viz. that we ought not to rely upon Scripture even for those Articles without believing of which we can have no sufficient Ground to rely upon the Authority of their Church For I would fain know is it clear and plain from Scripture that the present Catholick Church of every Age hath Authority to define the Articles of Faith and that in all its Definitions it is infallible and that the present Church of Rome is this Catholick Church If so how come those Texts upon which those Articles are founded to be understood in a quite different Sense not only by us but by the greatest Part of the Primitive Fathers as hath been abundantly proved by Protestant Writers Supposing that we should be so blinded by our Partiality to our own Tenets as to misapprehend plain and clear Expressions of Scripture it is very strange methinks that the Fathers who were never engaged in the Controversy and so could not be biass'd either one way or t'other should yet misapprehend them too What is this but to say that let Men be never so indifferent yet they may be easily mistaken in the Sense of very plain and clear Expressions and if so what signifies either Speaking or Writing But to proceed to some Instances will any modest Man in the World affirm that the Church of Rome's infallibility in defining Articles of Faith to all succeeding Generations is more plainly exprest in those Words of our Saviour Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church than the Divinity of our Saviour is in the Beginning of the first Chaper of St. Iohn's Gospel where it is expresly affirmed that he is God whereas in the other there is not the least mention either of the Church of Rome or of Infallibility or defining Articles of Faith Why may we not then as well depend upon the one Text for the Article of our Saviour's Divinity as upon the other for that of the Church of Rome's Infallibility Again are there not innumerable Texts of Scripture wherein the Articles of Remission of Sin the Resurrection of the Dead the last Iudgment and the World to come are at least as plainly exprest as the present Church of Rome's Infallibility is in any of those Texts that are urged in the Defence of it and therefore if we believe the later upon the Authority of Scripture notwithstanding the pretended Obscurity of it why may we not as well upon the same Authority believe all the former since the former are at least as plainly exprest as the later Either therefore the Scripture is plain enough to be relyed upon as to this Article of the Church of Rome's Infallibility or it is not if it be not we have no Ground for our Dependence upon the Authority of her Definitions and Proposals if it be it 's plain enough to be relyed upon in all other necessary Articles of Faith since these are all as plainly at least expres'd in Scripture as that For if we may not rely upon Scripture because it is not plain then where it is equally plain it is equally to be relyed on 3. That when we come to rely upon this Church's Authority we are exposed to far greater Uncertainties than while we relied upon the Authority of Scripture For in the first place we are of all sides agreed that the Scripture is infallible and that such and such Writings are Parts of Scripture and therefore are absolutely secure that if we follow the true Sense of it it cannot mislead us But the much greater Part of Christians deny that the Church of Rome is infallible even the Church of Rome it self owns the Authority we rely on to be infallible but all Christians all the World over besides those of her own Communion disallow hers to be so and to forsake our Dependence upon an Infallibility which all own to rely upon an Infallibility which but few in Comparison admit is certainly a very dangerous Venture And then Secondly As for the Infallibility of Scripture we are certain where to find it viz. in every Text and in every Proposition therein contained which being all the Word of God must be all infallible But as for the Infallibility of the Roman Church as they have handled the Matter it is almost as difficult to find as to prove it some cry lo it is here and some lo it is there some place it in the Pope only others in the Pope and his College of Cardinals some in the Pope presiding in a General Council others in a General Council whether the Pope preside in it or no. So that in this Church it seems there is Infallibility somewhere but what are we the better for it if we know not where to find it If we go to the Pope for it there have been two or three Popes at once that have decreed against one another and therefore one or t'other of them to be sure were mistaken How then shall we know which is the true infallible one And when I have found the true Pope others tell me I am not yet arrived at the Seat of Infallibility until I have found him in his College of Cardinals and when I have found him here I am still to seek seeing I find the same Pope Eugenius the Fourth for Instance decreeing one Thing in his College of Cardinals and the quite contrary in a general Council and therefore I am sure he could not be infallible in both Therefore others send me to the Pope in a General Council but when I come thither I find my self at a Loss again because I meet with several Instances of one Pope's defining one Thing in one General Council and another Pope the quite contrary in another and therefore in one or t'other Council I am sure the one or t'other Pope was mistaken And as for General Councils themselves there are sundry of them which are owned by some and rejected by others of the principal Doctors of the Roman Communion And even when Councils are legally assembled there are so many nice Disputes among them what it is that makes them General and when it is that they act Conciliariter as they call it that is so as to render their Decrees perpetually and universally obliging that though we were resolved to build our Faith upon the Authority of this Church yet if we will use that Caution in believing that we ought to do in a Matter of so great Moment we should find our selves involved in greater Uncertainties concerning these Things than we are concerning the Sense even of the most difficult Places of Scripture But then Thirdly When we are pass'd over all these Difficulties we are still at as great a Loss to understand what is the Sense of the Church to be believed by us as what is the Sense of Scripture For the Church hath no other way to deliver her Sense to us but either by Oral Tradition that is by Word of Mouth or by Writing If She deliver her Sense to me by
Oral Tradition how can I know what that is who never heard Her speak either in its diffused Body or in a General Council or in any other Representative unless it be that of my own Parish-Priest perhaps who for all I know may be Ignorant or Heretical and so either not understand himself the Church's Oral Tradition or wilfully pervert it to a contrary Meaning And if the Church deliver her Sense to me by Writing as She hath done in the written Decrees of her General Councils must I read over all her Decrees How should I do that who understand not so much as the Languages in which they are written Or suppose they were Translated how shall I know that they are faithfully render'd any more than I do that the Scripture is so But suppose I were certain of this and should thereupon proceed to read them alass I find in them a great many difficult and dubious Expressions yea and at least seeming Contradictions to each other how then can I be more certain of the true Sense of these Writings than of the Sense of the Writings of Scripture But you will say the Church hath digested her Sense of all her Articles of Faith into a plain Creed and Catechism viz. that of the Council of Trent whereby the plainest Reader may without any laborious Enquiries be readily instructed what he ought to believe This I confess is something but as for those Articles of Faith wherein We and the Church of Rome are agreed we find them as plainly expressed in Scripture as in that Creed and Catechism and therefore we have Reason to believe that if those Articles wherein we disagree had ever been intended for Articles of Faith they would have been as plainly express'd there as these but 't is no wonder we should not find them plainly express'd there when we cannot find them express'd there at all But do we not find that the Scriptures even in the plainest Expressions of Articles of Faith have yet been perverted by Hereticks into a contrary Meaning And what then Are not the Words of Councils as liable to be perverted into a contrary Meaning as the Words of Scripture For do not the Roman Doctors differ as much about the Sense of their Councils as we do about the Sense of our Scriptures Yea and have we not a notorius Instance of it at this very Day For what can be more contrary than Belarmine's Exposition of the Trent Faith and the Bishop of Condom's And yet both allowed by the Pope who by the Authority of that Council is made sole Arbitrator of the Sense of it But then Fourthly and lastly As to the Sense of Scripture our Reliance on the Authority of that Church leaves us at as great an Uncertainty as it found us For where the Scripture designs to speak plainly as it doth in all Things necessary to salvation the Church cannot speak plainer and therefore there we may understand the Scripture as well without the Church as with it but where it doth not speak plainly the Church of Rome hath left us no infallible Commentary whereby to understand it so that where the Scripture is plain She hath not made it plainer and where it is obscure She hath left it as obscure as ever So that after all the Noise that is made of Infallibility her Doctors are fain to apply themselves to the same Methods of Understanding Scripture that is to consult the Sense of Antiquity and compare Text with Text and the like that we fallible Protestants do and when they have done all are as lyable to be mistaken as we Nay they themselves confess that even General Councils themselves may be mistaken in their Applications of Scripture that is that they may misapply them to wrong Purposes which they cannot do without mistaking the Sense of them of which there are a great many notorious Instances in the second Council of Nice which to prove it the Duty of Christians to worship Images urges God's taking Clay and making Man after his own Image and likewise that of Esay There shall be a Sign and Testimony to the Lord in the Land of Egypt and also those Passages of David Confession and Beauty is before him Lord I have loved the beauty of thy House O Lord my Face hath sought for thee O Lord I will seek after thy Countenance O Lord the light of thy Countenance is sealed over us And from that Passage As we have seen so have we heard they argue that there must be Images to look on and because it is said God is marvellous in his Saints they conclude that the Church must be deck'd with Pictures And from No man lighteth a Candle and putteth it under a bushel they wisely infer that Images must be set upon the Altar All which are as remote from their Sense as the first Verse of the first Chapter of Genesis What greater Certainty have they with their Infallibility than we without it We can know as well the Sense of plain Texts of Scripture as of plain Texts of Councils or Creeds or Catechisms and we can as easily pervert the Sense of the one as of the other And as for those that are not plain even General Councils you see for all their Infallibility may be mistaken about them as well as we So that when all comes to all by forsaking the infallible Authority of Scripture to rely upon the infallible Authority of that Church we are so far from arriving at a greater Certainty of Faith that we are involved in greater Uncertainties than ever But then 4. And lastly in relying upon the Authority of Scripture we are left to no other Uncertainties than just what are necessary to render our Faith vertuous and rewardable whereas by relying upon the Authority of the Church of Rome supposing it were as sure a Ground of Faith as it is pretended our Faith would have little or nothing of Virtue in it It is pretended though falsly you see that that Church's Authority is so sure a Ground of Faith that while a Man depends upon it he cannot be mistaken in any necessary Article of Faith which in Reality amounts to no more than this That while a Man believes as that Church believes which infallibly believes all that is necessary to Salvation he infallibly believes all that is necessary to Salvation and it is equally true that while a Man believes as the Scripture teaches which infallibly teaches all that is necessary to Salvation he infallibly believes all that is necessary to Salvation that is both are equally false For no Man can infallibly believe either the Church or Scripture because Infallibility exceeds the Capacity of humane Nature no Man can so believe either but that he may be mistaken and if he may be mistaken its possible he may not believe all that is necessary to Salvation whether he grounds his Faith upon the Church or the Scripture But because this Church pretends so to secure my Faith while I
the Peoples Minds and Manners St. Paul tells us the quite contrary These Things were our Examples to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they i. e. the Israelites in the Wilderness lusted Neither be ye idolaters as were some of them Neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed and fell in one day three and twenty thousand Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted and were destroyed of serpents Neither murmur ye as some of them also murmured and were destroyed of the destroyer Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples and they are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come 1 Cor. 10. 6 7 8 9 10 11. Whereas this Objection urges that there are sundry Passages in Scripture which should the People read would excite evil Thoughts in their Minds The same St. Paul tells us That all Scripture is profitable not only for Doctrine and Reproof but also for correction for instruction in righteousness 2 Tim. 3. 16. Whereas this Objection pretends that it would be very unsafe for young People especially to be allowed the Scripture because there are several amorous Stories and Passages in it which will be apt to suggest wanton Thoughts to their gay and amorous Fancies David it is plain was of a quite contrary Mind for wherewith saith he shall a young man cleanse his way by taking heed thereto according to thy word Psal. 119. 9. than which two Passages what Assertions can be more contrary one to another 4. And lastly That supposing this Objection to be thus â—ar true that there are some Passages in Scripture which may sometimes occasionally excite bad Thoughts in Mens Minds yet this is no just Reason why the Use of Scripture should be forbid to the People For every Thing which the People occasionally make bad Uses of is for that Reason to be forbid to them even Prayer and the Sacraments and the Profession of Christianity ought to be forbidden them as well as the Scripture seeing of the one as well as of the other many People do occasionally make very bad Uses So long as the Scripture is good in it self and apt in its own Nature to instruct and edifie those that read it this is sufficient not only to warrant the Peoples Use of it but to enjoyn and require it and if it sometimes occasion corrupt Thoughts in corrupt Minds this is no more a Reason why the People should be deprived of the Light of it than some bad Mens making ill Use of the Light of the Sun is why the Sun should be extinguished or why the People should be for ever shut up from the Light of it in dark and dismal Dungeons But as for those very Passages of Scripture which do sometimes occasion ill Thoughts in Mens Minds they are so far from doing it of their own Natures that as they are delivered in Scripture there is nothing more naturally apt to repress bad Thoughts and to arm and fortifie Mens Minds against them As for instance The bad Examples recorded in Scripture are generally delivered with infamous Characters severe Prohibitions and dreadful Instances of God's Vengeance attending them which render them much more apt to repress than to excite evil Thoughts in Mens Minds to quicken them to Prayer and Watchfulness against Temptations and when at any Time they have been overcome by them to encourage them to Repentance or when they have overcome them to stir them up to a grateful Acknowledgment of that preventing and assisting Grace of God by which they have been enabled to resist and repel them These are the natural Uses of those bad Examples recorded in Scripture and therefore if instead of making these Uses of them some Men pervert them to bad Purposes that is their Faults and not the Scriptures It is sufficient that the bad Examples in Scripture as they are there recorded are in themselves of excellent Use to the People but should Men be deprived of the Use of every good Thing they abuse I would fain know what one good Thing would be left free to their Enjoyment And now having proved at large the Peoples Right and Obligation to Use and Search the Holy Scripture and answered the main Objections against it I shall conclude with these two Inferences from the whole 1. If the People are obliged to acquaint themselves with Scripture then they are obliged to receive upon the Authority of Scripture those Divine Truths which it proposes to their Belief For to what other end should we be obliged to read and consult the Word of God but only that we may learn from it what is his Mind and Will but how should we learn from Scripture what God's Mind is if we are not to believe what he therein declares upon Scripture Authority If I must not believe when I read the Scripture that this is God's Mind because the Scripture says so it is impossible I should ever learn God's Mind by reading it and consequently I am obliged to read it to no Purpose For there is nothing can teach me what God's Mind is but that which gives me sufficient Ground to believe that what it teaches is the Mind of God When therefore I read the Scripture and find such a Proposition plainly asserted in it is this a sufficient Ground or no for me to believe it to be the Mind of God If it be then the Authority of Scripture is a sufficient Ground for my Belief If it be not then the Scripture cannot teach me what God's Mind is because it cannot give me sufficient Ground to believe any one Proposition in it to be the Mind of God We are told indeed that we are not to receive the Sense of the Scripture from the Scripture but from the Church who alone hath Authority to Expound it to us and whose Expositions in all Matters of Faith are infallible But if this be so to what End should we read the Scripture seeing the only End of Reading is to learn the Sense of what we read which according to this Principle is not to be learnt from Scripture So that though there be no other wise End of reading the Scripture but only to learn from it what it means yet it seems for Men to read it for this End is a perfect Labour in Vain seeing it is not from the Scripture but from the Church that they are to learn the Meaning of Scripture For as for the Scripture if these Men are to be believed it is nothing but a heap of unsensed Characters so they expresly term it But what do they mean by it Is it that the Scripture consists of a company of Letters and Syllables and Words that carry with them no determinate Sense that God Almighty hath written and published a Book to the World that means nothing If so then when the Church by its infallible Authority pretends to expound the Scripture Her meaning is not to expound the Sense of it but to impose a Sense on it which was never in it for how can She expound the Sense of a Book which hath no Sense in it If the Church is to expound the Sense of
Scripture the Scripture must have a certain determinate Sense in it before she expounds it for to expound the Sense of That which hath no Sense is Nonsense And if the Scripture hath a certain Sense in it antecedently to the Church's Exposition of it why do they call it a Parcel of Vnsensed Characters If their Meaning be only this that the Sense of Scripture as it is delivered in Scripture is so obscure and ambiguous that without the infallible Exposition of the Church we can never be certain what it is besides that this is notoriously false the Scripture in all necessary Points both of Faith and Manners being so very plain and clear that any Man that reads it with an unprejudiced Mind may be as certain of the Sense of it as he can be of the Sense of any Writing and consequently of the Sense of any written Exposition of the Church besides this I say it is evident that whatever these Men pretend it is not meerly because of the obscurity of Scripture that they oblige Men to ground their Faith upon the Church and not upon the Scripture For they own as well as we that in many Things the Scripture is very plain and clear and yet they will by no Means allow Men to ground their Belief of these things upon the Authority of Scripture but all must be resolved into the Authority of the Church By which it is evident That if all the Scripture were as plain as the plainest Scriptures they would still contend for the Necessity of Mens relying upon the Church and not upon the Scripture and consequently that the true Reason why they contend for it is not because the Scripture is obscure but because they are resolved to advance their Church's Authority We own as well as they that where the Scripture is obscure Men ought to be guided by the Authority of the Church which we freely allow to be the best Expositor of Scripture But the true State of the Difference between them and us is this That whereas we require plain Men to judge of plain Things with their own Understandings and all Men so far forth as they are capable to judge for themselves in Matters of Religion and not content themselves to see with the Church's Eyes where they are able to see with their own nothing will satisfie these Men but to have all Men as well Wise as Simple surrender up their Faith and Judgment to the Church and wink hard and believe what-ever the Church believes purely because the Church believes it Whatever they pretend therefore the Truth of the Case is this They will by no means allow us to believe upon the Authority of Scripture not because the Scripture is obscure though this they pretend for were it never so plain the Case would be the same but because they are sensible that this will inevitably subvert their usurped Dominion over the Faith and Consciences of Men. But we must believe upon the Authority of the Church and who is this Church I beseech you Why they themselves are this Church So that whereas God hath published a Book called the Bible on purpose to declare his Mind and Will to the World here are started up a Sort of Men that call themselves the Church who very gravely tell us Sirs You must not so much as look into this Book or if you do must not believe any one Word in it upon its own Credit and Authority For though we do confess it is the Word of God yet we are the sole Iudges of the Sense of it and therefore whatsoever we declare is its Sense how unlikely soever it may seem to you you are bound in Conscience to receive and believe it for this very Reason because we declare it In short you must resign up your Eyes your Faith your Reason and Vnderstandings to us and see only with our Eyes and believe only with our Faith and judge only with our Iudgment and whithersoever we shall think fit to lead you you must tamely follow us without presuming to examin whether we lead you right or wrong But yet after all to induce us thus to inslave our Understandings to them they themselves are fain to appeal to Scripture and allow us in some Things to judge of the Sense of it and to believe those Things upon its Authority For no wise and honest Man will ever believe either that They are the Church or the infallible Judges of the Sense of Scripture without some Proof and Evidence and for this they are fain to produce several Texts of Scripture such as Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church Now supposing that to be true which is notoriously false viz. that those Texts do necessarily imply that They are the only true Catholick Church and that as such they are constituted by God infallible Judges of Scripture yet before I can believe so I must judge for my self whether this be the Sense of them or no and if I judge it is I must believe that they are the Church and infallible upon the Scripture's Authority and not theirs for their Authority is the Thing in debate and I cannot believe upon it before I believe it So then though we must believe nothing else upon Scripture Authority yet upon this very Authority we must believe that they are the Church and that they are infallible which are the fundamental Principles of their Religion that is to say we must believe as much upon Scripture Authority as will serve their turn and no more But may I be certain of the Truth of these two Fundamental Principles upon Scripture Authority or no If I may why may I not as well be infallibly certain upon the same Authority of other Principles of Christianity as well as those seeing there are no common Principles of Christian Religion but what are at least as plainly revealed in Scripture as these But this will spoil all for if Men may be infallibly certain of the Principles of Religion upon Scripture Authority what will become of the Necessity of Mens relying upon the Church which is founded upon this Principle that Men can arrive at no infallible Certainty in Religion by relying upon the Authority of Scripture or indeed any other Authority but the Church's But if I cannot be infallibly certain of those two Principles viz. that they are the Church and Infallible by those Authorities of Scripture which they urge to prove them how can I be infallibly certain of any Thing that they declare and define For if I am not certain that they are the Church for all I know the Church may be infallible and yet they may be mistaken and if I am not certain that they are infallible for all I know they may
Sovereign and it would have been no more a rejecting God's Rule for Israel to desire a King than it is for France or Spain or England For it 's plain the Israelites did not reject God's Divine Dominion which he claims over the World as the Omnipotent Creator of all things for then their Desire of a King had been Idolatry and the Kings whom they desired had been Idols or false Gods It is plain therefore that it was his Political Dominion only which they rejected by desiring another King to reign in his stead which he interprets as their Intention to rob and divest him of that Civil Authority which till then he had claimed and exercised among them So that the plain Sense of their Desire was this God shall no longer be our Civil Sovereign but for the future we are resolved to have a King from among our selves even as other Nations round about us whom we will invest with the same Civil Authority which hitherto he hath challenged and exercised among us God the Eternal Word therefore being their Civil Prince or Ruler as such he gave them the Mosaick Law which he only designed to be the Rule or Instrument of his Civil Government and Dominion which is the Reason why in that Law he only promised civil or temporal Blessings because it was only a Law of Civil Government and as such could design no further than the civil or temporal Happiness of those who were to be ruled and governed by it And accordingly if you peruse the Promises of that Law you will find that they all consist of outward and temporal Blessings such as Health of Body and Victory over their Enemies Peace among themselves and with their Neighbouring Nations Plenty of Bread and the Conveniences of Life and Success and Prosperity in all their Affairs and therefore the Author to the Hebrews calls the Gospel the bringing in of a better Hope and upon this Account opposes it to the Law of Moses Heb. 7. 19. which plainly implies that that Law brought in no better Hope than that of a temporal Happiness and those Words of the Apostle Gal. 3. 12. The Law is not of Faith but The Man that doth them shall live in them do plainly seem to imply this Sense The Law proposing only present and sensible Blessings to such as do it such as that Thou shalt live a happy and prosperous Life in this World doth not require Faith properly so called which is the Evidence of things not seen that is of the invisible Blessings of the other Life and v. 21. he plainly asserts that if there had been any other Law besides the Gospel that could have given that promised Life Righteousness would have been by that Law and therefore since as he asserts Righteousness was by no other Law but the Gospel it follows that no other Law no not that of Moses could give or promise Life eternal Not that I make the least Doubt but good Men under the Law of Moses did firmly believe a future Happiness for this the very Heathens themselves had very great Hopes and Expectations of though they never had so much Reason as the Iews to induce them to believe For besides all those weighty Arguments which were common to them with the Heathens they had those general Evangelical Promises which God made to the Patriarchs of being their God and their exceeding great Reward the Histories of the Translations of Enoch and Elijah and of sundry most eminent Examples of God's exceeding Love to Goodness and good Men from whence they might easily infer that sure he had better Rewards in store for them than any of the transitory Blessings of this Life especially when they saw how many good Men were deprived of these and left naked and destitute of all worldly Comforts Besides all which in every Age they had Prophets that were divinely inspired and who among all the Secrets that were revealed to them cannot be supposed to have been wholly unacquainted with the typical Meaning of their Ceremonies and Polity which among other things presignified the glorious Recompences of the Life to come But however they came by it I think it is very apparent from sundry Passages in the Book of the Psalms Ezekiel and Daniel that they were far from being Strangers to the Doctrine of a blessed Immortality hereafter though I think it is very apparent from what hath been said that they did not derive their Belief of this Doctrine from any express Promise of their Law But yet it is very apparent that though they were not altogether unacquainted with it yet 't was never so clearly discovered to them by the Eternal Word as it was afterwards to us by the Word Incarnate since as the Apostle tells us He brought Life and Immortality to light by the Gospel For therein he hath most clearly promised it to us and as far as humane Language can express explained and unfolded its Nature and by his own Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven hath given us a clear and visible Demonstration of its Truth and Reality so that now the Existence of it is become as certain to us as it 's possible for a Matter of Fact to be and we cannot be more infallibly assured of it than we are unless we had been personally in Heaven and had there surveyed its Glories with our own Eyes Well therefore may He be said to have dwelt among us full of Grace since he was graciously pleased to make us such express Promises of future Happiness and give us such ample Assurance of its Reality and Existence And so I have done with the first Note of Distinction between Christ's dwelling among us and his dwelling in the Mosaick Tabernacle He dwelt among us full of Grace 2. The other Character by which his dwelling among us is distinguished from his dwelling in the Mosaick Tabernacle is this that he dwelt among us full of Truth It 's plain that Truth here is not to be understood as opposed to Falshood because in that Sense it is no Note of Distinction between these two Dwellings or Tabernaclings of Christ unless we suppose that he did falsly dwell or act and represent God in the Tabernacle of Moses which would be to blaspheme his Truth and Veracity Truth therefore must here be understood as opposed to Obscurity and Shadow and so must denote Clearness and Reality as it very commonly doth As when we say a Picture is not a true Man we do not charge the Picture with a Lye if it could speak indeed and should call it self a Man we should then say it were a lying Picture for pretending to be what it is not being only a silent Resemblance of him Thus when the Apostle saith He dwelt among us full of Truth and thereby distinguishes his tabernacling among us from the manner of his dwelling among the Iews it is not so to be understood as if he had dwelt among them in a false or lying manner or that
that Representation which he made to them of God and Divine Things were false and imposturous no God forbid But thus whereas when He inhabited the Tabernacle he was full of Hieroglyphicks or mystical Representations which though they were true Pictures or Shadows of Divine Things yet have not the Truth and Reality of the Things themselves in them and consequently would be Lies and Cheats should they pretend to be what they only represent but now he is come to dwell among us he is full of the Things themselves of those Realities which formerly he only gave us the Types and Shadows of now he hath removed all that Scene of Pictures and mystical Representations and brought the Things themselves upon the Stage and exposed them naked to the View of the World So that now he doth not entertain us as heretofore he did the Iews with Emblems and Shadows but with Truth and the real Substances of Things And thus the Word is very frequently taken in the New Testament Thus Heb. 8. 2. the Christian Church is called the true Tabernacle in Contradistinction to the Tabernacle of Moses not as if that were a false Tabernacle but a typical one it being designed only as a Shadow of the Christian Church which is the true Reality and Substance which was pictured and represented in it for so the Apostle himself explains it Heb. 9. 24. For Christ saith he is not entred into the holy places made with hands which are the figures of the true but into Heaven it self From whence it 's plain that therefore those Holy Places are opposed to true Places because they were only Figures or mystical Representations of something that is real and substantial So Dan. 7. 16. when Daniel desired to know the Truth of that Prophetick Scene it is said that One stood by and made him know the Interpretation of the things that is what was the Reality and Substance that was represented in those Types and Figures So here He dwelt among us full of Truth that is when he dwelt among us he was full of the Substance and Reality of those Things which before he was wont to represent by obscure Emblems and Shadows now he presents to us the Things themselves and not the mystical Types and Figures of them as formerly he was wont to do For I think it 's very evident that the whole Model of the Iewish Polity was purposely contrived to be an Emblem and Representation of the Gospel and that the main Reason of those numerous Rites and Ceremonies was to delineate and shadow out the glorious Mysteries of Christianity For the Apostle plainly tells us that they were all a shadow of things to come and that the Body or Substance of that Shadow was Iesus Christ Col. 2. 17. And the Author to the Hebrews calls them the Patterns of the things in Heaven or the heavenly Things by which it's plain he means Christ or the Subjects of the Kingdom of Christ since he tells us that as it was necessary that those Patterns should be purified with Blood so it was necessary that those Heavenly Things represented by them should be purified by a better Sacrifice Heb. 9. 23. And what other Heavenly Things are there but only Christians that are purified with this better Sacrifice of Christ And in another place the same Author tells us that the Law hath in it a Shadow of good things to come Heb. 10. 1. And thus very frequently in the New Testament the sacred Rites of the Mosaick Law are declared to be Types and Shadows of the Mysteries of the Gospel as particularly in the Epistle to the Hebrews which is almost wholly spent upon this Argument And this the Iews themselves seem to be acquainted with long before the Publication of the Gospel For so the most ancient Iews look'd upon the Temple as a Type and Figure of the Heavenly State and Philo the Iew in his Allegories of the Law and almost in all his other Writings makes the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaick Law to be Types and Figures of some Divine or Moral Truth and particularly the High Priest to be an Emblem of the Eternal Word and his Crown and Vestments to be Representations of his Authority and Divine Perfections wherein he exactly agrees with the Author to the Hebrews And from sundry Passages in the Book of Psalms it seems evident that the good Iews had a Prospect beyond the Outside and Letter of the Law even into the typical Sense and Meaning of it and that through its glimmering Shadows and Resemblances they beheld very much of the Substance and Realities of the Gospel For hence probably was that of David Ps. 25. 14. The Secret of the Lord is with them that fear him for certainly the Secret of the Lord here cannot be meant the Fore-knowledge of future Events since under the Old Testament that was neither restrained to good Men nor much less was it universally with them that feared God and therefore it seems more probable that by it we are to understand those then secret Mysteries of the Gospel which were so obscurely represented in the Types and Figures of the Law especially if we compare this with that Prayer of David Ps. 119. 18. Open thou mine Eyes that I may behold the wondrous things out of thy Law which methinks plainly intimates that the good Man did believe there were some wondrous Mysteries contained under those dark and typical Representations And afterwards v. 27. make me to understand the way of thy Precepts so shall I talk of thy wondrous Works which implies that he believed that there were some Things very mystical and hard to be understood contained within the Precepts of their Law which in their literal Sense were easy and obvious and had nothing of Depths or Mystery in them and therefore certainly had he not seen something within them beyond their Rine and Outside he would never have prayed so earnestly as he doth that God would teach him his Laws and that he would not hide from him his Commandments as he doth v. 19. much less would he have imagined that by understanding of them he should be enabled to talk of such wondrous Things Afterwards v. 69. he tells us that he had seen an end of all Perfection but God's Commandments are exceeding broad which denotes that he who had seen an End of all Things else had discovered so vast and boundless a Depth in the Commands of God that he could see no End of it whereas it 's plain that the literal Meaning of them was very narrow and contracted and far from being so exceeding broad which argues that the good Man had discovered under the Letter and Surface of them a Mine of mystical Sense which he could not reach the Bottom of and that God had given him a Glimps of those glorious Secrets of the Gospel which he had wrapt up and involved in the typical Precepts of the Law Thus the Eternal Word while he tabernacled
directed them to Men neither Priests nor People were obliged to read them and therefore seeing the great Reason why any Men ought to read them is because they are directed to Men this Reason obliges all Men to read them because they are directed to all Men. For not to be highly concerned to know and understand what it is that God writes to us is an Argument that we have a very mean Regard both of his Majesty and his Mind and Will But to be sure whosoever is highly concerned to know what such a Writing contains will if he can be very curious to peruse it with his own Eyes at least supposing that it is not unlawful for him so to do because there is nothing gives that Satisfaction to a Man's Mind as the Information of his own Sense So that for Men wilfully to neglect reading the Scripture which God hath so expresly directed to them and thereby not only licensed but obliged them to read it argues a very prophane Disregard both of the Author of it and of the Matter it contains and for any Man or Society of Men to forbid the People to read what God hath written and directed to them is not only to deprive them of a Right which God hath given them but also to acquit them of a Duty which he hath laid upon them For St. Paul in those Epistles which he wrote to the Christian People in general of such and such Churches still takes it for granted that they would read them as being not only warranted but obliged thereunto by his writing them for so Ephes. 3. 3 4. speaking of that great Mystery of the calling the Gentiles which God had revealed to him concerning which saith he I wrote afore in few words whereby when ye read ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ. So also 2 Cor. 1. 13. We write no other things unto you than what you read that is than what you may at least and are obliged to read by vertue of our writing them to you And as for his Epistle to the Thessalonians which he wrote to that whole Church he gives Charge that it should be read to all the holy Brethren 1 Thes. 5. 27. So also for that of the Colossâ—ans When this Epistle is or hath been read amongst you cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea Where you see he all along either supposes or requires that what he wrote to all should be read by all and to all If therefore this Authority of St. Paul be sufficient to over-rule the Authority of any pretended Successor of St. Peter then it 's certain that reading the Scripture is still the Duty of Lay-men notwithstanding any Papal Prohibition to the contrary 5. From the great Concernment the People have in the Matters contained in Scripture it is also evident that they are obliged if they are able to read it and acquaint themselves with it For as for the Matters which the Scriptures contain they are such as are of everlasting Moment to the People as well as to the Clergy The Articles of Faith which the Scripture proposes are as necessary to be believed by the People as by the Clergy The Precepts of Life which the Scripture prescribes are as necessary to be practised by the People as by the Clergy The Promises and Threats with which the Scripture inforces those Precepts are as necessary to be considered by the People as by the Clergy And seeing both are equally concerned in the great Matters which the Scriptures contain what Reason can be assigned why both should not be obliged to acquaint themselves with them I know 't is pretended that it is the proper Office of the Clergy to study the Scriptures for the People as well as for themselves and that therefore the People are obliged to receive the Sense of the Scriptures upon Trust from their Teachers without making any farther Enquiry But I beseech you are you sure that your Teachers are infallible That they are not so is most certain it being notorious that most of the prevailing Heresies of Christendom were first set on broach by the Teachers of the Church and it is impossible they should be infallible who have so often actually erred even in Matters of the highest Moment Suppose then what is fairly supposable that your Teachers should mislead you and not only into dangerous but damnable Errors are you sure that they shall be damned for you and that you shall escape If so then Heresy in the Layty can never be damnable if they receive it upon Trust from their Teachers and consequently their Souls are as safe under the Conduct of false Teachers as true provided always that right or wrong they believe what is taught them But if your selves must give an Account to God as well for your Faith as for your Manners and are liable in your own Persons to eternal Damnation as most certainly you are as well for Heresy as Immorality then it is the most unreasonable Thing in the World that you should in all Things be obliged to believe your Teachers upon Trust for at this Rate a Man may be eternally damned mâ—erly for believing what he is obliged to believe If it be said that the People are not bound to believe what their particular Pastor teaches but what the Church teaches them and the Church cannot err though their particular Pastor may I would fain know how shall the People be otherwise informed what the Church teaches them than by the Expositions of their particular Pastors they being at least as incapable of informing themselves what the Doctrine of the Church is as what the Doctrine of the Scripture is and therefore if their Pastor should err damnably in expounding to them what the Church teaches as it is supposable he may if he be not infallible there is no Remedy but they must err damnably in believing whatsoever their Pastor teaches But we are farther told that it is sufficient for the People that they believe in the gross that whatsoever the Church teaches is true and that as for the particulars there is no Necessity that they should be informed about them because he who believes that all that the Church teaches is true implicitly believes all that is necessary seeing the Church teaches all that is necessary But the mischief of it is that this compendious Way of Belief is utterly insignificant and doth no way comport with the Design and Intention of a Christian's Faith For God doth not require our Faith meerly for its own sake but in order to a farther End that it may purify our Hearts and influence our Lives and Manners that is that the Matters which we believe might by being believed by us affect our Wills and continually move and persuade us to abstain from all Vngodliness and Worldly Lusts and to live soberly righteously and godly in this present World and if our