THAT scripture abounds with allegories and other figurative expressions is certain. In order therefore to distinguish the literal from the figurative sense, and to know when to follow the one rather then the other, we must observe the following rules:

1° As the end of our reading ought to be to learn and obey, we must endeavour to find out, and divest ourselves from all false opinions we might have received from education.

20 As the literal sense of any expression is, in general the most natural, we must adhere to it preferable to the figurative, except where we find it to contradict the dictates of natural religion, reason, or common sense. Natural religion, or that notion of duty which God conveys to us through the channel of his works, is founded in the nature and eternal relations of things. The measure of the truth of it is the measure of the truth of all religion; so that we cannot be sure of the truth of revelation but according as we are sure of the truth of this. The ideas of order, agreeableness, and conformity to reason, have something in them that is eternal, immutable and absolutely indispensible, as being likewise founded on the nature and eternal relations of things. The uniform, constant, and concurrent testimony of our senses, is of such certainty and importance, that it is the fundamental argument of the truth of all the facts recorded in scripture; so that if such a testimony could be false in one instance whatsoever, the certainty and authority of all revelation would be entirely shaken and overthrown. For instance, when our Saviour appealed to the senses of the apostles for the truth of his resurrection, they might have answered that, indeed, he seemed to them to have flesh and bones, but that, perhaps, the testimony of their senses was false. If he had said that their testimony was faithful and true, and therefore was to be depended upon, they might have answered, that indeed they thought he said so, but that perhaps they misapprehended him; perhaps they were deceived by their senses; perhaps what he said was that the testimony of their senses was erroneous, and that what he meant was, that he had neither flesh nor bones as being nothing but a pure spirit. -Thus no man could ever be sure of the truth of any fact at all, if it were possible for the above described evidence of our senses to be false in any case whatsoever; and thus should we of necessity be exposed to perpetual and irremediable error and delusion.

30 We must compare scripture with itself, and interpret what is obscure and ambiguous in one place, by what is clear and certain in another. Thus for instance:

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" Job. 14. 4.-"Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm, 51. 5. The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born." Psalm, 58.3. - Thou wast called a transgressor from the womb." Is. 48, 8.-" Their malice was bred in them." Wisd. 12.10. "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. Is. 64, 6. "We are by nature the children of wrath." Eph. 2, 3.

These passages are to be explained by the following and the like: "From my youth the poor was brought up with me, and I have guided the widow from my mother's womb." Job. 31, 18. "To fear the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and it was created with the faithful in the womb, Ecclesiasticus 1, 14.

When the holy writers speak of the corruption and wickedness of mankind, they strain the expression and speak of it in a figurative manner, as if

it had been bred with them in the womb. Thus St. Paul says: "We were by nature the children of wrath," he does not mean that nature wherein we were born, but that second nature of evil habits we bring upon ourselves by sin.

It is impossible to attain to a right understanding of the new testament, without a due regard to the style and phraseology of the old. For, it is naa and accordingly we find it true upon trial, that our Saviour, as he came, not to destroy, but to fulfil the law, has adopted the figures of speech and modes of expression that the law was delivered in.

The science of a alogy, which first gave birth to the symbolical writing, and then to that taste for allegories which prevailed throughout the most part of the east, was brought to the greatest perfection among the old Jews. Hence it is that, though many of their figurative expresssions, such as eating up a book, washing feet with butter, and the like, are seemingly harsh unnatural, and unintelligible, yet they were as well understood by them as modern forms of speaking are by us. Hence also it is that allegories and other figures of speech, as they make every thing about them clear and beautiful, frequently occur in their writings, as may be seen in the following and many other instances:

"They that EAT me, says Wisdom, shall yet be hungry, and they that DRINK me shall yet be thirsty." Eccles. 24. 21.-"Who so is simple," says the same Wisdom, "let him turn in hither Come eat of my BREAD and drink of the WINE which I have mingled." Proverb. 9. 4.- "The soul of the transgressor shall EAT violence. Prov. 13.2. and DRINK Scorning and inquity." Job. 34.7. Every one that thirsteth come ye to the waters come ye, buy and eat buy wine and milk without money hearken diligently unto me and EAT ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in FATNESS. Incline your ear and come unto me and your soul shall live, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you.' "Is. 55. 1, 2, 3.. "I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food." Job, 23. 12." Thy words were found and I did EAT them." Jerem. 15. 16. It was usual with the holy writers in the old law to give the sign of any thing the name of the thing signified, and to express covenants, sacraments and last wills or testaments in a figurative manner. Thus the covenant which God made with all mankind in the person of Adam, is expressed. Thus the same covenant, when renewed in the person of Abraham.†, is by a figure of speech called circumcision because it was a sign or token of the covenant renewed with Abraham, as the rain-bow was a sign or token of it as renewed with Noah The paschal lamb is called the Lord's passovers because it was a sign, a memorial, a commemoration of it. The seven kine and seven ears of corn are called seven years.¶ Ezekiel's hair is called Jerusalem. The last wills or testaments made by Jacob and Moses are so many chains of allegories as may be seen in Gen. 49 and Deuteronomy, 33.

This figurative style has been adopted by our Saviour and his apostles as appears by the following passages. "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness. Matt 5. 6. My meat is to do the will of him that sent me. John 4. 34. He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. John 6. 35.- I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread he sball live for ever. John 6. 51. If any man thirst let him come to me and drink. John 7. 37. I am the door of the sheep. John 10. 7.-I am the resurrection and the life. John 11. 25.-I am the vine. John 15. 1.-Ye are the salt of the earth. Matt. 5. 13.-Ye are the light of the world.-Matt. 5. 14. This cup is the new testament. Luke 22. 20-This is my body, i. e. a sign, memorial or commemoration of my incarnation, passion, &c. Matthew. 26.26.-Christ is the righteousness and sanctification of men. 1 Cor. 1. 30.-Those who are baptised are buried with Christ. Coloss. 2. 12.-Baptism is the washing of regeneration. Tit. 3. 5. We are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. Eph. 5. 30.-The first rudiments of the chris

* Gen. 3, 15,

† Gen, 17, 10, Gen, 41, 26,

* Gen, 9, 13.

Exod, 12, .11

Ezek 5.

tian religion are by St. Peter called the milk of the word, and a more perfect knowledge of it is by St. Pault called strong meat.

Upon the whole then it is apparent, that we are never to adhere to the letter of scripture but when it can bear the test of the foregoing rules. "Tis not the letter of any law but the spirit and reason of it that makes law. I shall here give some instances of the gross and monstrous errors that people have been guilty of by sticking too close to the letter of scripture,

Our Saviour recommends to us in a proverbial manner to turn the other cheek to him who gives us a box; to return good for evil; to love our enemies; to judge not lest we be judged, &c. These and the like passages of scripture, by being taken too rigorously to the letter, gave occasion to many to think that it is not lawful for a christian to bear arms at all, nor to perform the function of a judge or that of an executioner, nor to take away another man's life even in one's own defence, nor to accuse any one of a crime punishable with death, nor even to go to law, &c. &c. Thus Tertullian in his book de Idololatria, and in another de Corona militis maintains, that it is not lawful for christians to bear arms in defence of the state, or in any other case whatsoever; and that a christian cannot lawfully perform the office of a judge or executioner, And in his book de persecutione vitanda he says, it is absolutely forbidden to fly in the time of persecution, or give money in order to avoid being put on the rack, And in his book de patientia he pretends it is an invasion of the divine prerogative to arrogate the right of defending one's self; that when our Saviour said; Judge not lest ye be judged, he required a patience carried to that pitch; for, says he who is it that does not judge another except one that is patient enough not to defend himself?

St. Cyprian in his book de bono patientiæ adopts Tertullian's maxims, and disclaims all right of self-defence; and highly extolls all those who suffered themselves to be murdered rather than attempt to defend them sel

ves.

Lactantius likewise, in his book of divine institutions, maintains, that a christian ought not to bear arms, nor trade with any foreign country, nor accuse any one of a crime punishable with death as he would thereby be guilty of murder, St, Basil holds that he who gives another a mortal wound, tho' it be in his own defence, is guilty of murder; and that it is not lawful for christians ever to go to law, nor to swear even when it can be done with a safe conscience.

St. Ambrose maintains that a christian ought not to fight against a robber who attacks him; and lays it down as a maxim, that it is never lawful to preserve one's life by occasioning the death of another.

Our Saviour, in Math. 19. 12. says, there are some eunuchs that have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. The literal sense of these words has given occasion to many of the primitive christians to commit an inhuman and scandalous violence upon themselves. Origen is a notorious instance of it, for which he is highly extolled by many of the fathers. St. Jerom, in his commentaries upon the prophet Jonas, approves of the conduct of those who kill themselves for fear of losing their chastity. Nay the fathers have carried their enthusiasm in favour of continency to such a pitch, that several of them, for instance, Anthenagoras the Athenian philosopher, Tertullian, Cyprian Agustin, Ambrose, and Jerom, have disclaimed so bitterly against marriage in general that they prove nothing, or else that marriage is an indecent thing. As to second marriages, they expressly call them a decent adultery.

St. Paul, in I Cor. 7. 4. says: The wife hath not power of her own body but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body but the wife. Hence St. Austin concludes that a husband may transfer to another man the right he has to his wife's body; and that a wife may dispose of her husband's body in like manner. Nay he and St. Ambrose plainly say, that before the days of Moses adultery was not forbid

'den.

The practice of constraint and persecution for religion's sake, has in a great measure taken it's rise among christians from the literal sense of the

* 1. Pet 2, 2, + Heb. 5, 14,

de civit, Dei.l. 16. 6. 25,

following and such other passages of scripture, viz " and the Lord said unto his servant: go out into the high ways and hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." Luke 14. 23. Though nothing can be more directly contrary to all the lights of good sense, charity, natural equity, and the spirit of the gospel, than such a practice, yet nothing has been more frequently seen among christians, since the conversion of the heathen emperors to christianity, than chains, dungeons, proscriptions, massacres and bloody tragedies. It was a common saying with St. Augustin and others, "that all things belong to the faithful, and that the wicked have no right to what they profess." It is not to be wondered at then, that since the peace of the church was restored, this pernicious diabolical maxim should have been carried into execution by christians, even against each other with the utmost rage and fury. This same Augustin was so heated by his disputes with the Donatists, that he openly maintained that heretics ought to be persecuted and forced to embrace the orthodox faith or else to be utterly extirpated

Gregory Nazianza exclaims furiously against the Arians and Macedonians for having the impudence to assemble together and form churches; and writes to Nectarius bishop of Constantinople, to represent to the emperor that what he had done in favour of the church would be of no service if the heretics should be allowed to assemble together.

Vigilantius, with the true spirit of a protestant and disciple of Jesus Christ, opposed the torrent of heathen corruptions that was pouring into the church in his century as I have already mentioned. When St. Jerome found that he could not confute him with solid arguments, he spirited up the populace and raised a violent persecution against him.

When the Arians and especially John, bishop of Jerusalem, began to avail themselves of the opinions of Origen, St. Jerome inveighed without mercy against this same Origen whom he had before extolled to the skies, and raised a violent persecution against the Origenists as he acknowledges in his writings against Ruffinus.

As soon as St. Cyril of Alexandria was raised to the episcopal dignity, he persecuted the Novations, and routed the Jews out of Alexandria, and allowed the christians to plunder their goods, as also these of the Novation bishop. Like Thomas Becket of Canterbury, he was constantly encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the civil power. At last he and five hundred of his monks attacked the governor of the city, who was wounded by one of the monks, and would have been killed, had not their fury been stopped by the guards and people about him. And thoughthe monk suffered upon the rack for high treason yet he was canonized as a saint by Cyril according to the ritual of those days.

Clement of Alexandría boasts of his practice of covering and perplexing things, that so none but such as are very intelligent and willing to take a great deal of pains might be able to comprehend them.

St. Jerom owns that in his polemic works, he only aimed at answering his adversaries, and puzzling them, without troubling himself whether what he said were true or not. And he justifies his conduct by the example of Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and other apologists forthe christian religion, who, according to him, did the same against the Pagans; making use of very doubtful and problematical arguments, and maintaining, not what they thought, but what the interest of the dispute required. And be says, that in this he only imitates Jesus Christ and St. Paul, who, as he pretends, maintained both sides of the question according as it was convenient for them.

As the Fathers were thus upon the extreme ;* as they were indifferent

*Nothing can be more extravagant or even nonsensical than what Clement of Alexandria says, viz: "that a true christian is free from even the most innocent passions, exeept such as regard the preservation of the body, as hunger and thirst, &c. and that Jesus Christ and his apostles had no passions; and that Jesus Christ himself had no sense either of pleasure or pain; and that he had no occasion to eat or drink; and that, if he did it, it was for fear of being taken for a s spectre. This is like what is taught in some of their catechisms in Ireland, viz. that our saviour came out through the virgin's side as the rays of the sun pass through a pane of glass; which by the by destroys the ground of the purification of the virgin Mary." The same Clement says "that God gave the pagans the sun, moon and stars, that they might adore them and by that worship raise themselves to the true God."

g

which side of the question they maintained, or whether what they said were true or false, provided it served to puzzle and silence their adversaries; and as they pretend to justify their conduct by the example of our Saviour and his Apostles, what man of common sense would rest upon their authority in relation to the true sense of Scripture ?

These few observations on the style of Scripture, and the authority of the Fathers, if duly considered, will enable my readers to conceive the force of the arguments I shall here propose against the doctrine of

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

There have been several Popish Divines, for instance bishop Fisher, who have candidly acknowledged, that it is impossible to prove this doctrine by Scripture, without what they call tradition, or the authority of the fathers. But to shew that the advocates for this doctrine have no better right than we have, to argue from, and rely upon the tradition of the first ages of the church, I shall here, to what I have already said, add the following arguments;-1st. It appears from the words of Valerius Maximus, that the heathens had their Eucharists or love feasts. In order, therefore, to raise the christian eucharist above the heathen, the apologists for the christian religion, in their usual declamatory strains, affected to call it the body and blood of Christ, which, according to what has been already observed, no more proves a real, than it does a figurative presence only.

2dly. A real death and burial with Christ in baptism, may as plainly be inferred from the declamations of the fathers upon the efficacy of that sacrament, as a real change of the bread in the eucharist; for their expressions are as high strained upon the one as upon the other.

3dly. It is certain that those fathers met with opposition upon the article of the eucharist. Now they spoke either in a popish or a protestant sense; this our adversaries allow, as they pretend they were all papists. If they spoke in a protestant sense, therefore, they were all protestants, notwithstanding the parade and triumph with which they were quoted by our adversaries. If they spoke in a popish sense, therefore, at least, many of those that opposed them were protestants. What signifies, then, what a few in every age should have said against many.

4thly. Some of the fathers, for instance Tertullian, say, that the hands of those who handle the body of Christ unworthily, ought to be cut off. Now it is evident that those words cannot be understood of transubstantiation. For the accidents and appearances of bread cannot be handled, because they are only affections of the mind. The body of Christ could not be handled, as it would be there only in the condition of a spirit; otherwise, our Saviour's argument to prove the reality of his resurrection, would have been absurd and illusive. Therefore those words must be understood of a figurative body in the sense of protestants, or of the bread become the body of Christ by a physical union in the sense of the Stercoranists. Nay, Tertullian himself seems to decide it, for he calls the sacramental_bread the figure of Christ's body, to prove against Marcion that Christ had a real body as there could be no figure of a figure or spirit or phantom. But if Tertullian had maintained the doctrine of transubstantiation he would have been laughed at by Marcion, as his argument would rather have served to prove that Christ had only the accidents and appearance of a body. For Marcion might have thus retorted upon him; You say that the accidents and appearance of bread subsist in the sacrament without the substance of bread. Why then could not the accidents and appearance of a body subsist in Christ without the subtsance of a body By this it is plain, that Tertullian's argument against Marcion would have been absurd if he had been a transubstantiationer. Nay, he was so far from it that Gregory de Valentia and other popish divines give him up. Besides there was no altar, nor sacrifice, nor incense, in use among Christians in those days.

5thly. St Augustin in his third book of christian doctrine, says; "To eat the flesh of Christ, is a figure teaching us to partake of Christ's passion and to imprint in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us.”