ope

to the point in question, viz. whether Jesus Christ was brought into being by the ration, and through the agency of a man, or whether he was brought into being by the operation and through the agency of God only; yet it may not fo eafily be made appear that any chriftian, or fociety of chriftians, that the head of any particular church, or the pretended bead of the church univerfal has a right to judge of, and to determine this matter for me, or for any other perfon. To constitute a proper judge in the prefent cafe, two qualifications are abfolutely neceffary, namely, infallibility and impeccability; because whoever is fallible is liable to err himself, and whoever is peccable is liable to deceive others ; and confequently, either of thefe difqualify any man or body of men for judging and determining for others, in all questions of this kind. And feeing no man, nor body of men, is either infallible or impeccable, from hence it will follow, that no man, nor body of men are proper judges for others, and that every man has a right to judge for himself, in the case before us, and in all other cafes of like nature. As to the fecond queftion, viz. how ought chriftians to behave to each other, under thefe circumftances; that is, fuppo

fing they should differ from each other, in their opinion upon the point before mentioned? The answer, I think, is plain and obvious. For as all men are liable to err, in the present cafe, and as every man has a right to judge for himself, and as every man and every body of men are naturally difqualified for judging for other men, and as one man is not a fufferer by another man's error, in the cafe before us; fo from hence it will follow, that men's differing from each other, with regard to the point in queftion, cannot poffibly render them the proper objects of diflike and refentment to each other; and confequently, their affection for, and their behaviour towards each other ought to be the fame, whether they agree their fentiments upon this question, or not.

in

I HAVE already obferved, that the language Chrift ufed was lofty and figurative, by which I mean that this was the cafe in many inftances. And tho', I prefume, this will readily be allowed by all christians ; yet, perhaps, it has always been a disputable point among them, in what particular inftances Chrift's words are to be understood either literally or figuratively; many Chriftians being apt to contend either for a lite

ral,

ral or a figurative fenfe, as it beft fuits the particular fcheme of Christianity they adhere to, or as it best promotes the particular intereft they have to ferve by it. To exemplify this by a large induction of particulars, would be both tedious in itself and foreign

to my purpose; and therefore, I shall only give an instance or two. Chrift faid of himfelf, that he was the true vine; and he faid of his father, that he was the husbandman. Again, Christ said of a piece of bread, that it was his body; and he said of a cup of wine that it was his blood. Now, though no proper or fufficient reafon can be given why Chrift's words fhould be taken in a literal fenfe in one of these instances, and in a figurative fenfe in the other ; yet we find that our brethren of the church of Rome allow a figurative sense in the former inftance, and yet contend for a literal fense in the latter. And the reason of this, fuch as it is, is obvious, viz. because a literal fenfe, in the latter

inftance, beft fuits the particular Scheme of chriftianity to which the members of the church of Rome adhere, as it beft ferves the purposes which myfteries in religion are made fubfervient to, in that church; whereas a literal fenfe, in

the

the former inftance, would not be fuitable to it; and therefore, they understand it figuratively, which ought to be the cafe of both. And this is the cafe, not only of those Christians who are in the communion of the church of Rome; but Proteftants also are too too apt to follow their example herein. The ufe I would make of this, is to engage my readers to attend carefully to the subject Christ treats of, in any inftance, in order to form a proper judgment whether his words are to be understood literally, or figuratively; this being our best, and sureft guide in the present cafe; and not first to form a scheme of christianity, and then to understand Chrift's words either literally, or figuratively, as it beft fuits that scheme; much less are we to do this, as it beft fuits any particular intereft of wealth or power that may be ferved by it. Thus, for example, in the inftances before mentioned, Chrift faid of himself, that he was the true vine; and he also said of a piece of bread, that it was his body. In the first of thefe inftances, the fubject treated of determines the word vine to be taken in a figurative fenfe; because Christ who was then perfonally prefent with his difciples could not poffibly be, at the

fame

fame time, that vegetable which is characterized by the term vine. And this likewise is the cafe of the latter inftance, in which the fubject treated of plainly determines the word body to be taken in a figurative sense alfo; it being impoffible that a piece of bread fhould become Chrift's body, by being taken into his hand, or by being broken by him, or by any action or intention of his, whilst it continued to have a distinct substance from his body in and after the performance of those actions. For admitting that a piece of bread could have been transubstantiated into flesh; yet it could not poffibly have been transubstantiated into the body of Christ, whilst that new made flesh continued to have a distinct subsistance from Chrift's body, which was the cafe here; because then it would have been Chrift's body, and not Chrift's body, at the fame time, which is a manifeft contradiction, and an impoffibility in nature. Befides, if it be faid, that the bread referred to was tranfubftantiated into Chrift's body; then it may with equal propriety, justice and truth be said, that Christ's perfon (both body and foul) was tranfubstantiated into that vegetable called a vine; whereas both of these plainly appeared to be

falfe