there is such a Grace infused, that thereupon the Person becomes truly just, and is considered as such by God: This, which must be confessed to be the Doctrine of a great many in the Church of Rome, and which seems to be that established at Trent, is indeed very visibly differ∣ent from the Stile and Design of those Places of the New Testament, in which this matter is most fully opened: But yet after all, it is but a que∣stion about words; for if that which they call Remission of Sins, be the same with that which we call Iustification; and if that which they call Iu∣stification, be the same with that which we call Sanctification, then here is only a strife of words: Yet even in this we have the Scriptures clearly of our side; so that we hold the form of sound words, from which they have departed. The Scripture speaks of Sanctification, as a thing different from and subsequent to Iustification.* 1.177 Now ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are ju∣stified. And since Justification, and the being in the Love and Favour of God, are in the New Testament one and the same thing, the Remission of Sins must be an Act of God's Favour: For we cannot imagine a middle state of being neither accepted of him, nor yet under his Wrath, as if the Re∣mission of Sins were merely an extinction of the guilt of Sin, without any special Favour. If therefore this Remission of Sins is acknowledged to be given freely to us through Jesus Christ, this is that which we affirm to be Iustification, though under another name: We do also acknowledge that our Natures must be sanctified and renewed, that so God may take

pleasure in us, when his Image is again visible upon us; and this we call Sanctification; which we acknowledge to be the constant and inseparable effect of Iustification: So that as to this, we agree in the same Doctrine, on∣ly we differ in the use of the Terms; in which we have the Phrase of the New Testament clearly with us.

But there are two more material differences between us: It is a Tenet in the Church of Rome, That the Use of the Sacraments, if Men do not put a bar to them, and if they have only imperfect Acts of Sorrow ac∣companying them, does so far compleat those weak Acts, as to justify us: This we do utterly deny, as a Doctrine that tends to enervate all Religion; and to make the Sacraments that were appointed to be the solemn ••••ts of Religion, for quickning and exciting our Piety, and for conveying Grace to us, upon our coming devoutly to them, becomes means to flatten and deaden us: As if they were of the nature of Charms, which if they could be come at, tho' with ever so slight a preparation, would make up all de∣fects. The Doctrine of Sacramental Justification is justly to be reckoned among the most mischievous of all those Practical Errors that are in the Church of Rome. Since therefore this is no where mention••d, in all these large Discourses that are in the New Testament concerning Justification, we have just reason to reject it: Since also the natural consequence of this Doctrine, is to make Men rest contented in low imperfect Acts, when they can be so easily made up by a Sacrament, we have just reason to detest it, as one of the depths of Satan: The Tendency of it being to make those Ordinances of the Gospel, which were given us as means to raise and heigh∣ten our Faith and Repentance, become Engines to encourage Sloth and Im∣penitence.

There is another Doctrine that is Held by many, and is still Taught in the Church of Rome, not only with Approbation, but Favour; That the inherent Holiness of good Men is a thing of its own nature so per∣fect, that upon the account of it, God is so bound to esteem them just, and to justify them, that he were unjust if he did not. They think there is such a real condignity in it, that it makes Men God's adopted Children. Whereas we on the other hand Teach, That God is indeed pleased with the inward Reforma••••on that he sees in good Men, in whom his Grace dwells; that he approves and accepts of their Sincerity; but that with this there is still such a mixture, and in this there is still so much Imperfection, that even upon this account, if God did straitly mark Iniquity, none could stand before him: So that even his acceptance of this, is an Act of Mercy and Grace. This Doctrine was commonly Taught in the Church of Rome at the time of the Reformation, and together with it, they reckoned that the chief of those Works that did Justify, were either great or rich En∣dowments, or excessive Devotions towards Images, Saints, and Relicks; by all which, Christ was either forgot quite, or remembred only for form-sake, esteemed perhaps as the chief of Saints; not to mention the impious Comparisons that were made between him and some Saints, and the Pre∣ferences that were given to them beyond him. In opposition to all this the Reformers began, as they ought to have done, at the laying down this as the Foundation of all Christianity, and of all our hopes, That we were reconciled to God meerly through his Mercy, by the Redemption purcha∣sed by Jesus Christ: And that a firm believing the Gospel, and a claiming to the Death of Christ, as the great Propitiation for our Sins, according to the Terms on which it is offered us in the Gospel, was that which united us to Christ; that gave us an Interest in his Death, and thereby justified us▪ If in the management of this Controversy, there was not so critical a

Judgment made of the Scope and several Passages of St. Paul's Epistles; and if the Dispute became afterwards too abstracted and metaphysical, that was the effect of the Infelicity of that Time, and was the natural conse∣quence of much disputing: Therefore tho' we do not now stand to all the Arguments, and to all the Citations and Illustrations used by them; and tho' we do not deny but that many of the Writers of the Church of Rome, came insensibly off from the most practical Errors, that had been formerly much taught, and more practised among them; and that this matter was so stated by many of them, that as to the main of it, we have no just Ex∣ceptions to it: Yet after all, this beginning of the Reformation was a great Blessing to the World, and has proved so, even to the Church of Rome; by bringing her to a juster s••nse of the Atonement made for Sins by the Blood of Christ; and by taking Men off from external Actions, and turning them to consider the inward Acts of the Mind, Faith and Repentance, as the Conditions of our Justification. And therefore the Approbation given here to the Homily▪ is only an Approbation of the Doctrine asserted and proved in it: Which ought not to be carried to every particular of the Proofs or Explanations that are in it. To be Iustified, and to be accounted Righteous, stand for one and the same thing in the Article: And both im∣port our being delivered from the Guilt of Sin, and entitled to the Favour of God. These differ from God's intending from all Eternity to save us, as much as a Decree differs from the Execution of it.

A Man is then only Iustified, when he is freed from Wrath, and is at peace with God: And tho' this is freely offered to us in the Gospel through Jesus Christ, yet it is applied to none but to such as come within those Qualifications and Conditions set before us in the Gospel. That God par∣dons Sin, and receives us into favour only through the Death of Christ, is so fully expressed in the Gospel, as was already made out upon the second Article that it is not possible to doubt of it, if one does firmly believe, and attentively read the New Testament. Nor is it less evident, that it is not offered to us absolutely, and without Conditions and Limitations. These Conditions are Repentance, with which remission of sins is often joined; and Faith,* 1.178 but a faith that worketh by love, that purifies the heart, and that keeps the ••ommandments of God: Such a Faith as shews it self to be alive by Good Works, by Acts of Charity, and every Act of Obedience; by which we demonstrate, that we truly and firmly believe the Divine Authority of our Saviour and his Doctrine. Such a Faith as this justifies, but not as it is a Work or meritorious Action, that of its own nature puts us in the Fa∣vour of God, and makes us truly just: But as it is the Condition upon which the Mercy of God is offered to us by Christ Jesus: For then we cor∣respond to his design of coming into the World, that he might redeem us from all Iniquity,* 1.179 that is, justify us: And purifie unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works; that is, sanctify us. Upon our bringing our selves therefore under these Qualifications and Conditions, we are actually in the Favour of God: Our Sins are pardoned, and we are entitled to Eternal Life.

Our Faith and Repentance are not the valuable Considerations for which God pardons and justifies; that is done meerly for the Death of Christ; which God having out of the Riches of his Grace provided for us, and offered to us, Justification is upon those accounts said to be free: There being nothing on our part which either did or could have procured it. But still our Faith, which includes our Hope, our Love, our Repentance, and our Obedience, is the Condition that makes us capable of receiving the bene∣fits of this Redemption and Free Grace. And thus it is clear, in what sense we believe, that we are justified both freely, and yet through Christ; and

also through Faith, as the Condition indispensably necessary on our part.

In strictness of words, we are not justified till the final Sentence is pro∣nounced: Till upon our Death, we are solemnly acquitted of our Sins, and admitted into the Presence of God; this being that which is opposite to Condemnation: Yet as a Man who is in that state, that must end in Con∣demnation, is said to be condemned already,* 1.180 and the wrath of God is said to abide upon him; tho' he be not yet adjudged to it: So, on the contrary, a Man in that state, which must end in the full Enjoyment of God, is said now to be justified, and to be at peace with God; because he not only has the Promises of that state now belonging to him, when he does perform the Conditions required in them; but is likewise receiving daily Marks of God's Favour, the protection of his Providence, the Ministry of Angels, and the inward Assistances of his Grace and Spirit.

This is a Doctrine full of comfort; for if we did believe that our Justi∣fication was founded upon our Inherent Justice, or Sanctification, as the Consideration on which we receive it, we should have just cause of Fear and Dejection; since we could not reasonably promise our selves so great a Blessing upon so poor a Consideration: but when we know that this is only the Condition of it, then when we feel it is sincerely received and believed, and carefully observed by us, we may conclude that we are justified: But we are by no means to think, that our certain persuasion of Christ's having died for us in particular, or the certainty of our Salvation through him, is an Act of saving Faith, much less that we are justified by it. Many things have been too crudely said upon this Subject, which have given the Enemies of the Reformation great Advantages, and have furnished them with much matter of Reproach. We ought to believe firmly, That Christ died for all Penitent and Converted Sinners; and when we feel these Characters in our selves, we may from thence justly infer, That he died for us, and that we are of the Number of those who shall be Saved through him: But yet if we may fall from this state, in which we do now feel our selves, we may and must likewise forfeit those hopes; and therefore we must work out our Salvation with fear and trembling. Our believing that we shall be Saved by Christ, is no Act of Divine Faith; since every Act of Faith must be founded on some Divine Revelation: It is only a Collection and Inference that we may make from this general Pro∣position, That Christ is the propitiation for the Sins of those who do truly repent and believe his Gospel; and from those Reflections and Observations that we make on our selves, by which we conclude, That we do truly both repent and believe.

ARTICLE XII. Of Good Works.

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and fol∣low after Iustification, cannot put away our Sins, and en∣dure the severity of God's Iudgment: yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith, insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known, as a Tree discerned by the fruit.

THat Good works are indispensably necessary to Salvation; that with∣out holiness no man shall see the Lord; is so fully and frequently ex∣prest in the Gospel, that no doubt can be made of it by any who reads it: And indeed a greater disparagement to the Christian Religion cannot be imagined, than to propose the hopes of God's Mercy and Pardon barely upon Believing, without a Life suitable to the Rules it gives us. This be∣gan early to corrupt the Theories of Religion, as it still has but too great an influence upon the Practice of it. What St. Iames writ upon this Sub∣ject, must put an end to all doubting about it; and whatever Subtilties some may have set up, to separate the consideration of Faith from a holy Life, in the point of Iustification; yet none among us have denied that it was absolutely necessary to Salvation: And so it be owned as necessary, it is a nice curiosity to examine, whether it is of it self a Condition of Justifica∣tion, or if it is the certain distinction and constant effect of that Faith which justifies. These are Speculations of very little consequence, as long as the main Point is still maintained; That Christ came to bring us to God, to change our Natures, to mortify the Old man in us, and to raise up and restore that Image of God, from which we had fallen by Sin. And there∣fore even where the Thread of Men's Speculations of these Matters may be thought too fine, and in some Points of them wrong drawn; yet so long as this Foundation is preserved, that every one who nameth the name of Christ does depart from iniquity,* 1.181 so long the Doctrine of Christ is preserved pure in this Capital and Fundamental Point.

There do arise out of this Article only two Points, about which some Debates have been made. 1st. Whether the Good Works of Holy Men are in themselves so perfect, that they can endure the severity of God's Judg∣ment, so that there is no mixture of imperfection or Evil in them, or not? The Council of Trent has decreed, That Men by their Good Works have so fully satisfied the Law of God, according to the state of this Life, that nothing is wanting to them. The second Point is, Whether these Good Works are of their own nature meritorious of Eternal Life, or not? The Council of Trent has decreed that they are: Yet a long softening is added to the Decree, importing, That none ought to glory in himself, but in the Lord; whose goodness is such, that he makes his own gifts to us, to be merits in us: And it adds, That because in many things we offend all, every one ought to consider the justice and severity, as well as the mercy and goodness of God: and not to judge himself, even tho he should know nothing by himself. So then that in which all are agreed about this Matter, is, 1. That our Works cannot be good or acceptable to God, but as we are assisted by his Grace and Spi∣rit to do them: So that the real Goodness that is in them, flows from those Assistances which enable us to do them. 2. That God does certainly re∣ward

Good Works: He has promised it, and he is faithful and cannot lie: nor is he unrighteous to forget our labour of love. So the Favour of God and eternal Happiness is the reward of Good Works: Mention is also made of a full reward, of the reward of a righteous Man, and of a Prophet's reward.* 1.182 3. That this Reward is promised in the Gospel, and could not be claimed without that, by any antecedent Merit founded upon equality: Since our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of Glory.

The Points in which we differ, are, 1. Whether the Good Works of holy Men are so perfect, that there is no defect in them; or whether there is still some such defect mixed with them, that there is occasion for Mercy, to pardon somewhat even in Good Men? Those of the Church of Rome think that a Work cannot be called good, if it is not entirely good; and that nothing can please God, in which there is a mixture of Sin. Whereas we, according to the Article, believe that Human Nature is so weak and so degenerated, that as far as our Natural Powers concur in any Action, there is still some Allay in it; and that a Good work is considered by God according to the main both of the Action and of the Intention of him that does it; and as a Father pities his Children, so God passes over the defects of those who serve him sincerely, though not perfectly.* 1.183 The imaginations of the heart of man are only evil continually: In many things we offend all; says St. Iames: And St. Paul reckons that he had not yet apprehended, but was forgetting the things behind, and reaching to these before, and still pressing forward.

We see in fact, that the best Men in all Ages have been complaining and humbling themselves, even for the sins of their Holy Things, for their Vanity and Desire of Glory, for the distraction of their Thoughts in Devotion, and for the Affection which they bore to Earthly things. It were a Doctrine of great Cruelty, which might drive Men to despair, if they thought that no Action could please God, in which they were conscious to themselves of some Imperfection or Sin. The Midwives of Egypt feared God, yet they excused themselves by a Lye: But God accepted of what was good, and passed over what was amiss in them, and built them houses.* 1.184 St. Austin urges this frequently, That our Saviour in teaching us to pray, has made this a standing Petition, Forgive us our Trespasses, as well as that, Give us this day our daily Bread; for we sin daily, and do always need a Par∣don. Upon these Reasons we conclude, that somewhat of the Man enters into all that Men do: We are made up of Infirmities, and we need the Intercession of Christ, to make our best Actions to be accepted of by God: For if he should straitly mark iniquity, who can stand before him?* 1.185 but mercy is with him, and forgiveness. So that with Hezekiah we ought to pray, That though we are not purified according to the purification of the sanctuary, yet the good Lord would pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God.

The Second Question arises out of this, concerning the Merit of Good Works; for upon the supposition of their being compleatly good, that Me∣rit is founded; which will be acknowledged to be none at all, if it is belie∣ved that there are such Defects in them, that they need a Pardon; since where there is Guilt, there can be no pretension to Merit. The word Merit has also a sound that is so daring, so little suitable to the humility of a Creature, to be used towards a Being of Infinite Majesty, and with rela∣tion to endless Rewards, that though we do not deny but that a sense is given to it by many of the Church of Rome, to which no just exception can be made, yet there seems to be somewhat too bold in it, especially when Condignity is added to it: And since this may naturally give us an Idea of a buying and selling with God, and that there has been a great deal

of this put in practice, it is certain that on many respects this Word ought not to be made use of. There is somewhat in the Nature of Man apt to swell and to raise it self out of measure; and to that no Indulgence ought to be given, in words that may flatter it; for we ought to subdue this Temper by all means possible, both in our selves and others. On the other hand, though we confess that there is a Disorder and Weakness that hangs heavy upon us, and that sticks close to us, yet this ought not to make us indulge our selves in our sins, as if they were the effects of an Infirmity that is in∣separable from us. To consent to any Sin, if it were ever so small in it self, is a very great sin: We ought to go on, still cleansing our selves more and more,* 1.186 from all filthiness both of the flesh and of the spirit, and perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Our readiness to sin should awaken both our diligence to watch against it, and our humility under it. For though we grow not up to a pitch of being above all sin, and of absolute Perfection, yet there are many degrees both of Purity and Perfection, to which we may arrive, and to which we must constantly aspire. So that we must keep a just Temper in this Matter, neither to ascribe so much to our own Works as to be lifted up by reason of them, or to forget our daily need of a Sa∣viour both for Pardon and Intercession; nor on the other hand so far to neglect them, as to take no care about them. The due Temper is to make our calling and election sure,* 1.187 and to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling; but to do all in the name of the Lord Iesus, ever trusting to him, and giving thanks to God by him.

ARTICLE XIII. Of Works before Justification.

Works done before the Grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God; forasmuch as they spring not of Faith in Iesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive Grace, or (as the School-Authors say) deserve Grace of Congruity: Yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath commanded and willed them to be done, we doubt not but that they have the nature of Sin.

THere is but one Point to be considered in this Article, which is, Whe∣ther Men can without any inward Assistances from God do any Action that shall be in all its circumstances so good, that it is not only ac∣ceptable to God, but meritorious in his sight, though in a lower degree of merit. If what was formerly laid down concerning a Corruption that was spread over the whole Race of Mankind, and that had very much vitiated their Faculties, be true, then it will follow from thence, That unassisted Nature can do nothing that is so good in it self, that it can be pleasant or meritorious in the sight of God. A great difference is here to be made be∣tween an external Action as it is considered in it self, and the same Action as it was done by such a Man. An Action is called good, from the Morality and Nature of the Action it self; so Actions of Justice and Charity are in themselves good, whatsoever the Doer of them may be: But Actions are considered by God with relation to him that does them, in another light; his Principles, Ends, and Motives, with all the other circumstances of the Action, come into this Account; for unless all these be good, let the Acti∣on in its own abstracted nature be ever so good, it cannot render the Doer acceptable or meritorious in the sight of God.

Another distinction is also to be made between the Methods of the Good∣ness and Mercy of God, and the strictness of Justice: For if God had suchregard to the feigned Humiliation of Ahab,* 1.188 as to grant him and his Family a Reprieve for some time from those Judgments that had been denounced a∣gainst them and him; and if Iehu's executing the Commands of God upon Ahab's Family, and upon the Worshippers of Baal, procured him the Blessing of a long continuance of the Kingdom in his Family, though he acted in it with a bad design,* 1.189 and retained still the old Idolatry of the Calves set up by Iero∣boam; then we have all reason to conclude, according to the Infinite Mercy and Goodness of God, that no Man is rejected by him, or denied inward Assistances, that is, making the most of his Faculties, and doing the best that he can; but that he who is faithful in his little▪ shall be made Ruler over more.

The Question is only, Whether such Actions can be so pure, as to be free from all sin, and to Merit at God's hand, as being Works naturally perfect; for that is the formal Notion of the Merit of Congruity, as the No∣tion of the Merit of Condignity is▪ That the Work is perfect in the Superna∣tural Order.

To establish the Truth of this Article, beside what was said upon the Head of Original Sin, we ought to consider what St. Paul's words in the 7^th of the Romans do import: Nothing was urged from them on the former Articles, because there is just ground of doubting whether St. Paul is there speaking of himself in the state he was in when he writ it, or whe∣ther he is personating a Iew, and speaking of himself as he was while yet a

Iew. But if the words are taken in that lowest sense, they prove this, That an Unregenerate Man has in himself such a Principle of Corruption, that even a good and a holy Law revealed to him, cannot reform it; but that on the contrary, it will take occasion from that very Law to deceive him and to slay him.* 1.190 So that all the benefit that he receives even from that Revelation, is,* 1.191 that sin in him becomes exceeding sinful; as being done against such a de∣gree of Light, by which it appears that he is carnal, and sold under sin; and that though his Understanding may be enlighten'd by the Revelation of the Law of God made to him, so that he has some Inclinations to obey it, yet he does not that which he would, but that which he would not: And though his Mind is so far convinced,* 1.192 that he consents to the Law that it is good, yet he still does that which he would not; which was the effect of sin that dwelt in him; and from hence he knew, that in him, that is in his flesh, in his carnal part, or carnal state, there dwelt no good thing; for though to will, that is, to resolve on obeying the Law, was present, yet he found not a way how to perform that which was good; the good that he wished to do, that he did not; but he did the evil that he wished not to do; which he imputed to the sin that dwelt in him. He found then a Law, a Bent and Biass with∣in him,* 1.193 that when he wished, resolved, and endeavoured to do good, evil was present with him, it sprung up naturally within him; for though in his rational Powers he might so far approve the Law of God as to delight in it; yet he found another Law arising upon his Mind from his Body,* 1.194 which war∣red against the law of his mind, and brought him into captivity to the law of sin which was in his members:* 1.195 All this made him conclude, that he was car∣nal, and sold under sin; and cry out, O wretched man that I am, who shall de∣liver me from the body of this death? For this he thanks God through our Lord Iesus Christ: And he sums all up in these words; So then, with the mind I my self serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the Law of Sin.

If all this Discourse is made by St. Paul of himself when he had the Light which a Divinely-inspired Law gave him, he being educated in the exactest way of that Religion, both zealous for the Law, and blameless in his own observance of it; we may from thence conclude how little reason there is to believe that a Heathen, or indeed an unregenerated Man can be better than he was, and do Actions that are both good in themselves, which it is not denied but that he may do; and do them in such a manner that there shall be no mixture nor imperfection in them, but that they shall be perfect in a Natural Order, and be by consequence meritorious in a Secondary Order.

By all this we do not pretend to say, That a Man in that state can do no∣thing; or that he has no use of his Faculties: He can certainly restrain him∣self on many occasions; he can do many good works, and avoid many bad ones; he can raise his Understanding to know and consider things accord∣ing to the Light that he has; he can put himself in good methods and good circumstances; he can Pray, and do many Acts of Devotion, which though they are all very imperfect, yet none of them will be lost in the sight of God, who certainly will never be wanting to those who are doing what in them lies, to make themselves the proper Objects of his Mercy, and fit Sub∣jects for his Grace to work upon. Therefore this Article is not to be made use of to discourage Mens Endeavours, but only to encrease their Humility; to teach them not to think of themselves above measure, but soberly; to depend always on the mercy of God, and ever to fly to it.

ARTICLE XIV. Of Works of Supererogation.

Uoluntary Works, besides, over and above God's Command∣ments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without Arrogancy and Impiety. For by them men do declare, That they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do: but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden Duty is required. Whereas Christ saith plainly▪ when ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable Servants.

THERE are Two Points that arise out of this Article to be consi∣dered, 1st. Whether there are in the New Testament Counsels of Perfection given; that is to say, such Rules which do not oblige all Men to follow them, under the pain of Sin;* 1.196 but yet are useful to carry them on to a sublimer Degree of Perfection, than is necessary in order to their Salvation? 2d. Whether men by following these do not more than they are bound to do, and by consequence, Whether they have not there by a Stock of Merit to communicate to others? The First of these leads to the Second; for if there are no such Counsels, then the Foundation of Supererogoation fails.

We deny both, upon this Ground, That the great Obligations of loving God with all our Heart, Soul, Strength and Mind, and our Neighbour as our selves, which are reckoned by our Saviour,* 1.197 the two great Command∣ments, on which hang all the Law and the Prophets, are of that extent, that it seems not possible to imagine, How any thing can be acceptable to God that does not fall within them. Since if it is acceptable to God, then that Obligation to love God so entirely must bind us to it; for if it is a Sin not to love God up to this pitch, then it is a Sin not to do every thing that we imagine will please him: And by consequence, if there is a Degree of pleasing God, whether Precept or Counsel, that we do not study to attain to, we do not love him in a manner suitable to that. It seems a great many in the Church of Rome are aware of this conse∣quence, and therefore they have taken much pains to convince the World, that we are not bound to love God at all, or as others more cautiously word it, that we are only bound to value him above all things, but not to have a love of such a vast intension for him. This is a proposition that af∣ter all their softning it, gives so much horror to every Christian that I need not be at any pains to confute it.

We are further required in the New Testament, to cleanse our selves from all filthiness both of the Flesh and Spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God: And to reckon our selves his and not our own,* 1.198 and that we are bought with a price; and that therefore we ought to glorify him both in our Bodies, and in our Spirits, which are his. These and many more like Expressions are plainly Precepts of general Obligation, for nothing can be set forth in more posi∣tive words than these are: And it is not easie to imagine, How any thing can go beyond them; for if we are Christ's Property, purchased by him, then we ought to apply our selves to every thing in which his honour, or the honour of his Religion can be concerned, or which will be pleasing to him.

Our Saviour having charged the Pharisees so often, for adding so many of their Ordinances to the Laws of God,* 1.199 teaching his fear by the Precepts of men; and the Apostles condemning a shew of Will-worship and

voluntary humility, seem to belong to this matter, and to be designed on purpose to repress the Pride and Singularities affected Hypocrites. Our Saviour said to him that asked,* 1.200 What he should do that he might have eter∣nal life? keep the Commandments: These words I do the rather cite, because they are followed with a passage, that of all others in the New Testament, seems to look the likest a Counsel of Perfection; for when he who made the Question, replied upon our Saviour's Answer, That he had kept all these from his youth up, and added, what lack I yet? To that our Saviour Answered, If thou wilt be perfect,* 1.201 go sell all that thou hast, and give to the Poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me: And by the words that follow, of the difficulty of a rich Man's entring into the Kingdom of Heaven; this is more fully Explained. The meaning of all that whole passage is this, Christ called that person to abandon all, and come and follow him, in such a manner as he had called his Apostles. So that here is no Counsel but a positive Command given to that particular person, upon this occasion. By Perfect is only to be meant compleat, in order to that to which he pretended, which was Eternal Life. And that also explains the word in that period, Treasures in Heaven, another Expression for Eter∣nal Life, to compensate the loss which he would have made by the Sale of his Possessions. So that here is no Counsel, but a Special Command given to this person, in order to his own attaining Eternal Life.

Nor is it to be inferred from hence, That this is proposed to others in the way of a Counsel; for as in Cases either of a Famine or Persecution, it may come to be to some a command, to sell all in order to the relief of others, as it was in the first beginnings of Christianity; so in ordinary cases to do it might be rather a tempting of Providence than a trusting to it, for then a Man should part with the means of his Subsistence, which God has provided for him, without a necessay and pressing occasion. Therefore our Saviour's words,* 1.202 Sell that ye have and give Alms, as they are delivered in the strain and peremptoriness of a Command, so they must be understood to bind as positive Commands do: Not so constantly as a Negative Command does, since in every minute of our Life, that binds: but there is a Rule and Order in our obeying positive Commands. We must not rest on the Sabbath-day, if a Work of Necessity or Charity calls us to put to our hands: We must not obey our Parents in disobeying a publick Law: So if we have Fami∣lies, or the Necessities of a feeble Body, and a weak Constitution, for which God has supplied us with that which will afford us food convenient for us,* 1.203 we must not throw up those provisions and cast our selves upon others. Therefore that Precept must be moderated and expounded, so as to agree with the other Rules and Orders that God has set us.

A distinction is therefore to be made between those things that do uni∣versally and equally bind all Mankind; and those things that do more specially bind some sorts of men, and that only at some times. There are greater degrees of Charity, Gravity, and all other Virtues, to which the Clergy for instance are more bound than other men; but these are to them Precepts and not Counsels. And in the first beginnings of Christianity there were greater Obligations laid upon all Christians, as well as greater Gifts were bestowed on them. It is true in the Point of Marriage S. Paul does plainly allow, that such as marry do well, but that such as marry not do better.* 1.204 But the meaning of that, is not, as if an unmarried Life were a state of Perfection, beyond that which a Man is obliged to: But only this, That as to the Course of this Life, and the present distress; and as to the judgment that is to be made of men by their Actions, no Man is to be thought to do amiss who marries; but yet he who marries not, is to be

judged to do better. But yet inwardly and before God this matter may be far otherwise; for he who marries not and burns, certainly does worse than he who marries and lives chastly. But he who finding that he can limit himself without endangering his Purity; though no Law restrains him from Marrying, yet seeing that he is like to be Tempted to be too careful about the Concerns of this Life if he marries, is certainly under Obligations to follow that Course of Life in which there are fewer Temptations, and greater Opportunities to attend on the Service of God.

With Relation to outward Actions, and to the Judgments that from visi∣ble Appearances are to be made of them, some Actions may be said to be better than others, which yet are truly good: But as to the particular obli∣gations that every Man is under, with Relation to his own State and Cir∣cumstances, and for which he must Answer at the last Day, these being secret, and so not subject to the Judgments of Men, certainly every Man is strictly bound to do the best he can; to chuse that Course of Life in which he thinks he may do the best Services to God and Man: Nor are these free to him to chuse or not: He is under Obligations, and he Sins if he sees a more excellent thing that he might have done, and contents himself with a lower or less valuable thing. St. Paul had wherein to Glory, for whereas it was Lawful for him as an Apostle to suffer the Corinthians to supply him in temporals, when he was serving them in Spiritual Things; yet he chose rather for the Honour of the Gospel, and to take away all occasion of Censure from those who sought for it,* 1.205 to work with his own hands, and not to be burthensome to them. But in that State of Things, though there was no Law or outward Obligation upon him to spare them; he was under an inward Law of doing all things to the Glory of God: And by this Law he was as much bound, as if there had been an outward com∣pulsory Law lying upon him.

This distinction is to be remembred, between such an Obligation as ari∣ses out of a Mans particular Circumstances, and such other Motives as can be only known to a Man himself, and such an Obligation as may be fastned on him by stated and general Rules: He may be absolutely free from the latter of these, and yet be secretly bound by those inward and stronger constraints of the Love of God, and of Zeal for his Glory. Enough seems to be said to prove that there are no Counsels of Perfection in the Gos∣pel: That all the Rules set to us in it, are in the Stile and Form of Pre∣cepts; and that though there may be some Actions of more Heroical Virtue, and more Sublime Piety than others, to which all men are not ob∣liged by equal or general Rules; yet such men to whose Circumstances and Station they do belong, are strictly obliged by them, so that they should Sin if they did not put them in practice.

This being thus made out, the Foundation of Works of Superero∣gation is destroyed: But if it should be acknowledged that there were such Counsels of Perfection in the Scripture, there are still two other clear proofs, to shew that there can be no such thing as Supererogating with God. Fir••t, Every Man not only has Sinned▪ but has still so much Cor∣ruption about him, as to feel the truth of that of St. Iames, in many things we offend all.* 1.206 Now unless it can be supposed that by obeying those Coun∣sels a Man can compensate with Almighty God for his Sins, there is no ground to think that he can Supererogate: He must first clear his own Score, before he can imagine that any thing upon his account can be for∣given or imputed to another: and if the Guilt of Sin is Eternal, and the pretended Merit of obeying Counsels is only Temporary, no Temporary Merit can take off an Eternal Guilt. So that it must first be supposed,

that a Man both is and has been perfect as to the Precepts of Obligation, before it can be thought that he should have an Overplus of Merit.

The other clear Argument from Scripture against Works of Supererogation, is that there is nothing in the whole New Testament that does in any sort favour them: We are always taught to trust to the Mercies of God, and to the Death and Intercession of Christ, and to work out our own Salvation with fear trembling;* 1.207 but we are never once directed to look for any help from Saints, or to think that we can do any thing for another man's Soul in this way.* 1.208 The Psalm has it, No man can by any means give a ransom for his bro∣ther's Soul: The words of Christ cited in the Article are full and express aganst it.

The words in the Parable of the five foolish Virgins and the five wise, may seem to favour it, but they really contradict it; for it was the foolish Virgins that desired the wise to give them of their Oil; which if any will apply to a supposed Communication of Merit, they ought to consider that the Proposition is made by the foolish,* 1.209 and the Answer of the wise Virgins is full against it: Not so, lest there be not enough for us and you: What follows, of bidding them go to them that sell, and buy for them∣selves, is only a piece of the Fiction of the Parable, which cannot enter in∣to any part of the Application of it.* 1.210 What St. Paul says of his filling up that which was behind of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh, for his body's sake, which is the Church; is, as appears by the words that follow, whereof I am made a Minister, only applicable to the Edification that the Church recei∣ved from the Sufferings of the Apostles: It being a great confirmation to them of the Truth of the Gospel, when those who preached it, suffered so constantly and so patiently for it; by which they both confirmed what they had preached, and set an Example to others, of adhering firmly to it. And since Christ is related to his Church, as a Head to the Members, it is in some sort his suffering himself, when his Members suffer; and that Con∣formity which they ought to express to him as their Head, was necessary to make up the due Proportion that ought to be between the Head and the Members. So St. Paul rejoyced in his being made conformable to him: And this, as it is a Sense that the words will well bear, so it is certain they are capable of no other sense; for if the sufferings of the Apostles were merito∣rious in behalf of the other Christians, some plain account must have been given of this in the New Testament, at least to do honour to the Memory of such Apostles as had then died for the Faith. If it is suggested, that the living Apostles were too modest to claim it to themselves; that will not satisfy; all runs quite in a contrary Stile: The Mercies of God and the blood of Christ being always repeated, whereas these are never once named. Now to ima∣gine that there can be any thing of such great use to us, in which the Scri∣pture should be not only silent, but should run in a strain totally different from it, is not conceivable: For if in any thing, the Gospel ought to be full and explicite in all that which concerns our Peace and Reconciliation with God, and the means of our escaping his Wrath, and obtaining his Favour.

There is another Doctrine that does also belong to this Head, which is Purgatory, that is not to be entred on here, but is referred to its proper place. Thus it appears how ill this Doctrine of Works of Supererogation is founded; and upon how many accounts it is evidently false; and yet up∣on it has been built not only a Theory of a Communication of those Me∣rits▪ and a Treasure in the Church, but a Practice of so foul a nature, that in it the words of our Saviour, spoken to the Iews, My house is a house of Prayer,* 1.211 but ye have made it a den of Thieves, are accomplished in a high and most scandalous manner. It has been pretended that this was of the nature

of a Bank, of which the Pope was the Keeper; and that he could grant such Bills and Assignments upon it as he pleased: This was done in so base and so crying a manner, that all who had any sense of Probity in their own Church were ashamed of it.

In the Primitive Church there were very severe Rules made, obliging all that had sinned publickly (and they were afterwards applied to such as had sinned secretly) to continue for many Years in a state of Separation from the Sacrament, and of Penance and Discipline. But because all such general Rules admit of a great variety of Circumstances, taken from Mens Sins, their Persons, and their Repentance, there was a Power given to all Bishops by the Council of Nice, to shorten the time, and to relax the se∣verity of those Canons; and such Favour as they saw cause to grant, was called Indulgence. This was just and necessary, and was a Provision with∣out which no Constitution or Society can be well governed. But after the Tenth Century, as the Popes came to take this Power in the whole extent of it into their own hands, so they found it too feeble to carry on the great Designs that they grafted upon it.

They gave it high Names, and called it a plenary Remission, and the pardon of all Sins: which the World was taught to look on as a thing of a much higher nature, than the bare excusing of Men from Discipline and Penance. Purgatory was then got to be firmly believed, and all Men were strangely possessed with the terror of it: So a deliverance from Purgatory, and by consequence an immediate admission into Heaven, was believed to be the certain effect of it. And to support all this, the Doctrine of Counsels, of Perfection, of Works of Supererogation, and of the Communication of those Merits, was set up; and to that, this was added, That a Treasure made up of these, was at the Pope's disposal, and in his keeping. The use that this was put to, was as bad as the Forgery it self. Multitudes were by these means engaged to go to the Holy Land, to recover it out of the hands of the Saracens: Afterwards they armed vast Numbers against Hereticks to extirpate them: They fought also all those Quarrels which their ambiti∣ous Pretensions engaged them in with Emperors and other Princes, by the same Pay; and at last they set it to Sale with the same Impudence, and al∣most with the same Methods that Mountebanks use in the venting of their Secrets.

This was so gross even in an Ignorant Age, and among the ruder sort, that it gave the first Rise to the Reformation: and as the progress of it was a very signal Work of God, so it was in a great measure owing to the Scandals that this shameless Practice had given the World. And upon this single reason it is that this matter has been more fully examined than was necessary; for the thing is so plain, that it has no sort of difficulty in it.

ARTICLE XV. Of Christ alone without Sin.

Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things (sin only except) from which he was clearly void both in his flesh and in spirit. He came to be a Lamb without spot, who by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the World: and sin, as St. John saith, was not in him. But all we the rest (although baptized and born again in Christ) yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us.

THis Article relates to the former, and is put here as another Founda∣tion against all Works of Supererogation: for that Doctrine, with the Consequences of it, having given the first Occasion to the Reformation, it was thought necessary to overthrow it entirely: and because the Per∣fection of the Saints must be supposed, before their Supererogation can be thought on, that was therefore here opposed.

That Christ was holy, without spot and blemish, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners;* 1.212 that there was no guile in his mouth; that he never did amiss, but went about always doing good, and was as a lamb without spot, is so oft affirmed in the New Testament,* 1.213 that it can admit of no Debate. This was not only true in his Rational Powers, the superior part called the Spirit, in opposition to the lower part, but also in those Appetites and Af∣fections that arise from our Bodies, and from the Union of our Souls to them, called the Flesh. For tho' in these Christ having the Human Nature truly in him, had the Appetites of Hunger in him, yet the Devil could not tempt him by that to distrust God, or to desire a miraculous supply sooner than was fitting: He overcame even that necessary Appetite when∣soever there was an occasion given him to do the will of his heavenly Fa∣ther:* 1.214 He had also in him the aversions to pain and suffering, and the horror at a violent and ignominious Death, which was planted in our Natures: and in this it was natural to him to wish and to pray that the Cup might pass from him. But in this his Purity appeared the most eminently, That tho' he felt the weight of his Nature to a vast degree, he did notwith∣standing that, limit and conquer it so entirely, that he resigned himself absolutely to his Father's Will: Not my will, but thy will be done.

Besides all that has been already said upon the former Articles, to prove that some taint and degree of the Original Corruption remains in all Men; the peculiar Character of Christ's Holiness so oft repeated, looks plainly to be a distinction proper to him and to him only. We are called upon to follow him, to learn of him, and to imitate him without restriction; whereas we are required to follow the Apostles, only as they were the followers of Christ:* 1.215 And though we are commanded to be holy as he was holy in all manner of conversation; that does no more prove that any man can arrive at that pitch, than our being commanded to be perfect as our heavenly fa∣ther is perfect, will prove that we may become perfect as God is: The Im∣portance of these words being only this, That we ought in all things to make God and Christ our patterns; and that we ought to endeavour to imitate and resemble them all we can.

There seems to be a particular design in the Contexture and Wri∣ting of the Scriptures, to represent to us some of the Failings of the

best Men: For though Zacharias and Elizabeth are said to have been blameless, that must only be meant of the Exterior and Visible part of their Conversation, that it was free from blame,* 1.216 and of their being ac∣cepted of God; but that is not to be carried to import a sinless Purity before God: For we find the same Zachary guilty of misbelieving the Message of the Angel to him, to such a degree,* 1.217 that he was punished for it with a Dumbness of above Nine Months continuance. Perhaps the Vir∣gin's Question to the Angel had nothing blame-worthy in it;* 1.218 but our Sa∣viour's Answers to her, both when she came to him in the Temple, when he was Twelve Years old, and more particularly when she moved him at the Marriage in Cana, to furnish them with Wine, look like a Reprimand. The Contentions among the Apostles about the Preheminence, and in par∣ticular the Ambition of Iames and Iohn, cannot be excused. St. Peter's Dissimulation at Antioch in the Judaizing Controversy,* 1.219 and the sharp Con∣tention that happened between Paul and Barnabas are recorded in Scripture, and they are both Characters of the Sincerity of those who Penned them, and likewise Marks of the Frailties of Human Nature, even in its greatest Elevation, and with its highest Advantages. So that all the high Characters that are given of the best Men, are to be understood either comparatively to others whom they exceeded, or with relation to their outward Actions, and the visible parts of their Life: Or they are to be meant of their Zeal and Sincerity, which is valued and accepted of God; and, as it was to Abraham, is imputed to them for Righteousness.

Yet this is not to be abused by any to be an encouragement to live in Sin; for we may carry this Purity and Perfection certainly very far, by the Grace of God. In every Sin that we commit, we do plainly perceive, that we do it with so much freedom, that we might not have done it; here is still just Matter for Humiliation and Repentance. By this Doctrine our Church intends only to repress the Pride of vain-glorious and hypo∣critical Men, and to strike at the Root of that filthy Merchandise that has been brought into the House of God, under the pretence of the Perfection, and even the over-doing or supererogating of the Saints.

ARTICLE XVI. Of Sin after Baptism.

Note very deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of Repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our Lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

THis Article, as it relates to the Sect of the Novatians of old, so it is probable it was made a part of our Doctrine, upon the Account of some of the Enthusiasts, who at that time, as well as some do in our Days, might boast their Perfection, and join with that part of the Character of a Pharisee, this other of an unreasonable rigour of Censure and Punish∣ment against Offenders. By deadly Sin in the Article, we are not to un∣derstand such Sins as in the Church of Rome are called mortal, in opposi∣tion to others that are venial: As if some Sins, though Offences against God, and Violations of his Law, could be of their own nature such slight things, that they deserved only Temporal Punishment, and were to be expiated by some piece of Pennance or Devotion, or the Communication of the Merits of others. The Scripture no where teaches us to think so slightly of the Majesty of God or of his Law. There is a curse upon every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them:* 1.220 And the same Curse must have been on us all, if Christ had not redeemed us from it: The wages of Sin is death: And St. Iames asserts, that there is such a Complication of all the Precepts of the Law of God, both with one another, and with the Authority of the Lawgiver, that he who offends in one point,* 1.221 is guilty of all. So since God has in his Word given us such dreadful Apprehensions of his Wrath, and of the guilt of Sin, we dare not soften these to a degree below the Majesty of the Eternal God, and the Dignity of his most Holy Laws. But after all, we are far from the Conceit of the Stoicks, who made all Sins alike. We acknowledge that some Sins of Ignorance and Infirmity may consist with a state of Grace; which is either quite destroyed, or at least much eclipsed and clouded by other Sins, that are more heinous in their nature, and more deliberately gone about: It is in this sense that the word deadly Sin is to be understood in the Article: For though in the strictness of Justice every Sin is deadly, yet in the Dispensation of the Gospel, those Sins are only deadly, that do deeply wound the Conscience, and that drive away Grace.

Another Term in the Article needs also to be a little explained; the sin against the Holy Ghost; concerning which, since there is so severe a Sen∣tence pronounced by Christ, it is necessary that it be rightly understood; and that can only be done by considering the Occasion of those Words, as well as the Words themselves. Christ wrought such Miracles in the sight of his Enemies, that when there was no room left for any other Ca∣vil,* 1.222 they betook themselves to that, that he did not cast out devils but by Belzebub the Prince of Devils. And this was the occasion that led our Saviour to speak of the Sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. It was their reject∣ing

the clearest Evidence that God could give to prove any thing by: The power by which those Miracles were wrought, and which was after∣wards communicated to the Apostles, is called through the whole New Testament, the Holy Ghost. By which is not to be meant here the Third Person of the Trinity, but the wonderful Effusion of those extraordinary Gifts and Powers that were then communicated, the Oeconomy and Dis∣pensation of which is said to be derived from that one Spirit. This was the utmost Proof that could be given of Truth: And when Men set them∣selves to blaspheme this, and to ascribe the Works of Christ to a collusion with the Devil, they did thereby so wilfully oppose God, and reproach his Power, they did so stifle their own Conviction, and set themselves against the Conviction of others, that nothing could be done further for their Con∣viction; this being the highest degree of Evidence and Proof: And this was so high an Indignity to God, when he descended so far to satisfy their scruples, that it was not to be pardoned; as their Impenitence and Incre∣dulity was so obstinate as not to be overcome.

Upon this Occasion given, our Saviour makes a difference between their Blaspheming him, and instead of owning him to be the Messias, calling him a deceiver, a glutton, and a wine-bibber; of which, upon hearing his Doctrine, and seeing his Life, they were still guilty. This was indeed a great Sin, but yet there were means left of convincing them of the Truth of his being the great Prophet sent of God: And by these they might be so far prevailed on as to repent and believe, and so to obtain pardon: But when they had those means set before them, when they saw plain and uncontested Miracles done before them; and when instead of yielding to them, that set up such an Op∣position to them, which might have been as reasonably said of every Miracle that could have been wrought, then it was not possible to convince them. This is an impious rejecting of the highest Method that God himself uses for proving a thing to us. The scorn put upon it, as it flows from a Nature so depraved, that it cannot be wrought on; so it is a sin not to be pardon∣ed. All things of extream severity in a Doctrine that is so full of Grace and Mercy as the Gospel is, ought to be restrained as much as may be. From thence we infer▪ That those dreadful words of our Saviour's, ought to be re∣strained to the subject to which they are applied, and ought not to be carried further. Since Miracles have ceased, no Man is any more capable of this Sin.

These Terms being thus explained, the Question in the Article is now to be explained. There are words in St. Iohn's Epistle and elsewhere, that seem to import, that men born of God, that is to say, Baptized or Regenera∣ted Christians, sin not: Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not:* 1.223 whosoever sin∣neth hath not seen him, neither known him: whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, for he is born of God. This is again repeated in the end of that Epistle, together with these words, He that is begotten of God, keepeth himself, and that wicked one touch∣eth him not. As these words seem to import that a true Christian sins not, so in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is said to be Impossible to renew again by Repentance, those who fall away,* 1.224 after they had been once enlightened and had tasted of the heavenly gift, had been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and had tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come. Upon these Expressions and some others, though not quite of their force, it was, that in the Primitive Church, some that ••ell after Baptism, were cast out of the Communion of the Church; and though they were not cut off from all hopes of the Mercy of God, yet they were never restored to the Peace of the Church: This was done in Tertullian's time, if what he says on this Subject, is not to be reckoned as a piece of his Montanism.

But soon after, there were great Contests upon this Head, while the Nova∣tians withdrew from the Communion of the Church, and believed it was defiled by the receiving of Apostates into it: Though that was not done so easily as some proposed, but after a long separation and a severe course of Penance. Upon this followed all those Penitentiary Canons concerning the several Measures and Degrees of Penance, and that not only for Acts of Apostacy from the Christian Religion, but for all other crying Sins. According to what has been already said upon the former Articles, it has appeared that the Sanctification of Regenerated Men is not so p••rfected in this Life, but that there is still a mixture of Defects and Im∣perfections left in them: And the state of the New Covenant is a continu∣ance of Repentance and Remission of Sins; for as oft as one sins, if he re∣pents truly of it, and forsakes his Sins, there is a standing Offer of the Pardon of all Sins: And therefore Christ has taught us to pray daily, For∣give us our sins: If there were but one general Pardon offered in Bap∣tism, this would signify little to those who feel their Infirmities, and the Sins that do so easily beset them, so apt to return upon them. It was no wonder if the entertaining this Conceit brought in a Superstitious Error in Practice among the Ancient Christians, of delaying Baptism till Death; as hoping that all Sins were then certainly pardoned: A much more dan∣gerous Error than even the Fatal One of trusting to a Death-bed Repentance. For Baptism might have been more easily compassed; and there was more offered in the way of Argument for building upon it, than has been of∣fered at for a Death-bed Repentance.

St. Peter's Denial, his Repentance, and his being restored to his Aposto∣lical Dignity seem to be Recorded, partly on this account, to encourage us even after the most heinous Offences, to return to God, and never to reckon our Condition desperate, were our Sins ever so many, but as we find our Hearts hardened in them into an obstinate Impenitency. Our Saviour has made our pardoning the offences that others commit against us, the mea∣sure upon which we may expect pardon from God; and he being asked, What limits he set to the number of the faults that we were bound to par∣don, by the Day, if Seven was not enough, he carried it up to seventy times seven, a vast number, far beyond the number of offences that any Man will in all probability commit against another in a Day. But if they should grow up to all that vast number of 490, yet if our Brother still turns again and repents,* 1.225 we are still bound to forgive. Now since this is joined with what he declared, that if we pardoned our Brother his offences, our heavenly Father would also forgive us,* 1.226 then we may depend upon this, That according to the sincerity of our Repentance, our sins are always forgiven us. And if this is the Nature of the New Covenant, then the Church, which is a Society formed upon it, must proportion the Rules both of her Communion and Censure, to those set in the Gospel: A heinous Sin must give us a deeper sorrow, and higer degrees of Repentance; Scandals must also be taken off and for∣given when the offending Persons have repaired the offence that was given by them, with suitable degrees of sorrow. St. Paul in the beginnings of Christianity, in which it being yet tender and not well known to the World, was more apt to be both blemished and corrupted, did yet order the Corinthians to receive back into their Communion the Incestuous Per∣son,* 1.227 whom by his own Directions they had delivered to Satan, they had ex∣communicated him,* 1.228 and by way of reverse to the Gifts of the Holy Ghost poured out upon all Christians, he was possessed or haunted with an evil Spirit: And yet as St. Paul declares that he forgave him, so he orders them to forgive him likewise; and he gives a reason for this Conduct, from the

common principles of pity and humanity, lest he should be swallowed up by overmuch sorrow. What is in that place mentioned only in a particular in∣stance, is extended to a general rule in the Epistle to the Galatians: If any one is overtaken in a fault,* 1.229 ye which are spiritual restore such a one in the Spirit of meekness, considering thy self lest thou also be tempted. Where both the supposition that is made, and the reason that is given, do plainly insi∣nuate that all Men are subject to their several infirmities: So that every Man may be overtaken in faults.* 1.230 The charge given to Timothy and Titus to rebuke, and exhort, does suppose that Christians, and even Bishops and Deacons, were subject to faults that might deserve correction.

In that passage cited out of S. Iohn's Epistle, as mention is made of a sin unto death for which they were not to pray, so mention is made both there and in S. Iames's Epistle, of sins for which they were to pray,* 1.231 and which up∣on their Prayers were to be forgiven. All which places do not only ex∣press this to be the tenor of the New Covenant, That the sins of Rege∣nerated Persons were to be pardoned in it, but they are also clear prece∣dents and rules for the Churches to follow them in their Discipline. And therefore those words in S. Iohn, that a man born of God doth not and can∣not sin, must be understood in a larger sense, of their not living in the practice of known sins; of their not allowing themselves in that course of Life, nor going on deliberately with it.

By the sin unto death, is meat the same thing with that Apostacy menti∣oned in the 6th of the Hebrews. Among the Iews some sins were punished by a total excision or cutting off,* 1.232 and this probably gave the rise to that designation of a sin unto death. The words in the Epistle to the Hebrews do plainly import those who being not only Baptized, but having also re∣ceived a share of the Extraordinary Effusion of the Holy Ghost, had total∣ly renounced the Christian Religion, and apostatized from the Faith, which was a Crucifying of Christ anew. Such Apostates to Judaism were thereby invol∣ved in the crime and guilt of the crucifying of Christ, and the putting him to open shame. Now Persons so Apostatizing could not be renewed again by Repentance, it not being possible to do any thing toward their conviction that had not been already done: and they hardning themselves against all that was offer'd for their conviction, were arrived at such a degree of wick∣edness, that it was impossible to work upon them; there was nothing left to be tried, that had not been already tried, and proved to be ineffectual. Yet it is to be observed, that it was an unjustifiable piece of rigor, to apply these words to all such as had fallen in a time of trial and persecution: for as they had not those miraculous means of conviction, which must be ac∣knowledged to be the strongest, the sensiblest, and the most easily appre∣hended of all Arguments; so that they could not sin so heinously as those had done, who after what they had seen and felt, revolted from the Faith.

Great difference is also to be made between a deliberate sin that a Man goes into upon choice, and in which he continues; and a Sin that the fears of death and the infirmities of Human Nature betray him into, and out of which he quickly recovers himself; and for which he mourns bitterly. There was no reason to apply what is said in the New Testament against the wicked Apostates of that time, to those who were overcome in the Persecution. The latter sinned grievously; yet it was not in the same kind, nor are they in any sort to be compar'd to the former. All affectations of excessive severity look like Pharisaical Hypocrisy; whereas the Spirit of Christ which is made up of Humility and Charity, will make us look so se∣verely to our selves, that on that very account we will be gentle even to the failings of others.

Yet on the other hand, the Church ought to endeavour to conform her self so far to her Head, and to his Doctrine, as to note those who obey not the Gospel,* 1.233 and to have no company with them, that they may be ashamed: yet not so as to hate such a one, or count him as an Enemy, but to admonish him as a Brother. Into what neglect or prostitution soever any Church may have fallen in this great point of separating Offenders, of making them ashamed, and of keeping others from being corrupted with their ill Example and bad Influence, that must be confessed to be a very great defect and ble∣mish. The Church of Rome had slackned all the ancient Rules of Disci∣pline, and had perverted this matter in a most scandalous manner; and the World is now sunk into so much corruption, and to such a contempt of holy things, that it is much more easy here to find matter for lamentati∣on, than to see how to remedy or correct it.

ARTICLE XVII. Predestination and Election.

Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the World were laid) he hath con∣stantly decreed by his Counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ unto everlasting Salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called accord∣ing to God's purpose, by his Spirit working in due season. They through grace obey the calling, they be justified freely, they be made Sons of God by Adoption, they be made like the Image of his only begotten Son Iesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish an•• ••••••firm their Faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God▪ So for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous down∣fall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either ••nto despera∣tion, or into wrechlesness of most unclean living, no less pe∣rillous than ••esperation.

Furthermore, We must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expresly declared unto us in the Word of God.

THere are many things in several of the other Articles which depend upon this; and therefore I will explain it more fully: For as this has given occasion to one of the longest, the subtilest, and indeed the most intricate of all the Questions in Divinity; so it will be necessary to open and examine it as fully as the Importance and Difficulties of it do require. In treating of it, I shall,

First, State the Question, together with the consequences that arise out of it.

Secondly, Give an account of the differences that have arisen upon it.

Thirdly, I shall set out the strength of the Opinions of the Contending Parties, with all possible Impartiality and Exactness.

Fourthly, I shall see how far they agree, and how far they differ; and shall shew what reason there is for bearing with one another's Opinions in these matters; and in the

Fifth and last place, I shall consider how far we of this Church are de∣termined by this Article, and how far we are at liberty to follow any of those different Opinions.

The whole Controversy may be reduced to this single Point as its head and source; Upon what Views did God form his Purposes and Decrees con∣cerning Mankind? Whether he did it merely upon a design of advancing his own Glory, and for manifesting his own Attributes, in order to which he setled the great universal Scheme of his whole Creation and Provi∣dence; Or whether he considered all the free motions of those rational Agents that he did intend to create, and according to what he foresaw they would chuse and do, in all the various circumstances in which he might put them, formed his Decrees? Here the Controversy begins; and when this is setled, the three main Questions that arise out of it, will be soon determined.

The First is, Whether both God and Christ intended that Christ should only dye for that particular number whom God intended to save? Or whether it was intended that he should dye for all, so that every Man that would, might have the benefit of his Death, and that no Man was excluded from it, but because he willingly rejected it?

The Second is, Whether those Assistances that God gives to Men to en∣able them to obey him, are of their own nature so efficacious and irresi∣stible, that they never fail of producing the Effect for which they are given, or, Whether they are only sufficient to enable a Man to obey God; so that their Efficacy comes from the freedom of the Will, that either may co-ope∣rate with them, or may not, as it pleases?

The Third is, Whether such persons do and must certainly persevere, to whom such Grace is given; or, Whether they may not fall away both en∣tirely and finally from that State?

There are also other Questions concerning the true Notion of Liberty, concerning the Feebleness of our Powers in this lapsed State, with several lesser ones; all which do necessarily take their determination from the de∣cision of the first and main Question: About which there are four Opinions.

The First is, of those commonly called Supralapsarians, who think that God does only consider his own Glory in all that he does: and that what∣ever is done, arises from its first Cause, from the Decree of God: That in this Decree God considering only the Manifestation of his own Glory, in∣tended to make the World, to put a Race of Men in it, to constitute them under Adam as their Fountain and Head; That he decreed Adam's Sin, the lapse of his Posterity, and Christ's Death, together with the Salvation or Damnation of such Men as should be most for his own Glory: That to those who were to be saved, he decreed to give such efficacious Assistan∣ces, as should certainly put them in the way of Salvation: And to those whom he rejected, he decreed to give such Assistances and means only as should render them inexcusable: That all Men do continue in a state of Grace, or of Sin, and shall be saved or damned, acc••rding to that first De∣cree: So that God views Himself only, and in that View he designs all things singly for his own Glory, and for the manifesting of his own Attri∣butes.

The Second Opinion is of those called the Sublapsarians; who say, That Adam having sinned freely, and his Sin being imputed to all his Posterity, God did consider Mankind, thus lost, with an Eye of pity: and having designed to rescue a great number out of this lost state, he decreed to send his Son to dye for them, to accept of his Death on their account, and to give them such Assistances as should be effectual both to convert them to him, and to make them persevere to the ••nd: But for the rest, he framed no positive Act about them, only he left them in that lapsed state, without intending that they should have the benefit of Christ's Death, or of efficacious and persever∣ing Assistances.

The Third Opinion is of those who are called Remonstrants, Arminians, or Vniversalists, who think that God intended to create all Men free, and to deal with them according to the use that they should make of their liberty: that therefore he foreseeing how every one would use it, did upon that Decree all things that concerned them in this life, together with their Sal∣vation and Damnation in the next: That Christ died for all Men; That sufficient Assistances are given to every Man, but that all Men may chuse whether they will use them, and persevere in them, or not.

The Fourth Opinion is of the Socinians, who deny the certain Pre∣science of future Contingencies; and therefore they think the Decrees of God from all Eternity were only general; that such as believe and obey the Gospel shall be saved, and that such as live and dye in Sin shall be damned: But that there were no special Decrees made concerning particu∣lar persons, these being only made in time, according to the state in which they are: They do also think that Man is by nature so free and so entire, that he needs no inward Grace; so they deny a special Predestination from all Eternity, and do also deny inward Assistances.

This is a Controversy that arises out of Natural Religion: For if it is believed that God governs the World, and that the Wills of Men are free; then it is natural to enquire which of these is subject to the other, or how they can be both maintained: Whether God determines the Will? Or if his Providence follows the motions of the Will? Therefore all those that believed a Providence have been aware of this difficulty. The Stoicks put all things under a Fate; even the God's themselves: If this Fate was a necessary Series of Things, a Chain of Matter and Motion that was fixed and unalterable, then it was plain and downright Atheism. The Epicureans set all things at liberty, and either thought that there was no God, or at least that there was noProvidence. ThePhilosophers knew not how to avoid this difficuly, by which we see Tully and others were so differently moved, that it is plain they despaired of getting out of it.* 1.234 The Iews had the same Question among them; for they could not believe their Law, without ac∣knowledging a Providence: And yet the Sadducees among them asserted Liberty in so intire a manner, that they set it free from all restraints: On the other hand, the Essens put all things under an absolute Fate: And the Pharisees took a middle way; they asserted the Freedom of the Will, but thought that all things were governed by a Providence. There are also subtle Disputes concerning this matter among the Mahometans, one Sect asserting Liberty, and another Fate, which generally prevails among them.

In the first Ages of Christianity,* 1.235 the Gnosticks fancied that the Souls of Men were of different Ranks, and that they sprang from different Prin∣ciples or Gods who made them. Some were Carnal, that were devoted to Perdition; others were Spiritual and were certainly to be saved: Others were Animal, of a middle Order, capable either of Happiness or Misery. It seems that the Marcionites and Manichees thought that some Souls were made by the bad God, as others were made by the good. In opposition to all these, Origen asserted, That all Souls were by Nature equally capable of being either good or bad; and that the difference among Men arose merely from the freedom of the Will, and the various use of that Freedom: That God left Men to this liberty, and rewarded and pu∣nished them according to the use of it; yet he asserted a Providence; but as he brought in the Platonical Doctrine of Preexistence into the Government of the World; and as he explained God's loving Iacob, and his hating of Esau, before they were born, and had done either Good or Evil, by this of a regard to what they had done formerly; so he asserted the Fall of

Man in Adam, and his being recoverd by Grace; but he still maintained an unrestrained Liberty in the Will. His Doctrine, though much hated in Egypt, was generally followed over all the East, particularly in Palestine and at Antioch. S. Gregory Nazianzen, and S. Basil, drew a system of Divi∣nity out of his Works, in which that which relates to the Liberty of the Will is very fully set forth: That Book was much studied in the East. Chrysostom, Isidore of Damiete, and Theodoret, with all their followers, taught it so copiously,* 1.236 that it became the received Doctrine of the Eastern Church. Ierome was so much in love with Origen, that he Translated some parts of him, and set Ruffin on Translating the rest. But as he had a sharp quar∣rel with the Bishops of Palestine, so that perhaps disposed him to change his Thoughts of Origen: For ever after that, he set himself much to disgrace his Doctrine; and he was very severe on Ruffin for Translating him: Though Ruffin confesses, that in Translating his Works he took great Li∣berties in altering several passages that he disliked. One of Origen's Disciples was Pelagius, a Scottish Monk, in great esteem at Rome, both for his Learning, and the great strictness of his Life:* 1.237 He carried these Doctrines further than the Greek Church had done; so that he was reckoned to have fallen into great Errors both by Chrysostom and Isidore, (as it is represented by Iansenius, though that is denied by others, who think they meant another of the same Name.) He denied that we had suffered any harm by the Fall of Adam, or that there was any need of inward Assistances; and he asserted an entire Liberty in the Will. S. Austin, though in his Disputes with the Manichees he had said many things on the side of Liberty, yet he hated Pe∣lagius's Doctrine, which he thought asserted a Sacrilegious Liberty, and he set himself to beat down his Tenets which had been but feebly attackt by Ierom. Cassian, a Disciple of St. Chrysostom's, came to Marseilles about this time, ha∣ving left Constantinople perhaps when his Master was banished out of it. He taught a Middle Doctrine, Asserting an inward Grace, but subject to the freedom of the Will: And that all things were both decreed and done, according to the Prescience of God, in which all future Contingents were foreseen: He also taught, that the first Conversion of the Soul to God, was merely an effect of its free choice; so that all Preventing-grace was denied by him; which came to be the peculiar distinction of those who were afterwards called the Semi-Pelagians. Prosper and Hilary gave an account of this System to S. Austin, upon which he writ against it, and his Opinions were defended by Prosper, Fulgentius, Orosius, and others, as Cassian's were defended by Faustus, Vincentius, and Gennadius. In conclusion, St. Austin's Opinions did generally prevail in the West; only Pelagius, it seems, retiring t•• his own Country, he had many followers among the Britans: But Ger∣man and Lupus being sent over once and again from France, are said to have conquered them so intirely, that they were all freed from those Errors: Whatever they did by their Arguments, the Writers of their Legends took care to adorn their Mission with many very wonderful Miracles, of which the gathering all the pieces of a Calf, some of which had been drest, and the putting them together in its Skin, and restoring it again to Life, is none of the least. The Ruin of the Roman Empire, and the disorders that the We∣stern Provinces fell under by their new and brabarous Masters, occasioned in those Ages a great decay of Learning: So that few Writers of Fame coming after that time, St. Austin's great Labours and Piety, and the many vast Volumes that he had left behind him, gave him so great a Name, that few durst contest what had been so zealously and so copiously defended by him: And though it is highly probable, that Celestine was not satisfied with his Doctrine; yet both he and the other Bishops of Rome, together with many

Provincial Synods, have so often declared his Doctrine in those Points to be the Doctrine of the Church, that this is very hardly got over by those of that Communion.

The chief, and indeed the only material difference that is between St. Austin's Doctrine, and that of the Sublapsarians, is, That he, holding that with the Sacrament of Baptism there was joyned an inward Regene∣ration, made a difference between the Regenerate and the Predestinate, which these do not: He thought Persons thus regenerate, might have all Grace, besides that of Perseverance; but he thought that they not being predestinated, were certainly to fall from that state, and from the Grace of Regeneration. The other differences are but forced Strains, to repre∣sent him and the Calvinists as of different Principles: He thought, that over∣coming Delectation, in which he put the Efficacy of Grace, was as Irre∣sistible, though he used not so strong a word for it as the Calvinists do: And he thought that the Decree was as Absolute, and made without any re∣gard to what the Free-Will would chuse, as any of these do. So in the main Points, the Absoluteness of the Decree, the Extent of Christ's Death, the Efficacy of Grace, and the Certainty of Perseverance, their Opinions are the same, though their ways of expressing themselves do often differ. But if St. Austin's Name, and the Credit of his Books went far, yet no Book was more read in the following Ages, than Cassian's Collations. There was in them a clear Thread of good Sense, and a very high Strain of Piety that run through them; and they were thought the best Institutions for a Monk to form his Mind, by reading them attentively: So they still carried down among those who read them, deep Impressions of the Doctrine of the Greek Church.

This broke out in the Ninth Century, in which Godescalcus, a Monk, was severely used by Hincmar, and by the Church of Rheims, for assert∣ing some of St. Austin's Doctrines; against which Scotus Erigena wrote; as Bertram, or Ratramne, wrote for them. Remigius Bishop of Lyons, with his Church, did zealously assert St. Austin's Doctrine, not without great sharpness against Scotus. After this, the matter slept, till the School-Divi∣nity came to be in great Credit: And Thomas Aquinas being counted the chief Glory of the Dominican Order, he not only asserted all St. Austin's Doctrine, but added this to it, That whereas formerly it was in general held, That the Providence of God did extend it self to all things whatso∣ever, he thought this was done by God's concurring immediately to the Production of every Thought, Action, Motion, or Mode; so that God was the First and Immediate Cause of every thing that was done: And in order to the explaining the joint Production of every thing by God as the First, and by the Creature as the Second Cause, he thought, at least as his Followers have understood him, That by a Physical Influence the Will was predetermined by God to all things, whether good or bad; so that the Will could not be said to be free in that particular Instance in sensu compo∣sito, though it was in general still free in all its Actions in sensu diviso: A distinction so sacred, and so much used among them, that I chuse to give it in their on Terms, rather than translate them. To avoid the conse∣quence of making God the Author of Sin, a distinction was made between the Positive Act of Sin, which was said not to be Evil, and the want of its Conformity to the Law of God, which being a Negation, was no positive Being, so that it was not produced. And thus, though the Action was produced jointly by God as the first Cause, and by the Creature as the Se∣cond, yet God was not guilty of the Sin, but only the Creature. This Doctrine passed down among the Dominicans, and continues to do so to this day. Scotus, who was a Franciscan, denied this Predetermination, and

asserted the Freedom of the Will. Durandus denied this Immediate Concourse; in which he has not had many Followers, except Adola, and some few more.

When Luther began to form his Opinions into a Body, he clear∣ly saw, that nothing did so plainly destroy the Doctrine of Merit and Justi∣fication by Works, as St. Austin's Opinions: He found also in his Works very express Authorities against most of the Corruptions of the Roman Church: And being of an Order that carried his Name, and by consequence was accustomed to read and reverence his Works, it was no wonder if he, without a strict examining of the matter, espoused all his Opinions. Most of those of the Church of Rome who wrote against him, being of the other Persuasions, any one reading the Books of that Age, would have thought that St. Austin's Doctrine was abandoned by the Church of Rome: So that when Michael Baius, and some others at Louvain, began to revive it, that became a matter of Scandal, and they were condemned at Rome: Yet at the Council of Trent the Dominicans had so much credit, that great care was taken in the penning their Decrees, to avoid all Reflections upon that Do∣ctrine. It was at first received by the whole Iesuit Order, so that Bellar∣mine formed himself upon it, and still adhered to it: But soon after, that Order changed their Mind, and left their whole Body to a full liberty in those Points, and went all quickly over to the other Hypothesis, that dif∣fered from the Semi-pelagians only in this, that they allowed a Preventing-Grace, but such as were subject to the Freedom of the Will.

Molina and Fonseca invented a new way of explaining God's foreseeing fu∣ture Contingents, which they called a Middle, or Mean Science: by which they taught, That as God sees all things as possible in his knowledge of simple Appre∣hension, and all things that are certainly future, as present in his knowledge of Vision; so by this knowledge he also sees the Chain of all Conditionate Fu∣turities, and all the Connexions of them, that is, whatsoever would follow upon such or such conditions. Great Jealousies arising upon the Progress that the Order of the Jesuits was making, these Opinions were laid hold on to mortify them; so they were complained of at Rome for departing from St. Austin's Doctrine, which in these Points was generally received as the Doctrine of the Latin Church; and many Conferences were held be∣fore Pope Clement the Eighth, and the Cardinals; where the Point in debate was chiefly, What was the Doctrine andTradition of theChurch? The Advan∣tages that St. Austin's Followers had, were such, that before fair Judges they must have triumphed over the other: Pope Clement had so resolved; but he dying, though Pope Paul the Fifth had the same Intentions, yet he happening then to be engaged in a Quarrel with the Venetians about the Ecclesiasti∣cal Immunities, and having put that Republick under an Interdict, the Jesuits who were there, chose to be banished, rather than to break the Interdict: And their adhering so firmly to the Papal Authority, when most of the other Orders forsook it, was thought so meritorious at Rome, that it saved them the Censure: So instead of a Decision, all sides were commanded to be silent, and to quarrel no more upon those Heads.

About Forty years after that, Iansenius, a Doctor of Louvain, being a zea∣lous Disciple of S. Austin's, and seeing the Progress that the contrary Doctrines were making, did with great Industry, and an equal Fidelity publish a Volumi∣nous Syst••m of St. Austin's Doctrine in all the several Branches of the Contro∣versy: And he set forth the Pelagians and the Semipelagians in that Work under very black Characters; and not content with that, he compared the Doctrines of the Modern Innovators with theirs. This Book was received by the whole Party with great Applause, as a Work that had decided the Controversy. But the Author having writ with an extraordinary Force

against the French Pretensions on Flanders, which recommended him so much to the Spanish Court, that he was made a Bishop upon it; all those in France who followed St. Austin's Doctrine, and applauded this Book, were represented by their Enemies as being in the same Interests with him, and by consequence as Enemies to the French Greatness; so that the Court of France prosecuted the whole Party. This Book was at first only prohi∣bited at Rome, as a Violation of that Silence that the Pope had enjoined; afterwards Articles were pickt out of it, and condemned, and all the Cler∣gy of France were required to sign the Condemnation of them. These Articles were certainly in his Book, and were manifest Consequences of St. Austin's Doctrine, which was chiefly driven at; though it was still de∣clared at Rome, That nothing was intended to be done in prejudice of St. Austin's Doctrine: Upon this pretence his Party have said, That those Arti∣cles being capable of two Senses, the one of which was strained, and was Heretical, the other of which was clear, and according to St. Austin's Doct∣rine, it must be presumed it was not in that second, but in the other sense, that they were condemned at Rome; and so they signed the Condemnati∣on of them: But then they said, that they were not in Iansenius's Book in the sense, in which they condemned them.

Upon that, followed a most extravagant Question, concerning the Pope's Infallibility in Matters of Fact: It being said on the one side, That the Pope heving condemned them as Iansenius's Opinions, the belief of his Infallibi∣ty obliged them to conclude that they must be in his Book: Whereas the o∣thers with great Truth affirmed, That it had never been thought that in Mat∣ters of Fact either Popes or Councils were Infallible. At last a new Cessation of Hostilities upon these Points was resolved on; yet the Hatred continues, and the War goes on, though more covertly, and more indirctely than before.

Nor are the Reformed more of a piece than the Church of Rome upon these Points. Luther went on long, as he at first set out, with so little disguise, that whereas all Parties had always pretended that they asserted the Freedom of the Will, he plainly spoke out, and said the Will was not Free, but Enslaved: Yet before he died, he is reported to have changed his Mind; for tho he never owned that, yet Melancthon, who had been of the same Opinion, did freely retract it; for which he was never blamed by Luther. Since that time all the Lutherans have gone into the Semipelagian Opinions so entirely and so eagerly, that they will neither tolerate nor hold Communion with any of the other Persuasion. Calvin not only taught St. Austin's Doctrine, but seemed to go on to the Supralapsarian way; which was more openly taught by Beza, and was generally followed by the Re¦formed; only the difference between the Supralapsarians and the Sublapsa∣rians, was never brought to a decision: Divines being in all the Calvinists Churches left to their freedom as to that Point.

In England the first Reformers were generally in the Sublapsarian Hy∣pothesis: But Perkins and others have asserted the Supralapsarian way, Arminius, a Professor in Leyden, writ against him: Upon this Gomarus and he had many disputes; and these Opinions bred a great distraction over all the Vnited Provinces: At the same time another Political matter occasioning a division of Opinion, Whether the War should be car∣ried on with Spain, or if Propositions for a Peace or Truce should be enter∣tained? It happened that Arminius's followers were all for a Peace, and the others were generally for carrying on theWar; which being promoted by the Prince of Orange, he joyned to them: And the Arminians were repre∣sented as Men, whose Opinions and Affections leaned to Popery: So that this, from being a Doctrinal Point, became the distinction of a Party, and by that means the differences were inflamed. A great Synod met at Dort;

to which Divines were sent from hence, as well as from other Churches. The Arminian Tenets were condemned; but the difference between the Su∣pralapsarians and Sublapsarians was not medled with. The Divines of this Church, though very moderate in the way of proposing their Opinions, yet upon the main adhered to St. Austin's Doctrine. So the Breach was formed in Holland: But when the Point of State was no more mixed with it, these Questions were handled with less heat.

Those Disputes quickly cross'd the Seas, and divided us: The Abbots adher∣ed to Austin's Doctrine; while Bishop Overal, but chiefly Archbishop Laud, espoufed the Arminian Tenets. All Divines were by Proclamation required not to preach upon those Heads: But those that favoured the new Opinions were incouraged, and the others were depressed. And unhappy Disputes fall∣ing in at that time concerning the extent of the Royal Prerogative beyond Law, the Arminians having declared themselves highly for that, they were as much favoured at Court, as they were censured in the Parliament: which brought that Doctrine under a very hard Character over all the Nation.

Twisse carried it high to the Supralapsarian Hypothesis, which grew to be ge∣nerally followed by those of that Side: But that sounded harshly; and Hobb's grafting afterwards a Fate and Absolute Necessity upon it, the other Opini∣ons were again revived; and no Political Interests falling in with them, as all prejudices against them went off, so they were more calmly debated, and be∣came more generally acceptable than they were before. Men are now left to their liberty in them, and all Anger upon those Heads is now so happily extinguished, that diversity of Opinions about them begets no Alienation nor Animosity.

So far have I prosecuted a short View of the History of this Controversy: I come now to open the chief Grounds of the different Parties: And First for the Supralapsarians.

They lay this down for a Foundation, That God is Essentially Perfect, and Independent in all his Acts: So that he can consider nothing but him∣self and his own Glory: That therefore he designed every thing in and for himself: That to make him stay his Decrees till he sees what free Crea∣tures will do, is to make him Decree dependently upon them; which seems to fall short of Infinite Perfection: That he himself can be the only End of his Counsels; and that therefore he could only consider the Mani∣festation of his own Attributes and Perfection: That Infinite Wisdom must begin its designs at that which is to come last in the Execution of them; and since the Conclusion of all things at the Last Day will be the Mani∣festation of the Wisdom, Goodness, and Justice of God; we ought to sup∣pose, that God in the Order of Things designed that first, though in the Order of Time there is no First nor Second in God, this being supposed to be from all Eternity. After this great Design was laid, all the Means in order to the End were next to be designed. Creatures in the sight of God are as nothing, and by a strong Figure are said to be less than nothing, and Vanity. Now if we in our Designs do not consider Ants or Insects, not to say Straws, or Grains of Sand and Dust, then what lofty Thoughts soever our Pride may suggest to us, we must be confessed to be very poor and inconsiderable Creatures before God; therefore he himself and his own Glory can only be his own End in all that he designs or does.

This is the chief Basis of their Doctrine, and so ought to be well con∣sidered. They add to this, That there can be no certain Prescience of fu∣ture Contingents. They say it involves a contradiction, that things which are not certainly to be, should be certainly foreseen: For if they are certainly foreseen, they must certainly be: So while they are supposed

to be contingent, they are yet affirmed to be certain, by saying that they are certainly foreseen. When God decrees that any thing shall be, it has from that a certain futurition, and as such it is certainly foreseen by him: An uncertain foresight is an Act of its nature Imperfect, because it may be a mistake, and so is inconsistent with the Divine Perfection. And it seems to imply a contradiction to say that a thing happens freely, that is, may be, or may not be, and yet that it is certainly forseen by God. God cannot foresee things, but as he decrees them, and so gives them a futurition, and therefore this Prescience Antecedent to his Decree, must be rejected as a thing impossible.

They say further, That Conditionate Decrees are imperfect in their na∣ture, and that they subject the Will and Acts of God to a Creature: That a Conditionate Decree is an Act in suspence, whether it shall be or not; which is inconsistent with Infinite Perfection. A general Will, or rather a willing that all Men should be Saved, but also plain Characters of Imper∣fection in it: As if God wished somewhat that he could not accomplish, so that his Goodness should seem to be more extended than his Power. Infinite Perfection can wish nothing but what it can execute, and if it is fit to wish it, it is fit also to execute it. Therefore all that Stile that ascribes Passions or Affections to God, must be understood in a Figure; so that when his Providence exerts it self in such Acts as among us Men would be the effects of those Passions, then the Passions themselves are in the Phrase of the Scriptures ascribed to God. They say we ought not to measure the Punishments of Sin by our Notions of Justice: God aff••cts many good Men very severely, and for many Years in this Life, and this only for the Manifestation of his own Glory, for making their Faith and Patience to shine; and yet none think that this is unjust. It is a method in which God will be glorified in them: Some Sins are punished with other Sins, and likewise with a course of severe Miseries: If we transfer this from Time to Eternity, the whole will be then more conceivable; for if God may do for a little time that which is inconsistent with our Notions, and with our Rules of Justice, he may do it for a longer duration: Since it is as im∣possible that he can be unjust for a Day, as for all Eternity.

As God does every thing for himself and his own Glory, so the Scriptures teach us every where to offer up all Praise and Glory to God; to acknowledge that all is of him, and to humble our selves asbeing nothing before him. Now if we were Elected not by a free Act of his, but by what he foresaw that we would be, so that his Grace is not efficacious by its own force, but by the good use that we make of it, then the Glory and Praise of all the good we do, and of God's purposes to us, were due to our selves: He designs, ac∣cording to the other Doctrine, equally well to all Men; and all the differ∣ence among them will arise neither from God's Intentions to them, nor from his Assistances, but from the good use that he foresaw they would make of these Favours that he was to give in common to all Mankind: Man should have whereof to glory, and he might say, That he himself made himself to differ from others. The whole strain of the Scriptures in ascribing all good things to God, and in charging us to offer up the Ho∣nour of all to him, seems very expresly to favour this Doctrine: Since if all our good is from God, and is particularly owing to his Grace, then Good Men have somewhat from God that Bad Men have not; for which they ought to Praise him. The Stile of all the Prayers that are used or directed to be used in the Scripture, is for a Grace that opens our Eyes, that turns our Hearts, that makes us to go, that leads us not into Tem∣ptation, but delivers us from Evil. All these Phrases do plainly Import that we desire more than a Power or Capacity to Act, such as is given to

all Men, and such as after we have received it, may be still ineffectual to us. For to pray for such Assistances as are always given to all Men, and are such that the whole good of them shall wholly depend upon our selves, would sound very odly; whereas we pray for somewhat that is special, and that we hope shall be effectual. We do not and cannot pray earnestly for that, which we know all Men as well as we our selves have at all times.

Humility and Earnestness in Prayer seem to be among the chief means of working in us the Image of Christ, and of deriving to us all the Blessings of Heaven. That Doctrine which blasts both, which swells us up with an Opinion that all comes from our selves, and that we receive nothing from God but what is given in common with us to all the World, is certainly contrary both to the Spirit, and to the Design of the Gospel.

To this they addO bservations from Providence. The World was for ma∣ny Ages delivered up to Idolatry; and since the Christian Religion has appeared, we see vast Tracts of Countries which have continued ever since in Idolatry: Others are fallen under Mahometanism: And the State of Chri∣stendom is in the Eastern Parts of it under so much Ignorance, and the greatest Part of the West is under so much Corruption, that we must confess the far greatest part of Mankind has been in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ages left destitute of the Means of Grace, so that the Promulgating the Go••pel to some Nations, and the denying it to others, must be ascribed to the Unsearchable Ways of God, that are past finding out. If he thus leaves whole Nations in such Darkness and Corruption, and freely chuses others to Communicate the knowledge of himself to them, then we need not wonder if he should hold the same method with Individuals, that he doth with whole Bodies: For the Rejecting of whole Nations by the lump for so many Ages, is much more unaccountable than the Selecting of a few, and the leaving others in that State of Ignorance and Brutality. And whatever may be said of his extending Mercy to some few of those who have made a good use of that dim Light which they had; yet it cannot be denied but their Condition is more deplorable, and the Condition of the others is much more hopeful; so that great Numbers of Men are Born in such Circumstances, that it is morally impossible that they should not perish in them; whereas others are more happily Situated and Enlightned.

This Argument taken from common Observation, becomes much stronger, when we consider what the Apostle says,* 1.238 particularly in the Epistles to the Ro∣mans, and the Ephesians, even according to the Exposition of those of the other side: For if God loved Iacob, so as to chuse his Posterity to be his Peo∣ple, and rejected or hated Esau and his Posterity, and if that was according to the purpose and design of his Election; if by the same purpose the Gentiles were to be grafted upon that Stock, from which the Iews were then to be cut off; and if the Counsel or Purpose of God had appeared in particular to those of Ephesus, though the most corrupted both in Magick, Idolatry and Immorality, of any in the East; then it is plain, that the applying the means of Grace, arises meerly from a great Design that was long hid in God, which did then break out. It is reasonable to believe, That there is a proportion between the Application of the Means, and the Decree it self concerning the End. The one is resolved into the Unsearchable Riches of God's Grace, and declared to be Free and Absolute. God's chusing the Nation of the Iews in such a distinction beyond all other Nations, is by Moses and the Prophets frequently said not to be on their account, or on the account of any thing that God saw in them, but meerly from the Goodness of God to them. From all this, it seems, say they, as reasonable to believe that the other is likewise free, according to those words of our

Saviour's, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: The reason of which is given in the following words,* 1.239 Even so Fa∣ther, for it seemed good in thy sight. What goes before, of Tyre and Sydon and the Land of Sodom, that would have made a better use of his preach∣ing, than the Towns of Galilee had done, among whom he lived, confirms this, That the means of Grace are not bestowed on those of whom it was foreseen that they would have made a good use of them; or denied to those who as was foreseen, would have made an ill use of them: The con∣trary of this being plainly asserted in those words of our Saviour's. It is further observable, That he seems not to be speaking here of different Nations, but of the different sorts of Men of the same Nation: The more Learned of the Iews, the Wise and Prudent, rejected him, while the simpler, but better sort, the babes, received him: So that the difference between Individual Per∣sons seems here to be resolved into the good pleasure of God.

It is further urged, that since those of the other side confess, that God by his Prescience foresaw what Circumstances might be happy, and what Assist∣ances might prove efficacious to Bad Men; then his not putting them in those Circumstances, but giving them such Assistances only, which how effectual soever might be to others, he saw would have no efficacy on them, and his putting them in Circumstances, and giving them Assistances, which he fore∣saw they would abuse, if it may seem to clear the Justice of God, yet it cannot clear his Infinite Holiness and Goodness; which must ev••r carry him according to our Notions of these Perfections, to do all that may be done, and that in the most effectual way, to rescue others from misery, to make them truly good, and to put them in a way be happy. Since therefore this is not always done, according to the other Opinion, it is plain that there is an unsearchable depth in the ways of God which we are not able to fathom. Therefore it must be concluded, That since all are not actually good, and so put in a way to be saved, that God did not in∣tend that it should be so; for who hath resisted his will? The Counsel of the Lord standeth fast, and the Thoughts of his heart to all Generations. It is true,* 1.240 His Laws are his Will in one respect: He requires all to obey them: He approves them, and he obliges all Men to keep them. All the Expressions of his desires that all Men should b•• saved, are to be explained of the Will of Revelation, commonly called the Sign of his Will: When it is said, What more could have been done?* 1.241 that is to be understood of outward Means and Blessings: But still God has a secret Will of his good pleasure, in which he designs all things; and this can neaver be frustrated.

From this they do also conclude, That though Christ's Death was to be offered to all Christians; yet that Intentionally and Actually he only died for those whom the Father had chosen and given to him to be saved by him. They cannot think that Christ could have died in vain, which St. Paul speaks of as a vast Absurdity. Now since if he had died for all,* 1.242 he should have died in vain, with relation to the far greater part of Mankind, who are not to be sa∣ved by him; they from thence conclude, That all those for whom he died, are certainly saved by him. Perhaps with relation to some subaltern Blessings, which are through him Communicated, if not to all Mankind, yet to all Christians, he may be said to have died for all: But as to Eter∣nal Salvation, they believe his Design went no further than the secret Purpose and Election of God, and this they think is implied in these words,* 1.243 all that are given me of my Father: Thine they were, and thou gavest them me. He also limits his Intercession to those only; I pray not for the world, but for those that thou hast given me; for they are thine, and all thine are mine,

and mine are thine. They believe that he also limited to them the extent of his Death, and of that Sacrifice which he offered in it.

It is true, the Christian Religion being to be distinguished from the Iewish in this main Point, that whereas the Iewish was restrained to Abraham's Poster∣ity, and confined within oneRace and Nation, the Christian was to be preach∣ed to every Creature; Universal words are used concerning the Death of Christ: But as the words,* 1.244 preaching to every Creature, and to all the World, are not to be understood in the utmost extent, for then they have never been veri∣fied; since the Gospel has never yet, for ought that appears to us, been preached to every Nation under Heaven; but are only to be explained ge∣nerally of a Commission not limited to one or more Nations; none being excluded from it: The Apostles were to execute it in going from City to City, as they should be inwardly moved to it by the Holy Ghost: So they think that those large words that are applied to the Death of Christ, are to be understood in the same qualified manner; that no Nation or sort of Men are excluded from it, and that some of all kinds and sorts shall be saved by him: And this is to be carried no further, without an Imputation on the Justice of God: For if he has received a sufficient Oblation and Sa∣tisfaction for the Sins of the whole World, it is not reconcileable to Ju∣stice, that all should not be saved by it, or should not at least have the Offer and Promulgation of it made them; that so a trial may be made whe∣ther they will accept of it or not.

The Grace of God is set forth in Scripture by such Figures and Expressions as do plainly intimate it•• efficacy; and that it does not depend upon us to use it,* 1.245 or not to use it at pleasure. It it said to be a Creation, we are created unto good works, and we become new Creatures: It is called a Regeneration, or a New Birth; it is called a Quickning and a Resurrection; as our former state is compared to a feebleness, a blindness, and a death. God is said to work in us both to will and to do: His people shall be willing in the day of his power: He will write his Laws in their hearts, and make them to walk in them. Man∣kind is compared to a Mass of Clay in the hands of the Potter, who of the same lump makes at his pleasure Vessels of honour or of dishonour. These passages, this last in particular, do insinuate an Absolute and a Conquering power in Grace; and that the love of God constrains us, as S. Paul speaks expresly.

All outward coaction is contrary to the nature of liberty, and all those inward Impressions that drove on the Prophets, so that they had not the free use of their Faculties, but felt themselves carried they knew not how, are inconsistent with it; yet when a Man feels that his Fa∣culties go in their method, and that he assents or chuses from a thread of inward Conviction and Ratiocination; he still acts freely, that is, by an In∣ternal Principle of Reason and Thought. A Man acts as much according to his Faculties, when he assents to a Truth, as when he chuses what he is to do: And if his Mind were so enlightned, that he saw as clearly the good of Moral Things, as he percieves Speculative Truths, so that he felt himself as little able to resist the one as the other; he would be no less a free and a rational Creature, than if he were left to a more unlimited Range: Nay, the more evidently that he saw the true good of things, and the more that he were determined by it, he should then act more suitably to his Faculties, and to the Excellence of his Nature: For though the Saints in Heaven being made perfect in Glory, are no more capable of further Re∣wards, yet it cannot be denied but they act with a more accomplished Li∣berty, because they see all things in a true Light, according to that, in thy light we shall see light:* 1.246 And therefore they conclude, that such an over∣coming degree of Grace, by which a Man is made willing through the Il∣lumination

of his Understanding, and not by any blind or violent Impulse, is no way contrary to the true Notion of Liberty.

After all, they think, That if a Debate falls to be between the Sovereignty of God, his Acts and his Purposes, and the freedom of Man's will, it is modest and decent rather to make the abatement on Man's part than on God's; but they think there is no need of this. They infer, That besides the outward Enlightening of a Man by Knowledge, there is an inward Enlightening of the Mind, and a secret forcible conviction stampt on it, otherwise what can be meant by the Prayer of St. Paul for the Ephesians, who had already heard the Gospel preached, and were instructed in it; That the eyes of their under∣standing being enlightened, they might know what was the hope of his calling,* 1.247 and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what was the exceeding greatness of his power towards them that believed. This seems to be somewhat that is both Internal and Efficacious. Christ compares the Union and Influence that he communicates to Believers, to that Union of a Head with the Members, and of a Root with the Branches; which im∣ports an Internal, a Vital, and an Efficacious Influence. And though the outward means that are offered, may be, and always are rejected, when not accompanied with his overcoming Grace, yet this never returns empty: These outward means coming from God, the resisting of them is said to be the resisting God, the grieving or quenching his Spirit;* 1.248 and so in that sense we resist the Grace or Favour of God: But we can never withstand him when he intends to overcome us.

As for Perseverance, it is a necessary consequence of Absolute Decrees, and of Efficacious Grace: For since all depends upon God, and that as of his own will he begat us, so with him there is neither variableness nor shadow of turning: Whom he loves, he loves to the end; and he has promised, That he will never leave nor forsak•• those to whom he becomes a God; We must from thence conclude, That the purpose and calling of God is without Repentance: And therefore though good Men may fall into grievous Sins, to keep them from which there are dreadful things said in Scripture, against their falling away, or Apostacy; yet God does so uphold them, that though he suffers them often to feel the weight of their Natures, yet of all that are given by the Father to the Son to be saved by him, none are lost.

Upon the whole Matter, They believe that God did in himself and for his own Glory foreknow such a determinate Number whom he pitched upon, to be the persons in whom he would be both Sanctified and Glorified: That having thus foreknown them, he predestinated them to be holy, con∣formable to the Image of his Son: That these were to be called, not by a General Calling in the Sense of these words, Many are called, but few are chosen; but to be called according to his purpose:* 1.249 And those he justified upon their obeying that Calling; and he will in conclusion Glorify them. Nor are these words only to be limited to the Sufferings of good Men, they are to be extended to all the effects of the love of God, according to that which follows, That nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ. The whole Reasoning in the 9th of the Romans, does so plainly resolve all the acts of God's Mercy and Justice, his hardning as well as his pardoning, into an Absolute Freedom, and an Unsearchable Depth, that more ex∣press words to that effect can hardly be imagined.

It is in general said, That the children being yet unborn, neither having done good, or evil; that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of work, but of him that calleth; Iacob was loved and Esau hated:* 1.250 That God raised up Pharaoh that he might shew his power in him; and when an Objection is suggested against all this, instead of Answering it, it is silenced with this, Who art thou, O Man,

that repliest against God? And all is illustrated with the Figure of the Potter; and concluded with this solemn Question, What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering, the Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction? This carries the Reader to consider what is so often repeated in the Book of Exodus, concerning God's hardning the heart of Pharaoh,* 1.251 so that he would not let his people go. It is said, That God has made the wicked man for the day of evil; as it is written on the other hand, That as many believed the Gospel, as were appointed to eternal life. Some are said to be written in the book of life, of the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, or accord∣ing to God's purpose before the world began. Vngodly Men are said to be of old ordained to condemnation, and to be given up by God unto vile affections, and to be given over by him to a reprobate mind. Therefore they think that Repro∣bation is an absolute and free act of God, as well as Election, to manifest his Holiness and Justice in them who are under it, as well as his Love and Mercy is manifested in the Elect. Nor can they think with the Sublapsarians That Reprobation is only God's passing by those whom he does not elect; this is an act unworthy of God, as if he forgot them, which does clearly imply Imperfection. And as for that which is said concerning their being fallen in Adam, they argue, That either Adam's Sin, and the Connexion of all Mankind to him as their Head and Representative, was absolutely de∣creed, or it was not: If it was, then all is absolute; Adam's Sin and the Fall of Mankind were decreed, and by consequence all from the beginning to the end are under a continued Chain of Absolute Decrees; and then the Supralapsarian and the Sublapsarian Hypothesis will be one and the same, only variously expressed. But if Adam's Sin was only foreseen and permitted, then a conditionate Decree founded upon Prescience is once admitted, so that all that follows turns upon it; and then all the Arguments either against the Perfection of such Acts, or the Certainty of such a Prescience, turn against this; for if they are admitted in any one Instance, then they may be admitted in others as well as in that

The Sublapsarians do always avoid to answer this; and it seems they do ra∣ther incline to think that Adam was under an Absolute Decree; and if so, then tho' their Doctrine may seem to those who do not examin things nicely▪ to look more plausible; yet really it amounts to the same thing with the other. For it is all one to say, that God decreed that Adam should sin, and that all Mankind should fall in him, and that then God should chuse out of Man∣kind thus fallen by his Decree, such as he would save, and leave the rest in that lapsed state to perish in it; as it is to say, That God intending to save some, and to damn others, did, in order to the carrying this on in a method of of Justice, decree Adam's Fall, and the Fall of Mankind in him, in order to the saving of his El••ct, and the damning of the rest. All that the Sublapsarians say in this particular for themselves is, That the Scripture has not declared any thing concerning the Fall of Adam, in such formal terms, that they can affirm any thing concerning it. A Liberty of another kind seems to have been then in Man, when he was made after the Image of God, and before he was corrupted by Sin. And therefore though it is not easy to clear all dif∣ficulties in so Intricate a matter, yet it seems reasonable to think, that Man in a state of Innocency was a purer and a freer Creature to good, than now he is. But after all, this seems to be only a fleeing from the difficulty, to a less offensive way of talking of it; for if the Prescience of future Contin∣gents cannot be certain, unless they are decreed, then God could not cer∣tainly foreknow Adam's Sin, without he had made an Absolute Decree about it; and that as was just now said, is the same thing with the Supra∣lapsarians Hypothesis; of which shall say no more, having now laid toge∣ther

in a small compass, the full Strength of this Argument. I go next to set out with the same Fidelity and Exactness the Remonstrants Arguments.

They begin with this, That God is Just, Holy, and Merciful: That in speaking of himself in the Scripture with relation to those Attributes, he is pleased to make Appeals to Men, to call them to reason with him: Thus his Prophets did often bespeak the Iewish Nation; the meaning of which is, That God Acts so, that Men according to the Notions that they have of those Attributes, may examine them, and will be forced to justify and ap∣prove them. Nay, in these God proposes himself to us, as our Pattern; we ought to imitate him in them, and by consequence we may frame just Notions of them. We are required to be holy and merciful as he is merci∣ful. What then can we think of a Justice that shall condemn us for a Fact that we never committed, and that was done many Years before we were born? As also that designs first of all to be glorified by our being eternally miserable, and that decrees that we shall commit sins, to justify the pre∣vious Decree of our Reprobation? If those Decrees are thus originally de∣signed by God, and are certainly effectuated, then it is unconceivable how there should be a Justice in punishing that which God himself appointed by an Antecedent and Irreversible Decree should be done: So this seems to lye hard upon Justice. It is no less hard upon Infinite Holiness, to imagine that a Being of purer eyes than that it can behold iniquity,* 1.252 should by an Ante∣cedent Decree fix our committing so many Sins, in such a manner that it is not possible for us to avoid them: This is to make us to be born indeed under a Necessity of Sin; and yet this necessity is said to flow from the Act and Decrees of God: God represents himself always 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Scriptures as gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and abundant in goodness and truth.* 1.253 It is often said, That he desires that no man should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth. And this is said sometimes with the Solemnity of an Oath, As I live, saith the Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of sinners. They ask, What sense can such words bear, if we can believe that God did by an Absolute Decree reprobate so many of them? If all things that hap∣pen, do arise out of the Decree of God as its First Cause, then we must be∣lieve that God takes pleasure both in his own Decrees, and in the execu∣tion of them; and by consequence, that he takes pleasure in the death of sinners, and that in contradiction to the most express and most solemn words of Scripture. Besides, what can we think of the Truth of God, and of the Sincerity of those Offers of Grace and Mercy, with the Obtestations, the Exhortations, and Expostulations upon them, that occur so often in Scripture, if we can think that by Antecedent Acts of God he determined that all these should be ineffectual; so that they are only so many solemn words that do indeed signify nothing, if God intended that all things should fall out as they do, and if they do so fall out only because he intended it? The chief Foundation of this Opinion lies in this Argument as its Basis, That nothing can be believed, that contradicts the Justice, Holiness, the Truth and Purity of God; that these Attributes are in God according to our Notions concerning them, only they are in him infinitely more perfect; since we are required to imitate them. Whereas the Doctrine of Absolute Decrees does manifestly contradict the clearest Ideas that we can form of Justice, Holiness, Truth, and Goodness.

From the Nature of God they go to the Nature of Man; and they think that such an inward Freedom by which a Man is the Master of his own Acti∣ons, and can do or not do what he pleases, is so necessary to the Morality of our Actions, that without it our Actions are neither good nor evil, nei∣ther capable of Rewards or Punishments. Mad Men, or Men asleep, are

not to be charged with the good or evil of what they do; therefore at least some degrees of Liberty must be left with us, otherwise why are we praised or blamed for any thing that we do? If a Man thinks that he is under an Inevitable Decree, as he will have little remorse for all the Evil he does, while he imputes it to that inevitable Force that constrains him, so he will naturally conclude that it is to no purpose for him to struggle with Impos∣sibilities: And Men being inclined both to throw all blame off from them∣selves, and to indulge themselves in Laziness and Sloth, these Practices are too natural to Mankind to be encouraged by Opinions that favour them. All Virtue and Religion, all Discipline and Industry, must arise from this as their first Principle, That there is a Power in us to govern our own Thoughts and Actions, and to raise and improve our Faculties. If this is denied, all Endeavours, all Education, all pains either on our selves or others, are vain and fruitless things. Nor is it possible to make a Man believe other than this; for he does so plainly perceive that he is a free Agent; he feels himself balance matters in his Thoughts, and deliberate about them so evi∣dently, that he certainly knows he is a free Being.

This is the Image of God that is stampt upon his Nature; and tho' he feels himself often hurried on so impetuously, that he may seem to have lost his Fre••dom in some Turns, and upon some Occasions; yet he feels that he might have restrained that Heat in its first beginning; he feels he can divert his Thoughts, and master himself in most things, when he sets himself to it: He finds that Knowledge and Reflection, that good Company and good Exercises do tame and soften him, and that bad ones makes him wild, loose, and irregular. Fr••m all this they conclude, that Man is free, and not un∣der Inevitable Fate, or Irresistable Motions either to good or evil. All this they confirm from the whole Current of the Scripture, that is full of Per∣suasions, Exhortations, Reproofs, Expostulations, Encouragements, and Terrors; which are all vain and Theatrical things, if there are no free Powers in us to which they are addrest: To what purpose is it to speak to dead Men, to persuade the Blind to see, or the Lame to run? If we are un∣der an impotence till the Irresistable Grace comes, and if when it comes no∣thing can withstand it, then what occasion is there for all those solemn Dis∣courses, if they can have no effect on us? They cannot render us inexcu∣sable, unless it were in our power to be bettered by them; and to imagine that God gives Light and Blessings to those whom he before intended to Damn, only to make them inexcusable, when they could do them no good, and they will serve only to aggravate their Condemnation, gives so strange an Idea of that Infinite Goodness, that it is not fit to express it by those Terms which do naturally arise upon it.

It is as hard to suppose two contrary Wills in God, the one com∣manding us our Duty, and requiring us with the most solemn Ob∣testations to do it, and the other putting a certain Bar in our way, by Decreeing that we shall do the contrary. This makes God look as if he had a Will and a Will; though a Heart and a Heart import no good quality, when applied to Men: The one Will requires us to do our Duty, and the other makes it impossible for us not to sin: The Will for the good is ineffectual, while the Will that makes us sin is infallible. These things seem very hard to be apprehended; and whereas the Root of True Religion is the having right and high Ideas of God and of his Attributes, here such Ideas arise as naturally give us strange Thoughts of God; and if they are received by us as Originals upon which we are to Form our own Natures, such Notions may make us grow to be Spiteful, Imperious, and without Bowels, but do not seem proper to inspire us with Love, Mercy, and Com∣passion;

tho' God is always proposed to us in that view. All Preaching and Instruction does also suppose this: For to what purpose are Men called upon, taught, and endeavoured to be persuaded, if they are not free Agents, and have not a power over their own Thoughts, and if they are not to be convinced and turned by Reason? The Offers of Peace and Pardon that are made to all Men are, delusory things if they are by an Antecedent Act of God restrained only to a few, and all others are barred from them.

It is further to be considered, say they, That God having made Men free Creatures, his Governing them accordingly, and making his own Admini∣stration of the World suitable to it, is no diminution of his own Authority; it is only the carrying on of his own Creation according to the several Natures that he has put in that variety of Beings of which this World is composed, and with which it is diversified: Therefore if some of the Acts of God, with relation to-Man, are not so free as his other Acts are, and as we may suppose necessary to the ultimate Perfection of an Independent Being, This arises not from any defect in the Acts of God, but because the Nature of the Creature that he intended to make free, is inconsistent with such Acts.

The Divine Omnipotence is not lessened, when we observe some of his Works to be more beautiful and useful than others are; and the Irregular Productions of Nature do not derogate from the Order in which all Things appear lovely to the Divine Mind. So if that Liberty with which he in∣tended to endue Thinking Beings, is incompatible with such positive Acts, and so positive a Providence as governs Natural Things and this material World; then this is no way derogatory to the Sovereignty of his Mind. This does also give such an account of the Evil that is in the World, as does no way accuse or lessen the Purity and Holiness of God; since he only suf∣fers his Creatures to go on in the free use of those Powers that he has given them; about which he exercises a special Providence, making some Mens Sins to be the immediate Punishments of their own or of other Mens Sins; and restraining them often in a great deal of that Evil that they do design, and bringing out of it a great deal of Good that they did not design; but all is done in a way suitable to their Natures, without any violence to them.

It is true, it is not easy to shew how those future Contingences which depend upon the free choice of the Will, should be certain and in∣fallible. But we are on other accounts certain that it is so; for we see through the whole Scriptures a Thread of very positive Prophecies, the ac∣complishment of which depended on the free Will of Man; and these Pre∣dictions, as they were made very precisely, so they were no less punctual∣ly accomplished. Not to mention any other Prophecies, all those that re∣lated to the Death and Sufferings of Christ, were fulfilled by the free Acts of the Priests and People of the Iews: They sinned in doing it, which proves that they acted in it with their Natural Liberty. By these and all the other Prophecies that are in both Testaments, it must be confessed, that these things were certainly foreknown; but where to found that Certainy, cannot be easily resolved: The Infinite Perfection of the Divine Mind ought here to silence all Objections. A clear Idea by which we apprehend a thing to be plainly contrary to the Attributes of God, is indeed a just ground of rejecting it; and therefore they think that they are in the right to deny all such to be in God, as they plainly apprehend to be contrary to Justice, Truth, and Goodness: But if the Objection against any thing supposed to be in God, lies only against the manner and the unconceivableness of it, there the Infinite Perfection of God answers all.

It is further to be considered, That this Prescience does not make the Effects certain, because they are foreseen; but they are foreseen, because that they

are to be: So that the Certainty of the Prescience is not antecedent or causal, but subsequent and eventual. Whatsoever happens, was future before it happened; and since it happened, it was certainly future from all Eternity; not by a Certainty of Fate, but by a Certainty that arises out of its being once, from which this Truth, That it was future was eternally certain: Therefore the Divine Prescience being only the knowing all things that were to come; that ••oes not infer a Necessity or Causality.

The Scripture plai••••y shews on some occasions a conditionate Prescience; God answered David, That Saul was to come to Keilah, and that the Men of Keilah were to deliver him up;* 1.254 and yet both the one and the other was upon the condition of his staying there; and he going from thence, neither the one nor the other ever happen'd: Here was a Conditionate Prescience. Such was Christ's saying, That those of Tyre and Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrah, would have turned to him,* 1.255 if they had seen the Miracles that he wrought in some of the Towns of Galilee: Since then thisPrescience may be so certain, that it can never be mistaken, nor misguide theDesigns orProvidence of God; and since by this both the Attributes of God are vindicated, and the due Freedom of the Will of Man is asserted, all difficulties seem to be easily cleared this way.

As for the giving to some Nations and Persons the Means of Salvation, and the denying these to others, the Scriptures do indeed ascribe that wholly to the Riches and Freedom of God's Grace; but still they think, that he gives to all Men that which is necessary to the state in which they are, to answer the Obligations they are under in it: And that this Light and common Grace is sufficient to carry them so far, that God will either accept of i•• or give them further degrees of Illumination: From which it must be infer••••d, That all Men are inexcusable in his sight; and that God is always just and clear when he judges;* 1.256 since every Man had that which was sufficient, if not to save him, yet at least to bring him to a state of Salvation. But besides what is thus simply necessary, and is of it self suffici∣ent, th••r•• ••re innumerable Favours, like Largesses of God's Grace and Good∣ness; these ••od g••ves freely as he pleases.

And thus the great Designs of Providence go on according to the Good∣ness and Mercy of God. None can complain, tho' some have more cause 〈◊〉〈◊〉 rejoice and glory in God than others. What happens to Nations in a Body, may also happen to Individuals; some may have higher Privileges, ••e put in happier Circumstances, and have such Assistances given them as God foresees will become effectual, and not only those which though they be in their nature sufficient, yet in the Event will be ineffectual: Every Man ought to complain of himself for not using that which was sufficient, as he might have done; and all good Men will have matter of rejoycing in God, for giving them what he foresaw would prove effectual. After all, they acknowledge there is a depth in this, of God's not giving all Nations an equal measure of Light, nor putting all Men into equally happy Circum∣stances, which they cannot unriddle; but still Justice, Goodness, and Truth are saved; tho' we may imagine a Goodness that may do to all Men what is absolutely the best for them: And there they confess there is a difficulty, but not equal to those of the other side.

From hence it is that they expound all those Passages in the New Te∣stament, concerning the Purpose, the Election, the Foreknowledge, and the Predestination of God, so often mentioned. All those, they say, relate to God's design of calling the Gentile World to the knowledge of the Messias: This was k••pt secret, tho' Hints of it are given in several of the Prophets; so it was a Mystery; but it was then revealed, when according to Christ's Com∣mission to his Apostles, to go and teach all Nations, they went Preaching the

Gospel to the Gentiles. This was a Stumbling-block to the Iews, and it was the chief Subject of Controversy betwixt them and the Apostles at the time when the Epistles were writ: So it was necessary for them to clear this very fully, and to come often over it. But there was no need of amusing Peo∣ple in the beginnings of Christianity, and in that first infancy of it, with high and unsearchable Speculations concerning the Decrees of God: There∣fore they observe, that the Apostles shew how that Abraham at first, Isaac and Iacob afterwards, were chosen by a discriminating Favour, That they and their Posterity should be in Covenant with God: And upon that occa∣sion the Apostle goes on to shew, that God had always designed to call in the Gentiles, though that was not executed but by their Ministry.

With this Key one will find a plain coherent sense in all St. Paul's Discourses on this Subject, without asserting antecedent and special Decrees as to particu∣lar Persons. Things that happen under a permissive and directing Providence, may be also in a largeness of expression ascribed to the Will and Counsel of God; for a permissive and directing Will is really a Will, though it be not antecedent nor causal. The hardning Pharaoh's heart, may be ascribed to God, though it is said that his heart hardned it self;* 1.257 because he took occa∣sion from the stops God put in those Plagues that he sent upon him and his People, to encourage himself, when he saw there was a new Respite granted him: And he who was a cruel and bloody Prince, deeply engaged in Idola∣try and Magick, had deserved such Judgments for his other Sins, so that he may be well considered as actually under his final Condemnation, only un∣der a Reprieve, not swallowed up in the first Plagues, but preserved in them, and raised up out of them, to be a lasting Monument of the Justice of God against such hardned Impenitency. Whom he will, he hardneth,* 1.258 must be still restrained to such Persons as that Tyrant was.

It is endless to enter into the discussion of all the Passages cited from the Scripture to this purpose; this Key serving as they think it does, to open most of them. It is plain these Words of our Saviour concerning those whom the Father had given him are only to be meant of a Dispensation of Providence, and and not of a Decree; since he adds, And I have lost none of them,* 1.259 except the son of Perdition: For it cannot be said that he was in the Decree, and yet was lost. And in th•• same Period in which God is said to work in us both to will and to do, we are required to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. The Word rendered, ordained to eternal life, does also signify, fit∣ted or predisposed to Eternal Life. That Question, Who made thee to differ?* 1.260 seems to refer to those Gifts which in different degrees and measures were poured out on the first Christians; in which Men were only passive, and discriminated from one another by the freedom of those Gifts, without any thing previous in them to dispose them to them.

Christ is said to be the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world,* 1.261 and the wic∣ked are said to deny the Lord that bought them; and his Death as to its extent to all men, is set in opposition to the Sin of Adam; so that as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, so by the righteousness of one,* 1.262 the free gift came upon all men to justification of life. The all of the one fide must be of the same extent with the all of the other: So since all are concerned in Adam's Sin, all must be likewise concerned in the Death of Christ. This they urge further, with this Argument, That all Men are obliged to be∣lieve in the Death of Christ, but no Man can be obliged to believe a Lye; therefore it follows that he must have died for all. Nor can it be thought that Grace is so efficacious of it self, as to determine us; otherwise why are we required not to grieve God's Spirit? Why is it said,* 1.263 Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye? How often would I have gathered you

under my wings, but ye would not? What more could I have done in my vineyard, that has not been done in it? These seem to be plain Intimations of a Power in us,* 1.264 by which we not only can, but often do resist the Motions of Grace.

If the determining Efficacy of Grace is not acknowledged, it will be yet much harder to believe that we are efficaciously determined to Sin. This seems to be not only contrary to the Purity and Holiness of God, but is so manifestly contrary to the whole Strain of the Scriptures, that charges Sin upon Men, that in so copious a Subject it is not necessary to bring Proofs.* 1.265 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thy self, but in me is thy help: And, ye will not come unto me, that ye may have life: Why will you dye, O house of Israel? And as for that Nicety of saying, That the Evil of Sin consists in a Negation, which is not a positive Being, so that though God should deter∣mine Men to the Action that is sinful, yet he is not concerned in the Sin of it: They think it is too Metaphysical, to put the Honour of God and his Attributes upon such a Subtilty: For in Sins against Moral Laws, there seems to be an Antecedent Immorality in the Action it self, which is inseparable from it. But suppose that Sin consisted in a Negative, yet that Privation does immediately and necessarily result out of the Action, without any o∣ther thing whatsoever intervening: So that if God does infallibly deter∣mine a Sinner to commit the Action to which that Guilt belongs, tho' that should be a Sin only by reason of a Privation that is dependent upon it, then it does not appear but that he is really the Author of Sin; since if he is the Author of the sinful Action, on which the Sin depends as a Shadow upon its Substance, he must be esteemed, say they, the Author of Sin.

And though it may be said, That Sin being a Violation of God's Law, he himself, who is not bound by his Law, cannot be guilty of Sin; yet an Action that is Immoral, is so essentially opposite to Infinite Perfection, that God cannot be capable of it, as being a contradiction to his own Nature. Nor is it to be supposed that he can Damn Men for that, which is the ne∣cessary result of an Action to which he himself determined them.

As for Perseverance, the many Promises made in the Scriptures to them that overcome,* 1.266 that continue stedfast and faithful to the death, seem to insi∣nuate, that a Man may fall from a good state. Those famous Words in the Sixth of the Hebrews,* 1.267 do plainly intimate, That such men may so fall away, that it may be impossible to renew them again by repentance. And in that Epi∣stle,* 1.268 where it is said, The just shall live by faith; it is added, but if he draw back (any man is not in the Original) my Soul shall have no pleasure in him. And it is positively said by the Prophet,* 1.269 When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned; in his sin that he hath sinned shall he dye. These Suppositions, with a great many more of the same strain that may be brought out of other places, do give us all possible reason to believe, that a good Man may fall from a good state, as well as that a wicked Man may turn from a bad one. In conclusion, the End of all things, the Final Judgment at the Last Day, which shall be pronounced according to what Men have done, whether good or evil, and their being to be rewarded and punished according to it, seems so effectually to assert a Freedom in our Wills, that they think this alone might serve to prove the whole Cause.

So far I have set forth the Force of the Argument on the side of the Re∣monstrants. As for the Socinians, they make their Plea out of what is said by the one and by the other side. They agree with the Remonstrants in all that they say against Absolute Decrees, and in urging all those Consequences that do arise out of them: And they do also agree with the Calvinists in all that they urge against the possibility of a certain Prescience of future Con∣tingents:

So that it will not be necessary to set forth their Plea more spe∣cially, nor needs more be said in opposition to it, than what was already said as part of the Remonstrants Plea. Therefore without dwelling any longer on that, I come now to make some Reflections upon the whole Matter.

It is at first view apparent, That there is a great deal of weight in what has been said of both Sides: So much, that it is no wonder if Education, the constant attending more to the Difficulties of the one side than of the other, and a Temper some way proportioned to it, does fix Men very steddily to either the one or the other Persuasion. Both Sides have their Difficulties, so it will be natural to chuse that Side where the Difficulties are least felt: But it is plain there is no reason for either of them to despise the other, since the Arguments of both are far from being contemptible.

It is further to be observed, That both Sides seem to be chiefly concern∣ed to assert the Honour of God, and of his Attributes. Both agree in this, That whatever is fixed as the primary Idea of God, all other things must be Explained so as to be consistent with that. Contradictions are never to be admitted; but things may be justly believed, against which Objections may be formed that cannot be easily answered.

The one Side think, That we must begin with the Idea of Infinite Per∣fection, of Independency and Absolute Soveraignty: And if in the Sequel Difficulties occur which cannot be cleared, that ought not to shake us from this primary Idea of God.

Others think, That we cannot frame such clear Notions of Indepen∣dency, Soveraignty, and Infinite Perfection, as we can do of Justice, Truth, Holiness, Goodness, and Mercy: And since the Scripture proposes God to us most frequently under those Ideas, they think that we ought to fix on these as the primary Ideas of God, and then reduce all other things to them.

Thus both Sides seem zealous for God and his Glory: Both lay down General Maxims that can hardly be Disputed; and both argue justly from their First Principles. These are great Grounds for mutual Charity and Forbearance in these Matters.

It is certain, That one who has long interwoven his Thoughts of Infi∣nite Perfection, with the Notions of Absolute and Unchangeable Decrees, of carrying on every thing by a positive Will, of doing every thing for his own Glory, cannot apprehend Decrees depending on a foreseen Free-will, a Grace Subject to it, a Merit of Christ's Death that's lost, and a Man's being at one time loved, and yet finally hated of God, without horror. These things seem to carry in them an appearance of feebleness, of depen∣dence, and of changeableness.

On the other hand; a Man that has accustomed himself to think often on the Infinite Goodness and Mercy, the Long-suffering, Patience, and Slowness to Anger that appears in God; he cannot let the Thought of Ab∣solute Reprobation, or of determining Men to Sin, or of not giving them the Grace necessary to keep them from Sin and Damnation, enter into his Mind, without the same horror that another feels in the Reverse of all this.

So that the Source of both Opinions being the different Ideas that they have of God, and both these Ideas being true; Men only mistaking in the Extent of them; and in the Consequences drawn from them; here are the clearest Grounds imaginable for a mutual Forbearance, for not judg∣ing Men imperiously, nor censuring them severely upon either Side. And those who have at different Times of their Lives been of both Opini∣ons, and who upon the Evidence of Reason, as it has appeared to them,

have changed their Persuasions, can speak more affirmatively here: For they know, that in great sincerity of Heart they have thought both ways.

Each Opinion has some Practical Advantages of its side. A Calvinist is ••aught by his Opinions, To think meanly of himself, and to ascrib•• the honour of all to God: Which lays in him a deep foundation for Humility▪ he is also much inclined to secret Prayer, and to a fixed dependence on God; which naturally both brings his Mind to a good state, and fixes it in it. And so though perhaps he cannot give a coherent account of the Grounds of his Watchfulness and Care of himself; yet that Temper ari∣ses out of his Humility, and his Earnestness in Prayer. A Remonstrant, on the other hand, is ingaged to awaken and improve his Faculties, to fill his Mind with good Notions, to raise them in himself by frequent Reflecti∣on, and by a constant Attention to his own Actions: He sees caus•• to re∣proach himself for his Sins, and to set about his Duty to purpose: Being assured that it is through his own fault if he miscarries: He has no dread∣ful Terrors upon his Mind; nor is he tempted to an undue Security; or to swell up in (perhaps) an imaginary Conceit of his being unalterably in the Favour of God.

Both Sides have their peculiar Temptati••ns as well as their Advantages: The Calvinist is tempted to a false Security, and Sloth: And the Arminian may be tempted to trust too much to himself, and too little to God. So equally may a Man of a calm Temper, and of moderate Thoughts, ba∣lance this Matter between both the Sides: And so unreasonable it is to give way to a positive and dictating Temper in this Point. If the Ar∣minian is zealous to assert Liberty it is because he cannot see, how there can be Good or Evil in the World without it: He thinks it is the Work of God, that he has made for great Ends; and therefore he can al∣low of nothing that he thinks destroys it. If on the oth••r hand a Calvinist seems to break in upon Liberty, it is because he cannot reconcile it with the Sovereignty of God, and the Freedom of his Grace: And he grows to think that it is an Act of Devotion to offer up the one to save the other.

The common Fault of both Sides is, To charge one another with the Consequences of their Opinions, as if they were truly their Tenets. Whereas they are apprehensive enough of these Consequences, they have no mind to them, and they fancy that by a few distinctions they can avoid them. But each Side thinks the Consequences of the other are both worse, and more certainly fastned to that Doctrine, than the Consequences that are urged against himself are. And so they think they must chuse that Opinion that is the least perplexed and difficult: Not but that Ingenuous and Learned Men of all Sides confess, that they feel themselves very often pinched in these Matters.

Another very indecent way of managing these Points, is, That both Sides do too often speak very boldly of God. Some petulent Wits in or∣der to the representing the contrary Opinion as Absurd and Ridiculous, have brought in God, representing him with indecent Expressions, as Acting or Decreeing according to their Hypothesis, in a manner that is not only Unbecoming, but that borders upon Blasphemy. From which though they think to escape by saying, That they are only shewing what must follow if the other Opinion were believed; yet there is a Solemnity and Gravity of Stile that ought to be most religiously observed, when we poor Mortals take upon us to speak of the Glory or Attributes, the Decrees or Operations of the Great God of Heaven and Earth: And every thing relating to this, that is put in a burlesque Air, is intolerable. It is a sign of a very daring Presumption to pretend to assign the Order of all the

Acts of God, the Ends proposed in them, and the Methods by which they are Executed. We who do not know how our Thoughts carry our Bo∣dies to obey and second our Minds, should not imagine that we can con∣ceive how God may move or bend our Wills. The hard thing to digest in this whole Matter, is Reprobation: They who think it necessary to as∣sert the freedom of Election, would fain avoid it: They seek soft words for it, such as the passing by, or leaving Men to perish: They study to put that on Adam's Sin, and they take all the methods they can to soften an Opinion that seems harsh, and that sounds ill. But howsoever they will bear all the Consequences of it, rather than let the Point of Absolute Electi∣on go.

On the other side, Those who do once persuade themselves that the Do∣ctrine of Reprobation is false, do not see how they can deny it, and yet ascribe a free Election to God. They are once persuaded that there can be no Reprobation but what is conditionate, and founded on what is foreseen concerning Mens Sins: And from this they are forced to say the same thing of Election. And both sides study to begin the Controversy with that which they think they can the most easily prove; the one at the Establishing of Election, and the other at the overthrowing of Repro∣bation. Some have studied to seek out middle-ways: For they observing that the Scriptures are writ in a great diversity of Stile, in Treating of the Good or Evil that happens to us, ascribing the one to God, and im∣puting the other to our selves, teaching us to ascribe the honour of all that is Good to God, and to cast the blame of all that is Evil upon our selves, have from thence concluded, That God must have a different Influence and Causality in the one, from what he has in the other: But when they go to make this out, they meet with great Difficulties; yet they chuse to bear these rather than to involve themselves in those equally great, if not greater Difficulties, that are in either of the other Opinions. They wrap up all in Two General Assertions, that are great Practical Truths, Let us Arro∣gate no good to our selves, and impute no evil to God, and so let the whole matter rest. This may be thought by some the lazier, as well as the safer way; which avoids Difficulties, rather than answers them; whereas they say of both the Contending Sides, That they are better at the starting of Difficulties than at the resolving of them.

Thus far I have gone upon the general, in making such Reflections as will appear but too well grounded to those who have with any Attention read the chief Disputants of both Sides. In these great Points all agree; That Mercy is freely offered to the World in Christ Jesus: That God did freely offer his Son to be our Propitiation, and has freely accepted the Sa∣crifice of his Death in our stead, whereas he might have Condemned every Man to have perished for his own Sins. That God does in the Dispensation of this Gospel, and the Promulgation of it to the several Nations, act ac∣cording to the Freedom of his Grace, upon Reasons that are to us myste∣rious and past finding out: That every Man is inexcusable in the sight of God: That all Men are so far free as to be praise-worthy or blame-worthy for the Good or Evil that they do: That every Man ought to employ his Faculties all he can, and to pray and depend earnestly upon God for his Protection and Assistance: That no Man in Practice ought to think that there is a Fate or Decree hanging over him, and so become slothful in his Duty, but that every Man ought to do the best he can, as if there were no such Decree, since whether there is or is not, it is not possible for him to know what it is: That every Man ought to be deeply humbled for his Sins in the sight of God, without excusing himself by pretending a Decree was

upon him, or a want of Power in him: That all Men are bound to obey the Rules set them in the Gospel, and are to expect neither Mercy nor Fa∣vour from God, but as they set themselves diligently about that: And finally, That at the Last Day all Men shall be Judged, not according to secret Decrees, but according to their own Works. In these great Truths, of which the greater part are Practical, all Men agree. If they would agree as honestly in the Practice of them, as they do in Confessing them to be true, they would do that which is much more important and necessary, than to speculate and dispute about Niceties; by which the World would quickly put on a new Face, and then those few that might delight in curious Searches and Arguments, would manage them with more Modesty and less Heat, and be both less positive and less supercilious.

I have hitherto insisted on such general Reflections as seemed proper to these Questions. I come now in the last place to examine how far our Church hath determined the Matter, either in this Article or elsewhere: How far she hath restrained her Sons, and how far she hath left them at li∣berty. For those different Opinions being so intricate in themselves, and so apt ••o raise hot Disputes, and to kindle lasting Quarrels, it will not be suita∣ble to that Moderation which our Church hath observed in all other things, to s••retch her Words on these Heads beyond their strict sense. The natural equity or reason of things ought rather to carry us on the other hand to as great a Comprehensiveness of all sides, as may well consist with the Words in which our Church has expressed herself on those Heads.

It is not to be denied, but that the Article seems to be framed according to St. Austin's Doctrine: It supposes Men to be under a Curse and Damnation, ante∣cedently to Predestination, from which they are delivered by it, so it is directly against the S••pralapsarian Doctrine: Nor does the Article make any mention of Reprobation, no, not in a hint: no Definition is made concerning it. The Article does also seem to assert the Efficacy of Grace: That in which the Knot of the whole Dfficulty lies, is not Defined; that is, Whether God's Eternal Purpose or Decree was made according to what he foresaw his Crea∣tures would do, or purely upon an Absolute Will, in order to his own Glory. It is very probable, that those who Penned it, meant that the Decree was Absolute; but yet since they have not said it, those who sub∣scribe the Articles do not seem to be bound to any thing that is not ex∣pressed in them: And therefore since the Remonstrants do not deny but that God having foreseen what all Mankind would, according to all the different Circumstances in which they should be put, do or not do, he upon that did by a firm and Eternal Decree lay that whole Design in all its Branches, which he Executes in time; they may subscribe this Article without re∣nouncing their Opinion as to this matter. On the other hand, the Cal∣vinists have less occasion for Scruple; since the Article does seem more plainly to favour them. The Three Cautions that are added to it, do likewise intimate, that St. Austin's Doctrine was designed to be settled by the Article: For the danger of Mens having the sentence of God's Predestina∣tion always before their eyes, which may occasion either desperation on the one hand, or the wretchlesness of most unclean living on the other, belongs only to that side; since these Mischiefs do not arise out of the other Hypothesis. The other Two, of taking the Promises of God in the sense in which they are set forth to us in Holy Scriptures; and of following that Will of God that is expresly declared to us in the Word of God, relate very visibly to the same Opinion: Though others do infer from these Cautions, That the Doctrine laid down in the Article must be so understood as to agree with these Cau∣tions; and therefore they argue, That since Absolute Predestination can∣not

consist with them, that therefore the Article is to be otherwise explain∣ed. They say the natural Consequence of an Absolute Decree, is either Presumption or Despair; since a Man upon that bottom reckons, That which way soever the Decree is made, it must certainly be accomplished. They also argue, That because we must receive the Promises of God as conditional, we must also believe the Decree to be conditional, for Abso∣lute Decrees exclude conditional Promises. An Offer cannot be supposed to be made in earnest, by him that has excluded the greatest number of Men from it by an antecedent Act of his own. And if we must only follow the revealed Will of God, we ought not to suppose that there is an An∣tecedent and Positive Will of God, that has decreed our doing the contrary to what he has commanded.

Thus the one side argues, That the Article as it lies, in the plain mean∣ing of those who conceived it, does very expresly establish their Doctrine: And the other argues from those Cautions that are added to it, That it ought to be understood so as that it may agree with these Cautions. And both sides find in the Article it self such grounds, that they reckon they do not renounce their Opinions by subscribing it. The Remonstrant side have this further to add, That the Universal Extent of the Death of Christ seems to be very plainly affirmed in the most solemn part of all the Offices of the Church: For in the Office of Communion, and in the Prayer of Consecra∣tion, we own, That Christ by the one Oblation of himself once offered, made there a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation and Satisfaction for the Sins of the whole World. Though the others say, That by full, perfect, and sufficient, is not to be understood that Christ's Death was intended to be a compleat Sacrifice and Satisfaction for the whole World, but that in its own Value it was capable of being such. This is thought too great a stretch put upon the words. And there are yet more express words in our Church-Catechism to this purpose; which is to be considered as the most solemn Declaration of the sense of the Church, since that is the Doctrine in which she instructs all her Children: And in that part of it which seems to be most important, as being the short Summary of the Apostles Creed, it is said, God the Son, who hath redeemed me and all Mankind: Where all must stand in the same Extent of Universality, as in the precedent and in the following words; The Father who made me and all the World; the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the Elect People of God; which being to be understood severely, and without exception, this must also be taken in the same strictness. There is another Argument brought from the Office of Baptism, to prove that men may fall from a state of Grace and Re∣generation: for in the whole Office, more particularly in the Thanksgiv∣ing after the Baptism, it is affirmed, That the Person baptized is Regene∣rated by God's Holy Spirit, and is received for his own Child by Adoption: Now since it is certain that many who are baptized, fall from that state of Grace, this seems to import, That some of the Regenerate may fall a∣way: Which tho' it agree well with St. Austin's Doctrine, yet it does not agree with the Calvinists Opinions.

Thus I have examined this matter in as short a compass as was possible; and yet I do not know that I have forgot any important part of the whole Controversy, though it is large, and has many Branches. I have kept as far as I can perceive, that Indifference which I proposed to my self in the prosecuting of this matter; and have not on this occasion declared my

own Opinion, though I have not avoided the doing it upon other occa∣sions. Since the Church has not been peremptory, but that a Latitude has been left to different Opinions, I thought it became me to make this Explanation of the Article such: And therefore I have not endeavoured to possess the Reader with that which is my own sense in this matter, but have laid the Force of the Arguments, as well as the Weight of the Diffi∣culties of both Sides before him, with all the Advantages that I had found in the Books either of the one or of the other Persuasion. And I leave the Choice as free to my Reader, as the Church has done.

ARTICLE XVIII. Of obtaining Eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.

They also are to be accursed, that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth; so that he be diligent to frame his Life according to that Law, and the Light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Iesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

THE Impiety that is condemned in this Article, was first taug htby some of the Heathen Oraters and Philosophers in the Fourth Cen∣tury, who in their Addresses to the Christian Emperors for the Tolerance of Paganism, started this Thought, that how lively soever it may seem, when well set off in a piece of Eloquence, will not bear a severe Argu∣ment: That God is more honoured by the Varieties and different Me∣thods of worshipping and serving him, than if all should fall into the same way: That this diversity has a Beauty in it, and a suitableness to the In∣finite Perfections of God; and it does not look so like a mutual agreement or concert, as when all Men worship him one way. But this is rather a Flash of Wit, than true Reasoning.

The Alcoran has carried this matter further to the asserting, That all Men in all Religions are equally acceptable to God, if they serve him faithfully in them. The infusing this into the World, that has a shew of Mercy in it, made Men more easy to receive their Law; and they took care by their extream Severity to fix them in it, when they were once en∣gaged; for though they use no Force to make Men Musselmans, yet they punish with all extremity every thing that looks like Apostacy from it, if it is once received. The Doctrine of Leviathan, that makes Law to be Religion, and Religion to be Law, that is, that obliges Subjects to believe that Religion to be true, or at least to follow that which is enacted by the Laws of their Countrey; must be built either on this foundation, That there is no such thing as Revealed Religion, but that it is only a Political Contrivance; or that all Religions are equally acceptable to God.

Others having observ'd that it was a very small part of Mankind that had the advantages of the Christian Religion, have thought it too cruel to damn in their thoughts all those who have not heard of it, and yet have lived morally and virtuously, according to their Light and Education. And some, to make themselves and others easy, in accommodating their Religion to their se∣cular Interests, to excuse their changing, and to quiet their Consciences, have set up this Notion, that seems to have a largeness both of good Nature and Charity in it; looks plausiable, and is calculated to take in the greatest Numbers; They therefore suppose that God in his Infinite Goodness will accept equally the Services that all his Creratures offer to him, according to the best of their skill and strength.

In opposition to all which, they are here condemned, who think that every Man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth: Where a great difference is to be observed between the words saved by the Law, and saved in the Law; the one is condemned but not the other. To be saved by a Law or Sect, signifies, That by the virtue of that Law or Sect such Men who follow it may be saved: Whereas to be saved in a Law or Sect, imports only, That God may extend his Compassions to Men that are engaged in false Religions. The former is only condemned by this Article, which af∣firms nothing concerning the other. In sum; if we have fully proved that

the Christian Religion was delivered to the World in the Name of God, and was attested by Miracles, so that we believe it's Truth, we must believe every part and tittle of it, and by consequence those Passages which de∣nounce the Wrath and Judgments of God against Impenitent Sinners, and that promise Mercy and Salvation only upon the account of Christ and his Death:* 1.270 We must believe with our hearts, and confess it with our mouths: We must not be ashamed of Christ or of his words, lest he should be ashamed of us, when he comes in the glory of his Father with his holy Angels. This I say, being a part of the Gospel, must be as true as the Gospel it self is; and these Rules must bind all those to whom they are proposed whether they are enacted by Law or not: For if we are assured that they are a part of the Law of the King of Kings, we are bound to believe and obey them whe∣ther Human Laws do favour them or not; it being an evident thing, that no subordinate Authority can derogate from that which is superior to it: So if the Laws of God are clearly revealed, and certainly conveyed down to us, we are bound by them, and no Human Law can dissolve this Obliga∣tion. If God has declared his Will to us, it can never be supposed to be free to us to chuse whether we will obey it or not, and serve him under that or under another Form of Religion, at our pleasure and choice. We are limited by what God has declared to us, and we must not fancy our selves to be at liberty after he has revealed his Will to us.

As to such to whom the Christian Religion is revealed, there no questi∣on can be made, for it is certain they are under an indispensable Obligation to obey and follow that which is so graciously revealed to them: They are bound to follow it according to what they are in their Consciences per∣suaded is its true sense and meaning. And if for any Secular Interest they chuse to comply with that which they are convinced is an Important Error, and is condemned in the Scripture, they do plainly shew that they prefer Lands, Houses, and Life, to the Authority of God, in whose Will, when revealed to them, they are bound to acquiesce.

The only difficulty remaining, is concerning those who never heard of this Religion, Whether, or How can they be saved? St. Paul having di∣vided the World into Iews and Gentiles, called by him those who were in the Law, and who were without Law; he says, Those who sinned with∣out Law,* 1.271 that is, out of the Mosaical Dispensation, shall be judged without Law, that is, upon another foot. For he adds, when the Gentiles which have not the Law, do by nature things contained in the Law, (That is, the Moral parts of it) these having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves; (that is, their Consci∣ences are to them instead of a Written Law); which shew the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. This implies that there are ei∣ther Seeds of Knowledg and Virtue laid in the Nature of Man, or that such Notions pass among them, as are carried down by Tradition. The same S. Paul says, How can they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?* 1.272 and how can they hear without a Prea∣cher? Which seems plainly to intimate, that Men cannot be bound to believe, and by consequence cannot be punished for not believing, unless the Gospel is preached to them. St. Peter said to Cornelius, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons;* 1.273 but in every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. Those places seem to import, that those who make the best use they can of that small measure of Light that is given them, shall be judged according to it; and that God will not re∣quire more of them than he has given them. This also agrees so well with ••he Ideas which we have both of Justice and Goodness, that this Opinion

wants not special colours to make it look well. But on the other hand, the Pardon of Sin, and the Favourof God, are so positively limited to the believing in Christ Jesus, and it is so expresly said, That there is no salvati∣on in any other;* 1.274 and that there is none other name (or Authority) under Hea∣ven given among Men, whereby we must be saved; that the distinction which can only be made in this matter, is this, That it is only on the Account, and in the Consideration of the Death of Christ, that Sin is pardoned, and men are saved.

This is the only Sacrifice in the sight of God; so that whosoever are received into mercy, have it through Christ as the Channel and Convey∣ance of it. But it is not so plainly said that no Man can be saved, unless he has an explicit Knowledge of this, together with a belief in it. Few in the Old Dispensation could have that: Infants, and Innocents, or Ideots have it not, and yet it were a bold thing to say that they may not be saved by it. So it does not appear to be clearly Revealed, That none shall be saved by the Death of Christ, unless they do explicitely both know it, and believe in it. Since it is certain, That God may pardon Sin only upon that score, without obliging all Men to believe in it, especially when it is not Revealed to them. And here another distinction is to be made, which will clear this whole mat∣ter, and all the difficulties that arise out of it.

A great difference is to be made between a Foederal certainty of Salvati∣on, secured by the Promises of God, and of this New Covenant in Christ Je∣sus, and the extent to which the Goodness and Mercy of God may go. None are in a Foederal State of Salvation but Christians: To them is given the Covenant of Grace, and to them the promises of God are made and offer∣ed; So that they have a certainty of it upon their performing those con∣ditions that are put in the promises. All others are out of this Promise to whom the Tidings of it were never brought; but yet a great difference is to be made between them, and those who have been invited to this Covenant, and admitted to the outward Profession, and the common Privileges of it, and that yet have in effect rejected it: These are under such positive denun∣ciations of Wrath and Judgment, that there is no room left for any charita∣ble Thoughts or Hopes concerning them: So that if any part of the Gospel is true, that must be also true, that they are under Condemnation,* 1.275 for having lov d darkness more than light, when the Light shone upon them, and visi∣t••d them. But as for them whom God has left in Darkness, they are cer∣tainly out of the Covenant, out of those Promises and Declarations that are made in it. So that they have no Foederal Right to be saved, neither can we affirm that they shall be saved: But on the other hand, they are not under those positive denunciations, because they were never made to them: Therefore since God has not declared that they shall be damned, no more ought we to take upon us to damn them.

Instead of stretching the severity of Justice by an Inference, we may ra∣ther venter to stretch the Mercy of God, since that is the Attribute which of all others is the most Magnificently spoken of in the Scriptures: So that we ought to think of it in the largest and most comprehensive manner. But indeed the most proper way is, for us to stop where the Revelation of God stops: And not to be wise beyond what is written; but to leave the se∣crets of God as Mysteries too far above us to examine, or to sound their depth. We do certainly know on what terms we our selves shall be saved or damned: And we ought to be contented with that, and rather stu∣dy to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, than to let our minds run out into uncertain Speculations concerning the Measures and the Conditions of God's uncovenanted Mercies: We ought to take all possible

care that we our selves come not into Condemnation, rather than to define positively of others, who must, or who must not, be condemned.

It is therefore enough to fix this according to the Design of the Article, That it is not to free Men to chuse at pleasure what Religion they will, as if that were left to them, or that all Religions were alike; which strikes at the Foundation, and undermines the Truth of all Revealed Re∣ligion. None are within the Covenant of Grace but true Christians, and all are excluded out of it, to whom it is offered, who do not receive and believe it, and live according to it. So in a word, all that are saved, are saved through Christ; but whether all these shall be called to the Explicite Knowledge of him, is more than we have any good ground to affirm. Nor are we to go into that other Question; Whether any that are only in a state of Nature, live fully up to its Light? This is that about which we can have no certainty, no more than whether there may be a Common Grace given to them all, proportioned to their State, and to the Obligations of it. This in general may be safely believed, That God will never be wanting to such as do their utmost endeavours in order to the saving of their Souls: But that as in the Case of Cornelius, an Angel will be sent, and a Miracle be wrought, rather than that such a Person shall be left to perish. But whether any of them do ever arrive at that state, is more than we can determine, and it is a vain attempt for us to endeavour to find it out.

ARTICLE. XIX. Of the Church.

The Uisible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duely administred according to Christ's Ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their Li∣ving and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

THIS Article, together with some that follow it, Relates to the Fun∣damental difference between us and the Church of Rome: They teaching that we are to judge of Doctrines by the Authority and the De∣cisions of the Church; whereas we affirm, That we are first to examine the Doctrine, and according to that, to judge of the Purity of a Church. Some∣what was already said on the Sixth Article relating to this matter: What re∣mains, is now to be considered.

The whole Question is to be reduced to this Point, Whether we ought to Examine and Judge of Matters of Religion, according to the Light and Fa∣culty of judging that we have; or if we are bound to submit in all things to the Decision of the Church? Here the matter must be determined against private Judgment, by very express and clear Authorities, other wise the other side proves it self. For we having naturally a Faculty of judging for our selves, and using it in all other things, this freedom being the greatest of all our other Rights, must be still asserted, unless it can be made appear, that God has in some things put a Bar upon it by his Supreme Authority.

That Authority must be very express, if we are required to submit to it in a Point of such vast Importance to us. We do also see that Men are apt to be mistaken, and are apt likewise willingly to mistake, and to mislead o∣thers: and that particularly in matters of Religion the World has been so much imposed upon and abused, that we cannot be bound to submit to any sort of persons implicitely, without very good and clear grounds that do as∣sure us of their Infallibility: Otherwise we have just reason to suspect that in matters of Religion, chiefly in Points in which Human Interests are concern∣ed, Men may either through Ignorance, and Weakness, or Corruption, and on Design, abuse and mislead us. So that the Authorities or Proofs of this Infallibility must be very express; since we are sure no Man nor Body of Men can have it among them, but by a Privilege from God; and a Privilege of so extraordinary a nature must be given, if at all, in very plain, and with very evident Characters; since without these, Human Nature cannot and ought not to be so tame as to receive it. We must not draw it from an Infer∣ence, because we think we need it, and cannot be safe without it, That therefore it must be so, because if it were not so, great Disorder would arise from the want of it. This is certainly a wrong way of arguing. If God has clearly revealed it, we must acquiesce in it, because we are sure if he has lodged Infallibility any where, he will certainly maintain his own Work, and not require us to believe any one implicitly, and not the same time preserve us from the danger of being deceived by him. But we must not persume from our Notions of things to give Rules to God. It were, as we may

think, very necessary that Miracles should be publickly done from time to time, for convincing every Age and Succession of Men; and that good Men should be so assisted as generally to live without Sin: These and se∣veral other things may seem to us extreme convenient, and even necessary; but things are not so ordered for all that. It is also certain, That if God has lodged such an Infallibility on Earth, it ought not to be in such hands as do naturally heighten our Prejudices against it. It will go against the grain to believe it, though all outward appearances lookt ever so fair for it: But it will be an unconceivable method of Providence, if God should lodge so wonderful an Authority in hands that look so very unlike it, that of all others we should the least expect to find it with them.

If they have been guilty of Notorious Impostures, to support their own Authority, if they have committed great Violences to extend it, and have been for some Ages together engaged in as many false, unjust, and cruel Practices, as are perhaps to be met with in any History; These are such pre∣judices that at least they must be overcome by very clear and unquestiona∣ble Proofs: And finally, if God has setled such a Power in his Church, we must be distinctly directed to those in whose hands it is put, so that we may fall into no mistake in so important a Matter. This will be the more necessary, if there are different pretenders to it: We cannot be supposed to be bound to believe an Infallibility in general, unless we have an equal Evidence directing us to those with whom it rests, and who have the dis∣pensing of it. These general Considerations are of great weight in Deci∣ding this Question, and will carry us far into some Preliminaries, which will appear to be indeed great steps towards the conclusion of the matter.

There are Three ways by which it may be pretended that Infallibility can be proved: The one is, the way of Moses and the Prophets, of Christ and his Apostles, who by clear and unquestionable Miracles, publickly done and well attested, or by express and circumstantiated Prophecies of things to come, that came afterwards to be verified, did evidently demonstrate that they were sent of God: Wheresoever we see such Characters, and that a Miracle is wrought by Men who say they are sent of God, which can∣not be denied nor avoided; and if what such Persons deliver to us is nei∣ther contrary to our Ideas of God, and of Morality, nor to any thing already revealed by God; there we must conclude that God has lodged an Infallible Authority with them, as long and as far as that Character is stampt upon it.

That is not pretended here: For though they study to persuade the World that Miracles are still among them, yet they do not so much as say, that the Miracles are wrought by those with whom this Infallibility is lodged, and that they are done to prove them to be Infallible. For though God should bestow the Gift of Miracles upon some particular Persons among them, that is no more an Argument that their Church is Infallible, than the Miracles that Elijah or Elisha wrought, were Arguments to prove that the Iewish Church was Infallible. Indeed the Publick Miracles that belong'd to the whole Body, such as the Cloud of Glory, the Answers by the Vrim and Thummim, the Trial of Jealousy, and the constant Plenty of the Sixth Year, as preparatory to the Sabbatical Year, seem more reasonably to infer an Infallibility; because these were given to that whole Church and Nation. But yet the Iewish Church was far from being Infallible all that while; for we see they fell all in a Body into Idolatry upon several occasions: Those Publick Miracles proved nothing but that for which they were given, which was, That Moses was sent of God, and that his Law was from God, which they saw was still Attested in a continuance of extraordinary Cha∣racters. If Infallibility had been promised by that Law, then the conti∣nuance

of the Miracles might have been urged to prove the Continuance of the Infallibility; but that not being promised, the Miracles were only a standing Proof of the Authority of their Law, and of God's being still a∣mong them. And thus though we should not dispute the Truth of the many Legends that some are daily bringing forth, which yet we may well do, since they are believed to be true by few among themselves, they being con∣sidered among the greater part of the knowing Men of that Church, as Arts to entertain the Credulity and Devotion of the People, and to work upon their fears and hopes, but chiefly upon their Purses: All these, I say, when confessed, will not serve to prove that there is an Infallibility among them, unless they can prove that these Miracles are wrought to prove this Infalli∣bility.

The second sort of Proofs that they may bring, is from some Passages in Scripture, that seem to import that it was given by Christ to the Church. But though in this dispute all these Passages ought to be well considered and sanswered, yet they ought not to be urged to prove this Infallibility, till everal other things are first proved; such as, That the Scriptures are the Word of God; That the Book of the Scriptures is brought down pure and uncorrupted to our hands; and that we are able to understand the mean∣ing of it: For before we can argue from the parts of any Book, as being of Divine Authority, all these things must be previously certain, and be well made out to us; so that we must be well assured of all those Particulars be∣fore we may go about to Prove any thing by any Passages drawn out of the Scriptures. Further, these Passages suppose that those to whom this In∣fallibility belongs, are a Church: We must then know what a Church is, and what makes a Body of Men to be a Church, before we can be sure that they are that Society to whom this Infallibility is given: And since there may be, as we know that in fact there are, great differences among several of those Bodies of Men called Churches, and that they condemn one another as guilty of Error, Schism, and Heresy; we are sure that all these cannot be Infallible; for Contradictions cannot be true. So then we must know which of them is that Society where this Infallibility is to be found: And if in any one Society there should be different Opinions a∣bout the Seat of this Infallibility, these cannot be all true, though it is very possible that they may be all false: We must be then well assured in whom this great Privillege is vested, before we can be bound to acknowledge it, or to submit to it. So here a great many things must be known, before we can either argue from, or apply those Passages of Scripture in which it is pretended that Infallibility is promised to the Church: And if pri∣vate Judgment is to be trusted in the Inquiries that arise about all these par∣ticulars, they being the most important and most difficult matters that we can search into, then it will be thought reasonable to trust it yet much further.

It is evident by their proceeding this way, that both the Authority and the Sense of the Scriptures must be known antecedently to our acknowledging the Authority or the Infallibility of any Church. For it is an Eternal Principle and Rule of Reason, never to prove one thing by ano∣ther, till that other is first well proved: Nor can any thing be proved after∣wards by that which was proved by it. This is as impossible, as if a Father should beget a Son, and should be afterwards begotten by that Son. There∣fore the Scriptures cannot prove the Infallibility of the Church, and be af∣terwards proved by the Testimony of the Church. So the one or the other of these must be first settled and proved, before any use can be made of it to prove the other by it.

The last way they take to find out this Church by, is from some Notes that they pretend are peculiar to her, such as the Name Catholick; Antiquity; Extent;* 1.276 Duration; Succession of Bishops; Vnion among themselves, and with their Head; Conformity of Doctrine with former times; Miracles; Prophecy; Sanctity of Doctrine; Holiness of Life; Temporal Felicity; Curses upon their Enemies; and a constant Progress or Efficacy of Doctrine; together with the Confession of their Adversaries: And they fancy, that wheresoever we find these, we must believe that Body of Men to be Infallible. But upon all this, endless Questions will arise, so far will it be from ending Controver∣sies, and settling us upon Infallibility. If all these must be believed to be the Marks of the Infallible Church, upon the account of which we ought to believe it, and submit to it, then two Enquires upon every one of these Notes must be discussed, before we can be obliged to acquiesce in the In∣fallibility: First, Whether that is a true Mark of Infallibility or not? And next, Whether it belongs to the Church which they call Infallible, or not? And then another very intricate Question will arise upon the whole, Whether they must all be found together? or, How many, or which of them together, will give us the entire Characters of the Infallible Church?

In discussing the Questions, Whether every one of these is a true Mark or not, no use must be made of the Scriptures; for if the Scriptures have their Authority from the Testimony, or rather the Decisions of the Infalli∣ble Church, no use can be made of them till that is first fixed. Some of these Notes are such as did not at all agree to the Church in the best and purest Times; for then she had but a little Extent, a short-liv'd Duration, and no Temporal Felicity; and she was generally reproached by her Adver∣saries. But out of which of these Topicks can one hope to fetch out an Assu∣rance of the Infallibility of such a Body? Can no Body of Men continue long in the constant Series, and with much Prosperity, but must they be concluded to be Infallible? Can it be thought that the assuming a Name can be a Mark? Why is not the Name Christian as solemn as Catholick? Might not the Philosophers have concluded from hence against the First Christians, That they were by the confession of all Men, the true Lovers of Wisdom: since they were called Philosophers much more unanimously than the Church of Rome is called Catholick?

If a Conformity of Doctrine with former times, and a Sanctity of Doctrine, are Notes of the Church, these will lead men into Enquiries of such a nature, that if they are once allowed to go so far with their private Judgment, they may well be suffered to go much further. Some Standard must be fixed on, by which the Sanctity of Doctrine may be examined; they must also be al∣lowed to examine what was the Doctrine of former times; and here it will be natural to begin at the first times, the Age of the Apostles. It must therefore be first known what was the Doctrine of that Age, before we can examine the Conformity of the present Age with it. A Succession of Bishops is confessed to be still kept up among corrupted Churches. An Union of the Church with its Head, cannot be supposed to be a Note, unless it is first made out by some other Topicks, That this Church must have a Head; and that he is Infallible: For unless it is proved by some other Argument, That she ought to have a Head, she cannot be bound to adhere to him, or to own him; and unless it is also proved that he is In∣fallible, she cannot be bound absolutely, and without restrictions, to ad∣here to him. Holiness of Life cannot be a Mark, unless it is pretended that those in whom the Infallibility is, are all holy. A few holy men here and there are indeed an Honour to any Body; but it will seem a strange Inference, That because some few in a Society are eminently holy, that

therefore others of that Body who are not so, but are perhaps as eminent∣ly vicious, should be Infallible. Somewhat has been already said concern∣ing Miracles: The pretence to Prophecy falls within the same Considerati∣on: The one being as wonderful a Communication of Omniscience, as the other is of Omnipotence. For the Confession of Adversaries, or some Cur••es on them; these cannot signifie much, unless they were Universal. Fair Enemies will acknowledg what is good among their Adversaries: But as that Church is the least apt of any Society we know, to speak good of those who differ from her, so she has not very much to boast as to others say∣ing much good of her. And if Signal Providences have now and then hap∣pened, these are such things, and they are carried on with such a depth, that we must acquiesce in the Observation of the wisest Men of all Ages, That the race is not to the swift, nor the battel to the strong:* 1.277 But that time and chance happeneth to all things.

And thus it appears, That these pretended Notes, instead of giving us a clear Thread to lead us up to Infallibility, and to end all Controversies, they do start a great variety of Questions that engage us into a Labyrinth, out of which it cannot be easy for any to extricate themselves. But if we could see an end of this, then a new set of Questions will come on: When we go to examine all Churches by them: Whether the Church of Rome has them all? And if she alone has them, so that no other Church has them equally with her or beyond her?

If all these must be discussed before we can settle this Question, Which is the true Infallible Church? A Man must stay long e're he can come to a point in it.

Therefore there can be no other way taken here, but to examine first, What makes a particular Church? And then since the Catholick Church is an united Body of all particular Churches, when the true Notion of a par∣ticular Church is fixed, it will be easy from that to form a Notion of the Catholick Church.

It would seem reasonable by the Method of all Creeds, in particular of that called the Apostles Creed, that we ought first to settle our Faith as to the great Points of the Christian Religion, and from thence go to settle the Notion of a true Church: And that we ought not to begin with the No∣tion of a Church, and from thence go to the Doctrine▪

The Doctrine of Christianity must be first stated, and from this we are to take our measures of all Churches: and that chiefly with respect to that Doctrine, which every Christian is bound to believe: Here a distincti∣on is to be made between those Capital and Fundamental Articles, with∣out which a Man cannot be esteemed a true Christian, nor a Church a true Church: And other Truths which being delivered in Scripture, all Men are indeed obliged to believe them, yet they are not of that nature that the Ig∣norance of them or an Error in them, can exclude from Salvation.

To make this sensible; It is a Proposition of another sort, That Christ died for Sinners, than this, That he died at the Third or at the Sixth Hour. And yet if the Second Proposition is expresly revealed in Scripture, we are bound to believe it, Since God has said it, though it is not of the same na∣ture with the other.

Here a Controversie does naturally arise, that wise People are unwilling to meddle with, What Articles are Fundamental, and what are not?

The defining of Fundamental Articles seems on the one hand to deny Salvation to such as do not receive them all, which Men are not willing to do.

And on the other hand, it may seem a leaving Men at liberty, as to all other particulars that are not reckoned up among the Fundamentals.

But after all, the Covenant of Grace, the Terms of Salvation, and the Grounds on which we expect it, seem to be things of another nature than all other truths, which though revealed, are not of themselves the Means or Conditions of Salvation. Wheresoever true Baptism is, there it seems the Essentials of this Covenant are preserved: For if we look on Baptism as a Foederal admission into Christianity, there can be no Baptism where the Essence of Christianity is not preserved. As far then as we believe that any Society has preserved that, so far we are bound to receive her Bap∣tism, and no further. For unless we consider Baptism as a sort of a Charm, that such words joined with a washing with Water make one a Christian; which seems to be expresly contrary to what St. Peter says of it,* 1.278 That it is not the washing away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good Conscience towards God that saves us: We must conclude, That Baptism is a Foederal thing, in which after that the Sponsions are made, the Seal of Regeneration is added.

From hence it will follow, That all who have a true Baptism, that makes Men Believers and Christians, must also have the true Faith as to the Essentials of Christianity; The Fundamentals of Christirnity seems to be all that is necessary to make Baptism True and Valid. And upon this a distinction is to be made that will discover and destroy a Sophism that is often used on this occasion. A True Church is, in one sense, a Society that preserves the Essentials and Fundamentals of Christianity: In another sense it stands for a Society, all whose Doctrines are true, that has corrupted no part of this Religion, nor mixed any Errors with it. A true Man is one who has a Soul and a Body that are the Essential Constituents of a Man: Where∣as in another sense a Man of Sincerity and Candor is called a true Man. Truth in the one Sense imports the Essential Constitution, and in the o∣ther it imports only a Quality that is accidental to it. So when we ac∣knowledge that any Society is a true Church, we ought to be supposed to mean no other, than that the Covenant of Grace in its Essential Constituent parts is preserved entire in that Body; and not that it is true in all its Do∣ctrines and Decisions.

The Second thing to be considered in a Church, is their Association to∣gether in the use of the Sacraments. For these are given by Christ to the So∣ciety as the Rites and Badges of that Body. That which makes particular Men Believers, is their receiving the Fundamentals of Christianity; so that which constitutes the Body of the Church, is the Profession of that Faith, and the use of those Sacraments which are the Rites and Distinctions of those who profess it.

In this likewise a distinction is to be made between what is Essential to a Sacrament, and what is the exact observance of it according to the Institution. Additions to the Sacraments do not annul them, though they corrupt them with that adulterate mixture. Therefore where the Sponsions are made, and washing with Water is used with the words of Christ, there we own that there is a true Baptism: Though there may be a large Ad∣dition of other Rites, which we reject as Superstitious, though we do not pretend that they null the Baptism. But if any part of the Institution is cut off, there we do not own the Sacrament to be true: Because it being an In∣stitution of Christ's, it can no more be esteemed a true Sacrament, than as it retains all that, which by the Institution appears to be the main and essen∣tial parts of the Action.

Upon this account it is, That since Christ appointed Bread and Wine fo his other Sacrament, and that he not only blessed both, but distributed both, with words appropriated to each kind, we do not esteem that to be a true Sacrament, in which either the one or the other of these kinds is w ithdrawn.

But in the next place, there may be many things necessary in the way of Precept and Order, both with relation to the Sacraments, and to the other publick Acts of Worship, in which tho' Additions or Defects are Erroneous and Faulty, yet they do not annul the Sacraments.

We think none ought to Baptize but Men dedicated to the Service of God, and Ordained according to that Constitution that was settled in the Church by the Apostles; and yet Baptism by Laicks, or by Women, such as is most commonly practiced in the Roman Church, is not esteemed null by us, nor is it repeated: Because we make a difference between what is Essen∣tial to a Sacrament, and what is requisite in the regular way of using it.

None can deny this among us, but those who will question the whole Christianity of the Roman Church, where the Midwives do generally Bap∣tize: But if this Invalidates the Baptism, then we must question all that is done among them: Persons so Baptized, if their Baptism is void, are neither truly Ordained, nor capable of any other act of Church-Commu∣nion. Therefore mens being in Orders, or their being duly Ordained, is not necessary to the Essence of the Sacrament of Baptism, but only to the regularity of Administring it: And so the want of it does not void it, but does only prove such Men to be under some Defects and Disorder in their Constitution.

Thus I have laid down those distinctions that will guide us in the right understanding of this Article. If we believe that any Society retains the Fundamentals of Christianity, we do from that conclude it to be a true Church, to have a true Baptism, and the Members of it to be capable of Salvation. But we are not upon that bound to Associate our selves to their Communion: For if they have the Addition of false Doctrines, or any un∣lawful parts of Worship among them, we are not bound to join in that which we are persuaded is Error, Idolatry, or Superstition.

If the Sacraments that Christ has appointed are observed and ministred by any Church as to the main of them, according to his Institution, we are to own those for valid Actions: But we are not for that bound to join in Communion with them, if they have Adulterated these with many Mix∣tures and Additions.

Thus a plain difference is made between our owning that a Church may retain the Fundamentals of Christianity, a true Baptism, and true Orders, which are a consequent upon the former, and our joining with that Church in such acts as we think are so far vitiated, that they become unlawful to us to do them, Pursuant to this, we do neither repeat the Baptism, nor the Ordinations of the Church of Rome: We acknowledge that our Fore-fathers were both Eaptized and Ordained in that Communion: And we derive our present Christianity or Baptism, and our Orders from thence; yet we think that there were so many unlawful Actions, even in those Rituals, be∣sides the other corruptions of their Worship, that we cannot join in such any more.

The being Baptized in a Church does not tie a Man to every thing in that Church; it only ties him to the Covenant of Grace. The Stipulations which are made in Baptism, as well as in Ordination, do only bind a Man to the Christian Faith, or to the faithful dispensing of that Gospel, and of those Sa∣craments of which he is made a Minister: So he who being convinced of the Errors and Corruptions of a Church, departs from them, and goes on in the Purity of the Christian Religion, does pursue the true effect both of his Baptism, and of his Ordination Vows. For these are to be considered as ties upon him only to God and Christ, and not to adhere to the other Dictates of that body in which he had his Birth, Baptism, and Ordination.

The great Objection against all this is, That it sets up a private Judg∣ment, it gives particular persons a right of judging Churches: Whereas the Natural Order is, That private persons ought to be Subject and Obedi∣ent to the Church.

This must needs feed Pride and Curiosity, it must break all Order, and cast all things loose, if every single Man according to his Reading and Pre∣sumption, will judge of Churches and Communions.

On this Head it is very easy to Employ a great deal of popular Eloquence, to decry private mens examining of Scriptures, and forming their judg∣ments of things out of them, and not submitting all to the judgment of the Church. But how absurd soever this may seem, all Parties do acknowledg that it must be done.

Those of the Church of Rome do teach, That a Man born in the Greek Church, or among us, is bound to lay down his Error, and his Commu∣nion too, and to come over to them; and yet they allow our Baptism, as well as they do the Ordinations of the Greek Church.

Thus they allow private Men to judge, and that in so great a Point, as what Church and what Communion ought to be chosen or forsaken. And it is certain, That to judge of Churches and Communions, is a thing of that Intricacy, that if private judgment is allowed here, there is no reason to deny it its full scope as to all other Matters.

God has given us rational Faculties to guide and direct us: And we must make the most of these that we can: We must judge with our own Reasons, as well as see with our own Eyes: Neither can we, or ought we to resign up our Understandings to any others, unless we are convinced that God has Imposed this upon us, by his making them infallible, so that we are secured from Error if we follow them.

All this we must examine and be well assured of it, otherwise it will be a very rash, unmanly, and base thing in us, to muffle up our own Under∣standings, and to deliver our Reason and Faith over to others blindfold. Reason is God's Image in us; and as the Use and Application of our Rea∣son, as well as of the Freedom of our Wills, are the highest Excellencies of the Rational Nature; so they must be always claimed, and ought never to be parted with by us, but upon clear and certain Authorities in the Name of God, putting us implicitly under the Dictates of others.

We may abuse the Use of our Reason, as well as the Liberty of our Will; and may be damn'd for the one as well as the other. But when we set our selves to make the best use we can of the freedom of our Wills, we may and do upon that expect secret affistances. We have both the like promises, Direction to the like Prayers, and Reason to expect the same Illumination to make us see, know, and comprehend the Truths of Religion, that we have to expect that our Powers shall be inwardly Strengthened to love and obey them.* 1.279 David prayes that God may open his Eyes, as well as that he may make him to go in his ways. The Promises in the Prophets concerning the Gospel-Dispensation, carry in them the being Taught of God, as well as the being made to walk in his ways;* 1.280 and the enlightening the mind, and the eys of the mind to know, is prayed for by St. Paul, as well as that Christ might dwell in their hearts.

Since then there is an Assistance of the Divine Grace given to fortify the Understanding, as well as to enable the Will, it follows that our Understand∣ing is to be imployed by us in order to the finding out of the Truth, as well as our Will in order to the obeying of it. And though this may have very ill consequences, it does not follow from thence that it is not true. No consequences can be worse than the Corruption that is in the

World, and the Damnation that follows upon sin; and yet God permits it, because he has made us free Creatures: Nor can any reason be given why we should be less free in the use of our understanding, than we are in the use of our Will; or why God should make it to be less possible for us to fall into Errors, than it is to commit Sins. The Wrath of God is as much denoun∣ced against Men that hold the Truth in unrighteousness, as against other Sins;* 1.281 and it is reckoned among the heaviest of Curses, to be given up to strong de∣lusions, to believe a lye. Upon all these reasons therefore it seems clear, that our Understandings are left free to us as well as our Wills; and if we ob∣serve the Stile and Method of the Scriptures, we shall find in them all over, a constant Appeal to a Man's Reason, and to his Intellectual Faculties.

If the mere dictates of the Church, or of Infallible Men, had been the resolution or foundation of Faith, there had been no need of such a long Thread of Reasoning and Discourse, as both our Saviour used while on Earth, and as the Apostles used in their Writings. We see the way of Au∣thority is not taken, but Explanations are offered, Proofs and Illustrations are brought to convince the Mind; which shews that God in the clearest Manifestation of his Will, would deal with us as with reasonable Creatures, who are not to believe but upon Persuasion; and are to use our Reasons in order to the attaining that Persuasion. And therefore upon the whole matter we ought not to believe Doctrines to be true, because the Church teaches them; but we ought to search the Scriptures, and then according as we find the Doctrine of any Church to be true in the Fundamentals, we ought to believe her to be a true Church; and if besides this, the whole Extent of the Doctrine and Worship, together not only with the essential parts of the Sacraments, but the whole Administration of them and the other Rituals of any Church are pure and true; then we ought to account such a Church true in the largest Extent of the word true; and by conse∣quence we ought to hold Communion with it.

Another question may arise out of the first words of this Article, con∣cerning the Visibility of this Church; Whether it must be always Visible? According to the distinction hitherto made use of, the resolution of this will be soon made. There seem to be Promises in the Scriptures, of a perpetu∣al Duration of the Christian Church: I will be with you always,* 1.282 even to the end of the world: And, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church. The Iewish Religion had a Period perfixed, in which it was to come to an end; but the Prophecies that are among the Prophets, concerning the new Dispensation, seem to import not only its Continuance, but its being conti∣nued still Visible in the World. But as the Iewish Dispensation was long continued, after they had fallen generally into some very gross Errors; so the Christian Church may be Visible still, though not Infallible. God may preserve the Succession of a true Church as to the Essentials and Funda∣mentals of Faith, in the World, even though this Society should fall into Error. So a Visible Society of Christians in a true Church, as to the Essen∣tials of our Faith, is not controverted by us. We do only deny the Infal∣libility of this true Church: And therefore we are not afraid of that Questi∣on, Where was your Church before Henry the Eighth? We Answer, It was where it is now, here in England, and in the other Kingdoms of the World: only it was then corrupted, and it is now pure. There is therefore no sort of Inconvenience in owning the constant Visibility of a constant Succession and Church of true Christians; true as to the Essentials of the Covenant of Grace, though not true in all their Doctrines. This seems to be a part of the Glory of the Messias, and of his Kingdom, That he shall be still visibly worshipped in the World by a Body of Men called by his Name. But

when Visibility is thus separated from Infallibility, and it is made out that a Church may be a true Church, though she has a large Allay of Errors and Corruptions mixed in her Constitution and Decisions; there will be no manner of Inconvenience in owning a constant Visibility, even at the same time that we charge the most eminent part of this Visible Body with many Errors, and with much Corruption.

So far has the first part of this Article been treated of: From it we pass to the second, which affirms, That as the other Patriarchal and Apostolical Churches, such as Ierusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so the Church of Rome has likewise erred, and that not only in their living, and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

It is not questioned but that the other Patriarchal Churches have erred; both that where our Saviour himself first taught, and which was governed by two of the Apostles successively, and those which were founded by St. Peter in Person or by Proxy, as Church History represents Alexandria and Antioch to have been. Those of the Church of Rome by whom they are at this day condemned both of Heresy and Schism, do not dispute this. Nor do they dispute that many of their Popes have led bad and flagitious Lives: They deny not that the Canons, Ceremonies, and Government of the Church are very much changed by the Influence and the Authority of their Popes: But the whole question turns upon this, Whether the See of Rome has erred in matter of Faith, or not? In this those of that Commu∣nion are divided: Some by the Church or See of Rome, mean the Popes personally; so they maintain, That they never have, and never can fall in∣to Error: Whereas others, by the See of Rome mean that whole Body that holds Communion with Rome, which they say cannot be tainted with Er∣ror; and these separate this from the Personal Infallibility of Popes; for if a Pope should err, they think that a General Council has Authority to pro∣ceed against him, and to deprive him: And thus though he should err, the See might be kept free from Error. I shall upon this Article only consider the first Opinion, reserving the Consideration of the second to the Article concerning General Councils.

As to the Popes their being subject to Error, that must be confessed, unless it can be proved that by a clear and express Privilege, granted them by God, they are excepted out of the common condition of Human Nature. It is further highly probable that there is no such Privilege, since the Church continued for many Ages, before it was so much as pretended to; and that in a time when that See was not only claiming all the Rights that belong'd to it, but challenging a great many that were flatly denied and rejected: Such as the right of receiving Appeals from the African Churches; in which reiterated Instances, and a bould Claim upon a Spurious Canon, preten∣ded to be of the Council of Nice, were long pursued; but those Churches asserted their Authority of ending all matters within themselves. In all this Contest Infallibility was never claimed; no more than it had been by Victor, when he excommunicated the Asian Churches for observing Easter on the Fourteenth Day of the Moon, and not on the Lord's-Day after ac∣cording to the Custon of the Roman, as well as of other Churches.

When Pope Stephen quarrelled with St. Cyprian about the rebaptizing of Hereticks,* 1.283 Cyprian and Firmilian were so far from submitting to his Autho∣rity, that they speak of him with a freedom used by Equals, and with severity that shewed they were far from thinking him Infallible. When the whole East was distracted with the Disputes occasioned by the Arian Controversy, there was so much Partiality in all their Councils, that it was decreed, That Ap∣peals should be made to Pope Iulius, and afterwards to his Successors;

though here was an occasion given to assert this Infallibility, if it had been thought on, yet none ever spoke of it. Great Reverence was paid to that Church, both because they believed it was founded by St. Peter and St. Paul, and chiefly because it was the Imperial City; for we see that all other Sees had that degree of Dignity given them, which by the Constitution of the Roman Empire was lodged in their Cities: And so when Byance was made the Im∣perial City, and called New Rome, though more commonly Constantinople, it had a Patriarchal Dignity bestowed on it; and was in all things declared equal to Old Rome, only the point of Rank and Order excepted. This was decreed in two General Councils, the Second and the Fourth,* 1.284 in so express a manner, that it alone before equitable Judges would fully shew the Sense of the Church in the Fourth and Fifth Century upon this Head. When Pope Liberius condemned Athanasius, and subscribed to Semi-Arianism, this was never considered as a New Decision in that matter, so that it altered the the state of it. No use was made of it, nor was any Argument drawn from it. Liberius was universally condemned for what he done; and when he re∣pented of it and retracted it, he was again owned by the Church.

We have in the Sixth Century a most undeniable Instance of the Sense of the whole Church in this matter. Pope Honorius was by the Sixth General Council condemned as a Monothelite; and this in the presence of the Popes Legates, and he was anathematized by several of the succeeding Popes: It is to no purpose here to examine whether he was justly or unjustly con∣demned; it is e nough that the Sense both of the Ea••tern and Western Church appeared evidently in that Age upon these two Points; That a Pope might be a Heretick, and that being such he might be held accursed for it:* 1.285 And in that time there was not any one that suggested, that either he could not fall into Heresy, since our Saviour had prayed that St. Peter's Faith might not fail; or that if he had fallen into it, he must be left to the Judg∣ment of God; but that the Holy See (according to the Fable of P. Mar∣cellin) could be judged by no body. The Confusions that followed for some Ages in the Western Parts of Europe, more particularly in Italy gave occa∣sion to the Bishops of Rome to extend their Authority.

The Emperors at Constantinople, and their Exarchs at Ravenna, studied to make them sure to their Interests, yet still asserting their Authority over them. The new Conquerors studied also to gain them to their side; and they mana∣ged their matter so dextrously that they went on still increasing and extend∣ing their Authority, till being much straitned by the Kings of the Lombards, they were protected by a new Conquering Family that arose in France in the Eighth Century; who to give Credit both to their Usurpation of that Crown, and to the extending their Dominions into Italy, and the assuming the Empire of the West, did both protect and enrich them, and enlarged their Authority; the greatness of which they reckoned could do them no hurt, as long as they kept the Confirmation of their Election to them∣selves. That Family became quickly too feeble to hold that Power long, and then an Imposture was published, of a Volume of the Decretal Epistles of the Popes of the first Ages, in which they were represented as acting accord∣ing to those high Claims to which they were then beginning to pretend. Those Ages were too blind and too ignorant, to be capable of searching cri∣tically into the truth of this Collection; it quickly passed for ••urrent; and though some in the beginning disputed it, yet that was soon born down, and the Credit of that Work was established. It furnished them with Pre∣cedents that they were careful enough not only to follow, but to outdo. Thus a Work which is now as universally rejected by the Learned Men of their own Body as spurious, as it was then implicity taken for genuine,

gave the chief Foundation during many Ages to their unbounded Autho∣rity: And this furnishes us with a very just Prejudice against it, That it was managed with so much Fraud and Imposture; to which they added afterwards much Cruelty and Violence; the two worst Characters possible, and the least likely to be found joined with Infallibility: For it is reasonable enough to apprehend, that if God had lodged such a Privilege any where, that he would have so influenced those who were the Depositaries of it, that they should have appeared somewhat like that Authority to which they laid Claim; and that he would not have forsaken them so, that for above Eight hundred Years the Papacy, as it is represented by their own Writers, is perhaps the worst Succession of Men that is to be found in Hi∣story.

But now to come more close, to prove what is here asserted in this part of the Article. If all those Doctrines which were established at Trent, and that have been confirmed by Popes, and most of them brought into a new Creed, and made parts of it, are found to be gross Errors; or if but any one of them should be found to be an Error, then there is no doubt to be made but that the Church of Rome hath erred: So the Proof brought against every one of these, is likewise a proof against their Infallibility. But I shall here give one Instance of an Error which will not be denied by the greater part of the Church of Rome. They have now for above Six hundred Years asserted, That they had an Authority over Princes, not on∣ly to convict and condemn them of Heresy, and to proceed against them with Church-Censures, but that they had a Power to depose them, to ab∣solve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, and to transfer their Dominions to such Persons as should undertake to execute their Sentences. T••is they have often put in execution, and have constantly kept up their 〈…〉〈…〉 it to this day. It will not serve them to get clear here, to say, That these were the violent Practices of some Popes: What they did in many particular Instances may be so turned off, and left as a Blemish on the Me∣mories of some of them. But the Point at present in question, is, Whe∣ther they have not laid Claim to this, as a Right belonging to their See, as a part of St. Peter's Authority descended to them? Whether they have not founded it on his being Christ's Vicar, who was the King of kings, and Lord of lords;* 1.286 to whom all power in heaven and in earth was given? Whether they have not founded it on Ieremy's being set over nations and kingdoms, to root out, pluck down, and to destroy, and on other places of Scripture; not forgetting, that the first Words of the Bible are, In the beginning, and not In the beginnings; from which they inferred, That there is but one Prin∣ciple, from whence all Power is derived: And that God made two great lights, the Sun to rule by day; which they applied to themselves.

This, I say, is the Question: Whether they did not assume this Autho∣rity as a Power given them by God? As for the applying it to particular Instances, to those Kings and Emperors whom they deposed, that is indeed a personal thing, Whether they were guilty of Heresy, or of being favourers of it, or not? And whether the Popes proceeded against them with too much Violence or not?

The Point now in Question, is, Whether they declared this to be a Do∣ctrine, that there was an Authority lodged with their See for doing such things, and whether they alledged Scripture and Tradition for it?

* 1.287Now this will appear evident to those who will read their Bulls: In the Preambles of which those Quotations will be found, as some of them are in the Body of the Canon Law: And it is decreed in it, that the belief of this is absolutely necessary to Salvation.

This was pursued in a Course of many Ages. General Councils as they are esteemed among them, have concurred with the Popes both in General Decrees ass••rting this power to be in them, and in special Sentences against Princes: This became the universally-received Doctrine of those Ages: No Vniversity nor Nation declaring against it; not so much as one Divine, Ci••••••lian, Canonist, or Casuist writ against it, as Card. Perron truly said.* 1.288 It was so certainly believed, that those Writers whom the deposed Princes got to undertake their defence, do not in any of their Books pretend to call the Doctrine in General in question.

Two things were disputed: One was, Whether Popes had a direct power in Temporals over Princes; so that they were as much subject to them as Feudatory Princes were to their Superior Lords? This, to which Boniface the 8th laid claim, was indeed contradicted: The other Point was, Whether those particulars for which Princes had been deposed, such as the giving the Investitures to Bishopricks, were Heresies or not? This was much contested: But the power, in the case of manifest Heresy, or of favouring it, to Depose Princes, and Transfer their Crowns to o∣thers, was never called in Question. This was certainly a definition made in the Chair, ex Cathedra: For it was addrest to all their Community, both Laity and Clergy: Plenary Pardons were bestowed with it, on those who executed it: The Clergy did generally preach the Croisades upon it. Princes that were not concerned in him that was deposed, gave way to the publication of those Bulls, and gave leave to their Subjects to take the Cross in order to the Executing of them: And the People did in vast Multitudes gather about the Standarts that were set up for leading on Armies to Execute them, while many Learned Men writ in defence of this Power, and not one Man durst write against it.

This Argument lies not only against the Infallibility of Popes, but against that of General Councils likewise: And also against the Authority of Oral Tradition: For here in a Succession of many Ages, the Tradition was whol∣ly changed from the Doctrine of former times, which had been, That the Clergy was subject to Princes, and had no Authority over them or their Crowns. Nor can it be said, That that was a Point of Discipline, for it was founded on an Article of Doctrine, Whether there was such a power in the Popes or not? The Prudence of Executing or not Executing it, is a Point of Discipline and of the Government of the Church: But it is a Point of Doctrine, Whether Christ has given such an Authorityto St. Peter and his followers? And those Points of Speculation upon which a great deal turns as to practice, are certainly so important, that in them, if in any thing, we ought to expect an Infallibility: For in this case a Man is distract∣ed between two contrary Propositions: The one is, That he must obey the Civil Powers, as set over him by an Ordinance of God; so that if he resist them, he shall receive in himself Damnation: The other is, That the Pope being Christ's Vicar, is to be obeyed when he Absolves him from his former Oath and Allegiance; and that the new Prince set up by him, is to be obeyed under the pain of Damnation likewise.

Here a Man is brought into a great strait, and therefore he must be guided by Infallibility, if any thing.

So the whole Argument comes to this Head, that we must either believe that the Deposing Power is lodged by Christ in the See of Rome, or we must conclude with the Article, that they have Erred: and by Conse∣quence, That they are not Infallible: For the Erring in any one Point, and at any one Time, does quite destroy the Claim of Infallibility,

Before this Matter can be concluded, we must consider what is brought to prove it: What was laid down at first must be here remembred, That the Proofs brought for a thing of this Nature must be very express and clear. A Privilege of such a sort, against which the appearances and prejudices are so strong, must be very fully made out, before we can be bound to believe it: Nor can it be reasonable to urge the Authority of any Passages from Scripture, till the Grounds are shewn for which the Scri∣ptures themselves ought to be believed.

Those who think that it is in general well proved, That there must be an Infallibility in the Church, conclude from thence, that it must be in the Pope: For if there must be a living speaking Judge always ready to guide the Church, and to decide Controversies, they say this cannot be in the diffusive Body of Christians, for these cannot meet to judge: Nor can it ••e in a General Council, the meeting of which depends upon so many ac∣cidents, and on the consent of so many Princes, that the Infallibility will lie dormant for some Ages, if the General Council is the Seat of it. There∣fore they conclude, That since it is certainly in the Church, and can be no where else but in the Pope, therefore it is lodged in the See of Rome. Whereas we on the other hand, think this is a strong Argument against the Infallibility in general, That it does not appear in whom it is vested: And we think that every side does so effectually Confute the other, that we believe them all as to that; and think they argue much stronger when they prove where it cannot be, than when they pretend to prove where it must be.

This, in the Point now in hand, concerning the Pope, seems as evident, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thing can possibly be. It not appearing, That after the words of Christ 〈…〉〈…〉 the other Apostles thought the Point was thereby decided, Who 〈…〉〈…〉 should be the greatest? For that Deb••••e was still on foot and was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 among them in the very Night in which our Saviour was be∣tray••d. Nor does it appear, That after the Effusion of the Holy Ghost, which certainly Inspired them with the full understanding of Christ's words, that th••y thought there was any thing peculiarly given to S. Peter beyond the ••••st. He was questioned upon his Baptizing Cornelius: He was not singly appealed to in the great Question of Subjecting the Gentiles to the Yoke of the Mosaical Law: he delivered his Opinion as one of the Apo∣stles: After which St. Iames summed up the Matter, and setled the Decisi∣on of it. He was charged by St. Paul as guilty of dissimulation in that matter, for which St. Paul withstood him to his Face: And he justifies that, in an Epistle confessed to be writ by Divine Inspiration. St. Paul does al∣so in the same Epistle plainly assert the equality of his own Authority with his: And that he received no Authority from him, and owed him no De∣pendance: Nor was he ever Appealed to in any of the Points that appear to have been Disputed in the times that the Epistles were written. So that we see no Characters of any special Infallibility that was in him, besides that which was the effect of the Inspiration, that was in the other Apostles as well as in him: Nor is there a Tittle in the Scripture, not so much as by a remote Intimation, that he was to derive that Authority, whatsoever it was, to any Successor, or to lodge it in any particular City or See.

The Silence of the Scripture in this Point, seems to be a full proof, that no such thing was intended by God: Otherwise we have all reason to be∣lieve that it would have been clearly expressed. St. Peter himself ought to have declared this: And since both Alexandria, and Antioch, as well as Rome pretend to derive from him, and that the Succession to those Sees began in him this makes a decision in this Point so much the more necessary.

When St. Peter writ his 2d. Epistle, in which he mentions a Revelati∣on that he had from Christ, of his approaching dissolution, though that was a very proper occasion for declaring such an important Matter,* 1.289 he says nothing that relates to it, but gives only a new Attestation of the truth of Christ's Divine Mission, and of what he himself had been a witness to in the Mount, when he saw the excellent glory, and heard the voice out of it. He leaves a Provision in Writing for the following Ages, but says nothing of any Succession or See: So that here the greatest of all Privileges, is pre∣t••nded to be lodged in a Succession of Bishops, without any one Passage in Scripture importing it.

Another set of difficulties arise, concerning the Persons who have a right to chuse these Popes in whom this Right is Vested, and what number is necessary, for a Canonical Election? How far Simony voids it, and who is the competent Judge of that; or who shall judge in the Case of two diffe∣rent Elections, which has often happened? We must also have a certain Rule to know when the Popes judge as private Persons, and when they judge Infallibly? With whom they must consult, and what Solemnities are necessary to make them speak ex Cathedra, or Infallibly? For if this Infal∣libility comes as a Privilege from a Grant made by Christ, we ought to ex∣pect, that all those necessary Circumstances to direct us, in order to the receiving and submitting to it, should be fixed by the same Authority that made the Grant. Here then are very great difficulties: Let us now see what is offered to make out this great and important Claim.

The chief Proof is brought from these Words of our Saviour, when upon St. Peter's confessing, That he was the Christ, the Son of the living God;* 1.290 He said to him, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in hea∣ven. This begins with an Allusion to his Name; and Discourses built up∣on such Allusions are not to be understood strictly or Grammatically. By the Rock upon which Christ promises to build his Church, many of the Fa∣thers have understood the Person of Christ, others have understood the Con∣fession of him, or Faith in him, which indeed is but a different way of expres∣sing the same thing. And it is certain that, strictly speaking, the Church can only be said to be founded upon Christ, and upon his Doctrine. But in a Secondary sense it may be said to be founded upon the Apostles; and upon St. Peter as the first in order; which is not to be Disputed.

Now though this is a Sense which was not put on these Words for many Ages; yet when it should be allowed to be their true sense, it will not prove any thing to have been granted to St. Peter, but what was common to the other Apostles; who are all called the Foundations upon which the Church is built. That which follows, of the gates of hell not being able to prevail against the Church, may be either understood of Death,* 1.291 which is often cal∣led the gate to the grave: Which is the sense of the Word that is rendred Hell: And then the meaning of these Words will be, That the Church which Christ was to raise, should never be extinguished, nor die, or come to a period, as the Iewish Religion then did: Or according to the Custom of the Iews, of holding their Courts and Councils about their Gates, by the Gates of Hell may be understood, the Designs and Contrivances of the Powers of Darkness, which should never prevail over the Church to root it out, and destroy it; for the Word rendred prevail, does signify an intire Victory: This only imports, That the Church should be still preserved

against all the Attempts of Hell, but does not intimate that no Error was ever to get into it.

* 1.292By the words Kingdom of Heaven, generally through the whole Gospel, the Dispensation of the Messias is understood. This appears evidently from the words with which both St. Iohn Baptist and our Saviour begun their Preaching, Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand: And the many Parables and Comparisons that Christ gave of the Kingdom of Heaven, can only be understood of the Preaching of the Gospel. This being then agreed to, the most natural, and the least forced Exposition of those words must be, that St. Peter was to open the Dispensation of the Gospel. The proper use of a Key is to open a Door: And as this agrees with these words, He that hath the Key of the House of David, that openeth and no man shutteth,* 1.293 and shutteth and no man openeth; and with the Phrase of the Key of Knowledge, by which the Lawyers are described; for they had a Key with Writing-Tables given them, as the Badges of their Profession: So it agrees with the accomplishment of this promise in St. Peter, who first opened the Gospel to the Iews, after the wonderful Effusion of the Holy Ghost: And more eminently when he first opened the Door to the Gentiles, preaching to Cornelius, and Baptizing him, and his Houshold, to which the Phrase of the Kingdom of Heaven, seems to have a more particular relation. This Dispensation was committed to St. Peter; and seems to be claimed by him as his peculiar Privilege in the Council at Ierusalem. This is a clear and plain sense of these words. For those who would carry them further, and understand by the Kingdom of Heaven our Eternal Happiness, must use many distinctions, otherwise if they Expound them literally, they will as∣cribe to St. Peter that which certainly could only belong to our Saviour hims••lf. Though at the same time it is not to be denied, but that under the figure of Keys, the power of Discipline, and the Conduct and Manage∣ment of Christians may be understood. But as to this, all the Pastors of the Church have their share in it; nor can it be appropriated to any one Person. As for that of binding and loosing, and the confirming in Heaven what he should do in Earth, whatever it may signify, it is no special Grant to St. Peter. For the same words are spoken by our Saviour elsewhere to all the Apostles: So this is given equally to them all. The words bind∣ing and loosing, are used by the Iewish Writers, in the sense of affirming or denying the Obligation of any Precept of the Law that might be in dis∣pute. So according to this common Form of Speech, and the sense for∣merly given to the words, Kingdom of Heaven, the meaning of these words must be, That Christ committed to the Apostles the Dispensing his Gos∣pel to the World, by which he Authorized them to dissolve the Obligati∣on of the Mosaical Laws; and to give other Laws to the Christian Church, which they should do under such visible Characters of a Divine Authority, impowering and conducting them in it, that it should be very evident, that what they did on Earth was also ratifyed in Heaven. These words thus understood, carry in them a clear sense, which agrees with the whole De∣sign of the Gospel. But whatsoever their sense may be, it is plain that there was nothing given peculiarly to St. Peter by them, which was not likewise given to the rest of the Apostles. Nor do these words of our Saviour to St. Peter, import any thing of a Successive Infallibility, that was to be de∣rived from him with any distinction beyond the other Apostles: Unless 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were a Priority of Order and Dignity; and whatever that was, there is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so much as a hint given, that it was to descend from him to any See or Succession of Bishops.

As for our Saviour's praying that St. Peter's Faith might not fail: And his restoring him to his Apostolical Function, by a thrice repeated charge, Feed my sheep, feed my lambs, that has such a visible Relation to his fall,* 1.294 and to his denying him, that it does not seem necessary to enlarge further on the making it out, or on shewing that these words are capable of no other Sig∣nification, and cannot be carried further.

The Importance of this Argument, rather than the Difficulty of it, has made it necessary to dwell fully upon it: So much depends upon it, and the Missionaries of the Church of Rome are so well Instructed in it, that it ought to be well considered; for how little strength soever there may be in the Arguments brought to prove this Infallibility, yet the colours are spe∣cious, and they are commonly managed both with much Art, and with great Confidence.

ARTICLE XX. Of the Authority of the Church▪

The Church hath Power to decree Rights or Ceremonies, and Au∣thority in Matters of Faith. And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written; neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore although the Church be a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ, yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

THIS Article consists of Two parts; The first asserts a Power in the Church both to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and to judge in mat∣ters of Faith: The second limits this Power over matters of Faith to the Scriptures; so that it must neither contradict them, nor add any Articles as necessary to Salvation to those contained in them. This is suitable to some Words that were once in the Fifth Article, but were afterwards left out; instead of which the first words of this Article were put in this place, according to the Printed Editions; tho they are not in the Original of the Articles signed by both Houses of Convocation, that are yet extant.

As to the first part of the Article, concerning the Power of the Church, either with relation to Ceremonies or Points of Faith, the dispute lies only with those who deny all Church-Power, and think that Churches ought to be in all things limited by the Rules set in Scripture; and that where the Scriptures are silent, there ought to be no Rules made, but that all Men should be left to their Liberty: And in particular, That the appointing new Ceremonies, looks like a reproaching of the Apostles, as if their Constitu∣tions had been so defective, that those defects must be supplied by the In∣ventions of Men: Which they oppose so much the more, because they think that all the Corruptions of Popery began at some Rites which seemed at first not only Innocent but Pious; but were afterwards abused to superstition and Idolatry, and swelled up to that bulk as to oppress and stifle true Re∣ligion with their Number and Weight.

A great part of this is in some respect true; yet that we may examine the matter methodically, we shall first consider, What Power the Church has in those matters; and then, What Rules she ought to govern her self by in the use of that Power. It is very visible, that in the Gospels and Epistles there are but few Rules laid down as to Ritual Matters: In the Epistles there are some general Rules given that must take in a great many Cases, such as, Let all things be done to Edification, to Order, and to Peace: And in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus,* 1.295 many Rules are given in such general words, as, Lay hands suddenly on no Man, that in order to the guiding of par∣ticular Cases by them, many distinctions and specialties were to be interpo∣sed to the making them practicable and useful. In matters that are merely Ritual, the state of Mankind in different Climates and Ages is apt to vary; and the same things that in one Scene of Human Nature may look grave, and se••m fit for any Society, may in another Age look light, and dissipate mens thoughts. It is also evident that there is not a System of Rules given in the New Testament about all these; and yet a due method in them is necessary to maintain the Order and Decency that become Divine things: This seems to be a

part of the Gospel-Liberty, That it is not a Law of Ordinances; these things being left to be varied according to the diversities of Mankind.

The Iewish Religion was delivered to one Nation,* 1.296 and the main parts of it were to be performed in one place; they were also to be limited in Ri∣tuals, lest they might have taken some Practices from their Neighbours round about them, and so by the use of their Rites have rendred Idolatrous Practices more familiar and acceptable to them: And yet they had many Rites among them in our Saviour's time, which are not mentioned in any part of the Old Testament; such was the whole Constitution of their Sy∣nagogues, with all the Service and Officers that belonged to them: They had a Baptism among them, besides several Rites added to the Paschal Ser∣vice. Our Saviour reproved them for none of these; he hallowed some of them to be the Foederal Rites of his New Dispensation; he went to their Synagogues; and though he reproved them for overvaluing their Rites, for preferring them to the Laws of God, and making these void by their Traditions, yet he does not condemn them for the use of them. And while of the greater Precepts he says, These things ye ought to have done;* 1.297 he adds concerning their Rites and lesser matters, and not to have left the other undone.

If then such a liberty was allowed in so limited a Religion, it seems highly suitable to the sublimer state of the Christian Liberty, that there should be room left for such Appointments or Alterations as the different state of times and places should require. In hotter Countries, for in∣stance, there is no danger in dipping; but if it is otherwise in colder C••imates, than since Mercy is better than even Sacrifice,* 1.298 a more sparing use may be made of Water; Aspersion may answer the true end of Baptism. A stricter or gentler Discipline of Offenders, must be also proportioned to what the Times will bear, and what Men can be brought to submit to. The dividing of Christians into such Districts, that they may have the best Conveniences to assemble themselves together for Worship, and for keeping up of Order; the appointing the Times as well as the Places of Worship, are certainly to be fixed with the best regard to present Circum∣stances that may be. The bringing Christian Assemblies into Order and Method, is necessary for their Solemnity, and for preventing that dissi∣pation of Thought that a diversity of Behaviour might occasion. And though a Kiss of Peace, and an Order of Deaconesses, were the Practi∣ces of the Apostolical Time, yet when the one gave occasion to Raillery, and the other to Scandal, all the World was, and still is satisfied with the reasons of letting both fall.

Now if Churches may lay aside Apostolical Practices in Matters that are Ritual, it is certainly much easier to justifie their making new Rules for such things; since it is a higher Attempt to alter what was settled by the Apostles themselves, than to set up new Rules in Matters which they left untouch'd. Habits and Postures are the necessary Circumstances of all Publick Meetings: The times of Fasting and of Prayer; the Days of Thanksgiving and Communions are all of the same nature. The Publick Confession of Sins by scandalous Persons; the time and manner of doing it; The previous steps that some Churches have made for the Trial of those who were to be received into Holy Orders, that so by a longer Inspection into their Behaviour, while in lower Orders, they might discover how fit they were to be admitted into the Sacred Ones: And chiefly the prescribing stated Forms for the several Acts of Religi∣ous Worship, and not leaving that to the Capacities of Humours, to the Inventions, and often to the Extravagancies of those who are to offi∣ciate:

All these things, I say, fall within those general Rules given by the Apostles to the Churches in their time: Where we find that the Apostles had their Customs,* 1.299 as well as the Churches of God; which were then op∣posed to the innovating and the contentious humours of some factious Men. And such a Pattern have the Apostles set us of complying with those things that are regulary settled, wheresoever we are, that we find they became all things to all Men: To the Iews they became Iews; though that was a Religion then extinguished in its obligation, by the Pro∣mulgation of the Gospel; and was then fallen under great corruption: Yet in order to the gaining of some of them, such was the Spirit of Charity and Edification with which the Apostles were acted, that while they were among them they complied in the Practice of those abrogated Rites; though they asserted both the Liberty of the Gentiles, and even their own in that matter: It was only a Compliance, and not a Submission to their Opinions, that made them observe days, and distinguish meats; while among them. If then such Rites, and the Rites of such a Church, were still complied with by Inspired Men, this is an Infallible Pattern to us; and let us see upon how much stronger Reasons, we who are under those Obligations to Vnity and Charity with all Christians, ought to maintain the Unity of the Body, and the Decency and Order that is ne∣cessary for Peace and mutual Edification.

Therefore since there is not any one thing that Christ has enjoined more solemnly and more frequently than Love and Charity, Union and Agreement amongst his Disciples; since we are also required to assemble our selves together,* 1.300 to constitute our selves in a Body, both for worship∣ping God jointly, and for maintaining of Order and Love among the So∣ciety of Christians, we ought to acquiesce in such Rules as have been agreed on by common Consent, and which are recommended to us by long Practice, and that are established by those who have the lawful Autho∣rity over us. Nor can we assign any other Bounds to our Submission in this Case, than those that the Gospel has limited. We must obey God, ra∣ther than Man;* 1.301 and we must in the first place render to God the things that are God's, and then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. So that if ei∣ther Church or State have power to make Rules and Laws in such mat∣ters, they must have this Extent given them, That till they break in upon the Laws of God and the Gospel, we must be bound to obey them. A Mean cannot be put here; either they have no Power at all, or they have a Power that must go to every thing that is not forbid by any Law of God. This is the only measure that can be given in this matter.

But a great difference is here to be made between those Rules that both Church and State ought to set to themselves in their enacting of such matters, and the Measures of the Obedience of Subjects: The only question in the point of Obedience, must be Lawful or Unlawful. For Expedient or Inexpedient ought never to be brought into question, as to the point of Obedience; since no Inexpediency whatsoever can balance the breaking of Order, and the dissolving the Constitution and Society. This is a Consideration that arises out of a Man's apprehensions of the fitness or usefulness of things; in which though he might be in the right as to the antecedent fitness of them, and yet even there he may be in the wrong, and in common modesty every Man ought to think that it is more likely that he should be in the wrong, than the Governors and Rulers of the Society; yet I say allowing all this, it is certain that Order and Obe∣dience are both in their own nature, and in their Consequences, to be

preferred to all the particular considerations of Expediency or Inexpedi∣ency. Yet still those in whose Hands the making of those Rules is put, ought to carry their Thoughts much further: They ought to consider well the Genius of the Christian Religion, and therefore they are to avoid every thing that may lead to Idolatry, or feed Superstition; every thing that is apt to be abused to give false Ideas of God, or to make the World think that such Instituted Practices may balance the Violation of the Laws of God. They ought not to overcharge the Worship of God with too great a Number of them: The Rites ought to be grave, simple and naturally ex∣pressive of that which is intended by them. Vain Pomp and indecent Levity ought to be guarded against; and next to the Honour of God and Religion, the Peace and Edification of the Society ought to be chiefly considered. Due regard ought to be had to what Men can bear, and what may be most suitable to the present State of the whole; and fi∣nally, a great Respect is due to Ancient and Established Practices. Anti∣quity does generally beget Veneration; and the very changing of what has been long in use, does naturally startle many, and discompose a great part of the Body. So all Changes, unless the Expediency of making them is upon other Accounts very visible, labour under a great prejudice with the more staid Sort of Men; for this very Reason, because they are Changes. But in this matter, no certain or Mathematical Rules can be gi∣ven: Every one of these that has been named, is capable of that Variety, by the diversity of Times and other Circumstances; that since Prudence and Discretion must Rule the use that is to be made of them, that must be left to the Conscience and Prudence of every Person who may be con∣cerned in the Management of this Authority. He must Act as he will An∣swer it to God and to the Church; for he must be at liberty in applying those general Rules to particular Times and Cases. And a Tem∣per must be observed: We must avoid a sullen adhering to things because they were once settled, as if Points of Honour were to be maintained here; and that it look'd like a reproaching a Constitution, or the Wis∣dom of a former Age, to alter what they did; since it is certain that what was wisely ordered in one Time, may be as wisely chang'd in another: As on the other hand, all Men ought to avoid the Imputations of a de∣sultory Levity; as if they loved Changes for Changes sake: This might give occasion to our Adversaries to triumph over us, and might also fill the Minds of the weaker among our selves with Apprehensions and Scruples.

The next particular Asserted in this Article, is, That the Church hath Authority in Matters of Faith. Here a Distinction is to be made between an Authority that is absolute, and founded on Infallibility; and an Authority of Order. The former is very formally disclaimed by our Church, but the second may be well maintained, tho' we Assert no Unerring Authority. Every single Man has a Right to search the Scri∣ptures, and to take his Faith from them; yet it is certain that he may be mistaken in it. It is therefore a much surer way for Numbers of Men to Meet together, and to Examine such Differences as happen to arise: To consider the Arguments of all Hands, with the Importance of such Pas∣sages of Scripture as are brought into the Controversy; and thus to en∣quire into the whole Matter; in which as it is very natural to think that a great Company of Men should see further than a less Number; so there is all Reason to expect a good Issue of such Deliberations, if Men proceed

in them with due Sincerity and Diligence: If Pride, Faction, and Inte∣rest, do not sway their Councils, and if they seek for Truth more than for Victory.

But what abuses soever may have crept since into the publick Consulta∣tions of the Clergy, the Apostles at first met and consulted together upon that Controversy which was then moved concerning the Imposing the Mosaical Law upon the Gentiles; They ordered the Pastors of the Church to be able to convince Gainsayers,* 1.302 and not to reject a Man as an Heretick, till after a first and a second Admonition: The most likely method both to find out the Truth, and to bring such as are in Error over to it, is to consult of these Matters in common: and that openly and fairly. For if every good Man that prays earnestly to God for the Assistance and Direction of his Spirit, has reason to look for it; much more may a Body of Pastors, brought together to seek out the Truth, in any point under debate, look for it if they bring with them sincere and unprejudiced Minds, and do pray earnestly to God. In that case they may expect to be directed and assisted of Him. But this depends upon the Purity of their Hearts, and the Earnestness of their Endeavours and Prayers.

When any Synod of the Clergy has so far examined a Point, as to set∣tle their Opinions about it, they may certainly decree that such is their Doctrine: And as they judge it to be more or less important, they may either restrain any other Opinion, or may require positive Declarations about it, either of all in their Communion, or at least of all whom they admit to minister in Holy Things.

This is only an Authority of Order for the maintaining of Union and Edification: And in this a Body does no more as it is a Body, than what every single Individual has a right to do for himself. He examines a Do∣ctrine that is laid before him, he forms his own Opinion upon it, and pursuant to that he must judge with whom he can hold Communion, and from whom he must separate.

When such Definitions are made by the Body of the Pastors of any Church, all Persons within that Church, do owe great respect to their Decision. Modesty must be observed in descanting upon it, and in dis∣puting about it. Every Man that finds his own thoughts differ from it, ought to examine the Matter over again, with much attention and care, freeing himself all he can from Prejudice and Obstinacy; with a just di∣strust of his own Understanding, and an humble respect to the Judgment of his Superiors.

This is due to the considerations of Peace and Union, and to that Au∣thority which the Church has to maintain it. But if after all possible methods of Enquiry, a Man cannot master his Thoughts, or make them agree with the Publick Decisions, his Conscience is not under Bonds: Since this Authority is not absolute nor grounded upon a promise of Infallibility.

This is a Tenet that with Relation to National Churches and their De∣cisions, is held by the Church of Rome, as well as by us: For they place Infallibility either in the Pope, or in the Universal Church: But no Man ever dreamt of Infallibility in a particular or National Church: And the Point in this Article is only concerning particular Churches; for the Head of General Councils comes in upon the next. That no Church can add any thing as necessary to Salvation, has been already considered upon the Sixth Article.

It is certain, that as we owe our hopes of Salvation only to Christ, and to what he has done for us; so also it can belong only to him who procured it to us, to fix the Terms upon which we may look for it: Nor can any Power on Earth clog the offers that he makes us in the Gospel, with new or other Terms than those which we find made there to us. There can be no dispute about this: For unless we believe that there is an Infallible Authority lodged in the Church, to explain the Scripture, and to declare Tradition; and unless we believe that the Scriptures are both obscure and defective, and that the one must be help∣ed by an Infallible Commentary, and the other supplied by an Authenti∣cal Declarer of Tradition; we cannot ascribe an Authority to the Church, either to contradict the Scripture, or to add necessary conditions of Salva∣tion to it.

We own after all, That the Church is the Dispositary of the whole Scriptures, as the Iews were of the Old Testament: But in that In∣stance of the Iews, we may see that a Body of Men may be faithful in the Copying of a Book exactly, and in the handing it down with∣out corrupting it; and yet they may be mistaken in the true meaning of that which they preserve so faithfully. They are expresly called the keepers of the Oracles of God:* 1.303 And are no where reproved for having attempted upon this Depositum: And yet for all that Fidelity, they fell into great Errors about some of the most Important parts of their Reli∣gion; which exposed them to the rejecting the Messias, and to their utter ruin.

The Church's being called the Witness of Holy Writ is not to be resolved into any Judgment that they pass upon it, as a Body of Men that have Authority to Judge and give Sentence, so that the Canoni∣calness, or the Uncanonicalness of any Book shall depend upon their Testi∣mony: But is resolv'd into this, that such Successions and Numbers of Men, whether of the Laity or Clergy, have in a course of many Ages had these Books preserved and read among them; so that it was not possible to cor∣rupt that upon which so many Men had their Eyes, in all the Corners and Ages of Christendom.

And thus we believe the Scripture to be a Book written by in∣spired Men, and delivered by them to the Church, upon the Testi∣mony of the Church that at first received it; knowing that those great Matters of Fact, contained and appealed to in it, were true: And also upon the like Testimony of the succeeding Ages, who Preserved, Read, Copied, and Translated that Book, as they had received it from the first.

The Church of Rome is guilty of a manifest Circle in this Matter: For they say they believe the Scriptures upon the Authority of the Church: And they do again believe the Authority of the Church, because of the Testimony of the Scripture concerning it.

This is as false reasoning as can be imagined: For nothing can be proved by another Authority, till that Authority is first fixed and pro∣ved: And therefore if the Testimony of the Church is believed to be sacred, by virtue of a Divine Grant to it, and that from thence the Scriptures have their Credit and Authority, then the Credit due to the Church's Testimony is Antecedent to the Credit of the Scripture: And so must not be proved by any passages brought from it; otherwise that is a manifest Circle. But no Circle is committed in our way, who do not prove the Scriptures from any supposed Authority in the Church, that has handed them down to us: But only as they are vast Com∣panies

of Men who cannot be presumed to have been guilty of any Fraud in this matter; it appeared further to be morally impossible for any that should have attempted a Fraud in it, to have executed it. When therefore the Scripture it self is proved by Moral Arguments of this kind, we may according to the strictest Rules of Reasoning examine, What Authority the Scripture gives to the Pastors of the Church met in lesser or greater Councils.

ARTICLE XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils.

General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes. And when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an Assembly of men whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometime have erred even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things Ordained by them as necessary to Salvation, have neither Strength nor Authority, unless it may be declared that they are taken out of the Holy Scriptures.

THERE are two Particulars setled in this Article: The one is, The power of calling of Councils, at least an Assertion that they cannot be called without the Will of Princes: The other is, The Autho∣rity of general Councils, that they are not Infallible, and that some have erred: And therefore the Inference is justly made, That whatever Au∣thority they may have in the Rule and Government of the Church, their Decisions in matters necessary to Salvation ought to be examined by the Word of God, and are not to be submitted to, unless it appears that they are conform to the Scripture.

The first of these is thus proved: Clergymen are Subject to their Princes, according to these words,* 1.304 Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: If they are then Subject to them, they cannot be obliged to go out of their Dominions upon the Summons of any other; their Per∣sons being under the Laws and Authority of that Country to which they belong.

This is plain, and seems to need no other Proof. It is very visible how much the Peace of Kingdoms and States is concerned in this Point: For if a Foreign Power should call their Clergy away at pleasure, they might be not only left in a great destitution as to Religious Performan∣ces, but their Clergy might be practised upon, and sent back to them with such Notions, and upon such Designs, that, chiefly supposing the Immunity of their Persons, they might become, as they often were in dark and ignorant Ages, the Incendiaries of the World, and the Distur∣bers and Betrayers of their Countries. This is confirmed by the Practice of the first Ages, after the Church had the Protection of Christian Ma∣gistrates: In these the Roman Emperors called the First General Councils, which is expresly mentioned not only in the Histories of the Councils, but in their Acts, where we find both the Writs that Summoned them, and their Letters sometimes to the Emperors, and sometimes to the Churches, which do all set forth their being Summoned by the Sacred Authority of their Emperors, without mentioning any other. In calling some of these Councils, it does not appear that the Popes were much consulted: And in others we find Popes indeed supplicating the Emperors to call a Council, but nothing that has so much as a shadow of their pretending to an Authority to summon it themselves.

This is a thing so plain, and may be so soon seen into by any Per∣son who will be at the pains to turn to the Editions of the first Four General Councils made by themselves, not to mention those that fol∣lowed in the Greek Church, that the Confidence with which it has been asserted, That they were summoned by the Popes, is an Instance to shew us that there is nothing at which men who are once engaged, will stick when their Cause requires it. But even since the Popes have got this matter into their own hands, though they summon the Council, yet they do not pretend to it, nor expect that the World would receive a Council as General, or submit to it, unless the Princes of Christen∣dom should allow of it, and consent to the Publication of the Bull. So that by reason of this, Councils are now become almost unpractica∣ble things.

When all Christendom was included within the Roman Empire, then the calling of a Council lay in the Breast and Power of one Man; and during the Ages of Ignorance and Superstition, the World was so subjected to the Popes Authority, that Princes durst seldom oppose their Summons, or deny their Bishops leave to go when they were so cal∣led: But after the scandalous Schism in the Popedom, in which there were for a great while Two Popes, and at last Three at a time, Councils began to pretend that the Power of Governing the Church, and of censuring, depriving, and making of Popes, was radically in them, as Representing the Vniversal Church: So they fell upon Me∣thods to have frequent Councils, and that whether both Popes and Princes should oppose it or not; for they declared both the one and the other to be fallen from their Dignity, that should attempt to hinder it. Yet they carried the Claim of the Freedom of Elections, and of the other Ecclesiastical Immunities so high, that all that fol∣lowed upon this, was, That the Popes being terrified with the At∣tempts begun at Constance, and prosecuted at Basil and Pisa, took pains to have Princes of their side, and then made Bargains and Concordates with them, by which they divided all the Rights of the Church, at least the Pretensions to them, between themselves and the Princes. Mat∣ters of Gain and Advantage were reserved to the See of Rome; but the Points of Power and Jurisdiction were generally given up to the Princes. The Temporal Authority has by that means prevailed over the Spiritual, as much as the Spiritual Authority had prevailed over the Temporal for several Ages before. Yet the Pretence of a General Coun∣cil is still so specious, that all those in the Roman Communion that do not acknowledge the Infallibility of their Popes, do still support this Pretension, That the Infallibility is given by Christ to his Church; and that in the Interval of Councils it is in the Community of the Bishops and Pastors of the Church; and that when a Council meets, then the Infallibility is lodged with it;* 1.305 according to that, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to Vs.

The first thing to be settled in every Question, is the meaning of the Terms: So we must begin and examine what makes a General Council; Whether all the Bishops must be present in Person, or by Proxy? And what share the Laity, or the Princes that are thought to represent their People, ought to have in a Council? It is next to be considered, Whether a General Citation is enough to make a Council General, were the appearance of the Bishops ever so small at

their first opening? It is next to be considered, Whether any come thither and Sit there as representing others; and if Votes ought to be reckoned according to the Numbers of the Bishops, or of the others who Depute and send them? And whether Nations ought to Vote in a Body as Integral Parts of the Church; or of every single Bi∣shop by himself? And finally, Whether the Decisions of Councils must be Unanimous, before they can be esteemed Infallible? Or whe∣ther the Major Vote, though exceeding only by One, or if some greater Inequality is necessary; such as Two Thirds, or any other Proportion? That there may be just cause of raising Scruples up∣on every one of these, is apparent at first View. It is certain, a bare Name cannot qualify a Number of Bishops Sitting together, to be this General Council. The Numbers of Bishops does it not neither. A Hundred and fifty was a small Number at Constantino∣ple: Even the famous Three hundred and eighteen at Nice were far exceeded by those at Arimini. All the First General Councils were made up for the most part of Eastern Bishops; there being a ve∣ry inconsiderable Number of the Western among any of them; scarce any at all being to be found in some. If this had been the Body to whom Christ had left this Infallibility, it cannot be imagined but that some Definition or Description of the Constitution of it, would have been given us in the Scripture: And the profound silence that is about it, gives just occasion to think, that how Wise and how Good soever such a Constitution may be, if well pursued, yet it is not of a Divine Institution; otherwise somewhat concerning so Im∣portant a Head as this is, must have been mentioned in the Scri∣pture.

The Natural Idea of a General Council, is a Meeting of all the Bishops of Christendom, or at least of Proxies Instructed by them and their Clergy. Now if any will stand to this Description, then we are very sure that there was never yet a True General Council: Which will appear to every one that reads the Subscriptions of the Councils. Therefore we must conclude, That General Councils are not Consti∣tuted by a Divine Authority; since we have no Direction given us from God, by which we may know what they are, and what is necessary to their Constitution. And we cannot suppose that God has granted any Privileges, much less Infallibility, which is the greatest of all, to a Body of Men, of whom, or of whose Constitution he has said no∣thing to us. For suppose we should yield that there were an Infalli∣bility lodged in general in the Church diffusive, so that the Church in some Part or other shall be always preserved from Error; yet the re∣straining this to the greater Number of such Bishops as shall happen to come to a Council, they living perhaps near it, or being more capable and more forward to undertake a Journey, being Healthier, Richer, or more Active than others; or which is as probable, because it has often fallen out, they being picked out by Parties or Princes to car∣ry on Cabals, and manage such Intrigues as may be on Foot at the Council: The restraining the Infallibility, I say, to the greater Num∣ber of such Persons, unless there is Divine Authority for doing it, is the Transferring the Infallibility from the whole Body to a select Number of Persons, who of themselves are the least likely to Con∣sent

to the engrossing this Privilege to the Majority of their Body, it being their Interest to maintain their Right to it, free from Intrigue or Management.

We need not wonder if such things have happen'd in the latter Ages, when Nazianzen laments the Corruptions, the Ambition, and the Con∣tentions that reigned in those Assemblies in his own time; so that he ne∣ver desired to see any more of them. He was not only present at one of the General Councils, but he himself felt the Effects of Jealousie and Vio∣lence in it.

Further, it will appear a thing incredible, That there is an Infallibility in Councils because they are called General, and are Assembled out of a great many Kingdoms and Provinces; when we see them go backward and forward, according to the Influences of Courts, and of Interests di∣rected from thence. We know how differently Councils Decreed in the Arian Controversies; and what a variety of them Constantius set up against that at Nice. So it was in the Eutychian Heresy, Approved in the Second Council at Ephesus, but soon after Condemned at Chalcedon. So it was in the business of Images, Condemned at Constantinople in the East; but soon after upon anoth•••• Change at Court maintain'd in the Second at Nice; and not long after Condemned in a very Numerous Council at Franc∣fort. And in the Point in Hand, as to the Authority of Councils, it was Asserted at Constance and Basil; but Condemned in the Lateran; and was upon the matter laid aside at Trent. Here were great Numbers of all Hands; both Sides took the Name of General Coun∣cils.

It will be a further Prejudice against this, if we see great Violences and Disorders entring into the Management of some Councils; and Craft and Ar••i••ice into the Conduct of others. Numbers of Factious and Furious Monks came to some Councils, and drove on Matters by their Clamours: So it was at Ephesus. We see gross Fraud in the Second at Nice, both in the Persons set up to represent the Absent Patriarchs; and in the Books and Authorities that were Vouched for the Worship of Images. The In∣trigues at Trent, as they are set out even by Cardinal Pallavicini, were more subtile, but not less apparent, nor less scandalous. Nothing was trusted to a Session, till it was first Canvassed in Congregations; which were what a Committee of the whole House is in our Parliaments; and then every Man's Vote was known; so that there was hereby great occasion given for Practice. This alone, if there had been no more, shewed plainly that they themselves knew they were not Guided by the Spirit of God, or by Infallibility; since a Session was not thought safe to be ventured on, but after a long previous Can∣vassing.

Another Question remains yet to be cleared, concerning their Man∣ner of Proceeding; Whether the Infallibility is affixed to their Vote, whatsoever their Proceedings may be? Or whether they are bound to Discuss Matters fully? The first cannot be said, unless it is pretended that they Vote by Special Inspiration: If the second is allowed, then we must examine both what makes a full Discussion; and whether they have made it?

If we find Opinions safely represented, if Books that are spurious have been relied on; if Passages of Scripture, or of the Fathers on which it appears the stress of the Decision has turned, have been manifestly misunderstood and wrested, so that in a more Enlightened Age no Person pretends to justify the Authorities that determined them; Can we imagine that there should be more Truth in their Conclusions, than we do plainly see was in the Premisses out of which they were drawn? So it must either be said, That they Vote by an immediate Inspiration, or all Persons cannot be bound to submit to their Judgment till they have examined their Methods of Proceeding, and the Grounds on which they went: And when all is done, the Question comes, concerning the Authority of such De∣crees after they are made, Whether it follows immediately upon their being made, or must stay for the Confirmatory Bulls? If it must stay for the Bull, then the Infallibility is not in the Council: And that is only a more solemn way of preparing Matters in order to the laying them before the Pope. If they are Infallible before the Con∣firmation, then the Infallibility is wholly in the Council; and the subsequent Bull does instead of confirming their Decrees, derogate much from them: For to pretend to confirm them, imports that they wanted that Addition of Authority, which destroys the supposi∣tion of their Infallibility, since what is Infallible cannot be made Stronger: And the pretending to add strength to it, implies that it is not Infallible. Human Constitutions may be indeed so model∣led, that there must be a joint Concurrence, before a Law can be made: And though it is the last consent that settles the Law, yet the previous consents were necessary steps to the giving it the Autho∣rity of a Law.

And thus it is not to be denied, but that as to the Matters of Go∣vernment, the Church may cast her self into such a Model, that as by a Decree of the Council of Nice, the Bishops of a Province might conclude nothing without the consent of the Metropolitan; so ano∣ther Decree might even limit a General Council to stay for the consent of one or more Patriarchs. But this must only take place in Matters of Order and Government, which are left to the disposal of the Church, but not in Decisions about Matters of Faith. For if there is an Infalli∣bility in the Church, it must be derived from a special Grant made by Christ to his Church: And it must go according to the Nature of that Grant, unless it can be pretended that there is a Clause in that Grant empowering the Church to dispose of it, and model it at pleasure. For if there is no such power, as it is plain there is not, then Christ's Grant is either to a single person, or to the whole Community: If to a single Person, then the Infallibility is wholly in him, and he is to ma∣nage it as he thinks best: For if he calls a Council, it is only an act of his humility and condescension, to hear the Opinions of many in different Corners of the Church, that so he may know all that comes from all Quarters: It may also seem a prudent way to make his Au∣thority to be the more easily born and submitted to, since what is gently managed, is best obeyed: But after all, these are only pru∣dential

and discreet Methods. The Infallibility must be only in him, if Christ has by the Grant tied him to such a Succession. Whereas on the other hand, if the Infallibility is granted to the whole Community, or to their Representatives, then all the Applications that they may make to any one See, must only be in order to the Execution of their De∣crees, like the Addresses that they make to Princes for the Civil Sanction. But still the Infallibility is where Christ put it. It rests wholly in their Decision, and belongs only to that: And any other Confirmation that they desire, unless it be restrained singly to the Execution of their De∣crees, is a Wound given by themselves to their own Infallibility, if not a direct disclaiming of it.

When the Confirmation of the Council is over, a new Difficulty arises concerning the receiving the Decrees: And here it may be said, That if Christ's Grant is to the whole Community, so that a Council is only the Authentical Declarer of the Tradition, the whole Body of the Church that is possessed of the Tradition, and conveys it down, must have a right to examine the Decision that the Council has made, and so is not bound to receive it, but as it finds it to be conformable to Tradition.

Here it is to be supposed, that every Bishop, or at the least all the Bishops of any National Church, know best the Tradition of their own Church and Nation: And so they will have a right to re-examine things, after they have been judged in a General Council.

This will intirely destroy the whole Pretension to Infallibility: And yet either this ought to have been done, after the Councils at Arimini, or the second of Ephesus, or else the World must have received Semi-Aria∣nism, or Eutychianism, implicitly from them. It is also no small prejudice against this Opinion, That the Church was constituted, the Scriptures were received, many Heresies were rejected, and the Persecutions were gone through in a course of Three Centuries; in all which time there was nothing that could pretend to be called a General Council. And when the Ages came in which Councils met often, neither the Councils themselves, who must be supposed to understand their own Authority best, nor those who writ in defence of their Decrees, who must be supposed to be inclined enough to magnify their Authority, be∣ing of the same side; neither of these, I say, ever pretended to ar∣gue for their Opinions, from the Infallibility of those Councils that Decreed them.

They do indeed speak of them with great Respect, as of Bodies of Men that were guided by the Spirit of God: And so do we of our Re∣formers, and of those who prepared our Liturgy: But we do not as∣cribe Infallibility to them, and no more did they. Nor did they lay the stress of their Arguments upon the Authority of such Decisions; they knew that the Objection might have been made as strong against them, as they could put the Argument for them. And therefore they offered to wave the Point, and to appeal to the Scripture, setting aside the Definitions that had been made in Councils both ways.

To conclude this Argument.

If the Infallibility is supposed to be in Councils, then the Church may justly apprehend that she has lost it: For as there has been no Council that has pretended to that Title, now during 130 Years, so there is no great probability of our ever seeing another. The Charge and Noise, the Expectations and Disappointments of that at Trent, has Taught the World to expect nothing from one: They plainly see that the management from Rome must carry every thing in a Council: Neither Princes nor People, no nor the Bishops themselves, desire or expect to see one.

The Claim set up at Rome for Infallibility, makes the demand of one seem not only needless there, but to imply a doubting of their Authority, when other methods are lookt after, which will certainly be always unacceptable to those who are in possession, and act as if they were Infallible: Nor can it be apprehended that they will desire a Council to Reform those abuses in Discipline, which are all occa∣sioned by that Absolute and Universal Authority, of which they are now possessed.

So by all the Judgments that can be made from the State of Things, from the Interests of Men, and the last Managemnt at Trent, one may without a Spirit of Prophecy conclude, That Christendom puts on a new Face, there will be no more General Councils. And so here Infallibility is at an end, and has left the Church at least for a very long Interval.

It remains that those Passages should be considered that are brought to support this Authority. Christ says, Tell the Church; and if he neglects to hear the Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen,* 1.306 and a Publican.

These words in themselves, and separated from all that went be∣fore, seem to speak out this matter very fully: But when the occasion of them, and the matter that is treated of in them, are consi∣dered, nothing can be plainer than that our Saviour is speaking of such private Differences, as may arise among Men, and of the Pra∣ctice of forgiving Injuries, and composing their Differences. If thy Brother sin against thee; first private Endeavours were to be used, then the Interposition of Friends was to be tried: And finally, the matter was to be referred to the Body, or Assembly to which they belonged: And those who could not be gained by such Methods, were no more to be esteemed Brethren, but were to be looked on as very bad Men, like Heathens. They might upon such refra∣ctoriness be Excommunicated, and Prosecuted afterwards in Temporal Courts, since they had by their Perversness forfeited all sort of right to that Tenderness and Charity that is due to true Chri∣stians.

This Exposition does so fully agree to the Occasion and Scope of these words, that there is no colour of Reason to carry them fur∣ther.

The Character given to the Church of Ephesus; in St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy,* 1.307 That it was the pillar and ground of Truth, is a Figurative Ex∣pression: And it is never safe to build upon Metaphors, much less to lay much weight upon them.

The Iews described their Synagogues by such honourable Characters, in which it is known how profuse all the Eastern Nations are: These are by St. Paul applied to the Church of Ephesus: For he there speaks of the Church where Timothy was then, in which he instructs him to behave himself well. It has visibly a relation to those Inscriptions that were made on Pillars, which rested upon firm Pedestals: But what∣soever the strict Importance of the Metaphor may be, it is a Meta∣phor, and therefore it can be no Argument. Christ's promise of the Spirit to his Apostles,* 1.308 that should lead them into all truth, relates visi∣bly to that extraordinary Inspiration, by which they were to be act∣ed, and that was to shew them things to come; so that a Succession of Prophecy may be inferred from these words, as well as of Infal∣libility.

Those words of our Saviour, with which St. Matthew concludes his Gospel,* 1.309 Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the World, infer no Infallibility, but only a promise of Assistance and Protection: Which was a necessary encouragement to the Apostles, when they were sent up∣on so laborious a Commission, that was to involve them into so much danger. God's being with any, his walking with them, his being in the midst of them, his never leaving nor forsaking them, are Expressions often used in the Scripture,* 1.310 which signifie no more but God's watchful Provi∣dence, Guiding, Supporting, and Protecting his People: All this is far from Infallibility.

The Last Objection to be proposed, is that which seems to relate most to the Point in hand, taken from the Decree made by a Council at Ie∣rusalem,* 1.311 which begins, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us: From which they infer, That the Holy Ghost is present with Councils, and that what seems good to them is also approved by the Holy Ghost. But it will not be easie to prove that this was such a Council, as to be a pat∣tern to succeeding ones to copy after it. We find Brethren are here joined with the Apostles themselves: Now since these were no other than the Laity, here an Inference will be made, that will not go easily down. If they fate and voted with the Apostles, it will seem strange to deny them the same privilege among Bishops. By Elders here it seems Presbyters are meant, and this will give them an Entrance into a General Council, out of which they cannot be well excluded, if the Laity are admitted. But here was no citation, no time given to all Churches to send their Bishops or Proxies: It was an Occasional Meeting of such of the Apostles as happened to be then at Ierusalem, who called to them the Elders or Presbyters, and other Christians at Ierusalem: For the Holy Ghost was then poured out so plentifully on so many, that no wonder if there was then about that truly Mother Church, a great many of both sorts, who were of such Eminence, that the Apostles might desire them to meet and to joyn with them.

The Apostles were Divinely Assisted in the delivering that Com∣mission which our Saviour gave them in charge, To preach to every creature; and so were Infallibly Assisted in the Executing of it;* 1.312 yet when other Matters fell in, which were no Parts of that Commissi∣on, they no doubt did as St. Paul, who sometimes writ by Permission,* 1.313 as well as at other times by Commandment: Of which he gives notice, by saying, It is I, and not the Lord: He suggested Advices, which to him, according to his Prudence and Experience seemed to be well founded; and he offered them with great Sincerity; for though he had some reason to think that what he proposed, flow∣ed from the Spirit of the Lord,* 1.314 from that Inspiration that was Acting him; yet because that did not appear distinctly to him, he speaks with Reserves, and says,* 1.315 he gives his judgment as one that had ob∣tained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. So the Apostles here, receiv∣ing no Inspiration to Direct them in this Case, but observing well what St. Peter put them in mind of, concerning God's sending him by a Special Vision to Preach to the Gentiles, and that God had poured out the Holy Ghost on them, even as he had done upon the Apostles, who were Iews by Nature, and that he did put no dif∣ference in that between Iews and Gentiles;* 1.316 purifying the hearts of the Gentiles by Faith: They upon this did by their Judgment conclude from thence, That what God had done in the particular Instance of Cornelius, was now to be extended to all the Gentiles. So by this we see that those Words, seemed good to the Holy Ghost, relate to the Case of Cornelius; and those Words, seemed good to us, import that they resolved to extend that to be a general Rule to all the Gentiles.

This gives the Words a clear and a distinct Sense, which agrees with all that had gone before; whereas it will otherwise look very strange to see them add their Authority to that of the Holy Ghost; which is too Absurd to suppose: Nor will it be easy to give any other con∣sisting Sense to these Words,

Here is no Precedent of a Council, much less of a General one; but a Decision is made by Men that were in other things Divinely In∣spired, which can have no relation to the Judgment of other Coun∣cils. And thus it appears that none of those Places which are brought to prove the Infallibility of Councils, come up to the Point: For so great and so important a Matter as this is, must be suppo∣sed to be either expresly declared in the Scriptures, or not at all.

The Article affirming, That some General Councils have erred, must be understood of Councils that pass for such; and that may be called General Councils, much better than many others that go by that Name: For that at Arimini was both very Numerous, and was drawn out of many different Provinces. As to the strict Noti∣on of a General Council, there is great Reason to believe that there was never any Assembly to which it will be found to agree. And for the Four General Councils, which this Church declares she receives, they are received only because we are persuaded from the Scriptures that their Decisions were made according to them: That the Son is truly God, of the same Substance with the Father. That

the Holy Ghost is also truly God. That the Divine Nature was tru∣ly united to the Human in Christ; and that in One Person. That both Natures remain distinct; and that the Human Nature was not swallowed up of the Divine. These Truths we find in the Scriptures, and therefore we believe them. We reverence those Councils for the sake of their Doctrine; but do not believe the Doctrine for the Au∣thority of the Councils. There appeared too much of Human Frail∣ty in some of their other Proceedings, to give us such an Implicite Submission to them, as to believe things only because they so De∣cided them.

ARTICLE. XXII. Of Purgatory.

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Wor∣shipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relicks, and also Invocation of Saints is a fond thing, vainly invented and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

THERE are two small Variations in this Article from that pub∣lished in King Edward's Reign. What is here called the Romish Doctrine, is there called the Doctrine of School-men. The plain reason of this, is, that these Errors were not so fully espoused by the Body of the Roman Church, when those Articles were first published, so that some Writers that softened matters threw them upon the School-men; and therefore the Article was cautiously worded, in laying them there: But before these that we have now, were published, the Decree and Canons concerning the Mass had passed at Trent, in which most of the Heads of this Article are either affirmed or supposed; though the formal Decree concerning them, was made some Months after these Articles were published. This will serve to justifie that diversi∣ty. The second difference is only the leaving out a severe word. Perniciously repugnant to the Word of God, was put at first; but perniciously being considered to be only a hard word, they judged very right in the Second Edition of them, that it was enough to say repugnant to the Word of God.

There are in this Article five Particulars that are all Ingredients in the Doctrine and Worship of the Church of Rome, Purgatory, Par∣dons, the Worship of Images, and of Relicks, and the Invocation of Saints; that are rejected not only as ill grounded, brought in and maintained without good warrants from the Scripture, but as contrary to it.

The first of these is Purgatory; concerning which, the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, is that every Man is liable both to Temporal and to Eternal Punishment for his Sins; that God upon the Account of the Death and Intercession of Christ, does indeed pardon Sin as to its Eternal Punishment; but the Sinner is still liable to Temporal Pun∣ishment, which he must expiate by Acts of Pennance and Sorrow in this World, together with such other Sufferings as God shall think fit to lay upon him; but if he does not expiate these in this Life, there is a State of Suffering and Misery in the next World, where the Soul is to bear the Temporal punishment of its Sins; which may continue longer or shorter, till the Day of Judgment. And in order to the shortening this, the Prayers and Supererogations of Men here on Earth, or the Intercession of the Saints in Heaven, but above all things, the Sacrifice of the Mass are of great Effi∣cacy. This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, asserted in the Councils of Florence and Trent. What has been taught among them concerning the Nature and the Degrees of those Torments, though supported by many pretended Apparitions and Revelations, is not to be imputed to the

whole Body; and is indeed only the Doctrine of Schoolmen, though it is generally preached and infused into the Consciences of the Peo∣ple. Therefore I shall only examine that which is the established Do∣ctrine of the whole Roman Church. And first as to the Foundation of it, that Sins are only pardoned as to their Eternal Punishment, to those who being justified by faith have peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ.* 1.317 There is not a colour for it in the Scriptures. Remis∣sion of Sins is in general that with which the Preaching of the Gos∣pel ought always to begin; and this is so often repeated, without any such reserve, that it is a high assuming upon God, and his Attri∣butes of Goodness and Mercy, to limit these when he has not limit∣ed them; but has expresly said, that this is a main part of the New Covenant,* 1.318 that he will remember our sins and iniquities no more. Now it seems to be a Maxim, not only of the Law of Nations, but of Nature, that all offers of Pardon are to be understood in the full ex∣tent of the Words, without any secret Reserves or Limitations; unless they are plainly expressed. An Indemnity being offered by a Prince to persuade his Subjects to return to their Obedience, in the fullest Words possible, without any reserves made in it, it would be lookt on as a very perfidious thing, if when the Subjects come in upon it, trusting to it, they should be told that they were to be secured by it against Capital Punishments; but that as to all Inferior Punishments, they were still at Mercy. We do not dispute whether God, if he had thought fit so to do, might not have made this distinction; nor do we deny that the Grace of the Gospel had been infinitely valuable, if it had offered us only the Pardon of Sin with relation to its Eternal Punish∣ment, and had left the Temporal Punishment on us, to be expiated by our selves; but then we say, this ought to have been expressed: The Distinction ought to have been made between Temporal and Eter∣nal; and we ought not to have been drawn into a Covenant with God, by words that do plainly import an intire Pardon and Oblivion, upon which there lay a limited Sense, that was not to be told the World till it was once well engaged in the Christian Religion. Upon these Reasons it is, that we conclude that this Doctrine not being contained in the Scriptures, is not only without any warrant in them, but that it is con∣trary to those full offers of Mercy, Peace, and Oblivion, that are made in the Gospel; it is contrary to the Truth and Veracity, and to the Justice and Goodness of God, to affirm that there are Reserves to be understood for Punishments, when the Offers and Promises are made to us in such large and unlimited Expressions.

Thus we lay our Foundation in this matter, which does very fully overthrow theirs. We do not deny but that God does in this World punish good Men for those Sins, which yet are forgiven them through Christ,* 1.319 according to these words in the Psalm, Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions: But this is a consideration quite of another nature. God in the Government of this World, thinks fit by his Providence sometimes to interpose in visible Blessings, as well as Judgments, to shew how he protects and favours the Good, and punishes the Bad; and that the bad Actions of good Men are odious to him, even though he has recieved their Persons into his favour. He has also in the Gospel plainly ex∣cepted the Government of this World, and the secret Methods of his

Providence out of the Mercy that he has promised, by the Warnings that are given to all Christians to prepare for Crosses and Afflictions in this Life. He has made Faith and Patience in Adversities a main Condi∣tion of this New Covenant; he has declared that these are not the Punish∣ments of an Angry God, but the Chastisements of a Kind and Merci∣ful Father, who designs by them both to shew to the World, the Im∣partiality of his Justice in punishing some crying Sins, in a very sig∣nal manner, and to give good Men deep Impressions of their odious∣ness, to oblige them to a severer Repentance for them, and to a greater Watchfulness against them; as also to give the World such Examples of Resignation and Patience under them, that they may edify others by that, as much as by their Sins they may have offended them. So that upon all these Accounts, it seems abundantly clear, that no Argument can be drawn from the Temporal Punishments of good Men, for their Sins in this World, to a reserve of others in another State. The one are clearly mentioned and reserved in the offers of Mercy, that are made in the Gospel, whereas the others are not. This being the most plausible thing that they say for this Distinction of those twofold Punishments, it is plain that there is no foundation for it.

As for those words of Christ's,* 1.320 Ye shall not come out till ye have paid the uttermost farthing; from which they would infer that there is a State in which, after we shall be cast into Prison, we are paying off our Debts; this, if an Argument at all, will prove too much; that in Hell the Damned are clearing Scores; and that they shall be delivered when all is paid off. For by Prison there, that only can be meant, as appears by the whole Contexture of the Discourse, and by other Parables of the like nature. It is a Figure taken from a Man Imprisoned for a great Debt, and the continuance of it, till the last Farthing is paid, does imply their perpetual Continuance in that State, since the Debt is too great to be ever paid off: From a Phrase in a Parable, no Consequence is to be drawn, be∣yond that which is the true Scope of the Parable, which in this particu∣lar, is only intended by our Saviour, to shew the severe Punishment of those, who hate implacably, which is a Sin that does certainly deserve Hell, and not Purgatory.

Our Saviour's Words concerning the Sin against the Holy Ghost, That it is neither forgiven in this Life, nor in that which is to come;* 1.321 is also urged to prove that some Sins are pardoned in the next Life, which are not pardoned in this. But still this will seem a stronger Argument against the Eternity of Hell-Torments, than for Purgatory; and will rather import that the Damned may at last be pardoned their Sins, since these are the only Persons whose Sins are not pardoned in this World; for of those who are justified, it cannot be said, that their Sins are not forgiven them, and such only go to Purgatory: Therefore, either this is only a general way of speaking, to exclude all hopes of Pardon, and to imply that God's Judgments will pursue such Blasphemers, both in this Life, and in the next; or if we will understand them more critically, by this Life, or this Age, and the next, according to a common Opinion and Phrase of the Iews, which is founded on the Prophecies, are to be understood the Dispensation of the Law, and the Dispensation of the Messias; the Age to come being a common Phrase for the times of the Messias; according to those Words in the Epistle to the Hebrews,* 1.322 He hath not put in subjection to

Angels the world to come: By the Mosaical Law, Sacrifices were only received, and by consequence Pardon was offered for Sins of a less heinous Nature; but those that were more heinous were to be pu∣nished by Death, or by cutting off without Mercy; whereas a full promise of the Pardon of all Sins is offered in the Gospel: So that the meaning of these words of Christ's, is, that such a Blasphemy was a Sin not only beyond the Pardon offered in the Law of Moses, which was the Age that then was, but that it was a Sin beyond that Pardon which was to be offered by the Messias in the Age to come, that is, in the Kingdom of Heaven, that was then at hand. But these Words can by no means be urged to prove this Distinction of Temporal and Eternal Punishment; therefore we must conclude, that since Repen∣tance and Remission of Sins are joyned together in the first Commission to Preach the Gospel;* 1.323 and since Life, Peace, and Salvation, are pro∣mised to such as believe, that all this is to be understood simply and plainly, without any other Limitation or Exception than that which is expressed, which is only of such Chastisements as God thinks fit to exercise good Men with in this Life.

In the next place, we shall consider what reason we have to reject the Doctrine of Purgatory; as we have already seen how weak the Foundation is upon which it is built. The Scripture speaks to us of Two States after this Life, of Happiness, and Misery; and as it divides all Mankind into good and bad, into those that do Good, and those that do Evil, into Believers and Unbelievers, Righteous and Sinners; so it proposes always the end of the one to be everlasting Happiness, and the end of the other to be everlasting Punishment, without the least hint of any Middle State after Death. So that it is very plain there is nothing said in Scripture, of Men too good to be Damned, but not so good as to be immediately Saved. Now if there had been yet a great deal to be suffered after Death, and that there were many very effectual ways to prevent and avoid, or at least to shorten those Suf∣ferings; and if the Apostles knew this, and yet said not a Word of it, neither in their first Sermons, nor in their Epistles; here was a great Treachery in the discharge of their Function, and that to the Souls of Men, not to warn them of their Danger, nor to direct them to the proper Methods of avoiding it; but on the contrary, to speak and write to them, just as we can suppose Impostors would have done, to terrify those who would not receive their Gospel, with Eternal Damna∣tion, but not to say a Word to those who received it, of their danger, in case they lived not up to that Exactness that their Religion requi∣red, and yet upon the main adhered to it, and followed it. This is a Method that does not agree with common Honesty, not to say In∣spiration. A fair way of proceeding, is to make Men sensible of Dangers of all sorts, and to shew them how to avoid them: The Apostles told their Converts, That through much tribulation we must enter into the Kingdom of Heaven;* 1.324 they assur••d them, That their pre∣sent sufferings were not worthy to be compared to the Glory that was to be revealed: and that those light afflictions which are for a moment, wrought for them a more exceeding and eternal weight of Glory.* 1.325 Here, if they knew any thing of Purgatory, a powerful Consideration was past over in silence, that by these Afflictions they should be delivered from those Torments.

This Argument goes further than meer Silence; though that is very strong. The Scriptures speak always as if the one did immediately follow the other; and that the Saints or true Christians pass from the Miseries of this State, to the Glories of the next. So does our Savi∣our represent the matter in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Glu••∣ton; whose Souls were presently carried to their different abodes▪ the one to be comforted, as the other was tormented. He promised also to the repenting Thief, To day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.* 1.326 St. Paul comforts himself in the apprehension of his dissolution that was ap∣proaching, with the prospect of the crown of righteousness that should be given him after death,* 1.327 and so he states these two as certain Consequents one of another, to be dissolved and to be with Christ,* 1.328 to be absent from the body and present with the Lord: And he makes it appear that it was no peculiar Privilege that he promised to himself, but that which all Chri∣stians had a Right to expect; for he says in general; this we know, that if our earthly house of this Tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands eternal in the heavens. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the Patriarchs under the Old Dispensation, are repre∣sented as looking for that City whose builder and founder is God: Though in that State the manifestations of another Life were more imperfect than in this: In which life and immortality are brought to light; they being veiled and darkned in that State. And finally St. Iohn heard a voice commanding him to Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord (that is, being true Christians) from henceforth (or immediately) yea,* 1.329 saith the Spirit; that they may rest from their labours, and their works do follow them. The solemnity in which these words are delivered, carry in them an Evidence sufficient to determine the whole matter. So that we must have very hard thoughts of the sincerity of the Writers of the New Testament, and very much disparage their Credit, not to say their Inspiration, if we can imagine that there are Scenes of Suffering, and those very dismal ones to be gon through, of which they gave the World no sort of notice: But spoke in the same style that we do, who believe no such dismal Interval between the Death of good Men and their final Blessedness. The Scriptures do indeed speak of a full reward, and of different Degrees in Glory, as one Star exceeds another. They do also represent the Day of Judgment upon the Resurrection of the Body,* 1.330 as that which gives the full and entire possession of Blessedness; so that from hence some have thought upon very probable Grounds, that the Blessed, though admitted to Happiness immediately upon their Death, yet were not so compleatly Happy as they shall be after the Resurrection: And in this there arose a diversity of Opinions, which is very natural to all who will go and form Systems out of some general Hints. Some thought that the Souls of good Men were at Rest, and in a good mea∣sure Happy, but that they did not see God before the Resurrection. Others thought that Christ was to come down and Reign visibly upon Earth a Thousand Years before the End of the World: And that the Saints were to rise and to Reign with him, some sooner and some later. Some thought that the last Conflagration was so to aff••ct all, that every one was to pass through it, and that it was to give the last and highest Purification to those Bodies, that were then to be glorified; but that the better Christians that any had been, they should feel the less of the Pain of that last Fire. These Opinions were very early entertained in the

Church: An itch of intruding too far into things which Men did not throughly understand, concerning Angels, began to disturb the Church, even in the days of the Apostles: which made St. Paul charge the Co∣lossians to beware of vain Philosophy. Plato thought there was a mid∣dle Sort of Men, who though they had sinned yet had repented of it, and were in a curable condition, and that they went down for some time into Hell to be purged and absolved by grievous Torments. The Iews had also a Conceit, that the Souls of some Men continued for a Year, going up and down in a state of Purgation. From these Opi∣nions somewhat of a Curiosity in describing the Degrees of the next State began pretty early to enter into the Church.

As for that Opinion of the Platonists, and the Fictions of Homer and Virgil setting forth the Complaints of Souls departed, for their not be∣ing relieved by Prayers and Sacrifices, though these perhaps are the true Sources of the Doctrine of Purgatory, and of redeeming Souls out of it, yet we are not so much concerned in them, as in what is represented to us by the Author of the Second Book of the Maccabees, concerning the Sacrifice that was offered by Iudas Maccabeus, for those, about whom after they were killed; they found such things as shewed that they had defiled themselves with the Idolatry of the Heathens. All this is of less Authority with us, who do not acknowledge that Book to be Canoni∣cal: According to what was set out in its proper Place. And although we set a due value upon some of the Apocryphal Books, yet others are of a lower Character. The First Book of Maccabees is a very grave History, writ with much exactness and a true Judgment; but the Se∣cond is the Work of a mean Writer: He was an Abridger of a larger Work, and as he has the Modesty to ask his Readers Pardon for his Defects, so it is very plain to every one that reads him, that he needs often many grains of allowance. So that this Book is one of the least valuable Pieces of the Apocrypha; and there are very proba∣ble Reasons to question the Truth of that Relation, concerning those who were thus prayed for. But because that would occasion too long a Digression, we are to make a difference between the Story that he re∣lates, and the Author's own Reflections upon it; for as we ought not to make any great Account of his Reflections, these being only his pri∣vate Thoughts, who might probably have imbibed some of the Princi∣ples of the Greek Philosophy, as some of the Iews had done, or he might have believed that Notion which is now very generally received by the Iews, that every Iew shall have a share in the World to come, but that such as have lived ill must be purged before they arrive at it. It is of much more importance to consider what Iudas Maccabeus did;* 1.331 which even by that Relation seems to be no more than this, That he finding some things Consecrated to the Idols of the Iamnites, about the Bodies of those who were killed, concluded that to have been the cause of their Death: And upon this he and all his Men betook them∣selves to Prayer, and besought God that the Sin might be wholly put out of remembrance: He exhorted his People to keep themselves, by that Example from the like Sin, and he made a Collection of a Sum of Money, and sent it to Ierusalem to offer a Sin-offering before the Lord. So far the matter agrees well enough with the Iewish Dispensa∣tion.* 1.332 It had appeared in the days of Ioshua, how much guilt the Sin of Achan, though but one Person, had brought upon the whole Con∣gregation;

and their Law had upon another Occasion prescribed a Sin-offering for the whole Congregation, to expiate Blood that was shed, when the Murderer could not be discovered: That so the Judgments of God might not come upon them, by reason of the cry of that Blood. And by a parity of Reason, Iudas might have ordered such an Offer∣ing to free himself and his Men, from the guilt which the Idolatry of a few might have brought upon greater Numbers; such a Sacrifice as this might according to the nature of that Law, have been offered: But to offer a Sin-offering for the Dead, was a new thing without ground, or any intimation of any thing like it in their Law. So there is no reason to doubt, but that if the Story is true, Iudas offer∣ed this Sin-offering for the Living, and not for the Dead. If they had been alive then, by their Law, no Sin-offering could have been made for them; for Idolatry was to be punished by cutting off, and not to be expiated by Sacrifice: What then could not have been done for them if alive, could much less be done for them after their death. So we have reason to conclude that Iudas offered this Sacrifice only for the Living: And we are not much concerned in the Opinion which so slight a Writer, as the Author of that Book, had concerning it. But whatever might be his Opinion, it was far from that of the Roman Church. By this Instance of the Maccabees, Men who died in a State of mortal Sin, and that of the highest nature, had Sacrifices offered for them: Whereas according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, Hell, and not Purgatory, is to be the Portion of all such: So this will prove too much, if any thing at all, that Sacrifices are to be offered for the Damned. The design of Iudas his sending to make an Offering for them, as that Writer states it, was that their Sins might be forgiven, and that they might have a happy Resurrection. Here is nothing of Redeem∣ing them out of Misery, or of shortening or alleviating their Tor∣ment: So that the Author of that Book seems to have been possessed with that Opinion, received commonly among the Iews, That no Iew could finally perish; as we find S. Ierom expressing himself with the like partiality for all Christians. But whatever the Author's Opinion was, as that Book is of no Authority, it is highly probable that Iudas's design in that Oblation was misunderstood by the Historian, and we are sure that even his sense of it differs totally from that of the Church of Rome.

A Passage in the New Testament is brought as a full proof of the Fire of Purgatory:* 1.333 When St. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians is reflecting on the Divisions that were among them, and on that diversity of Teachers that formed Men into different Principles and Parties, he compares them to different Builders. Some raised upon a Rock an Edifice like the Temple at Ierusalem, of Gold and Silver and noble Stones, called precious Stones; whereas others upon the same Rock raised a mean Hovel of Wood, Hay, and Stubble; of both he says, every man's work shall be made manifest. For the day shall reveal it; be∣cause it shall be revealed by fire; for the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. And he adds, If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward; and if any man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. From the first view of these words it will not be thought strange if some of the Ancients who were too apt to Expound places of Scripture according

to their first appearences, might fancy, that at the last day all were to pass through a great Fire; and to suffer more or less in it: But it is vi∣sible that that Opinion is far enough from the Doctrine of Purgatory. These words relate to a Fire that was soon to appear; and that was to try every Man's work: It was to be revealed, and in it every Man's work was to be made manifest. So this can have no relation to a secret Purgatory Fire. The meaning of it can be no other, but that where∣as some with the Apostles were building up the Church, not only up∣on the Foundation of Jesus Christ, and the Belief of his Doctrine, but were teaching Men Doctrines and Rules that were Vertuous, Good and Great: Others at the same time were daubing with a profane mixture, both of Judaism and Gentilism, joining these with some of the Precepts of Christianity; a day would soon appear, which probably is meant of the destruction of Ierusalem, and of the Iewish Nation; or it may be applied to the Persecution that was soon to break out; in that day those who had true Notions, generous Principles, and suitable Practi∣ces, would weather that Storm: Whereas others that were entangled with weak and superstitious Conceits, would then run a great risk, though their firm believing that Jesus was the Messias would preserve them: Yet the weakness and folly of those Teachers would appear, their Opinions would involve them in such danger, that their escaping would be difficult; like one that gets out of a House that is all on fire round about him. So that these words cannot possibly belong to Pur∣gatory; but must be meant of some signal discrimination that was to be made, in some very dreadful appearances which would distinguish between the true and the false Apostles; and that could be no other but either in the destruction of Ierusalem, or in the persecution that was to come on the Church; though the first is the more probable,

It were easy to pursue this Argument further, and to shew that the Doctrine of Purgatory, as it is now in the Roman Church, was not known in the Church of God for the first six hundred Years; that then it began to be doubtfully received. But in an ignorant Age, Visions, Legends, and bold Stories prevailed much; yet the Greek Church never received it. Some of the Fathers speak indeed of the last probatory Fire; but though they did not think the Saints were in a state of con∣summate Blessedness, enjoying the Vision of God, yet they thought they were in a state of ease and quiet, and that in Heaven. St. Austin speaks in this whole matter very doubtfully; he varies often from himself;* 1.334 he seems sometimes very positive only for two States; at other times as he asserts the last probatory Fire, so he seems to think that good Souls might suffer some grief in that sequestred state before the last Day, upon the account of some of their past Sins, and that by degrees they might arise up to their Consummation. All these Contests were proposed very doubtfully before Gregory the Great's days; and even then some Doubts seem to have been made: But the Legends were so copiously plaid upon all those Doubts, that this Remnant of Paganism got at last into the Western Church.* 1.335 It was no wonder that the Opi∣nions formerly mentioned, which began to appear in the Second Age, had preduced in the Third the practice of Praying for the Dead; of which we find such full evidence in Tertullain and St. Cyprian's Writings, that the matter of Fact is not to be denied. This appears also in all the Antient Liturgies. And Epiphanius charges Aerius with this of

rejecting all Prayers for the Dead, asking why were they prayed for? The Opinions that they fell into concerning the State of departed Souls, in the Interval between their Death and the Day of Judgment, gave occasion enough for Prayer; they thought they were capable of making a Progress, and of having an early Resurrection. They also had this Notion among them, That it was the peculiar Priviledge of Jesus Christ to be above all our Prayers; but that no Men, not except∣ing the Apostles, nor the Blessed Virgin, were above the Prayers of the Church. They thought this was an Act of Church-Communion, that we were to hold even with the Saints in Heaven, to pray for them. Thus in the Apostolical Constitutions, in the Books of the Ec∣clesiastical Hierarchy, and in the Liturgies that are ascribed to St. Basil and St. Chrysostom,* 1.336 they offer unto God these Prayers which they thought their reasonable Service, for those who were at rest in the Faith, their Forefathers, Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Religious Persons, and for every Spirit p••rfected in the Faith; especially for our most Holy, Immaculate, most Blessed Lady, the Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary. Particular Instances might also be given of this, out of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, Nazianzen, and St. Austin;* 1.337 who in that famous and much cited Passage concerning his Mother, Monica, as he speaks nothing of any Temporal Pains that she suffered, so he plainly intimates his belief that God had done all that he desired. Thus it will appear to those, who have examin∣ed all the Passages which are brought out of the Fathers concerning their Prayers for the Dead, that they believed they were then in Heaven, and at rest; and by consequence, though these Prayers for the Dead, did very pro••ably give the chief rise to the Doctrine of Purgatory; yet as they then made them, they were utterly inconsistent with that Opi∣nion. Tertullian, who is the first that is cited for them, says, we make Oblations for the Dead,* 1.338 and we do it for that Second Nativity of theirs (Natalitia) once a year. The Signification of the word Nata∣litia, as they used it, was the Saint's Days of Death, in which they rec∣koned he was born again to Heaven: So, though they judged them there, yet they offered up Prayers for them: And when Epiphanius brings in Aerius asking, Why those Prayers were made for the Dead? Though it had been very natural, and indeed unavoidable, if he had believed Purgatory to have answered, that it was to deliver them from thence; yet he makes no such answer, but only asserts that it had been the Practice of the Church so to do. The Greek Church retains that Custom, though she has never admitted of Purgatory. Here then an Objection may be made to our Constitution, that in this of praying for the Dead, we have departed from the practice of the Ancients: We do not deny it, both the Church of Rome and we in another Practice, of equal Antiquity, of giving the Eucharist to Infants, have made changes and let that Custom fall. The Curiosities in the Second Century seem to have given rise to those Prayers in the Third; and they gave the rise to many other Disorders in the following Centuries. Since there∣fore God has commanded us, while we are on Earth, to pray for one another, and has made that a main Act of our Charity and Church-Communion, but has no where directed us to pray for those that have finished their Course; and since the only pretence that is brought from Scripture, of St Paul's praying that Onesiphorus might find mercy

in the day of the Lord, cannot be wrought up into an Argument, for it cannot be proved that he was then Dead; and since the Fathers rec∣kon this of praying for the Dead, only as one of their Customs, for which they vouch no other Warrant, but Practice; since also, this has been grosly abused, and has been applied to support a Doctrine totally different from theirs, we think that we have as good a Plea for not following them in this, as we have for not giving Infants the Sacra∣ment; and therefore we think it no Imputation on our Church, that we do not in this follow a groundless, and a much abused Precedent, though set us in Ages which we highly reverence.

The greatest Corruption of this whole matter, comes in the last place to be considered; which is the Methods proposed for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory. If this Doctrine had rested in a Speculation, we must still have considered it as derogatory to the Death of Christ, and the Truth of the Gospel; but it raises our Zeal a little more, when we consider the use that was made of it; and that Fears and Terrors being by this means infused into Mens minds, new Methods were proposed to free them from these. The chief of which was the saying of Masses for departed Souls. It was pretended, that this being the highest Act of the Communion of Christians, and the most sublime Piece of Worship, therefore God was so well pleased with the frequent Repetition of it, with the Prayers that accompanied it, and with those that made Provisions for Men, who should be constantly imployed in it, that this was a most acceptable Sacrifice to God. Upon this fol∣lowed all those vast Endowments, for saying Masses for departed Souls. Though in the Institution of that Sacrament, and in all that is spoken of it in the Scripture, there is not an hint given of this. Sacraments are positive Precepts which are to be measured only by the Institution, in which there is not room left for us to carry them further. We are to take eat and drink, and thereby shew forth the Lord's death till his second coming: All which has no relation to the applying this to others who are gone off this Stage; therefore if we can have any just Notions either of Superstition, or of Will-worship, they are applicable here. Men will fancy that there is a virtue in an Action, which we are sure it has not of it self, and we cannot find that God has put in it; and yet they without any Authority from God, do set up a new piece of Worship; and imagine that God will be pleased with them in every thing they do or ask, only because they are perverting this piece of Wor∣ship clearly contrary to the Institution, to be a Solitary Mass. In the Primitive Church, where all the Service of the whole Assembly end∣ed in a Communion, there was a Roll read, in which the Names of the more Eminent Saints of the Catholick Church, and of the Holy Bishops, Martyrs or Confessors of every particular Church, were re∣gistred. This was an honourable remembrance that was kept up of such as had died in the Lord. When the soundness of any Persons Faith was brought in suspicion, his Name was not read till that Point was cleared, and then either his Name continued to be read, or it was quite dasht out. This was thought an Honour due to the Me∣mory of those who had died in the Faith: And in St. Cyprian's time in the Infancy of this Practice,* 1.339 we see he counted the leaving a Man's Name out, as a thing that only left a Blot upon him, but not as a thing of any Consequence to his Soul: for when a Priest had died,

who had by his Last Will named another Priest the Tutor (or Guar∣dian) of his Children▪ this seemed to him a thing of such ill Ex∣ample, to put those Secular Cares upon the Minds of the Clergy, that he appointed that his Name should be no more read in the daily Sacrifice; which plainly shews, unless we will tax St. Cyprian with a very unreasonable Cruelty, that he considered that only as a small Censure laid on his Memory, but not as a Prejudice to his Soul. This gives us a very plain View of the Sense that he had of this Mat∣ter. After this Roll was read, then the general Prayer followed, as was formerly acknowledged for all their Souls, and so they went on in the Communion-Service. This has no relation to a Mass said by a sin∣gle Priest to deliver a Soul out of Purgatory.

Here without going far in Tragical expressions, we cannot hold say∣ing what our Saviour said upon another occasion, My house is a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.* 1.340 A Trade was set up on this Foundation. The World was made believe, that by the Virtue of so many Masses, which were to be purchased by great Endowments, Souls were redeemed out of Purgatory; and Scenes of Visions and Appa∣ritions, sometimes of the tormented, and sometimes of the delivered Souls, were published in all Places; which had so wonderful an effect that in two or three Centuries, Endowments increased to so vast a degree, that if the Scandals of the Clergy on the one hand, and the Statutes of Mortmain on the other, had not restrained the Profuseness that the World was wrought up to, upon this account; it is not easy to imagine how far this might have gone, perhaps to an entire subjecting of the Temporalty to the Spiritualty. The Pra∣ctices by which this was managed, and the Effects that followed on it, we can call by no other Name than downright Impostures; worse than the making or venting false Coyn; when the World was drawn in by such A••••s to plain Bargains, to redeem their own Souls, and the Souls of their Ancestors and Posterity, so many Masses were to be said, and Forfeitures were to follow upon their not being said: Thus the Masses were really the Price of the Lands. An Endow∣ment to a Religious Use, though mixed with Error or Superstition in the Rules of it, ought to be held Sacred, according to the Deci∣sion given concerning the Censures of those that were in the Rebellion of Corah:* 1.341 So that we do not excuse the Violation of such from Sa∣criledge; yet we cannot think so of Endowments, where the only Consideration was a false Opinion first of Purgatory, and then of Re∣demption out of it by Masses; this being expressed in the very Deeds themselves. By the same Reasons, by which private Persons are obliged to restore what they have drawn from others by base Pra∣ctices, by false Deeds, or counterfeit Coyn: Bodies are also bound to restore what they have got into their Hands by such fraudulent Pra∣ctices; so that the States and Princes of Christendom were at full liberty, upon the discovery of these Impostures, to void all the En∣dowments that had followed upon them; and either to apply them to better Uses, or to restore them to the Families from which they had been drawn, if that had been practicable, or to convert them to any other use. This was a crying Abuse, which those who have ob∣served the progress that this matter made from the Eighth Century to the Twelfth, cannot reflect on without both Amazement and Indig∣nation.

We are sensible enough that there are many political Reasons and Arguments for keeping up the Doctrine of Purgatory. But we have not so learned Christ. We ought not to lie even for God, much less for our selves; or for any other pretended ends of keeping the World in awe and order; therefore all the Advantages that are said to arise out of this, and all the Mischief that may be thought to fol∣low on the rejecting of it, ought not to make us presume to carry on the Ends of Religion by unlawful Methods. This were to call in the Assistance of the Devil to do the Work of God: If the just Appre∣hensions of the Wrath of God, and the Guilt of Sin, together with the Fear of Everlasting Burnings, will not Reform the World, nor R••strain Sinners, we must leave this Matter to the wise and unsearch∣able Judgments of God.

The next Particular in this Article is, the condemning the Romish Doctrine concerning Pardons: That is founded on the Distinction be∣tween the Temporal and Eternal Punishment of Sin; and the Pardon is of the Temporal Punishment, which is believed to be done by a Power lodged singly in the Pope, derived from those Words, Feed my Sheep, and To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. This may be by him derived as they Teach, not only to Bishops and Priests, but to the Inferior Orders, to be dispensed by them; and it excuses from Penance, unless he who purchases it, thinks fit to use his Penance in a medicinal way as a Preservative against Sin. So the Virtue of Indul∣gences, is the applying the Treasure of the Church upon such Terms as Popes shall think fit to prescribe, in order to the redeeming Souls from Purgatory, and from all other Temporal Punishments, and that for such a number of Years as shall be specified in the Bulls; some of which have gone to Thousands of Years; one I have seen to Ten hun∣dred thousand: And as these Indulgences are sometimes granted by special Tickets, like Tallies struck on that Treasure; so sometimes they are affixed to particular Churches and Altars, to particular Times, or Days, chiefly to the Year of Jubilee; they are also affixed to such things as may be carryed about, to Agnus Dei's, to Medals, to Rosaries and Scapularies; they are also affixed to some Prayers, the Devout saying of them being a mean to procure great Indulgences. The grant∣ing these is left to the Pope's Discretion, who ought to distribute them as he thinks may tend most to the Honour of God, and the Good of the Church, and he ought not to be too profuse, much less to be too scanty in dispensing them.

This has been the received Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome since the Twelfth Century; and the Council of Trent in a hurry, in its last Session, did in very general Words, approve of the Practice of the Church in this Matter, and Decreed that Indulgences should be continued; only they restrained some Abuses, in particular that of selling them; yet even those Restraints were wholly referred to the Popes themselves: So that this crying Abuse, the Scandal of which had occasioned the first beginnings and progress of the Reformation; was upon the matter established; and the correcting the Excesses in it, was trusted to those who had been the Authors of them, and the chief Gainers by them. This Point of their Doctrine is more fully opened than might perhaps seem necessary, if it were not that a great part of the Confutation of some Doctrines, is the exposing of them. For

though in Ages and Places of Ignorance, these things have been, and still are Practised with great assurance, and to very extravagant ex∣ces••es; yet in Countries and Ages of more Light, when they come to be questioned, they are disowned with an assurance equal to that with which they are Practised elsewhere. Among us some will perhaps say, that these are only exemptions from Penance; which cannot be denied to be within the Power of the Church; and they argue, that though it is very fit to make severe Laws, yet the execution of these must be softened in practice. This is all that they pretend to justify, and they give up any further Indulgences, as an abuse of corrupt Times. Whereas at the same time a very different Doctrine is Taught among them, where there is no danger but much profit in owning it. All this is only a pretence; for the Episcopal Power in the inflicting, abating, or commuting of Penance, is stated among them, as a thing wholly different from the power of Indulgences. They are derived from different Originals; and designed for Ends totally different from one another. The one is for the outward Discipline of the Church, and the other is for the inward quiet of Consciences; and in order to their future State. The one is in every Bishop, and the other is asserted to be peculiar to the Pope. Nor will they escape by laying this Matter upon the Ignorance and Abuses of former Times. It was published in Bulls and received by the whole Church: So that if ei∣ther the Pope, or the diffusive Body of the Church are Infallible, there must be such a Power in the Pope; and the Decree of the Council of Trent confirming and approving the Practice of the Church in that Point, must bind them all. For if this Doctrine is False, then their Infallibility must go with it: For in every Hypothesis in which Infal∣libility is said to be lodged, whether in the Pope, or in Councils, this Doctrine has that Seal to it.

As for the Doctrine it self, all that has been already said, against the distinction of Temporal and Eternal Punishment, and against Pur∣gatory, overthrows it; since the one is the Foundation on which it is built; and the other is that which it pretends to secure Men from: And therefore this falls with those. All that was said upon the Head of the Sufficiency of the Scriptures comes also in here: For, if the Scriptures ought to be our Rule in any thing, it must be chiefly in those Matters which relate to the Pardon of Sin, to the quiet of our Consciences, and to a future State. Therefore a Doctrine and Pra∣ctice that have not so much as Colours from Scripture, in a matter of such Consequence, ought to be rejected by us, upon this single Ac∣count. If from the Scripture we go to the Practice and Tradition of the Church, we are sure that this was not thought on for above Ten Centuries, all the Indulgences that were then known, being only the abatements of the severity of the Penitentiary Canons: But in the Ages in which aspiring and insolent Popes imposed on Ignorant and Superstitious multitudes, a jumble was made of Indulgences formerly granted, of Purgatory, and of the Papal Authority, that was then very implicitly submitted to; and so out of all that mixture this arose: Which was as ill managed as it was ill grounded. The natural tendency of it, is not only to relax all publick Discipline, but also all secret Penance, when shorter Methods to Peace and Pardon may be more easily purchased. The vast Application to the executing the many

trifling performances to which Indulgences are granted, has brought in among them such a Prostitution of Holy Things, that either it must be said, that those are publick Cheats, and that they were so from the beginning, or that their Vertue is now exhausted, though the Bulls that grant them are perpetual: Or else a Man may on very easy Terms pres••rve himself and redeem his Friends out of Purgatory. If the say∣ing a Prayer before a priviledged Altar, or the Visiting some Churches in the time of Jubilee, with those slight Devotions, that are then enjoined, have such efficacy in them, it is scarce possible for any Man to be in danger of Purgatory.

The Third Head rejected in this Article is the Worshipping of Ima∣ges. Here those of the Church of Rome complain much of the Charge of Idolatry, that our Church has laid upon them, so fully, and so se∣verely in the Homilies. Some among our selves have also thought, that we must either Renounce that Charge, or that we must deny the Pos∣sibility of salvation in that Church, and in Consequence to that con∣clude, that neither the Baptism nor the Orders of that Church are va∣lid: For since Idolaters are excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven, they argue, That if there can be no Salvation where Idolatry is com∣mitted, by the whole Body of a Church, then that can be no Church, and in it there is no Salvation. But here we are to consider, before we enter, upon the Specialties of this Matter, that Idolatry is a general Word, which comprehends ma••y several Sorts and Ranks of Sins un∣der it. As Lying is capable of many Degrees, from an officious Lye to the swearing falsly against the Life of an innocent Man, in Judg∣ment: The one is the lowest and the other is the highest Act of that kind: But all are Lying: And yet it would appear an unreasonable Thing, to urge every thing that is said of any Act in General, and which belongs to the higest Acts of it, as if all the Inferior Degrees did necessarily involve the Guilt of the highest. There is another distinction to be made between Actions, as they signify either of themselves, or by the publick Constructions that are put on them, by those who Authorise them; and those same Actions as they may be privately intended by particular Persons. We, in our weighing of Things, are only to con∣sider, what Actions signify of their own Nature, or by Publick Autho∣rity, and according to that we must Form our Judgments about them and in particular in the Point of Idolatry; but as for the secret Thoughts or Intentions of Men, we must leave these to the Judgment of God, who only knows them, and who being infinitely Gracious, slow to Anger and ready to Forgive, will we do not doubt make all the Abate∣ments in the weighing Men's Actions, that there is Reason for. But we ought not to enter into that Matter; we ought neither to aggravate, nor to mollify Things too much: We are to judge of Things as they are in themselves, and to leave the Case of Mens Intentions and secret Notions, to that God who is to Judge them. As for the Business of Images, we know that the Heathens had them of several Sorts. Some they believed were real Resemblances of those Deities that they Worshipped: Those Divinities had been Men, and the Statues made for them resembled them. Other Images they believed had a Divine Vertue affixed to them, perhaps from the Stars, which were believed to be Gods, and it was thought that the Influences of their Aspects and Positions, were by secret Charms called down and fastened to some Fi∣gures.

Other Images were considered as Emblems, and Representations of their Deities: So that they only gave them occasion to represent them to their Thoughts. These Images thus of different Sorts, were all Worshipped; some more, some less: They kneeled before them; they prayed to them, and made many Oblations to them; they set Lights before them, and burnt Incense to them; they set them in their Temples, Market-places, and High-ways; and they had them in their Houses: They set them off with much Pomp, and had many Processions to their Honour. But in all this, though it is like the Vul∣gar among them might have gross Thoughts of those Images, yet the Philosophers not only after the Christian Religion had obliged them, to consider well of that Matter, and to express themselves cautiously about it; but even while they were in the peaceable Possession of the World, did believe that the Deity was not in the Image, but was on∣ly represented by it: That the Deity was Worshipped in the Image, so that the Honour done the Image did belong to the Deity it self. Here then were two false Opinions: The one was concerning those Deities themselves; the other was concerning this way of Worshipping them; and both were blamed: Not only the Worshipping a false God, but the Worshipping that God by an Image. If Idolatry had only consisted in the acknowledging a false God, and if the Worshipping the true God in an Image, had not been Idolatry, then all the Fault of the Heathenish Idolatries, should have consisted in this, that they Worshipped a false God, but their Worshipping Images should not of it self have been an additional Fault. But in opposition to this, what can we think of those full and copious Words, in which God did not only forbid the having of false Gods, but the making of a graven Image,* 1.342 or the likeness of any thing in heaven, in earth or under the earth: The bowing down to it, and the wor∣shipping it are also forbid. Where besides the copiousness of these Words we are to consider, that Moses in the rehearsal of that Law in Deutero∣nomy, does over and over again add and insist on this, that they saw no manner of similitude, when God spoke of them, lest they should corrupt themselves and make to them a graven Image; an enumeration is made of many different likenesses; and after that comes another species of Ido∣latry; their worshipping the host of heaven; and therefore Moses charges them in that Chapter again and again, to take heed,* 1.343 to take good heed to themselves, lest they should forget the covenant of the Lord their God, and make them a graven Image: And he lays the same charge a third time upon them in the same Chapter. A special Law is also given against the most Innocent of all the Images that could be made: They were required not only not to have Idols, nor graven Images, but not to rear up a standing image or pillar; nor to set up any image of stone, or any car∣ved stone; such were the Baitulia; the least tempting or ensnaring of all Idols: They were not to bow down before it; and the reason given is, For I am the Lord your God. The importance of those Laws will ap∣pear clearer if they are compared with the practice of those times, and particularly in those symbolical Images, which were sacred Em∣blems and Hieroglyphicks, that were not meant to be a true repre∣sentation of the Divine being, but were a combination of many Sym∣bols, intended to represent at once to the thoughts of the Worshipper, many of the Perfections of God: These were most particularly pra∣ctised in Egypt, and to them the copiousness of the Second Com∣mandment

seems to have a particular respect, such having been the Images which they have lately seen, and which seem the most excusa∣ble of all others; when, I say, all this is laid together, with the Commandment it self, and with those other Laws that accompany and explain it, nothing seems more evident, than that God intended to forbid all outward Representations, that should be set up as the Objects of Worship. It is also very plain, That the Prophets expo∣stulated with the People of Israel for their carved and molten Images, as well as for their false Gods: And among the Reasons given against Images, one is often repeated, To whom will ye liken me? Which seems to import, that by these Images they represented the Living God. And Isaias often,* 1.344 as also both Ieremiah and Habakkuk, when they set forth the folly of making an Image; of praying to it, and trusting in it, bring in the Greatness and Glory of the Living God, in opposition to these Images. Now, though it is possible enough to apprehend, how that the Iews might make Images in imitation of the Heathens, to re∣present that God whom they served; yet it is no way credible, that they could have fallen into such a degree of Stupidity, as to fancy that a piece of Wood which they had carved into such a Figure was a real Deity. They might think it a God by Representation, as the Heathens thought their Idols were; but more than this cannot be easily apprehended. So that it is most reasonable to think, that they knew the God they had thus made, and prayed to, was only a piece of Wood; but they might well fall into that Corruption of many of the Heathen, of thinking that they honoured God by serving him in such an Image. If the Sin of the Iews was only their having other Gods; and if the worshipping an Image was only Evil, because a false Deity was honoured by it, Why is Image-worship condemn'd, with Reasons that will hold full as strong against the Images of the True God, as of false Gods, if it had not been intended to condemn simply all Image-worship? Certainly, if the Prophets had intended to have done it, they could not have expressed themselves more clearly and more fully than they did.

To this it is to be added, That it seems very clear from the Hi∣story of the Golden Calf,* 1.345 that the Israelites did not intend by set∣ting it up, to cast off the true Iehovah, that had brought them out of Egypt. They plainly said the contrary, and appointed a Feast to Iehovah. It is probable they thought Moses was either burnt or starv'd on Mount Sinai, so they desired some visible Representation of the Deity to go before them; they intended still to serve him, but since they thought they had lost their Prophet and Guide, they hoped that this should have been perhaps as a Teraphim to them; yet for all this,* 1.346 the Calf is called an Idol; and they are said to have changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass. So that here an Emblem of the Deity is called an Idol. They could take the Calf for no other, but as a visible Sign or Simbol in which they inten∣ded to Worship their God or Elohim,* 1.347 and the Lord or Iehovah. Such very probably were also the Calves of Dan and Bethel, set up by Iero∣boam, who seemed to have no design to change the Object of their Wor∣ship, or the Nature of their Religion; but only to divert them from go∣ing up to Ierusalem,* 1.348 and to furnish them with Conveniences to Worship the Living God nearer home. His design was only to establish the

Kingdom to himself; and in order to that, we must think that he would venture on no more than was necessary for his purpose. Besides we do clearly see an opposition made between the Calves set up by Ieroboam, and the Worship of Baal brought from Tyrus by Ahab. Those who hated that Idolatry, such as Iehu and his Family, yet con∣tinued in the Sin of Ieroboam; and they are represented as zealous for Iehovah, though they Worshipped the Calves at Dan and Bethel. These are called Idols by Hosea.* 1.349 From all which it seems to be very evident that the Ten Tribes still feared and worshipped the true Iehovah. This appears yet more clear from the sequel of their History when they were carried away by the Kings of Assyria; and new Inhabitants were sent to People the Country, who brought their Idols along with them, and did not acknowledge Iehovah the true God; but upon their being plagued with Lions, to prevent this,* 1.350 the King of Assyria sent one of the Priests, that had been carried out of the Country, who taught them how they should fear the Lord: out of which that mixture arose, that they feared the Lord, and served their own Images. This proves be∣yond all contradiction, that the Ten Tribes did still Worship Iehovah in those Calves that they had at Dan and Bethel: And thus it appears very clear that through the whole Old Testament, the use of all Ima∣ges in Worship was expresly forbid; and that the Worshipping them, even when the true God was worshipped by them, was called Idola∣try. The words in which this matter is expressed are copious and full, and the reasons given for the Precept, are taken from the Nature of God, who could be likened to nothing, and who had shewed no simi∣litude of himself when he appeared to their Fathers and delivered the Law to them.

The New Dispensation does in all respects carry the Ideas of God and of true Religion, much higher, and raises them much above those compliances that were in the Old, to Mens Senses, and to sensitive na∣tures; and it would seem to contradict the whole design of it, if we could imagine that such things were allowed in it, which were so ex∣presly forbid in the Old. Upon this occasion it is remarkable, that the two fullest passages in the New Testament concerning Images, are written upon the occasion of the most refined Idolatry that was then in the World, which was at Athens. When St. Paul was there his Spirit was moved within him, when he saw that City full of Idols: He upon that charges them for thinking that the Godhead was like unto gold or silver, or stone graven by art or man's device:* 1.351 He argues from the Ma∣jesty of God, who made the World and all things therein, and was the Lord of Heaven and Earth, and therefore was not to be Worshipped by mens hands (that is, Images made by them) who needed nothing since he gives us life, breath (or the continuance of Life) and all things. He therefore condemns that way of Worship as an effect of Ignorance, and tells them of a day in which God will judge the World. It is certain that the Athenians at that time did not think their Images were the proper resemblances of the Divinity. Tully,* 1.352 who knew their Theo∣logy well, gives us a very different account of the notion that they had of their Images: Some Images were of no Figure at all, but were only Stones and Pillars that had no particular shape; others were Hieroglyphicks made up of many several Emblems, of which some signified one perfection of the Deity, and some another; and others were

indeed the Figures of Men and Women; but even in these the Wiser among them said, they Worshipped One Eternal Mind, and under him some Inferior Beings, Demons, and Men; who they believed were subordinate to God, and governed this World. So it could not be said of such Worshippers, that they thought that the Godhead was like unto their Images; since the best Writers among them tell us plainly, that they thought no such thing. St. Paul therefore only ar∣gues in this against Image-Worship in it self, which does naturally lead Men to these low thoughts of God; and which is a very un∣reasonable thing in all those who do not think so of him. It is con∣trary to the Nature and Perfections of God: Few men can think God is like to those Images, therefore that is a very good Argument against all Worshipping of them. And we may upon very sure grounds say, that the Athenians had such elevated Notions both of God and of their Images, that whatsoever was a good Argument against Image-Worship among them, will hold good against all Image-Worship whatsoever.

But as St. Paul staid long enough at Athens to understand their Opi∣nions well, and that no doubt he learned their Doctrine very particu∣larly from his Convert Dionysius, so at his coming to Corinth from thence, when he had learned from Aquila and Priscilla the state of the Church in Rome, and no doubt had learned among other things that the Romans admired the Greeks, and made them their Patterns; he in the beginning of his Epistle to them, having still deep impressions up∣on his Spirit of what he had seen and known at Athens, arraigns the whole Greek Philosophy;* 1.353 and specially those among them who professed themselves wise, but became fools; who though they knew God, yet glorified him not as God, nor were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, so that their foolish heart was darkened. They had high speculations of the Unity and Simplicity of the Divine Essence; but they set them∣selves to find such excuses for the Idolatry of the Vulgar, that they not only continued to comply with them in the grossest of all their practices, but they studied more laboured Defences for them, than the ruder multitudes could ever have fallen upon. They knew the true God, for God had shewed to them, that which might be known of him; but they held the truth in unrighteousness, and changed the glory of the incor∣ruptible God, into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and fourfooted beasts, and to creeping things: Which seems to be a description of Hieroglyphick Figures, the most excusable of all those Images by which they represented the Deity. This St. Paul makes to be the original of all the Corruption and Immorality that was spread over the Gentile World, which came in, partly as the natural consequence of Idolatry, of its debasing the Ideas of God, and wounding true Re∣ligion and Virtue in its source and first seeds, and partly as an effect of the just Judgments of God upon those who thus dishonoured him, That was to a very monstrous degree spread over both Greece and Rome. Of these St. Paul gives us some very enormous Instances, with a Catalogue of the Vices that sprang from those vitiated Principles. These two passages, the one of St. Paul's Preaching, and the other of his Writing, being both applied to those who had the finest Speculati∣ons among the Heathen, do evidently demonstrate how contrary the Christian Doctrine, is to the Worshipping of Images of all sorts, how speciously soever that may be disguised.

If these things wanted an Explanation, we find it given us very ful∣ly in all the Writings of the Fathers during their Disputes with the Heathens; They do not only charge them with the false Notions that they had of God, the many Deities they Worshipped, the absurd Le∣gends that they had concerning them; but in particular they dwell long upon this of the Worshipping God in or by an Image, with Ar∣guments taken both from the pure and spiritual Nature of God, and from the plain Revelation he made of his Will in this matter. Upon this Argument many long Citations might be gathered from Iustin Martyr,* 1.354 from Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arno∣bius, Minutius Felix, Lactantius, Eusebius, Am∣brose, and St. Austin. Their Reasonings are so clear and so full, that nothing can be more evident, than that they condemned all the use of Images in the Worship of God: And yet both Celsus, Porphiry, Maximus Tyrius, and Iulian, told them very plainly, that they did not believe that the God∣head was like their Images, or was shut up within them; they only used them as helps to their Imagination and Apprehension, that from thence they might form suitable thoughts of the Deity. This did not satisfy the Fathers, who insisted on it to the last, that all such Images as were made the objects of Worship, were Idols; so that if in any one thing we have a very full account of the sense of the whole Church for the first Four Centuries, it is in this matter. They do not speak of it now and then only by the way, as in a Digression; in which the heat of Argument, or of Rhetorick may be apt to carry men too far; they set themselves to treat of this Argument very nice∣ly; and they were engaged in it with Philosophers, who were as good at Subtleties and Distinctions as other Men. This was one of the main parts of the Controversy; so if in any Head whatsoever, they writ exactly upon those Subjects. They attack'd the established Religion of the Roman Empire; and this was not to be done with Clamour, nor could they offer at it in a plain contradiction to such Principles as are consistent with the Christian Religion, if the Doctrine of the Roman Church is true. Here then we have not only the Scripture but Tradition fully of our side.

Some pretended Christians, it is true, did very early Worship Ima∣ges; but those were the Gnosticks, held in detestation by all the Ortho∣dox. Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and St. Austin tell us,* 1.355 that they Worship∣ped the Images of Christ, together with Pythagoras, Plato and Aristo∣tle: Nor are they only blamed for Worshipping the Images of Christ, together with these of the Philosophers, but they are particularly blamed for having several sorts of Images, and Worshipping these as the Heathens did; and that among these there was an Image of Christ, which they pretended to have had from Pilate. Besides these Corrupters of Christianity, there were no others among the Christians of the first Ages that Worshipped Images. This was so well known to the Heathens, that they bring this, among other things, as a reproach against the Christians, that they had no Images: Which the first Apo∣logists are so far from denying, that they answered them, That it was impossible for him who knew God, to Worship Images. But as human

Nature is inclined to visible Objects of Worship, so it seems some be∣gan to Paint the Walls of their Churches with Pictures, or at least moved for it. In the beginning of the Fourth Century this was con∣demned by the Council of Eliberis, Can. 36. It pleases us to have no Pictures in Churches, lest that which is Worshipped should be Painted upon the Walls. Towards the end of that Century, we have an account given us by Epiphanius,* 1.356 of his Indignation occasioned by a Picture that he saw upon a Veil at Anablatha. He did not much consider whose Pi∣cture it was, whether a Picture of Christ, or of some Saint; he po∣sitively affirms it was against the Authority of the Scriptures, and the Christian Religion, and therefore he tore it, but supplied that Church with another Veil. It seems private Persons had Statues of Christ and the Apostles;* 1.357 which Eusebius censures where he reports it, as a remnant of Heathenism. It is plain enough from some passages in St. Austin, that he knew of no Images in Churches in the beginning of the Fifth Century. It is true they began to be brought before that time into some of the Churches of Pontus and Cappadocia, which was done very probably to draw the Heathens, by this piece of conformity to them, to like the Christian Worship the better. For that humour began to work, and appeared in many Instances of other kinds as well as in this.

It was not possible that People could see Pictures in their Churches long without paying some marks of respect to them, which grew in a little time to the downright worship of them. A famous instance we have of this in the Sixth Century; Serenus, Bishop of Marseilles, finding that he could not restrain his People from the Worship of Images, broke them in pieces; upon which Pope Gregory writ to him, blaming him indeed for breaking the Images,* 1.358 but commending him for not al∣lowing them to be worshipped: This he prosecutes in a variety of very plain Expressions; It is one thing to worship an Image, and another thing to learn by it, what is to be worshipped: He says they were set up not to be worshipped, but to instruct the Ignorant, and cites our Saviour's Words, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, to prove that it was not lawful to worship the work of mens hands. We see by a fragment cited in the Second Nicene Council, that both Iews and Gentiles took advantages from the Worship of Images, to reproach the Christians soon after that time. The Iews were scan∣dalized at their Worshipping Images, as being expresly against the Com∣mand of God. The Gentiles had also by it great advantages of turning back upon the Christians all that had been written against their Images in the former Ages.

At last in the beginning of the Eighth Century, the famous Con∣troversy about the having or breaking of Images grew hot. The Churches of Italy were so set on the worship∣ping of them,* 1.359 that Pope Gregory the Second gives this for the reason of their Rebelling against the Emperor, because of his opposition to Images. And here in little more than an Hundred Years, the See of Rome changed its Doctrine, Pope Gregory the Second being as positive for the worshipping them, as the first of that Name had been against it. Violent Contentions arose upon this Head. The breakers of Images were charged with Iudaism, Samarita∣nism, and Manicheism; and the worshippers of them were charged

with Gentilism and Idolatry. One General Council at Constantinople consisting of about Three hundred and thirty eight Bishops, condemned the Worshipping them as Idolatrous; but another at Nice of Three hundred and fifty Bishops, though others say they were only Three hundred, asserted the Worship of them. Yet as soon as this was known in the West, how active soever the See of Rome was for esta∣blishing their Worship, a Council of about Three hundred Bishops met at Francfort, under Charles the Great, which condemned the Nicene Council, together with the Worship of Images. The Gallican Church insisted long upon this matter; Books were published in the Name of Charles the Great against them. A Council held at Paris under his Son did also condemn Image-worship as contrary to the Honour that is due to God only, and to the Commands that he has given us in Scri∣pture. The Nicene Council was rejected here in England, as our Histo∣rians tell us, because it asserted the Adoration of Images, which the Church of God abhors. Agobard Bishop of Lions, and Claud of Turin, writ against it; the former writ with great vehemence: The Learned Men of that Communion do now acknowledge, that what he writ was according to the sense of the Gallican Church in that Age: And even Ionas of Orleans, who studied to moderate the matter, and to recon∣cile the Gallican Bishops to the See of Rome, yet does himself declare against the Worship of Images.

We are not concerned to examine how it came that all this vigorous opposition to Image-worship, went off so soon. It is enough to us that it was once made so resolutely; let those who think it so incredible a thing, that Churches should depart from the received Traditions, answer this as they can. As for the Methods then used, and the Arguments that were then brought to infuse this Doctrine into the World,* 1.360 he who will read the History and Acts of the Nicene Council, will find enough to incline him to a very bad Opinion, both of the Men and of their Doctrine; though he were ever so much inclined to think well of them.* 1.361 After all, though that Council laid the Foundation of Image-worship, yet the Church of Rome has made great Improvements in it since. Those of Nice expressed a detestation of an Image made to represent the Deity; they go no higher than the Images of Christ and the Saints; whereas since that time the Deity and the Trinity have been represented by Images and Pictures; and that not only by connivance, but by Au∣thority in the Church of Rome. Bellarmine, Suarez, and others,* 1.362 prove the Lawfulness of such Images from the general practice of the Church. Others go further, and from the caution given in the Decree of the Council of Trent, con∣cerning the Images of God, do infer that they are allowed by that Council, provided they be decently made. Directions are also given concerning the use of the Image of the Trinity in Publick Offices among them. In a word, all their late Doctors agree, That they are lawful, and reckon the calling that in question to be not only rashness, but an error; and such as have held it unlawful to make such Images, were especially condemned at Rome, December 17. 1690. The varieties of those Images, and the boldness of them are things apt to give horror to modest Minds, not accustomed to such Attempts. It must be acknowledged, that the Old Emblematical

Images of the Egyptians, and the grosser ones now used by the Chineses, are much more instructing, and much less scandalous Figures.

* 1.363As the Roman Church has gone beyond the Nicene Council in the Images, that they allow of, so they have also gone beyond them in the degrees of the Worship that they offer to them. At Nice the Wor∣ship of Images was very positively decreed, with Anathema's against those who did it not: A bare Honour they reckoned was not enough. They thought it was a very valuable Argument, that was brought from those words of Christ to the Devil,* 1.364 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; that here Service is only appro∣priated to God, but not Worship. Among the Acts of Worship they reckon the Oblation of Incense and Lights; and the reason given by them for all this, is, because the Honour of the Image or Type, passes to the Original or Prototype: So that plain and direct Worship was to ter∣minate on the Image it self:* 1.365 And Durandus passed for little less than a Heretick, because he thought that Images were worshipped only im∣properly and abusively, because, at their presence we call to mind the Object represented by them, which we worship before the Image, as if the Object it self were before us.

The Council of Nice did plainly assert the direct Worship of Images, but they did as positively declare, That they meant only that it should be an honorary Adoration, and not the true Latria, which was only due to God. And whatever some Modern Representers and Expositors of the Roman Doctrine may say, to soften the harshness of the Worship of Images, it is very copiously proved, both from the Words of the Council of Nice,* 1.366 and from all the Eminent Writers in that Communion, ever from the time of Aquinas,* 1.367 and of the Modern Schoolmen, and Writers of Controversy, that direct Worship ought to be offered to the Image it self. This reserve of the Latria to God, being an evi∣dent proof, that all inferior Acts of Worship were allowed them. But this reserve does no way please the later Writers; for Aquinas, and many from him, do teach, that the same Acts and Degrees of Worship which are due to the Original, are also due to the Image; they think an Image has such a relation to the O∣riginal, that both ought to be worshipped in the same Act, and that to Worship the Image with any other sort of Acts, is to Worship it on its own account, which they think is Idolatry. Whereas others ad∣hering to the Nicene Doctrine, think that the Image is to be worship∣ped with an inferior Degree, that otherwise Idolatry must follow. So here the danger of Idolatry is threatned of both sides; and since one of them must be chosen, thus it will follow, that let a Man do what he can he must commit Idolatry, according to the Opinion of some very Subtile and Learned Men among them.

The Council of Trent did indeed decline to give a clear Decision in this Matter,* 1.368 and only decreed, that due Worship should be given to Images; but did not determine what that due Worship was. And though it appears by the Decree, that there were Abuses committed among them in that Matter, yet they only appoint some Regulations, con∣cerning such Images as were to be suffered, and that others were to be removed; but they left the Divines to fight out the Matter con∣cerning

the due Worship that ought to be given to Images. They were then in hast, and intended to offend no Party; and as they would not justifie all that had been said or done concerning the Worship of Images, so they would condemn no part of it;* 1.369 yet they confirmed the Nicene Council, and in particular made use of that Maxim of theirs, that the Honour of the Type goes to the Prototype;* 1.370 and thus they left it as they found it. So that the Dispute goes on still as hot as ever. The Practice of the Roman Church is express for the Latria to be given to Images; and therefore all that write for it, do frequently cite that Hymn, Crux Ave spes unica, auge piis justitiam,* 1.371 reisque dona ve∣niam. It is expresly said in the Pontifical, Cruci debetur Latria, and the Prayers used in the Consecration of a Cross; it is prayed, That the Blessing of that Cross on which Christ hung, may be in it, that it may be a healthful Remedy to Mankind, a Strengthner of Faith, an Increaser of Good Works, the Redemption of Souls, and a Comfort, Protection, and Defence against the Cruelty of our Enemies. These with all the other Acts of Adoration used among them, seem to favour those who are for a La∣tria to be given to all those Images, to the Originals of which it is due; and in like the Proportion for Dulia and Hyperdulia to other Images. It is needless to prosecute this Mat∣ter further.

It seemed necessary to say so much, to justify our Church which has in her Homilies laid this Charge of Idolatry, very severely on the Church of Rome; and this is so high an Imputation, that those who think it false, as they cannot without a good Conscience, Subscribe, or require others to Subscribe the Article, concerning the Homilies, so they ought to retract their own Subscriptions, and to make Solemn Reparations in Justice and Honour, for laying so heavy an Imputa∣tion unjustly upon that whole Communion.

There is nothing that can be brought from Scripture, that has a shew of an Argument for supporting Image-Worship, unless it be that of the Cherubims that were in the holiest of all; and that as is suppo∣sed were worshipped, at least by the High Priest when he went thi∣ther, once a Year, if not by the whole People. But first there is a great difference to be made, between a Form of Worship imme∣diately prescribed by God, and another Form that not only has no warrant for it, but seems to be very expresly forbidden. It is plain, the Cherubims were not seen by the People, and so they could be no visible Object of Worship to them.* 1.372 They were scarce seen by the High Priest himself, for the Holiest of all was quite dark; no light coming into it, but what came through the Veil from the Holy Place, and even that had very little Light. Nor is there a word concerning the High Priests Worshipping, either the Ark, or the Cherubim. It is true, there is a place in the Psalms that seems to favour this; as it is rendred by the Vulgar, worship his footstool,* 1.373 for it is holy; but both the Hebrew, and the Septuagint have it, as it is in our Translation, worship at his footstool, for he is holy; and all the

Greek Fathers cite these Words so. Many of the Latin Fathers do also cite them according to the Greek; and the last Words of the Psalm, in which the same words are repeated, make the Sense of it evident: For there it is thus varied, Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his holy hill, for the Lord our God is holy. These words coming so soon after the former, are a Paraphrase to them, and deter∣mine their Sense. No doubt the High Priest worshipped God, who dwelt between the Cherubims, in that Cloud of Glory in which he shewed himself visibly present in his Temple; but there is no sort of reason to think, that in so Majestick a Presence, Adoration could be offered to any thing else; or that after the High Priest had adored the Divine Essence so manifested, he would have fallen to Worship the Ark, and the Cherubims. This agrees ill with the Figure that is so much used in this Matter of a King, and his Chair of State; for in the Presence of the King, all Respects terminate in his Person, whatsoever may be done in his Absence.

And thus, this being not so much as a Precedent, much less an Argu∣ment for the use of Images; and there being nothing else brought from Scripture, that with any sort of wresting can be urged for it, and the Sense and Practice of the whole Church being so express against it, the Progress of it having been so long, and so much disputed, the ten∣dency of it to Superstition and Abuse, being by their own Confession so visible; the Scandal that it gives to Iews and Mahometans being so apparent, and it carrying in its outward appearances such a Con∣formity (to say at present no more) to Heathenish Idolatry, we think we have all possible advantages in this Argument. We adhere to that Purity of Worship which is in both Testaments so much insisted on, we avoid all Scandal, and make no Approaches to Heathenism, and follow the Pattern set us by the Primitive Church. And as our sim∣plicity of Worship needs not be defended, since it proves it self; so no proofs are brought for the other side, but only a pretended useful∣ness in outward Figures, to raise the Mind by the Senses to just Appre∣hensions of Spiritual Objects; which allowing it true, will only conclude for the Historical Use of Images, but not for the directing our Worship towards them. But the effect is quite contrary to the pre∣tence, for instead of raising the Mind by the Senses, the Mind is rather sunk by them into gross Ideas.

The Bias of Human Nature lies to Sense, and to form gross Imagina∣tions of Incorporeal Objects; and therefore instead of gratifying these, we ought to wean our Minds from them, and to raise them above them all we can. Even Men of Speculation and Abstraction feel Nature in this grows too hard for them; but the Vulgar is apt to fall so headlong into these Conceits, that it looks like the laying of Snares for them, to furnish them with such methods and helps for their having gross Thoughts of Spiritual Objects. The fondness that the People have for Images, their readiness to believe the most incredible Stories concerning them, the expence they are at to En∣rich and Adorn them, their Prostrations before them, their Confi∣dence in them, their humble and tender Embracing and Kissing of them, their pompous and heathenish Processions to do them Honour, the Fraternities erected for particular Images, not to mention the more universal and established Practices of directing their Prayers

to them, of setting Lights before them, and of Incensing them; these, I say, are things too well known, to such as have seen the way of that Religion, that they should need to be much enlarged on; and yet they are not only allowed of, but encouraged. Those among them who have too much good sense that they should sink into those foolish apprehensions themselves, yet must not only bear with them, but often comply with them to avoid the giving of Scandal, as they call it; not considering the much greater Scandal that they give, when they encourage others by their practice to go on in these Follies. The enlarging into all the corruptions occasioned by this way of Wor∣ship would carry me far, but it seems not necessary, the thing is so plain in it self.

The next Head in this Article is a full instance of it, which is the Worship of Relicks. It is no wonder that great care was taken in the beginnings of Christianity, to shew all possible respect and tenderness even to the Bodies of the Martyrs. There is something of this plant∣ed so deep in Human Nature, that though the Philosophy of it cannot be so well made out, yet it seems to be somewhat more than an uni∣versal Custom; Humanity is of its side, and is apt to carry Men to the profusions of Pomp and Cost; all Religions do agree in this, so that we need not wonder if Christians in the first fervour of their Religion, believing the Resurrection so firmly as they did, and having a high sense of the Honour done to Christ and his Religion by the suf∣ferings of the Martyrs; if, I say,* 1.374 they studied to gather their Bones and Ashes together, and Bury them decently. They thought it a sign of their being joined with them in one Body, to hold their Assemblies at the places where they were buried:* 1.375 This might be also considered as a motive to encourage others to follow the example that they had given them, even to Martyrdom: And therefore all the marks of Ho∣nour were put even upon their Bodies that could be thought on, ex∣cept Worship. After the Ages of Persecution were over, a fondness of having and keeping their Relicks, began to spread it self in many places. Monks fed that humour by carrying them about. We find in St. Austin's Works that Superstition was making a great progress in Africk upon these heads, of which he complains frequently.* 1.376 Vigi∣lantius had done it more to purpose in Spain; and did not only com∣plain of the excesses, but of the thing in it self.* 1.377 St. Ierom fell un∣mercifully upon him for it, and sets a high value upon Relicks, yet he does not speak one word of worshipping them; he denies and dis∣claims it, and seems only to allow of a great fondness for them; and with most of that Age, he was very apt to believe, that Miracles were oft wrought by them. When Superstition is once suffered to mix with Religion, it will be still gaining ground, and it admits of no bounds: So this matter went on, and new Legends were invented; but when the Controversy of Image-worship began, it followed that as an accessary. The Enshrining of Relicks occasioned the most excel∣lent sort of Images; and they were thought the best preservatives pos∣sible both for Soul and Body; no Presents grew to be more valued than Relicks; and it was an easy thing for the Popes to furnish the World plentifully that way, but chiefly since the discovery of the Ca∣tacombs, which has furnished them with Stores not to be exhausted. The Council of Trent did in this, as in the point of Images: it ap∣pointed

Relicks to be Venerated, but did not determine the degree; so it left the World in possession of a most excessive dotage upon them. They are used every where by them as sacred Charms, Kissed and Wor∣shipped, they are served with Lights and Incense.

In opposition to all this we think, that all decent Honours are in∣deed due to the Bodies of the Saints, which were once the Temples of the Holy Ghost:* 1.378 But since it is said, that God took that care of the Body of Moses, so as to Bury it in such a manner that no Man knew of his Sepulchre, there seems to have been in this a peculiar caution guarding against that Superstition, which the Iews might very proba∣bly have fallen into with relation to his Body. And this seems so clear an indication of the Will of God in this matter, that we reckon we are very safe when we do no further honour to the Body of a Saint, than to Bury it. And though that Saint had been ever so Eminent, not only for his Holiness, but even for Miracles wrought by him, by his shadow, or even by looking upon him; yet the History of the Brazen Serpent shews us, that a fondness even on the Instruments, that God made use of to work Miracles by,* 1.379 degenerates easily to the super∣stition of burning Incense to them; but when that appears it is to be check'd, even by breaking that which was so abused. Hezekiah is com∣mended for breaking in pieces that noble Remain of Moses's time till then preserved; neither its Antiquity, nor the signal Miracles once wrought by it, could balance the ill use that was then made of it: That good King broke it, for which he might have had a worse Name than an Iconoclast, if he had lived in some Ages. It is true Miracles were of old wrought by Aaron's Rod, by Elisha's Bones after his death, and the one was preserved but not worshipped;* 1.380 nor was there any Su∣perstition that followed on the other. Not a word of this fondness appears in the beginnings of Christianity; though it had been an easy thing at that time to have furnished the World with pieces of our Sa∣viour's Garments, Hair, or Nails; and great store might have been had of the Virgin's and the Apostle's Relicks: St. Stephen's and St. Iames's Bones might have been then parcelled about: And if that Spirit had then reigned in the Church, which has been in the Roman Church now above a Thousand Years, we should have heard of the Relicks that were sent about from Ierusalem to all the Churches. But when such things might have been had in great abundance, and have been known not to be Counterfeits, we hear not a word of them. If a fondness for Relicks had been in the Church upon Christ's Ascension, what care would have been taken to have made great Collections of them!

Then we see no other care about the Body of St. Stephen but to Bury it; and not long after that time upon St. Polycarp's Martyrdom, when the Iews who had set on the Prosecution against him, suggested, that if the Christians could gain his Body, they would perhaps forsake Christ and worship him; they rejected the accusation with horror, for in the Epistle which the Church of Smirna writ upon his Martyr∣dom, after they mention this Insinuation, they have those remarkable words, which belong both to this head and to that which follows it of the Invocation and Worship of Saints.* 1.381 These Men know not that we can neither forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of all that are saved, the Innocent for the Guilty, nor worship any other; Him truly being

the Son of God we adore: But the Martyrs, and Disciples, and Follow∣ers of the Lord, we justly love, for that extraordinary good mind, which they have expressed toward their King and Master, of whose happiness God grant that we may partake, and that we may learn by their Examples. The Iews had so persuaded the Gentiles of Smirna of this matter, that they burnt St. Polycarp's Body; but the Christians gathered up his Bones with much respect, so that it appeared how they honoured them, though they could not worship them; and they buried them in a convenient place, which they intended to make the place where they should hold by the Blessing of God, the Yearly Commemoration of that Birth-day of his Martyrdom, with much Ioy and Gladness, both to Ho∣nour the Memory of those who had overcome in that Glorious Engagement, and to Instruct and Confirm all others by their Example. This is one of the most valuable Pieces of true and genuine Antiquity; and it shews us very fully the Sense of that Age both concerning the Re∣licks, and the Worship of the Saints. In the following Ages, we find no Characters of any other regard to the Bones or Bodies of the Saints, but that they buried them very decently, and did annually commemorate their Death, calling it their Birth-day. And it may incline Men strongly to suspect the many Miracles that were publish∣ed in the Fourth Century, as wrought at the Tombs, or Memories of the Martyrs, or by their Relicks, that we hear of none of those in the former Three Centuries; for it seems there was more occasion for them during the Persecution, than after it was over; it being much more necessary than to furnish Christians with so strong a Mo∣tive as this must have been, to resist even to Blood, when God was pleased to Glorify himself so signally in his Saints. This, I say, forces us to fear, that Credulity and Imagination, or somewhat worse than both these, might have had a large share in those extraordinary things that are related to us by great Men in the Fourth Century. He must have a great Disposition to believe wonderful things, that can digest the extraordinary Relations that are even in St. Basile, St. Ambrose, and St. Austin; and most signally in St. Ierom,* 1.382 for in∣stance, That after one had stolen Hilarion's Body out of Cyprus, and brought it to Palestine, upon which Constantia that went formerly constantly to his Tomb, was ready to have broke her heart; God took such pity on her, that as the true Body wrought great Miracles in Palestine, so likewise very great Miracles continued still to be wrought at the Tomb, where it was at first laid. One in respect to those Great Men is tempted to suspect that many things might have been foisted into their Writings in the following Ages. A great many Practices of this kind have been made manifest beyond Contradicti∣on. Whole Books have been made to pass for the Writings of Fa∣thers, that do evidently bear the Marks of a much later date, where the Fraud was carried too far not to be discovered. At other times parcels have been laid in among their genuine Productions, which cannot be so easily distinguished; they not being liable to so many Critical Enquiries, as may be made on a larger Work. It is a little unaccountable how so many marvellous things should be published in that Age; and yet that St. Chrysostom, who spent his whole Life between two of the publickest Scenes of the World,* 1.383 Antioch and Con∣stantinople, and was an active and inquisitive Man, should not so

much as have heard of any such wonderful Stories; but should have taken pains to remove a prejudice out of the Minds of his Hearers, that might arise from this, that whereas they heard of many Mira∣cles that were wrought in the times of the Apostles, none were wrought at that time; upon which he gives very good reasons why it was so. His saying so positively, That none were wrought at that time, without so much as a Salvo for what he might have heard from other Parts, shews plainly, that he had not heard of any at all. For he was Orator enough to have made even looser Reports look probable. This does very much shake the Credit of those amazing Relations that we find in St. Ierom, St. Ambrose, and St. Austin. It is true, there seems to have been an Opinion very generally received both in the East and the West, at that time, which must have very much heightned the growing Superstition for Relicks. It was a Remnant both of Iudaism and Gentilism, that the Souls of the Martyrs hovered about their Tombs, called their Memories; and that therefore they might be called upon, and spoke to there. This appears even in the Council of Elliberis, where the Superstition of lighting Candles about their Tombs in Day-light is forbidden; the reason given, is, because the Spirits were not to be disquieted. St. Basil, and the other Fathers, that do so often mention the going to their Memories,* 1.384 do very plainly insinuate their being present at them, and hearing themselves called upon. This may be the reason why among all the Saints that are so much magnified in that Age, we never find the Blessed Virgin so much as once mentioned. They knew not where her Body was laid, they had no Tomb for her, no nor any of her Relicks or Uten∣sils. But upon the occasion of Nestorius's denying her to be the Mother of God; and by carrying the Opposition to that too far, a Supersti∣tion for her was set on foot, it made a progress sufficient to ballance the slowness of its beginning; the whole World was then filled with very extravagant Devotions for her.

The great noise we find concerning Relicks in the end of the Fourth Century, has all the Characters of Novelty possible in it; for those who speak of it, do not derive it from former times. One circumstance in this is very remarkable, that neither Trypho, Celsus, Lucian, nor Cecilius, do object to the Christians of their time, their fondness for dead Bodies, or praying about their Tombs, which they might well have alledged in opposition to what the Christians charged them with, if there had been any occasion for it. Whereas this Custom was no sooner begun, than both Iulian and Eunapius reproach the Christians for it. Iulian, it is true,* 1.385 speaks only of their calling on God over Sepulchres: Eunapius writ after him, and it seems in his time, that which Iulian sets forth as a calling upon God, was advanced to an Invocation of them. He says, They heaped together the Bones and Sculls of Men, that had been punished for many Crimes, (it was natural enough for a spiteful Hea∣then, to give this Representation of their Martyrdom) holding them for Gods: And after some scurrilous Invectives against them, he adds, they are called Martyrs, and made the Ministers▪ and Messengers of Prayer to the Gods. This seems to be a very evident proof of the Novelty of this matter. As for the adoring them, when Vigilantius asked, Why dost thou Kiss and Adore a little Dust put up in fine Linnen? St. Ierom, though excessively fond of them, denies this very positively, and that in very

injurious Terms, being offended at the injustice of the Reproach. Yet as long as the Bodies of the Martyrs were let lie quietly in their Memories, the fond Opinion of their being present and hearing what was said to them, made the Invocating them look like one Mans de∣siring the Assistance of another good Man's Prayers; so that this Step seemed to have a fair colour: But when their Bodies were pulled asun∣der and carried up and down; so that it was believed Miracles abound∣ed every where about them; and when their Bones and Relicks grew to encrease and multiply, so that they had more Bones and Limbs than God and Nature had given them; then new Hypotheses were to be found out to justify the calling upon them every where, as their Relicks were spread. St. Ierom in his careless way says,* 1.386 they followed the lamb whithersoever he went, and seems to make no doubt of their being, if not every where, yet in several places at once.* 1.387 But St. Austin who could follow a consequence much further in his Thoughts, though he doubted not but that Men were much the better for the Prayers of the Martyrs, yet he confesses that it passed the strength of his Understand∣ing to determine, whether they heard those who called upon them at their Memories, or wheresoever else they were believed to have ap∣peared, or not? But the Devotions that are spoken of by all of that Age, are related, as having been offered at their Memories, so that this seems to have been the general Opinion, as well as it was the com∣mon Practice of that Age, though it is no wonder if this Conceit once giving some colour and credit, to the Invocating them, that did quick∣ly encrease it self to a general Invocation of them every where. And thus a fondness for their Relicks, joined with the opinion of their Re∣lation and nearness to them, did in a short time grow up to a direct worshipping of them: And by the fruitfulness that always follows Su∣perstition, did spread it self further, to their Cloaths, Utensils, and every thing else that had any relation to them.

There was cause given in St. Austin's time to suspect that many of the Bones which were carried about by Monks,* 1.388 were none of their Bones but Impostures: Which very much shakes the Credit of the Miracles wrought by them; since we have no reason to think that God would support such Impostures with Miracles: As on the other hand there is no reason to think that false Relicks would have passed upon the World, if Miracles had been believed to accompany true ones, unless they had their Miracles likewise, to attest their Value; so let this Matter be turned which way it may, the credit both of Re∣licks and of the Miracles wrought by them, is not a little shaken by it. But in the following Ages we have more than Presumptions, that there was much of this false Coin that went abroad in the World. It was not possible to distinguish the False from the True. The freshness of Colour and Smell so often boasted might have been easily managed by Art; the varieties of those Relicks, the different Methods of dis∣covering them, the Shinings that were said to be about their Tombs, with the Smells that broke out of them, the many Apparitions that accompanied them, and the signal Cures that were wrought by them; as they grew to fill the World with many Volumes of Legends, many more lying yet in the Manuscripts in many Churches, than have been published; all these I say carry in them such Characters of Fraud and Imposture, on the one hand, and of Cruelty and Superstition on the

other, so much Craft and so much Folly, that they had their full Ef∣fect upon the World; even in contradiction to the clearest Evidence possible: The same Saints having more Bodies and Heads than one, in different Places; and yet all equally celebrated with Miracles. A great profusion of Wealth and Pomp was laid out in honouring them; new Devotions were still invented for them: And though these things are too palpably False to be put upon us now, in Ages of more Light, where every thing will not go down because it is confidently affirmed; yet as we know how great a Part of the Devotion of the Latin Church, this continued to be for many Ages before the Refor∣mation, so the same Trade is still carried on, where the same Ignorance and the same Superstition does still continue.

I come now to consider the last Head of this Article, which is the Invocation of Saints; of which much has been already said by an Anticipation: For there is that Connection between the Worship of Relicks and the Invocation of Saints, that the treating of the one, does very naturally carry one to say somewhat of the other. It is ve∣ry evident that Saints were not Invocated in the Old Testament. God being called so oft, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Iacob seems to give a much better warrant for it, than any thing that can be al∣ledged from the New Testament. Moses was their Lawgiver and their Mediator and Intercessor with God; and his Intercession as it had been very effectual for them, so it had shewed it self in a very extraordinary Instance of his desiring that his Name might be blotted out of the Book which he had written rather than the People should perish;* 1.389 when God had offered to him, that he would raise up a New Nation to himself, out of his Posterity. God had also made many Promises to that Na∣tion by him: So that it might be natural enough considering the Ge∣nius of Superstition, for the Iews to have called to him in their Mise∣ries, to obtain the Performance of those Promises made by him to them. We may upon this refer the Matter to every Mans judgment, whether Abraham and Moses might not have been much more reasonably Invo∣cated by the Iews according to what we find in the Old Testament, than any Saint can be, under the New: Yet we are sure they were not prayed to. Elijah's going up to Heaven in so miraculous a manner, might also have been thought a good Reason for any to have prayed to him: But nothing of that kind was then practised. They understood Prayer to be a Part of that Worship which they owed to God only: So that the praying to any other, had been to a certain Degree the ha∣ving another God before, or besides the true Iehovah. They never prayed to any other, they called upon him and made mention of no other: The Rule was without exception, Call upon me in the time of trouble,* 1.390 I will hear thee and thou shalt glorify me. Upon this Point there is no dispute.

In the New Testament, we see the same method followed, with this only exception, that Jesus Christ is proposed as our Mediator: And that not only in the point of Redemption, which is not denied by those of the Church of Rome, but even in the point of Intercession; for when St. Paul is treating concerning the Prayers and Supplications that are to be offered for all Men, he concludes that Direction in these Words: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and Man,* 1.391 the Man Christ Iesus. We think the silence of the New Testament, might be a suffi∣cient

Argument for this: But these Words go farther, and imply a Prohibition to address our Prayers to God by any other Mediator. All the Directions that are given us of trusting in God and praying to him, are upon the matter Prohibitions of trusting to any other, or of cal∣ling on any other. Invocation and Faith are joyned together: How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?* 1.392 So that we ought only to pray to God, and to Christ, according to those words, Ye be∣lieve in God, believe ye also in me.* 1.393 We do also know that it was a part of Heathenish Idolatry to Invocate either Demons, or departed Men, whom they considered as good Beings subordinate to the Divine Es∣sence, and imployed by God in the Government of the World; and they had almost the same Speculations about them, that have been since introduced into the Church, concerning Angels and Saints. In the condemning all Idolatry, no reserve is made in Scripture for this, as being faulty, only because it was applied wrong; or that it might be set right when directed better. On the contrary, when some Men under the pretence of Humility and of Will-worship,* 1.394 did according to the Platonick Notions, offer to bring in the Worship of Angels into the Church of Colosse, pretending as is probable, that those Spirits who were imployed by God in the Ministry of the Gospel, ought in gra∣titude for that Service, and out of respect to their Dignity, to be worshipped: St. Paul condemns all this, without any reserves made for lower degrees of Worship; he charges the Christians to beware of that vain Philosophy,* 1.395 and not to be deceived by those shews of Humi∣lity, or the Speculations of Men, who pretended to explain that which they did not know, as intruding into things which they had not seen, vainly puffed up by their fleshly Mind. If any degrees of invoca∣ting Saints or Angels, had been consistent with the Christian Reli∣gion; this was the proper place of declaring them: But the condem∣ning that matter so absolutely, looks as a very express Prohibition of all sort of Worship to Angels. And when St. Iohn fell down to Wor∣ship the Angel, that had made him such glorious Discoveries upon two several Occasions: The Answer he had, was, See thou do it not:* 1.396 worship God: I am thy fellow servant. It is probable enough, that St. Iohn might imagine, that the Angel who had made such Discoveries to him, was Iesus Christ; but the Answer plainly shews that no sort of Worship ought to be offered to Angels, nor to any but God. The rea∣son given excludes all sort of Worship, for that cannot be among Fellow-Servants.

As Angels are thus forbid to be worshipped, so no mention is made of worshipping or invocating anySaints that had died for theFaith, such as St. Stephen and St. Iames. In the Epistle to the Hebrews,* 1.397 they are required to Remember them which had the rule over them, and to fol∣low their faith; but not a word of praying to them. So that if either the Silence of the Scriptures on this Head, or if plain Declarations to the contrary could decide this Matter, the Controversy would be soon at an end. Christ is always proposed to us as the only Person by whom we come unto God: And when St. Paul speaks against the worshipping of Angels, he sets Christ out in his Glory in Opposition to it. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; and ye are compleat in him, which is the Head of all Principality and Power;* 1.398 pur∣suing that reason in a great many particulars.

From the Scriptures, if we go to the first Ages of Christianity, we find nothing that favours this, but a great deal to the contrary. Irenaeus disclaims the Invocation of Angels. The memorable Passage of the Church of Smirna, formerly cited, is a full Proof of their Sense in this matter. Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian do often mention the Worship that was given to God only,* 1.399 by Prayer; and so far were they at that time from praying to Saints, that they prayed for them as was formerly explained: They thought they were not yet in the Presence of God, so they could not pray to them as long as that Opinion continued. That Form of praying for them is in the Apostolical Constitutions. In all that Collection, which seems to be a Work of the Fourth or Fifth Century, there is not a word that intimates their Praying to Saints. In the Council of Laodicea, there is an express Con∣demnation of those who invocated Angels;* 1.400 this is called a Secret Idolatry, and a forsaking of our Lord Iesus Christ. The first Apologists for Christianity do arraign the Worship of Demons, and of such as had once lived on Earth, in a Stile that shewed they did not apprehend that the Argument could be turned against them, for their worshipping either Angels or depart∣ed Saints. When the Arian Controversy arose, the Invocation of Christ is urged by Athana∣sius, Basil, Cyril, and other Fathers, as an evident Argument that he was neither made nor created; since they did not pray to Angels, or any other Creatures, from whence they concluded that Christ was God. These are convincing Proofs of the Doctrine of the Three first, and of a good part of the Fourth Century.

It is true, as was confessed upon the former Head, they began with Martyrs in the end of the Fourth Century. They fancied they heard those that called to them; and upon that it was no wonder, if they invocated them, and so private Prayers to them began. But as appears both by the Constitutions, and several of the Writers of that time, the Publick Offices were yet preserved pure. St. Austin says plainly, The Gentiles built Temples, raised Altars, ordained Priests, and offered Sa∣crifices to their Gods;* 1.401 but we do not erect Temples to our Martyrs, as if they were Gods; but Memories as to dead Men, whose Spirits live with God; nor do we erect Altars, upon which we Sacrifice to Mar∣tyrs; but to one God only do we offer; to the God of Martyrs, and our God; at which Sacrifice they are named in their Place and Order, as Men of God, who in confessing Him have overcome the World, but they are not invocated by the Priest that Sacrifices. It seems ••he Form of Praying for the Saints mentioned in the Constitutions, was not used in the Churches of Africk in St. Austin's Time: He says very positively, That they did not pray for them, but did praise God for them: And he says in express words, Let not the Worship of dead Men be any part of our Religion, they ought so to be honoured, that we may imitate them,* 1.402 but not worshipped. God was indeed prayed to, in the Fifth Century, to hear the Intercession of the Saints and Martyrs; but there is a great difference between Praying to God to favour us on their account, and praying immediately to them to hear us.

The Praying to them imports either their being every where, or their knowing all things; and as it is a blasphemous Piece of Idolatry to ascribe that to them without a Divine Communication; so it is a great Presumpti∣on in any Man to fancy that they may be prayed to, and to build so many parts of Worship upon it, barely upon some probabilites and in∣ferences, without an express Revelation about it. For the Saints may be perfectly happy in the enjoyment of God without seeing all things in him; nor have we any reason to carry that farther than the Scripture has done. But as the Invocating of Martyrs grew from a calling to them at their Memories, to a general calling to them in all places; so from the In∣vocating Martyrs, they went on to pray to other Saints; yet that was at first ventured on doubtfully, and only in Funeral Orations; where an address to the dead Person to pray for those that were then honouring his Memory, might perhaps, come in as a figure of pompous Eloquence; in which Nazianzen, one of the first that uses it, did often give him∣self a very great compass; yet he and others soften such Figures with this, If there is any sense or knowledge of what we do below.

From Prayers to God to receive the Intercessions of Martyrs and Saints, it came in later Ages to be usual to have Litanies to them, and to pray immediately to them; but at first this was only a desire to them to pray for those who did thus Invocate them, Ora pro nobis. But so impossible is it to restrain Superstition when it has once got head, and has prevailed, that in conclusion all things that were asked either of God or Christ, came to be asked from the Saints in the same humility both of Gesture and Expression; in which if there was any difference made, it seemed to be ra∣ther on the side of the B. Virgin and the Saints, as appears by the Ten Ave's for one Pater, and that humble Prostration in which all fall down every day to worship her: The Prayer used constantly to her, Maria, Mater gra∣tiae Mater miserecordiae, tu nos ab hoste protege, & hora mortis suscipe, is an im∣mediate acknowledgment of her as the giver of these things; such are, Solve vincla reis, profer lumen caecis; with many others of that nature. The Collection of these swells to a huge bulk, Iure Matris impera Re∣demptori, is an allowed Address to her; not to mention an infinity of most scandalous ones, that are not only tolerated, but encouraged in that Church. Altars are consecrated to her honour, and to the honour of other Saints; but which is more, the Sacrifice of the Mass is offered up to her honour, and to the honour of the Saints: And in the Form of Ab∣solution, the pardon of Sins, the increase of Grace, and eternal Life, are prayed for to the Penitent by the vertue of the Passion of Christ, and the Merits of the B. Virgin, and of all the Saints. The pardon of Sins and eternal Life, are also prayed for from Angels, Angelorum concio sacra, Arch∣angelorum Turma inclyta, nostra diluant jam peccata, praestando supernam Coeli gloriam. Many strains of this kind are to be found in the Hymns and other publick Offices of that Church: And though in the late Corrections of their Offices, some of the more scandalous are left out, yet those here cited, with a great many more to the same purpose, are still preserved. And the Council of Trent did plainly intend to connive at all these things, for they did not restrain the Invocation of Saints, only to be an Address to them to pray for us, which is the common disguise with which they study to cover this matter: But by the Decree of the Council, the flying to their help and assistance as well as to their Intercession, is encouraged: Which shews that the Council would not limit this part of their Devotion to a bare Ora pro nobis; that might have seemed flat and low, and so it might have discouraged it; therefore they made use of words that will go as far

as Superstition can carry them. So that if the Invocating them, if the making Vows to them, the Dedicating themselves to them; if the flying to them in all distresses, in the same acts and in the same words that the Scriptures teach us to fly to God with; and if all the studied honours of Processions, and other pompous Rites towards their Ima∣ges, that are invented to do them honour; if, I say, all this does amount to Idolatry, then we are sure they are guilty of it; since they honour the creature not only besides (but in the full extent of that Phrase more than) the Creator.* 1.403

And now let us see what is the Foundation of all these Devotions, against which we bring Arguments, that to speak modestly of them, are certainly such that there should be matters of great weight in the other Scale to balance them. Nothing is pretended from Scrip∣ture, nor from any thing that is genuine, for above Three hundred and fifty years after Christ. In a word, the practice of the Church, since the end of the Fourth Century, and the Authority of Tradition, of Popes and Councils, must bear this Burden. These are Consequences that do not much affect us; for though we pay great respect to many great Men that flourished in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, yet we cannot compare that Age with the Three that went before it. Those great Men give us a sad account of the Corruptions of that time, not only among the Laity, but the Clergy; and their being so flexible in matters of Faith, as they ap∣peared to be in the whole course of the Arian Controversy, gives us very just reason to suspect the practices of that Age, in which the protection and encouragements that the Church received from the first Christian Emperors, were not improved to the best advantage.

The justest abatement that we can offer for thisCorruption, which is too manifest to be either denied or justified, is this, They were then engaged with the Heathens, and were much set on bringing them over to the Chri∣stian Religion. In order to that, it was very natural for them to think of all methods possible to accommodate Christianity to their taste. It was, per∣haps, observed how far the Apostles complied with the Iews that they might gain them. St. Paul had said, that to the Iews he became a Iew; and to them that were without law,* 1.404 that is, the Gentiles, as one without law; that by all means he might gain some. They might think, that if the Iews, who had abused the light of a Revealed Religion, who had rejected and crucified the Messias, and persecuted his Followers, and had in all respects corrupted both their Doctrine and their Morals, were waited on and complied with, in the observance of that very Law which was abrogated by the Death of Christ, but was still insisted on by them as of perpetual Obligation; and yet that after the Apostles had made a solemn decision in the matter, they continued to conform themselves to that Law; all this might be applied with some advantages to this matter. The Gentiles had nothing but the Light of Nature to Govern them; they might seem willing to become Christians, but they still despised the nakedness and simplicity of that Re∣ligion. And it is reasonable enough to think that the Emperors and other great Men, might in a Political view, considering the vast strength of Hea∣thenism, press the Bishops of those times to use all imaginable ways to a∣dorn Christianity with such an exteriorForm ofWorship, as might be most acceptable to them, and might most probably bring them over to it.

The Christians had long felt the weight of Persecution from them▪ and were, no doubt, much frighted with the danger of a Relapse in Iulian's time. It is natural to all Men to desire to be safe, and to weaken the num∣bers of their implacable Enemies. In that state of things we do plainly see

they began to comply in lesser Matters: For whereas in the First Ages, the Christians were often reproached with this, that they had no Temples, Altars, Sacrifices, nor Priests, they changed their dialect in all those Points, so we have reason to believe that this was carri∣ed further. The Vulgar are more easily wrought upon in greater Points of Speculation, than in some small Ritual Matters: Because they do not understand the one, and so are not much concerned about it: But the other is more sensible and lies within their compass. We find some in Palestine kept Images in their Houses, as Eusebius tells us; others began in Spain to light Candles by Day-light, and to paint the Walls of their Churches: And though these things were con∣demned by the Council of Elliberis, yet we see by what St. Ierom has cited out of Vigilantius, that the Spirit of Superstition did work strong∣ly among them: We hear of none that writ against those abuses be∣sides Vigilantius; yet Ierom tells us, that many Bishops were of the same Mind with him, with whom he is so angry as to doubt, whether they deserved to be called Bishops. Most of these abuses had also specious beginnings; and went on insensibly: Where they made greater steps, we find an opposition to them.* 1.405 Epiphanius is very severe upon the Collyridians, for their Worshipping the Blessed Virgin. And though they did it by Offering up a Cake to her, yet if any will read all that he says against that Superstition, they will clearly see, that no Prayers were then Offered up to her, by the Orthodox: And that he rejects the thought of it with Indignation. But the respect paid the Martyrs, and the opinion that they were still hovering about their Tombs, might make the calling to them for their Prayers, seem to be like one Mans desiring the Prayers of other Good Men; and when a thing of this kind is once begun, it naturally goes on. Of all this we see a particular Account in a Discourse writ on purpose on this Argument, of curing the Affections and Inclinations of the Greeks, by Theodoret,* 1.406 who may be justly reckoned among the greatest Men of Antiquity, and in it he insists upon this particular of proposing to them the Saints and Martyrs instead of their Gods. And there is no doubt to be made, but that they found the effects of this compliance; many Heathens were every day coming over to the Christian Religion: And it might then perhaps be intended, to lay all those aside, when the Heathens were once brought over.

To all which this must be added, that the good Men of that time had not the Spirit of Prophesy, and could not foresee what Progress this might make, and to what an Excess it might grow; they had nothing of that kind in their View: So that between Charity and Policy, be∣tween a desire to bring over Multitudes to their Faith, and an Inclination to secure themselves, it is not at all to be wondred at, by any who con∣siders all the Circumstances of those Ages, that these Corruptions should have got into the Church, and much less having once got in, they should have gone on so fast, and be carried so far.

Thus I have offered all the Considerations that arise from the State of Things at that time, to shew how far we do still preserve the Respect due to the Fathers of those Ages, even when we confess that they were Men, and that something of human Nature appeared in this Piece of their Con∣duct. This can be made no Argument for later Ages, who having no Heathens among them, are under no Temptations to comply with any of the Parts of Heathenism, to gain them. And now that the abuse of these Matters, is become so scandalous, and has spread it self so far, how

much soever we may excuse those Ages, in which we discern the first beginnings, and as it were the small Heads of that which has since over∣flow'd Christendom: Yet we can by no means bear even with those beginnings, which have had such dismal Effects; and therefore we have reduced the Worship of God, to the Simplicity of the Scripture Times, and of the First Three Centuries: And for the Fourth we re∣verence it so much on other Accounts, that for the Sake of these we are unwilling to Reflect too much on this.

Another Consideration urged for the Invocation of Saints, is, that they seeing God, we have reason to believe that they see in him, if not all things, yet at least all the Concerns of the Church, of which they are still Parts; and they being in a most perfect State of Charity, they must certainly love the Souls of their Brethren here below: So that if Saints on Earth whose Charity is not yet perfect, do pray for one another here on Earth, they in that State of Perfection do certainly pray most fer∣vently for them. And as we here on Earth do desire the Prayers of others, it may be as reasonable and much more useful to have recourse to their Prayers, who are both in a higher State of Favour with God, and have a more exalted Charity: By which their Intercessions will be both more earnest, and more prevalent. They think also that this Ho∣nour paid the Saints, is an Honour done to God, who is glorified in them: And since he is the acknowledged Fountain of all, they think that all the Worship offered to them ends and terminates in God. They think as Princes are come at by the means of those that are in Favour with them; so we ought to come to God by the Intercession of the Saints: That all our Prayers to them are to be understood to amount to no more than a desire to them, to interceed for us; and finally that the Offering of Sacrifice is an Act of Worship, that can indeed be made only to God, but that all other Acts of Devotion and Respect, may be given to the Saints: And the sublimest Degrees of them, may be offered to the Blessed Virgin, as the Mother of Christ in a peculiar rank by her self. For they range the order of Worship into Latria, that is due only to God; Hyperdulia, that belongs to the Blessed Vir∣gin, and Dulia, that belongs to the other Saints.

It were easy to retort all this, by putting it into the Mouth of a Heathen; and shewing how well it would fit all those Parts of Worship, that they offered to Demons or Intelligent Spirits, and to Deified Men among them. This is obvious enough to such as have read what the first Apologists for Christianity have writ upon those Heads. But to take this to pieces; we have no reason to believe that the Saints see all the Concerns of the Church. God can make them perfectly happy without this; and if we think, the seeing them is a necessary Ingre∣dient of perfect Happiness, we must from thence conclude, that they do also see the whole Chain of Providence: Otherwise they may seem to be in some suspence, which according to our Notions, is not consistent with perfect Happiness. For if they see the Persecutions of the Church, and the Miseries of Christians, without seeing on to the end, in what all that will issue, this seems to be a stop to their entire joy. And if they see the final Issue, and know what God is to do, then we cannot imagine that they can interceed against it, or indeed for it. To us who know not the hidden Counsels of God, Prayer is necessary and commanded: But it seems inconsistent with a State in which all these Events are known. This which they lay for the Foundation of Prayers to Saints, is a thing concerning which

God has revealed nothing to us; and in which we can have no cer∣tainty. God has commanded us to pray for one another, to join our Prayers together, and we have clear Warrants for desiring the In∣tercession of others. It is a high Act of Charity, and a great In∣stance of the mutual Love that ought to be among Christians: It is a part of the Communion of the Saints: And as they do certainly know, that those whose assistance they desire, understand their Wants when they signify them to them; so they are sure that God has commanded this mutual Praying one for another. It is a strange thing therefore to argue from what God has commanded, and which may have ma∣ny good Effects, and can have no bad one, to that which he has not commanded; on the contrary, against which there are many plain Intimations in Scripture, and which may have many bad Effects, and we are not sure that it can have any one that is good. Beside, that the Solemnity of Devotion and Prayer, is a thing very different from our desiring the Prayers of such as are alive: The one is as visibly an Act of religious Worship, as the other is not. God has called himself a jealous God, that will not give his Glory to another.* 1.407 And through the whole Scripture Prayer is represented as a main Part of the Service due to him; and as that in which he takes the most Pleasure. It is a Sacrifice, and is so called:* 1.408 And every other Sacrifice can only be accepted of God, as it is accompanied with the internal Acts of Prayers and Praises; which are the spiritual Sacrifices with which God is well pleased. The only thing which the Church of Rome reserves to God, proves to be the Sacrifice of the Mass:* 1.409 Which as shall appear upon another Article, is a Sacrifice that they have invented; but which is no where commanded by God: So that if this is well made out, there will be nothing reserved to God to be the act of their Latria: Though it is not to be forgotten, that even the Virgin and the Saints have a share in that Sacrifice.

The excusing this, from the Addresses made to Princes by those that are in Favour with them, is as bad as the thing it self; it gives us a low Idea of God, and of Christ, and of that Goodness and Mercy, that is so often declared to be Infinite, as if he were to be addressed to by those about him, and might not be come to without an Inter∣position: Whereas the Scriptures speak always of God, as a hearer of Prayer, and as ready to accept of and answer the Prayers of his Peo∣ple: To seek to other Assistances, looks as if the Mercies of God were not Infinite, or the Intercessions of Christ were not of infinite Efficacy. This is a Corrupting of the main Design of the Gospel, which is to draw our Affections wholly to God, to free us from all low Notions of him, and from every thing that may incline us to Idolatry or Superstition.

Thus I have gone through all the Heads contained in this Article. It seemed necessary to explain these with a due Copiousness; they be∣ing not only Points of Speculation, in which Errors are not always so dangerous, but practical Things; which enter into the Worship of God, and that run through it. And certainly it is the Will of God, that we should preserve it pure, from being corrupted with Heathen∣ish or Idolatrous Practices. It seems to be the chief End of Re∣vealed Religion to deliver the World from Idolatry: A great Part of the Mosaical Law did consist of Rites of which we can give no other account, that is so like to be true, as, that they were Fences and Hedges, that were intended to keep that Nation in the greatest Oppo∣sition,

and at the utmost distance possible from Idolatry; we cannot therefore think that in the Christian Religion, in which we are car∣ried to higher Notions of God, and to a more spiritual way of Wor∣shipping him, that there should be such an approach to some of the worst Pieces of Gentilism; that it seems to be outdone by Christians, in some of its most scandalous Parts: Such as the Worship of subor∣dinate Gods, and of Images. These are the chief Grounds upon which we separate from the Roman Communion: Since we cannot have fellowship with them, unless we will join in those Acts, which we look on as direct violations of the First and Second Commandment. God is a jealous God, and therefore we must rather venture on their Wrath, how burning soever it may be, than on his, who is a consuming Fire.

ARTICLE XXIII. Of Ministring in the Congregation.

It is not lawful for any Man to take upon him the Office of publick Preaching or Ministring the Sacraments in the Congregation; before he be lawfully called and sent to exe∣cute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by Men, who have publick Authority given unto them, in the Con∣gregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's Uine∣yard.

WE have two particulars fixed in this Article: The First is against any that shall assume to themselves, without a lawful Vocation, the authority of dispencing the things of God: The Second is, the de∣fining in very general Words, what it is that makes a lawful Call. As to the First, it will bear no great difficulty: We see in the old Dispensation, that the Family, the Age, and the Qualifications of those that might serve in the Priesthood, are very particularly set forth. In the New Testament our Lord called the Twelve Apostles, and sent them out: He also sent out upon another occasion Seventy Disciples: And before he left his Apo∣stles, He told them, that as his Father had sent him, so he sent them:* 1.410 Which seems to Import, that as he was sent into the World with this, among other Powers, that he might send others in his Name; so he likewise em∣powered them to do the same: And when they went planting Churches▪ as they took some to be Companions of Labour with themselves, so they appointed others over the particular Churches in which they fixed them: Such were Epaphras or Epaphroditus at Colosse, Timothy at Ephesus, and Ti∣tus in Crete. To them the Apostles gave Authority: Otherwise it was a needless thing to write so many directions to them, in order to their con∣duct. They had the Depositum of the Faith,* 1.411 with which they were chiefly entrusted: Concerning the succession in which that was to be continu∣ed, we have these Words of St. Paul, The things which thou hast heard of me, among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful Men,* 1.412 who shall be able to teach others also. To them directions are given, concerning all the different Parts of their Worship: Supplications, Prayers, Inter∣cessions and giving of thanks; and also the keeping up the decency of the Worship, and the not suffering of Women to Teach; like the Women Priests among the Heathen, who were believed to be filled with a Bacchick Fury. To them are directed all the Qualifications of such as might be made, either Bishops or Deacons: They were to examine them ac∣cording to these, and either to receive or reject them. All this was directed to Timothy, that he might know how he ought to behave himself in the house of God.* 1.413 He had Authority given him to Rebuke and Entreat, to Honour and to Censure. He was to Order what Wi∣dows might be received into the Number and who should be refused. He was to receive Accusations against Elders or Presbyters according to directed Methods, and was either to Censure some, or to lay Hands on others as should agree with the Rules that were set him: And in con∣clusion he is very solemnly charged,* 1.414 to keep that which was committed to his Trust. He is required rightly to divide the word of truth, to preach the word, to be instant in season and out of season, to reprove, re∣buke

and exhort, and to do the work of an Evangelist, and to make full proof of his ministry. Some of the same things are charged upon Titus, whom St. Paul had left in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting,* 1.415 and to ordain Elders in every City: Several of the Characters by which he was to try them are also set down: He is charged to rebuke the people sharply, and to speak the things that became sound doctrine: He is instructed concerning the Doctrines which he was to Teach, and those which he was to Avoid; and also how to Censure an Heretick: He was to admonish him twice,* 1.416 and if that did not prevail, he was to reject him, by some publick Censure.

These Rules given to Timothy and Titus do pl••inly Import, that there was to be an Authority in the Church; and that no Man was to assume this Authority to himself; according to that Maxim, that seems to be founded on the Light of Nature, as well as it is set down in Scripture, as a standing Rule agreed to in all Times and Places: No Man taketh this honour to himself,* 1.417 but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

St. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians did reckon up the several Orders and Functions,* 1.418 that God had set in his Church, and in his Epistle to the Ephesians, he shews that these were not transi∣ent but lasting Constitutions: For there as he reckons the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, as the Gifts which Christ at his Ascension had given to Men; so he tells the Ends for which they were given: For the perfecting the Saints (by Perfecting seems to be meant the initiating them by Holy Mysteries; rather than the compacting or putting them in joint: For as that is the proper Signification of the Word, so it being set first, the other things that come after it make that the strict Sense of Perfecting, that is, Compleating does not so well agree with the Period,) for the work of the Ministry (the whole Ecclesiastical or Sacred Services,) for the edifying the Body of Christ (to which instruct∣ing, exhorting, comforting, and all the other Parts of Preaching may well be reduced) and then the duration of these Gifts is defined, 'Till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect Man. This seems to Import the whole State of this Life.

We cannot think that all this belonged only to the Infancy of the Church; and that it was to be laid aside by her, when she was farth••r advanced: For when we consider that in the Beginnings of Christiani∣ty, there was so liberal an Effusion of the Holy Spirit, poured out upon such great Numbers, who had very extraordinary Credentials, Miracles, and the Gift of Tongues, to prove their Mission; it does not seem so necessary, in such a Time, or rather for the sake of such a Time only, to have setled those Functions in the Church, and that the Apos••les should have ordained Elders in every Church. Those extraordinary Gifts that were then,* 1.419 without any authoritative Settlement, might h••ve ser∣ved in that Time, to have procured to Men so qualified all due Re∣gards. We have therefore much better Reason to Conclude, that this was setled at that Time, chiefly with respect to the following Ages; which as they were to fall off from that Zeal and Purity that did then reign among them, so they would need Rule and Government, to maintain the Unity of the Church, and the Order of sacred Things. And for that Reason chiefly we may conclude, that the Apostles setled Order and Government in the Church, not so much for the Age in which they themselves lived, as once to establish and give credit to Constitutions, that they foresaw would be yet more necess••ry to the suc∣ceeding Ages.

This is confirmed by that which is in the Epistle to the Hebrews, both concerning those who had ruled over them, and those who were then their Guides.* 1.420 St. Peter gave directions to the Elders of the Churches to whom he writ, how they ought both to feed and govern the flock; and his char∣ging them not to do it out of Covetousness, or with Ambition; insinuates that either some were beginning to do so, or that in a Spirit of Prophecy he foresaw that some might fall under such Corruptions: This is hint enough to teach us, that though such things should happen, they could furnish no Argument against the Function: Abuses ought to be corrected, but upon that pretence the Function ought not to be taken away.

If from the Scriptures we go to the first Writings of Christians, we find that the main subject of St. Clemens and St. Ignatius Epistles is to keep the Churches in order and union; in subjection to their Pastors, and in the due subordination of all the Members of the Body one to another. After the first Age the thing grows too clear to need any further proof. The Argument for this from the standing Rules of Order, of Decency, of the Authority in which the Holy things ought to be maintained, and the care that must be taken to repress Vanity and Insolence, and all the extravagan∣cies of light and ungoverned Fancies, is very clear. For if every Man may assume Authority to Preach and Perform Holy Functions, it is certain Religion must fall into disorder and under contempt: Hot-headed Men of warm Fancies, and voluble Tongues, with very little knowledge and discretion, would be apt to thrust themselves on to the Teaching and Governing others, if they themselves were under no Government. This would soon make the publick Service of God to be loathed, and break and dissolve the whole Body.

A few Men of livelier Thoughts, that begin to set on foot such ways, might for some time maintain a little credit, yet so many others would follow in at that breach which they had once made on publick Order, that it could not be possible to keep the Society of Christians under any method, if this were once allowed. And therefore those who in their heart hate the Christian Religion, and desire to see it fall under a more general contempt, know well what they do, when they encourage all those Enthusiasts that destroy order; hoping by the credit which their outward appearances may give them, to compass that which the others know them∣selves to be too obnoxious to hope that they can ever have credit enough to persuade the World to. Whereas those poor deluded Men do not see what Properties the others make of them. The Morals of Infidels shew that they hate all Religions equally, or with this difference, that the stricter any are, they must hate them the more; the root of their quarrel being at all Religion and Virtue. And it is certain, as it is that which those who drive it on, see well, and therefore they drive it on, that if once the pub∣lick Order and the National Constitution of a Church is dissolved, the strength and power, as well as the order and beauty of all Religion will soon go after it: For humanly speaking, it cannot subsist without it.

I come in the next place to consider the Second Part of this Article, which is the Definition here given of those that are lawfully Called and Sent: This is put in very general words, far from that Magisterial stiffness in which some have taken upon them to dictate in this matter. The Article does not resolve this into any particular Constitution, but leaves the mat∣ter open and at large, for such accidents as had happened, and such as might still happen. They who drew it had the state of the severalChurches before their Eyes that had been differently reformed, and although th••ir own had been less forced to go out of the beaten path than any other, yet

they knew that all things among themselves had not gone according to those Rules that ought to be sacred in Regular times. Necessity has no Law, and is a Law to it self.

This is the difference between those things that are the means of Salvation, and the Precepts that are only necessary, because they are Commanded. Those things which are the means, such as Faith, Re∣pentance, and new Obedience, are indispensable; they oblige all Men, and at all times alike; because they have a natural influence on us, to make us fit and capable Subjects of the Mercy of God: But such things as are necessary only by virtue of a Command of God, and not by virtue of any real Efficiency which they have to reform our Natures, do indeed oblige us to seek for them, and to use all our endeavours to have them. But as they of themselves are not necessary in the same order with the first, so much less are all those methods necessary in which we may come at the regular use of them. This distinction shall be more fully enlarged on when the Sacraments are Treated of. But to the matter in hand; That which is simply ne∣cessary, as a mean to preserve the Order and Union of the Body of Christians, and to maintain the Reverence due to holy things, is, that no Man enter upon any part of the holy Ministry, without he be Chosen and Called to it, by such as have an Authority so to do; that, I say, is fixed by the Article. But Men are left more at li∣berty as to their Thoughts concerning the subject of this lawful Authority.

That which we believe to be Lawful Authority, is that Rule which the Body of the Pastors, or Bishops and Clergy of a Church, shall settle, being met in a Body under the due Respect to the Powers that God shall set over them: Rules thus made, being in no∣thing contrary to the Word of God, and duly executed by the par∣ticular Persons to whom that care belongs, are certainly the Lawful Authority. Those are the Pastors of the Church, to whom the care and watching over the Souls of the People is committed; and the Prince, or Supreme Power, comprehends virtually the whole Body of the People in him: Since according to the Constitution of the Civil Govern∣ment, the Wills of the People are understood to be concluded by the Supreme, and such as are the subject of the Legislative Authority. When a Church is in a state of Persecution under those who have the Civil Authority over her, then the People, who receive the Faith, and give both protection and encouragement to those that labour over them; are to be considered as the Body that is Governed by them. The natu∣ral effect of such a state of things, is to satisfy the People in all that is done, to carry along their consent with it, and to consult much with them in it. This does not only arise out of a necessary regard to their present circumstances, but from the Rules given in the Gospel, of not Ruling as the Kings of the several Nations did; nor lording it, or carrying it with a High Authority over God's Heritage (which may be also rendred over their several lots or portions.) But when the Church is under the Protection of a Christian Magistrate, then he comes to be in the stead of the whole People; for they are concluded in and by him; he gives the Protection and Encouragement, and there∣fore great regard is due to him, in the exercise of this Lawful Authori∣ty, in which he has a great share, as shall be explained in its proper place. Here then we think this Authority is rightly lodged and set on its proper Basis.

And in this we are confirmed, because by the Decrees of the first General Councils, the concerns of every Province were to be setled in the Province it self: and it so continued till the Usurpations of the Papacy broke in every where, and disordered this Constitution. Through the whole Roman Communion the chief Jurisdiction is now in the Pope; only Princes have laid checks upon the extent of it; and by Appeals the Secular Court takes Cognizance of all that is done, either by the Pope or the Clergy. This we are sure is the effect of Usurpation and Tyranny: Yet since this Authority is in fact so setled, we do not pretend to Annul the Acts of that Power, nor the Missions or Orders given in that Church; because there is among them an Order in Fact, though not as it ought to be in Right. On the other hand, when the Body of the Clergy comes to be so Cor∣rupted, that nothing can be trusted to the Regular decisions of any Synod or Meeting, called according to their Constitution, then if the Prince shall select a peculiar Number, and commit to their care the Examining and Reforming both of Doctrine and Worship, and shall give the Legal Sanction to what they shall offer to him; we must confess that such a Method as this runs contrary to the established Rules, and that therefore it ought to be very seldom put in practice; and never, except when the greatness of the occasion will balance this Irregularity that is in it. But still here is an Authority both in Fact and Right; for if the Magistrate has a Power to make Laws in Sacred Matters, he may order those to be prepared, by whom, and as he pleases.

Finally, if a Company of Christians find the publick Worship where they live to be so defiled that they cannot with a good Conscience join in it, and if they do not know of any place to which they can convenient∣ly go, where they may Worship God purely, and in a regular way; if, I say, such a Body finding some that have been Ordained, though to the lower Functions, should submit it self intirely to their Conduct, or finding none of those, should by a common Consent, desire some of their own Number to Minister to them in Holy things, and should upon that beginning grow up to a Regulated Constitution, though we are very sure that this is quite out of all Rule, and could not be done without a very great Sin, unless the necessity were great and apparent; yet if the Necessity is real and not feigned, this is not Condemned nor Annulled by the Article; for when this grows to a Constitution, and when it was begun by the Consent of a Body, who are supposed to have an Authority in such an extraordinary case, whatever some hotter Spirits have thought of this since that time; yet we are very sure, that not only those who Penned the Articles, but the Body of this Church for above half an Age after, did notwithstanding those Irregularities, acknowledge the Foreign Churches so Constituted, to be true Churches as to all the Essentials of a Church, though they had been at first irregularly formed, and continued still to be in an imperfect state. And therefore the general words in which this part of the Ar∣ticle is framed, seem to have been designed on purpose not to exclude them.

Here it is to be considered, that the High Priest among the Iews was the chief Person in that Dispensation; not only the chief in Rule, but he that was by the Divine Appointment to Officiate in the chief act of their Religion, the yearly Expiation for the Sins of the whole Nation; which was a solemn renewing their Covenant

with God, and by which Atonement was made for the Sins of that People. Here it may be very reasonably suggested, that since none besides the High Priest might make this Atonement, then no Atone∣ment was made, if any other besides the High Priest should so Offi∣ciate. To this it is to be added, that God had by an express Law fixed the High Priesthood in the Eldest of Aaron's Family; and that therefore, though that being a Theocracy, any Prophet empowered of God might have transferred this Office from one Person, or branch of that Family to another; yet without such an Authority, no other Person might make any such change. But after all this, not to mention the Maccabees, and all their Successors of the Asmo∣nean Family, as Herod had begun to change the High Priesthood at pleasure, so the Romans not only continued to do this, but in a most mercenary manner, they set this sacred Function to sale. Here were as great Nullities in the High Priests that were in our Saviour's time, as can be well imagined to be. For the Iews keeping their Genealogies so exactly as they did, it could not but be well known in whom the Right to this Office rested; and they all knew, that he who had it, purchased it, yet these were in Fact High Priests; and since the People could have no other, the Atonement was still performed by their Ministry. Our Saviour owned Caiaphas the Sacrilegi∣ous and Usurping High Priest,* 1.421 and as such he Prophesied: This shews that where the necessity was real and unavoidable, the Iews were bound to think that God did, in consideration of that, dispense with his own Precept. This may be a just inducement for us to believe, That whensoever God by his Providence brings Christians under a visible necessity, of being either without all Order and joint Wor∣ship, or of joining in an unlawful and defiled Worship, or finally, of breaking through Rules and Methods, in order to the being United in Worship and Government; that of these Three, of which one must be chosen, the last is the least Evil, and has the fewest Inconve∣niences hanging upon it, and that therefore it may be chosen.

Our Reformers had also in view two famous Instances in Church-History of Lay-men that had Preached and Converted Nations to the Faith: It is true they came, as they ought to have done, to be regularly Ordained, and were sent to such as had Authority so to do. So Frumentius preached to the Indians, and was afterwards made a Priest and a Bishop by Athanasius. The King of the Iberians before he was Baptised himself, did Convert his Subjects; and as, says the Histo∣rian, he became the Apostle of his Country before he himself was Initi∣ated. It is indeed added, that he sent an Embassy to Constantine the Em∣peror, desiring him that he would send Priests for the further establish∣ment of the Faith there.

These were regular practices; but if it should happen that Princes or States should take up such a jealousy of their own Authority, and should apprehend that the suffering their Subjects to go elsewhere for Regular Ordinations, might bring them under some dependance on those that had Ordained them; and give them such influence over them, that the Prince of such a Neighbouring and Regular Church, should by such Ordinations have so many Creatures, Spies, or Instruments in their own Dominions; and if upon other Political reasons, they had just cause of being jealous of that, and should thereupon hinder any such thing; in that case, nei∣ther our Reformers, nor their Successors for near Eighty Years after those Articles were published, did ever question the Constitution of such Churches.

We have reason to believe that none ought to Baptise but Persons Law∣fully Ordained, yet since there has been a practice so universally spread over the Christian Church, of allowing the Baptism not only of Laicks, but of Women to be Lawful, though we think that this is directly con∣trary to the Rules given by the Apostles; yet since this has been in fact so generally received and practised, we do not Annul such Baptisms, nor Rebaptise Persons so Baptised; though we know that the original of this bad practice was from an Opinion of the indispensable necessity of Baptism to Salvation. Yet since it has been so generally received, we have that regard to such a common practice, as not to Annul it, though we Condemn it. And thus what Thoughts soever private Men, as they are Divines, may have of those Irregular steps, the Article of the Church is conceived in such large and general Words, that no Man by Subscri∣bing it, is bound up from freer and more comprehensive Thoughts.

ARTICLE XXIV. Of speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the People understandeth.

It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the Custom of the Primitive Church, to have Publick Prayer in the Church, or to Minister the Sacraments in a Tongue not understanded of the People.

This Article, though upon the Matter very near the same, yet was worded much less positively in those at first set forth by King Edward.

It is most fit, and most agreeable to the Word of God, that no∣thing be read or rehearsed in the Congregation in a Tongue not known unto the People, which St. Paul hath forbidden to be done, unless some be present to Interpret.

In King Edward's Articles they took in Preaching with Prayer, but in the present Article this is restrained to Prayer. The former only affirms the use of a known Tongue, to be most fit and agreeable to the Word of God; the later denies the Worship in an Unknown Tongue to be law∣ful, and affirms it to be repugnant to the Word of God; to which it adds, and the Custom of the Primitive Church.

THIS Article seems to be founded on the Law of Nature. The Wor∣ship of God is a Chain of Acts by which we acknowledge God's Attributes, rejoyce in his Goodness, and lay claim to his Mercies. In all which the more we raise our thoughts, the more Seriousness, Earnest∣ness, and Affection that animates our Mind, so much the more accepta∣bly do we serve God, who is a Spirit, and will be worshipped in Spirit and Truth.* 1.422 All the Words used in Devotion are intended to raise in us the thoughts that naturally belong to such words. And the various Acts, which are as it were the Breaks in the Service, are intended as Rests to our Minds, to keep us the longer without weariness and wandring in those Exercises. One great end of continuance in Worship, is that by the frequent repeating and often going over of the same things, they may come to be deeply rooted in our Thoughts. The chief Effect that the Worship of God has by its own Efficiency, is the infixing those things, about which the Branches of it are imployed, the deeper on our Minds; upon which God gives his Blessing as we grow to be prepared for it, or capable of it. Now all this is lost, if the Worship of God is a Thread of such sounds, as makes the Person who officiates, a Barbarian to the rest. They have nothing but noise and shew to amuse them, which how much soever they may strike upon and entertain the Senses, yet they cannot af∣fect the Heart, nor excite the Mind: So that the natural effect of such a way of Worship is to make Religion a Pageantry, and the Publick Ser∣vice of God an Opera.

If from plain Sense, and the natural Consequences of things, we carry on this Argument to the Scriptures, we find the whole practice of the Old Testament, was to Worship God, not only in a Tongue that was under∣stood, for it may be said there was no occasion then to use any other; but that the Expressions used in the Prayers and Psalms that we find in the Old

Testament, shew they were intended to affect those who were to use them; and if that is acknowledged, then it will clearly follow, that all ought to understand them; for who can be affected with that which he does not understand? So this shews that the end of Publick Devotion, is the exci∣ting and inflaming those who bare a share in it.* 1.423 When Ezra and Nehe∣miah were instructing the People out of the Law, they took care to have it read distinctly, one giving the Sense of it. After they were long in Captivi∣ty, though it had not worn out quite the knowledge of the Hebrew, yet the Chaldee was more familiar to them, so a Paraphrase was made of the Hebrew into that Language, though it was rather a different Dialect than another Language; and by the Forms of their Prayers, we see that one cried with a loud Voice, Stand up and bless the Lord your God for ever and ever, which shews, that all did understand the Service. When the Syriac Tongue became more familiar to them, the Iews had their Prayers in Syriac; and they did read the Law in their Synagogues in Greek, when that Language was more familiar to them; when they read the Law in Greek, we have reason to believe that they prayed likewise in it. In the New Testament, we see the Gift of Tongues was granted to enable the Apostles, and others, to go every where preaching the Gospel, and performing Holy Functi∣ons in such a Language as might be understood: The World was amaz'd when every Man heard them speak in his own Language.

One of the general Rules given by St. Paul, with relation to the Worship of God, is, Let every thing be done to Edification: Since then the speaking ei∣ther to God in the Name of the People, or to the People in the Name of God, in an unknown Tongue, can edify no Person; then by this Rule, it is to be understood to be forbidden. When some who had the Gift of Tongues did indiscreetly shew it in the Church of Corinth, St. Paul was so offended at that, and thought it would appear to the World so undecent, as well as un∣fruitful, that he bestows a whole Chapter upon it; and tho' a great part of the Discourse, is against the pretending to teach the People in an unknown Tongue, which yet is not near so bad, as the reading the Word of God to them in a Tongue not understood by them, it being much more important that the People should understand the words of the living God than the Expositions of Men; yet there are many Passages in that Chapter that be∣long to Prayer: The reason of the thing is common to both, since unless the words were understood, they who uttered them spoke only to the Air; and how should it be known what was spoken? For if the meaning of the Voice was not known, they would be Barbarians to one another. As to Prayer he says, If I pray in an unknown tongue,* 1.424 my spirit (that is the Inspira∣tion or Gift that is in me) prayeth, but my understanding (that is my ratio∣nal Powers) is unfruitful;* 1.425 and therefore he concludes that he will both Pray and give Thanks with the Spirit, and with the understanding also; he will do it in such a manner that the Inspiration with which he was acted, and his rational Powers should joyn together. The reason given for this, seems evident enough to determine the whole matter: Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit,* 1.426 how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. In which Words it is plain that the People, even the most unlearned among them, were to joyn in the Prayers and Praises, and to testify that by saying Amen at the conclusion of them: And in order to their doing this, as became reasonable Creatures, it was necessary that they should understand what that was which they were to confirm by their Amen. It is also evi∣dent that St. Paul judged, that the People ought to be edified by all that

was said in the Church; and so he says a little after this, Let all things be done to edifying. After such plain Authorities from Scripture, sup∣porting that which seems to be founded on the Light of Nature;* 1.427 we need go no farther to prove that which is mainly designed by this Article.

The Custom of the Primitive Church is no less clear in this Point. As the Christian Religion was spread to different Nations, so they all wor∣shipped God in their own Tongue. The Syriac, the Greek, and the Latin, were indeed of that extent, that we have no particular History of any Churches that lay beyond the compass of those Languages; but there was the same reason for putting the Worship of God in other Languages, that there was for these: That which is drawn from the Three Languages, in which the Title on our Saviour's Cross was written, is too trifling a thing to deserve an Answer: As if a humour of Pilate's were to be considered as a Prophetical Warrant; what he did being only designed to make that Title to be understood by all who were then at Ierusalem. There are very large Passages both in Origen and St. Basil, which mention every Tongues praising of God;* 1.428 and that the Gospel being spread to many Na∣tions, he was in every Nation praised in the Language of that Nation. This continued so long to be the practice even of the Latin Church, that in the Ninth Century, when the Slavons were converted, it was consi∣dered at Rome by Pope Iohn VIII. in what Language they should be allowed to Worship God.* 1.429 And as is pretended, a Voice was heard, Let every Tongue confess to God; upon which that Pope writ both to the Prince, and to the Bishop of the Slavons, allowing them to have their Publick Service in their own Tongue. But in the other Parts of the Western Church, the Latin Tongue continued to be so universally understood, by almost all sorts of People, till the Tenth or Eleventh Century, that there was no occasion for changing it; and by that time the Clergy were affecting to keep the People in Ignorance, and in a blind dependance up∣on themselves; and so were willing to make them think that the whole business of reconciling the People to God lay upon them, and that they were to do it for them. A great part of the Service of the Mass was said so low, that even they who understood some Latin, could not be the bet∣ter for it, in an Age in which there was no printing, and so few Copies were to be had of the Publick Offices. The Scriptures were likewise kept from the People, and the Service of God was filled with many Rites, in all which the Clergy seemed to design to make the People believe, that these were sacred Charms, of which they only had the Secret. So that all the Edification which was to be had in the Publick Worship, was turned to Pomp and Shew, for the Diversion and Entertainment of the Spectators.

In defence of this Worship in an unknown Tongue, the main Argument that is brought, is the Authority and Infallibility of the Church which has appointed it; and since she ought to be supposed not to have erred, there∣fore this must be believed to be lawful: We are not much moved with this, especially with the Authority of the later Ages;* 1.430 so the other Arguments must be considered, which indeed can scarce be called Arguments. The Modern Tongues change so fast, that they say, if the Worship were in them, it must either be often changed, or the Phrases would grow old and sound harshly. A few Alterations once in an Age will set this matter right; besides, that the use of such Forms does fix a Language, at least as to those Phrases that are used in it, which grow to be so familiar to our Ears by constant use, that they do not so easily wear out. It is above Eighty Years since the present Translation of the Bible was made, and

above One hundred and forty since our Liturgy was compiled, and yet we perceive no uncouthness in the Phrases. The simplicity in which such Forms must be drawn, makes them not so subject to Alteration as other Composures of Rhetorick or Poetry; but can it be thought any inconveniency now and then to alter a little the Words or Phrases of our Service? Much less, can that be thought of weight enough to balance the vaster prejudice of keeping whole Nations in Ignorance, and of ex∣tinguishing Devotion by entertaining it with a Form of Worship, that is not understood?

Nor can this be avoided by saying, that the People are furnished with Forms in their own Language, into which the greatest part of the Pub∣lick Offices are translated: For as this is not done but since the Refor∣mation began, and in those Nations only where the Scandal that is gi∣ven by an Unknown Language, might have, as they apprehend, ill effects; so it is only an Artifice to keep those still in their Communion, whom such a gross Practice, if not thus disguised, might otherwise drive from them. But still the Publick Worship has no Edification in it; nor can those who do not understand it, say Amen according to St. Paul. Finally, they urge the Communion of Saints, in order to which they think it is necessary, that Priests wheresoever they go, may be able to officiate, which they cannot do if every Nation Worships God in its own Language. And this was indeed very necessary in those Ages in which the See of Rome did by Provisions, and the other Inven∣tions of the Canonists, dispose of the best Benefices to their own Crea∣tures and Servants. That Trade would have been spoiled, if Strangers might not have been admitted, till they had learned the Language of the Country. And thus instead of taking care of the People that ought to be edified by the Publick Worship, Provision was made at their cost, for such Vagrant Priests as have been in all Ages, the Scandals of the Church, and the Reproaches of Religion.

ARTICLE XXV. Of the Sacraments.

Sacraments ordained of Christ, be not only Badges or Tokens of Christian Mens Profession, but rather they be certain sure Witnesses, and effectual Signs of Grace, and God's Will to∣wards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are Two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Con∣firmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extream Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel; being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are States of Life allowed in the Scrip∣tures, but yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Bap∣tism, and the Lord's Supper; for that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a whol∣some Effect or Operation; but they that receive them un∣worthily, purchase to themselves Damnation, as St. Paul saith.

THERE is a great Diversity between the Form of this Article, as it is now settled, and that published by King Edward, which begun in these Words, Our Lord Iesus Christ gathered his People into a Society by Sacraments, very few in number, most easily to be kept, and of most excellent Signification; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. There is nothing in that Edition, instead of the Paragraph concerning the other five pretended Sacraments. Next comes the Paragraph which is here the last, only with the Addition of these Words, after Operation, Not as some say, ex opere operato, which Terms as they are strange and utterly un∣known to the Holy Scripture, so do they yield a Sense which savoureth of lit∣tle Piety, but of much Superstition: And in conclusion, the Paragraph comes, with which the Article does now begin; so that in all this Diver∣sity there is no real difference: For the Virtue of the Sacraments being put in the worthy receiving, excludes the Doctrine of Opus operatum, as formal∣ly as if it had expresly been condemned; and the naming the Two Sacra∣ments instituted by Christ, is upon the Matter the rejecting of all the rest.

It was most natural to begin this Article with a Description of Sacra∣ments in General. This difference is to be put between Sacraments, and other Ritual Actions; that whereas other Rites are Badges and Di∣stinctions by which the Christians are known, a Sacrament is more than a bare matter of Form; and as in the Old Testament, Circumcision and Propitiatory Sacrifices were things of a different Nature and Order, from all the other Ritual Precepts concerning their Cleansings, the Distincti∣ons of Days, Places, and Meats. These were indeed Precepts given them of God, but they were not federal Acts of renewing the Covenant,

or reconciling themselves to God. By Circumcision they received the Seal of the Covenant, and were brought under the Obligation of the whole Law; they were by it made Debtors to it, and when by their Sins they had provoked God's Wrath, they were reconciled to him by their Sacrifices, with which Atonement was made, and so their Sins were forgi∣ven them: The Nature and End of those, was to be federal Acts, in the offering of which, the Iews kept to their part of the Covenant, and in the accepting of which, God maintained it on his part, so we see a plain diffe∣rence between these and a meer Rite, which though commanded, yet must pass only for the Badge of a Profession, as the doing of it is an Act of Obedience to a Divine Law. Now, in the new Dispensation, though our Saviour has eased us of that Law of Ordinances, that grievous Yoke, and those beggarly Elements which were laid upon the Iews; yet, since we are still in the Body, subject to our Senses, and to sensible things, he has appointed some federal Actions, to be both the visible Stipulations and Professions of our Christianity, and the conveyances to us of the Bles∣sings of the Gospel.

There are two Extremes to be avoided in this Matter. The one is of the Church of Rome, that teaches, That as some Sacraments imprint a Character upon the Soul, which they define to be a Physical Quality, that is, Supernatural and Spiritual, so they do all carry along with them such a Divine Virtue, that by the very receiving them (the Opus opera∣tum) it is conveyed to the Souls of those to whom they are applied; un∣less they themselves put a Bar in the way of it by some mortal Sin. In consequence of this, they reckon that by the Sacraments given to a Man in his Agonies, though he is very near past all Sense, and so cannot joyn any lively Acts of his Mind with the Sacraments, yet he is justified; not to mention the common practice of giving Extreme Unction in the last Agony, when no appearance of any Sense is left. This we reckon a Do∣ctrine that is not only without all Foundation in Scripture, but that tends to destroy all Religion, and to make Men live on securely in Sin, trust∣ing to this, that the Sacraments may be given them when they die. The Conditions of the New Covenant, are Repentance, Faith, and Obedi∣ence; and we look on this as the corrupting the Vitals of this Religion, when any such means are proposed, by which the main Design of the Gospel is quite overthrown. The business of a Character is an unintel∣ligible Notion. We acknowledge Baptism is not to be repeated, but that is not by virtue of a Character imprinted in it, but because it being a De∣dication of the Person to God in the Christian Religion, what is once so done, is to be understood to continue still in that State, till such a Person falls into an open Apostacy. In case of the Repentance of such a Person, we finding that the Primitive Church did reconcile, but not re∣baptize Apostates, do imitate that their Practice; but not because of this late and unexplicable Notion of a Character. We look on all Sacramental Actions as acceptable to God only with regard to the Temper, and the in∣ward Acts of the Person to whom they are applied, and cannot consider them as Medicines or Charms, which work by a Virtue of their own, whe∣ther the Person to whom they are applied co-operates with them or not. Baptism is said by St. Peter to save us, not as it is an Action that washes us; Not the putting away the filth of the flesh,* 1.431 but the answer of a good conscience towards God. And therefore Baptism without this Profession, is no Baptism, but seems to be used as a Charm; unless it is said, that this Answer or Professi∣on is implied, whensoever Baptism is desired. When a Person of Age desires Baptism, he must make those Answers and Sponsions, otherwise he is not

truly Baptized; and though his outward making of them being all that can fall under Human Cognizance, he who does that must be held to be truly baptized, and all the outward Priviledges of a baptized Person must belong to him; yet as to the effect of Baptism on the Soul of him that is baptized, without doubt that depends upon the sincerity of the Pro∣fessions and Vows made by him. The Wills of Infants are by the Law of Nature and Nations in their Parents, and are transferred by them to their Sureties; the Sponsions that are made on their behalf are consider∣ed as made by themselves; but there the outward Act is sufficient; for the inward Acts of one Person cannot be supposed necessary to give the Sacrament its Virtue in another.

* 1.432In the Eucharist, by our shewing forth our Lord's Death till he comes, we are admitted to the Communion of his Body and Blood: To a share in Part∣nership with other Christians in the Effects and Merits of his Death. But the unworthy Receiver is guilty of his Body and Blood, and brings thereby down Judgments upon himself; so that to fancy a Virtue in Sa∣craments that works on the Person to whom they are applied without any inward Acts accompanying it, and upon his being only Passive, is a Doctrine of which we find nothing in the Scriptures; which teach us that every thing we do is only accepted of God, with regard to the Disposition of Mind that he knows us to be in when we go about it. Our Prayers and Sa∣crifices are so far from being accepted of God, that they are Abomination to him, if they come from wicked and defiled Hearts. The making Men believe that Sacraments may be effectual to them when they are next to a State of Passivity, not capable of any sensible thoughts of their own, is a sure way to raise the Credit of the Clergy, and of the Sacrament; but at the same time it will most certainly dispose Men to live in Sin, hoping that a few Rites which may be easily procured at their Death, will clear all at last. And thus we reject, not without great Zeal against the fatal Effects of this Error, all that is said of the Opus operatum; the very doing of the Sacrament: we think it looks liker the Incantations of Heathen∣ism, than the Purity and Simplicity of the Christian Religion.

But the other Extream that we likewise avoid, is that of sinking the Sacraments so low, as to be meer Rites and Ceremonies. St. Peter says, Baptism saves us. St. Paul calls it, The laver of Regeneration; to which he joyns the renewing of the Holy Ghost.* 1.433 Our Saviour saith, He that be∣lieveth, and is baptized, shall be saved; and except ye are born again of Water, and of the Spirit, ye cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. These Words have a Sense and Signification, that rises far above a meer Cere∣mony done to keep up Order, and to maintain a settled Form. The Phrase Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, is above the Nature of an Anniversary or Memorial Feast: This Opinion we think is very un∣suitable to those high Expressions; and we do not doubt but that Christ, who instituted those Sacraments, does still accompany them with a par∣ticular Presence in them, and a Blessing upon them; so that we coming to them with Minds well prepared, with pure Affections and holy Reso∣lutions, do certainly receive in and with them particular largesses of the Favour and Bounty of God. They are not bare and naked Remem∣brances and Tokens, but are actuated and animated by a Divine Bles∣sing that attends upon them. This is what we believe on this Head, and these are the Grounds upon which we found it.

A Sacrament is an Institution of Christ, in which some material thing is sanctified, by the use of some Form or Words, in and by which, fede∣ral Acts of this Religion do pass on both sides; on ours by Stipulations,

Professions, or Vows; and on God's by his secret Assistances: by these we are also united to the Body of Christ, which is the Church. It must be Instituted by Christ, for though Ritual Matters that are only the Ex∣pressions of our Duty, may be appointed by the Church; yet federal Acts, to which a conveyance of Divine Grace is tied, can only be in∣stituted by him who is the Author and Mediator of this New Covenant, and who lays down the Rules or Conditions of it, and derives the Bles∣sings of it by what Methods and in what Channels he thinks fit. What∣soever his Apostles settled, was by Authority and Commission from him; therefore it is not to be denied, but that if they had appointed any Sacramental Action, that must be reckoned to be of the same Autho∣rity, and is to be esteemed Christ's Institution, as much as if he himself, when on Earth had appointed it.

Matter is of the Essence of a Sacrament; for Words without some ma∣terial thing, to which they belong, may be of the Nature of Prayers or Vows, but they cannot be Sacraments: Receiving a Sacrament is on our part our Faith plighted to God in the use of some material Substance or other; for in this consists the difference between Sacraments, and other Acts of Worship. The latter are only Acts of the Mind declared by Words or Gesture, whereas Sacraments are the Application of a ma∣terial Sign, joyned with Acts of the Mind, Words, and Gestures: With the Matter there must be a Form, that is, such Words joyned with it as do appropriate the Matter to such an use, and separate it from all other uses, at least in the Act of the Sacrament. For in any piece of Matter alone, there cannot be a proper suitableness to such an end, as seems to be designed by Sacraments, and therefore a Form must determine and ap∣ply it; and it is highly suitable to the nature of Things, to believe that our Saviour, who has Instituted the Sacrament, has also either Institu∣ted the Form of it, or given us such hints as to lead us very near it. The end of Sacraments is double; the one is by a Solemn Federal Action both to unite us to Christ, and also to derive a secret Blessing from him to us: And the other is to joyn and unite us by this publick Profes∣sion, and the joynt partaking of it, with his Body, which is the Church. This is in general, an Account of a Sacrament: This, it is true, is none of those Words that are made use of in Scripture, so that it has no de∣termined Signification given to it in the Word of God; yet it was very early applied by Pliny to those Vows by which the Christians tied them∣selves to their Religion,* 1.434 taken from the Oaths by which the Soldiery among the Romans, were sworn to their Colours or Officers; and from that time this Term has been used in a Sense consecrated to the Federal Rites of Religion. Yet if any will dispute about Words, we know how much St. Paul condemns all those curious and vain Questions, which have in them the Subtilties and Oppositions of Science falsly so called. If any will call every Rite used in Holy Things, a Sacrament,* 1.435 we enter into no such Contentions.

The Rites therefore that we understand when we speak of Sacraments, are the constant Federal Rites of Christians, which are accompanied by a Divine Grace and Benediction, being instituted by Christ to unite us to him, and to his Church; and of such we own that there are Two, Bap∣tism, and the Supper of our Lord. In Baptism there is Matter, Water; there is a Form, the Person Dipped or Washed, with words, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.* 1.436 There is an Institution, Go preach and baptize; there is a Federal Sponsion,* 1.437 The answer of a good Conscience; there is a Blessing conveyed with it, Baptism

save us; there is one baptism, as there is one body and one spirit; we are all baptized into one body. So that here all the constituent and necessary Parts of a Sacrament are found in Baptism. In the Lord's Supper, there is Bread and Wine for the Matter. The giving it to be Eat and Drunk, with the Words that our Saviour used in the first Supper, are the Form: Do this in remembrance of me, is the Institution. Ye shew forth the Lord's death till he come again,* 1.438 is the Declaration of the Federal Act of our part: It is also the Communion of the body, and of the blood of Christ, that is, the conveyance of the Blessings of our Partnership in the Effects of the Death of Christ.* 1.439 And we being many, are one Bread and one Body, for we are all partakers of that one Bread; this shews the Union of the Church in this Sacrament. Here then we have in these two Sacraments, both Matter, Form, Institution, Federal Acts, Blessings conveyed, and the Union of the Body in them. All the Characters which belong to a Sa∣crament agree fully to them.

In the next place we must, by these Characters, examine the other pretended Sacraments. It is no wonder, if the word Sacrament being of a large extent, there should be some Passages in Ancient Writers, that call other Actions so besides Baptism and the Lord's Supper; for in a larger Sense every Holy Rite may be so called. But it is no small prejudice against the number of Seven Sacraments, that Peter Lombard, a Writer in the Twelfth Century, is the first that reckons Seven of them: From that Mystical Expression of the Seven Spirits of God, there came a conceit of the sevenfold Operation of the Spirit;* 1.440 and it looked like a good Illustra∣tion of that to assert Seven Sacraments. This, Pope Eugenius put in his Instruction to the Armenians, which is published with the Council of Florence; and all was finally settled at Trent. Now there might have been so many fine Allusions made on the number Seven, and some of the Ancients were so much set on such Allusions, that since we hear nothing of that kind from any of them; we may well conclude that this is more than an ordinary Negative Argument against their having believed, that there were Seven Sacraments. To go on in order with them:

The first that we reject, which is reckoned by them the second, is Confirmation. But to explain this, we must consider in what respect our Church receives Confirmation, and upon what reasons it is that she does not acknowledge it to be a Sacrament. We find that after Philip, the Dea∣con and Evangelist, had converted and baptized some in Samaria; Peter and Iohn were sent thither by the Apostles,* 1.441 who laid their hands on such as were baptized, and prayed that they might receive the Holy Ghost; upon which it is said, that they received the Holy Ghost. Now though ordina∣ry Functions, when performed by the Apostles, such as their laying on of Hands in those whom they Ordained or Confirmed, had extraordinary Effects accompanying them; but when the extraordinary Effects ceased, the end for which these were at first given being accomplished, the Gospel ha∣ving been fully attested to the World, yet the Functions were still conti∣nued of Confirmation as well as Ordination: And as the laying on of Hands,* 1.442 that is reckoned among the Principles of the Christian Doctrine, after Repentance, and Faith, and subsequent to Baptism, seems very probably to belong to this; so from these Warrants, we find in the earliest Wri∣tings of Christianity, mention of a Confirmation after Baptism, which for the greater Solemnity and Awe of the Action, and from the precedent of St. Peter and St. Iohn, was reserved to the Bishop, to be done only by him.

Upon these Reasons we think it is in the Power of the Church to require all such as have been baptized, to come before the Bishop

and renew their Baptismal Vow, and pray for God's Holy Spirit to enable them to keep their Vow; and upon their doing this, the Bishop may solemnly pray over them, with that ancient and almost natural Ceremony, of laying his Hands upon them, which is only a Designation of the Per∣sons so prayed over, and blest, that God may seal and defend them with his Holy Spirit; in which, according to the nature of the New Cove∣nant, we are sure that such as do thus Vow and Pray, do also receive the Holy Spirit, according to the Promise that our Saviour has made us. In this Action there is nothing but what is in the Power of the Church to do, even without any other Warrant or Precedent. The doing all things to Order, and to Edifying, will authorize a Church to all this; especially, since the now universal Practice of Infant Baptism, makes this more necessary than it was in the first times, when chiefly the Adult were baptized. It is highly reasonable that they who gave no actual Consent of their own, should come, and by their own express Act make the Sti∣pulations of Baptism. It may give greater impressions of awe and re∣spect, when this is restrained to the highest Order in the Church. Upon the sincere Vows and earnest Prayers of Persons thus Confirmed, we have reason to believe that a proportioned degree of God's Grace and Spirit will be poured out upon them. And in all this we are much confirmed when we see such warrants for it in Scripture. A thing so good in it self, that has at least a probable Authority for it, and was certainly a practice of the first Ages, is upon very just grounds continued in our Church. Would to God it were as seriously gone about, as it is lawfully established.

But after all this, here is no Sacrament, no express Institution, neither by Christ nor his Apostles; no Rule given to practise it, and which is the most essential, there is no matter here; for the laying on of Hands is only a gesture in Prayer; nor are there any federal Rites declared to belong to it; it being indeed rather a Ratifying and Confirming the Baptism, than any new Stipulation. To supply all this, the Church of Rome has appoint∣ed Matter for it. The Chrism, which is a mixture of Oil, Olive, and Balm, (Opobalsamum) the Oil signifying the clearness of a good Conscience, and the Balm the savour of a good Reputation. This must be peculiarly bles∣sed by the Bishop, who is the only Minister of that Function. The Form of this Sacrament is the applying the Chrism to the Forehead, with these words, Signo te signo crucis, & confirmo te chrismate salutis, in Nomine Pa∣tris, Filii, & Spiritus Sancti: I sign thee with the sign of the Cross, and confirm thee with the Chrism of Salvation, in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They pretend Christ did Institute this; but they say the Holy Ghost which he breathed on his Disciples, being a thing that transcended all Sacraments, he settled no determined Matter nor Form to it: And that the succeeding Ages appropriated this Matter to it.

We do not deny, but that the Christians began very early to use Oil in Holy Functions. The Climates they lived in making it necessary to use Oil much, for stopping the Perspiration, that might dispose them the more to use Oil in their Sacred Rites. It is not to be denied, but that both Theophilus and Tertullian, in the end of the Second,* 1.443 and the begin∣ning of the Third Century, do mention it. The frequent mention of Oil, and of Anointing in the Scripture, might incline them to this: It was Prophesied of Christ, That he was to be anointed with the oil of joy and gladness above his fellows: And the Names of Messias and Christ do also import this; but yet we hold all that to be Mystical, and that it is to be meant of that fulness of the Spirit which he received without mea∣sure. Upon the same account we do understand those words of St. Paul,

in the same mystical Sense, he that establisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts:* 1.444 As also those words of St. Iohn, but ye have an Vn∣ction from the holy one, and ye know all things. The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you all things. These words do clearly re∣late to somewhat that the Christians received immediately from God; and so must be understood figuratively: For we do not see the least hint of the Apostles using of Oil, except to the sick; of which afterwards. So that if this Use of Oil is considered only as a Ceremony of a natural Signifi∣cation, that was brought into the Rituals of the Church, it is a thing of another Nature: But if a Sacrament is made of it, and a divine Vertue is joined to that, we can admit of no such thing, without an express Insti∣tution and Declaration in Scripture.

The Invention that was afterwards found out, by which the Bishop was held to be the only Minister of Confirmation,* 1.445 even tho' Presbyters were suffered to Confirm, was a piece of Superstition without any colour from Scripture. It was settled, that the Bishop only might consecrate the Chrism; and tho' he was the ordinary Minister of Confirmation, yet Pres∣byters were also suffered to do it, the Chrism being consecrated by the Bishop: Presbyters thus Confirming, was thought like the Deacons gi∣ving the Sacrament, tho' Priests only might consecrate the Eucharist. In the Latin Church Ierom tells us,* 1.446 that in his Time the Bishop only Confirmed; and tho' he makes the Reason of this, to be rather for do∣ing an Honour to them, than from any necessity of the Law, yet he po∣sitively says the Bishops went round praying for the Holy Ghost on those whom they Confirmed. It is said by Hilary, that in Egypt the Presbyters did Confirm in the Bishops absence: So that custom joined with the distincti∣on between the Consecration,* 1.447 and the applying of the Chrism, grew to be the universal Practice of the Greek Church. The greatness of Diocesses with the increasing Numbers of the Christians, made that both in France, in the Councils of Orange; and in Spain, in the Council of Toledo, the same Rule was laid down that the Greeks had begun. In Spain some Priests did consecrate the Chrism, but that was severely forbid in one of the Councils of Toledo: Yet at Rome the ancient Custom was observed, of appropria∣ting the whole business of Confirmation to the Bishop;* 1.448 even in Gregory the Great's time: Therefore he reproved the Clergy of Sardinia, because among them the Priests did Confirm, and he appointed it to be reserved to the Bishop: But when he understood that some of them were offend∣ed at this, he writ to the Bishop of Carali, that tho' his former Order was made according to the ancient Practice of the Church of Rome, yet he con∣sented that for the future the Priests might Confirm in the Bishops absence. But Pope Nicholas in the IX. Century pressed this with more rigor: For the Bulgarians being then converted to the Christian Religion, and their Priests having both Baptized and Confirmed the new Converts, Pope Nicholas sent Bishops among them with Orders to Confirm even those who had al∣ready been Confirmed by Priests: Upon which the contest being then on foot, between Rome and Constantinople, Photius got it to be decreed in a Sy∣nod at Constantinople▪ That theChrism being hallowed by a Bishop, it might be administred by Presbyters: And Photius affirmed that a Presbyter might do this, as well as Baptize or Offer at the Altar. But Pope Nicholas with the confidence that was often assumed by that See upon as bad grounds, did affirm, that this had never been allowed of. And upon this many of the Latins did in the Progress of their Disputes with the Greeks,

say, that they had no Confirmation. This has been more enlarged on, than was necessary by the designed shortness of this Work, because all those of ••he Roman Communion among us, have now no Confirmation,* 1.449 unless a Bishop happens to come amongst them. And therefore it is now a commonDoctrine among them, that tho' Confirmation is a Sacrament, yet it is not necessary.

About this there were fierce Disputes among them, about Sixty years ago, whether it was necessary for them to have a Bishop here to Confirm according to the ancient Custom or not? The Jesuites, who had no mind to be under any Authority but their own, opposed it; for the Bi∣shop being by Pope Eugenius declared to be the ordinary Minister of it, from thence it was inferred, that a Bishop was not simply necessary. This was much censured by some of the Gallican Church. If Confirmation were considered only as an Ecclesiastical Rite, we could not dispute the power of the Church about it; but we cannot allow that a Sacrament should be thus within the power of the Church; or that a new Function of Consecrating Oil, without applying it, distinct from Confirmation, and yet necessary to the very essence of it, could have been set up by the power of the Church; for if Sacraments are federal conveyances of Grace, they must be continued according to their first Institution. The Grace of God being only tied to the Actions with which it is promised.

We go next to the Second of the Sacraments here rejected, which is Penance, that is reckoned the Fourth in order among them. Penance, or Penitence, is formed from the Latin Translation of a Greek word that signi∣fies a change, or renovation of Mind; which Christ has made a necessary con∣dition of the New Covenant. It consists in several acts, all which, when joined together, and producing this real change, we become then true Pe∣nitents, and have a right to the Remission of Sins, which is in the New Testament often joined with Repentance, and is its certain consequent. The first act of this Repentance is Confession to God, before whom we must humble our selves, and confess our Sins to him; upon which we believe that he is faithful, and true to his Promises, and just to forgive us our sins; and if we have wronged others,* 1.450 or have given publick offence to the Body or Church, to which we belong, we ought to confess our faults to them likewise; and as a mean to quiet Mens Consciences,* 1.451 to direct them to compleat their Repentance, and to make them more humble and ashamed of their Sins, we advise them to use secret Confession, to their Priest, or to any other Minister of God's Word; leaving this matter wholly to their discretion.

When these acts of sorrow have had their due effect, in reforming the natures and lives of Sinners, then their Sins are forgiven them: In order to which, we do teach them to Pray much, to give Alms according to their Capacity, and to fast as often as their Health and Circumstances will admit of; and most indispensably to restore or repair, as they find they have sinned against others. And as we teach them thus to look back on what is past, with a deep and hearty sorrow, and a profound shame, so we charge them to look chiefly forward, not thinking that any acts with relation to what is past, can, as it were, by an account or compensation free us from the guilt of our former Sins, unless we amend our Lives and change our Tempers for the future. The great design of Repentance being to make us like God, Pure and Holy as he is. Upon such a Repentance sincerely begun, and honestly pursued, we do in general, as the Heralds of God's Mercy, and the Ministers of his Gospel, pronounce to our People daily, the offers that are made us of Mercy and Pardon by Christ Jesus. This we do in our daily Service, and in a more peculiar manner before we go to the Holy Communion. We do also, as we are a Body

that may be offended with the sins of others, forgive the Scandals com∣mitted against the Church; and that such as we think die in a state of Re∣pentance, may die in the full Peace of the Church, we join both Absolu∣tions in one; in the last Office likewise praying to our Saviour that he would forgive them, and then we, as the Officers of the Church, authori∣sed for that end, do forgive all the Offences and Scandals committed by them against the whole Body. This is our Doctrine concerning Repen∣tance; in all which we find no Characters of a Sacrament, no more than there is in Prayer or Devotion. Here is no Matter, no application of that Matter by a peculiar Form, no Institution, and no peculiar federal acts. The Scene here is the Mind, the acts are Internal, the effect is such also; and therefore we do not reckon it a Sacrament, not finding in it any of the Characters of a Sacrament.

The matter that is assigned in the Church of Rome, are the acts of the Penitent; his Confession by his Mouth to the Priest, the Contrition of his Heart, and the satisfaction of his Work, in doing the enjoined Penance. The Aggregate of all these is the Matter; and the Form, are the words, Ego te Absolvo. Now besides what we have to say upon every one of these particulars, the Matter of a Sacrament must be some visible Sign applied to him that receives it.* 1.452 It is therefore a very absurd thing to imagine that a Man's own Thoughts, Words, or Actions, can be the Matter of a Sacrament: How can this be sanctified or applied to him? It will be a thing no less absurd to make the Form of a Sacrament to be a practice not much elder than Four hundred Year; since no Ritual can be produced, nor Author cited for this Form, for above a Thousand Years after Christ. All the ancient Forms of receiving Penitents, having been by a Blessing in the Form of a Prayer, or a Declaration; but none of them in these positive words, I Absolve thee. We think this want of Matter, and this new invented Form, being without any Institution in Scripture, and dif∣ferent from so long a practice of the whole Church, are such reasons that we are fully justified in denying Penance to be a Sacrament. But because the Doctrine of Repentance is a point of the highest importance, there arise several things here that ought to be very carefully examined.

As to Confession, we find in the Scriptures, that such as desired St. Iohn's Baptism,* 1.453 came confessing their sins, but that was previous to Baptism. We find also that scandalous Persons were to be openly rebuked before all, and so to be put to shame,* 1.454 in which, no doubt, there was a Confession, and a publication of the Sin; but that was a matter of the Discipline and Or∣der of the Church; which made it necessary to note such persons as walked disorderly,* 1.455 and to have no fellowship with them, sometimes not so much as to eat with them, who being Christians, and such as were called Brothers, were a reproach to their Profession: But besides the Power given to the Apostles of binding and loosing, which as was said on another Head, belonged to other matters; we find that when our Saviour breathed on his Apostles and gave them the Holy Ghost, he with that told them, That whose soever sins they remitted,* 1.456 they were remitted; and whose soever sins they retained, they were retained. Since a Power of remitting or retaining sin was thus given to them, they infer that it seems reasonable, that in order to their dispensing it with a due caution, the knowledge of all sins ought to be laid open to them.

Some have thought that this was a Personal thing given to the Apostles with that Miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost; with which such a discerning of Spirits was communicated to them, that they could discern the sincerity or hypocrisy of those that came before them; by this St. Peter discovered the sin of Ananias and Saphira;* 1.457 and he also saw that

Simon of Samaria was in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity: So they conclude that this was a part of that extraordinary and miracu∣lous Authority which was given to the Apostles, and to them only.* 1.458 But others, who distinguish between the full extent of this Power, and the Ministerial Authority that is still to be continued in the Church, do believe that these Words may in a lower and more limited Sense belong to the Successors of the Apostles; but they argue very strongly, that if these Words are to be understood in their full extent as they lie, a Priest has by them an absolute and unlimited Power in this Matter, not restrained to Conditions or Rules; so that if he does Pardon or retain sins, whether in that he does right or wrong, the sins must be pardoned or retained accordingly: He may indeed sin in using it wrong, for which he must answer to God; but he seems by the literal meaning of these Words, to be cloathed with such a Plenipotentiary Authority, that his Act must be valid, though he may be punished for imploying it amiss.

An Ambassador that has full Powers, though limited by secret Instructi∣ons, does bind him that so empowered him, by every Act that he does, pursuant to his Powers, how much soever it may go beyond his Instructi∣ons, for how obnoxious soever that may render him to his Master, it does not at all lessen the Authority of what he has done, nor the Obligation that arises out of it. So these words of Christ's, if applied to all Priests, must belong to them in their full extent, and if so, the Salvation, or the Dam∣nation of Mankind is put absolutely in the Priest's Power. Nor can it be answered, That the Conditions of the Pardon of sin that are expressed in the other parts of the Gospel, are here to be understood, though they are not expressed. As we are said to be saved if we believe, which does not imply that a single Act of believing the Gospel, without any thing else puts us in a state of Salvation.

In Opposition to this, we Answer, That the Gospel having so descri∣bed Faith to us, as the Root of all other Graces and Virtues, as that which produces them, and which is known by them, all that is pro∣mised upon our Faith, must be understood of a Faith so qualified, as the Gospel represents it; and therefore that cannot be applied to this Case, where an unlimited Authority is so particularly exprest; that no Con∣dition seems to be implied in it. If any Conditions are elsewhere laid upon us, in order to our Salvation, then according to their Doctrine, we may say that of them, which they say of Contrition upon this oc∣casion, That they are necessary when we cannot procure the Priest's Pardon; but that by it the want of them all may be supplied, and that the Obligation to them all is superseded by it: And if any Conditions are to be understood as limits upon this Power, why are not all the Condi∣tions of the Gospel, Faith, Hope, and Charity, Contrition and New Obe∣dience made necessary, in order to the lawful dispensing of it, as well as Confession, Attrition, and the doing the Penance enjoyned? Therefore since no Condition is here named as a restraint upon this General Power, that is pretended to be given to Priests by those words of our Saviour, they must either be understood as simple and unconditional, or they must be limited to all the Conditions that are expressed in the Gospel. For there is not the colour of a reason to restrain them to some of them, and to leave out the rest: And thus we think we are fully justified by saying, that by these Words, our Saviour did indeed fully empower the Apostles to pub∣lish his Gospel to the World, and to declare the Terms of Salvation, and of obtaining the Pardon of Sin, in which they were to be infallibly assisted, so that they could not err in discharging their Commission; and the

Terms of the Covenant of Grace being thus settled by them, all who were to succeed them, were also empowered to go on with the Publica∣tion of this Pardon, and of those glad Tidings to the World: So that whatsoever they declared in the Name of God, conform to the Tenor of that which the Apostles were to settle, should be always made good. We do also acknowledge, that the Pastors of the Church have in the way of Censure and Government, a Ministerial Authority to remit, or to retain Sins, as they are Matters of Scandal or Offence; tho' that indeed does not seem to be the meaning of those Words of our Saviour; and therefore we think that the power of pardoning and retaining is only declaratory, so that all the exercises of it are are then only effectual, when the Declara∣tions of the Pardon are made conform to the Conditions of the Gospel. This Doctrine of ours how much soever decried of late in the Roman Church, as striking at the Root of the Priestly Authority, yet has been maintained by some of their best Authors, and some of the greatest of their School-men.

Thus we have seen upon what reason it is, that we do not conclude from hence, that Auricular Confession is necessary; in which we think that we are fully confirmed by the Practice of many of the Ages of theChristian Church, which did not understand these words as containing anObligation to Secret Confession. It is certain that the Practice and Tradition of the Church must be relied on here, if in any thing, since there was nothing that both Clergy and Laity were more concerned both to know, and to deliver down faithfully than this, on which the Authority of the one, and the Salvation of the other, depended so much. Such a Point as this could never have been forgot or mistaken; many and clear Rules must have been given about it. It is a thing to which Humane Nature has so much repugnancy, that it must in the first forming of Churches have been infused into them, as absolutely necessary in order to Pardon and Salvation.

A Church could not now be formed, according to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, without very full and particular In∣structions, both to Priests and People concerning Confession and Absolu∣tion. It is the most intricate Part of their Divinity, and that which the Clergy must be most ready at. In Opposition to all this let it be con∣sidered, that though there is a great deal said in the New Testament con∣cerning Sorrow for Sin, Repentance and Remission of Sins, yet there is not a Word said, nor a Rule given concerning Confession to be made to a Priest, and Absolution to be given by him. There is indeed a Passage in St. Iames's Epistle relating to Confession; but it is to one another, not restrained to the Priest;* 1.459 as the Word rendred Faults seems to signify those Offences, by which others are wronged, in which case Confession is a de∣gree of Reparation, and so is sometimes necessary; but whatever may be in this, it is certain, that the Confession which is there appointed to be made, is a thing that was to be mutual among Christians; and it is not commanded in order to Absolution, but in order to the procuring the Intercessions of other good Men; and therefore it is added, and Pray for one another. By the words that follow, that ye may be healed, joyned with those that went before concerning the Sick, it seems the Direction given by St. Iames belongs principally to Sick Persons; and the conclu∣sion of the whole Period shews, That it relates only to the private Prayers of good Men for one another, The effectual fervent Prayer of a righteous man availeth much. So that this place does not at all belong to Auricular Con∣fession or Absolution.

Nor does there any Prints appear, before the Apostacies that happened in the Persecution of Decius, of the Practice even of confessing such heinous Sins as had been publickly committed. Then arose the famous contests with the Novatians, concerning the receiving the lapsed into the Communion of the Church again. It was concluded not to exclude them from the hopes of Mercy, or of Reconciliation; yet it was resolved not to do that, till they had been kept at a distance for some time from the Holy Communion; at last they were admitted to make their Confession, and so they were re∣ceived to the Communion of the Church. This time was shortned, and ma∣ny things were past over, to such as shewed a deep and sincere Repen∣tance; and one of the Characters of a true Repentance upon which they were always treated with a great distinction of Favour, was, if they came and first accused themselves. This shewed that they were deeply affected with the Sense of their Sins, when they would not bear the load of them, but became their own Accusers, and discovered their Sins. There are seve∣ral Canons that make a difference in the degrees and time of the Penance, between those who had accused themselves, and those against whom their Sins were proved. A great deal of this strain occurs often in the Wri∣tings of the Fathers, which plainly shews that they did not look on the necessity of an Enumeration of all their Sins as commanded by God. Otherwise it would have been enforced with Considerations of another nature, than that of shortning their Penance.

The first occasion that was given to the Church to exercise thisDiscipline, was from the frequent Apostacies, into which many had lapsed during the Persecutions, and when these went off, another sort of Disorders began to break in upon the Church, and to defile it. Great numbers followed the Example of their Princes, and became Christians; but a mixed Multitude came among them, so that there were many Scandals amongst that Body which had been formerly remarkable for the purity of their Morals, and the strictness of their Lives. It was the chief business of all those Councils that met in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, to settle many Rules concern∣ing the degrees and time of Penance, the Censures both of the Clergy and Laity, the Orders of the Penitents, and the Methods of receiving them to the Communion of the Church. In some of those Councils they denied Reconciliation after some sins, even to the last, though the general Practice was to receive all at their Death;* 1.460 but while they were in a good state of Health, they kept them long in Penance, in a publick Separation from the Common Priviledges of Christians, and chiefly from the Holy Sacrament, and under severe Rules, and that for several Years, more or fewer, according to the Nature of their Sins, and the Characters of their Repentance; of which a free and unextorted Confession being one of the chief, this made many prevent that, and come in of their own accord to confess their sins, which was much encouraged and magnified.

Confession was at first made publickly, but the Inconveniences of that appearing, and particularly many of those sins being Capital, instead of a publick there was a private Confession practised. The Bishops either attend∣ed upon these themselves, or they appointed a Penitentiary Priest to receive them: All was in order to the executing the Canons, and for keeping up the Discipline of the Church. Bishops were warranted by the Council of Nice to excuse the severity of the Canons, as the occasion should require. The Penitents went through the Penance imposed, which was done publick∣ly; the Separation and Penance being visible, even when the sin was kept secret; and when the time of the Penance was finished, they recei∣ved the Penitents by Prayer and Imposition of Hands, into the Commu∣nion

of the Church, and so they were received. This was all the Abso∣lution that was known during the first Six Centuries.

Penitents were enjoyned to publish such of their secret Sins, as the Pe∣nitentiary Priest did prescribe. This happened to give great Scandal at Constantinople,* 1.461 when Nectarius was Bishop there; for a Woman being in a Course of Penance, confessed publickly that she had been guilty of Adultery, committed with a Deacon in the Church. It seems by the Relation that the Historian gives of this matter, that she went beyond the Injunctions given her; but whether the fault was in her, or in the Penitentiary Priest, this gave such offence,* 1.462 that Nectarius broke that Custom. And Chrysostom, who came soon after him to that See, speaks very fully against secret Confession, and advises Christians to confess only to God, yet the practice of secret Confession was kept up elsewhere; but it appears by a vast number of Citations from the Fathers, both in different Ages, and in the different Corners of the Church, that though they pressed Confession much, and magnified the value of it highly, yet they never urged it as necessary to the Pardon of Sin, or as a Sacrament; they only prest it as a mean to com∣pleat the Repentance, and to give the Sinner an Interest in the Prayers of the Church. This may be positively affirmed concerning all the Quota∣tions that are brought in this matter, to prove that Auricular Confession is necessary in order to the Priest's Pardon, and that it is founded on those Words of Christ, Whose sins ye remit, &c. that they prove quite the con∣trary; that the Fathers had not the sense of it, but considered it, either as a mean to help to the compleating of Repentance, or as a mean to main∣tain the Purity of the Christian Church, and the Rigour of Discipline.

In the Fifth Century, a Practice begun, which was no small step to the ruin of the Order of the Church. Penitents were suffered instead of the Publick Penance, that had been formerly enjoyned, to do it secretly in some Monastery, or in any other private place, in the presence of a few good Men, and that at the discretion of the Bishop, or the Con∣fessor, at the end of which, Absolution was given in secret. This was done to draw what Professions of Repentance they could from such Per∣sons who would not submit to settled Rules: This Temper was found neither to lose them quite, nor to let their Sins pass without any Censure. But in the Seventh Century, all Publick Penance for secret Sins was taken quite away. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, is reckoned the first of all the Bishops of the Western Church, that did quite take away all publick Penance for secret Sins.

Another piece of the ancient Severity was also slackned, for they had never allowed Penance to Men that had relapsed into any sin; tho' they did not cut them off from all hope of the Mercy of God, yet they never gave a second Absolution to the Relapse. This the Church of Rome has still kept up in one Point, which is Heresy; a Relapse being delivered to the Secular Arm, without admitting him to Penance. The Ancients did indeed admit such to Penance, but they never reconciled them. Yet in the decay of Discipline, Absolution came to be granted to the Relapse, as well as to him that had sinned but once.

About the end of the Eighth Century, the Commutation of Penance be∣gan; and instead of the ancient Severities, Vocal Prayers came to be all that was enjoyned; so many Paters stood for so many Days of fasting, and the rich were admitted to buy off their Penance under the decenter Name of giving Alms. The getting many Masses to be said, was thought a Devotion by which God was so much honoured, that the Commuting Penance for Masses, was much practised. Pilgrimages and Wars came on afterwards;

and in the Twelfth Century, the Trade was set up of selling Indulgences. By this it appears, that Confession came by several steps into the Church; that in the first Ages it was not heard of; that the Apostacies in time of Persecution gave the first rise to it, all which demonstrates that the Pri∣mitive Church did not consider it as a thing appointed by Christ to be the Matter of a Sacrament.

It may be in the Power of the Church to propose Confession, as a mean to direct Men in their Repentance, to humble them deeper for their Sins, and to oblige them to a greater strictness. But to enjoyn it as necessary to obtain the Pardon of Sin, and to make it an indispensable Condition, and indeed the most indispensable of all the parts of Repentance, is be∣yond the Power of the Church; for since Christ is the Mediator of this New Covenant, he alone must fix the necessary Conditions of it. In this more than in any thing else, we must conclude that the Gospel is express and clear; and therefore so hard a Condition as this is, cannot be impo∣sed by any other Authority. The Obligation to Auricular Confession, is a thing to which Mankind is naturally so little disposed to submit, and it may have such consequences on the Peace and Order of the World, that we have reason to believe, that if Christ had intended to have made it a necessary part of Repentance, he would have declared it in express Words, and not have left it so much in the dark, that those who assert it, must draw it by Inferences from those Words, Whose Sins ye remit, &c. Some things are of such a nature that we may justly conclude, that either they are not at all required, or that they are commanded in plain terms.

As for the good or evil Effects that may follow on the obliging Men to a strictness in Confession, that does not belong to this matter: If it is acknowledged to be only a Law of the Church, other considerations are to be examined about it; but if it is pretended to be a Law of God, and a part of a Sacrament, we must have a Divine Institution for it; other∣wise all the advantages that can possibly be imagined in it, without that, are only so many Arguments to perswade us, that there is somewhat that is highly necessary to the Purity of Christians, of which Christ has not said a Word, and concerning which his Apostles have given us no Directions. We do not deny, but it may be a mean to strike Terror in People, to keep them under awe and obedience; it may when the ma∣nagement of it is in good hands, be made a mean to keep the World in Order, and to guide those of weaker Judgments more steadily and safely, than could be well done any other way. In the use of Confession, when proposed as our Church does, as matter of Advice, and not of Obliga∣tion, we are very sensible many good ends may be attained; but while we consider those, we must likewise reflect on the mischief that may arise out of it; especially supposing the greater part both of the Clergy and Laity to be what they ever were, and ever will be, depraved and corrupted. The People will grow to think that the Priest is in God's stead to them; that their telling their sins to him, is as if they confessed them to God; they will expect to be easily discharged for a gentle Penance, with a spee∣dy Absolution; and this will make them as secure, as if their Consciences were clear, and their Sins pardoned; so the remedy being easy and al∣ways at hand, they will be encouraged to venture the more boldly on Sin. It is no difficult matter to gain a Priest, especially if he himself is a bad Man, to use them tenderly upon those occasions. On the other hand, corrupt Priests will find their account in the dispensing this great Power, so as to serve their own ends. They will know all Peoples Tem∣pers and Secrets, and how strict soever they may make the Seal of Con∣fession,

to draw the World to trust to it, yet in Bodies so knit together, as Communities and Orders are, it is not possible to know what use they may make of this. Still they know all themselves, and see into the weakness, the passions, and appetites of their People. This must often be a great snare to them, especially in the supposition that cannot be denied to hold generally true, of their being bad Men themselves: Great advantages are hereby gi∣ven to infuse fears and scruples into Peoples minds, who being then in their tenderest Minutes, will be very much swayed and wrought on by them. A bad Priest knows by this whom he may tempt to any sort of Sin: And thus the good and the evil of Confession, as it is a general Law upon allMens Consciences, being weighed one against the other; and it being certain that the far greater part of Mankind is always bad, we must conclude that the evil does so far preponderate the good, that they bear no compa∣rison nor proportion to one another. The matter at present under debate is only, Whether it is one of the Laws of God or not? And it is enough for the present purpose to shew, that it is no Law of God; upon which we do also see very good reason why it ought not to be made a Law of the Church; both because it is beyond her Authority, which can only go to matters of Order and Discipline, as also because of the vast inconveni∣ences that are like to arise out of it.

The next part of Repentance is Contrition, which is a sorrow for Sin upon the motives of the Love of God, and the hatred of Sin, joined with a renovation of Heart. This is that which we acknowledge to be necessary to compleat our Repentance; but this consisting in the temper of a Man's Mind, and his inward acts, it seems a very absurd thing to make this the matter of a Sacrament, since it is of a Spiritual and Invisible nature. But this is not all that belongs to this head.

The Casuists of the Church of Rome have made a distinction between a perfect and an imperfect Contrition; the imperfect they call Attrition; which is any sorrow for Sin, tho' upon an inferior motive, such as may be particu∣lar to one act of Sin, as when it rises from the loss or shame it has brought with it, together with an act formed in detestation of it, without a resolu∣tion to sin any more. Such a sorrow as this is they teach, does make the Sa∣crament effectual, and puts a Man in a state of Justification, tho' they ac∣knowledge that without the Sacrament, it is not sufficient to Justify him.

* 1.463This was setled by the Council of Trent. We think it strikes at the root of all Religion and Vertue, and is a reversing of the design for which Sacraments were Instituted, which was to raise our Minds to a high pitch of Piety, and to exalt and purify our Acts. We think the Sacraments are profaned when we do not raise our Thoughts as high as we can, in them; To teach Men how low they may go, and how small a measure will serve turn, especially when the great and chief Commandment, the consi∣deration of the Love of God is left out, seems to be one of the greatest corruptions in practice, of which any Church can be guilty: A slackness in Doctrine, especially in so great a Point as this, in which human nature is under so fatal a biass, will always bring with it a much greater corruption in practice. This will indeed make many run to the Sacrament, and raise its value, but it will rise upon the ruins of true Piety and Holiness. There are few Men that can go long on in very great sins, without feeling great remorses; these are to them rather a Burthen that they cannot shake off, than a Vertue. Sorrow lying long upon their thoughts may be the begin∣ning of a happy change, and so prove a great blessing to them; all which is destroyed by this Doctrine: For if under such uneasy thoughts they go to Confession, and are Attrite, the Sacrament is valid, and they are Justi∣fied:

Then the uneasiness goes off, and is turned into joy, without their being any thing the better by it. They return to their Sins with a new calm and security, because they are taught that their Sins are pardoned, and that all Scores are cleared. Therefore we conclude that this Doctrine wounds Religion in its Vitals; and we are confirmed in all this by what appears in Practice: And what the best Writers that have lived in that Communion have said of the abuses that follow on the Methods in which this Sacrament is managed among them, which do arise mainly out of this Part of their Doctrine concerning Attrition. All that they teach con∣cerning those Acts of Attrition or even Contrition, is also liable to great abuse in Practice; for as a Man may bring forth those Acts in Words and not be the better for them: So he may force himself to think them, which is nothing but the framing an inward Discourse within himself, upon them; and yet these not arising genuinely from a new Nature, or a change of Temper, such Acts can be of no value in the sight of God: Yet the whole Practice of their Church runs upon these Acts, as if a Man's go∣ing through them, and making himself think them, could be of great Value in the sight of God.

The Third Branch of the Matter of this Sacrament, is the Satisfaction or the doing the Penance; which by the constant Practice of the Church for above Twelve Centuries was to be performed, before Absolution could be given; except in extraordinary Cases, such as Death or Martyrdom: But in these latter Ages, in which the necessity of Confession is carried higher, the obligation to Satisfaction, or the doing of Penance, is let fall lower. A distinction is invented, by which Confession and Contrition, Attrition at least, are made essential Parts of the Sacrament, without which there is no Sacrament; as Soul and Body are essential to the being of a Man: And Satisfaction is considered only as an integral Part; such as an Eye or a Limb in a Man which is necessary to the Order of it, but not to its being: If Satisfaction is considered as that which destroys the Habits of Sin, and introduces the Habits of Virtue: If it is Purgative and Medi∣cinal, and changes a Man's Principles and Nature, then it ought to be reckoned the Principal and least Dispensable thing of all Repentance. For our confessing past Sins, and sorrowing for them, is only enjoined us as a mean to reform and purify our Nature. If we imagine that our Acts of Repentance are a Discounting with God, by so many pious Thoughts which are to be set against so many bad ones, this will introduce a sort of a Mechanical Religion; which will both corrupt our Ideas of God, and of the Nature of Good and Evil.

The true and generous Notion of Religion, is, that it is a System of many Truths, which are of such Efficacy, that if we receive them into our Minds, and are governed by them, they will rectify our Thoughts, and purify our Natures: And by making us like God here, they will put us in a sure Way to enjoy him eternally hereafter. Sorrow for past Sins, and all Reflections upon them, are enjoined us as means to make the Sense of them go so deep in our Minds, as to free us from all those bad Habits that Sin leaves in us, and from those ill Inclinations that are in our Nature: If we therefore set up a sorrowing for Sin as a Merchandize with God, by so many Acts of one kind to take off the Acts of another, here the true Design of our Sorrow is turned into a trafficking, by which how much soever Priests may gain, or the value of Sacraments may seem to rise, Religion will certainly lose in its main Design; which is the planting a new Nature in us, and the making us become like God. Confession and Con∣trition are previous Acts, that lead to this Reformation, which, as they

teach, is wrought by the Satisfaction; therefore we must needs condemn that Doctrine which makes it less necessary and more dispensable than the other. In the case of Death we confess all the Rights of the Church with relation to a Man's Scandals, and his Obligations to make publick Pe∣nance, may and ought to be then forgiven him: But we think it one of the most fatal Errors that can creep into any Church, to encourage Men to rely on a Death-bed Repentance. The Nature of Man leans so much this way, that it is necessary to bend the Point as strong as may be to the other Hand.

The Promises of the Gospel run all upon the Condition of Repentance; which imports a Renovation of the inner Man and a Purity of Life: So that no Repentance can be esteemed True, but as we perceive that it has purified our Hearts, and changed our Course of Life. What God may do with Death-bed Penitents, in the Infinite Extent and Absoluteness of his Mercy, becomes not us to Define; but we are sure he has given no Promi∣ses to such Persons in his Gospel, and since the Function of Clergy Men is the dispensing of that, we cannot go beyond the Limits set us in it: So there is no reason to make this part of Repentance less necessary or obli∣gatory than the other, but very much to the contrary. Another excep∣tion that we have to the allowed Practice of that Church, is the giving Ab∣solution before the Satisfaction is made; upon its being enjoined, and ac∣cepted by the Penitent. This is so contrary to all ancient Rules, that it were a needless Labour to go to prove it: The thing being confessed by all. And yet the Practice is so totally changed among them, that such as have blamed it, and have attempted to revive the ancient Method, have been censured as guilty of an Innovation, savouring of Heresy: Because they condemn so general a Practice, that it would render the Infallibility of the Church very doubtful, if it should be pretended to have erred in so Univer∣sal a Practice.

Hasty Absolutions, contrary both to the whole design of the Gos∣pel, and to the constant Practice of the Church, for at least Twelve Centuries, are now the avowed Methods of that Church; to which in a great Measure all that Corruption of Morals that is among them, owes its rise and continuance: For who can be supposed to set him∣self against those Inclinations to Sin, that are deeply rooted in his Nature, and are powerfully recommended by the Pleasure and Gain that arises out of vitious Practices, if the Way to Pardon is cast so wide open, that a Man may Sin as long and as securely as he will, and yet all at once upon a few Acts that he makes himself go through, he may get into a State of Grace, and be pardoned and justified. The power that is left to the Priest to appoint the Penance, is a Trust of a high Nature, which yet is known to be universally ill applied; so that Absolution is generally prostituted among them.

The true Penance enjoined by the Gospel is the forsaking of Sin, and the doing Acts of Vertue. Fasting, Prayers and Alms-giving are Acts that are very proper Means to raise us to this Temper. If Fasting is join∣ed with Prayer, and if Prayer arises out of an inward Devotion of Mind, and ••s serious and fervent, then we know that it has great Efficacy; as be∣ing one of the chief Acts of our Religious service of God, to which the greatest Promises are made, and upon which the best Blessings do descend up∣on us. Alms-giving is also a main Part of Charity: Which when done from a right Principle of loving God and our Neighbour, is of great Value in his Sight. But if Fasting is only an exercise of the Body, of abstaining so long, and from such things, this may perhaps trouble and pain the Body,

but bodily Exercise profiteth nothing; so not to mention the Mockery of Fasting, when it is only a delay of eating, after which all Liberties are taken, or an abstinence which is made up with other delicious and infla∣ming Nutritives, these are of no Value, being only Inventions to deceive Men, and to expose Religion to Mockery: But even severe and afflicting Fasting, if done only as a Punishment, which when it is over, the Pe∣nance is believed to be compleated, gives such a low Idea of God and Re∣ligion, that from thence Men are led to think very slightly of Sin; when they know at what price they can carry it off. Such a continuance in Fast∣ing in order to Prayer, as humbles and depresses Nature, and raises the Mind, is a great mean to reform the World; but Fasting as a prescribed Task to expiate our Sins, is a scorn put upon Religion.

Prayer, when it arises from a serious Heart that is earnest in it, and when it becomes habitual, is certainly a most effectual mean to reform the World, and to fetch down Divine Assistances: But to appoint so many vocal Prayers to be gone through as a Task, and then to tell the World that the running through these with few or no inward Acts accompanying them, is Contrition or Attrition, this is liker a Design to root out all the Impressions of Religion, and all sense of that Repentance which the Gospel requires, than to promote it. This may be a Task fit to accustom Children to, but it is contrary to the true Genius of Religion, to teach Men instead of that reasonable Service that we ought to offer up to God, to give him only the Labour of the Lips, which is the Sacrifice of Fools. Prayers gone through as a Task can be of no value, and can find no acceptation in the sight of God. And as St. Paul said, that if he gave all his goods to the poor, and had not Charity, he was nothing:* 1.464 So the greatest profusion of Alms-giving when done in a mercenary Way, to buy off and to purchase a Pardon, is the turning of God's House from being a house of prayer, to be a den of thieves.

Upon all these Reasons we except to the whole Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, as to the Satisfaction made by doing Penance. And in the last place we except to the Form of Absolution in these Words, I Absolve thee: We of this Church, who use it only to such as are thought to be near Death, cannot be meant to understand any thing by it, but the full Peace and Pardon of the Church: For if we meant a Pardon with re∣lation to God, we ought to use it upon many other occasions. The Par∣don that we give in the Name of God, is only declaratory of his Pardon, or supplicatory in a Prayer to him for Pardon.

In this we have the whole Practice of the Church till the Twelfth Century universally of our side. All the Fathers, all the ancient Litur∣gies, all that have writ upon the Offices, and the first Schoolmen are so express in this Matter, that the thing in Fact cannot be denied. Mori∣nus has published so many of their old Rituals, that he has put an end to all doubting about it. In the Twelfth Century some few began to use the Words I Absolve thee: Yet to soften this Expression that seemed New and Bold, some tempered it with these Words, in so far as it is granted to my frailty; and others with those Words, as far as the accusation comes from thee, and as the pardon is in me. Yet this Form was but little practised: So that William Bishop of Paris speaks of the Form of Absolution as given only in a Prayer, and not as given in these Words, I Absolve thee. He lived in the beginning of the Fourteenth Century; so that this Practice though begun in other Places before that Time, yet was not known long after in so pub∣lick a City as Paris. But some Schoolmen begun to defend it, as imply∣ing only a declaration of the Pardon pronounced by the Priest: And this

having an air of more Authority, and being once justified by Learned Men, did so universally prevail, that in little more than sixty Years time, it be∣came the universal Practice of the whole Latin Church. So sure a thing is Tradition, and so impossible to be changed as they pretend, when with∣in the compass of one Age, the new Form, I Absolve thee, was not so much as generally known, and before the end of it the old Form of doing it in a Prayer with Imposition of Hands, was quite worn out. The Idea that arises naturally out of these words, is that the Priest pardons Sins; and since that is subject to such abuses, and has let in so much corruption upon that Church, we think we have reason not only to deny that Penance is a Sacra∣ment, but likewise to affirm, that they have corrupted this great and im∣portant Doctrine of Repentance, in all the Parts and Branches of it: Nor is the matter mended with that Prayer that follows the Absolution. The Passion of our Lord Iesus Christ,* 1.465 the Merits of the Blessed Virgin and all the Saints, and all the good that thou hast done, and the evil that thou hast suffered, be to thee for the remission of Sins, the increase of Grace, and the reward of eternal Life.

The third Sacrament rejected by this Article, is Orders; which is rec∣koned the sixth by the Church of Rome. We affirm that Christ appoint∣ed a Succession of Pastors in different Ranks to be continued in his Church for the Work of the Gospel, and the Care of Souls; and that as the Apo∣stles setled the Churches they appointed different Orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons: And we believe that all who are dedicated to serve in these Ministries, after they are examined and judged worthy of them, ought to be separated to them by the Imposition of Hands and by Prayer. These were the only Rites that we find practised by the Apostles. For many Ages the Church of God used no other; therefore we acknowledge that Bishops, Priests and Deacons, ought to be blest and dedicated to the HolyMinistry by Imposition of Hands and Prayer: And that then they are received accord∣ing to the Order and Practice setled by the Apostles to serve in their respe∣ctive Degrees. Men thus separated, have thereby Authority to perfect the Saints or Christians, that is, to perform the Sacred Functions among them, to minister to them, and to build them up in their most Holy Faith. And we think no other Persons without such a Separation and Consecration can lawfully touch the Holy Things. In all which we separate the Qualifica∣tions of the Functions from the inward Qualities of the Person; the one not at all depending on the other: The one relating only to the Order and the good Government of the Society, and the other relating indeed to the Salvation of him that Officiates, but not at all to the Validity of his Office or Service.

But in all this we see nothing like a Sacrament: Here is neither Matter, Form nor Institution; here is only Prayer: The laying on of Hands is on∣ly a gesture in Prayer that imports the Designation of the Person so prayed over. In the Greek Church there is indeed a different Form, for though there are Prayers in their Office of Ordination,* 1.466 yet the words that do ac∣company the Imposition of Hands are only Declaratory, The Grace of God that perfects the feeble, and heals the weak, promotes this Man to be a Deacon, a Priest or a Bishop; let us therefore pray for him: By which they pretend on∣ly to judge of a divine Vocation: All the ancient Rituals, and all those that treat of them for the first Seven Centuries, speak of nothing as Essential to Orders but Prayer and Imposition of Hands. It is true, many Rites came to be added, and many Prayers were used that went far beyond the first Sim∣plicity. But in the Tenth or Eleventh Century a new Form was brought in, of delivering the Vessels, in ordaining Priests; and Words were joined

with that, giving them Power to offer Sacrifices to God and to celebrate Masses, and then the Orders were believed to be given by this Rite. The delivering of the Vessels look'd like a Matter, and these Words were thought the Form of the Sacrament; and the Prayer that was formerly used with the Imposition of Hands, was indeed still used, but only as a Part of the Office; no Hands were laid on when it was used: And tho' the Form of laying on of Hands was still continued, the Bishop with other Priests laying their Hands on those they Ordained, yet it is now a dumb Ceremony, not a word of a Prayer being said while they lay on their Hands. So that tho' both Prayer and Imposition of Hands are used in the Office, yet they are not joined together. In the conclusion of the Ofsice a new Benediction was added ever since the Twelfth Century. The Bishop alone lays on his Hands, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. The number Seven was thought to sute the Sacraments best, so Orders were made one of them, and of these, only Priesthood; where the Vessels were declared to be the Matter, and the Form was the delivering them with the words, Take thou Authority to offer up Sacrifices to God, and to Celebrate Masses both for the Living and the Dead; In the Name of the Fa∣ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The Schoolmen have taken a new way of explaining this whole matter, borrowed from the Eucharist, that is made up of Two parts, the Conse∣cration of the Bread and of the Wine; both so necessary, that without the one, the other becomes void: So they teach that a Priest has Two Powers of Consecrating and of Absolving; and that he is Ordained to the one by the delivery of the Vessels, and to the other by the Bishop's lay∣ing on of Hands, with the words, Receive the Holy Ghost; and they make the Bishop and the Priest's laying on Hands jointly, to be only their declaring, as by a Suffrage, that such a Person ought to be Ordain∣ed: So totally have they departed from the Primitive Forms.

If this is a Sacrament, and if the Sacrament consists in this Matter and Form by them assigned, then since all the Rituals of the Latin Church for the sirst Ten Centuries had no such Form of Ordaining Priests, this cannot be the Matter and Form of a Sacrament; otherwise the Church had in a course of so many Ages no true Orders, nor any Sacrament in them. Nor will it serve in answer to this to say, that Christ Instituted no special Matter nor Form here, but has left the specifying those among the other Powers that he has given to his Church: For a Sacrament being an Institution of applying a Matter designed by God, by a particular Form likewise appointed; to say that Christ appointed here neither Matter nor Form, is plainly to confess that this is no Sacrament. In the first Nine or Ten Ages there was no Matter at all used, nothing but an Imposition of Hands with Prayer: So that by this Doctrine the Church of God was all that while with∣out true Orders, since there was nothing used that can be called the Matter of a Sacrament.

Therefore though we continue this Institution of Christ, as he ••nd his Apostles settled it in the Church, yet we deny it to be a Sacrament; we also deny all the inferior Orders to be Sacred, below that of Deacon. The other Orders we do not deny might be well, and on good reasons, appointed by the Church as steps through which Clerks might be made to pass, in order to a stricter examination and trial of them; like Degrees in Universities: But the making them, at least the Subdiaconate, Sacred, as it is reckoned by

Pope Eugenius, is, we think, beyond the Power of the Church; for here a Degree of Orders is made a Sacrament, and yet that Degree is not named in the Scripture, nor in the first Ages. It is true, it came to be soon used with the other Inferior Orders; but it cannot be pretended to be a Sacrament, since no Divine Institution can be brought for it. And we cannot but observe, that in the definition that Eugenius has given of the Sacraments, which is an Authentical piece in the Roman Church, where he reckons Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, as belong∣ing to the Sacrament of Orders, he does not Name Bishops, though their being of Divine Institution is not questioned in that Church. Perhaps the Spirit with which they acted at that time in Basil, of∣fended him so much, that he was more set on depressing than on raising them. In the Council of Trent, in which so much Zeal ap∣peared for recovering the Dignity of the Episcopal Order, at that time so much eclipsed by the Papal Usurpations, when the Sacra∣ment of Orders was Treated of, they reckoned Seven Degrees of them, the highest of which is that of Priest. So that though they Decreed that a Bishop was by the Divine Institution above a Priest, yet they did not Decree, that the Office was an Order, or a Sacra∣ment. And the Schoolmen do generally explain Episcopate, as being a higher Degree or Extension of Priesthood, rather than a new Or∣der, or a Sacrament; the main thing in their Thoughts being that which, if true, is the greatest of all Miracles, the wonderful Con∣version made in Transubstantion, they seem to think that no Or∣der can be above that which qualifies a Man for so great a Per∣formance.

I say nothing in this place concerning the power of Offering Sa∣crifices, pretended to be given in Orders, for that belongs to another Article.

The Fourth Sacrament here rejected is Marriage; which is reckon∣ed the last by the Roman Account. In the Point of Argument there is less to say here than in any of the other; but there seems to be a very express warrant for calling it a Sacrament, from the Transla∣tion of a passage in St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians,* 1.467 in which he makes an allusion while he treats of Marriage, to the mutual relation that is between Christ and his Church, from that state of Life, and says, There is a great Mystery here; the Vulgar has Translated the word Mystery by Sacrament. So though the words immediately fol∣lowing seem to turn the matter another way, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church; yet from the promiscuous use of those two words, and because Sacraments were called the Mysteries of the Chri∣stian Religion, the Translator it seems thought that all Mysteries might be called Sacraments. But it is so very hard here to find Matter, Form, a Minister, and a Sacramental Effect, that though Pope Eugenius in that famous Decree of his, is very punctual in assigning these, when he ex∣plains the other Sacraments; yet he wisely passed them all over when he came to this, and only makes a true consent necessary to the making the Sacrament.

We do not deny Marriage to be an Ordinance of God; but we think that as it was at first made in the state of Innocence, so it is still founded on the Law of Nature; and though the Gospel gives Rules concerning the Duties belonging to this state of Life, as it does concerning the Duties of Parents and Children, which

is another Relation founded on the same Law of Nature, yet we cannot call it a Sacrament; for we find neither Matter, Form, Institution, nor Federal Acts, nor Effects assigned to it in the Gospel, to make us esteem it a Sacrament.

The Matter assigned by the Roman Doctors is the inward Consent, by which both Parties do mutually give themselves to one another; the Form they make to be the Words or Signs, by which this is expressed. Now it seems a strange thing to make the secret Thoughts of Men the Matter,* 1.468 and their Words the Form of a Sacrament; all Mutual Compacts being as much Sacraments as this, there being no visible material things applied to the Parties who receive them; which is necessary to the being of a Sacrament. It is also a very absurd Opinion, which may have very fatal Consequences, and raise very afflicting Scruples, if any should imagine that the Inward Consent is the Matter of this Sacrament; here is a Foundation laid down for voiding every Marriage. The Parties may, and often do, Marry against their Wills; and though they profess an outward Consent, they do inward∣ly Repine against what they are doing. If after this they grow to like their Marriage, Scruples must arise, since they know they have not the Sacrament; because it is a Doctrine in that Church, that as Intention is necessary in every Sacrament, so here that goes further, the Intention be∣ing the only Matter of this Sacrament; so that without it there is no Marriage, and yet since they cannot be married again to compleat, or rather to make the Marriage; such Persons does live only in a State of Concubinate.

On the other hand, here is a Foundation laid down for breaking Marriages as often as the Parties, or either of them will solemnly Swear that they gave no Inward Consent, which is often practised at Rome. All Contracts are sacred things; but of them all, Marriage is the most Sacred, since so much depends upon it. Mens Words con∣firmed by Oaths, and other solemn Acts, must either be binding according to the plain and acknowledged Sense of them, or all the Security and Confidence of Mankind is destroyed. No Man can be safe if this principle is once admitted; that a Man is not bound by his Promises and Oaths, unless his Inward Consent went along with them; and if such a fraudu∣lent thing may be applied to Marriages, in which so many Persons are concerned, and upon which the Order of the World does so much de∣pend, it may be very justly applied to all other Contracts whatsoever, so that they may be voided at pleasure. A Man's Words and Oaths bind him by the Eternal Laws of Fidelity and Truth, and it is a just prejudice against any Religion whatsoever, if it should teach a Doctrine in which by the secret reserves of not giving an Inward Consent, the Faith which is solemnly given may be broken. Here such a Door is opened to Perfidy and Treachery, that the World can be no longer safe while it is allowed; hereby lewd and vitious Persons may intangle others, and in the mean while order their own Thoughts so, that they shall be all the while free.

Next to Matter and Form, we must see for the Institution of this Sacra∣ment. The Church of Rome think that is strong here, though they feel it to be hardly defensible in the other Points that relate to it. They think that though Marriage as it is a Mutual Contract subsists upon the Law of Nature, yet a Divine Virtue is put in it by the Gospel, expressed in

these Words, This is a great Mystery or Sacrament; so the explaining these Words determines this Controversy. The chief Point in dispute at that time was, Whether the Gentiles were to be received to equal Priviledges with the Iews, in the dispensation of the Messias. The Iews do not to this day deny, but that the Gentiles may be admitted to it, but still they think that they are to be considered as a distinct Body, and in a lower Order, the chief Dignity being to be reserved to the Seed of Abraham. Now St. Paul had in that Epistle, as well as in his other Epistles, asserted, that all were equal in Christ: That he had taken away the middle wall of partition, that he had abolished the Ground of the Enmity,* 1.469 which was the Mosaical Law, called the Law of Command∣ments contained in Ordinances; that he might make both Jew and Gen∣tile one new Man; one entire Body of a Church: He being the chief corner Stone in whom the whole building was fitly framed together: And so became a holy habitation to God. Thus he made use of the Figure of a Body, and of a Temple, to illustrate this Matter; and to shew how all Christians were to make up but one Body, and one Church. So when he came to speak of the Rules belonging to the several States of Human Life, he takes occasion to explain the Duties of the mar∣ried State; by comparing that to the Relation that the Church has to Christ: And when he had said that the married Couple make but one Body and one Flesh; which declares that according to the first Institution every Man was to have but one Wife: He adds upon that, this is a great Mystery: That is, from hence another Mystical Argument might be brought, to shew that Iew and Gentile must make one Bo∣dy; for since the Church was the Spouse of Christ, he must accord∣ing to that Figure have but one Wife; and by consequence the Church must be One: Otherwise the Figure will not be answered; unless we suppose Christ to be in a State answering a Polygamy, rather than a single Marriage. Thus a clear Account of these Words is given, which does fully agree to them, and to what follows, But I speak concerning Christ and the Church.

This, which is all the Foundation of making Marriage a Sacrament being thus cleared, there remains nothing to be said on this Head, but to Examine one Consequence, that has been drawn from the ma∣king it a Sacrament, which is, that the Bond is Indissoluble: And that even Adultery does not void it. The Law of Nature, or of Nations, seems very clear, that Adultery, at least on the Wife's part, should dis∣solve it: For the end of Marriage being the ascertaining of the Issue, and the Contract it self being a mutual transferring the Right to one anothers Person, in order to that End; the breaking this Contract and destroying the End of Marriage, does very naturally infer the Dissolu∣tion of the Bond: And in this both the Attick and Roman Laws were so severe, that a Man was Infamous who did not Divorce upon Adul∣tery. Our Saviour when he blamed the Iews for their frequent Di∣vorces,* 1.470 established this Rule, that whosoever puts away his Wife, except it be for Fornication, and shall marry another, committeth Adultery. Which seems to be a plain and full Determination, that in the Case of For∣nication, he may put her away and Marry another. It is True, St. Mark and St. Luke repeat these Words, without mentioning this Exception; so some have thought that we ought to bring St. Matthew to them, and not them to St. Matthew: But it is an universal Rule of expound∣ing Scriptures, that when a Place is fully set down by one inspired Writer, and less fully by another, that the Place which is less full is

always to be expounded by that which is more full. So tho' St. Mark and St. Luke report our Saviour's Words generally, without the Excep∣tion, which is twice mentioned by St. Matthew, the other two are to be understood to suppose it; for a general Proposition is true when it holds generally; and Exceptions may be understood to belong to it, though they are not named. The Evangelist that does name them must be con∣sidered to have reported the matter more particularly, than the others that do it not. Since then our Saviour has made the Exception, and since that Exception is founded upon a natural equity, that the Innocent Par∣ty has against the Guilty, there can be no reason why an Exception so justly grounded, and so clearly made, should not take place.

Both Tertullian, Basil, Chrysostom, and Epiphanius, allow of a Divorce in case of Adultery;* 1.471 and in those days they had no other Notion of a Divorce, but that it was the Dissolution of the Bond; the late Notion of a Separation the Tie continuing, not being known, till the Canonists brought it in. Such a Divorce was allowed by the Council of Elliberis. The Council of Arles did indeed recommend it to the Husband, whose Wife was guilty of Adultery, not to Marry; which did plainly acknow∣ledge, that he might do it. It was, and still is the constant practice of the Greek Church; and as both Pope Gregory, and Pope Zachary allowed the Innocent Person to Marry; so in a Synod held at Rome in the Tenth Century, it was still allowed. When the Greeks were reconciled to the Latins in the Council of Florence, this matter was past over, and the care of it was only recommended by the Pope to the Emperor. It is true Eugenius put it in hisInstruction to the Armenians, but tho' that passes generally for a part of the Council of Florence, yet the Council was over & up before that was given out.

This Doctrine of the Indissolubleness of Marriage, even for Adultery, was never settled in any Council before that of Trent. The Canonists and Schoolmen had indeed generally gone into that Opinion, but not only Erasmus, but both Cajetan and Catharinus declared themselves for the Lawfulness of it: Cajetan indeed used a Salvo, in case the Church had otherwise Defined, which did not then appear to him. So that this is a Doctrine very lately settled in the Church of Rome. Our Reformers here had prepared a Title in the new Body of the Canon Law, which they had Digested, allowing Marriage to the Innocent Party: And up∣on a great occasion then in Debate, they declared it to be Lawful by the Law of God: And if the Opinion that Marriage is a Sacrament, falls, the conceit of the absolute Indissolubleness of Marriage will fall with it.

The last Sacrament which is rejected by this Article, that is, the Fifth as they are reckoned up in the Church of Rome, is Extreme Vnction. In the Commission that Christ gave his Apostles, among the other Powers that were given them to confirm it, one was to cure diseases and heal the sick; pursuant to which St. Mark tells,* 1.472 that they anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. The Prophets used some Symbolical actions when they wrought Miracles; so Moses used his Rod often; Elisha used Elijah's Mantle; our Saviour put his Finger into the deaf Man's Ear, and made Clay for the blind Man; and Oil being upon almost all occasions used in the Eastern Parts, the Apostles made use of it: But no hint is given that this was a Sacramental Action. It was plainly a Miraculous Virtue that healed the Sick, in which Oil was made use of as a Symbol accompanying it. It was not prescribed by our Saviour for any thing that appears, as it was not blamed by him neither: It was no wonder if upon such a president, those who had that extraordinary Gift did apply it with the use of Oil; not as if Oil was the Sacramental Conveyance; it was only used with it.

The end of it was Miraculous, it was in order to the recovery of the sick; and had no relation to their Souls, though with the cure wrought on the Body, there might sometimes be joined an operation upon the Soul; and this appears clearly from St. Iames's words,* 1.473 Is any sick among you, let him call for the elders of the church; and let him pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up. All hitherto is one Period, which is here closed. The following words contain new matter quite of a different kind; and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him. It appears clearly that this was intended for the recovery of the sick Person, which is the thing that is positively promised; the other concerning the pardon of Sins, comes in on the by, and seems to be added only as an accessary to the other, which is the principal thing designed by this whole matter. Therefore since Anointing was in order to healing, either we must say that the Gift of healing is still deposited with the Elders of the Church, which no body affirms, or this Oil was only to be used by those who had that special Gift; and therefore if there are none now who pretend to have it, and if the Church pretends not to have it lodged with her, then the Anointing with Oil cannot be used any more; and therefore those who use it not in order to the recovery of the Person, delaying it till there is little or no hope left, use not that Unction mentioned by St. Iames, but another of their own devising, which they call the Sacrament of the dying. It is a vain thing to say, that because saving and raising up are sometimes used in a Spiritual sense, that therefore the saving the sick here, and that of the Lord's raising him up, are to be so meant. For the forgiveness of sin, which is the Spiritual Blessing, comes afterwards, upon supposition that the sick Person had committed sins. The saving and raising up must stand in opposition to the sickness; so since all acknowledge that the one is Literal, the other must be so too. The supposition of sin is added, because some Persons upon whom this Miracle might have been wrought might be eminently Pious; and if at any time it was to be applied to ill Men who had committed some notorious sins, perhaps such sins as had brought their sickness upon them, these were also to be forgiven.

In the use of miraculous Powers, those to whom that Gift was given, were not empowered to use it at pleasure; they were to feel an inward Impulse exciting them to it, and they were obliged upon that firmly to believe, that God who had given them the Impulse, would not be want∣ing to them in the execution of it. This confidence in God was the faith of Miracles,* 1.474 of which Christ said, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard-se••d, ye shall say to this mountain, remove hence to yonder place, and nothing shall be impossible unto you.* 1.475 Of this also St. Paul meant when he said, If I have all faith. So from this we may gather the meaning of the prayer of faith and the anointing with Oil; that if the Elders of the Church, or such others with whom this Power was lodged, felt an inward Impulse moving them to call upon God in order to a miraculous Cure of a sick Person, then they were to anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord: That is, by the Authority that they had from Christ, to heal all manner of Diseases: And they were to Pray believing firmly, that God would make good that inward motion which he had given them to work this Miracle; and in that case the effect was certain, the sick Person would certainly recover, for that is absolutely promised. Every one that was sick was not to be Anointed, unless an Authority and Motion from Christ had been secretly given for doing it, but every one that was Anointed was certainly healed. Christ had promised that whatsoever they should ask in his name,* 1.476 he would do

it. His Name must be restrained to his Authority, or pursuant to such secret Motions as they should receive from him. This is the Prayer of Faith here mentioned by St. Iames; it being an earnest application to God to join his Omnipotent Power to perform a wonderful Work to which a Person so divinely qualified felt himself inwardly moved by the Spirit of Christ. The supposition of the sick Persons having committed sins, which is added, shews that sometime this vertue was applied to Persons of that eminent Piety, that though all Men are guilty in the sight of God, yet they could not be said to have committed sins in the sense in which St. Iohn uses the phrase; signifying by it either that they had lived in the habits of sin, or that they had committed some notorious sin: But if some should happen to be sick, who had been eminent Sinners, and those sins had drawn down the Judgments of God upon them, which seems to be the natural meaning of these words, if he have committed sins; then with his bodily Health, he was to receive a much greater Blessing, even the Pardon of his Sins. And thus the Anointing mentioned by St. Iames was in order to a miraculous Cure, and the Cure did constantly follow it: so that it can be no president for an Extreme Unction, that is never given till the recovery of the Person is despaired of, and by which it is not pre∣tended that any Cure is wrought.

The Matter of it is Oil Olive Blessed by the Bishop, the Form is the ap∣plying it to the Five Senses with these words, Per hanc Sacram Vnctionem,* 1.477 & suam piissimam Misericordiam Indulgeat tibi Deus quicquid peccasti, per visum, auditum, olfactum, gustum, & tactum. The proper word to every Sense being repeated as the Organ of that Sense is Anointed. It is Admi∣nistred by a Priest, and gives the final Pardon, with all necessary assistan∣ces in the last Agony. Here is then an Institution, that if warranted, is matter of great Comfort, and if not warranted, is matter of as great Presumption.* 1.478 In the first Ages we find mention is made frequently of Persons that were Cured by an Anointing with Oil: Oil was then much used in all their Rituals, the Catechumens being Anointed with Oil be∣fore they were Baptized, besides the Chrism that was given after it. Oil grew also to be used in Ordinations, and the dead were Anointed in or∣der to their Burial: So that the ordinary use of Oil on other occasions brought it to be very frequently used in their Sacred Rites; yet how customary soever the practice of Anointing grew to be, we find no men∣tion of any Unction of the sick before the beginning of the Fifth Century. This plainly shews that they understood St. Iames's words as relating to a miraculous Power, and not to a Function that was to continue in the Church, and to be esteemed a Sacrament.

That earliest mention of it by Pope Innocent the First,* 1.479 how much soever it is insisted on, is really an Argument that proves against it, and not for it. For not to enlarge on the many idle things that are in that Epistle, which have made some think that it could not be genuine; and that do very much sink the credit both of the Testimony and of the Man, for it seems to be well proved to be his: The passage relating to this matter is in answer to a demand that was made to him by the Bishop of Eugubium, Whether the Sick might be Anointed with the Oil of the Chrism? And whether the Bishop might Anoint with it? To these he answers, That no doubt is to be made but that St. Iames's words are to be understood of the Faithful that were sick, who may be Anointed by the Chrism; which may be used not only by the Priests, but by all Christians, not only in their own necessities▪ but in the necessities of any of their Friends; and he adds, that it was a needless doubt that was made, whether a Bishop

might do it? For Presbyters are only mentioned, because the Bishop could not go to all the Sick; but certainly he who made the Chrism it self, might Anoint with it. A Bishop asking these Questions of another, and the answers which the other gives him, do plainly shew that this was no Sacrament practised from the beginnings of Christianity; for no Bishop could be ignorant of those. It was therefore some newly begun Custom, in which the World was not yet sufficiently instructed. And so it was indeed, for the subject of these questions was not pure Oil, such as now they make to be the matter of Extreme Unction: But the Oil of Chrism which was made and kept for other occasions; and it seems very clear that the miraculous power of Healing having ceased, and none being any more Anointed in order to that; some begun to get a Portion of the Oil of Chrism, which the Laity, as well as the Priests, applied both to them∣selves and to their Friends, hoping that they might be Cured by it. No∣thing else can be meant by all this, but a superstitious using the Chrism, which might have arisen out of the memory that remained of those who had been cured by Oil, as the use of Bread in the Eucharist brought in the Holy Bread, that was sent from one Church to another; and as from the use of Water in Baptism sprung the use of Holy Water. This then being the clear meaning of those words, it is plain that they prove quite the contrary of that for which they are brought; and though in that Epistle the Pope calls Chrism a kind of a Sacrament, that turns likewise against them; to shew that he did not think it was a Sacrament, strictly speak∣ing: Besides that the Ancients used that word very largely, both for every mysterious Doctrine, and for every holy Rite that they used. In this very Epistle when he gives directions for the carrying about that Bread, which they Blessed and sent about as an Emblem of their Communion with other Churches; he orders them to be sent about only to the Churches within the City, because he conceived the Sacraments were not to be carried a great way off; so these Loaves are called by him not only a kind of Sacrament, but are simply reckoned to be Sacraments.

We hear no more of Anointing the Sick with the Chrism, among all the Ancients; which shews that as that practice was newly begun, so it did not spread far, nor continue long. No mention is made of this neither in the first Three Ages, nor in the Fourth Age, though the Writers, and par∣ticularly the Councils of the Fourth Age, are very copious in Rules concerning the Sacraments. Nor in all their penitentiary Canons, when they define what Sins are to be forgiven, and what not, when Men were in their last Extremities, is there so much as a hint given concerning the last Unction. The Constitutions, and the pretended Dionisius, say not a word of it, though they are very full upon all the Rituals of that time in which those Works were Forged, in the Fourth or Fifth Century. In none of the Lives of the Saints before the Ninth Century, is there any mention made of their having Extreme Unction; tho' their deaths are sometimes very particularly related, and their receiving the Eucharist is oft mention∣ed. Nor was there any question made in all that time concerning the Persons, the Time, and the other Circumstances relating to this Unction; which could not have been omitted, especially when almost all that was thought on or writ of in the Eighth and Ninth Century relates to the Sa∣craments and the other Rituals of the Church.

It is true, from the Seventh Century on to the Twelfth, they began to use an Anointing of the Sick,* 1.480 according to that mentioned by Pope Inno∣cent, and a peculiar Office was made for it, but the Prayers that were used in it, shew plainly that it was all intended only in order to their recovery.

Of this anointing many Passages are found in Bede, and in the other Writers and Councils of the Eighth and Ninth Century. But all these do clearly express the Use of it, not as a Sacrament for the Good of the Soul,* 1.481 but as a Rite that carried with it Health to the Body, and so it is still used in the Greek Church. No doubt they supported the Credit of this with many reports, of which some might be true, of Persons that had been reco∣vered upon using it. But because that failed so often that the Credit of this Rite might suffer much in the Esteem of the World, they began in the Tenth Century to say, That it did Good to the Soul, even when the Body was not healed by it, and they applied it to the several Parts of the Body. This begun from the Custom of applying it at first to the diseased Parts. This was carried on in the Eleventh Century. And then in the Twelfth, those Prayees that had been formerly made for the Souls of the Sick, though only as a Part of the Office,* 1.482 the Pardon of Sin being considered as Preparatory to their Recovery, came to be considered as the main and most essential Part of it: Then the Schoolmen brought it into shape, and so it was decreed to be a Sacrament, by Pope Eugenius, and finally established at Trent.

The Argument that they draw from a parity in reason, that because there is a Sacrament for such as come into the World, there should be al∣so One for those that go out of it, is very trifling; for Christ has either Instituted this to be a Sacrament, or it is not One: If he has not Institu∣ted it, this pretended fitness, is only an Argument that he ought to have done somewhat, that he has not done. The Eucharist was considered by the Ancients as the only Viaticum of Christians, in their last Passage: With them we give that and no more.

Thus it appears upon what Reason we reject those Five Sacraments, though we allow both of Confirmation and Orders as Holy Functions, deri∣ved to us down from the Apostles; and because there is a visible Action in these, though in strictness that cannot be called a Sacrament, yet so the thing be rightly understood, we will not dispute about the Extent of a Word that is not used in Scripture. Marriage is in no respect to be cal∣led a Sacrament of the Christian Religion; tho' it being a State of such Importance to Mankind, we hold it very proper both for the Solemnity of it, and for Imploring the Blessing of God upon it, that it be done with Prayers and other Acts of Religious Worship: But a great difference is to be made, between a pious Custom begun and continued by publick Autho∣rity, and a Sacrament appointed by Christ. We acknowledge true Re∣pentance to be One of the great Conditions of the New Covenant; but we see nothing of the Nature of a Sacrament in it: And for Extreme Un∣ction, we do not pretend to have the Gift of Healing among us; and therefore we will not deceive the World, by an Office that shall offer at that, which we acknowledge we cannot do: Nor will we make a Sacrament for the Good of the Soul, out of that which is mentioned in Scripture, only as a Rite that accompanied the curing the Diseases of the Body.

The last Part of this Article, concerning the Use of the Sacraments, consists of Two Parts, the First is Negative, that they are not ordained to be gazed on, or to be carried about, but to be used: And this is so Ex∣press in the Scripture, that little Question can be made about it. The In∣stitution of Baptism is go preach and baptize: And the Institution of the Eucharist, is take, eat, and drink ye all of it: Which Words being set down before those in which the Consecrating them is believed to be made, This is my body: And this is my blood; and the Consecratory Words being deli∣vered as the Reason of the Command, take, eat, and drink; nothing can be

more clearly exprest than this that the Eucharist is consecrated only, that it may be used; that it may be eat and drunk.

The Second Part of this Period is, that the Effect of the Sacraments comes only upon the Worthy receiving of them; of this so much was al∣ready said, upon the first Paragraph of this Article, that it is not necessary to add any more here. The pretending that Sacraments have their Effect any other way, is the bringing in the Doctrine and Practice of Charms in∣to the Christian Religion: And it tends to dissolve all Obligations, to Piety and Devotion, to a Holiness of Life or a Purity of Temper: When the being in a Passive and perhaps Insensible State, while the Sacraments are applied, is thought a Disposition sufficient to give them their Vertue. Sacraments are federal Acts, and those visible Actions are intended to quicken us, so that in the use of them we may raise our inward Acts to the highest Degrees possible; but not to supply their Defects or Imperfections. Our Opinion in this Point represents them as means to raise our Minds, and to kindle our Devotion, whereas the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, represents them as so many Charms which may heighten indeed the Au∣thority of him that Administers them, but do extinguish and deaden all true Piety, when such helps are offered, by which the worst Men, living and dying in a bad State, may by a few faint Acts, and perhaps by none at all of their own, be well enough taken care of and secured. But as we have not so learned Christ, so neither dare we corrupt his Doctrine, in its most vital and essential Parts.

ARTICLE XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers which hinder not the Effect of the Sacraments.

Altho in the Uisible Church, the Evil be ever mingled with the Good, and sometime the Evil have chief Authority in the Mi∣nistration of the Word and Sacraments; yet for as much as they do not the same in their own Name, but in Christ's, and do Minister by his Commission and Authority, we may use their Ministry both in hearing the Word of God, and in recei∣ving the Sacraments. Neither is the Effect of Christ's Ordi∣nance taken away by their Wickedness: Nor the Grace of God's Gifts diminished from such as by Faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministred unto them, which be Effectual because of Christ's Institution and Promise, although they be ministred by Evil Men.

Nevertheless it appertaineth to the Discipline of the Church, that enquiry be made of Evil Ministers; and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their Offences, and finally being found Guilty, by just Iudgment to be deposed.

THE occasion that was given to this Article, was the heat of some in the beginnings of the Reformation; who being much offended at the publick Scandal which was given by the enormous Vices, that were without any Disguise practised by the Roman Clergy, of all Ranks, did from thence revive the conceit of the Donatists, who thought that not only Heresy and Schism did invalidate Sacred Functions, but that personal Sins did also make them void.

It cannot be denied but that there are many Passages in St. Cyprian that look this Way; and which seem to make the Sacraments depend as much on the good State that he was in who administred them, as the Answer of their other Prayers did.

In the Progress of the Controversy with the Donatists they carried this Matter very far; and considered the Effect of the Sacraments as the An∣swer of Prayers: So since the Prayers of a wicked Man are Abomination to God, they thought the Vertue of these Actions depended wholly on him that officiated.

Against this St. Augustin set himself very zealously; He answered all that was brought from Cyprian, in such a manner, that by it he has set us a Pattern, how we ought to separate the just Respect, that we pay the Fa∣thers, from an Implicite receiving of all their Notions. If this Conceit were allowed of, it must go to the secret Thoughts and inward State in which he is, who officiates; for if the Sacraments are to be considered on∣ly as Prayers offered up by him, then a Man can never be sure that he re∣ceives them: Since it is impossible to see into the Hearts, or know the Se∣crets of Men. Sacraments therefore are to be considered as the publick Acts of the Church; and though the Effect of them as to him that receives them depends upon his Temper, his Preparation and Application, yet it cannot be imagined that the Vertue of those federal Acts, to which Chri∣stians are admitted, in them, the Validity of them, or the Blessings that follow them, can depend on the secret State or Temper of him that Offi∣ciates.

Even in the case of publick Scandals, though they may make the holy things to be loathed by the aversion that will naturally follow upon them; yet after all, though that aversion may go too far, we must still distinguish between the things that the Ministers of the Church do, as they are publick Officers, and what they do as they are private Christians. Their Prayers and every thing else that they do, as they are private Chri∣stians, have their effect only according to the state and temper that they are in when they offer them up to God; but their publick Functions are the appointments of Christ in which they Officiate; they can neither make them the better nor the worse, by any thing that they join to them. And if miraculous Vertues may be in Bad Men, so that in the great Day some of those, to whom Christ shall say, I never knew you, depart from me ye that work iniquity,* 1.483 may yet say to him, Lord, Lord, have we not pro∣phesied in thy name, and in thy name have cast out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works; then certainly this may be concluded much more concerning those standing Functions and Appointments that are to continue in the Church. Nor can any difference be made in this matter between publick Scandals and secret Sins; for if the former make void the Sacraments, the latter must do so too. The only reason that can be pretended for the one, will also fall upon the other; for if the vertue of the Sacraments is thought to be derived upon them as an Answer of Pray∣er, then since the Prayers of Hypocrites are as little effectual as the Prayers of those who are openly Vicious; the Inference is good, that if the Sa∣craments Administred by a scandalous Man are without any effect, the Sacraments Administred by a Man that is inwardly Corrupted, though that can be only known to God, will be also of no effect; and therefore this Opinion that was taken up, perhaps from an inconsiderate Zeal against the sins and scandals of the Clergy, is without all foundation, and must needs cast all Men into endless scruples, which can never be cured.

The Church of Rome, though they reject this Opinion; yet have brought in another very like it, which must needs fill the Minds of Men with endless distractions and fears; chiefly considering of what necessity and efficacy they make the Sacraments to be. They do teach that the Intention of him that gives the Sacrament is necessary to the Essence of it, so that without it no Sacrament can be Administred. This was ex∣presly affirmed by Pope Eugenius in his Decree, and an Anathema past at Trent against those that deny it. They do indeed define it to be only an Intention of doing that which the Church intends to do; and though the surest way they say is to have an actual Intention, yet it is commonly taught among them, that a habitual or virtual Intention will serve. But they do all agree in this, that if a Priest has a secret Intention, not to make a Sacrament, that in that case no Sacrament is made; and this is carried so far,* 1.484 that in one of the Rubricks of the Missal it is given as a Rule, that if a Priest who goes to Consecrate Twelve Hosties, should have a general Intention to leave out one of them from being truly Consecrated, and should not apply that to any one, but let it run loosely through them all, that in such case he should not Consecrate any one of the Twelve; that loose exception falling upon them all, because it is not restrained to any one particular. And among the Articles that were condemned by Pope Alexander the Eighth, the 7th of December, 1690. the 28th runs thus, Valet Baptismus collatus a Ministro, qui omnem ritum externum formamque Baptisandi observat, intus vero in corde suo apud se resolvit, non intendo quod facit Ecclesia. And thus they make the secret acts of a Priest's mind enter

so far into those Divine Appointments, that by his Malice, Irreligion, or Atheism, he can make those Sacraments which he visibly Blesses and Ad∣ministers, to be only the outward shews of Sacraments, but no real ones. We do not pretend that the Sacraments are of the nature of Charms; so that if a Man should in a way of open Mockery and Profanation go about them, that therefore because Matter and Form are observed, they should be true Sacraments. But though we make the serious appearances of a Christian action to be necessary to the making it a Sacrament, yet we carry this no further, to the inward and secret acts of the Priest, as if they were essential to the being of it. If this is true, no Man can have quiet in his Mind.

It is a Profanation for an Unbaptized Person to receive the Eucharist; so if Baptism is not true when a Priest sets his Intention cross to it, then a Man in Orders must be in perpetual doubts whether he is not living in a continual state of Sacriledge in Administring the other Sacraments while he is not yet Baptized; and if Baptism be so necessary to Salvation, that no Man who is not Baptized can hope to be Saved, here a perpetual scruple must arise which can never be removed. Nor can a Man be sure but that when he thinks he is Worshipping the true Body of Jesus Christ, he is committing Idolatry and Worshipping only a piece of Bread; for it is no more according to them, if the Priest had an Intention against Conse∣crating it. No Orders are given if an Intention lies against them, and then he who passes for a Priest is no Priest; and all his Consecrations and Absolutions are so many invalid things, and a continued course of Sacriledge.

Now what reason soever Men may have in this case to hope for the pardon of those sins, since it is certain that the Ignorance is invincible; yet here strange thoughts must arise concerning Christ and his Gospel; if in those actions that are made necessary to Salvation, it should be in the power of a false Christian, or an Atheistical Priest or Bishop, to make them all void; so that by consequence it should be in his power to damn them; for since they are taught to expect Grace and Justification from the Sacraments, if these are no true Sacraments which they take for such, but only the Shadows and the Phantasms of them, then neither Grace nor Justification can follow upon them. This may be carried so far as even to evacuate the very being of a Church; for a Man not truly Baptized can never be in Orders; so that the whole Ordinations of a Church, and the Succession of it, may be broke by the Impiety of any one Priest. This we look on as such a chain of Absurdities, that if this Doctrine of Intention were true, it alone might serve to destroy the whole credit of the Chri∣stian Religion; in which the Sacraments are taught to be both so necessa∣ry and so efficacious, and yet all this is made to depend on that which can neither be known nor prevented.

The last Paragraph of this Article is so clear that it needs no explana∣tion, and is so evident that it wants no proof.* 1.485 Eli was severely threatned for suffering his Sons to go on in their Vices, when by their means the Sacrifice of God was abhorred. God himself struck Nadab and Abihu dead when they offered strange Fire at his Altar; and upon that these words were uttered, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me,* 1.486 and be∣fore all the People will I be glorified. Timothy was required to receive an accusation of an Elder, when regularly tendered to him;* 1.487 and to rebuke before all, those that sinned; and he was charged to withdraw himself from those teachers who consented not to wholsome words, and that made a gain of godliness. A main part of the Discipline of the Primitive Church lay

heaviest on the Clergy: and such of them as either Apostatized, or fell into scandalous Sins, even upon their Repentance, were indeed received into the Peace of the Church, but they were appointed to Communicate among the Laity, and were never after that admitted to the Body of the Clergy, or to have a share in their Priviledges. Certainly there is no∣thing more incumbent on the whole Body of the Church, than that all possible care be taken to discover the bad practices that may be among the Clergy; which will ever raise strong prejudices, not only against their Persons, but even against their Profession, and against that Religion which they seem to advance with their Mouths, while in their Works and by their Lives they detract from it, and seem to deny its Authority. But after all, our Zeal must go along with Justice and Discretion: Fame may be a just ground to enquire upon, but a Sentence cannot be founded on it. The Laity must discover what they know, that so these who have Au∣thority may be able to cut off those that trouble the Church.* 1.488 Discretion will require that things which cannot be proved, ought rather to be covered, than exposed when nothing but clamour can follow upon it. In sum, this is a part of the Government of the Church, for which God will reckon severely with those, who from partial regards, or other feeble or carnal Considerations, are defective in that, which is so great a part of their Duty, and in which the Honour of God and of Religion, and the Good of Souls, as well as the Order and Unity of the Church are so highly concerned.

ARTICLE XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a Sign of Profession and Mark of difference, whereby Christian Men are discerned from others that be not Christened; but it is also a Sign of Regeneration or New Birth, whereby as by an Instrument they that receive Baptism rightly, are Grrafted into the Church. The Promises of the Forgiveness of Sin, of our Adoption to be the Sons of God, by the Holy Ghost, are visibly Signed and Sealed, Faith is confirmed and Grace increased by virtue of Prayer to God. The Baptism of Young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the Institution of Christ.

WHEN St. Iohn Baptist began first to Baptize, we do plainly see by the first Chapter of St. Iohn's Gospel, that the Iews were not surprised at the Novelty of the Rite, for they sent to ask who he was; and when he said he was not the Messias, nor Elias, nor that Prophet, they asked, Why Baptizest thou then? Which shews not only that they had clear Notions of Baptism,* 1.489 but in particular that they thought that if he had been the Messias, or Elias, or that Prophet, he might then have Baptized. St. Paul does also say that the Iews were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea; which seems to relate to some Opinion the Iews had,* 1.490 that by that Cloud, and their passing through the Sea, they were purified from the Egyptian Defilements, and made meet to become Moses's Disciples. Yet in the Old Testament we find no clear Warrants for a practice that had then got among the Iews, which is still taught by them, that they were to re∣ceive a Proselyte, if a Male, by Baptism, Circumcision, and Sacrifice; and if a Female, only by Baptism and Sacrifice. Thus they reckoned that when any came over from Heathenism to their Religion, they were to use a Washing; to denote their Purifying themselves from the uncleanness of their former Idolatry, and their entring into a Holy Religion.

And as they do still teach that when the Messias comes, they are all bound to set themselves to repent of their former sins; so it seems they then thought, or at least it would have been no strange thing to them, if the Messias had received such as came to him by Baptism. St. Iohn by Bap∣tizing those who came to him, took them obliged to enter upon a course of Repentance, and he declared to them the near approach of the Messias, and that the Kingdom of God was at hand; and it is very probable that those who were Baptized by Christ, that is, by his Apostles; for though it is expresly said that he Baptized none, yet what he did by his Disci∣ples he might in a more general sense be said to have done himself; that these, I say, were Baptized upon the same Sponsions, and with the same Declarations, and with no other; for the Dispensation of the Messias was not yet opened, nor was it then fully declared that he was the Messias; howsoever this was a preparatory Initiation of such as were fitted for the coming of the Messias; by it they owned their expectations of him, as then near at hand, and they professed their Repentance of their Sins, and their purposes of doing what should be enjoined them by him.

Water was a very proper Emblem, to signify the passing from a Course of Defilement to a greater degree of Purity, both in Doctrine and Pra∣ctice.

Our Saviour in his state of Humiliation as he was subject to the Mosai∣cal Law, so he thought fit to fulfil all the Obligations that lay upon the other Iews; which by a Phrase used among them he expresses thus to ful∣fil all righteousness. For tho' our Saviour had no sins to Confess, yet that not being known, he might come to Profess his Belief of the Dispensation of the Messias, that was then to appear. But how well soever the Iews might have been accustomed to this Rite, and how proper a Preparation soever it might be to the Manifestation of the Messias, yet the Institution of Baptism as it is a federal Act of the Christian Religion, must be taken from the Commission that our Saviour gave to his Disciples;* 1.491 to go preach and make disciples to him in all Nations (for that is the strict significa∣tion of the Word), baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

By the first Teaching or making of Disciples, that must go before Baptism, is to be meant the Convincing the World, that Iesus is the Christ, the true Messias, anointed of God, with a fulness of Grace and of the Spirit with∣out measure; and sent to be the Saviour and Redeemer of the World. And when any were brought to acknowledge this, then they were to Bap∣tize them, to initiate them to this Religion, by obliging them to Renounce all Idolatry and Ungodliness, as well as all secular and carnal Lusts, and then they led them into the Water; and with no other Garments but what might cover Nature, they at first laid them down in the Water, as a Man is laid in a Grave, and then they said those words, I baptize or wash thee in the Name of the Father,* 1.492 Son and Holy Ghost: Then they raised them up again and clean Garments were put on them: From whence came the Phrases of being baptized into Christ's death,* 1.493 of being buried with him by baptism, into death: Of our being risen with Christ, and of our putting on the Lord Iesus Christ; of putting off the Old Man and putting on the New. After Baptism was thus performed, the baptized Person was to be farther instructed in all the Specialities of the Christian Religion: And in all the Rules of Life that Christ had prescribed.

This was plainly a different Baptism from St. Iohn's; a Profession was made in it, not in general of the Belief of a Messias soon to appear, but in particular, that Iesus was the Messias.

The Stipulation in St. Iohn's Baptism was Repentance; but here it is the Belief of the whole Christian Religion: In St. Iohn's Baptism they indeed promised Repentance, and he received them into the earnests of the King∣dom of the Messias; but it does not appear that St. Iohn either did pro∣mise them Remission of Sins, or that he had Commission so to do: For Re∣pentance and Remission of Sins were not joined together till after the Resur∣rection of Christ;* 1.494 that he appointed that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be preached in his Name among all Nations, beginning at Ierusalem.

In the Baptism of Christ, I mean that which he appointed, after his Resurrection (for the Baptism of his Disciples before that time was no doubt the same with St. Iohn's Baptism), there was to be an Instruction given in that great Mystery of the Christian Religion concerning the Fa∣ther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; which those who had only received St. Iohn's Baptism knew not: They did not so much as know that there was a Holy Ghost;* 1.495 That is, they knew nothing of the extraordinary Effusion of the Holy Ghost. And it is expresly said, that those of St. Iohn's Baptism, when

St. Paul explained to them the difference between the Baptism of Christ, and that of St. Iohn, that they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus. For St. Iohn in his Baptism had only initiated them to the belief of a Mes∣sias; but had not said a word of Iesus as being that Messias.* 1.496 So that this must be fixed that these two Baptisms were different; the one was a dawn∣ing or imperfect beginning to the other, as he that administred the one was like the Morning Star before the Sun of Righteousness.

Our Saviour had this Ordinance (that was then imperfect, and was to be afterwards compleated when he himself had finished all that he came into the World to do) he had I say this visibly in his eye when he spake to Ni∣codemus, and told him, that except a man were born again he could not see (or discern) the Kingdom of God: By which he meant that entire change and renovation of a man's mind, and of all his powers through which he must pass, before he could discern the true Characters of the Dispensation of the Messias; for that is the sense in which the Kingdom of God does stand, almost universally through the whole Gospel. When Nicodemus was amazed at this odd expression, and seemed to take it literally; our Saviour answered more fully, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. The mean∣ing of which seems to be this, that except a man came to be renewed, by an ablution like the Baptism which the Iews used, that imported the out∣ward profession of a change of Doctrine and of Heart, and with that ex∣cept he were inwardly changed by a secret power called the Spirit, that should transform his nature, he could not become one of his Disciples, or a true Christian; which is meant by his entring into the Kingdom of God, or the Dispensation of the Messias.

Upon this Institution and Commission given by Christ, we see the Apo∣stles went up and down Preaching and Baptizing. And so far were they from considering Baptism only as a carnal Rite, or a low Element, above which a higher Dispensation of the Spirit was to raise them, that when St. Peter saw the Holy Ghost visibly descend upon Cornelius and his Friends, he upon that immediately Baptized them; and said,* 1.497 Can any man forbid (or deny) water that these should not be baptized; which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Our Saviour has also made Baptism one of the Pre∣cepts, tho' not one of the Means, necessary to Salvation. A Mean is that which does so certainly procure a thing, that it being had, the thing to which it is a certain and necessary Mean is also had; and without it the thing cannot be had; there being a natural connexion between it and the End. Whereas a Precept is an Institution, in which there is no such na∣tural efficiency; but it is positively commanded, so that the neglecting it is a contempt of the Authority that commanded it: And therefore in obeying the Precept, the value or vertue of the action lies only in the obe∣dience. This distinction appears very clearly in what our Saviour has said both of Faith and Baptism.* 1.498 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned.

Where it appears, that Faith is the Mean of Salvation with which it is to be had, and not without it; since such a believing as makes a man receive the whole Gospel as true, and so firmly to depend upon the Pro∣mises that are made in it; as to observe all the Laws and Rules that are prescribed by it, such a Faith as this gives us so sure a title to all the Bles∣sings of this New Covenant, that it is impossible that we should continue in this state and not partake of them; and it is no less impossible that we should partake of them, unless we do thus believe. It were not suteable to the Truth and Holiness of the Divine Nature, to void a Covenant so so∣lemnly

made; and that in favour of wicked men, who will not be refor∣med by it: So Faith is the certain and necessary Mean of our Salvation; and is so put by Christ, since upon our having it we shall be saved, as well as damned upon our not having it.

On the other hand, the nature of a Ritual Action, even when com∣manded, is such, that unless we could imagine that there is a Charm in it, which is contrary to the Spirit and Genius of the Gospel, which designs to save us by reforming our Natures, we cannot think that there can be any thing in it that is of it self, effectual as a Mean; therefore it must on∣ly be considered as a Command that is given us, which we are bound to obey; if we acknowledge the Authority of the Command. But this being an Action that is not always in our power, but is to be done by another, it were to put our Salvation or Damnation in the power of another, to ima∣gine that we cannot be saved without Baptism; and therefore it is only a Precept which obliges us in order to our Salvation; and our Saviour by leaving it out when he reversed the words, saying only, he that believeth not, without adding, and is not Baptized, shall be damned, does plain∣ly insinuate that it is not a Mean, but only a Precept in order to our Sal∣vation.

As for the Ends and Purposes of Baptism, St. Paul gives us two; the one is, that we are all baptized into on•• body, we are made members one of ano∣ther:* 1.499 We are admitted to the So••••••ty of Christians, and to all the Rights and Priviledges of that Body, which is the Church. And in order to this, the outward action of Baptism▪ when regularly gone about, is sufficient. We cannot see into the sincerity o•• mens Hearts: Outward Professions and regular Actions are all that fall under mens Observation and Judgment. But a second End of Baptism is Internal and Spiritual. Of this St. Paul speaks in very high terms, when he says that God has saved us according to his mer∣cy,* 1.500 by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. It were a strange perverting the design of these words to say that somewhat Spiritual is to be understood by this washing of regeneration, and not Bap∣tism; when as to the word save, that is here ascribed to it, St. Peter gives that undeniably to Baptism; and St. Paul elsewhere in two different pla∣ces,* 1.501 makes our Baptism to represent our being dead to sin, and buried with Christ; and our being risen and quickned with him, and made alive unto God; which are words that do very plainly import Regeneration. So that St. Paul must be understood to speak of Baptism in these words; here then is the inward effect of Baptism: It is a death to sin, and a new life in Christ, in imitation of him, and in conformity to his Gospel. So that here is very expresly delivered to us, somewhat that rises far above the Badge of a Profession, or a Mark of difference.

That does indeed belong to Baptism, it makes us the visible Members of that one Body, into which we are Baptized, or admitted by Baptism; but that which saves us in it, which both deadens and quickens us, must be a thing of another nature. If Baptism were only the receiving us into the Society of Christians, there were no need of saying, I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. It were more proper to say, I Baptize thee in the Name, or by the Authority of the Church. There∣fore these august words, that were dictated by our Lord himself, shew us that there is somewhat in it that is Internal, which comes from God, that it is an admitting men into somewhat that depends only on God, and for the giving of which the authority can only be derived by him. But after all, this is not to be believed, to be of the nature of a Charm, as if the very act of Baptism carried always with it an inward Regeneration. Here

we must confess that very early some Doctrines arose upon Baptism, that we cannot be determined by. The words of our Saviour to Nicodemus were expounded so, as to import the absolute necessity of Baptism in order to Salvation; for it not being observed that the Dispensation of the Messias was meant by the Kingdom of God, but it being taken to signifie Eternal Glory, that expression of our Saviour's was understood to import this, that no Man could be saved unless he were Baptized; so it was believed to be simply necessary to Salvation: A natural consequence that followed up∣on that was to allow all Persons leave to Baptize Clergy and Laity, Me•• and Women, since it seemed necessary to suffer every Person to do that with∣out which Salvation could not be had. Upon this these hasty Baptisms were used, without any special Sponsion on the part of those who desired it; of which it may be reasonably doubted whether such a Baptism be true, in which no Sponsion is made; and this cannot be well answered but by say∣ing that a general and an implied Sponsion, is to be considered to be made by their Parents while they desire them to be Baptized.

Another Opinion that arose out of the former, was the mixing of the outward and the inward effects of Baptism: It being believed that every Person that was born of the Water, was also born of the Spirit; and that the renewing of the Holy Ghost, did always accompany the washing of Regenera∣tion. And this obliged St. Austin (as was formerly told) to make that dif∣ference between the regenerate and the predestinated; for he thought that all who were Baptized, were also regenerated. St. Peter has stated this so fully, that if his words are well considered, they will clear the whole mat∣ter. He, after he had set forth the miserable state in which Mankind was, under the figure of the Deluge, in which an Ark was prepared for Noah and his Family, says upon that, The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us:* 1.502 Upon which he makes a short digression to explain the nature of Baptism, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer (or the Demand and Interrogation) of a good conscience towards God; by the Resurrection of Iesus Christ, who is gone into Heaven. The meaning of all which is, that Christ having risen again, and having then had all power in heaven and in earth given to him, he had put that vertue in Baptism, that by it we are saved, as in an Ark, from that miserable state in which the world lies, and in which it must perish. But then he explains the way how it saves us; that it is not as a Physical action, as it washes away the filthiness of the flesh, or the body; like the Notion that the Gentiles might have of their Februations; or which is more natural, considering to whom he writes, like the Opinions that the Iews had of their Cleansings after their Legal Im∣purities, from which their Washings and Bathings did absolutely free them. The Salvation that we Christians have by Baptism is effected by that Federation into which we enter, when upon the Demands that are made of our renouncing the Devil, the World and the Flesh, and of our believing in Christ, and our Repentance towards God, we make such An∣swers from a good Conscience, as agree with the end and design of Baptism; then by our thus coming into Covenant with God we are saved in Bap∣tism. So that the Salvation by Baptism is given by reason of the federal compact that is made in it. Now this being made outwardly, according to the Rules that are prescribed, that must make the Baptism good among Men, as to all the outward and visible effects of it: But since it is the an∣swer of a good Conscience only that saves, then an answer from a bad Consci∣ence, from a hypocritical Person, who does not inwardly think or pur∣pose according to what he professes outwardly, cannot save; but does on the contrary aggravate his Damnation. Therefore our Article puts

the efficacy of Baptism, in order to the forgiveness of our sins, and to our Adoption and Salvation, upon the vertue of Prayer to God; that is, up∣on those Vows and other acts of Devotion that accompany them: So that when the seriousness of the mind accompanies the regularity of the action, then both the outward and inward effects of Baptism are attained by it; and we are not only Baptized into one Body, but are also saved by Baptism. So that upon the whole matter, Baptism is a federal admission into Chri∣stianity; in which on God's part all the Blessings of the Gospel are made over to the Baptized: And on the other hand the Person Baptized takes on him by a solemn Profession and Vow, to observe and adhere to the whole Christian Religion. So it is a very natural distinction to say, that the outward effects of Baptism follow it as outwardly performed; but that the inward effects of it follow upon the inward acts; but this dif∣ference is still to be observed between inward acts and outward actions; that when the outward action is rightly performed, the Church must reckon the Baptism good, and never renew it: But if one has been wanting in the inward acts, those may be afterwards renewed, and that want may be made up by Repentance.

Thus all that the Scriptures have told us concerning Baptism seems to be sufficiently explained. There remains only one place that may seem somewhat strange. St. Paul says that Christ sent him not to Baptize, but to Preach:* 1.503 Which some have carried so far as to infer from thence that Preaching is of more value than Baptism. But it is to be considered that the Preaching of the Apostles was of the nature of a Promulgation made by Heraulds: It was an act of a special Authority by which he in particu∣lar was to convert the World from Idolatry and Iudaism, to acknowledge Iesus to be the true Messias.* 1.504

Now when Men by the Preaching of the Apostles, and by the Mira∣cles that accompanied it, were so wrought on as to believe that Iesus was the Christ;* 1.505 then according to the practice of Philip towards the Eunuch of Ethiopia; and of St. Paul to his Jayler at Philippi, they might imme∣diately Baptize them; yet most commonly there was a special In∣struction to be used, before Persons were Baptized, who might in gene∣ral have some Conviction, and yet not be so fully satisfied, but that a great deal of more pains was to be taken to carry them on to that full assurance of Faith, which was necessary. This was a work of much time, and was to be managed by the Pastors or Teachers of the several Churches: So that the meaning of what St. Paul says was this, that he was to pub∣lish the Gospel from City to City, but could not descend to the particu∣lar labour of preparing and instructing of the Persons to be Baptized, and to the Baptizing them when so prepared. If he had entred upon this Work he could not have made that progress, nor have founded those Churches that he did. All this is therefore misunderstood when it is ap∣plied to such Preaching as is still continued in the Church; which does not succeed the Apostolical Preaching, that was inspired and infallible; but comes in the room of that Instruction and Teaching which was then performed by the Pastors of the Church.

The last Head in this Article relates to the Baptism of Infants, which is spoken of with that moderation, that appears very eminently through the whole Articles of our Church, on this Head. It is only said to be most agreeable with the Institution of Christ, and that therefore it is to be in ••ny ways retained in the Church. Now to open this, it is to be consider∣••d, that tho' Baptism and Circumcision do not in every particular come to a Parallel; yet they do agree in two things: The one is, that both

were the Rites of admission into their respective Covenants, and to the Rights and Privileges that did arise out of them; and the other is, that in them both, there was an Obligation laid on the Persons, to the obser∣vance of that whole Law to which they were so initiated. St. Paul arguing against Circumcision, lays this down as an uncontested Maxim, That if a Man was Circumc••••••d, he became thereby a debtor to the whole law.

Parents had by the Iewish Constitution,* 1.506 an Authority given them to conclude their Children under that Obligation; so that the Soul and Will of the Child was so far put in the power of the Parents, that they could bring them under federal Obligations, and thereby procure to them a share in federal Blessings. And it is probable that from hence it was, that when the Iews made Proselytes, they considered them as having such Authority over their Children, that they Baptized them first, and then Circumcised them, though Infants.

Now since Christ took Baptism from them, and appointed it to be the federal Admission to his Religion, as Circumcision had been in the Mosai∣cal Dispensation, it is reasonable to believe, that except where he declared a change that he made in it, in all other respects it was to go on and to continue as before; especially when the Apostles in their first Preaching told the Iews that the Promises were made to them and to their Children;* 1.507 which the Iews must have understood according to what they were already in possession of, that they could initiate their Children into their Religion, bring them under the obligations of it, and procure to them a share in those Blessings that belonged to it. The Law of Nature and Nations puts Children in the Power of their Parents; they are naturally their Guar∣dians, and if they are entitled to any thing, their Parents have a right to transact about it, because of the weakness of the Child; and what Con∣tracts soever they make, by which the Child does not lose but is a gainer, these do certainly bind the Child. It is then suitable both to the constitu∣tion of Mankind, and to the dispensation of the Mosaical Covenant, that Parents may dedicate their Children to God, and may bring them under the obligations of the Gospel; and if they may do that, then they cer∣tainly procure to them with it, or in lieu of it, a share in the blessings and promises of the Gospel. So that they may offer their Children, either themselves, or by such others of their Friends, to whom for that occasion they transfer that Right which they have, to transact for and to bind their Children.

All this receives a great confirmation from the decision which St. Paul makes upon a case that must have hap••••ned commonly at that time; which was, when one of the Parties in a Married state, Husband or Wife, was Converted, while the other continued still in the former state of Ido∣latry, or Infidelity: Here then a scruple naturally arose, Whether a Be∣liever or Christian might still live in a married state with an Infidel. Be∣sides the ill usage to which that diversity of Religion might give occa∣sion; another difficulty might be made, Whether a Person defiled by Idolatry, did not communicate that Impurity to the Christian, and whe∣ther the Children born in such a Marriage, were to be reckoned a holy seed, according to the Iewish Phrase, or an unholy, unclean Children, that is, Heathenish Children; who were not to be Dedicated to God, nor to be Admitted into Covenant with him: For unclean in the Old Testament, and Unci••cumcised, signify sometimes the same thing; and so St. Peter said that in the case of Cornelius God had shewed him, that he should call no Man common or unclean;* 1.508 in allusion to all which St. Paul determines the case, not by an immediate Revelation, but by the Inferences that he

drew from what had been Revealed to him; he does appoint the Christi∣an to live with the Infidel, and says, that the Christian is so far from be∣ing defiled by the Infidel, that there is a communication of a Blessing that passes from the Christian to the Infidel; the one being the better for the Prayers of the other, and sharing in the Blessings bestowed on the other: The better part was accepted of God, in whom mercy rejoices over judg∣ment; there was a communication of a Blessing that the Christian de∣rived to the Infidel; which at least went so far, that their Children were not unclean; that is, shut out from being dedicated to God, but were holy. Now it is to be considered that in the New Testament Christians, and Saints, or Holy, stand all promiscuously. The Purity of the Christian Doctrine, and the Dedication by which Christians offer up themselves to God, makes them Holy.

In Scripture Holiness stands in a double Sense, the one is a true and real Purity, by which a Man's Faculties and Actions become Holy; the other is a dedicated Holiness, when any thing is appropriated to God; in which sense it stands most commonly in the Old Testament. So Times, Places, and not only Persons, but even Utensils applied to the Service of God, are called Holy. In the New Testament, Christian and Saint are the same thing; so the saying that Children are Holy, when one of the Parents is a Christian, must import this, that the Child has also a right to be made Holy, or to be made a Christian; and by consequence that by the Parents Dedication that Child may be made Holy, or a Christian.

Upon these Reasons we conclude, That though there is no express Precept or Rule given in the New Testament for the Baptism of Infants, yet it is most agreeable to the Institution of Christ, since he conformed his Institutions to those of the Mosaical Law, as far as could consist with his Design; and therefore in a thing of this kind, in which the just tender∣ness of the human Nature does dispose Parents to secure to their Children a Title to the Mercies and Blessings of the Gospel, there is no reason to think that this being so fully set forth and assured to the Iews in the Old Testament, that Christ should not have intended to give Parents the same Comforts and Assurances by his Gospel, that they had under the Law of Moses: Since nothing is said against it, we may conclude from the nature of the two Dispensations, and the proportion and gradation that is between them, that Children under the New Testament are a holy seed, as well as they were under the Old; and by consequence that they may be now Baptized as well as they were then Circumcised.

If this may be done, then it is very reasonable to say what is said in the Article concerning it, That it ought in any wise to be retained in the Church: For the same Humanity that obliges Parents to feed their Children, and to take care of them while they are in such a helpless state, must dictate, that it is much more incumbent on them, and is as much more necessary, as the Soul is more valuable than the Body, for them to do all that in them lies for the Souls of their Children, for securing to them a share in the Blessings and Privileges of the Gospel, and for Dedi∣cating them early to the Christian Religion. The Office for Baptizing Infants is in the same words with that for Persons of Riper Age; because Infants being then in the power of their Parents, who are of Age, are considered as in them, and as binding themselves by the Vows that they make in their Name. Therefore the Office carries on the supposition of an internal Regeneration; and in that helpless state the Infant is offered up and Dedicated to God; and provided, that when he comes to Age he takes those Vows on himself, and lives like a Person so in Covenant with God,

then he shall find the full effects of Baptism; and if he dies in that state of Incapacity, he being Dedicated to God, is certainly accepted of by him; and by being put in the Second Adam, all the bad effects of his having descended from the First Adam, are quite taken away:* 1.509 Christ, when on Earth, encouraged those who brought little Children to him, he took them in his arms, and laid his hands on them and blessed them, and said, suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God: Whatever these words may signify mystically, the literal meaning of them is, that little Children may be admitted into the Di∣spensation of the Messias, and by consequence that they may be Baptized.

ARTICLE XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Chri∣stians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death: Insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a par∣taking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be Proved by Holy Writ, but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many Superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner; and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's Ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up and Worshipped.

In the Edition of these Articles in Edward the VIth's Reign, there was another long Paragraph against Transubstantiation added in these words: Forasmuch as the Truth of Man's Nature requireth, that the Body of one and the self-same Man cannot be at one time in divers places, but must needs be in one certain place; there∣fore the Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places: And because as Holy Scripture doth teach, Christ was taken up into Heaven, and there shall continue un∣to the end of the World; a Faithful Man ought not either to Believe, or openly Confess the Real and Bodily Presence, as they term it, of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

WHEN these Articles were at first prepared by the Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's Reign, this Paragraph was made a part of them; for the Original Subscription by both Houses of Convocation, yet extant, shews this. But the design of the Government was at that time much turned to the drawing over the Body of the Nation to the Re∣formation, in whom the old Leven had gone deep; and no part of it deeper than the belief of the Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Sacra∣ment; therefore it was thought not expedient to offend them by so par∣ticular a Definition in this matter; in which the very word Real Presence was rejected. It might, perhaps, be also suggested, that here a Defini∣tion was made that went too much upon the Principles of Natural Philo∣sophy; which how true soever, they might not be the proper subject of an Article of Religion. Therefore it was thought fit to suppress this Para∣graph; though it was a part of the Article that was Subscribed, yet it was not published, but the Paragraph that follows, The Body of Christ, &c. was put in its stead, and was received and published by the next Convo∣cation; which upon the matter was a full Explanation of the way of

Christ's Presence in this Sacrament; that he is present in a heavenly and spi∣ritual Manner, and that Faith is the mean by which he is received. This seemed to be more Theological; and it does indeed amount to the same thing. But howsoever we see what was the Sense of the first Convoca∣tion in Queen Elizabeth's Reign; it differed in nothing from that in King Edward's Time: And therefore though this Paragraph is now no Part of our Articles, yet we are certain that the Clergy at that time did not at all doubt of the Truth of it; we are sure it was their Opinion: Since they subscribed it, though they did not think fit to publish it, at first; and though it was afterwards changed for another, that was the same in Sense.

In the treating of this Article, I shall first lay down the Doctrine of this Church with the Grounds of it; and then I shall examine the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which must be done copiously: For next to the Do∣ctrine of Infallibility, this is the most valued of all their other Tenets; this is the most Important in it self, since it is the main Part of their Worship, and the chief Subject of all their Devotions. There is not any one thing in which both Clergy and Laity are more concerned; which is more gene∣rally studied, and for which they pretend they have more plausible Co∣lours, both from Scripture and the Fathers: and if Sense and Reason seem to press hard upon it, they reckon, that as they understand the Words of St. Paul, every thought must be captivated into the obedience of Faith.* 1.510

In order to the expounding our Doctrine, we must consider the Occasion and the Institution of this Sacrament. The Iews were required once a Year to meet at Ierusalem, in remembrance of the deliverance of their Fa∣thers out of Egypt.* 1.511 Moses appointed that every Family should kill a Lamb whose Blood was to be sprinkled on their Door-posts and Lintels, and whose Flesh they were to eat; at the sight of which Blood thus sprinkled, the destroying Angel that was to be sent out to kill the First-born of every Family in Egypt, was to pass over all the Houses that were so marked: And from that passing by or over the Israelites, the Lamb was called the Lord's passover, as being then the Sacrifice, and afterwards the Memorial of that Passover. The People of Israel were required to keep up the Memo∣rial of that Transaction, by slaying a Lamb before the Place where God should set his Name; and by eating it up that Night: They were also to eat with it a Sallet of bitter Herbs and unleavened Bread; and when they went to eat of the Lamb they repeated these Words of Moses; That it was the Lord's Passover. Now tho' the first Lamb that was killed in Egypt, was indeed the Sacrifice upon which God promised to pass over their Houses, yet the Lambs that were afterwards offered, were only the Memorials of it; though they still carried that Name, which was given to the First: And were called the Lord's Passover.

So that the Iews were in the Paschal-Supper accustomed to call the Me∣morial of a thing, by the Name of that of which it was the Memorial: And as the Deliverance out of Egypt, was a Type and Representation of that greater Deliverance, that we were to have by the Messias, the first Lamb being the Sacrifice of that Deliverance,* 1.512 and the succeeding Lambs the Memorials of it; so in order to this new and greater Deliverance, Christ himself was our Passover that was sacrificed for us: He was the Lamb of God that was both to take away the Sins of the World, and was to lead Captivity Captive: To bring us out of the Bondage of Sin and Satan into the Obedience of his Gospel.

He therefore chose the time of the Passover that he might be then offered up for us: And did Institute this Memorial of it, while he was celebra∣ting

the Iewish Pascha with his Disciples, who were so much accustomed to the Forms and Phrases of that Supper, in which every Master of a Fami∣ly did officiate among his Houshold,* 1.513 that it was very Natural to them to understand all that our Saviour said or did, according to those Forms with which they were acquainted.

There were after Supper upon a new covering of the Table, Loaves of Unleavened Bread, and Cups of Wine set on it; in which though the Bread was very unacceptable, yet they drank liberally of the Wine: Christ took a Portion of that Bread and brake it; and gave it to his Disci∣ples, and said, This is my body which is broken for you: Do this in remem∣brance of me. He did not say only, this is my body, but this is my body broken; so that his Body must be understood to be there, in its broken State, if the Words are to be expounded literally. And no reason can be as∣signed, why the Word Broken should be so separated from Body; or that the Bread should be literally his Body, and not literally his Body broken: The whole Period must be either literally True, or must be understood mystically. And if any will say, that his Body cannot be there but in the same state in which it is now in Heaven; and since it is not now broken, nor is the Blood shed or separated from the Body there, therefore the Words must be understood thus; This is my Body which is to be broken. But from thence we argue, that since all is one Period, it must be all understood in the same Manner: And since it is impossible that Broken and Shed, can be un∣derstood literally of the Body and Blood, that therefore the whole is to be mystically understood; and this appears more evident since the Disciples, who were naturally slow at understanding the easiest Mysteries, that he opened to them, must naturally have understood those Words as they did the other Words of the Paschal Supper, This is the Lord's Passover. That is, this is the Memorial of it: And that the rather, since Christ added these Words, Do this in remembrance of me. If they had understood them in any other Sense, that must have surprized them, and naturally have led them to ask him many Questions: Which we find them doing upon Occasions that were much less surprizing, as appears by the Questions in the 14th of St. Iohn, that discourse coming probably immediately after this Institution: Whereas no Question was asked upon this; so it is reasonable to conclude that they could understand these Words, This is my Body, no other way, but as they understood that of the Lamb, This is the Lord's Passover. And by consequence as their celebrating the Pascha, was a constant Memorial of the Deliverance out of Egypt, and was a Symbolical Action by which they had a Title to the Blessings of the Covenant that Moses made with their Fathers; it was natural for them to conclude, that after Christ had made himself to be truly that, which the first Lamb was in a Type, the true Sacrifice of a greater and better Passover; they were to commemorate it and to communicate in the Benefits and Effects of it, by continuing that Action of taking, blessing, breaking and distributing of Bread: Which was to be the Memorial and the Communion of his Death in all succeed∣ing Ages.

This will yet appear more Evident from the Second Part of this Institu∣tion, he took the Cup and blessed it; and gave it to them, saying, This Cup is the New Testament, or New Covenant in my blood: drink ye all of it. Or, as the other Gospels report it, This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins. As Moses had enjoined the sprinkling of the Blood of the Lamb, so he himself sprinkled both the Book of the Law, and all the People, with the Blood of Calves and of Goats,* 1.514 saying, This is the Blood of the New Testament (or Covenant)

which God had enjoined you. The Blood of the Paschal Lamb, was the Token of that Covenant which God made then with them.

The Iews were under a very strict Prohibition of eating no Blood at all: But it seems by the Psalms, that when they payed their Vows unto God, they took in their Hands a cup of Salvation, that is,* 1.515 of an acknow∣ledgment of their Salvation, and so were to rejoice before the Lord.

These being the Laws and Customs of the Iews, they could not with∣out Horror have heard Christ when he gave them the Cup, say, This is my Blood: The Prohibition of Blood was given in such severe Terms, as that God would set his face against him that did eat blood,* 1.516 and cut him off from among his people: And this was so often repeated in the Books of Moses, that besides the natural Horror which Humanity gives at the mention of drink∣ing a Man's Blood, it was a special Part of their Religion to make no use of Blood; yet after all this, the Disciples were not startled at it: Which shews that they must have understood it in such a way, as was agreeable to the Law and Customs of their Country: and since St. Luke and St. Paul report the Words that our Saviour said when he gave it, dif∣ferently from what is reported by St. Matthew and St. Mark, it is most pro∣bable that he spake both the one and the other; that he first said, This is my Blood, and then as a clearer Explanation of it, he said, This cup is the New Testament in my Blood: The one being a more easy Expression and in a style to which the Iews had been more accustomed. They knew that the Blood of the Lamb was sprinkled; and by their so doing they entred in∣to a Covenant with God: And tho' the Blood was never to be sprinkled after the first Passover, yet it was to be poured out before the Lord, in re∣membrance of that sprinkling in Egypt: In remembrance of that deliver∣ance, they drank of the Cup of Blessing and Salvation, and rejoiced before the Lord. So that they could not understand our Saviour otherwise, than that the Cup so blessed, was to be to them the Assurance of a New Testa∣ment or Covenant which was to be established by the Blood of Christ; and which was to be shed: In lieu of which they were to drink this cup of Blessing and Praise.

According to their Customs and Phrases, the Disciples could understand our Saviour's Words in this Sense, and in no other. So that if he had in∣tended that they should have understood him otherwise, he must have ex∣pressed himself in another Manner: And must have enlarged upon it, to have corrected those Notions, into which it was otherwise most Natural for Iews to have fallen. Here is also to be remembred that which was for∣merly observed, upon the word Broken, that if the Words are to be ex∣pounded literally, then if the Cup is literally the Blood of Christ, it must be his Blood shed, poured out of his Veins and separated from his Body. And if it is impossible to understand it so, we conclude that we are in the Right to understand the whole Period in a mystical and figurative Sense. And therefore since a Man born and bred a Iew, and more particularly ac∣customed to the Paschal Ceremonies, could not have understood our Sa∣viour's Words, chiefly at the time of that Festivity, otherwise, than of a New Covenant that he was to make, in which his Body was to be broken, and his blood shed for the remission of Sins; and that he was to substitute Bread and Wine, to be the lasting Memorials of it, in the repeating of which, his Disciples were to renew their Covenant with God, and to claim a share in the blessings of it, this I say, was the Sense that must naturally have occurred to a Iew; upon all this, we must conclude, that this is the true Sense of these Words: Or, that otherwise our Saviour must have enlarged more upon them, and expressed his meaning more particularly. Since

therefore he said no more than what according to the Ideas and Customs of the Iews, must have been understood as has been explained, we must conclude, that it, and it only, is the true Sense of them.

But we must next consider the importance of a long Discourse of our Saviour's, set down by St. Iohn, which seems such a preparation of his Apostles to understand this Institution literally,* 1.517 that the weight of this Argument must turn upon the meaning of that Discourse. The design of that was to shew, that the Doctrine of Christ was more Excellent than the Law of Moses; that though Moses gave the Israelites Manna from Heaven, to nourish their Bodies, yet notwithstanding that they died in the Wilder∣ness: But Christ was to give his Followers such Food, that it should give them Life; so that if they did eat of it they should never die: Where it is apparent that the Bread and nourishment must be such as the life was; and that being Eternal and Spiritual, the Bread must be so understood: For it is clearly expressed how that Food was to be received; he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.* 1.518

Since then he had formerly said, that the Bread which he was to give, should make them live for ever; and since here it is said, that this Life is given by Faith, then this Bread must be his Doctrine: For, this is that which Faith receives. And when the Iews desired him to give them ever∣more of that Bread; he answered, I am the bread of life, he that comes to me shall never hunger,* 1.519 and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

In these words he tells them that they received that Bread by coming to him, and by believing on him. Christ calls himself that Bread, and says, that a Man must eat thereof, which is plainly a Figure; and if Figures are confessed to be in some Parts of their Discourse, there is no reason to deny that they run quite through it. Christ says, that this Bread was his flesh, which he was to give for the life of the world; which can only be meant of his Offering himself up upon the Cross for the Sins of the World: The Iews murmured at this and said, how can this Man give us his flesh to eat? To which our Saviour answers, That except they did eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man,* 1.520 they had no life in them.

Now if these words are to be understood of a literal eating of his Flesh, in the Sacrament, then no Man can be saved that does not receive it: It was a natural Consequence of the expounding these Words of the Sacra∣ment, to give it to Children; since it is so expresly said, that Life is not to be had without it. But the words that come next, carry this Matter farther; whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: It is plain that Christ is here speaking of that without which no Man can have Life, and by which all who receive it have Life; if therefore this is to be expounded of the Sacrament, none can be damned that does receive it, and none can be saved that receives it not.

Therefore since eternal life does always follow the eating of Christ's flesh, and the drinking his blood, and cannot be had without it; then this must be meant of an Internal and Spiritual feeding on him: For, as none are sa∣ved without that, so all are saved that have it. This is yet clearer from the words that follow, my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed: It may well be inferred that Christ's Flesh is eaten in the same Sense, in which he says it is meat; now certainly it is not literally meat: For none do say that the Body is nourished by it; and yet there is somewhat Em∣phatical in this, since the word indeed is not added in vain, but to give weight to the Expression.

It is also said, He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, dwells in me and I in him:* 1.521 Here the description seems to be made of that eating and drinking of

his Flesh and Blood; that it is such as the mutual indwelling of Christ and Believers is: Now that is certainly only Internal and Spiritual, and not Carnal or Literal: And therefore such also must the eating and drinking be.

All this seems to be very fully confirmed from the Conclusion of that Discourse, which ought to be considered as the Key to it all; for when the Iews were offended at the hardness of Christ's Discourse, he said, It is the Spirit that quickneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:* 1.522 The words I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are Life: Which do plainly Import, that his former Discourse was to be understood in a spiritual Sense, that it was a divine Spirit that quickned them, or gave them that eternal Life, of which he had been speaking: And that the Flesh, his natural Body, was not the conveyer of it.

All this is confirmed by the Sense in which we find eating and drinking frequently used in the Scriptures, according to what is observed by Iewish Writers; they stand for Wisdom, Learning, and all intellectual Appre∣hensions through which the Soul of Man is preserved, by the Perfection that is in them, as the Body is preserved by Food: So buy and eat, eat fat of things, drink of wine well refined.

Maimonides also observes,* 1.523 that whensoever eating and drinking are mentioned in the Book of Proverbs, that they are to be understood of Wisdom and the Law: And after he has brought several Places of Scrip∣ture to this Purpose, He concludes, that because this acceptation of eating, occurs so often and is so manifest, as if it were the primary and most proper Sense of the Word; therefore hunger and thirst stand for a privation of Wis∣dom and Vnderstanding: And the Caldee Paraphrast turns these Words, ye shall draw Water out of the Wells of Salvation, thus,* 1.524 ye shall receive a new Doctrine with joy from some select Persons.

Since then the Figure of eating and drinking was used among the Iews, for receiving and imbibing a Doctrine; it was no wonder if our Saviour pursued it in a Discourse, in which there are several hints given to shew us, that it ought to be so understood.

It is further observable, that our Saviour did frequently follow that com∣mon way of Instruction among the Eastern Nations, by Figures that to us would seem strong and bold. These were much used in those Parts, to excite the Attention of the Hearers, and they are not always to be severely expounded according to the full Extent that the words will bear. The Parable of the unjust Judge, of the unjust Steward, of the ten Virgins, of plucking out the right Eye, and cutting off the right Hand or Foot, and several others might be instanced. Our Saviour in these considered the Genius of those to whom he spoke: So that these Figures must be re∣strained only to that Particular, for which he meant them; and must not be stretched to every thing to which the Words may be carried. We find our Saviour compares himself to a great many Things; to a Vine, a Door, and a Way: And therefore when the Scope of a Discourse does plainly run in a Figu••e, we are not to go and descant on every Word of it; much less may any pretend to say, that some Parts of it are to be understood li∣terally, and some Parts figuratively.

For instance, if that Chapter of St. Iohn is to be understood literally, then Christ's Flesh and Blood must be the Nourishment of our Bodies, so as to be meat indeed; and that we shall never hunger any more, and never die after we have eat of it: If therefore all do confess that those Expressions are to be understood figuratively, then we have the same reason to conclude that the whole is a Figure: For, it is as reasonable for us to make all of it a Fi∣gure,

as it is for them to make those Parts of it a Figure, which they can∣not conveniently expound in a literal Sense. From all which it is abun∣dantly clear, that nothing can be drawn from that Discourse of our Sa∣viour's, to make it reasonable to believe, that the words of the Institu∣tion of this Sacrament ought to be literally understood: On the contrary our Saviour himself calls the Wine, after those Words had been used by him, the Fruit of the Vine, which is as strict a Form of Speech as can well be imagined, to make us understand that the Nature of the Wine was not altered: And when St. Paul treats of it in those two Chapters in which all that is left us besides the History of the Institution, con∣cerning this Sacrament, is to be found, he calls it five times Bread, and never once the Body of Christ.* 1.525 In one Place he calls it the Communion of the Body, as the Cup is the Communion of the Blood of Christ. Which is ra∣ther a saying that it is in some sort and after a manner, the Body and the Blood of Christ, than that it is so strictly speaking.

If this Sacrament had been that mysterious and unconceivable Thing, which it has been since believed to be; we cannot imagine, but that the Books of the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, and their Epistles, should have contained fuller Explanations of it; and larger Instructions about it.

There is enough indeed said in them to support the plain and natural Sense, that we give to this Institution; and because no more is said, and the design of it is plainly declared to be to remember Christ's death, and to shew it forth till he come, we reckon that by this natural Simplicity, in which this Matter is delivered to us, we are very much confirmed in that plain and easy Signification, which we put upon our Saviour's words. Plain things need not be insisted on: But if the most sublime and wonderful Thing in the World, seems to be delivered in Words that yet are capable of a lower and plainer Sense, then unless there is a concurrence of other Circumstan∣ces, to force us to that higher meaning of them, we ought not to go into it; for simple Things prove themselves: Whereas the more extraordina∣ry that any thing is, it requires a fulness and evidence in the Proof pro∣portioned to the uneasiness of conceiving or believing it.

We do therefore understand our Saviour's Institution thus, that as he was to give his body to be broken, and his blood to be shed for our Sins, so he intend∣ed that this his Death and Suffering, should be still commemorated by all such as look for remission of sins by it; not only in their Thoughts and De∣votions, but in a visible Representation: Which he appointed should be done in Symbols, that should be both very plain and simple, and yet very expressive of that which he intended should be remembred by them.

Bread is the plainest Food that the Body of Man can receive; and Wine was the common nourishing Liquor of that Countrey: So he made choice of these Materials, and in them appointed a Representation and Remem∣brance to be made of his body broken, and of his blood shed; that is, of his Death and Sufferings till his Second coming: And he obliged his Followers to repeat this frequently. In the doing of it according to his Institution, they profess the Belief of his Death, for the Remission of their Sins, and that they look for his Second coming.

This does also import, that as Bread and Wine are the simplest of bodi∣ly Nourishments, ••o his Death is that which restores the Souls of those that do believe in him: As Bread and Wine convey a vital Nourishment to the Body, so the Sacrifice of his Death conveys somewhat to the Soul that is vital, that fortifies and exalts it. And as Water in Baptism is a na∣tural Emblem of the Purity of the Christian Religion, Bread and Wine in

the Eucharist are the Emblems of somewhat that is derived to us, that rai∣ses our Faculties and fortifies all our Powers.

St. Pàul does very plainly tell us, that unworthy receivers that did neither examine nor discern themselves, nor yet discern the Lord's Body, were guilty of the body and blood of the Lord;* 1.526 and did eat and drink their own damnation: That is, such as do receive it without truly believing the Chri∣stian Religion, without a grateful acknowledgment of Christ's Death and Sufferings, without feeling that they are walking suitably to this Religion that they profess, and without that decency and charity, which becomes so Holy an Action; but that receive the Bread and Wine, only as bare bo∣dily Nourishments; without considering that Christ has instituted them to be the Memorials of his Death; such Persons are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ: That is, they are guilty either of a Prophanation of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, or they do in a manner Crucify him again, and put him to an open shame; when they are so faulty as the Corinthians were, in observing this Holy Institution, with so little Reverence, and with such scandalous Disorders, as those were for which he reproached them.

Of such as did thus Prophane this Institution, he says farther, that they do eat and drink their own Damnation or Iudgment; that is, Punishment; for the word rendred Damnation, signifies sometimes only temporary Pu∣nishments.

So it is said,* 1.527 that Iudgment (the Word is the same) must begin at the House of God: God had sent such Judgments upon the Corinthians for those disorderly Practices of theirs, that some had fallen sick and others had died, perhaps by reason of their drinking to excess in those Feasts: But as God's Judgments have come upon them, so the words that follow shew that these Judgments were only Chastisements, in order to the delivering them from the Condemnation, under which the World lies. It being said, that when we are judged we are chastened of the Lord,* 1.528 that we should not be condemned with the World. Therefore though God may very justly, and even in great Mercy punish Men who prophane this Holy Ordinance, yet it is an unreasonable Terrour, and contrary to the Nature of the Gospel Covenant, to carry this so far, as to think that it is an impardonable Sin; which is punished with eternal Damnation.

We have now seen the ill Effects of unworthy Receiving, and from hence according to that Gradation, that is to be observed in the Mercy of God in the Gospel, that it not only holds a Proportion with his Justice, but rejoyceth over it, we may well conclude that the good Effects upon the worthy receiving of it, are equal, if not superiour to the bad Effects upon the unworthy receiving of it: And that the Nourishment which the Types, the Bread and the Wine, give the Body, are answered in the Effects, that the thing signified by them, has upon the Soul.

In explaining this there is some diversity: Some teach that this Memo∣morial of the Death of Christ, when seriously and devoutly gone about, when it animates our Faith, encreases our Repentance, and inflames our Love and Zeal, and so unites us to God and to our Brethren, that I say when these follow it, which it naturally excites in all holy and good Minds, then they draw down the returns of Prayer, and a farther in∣crease of Grace in us; according to the Nature and Promises of the New Covenant: And in this they put the Vertue and Efficacy of this Sacrament.

But others think that all this belongs only to the inward Acts of the Mind, and is not Sacramental: And therefore they think that the Eucharist is a federal Act, in which as on the one Hand we renew our Baptismal Co∣venant with God, so on the other Hand we receive in the Sacrament, a

visible Consignation as in a Tradition by a Symbol or Pledge, of the bles∣sings of the New Covenant, which they think is somewhat superadded to those returns of our Prayers, or of our other inward Acts.

This they think answers the nourishment which the Body receives from the Symbols of Bread and Wine; and stands in opposition to that of the unworthy Receivers, being guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord; and their eating and drinking that which will bring some judgment upon them∣selves. This they also found on these words of St. Paul, The cup of bles∣sing that we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

St. Paul considers the Bread which was offered by the People, as an emblem of their Unity, that as there was one Loaf, so they were one Body; and that they were all partakers of that one Loaf: From hence it is inferred, that since the word rendred Communion, signifies a communication in fellowship, or Partnership, that therefore the meaning of it is, that in the Sacrament there is a distribution made in that Symbolical action of the death of Christ,* 1.529 and of the benefits and effects of it. The Communion of the Holy Ghost, is a common sharing in the effusion of the Spirit; the same is meant by that, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit; that is, if we do all partake of the same Spirit: We are said to have a fellowship in the sufferings of Christ,* 1.530 in which every one must take his share. The commu∣nication, or fellowship of the mystery of the Gospel, was its being shared equally among both Iews and Gentiles; and the fellowship in which the first Converts to Christianity lived, was their liberal distribution to one another, they holding all things in common. In these and some other places it is certain, that Communion signifies somewhat that is more real and effectual, than merely mens owning themselves to be joined to∣gether in a Society; which it is true it does also often signify; and there∣fore they conclude that as in Bargains or Covenants, the ancient Method of them before Writings were invented, was the mutual delivering of some Pledges, which were the Symbols of that Faith, which was so plighted; instead of which the sealing and delivering of Writings is now used among us, so our Saviour instituted this in compliance with our frailty, to give us an outward and sensible Pledge, of his entring into Covenant with us, of which the Bread and Wine are constituted the Symbols.

Others think, that by the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ can only be meant, the joint owning of Christ and of his Death, in the receiving the Sacrament; and that no Communication nor Partnership can be inferred from it: Because St. Paul brings it in to shew the Corinthians, how detestable a thing it was for a Christian to join in the Idols Feasts: That it was to be a partaker with devils: So they think that the Fellowship or Communion of Christians in the Sacrament, must be of the same Na∣ture, with the fellowship of devils in Acts of Idolatry: Which consisted only in associating themselves with those that worshipped Idols; for that upon the Matter was the Worshipping of Devils: And this seems to be confirmed by that which is said of the Iews,* 1.531 that they who did eat of the Sacrifices were partakers of the Altar; which it seems can signify no more, but that they professed that Religion of which the Altar was the chief In∣strument; the Sacrifices being offered there.

To all this it may be replied, that it is reasonable enough to believe, that according to the Power which God suffered the Devil to exercise over the Idolatrous World, there might be some Inchantment in the Sacrifices offered to Idols; and that the Devil might have some Power over those that did partake of them: And in order to this St. Paul removed an Ob∣jection

that might have been made, that there could be no harm in their joining to the Idol Feasts; for an Idol was nothing; and so that wstich was offered to an Idol could contract no defilement from the Idol, it being no∣thing: Now if the meaning of their being partakers with Devils imports only, their joining themselves in Acts of Fellowship with Idolaters, then the Sin of this would have easily appeared, without such a re-inforcing of the Matter: For, tho' an Idol was nothing, yet it was still a great Sin to join in the Acts that were meant to be the Worship of this nothing: This was a dishonouring of God, and a debasing of Man. But St.Paul seems to carry the Argument farther; that how true soever it was that the Idol was nothing; that is, a dead and lifeless thing that had no Vertue nor Opera∣tion; and that by consequence could derive nothing to the Sacrifice that was offered to it: Yet since those Idols were the Instruments by which the Devil kept the World in Subjection to him, all such as did partake in their Sacrifices might come under the Effects of that Magick, that might be exerted about their Temples or Sacrifices: By which the Credit of Ido∣latry was much kept up.

And though every Christian had a sure defence against the Powers of Darkness, as long as he continued true to his Religion, yet if he went out of that Protection, into the Empire of the Devil, and joined in the Acts that were as a Homage to him, he then fell within the reach of the Devil and might justly fear his being brought into a Partnership of those magical Possessions or Temptations that might be suffered to fall upon such Chri∣stians, as should associate themselves in so detestable a Service.

In the same Sense it was also said,* 1.532 that all the Israelites who did eat of the Sacrifices were partakers of the Altar: That is, that all of them who joined in the Acts of that Religion, such as the Offering their Peace-Of∣ferings, for of those of that kind they might only eat, all these were parta∣kers of the Altar: That is, of all the Blessings of their Religion, of all the Expiations, the Burnt-offerings and Sin-offerings, that were offered on the, Altar, for the sins of the whole Congregation: For that as a great Stock, went in a common Dividend among such as observed the Precepts of that Law, and joined in the Acts of Worship prescribed by it: Thus it appears, that such as joined in the Acts of Idolatry became partakers of all that Influence that Devils might have over those Sacrifices; and all that continued in the Observances of the Mosaical Law, had thereby a partner∣ship in the Expiations of the Altar; so likewise all Christians who receive this Sacrament worthily, have by their so doing a share in that which is re∣presented by it, the Death of Christ, and the Expiation and other Bene∣fits that follow it.

This seemed necessary to be fully explained: For this Matter, how plain soever in it self, has been made very dark, by the ways in which some have pretended to open it. With this I conclude all that belongs to the first Part of the Article, and that which was first to be explained of our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament: By which we assert a real Pre∣sence of the Body and Blood of Christ; but not of his Body as it is now glorified in Heaven, but of his Body as it was broken on the Cross, when his blood was shed and separated from it. That is, his Death with the me∣rit and effects of it, are in a visible and federal Act, offered in this Sacra∣ment to all worthy Believers.

By Real we understand True, in opposition both to Fiction and Imagina∣tion: And to those Shadows that were in the Mosaical Dispensation, in which the Manna, the Rock, the brazen Serpent, but most eminently the Cloud of Glory, were the Types and Shadows of the Messias, that was to

come: With whom came Grace and Truth; that is, a most wonderful Manifestation of the Mercy or Grace of God; and a verifying of the Promises made under the Law: In this Sense we acknowledge a real Pre∣sence of Christ in the Sacrament: Though we are convinced that our first Reformers judged right, concerning the use of the Phrase real Presence, that it were better to be let fall than to be continued; since the Use of it, and that Idea which does naturally arise from the common acceptation of it, may stick deeper, and feed Superstition more, than all tho••e larger Explanations that are given to it can be able to cure.

But howsoever in this Sense, it is innocent of it self, and may be law∣fully used; though perhaps it were more cautiously done not to use it, since advantages have been taken from it, to urge it farther, than we in∣tend it; and since it has been a snare to some:

I go in the next Place to explain the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning this Sacrament. Transubstantiation does express it in one Word; but that a full Idea may be given of this Part of their Doctrine, I shall open it in all its Branches and Consequences.

The Matter of this Sacrament is not Bread and Wine: For, they are an∣nihilated when the Sacrament is made. They are only the remote Matter, out of which it is made: But when the Sacrament is made, they cease to be: And instead of them, their outward Appearances or Accidents do only remain: Which though they are no Substances, yet are supposed to have a Nature and Essence of their own, separable from Matter: And these Appearances with the Body of Christ under them, are the Matter of the Sacrament.

Now though the Natural and Visible Body of Christ, could not be the Sacrament of his Body, yet they think his real Body being thus veiled un∣der the Appearances of Bread and Wine, may be the Sacrament of his glorified Body.

Yet, it seeming somewhat strange to make a true Body the Sacrament of it self, they would willingly put the Sacrament in the Appearances; but that would sound very harsh, to make Accidents which are not Matter, to be the Matter of the Sacrament: Therefore since these words, This is my Body, must be literally understood, the Matter must be the true Body of Christ, so that Christ's Body is the Sacrament of his Body.

Christ's Body, though now in Heaven, is as they think, presented in every Place where a true Consecration is made. And though it is in Hea∣ven in an extended State, as all other Bodies are, yet they think that Ex∣tension may be separated from Matter, as well as the other Appearances or Accidents are believed to be separated from it. And whereas our Souls are believed to be so in our Bodies, that though the whole Soul is in the whole Body, yet all the Soul is believed to be in every Part of it; but so that if any Part of the Body, is separated from the rest, the Soul is not divided; being one single Substance, but retires back into the rest of the Body: They apprehend that Christ's Body is present after the manner of a Spirit, without Extension or the filling of Space; so that the Space which the Appearances possess is still a Vacuum, or only filled by the Ac∣cidents: For a Body without Extension, as they suppose Christ's Body to be, can never fill up an Extension.

Christ's Body in the Sacrament is denominated One, yet still as the Spe∣cies are broken and divided, so many new Bodies are divided from one another; every crumb of Bread and drop of Wine that is separated from the whole, is a new Body, and yet without a new Miracle, all being done in consequence of the first great One that was all at once wrought.

The Body of Christ continues in this State, as long as the Accidents remain in theirs; but how it should alter is not easy to apprehend: The corruption of all other Accidents, arises from a change in the common Substance, out of which new Accidents do arise, while the old ones va∣nish; but Accidents without a Subject may seem more fixed and stable: Yet they are not so, but are as subject to Corruption as other Accidents are: Howsoever, as long as the Alteration is not total; though the Bread should be both musty and mouldy, and the Wine both dead and sour, yet as long as the Bread and Wine are still so far preserved, or ra∣ther that their Appearances subsist, so long the Body of Christ remains: But when they are so far altered that they seem to be no more Bread and Wine, and that they are corrupted either in part or in whole, Christ's Body is withdrawn, either in part or in whole.

It is a great Miracle to make the Accidents of Bread and Wine subsist without a Subject; yet the new Accidents that arise upon these Accidents, such as mouldiness or sourness come on without a Miracle, but they do not know how. When the main Accidents are destroyed, then the Pre∣sence of Christ ceases: And a new Miracle must be supposed to produce new Matter, for the filling up of that space which the Substance of Bread and Wine did formerly fill: And which was all this while possessed by the Accidents. So much of the Matter of this Sacrament.

The Form of it is in the Words of Consecration, which though they sound declarative as if the thing were already done; This is my body and This is my blood: Yet they believe them to be productive. But whereas the common Notion of the Form of a Sacrament, is that it sanctifies and applies the Matter; here the former Matter is so far from being consecrated by it, that it is annihilated, and new Matter is not sanctified but brought thither or produced: And whereas whensoever we say of any thing this is, we suppose that the thing is, as we say it is, before we say it; yet here all the while that this is a saying till the last Syllable is pronounced, it is not that which it is said to be, but in the Minute in which the last Syllable is uttered, then the change is made: And of this they are so firmly per∣suaded, that they do presently pay all that Adoration to it, that they would pay to the Person of Jesus Christ, if he were visibly present: Tho' the whole Vertue of the Consecration, depends on the Intention of a Priest: So that he with a cross Intention hinders all this Series of Miracles, as he fetches it all on, by letting his Intention go along with it.

If it may be said of some Doctrines, that the bare exposing them is a most effectual Confutation of them, certainly that is more Applicable to this, than to any other that can be imagined: For, though I have in sta∣ting it considered some of the most important Difficulties, which are seen and confessed by the School-men themselves, who have poised all these with much exactness and subtilty, yet I have passed over a great many more, with which those that deal in School-divinity, will find enough to exercise both their Thoughts and their Patience. They run out in many Subtilties, concerning the Accidents both primary and secondary: Concerning the Ubication, the Production and Reproduction of Bodies; concerning the Penetrability of Matter, and the Organization of a Penetrable Body; con∣cerning the Way of the Destruction of the Species; concerning the Words of Consecration; concerning the Water that is mixed with the Wine, whe∣ther it is first changed by natural Causes into Wine; and since nothing but Wine is transubstantiated, what becomes of such Particles of Water that are not turned into Wine? What is the Grace produced by the Sacrament? what is the Effect of the Presence of Christ so long as he is in the Body of

the Communicant; what is got by his Presence, and what is lost by his Absence: In a word, let a Man read the shortest Body of School-divinity that he can find, and he will see in it a ••ast Number of other difficul∣ties in this Matter, of which their own Authors are aware, which I have quite past over. For, when this Doctrine fell into the Hands of nice and exact Men, they were soon sensible of all the Consequences that must needs follow upon it, and have pursued all these with a closeness far beyond any thing that is to be found among the Writers of our side.

But that they might have a Salvo for every difficulty, they framed a new Model of Philosophy; new Theories were invented of Substances and Accidents, of Matter and of Spirits, of Extension, Ubication and Impenetrability; and by the new Definitions and Maxims to which they accustomed Men in the Study of Philosophy, they prepared them to swal∣low down all this more easily, when they should come to the Study of Divinity.

The Infallibility of the Church that had expresly defined it, was to bear a great part of the Burden: If the Church was Infallible, and if they were that Church, then it could be no longer doubted of. In dark Ages, Miracles and Visions came in abundantly to support it: In Ages of more Light the infinite Power of God, the Words of the Institution, it being the Testament of our Saviour then dying, and soon after con∣firmed with his Blood, were things of great Pomp; and such as were apt to strike Men that could not distinguish between the shews and the strength of Arguments. But when all our Senses, all our Ideas of things rise up so strongly against every part of this Chain of Wonders, we ought at least to expect Proofs suitable to the diffi∣culty of believing such a flat Contradiction to our Reasons, as well as to our Senses.

We have no other Notion of Accidents, but that they are the diffe∣rent Shapes or Modes of Matter; and that they have no Being distinct from the Body, in which they appear: We have no other Notion of a Body, but that it is an extended Substance, made up of Impenetrable Parts, one without another; every one of which fills its proper space: We have no other Notion of a Body's being in a Place, but that it fills it, and is so in it, as that it can be no where else at the same time: And though we can very easily apprehend that an Insinite Power can both create and annihilate Beings at pleasure; yet we cannot apprehend that God does change the Essences of Things, and so make them to be contrary to that Nature and sort of Being of which he has made them.

Another Argument against Transubstantiation is this; God has made us capable to know and serve him: And in order to that he has put some S••nses in us, which are the conveyances of many subtile Motions to our Brains, that give us Apprehensions of the Objects, which by those Mo∣tions are represented to us.

When those Motions are lively, and the Object is in a due distance; when we feel that neither our Organs, nor our Faculties are under a∣ny disorder, and when the Impression is clear and strong, we are de∣termined by it: We cannot help being so. When we see the Sun risen and all is bright about us, it is not possible for us to think that it is dark Night: No authority can impose it on us; we are not so far the Masters of our own Thoughts, as to force our selves to think it, though we would; for God has made us of such a Na∣ture

that we are determined by such an Evidence, and cannot contradict it. When an Object is at too great a distance, we may mistake; a weak∣ness or an ill disposition in our sight may misrepresent it; and a false Me∣dium, Water, a Cloud, or a Glass, may give it a tincture or cast, so that we may see cause to correct our first Apprehensions, in some Sensations; but when we have duly examined every thing, when we have corrected one Sense by another, we grow at last to be so sure, by the Constitution of that Nature that God has given us, that we cannot doubt, much less believe in contradiction to the express Evidence of our Senses.

It is by this Evidence only, that God convinces the World of the Au∣thority of those whom he sends to speak in his Name; He gives them a Power to work Miracles, which is an Appeal to the Senses of Mankind; and it is the highest Appeal that can be made; for those who stood out against the Conviction of Christ's Miracles, had no Cloak for their Sins. It is the utmost Conviction that God offers, or that Man can pretend to: From all which we must infer this, That either our Senses in their clearest Ap∣prehensions, or rather Representations of Things, must be Infallible, or we must throw up all Faith and Certainty; since it is not possible for us to receive the Evidence that is given us of any thing but by our Senses; and since we do naturally acquiesce in that Evidence, we must acknow∣ledge that God has so made us, that this is his voice in us; because it is the voice of those Faculties that he has put in us; and is the only way by which we can find out Truth, and be led by it: And if our Faculties fail us in any one thing, so that God should reveal to us any thing, that did plainly contradict our Faculties, he should thereby give us a right to disbelieve them for ever.

If they can mistake when they bring any Object to us with the fullest Evidence that they can give, we can never depend upon them, nor be certain of any thing, because they shew it. Nay, we are not, and can∣not be bound to believe that, nor any other Revelation that God may make to convince us. We can only receive a Revelation by hearing, or reading, by our Ears or our Eyes. So if any part of this Revelation de∣stroys the certainty of the Evidence, that our Senses, our Eyes, or our Ears, give us, it destroys it self; for we cannot be bound to believe it upon the Evidence of our Senses, if this is a part of it that our Senses are not to be trusted. Nor will this matter be healed, by saying, that cer∣tainly we must believe God more than our Senses: And therefore if he has revealed any thing to us, that is contrary to their Evidence, we must as to that pa••ticular believe God, before our Senses: But that as to all other things where we have not an express Revelation to the contrary, we must still believe our Senses.

There is a difference to be made between that feeble Evidence that our Senses give us of remote Objects, or those loose Inferences that we may make from a slight view of Things; and the full Evidence that Sense gives us; as when we see and smell to, we handle and taste the same Object: This is the voice of God to us; he has made us so that we are determined by it: And as we should not believe a Prophet that wrought ever ••o many Miracles, if he should contradict any part of that which God had already revealed, so we cannot be bound to be∣lieve a Revelation, contrary to our Sense; because that were to believe God in contradiction to Himself; which is impossible to be true. For we should believe that Revelation certainly upon an Evidence, which it self tells us is not certain; and this is a Contradiction. We believe our Senses upon this foundation, because we reckon there is an Intrin∣sick

certainty in their Evidence; we do not believe them as we believe another Man upon a Moral presumption of his Truth and Sincerity; but we believe them, because such is the nature of the Union of our Souls and Bodies, which is the work of God, that upon the full Impressions that are made upon the Senses, the Soul does necessarily produce, or ra∣ther feel those Thoughts and Sensations arise with a full Evidence that correspond to the motions of sensible Objects, upon the Organs of Sense. The Soul has a sagacity to examine these Sensations, to cor∣rect one Sense by another; but when she has used all the means she can, and the Evidence is still clear, she is perswaded and cannot help being so; she naturally takes all this to be true, because of the necessary connexion that she feels between such Sensations, and her assent to them. Now if she should find that she could be mistaken in this, even tho' she should know this, by a Divine Revelation, all the Intrinsick certainty of the Evidence of Sense, and that connexion between those Sensations and her assent to them, should be hereby dissolved.

To all this another Objection may be made from the Mysteries of the Christian Religion; which contradict our Reasons, and yet we are bound to believe them; altho' Reason is a faculty much superior to Sense. But all this is a mistake; we cannot be bound to believe any thing that con∣tradicts our Reasons; for the Evidence of Reason, as well as that of Sense, is the voice of God to us. But as great difference is to be made, between a feeble Evidence that Sense gives us of an Object that is at a distance from us, or that appears to us through a false Medium; such as a Concave or a Convex-Glass; and the full Evidence of an Object that is before us, and that is clearly apprehended by us: So there is a great difference to be made, between our Reasonings upon Difficulties that we can neither understand nor resolve, and our Reasonings upon clear Principles. The one may be false, and the other must be true: We are sure that a Thing cannot be one and three in the same respect; our Reason assures us of this, and we do and must believe it; but we know that in different respects the same thing may be one and three. And since we cannot know all the possibilities of those different respects, we must believe upon the Authority of God revealing it, that the same thing is both one and three; tho' if a Revelation should affirm that the same thing were one and three in the same respect, we should not, and indeed could not believe it.

This Argument deserves to be fully opened; for we are sure either it is true, or we cannot be sure that any thing else whatsoever, is true. In confirmation of this, we ought also to consider the nature and ends of Miracles. They put Nature out of its channel, and reverse its fixed Laws and Motions; and the end of God's giving Men a power to work them, is that by them the World may be convinced, that such Persons are Com∣missionated by him, to deliver his Pleasure to them in some Particulars. And as it could not become the Infinite Wisdom of the Great Creator, to change the Order of Nature (which is his own Workmanship) upon slight Grounds; so we cannot suppose that he should work a Chain of Extra∣ordinary Miracles to no purpose. It is not to give credit to a Revelation that he is making; for the Senses do not perceive it; on the contrary they do reject and contradict it; and the Revelation instead of getting credit from it, is loaded by it, as introducing that which destroys all credit and certainty.

In other Miracles our Senses are appealed to, but here they must be ap∣pealed from; nor is there any Spiritual end served in working this Mi∣racle; for it is acknowledged that the effects of this Sacrament are given upon our due coming to it, independent upon the Corporal Presence: So that the Grace of the Sacrament does not always accompany it, since unworthy Receivers, tho' according to the Romish Doctrine, they re∣ceive the true Body of Christ, yet they do not receive Grace with it: And the Grace that is given in it to the worthy Receivers, stays with them after that by the destruction of the Species of the Bread and Wine, the Body of Christ is withdrawn. So that it is acknowledged that the Spiritual effect of the Sacrament, does not depend upon the Corporal Presence.

Here then it is supposed, that God is every day working a great many Miracles, in a vast number of different Places; and that of so extraordi∣nary a nature, that it must be confessed, they are far beyond all the other Wonders, even of Omnipotence; and yet all this is to no end, that we can apprehend; neither to any sensible and visible end, nor to any In∣ternal and Spiritual one. This must needs seem an amazing thing, that God should work such a Miracle on our behalf, and yet should not ac∣quaint us with any end for which he should work it.

To conclude this whole Argument, We have one great advantage in this matter, that our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament, of a Mystical Presence of Christ in the Symbols, and of the effects of it on the worthy and unworthy Receivers, is all acknowledged by the Church of Rome; but they have added to this the Wonder of the Corporal Presence: So that we need bring no Proofs to them at least, for that which we teach concerning it; since it is all confessed by them. But as to that which they have added, it is not necessary for us to give Proofs against it; it is enough for us, if we shew that all the Proofs that they bring for it are weak and unconcluding. They must be very demonstrative if it is expected, that upon the authority and evidence of them, we should be bound to believe a thing which they themselves confess to be contrary both to our Sense and Reasons. We cannot by the Laws of Reasoning be bound to give Arguments a∣gainst it; it is enough if we can shew, that neither the words of the Institution, nor the Discourse in the sixth of St. Iohn, do necessarily infer it; and if we shew that those Passages can well bear another sense, which is agreeable both to the words themselves, and to the style of the Scriptures, and more particularly to the Phraseology to which the Iews were accustomed, upon the occasion on which this was Instituted, and if the words can well bear the Sense that we give them, then the other advantages that are in it, of its being simple and natural, of its being suitable to the design of a Sacrament, and of its having no hard consequences of any sort depending upon it, then I say by all the Rules of expounding Scripture, we do justly infer that our Sense of those words ought to be preferred.

This is according to a Rule that St. Augustin gives to judge what Expres∣sions in Scripture are Figurative and what not;* 1.533

If any place seems to command a Crime or horrid Action, it is Figurative: And for an Instance of this he cites those Words, Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, you have no life in you: Which seems to command a Crime and an horrid Action; and therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord, and to lay up in our Me∣mory

with delight and profit, that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us.

And this was given for a Rule by the great Doctor of the La∣tin Church, so the same Maxim had been delivered almost two Ages be∣fore him,* 1.534 by the great Doctor of the Greek Church Origen, who says,

that the understanding our Saviour's words of eating his Flesh and drink∣ing his Blood, according to the Letter, is a Letter that kills.

These Passages I cite by an Anticipation, before I enter upon the enquiry into the Sense of the ancient Church, concerning this Matter; because they be∣long to the words of the Institution, at least to the Discourse in St. Iohn; Now if the Sense that we give to these Words is made good, we need be at no more pains to prove that they are capable of no other Sense: Since this must prove that to be the only true Sense of them.

So that for all the Arguments that have been brought by us against this Doctrine, arising out of the Fruitfulness of the Matter, we were not bound to use them: For, our Doctrine being confessed by them it wants no Proof, and we cannot be bound to prove a Negative. Therefore though the Copiousness of this Matter has afforded us many Arguments for the Negative, yet that was not necessary: For, as a Negative always proves it self; so that holds more especially here, where that which is denied is accompanied with so many and so strange Absurdities, as do follow from this Doctrine.

The last Topick in this Matter, is the Sense that the ancient Church had of it: For, as we certainly have both the Scriptures, and the Evidence of our Senses and Reason of our side, so that will be much fortified, if it ap∣pears that no such Doctrine was received in the First and best Ages: And that it came in not all at once, but by degrees. I shall first urge this Mat∣ter by some general Presumptions: And then I shall go to plain Proofs. But though the Presumptions shall be put only as Presumptions, yet if they appear to be violent, so that a Man cannot hold giving his As∣sent to the Conclusion that follows from them, then though they are put in the Form of presumptive Arguments, yet that will not hinder them from being considered as concluding ones.

By the stating this Doctrine, it has appeared how many Difficulties there are involved in it: These are Difficulties that are obvious and soon seen: They are not found out by deep enquiry and much speculation: They are soon felt, and are very hardly avoided: And ever since the Time that this Doctrine has been received by the Roman Church, these have been much insisted on: Explanations have been offered to them all; and the whole Principles of natural Philosophy have been cast into a new Mould, that they might ply to this Doctrine: At least those who have studied their Philosophy in that System, have had such Notions put in them, while their Minds were yet tender and capable of any Impressions, that they have been thereby prepared to this Doctrine before they came to it, by a Train of Philosophical Terms and Distinctions, so that they were not much alarmed at it, when it came to be set before them.

They are accustomed to think that Ubication, or the being in a Place, is but an Accident to a Substance: So that the same Bodies being in more Places, is only its having a few more of those Accidents produced in it by God: They are accustomed to think that Accidents are Beings different from Matter: like a sort of cloathing to it, which do indeed require the having of a Substance for their Subject: But yet since they are believed to have a being of their own, God may make them subsist: As the Skin of a Man may stand out in its proper Shape and Colour, though there were nothing but Air or Vacuity within it.

They are accustomed to think that as an Accident may be without its proper Substance, so a Substance may be without its proper Accidents: And they do reckon Extension and Impenetrability, that is, a Bodies so filling a Space, that no other Body can be in the same Space with it, among its Accidents: So that a Body composed of Organs, and of large Di∣mensions, may be not only all crouded within one Wafer, but an entire distinct Body may be in every separable Part of this Wafer: At least in every piece that carries in it the Appearances of Bread.

These, besides many other lesser Subtilties, are the evident Results of this Doctrine: And it was a natural Effect of its being received, that their Philosophy should be so transformed as to agree to it, and to prepare Men for it.

Now to apply this to the Matter we are now upon, We find none of these Subtilties among the Ancients. They seem to apprehend none of those Difficulties, nor do they take any pains to solve or clear them. They had a Philosophical Genius, and shewed it in all other things: They dis∣puted very nicely concerning the Attributes of God, concerning his Es∣sence, and the Persons of the Trinity: They saw the Difficulties concern∣ing the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, and Christ's being both God and Man: They treat of Original Sin, of the Power of Grace, and of the Decrees of God.

They explained the Resurrection of our Bodies, and the different States of the Blessed and the Damned.

They saw the Difficulties in all these Heads, and were very Copious in their Explanations of them: And they may be rather thought by some too full, than too sparing in the canvassing of Difficulties: But all those were more speculative Matters, in which the Difficulty was not so soon seen as on this Subject: Yet they found these out, and pursued them with that Sub∣tilty that shewed they were not at all displeased, when occasions were of∣fered them to shew their Skill in answering Difficulties: Which, to name no more, appears very evidently to be St. Augustin's Character. Yet nei∣ther he, nor any of the other Fathers, seem to have been Sensible of the Difficulties in this Matter.

They neither state them nor answer them, nor do they use those reserves when they speak of Philosophical Matters, that Men must have used who were possessed of this Doctrine: For, a Man cannot hold it without bringing himself to think and speak otherways upon all natural Things than the rest of Mankind do.

They are so far from this, that, on the contrary they deliver them∣selves in a way that shews they had no such Apprehensions of Things.

They thought that all Creatures were limited to one Place: And from thence they argued against the Heathens, who believed that their Deities were in every one of those Statues which they consecrated to them.

From this Head they proved the Divinity of the Holy Ghost; Because he wrought in many different Places at once: Which he could not do if he were only a Creature.

They affirm that Christ can be no more on Earth, since he is now in Heaven, and that he can be but in one Place.

They say, that which hath no Bounds nor Figure, and that can neither be touched nor seen, cannot be a Body: That Bodies are extended in some Place, and cannot exist after the Manner of Spirits.

They argue against the Eternity of Matter, from this, that nothing could be produced, that had a Being before it was produced: And on all Occasions they appeal to the Testimony of our Senses as Infallible.

They say, that to believe otherwise tended to reverse the whole State of Life, and Order of Nature; and to reproach the Providence of God, since it must be said, that he has given the Knowledge of all his Works to Liars and Deceivers, if our Senses may be false: That we must doubt of our Faith, if the Testimony of hearing, seeing and feeling, could deceive us.

And in their Contests with the Marcionites and others, concerning the Truth of Christ's Body, they appeal always to the Testimony of the Sen∣ses as Infallible: And even treating of the Sacrament, they say, without Limitation or Exception, that it was Bread, as their Eyes witnessed, and true Wine that Christ did Consecrate to be the Memorial of his Body and Blood; and they tell us in this very Particular, that we ought not to doubt of the Testimony of our Senses.

Another presumptive Proof, that the Ancients knew nothing of this Do∣ctrine, is, that the Heathens and the Iews who charged them, and their Doctrine, with every thing that they could invent, to make both it and them odious and ridiculous, could never have passed over this in which both Sense and Reason seemed to be so evidently on their side.

They reproach the Christians for believing a God that was Born, a God of Flesh that was crucified and buried: They laughed at their belief of a Judgment to come, of endless Flames, of a heavenly Paradise, and of the Resurrection of the Body. Those who writ the first Apologies for the Christian Religion, Iustin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius and Minutius Felix, have given us a large Account of the Blasphemies both of Iews and Gentiles, against the Doctrines of Christianity.

Cyril of Alexandria has given us Iulian's Objections in his own Words; who having been not only initiated into the Christian Religion, but having read the Scriptures in the Churches, and being a Philosophical and Inqui∣sitive Man, must have been well instructed concerning the Doctrine and the Sacraments of this Religion: And his Relation to the Emperor Constantine, must have made the Christians concerned to take more than ordinary Pains on him. When he made Apostacy from the Faith, he reproached the Christians with the Doctrine of Baptism, and laughed at them for think∣ing that there was an Ablution and Sanctification in it, conceiving it a thing Impossible that Water should wash or cleanse a Soul: Yet neither he nor Porphiry, nor Celsus before them, did charge this Religion with the Ab∣surdities of Transubstantiation.

It is reasonable to believe, that if the Christians of that time had any such Doctrine among them, it must have been known. Every Christian must have known in what Sense those Words, This is is my body and This is my blood were understood among them. All the Apostates from Chri∣stianity must have known it, and must have published it to excuse or hide the shame of their Apostacy: Since Apostates are apt to spread Lies of them whom they forsake, but not to conceal such Truths as are to their Prejudice. Iulian must have known it, and if he had known it, his Judgment was too True, and his Malice to the Christian Religion too Quick, to overlook or neglect the Advantages which this part of their Doctrine gave him. Nor can this be carried off by saying that the eating of human Flesh and the Thyestean Suppers, which were object∣ed to the Christians, relate to this: When the Fathers answer that, they tell the Heathens that it was a downright Calumny and Lie: And do not offer any Explanations or Distinctions taken from their Doctrine of the Sa∣crament, to clear them from the mistake and malice of this Calumny. The Truth is, the execrable Practices of the Gnosticks, who were called

Christians, gave the Rise to those as well as to many other Calumnies: But they were not at all founded on the Doctrine of the Eucharist, which is never once mentioned as the Occasion of this Accusation.

Another Presumption from which we conclude that the Ancients knew nothing of this Doctrine, is that we find Heresies and Disputes arising concerning all the other Points of Religion: There were very few of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, and not any of the Mysteries of the Faith, that did not fall under great Objections: But there was not any one Heresy raised upon this Head: Men were never so meek and tame as easily to believe things, when there appeared strong Evidence, or at least great Presumptions against them. In these last Eight or Nine Cen∣turies, since this Doctrine was received, there has been a perpetual Oppo∣sition made to it, even in dark and unlearned Ages: In which, implicite Faith and blind Obedience have carried a great sway. And though the Secular Arm has been employed with great and unrelenting Severi∣ties, to extirpate all that have opposed it: Yet all the while many have stood out against it, and have suffered much and long for their reject∣ing it. Now it is not to be imagined, that such an opposition should have been made to this Doctrine, during the nine hundred Years last past, and that for the former eight hundred Years, there should have been no Disputes at all concerning it: And that while all other things were so much questioned, that several Fathers writ, and Councils were called to settle the Belief of them, yet that for about eight hundred Years, this was the single Point that went down so easily that no Trea∣tise was all that while writ to prove it, nor Council held to establish it.

Certainly the Reason of this will appear to be much rather, that since there have been Contests upon this Point these last Nine Ages, and that there were none the first Eight, this Doctrine was not known during those First Ages; and that the great Silence about it for so long a time, is a very strong Presumption that in all that time, this Doctrine was not thought of.

The last of those Considerations that I shall offer, which are of the nature of presumptive Proofs, is, that there are a great many Rites and other practices, that have arisen out of this Doctrine as its natural Con∣sequences, which were not thought of for a great many Ages; but that have gone on by a perpetual progress, and have increased very fruitfully, ever since this Doctrine was received. Such are the Elevation, Adoration, and Processions, together with the Doctrine of Concomitance, and a vast number of Rites and Rubricks; the first occasions and beginnings of which are well known. These did all arise from this Doctrine; it being natural, especially in the Ages of Ignorance and Superstition, for Men upon the supposition of Christ's being Corporally present, to run out in∣to all possible Inventions of Pomp and Magnificence, about this Sacra∣ment; and it is very reasonable to think, that since these things are of so late and so certain a date, that the Doctrine upon which they are founded is not much ancienter.

The great Simplicity of the Primitive Forms, not only as they are re∣ported by Iustin Martyr and Tertullian in the Ages of the Poverty and Persecutions of the Church, but as they are represented to us in the Fourth and Fifth Century by Cyril of Ierusalem, the Constitutions, and the pretended Areopagite, have nothing of that Air that appears in the lat∣ter Ages. The Sacrament was then given in both kinds, it was put in the hands of the Faithful; they reserved some portions of it: It was

given to Children for many Ages: The Laity, and even Boys were im∣ployed to carry it to dying Penitents; what remained of it was burnt in some places, and consumed by the Clergy, and by Children in other pla∣ces; the making Cataplasms of it, the mixing the Wine with Ink, to sign the Condemnation of Hereticks, are very clear Presumptions that this Doctrine was not then known.

But above all, their not adoring the Sacrament, which is not done to this day in the Greek Church, and of which there is no mention made, by all those who writ of the Offices of the Church in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries so copiously; this I say of their not adoring it, is perhaps more than a presumption, that this Doctrine was not then thought on. But since it was established, all the Old Forms and Rituals have been alter∣ed, and the Adoring the Sacrament is now become the main act of De∣votion, and of Religious Worship among them. One ancient Form is indeed still continued, which is of the strongest kind of Presumptions that this Doctrine came in much later than some other Superstitions which we condemn in that Church. In the Masses that are appointed on Saints-days, there are some Collects in which it is said that the Sacrifice is of∣fered up in honour to the Saint, and it is prayed that it may become the more valuable and acceptable, by the Merits and Intercessions of the Saint. Now when a practice will well agree with one Opinion, but not at all with another, we have all possible reason to presume at least, that at first it came in under that Opinion with which it will agree, and not under another which cannot consist with it. Our Opinion is that the Sacrament is a federal act of our Christianity, in which we offer up our highest Devotions to God, through Christ, and receive the largest Re∣turns from him: It is indeed a Superstitious conceit to celebrate this to the honour of a Saint, but howsoever upon the supposition of Saints hearing our Prayers, and Interceding for us, there is still good sense in this; but if it is believed that Christ is Corporally present, and that he is offered up in it; it is against all Sense, and it approaches to Blasphemy, to do this to the Honour of a Saint, and much more to desire that this which is of infinite value, and is the foundation of all God's Blessings to us, should receive any addition or increase in its value or acceptation from the Merits or Intercession of Saints. So this, tho' a late practice, yet does fully evince, that the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence was not yet thought on, when it was first brought into the Office.

So far I have gone upon the Presumptions that may be offered to prove that this Doctrine was not known to the Ancients. They are not only just and lawful Presumptions, but they are so strong and violent, that when they are well considered, they force an assent to that which we in∣fer from them. I go next to the more plain and direct Proofs that we find of the Opinion of the Ancients in this Matter.

They call the Elements Bread and Wine after the Consecration. Iustin Martyr calls them Bread and Wine,* 1.535 and a nourishment which nourished: He indeed says it is not common Bread and Wine; which shews that he thought it was still so in Substance: And he illustrates the Sanctifica∣tion of the Elements by the Incarnation of Christ, in which the human Nature did not lose or change its Substance by its Union with the Di∣vine: So the Bread and the Wine do not according to that Explana∣tion, lose their proper Substance, when they become the Flesh and Blood of Christ.

Irenoeus calls it that Bread over which thanks are given, and says, it is no more common Bread, but the Eucharist consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly.* 1.536

Tertullian arguing against the Marcionites, who held two Gods, and that the Creator of this Earth was the bad God; but that Christ was contrary to him; urges against them this, that Christ made use of the Creatures: And says, he did not reject Bread by which he represents his own Body: And in another Place he says, Christ calls Bread his Body, That from thence you may understand, that he gave the figure of his Body to the Bread.

Origen says, we eat of the Loaves that are set before us:* 1.537 Which by prayer are become a certain holy body, that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose.

St. Cyprian says, Christ calls the Bread that was compounded of many grains,* 1.538 his Body: And the Wine that is pressed out of many grapes his Blood, to shew the Vnion of his People. And in another Place writing against those who used only Water, but no Wine in the Eucharist; He says, we cannot see the Blood by which we are Redeemed, when Wine is not in the Chalice; by which the Blood of Christ is shewed.

Epiphanius being to Prove that Man may be said to be made after the Image of God, though he is not like him, urges this,* 1.539 That the Bread is not like Christ, neither in his invisible Deity, nor in his Incarnate likeness, for it is round and without feeling as to its vertue.

Gregory Nyssen says, the Bread in the beginning is common;* 1.540 but after the Mystery has consecrated it, it is said to be, and is the Body of Christ: To this he compares the Sanctification of the mystical Oil, of the Water in Bap∣tism, and the Stones of an Altar or Church dedicated to God.

St. Ambrose calls it still Bread;* 1.541 and says this Bread is made of the food of the Saints.

St. Chrysostom on these words the Bread that we break, says, What is the bread? The Body of Christ: What are they made to be who take it? The Bo∣dy of Christ. Which shews that he considered the Bread as being so the Body of Christ, as the worthy Receivers became his Body; which is done not by a change of Substance, but by a Sanctification of their Natures.

St. Ierom says, Christ took Bread,* 1.542 that as Melchisedeck had in the figure of∣fered Bread and Wine, he might also represent the truth (that is in Opposi∣tion to the Figure) of his Body and Blood.

St. Augustin does very largely compare the Sacraments being called the Body and Blood of Christ,* 1.543 with those other Places in which the Church is called his Body, and all Christians are his Members: Which shews that he thought the One was to be understood Mystically as well as the other. He calls the Eucharist frequently our daily Bread, and the Sacrament of Bread and Wine. All these call the Eucharist Bread and Wine in express Words: But when they call it Christ's Body and Blood, they call it so after a sort, or that it is said to be, or with some other mollifying Expression.

St. Augustin says this plainly,* 1.544 after some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is his Body, and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ; he carried himself in his own hands in some sort, when he said, This is my Body.

St. Chrysostom says, the Bread is thought worthy to be called the Body of our Lord: And in another Place reckoning up the improper Senses of the word Flesh; he says the Scriptures use to call the Mysteries (that is, the Sacrament) by the Name of Flesh, and sometimes the whole Church is said to be the Body of Christ.

So Tertullian says, Christ calls the Bread his Body, and names the Bread by his Body.

* 1.545The Fathers do not only call the consecrated Elements Bread and Wine: They do also affirm that they retain their proper Nature and Substance, and are the same thing as to their Nature, that they were before. And the Occasion upon which the Passages, that I go next to mention, are used by them, does prove this Matter beyond Contradiction.

Apollinaris did broach that Heresy which was afterwards put in full Form by Eutyche••; and that had so great a Party to support it, that as they had one General Council (a pretended one at least) to favour them, so they were condemned by another. Their Error was that the human Nature of Christ was swallowed up by the Divine, if not while he was here on Earth, yet at least after his Ascension to Heaven. This Error was confuted by several Writers who lived very wide one from another: And at a distance of above a hundred Years one from another. St. Chry∣sostom at Constantinople, Theodoret in Asia, Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch, and Gelasius Bishop of Rome. All those write to Prove that the human Nature did still remain in Christ, not changed nor swallowed up, but on∣ly sanctified by the Divine Nature that was united to it. They do all fall into one Argument, which very probably those who came after St. Chry∣sostom took from him:* 1.546 So that though both Theodoret and Gelasius's Words are much fuller, yet because the Argument is the same with that which St. Chrysostom had urged against Apollinaris, I shall first set down his Words: He brings an Illustration from the Doctrine of the Sacrament, to shew that the human Nature was not destroyed by its Union with the Divine, and has upon that these Words, As before the Bread is sanctified, we call it Bread; but when the Divine Grace has sanctified it by the means of the Priest, it is freed from the name of Bread, and is thought worthy of the name of the Lord's Body, though the nature of Bread remains in it: And yet it is not said there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son: So the divine Nature being joined to the Body, Both these make one Son and one Person.

* 1.547Ephrem of Antioch says, The Body of Christ which is received by the faithful, does not depart from its sensible Substance: So Baptism, says he, does not lose its own sensible Substance, and does not lose that which it was before.

* 1.548Theodoret says, Christ does honour the Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood; not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature: In another Place pursuing the same Argument, he says, The mystical Sym∣bols after the sanctification, do not depart from their own nature: For they continue in their former substance, figure and form, and are visible and pal∣pable as they were before: But they are understood to be that which they are made.

Pope Gelasius says, The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are a divine thing;* 1.549 for which reason we become by them partakers of the divine Nature; and yet the substance of Bread and Wine does not cease to exist: And the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in holy Mysteries. Upon all these Places being compared with the Design with which they were written, which was to prove that Christ's Human Nature did still subsist, unchanged and not swallowed up by its Union with the Divinity, some Reflections are very obvious; ••irst, If the corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament had been then received in the Church, the natural and unavoidable Argument in this Matter, which must put an end to it, with all that believed such corporal Presence, was this: Christ has certainly a natural Body

still, because the Bread and the Wine are turned to it; and they cannot be turned to that which is not. In their Writings they argued against the possibility of a substantial Change of a Human Nature into the Divine; but that could not have been urged by Men who believed a substantial Mu∣tation to be made in the Sacrament: For then the Eutychians might have retorted the Argument with great Advantage upon them.

The Eutychians did make use of some Expressions, that were used by some in the Church, which seemed to Import that they did argue from the Sacrament, as Theodoret represents their Objections: But to that he an∣swers as we have seen, denying that any such substantial Change was made. The Design of those Fathers was to prove that things might be united to∣gether, and continue so united without the change of their Substances, and that this was true in the two Natures in the Person of Christ: And to make this more Sensible they bring in the Matter of the Sacrament, as a thing known and confessed: For in their arguing upon it they do sup∣pose it as a thing out of dispute.

Now according to the Roman Doctrine, this had been a very odd Sort of an Argument, to prove that Christ's Human Nature was not swallowed up of the Divine, because the Mysteries or Elements in the Sacrament, are changed into the Substance of Christ's Body, only they retain the outward ap∣pearances of Bread and Wine.

To this an Eutychian might readily have answered, that then the Hu∣man Nature might be believed to be destroyed: And though Christ had appeared in that likeness, he retained only the Accidents of Human Na∣ture; but that the Human Nature it self was destroyed, as the Bread and the Wine were destroyed in the Eucharist.

This had been a very absurd way of arguing in the Fathers, and had indeed delivered up the Cause to the Eutychians: Whereas those Fathers make it an Argument against them, to prove that notwithstanding an Uni∣nion of two Beings, and such an Union as did communicate a Sanctifica∣tion from the one to the other, yet the two Natures might remain still di∣stinguish'd; and that it was so in the Eucharist: Therefore it might be so in the Person of Christ. This seems to be so evident an Indication of the Doctrine of the whole Church in the Fourth and Fifth Century, when so many of the most eminent Writers of those Ages, do urge it so home as an Argument in so great a Point, that we can scarce think it possible for any Man to consider it fully without being determined by it. And so far we have considered the Authorities from the Fathers, to shew that they be∣lieved that the Substance of Bread and Wine did still remain in the Sacra∣ment.

Another Head of Proof is, that they affirm, that our Bodies are nou∣rished by the Sacrament; which shews very plainly that they had no No∣tion of a Change of Substance made in it.

Iustin Martyr calls the Eucharist,* 1.550 That food by which our flesh and blood through its transmutation into them are nourished.

Irenaeus makes this an Argument for the Resurrection of our Bodies,* 1.551 that they are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ: When the Cup and the Bread, receives the Word of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ, by which the substance of our flesh is encreased and subsists: And he adds, that the flesh is nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ, and is made his Member.

Tertullian says, The flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ.

Origen explains this very largely on those words of Christ,* 1.552 It is not that which enters within a man that defiles the man; He says, if every thing that

goes into the Belly, is cast into the Draught, then that food which is san∣ctified by the Word of God, and by Prayer, goes also into the belly, as to that which is material in it, and goes from thence into the draught. And a little after he adds, It is not the matter of the Bread, but the Word that is pro∣nounced over it, which profits him that eats it, in such a way as is not un∣worthy of the Lord.

The Bishops of Spain in a Councel that sat at Toledo in the Seventh Century,* 1.553 condemned those that began to Consecrate Round Wafers, and did not offer one intire Loaf in the Eucharist; and appointed that for so much of the Bread as remained after the Communion, that either it should be put in some Bag, or if it was needful to eat it up, that it might not op∣press the belly of him that took it with an over-charging burden, and that it might not go into the digestion. They fancying that a lesser quantity made no digestion, and produced no Excrement.

In the Ninth Century both Rabanus Maurus, and Heribald believed, that the Sacrament was so digested that some part of it turned to Excre∣ment; which was also held by divers Writers of the Greek Church, whom their Adversaries called by way of reproach Stercoranists. Others indeed of the Ancients, did think that no part of the Sacrament became Excre∣ment, but that it was spread through the whole Substance of the Com∣municant,* 1.554 for the good of Body and Soul. Both Cyril of Ierusalem, St. Chrysostom, and Iohn Damascene, fell into this conceit; but still they thought that it was changed into the Substance of our Bodies, and so nourished them without any Excrement coming from any part of it.

The Fathers do call the Consecrated Elements the Figures, the Signs, the Symbols, the Types and Antitypes, the Commemoration, the Representa∣tion, the Mysteries and the Sacraments of the Body and Blood; which does evidently demonstrate that they could not think, that they were the very Substance of his Body and Blood.* 1.555 Tertullian when he is proving that Christ had a true Body, and was not a Phantasm, argues thus, He made Bread to be his Body; saying, This is my Body; that is, the figure of my Body: From which he argues, that since his Body had that for its figure; it was a true Body; for an empty thing, such as a Phantasm is, cannot have a figure. It is from hence clear, that it was not then believed that Christ's Body was literally in the Sacrament; for otherwise the Argument would have been much clearer and shorter: Christ has a true Body, be∣cause we believe that the Sacrament is truly his Body, than to go and prove it so far about, as to say a Phantasm has no figure: But the Sacrament is the figure of Christ's Body, therefore it is no Phantasm.

* 1.556St. Austin says, He commended and gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood. And when the Manicheans objected to him, that Blood is called in the Old Testament the Life or Soul, contrary to what is said in the New. He answers, that Blood was not the Soul or Life, but only the Sign of it; and that the Sign sometimes bears the name of that of which it is the Sign:* 1.557 So says he, Christ did not doubt to say, This is my Body, when he was giving the Sign of his Body. Now that had been a very bad Argu∣ment, if the Bread was truly the Body of Christ; it had proved that the Sign must be one with the thing signified.

The whole Ancient Liturgies, and all the Greek Fathers do so frequent∣ly use the words Type, Antitype, Sign and Mystery, that this is not so much as denied; it is their constant Style. Now it is apparent that a thing cannot be the Type and Symbol of it self. And tho' they had more fre∣quent occasions to speak of the Eucharist, than either of Baptism or the Chrism; yet as they called the Water and the Oyl, Types and Mysteries, so

they bestowed the same descriptions on the Elements in the Eucharist; and as they have many strong Expressions concerning the Water and the Oyl that cannot be literally understood, so upon the same Grounds it will appear reasonable, to give the same Exposition to some high Ex∣pressions, that they fell into concerning this Sacrament. Facundus has some very full Discourses to this purpose: He is proving that Christ may be called the Adopted Son of God, as well as he is truly his Son; and that because he was Baptized. The Sacrament of Adoption, that is, Baptism,* 1.558 may be called Baptism; as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, which is in the Consecrated Bread and Cup, is called his Body and Blood: Not that the Bread is properly his Body, or the Cup properly his Blood; but be∣cause they contain in them the Mystery of his Body and Blood. St. Au∣stin says, That Sacraments must have some resemblance of those things of which they are the Sacraments: So the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is after some manner his Body: and the Sacrament of his Blood is after some manner his Blood. And speaking of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice of Praise, he says,* 1.559 The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised before the coming of Christ, by the Sacrifices that were the Types of it. In the Passion the Sacrifice was truly offered; and after his Ascension it is Celebra∣ted by the Sacrament of the Remembrance of it. And when he speaks of the murmuring of the Iews, upon our Saviour's speaking of giving his Flesh to them, to eat it; he adds, They foolishly and carnally thought,* 1.560 that he was to cut off some parcels of his Body, to be given to them; but he shews that there was a Sacrament hid there; and he thus Paraphrases that Passage, The words that I have spoken to you, they are spirit and life: Vn∣derstand spiritually that which I have said, for it is not this Body which you see that you are to eat, or to drink this Blood which they shall shed, who cru∣cifie me. But I have recommended a Sacrament to you, which being spiritu∣ally understood, shall quicken you: And tho' it be necessary that it be celebra∣ted visibly, yet it must be understood invisibly.

Primasius compares the Sacrament to a Pledge,* 1.561 which a dying Man leaves to any one whom he loved. But that which is more Important than the Quotation of any of the words of the Fathers, is that the Au∣thor of the Books of the Sacraments, which pass under the Name of St. Ambrose;* 1.562 tho' it is generally agreed that those Books were writ some Ages after his Death, gives us the Prayer of Consecration, as it was used in his time: He calls it the Heavenly Words, and sets it down. The Offi∣ces of the Church are a clearer Evidence of the Doctrine of that Church, than all the Discourses that can be made by any Doctor in it; the one is the Language of the whole Body, whereas the other are only the private reasonings of particular Men: And of all the Parts of the Office, the Prayer of Consecration is that which does most certainly set out to us the sense of that Church that used it: But that which makes this Remark the more Important, is that the Prayer as set down by this pretended St. Am∣brose, is very near the same with that which is now in the Canon of the Mass, only there is one very Important variation, which will best appear by setting both down.

That of St. Ambrose's is, Fac nobis hanc oblationem, ascriptam, rationabi∣lem, acceptabilem, quod est figura Corporis & Sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui pridie quam pateretur, &c. That in the Canon of the Mass is, Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quae sumus benedictam, ascriptam, ra∣tam, rationabilem, acceptabilem{que} facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus & San∣guis fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi.

We do plainly see so great a resemblance of the later to the former of these two Prayers, that we may well conclude, that the one was begun in the other; but at the same time we observe an Essential difference. In the former this Sacrifice is called the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ. Whereas in the later it is Prayed that it may become to us the Body and Blood of Christ. As long as the former was the Prayer of Consecration, it is not pofsible for us to imagine, that the Doctrine of the Corporal Pre∣sence could be received; for that which was believed to be the true Body and Blood of Christ, could not be called, especially in such a part of the Office, the Figure of his Body and Blood; and therefore the change that was made in this Prayer, was an evident proof of a change in the Do∣ctrine; and if we could tell in what Age that was done, we might then upon greater certainty fix the time, in which this change was made, or at least in which the inconsistency of that Prayer with this Doctrine was observed.

I have now set down a great variety of Proofs reduced under different Heads, from which it appears evidently that the Fathers did not believe this Doctrine, but that they did affirm the contrary very expresly. This Sacrament continued to be so long considered as the Figure or Image of Christ's Body, that the Seventh General Council which met at Constanti∣nople in the Year 754, and consisted of above Three hundred and thirty Bishops, when it condemned the Worship of Images, affirmed that this was the only Image that we might lawfully have of Christ; and that he had appointed us to offer this Image of his Body, to wit, the Substance of the Bread. That was indeed contradicted with much confidence by the Second Council of Nice, in which, in opposition to what appears to this day in all the Greek Liturgies, and the Greek Fathers, they do positively deny that the Sacrament was ever called the Image of Christ; and they affirm it to be the true Body of Christ.

In conclusion, I shall next shew how this Doctrine crept into the Church; for this seems plausible, that a Doctrine of this nature could never have got into the Church in any Age, if those of the Age that ad∣mitted it, had not known that it had been the Doctrine of the former Age, and so upwards to the Age of the Apostles. It is not to be denied, but that very early both Iustin Martyr and Irenaeus thought, that there was such a Sanctification of the Elements, that there was a Divine Ver∣tue in them: And in those very Passages which we have urg'd from the Arguings of the Fathers against the Eutychians, tho' they do plainly prove that they believed, that the Substance of Bread and Wine did still remain; yet they do suppose an Union of the Elements to the Body of Christ, like that of the Human Nature's being united to the Divine; here a Founda∣tion was laid for all the Superstructure that was afterwards raised upon it. For tho' the Liturgies and Publick Offices continued long in the first sim∣plicity, yet the Fathers who did very much study Eloquence, chiefly the Greek Fathers, carried this matter very far in their Sermons and Homilies. They did only apprehend the Profanation of the Sacrament, from the unworthiness of those who came to it; and being much set on the beget∣ting a due reverence for so holy an action, and a seriousness in the per∣formance of it, they urg'd all the Topicks that sublime Figures, or warm Expressions could help them with; and with this exalted Eloquence of theirs, we must likewise observe the state that the World fell in, in the Fifth Century: Vast Swarms out of the North over-run the Roman Em∣pire, and by a long continued Succession of new Invaders, all was sackt and ruined. In the West, the Goths were followed by the Vandals, the

Alans, the Gepides, the Franks, the Sweves, the Huns, and the Lombards, some of these Nations; but in conclusion the Saracens and Turks in the East, made Havock of all that was polite or learned; by which we lost the chief Writings of the first and best Times; but instead of these, many spurious ones were afterwards produced, and they passed easily in dark and ignorant Ages. All fell under much oppression and misery; and Europe was so over-run with Barbarity and Ignorance, that it cannot be easily apprehended, but by such as have been at the pains to go through one of the ungratefullest pieces of Study that can be well imagined; and have read the Productions of those Ages. The understanding the Scrip∣tures or Languages, or History were not so much as thought on. Some affected Homilies or Discantings on the Rituals of the Church, full of many very odd Speculations about them, are among the best of the Wri∣tings of those Times. They were easily imposed on by any new Forge∣ry; witness the Reception and Authority that was given to the Decretal Epistles of the Popes of the first Three Centuries, which for many Ages maintained its credit, tho' it was plainly a Forgery of the Eighth Century, and was contrived with so little Art, that there is not in them colour enough to excuse the ignorance of those that were deceived by it. As it is an easie thing to mislead ignorant multitudes, so there is somewhat in Incredible Opinions and Stories, that is suited to such a state of Mankind; and as Men are apt to fancy that they see Sprights, especially in the Night, so the more of darkness and unconceivableness that there is in an Opinion, it is the more properly calculated for such times. The Ages that suc∣ceeded were not only times of Ignorance, but they were also times of much Corruption. The Writers of the Fourth and Fifth Century give us dismal Representations of the Corruptions of their times; and the scan∣dalous unconstancy of the Councils of those Ages, is too evident a proof of what we find said by the Good Men of those days: But things fell lower and lower in the succeeding Ages. It is an amazing thing that in the very Office of Consecrating Bishops, Examinations are ordered con∣cerning those Crimes, the very mention of which give horrour; De Coi∣tu cum Masculo & cum Quadruped••bus.

The Popes more particularly were such a Succession of Men, that as their own Historians have described them, nothing in any History can be produced that is like them. The Characters they give them are so mon∣strous, that nothing under the authority of unquestioned Writers, and the Evidence of the Facts themselves, could make them credible.

But that which makes the Introduction of this Doctrine appear the more probable, is that we plainly see the whole Body of the Clergy was every where so Influenced by the management of the Popes, that they generally entred into Combinations to subject the Temporalty to the Spi∣ritualty, and therefore every Opinion that tended to render the Persons of the Clergy Sacred, and to raise their Character high, was sure to re∣ceive the best entertainment, and the greatest incouragement possible. Nothing could carry this so far as an Opinion that represented the Priest as having a Character by which with a few words, he could make a God. The Opinion of Transubstantiation was such an Engine, that it being once set on foot, could not but meet with a favourable re∣ception from those who were then seeking all possible colours, to give cre∣dit to their authority, and to advance it. The numbers of the Clergy were then so great, and their contrivances were so well suited to the cre∣dulity and superstition of those times, that by Visions and wonderful Stories confidently vouched, they could easily infuse any thing into weak

and giddy Multitudes. Besides that the Genius of those Times led them much to the love of Pomp and Shew; they had lost the true Power and Beauty of Religion, and were willing by outward Appearances to balance or compensate for their great Defects.

But besides all those general Considerations which such as are acquaint∣ed with the History of those Ages, know do belong to them in a much higher Degree than is here set forth: There are some Specialities that re∣late to this Doctrine in Particular, which will make the Introduction of it appear the more Practicable. This had never been condemned in any for∣mer Age; for as none condemn Errors by Anticipation or Prophesy, so the Promoters of it had this Advantage, that no formal Decision had been made against them. It did also in the outward sound agree with the Words of the Institution, and the Phrases generally used, of the Elements being changed into the Body and Blood of Christ: Outward sound and appearance was enough in Ignorant Ages, to hide the Change that was made. The step that is made from believing any thing in General, with an indistinct and confused Apprehension, to a determined way of ex∣plaining it, is not hard to be brought about.

The People in General believed that Christ was in the Sacrament, and that the Elements were his Body and Blood; without troubling themselves to Examine in what Manner all this was done: So it was no great step in a dark Age, to put a particular Explanation of this upon them: And this Change being brought in without any visible Alterations made in the Wor∣ship, it must needs have passed with the World more easily: For in all Times, visible Rites are more minded by the People, than speculative Points; which they consider very little. No Alterations were at first made in the Worship; the Adoration of the Host, and the Processions invented to Honour it came all afterwards.

* 1.563Honorius IV. who first appointed the Adoration, does not pretend to Found it on ancient Practice: Only he commands the Priests to tell the People to do it: And he at first enjoined only an Inclination of the Head to the Sacrament: But his Successor Gregory IX. did more resolutely Command it, and ordered a Bell to be rung at the Consecration and Ele∣vation, to give notice of it, that so all those who heard it might kneel and join their Hands, and so Worship the Host.

The first Controversy about the Manner of the Presence, arose inciden∣tally upon the Controversy of Images: The Council at Constantinople de∣creed, that the Sacrament was the Image of Christ, in which the substance of Bread and Wine remained. Those at Nice how furiously soever they fell up∣on them, for calling the Sacrament the Image of Christ, yet do no where blame them for saying that the substance of Bread and Wine remained in it: For indeed the Opinion of Damascene and of most of the Greek Church was, That there was an Assumption of the Bread and Wine into an Vnion with the Body of Christ. The Council of Constantinople brought in their Decisi∣on occasionally, that being considered as the setled Doctrine of the Church; whereas those of Nice did visibly Innovate and Falsify the Tradition: For they affirm as Damascene had done before them, that the Elements we••e called the Antitypes of Christ's Body, only before they were consecrated, but not after it: Which they say none of the Fathers had done. This is so no∣toriously False, that no Man can pretend now to justify them in it, since there are above twenty of the Fathers that were before them, who in plain words call the Elements after Consecration, the Figure and Antitype of Christ's Bo∣dy: Here then was the Tradition and Practice of the Church falsified, which

is no small Prejudice against those that support the Doctrine, as well as against the Credit of that Council.

About thirty Years after that Council, Paschase Radbert Abbot of Corby in France, did very plainly assert the corporal Presence in the Eucharist: He is acknowledged both by Bellarmin and Sirmondus to be the first Writer, that did on purpose advance and explain that Doctrine: He himself values his Pains in that Matter, and as he laments the slowness of some in be∣lieving it, so he pretends that he had moved many to assent to it: But he confesses that some blamed him for ascribing a Sense to the Words of Christ that was not consonant to Truth. There was but one Book writ in that Age to second him, the Name of the Author was lost till Mabillon disco∣vered that it was writ by one Herigerus Abbot of Cob. But all the Emi∣nent Men and the great Writers of that time, wrote plainly against this Doctrine; and affi••med that the Bread and Wine remained in the Sa∣crament, and did nourish our Bodies as other Meats do. Those were Ra∣banus Maurus Archbishop of Mentz, Amalarius Archbishop of Triers, Heri∣bald Bishop of Auxerre, Bertram or Ratramne, Iohn Scot Erigena, Walafridus Strabus, Florus, and Christian Druthmar. Three of these set themselves on purpose to refute Paschase.

Rabanus Maurus in an Epistle to Abbot Egilon wrote against Paschase for saying, that it was that Body that was born of the Virgin, that was cru∣cified and raised up again, which was daily offered up. And though that Book is lost, yet as he himself refers his Reader to it in his Penitential, so we have an Account given of it by the Anonymous defender of Paschase.

Ratramne was commanded by Charles the Bald, then Emperour, to write upon that Subject, which he in the beginning of his Book promises to do, not trusting to his own Sense, but following the Steps of the Holy Fathers. He tells us, that there were different Opinions about it: Some believing that the Body of Christ was there without a Figure: Others saying that it was there in a Figure, or Mystery: Upon which he apprehended that a great Schism must follow. His Book is very short and very plain: He asserts our Doctrine as expresly as we our selves can do: He delivers it in the same Words, and proves it by many of the same Arguments and Authori∣ties that we bring.

Raban and Ratramne were without dispute reckoned among the first Men of that Age.

Iohn Scot was also commanded by the same Emperour to write on the same Subject: He was one of the most Learned and the most Ingenious Men of the age; and was in great Esteem both with the Emperour, and with our King Alfred: He was reckoned both a Saint and a Martyr. He did formally refute Paschase's Doctrine, and assert ours. His Book is indeed lost, but a full Account of it is given us by other Writers of that Time. And it is a great Evidence, that his Opinion in this Matter was not then thought to be contrary to the general Sense of the Church in that Age: For he having writ against St. Augustin's Doctrine concerning Predestination, there was a very severe Censure of him and of his Writings published under the Name of the Church of Lions: In which they do not once reflect on him for his Opinions touching the Eucharist. It appears from this, that their Doctrine concerning the Sacrament was then generally received: Since both Ratramne and he, though they differ'd extreamly in that Point of Pre∣destination, yet both agreed in this. It is probable that the Saxon Homily that was read in England on Easter-day was taken from Scot's Book; which does fully reject the corporal Presence. This is enough to shew that Pas∣chase's

Opinion was an Innovation broached in the Ninth Century, and was opposed by all the Great Men of that Age.

The Tenth Century was the blackest and most ignorant of all the Ages of the Church: There is not one Writer in that Age that gives us any clear Account of the Doctrine of the Church: Such remote Hints as occur do still savour of Ratramne's Doctrine. All Men were then asleep, and so it was a fit time for the Tares that Paschase had sown to grow up in it. The Popes of that Age were such a Succession of Monsters, that Baronius cannot for∣bear to make the saddest Exclamations possible against their Debaucheries, their Cruelties, and their other Vices. About the middle of the Eleventh Century, after this Dispute had slept almost two hundred Years, it was again revived.

Bruno Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius his Archdeacon, maintained the Doctrine of Ratramne: Little mention is made of the Bishop, but the Archdeacon is spoken of as a Man of great Piety: So that he past for a Saint, and was a Man of such Learning that when he was brought be∣fore Pope Nicolaus, no Man could resist him. He writ against Paschase, and had many followers. The Historians of that Age tell us, that his Doctrine had overspread all France. The Books writ against him by Lan∣franc and others, are filled with an impudent corrupting of all Antiquity. Many Councils were held upon this Matter, and these together with the Terrours of Burning, which was then beginning to be the common Punish∣ment of Heresy, made him renounce his Opinion: But he returned to it again; yet he afterwards renounced it: Though Lanfranc reproaches him that it was not the Love of Truth, but the Fear of Death that brought him to it. And his final Retracting of that renouncing of his Opinion is late∣ly found in France, as I have been credibly informed. Thus this Opinion that in the Ninth Century was generally received, and was condemned by neither Pope nor Council, was become so odious in the Eleventh Century, that none durst own it. And he who had the Courage to own it, yet was not resolute enough to stand to it: For about this Time the Doctrine of extirpating Hereticks, and of deposing such Princes as were Defective in that Matter, was universally put in Practice. Great Bodies of Men began to separate from the Roman Communion in the Southern Parts of France; and one of the chief Points of their Doctrine, was their believing that Christ was not corporally Present in the Eucharist; and that he was there only in a Figure or Mystery. But now that the contrary Doctrine was esta∣blished, and that those who denied it were adjudged to be burnt, it is no wonder if it quickly gained Ground, when on the one hand the Priests saw their Interest in promoting it, and all People felt the Danger of denying it. The Anathema's of the Church, and the Terrours of Burning, were infallible Things, to silence Contradiction at least, if not to gain Assent.

Soon after this Doctrine was received, the Schoolmen began to refine upon it,* 1.564 as they did upon every thing else. The Master of the Sentences would not determine how Christ was Present; whether formally, or sub∣stantially, or some other way. Some Schoolmen thought that the Matter of Bread was destroyed; but that the Form remained, to be the Form of Christ's Body, that was the Matter of it. Others thought that the Matter of the Elements remained, and that the Form only was destroyed: But that to which many inclined, was the Assumption of the Elements into an Union with the Body of Christ, or a hypostatical Union of the eternal Word to them, by which they became as truly a Body to Christ, as that which he has in Heaven: Yet it was not the same, but a different Body.

Stephen Bishop of Autun was the First that fell on the Word of Transub∣stantiation. Amalric in the beginning of the Thirteenth Century denied in express Words the corporal Presence:* 1.565 He was condemned in the Fourth Council of the Lateran as an Heretick, and his Body was ordered to be ta∣ken up and burnt: And in opposition to him Transubstantiation was de∣creed. Yet the Schoolmen continued to offer different Explanations of this for a great while after that: But in conclusion all agreed to explain it as was formerly set forth. It appears by the crude Way in which it was at first explained, that it was a Novelty: And that Men did not know how to mould and frame it; but at last it was licked into shape; the whole Philosophy being cast into such a Mould as agreed with it. And there∣fore in the present Age, in which that Philosophy has lost its Credit, great Pains are taken to suppress the New and freer Way of Philosophy, as that which cannot be so easily subdued to support this Doctrine, as the Old one was. And the Arts that those who go into the New Philosophy, take to re∣concile their Scheme to this Doctrine, shew that there is nothing that sub∣tile and unsincere Men will not venture on: For, since they make Exten∣sion to be of the Essence of Matter, and think that Accidents are only the Modes of Matter, which have no proper being of themselves, it is evident, that a Body cannot be without its Extension, and that Accidents cannot subsist without their Subject; so that this can be in no sort reconciled to Tran∣substantiation: And therefore they would willingly avoid this special Man∣ner of the Presence, and only in General assert that Christ is corporally Present. But the Decrees of the Lateran and Trent Councils make it evident, that Transubstantiation is now a Doctrine that is bound upon them, by the Authority of the Church and of Tradition: And that they are as much bound to believe it as to believe the corporal Presence it self. Thus the going off from the Simplicity in which Christ did deliver the Sacra∣ment, and in which the Church at first received it, into some sublime Ex∣pressions about it, led Men once out of the way, and they still went far∣ther and farther from it. Pious and Rhetorical Figures, pursued far by Men of heated Imaginations, and of inflamed Affections, were followed with Explanations invented by colder and more designing Men afterwards, and so it increased till it grew by degrees to that which at last it settled on.

But after all, if the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence had rested only in a Speculation, tho' we should have judged those who held it to be very bad Philosophers, and no good Criticks, yet we could have endured it; if it had rested there, and had not gone on to be a matter of practice, by the Adoration and Processions, with every thing else of that kind, which followed upon it; for this corrupted the Worship.

The Lutherans believe a Consubstantiation, and that both Christ's Body and Blood, and the Substance of the Elements are together in the Sacra∣ment: That some explain by an Vbiquity, which they think is com∣municated to the Human Nature of Christ, by which his Body is every where as well as in the Sacrament: Whereas others of them think that since the words of Christ must needs be true in a literal sense, his Body and Blood is therefore in the Sacrament, but in, with, and under the Bread and Wine. All this we think is ill grounded, and is neither agreea∣ble to the words of the Institution, nor to the nature of things. A great deal of that which was formerly set forth in defence of our Doctrine falls likewise upon this. The Vbiquity communicated to the Humane Nature, as it seems a thing in it self impossible, so it gives no more to the Sacra∣ment than to every thing else. Christ's Body may be said to be in every

thing, or rather every thing may be said to be his Body and Blood, as well as the Elements in the Sacrament. The impossibility of a Bodies being with∣out extension, or in more places at once, lies against this, as well as against Transubstantiation. But yet after all, this is only a Point of Speculation, nothing follows upon it in practice, no Adoration is offered to the Elements; and therefore we judge that Speculative Opinions may be born with, when they neither fall upon the Fundamentals of Christianity, to give us false Ideas of the Essential parts of our Religion, nor affect our practice, and chiefly when the Worship of God is maintained in its Purity, for which we see God has expressed so particular a concern, giving it the Word which of all others raises in us the most sensible and the strongest Ideas, calling it Iealousie; that we reckon, we ought to watch over this with much caution. We can very well bear with some Opinions, that we think ill grounded, as long as they are only matters of Opinion, and have no Influence neither on Mens Morals, nor their Worship. We still hold Communion with Bodies of Men, that as we judge think wrong, but yet do both live well, and maintain the Purity of the Worship of God. We know the great design of Religion is to govern Men's Lives, and to give them right Ideas of God, and of the Ways of Worshipping him. All Opinions that do not break in upon these, are things in which great for∣bearance is to be used; large Allowances are to be made for Mens Noti∣ons in all other things; and therefore we think that neither Consubstantia∣tion nor Transubstantiation, how ill grounded soever we take both to be, ought to dissolve the Union and Communion of Churches: But it is quite another thing, if under either of these Opinions an Adoration of the Ele∣ments is taught and practised.

This we believe is plain Idolatry, when an Insensible piece of Matter, such as Bread and Wine, has Divine Honours paid it; when it is believed to be God, when it is called God, and is in all respects Worshipped with the same Adoration that is offered up to Almighty God. This we think is gross Idolatry. Many Writers of the Church of Rome have acknowledged that if Transubstantiation is not true, their Worship is a strain of Idolatry be∣yond any that is practised among the most depraved of all the Heathens.

The only excuse that is offered in this matter, is, that since the declared Object of Worship is Iesus Christ, believed to be there present, then whe∣ther he is present or not, the Worship terminates in him; both the secret acts of the Worshippers, and the professed Doctrine of the Church do lodge it there. And therefore it may be said, that tho' he should not be actually present, yet the act of Adoration being directed to him, must be accepted of God, as right meant, and duly directed, even tho' there should happen to be a mistake in the outward application of it.

In answer to this, we do not pretend to determine, how far this may be pardoned by God; whose Mercies are infinite, and who does certain∣ly consider, chiefly the Hearts of his Creatures, and is merciful to their Infirmities, and to such Errors as arise out of their weakness, their Hearts being sincere before him. We ought to consider this action as it is in it self, and not according to Mens Apprehensions and Opinions about it. If the conceits that the Ancient Idolaters had both concerning their Gods, and the Idols that they Worshipped, will excuse from Idolatry, it will be ve∣ry hard to say that there were ever any Idolaters in the World. Those who Worshipped the Sun, thought that the great Divinity was lodged there, as in a Vehicle or Temple; but yet they were not by reason of that misconception excused from being Idolaters.

If a false Opinion upon which a practice is founded, taken up without any good authority, will excuse Mens Sins, it will be easie for them to

find Apologies for every thing. If the Worship of the Elements had been commanded by God, then an Opinion concerning it might excuse the carrying of that too far; but there being no Command for it, no hint gi∣ven about it, nor any insinuation given of any such practice in the begin∣nings of Christianity; an Opinion that Men have taken up cannot justifie a new practice, of which neither the first nor a great many of the fol∣lowing Ages knew any thing. An Opinion cannot justifie Mens practice founded upon it, if that proves to be false. All the softning that can be given it, is, that it is a sin of Ignorance; but that does not change the nature of the action, how far soever it may go with relation to the Judg∣ments of God: If the Opinion is rashly taken up and stiffly maintained, the Worship that is introduced upon it, is aggravated by the ill founda∣tion that it is built upon. We know God by his Essence is every where; but this will not justifie our Worshipping any Material Object upon this pretence, because God is in it; we ought never to Worship Him towards any visible Object, unless he were evidently declaring his Glory in it; as he did to Moses in the Flaming-bush; to the Israelites on Mount Sinai, and in the Cloud of Glory; or to us Christians in a sublimer manner in the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ.

But by this parity of Reason, tho' we were sure that Christ were in the Elements, yet since he is there Invisible, as God is by his Essence every where, we ought to direct no Adoration to the Elements; we ought only to Worship God, and his Son Christ Jesus, in the grateful re∣membrance of his Sufferings for us, which are therein commemorated. We ought not to suffer our Worship to terminate on the Visible Elements; because if Christ is in them, yet he does not manifest that visibly to us: Since therefore the Opinion of the Corporal Presence, upon which this Adoration is founded, is False, and since no such Worship is so much as mentioned, much less commanded in Scripture; and since there can scarce be any Idolatry in the World so gross, as that it shall not excuse it self by some such Doctrine, by which all the acts of Worship are made to termi∣nate finally in God; we must conclude that this Plea cannot excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry, even though their Doctrine of the Corporal Presence were true: But much less if it is False. We do therefore condemn this Worship as Idolatry, without taking upon us to define the Extent of the Mercies of God, towards all those who are involved in it.

If all the Premises are True, then it is needless to insist longer on explain∣ing the following Paragraph of the Article; that Christ's Body is received in the Sacrament in a heavenly and spiritual Manner, and that the Mean by which it is received is Faith: For that is such a natural result of them, that it appears evident of it self, as being the Conclusion that arises out of those Premises.

The last Paragraph is against the reserving, carrying about, the lifting up, or the worshipping the Sacrament. The Point concerning the Worship, which is the most essential of them, has been already considered. As for the reserving or carrying the Sacrament about; it is very visible, that the Institution is, Take, eat, and drink ye all of it: which does import that the consum••ng the Elements, is a part of the Institution; and by conse∣quence that they are a Sacrament only as they are distributed and recei∣ved. It is true the practice of reserving or sending about the Elements, began very early; the state of things at first made it almost unavoidable. When there were yet but a few converted to Christianity, and when there were but few Priests to serve them, they neither could nor durst meet all together, especially in the times of Persecution; so some parts of the Elements were sent to the absents, to those in Prison, and particularly

to the Sick, as a Symbol of their being parts of the Body, and that they were in the Peace and Communion of the Church. The Bread was sent with the Wine, and it was sent about by any Person whatsoever; some∣times by Boys;* 1.566 as appears in the famous Story of Serapion in the Third Century. So that the condition of the Christians in that time, made that necessary to keep them all in the sense of their obligation to Union and Communion with the Church; and that could not well be done in any other way. But we make a great difference between this practice, when taken up out of necessity, tho' not exactly conform to the first Institu∣tion; and the continuing it out of Superstition, when there is no need of it. Therefore instead of Consecrating a larger portion of Elements than is necessary for the occasion, and the reserving what is over and above; and the setting that out with great Pomp on the Altar, to be worshipped, or the carrying it about with a vast Magnificence in a Procession, invented to put the more honour on it; or the sending it to the Sick with So∣lemnity; we chuse rather to Consecrate only so much as may be judged fit for the number of those who are to communicate. And when the Sacra∣ment is over, we do in imitation of the practice of some of the Ancients, consume what is left, that there may be no occasion given either to Super∣stition or Irreverence. And for the Sick, or the Prisoners, we think it is a greater Mean to quicken their Devotion, as well as it is a closer adher∣ing to the Words of the Institution, to Consecrate in their Presence: for tho' we can bear with the practice of the Greek Church, of reserving and sending about the Eucharist, when there is no Idolatry joyned with it; yet we cannot but think that this is the continuance of a practice which the state of the first Ages introduced, and that was afterwards kept up, out of a too scrupulous imitation of that time; without considering that the difference of the state of the Christians, in the former and in the suc∣ceeding Ages, made that what was at first innocently practised (since a real necessity may well excuse a want of exactness, in some matters that are only positive) became afterwards an occasion of much Superstition, and in conclusion ended in Idolatry. Those ill effects that it had, are more than is necessary to justifie our practice in reducing this strictly to the first Institution.

As for the lifting up of the Eucharist, there is not a word of it in the Gospel; nor is it mentioned by St. Paul. Neither Iustin Martyr, nor Cyril of Ierusalem speak of it; there is nothing concerning it neither in the Con∣stitutions, nor in the Areopagite. In those first Ages all the Elevation that is spoken of, is the lifting up their Hearts to God. The Elevation of the Sacrament began to be practised in the Sixth Century; for it is mention∣ed in the Liturgy called St. Chrysostome's, but believed to be much latter than his time.* 1.567 German, a Writer of the Greek Church of the Thirteenth Century, is the first that descants upon it; he speaks not of it as done, in order to the Adoration of it, but makes it to represent both Christ's being lifted up on the Cross, and also his Resurrection. Ivo of Chartres, who lived in the end of the 11th Century, is the first of all the Latins that speaks of it; but then it was not commonly practised; for the Author of the Micro∣logus, tho' he writ at the same time, yet does not mention it, who yet is very minute upon all particulars relating to this Sacrament. Nor does Ivo speak of it as done in order to Adoration, but only as a form of shewing it to the People.* 1.568 Durand, a Writer of the 13th Century, is the first that speaks of the Elevation as done in order to the Adoration. So it appears that our Church by cutting off these Abuses, has restored this Sacrament to its Pri∣mitive Simplicity, according to the Institution, and the practice of the first Ages.

ARTICLE XXIX. Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the Use of the Lord's-Supper.

The wicked and such as be void of a lively Faith, altho they do carnally and visibly press with their Teeth (as St. Austin saith) the Sacra∣ment of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they parta∣kers of Christ; but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the Sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

THIS Article arises naturally out of the Former, and depends upon it: For, if Christ's Body is corporally present in the Sacrament, then all Persons good or bad, who receive the Sacrament, do also receive Christ: On the other hand, if Christ is Present only in a Spiritual Manner, and if the Mean that receives Christ, is Faith, then such as believe not, do not receive him. So that to prove that the Wicked do not receive Christ's Body and Blood, is upon the Matter the same thing with the proving, that he is not corporally Present: And it is a very considerable Branch of our Argument, by which we prove that the Fathers did not be∣lieve the corporal Presence, because they do very often say, That the Wicked do not receive Christ in the Sacrament.

Here the same distinction is to be made, that was mentioned upon the Article of Baptism. The Sacraments are to be considered either as they are Acts of Church-Communion, or as they are federal Acts by which we enter into Covenant with God. With respect to the Former, the visible Profession that is made, and the Action that is done, are all that can fall un∣der human cognisance: So a Sacrament must be held to be good and valid, when as to outward appearance all things are done according to the Insti∣tution: But as to the internal Effect and Benefit of it, that turns upon the Truth of the Profession that is made, and the sincerity of those Acts which do accompany it. For, if these are not seriously and sincerely per∣formed, God is dishonoured, and his Institution is prophaned. Our Savi∣our has expresly said, that whosoever eats his Flesh, and drinks his Blood, has eternal Life. From thence we conclude, that no Man does truly re∣ceive Christ, who does not at the same time receive with him both a Right to eternal Life, and likewise the beginnings and earnests of it. The Sacrament being a federal Act, he who dishonours God, and prophanes this Institution, by receiving it unworthily, becomes highly guilty before God, and draws down Judgments upon himself: And as it is confessed on all hands that the inward and spiritual Effects of the Sacrament depend upon the State and Disposition of him that Communicates, so we who own no other Presence but an inward and spiritual one, cannot conceive that the Wicked who believe not in Christ do receive him.

In this Point several of the Fathers have delivered themselves very plainly.

Origen says, Christ is the true Food, whosoever eats him shall live for ever; of whom no wicked Person can eat:* 1.569 for if it were possible that any who continues Wicked, should eat the Word that was made Flesh, it had never been written, Who∣so eats this Bread shall live for ever. This comes after a Discourse of the Sacrament, which he calls the typical and symbolical Body, and so it can

only belong to it: In another place he says, The Good eat the living Bread which came down from Heaven; but the Wicked eat dead Bread which is Death.

* 1.570Zeno Bishop of Verona, who is believed to have lived near Origen's time, has these words, There is cause to fear that he in whom the Devil dwells, does not eat the Flesh of our Lord, nor drink his Blood; though he seems to com∣municate with the Faithful; since our Lord has said, He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwells in me, and I in him.

St. Ierom says, They that are not Holy in Body and Spirit, do neither eat the Flesh of Iesus nor drink his Blood;* 1.571 of which he said, He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood hath eternal Life.

* 1.572St. Augustin expresses himself in the very Words that are cited in the Article, which he introduces with these words; He that does not abide in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, certainly does not spiritually eat his Flesh, nor drink his Blood, tho he may visibly and carnally press with his Teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ: But he rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a Matter to his Condemnation. And in another Place he says,* 1.573 Neither are they (speaking of vitious Persons) to be said to eat the Body of Christ, because they are not his Members; to which he adds, He that says, Whoso eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood abides in me and I in him, shews what it is not only in a Sacrament, but truly to eat the Bo∣dy of Christ and to drink his Blood. He has upon another Occasion those frequently cited Words, speaking of the difference between the other Dis∣ciples and Iudas in receiving this Sacrament,* 1.574 These did eat the Bread, that was the Lord (panem Dominum) but he the Bread of the Lord against the Lord (panem Domini contra Dominum). To all this a great deal might be added to shew, that this was the Doctrine of the Greek Church, even after Damascene's Opinion, concerning the Assumption of the Elements into an Union with the Body of Christ, was received among them: But more needs not be said concerning this, since it will be readily granted, that if we are in the Right in the main Point of denying the corporal Presence, that this will fall with it.

ARTICLE XXX. Of both Kinds.

The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to Lay People. For both Parts of the Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment, ought to be ministred to all Christian Men alike.

THere is not any one of all the Controversies that we have with the Church of Rome, in which the decision seems more easie and shorter than this. The words of the Institution are not only equally express and positive as to both kinds, but the diversity with which that part that re∣lates to the Cup is set down, seems to be as clear a demonstration for us, as can be had in a matter of this kind; and looks like a special direction given, to warn the Church against any corruption that might arise upon this Head. To all such as acknowledg the Immediate Union of the Eternal Word with the Human Nature of Christ, and the Inspiration by which the Apostles were conducted, it must be of great weight to find a Specialty marked as to the Chalice: of the Cup it is said, Drink ye all of it; whereas of the Bread it is only said, Take, eat; so we cannot think the word all was set down without design. It is also said of the Cup, and they all drank of it; which is not said of the Bread: We think it no piece of trifling nicety to observe this Specialty. The words added to the giving the Cup, are very particularly Emphatical. Take, eat, This is my Body which is given for you, is not so full an Expression, as, Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many, for the re∣mission of Sins. If the surest way to judg of the extent of any Precept, to which a reason is added, is to consider the extent of the Reason, and to measure the extent of the Precept by that, then since all that do com∣municate, need the remission of Sins, and a share in the New Covenant, the reason that our Saviour joins to the distribution of the Cup, proves that they ought all to receive it. And if that Discourse in St. Iohn concerning the eating of Christ's Flesh, and the drinking his Blood, is to be understood of the Sacrament, as most of the Roman Church affirm, then the drinking Christ's Blood is as necessary to Eternal Life, as the eating his Flesh; by consequence it is as necessary to receive the Cup as the Bread. And it is not easie to apprehend, why it should still be necessary to consecrate in both kinds, and not likewise to receive in both kinds. It cannot be pretended that since the Apostles were all of the Sacred Order, therefore their re∣ceiving in both kinds is no Precedent for giving the Laity the Cup; for Christ gave them both kinds as they were Sinners, who were now to be admitted into Covenant with God by the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. They were in that to shew forth his death, and were to Take, eat, and drink in remembrance of him. So that this Institution was delivered to them as they were Sinners, and not as they were Priests. They were not constitu∣ted by Christ the Pastors and Governours of his Church, till after his Re∣surrection, when he breathed on them, and laid his hands on them,* 1.575 and blessed them. So that at this time they were only Christ's Disciples and Witnesses; who had been once sent out by him on an extraordinary Commission; but had yet no stated Character fixed upon them.

To this it is said, that Christ by saying, Do this, constituted them Priests; so that they were no more of the Laity, when they received the Cup.

This is a new conceit taken up by the Schoolmen unknown to all Anti∣quity: There is no sort of Tradition that supports this Exposition; nor is there any reason to imagin, that Do this, signifies any other than a Precept to continue that Institution, as a Memorial of Christ's Death; and Do this, takes in all that went before, the taking, the giving, as well as the blessing, and the eating the Bread: nor is there any reason to appro∣priate this to the Blessing only, as if by this the Consecrating and Sacri∣ficing Power were conferred on the Priests. From all which we conclude both that the Apostles were only Disciples at large, without any special characters conferred on them when the Eucharist was instituted, and that the Eucharist was given to them only as Disciples, that is, as Laymen.

The mention that is made in some places of the new Testament, only of breaking of Bread, can furnish them with no Argument; for it is not certain that these do relate to the Sacrament: or if they did, it is not cer∣tain that they are to be understood strictly; for by a Figure common to the Eastern Nations, Bread stands for all that belongs to a Meal: and if these places are applied to the Sacrament, and ought to be strictly under∣stood, they will prove too much, that the Sacrament may be consecra∣ted in one kind; and that the breaking of Bread, without the Cup, may be understood to be a compleat Sacrament. But when St. Paul spoke of this Sacrament, he does so distinctly mention the drinking the Cup as well as eating the Bread, that it is plain from him how the Apostles under∣stood the words and intent of Christ, and how this Sacrament was recei∣ved in that time.

From the Institution and Command, which are express and positive, we go next to consider the nature of Sacramental Actions. They have no virtue in them, as Charms tyed either to Elements, or to words: they are only good because commanded. A different state of things may indeed ju∣stifie an alteration as to Circumstances: The danger of dipping in cold Climates, may be a very good reason for changing the Form of Baptism to Sprinkling; and if Climates were inhabited by Christians to which Wine could not be brought, we should not doubt but that whensoever God makes a real necessity of departing from any Institution of his, he does thereby allow of such a change as that necessity must draw after it: So we do not condemn the License that is said to have been granted by Pope Innocent the Eighth, to celebrate without Wine in Norway; nor should we deny a Man the Sacrament who had a natural and unconquer∣able aversion to Wine, or that Communicated being near his last Agonies, and that should have the like aversion to either of the Elements. When those things are real and not pretended, Mercy is better then Sacri∣fice. The punctual observance of a Sacramental Institution, does only ob∣lige us to the essential parts of it, and in ordinary Cases: The pretence of what may be done, or has been done upon extraordinary occasions, can never justifie the deliberate and unnecessary alteration of an essential part of the Sacrament. The whole Institution shews very plainly, that our Sa∣viour meant that the Cup should be considered, every whit as essential as Bread; and therefore we cannot but conclude from the nature of things, that since the Sacraments have only their effects from their Institution, therefore so total a change of this Sacrament does plainly evacuate the In∣stitution, and by consequence destroy the effect of it.

All reasoning upon this Head is an arguing against the Institution, as if Christ and his Apostles had not well enough considered it; but that 1200 years after them, a Consequence should be observed that till then had not been thought of, which made it reasonable to alter the manner of it.

The Concomitance is the great thing that is here urged, since it is believed that Christ is intirely under each of the Elements; and therefore it is not necessary that both should be received, because Christ is fully received in any one. But this subsists on the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; so if that is false, then here upon a controverted opinion, an uncontroverted piece of the Institution is altered. And if Concomitance is a certain consequence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, then it is a very strong Argument against the Antiquity of that Doctrine, that the World was so long with∣out the notion of Concomitance; and therefore if Transubstantiation had been sooner received, the Concomitance would have been more early observed. The Institution of the Sacrament seems to be so laid down, as rather to make us consider the Body and Blood as in a state of Separation, than of Conco∣mitance; the Body being represented apart, and the Blood apart; and the Body as broken, and the Blood as shed. Therefore we consider the design of the Sacrament is, to represent Christ to us as dead, and in his Crucified but not in his Glorified state. And if the opinion be true that the Glori∣fied Bodies are of another Texture than that of flesh and Blood, which seems to be very plainly asserted by St. Paul, in a Discourse intended to describe the nature of the Glorified Bodies, then this Theory of Con∣comitance will fail upon that account. But whatsoever may be in that, an Institution of Christ's must not be altered or violated, upon the account of an Inference that is drawn to conclude it needless. He who instituted it, knew best what was most fitting and most reasonable; and we must choose rather to acquiesce in his Commands, than in our own reasonings.

If next to the Institution, and the Theory that arises from the nature of a Sacrament, we consider the practice of the Christian Church in all Ages, there is not any one point in which the Tradition of the Church is more express, and more universal than in this particular, for above a thousand years after Christ. All the accounts that we have of the Antient Rituals, both in Iustin Martyr, Cyril of Ierusalem, the Constitutions,* 1.576 and the pre∣tended Areopagite, do expresly mention both kinds as given separately in the Sacrament. All the Antient Liturgies, as well these that go under the Names of the Apostles, as those which are ascribed to St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, do mention this very expresly: all the Offices of the Western Church, both Roman and others; the Missals of the latter Ages, I mean down to the Twelfth Century, even the Ordo Romanus, believed by some to be a work of the Ninth, and by others of the Eleventh Century, are express in mentioning the distribution of both kinds. All the Fathers, with∣out excepting one, do speak of it very clearly, as the universal practice of their Time. They do not so much as give a hint of any difference a∣bout it. So that from Ignatius down to Thomas Aquinas,* 1.577 there is not any one Writer that differs from the rest in this point; and even Aquinas speaks of the taking away the Chalice as the practice only of some Churches: other Writers of his time had not heard of any of these Churches; for they speak of both kinds as the Universal practice.

But besides this general concurrence there are some Specialties in this matter: in St. Cyprian's time some thought it was not necessary to use Wine in the Sacrament, they therefore used Water only; and were from thence called Aquarii. It seems they found that their Morning Assemblies were smelt out by the Wine used in the Sacrament; and Christians might be known by the smell of Wine that was still about them: they there∣fore intended to avoid this, and so they had no Wine among them; which was a much weightier reason, than that of the Wine sticking upon the Beards of the Laity. Yet St. Cyprian condemned this very severely,* 1.578 in a

long Epistle writ upon that occasion. He makes this the main Argu∣ment, and goes over it frequently, and that we ought to follow ••hrist, and do what he did: And he has those memorable words, If it be not lawful to loose any one of the least Commands of Christ, how much more is it unlawful to break so great and so weighty a one; that does so very nearly relate to the Sa∣crament of our Lord's Passion, and of our Redemption; or by any Human In∣stitution to change it, into that which is quite different from the Divine Insti∣tution? This is so full that we cannot express our selves more plainly.

Among the other Profanations of the Manicheans this was one, that they came among the Assemblies of the Christians, and did receive the Bread, but they would not take any Wine; this is mentioned by Pope Leo in the Fifth Century:* 1.579 upon which Pope Gelasius hearing of it in his time, appointed that all Persons should either communicate in the Sacra∣ment intirely, or be intirely excluded from it; for that such a dividing of one and the same Sacrament, might not be done without a heinous Sacri∣ledge.

In the Seventh Century a practice was begun of dipping the Bread in the Wine, and so giving both kinds together. This was condemned by the Council of Bracara, as plainly contrary to the Gosp••l: Christ gave his Body and Blood to his Apostles distinctly the Bread b•• it s••lf,* 1.580 and the Chalice by it self. This is by a mistake of Gratian's, put in th•• Canon-Law as a Decree of Pope Iulius to the Bishops of Egypt. It is probable that it was thus given first to the Sick and to Infants; but tho' this got among many of the Eastern Churches, and was it seems practised in some parts of the West, yet in the end of the Eleventh Century Pope Vrban in the Council of Clermont Decreed, That none should communicate with∣out taking the Body apart,* 1.581 and the Blood apart, except upon necessity, and with caution; to which some Copies add, and th••t by reason of the Heresie of Berengarius, that was lately condemned, which said that the Figure was compleated by one of the kinds.

We need not examine the Importance or Truth of these last words, it is enough for us to observe the continued practice of Communicating in both kinds till the Twelfth Century; and even then when the Opinion of the Corporal Presence begot a Superstition towards the Elements, that had not been known in former Ages, so that some drops sticking to Mens Beards, and the ••pilling some of it, its freezing or becoming sowr, grew to be more considered than the Institution of Christ; yet ••or a while they used to suck it up through small Quills or Pipes (called Fistulae, in the Ordo Romanus) which answered the Objection from the Beards.

In the Twelfth Century the Bread grew to be gi••en generally dipt in Wine: The Writers of that time, tho' they justifie this practice, yet they acknowledge it to be contrary to the Institution. Ivo of Chartres says, the People did Communicate with dipt Bread, not by authority but by necessity, for fear of spilling the Blood of Christ. Pope Innocent the Fourth said that all might have the Chalice who were so cautious, that nothing of it should be spilt.

In the Antient Church the Instance of Serapion is brought to shew that the Bread alone was sent to the Sick,* 1.582 which he that carried it was order∣ed to moisten before he gave it him. Iustin Martyr does plainly insinuate that both kinds were sent to the absents;* 1.583 so some of the Wine might be sent to Serapion with the Bread: and it is much more reasonable to believe this, than that the Bread was ordered to be dipt in Water; there being no such Instance in all History;* 1.584 whereas there are Instances brought to shew that both kinds were carried to the Sick. St. Ambrose received the Bread,

but expired before he received the Cup: This proves nothing but the weakness of the Cause that needs such supports. Nor can any Argu∣ment be brought from some Words concerning the Communicating of the Sick or of Infants. Rules are made from ordinary, and not from ex∣traordinary Practices. The small Portions of the Sacrament that some carried Home, and reserved to other Occasions, does not prove that they communicated only in one kind. They received in both, only they kept (out of too much Superstition) some Fragments of the one, which could be more easily and with less Observation saved and preser∣ved, than of the other: And yet there are Instances that they carried off some Portions of both kinds. The Greek Church communicates during most of the Days in Lent in Bread dipt in Wine; and in the Ordo Roma∣nus, there is mention made of a particular Communion on Good-Friday: some of the Bread that had been formerly Consecrated, was put into a Chalice with unconsecrated Wine. This was a Practice that was grounded on an Opinion that the unconsecrated Wine was sanctified and consecra∣ted by the Contact of the Bread: And though they used not a formal Consecration, yet they used other Prayers, which was all that the Primi∣tive Church thought was necessary even to Consecration; it being thought, even so late as Gregory the Great's time, that the Lord's Prayer was at first the Prayer of Consecration,

These are all the Colours which the studies and subtilties of this Age have been able to produce for justifying the Decree of the Council of Constance; that does acknowledge that Christ did institute this Sacrament in both kinds,* 1.585 and that the faithful in the Primitive Church did receive in both kinds: Yet a Practice being reasonably brought in to avoid some Dangers and Scandals, they appoint the Custom to continue of consecrating in both kinds, and of giving to the Laity only in one kind: Since Christ was entire and tru∣ly under each kind. They established this Practice, and ordered that it should not be altered without the Authority of the Church. So late a Practice and so late a Decree canot make void the Command of Christ, nor be set in ••pposition to such a clear and universal Practice to the con∣trary. The Wars of Boheme that followed upon that Decree, and all that Scene of Cruelty which was acted upon Iohn Hus and Ierom of Prague, at the first Establishment of it, shews what Opposition was made to it even in dark Ages; and by Men that did not deny Transubstantiation. These prove that plain Sense and clear Authorities are so strong, even in dark and corrupt Times, as not to be easily overcome. And this may be said concerning this Matter, that as there is not any one Point, in which the Church of Rome has acted more visibly, contrary to the Gospel, than in this; so there is not any one thing that has raised higher Prejudices against her, that has made more forsake her, and has possessed Mankind more against her, than this. This has cost her dearer than any other.

ARTICLE XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The Offering of Christ once made, is that perfect Redemption, Propitia∣tion and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual; and there is none other Satisfaction for Sin but that alone: W••erefore in the Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of Pain and Guilt, were blasphemous Fables and dangerous Deceits.

IT were a mere question of Words to dispute concerning the term Sa∣crifice, to consider the Extent of that Word, and the many various respects in which the Eucharist may be called a Sacrifice. In general, all Acts of Religious Worship may be called Sacrifices, because somewhat is in them offered up to God: Let my Prayer be set forth before thee as Incense, and the lifting up of my Hands as the evening Sacrifice.* 1.586 The Sacrifices of God are a broken Spirit: A broken and a contrite Heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. These shew how largely this Word was used in the Old Testament: So in the New we are exhorted by him (that is, by Christ) to offer the Sacrifice of Praise to God continually, that is, the Fruit of our Lips, giving Thanks to his Name. A Christian's dedicating himself to the Service of God,* 1.587 is also expressed by the same Word of presenting our Bodies a living Sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God: All Acts of Charity are also called Sacrifices, an odour of a sweet smell,* 1.588 a Sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God. So in this large Sense we do not deny that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving: And our Church calls it so in the Office of the Communion. In two other respects it may be also more strictly called a Sacrifice. One is, because there is an Oblation of Bread and Wine made in it, which being sanctified are con∣sumed in an Act of Religion. To this many passages in the Writings of the Fathers do relate. This was the Oblation made at the Altar by the People: And though at first the Christians were reproached, as having a strange sort of a Religion in which they had neither Temples, Altars nor Sacrifices, because they had not those things in so gross a manner as the Heathens had, yet both Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and all the succeed∣ing Writers of the Church, do frequently mention the Oblations that they made: And in the Antient Liturgies they did with particular Prayers offer the Bread and Wine to God, as the Great Creator of all things: Those were called the Gifts or Offerings which were offered to God in imita∣tion of Abel, who offered the Fruits of the Earth, in a Sacrifice to God. Both Iustin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Constitutions and all the antient Liturgies, have very express Words relating to this. Another respect in which the Eucha∣rist is called a Sacrifice, is, because it is a Commemoration and a Represen∣tation to God, of the Sacrifice that Christ offered for us on the Cross: In which we claim to that, as to our Expiation, and Feast upon it as our Peace-of∣fering,

according to that antient Notion that Covenants were confirmed by a Sacrifice, and were concluded in a Feast on the Sacrifice. Upon these Accounts we do not deny but that the Eucharist may be well called a Sa∣crifice: But still it is a commemorative Sacrifice, and not propitiatory: That is, we do not distinguish the Sacrifice from the Sacrament; as if the Priests consecrating and consuming the Elements, were in an especial man∣ner a Sacrifice, any other way, than as the communicating of others with him is one. Nor do we think that the consecrating and con∣suming the Elements, is an Act that does reconcile God to the Quick and the Dead: We consider it only as a federal Act of professing our Belief in the Death of Cstrist, and of renewing our Baptismal Cove∣nant with him: The Virtue or effects of this are not General; they are limited to those who go about this piece of Worship sincerely and devoutly; they and they only are concerned in it, who go about it: And there is no special Propitiation made by this Service. It is only an Act of Devotion and Obedience, in those that eat and drink worthily: and though in it they ought to pray for the whole Body of the Church, yet those their Prayers do only prevail with God, as they are devout Intercessions, but not by any peculiar Virtue in this Action.

On the other hand, the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is, that the Eucharist is the highest Act of Homage and Honour that Creatures can offer up to the Creator; as being an Oblation of the Son to the Father: So that whosoever procures a Mass to be said, pro∣cures a new piece of Honour to be done to God, with which he is highly pleased; and for the sake of which he will be reconciled to all that are concerned in the procuring such Masses to be said, whether they be still on Earth, or if they are now in Purgatory: And that the Priest in offering and consuming this Sacrifice, performs a true Act of Priesthood by reconciling Sinners to God. Somewhat was already said of this on the Head of Purgatory.

It seems very plain by the Institution, that our Saviour as he bles∣sed the Sacrament said, Take, eat: St. Paul calls it a Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord; and a Partaking of the Lord's Table: and he, through his whole Discourse of it, speaks of it as an Acti∣on of the Church and of all Christians, but does not so much as by a Hint intimate any thing peculiar to the Priest. So that all that the Scripture has delivered to us concerning it, represents it as an Action of the whole Body, in which the Priest has no special share but that of officiating. In the Epistle to the Hebrews there is a very long Discourse concerning Sacrifices and Priests, in order to the explaining of Christ's being both Priest and Sacrifice. There a Priest stands for a Person called and consecrated to offer some living Sacrifice, and to slay it, and to make reconciliation of Sinners to God by the shedding, offering, or sprinkling the Blood of the Sacri∣fice. This was the Notion that the Iews had of a Priest: And the Apostle designing to prove that the Death of Christ was a true Sa∣crifice, brings this for an Argument, that there was to be another Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec: He begins the fifth Chap∣ter with settling the Notion of a Priest,* 1.589 according to the Iewish

Ideas: And then he goes on to prove that Christ was such a Priest, cal∣led of God and Consecrated. But in this Sense he appropriates the Priest∣hood of the New Dispensation singly to Christ, in opposition to the many Priests of the Levitical Law; And they truly were many Priests, because they were not suffered to continue, by reason of Death: But this Man,* 1.590 because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable Priesthood.

It is clear from the whole Thread of that Discourse, that in the strictest Sense of the Word, Christ himself is the only Priest under the Gospel: and it is also no less evident that his Death is the on∣ly Sacrifice, in opposition to the many Oblations that were under the Mosaical Law, to take away Sin: Which appears very plain from these Words, Who needeth not daily as those High-Priests to offer up Sacrifice,* 1.591 first for his own Sins, and then for the People; for this he did once when he offered up himself. He opposes that to the An∣nual Expiation made by the Iewish High-Priest; Christ entred in once to the Holy Place, having made Redemption for us by his own Blood. And having laid down that general Maxim,* 1.592 that without shedding of Blood there was no Remission, he says, Christ was offered once to bear the Sins of many. He puts a Question to shew that all Sacrifices were now to cease; When the Worshippers are once purged, then would not Sacrifices cease to be offered?* 1.593 And he ends with this, as a full Con∣clusion to that Part of his Discourse:* 1.594 Every Priest stands daily mini∣string and offering oftentimes the same Sacrifices, which can never take away Sin: But this Man after he had offered up one Sacrifice for Sins, for ••ver sat down on the right Hand of God. Here are not general Words, ambiguous Expressions, or remote Hints, but a Thread of a full and clear Discourse, to shew that in the strict Sense of the Words, we have but one Priest, and likewise but one Sacrifice under the Gospel: Therefore how largely soever those Words of Priest or Sacrifice may have been used, yet according to the true Idea of a propitiatory Sacrifice, and of a Priest that reconciles Sinners to God, they cannot be applyed to any Acts of our Worship, or to any Or∣der of Men upon Earth. Nor can the Value and Virtue of any in∣stituted Act of Religion be carried by any Inferences or reasonings, beyond that which is put in them by the Institution: And there∣fore since the Institution of this Sacrament has nothing in it, that gives us this Idea of it, we cannot set any such Value upon it; and since the reconciling Sinners to God and the pardoning of Sin, are free Acts of his Grace, it is therefore a high Presumption in any Man, to imagin they can do this by an Act of theirs, with∣out Powers and Warrants for it from Scripture. Nor can this be pretended to without assuming a most Sacrilegious Sort of Power over the Attributes of God: Therefore all the Virtue that can be in the Sacrament, is that we do therein gratefully commemorate the Sacrifice of Christ's Death, and by renewed Acts of Faith, pre∣sent that to God as our Sacrifice, in the Memorial of it, which he himself has appointed. By so doing we renew our Covenant with God, and share in the Effects of that Death which he suffered for us. All the antient Liturgies have this as a main Part of the Of∣fice, that being mindful of the Death of Christ or commemorating it, they offered up the Gifts.

This is the Language of Iustin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and of all the following Writers. They do compare this Sacrifice to that of Melchisedec, who offered Bread and Wine: And though the Text imports only his giving Bread and Wine to Abraham and his Followers, yet they ap∣plied that generally to the Oblation of Bread and Wine that was made on the Altar: But this shews that they did not think of any Sacrifice made by the offering up of Christ. It was the Bread and the Wine only which they thought the Priests of the Christian Religion did offer to God. And therefore it is remarkable, that when the Fathers answer the Reproach of the Heathens, who charged them with Irreligion and Impiety for having no Sacrifices among them, they never answer it by saying, That they offered up a Sacrifice of inestimable Value to God; which must have been the first Answer that could have occurred to a man possessed with the Ideas of the Church of Rome. On the contrary, Iustin Martyr in his Apology says, They had no other Sacrifices but Prayers and Praises:* 1.595 And in his Dialogue with Trypho he confesses, That Christians offer to God Oblations, according to Malachi's Prophecy, when they celebrate the Eucharist,* 1.596 in which they commemo∣rate the Lord's Death. Both Athenagoras and Minutius Felix justify the Christians for having no other Sacrifices but pure Hearts, clean Conscien∣ces, and a stedfast Faith. Origen and Tertullian refute the same Objection in the same manner: They set the Prayers of Christians in opposition to all the Sacrifices that were among the Heathens. Clemens of Alexandria, and Arnobius, write in the same strain; and they do all make use of one To∣pick, to justify their offering no Sacrifices, That God who made all things, and to whom all things do belong, needs nothing from his Creatures. To multiply no more Quotations on this Head; Iulian in his time objected the same thing to the Christians, which shews that there was then no Idea of a Sacrifice among them; otherwise he who knew their Doctrine and Rites, had either not denied so positively as he did, their having Sacrifices; or at least he had shewed how improperly the Eucharist was called one. When Cyril of Alexandria towards the middle of the Fifth Century came to an∣swer this,* 1.597 he insists only upon the inward and spiritual Sacrifices that were offered by Christians; which were sutable to a pure and spiritual Essence, such as the Divinity was, to take pleasure in; and therefore he sets that in opposition to the Sacrifices of Beasts, Birds, and of all other things whatsoever: Nor does he so much as mention, even in a Hint, the Sacrifice of the Eu∣charist; which shews that he did not consider that as a Sacrifice that was propitiatory.

These things do so plainly set before us the Ideas that the First Ages had of this Sacrament, that to one who considers them duly, they do not leave so much as a doubt in this matter. All that they may say in Homilies, or Treatises of Piety, concerning the Pure Offering that according to Malachi all Christians offered to God in the Sacrament, concerning the Sacrifice, and the unbloody Sacrifice of Christians, must be understood to relate to the Prayers and Thanksgivings that accompanied it, to the Commemora∣tion that was made in it of the Sacrifice offered once upon the Cross, and finally to the Oblation of the Bread and Wine, which they so often com∣pare both to Abel's Sacrifice, and to Melchisedec's offering Bread and Wine.

It were easy to enlarge further on this Head; and from all the Rituals of the Antients to shew, that they had none of those Ideas that are now in the Roman Church. They had but one Altar in a Church, and probably but one in a City: They had but one Communion in a day at that Altar: So far were they from the many Altars in every Church, and the many Masses at every Altar, that are now in the Roman Church. They did not

know what Solitary Masses were, without a Communion. All the Litur∣gies and all the Writings of the Antients are as express in this matter as is possible. The whole Constitution of their Worship and Discipline shews it. Their Worship concluded always with the Eucharist: Such as were not ca∣pabl e of it, as the Catechumens, and those who were doing Publick Pe∣nance for their Sins, assisted at the more general parts of the Worship; and so much of it was called their Mass, because they were dismissed at the Conclusion of it. When that was done, then the Faithful staid, and did partake of the Eucharist; and at the conclusion of it they were likewise dismissed; from whence it came to be called the Mass of the Faithful. The great Rigor of Penance was thought to consist chiefly in this, That such Penitents might not stay with the Faithful to communicate. And though this seems to be a Practice begun in the Third Century, yet both from Iu∣stin Martyr and Tertullian it is evident, that all the Faithful did constantly communicate. There is a Canon among those which go under the name of the Apostles,* 1.598 against such as came and assisted in the other parts of the Ser∣vice, and did not partake of the Eucharist: The same thing was decreed by the Council of Antioch:* 1.599 And it appears by the Constitutions, That a Dea∣con was appointed to see that no man should go out, and a Subdeacon was to see that no Woman should go out during the Oblation. The Fa∣thers do frequently allude to the Word Communion, to shew that the Sacra∣ment was to be common to all. It is true, in St. Chrysostom's time, the Zeal that the Christians of the former Ages had to communicate often, be∣gan to slacken; so that they had thin Communions, and few Communicants: against which that Father raises himself with his Pathetick Eloquence, in words which do shew that he had no Notion of Solitary Masses, or of the Lawfulness of them. And it is very evident that the Neglect of the Sacra∣ment in those who came not to it, and the Prophanation of it by those who came unworthily, both which grew very scandalous at that time, set that Holy and Zealous Bishop to many Eloquent and Sublime Strains con∣cerning it, which cannot be understood, without making those Abatements that are d••e to a copious and Asiatick stile, when much inflamed by Devo∣tion.

In the succeeding Ages we find great Care was taken to suffer none that did not communicate, to stay in the Church, and to see the Mysteries. There is a Rubrick for this in the Office mentioned by Gregory the Great.* 1.600 The Writers of the Ninth Century go on in the same Strain. It was de∣creed by the Council of Mentz in the end of Charles the Great's Reign, That no Priest should say Mass alone; for how could he say, The Lord be with you, or, Lift up your hearts, if there was no other Person there besides him∣self? This shews that the practice of So••itary Masses was then begun, but that it was disliked. Walafridus Strabus says, That to a lawful Mass it was necessary that there should be a Priest,* 1.601 together with one to answer, one to offer, and one to communicate. And the Author of Micrologus, who is be∣lieved to have writ about the End of the Eleventh Century, does condemn Solitary Communions as contrary both to the Practice of the Antients, and to the several parts of the Office: So that till the Twelfth Century it was never allowed of in the Roman Church; as to this day it is not practised in any other Communion.

But then with the Doctrine of Purgatory and Transubstantiation mixt to∣gether, the saying of Masses for other Persons, whether alive or dead, grew to be considered as a very meritorious thing, and of great Efficacy: There∣upon great Endowments were made, and it became a Trade. Masses were sold, and a small Piece of Money became their Price: So that a prophane

sort of Simony was set up, and the holiest of all the Institutions of the Christian Religion was exposed to Sale. Therefore we, in cutting off all this, and in bringing the Sacrament to be according to its first Institution, a Communion, have followed the Words of our Saviour, and the constant Practice of the whole Church for the first Ten Centuries.

So far all the Articles that relate to this Sacrament have been considered. The variety of the Matter, and the Important Controversies that have arisen out of it, has made it necessary to enlarge with some Copiousness upon the several Branches of it. Next to the Infallibility of the Church, this is the dearest piece of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; and is that in which both Priests and People are better instructed, than in any other Point whatsoever; and therefore this ought to be studied on our side with a Care proportioned to the Importance of it: That so we may govern both our selves and our People aright, in a matter of such Consequence; avoiding with great Caution the Extremes on both hands, both of exces∣sive Superstition on the one hand, and of Prophane Neglect on the other: For the nature of Man is so moulded, that it is not easy to avoid the one, without falling into the other. We are now visibly under the Extreme of Neglect, and therefore we ought to study by all means possible to inspire our People with a just Respect for this Holy Institution, and to animate them to desire earnestly to partake often of it; and in order to that, to prepare themselves seriously to set about it with the Reverence and Devotion, and with those Holy Purposes and Solemn Vows that ought to accompany it.

ARTICLE XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests.

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law either to vow the Estate of Single Life, or to abstain from Mar∣riage: Therefore it is lawful for them, as well as for all Chri∣stian Men, to Marry at their own discretion, as they shall judg the same to serve better to Godliness.

THE first Period of this Article, to the word (Therefore) was all that was published in King Edward's time. They were content to lay down the Assertion, and left the Inference to be made as a Consequence that did naturally arise out of it. There was not any one Point that was more severely examined at the time of the Reformation than this: For as the irregular Practices and dissolute Lives of both Seculars and Regulars, had very much prejudiced the World against the Celibate of the Roman Clergy, which was considered as the occasion of all those Disorders; so on the other hand, the Marriage of the Clergy, and also of those of both Sexes who had taken Vows, gave great Offence. They were represented as Persons that could not master their Appetites, but that indulged them∣selves in Carnal Pleasures and Interests. Thus as the Scandals of the Un∣married Clergy had alienated the World much from them; so the Marriage of most of the Reformers was urged as an ill Character both of them and of the Reformation; as a Doctrine of Libertinism, that made the Clergy look too like the rest of the World, and involved them in the common Pleasures, Concerns, and Passions of Human Life.

The Appearances of an Austerity of Habit, of a Severity of Life in watching and fasting, and of avoiding the common Pleasures of Sense, and the Delights of Life that was on the other side, did strike the World, and inclined many to think, that what ill consequences soever Celibate produ∣ced, yet that these were much more supportable, and more easy to be re∣formed, than the ill consequences of an unrestrained Permission of the Cler∣gy to marry.

In treating this matter, we must first consider Celibate with relation to the Laws of Christ, and the Gospel; and then with relation to the Laws of the Church. It does not seem contrary to the Purity of the Worship of God, or of Divine Performances, that Married Persons should officiate in them; since by the Law of Moses Priests not only might marry, but the Priesthood was tied to descend as an Inheritance in a certain Family. And even the High-Priest, who was to perform the great Function of the An∣nual Atonement that was made for the Sins of the whole Iewish Nation, was to marry, and he derived to his Descendants that Sacred Office. If there was so much as a remote unsutableness between a Married State and Sacerdotal Performances, we cannot imagine that God would by a Law tie the Priesthood to a Family, which by consequence laid an Obligation on the Priests to marry. When Christ chose his Twelve Apostles, some of them were married men; we are sure at least that St. Peter was; so that he made no distinction, and gave no preference to the unmarried: Our Saviour did no where charge them to forsake their Wives; nor did he at all repre∣sent Celibate as necessary to the Kingdom of Heaven, or the Dispensation of the Gospel: He speaks indeed of some that brought themselves to the state of Eunuchs for the sake of the Gospel;* 1.602 but in that he lest all men at full li∣berty,

by saying, Let him receive it that is able to receive it; so that in this every man must judg of himself, by what he finds himself to be. That is equally recommended to all Ranks of men, as they can bear it. St. Paul does affirm, That Marriage is honourable in all; and to avoid Uncleanness, he says, It is better to marry than to burn; and so gives it as a Rule,* 1.603 That every man should have his own Wife. Among all the Rules or Qualifications of Bishops or Priests, that are given in the New Testament, particularly in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, there is not a word of the Celibate of the Clergy, but plain Intimations to the contrary,* 1.604 That they were and might be married. That of the Husband of one Wife, is repeated in diffe∣rent places: Mention is also made of the Wives and Children of the Cler∣gy, Rules being given concerning them; and not a word is so much as in∣sinuated, importing that this was only tolerated in the beginnings of Chri∣stianity, but that it was afterwards to cease: On the contrary, the forbid∣ding to marry, is given as a Character of the Apostacy of the later times.* 1.605 We find Aquila, when he went about preaching the Gospel, was not only married to Priscilla, but that he carried her about with him: Not to insist on that Privilege that St. Paul thought he might have claimed, of carrying about with him a Sister and a Wife, as well as the other Apostles. And thus the first Point seems to be fully cleared, That by no Law of God the Cler∣gy are debarr'd from Marriage. There is not one word in the whole Scrip∣tures that does so much as hint at it; whereas there is a great deal to the contrary.

Marriage being then one of the Rights of Human Nature, to which so many reasons of different sorts may carry both a wise and a good man, and there being no positive Precept in the Gospel that forbids it to the Clergy; the next question is, Whether it is in the Power of the Church to make a perpetual Law, restraining the Clergy from Marriage? It is certain that no Age of the Church can make a Law to bind succeeding Ages; for whatso∣ever Power the Church has, she is always in possession of it; and every Age has as much Power as any of the former Ages had. Therefore if any one Age should by a Law enjoin Celibate to the Clergy, any succeeding Age may repeal and alter that Law. For ever since the Inspiration that con∣ducted the Apostles has ceased, every Age of the Church may make or change Laws in all matters that are within their Authority. So it seems very clear, that the Church can make no perpetual Law upon this Subject.

In the next place it may be justly doubted, Whether the Church can make a Law that shall restrain all the Clergy in any of those Natural Rights in which Christ has left them free. The adding a Law upon this Head to the Laws of Christ, seems to assume an Authority that he has not given the Church. It looks like a pretending to a strain of Purity, beyond the Rules set us in the Gospel; and is plainly the laying a Yoke upon us which must be thought Tyrannical, since the Author of this Religion, who knew best what Human Nature is capable of, and what it may well bear, has not thought fit to lay it on those whom he sent upon a Commission that requi∣red a much greater Elevation of Soul, and more Freedom from the Entan∣glements of Worldly or Domestick Concerns, than can be pretended to be necessary for the standing and settled Offices in the Church. There∣fore we conclude, That it were a great Abuse of Church-Power, and a high Act of Tyranny, for any Church, or any Age of the Church, to bar men from the Services in the Church, because they either are married, or intend to keep themselves free to marry, or not, as they please. This does indeed bring the Body of the Clergy more into a Combination among themselves; it does take

them in a great measure off from having separated Interests of their own; it takes them out of the Civil Society, in which they have less concern, when they give no Pledges to it. And so in Ages in which the Papacy intended to engage the whole Priesthood into its Interests against the Civil Powers, as the Immunity and Exemptions of the Clergy made them safe in their own Persons, so it was necessary to free them from any such Incumbrances or Appendages by which they might be in the Power or at the Mercy of Secu∣lar Princes. This, joined with the belief of their making God with a few words, by the virtue of their Character, and of their forgiving Sin, was like Armour of Proof, by which they were invulnerable, and by conse∣quence capable of undertaking any thing that might be committed to them. But this may well recommend such a Rule to a Crafty and Designing Body of Men, in which it is not to be denied, that there is a deep and refined Policy; yet we have not so learned Christ, nor to handle the Word of God, or the Authority that he has trusted to us, deceitfully.

As for the Consequences of such Laws, Inconveniences are on both hands: As long as men are corrupt themselves, so long they will abuse all the Liberties of Human Nature. If not only common Lewdness in all the kinds of it, but even brutal and unnatural Lusts, have been the vi∣sible Consequences of the strict Law of Celibate; and if this appears so evident in History that it cannot be denied; we think it better to trust Human Nature with the lawful use of that in which God has not restrained it, than to venture on that which has given occasion to Abominations that cannot be mentioned without horror. As for the Temptation to Cove∣tousness, we think it is neither so great nor so unavoidable upon the one hand, as those monstrous ones are on the other. It is more reasonable to expect Divine Assistances to preserve men from Temptations, when they are using those Liberties which God has left free to them, than when by pretending to a Purity greater than that which he has commanded, they throw themselves into many Snares. It is also very evident, that Cove∣tousness is an effect of Mens Tempers, rather than of their Marriage, since the Instances of a ravenous Covetousness, and of a restless Ambition, in behalf of mens Kindred and Families, hath appeared as often and as scandalously among the Vnmarried, as among the Married Clergy.

From these general Considerations concerning the Power that the Church has to make either a Perpetual or an Universal Law in a thing of this kind; I shall in the next place consider in short, What the Church has done in this matter. In the first Ages of Christianity, Basilides and Saturninus, and after them, both Montanus and Novatus, and the Sect of the Encratites, condemned Marriage as a state of Libertinism that was unbecoming the Purity required of Christians. Against those we find the Fathers asserted the Lawfulness of Marriage to all Christians, without making a difference between the Clergy and the Laity. It is true, the appearances that were in Montanus and his Followers, seem to have engaged the Christians of that Age to strain beyond them in those things that gave them their Reputati∣on: Many of Tertullian's Writings, that Criticks do now see were writ af∣ter he was a Montanist, which seems not to have been observed in that Age, carry the matter of Celibate so high, that it is no wonder, if consi∣dering the Reputation that he had, a Bias was given by these to the fol∣lowing Ages in favour of Celibate. Yet it seemed to give great and just Prejudices against the Christian Religion, if such as had come into the Ser∣vice of the Church should have forsaken their Wives. It is visible how much Scandal this might have given, and what matter of Reproach it would have furnished their Enemies with, if they could have charged them

with this, That men to get rid of their Wives, and of the Care of their Families, went into Orders; that so under a pretence of a higher degree of Sanctity, they might abandon their Families. Therefore great care was taken to prevent this. They were so far from requiring Priests to forsake their Wives, that such as did it upon their entring into Orders, were severely condemned by the Canons that go under the name of the Apostles. They were also condemned by the Council of Gangra in the Fourth Century, and by that of Trullo in the Seventh Age. There are some Instances brought of Bishops and Priests, who are supposed to have married after they were ordained; but as there are only few of those, so perhaps they are not well proved. It must be acknowledged that the general practice was, that men once in Or∣ders did not marry. But many Bishops in the best Ages lived still with their Wives: So did the Fathers both of Gregory Nazianzen and of St. Basil. And among the Works of Hilary of Poictiers, there is a Letter writ by him in his Exile to his Daughter Abra, in which he refers her to her Mo∣thers Instruction in those things which she by reason of her Age did not then understand; which shews that she was then very young, and so was probably born after he was a Bishop.

Some proposed in the Council of Nice,* 1.606 That the Clergy should depart from their Wives; but Paphnutius, though himself unmarried, opposed this as the laying an unreasonably heavy Yoke upon them. Heliodorus a Bishop, the Author of the first of those Love-Fables that are now known by the name of Romances, being upon that account accused of too much Levity, did in order to the clearing himself of that Imputation, move that Clergy∣men should be obliged to live from their Wives. Which the Hi∣storian says they were not tied to before; for till then Bishops li∣ved with their Wives. So that in those days the living in a married state was not thought unbecoming the Purity of the Sacred Functions. A single Marriage was never objected in bar to a mans being made Bishop or Priest. They did not indeed admit a man to Orders that had been twice married; but even for this there was a distinction: If a man had been once married before his Baptism, and was once married after his Baptism, that was reckoned only a single Marriage; for what had been done when in Heathenism, went for nothing: And Ierome speaking of Bishops who had been twice married, but by this Nicety were reckoned to be the Husbands of one Wife, says, The number of those of this sort in that time could not be reckoned; and that more such Bishops might be found, than were at the Council of Arimini. Canons grew to be frequently made against the Marriage of those in Holy Orders; but these were positive Laws made chiefly in the Roman and African Synods: and since those Canons were so often renewed, we may from thence conclude that they were not well kept. When Syne∣sius was ordained Priest, he tells in an Epistle of his, That he declared openly, that he would not live secretly with his Wife, as some did; but that he would dwell publickly with her, and wished that he might have many Children by her. In the Eastern Church the Priests are usually mar∣ried before they are ordained, and continue afterwards to live with their Wives, and to have Children by them, without either Censure or Trouble. In the Western Church we find mention made both in the Gallican and Spa∣nish Synods, of the Wives both of Bishops and Priests; and they are called Episcopae and Presbyterae. In the Saxon times the Clergy in most of the Cathedrals of England were openly married: And when Dunstan, who had engaged King Edgar to favour the Monks, in opposition to the married Clergy, pressed them to forsake their Wives, they refused to do it, and so were turned out of their Benefices, and Monks came in their places. Nor

was the Celibate generally imposed on all the Clergy, before Gregory the Seventh's time, in the end of the Eleventh Century. He had great designs for subjecting all Temporal Princes to the Papacy; and in order to that, he intended to bring the Clergy into an entire dependence upon himself, and to separate them wholly from all other Interests but those of the Ecclesia∣stical Authority: And that he might load the married Clergy with an odi∣ous Name, he called them all Nicolaitans: Though the accounts that the Antients give us of that Sect, say nothing that related to this matter: But a name of an ill sound goes a great way in an Ignorant Age. The Writers that lived near that time, condemn this severity against the married Clergy, as a new and a rash thing, and contrary to the mind of the holy Fathers; and they tax his rigor in turning them all out. Yet Lanfranc among us did not impose the Celibate generally on all the Clergy, but only on those that lived at Cathedrals and in Towns: He connived at those who served in Villages. Anselm carried it farther, and imposed it on all the Clergy without ex∣ception: Yet he himself laments that unnatural Lusts were become then both common and publick: Of which Petrus Damiani made great complaints in Gregory the Seventh's time. Bernard in a Sermon preached to the Clergy of France, says it was common in his time, and then even Bishops with Bishops lived in it. The Observation that Abbot Panormitan made, of the progress of that horrid Sin, led him to wish that it might be left free to the Clergy to marry, as they pleased. Pius the Second said that there might have been good reasons for imposing the Celibate on the Clergy, but he believed there were far better reasons for leaving them to their li∣berty. As a remedy to these more enormous Crimes, Dispensations for Concubinate became so common, that instead of giving scandal by them, they were rather considered as the Characters of Modesty and Tempe∣rance: In such Concubinary Priests the World judged themselves safe from Practices on their own Families.

When we consider those effects that followed on the imposing the Celibate on the Clergy, we cannot but look on them as much greater evils than those that can follow on the leaving it free to them to marry. It is not to be denied but that on the other hand, the effects of a freedom to marry may be likewise bad: That State does naturally involve men in the cares of Life, in Domestick Concerns, and it brings with it Temptations both to Luxury and Covetousness. It carries with it too great a disposition to heap up Wealth, and to raise Families: and in a word, it makes the Clergy both look too like, and live too like the rest of the World. But when things of this kind are duly balanced, ill effects will appear on both hands: Those arise out of the general Corruption of Human Nature; which does so spread it self, that it will corrupt us in the most innocent and in the most necessary practices. There are Excesses committed in Eating, Drinking, and Sleeping. Our depraved Inclinations will insinuate themselves into us in our best Actions: Even the publick Worship of God and all Devotion receive a taint from them. But we must not take a way those Liberties, in which God has left human Nature free, and engage men to Rules and Methods that put a Violence upon Mankind: This is the less excusable, when we see in Fact what the consequences of such restraints have been for many Ages.

Yet after all, though they who marry, do well; yet those who marry not do better, provided they live chast, and do not burn. That man who subdues his Body by fasting and Prayer, by Labour and Study, and that separates himself from the concerns of a Family, that he may give himself wholly to the ministry of the Word,* 1.607 and to Prayer, that lives at a distance

from the Levities of the World, and in a course of native modesty and unaffected severity, is certainly a burning and shining Light: He is above the World, free from cares and designs, from aspirings, and all those restless Projects which have so long given the World so much scandal: And therefore those who allow themselves the liberty of Marriage, according to the Laws of God and the Church, are indeed engaged in a state of many Temptations; to which if they give way, they lay themselves open to many Censures; and they bring a Scandal on the Reformation for allowing them this Liberty, if they abuse it.

It remains only to consider how far this matter is altered by Vows; how far it is lawful to make them; and how far they bind when they are made. It seems very unreasonable and tyrannical to put Vows on any, in matters in which it may not be in their power to keep them without sin. No Vows ought to be made, but in things that are either absolutely in our power, or in things in which we may procure to our selves those Assistances that may enable us to perform them. We have a federal Right to the Promises that Christ has made us, of inward Assistances to enable us to perform those Conditions that he has laid on us; and therefore we may vow to observe them, because we may do that which may procure us Aids sufficient for the execution of them. But if men will take up Resolutions that are not within those necessary Conditions, they have no reason to promise them∣selves such Assistances: And if they are not so absolutely Masters of them∣selves, as to be able to stand to them without those helps, and yet are not sure that they shall be given them, then they ought to make no Vow in a matter which they cannot keep by their own Natural Strength, and in which they have not any Promise in the Gospel that assures them of Divine Assistan∣ces to enable them to keep it. This is therefore a tempting of God, when men pretend to serve him, by assuming a stricter Course of Life than either he has commanded, or they are able to go through with. And it may prove a great Snare to them, when by such rash Vows they are engaged into such a state of Life, in which they live in constant Temptations to Sin, without either Command or Promise, on which they can rest as to the execution of them.

This is to lead themselves into Temptation, in opposition to that which our Saviour has made a Petition of that Prayer which he himself has taught us. Out of this, great distractions of Mind, and a variety of different Tem∣ptations may, and probably will arise; and that the rather, because the Vow is made; there being somewhat in our Natures that will always strug∣gle the harder, because they are restrained. It is certain that every man who dedicates himself to the Service of God, ought to try if he can de∣dicate himself so entirely to it, as to live out of all the Concerns and En∣tanglements of Life. If he can maintain his Purity in it, he will be enabled thereby to labour the more effectually, and may expect both the greater Success here, and a fuller Reward hereafter. But because both his Temper and his Circumstances may so change, that what is an advantage to him in one part of his Life, may be a snare and an Incumbrance to him in another part of it, he ought therefore to keep this matter still in his own power, and to continue in that Liberty in which God has left him free, that so he may do as he shall find it to be most expedient for himself, and for the work of the Gospel.

Therefore it is to be concluded, That it is unlawful either to impose, or to make such Vows. And supposing that any have been engaged in them, more perhaps out of the Importunity or Authority of others, than their own choice; then, though it is certainly a Character of a man that shall

dwell in God's holy Hill, That though he swears to his own hurt, yet he changes not; he is to consider whether he can keep such a Vow, without break∣ing the Commandments of God,* 1.608 or not: If he can, then certainly he ought to have that regard to the Name of God, that was called upon in the Vow, and to the Solemnities of it, and to the Scandals that may follow upon his breaking it, that if he can continue in that state without sinning against God, he ought to do it, and to endeavour all he can to keep his Vow, and preserve his Purity: But if after he has used both Fasting and Prayer, he still finds that the obligation of his Vow is a snare to him, and that he cannot both keep it, and also keep the Commandments of God; then the two Obligations, that of the Law of God, and that of his Vow, happening to stand in one anothers way, certainly the lesser must give place to the greater.* 1.609 Herod's Oath was ill, and rashly made, but worse kept, when for his Oath's sake he ordered the Head of Iohn the Baptist to be cut off. Our Saviour condemns that practice among the Iews, of vowing that to the Corban or Treasure of the Temple, which they ought to have given to their Parents, and imagining that by such means they were not obliged to take care of them, or to supply them. The obligation to keep the Commandments of God is indispensible, and antecedent to any Act or Vow of ours, and therefore it cannot be made void by any Vow that we may take upon us: And if we are under a Vow which exposes us to Tem∣ptations that do often prevail, and that probably will prevail long upon us, then we ought to repent of our rashness in making any such Vow; but must not continue in the observation of it, if it proves to us like the taking Fire into our Bosom, or the handling of Pitch. A Vow that draws many Temptations upon us, that are above our strength to resist them, is certain∣ly much better broken and repented of, than kept. So that to conclude, Celibate is not a matter fit to be the Subject either of a Law or a Vow; eve∣ry man must consider himself, and what he is able to receive: He that mar∣ries does well, but he that marries not does better.

ARTICLE XXXIII. Of Excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided.

That person which by open denunciation of the Church, is rightly cut off from the Unity of the Church, and Excommunicate; ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the Faithful as a Hea∣then and a Publican: Until he be openly reconciled by penance, and be received into the Church by a Iudge that hath Authority there∣unto.

ALL Christians are obliged to a strict purity and Holiness of Life: And every private man is bound to avoid all unnecessary familiari∣ties with Bad and Vicious men: Both because he may be insensibly cor∣rupted by these, and because the World will be from thence disposed to think that he takes pleasure in such Persons, and in their Vices. What every single Christian ought to set as a Rule to himself, ought to be like∣wise made the Rule of all Christians, as they are constituted in a Body under Guides and Pastors. And as in general, severe Denunciations ought to be often made of the Wrath and Judgments of God against Sinners; so if any that is called a Brother, that is, a Christian, lives in a course of Sin and Scandal, they ought to give warning of such a Person,* 1.610 to all the other Christians, that they may not so much as eat with him, but may se∣parate themselves from him.

In this, private persons ought to avoid the Moroseness and Affectation of saying, Stand by, for I am holier than thou: If one is overtaken in a fault,* 1.611 then those who are spiritual ought to restore such a one in the spirit of meek∣ness: Every one considering himself, lest he be also tempted. Excessive Ri∣gor will be always suspected of Hypocrisy, and may drive those on whom it falls, either into Despair on the One hand, or into an Unmanageable Licentiousness on the Other.

The Nature of all Societies must import this, That they have a Power to maintain themselves according to the Design and Rules of their Society. A Combination of men made upon any bottom whatsoever, must be supposed to have a Right to exclude out of their Number, such as may be a Reproach to it, or a Mean to dissolve it: And it must be a main part of the Office and Duty of the Pastors of the Church, to separate the Good from the Bad, to warn the Unruly, and to put from among them wicked persons. There are several Considerations that shew not only the Lawfulness, but the Necessity of such a Practice.

First, That the Contagion of an ill Example, and of bad Practices, may not spread too far to the corrupting of others: Evil communications corrupt good manners. Their Doctrines will eat and spread as a Gangrene.* 1.612 And there∣fore in order to the preserving the purity of those who are not yet cor∣rupted, it may be necessary to note such persons, and to have no company with them.

A Second Reason relates to the persons themselves, that are so separa∣ted, that they may be ashamed:* 1.613 That they may be thus pulled out of the fire by the terror of such a proceeding, which ought to be done by Mourning over them, Lamenting their Sins, and Praying for them.

The Apostles made use even of those extraordinary Powers that were given to them for this end. St. Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme. And he ordered that the

incestuous person at Corinth, should be delivered to Satan for the destructi∣on of the flesh, that the Spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Iesus. Certainly a Vicious indulgence to Sinners is an encouragement to them to live in Sin: whereas when others about them try all methods for their Re∣covery, and Mourn for those Sins in which they do perhaps Glory, and do upon that withdraw themselves from all Communication with them, both in Spirituals, and as much as may be in Temporals likewise; this is one of the last means that can be used, in order to the reclaiming of them.

Another Consideration is the Peace and the Honour of the Society. S. Paul wished that they were cut off that troubled the Churches.* 1.614 Great care ought to be taken that the Name of God and his Doctrine be not blasphemed, and to give no occasion to the Enemies of our Faith to reproach us; as if we designed to make Parties, to promote our own Interests, and to turn Religion to a Faction: Excusing such as adhere to us in other things, though they should break out into the most scandalous Violations of the greatest of all the Commandments of God. Such a behaviour towards Excommunicated persons, would also have this further good Effect; It would give great Authority to that Sentence, and fill mens minds with the Awe of it, which must be taken off, when it is observed that men con∣verse familiarly with those that are under it.

These Rules are all founded upon the Principles of Societies, which as they associate upon some common designs, so in order to the pursuing those, must have a power to separate themselves from those who depart from them.

In this Matter there are Extremes of both hands to be avoided: Some have thought, that because the Apostles have in general declared such per∣sons to be accursed,* 1.615 or under an Anathema, who preach another Gospel; and such as love not the Lord Iesus, to be Anathema Maranatha, which is generally understood to be a total cutting off, never to be admitted till the Lord comes; that therefore the Church may still put men under an Anathema, for holding such unsound Doctrines, as they think make the Gospel to be∣come another, in part at least, if not in whole; and that she may there∣upon, in imitation of another practice of the Apostles, deliver them over unto Satan, casting them out of the protection of Christ, and abandoning them to the Devil: Reckoning that the cutting them off from the Body of Christ, is really the exposing them to the Devil, who goes about as a Roaring Lion seeking whom he may devour. But with what Authority soever the Apostles might upon so great a matter, as the changing the Gospel, or the not loving the Lord Iesus, denounce an Anathema; yet the applying this which they used so seldom, and upon such great occasions, to every Opinion, after a Decision is made in it, as it has carried on the Notion of the Infallibility of the Church, so it has laid a Foundation for much Uncharitableness, and many Animosities: It has widened Breaches, and made them incurable. And unless it is certain that the Church which has so decreed, cannot err, it is a bold assuming of an Authority to which no fallible Body of men can have a Right. That delivery unto Satan was visibly an act of a miraculous Power lodged with the Apostles: For as they struck some blind or dead, so they had an Authority of letting loose Evil Spirits on some to haunt and terrify, or to punish and plague them; that a desperate Evil might be cured by an extreme Remedy. And therefore the Apostles never reckon this among the Standing Functions of the Church: Nor do they give any Charge or Directions about it. They used it them∣selves, and but seldom. It is true that S. Paul being carried by a just zeal

against the Scandal which the incestuous person at Corinth had cast upon the Christian Religion, did adjudg him to this severe degree of Censure: But he judged it, and did only order the Corinthians to publish it, as com∣ing from him, with the power of our Lord Iesus Christ: That so the thing might become the more publick, and that the effects of it might be the more conspicuous. The Primitive Church, that being nearest the Fountain did best understand the Nature of Church-Power, and the Effects of her Censures, thought of nothing in this matter but of denying to suffer Apo∣states, or rather scandalous persons, to mix with the rest in the Sacrament, or in other parts of Worship. They admitted them upon the professi∣on of their Repentance, by an imposition of Hands, to share in some of the more general parts of the Worship, and even in these they stood by them∣selves, and at a distance from the rest: And when they had passed through several Degrees in that state of Mourning, they were by steps received back again to the Communion of the Church. This agrees well with all that was said formerly, concerning the Nature and the Ends of Church-Power; Which was given for edification, and not for destruction.* 1.616 This is suitable to the designs of the Gospel, both for preserving the Society pure, and for reclaiming those who are otherwise like to be carried away by the Devil in his snare. This is to admonish Sinners as Brethren, and not to use them as Enemies: Whereas the other method looks like a power that designs Destruction rather than Edification, especially when the Secular Arm is cal∣led in, and that Princes are required under the Penalties of Deposition, and losing their Dominions, to extirpate and destroy, and that by the cruellest sort of Death, all those whom the Church doth so Anathematize.

We do not deny but that the form of denouncing or declaring Anathemas against Heresies and Hereticks is very Antient. It grew to be a Form ex∣pressing horror, and was applied to the Dead as well as to the Living. It was understood to be a cutting such Persons off from the Communion of the Church: if they were still alive, they were not admitted to any Act of Worship: if they were dead, their Names were not to be read at the Al∣tar among those who were then commemorated. But as heat about Opi∣nions encreased, and some lesser matters grew to be more valued then the weightier things both of Law and Gospel; so the adding Anathemas to every point, in which men differed from one another, grew to be a common pra∣ctice, and swelled up at last to such a pitch, that in the Council of Trent a whole Body of Divinity was put into Canons, and an Anathema was fa∣stened to every one of them. The delivering to Satan was made the com∣mon Form of Excommunication; an Act of Apostolical Authority being made a Precedent for the standing practice of the Church. Great Subtil∣ties were also set on foot concerning the force and effect of Church-Censures. The straining this matter too high, has given occasion to ex∣tremes on the other hand. If a man is condemned as an Heretick, for that which is no Heresy, but is an Article founded on the Word of God, his Conscience is not at all concerned in any such Censure. Great Modesty and Decency ought indeed to be shewed by private persons, when they dispute against publick Decisions: But unless the Church is Infallible, none can be bound to implicit Faith, or blind Submission. Therefore an Anathema ill founded, cannot hurt him against whom it is thundred. If the Doctrine upon which the Censures and Denunciations of the Church are grounded is true, and if it appears so to him that sets himself against it, he who thus despises the Pastors of the Church, despises Christ: In whose Name, and by whose Authority they are acting. But if he is still under Convictions of his being in the right, when he is indeed in the wrong,

then he is in a state of Ignorance, and his Sins are Sins of Ignorance, and they will be judged by that God w ho knows the sincerity of all mens Hearts, and sees into their secretest Thoughts, how ••ar the Ignorance is wilful and affected, and how far it is sincere and invincible.

And as for those Censures that are founded upon the Proofs that are made of certain Facts that are scandalous, either the person on whom they are charged, knows himself to be really guilty of them, or that he is wronged, either by the Witnesses, or the Pastors, and Judges: If he is indeed guilty, he ought to consider such Censures as the Medicinal Pro∣visions of the Church against Sin: He ought to submit to them, and to such Rebukes and Admonitions, to such publick Confessions, and other Acts of Self-Abasement,* 1.617 by which he may be recovered out of the snare of the Devil; and may repair the publick Scandal that he has brought upon the Profession of Christianity, and recover the honour of it, which he has blemisht as far as lies in him.

This is the submitting to those that are over him, and the obeying them as those that watch for his soul, and that must give an account of it. But if, on the other hand,* 1.618 any such person is run down by Falshood and Calumny, he must submit to that Dispensation of God's Providence that has suffered such a load to be laid upon him: He must not betray his Integrity, he ought to commit his way to God, and to bear his burden patiently. Such a Censure ought not at all to give him too deep an inward concern: For he is sure it is ill founded, and therefore it can have no effect upon his Con∣science. God, who knows his Innocence, will acquit him, though all the World should condemn him. He must indeed submit to that separation from the Body of Christians: But he is safe in his secret Appeals to God, who sees not as man sees, but judges righteous Judgment: And such a Censure as this cannot be bound in Heaven.

In the pronouncing the Censures of the Church, great care and tender∣ness ought to be used; for men are not to be rashly cut off from the Body of Christ; nothing but a wilful Obstinacy in Sin, and a deliberate Contempt of the Rules and Orders of the Church, can justify this Extremity. Scan∣dalous Sinners may be brought under the Medicinal Cure of the Church, and the Offender may be denied all the Privileges of Christians, till he has repaired the Offence that he has given. Here another Extreme has been run into by men, who being jealous of the Tyranny of the Church of Rome, have thought that the World could not be safe from that, unless all Church-Power were destroyed: They have thought that the Ecclesiastical Order is a Body of Men bound by their Office to preach the Gospel, and to offer the Sacraments to all Christians; but that as the Gospel is a Doctrine equally offered to all, in which every man must make the particular Application of the Promises, the Comforts, and the Terrors of it to himself, as he will an∣swer it to God; so they imagin that the Sacraments are in the same pro∣miscuous manner to be offered to all Persons; and that every man is to try and examine himself, and so to partake of them; but that the Clergy have no Authority to deny them to any Person, or to put marks of distinction, or of Infamy on men: And that therefore the Antient Discipline of the Church did arise out of a mutual Compromise of Christians, who in times of Misery and Persecution submitted to such Rules as seemed necessary in that state of things; but that now all the Authority that the Church hath, is founded only on the Law of the Land, and is still subject to it. So that what Changes or Alterations are appointed by the Civil Authority, must take place, in bar to any Laws and Customs of the Church, how Antient or how Universal soever they may be.

In answer to this, it is not to be denied, but that the degrees and ex∣tent of this Authority, the methods and the management of it, were at first framed by common consent. In the times of Persecution the Laity who embraced the Christian Religion, were to the Church instead of the Magistrate. The whole concerns of Religion were supported and protect∣ed by them; and this gave them a Natural Right to be consulted with in all the decisions of the Church. The Brethren were called to join with the Apostles and Elders in that great Debate concerning the Circumcision of the Gentiles, which was settled at Ierusalem; and of such Practices we find fre∣quent mention in St. Cyprian's Epistles: The more Eminent among the Laity were then naturally the Patrons of the Churches. But when the Church came under the Protection of Christian Princes and Magistrates, then the Patronage and Protection of it fell to them, upon whom the Peace and Or∣der of the World depended. Yet though all this is acknowledged, we see plainly, that in the New Testament there are many general Rules given for the Government and Order of the Church. Timothy and Titus were appointed to ordain, to admonish, and rebuke, and that before all. The Bo∣dy of the Christians is required to submit themselves to them, and to obey them; which is not to be carried to an indefinite and boundless degree, but must be limited to that Doctrine which they were to teach, and to such things as depended upon it, or tended to its Establishment and Propagation. From these general Heads we see just grounds to assert such a Power in the Pastors of the Church, as is for Edification, but not for Destruction: and therefore here is a Foundation of Power laid down; though it is not to be denied but that in the application of it, such Prudence and discretion ought to be used, as may make it most likely to attain those Ends for which it is given.

A general Consent in time of Persecution was necessary; otherwise too indiscreet a Rigor might have pulled down that which ought to have been built up. If in a broken state of things a common Consent ought to be much endeavoured and staid for, this is much more necessary in a regular and settled time, with relation to the Civil Authority, under whom the whole Society is put, according to its Constitution. But it can never be supposed that the Authority of the Pastors of the Church, is no other than that of a Lawyer or a Physician to their Clients, who are still at their liber∣ty, and are in no sort bound to follow their directions. In particular Ad∣vices with relation to their private Concerns, where no general Rules are agreed on, an Authority is not pretended to; and these may be compa∣red to all other Advices, only with this difference, That the Pastors of the Church watch over the Souls of their people, and must give an account of them. But when things are grown into Method, and general Rules are settled, there the consideration of Edification and Unity, and of maintaining Peace and Order, are such sacred Obligations on every one that has a true regard to Religion, that such as despise all this, may be well look'd on as Heathens and Publicans; and they are so much worse than they, as a secret and well-disguised Traytor is much more dangerous than an open professed Enemy. And though these Words of our Saviour, of telling the Church, may per∣haps not be so strictly applicable to this matter, in their primary sense,* 1.619 as our Saviour first spoke them; yet the Nature of things, and the Parity of Reason, may well lead us to conclude, That though those Words did im∣mediately relate to the composing of private differences, and of delating intractable persons to the Synagogues, yet they may be well extended to

all those publick Offences which are injuries to the whole Body; and may be now applied to the Christian Church, and to the Pastors and Guides of it, though they related to the Synagogue when they were first spoken.

It is therefore highly congruous both to the whole Design of the Chri∣stian Religion, and to many Passages in the New Testament, that there should be Rules set for censuring Offenders, that so they may be reclaimed, or at least ashamed, and that others may fear: And as the final Sentence of every Authority whatsoever, must be the cutting off from the Body all such as continue in a wilful disobedience to the Laws of the Society; so if any who call themselves Christians, will live so as to be a Reproach to that which they profess, they must be cut off and cast out; for if there is any sort of Power in the Church, it must terminate in this. This is the last and highest act of their Authority; it is like Death or Banishment by the Civil Power, which are not proceeded to but upon great occasions, in which milder Censures will not prevail, and where the general good of the Society requires it: So casting out being the last Act of Church-Power, like a Parent's disinheriting a Child, it ought to be proceeded in with that slowness, and upon such considerations as may well justify the Rigor of it. A wilful Contempt of Order and Authority, carries virtually in it every other Irregularity; because it dissolves the Union of the Body, and destroys that Respect by which all the other ends of Religion are to be artained; and when this is deliberate and fixed, there is no other way of proceeding but by cutting off those who are so refractory, and who set such an ill Ex∣ample to others.

If the Execution of this should happen to fall under great Disorders, so that many scandalous Persons are not censured, and a promiscuous multi∣tude is suffered to break in upon the most Sacred Performances, this can∣not justify private Persons, who upon that do withdraw from the Commu∣nion of the Church: For after all that has been said, the Divine Peecept is to every man, to try and examine himself, and not to try and censure others. All Order and Government are destroyed, if private Persons take upon them to judg and censure others; or to separate from any Body, because there are Abuses in the use of this Authority.

Private Confession in the Church of Rome had quite destroyed the Go∣vernment of the Church, and superseded all the Antient Penitentiary Ca∣nons; and the Tyranny of the Church of Rome had set many Ingenious Men on many subtle Contrivances, either to evade the Force of those Ca∣nons, to which some regard was still preserved, or to maintain the Order of the Church, in opposition to the Appeals that were made to Rome: And while some pretended to subject all things to the Papal Authority, others studied to keep up the Antient Rules. The Encroachments that the Tem∣poral and Spiritual Courts ware making upon one another, occasioned ma∣ny Disputes; which being managed by such subtle men as the Civilians and Canonists were, all this brought in a great variety of Cases and Rules in∣to the Courts of the Church: So that instead of the first Simplicity which was evident in the Constitution of the Church, not only for the first Three Centuries, but for a great many more that came afterwards, there grew to be so much Practice, and so many Subterfuges in the Rules and manner of proceeding of those Courts, that the Church has long groaned under it,

and has wished to see that effected, which was designed in the beginnings of the Reformation. The Draught of a Reformation of those Courts is still extant; that so instead of the Intricacies, Delays, and other Disorders that have arisen from the Canon Law, we might have another short and plain Body of Rules; which might be managed, as antiently, by Bishops, with the Assistance of their Clergy. But though this is not yet done, and that by reason of it the Tares grow up with the Wheat, we ought to let them grow together, till the great Harvest comes, or at least till a proper Harvest may be given the Church by the Providence of God; in which the good may be distinguished and separated from the bad, without endangering the Ruin of all; which must certainly be the effect of Peoples falling indiscreet∣ly to this, before the time.

ARTICLE XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all pla∣ces one, or utterly like, for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of Countries and mens manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Who∣soever through his private Iudgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common Authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like) as one that offendeth a∣gainst the common Order of the Church, and hurteth the Authority of the Magistrate and woundeth the Consciences, of weak Brethren.

Every particular or National Church hath Authority to ordain, change, and abolish Ceremonies or Rights of the Church, ordained on∣ly by mens Authority; so that all things be done to edify∣ing.

THIS Article consists of two Branches: The first is, That the Church hath Power to appoint such Rites and Ceremonies as are not con∣trary to the Word of God; and that private Persons are bound to conform themselves to their Orders. The second is, That it is not necessary that the whole Church should meet to determine such maters; the Power of doing that being in every National Church, which is fully empowr'd to take care of it self; and no Rule made in such matters is to be held unal∣terable, but may be changed upon occasion.

As to the first, it hath been already considered, when the first words of the Twentieth Article were explained. There the Authority of the Church in matters indifferent was stated and proved. It remains now only to prove, That private Persons are bound to conform themselves to such Ceremo∣nies, especially when they are also enacted by the Civil Authority. It is to be considered, That the Christian Religion was chiefly designed to raise and purify the Nature of man, and to make Human Society perfect; now Brotherly Love and Charity does this more than any one Virtue whatso∣ever: It raises a man to the Likeness of God; it gives him a Divine and Heavenly Temper within himself, and creates the tenderest Union and firm∣est Happiness possible among all the Societies of Men. Our Saviour has so enlarged the Obligation to it, as to make it by the Extent he has given it, a great and new Commandment, by which all the World may be able to know and distinguish his Followers from the rest of Mankind: And as all the Apostles insist much upon this in every one of their Epistles, not ex∣cepting the shortest of them; so St. Iohn, who writ last of them, has dwelt more fully upon it than upon any other Duty whatsoever. Our Saviour did particularly intend that his Followers should be associated into one Body, and join together in order to their keeping up and inflaming their mutual Love; and therefore he delivered his Prayer to them all in the Plural, to shew that he intended that they should use it in a Body: He appointed Baptism as the way of receiving men into this Body, and the Eucharist as a joint Memo∣rial that the Body was to keep up of his Death. For this end he appointed Pastors to teach and keep his Followers in a Body: And in his last and

longest Prayer to the Father, he repeats this, That they might be one; That they might be kept in one (Body), and made perfect in one, in five several Ex∣pressions;* 1.620 which shews both how necessary a part of his Religion he meant this should be, and likewise intimates to us the danger that he foresaw, of his Followers departing from it; which made him intercede so earnestly for it. One Expression that he has of this Union, shews how entire and tender he intended that it should be; for he prayed that the Union might be such as that between the Father and himself was. The Apostles use the Figure of a Body frequently, to express this Union; than which nothing can be ima∣gined that is more firmly knit together, and in which all the parts do more tenderly sympathize with one another.

Upon all these considerations we may certainly gather, That the dis∣solving this Union, the dislocating this Body, and the doing any thing that may extinguish the Love and Charity by which Christians are to be made so happy in themselves, and so useful to one another, and by which the Body of Christians grows much the firmer and stronger, and shines more in the World; that, I say, the doing this upon slight grounds, must be a Sin of a very high nature. Nothing can be a just Reason either to carry men to it, or justify them in it, but the imposing on them unlawful Terms of Communion; for in that case it is certain that we must obey God rather than man; that we must seek Truth and Peace together;* 1.621 and that the rule of keeping a good Conscience in all things, is laid thus, To do it first towards God, and then towards man. So that a Schism that is occasioned by any Church's imposing unlawful Terms of Communion, lies at their door who impose them, and the Guilt is wholly theirs. But without such a necessity, it is certainly both in its own nature, and in its consequences, one of the greatest of Sins, to create needless Disturbances in a Church, and to give occasion to all that alienation of Mind, all those rash Censures, and unjust Judgments that do arise from such Divisions. This receives a very great Aggravation, if the Civil Authority has concurred by a Law to enjoyn the Observance of such indifferent things; for to all their lawful Commands we owe an Obedience, not only for fear, but for conscience sake; since the Authority of the Magistrate is chiefly to be imployed in such matters.* 1.622 As to things that are either commanded or forbidden of God, the Magi∣strate has only the Execution of these in his hands; so that in those, his Laws are only the Sanctions and Penalties of the Laws of God. The Sub∣ject-matter of his Authority is about things which are of their own nature indifferent, but that may be made fit and proper means for the maintaining of Order, Union, and Decency in the Society: And therefore such Laws as are made by him in those things, do certainly bind the Conscience, and oblige the Subjects to Obedience. Disobedience does also give Scandal to the weak. Scandal is a Block or Trap laid in the way of another, by which he is made to stumble and fall. So this Figure of giving Scandal, or the laying a stumbling-block in our Brother's way, is applied to our doing of such Actions as may prove the occasions of Sin to others. Every man accord∣ing to the influence that his Example or Authority may have over others, who do too easily and implicitely follow him, becomes thereby the more ca∣pable of giving them Scandal; that is, of drawing them after him to com∣mit many Sins: And since men are under Fetters, according to the Persua∣sions that they have of things; he who thinks a thing sinful, does sin if he does it, as long as he is under that apprehension; because he delibe∣rately ventures on that which he thinks offends God; even while he doubts of it, or makes a distinction between Meats, (for the word rendered doubts,* 1.623 signifies also the making a difference) he is damned (that is, self-condemn∣ed,

as acting against his own sense of things) if he does it. Another ma n that has larger Thoughts and clearer Ideas, may see that there is no sin in an Action, about which others may be still in doubt, and so upon his own account he may certainly do it: But if he has reason to believe that his doing that may draw others, who have not such clear Notions, to do it after his Example, they being still in doubt as to the Lawfulness of it, then he gives Scandal, that is, he lays a stumbling-block in their way if he does it, unless he lies under an Obligation from some of the Laws of God, or of the Society to which he belongs, to do it. In that case he is bound to obey; and he must not then consider the Consequences of his Actions; of which he is only bound to take care, when he is left to him∣self, and is at full liberty to do, or not to do, as he pleases.

This explains the Notion of Scandal, as it is used in the Epistles: For there being several doubts raised at that time, concerning the Lawfulness or Obligation of observing the Mosaical Law, and concerning the Lawfulness of eating Meats offered to Idols; no general Decision was made, that went through that matter; the Apostles having only decreed that the Mosaical Law was not to be imposed on the Gentiles, but not having condemned such as might of their own accord have observed some parts of that Law, Scruples arose about this; and so here they gave great Caution against the laying a Stumbling-block in the way of their Brethren.* 1.624 But it is visible from this, that the fear of giving Scandal does only take place where matters are free, and may be done or not done. But when Laws are made, and an Order is settled, the fear of giving Scandal lies all on the side of Obedience: For a man of weight and Authority, when he does not obey, gives Scruples and Jealousies to others, who will be apt to collect from his Practice, that the thing is unlawful: He who does not conform him∣self to settled Orders, gives occasion to others who see and observe him, to imitate him in it; and thus he lays a Scandal or Stumbling-block in their way; and all the sins which they commit through their excessive Re∣spect to him, and imitation of him, are in a very high degree to be put to his account, who gave them such occasion of falling.

The Second Branch of this Article is against the Unalterableness of Laws made in matters indifferent; and it asserts the Right of every National Church to take care of it self. That the Laws of any one Age of the Church cannot bind another, is very evident from this, That all Legisla∣ture is still entire in the hands of those who have it. The Laws of God do bind all men at all times; but the Laws of the Church, as well as the Laws of every State, are only Provisions made upon the present state of things, from the fitness or unfitness that appears to be in them for the great Ends of Religion, or for the Good of Mankind. All these things are subject to alteration, therefore the Power of the Church is in every Age entire, and is as great as it was in any one Age since the days in which she was under the Conduct of men immediately Inspired. So there can be no unalterable Laws in matters indifferent. In this there neither is nor can be any Controversy.

An obstinate adhering to things, only because they are antient, when all the ends for which they were at first introduced, do cease, is the limiting the Church in a point in which she ought still to preserve her Liberty: She ought still to pursue those great Rules in all her Orders, of doing all things to Edification, with Decency, and for Peace. The only question that can be made in this matter, is, Whether such general Laws as have been made by greater Bodies, by General Councils for instance, or by those Synods whose Canons were received into the Body of the Canons of the Catholick

Church; whether these, I say, may be altered by National Churches? Or whether the Body of Christians is so to be reckoned one Body, that all the Parts of it are bound to submit in matters indifferent, to the Decrees of the Body in general? It is certain that all the Parts of the Catholick Church ought to hold a Communion one with another, and mutual Commerce and Correspondence together; but this difference is to be observed between the Christian and the Iewish Religion, that the one was tied to one Nation, and to one place, whereas the Christian Religion is universal, to be spread to all Nations, among People of different Climates and Languages, and of different Customs and Tempers; and therefore since the Power in indif∣ferent matters is given the Church only in order to Edification, every Na∣tion must be the proper Judg of that within it self. The Roman Empire, though a great Body, yet was all under one Government; and therefore all the Councils that were held while that Empire stood, are to be considered only as National Synods, under one Civil Policy. The Christians of Per∣sia, India, or Ethiopia, were not subject to the Canons made by them, but were at full liberty to make Rules and Canons for themselves. And in the Primitive Times we see a vast diversity in their Rules and Rituals. They were so far from imposing general Rules on all, that they left the Churches at full liberty: Even the Council of Nice made very few Rules: That of Constantinople and Ephesus made fewer: And though the Abuses that were growing in the Fifth Century, gave occasion to the Council of Calcedon to make more Canons, yet the number of these is but small; so that the Tyranny of subjecting particular Churches to Laws that might be inconve∣nient for them, was not then brought into the Church.

The Corruptions that did afterwards overspread the Church, together with the Papal Usurpations, and the New Canon Law that the Popes brought in, which was totally different from the old one, had worn out the remem∣brance of all the Antient Canons; so it is not to be wondred at, if they were not much regarded at the Reformation. They were quite out of pra∣ctice, and were then scarce known. And as for the Subordination of Churches and Sees, together with the Privileges and Exemptions of them, these did all flow from the Divisions of the Roman Empire into Dio∣ceses▪ and Provinces, out of which the Dignity and the Dependances of their Cities did arise.

But now that the Roman Empire is gone, and that all the Laws which they made are at an end, with the Authority that made them; it is a vain thing to pretend to keep up the Antient Dignities of Sees; since the Foun∣dation upon which that was built, is sunk and gone. Every Empire, King∣dom, or State, is an entire Body within it self. The Magistrate has that Authority over all his Subjects, that he may keep them all at home, and hinder them from entring into any Consultations or Combinations, but such as shall be under his Direction: He may require the Pastors of the Church under him to consult together about the best methods for carrying on the Ends of Religion; but neither he nor they can be bound to stay for the concurrence of other Churches. In the way of managing this, every Bo∣dy of Men has somewhat peculiar to it self; and the Pastors of that Body are the properest Judges in that matter. We know that the several Churches, even while under one Empire, had great varieties in their Forms, as ap∣pears in the different Practices of the Eastern and Western Churches: And as soon as the Roman Empire was broken, we see this Variety did increase. The Gallican Churches had their Missals different from the Roman: And some Churches of Italy followed the Ambrosian. But Charles the Great, in com∣pliance with the desires of the Pope, got the Gallican Churches to depart

from their own Missals, and to receive the Roman; which he might the ra∣ther do, intending to have raised a New Empire; to which a Conformity of Rights might have been a great Step. Even in this Church there was a great Variety of Usages, which perhaps were begun under the Heptarchy, when the Nation was subdivided into several Kingdoms.

It is therefore suitable to the Nature of Things, to the Authority of the Magistrate, and to the Obligations of the Pastoral Care, That every Church should act within her self as an entire and independent Body. The Churches owe only a Friendly and Brotherly Correspondence to one another; but they owe to their own Body, Government and Direction, and such Provi∣sions and Methods as are most likely to promote the great Ends of Religi∣on, and to preserve the Peace of the Society both in Church and State. Therefore we are no other way bound by Antient Canons but as, the same reason still subsisting, we may see the same cause to continue them that there was at first to make them.

Of all the Bodies of the World, the Church of Rome has the worst Grace to reproach us for departing in some Particulars from the Antient Ca∣nons, since it was her ill Conduct that had brought them all into desuetude: And it is not easy to revive again Antiquated Rules, even though there may be good reason for it, when they fall under that tacit Abrogation which arises out of a long and general disuse of them.

ARTICLE XXXV. Of Homilies.

The Second Book of Homilies, the several Titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doc∣trine, and necessary for these Times; as doth the Former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the Time of Edward the Sixth: and therefore we judg them to be read in Churches by the Minis∣ters, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the People.

The Names of the Homilies.

• ...1. Of the right use of the Church.
• ...2. Against Peril of Idolatry.
• ...3. Of repairing and keeping clean of Churches.
• ...4. Of Good Works. First, Of Fasting.
• ...5. Against Gluttony and Drunkenness.
• ...6. Against Excess of Apparel.
• ...7. Of Prayer.
• ...8. Of the Place and time of Prayer.
• ...9. That common Prayers and Sacra∣ments ought to be ministred in a known tongue.
• ...10. Of the reverent estimation of God's Word.
• ...11. Of Alms-doing.
• ...12. Of the Nativity of Christ.
• ...13. Of the Passion of Christ.
• ...14. Of the Resurrection of Christ.
• ...15. Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.
• ...16. Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.
• ...17. For the Rogation-days.
• ...18. Of the state of Matrimony.
• ...19. Of Repentance.
• ...20. Against Idleness.
• ...21. Against Rebellion.

AT the time of the Reformation, as there could not be found at first a sufficient Number of Preachers to instruct the whole Nation; so those that did comply with the changes which were then made, were not all well-affected to them: so that it was not safe to trust this matter to the Capacity of the one side, and to the Integrity of others. Therefore to sup∣ply the Defects of some, and to oblige the rest to teach according to the Form of sound Doctrine, there were two Books of Homilies prepared; the first was published in King Edward's time; the second was not finished till about the time of his Death; so it was not published before Queen Eliza∣beth's time. The Design of them was to mix Speculative Points with Pra∣ctical matters: Some explain the Doctrine, and others enforce the Rules of Life and Manners. These are plain and short Discourses, chiefly calcula∣ted to possess the Nation with a Sense of the Purity of the Gospel, in oppo∣sition to the Corruptions of Popery; and to reform it from those crying Sins that had been so much connived at under Popery, while men knew the Price of them, how to compensate for them, and to redeem themselves from the Guilt of them, by Masses and Sacraments, by Indulgences and Absolutions.

In these Homilies the Scriptures are often applied as they were then un∣derstood; not so critically as they have been explained since that time. But by this Approbation of the two Books of Homilies, it is not meant that every Passage of Scripture, or Argument that is made use of in them, is always convincing, or that every Expression is so severely worded, that it may not need a little Correction or Explanation: All that we profess about

them, is only that they contain a godly and wholesom Doctrine▪ This rathe•• relates to the main Importance and Design of them, than to every Passag•• in them. Though this may be said concerning them, That considering th•• Age they were written in, the Imperfection of our Language, and some lesser Defects, they are Two very extraordinary Books. Some of them ar•• better writ than others, and are equal to any thing that has been writ upon those Subjects since that time. Upon the whole matter, every one wh•• subscribes the Articles, ought to read them, otherwise he subscribes a Blank▪ he approves a Book implicitely, and binds himself to read it, as he may be required, without knowing any thing concerning it. This Approbation is not to be stretched so far, as to carry in it a special Assent to every Particu∣lar in that whole Volume; but a man must be persuaded of the main of the Doctrine that is taught in them.

To instance this in one particular; since there are so many of the Homi∣lies that charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, and that from so many different Topicks, no man who thinks that Church is not guilty of Idolatry, can with a good Conscience subscribe this Article, That the Homilies con∣tain a good and wholesom Doctrine, and necessary for these times; for according to his sense they contain a false and an uncharitable Charge of Idolatry against a Church that they think is not guilty of it; and he will be apt to th••nk that this was done to heighten the Aversion of the Nation to it: Therefore any who have such favourable thoughts of the Church of Rome are bound by the force of that Persuasion of theirs, not to sign this Article, but to declare against it, as the authorizing of an Accusation against a Church, which they think is ill grounded, and is by consequence both unjust and uncharitable.

By necessary for these times, is not to be meant, that this was a Book fit to serve a Turn; but only that this Book was necessary at that time, to in∣struct the Nation aright, and so was of great use then: But though the Doctrine in it, if once true, must be always true, yet it will not be al∣ways of the same necessity to the People. As for Instance; There are many Discourses in the Epistles of the Apostles, that relate to the Controversies then on foot with the Judaizers, to the Engagements the Christians then lived in with the Heathens, and to those Corrupters of Christianity that were in those days. Those Doctrines were necessary for that time; but though they are now as true as they were then, yet since we have no Com∣merce either with Iews or Gentiles, we cannot say that it is as necessary for the present time to dwell much on those matters, as it was for that time to explain them once well. If the Nation should come to be quite out of the danger of falling back into Popery, it would not be so necessary to insist up∣on many of the Subjects of the Homilies, as it was when they were first prepared.

ARTICLE XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.

The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by Authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it any thing that of it self is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are Consecrated and Ordered according to the Rites of that Book since the Second Year of the aforenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be Consecrated or Ordered according to the same Rites, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully Consecrated and Ordered.

AS to the most essential parts of this Article, they were already exami∣ned, when the pretended Sacrament of Orders was explained; where it was proved, that Prayer and Imposition of Hands was all that was necessary to the giving of Orders; and that the Forms added in the Roman Pontifical are new, and cannot be held to be necessary, since the Church had subsisted for many Ages before those were thought on. So that either our Ordinations without those Additions are good, or the Church of God was for many Ages without true Orders. There seems to be here insinuated a Ratification of Orders that were given before this Article was made; which being done (as the Lawyers phrase it) ex post facto, it seems these Orders were unlawful, when given, and that Error was intended to be correct∣ed by this Article. The opening a part of the History of that time will clear this matter.

There was a new Form of Ordinations agreed on by the Bishops in the Third Year of King Edward; and when the Book of Common-Prayer, with the last Corrections of it, was Authorized by Act of Parliament in the Fifth Year of that Reign, the New Book of Ordinations was also enacted, and was appointed to be a part of the Common-Prayer-Book. In Queen Mary's time these Acts were repealed, and those Books were condemned by Name. When Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown, King Edward's Common-Prayer-Book was of new enacted, and Queen Mary's Act was repealed. But the Book of Ordination was not expresly named, it being considered as a part of the Common-Prayer-Book, as it had been made in King Edward's time; so it was thought no more necessary to mention that Office by Name, than to mention all the other Offices that are in the Book. Bishop Bonner set on foot a Nicety, That since the Book of Ordinations was by name condemned in Queen Mary's time, and was not by name revived in Queen Elizabeth's time, that therefore it was still condemned by Law, and that by conse∣quence Ordinations performed according to this Book, were not legal. But it is visible, that whatsoever might be made out of this, according to the Niceties of our Law, it has no relation to the Validity of Ordinations, as they are Sacred Performances, but only as they are Legal Actions, with relation to our Constitution. Therefore a Declaration was made in a sub∣sequent Parliament, That the Book of Ordination was considered as a part of the Book of Common-Prayer: And to clear all Scruples or Disputes that might arise upon that matter, they by a Retrospect declared them to be good; and from that Retrospect in the Act of Parliament, the like Clause was put in the Article.

The chief Exception that can be made to the Fo••m of giving O••de••s amongst us, is to those words, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; which as it is ••o Antient Form, it not being above Five hundred Years old, so it is taken from Words of our Saviour's that the Church in her bes•• times thought were not to be applied to this. It was proper to him to use them, who had the Fulness of the Spirit to give it at pleasure: He made use of it in constituting his Apostles the Governours of his Church in his own stead; and therefore it seems to have a Sound in it that is too bold and assuming, as if we could convey the Holy Ghost. To this it is to be answered, That the Churches both in the East and West have so often changed the Forms of Ordination, that our Church may well claim the same Power of appointing New Forms, that others have done. And since the several Functions and Administrations that are in the Church, are by the Apostle said to flow from one and the same Spirit, all of them from the Apo∣stles down to the Pastors and Teachers, we may then reckon that the Holy Ghost, though in a much lower degree, is given to those who are inwardly moved of God to undertake that Holy Office. So that though that ex∣traordinary Effusion that was poured out upon the Apostles, was in them in a much higher degree, and was accompanied with most amazing Cha∣racters; yet still such as do sincerely offer themselves up, on a Divine Mo∣tion, to this Service, receive a lower Portion of this Spirit. That being laid down, these Words, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, may be understood to be of the nature of a Wish and Prayer; as if it were said, May thou receive the Holy Ghost; and so it will better agree with what follows, And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word and Sacraments. Or it may be observed, That in those Sacred Missions the Church and Church-men consider them∣selves as acting in the Name and Person of Christ. In Baptism it is ex∣presly said, I baptize in the Name of the Father, &c. In the Eucharist we repeat the Words of Christ, and apply them to the Elements, as said by him. So we consider such as deserve to be admitted to those Holy Fun∣ctions, as Persons called and sent of God; and therefore the Church in the Name of Christ sends them; and because he gives a Portion of his Spi∣rit to those whom he sends, therefore the Church in his Name says, Re∣ceive the Holy Ghost. And in this sense, and with this respect, the use of these Words may be well justified.

ARTICLE XXXVII. Of Civil Magistrates.

The Queen's Majesty hath the chief Power in this Realm of Eng∣land, and other her Dominions, unto whom the chief Govern∣ment of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all Causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any Foreign Iurisdiction.

Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief Government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous Folks to be offended: we give not to our Princes the ministring either of God's Word or of the Sacraments; the which thing the In∣junctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen, do most plain∣ly testify; but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God him∣self, that is, That they should rule all Estates and Degrees com∣mitted to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil∣doers.

The Bishop of Rome hath no Iurisdiction in this Realm of Eng∣land.

The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian Men with Death for heinous and grievous Offences.

It is lawful for Christian Men at the Commandment of the Magis∣trate, to wear Weapons, and serve in the Wars.

THIS Article was much shorter, as it was published in King Ed∣ward's time, and did run thus: The King of England is Su∣preme Head in Earth, next under Christ, of the Church of Eng∣land and Ireland. Then followed the Paragraph against the Pope's Juris∣diction, worded as it is now; To which these Words were subjoined, The Civil Magistrate is ordained and allowed of God; wherefore we must obey him, not only for fear of Punishment, but also for Conscience sake. In Queen Elizabeth's time it was thought fitting to take away those Prejudices that the Papists were generally infusing into the minds of the People against the term Head; which seemed to be the more incongruous, because a Woman did then reign; therefore that was left out, and in∣stead of it the words chief Power and chief Government were made use of, which do signify the same thing.

The Queen did also by her Injunctions offer an Explanation of this matter: for whereas it was given out by those who had complied with every thing that had been done both in her Father and in her Brother's time, but that resolved now to set themselves in opposition to her, That she was assuming a much greater Authority than they had pretended to; She upon that ordered that Explanation which is referred to in the Ar∣ticle, and is in these words: For certainly Her Majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any Authority, other than that was challen∣ged and lately used by the said Noble Kings of famous Memory, King Henry the Eighth, and King Edward the Sixth, which is and was of antient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm; that is, under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over ail man∣ner of Persons born within these her Realms, Dominions and

Countries, of what Estate, either Ecclesiastical or Temporal, soe∣ver they be; so as no other Foreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them. And if any Person that hath concei∣ved any other sense of the said Oath, shall accept the same Oath with this Interpretation, Sense, or Meaning, Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf, as her good and obedient Subj••cts; and shall acquit them of all manner of Penalties con∣tained in the said Act, against such as shall peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take the same Oath.

Thus this matter is opened as it is both in the Article and in the Injun∣ctions. In order to the treating regularly of this Article, it is, First, To be proved, That the Pope hath no Jurisdiction in these Kingdoms. 2dly, That our Kings or Queens have it. And 3dly, The Nature and Measures of this Power and Government are to be stated.

As for the Pope's Authority, though it is now connected with the Infallibi∣lity, yet it was pretended to, and was advanced for many Ages before In∣fallibility was so much as thought on. Nor was the Doctrine of their In∣fallibility ever so universally received and submitted to in these Western Parts, as was that of their Universal Jurisdiction. They were in possession of it: Appeals were made to them: They sent Legates and Bulls every where: They granted Exemptions from the ordinary Jurisdiction; and took Bishops bound to them by Oaths that were penned in the Form of Oaths of Fealty or Homage. This was the first Point that our Reformers did begin with both here and every where else; that so they might remove that which was an insuperable Obstruction till it was first taken out of the way, to every step that could be made toward a Reformation. They laid down there∣fore this for their Foundation, That all Bishops were by their Office and Character equal; and that every one of them had the same Authority that any other had, over that Flock which was committed to his Care: And therefore they said that the Bishops of Rome had no Authority, accord∣ing to the Constitution in which the Churches were settled by the Apo∣stles, but over the City of Rome: And that any further Jurisdiction that any Antient Popes might have had, did arise from the Dignity of the City, and the Customs and Laws of the Empire. As for their deriving that Au∣thority from St. Peter, it is very plain that the Apostles were all made equal to him; and that they never understood our Saviour's Words to him as importing any Authority that was given to him over the rest; since they continued to the last, while our Saviour was among them, disputing which of them should be the greatest. The Proposition that the Mother of Iames and Iohn made,* 1.625 in which it was evident that they likewise concurred with her, shews that they did not apprehend that Christ had made any Declara∣tion in favour of St. Peter, as by our Saviour's Answer it appears that he had not done; otherwise he would have referred them to what he had al∣ready said upon that occasion. By the whole History of the Acts of the Apostles it appears that the Apostles acted and consulted in common, with∣out considering St. Peter as having any Superiority over them. He was called to give an account of his Baptizing Cornelius; and he delivered his Opinion in the Council of Ierusalem, without any strain of Authority over the rest.* 1.626 St. Paul does expresly deny that the other Apostles had any Su∣periority or Jurisdiction over him; and he says in plain words, that he was the Apostle of the Vncircumcision, as St. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumci∣sion; and in that does rather claim an advantage over him, since his was certainly the much wider Province. He withstood St. Peter to his Face,

when he thought that he deserved to be blamed; and he speaks of his own line and share, as being subordinate in it to none: And by his saying that he did not stretch himself beyond his own Measure,* 1.627 he plainly insinuates that within his own Province he was only accountable to him that had called and sent him. This was also the Sense of the Primitive Church, That all Bishops were Brethren, Collegues, and Fellow-Bishops: And though the Dig∣nity of that City, which was the Head of the Empire, and the Opinion of that Church's being founded by St. Peter and St. Paul, created a great Re∣spect to the Bishops of that See, which was supported and encreased by the eminent Worth, as well as the frequent Martyrdoms of their Bishops; yet St. Cyprian in his time, as he was against the suffering of any Causes to be carried in the way of a Complaint for Redress to Rome, so he does in plain words say, That all the Apostles were equal in Power;* 1.628 and that all Bishops were also equal; since the whole Office and Episcopate was one entire thing, of which every Bishop had a compleat and equal share. It is true, he speaks of the Vnity of the Roman Chureh, and of the Union of other Churches with it; but those words were occasioned by a Schism that Novatian had made then at Rome; he being elected in opposition to the Rightful Bishop: So that St. Cyprian does not insinuate any thing concerning an Authority of the See of Rome over other Sees, but speaks only of their Union under one Bishop; and of the other Churches holding a Brotherly Communion with that Bi∣shop. Through his whole Epistles he treats the Bishops of Rome as his Equals, with the Titles of Brother and Collegue.

In the first General Council the Authority of the Bishops of the great Sees is stated as equal.* 1.629 The Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch are declared to have, according to Custom, the same Authority over the Churches subordi∣nate to them, that the Bishops of Rome had over those that lay about that City. This Authority is pretended to be derived only from Custom, and is considered as under the Limitations and Decisions of a General Council. Soon after that the Arian Heresy was so spread over the East, that those who adhered to the Nicene Faith, were not safe in their numbers;* 1.630 and the Western Churches being free from that Contagion (though St. Basil laments that they neither understood their matters, nor were much concerned about them, but were swelled up with Pride) Athanasius and other oppressed Bi∣shops fled to the Bishops of Rome, as well as to the other Bishops of the West; it being natural for the oppressed to seek Protection wheresoever they can find it: And so a sort of Appeals was begun, and they were au∣thorized by the Council of Sardica. But the ill effects of this,* 1.631 if it should become a Precedent, were apprehended by the Second General Council; in which it was decreed, That every Province should be governed by its own Synod; and that all Bishops should be at first judged by the Bishops of their own Province: and from them an Appeal was allowed to the Bishops of the Diocess; whereas by the Canons of Nice no Appeal lay from the Bishops of the Province. But though this Canon of Constantinople allows of an Appeal to the Bishops of every such Division of the Roman Empire as was known by the name of Diocess, yet there is an express Prohibition of any other or further Appeal; which is a plain repealing of the Canon at Sardica. And in that same Council it appears upon what the Dignity of the See of Rome was then believed to be founded: For Constantinople being made the Seat of the Empire, and called New Rome, the Bishops of that See had the same Privileges given them, that the Bishops of Old Rome had; except only the Point of Rank, which was preserved to Old Rome because of the Dignity of the City. This was also confirmed at Chalcedon in the middle of the Fifth Century.* 1.632 This shews that the Authority and Privileges of the Bi∣shops

of Rome, were then considered as arising out of the Dignity of that City, and that the Order of them was subject to the Authority of a Ge∣neral Council.

* 1.633The African Churches in that time knew nothing of any Superiority that the Bishops of Rome had over them: They condemned the making of Ap∣peals to them, and appointed that such as made them should be excommu∣nicated. The Popes who laid that matter much to heart, did not pretend to an Universal Jurisdiction as St. Peter's Successors by a Divine Right, they only pleaded a Canon of the Council of Nice; but the Africans had heard of no such Canon, and so they justified their Independence on the See of Rome. Great Search was made after this Canon, and it was found to be an Imposture. So early did the See of Rome aspire to this Universal Authori∣ty, and did not stick at Forgery in order to the compassing of it. In the Sixth Century, when the Emperor Mauritius continued a Practice begun by some former Emperors to give the Bishop of Constantinople the Title of Uni∣versal Bishop;* 1.634 Pelage, and after him Gregory the Great, broke out into the most Pathetical Expressions that could be invented against it; he compared it to the Pride of Lucifer; and said, That he who assumed it, was the forerun∣ner of Antichrist; and as he renounced all Claim to it, so he affirmed that none of his Predecessors had ever aspired to such a Power.

This is the more remarkable, because the Saxons being converted to the Christian Religion under this Pope's direction, we have reason to believe that this Doctrine was infused into this Church at the first Conversion of the Saxons; yet Pope Gregory's Successor made no exceptions to the giving himself that Title against which his Predecessor had declaimed so much: But then the Confusions of Italy gave the Popes great Advantages to make all new Invaders and Pretenders enlarge their Privileges; since it was a great accession of Strength to any party, to have them of their side. The Kings of the Lombards began to lye heavy on them; but they called in the Kings of a new conquering Family from France, who were ready enough to make new Conquests; and when the Nomination of the Popes was given to the Kings of that Race, it was natural for them to raise the Greatness of one who was to be their Creature: so they promoted their Authority; which was not a little confirmed by an Impudent Forgery at that time, o•• the De∣cretal Epistles of the first Popes; in which they were represented as govern∣ing the World with an Universal and Unbounded Authority. This Book was a little disputed at first, but was quickly submitted to, and the Popes went on upon that Foundation, still enlarging their Pretensions. Soon after that was submitted to, it quickly appeared that the Pretensions of that See were endless.

They went on to claim a Power over Princes and their Dominions, and that first with relation to Spiritual matters. They deposed them if they were either Hereticks themselves, or if they favoured Heresy, at least so far as not to extirpate it. From deposing they went to the disposing of their Dominions to others: And at last Boniface the Eighth compleated their Claim; for he decreed, That it was necessary to every man to be subject to the Pope's Authority: And he asserted a direct Dominion over Princes as to their Temporals, That they were all subject to him, and held their Dominions under him, and at his Courtesy. As for the Jurisdiction that they claimed over the Spirituality, they exercised it with that Rigor, with such heavy Taxes and Impositions, such Exemptions and Dispensations, and such a Violation of all the Antient Canons, that as it grew insupportably grievous, so the management was grosly scandalous, for every thing was openly set to Sale. By these Practices they disposed the World to examine the Grounds

of that Authority which was managed with so much Tyranny and Corrup∣tion. It was so ill founded, that it could not be defended but by Force and Artifices. Thus it appears that there is no Authority at all in the Scripture for this Extent of Jurisdiction that the Popes assumed: That it was not thought on in the first Ages: That a vigorous Opposition was made to every step of the Progress that it made: And that Forgery and Violence was used to bring the World under it. So that there is no rea∣son now to submit to it.

As for the Patriarchal Authority which that See had over a great part of the Roman Empire, that was only a Regulation made conform to the Consti∣tution of that Empire: So that the Empire being now dissolved into many different Sovereignties, the new Princes are under no sort of obligation to have any regard to the Roman Constitution. Nor does a Nation's receiving the Faith by the Ministry of Men sent from any See, subject them to that See; for then all must be subject to Ierusalem, since the Gospel came to all the Churches from thence. There was a Decision made in the Third Ge∣neral Council in the case of the Cypriotick Churches, which pretended that they had been always compleat Churches within themselves, and Indepen∣dent; therefore they stood upon this Privilege, Not to be subject to Appeals to any Patriarchal See: The Council judged in their favour. So since the Britannick Churches were converted long before they had any Commerce with Rome, they were originally Independent; which could not be lost by any thing that was afterwards done among the Saxons, by men sent over from Rome. This is enough to prove the First Point, That the Bishops of Rome have no Lawful Jurisdiction here among us.

The Second is, That Kings or Queens have an Authority over their Sub∣jects in Matters Ecclesiastical. In the Old Testament the Kings of Israel intermeddled in all matters of Religion: Samuel acknowledged Saul's Au∣thority; and Abimelech, though the High-Priest, when called before Saul,* 1.635 appeared and answered to some things that were objected to him, that rela∣ted to the Worship of God. Samuel said in express words to Saul, That he was made the Head of all the Tribes; and one of these was the Tribe of Levi.* 1.636 David made many Laws about Sacred Matters, such as the Orders of the Courses of the Priests, and the time of their Attendance at the Publick Service. When he died, and was informing Solomon of the Extent of his Authority, he told him that the Courses of the Priests and all the People were to be wholly at his Commandment. Pursuant to which,* 1.637 Solomon did appoint them their Charges in the Service of God; and both the Priests and Le∣vites departed not from his Commandment in any matter. He turned out Abia∣thar from the High-Priests Office,* 1.638 and yet no Complaint was made upon it, as if he had assumed an Authority that did not belong to him. It is true, both David and Solomon were men that were particularly inspired as to some things; but it does not appear that they acted in those matters by virtue of any such Inspiration. They were Acts of Regal Power, and they did them in that Capacity. Iehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Iosiah, gave many Directions and Orders in Sacred Matters:* 1.639 But though the Priest with∣stood Vzziah when he was going to offer Incense in the Holy Place, yet they did not pretend Privilege, or make opposition to those Orders that were issued out by their Kings. Mordecai appointed the Feast of Purim by virtue of the Authority that King Ahasuerus gave him: And both Ezra and Nehemiah by virtue of Commissions from the Kings of Persia, made many Reformations, and gave many Orders in Sacred Matters.

Under the New Testament, Christ by saying Render to Caesar the things which are Caesars, did plainly show that he did not intend that his Religion should in any sort lessen the Temporal Authority. The Apostles writ to the Churches to obey Magistrates,* 1.640 to submit to them, and to pay Taxes: They enjoined Obedience, whether to the King as supreme, or to others that were sent by him:* 1.641 Every Soul without exception is charged to be subject to the higher Powers. The Magistrate is ordained of God, and is his Minister to encou∣rage them that do well, and to punish the evil doers. If these Passages of Scrip∣ture are to be interpreted according to the common consent of the Fathers, Churchmen are included within them, as well as other Persons. There was not indeed great occasion to consider this matter before Constantine's coming to the Empire; for till then the Emperors did not consider the Chri∣stians otherwise than either as Enemies, ot at best as their Subjects at large: And therefore though the Christians made an Address to Aurelian in the matter of Samosatenus, and obtained a favourable and just Answer to it; yet in Constantine's time the Protection that he gave to the Christian Religi∣on, led him and his Successors to make many Laws in Ecclesiastical mat∣ters, concerning the Age, the Qualifications, and the Duties of the Clergy. Many of these are to be found in Theodosius and Iustinian's Code. Iustinian added many more in his Novels. Appeals were made to the Emperors against the Injustice of Synods: They received them, and appointed such Bishops to hear and try those Causes, as happened to be then about their Courts. In the Council of Nice many Complaints were given to the Empe∣ror by the Bishops against one another. The Emperors called General Councils by their Summons; they sate in them, and confirmed their De∣crees. This was the constant Practice of the Roman Emperors both in the East and in the West: When the Church came to fall under many lesser So∣vereignties, those Princes continued still to make Laws, to name Bishops, to give Investitures into Benefices, to call Synods, and to do every thing that appeared necessary to them, for the good Government of the Church in their Dominions.

When Charles the Great was restoring those things that had fallen under much disorder in a course of some ignorant and barbarous Ages, and was reviving both Learning and good Government, he published many Capitu∣lars, a great part of them relating to Ecclesiastical matters; nor was any exception taken to that in those Ages: The Synods that were then held, were for the greatest part mixt Assemblies, in which the Temporalty and the Spiritualty sate together, and judged and decreed of all matters in common. And it is certain that such was the Sanhedrim among the Iews in our Savi∣our's time; it was the Supreme Court both for Spirituals and Temporals.

In England our Princes began early, and continued long to maintain this part of their Authority. The Letters that are pretended to have passed be∣tween King Lucius and Pope Eleutherius, are very probably Forgeries; but they are antient ones, and did for many Ages pass for true. Now a For∣gery is generally calculated to the Sense of the Age in which it is made. In the Pope's Letter the King is called God's Vicar in his Kingdoms; and it is said to belong to his Office to bring his Subjects to the holy Church, and to main∣tain, protect, and govern them in it. Both Saxon and Danish Kings made a great many Laws about Ecclesiastical matters; and after the Conquest, when the Nation grew into a more united Body, and came to a more settled Constitu∣tion, many Laws were made concerning these matters, particularly in op∣position to those Practices that favoured the Authority that the Popes were then assuming; such as Appeals to Rome, or Bishops going out of the King∣dom without the King's leave. King Alfred's Laws were a sort of a Text

for a great while; they contain many Laws about Sacred matters. The exempting of Monasteries from Episcopal Jurisdiction, was granted by some of our Kings at first. William the Conqueror, to perpetuate the Me∣mory of his Victory over Harold, and to endear himself to the Clergy, founded an Abbey in the Field where the Battel was fought, called Battel-Abbey: And in the Charter of the Foundation, in imitation of what for∣mer Kings had done in their Endowments, this Clause was put; It shall be also free and quiet for ever from all subjection to Bishops, or the dominion of any other Persons. This is an Act that does as immediately relate to the Au∣thority of the Church, as any one that we can imagine. The Constituti∣ons of Clarendon were asserted by both King and Parliament, and by the whole Body of the Clergy, as the Antient Customs of the Kingdom. These relate to the Clergy, and were submitted to by them all, Becket himself not excepted, though he quickly went off from it.

It is true, the Papacy got generally the better of the Temporal Autho∣rity in a course of several Ages; but at last the Popes living long at Avig∣non, together with the great Schism that followed upon their return to Rome, did very much sink in their Credit, and that stopped the Progress they had made before that time; which had probably subdued all, if it had not been for those Accidents. Then the Councils began to take heart, and resol∣ved to assert the Freedom of the Church from the Papal Tyranny. Pragma∣tick Sanctions were made in several Nations to assert their Liberty. That in France was made with great Solemnity: In these the Bishops did not on∣ly assert their own Jurisdiction, independent in a great measure of the Papa∣cy, but they likewise carried it so far as to make themselves Independent on the Civil Authority, particularly in the point of Elections. This disposed Princes generally to enter into Agreements with the Popes; by which the matter was so transacted, that the Popes and they made a division between them of all the Rights and Pretensions of the Church. Princes yielded a great deal to the Popes, to be protected by them in that which they got to be reserved to themselves. Great Restraints were laid both on the Clergy, and likewise on the See of Rome, by the Appeals that were brought into the Secular Courts, from the Ordinary Judgments of the Ecclesiastical Courts, or from the Bulls or Powers that Legates brought with them. A distinction was found that seemed to save the Ecclesiastical Authority, at the same time that the Secular Court was made the Judg of it. The Appeal did lye upon a pretence that the Ecclesiastical Judg had committed some Abuse in the way of proceeding, or in his Sentence. So the Appeal was from that Abuse, and the Secular Court was to examine the matter accord∣ing to the Rules and Laws of the Church, and not according to the Princi∣ples or Rules of any other Law: But upon that they did either confirm or reverse the Sentence. And even those Princes that acknowledg the Papal Authority, have found out distinctions to put such Stops to it as they please; and so to make it an Engine to govern their People by, as far as they think fit to give way to it; and to damn such Bulls, or void such Powers as they are afraid of.

Thus it is evident, That both according to Scripture, and the Practice of all Ages and Countries, the Princes of Christendom have an Authority over their Subjects in matters Ecclesiastical. The reason of things makes also for this; for if any Rank of men are exempted from their Jurisdicti∣on, they must thereby cease to be Subjects: And if any sort of Causes, Spiritual ones in particular, were put out of their Authority, it were an easy thing to reduce almost every thing to such a relation to Spirituals, that if this Principle were once received, their Authority would be very preca∣••ious

and feeble. Nothing could give Princes stronger and juster Prejudices against the Christian Religion, than if they saw that the effect of their recei∣ving it must be the withdrawing so great a part of their Subjects from their Authority; and the putting as many Checks upon it, as those that had the Management of this Religion should think fit to restrain it by. In a word, all mankind must be under one Obedience and one Authority. It remains that the Measures and the Extent of this Power be right stated.

It is certain, First, That this Power does not depend upon the Prince's Religion; Whether he is a Christian, or not; or whether he is of •• true or false Religion; or is a good or a bad man. By the same Tenure that he holds his Sovereignty, he holds this likewise. Artaxer•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it as well as either David or Solomon, when the Iews were once lawfu•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ubjects; and the Christians owed the same Duty to the Emperors 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••eathen, that they paid them when Christian. The Relations of Nature, such as that of a Parent and Child, Husband and Wife, continue the same that they were, whatsoever mens Persuasions in matters of Religion may be: So do also Civil Relations, Master and Servant, Prince and Subject; they are nei∣ther increased nor diminished by the Truth of their Sentiments concerning Religion. All Persons are subject to the Prince's Authority, and liable to such Punishments as their Crimes fall under by Law. Every Soul is subject to the higher Powers. Neither is Treason less Treason, because spoke in a Pulpit or in a Sermon: It may be more Treason for that than otherwise it would be; be∣cause it is so publick and deliberate, and is delivered in the way in which it may probably have the worst effect. So that as to persons, no great dif∣ficulty can lye in this, since every Soul is declared to be subject to the higher powers.

As to Ecclesiastical Causes, it is certain, That as the Magistrate cannot make void the Laws of Nature, such as the Authority of Parents over their Children, or of Husbands over their Wives, so neither can he make void the Law of God: That is from a Superior Authority, and cannot be dissolved by him. Where a thing is positively commanded or forbid by God, the Ma∣gistrate has no other Authority but that of executing the Laws of God, of adding his Sanctions to them, and of using his utmost Industry to procure Obedience to them. He cannot alter any part of the Doctrine, and make it to be either truer or falser than it is in it self; nor can he either take away or alter the Sacraments, or break any of those Rules that are given in the New Testament about them; because in all these the Authority of God is express, and is certainly superior to his. The only question that can be made, is concerning Indifferent things: For instance, in the Canons or other Rules of the Church, How far they are in the Magistrate's Power, and in what Cases the Body of Christians, and of the Pastors of the Church, may maintain their Union among themselves, and act in opposition to his Laws. It seems very clear, that in all matters that are indifferent, and are determined by no Law of God, the Magistrates Authority must take place, and is to be obeyed. The Church has no Authority that she can maintain in opposition to the Magistrate, but in the executing the Laws of God, and the Rules of the Gospel: In all other things, as she acts under his Pro∣tection, so it is by his Permission. But here a great distinction is to be made between two Cases that may happen: The one is, When the Magi∣strate acts like one that intends to preserve Religion, but commits Errors and Acts of Injustice in his Management: The other is, When he acts like one that intends to destroy Religion, and to divide and distract those that profess it. In the former case every thing that is not sinful of it self, is to

be done in compliance with his Authority; not to give him Umbrage, nor provoke him to withdraw his Protection, and to become instead of a Nur∣sing Father, a Persecutor of the Church. But on the other hand, when he declares, or it is visible that his design is to destroy the Faith, less regard is to be had to his Actions. The People may adhere to their Pastors, and to every Method that may fortify them in their Religion, even in opposition to his Invasion. Upon the whole matter, the Power of the King in Ecclesiastical Matters among us, is expressed in this Article under those Reserves, and with that Moderation, that no just Scruple can lye against it; and it is that which all the Kings even of the Roman Communion do assume, and in some Places with a much more unlimited Authority. The Methods of managing it may differ a little, yet the Power is the same, and is built up∣on the same Foundations. And though the Term Head is left out by the Article, yet even that is founded on an Expression of Samuel's to Saul, as was formerly cited. It is a Figure, and all Figures may be used either more loosely or more strictly. In the strictest sense, as the Head communicates Vital Influences to the whole Body, Christ is the only Head of his Church; he only ought to be in all things obeyed, submitted to, and depended on; and from him all the Functions and Offices of the Church derive their Use∣fulness and Virtue. But as Head may in a Figure stand for the Fountain of Order and Government, of Protection and Conduct, the King or Queen may well be called, The Head of the Church.

The next Paragraph in this Article is concerning the Lawfulness of Capi∣tal Punishments in Christian Societies. It has an appearance of Compassi∣on and Charity, to think that men ought not to be put to death for their Crimes, but to be kept alive that they may repent of them. Some both An∣tients and Moderns, have thought that there was a Cruelty in all Capital Punishments, that was inconsistent with the Gentleness of the Gospel. But when we consider that God in that Law which he himself delivered to the Iews by the hand of Moses, did appoint so many Capital Punishments, even for Offences against Positive Precepts, we cannot think that these are con∣trary to Justice or true Goodness; since they were dictated by God himself, who is eternally the same, unalterable in his Perfections. This shews that God, who knows most perfectly our Frame and Disposition, knows that the love of Life is planted so deep in our Natures, and that it has such a Root there, that nothing can work so powerfully on us, to govern and restrain us, as the fear of Death. And therefore since the main thing that is to be considered in Government, is the Good of the whole Body; and since a feeble Indulgence and Impunity may set mankind loose into great Disor∣ders, from which the Terror of severer Laws, together with such Examples as are made on the Incorrigible, will naturally restrain them; it seems ne∣cessary for the preservation of Mankind and of Society, to have recourse sometimes to Capital Punishments.

The Precedent that God set in the Mosaical Law, seems a full Justification of such Punishments under the Gospel. The Charity which the Gospel prescribes, does not take away the Rules of Justice and Equity, by which we may maintain our Possessions, or recover them out of the hands of vio∣lent Aggressors: Only it obliges us to do that in a soft and gentle manner, without Rigor or Resentment. The same Charity, though it obliges us as Christians not to keep up Hatred or Anger in our Hearts, but to pardon as to our own parts, the Wrongs that are done us; yet it does not oblige us to throw up the Order and Peace of Mankind, and abandon it to the Injustice and Violence of Wicked men. We owe to Human Society, and to

the Safety and Order of the World, our Endeavours to put a stop to the Wickedness of Men; which a good man may do with great inward Ten∣derness to the Souls of those whom he prosecutes. It is highly probable, that as nothing besides such a Method could stop the Progress of Injustice and Wickedness, so nothing is so likely a Mean to bring the Criminal to repent of his sins, and to fit him to dye as a Christian, as to condemn him to dye for his Crimes. If any thing can awaken his Conscience, and strike Terror in him, that will do it. Therefore as Capital Punishments are ne∣cessary to Human Society, so they are often real Blessings to those on whom they fall: And it may be affirmed very positively, That a man who can harden himself against the Terrors of Death, when they come upon him so solemnly, so slowly, and so certainly, he being in full Health, and well able to reflect on the Consequences of it, is not like to be wrought on by a longer continuance of Life, or by the Methods of a Natural Death.

It is not possible to fix Rules, to which Capital Punishments ought to be proportioned. It is certain, that in a full Equality, Life only can be set against Life: But there may be many other Crimes, that must end in the Ruin of Society, and in the Dissolution of all Order, and all the Commerce that ought to be among men, if they go unpunished. In this all Princes and States must judge, according to the real Exigencies and Necessities that appear to them. Nor can any general Rules be made, save only this, That since Man was made after the Image of God, and that the Life of Man is precious, and when once extinguished it ceases for evermore; therefore all due Care and Tenderness ought to be had in preserving it: and since the End of Government is the Preservation of Mankind, there∣fore the Lives of Men ought not to be too lightly taken, except as it ap∣pears to be necessary for the Preservation and Safety of the Society.

Under the Gospel, as well as under the Law, the Magistrate is the Mi∣nister of God, and has the Sword put in his hand; which he beareth not in vain,* 1.642 for he is appointed to be a revenger, to execute wrath on him that doth evil. The natural signification of his carrying the Sword, is, That he has an Authority for punishing Capitally; since it is upon those occasions only that he can be said to use the Sword as a Revenger. Nor can Chri∣stian Charity oblige a man whom the Law has made to be the Avenger of Blood, or of other Crimes, to refuse to comply with that obligation which is laid upon him by the Constitution under which he is born: He can only forgive that of which he is the Master, but the other is a Debt which he owes the Society; and his private forgiving of the wrong done himself, does not reach to that other obligation, which is not in his own power to give away.

The last Paragraph in this Article, is concerning the Lawfulness of Wars. Some have thought all Wars to be contrary to Christian Charity, to be in∣human and barbarous; and that therefore men ought, according to the Rule set us by our Saviour, Not to resist evil: But when one Injury is done, not only to bear it,* 1.643 but to shew a readiness rather to receive new ones; turning the other cheek to him that smites us on the one: going two miles with him that shall compel us to go one with him: And giving our Cloak to him that shall take away our Coat.* 1.644 It seems just, that by a parity of reason Societies should be under the same Obligations to bear from other Societies, that sin∣gle Persons are under to other single Persons. This must be acknowledged to be a very great difficulty: for as on the one hand the words of our Sa∣viour seem to be very express and full; so on the other hand, if they are to be understood literally, they must cast the World loose, and expose it to the In∣justice

justice and Insolence of wicked persons, who would not fail to take advan∣tages from such a compliance and submission. Therefore these words must be considered, first, as addressed to private persons; then, as relating to smaller Injuries, which can more easily be born; and finally, as Phrases and Forms of Speech, that are not to be carried to the utmost extent, but to be construed with that softning that is to be allowed to the use of a Phrase. So that the meaning of that Section of our Saviours Sermon is to be taken thus; That private Persons ought to be so far from pursuing Injuries, to the equal Retaliation of an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth, that they ought in many cases to bear Injuries, without either resisting them, or ma∣king returns of evil for evil; shewing a Patience to bear even repeated In∣juries, when the matter is small, and the wrong tolerable.

Under all this, secret conditions are to be understood, such as when by such our Patience we may hope to overcome evil with good; or at least to shew to the World the Power that Religion has over us, to check and subdue our Resentments. In this case certainly we ought to sacrifice our just Rights, either of defence, or of seeking reparation, to the Honour of Religion, and to the gaining of men by such an Heroical Instance of Virtue. But it cannot be supposed that our Saviour meant that good men should deliver themselves up to be a Prey to be devoured by bad men; or to oblige his Followers to renounce their Claims to the Protection and Reparations of Law and Justice.

In this St. Paul gives us a clear Commentary on our Saviour's words: He reproves the Corinthians for going to Law with one another, and that before unbelievers;* 1.645 when it was so great a Scandal to the Christian Religion in its first Infancy. He says, Why do not ye take wrong? why do not ye suffer your selves to be defrauded? Yet he does not deny but that they might claim their Rights, and seek for redress; therefore he proposes their doing it by Arbi∣tration among themselves, and only urges the Scandal of suing before Hea∣then Magistrates; so that his Reproof did not fall on their suing one ano∣ther, but on the scandalous manner of doing it. Therefore men are not bound up by the Gospel from seeking Relief before a Christian Judge, and by consequence those words of our Saviour's are not to be urged in the ut∣most extent of which they are capable. If private persons may seek Re∣paration of one another, they may also seek Reparations of the Wrongs that are done by those who are under another Obedience; and every Prince owes a Protection to his People in such cases; for he beareth not the Sword in vain; He is their Avenger. He may demand Reparation by such Forms as are agreed on among Nations; and when that is not granted, he may take such Reparation from any that are under that Obedience, as may oblige the whole Body to repair the Injury. Much more may he use the Sword to protect his Subjects, if any other comes to invade them. For this end chiefly he has both the Sword given him, and those Taxes paid him, that may enable him to support the Charge to which the use of it may put him. And as a private man owes by the Ties of Humanity, Assistance to a man whom he sees in the hands of Thieves and Murderers; so Prin∣ces may assist such other Princes as are unjustly fallen upon; both out of humanity to him who is so ill used, and to repress the Insolence of an unjust Aggressor, and also to secure the whole Neighbourhood from the effects of Success in such unlawful Conquests. Upon all these accounts we do not doubt but that Wars, which are thus originally as to the first occasion of them Defensive, though in the Progress of them they must be often offensive, may be lawful.

God allowed of Wars in that Policy which he himself constituted; in which we are to make a great difference between those things that were permitted by reason of the hardness of their hearts, and those things which were ex∣presly commanded of God. These last can never be supposed to be immo∣ral, since commanded by God, whose Precepts and Judgments are altoge∣ther righteous. When the Soldiers came to be baptized of St. Iohn, he did not charge them to relinquish that course of Life,* 1.646 but only to do violence to no man, to accuse no man falsly, and to be content with their wages. Nor did St. Peter charge Cornelius to forsake his Post when he baptized him.* 1.647 The Primitive Christians thought they might continue in Military Employ∣ments, in which they preserved the Purity of their Religion entire; as ap∣pears both from Tertullian's Works, and from the History of Iulian's short Reign. But though Wars that are in their own nature only Defensive, are lawful, and a part of the Protection that Princes owe their People; yet unjust Wars designed for making Conquests, for the enlargement of Em∣pire, and the raising the Glory of Princes, are certainly publick Robberies, and the highest Acts of Injustice and Violence possible; in which men sa∣crifice to their Pride or Humour, the Peace of the World, and the Lives of all those that dye in the Quarrel, whose Blood God will require at their hands. Such Princes become accountable to God in the highest degree ima∣ginable, for all the Rapine and Bloodshed that is occasioned by their Pride and Injustice.

When it is visible that a War is unjust, certainly no man of Conscience can serve in it, unless it be in the Defensive part: For though no man can owe that to his Prince, to go and murder other persons at his command, yet he may owe it to his Country, to assist towards its Preservation, from being over-run even by those whom his Prince has provoked by making War on them unjustly. For even in such a War, though it is unlawful to serve in the Attacks that are made on others, it is still lawful for the People of every Nation to defend themselves against Foreigners.

There is no Cause of War more unjust, than the propagating the true Religion, or the destroying a false one. That is to be left to the Provi∣dence of God, who can change the hearts of men, and bring them to the knowledg of the Truth when he will. Ambition, and the desire of Em∣pire must never pretend to carry on God's work. The wrath of man work∣eth not out the righteousness of God. And it were better barefacedly to own, that men are set on by Carnal Motives, than to prophane Religion, and the Name of God, by making it the Pretence.

ARTICLE XXXVIII. Of Christian Mens Goods, which are not common.

The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right Title and Possession of the same; as certain Anabaptists do falsly boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give Alms to the Poor according to his A∣bility.

THere is no great difficulty in this Article; as there is no danger to be apprehended that the Opinion condemned by it is like to spread. Those may be for it, who find it for them. The Poor may claim to it, but few of the Rich will ever go into it. The whole Charge that is given in the Scripture for Charity and Almsgiving; all the Rules that are given to the Rich, and to Masters, to whom their Servants were then Properties and Slaves, do clearly demonstrate that the Gospel was not designed to in∣troduce a Community of Goods. And even that Fellowship or Community which was practised in the first beginnings of it, was the effect of particu∣lar mens Charity, and not of any Law that was laid on them. Barnabas having land, sold it, and laid the Price of it at the Apostles feet. And when St. Peter chid Ananias for having vowed to give in the whole Price of his Land to that distribution, and then withdrawing a part of it,* 1.648 and by a Lye pretending that he had brought it all in; he affirmed that the Right was still in him, till he by a Vow had put it out of his power. When God fed his People by Miracle with the Manna, there was an equal distribution made; yet when he brought them into the promised Land, every man had his Property. The equal division of the Land was the foundation of that Constitution; but still every man had a Property, and might improve it by his Industry either to the increasing of his Stock, the purchasing Houses in Towns, or buying of Estates, till the Redemption at the Jubilee.

It can never be thought a just and equitable thing, that the sober and industrious should be bound to share the fruits of their labour with the idle and the luxurious. This would be such an Incouragement to those whom all wise Governments ought to discourage, and would so discourage those who ought to be encouraged, that all the Order of the World must be dissolved, if so extravagant a Conceit should be entertained. Both the Rich and the Poor have Rules given them, and there are Virtues suitable to each state of Life. The Rich ought to be sober and thankful, modest and humble, bountiful and charitable, out of the abundance that God has given them; and not to set their hearts upon uncertain Riches, but to trust in the living God, and to make the best use of them that they can. The Poor ought to be patient and industrious; to submit to the Providence of God, and to study to make sure of a better Portion in another State, than God has thought fit to give them in this World.

It will be much easier to persuade the World of the Truth of the first part of this Article, than to bring them up to the Practice of the second Branch of it. We see what particular Care God took of the Poor in the Old Dispensation, and what variety of Provision was made for them; all which must certainly be carried as much higher among Christians, as the Laws of Love and Charity are raised to a higher degree in the Gospel. Christ represents the Essay that he gives of the Day of Judgment, in this Article of Charity, and expresses it in the most emphatical words possible;

as if what is given to the Poor were to be reckoned for as if it had been given personally to Christ himself: And in a great variety of other Passages this matter is so oft insisted on, that no man can resist it who reads them, and acknowledges the Authority of the New Testament.

It is not possible to fix a determined Quota, as was done under the Law, in which every Family had their peculiar Allotment, which had a certain Charge specified in the Law, that was laid upon it. But under the Gospel, as men may be under greater Inequalities of Fortune than they could have been under the Old Dispensation; so that vast variety of mens Circumstan∣ces makes that such Proportions as would be intolerable Burdens upon some, would be too light and disproportioned to the Wealth of others. Those words of our Saviour come pretty near the marking out every mans measure.* 1.649 These have of their abundance cast into the offerings of God, but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had. Abundance is Super∣fluity in the Greek; which imports that which is over and above the food that is convenient;* 1.650 that which one can well spare and lay aside. Now by our Saviour's design it plainly appears that this is a low degree of Charity, when men give only out of this; though God knows it is far beyond what is done by the greater part of Christians. Whereas that which is so pecu∣liarly acceptable to God, is when men give out of their Penury, that is, out of what is necessary to them; when they are ready, especially upon great and crying occasions, even to pinch Nature, and straiten themselves within what upon other occasions they may allow themselves; that so they may distribute to the necessities of others who are more pinched, and are in great extremities. By this every man ought to judg himself, as know∣ing that he must give a most particular Account to God, of that which God hath reserved to himself, and ordered the distribution of it to the Poor, out of all that Abundance with which he has bless'd some far beyond others.

ARTICLE XXXIX. Of a Christian Man's Oath.

As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Iesus Christ, and James his Apostle; so we judg that Chris∣tian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a Cause of Faith and Charity, so it be done according to the Prophets teaching, in Iustice, Iudgment, and Truth.

AN Oath is an Appeal to God, either upon a Testimony that is given, or a Promise that is made, confirming the Truth of the one, and the Fidelity of the other. It is an Appeal to God, who knows all things, and will judg all men: So it is an Act that acknowledges both his Omnisci∣ence and his being the Governor of this World, who will judg all at the Last Day according to their deeds, and must be supposed to have a more immediate regard to such Acts, in which men made him a Party. An Ap∣peal truly made, is a committing the matter to God: A false one is an Act of open defiance, which must either suppose a denial of his knowing all things, or a belief that he has forsaken the Earth, and has no regard to the Actions of Mortals: or finally, it is a bold venturing on the Justice and Wrath of God, for the serving some present end, or the gaining of some present advantage: And which of these soever gives a man that brutal Confidence of adventuring on a false Oath, we must conclude it to be a very crying Sin; which must be expiated with a very severe Repentance, or will bring down verry terrible Judgments on those who are guilty of it.

Thus if we consider the matter upon the Principles of Natural Religi∣on, an Oath is an Act of Worship and Homage done to God; and is a very powerful mean for preserving the Justice and Order of the World. All Decisions in Justice must be founded upon evidence; two must be be∣lieved rather than one; therefore the more Terror that is struck into the minds of men, either when they give their Testimony, or when they bind themselves by Promises, and the deeper that this goes, it will both oblige them to the greater Caution in what they say, and to the greater Strictness in what they promise. Since therefore Truth and Fidelity are so necessary to the Security and Commerce of the World, and since an Appeal to God is the greatest Mean that can be thought on to bind men to an exactness and strictness in every thing with which that Appeal is joined; therefore the use of an Oath is fully justified upon the Principles of Natural Religion. This has spread it self so universally through the World, and began so ear∣ly, that it may well be reckoned a Branch of the Law and Light of Na∣ture.

We find this was practised by the Patriarchs: Abimelech reckoned that he was safe, if he could persuade Abraham to swear to him by God,* 1.651 That he would not deal falsly with him; and Abraham consented so to swear. Ei∣ther the same Abimelech or another of that Name, desired that an Oath

might be between Isaac and him; and they sware one to another. Iacob did also swear to Laban. Thus we find the Patriarchs practising this before the Mosaical Law. Under that Law we find many Covenants sealed by an Oath; and that was a Sacred Bond, as appears from the Story of the Gibeonites. There was also a special Constitution in the Iewish Religion, by which one in Authority might put others under an Oath, and adjure them either to do somewhat, or to declare some Truth. The Law was, That when any Soul (i. e. man) sinned,* 1.652 and heard the voice of swearing (Adjuration), and was a witness whether he hath seen it, or known it, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his Iniquity; that is, he shall be guilty of Perjury. So the Form then was, the Judg or the Parent did adjure all persons to declare their knowledg of any particular. They charged this upon them with an Oath or Curse, and all persons were then bound by that Oath to tell the truth. So Micah came and confessed,* 1.653 upon his Mother's Adjuration, That he had the Eleven hundred Shekels, for which he heard her put all under a Curse; and upon that she blessed him.* 1.654 Saul, when he was pursuing the Philistines, put the People under a Curse, if they should eat any Food till Night; and this was thought to be so obligatory, that the Violation of it was Capi∣tal, and Ionathan was put in hazard of his Life upon it. Thus the High-Priest put our Saviour under the Oath of Cursing,* 1.655 when he required him to tell, Whether he was the Messias or not? Upon which our Saviour was according to that Law upon his Oath; and though he had continued silent till then, as long as it was free to him to speak or not, at his pleasure, yet then he was bound to speak, and so he did speak, and owned himself to be what he truly was.

This was the Form of that Constitution; but if by practice it were found that mens pronouncing the words of the Oath themselves, when re∣quired by a Person in Authority to do it; and that such Actions as their lifting up their Hand to Heaven, or their laying it on a Bible, as importing their Sense of the Terrors contained in that Book, were like to make a deeper Impression on them, than barely the Judges charging them with the Oath or Curse; it seems to be within the compass of Human Authority, to change the Rites and Manner of this Oath, and to put it in such a Method as might probably work most on the minds of those who were to take it. The Institution in general is plain, and the making of such Alterations seems to be clearly in the Power of any State or Society of men.

In the New Testament we find St. Paul prosecuting a Discourse concerning the Oath which God sware to Abraham,* 1.656 who not having a greater to swear by, swore by himself; and to enforce the Importance of that, it is added, An oath for confirmation (that is,* 1.657 for the affirming or assuring of any thing) is the end of all controversy. Which plainly shews us what Notion the Author of that Epistle had of an Oath: He did not consider it as an Impiety or Prophanation of the Name of God.* 1.658 In St. Iohn's Visions an Angel is repre∣sented as lifting up his hand, and swearing by him that liveth for ever and ever: And the Apostles even in their Epistles,* 1.659 that are acknowledged to be writ by Divine Inspiration, do frequently appeal to God in these words, God is witness; which contain the whole Essence of an Oath. Once St. Paul carries the Expression to a Form of Imprecation,* 1.660 when he calls God to a re∣cord upon (or against) his soul.

These seem to be Authorities beyond exception, justifying the use of an Oath upon a great occasion, or before a competent Authority; according

to that Prophecy quoted in the Article, which is thought to relate to the Times of the Messias: And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him,* 1.661 and in him shall they glory. These last words seem evidently to relate to the days of the Messiah: So here an Oath religiously taken, is represented as a part of that Worship which all Nations shall offer up to God under the New Dispensation.

Against all this, the great Objection is, That when Christ is correcting the Glosses that the Pharisees put upon the Law, whereas they only taught that men should not forswear themselves, but perform their oaths unto the Lord; our Saviour says, Swear not at all; neither by the Heaven, nor the earth,* 1.662 nor by Ierusalem, nor by the head; but let your communication be yea yea, and nay nay; for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil. And St. Iames speak∣ing of the enduring Afflictions, and of the Patience of Iob, adds, But above all things, my brethren, swear not; neither by the heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, lest ye fall into condemnation. It must be confessed that these words seem to be so express and positive, that great regard is to be had to a Scruple that is founded on an Authority that seems to be so full. But according to what was formerly observed of the manner of the Judiciary Oaths among the Iews, these words cannot belong to them. Those Oaths were bound upon the Party by the Authority of the Judg; in which he was passive, and so could not help his being put under an Oath: Whereas our Saviour's words relate only to those Oaths which a man took voluntarily on himself, but not to those under which he was bound according to the Law of God. If our Saviour had intended to have forbidden all Judiciary Oaths, he must have annulled that part of the Authority of Magistrates and Parents, and have forbid them to put others under Oaths. The word Communication, that comes afterwards, seems to be a Key to our Saviour's words; to shew that they ought only to be applied to their Communication or Commerce; to those Discourses that pass among men, in which it is but too customary to give Oaths a very large share. Or since the words that went before, con∣cerning the performing of Vows, seem to limit the Discourse to them, the meaning of Swear not at all, may be this, Be not ready, as the Iews were, to make Vows on all occasions, to devote themselves or others: Instead of those, he requires them to use a greater Simplicity in their Communicati∣on. And St. Iames's words may be also very fitly applied to this, since men in their Afflictions are apt to make very indiscreet Vows, without consi∣dering whether they either can, or probably will pay them; as if they would pretend by such profuse Vows to overcome or corrupt God.

This Sense will well agree both to our Saviour's words, and to St. Iames's; and it seems most reasonable to believe that this is their true Sense, for it agrees with every thing else; whereas if we understand the•• in that strict Sense of condemning all Oaths, we cannot tell what to make of those Oaths which occur in several Passages of St. Paul's Epistles; and least of all, what to say to our Saviour's own answering upon Oath, when adjured. Therefore all rash and vain swearing, all swearing in the Com∣munication or Intercourse of Mankind, is certainly condemned, as well as all Imprecatory Vows. But since we have so great Authorities from the Scriptures in both Testaments for other Oaths; and since that agrees so evidently with the Principles of Natural Religion, we may conclude with the Article,

That a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth it. It is added, in a Cause of Faith and Charity; for certainly in trifling matters, such Reve∣rence is due to the Holy Name of God, that swearing ought to be avoid∣ed: But when it is necessary, it ought to be set about with those regards that are due to the Great God, who is appealed to: A Gravity of Deport∣ment, and an Exactness of weighing the truth of what we say, are highly necessary here: Certainly our Words ought to be few, and our Hearts full of the Apprehensions of the Majesty of that God with whom we have to do, before whom we stand, and to whom we appeal; who knows all things, and will bring every work to judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Rom. 6.17. 1 Tim. 4.6. —6 3. 2 Tim. 1.13.
• * 1.2

  1 Cor. 9.19, to 23.
• * 1.3

  5. Gal. 3. 2. Gal. 21.
• * 1.4

  6. Deut 4.
• * 1.5

  44. Isa. 6, 8.
• * 1.6

  17. Joh 3 4. Mat. 10. 1 Cor. 8.5, 6.
• * 1.7

  4. Eph. 4.5, 6.
• * 1.8

  Mat. 28.19.
• * 1.9

  Rom. 1.7. Rom. 16.20, 24. 1 Cor. 16.23. 1 Cor. 1.3. 2 Cor. 1.3. Gal. 1.3. Gal 6.18. Eph. 1.2. Eph. 6.23. Phil. 1.2. Phil. 4.23. Col. 1.2. 1 Thes. 1.1. 1 Thes 5.28. 2 Thes. 1.2. 2 Thes. 3 18. 1 Tim. 1.2. 2 Tim. 1.2. Tit. 1.4. Philem. 3.25. 2 John 1.3.
• * 1.10

  2 Cor. 13.14.
• * 1.11

  Rev. 1.4, 5.
• * 1.12

  1 Joh. 5.7.
• * 1.13

  John. 1.1, 2, 3.
• * 1.14

  Phil. 2.6.7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
• * 1.15

  Acts 20.28. 1 Joh. 3.16. 1 Joh. 5.20. Tit. 2.13. Jam. 2.1.
• * 1.16

  Rev. 1.8. Rev. 19.16.
• * 1.17

  Col. 1.16.17. ••ohn 2.25. Mat. ••1 27. Mat. 9.6. Joh. 15.26. Joh. 14.13. Joh. 5 25, 26. Joh. 6.39, 40.
• * 1.18

  Matth. 4.10.
• * 1.19

  Acts 14.15. Acts 17.29. 1 Thes. 1.9. Rev. 19 1••.
• * 1.20

  Luke 24.52.
• * 1.21

  2 Cor. 12.8, 9 Phil. 2 10. Heb. 1.5. Rev. 5.8, to the end
• * 1.22

  Acts 7.59.60
• * 1.23

  Exod. 23.20.
• * 1.24

  2 Hag. 7.
• * 1.25

  Heb. 1.
• * 1.26

  4, 5,
• * 1.27

  6,
• * 1.28

  7,
• * 1.29

  8,
• * 1.30

  10,
• * 1.31

  12,
• * 1.32

  13, 14.
• * 1.33

  Chap. 2.
• * 1.34

  16.
• * 1.35

  Chap. 3.
• * 1.36

  12.
• * 1.37

  Phil. 2.6. Col. 1.16.
• * 1.38

  Heb. 1.3.
• * 1.39

  Joh. 1.14.
• * 1.40

  Rev. 5.13.
• * 1.41

  John 1.29. 1 Pet. 2.24. 2 Cor. 5.21. Matth. 20.28. Rom. 3.25. 1 Joh 2.1. Eph 1.7. Col. 1.14, 20, 21. Heb. 9.11, 12, 13, 14, 26, 28.
• * 1.42

  Heb. 10.10, 12, 14, 19, 29. Heb. 13.12.20. 1 Pet. 1.19. 1 Pet. 2.24. 1 Pet. 3.18.
• * 1.43

  Rom 5.12. to the end.
• * 1.44

  Eph. 4.9.
• * 1.45

  1 Pet. 3.19.
• * 1.46

  Eph. 2.2. 2 Cor. 4.4. Isa. 61.2.
• * 1.47

  Psal. 16.11. Acts 2.31. Psal. 73.27. Isa. 37.2.
• * 1.48

  See Bishop Person on the Creed,
• * 1.49

  ••uke 23.4••, ••6.
• * 1.50

  1 Cor. 2.4.
• * 1.51

  Mat. 12 25, 26.
• * 1.52

  Acts 1.••1▪
• * 1.53

  Acts 3.12, 16.
• * 1.54

  1 Co••. 15.50.
• * 1.55

  Ver. 40.
• * 1.56

  1 Cor. 15.27, 28.
• * 1.57

  Luk. 9.26.
• * 1.58

  John 3.3, 5, 6 Lu. 11.18.
• * 1.59

  John 14.16, 26.
• * 1.60

  John 16.••, 13.
• * 1.61

  1 Cor. 12.4, 8, 9, 11, 13.
• * 1.62

  1 Cor. 2.10. Rom. 8.26. Eph. 4.30.
• * 1.63

  Joh. 14.26.
• * 1.64

  Joh. 15.26.
• * 1.65

  Act. 5.34.
• * 1.66

  Mat. 15.3▪ 6, 9. Joh. 5.39.
• * 1.67

  Act. 17.11.
• * 1.68

  2 Tim. 3 15, 16.
• * 1.69

  ••uk. 1.4. John. 20 31.
• * 1.70

  2 Pet. 1 15.
• * 1.71

  Iren. I. 3. c. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Tertul. de presc. Cap. 20, 21, 25, 27, 28.
• * 1.72

  Lib. 3. Hist. c 39. c. 25.
• * 1.73

  Eus. l. 2. Hist. c. 15.
• * 1.74

  Lib. 3. cap. 11.
• * 1.75

  Tert. l. 4. cont. Mar. cap. 1. Orig. apud Eus. lib. 6. cap. 25.
• * 1.76

  Athan. in Synops. Conc. cap. 60. Carth. 3. c. 47.
• * 1.77

  Dial. cum Trypho.
• * 1.78

  Tertul. de Presc. cap. ••6.
• * 1.79

  Orig. Ep. ad Afri∣can. Orig. Ex∣hort. ad Martyr. Eusec. Hist. lib. 6. c. 20. Hieron. Ep. ad. Dardan. Cyr. Ca∣tech. 4.
• * 1.80

  Apud Hieron. Tom. 4.
• * 1.81

  Can. 60. Can. 47.
• * 1.82

  Iren. l. 3. c. 38. Orig. l. 3. & 7. con. Cels. Dial. con. Marc. & Ep. ad Afric. Clem. Alex. Ignat. Ep. ad Ephe. Orig. Hom. 13. in Genes. Eus. Hist. l. 2. c. 22. l. 3. c· 24, 27. Hieron. Pref. in Ep. Jac. Orig. cont. Marcion. Firmil. Ep. 75. ap. Cypr. Eus. Hist. l. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.83

  Iren. l. 1. c. 13. Clem. Alex. Strom. 2. Tertul. de Carne Chr. c. 24. Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 24. Tertul. de cultu faem.
• * 1.84

  Clem. in Ep. ad Co••▪ Justin cont. Try∣phon. Irenaeus l▪ 5. c. 30. Eus. Hist. l. 4. c. 24, 26. l. 5. c. 18. l. 7. c. 27.
• * 1.85

  Luke 24.44.
• * 1.86

  Rom. 3.2.
• * 1.87

  2 Chron. 34.14.
• * 1.88

  Ch. 26.16. to the End of Deut.
• * 1.89

  D••ut. 18. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 36. to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 End.
• * 1.90

  1 Maccab. 1.56.
• * 1.91

  Euseb. hist▪ l. 4. c. 26.
• * 1.92

  In Psal. 1.
• * 1.93

  In Synop.
• * 1.94

  In Ep∣pasch.
• * 1.95

  Catech. 4.
• * 1.96

  Can. 59. and 60.
• * 1.97

  Can. 47.
• * 1.98

  Gen. 3.15.
• * 1.99

  Gen. 12.3. Gen. 22.18. Gen. 26.24. Gen. 28.14. Gen. 49.10.
• * 1.100

  Deut. 18.15.
• * 1.101

  Numb. 24.••••.
• * 1.102

  Isa. 8.1••.
• * 1.103

  Isa. 11.1, 2.
• * 1.104

  ver. 10.
• * 1.105

  Isa. 35.••, 6.
• * 1.106

  Isa. 42.1.
• * 1.107

  ver. 8.
• * 1.108

  Isa. 53.
• * 1.109

  Isa. 61.
• * 1.110

  Jer. 23.5.
• * 1.111

  Jer. 31.31.
• * 1.112

  Ezek. 36.25. Joel 2.28.
• * 1.113

  Mi••••h 5.2.
• * 1.114

  ••ag. 2.6, ••, 8, 9.
• * 1.115

  Zech. 9.9.
• * 1.116

  Mal. 3.1.
• * 1.117

  M••l. 4.1.
• * 1.118

  Dan. 9.24, 25, 26, 27.
• * 1.119

  Ps. 16.11. Ps. 17.14, 15.
• * 1.120

  Ps. 49.14, 15.
• * 1.121

  Ps. 84.11.87.6.90.17.96.17. Eccl. 11.9.12.14. Isa. 25.8.26.19. Dan. 12.2.
• * 1.122

  Matt. 22.••••.
• * 1.123

  Ver. 31.32.
• * 1.124

  Exod. 3.6.
• * 1.125

  Heb. 10.28.
• * 1.126

  Psal. 51.1, 2, 16, 1••.
• * 1.127

  Isa. 1.18.
• * 1.128

  Isa. 53. Dan. 9.
• * 1.129

  2 Pet. 1.19.
• * 1.130

  Rom. 3.24, 25.
• * 1.131

  Ex. 23.1. Lev. 19.12. Mat. 5.33.
• * 1.132

  Mark 2.27.
• * 1.133

  Exod. 20.17. Deut. 5.21.
• * 1.134

  Rom. 7.7.
• * 1.135

  Matth. 5.17, 18.
• * 1.136

  In Ancho∣reto.
• * 1.137

  ••om. 5.1••.
• * 1.138

  ver. 1••.
• * 1.139

  1 Cor 15.49.
• * 1.140

  Gen. 3.22.
• * 1.141

  1 Cor. 15.21, 22. In Ep. ad Rom. pas∣sim.
• * 1.142

  Gen. 6.5.8.21▪ 1 Kings 8.46. Prov. 24.16. Jer. 17.9. 2 Cor. 5.17. Eccl. 7.20. Gal. 5.17. Rom. 8.7, 8. John 3.6.
• * 1.143

  Gen. 1 27.
• * 1.144

  Eph. 4.22, 24.
• * 1.145

  Gen. 1.27, 28.
• * 1.146

  Rom. 6.23.
• * 1.147

  Rom. 8.6. Joh. 20.31. Joh. 5.50.
• * 1.148

  Gal. 5.17. Rom. 8.13.
• * 1.149

  Joh. 3.3, 5▪
• * 1.150

  Rom. 5.12. to the end.
• * 1.151

  Jer. 31.29. Ezek. 18.20.
• * 1.152

  1 Pet. 1.15, 16. Mat. 5.48.
• * 1.153

  Ex. 32.10. and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the whole Old Test••∣ment. Mat. 3.7. 1 Thess. 2.16. Luk. 23.40. 1 Cor. 11.29. 1 Pet. 4.17. Rom. 13.2. 2 C••r. 7.5. John 8.10, 11. Rom. 14.13.
• * 1.154

  Psal. 119.13, 27 3••, 35. Psalm 51.10, 11.
• * 1.155

  J••r. 31.33, 34.
• * 1.156

  Ezek. 36.26, 27.
• * 1.157

  Luke 11.13.
• * 1.158

  Joh. 14.2▪
• * 1.159

  Rom. 5.5▪
• * 1.160

  2 Cor. 12▪ 9.
• * 1.161

  Eph. 3.17.
• * 1.162

  2 Cor. 6.16. Heb. 4.16. Jam. 1.5. 1 Joh. 39.
• * 1.163

  Joh. 3.8.
• * 1.164

  Eph. 2.2.12.
• * 1.165

  Rom. 4.2.
• * 1.166

  Rom. 11.20.
• * 1.167

  1 Cor. 1.26.
• * 1.168

  1 Cor. 4.7.
• * 1.169

  Isa. 65.1.
• * 1.170

  Acts 16.14.
• * 1.171

  Joh. 1.13.15.5, 16. Phil. 2.13.
• * 1.172

  Job 3.18.
• * 1.173

  Gen. 15.6. Rom. 4.3.22.
• * 1.174

  Rom. 3.24.
• * 1.175

  Rom. 3.28. Gal. 2.16. Rom. 2.12.
• * 1.176

  Jam. 2.24.
• * 1.177

  1 Cor. 6.11.
• * 1.178

  Gal. 5.6. Luke 24.47. Acts. 2.38.
• * 1.179

  Tit. 2.14.
• * 1.180

  Joh. 3.18.
• * 1.181

  2 Tim. 2.19.
• * 1.182

  Matth. 10.41, 42. 2 Cor. 4.17.
• * 1.183

  Gen. 6.5. Jam. 3.2. Phil. 3.13.
• * 1.184

  Exod. 1.21.
• * 1.185

  Psal. 130.3, 4. 2 Chron. 30.18, 19.
• * 1.186

  2 Cor. 7.1.
• * 1.187

  Phil. 2.12. Col. 3.17.
• * 1.188

  1 Kings 21.29.
• * 1.189

  2 Kings 10.30, 31.
• * 1.190

  Rom. 7.12, 13.
• * 1.191

  Ver. 14.
• * 1.192

  16, 17, 18,
• * 1.193

  21,
• * 1.194

  23,
• * 1.195

  24, 25.
• * 1.196

  Luke 17.10.
• * 1.197

  Matth. 22.36, to 40.
• * 1.198

  2 Cor. 7.1. 1 Cor. 6.20.
• * 1.199

  Coloss. 2.
• * 1.200

  Matth. 19.16, 17.
• * 1.201

  V. 20, 21.
• * 1.202

  Luke 12.33.
• * 1.203

  Prov. 30.8
• * 1.204

  1 Cor. 7.38.
• * 1.205

  Acts 20.34. 1 Cor. 9.18. 2 Cor. 12.13.
• * 1.206

  James 3.2.
• * 1.207

  Phil. 2.12.
• * 1.208

  Psal. 49.7.
• * 1.209

  Mat. 25.9.
• * 1.210

  Col. 1.24.
• * 1.211

  Mark 11.17.
• * 1.212

  Heb. 7.26.
• * 1.213

  1 Pet. 1.19.
• * 1.214

  Joh. 4.34.
• * 1.215

  1 Cor. 11.1 1 Pet. 1.15. Mat. 5.48.
• * 1.216

  Luk. 1.6.
• * 1.217

  Ver. 20.
• * 1.218

  Luk. 2.49. Joh. 2.4.
• * 1.219

  Matth. 20.20, 24. Gal. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. Act. 15.39.
• * 1.220

  Gal. 3.10.
• * 1.221

  Jam. 2.10, 11.
• * 1.222

  Matth. 12.24, 31.
• * 1.223

  1 Joh. 3.6, 9.5.18.
• * 1.224

  Heb. 6.4.5.6.
• * 1.225

  Luk. 17.4.
• * 1.226

  Matt. 18.35.
• * 1.227

  1 Cor. 5.5.
• * 1.228

  2 Cor. 2.7.
• * 1.229

  Gal. 6.1.
• * 1.230

  2 Tim 4.2. Tit. 1.13. 1 Joh. 5.16.
• * 1.231

  Jam. 5.15, 16.
• * 1.232

  Heb. 6.6.
• * 1.233

  2 Thess. 36.14, 15.
• * 1.234

  Joseph. Ant. Jud. lib 18. c. 2. —de Bell. Jud. lib. 2, c. 7.
• * 1.235

  Iren. Adv. Her. lib. 1. c. 1. Epiph. Her. 31. Clem. Alex. Paed. lib. 1. c. 6. Orig. Peri. archon l. 3. Phiolcal. c. 12. Explain. 21. Ep. ad Rom▪
• * 1.236

  Orig. Phi∣locan••.
• * 1.237

  Ruffin Peror. in Vers. Com. Orig. in Ep. ad. Rom. Chrys. Ep. 4 ad. Olymp. Isid. Pelus. Lib. 1. Ep. 314.
• * 1.238

  Rom. 9 11.
• * 1.239

  Matth. 1. 25.26. Ibid. 21, 22, 22.
• * 1.240

  Rom. 9.10. Ps. 33.12.
• * 1.241

  Isa. 5.4.
• * 1.242

  Gal. 2.21.
• * 1.243

  John 17.9.10.
• * 1.244

  Mark. 16.15.
• * 1.245

  Eph. 2.10. 2 Cor. 5.17. Phil. 2.13. Ps. 110.3. Jerem. 31.33, 34. Ezek. 36.26, 27. Rom. 9.21.
• * 1.246

  Psal. 26.9.
• * 1.247

  Eph. 1.17, 18, 19.
• * 1.248

  Act. 7.51. Eph. 4.30. Jam. 1.17, 18. Joh. 13.1. Heb. 13.5.
• * 1.249

  Matth. 20, 16. Rom. 8.29, 30. Rom. 9.18
• * 1.250

  ver. 11. ver. 17. ver. 20. ver. 22.
• * 1.251

  Exod. 4.21.10.18.11.10.14.8. Prov. 16.4. Acts 1.48. Rev. 13.8.3.5.20.12.21.27. Rom. 1.26, 28.
• * 1.252

  Heb. 1.13.
• * 1.253

  Exod. 34.6. 2 Pet. 3.9. Ezek. 18.12.33.11.
• * 1.254

  •• Sam. 23.••1, 12.
• * 1.255

  Matth. 11.••1, 22.
• * 1.256

  Psal. 51.4.
• * 1.257

  Exod. 7.22. Exod. 8.15, 19, 32.
• * 1.258

  Rom. 9.18.
• * 1.259

  Joh. 17.12. Phil. 2.12. Acts 13.48.
• * 1.260

  1 Cor. 4.7.
• * 1.261

  1 Joh. 2.2. 2 Pet. 2.1.
• * 1.262

  Rom. 5.18.
• * 1.263

  Acts 7.51▪ Matth. 23▪37.
• * 1.264

  Isa. 5.4.
• * 1.265

  Hos. 13.9. Joh. 5.40. Ez••k. 33.14.
• * 1.266

  Rev. 2 & 3.
• * 1.267

  Heb. 6.
• * 1.268

  Heb. 10.
• * 1.269

  Ezek. 18.24.
• * 1.270

  Rom. 10.9, 10. Mark. 8.38.
• * 1.271

  Rom. 2.12, 14, 15.
• * 1.272

  Rom. 1••.14.
• * 1.273

  Ac•••• 1••.••4▪ 35.
• * 1.274

  Acts 4.12.
• * 1.275

  Joh. 3.19.
• * 1.276

  Bellar. Contr. Tom 2. l. 4.
• * 1.277

  Eccl. 9.11.
• * 1.278

  1 Pet. ••.21.
• * 1.279

  Psal. 119.18, 35.
• * 1.280

  Ephes. 1 18.3.17.
• * 1.281

  Rom. 1.18, 24, 26. 2 Thes. 2.11.
• * 1.282

  Matth. 28.20. Matth. 16.18.
• * 1.283

  Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 23, 24, 25. Cypr. Ep. 74, & 75. Firmil. Con. Sard. C. 3, & 7.
• * 1.284

  Con. Con∣stant. Can. 3. Con. Chal∣ced. C 28.
• * 1.285

  Con. Sinu∣ess. An. 303. —Tom. 1. Conc.
• * 1.286

  Dict Pap••e l. 1. Ep. Greg. 7. Post Ep. 55.

  Extravag. de Major & Ob••d. c 1.
• * 1.287

  Conc. Lat. 3. cap. 27. Conc. Lat. 4. Can. 3. Con. Lug.
• * 1.288

  C••rd. Per∣ron Ha∣rangueau tiers estat.
• * 1.289

  2 Pet. 1.1••.
• * 1.290

  Mat. 16. 16, 17, 18, 19.
• * 1.291

  Eph. 2.20. Rev. 21.2 14.
• * 1.292

  Mat. 3.2. Mat. 4.17.
• * 1.293

  Rev. 3.7. Luk. 11.51.
• * 1.294

  Luk. 22.31. John 21.15, 16, 17.
• * 1.295

  Rom. 14 1••. 1 Cor. 14.40.
• * 1.296

  Gal. 2.4. —4.9. —5.••.
• * 1.297

  Matth. 23.23.
• * 1.298

  Hos. 6.6. Matth. 12.7.
• * 1.299

  1 Cor. 12.16. —ch. 9.19, to 23.
• * 1.300

  Heb 10.25.
• * 1.301

  Acts 5.29. Matth. 22.21.
• * 1.302

  Titus 1.9. —3.10.
• * 1.303

  Rom. 3.2.
• * 1.304

  Rom. 13.1.
• * 1.305

  Acts 15.28.
• * 1.306

  Mat. 18.17.
• * 1.307

  1 Tim. 3.
• * 1.308

  J••h. 16.13.
• * 1.309

  Matth. 28.20.
• * 1.310

  2 Cor. 6.16. Heb. 13.5.
• * 1.311

  Act 15.28.
• * 1.312

  Mark 16.15.
• * 1.313

  1 Cor. 7.6 12.
• * 1.314

  —ver. 40.
• * 1.315

  —ver. 25.
• * 1.316

  Acts 15.9.
• * 1.317

  Rom. 5.1.
• * 1.318

  Jer. 31.34 Heb. 8.12.
• * 1.319

  Psal. 99.8.
• * 1.320

  Matth. 5.26.
• * 1.321

  Matth. 12.32.
• * 1.322

  Heb. 2.5.
• * 1.323

  ••uk. 24.47.
• * 1.324

  Acts 14.22. Rom. 8.18.
• * 1.325

  2 Cor. 4.17.
• * 1.326

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 24.43.
• * 1.327

  2 Tim. 4.8.
• * 1.328

  Phil. 1.2 3. 2 C••r. 5.6.8. v. 1, 2. Heb. 1▪10.
• * 1.329

  Rev. 14 13.
• * 1.330

  2 Ep. John v. 8. 1 Cor. 15.41.
• * 1.331

  2 Maccab. 12.40.
• * 1.332

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• * 1.333

  1 Cor. 3. from V. 10. to 16.
• * 1.334

  Aug. de Civit. D••i. l. 21. c. 18. ad 22. En∣••••••r. c. 67, 68, 69. Ad Dulcid. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pri∣m••.
• * 1.335

  Tertul. de. C••r. mil. c. ••. de Ex. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 c. 13. ••••prian. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 34.37. 〈…〉〈…〉 75. l. 3.••3.
• * 1.336

  Dion. de Eccl. Hie∣rar. Cap. 7.
• * 1.337

  Aug. Conf. l. 9. c. 19.
• * 1.338

  Supra.
• * 1.339

  Cypr. Epist. 1. O••on. ad ••leb. Fur∣er.
• * 1.340

  Mark 11.17.
• * 1.341

  Numb 16.38.
• * 1.342

  Deut. 4.12, 15, 23.
• * 1.343

  Verse 23. Deut. 12.30. Levit. 26.1. Deut. 16•• 22.
• * 1.344

  Isaiah 40.18. to 27.44.9. to 21. Jer. 10. to ver. 17. Hab. 2.18, 19, 20.
• * 1.345

  Exod. 32 1, 4, 5.
• * 1.346

  Acts 7.41. Psal. 106.19, 20.
• * 1.347

  1 King. 12.27, to the end.
• * 1.348

  1 King. 16.31. 2 King. 10.28, 29.
• * 1.349

  Hosea 8.4, 5.
• * 1.350

  2 Kings 17.28, 32, 41.
• * 1.351

  Acts 17.16, 25 to 29.
• * 1.352

  Cic. de Nat. Deor. l. 1. cap. 27.
• * 1.353

  Rom. 1.20. to the end.
• * 1.354

  Just. Mart. Apol. 2. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1.5. Protr. Orig. Cont. Cels. l. 2.3.5.7. Tertull. Apol. Cypr. de Idol. Vanitate. Arnob. Lib. 5. Minut. Felix Oct. Euseb. praep. Evang. l. 3. Lactan. l. 2. c. 2. Am∣bros. Resp. ad Sym. August. de Civitate Dei. l. 7. c. 5.

  Orig. Con. Cels. l. 7. Euseb. Praep. Ev. l. 3. c. 7. Max. Tyr. diss. 38. Jul. Frag. Ep. Euseb. praep. Evan. l. 4. c. 1.
• * 1.355

  Iren. l. 1. c. 24. Epiph. Haeres. 27. August. de Haeres. cap. 7.
• * 1.356

  Epiph. ep. ad Joan. Hieros.
• * 1.357

  Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 18. Aug. in Psal. 113. de Mori∣bus Eccl. Cath. c. 34.
• * 1.358

  Greg. Epist. l. 9. Ep. 9.
• * 1.359

  This is owned by all the Historians of that Age, Anastasius, Zonaras, C••drenus, Glyc••s, Theophanes, Sigebert, Otho. Pris. Urspergensis, Sigonius, Rubens, and Cia••••nius.
• * 1.360

  Acta Con. Nic. 2. Action. 4, 5, 6, 7.
• * 1.361

  Aquin. To. 1. quaest. 25. dispu••. 54. Sect. 2.
• * 1.362

  Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. c. 8. Suarez. M. 3.

  Ysambert de Mist. Incarn. ad quaest. 25. dis. 3.

  Vasquez. in 3 Aquin. disp. 103. c. 3.

  Cajetan. in 3. Aquin. quaest. 25. A. 3.
• * 1.363

  Con. Nic. 2. Act. 7. Act. 6.
• * 1.364

  C••n. N••c. Act. 5.
• * 1.365

  Dur••n. in S••n••en. l. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 9. qu. 〈…〉〈…〉. 15.
• * 1.366

  Con. Nic. Act. 2.
• * 1.367

  Aquin. 3. p. q. 25. Art. 3. See to the same purpose, Alex. Hales, Bonaventure, Ricardus de Media villa palud Almans. B••el Summa Angelica, and m••ny more ci∣ted by Bishop Stilligfleet's Defence of the Charge of Idolatry. Part. 2. Chap. 2.
• * 1.368

  Con. Trid. Sess. 25.
• * 1.369

  See Bishop Stillingfleet, ut Supra.
• * 1.370

  Pont. Rom. Ordo ad Recip. Im∣per. Rubri.
• * 1.371

  In benedictione novae Crucis.

  Rogamus te Domine Sancte Pater Om∣nipotens sempiterne Deus, ut digneris benedicere hoc lignum Crucis tuae ut sit Remedium Salutare generi humano, sit Soliditas fidei, profectus bonorum ope∣rum, Redemptio animarum, sit Solamen & protectio ac tutela contra saeva jacula Inimicorum. Per Dom.

  Sanctificetur lignum istud in nomine Patris & Filii, & Spiritûs sancti, & bene∣dictio illius ligni in quo membra sancta Salvatoris suspensa sunt sit in isto ligno ut orantes inclinantesque se prop∣ter Deum ante istam crucem inveniant corporis & animae sanitatem per eun∣dem.
• * 1.372

  Heb. 9.3, 7.
• * 1.373

  Psal. 99.5, 9.
• * 1.374

  Ep. Ecc. Smirn. a∣pud Eu∣seb. l. 4. c. 15.
• * 1.375

  Jul. Ap. Cyril. lib. 6. lib. 10. Ennap. in vita Aedess.
• * 1.376

  Aug. de opere mo∣nach. c. 28.
• * 1.377

  Hieron. adv. Vigi∣lant. To. 2.
• * 1.378

  1 Cor. 6.19. Deut. 34.6.
• * 1.379

  2 Kings 18.4.
• * 1.380

  2 Kings 13.21.
• * 1.381

  Ep. Euseb. l. 4. c. 15.
• * 1.382

  Basil. in 40 Martyr in Hom. 26. in Mamar. Paul. in vita Am∣bros. Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 22. c. 8.
• * 1.383

  Chrysost. Hom. 6. in 1 ad Cor. 2.
• * 1.384

  Basil in 40 Martyr.
• * 1.385

  Ap. Cyr. lib. 10. con. Julian. En∣nap. in vi∣ta Aedess.
• * 1.386

  Hieron. ad Vigil.
• * 1.387

  Aug. cura pro mor∣tuis. c. 16.
• * 1.388

  Aug. de opere Mo∣nach. c. 28.
• * 1.389

  Exod. 32.••2.
• * 1.390

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 52.15.
• * 1.391

  1 Tim. 2.
• * 1.392

  Rom. 10.14.
• * 1.393

  John 14.1.
• * 1.394

  Col. 2.18.
• * 1.395

  Verse 8, 9, 10.
• * 1.396

  Rev. 19.10. Rev. 22.9.
• * 1.397

  Heb. 13.7.
• * 1.398

  Col. 2.9, 10.
• * 1.399

  Clem. Protrep. Tertul. Apol. c. 17.
• * 1.400

  Con. Laod. c. 35.

  Just. Mart. Apol. 2. Iren. l. 2. c. 35.

  Orig. Con. Cels. l. 8. Tert. de Orat. c. 1.

  Athanas. cont. Arian. Orat. 1, 3, 4.

  Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. Greg. Niss. in Basil. cont. Eunap.

  Basil. Hom. 27. cont. Eunom. l. 4.

  Epiph. Haeres. 64, 69, 78, 79.

  Theod. de Haer. Fabul. l. 5. c. 3.

  Chrysost. de Trinit.
• * 1.401

  Aug. con. Serm. Ar. c. 29. con. Max. l. 13. c. 4.

  Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 10. l. 8. c. 27.
• * 1.402

  Aug. de vera Rel. c. 55.
• * 1.403

  Rom. 1.25.
• * 1.404

  1 Cor. 9.19, 20.
• * 1.405

  Epipli. Heres. 79:
• * 1.406

  Theod. de cur. Gr. affect. l. 8. de Martyr.
• * 1.407

  Is••. 42.8.
• * 1.408

  Psal. 141.2. Hos. 14.2.
• * 1.409

  Psal. 65.2.
• * 1.410

  John ••••.2••.
• * 1.411

  2 Tim. 1.13.
• * 1.412

  2 Tim. 2.2. 1 Tim. 2.1, 2, 3. 1 Tim. 2.12. 1 Tim. ••. c.
• * 1.413

  1 Tim. 3.15. 1 Tim. •• 1, 3, 17, 19, 22.
• * 1.414

  1 Tim. 6.20. 2 Tim. 2.15 2 Tim. 4.2, 5.
• * 1.415

  Tit. 1.5, 9, 13.
• * 1.416

  Tit. 3.10.
• * 1.417

  Heb. 5.4.
• * 1.418

  Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. 1 Cor. 12.28. Eph. 4.11, 12, 13, 16.
• * 1.419

  Acts 14.23.
• * 1.420

  Heb. 13.7, 17. 1 Pet. 5.2, 3.
• * 1.421

  John 11.51.18.22, 23.
• * 1.422

  John 4.23, 24.
• * 1.423

  Neh. 8.8. Neh. 9.5.
• * 1.424

  1 Cor. 14.14.
• * 1.425

  Verse 15.
• * 1.426

  Verse 16.
• * 1.427

  Verse 26.
• * 1.428

  Cont Cel∣sum l. 8. p. 402. Ep. 63. ad Neoces.
• * 1.429

  Johan. 8. Ep. 247. Concil. Tom. 9.
• * 1.430

  Con. Trid. C••••p. 8. S••ll. 22.
• * 1.431

  1 Pet. 3.21.
• * 1.432

  1 Cor. 10.1••.
• * 1.433

  Tit. 3.5. Mark 16.16. John 3.3, 5.
• * 1.434

  Lib. 10. Ep. 97.
• * 1.435

  1 Tim. 6.20.
• * 1.436

  Matth. 28.19.
• * 1.437

  1 Pet. 3.21. Matth. 26.26, 27.
• * 1.438

  1 Cor. 11.23, to 27.
• * 1.439

  1 Cor. 10.16, 17.
• * 1.440

  Lib. 3. Dist. 2.
• * 1.441

  Acts 8.12, 14, 15, 16, 17.
• * 1.442

  Heb. 6.2.
• * 1.443

  Theophil. l. 1. ad Au∣tolyc. Tert. de Bapt. c. 7, 8. de Resur. ca••. c. 8. Cypr. Ep. 70.
• * 1.444

  2 Cor. 1.21, 22. 1 John 2.20, 27.
• * 1.445

  Con. Araus. c. 1, 2. Cod. Affr. Can. 6. Con. Tol. c. 20.
• * 1.446

  Hieron. ad. Luci∣fer.
• * 1.447

  Hilar. in cap. 4. ad. Ephes. ut Supra.
• * 1.448

  Greg. Ep. l. 3. Ep. 9.
• * 1.449

  In decr. Con. Flo∣rent.
• * 1.450

  1 John 1.9.
• * 1.451

  James 5.16.
• * 1.452

  Innoc. 3. in 4. later. Can. 21, 22. Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. c. 5.
• * 1.453

  Matt. 3.6.
• * 1.454

  1 Tim. 5.10.
• * 1.455

  2 Thess. 3.14. 1 Cor. 5.11.
• * 1.456

  John 20.23.
• * 1.457

  Acts 5.3, 9.
• * 1.458

  Acts 8.23.
• * 1.459

  James 5.16.
• * 1.460

  Dallaeus de Confes∣sione. Mo∣rinus de Poeniten∣tia.
• * 1.461

  Socr. Hist. l. 5. c. 19.
• * 1.462

  Thirteen Passages out of him cited and explained by Daille de Conf. l. 4. c. 25.
• * 1.463

  Trid. Sess. 14. c. 4.
• * 1.464

  1 Cor. 13▪ 1, 2.
• * 1.465

  Rituale Romanum de sacr. poeniten.
• * 1.466

  Haberti pontif. Graecum. Morinus de Ordi∣nat. Sac••is.
• * 1.467

  Ephes. 5.32.
• * 1.468

  Upon the whole Doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning the Sa∣craments, as it is explained by the Schoolmen, I have followed the Ac∣count given by Honoratus Fabri, in his Summula Theologica, who is dead within these Ten Years. I knew him at Rome, Anno 1685. He was a true Philosopher, beyond the Liberties allowed by his Or∣der, and studied to reduce their School-Divinity to as clear Ideas as it was ca∣pable of. So that in following him, I have given the best, and not the worst Face of their Doctrine. His Book was Printed at Lions, Anno 1669.
• * 1.469

  Eph. 2.15, 16, 20, 21.
• * 1.470

  Matth. 5.32. Matth. 19.9. Mark 10.11. Luke 16.18.
• * 1.471

  Tertul. lib. 4. cont. Marcion. c. 34. Basil. Ep. ad Am∣phil. c. 9. Chrysos. hom. 17. in Matth. Epiph. hae∣res. 59. Cath. Conc. Elib. c. 65. Conc. Arel. c. 10. Conc. Af∣fric. c. 102. Causa 32. q. 7. In decr. Eug. in Conc. Flor. Erasm. in 1. Ep. ad Cor. 7. Cajetan in Matth. 19. c. 9. Cathar. in 1. Ep. ad. Cor. 7. l. 5. Annot.
• * 1.472

  Mark 6.13.
• * 1.473

  James 5.14, 15.
• * 1.474

  Matth. 21.21.
• * 1.475

  1 Cor. 13.2.
• * 1.476

  ••oh•• 14.1••.
• * 1.477

  Rituale Rom. Con▪ Trid. Se••s. 14.
• * 1.478

  Cons. Apost. l. 3. c. 16. l. 7. cap. 42, 44. Tertul. de bapt. c. 10. Cypr. Ep. 70. ••lem. Alex. pae∣dag. l. 11. c. 8. Dionys. Areop. de Eccles. hier. c. 7, 8.
• * 1.479

  Innocent. Ep. 1. ad Decent.
• * 1.480

  Lib. Sa∣cram. Gre∣gor. Menardi Nota.
• * 1.481

  Bede. Hist. Ang. l. 3. c. 15. Euchol. Gra. p. 408
• * 1.482

  Decr. Eug. in Con. Flor. Con. Trid. Sess, 14.
• * 1.483

  Mat. 7.22.
• * 1.484

  Miss. Rom. Rubr. de defectu Intent. art. 1.
• * 1.485

  1 Sam. 3.11.
• * 1.486

  Levit. 10.3
• * 1.487

  1 Tim. 5.1, 19, 20.6. c. 3, 4, 5.
• * 1.488

  Gal. 5.12.
• * 1.489

  John 1.25.
• * 1.490

  1 Cor. 10.2.
• * 1.491

  Matth. 28.19.
• * 1.492

  Rom. 6.3, 4, 5.
• * 1.493

  Col. 2.12. Col. 3.1, 10. Rom. 13.14.
• * 1.494

  Luke 24.47.
• * 1.495

  Acts 19.2, 3, 4, 5.
• * 1.496

  Joh. 3.3, 5▪ 6.
• * 1.497

  Acts 10.44, 47, 48.
• * 1.498

  Mark 16.16.
• * 1.499

  1 Cor. 12.13.
• * 1.500

  Tit. 3.5.
• * 1.501

  Rom. 6. Col. 2.
• * 1.502

  1 Pet. 3▪ 21.
• * 1.503

  1 Cor. 1.17.
• * 1.504

  Acts 8.26, to the end.
• * 1.505

  Acts 16.31, 32, 33.
• * 1.506

  Gal. 5.3.
• * 1.507

  Acts 2.39.
• * 1.508

  1 Cor. 14.
• * 1.509

  Matt. 19.13, 14.
• * 1.510

  2 Cor. 10.5.
• * 1.511

  Exod. 12.11.
• * 1.512

  1 Cor. 5.7. John 1.29. Compare Matt. 26.26. Mark 14.22.
• * 1.513

  Luke 22.19. 1 Cor. 11.23.
• * 1.514

  H••b 9.20.
• * 1.515

  Psal. 116.
• * 1.516

  Levit. 7.26, 27. Levit. 17.14.
• * 1.517

  John 6.32, 33.
• * 1.518

  40. v.
• * 1.519

  47, 48, 51. v.
• * 1.520

  53, 54, 55. v.
• * 1.521

  ••6. v.
• * 1.522

  v. 6••
• * 1.523

  M••r•• Ne∣vochim.
• * 1.524

  Isa. 12.3.
• * 1.525

  1 Cor. 10.16.
• * 1.526

  1 Cor. 11.27, 29.
• * 1.527

  1 Pet. 4.17.
• * 1.528

  32. v.
• * 1.529

  2 Cor. 13. last verse. Phil. 2.1. Eph. 3.9.
• * 1.530

  Phil. 3.10.
• * 1.531

  1 Cor. 10.18, 20.
• * 1.532

  1 Cor. 10.18.
• * 1.533

  Lib. 3. de Doct. Chris. c. 16.
• * 1.534

  Hom. 7. in Levit.
• * 1.535

  Apolog. 2.
• * 1.536

  Lib. 4. de haer▪ c. 34. Lib. 1. ad∣ver. Mar∣cion. c. 14. Lib. 3 ad∣ver. Mar∣cion. c. 19.
• * 1.537

  Lib. 8. con∣t••a Cel∣sum.
• * 1.538

  Ep. ••6. Ep. 63.
• * 1.539

  In Ancho∣reto.
• * 1.540

  In orat. de baptis. Christi.
• * 1.541

  De Bene∣dict. Pa∣triarch. c. 9. Hom. 24. in Ep. ad Cor.
• * 1.542

  Comm. in St. Matth. c. 26.
• * 1.543

  Cit. apud Fulgent. de Baptis∣mo.
• * 1.544

  Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bo∣nifac. Serm. 2. in Psal. 33. Chrys. Ep. ad Caes••r. & in co••∣ment. in Ep. ad Ga••. c. 5.
• * 1.545

  Tertul. Lib. 4. adv. Marci. c. 40.
• * 1.546

  Epist. ad Celarium.
• * 1.547

  In Photi. Bibli. Cod. 229.
• * 1.548

  Dial. 1st. and 2d. ••ont. Eu∣tych.
• * 1.549

  Lib. de du••bus nat. Christ▪
• * 1.550

  Apol. 2▪
• * 1.551

  Lib. 5. adv▪ Haeres. c. 2.
• * 1.552

  De Resur∣rect. c. 8. In Mat. c. 15.
• * 1.553

  Con. Tol. 16. Can. 6.
• * 1.554

  ••yril. Ca∣••ech Mest. 5. Chry∣sost Hom. in Euch. To. 5. Da∣mas. lib. 4. de Ortho. fide. c. 14.
• * 1.555

  ••ib. 4. adv. Ma••cion. c. 40.
• * 1.556

  Comm. in Ps••l 3.
• * 1.557

  ••ib. ••••nt. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1••.
• * 1.558

  Defen. Conc. Chalced. l. 9.
• * 1.559

  Ep. 23. ad Bonifac.
• * 1.560

  Lib. 20. con. Faust. c. 21. in Psal. 98. v. 5.
• * 1.561

  Comm. in 1 Ep. ad Cor.
• * 1.562

  Lib. 4. d•• Sacram. c. 5.
• * 1.563

  Greg. Do∣••r••t. Lib. ••. Tit. 42. cap. 10.
• * 1.564

  Lib. 4. Dist. 11.
• * 1.565

  De Sa∣cram. Al∣taris, c. 13.
• * 1.566

  Eus. Hist. lib. 6. c. 44.
• * 1.567

  ••erm. Const. in Theor. Tit. 12. Bibl. patr. Ivo. Carn. Ep. de Sa∣cr. Missae. T. 2. Bibl. pat.
• * 1.568

  Dur. Rat. div. offic. lib. 4. de Sexta par∣te Can.
• * 1.569

  Com∣ment. in Matth. c. 15.
• * 1.570

  Tom. ••. Spi••il. Sacr. d' Ach••ry.
• * 1.571

  In cap. 66. Isaiae.
• * 1.572

  Tract. 26. in Joan.
• * 1.573

  Lib 21. de Civ. Dei. c. 25.
• * 1.574

  Tract. 54. in Joan.
• * 1.575

  Joh. 20.22.
• * 1.576

  Apol. 2. Catech. Mist. 4ta. Const. Apost. l. 2. c. 57. Eccles. Hiera. c. 3.
• * 1.577

  Aquin. Com. in 6. Johan. v. 53. In Summa, par. 9. quast. 80. art. 12.
• * 1.578

  Cyp. Ep. 63. ad Cecil.
• * 1.579

  Leo Serm. 4. in Qua∣drag. De∣cret. de Consecr. dist. 2.
• * 1.580

  Decret. de Consecr. dist. 2.
• * 1.581

  Concil. Clara∣mont. Can. 28.
• * 1.582

  Eus. Hist. l. 6. c. 44.
• * 1.583

  Just. Mart. Apol. 2.
• * 1.584

  Paulinus in vita Ambros.
• * 1.585

  Conc. Constan. Sess. 11.
• * 1.586

  Psal. 141.2. Psal. 51.17.
• * 1.587

  Hebr. 13.15. Rom. 12.1.
• * 1.588

  Phil. 4.10.
• * 1.589

  Heb. 5.10.
• * 1.590

  Heb. 7.24.
• * 1.591

  v. 27.
• * 1.592

  9. ch. 22. v. 28.
• * 1.593

  10. ch. v. 11.
• * 1.594

  v. 12.
• * 1.595

  Apol. 2.
• * 1.596

  Leg. pro Christ. Minut. in Octav. Lib. 8. con. Celsum. Tert. A.-pol. c. 30. Clem. Strom. l. 7. Arnob. lib. 7.
• * 1.597

  Cyr. Al. lib. 10. cont. Jul.
• * 1.598

  Can. 9. A••ost.
• * 1.599

  Con. An∣tioch. Can. 2. Const. A∣post. l. 8. cap. 11. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Eph Lib. 2.
• * 1.600

  Dialog. Conc. Mo∣gunt. Can. 43.
• * 1.601

  Walaf. Strab. de rebus Ec∣cles. c. 22.
• * 1.602

  Matth. 19.10, 11, 12.
• * 1.603

  Heb. 13.4. 1 Cor. 7.9.
• * 1.604

  1 Tim. 3.2, 4, 5, 12.
• * 1.605

  1 Tim. 4.3. 1 Cor. 9.5.
• * 1.606

  Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 12.
• * 1.607

  Acts 6.4.
• * 1.608

  Psal. 15.4.
• * 1.609

  Matth. 14.9. Matth. 15.5.
• * 1.610

  1 Cor. 5.11.
• * 1.611

  Gal. 6.1.
• * 1.612

  2 Tim. 2.17. 2 Thess. 3.14.
• * 1.613

  Jude 23 v. 1 Cor. 5.2, 5, 7. 2 Cor. 2.1, 2, 3. 1 Tim. 1.20.
• * 1.614

  Gal. 5.12.
• * 1.615

  1 Cor. 16.22.
• * 1.616

  2 Cor. 10.8.
• * 1.617

  2 Tim. 2.26.
• * 1.618

  Heb. 13.17.
• * 1.619

  Matt. 18.17.
• * 1.620

  Joh. 17.11, 21, 22, 23.
• * 1.621

  Acts 24.16.
• * 1.622

  Rom. 13.3.
• * 1.623

  Rom. 14.23.
• * 1.624

  Ver. 13.
• * 1.625

  Mat. 20.21. ver. 24. ver. 26.
• * 1.626

  Acts 11.2, 3. Acts 15.7. ver. 14, 19. Gal. 2, 7, 8. ver. 11.
• * 1.627

  2 Cor. 10.14.
• * 1.628

  De Unit▪ Eccles.
• * 1.629

  Conc. Nic. Can. 6.
• * 1.630

  Ep. 10. ad Greg.
• * 1.631

  Con. Sard. Can. 3, & 7▪ Con. Con∣stant. Can. 3.
• * 1.632

  Con. Chal∣ced. Can. 28.
• * 1.633

  Conc. A∣fric. cap. 101. & 1••5. Ep••st, ad Bonifac. & Cel••st.
• * 1.634

  Greg. Ep. Lib. 4. Ep. 32, 34, 36, 38, 39. Lib. 6. Ep. 24, 28, 30, 31. Lib. 7. Ep. 70.
• * 1.635

  1 Sam. 15.30.22.14.
• * 1.636

  15.17.
• * 1.637

  1 Chron. 23.6.28.21.
• * 1.638

  2 Chron. 8.14, 15.
• * 1.639

  2 Chron. 17.8, 9. chap. 19.8, to the End. Chap. 26.16, 17, 18, 19.
• * 1.640

  Rom. 13.6.
• * 1.641

  Ver. 1. 1 ••et. 2.13.
• * 1.642

  Rom. 13.4.
• * 1.643

  Matth. 5.39.
• * 1.644

  40.
• * 1.645

  1 Cor. 6.6, 7.
• * 1.646

  Luk. 3.14.
• * 1.647

  ••cts 10.
• * 1.648

  Acts 4.36, 37·
• * 1.649

  Luk. 21.4.
• * 1.650

  Prov. 30.8.
• * 1.651

  Gen. 21.23.26.28.31.53.
• * 1.652

  Lev. 5.1.
• * 1.653

  Judg. 17.2.
• * 1.654

  1 Sam. 14.24, 28, 44.
• * 1.655

  Matth. 26.63, 64.
• * 1.656

  Heb. 6.13, 14, 15.
• * 1.657

  Ver. 16.
• * 1.658

  Rev. 10.6.
• * 1.659

  Rom. 1.9. Gal. 1.20.
• * 1.660

  2 Cor. 1.23.
• * 1.661

  Jer. 4.2.
• * 1.662

  Matth. 5.34, 35, 36, 37. James 5.12.